Lithic Raw Material Characterization and Technological Organization of a Late Archaic Assemblage from Jacob Island, Kawartha Lakes, Ontario

LITHIC RAW MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION AND TECHNOLOGICAL ORGANIZATION OF A LATE ARCHAIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM JACOB ISLAND, KAWARTHA LAKES, 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

Anthropology M.A. Graduate Program

May 2015

Abstract

Lithic Raw Material Characterization and Technological Organization of a Late Archaic

Assemblage from Jacob Island, Kawartha Lakes, Ontario

Kathleen S. Elaschuk

The objective of this thesis is to document and characterize the raw material and technological organization of a Late Archaic assemblage from Jacob Island, 1B/1C area

(collectively referred to as BcGo-17), Peterborough County, Kawartha Lakes, Ontario.

The purpose of this research is to gain a greater understanding of the Late Archaic period in central Ontario; particularly information on locally available raw material types (i.e.,

Trent Valley cherts) and regional interaction. My aim is to define the range of materials exploited for stone tool production and use, and to explore how variation in material relates to variation in economic strategies; I also complete a basic technological study.

The collected data is then compared to temporally and geographically similar sites, and used to interpret possible relationships between acquisition practices, technology choices, and mobility. It was found that although the assemblage agrees with some of the mobility and raw material utilization models from south-western Ontario, many do not explain what was occurring on Jacob Island.

Keywords: Ontario archaeology, Archaic, lithic technology, Trent chert, lithic economic strategies, lithic raw material, mobility, exchange, Trent Valley archaeology

Acknowledgements

This thesis would not have come to completion without the support of numerous people. First among those goes to my advisor James Conolly for his unwavering and continued support. I sincerely thank him for his patience and understanding during every step of this work. His comments and advice formed this thesis into what it is today. I would next like to thank Bill Fox for his endless knowledge and support. Without him my understanding of Ontario cherts would not exist, and the following thesis would not be as strong and/or as comprehensive. I would also like to thank my other committee members

Laure Dubreuil and Alicia Hawkins for their useful comments and edits during the final process, and although she retired before I finished, I also thank Susan Jamieson for her initial input and Ontario knowledge that shaped this work. I would like to thank the staff and faculty of the Anthropology Department at Trent University, especially Marit

Munson and Kristine Williams for their pep talks and support. A special thanks to Jeff

Dillane from McMaster University for supplying me with data from his own research on raw material and projectile points. Another special thanks goes to David Black from the

University of New Brunswick for his aid in characterizing the New England rhyolite, and for first sparking my interest in lithics with his own enthusiasm.

This work would not have been completed without the financial support of certain sources. First I would like to thank the Richard B. Johnson Fund for aiding in the payment of the petrological study. I would also like to thank TUARC for awarding myself and James Conolly the Collaborative Research Grant, which subsidized the cost of the thin-sections. Without these funds the thin-sections and chert characterizations would

iii

not have occurred. Finally, without the help of bursaries and funding from the School of

Graduate Studies at Trent University my study would not have been possible.

Without the support and help of my friends this thesis would have been very difficult, if not impossible. Firstly I would like to thank Dan Savage for not only being a couch to crash-on and the all-around-computer-fixer, but one of the kindest people I know. Next I would like to thank Kendall Hills for being my conscious and/or cheerleader depending on what was needed at the time. I would next like to thank Arianne

Boileau for always being willing to talk no matter the time. I would also like to thank

Nayla Abu Izzeddin, Jack Barry, Samantha Price, and Samantha Walker for always being there for quick chats, in-depth conversations, or a night out on the town (although that applies to the afore-mentioned as well).

Finally I would like to thank my family that surrounded me with love during this process. I thank my parents, Nancy and John Elaschuk, for supporting me and always being proud; for pushing me, but giving me a soft place to land; and for always being willing to listen. I would especially like to thank my Mom for reading through this thesis multiple times, summarizing articles when the time was short, and always feeding me even when I was too stressed to eat. I would also like to thank my brothers, Adam and

Alex, for providing wise and entertaining words. Finally and most of all, I thank my future husband, Jeremy Kindervater, for the love, compassion, and patience. He saw this nearly from beginning to end, and I could not ask for a kinder or more supportive partner to spend my future with; I love you and thank you.

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii Acknowledgements ...... iii Table of Contents ...... v List of Figures ...... vii List of Tables ...... ix Chapter 1 − Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Region and site area ...... 2 1.2 Importance of Research ...... 4 1.3 Research Questions ...... 5 1.4 Chapter Summaries ...... 6 Chapter 2 – Geological Overview of Ontario and Kawartha Lakes Region ...... 8 2.1 Geology of Ontario ...... 8 2.2 Geology of the Kawartha Lakes ...... 13 2.3 Common Lithic Material Categories ...... 16 Chapter 3 – Archaeological Background ...... 24 3.1 Cultural Historical Framework ...... 25 3.2 Descriptions of similar sites to Jacob Island ...... 39 3.3 Jacob Island (BcGo-17) ...... 55 3.4 Summary ...... 62 Chapter 4 – Theoretical Framework and Methods ...... 65 4.1 Theoretical Framework ...... 66 4.2 Methods ...... 77 4.3 Jacob Island JI-1-B/1-C Documentation Procedure ...... 85 Chapter 5 – Lithic materials of Jacob Island (BcGo-17) ...... 90 5.1 Local Lithic Materials ...... 91 5.2 Non-Local Materials ...... 108 5.3 Unidentified Lithic Raw Material Characterizations ...... 118 5.4 Petrographic Analysis Results ...... 131 5.5 Geological Prospection of Jacob Island ...... 138 5.6 Raw Material Characterization of JI-1B, 1C ...... 140 5.7 Summary ...... 145 Chapter 6 – Technological Results of JI-1B, 1C...... 147

6.1 Technological Results of the Jacob Island Assemblage JI-1B, 1C ...... 147 6.2 Temporal Comparisons ...... 164 6.3 Summary ...... 167 Chapter 7 ─ Discussion and Conclusions ...... 169 7.1 Discussion ...... 169 7.2 Conclusions ...... 190 References Cited ...... 192 Appendix A ...... 211 Appendix B ...... 216 Appendix C-E are digitally attached

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of Jacob Island in south-central Ontario ...... 2 Figure 2. Jacob Island in relation to the surrounding Kawartha Lakes ...... 3 Figure 3. Paleozoic Bedrock and Glacial deposits in south-central Ontario ...... 9 Figure 4. Geological Provinces in Ontario ...... 11 Figure 5. Glacial Lakes in Ontario ...... 13 Figure 6. Central Ontario projectile point types (note that the dates are uncalibrated) ...... 28 Figure 7. Site locations map ...... 40 Figure 8. Jacob Island in the Kawartha Lakes ...... 56 Figure 9. Jacob Island location with neighbouring lakes ...... 56 Figure 10. Jacob Island with White Island and Fulton’s bog ...... 58 Figure 11. JI sampling designations on Jacob Island ...... 59 Figure 12. Pathways of lithic reduction ...... 70 Figure 13. Time and reliability versus utility ...... 76 Figure 14. Trent chert at 50x magnification, left not polarized, right polarized ...... 80 Figure 15. Onondaga chert at 50x magnification, left not polarized, right polarized ...... 80 Figure 16. Kettle Point chert at 50x magnification, left not polarized, right polarized ...... 81 Figure 17. Example of black variety of Trent chert ...... 95 Figure 18. Trent chert artifacts from Jacob Island ...... 95 Figure 19. Grey variety of Trent chert found on Jacob Island shoreline ...... 96 Figure 20. 50x polarized magnification of Trent chert ...... 97 Figure 21. 50x polarized magnification of Trent chert, a speckled variety ...... 97 Figure 22. 50x polarized magnification of Trent chert, relatively ‘clean’ area...... 98 Figure 23. 100x polarized magnification of Trent chert thin-section ...... 98 Figure 24. 100x polarized magnification of Trent chert thin-section ...... 99 Figure 25. Lighter variety of Balsam Lake ...... 101 Figure 26. Balsam Lake from bedrock ...... 101 Figure 27. 50x polarized magnification of Balsam Lake chert polished sample ...... 102 Figure 28. 50x polarized magnification of Balsam Lake chert artifact ...... 102 Figure 29. 100x polarized magnification of Balsam Lake chert thin-section ...... 103 Figure 30. Examples of Huronia chert, far left example with cortex ...... 105 Figure 31. 50x polarized magnification of Huronia chert ...... 106 Figure 32. 50x polarized magnification of Huronia chert with banding ...... 106 Figure 33. 100x polarized magnification of Huronia chert thin-sectione ...... 107 Figure 34. 100x polarized magnification of Huronia chert from thin-section ...... 107 Figure 35. Example of Onondaga chert ...... 109 Figure 36. 50x polarized magnification of Onondaga chert...... 110 Figure 37. Examples of Gordon Lake chert from Jacob Island ...... 111 Figure 38. 50x polarized magnification of Gordon Lake chert artifact ...... 112 Figure 39. 100x polarized magnification of Gordon Lake chert artifact ...... 112 Figure 40. Approximate locations of chert ...... 113 Figure 41. 50x magnification of Ramah chert, left is sample, right is artifact ...... 116 Figure 42. Rhyolite preform ...... 117

vii

Figure 43. Inclusions in rhyolite at 50x magnification ...... 117 Figure 44. Unidentified Type 1 chert artifacts from Jacob Island ...... 119 Figure 45. 50x polarized magnification of Unidentified Type 1 chert ...... 120 Figure 46. 50x polarized magnification of Unidentified Type 1 chert with patina ...... 120 Figure 47. 100x polarized magnification of Unidentified Type 1 chert from thin-section ...... 121 Figure 48. Unidentified Type 2 chert artifacts from Jacob Island ...... 122 Figure 49. 50x polarized magnification of Unidentified Type 2 chert ...... 123 Figure 50. 100x polarized magnification of Unidentified Type 2 chert from thin-section ...... 123 Figure 51. Unidentified Type 3 chert artifacts from Jacob Island ...... 124 Figure 52. 50x polarized magnification of Unidentified Type 3 chert ...... 125 Figure 53. Unidentified Type 4 chert artifacts from Jacob Island ...... 126 Figure 54. 50x polarized magnification of Unidentified Type 4 chert ...... 126 Figure 55. Unidentified Type 5 chert artifacts from Jacob Island ...... 128 Figure 56. 50x polarized magnification of Unidentified Type 5 chert ...... 128 Figure 57. 100x polarized magnification of Unidentified Type 5 chert from thin-section ...... 129 Figure 58. Unidentified Type 6 chert artifacts from Jacob Island ...... 130 Figure 59. 50x polarized magnification of Unidentified Type 6 chert ...... 130 Figure 60. Gordon Lake chert; yellow arrows depicting layering ...... 132 Figure 61. Gordon Lake chert; pyrrhotite (po)-quartz (qz)-zoisite (zo) cluster ...... 132 Figure 62. Unidentified Type 1 chert; clay aggregate and quartz veinlets highlighted ...... 133 Figure 63. Balsam Lake chert; calcite (ca), clay (cl), and quartz (qz) are labelled ...... 135 Figure 64. Balsam Lake chert; opaque minerals (om), calcite (ca), and clay (cl) are labelled .... 135 Figure 65. Trent chert; in-filled section in centre with finer-grained aggregate ...... 136 Figure 66. Trent chert; Crossed Nicols transmitted light ...... 137 Figure 67. Huronia chert ...... 138 Figure 68. Artifacts found in the shoreline ...... 139 Figure 69. Examples of pièces esquillées ...... 152 Figure 70. Examples of bifacially retouched tools ...... 154 Figure 71. Complete and broken projectile points/preforms from 2010 excavations ...... 155 Figure 72. Complete and broken projectile points/preforms from 2012 excavations ...... 155 Figure 73. Complete and broken Onondaga chert projectile points/preforms from 2012 ...... 156 Figure 74. Unfinished/preform ground-stone adze, manufactured from amphibolite ...... 158 Figure 75. Approximate raw material locations ...... 170 Figure 76. Gordon Lake chert on left, Unidentified Type 1 chert on right ...... 172 Figure 77. At 50x magnification, Gordon Lake chert and Unidentified Type 1 chert ...... 173

viii

List of Tables Table 1. Temporally divided projectile point counts for Dawson Creek site...... 42 Table 2. Formal artifacts recovered from the McIntyre site ...... 44 Table 3. Raw material types of formal artifacts and debitage ...... 45 Table 4. Temporally divided projectile point counts of the McIntyre site ...... 45 Table 5. Stone tool counts and material types for mounds ...... 48 Table 6. Stone tool counts and material types for habitation area ...... 48 Table 7. Stone tool counts and material types for shell midden ...... 49 Table 8. Stone tool counts and material types for the Serpent Mounds site ...... 50 Table 9. Temporally divided projectile point counts of the Serpent Mounds site ...... 50 Table 10. Artifact counts for Morrison Island 6 ...... 52 Table 11. Raw material counts within the debitage category ...... 53 Table 12. Raw material counts for the projectile points and biface categories ...... 53 Table 13. Artifacts recovered from JI-1B Stage 3 excavations of 2010-2011 ...... 61 Table 14. Artifacts recovered from JI-1C Stage 3 and 4 excavations of 2011-2012 ...... 62 Table 15. Expectations for the Jacob Island lithic assemblage ...... 77 Table 16. Chert heating experiment ...... 85 Table 17. Counts of raw material at 80% and 60% confidence level ...... 143 Table 18. Counts of local versus non-local material ...... 143 Table 19. Total sum probability of raw materials ...... 144 Table 20. Evidence of burning ...... 145 Table 21. Evidence of burning against location ...... 145 Table 22. Counts of debitage ...... 148 Table 23. Counts of debitage versus locality ...... 149 Table 24. Local vs. non-local flake counts ...... 150 Table 25. Reductive strategy comparison ...... 150 Table 26. Local vs. non-local shatter counts ...... 151 Table 27. Local vs. non-local core counts...... 151 Table 28. Local vs. non-local pièces esquillées counts ...... 153 Table 29. Raw material counts for complete and broken projectiles/preforms ...... 154 Table 30. Local vs. non-local bifacially retouched tool counts ...... 157 Table 31. Local to non-local size comparison of complete bifacially retouched tools ...... 157 Table 32. Local vs. non-local ground-stone tool counts ...... 157 Table 33. Presence of stress fracture ...... 159 Table 34. Stress fractures in Trent Valley chert ...... 159 Table 35. Counts for the amount of cortex present ...... 160 Table 36. Location versus the percentage of cortex ...... 160 Table 37. Presence of retouch ...... 161 Table 38. Local vs. non-local retouch comparison ...... 161 Table 39. Stages of manufacture ...... 162 Table 40. Stages of manufacture versus locality ...... 162 Table 41. Stages of manufacture, locality, and presence of retouch comparison ...... 163 Table 42. Stages of manufacture against reduction/production strategy ...... 163 Table 43. Technological/temporal comparison ...... 165

Table 44. Presence of retouch in relation to temporal comparison ...... 165 Table 45. Temporal comparison of the types of debitage with retouch ...... 165 Table 46. Raw material/temporal comparison ...... 166 Table 47. Confidence interval for Onondaga chert artifacts in the temporal divisions...... 166 Table 48. Raw material origin, temporal periods, and presence of retouch comparison ...... 167 Table 49. Raw material use on Jacob Island ...... 176 Table 50. Counts for cortex on Onondaga chert ...... 179 Table 51. Comparison between Jacob Island and other sites ...... 181 Table 52. Flaked-stone tools of Jacob Island ...... 183 Table 53. Revised residential mobility ...... 189

Chapter 1 − Introduction

My thesis research is a study of raw material variability and patterns in stone tool technology from the Late Archaic site on Jacob Island, Peterborough County (BcGo-17), in south-central Ontario. The primary focus is characterizing and identifying the sources of raw material used by the site’s inhabitants. The secondary focus is on exploring how variation in use of these materials can inform us about mobility and regional social interaction, and in particular trade.

Lithics are one of the few artifacts that are generally not destroyed by either nature’s processes or human agency in the archaeological record, and they make up the majority of most site assemblages in Ontario. Stone tools and their manufacturing material can be used to address a range of different questions concerning technological organization, and as proxies for assessing changes in economic strategies and regional patterns of trade. My aim is to define the range of materials used for stone tool production and use at Jacob Island, and to explore how variation in material can relate to variations in economic strategy. This will be completed by characterizing the raw materials used and performing a basic technological study. The study will enable me to compare the assemblage to other temporally and geographically similar sites, and interpret possible relationships between lithic raw material, technology choices, exchange, and mobility.

My research will aid in creating a further understanding of procurement and local material use during the Late Archaic period in central Ontario.

1.1 Region and site area

Jacob Island is located on Pigeon Lake within the Kawartha Lakes of south-central

Ontario, Peterborough County (Figure 1and Figure 2) (Conolly et al. 2014:106). It is centrally located within the interconnected river and canal system collectively referred to as the Trent-Severn Waterway (Conolly 2013:11) that forms a travel corridor between

Georgian Bay and Lake Ontario. Although now an island, prior to the early 19th century dams it was a peninsula (Conolly et al. 2014:107) connecting the island to the mainland in the north. The site of Jacob Island (BcGo-17) mainly dates to the Late Archaic; however, secure radiocarbon dates and artifactual evidence also indicate occupations/visitations in the Middle Archaic, and in the Early and Middle Woodland. The site is principally distinguished by its ritual context and numerous Late Archaic burials.

©Google Earth

In Ontario, the term Archaic refers to the period from around 10,000 bp to 2800 bp (Ellis et al. 2009:788). This period is less studied and understood than the preceding

Paleoindian and the later Woodland periods (Ellis et al. 1990; Spence et al. 1990). It was during this period that the final ice sheet receded from Ontario (Eyles 2002:211-212).

Following this recession, the environment stabilized after the beginning of the Middle

Archaic (8000 to 4500 bp), and by about 4500 bp water levels were approximately the same as modern levels (Ellis et al. 2009:789). This environmental stabilisation is hypothesized to have localized subsistence patterns and reduced regional mobility

(Wright 1995:217). These climactic events enabled net population growth, which is supported by evidence from the archaeological record, and larger populations are generally associated with greater cultural diversity and higher rates of cultural innovation

(Shennan 2000; Sassaman 2010:23-24, 30). Thanks to the earlier environmental

4 stabilization, during the Late Archaic there is a widespread recognition of a reduction in residential mobility associated with increasing population and reliance on patchy but abundant resources, such as fish (Ellis et al. 2009:806-812). This reduction in mobility should be reflected within the archaeological record by an increase in the use of local materials and the use of expedient tools (Odell 2004:197).

1.2 Importance of Research

The Kawartha Lakes region that Jacob Island is located has been understudied in comparison to other regions within southern/central Ontario. The Kawartha Lakes ecoregion is a geologically fascinating area as it lies between the Canadian Shield,

Paleozoic formation outcrops, and the glacial till deposits to the south.

The purpose of this research is to create a greater understanding of the Archaic in central Ontario, specifically the variability of raw material types and use patterns during this period. This research concentrates on high-precision characterization of local materials within the Trent-Severn Waterway, namely the cherts from the Bobcaygeon and

Gull River formations that are more commonly referred to as Trent chert, Balsam Lake chert, and Huronia chert. This thesis identifies and describes these raw materials using various scales of analysis, from macroscopic to microscopic. It is my hope that this research will enable more accurate identification of Trent Valley cherts and their variations.

Through my research, I explore lithic raw materials and possible use patterns, and compare the JI-1B/C assemblage to similar assemblages in order to build better

5 understanding of lithic economy and mobility models in the Kawartha Lakes. In addition, as I describe more fully below, I address some broader problems related to stone tool use and changing mobility strategies. High quality non-local materials are predicted to be primarily used for biface production, and/or were traded in the form of blanks. Non-local materials should have very low counts of cortex compared to local materials. There should also be some evidence of higher intensity of use and curation (i.e., tertiary thinning flakes, and higher proportion of retouch) in the non-local material. Whether there is evidence to support these patterns that are predicted by broader research on technological organization is also a focus of my analysis.

1.3 Research Questions

The following are questions I will attempt to examine and explain with the results from my lithic research on Jacob Island.

1) What are the different types of lithic raw material used by the past people of Jacob

Island (BcGo-17) during the Late Archaic period?

2) Is there a correlation between lithic raw material use and technological choices

(i.e., bipolar versus bifacial, curation versus expediency)?

3) How does the lithic assemblage of Jacob Island compare to surrounding sites?

4) From these patterns and/or relationships, what can be inferred about mobility and

lithic acquisition strategies, and trade and regional interaction patterns?

1.4 Chapter Summaries

The following chapter, Geological Overview of Ontario and Kawartha Lakes, provides the framework for understanding lithic raw materials in Ontario. The chapter begins by defining the three geological layers in Ontario; then the geology of the Kawartha Lakes region is discussed. Common lithic materials used by indigenous peoples, including quartz, quartzite, chalcedony, and metasediments, are listed and described, and a more detailed section is devoted to cherts.

Chapter 3 – Archaeological Background, contains a brief overview of the traditional classification system and characteristics of the Middle Archaic through to

Middle Woodland periods in Ontario. It also reviews four sites that share similarities with

Jacob Island in central and eastern Ontario, and ends with a description of the site history and excavations on Jacob Island. This chapter summarizes the culture history of Late

Archaic peoples in this area; however, several questions remain unanswered in regards to the organization of lithic technology (i.e., reduction strategies), and especially questions on decreasing mobility and its influence on curation and use of non-local versus local materials.

Chapter 4 – Theoretical Framework and Methods, explores the various key- concepts of this research; including curation, expedient technologies, bipolar and bifacial reduction. I also examine how lithic raw material availability affects technological choices, and then explore how mobility, and technological choices are related to raw material exploitation. The theory section ends with some predictions on my assemblage.

The methods section presents the methodological framework used for raw material

7 characterization including macroscopic and low-powered microscopic analysis, thin- section analysis. This section also discusses burning experiments. The chapter concludes with a section on my cataloguing procedures.

Chapter 5 – Lithic materials of Jacob Island (BcGo-17), presents the local lithic materials from Jacob Island, the non-local materials, and the six unknown material types.

The remainder of the chapter presents the raw material counts, petrological analysis, and geological prospection on the island.

Chapter 6 – Technological Results of JI-1B, 1C presents the results of a technological analysis of the material from the areas JI-1B/1C. I begin by relaying the counts of debitage in the assemblage; each debitage category is assessed in regards to their raw material frequencies (local vs. non-local). Following this are the counts for stress fracturing, the presence of retouch, and stages of manufacture. A temporal comparison of the securely dated Archaic and Woodland period artifacts concludes this chapter.

Chapter 7 – Discussion and Conclusions provides a discourse on the research questions presented in Chapter 1, and concludes with a summary of my thesis, including what I set out to accomplish, whether it was accomplished, what results were found, and where this research could go from this point onwards.

Chapter 2 – Geological Overview of Ontario and Kawartha Lakes Region

Introduction

This chapter presents a geological background for the study of lithic raw materials on

Jacob Island. The first section explores the geology of Ontario with a concentration on the

Kawartha Lakes region in which Jacob Island resides. The aim of this section is to define the local environmental setting and locally available lithic resources. A description of common lithic materials utilised by Indigenous populations follows, a specific focus is placed on the varieties of chert in Ontario and their sources.

2.1 Geology of Ontario

The geology of Ontario is a complicated mosaic of crustal pieces that formed over billions of years. This section attempts to simplify and explain these processes in a historical sequence of geological formations. The objective is to provide a basic geological understanding of Ontario and the Kawartha Lakes region to better conceptualize the environment in which chert is formed.

Over the past 2.5 billion years, Ontario has been a part of four different continents: Artica, Nena, Rodinia, and Pangea (Eyles 2002:88). These continental movements and orogenies have created a geologically diverse province that straddles the

Canadian Shield and the Interior Platform (Eley 2002:5). In its most simplistic explanation, the geology of Ontario is made up of three different layers. These layers overlay and intersect throughout the province and create a jigsaw puzzle of crustal pieces.

The first layer consists of rocks that make up the Canadian Shield, which acts as a basement layer for the entire province (Fox 2009:335). The second layer is composed of mostly sedimentary rock and was deposited approximately 550 million-years-ago, burying the Canadian Shield in southern Ontario (Eyles 2002:119). The third layer is composed of glacial deposits from the Pleistocene glaciations beginning approximately 2 million-years-ago (Eyles 2002:174). The glacial deposits in south-central Ontario and the

Canadian Shield to the north can be seen in Figure 3. The following paragraphs discuss each of the aforementioned layers in greater detail.

Figure 3. Paleozoic Bedrock and Glacial deposits in south-central Ontario, and Shield to the north

The Canadian Shield is the landform name for the North American Craton and the term was introduced by Eduard Suess in 1904, but the terms Canadian Shield and North

American Craton are often used interchangeably. A craton simply means the ancient crusts that lie deep within a continent, and the Canadian Shield is the exposed portion of the North American Craton. The Shield is present in much of Canada and extends into the

United States; it is even present in Greenland (Eyles and Miall 2007:85). As previously mentioned it acts as a basement and is buried in southern Ontario by newer deposits. It is also buried in the Hudson Bay Basin and Moose River Basins of northern Ontario. The

Canadian Shield in Ontario possesses one of the most mineralogical dense areas in

Canada and is divided into three main provinces: Superior, Southern, and Grenville

(Figure 4) (Eyles and Miall 2007:79, 93). The term province was first used in the mid-

1800s, and was employed to describe areas with similar geology. The three main provinces of the Canadian Shield were formed during different orogenic events. An orogeny is a deformation process where lithospheric plates have impacted, and they go through a process of folding and uplifts; this potentially causes new landmass to form on continents (Eyles and Miall 2007:84). These impacts can create distinct belts (or mountain ranges) where younger crustal material becomes exposed; thus creating geological boundaries between provinces. Generally, each orogeny dates to a different deformation period and each province dates to a different period of deposition.

The second layer in Ontario is made up of younger deposits of mostly sedimentary rocks. This second layer in southern Ontario is part of the Interior Platform of North

America (Eyles and Miall 2007:126). During the Cambrian Era the continent known as

Rodinia began to break up, and Laurentia (early North America) became surrounded by

Figure 4. Geological Provinces in Ontario an ocean. The Iapetus Ocean inundated southern Ontario approximately 500 million- years-ago. Over millions of years a process called subsidence occurred where sediments sink further within a sea’s basin to create sedimentary rocks; these sediments can be analysed and used to recreate ancient environments based on the fossil record (Eyles

2002:119-121). Between 440 and 350 million-years-ago Laurentia collided with

Gondwana (ancient Africa and South America) to create Pangea (Eyles 2002:143).

During this time there were two major orogenies that affected the geology of Ontario. The first was the Taconic Orogeny that buried the shoreline environment of the Iapetus Ocean with mud around 440 million years ago (Eyles 2002:131). The second was the Acadian

Orogeny that brought the return of lagoonal environments and shallow seas with reefs back to Ontario approximately 360 million-years-ago (Eyles 2002:142-143).

In the south, the sedimentary cover in Ontario dates to the Paleozoic age

(representing the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, and Devonian Periods), and it possesses a rich fossil record of numerous ancient environments (Eyles 2002:127). To the north,

Paleozoic aged rocks were formed in the Hudson Bay and Moose River Basins by an epeiric sea (Eyles and Miall 2007:127, 133). The sediments of layer II are primarily limestone and sandstone with other rock types, such as dolostone (Eyles 2002:127). The sedimentary cover over the Canadian Shield in southern and northern Ontario underwent

“regional uplift, subsidence, gentle tectonic warping, and repeated sea-level change”

(Eyles and Miall 2007:126) to create the geological record that is preserved today.

The third and final layer to be discussed consists of surficial deposits from the numerous ice ages of the Pleistocene period. Around 2.5 million years ago a large ice sheet covered much of North America and Europe. The most recent ice sheet to cover

Ontario, and in fact most of Canada, was only 20,000 years ago and was called the

Laurentide Ice Sheet. This ice sheet went through periods of slight warming and cooling but did not begin to truly recede from southern Ontario until approximately 13,000 years ago, and by 8,000 years ago the ice sheet had completely withdrawn from Ontario (Eyles

2002:211-212). Figure 5, from Eyles (2002:190), shows the glacial-formed lakes at approximately 12,500-years-ago. The northern coast of Ontario was inundated by the

Tyrrell Sea, and slowly crustal rebound uplifted the north to its present levels (Eyles and

Miall 2007:341, 346). The slow thawing of the province was the last event to greatly alter the geology of the province and create the current landscape, including the Great Lakes and their surrounding basins (Eyles and Miall 2007:320, 340). As the ice sheet slowly receded moraines, drumlins, eskers, and erratics became part of the landscape seen today

13 in Ontario, and many of these glacier legacies are present in the Kawartha Lakes region.

The last ice age also transported many cherts to regions further afield. Understanding the process and occurrence of glacially deposited cobbles and pebbles is archaeologically important. It is important because the appearance of the chert contained in these cobbles and pebbles can vary a great deal when compared to their primary chert deposits.

Figure 5. Glacial Lakes in Ontario

2.2 Geology of the Kawartha Lakes

Over the last 1.2 million years, the Kawartha Lakes region was subject to the presence of four ice sheets that covered the region (Bottomley 2011:15). As previously mentioned, the most recent ice sheet was during the Wisconsin advance and was called the

Laurentide Ice Sheet. When this ice sheet receded from southern Ontario, glacial lakes formed in its wake (see Figure 5). Approximately 12,500-years-ago, Glacial Lake

Algonquin began to form; Lake Simcoe is a remnant of this glacial lake. Glacial Lake

Algonquin covered the areas of Barrie, Orillia, and southern Georgian Bay; the overflow drained primarily eastward and gradually flowed into Glacial Lake Iroquois, which later became Lake Ontario (Eyles 2002:220-221). This pathway flowed through the region now known as the Kawartha Lakes prior to continuing south-eastward through the Trent

River system (Chapman and Putnam 1984:104-105). Certain areas within the southern limits of the Kawartha Lakes were also once a shoreline to Glacial Lake Iroquois for a short time (Chapman and Putnam 1984:22). After 10,000 years, the glacial lakes receded, and a plethora of sediments remained, as well as numerous rivers and lakes (Eyles and

Miall 2007:357). The basins that surround the Great Lakes are full of glacial deposits

(part of layer III), and these basins extend northward to cover my study area of the

Kawartha Lakes region.

The Kawartha Lakes region is located in a geologically rich landscape because it is a part of the Interior Platform and borders the Canadian Shield. This means it meets at the boundary of Paleozoic-aged rocks with glacial deposits and the Grenville Province of the Shield. The bedrock in this area is characterized by Precambrian rocks overlaid by the

Simcoe Group of Ordovician-aged limestones. Within the Simcoe group there are generally five accepted formations, listed in ascending order of age: Shadow Lake, Gull

River, Bobcaygeon, Verulam, and Lindsay. Of these formations Gull River and

Bobcaygeon are the only chert-bearing and are discussed later in this thesis (section 5.1).

When the Laurentide Ice Sheet receded it left striations on deposits it had covered; this allows geologists to elucidate the direction that an ice sheet grew or receded, and in the

Kawartha region it was a north-east to south-west orientation (Gadd 1980:1447-1448).

The Laurentide Ice Sheet left a unique and rich landscape with numerous post- glacial features. One feature is the Peterborough Drumlin Field, which is present in the southern region of the Kawarthas. A drumlin is an elongated hill made of glacial deposits.

The axis of the drumlin provides further evidence for the direction the ice was flowing when it was deposited (Bottomley 2011:16). There are also eskers, “low, sinuous ridges consisting of sand and gravel,” (Bottomley 2011:17) such as the Norwood, Omemee, and

Bridgenorth Esker found in the region. The Kawartha Lakes also possesses the Dummer

Moraine, which is the furthest eastern moraine in Ontario.

The Dummer Moraine is mostly to the eastern area of the Kawartha Lakes and is approximately 180 kilometres long (Terasmae 1979:377). A moraine is an area where a lobe of the ice sheet had stopped for an elongated period of time. During this time the lobe melted pushing sediments from the base of the ice sheet upwards, thus creating ridges. These sediments slowly accumulate causing ridges to form (Eyles 2002:194). The largest moraine in Ontario is the Oak Ridges Moraine to the southwest of the Kawartha region. The Dummer Moraine is not continuous and does not create a ridge, it is more a scattering of “coarse angular limestone fragments” (Chapman and Putnam 1984:54) with numerous boulders and pebbles present.

As demonstrated, the Kawartha Lakes have many of the glacial legacies mentioned in the previous section. This is to be expected in an area that acted as a runoff for Glacial Lake Algonquin and a shoreline for Glacial Lake Iroquois. The Kawartha

Lakes region also consists of valleys, streams, and lakes, such as Chemong, Scugog,

Pigeon, and Balsam Lake (Bottomley 2011:18). After understanding the geological

16 diversity found in this region, the following section helps to better characterize the lithic materials used by indigenous populations.

2.3 Common Lithic Material Categories

The following lithic materials are those commonly found on archaeological sites in south- central Ontario. This is not an exhaustive list, and it should be noted that material preferences did shift over time; however, it does contain the most frequent categories of material used for stone tool production. These include quartz, quartzite, chalcedony, and the all-encompassing category of metasediments. Each material category will be defined and then discussed in regards to their archaeological use. A separate section on chert follows this discussion.

2.3.1 Quartz

Quartz is a commonly occurring and primary rock-forming mineral. It is one of the most common minerals in the world, and is extremely prevalent on archaeological sites because of its abundance throughout Ontario (Hewitt 1965:13). It is part of the silica group and pure quartz is made entirely of silicon dioxide (SiO2) (Dietrich and Skinner

1979:32). The rock-forming quartz used by indigenous populations was macro or microcrystalline in structure and generally possesses good conchoidal fracture (Dietrich and Skinner 1979:33). Pure rock-forming quartz is clear; however, minor mineral impurities create different colours such as white, pink, purple, brown, and yellow. Each of these different colours has corresponding rock crystal names such as citrine for yellow

17 and amethyst for purple (Grice 2010:218). The lustre of most quartz is considered vitreous but impurities can impact this (Bishop et al. 2005:130). Rock-forming quartz or rock crystal is often formed as veins or in cavities (Bishop et al. 2005:130). Chert and chalcedony are also considered quartz, however they are the micro and cryptocrystalline varieties of quartz and possess different structures than regular rock crystal quartz

(Dietrich and Skinner 1979:32-33), and are thus considered separately, below. Quartz is often utilised for expedient tools; however, it is not usually exploited for biface production. Examples of bifaces do exist, but most quartz is too weathered and stress- fractured to be usable. These traits make the material often unpredictable when being knapped, and therefore undesirable for bifacial tool production.

2.3.2 Quartzite

There are two types of quartzites: orthoquartzite and metaquartzite. Metaquartzite is what is generally referred to as quartzite. It is a metamorphic rock that has recrystallized from metamorphosed sandstone or chert (Dietrich and Skinner 1979:257). Orthoquartzite is considered a sedimentary rock, and it is silica-cemented sandstone or silicified sandstone made almost exclusively of quartz grains, although mineral inclusions are occasionally present (Dietrich and Skinner 1979:196; Bishop et at. 2005:198). The fracture pattern for metaquartzite can range from conchoidal to irregular depending on the degree of recrystallization (poorly metamorphosed metaquartzite fractures similar to sandstone

(Grice 2010: 296)), while orthoquartzite because of its silica cement tends to fracture conchoidally (Dietrich and Skinner 1979:196). Quartzite can come in numerous colours, the most common being white, grey, or red (Bishop et al. 2005:193). The material is

18 extremely hard and is therefore mined as a useful resource in Ontario (Hewitt 1965:107).

One of the more well-known quartzite formations in Ontario is the Lorraine Formation, which is part of the Huronian Supergroup. The Huronian Supergroup overlays the

Superior Province of the Canadian Shield creating the Southern Province approximately

2.4 billion years ago. An example is the La Cloche Mountains in Killarney Provincial

Park. They were made by the Penokean Orogeny approximately 1.9 billion years ago

(Eyles 2002:95-96). These Lorrain Quartzite mountains later eroded to create the current landscape of today, and to produce some material used by Indigenous people. Another

Ontario formation possessing quartzite is the Bar River Formation; this includes the

Sheguiandah quartzite quarry, on Manitoulin Island on Lake Huron (see Long et al.

2002:265).

2.3.3 Chalcedony

There is inconsistency between archaeologists, petrologists, and mineralogists on the definition of chalcedony, but in essence it is a sedimentary rock that is composed of microcrystalline quartz. Falling within the silica group, chalcedony possesses a fibrous quartz structure that is different than the granular structure of chert; this fibrous structure is normally only visible in thin-section (Luedtke 1994:6). The material tends to be semi- transparent to translucent and generally waxy or vitreous in lustre (Bishop et al.

2005:132). Similar to chert, chalcedony also contains impurities that cause different colours to occur (Dietrich and Skinner 1979:33). These different impurities create varieties of chalcedony such as agate and onyx (Bishop et al 2005:132). Whereas archaeologists have tended to use the term chalcedony to describe translucent cherts,

19 petrologists define chalcedony as a fibrous quartz. Note, however, that mineralogists will sometimes combine both categories of chert and chalcedony because they possess the same chemical signature (Luedtke 1994:6). Within the Jacob Island assemblage there are few pieces of translucent material that appear as components or a lens within pieces of

Trent chert.

2.3.4 Metasediments

The term ‘metasediment’ refers to sediments that have metamorphized into sedimentary rock. The metamorphism is induced by sedimentary rocks being heated, compressed, and recrystallized within the earth’s crust (Hewitt 1965:49, 58). As the recrystallization is not always complete, this allows researchers to elucidate the origin and/or parent rock of the original material (Raymond 2002:465). Metasedimentary rocks encompass many different types, and it is a general term used by archaeologists to refer to raw materials often associated with ground-stone technology in Ontario; even though they may not always be of a sedimentary origin (Fox 2009:4). Some examples of metasediments found in Ontario (with their parent rock(s) in brackets) are: gneiss and schist (siltstone or shale); amphibolite (greywacke or siliceous dolostone); slate (shale); marble (limestone or dolostone); and soapstone/serpentinite (peridotite or pyroxenite) (Dietrich and Skinner

1979:239). It is worth noting that rocks worked by grinding and pecking may not always be of a sedimentary origin, as igneous basalts as well as other rocks may be used.

2.3.5 Chert

The lithic material most commonly found within the archaeological record in Ontario is chert. The following explores the complicated diagenesis and the origins of chert as archaeologists and some geologists define it. The general structure and composition of chert is also discussed along with the differences between archaeologists’ and geologists’ definitions of chert. An overview of Ontario chert types and the difficulty in their identification and classification concludes this section. Chert has been a geologically understudied material due to its low economic value (Luedtke 1994:35). Its understanding is important to archaeological research because lithics are one of the few artifacts recovered from pre-contact excavations and can be used as a proxy to study trade and mobility in the past.

Chert is a sedimentary rock composed primarily of micro and cryptocrystalline silica (SiO2) minerals, such as opal, chalcedony, and quartz (Raymond 2002:436); in most cases they are quartz based (Blatt et al. 1980:571). Chert contains numerous impurities that are often used to identify its formation of origin and occasionally its location member; these impurities correspond to trace-elements, minerals, and micro-fossils

(Luedtke 1978:414). Some examples of mineral inclusions include iron oxide, clay, calcite, pyrite, micas, and carbonates to name a few (Raymond 2002:437). The different trace-elements have given rise to many names, most used by geologists rather than archaeologists (Luedtke 1994:5-6). Some examples of varietal names used by archaeologists include jasper (red/brown coloured because of hematite) and flint (gray to black because the organic matter) (Blatt et al. 1980:571).

Chert is precipitated from marine and lacustrine solutions, and the presence of fossils in many cherts is because of their watery origin (Raymond 2002:436). Cherts that formed in the last 50 million years are dominated by diatoms (a type of algae). These diatoms decomposed or oozed and produced opal-A, which then over a long period of time turned into opal-CT, and eventually opal-CT became a variety of microquartz

(Knauth 1994:233). Cherts that formed prior to 50 million years ago, which encompass all cherts in Ontario (Eley and von Bitter 1989:2), were actually the result of diagenetic processes where silica minerals replaced pre-existing sediments and/or minerals (e.g., limestone and dolostone) (Raymond 2002:437, 441). As to how the diagenetic replacement happens, there are not many modern analogs to explain the origin (Knauth

1994:234); however, it has been studied to an extent by analysing the calcareous fossils present in many cherts (Raymond 2002:441). The replacement of organic matter in silica can be studied in chert beds to better understand its formation (see Berg and Masters

1994).

Mason and Moore describe geologists’ tendency for referring to rock types as,

“…grad[ing] into each other, and a rock name is a convenient pigeonhole rather than a species of fixed composition” (1980:95); however, the sentiment works equally well for archaeologists using chert as a blanket-term when they are discussing different types of rock. Rock types, such as mudstone, are often referred to as chert, and as Mason and

Moore describe, it is simply a convenience. Some examples of ‘cherts’ that are actually mudstone can be seen in the petrological report in Appendix C.

2.3.5.1 Cherts of Ontario

There is generally a degree of consensus within a region on formation names and member variation. Chert sources within Ontario are especially variable making identification to members within formation complicated to say the least. It is not only the geological variations that complicates classification, but also its nomenclature; some have local names related to their geographical location while others have strict geological formation names. There is also the case of the nomenclature changing between countries or at provincial borders. Fox provides the example of the Gull River formation becoming the

Leray limestone formation in south-eastern New York (2009:359). Southern Ontario contains a total of ten formations that possess chert; these are the Kettle Point, Dundee,

Bois Blanc, Lockport, Amabel, Fossil Hill, Manitoulin, Bobcaygeon, Gull River, and

Onondaga formations (Eley and von Bitter 1989:2). Of these ten, two formations, Amabel and Manitoulin, were infrequently (if ever) exploited by indigenous populations (Fox, pers. comm.). Northern Ontario has fewer chert-bearing formations in comparison to southern Ontario because the Canadian Shield is not buried to the same extent in northern

Ontario (Fox 2009). Formations in the north are normally characterized by the general name of Hudson Bay Lowland chert and are actually contemporary with many formations found in southern Ontario (Fox 2009:355). This further complicates matters when attempting to source at a macroscopic (or even microscopic) level because continental glacial movement transported an abundant amount of these formations and their chert to the south (Fox 2009:355-356). In the northern part of the province there is also the

Gordon Lake Formation which is part of the Huronian Supergroup. Many of the above formations have multiple members and outcrops, sometimes with great distances in

23 between, and some of the above formations overlay each other. Both of these factors create further difficulty in identifying specimens because some deposits blend together; making it very difficult to distinguish any differences while using a low-powered microscopic. One such example is the Bobcaygeon and Gull River formations that will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.

Chapter 3 – Archaeological Background

Introduction

This chapter provides the necessary background information to contextualize the site of

Jacob Island (specifically JI-1B/C, collectively designated as BcGo-17 and thus referred to as a single site, with two excavation areas) within the broader framework of mid- to the late-Holocene societies of the Great Lakes region. I review three bodies of information pertinent to this study. The first section provides information on characteristics associated with the traditional culture historical divisions used in Ontario and the wider Great Lakes region (see Ellis et al. 1990 and Spence et al. 1990). Although the lithic assemblage of

Jacob Island mainly dates to the Late Archaic, secure dates and artifactual evidence indicate occupations/visitations in the Middle Archaic, and in the Early, Middle, and early

Late Woodland; only the Middle Archaic through to the Middle Woodland are discussed because they alone are associated with JI-1B/C. Each time period has a brief description concerning its general characteristics, and the types of technological traditions associated with that period. The second section describes four archaeological sites that are similar to

Jacob Island, and concludes with a summary of Ramsden’s Kawartha Lakes surveys of the 1970s. The last section is a characterization of Jacob Island; this includes details on location and site history, and excavations and finds.

Prior to beginning section 3.1, it is necessary to explain that I consider the culture historical framework, here referred to and in subsequent sections, as a system for dividing time and a tool for simple comparative analysis. Culture histories can impose limitations on interpretations when they are taken as fact rather than inference (Sassaman 2010:20).

Sassaman succinctly states that the “taxonomic baggage of culture history my generation inherited remains an obstacle…” (2010:20), and to an extent, this remains true today. The concept of projectile points equating cultures (McElrath et al. 2009), and time divisions based on material cultures are useful and in some ways necessary; however, if taken too seriously, they can become a liability (Sassaman 2010:XV). These ideas of linear movement or progression of culture are not real, although they are useful if taken at face value to help organize large scale differences. That being said, the following section presents the material culture associated with its temporal divisions in Ontario, and the associated inferences concerning society, social organization, and mobility.

3.1 Cultural Historical Framework

The term Archaic was first used by Arthur Parker (1922) in New York to refer to a time period he called the ‘Archaic Algonkin’. William Ritchie (1932) further developed the cultural concept of the Archaic period when he described the Lamoka Lake site in New

York. Since then, the term has been widely used to refer to aceramic societies who did not practice agriculture (Ritchie 1969). In Ontario, the term Archaic refers to the period of time from around 10,000 radiocarbon years before present (bp) to 2800 bp (Ellis et al.

2009:788) (uncalibrated radiocarbon dates are hereafter referred to as “bp” and calibrated dates as “BP”). This period is less well studied and understood than the preceding

Paleoindian and the later Woodland periods (Ellis et al. 1990; Spence et al. 1990).

During this period, archaeological evidence suggests that annual-ranges declined in size leading to regional diversity later into the period (Sassaman 2010:23-24). The

26 initial changes are hypothesised to be brought on by environmental stabilization after the beginning of the Middle Archaic (8000 to 4500 bp) that marked the final recession of the

Laurentide Ice Sheet in Ontario (Eyles 2002:211-212). Slowly the environment stabilised, and by about 4500 bp, water levels were approximately the same as modern levels (Ellis et al. 2009:789). This environmental stabilization produced new food choices (e.g., nut producing trees, improved fishing potential), which caused subsistence and mobility patterns to be altered (Wright 1995:217). During the Archaic, approximately 8,000 to

6,000 BP, was a two-thousand-year long climatic event called the Hypsithermal where further warming caused different vegetation and longer seasons to occur (Strong and Hills

2005; Sassaman 2010:22). This in turn was followed by a cooling period lasting until about 2000 BP. These climactic events enabled net population growth, which is supported by evidence from the archaeological record, and larger populations are generally associated with greater cultural diversity and higher rates of cultural innovation (Kidder

2006; Shennan 2000; Sassaman 2010:23-24, 30).

The culture histories of the Middle and Late Archaic periods (respectively 8000 to

4500 bp and 4500 to 2800 bp) are described in further detail below. The date ranges for these phases follow Ellis et al. 1990 and Ellis et al. 2009. As stated before, it is important to note that these cultural divisions are arbitrary and based on subtle changes in material culture (i.e., projectile point types, and in later periods, ceramic types). These divisions imply a unilinear chain of events that do not allow for a more realistic, fluid view of time and/or people.

3.1.1 Middle ‘Laurentian’ Archaic

The Middle Archaic of Ontario dates between ca. 8000 to 4500 bp (uncalibrated), or about 8800 to 5100 BP. Ellis et al. term the first part of the Middle Archaic, to about 6300

BP, to be “the ‘black hole’ of Ontario archaeology” (2009: 803), and there are few sites in this part of the province to illuminate the organization of society in this period (Wright

1995:217). One suggestion for the lack of sites may be inundation of littoral landscapes by the Great Lakes; this hypothesis is supported by Lovis et al.’s research (2005) on central Michigan Middle Archaic sites. The second portion of the Middle Archaic has more known sites, and is referred to as the “Laurentian Archaic” (Ellis et al. 2009: 806), which is dated to approximately 5500 bp to 4500 bp, or 6300 BP to 5100 BP. The earliest dates on Jacob Island allude to occupations beginning about 5000 BP (Conolly et al.

2014:113), and thus fall outside the traditional dates of the Laurentian Archaic, but as there are several shared traits between Jacob Island and this slightly earlier phase of the

Archaic it is important to define its primary characteristics.

The term Laurentian was first used by Ritchie (1938) in New York to describe a culture with distinct artifact types; a similar grouping of artifacts occurs in Ontario

(Wright 1995:218-219). The diagnostic artifacts found to be representative of this period are as listed: different varieties of ground-stone tools used for activities such as woodworking and fishing (e.g., gouges, adzes, axes, ground points, plummets, and bannerstones), and greater variety in the styles of chipped-stone tools (e.g., notched projectiles, scrapers, and drills) (Funk 1988:35). Ellis et al. (1990:85) note that it is rare to ever find all these diagnostic artifacts at a single site. The projectile point type commonly found in Laurentian dated sites is Brewerton corner and side-notched (Funk 1988). This

28 point type, along with all subsequent types, can be seen in Figure 6. These points were often manufactured using Onondaga chert from the Onondaga Escarpment (Kenyon

1981a), which in the case of Jacob Island is over 250 km away. The beginning of the

Laurentian period also marks the presence of the first cemeteries; these formal mortuary areas are generally associated with fishing camps (Wright 1995:219). Nearly all sites containing artifacts common to the Laurentian are multi-component, with the Middle

Archaic materials intermixed with subsequent Late Archaic and Woodland assemblages

(e.g., Jackson 1988; Johnston 1984; Leechman and DeLaguna 1949; Ritchie 1949); this means that interpretations are greatly limited because of the lack of secure contexts.

Figure 6. Central Ontario projectile point types (note that the dates are uncalibrated)

In the past, cultural mobility models revolved around the concept that people came together in the warmer months to create a greater net of resources around waterways and then dispersed during the colder months to the interior (Ellis et al.

1990:91-92). During this period, archaeologists hypothesize an increase in fishing and woodworking activities based on site assemblages (e.g., Morrison Island 6, Allumette

Island) (Sassaman 2010:148, 159; Wright 1995:217-218). The increase in the use of ground-stone technology and chipped-stone debris “may indicate reduced settlement mobility (e.g. longer residential stays at some sites), more entrenched mobility (e.g. more constant return year after year to the same site locations), occupation by larger groups, or some combination thereof” (Ellis et al. 2009: 811); however, if this were strictly the case, a reduction in non-local lithic material would be expected compared to earlier sites. The widespread use of Brewerton style points, defined by Ritchie (1971) in New York, and non-local lithic material infer recurrent contact with people to the south and east (Wright

1995:220). Many of the known sites in Ontario do not possess all, or even some, of the artifact markers for the Laurentian. As Conolly et al. (2014) suggests, perhaps some of these markers (such as Brewerton style points) were either late arrivals to the Kawartha

Lakes region or persisted longer than other areas of Ontario.

3.1.2 Late Archaic

The beginning of the Late Archaic in Ontario (4500 bp or 5100 BP) is marked by environmental stabilization and weather systems relatively similar to today, as are the water levels. Traditionally the Archaic was characterized as being aceramic and without horticulture, and that the end of this period was marked by the introduction of both

30 indicators in the Woodland Period (Wright 1999:607). This has since been debated as many Early Woodland sites do not possess ceramics or evidence of horticulture (see

Anderson and Mainfort 2002). More detailed inferences exist for the Late Archaic than for the Early or Middle Archaic periods; this is mainly because of the greater number of excavated sites (Ellis et al. 1990:93). This may also be because the Great Lakes had reached their modern levels, and had inundated sites along earlier shorelines (Wright

1995:238). The higher frequency of sites may also be because of increased populations

(Teichroeb 2007:24). The Late Archaic is divided into three divisions defined by different biface styles: Narrow, Broad, and Small Point. These divisions are especially arbitrary and represent changes in primarily projectile point styles (Ellis et al. 1990:94). The majority of activities documented at Jacob Island 1B fall within the date range of the

Narrow Point phase; Jacob Island 1C is within the Small Point phase.

3.1.2.1 Narrow Point

The Narrow Point phase in Ontario is defined by two point types: Lamoka and

Normanskill (Figure 6). These points are characterized by “poorly made narrow, thick points with shallow side notches or expanding stems” (Ellis et al. 2009:812), and they are

“often coarsely flaked, and usually twice as long as they are wide” (Ellis et al. 1990:94).

The names for these projectiles were borrowed from Ritchie’s artifact descriptions in

New York (1932; 1971); these styles are not always accurate descriptions for Ontario, but they are often used (Ellis et al. 2009). The accepted date range generally associated with these points is 4,500 bp to 3,800 bp (Ritchie 1969). There are few sites that solely date to this period; often points of this style are part of disturbed, multi-component sites.

The few sites that are associated with the Narrow Point Complex possess little in the way of floral or faunal remains. These sites were adjacent to waterways and contained concentrations of lithic debris (Ellis et al. 2009:813-814). Used flakes, bipolar debitage, points and preforms appear to be the dominating artifacts within the assemblages; much of the assemblage is manufactured from Onondaga chert, which would have required some travel to obtain (Ellis et al. 2009). One example is the Winter site, which was excavated by Peter Ramsden. In his summary report he postulates the site was well situated for use during the fall or winter as a hunting camp for deer (Ramsden 1990:34-

36). Because of the lack of preservation, and the low number of sites (see Lennox 1990 and Ramsden 1990) interpretations of subsistence and social structure for the Narrow

Point are limited; however, significantly more inferences have been made for the succeeding periods.

3.1.2.2 Broad Point

The accepted dates for the Broad Point Archaic overlap with those of the Narrow Point.

This overlap is partly because the distribution of Broad Point sites tends to often be mixed with those exhibiting Narrow Points. Points of this period are characterized by large, broad, stemmed points (Ellis et al. 1990:99). Projectiles resembling those found in

Ontario occur throughout much of eastern North America, and in Ontario these points are generally associated with the date range 4000 to 3400 bp (Ellis et al. 2009:815). Despite the change in point design, the tool-kit associated with the Broad Point appears relatively similar to the preceding Narrow Point period. Ellis et al. notes that the introduction of these different point styles was probably a diffusion of ideas rather than people, and that

32 these different ideas of design were simply “grafted onto the existing technology”

(1990:100). Wright supports this theory of a “diffusion of concepts rather than invasion”

(1995:231) by commenting on the more frequent use of local materials. In areas where thick chert beds were not present, broad points tend to be manufactured from coarser lithic materials, such as metasediments like greywacke, and rhyolites and argillites

(Dincauze 1972:41-42). In Ontario, the point styles that dominate this complex are

Genesee and Adder Orchard (Figure 6); Genesee points appear to be the most widespread and primarily manufactured using Onondaga chert, while points resembling Adder

Orchard style tend to be made of Kettle Point or Onondaga chert (Kenyon 1981b; Ferris and Kenyon 1987).

Many of the larger Broad Point sites are located next to major waterways and

“sand plains which once supported oak-hickory forests” (Ellis et al. 1990:105), a preferred environment for animals, such as deer. Sites also tend to be located in areas where upland terrain and waterways are easily accessible (Wright 1995:231). It has been suggested that the broader points were a specialised technology to facilitate the easier hunting of larger game or as thrusting points for animal drives (Ellis et al. 1990), and it has also been postulated that these points were used as specialised knives (Dunn 1984).

Similar to the Narrow Point, there tends to be limited preservation of flora and fauna on sites; however, some floral (e.g., tree nuts) and faunal (e.g., deer and turtle) have been recovered (Ellis et al. 1990:105).

3.1.2.3 Small Point or Terminal Archaic

Understanding of the Small Point or Terminal Archaic tends to be more nuanced than the previous Archaic periods because of the greater number of excavated sites. In Ontario, this period is dated between ca. 3500 to 2800 bp (Ellis et al. 2009:818). The main characteristic that distinguishes this period from the previous is the shift to significantly smaller projectiles, and the introduction of more elaborate burial practices and cemeteries

(Ellis et al. 1990; Ellis et al. 2009). Archaeologists have interpreted these smaller projectiles as responses to the introduction of bow and arrow and/or dart technology (see

Snarey and Ellis 2006). These smaller points tend to be rather variable between sites and display many similar characteristics with points associated with the Middle Archaic and

Middle Woodland Periods (Ellis et al. 1990:106); however, there are three recognized point types, and most projectiles fall within their variations: Crawford Knoll, Innes, and

Hind Points (Figure 6) (Ellis et al. 2009:819). There is also the rare Ace of Spades point type. This point type was borrowed from New York typology (Ritchie 1971). Points dating to this period are most often smaller than five centimetres in length and slight variation of styles does occur. Sassaman suggests that the variety observed in projectile point types is simply an expression of different cultures, and that the “Archaic experience became multicultural” (2010:24) during this period. He goes on to say that “regional diversity in the Late Archaic is…accentuated” (2010:23) in comparison to other times.

The common habitation model for this period is that during the colder months small groups of indigenous people moved further inland to interior sites to hunt (Muller

1989), and then aggregated in larger groups at key locations in littoral areas during the warm-weather months to fish (Rogers 1969:29) and perform ceremonial activities such as

34 mortuary practices (Ellis et al. 1990:821). In Ontario this model has been substantiated by excavated finds and analysis of the flora, fauna, and lithics. Ellis et al. concede to the model being oversimplified, and large aggregation sites where people would come together have yet to be discovered in Ontario (2009:824); however, the site of Jacob

Island 1B/C is an example of such a place.

The burials dating to this period tend to be located near or on waterways and possess higher concentrations of non-local materials (Wright 1995:231). The grave offerings associated with the Late Archaic are not evenly dispersed among individuals; this could infer there is divergence from an egalitarian society to one where status is differentiated (Ellis et al. 2009:824-825). Sassaman suggests that mortuary activities should be viewed as “multicultural affairs used to integrate different societies” (2010:26); this could also be an explanation for the difference in grave offerings, different cultures could follow different beliefs. Many non-local lithic materials were interred with individuals, often in the form of projectiles or preforms that were sometimes broken or burned (Sassaman 2010:99). Many of the non-local materials were acquired from over hundreds or thousands of kilometres away. These items were most likely traded inferring a degree of fluidity among groups and individuals, and possibly further evidence of growing social complexity.

The most common lithic tool type in Small Point assemblages is the utilised and/or retouched flake (Ellis et al. 1990). These tools tend to be made from local material, in comparison to the projectiles and preforms, and are expediently used and discarded.

Points and preforms tend to be manufactured from non-local chert, and their material differs in comparison to the debitage assemblage (Ellis and Spence 1997). Based on the

35 evidence of non-local materials being used for projectiles and preforms, and the lack of debitage from these materials in assemblages, archaeologists have inferred that the materials to make preforms and points were probably directly acquired and manufactured in closer proximity to the outcrop, or traded from that area. Ellis and colleagues

(2009:826) explain that if this material were directly acquired, then large annual-ranges

(>150 kilometres radius) were practiced throughout the year. On the other hand, if the points are primarily manufactured from one material, and that material does not occur in high frequencies within the debitage of the assemblage, it can be inferred that the material was perhaps a preferred trade item (see Deller 1989). The preference for projectiles to be manufactured from non-local material may be a trait carried over from the Middle

Archaic. At sites, such as Morrison Island 6, although the debitage assemblage was mainly local material (i.e., quartz), the most frequent material used for bifaces and projectiles was Onondaga chert, a material located hundreds of kilometres away

(Clermont and Chapdelaine 1998:68, 82).

3.1.3 Early and Middle Woodland

The Early and Middle Woodland Periods possess many characteristics of the Terminal

Archaic in southern Ontario. The major difference between the Early Woodland and the

Terminal Archaic is the presence of ceramics (Spence et al. 1990:125); however, as

Stothers and Abel (1993) suggest, not all Early Woodland sites actually possess ceramics, and that it may no longer be an adequate ‘divide’ to distinguish between the Archaic and

Woodland (Anderson and Mainfort 2002). The Early Woodland Period dates between ca.

2800 to 2000 bp; this period encompasses two complexes: Meadowood and Middlesex.

The Middle Woodland period dates between 2000 and about 1100 bp, (although there are debates as to when the division should be made: some prefer earlier and some later) and encompasses three complexes: Couture, Saugeen, and Point Peninsula. In this next section, only the Meadowood Complex of the Early Woodland and the Point Peninsula

Complex of the Middle Woodland are discussed since they are most closely associated with the Middle and Upper Trent Valley (Conolly, pers. comm.).

Sites solely dating to the Early Woodland are rare (see Fox 1984), and many are multi-component, and disturbed (Wright 1999); relatively little is known about the Early

Woodland because of the rarity of single component sites (Spence et al. 1990:166-168).

More is known about the Middle Woodland; however, similar to Archaic and Early

Woodland dated sites, many were excavated prior to the use of flotation, or screening in some cases, and therefore inferences on subsistence systems are limited (Wright 1999).

The Meadowood Complex and Point Peninsula Phase will now briefly be discussed.

3.1.3.1 Meadowood Complex

The Meadowood Complex represents the first part of the Early Woodland Period, and is dated from ca. 2800 to 2400 bp (Spence et al. 1990:128; Taché 2011). According to

Spence et al., the Meadowood Complex is defined by five key characteristics: (i)

Meadowood cache blades or preforms; (ii) Meadowood side-notched projectile points

(Figure 6); (iii) introduction of Vinette 1 ceramics; (iv) large, trapezoidal gorgets; and (v) birdstones (1990:128-129). The preference towards the use of Onondaga chert continues into this period from the previous (Wright 1999:619). Some similarities exist between the diagnostic characteristics of the Terminal Archaic and the Meadowood Complex (Wright

1999:646-647). It is thought that the Meadowood Complex probably evolved from that of the Terminal Archaic Glacial Kame Burial Complex (Ritchie 1955). According to Spence and Fox (1986:8) this evolution can be seen through cache blades like those found at the

Hind site (see Donaldson and Wortner 1995); the blades appear transitional between those characteristic blades found in the Terminal Archaic and the Early Woodland. Evidence of

Meadowood-like artifacts can also be seen in southern Quebec and New York (Taché

2011). This provides evidence for close ties between these regions (Spence et al. 1990).

Although there appears to be close ties among neighbouring areas to the east, there is a decline in the quantity of non-local items from the south during the Meadowood

(Spence et al. 1990:136). Whether this reduction is caused by longer periods of sedentism or some kind of disruption in trade patterns is unclear, but it clearly did not affect access to Meadowood preforms and side notched points made of Onondaga chert (Wright

1999:619, 646-647). Meadowood preforms and points tend to possess a smaller range of variation than point styles from the Terminal Archaic. It has been suggested this could be the effect of semi-specialised craftsmen producing bulk amounts to trade to the north and east (Fox 1984; Granger 1981). If semi-specialised craftsmen were manufacturing preforms this could provide inference for a change in social organization. The mortuary practices of this period do not appear to display evidence of inherited rank; however, there are some differences in grave offerings between individuals (Spence et al. 1978:44), especially in the Rice Lake area (Spence 1986:92).

The models for settlement and subsistence are similar to those from the Terminal

Archaic or Small Point, but this is partly because not enough is known to argue with the pre-existing models. Many of the domestic sites are small fall camps that possess deer

38 bones and nut remains. One increase to note is the increase of fishing technology and fish remains on sites occupied during the spring. There are base-camps in New York dating to this period where people would congregate and return over numerous years (Granger

1978); however, this type of habitation site has yet to be definitively identified in Ontario

(Spence et al. 1990).

3.1.3.2 Point Peninsula Complex

The three complexes that were mentioned in the introduction (Couture, Saugeen, and

Point Peninsula) are associated with different regions of Ontario. The markers for the

Point Peninsula Complex are seen in south central and eastern Ontario (Spence et al.

1990; Wright 1967, 1999); however, this does not mean that characteristics from the other complexes do not cross regions. This complex also encompasses southern Quebec

(Clermont and Chapdelaine 1982), and parts of New York and Vermont (Power et al.

1980; Ritchie and Funk 1973). By the Middle Woodland, ceramics had a more specific style than the thick walled pottery of the Early Woodland. Point Peninsula ceramics have a distinct stamped pottery style, with thinner walls, and finer temper used (Wright

1999:633). The afore-mentioned style was created with an implement that created a dentate or “pseudo-scallop shell” look (Spence et al. 1990:142).

The lithic assemblages of this complex possess small end scrapers, and a variety of notched projectile points (Spence et al. 1990:158; Wright 1999:633). Examples of points can be seen in Figure 6; however, the Saugeen and Vanport points are not directly associated with Point Peninsula. The point styles of this complex have similarities with

Brewerton point and Small Point styles. These comparisons are partially used to argue for

39 the ancestral origins of the Middle Woodland (Wright 1999:612). Some argue for a

Middle Archaic (Laurentian) ancestry (Tuck 1977; Wright 1984), while others believe the

Terminal Archaic is more likely (Snow 1977; Spence and Fox 1986). Projectile points from this period display more idiosyncrasies from their makers than previous periods, and are more variable (Wright 1999:633).

The settlement patterns do not overly change from the Terminal Archaic to the

Middle Woodland (Wright 1999:644). The warmer weather campsites tend to be established on waterways, and have associated burials close by (Wright 1999:611). The mortuary practices by this time show distinction between individuals, whether it is their location of burial (i.e., mound construction), or the grave offerings present (Spence et al.

1990: 164; Wright 1999:697). There is also evidence for celebrations/feasting in association with mortuary practices; this can be seen at the Serpent Mounds (Johnston

1968) where a hillside shell midden was located. Mound building and feasting are activities not previously seen in south-central Ontario prior to the Middle Woodland.

3.2 Descriptions of similar sites to Jacob Island

Four sites have been selected for a more detailed comparative assessment with Jacob

Island 1B/C. Three of the sites are located within the Trent-Severn Waterway system

(Dawson Creek, McIntyre, and Serpent Mounds), and one is located within the Ottawa

Valley (Morrison’s Island) (see Figure 7 for map). Following the site descriptions is a brief summary of survey work conducted in the 1970s by Peter Ramsden within the

Kawartha Lakes. These descriptions are necessary to aid in better understanding Jacob

Island; the sites’ assemblages are later compared with Jacob Island 1B/C in Chapter 7.

©Google Earth

3.2.1 Dawson Creek site (BaGn-16)

This is a multi-component site that, as with Jacob Island, has dates that encompass the

Late Archaic to the Late Woodland. The site is located on the north-western shore of Rice

Lake and was part of a salvage excavation performed in 1981. The site area was previously farmed; however, it has remained fallow since the 1930s. The site was excavated using one meter by one meter units and approximately 300 square metres were excavated (believed to be a quarter of the site area) (Jackson 1988:4). A total of 22 hearths and pit features of varying dates were uncovered during excavation; the fill from

41 the features was floated. Only one feature was radiocarbon dated to the Late Archaic period (3920±90 bp), four to the Early Woodland, five to the Middle Woodland, and the remaining twelve primarily dated to the Late Woodland with some being undated

(Jackson 1988:7).

The remains of the Late Archaic hearth feature contained artifacts that led Jackson to believe it was used for food-processing (1988:12-13). The hearth contained charred acorn remains; catfish bones; deer bones with butchering marks; other non-identifiable mammalian bones; and ground-stone and chipped-stone flakes. All items were locally available and suggest occupation during the fall.

The Early Woodland features contained ceramics; charred nut remains (acorn, hawthorn, and raspberry); two side-notched projectiles (one Meadowood); a biface fragment; unifacial tool base; modified flakes; pressure flakes; red ochre; and faunal elements of medium to large sized mammals (muskrat and large cervids identified)

(Jackson 1988:15-17). No cores or reduction fragments were recovered, nor were plant- processing tools. The lack of primary and secondary flakes suggests tool-kits were manufactured elsewhere and brought to the site. Jackson (1988:17) proposed a late summer to early fall occupation, with the limited number of features arguing for only a few individuals and/or short term visits.

The Middle Woodland features contained under 2,000 faunal remains including catfish, cervid, deer, one juvenile deer, and other small to medium sized animals (many possess signs of processing); fewer charred nut remains in comparison to earlier occupations; ceramics; chert core, drill, unmodified flakes, pressure flakes; ground-stone adze; and sandstone abrader (Jackson 1988:29-30). The range of chipped-stone debitage

42 recovered advocates for onsite tool manufacture. The presence of the juvenile deer remains suggests occupation during the spring or summer; however the presence of nuts advocates early fall occupation.

Jackson proposes that Dawson Creek represents a very small settlement or encampment area, and that a limited amount of activities were carried out at the site

(Jackson 1988:76). Limited specific information was given in regards to overall tool counts or the raw material used to manufacture them; however, a current study comparing projectile point types and raw material within the Trent Valley is being conducted by Jeff

Dillane (pers. comm.), and is summarized in Table 1. Projectiles were typed into temporal periods and raw material for each period was counted. Dillane found that the projectiles he studied were made from Onondaga and Haldimand/Bois Blanc, and the point types are generally associated with the Late Archaic and Early Woodland (Dillane, pers. comm.).

Woodland

Late ArchaicLate Early Woodland Middle Woodland Late Unknown GrandTotal Point Counts 2 5 0 1 2 10 Material Type Onondaga chert 5 2 7 Bois Blanc – Haldimand 2 1 3

Table 1. Temporally divided projectile point counts and their corresponding material types for Dawson Creek site (Dillane, pers. comm.)

3.2.2 McIntyre site (BbGn-2)

The McIntyre site is one of the largest Middle/Late Archaic sites in southern Ontario. It is located within the Trent Valley, on the north shore of Rice Lake, Otonabee Township,

Peterborough County (Johnston 1984:9). The site was first brought to archaeologists’ attention by the landowner who had been surface collecting the ploughed field for years

(Johnston 1984:8). Richard Johnston and his team performed test excavations in 1974 to try and ascertain the extent of the site; 45 artifacts were recovered that year. They discovered three hearth pits that went below the plough zone, and sent a piece of charcoal to be dated; it produced a date of 4715±270 bp (Johnston 1984:9). In 1975, Johnston and his team returned to begin excavation, and between 1974 and 1975 they excavated 491 square metres, believed to be approximately 10% of the site area (Johnston 1984:12).

During the 1975 excavation, the disturbed earth from the plough zone was removed and screened using 1/4 inch mesh. A total of 38 features were discovered and

64.7% of the feature fill was water-screened and floated (Johnston 1984:13). A total of

2,978 artifacts were recovered; however, only 652 were considered ‘formal artifacts’

(Table 2). Approximately 93% of the 652 artifacts were found within the plough zone

(Johnston 1984:19). A total of 1,976 of the 2,978 artifacts were considered debitage, and

173 and the 652 ‘formal artifacts’ were projectile points (Johnston 1984:20, 35). Table 3 depicts the recorded raw material types for the formal artifacts and debitage. Onondaga chert was the most common material used in manufacturing lithics; approximately 58% of the assemblage. Johnston records quite a range of non-local lithic materials, including those from Ohio, New York, Illinois, Michigan, and northern Ontario; something not surprising with a Late Archaic site (1984:79). Johnston typed projectile points using

Ritchie’s New York typological classifications (Ritchie 1971). The most common points dated to the end of the Laurentian Archaic with some from the Early Woodland

(1984:20). Dillane’s study of archaeology in the Trent Valley helped produce Table 4.

This table shows a distinct cluster of projectile points associated with the Middle and Late

Archaic periods. A total of 56 ceramics were recovered during excavation, 82% were small and undecorated primarily dating to the Early and Middle Woodland (Johnston

1984:49).

Artifact Type Counts Chipped Stone 318 Ground Stone 241 Faunal 26 Copper 10 Magnetite 1 Ceramics 56 Grand total 652

Table 2. Formal artifacts recovered from the McIntyre site

Raw Material Type Formal Artifacts Debitage Grand Total Onondaga 193 1126 1319 Quartz and Quartzite 10 411 421 Trent 12 272 284 Collingwood 1 15 16 Balsam Lake 1 8 9 Jasper Taconite 0 1 1 Silicious Siltstone 18 0 18 Ottawa chert 19 0 19 Selkirk 2 0 2 Haldimand 2 0 2 Gordon Lake 2 0 2 Ancaster 5 0 5 Huronia 2 0 2

Kettle Point 3 0 3 Bayport 3 0 3 Eastport/Norwood 1 0 1 Flint Ridge 1 0 1 Mercer 1 0 1 Deepkill/Normanskill 1 0 1 Unidentified chert 22 122 144 Rock 0 21 21 Grand Total 299 1976 2275

Table 3. Raw material types of formal artifacts and debitage

Middle Archaic Middle ArchaicLate Early Woodland Woodland Middle Woodland Late GrandTotal Point Counts 5 6 1 1 0 13 Material Type Onondaga chert 3 3 1 1 8 Collingwood 1 1 Basalt 1 1 Bayport 1 1 Green Ottawa Valley 1 1 Unknown 1 1

Table 4. Temporally divided projectile point counts and their corresponding material types of the McIntyre site (Dillane, pers. comm.)

A total of six radiocarbon dates were obtained. The earliest dated to 4715±270 bp, however, the majority dated around 3650±110 bp (Johnston 1984:56, 59), placing most of the occupation into the Late Archaic period (Johnson 1984:74). The site is considered very large by Archaic standards, and Johnston believed it acted as a major encampment

46 during the warmer weather months (spring to fall) over an extended period of time

(1984:74). There was some evidence for a late occupation during the Paleo-Indian period, as well as the Early Archaic, and some projectile points and ceramics obviously post-date the Archaic (Johnston 1984:77).

3.2.3 Serpent Mounds site (BbGn-1)

The Serpent Mounds site consists of nine burial/earth mounds, a nearby habitation site, and a shell midden (Johnston 1968:8); there are also three ossuary-like burial features dating to the Late Woodland (Johnston 1968:9). The Serpent Mounds are also located on

Rice Lake on the north shore, Otonabee Township, Peterborough County, approximately

15 metres above the current water level (Johnston 1968:10). Richard Johnston, with the

Royal Ontario Museum, excavated approximately 880 square metres of the site between

1955 and 1960; however, there were two known prior excavations in 1897 and 1910, along with other disturbances to the site (Johnston 1968: 9, 14-15). During the project, four mounds were excavated: Mound E, G, H, and I (Johnston 1968:18). Various grave offerings were found with some of the burials, with the exception of Mound G (Johnston

1968:30). Although some of the features were below the plough zone, the habitation area was previously disturbed by farming practices (Johnston 1968:35). Only one burial was found within the habitation area (Johnston 1968:36). Based on the presence of diagnostic artifacts, Johnston believed the habitation area to predate the mounds (1968:37). The midden contained primarily two species of mussels, some lithics, ceramics, and faunal remains (Johnston 1968:42, 46). Based on the type of lithics and ceramics, Johnston believed the mounds and midden Middle Woodland − radiocarbon dates from the two

47 locations are within the range of each other (Johnston 1968:71). Based on the lack of certain faunal remains, such as antler, and the high frequency of fishing equipment, he suggested a spring/summer occupation of the site (Johnston 1968:43, 46).

Although the site report has a thorough ceramic analysis, the lithic and faunal analyses were brief. I constructed tables from the stone tools mentioned in Johnston’s report for each area of the site. Table 5 shows what information I was able to ascertain from the details given during his discussion on the Mounds’ excavations. Most of the lithic material descriptions are not helpful, I do believe the two most common materials, blue-grey flint and greenstone, are representative of Onondaga chert and Gowganda argillite. Table 6 depicts the information from the habitation area, and Table 7, the shell midden. Table 8 summarises all data on stone tools found in the report, and Table 9 was created through personal communication with Jeffrey Dillane from his own research.

From Table 8, approximately 71% of the noted stone artifacts were chipped stone, while

29% were ground stone. Dillane’s projectile point data appears to be collected from the habitation area, hence the concentration around the Late Archaic/Early Woodland;

Johnston believed the habitation area predated the mounds and dated to the Archaic.

tal

Projectile points/fragment s Scraper Debitage Ground points/fragment s Adze/Adze fragments Gorget/Gorget fragments Pipe GrandTo Counts 11 3 13 2 7 2 1 39 Material Type Flint 9 9 Greenstone 6 6 Blue-Grey Flint 4 1 5

Quartz 2 2 Schist 1 1 2 Grey Flint 1 1 2 Red Slate 1 1 Slate 1 1 Green Quartzite 1 1 Green Slate 1 1 Soapstone 1 1 Grey Quartzite 1 1 Unknown 4 1 2 7

Table 5. Stone tool counts and material types for mounds

ge/gouge ge/gouge

Projectile points/fragment s Scraper Drill/drill fragment Debitage Adze/adze fragments Gou fragments Ground stone fragments GrandTotal Counts 21 2 7 4 4 1 7 46 Material Type Blue-Grey Flint 18 2 20 Greenstone 1 6 7 Quartz 2 2 Flint 2 2 Green Flint 2 2 Schist 1 1 Tan Flint 1 1 Unknown 7 3 1 11

Table 6. Stone tool counts and material types for habitation area

Projectile points/fragments Scraper Debitage Adze/Adze fragments Ground stone fragment GrandTotal Counts 7 1 4 10 3 26 Material Type Greenstone 10 10 Blue-grey Flint 6 6 Siltstone 3 3 Quartz 1 1 Unknown 1 4 5

Table 7. Stone tool counts and material types for shell midden

rand Total rand

Projectile points/fragments Scraper Drill/drill fragment Debitage Ground points/fragments Adze/Adze fragments Gorget/Gorget fragments Gouge/gouge fragment Pipe Ground Stone fragment G Counts 39 6 7 21 2 21 2 1 1 3 103 Material Type Blue-Grey Flint 28 3 31 Greenstone 17 17 Flint 11 11 Quartz 1 4 5 Siltstone 3 3 Schist 1 1 2 Slate 1 1 2 Grey Flint 1 1 2 Green Flint 2 2 Green Quartzite 1 1 Green Slate 1 1 Soapstone 1 1 Grey Quartzite 1 1 Tan Flint 1 1

Red Slate 1 1 Unknown 4 2 7 6 3 22

Table 8. Stone tool counts and material types for the Serpent Mounds site

and

Middle Archaic Middle ArchaicLate Early Woodland Woodland Middle WoodlLate GrandTotal Counts 1 4 4 1 3 13 Material Type Onondaga chert 3 2 1 2 8 Quartz 1 1 Flint Ridge 1 1 Rhyolite 1 1 Metasediment 1 1 Unknown 1 1

Table 9. Temporally divided projectile point counts and their corresponding material types of the Serpent Mounds site (Dillane, pers. comm.)

3.2.4 Morrison Island 6 (BkGg-12)

Morrison Island possesses one of the largest archaeological assemblages dating to the

Archaic period in Ontario and Quebec. The island is situated on the Ottawa River, approximately 100 kilometres north-west of Ottawa, on the Quebec side of the border and is less than 2 square kilometres in area (Clermont and Chapdelaine 1998:3). The islet is

35 metres above sea level, and provides a panoramic view of Allumette Island to the west

(a prominent site dating approximately 500 years earlier than Morrison) (Clermont and

Chapdelaine 1998:3, 23). Surface finds and collections have been received by the

National Museum of Canada since 1875, and the site was surveyed in 1912. Clyde

Kennedy and his team excavated the site from 1961 to 1962 and uncovered 374 square metres (Clermont and Chapdelaine 1998:9). The site is disturbed because of farming practices; however, it has lain fallow since 1917 (Clermont and Chapdelaine 1998:13).

The Wheeler system of excavation was used, and the backfill was not screened; some soil samples were taken (Clermont and Chapdelaine 1998:9). In 1996, Clermont and

Chapdelaine opened nine test pits to better understand the size of the site since it was unknown whether the entire site was excavated. They now believe the majority of the site was excavated (Clermont and Chapdelaine 1998:13, 15). Four absolute dates were obtained through radiocarbon dating; the average date places the site into the Middle

Archaic period range — 4703 bp or approximately 5450 BP (Clermont and Chapdelaine

1998:25).

A total of 21 burials were uncovered on Morrison Island, many possessing grave offerings of stone, copper, and/or bone (Clermont and Chapdelaine 1998:18, 22). Burials were also found on Allumette Island and a biological feature trait comparison was undertaken. Pfeiffer (1977) proposed that the people buried on Allumette and Morrison were most likely the same group of people but separated by approximately 500 years. She went on to say that these people seem to form a sub-group that is genetically different from other Archaic populations in Ontario and Quebec (Pfeiffer 1977:23, 268, 270).

The excavations at Morrison Island recovered a large assemblage of artifacts

(Table 10). Stone artifacts constitute just over 50% of the entire assemblage. Table 11 shows the raw material types for debitage, and Table 12 shows the raw material for projectile points and bifaces. The most commonly used material for manufacturing

52 projectile points and bifaces was Onondaga chert; however, surprisingly, quartz amounted to 92% of all the debitage material. There is a total of 2,580 stone tool artifacts catalogued, approximately 78% of these are considered ground-stone tools (Clermont and

Chapdelaine 1998:14). A total of 136 diagnostic bipolar artifacts were recovered, of which only 5% are manufactured from chert and the remainder from quartz (Clermont and Chapdelaine 1998:83). Many of the projectile point styles are those associated with the Laurentian Archaic, and exhibit Brewerton styles such as corner and side-notching

(Clermont and Chapdelaine 1998:69).

Artifact Type Counts Stone 18,772 Bone 2,019 Copper 513 Food bone remains 15,098 Grand total 36,402

Table 10. Artifact counts for Morrison Island 6 (after Table 1, Clermont and Chapdelaine 1998:14)

Material Types for Debitage Counts Quartz 15,343 Siltstone 570 Grey chert 97 Onondaga chert 53 Mottled grey chert 12 White quartzite 12 Black chert 11 Brown chert 5 Rhyolite 5 Silty chert 2 Grand total 16,110

Table 11. Raw material counts within the debitage category (after Table 4, Clermont and Chapdelaine 1998:56)

Material Types for Points & Bifaces Counts Onondaga chert 72 Grey-brown chert 52 Mottled grey chert 48 Grey chert 39 Black chert 27 Siltstone 23 Silty chert 17 Green chert 8 Quartz 8 Brown chert 5 Rhyolite 3 Cherty siltstone 3 Quartzite 3 Schist 2 Green Schist 2 Chalcedony 2 Sandstone 1 Mottled chert 1 Black-brown chert 1 Undetermined chert 2 Grand total 319

Table 12. Raw material counts for the projectile points and biface categories (after Table 9 and 12, Clermont and Chapdelaine 1998:68, 82)

Clermont and Chapdelaine do not believe the site represents a long term camp; instead they interpret it as a work station and a sacred place that was frequently visited

(Clermont and Chapdelaine 1998:24, 153). They suggest that a nearby campsite may exist, but it has yet to be discovered. Based on the extensive ground-stone tool kit, along with the copper and bone tools, a large number of activities may have occurred at the site

(sewing, woodworking, tool repair, etc.). The location of the site suggests occupation during warmer months, and the horizontal and vertical distribution of artifacts suggest

54 short visits on several recurrent occasions (Clermont and Chapdelaine 1998:135, 142-

143).

3.2.5 Ramsden’s 1970s Kawartha Lake Surveys

During the 1970s, Peter Ramsden surveyed and excavated areas surrounding the

Kawartha Lakes, primarily around Balsam Lake and northward to Haliburton. His original research focused on Late Woodland sites. Although he fulfilled his research goals, he actually discovered far more Laurentian Archaic sites than Late Woodland. His team located previously known sites and recorded further details, and surveyed untouched areas using field walking and test-pitting (Ramsden 1997:141). Ramsden and his team located a total of fifteen sites concentrated within the Balsam Lake area; four of these sites were “relatively large and productive camp sites” (Ramsden 1997:142). Another four sites were located further north towards Haliburton and through the Gull River system. Many of the sites contained diagnostic Laurentian style artifacts as described earlier in this chapter. The team recovered artifacts associated with both the Vergennes and Brewerton Phases, but the majority of artifacts are connected to the earlier Vergennes

Phase of the Middle Archaic.

The Trent-Gull River system contains a concentration of Laurentian Archaic sites

(Ramsden 1997:143). Prior to this survey, the area of the Kawartha Lakes was not thought to be overly populated till later in time; this was obviously incorrect. This is perhaps explained by the lack of broader surveys in these regions. Ramsden suggests the reason for the increase of Vergennes Phase and then decrease of Brewerton Phase sites may be related to the fluctuating temperatures and/or environment (1997:145). He also suggests that the Upper Trent Valley contains a limited amount of resources and could be

55 considered “biotically impoverished” (1997:144). Perhaps this warming created a more desirable environment for a limited amount of time, and when temperatures began to lower again, the populations refrained from areas so close to the Canadian Shield.

Ramsden goes on to suggest that perhaps the change in density and frequency of

Laurentian sites may be related to political or social disruption rather than environment

(1997:145-146). He bases his argument for earlier population instability on his later assessment that this area was only temporarily occupied by Iroquoian people during the

Late Woodland Period; however, some would argue against his above statements on environment being the main deciding factor in occupation.

3.3 Jacob Island (BcGo-17)

Jacob Island (Figure 8 and Figure 9) shares characteristics with each of the four sites mentioned in the previous section. It is a multi-component site dating from the early Late

Archaic, the late Middle Woodland, and the early Late Woodland, but it possesses artifacts that infer possible visitation during the Middle Archaic and Early Woodland as well (Conolly et al. 2014:113). The site is adjacent to water, has a diverse lithic assemblage, and burials are the dominant excavated cultural feature component of the site. The following section is divided into two parts: Location and Site History, and

Excavation and Finds. The lithic assemblage is detailed and discussed in later chapters of this thesis (Chapters 4, 5, and 6).

©Google Earth

3.3.1 Location and Site History

Jacob Island is located on Pigeon Lake within the Kawartha Lakes of south-central

Ontario, Peterborough County (Conolly et al. 2014:109). It is within the area referred to as the Trent-Severn Waterway (Conolly 2013:11). The island is approximately 1.8 kilometres long and currently possesses 4.5 kilometres of shoreline; the total area is 43 hectares (Conolly 2013:15). The island has two areas of higher elevation (between 11 and

17 metres above the current lake level), and some areas that are only a couple of metres above the average lake levels (Conolly et al. 2014:109). The current lake levels were created in the 1830s after the building of a dam to the north-west of the island; water levels rose approximately 3 metres following completion (Conolly et al. 2014:109).

Pigeon Lake was originally only a small creek, and to increase the depth of the new water levels it was dredged in the 1870s (Austin 2010:10). Prior to the dam, the island was most likely a peninsula, joined to White Island, lying 100 metres to the north, and Fulton’s

Bog, now marshland, 600 metres to the north (Figure 10).

The western portion of the island was ploughed and farmed beginning in the late

1800s. The western area was later developed, and a resort was built at the beginning of the 1900s; during this time, the eastern side of the island was being farmed (Conolly

2013:12). Although the western side has remained developed, the eastern side is again heavily forested (Austin 2010:5). In the 1950s the island was transferred to the Canadian

Council for War Veterans Association. They established a camp that was later donated to

Banyan Community Services for use as a non-profit residential summer camp (Conolly

2013:12).

Figure 10. Jacob Island with White Island and Fulton’s bog (from Conolly et al. 2014:110)

3.3.2 Excavations and Finds

In the autumn of 2009, burials were disturbed during construction of a new building, and archaeologists from AMEC Consulting were called in to assess after the coroner confirmed the remains to be historic (Austin 2010:1). As of 2013 there were three registered archaeological sites on Jacob Island (BcGo-17, 18, and 19); however, only the lithic assemblage from BcGo-17 is analysed in this thesis. Investigation on Jacob Island is ongoing, and was continued under James Conolly of Trent University after AMEC finished their initial assessment. The island is divided into four sections and BcGo-17 resides in JI-1 (Figure 11). JI-1 area is further divided into three mortuary areas JI-1A, B, and C (Conolly et al. 2014:111); this can be seen in Figure 11. The assemblage I studied was collected from JI-1 B and C areas from 2010 to 2012, and are the focus of further discussion below. Excavation practices were those outlined by the Ontario Standards and

Guidelines for Consulting Archaeologists. Stages 2, 3, and/or 4 excavations were performed in JI-1B and C areas (Conolly 2013:21).

Figure 11. JI sampling designations on Jacob Island (from Conolly et al. 2014:112, Figure 3)

JI-1B was excavated during 2010 and 2011. This area was disturbed by the construction of 2009, and pedestrian survey was first performed to collect artifacts. Some

Middle Woodland ceramics were found, along with a Brewerton style projectile point, which infers late Middle Archaic or early Late Archaic period (Conolly 2013:22). A total of 73 square metres was excavated within the JI-1B area. Approximately 69 individuals were recorded during the Stage 3 excavations dating to different periods; primary and secondary burials were present (Conolly et al. 2014:114). Some of the burials contained

60 grave offerings, including modified animal bones, ground-stone tools, and a large conch shell (Conolly et al. 2014:115-116, 119). A total of 16 features were identified in this area; all were part of, or adjacent to, the burial groups, and soil samples were taken from each (Conolly 2013:32-33). Among the burials and features, artifacts were also recovered; all artifacts from the Stage 3 excavations can be seen in Table 13. The primary faunal remains show that domestic dog, then rodents, were the most common remains

(Conolly 2013:28). The domestic dog accounted for approximately 54% of the identified animal bones; deer, fish, bear, beaver, groundhog, birds, and muskrats were also identified (Conolly 2013:28-29; Conolly et al. 2014:122). The ancient ceramics were characterized as part of a broad Middle Woodland type (Conolly 2013:31). From the burials and features, 14 radiocarbon dates were obtained from the 2010 excavation with permission from the local Curve Lake First Nations. From the radiocarbon dates, two periods of activity emerged; the first was from 5000 to 4400 BP, and the second from approximately 1600 to 1500 BP (Conolly 2013:31). There was also an intrusive Late

Woodland date associated with a burial dating between 905 and 760 BP (Conolly et al.

2014:119).

Artifact Type Counts Chert and quartz debitage 1,138 Chert and quartz tool 326 Ground-stone fragments 2 Identified animal bones 1,820 Identified human remains 3,214 Unidentified bone fragments 49,202 Ancient ceramics 27 Historic ceramics 7 Historic glass and metal 89 Shell and coral 19

Grand total 55,844

Table 13. Artifacts recovered from JI-1B Stage 3 excavations of 2010-2011 (after Conolly 2013:28, Table 6 and Conolly 2013:65, Table 11)

JI-1C was first excavated in 2011 where six, 1x1 metres units were opened to ascertain whether the mortuary area continued, and in hopes of finding a feasting midden

(Conolly 2013:65). During the Stage 3 of 2011, 480 artifacts were collected; their counts, along with those from 2012, can be found in Table 14. Upon discovery of a feature during

2011, it was decided that JI-1C would be the main focus for the following season

(Conolly 2013:67). A Stage 4 excavation of 14 metres by 10 metres was completed during 2012 (Conolly 2013:75). The excavations from 2012 produced 4,127 artifacts

(Table 14); the assemblage was principally debitage from lithic tool production. The identified faunal remains were mainly from mammals; however, birds, fish, rodents, deer, and turtle were also present (Conolly 2013:78). Of the 178 ancient ceramics, only one was a diagnostic rim sherd (Conolly 2013:78). Only three features were identified, two of which (F2012-26 and F2012-41) contained disturbed burial remains (Conolly 2013:81).

Radiocarbon dates were obtained from both features. The burials appear to be contemporary (3401 BP and 3411 BP), and date to the Terminal or Late Archaic (Conolly et al. 2014:113, 117).

Artifact Type Counts Chert and quartz debitage 2,831 Chert and quartz tool 944 Ground-stone fragments 2 Identified animal bones 315 Unidentified bone fragments 261

Ancient ceramics 178 Historic ceramics 10 Historic glass and metal 44 Shell and coral 22 Grand total 4,607

Table 14. Artifacts recovered from JI-1C Stage 3 and 4 excavations of 2011-2012 (after Conolly 2013:67, Table 12 and Conolly 2013:76, Table 16)

3.4 Summary

This chapter discussed a brief overview of the traditional classification system and characteristics of the Archaic through to the Middle Woodland periods in Ontario, a review of a select number of sites that share similarities with Jacob Island, and finally a description of the site history and excavations on Jacob Island. As this review has described, between the Middle Archaic and the Middle Woodland there were significant changes to the environment, and the social and economic organization of the people inhabiting southern Ontario. The culture histories discussed in the first section of this chapter should be taken as a chronological breakdown that provides a comparative framework for archaeologists, and is not necessarily representative of fact.

The Middle Archaic, specifically the Laurentian Archaic, was a time of environmental stabilization after the final recession of the Laurentide Ice Sheet. From this point there appears to be population growth. Formal burial areas first appear during this period, along with distinct artifact assemblages; however, it is extremely rare to find all of the characteristic Middle Archaic artifacts within one assemblage. The material culture of the Late Archaic is a time of transition in projectile point typologies, although the temporal divisions are arbitrary and more overlap likely occurred. The period is divided

63 into three parts: Narrow, Broad, and Small Point. The Narrow and the Broad have many similarities with the Laurentian; however, by the Small Point or Terminal Archaic there is a clear technology preference for bow and arrow or darts, which is reflected in the adaptation to manufacturing small projectile points. Following the Late Archaic is the

Woodland period which is marked by the introduction of ceramics; however, as mentioned, the Early Woodland sites appear to not consistently possess ceramics. Only two complexes are discussed; they are most greatly related to Jacob Island: Meadowood of the Early Woodland and Point Peninsula of the Middle Woodland. The Meadowood is especially defined by its associated Meadowood cache blades and side-notched projectile points. The Point Peninsula Complex has projectiles that are very reminiscent of

Brewerton styles and some Small Point styles. The use of non-local lithic material appears to decline as time progresses; however, this decline is most often seen in debitage rather than projectile points.

Four sites and one survey are briefly discussed: Dawson Creek, McIntyre, Serpent

Mounds, and Morrison Island. Three of the four sites are located adjacent to Rice Lake.

Each site had some characteristics that were comparable to Jacob Island, whether it was the presence of burials, the time period, or the use of non-local materials. The survey work done by Ramsden in the 1970s was included because the geographic area ─ the

Kawartha Lakes, where Jacob Island is situated.

The final section is a summary of Jacob Island; this includes location and site history, and excavation and finds. Only the areas referred to as JI-1B/1C were described because the assemblage that was studied originated from these locations. Jacob Island is located on Pigeon Lake, within the Kawartha Lakes of Ontario. The site possesses

64 evidence of a chipped-stone work area and a mortuary component. The secure dates infer occupations during the early Late Archaic, Middle Woodland, and an intrusive Late

Woodland component.

These reviews have established the basic characteristics of Late Archaic peoples in this area; however, several questions remain unanswered with regards to the organization of lithic technology, especially questions on decreasing mobility, and its influence on curation and use of non-local versus local materials for tool production. In the next chapters I explore mobility, lithic material use, and how Jacob Island relates to similar sites in central and eastern Ontario.

Chapter 4 – Theoretical Framework and Methods

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to explain my theoretical framework and to define the methods I used for examining the selection and use of different lithic raw materials by the inhabitants of Jacob Island. The chapter is divided into three parts. First, the theoretical framework behind my study is explored; second, the methods are explained and the reasoning behind the selection is examined; and third, the recording procedure for my research is detailed. In the theory section I explore the concepts behind forager mobility and lithic acquisition strategies; the theory of procurement costs acting on raw material selection is also discussed. This section also explains the primary methods of lithic reduction strategies and tool manufacture (i.e., bipolar and bifacial reduction); how intensity of use can be measured, the difference between expedient and curated technologies, and what technological indicators are often used to infer expedient over curated toolkits. I discuss not only the theoretical framework for my research, but also the theory behind the inferences I develop later in my discussion chapter (Chapter 7).

In the methods section I review macroscopic and low-powered microscopic examination; thin-section analysis; and experimental burning. All methods have some limitations and these are also discussed along with my reasoning for these choices. The results pertaining to identification of raw materials, and their characterizations, can be found in Chapter 5. Following this section I conclude by briefly describing my documentation procedures, and why certain variables were chosen for this study. The operational definitions and possible choices within variables can be found in Appendix A.

4.1 Theoretical Framework

The primary focus of my research is to characterize the lithic assemblage from the areas

JI-1-B and 1-C on Jacob Island. Later in Chapter 7, building on the theoretical relationship between raw material availability and intensity of use, I use these insights to make inferences about Late Archaic period acquisition practices and mobility. The theories herein discussed explain how these inferences are possible. These theories are in part based on ethnographic studies that build understanding of the patterning found in the archaeological record (e.g., Binford 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980; Gallagher 1977; Gould

1968, 1969, 1978, 1980; Lee 1979; Osgood 1940; Silberbauer 1981; Sillitoe and Hardy

2003; Tanaka 1980; White 1967, 1968; etc.).

4.1.1 Technological Organization

The term ‘technological organization’ is defined by Nelson (1991:57), as “the selection and integration of strategies for making, using, transporting, and discarding tools and the materials needed for their manufacture and maintenance.” The organization of technology encompasses the planning, acquisition, use, reuse, and discard of materials. Each of these stages of acquisition and use have theoretical interpretative models that can then be used to explain why and how they happen, and how to identify them in the archaeological record. The term of technological organization is simply a concept that includes numerous factors relating to stone tool technology; the models used to interpret or infer patterns of acquisition and use grew over time and began to surface in the 1970s.

In the late 1970s, Binford (1977; 1979) created the modern interest in using observed ethnographic technologies to make inferences about human behaviour, and comparisons to other assemblages; however, others did use ethnographic data to support theories prior to Binford (e.g., Gould 1968; MacArthur and Pianka 1966; White 1968, etc.). Into the 1980s the term technological organization began to be defined and widely used to study mobility and procurement through analysing stone tool assemblages (e.g.,

Bamforth 1986; Bleed 1986; Johnson and Marrow 1987; Kelly 1988; Lemonnier 1986;

Shott 1986; Torrence 1983). It became a popular approach, and was used as a conceptual framework to examine lithic manufacture in the archaeological record (Kelly 2001:65).

4.1.2 Defining curated and expedient technologies

The terms curated and expedient technologies were first used by Binford (1973, 1977,

1979) to create a continuum in which to situate artifacts. Expedient technologies are those that are quickly created for an immediate purpose and then quickly disposed of upon completion of a task. The term expedient technology is defined as a technology of the moment, and it is generally associated with contexts where subsistence goals are low-risk and broad-based (Bousman 1993:64). Expedient tools can result from both bifacial and bipolar reduction methods; however, they are more often associated with bipolar reduction (Kelly 2001). While expedient technologies are rather self-explanatory, defining curation is more problematic. In essence a curated technology is one that is designed for greater intensity of use and has often undergone some degree of maintenance; whether this maintenance be retouch, reuse, or recycling is, however, not important within the confines of my research. Intensity of use is the degree to which an

68 item has been (or will be) utilised (i.e., recycling discarded projectile points and modifying them to create a scraper, or using and retouching flakes that were produced from biface production). Curated technologies are typically associated with high-risk, high-return subsistence strategies (Bousman 1993:64). The mechanisms for curation have notably been discussed by Binford (1973, 1977, 1979), Torrence (1983), and Bamforth

(1986). Bamforth (1986) proposed that raw material is one of the driving variables in a manufacturer’s choice as to whether to curate a tool, and I follow his interpretations within my research. The reasoning of why raw material can play a part in reduction and technology choices is discussed later (see section 4.1.4).

4.1.3 Lithic reduction strategies

Knapped lithic assemblages consist primarily of debris (or ‘debitage’) arising from one or more of the two main methods of reduction: bipolar and bifacial reduction (Kelly

2001:65, 67). The debris from both of these reduction methods is present within the assemblage of Jacob Island-1B/C. Each of these methods plays a different role in the technological organization of lithic production, and can elucidate characteristics that aid in identifying choices of acquisition and mobility (see section 4.1.4).

4.1.3.1 Bipolar reduction

Bipolar reduction is generally associated with expedient technologies since pieces are often used without further modification and then discarded after its use is complete (Shott

1989:2-3). The practice of bipolar reduction works by placing a piece of material on an anvil and striking it with a hammer from above to produce flakes for expedient use (Kelly

2001:65). In some regards, it can also be referred to as a core reduction strategy. White

(1968) was one of the first lithic analysts to examine this method, and used ethnographic data to support and identify bipolar products and cores within the archaeological record.

His article uses the example of the Duna from New Guinea and their practice of directly striking flakes from bipolar cores with a hammer-stone. He also witnessed a second practice where the knapper would wrap the material in bark prior to striking the bundle with a hammer-stone. This method tends to produce smaller and thinner, splintered pieces

(White 1968:661). The benefit of wrapping the material means the force of the blow can be more controlled. Debitage manufactured from this technique generally has specific attributes, such as crushed platforms and varying end terminations. It is often believed this technique results in bulbs of percussion on either end of the flake; however, according to Goodyear (1993) this is not the case. It should, however, be noted that opposing bulbs of percussions are usually seen on cores or pièces esquillées. The flakes that are produced are often the same length as the core unless such force was used that it shattered the material (Shott 1989:2). Figure 12 depicts some of the possible pathways of lithic technology; bipolar reduction can be seen in the initial stages of the chart. All lithic technology begins with the procurement of the material and then continues toward other possibilities. The procured material may simply be taken and not altered, immediately used for some purpose, or reduced using bipolar techniques. Expedient tools can be produced both before and after initial reduction.

Figure 12. Pathways of lithic reduction

There have been many arguments in the past between what constitutes end- products from bipolar technology, and what characteristics are often present. These arguments surround terms, such as “wedge” and “core”, and how they can or cannot be distinguished (Shott 1989:2); however, discussions over the last decade have attempted to decrease this either/or discussion in regards to wedge or core, and instead examine the end products of bipolar reduction as having more than one possible use (e.g., Fox 2008;

Le Brun-Ricalens 2006).

Bipolar reduction is used when tool needs are met by the creation of small spalls and flakes that are expediently used, are rarely retouched, and are quickly discarded after

71 use (Kelly 2001:66). Expedient technologies are often associated with reduced costs, both in transport and upkeep, because locally available material is utilised and this material need not be of excellent quality (Bousman 1993). The other reason bipolar reduction is often used is if there are only small nodules or cobbles of available material (Goodyear

1993). Locally available micro and cryptocrystalline materials are preferentially used because they are more predictable in their fracturing. In comparison, when the material is coarser-grained, or has numerous fractures present, the resulting bipolar reduction is more likely to end in shatter rather than flakes.

4.1.3.2 Bifacial reduction

Bifacial reduction uses both direct and indirect methods of percussion to produce flakes that are further bifacially reduced to create a tool, tool blank, or a prepared core to transport. By using this method, not only are usable expedient flakes produced, which can be utilised for other tasks, but a biface or blank can also be created. Bifacially reduced products are typically considered a curated technology, or have the potential to be curated, because they are more reliable and maintainable than a simple non-retouched flake (Bousman 1993). Curated technologies, such as bifaces or preforms, may initially have a larger surface area meaning they can be used, retouched, and reused longer than simpler and smaller lithics (Binford 1979). The assemblages associated with curated technologies tend to produce more sophisticated and easily identifiable debitage than expedient technologies (Binford 1979).

One drawback to bifacial reduction is that it requires a higher quality material than bipolar methods. While bipolar reduction can be produced with nearly any kind of

72 knappable material, bifacial reduction requires one that is finer-grained, more predictable, and generally larger. Unless a higher quality material is locally available acquiring such a material involves increased procurement costs. Thus bifacial reduction requires a greater investment of time and energy to obtain the necessary material, but it results in a tool that can be recycled and reused for a longer period of time because of its size. If a biface breaks it can be reshaped into a smaller tool and is thus recycled. It can also be resharpened by flaking the dulled edge and is thus reused. Bifacial reduction also produces a rather distinct set of debitage that can be used to recreate the operational chain, and can be easily identified within the archaeological record (Kelly 2001:67).

As previously stated, Figure 12 depicts the rather complicated potential routes between raw material acquisitions and discard that can occur in lithic reduction. The purpose of this flow chart is to demonstrate that in bifacial technology there are several places in which a person may be forced by circumstance to abandon the original chosen path in lieu of another. It may also be the case that different steps may occur at different locations. Thus the initial and/or bifacial reduction may occur at the place of procurement, but the tool may not be finished until later, or at all. It is therefore likely that some sites possess only finishing or retouching flakes of non-local materials because earlier phases of the reductive sequence that occurred elsewhere. This is the case with some non-local materials identified in the Jacob Island assemblage.

4.1.4 Mobility and tool use

Direct acquisition and transport of lithic raw materials involves energy expenditure that could be allocated to other tasks, such as acquiring or carrying food or other necessities

(Kuhn 1994:429). Indirect acquisition through trade also has energy costs, as building social relations and producing exchangeable goods involves time expenditure that could be allocated to other tasks. Conversion of raw materials into tools involves a cost that is in turn dependent on factors related to the quality and accessibility of material. Thus all raw material choices and tool production are dependent on the way individuals allocate time and energy towards provisioning decisions (Kelly 1988, 2001). This necessitates research in raw material characteristics to establish the manner in which they were used and how it relates to costs. Kelly (2001:65) explains this quite well when he describes the reasoning behind material acquisition and production:

Many factors affect tool production, use, and discard, including the task(s) for which a tool is to be used, the kind of raw material available (obsidian, basalt, etc.), the distribution of raw material (e.g., localized versus scattered), the size of stones (e.g., large versus small cobbles), and whether raw material must be quarried.

Several studies have maintained that use of bifacial tools and cores are generally associated with groups possessing high mobility and large annual ranges, while bipolar production and expedient technology (i.e., primary and secondary flakes with retouch, etc.) are associated with lower mobility groups (Bousman 1993; Cook and Lovis 2014;

Kuhn 1994; Manninen and Knutsson 2014; Parry and Kelly 1987; Surovell 2009). This division, however, is not always the case (see Torrence 1994), and as Kelly (2001:68) indicates, it probably takes little time difference to manufacture a flake using a bipolar technique versus preparing a simple bifacial tool. Bifaces do have advantages arising from their increased utility. Large bifaces possess a greater surface area to be reduced over time and repurposed; meaning they can be curated and last longer therefore reducing the overall cost initially taken to acquire the material. This is arguably what makes

74 bifaces, biface blanks, and prepared cores the better tool for mobile hunter-gatherers

(Kelly 2001:69).

The act of curating tools to enable a longer use-life has been tied to efficiency; meaning “maximizing the return on time or energy expended” (Bamforth 1986:38).

Intensity of use is thus associated with raw material scarcity (Kelly 1988:720). With reduced annual ranges, access to higher quality materials may not occur often and non- local material that is only obtained occasionally would possess a greater worth and is therefore more likely to be curated and/or recycled. This practice is complicated, and not controlled by any one factor (Bamforth 1986:48). Bamforth (1986:49) states this quite succinctly in his closing:

Depending on the ways in which lithic material is procured and distributed, recycling and maintenance may vary spatially within a single society as distance to raw material sources increases, resulting in differing assemblage composition in behaviourally and ethnically identical sites.

Although large, bifacial and multifunctional tools of high quality non-local material may be the preference for mobile hunter-gatherers, what of the optimal weight/utility ratio for more sedentary groups with access to adequate local materials?

Why make the choice of bifacial over bipolar technologies and vice versa? Several authors have noted that as mobility decreases, there are significant changes in the organization of technology, but why? These questions have been posed and explored by numerous studies (e.g., Bousman 1993; Elston 1992; Kuhn 1994; Metcalfe and Barlow

1992; Odell 1998, 2003; Surovell 2009). By pulling from the discipline of behavioural ecology to explain adaptive strategies, it becomes possible to examine how a group’s needs can dictate their technology choices. For example, optimal foraging theory can help explain how variables, such as risk, return, and uncertainty, play a role in not only

75 technology, but mobility and procurement strategies as well (Bousman 1993, Manninen and Knutsson 2014).

Figure 13 was adapted from Kelly (2001:69); however, he had adapted the model’s concepts from Elston (1992), Kuhn (1994), and Metcalfe and Barlow (1992).

The graph shows three main variables: utility, time spent producing tools, and the reliability of the tool. A curve depicting the utility of bipolar tools and bifacial tools is plotted, and then two tangents are plotted, one intersecting bipolar and the other bifacial.

The first tangent, “A”, represents a group requiring tools with high utility and high reliability. Group A is generally associated with more mobile hunter-gatherers. This is because they are often away from the source of the material. If a forager was going on a hunting expedition, to obtain food required for the survival of the group, he or she would require tools that were both reliable and had multiple uses; this includes the possibility of recycling a broken biface while on expeditions. The reliability of the tool can also be caused by the type of raw material since, as discussed earlier, bifacial tools preferentially require higher quality materials to manufacture. In comparison, the bipolar technologies used by Group B are generally associated with more sedentary hunter-gatherers. This is not to say individuals do not on occasion travel great distances, but it is not the norm. For

Group B a tool is necessary for a short term and an expedient purpose; it is quickly used and discarded, meaning it does not require high reliability, and relatively low utility is necessary since it is likely manufactured for specific activities.

Figure 13. Time and reliability versus utility (after Kelly 2001: Fig 4-1).

4.1.4.1 Predictions for Jacob Island JI-1B/C lithic assemblage

If the majority of the Jacob Island assemblage contains local material, with few bifaces, higher quantities of expedient tool use (seen through bipolar debitage and flake tools), and higher quantities of retouch on non-local materials, I expect the residents to fall within Group B of Figure 13; they are hunter-gatherers with low residential mobility. In comparison if they are more likely Group A, then I would expect to find larger quantities of non-local materials both in projectiles and debitage, higher frequencies of bifaces, and little evidence for bipolar reduction. My own prediction for the assemblage is that it will represent characteristics of a primarily low residential mobility group, with some limited markers for high residential mobility; however, some of the markers for high residential mobility could be explained by exchange networks rather than direct acquisition strategies. Table 15, also adapted from Kelly (2001:73), summarizes my expectations concerning how high or low residential mobility patterns will translate into technological characteristics.

High Residential Mobility Low Residential Mobility Lithic raw material Predominantly non-local, Local, with predominantly with some local non-local bifaces Broken and fragmented flakes (biface/tool Common Rare production) Complete flakes (core reduction) Rare Common Evidence of initial bifacial reduction Common Rare Bipolar knapping debris Rare Common Flake (non-biface reduction) tools Rare to medium Common Presence of retouch on non-local material Medium Common After Kelly 2001:73 Table 4.2 Table 15. Expectations for the Jacob Island lithic assemblage

4.2 Methods

To test the above expectations requires information about raw materials and technological strategies. The following section reviews the methods that I used to obtain this data.

These methods included macroscopic and low-powered microscopic analysis; thin-section analysis; and experimental burning of chert materials. The methods chosen impact what questions can be answered, and what inferences can be made. For my research I carefully weighed the benefits over the methodological limitations and costs to arrive at my current choices to further my chert characterization study. In this section my chosen methods are explained in regards to practice, procedure, outcomes, and limitations. A description of my documentation procedures (section 4.3) follows the methodology discussion.

4.2.1 Macro and low-powered microscopic examination

Petrographic analysis is an all-encompassing term that describes numerous methods for rock characterization study. It includes geochemical methods (such as neutron activation and stable isotope analysis), and macro and microscopic methods of identification,

78 including thin-section analysis. These latter methods are herein discussed; however, first a brief explanation of why no geochemical methods were used. No geochemical methods were used because the cherts of Ontario tend to be quite variable making chemical analysis extremely difficult. Although some success has been had in the use of geochemical methods, such as Visible/Near Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy Analysis

(see Hubbard et al. 2004; Parish 2009, 2011); X-ray Reflectance Spectrometry Analysis

(see Hermes and Ritchie 1997; Kuhn and Lanford 1987); Instrumental Neutron

Activation Analysis (see Jarvis 1988, 1990; Julig et al. 1992); and Fourier Transform

Infrared Spectroscopy (see Hawkins et al. 2008; Long et al. 2000), it was not within the monetary and/or time limits of a Master’s thesis.

Macroscopic and low-powered microscopic analysis is one of the most common and cost-effective methods widely used by archaeologists to study lithics (Luedtke 1994).

It is widely used because generally the researcher, ideally using a reference collection (as

I myself did), can perform the identification themselves making this method low-cost and time efficient. This method of analysis is also non-destructive, an important criteria for conserving artifacts. It can also be used to identify chert sources from different formations if the researcher possesses the resources and understanding of local materials. If the researcher does possess this knowledge of a certain chert’s variability they may also be able to identify members within a formation. Member identification is not often performed because formations can be coeval and/or are visually identical making characterizations/identification difficult if not impossible.

The most common techniques for macroscopic analysis tend to be qualitative and can include characteristics, such as: colour, texture, patina, lustre, mottling, fracture,

79 banding, and speckling (e.g., Biittner and Jamieson 2006; Eley and von Bitter 1989;

Janusas 1984; Luedtke 1979; Miles 2005). To reduce the possibility of incorrect identification, a comparative collection of both raw material and artifacts is necessary.

This allows the researcher to see both fresh specimens and those slightly weathered.

Macroscopic fossils are also sometimes identifiable and aid in member and formation identification (Lavin and Prothero 1981:4). Although an excellent starting point, macroscopic analysis is criticized for the possibility of error because of the degree of variation in chert; however, a large knowledge base of local materials can greatly decrease this bias (Fox, pers. comm.).

The variation within members can be a major issue for macroscopic analysis because even with many years of characterization experience it is possible to incorrectly identify a material with the naked eye; however, the use of low-powered microscopes

(stereo microscopes) used in conjunction with macroscopic analysis greatly reduces the possibility for incorrectly identifying a certain chert for another. Typically stereo microscopes can magnify a specimen between 10 to 50 times its size. This range allows for a more detailed view of the material in question. It also allows the researcher to view the matrix of the material, albeit at a lower magnification than thin-section analysis. The greatest limitation for low-powered microscopy is that only the exterior of the artifact can be viewed. This can be an issue if the material is heavily weathered and no longer resembles its original state. This potential bias can be reduced if the researcher is aware of the appearance of weathered materials and the possible patinas present. It is for this reason that reference collections with artifacts are so imperative. Cherts, especially those with finer groundmass, tend to be quite reflective. The use of plane-polarization with a

80 low-powered microscope creates a much clearer view of the groundmass and inclusions present by providing contrast. The figures below demonstrate the difference between no polarization and plane.

Figure 14. Trent chert at 50x magnification, left not polarized, right polarized

Figure 15. Onondaga chert at 50x magnification, left not polarized, right polarized

Figure 16. Kettle Point chert at 50x magnification, left not polarized, right polarized

For the documentation of the assemblage I had access to Trent University’s lithic raw material reference collection. The collection has been donated by Bill Fox and Susan

Jamieson, among others. Through my tutelage with Bill Fox I became familiar and confident with my identification of Ontario cherts. A thin-section reference collection was also used when applicable, and was created primarily by prior Masters students.

4.2.2 Thin-section analysis

Thin-sectioning is by far one of the most cost-effective and information rich methods available for petrographic analysis (Kempe and Templeman 1983:30). This method can be used to identify chert from both primary and secondary deposits (Lavin and Prothero

1992:110). The procedure to produce a thin-section requires a diamond-tipped saw that cuts to a depth of 5 to 10 millimetres into the material. The section can be as thin as 0.5 millimetres; it is then adhered to a glass slide and then ground to a uniform thickness as decided by the researcher (Miles 2005:77-78; Biittner and Jamieson 2006:16). It is most often ground to 0.03 millimetres (Kempe and Templeman 1983:31). It is important to match the thickness of the thin sections to those of a reference collection in order to

82 maintain validity. Typically there are two possible finishes that are put on slides. The first is a cover slip that is affixed with an adhesive; the second is polished. The choice of finish dictates the selection of analysis since covered slides can only be analysed using transmitted light, while polished slides can be analysed with transmitted and reflected light. For either kind of light study a polarising microscope is required (Miles 2005:77-

79; Biittner and Jamieson 2006:16). Variables such as texture, fabric, grain structure, microfossils, and mineral inclusions can be characterized and used to identify the material

(Lavin and Prothero 1981:4; Biittner and Jamieson 2006:16).

Thin-section analysis is not always useful in identifying different members within a formation unless said member has distinct microfossils and/or textures (Lavin and

Prothero 1992:102); for this reason the method is generally combined with other techniques (Biittner and Jamieson 2006:25). If the analyst does not possess a background in petrology then a comparative collection of local material is a necessity.

4.2.3 Experimental chert burning

Approximately 15 percent of the Jacob Island assemblage possesses evidence of burning

(i.e., potlidding, crazing, and discolorations). During the fall of 2012 I performed experimental archaeology on non-local cherts to ascertain what changes can occur. The results of these experiments can be found at the end of this section, and further description and images in Appendix B.

It is first important to understand that there is a difference between heat-treating and burning a raw material. Heat-treatment is the act of chemically and physically altering a chert to attain a more uniform crystalline or knappable version of the material.

The key characteristic is that it is controlled. The process of experimenting and studying thermal alteration did not become prevalent until the 1960s (Luedtke 1994:91). Upon initial discovery that cherts could become drastically altered from their original state caused quite a stir in the archaeological community, and gave rise to numerous heat- treating experiment publications (e.g., Crabtree and Butler 1964; Hester 1972;

Manderville 1973; Purdy 1974; Rick and Asch 1978; Ahler 1983; Griffiths et al. 1987).

The procedure for heat-treating involves burying the raw material close to a heat source and then slowly bringing the specimen to a temperature to alter the crystal structure; however, the temperature cannot increase too quickly or be exposed prior to the material fully cooling. If this happens it can cause thermal shock, which results in unpredictable fractures, pot lidding, and crazing of the material. Different cherts have varying temperatures required to obtain optimum results (Luedtke 1994:92); heat-treating, however, does not always affect a material. Long (2004) tested three cherts found in

Ontario: Onondaga, Collingwood, and Ancaster. With the exception of Collingwood, both

Onondaga and Ancaster chert displayed no benefits of heat-treatment, and in fact

Onondaga chert was not altered until temperatures mimicking burning were obtained causing thermal shock (Long 2004:21).

While heat-treating is the purposeful act of altering chert it should not be confused with burning a raw material. The act of burning a chert may also be an intended act; however, it is not done to create a more workable material. Burning a raw material causes thermal shock which manifests in the aforementioned characteristics of pot lidding and/or crazing, along with colour changes. The act of burning chert may also be by accident; for example, if flakes are pushed or fall into a fire while being knapped. Burning may also be

84 an indication of ritual activity (Deller et al. 2009). Burning does occur in the Jacob Island assemblage, and the limited resources on burning and/or heat-treating Ontario materials necessitated this experiment.

4.2.3.1 Chert burning experiment results

Part of this study was exploring the difficulties in identifying and differentiating Ontario cherts. One factor that affects characterizing material is the different conditions it encountered prior to deposition within the archaeological record (i.e. water rolled, burned, etc.). A series of burning experiments were performed on different Ontario cherts to ascertain if any macroscopic and low powered microscopic changes which might occur.

These results are presented in the following section.

I tested a total of seven cherts in an open-air bonfire. It was too dangerous to place the cherts directly into the fire; the first sample exploded after approximately two minutes. Instead the samples were placed on the coals toward the outside of the fire. This affected the temperature that could be reached, and therefore the material did not necessarily obtain burning temperatures to cause crazing and/or fracturing (Purdy 1974); however, I was still able to see changes in nearly all samples. Each specimen was photographed prior to fire exposure. The cherts were placed on the coals for 2 to15 minutes depending on the degree of alteration. Table 16 shows a list of the different materials as well as the length of time the sample was placed on the coals. Appendix B shows figures of the material before and after exposure to heat, along with micrographs at

50x magnification.

Chert Chert Name Chert Time Results Formation Outcropping burned Area (if known) (min) Fossil Hill Collingwood Red Wing ~2 Shattered within two minutes. Colour change was moderate with the iron being oxidized causing staining/patination. Fossil Hill Collingwood Anderson ~15 Did not appear to greatly change. Some patination occurred; it caused red- orange staining. Bois Blanc Saugeen N/A ~5 Was placed too close to open flame and it exploded into tiny fragments; however, caused a drastic colour change from a beige to a pinkish- purple. Bois Blanc Haldimand N/A ~10 Did not appear to greatly change. Exterior became more dull looking and a white patina occurred Ipperwash Kettle Point N/A ~15 No great changes occurred. Material appeared to become less waxy. Lockport Ancaster N/A ~ 15 No great changes occurred. Very little macroscopic change. Dundee Selkirk N/A ~15 The material became darker; looked duller. Whitish patina occurred on some surfaces.

Table 16. Chert heating experiment

4.3 Jacob Island JI-1-B/1-C Documentation Procedure

The cataloguing for the 2010 and 2012 lithic assemblage took place from July 2012 to

January 2013. Each artifact was labelled with an individual identification number, and was recorded. The catalogue can be found in Appendix D and the coding and descriptions of variables can be found in Appendix A. The assemblage consists of lithic debitage from different types of chert and other fine-grained rocks. The variables used in this analysis principally concern raw material types and debitage categorization because I am focusing

86 on the relationship between raw material variability and its influence on the lithic economy.

4.3.1 Raw material

Aside from the careful choice of variables in my study, I had to maintain continuity during my recording. I admit that my understanding of local and non-local materials grew quite extensively over the first phases of analysis. An example of this growth can be seen in the limited number of recorded Lower Gull River chert (Huronia chert) within the 2010 assemblage, in comparison to the 2012. This was because I initially used only Eley and von Bitter’s Cherts of Southern Ontario (1989) as a reference for the material appearance because there was none present in the reference collection. This, however, changed once

William Fox provided some samples and I realised that indeed this material was more frequently present within the 2010 assemblage than recorded. In the end this does not greatly affect my results since it is still classified as a local material.

4.3.2 Debitage analysis

I chose to use an integrated approach to my analysis that combines traditional typological description along with elements of Sullivan and Rozen’s (1985) approach to debitage analysis. The traditional approach (called PST) stands for the terms primary, secondary and tertiary flakes (White 1963). Over the last forty years this method of analysis has been criticized for its inconsistencies (e.g. Ahler 1989; Bradbury and Carr 1995; Ingbar et al. 1989; Sullivan and Rozen 1985). I was aware of the issues in using these terms to define the stage of production. Thus the intended use of these terms within this study was

87 to isolate flakes with any amount of cortex (primary) versus the flakes that did not possess cortex (secondary), and biface thinning/finishing flakes (tertiary). Tertiary flakes were only classified if they had a noticeable curvature, and were relatively thin and small

(Sullivan and Rozen 1985:758). The amount of cortex was also recorded in five groupings: 0, 1 to 24 percent, 25 to 49 percent, 50 to 74 percent, and 75+ percent. This was slightly arbitrary depending on the size, stage, and shape of the flake or other piece of debitage.

The three most common debitage categories were adapted from Sullivan and

Rozen (1985): complete flake, broken flake, and flake fragment. As first proposed by the authors, different reduction strategies (e.g., core reduction/production versus biface/tool production) are hypothesized to produce different numbers of debitage in each of these categories. High frequencies of broken and fragmented flakes denotes a primarily biface/tool production choice; in comparison, higher frequencies of complete flakes denotes core reduction (Sullivan and Rozen 1985:769). This hypothesis has been challenged by a number of subsequent studies (e.g., Bradbury and Carr 1995; Ingbar et al.

1989; Kuijt et al. 1995; Prentiss and Romanski 1989), but their approach has nevertheless shown to be useful in discriminating debitage composition (Kelly 2001).

The criteria that Sullivan and Rozen (1985:758-759) describe in their article was used to classify artifacts; however, I included more categories than the three mentioned above. Along with the three categories for flakes there was shatter, core, core fragment, complete bifacial tool, broken bifacial tool, ground-stone tool, ground-stone fragment, unused material, and pièces esquillées. Although the Jacob Island assemblage does contain projectile points and other tools I chose to not make a division between formal

88 and informal tools. I chose to do this because my research questions are not centered on typologies, and thus a full technological study was not my objective. Also, the distinction between formal and informal tools can be rather ambiguous. I also chose not to distinguish between bifacial reduction cores and bipolar cores; although I do regret this decision because it reduces the possibility for inferences about technology choices. I did, however, have a category for pièces esquillées for recording possible bipolar products/cores. Full explanations of the debitage categories can be found in Appendix A.

4.3.3 Size and weight variables

Size and weight categories were also used to characterize the assemblage. Weight was recorded as a continuous variable in grams. Size, however, was recorded as a rank order variable, in six classes: <0.9 cm; 1 to 1.9 cm; 2 to 2.9 cm; 3 to 3.9 cm; 4 to 4.9 cm; and

5+ cm. The reason rank order was chosen over continuous measurements was because the precise length of a flake was not deemed to be necessary for answering my research questions, and the time requirements for continuous measurements are substantial.

4.3.4 Other variables

Three other variables were also included that were binary “Yes” or “No” answers: presence of pot lidding, of stress fractures, and of retouch. The reason for choosing the variable of pot lidding was to measure the amount of burning present within the assemblage. The purpose of the stress fracture variable applied primarily to the local cherts. These cherts are the oldest in Ontario and have undergone a great deal of environmental changes since their deposition. These changes result in features like stress

89 fracturing, which makes the material rather unpredictable because of numerous unforeseen fractures being present. The local Trent chert is found in and around the island as part of glacial till (see section 5.5 for further detail). Aboriginal peoples may not have wanted to use the material since it was so unpredictable. Adding the characteristic of stress fracturing enables me to isolate pieces that show no evidence of flaking to be negated as glacial till possibly at a later date. Finally the presence of retouch was used to ascertain the level of retouch within the assemblage and compare local and non-local raw material. It was also used as a proxy with other variables. For example, it was used to test for the possibility of expediency (e.g., comparing flakes, stage of manufacture, and presence of retouch) versus curation (e.g., high frequencies of non-local material possessing retouch) within the assemblage (this is further explored in Chapters 6 and 7).

Chapter 5 – Lithic materials of Jacob Island (BcGo-17)

Introduction

This chapter describes and characterizes the most common types of chert found at Jacob

Island, and is divided into two parts. The first describes what I define as local lithic materials, which can be found within a one-hundred kilometre radius of Jacob Island; these include Trent chert, Balsam Lake chert, and Huronia chert. The second defines non- local materials, which describe materials that fall outside of the one-hundred kilometres limit; the two materials most commonly found on Jacob Island are discussed in detail:

Onondaga and Gordon Lake chert. The one-hundred kilometre radius around the island was created for easy comparison between local and non-local materials. The Trent Valley formations of Bobcaygeon and Gull River are the only chert-bearing formations within the radius; therefore it seemed logical to create this one-hundred kilometre boundary for classifying local materials (see Appendix A for full list of local and non-local materials).

The remainder of the non-local cherts are briefly discussed following the common non- local materials. All images included in this chapter can be found in Appendix E.

This chapter also introduces the results of my raw material characterizations. I supply characterizations for the six unidentified lithic materials found on Jacob Island; the results of petrographic analysis; geological prospection on Jacob Island; and tables and discussion on my raw material analysis. These results and characterizations will hopefully aid in future research and identification of lithic materials in the Trent Valley.

5.1 Local Lithic Materials

This section presents lithic characterization for the cherts found within a one-hundred kilometre radius of Jacob Island. There are only two chert-bearing formations that lie within this zone, the Bobcaygeon and Gull River Formations. Both of these formations are Lower Palaeozoic and date to the Middle Ordovician period, approximately 470 million years ago (Eyles 2002:113). The Gull River and half of the Bobcaygeon

Formations fall within the North American geological stage of the Black-Riveran; the other half of the Bobcaygeon Formation falls within the Trentonian Stage. These cherts are part of the Simcoe Group in south-central Ontario (Grimwood et al. 1999:873). The

Simcoe Group was first proposed by Liberty (1955) and was extensively explored in his

1969 volume, Paleozoic Geology of the Lake Simcoe Area, Ontario. Later, Williams

(1991) proposed that the Ottawa Group of eastern Ontario was the geological equivalent to the Simcoe Group of south-central Ontario. These formations overlay the Shadow Lake

Formation and the Precambrian basement of southern Ontario (Noor 1989:46). The names and geological boundaries of these two formations have changed over the last hundred years. Although the definition of Gull River Formation has remained relatively unchanged since it was first proposed by Okulitch (1939), the definition of the

Bobcaygeon Formation changes depending on the region in question. For example,

Sanford (1993) uses the formation names of south-western Ontario even though he is discussing the region north of the Kawartha Lakes and south of the Canadian Shield boundary. This can cause some confusion since the geological groupings are differently

92 named in other areas and the formation name of Bobcaygeon is not used—rather the

Coboconk and Kirkfield Formations replace it.

Noor interprets the deposition of the Gull River Formation as being “deposited in a shallow marine epeiric sea under peritidal to subtidal conditions” (1989:64). Based on the lithofacies present in the formation he goes on to say, “this is interpreted to indicate a cyclicity...[of] fluctuating sea-levels, and frequent storm conditions” (Noor 1989:64).

Liberty describes the lower Gull River Formation as being deposited during “quiet lagoonal conditions” (1969:34). Based on lithological features, it is thought that the lower and the upper members were formed during conditions with shallower waters. Macro and microfossils are quite uncommon in the Lower member; however, they are common in the upper member where calcerinite and bioclastic limestones are present (Sanford

1993:261).

The Bobcaygeon Formation formed under slightly different conditions. Noor states that it was “deposited on a shallow open marine carbonate platform to outer carbonate ramp. The environments were generally calm and occasionally interrupted by storms which produced storm-beds” (1989:69). According to Liberty (1969:47) the lower member of the Bobcaygeon Formation and the upper member of the Gull River

Formation shared similar depositional environments. This explains why it can be difficult to differentiate between their two respective cherts. The middle member of the

Bobcaygeon Formation is postulated to have formed during a period of deepening tides and quieter storm and tidal conditions; while the upper member of the Bobcaygeon

Formation was “probably deposited under shallow water and oscillatory conditions”

(Liberty 1969:47). Since the host rock of these cherts is limestone with a depositional

93 environment falling within a tidal zone, and these cherts do contain some marine microfossil remnants, the cherts are considered replacement cherts of sea-deposited limestone. Bobcaygeon chert is of bioclastic origin (see section 5.5.4).

The Bobcaygeon and Gull River Formations are the oldest chert-bearing formations in southern Ontario and they were studied in Eley and von Bitter’s work

Cherts of Southern Ontario (1989). Eley and von Bitter’s research focused on creating characterizations for future identification, and their book has become the essential guide for archaeologists when typing lithic raw material in Ontario. Their study focuses on primary deposits of chert in bedrock outcrops and quarries. This presents some difficulties in characterization since many of the outcroppings studied were highway cuts and these were not accessible to past people. There is also the issue that secondary deposits can appear quite different than their in situ relative because they have not undergone the same conditions.

Bobcaygeon and Gull River cherts are primarily found as small nodules and lenses in their host rock; the thickness normally ranges from one to six centimetres (Eley and von Bitter 1989:24-27). Fox states that “given the relatively small nodular form of Trent chert and the massive and tough character of the host limestone, bedrock quarrying by native peoples will have been limited” (2013: 7), and there is relatively little evidence of quarrying activity for these materials in comparison to a material like Onondaga chert.

The age of the chert means it has been weathered, and many nodules and lenses possess stress fracturing. These cherts are also available in glacial deposits as cobbles or pebbles; glacially deposited cherts do not undergo the same conditions as in situ rocks thus protecting and sometimes retaining the original fresh material. Therefore, it can be said

94 that there would be differences between nodules and lenses in bedrock outcrops, and pebbles and nodules picked up from fields or lakebeds.

The objective of the following descriptions is to aid other archaeologists in the identification of Bobcaygeon and Gull River cherts. The examples within the Jacob Island assemblage of these cherts are different than what is described by Eley and von Bitter

(1989). It is my hope that these characterizations will be useful in unravelling how variable these materials can be. It is also my anticipation that these descriptions and images will help researchers in no longer misidentifying some materials as others, such as small flakes of Huronia chert (lower member of the Gull River Formation) as Onondaga.

5.1.1 Lower Bobcaygeon/Upper Gull River Formation cherts (Trent chert) (n=1700)

I have combined both the lower member of Bobcaygeon and the upper member of Gull

River cherts in my investigation because in the areas south-east of Jacob Island the upper member of the Gull River and the lower member of the Bobcaygeon overlap. This overlap makes it nearly impossible to macroscopically distinguish them (e.g., Figure 17,

Figure 18, and Figure 19). It should, however, be noted that differences can be seen in thin-section and under high powered microscopic examination. In this investigation I have chosen to follow Fox’s recommendation and call them ‘Trent cherts’ since there are many issues in the identification and mapping of upper Gull River and lower Bobcaygeon formations (Fox 2013:6).

Figure 17. Example of black variety of Trent chert

Figure 18. Trent chert artifacts from Jacob Island

Figure 19. Grey variety of Trent chert found on Jacob Island shoreline

This chert is quite variable both in colour, inclusions, and lustre. The material can possess numerous colours including black, brown, grey, and various colours in between.

Trent cherts can be mottled or speckled with lighter coloured quartz or carbonate inclusions. At 50x magnification, with a polarizing stereo microscope, these variations became quite evident. These variations can be seen in Figure 20, Figure 21, and Figure

22. Often mineral inclusions are present, many of which contain iron oxide. These iron oxide bearing inclusions can produce patinas on the material of a rusty-brown to orangey- green colour; however, according to Eley and von Bitter (1989:25-26), the patinas for these cherts can range from buff to grey to white. The lustre of the material can be waxy, but it can also be dull and earthy depending on the specimen. As previously mentioned this chert often possesses stress fractures, but when this is not present the material tends to fracture conchoidally or subconchoidally. The groundmass of the material is micro to

97 cryptocrystalline in texture. The texture of the material can be seen at 100x magnification in Figure 23 and Figure 24. These images were taken of thin-sections.

Figure 20. 50x polarized magnification of Trent chert, common appearance with some mottling

Figure 21. 50x polarized magnification of Trent chert, a speckled variety

Figure 22. 50x polarized magnification of Trent chert, relatively ‘clean’ area

Figure 23. 100x polarized magnification of Trent chert thin-section

Figure 24. 100x polarized magnification of Trent chert thin-section

Both cherts are from the middle Ordovician period, but the upper member of Gull

River Formation is the older of the two. As previously mentioned these two cherts have similar origins of diagenesis; the members of Gull River and Bobcaygeon Formations both formed from bioclastic limestone. The chert can be found as nodules transported in erratic limestone boulders through the Kawartha Lakes region and to the south; such examples are present on Jacob Island. There is some evidence of regional quarrying (e.g., the Carson Quarry on Simcoe Island off Wolfe Island south of Kingston—Fox, pers. comm.), but Trent cherts are rarely found outside of south-central Ontario because better material was typically available in other regions.

100

5.1.2 Upper Bobcaygeon Formation (Balsam Lake chert) (n=68)

This material is visually distinct because of the presence of granular inclusions that create a peloidal texture to the chert (Figure 25 and Figure 26). Balsam Lake chert is part of the upper member of the Bobcaygeon Formation and dates to the Middle Ordovician period

(Eley and von Bitter 1989:24); it can easily be distinguished from its neighbouring chert- bearing member, the lower Bobcaygeon. The diagnostic characteristic of this chert is the granular inclusions (peloids) that are cemented by silica to form the groundmass (von

Bitter and Eley 1984:135). The peloids can be seen in Figure 27, Figure 28 at 50x polarized magnification. These granular inclusions are “composed of pellets and fossil fragments of silicified carbonate” (von Bitter and Eley 1984:135). A closer view of groundmass can be seen in Figure 29, which shows a thin-section at 100x polarized magnification. The material is generally a bluish-gray colour but weathering around the cortex tends to be a beige-gray colour. Patinas are sometimes present on the material and are yellowish-brown in colour (von Bitter and Eley 1984:140). Occasional carbonate rhombs are also present in some specimens. The chert can range from waxy to dull in lustre and fractures between subconchoidal and irregular. The host rock of Balsam Lake chert is a crystalline calcarenite which is a type of coarse-grained limestone. This limestone, when metamorphosed and replaced with silica, would produce the distinctive peloidal texture (von Bitter and Eley 1984:138). Under low magnification the material appears microcrystalline with cryptocrystalline inclusions.

101

Figure 25. Lighter variety of Balsam Lake

Figure 26. Balsam Lake from bedrock

102

Figure 27. 50x polarized magnification of Balsam Lake chert polished sample

Figure 28. 50x polarized magnification of Balsam Lake chert artifact

103

Figure 29. 100x polarized magnification of Balsam Lake chert thin-section

The material is documented at three different locations by von Bitter and Eley

(1984) and Fox (2013). The first is on Grand Island within Balsam Lake (where the chert received its name), and the second is at Indian Point on Balsam Lake; Eley and von Bitter believed these two locations were representative of one stratigraphic unit (1984:141). The third location is outside the Fenelon Falls area (Fox 2013:5). Balsam Lake chert occurs as the thickest lens within the Bobcaygeon Formation. The material can also be found in glacial till as pebbles to the south-west of these areas (Fox 2009:359).

5.1.3 Lower Gull River Formation (Huronia chert) (n=899)

Lower Gull River Formation chert is one of the more variable materials I have seen throughout this investigation. It can range from a bluish-grey that mottles into a brownish-grey or greyish-beige; the colour of chert lightens to a light beige colour

104 towards the cortex (Figure 30). The material can also be speckled with light/dark grey, or grey-black specks, and it can possess enough iron oxide to create red-brown or pinkish- red staining on some pieces. Banding can also occur in the material and the bands are largely grey carbonates flowing through the greyish-beige coloured groundmass. The lustre of the chert can range from waxy to dull depending on the weathering. This description is different than Eley and von Bitter’s (1989) description; however, it should be noted that their example is one of the only examples of this material outcropping in bedrock, at the Port McNicoll Quarry, Midland Bay, Ontario (Eley and von Bitter

1989:33). Due to the nature of the host rock and bedrock outcropping, Huronia chert was likely never quarried, but instead collected from secondary drift deposits. Another source is mentioned by Luedtke called Uhthoff Quarry in Simcoe County (1976:238). The better quality Huronia chert appears to come from cobbles that were picked up out of glacial deposits in fields, or as outwash from shorelines to the southwest (Fox 2009:359). Water- rooled cobbles/pebbles appear to primarily be the source of Huronia chert on Jacob

Island.

The matrix of Lower Gull River Formation chert contains some impurities, but not nearly as many as a material like Onondaga or Trent chert. The groundmass is generally cryptocrystalline; however, it appears to become microcrystalline in the beige areas close to the cortex. At 50x magnification inclusions of red and black minerals can be seen, as can microfossils with replacement quartz (see Figure 31 and Figure 32). According to Fox

105

Figure 30. Examples of Huronia chert, far left example with cortex

(2009:359) the black inclusions may be siderite minerals. There is also occasional carbonate rhombs in the groundmass. The groundmass can be better seen in Figure 33 and

Figure 34. The Huronia chert material within the Jacob Island assemblage appears often to fracture conchoidally with fewer examples of subconchoidal fracture. As previously mentioned the material can possess pinkish-red stains; however, it can also possess a white patina, although this is rare within the JI assemblage. Cortex is present on numerous artifacts and it has varying thicknesses. Some pieces have the appearance of water-rolled cobble exteriors while others have enough cortex to make me question its primary or secondary origin. These latter pieces do not possess the typical water-rolled cortex found on cobbles; the outcrop of this material would be of interest if ever found.

106

Figure 31. 50x polarized magnification of Huronia chert

Figure 32. 50x polarized magnification of Huronia chert with banding

107

Figure 33. 100x polarized magnification of Huronia chert thin-section, area between two layers is visible

Figure 34. 100x polarized magnification of Huronia chert from thin-section, area with more inclusions pictured

108

5.2 Non-Local Materials

This section presents lithic characterizations for the two materials that were most prevalent within the Jacob Island assemblage; these materials fell beyond the 100 kilometres radius and are referred to as non-local. Some expenditure of energy and resources would be required to attain these materials from further afield; either through participation in exchange networks, or through direct acquisition. The likelihood of direct versus indirect acquisition will be discussed in Chapter 7.

5.2.1 Onondaga chert (n=1146)

Onondaga chert is likely the most commonly used material in Ontario and is frequently found on sites dating to the Archaic and Woodland periods as it was a preferred material for projectile point manufacture (Fox 2009:361). Indigenous people chose Onondaga chert because of its workability and the availability of the material in thick lenses.

Onondaga chert takes its name from the parent rock, the Onondaga Formation, which dates to the Middle Devonian period (Eley and von Bitter 1989:2). This formation is present in south-western Ontario, upstate New York, and northern Pennsylvania (Jarvis

1990:4). It is one of the youngest cherts available in southern Ontario. There are three chert-bearing members in Ontario; however, one additional member is present in New

York and Pennsylvania (Long 2004:20). In ascending order the members are Edgecliffe,

Clarence, Seneca (not present in Ontario), and Moorehouse. The term Onondaga chert is often used to refer to all members in Ontario. Onondaga chert can be visually quite variable (Figure 35). The colour can range from greys to browns to black, with mottling

109 being present in many specimens and causing the lighter colours such as tans and beiges.

When the material is burnt it changes to a black or blue-black colour and pot lidding and crazing is common. Speckling is also sometimes present. According to Eley and von

Bitter (1989:17), the material patinates to yellow or occasionally pink; however, I witnessed some artifacts that possessed a rust coloured patina within the assemblage. This material possesses mineral inclusions, and replacement quartz is common in micro and macrofossil remnants. An example of the groundmass can be seen in Figure 36. The lustre can range from waxy to dull depending on specimen and/or freshness. The material tends to fracture conchoidally although depending on the amount of inclusions subconchoidal fracture may result. The groundmass is cryptocrystalline to microcrystalline in texture.

Onondaga chert is an example of a petrolithic chert and when knapped exudes a unique crude oil smell, which makes it rather distinct (Long 2004:21).

Figure 35. Example of Onondaga chert

110

Figure 36. 50x polarized magnification of Onondaga chert

5.2.2 Gordon Lake chert (n=133)

This chert possesses a wide range of variation both in colour and composition (Figure

37). The chemical makeup of the material is actually a silicified sandstone (Hawkins et al.

2008:207); however, Siemiatkowska (1978:4) identifies cherty siltstone being present within the Gordon Lake Formation. The colour tends to be a greenish-grey, but can be on the dark side or light and it can patinate to reddish-brown or brownish-yellow in places.

Phenocrysts are almost always present and some pieces possess quartz veins which create banding through the material, and deposits to the west can include red banding. The phenocrysts generally contain iron; this is based on the staining present on some artifacts.

The cortex is a white-beige limestone. The lustre of the material is generally dull to earthy, and some pieces can appear dull, but when moved under natural light are actually

111 quite vitreous in appearance. Under 50x magnification the groundmass appears microcrystalline. Figure 38 depicts a 50x polarized magnification of Gordon Lake, and

Figure 39 shows a thin-section at 100x polarized magnification. The material tends towards subconchoidal fractures; however, in pieces with fewer inclusions the material seems to fracture conchoidally. This chert originates from the Gordon Lake Formation that overlays the Lorrain and Gowganda Formations within the Huronian Supergroup in northern Ontario (Bennett et al. 1991:552). This material has two main series of outcrop exposures; one is located north-west of North Bay, around Smoothwater Lake, and the other is exposed along lakes within the Mississauga Provincial Park north of Elliot Lake

(Conway 1977:11). This material is very common in Late Archaic sites around the outcrop areas, but is not overly common in sites further south (Conway 1977:16).

Figure 37. Examples of Gordon Lake chert from Jacob Island

112

Figure 38. 50x polarized magnification of Gordon Lake chert artifact

Figure 39. 100x polarized magnification of Gordon Lake chert artifact

113

5.2.3 Other non-local materials

There is a wide range of non-local materials in the assemblage that only occur in small quantities. The following section provides information on these non-local chert materials.

The approximate locations of raw materials can be seen in Figure 40. All artifacts were compared with sample specimens from the reference collection at Trent University when available.

©Google Earth

5.2.3.1 Kettle Point chert (n=33)

Kettle Point chert outcrops in the Ipperwash Formation at Kettle Point, Ontario on the south-eastern shore of Lake Huron and is part of the Ipperwash Formation (Janusas

1984:2). The colour of the material tends to quite variable, but the general colour tends to

114 be a dark grey-blue with some brown or black occasionally; the material is sometimes mottled and very waxy (Eley and von Bitter 1989:15).

5.2.3.2 Haldimand chert (n=21)

Haldimand chert (Parker 1986) or Saugeen chert (Fox 2009) derive from the Bois Blanc

Formation, and the names change depending on what outcropping is being discussed.

Haldimand chert is located in the Niagara region of southern Ontario, while Saugeen chert is located closer to the Bruce Peninsula. The colour of material tends to be quite variable ranging from blue-grey to brown to beige, and sometimes possesses mottling

(Eley and von Bitter 1989:19).

5.2.3.3 Collingwood chert (n=10)

Collingwood chert (Deller 1979:15) is the variety found in the Fossil Hill Formation in the Collingwood vicinity and the Blue Mountains (Eley and von Bitter 1989:4). It tends to be beige in colour with distinct ‘salt and pepper’ speckling and banding (Eley and von

Bitter 1989:22).

5.2.3.4 Kichisipi chert (n=10)

Kichisipi chert is from the same formations as Trent chert (Fox, pers. comm.); however, under a different formation name, and originates in the central Ottawa Valley (Laliberté

2011:92). It is a continuously banded material with the same colouring as Huronia and

Trent cherts (Laliberté 2011:90), with a waxy lustre.

115

5.2.3.5 Flint Ridge chert (n=6)

Flint Ridge material is from the Vanport Formation of central Ohio and is one of the common materials for Middle Woodland point manufacture (Murphy 1988). The material is fine grained, but quite variable in regards to colour and possesses many desirable traits for biface production including massive deposits.

5.2.3.6 Selkirk chert (n=4)

Selkirk chert is from the Dundee Formation in southern Ontario. The chert outcrops around Nanticoke/Port Dover, Ontario on Lake Erie (Eley and von Bitter 1989:28). The chert tends to be brownish with darker and lighter mottling/speckling (Eley and von Bitter

1989:16).

5.2.3.7 Ancaster chert (n=3)

Ancaster chert is from the Lockport Formation of southern Ontario around Hamilton

(Eley and von Bitter 1989:20). The material tends to be grey with darker inclusions, and can be mottled, with abundant sponge spicules.

5.2.3.8 Ramah chert (n=3)

Ramah chert originates from the north coast of Labrador. It can appear to be similar in colour and texture to fine-grained quartzite (e.g., Mistassini quartzite). It is translucent with an occasional smoky-look to some pieces; inclusions are present (primarily black inclusions) (Lazenby 1980). The material possesses a sugary texture. To be certain of the identification, one of the three flakes was sent for thin-sectioning, and the material was

116 compared to a sample that was present in the lab. Figure 41 depicts images of Ramah chert at 50x magnification. The image on the left is of the sample from the reference collection (the yellowy colour is from staining on the exterior), and the image on the right is of the artifact.

Figure 41. 50x magnification of Ramah chert, left is sample, right is artifact

5.2.3.9 Norwood chert (n=1)

Norwood chert comes from the northern Traverse Bay area of Michigan and is a light beige to bluey-grey colour with continuous horizontal banding. The material is also referred to as Eastport chert (Fox 1992:52).

5.2.3.10 Pennsylvania jasper (n=1)

Pennsylvania jasper is a yellow to brownish-red colour that when heat-treated can become orange. This material is located in south-eastern Pennsylvania in Lehigh and Berks

Counties (Hatch and Maxham 1995:231).

117

5.2.3.11 Spherulitic rhyolite (n=1)

A large biface preform was initially identified as Kineo-Mountain rhyolite, but subsequent discussion with David Black at the University of New Brunswick established that the material was likely from the eastern coast (Maine or southern New England)

(Black, pers. comm.), but was not Kineo-Mountain. The interpretation of an eastern origin agreed with Fox’s identification (Fox, pers. comm.). Figure 42 depicts the rhyolite preform, and Figure 43 shows some of the inclusions at 50x magnification.

Figure 42. Rhyolite preform

Figure 43. Inclusions in rhyolite at 50x magnification

118

5.3 Unidentified Lithic Raw Material Characterizations

This section provides characterization for the six unknown types of lithics found on Jacob

Island. Each type is presented and has corresponding images, some also have corresponding thin-section explanations discussed in a further section (5.4). It is my hope that these characterizations and images will aid the future identification of these materials.

5.3.1 Type 1 chert (n=165)

This chert is bluish-greenish-grey in colour and translucent (Figure 44). The material weathers into a cloudy opaque white or grey. The weathering does give the appearance of being opaque, but when held up to natural light it retains its translucency. It does appear to weather and become leached. The chert possesses a microcrystalline structure and has a subconchoidal to conchoidal fracture. Quartz banding through the material is occasionally present, as is an unknown fine black-mineral banding often perpendicular to the quartz bands. Phenocrysts are rare, but can also occur. The material is vitreous to waxy in lustre.

A few pieces possess the remains of cortex; it appears to be limestone. At 50x magnification, quartz inclusions can be seen along with occasional black mineral inclusions; this can be seen in Figure 45 and the weathering can be seen in Figure 46. The black specks may be pyrite since on some pieces they appear to have oxidized to a small red stain. The source of the material is unknown, but is believed to originate in northern

Quebec (Fox, per. comm.). Figure 47 shows the material at 100x polarized magnification.

Type 1 chert is considered within the non-local category because by process of

119 elimination it cannot be found within a one-hundred kilometre radius of the site (Fox, pers. comm.).

Figure 44. Unidentified Type 1 chert artifacts from Jacob Island

120

Figure 45. 50x polarized magnification of Unidentified Type 1 chert

Figure 46. 50x polarized magnification of Unidentified Type 1 chert with patina

121

Figure 47. 100x polarized magnification of Unidentified Type 1 chert from thin-section

5.3.2 Type 2 chert (n=26)

This chert can possess a wide range of colours (Figure 48). On some pieces it is mottled while on others there are discrete zones of colour. The main colour is predominantly a grey; the lighter colours range from a creamy-white to a whitish-grey. Speckling is also present, and the colouring tends to be predominantly grey; the speckling only occurs on the lighter areas of the chert. The lustre of the material is waxy, as is the patina. The material patinates to an odd mixing of colours leading me to believe many different mineral inclusions are probably present. The predominant colour of the patina is a rusty- brownish red, meaning the chert contains ferruginous material; however, other smaller areas possess patination of a purple or a purple-red variety. Although waxy, Type 2 chert tends to fracture subchoidally or irregularly. This is an odd fracture pattern for a waxy

122 material and may be because of stress fractures and inclusions of limestone. The groundmass is cryptocrystalline. There is a limited amount of cortex present; it appears to be a beige limestone. At 50x magnification quartz-filled fossils can be seen in the matrix as can small yellow, red, and black mineral inclusions (Figure 49). Calcium carbonate rhombs can also be identified in the matrix. Figure 50 shows the material at 100x polarized magnification. The source of the material may be from the part of the Fossil

Hill Formation, which is deposited in the northeast of Michigan, where it is called Detour chert (Fox 2009). The other possible source is Hudson Bay Lowland (HBL) chert, but without samples of the material within the Trent University lithic reference collection this cannot be substantiated. It is considered a non-local material because it does not resemble any known material within a one-hundred kilometre radius (Fox, pers. comm.).

Figure 48. Unidentified Type 2 chert artifacts from Jacob Island

123

Figure 49. 50x polarized magnification of Unidentified Type 2 chert, fossil and layering are visible

Figure 50. 100x polarized magnification of Unidentified Type 2 chert from thin-section

124

5.3.3 Type 3 chert (n=2)

This chert is quite different from the other chert specimens I have seen from Jacob Island.

The material is a brownish-black colour with a rust undertone and is translucent around the edges (Figure 51). The groundmass of the material is microcrystalline with numerous quartz and black mineral inclusions. Since there are only two pieces of this material it is difficult to make specific observations of this type. Of the two pieces both appear to have fractured irregularly; this may be because of the large quartz inclusions throughout the groundmass. There appears to be fractures throughout the material. The lustre of the material is difficult to describe since the quartz makes it appear to shine when tilted under natural light; however, the best general description would be earthy. The black mineral inclusions appear to perhaps be pyroxene under 50x magnification (Savage, pers. comm.)

(Figure 52). The origin of this material is not known, but it is not from the local area of the Trent Valley. It is therefore classified under the non-local category (Fox, pers. comm.). Based on the fracturing, this chert appears to be a poorer quality material.

Figure 51. Unidentified Type 3 chert artifacts from Jacob Island

125

Figure 52. 50x polarized magnification of Unidentified Type 3 chert

5.3.4 Type 4 chert (n=2)

This material is visually distinct with a pseudo-quartz mosaic throughout the groundmass

(Figure 53). The chert is primarily bluish-grey in colour, and the replacement quartz is an opaque bluish-white. The lustre of the material ranges from waxy to dull. Large carbonate rhombs occasionally occur as do peloids of a brownish-grey colour. The material tends to fracture subconchoidally, but some irregular fractures can be observed. There are only two pieces of this material and one possesses a lusterless yellow patina on one side. The artifact with the patina is the larger of the two and also possesses quartz-filled vugs, limestone cortex with visible fossils, and limestone inclusions throughout the material. At

50x magnification black inclusions are visible and the groundmass appears cryptocrystalline with microcrystalline inclusions (Figure 54). This material may be

126 within the variation of the Bobcaygeon Formation chert, but there were no samples like this within the reference collection; therefore, it was separated. It is classified within the local zone because it is probably a variant of Trent chert (Fox, pers. comm.).

Figure 53. Unidentified Type 4 chert artifacts from Jacob Island

Figure 54. 50x polarized magnification of Unidentified Type 4 chert

127

5.3.5 Type 5 chert (n=9)

This material is visually similar to Type 2 chert; however, there are a sufficient number of differences to differentiate the two, especially when observed under 50x magnification

(Figure 55). The chert is beige-grey to taupe-grey in colour with uniform white inclusions. The larger piece is fairly mottled, and changes from the above mentioned colours to brown-grey. The texture of the material is cryptocrystalline. All pieces, with the exception of one, possess conchoidal fractures; the one piece which is not conchoidal is a blocky flake with numerous flake scars on the other sides. The lustre of the chert is extremely waxy, to such a degree I first confused the material with Flint Ridge chert from

Ohio. Under 50x magnification small black and red flecks can be seen in the matrix, the inclusions are probably an iron oxide, perhaps pyrite (Figure 56). Some quartz filled fossils and calcium carbonate rhombs can also be seen under the microscope. At 100x magnification the inclusions are more noticeable (Figure 57). The source for this material may be Hudson Bay Lowland chert (HBL), but at the time there was no HBL to compare.

This material was placed in the non-local category because the source is probably not within a one-hundred kilometre radius of the island; however, it should be noted it may have been picked up from glacial till (Fox, pers. comm.).

128

Figure 55. Unidentified Type 5 chert artifacts from Jacob Island

Figure 56. 50x polarized magnification of Unidentified Type 5 chert

129

Figure 57. 100x polarized magnification of Unidentified Type 5 chert from thin-section

5.3.6 Type 6 chert (n=2)

This type is visually similar to Type 4 chert, but under the microscope it appears quite different (Figure 58). The primary colour is a brownish-grey and the material is banded with an opaque white colour. There are also bands of limestone that appear to hug the opaque white colourings. The material has a peloidal appearance and these inclusions are a darker brownish-grey than the general groundmass. There are numerous quartz-filled vugs and one large cavity present in one of the artifacts. The material appears waxy to dull in lustre and it tends to fracture subconchoidally. At 50x magnification the groundmass appears like a mosaic of replacement quartz and numerous fossils can be seen (Figure 59). The groundmass appears to be microcrystalline. The cortex is present on both pieces and fossils can be clearly seen in the limestone; they appear to be a type of crinoid. This type, along with Type 4 chert, may lie within the variation of the

Bobcaygeon Formation; however, to be cautious it was separated. Because it shares

130 characteristics with local Trent chert it has been counted as a locally available raw material (Fox, pers. comm.).

Figure 58. Unidentified Type 6 chert artifacts from Jacob Island

Figure 59. 50x polarized magnification of Unidentified Type 6 chert

131

5.4 Petrographic Analysis Results

The following section provides a summary of the petrographic analysis received from

Vancouver Petrographics. Five specimens were sent for analysis consisting of one artifact from each of the following: Gordon Lake, Unidentified Type 1, Balsam Lake, Trent, and

Huronia cherts. The results for two of the specimens (Gordon Lake and Unidentified

Type 1) were surprising and not expected. The full report can be seen in Appendix C. All samples fell into categories generally referred to as chert by archaeologists (Colombo, pers. comm.)

5.4.1 Gordon Lake chert (artifact 2023.27)

According to the analysis conducted by Colombo this material is considered a mudstone.

The amount of clay and quartz in the specimen were nearly equal (40-44% and 35-38% respectively); however, the material is considered a “fine-grained clay-rich aggregate with sedimentary layering” (Colombo 2013:7). The sedimentary layering is discontinuous in the material; this can be seen in Figure 60 below where the arrows indicate the layer.

The specimen also contained irregular-shaped clusters of pyrrhotite (a type of magnetic mineral), quartz, and zoisite. These clusters are up to 0.5mm across, and they overlay the sedimentary layering, meaning they formed after the original deposit through a hydrothermal event. One such cluster can be seen in Figure 61. The reason this specimen’s description was particularly interesting is because it does not match the description of Gordon Lake chert as a silicified sandstone (Hawkins et al 2008:207). It could, however, be argued that it matches the description of cherty siltstone (see

132

Siemiatkowska 1978). This does raise the possibility that I may have incorrectly identified the material. If this material is not in fact Gordon Lake than I am unsure as to the origin of the material.

Figure 60. Gordon Lake chert; yellow arrows depicting layering

Figure 61. Gordon Lake chert; pyrrhotite (po)-quartz (qz)-zoisite (zo) cluster

133

5.4.2 Unidentified Type 1 chert (artifact 2184.20)

The unidentified material is a fine-grained aggregate of primarily clay composition (60-

65%), also referred to as mudstone (Colombo, pers. comm.). The rest of the specimen contains a very fine-grained, black, unresolved mineral and quartz. Quartz is present in approximately 30-35% of the specimen; its presence acts as a subordinate to the clay in crystals up to 0.4mm wide. Quartz veinlets are also present; some veinlets are larger (up to 0.2mm wide), but most are very fine-grained, and planar in their orientation. Figure 62 depicts Unidentified Type 1 chert, with arrows pointing at the veinlets and clay aggregate.

The petrographic analysis of this material was surprising since I did not believe this material to be mudstone; especially since it is rather translucent. It is my expectation that at some point it will be identified so a location can be added to the reference collection at

Trent University.

Figure 62. Unidentified Type 1 chert; clay aggregate and quartz veinlets highlighted

134

5.4.3 Balsam Lake chert (GC-2)

This chert is considered bioclastic sandstone made primarily of rounded to sub-rounded bioclasts (Colombo 2013). The bioclasts, sometimes referred to as peloids (Eley and von

Bitter 1989), are fossils that have been filled with an extremely fine-grained aggregate of clay and quartz. These bioclasts range in size; however, the majority are approximately

0.5 mm with some increasing to 1.0 mm in size. The rest of the specimen is cemented together with clay, chalcedony (fibrous quartz), and calcite. Clay is the dominant material in Balsam Lake chert encompassing approximately 52 to 55 percent of the specimen. The percentage of quartz is slightly lower than clay at 40 to 43%. The presence of calcite (4 to

6%) was ascertained using hydrochloric acid on a small area to test for a reaction. The calcite is present in the cement and in some of the replacement aggregate of the bioclasts.

The calcite-filled bioclasts tend to be alveoli fossils of the radiolaria and foraminifera species; this can be seen in Figure 63. The calcite-filled bioclasts are believed to date after the original deposition. The small (0.04 mm) presence of opaque minerals also post-dates the first deposition. The opaque minerals can be seen in Figure 64, and they are labelled as “om”.

135

Figure 63. Balsam Lake chert; calcite (ca), clay (cl), and quartz (qz) are labelled

Figure 64. Balsam Lake chert; opaque minerals (om), calcite (ca), and clay (cl) are labelled

136

5.4.4 Trent chert (GC-1)

The Trent chert specimen is characterized as a mudstone/bioclastic sandstone (Colombo

2013:16). The specimen is an extremely fine-grained clay aggregate (97 to 99%), with occasional dolomite (1 to 2%). Sub-rounded aggregates of even finer clay have replaced fossils; these sub-rounded domains are approximately 1.5mm on average. Figure 65 depicts these fossils on the right of the image. Amongst the clay and dolomite, small angular pieces of quartz are present. Quartz constitutes only 0.5 to 1% of the specimen, and they were only visible with “crossed Nicols transmitted light” (Colombo 2013:16).

The Nicols lighting can be seen in Figure 66 below, where quartz is labelled, and the surrounding grain-size appears larger than under traditional polarized transmitted light.

The presence of dolomite is interesting since generally Trent chert is found in limestone, although there are patches of dolomite within the Bobcaygeon and Gull River

Formations.

Figure 65. Trent chert; in-filled section in centre with finer-grained aggregate, and remnants of fossils can be seen on the right

137

Figure 66. Trent chert; Crossed Nicols transmitted light used to better illustrate the angular quartz (qz) present

5.4.5 Huronia chert (Le Caron site artifact)

Huronia chert is a layered bioclastic mudstone (Colombo 2013:17). There are two relatively distinct layers to the material. The first domain contains clay, dolomite, quartz, and opaque minerals that replaced fossils; within the first domain there are also sub- rounded to irregular shaped clay-rich aggregates. The second consists of a finer-grained dolomite-clay with fewer opaque minerals. The sub-parallel sedimentary layering between these two domains reflects post-depositional alterations. The two layers can be seen in Figure 67; the darker area represents the dolomite-clay domain while the lighter is the first domain. The fine-grained sub-rounded clay aggregates can also be seen. The specimen is composed primarily of clay at 70 to 75%, followed by dolomite at 20 to 22%.

Quartz appears as angular fragments in approximately 3 to 5% of the sample, and occurs in the first layer. The occasional scattering of opaque minerals occurs primarily in the first layer, and most are approximately 0.2mm.

138

Figure 67. Huronia chert; darker layering represents dolomite domain, and lighter represents the clay with sub-rounded clay-rich aggregates

5.5 Geological Prospection of Jacob Island

Part of understanding acquisition strategies for Trent Valley chert was in comprehending the occurrence of local material within the immediate proximity to the island. Geological prospection was performed around the shoreline and throughout the island to ascertain the level and quality of materials available; these brief observations are reported below.

5.5.1 Lakeshore

I surveyed approximately 500 metres of the south-western shoreline of Jacob Island.

Pieces of water-rolled local material (Trent and Huronia chert) were found, along with a large chunk of Trent chert that had approximately five centimetres of chalcedony

139 overlaying the lens of chert. In two areas, artifacts were found eroding from the shoreline; one was close to the main dock on the southern side of the island, and the second was in a small alcove on the south-western side of the island. The south-western area corresponded with the area that was excavated during the 2010, 2012 field seasons. The first area by the docks is of particular interest since this area has yet to be test-pitted.

Figure 68 shows two artifacts that were recovered. The one on the left has retouching along the margin.

Figure 68. Artifacts found in the shoreline

5.5.2 Interior and excavated units

Glacially deposited limestone boulders (erratics) can be found throughout the island with small, less than four centimetres wide, nodules of Trent chert. They were also found buried within some of the excavated units. During the 2012 field season approximately

140 three small boulders were found with stress-fractured Trent chert. These are secondary deposits presumably from the last glaciation. No Huronia or Balsam Lake chert was found on the island that was not considered an artifact.

5.5.3 Conclusions

The purpose of the geological prospection was to ascertain the likelihood that material used on the island may have been from the island. My conclusion, based on the quality of material found on the island, is that although material picked from the surrounding shorelines may have been used (particularly Huronia chert), it is very unlikely that secondary deposits of Trent chert were exploited. The amount of stress-fracturing and splintering was to such a degree that the material was nearly unusable, even for bipolar reduction.

5.6 Raw Material Characterization of JI-1B, 1C

The following section presents the raw material characterization results. The assemblage, from excavation areas 1B and 1C, consisted of 5241 stone artifacts. Only variables that applied to raw material characterization are discussed below; the remaining technological results are discussed in Chapter 6. All material characterization were completed with the use of Trent University’s reference collection and on occasion the expertise of Bill Fox.

First the results and counts are described. These are followed by the sum probability of raw material types. This section concludes with tables depicting the presence of thermally induced pot lidding.

141

5.6.1 Results of raw material analysis

The primary goal of this research was to ascertain the range of raw materials used on

Jacob Island; I here present the results of my raw material analysis. Given that the identification of cherts based on macroscopic characteristics is prone to error, especially when the specimens are small, I followed an approach developed by Bevan and Conolly

(Bevan et al. 2013) for classifying material when there is some inherent uncertainty in identification. The method involves ascribing each specimen with a confidence value attached to the assigned raw material category, the sum of which must equal 100 percent.

For example, if a specimen was likely Onondaga, but could potentially be Huronia chert, it might be scored as Onondaga=80, Huronia=20. This is a more standardized and quantifiable method than the typically fuzzy approach (e.g., Onondaga/Huronia??) that is often used in circumstances where confidences are less than certain. Table 17 shows the range of lithic materials I identified with two confidence intervals. The left side of the table shows the material counts for the assemblage where I had 80 percent or above confidence in my identification. The left side shows the counts with 60 percent confidence and higher. Lower Bobcaygeon/Upper Gull River Formation (Trent chert),

Onondaga, Quartz, and Lower Gull River Formation (Huronia chert) were the most common materials, making up over 85% of the total assemblage. Within the assemblage I categorized each material type within one of two categories: local or non-local (with the exception of the unknown category, which was left out). Local materials were obtainable within a one-hundred kilometre radius; non-local was anything outside this radius (see

Appendix A for complete list). Nearly 70% of the assemblage was locally obtained through primary or secondary deposits, and 30% of the assemblage was non-local. The

142 counts for locality can be seen in Table 18. It should be noted that tables which display local and non-local counts will never equal the original total for that variable. This is because any artifacts that were characterised as an “unknown raw material” were not identified as either local or non-local; therefore the grand totals will not match.

Material Type Counts ≥ % of Material Type Counts % of 80% Counts ≥ 60% Counts Trent chert 1354 30.50 Trent chert 1700 32.44 Onondaga 967 21.78 Onondaga 1146 21.87 Quartz 846 19.06 Quartz 848 16.18 Huronia 672 15.14 Huronia 899 17.15 Type 1 165 3.72 Type 1 165 3.15 Gordon Lake 133 3.00 Gordon Lake 133 2.54 Metasediment 52 1.17 Metasediment 52 0.99 Balsam Lake 50 1.13 Balsam Lake 68 1.30 Type 2 26 0.59 Type 2 26 0.50 Kettle Point 24 0.54 Kettle Point 33 0.63 Sil. Limestone 22 0.50 Sil. Limestone 22 0.42 Basalt 13 0.29 Basalt 13 0.25 Collingwood 10 0.23 Collingwood 10 0.19 Kichisipi 10 0.23 Kichisipi 10 0.19 Chalcedony 10 0.23 Chalcedony 10 0.19 Type 5 9 0.20 Type 5 9 0.17 Haldimand 9 0.20 Haldimand 21 0.40 Flint Ridge 6 0.14 Flint Ridge 6 0.11 Gowganda argillite 5 0.11 Gowganda argillite 5 0.10 Sandstone 4 0.09 Sandstone 4 0.08 Quartzite 3 0.07 Quartzite 4 0.08 Ancaster 3 0.07 Ancaster 3 0.06 Rhyolite 3 0.07 Rhyolite 3 0.06 Selkirk 3 0.07 Selkirk 4 0.08 Ramah 3 0.07 Ramah 3 0.06 Greywacke 2 0.05 Greywacke 2 0.04 Type 3 2 0.05 Type 3 2 0.04 Type 4 2 0.05 Type 4 2 0.04 Type 6 2 0.05 Type 6 2 0.04 Norwood 1 0.02 Norwood 1 0.02 Pen. jasper 1 0.02 Pen. jasper 1 0.02 Non-local Rhyolite 1 0.02 Non-local Rhyolite 1 0.02

143

Amphibolite 1 0.02 Amphibolite 1 0.02 Unknown 25 0.56 Unknown 32 0.61 Grand Total 4439 100.00 Grand total 5241 100.00

Table 17. Counts of raw material at 80% and 60% confidence level

Local vs. Non-local Local 3629 Non-Local 1580 Grand Total 5209

Table 18. Counts of local versus non-local material

The total sum probability of the assemblage was also calculated and it can be seen in Table 19 below. The sum probability allows someone to look at these numbers and ascertain the likelihood of an artifact from Jacob Island being one type over another. It was calculated by counting the number of times a material was given a confidence interval of 60% or greater and divided by 100.

Material Type Total Sum Probability Trent chert 17.00 Onondaga 11.46 Quartz 8.48 Huronia 8.99 Type 1 1.65 Gordon Lake 1.33 Metasediment 0.52 Balsam Lake 0.68 Type 2 0.26 Kettle Point 0.33 Sil. Limestone 0.22 Basalt 0.13 Collingwood 0.10

144

Kichisipi 0.10 Chalcedony 0.10 Type 5 0.09 Haldimand 0.21 Flint Ridge 0.06 Gowganda argillite 0.05 Sandstone 0.04 Quartzite 0.04 Ancaster 0.03 Rhyolite 0.03 Selkirk 0.04 Ramah 0.03 Greywacke 0.02 Type 3 0.02 Type 4 0.02 Type 6 0.02 Norwood 0.01 Pen. jasper 0.01 Non-local rhyolite 0.01 Amphibolite 0.01 Unknown 0.32

Table 19. Total sum probability of raw materials

5.6.2 Evidence for burning

Evidence of burning is a particularly interesting variable because Jacob Island is a ceremonial site where cremated remains of individuals were interred, and artifacts may have been included in these events. Burning may also be caused by artifacts being discarded into fires once they lost their workability/use; however, after personally experiencing chert exploding within a fire, I doubt this. Table 20 displays the counts for the evidence of burning. Just under 15% of the assemblage shows signs of burning, such as crazing, pot lidding, or drastic changes in colour/patination. Table 21 consists of the information from Table 20 with the inclusion of location data. Over 20% of the non-local

145 material possessed evidence of burning, in comparison to only 12% of the local material.

A chi-square distribution test was run for all statistical comparisons. There is significant difference between the evidence of burning on local versus non-local material (X2=78.2, df=1, p<.01).

Evidence of Burning Yes 774 No 4467 Grand Total 5241

Table 20. Evidence of burning

Evidence of Burning Yes No Grand Total Local 431 3198 3629 Non-Local 337 1243 1580 Grand Total 768 4441 5209

Table 21. Evidence of burning against location

5.7 Summary

This chapter provided the framework for understanding lithic raw materials in Ontario, and a discussion on the lithic materials found within the assemblage of Jacob Island. This discussion covered origins and studies on local and non-local materials, as well as the characterizations of the six unidentified cherts. Section 5.4 onwards provided all results

146 that were related to raw material from my analysis and characterization study. This characterization study was of importance because so little raw material study has been done within the Trent Valley. This research will hopefully help other archaeologists in identifying the local and non-local cherts present. Although the results were presented in this chapter, Chapter 7 discusses and compares Jacob Island to the other sites mentioned in Chapter 3.

147

Chapter 6 – Technological Results of JI-1B, 1C

Introduction

This chapter presents the results of my technological study of the Jacob Island JI-1B and

1C assemblage. These results derive from a technological analysis that concentrated on markers for intensity of use and proxies for acquisition strategies. Following the description of the assemblage, units with associated radiocarbon dates are used to examine changes over time in the collection, both in technology and raw material use.

Operational definitions of all variables mentioned herein can be found in Appendix A, and the complete catalogue can be found in Appendix D. Although some comparative analysis occurs throughout this chapter, Chapter 7 undertakes a more thorough comparison between Jacob Island and temporally similar sites in Ontario.

6.1 Technological Results of the Jacob Island Assemblage JI-1B, 1C

The following section details the results of my study. Since my primary focus was on raw material acquisition, I performed a technological analysis suited to obtaining information about modes of reduction. Variables were chosen to aid in answering questions about intensity of use and acquisition strategies. The results begin with the debitage categories

(descriptions of the categories can be found in Appendix A); a discussion on stress fracturing affecting raw material quality follows. Subsequently, the percentages of cortex, presence of retouch, and the stages of manufacture are discussed.

148

6.1.1 Debitage categories

Many of the definitions used to describe the debitage categories are taken from Inizan et al.’s (1999) Technology of Knapped Stone; however, some definitions are simplified for the purpose of this study. Table 22 shows all debitage categories with their counts and percentages, and the subsequent tables show the occurrence of debitage categories versus the locale of material. Local materials can be found within one-hundred kilometres of the island, and non-local materials are any materials located beyond one-hundred kilometres

(full list of raw materials can be found at the end of Appendix A). Table 23 depicts the debitage categories against locality, for which certain categories (i.e., cores, flakes, and tools) were combined. There is a significant difference between the local and non-local debitage counts (X2=312.0, df=6, p<.01). It should be noted that tables which display local and non-local counts will never equal the original total for that variable. This is because any artifacts that were characterised as an “unknown raw material” were not identified as either local or non-local; therefore the grand totals will not match.

Debitage categories Counts % Complete Flake 1810 34.54 Broken Flake 1758 33.54 Flake Fragment 466 8.89 Block Shatter 575 10.97 Core 171 3.26 Core Fragment 256 4.88 Pièces esquillées 90 1.72 Complete Bifacially Retouched Tool 27 0.52 Broken Bifacially Retouched Tool 46 0.88 Ground-stone Tool 2 0.04 Ground-stone Fragment 30 0.57 Unused material 10 0.19 Total 5241 100 Table 22. Counts of debitage

149

Counts of Debitage Local Non-Local Grand Total Block Shatter 532 39 571 Bifacially Retouched Tools 40 32 72 Flakes 2565 1445 4010 Cores 377 47 424 Ground-stone tools 28 4 32 Pièces Esquillées 77 13 90 Raw Material 10 0 10 Grand Total 3629 1580 5209

Table 23. Counts of debitage versus locality

As stated in Chapter 4 (section 4.3.2) flake debitage was analysed using a joint approach between traditional flake classifications (i.e., primary, secondary, and tertiary

[PST]) and Sullivan and Rozen’s (1985) debitage typology (SRT). The purpose of including Sullivan and Rozen’s (1985) classification categories of complete flake, broken flake, and flake fragment was to compare these categories for the purpose of distinguishing between core production (higher frequencies of complete flakes) and biface/tool production (higher frequencies of broken and fragmented flakes) (Sullivan and

Rozen 1985:769). This method was also used for comparison between local and non-local materials against possible reductive strategies.

Similar to other sites in Ontario, the JI-1B/C assemblage is comprised primarily of flakes (see Ellis et al. 2009). In fact over 76% of the assemblage falls within the three flake categories (complete flake, broken flake, and flake fragment, as per SRT). Table 24 provides a comparison between the flake counts in local and non-local material. Just under 64% of the flakes were manufactured of local, and approximately 36% were of non-local materials. The distribution of local versus non-local material across the three

150 flake categories is statistically different (X2=58.0, df=2, p<.01). In order to assess the possibility of core versus biface/tool production, the fields of broken and fragmented flakes were combined into biface/tool production, and the complete flake category became core reduction. This is depicted in Table 25 below. There was a significant difference between biface/tool and core production categories against locality (X2=29.6, df=1, p<.01). Based on these numbers I infer that both tool production and core reduction/production was occurring at Jacob Island, and there is significantly greater evidence for tool over core production in the non-local material.

Local Non-local Grand Total Complete Flake 1233 566 1799 Broken Flake 1102 646 1748 Flake Fragment 230 233 463 Grand Total 2565 1445 4010

Table 24. Local vs. non-local flake counts

Biface/Tool Production Core Production Grand Total Local 1332 1233 2565 Non-Local 879 566 1445 Grand Total 2211 1799 4010

Table 25. Reductive strategy comparison

The next largest category is block shatter at just under 11% of the assemblage.

The large presence of shatter is not surprising when the majority of the assemblage (local material, specifically from the Trent Valley) is prone to shatter. Table 26 presents the totals for local and non-local shatter. A total of 93% of the shatter was created from local

151 material; once again this is not surprising since cherts from the Trent Valley are prone to shatter because of their stress fractures.

Local Non-local Grand Total Block Shatter 532 39 571 Grand Total 532 39 571

Table 26. Local vs. non-local shatter counts

Cores and core fragments encompass 8% of the assemblage. Table 27 details the totals for local and non-local core counts. Approximately 89% of all core artifacts were manufactured from local material. The larger number of local cores was not unexpected since local cherts like Trent and Huronia only occur in relatively thin lenses or small cobbles/nodules; this means that a greater number of core or core fragments will be produced. It was also expected because expedient technology tends to produce higher frequencies of cores manufactured from local material. Eleven percent of the cores were of a non-local origin.

Local Non-local Grand Total Core 153 16 169 Core Fragment 224 31 255 Grand Total 377 47 424

Table 27. Local vs. non-local core counts

Pièces esquillées comprise 1.7% of the assemblage. Examples of pièces esquillées can be seen in Figure 69. As previously discussed in Chapter 4, the presence of pièces

152 esquillées are markers of expedient bipolar technology (section 4.1.3.1) and are identified by the presence of clear bulbs of percussion on opposite ends of the artifact and crushed platforms. A bipolar technique was often used to remove as many usable flakes as possible thus making it a type of core. The number of bipolar cores on local material may actually be higher than recorded because bipolar reduction is prone to unpredictable fracture resulting in pieces that may be classified as shatter. Table 28 displays the counts of local and non-local pièces esquillées. Once again, not surprisingly, the majority of the artifacts are local, making up 85.6% of the total count. Local material was also expected in this category because materials of an unpredictable nature are more often used for bipolar technologies and expedient tools (e.g., Goodyear 1993; Leaf 1979; Shott 1989).

Figure 69. Examples of pièces esquillées (all are examples of local material with the exception of “I”, which is made from Norwood chert)

153

Local Non-local Grand Total Pièces esquillées 77 13 90 Grand Total 77 13 90

Table 28. Local vs. non-local pièces esquillées counts

The following section discusses the two categories of bifacially retouched tools: complete and broken. Bifacially retouched tools were identified by the presence of clear thinning and/or retouching on both dorsal and ventral surfaces along the same margin.

They were divided into tools that were complete (i.e., did not show evidence of breakage) and broken. Note that some specimens within my category of ‘bifacially retouched tool’ are what are traditionally referred to as ‘projectile points’ (e.g., Figure 71, Figure 72, and

Figure 73). However, as previously explained, my study concentrated more on raw material strategies than typology, and for this reason I chose not to classify these separately, nor assign these bifacial tools into the standard Northeastern point types.

Although I grouped projectile points/preforms with all bifacially retouched tools, I have included

Table 29 for future comparative research. Bifacially retouched tools (complete and broken) comprise 1.4% of the entire assemblage. Figure 70 depicts examples of artifacts that fell into these categories. Figure 71, Figure 72, and Figure 73 depict other bifacially retouched tools and projectile points from 2010 and 2012 field seasons.

154

Material Types Counts Onondaga chert 13 Trent chert 4 Huronia chert 4 Quartz 3 Basalt 2 Haldimand chert 1 Collingwood 1 New England rhyolite 1 Selkirk chert 1 Kichisipi chert 1 Grand Total 31

Table 29. Raw material counts for complete and broken projectiles/preforms

Figure 70. Examples of bifacially retouched tools (A− heat-treated/burnt Kettle Point chert, B-F−Trent chert, G−Onondaga chert)

155

Figure 71. Complete and broken projectile points/preforms from 2010 excavations (a−Selkirk chert, b−Trent chert, c−Metasediment, d−Quartz, e−Kichisipi, f-g−Huronia chert, h-n−Onondaga chert [k and l show signs of burning])

Figure 72. Complete and broken projectile points/preforms from 2012 excavations (a-b, f−Trent chert, c-e−Huronia chert, g-h−Basalt, i−Haldimand chert, j−Collingwood chert, k-l−Quartz, m−New England rhyolite)

156

Figure 73. Complete and broken Onondaga chert projectile points/preforms from 2012 excavations

Table 30 displays the totals for local versus non-local manufacturing material. As discussed in previous chapters, the local material of the Trent Valley is not the most desirable chert for tool manufacture because of its unpredictable nature; however, what is unexpected given the generally small size and poor flaking quality of this material is that approximately 56% of the bifacially retouched tools were manufactured on Trent Valley cherts (i.e., Lower and Upper Bobcaygeon, and Upper Gull River Formations); there is no statistical difference in use of local versus non-local materials between bifacially retouched tools (X2=2.2, df=1, p=.14). Table 31 depicts a size comparison of the complete bifacially retouched tools. Given the use of local materials, it is not surprising that the majority of the complete tools are on the smaller scale (less than 4 centimetres); however, complete bifacially retouched tools of non-local materials are larger than their local counterparts.

157

Local Non-local Grand Total Complete bifacially retouched tool 12 15 27 Broken bifacially retouched tool 28 17 45 Grand Total 40 32 72

Table 30. Local vs. non-local bifacially retouched tool counts

Complete Bifacially Retouched Tools Local Non-local Grand Total 1-2 cm 1 1 2 2-3 cm 6 2 8 3-4 cm 3 4 7 4-5 cm 2 4 6 5+ cm 4 4 Grand Total 12 15 27

Table 31. Local to non-local size comparison of complete bifacially retouched tools

For a Late Archaic site there were few ground-stone tools or even ground-stone tool fragments. Less than one percent of the lithic assemblage consisted of ground-stone artifacts. Table 32 presents a locality comparison between the ground-stone tools and fragments. More than 87% of the ground-stone artifacts found were presumed, based on metasediment type, to be local material. With metasediments it is often difficult to ascertain their exact origin unless the material is distinct. Figure 74 depicts the one unfinished adze that was found.

Local Non-local Grand Total Ground-stone Tool 2 2 Ground-stone Tool Fragment 28 2 30 Grand Total 28 4 32

Table 32. Local vs. non-local ground-stone tool counts

158

Figure 74. Unfinished/preform ground-stone adze, manufactured from amphibolite

Finally, ten artifacts were found to be unused, encompassing 0.2% of the assemblage. All of the unused materials were local. They are briefly discussed again in this chapter’s stress fracturing section.

6.1.2 Stress Fracturing

During initial analysis it came to my attention that many local cherts, Trent Valley specifically, possessed stress fracturing. Stress fracturing makes material unpredictable, and therefore undesirable for the production of certain tools. This variable was added to help ascertain whether some of the local chert recovered was simply secondary deposits and not artifacts. Surprisingly, although 20.6% of the specimens displayed stress fracturing, only 20% of unused material possessed stress fracturing. Table 33 depicts the number of artifacts which possessed stress fracturing. Table 34 shows the occurrence of stress fracturing among the positively identified Trent Valley cherts (60% or greater in

159 confidence). Although this variable was initially created to chart stress fracturing primarily in Trent Valley cherts it would appear that only 37.0% possessed this trait.

Presence of Stress Fracture Yes 1079 No 4162 Grand Total 5241

Table 33. Presence of stress fracture

Presence of Stress Fractures in Trent Valley chert Yes 629 No 1071 Grand Total 1700

Table 34. Stress fractures in Trent Valley chert

6.1.3 Amount of cortex

As mentioned in Chapter 4, theory predicts that local materials should possess greater amounts of cortex than non-local materials. The reasoning behind this statement is that non-local materials will be subject to reduction strategies that remove waste material prior to transport to reduce higher carrying costs. The counts for the percentage of cortex can be seen in Table 35, and the location versus the percentage in Table 36. Over 82% of the non-local assemblage possessed no cortex; in comparison, over 50% of the local material did possess cortex. The data matches the expected pattern, and there is an extremely significant difference between the presence of cortex on local versus non-local artifacts

(X2=504.9, df=4, p<.01).

160

Percent. of cortex Amount of Cortex 0% 3097 1-24% 1578 25-49% 353 50-74% 156 75-99% 57 Grand Total 5241

Table 35. Counts for the amount of cortex present

Percent of cortex 0% 1-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-99% Grand Total Local 1780 1347 304 142 56 3629 Non-Local 1298 222 46 13 1 1580 Grand Total 3078 1569 350 155 57 5209

Table 36. Location versus the percentage of cortex

6.1.4 Retouch

Retouch, also as mentioned in Chapter 4, was an important variable to record when hoping to infer curation of materials. Table 37 shows that 26.1% of the assemblage possesses evidence for intentional modification. As previously discussed in section

4.1.4.1, it was expected that the non-local material would possess greater counts of retouched material than the local. This expectation was correct with non-local material possessing retouch on 35.7% of the artifacts. What was unexpected was the occurrence of retouch on 21.9% of local material. These numbers can be found in Table 38 (it should be noted that the grand total is less than 5241 because not all could be classified as local or non-local). The differences between retouch on local and non-local materials is significant (X2=109.5, df=1, p<.01).

161

Presence of Retouch Yes 1367 No 3874 Grand Total 5241

Table 37. Presence of retouch

Presence of Retouch Yes No Grand Total Local 793 2836 3629 Non-Local 564 1016 1580 Grand Total 1357 3852 5209

Table 38. Local vs. non-local retouch comparison

6.1.5 Stages of manufacture

As previously mentioned in this chapter, although a modified version of the SRT was used for categorising flakes, I chose to also use a more traditional form of flake typology that assesses flakes in terms of its reduction history (e.g., Andrefsky 1998, 2001; Odell

2004). The purpose of utilizing the stages of manufacture (PST) was to ascertain flakes that possessed cortex (primary), flakes that did not (secondary), and flakes that had a certain curvature, and were relatively thin and small (tertiary). The use of the tertiary flake category was to elucidate the potential for biface production or curation on site. The results of the analysis can be seen in Table 39; 34.0% of the flakes were characterized as primary, 52.6% were categorised as secondary, and 13.4% were tertiary. Based on these results I infer that expedient informal tools were primarily being used with some initial core reduction, biface manufacture, and/or tool upkeep happening on site. This inference is further depicted in Table 40, which shows that although the local material has nearly the same amount of primary and secondary flakes, non-local material is primarily

162 secondary and tertiary. The difference between local and non-local reduction stage is highly significant (X2=471.7, df=2, p<.01).

Stage Counts Primary 1374 Secondary 2124 Tertiary 543 Grand Total 4041

Table 39. Stages of manufacture

Local Non-local Grand Total Primary 1162 206 1368 Secondary 1208 904 2112 Tertiary 199 338 537 Grand Total 2569 1448 4017

Table 40. Stages of manufacture versus locality

There is a distinct difference in the amount of non-local primary flakes to local; this combined with the higher counts of non-local tertiary flakes led me to infer that non- local material was more often brought to site as prepared cores, or as bifaces/preforms.

Table 41 presents a comparison between the stages of manufacture, raw material origin, and the presence of retouch. It is interesting that the secondary flakes are most often retouched in both local and non-local material. The higher amounts of retouch on the non- local tertiary flakes is also interesting. It might infer that non-local material was utilised for as long as possible to elongate the use-life of a particular material even on smaller flakes. There was a significant difference between local and non-local retouched flake types (X2=121.3, df=2, p<.01).

163

Presence of retouch Primary Secondary Tertiary Grand Total Yes 310 662 198 1170 Local 247 346 63 656 Non-Local 63 316 135 514 No 1058 1450 339 2847 Local 915 862 136 1913 Non-Local 143 588 203 934 Grand Total 1368 2112 537 4017

Table 41. Stages of manufacture, locality, and presence of retouch comparison

Table 42 shows a comparison between stages of manufacture and reduction and/or production strategy. These divisions assume that broken and fragmented flakes derive from biface/tool production and complete flakes from core reduction; however, this has been challenged by subsequent authors who have shown that complete flakes are often derived from biface/tool manufacture (see Baumler and Downum 1989). Both strategies cluster around the primary and secondary stages; however, what is interesting is the higher number of tertiary flakes within the core reduction (complete flakes). I believe this to be representative of the limitations in inferring reduction strategy. Obviously not all biface/tool production flakes are going to be broken or fragmented; however, there is a statistically significant difference between these strategies and the stages of manufacture

(X2=105.0, df=2, p<.01).

Biface/tool production Core reduction Grand Total Primary 649 722 1371 Secondary 1329 790 2119 Tertiary 245 298 543 Grand Total 2223 1810 4033

Table 42. Stages of manufacture against reduction/production strategy

164

6.2 Temporal Comparisons

Jacob Island’s 1B/1C site areas were significantly disturbed because of farming practices over the last two centuries. These soil disturbances make temporal comparisons very difficult if not impossible as the majority of the assemblage originated from the plough zone of the site. Of the 5241 artifacts I catalogued, only 84 could be securely assigned to contexts with associated radiocarbon dates. Therefore the following temporal comparisons can only be considered as a conservative estimate of the differences between the Archaic and Woodland. The earliest associated date with lithics was 4210 ± 30 BP, and the latest was 1670 ± 30 BP, which derives from an intrusive Middle Woodland pit.

6.2.1 Technological/temporal comparison

Table 43 shows a comparison between the debitage categories present and the temporal periods; it is interesting that only manufacturing debitage was present. There were no tools, and unfortunately little else can be said because of small sample size. Table 44 shows the presence of retouch in relation to time period. Less than 10% of these artifacts were retouched, with slightly higher counts with the Woodland’s associated artifacts.

There was no significant difference in the presence of retouch between the Archaic and

Woodland periods (X2=0.94, df=1, p=.33). Table 45 shows that, of the eight artifacts that were retouched, all were flakes.

Archaic Woodland Grand Total Complete Flake 23 7 30 Flake Fragment 15 13 28 Broken flake 4 2 6

165

Shatter 11 4 15 Core 1 1 Core Fragment 1 2 3 Pièces Esquillées 1 1 Grand Total 55 29 84

Table 43. Technological/temporal comparison

Presence of retouch Yes No Grand Total Archaic 4 51 55 Woodland 4 25 29 Grand Total 8 76 84

Table 44. Presence of retouch in relation to temporal comparison

Debitage Category Archaic Woodland Grand Total Complete Flake 2 2 Broken Flake 2 3 5 Flake Fragment 1 1 Grand Total 4 4 8

Table 45. Temporal comparison of the types of debitage with retouch

6.2.2 Raw material/temporal comparison

Similar to the technological/temporal comparison, when comparing raw material localities to temporal divisions, the level of inference is limited because of the small sample size; however, Table 46 does show an interesting trend. Approximately 69% of the artifacts were manufactured using local material, and there appears to be a greater preference for local material during the Archaic (74.5%), in comparison to the Woodland

(58.6%). With that being said, there was no statistical difference between the use of local and non-local (X2=2.3, df=1, p=.13). Of the 26 non-local artifacts, 22 of these were

166 confidently identified as Onondaga chert; this can be seen in Table 47. It is interesting that the majority of the non-local material is Onondaga chert (84.6%); this is not unexpected because it is the most common non-local material within the assemblage.

Table 48 presents a comparison between raw material locality, temporal periods, and the presence of retouch. The Archaic dated artifacts possess an even divide of retouch between local and non-local material, while the Woodland dated artifacts only have retouch on non-local material. The latter is of interest because it may infer curation, and the attempt to extend the use of non-local materials. As the Middle Woodland period is characterized by broad and integrated exchange systems (Sassaman 2010), this supports a hypothesis of greater access to higher quality materials in the later period compared to the

Late Archaic.

Raw Material Archaic Woodland Grand Total Local 41 17 58 Non-Local 14 12 26 Grand Total 55 29 84

Table 46. Raw material/temporal comparison

Onondaga chert Confidence Intervals Archaic Woodland Grand Total 70-79% 2 2 80-89% 1 1 90-99% 1 1 100% 10 8 18 Grand Total 12 10 22

Table 47. Confidence interval for Onondaga chert artifacts in the temporal divisions

167

Archaic Woodland Grand Total Presence of retouch Yes No Yes No Local 2 39 17 58 Non-local 2 12 4 8 26 Grand Total 4 51 4 25 84

Table 48. Raw material origin, temporal periods, and presence of retouch comparison

6.3 Summary

This chapter presented the technological results I obtained from my lithic analysis of

Jacob Island in the areas of 1B/1C. I began by relaying the counts of debitage in the assemblage. Flakes were found to be the most prevalent debitage category within the assemblage. Each debitage category was also assessed in regards to their raw material origin (local vs. non-local). After the debitage was discussed, the presence of stress fracturing, especially in local material, was investigated. Following this, the percentages of cortex were presented. It was found that local material showed a tendency for retaining greater amounts of cortex, while non-local material had significantly less. This strengthened the hypothesis that in populations with lower residential mobility there will be more intensive use of non-local materials. The following section discussed the presence of retouch within the assemblage. The frequencies of retouch were relatively high. It was expected that the counts for non-local retouch to be considerably larger than the local; however, this was not the case. Stages of manufacture were discussed following retouch. The results inferred from the stages of manufacture were consistent with what was expected of a site primarily using local material for expedient tools, and non-local materials being transported to site as prepared cores and/or bifaces/preforms. A temporal

168 comparison with technology and raw materials concluded this chapter. The primary observation was there appears to be some possible changes over time in the use of local versus non-local materials; little else could be said because of the small sample size.

169

Chapter 7 ─ Discussion and Conclusions

Introduction

The following chapter is divided into two sections. The first presents the discussion of my research questions that were proposed in Chapter 1. These questions are individually explored in relation to what has been thus far presented. The second and final section of this thesis provides an overview and conclusions to this research.

7.1 Discussion

In this section, each of the research questions is discussed and supported using the results from Chapters 5 and 6, and where applicable, with models discussed from Chapter 4, and the cultural frameworks and site information from Chapter 3. Although most of the following is only interpretations and inferences, they are important for the purposes of future research and comparative studies.

7.1.1 What are the different types of lithic raw material used by the past people of Jacob

Island (BcGo-17) during the Late Archaic period?

From Table 17 in Chapter 5 we know what materials are present within the assemblage; however, it is in the following paragraphs that these materials will be contextualized in terms of regional interaction. Figure 75 depicts the approximate locations of most of the cherts found on Jacob Island (a copy of Figure 40). Approximately 30% of the

170 assemblage is characterised as non-local, meaning the acquisition of the material initially occurred more than 100 kilometres from Jacob Island. There is a wide range of non-local materials within the assemblage; however, this is not surprising given the period (Late

Archaic). Sites of this period are known for their wide range of non-local lithic materials.

Trade connections were extensive, and during this period Onondaga chert was a preferred lithic resource (Ellis et al. 1990, Ellis et al 2009, Wright 1995); not surprisingly it was found to be the most common non-local material on Jacob Island, and the second most common material within the entire assemblage.

©Google Earth

Most of the lithic materials are from locations to the south-west of Jacob Island, but four are located east of the study area. Kichisipi chert is from the same formations as the Trent Valley cherts; however, the formation is under a different name, and it outcrops

171 in the Ottawa Valley. Another eastern material, one of particular interest, is Ramah chert from the Labrador coast. According to William Fox (pers. comm.) there are fewer than 20 pieces identified in Ontario; making the three pieces within the assemblage an important contribution. The spherulitic rhyolite is believed to have an eastern origin, and it is the only leaf-shaped preform in the entire assemblage; in fact it is the only true preform within the assemblage. Although rhyolite was recovered from the plough zone, it was in close association with Terminal Archaic mortuary features. According to Sassaman

(2010:103), large leaf bifaces were often used for caching or mortuary internment, and there appears to be a preference for metavolcanics and metasediments; the rhyolite preform certainly fits this pattern.

Within the assemblage there are also lithic materials from the south, south-west, and north-west of Jacob Island. Norwood chert outcrops in the Traverse Bay area of

Michigan and is a light beige colour with banding; it was identified by comparing it to the reference collection. Gordon Lake chert was identified within the assemblage, this material may have been picked up in glacial till (Fox, pers. comm.); however, if not, the material originated from northern Ontario, which is likely given that the cortex did not appear water-rolled. Flint Ridge material outcrops in central Ohio and is one of the listed materials for Middle Woodland point types (Murphy 1988). Although I only found six flakes of Flint Ridge, perhaps the projectile point or core has yet to be found on the island. Pennsylvania jasper is a yellow or brownish-red colour that when heat-treated can become orange. The single flake I identified was a bright orange colour and at 50x magnification matched the reference collection sample.

172

Through my research I attempted to find the sources for the six “unidentified types” (see 5.3); however, I was unsuccessful and instead did my best to characterize them in hopes of later identification. Unidentified Types 4 and 6 are the only materials that do have a likely identification; I suspect that they are probably Trent chert variants.

The Unidentified Type 1 chert category was originally thought to be a quartzite, possibly from Quebec, but after receiving the petrographic report I learned that this characterization proved incorrect. Colombo (2013) identified it as a fine-grained aggregate of clay and quartz, and referred to it as a mudstone. I initially thought the majority of what I characterized as Gordon Lake chert to also be Unidentified Type 1 chert; however, after further examination I began to divide the two, and according to the petrographic analysis I was correct that they are two different materials. The two materials are macroscopically similar, which can be seen in Figure 76. Figure 77 shows the two materials at 50x magnification; the clear difference between them is evident.

Figure 76. Gordon Lake chert on left, Unidentified Type 1 chert on right

173

Figure 77. At 50x magnification, Gordon Lake chert on left, Unidentified Type 1 chert on right

During the Late Archaic there is an acknowledged increase in the use of local materials (Wright 1995:2331). This pattern matches what I have identified for Jacob

Island, where 70% of materials are available within a one-hundred kilometre radius. Of the local materials, Trent Valley cherts make up 73.5% of the local assemblage, quartz makes up 23.4%, and the remaining 3.1% is divided amongst other materials such as siltstone, sandstone, metasediments, etc. (see the complete list in Appendix A).

7.1.2 Is there a correlation between lithic raw material use and technological choices (i.e., bipolar versus bifacial, curation versus expedience)?

Four lines of evidence indicate that there was a significant difference in the way that local versus non-local materials were used. First, as shown in Table 23, there is a statistically significant difference between local and non-local debitage categories. These debitage categories and the following variables can be used as proxies for certain technological choices as discussed in section 4.1.

174

Second, there is a highly significant difference between the local and non-local materials regarding stages of manufacture (Table 40). The local material included approximately five times more primary flakes than the non-local materials, and the local material was clustered around the primary and secondary stages, making up 92.2% of all local flakes. In comparison, 85.8% of the non-local material was clustered around the secondary and tertiary stages. The secondary stages for both local and non-local had the highest counts of flakes; however, the tertiary flake counts between local and non-local were quite different (i.e., 199 and 338 respectively). Tertiary flakes made up only 7.7% of the local category, while tertiary made up 23.3% of the non-local. As discussed in section

4.3.2, tertiary flakes are markers for tool production or maintenance; they are thin and have a certain curvature produced from the finishing/retouching process of tool manufacture or upkeep (Sullivan and Rozen 1985:758). The fact that there are more tertiary flakes and fewer primary flakes of non-local material agrees with the Ontario south-western interpretation of previously reduced non-local material being brought to site (either directly or indirectly acquired). This interpretation is also feasible for the Trent

Valley region (Ellis and Spence 1997:135-136). Ellis and Spence were specifically discussing preforms and blanks being brought/traded to sites; however, the evidence for this at Jacob Island is nearly non-existent.

Third, the percentage of cortex between local and non-local material is also highly significant (Table 36). Approximately 35.5% of the local material possessed some degree of cortex. In comparison, only 5.4% of non-local material retained cortex. Of the artifacts that had more than 50% cortex coverage, the local material possessed approximately 14 times more than non-local. The fact that non-local artifacts retained less cortex follows

175 with my above interpretation that previously reduced non-local material was being brought to site and finished or curated on Jacob Island. This interpretation holds true with all non-local materials except Onondaga chert, which will be discussed later.

Finally, the presence of retouch in local versus non-local material was significant

(Table 38), and the presence of retouch between local and non-local manufacturing stages was also significant (Table 41). Approximately 26% of the lithic assemblage possesses retouch, and 85.6% of the retouched artifacts are flakes. The amount of retouch on local material is not surprising since during the Late Archaic (the latter part especially) the most common tool was the utilised and/or retouched flake (Ellis et al. 1990:109; Ellis and

Spence 1997:121). A total of 35.5% of the non-local flakes possess some degree of retouch. In comparison, only 25.5% of the local flakes possess retouch. The total counts of retouch on the local and non-local artifacts is slightly different than above; 21.9% of local material and 35.7% of non-local had retouch. Although there is not a drastic difference between the retouching on local versus non-local material, the higher counts of retouch on non-local do support the hypothesis that non-local materials were more intensively used. I interpret the higher frequency of retouch on non-local flakes to be indicative of curation activity on Jacob Island, and I suggest that the high frequency of all retouched flakes to be suggestive of expedient technology choices.

It is informative to compare the debris associated with specific raw materials, as this provides additional insight into how different raw materials were used. Table 49 shows the raw material counts in accordance with the debitage categories. As the first example, Collingwood chert is represented in this sample by one bifacially retouched

Block Shatter Bifacially Retouched tools Flakes Core and fragments Ground-stone Pièces Esquillées Raw Material Grand Total Trent chert 228 19 1146 246 1 56 4 1700 Onondaga 35 25 1042 31 2 11 0 1146 Quartz 243 6 572 19 0 4 4 848 Huronia 41 12 731 99 0 16 0 899 Type 1 0 0 165 0 0 0 0 165 Gordon Lake 0 0 133 0 0 0 0 133 Balsam Lake 5 1 53 8 0 1 0 68 Metasediments 6 0 23 1 20 0 2 52 Kettle point 0 2 30 1 0 0 0 33 Type 2 1 0 17 8 0 0 0 26 Sil. Limestone 9 0 11 2 0 0 0 22 Haldimand 2 0 14 5 0 0 0 21 Basalt 0 2 6 0 5 0 0 13 Collingwood 0 1 8 1 0 0 0 10 Kichisipi 0 1 8 0 0 1 0 10 Chalcedony 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 Type 5 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 9 Flint Ridge 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 Gowganda argillite 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 5 Sandstone 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 4 Quartzite 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 Selkirk 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 4 Ancaster 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 Rhyolite 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 Ramah 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 Greywacke 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Type 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Type 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 Type 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 Norwood 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Pen. Jasper 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 New England rhyolite 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Amphibolite 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Unknown 4 1 24 3 0 0 0 32 Grand Total 575 73 4034 352 32 90 10 5241

Table 49. Raw material use on Jacob Island 176

177 tool, eight flakes, and one core. Of those eight flakes, one is primary, five are secondary, and two are tertiary. Of these flakes, four are complete, three are broken, and one is fragmented. The sources for this material outcrop over 200 kilometers away. All of the identified artifacts could be accounted for by the reduction of a single prepared core that was brought to site. A limited number of artifacts possessed cortex (two artifacts) suggesting that the material was previously reduced and possibly traded. Six of the ten

Collingwood chert flakes show signs of retouching, which to an extent demonstrates intensity of use. From the SRT classifications, it can be interpreted that an equal amount of core reduction and biface/tool production occurred on site. This is not surprising given the presence of one core, one tool, and flakes.

A second non-local example that exhibits a similar use strategy to Collingwood chert is Kettle Point chert; this material outcrops over 300 kilometres from Jacob Island.

The artifacts I catalogued included two bifacially retouched tools, 30 flakes, and one core.

One difference between the Kettle Point and Collingwood specimens is that the Kettle

Point artifacts possess markers for earlier reduction stages: 12 flakes are primary and 11 are secondary. The presence of primary flakes means that the core or chunk of material that was brought to site still retained some cortex. This could be interpreted as Kettle

Point chert being subjected to fewer reductive episodes prior to being introduced to Jacob

Island than the Collingwood chert material. This could indicate Kettle Point chert was more accessible than Collingwood chert and thus indicating stronger or more frequent links to the south-west compared to the north-west of the province (as also supported by the Onondaga chert component). The higher amount of cortex also suggests that it is unlikely this material was brought to site as a preform or biface. The material is more

178 intensively used than any of the local cherts, as approximately 50% of the Kettle Point chert is retouched. Of the 30 flakes, 15 are complete, nine are broken, and six are fragmented. Based on the even split between complete and the broken and fragmented, I interpret that the material was equally used for core reduction and biface/tool production, which also agrees with what artifacts were found.

The final non-local material to be examined is Onondaga chert. As stated in the previous section, Onondaga chert was one of the most preferred raw materials from the

Late Archaic through to the Woodland Periods. It was the most common non-local material at Jacob Island, and was the second most commonly used material. Where most of the non-local materials occur in low frequencies, Onondaga chert does not; it makes up

22% of the assemblage and is present in nearly all debitage categories. I interpret the high frequency of material with the above mentioned characteristics to be indicative of direct acquisition. I agree with Ellis and Spence’s interpretation that raw material procurement was episodic (1997:134). I do not, however, believe this material was brought to site as preforms or bifaces. Table 50 shows the counts for cortex on Onondaga chert. The fact that approximately 4% of artifacts possessed greater than 25% cortex coverage is evidence for the material not coming to site as bifaces/preforms. Further evidence is the

31 core and core fragments. A higher count of biface/tool production flakes (59%), versus core reduction flakes (41%), suggests that both activities were clearly occurring; however, tool production was predominant. In fact, Onondaga chert has the highest counts for bifacially retouched tools within the assemblage. Of these flakes, 34% were retouched suggesting curation activities to extend the use life of material and expedient technological practices. Based on the range of debitage categories and the higher

179 frequencies of cortex, I hypothesize that Onondaga chert material was minimally reduced at quarries (close to 250km away), and was directly acquired and brought to Jacob Island.

On the island, biface/tool production was the primary use for Onondaga chert, followed by utilised flakes for expedient use.

Percentage of Cortex on Onondaga 0% 960 1-24% 142 25-49% 33 50-74% 10 75-99% 1 Grand Total 1146

Table 50. Counts for cortex on Onondaga chert

As a contrast to the above three non-local materials, Balsam Lake chert (Upper

Bobcaygeon Formation) provides a local material example. The material outcrops approximately 30 kilometres from Jacob Island. The sample consists of five pieces of shatter, one bifacially retouched tool, fifty-three flakes, eight cores, and one pièces esquillées. Only 16% of Balsam Lake chert was retouched, and of the 53 flakes, 33 are primary, 15 are secondary, and 5 are tertiary. Of these same flakes 21 are complete, 28 are broken, and 4 are fragmented. The presence of a pièces esquillées indicates bipolar technology, and that combined with the shatter and high flake count may be interpreted as a choice towards expedient tool production. The higher frequency of primary and secondary flakes indicates the likelihood of direct acquisition. The higher amount of broken and fragmented flakes would lead me to interpret that biface/tool production was

180 the primary technology choice. This is quite interesting since only one bifacially retouched tool was recovered, perhaps they have yet to be found or were taken elsewhere.

7.1.3 How does the lithic assemblage of Jacob Island compare to surrounding sites?

In Chapter 3 of this thesis I summarized four sites that are similar to Jacob Island. The sites were Dawson Creek (BaGn-16), McIntyre (BbGn-2), Morrison Island 6 (BkGg-12), and Serpent Mounds (BbGn-1). Table 51 depicts a comparison between Jacob Island and the above mentioned sites. Although there are many gaps in some of the information gathered, the general trend is the similarity between sites, and to better illustrate the areas that do not agree, all “No” answers are bolded.

The only drastic difference between Jacob Island and the other sites is the tool percentages for projectile points/bifaces, ground-stone tools, and the preference for local versus non-local material. These differences are only examined among Jacob Island,

Morrison Island, and McIntyre because the assemblage data for Dawson Creek and

Serpent Mounds was incomplete. Both the Jacob Island and Morrison Island assemblages appear to favour local material; in contrast, the McIntyre site assemblage is mainly non- local material (this might be because the lithic data is incompletely recorded and/or biased sample because of collector’s preference). Morrison Island and Jacob Island are also similar in their approximate percentage of bifaces within the assemblage; they do, however, greatly differ in ground-stone, where Jacob Island is less than 1%, Morrison

Island is 11%. Interestingly, Morrison Island and McIntyre share similar percentages of ground-stone artifacts.

Site Jacob Island 1B/C Dawson Creek McIntyre Morrison Island 6 Serpent Mounds Cultural Historical Periods Late Archaic Late Archaic Middle Archaic Middle Archaic (Late Archaic Middle Woodland Early Woodland Late Archaic Habitation area) Late Woodland Middle Woodland Middle Woodland Late Woodland Adjacent to water (Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Disturbed (Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Copper (Y/N) Yes No Yes Yes Yes Burials (Y/N) Yes No No Yes Yes Shell beads (Y/N) No No No No Yes Ochre (Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pit features (Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Unknown Yes Dog burials/remains (Y/N) Yes No Yes Unknown Yes Presence of Onondaga chert (Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Presence of Trent Valley cherts (Y/N) Yes Unknown Yes Unknown Unknown Presence of Collingwood chert (Y/N) Yes Unknown Yes Unknown Unknown Presence of Kettle Point chert (Y/N) Yes Unknown Yes Unknown Unknown Presence of Haldimand chert (Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Unknown Unknown Presence of Quartz (Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Non-local cherts outside of Ontario (Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Unknown Yes Pièces Esquillées/bipolar artifacts (Y/N) Yes Unknown Unknown Yes Unknown Bifaces (Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ground-stone (Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ground-stone Netsinkers and/or Plummets (Y/N) No No Yes Yes No Bone harpoons and/or fishhooks (Y/N) Yes No Yes Yes Yes Fish remains (Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Total lithics recorded/mentioned 5241 125+ 2885 18772 104+ Approx. % of Bifaces in lithic assemblage <1 Unknown 9 2 Unknown Approx. % of ground-stone in lithic assemblage <1 Unknown 8 11 Unknown Approx. % of local materials 70 Unknown 35 82 Unknown Approx. % of non-local materials 30 Unknown 65 18 Unknown + more artifacts are in assemblage; however, complete counts were not listed in report

Table 51. Comparison between Jacob Island and other sites 181

182

As mentioned, the sheer lack of ground-stone artifacts is surprising for an Archaic

Period site; especially at a site where fishing was occurring. According to Wright, mortuary areas dating around the end of the Laurentian tend to be in association with seasonal fishing camps (1995:219). It is likely that fishing was occurring on Jacob Island based on the presence of bone tools (i.e., bone fishhook and harpoon) and recovered fish remains (Conolly et al. 2014:122-123). However, if fishing was a common activity on

Jacob Island there should be ground-stone tools like netsinkers and plummets, and perhaps these items are on the island, but have yet to be discovered. The lack of ground- stone fishing equipment is also peculiar because of the low number of projectile points leaving questions unanswered in regards to subsistence or hunting practices.

Given the area (littoral) and the activity that was happening on site (mortuary) it is likely that the site was visited during the warmer months. According to Ellis et al., warm- weather sites in south-western Ontario on average contain higher amounts of projectile points than scrapers (2009:823). Table 52 shows some of the flaked-stone tools found within the assemblage of JI-1B/C; the table also compares Morrison Island and McIntyre to Jacob Island. The table was inspired by Ellis et al.’s comparison of Small Point

Archaic sites in south-western Ontario (2009:822). Jacob Island does follow the pattern of projectile points being more common than scrapers at warm weather sites; however, in comparison to the other two sites, its ratio is remarkably low. The main problem with this hypothesis on warm-weather sites having lower frequencies of scrapers (they are associated with cold-weather activities) is that I feel it assumes an occupation of the site.

The lack of evidence to support occupation/habitation on Jacob Island is discussed later; however, it can be said here that there are no artifacts generally associated with food

183 preparation (i.e., pestles, mortars, milling stones, etc.). While low quantities of projectiles are not uncommon (Dawson Creek did not possess many, nor were they highly represented at Morrison Island), when combined with the lack of fishing equipment, ground-stone artifacts, and a sparse faunal assemblage, I interpret this to suggest that whatever food was consumed was primarily brought to the island, and was closely associated with the ritual activities. It should be noted that the low projectile point counts may be because of field collecting. Mortuary areas dating around this period tend to have more bifaces than were found at Jacob Island. The low number may be explained by the extensive disturbances from farming practices and the possible collecting that may have occurred (Fox, pers. comm.).

Sites Jacob Island Morrison Island McIntyre Points/Preforms 30 (6.7%) 322 (93.3%) 180 (80.0%) Scrapers 12 (2.7%) 7 (2.0%) 26 (11.6%) Retouched/Utilized flakes 408 (90.6%) 16 (4.6%) 19 (8.4%) Total 450 345 225 Ratio of points to scrapers 2.5 to 1 46 to 1 6.9 to 1 After Ellis et al. 2009:822 Table 22.6 Table 52. Flaked-stone tools of Jacob Island

As mentioned above, Morrison Island is perhaps the most analogous site to Jacob

Island. It has a large lithic assemblage, and in comparison to the rest of the assemblage, a relatively small faunal assemblage; it also contains a mortuary component. Similar to

Jacob Island, the Morrison Island assemblage is not believed to be representative of a habitation area. The assemblage is believed to be representative of a work-area with a ritual component (Clermont and Chapdelaine 1998:153). Although Morrison Island has

184 more stone, bone, and copper tools, perhaps what is occurring at Jacob Island is something similar—a work-area; however, in the context of a strictly lithic industry.

Almost all the debitage on Morrison Island is from quartz; an unpredictable material to say the least. Although excellent pieces of Trent Valley cherts exist, the majority of materials are also less than ideal when compared to other cherts from southern Ontario.

As discussed, the assemblage of Jacob Island (1B/C) is unique in some regards.

There is a near absence of copper (one artifact) and a total absence of shell beads on

Jacob Island. This is especially unexpected because of the mortuary component of the site. The absence of these Archaic Period characteristics common to Great Lakes mortuary contexts could be interpreted as the past inhabitants, similar to Morrison Island

(Pfeiffer 1977), being of a different population than the surrounding groups.

7.1.4 From these patterns and/or relationships, what can be inferred about mobility and lithic acquisition strategies, and trade and regional interaction patterns?

The following discussion is divided into two sections. The first discusses any possible patterns in regards to trade and acquisition strategies, and the second discusses mobility and the predictions that were made in section 4.1.4.1.

7.1.4.1 Trade and acquisition strategies

Conolly proposed that because of the relatively low quantity of copper and ground-stone, and the absence of shell beads and other exotic materials, the community, which frequented Jacob Island, was not as integrated with outside communities (Conolly et al.

2014:125). However, if Jacob Island was poorly integrated then I would expect fewer

185 exotic lithic materials from outside of Ontario. As suggested in the previous section,

Onondaga chert appears to have been directly acquired based on the cortex and quantity of the material within the assemblage. If Jacob Island was poorly integrated I would not expect Onondaga chert to be directly acquired because this would require excursions of over 250 kilometres where presumably people would come into contact with others.

The variability of non-local materials is consistent with the other sites discussed

(Table 51); what is not consistent is that much of the far-reaching exotic materials on

Jacob Island are only represented by flakes; however, as previously noted this may be because of field collecting. The previously mentioned comparative sites do possess materials from outside Ontario; however, they are generally lacking in exotic flakes.

Their exotic non-local materials tend to be represented in biface and preform counts, although this may be because of the lack of reference collection and/or microscopic examination to identify smaller artifacts. This pattern of non-local material being primarily present in projectile point and preform counts follows what Ellis and Spence described in Late Archaic sites of south-western Ontario (1997:136). They also state that a diverse non-local lithic assemblage, originating from numerous places, to be indicative of exchange (Ellis and Spence 1997:136). Diverse lithic assemblages are especially common in mortuary contexts (Ellis and Spence 1997:127), and perhaps Jacob Island is simply representative of this general pattern.

As discussed above, points and preforms made from exotic materials are common in southern Ontario; however, this is not the case at Jacob Island as most of the non-local material is present as flakes within the assemblage. These materials are often interpreted as being traded or exchanged (indirectly acquired) if they come from great distances. The

186 first two examples of non-local material only occurring in flakes are Gordon Lake chert and Unidentified Type 1 chert. Many of the flakes in both materials are tertiary, and the majority of flake counts for both Gordon Lake chert and Unidentified Type 1 chert fall into the broken and fragmented flake categories (i.e., they were most likely created through biface/tool production). Some form of tool was conceivably manufactured from a single larger piece, but I do not think that the source material was directly acquired. The material was likely obtained through exchange. I interpret the small amounts of cortex on both materials to indicate that they came to the site as preforms that were previously reduced to decrease the carrying cost. Further evidence of trade can be seen in the rhyolite preform from the New England coast, which is the only true biface preform on site. Based on the distance and limited quantity of material I think it unlikely that the material was directly acquired; it was presumably traded, and was perhaps a quarry blank. Thus, although the interaction that was occurring around Jacob Island was probably extensive, at least in regards to lithic material, I interpret it to be of low frequency or occurrence.

I thus propose that Jacob Island was not necessarily isolated from the intensive trade and cultural networks that characterize areas to the south, west, and east, but infrequently partook. The infrequency of interaction could perhaps explain why Jacob

Island does not possess certain characteristics (i.e., copper and shell beads) often associated with mortuary sites. This is difficult to even hypothesize because I also interpret the lack of ground-stone (specifically items for any food preparation and woodworking tools) and other habitation markers (i.e., food remains, storage pits) to infer that Jacob Island was not occupied, but was only visited for specific purposes (i.e.,

187 mortuary). Assessing this is, however, beyond the scope of this thesis, but hopefully will be answered through further study and excavations in the Kawartha Lakes.

7.1.4.2 Mobility

In my review on mobility patterns relating to technological strategies in section 4.1.4, I predicted that the assemblage would primarily possess markers for low residential mobility with some characteristics of high residential mobility (Table 15). There are six sets of data that can be used as indicators to distinguish between high and low residential mobility strategies (after Kelly 2007).

First, as I have established, the lithic material is predominantly local and of the 31 projectile points, nearly half were manufactured of local material. This is in agreement with low residential mobility with the exception of bifaces. The projectile points (or even the bifacially retouched tools) should predominantly be manufactured of non-local material, but there was no significant difference between local and non-local. Non-local material was predominantly found in flakes; making up 91.5% of all non-local material.

Second, it was expected for low residential mobility that broken and fragmented flakes

(markers for biface/tool production) would be rare and that complete flakes (markers for core reduction) would be common. This was also not the case (Table 25) since, although there was a statistically significant difference between origin and reduction/production strategies, I consider both categories as common; meaning that both biface/tool production and core reduction were occurring on site. The use of both strategies is further strengthened by the third indicator of initial bifacial reduction. In low residential mobility, initial bifacial reduction should be rare; however, there are high amounts of both primary

188 and secondary flakes specifically broken and fragmented (Table 42) within the assemblage. In fact, biface/tool production is the predominant activity according to both

Table 25 and Table 42. The fourth indicator was for the common presence of bipolar knapping debris. There are pièces esquillées within the assemblage; however, they only represent less than 2% of the assemblage. The high presence of complete flakes from core reduction could be indicative of bipolar knapping, but it cannot be said with certainty.

The fifth indicator states that low residential mobility sites have a common occurrence of utilised/retouched flakes (specifically those not from biface production). A total of 26% of the assemblage possesses retouch, of the artifacts that possess retouch 86% are flakes, and of these flakes 44% are complete and associated with core reduction. I would consider utilized flakes a common artifact at Jacob Island and interpret their frequent use as sign of expedient technology choices. Finally the last indicator for low residential mobility is the common occurrence of non-local material being retouched. This indicator illustrates the likelihood for curation or wanting to maintain non-local material for its maximum use life. Of all the non-local material 36% is retouched. I hesitate to call this common; however, when compared to only 22% of local material being retouched, it is higher.

Thus, based on the above six indicators and what was present within the assemblage, my initial prediction was not precisely correct. Table 53 depicts an updated version of Table 15. Where my analysis clearly corresponded with a prediction it is marked with an X and ± if it has partial support. There is a near complete divide between the different indicators and their representation in the assemblage. I interpret this to illustrate the visitation rather than occupation of the site because it does not fit into either

189 residential mobility model. This also agrees with what I stated earlier in that I interpret the lack of ground-stone (specifically items for any food preparation and woodworking tools) and other habitation markers (i.e., food remains, storage pits) to infer that Jacob

Island was not occupied, but was only visited for specific purposes (i.e., mortuary). This is further in agreement with Conolly et al.; there is little evidence to support this assemblage representing a long-term encampment/habitation area (2014:126). I conclude that the lithic assemblage reflects the ritual and spiritual component of Jacob Island and cannot be solely used as a representation for mobility and interaction in the Trent Valley region.

High Residential Low Residential Mobility Mobility Lithic raw material ± ± Broken and fragmented flakes (biface/tool production) X — Complete flakes (core reduction) — X Evidence of initial bifacial reduction X — Bipolar knapping debris — X Utilized flake (non-biface reduction) tools ± X Presence of retouch on non-local material ± ± X = agreed, — = disagreed, ± = in between After Kelly 2001:73 Table 4.2 Table 53. Revised residential mobility

Trade and interaction clearly happened; this can be seen in the range of materials

(some of which were most likely traded) and the similarity of some Jacob Island bifaces to projectile point types from south-western Ontario. There are still, however, many unanswered questions about Jacob Island. Why is there such a lack of ground-stone and ceremonial items such as copper and shell beads? The site has many similarities with

Morrison Island in the Ottawa Valley; however, Jacob Island was clearly not a workshop to the same level as Morrison, and does not appear to possess a clear Archaic habitation

190 area. The site also lacks a great deal of evidence for food consumption; evidenced by the lack of tools for processing food and/or hunting and fishing. There is also a lack of faunal remains to support prolonged occupation, and in fact most of the faunal remains are identified as domestic dog and are likely ritual related (Conolly et al. 2014:122). Perhaps on a nearby island or somewhere on the surrounding mainland is the counterpart to the JI-

1 site. It might have the habitation area, the non-local projectiles to match the flakes, and a plethora of ground-stone tools; or perhaps it is on the other side of the island. Further field research will hopefully reveal whether a separate habitation area can provide a comparative sample that will substantiate these preliminary interpretations.

7.2 Conclusions

As originally defined, this thesis focused on characterizing the raw material variability from the Late Archaic site of Jacob Island. The secondary aim was to explore how observed variation in use of different materials can inform us about mobility and regional interaction. With the exception of the work by Fox (2009; 2013), Teichrob (2007), Miles

(2005), and Sine (2013) very little research has been dedicated to raw material variability in this region. In particular, variation within Trent cherts is not well understood. My research has helped to address this. I have characterized the raw materials and to the best of my ability identified the sources in the Jacob Island assemblage of JI-1B/C area.

As stated, archaeological investigation within the Trent-Severn Waterway is not extensive and by necessity this forces those who do archaeology in this region to use data from south-western Ontario and north-western New York for comparative insight on

191 subsistence, social organization, mobility, and raw material use. Although my research does not address the first two, it does build understanding on mobility and raw material use, at least to the extent that a single site can be used to characterize the Late Archaic in the region.

This study could be strengthened by a more extensive technological study, especially one that incorporated more comparative studies to other Archaic assemblages, and a projectile point typological analysis. Although not possible now, assuming further field work will produce comparative sites in this region, in future a critical direction will be to compare the Jacob Island sample to newly discovered assemblages within the

Kawartha Lakes. Another study that would be of interest is a comparative study between

JI-1B/C and the early Late Woodland site assemblage found on the north-western part of the island. A comparative study within such a close proximity would be of interest, especially concerning possible differences in raw material use and acquisition strategies.

I hope that through my research Trent Valley cherts (Trent chert, Balsam Lake chert, and Huronia chert) will become more widely known and/or identified. The purpose of including so many images at lower magnification was in anticipation of these images being useful for comparative purposes in future. A catalogue of images and micrographs can be found in Appendix E.

192

References Cited

Ahler, S.A. 1989 Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the Forest Rather Than the Trees. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by D.O. Henry and G.H. Odell, pp. 85– 118. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 1.

Ahler, Stanley A. 1983 Heat treatment of Knife River flint. Lithic Technology 12(1): 1–8.

Anderson, David G., and Robert C. Mainfort 2002 An Introduction to Woodland Archaeology in the Southeast. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, pp. 1–19. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Andrefsky, William 1991 Inferring Trends in Prehistoric Settlement Behavior from Lithic Production technology in the southern Plains. North American Archaeology 12(2): 129–144.

1994 Raw-Material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity 59(1): 21–34.

1998 Lithics: macroscopic approaches to analysis. Cambridge manuals in archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge [England]; New York.

2001 Lithic debitage: context, form, meaning. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Austin, Shaun 2010 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. Unpublished Archaeological Licence Report. AMEC Early & Environment

Bamforth, Douglas B. 1986 Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity 51(1): 38–50.

1990 Settlement, Raw Material, and Lithic Procurement in the Central Mojave Desert. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 70–104.

193

Baumler, M. F., and Downum, C. E. 1989 Between micro and macro: A study in the interpretation of small-sized lithic debitage. Experiments in lithic technology 528: 101-116.

Bennett, G., B.O. Dressler, and J.A. Robertson 1991 The Huronian Supergroup and associated intrusive rocks. In Geology of Ontario, Ontario Geological Survey, pp. 549–592. Special Volume 4 Part 1.

Berg, R.B., and J.M. Masters 1994 Geology of microcrystalline silica deposits, southernmost Illinois. Illinois State Geological Survey 555.

Bevan, A., J. Conolly, C. Hennig, A. Johnston, A. Quercia, L. Spencer, and J. Vroom 2013 Measuring Chronological Uncertainty in Intense Survey Finds: A Case Study from Antikythera, Greece. Archaeometry 55(2):312-328.

Biittner, Katie M., and Susan M. Jamieson 2006 Chert Raw Material Utilization at the Bark Site (BbGp-12), Peterborough County, Southern Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 81/82: 13–29.

Binford, Lewis R. 1973 Interassemblage Variability - The Mousterian and the “Functional” Argument. In The Explanation of Culture Change, edited by Colin. Renfrew, pp. 227–254. Duckworth, London.

1977 Forty-seven Trips: A Case Study in the Character of Archaeological Formation Processes. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity, edited by R.V.S. Wright, pp. 24–36. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.

1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35(3): 255–273.

1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45: 1–17.

Bishop, A. C., William Roger Hamilton, and Alan Robert Woolley 2005 Guide to minerals, rocks & fossils. Firefly Books, Buffalo, N.Y.

194 von Bitter, Peter H., and Betty E. Eley 1984 Balsam Lake Chert from the Upper Member of the Middle Ordovician Bobcaygeon Formation of Southern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 8(2): 135–149.

Blatt, Harvey, Gerard V. Middleton, and Raymond C. Murray 1980 Origin of sedimentary rocks. 2d ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

Bleed, P. 1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Reliability? American Antiquity 51: 737–747.

Bottomley, John. 2011 The Physical Landscape. In Nature in the Kawarthas, edited by Gordon S. Berry, John Bottomley, and Rebecca Zeran, pp. 13–18. Dundurn Press, Toronto ; Tonowanda, NY.

Bousman, C. Britt. 1993 Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations, Economic Risk and Tool Design. Lithic Technology 18(1/2): 59–86.

Bradbury, Andrew P., and Philip J. Carr 1995 Flake Technologies and Alternative Approaches: An Experimental Assessment. Lithic Technology 20(2): 100–115.

Chapman, L. J., and Donald F. Putman 1984 The physiography of southern Ontario. 3rd ed. Special volume / Ontario Geological Survey 2. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources : Ontario Govt. Bookstore [distributor], Toronto, Ont.

Clermont, Norman, and Claude Chapdelaine 1982 Pointe-du-Buisson 4: Quarante Siècles d’Archibes Oubliées. Société Amérindiennes au Québec, Montreal.

1998 Morrison Island: An Archaic Sacred Place and Workshop in the Ottawa Valley. Paléo-Québec 28. Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Colombo, F. 2013 Vancouver Petrographics Chert Characterization Report. Unpublished Geological Study.

195

Conolly, James. 2013 Archaeological Research on Jacob’s Island, 2010-2012. Unpublished Archaeological Research Report. Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario.

Conolly, James, Jeffrey Dillane, Kate Dougherty, Kathleen Elaschuk, Kristen Csenkey, Teresa Wagner, and Jocelyn Williams 2014 Early Collective Burial Practices in a Complex Wetland Setting: An Interim Report on Mortuary Patterning, Paleodietary Analysis, Zooarchaeology, Material Culture and Radiocarbon Dates from Jacob Island (BcGo-17), Kawartha Lakes, Ontario. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 38(1): 103–130.

Conway, Thor 1977 A Preliminary Report On the Late Archaic Musk Site, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Ontario Archaeological Society - Arch Notes 77(5): 10–17.

Cook, R.A., and William A. Lovis 2014 Lake Levels, Mobility, and Lithic Raw Material Selection and Reduction Strategies: A Great Lakes Case Study. Environmental Archaeology 19(1): 55–71.

Crabtree, Don E., and B. Robert Butler 1964 Notes on experiments in flintknapping: 1. Heat treatment of silica materials. Tebiwa 7(1): 1–6.

Deller, D. Brian 1979 Paleo-Indian reconnaissance in the counties of Lambton and Middlesex, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 32:3-25.

1989 Interpretation of Chert Type Variation in Paleoindian Industries, Southwestern Ontario. In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource use, edited by Christopher J. Ellis and Jonathan Lothrop, pp. 191–220. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Deller, D. Brian, Christopher J. Ellis, and James R. Keron 2009 Understanding Cache Variability: A Deliberately Burned Early Paleoindian Tool Assemblage from the Crowfield Site, southwestern Ontario, Canada. American Antiquity 74(2):371-397.

Dietrich, Richard Vincent, and Brian J. Skinner 1979 Rocks and rock minerals. Wiley, New York.

196

Dincauze, Dena F. 1972 The Atlantic Phase: A Late Archaic Culture in Massachusetts. Man in the Northeast 4: 40–61.

Donaldson, William, and Stanley Wortner 1995 The Hind Site and the Glacial Kame Burial Complex in Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 59: 5–95.

Dunn, Robert A. 1984 Form and Function of Perkiomen Broad-Point. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 54(3/4): 11–18.

Eley, Betty E., and Peter H. von Bitter 1989 Cherts of southern Ontario. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.

Ellis, Christopher J., and Neal Ferris (editors). 1990 The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. London Chapter, O.A.S., London, Ont.

Ellis, Christopher J., Ian T. Kenyon, and Michael W. Spence 1990 The Archaic. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by Christopher J. Ellis and Neal. Ferris, pp. 65–124. London Chapter, O.A.S., London, Ont.

Ellis, Christopher J., and Michael W. Spence 1997 Raw Material Variation and the Organization of “Small Point” Archaic Lithic Technologies in South-western Ontario. In Preceramic Southern Ontario, edited by Phillip Woodley and Peter G. Ramsden, pp. 119–140. Occasional Publications in Northeastern Archaeology 9. Copetown Press, Hamilton, Ontario.

Ellis, Christopher J., Peter A. Timmins, and Holly 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 Dale L. McElrath, Thomas E. Emerson, and Andrew C. Fortier, pp. 787–837. State University of New York Press, Albany.

Elston, R.G. 1992 Modeling the economics and organization of lithic procurement. In Archaeological Investigations at Tosawihi, A Great Basin Quarry, Part 1: The

197

Periphery, Volume 1, edited by R.G. Elston and C. Raven, pp. 31–47. Inter- mountain Research and Bureau of Land Management, Silver City, Nevada.

Eyles, Nicholas 2002 Ontario rocks: three billion years of environmental change. Fitzhenry & Whiteside, Markham, Ont. ; Allston, Mass.

Eyles, N., and Andrew D. Miall 2007 Canada rocks. Fitzhenry & Whiteside, Markham, Ont.

Ferris, Neal., and Ian T. Kenyon 1987 Adder Orchard Points. Kewa 87(5).

Fox, William A. 1978 Southern Ontario Chert Sources. Presented at Canadian Archaeological Association 11th Annual Meeting in Quebec City.

1984a Meadowood Biface Caches from Southwestern Ontario. Kewa 84(2): 7–12.

1984b An Early Woodland Camp on Inverhuron Bay. Kewa 84(6): 3-14.

1992 Odawa Lithic Procurement and Exchange: A History Carved in Stone. Archéologiques 5-6:52-58.

2008 Bipolar Reactions. Kewa 08(5/6): 27-28.

2009 Ontario Cherts Revisited. In Papers in Honour of James Valliere Wright, edited by David L. Keenlyside and Jean-Luc Pilon, pp. 339–354. Mercury series archaeological paper 170. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau.

2013 Trent Chert: An Update. Ontario Archaeological Society–Arch Notes 18(1): 5–8.

Funk, Robert H. 1988 The Laurentian Concept: A review. Archaeology of Eastern North America 16: 1–42.

Gadd, N.R. 1980 Late-Glacial Regional Ice-flow patterns in Eastern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 17: 1439–1453.

198

Gallagher, J.P. 1977 Contemporary stone tools in Ethiopia: Implications for archaeology. Journal of Field Archaeology 4: 407–414.

Goodyear, Albert C. 1993 Tool Kit Entropy and Bipolar Reduction: A Study of Interassemblage Lithic Variability Among Paleo-indian Sites in the Northeastern United States. North American Archaeologist 14(1): 1–23.

Gould, Richard A. 1968 Chipping Stones in the Outback. Natural History 77(2): 42–49.

1969 Yiwara: Foragers of the Australian Desert. Scribner’s Sons, New York.

1978 Beyond analogy in ethnoarchaeology. In Explorations in ethnoarchaeology, edited by Richard A. Gould, pp. 249–293. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1980 Living Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Granger, Joseph E. 1978 Meadowood Phase Settlement Pattern in the Niagara Frontier Region of Western New York State. Anthropological Papers 65. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan.

1981 The Seward Site Cache and a Study of the Meadowood Phase “Cache Blade” in the Northeast. Archaeology of Eastern North America 9: 63–103.

Grice, Joel. 2010 Beginner’s guide to rocks and minerals. Fitzhenry & Whiteside, Markham, Ont.

Griffiths, D.R., C.A. Bergman, C.J. Clayton, K. Ohnuma, G.V. Robins, and N.J. Seeley 1987 Experimental investigation of the heat treatment of flint. In The Human Uses of Flint and Chert, pp. 43–51.

Grimwood, J.L., M. Coniglio, and D.K. Armstrong 1999 Blackriveran carbonates from the subsurface of the Lake Simcoe area, southern Ontario: stratigraphy and sedimentology of a low energy carbonate ramp. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 36: 871–889.

199

Hatch, James W., and Mintcy D. Maxham 1995 Jasper-Bearing Assemblages in Pennsylvania: Implications for the Antiquity and Scale of Regional Exchange. Archaeology of Eastern North America 23:231-245.

Hawkins, Alicia L., Eric Tourigny, Darrel G. F. Long, Patrick J. Julig, and Jeffery Bursey 2008 Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy of Geological and Archaeological Chert from Southern Ontario. North American Archaeologist 29(3): 203–224.

Hermes, O. Don and D. Ritchie 1997 Nondestructive Trace Element Analysis of Archaeological Felsite by Energy- Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy. Geoarchaeology 12(1):31-40.

Hester, J.J. 1972 Blackwater Locality No. 1: A Stratified Early Man Site in Eastern New Mexico. Ft. Burgwin Research Center, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.

Hewitt, D.F. 1965 Rocks and Minerals of Ontario. Geological Circular 13. Ontario Department of Mines, Toronto.

Hubbard, Michael J., David A. Waugh, and Joseph D. Ortiz 2004 Provenance determination of archaeological cherts by VIS/NIR diffuse reflectance spectrometry. The Compass 78(3):119-129.

Ingbar, E.E., M.L. Larson, and B.A. Bradley 1989 A Nontypological Approach to Debitage Analysis. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by D.S. Amick and R.P. Mauldin, pp. 67–99. BAR International Series 528. Oxford.

Inizan, Marie-Louise., M. Reduron-Ballinger, H. Roche, and J. Tixier 1999 Technology and Terminology of Knapped Stone. Trans. Jehanne. Féblot- Augustins. Cercle de recherches et d’études préhistoriques, Nanterre.

Jackson, Lawrence J. 1980 Dawson Creek: An Early Woodland Site in South-Central Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 33:13-32.

1988 Dawson Creek Site Feature Analysis: 4,000 Years of Ontario Prehistory. Occasional Papers in Anthropology 5. Trent University.

200

Janusas, Scarlett E. 1984 A Petrological Analysis of Kettle Point Chert and its Spatial and Temporal Distribution in Regional Prehistory. Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 128.

Jarvis, Hugh W. 1988 INAA Characterization of Onondaga Chert: A Preliminary Study in Western New York. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Anthropology Department, State University of New York, Buffalo.

1990 Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis of Onondaga Chert in the Niagara Frontier. Ontario Archaeology 51:3-15.

Johnson, Jay K., and Carol A. Marrow (editors). 1987 The Organization of Core Technology. Westview Press, Boulder and London.

Johnston, Richard B. 1968 The Archaeology of the Serpent Mounds Site. Royal Ontario Museum of Art and Archaeology Occasional Paper 10.

1984 The McIntyre Site: Archaeology, Sub. Mercury series 126. National Museum of Man, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Ottawa.

Julig, Patrick John. (editor). 2002 The Sheguiandah site: archaeological, geological and paleobotanical studies at a Paleoindian site on Manitoulin Island, Ontario. Mercury series no. 161. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, Quebec.

Julig, Patrick J., L. A. Pavlish, C. Clark, and R. G. V. Hancock 1992 Chemical Characterization and Sourcing of Upper Great Lakes Cherts by INNA. Ontario Archaeology 54:37-50.

Kelly, Robert L. 1988 The Three Sides of the Biface. American Antiquity 53(4): 717–734.

2001 Prehistory of the Carson Desert and Stillwater Mountains: environment, mobility, and subsistence in a great basin wetland. University of Utah anthropological papers no. 123. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

201

Kempe, D.R.C., and J.A. Templeman 1983 Techniques. In The Petrology of Archaeological Artefacts, edited by D.R.C. Kempe and Anthony P. Harvey, pp. 26–53. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Kenyon, Ian T. 1981a Brewerton Corner-notched Points. Kewa 81(8).

1981b Making Genesee Points by the Niagara River. Kewa 81(1).

Kidder, Tristram R. 2006 Climate Change and the Archaic to Woodland Transition (3000-2600 cal BP) in the Mississippi River Basin. American Antiquity 71:195-231.

Knauth, L. Paul. 1994 Petrogenesis of Chert. In Silica: physical behavior, geochemistry and materials applications, edited by P. J. Heaney, Charles T. Prewitt, and G. V. Gibbs, pp. 233– 258. Mineralogical Society of America, Washington, D.C.

Kuhn, Robert D. and William A. Lanford 1987 Sourcing Hudson Valley Cherts from Trace Element Analysis. Man in the Northeast 34:57-69.

Kuhn, Steven L. 1994 A Formal Approach to the Design and Assembly of Mobile Toolkits. American Antiquity 59(3): 426–442.

Kuijt, Ian, William C. Prentiss, and David L. Pokotylo 1995 Bipolar Reduction: An Experimental Study of Debitage Variability. Lithic Technology 20(2): 116–127.

Laliberté, Marcel 2011 Une technologie lithique particulière dans la vallée centrale de l’Outaouais au Sylvicole moyen. Archéologiques 24:89-102.

Lavin, Lucianne, and Donald R. Prothero 1981 Microscopic Analysis of Cherts within and adjacent to the Delaware River Watershed. Man in the Northeast 78: 17–30.

1992 Prehistoric Procurement of Secondary Sources: The Case for Characterization. North American Archaeologist 13(2): 97–113.

202

Lazenby, M.E. Colleen 1980 Prehistoric Sources of Chert in Northern Labrador: Field Work and Preliminary Analyses. ARCTIC 33(3): 628-645.

Leaf, Gary R. 1979 Variation in the Form of Bipolar Cores. Plains Anthropologist 23: 39–50.

Le Brun-Ricalens, Foni 2006 Les pièces esquillées: état des connaissances après un siècle de reconnaissance. Paléo 18:95-114.

Leechman, Douglas., and Frederica DeLaguna 1949 The Parker Site. In Annual Report of the National Museum for the Fiscal Year 1947-48, 113:pp. 29–30. National Museum of Canada.

Lee, Richard B. 1979 The !Kung San. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Lemonnier, Pierre 1986 The Study of Material Culture Today: Toward an Anthropology of Technical Systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5: 147–186.

Lennox, Paul A. 1990 The Canada Century Site: A Lamoka Component Located on the Niagara Peninsula, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 51: 31–52.

Liberty, Bruce A. 1955 Studies of the Ordovician System in central Ontario. Proceedings of the Geological Association of Canada 7(1): 139–147.

1969 Palaeozoic Geology of the Lake Simcoe Area, Ontario. Geological Survey of Canada, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources 355. Ottawa.

Long, Dan 2004 A Workability Comparison of Three Ontario Cherts (A Flint Knapper’s Perspective). Kewa 04(7/8): 20–23.

Long, Darrel G.F., Brenda Silveira, and Patrick J. Julig 2001 Chert Analysis by Infrared Spectroscopy. In A Collection of Papers Presented at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Canadian Archaeological Association, edited by

203

Jean-Luc Pilon, Michael W. Kirby, and Caroline Thériault. Ontario Archaeological Society and Canadian Archaeological Association, Ottawa.

Long, Dan, Patrick J. Julig, and R.G.V. Hancock 2002 Characterization of Shequiandah quartzite and other potential sources of quartzarenite artifacts in the Great Lakes region. In The Shequiandah Site: Archaeological, geological and paleobotanical studies at a Paleoindian site on Manitoulin Island, Ontario, pp. 265–295. Mercury series archaeological paper 161. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, Quebec.

Lovis, William A., Randolph E. Donahue, and Margaret B. Holman 2005 Long-Distance Logistical Mobility as an Organizing Principle among Northern Hunter-Gatherers: A Great Lakes Middle Holocene Settlement System. American Antiquity 70(4): 669–693.

Luedtke, Barbara E. 1976 Lithic Material Distributions and Interaction Patterns during the Late Woodland Period in Michigan. Vol. I and II. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor.

1978 Chert Sources and Trace Element Analysis. American Antiquity 43(3): 413–423.

1979 The Identification of Sources of Chert Artifacts. American Antiquity 44(4): 744– 757.

1994 An archaeologist’s guide to chert and flint. Archaeological research tools 7. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

MacArthur, R.H., and E.R. Pianka 1966 An Optimal Use of a Patchy Environment. American Naturalist 100: 603–609.

Manderville, Margaret D. 1973 A consideration of the thermal pretreatment of chert. Plains Anthropologist: 177–202.

Manninen, Mikael A., and Kjel Knutsson 2014 Lithic raw material diversification as an adaptive strategy - Technology, mobility, and site structure in Late Mesolithic northernmost Europe. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 33: 84–98.

204

Mason, B., and C.B. Moore 1982 Principles of Geochemistry. 4th edition. Wiley Press, New York.

McElrath, Dale L., Thomas E. Emerson, and Andrew C. Fortier (editors). 2011 Archaic Societies. ; Diversity and Complexity across the Midcontinent. State University of New York Press, Albany.

McElrath, Dale L., Andrew C. Fortier, and Thomas E. Emerson 2009 An Introduction to the Archaic Societies of the Midcontinent. In Archaic Societies: Diversity and Complexity across the Midcontinent, edited by Thomas E. Emerson, Dale L. McElrath, and Andrew C. Fortier, pp. 3–21. State University of New York Press, Albany.

Metcalfe, D., and K.R. Barlow 1992 A Model for Exploring the Optimal Trade-off Between Field Processing and Transport. American Anthropologist 94(2): 340–356.

Miles, Katie Margaret 2006 Organisation of technology and chert raw material utilisation at the Bark site, southern Ontario. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario.

Muller, J.P. 1989 A “Smallpoint” Archaic Component at the Welke-Tonkonoh Site, Ontario. Kewa 89(3): 3–22.

Murphy, C. 1988 Snyders Points. Kewa 88(3).

Nelson, Margaret C. 1991 The study of technological organization. In Archaeological method and theory, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, 3:pp. 57–100. University of Arizona, Tucson.

Noor, Iqbal 1989 Lithostratigraphy, environmental interpretation and paleogeography of the Middle Ordovician Shadow Lake, Gull River and Bobcaygeon formations in parts of southern Ontario. Unpublished Ph.D., University of Toronto.

205

Odell, George H. 1998 Investigating Correlates of Sedentism and Domestication in Prehistoric North America. American Antiquity 63(4): 553–571.

2004 Lithic analysis. Manuals in archaeological method, theory, and technique. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

Okulitch, V.J. 1939 The Ordovician section at Coboconk, Ontario. Transactions of the Royal Canadian Institute XXII(2): 319–339.

Osgood, C. 1940 Ingalik material culture. Publications in Anthropology 22. Yale University, New Haven.

Parish, Ryan Michael 2009 A Chert Sourcing Study using Visible/Near-Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy at the Dover Quarry Sites, Tennessee. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Geosciences, Murray State University, Murray, Kentucky.

2011 The Application of Visible/Near-Infrared Reflectance (VNIR) Spectroscopy to Chert: A Case Study from the Dover Quarry Sites, Tennessee. Geoarchaeology 26(3):420-439.

Parker, Arthur C. 1922 The Archaeological History of New York. New York State Museum Bulletins, Albany.

Parker, Lawrence Leslie 1986 Haldimand chert & its early archaic manifestations in southern Ontario. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario.

Parry, William J., and Robert L. Kelly 1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by J.K. Johnson and C.A. Morrow, pp. 285–304. Westview Press, Boulder and London.

Pfeiffer, Susan 1977 The Skeletal Biology of Archaic Populations of the Great Lakes Region. Mercury series 64. Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Man, Ottawa.

206

Power, M.J., F.L. Cowan, and J.B. Petersen 1980 Artifact Variability at the Multi-Component Winooski Site. Man in the Northeast 19: 43–55.

Prentiss, W.C., and E.J. Romanski 1989 Experimental Evaluation of Sullivan and Rozen’s Debitage Typology. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by D.S. Amick and R.P. Mauldin, pp. 89– 100. BAR International Series 528. Oxford.

Purdy, Barbara A. 1974 Investigations concerning thermal alteration of silica materials: an archaeological approach. Tebiwa 17: 37–66.

Ramsden, Peter G. 1990 The Winter Site (AkHb-2): A Late Archaic Campsite near Guelph, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 50: 27–38.

1997 The Laurentian Archaic in the Kawartha Lakes and Haliburton. In Preceramic Southern Ontario, edited by Phillip J. Woodley and Peter G. Ramsden, pp. 141– 148. Occasional Papers in Northeastern Archaeology 9. Copetown Press, St. John’s.

Raymond, Loren A. 2002 Petrology: the study of igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, Boston.

Rick, John W., and David L. Asch 1978 Heat-altered cherts of the lower Illinois valley: an experimental study in prehistoric technology. Northwestern University Archeological Program.

Ritchie, William A. 1932 The Lamoka Lake Site. Researches and Transactions of the New York State Archaeological Association 7(4): 79–134.

1938 Certain recently explored New York mounds and their probable relation to the Hopewell culture. Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences, Rochester, N.Y.

1949 An Archaeological Survey of the Trent Waterway in Ontario Canada. Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences, Rochester, N.Y.

207

1955 Recent Discoveries Suggesting an Early Woodland Burial Cult in the Northeast. New York State Museum and Science Service 40.

1969 The Archaeology of New York State. Natural History Press, New York.

1971 A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. Revised. New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin 384.

Ritchie, William A., and Robert E. Funk 1973 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast. New York State Museum and Science Service Memoir 20.

Rogers, E.S. 1969 Band organization among the Indians of Eastern Subarctic Canada. In Contributions to Anthropology, Band Societies, edited by David. Damas, pp. 21–55. National Museum of Canada Bulletin 228.

Sanford, Bruce V. 1993 Stratigraphic and Structural of Upper Middle Ordovician Rocks in the Head Lake-Burleigh Falls Area of South-Central Ontario. Géographie physique et Quaternaire 47(3): 253–268.

Sassaman, Kenneth E. 2010 The Eastern Archaic, historicized. Issues in Eastern Woodlands archaeology. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Md.

Shennan, Stephen 2000 Population, Culture History, and the Dynamics of Culture Change. Current Anthropology 41(5):811-835.

Shott, Michael J. 1989 Bipolar Industries: Ethnographic Evidence and Archaeological Implications. North American Archaeologist 10(1): 1–24.

Siemiatkowska, K.M. 1978 Geology of the Endikai Lake Area, District of Algoma. Ontario Geological Survery, Report 178, Ottawa.

208

Silberbauer, G.B. 1981 Hunter and habitat in the central Kalahari Desert. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sillitoe, Paul, and Karen Hardy 2003 Living Lithics: ethnoarchaeology in Highland Papua New Guinea. Antiquity 77(297): 555–566.

Sine, Keri L. 2013 Finding Answers in Chaos: a Lithic and Post-Depositional Analysis of the Clark’s Bay Site, Ontario. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario.

Snarey, Kristen, and Christopher J. Ellis 2006 Evidence for Bow and Arrow Use in the Smallpoint Late Archaic of Southwestern Ontario. In Papers in Honor of Michael Spence, edited by Neal. Ferris, Peter A. Timmins, Christine D. White, and Christopher J. Ellis. Museum of Ontario Archaeology and London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society.

Snow, D.R. 1977 Archeology and Ethnohistory in Eastern New York. In Current Perspectives in Northeastern Archaeology, edited by Robert E. Funk and C.F. Hayes, pp. 107–122. New York State Archaeological Association, Researches and Transactions 17.

Spence, Michael W. 1986 Band Structure and Interaction in Early Southern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Anthropology 5(2): 83–95.

Spence, Michael W., and William A. Fox 1986 The Early Woodland Occupations of Southern Ontario. In Early Woodland Archaeology, edited by Kenneth B. Farnsworth and Thomas E. Emerson, pp. 4–46. Seminar in Archaeology 2. Center for American Archaeology Press, Kampsville, Illinois.

Spence, Michael W., Robert H. Pihl, and Carl R. Murphy 1990 Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by Christopher J. Ellis and Neal. Ferris, pp. 125–169. London Chapter, O.A.S., London, Ont.

209

Spence, Michael W., Ronald. Williamson, and John. Dawkins 1978 The Bruce Boyd Site: An Early Woodland Component in Southwestern Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 29: 33–46.

Stothers, David M., and Timothy J. Abel 1993 Archaeological reflections of the Late Archaic and Early Woodland time periods in the western Lake Erie region. Archaeology of Eastern North America 21(Fall): 25–109.

Strong, W. L., and L. V. Hills 2005 Late-glacial and Holocene palaeovegetation zonal reconstruction for central and north-central North America. Journal of Biogeography 32(6):1043-1062.

Sullivan, Alan P., and Kenneth C. Rozen 1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 50(4): 755–779.

Surovell, Todd A. 2009 Toward a behavioral ecology of lithic technology: cases from Paleoindian archaeology. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Tanaka, J. 1980 The San: Hunter-Gatherers of the Kalahari. University of Tokyo, Tokyo.

Taché, Karine 2011 Structure and Regional Diversity of the Meadowood Interaction Sphere. University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Memoir no. 48, Ann Arbor.

Teichroeb, Janice M. 2007 The archaic lithic assemblage from West Burleigh Bay, Ontario. Unpublished Masters thesis, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario.

Terasmae, Jaan 1979 Radiocarbon dating and palynology of glacial Lake Nipissing deposits at Wasaga Beach, Ontario. Journal of Great Lakes Research 5(3): 292–300.

Torrence, Robin 1983 Time Budgeting and Hunter-gatherer Technology. In Pleistocene Hunters and Gatherers in Europe, edited by G. Bailey, pp. 11–22. Cambridge University Press, New York.

210

1994 Strategies for Moving on in Lithic Studies. In The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Technologies, edited by Philip J. Carr, pp. 123–131. International Monographs in Prehistory Archaeological Series 7. Ann Arbor.

Tuck, J.A. 1977 A Look at Laurentian. In Current Perspectives in Northeastern Archaeology, Essays in Honor of William A. Ritchie, edited by Robert E. Funk and C.F. Hayes, pp. 33–40. New York State Archaeological Association, Researches and Transactions 17.

White, A.M. 1963 Analytic Description of the Chipped Stone Industry from the Snyders Site, Calhoun County, Illinois. In Miscellaneous Studies in Typology and Classification, edited by A.M. White, Lewis R. Binford, and M.L. Papworth, pp. 1–70. Anthropological Papers 19. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

White, J. Peter 1967 Ethno-archaeology in New Guinea: Two Examples. Mankind 6: 409–414.

1968 Fabricators, Outils Ecaillés, or Scalar Cores? Mankind 6: 658–666.

Williams, D.A. 1991 Paleozoic geology of the Ottawa –St. Lawrence Lowland, southern Ontario. Unpublished Geological Survey. Ontario Geological Survey.

Wright, James V. 1967 The Laurel tradition and the Middle Woodland period. National Museum of Canada Bulletin 217.

1984 The Cultural Continuity of Northern Iroquian-Speaking Peoples. In Extending the Rafters, edited by M. Foster, J. Campisi, and M. Mithun, pp. 283–299. State University of New York Press, Albany.

1995 A history of the native people of Canada 1. 1. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, Québec.

1999 A history of the native people of Canada 2. 2. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, Québec.

211

Appendix A

Operational definitions of cataloguing variables

Debitage Categories:

Complete Flake – This artifact type was distinguished by the presence of both the

proximal and distal ends of the flake. The flake must have complete margins.

Broken Flake – This artifact type was distinguished by the presence of the

proximal end of the flake. All margins are not necessarily present.

Flake Fragment – This artifact type was distinguished by the lack of either

proximal or distal ends. It was often a margin or mesial section, and identification

of the originating area was not generally possible.

Block Shatter – This debitage category was distinguished as the small and jagged

pieces that occur during reduction. They were often blocky looking, hence the

term; however, any pieces that were evidently created from crushing/fracturing,

and were jagged in appearance were included in this category.

Core – This category was distinguished by the presence of a complete core that

had either been exhausted or discarded (possibly because of the nature of the

material). The cores would possess negative flake scars and would probably have

crushed platforms from reduction

Core Fragment – This category was similar to the previous; however, the main

difference was that the core was broken, either before or after deposition. Part of

the artifact would often have a shattered look, because on occasion, especially

with local material, when the core was struck it would just shatter.

212

Complete Bifacially Retouched Tool – This category includes both formal and expedient/informal tools. Complete bifacially retouched tools were identified by the presence of retouching on both sides of the same margin. As the category suggests, only complete tools were identified in this category.

Broken Bifacially Retouched Tool – This category is the same as the complete bifacially retouched tool; however, the artifact was broken. If it was identifiable, the section of the tool present was noted in the catalogue (proximal, mesial, and distal).

Complete Ground-stone Tool – Artifacts that were identified into this category tended to be manufactured of metasediment type materials, and possessed some degree of grinding to create a certain shape. Artifacts in this category also had to be complete and unbroken. Chipping was also occasionally present; however, the grinding was the most clearly used technique.

Ground-stone Fragment – Similar to ground-stone tool category, this category included all artifacts that were, at some time, part of a ground-stone implement.

They often appeared to be manufactured from basalt and/or other metasediment materials.

Pièces Esquillées – This category was distinguished by the presence of bipolar reduction techniques (i.e. two bulbs of percussion at either end, platform crushing at opposite ends of the same area). This was most often on local material and small possibly leftover cores of non-local material. It is a specific form of a utilized bipolar core.

213

Raw Material – This category was used for any stones/rocks that may or may not

be chert, but were probably part of glacial till and were naturally occurring in the

soil. They also showed no evidence of being worked. This category did not count

manuports; however, no non-local material was found on site that was unworked.

Cortex amount: This category was used for all artifacts. The cortex amount was a slightly arbitrary variable; however it was catalogued by inspecting the exterior of the artifact for the presence of cortex (often limestone). There were a total of 5 levels for the amount of cortex present (0%, 1-24%, 25-49%, 50-74%, and 75-99%).

Size: This variable was a simple measurement. Each artifact was held up to a ruler along its longest axis, and the length was written down by groupings (<1 cm, 1-1.9 cm, 2-2.9 cm, 3-3.9 cm, 4-4.9 cm, and >5 cm).

Weight: The weight of each artifact was taken using a calibrated laboratory scale.

Weights were taken to the first decimal place.

Stage: Only artifacts that fell into one of the three flake categories had the stage of manufacture recorded.

Primary – This stage of manufacture was distinguished by the presence of cortex.

If a flake had any cortex it was considered a primary flake within the initial stages

of reduction.

Secondary – This stage of manufacture was distinguished by the lack of cortex.

214

Tertiary – This stage of manufacture was distinguished by the lack of cortex, and

presence of being generally thinner and smaller, often with a curvature. They were

categorized as biface thinning, finishing, or notching flakes.

Pot lidding/burnt: This variable was used to record the presence of burning. Since the site had a spiritual component, I believed it important to record the amount of artifacts that possessed evidence of burning. This variable did not simply include pot lidding, it also included crazing and any evidence of colour changes known to occur in some cherts.

Stress fracturing: This variable was originally included because of the frequent occurrence of fracturing in the local material. It was originally used to help distinguish if a rock fell into both the raw material debitage category and possessed a high amount of fracturing it could be removed from the analysis, since it was likely not an artifact, but simply part of the secondary deposits found throughout the island. Stress fracturing is identified by the presence of cracks through a material.

Retouch: This variable was included especially for comparing local and non-local materials. It was distinguished by the presence of a series of small flake removals on one side of a margin. Some retouched artifacts had retouching on more than one surface, but on different margins. This was important because the variable could also be used for infer expedient/informal tool use.

215

Origin: This variable was later added to the assemblage after the initial data collection was complete. All the different categories of raw material were divided into one of two locale designations, local and non-local. Local material was considered any material that could likely be obtained within a one-hundred kilometre radius, while non-local was anything beyond that radius. Below is a list of all the raw material categories and their locale designation.

Local Non-local Trent chert Onondaga chert Quartz Collingwood chert Huronia chert Kettle point chert Balsam Lake chert Ancaster chert Quartzite Selkirk chert Greywacke Haldimand chert Metasediments Flint Ridge chert Silicified Limestone Ramah chert Sandstone Norwood chert Basalt Pennsylvania jasper Chalcedony Gowganda argillite Unidentified Type 4 chert Kichisipi chert Unidentified Type 6 chert Rhyolite New England Rhyolite Gordon Lake chert Amphibolite Unidentified Type 1 chert Unidentified Type 2 chert Unidentified Type 3 chert Unidentified Type 5 chert

216

Appendix B

Experimental burning results

Kettle Point chert (Ipperwash Formation)

Figure 1 shows before and after pictures of Kettle Point chert. Oxidation is present on the burnt material, creating the red colour. Figure 2 shows Kettle Point at 50x polarized magnification before and after burning; notice the oxidation of iron mineral in the picture on the right.

Figure 1. A before and after of Kettle Point chert

Figure 2. The before and after of Kettle Point chert at 50x polarized magnification

217

Collingwood chert (Fossil Hill Formation) – Anderson location

Figure 3 shows before and after pictures of Collingwood chert from the Anderson location. Some oxidation is present on the burnt material, creating the red colour. Figure 4 shows Collingwood chert from the Anderson location at 50x polarized magnification before and after burning; a darkening is noticeable.

Figure 3. A before and after of Anderson location, Collingwood chert

Figure 4. The before and after of Fossil Hill chert at 50x polarized magnification

218

Ancaster chert (Lockport Formation)

Figure 5 shows before and after pictures of Ancaster chert. Very little change is evident on this level. Figure 6 shows the chert at 50x polarized magnification before and after burning; iron oxide can be easily seen in the figure on the right as speckling.

Figure 5. A before and after of Ancaster chert

Figure 6. The before and after of Ancaster chert at 50x polarized magnification

219

Haldimand chert (Bois Blanc Formation)

Figure 7 shows before and after pictures of Haldimand chert from the Bois Blanc

Formation. An obvious darkening can be seen in the image on the right. Figure 8 shows the chert at 50x polarized magnification before and after burning; darkening is also evident in the micrographs.

Figure 7. A before and after of Haldimand chert

Figure 8. The before and after of Haldimand chert at 50x polarized magnification

220

Collingwood chert (Fossil Hill Formation) – Red Wing location or von Bitter Quarry

Figure 9 shows before and after pictures of Collingwood chert from the Red Wing location of the Fossil Hill Formation. An obvious oxidation and darkening occurred during burning and can be seen in the image on the right. Figure 10 shows the chert at

50x polarized magnification before and after burning; the darkening and iron oxide speckling is very evident in the micrographs.

Figure 9. A before and after of Red Wing location, Collingwood chert

Figure 10. The before and after of Collingwood chert at 50x polarized magnification

221

Saugeen chert (Bois Blanc Formation)

Figure 11 shows before and after pictures of Bois Blanc chert from the Saugeen location.

This material was placed too far into the fire and exploded. The pieces that were recovered demonstrated a drastic colour chance from beige to pink and purple. Figure 12 shows the chert at 50x polarized magnification before and after burning; the speckling is more evident in the micrographs, especially in the after photo.

Figure 11. A before and after of Saugeen location, Bois Blanc chert

Figure 12. The before and after of Saugeen chert at 50x polarized magnification

222

Selkirk chert (Dundee Formation)

Figure 13 shows before and after pictures of Selkirk chert from the Dundee Formation.

This material became significantly darker after burning with a patina. Figure 14 shows the chert, at 50x polarized magnification, before and after burning; the mineral inclusions are more evident in the micrographs, especially in the after photo.

Figure 13. A before and after of Selkirk chert from the Dundee Formation

Figure 14. The before and after of Selkirk chert at 50x polarized magnification

223

Appendix C-E are digitally attached