Holocene Resource Expolitation: a Zooarchaeological Analysis from Jacob’S Island, Peterborough County, Ontario

HOLOCENE RESOURCE EXPOLITATION: A ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS FROM JACOB’S ISLAND, PETERBOROUGH COUNTY, ONTARIO

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

Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

Anthropology M.A. Graduate Program

May 2014

ABSTRACT

Holocene Resource Exploitation A Zooarchaeological Analysis from Jacob’s Island, Peterborough County, Ontario.

Kristen Anne Csenkey

This study uses the zooarchaeological record to examine the range of activities represented in Late Archaic period samples excavated from Jacob’s Island-1B, in the

Trent-Severn Waterway region in Ontario. Radiocarbon dates from sixteen features were used to establish a chronology of site use and occupation. The faunal remains analyzed in this study were recovered from seven dated mortuary features associated with human remains. The results of the faunal analysis suggest that Canis lupus familiaris was the primary species interred at Jacob’s Island-1B. Small rodents, specifically Tamias striatus were also found in high abundance and are possibly the result of natural burrowing disturbances. Red ochre staining and low levels of burning were identified. Comparisons with other contemporaneous sites in the region indicate some variation in species composition. It is suggested that Canis lupus familiaris was associated with ritual and mortuary activities at Jacob’s Island-1B.

Keywords: Canis lupus familiaris, Late Archaic Period, Holocene, Zooarchaeology, Taphonomy, Ritualism, Jacob’s Island, Trent-Severn Waterway Region, south-central Ontario.

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to the memory of my grandparents, Katalin and Aladar Csenkey. Many nights I have looked up at the stars, just to wish that you could see me now.

“My soul is enslaved by passions, I have become like the beasts of the field.” Boris Pasternak (1890-1960)

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion of my thesis would not have been possible without the support from a number of organizations and people. I would first like to acknowledge the following institutions and organizations for their financial support during the completion of my thesis at Trent University. The Trent University Graduate Tuition Scholarship and

Research Fellowship, the Richard B. Johnston Award, Department of Anthropology

Grant, the Trent University Archaeology Research Centre (TUARC) Collaborative

Research Grant, and the Gordon and Margaret Watson Bursary on behalf of the Ontario

Archaeology Society (Ottawa Chapter), financially aided me while I completed my thesis.

I would like to acknowledge the following people for their support and direct contributions to my research. First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr.

Eugène Morin and committee member Dr. James Conolly, for their guidance throughout this thesis. To my other committee member, Dr. Jocelyn Williams and Dr. Max Friesen

(University of Toronto) your insights and comments helped me improve the quality of my research. Dr. Friesen also allowed me to use the Howard Savage Archaeology-Osteology

Reference Collection during the summer of 2012 for my faunal analysis and I sincerely appreciate his straightforward advice and support.

A great deal of thanks goes to Ms. Kristine Williams and Mrs. Judy Pinto at Trent

University, and Ms. Sophia Cottrell at the University of Toronto for administrative support and ensuring that all my endeavors ran smoothly. Thank you Mrs. Kate

Dougherty and the students in Dr. Susan Pfeiffer’s Osteology laboratory at the University of Toronto for helping me identify human remains. To Kendra Kirby, thank you for your help with this project and dedication to even the most menial task. iv

To my fellow lab ladies at Archaeological Services Incorporated, Dana Morrad,

Kate McDonnell, and Nyree Manoukian, I am never tired of your sassy mouths and thank you for always keeping it real. A special thanks to Mrs. Alexis Dunlop for being an accommodating and amazing boss.

Stacey Henderson, Tamara Kwast, Tooba Shakeel, Vasilia Lukich, Karolina

Dejnicka, and Isaac Pratt, thank you for keeping my spirits up and for listening to my academic as well as social concerns. Christa Falconer you have been my best friend at

Trent and I am glad we got through this in one-piece.

Thank you to my family and extended family for being interested in my research, even if you did not quite understand what I was doing.

An unwarranted thanks to P., although you did not support my research, but I needed that reality check. C.C. and T. contributed absolutely nothing, but I am still acknowledging them anyway.

To P.S.C., thank you for constant support throughout this process. You not only made sure that my ideas were clear, but put up with all the stress that comes with writing a thesis. This project could not have been completed without you.

A special thanks to Dad and Kaitlyn, without you two by my side, I would not have been able to complete my thesis with such confidence. I love you both so much.

Kaitlyn, without your dedication to helping me during the data entry portion of this thesis,

I do not think I could have done it as smoothly and efficiently.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT / ii DEDICATION/ iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS /iv TABLE OF CONTENTS /vi LIST OF FIGURES /viii LIST OF TABLES /ix CHAPTER 1 CONTEXT /1 1.1 Research Objectives and Significance /1 1.2 Structure of the Thesis /2

CHAPTER 2 RECONSTRUCTING HOLOCENE ANIMAL RESOURCE USE IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO /5 2.1 Approaches to Interpretation / 5 2.2 Jacob’s Island and the Holocene in Southern Ontario /10 2.3 Archaeological Evidence / 12 2.4 Artifacts and Inferences / 18 2.5 Settlement Patterns, Social Interactions, and Organization /22 2.6 Subsistence Practices /25 2.7 Populations Demography and Health /32 2.8 Ritual Activities /34

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY /39 3.1 Identification /39 3.2 Quantification / 45 3.3 Taphonomic Analysis /47 3.4 Summary /56

CHAPTER 4 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH /57 4.1 Environmental and Geographical Setting /57 4.2 Site History /62 4.3 Archaeological Research at Jacob’s Island /63 4.4 The Chronology and Faunal Assemblage /68 4.5 Summary /69

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS: THE CHRONOLOGY OF JACOB’S ISLAND /71 5.1 The Chronology of Jacob’s Island /71 5.2 Summary /75

CHAPTER 6 RESULTS: FAUNAL ANALYSIS /76 6.1 Taxonomic Abundance /76 6.2 Skeletal Part Representation /92 6.3 Changes through Time / 93 6.4 Summary / 98

CHAPTER 7 RESULTS: TAPHONOMIC MODIFICATIONS AND SITE DISTURBANCES /99 7.1 Physical Agents /99 7.2 Animal Modifications / 102 7.3 Breakage and Fragmentation /104 7.4 Anthropogenic Transforms / 107 7.5 Conclusion /113

CHAPTER 8 INSIGHTS INTO RITUAL AND CULTURAL ACTIVITY AT JACOB’S ISLAND /115 8.1 Site Occupation and Use /115 8.2 Recognizing and Interpreting Deposits /116 8.3 Interpreting the Landscape of Jacob’s Island /125 8.4 Situating Jacob’s Island within the Trent-Severn Waterway Region /128

CHAPTER 9 SYNTHESIS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FURTURE RESEARCH/139 9.1 Limitations of Present Study /140 9.2 Directions for Future Research /141 9.3 Final Remarks /142

APPENDICES / 143

REFERENCES CITED/ 218

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

4.1 Map of study region with Jacob’s Island encircled / 65

4.2 Locations of the three target areas for the Stage 2 Archaeological 66 Property Assessment conducted by AMEC Earth and Environmental in 2010 /

5.1 Features and associated radiocarbon dates (b.p.) / 72

6.1 A Comparison of the lengths (mm) of upper fourth premolar among 90 Canis sp. /

A F4.3 Locations of the 2010-2012 season excavations at Jacob’s Island under 174 the direction of J. Conolly /

A F4.4 Features identified at Jacob’s Island in the burial area / 175

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2.1 Model of Precontact Social and Political Complexity / 23

3.1 Canis familiaris specimens from archaeological sites used in metric 42 analysis /

3.2 Modern Canis sp. datasets used in metric analysis of Canis familiaris / 43

3.3 Bone weathering stages adapted from Behrensmeyer (1978) / 49

3.4 Bone colour coding adapted from Stiner et al. (1995) / 53

4.1 Temporal phases and uncalibrated radiocarbon dates by feature at 69 Jacob’s Island /

6.1 Number of refits by level / 77

6.2 Number of refits, Pre-refit, and post-refit NISP values for all 78 radiocarbon-dated features /

6.3 NISP counts for the radiocarbon-dated features from Jacob’s Island -1B/ 81

6.4 NISP counts tabulated by order for the radiocarbon-dated features from 81 Jacob’s Island-1B/

6.5 NISP counts tabulated by family for the radiocarbon-dated features from 82 Jacob’s Island-1B/

6.6 NISP counts for the non-dated features and disturbed units from Jacob’s 84 Island-1B/

6.7 Rank by NISP counts tabulated by species for the radiocarbon-dated 85 features from Jacob’s Island -1B/

6.8 MNI counts for the radiocarbon-dated features from Jacob’s Island-1B / 87

6.9 Variance of lengths (mm) of upper fourth premolar among Canis sp./ 89

6.10 Mean and standard deviation for Canis sp. upper fourth premolars. / 90

6.11 F-ratio and probability for Canis sp. upper fourth premolars / 91

6.12 Taxonomic composition for the radiocarbon–dated features by date for 96 Jacob’s Island-1B / ix

6.13 Chi-square results for the five most represented species from the 97 radiocarbon dated features in Jacob’s Island-1B /

6.14 p-values for chi-square test / 97

7.1 Chi-square results for the five most represented species from the 112 radiocarbon dated features in Jacob’s Island-1B /

7.2 p-values for chi-square test / 112

7.3 Burning, cut marks, and red ochre staining for the five most represented 113 species from all features at Jacob’s Island-1B /

8.1 Radiocarbon-dated features, associated activities, and most abundant 125 species at Jacob’s Island-1B /

8.2 Radiocarbon dates for the McIntyre site / 129

8.3 MNI values for the radiocarbon-dated features at the McIntyre site / 132

8.4 Canis lupus familiaris skeletal elements from feature 26 / 133

8.5 Radiocarbon-dated features from the Dawson Creek site / 135

A 3.0 Spreadsheet codes / 143

A 4.1 Tree species in the Great Lakes forests in Ontario / 153

A 4.2 Mammal species in Southern Ontario / 153

A 4.3 Fish species in Southern Ontario / 158

A 4.4 Bird species in Southern Ontario / 162

A 4.5 Reptile species in Southern Ontario / 168

A 4.6 Amphibian species in Southern Ontario / 170

A 4.7 Mollusca species in Southern Ontario / 171

A 6.1.1 Floatation data from and associated provenience information / 177

A 6.1.2 Complete Canis lupus familiaris fourth upper premolars identified from 178 Jacob’s Island-1B /

A 6.1.3 Canis lupus familiaris fourth upper premolars from various Middle 178 Holocene archaeological sites within the United States of America /

A 6.1.4 Modern Canis latrans fourth upper premolars specimens from the North 182 America /

A 6.1.5 Modern Canis lupus fourth upper premolars specimens from the North 184 America /

A 6.1.6 MNE counts tabulated for Canis lupus familiaris and Tamias striatus 186 specimens from feature F2010-1 from Jacob’s Island-1B /

A 6.1.7 MNE counts for Canis lupus familiaris and Tamias striatus specimens 187 by feature F2010-2 from Jacob’s Island-1B /

A 6.1.8 MNE counts for Canis lupus familiaris and Tamias striatus specimens 187 by feature F2010-9 from Jacob’s Island-1B /

A 6.1.9 MNE counts for Canis lupus familiaris and Tamias striatus specimens 188 by feature F2010-14 from Jacob’s Island-1B /

A 6.10 MNE counts for Canis lupus familiaris and Tamias striatus specimens 189 by feature F2010-15 from Jacob’s Island-1B /

A 6.1.11 MNE counts for Canis lupus familiaris and Tamias striatus specimens 190 by feature F2010-20 from Jacob’s Island-1B /

A 7.1 Weathering by fragment size class at Jacob’s Island / 192

A 7.2 Weathering by radiocarbon dated features / 192

A 7.3 Weathering by species and body part in radiocarbon dated features / 193

A 7.4 Weathering by level / 194

A 7.5 Total natural agents at Jacob’s Island / 194

A 7.6 Proportion of specimens modified by natural agents in the radiocarbon 195 dated feature /

A 7.7 Striations by species and body part in radiocarbon dated features / 196

A 7.8 Scratches by species and body part in radiocarbon dated features / 199

A 7.9 Proportions of specimens modified by animal agents at Jacob’s Island / 199

A 7.10 Proportions of specimens modified by animal agents in the radiocarbon 200 dated features /

A 7.11 Specimen surface preservation by radiocarbon-dated feature / 200

A 7.12 Specimen surface preservation by level / 201

A 7.13 Distribution of fragment size by level / 201

A 7.14 Distribution of fragment size in the radiocarbon-dated features / 202

A 7.15 Fracture patterns in the radiocarbon-dated features / 202

A 7.16 Fracture patterns of Canis lupus familiaris body parts in the F2010-2 203 feature /

A 7.17 Fracture patterns of Canis lupus familiaris body parts in the F2010-14 203 feature /

A 7.18 Fracture patterns of Canis lupus familiaris body parts in the F2010-20 204 feature /

A 7.19 Proportion of specimens modified by anthropogenic agents in the 205 radiocarbon-dated feature /

A 7.20 Proportion of specimens with other excavation marks/ trowel scratches 205 in the radiocarbon-dated feature /

A 7.21 Total cut marks for Jacob’s Island / 206

A 7.22 Proportions of cut-marked specimens by radiocarbon dated feature by 207 species and body part /

A 7.23 Ochre by species and body part in radiocarbon dated features / 208

A 7.24 Burn stages versus fragment size at Jacob’s Island / 210

A 7.25 Burning according to fragment size / 210

A 7.26 Proportions of burned specimens in the radiocarbon dated feature / 211

A 7.27 Burn stage by level / 211

A 8.1 Information on fish species identified in radiocarbon dated features at 212 Jacob’s Island-1B /

xii

A 8.2 Information on bird species identified in radiocarbon dated features at 213 Jacob’s Island-1B /

A 8.3 Information on mammal species identified in radiocarbon dated features 214 at Jacob’s Island-1B /

xiii

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

People have inhabited and interacted with the landscape of Southern Ontario for over ten thousand years. Despite this, our knowledge is limited about the subsistence practises, cultural activities, and the extent of occupation that characterized the Late

Holocene in Ontario, and more specifically in the Trent-Severn Waterway region.

Preserved archaeological materials from this period are rare, resulting from destructive farming activities, river damming, residential development, and acidic soil composition.

This study focuses on determining the range of activities that occurred at Jacob’s

Island-1B by means of zooarchaeological analysis. The chronological sequence of these activities and length of occupation was also examined through the radiocarbon-dating of faunal specimens. I focus primarily on the Late Archaic period, which is generally characterized by increasingly complex mortuary practices, moderate mobility, the exploitation of seasonal resources through hunting, gathering, and fishing activities, and relatively larger sites area to those seen in the Paleo-Archaic Period (Ellis et al. 1990b).

My analysis represents an attempt to situate these activities within the Trent-Severn

Waterway region. I link past and present understandings of site landscape and use, while paying special attention to the significance of specific animals and their interactions with the site inhabitants.

1.1 Research Objectives and Significance

The research objectives of this thesis are threefold. First, I present a chronology of the occupation of Jacob’s Island-1B based on the radiocarbon-dating of available faunal material. Next, I assess taxonomic identifications in order to determine patterns of animal resource accumulation at the site. Following this assessment, I carry out a taphonomic analysis of the faunal material from radiocarbon-dated features in order to assess the impact of anthropogenic and natural sources of disturbances on the sample. I interpret the results and suggest possible activities that occurred at Jacob’s Island-1B with the intention of evaluating patterns of site use. I also discuss how certain species represented at the site may provide information about interactions with and perceptions of the local landscape. Finally, I compare these results to other sites within the Trent-Severn

Waterway region, with the aim of determining the significance of animal resource use and associated cultural activities at Jacob’s Island-1B.

The results of this study will contribute to a better understanding of animal resource exploitation strategies at Jacob’s Island-1B. Through comparisons with other sites in the area, this research will enhance the overall understanding of ritual and subsistence activities occurring during the Late Holocene in the Trent-Severn Waterway region within South-central Ontario.

1.2 Structure of the Thesis

Here, I outline the purpose of each of the succeeding chapters, and comment on the overall structure of this thesis.

In Chapter 2, I lay out the terminology used throughout this thesis and briefly describe the cultural history of Southern Ontario. Then, I contextualize research at

Jacob’s Island-1B through a discussion of the history of archaeological research in

Ontario. Inferences based on material evidence about subsistence, settlement patterns, social organization, and ritual activities during the Middle to Late Holocene are detailed.

In addition, information on the health and demography of Holocene populations is briefly presented. The history and goals of landscape archaeology are discussed in relation to chronology and zooarchaeology, focusing on the applicability to this thesis.

The methodology applied in this study is described in Chapter 3, which elaborates on identification and quantification techniques. Additionally, I discuss the methods and purpose of taphonomic analysis in zooarchaeological research. The sample forming this thesis is presented in Chapter 4, along with an overview of previous research at Jacob’s

Island. The site’s cultural history and environmental setting is presented in order to situate

Jacob’s Island within the larger geographical context of South-central Ontario.

In Chapter 5, a tentative chronology is presented for Jacob’s Island-1B and -1C, mostly based on radiocarbon dates. Seven features with secure dates form the core of this thesis. The faunal identifications and quantifications are presented and discussed in

Chapter 6. Spatial and temporal patterns of species abundance are also discussed. Special attention is paid to the presence of Canis lupus familiaris remains within the sample due to its abundance at the site.

Chapter 7 presents the results of the taphonomic analysis of the faunal remains.

Natural and anthropogenic processes on the faunal material are reviewed. Breakage, fragmentation, and refit patterns are outlined and discussed. The distribution of the faunal remains by feature is broadly commented on in this section.

In Chapter 8, I provide insights into the cultural and ritual activities that occurred at Jacob’s Island-1B during the Late Holocene. In this chapter, I interpret the evidence for ritual and ceremonial deposits at Jacob’s Island-1B, and comment on the overall stratigraphy and chronology of the site. I also compare Jacob’s Island-1B with other assemblages from the Trent-Severn Waterway region, such as the McIntyre site and the

Dawson’s Creek site. Finally, I conclude by synthesizing the results of this thesis and outlining its limitations in Chapter 9. I also briefly suggest directions for future research at the site and in the region.

Chapter 2

RECONSTRUCTING HOLOCENE ANIMAL RESOURCE USE IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO

The goal of this chapter is to briefly outline the history and interpretations of the

Middle to Late Holocene human occupation of Southern Ontario in this chapter. I focus my discussion, where applicable, on the archaeological research within the Trent-Severn

Waterway region. I also introduce the theoretical approach used to interpret the faunal results at the site. The cultural chronologies and associated artifacts of Southern Ontario are presented. Additionally, general trends in subsistence activities, ritual practises, social organization, demography, and health are discussed.

2.1 Approaches to Interpretation

Archaeological Theory in Ontario

Archaeological research in Southern Ontario is not young, having begun in 1870

(Latta 1999). Although Ontario archaeology includes some processual theories of interpretation, it is still heavily influenced by the cultural historical approach and taxonomic classification schemes (Latta 1999). These taxonomic classification schemes originated with Ritchie (1932a, 1932b, 1936, 1944), McKern (1939), Willey (1958), and

Wright (1972a). The impact of these classification schemes—especially of McKern’s

(1939) Midwestern Taxonomic Method—was immense, and it aided in the development of many regional chronologies based on material culture (Latta 1999). However, these classification schemes were simply modified or amended to fit into new theoretical paradigms.

During the pre-World War I era, archaeological research had focused in Ontario on the history of Jesuit missionaries and saints. During the Great Depression and World

War II, Ontario archaeological research was focused on defining the chronology of

European history and interaction with Aboriginal Peoples (Latta 1999). Post-World War

II archaeological research shifted emphasis on mobility and ceramic studies, and specifically centred on the use of seriation to create cultural taxonomies (for example

MacNeish 1952; Emerson 1954). It was not until the work carried out by Wright (1966) that radiocarbon dates were eventually incorporated into the cultural taxonomies of

Ontario.

Although Canadian archaeological research incorporates both aspects of processual and post-processual theory, current research into the Middle to Late Holocene in northeastern North America has a distinctly processual bias. Both Latta (1999) and

Emerson and McElrath (2009) agree that neo-evolutionary and behavioural models now dominate the landscape of Ontario archaeology, and focus primarily on human adaptation to environmental change. Bousman and Vierra (2012) have identified five common themes in modern research objectives concerned with the study of Middle Holocene

Northeastern North America: 1) the establishment and re-analysis of regional cultural chronologies (based on the enhanced precision of radiocarbon AMS dates), 2) destruction of sites due to environmental disturbances such as erosion, 3) migrations into different biomes, 4) paleoenvironmental reconstructions and the influence of climatic change on human behaviour, and 5) diversity of biomes and resources exploited by groups.

These approaches have been criticized because they tend to depict people and their culture as a reflection of their environment, and do not account for human, cultural, or spiritual experience (McElrath and Emerson 2009) (see Bower and Kobusiewicz

2002). Adherence to these approaches is due mainly to the restrictions imposed by poor preservation, and limited datasets—characteristic of research on human occupations during the Holocene in northeastern North America (Emerson and McElrath 2009). As a result, theoretical interpretations are often broad and based on small datasets.

The influence of post-processional theory can be seen in northeastern North

American archaeology through an emergent research focus on the influence of gender, agency, symbolism and meaning (Hegmon 2003). However, the role and status of women specifically during the Holocene in Ontario is a research question that has not yet been discussed at length. Gender, social organization, and economic contributions in Eastern

North American have also been examined (see Kugel and Murphy 2007; Mann 2000;

Watson and Kennedy 1991).

Landscape, Identity and Chronology

In this thesis, I combine landscape archaeology with a zooarchaeological analysis of the faunal material to investigate the history of site use at Jacob’s Island-1B.

Research on landscape archaeology is focused on studying the meaning of a landscape and its use by its inhabitants (Trigger 2009). Landscape archaeology emerged as a response to the shortcomings of processualist theory, especially its rigid view of human-environment relationship, which fails to consider how people may have perceived their world (Trigger 2009; Strang 2008; Darvill 2008). The paradigm of landscape archaeology originated in Britain in the mid-1970s with Aston and Rowley (1974), who investigated fieldwork methods at post-Roman and Medieval sites (Strang 2008; Darvill

2008). It began much earlier, as an antiquarian tradition during the Middle Ages and later as topographers and historians sketched village maps and abandoned monumental sites

(Aston and Rowley 1974). By the 1980s, landscape archaeological research had become more encompassing, and began to include paleo-environmental reconstructions and ethnography (for example Binford 1982) within its framework (Darvill 2008). Over time, it developed from a limited method to a theoretical paradigm that promoted a humanist view of the world as a socially constructed reality (see Tilley 1994; Darvill 2008).

In Europe, landscape archaeology has mainly focused on the analysis of Neolithic,

Bronze Age, Medieval, and Historic sites (Darvill 2008; Strang 2008). However, it has gone through multiple changes since its inception in the mid-1970s and 1980s, and has become a multidisciplinary approach in both North America and Europe to interpreting settlement patterns through geoarchaeological, bioarchaeological, zooarchaeological, and taphonomic studies (David and Thomas 2008). Currently, landscape archaeology incorporates a social approach to human-environment interactions, focusing on cultural heritage preservation and indigenous involvement in understanding the dimensions of landscapes as cultural places of meaning (David and Thomas 2008). Specifically, landscape archaeology “gives a conceptual framework that enables [archaeologists] to address human pasts in all their contexts and that goes beyond purely environmental archaeology” (David and Thomas 2008). As such, it has changed from being primarily methodological to a holistic and unifying theory that combines aspects of both processual and post-processual archaeological ideas, as a means of interpreting how people interact with and perceive their environment.

Landscapes are environmental and social, both creating and reflecting aspects of identity based on interactions with a physical setting (Gamble 2008; Van Dyke 2008). At various scales, landscapes may have meaning attributed to them through experience, and possibly represent the intersection between memories and place (Tilley 1994; Van Dyke

2008). For example, modifications on the landscape can indicate a spiritual response to events, such as the petroglyphs site in Peterborough Country (Vastokas 1990), or the

Kaministikwia Intaglio dog effigy mound near Port Arthur, Ontario (Dawson 1966), which may be symbolic expressions of spiritual beliefs onto a particular feature of the landscape.

A sense of place and collective identity can be ascribed to different aspect of the hydrological and geological landscape. For example N’sihcahwahahsihk, the place where three rivers meet, and Ahsihnihskow Ihthiniwahkh, referring to the rocks of the Canadian

Shield, are locations on the landscape where the Nelson House people distinguish themselves from other Cree peoples (Linklater 1994). Places are landmarks to guide people in their travels, stories, and social, cultural, ritual, and subsistence activities; as such, they are closely associated with the history of the inhabitants of a region (Linklater

1994). Communities are reminded of this history and their identity through ceremony and ritual repetition (Connerton 1989). Humans are a part of a complex system of interlocking influences—shaped both by the environment and culture. Landscapes are dynamic and continually changing, affecting inhabitants and how they interact with the landscape

(Tilley 2008). Individuals experience their dynamic natural and spiritual landscape differently, owing to differences in gender and age (Bender 1993; Tilley 2000). Although the human landscape is at once a reality and an abstraction (Gould 1973), the choice of locations for carrying out activities depends on their perceptions of the environment

(Downs and Stea 1973). In this case, artifacts, animal resources, and burials are the material evidence of these memories and perceptions of a landscape of meaning (Van

Dyke 2008).

A landscape can be conceptualized as a materialization of memory and the establishment of identity through re-use (Knapp and Ashmore 1999). The intentional deposition of faunal remains within a burial context can indicate the connection between place and people. As Driver (1999) suggests, locations can be memorialized through the placement of faunal remains within a landscape. Therefore, I used a zooarchaeological analysis of the faunal material at Jacob’s Island-1B to determine the types of activities that occurred at the site. By establishing the chronology of various features and pits at the site through radiocarbon dating, I will attempt to conceptualize the ways in which the landscape of Jacob’s Island-1B was perceived and experienced, by activities such as ritual, ceremony, or subsistence, through time.

2. 2 Jacob’s Island-1B and the Holocene in Southern Ontario

In this section, I will outline the history of human occupation in Ontario and situate Jacob’s Island-1B within the larger temporal context of the Middle to Late

Holocene. More specifically, I will focus on Holocene populations in Southern Ontario, paying special attention to the Trent-Severn Waterway region. This chapter examines current interpretations of subsistence and ritual activities, settlement patterns, population dynamics, and social organization, based on the archaeological evidence. The goal is to contextualize animal resource use during the Middle to Late Holocene in Southern

Ontario, while focusing on the microenvironment of Jacob’s Island-1B.

Comments on Terminology and the Complexities of Taxonomy

The term Archaic was first coined by Ritchie (1932a, 1932b, 1936, 1944), and has been used historically to classify people who lived during the Early to Late Middle

Holocene in Northeastern North America. Ritchie (1932b, 1936, 1944) used the term to describe populations in New York State who depended on hunting and gathering, lacked pottery, and show no evidence of maize agriculture. This term was incorporated into

McKern’s (1939) Midwestern Taxonomic System, and later into Willey and Phillips’

(1958) chronology of the Eastern Woodlands in Northeastern North America. The

Archaic was further divided into Early (cal. 10,000 – 8000 B.P.), Middle (cal. 8000 –

4500 B.P.), and Terminal Late Archaic (cal. 4500 – 2800 B.P.) phases, largely based on projectile point styles (Ellis et al. 1990b). It is important to clarify here that calibrated

(cal. B.P.) and uncalibrated (uncal. B.P.) dates are used throughout this thesis and stated accordingly. If a date was not known to be calibrated, then a date is simply presented with

B.P. However, these temporal classifications are arbitrary and regionally variable; they were originally constructed for the purpose of defining populations using archaeological artifacts.

The use of the term Archaic for identifying past populations has harmful connotations, as it characterizes Aboriginal Peoples as primitive and unprogressive, thereby promoting negative stereotypes. Additionally, the term reduces the human experience prior to European contact to a prologue in the cultural history of Ontario

(McMillan and Yellowhorn 2004). These cultural histories are organized into chronological periods based on material characteristics. The complex spectrum of the human experience is lost when archaeologists create models of human existence based on artifacts to interpret past culture. Defining artifact typologies and characteristics are

12 useful, but mainly for comparing different technologies rather than delineating culture as a whole (Watkins 2005). More weight should be given to folk taxonomies and oral histories to temporally organize the human experience (see Linklater 1994).

Unfortunately, folk taxonomies are rarely used to describe events in human history, and as a result, the human experience must be limited to the cultural historical chronologies already in place.

To avoid any negative connotations, I refer to this period as the Middle to Late

Holocene and use radiocarbon dates to interpret site chronology. By using this terminology, I hope to situate the inhabitants of this region in a distinct ecological setting, focusing on human-environment interactions and the importance of place. However, for the sake of clarity, I must also rely on the establishment of cultural chronologies that have been traditionally used to classify human occupation throughout Ontario.

2.3 Archaeological Evidence

In this section, I review previous research, cultural chronologies, and interpretations of human occupation in Southern Ontario. Where applicable, I focus on archaeological research in the Trent-Severn Waterway region.

Archaeological Research in the Trent-Severn Waterway Region

Archaeological research within the Trent-Severn Waterway region focused mainly on excavating mound sites within the Rice Lake area, mostly by researchers associated with the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM). Work in this area was initiated by Boyle (1897) who excavated the LeVesconte Mound (BbGk-2) (1170 – 1830 B.P.) and the Miller

Mounds (835 ± 70 B.P.). In 1948, Richie led excavations in the Rice Lake region in association with the Rochester Museum, American Philosophical Society, National

Museum of Canada, and the ROM, where he set out to determine the early development and influence of the Hopewell culture in the area (Ritchie 1949). Excavations continued in the region from 1956 to 1960, when Johnston—also in partnership with the ROM – conducted excavations and survey work at the Serpent Mound site (BbGm-2) (510 – 2020

B.P) (Johnston 1968a, 1968b), as a means of expanding on Boyle’s (1897) earlier work.

Paleo-Indian artifacts were also recovered in the Rice Lake area by Johnston

(1968a). During the 1980s, the Rice Lake region was intensively surveyed for evidence of

Pleistocene human occupation, and specific attention was paid to the description and classification of projectile points (Jackson 2004). However, changes in water levels during the industrial period made a comprehensive analysis of human occupation in the region difficult, most sites remaining submerged and inaccessible.

In addition to the Serpent Mound site (Johnston 1968a, 1968b), the McIntyre site

(BbGn-2) (cal. 3650 – 4715 B.P.) is one of the best studied sites in the region (Johnston

1968a, 1984). Extensive faunal analyses (Naylor and Savage 1984; Waselkov 1984), paleobotanical analysis (Yarnell 1984), and paleoenvironmental reconstructions

(McAndrew 1984) were conducted at the site. As such, much of what is known about the inhabitants of the Holocene in the Trent-Severn Waterway region emanates from research at the McIntyre site.

In 1984, Ellis et al. (1990a) conducted an analysis of previously known archaeological sites and artifacts within the Trent-Severn Waterway region for the

Canadian Parks Service. They identified 88 sites as Archaic, with the highest concentration of sites (34.1%) being located in the Rice Lake area. Isolated artifacts are

14 frequent and several come from private collectors or have lost provenience. Consequently only a limited range of useful analysis can be carried out on these objects (Johnston

1968a; Ellis et al. 1990a).

Previous archaeological research has often focused on recovering lithic and ground stone tools, which may reflect a bias in artifact preservation and recovery strategies.

Chronologies of Southern Ontario History

Poor preservation, lack of material evidence, and limited site recovery limit interpretation about past human occupations in this region. The province of Ontario is loosely separated into two major geographic regions: North and South (Trigger 1978).

Northern Ontario is characterized by the boreal forest and the Canadian Shield, while

Southern Ontario is characterized primarily by deciduous forests. The boundary between

Northern and Southern Ontario is somewhat arbitrary and ill-defined, and coincides with the southernmost point of the boreal forest and the Great Lakes St. Lawrence deciduous forest. Although Jacob’s Island is located in Southern Ontario, I will briefly highlight some characteristics of Holocene peoples who inhabited other regions of Ontario to contextualize research at Jacob’s Island-1B in a larger cultural framework.

The Late Archaic period (5000 to 3500 B.P.) is defined by population increases, and a tendency towards the production of smaller projectile point types such as Narrow,

Broad, and Small Points (Ellis et al. 1990b). The presence of grave goods and trade items

(such as copper and marine shell), in addition to lithic point caches, suggest an increase in social stratification among the small microband groups of this period (Ellis et al. 1990b).

Other tools include bannerstones, adzes, drills, and scrapers, with some evidence of

15 reworking, which indicate continued manipulation of wood resources and hunting practices (Ellis et al. 1990b; Mason 1981). Barbs and gorges made of bone suggest a focus on fishing, and the location of sites along waterways points to the importance of aquatic resources. Botanical evidence from the McIntyre site (cal. 3650 B.P.) suggests a reliance on a wide range of plant species, from open grassland to mature forest ecosystems; including chenopod (Chenopodium), sumac (Rhus), hazel (Corylus), grape

(Vitis), plum (Prunus), cherry (Prunus avium), ragweed (Ambrosia), beech (Fagus), and oak (Quercus) (Ellis et al. 1990b;Yarnell 1984). White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) could have been a primary mammal resource (Ellis et al. 1990b; Naylor and

Savage 1984). People possibly began managing the landscape during this period through clearing, as a means of promoting the growth of higher-yield plant and animal species

(Yarnell 1984).

The transition from the Late Archaic to the Woodland period is poorly documented. The Woodland period is divided into a number of complexes with distinct chronologies. The Early Woodland period includes the Meadowood (cal. 800/900 – 400

B.C.) and Middlesex (cal. 450 – 1 B.C.) complexes, with varying dates throughout the province (Spence et al. 1990; Mason 1981). The Early Woodland period is characterized by the emergence of pottery. A list of characteristics are birdstones, gorgets, cache blades, and side-notched points recycled into scrapers, strikers, copper beads, awls, and ceramic pipes (Spence et al. 1990). Social interaction through trade between groups seems to have increased during this period, as the amount of elaborate burial offerings such as copper beads also increased (Spence et al. 1990). Additionally, red ochre was used more frequently within mortuary contexts and burial mounds were constructed (Spence et al.

1990). Faunal remains at the Dawson Creek site (BaGn-16) include muskrat (Ondatra

16 zibethicus), black bear (Ursus americanus), large cervid remains, and mussel shells

(Unionidae), suggesting the use of both nearby aquatic and terrestrial environments

(Jackson 1980).

The Trent-Severn Waterway region was inhabited by people of the loosely defined Point Peninsula complex during the early Middle Woodland (cal. 700 – 900

A.D.) period (Spence et al. 1990; Johnston 1968a). Although this complex was widespread and regionally variable, it has a number of discernible patterns, including coiled ceramics, bone and antler harpoons, antler combs, specific projectile points, celts, gorgets, pipes and cut mica (Spence et al. 1990; Mason 1981). Copper jewellery is sometimes found within burial contexts (Spence et al. 1990; Mason 1981). Burial mounds, such as the Serpent and Miller Mounds at Rice Lake are also present, possibly reflecting some weak influence from the Hopewellian cultures to the Southeast (Spence et al. 1990; Mason 1981; Johnston 1968a). Net sinkers, fishhooks, and the presence of fish scales and bones at sites such as Inverhuron (BbHj-3) suggest a continued reliance on aquatic resources (Kenyon 1959).

Larger sites and dense middens indicate an increase in the duration of occupation at single locations. Special purpose sites, such as cemeteries and burial mounds, appear more frequently (Spence et al. 1990). Although poorly understood, the archaeological evidence suggests that the people who inhabited this region during the Early to Middle

Woodland periods developed an increasingly sedentary lifestyle, created stamped pottery, and grew in population density.

During the Middle to Late Woodland (700 to post A.D. 1000) period, sites become increasingly multifaceted and reflect a shift towards wetland environments—especially along creeks and river systems (Crawford and Smith 2002). During this period, people

17 began to use plant species such as maize (Zea maize). Large cervids such as white-tailed deer, birds, and fish were exploited in greater numbers as the human population increased.

Ellis et al. (1990a) identified the Late Woodland as the most frequently identified period among sites in the Trent-Severn Waterway region. Aside from the Princess Point complex (an area that lies beyond the focus of this thesis), the Late Woodland is poorly documented, and the ethnic and linguistic origin of the people who inhabited this region remains unknown (Fox 1990). Nevertheless, this period is mostly defined by the widespread adoption of maize agriculture, larger settlement patterns, and an increase in population size. The influence of Hopewell decreases as elaborate grave offerings and mortuary practices decline in frequency, especially in the Rice Lake area (Fox 1990;

Johnston 1968a).

Historically, the Iroquoian-speaking Wendat inhabited this region, cultivating corn

(Zea mays), beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), squash (Cucurbita pepo), tobacco (Nicotiana rustica), and sunflowers (Helianthus annuus), in addition to practising swidden agriculture (Ray 2010; Ramsden 1990a; McMillan and Yellowhorn 2004). Large ungulates and river fish were seasonally exploited by hunting groups (Trigger 1969;

Finlayson 1998; Ray 2010). The Wendat lived in villages, but also established satellite hunting camps (Ramsden 1990a). They traded corn, furs, and tools with the Algonquians to the north and other Iroquoian-speaking people to the south (Ray 2010; McMillan and

Yellowhorn 2004).

The Feast of the Dead was the most important ritual observed among the Wendat

(Ray 2010). This ceremony occurred every ten to twelve years, when a village was forced to relocate due to depletion of the soil (Ray 2010; Finlayson 1998). A large common

18 grave was constructed, and the remains of deceased relatives and friends were placed together within it (McMillan and Yellowhorn 2004). The Feast of the Dead celebrated the lives and memories of the deceased, while also serving to strengthen the community bonds of the living (Ray 2010; Mason 1981).

The Wendat created and traded pipes, antler, shell, awls, needles, bone beads, celts, adzes, hammerstones, arrow points, scrapers, and native copper artifacts (Ramsden

1990a; Jamieson 1996). After the Europeans began to occupy the area, furs were used to obtain glass beads, kettles, iron knives, and axes (Ramsden 1990a; McMillan and

Yellowhorn 2004). Contact with Europeans increased by the early 17th century, as French

Jesuit missions and communities were established with the goal to convert the Wendat to

Christianity (Ramsden 1990a). Eventually, after years of war with the neighbouring St.

Lawrence Iroquoians, turmoil, disease, and cultural termination by the French missionaries, the Wendat and their culture were either acculturated or destroyed

(Ramsden 1990a; McMillan and Yellowhorn 2004). The Historic period of human occupation of the Trent-Severn Waterway Region that followed the dispersion and abandonment of Wendat settlements, includes the establishment of European settlements, immigration, and changes in land ownership.

2.4 Artifacts and Inferences

Since there are no written records available to document past subsistence practices, economic decisions, or ritual activities during the Holocene in Ontario, archaeologists must make inferences on human interactions relying primarily on material evidence. In the past, the focus had been placed on establishing cultural chronologies for

19 the region, generally based on variation in artifact types (stone tools, in particular). In this section, I briefly describe the tools and technologies that have come to characterize the Late Archaic, and comment on preservation issues that may hinder progressive inferences about human behaviour.

Stone Technology

Stone tools are the most extensively studied and abundant artifacts found at Late

Archaic sites in Southern Ontario. Although the term Laurentian has been used traditionally to classify the Middle to Late Holocene inhabitants of the Trent-Severn

Waterway region (Wright 1962), technological characteristics of this period are described in a broad manner in order to maintain the idea of the fluidity of technology. A number of general trends described stone tool assemblages during this period, including the increase of groundstone and polished tools, the presence of birdstones, bannerstones and netsinkers, and tools made from local non-chert resources (Ellis et al. 1990b; Wright

1962). Here, I outline the main characteristics of these trends.

Pecking and grinding stone became an increasingly popular method of tool production during this period (Milner 2004; Ellis et al. 1990b). Axes, net sinkers, and atlatls were frequently made, and we find that raw materials such as slate, basalt, quartz, and hematite increase in use (Milner 2004). Examples of net sinkers made of limestone, schist, and sandstone were found at the Rocky Ridge site (BbHj-16) (Ramsden 1976), which highlight the use of netting technology to gather fish, possibly during the spawning period (Prowse 2010). The presence of grooved axes, choppers, and abraders at site such as Rocky Ridge (Ramsden 1976) and McIntyre, suggests wood working and plant processing activities.

Native copper was cold-hammered to create both utilitarian and ceremonial artifacts, such as projectile points, tanged spears, bayonets, awls, needles, scrapers, knives, and ulus (Martin 1991; Ellis et al 1990b). A number of copper tools were recovered from various sites in the region, including blades and pins from the McIntyre site (Johnston 1969a), as well as other isolated finds in Victoria Township, such as tanged and crescent knives (Ellis et al. 1990a). Copper chunks and artifacts were often traded throughout the Great Lakes region from outcrops near Lake Superior. Neutron Activation analysis of native copper tools from the Île aux Allumettes site (BkGg-11) (cal. 6000

B.P.), suggests that extensive trade networks were probably used to obtain copper from these outcrops (Chapdelaine and Kennedy 2003).

Polished stones such as birdstones and bannerstones are unique to this period, as are broad blade, side-notched, and corner-notched points (Ellis et al. 1990b; Wright

1962). Polished stones excavated from the Île aux Allumettes site are also characteristic of the period (Clermont 2003b). Corner-notched and side-notched points excavated from the Île Morrison site (BkGg-10), suggest increased tool and hunting activity specialization

(Clermont and Chapdelaine 1998). From this it is clear that people living during the

Holocene had a very diverse set of stone tool technologies.

Bone Technology Animal bones were fashioned into a variety of tools during this period; these include harpoon heads, awls, fish hooks, scrapers, gouges, barbed and socketed points, needles, and large perforated carnivore teeth (Ellis et al. 1990b). Bone harpoons were excavated at the Île aux Allumettes site (Clermont 2003a), and ground bone awls and fishhook barbs were found at the East Sugar Island site (BbGm-22) (2620 B.P.) by

Ritchie (1949), which suggests hunting of both aquatic and terrestrial animals, as well as the preparation of animal skins.

Bone tools were often made of the long bones of large mammals and birds, as well as rodent incisors. Bird long bones were used to manufacture smoothed beads (Ramsden

1976; Sadler and Savage 2003), and cervid long bones were used to manufacture awls and varying sizes of needles, such as those found at the Île aux Allumettes site (Clermont

2003a). In addition, at least 400 beaver (Castor canadensis) incisors were found at the Île aux Allumettes site, specifically manufactured into gouges or scrapers (Clermont 2003a).

These tools suggest engagement in various hide preparation and wood-working activities, as well as the manufacturing of objects of personal adornment.

Other Technologies and Preservation

Faunal remains and organic tools and containers are rarely well preserved in

Holocene sites in Ontario, largely due to acidic soils (see examples in Woodley 1990;

Fisher 1997). However, preserved fish weirs have been found throughout the region— namely, at Atherley Narrows / Mnjikaning (BdGu-6) (4600 – 70 B.P.) near Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching (Ellis et al. 1990a). Since Southern Ontario has a humid continental climate and few inhabited cave sites, organic artifacts from are exceedingly rare.

Additionally, heat modification can also help preserve organic artifacts because the process of carbonization inhibits organic breakdown (Drooker 2004). The length of burial and association with metal objects can also increase the likelihood of organic preservation (Drooker 2004). However, since few metal artifacts have been found associated with the faunal material at Jacob’s Island-1B and -1C, such factors did not contribute to organic preservation at the site.

2.5 Settlement Patterns, Social Interactions, and Organization

From the limited material evidence available, it is difficult to infer precisely how

Middle to Late Holocene occupants of the Trent-Severn Waterway region in South- central Ontario interacted and inhabited. Here, based on available archaeological evidence, I outline the hypothesized settlement patterns and social interactions of Middle to Late Holocene groups and the role of trade.

Settlement Patterns

Most Middle to Late Holocene sites within the Trent-Severn Waterway region are multiple-component camp sites, suggesting seasonal site use by mobile hunter-gather groups (with some regional variation). The diversity of artifact types and complex stratigraphic levels at a number of sites suggests occupations may have been discontinuous, as seen at the East Sugar Island site (Ritchie 1949), and the McIntyre site

(Johnston 1968a, 1984). Most sites are usually located by rivers, streams, wetlands, lakes, or on islands, and these are generally larger than sites located inland (Ellis et al. 1990b;

Ellis et al. 1990a; Woodley 1990). People tended to prefer diverse environments for occupation with access to both aquatic and terrestrial resources.

Increases in artifact accumulations and thick midden formations also indicate a decrease in mobility, as people began to stay longer in one location (Ellis et al. 1990b).

The presence of larger, less portable tools within the archaeological assemblage (such as groundstone axes) is also indicative of decreased mobility. Generally, it is suggested that microband or family groups returned to different locations seasonally, for example as

23 seen at the Thistle Hill site (AhGx-226) 3440+/-75 B.P. (Woodley 1990); however current research by Ellis et al. (2010) at the Davidson site may suggest otherwise.

Social Organization

Complexity models, such as Timmins and Staeck’s (1999) “model of cultural complexity”, can be used to infer social and labour organization based on archaeological site clusters. They created an ordinal ranking system from 1 (low complexity) to 5 (high complexity) and using subsistence, exchange, settlement patterns, and labour organization as a criteria for scoring local site groups as a whole (Timmins and Staeck 1999) (see

Table 2.1). Middle to Late Holocene site clusters are difficult to interpret using this model due to the limited evidence. Using this model, a ranking between 1 and 2 is suggested by the available archaeological evidence outlined in this chapter.

RANKING 1 2 Family Size Nuclear family Extended family/ lineage Population of <50 50 – 500 Settlements Organization of Small houses, Large house, small villages, communal Labour base camps resource extraction Specialization None Increasing number of specialized areas of technology (Ceramics, lithics, metal, bones, shell, etc.) Subsistence General hunting Communal hunting and gathering, Intensification and gathering developing agriculture Exchange Little Increasing exchange indicated by greater number of trade items Identity Signalling Little Belonging to a general pattern within a and Conflict small region Mortuary Little Increasing evidence of mortuary Differentiation ceremonialism and status differentiation

Table 2.1 Model of Precontact Social and Political Complexity, adapted from Timmins and Staeck (1999: Table 12.1)

Copper, Trade, and Social Organization

The exchange of tools and raw material resources has been important in interpretation of social hierarchies, prestige, and political organization among groups.

Here, I will discuss the exchange of copper as a way of exploring social organization among Middle to Late Holocene populations in Northeastern North America.

Traditionally, it has been assumed that the use of copper in the manufacturing of tools and ornaments was socially and ceremonially significant (Miles 1951; Ehrhardt

2009). Native copper artifacts found within Holocene burial contexts have been used to infer social status and prestige (Miles 1951; Mason 1981). At the Osconto site (cal. 5300-

6000 B.P.), copper spear points, awls, beads, a bracelet and a fishhook were found directly associated with burials and cremation pits (Martin 1999; Mason 2002; Wittry and

Ritzenhaler 1956). Additionally, the diversity of copper artifacts has been suggested to reflect an egalitarian or semi-egalitarian social organization (Wittry and Ritzenhaler

1956).

Copper artifacts are usually interpreted as exotic (and therefore, valuable) in

Eastern North America, and are often viewed as mediums of exchange, ritual, ceremony, and mortuary practices (Erhardt 2009). Copper artifacts have been identified at a number of sites within the Trent-Severn Waterway region, including the McIntyre and Fenelon

Falls sites (Ellis et al. 1990a; Johnston 1984). The copper used in manufacturing these tools has been sourced to the Lake Superior region, which suggests long distance trade between groups (Ellis et al. 1990a).

Although copper was also used to manufacture utilitarian tools, such as knives and fish hooks, Binford (1962) suggests that the meaning of copper objects changed from purely functional to representing social meanings of status and wealth. Conversely,

Cooper (2006) advocates that raw materials alone do not create social ranking within a group, and that other factors such as population growth and increased sedentism have equally played a role in the development of social ranking within a society.

Although tool type or function may change over time, it is important to consider that the overall ceremonial significance of copper may remain the same, indicated by its distribution across burial contexts.

Trade at Jacob’s Island

Trade and exchange of lithic and raw material resources such as chert may have linked people in neighbouring and distant communities together during the Middle to Late

Holocene (Ellis et al. 1990b; Ellis et al. 2009). More than half of the lithic materials recovered from Jacob’s Island are from regional sources, within a 100 km radius of the site (K. Elaschuck, personal communication 2013). Exotic materials are classified as lithics from sources located more than 100 km from the island, and are mainly from

Michigan, Maine, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Labrador, and Quebec. However, most of these exotic lithic materials are tertiary stage flakes and are the end products of tool manufacture or retouching (K. Elaschuck, personal communication 2013). The presence of these exotic lithic materials suggests involvement with various long distance trade routes and interaction with various neighbouring groups.

2.6 Subsistence Practices

The increase in temperatures and the melting of glaciers after the Late Pleistocene led to a dramatic change in local ecosystems and a diversification in resources. A wider

26 range of aquatic and terrestrial species of plants and animals became available for human exploitation. Humans diversified their hunting, fishing, and gathering strategies, while utilizing new aspects of the emergent landscapes. In this section, I briefly discuss the diet during this period using the results of available isotopic analysis. Additionally, I outline how humans utilized and modified various aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, with specific examples from Late Archaic sites from South-central Ontario and the Trent-

Severn Waterway region.

Isotopic Analysis

Dietary patterns in past populations can be partially reconstructed using stable isotope analysis in conjunctions with archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological data. Plants and animals have a distinct ratio of nitrogen, carbon, strontium, and other stable isotopes.

These isotopes enter the tissues of these organisms through the consumption of food sources within an ecosystem (Phillips and Koch 2002). Stable isotopic analysis of bone tissues or collagen can be used to determine element accumulation in an ecosystem and reconstruct past diets. The diet of humans and animals from Southern Ontario has been studied extensively through stable isotopic analysis, but it has focused mostly on later populations (Schwarcz et al. 1985; Katzenberg 1989; Katzenberg et al.1995; van der

Merwe et al. 2003; Dewar et al. 2010; Pfeiffer et al. 2014). At Jacob’s Island, 35 human and animal bone collagen and bioapatite samples were analyzed for carbon and nitrogen stable isotopes (Conolly et al. [in press]). Although the results are forthcoming, the analysis suggests an omnivorous diet with a variety of plants and animals (Conolly et al.

[in press]).

Elsewhere in the northeast, large game such as Odocoileus virginianus were a major dietary component, with some plant and marine contributions to people during the

Late Archaic, as seen at the Price III (47RI4) in Wisconsin, and the DuPont (33HA45),

Williams (33WO7) (cal. 2680 B.P.), and sites in the Ohio Valley (Price 1985). Others – such as Guiry and Grimes (2013) – have analyzed Canis lupus familiaris remains as a proxy for human diet with the assumption that C. lupus familiaris had access to human food refuse and may have eaten human feces, thereby producing the same isotopic signatures. The carbon and nitrogen isotopes from the Turner Farm (ME29.9) (uncal.

4500 B.P.) and the Nevin site (ME42.1) (uncal. 3800 B.P.) in Maine suggest a primarily marine-focused diet with some mammal dietary contributions (Guiry and Grimes 2013).

Site location and the availability of local resources may have contributed the variation in diet between Late Archaic sites.

An Aquatic Focus

During the Holocene, people lived near diverse environments and tended to reoccupy various locations within a landscape on a seasonal basis (Woodley 1990).

Wetland and river-side environments were especially attractive to occupants, due to the high amount of ecosystem productivity (Milner 2004). This focus is reflected in the types of animal and plant resources found at archaeological sites, along with evidence for fish weir construction.

Although fishing was presumably essential to people who lived during the

Holocene (Ellis et al. 1990b), fish remains are often absent from or minimally represented at sites, likely due to poor preservation (Szpak 2011), differential recovery methods and fragmentation. For example, only a single fish bone was found (in Feature 28a, cal. 3920

+/- 90 B.P.) at the Dawson Creek site (Jackson 1988b). Nevertheless, associated tool technologies suggest the importance of this resource, as archaeologists commonly find copper fish hooks, bone harpoons, barbs, gorges, and ground stone net weights, which suggest an extensive focus on fish capturing and processing.

Fish weirs were used during this period (Ellis et al. 1990b; Trigger 1985). Fish weirs, such as the one located at Atherley Narrows (BdGu-6), were strategically placed on drainage areas and straits to capture smaller-sized fish (Ellis et al. 1990a; Needs-

Howarth 1999). Weirs must be maintained regularly, and demand cooperation and coordination of labour, and therefore people must live near these locations to frequently maintain the weirs and harvest their catches (Needs-Howarth 1999).

Fish may have not been captured strictly for consumption. Their bones were used as raw material to construct awls, and were also fashioned into other tools. Additionally, certain fish species could be selected for use as bait to acquire other prey species, such as large fish, waterfowl, or shore birds (Monk 1987). Fish could also be boiled down for making glue (Monk 1987).

Aquatic dwelling species such as turtles (Testudines) are present in small numbers at various sites throughout the Trent-Severn Waterway region. Representations of turtles were also found at the Miller Mounds, where a marine shell turtle effigy was excavated

(Johnston 1969a), which suggests the importance of turtles for both symbolic and subsistence purposes. Turtles could be cooked over a fire and consumed, as suggested by the amount of burned turtle remains at the Knechtel I site (BbHj-2A) (cal. 1740 – 4485

B.P.) (Wright 1972). Other aquatic dwellers, including amphibians such as frogs and toads (Anura), are sometimes present in small amounts in Holocene sites; for example, five specimens were identified at the Île aux Allumettes site—specifically, the American

29 bullfrog (Rana catesbiana), frog (Rana sp.), and American toads (Bufo americanus)— which comprises less than 0.1% of the total faunal assemblage (Cossette 2003).

Terrestrial Mammals

It is generally assumed that people extensively hunted large game species during the Holocene (Cleland 1966; Trigger 1985). This interpretation stems from the abundance of mammalian bones recovered from archaeological sites. For example, at the Rocky

Ridge and Knetchel I site, most remains are large to medium-sized mammal bones, particularly white-tailed deer (Ramsden 1976). Other forest species, including raccoon

(Procyon lotor), beaver (Castor canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), and squirrel

(Sciuridae) were also important as food and raw material resources (Ellis et al. 1990b).

Large game may have been obtained and shared with other members of the community to gain social recognition and perhaps communicate their qualities to potential mates

(McGuire and Hildebrandt 2005).

The presence of white-tailed deer remains has often been used to infer site seasonality of occupation. Archaeologists tend to assume that white-tailed deer was the primary dietary staple during the Middle to Late Holocene, yet the contribution of fish, bird, and plant species to the diet and raw material resource base of the inhabitants of the region may also be significant.

Avian Species

Birds were also utilized for food and raw materials, although it is difficult to discern their importance due to preservation issues. Bird bones are thin and fragile, and easily degrade in acidic soil (Sadler and Savage 2003). The Knetchel (BbHj-2) and Rocky

Ridge (BbHj-3) sites both have bird remains, particularly large species such as loon

(Gavia sp.), heron (Ardeidae), and eagle (Accipitridae) (Sadler and Savage 2003). At the

Knetchel (BbHj-2) site, beads and other tools were made from the long bones of large bird species, including swan, heron, loon and Canada goose (Branta canadensis) (Sadler and Savage 2003).

Although larger species may have been selected over smaller species as a food source, this does not diminish the importance of smaller bird species. Historically, beliefs or taboos surrounded the hunting of particular bird species, which may have limited their presence within the archaeological record; the Iroquois people, for instance, believed it to be taboo to hunt owls (Strigiformes) (Sadler and Savage 2003). Representations of bird species in material artifacts such as in pop-eyed birdstones also indicate the importance of birds (Sadler and Savage 2003), although the precise nature of their significance is difficult to interpret.

Waterfowl seem to be particularly important, with evidence of mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and blue-winged teal (Anas discors) at the McIntyre site (Naylor and

Savage 1984), and king eider (Somateria spectabilis) and oldsquaw (Clangula hyemalis) at the Rocky Ridge site (Sadler and Savage 2003). Migratory diving birds (Podicipedidae) such as red-neck grebes (Podiceps grisegena) at the Brindle site (AgGs-46) in the

Niagara region and pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) at Rocky Ridge (BbHj-3) near Lake Huron, have also been identified (Sadler and Savage 2003). Other sites within the Trent-Severn Waterway region show evidence of ground-feeding gamebird

(Galliformes) exploitation, as archaeologists have found at Easter Island on Rice Lake with the presence of wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) (Ritchie 1949).

Previous excavation methods, biased recovery, and the lack of radiocarbon dates at some Holocene sites in Ontario make it difficult to determine which species were used during this period. Moreover, extinct species such as the passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius) are difficult to identify as a result of the lack of skeletal material available for comparison in reference collections.

Managing the Vegetation – Managing the Animals?

Ample research has focused on the management, procurement, and domestication of various plant species during the Holocene in northeastern North America. Beginning during this period and onward, humans modified and managed the landscape as a way of promoting growth among desired plant species (Delcourt and Delcourt 2004). People began to manage native plant species by weeding, tending, and eventually domesticating some native cultigens, such as sunflower (Helianthus annuus), sumpweed (Iva annua), squash (Cucurbita pepo), and eventually maize (Zea mays) (Watson and Kennedy 1991;

Delcourt and Delcourt 2004). Hickory (Carya) and walnut (Juglans) remains are frequently found at Middle Holocene sites in the North East (Roberts 1985). At the

McIntyre site, butternut (Juglans cinerea) is the most abundant plant species identified, followed by chenopod (Chenopodium sp.), acorn (Quercus sp.), hickory, beech nut

(Fagus sp.), tubers, sumac (Rhus sp.), cleavers (Galium aparine), and fleshy fruits such as plum (Prunus sp.), cherry (Prunus sp.), and blueberry (Cyanococcus sp.) (Yarnell 1984).

Although there has been a great deal of speculation about its use, no evidence of wild rice

(Zizania palustris) was found to suggest specific cultivation practices (Yarnell 1984).

Conversely at the Weber I site (20SA581), Michigan, mustard (Brassicaceae) seeds were the most abundant floral remains identified, comprising almost 80% of a single feature, in

32 addition to other nuts, berries, and grape (Vitis sp.) (Smith and Egan 1990). These plant species could have been consumed, used as a seasoning, or prepared as medicine (Smith and Egan 1990).

Fire was used to clear undesirable plant species and promote the growth of more favourable ones such as blueberry, butternut, oak, hickory, chestnut, and other mast and fruit-bearing trees (Yarnell 1984; Abrams and Nowacki 2008). Evidence of this burning strategy continued as agricultural practices developed by the Late Woodland period, as may be observed in pollen cores from Crawford Lake, Ontario (Clark and Royall 1995).

Another strategy was to simply remove competitive or undesirable species through weeding activities, and patches of land could be maintained as a garden (Abrams and

Nowacki 2008; Watson and Kennedy 1991). In addition to their contributions to subsistence, managed plants were possibly harvested and prepared into textiles to weave baskets and clothing.

Land clearing could have also been used to favour certain species, for instance by increasing browsing area for white-tailed deer (Abrams and Nowacki 2008). Other mammal species, such as Rodentia and Leporidae, may have also benefited from this practice.

2.7 Population, Demography and Health

The population density of south-central Ontario was comparatively low, as people continually shifted in settlement based on the seasonal availability of natural resources

(Milner 2004). However, the evidence suggests that there had been a slow rise in population, with an increase in sites, occupation intensity (example Bursey 1994), and a

33 frequent presence of semi-permanent structures (Ellis et al. 1990b; Ellis et al. 2010). A rise in the number of sites and deeper midden formations may be indicative of population growth, as groups were becoming less mobile, perhaps in response to the growing availability of locally available resources (Ellis et al. 2010). Intensification in the number of burial sites and grave offerings may also indicate population growth and social differentiation (Ellis 2013).

An analysis of human skeletal material is useful for determining the life histories of past populations, by informing us on health, diet, and demography. An analysis of bones from individuals varying in sex and age interred at the Morrison’s Island-6 site indicates the presence of moderate degenerative joint disease, and suggests a physically demanding lifestyle (Young 2009). Skeletal indicators of arthritis show that some individuals were living to old age, or were engaged in physically demanding activities

(Wright 1972). Mild to moderate osteoarthritis was also identified on some of the adults at the Hind site (Adhk-1) (cal. 2875 +/-75 B.P.) (Varney and Pfeiffer 1995). Generally,

Sciulli and Oberly (2002) also found Archaic sites had higher levels of postcranial degenerative joint diseases than found in later populations. Evidence of long bone—some with lodged projectile points—have been observed in the skeletal remains of other

Holocene populations (Wright 1972), suggesting a degree of inter-personal violence and conflict.

The skeletal and dental health of 22 individuals was assessed at the Hind site

(Adhk-1) by Varney and Pfeiffer (1995). They found that the mean life expectancy was low at 35 years, with 32 years for women and 39 for men. Harris lines and cribria orbitalia observed on some juvenile specimens indicate that periods of nutritional stress affected normal growth and development – perhaps due to seasonal fluctuations in food

34 supplies (Varney and Pfeiffer 1995; Donaldson and Wortner 1995). Enamel hypoplasia was evident on a number of individuals at the Morrison’s Island-6 site, also indicating health stress during their early developmental period (Young 2009). Severe attrition and periapical abscessing due to chewing hard substances or using the teeth to work materials was seen on a number of adult individuals at the Hind site (Varney and Pfeiffer 1995), cares were found on individuals at the James Duff (33LO111) (cal. 2950 +/-100 B.P.)

Kirian-Treglia (33AL3 9) (cal. 2850 B.P.) Davis (cal. 3159 +/-120 B.P.) and Williams

(33WO7) sites in Ohio (Sciulli and Oberly 2002).

Overall, the health of the people during the Late Archaic is varied but generally consistent with a hunter-gatherer subsistence strategy (Varney and Pfeiffer 1995; Sciulli and Oberly 2002). Concerning the Middle to Late Holocene, poor preservation, small sample sizes, and site disturbances make it difficult to assess human skeletal material.

2.8 Ritual Activities

Information on ritual activities is scarce for the Holocene, and interpretation is often based on limited archaeological evidence. Here, I attempt to outline the current interpretations of ritual activities, focusing on evidence of feasting, grave offerings, and the importance of dogs.

Burying the Dead

Although complete and undisturbed burials are rarely found in the archaeological record, analyses of excavated burials and material offerings indicate differences between the treatments of interred individuals. In the Late Pleistocene in Ontario, deceased

35 humans were often cremated (Deller and Ellis 1984). In the Middle to Late Holocene, humans are found more often in stretched and flexed positions in addition to cremation burials (Wright 1972). Multiple individuals were cremated at the Hind site (AdHk-1) (cal.

2875 +/-75 B.P.) in the lower Thames River valley (Donaldson and Wortner 1995).

Similar burials were also found at the Picton site (Glacial Kame Complex cal. 3000 –

2800 B.P.) in Prince Edward County where individuals were identified in bundles, flexed and extended positions, and cremation burials (Richie 1949; Ellis et al. 2009).

Late Archaic burial interments often contain multiple individuals and assorted grave offerings. At the Hind site, a bear maxilla mask, shell beads, tools, and various modified carnivore mandibles were identified on most of the 34 individuals from 19 burial features (Donaldson and Wortner 1995; Ellis et al. 2009). At the Meredith-Goodall site (AdHm-19) – also a Glacial Kame Complex site – multiple burials were found with red ochre and copper beads (Donaldson and Wortner 1995). Awls and polished

Odocoileus virginianus metapodials were also found in association with several individuals (Donaldson and Wortner 1995).

Red ochre is widely associated with human burials during this period (Ellis et al.

2009; Donaldson and Wortner 1995; Ellis et al. 1990b). Some of the individuals buried at the Picton site (Richie 1949) and Hind site were covered in red ochre (Donaldson and

Wortner 1995).

The diversity of burial treatment and associated offerings is increasingly seen during this period, which indicates changes in perceived notions of social status or personhood (Ellis 2013). Although there are few other securely dated Late Archaic sites in the Trent Severn Waterway Region, sites associated with the Glacial Kame Complex provide a starting point for examining mortuary practices during this period.

Feasting

The placement and inclusion of animal remains within and around mortuary contexts can symbolize a number of important beliefs. They can be food offerings, evidence of feasting, or be consciously placed to reflect symbols of the human body

(Russell 2012; Conneller 2004). Food can differ in terms of quantity, quality, ritualization, spatial distribution, and disposal (Russell 2012). Feasting is frequently indicative of the accumulation of prestige, celebrations of individuals or events, and solidarity within a community (Russell 2012). Generally, large exotic animals are often consumed during feasting rituals, as well as certain beverages (Russell 2012). Large scale feasting activities, such as those inferred at Cahokia (Pauketat et al. 2002), are not documented at Middle to Late Holocene sites. With this in mind, I have conducted a taphonomic analysis of faunal remains to interpret if feasting activities occurred at

Jacob’s Island-1B and -1C.

Dogs and Ritualism

Dogs became increasingly important to people during the Holocene and onward throughout northeastern North America. The ritual consumption, interment, and depiction of dogs indicate an increasing connection between the animal and spiritual representation.

Interpretations of this connection are speculative, due to limited availability of archaeological evidence from the Middle to Late Holocene. Here, I provide archaeological as well as documented ethnographic examples of dog symbolism and ritualism from Ontario and other locations in North America, as a means of contextualizing the ritual significance of dogs during this period.

The intentional interment of dogs in burial contexts becomes more frequent during the Middle to Late Holocene. Wright (1972b) suggests that this pattern indicates that dogs became a hunting partner, and therefore an important part of people’s lives during this period. Others (Morey 2006; Russell 2010; Losey et al. 2011) suggest an association with personhood, identity, and the spiritual qualities of dogs.

Archaeological evidence for ritual dog interment and consumption are rare and difficult to interpret. One of the earliest dated dog burials in North America associated with humans is found at the Braden site (10WN117) (5790 +/- 120 B.P.) in western Idaho

(Yohe and Pavesic 2000). The remains were found associated with caches of artifacts including points, blades, triangular obsidian preforms, shell beads, and pipes, and evidence of red ochre (Yohe and Pavesic 2000). Butchery marks were not found on any of the bones (Yohe and Pavesic 2000). Although limited, there is archaeological evidence for the ritual treatment of dog remains in the Trent-Severn Waterway region. At the

McIntyre site, an intentional burial of a juvenile dog was found (Naylor and Savage

1984), and dogs were also represented in depictions at the petroglyphs in Peterborough

County (Vastokas and Vastokas 1973). A taphonomic analysis of the skeletal material from six dog bundle burials at Frank Bay (CbGw-1) near Lake Nipissing (cal. 2920 – 770

B.P.) suggests that their throats were slit and that the dogs were dismembered for burial, which did not include burning (Brizinski and Savage 1983). Possible calcined dog remains were found at the Dunsmore site (BcGw-10) (620 +/- 60 B.P.), in Simcoe

County, and are suggested to be part of an intentional cremation ceremony (Robertson and Williamson 2003). The presence of red ochre and a quartz crystal with the dogs is indicative of a spiritual connection or offering (Brizinski and Savage 1983).

Ethnographic evidence of the sacrifice and ritual consumption of dogs is plentiful, but varied in northeastern North America (Dorion 2012). There are discrepancies between how and why dogs were sacrificed, and if they were consumed. Dogs may have been consumed, exchanged as gifts, sacrificed, or buried in various ways and for specific purposes. Ethnographic evidence for various groups in Ontario suggests that dogs were ritually sacrificed to a greater spirit, in order to ensure success in harvest, hunting, and war, as well as a means to increase power, to heal from sickness, and to ward off evil spirits (Oberholtzer 2002). A well-documented example includes the White Dog

Ceremony, which was practiced by the Seneca and other Iroquois groups. This ritual was associated with the mid-winter or New Year’s festival, and included the sacrifice and burning of a white or pale dog as a message to the Great Spirit (Walker 1905; Oberholtzer

2002). Tobacco was often burned alongside the dog, which was ritually strangled, painted, decorated with wampum belts, and hung on a long pole (Tooker 1965). Other accounts of similar dog sacrifices suggest that the dog was killed through strangling or slitting of the throat then either roasted or boiled for ritual consumption (Oberholtzer

2002). Obviously, it seems that there was variation in spiritual beliefs over time and space.

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Identification

In this section, I detail how the faunal material from Jacob’s Island-1B and -1C was identified, address biases that occur in the identification process, and provide possible solutions to these problems. Additionally, metric data of Canis lupus familiaris was taken to aid in comparison after identification. I outline how I determined age and sex, and introduce the database and associated codes. Lastly, I discuss how the preservation of faunal materials can be influenced by post-depositional events and produce variability between samples.

Identification procedures

The identification of faunal materials recovered from archaeological sites is essential to the analysis of ritual and subsistence behaviour. Indeed, once the faunal material from an archaeological site is sampled and excavated, the next step is often to identify the faunal specimens and species skeletal element representation (O’Connor

2000; Reitz and Wing 2008). This is done by comparing specimens from the archaeological faunal assemblage with a modern reference collection (Davis 1987; Reitz and Wing 2008). Faunal specimens should be identified to at least the level of taxonomic family or, if possible, a more precise level of classification. This method is based on uniformitarian principles, and assumes that animals found in archaeological deposits are

40 similar in general morphology to their modern counterparts (Davis 1987; Reitz and Wing

2008).

In the present case, the reference collection at the Howard Savage Faunal

Archaeo-Osteology Laboratory at the University of Toronto and that of the

Archaeozoology Laboratory at Trent University, were used to identify the zooarchaeological sample from Jacob’s Island-1B and -1C.

Sources of bias and solutions

Animals vary in shape and size, both within and between taxa. Animals are constantly evolving and thus may exhibit morphological changes over time (Davis 1987).

Differences in environmental condition can affect the physiology and size of an animal

(Blackburn et al. 1999; Wolverton et al. 2007; Wolverton 2008). In addition, intraspecific variation and pronounced sexual dimorphism can impact identification (Reitz and Wing

2008; Lyman 2008).

Domestication can affect morphology and behaviour. Domestication may result in a new form of plant or animal, which by human agency, is different from its wild ancestor (Smith 1998). In this case, selective pressures on animals generally alter behavioural attributes that will sometimes result in morphological changes during the domestication process (Zeder 2006). These behavioural attributes may be a reduction of aggression and wariness, may favor breeding in captivity, and impact hierarchical social structure, among others (Zeder 2005; Smith 1998). Domestication of animals can be observed through genetically-based morphological features, such as changes in facial structure and body size (Zeder 2005; Smith 1998; O’Connor 2000; Reitz and Wing 2008).

Canis lupus familiaris (dogs) are the earliest domesticated animal (Morey 2010).

In the case of Jacob’s Island-1B and -1C, where remains of C. lupus familiaris specimens are common, it is especially important to determine if the specimens are from domesticated animals. To correctly identify C. lupus familiaris specimens in the sample, I used two methods. First, I used C. lupus familiaris, C. lupus, and C. latrans specimens in the reference collection. Then, I took specific morphometric measurements on select C. lupus familiaris elements from the sample and compared them with known specimens. I outline these methods below.

Measurements of Canis lupus familiaris elements

Variations in the size and morphology of domesticated animals through time are best observed quantitatively (Morey 2010). Studies have illustrated that osteological measurements can be used to identify C. lupus familiaris remains from archaeological sites (Morey 2010; Germonpre et al. 2009; Germonpre et al. 2012; Detry and Cardoso

2010; Higham et al. 1980; Brothwell et al. 1979; Morey and Aaris-Sorensen 2002;

Vellanoweth et al. 2008; Dayan 1994; Sablin and Khlopachev 2002; Bartelle et al. 2010;

Morey 1992; Morey and Waint 1992; Morey 1986). Other studies have used measurements to determine allometric patterns between wild and modern Canids

(Howard 1949; Jolicoeur 1959; Wayne 1986; Elder and Hayden 1977; Schmitz and

Kolenosky 1985; Kolenosky and Stanfield 1975; Schmitt and Wallace 2012; Lawrence and Bossert 1975; Milenkovic et al. 2010; Skeel and Carbyn 1977).

Metric data were collected on complete adult C. lupus familiaris elements within the faunal sample. Comparisons with other assemblages aid in determining size ranges, identifying morphological changes and variation in early domesticated C. lupus familiaris

42 in Ontario. These comparisons allow me to assess whether these specimens from Jacob’s

Island-1B are from dogs and if they are from a distinct population of Canis sp..

Following von den Driesch (1976), measurements taken were taken to the nearest

0.01 mm using digital sliding calipers. Measurements were compared to C. lupus familiaris samples from other Holocene sites, a Wendat site, and modern C. lupus, and C. latrans datasets (listed below in Table 3.1 and 3.2).

Site Location No. of specimens Source Larson South Dakota, USA 11 Morey (1986) Walth Bay “ 5 “ Lower Grand “ 3 “ Potts “ 2 “ Pretty Head “ 1 “ Swan Creek “ 1 “ Anton Rygh “ 1 “ Robe North Dakota, USA 3 “ Big Hidasta North Dakota, USA 4 “ Sakakawea North Dakota, USA 1 “ Koster Illinois, USA 3*, 1° *Morey and Wiant (1992); °Morey (1992) Bailey Illinois, USA 1 Morey (2010,1992) Cherry Illinois, USA 1 “ Eva Illinois, USA 1 “ Indian Knoll Kentucky, USA 14 “ Carlson Annis “ 5 “ Ward “ 4 “ Chiggerville “ 1 “ Read “ 1 “ Perry Alabama, USA 7 “ Whitesburg “ 1 “ Bridge Flint River “ 2 “ Little Bear “ 2 “ Creek Mulberry Creek “ 3 “ Murdoc Illinois, USA 1 Morey (2010)

Table 3.1: Canis lupus familiaris specimens from archaeological sites used in metric analysis.

Canis sp. No. of Specimens Reference C. lupus (juvenile) 23 Morey (2010) C. lupus lycaon (adult) *56, °59 *Morey (2010); °Morey (1992) C. latrans (adult) *62,°62 *Morey (2010); °Morey (1992) C. lupus (adult) *311, °21 *Skeel and Carbyn (1977),°Schmitz and Kolenosky (1985)

Table 3.2: Modern Canis sp. datasets used in metric analysis of Canis lupus familiaris.

An F-ratio was calculated to determine if the probability of the differences observed between the specimens were the result of variances in sampling. In addition, a multivariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was constructed to determine if the C. lupus familiaris specimens from Jacob’s Island-1B exhibit significant morphological differences, and can therefore be defined as a distinct population.

Age and Sex Identification

Sexing bones is important since it can provide information on economic activity, subsistence, breeding, culling, and ritual practices (Ruscillo 2003; Weinstock 2000).

Animals exhibit changes in physiology at various stages of their life and as a result of sexual dimorphism. Here, I outline the methods I used to estimate the age and sex of individuals found in the faunal assemblage, and what they can reveal about animal resource use at Jacob’s Island-1B.

Age-at-death distribution in an archaeological sample may reflect human decision making or variation in mobility, seasonality of site occupation, and ritual activity

(O’Connor 2000; Reitz and Wing 2008). The methods used here include tooth eruption, wear patterns, bone size, degree of epiphyseal fusion, and age-related pathologies. I use

44 these methods to estimate the approximate age of identified specimens in the faunal assemblage.

Tooth eruption occurs when permanent teeth begin to replace deciduous teeth. In

Canis lupus familiaris¸ this occurs between three and seven months after birth (Hillson

2005). Specimens identified as deciduous teeth were classified as juveniles. Counts of cementum annuli were not attempted as a result of time constraints. Wear patterns were examined to determine age-at-death for individuals that died past seven months of age. I had hoped to use Horard-Herbin’s (2000) wear stages on lower first permanent molars to determine age of C. lupus familiaris, but the sample size turned out to be too small.

As a complement to these approaches, I assess changes in bone structure and fusion patterns to produce a more complete picture of age-of-death at the site. If a long bone was observed to have unfused epiphyses, the specimen was classified as a juvenile.

Lastly, age-related pathologies such as osteoporosis (O’Connor 2000; Monks 1981) were noted during identification. Age-related pathologies are useful because they can provide information on the life histories of individuals.

Determining the sex of an individual specimen is often difficult, as sexually diagnostic features may not be present (Reitz and Wing 2008). Diagnostic anatomical features can be used to determine sex, including, bacula found in carnivores, horns and antlers in some cervidae (except Rangifer sp.) and bovidae, and pronounced canines

(Reitz and Wing 2008; Ruscillo 2003; Weinstock 2000). Body size and increased robusticity are also useful for determining the sex of an individual, as males are usually larger than females (Reitz and Wing 2008; Ruscillo 2003). Since there were no complete humeri identified in the Jacob’s Island-1B and -1C faunal assemblage, Ruscillo’s (2006,

2003) Humeri ‘Table Test’ method could not be used to determine the sex of Canis

45 familiaris specimens at the site. I could also not use Lorber et al.’s (1979) method to determine the sex of C. lupus familiaris specimens using canines due to a small sample size.

The lack of complete elements, small sample size, and identifiable morphological features may limit the ability to determine sex in C. lupus familiaris at the site. Canis lupus familiaris remains are especially difficult to sex as a result of size variations between breeds and differential life histories (Ruscillo 2003).

The Coding System

A database was created in Excel 2010 to facilitate the collection and analysis of the Jacob’s Island-1B and -1C faunal assemblage. The codes used in the database are presented in Appendix 3.0 along with a description of each variable. Each specimen was given its own unique catalogue number and in most cases, this number was written directly onto the bone surface. A sample of the floatation data was also included in the database.

3.2 Quantification

Quantification allows for interpretation of subsistence and butchery, transport, ritual practices, and comparisons between faunal assemblages. Here, I describe the quantification methods I used in my analysis. I detail each method, provide a discussion of criticisms and strengths, and argue why I have chosen these methods to quantify the faunal data.

NISP

NISP (number of identified specimens) is the absolute number of identifiable fragments from a site (Davis 1987; Reitz and Wing 2008; Lyman 2008). NISP can be expressed as a percentage of specimens by stratigraphic level or feature, or for the entire site. The use of NISP to quantify data has several advantages: it can be easily calculated and it is an additive measure (Lyman 2008). NISP also has a number of disadvantages: it is heavily affected by fragmentation (O’Connor 2000; Noe-Nygaard 1979; Ringrose

1993; Lyman 2008) and better preserved or more diagnostic bones will be tallied more. I used refits and MNI to reduce the problem of counting the same element more than once.

MNI

MNI is the minimum number of individuals needed to account for all identifiable elements in an archaeological assemblage. Calculations of MNI are based on the most abundant skeletal element by taxon in the sample (O’Connor 2000). MNI is less affected by fragmentation than NISP because it is determined by counting diagnostic features

(Lyman 2008). However, it can over-represent rare taxa in a faunal assemblage due to the nonlinear increase of MNI with sample size (Lyman 2008). Faunal analysts may use different methods to quantify MNI (Lyman 2008; Banning 2000; Grayson 1984). There is no standard method to quantify MNI, so it is important that analysts explicitly state their method of calculation (Lyman 2008). I consider side and developmental age when calculating MNI for this faunal assemblage. These results are presented in a table for identified species.

MNE

MNE (minimum number of skeletal elements) is calculated by determining the minimum number of elements represented in a faunal sample (Reitz and Wing 2008). It is strongly correlated with NISP, and forms the basis of MNI (Lyman 2008). As such, it exhibits much of the same advantages and disadvantages.

MNE values are obtained by sorting each identifiable specimen by element, then dividing the amount of paired elements by both sides. The side with the highest value for each element determines the MNE value of that element (Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984). To assess level of fragmentation, I noted the portion of each element represented in the sample, including proximal, medial, and distal proportions for all long bones (see

Appendix 3.0 for further details).

3.3 Taphonomic Analysis

Taphonomy affects the preservation, recovery, and identification of faunal material (Bartosiewicz 2008). Therefore, zooarchaeologists need to include taphonomic analysis in their approach. Conducting a taphonomic analysis can aid in distinguishing between the effect of cultural and natural agents on a sample. Taphonomic analysis is useful in addressing social practices of consumption and deposition, as well as reconstructing human-animal relationships (Orton 2010; Marin-Arroyo et al. 2011).

In order to determine if depositional processes are related to cultural activities, I use a modified version of Orton’s (2010) framework to structure my taphonomic analysis and interpretation of the site. Orton (2010) outlines 5 stages of taphonomic analysis that can be used to extract cultural information from a faunal sample. Stage one includes

48 assessing evidence for density-mediated attrition on bones. Unfortunately, due to the small size of the faunal samples, I was not able to assess the effect of density-mediated attrition on the Canis lupus familiaris specimens. Stage two analyzes the frequency and severity of gnawing and weathering. Stage three assesses breakage and fragmentation rates to interpret food preparation practices and intensity of humans use. Stage four focuses on identifying burning and butchery marks to infer human food and refuse disposal practices. Lastly, stage five analyzing skeletal element representation, which includes interpretation of MAU profiles (Orton 2010). The goal of this stage is to compare cultural transportation, butchery, deposition, and distribution patterns (Orton

2010).

Observing Physical Agents on Faunal Remains

Weathering is the natural decomposition and destruction of faunal remains as a result of the elements, which frequently occur under prolonged above and below-ground exposure (Behrensmeyer 1978; Lyman 2008; Madgwick and Mulville 2011). Different environmental conditions influence the extent of weathering on an assemblage, causing distinctive modification patterns including cracking, flaking, exfoliation, peeling, and splitting, sometimes resulting in a complete destruction of bone (Behrensmeyer 1978;

Madgwick and Mulville 2011).

The extent of weathering damage was recorded during the identification process using the weathering stages outlined by Behrensmeyer (1978), listed in Table 3.3).

Bone Description Weathering Stage 0 No cracking or flaking 1 Some longitudinal cracking along long bones. Articular surfaces show cracking 2 Outer thin layer shows evidence of cracking and extensive flaking Long cracks are common and deeper 3 Bone surface is rough, homogenous wreathing pattern, thin outer layer removed Bone is still relatively complete and cracks are round in cross-section 4 Bone surface is coarse and rough in texture Large splinters observed and loose enough to fall away Cracks are open and have splintered round edges 5 Bone is falling apart Large splinters, bone is fragile, and easily broken

Table 3.3: Bone weathering stages adapted from Behrensmeyer (1978).

Some bones and taxa may exhibit higher rates of weathering than others

(Madgwick and Mulville 2011). I present the weathering results including stage and % per taxa, in order to assess whether some taxa are more affected by weathering than others. I also examine if there is a comparison between degree of weathering (0-5) and fragment size.

Other surface modifications that were examined during the identification process include striations, crushing, peeling, concretions, extent of concretions (1– none, 2 – some, and 3 – many), pits, exfoliation, and scratches. Gnawing and associated surface modification activities were identified using Binford (1981). Quantification of these observations allow for a more holistic analysis of non-human taphonomic modifications on bone.

When used in conjunction with other taphonomic observations on bone, such as gnawing, fracture patterns, degree of fragmentation, observations of weathering patterns can be used to infer site formation processes (Behrensmeyer 1978; Orton 2011;

Madgwick and Mulville 2011).

Modification by Animals

Combined with other lines of taphonomic analyses, observations of animal modifications on faunal remains can provide valuable information on site formation processes and depositional histories (Orton 2010). Studies have evaluated taphonomic patterns reflecting different models of animal consumption on an archaeological assemblage (Lloveras et al. 2011; Saladie et al. 2011). Large carnivores can have a significant impact on an assemblage, by pitting, furrowing, puncturing, scoring, and destroying faunal remains (Binford 1981; Lyman 2008). Rodents can gnaw and transport bones, which may disturb the assemblage (Binford 1981; Reitz and Wing 2008; Lyman

1994). Traces of animal modification were observed during faunal identification using the following variables: tooth pitting, digested, ragged edge, notch, and grooves (Binford

1981). I also rated the extent of these variables from 0 (none) to 3 (covered).

Fragmentation

Fragmentation relates to the fracture and extent of breakage of specimens in a faunal assemblage. Fragmentation may occur during procurement, use, deposition, excavation, and final study (Reitz and Wing 2008). Although fragmentation can inhibit the identification and quantification of an assemblage, it can be used as an indicator of human behaviour, given that it may reflect food preparation, processing practices, intensity of

51 human occupation, and post-depositional transformations such as weathering (Orton

2010).

To account for and quantify fragmentation, I have classified specimen size (mm) by using size classes based on maximum lengths, following Outram (2011) 0 10, 10 20, 20

30, 30 40, 40 50, 50 60, 60 80, 80 100, 100. These results are presented in a histogram to measure the frequency of fragments in each size class (Outram 2011; Lyman

1994). Measurements were taken using digital sliding calipers and rounded to the nearest millimeter.

In conjunction with fragmentation, I assessed fracture and breakage patterns. Breakage patterns and fractures on long bones may shed light on pre-and post-depositional processes. Although fracture patterns are complex (Lyman 1994), they can still be quantified to infer intentional human processing and depositional practices (Outram 2001;

2002).

Evidence of deliberate fracturing of long bones by humans can be assessed when combined with data on fragmentation and element type (Outram 2001; 2002). Here, I use a modified version of Outram’s (2001) method to quantify fracture patterns. For identified long bones, I record: shaft length, shaft circumference, presence of fracture, fracture type, and detailed fracture outline.

Additionally, I compared degrees of fragmentation between taxa, levels, features, and burning and weathering intensity. The aim of this approach is to quantify the degree of fragmentation at the site and determine whether it results from post-depositional and/or anthropogenic processes.

Surface Modifications Caused by Humans

Humans may modify bones as a result of cultural activities. Evidence of human modification of animal bones can take many forms, including, but not limited to: burning, butchery marks, colouring, polishing, retouching, and percussion markings. Animal remains may also be modified as a result of subsistence practices, trade, ritual activities, tool making, disposal, consumption, food preparation practices, and storage (Reitz and

Wing 2008; O’Connor 2000). Variables included in my analysis of culturally modified specimens (Anthropogenic Transformations in Appendix 3.0) include: cut marks, polishing, retouching, burning, red ochre staining, percussion marks, and evidence of excavation damage (e.g., trowel marks). The extent of these modifications on individual specimens were scored from 0 (none) to 3 (covered). Obviously, some specimens may exhibit multiple types of marks. Of particular relevance here is the quantification and analysis of cut marks, burning, and red ochre staining.

Butchery is the reduction and dismemberment of an animal by humans into consumable parts while the meat is still attached to the bones (Noe-Nygaard 1977; Lyman

1994; 2008). Evidence of butchery on faunal remains can be observed in the archaeological record through the study of cut marks (Binford 1981). Animals may be butchered in a variety of ways, as determined by cultural norms, skeletal anatomy, species type, and types of tools used (Binford 1978; Lyman 2005; Noe-Nygaard 1977). Butchery marks may arise from food preparation, consumption, disposal, or ritual practices such as feasting (Orton 2010).

Specimens may exhibit distinct changes in colour and structure when exposed to a source of heat. Evidence of burning or heat modification on bones can be used to infer past subsistence practices, cooking, disposal, and ritual activities (Lyman 1994;

O’Connor 2000; Reitz and Wing 2008). When faunal remains are exposed to varying degrees of heat, their colour may be altered (Stiner et al 1995, Lyman 1994). As a result, colour can be a good indicator of burning damage at the macroscopic level (Stiner et al.

1995). Here, I use Stiner et al.’s (1995) scoring system to determine the degree of burning observed on each individual specimen. This system uses a burn colour code ordinal scale: from 0-6 based on grades of burning (Stiner et al. 1995) (Table 3.4).

Bone Description Colour Code 0 Not burned Cream or tan colour 1 Slightly burned in localized area Less than half carbonized 2 Lightly burned More than half carbonized 3 Fully carbonized (100%) Black in colour 4 Localized burning area and less than half calcined More black observed than white 5 More than half calcined More white observed than black 6 Fully calcined (100%) White in colour

Table 3.4: Bone colour coding adapted from Stiner et al. (1995).

By using the burn coding system described by Stiner et al. (1995), it should be possible to observe burning or heat modification patterns on all specimens. In addition to changes in colour, burned bones can exhibit other physiological changes, such as cracks, warping, twisting, fracturing and breakage along the shaft, and shrinkage (Byers 2008;

Stiner et al. 1995). These aspects were noted during the identification process.

Burning can increase fragmentation, thus making specimens difficult to identify

(Reitz and Wing 2008; O’Connor 2000; Stiner et al. 1995). I compared burn stages between taxa to determine if certain species were preferentially heat-treated.

Ploughing, Trampling, and Burning at Jacob’s Island

Historically, Jacob’s Island and the surrounding area were used for farming. By

1861, there were 167 farms located within the area (Brunger 1992). This number fluctuated during the 1800s as logging became the main industry, although some farmers were part-time lumbermen (Brunger 1992). Farms produced wheat, oats, barley, potatoes, and peas, and some managed livestock and manually or horse-pulled ploughs were used until the end of the nineteenth century (Brunger 1992). This scene was common in

Southern Ontario and as a result, it is rare to find archaeological sites that have not been affected by ploughing (Timmins 1996).

Jacob’s Island was farmed by Mr. James Crowley in the 1800s and some of the vegetation was cleared for construction of residential structures (Brunger 1992; AMEC

Earth and Environmental 2010a).

Ploughing impacts archaeological sites by; 1) increasing fragmentation rates, 2) disturbing site stratigraphy, and 3) modifying artifact distribution (Schiffer 1987).

Although these impacts can make interpretation and analysis difficult, assessing plough zone components can still be useful to interpreting site structures and spatial patterns

(Lennox 1986; Woodley 1990). The effects of fragmentation on species identification and analysis will be discussed in detail in Chapter 7. In the present case, all artifact provenience information was recorded.

Trampling may contribute to artifact damage and may modify spatial patterns.

Jacob’s Island is currently used for a number of recreation activities associated with

Camp Maple Leaf. These include a variety of outdoor sports, as well as construction of new buildings, and camp fires. Effects of trampling and burning on faunal specimens will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 7. Evidence of burning was noted during the excavation process through changes in soil colour and the presence of charcoal.

Refit Analysis

Refitting is the reconstruction of bone fragments belonging to the same skeletal element (Hoffman 1992). Refits may be used to interpret natural and cultural sequences of disturbance at a site (Hoffman 1992), and to map the spatial and stratigraphic deposition of artifact deposits. It can also be used for isolating activity areas and for testing cultural stratigraphies (Hoffman 1992; Morin et al. 2005; Rosell et al. 2012).

Importantly, refits can be used to help identify faunal material from a sample (Marean and Kim 1998).

Refits were used here to assess the extent of mixing at Jacob’s Island-1B and -1C.

The results were quantified by presenting the NISP of refits divided by the total sample for all features and levels (Morin et al. 2005).

3.4 Summary

In this chapter, I have described the methods of identification, quantification, and taphonomic analysis used in this thesis. I have highlighted how the specimens were identified in the Jacob’s Island-1B and -1C faunal assemblage. Additionally, I have

56 discussed possible biases within each stage of analysis, and provided some solutions to these problems, while also highlighting some apparent strengths and weaknesses. The goals of taphonomic analysis are to isolate different zooarchaeological patterns and address social questions relating to human activities at the site.

Chapter 4

PREVIOUS RESEARCH AND SAMPLE DESCRIPTION

In this section, I will describe the history of human occupation, geography and environmental setting, and previous archaeological research at Jacob’s Island.

Additionally, I introduce the faunal assemblage that was analyzed for this thesis.

4.1 Environmental and Geographical Setting

I outline past and present environmental data in order to identify how human groups interacted with the landscape at Jacob’s Island and the surrounding region.

Palynological, pedological, geological, hydrological, climatological, and ecological data are used to discuss general environmental trends occurring in this area through time.

Focus is placed on biotic factors and how they may have influenced both human resource use and preservation of the faunal remains at Jacob’s Island.

Study Area

The archaeological site discussed in this thesis is located on Jacob’s Island

(700700E/4928000N). Jacob’s Island covers approximately 98 acres, and is situated in

Harvey Ward, Township of Galway-Cavendish and Harvey, Peterborough County,

Ontario, Canada. The island is situated approximately 70 km from Lake Simcoe and Lake

Ontario, and is North of Peterborough and East of Bobcaygeon, Ontario. The island is located on Pigeon Lake (latitude 44.471, longitude -78.495), and is part of the Tri-Lake

Complex, which includes Chemong and Buckhorn Lake (Ministry of Natural Resources

2012), within the Kawartha Lakes, Trent-Severn Waterway. Pigeon Lake is 5,344 hectares, has a maximum depth of 17.4 metres, and an average depth of 3 metres

(Ministry of Natural Resources 2012). There are numerous cottages in the surrounding area and the Lake is a frequented fishing destination.

Geological Setting

Jacob’s Island lies on the Precambrian Shield and is covered with shallow glacial deposits (Chapman and Putman 1984). The underlying bedrock was created during the

Ordovician period (Chapman and Putman 1984; Baldwin et al. 2000). The site is situated on the Peterborough drumlin field and defined by ground moraine, sandy and drumlin till, which were created when the Laurentide Ice Sheet receded (Gravenor 1957, 1959;

Chapman and Putman 1984; Gadd 1980, Baldwin et al. 2000). The retreat of the Ice Sheet during the late Pleistocene caused glacial run-off, which formed large lakes with fluctuating water levels, including Lake Algonquin and Lake Iroquois (Jackson et al.

2000; Baldwin et al. 2000). Lake Algonquin drained into Lake Iroquois through the

Kirkfield Drainage Outlet, the current location of the Kawartha Lakes. Glaciation and melting patterns formed the present landscape and influenced the development of current soil and waterways in Ontario (Baldwin et al. 2000).

According to the Canadian System of Soil Classification, Jacob’s Island is comprised of mainly brunisols and luvisols that developed on forested glacial till

(Baldwin et al. 2000). These soils are well drained and run-off water flows into the Lake

Ontario and Lake Erie Basin Watershed (Baldwin et al. 2000).

Ecological Setting

The glaciers began to melt during the Late Pleistocene and southern Ontario was covered mainly by open herb-tundra vegetation (Fuller 1997). Palynological data from lake sediments from Graham Lake (45° 11’N, 77° 21’W) and High Lake (44° 31’N, 76°

36’W) suggest that forest composition and type varied throughout the Holocene from tundra to boreal vegetation (Fuller 1997). During the early Holocene, Picea, Pinus banksiana and Populus began to invade into areas of tundra vegetation (Fuller 1997;

Bernabo and Webb 1977). Distributions of Quercus, Betula, and Acer change and expand throughout the Holocene as a result of climatic variation (Bernabo and Webb 1977). By the middle Holocene, regional vegetation patterns changed as Tsuga canadensis populations declined in eastern North America (Fuller 1997). This decline may be related to the modification of forests by anthropogenic processes such as burning and clearing

(Fuller 1997; Thompson 2000a). Archaeobotanical remains identified at Jacob’s Island includes: Amaranthus, Aralia, Celtis, Euphorbia, Galium, Helianthus tuberosus,

Lepidium , Phaseolus vulgaris, Poaceae, Polygonum erectum, Portulaca oleracea,

Rubus, and Vicia (J. Conolly, personal communication 2013). These species suggest that the island may have been covered with grassy, herbaceous plants, legumes, fruit-bearing deciduous trees, woody shrubs, and small succulents.

Currently, Jacob’s Island is characterized by Carolinian forest, specifically the

Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forest (Thompson 2000a). The island is located on the border of the Canadian Shield and the St. Lawrence Lowlands (Ritchie 1987). The forests are defined by mixed wood and deciduous trees with relatively high amount of species richness (for species list see Appendix 4.0). Thompson (2000a) suggests that there are 40

– 49 mammals, <20 amphibians and reptiles, and <100 bird species present within the

Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forest region. Species distribution varies locally and is dependent on landscape and habitat continuity.

Holocene climatic changes influenced the successional formation of multiple biotic communities (Jackson et al. 2000). Animal species and ecological communities occupying the Jacob’s Island region are numerous (for species lists see A. 4.1-4.6).

Animal colonization of the region began after the recessing of the Laurentide Ice Sheet

(Cleland 1966). Late Pleistocene fauna included several large extinct mammals species such as Symbos cavifrons (muskox), Mammuthus jeffersoni (Jefferson mammoth),

Mammut americanus (American mastodon), Cervalces (giant moose), and Castoroides

(giant beaver) (Cleland 1966). Rangifer tarandus (woodland caribou), Canis lupus (gray wolf), and Ursus americanus (bear) would have also inhabited the forming tundra ecosystem (Cleland 1966). Climate change during the Holocene influenced the succession of boreal to mixed coniferous woodland vegetation attracting a suite of new animals to the area. Current distributions of animal species are similar to those present during the

Middle to Late Holocene - with the exception of non-native invasive species such as

Rattus norvegicus (Norwegian rat), Mus musculus (house mouse), Didelphis virginiana

(Virginia opossum), and Glaucomys volans (Southern flying squirrel).

Climatic Changes and Fluctuating Water Levels

Climatic trends throughout the Holocene period influenced the formation of bodies of water, as water levels increased due to isostatic uplift during deglaciation (Zu and McAndrew 1994).

The early Holocene is characterized by warmer temperatures with increasing atmospheric moisture, as the glaciers began to melt. Glacial melt water output from Lake

Algonquian increased regional water levels (Jackson et al. 2000). Analysis of plant fossil data from Rice Lake suggests water levels increased in the Trent Severn Waterway region between 8600 – 6000 B.P., and continued to increase due to isostatic rebound (Zu and

McAndrews 1994). During the Middle Holocene, water levels are expected to have dropped due to an increase in temperature by 1°C and decrease in annual precipitation by

10% (Zu and McAndrew 1994). As a result of continental cooling during the Late

Holocene (after 4000 B.P.), humidity increased and cooler temperatures caused the water level to rise within the region (Holloway and Bryant 1985; Zu and McAndrews 1994). As global temperature stabilized, water levels became more stable. Modern damming of local waterways in the Trent-Severn Waterway region drastically impacted water levels and the extent of local shorelines.

Construction of numerous lock systems and dams in the area during the 1830s dramatically altered the size of the surrounding lakes (Angus 2000). Completed in 1838, the Buckhorn Lake dam and lock increased the size of Pigeon Lake, flooding nearby marshes (Angus 2000, AMEC Earth and Environmental 2010a). During the 1870s,

Pigeon Lake was dredged to allow easier steamship access to the surrounding area

(AMEC Earth and Environmental 2010a). Logging was the predominant industry in the area during the nineteenth century. In brief, the shape and depth of Pigeon Lake have fluctuated through time as a result of climatic and anthropogenic factors, which may have impacted site accessibility or extent.

4.2 Site History

In this section, I briefly outline historic settlement types, periods of site occupation, and landownership of the island.

The island and surrounding area were inhabited by First Nations peoples for centuries. The wetland and forest ecosystems provided a wealth of resources to utilize. By the early 1600s, European immigrants began frequenting the area – first Samuel de

Champlain when he travelled through Gannon’s Narrows to Buckhorn Lake (Galvin

1978; Mallory 1991). By the late 1700s, the Mississaugas established a permanent settlement at the site (Galvin 1978; Mallory 1991). From 1821 – 1922, 8.5 million acres of land were handed over to the Crown by the Mississaugas (Mallory 1991). A 1600 acre reserve was established between Lake Buckhorn and Lake Chemong in 1829 for the Mud

Lake Band (now known as Curve Lake First Nations) (Mallory 1991). In 1825, the Upper

Canada government sponsored the immigration of British settlers to the region, under the direction of Peter Robinson (Galvin 1978). By 1826, logging and clearing of the land for agriculture had begun (Galvin 1978). Various mills were built in the surrounding region and logs were floated through the Tri-Lake Complex (Mallory 1991; Brunger 1992).

Most of the region was inhabited by lumbermen in 1864 and European settlers (AMEC

Earth and Environmental 2010a). Mr. James Crowley was the first individual to gain legal possession of the land in 1876 (AMEC Earth and Environmental 2010a).

Ownership of Jacob’s Island changed hands numerous times throughout the 1800s, until the last deed was granted to Ms. Letitia Buchanan in 1933 (AMEC Earth and

Environmental 2010a).

Pigeon Lake has a long history of cottage construction that continues today. The first cottages were built around the Lake before the First World War and a cottage and boathouse were built on Jacob’s Island in 1905 by Mrs. Bates (Brunger 1992).

Currently, the site is occupied by Camp Maple Leaf. The camp was established in

1955 by the Canadian Council of War Veterans, and in 1995 ownership was transferred to

Banyan Community Services (Camp Maple Leaf 2012a). The camp is run as a charity for children of lower socio-economic backgrounds and of military families (Camp Maple

Leaf 2012b). Additionally, the Camp is used occasionally as a training ground for the

Canadian Armed Forces (AMEC Earth and Environmental 2010a). Camp Maple Leaf is open year-round to military families who utilize the facilities and resources (Camp Maple

Leaf 2012b).

4.3 Archaeological Research at Jacob’s Island

In this section, I outline the recent archaeological work at Jacob’s Island.

Initial Detection

No previous research had been conducted at Jacob’s Island prior to 2009. On

September 29, 2009, human remains were accidentally discovered at the site during the initial construction of a Welcome Centre by Camp Maple Leaf (AMEC Earth and

Environmental 2010a). The Ontario Provincial Police and the coroner were notified. Once the remains were determined to be archaeological, AMEC Americas Limited Earth and

Environmental were contracted by Banyan Community Service to conduct an

Archaeological Property Assessment on selected locations on the island, including the

64 burial area (BcGo-17) and another archaeological site (BcGo-18) (AMEC Earth and

Environmental 2010a, 2010b). A representative from Curve Lake First Nations and Dr. J.

Conolly (Trent University) were also notified.

BcGo-17

The Stages 1 and 2 Archaeological Property Assessment of the site were carried out by Dr. Shaun Austin, Project Director and Ms. Nancy Saxberg of AMEC Americas

Limited, in accordance with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture’s Standards and

Guidelines (2009) (AMEC Earth and Environmental 2010a). The Stages 1 and 2

Assessments encompassed 24,171 m2 of the island, and focused primarily on the burial

(AMEC Earth and Environmental 2010a). The Stage 1 Assessment was conducted to determine the archaeological potential of the burial selected areas of the island (AMEC

Earth and Environmental 2010a). The Stage 2 Assessment included test-pitting and surveying disturbed areas of the island. Test-pitting was conducted in zones deemed to have a high archaeological potential on the island and proceeded at 5 m intervals 30 cm in diameter (AMEC Earth and Environmental 2010a). When archaeological material was detected in the 30 cm test-pits, the unit was excavated to varying depths and the soil was screened through a ¼ inch mesh (AMEC Earth and Environmental 2010a). Artifacts located during the assessment were collected, bagged, and positioned using a GarminTM

GPSMAP 60Cx Global Positioning System and set to the North American Datum 83

(AMEC Earth and Environmental 2010a). In total, 176 test-pits were excavated and two archaeological sites were identified. Results of the Stage 1 and 2 Assessments of the burial area yielded a total of 94 artifacts, including stone tools, debitage, faunal material, a ceramic pot sherd, historic nails, and a white clay pipe bowl, among other materials.

Figure 4.1: Map of study region with Jacob’s Island encircled, from AMEC Earth and Environmental (2010a)

The disturbed burial area is identified with the Borden number BcGo-17 (for general location see figure 4.1). The remains of two individuals, one adult female, and one child were found within the burial area (AMEC Earth and Environmental 2010a). All

66 human remains were examined in situ and were associated with a number of grave offerings, including four gastropod shell beads, a conch fragment, and faunal remains

(AMEC Earth and Environmental 2010a). The faunal remains from the graves were not included in this thesis because they were left undisturbed with the buried individuals. Dr.

J. Conolly was invited by the Registrar of Cemeteries for Ontario to conduct a determination of the burial area. Excavation of the burial area was conducted on

November 9 – 10, 2009 in accordance with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and

Culture’s Stage 3 Assessment guidelines (Conolly 2010). Twenty 1 x 1 m units were excavated, 5 m apart, and in a 10 m radius surrounding the original burial area (Conolly

2010). All soil was screened through 5 mm mesh (Conolly 2010). The results of his excavations are used in this thesis.

BcGo-18

The Stage 2 Assessment of the island took place on April 9 - 10, 2010 (AMEC

Earth and Environmental 2010b). Three target areas were identified (1 - Welcome Centre,

2 - Welcome Shed, and 3 - Maintenance Equipment Storage Building) and assessed

(AMEC Earth and Environmental 2010b) (figure 4.2). This assessment included test- pitting at 5 m intervals, 30 cm in diameter and 5 cm into the subsoil (AMEC Earth and

Environmental 2010b). Soils from the test-pits were screened through 6 mm mesh and when artifacts were detected, the frequency of test-pits was increased to a 2 m radius around the area of artifact discovery (AMEC Earth and Environmental 2010b).

Additionally, 1 x 1 m units were excavated in areas where artifacts were detected (AMEC

Earth and Environmental 2010b). The artifacts were also located using a GarminTM

GPSMAP 60Cx Global Positioning System and set to the North American Datum 83

(AMEC Earth and Environmental 2010b). In total, 189 test-pits were excavated and screened (AMEC Earth and Environmental 2010b). The results of the Stage 2 Assessment included the recovery of a single juvenile subgreywacke projectile point, which was recognized as BcGo-18 (AMEC Earth and Environmental 2010b). The artifact from

BcGo-18 was not included in this thesis as the site contains no faunal material.

Figure 4.2: Locations of the three target areas for the Stage 2 Archaeological Property Assessment conducted by AMEC Earth and Environmental in 2010, from AMEC Earth and Environmental (2010b).

2011-2012 Excavations

Further excavation of Jacob’s Island was conducted by Dr. J. Conolly and student volunteers from Trent University in 2011 and 2012. Excavations of the site continued through a field school course at Trent University. The goals of the 2012 excavations were to: 1) increase the sampling of features around the burial area, in order to infer site subsistence and technological organization during occupation, 2) test to see if the excavated area was used for ritual activities, and 3) teach participants proper excavation methods and documentation skills (J. Conolly, personal communication 2013).

Approximately 15 – 20 undergraduate students participated in these excavations. The extent of the excavations under the direction of Dr. J. Conolly is shown in figure 4.3 in

Appendix 4.0. In total, 36 features from 148 units were excavated (see figure 4.4 in

Appendix 4.0 for locations of 2010 excavated features).

4.4 The Chronology and the Faunal Assemblage

The chronology of Jacob’s Island is complex. Radiocarbon-dated features, associated cultural phases, and number of specimens within each feature, are listed in

Table 4.1.

The faunal material analyzed in this thesis is from BcGo-17 and includes faunal materials from the 2009 to 2012 excavations, and is composed of 2267 faunal specimens.

All specimens were stored in the Archaeozoology Laboratory at Trent University and during the summer of 2012. A sample was also stored at the Howard Savage Faunal

Archaeo-Osteology Laboratory, University of Toronto.

All faunal specimens that were deemed to be large enough were marked with a pen using black India ink directly onto the bone. The label indicates unit number, catalogue number, bag number, correlates with the database, and each bone was attributed its own unique number. Based on the radiocarbon dates for each feature, specimens were assigned to a time period in order to examine temporal patterns.

Feature C14 Lab No. Uncal. C14 Cultural Phase Date (B.P.) F2010-14 BETA-332687 4290 +/-30 Late Archaic F2010-15 BETA-345511 3980 +/-30 Late Archaic F2010-19 BETA-332687 4290 +/- 30 Late Archaic F2010-2 BETA-288605 4430 +/-40 Late Archaic BETA-332688 4150 +/- 30 F2010-20 BETA-332689 3960 +/-30 Late Archaic BETA-288606 4160 +/-40 F2010-8 BETA-335090 9690 +/-40 Paleo-Indian BETA-288604 4310 +/-40 Late Archaic BETA-333152 1670 +/-30 Middle Woodland F2010-9 BETA-288603 4030 +/-40 Late Archaic F2010-1 BETA-345512 4210 +/-30 Late Archaic F2010-22 BETA-335091 1690 +/-30 Middle Woodland BETA-288608 4160 +/-40 Late Archaic F2010-21 BETA-2288607 900 +/-40 Late Woodland

Table 4.1: Temporal phases and uncalibrated radiocarbon dates by feature at Jacob’s Island.

4.5 Summary

Jacob’s Island is located within a range of ecosystems. Paleoenvironmental reconstructions for the area suggest that the environment at Jacob’s Island during the

Middle to Late Holocene occupation was slightly warmer, moister, and primarily composed of meadow and forest ecosystems. The island has been used for many purposes and has been continually modified in a variety of ways. Land clearing, ploughing, hearth construction, and building construction have all had an effect on the preservation and distribution of artifacts. Careful excavation methods and recording procedures have helped mitigate some of these processes.

Chapter 5

THE CHRONOLOGY OF JACOB’S ISLAND

In order to establish the chronology of the occupations at Jacob’s Island, several faunal samples were selected for radiocarbon-dating. With permission from the designated First Nation custodians at Curve Lake First Nation, a total of eighteen human and animal bones were radiocarbon-dated (Conolly et al. 2014[in press]). Most of the 36 features were dated, and some units are now associated with multiple dates of deposition.

5.1 The Chronology of Jacob’s Island

Not surprisingly, the sequence of occupations at Jacob’s island is quite complicated.

With the permission of the landowner, the Registrar of Cemeteries, and the Chief and

Counsel of the Curve Lake First Nations, specimens were chosen for radiocarbon dating.

The radiocarbon analysis of 28 specimens, from 16 distinct features, suggest four separate occupational periods: 1) uncal. 9620 B.P. (Early Archaic), 2) cal. 5000 – 4400 B.P. (Late

Archaic), 3) cal. 1600 – 1500 B.P. (Middle Woodland period), and 4) cal. 905 – 760 B.P.

(Late Woodland period) (Conolly 2013). Here, I outline the chronology of Jacob’s Island by feature, based on radiocarbon dates and associated cultural material.

In feature F2010-1, there is evidence of fire-cracked rock, suggesting the presence of a roasting or fire pit. These rocks could have also been moved here from another location. A single date, from a Canis sp. specimen was obtained for this feature (uncal.

4210+/-30 BETA-345512).

Figure 5.1: Features and associated uncal. radiocarbon dates (B.P.)

Feature 2010-2/ Burial Group B was disturbed by ploughing activities. However,

18 cm below the plough zone, primary and secondary burials were excavated in both flexed and extended positions. Both burials contain red ochre (Conolly 2013). At least 23 individuals in this feature are associated with several grave offerings—consisting of worked long bones, rodent teeth and mandibles, a bone fish hook, dog and bear premolars, and a piece of sheet mica. A deer bone (BETA-332688) and a human bone

(Beta-288605) were used to date this feature, with results ranging between uncal. 4430

+/-40 and uncal. 4150 +/-30 B.P. These dates suggest a period of occupation during the early Late Archaic period. F2010-2 is disturbed by features F2010-8 and F2010-14 and has two radiocarbon dates. It was included in this analysis because it is a large burial area, is securely dated to the same time period, and has a high number of faunal material present.

Feature 2010-15 (uncal. 3980+/-30 BETA-345511) is a pit feature not associated with mortuary activities. This feature may represent a disturbance of an earlier deposit with some mixing present between features.

Burial Group D/ F2010-20 is a large mortuary feature containing at least seven humans. Among the grave offerings were a beaver incisor found next to the left leg of one of the identified males. Other faunal remains were found mixed with the other individuals. Non-faunal grave offerings associated with the burial include a large green- stone axe directly associated with one of the individuals. This feature may be mixed or with Features 2010-22, and dates between uncal. 4160+/-40 (BETA-288606) and uncal.

3960+/-40 (BETA-332689).

At least three individuals in a bundle burial were excavated in Burial Group

C/F2010-9. These individuals have no identifiable grave offerings associated with them

(Conolly 2013). Although the feature was radiocarbon dated to the Late Archaic period

(uncal. 4030+/-40 BETA-288603), it may form a larger burial group that had been in use for centuries (Conolly 2013). The feature is disturbed by feature F2010-8, suggesting a

Middle Woodland pit intrusion (Conolly 2013).

Feature F2010-14 is a small pit that intersects F2010-2. It contains mainly Canis lupus familiaris remains and a single human metatarsal. This feature was radiocarbon dated to uncal. 4290+/-30 (BETA-332687), and coincided with the Later Archaic period.

Feature F2010-8 bisects F2010-2/ Burial Group B, F2010-9/ Burial Group C,

E375N7725, and E375N7726. These units were excavated in order to reconstruct the depth of this feature. As a result, two different areas of activity were determined. The field observations and the radiocarbon dates (uncal. 4310 +/-40 BETA-288604, uncal.

1670+/-30 BETA-333152, and uncal. 9690+/- 40 BETA-335090) suggest that a pit dug during the Middle Woodland cut across an Early Archaic human burial (Conolly 2013).

The range of radiocarbon dates and the presence of disturbed human remains in feature

F2010-8 indicate some disturbance and mixing between layers. As a result of the high degree of disturbance, the faunal material collected from this feature was not analyzed.

Unfortunately, feature 2010-22/ Burial Group E was only partly excavated. In addition, it was disturbed by ploughing. Human remains from this feature returned a date of uncal. 4160+/-40 (BETA-288608). However, a rodent bone in unit E378N7727 gave a date of uncal. 1690+/-30 (BETA-335091). Given these problems, the associated faunal material was not analyzed.

A single flexed individual was identified in feature F2010-21. One of the remains is dated to uncal 900+/-40 (BETA-288607), or during the Late Woodland period. Several zones of the sites were severely disturbed by ploughing and bulldozing activities—

75 including F2010-5, F2010-6, and F2010-7. Multiple soil samples were collected from these features. Charred botanical remains were also identified in these features (Conolly

2013).

These dates indicate that the site was used for burial purposes spanning at least three millennia. Due to high levels of mixing and site disturbance, faunal remains from non-radiocarbon dated units, pits, and features are not analytically comparable to material from dated features. Therefore, only the faunal material from features F2010-14, Burial

Group B (F2010-2), Burial Group C (F2010-9), F2010-15, Burial Group D (F2010-20), and F2010-1 were analyzed in detail in the present study. These features are treated as exclusive deposits representing single periods of occupation (Conolly, personal communication 2013).

5.2 Summary

In this brief chapter, I provide a chronology of the occupations at Jacob’s Island-

1B. Four distinct periods of occupation, ranging from the Early Archaic to the Late

Woodland period, were identified. Seven distinct features, F2010-14, Burial Group B

(F2010-2), Burial Group C (F2010-9), F2010-15, Burial Group D (F2010-20), and

F2010-1, were dated from area JI-1B. I will compare the faunal materials found within these features to determine differences in site use over time.

In the following chapter, the results of the faunal analysis are presented.

Taxonomic abundance and species diversity are calculated for each of the radiocarbon- dated features.

Chapter 6

RESULTS: FAUNAL ANALYSIS

In this chapter, the results of the faunal identification and analysis of 2267 faunal specimens are presented. Although, the NISP results from all units are presented for the entire site, only the faunal material from securely radiocarbon-dated features have been quantified and analyzed. I present taxonomic abundance measurements, and taxonomic rankings for these features. Additionally, the skeletal part representation of Canis lupus familiaris and Tamias striatus specimens are also presented. Lastly, I comment on changes in taxonomic abundance within each dated feature through time. The results of the faunal identification are presented in Appendix 6.0.

6.1 Taxonomic Abundance

In this section, I present and analyze the micro-faunal and macro-faunal specimens from 104 units, including 14 radiocarbon-dated features at Jacob’s Island-1B. NISP counts are provided for the entire site. However only the material from features F2010-

14, Burial Group B (F2010-2), Burial Group C (F2010-9), F2010-15, Burial Group D

(F2010-20), and F2010-1 are presented with MNI counts. The NISP results for non-dated features and units are presented for additional comparison. Measurements of the upper fourth premolar are compared to distinguish between Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus faunal remains.

Microfauna

Specimens from the floatation samples include 12349 micro faunal materials.

During the identification processes, identifiable material from the floatation samples were removed, identified, and given its own distinct catalogue number, which corresponds to its associated provenience information, and included in the faunal analysis. Floatation materials that could not be identified were counted and organized by unit or feature in

Appendix 6.1.1.

Refits and NISP

Pre-and post-refitted NISP values are briefly presented for the entire site in this chapter, and post-refitted values are used throughout the remainder of the faunal analysis.

Non-refitted faunal remains were only counted once in NISP calculations. The results of the refit analysis at Jacob’s Island-1B are discussed in greater depth in Chapter 6, in order to evaluate the extent of mixing between features.

The total number of refits by level and number of refits by NISP for all dated features is presented in Table 6.1 and 6.2. In total, 70 faunal specimens were refitted from

Features F2010-2, F2010-14, and F2010-20, reducing the total Feature NISP sample by

0.6%. As such, it did not affect feature NISP values significantly.

Level Refits

Topsoil (Green) 25 Subsurface (Yellow) 3 Feature (Red) 32 N/A 10 Total 70

Table 6.1: Number of refits by level.

Feature Refits Post-refit Pre-refit NISP Post-refit NISP n n n

F2010-1 0 0 31 31 F2010-2 10 5 42 37 F2010-9 0 0 4 4 F2010-14 6 2 61 57 F2010-15 0 0 67 67 F2010-20 14 8 142 136 Total 30 15 347 332

Table 6.2: Number of refits, Pre-refit, and post-refit NISP values for all radiocarbon- dated features.

NISP

The NISP values for the selected radiocarbon-dated features are presented in Table

6.3 and NISP values for all non-dated features are presented in Table 6.6. The most frequently identified taxon from the dated features at Jacob’s Island-1B were Carnivores, which composed 55% (n=208) of the faunal sample. Rodentia is the second most represented order in the dated features at the site, with 33% (n=133) (see Table 6.4).

Within these orders, Canidae 55% (n=206) and Sciuridae 31% (n=117) are the two most represented families from the dated features at the site (see Table 6.5).

Canis lupus familiaris and Tamias striatus are the two most abundant species at the site for both dated and non-dated features. Canis lupus familiaris accounts for 46%

(n=174) of the dated and 60% (n=277) nondated- features. Tamias striatus accounts for

25% (n=96) of the dated features and 8% (n=35) for non-dated features. Canis lupus familiaris is the most abundant species in all dated features, except in feature 2010-15 where Tamias striatus is more abundant. Feature F2010-9 also follows this patterns, but a small sample size (n=3) makes any kind of interpretation about abundance difficult.

Sus scrofa, Sciurus niger, Cygnus sp., Rana sp., and Ameiurus nebulosus are only represented by single specimens, as is the case for rodents, including Microtus pennsylvanicus, Peromyscus sp., Sciurus sp., and Blarina sp.. The identified Sus scrofa specimen is likely to be intrusive, as they are an introduced domesticate. Mustelids, birds such as Aythya marlia, and fish including Castomus sp. and Oncorhynchus mykiss all composed less than 1% (n=1) of the non-dated feature faunal sample.

Specimens identified to species level are presented by NISP and ranked by frequency in table 6.7 for all dated features. These rankings suggest that Canis lupus familiaris was the most frequently present species– a relatively uniform pattern observed between the dated features.

Species F2010-1 F2010-2 F2010-9 F2010-14 F2010-15 F2010-20 Total NISP n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

Odocoileus virginianus . . 2 3 ...... 3 2 5 1 Sus scrofa ...... 1 1 1 0 Canis lupus familiaris 19 61 26 33 2 75 51 89 . . 74 52 174 46 Canis sp. 2 6 8 10 . . 6 11 . . 16 11 32 8 Vulpes sp. . . 2 3 ...... 2 1 Ursus americanus ...... 2 1 2 1 Castor Canadensis ...... 2 1 2 1 Microtus pennsylvanicus . . 5 10 ...... 5 1 Microtus sp. 1 3 1 0 ...... 2 1 Ondatra zibethicus 1 3 1 0 ...... 3 2 5 1 Peromyscus sp. 2 6 ...... 2 1 Glaucomys sabrinus / Tamias striatus . . 1 0 ...... 1 0 Marmota monax . . 4 10 ...... 4 3 8 2 Sciurus carolinensis . . 2 0 ...... 2 1 Sciurus carolinensis/ niger . . 2 0 ...... 2 1 Sciurus niger . . 1 0 ...... 1 0 Sciurus sp. . . 2 0 ...... 2 01 Tamias striatus 4 13 10 10 1 25 . . 65 97 16 11 96 25 Tamiasciurus hudsonicus . . 4 10 ...... 1 1 5 1 Cygnus sp...... 1 1 1 0 Rana sp. 1 3 ...... 1 0 Anguilla rostra ...... 1 1 7 5 8 2 Castomus sp. . . 1 1 ...... 1 1 2 1

Lepomis sp. . . 2 3 ...... 2 1 Ameiurus nebulosus ...... 1 1 1 0 Ictalurus sp. 1 3 4 5 . . . . 1 1 9 6 15 4 Total NISP 31 100 78 100 3 100 57 100 67 100 141 100 377 100

Table 6.3: NISP counts for the radiocarbon-dated features from Jacob’s Island-1B.

Order F2010-1 F2010-2 F2010-9 F2010-14 F2010-15 F2010-20 Total NISP n % n % n % n % n % n % n % Artiodactyla . . 2 3 ...... 4 3 6 2 Carnivora 21 68 36 46 2 67 57 100 . . 92 65 208 55

Rodentia 8 26 33 42 1 33 . . 65 97 26 18 133 35 Anseriformes ...... 1 1 1 0 Anura 1 3 ...... 1 0 Anguilliformes ...... 1 1 7 5 8 2

Cypriniformes . . 1 1 ...... 1 1 2 1

Perciformes . . 2 3 ...... 2 0 Siluriformes 1 3 4 5 . . . . 1 1 10 7 16 4 Total NISP 31 100 78 100 3 100 57 100 67 100 141 100 377 100

Table 6.4: NISP counts tabulated by order for the radiocarbon-dated features from Jacob’s Island-1B.

Family F2010-1 F2010-2 F2010-9 F2010-14 F2010-15 F2010-20 Total NISP n % n % n % n % n % n % n % Cervidae . . 2 3 ...... 3 2 5 1 Suidae ...... 1 1 1 0 Canidae 21 68 36 46 2 67 57 100 . . 90 64 206 55 Ursidae ...... 2 1 2 1 Castoridae ...... 2 1 2 1 Cricetidae 4 13 7 9 ...... 3 2 14 4 Sciuridae 4 13 26 33 1 33 . . 65 97 21 15 117 31 Anatidae ...... 1 1 1 0 Ranidae 1 3 ...... 1 0 Anguillidae ...... 1 1 7 5 8 2 Catostomidae . . 1 1 ...... 1 1 2 1 Centrarchidae . . 2 3 ...... 2 1 Salmonidae ...... 1 1 1 0 Ictaluridae 1 3 4 5 . . . . 1 1 9 6 15 4 Total NISP 31 100 78 100 3 100 57 100 67 100 141 100 377 100

Table 6.5: NISP counts tabulated by family for the radiocarbon-dated features from Jacob’s Island-1B.

Species <> F2010-4 F2010-8 F2010-13 F2010-19 F2010-22 F2011-1 F2012-43 Total NISP n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % Odocoileus virginianus 28 7 ...... 1 20 . . 29 6 Canis lupus 9 2 ...... 9 2 Canis lupus familiaris 258 60 1 100 8 73 . . 10 91 ...... 277 60 Canis sp. 34 8 ...... 1 9 ...... 35 8 Vulpes vulpes 2 0 ...... 2 0 Mustela sp. 1 0 ...... 1 0 Gulo/ Canis 2 0 ...... 2 0 Ursus americanus 4 1 . . . . 2 100 ...... 6 1 Castor canadensis 2 0 ...... 2 100 . . . . 4 1 Microtus pennsylvanicus 1 0 ...... 1 0 Ondatra zibethicus 6 1 ...... 6 1 Peromyscus sp. 1 0 ...... 1 0 Erethizon dorsatum 2 0 ...... 2 0 Sciurus carolinensis 2 0 ...... 2 0 Sciurus niger 3 1 ...... 3 1 Sciurus sp. 1 0 ...... 1 0 Tamias striatus 33 8 . . 2 18 ...... 35 8 Blarina sp. 1 0 ...... 1 0 Anas sp. 2 0 ...... 2 0 Aythya marila 1 0 ...... 1 0 Branta sp. 2 0 ...... 2 0 Rana sp. 5 1 ...... 5 1 Anguilla rostra 2 0 ...... 2 0 Castomus sp. 1 0 ...... 1 0 Lepomis gibbosus 7 2 . . 1 10 ...... 8 2

Perca flavescens 1 0 ...... 1 0 Sander sp. 2 0 ...... 2 0 Sander vitreus 1 0 ...... 1 20 . . 2 0 Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 0 ...... 1 0 Salmo sp. 2 0 ...... 2 0 Ameiurus nebulosus 2 0 ...... 2 0 Ictalurus sp. 11 3 ...... 3 60 . . 14 3 Total NISP 430 100 1 100 11 100 2 100 11 100 2 100 5 100 0 100 462 100

Table 6.6: NISP counts for the non-dated features and disturbed units from Jacob’s Island-1B and -1C.

Species F2010-1 F2010-2 F2010-9 F2010-14 F2010-15 F2010-20 Rank NISP Rank NISP Rank NISP Rank NISP Rank NISP Rank NISP Odocoileus virginianus 6 2 5 3 Sus scrofa 8 1 Canis lupus familiaris 1 19 1 26 1 2 1 51 1 74 Ursus americanus 6 2 Castor canadensis 6 2 Microtus pennsylvanicus 3 5 Ondatra zibethicus 3 1 8 1 5 3 Glaucomys sabrinus / Tamias striatus 8 1 Marmota monax 4 4 4 4 Sciurus carolinensis 6 2 Sciurus carolinensis/niger 6 2 Sciurus niger 8 1 Tamias striatus 2 4 2 10 2 1 1 65 2 16 Tamiasciurus hudsonicus 4 4 8 1 Anguilla rostra 2 1 3 7 Ameiurus nebulosus 8 1

Table 6.7: Rank by NISP counts tabulated by species for the radiocarbon-dated features from Jacob’s Island-1B.

Species F2010-1 F2010-2 F2010-9 F2010-14 F2010-15 F2010-20 Total MNI

MNI % MNI % MNI % MNI % MNI % MNI % MNI % Odocoileus virginianus . . 1 5 ...... 1 0 2 3 Sus scrofa ...... 1 5 1 1 Canis lupus familiaris 1 13 2 (1*) 10 (5*) 1 50 1 50 . . 2 11 7 (1*) 10 (1*) Canis sp. 1 13 1 5 . . 1 50 . . 1 5 4 6 Vulpes sp. . . 1 5 ...... 1 1 Ursus americanus ...... 1 5 1 1 Castor canadensis ...... 1 5 1 1 Microtus pennsylvanicus . . 1 10 ...... 1 1 Microtus sp. 1 13 1 10 ...... 2 3 Ondatra zibethicus 1 13 1 10 ...... 1 5 3 4 Peromyscus sp. 1 13 ...... 1 1 Glaucomys sabrinus / Tamias striatus . . 1 10 ...... 1 1 Marmota Monax . . 1 10 ...... 2 11 3 4 Sciurus Carolinensis . . 1 10 ...... 1 1 Sciurus carolinensis/niger . . 1 10 ...... 1 1 Sciurus niger . . 1 10 ...... 1 1 Sciurus sp. . . 1 10 ...... 1 1 Tamias striatus 1 13 1 10 1 50 . . 2 (3*) 0.29 (43*) 2 (1*) 0.11 (5*) 7 (4*) 10 (6*)

Tamiasciurus hudsonicus . . 1 10 ...... 1 5 2 5 Cygnus sp...... 1 5 1 1 Rana sp. 1 13 ...... 1 1 Anguilla rostra ...... 1 14 1 5 2 3 Castomus sp. . . 1 5 ...... 1 5 2 3 Lepomis sp. . . 1 5 ...... 1 1 Ameiurus nebulosus ...... 1 5 1 1 Ictalurus sp. 1 13 1 5 . . . . 1 14 1 5 4 6 Total MNI 8 100 20 100 2 100 2 100 7 100 19 100 72 100

Table 6.8: MNI counts for the radiocarbon-dated features from Jacob’s Island-1B.

MNI

Canis lupus familiaris and Tamias striatus again have the highest MNI representation, composing 10% each, of the total MNI value for all radiocarbon-dated features (Table

6.8). Feature F2010-2 had the highest MNI (n=20) value, followed closely by feature

F2010-20 (MNI=19). These two features also have the highest MNI values for Canis lupus familiaris at the site (both n=2). Features F2010-15 and F2010-20 have the highest

MNI of Tamias striatus between dated features. Juvenile Tamias striatus remains were identified at the site (n=4), for a total MNI of 11 (57% of T. striatus MNI) between dated features. In comparison, only one juvenile specimen of Canis lupus familiaris was observed (14% of C. lupus familiaris MNI).

Birds (1%), reptiles (1%), and fish (14%) have relatively low MNI values for dated features. Artiodactyla, including Odocoileus virginianus compose only 4% of the total

MNI for dated features.

Unfortunately, specimens from heavily disturbed units and non-dated features could not be quantified and compared, thus leaving only a limited view of the activities at the site.

Dogs or Wolves?

The large number of Canis sp. specimens identified suggests the importance of this species throughout the occupation of Jacob’s Island-1B. Although it is often difficult to attribute faunal specimens identified as Canis sp. to the species level, size was used as the defining difference between identified Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus specimens.

C. lupus is poorly represented (n=9, 2%) in the faunal sample within the non-dated features. Since the C. lupus specimens identified were all found in non-dated features, they are not analytically comparable to the C.lupus familiaris specimens found within the securely dated features. Therefore, I use metric data from other Canis sp. specimens from locations within North America to compare to the specimens from Jacob’s Island-1B. The purpose of this comparison is to determine if the specimens identified as Canis are indeed domesticated dog.

Canis lupus Canis lupus Canis Other Canis (JUV) latrans lupus familiaris R^2 0.1136 0.0152 0.0143 0.0143

Table 6.9: Variance of lengths (mm) of upper fourth premolar among Canis sp.

During the identification process, I distinguished between C. lupus familiaris and

C.lupus specimens based on the general size of the specimens, by means of a reference collection. Measurements of each C. lupus familiaris specimen were taken during the identification process in order to test whether these identifications were accurate.

Unfortunately, the number of complete identified specimens was too low to compare, except for the upper fourth premolar. Only two complete specimens could be used to verify the identifications (see Appendix 6.1.2).

The measurements are presented for the Jacob’s Island-1B C. lupus familiaris specimens, in addition to metric data for C. lupus, juvenile C. lupus, C. latrans, and other

Middle to Late Holocene C. lupus familiaris specimens in Appendix 6.1.3 to Appendix

6.1.5. There is a weak correlation between the lengths (mm) of the upper fourth premolars

90 between each group of Canis species. However, these results are based on a very small samples size.

Length (mm) and Standard Deviation of Upper Premolars among Canis sp. 30 25 20 15 10 Length (mm) Length (mm) 5 0 Canis lupusCanis familiaris Canis latrans Canis familiaris JI Canis lupusJI Canis Other Canis lupus Other Canis Canis lupus (JUV) Canis Canis sp.

Figure 6.1: Measurement of lengths (mm) of upper fourth premolar and mean S.D. of the Canis sp. sample.

JI Canis Other Canis Canis Canis lupus Canis latrans lupus lupus familiaris lupus (JUV) familiaris N 2 81 62 23 56 X 23 18.82 19.87 23.69 23.78 SD 0 3.01 0.99 1.59 1.60 SE 0 0.33 0.13 0.33 0.21 S^2 0 9.04 0.97 2.51 2.57

Table 6.10: Mean and standard deviation for Canis sp. upper fourth premolars.

Source Sum of Degrees of Mean F ratio Probability Squares Freedom Square (0.05) Between 1064.97 4 266.24 59.55 2.41287 groups Within 979.13 219 4.47 groups

Table 6.11: F-ratio and probability for Canis sp. upper fourth premolars.

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine if the five samples differed from each other. An F-ratio was calculated to express the variance between and within each group. The F-ratio, at 59.55, is very high, suggesting that there is the probability that the differences observed between the five samples are the result of variances in sampling. However, the small sample size of the Jacob’s Island-1B Canis lupus familiaris specimens—compared to the uneven sample size of Canis lupus, juvenile

Canis lupus, Canis latrans, and other Holocene Canis lupus familiaris specimens—makes it difficult to assess if the two identified teeth are from a domesticated dog.

Although the results suggest the two C. lupus familiaris upper fourth premolars from Jacob’s Island-1B are within the range of C. lupus, I argue that they are from domesticated dog specimens. During the identification process it was determined that the overall size of C. lupus familiaris specimens was similar to domesticated dog. The two C. lupus familiaris premolars may be large, but their overall body size is not similar to C. lupus. Therefore, based on visual comparisons with other C. lupus familiaris skeletons the

C. lupus familiaris specimens identified at Jacob’s Island are domesticated dog.

6.2 Skeletal Part Representation

MNE values were calculated for the two most common species, C. lupus familiaris and T. striatus within the dated features at Jacob’s Island-1B (see Appendix 6.1.6 to

Appendix 6.1.11.

In feature F2010-1, C. lupus familiaris has an MNE of 16, with rib fragments composing 19% of the total MNE. T. striatus is only represented by an MNE of 4 in this feature, composed of thoracic and lumbar vertebrae.

Feature 2010-2 has an MNE of 25 for C. lupus familiaris and 10 for T. striatus.

Mandibular teeth compose 24% of the C. lupus familiaris MNE and the proximal femur represents 20% of the T. striatus MNE for this feature.

Feature 2010-9 has a low MNE count for both C. lupus familiaris (MNE=2) and T. striatus (MNE=1). A C. lupus familiaris caudal vertebrae and a rib were identified in this feature, as well as a single T. striatus distal tibia.

T. striatus remains were not identified in feature 2010-14 and the MNE for these C. lupus familiaris remains is the second highest for all dated features at 42. Lumbar vertebrae compose 12% of the C. lupus familiaris MNE for this feature.

In contrast, C. lupus familiaris remains were not identified in feature 2010-15, and T. striatus are represented by an MNE of 59.

T. striatus are mainly represented by thoracic vertebrae in feature 2010-15, at 14%, followed by lumbar vertebrae at 12%.

Lastly, feature 2010-20 had high MNE counts of both C. lupus familiaris and T. striatus, at MNE=61 and MNE=14, respectively. C. lupus familiaris in this feature is mainly represented by the medial phalanx, at 13% and T. striatus is represented by the

93 cranium, maxillary teeth, and the proximal tibia, at 14% each. Feature 2010-20 has the highest value of C. lupus familiaris MNE for all dated features.

Generally, the MNE counts for both C. lupus familiaris and T. striatus suggest a higher representation of axial than appendicular skeletal elements. Although a large amount of C. lupus familiaris was identified, fully articulated specimens were not found in any of the radiocarbon-dated features at Jacob’s Island-1B.

6.3 Changes through Time

Although all of the features are dated to the Late Archaic period, there are clear changes in taxonomic composition and diversity through time at Jacob’s Island-1B. NISP values for each dated feature are organized chronologically and presented in Table 6.12.

Feature 2010-15 (uncal. 3980 +/-30 B.P.) has the highest amount of Tamias striatus (n=65) among the dated features and low species diversity. Only one other species, Anguilla rostra (n=1) was identified in this feature.

In contrast, feature 2010-20 (uncal. 3960 +/-30 and uncal. 4160 +/-40 B.P.) shows a high species diversity in addition and contains the largest amount of Canis lupus familiaris (n=74) and Canis sp. (n=16) identified at the site. T. striatus were also identified in this feature (n=16). The only avian and domesticate species, Cygnus sp.

(n=1) and Sus scrofa (n=1), respectively, were identified in this feature in low amounts.

This feature also had the most fish species (n=10) and the only remains of Ursus americanus (n=2) and Castor canadensis (n=2) specimens.

There is a low amount of species diversity identified in feature 2010- 9 (uncal.

4030 +/-40 B.P.) (n=8). The highest represented species in this feature was Ictalurus sp.

(n=5) and the lowest was T. striatus (n=1).

The only amphibian specimen, Rana sp. (n=1) from the dated features was identified from feature 2010-1 (uncal. 4210 +/-30 B.P.). A relatively low number of T. striatus (n=4) specimens were also identified from this feature. This feature also has the only vole and mouse species, Microtus sp. (n=1) and Peromyscus sp. (n=2), respectively, out of the dated features at the site. The highest represented species in this feature was C. lupus familiaris (n=19).

Only C. lupus familiaris (n=51) and Canis sp. (n=6) specimens were identified in feature 2010-14 (uncal. 4290 +/-30 B.P.).

Feature 2010-2 (uncal. 4430 +/-40 B.P. and uncal. 4150 +/-30 B.P) also has relatively high species diversity. This feature has the highest amount of animals from the

Sciuridae (n=27) and Cricetidae family (n=6), and the second highest amount of fish

(n=6) from the dated features. C. lupus familiaris (n=26) is the most represented species from this feature, followed by T. striatus (n=10).

Uncal. Radiocarbon dates (B.P) 3980 +/- 3960 +/-30 & 4160 +/- 4030 +/- 4210 +/- 4290 4430 +/-40 & 4150 +/- 30 40 40 30 +/30 30 F2010- Feature F2010-15 F2010-20 F2010-9 F2010-1 F2010-2 14 Species n n n n n n Odocoileus virginianus . 3 . . . 2 Sus scrofa . 1 . . . . Canis lupus familiaris . 74 2 19 51 26 Canis sp. . 16 . 2 6 8 Vulpes sp...... 2 Ursus americanus . 2 . . . . Castor Canadensis . 2 . . . . Microtus pennsylvanicus . . . . . 5 Microtus sp. . . . 1 . 1 Ondatra zibethicus . 3 . 1 . 1 Peromyscus sp. . . . 2 . . Glaucomys sabrinus / Tamias . . . . . 1 striatus Marmota monax . 4 . . . 4 Sciurus carolinensis . . . . . 2 Sciurus carolinensis/ niger . . . . . 2 Sciurus niger . . . . . 1 Sciurus sp...... 2 Tamias striatus 65 16 1 4 . 10 Tamiasciurus hudsonicus . 1 . . . 4 Cygnus sp. . 1 . . . . Rana sp. . . . 1 . .

Anguilla rostra 1 7 . . . . Castomus sp. . 1 . . . 1 Lepomis sp...... 2 Ameiurus nebulosus . 1 . . . . Ictalurus sp. 1 9 . 1 . 4 Total NISP 67 141 3 31 57 78

Table 6.12: Taxonomic composition for the radiocarbon–dated features by date for Jacob’s Island-1B.

In order to determine differences in taxonomic abundance between each dated feature, I conducted a chi-square analysis on the top five represented species. NISP values were used from the six radiocarbon-dated features to determine if there is a significant difference between represented taxa. These values and the results of the chi- square test are located in Table 6.13 and in Table 6.14.

Value Test statistic (X^2) 134.54 Critical X^2 31.41 a= 0.05 Columns 6 Rows 5 Degrees of Freedom 20

Table 6.13: Chi-square results for the five most represented species from the radiocarbon dated features in Jacob’s Island-1B.

p-values F2010-15 0.00 F2010-20 0.00 F2010-9 0.17 F2010-1 0.05 F2010-14 0.01 F2010-2 0.04

Table 6.14: p-values for chi-square test.

The results of the chi-square analysis suggest that the taxonomic abundances for the dated features differ. However, some of the top five most represented species were not present in all features. Only feature 2010-20 had all of the species represented. This makes further statistical testing difficult.

6.4 Summary

Canis lupus familiaris and Tamias striatus were found to be the two most common species within the dated features. Unfortunately, there is small sample size of complete Canis lupus familiaris teeth for comparison. This proved difficult to compare metric data from other Canis sp. to confirm species identification. Additionally, uneven and small sample sizes made statistical tests difficult to conduct. MNE values were calculated for Canis lupus familiaris and Tamias striatus for all dated feature, and generally shows a higher representation of axial skeletal elements.

The next chapter focuses on interpreting the taphonomic modifications on bone and site disturbance patterns, as well as reconstructing seasonality using age and sex profiles. Furthermore, physical agents, breakage and fragmentation patterns, anthropogenic modifications, and a more in-depth refit analysis are presented by feature and level for the site. Lastly, I comment on general species distribution patterns and taphonomic processes that occurred at the site throughout time.

Chapter 7

RESULTS: TAPHONOMIC MODIFICATIONS AND SITE DISTURBANCES

In this chapter, I interpret the effect of taphonomic processes on the faunal remains from Jacob’s Island-1B. I explore the impact of weathering, and other physical agents, as well as animal modifications, fragmentation, and anthropogenic agent on the faunal remains from securely radiocarbon-dated features at the site. Additionally, I discuss distribution patterns of the faunal material and their implications with respect to site function and post-depositional disturbances.

7.1 Physical Agents

In this section, I assess the degree of damage present on faunal remains. Most of the raw data discussed in this chapter can be found in Appendix 7.1-7.8.

Weathering

Evidence of weathering was low on the faunal material from the site considered as a whole (13.5%, n=2267). Only 9.3% (n=2267) of the remains from the radiocarbon- dated features was weathered. F2010-14 and F2010-20 had the highest percent of weathered bones (17.7%, n=79 and 11.1%, n=334, respectively). Features 2010-9 and

F2010-15 had the lowest percentage of weathered faunal materials, at 0% and 1.1%

(n=92), respectively. In the radiocarbon dated features, Canis lupus familiaris and Canis sp. were the two taxa with the highest percentage of weathered bones, at 74.3% (n=35)

100 and 11.4% (n=35). Out of the total weathered faunal material from radiocarbon-dated features, C. lupus familiaris axial bones have the most evidence for weathering (48.7%, n=35). In F2010-14, C. lupus familiaris specimens (n=11), specifically mandible fragments (45.5%, n=11), were the most weathered. In the radiocarbon-dated units,

Odocoileus virginianus, Ondatra zibethicus, Castor canadensis, and Sus scrofa are rarely weathered (each at 2.9%, n=35).

Among the levels, the topsoil had the highest percentage of weathered specimens

(19.5%, n=955). Weathered faunal materials are generally in the 10-20 mm size category and none are over 100 mm. The low amount of weathering at the site suggests that the specimens did not experience prolonged aboveground exposure.

Striations

In total, 329 instances of marks identified as striations, or light visible lines on the surface of the bone, were identified on faunal material from the site. Faunal material from radiocarbon-dated features had slightly more striations (n=184) than undated units

(n=145). Most of the striations were observed on faunal specimens from F2010-20

(50.5%, n=184), and F2010-15 had the least amount (0.5% n=184). C. lupus familiaris specimens had the highest percentage of striations in the radiocarbon-dated features at

79% (n=106), most of which are from F2010-20 (n=32). Striations were observed mainly on the ribs (7.5%, n=106) and radius (6.6%, n=106). Striations on Vulpes vulpes,

Odocoileus virginianus, Marmota monax, Tamias striatus, Tamiasciurus hudsonicus, and

Sus scrofa (each at 0.9%, n=106) were identified on a few specimens primarily from

F2010-2 and F2010-20.

101

Peeling

Evidence of peeling was observed on 6 specimens from the site, with most

(66.7%, n=6) occurring on faunal material from radiocarbon-dated features. F2010-2 had the highest amount of peeling (50%, n=4), all on Canis sp. specimens. The low amount of peeling observed at the site suggests that this was not a significant type of mark.

Concretions

Concretions on the faunal material occur only on 5 specimens at the site, with two concretions identified on radiocarbon-dated features (F2010-2 and F2010-14, n=2 total).

Both of these concretions occur on Canis sp. premolar remains.

Pitting and Exfoliation

Regarding pitting, evidence has only been observed on 4 specimens at the site— all of which come from undated units. Evidence of exfoliation was most frequent in the undated units (n=50). In the radiocarbon-dated features, most of the 39 specimens with exfoliation marks were from F2010-14 (61.5%, n=39) and identified as C. lupus familiaris (91.7%, n=39). These markings were the most frequent on C. lupus familiaris metacarpals (14.2%, n=39), and least frequent on Ondatra zibethicus mandibles (2.6%, n=39) and Castor canadensis incisors (2.6%, n=39). The low levels of exfoliation marks suggest that it was not a primary physical transform at the site.

102

Scratches

Scratch marks were generally deeper than striations and perforated the surface of the bone to some extent. The number of scratch marks on the faunal material is low, occurring on 69 specimens, with 33 from radiocarbon-dated features, mainly F2010-2

(36.4%, n=33), F2010-1 and F2010-20 (each: 21.2%, n=33). Canis lupus familiaris specimens had the highest relative frequency of scratch marks (56.7%, n=33). They were present in all radiocarbon-dated features, and are most common on ribs (10%, n=30).

Marmota monax and Tamiasciurus hudsonicus had the lowest percentage of scratches

(each at 3.3%, n=30).

Summary

In total, physical transforms were observed 502 times on the faunal material at

Jacob’s Island-1B. F2010-20 had the highest percentage of observed physical transforms, at 42.7% (n=262), followed by F2010-14 at 23.7% (n=262). In contrast, F2010-15 had the lowest percentage, at 0.4% (n=262). As mentioned above, overall these marks are uncommon at Jacob’s Island-1B.

7.2 Animal Modifications

Animal modifications on faunal material include tooth pits, digestion marks, grooves, notches, or ragged edges. These transformations provide evidence for different post-depositional processes. Here, I explore the extent of animal modifications on the

103 faunal material and comment on how these have shaped the faunal assemblage. The raw data concerning these processes can be found in Appendix 7.9-7.10.

Tooth Pits

In total, 16 specimens from the site have evidence of tooth pits, three of which are from radiocarbon-dated features. In F2010-2, two specimens, a Canis sp. incisor and a

Canis lupus familiaris tibia have tooth pits. In F2010-14, a C. lupus familiaris tibia has tooth pits. The majority of tooth pits occurred on specimens located in the topsoil level of the site.

Digestion marks

Digestion marks were observed on a single specimen from a dated feature and a total of 9 specimens across the site. Most specimens with evidence of digestion marks were located in the topsoil level (66.7%, n=9). Animal ravaging was not a major taphonomic process at Jacob’s Island as indicated by the low amount of digestion marks on faunal specimens at the site.

Grooves and Ragged Edges

Both evidence of grooves (n=2) and ragged edges (n=1) occur in low quantities at the site. These marks were not observed in the radiocarbon-dated features. Both occur exclusively on specimens in the topsoil level.

104

Notches

F2010-2 is the only radiocarbon-dated feature with evidence of notches. Notches occur on a Canis sp. incisor. Most were observed in the topsoil level (71.5%, n=7).

Summary

There is little evidence for intensive and destructive animal activity at Jacob’s

Island-1B. Only 35 specimens show evidence for animal modifications, with 60% (n=35) of the remains in the topsoil level. Among the dated features, F2010-2 had the highest percentage of animal modifications, with 60% (n=35). Although tooth pits and digestion marks were the two most common types of marks made by animals at the site, the scarcity of these specimens suggest that animal activities were not a major taphonomic process at the site. Faunal material deposited at the site was likely buried quickly and therefore not accessible to scavengers, who would otherwise have caused excessive damage to bones.

7.3 Breakage and Fragmentation

Here, I assess the degree of fragmentation and breakage patterns to measure their impact in shaping the faunal assemblage from the site. I discuss the varying degrees of preservation, fragmentation, and fracture patterns for all identified faunal material. I also evaluate processing and depositional patterns to establish if the degree of fragmentation at the site resulted from anthropogenic activities. Raw data relevant to this issue are in

Appendix 7.11-7.18.

105

Preservation

Five categories of surface preservation were used to assess overall surface state: poor, somewhat damaged, relatively good, intact, and not observable (NOB), following

Morin (2012).

The faunal material from the site was generally either poorly preserved (28.2%, n=2267) or relatively well preserved (good: 32%, n=2267). Almost half of the poorly preserved faunal materials were found in the topsoil level (43.4%, n=640). This level also contains 30.3% (n=578) of somewhat damaged specimens, and the highest percentage of relatively well preserved specimens at 32.5% (good: n=725). Features and specimens without a recorded level context had the highest percentage of intact specimens, at 28.2%

(n=323) and 45.5% (n=323), respectively. Specimens within features were either relatively well preserved (38.5%, n=751) or intact (26.5%, n=751). F2010-20 had the greatest amount of variation in preservation, with high percentages of poorly preserved

(67.7%, n=96), somewhat damaged (57.8%, n=66), and relatively well preserved specimens (43.9%, n=289).

Fragmentation

Most faunal specimens were in the 10-20 mm fragment size category (46.9%, n=2267), with a majority coming from the topsoil level (42.1%, n=2267). Only 0.3%

(n=2267) were larger than 80 mm. Larger specimens were generally found in features, especially F2010-14.

Among features, most specimens lie in the 0-10 mm (29.3%, n=751) and 10-20 mm (36.6%, n=751) size categories. Only 0.3% (n=751) of the faunal specimens are

106

>100 mm size. F2010-15 had the highest frequency of specimens in the 0-10 mm size category (34.5%, n=220). Generally, F2010-20 exhibits the greatest diversity in fragment size among the radiocarbon-dated features.

Fractures

Although information about fracture patterns was recorded for each identified specimen from the site, only breakage patterns in Canis lupus familiaris specimens from radiocarbon-dated features are discussed here. Fracture patterns in long bones were recorded as helical, transverse, longitudinal and transverse, diagonal, diagonal with step, columnar, or not observable (NOB), as in Outram (2002).

Within the dated features, only 70 C. lupus familiaris long could be attributed to one of these seven categories. In the sample, 37.1% (n=26) were fractured transversely.

Only 0.1% (n=70) of C. lupus familiaris long bones were fractured along a longitudinal and transverse pattern.

In F2010-1, most C. lupus familiaris long bones, including a metacarpal and phalanx, are fractured transversely (50%, n=4) and a single radius is fractured according to a columnar pattern. Similarly, in F2010-2, C. lupus familiaris long bone specimens are most commonly fractured transversely, although 75% (n=8) do not have an observable fracture pattern. In F2010-9 a single ulna is fractured followed a transverse pattern. In

F2010-14 and F2010-20, the majority of specimens are fractured according to a transverse pattern: F2010-20 has the widest range of fracture patterns.

Generally, it seems that most C. lupus familiaris long bone specimens were not fractured while green before deposition, as indicated by the low amount of helical

107 fracture patterns (5.7%, n=70). Most of the C. lupus familiaris long bones are fractured transversely indicating that breakage occurred post-depositionally.

Summary

Fragmentation and breakage patterns can be used to infer food preparation and specialized processing practises and post-depositional transformations (Orton 2010).

Here, I have discussed how the faunal sample was shaped by these different taphonomic processes, reflecting the complexity of the island’s occupation and activities. In the sample, small fragment sizes do not necessarily indicate excessive breakage patterns or poor preservation. Although most specimens from Jacob’s Island-1B belong to the 10-20 mm size category, it is possible that this is simply a function of the reduced size of small animal bones. The results suggest that C. lupus familiaris long bones were not fresh- fractured and may be the result of other post-depositional taphonomic processes. It is also possible that green bone fractures are not visible anymore due to other taphonomic processes. Poor preservation and reduced fragmentation sizes in the topsoil level suggest that trampling, ploughing, or other destructive surface factors may have influenced formation processes at the site.

7.4 Anthropogenic Transforms

Anthropogenic transforms—such as retouch marks, polishing, cut marks, red ochre staining, and burning—were observed on some specimens during the identification process. In this section, I comment on the visible human modifications on bone in order

108 to infer patterns of tool manufacturing, food processing, disposal, and wherever possible, burial practices. I also discuss whether these marks were the result of natural factors, animal, or intentional human activities. I quantify these anthropogenic transforms for radiocarbon-dated features only, but comment broadly on burning activities at the site as a whole. Raw data are in Appendix 7.19-7.29.

Retouch

Retouching is evident on only four specimens in the sample of radiocarbon-dated features. Additionally, retouching was observed on two specimens within undated units and features. Most of these specimens are located in F2010-20. Only a single Odocoileus virginianus metacarpal was identified as retouched in F2010-1. There is little evidence for significant retouching at the site. A single awl was identified in F2010-2 and may have been left as a grave offering.

Polish

Evidence of polishing was identified on a total of 12 specimens, two from radiocarbon-dated features. These two polished specimens include an Odocoileus virginianus metacarpal from F2010-2 and a C. lupus familiaris canine from F2010-14.

Other post-depositional marks

Other post-depositional marks—mainly trowel scratches—were observed on 107

(4.7%, n=2267) specimens at the site. Less than half of these specimens were located in radiocarbon-dated features (30%, n=107), including F2010-1 (n=2), F2010-2 (n=2),

109

F2010-14 (n=4), and F2010-20 (n=23). They occurred only on C. lupus familiaris long bones. It is important to distinguish these modern trowel striations from intentional cutting marks.

Cuts

Evidence of butchery activities at the site is low at 2.5% (n=2267), with 35 instances of cut marks recorded among specimens within radiocarbon-dated features. The highest percentage of cut marks is found in F2010-2 (n=15) and F2010-20 (n=14).

F2010-9 and F2010-15 had no instances of cut marks.

F2010-2 had the widest diversity of cut-marked species, as observed on Canis sp.

(n=3), C. lupus familiaris (n=1), Odocoileus virginianus (n=1), Marmota monax (n=1),

Tamias striatus (n=1), and Tamiasciurus hudsonicus (n=1). In total, C. lupus familiaris had the highest amount of cut marks (n=15) from all radiocarbon-dated features, with the greatest amount in F2010-20 (53.3%, n=15).

All cut marks identified on C. lupus familiaris specimens within the radiocarbon- dated features were on long bones, with the highest percentages on the phalanges (16%, n=25) and femur (12%, n=25). Marmota monax, Tamias striatus, and Tamiasciurus hudsonicus specimens had cut marks located on the mandible and cranium. The low amount of cut marks on specimens at the site as a whole suggests that butchering and processing animal materials was not a major activity at the site or was not abundantly apparent due to poor preservation.

110

Ochre

Red ochre stains occur on 8.6% (n=2267) of the faunal material from the site.

Less than half of these specimens are from radiocarbon-dated features (n=77). They were most commonly found in F2010-20 (n=26) and F2010-14 (n=21). No ochre stains were found in F2010-9 and F2010-15. Ochre stains were found on one Tamias striatus and one

Sciurus carolinensis specimens from F2010-2. Out of all the radiocarbon-dated features with evidence of red ochre staining, 85.9% (n=71) were observed on C. lupus familiaris specimens.

In the sample of radiocarbon-dated features, there is evidence for red ochre staining on both axial and appendicular bones in C. lupus familiaris specimens, In this species, long bones were more frequently stained (66.2%, n=71). Ochre staining was found on vertebrae, representing 19.7% (n=71) of the total axial skeleton.

Burning

Burning is a taphonomic factor at the site, with 21.3% (n=2267) of the sample exhibiting evidence of heat alteration. Among radiocarbon-dated features, 75 specimens were burned, and only three could be identified to genus. Canis sp. (n=1), and C. lupus familiaris (n=2) specimens were burned at the lowest burn stage (Stage 1).

Burned specimens are located mainly in the topsoil level (7.4%, n=2267).

Similarly, severely burned specimens (stage 6) are found in the topsoil level. Few burned specimens, (4.7%, n=2267) are found in the feature levels. Within the radiocarbon-dated features, F2010-20 had the highest number of burned specimens (n=52), whereas F2010-

14 (n=0) had the least.

111

Most heat-altered specimens at the site are burned to stage 3 (6.8%, n=2267) and stage 4 (6.7%, n=2267). Only 1.5% (n=2267) of the specimens are severely burned (stage

6). The majority (46.9%) of burned specimens belong to the 10-20 mm fragment size category.

Generally, burning is concentrated in the topsoil, and pieces that are burned represent Stage 3 or 4. This concentration in the topsoil may be due to modern fire activities, such as camp fires or controlled burns to clear unwanted foliage. Few bones are severely burned. There is evidence of a localized burning activity in F2010-20, which altered some of the faunal remains including C. lupus familiaris specimens.

Summary

Visible human modification activities are poorly represented at Jacob’s Island-1B.

Burning is low within the radiocarbon-dated features and not random between levels, being concentrated mainly in the topsoil layer. A chi-square test was conducted to test the hypothesis that there is a relationship between specimens within anthropogenic modifications and radiocarbon-dated features (see Appendix 7.19. to Appendix 7.27.). In other words, is there evidence to suggest that specimens with anthropogenic modifications occur more frequently in radiocarbon-dated features? The results of the chi-square test suggest that relationship is not random for some of the human modification activities because the p-values are larger than 0.05, therefore the hypothesis must be rejected. However, the values for cut marks, retouch, and burned specimens are lower than 0.05, suggesting that the relationship is random for these activities. Perhaps

112 faunal material with these modifications were distributed between features by ploughing or other activities that would have deposited them randomly.

Value Test statistic (X^2) 48.11 Critical X^2 9.49 a= 0.05 Columns 5 Rows 2 Degrees of Freedom 4

Table 7.1: Chi-square results for the five most represented species from the radiocarbon dated features in Jacob’s Island-1B.

p-values n cuts 0.00 n ochre 0.09 n retouch 0.00 n polish 0.25 n burned 0.00

Table 7.2: p-values for chi-test.

Excluding modern post-depositional modifications, 33.2% (n=2267) of the specimens in total, and 8.5% (n=2267) within radiocarbon-dated features were intentionally modified by humans. The low frequency of retouch marks and polishing suggests that worked bones were not in abundance at the site, nor were they used for manufacturing at the site. Instead, their presence could be interpreted as a grave offering.

Similarly low amounts of cut marks suggest that perhaps animals may not have been heavily butchered for subsistence purposes.

113

Evidence of red ochre staining, primarily on C. lupus familiaris specimens suggests special ritual intentions and treatment for this species. Mammals were preferentially burned, but this could be a result of their overrepresentation at the site and among radiocarbon-dated features. Lastly, burning could be the result of activities unrelated to ritual, food processing, or disposal, and instead may be the result of modern destructive elements.

Burned Cut marks Red ochre Total Species n % n % n % n % Canis lupus familiaris 2.0 2.3 15.0 17.0 71.0 80.7 88.0 100.0 Tamias striatus 0.0 0.0 1.0 33.3 2.0 0.0 3.0 100.0 Marmota monax 0.0 0.0 1.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 100.0 Anguilla rostra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Odocoileus virginianus 0.0 0.0 2.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 100.0

Table 7.3: Burning, cut marks, and red ochre staining for the five most represented species from all features at Jacob’s Island-1B.

7.5 Conclusion

A taphonomic analysis of the faunal material from Jacob’s Island-1B suggests a complex assemblage, with multiple natural and anthropogenic agents affecting the assemblage. Evidence of physical transformations, such as weathering and animal activities, indicates that some faunal specimens were exposed to aboveground taphonomic processes. Nonetheless, most specimens are well preserved. Breakage patterns suggest that the majority of C. lupus familiaris specimens may have been fractured post-depositionally. Low percentages of cuts marks and worked bones were

114 observed. Evidence of red ochre on C. lupus familiaris specimens within the radiocarbon-dated features may implicate ritual treatment.

In the next chapter, I synthesize the results of the faunal and taphonomic analysis to suggest patterns of site occupation and use. I interpret the ritual landscape of Jacob’s

Island-1B, while elaborating on the importance of Canis lupus familiaris. Lastly, I situate the site within the Trent-Severn Waterway region and the Middle to Late Holocene.

115

Chapter 8

INSIGHTS INTO RITUAL AND CULTURAL ACIVITY AT JACOB’S ISLAND

In this chapter, I address the nature and seasonality of the occupations, the nature of the deposits, and issues relating to ritual consumption activities and burials. I examine the importance of the landscape, and how meaning and identity would have been closely associated with the island itself. Additionally, I stress the potential importance of Canis lupus familiaris to the occupants of the site, and associated ideas of personhood. Lastly, I compare the faunal material from Jacob’s Island-1B to two other archaeological sites within the Trent-Severn Waterway region, in order to situate the site within the context of the Middle to Late Holocene.

8.1 Site Occupation and Use

The southwest corner of Jacob’s Island (JI-1B and JI-1C) was used for primarily for ritual purposes. The ritual use of this portion of the island is suggested by the faunal remains recovered from the seven features that were analyzed in this thesis. These features were chosen for analysis because they had secure stratigraphic contexts, low levels of mixing, and were associated with radiocarbon dates. Features F2010-2, F2010-

14, F2010-1, F2010-9, F2010-15, and F2010-20 range in date from uncal. 4430 +/-40 –

3960 +/-30 B.P. and situate this area of occupation on the island to the Late Archaic period. The results of the faunal and taphonomic analysis from these feature clusters may represent an area used for ritual activities. Natural and modern anthropogenic

116 disturbances, such as ploughing, modern fire pits, and rodent burrows, are evident at the site and have had an effect on the faunal assemblage. Rodents, amphibians, artiodactyls, birds, and fish compose only 19.9% (n=377) of the faunal sample identified within the dated features, and it is clear that Canis lupus familiaris was important to the occupants of the site during the Late Archaic.

Seasonality

Although animals other than C. lupus familiaris were low in abundance at the site, they can still be used to suggest in which season(s) the site was occupied. The identified artiodactyl, rodent, birds, and fish remains from the radiocarbon-dated features are presented in Appendix 8.1–8.3, with information detailing their preferred habitats, mating behaviour, and diet. Based on this information, it is argued that Jacob’s Island could have been occupied during any season, however, it is unlikely that burial activities would have occurred during the winter in frozen ground.

As discussed earlier, other methods of seasonality determinations could not be used.

8.2 Recognizing and Interpreting Deposits

Ceremonial or ritually significant deposits can take numerous forms, and may vary through time. In this section, I discuss the possibility of natural disturbances caused by burrowing animals within particular features at the site. Potential ritual consumption and burial activities are also examined, with a particular focus on the importance of Canis

117 lupus familiaris. Lastly, changes in burial patterns, species composition, and treatment are presented as they occurred throughout time.

Burrowing Intruders

As described in Chapter 7, numerous Tamias striatus remains were found in

F2010-15 (uncal. 3980+/-30 B.P. BETA-345511). Here, I describe the basic behavioral patterns of T. striatus, in order to expand upon its role in site formation and /or potential cultural significance at Jacob’s Island-1B.

T. striatus (Eastern chipmunk) is a ground-dwelling member of the Sciuridae, and inhabits primarily deciduous forests, where mast-producing trees are plentiful and stumps and logs provide shelter from predators (Kurta 2011). These squirrels can also inhabit coniferous forests but generally avoid swampy habitats (Kurta 2011). Populations thrive in woodlands with high connectivity between other habitat patches (Henein et al. 1998).

They live in a series of burrows with interconnecting galleries up to 10 m in length, and 1 m below the surface (Kurta 2011). These burrows usually consist of one nesting room, a food storage area, and a debris chamber (Kurta 2011; Thomas 1974).

Home ranges are typically 15 m or less in radius from the burrow, and are usually located near mast-bearing trees (Yahner 1978). Occasionally, home ranges may cover more than one burrow systems. Home ranges are limited by food resource availability, predators and available breeding populations (Yahner 1978). However, food resources are the main determinant for home range and length of burrow occupation (Mares and

Lacher 1987). In general, the size of the T. striatus home range usually increases when food resources are scarce (Mares and Lacher 1987). Juvenile T. striatus change home

118

ranges and burrows frequently – dispersing from the burrow soon after maturation, but remain in the area until a suitable home range can be found (Yahner 1978).

T. striatus are solitary and territorial, and are usually most active during the midmorning to mid-afternoon when they collect food to cache (Kurta 2011). Although specialists, T. striatus consumes a variety of seeds, fruits, nuts, mushrooms, insects, earthworms, slugs, and bird eggs, and can transport dry food within its cheek pockets

(Kurta 2011; Henein et al. 1998). Although food caching occurs all year long, it is intensified during the fall when T. striatus begins to store resources for the winter months

(Kurta 2011; Panuska and Wade 1956). They do not completely hibernate in the winter, due to low fat storage abilities, but instead awake periodically to eat and forage (Kurta

2011; Panuska 1959).

Breeding usually occurs during the spring and summer months, with two litters born each year after 31 days of gestation (Kurta 2011). Juvenile T. striatus can procreate a year after birth, and usually live less than two years in the wild (Kurta 2011). Predators of T. striatus include weasels, lynx, bobcat, red fox, coyotes, domestic dogs and cats, and large raptors (Kurta 2011).

This small squirrel was found in great abundance at Jacob’s Island-1B, which is not surprising since T. striatus are generally tolerant of humans, although they may produce noise if threatened or startled (Kurta 2011). The results of the faunal analysis show that at least seven adults and four juvenile T. striatus were present in the assemblage, mainly concentrated in F2010-15. This feature is dated to the Late Archaic period, but is not associated with any mortuary activities. I hypothesize that the T. striatus specimens found at the site may result from burrowing activities. The high

119 number of specimens, good preservation, low amount of cut marks, and mortality profile suggest some degree of faunal-turbation, especially in F2010-15. Extensive burrowing or caching activities during the Late Archaic may have modified the stratigraphy of the feature. Since T. striatus juveniles may remain in the burrow or home range for some time after birth, this feature could represent a family burrow. Therefore, I suggest that the presence of T. striatus within F2010-15 was mostly the product of natural disturbance, and not the result of anthropogenic activities.

Feasting and Ritual Consumption Activities

Consuming flesh, whether human or animal, is a complex activity that can reflect different perceptions of the relationship between animals and humans (Russell 2012;

Fausto 2007). Animals are prepared and consumed for subsistence, or ritual purposes in a variety of social settings. How the animal is killed, and how the flesh is prepared or consumed can reflect the spiritual beliefs of a community, with regard to how it is perceived by humans in relation to themselves and other animals (Fausto 2007; Russell

2012). Preparation and consumption for feasting can also reflect the socioeconomic or religious status of a particular individual or group. Alternatively, animals need not be consumed by humans to retain their significance; meat could be boiled or cooked, and presented as a grave offering to feed the soul of the dead or to improve their social status in the afterlife (Fausto 2007; Russell 2010). Nevertheless, the consumption of animal flesh as a feasting or ritual consumption activity—particularly those associated with ritual and funerary events—can shed light on other complex aspects of human-animal relationships.

120

As suggested by Viveiros de Castro (1988) and Fausto (2007), many indigenous groups believe in the dualism of animal systems, in which animals and human are both

“persons,” with only their bodily forms to differentiate them. According to Fausto (2007) the relationship between animals and humans is as fluid as the cycles of life and death that exists between them; humans can transform or embody certain aspects of animals, and vice-versa. Animals can also be transformed into kin, and their spirits captured through food, songs, and various rituals (Karadimas 2005). In this regard, the act of hunting can sometimes be interpreted as warfare or retribution against another kin group

(Fausto 2007; Journet 1995). For example, among the Columbian Kurripaco, hunting peccaries is seen as warfare because peccaries can capture humans and transform them into kin (Journet 1995). Consequently, the consumption of animals is much more nuanced in its implications.

The consumption of certain animals or body parts and how they were prepared can reflect the taboos of a particular group (Fausto 2007; Russell 2012). When animals are viewed as humans, their flesh must be objectified to be made fit to eat, in order to avoid any violation or transgression of a taboo (Fausto 2007; Kaplan 1975). Animal flesh can become an object when it is cooked, because the act of cooking neutralizes the animal (Fausto 2007), making the animal less proximate to humans (Viveiros de Castro

2004). It is the presence of blood that must be removed to purge the animal of its agency, and hence, remove its status as a person (Fausto 2007). Because roasting allows for the possibility that some parts may be left uncooked, boiling the animal flesh is ideal.

However, if the desire is to obtain the particular characteristics of an animal, then its flesh

121 is eaten raw (Fausto 2007). In this regard, the use of fire can be significant as a transformative process.

Burned bones are relatively easy to identify in the archaeological record compared to those that have been boiled. Boiled bones are heated at low temperatures, so visible burn marks are unlikely to be present (Koon et al. 2010). Generally, animals are dismembered to make them easier to boil, particularly the heads and feet (Koon et al.

2010). Animals may also be boiled to extract grease or to make glue (Koon et al. 2010).

Often, these bones exhibit changes in their mineral and protein composition (Koon et al.

2003), which are difficult to visually identify with the naked eye. Gifford-Gonzalez

(1989) observed that boiled bones are often fractured transversely. This fracture pattern is seen among the mammal long bones at Jacob’s Island; however fracture patterns alone are not enough evidence to suggest that bones at Jacob’s Island, specifically C. lupus familiaris specimens may have been boiled. Ethnographic evidence suggests that dogs were boiled and consumed during sacrificial ceremonies held in honour of “God of the

Metawin” (Oberholtzer 2002). Since pottery was not available to people during the Late

Archaic, stones may have been heated over an open fire and placed inside a leather bag or basket. Evidence of boiling can be inferred through the presence of fire-cracked rock or boiling stones in the archaeological record.

Regardless of how or why an animal is prepared and consumed, it may often be suggestive of diverse human-animal relationships. The complexity of this relationship is denoted further by the social context of consumption. Animal meat can be consumed during a feast to display wealth, or to honour the dead or left as an offering (Koon et al.

2010; Hovelrsrud-Broda 2000; Russell 2012).

122

Ritual Consumption at Jacob’s Island-1B

Ritual consumption activities, particularly those involving C. lupus familiaris, are documented throughout the Middle Archaic to early contact period in Ontario, and elaborated on in Chapter 2. Evidence of ritual consumption activities is relatively absent from Jacob’s Island-1B. Evidence of consumption includes fractures on green bones, butchery marks, and marks of burning. Most of the C. lupus familiaris long bones had transverse fracture patterns, and cut marks and burning marks were few. Evidence of dismemberment was also scarce. Conversely, it is important to mention that these characteristics could be the result of other post-depositional factors. Lastly, C. lupus familiaris cranial and foot bones, which would usually be removed (Koon et al. 2010), were present at the site.

As was stated above, certain social and ritual implications can be inferred from when humans consume animals, adorn themselves with their skins, teeth, and other body parts, use their bones to create tools, deposit them as grave offerings, or consume their flesh.

Animal Burials and Grave Offerings

According to Horwitz (1987) and Kansa and Campbell (2004)—ritual activities can be identified at a site if it shows the presence of 1) whole or un-butchered animals or articulated portions of animals, 2) young or old animals, 3) specific body parts, 4) an abundance of a particular sex, 5) an abundance of a particular taxon, 6) overrepresentation of rare taxa, 7) animal remains in association with humans, and 8) grave goods. However, some or all of these attributes may also represent non-ritual behaviour.

123

Non-random ochre staining and the association with human burials are stronger evidence for ritual treatment of animal remains. Burials of a specific type of animal can symbolize friendship and respect between the human and the animal. As discussed in the previous subsection, it can also represent ideas of personhood and a metaphor for society or family groups. Therefore, the Canis lupus familiaris interred at Jacob’s Island may symbolize ritual burials for at least some of the radiocarbon-dated features at Jacob’s Island-1B.

Animal Burials and Grave Offerings at Jacob’s Island-1B

Features F2010-1, F2010-14, and F2010-20 can be identified as ritual deposits by applying the criteria set by Horwitz (1987) to the dated features at Jacob’s Island. In these features, an abundance of Canis lupus familiaris specimens was identified, worked faunal material was found, and some animals were found with red ochre stains in association with humans. Unfortunately, little information is available about the age and sex of the C. lupus familiaris at Jacob’s Island-1B. Yet, epiphyseal fusion patterns do suggest a mostly adult population. The Odocoileus virginianus specimens at the site were identified mainly as tools, including an awl, and interpreted as grave offerings. These were found in features F2010-2 and F2010-20. Again, however, the small sample of these specimens makes it difficult to interpret the extent of the relationship between humans and O. virginianus.

Other animals present with C. lupus familiaris in the burial features at the site may represent other aspects of this human-animal relationship. For instance, the Ursus americanus teeth found in F2010-20 could represent other relationships between animals

124 and humans during this period. Limited by poor faunal preservation from most sites during this period, these relationships remain speculative.

In features F2010-9, F2010-2, and F2010-15, evidence of ritual activities including animal burials are more difficult to interpret. Feature F2010-9 had a low quantity of identified animals, whereas F2010-2 had large amounts of C. lupus familiaris.

Feature F2010-15, as discussed in a previous section, had an abundance of T. striatus and was described as a burrow or natural disturbance.

Changes through Time

The radiocarbon-dated features at Jacob’s Island-1B suggest a continuing pattern of mortuary and ritual activities during the Late Archaic period (see Table 8.1). Among all features, except F2010-15, Canis lupus familiaris is the most abundant species. I have suggested that features F2010-14, F2010-1, and F2010-20 are burial deposits due to the low amounts of burning, cut marks, green bone fractures, and presence of ochre staining on specimens. The primary activity, whether ritual or subsistence, that produced features

2010-2 and F2010-9, could not be determined due to small sample size.

125

Feature Uncal. Cultural Period Suggested Most Abundant C14 (B.P.) Primary Activity Species 2 4430 +/-30 Unknown Canis lupus familiaris 2 4150 +/-30 Unknown “ 14 4290 +/-30 Burial “ Late Archaic 1 4210 +/-30 Burial “

20 4160 +/-40 Burial “ 9 4030 +/-40 Unknown “ 15 3980 +/-30 Natural disturbance Tamias striatus 20 3960 +/-40 Burial Canis lupus familiaris

Table 8.1: Radiocarbon-dated features, associated activities, and most abundant species at Jacob’s Island-1B.

8.3 Interpreting the Landscape of Jacob’s Island

In Chapter 2, I emphasized the importance of landscapes as the materialization of memory and the establishment of identity and memory through continual use. Jacob’s

Island was used from the Early Holocene until the Middle Woodland for various activities. I have identified possible evidence for ritual and ceremonial activities at the site – particularly the abundance, presence of red ochre, and the low frequency of butchery marks on the C. lupus familiaris specimens at the site suggests that this species was ritually important to people. In this section, I attempt to address how C. lupus familiaris was perceived, and I outline how this particular human-animal relationship possibly shaped identity and memory at Jacob’s Island.

Personhood, Memory, and the Role of Canis lupus familiaris

The mortuary features containing Canis lupus familiaris are an important part of the landscape at Jacob’s Island, through the integration of “personhood” with notions of

126 memory and identity. The high abundance and potential burial of this species at the site suggests the importance of this species. In this section, I provide discuss how C. lupus familiaris and ideas of personhood may be interpreted and applied to Jacob’s Island.

Although ideas of personhood are culturally mediated (Fowler 2008), all things have the potential for a soul and a spirit (Viveiros de Castro 1988). The occupants of

Jacob’s Island may have seen C. lupus familiaris as distinct “persons” yet this species may have possessed numerous roles within the social and cultural sphere. For example, among the Siberian Yukaghirs, C. lupus familiaris occupies a position between the human and nonhuman realms, which demonstrates a more culturally-nuanced perception of the animal and its place in the social and natural world (Willerslev 2007). Viewed as closer to humans than other animals, C. lupus familiaris are often, but not always, perceived as humans and children (Willerslev 2007). They also serve as a warning system for intruders (e.g. bears) and are used for hunting and for transportation (Willerslev

2007). Alternatively, C. lupus familiaris are also seen as dirty and unclean due to their unpleasant body odor, sexually promiscuous nature, and willingness to consume excrement (Willerslev 2007).

Evidence of a strong bond between C. lupus familiaris and humans in Ontario is seen in other burials and ritual contexts. During the Late Woodland, C. lupus familiaris were commonly buried with red ochre (Oberholtzer 2002). Evidence of C. lupus familiaris feasting and cremation was found in a Late Iroquoian longhouse at the

Dunsmore site (Thomas 1996). The Algonquin dog feast and Iroquoian white dog ceremonies of the 19th century generally included the sacrifice and consumption of C. lupus familiaris (Oberholtzer 2002). C. lupus familiaris may have been used exclusively

127 for slaughter among certain groups, or sacrificed as a substitute for humans during ceremonial activities (Ingold 1987).

Whatever the nature of the relationship between C. lupus familiaris and humans during this period, the occupants of Jacob’s Island-1B seem to have honoured it through mortuary ceremonial activities. It is difficult to determine how the C. lupus familiaris specimens at the site died, or if they were meant to act as a protector or companion for the deceased humans (Losey et al. 2011). The lack of age-related pathologies and trauma may suggest that they were relatively healthy upon death. Conversely, starved or diseased animals may show no osteological pathologies. Nevertheless, animal burials that exhibit similar features to human interments may indicate that animals were seen as persons. In this case, C. lupus familiaris may have been seen as persons because they were interred with red ochre in close proximity to humans. These burials represent a strong social relationship between this species and humans, because both were treated similarly in death.

Landscapes can have meaning on different levels, and these memories can be reestablished through re-using or revisiting a location (Ingold 1996). Jacob’s Island was revisited by groups for years and parts of the site were used for burial and ceremonial purposes.

The disturbances between features, such as digging new burial pits into older features, could represent the act of disremembering and a collectively lost memory of previous interments (Boric 2010). Alternatively, it could symbolize the re-association of memory within the landscape during ceremonial and ritual activities.

128

Other Animals and Landscape

Species other than C. lupus familiaris may have represented different ideas of personhood and identity to the inhabitants of Jacob’s Island-1B. Although low in abundance, the Castor canadensis, Microtus pennsylvanicus, Ondatra zibethicus,

Marmota monax, Sciurus carolinensis, Sciurus niger, Tamiasciurus hudsonicus, and

Ameiurus nebulosus specimens found at the site are all locally available species. If intentionally deposited, their presence at the site would represent ties with local landscape.

If animals were captured for burial, then they are also a part of the continuing memory and landscape the site. Hunting animals is evidence of knowledge and interactions with the local environment, geographic ranges, habitats, and seasonal use of the landscape (Ingold 1996; Mainland 2008).

8.4 Situating Jacob’s Island within the Trent-Severn Waterway Region

The Trent-Severn Waterway region has produced a relatively large number of archaeological sites, particularly around Rice Lake. I have chosen two sites, McIntyre and Dawson Creek, to compare with Jacob’s Island. These sites were selected because they are located within the Trent-Severn Waterway region. McIntyre and Dawson Creek vary in size and length of occupation, but are well-known and have securely dated Late

Archaic features. Here, I briefly provide background information for each site, then present the faunal data. Lastly, using these sites, I interpret patterns of animal resource use during the Middle to Late Holocene in the Trent-Severn Waterway region.

129

McIntyre Site

The McIntyre site (BbGn-2) is located in the Trent-Severn Waterway region in

Peterborough County, Ontario. The site is situated along the North shore of Rice Lake and is surrounded by marsh habitats, drumlins, and forested areas. The McIntyre site was excavated in 1968, 1974, and 1975 by R. B. Johnston then from Trent University

(Johnston 1968; 1976; 1984). Six radiocarbon-dates were obtained for this site (Table

8.2). Based on the stone tool types, faunal materials, and associated botanical data, it was hypothesized that the site was occupied primarily during the Middle to Late Archaic, with some evidence for activities at the site before and after this period (Johnston 1984).

Johnston (1984) suggested that the occupants of the site were hunter-gatherer-fisher groups, who camped seasonally at the site in order to exploit the lake and forest resources during the spring and summer seasons. Large artifact clusters and roasting pits suggest that the site may have been used over long periods of time and periodically revisited in spring and summer (Johnston 1984).

Cal. C14 Feature (B.P.) 1 4715 +/-270 5 3650 +/-85 16 3650 +/-110 20 3660 +/-95 21 3675 +/- 90 26 3700 +/-90

Table 8.2: Radiocarbon dates for the McIntyre site (Johnston 1984).

A total of 3868 macrofauna plus 90,085 microfauna specimens were excavated from the McIntyre site and screened through a ¼ inch mesh during recovery (Naylor and

130

Savage 1984; Waselkov 1984). These derive from 39 features, 26 of which were identified as hearth pits (Johnston 1984; Naylor and Savage 1984). Preservation was generally good, but only 409 specimens were identified to order or higher taxonomic category, due to high fragmentation rates (Naylor and Savage 1984). All features contained bones that exhibited some evidence of burning, except features 10, 15, and 18

(Naylor and Savage 1984). A total of 42% burned or calcined bones were found in these features (Naylor and Savage 1984). Fracture patterns were identified as mainly spiral fractures, possibly induced by bone grease extraction (Naylor and Savage 1984).

Gnawing was only identified on a few specimens and therefore was not considered a major taphonomic process at the site (Naylor and Savage 1984). NISP values by feature were not available for comparison, so the MNI values for both the macrofauna and microfauna remains are presented in Table 8.3.

Most of the sample was identified as deriving from mammals (80.7%, n=3868).

Odocoileus virginianus (53.7%, n=261) is the most frequently represented species at the site (Naylor and Savage 1984) (Table 8.3). In this species, a total of 25 individuals were identified, with metapodials being the most frequently occurring skeletal element (Naylor and Savage 1984). Canis lupus familiaris (18.8%, n=261) was the second most represented species at the site (Naylor and Savage 1984).

131

Feature Species 1 5 16 20 21 26 Total MNI % MNI % MNI % MNI % MNI % MNI % MNI % Sylvilagus floridanus ...... 1 1.3 . . . . 1 0.2 Tamias striatus . . . . 2 2.04 . . 1 2.9 . . 3 0.6 Tamiasciurus hudsonicus . . . . 1 1.02 ...... 1 0.2 Microtus sp. . . 2 1.3 . . 1 1.3 . . 1 1.3 4 0.7 Peromyscus leucopus . . 1 0.6 . . 1 1.3 . . . . 2 0.4 Peromyscus maniculatus ...... 1 1.3 1 0.2 Castor canadensis . . 1 0.6 1 1.02 1 1.3 1 2.9 1 1.3 5 0.9 Ondatra zibethicus . . 2 1.3 1 1.02 1 1.3 1 2.9 1 1.3 6 1.1 Canis sp. . . 1 0.6 3 3.06 . . 1 2.9 . . 5 0.9 Canis lupus familiaris . . . . 1 1.02 ...... 1 0.2 Ursus americanus 1 50 1 0.6 ...... 52 9.6 Procyon lotor ...... 1 1.3 . . . . 1 0.2 Lynx sp. . . 1 0.6 ...... 1 0.2 Odocoileus virginianus 1 50 2 1.3 1 1.02 1 1.3 1 2.9 2 2.7 58 10.7 Anas platyrhynchos . . 1 0.6 . . 1 1.3 1 2.9 . . 3 0.6 Anas discors ...... 1 1.3 . . . . 1 0.2 Chelonia sp. . . . . 1 1.02 1 1.3 . . . . 2 0.4 Chelydra serpentia . . 1 0.6 ...... 1 0.2 Chrysemys picta . . 1 0.6 . . 1 1.3 . . . . 2 0.4 Graptemys geographica . . 2 1.3 . . 0.0 . . . . 2 0.4 Thamnophis sp. . . 1 0.6 1 1.02 1 1.3 1 2.9 1 1.3 5 0.9 Nerodia sipedon ...... 0.0 1 2.9 . . 1 0.2 Rana pipiens ...... 1 1.3 1 2.9 1 1.3 3 0.6

132

Esox sp. . . 1 0.6 . . 1 1.3 . . 1 1.3 3 0.6 Catostomidae . . 22 14.2 7 7.14 5 6.7 3 8.6 4 5.3 41 7.5 Catostomus sp. . . 1 0.6 1 1.02 ...... 2 0.4 Ameiurus sp. . . 29 18.7 38 38.76 11 14.7 6 17.1 9 12.0 93 17.1 Ameiurus melas . . 42 27.1 22 22.44 14 18.7 5 14.3 7 9.3 90 16.5 Ictalurus sp. . . 8 5.2 3 3.06 1 1.3 . . 4 5.3 16 2.9 Lota lota ...... 1 1.3 . . . . 1 0.2 Coregonus sp...... 1 1.3 1 2.9 . . 2 0.4 Micropterus sp. . . 9 5.8 5 5.1 8 10.7 4 11.4 8 10.7 34 6.3 Sander sp. . . . . 1 1.02 2 2.7 2 5.7 6 8.0 11 2.0 Perca flavescens . . 4 2.6 4 4.08 5 6.7 1 2.9 4 5.3 18 3.3 Aplodinotus grunniens . . 21 13.5 8 8.16 12 16.0 4 11.4 22 29.3 67 12.3 Stizostedion sp. . . 1 0.6 1 1.02 1 1.3 . . 2 2.7 5 0.9 Total 2 100 155 100 102 100 75 100 35 100 75 100 544 100

Table 8.3: MNI values for the radiocarbon-dated features at the McIntyre site, adapted from Table 8 from Naylor and Savage (1984) and Waselkov (1984).

133

Interestingly, two C. lupus familiaris burials were found at this site: one in feature 26 and another in feature 15a (Naylor and Savage 1984; Johnston 1984). Of these, only the C. lupus familiaris burial in feature 26 was radiocarbon-dated to cal. 3700 +/- 90

B.P. (Naylor and Savage 1984; Johnston 1984). The burial contained an almost complete articulated juvenile that displayed no evidence of butchering or burning (Naylor and

Savage 1984). The deciduous dentition suggests that the individual was 2-4 months old at death (Naylor and Savage 1984). In total, 49 different skeletal elements were identified and the C. lupus familiaris specimens are listed in Table 8.4 (Naylor and Savage 1984).

Skeletal Element n Comments Skull ? Almost complete Mandible ? Complete Humerus 2 Ulnae 2 Radius 2 Scapula 2 Femur 2 Tibia 2 Fibula ? "fragments" Vertebrae 49 Innominates 2 Vertebrae 32 Rib 32 “Feet” 70

Table 8.4: Canis lupus familiaris skeletal elements from feature 26 (modified from Naylor and Savage 1984). “Feet” includes carpals, tarsals, metapodials, and phalanges.

Based on the MNI values presented by Waselkov (1984), fish were well- represented at the site (MNI=383) and in 18.4% of the macrofauna remains (n=3868)

(Naylor and Savage 1984). Tamias striatus were uncommon (1.5%, n=261) with an NISP

134 of 3 and an MNI of 2; Naylor and Savage (1984) suggest that T. striatus was an intrusive animal at the site.

Naylor and Savage (1984) propose a number of conclusions about site function.

Firstly, animals used as food sources were primarily mammals, with fish and birds being less important resources. Fish were probably boiled during grease extraction activities and caught using nets or weirs (Waselkov 1984). Naylor and Savage (1984) suggest that the site was occupied during the spring and summer months as a seasonal campsite for hunting, foraging, and fishing activities. Lastly, although the McIntyre site exhibits the expected species range for Late Archaic sites within the region, the complete juvenile C. lupus familiaris burial in feature 26 represents an anomaly. For Naylor and Savage

(1984), this burial attests to the special status and importance of this species to people during the Late Archaic.

Dawson Creek Site

The Dawson Creek site (BaGn-16) is a multi-component site located on the northwest shore of Rice Lake (Jackson 1988). The site was first identified in 1976 during an archaeological survey conducted by Trent University (Jackson 1980) and L. J. Jackson supervised the salvage excavations in 1981 through a grant from the Ministry of

Citizenship and Culture and the Ontario Heritage Foundation. Excavated soil was screened through ¼ inch mesh and total of 22 hearth and pit features were identified during the excavations (Jackson 1980, 1988). The 12 radiocarbon dates for the site suggest an occupation from the Late Archaic to early Historic period (Table 8.5) (Jackson

1980, 1988).

135

Feature 28a was the only feature dated to the Late Archaic period and identified as a hearth feature, composed of mainly Odocoileus virginianus remains with some

Ictalurus sp. represented (Jackson 1988). This feature was attributed to the warm season, from late summer to fall, based on the identified plant remains (Jackson 1988). O. virginianus long bones, more specifically the distal tibia, were the most represented skeletal element in the feature (Jackson 1988). Most of the specimens in this feature were burned and almost 150 grams of burned remains were identified (Jackson 1988).

Similarly 68.2% of the total specimens from the site were burned (Jackson 1988). This feature was identified by Jackson (1988) as a roasting hearth, based on the depth of the feature and the presence of numerous large mammal limb bones that are burned.

Feature Cal. C14 (B.P.) 28a 3920 +/-90 13 2940 +/-70 14 2675 +/-70 17 2540 +/-70 15 2320 +/-70 19 2170 +/-115 5 1990 +/-80 12 1535 +/-75 11 1405 +/-60 26 835 +/-65 21 370 +/-105 3 260 +/-65

Table 8.5: Radiocarbon-dated features from the Dawson Creek site (Jackson 1988).

In general, the faunal material is poorly preserved at the site and most of the O. virginianus and unidentified mammal long bones show spiral fractures (Jackson 1988).

Jackson (1988) suggests this was the result of long bone smashing during grease and

136 marrow extraction activities. O. virginianus is the most represented among all radiocarbon-dated features over time (Jackson 1988). In the sample dated to the Late

Archaic period, O. virginianus represent 99.6% of the identified specimens, with

Ictalurus sp. representing the other 0.4% (Jackson 1988).

The Middle to Late Holocene in the Trent-Severn Waterway Region

Both the McIntyre and Dawson Creek site faunal material provide an interesting contrast to the faunal data from Jacob’s Island-1B. The McIntyre site represents a seasonal campsite used for both subsistence and ritual practices. The site was occupied throughout the Late Archaic, based on the radiocarbon-dates from seven features (ranging from cal. 4715 – 3650 B.P.). The intentional burial of a nearly complete juvenile C. lupus familiaris skeleton in feature 26 lacks evidence of cut marks or other modifications, which suggests the special significance of this animal. Conversely, no C. lupus familiaris specimens were found within the Late Archaic feature at Dawson Creek, yet this animal is the best represented species in the faunal sample from Jacob’s Island-1B. These discrepancies between the three sites may be related to differences in site use, perceptions of animal ritual significance, or variations in animal-human relationships during this period.

Green bone fractures on mammal long bone specimens imply that grease or marrow extraction activities occurred at the McIntyre site. Similar activities took place at the Dawson Creek site, as this site shows similar evidence.

The Dawson Creek site was a very specialized processing camp during the Late

Archaic, focusing primarily on O. virginianus exploitation, with few other species

137 represented in the sample. This is unlike what is observed at the McIntyre site and Jacob’s

Island-1B, where fish remains were present.

The presence of T. striatus specimens varies between the three sites. Few specimens of T. striatus were found at the McIntyre site and none were found at Dawson

Creek. T. striatus specimens were found in abundance at Jacob’s Island-1B. These findings may be due to natural disturbances caused by the burrowing habits of this species. Jacob’s Island-1B may have been a very optimal woodland habitat with low predator populations, and high resource availability, promoting a high population of T. striatus species to create extensive home ranges at the site.

Low concentrations of fish, avian, reptile, and amphibian species at all three sites may be due to poor preservation or site function. Their low abundance is unexpected because McIntyre and Jacob’s Island are located near substantial bodies of water and wetland habitats, however, Dawson Creek is an inland location.

Summary

In the previous sections I have compared the faunal results from two different

Late Archaic sites within the Trent-Severn Waterway region to the sample from Jacob’s

Island-1B. The results of this comparison demonstrate the complexity and significant variation between assemblages during this period. The relationship between humans and particular animals varies between all three sites. Two sites show a focus on O. virginianus as a primary source of food. At the McIntyre site and Jacob’s Island-1B, evidence of the special treatment of C. lupus familiaris remains was observed, suggesting similar human- animal relationships. Differences in site function or faunal preservation may have affected all three sites towards a mammal-focused faunal assemblage.

138

In the final chapter, I synthesize the data and stress the need for continued research at Jacob’s Island-1B. Lastly, I discuss the possible limitations of this thesis.

139

Chapter 9

SYNTHESIS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Following the research objectives outlined in Chapter 1, the faunal remains from six securely dated features, F2010-14, F2010-15, F2010-2, F2010-9, F2010-20, and

F2010-1, were identified. Canis lupus familiaris and Tamias striatus were found to be the two most common species. However, taxonomic abundances differ between the dated features. T. striatus was concentrated mainly in F2010-15, while C. lupus familiaris was found in other dated features. Generally, C. lupus familiaris and T. striatus show a higher representation of axial skeletal elements than appendicular elements.

Although specimens were generally well preserved, the taphonomic analysis suggests a complex history of deposition and disturbance, with multiple natural and anthropogenic agents affecting the assemblage. Weathering and animal activities did not have a considerable effect on the faunal material, but some specimens were exposed to natural aboveground taphonomic processes. Ploughing may have affected the distribution, fragmentation levels, and breakage patterns. Red ochre was observed on some of the faunal material, and the majority was identified on C. lupus familiaris specimens.

The cut-marks found on some of the C. lupus familiaris specimens suggest that they may have been eaten for ceremonial and/or subsistence purposes. The red ochre stains found on some of the C. lupus familiaris specimens may have been placed on the species during interment. However, this staining could be the result of other natural post- depositional modifications, such as staining from the surrounding soil matrix.

Ritual and ceremonial activities at Jacob’s Island-1B may have involved C. lupus familiaris. This species may have been associated with notions of memory, identity, and

140 personhood through mortuary and ritual activities. The association of landscape and the importance of place might also have been promoted through these activities. Although T. striatus was identified in abundance at the site, the presence of this species is believed to have resulted primarily from denning activities.

A comparison with two sites in the Trent-Severn Waterway region showed variation in species composition and use during the Late Archaic period. The faunal material from the Dawson Creek and McIntyre site indicates a focus on O. virginianus as a primary source of food, while special treatment of C. lupus familiaris was observed exclusively at the McIntyre site.

9.1 Limitations of the Present Study

This thesis presents the first zooarchaeological examination of the faunal material from Jacob’s Island-1B. Unfortunately, this thesis is based on only seven dated features, which limits interpretation. An additional limitation concerns the underrepresentation of fish, reptile, amphibian, and bird species in the dated features. The presence of these specimens was used to determine the seasonality of the site, but the analysis was generally inconclusive. Age, sex, and density-mediated attrition studies could not be effectively conducted in the faunal analysis owing to a small sample size.

C. lupus familiaris specimens were the most abundant species represented within most features (except F2010-15), but ploughing or other taphonomic agents could have increased their presence within the features across the site. The effect of these taphonomic agents over-represents the importance of C. lupus familiaris, which are found in high proportions across multiple deposits.

141

9.2 Directions for Future Research

There are many possible directions for future research on this project. Extensive paleoenvironmental reconstructions of the island and surrounding areas would allow for a fuller understanding of nearby ecosystems and habitats. Additional radiocarbon dates and stratigraphic analyses could help refine the chronology of the site. Other parts of the island have been excavated in order to determine the full geographic extent of the occupations (Conolly et al. 2014 [in press]). Middle and Late Woodland settlements have been identified in JI-1C, JI-1D, and JI-1E and excavated materials are currently being analyzed.

It is recommended that further analysis should be conducted on the C. lupus familiaris specimens, since this thesis has emphasized their significance at Jacob’s Island-

1B. Measurements on C. lupus familiaris specimens taken during the identification process may prove valuable for comparison in future morphometric analyses. Thin sections on teeth may also provide a better understanding of age at death, an approach not addressed in this study. Additionally, stable isotopic analysis could be conducted on this species to better understand their diet, trophic level, and perhaps, mobility patterns.

I have argued that the presence of Tamias striatus is the result of natural burrowing disturbances and not the product of anthropogenic activities. Loose sediments from burial activities could have facilitated colonization by this small burrowing squirrel

(Morin, personal communication 2013). Nevertheless, this argument is open for debate and may be addressed through an in-depth assessment of T. striatus burrowing behavior, and its effects on archaeological sites (especially burials).

142

9.3 Final Remarks

The analysis of the zooarchaeological materials from Jacob’s Island-1B and –1C has provided insights into the cultural activities that characterized the Trent-Severn

Waterway region during the Holocene in Ontario. The data and interpretations presented in this thesis are starting points for future research into the Late Archaic period in this region, with broader implications for understanding mortuary practices and complex human-animal relationships.

143

APPENDIX 3

Spreadsheet Codes

Type:  PROCY = procyonidae  SCIU = sciuridae  Antler  SORID = soricidae  Bone  TALP = talpidae  Charcoal  URS = ursidae  Coral  Lithic  Shell

 Tooth  ACIPEND = acipenseridae

 Wood  AMIID = amiidae  ANGUID = anguillidae Class:  CATOSD = catostomidae CENTRA = centrarchidae   AMPB = amphibian CLUPED = clupeidae   AVES = bird CYPRIND = cyprinidae   BIVAL = bivalves ESOCD = esocidae   CORAL = coral GADID = gadidae   GASTPD = snail HIDOND = hiodontidae   MAM = mammal ICTAL = ictaluridae   PISC = fish LEPISD = lepisosteidae   REPT = reptile PERCIC = percichthyidae   UNIDENT = unknown / PERCID = percidae unidentifiable   SALMOD = salmonidae

Order:  SCIAE = sciaenidae

 ARVIC = arvicolinae CAN = canidae   ACCIPID = accipitridae CAST = castoridae   ALCID = alcidae CERV = cervidae   ANATID = anatidae DIDELP = didelphidae   ARDEID = ardeidae DIPOD = dipodidae   CHELOND = cheloniidae ERETH = erethrizontidae   CHELYD = chelyridae FEL = felidae   COLUBD = colubridae LEPOR = leporidae   COLUMID = columbidae MEPHIT = mephitidae   CORVID = corvidae MURID =muridae   EMBERZD = emberizidae MURIN = murinae   EMYDID = emydidae MUST = mustelidae   GAVIID = gaviidae PRIM= primates   GRUID = gruidae

144

 KINOSD = kinosternidae  m. LEPISO = lepisosteiformes  LARID = laridae  n. SALMON = salmoniformes  MUSCIPID = muscicapidae  o. GADIF = gadiformes  PANDID = pandionidae  p. ANGUIL = anguilliformes  PARULID =parulidae  q. HIOD = hiodontiformes  PHALACROD =  r. CLUPE = clupeiformes phalacrocoracidae

 PHASID = phasianidae

 PICID = picidae  PODICIPD = podicipedidae  PSITTAD =psittacidae  COLUMB = columbiformes  SCOLOPD = scolopacidae  GALLIF = galliformes  STRIGID = strigidae  ANSERIF = anseriformes  TRIONYD = trionychidae  GAVII = gaviiformes  TROGONID = trogonidae  PODIC = podicipediformes  TYRANNID = tyrannidae  PELECA = pelecaniformes  VIPERD = viperidae  PICIF = piciformes  STRIGIF = strigiformes

 ACCIPIT = accipitriformes CICONII = ciconiiformes  AMBYSTD = ambystomatida  GRUIF = gruiformes  BUFOND = bufonidae  CHARAD = charadriiformes  PROTEID = proteidae  TROGON = trogoniformes  RANID = ranidae   PSITT = psittaciformes  PASSERIF = Passeriformes  UNIDENT = unknown / unidentifiable  TESTUD = testudines  SQUAM = squamata ARTD = artiodactyla   b. LAG = lagomorpha

 c. ROD = rodentia  ANURA = anura

 d. SORI = soricimorpha  CAUDATA = caudate  e. DIDEL = didelphimorphia

 f. CARN = carnivore  EULAM = lamellibranchia Family: g. PERCI = perciformes   ARVIC = arvicolinae h. CYPR = cypriniformes   CAN = canidae AMII = amiiformes   CAST = castoridae j. ACIPEN = acipenseriformes   CERV = cervidae k. ESCO = esociformes   DIDELP = didelphidae l. SILUR = siluriformes   DIPOD = dipodidae

145

 ERETH = erethrizontidae  PHASID = phasianidae  FEL = felidae  PICID = picidae  LEPOR = leporidae  PODICIPD = podicipedidae  MEPHIT = mephitidae  PSITTAD =psittacidae  MURID =muridae  SALOM = salmonidae  MURIN = murinae  SCIAE = sciaenidae  MUST = mustelidae  SCOLOPD = scolopacidae  PROCY = procyonidae  STRIGID = strigidae  SCIU = sciuridae  TROGONID = trogonidae  SORID = soricidae  TYRANNID = tyrannidae  SUIDA= suidae

 TALP = talpidae URS = ursidae   CHELOND = cheloniidae

 CHELYD = chelyridae  COLUBD = colubridae  ACCIPID = accipitridae  EMYDID = emydidae  ACIPEND = acipenseridae  KINOSD = kinosternidae  ALCID = alcidae  TRIONYD = trionychidae  AMIID = amiidae  VIPERD = viperidae  ANATID = anatidae

 ANGUID = anguillidae

 ARDEID = ardeidae AMBYSTD = ambystomatidae   CATOSD = catostomidae BUFOND = bufonidae   CENTRA = centrarchidae PROTEID = proteidae   CLUPED = clupeidae RANID = ranidae   COLUMID = columbidae CORVID = corvidae   UNION = unionacea  CYPRIND = cyprinidae

 EMBERZD = emberizidae  UNIDENT = unknown /  ESOCD = esocidae unidentifiable  GADID = gadidae  GAVIID = gaviidae Subfamily GRUID = gruidae  HIDOND = hiodontidae  ANSERINAE = anserinae  ICTALD = ictaluridae  COREG = coregoninae  LARID = laridae  SALOMAE = salmoninae  LEPISD = lepisosteidae  SERPS = serpentes  MUSCIPID = muscicapidae  SUIN = suinae  PANDID = pandionidae  UNIDENT = unknown /  unidentifiable  PARULID =parulidae

 PERCIC = percichthyidae Genus:  PERCID = percidae

 PHALACROD =  BLARINA = Blarina phalacrocoracidae

146

 CANIS = Canis  SOMAT = Somateria  CASTOR = Castor  THAMNO = Thamnophis  GLAUCOM = Glaucomys

 LYNX = Lynx MARM= marmot   AMBYSTOMA = Ambystoma MICROT = Microtus   AYTHYA = aythya MUSTELA = Mustela   BUFO = Bufo ODO = Odocoileus   RANA = Rana ONDA = Onadtra   SANDER = Sander  PEROMY = Peromyscus  SCURUS = Scurius SOREX = Sorex  SUS = sus  UNIDENT = unknown /  unidentifiable  TAMIAS = Tamias

 TAMSCIUR = Tamiasciurus Species:  URSUS = Ursus ALC = alces alces   BREVICAUDA = brevicauda CANFAM = Canis familiaris  ANGUILL = anguilla  CANLUP = Canis lupus  CATOS = Catostomus  CAROL = carolinensis  COREGON = Coregonus  CAST = castor canadensis  ESOX = esox  CER = cervus elaphus/ canadensis  ICTALURUS = ictalurus  ERETHDORS = Erethizon  LEPOM = Lepomis  dorsatum  MICRO = Microtus HUDSON= hudsonicus  MOXO = Moxostoma  LONTCAN = Lontra Canadensis  PERCA = perca  MARTAM = Martes americana  POMOX = Pomoxis  MARTPEN = Martes pennanti  SALMO = salmo  MONAX = monax  SALVEL = salvelinus   NIGER = niger  ODV = odocileus virginianus ONDZIB = Ondatra zibithecus   ANAS = anas PENNSYL = pennsylvanicus   AYTHYA = aythya PROCYLOT = Procyon lotor   BRANTA = branta RANG = rangifer tarandus   BUTEO = Buteo SCROF = scrofa   CHEN = chen TAMIASSTRI = Tamias striatus   CLEMMY = Clemmys URSAM = Ursus americanus   CORVUS = Corvus VULVULP = Vulpes vulpes   CYGNUS = Cygnus

 ELAPHE = Elaphe MERGANS = mergus   ACIPFULVES = Acipenser  PODIC = podiceps fulvescens

147

 APLOGRUNN = Aplodinotus AXIAL grunniens ATL = Atlas  FLAVES = flavescens  AXIS = Axis  GAIRDNERI = gairdneri  CAUD = caudal vertebra (position:  GIBBOS = gibbosus  NEBULOSUS = nebulosus 1; 2; etc.)  PENNSYL = pennsylvanicus  CER = cervical vertebra (position:  1; 2; etc.) ROSTRA = rostrata  LUM = lumbar vertebra (position: SANDVIT = Sander vitreum   1; 2; etc.) VITREUM = vitreum  PEL = pelvis (left; right)  PREC = precaudal vertebra ANASPLAT = Anas platyrynchos   RIB = rib (position: 1; 2; etc.) APALSPIN = Apalone spinifera   SAC = sacrum ARDCIN = Ardea cinerea/herodias   STERSEG = sternum segment BUCEALB = Bucephala albeola   THO = thoracic vertebra (position: CAN =canadensis   1; 2; etc.)  CHELSERP = Chelydra serpentine  VERT = vertebrae  CLEMGUT= Clemmys guttata  ECTMIG = Ectopistes migratorius  GAVIMM = Gavia immer APPENDICULAR: FORELIMB  HALLEU = Haliaeetus leucocephalus  SCP scapula  MARILA = marila  HUM humerus  MELFUSC = Melanitta fusca  RAD Radius

 ULNA Ulna  UNIDENT = unknown / unidentifiable  RUL = radio-ulna  MC = metacarpal Body part:  CARP = carpal  SCA = scaphoid

 ANT = Antler  TRIQU = triquetral

 CRA = cranium fragment  HAMATE = hamate

 FBN = flat bone  CAPIT = capitato-trapezoid /  HCO = horn core capitate

 LBN = long bone  TRAPEZ = trapezoid

 MAN = mandible  TRAPEZUM = trapezium

 MANT = mandible with teeth  LUN = Lunatum (semi-lunaire)

 MAX = maxillary  PIS = pisiform

 MAXT = maxillary with teeth  PYR = pyramidal

 NID not identifiable  UNC = unciform (hamatum, os  TTH = Tooth crochu)

148

APPENDICULAR: HINDLIMB  VERT= vertebrae  CAL = calcaneum AVES  CBN = cubo-navicular CARPOM= carpometacarpus  CUB = Cuboid  TARSOM = tarsometatarsus  ECUN = external cuneiform 

 FEM = Femur TURTLES  FIB = Fibula  MT = metatarsal  CARAPA = carapace  NAV = navicular AMPHIBIAN  PAT = Patella PCUN = smaller cuneiform   TIBIOFIB = tibiofibula  TALU = Talus  TIB = Tibia Portion:

 ANG = goniac angle ARTCOND = articular condyle APPENDICULAR: LIMBS   AUDITB = auditory bulla

 MP = metapodial  BCS = braincase

 PHA = phalanx (side; position)  BOC = basioccipital

 SES = sesamoid  BRAN = vertical part  C = canine (upper or lower; UC or LC) (position: 1;2;3) COND = Condyle FISH   CORONP = coronoid process

 ANGU = angular  CROW = crown

 BASIPT = basipterygium  DC = deciduous canine (upper or  BR = branchiostegal ray lower; UDC or LDC) (position: 1;2;3)  CC= ceratohyal DI = deciduous incisor (upper or  CC= coracoid  lower; UDI or LDI) (position:  CLIETH = cliethrum 1;2;3)  DENTY = dentary DPM = decidual cheek tooth  DOSSP = dorsal spines  FR = fragment  EPIHYAL = epihyal  FRN = frontal  HYOMAND = hyomandible  I = incisor (upper or lower; UI or  IO = interopercula  O = opercula LI) (position: 1;2;3)  PARAPHEN = parasphenoid  LAC = lacrymal  PC = pectoral ray  M = molar (upper or lower; UM  or LM) (position: 1;2;3) PECTSP = pectoral spine  MANDSY = mandibular QUADR = quadrate   symphysis  RAY = ray  MANUB = manubrium  SCL = scale  MAXJ= maxilla +jugal  SPINE = spine  MSYM = Symphysis

149

 NAS = nasal  EPSC = sciatic spine  OCC = occipital  ILI = Ilium  OCN = occipital condyle  ILISC = ilium + ischium  PAR = parietal  ISC = Ischium  PET = petrosal  PUB = Pubis  PM = cheek tooth  SYMP = Symphisis  PM = premolar (upper or lower; UPM or LPM) (position: 1;2;3)

 PMX = premaxillary SCAPULA  RAMU = condyle + ramus  RAMUS = ramus  ACRO = Acromion  ROOT = root  AXEG = axillary edge  STAPES = stapes  BLAD = Blade  TEM = temporal  GLE = Glenoid  TROCHLEA = trochlea  GLBL = glenoid + blade  ZYG = zygomatic  SPIN = Spine

RIBS LONG BONES

 COSTAL = costal  ANGUPRO = angular process  PRIB = proximal rib  CAPIT = capitulum  SRIB = shaft rib  CREST = crest  DS = Distal

 DSH = distal + shaft

VERTEBRAS  DSH = distal + shaft  EPIPH = epiphysis

 ARP = articular process  HEAD = head

 BDY = body  LATEPIC = lateral epicondyle

 CEN = Centrum  MALLEO = Malleolus

 CENE = centrum epiphisis  NOTCH = notch

 CENN = centrum + neural arch  OLECR = olecranon

 FORAM = foramen  PR = preocpercula

 NEUR = neural arch  PSH = proximal + shaft

 SP = spinous process  PX = Proximal

 TRP = transverse process  SH = Shaft  SHPD = proximal +distal shaft PELVIS  SHPD = proximal +distal shaft

 ACE = Acetabulum  TUBER= tuberosity AILI = acetabulum + ilium  FISH  AILISC = acetabulum + ilium + ischium  ANGUNO = angular notch AISC = acetabulum + ischium   ARTSUR = articular surface  APUB = acetabulum + pubis

150

TURTLES  80 -100 mm >100 mm   COSTAL = costal

Shaft circumference: Segment:  1 = < ½ ACO = almost complete   2 = > ½ CO = Complete   3 = complete FR = Fragment   NOB = not observable  SHC shaft = proximal + mesial + distal Shaft length  SHD shaft = distal

 SHDM shaft = mesial + distal  1 = < ¼

 SHM shaft = mesial  2 = 1/4-1/2

 SHP shaft = proximal  3 = 3/4, > ¾

 SHPM shaft = proximal + mesial  NOB = not observable Side: Burn stage

 I = intermediate  0 = Not burned Cream / tan colour

 L = left  1 = Slightly burned in localized  NOB = not observable area/ Less than half carbonized

 R = right  2 = Lightly burned/ More than half carbonized Age:  3 = Fully carbonized (100%)/ Black in colour J = juvenile   4 = Localized less than half  A = adult calcined/ More black observed  NOB = not observable than white  5 = More than half calcined/ More Internal Surface: white observed than black  6 = Fully calcinated (100%)/ White  Compact  Compact and spongy  NOB = not observable  Spongy P-Transformations

Size Categories (Outram 2001)  CC: concretions  C1 = some

 0-10 mm  C2 = several

 10-20 mm  C3 = many

 20-30 mm  PITS (not from digestion)

 30-40 mm  X = exfoliated

 40-50 mm  SCR = scratches

 50-60 mm  NOB = not observable  60 -80 mm

151

Weathering stage Surface state A-transformations

 W0 = No cracking or flaking/  CUT = cutmarks Bone is greasy, contain marrow,  RET = retouchoirs tissue, skin, and muscle/ ligament  RAC = raclage attachments  PPIT = percussion pits

 1 = Some cracking longitudinal  ENC = percussion notches along long bones/ Articular  REDO = red ochre surfaces show cracking / Fat, skin,  POLI = polish and marrow may or may not be PD = post depositional marks present   2 = Outer thin layer shows Extent of A-traces evidence of cracking/ Long cracks are common and deeper. Extensive  0 = none flaking / Fat, skin, and marrow not  1 = some present  2 = many

 3 = Bone surface is rough,  3 = covered homogenous wreathing pattern, thin outer layer removed/ Gnaw type Weathering does not penetrate 1.0- 1.5 mm and bone is still attached/  DIG = digested Cracks are round in cross section  GR = grooves and tissue is rare  NOTC =Notch  4 = Bone surface is course and  RAG = Ragged edge rough in texture/ Large splinters  TP = tooth pits observed and loose enough to fall  NOB away/ Cracks are open and have splintered round edges Extent of gnaw traces  5 = Bone is falling apart/ Large splinters, bone is fragile, and easily  0 = none broken  1 = some  2 = many

 3 = covered Overall surface state Fracture type Intact   Dry relatively good   Green somewhat damaged   Dry and green poor   Green and dry NOB Surface state x-transformations  Fracture angle  STRI: striations CRUS: crushing   0 = Fresh-fracture : no more than  PEEL: peeling 10% of surface is perpendicular to  NOB cortical surface

152

 1 = 10% and 50 % of fracture surface is perpendicular  2 = >50% of the fracture surface is at 90 degrees

Fracture outline

 0 = Fresh-fracture : surface is smooth  1 = Some roughness but mainly smooth  2 = Rough edges

Fracture edge texture

 0 = Fresh-fracture : helical breaks  1 = Mixture of fracture outlines  2 = no helical breaks Detailed fracture shapes outlines

 Helical  Transverse  Longitudinal and transverse  Diagonal  Diagonal with step  Columnar  NOB Edges

 F= fresh  SA = slightly abraded  A = abraded  NOB

153

APPENDIX 4

Tree Species Common Name Picea mariana Black spruce Picea glauca White spruce Pinus banksiana Jack pine Larix laricina Tamarack Abies balsamifer Balsam fir Pinus strobus White pine Pina resinosa Red pine Tsuga canadensis Eastern hemlock Thuja occidentalis Eastern white cedar Populus tremuloides Trembling aspen Populus balsamifera Balsam poplar Populus grandidentata Large-toothed aspen Betula papyrifera White birch Acer saccarum Sugar maple Acer rubrum Red maple Betula alleghaniensis Yellow birch Fagus grandifolia Beech Fraxinus americana White ash Fraxinus nigra Black ash Tilia americana American basswood Quercus rubra Red oak Ulmus Americana American elm Juglans nigra Black walnut Carpinus carolinana American hornbeam

A 4.1. Tree species in the Great Lakes forests in Ontario, according to Thompson (2000a) and Ritchie (1987).

154

Taxonomic Classification Animal Species Common Name Classification Phylum Chordata Subphylum Vertebrata Class Mammalia Order Chiroptera Family Vespertilionidae Lasiurus borealis Red bat Pipistrellus flavius Eastern pipistrelle Myotis leibii Small-footed bat Order Artiodactyla Family Cervidae Alces alces Moose Cervus canadensis Elk Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer Rangifer tarandus Caribou Order Lagomorpha Family Leporidae Lepus americanus Snowshoe hare Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern cottontail Order Rodentia Family Castoridae Castor canadensis American beaver Family Sciuridae Glaucomys sabrinus Northern flying squirrel Glaucomys volans Southern flying squirrel Marmota monax Woodchuck/groundhog Sciurus carolinensis Eastern gray squirrel

155

Sciurus niger Eastern fox squirrel Tamias striatus Eastern chipmunk Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Red squirrel Family Muridae Peromyscus leucopus White-footed mouse Peromyscus maniculatus Deer mouse Family Arvicolinae Clethrionomys gapperi Southern red-backed vole Microtus chrotorrhinus Rock vole Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow vole Microtus pinetorum Woodland vole Phenacomys ungava Eastern heather vole Ondatra zibethicus Common muskrat Synaptomys cooperi Southern bog lemming Family Murinae Mus musculus House mouse Rattus norvegicus Norway rat Family Dipodidae Napaeozapus insignis Woodland jumping mouse Zapus hudsonicus Meadow Jumping mouse Family Erethrizontidae Erethizon dorsatum North American porcupine Order Soricimorpha Family Soricidae Blarina brevicauda Northern short-tailed shrew

156

Cryptotis parva Least shrew Sorex cinereus Masked shrew Sorex fumeus Smoky shrew Sorex hoyi Pygmy shrew Sorex palustris American water shrew Family Talpidae Condylura cristata Star-nosed mole Parascalops breweri Hairy-tailed mole Scalopus aquaticus Eastern mole Order Didelphimorphia Family Didelphidae Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum Order Carnivora Family Canidae Canis familiaris Domestic dog Canis latrans Coyote Canis lupus Gray wolf Urocyon cinereoargenteus Common gray fox Vulpes vulpes Red fox Family Ursidae Ursus americanus Black bear Family Procyonidae Procyon lotor Northern raccoon Family Mephitidae Mephitis mephitis Striped skunk Family Mustelidae Gulo gulo Wolverine Lontra canadensis Northern river otter Martes americana American marten

157

Martes pennanti Fisher Mustela erminea Ermine Mustela frenata Long-tailed weasel Mustela nivalis Least weasel Mustela vison American mink Taxidea taxus American badger Family Felidae Lynx canadensis Canadian lynx Lynx rufus Bobcat

A 4.2. Mammal species in Southern Ontario, according to Thompson (2000b) and Foreman (2011)

158

Taxonomic Classification Animal Species Common Name Classification Class Osteichthyes Order Perciformes Family Centrarchidae Ambloplites rupestris Rock bass Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish Micropterus dolomieui Smallmouth bass Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass Pomoxis annularis White crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black crappie Family Percichthyidae Morone crysops White bass Family Sciaenidae Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater drum Family Percidae Perca flavescens Yellow perch Sander canadense Sauger Sander vitreum Walleye Order Cypriniformes Family Catostomidae Carpiodes cyprinus Quillback Catostomus catostomus Longnose sucker Catostomus commersoni White sucker Ictiobus cyprinellus Bigmouth buffalo Moxostoma anisurum Silver redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum Golden redhorse Moxostoma valenciennesi Greater redhorse

159

Family Cyprinidae Chrosomus eos Northern redbelly dace Chrosomus neogaeus Finescale dace Semotilus atromaculatus Creek chub Semotilus corporalis Fallfish Semotilus margarita Pearl dace Order Amiiformes Family Amiidae Amia calva Bowfin Order Acipenseriformes Family Acipenseridae Acipenser fulvescens Lake sturgeon Order Esociformes Family Esocidae Esox americanus Grass pickerel Esox Lucius Northern pike Esox masquinongy Muskellunge Order Siluriformes Family Ictaluridae Ictalurus melas Black bullhead Ictalurus natalis Yellow bullhead Ictalurus nebulosus Brown bullhead Ictalurus punctatus Channel catfish Noturus flavus Stonecat Noturus gyrinus Tadpole madtom Noturus miurus Brindled madtom Order Lepisosteiformes Family Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted gar Lepisosteus osseus Longnose gar

160

Order Salmoniformes Family Salmonidae Subfamily Salmoninae Salmo salar Atlantic salmon Salmo gairdneri Rainbow trout Salvelinus fontinalis Brook trout Salvelinus namaycush Lake trout Subfamily Coregoninae Coregonus alpenae Longjaw cisco Coregonus artedii Cisco/lake herring Coregonus hoyi Bloater Coregonus johannae Deepwater cisco Coregonus kiyi Kiyi Coregonus nigripinnis Blackfin cisco Coregonus reighardi Shortnose cisco Coregonus zenithicus Shortjaw cisco Coregonus clupeaformis Lake whitefish Prosopium cylindraceum Round whitefish Order Gadiformes Family Gadidae Lota lota Burbot Order Anguilliformes Family Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel Order Hiodontiformes Family Hiodontidae Mooneye Hiodon tergisus Order Clupeiformes Family Clupeidae Alosa pseudoharengus Alewife

161

Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad A 4.3. Fish species in Southern Ontario, according to Thompson (2000b) and Foreman (2011)

162

Taxonomic Classification Animal Species Common Name Classification Class Aves Order Columbiformes Family Columbidae Ectopistes migratorius Passenger pigeon Zenaidura macroura Mourning dove Order Galliformes Subfamily Meleagridinae Meleagris gallopavo Wild turkey Family Phasianidae Subfamily Tetraoninae Bonasa umbellus Ruffed grouse Dendragapus canadensis Spruce grouse Subfamily Phasianinae Colinus virginianus Northern bobwhite Phasianus colchicus Ring-necked pheasant Order Anseriformes Family Anatidae Subfamily Anserinae Cygnus columbianus Tundra/whistling swan Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter swan Branta canadensis Canada goose Chen caerulescens Snow goose Chen rossii Ross’ goose Aix sponsa Wood duck Anas acuta Northern pintail Anas americana American wigeon

163

Anas clypeata Northern shoveler Anas crecca Green-winged teal Anas discors Blue-winged teal Anas platyrynchos Mallard Anas rubripes American black duck Aythya affinis Lesser scaup Aythya Americana Redhead Aythya collaris Ring-necked duck Aythya marila Greater scaup Aythya valisineria Canvasback Bucephala albeola Bufflehead Bucephala clangula Common goldeneye Clangula hyemalis Oldsquaw Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded merganser Melanitta fusca White-winged scoter Melanitta nigra Common/black scoter Melanitta perspicillata Surf scoter Mergus merganser Common merganser Mergus serrator Red-breasted merganser Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy duck Somateria mollissima Common eider Somateria spectabilis King eider Order Gaviiformes Family Gaviidae Gavia immer Common loon Gavia stellata Red-throated loon Order Podicipediformes

164

Family Podicipedidae Podiceps auritus Horned grebe Podiceps grisegena Red-necked grebe Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed grebe Order Pelecaniformes Family Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrocorax auritas Double-crested cormorant Order Cuculiformes Family Cuculidae Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed cuckoo Order Piciformes Family Picidae Colaptes auratus Northern/yellow-shafted flicker Dendrocopos/Picoides villosus Hairy woodpecker Dendrocopos/Picoides pubescens Downy woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Pileated woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Red-headed woodpecker Sphyrapicus varius Yellow-bellied sapsucker Order Strigiformes Family Strigidae Aegolius acadicus Northern saw-whet owl Asio flammeus Short-eared owl Asio otus Long-eared owl Bubo virginianus Great horned owl Nyctea scandiaca Snowy owl Otus asio Eastern screech owl Strix varia Barred owl

165

Order Accipitriformes Family Accipitridae Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned hawk Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk Buteo lagopus Rough-legged hawk Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered hawk Circus cyaneus Marsh hawk/northern harrier Falco sparverius Sparrow hawk Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle Family Pandionidae Pandion haliaetus Osprey Order Ciconiiformes Family Ardeidae Ardea cinerea/herodias Great blue heron Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern Ixobrychus exilis Least bittern Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night heron Order Gruiformes Family Gruidae Fulica americana American coot Grus canadensis Sandhill crane Order Charadriiformes Family Alcidae Family Laridae Larus argentatus Herring gull

166

Family Scolopacidae Tringa melanoleuca Greater yellowlegs Order Trogoniformes Family Trogonidae Ceryle alcyon Belted kingfisher Order Psittaciformes Family Psittacidae Conuropsis carolinensis Carolina parakeet Order Passeriformes Family Corvidae Corvus corax Common raven Corvus brachyrhynchos Common crow Cyanocitta cristata Blue jay Family Turdidae Hylocichla mustelina Wood thrush Vireonidae Vireo flavifrons Yellow-throated vireo Family Emberizidae Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged blackbird Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink Euphagus carolinus Rusty blackbird Molothrus ater Brown-headed cowbird Passerina cyanea Indigo bunting Quiscalus quiscula Common grackle Sturnella magna Eastern meadowlark Family Muscicapidae Turdus migratorius American robin Family Mimidae

167

Dumetella carolinensis Gray catbird Toxostoma rufum Brown thrasher Family Parulidae Parkesia/Seiurus noveboracensis Northern waterthrush Seiurus aurocapillus Ovenbird Vermivora pinus Blue-winged warbler Vermivora chysoptera Golden-winged warbler Dendroica cerulea Cerulean warbler Family Tyrannidae Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern kingbird Empidonax traillii Willow flycatcher

A 4.4. Bird species in Southern Ontario, according to Thompson (2000b) and Foreman (2011)

168

Taxonomic Classification Animal Species Common Name Classification Class Reptilia Order Testudines Family Cheloniidae Chelonia mydas Green turtle Family Chelydridae Chelydra serpentine Common snapping turtle Family Emydidae Clemmys guttata Spotted turtle Clemmys insculpta Wood turtle Chrysemys picta Painted turtle Emydoidea blandingii Blanding's turtle Graptemys geographica Common map turtle Terrapene carolina Eastern box turtle Pseudemys concinna Eastern river cooter Pseudemys rubriventris Redbelly turtle Family Kinosternidae Sternotherus odoratus Common musk turtle Family Trionychidae Apalone spinifera Eastern spiny softshell turtle Order Squamata Suborder Serpentes Family Colubridae Coluber constrictor Racer Diadophis punctatus Northern ring-necked snake Elaphe gloydi Eastern fox snake Elaphe obsolete Black rat snake Heterodon platirhinos Eastern hog-nosed snake Lampropeltis triangulum Eastern milk snake

169

Nerodia sipedon Northern water snake Opheodrys vernalis Smooth green snake Regina septemvittata Queen snake Storeria dekayi Brown snake Storeria occipitomaculata Northern red-bellied snake Thamnophis butleri Butler’s garter snake Thamnophis sauritus Northern ribbon snake Thamnophis sirtalis Common garter snake Storeria occipitomaculata Redbelly snake Family Viperidae Crotalus horridus Timber rattlesnake Sistrurus catenatus Eastern massasauga

A 4.5. Reptile species in Southern Ontario, according to Thompson (2000b) and Foreman (2011)

170

Taxonomic Classification Animal Species Common Name Classification Class Amphibia Order Anura Family Bufonidae Bufo americanus Eastern American toad Bufo fowleri Fowler’s toad Family Ranidae Rana catesbeiana Bullfrog Rana clamitans Green frog Rana palustris Pickerel frog Rana pipiens Northern leopard frog Rana sylvatica Wood frog Order Caudata Family Ambystomatidae Ambystoma laterale Blue-spotted salamander Ambystoma tigrinium Eastern tiger salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum Jefferson salamander Ambystoma opacum Marbled salamander Ambystoma texanum Small-mouthed salamander Ambystoma maculatum Spotted salamander Plethodontidae Hemidactylium scutatum Four-toed salamander Eurycea bislineata Two-lined salamander Family Proteidae Necturus maculosus Mudpuppy

A 4.6. Amphibian species in Southern Ontario, according to Thompson (2000b) and Foreman (2011)

171

Taxonomic Classification Animal Species Common Name Classification Phylum Mollusca Class Bivalvia Family Sphaeriidae Sphaerium simile Fingernail clam Family Unionidae Amblema plicata Threeridge Anodontoides ferussacianus Cylindrical floater Anodonta cataracta Floater Elliptio complanata Eastern elliptio Elliptio dilatata Lady finger/spike Lasmigona costata Fluted shell Lampsilis radiata Fat mucket Lampsilis ventricosa Pocket-book Leptodea fragilis Fragile papershell Ligumia recta Black sand-shell Obovaria olivaria Olive hickory-nut Proptera alata/Potamilus alatus Pink heelsplitter Strophinus undulatus Squaw foot Class Gastropoda Family Discidae Anguispira alternata Flamed disc/tigersnail Discus cronkhitei Forest disc Discus rotundatus Rotund disc Family Gastrodontidae Zonitoides arboreus Quick gloss Zonitoides nitidus Black gloss

172

Family Helicodiscidae Helicodiscus parallelus Compound coil Family Marginellidae Prunum apicinum Common Atlantic marginella Family Melongenidae Family Planorbidae Planorbella/Helisoma trivolvis Ramshorn Family Pleuroceridae Pleurocera acuta Sharp hornsnail Pleurocera sublare hornsnail Goniobasis livescens Great Lakes hornsnail Family Polygyridae Allogona profunda Broad-banded forestsnail Mesodon thyroidus White-lip globe Stenotrema/Euchemotrema fraternum Upland pillsnail Stenotrema/Euchemotrema leai Lowland pillsnail Triodopsis albolabris White-lip snail Triodopsis tridentata Northern three-tooth snail Family Strombidae Family Succineidae Novisuccinea/Succinea ovalis Oval ambersnail Family Viviparidae Campeloma decisum Pointed campeloma Family Zonitidae Mesomphix cupreus Copper button Mesomphix friabilis Brittle button

173

Nesovitrea electrina/Retinella hammonis Amber glass

A 4.7. Mollusca species in Southern Ontario, according to Thompson (2000b) and Foreman (2011)

174

Figure 4.3: Locations of the 2010-2012 season excavations at Jacob’s Island under the direction of J. Conolly (personal communication 2013).

175

Figure 4.4.: Features identified at Jacob’s Island in the burial area (J. Conolly, personal communication 2013).

176

APPENDIX 6.0

Jacob’s Island faunal database

177

APPENDIX 6.1

Bag / Float # Square Easting Square Northing Feature Number of Pieces FL 11 381 7730 N/A 1816 FL 11 381 7730 N/A 77 FL 6 372 7726 9 2335 FL 6 372 7726 9 39 FL 2 372 7726 20 515 FL 2 372 7726 20 61 FL 37 344 7724 N/A 282 FL 37 344 7724 N/A 49 FL 3 375 7726 2 513 FL 3 375 7726 2 86 FL 44 377 7726 15 132 FL 44 377 7726 15 18 FL 40 380 7719 N/A 39 FL 40 380 7719 N/A 9 FL 5 380 7730 N/A 766 FL 5 380 7730 N/A 66 FL 4 377 7726 N/A 332 FL 4 377 7726 N/A 19 FL 1 371 7725 14 1676 FL 1 371 7725 14 54 FL 43 371 7725 N/A 43 FL 43 371 7725 N/A 16 FL 9 375 7725 2 76 FL 9 375 7725 2 68 FL 8 371 7725 N/A 475 FL 8 371 7725 N/A 28 FL 12 380 7731 N/A 163 FL 12 380 7731 N/A 17 FL 7 375 7726 2 952 FL 7 375 7726 2 95 FL 33 375 7725 2 1414 FL 33 375 7725 2 118

A 6.1.1. Floatation data from and associated provenience information.

178

Length Catalogue # Provenience Tooth Age Sex (mm) 1680 F2010-14 PM4;U A NOB 23 411 E373N7723 - topsoil PM4;U A NOB 23

A 6.1.2. Complete Canis lupus familiaris fourth upper premolars identified from Jacob’s Island-1B.

Site Location Specimen ID U; P4; Length Age Sex Source Indian Knoll Kentucky, USA UKL 1-4 16.7 ADULT “ Morey (2010) “ “ UKL 1-24 16.5 YOUNG ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 1-26 16.7 ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 1-30 15.6 ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 1-35 18.1 YOUNG ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 1-55 16.8 ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 1-56 17.3 ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 1-60 16.5 YOUNG ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 1-117 16.4 ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 1-129 16.6 ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 1-130 16.3 ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 1-132 16.2 ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 1-133 16.5 ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 1-134 17.2 YOUNG ADULT “ “ Carlson Annis “ UKL 1-146 15.6 ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL -1-148 16.6 ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 1-150 17.4 ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 1-151 16 ADULT “ “

179

“ “ UKL, no number 16.9 ADULT “ “ Ward “ UKL 1-70 17.6 YOUNG ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 1-72 16.4 YOUNG ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 1-98 16.6 ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 1-99 16.5 ADULT “ “ Chiggerville “ UKL 1-61 17.2 ADULT “ “ Read “ UKL 1-144 18.2 ADULT “ “ “ Alabama, USA UKL 2-43 15.6 ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 2-45 16.4 ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 2-52 15.3 ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 2-53 15.8 ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 2-55 15 ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 2-73 17.5 ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 2-82 17.4 ADULT “ “ Whitesburg Bridge “ UKL 40-25 17.5 ADULT “ “ Flint River “ UKL 40-7 15.6 ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 40-9 17 ADULT “ “ Little Bear Creek “ UKL 2-93 16.6 ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 2-97 17.1 ADULT “ “ Mulberry Creek “ UKL 2-3 16.1 ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 2-5 17.7 ADULT “ “ “ “ UKL 2-9 18.1 ADULT “ “ Bailey Illinois, USA UTK 86-157 15.3 ADULT “ “ Cherry “ MCL 84-22 15.6 ADULT “ “ “ “ MCL 84-49 14.1 ADULT “ “ Eva “ MCL6-49 16.9 ADULT “ “ Koster “ ISM F2256 18.5 ADULT “ “

180

“ “ F2256 18.5 UNKNOWN “ Morey and Waint (1992) “ “ F2357 18.9 UNKNOWN “ “ “ “ F2407 18.3 UNKNOWN “ “ Murdoc ISM B-2 17.9 ADULT “ Morey (2010) Larson South Dakota, USA Larson A 27 UNKNOWN “ Morey (1986) “ “ Larson B 27 “ “ “ “ “ Larson C 19.3 “ “ “ “ “ Larson D 23.5 “ “ “ “ “ Larson E 19.3 “ “ “ “ “ Larson F 23.9 “ “ “ “ “ Larson G 20.6 “ “ “ “ “ Larson H 24.2 “ “ “ “ “ Larson I 21.2 “ “ “ “ “ Larson J 19.3 “ “ “ “ “ Larson K 21.1 “ “ “ Walth Bay “ Walth Bay L 22.5 “ “ “ “ “ Walth Bay M 22 “ “ “ “ “ Walth Bay N 24.3 “ “ “ “ “ Walth Bay O 23 “ “ “ “ “ Walth Bay P 23.4 “ “ “ Lower Grand “ Lower Grand Q 19 “ “ “ “ “ Lower Grand R 24.1 “ “ “ “ “ Lower Grand S 22.6 “ “ “ Potts “ Potts U 21.1 “ “ “ “ “ Potts V 21.2 “ “ “ Pretty Head “ Pretty Head W 20 “ “ “ Swan Creek “ Swan Creek X 24.4 “ “ “

181

Anton Rygh “ Anton Rygh Y 24 “ “ “ W.B. Robe North Dakota, USA Robe Z 21.8 “ “ “ “ “ Robe A' 21.2 “ “ “ “ “ Robe B' 19 “ “ “ Big Hidatsa “ Big Hidatsa C' 20.4 “ “ “ “ “ Big Hidatsa D' 21.1 “ “ “ “ “ Big Hidatsa E' 19.5 “ “ “ “ “ Big Hidatsa F' 21.7 “ “ “ Sakakawea “ Sakakawea G' 21 “ “ “

A 6.1.3. Canis lupus familiaris fourth upper premolars from various Middle Holocene archaeological sites within the United States of America.

182

Species U; P4; Length Age Sex Source Canis latrans 20.7 ADULT M Morey (2010) “ 19 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 19.6 “ F “ “ 17.2 “ F “ “ 20.6 “ F “ “ 19.3 “ F “ “ 19 “ F “ “ 18.7 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 21.2 “ M “ “ 19 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 18.7 “ F “ “ 20.4 “ F “ “ 19.3 “ M “ “ 20.6 “ M “ “ 21.2 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 19.3 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 20 “ M “ “ 20.9 “ M “ “ 20 “ M “ “ 22.1 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 20.5 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 18.4 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 19.4 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 21.1 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 21.5 “ M “ “ 20.1 “ M “ “ 20.2 “ M “ “ 17.8 “ F “ “ 18.5 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 20.6 “ M “ “ 19.5 “ M “ “ 19.8 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 20 “ M “ “ 19.5 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 19.9 “ M “ “ 19.8 “ F “ “ 19.3 “ F “ “ 20 “ M “ “ 20 “ M “ “ 19.6 YOUNG ADULT UNKNOWN “

183

“ 21.3 “ F “ “ 18.6 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 21.8 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 21.5 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 19.5 “ M “ “ 19.7 “ M “ “ 20.4 “ F “ “ 19.3 “ F “ “ 18.3 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 21.3 “ M “ “ 19.5 “ F “ “ 19.5 “ F “ “ 20.8 “ F “ “ 19.2 “ F “ “ 19.6 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 20.2 “ F “ “ 21.1 “ M “ “ 20.2 “ M “ “ 19.2 “ M “ “ 20.3 “ M “ “ 19.5 “ F “ “ 19.1 “ M “

A 6.1.4. Modern Canis latrans fourth upper premolars specimens from the North America.

184

U; P4; Species Length Age Sex Source Canis lupus ADVANCED Morey juvenile 23.1 JUVENILE F (2010) “ 24 “ F “ “ 22.6 “ F “ “ 22.9 “ F “ “ 24.6 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 22.4 “ F “ “ 21.5 “ F “ “ 22.5 “ M “ “ 22.1 “ F “ “ 23.8 “ F “ “ 24.3 “ F “ “ 22.7 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 21.8 “ M “ “ 21.9 “ F “ “ 22.2 “ M “ “ 24.7 “ M “ “ 24.4 “ M “ “ 24.3 “ F “ “ 24.9 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 24.8 “ M “ “ 25 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 27.7 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 26.7 “ M “ Canis lupus lycaon 23 ADULT F “ “ 24.4 ADULT M “ “ 24.5 ADULT M “ “ 22.9 ADULT M “ “ 22.7 YOUNG ADULT UNKNOWN “ “ 23.6 ADULT F “ “ 23.6 ADULT M “ “ 24 ADULT M “ “ 26.8 ADULT M “ “ 23.9 ADULT M “ “ 23.2 ADULT M “ “ 25.1 YOUNG ADULT M “ “ 26.3 ADULT M “ “ 24.6 ADULT M “ “ 23.7 ADULT M “ “ 24 ADULT M “

185

“ 24.6 YOUNG ADULT F “ “ 23.2 ADULT M “ “ 25 ADULT F “ “ 24.3 ADULT F “ “ 22.4 YOUNG ADULT M “ “ 26.8 ADULT M “ “ 23.7 ADULT F “ “ 21.4 ADULT F “ “ 23.1 ADULT F “ “ 24.5 ADULT F “ “ 25 ADULT M “ “ 26 ADULT M “ “ 23.3 ADULT M “ “ 24.1 ADULT M “ “ 25.3 ADULT M “ “ 23.4 ADULT F “ “ 23.9 ADULT M “ “ 22.2 ADULT F “ “ 24.2 ADULT M “ “ 24.3 ADULT F “ “ 25.4 ADULT M “ “ 23.9 YOUNG ADULT M “ “ 23.6 ADULT F “ “ 24.6 YOUNG ADULT M “ “ 23.8 YOUNG ADULT M “ “ 24.4 ADULT F “ “ 25.6 ADULT M “ “ 20.9 ADULT F “ “ 23 YOUNG ADULT F “ “ 24.9 ADULT M “ “ 22.6 ADULT F “ “ 22.8 ADULT M “ “ 22.4 YOUNG ADULT F “ “ 24.6 “ F “ “ 23.2 “ F “ “ 22.3 “ F “ “ 23.7 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 23.6 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 15.9 “ UNKNOWN “ “ 23.2 “ F “

A 6.1.5: Modern Canis lupus fourth upper premolars specimens from the North America.

186

F2010-1 Canis lupus familiaris Tamias striatus Body part NISP MNE % NISP MNE % Maxillary teeth 1 1 6 . . . Tooth fragments 1 1 6 . . . Cervical vertebrae 3 2 13 . . . Thorasic vertebrae 1 1 6 3 3 75 Lumbar vertebrae . . . 1 1 25 Pelvis 1 1 6 . . . Rib 5 3 19 . . . Shaft radius 1 1 6 . . . Scaphoid 1 1 6 . . . Proximal metacarpal 1 1 6 . . . Talus 1 1 6 . . . Cuboid 1 1 6 . . . Other phalanges 2 2 13 . . . Total 19 16 100 4 4 100

A 6.1.6. MNE counts tabulated for Canis lupus familiaris and Tamias striatus specimens from feature F2010-1 from Jacob’s Island-1B.

187

F2010-2 Canis lupus familiaris Tamias striatus Body part NISP MNE % NISP MNE % Maxillary teeth 6 6 24 1 1 10 Mandible . . . 1 1 10 Mandibular teeth 2 2 8 1 1 10 Tooth fragments 2 2 8 . . . Cervical vertebrae 1 1 4 1 1 10 Lumbar vertebrae . . . 1 1 10 Caudal vertebrae 1 1 4 . . . Pelvis 1 1 4 . . . Sternum 1 1 4 . . . Shaft radius 1 1 4 . . . Trapezium 1 1 4 . . . Metacarpal 5 1 1 4 . . . Proximal femur 1 1 1 2 2 20 Distal femur . . . 1 1 10 Distal tibia . . . 1 1 10 Talus 2 1 4 . . . Cuboid 1 1 4 . . . Distal metatarsal . . . 1 1 10 Shaft metapodial 1 1 4 . . . Proximal phalanx 2 2 8 . . . Medial phalanx 1 1 4 . . . Distal phalanx 1 1 4 . . . Total 26 25 100 10 10 100

A 6.1.7. MNE counts for Canis lupus familiaris and Tamias striatus specimens by feature F2010-2 from Jacob’s Island-1B.

F2010-9 Canis lupus familiaris Tamias striatus Body part NISP MNE % NISP MNE % Cervical vertebrae 1 1 50 . . . Rib 1 1 50 . Distal tibia . . . 1 1 100 Total 2 2 100 1 1 100

A 6.1.8. MNE counts for Canis lupus familiaris and Tamias striatus specimens by feature F2010-9 from Jacob’s Island-1B.

188

F2010-14 Canis lupus familiaris Tamias striatus Body part NISP MNE % NISP MNE % Cranium 1 1 2 . . . Maxillary teeth 2 1 2 . . . Mandible 4 2 5 . . . Mandibular teeth 2 2 5 . . . Maxillary / Mandibular fragments 1 1 2 . . . Tooth fragments 2 2 5 . . . Cervical vertebrae 3 2 2 . . . Thoracic vertebrae 1 1 2 . . . Lumbar vertebrae 5 5 12 . . . Caudal vertebrae 1 1 2 . . . Pelvis 3 1 2 . . . Scapula 1 1 2 . . . Proximal humerus 2 2 5 . . . Distal humerus 2 1 2 . . . Proximal radius 1 1 2 . . . Shaft radius 2 2 5 . . . Distal radius 1 1 2 . . . Proximal ulna 2 1 2 . . . Shaft ulna 1 1 2 . . . Scaphoid 2 2 5 . . . Triquetrum 1 1 2 . . . Proximal femur 1 1 2 . . . Shaft femur 2 2 5 . . . Proximal tibia 2 1 2 . . . Distal tibia 2 2 2 . . . Talus 2 2 2 . . . Calcaneum 1 1 2 . . . Shaft metapodial 1 1 2 . . . Total 51 42 100 0 0 100

A 6.1.9. MNE counts for Canis lupus familiaris and Tamias striatus specimens by feature F2010-14 from Jacob’s Island-1B.

189

F2010-15 Canis lupus familiaris Tamias striatus Body part NISP MNE % NISP MNE % Tooth fragments . . . 1 1 2 Altas . . . 1 1 2 Cervical vertebrae . . . 2 1 2 Thoracic vertebrae . . . 8 8 14 Lumbar vertebrae . . . 9 7 12 Caudal vertebrae . . . 4 4 7 Pelvis . . . 3 1 2 Rib . . . 2 2 3 Proximal humerus . . . 1 1 2 Distal humerus . . . 1 1 2 Proximal radius . . . 2 2 3 Complete ulna . . . 2 2 3 Complete femur . . . 1 1 2 Proximal femur . . . 1 1 2 Distal femur . . . 4 3 5 Proximal tibia . . . 1 1 2 Distal tibia . . . 2 2 3 Talus . . . 1 1 2 Metatarsal 2 . . . 3 3 5 Metatarsal 3 . . . 1 1 2 Metatarsal 4 . . . 1 1 2 Metatarsal 5 . . . 1 1 2 Complete metapodial . . . 1 1 2 Proximal metapodial . . . 4 4 7 Distal metapodial . . . 3 3 5 Proximal phalanx . . . 3 3 5 Long bone fragments . . . 1 1 2 Total 0 0 100 65 59 100

A 6 1.10. MNE counts for Canis lupus familiaris and Tamias striatus specimens by feature F2010-15 from Jacob’s Island-1B.

190

F2010-20 Canis lupus familiaris Tamias striatus Body part NISP MNE % NISP MNE % Cranium . . . 3 2 14 Maxillary teeth 1 1 2 3 2 14 Mandible . . . 1 1 7 Mandibular teeth 3 1 2 . . . Maxillary / Mandibular fragments 1 1 2 . . . Tooth fragments 1 1 2 . . . Cervical vertebrae 5 4 7 . . . Thorasic vertebrae 3 2 3 . . . Lumbar vertebrae 5 4 7 1 1 7 Pelvis 1 1 2 . . . Rib 2 1 2 . . . Complete humerus . 1 1 7 Proximal humerus 1 1 2 . . . Distal humerus . . . 1 1 7 Proximal radius 2 2 3 . . . Shaft radius 1 1 2 . . . Proximal ulna 1 1 2 . . . Shaft ulna 1 1 2 . . . Scaphoid 2 2 3 . . . Capitatum 1 1 2 . . . Metacarpal 4 1 1 2 . . . Proximal femur 1 1 2 . . . Shaft femur 3 2 3 . . . Distal femur . . . 1 1 7 Complete tibia . . . 1 1 7 Proximal tibia . . . 2 2 14 Distal tibia 2 1 2 1 1 7 Fibula shaft 1 1 2 . . . Talus 2 2 3 . . . Navicular 1 1 2 . Cuboid 1 1 2 . . . Metatarsal 2 3 2 3 . . . Metatarsal 3 2 2 3 . . . Metatarsal 4 2 1 2 . . . Metatarsal 5 5 3 5 . . . Shaft metapodial 1 1 2 . . . Distal metapodial 2 1 2 . . . Proximal phalanx 5 5 8 1 1 7 Medial phalanx 8 8 13 . . .

191

Distal phalanx 2 2 3 . . . Sesamoid 1 1 2 . . . Total 74 61 100 16 14 100

A 6.1.11. MNE counts for Canis lupus familiaris and Tamias striatus specimens by feature F2010-20 from Jacob’s Island-1B.

192

APPENDIX 7

0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-80 80-100 >100 NOB Total n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % 11. 20. 25. 1 28. 26. 14. 50. 13. Weathered 23 4.5 125 7 90 8 40 2 8 1 6 1 1 3 2 0 . . . . 305 5 Unweather 48 95. 88. 34 79. 11 74. 4 71. 1 73. 85. 50. 100. 100. 196 86. ed 5 5 939 3 3 2 9 8 6 9 7 9 6 7 2 0 3 0 2 0 2 5 50 106 43 15 6 2 226 Total 8 100 4 100 3 100 9 100 4 100 3 100 7 100 4 100 3 100 2 100 7 100

A 7.1. Weathering by fragment size class at Jacob’s Island-1B.

F2010-1 F2010-2 F2010-9 F2010-14 F2010-15 F2010-20 Total n % n % n % n % n % n % n % Weathered 2 2.7 16 9.8 . . 14 17.7 1 1.1 37 11.1 70 9.3 Unweathered 73 97.3 147 90.2 8 100.0 65 82.3 91 98.9 297 88.9 681 90.7 Total 75 100 163 100 8 100 79 100 92 100 334 100 751 100

A 7.2. Weathering by radiocarbon dated features.

193

F2010-1 F2010-2 F2010-14 F2010-20 Total

% % % % % %

Species Body part n weath. n weath. n weath. n weath. n weath. Incisor . . 1 11.1 . . . . 1 2.9 Canine 1 100.0 . . 1 9.1 . . 2 5.7 Premolar . . . . 1 9.1 . . 1 2.9 Molar . . 2 22.0 . . . . 2 5.7 Maxilla . . . . 1 9.1 . . 1 2.9 Mandible . . . . 5 45.5 . . 5 14.3 Cervical vertebrae . . . . 1 9.1 . . 1 2.9 Thoracic vertebrae ...... 1 7.1 1 2.9 Lumbar vertebrae . . . . 1 9.1 2 14.3 3 8.6 Radius ...... 2 14.3 2 5.7 Ulna ...... 1 7.1 1 2.9 Femur ...... 1 7.1 1 2.9 Talus . . 1 11.1 . . . . 1 2.9 Metatarsal ...... 1 7.1 1 2.9 Canis lupus Metapodial . . 1 11.1 1 9.1 . . 2 5.7 familiaris Phalanges ...... 1 7.1 1 2.9 Premolar . . 1 11.1 . . . . 1 2.9 Phalanges . . 1 11.1 . . . . 1 2.9 Canis sp. Caudal vertebrae . . 1 11.1 . . 1 7.1 2 5.7 Odocoileus Rib . . 1 11.1 . . . . 1 2.9 virginianus Radius ...... 1 7.1 1 2.9 Ondatra Mandible ...... 1 7.1 1 2.9

194

zibethicus Castor canadensis Incisor ...... 1 7.1 1 2.9 Sus scrofa Cervical vertebrae ...... 1 7.1 1 2.9 Total 1 100 9 100 11 100 14 100 35 100

A 7.3. Weathering by species and body part in radiocarbon dated features.

Topsoil Disturbed/ Transitional Feature N/A Total n weathered % n weathered % n weathered % n weathered % n weathered % Weathered 186 19.5 7 8.0 78 12.3 34 5.8 305 13.5 Unweathered 769 80.5 81 92.0 556 87.7 555 94.1 1961 86.5 N/A ...... 1 0.2 1 0.0 Total 955 100 88 100 634 100 590 100 2267 100

A 7.4. Weathering by level.

Features Striations Peeling Concretions Pits Exfoliation Scratches Total n % n % n % n % n % n % n % C14 Features 184 55.9 4 66.7 2 40.0 . . 39 43.8 33 47.8 262 52.19124 Undated Features/ Units 145 44.1 2 33.3 3 60.0 4 100.0 50 56.2 36 52.2 240 47.80876 Total Site 329 100 6 100 5 100 4 100 89 100 69 100 502 100

A 7.5. Total natural agents at Jacob’s Island-1B and -1C.

195

Striations Peeling Concretions Exfoliation Scratches Total Feature n % n % n % n % n % n % F2010-1 (n total= 29) 21 11.4 . . . . 1 2.6 7 21.2 29 11.1 F2010-2 (n total=54) 36 19.6 2 50 1 50 3 7.7 12 36.4 54 20.6 F2010-9 (n total=4) 3 1.6 ...... 1 3.0 4 1.5 F2010-14 (n total=62) 30 16.3 1 25 1 50 24 61.5 6 18.2 62 23.7 F2010-15 (n total=1) 1 0.5 ...... 1 0.4 F2010-20 (n total=112) 93 50.5 1 25 . . 11 28.2 7 21.2 112 42.7 Total 184 100 4 100 2 100 39 100 33 100 262 100

A 7.6. Proportion of specimens modified by natural agents in the radiocarbon dated feature.

196

F2010-1 F2010-2 F2010-9 F2010-14 F2010-20 Total

Body part n n n n n n % % % % % % % striations striations striations striations striations striations Canis sp. Incisor . . 2 10.0 ...... 2 1.9 Mandible ...... 1 4.2 . . 1 0.9 Caudal vertebrae 1 5.9 . . . . 1 4.2 2 4.7 4 3.8 Rib ...... 2 4.7 2 1.9 Humerus ...... 2 4.7 2 1.9 Metacarpal . . 1 5.0 . . . . . 1 0.9 Phalange . . 1 5.0 . . . . 2 4.7 3 2.8 Canis lupus Incisor 1 5.9 1 5.0 ...... 2 1.9 familiaris Canine 1 5.9 ...... 1 0.9 Premolar . . 1 5.0 . . . . . 1 0.9 Molar . . 1 5.0 . . . . . 1 0.9 Maxilla ...... 1 4.2 1 2.3 2 1.9 Mandible ...... 6 25 . 6 5.7 Sternal segment . . 1 5.0 . . . . 1 0.9 Cervical vertebrae 1 5.9 1 5.0 . . 2 8.3 1 2.3 5 4.7 Thoracic vertebrae 1 5.9 ...... 2 4.7 3 2.8 Lumbar vertebrae ...... 2 8.3 3 7.0 5 4.7 Caudal vertebrae . . 1 5.0 . . 1 4.2 . 2 1.9 Pelvis 1 5.9 ...... 1 0.9 Scapula ...... 1 4.2 . 1 0.9 Rib 5 29.4 . . 1 50.0 . . 2 4.7 8 7.5 Humerus ...... 2 8.3 1 2.3 3 2.8

197

Ulna . . . . 1 50.0 . 1 2.3 2 1.9 Radius 1 5.9 . . . . 4 16.7 2 4.7 7 6.6 Scaphoid 1 5.9 ...... 1 2.3 2 1.9 Cuboid 1 5.9 ...... 1 0.9 Metacarpal 1 5.9 1 5.0 . . . . 1 2.3 3 2.8 Femur ...... 1 4.2 3 7 4 3.8 Tibia ...... 1 4.2 1 2.3 2 1.9 Talus 1 5.9 2 10.0 . . 1 4.2 1 2.3 5 4.7 Metatarsal ...... 6 14.0 6 5.7 Metapodial ...... 2 4.7 2 1.9 Phalange 1 5.9 2 10.0 . . . . 4 9.3 7 6.6 Vulpes vulpes Cervical vertebrae . . 1 5.0 ...... 1 0.9 Odocoileus Rib . . 1 5.0 ...... 1 0.9 virginianus Marmota monax Mandible . . 1 5.0 ...... 1 0.9 Tamias striatus Maxilla ...... 1 2.3 1 0.9 Mandible . . 1 5.0 ...... 1 0.9 Tibia ...... 1 2.3 1 0.9 Tamiasciurus Cranium . . 1 5.0 ...... 1 0.9 hudsonicus Sus scrofa Cervical vertebrae ...... 1 2.3 1 0.9 Total 17 100 20 100 2 100 24 100 43 100 106 100

A 7.7. Striations by species and body part in radiocarbon dated features.

198

F2010-1 F2010-2 F2010-9 F2010-14 F2010-20 Total Body part % % % % % % % n scratches n scratches n scratches n scratches n scratches n scratches Canis sp. Incisor . . 1 11.1 ...... 1 3.3 Canine ...... 1 16.7 . . 1 3.3 Mandible ...... 1 16.7 . . 1 3.3 Caudal vertebrae 1 14.3 ...... 1 3.3 Humerus ...... 2 28.6 2 6.7 Metacarpal . . 1 11.1 ...... 1 3.3 Canis lupus familiaris Maxilla ...... 1 16.7 . . 1 3.3 Sternal segment . . 1 11.1 ...... 1 3.3 Cervical vertebrae 1 14.3 ...... 1 3.3 Pelvis 1 14.3 ...... 1 3.3 Rib 2 28.6 . . 1 100.0 . . . . 3 10.0 Radius ...... 1 28.6 1 3.3 Ulna ...... 1 16.7 1 28.6 2 6.7 Scaphoid 1 14.3 ...... 1 3.3 Metacarpal . . 1 11.1 ...... 1 3.3 Tibia ...... 1 16.7 . . 1 3.3 Fibula ...... 1 28.6 1 3.3 Metatarsal ...... 1 28.6 1 3.3

199

Metapodial ...... 1 16.7 . 1 3.3 Phalanges 1 14.3 ...... 1 3.3 Odocoileus virginianus Rib . . 1 11.1 ...... 1 3.3 Metacarpal . . 1 11.1 ...... 1 3.3 Marmota monax Mandible . . 1 11.1 ...... 1 3.3 Tamias striatus Mandible . . 1 11.1 ...... 1 3.3 Femur ...... 1 28.6 1 3.3 Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Cranium . . 1 11.1 ...... 1 3.3 Total 7 100 9 100 1 100 6 100 7 100 30 100

A 7.8. Scratches by species and body part in radiocarbon dated features.

Features Tooth pits Digestion Grooves Notches Ragged edge Total n % n % n % n % n % n % C14 Features 3 18.8 1 11.1 . . 1 14.3 . 5 14.3 Undated Features/ Units 13 . 8 . 2 . 6 . 1 . 30 . Topsoil 8 50.0 6 66.7 1 50.0 5 71.4 1 100.0 21 60.0 Disturbed 1 6.3 ...... 1 2.9 Feature 1 6.3 . . . . 1 14.3 . . 2 5.7 N/A 3 18.8 2 22.2 1 50.0 . . . . 6 17.1 Total Site 16 100 9 100 2 100 7 100 1 100 35 100

A 7.9. Proportions of specimens modified by animal agents at Jacob’s Island-1B and -1C.

200

Tooth pits Digestion Notches Total Feature n % n % n % n % F2010-1 ...... F2010-2 2 66.7 . . 1 100.0 3 60.0 F2010-9 ...... F2010-14 1 33.3 . . . . 1 20.0 F2010-15 ...... F2010-20 . . 1 100.0 . . 1 20.0 Total 3 100 1 100 1 100 5 100

A 7.10. Proportions of specimens modified by animal agents in the radiocarbon-dated features.

Poor Somewhat damaged Relatively good Intact NOB Total Feature n % n % n % n % n % n % F2010-1 4 5.3 16 21.3 35 46.7 20 26.7 . . 75 100.0 F2010-2 11 6.7 34 20.9 68 41.7 50 30.7 . . 163 100.0 F2010-9 2 25.0 2 25.0 3 37.5 1 12.5 . . 8 100.0 F2010-14 6 7.6 14 17.7 54 68.4 5 6.3 . . 79 100.0 F2010-15 8 8.7 4 4.3 2 2.2 77 83.7 1 1.1 92 100.0 F2010-20 65 19.5 96 28.7 127 38 46 13.8 . . 334 100.0

A 7.11. Specimen surface preservation by radiocarbon-dated feature.

201

Poor Somewhat damaged Relatively good Intact NOB Total Level n % n % n % n % n % n % Topsoil 278 29.1 289 30.3 310 32.5 78 8.2 . . 955 100.0 Disturbed/ Transitional 17 19.3 30 34.1 34 38.6 7 8.0 . . 88 100.0 Feature 128 20.2 155 24.4 260 41.0 91 14.4 . . 634 100.0 N/A 217 36.8 104 17.6 121 20.5 147 24.9 1 0.2 590 100.0

A 7.12. Specimen surface preservation by level.

Fragment size (mm) Total Level 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-80 80-100 >100 NOB n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % Topsoil 124 13 511 53.5 229 24.0 60 6.3 24 2.5 6 0.6 1 0.1 . . . . . 955 100.0 Disturbed/ 8 9.1 51 58 19 21.6 5 5.7 4 4.5 1 1.1 ...... 88 100.0 Transitional Feature 75 11.8 287 45.3 145 22.9 73 11.5 31 4.9 14 2.2 3 0.5 4 0.6 2 0.3 . . 634 100.0 N/A 301 51 215 36.4 40 6.8 21 3.6 5 0.8 2 0.3 3 0.5 . . 1 0.2 2 0.3 590 100.0

A 7.13. Distribution of fragment size by level.

202

Fragment size (mm) Total Feature 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-80 80-100 >100 NOB n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % F2010-1 43 57.3 19 25.3 6 8.0 5 6.7 2 2.7 ...... 75 100.0 F2010-2 60 36.8 62 38.0 22 13.5 11 6.7 3 1.8 3 1.8 1 0.6 1 0.6 . . . . 163 100.0 F2010-9 1 12.5 3 37.5 4 50.0 ...... 8 100.0 F2010-14 . . 27 34.2 18 22.8 22 27.8 6 7.6 2 2.5 . . 1 1.3 2 2.5 1 1.3 79 100.0 F2010-15 76 82.6 13 14.1 2 2.2 ...... 1 1.1 92 100.0 F2010-20 40 12 151 45.2 79 23.7 33 9.9 19 5.7 7 2.1 2 0.6 3 0.9 . . . . 334 100.0

A 7.14. Distribution of fragment size in the radiocarbon-dated features

Helical Transverse L&T Diagonal Diagonal with step Columnar NOB Total Feature n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % F2010-1 . . 2 50.0 ...... 1 25.0 1 25.0 4 100.0 F2010-2 . . 2 25.0 ...... 6 75.0 8 100.0 F2010-9 . . 1 100.0 ...... 1 100.0 F2010-14 1 7.7 5 38.5 . . 3 23.1 . . 1 7.7 3 23.1 13 100.0 F2010-15 ...... F2010-20 3 6.8 16 36.4 1 2.3 1 2.3 2 4.5 1 2.3 20 45.5 44 100.0

A 7.15. Fracture patterns in the radiocarbon-dated features (L&T = longitudinal and transverse).

203

F2010-2 Skeletal Element Transverse % NOB % Total % Radius 1 50.0 . . 1 12.5 Metacarpals . . 1 16.7 1 12.5 Femur . . 1 16.7 1 12.5 Metapodial 1 50.0 . . 1 12.5 Phalanges . . 4 66.7 4 50 2 100 6 100 8 100

A 7.16. Fracture patterns of Canis lupus familiaris body parts in the F2010-2 feature.

F2010-14 % % % % % % NOB Total Helical Skeletal Skeletal Element Element Diagonal Diagonal Columnar Transverse Radius 1 25.0 . . 1 25.0 . . 2 50.0 4 100.0 Ulna . . 1 33.3 1 33.3 1 33.3 . . 3 100.0 Femur . . 1 50.0 1 50.0 . . . . 2 100.0 Tibia . . 3 75.0 . . . . 1 25.0 4 100.0

A 7.17. Fracture patterns of Canis lupus familiaris body parts in the F2010-14 feature.

204

F2010-20 % % % % % % % % step step L&T NOB Total Helical Skeletal Skeletal Element Element Diagonal Diagonal Columnar Transverse Diagonal with

Humerus ...... 1 100.0 1 100.0 Radius . . 2 66.7 ...... 1 33.3 3 100.0 Ulna 1 50.0 1 50.0 ...... 2 100.0 Metacarpals ...... 1 100.0 1 100.0 Femur 2 50.0 1 25.0 ...... 1 25.0 4 100.0 Tibia . . 1 50.0 ...... 1 50.0 2 100.0 Fibula . . 1 100.0 ...... 1 100.0 Metatarsals . . 7 58.3 1 8.3 1 8.3 1 8.3 1 8.3 1 8.3 12 100.0 Metapodial . . 3 100.0 ...... 3 100.0 Phalanges ...... 1 6.7 . . 14 93.3 15 100.0

A 7.18. Fracture patterns of Canis lupus familiaris body parts in the F2010-20 feature.

205

C14 Features Retouch Polish Excavation marks Total A-agents n % n % n % n % F2010-1 1 33.3 . . 2 66.7 3 100.0 F2010-2 . . 1 33.3 2 66.7 3 100.0 F2010-9 ...... 100.0 F2010-14 . . 1 20.0 4 80.0 5 100.0 F2010-15 ...... 100.0 F2010-20 3 11.5 . . 23 88.5 26 100.0

A 7.19. Proportion of specimens modified by anthropogenic agents in the radiocarbon-dated feature.

F2010-1 F2010-2 F2010-14 F2010-20 Total n % n % n % n % n % Rib 1 100.0 ...... 1 11.1 Radius . . . . 1 50.0 . . 1 11.1 Metacarpal ...... 1 20.0 1 11.1 Femur ...... 1 20.0 1 11.1 Tibia . . . . 1 50.0 1 20.0 2 22.2 Metatarsal ...... 1 20.0 1 11.1 Metapodial . 1 100.0 . . 1 20.0 2 22.2 Total 1 100 1 100 2 100 5 100 9 100

A 7.20. Proportion of specimens with other excavation marks/ trowel scratches in the radiocarbon-dated feature.

206

Features n cuts % C14 Features 35 . F2010-1 2 3.5 F2010-2 15 26.3 F2010-9 . . F2010-14 4 7.0 F2010-15 . . F2010-20 14 24.6 Undated Features/ Units 22 . Total Site 57 100

A 7.21. Total cut marks for Jacob’s Island-1B and -1C.

207

F2010-1 F2010-2 F2010-14 F2010-20 Total Body part n cuts % n cuts % n cuts % n cuts % n cuts % Canis sp. Incisor . . 2 25.0 . . . . 2 8.0 Humerus ...... 2 18.2 2 8.0 Metacarpal . . 1 12.5 . . . . 1 4.0 Canis lupus familiaris Rib 2 100.0 ...... 2 8.0 Humerus . . . . 1 25.0 . . 1 4.0 Metacarpal . . 1 12.5 . . . . 1 4.0 Tibia . . . . 1 25.0 . . 1 4.0 Fibula ...... 1 9.1 1 4.0 Femur . . . . 1 25.0 2 18.2 3 12.0 Metatarsal ...... 1 9.1 1 4.0 Metapodial . . . . 1 25.0 . . 1 4.0 Phalange ...... 4 36.4 4 16.0 Odocoileus virginianus Rib . . 1 12.5 . . . . 1 4.0 Radius . . . . . 1 9.1 1 4.0 Marmota monax Mandible . . 1 12.5 . . . . 1 4.0 Tamias striatus Mandible . . 1 12.5 . . . . 1 4.0 Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Cranium . . 1 12.5 . . . . 1 4.0 Total 2 100 8 100 4 100 11 100 25 100

A 7.22. Proportions of cut-marked specimens by radiocarbon dated feature by species and body part.

208

F2010-1 F2010-2 F2010-14 F2010-20 Total Body part n ochre % n ochre % n ochre % n ochre % n ochre % Canis lupus Canine . . . . 1 4.8 . . 1 1.4 familiaris Upper fourth premolar . . 1 7.7 . . . . 1 1.4 First molar . . 1 7.7 . . . . 1 1.4 Maxilla . . . . 1 4.8 . . 1 1.4 Cervical vertebrae 3 23.1 1 7.7 1 4.8 3 12.5 8 11.3 Thoracic vertebrae 1 7.7 . . . . 1 4.2 2 2.8 Lumbar vertebrae . . . . 3 14.3 1 4.2 4 5.6 Caudal vertebrae . . 1 7.7 1 4.8 . . 2 2.8 Sternal segment . . 1 7.7 . . . . 1 1.4 Pelvis . . . . 1 4.8 . . 1 1.4 Rib 2 15.4 ...... 2 2.8 Humerus . . . . 1 4.8 1 4.2 2 2.8 Ulna . . . . 1 4.8 1 4.2 2 2.8 Radius . . . . 1 4.8 . . 1 1.4 Metacarpal 1 7.7 1 7.7 . . . . 2 2.8 Scaphoid 1 7.7 . . 2 9.5 1 4.2 4 5.6 Capitatum ...... 1 4.2 1 1.4 Cuboid . . 1 7.7 . . 1 4.2 2 2.8 Pyramidal . . . . 1 4.8 1 1.4 Femur . . . . 1 4.8 1 4.2 2 2.8 Tibia ...... 1 4.2 1 1.4 Calcaneum . . . . 1 4.8 . 1 1.4 Talus 1 7.7 1 7.7 2 9.5 1 4.2 5 7.0 Metatarsal ...... 2 8.3 2 2.8

209

Phalanges 2 15.4 2 15.4 . . 7 29.2 11 15.5 Canis sp. Canine . . . . 1 4.8 . . 1 1.4 Mandible . . . . 1 4.8 1 1.4 Caudal vertebrae 2 15.4 . . 1 4.8 1 4.2 4 5.6 Humerus ...... 1 4.2 1 1.4 Sciurus Humerus . . 1 7.7 . . . . 1 1.4 carolinensis Tamias striatus Femur . . 2 15.4 . . . . 2 2.8 Total 13 100 13 100 21 100 24 100 71 100

A 7.23. Ochre by species and body part in radiocarbon dated features.

210

Burn stages 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Fragment size (mm) n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % 0-10 355 19.9 7 12.3 11 19.0 13 43.3 63 40.6 49 32.5 10 30.3 508 22.4 10-20 815 45.7 41 71.9 31 53.4 13 43.3 64 41.3 81 53.6 19 57.6 1064 46.9 20-30 373 20.9 6 10.5 13 22.4 3 10.0 19 12.3 16 10.6 3 9.1 433 19.1 30-40 141 7.9 2 3.5 3 5.2 . . 8 5.2 4 2.6 1 3.0 159 7.0 40-50 61 3.4 1 1.8 . . 1 3.3 . . 1 0.7 . . 64 2.8 50-60 22 1.2 ...... 1 0.6 . . . . 23 1.0 60-80 7 0.4 ...... 7 0.3 80-100 4 0.2 ...... 4 0.2 >100 3 0.2 ...... 3 0.1 N/A 2 0.1 ...... 2 0.1 Total 1783 100 57 100 58 100 30 100 155 100 151 100 33 100 2267 100

A 7.24. Burn stages versus fragment size at Jacob’s Island-1B and -1C.

0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-80 80-100 >100 NOB Total n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % Burned 153 31.6 249 51.4 60 12.4 18 3.7 3 0.62 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 484 21.3 Unburned 355 19.9 815 45.7 373 20.9 141 7.9 61 3.42 22 1.2 7 0.4 4 0.2 3 0.2 2 0.1 1783 78.7 Total 508 22.4 1064 46.9 433 19.1 159 7.0 64 2.82 23 1.0 7 0.3 4 0.2 3 0.1 2 0.1 2267 100

A 7.25. Burning according to fragment size.

211

F2010-1 F2010-2 F2010-9 F2010-14 F2010-15 F2010-20 Total n % n % n % n % n % n % n % Burned 5 6.7 13 17.3 2 2.7 0 0 3 4.0 52 69.3 75 10.9 Unburned 70 11.4 150 24.4 6 1.0 17 2.8 89 14.5 282 45.9 614 89.1 Total 75 10.9 163 23.7 8 1.2 17 2.5 92 13.4 334 48.5 689 100.0

A 7.26. Proportions of burned specimens in the radiocarbon dated feature.

Burn stages 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A Total Level n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % Topsoil 787 44.2 23 40.4 24 41.4 11 36.7 34 21.9 62 41.1 14 . . . 955 42.1 Disturbed/ Transitional 72 4.0 3 5.3 2 3.4 3 10.0 3 1.9 4 2.6 1 . . . 88 3.9 Feature 526 29.5 21 36.8 13 22.4 11 36.7 29 18.7 29 19.2 5 . . . 634 28.0 N/A 397 22.3 10 17.5 19 32.8 5 16.7 89 57.4 56 37.1 13 . 1 100 590 26.0 Total 1782 100 57 100 58 100 30 100 155 100 151 100 33 100 1 100 2267 100

A 7.27. Burn stage by level.

212

APPENDIX 8

Species Common Native to Spawning Environment Diet Other Name Area? Information Information Anguilla American Yes Hatch in salt water Cool waters Carnivorous – eats Food source rostra eel and then spend other fish, frogs, and most of lives in invertebrates freshwater Catostmidae, Suckers Most species, Spawning runs in Cool waters Bottom feeders, Can be caught Castomus sp. except C. spring various using dip nets, niger (Black bow and buffalo) and arrow, or C. bubalus spears. (Smallmouth buffalo) Lepomis Pumpkin Yes Spawn in spring Cool to warm Aquatic and terrestrial Most gibbosus seed and summer when waters, slow insect larvae, widespread the water moving streams crustaceans, mollusks, and abundant temperature with lots of small fishes, and fishes in reaches around vegetation. sometimes plants Ontario, easy 13°C Large schools to catch congregate near the surface Ameirurus Brown Yes Spawn in late Bottom of Opportunist feeders Young gather nebulosus bullhead spring or early warm, shallow who consume in large summer when the lakes and slow crustaceans, worms, schools at water temperature moving streams. insect larvae, crayfish, night reaches 21°C Hide in small fish, fish eggs, vegetated areas and plants, that are for protection scavenged at the

213

bottom Ictaluridae, Catfish, Yes Spawn in late Warm water Consumes Food source Ictalurus sp. includes I. spring or summer lakes and invertebrates, plants, punctatus when the water streams and other fish. Not (channel temperature bottom feeders catfish) reaches 21°C and large channel catfish)

A 8.1: Information on fish species identified in radiocarbon dated features at Jacob’s Island-1B (Holm et al. 2010).

Species Common Native to Area? Mating Environment Diet Other Name Information Information Cygnus sp. Swans Only C. C. buccinator Shallow lakes, Consumes leaves, buccinator breeds in areas ponds, and stems, and roots (trumpeter within southern rivers of submerged or swan) and C. Ontario and C. aquatic plants, columbianus columbianus invertebrates, and (tundra swan) breeds in northern some insects Ontario during the spring

A 8.2: Information on bird species identified in radiocarbon dated features at Jacob’s Island-1B (Sandilands 2005).

214

Species Common Native to Mating Environment Diet Other Name Area? Information Information Odocoileus White-tailed Yes Mating Woodlands, Buds, and twigs of virginianus deer occurs during meadows, and maple, aspen, dogwood, the fall grassy clearings willow, and sumac, white cedar, grasses, leaves, acorns, mushrooms, apples, and corn are consumed Vulpes sp. Fox Yes Mating Forest-field, Consumes rabbits, occurs during stream and lake squirrels, mice, voles, early winter edges birds, snakes, crayfish, salamanders, insects, some nuts, fruits, and carrion Ursus Black bear Yes Mating Dense Eats carrion, ants, grubs, Most die from americanus occurs during coniferous, young bees and wasps, malnutrition early summer deciduous, or honey, fish, rabbits, when young or swampy forests mice, young deer, are killed by moose, raspberries, humans when cranberries, older strawberries, apples, grapes, cherries, beechnuts, and acorns Castor American Yes Pairs are Slow moving Beavers consume bark, Largest rodents canadensis beaver monogamous streams and leaves, twigs or aspen, in North and mate lakes near cottonwood, and willow America, underwater aspen, willow, trees, roots, aquatic hunted for fur during the or alder trees. plants, and water lilies winter Builds a lodge

215

with logs, sticks, and muds, and sometimes dams Microtus Meadow Yes Year-round Moist, grassy Grasses, sedges,, shoots, Most common pennsylvanicus vole mating fields and grassy clover, plantain, small mammals bogs dandelion, goldenrod, in region. yarrow, bark, fungi, and Populations small amounts of insects fluctuate dramatically in four-year cycles Ondatra Muskrat Yes Mating Slow-moving Cattails, arrowheads, Hunted largely zibethicus occurring streams, lakes, water lilies, rushes, for fur during the ponds, and crayfish, mussels, small fall and early marshes fish, frogs, and turtles spring Peromyscus sp. Mice, Yes Mating Deciduous Diet consists of nuts, Broad includes P. occurring forests, seeds, grasses, grains, distribution in (white- during late meadows, fields, cherries, grapes, berries, Great Lakes footed winter, early and grasslands insects, caterpillars, and area mouse), P. spring and other grubs maniculatus fall (deer mouse), and other subspecies Marmot monax Woodchuck Yes Mating Open forests Grasses, dandelions, Largest squirrel / groundhog occurs in and grasslands. daisies, goldenrod, in Great Lakes spring Creates multiple clovers, the bark, and area burrows in buds, twigs of dogwood, hillsides with sumac, and black cherry. well-drained Will sometimes climb

216

soil. Tunnels trees for food. Food is extend 6-9 m not stored during winter underground because it hibernates Sciurus Eastern Yes Mating Deciduous Consumes acorns, Active year- carolinensis gray occurs in forests, large walnuts, hickory nuts round, does not squirrel March or mature trees and other nuts, which hibernate April and including are buried in holes for July or walnut, hickory, winter use. Seeds, buds, August. Two maple, and mushrooms, flowers, litters are beech fruits, and insects are born each also consumed. year Sciurus niger Eastern fox No, During Deciduous Eats buds, flowers, fruits High mortality squirrel introduction March or forests and from elm, willow, and rates are often to Point April and forest-field maple trees, berries, strongly Pelee July, two edges grapes, cherries, corn, correlated with Island, Lake litter are caterpillars, eggs, young mast tree Erie produced birds, hickory nuts, and production acorns. Tamias striatus Eastern Yes Breeds Open deciduous Forages on ground and Tolerant chipmunk during early forests, finds occasionally up trees for towards spring and cover under fruits, seeds, nuts, humans midsummer, stumps, logs and mushrooms, insects, producing creates slugs, earthworms, two litters extensive slugs, and bird eggs. interconnected Will cache food in galleries in burrows as storage for burrows up to winter when it 10 m in length periodically enters torpor Tamiasciurus American Yes Mating Evergreen trees, Prefers to eat seeds from Most common

217 hudsonicus red squirrel occurs during mixed woodland spruce, fir, larch, squirrel in February or and coniferous hemlock, or pine cones, boreal forest March and forests walnuts, acorns, regions again in June hazelnuts, buds, fruits, or July mushrooms, maple sugar, insects, birds, mice, voles, and young rabbits.

A 8.3: Information on mammal species identified in radiocarbon dated features at Jacob’s Island-1B (Kurta 2011), excluding domesticates.

218

REFERENCES CITED

Abrams, M. D. and G. J, Nowacki

2008 Native Americans as active and passive promoters of mast and fruit trees in

the eastern USA. The Holocene 18(7):1123-1137.

AMEC Earth & Environmental,

2010a Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment Camp Maple Leaf, Part of

Islands A and C of Registered Plan NO. 6 (Jacob’s Island), Harvey Ward,

Township of Galway-Cavendish and Harvey, Peterborough County, Ontario, CIF:

P329-010-2009, submitted to Banyan Community Services and The Ontario

Ministry of Tourism and Culture.

2010b Stage 2 Archaeological Property Assessment Camp Maple Leaf, Part of

Islands A and C of Registered Plan NO. 6 (Jacob’s Island), Harvey Ward,

Township of Galway-Cavendish and Harvey, Peterborough County, Ontario, PIF:

P141-125-2010, submitted to Banyan Community Services and The Ontario

Ministry of Culture.

Angus, J. T.

2000 A Work Unfinished: The Making of the Trent-Severn Waterway. Severn

Publications Limited: Orillia.

Aston, M. and T. Rowley

1974 Landscape Archaeology: An Introduction to Fieldwork Techniques on Post-

Roman Landscapes. David & Charles Holdings Limited: Newton Abbot, Devon.

Baldwin, J.B., J. R. Desloges, and L. E. Band

2000 Physical Geography of Ontario. In Ecology of a Managed Terrestrial

Landscape: Patterns and Processes of Forest Landscapes in Ontario, edited by

219

A.H. Perera, D.L. Euler, and I.D. Thompson. Pp. 12-29. University of British

Colombia Press: Vancouver.

Banning, E.

2000 The Archaeologist’s Laboratory: The Analysis of Archaeological Data.

Springer: Toronto.

Bartosiewicz, L.

2008 Taphonomy and paleopathology in archaeozoology. Geobois 41:69-77.

Bender, B.

Introduction: Landscape – meaning and action. In Landscape: Politics and

Perspectives, edited by B. Bender. Pp. 1-17. Oxford: Berg.

Bernabo, J. C. and T. Webb III

1977 Changing Patterns in the Holocene Pollen Record of Northeastern North

America: A Mapped Summary. Quaternary Research 8:64-96

Binford, L.R.

1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2):217-225.

1978 Nunamiut Ethnoachaeology. Academic Press: New York.

1981 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press: New York.

1982 The archaeology of place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:5-31.

1984 Faunal remains from Klasies River mouth. Academic Press: New York.

Blackburn, T.M., K.J. Gaston, and N. Loder.

1999 Geographic gradients in body size a clarification of Bergmann’s rule.

Diversity and Distributions 5:165-174.

Boric, D.

220

2010 Happy forgetting? Remembering and disremembering dead bodies at Vlasac.

In Archaeology and Memory, edited by D. Boric. Pp. 48-67. Oxbow Books:

Oxford.

Bousman, C.B. and B. J. Vierra

2012 Chronology, Environmental Setting, and Views of the Terminal Pleistocene

and Early Holocene Cultural Transitions in North America. In From the

Pleistocene to the Holocene: Human Organization and Cultural Transformations

in Prehistoric North America edited by C. B. Bousman and B. J. Vierra. Pp. 1-5.

Texas A & M University Press: College Station.

Bower, J.R.F. and M. Kobusiewicz

2002 A Comparative Study of Prehistoric Foragers in Europe and North America:

Cultural Responses to the End of the Ice Age. Mellen Studies in Anthropology

Volume 6, The Edwin Mellen Press: Lewiston, New York.

Boyle, D.

1897 Mounds. Annual Archaeological Report, Appendix to the Report of the

Minister of Education, Ontario: Toronto.

Brizinski, M. and H. Savage

1983 Dog Sacrifices among the Algonkian Indians: An Example from the Frank

Bay site. Ontario Archaeology 39:33-40.

Brothwell, D., A. Malaga, and R. Burleigh,

1979 Studies on Amerindian Dogs, 2: Variation in Early Peruvian Dogs. Journal

of Archaeological Science 6:139-161.

Buikstra J. E. and D. K. Charles

221

1999 Centering the Ancestors: Cemeteries, Mounds, and Sacred Landscapes of the

Ancient Northern American Midcontenet. In Archaeologies of Landscapes, edited

by W. Ashmore and A. B. Knapp. Pp201-228. Blackwell Publishers Limited:

Malden, Massachusetts.

Brunger, A. G.

1992 Harvey Township: An Illustrated History. The Greater Harvey Historical

Society: Buckhorn, Ontario.

Bursey, J. A.

1994 Chaingate (AhGw-11): A Late Archaic Perkiomen Site in Burlington,

Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 57:45-63.

Byers, S. N.

2008 Introduction to Forensic Anthropology. Pearson Education Incorporated:

Boston.

Camp Maple Leaf,

2012a Heritage, Retrieved February 2, 2013 from:

http://campmapleleaf.net/about/heritage

2012b About, Retrieved February 2, 2013 from: http://campmapleleaf.net/about

Cannon, M. D.

1999 A Mathematical Model of the Effects of Screen Size on Zooarchaeological

Relative Abundance Measures. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:205-214.

Chapman, L. J., and D. F. Putnam

1985 The Physiography of Southern Ontario. University of Toronto Press:

Toronto.

Chapdelaine, C. and G. Kennedy

222

2003 L’analyse par activation neutronique des objects en cuivre natif. In L’Île aux

Allumettes: L'Archaique superior dans L'Outaouais, edited by N. Clermont, C.

Chapdelaine and J. Cinq-Mars, Pp. 253–264, Paléo-Québec 30. Recherches

amérindiennes au Québec, Montréal and the Musée canadien des civilisations:

Gatineau, Québec.

Church, R. R. and R. L. Lyman

2003 Small fragments make small differences in efficiency when rendering grease

from fractured artiodactyl bones by boiling. Journal of Archaeological Science

30:1077-1084.

Cleland, C.E.

1966 The Prehistoric Animal Ecology and Ethnozoology of the Upper Great

Region. Anthropological Papers No. 29, Museum of Anthropology, University of

Michigan: Ann Arbor.

Clark, J. S. and P. D. Royall

1995 Transformation of a northern hardwood forest by aboriginal (Iroquois) fire:

charcoal evidence from Crawford Lake, Ontario, Canada. The Holocene 5(1):1-9.

Clermont, N.

2003a L’outillage osseux. In L’Île aux Allumettes: L'Archaique superior dans

L'Outaouais, edited by N. Clermont, C. Chapdelaine and J. Cinq-Mars, Pp. 11–28,

Paléo-Québec 30. Recherches amérindiennes au Québec, Montréal and the Musée

canadien des civilisations: Gatineau, Québec.

2003 Les objets en pierre polie. In L’Île aux Allumettes: L'Archaique superior

dans L'Outaouais, edited by N. Clermont, C. Chapdelaine and J. Cinq-Mars, Pp.

223

171–186, Paléo-Québec 30. Recherches amérindiennes au Québec, Montréal and

the Musée canadien des civilisations: Gatineau, Québec.

Clermont, N. and C. Chapdelaine

1998 Ile Morrison : lieu sacré et atelier de l'Archaïque dans l'Outaouais. Mus e

canadien des civilisations, Recherches am rindiennes au u bec Montr al.

Conolly, J.

2010 Determination of the Burial at BcGo-17, Camp Maple Leaf, Jacob`s Island,

Pigeon Lake, Township of Galway-Cavendish and Harvey, Peterborough County,

Ontario, PIF: 320-003-2009, submitted to Registrar of Cemeteries, Ontario

Ministry of Government and Consumer Services.

Conolly, J., J. Dillane, K. Dougherty, K. Elaschuk, K. Csenkey, and J. Williams.

2014 [In Press] Establishing the Long Term Use of a Burial Location from the

Fifth to First Millennium B.P. in South-Central Ontario: An Interim Report on

Mortuary Patterning, Paleodietary Analysis, Zooarchaeology, Material Culture

and Chronology from Jacob Island-1 (BcGo-17), Kawartha Lakes. Canadian

Journal of Archaeology.

Conneller, C.

2004 Becoming Deer. Corporeal Transformations at Starr Carr. Archaeological

Dialogues 11(1):37-56.

Connerton, P.

1989 How Societies Remember. Cambridge University Press: Trowbridge,

Whiltshire.

Cooper, K. H.

224

2006 Copper and Social Complexity Frederica de Laguna’s Contribution to our

Understanding of the Role of Metals in Native Alaskan Society. Arctic

Anthropology 43(2):148-163.

Cooper, J. C. and H. G. Savage

1994 Zooarchaeological Analysis on Ontario Sites: An Annotated Bibliography.

Special Publication of the Ontario Archaeology Society Incorporated: North York,

Ontario.

Cossette, E.

2003 Étude de l'assemblage zooarchéologique du site BkGg11. In L’Île aux

Allumettes: L'Archaique superior dans L'Outaouais, edited by N. Clermont, C.

Chapdelaine and J. Cinq-Mars, Pp. 265–286, Paléo-Québec 30. Recherches

amérindiennes au Québec, Montréal and the Musée canadien des civilisations:

Gatineau, Québec.

Crawford, G.W. and D.G. Smith

2002 Early Late Woodland in Southern Ontario: An Update (1996-2000). In

Northeast Subsistence Settlement Change: A.D. 700-1300, edited by J. P. Hart and

C.B. Rieth. Pp. 117-134. New York State Museum, University of the State of New

York, The State Education Department, New York State Museum Bulletin 496:

Albany, New York.

Cummins, B. D.

2002 First Nations, First Dogs: Canadian Aboriginal Ethnocynology. Detselig

Enterprises Limited: Calgary.

David B. and J. Thomas

225

2008 Landscape Archaeology: Introduction. In Hand of Landscape Archaeology,

edited by B. David and J. Thomas. Pp. 27 – 43. Left Coast Press Incorporated:

Walnut Creek, California.

Davis, S.J.M,

1987 The Archaeology of Animals Rutledge: London.

Darvill, T.

2008 Pathways to a Panoramic Past: A Brief History of European Landscape

Archaeology In Handbook of Landscape Archaeology, edited by B. David and J.

Thomas. Pp. 60 – 76. Left Coast Press Incorporated: Walnut Creek, California.

Dawson, K. C. A.

1966 The Kaministikwia Intaglio Dog Effigy Mound. Ontario Archaeology 9:25-

62.

Dayan, T.

1994 Early Domesticated Dogs of the Near East. Journal of Archaeological

Science 21:633-640.

Delcourt, P.A. and H. R. Delcourt

2004 Prehistoric Native Americans and Ecological Change: Human Ecosystems

in Eastern North America since the Pleistocene. Cambridge Academic Press:

Cambridge.

Deller, D. B. and C. J. Ellis

1984 Crowfield: A Preliminary Report on a Probable Paleo-Indian Cremation in

Southwestern Ontario. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12:41-47.

Detry, C. and J. L. Cardoso,

226

2010 On some remains of dog (Canis familiaris) from Mesolithic shell-middens

of Muge, Portugal. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:2762-2774.

Dewar, G., J.K. Ginter, B.A.S. Shook, N. Ferris, and H. Henderson

2010 A bioarchaeological study of a Western Basin tradition cemetery on the

Detroit River Journal of Archaeological Sciences 37:2245 – 2254.

Dodd, C.F., D.R. Poulton, P.A. Lennox, D.G. Smith, and G.A. Warrick

1990 The Middle Ontario Iroquoian Stage. In The Archaeology of Southern

Ontario to A.D. 1650 edited by C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris. Pp. 321-360. Occasional

Publication of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeology Society Inc., Publication

Number 5: London.

Donaldson, W. and S. Wortner

1995 The Hind Site and the Glacial Kame Burial Complex in Ontario. Ontario

Archaeology 59:5-95.

Dorion, A.G.

2012 Inter-Site Analysis of Canis familiais: A Comparison of the Proto-Contact

Ball Site and the European Contact Le Caron Site, Simcoe County, Ontario. M.A.

Thesis, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.

Downs, R. M. and D. Stea

1973 Cognitive Maps and Spatial Behavior: Process and Products. In Image and

the Environment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior, edited by R. M.

Downs and D. Tea. Pp. 8 – 26. Aldine Publishing Company: Chicago.

Driver, J. C.

1999 Raven Skeletons from Paleoindian Contexts, Charlie Lake Cave, British

Columbia. American Antiquity 64(2):289-298.

227

Drooker, P.B.

2004 Perishable Evidence in the Northeast. In Perishable Material Culture in the

Northeast edited by P.B. Brooker. Pp. 1-17. New York State Museum Bulletin

500, The University of the State of New York, The State Education Department:

Albany, New York.

Ehrhardt, K. L.

2009 Cooper Working Technologies, Contexts of Use, and Social Complexity in

the Eastern Woodlands of Native North America. Journal of World Prehistory

22:213-235.

Elder, W. H. and C. M. Hayden,

1977 Use of Discriminant Function in Taxonomic Determination of Canids from

Missouri. Journal of Mammalogy 58(1):17-24.

Ellis, C. J.

2012 The Davidson Site (AhHk-54). Retrieved April 13, 2012, from

http://anthropology.uwo.ca/cje/davidson.htm.

2013 [In Press] Before Pottery: Paleoindian and Archaic Hunter-Gatherers. In

Before Ontario: The Archaeology of a Province, edited by M. K. Munson and S.

M. Jamieson.

Ellis, C. J. and D. B. Deller

1990 Paleo-Indians. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650 edited

by C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris. Pp. 37-63. Occasional Publication of the London

Chapter, Ontario Archaeology Society Inc., Publication Number 5: London.

Ellis, C. J., E. Eastaugh, and J. Keron

228

2010 A Preliminary Report on a Late Archaic Pithouse from the Davidson Site

(AhHk-54). Kewa 10-6 & 10-7:1 – 12.

Ellis, C.J., G.A. Foster, and M.R. Jesmer

1990a A Preliminary Evaluation of the Trent-Severn Waterway. Environment

Canada, Parks Service, National Historic Parks and Sites Branch Report.

Canadian Parks Service, Archaeological Research Branch: Ottawa.

Ellis, C.J., I.T. Kenyon, and M.W. Spence

1990b The Archaic. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650 edited

by C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris. Pp. 65-124. Occasional Publication of the London

Chapter, Ontario Archaeology Society Inc., Publication Number 5: London.

Ellis, C.J., P.A. Timmins, and H. Martelle

2009 At the Crossroads and Periphery: The Archaic Archaeological Record of

Southern Ontario. In Archaic Societies: Diversity and Complexity across the

Midcontinent edited by T. E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath, and A. C. Fortier. Pp. 787-

837. State University of New York Press: Albany, New York.

Emerson, T. E. and D. L. McElrath

2009 The Eastern Woodlands Archaic and the Tyranny of Theory. In Archaic

Societies: Diversity and Complexity across the Midcontinent edited by T. E.

Emerson, D. L. McElrath, and A. C. Fortier. Pp. 23-39. State University of New

York Press: Albany, New York.

Ernst, C. H. and J. E. Lovich

2009 Turtles of the United States and Canada. Second Addition. The John

Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.

Fausto, C.

229

2007 Feasting on People: Eating Animals and Humans. Current Anthropology

48(4):497-530.

Finlayson, W. D.

1998 Iroquoian Peoples of the Land of Rocks and Water A.D. 1000-1650: A Study

in Settlement Archaeology. London Museum of Archaeology, Special Publication

1 Volume I of IV, University of Western Ontario: London.

Fisher, J.A.

1997 The Adder Orchard Site: Lithic Technology and Spatial Organization in the

Broadpoint Late Archaic. Occasional Publications of the London Chapter, Ontario

Archaeology Society, Number 3: London, Ontario.

Flannery, K. V. (ed.)

1976 The Mesoamerican Village. Academic Press: New York.

Foreman, L. J.

2011 Seasonal Subsistence in Late Woodland Southwestern Ontario: An

Examination of the Relationships between Resource Availability, Maize

Agriculture, and Faunal Procurement and Processing Strategies. Ph.D Thesis,

University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.

Fowler, C.

2008 Landscape and Personhood. In Handbook of Landscape Archaeology , edited

by B. David and J. Thomas. Pp. 291-299. World Archaeology Congress Research

Handbooks in Archaeology, Left Coast Press Incorporated: Walnut Creek,

California.

Fox, W.

230

1990 The Middle to Late Woodland and Transition. In The Archaeology of

Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650 edited by C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris. Pp. 171 – 188.

Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeology Society Inc.,

Publication Number 5: London.

Froom, B.

1982 Amphibians of Canada. McClelland and Stewart Limited: Toronto.

Fuller, J.L.

1997 Holocene forest dynamics in southern Ontario, Canada: fine-resolution

pollen data. Canadian Journal of Botany 75:1714-1727.

Gadd, N.R.

1980 Late-Glacial Regional Ice-Flow Patterns in Eastern Ontario. Canadian

Journal of Earth Sciences 17:1439-1453.

Gajewski, K., A.E. Viau, and M. Sawada

2007 Millennial-scale climate variations in the Holocene – the terrestrial record.

In Climate Variability and Change: past, present and future, edited by G.

Kutzbach. Pp 133-154. John E. Kutzbach Symposium, 21-23 May, 2004. Center

for Climatic Research: Madison, WI.

Gamble, C.

2008 Hidden Landscapes of the Body. In Handbook of landscape archaeology

edited by B. David and J. Thomas. Pp. 256 – 262. Left Coast Press Incorporated:

Walnut Creek, California.

Germinpre, M., M. Laznickova, and M. V. Sablin.

2012 Paleolithic dog skulls at the Gravettian Predmosti site, the Czech Republic.

Journal of Archaeological Science 39:184-202.

231

Germinpre, M., M. V. Sablin, R. E. Stevens, R. E. M. Hedges, M. Hofreiter, M. Stiller, and V. R. Despres.

2009 Fossil dogs and wolves from Paleolotihic sites in Belgium, the Ukraine and

Russia: osteometry, ancient DNA and stable isotopes. Journal of Archaeological

Science I36:473-490.

Gifford-Gonzalez, D.P.,

1989 Ethnographic analogues for interpreting modified bones: some cases from

east Africa. In Bone Modification, edited by Bonnischen, R. and Sorg, M.H., pp.

179–246. Peopling of the Americas Publications: Orono, Maine.

Gilman, P. A.

1987 Archaeology Architecture as Artifact: Pit Structures and Pueblos in the

American Southwest. American Antiquity 52(3):538-564.

Gould, P. R.

1973 On Mental Maps. In Image and the Environment: Cognitive Mapping and

Spatial Behavior, edited by R. M. Downs and D. Tea. Pp. 182 – 220. Aldine

Publishing Company: Chicago.

Gravenor, C.P.

1957 Surficial Geology of the Lindsay-Peterborough Area, Ontario, Victoria,

Peterborough, Durham and Northumberland Counties, Ontario. Geological

Survey of Canada, Memoir 288.

1959 Physiographic Divisions, Lindsay-Peterborough Area, Durham,

Peterborough, Victoria, Ontario and Northumberland, Ontario Counties, Ontario.

Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir 1015A.

Greyson, D.K.

232

1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological

Faunas. Academic Press: Orlando.

Guiry, E. J. and V. Grimes

2013 Domestic dog (Canis familiaris) diets among coastal Late Archaic groups of

northeastern North America: A case study for canine surrogacy approach Journal

of Anthropological Archaeology 32:732 – 745.

Hegmon, M.

2003 Setting Theoretical Egos Aside: Issues and Theory in North American

Archaeology. American Antiquity. 68(2):213-243.

Henein, K., J. Wegner, and G. Merriam

1998 Population Effects of Landscape Model Manipulation on Two Behaviourally

Different Woodland Small Mammals. Oikos 81(1):168-186.

Higham, C. F. W., A. Kijngam, and B. F. J. Manly,

1980 An Analysis of Prehistoric Canid Remains from Thailand. Journal of

Archaeological Science 7:149-165.

Hillson, S.W.

1992 Mammal Bones and Teeth: An Introductory Guide to Methods of

Identification. Institute of Archaeology and Archetype: London.

Hoffman, J. L.

1992 Putting Together the Pieces: An Introduction to Refitting. In Piecing

Together the Past: An Application of Refitting Studies in Archaeology, edited by

J.L. Hoffman and J.G. Enloe, pp. 1-20. BAR International Series 578, Oxford.

Holloway, R.G. and V. M. Bryant Jr.

233

1985 Late-Quaternary Pollen Records and Vegetational History of the Great

Lakes Region: United States and Canada. In Pollen Records of Late-Quaternary

North American Sediments, edited by V.M. Bryant Jr. and R.G. Holloway. Pp. 72-

245. American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists Foundation: Austin,

Texas.

Holm, E., N. E. Mandrak, and M. E. Burridge

2010 The ROM field guide to freshwater fishes of Ontario. Royal Ontario

Museum Science Publication: Toronto.

Horard-Herbin, M-P.

2000 Dog Management and Use in the Late Iron Age: The Evidence from the

Gallic Site of Levroux (France). In Dogs Through Time: An Archaeological

Perspective, edited by Susan Janet Crockford. Pp. 115-121. Proceedings of the 1st

ICAZ Symposium on the History of the Domestic Dog. Archaeopress: England.

Horwitz, L. K.

1987 Animal offerings from two Middle Bronze Age tombs. Israel Exploration

Journal 37:251-255.

Hovelsrud-Broda, G. K.

2000 ‘Sharing’, transfers and the concept of the generalized reciprocity. In The

Social Economy of Sharing: Resource Allocation and Modern Hunter-Gatherers,

edited by G.W Wenzel, G. K. Hovelsrud-Broda, and N. Kishiami. Pp. 193-214.

Senri Ethnological Studies. National Museum of Ethnology: Osaka.

Howard, W. E.

1949 A Means to Distinguish Skulls of Coyotes and Domestic Dogs. Journal of

Mammalogy 30(2):169-171.

234

Ingold, T.

1987 The appropriation of nature: Essays on human ecology and social relations.

University of Iowa Press: Iowa City.

1996 Hunting and Gathering as Ways of Perceiving the Environment. In

Redefining Nature: Ecology, Culture, and Domestication, edited by R. Ellen and

K. Fukui. Pp. 117-156. Berg: Oxford.

Jackson, L. J.

1980 Dawson Creek: An Early Woodland Site in South-Central Ontario. Ontario

Archaeology 3:13-32.

1988a Fossil Cervids and Fluted Point Hunters: A Review for Southern Ontario.

Ontario Archaeology 48:27 – 41.

1988b Dawson Creek Site Analysis: 4,000 Years of Ontario Prehistory. Trent

University Occasional Papers in Anthropology Number 5, Department of

Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario,

2004 Changing Our Views of Late Paleo-Indian in Southern Ontario. In The Late

Paleo-Indian Great Lakes: Geological and Archaeological Investigations of Late

Pleistocene and Early Holocene Environments edited by L.J. Jackson and A.

Hinshelwood. Pp. 25 – 56. Mercury Series, Canadian Museum of Civilization,

Archaeology Paper 165: Gatineau, Quebec.

Jackson, L.J, C. Ellis, A. V. Morgan, and J. H. McAndrews

2000 Glacial Lake Levels and Eastern Great Lakes Paleo-Indians.

Geoarchaeology 15(5): 415–440.

Jamieson, J.B.

235

1996 Preliminary Observations on St. Lawrence Iroquoians and Huron Bone,

Antler and Ivory Artifacts. In Essays in St. Lawrence Iroquoian Archaeology:

Selected Papers in Honour of J.V. Wright edited by J. F. Pendergast and C.

Chapdelaine. Pp. 49-58. Occasional Papers in Northeastern Archaeology Number

8. Copetown Press: St. John’s, Newfoundland.

Jefferies, R.W.

2008 Holocene Hunter-Gatherers of the Lower Ohio River Valley. The University

Of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa.

Johnston, R.B.

1968a Archaeology of Rice Lake, Ontario. National Museum of Canada,

Anthropology Paper Number 19: Ottawa.

1968b The archaeology of the Serpent Mound Site. Occasional Paper 10, The

Royal Ontario Museum: Toronto. \

1982 An Engraved Slate Point From Southern Ontario. Ontario Archaeology

38:23-29.

1984 The Archaeology of the McIntyre Site. In The McIntyre Site: Archaeology,

Subsistence and Environment, edited by R. B. Johnston. Pp. 1 – 85.

Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper Number 126, National Museum of Man

Mercury Series, National Museums of Canada: Ottawa.

Journet, N.

1995 La paix des jardins: Structures sociales des Indiens curripaco du haut Rio

Negro (Colombie). Institut d’Ethnologie, Musee de l’Homme: Paris.

Kansa, S. W. and S. Campbell

236

2004 Feasting with the dead? – a ritual bone deposits at Domuztepe, south eastern

Turkey (c.5550 cal BC). In Behaviour Behind Bones: The zooarchaeology of

ritual, religion, status and identity, edited by S. J. O’Day, W. van Neer, and A.

Ervynk. Pp. 2-13. Oxbow Books: Oxford.

Kaplan, J.O.

1975 The Piaroa: a people of the Orinoco Basin: a study in kinship and marriage.

Clarendon Press: Oxford.

Katzenberg, M.A.

1989 Stable Isotope Analysis of Archaeological Faunal Remains from Southern

Journal of Archaeological Science 16:319 – 329.

2008 Stable isotope analysis: a tool for studying past diet, demography, and life

history. In Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton, edited by M.A.

Katzenberg and S.R. Saunders. Pp. 387–410.Wiley-Liss: New York.

Katzenberg, M.A., Schwarcz, H.P., Knyf, M., and F.J. Melbye

1995 Stable isotope evidence from maize horticulture and paleodiet in southern

Ontario, Canada American Antiquity 60 (2):335 – 350.

Karadimas, D.

2005 La raison du corps: Idéologie du corps et représentation de

l'environnement chez les Miraña d'Amazonie colombienne. Editions Peeters: Paris.

Kenyon, W.

1959 The Inverhuron Site. Art and Archaeology Division – Occasional Paper 1,

The Royal Ontario Museum: Toronto.

Knapp, A. B. and W. Ashmore

237

1990 Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptualized, and Ideational. In

Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by W. Ashmore

and A. B. Knapp. Pp. 1 – 30. Blackwell Publishers Limited: Malden,

Massachusetts.

Kolenosky, G.B. and R. O. Standfield,

1975 Morphological and ecological variation among gray wolves (Canis lupus)of

Ontario, Canada. In The wild canids: their systematics, behavioral ecology and

evolution, edited by M. W. Fox. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.: Toronto

Koon, H. E.C., T. P. O’Connor, and M. J. Collins

2010 Sorting the butchered from the boiled. Journal of Archaeological Science

37:62-69.

Koon, H.E.C., R.A. Nicholson, and M.J. Collins,

2003. A practical approach to the identification of low temperature heated bone

using T E M. Journal of Archaeological Science 30 (11): 1393–1399.

Kugel, R. and L.E. Murphy (eds.)

2007 Native Women’s History in Eastern North America before 1900: A Guide to

Research and Writing. University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln, Nebraska.

Kurta, A.

2011 Mammals of the Great Lakes Region. The University of Michigan Press:

Ann Arbor.

Latta, M. A.

1999 The Way We Were: Sixty Years of Paradigm. In Taming the Taxonomy:

Toward a New Understanding of Great Lakes Archaeology, edited by R.F.

Williams and C. M. Watts. Pp. 11-14.eastendbooks: Toronto.

238

Lawrence, B. and W. O. Bossert,

1975 Relationships of North American Canis as shown by multiple character

analysis of selected populations. In The wild canids: their systematics, behavioral

ecology and evolution, edited by M. W. Fox. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.: Toronto

Layton, P. and P. J. Ucko

1999 Gazing on the Landscape and Encountering the Environment. In The

Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape: Shaping your Landscape, edited by

P. J. Ucko and R. Layton. Pp. 1-20. Routledge: London.

Lennox, P.A.

1986 The Innes Site: A Plow-Disturbed Archaic Component, Brant County,

Ontario. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 11(2):221-268

1990 The Canada Century site: A Lamoka Component located on the Niagara

Peninsula, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 51:31-52.

Linklater, E. M. M.

1994 The Footprints of Wasahkacahk: The Churchill River Diversion Project and

Destruction of the Nelson House Cree Historical Landscape. M.A. Thesis, Simon

Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.

Lloveras, L., M. Moreno-Garcia, and J. Nadal.

2011 Feeding the Foxes: An Experimental Study Assess Their Taphonomic

Signature on Leporid Remains. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology doi:

10.1002/oa.1280.

Jolicoeur, P.

1959 Multivariate Geographical Variation in the Wolf Canis lupus L. Evolution

13(3):283-299.

239

Lorber, M., G. Alvo, and W. J. Zontine

1979 Sexual Dimorphism of Canine Teeth of Small Dogs. Archive of Oral

Biology 24(8):585-589.

Losey, R. J., V. I. Bazaliiskii, S. Garvie-Lok, M. Germonpré, J. A. Leonard, A. L. Allen,

M. A. Katzenberg, and M. V. Sablin

2011 Canids as persons: Early Neolithic dog and wolf burials, Cis-Baikal, Siberia.

Journal of Archaeological Science 30:174-189.

Lyman, R.L.

1994 Vertebrate taphonomy. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

2005 Analyzing cut marks: lessons from artiodactyl remains in the northwestern

United States. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1722-1732.

2008 Quantiative Paleozoology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

McAndrews, J. H.

1984 Late Quaternary Vegetation History of Rice Lake, Ontario, and the McIntyre

Archaeological Site. In The McIntyre Site: Archaeology, Subsistence and

Environment, edited by R. B. Johnston. Pp. 159 – 189. Archaeological Survey of

Canada Paper Number 126, National Museum of Man Mercury Series, National

Museums of Canada: Ottawa.

McElrath, D. L. and T. E. Emerson

2009 Concluding Thoughts on the Archaic Occupation of the Eastern Woodlands.

In Archaic Societies: Diversity and Complexity across the Midcontinent edited by

T. E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath, and A. C. Fortier. Pp. 841-855. State University

of New York Press: Albany, New York.

McGuire, K. R. and W. R. Hildebrandt

240

2005 Re-Thinking Great Basin Foragers, Prestige Hunting and Costly Signaling

During the Middle Archaic Period. American Antiquity 70(4):695–712.

McKern, W. C.

1939 The Midwestern Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Archaeological Culture

Study. American Antiquity 4:301-313.

McMillan, A. D. and E. Yellowhorn

2004 First Peoples in Canada. Douglas and McIntyre: Vancouver.

Madgwick, R. and J. Mulville.

2011 Investigating Variation in the Prevalence of Weathering in Faunal

Assemblages in the UK: A Multivariate Statistical Approach. International

Journal of Osteoarchaeology doi: 10.1002/oa.1274.

Mainland, I. L.

2008 The Uses of Archaeological Faunal Remains in Landscape Archaeology. In

Handbook of Landscape Archaeology , edited by B. David and J. Thomas. Pp.

544-550. World Archaeology Congress Research Handbooks in Archaeology, Left

Coast Press Incorporated: Walnut Creek, California.

Mallory, E.

1991 Kawartha: Living on these Lakes. Peterborough Publishing: Peterborough.

Mann, B.A.

2000 Iroquoian Women: The Gantowisas. Peter Lang: New York.

Marean, C.W. and Kim, S.Y.

1998 Mousterian Large-Mammal Remains from Kobeh Cave: Behavioral

implications for Neanderthals and Early Humans. Current Anthropology 39:S79-

S113.

241

Mares, M.A. and T.E. Lacher, Jr.

1987 Social Spacing in Small Mammals: Patterns of Individual Variation.

American Zoologist 27(2):293-306.

Martin, S. R.

1999 Wonderful Power: The Story of Ancient Copper Working in the Lake

Superior Basin. Wayne State University Press: Detroit.

Marin-Arroyo, A.B., R. Madgwick, J-P. Brugal, and M. Moreno-Garcia.

2011 New Perspectives on Taphonomy. International Journal of

Osteoarchaeology doi: 10.1002/oa.1270.

Mason, R.J.

1981 Great Lakes Archaeology. Academic Press: New York.

Milenkovic, M., V. J. Sipetic, J. Blagojevic, S. Tatovic, and M. Vujosevic.

2010 Skull variation in Dinaric-Balkan and Carpathian gray wolf populations

revealed by geometric morphometric approaches. Journal of Mammalogy

91(2):376-386.

Miles, S. W.

1951 A Revaluation of the Old Copper Industry. American Antiquity 16(3):240-

247.

Milner, G.R.

2004 The Moundbuilders: Ancient Peoples of Eastern North America. Thames &

Hudson Limited: London.

Ministry of Natural Resources

2012 Fishing Destination: Pigeon Lake – Zone 17. Retrieved January 23, 2013,

from

242

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LetsFish/2ColumnSubPage/STDPROD_0

81299.html.

Ministry of Tourism and Culture

1993 Archaeological Assessment Technical Guidelines (Stage 1-3 and Reporting

Format). Heritage and Libraries Branch, Ontario Ministry of Culture: Toronto.

Monk, G. G.

1987 Prey as Bait: the Deep Bay Example. Canadian Journal of Archaeology

11:119 – 142.

Morey, D. F.

1986 Studies on Amerindian Dogs: Taxonomic Analysis of Canid Crania from the

Northern Plains. Journal of Archaeological Science 13:119-145.

1992 Size, Shape and Development in the Evolution of the Domestic Dog.

Journal of Archaeological Science 19:181-204.

2006 Burying key evidence: the social bond between dogs and people. Journal of

Archaeological Science 32:158-175.

2010 Dogs: Domestication and the Development of a Social Bond. Cambridge

Morey, D. F. and K. Aaris-Sorensen,

2002 Paleoeskimo Dogs of the Eastern Archaic. Arctic 55(1):44-56.

University Press: Cambridge.

Morey, D. E. and M. D. Waint

1992 Early Holocene Domestic Dog Burials from the North American Midwest.

Current Anthropology 33(2):224-229.

Morin, E.

243

2006 Beyond Stratigraphic Noise: Unraveling the Evolution of Stratified

Assemblages in Faunalturbated Sites. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal

21(6):541-565.

Morin, E., T. Tasanova, N. Sirakov, W. Rendu, J-B. Mallye, and F. Leveque

2005 Bone Refits in Stratified Deposits: Testing the Chronological Grain at Saint-

Cesaire. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1083-1098.

Naylor, L.J. and H.G. Savage

1984 Analysis of the Macro-Faunal Remains from the McIntyre Site,

Peterborough County, Ontario. In The McIntyre Site: Archaeology, Subsistence

and Environment, edited by R. B. Johnston. Pp. 115 – 134. Archaeological Survey

of Canada Paper Number 126, National Museum of Man Mercury Series, National

Museums of Canada: Ottawa.

Needs-Howarth, S. J.

1999 Native Fishing in the Great Lakes – A Multidisciplinary Approach to

Zooarchaeological Remains from Precontact Iroquoian Villages Near Lake

Simcoe, Ontario. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen,

Groningen, Netherlands.

Nicholas, G.P

1988 Human Behavior and Holocene Ecology. In Holocene Human Ecology in

Northeastern North America edited by G.P. Nicholas. Pp.1-7. Plenum Publishing

Corporation: New York.

Noe-Nygaard, N.

1977 Butchering and marrow fracturing as a factor in archaeological deposits.

Paleobiology 3:218-237.

244

O’Connor, T.

2000 The Archaeology of Animal Bones. Texas A&M University Press: College

Station.

Oberholtzer, C.

2002 Fleshing Out the Evidence: From Archaic Dog Burials to Historic Dog

Feasts. Ontario Archaeology 73:3-14.

Orton, D.C.

2010 Taphonomy and Interpretation: An Analytical Framework for Social

Zooarchaeology. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology doi: 10.1002/oa.1212

Outram, A.K.

2001 A New Approach to Identifying Bone Marrow and Grease Exploitation:

Why the “Intermediate” Fragments should not be ignored. Journal of

Archaeological Science 28:401-410.

2002 Bone fracture and within-bone nutrients: an experimentally based method

for investigating levels of marrow extraction. In Consuming Passions and

Patterns of Consumption, edited by P. Miracle and N. Milner. Pp. 51-64.

McDonald Institute for Archeological Research; Cambridge.

Panuska, J.A.

1959 Weight Pattern and Hibernation in Tamias striatus. Journal of Mammalogy

40(4):554-566.

Panuska, J.A. and N. J. Wade

1956 The Burrow of Tamias striatus. Journal of Mammalogy 37(1):23-31.

Pauketat,T. R., L S. Kelly, G. J. Fritz, N. H. Lopinot, S. Elias and E. Hargrave

245

2002 The Residues of Feasting and Public Ritual at Early Cahokia. American

Antiquity 67(2):257-279.

Pfieffer, S.

1977 The skeletal biology of archaic populations of the Great Lakes region.

Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper Number 64, National Museum of Man

Mercury Series, National Museums of Canada: Ottawa.

1979 Archaic Population Affinities As Determined By Analysis of Cranial

Morphology. Ontario Archaeology 32:35 – 41.

Pfieffer, S., R. F. Williamson, J. C. Sealy, D. G. Smith, and M. H. Snow

2014 Stable dietary isotopes and mtDNA from Woodland period southern Ontario

people: results from a tooth sampling protocol Journal of Archaeological Science

42:334 – 345.

Phillips, D. L. and P. L Koch

2002 Incorporating concentration dependence in stable isotope mixing models.

Oecologia 130:114 – 125.

Price, T.D.

1985 Late Archaic Subsistence in the Midwestern United States Journal of

Human Evolution 14:449 – 459.

Prowse, S. L.

2010 Much Ado about Netsinkers: An Examination of Pre-Contact Aboriginal

Netsinker Manufacture and Use Patterns at Five Woodland Period Archaeological

Sites within Southern Ontario. The ‘Complete Archaeologist’: Papers in Honour

of Michael W. Spence, edited by C. J. Ellis, N. Ferris, P. A. Timmins, and C. D.

246

White. Pp. 69-96. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter Number 9,

Ontario Archaeology Society Incorporated: London, Ontario.

Ramsden, P.G.

1976 Rocky Ridge: A Stratified Archaic Site near Inverhuron, Ontario. Historical

Planning and Research Branch, Research Report Volume 7, Ontario Ministry of

Culture and Recreation: Toronto.

1990a The Hurons: Archaeology and Cultural History. In The Archaeology of

Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650 edited by C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris. Pp. 361-384.

Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeology Society Inc.,

Publication Number 5: London.

1990b The Winter Site (AkHb-2): a Late Archaic Campsite near Guelph, Ontario.

Ontario Archaeolo0gy 50:27-39.

Ray A.J.

2010 An Illustrated History of Canada’s Native People: I Have Lived Here Since

the World Began. Key Porter Books Limited: Toronto.

Reitz, E.J. and E.S. Wing

2008 Zooarchaeology . Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Ringrose, T. J.

1993 Bone counts and statistics: a critique. Journal of Archaeological Science

20:121-157.

Ritchie, J.C.

1987 Postglacial Vegetation of Canada. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Ritchie, W. A.

247

1932a The Algonkian Sequence in New York. American Anthropologist 43:406-

415.

1932b The Lamoka Lake Site: The Type Station of the Archaic Algonkian Period

in New York. Researches and Transactions of the New York State Archaeological

Association 7:79-134. Rochester.

1936 New Evidence Relating to the Archaic Occupation of New York. Researches

and Transactions of the New York State Archaeological Association 8:1-23.

Rochester.

1944 The Pre-Iroquoian Occupations of New York State. Rochester Museum of

Arts and Sciences: Rochester, New York.

1949 An Archaeological Survey of the Trent Waterway in Ontario, Canada and its

Significance for New York State Prehistory. Research Records of the Rochester

Museum of Arts and Science, Number 9, Rochester Museum of Arts and

Sciences, Anthropology Division: Rochester: New York.

Roberts, A. C. B.

1985 Preceramic Occupations Along the North Shore of Lake Ontario. Ph.D

Thesis, York University: Toronto.

Robertson, D. A. and R. F. Williamson

2003 The Archaeology of the Dunsmore Site: 15th – Century Community

Transformations in Southern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 27:1-61.

Rosell, J., R. Blasco, M. Christina Fernadez-Laso, M. Vaquero, and E. Carbonell

2012 Connecting areas: Faunal refits as a diagnostic element to identify

synchronicity in the Abric Romani archaeological assemblages Quaternary

International 252:56-67.

248

Ruscillo, D.

2003 Alternative Methods for Identifying Sex from Archaeological Animal

Bones. In Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances, edited by E.

Kojabopoulou, Y. Hamilakis, P. Halstead, C. Gamble, and P. Elefanti. Pp. 37-44.

The British School at Athens: London.

2006 The Table Test: a Simple Technique for Sexing Canid Humeri. In Recent

Advances in Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones, edited by D. Ruscillo. Pp. 62-67.

Oxbow Books: Oxford.

Russell, N.

2010 Navigating the Human-Animal Boundary. Reviews in Anthropology 39:3-24.

2012 Social Zooarchaeology: Humans and Animals in Prehistory. Cambridge

University Press: Cambridge.

Sablin, M. V. and G. A. Khlopachev

2002 The Earliest Ice Age Dogs: Evidence from Eliseevichi 1. Current

Anthropology 43(5):795-799.

Sadler, D. C. and H. G. Savage

2003 Birds from the Ground: The Record of Archaeology in Ontario. The

Department of Anthropology, Trent University: Peterborough, Ontario.

Saladie, P., R Huguet, C. Diez, A. Rodriquez-Hidalgo, and E. Carbonell.

2011 Taphonomic Modifications Produced by Modern Brown Bears (Ursus

arctos). International Journal of Osteoarchaeology doi: 10.1002/oa.1237.

Sandilands, A.

2005 Birds of Ontario: Habitat Requirements, Limiting Factors, and Status.

University of British Columbia Press: Vancouver.

249

Schiffer, M.B.

1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New

Mexico Press: Albuquerque.

Schmitt, E. and S. Wallace,

2012 Shape Change and Variation in the Cranial Morphology of Wild Canids

(Canis lupus, Canis latrans, Canis rufus) Compared to Domestic Dogs (Canis

familiaris)Using Geometric Morphometrics. Journal of Osteoarchaeology doi:

10.1002/oa.1278.

Schneider, K. N. and P. W. Sciulli

1983 Biological affinities among Ohio and Great Lakes Archaic Amerindians: a

multivariate analysis based on cranial morphology. Ontario Archaeology 40:3 – 8.

Schwarcz, H.P., Melbye, J., Katzenberg, M.A. and M. Knyf

1985 Stable Isotopes in Human Skeletons of Southern Ontario: reconstructing

Paleodiet Journal of Archaeological Science 12:187 – 206.

Sciulli, P. W. and J. Oberly

2002 Native Americans in Eastern North America: The Southern Great Lakes and

Upper Ohio Valley. In The Backbone of History: Health and Nutrition in the

Western Hemisphere, edited by R. H. Steckel and J. C. Rose. Pp. 440 – 480.

Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Skeel, M.A. and L.N. Carbyn

1977 The morphological relationships of gray wolves (Canis lupus) in national

parks of central Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 55:737-747.

Smith, B. D.

2007 The Ultimate Ecosystem Engineers. Science 315:1797-1798.

250

1998 The Emergence of Agriculture. Scientific American Library: New York

2011 Shaping the Natural World: Patterns of Human Niche Construction by

Small-Scale Societies in North America. In Subsistence Economies of Indigenous

North American Societies: A Handbook, edited by B. D. Smith. Pp. 593-609.

Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers

Incorporated: Washington, D.C.

Smith, B. A. and K. C. Egan

1990 Middle and Late Archaic. Faunal and Floral Exploitation at the Weber I Site

(20SA581), Michigan. Ontario Archaeology 50:39–54.

Stiner, M. C., S. L. Kuhn, S. Weiner, and O Bar-Yosef

1995 Differential Burning, Recrystallization, and Fragmentation of

Archaeological Bone. Journal of Archaeological Science. 22:223-237.

Spence, M.W., R.H. Phil, and C.R. Murphy

1990 Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Period. In The

Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650 edited by C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris.

Pp. 125-170. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeology

Society Inc., Publication Number 5: London.

Strang, V.

2008 Uncommon Ground: Landscapes as Social Geography. In Hand of

Landscape Archaeology, edited by B. David and J. Thomas. Pp. 51 – 59. Left

Coast Press Incorporated: Walnut Creek, California.

Styles, B.W.

2011 Animal Use by Holocene Aboriginal Societies of the Northeast. In The

Subsistence Economies of Indigenous North American Societies: A Handbook,

251

edited by B.D. Smith. Pp. 449-481. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,

Incorporated: Washington.

Szpak, P.

Fish bone chemistry and ultrastructure: implications for taphonomy and stable

isotope analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:3358-3372.

Thomas, K. R.

1974 Burrow Systems of the Eastern Chipmunk (Tamias striatus pipilans Lowery)

in Louisiana. Journal of Mammalogy 55(2):454-459.

Thompson, I.D.

2000a Forest Vegetation of Ontario: Factors in Influencing Landscape Change. In

Ecology of a Managed Terrestrial Landscape: Patterns and Processes of Forest

Landscapes in Ontario, edited by A.H. Perera, D.L. Euler, and I.D. Thompson.

Pp. 30-53. University of British Colombia Press: Vancouver.

2000b Forest Vertebrates of Ontario: Patterns of Distribution. In Ecology of a

Managed Terrestrial Landscape: Patterns and Processes of Forest Landscapes in

Ontario, edited by A.H. Perera, D.L. Euler, and I.D. Thompson. Pp. 54-73.

University of British Colombia Press: Vancouver.

Thorton, T. F.

2008 Being and Place among the Tlingit. University of Washington Press: Seattle.

Tilley , C.

1994 A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Momuments. Oxford:

Berg.

252

2008 Phenomenological Approaches to Landscape Archaeology. In Handbook of

landscape archaeology edited by B. David and J. Thomas. Pp. 271-276. Left

Coast Press Incorporated: Walnut Creek, California.

Timmins, P. A.

1996 The Little Shaver Site: Exploring Site Structure and Excavation

Methodology on an Unploughed Site in the Region of Hamilton-Wentworth,

Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 61:45-81.

Tooker, E.

1965 The Iroquois White Dog Sacrifice in the Latter Part of the Eighteenth

Century. Ethnohistory 12(2):129-140.

Trigger, B. G.

1969 The Huron: Farmers of the North. Holt, Rinehart and Winston Incorporated:

New York.

1978 Introduction. In Northeast, edited by B.G. Trigger. Pp.1-3. Handbook of

North American Indians, Volume 15, Smithsonian Institution: Washington D.C.

1985 Natives and Newcomers: Canada’s “Heroic Age” Reconsidered. McGill-

ueen’s University Press: Kingston and Montreal.

2009 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press:

Cambridge. van der Merwe, N., Williamson, R.F., Pfeiffer, S., Thomas, S.C. and K.O Allegretto.

2003 The Moatfield ossuary: isotopic dietary analysis of an Iroquoian community,

using dental tissue. Journal of Archaeological Science 22:245 – 261.

Varney, T. L. and S. Pfeiffer

1995 The People of the Hind Site Ontario Archaeology 59:96 – 108.

253

Vastokas, J. M.

1990 Landscape as Experience and Symbol in Native Canadian Culture. In

Perspectives of Canadian Landscape: Native Traditions, edited by J. M. Vastokas.

Pp. 55-82. Robarts Centre for Canadian Studies, York University: Toronto.

Vastokas, J. M. and R. K. Vastokas

1973 Sacred Art of the Algonkians. Mansard Press: Peterborough.

Vellanoweth, R. L., B. G. Bartelle, A. F. Ainis, A. C. Cannon, and S. J. Schwartz

2008 A double dog burial from San Nicholas Island, California, USA: osteology,

context and significance. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:3111-3123.

Viveiros de Castro, E.

1998: Cosmological deities and Amerindian perspectivism. Journal of the Royal

Anthropological Institute 4: 469–88.

2004 Exchanging Perspectives: The Transformation of Objects into

Subjects in Amerindian Ontologies. Common Knowledge 10(3):463-484. von den Driesch, A. E.

1976 A Guide to Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites.

Peabody Museum Bulletin 1.

Walker, J. R.

1905 Seneca White Dog Feast. The Journal of American Folklore 18(71):317 –

319.

Waselkov, G. A.

1984 Small Faunal Remains from the McIntyre Site. In The McIntyre Site:

Archaeology, Subsistence and Environment, edited by R. B. Johnston. Pp. 135 –

254

158. Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper Number 126, National Museum of

Man Mercury Series, National Museums of Canada: Ottawa.

Watkins, J.

2005 Artefacts, archaeologists, and American Indians. Public Archaeology 4:187

– 191.

Watson, P. J. and M. C. Kennedy

1991 The Development of Horticulture in the Eastern Woodlands of North

America Women’s Role. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory

edited by J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey. Pp. 255 – 275. Blackwell: Oxford.

Wayne, R. K.

1986 Limb Morphology of Domestic and Wild Canids: The Influence of

Development on Morphologic Change. Journal of Morphology 187:301-319.

Wheeler, A. and A. K. G. Jones

2009 Fishes. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Willerslev, R.

2007 Soul Hunters: Hunting, Animism, and Personhood among the Yukaghirs.

University of California Press: Berkley.

Willey, G.R. and P. Philips

1958 Method and theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press:

Chicago.

Wittry, W. and R. E. Ritzenhaler

1956 The Old Copper Complex: An Archaic Manifestation in Wisconsin.

American Antiquity 21(3):244-254.

Wolverton, S.

255

2000 NISP:MNE and %Whole in Analysis of Prehistoric Carcass Exploitation.

North American Archaeologist 23(2):85-1000.

2008 Harvest Pressure and Environmental Carrying Capacity: An Ordinal-Scale

Woodley, P.J.

1990 The Thistle Hill Site and Late Archaic Adaptations. Occasional Papers in

Northern Archaeology Number 4. Copetown Press: Dundas, Ontario.

Model Effects on Ungulate Prey. American Antiquity 73(2):179-199.

Wright, J.V.

1962 A Distributional Study of Some Archaic Traits in Southern Ontario.

Contributions to Archaeology Part 1, National Museum of Canada Bulletin

Number 180, Anthropological Series Number 57, Department of Northern Affairs

and Natural Researches: Ottawa.

1972a Ontario Prehistory. Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum

of Man, National Museums of Ottawa: Ottawa.

1972b The Knetchel I Site, Bruce County, Ontario. Archaeological Survey of

Canada, National Museum of Man, National Museums of Ottawa: Ottawa.

1994 Before European Contact. In Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on

the First Nations edited by E.S. Rogers, and D.B. Smith. Pp. 21-38. Dundurn

Press: Toronto.

Yahner, R.H.

1978 Burrow System and Home Range Use by Eastern Chipmunks, Tamias

striatus: Ecological and Behavioural Considerations. Journal of Mammalogy

59(2):324-329.

Yarnell, R.A.

256

1984 The McIntyre Site: Late Archaic Plant Remains from Southern Ontario. In

The McIntyre Site: Archaeology, Subsistence and Environment, edited by R. B.

Johnston. Pp. 88 – 114. Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper Number 126,

National Museum of Man Mercury Series, National Museums of Canada: Ottawa.

Yohe II, R. M. and M. G. Pavesic

2000 Early Archaic domesticated dogs from western Idaho, USA. In Dogs

Through Time: An Archaeological Perspective, edited by S. J. Cockford. Pp.93 –

104. Proceedings of the 1st ICAZ Symposium on the History of the Domestic Dog.

Eight Congress of the International Council for Archaeozoology, BAR

International Series 889, Basingstoke Press: Oxford.

Young, J.

2009 The Journey Back to Mother Earth The Morrison’s Island-6 Human

Remains. In Painting the Past with a Broad Brush: Papers in Honour of James

Valliere Wright edited by D. L. Keenlyside and J.-L. Pilon. Pp. 213-254. Mercury

Series Archaeology Paper 170, Canadian Museum of Civilization: Gatineau,

Quebec.

Zeder, M. A.

2006 Archaeological Approaches to Documenting Animal Domestication. In

Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms, edited

by M. A. Zeder, D. G. Bradley, E. Emshwiller, and B. D. Smith. Pp. 1-375.

University of California Press: Berkley.

Zu, Z. and J. H. McAndrews

1994 Holocene water levels at Rice Lake, Ontario, Canada: sediment, pollen and

plant-macrofossil evidence. The Holocene 4(2):141-152.