4 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY No. 62, 1996

1996 OAS Symposium - The Ridley Lecture A HISTORY OF THE NATIVE PEOPLE OF CANADA: GENESIS OF A SYNTHESIS J.V. Wright

The process which led to writing of A History doubtedly involves certain inherent personality of the Native People of Canada involved four traits moulded by the influences of particular stages. First, there were the subtle influences people and situations. My family upbringing, of past interpersonal relationships and experi- for example, emphasized the importance of ences that have compelled me during retire- striving to contribute more to society than one ment to write such a synthesis. Second, a received. Although I was not aware of it at the growing awareness of the need to inform a time, the influence of my teacher and long time larger audience than just professional archae- friend, Dr. J. Norman Emerson, undoubtedly ologists of the findings of archaeological had much to do with preconditioning my atti- research led to the initiation of the Canadian tudes regarding the importance of sharing Prehistory Series by the National Museum of archaeological knowledge with a broad spec- Man. Third, my responsibility on the editorial trum of society. Norman Emersons humanist board of Volume I of the Historical Atlas of orientation is apparent in his role as founder of Canada for the archaeological content of the the Ontario Archaeological Society, a society Volume set in place much of the structure of made up of amateurs and professionals work- the current three volume synthesis of the pre- ing in cooperation and dedicated to the ad- European Native history of Canada as re- vancement of the interests of archaeology in vealed by archaeological evidence. And, the Province of Ontario. It is also apparent in fourth, the specific requirements of A History of his summer field excavations where interested the Native People of Canada as a reference organizations and people from local communi- work intended for a wide audience had to be ties were encouraged to participate. This met. ranged from the participation of members of A synthesis is a "Putting together of parts or the Ontario and Quebec archaeological soci- elements to make up a complex whole" (The eties and local people from the City of Corn- Oxford Illustrated Dictionary 1985:860), while wall in the 1957 salvage excavation of the Ault genesis is derived from the Greek word for Park site on the St.Lawrence River to the in- origin or creation. All syntheses encompass a volvement of a large number of Ojibway chil- number of variables that include the nature dren in the 1960 excavation of the Pic River site and the stage of development of a discipline, on the north shore of Lake Superior. Certainly the scope of the synthesis and whether its my many years as a museum archaeologist intended audience is narrow or broad, and the made me aware of the interest of people in individual inclinations of the author. Such a archaeology and the need to be sympathetic to complex mix of interrelated factors assure that their desire for information. Initially, however, syntheses are more or less unique in charac- my focus when I joined the National Museum ter. Indeed, a synthesis is a very personal of Canada in 1960 was on the production of exercise whereby no two scholars addressing technical articles and monographs. This was the same subject matter will produce identical only natural as most syntheses are produced products. by older scholars who have been through a Only a small percentage of archaeologists long school of professional maturation. Such are inclined to popularize their subject matter technical reports, ill suited to even an inter- in order to reach audiences beyond that of ested public, however, are the foundation upon other professionals. Why it is that just a handful which any synthesis rests. of scholars from all disciplines take on what is Before writing a synthesis a blunt question generally a difficult but thankless task un- must be asked: Who needs it? There are a WRIGHT A HISTORY OF THE NATIVE PEOPLE OF CANADA ... 5 number of answers to this question. Archaeol- ancestors had made tools and ornaments from ogy tends to be a parochial discipline in that copper for 7,000 years before Europeans most archaeologists focus their attention on a appeared on the scene and ornaments of relatively restricted piece of geography or time silver for 2,000 years and that the working of period. In contrast, an archaeological synthe- copper and silver thus represent legitimate sis requires a broad overview of the subject areas for native craft development or lawyers matter whether the synthesis applies to a who need to check the evidence of a native province or to an entire country. A person band territorial land claim against the archae- writing a synthesis is forced to both generalize ological record. The main point is that all of the and to cast a broad comparative net. General- potential uses of an archaeological synthesis izations, of course, expose the author to criti- intended for a broad audience cannot be cism, particularly when the toes of regional predicted. specialists are trod upon. As has been co- The launching of the Canadian Prehistory gently noted, One of the problems confronting Series by the National Museum of Man with those who venture to bring together evidence the publication of Ontario Prehistory (Wright from separate fields is that they are certain to 1972) was followed by other regional volumes offend those who prefer specialization within a on Newfoundland and Labrador Prehistory limited and safer pasture" (Davidson 1988: xi). (Tuck 1976), Canadian Arctic Prehistory (Mc- The process of writing a synthesis often chal- Ghee 1978), Quebec Prehistory (Wright 1979), lenges local archaeological interpretations Maritime Provinces Prehistory (Tuck 1984), that have gone unquestioned and can encour- British Columbia Prehistory (Fladmark 1986), age people to view their subject matter from a and Western Subarctic Prehistory (Clark 1991) broader perspective. A synthesis provides a as well as the topical volumes consisting of Six teacher with a fine educational tool for the Chapters of Canadas Prehistory (Wright 1976), critical evaluation of students. It can also lead The Burial at L'Anse-Amour (McGhee 1976), to unpublished evidence being made available and The Dig (MacDonald and Inglis 1976). if for no other reason than to correct state- While a number of other regional syntheses ments made in the synthesis. At a pragmatic were produced by provincial societies and level, archaeologists need to inform a wide agencies, such as in Saskatchewan (Epp and audience of what they are doing as in most Dyck 1983), Southern Ontario (Ellis and Ferris cases their research funding depends upon 1990), and Alberta (Helgason 1987), the Cana- the public. If people do not know what you are dian Prehistory Series had a particular influ- doing they are not likely to be too concerned ence on considerations relating to the writing with your funding problems, particularly during of a national synthesis. This was mainly due to lean economic times when everyone is com- the fact that I was intimately associated with peting for shrinking resources. In terms of the the Canadian Prehistory Series and was able expansion of knowledge it is necessary that the to assess how the books were being received evidence from archaeology become incorpo- by the public. Ontario Prehistory, for example, rated with other disciplines such as history, went through three printings and became a geography, medicine, and the biological and best-seller. It became clear that a market earth sciences. With reference to history, for existed for general works in Canadian archae- example, it is unacceptable that the 12,000 ology. The uses to which the books have been years of native human history in Canada prior put are of interest. Ontario Prehistory, which to the arrival of the Europeans has been large- was never intended as an academic work, was ly ignored simply because there are no pre- used as an archaeology text at Simon Fraser European written records. History based upon University. When I asked "why?", the answer archaeological evidence has severe limitations was that "there is nothing else " . In a different but that is no reason for the record of past instance the book played a role in preserving human behaviour to be ignored or rejected as an important segment of the archaeological irrelevant. An archaeological synthesis can heritage. Thanks to the cooperation of the late also act as a reference work where a wide Dr. William E. Taylor, Jr., then Director of the range of esoteric interests can be met. Such National Museum of Man, copies of Ontario specific interests, for example, include native Prehistory were sent to each Native band in craftsmen learning for the first time that their the Province of Ontario with an enrollment of 6 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY No. 62, 1996

50 or more people. A direct reaction to this applying five absolute time periods across the institutional gesture of informing Native people entire country: Period I (10,000-8,000 BC); of what archaeology was able to say about Period II (8,000-4,000 BC); Period III (4,000-1,000 their ancestors was not expected but there BC); Period IV (1,000 BC-AD 500); and Period V were indrecti responses. These included the (AD 500-European contact). Discrete cultures Pic River Ojibway bands negotiations with the based upon the patterning of archaeological Federal Government regarding the ceding of evidence were designated by distinct names, land for a bridge right-of-way over the Pic River although it was recognized that such "cultures" in order to provide public access to Pukaskwa would have been composed of many inde- National Park. The band insisted that their pendent societies. The geographical distribu- heritage be protected from disturbance, the tions of the individual cultures were then map- referred to heritage being the pre-European ped to provide the dimension of space and sites at the mouth of the River and not the culture content. Fourteen of the seventy maps European trading posts as initially assumed by in Volume I of the Atlas were dedicated to pre- the white negotiators. When Indian and North- European or early European contact archaeo- ern Affairs officials asked where the sites the logical evidence. The maps were compiled by band wanted protected were located they were a number of scholars and consisted of the told to go talk to Jim Wright. One of these following: The Fluted Point People, 9500-8200 officials informed me of the foregoing events BC; Southern Ontario, 8600 BC; The Plano and also happened to mention that he noted a People, 8500-6000 BC; four cultural sequence copy of Ontario Prehistory sitting on the negoti- maps covering Periods II to V; Peopling the ation table. If I had not been approached by Arctic; The Coast Tsimshian, ca 1750; Bison Indian and Northern Affairs to provide the Hunters of the Plains; Iroquoian Agricultural locations of the pre-European and early con- Settlement; Prehistoric Trade; Cosmology; and tact archaeological sites at the mouth of the Population and Subsistence. It was decided Pic River I would never have learned of these that the majority of the maps would cover all of developments. Undoubtedly J. Norman Emer- Canada in order to provide the broadest sons involvement of the local people in the possible scope to the archaeological phenom- 1960 Pic River excavations and the distribution enon being mapped. Faced with the responsi- of the book Ontario Prehistory had paved the bility for the archaeological content of the way for actions that would eventually preserve maps I decided that the most pragmatic way to an important segment of the archaeological proceed was to have drafts of most of the heritage. The foregoing event highlights the maps put together at the Archaeological point that knowledge can be put to uses never Survey of Canada where I could exploit the entertained by the people who produce and expertise and close collaboration of my col- disseminate the knowledge. If people are leagues in the Survey. Such a centralized provided with information they will more often procedure permitted face-to-face consultation than not use it to good purpose but the infor- between nine archaeologists and a physical mation must first be made available in as anthropologist whose collective expertise comprehensible a form as possible. Such spanned the country. The draft maps would responses to the Canadian Prehistory Series then be distributed to selected scholars across convinced me of the need for archaeological the country who were encouraged to draw information to be more widely distributed. information directly on the draft maps and Much of the physical structure of the vol- provide critical comment and suggestions. umes currently under production was deter- These data could then be used to create an mined during the work on Volume I of the improved product. The process of distributing Historical Atlas of Canada (Harris and Matth- progressively refined maps was repeated a ews 1987). The requirement to map the pre- number of times and was probably the only European Native history of a country as envi- effective way to accommodate my editorial ronmentally and physiographically diverse as responsibilities including the meeting of pro- Canada posed major challenges. In any ar- duction schedules (for details of this procedure chaeological classificatory scheme the vari- see Wright [1986]). While an attempt was ables of time and culture content must be kept made to maintain as broad a consultation separate. This was achieved in the Atlas by process as possible with archaeologists ac- WRIGHT A HISTORY OF THE NATIVE PEOPLE OF CANADA ... 7

ross the country, time constraints placed limita- how the volumes of A History of the Native tions on such desirable dialogue. It was with People of Canada were approached, the some personal trepidation, therefore, that I creation of maps is quite a different exercise awaited the evaluation of archaeologists of the from producing a major reference work. For final product. After all, attempting to condense one thing, the space constraint demanded by masses of archaeological evidence, frequently the maps was no longer a problem. Also, an of an equivocal nature, into single maps cover- attempt could be made to rectify certain weak- ing the entire country or large segments there- nesses that had been incorporated in the Atlas of had never been done before. While a few maps. In the Atlas, for example, radiocarbon congratulatory letters were received from dates had been translated into calendar years individuals across the country it appeared that by subtracting the radiocarbon date from AD either archaeologists did not know what to 1950 to arrive at BC or AD or years ago state- make of such an exercise or were keeping ments. AD 1950 represents the cut-off year for critical comment to themselves or, even worse, radiocarbon dating due to atmospheric con- were indifferent. The archaeology plates in tamination by atomic weapon testing. The Volume I of the Atlas, for example, were never radiocarbon dating of tree rings that had been reviewed in an archaeological journal that I previously dated by counting the annual tree am aware of. As time passed, however, I noted ring wood growth following a method called that the Atlas maps were being referenced in dendrochronology indicated that there had archaeological journals suggesting their been major fluctuations through time in the acceptance by some as useful syntheses. production of atmospheric Carbon 14 and, as The Historical Atlas of Canada was enthusi- a result, radiocarbon years were not entirely astically received by a broad national and equivalent to calendar years and must be international scholarly audience (Piternick adjusted using calibration tables. Calibration 1993; 1994). This was gratifying as one of my ranges were determined by comparing the personal reasons for participating in the His- relationship of the radiocarbon dates to the torical Atlas of Canada Project was to see that absolute dates derived from dendrochronol- the pre-European archaeology of Canada ogy. All dates later than 7,240 years, the maxi- received appropriate coverage and that the mum time depth of tree ring dating, have in the evidence would then be available to a much current volumes been calibrated to allow for wider range of disciplines and individuals. fluctuations in the production of Carbon 14 Paradoxically, I learned after I had joined the through time. As the volumes are intended for editorial board of Volume I that if it had not a general readership is was imperative that been mainly for the efforts of two other board the radiocarbon dates be translated into members, Conrad E. Heidenreich of York calendric terms (for further discussion of this University and Bruce G. Trigger of McGill matter see Wright [1995:91). Changes to the University, I would not likely have been invited names of cultures used in the Atlas were also to join the board to take on the specific respon- necessary in order to establish a cultural sibility for the archaeological content. An early classificatory system appropriate to an entire query was even raised of whether archaeology country rather than parts of a country. Such could really contribute much to the Atlas. The changes meant that long-established regional foregoing is not repeated here as a bit of culture names were replaced with new names gossip but to emphasize the regrettable intel- that better accommodated a national perspec- lectual gap that still exists between history tive and, on occasion, logic a necessary based upon documentary evidence and history action, but one that is likely to be greeted with based upon archaeological evidence. This gap hostility from some quarters. Archaeological can only be closed by information and the cultures in Canada correlate with major increasing realization of both historians and environmental-physiographic zones such as archaeologists that they have the same goals the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence or the Plains. The even if they are achieved by quite different modified classification system also accommo- methods. dated cultural continuity when it transcended Although the involvement with the archaeol- a number of time periods by the use of the ogy plates of the Historical Atlas of Canada adjectives early, middle, and late or when a had a significant influence on some aspects of geographical split occurred in one of the time 8 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY No. 62, 1996 periods. For example, while Early Shield cul- out of control with devastating affect on publi- ture is described for Period II and Middle cation format. Shield culture for Period III, in Period IV signifi- This outline of the historical sequence of cant technological change made it necessary events leading to the work on the present to establish a Late Eastern Shield culture and volumes has been both personal and self- a Late Western Shield culture. Only time will centred but, as was mentioned at the begin- tell to what extent the new culture names and ning of the article, the process of producing a even the absolute time periods will be ac- synthesis is very much a personal matter. It is cepted, rejected or modified by Canadian a given, however, that the writing of such archaeologists. Such name changes, however, volumes is totally dependant upon the archae- had no effect upon the cultural distributions ological publications of past and present provided in the Atlas plates. generations of researchers. It has been conve- From the very beginning the volumes of A nient to write this article from a personal stand- History of the Native People of Canada were point but, like many words, "personal" has a conceived of as a reference work. As space number of nuances. Thus, I see no contradic- was not a significant problem it was decided to tion in the observation that produce three richly illustrated and heavily referenced volumes. Volume I, covering the 9,000 years involved in Periods I, II, and III, for "Writing such a synthesis is not as much a example, has 564 pages, a chart, seven tables, personal endeavour as a participation in a fourteen colour plates, twenty-one black and process contributed to by generations of white plates, three maps, and fifty-six figures scholars. The subject matter can be com- (Wright 1995). It is anticipated that Volume II pared to an ever-changing kaleidoscope of (1,000 BC-AD 500) and Volume III (AD 500- interplay between developing regional European contact) will be of approximately the cultural traditions and the cross-cutting same size and illustrative content. Each culture influences of technological and intellectual is described relative to one of the absolute time diffusion. Like history based upon written periods with treatment of the individual cul- documents, however, archaeologically tures advancing from east to west to north and based history should be rewritten every then back to east again to initiate the next time generation lest it becomes a series of anec- period. For ease of reference, each culture is dotes" (Wright 1995:7). described under the following captions: precis; cultural origins and descendants; technology; subsistence; settlement patterns; cosmology; And, with reference to the ultimate goal of external relationships; human biology; infer- the current synthesis, "Only through greater ences on society; and limitations in the evi- public understanding and appreciation will the dence. Although an index is lacking in the hard rich archaeological heritage left by the ances- copy the volumes are also being produced on tors of the native people of Canada be recog- diskettes and CD-ROM where the word search nized as an essential part of our national function will serve the purpose of an index. heritage, to be cherished and respected" Colour plates only appear in colour in the (Wright 1995:21). electronic formats. The diskettes and CD-ROM can be used to print hard copies of illustrations REFERENCES or text and to cut and paste pertinent sections into another document. Hyperlinks have been Clark, D.W. included to facilitate movement throughout the 1991 Western Subarctic Prehistory. Cana- text. Even the hard copy was produced elec- dian Prehistory Series, Archaeologi- tronically by the docutech method but, as it cal Survey of Canada, Canadian turned out, this procedure has limitations as Museum of Civilization, Ottawa. well as advantages relative to traditional Davidson, H.R.E. photo-offset printing. The word "cascade", for 1988 Myths and Symbols in Pagan Europe, example, no longer conjures a pastoral image Early Scandinavian and Celtic Reli- of a waterfall but rather the abject terror of gions. Syracuse University Press, having text and illustrative materials running Syracuse. WRIGHT A HISTORY OF' THE NATIVE PEOPLE OF CANADA ... 9

Ellis, C.J., and N. Ferris (editors) Piternick, A.B. 1990 The Archaeology of Southern Ontario 1993 The Historical Atlas of Canada / The to A.D.1650.Occasional Publication of Project Behind the Product. Cartogra- the London Chapter, Ontario Archae- phica 30(4):21-31. ological Society 5. London, Ontario. 1994 The Making of a Scholarly Research Epp, H.T., and I. Dyck (editors) Atlas: The Historical Atlas of Canada. 1983 Tracking Ancient Hunters, Prehistoric Reference Services Review 22(1):45- Archaeology in Saskatchewan. Sas- 55. katchewan Archaeological Society, Tuck, J.A. Regina. 1976 Newfoundland and Labrador Prehis- Fladmark, K.R. tory. Canadian Prehistory Series, 1986 The Prehistory of British Columbia. Archaeological Survey of Canada, Canadian Prehistory Series, National National Museum of Man, Ottawa. Museum of Man, Ottawa. 1984 Maritime Provinces Prehistory. Cana- Harris, R.C. (editor), and G.J. Matthews (cartog- dian Prehistory Series, Archaeologi- rapher) cal Survey of Canada, National Mu- 1987 Historical Atlas of Canada, Volume I, seum of Man, Ottawa. From the Beginning to 1800. Univer- Wright, J.V. sity of Toronto Press, Toronto. 1972 Ontario Prehistory, An Helgason, G. Eleven-thousand-year Archaeological Out- 1987 The First Albertans, An Archaeologi- line. Canadian Prehistory Series, cal Search. Lone Pine Publishing, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Edmonton. National Museum of Man, Ottawa. MacDonald, G.F., and R.I. Inglis 1976 Six Chapters of Canadas Prehistory. 1976 The Dig, An Archaeological Recon- Canadian Prehistory Series, Archae- struction of a West Coast Village. ological Survey of Canada, National Canadian Prehistory Series, Archaeo- Museum of Man, Ottawa. logicial Survey of Canada, National 1979 Quebec Prehistory. Canadian Prehis- Museum of Man, Ottawa. tory Series, Archaeological Survey of McGhee, R. Canada, National Museum of Man, 1976 The Burial at LAnse-Amour. Cana- Ottawa. dian Prehistory Series, Archaeologi- 1986 Mapping Canada s Prehistory. Trans- cal Survey of Canada, National Mu- actions of the Royal Society of Can- seum of Man, Ottawa. ada (Series V) I:203-206. 1978 Canadian Arctic Prehistory. Cana- 1995 A History of the Native People of Can- dian Prehistory Series, Archaeologi- ada, Volume I (10,000-1,000 BC). Ar- cal Survey of Canada, National Mu- chaeological Survey of Canada, Mer- seum of Man, Ottawa. cury 152, Canadian Museum of Civili- zation, Ottawa

J. V. Wright, Curator Emeritus, Canadian Museum of Civilization 100 Laurier Street, P.O. Box 3100, Station B, Hull, Quebec J8X 4H2