Submitted in Partial Fulfillnent July 1983

ZOOARCHAEOLOGY IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL CANADIAII SHIELD:

AI{ ASSESSMENT OF ITS CURRXMI USE AND POTEMIAL

T^TITH AN EXAMPLE FROM

I.AKE OF THE WOODS

Ann Balner

Department of Anthropology

Submitted in partial fulfillnent of the requirements for Èhe degree of Haster of Arts

Faculty of Graduate Studies The Unfversity of Manitoba I.tinnipeg, Manitoba

July 1983 ZOOARCHAEOLOGY IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL CANADIAN SHIELD:

AN ASSESSMENT OF ITS CURRENT USE AND POTENTIAL

I,{ITH AN EXAMPLE FROì,I

LAKE OF THE I,IOODS

Ann L. Bal"mer

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of the University of Manitoba in partial fulfillment of the requirenrents of the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

o 1983

Permission has been granted to the LIBRARY OF THE UNIVER- SITY OF MANITOBA to lend or sell copies of this thesis. to the NATIONAL LIBRARY OF CANADA to microfilnr this thesis a¡rd to lend or sell copies of the film, and UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS to publish an abstract of this thesis.

The author reserves other publication rights, and neither the thesis nor extensive extracts from it may be priuted or other- wise reproduced without the author's writte¡r pernrissiorr.

1\ '1 i:T ü. I,i ¡J

{.lI ri,i..rilJ / tì:t&4

{,s,fIåË$ ABSTRACT

A review of archaeological síte reports from sites in the souËh- central Canadian Shield (northwesËern Ontario and adjacent areas of northern and eastern Manítoba and norËhern Minnesota) de¡nonstrates that minímum requirements for the recovery, analysis and reporting of zooarchaeological- data are not consistently meË in this area. consequenËly, these daÈa are not being used to their ful-l potentíal. Reasons for this situation are ísolated and t$ro categories are identifíed: 1) Ëhe general approach of researchers Ëo zooarchaeological data, and 2) physical conditions of the deposits and the samples encountered during excavatíon and anal-ysis. Modifications to the exisEing approaches Ëo zooarchaeological- data are suggested. Major problems wiLh zooarchaeological analysis in the study area are Èhe lack of clear seasonality indicators, and the lack of stratification ín the cultural deposits. A procedure for anËícípatíng and interpreting subsistence activit,ies represented by faunal assemblages from sites characterÍzed by Ëhese problems is presented. Emphasis is placed on the recogníËion of sets of subsistence activities that characterize different tÍmes of the year (Rogers L962:C4; Jochim 1976:45). These economic seasons are presenËed as multiple working hypotheses wiËh spe- cífic test irnplícations regarding the relative abundance of different taxa in the faunal remains from occupation duríng each season. The faunal material from three siËes on Lake of the Woods is used

Èo test the hypoËheses and two of the sites are provisionally identified as predominanÈly spring occupation remains, and one as predominantly fal1 oceupation remaíns. This analysis and a regional comparíson r¿ith faunal

l-al_ assemblages from other sites in Ehe study area indícate that some taxa consistently appear Ín the sites, whí1e some are very scarce. In view of the seasonal hypotheses and test ímplications, this suggests: 1) that some kinds of archaeological data, representing segnenEs of the seasonal- subsisËence strategy, are rare or missing, 2) the ethnographÍc descriptions do not wholly apply to prehistoric subsistence adapËations in the study area, and/or 3) the possibility of prehistoric subsisÈence al-ternatives. The results of the analysis and theír inplícatÍons for the procedure, the traditional perception of'subsistence patterns in the study atea' and the archaeological sample are discussed. Modifications Ëo the procedure outlined are suggested, including: 1) more rigorous use of ecologícal and ethnohistorical daÈa in formulating the seasonal hypotheses and test implications, and 2) incorporation of the possibility of more than one set of subsistence activities associated wiEh a.particular season. Irnportant Èopics for further research indicated by this study are presented.

1V ACKNOI,.ILEDGEMENTS

Howard Savage encouraged my initial interest in subsístence sEudies and provided my first opportunity Ëo learn the ruCÍments of faunal analysis, and to him r arn grateful. The faunal material used ín Ehis thesis

comes from three siEes on Lake of the Woods t,hat were excavated under an

Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Culture 1Ícence held by C.S. Reid (Northwest Regional Archaeologist) berv¡een 1975 and Ig77. I.t/ou1d. like to thank him for his support in providing additional site information in the ínitÍa1 stages of the analysis. Also, r would like Eo thank the readers on my committee, Dr. E. Leigh syms (archaeological curaEor, Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature) and Dr. !.'I.o. pruiLt (DepartmenE of Zoology, university of Manitoba) for many useful comments and suggestions. rn parÈicular, r extend. thanks to my thesis advisor, Dr. Greg Monks (Department of Anthropology, Uníversity of ManiÈoba), whose interesÈ and experÍ'ence in subsistence studies r¡rere very valuab1e. Linda Galen and John PeËers did most of the drafting and r am grateful for Êheir assistance' Dr' Robert tr^Iall, John Peters and Rebecca Balcom provided ad.vice, ideas and valuable comments in Ehe course of numerous conversaEions. rt is to John, for his consÈant support, encouragement, assistance and. compani.onship that I am especially grareful.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

LIST OF TABLES v1

LIST OF FIGURES vtl_ . LIST OF APPENDICES v].l-t

CHAPTER

I OUTLINE OF THE PROBLU-I I InËroduetion I An Ecologícal Orientation I Zooarchaeology 3 Conceptual Approach 5 Minimum Requirements and the Sample . 7 Faunal Remains and Previous Archaeologícal Research in the Study Area T2 Recent Excavation Reports L7 Reasons for the Under-Utilization of Zooarchaeo- logical Data in the Study Area 2 3 Physical Conditions . 2 J Coneeptual and Methodological Approach to the Data 24 Thesis 0utline 27

II A CASE STUDY FROM LAKE OF THE WOODS 28

The SeÈtÍng 28 Physiography 2B C1ínate 31 Vegetat,ion . 31 Fauna 35 The Sites 37 Meek Site 37 Ash Rapids tr^/est SiËe 39 Ash Rapids East Site 42 Excavation Methodology 42 The Artifacts 44 Ceramics 44 Lithics 47 Faunal Remains 47 Artifact ContexÈ and Post-DeposÍtional Disturbance 47 IntroducËion 47 DisËurbance Processes 51 Other Sources of Mixture 57

vl- TABLE 0F CONTENTS (continued)

CHAPTER PAGE

II Bias and Mixture of the Faunal Samples Disturbance 60 On-Síre Sanpling 60 60 Recovery Techniques . preservation 61 Differential . . Suggested Modifícations procedures 62 to 63

III EXPECTATIONS FOR SEASONAL FAUNAL EXPLOITATION 65 Introduction Review of 65 Current Subsistence Strategy Model . Faunal Resource procurement 65 Schedule . 68 Archaeological Test Implícatíons of Six Seasonal Hypotheses for Site OccupatÍon 85 Expected Seasonal Abundancá of Faunal Remains Settlement Location 86 89

IV LAKE OF THE IIIOODS ARCHAEOFAUNAS 95 Introduction Methodology 95 Quantífication 95 Skeletal Elements 95 Assumptions 100 100 Seasonality of Ëhe Occupations Meek Site 101 Ash Rapíds trIest Site 106 Ash Rapíds East Site 110 Skeletal LT4 RepresenËation by Species . Duration and purpose 1i8 of the òccupations 119 General Discussion . Regional Comparisons r24 Mamnals r26 Fish 128 Birds 133 r34 V CONCLUSIONS r37 A Procedure for l_nterpreting Faunal Assernblages from Lake of the Woods and ihe SËudy Area r37 ModifÍcatíons to Ëhe procedure Methodological Considerations r43 Sampling 145 Recovery 145 Reporting r47 r49 Further Research . . 150 REFERENCES CITED 151

v1r_ LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE 1. Site formation processes 9 2 Examination of Èhe treatment of faunal remains in excavatíon reports from the study area . . 20

J Faunal taxonomic breakdown of Lake of the Woods assemblages +U/,a 4 Population characteristj.cs of the primary faunal resources for the study area 69 5 Seasonal_ avaÍlabilÍty of primary faunal resources in the sÈudy area and expected period of maÍn exploitation 76 6 seasonal availability of secondary faunal resources Ín Èhe study area 76 7 Spawning tj.mes and habitats for fish species aggregate Eha t seascnally in Lake of the In/oods 82 I Archaeological test implications of six seasonal hypotheses for site occupations o/,

9 Range of fauna represented. at Ehree Lake of the l^ioods sites . IO2 i0. Meek Site fauna; comparison with expected seasonal abundances . . i07 11. Ash Rapids tr{esr Sire fauna; comparison wiEh seasonal expected abundances ll i 12. Ash Rapids Easr SiEe fauna; comparison wiLh seasonal expecEed abundances li5

13. Lithic tool frequencies 14") . LLJ 14. Zoological class breakdown for faunal remains 19 sites in the from stud,y area .127 15 seasonality and Ehe rank ord,ers of Ehe three abundant most species from 19 sites in Ehe study area 1?o I6 Number of occurrences in the rank orders main for the mammalian species from 16 sites in the sËudy area I t^

viii LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE rAU¡- 1. Study area and sites discussed 13 , PhysÍographic regions in che Lake of the Woods area ,a 3. Vegetation zones in the Lake of the Woods area 32 4. Lake of the trIoods and siLe locations 38 5. Meek Site, excavation plan 40 6. Ash Rapids WesË Site, excavation plan 4T 7. Ash Rapids EasÈ SÍte, excavation plan 4J 8. Numerical distribution of Lake of the woods faunal Eaxa gg

1X LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX PAGE A The mechanics of frost heave L62 B The Meek Síre DjKp-3, Area B L67 c The Ash Rapids l,iest Sire L73 D The Ash Rapids East Site, Area A 178 E Faunal taxonomic 1ísts 183 I Meek; identifiable bone 185 2 Meek; unidentÍfÍab1e bone 192 3 Ash Rapids l,Iesr; identifíable bone 194 4 Ash RapÍds l{est; unidenrifiable bone 202 5 Ash Rapids Easr; identifiable bone 204 6 Ash Rapids East; unidenrifiable bone. 209 F Fauna: scientÍfÍc nomenclature 2LI G Flora: scientific nomenclature 2r6

x CHAPTER T

OUTLTNE OF THE PROBLU"Í

Introduction

The al-rn of thÍs study is to demonstrate that zooarchaeology has greater potential for archaeological research lrithin the south-central

canadian shield than is generally recognized. Zooarchaeology i_s concerned r¡ith the anal-ysis and cultural ínterpretation of the faunal remains of human activítíes (olsen and olsen 19Bl:rg2). A najor goal of zooarchaeology is the reconstructíon of animal exploitatÍ.on patterns and the development of an undersËanding of their determinants and inter- relationships wíth other aspects of a culture. cultural faunal remains are by-products of the acquisition of food, shelter, and/or tool-s, including ríÈua1 materials. consequenÈly, zooarchaeological analysis is pertinent to any question concerníng subsistence adaptations. Factors relating to subsístence strategíes seem to have prímary importance for organízing other aspects of a socio- cultural system (Jochin L976212), and the analysís of subsisÈence data

ís critical to an understanding of many culturaL phenomena. Zooarchaeo- logy is therefore important in the reconstruction of regional chrono- logies, lifeways and processual change.

An Ecologícal Orient.ation

The general approach adopted here is ecological and reflects a concern ¡¿íth the behaviour of groups of people interacting with their physical and socíal environments. smith and winterhalder (I9gl:g)

1 2

stress the importance of focussing on the tt...relaEionship betv¡een behavioral and envíronmenral variability...Iin order to dj.scern the]... relaËive influences of interacting causes..." on cultural adaptation.s.

An ecological approach has been employed in Èhe analysis of archaeological naterials by researchers in different geographic and environmental areas (e.e. clark 1952, L954; Flannery and coe 196g; Firzhugh L972; sÈruever 1968)" Adjacenr ro Èhe south-eencral shield, ecological analyses have been carried out of a bison kilI site in Minnesota'(Shay 1971), southwesËern Manitoba site materials (Syrns lg77), and settlement

systems south of the upper Grear Lakes (Fitring and cleland 1969).

Despite this emphasis, winterhalder (1977:3), in a dÍssertatÍon on the

application of evolutionary ecologÍca1 theory to the study of human foragíng adapÈations, claims thaÈ,

.. "ecological understanding of hunting and gathering remains limited. Anthropologists sËil1 have lÍttle noÈion of what constitúEes the sÍgnificant environmenE of a forager - the variables of an ecosystem which Èhe forager or foraging group adapts to or influences.

cont,inued work in archaeology and anthropology on human foraging adap-

ËaEions Eo specific environments is needed

At the hunting and gathering or foraging level of subsisEence,

the seasonal seÈtleroent pattern, Èechnorogy, Erade relationships, socía1 organization and division of labour are closely related to the process of obtaining food and shelter from the 1ocal environment. The subsis-

lence resources represent a roajor segTrent of the environment to which a foraging population adapts. As such, their remaÍns provide important data for the analysis of the inÈeraction of human populations with Èheir environments, and of the development of various adaptations" Consequently, the analysis of t,he animal portion of the subsistence remains is 3

crÍtical to an ecological approach.

Zooarchaeology

The inÈerpretation of archaeofaunas has contribuEed Eo our understanding of a variety of. past cultural adaptations to differí.ng environ- EenEs, from hunting and gatheríng (clark 1954; smirh 1975, l97g; cleland

L966; Munson et al. r97L; straus rg77) to sedentary occupation and the

beginnings of animal domesticaÈÍon (Flannery 1967; Meadow l97g; Reed

1969, 1971). There is, however, stíI1 considerable lack of agreemenr

on the pertinent questions, goals and future directions of zooarchaeo-

logy (cf . Lyman 1982; l,tinrerhalder and snirh I9B1; Bobrowsky 19g0). The tern zooarchaeology has been defined in several different

e¡ays (e.g. 01sen and olsen l98l; Legge r97B; Bobrowsky 19g0, r9g2; Lyman

1982). 01sen and olsen's (lg8t:193) proposed use of the term has been

accepted for the purpose of the present study. rÈ is viewed here as

the branch of archaeology which is concerned with the "... sE,udy of the relationships between humans and fauna in an archaeological context,, (O1sen and Olsen 1981:193)" This clearly involves üore than identifying and listíng the faunal remains from sítes (cf. Snith Ig76). It involves asking not only "what, when and v¡here" questions (e.g. Lynan l9B2:335), but "why" questions as well as quesÈions relatíng the cultural and environmental variables involved (e.g. Suith and Winterhalder lggi: L-L2). Thus, zooarchaeological informaËion includes the actual archaeological faunal (archaeofaunal) remains as well as their contextual information and data contributing directly Eo their interpretation.

Archaeofaunal materials reflecL a strategy of particular species 4

selections, scheduled ín a particular way. A varíet.y of factors carr

affect these subsistence choices and the strategy mêy change in response to changes in the envj.ronment of the exploiting population. The isola-

tion of these factors and the ways in which they, and variation in them,

influence food procurement strategies are problems of prÍ-mary import,ance

to understanding the development of human adaptat.ions"

The choices made in the scheduling of resource procurement impose requirements and restrictions on oËher aspects of cultural organizaEion,

such as population aggregation and dispersal, and. group act.ivities and

compositibn. Zooarchaeological analysis can contribute to questions on these issues by províding seasonalíty, resource exploitation and deposí-

tional information that suggest a framework within which to study the adap-

tation of a group Èo a particular area. This potential is reflected by the growing interest in drawing from archaeological remaíns (ineluding faunal material) inferences about aspects of social, ideological, and political

organizatíon of prehistoric groups. The extraction of this kind of behavioural information requires viewi.ng craditional classes of archaeological data in different ways in order to isolate those attríbutes and patterns thaE may yíe1d information on the workings of the various cultural subsystems (cf. Binford L978,1980; Redman L978; smÍrh 1978; weissner l9B2). For instance, üleissner (1982l.174), in dÍ-scussing risk-reducing strategies of sharing versus storage, suggests a predictable relaÈionship between the particular strategy and patterning in the faunal remains.

Detailed analysis of zooarchaeologÍcal data is necessary for the comparison of expected versus archaeologically observed patterns and for the inference of generalizations to be tested further. Examination of the behavj-our responsible for archaeological patterning therefore depends on 5

soPhisÈicated zooarehaeologícal analysis. It is especially critical for two additional reasons. First, given Èhe possibílí'ty of the existence of uore than one successful adaptive strategy in che same area (Weissner 1982:176; Binford 198I:244; Spiess L979:243; Keene I98l:i90), rhe acrual

sÈrategy rePresenÈed by the Eaterials under analysis utust be de¡nonstrated rather Èhan assumed. Second, archaeofaunal materials are generally only part of the total food and shelter remains, and t,hose from single sites or single types of sites usually represent only part of integr.ated

subsistence and settlenent systems. It is necessary to be able Èo compare and integraÈe zooarchaeological data on r ,"gio.,"1 scale wi¡h re-

mains frora complementary types of sj-tes to identify and explain these strategies and systems.

Conceptual Approach

The collection of pertinent data requires the development of a research design containlng specific questions before excavation begins

as well as meticulous recovery Ëechniques and careful documenEation. The conceptual approach to artifact classes and aËtribuÈes and their roles within the socíety will affect sampling, recovery and analysis of the naterial" Binford (r972), Flannery (i97i), and clarke (i97g) have presented the viewpoinÈ that cultural subsystems and, their component parts do not necessarily vary EogeËher. Major change could occur in one subsysÈem while another remained stable or gradually continued in an established direction of change. Binford has argued that, differences and simílarities between different classes of archaeological remains reflect different subsysteurs and hence may be expected to vary independenrly of each other in the normal operation of the system or during change in the system (1972:193) . 6

In addiÈion,

... culture ís multivariate, and its operation ís to be understood Ín terms of many causally relevant variables whÍch uay functíon independently or ín varyÍng combinaEions.... Our taxononies should be framed wirh rhis in nind (1972:199) .

Fron thís poÍnt of view, it is not surprising t,haÈ the boundaries

of the remains of these subsystems do not always coincide but oft.en cross- cut each other spatÍal1y and,/or teroporally. Fitting (1975:33) nentions

overlapping boundaries of settlement patterns and artifact Èypes south

of the Upper Great takes. A similar situaEion can be observed in the

Mídd1e and "Late woodland material from northr¡estern Ontarío and easÈern Manitoba with regard to liÈhic and cera¡sic boundaries and settleuent-

subsistence PatÈerns" For example, ceramics classified as Blackduck are found in the Manitoba Aspen Parkland in association with bison bones of sufficient quantities to indicate specialized bison hunting (Syms 1977 z

97-107; Hamilton 1981:99). Blackduck ceramics also occur in the Bor.eal

Forest of norÈhwestern Ontario in association with the rernains of the forest fauna such as beaver, moose, muskrat, fish and waterfowl. The possibility exists for different arrifact classes and aËtri- butes to vary differentially from each other, and/or in response to different stinuli. Therefore, consÍderation should be given to the patterns within the faunal remains themselves, as well as other cul¡ural remains, in order Eo identify eulturally relevant unit.s of analysis. Attention

¡nust be directed toward identifying the deterninants of E.he paEterning of faunal remains, the ways in which these remains reflect ehange and stability in the subsistence subsystem, and the ways Ín ç¡hich their patterns and variation relate to those of other cultural remains and to social behaviour. rn order to do this, the information gained fron the faunal material should be an integral part of the overall archaeological 7

analysis and interpretat.ion

Minimum Requirements and Èhe Sample

The integration of archaeofaunal remains inÈo a reconstructed dynamic adaptive strategy requires, at the minimum, careful collection,

expl-icit reporting and sÈandardizatíon allowing inEersíEe comparisons. As the sophistication and complexity of the desired information increases,

so does the importance of contextual information on the artifacts and

knowledge of the d"t"trin.nts of artj.factual distributj-on. SortÍng out

the evidence for short and long term occupation, single or mult.ip1e season use, single or rnultiple purpose use, and size of occupation re-

quires careful consideration of the patterns of deposit resulËing from

various conbinations of behavÍour such as seasonal choice of siLes and species, ways of solvíng logistical problems such as transport of resources, \¡rays of butchering and sharing different species, and ways of discarding waste.

Grayson (1979:229) and Bobrowsky (1980:96) srress rhe need ro

examine Èhe ways in which assernblages have been and are affected by processes of disposal, deposition, preservation, disturbance, recovery and analysis. The idea Ehat there are cultural and natural factors

prior to, during, and after deposition of material which affect the composition of the deposit is not new, i.e. taphonomy (cf. Brain I976;

Gifford 1981; schiffer 1972, 1975; Thonas r97r; wood and Johnson l978;

Zeígler 1973). There is, however, a general tendency to assume that the

recovered bone sample is representative not on1-y of that deposited but also ". .. of the lanimal] populations abouÈ which inferences are being made" (Grayson I981:82). Although the relationship between Ëhe recovered B

sample and the target population is complex, an atteupt should be made

to assess critically the extent to rvhich Èhe tvro may differ. ït is unlikely that Èhe recovered bone sample is the saue as that culturally

exploíted, brought to the site, or even deposited on the site. The recovered material and íts context must be exa¡rined for evidence of

the determinants of the observed'pattern before interpretation can be-

gin' Gifford (1981:393) has recenÈly discussed some of the processes that structure bone assemblages, and states thaÈ, The search for regular and ecologically relevant linkages between staÈic aÈtribuEes of the fossil record and their dynamic causes and associations is Èhe key to progress in understanding Èhe prehistoric evidence. Listed below (Tab1e l) are four main categories of sources of patterning in bone assemblages.

A number of críteria have been suggested as minimum requirements for the recovery, analysis and reporting of zooarchaeorogical daÈa (Clason 1972). Four main categories can be isolaÈed: 1) Sampling and recovery uethodology, 2) soil strarificatÍon and aisturbãnå" ur""""men., 3) Bone analysis and presentation, and. 4) rntegration of bone analysis with overall analysis. The first tv¡o involve an ar¡Tareness of the ways in which the sampre nay have been shaped by the physical conditions of the site and the recovery methodology chosen. The last two involve the ways in which the analysis techniques and prehistoric cultural behaviour may have shaped the sample. The following discussion is organized under these headings. Samplins and recoverv methodolo

The identificaÈion of different occupation strata or depositional events is important in linking Ehe observed depositional patterns with behavioural patterns. IE is iEportanÈ for the identificaÈion of cul- 9

Table l: Sources of patterning in bone assemblages (nodified afrer texr by Gifford lgBl) 1) Selective transport Èo or away frouo location of depos or occupation í t Ie.; seasonal, distance and transport logistics b loca1 availabÍliry of food (degree of processing) and resource selection c size of anímal Aqav; a. food preservation (meat wiCh bones) b. díscard behaviour c" scavengers

2) Differential destruction or atErition of certain skeletal elements and sizes of bone a soil chemistry b scavengers c human activities

3) Post-depositional disturbance of artifacE context

4 human occupation activity b natural causes (".g. frost heave, flooding) c scavengers

4) Excavation meÈhods and recovery bias a. sampling b. screen mesh size c. flotation

turally meaningful units of analysís for seasonaliEy estimates (Monks l98r:223) and for the calculation of proportional frequencies of species and species diversíty, and is related to Ëhe interpretation of occu- paEion length, size, and activities. The identification of different depositional events is particularly difficult in areas vriÈh shall_oçl scil deposits and seasonally re_occupied sites. I{ith the iurportance and potential difficulty of r,he idenEificarion of a meaningful cultural straLr¡m, it "... becomes iurperative that ureti_ culous field techniques be applied to recover an. keep separaie the 10

materials from apparently dÍfferent depositÍonal eventsrr (Monks tggl: 223) . thÍs not only applies to careful- control of the vertical context of individual specimens but the horizontal contexÈ as wel-1. There should be an explicít description of sanpling and recovery nethods Íncluding ex_ cavation Èechniques, screen mesh size, flotation, and Èhe size of the sampl-e, as well as an assessment of the possibl-e biases resultíng from these methodological choíces. rt has been deuonstrated that the type of recovery technique employed affects the context and content of the archaeofaunal dara (Bobrowsky l9g0:100; payne rg72, 1975; Garson l9g0). The rnethodological choices made regarding artifactual recovery affect the infornation obtained and the level of analysis pertaining to the

next three categories. Subsequent díscussion in Èhis thesis addresses the practical iurportance of careful stratigraphic conÈror.

Soil stratifÍcation and disturbanc e assessmenÈ Since the depositional context (e.g. soil maÈrix, stratification)

of archaeological material-s is Írnportant in the analysÍs of observed patterns, its descríption and assessment are critícal to the archaeo- logícal analysÍs and ínterpreration (wood and Johnson l97g:315). An evaluation of the evidence for disturbance of the deposit should also be nade. As many naturar disturbance processes do not leave readily díscernible evidence, however, the potential for dísturbance of the par_ ticular deposit should be evaluared (Wood and Johnson l97g:370). Bone analysÍs and presentation The nethods used in analysing the bone should be described and the data presented. It 1s also important to record and report enough information to al1ow recovery of conÈextual data for individual bones. For example, horizont,al provenience may be related not only to discrete 11

occuPations but to activities such as butchering and dÍscarding of bones,

resulting in differential distributÍon of different sized bones and differenÈ species across a site. The patterns are lost if this infor-

mation is not recoverable duríng anal.ysÍs. rf descriptíon of the context and analysis methods for the bone are onitted frcm a report, other researchers have no means of assessing the valÍdity of the information

and interpretations and Íncorporatiog then into ,...expl_anatory models of adaptive strategies, culÈure change, paleoenvÍronmental inÈerpreta- tions and other vital research questíons" (Bobrowsky l9g0:103).

Inteeratí on of the bone analysis To provide a complete archaeological analysís involving the in- terpreÈation of adaptive strategies and cultural stability and/or change, the conclusions drawn from the faunal data should be integrated into the overall archaeological interpretation. rn addÍtion, the ex_ plícÍt deseriptíon of recovery, analytÍc, and interpretive approaches t¡ou1d greatly increase the usefulness of reported zooarchaeological data (Bobrowsky 1980; Meadow l97g; Lyman I9g2). Lynan (I9g2:336) goes even further to suggest the need to use comparable techniques so that

Íntersíte comparisons of zooarchaeological data can be made. rn sumnary, zooarchaeorogical data have the potential for providing resource exploitatfon and socio-economic information crit,ical to an undersÈandÍng of the behavioural patterns whích produced the archaeological record. Bone should not be treated as an artifact class which ís dependent for analysis on the patterns of another artifact class' The patterns of faunal remains should be analysed r¿ith regard to their recovery context and the cultural patterns whích may have produced them and then compared to patternÍng in other artifacts. Bone 12

is complement.ary to other classes of data.

Discussion of ninimum requirements f.ot zooarchaeological- research and reportÍng (Clason 1972; L1,man I9B2; Bobrowsky l9g0; DrÍver lgg2) has been pronpted by a concern wíÈh the lack of serious attention to zooarchaeologieal data in much archaeological work. Thís situaÈion is reflected by the lack of reported infornation necessary for a reader to evaluate and compare Èhe daÈa. rn revier¡ing archaeological reports,

these requirement.s can be used as indicators of the approach Èaken to the faunal materíal and its interpretation. The following section reviev¡s the analysis and presentation of faunal remains in archaeolo-

gical work wíthÍn the study area in general-, and some recent archaeological reports ín partÍcul-ar, in the cont,ext of the foregoing díscussion.

Faunal Remaíns and Previous Archaeoloeica I Research in the Study Area

the study area encompasses the southern edge of the canadian

shield Ín northwestern ontario, northern and eastern Manitoba, and northern Mínnesota (Figure l). Until recently,

the existing nodel for Manítoba and the Ï{estern canadian Pl-ains and much of the Boreal Forest was the chronological Model.... ThÍs urodel consÍsts of a series of sequentiã11y stacked rculturesr. l{ithin Manitoba, the chronological Model was developed usÍng data from a few test excavations, tindex identífying certain normative types of artífacÈs as fossilst, and piacing clust,ers of artifacts into a series of focÍ or 'culÈureä' (syms 1977:4). The cultural sequences for southeastern Manítoba were oríginally defined using the cerauic vessel morphology and decoration as the main díst.in- guÍshing feature in the later levels (!ùoodland períod). DescrÍbing MacNeish's (1958) work, Mayer-oakes (19672344) says, "rn the four re_ naining [most recent] foci ceramics become the primary means for 13

lndian Lake

.c 0 OD

uryrtstu

Sandy TrutvBis\ \ Låke

.F oG H Lac J ol S€ul K õ

M tP 's o ¡,.ake R lrÞ,-t- Nip'gofl fu4 ¿< r-.¡__ì

50050rm KILOMÊfERS

Lake Superior

Figure 1: Study area and sites discussed. See page 14 for key llr

KEY TO FIGURE 1

A. Kame Hills Site (Dickson 1980) B. SIL 257 (Hanna 1975) C. Notigi Lake Site (tr'Iíersum and Tisdale L977)

D. Wapisu Lake Site (Tisdale and Jamieson 1982)

E. Tailrace Bay Site (Lukens, in Mayer-Oakes L970)

F. lI'f-B (T,itt1e Manigotagan Lake) (Buchner L979) G. Potato Island Site (Birch Lake) (Koezur and l^Iright 1976) H. hrenesaga Rapids Site (Hamilton i981)

I. Fisk Site (Rajnovich, Reid and Shay 1982) J. Ash Rapids West Site

K. Ash Rapids East SiEe L. Meek Síte

M. Long SaulË Site (Arthurs 1982) N. Smith Village (LugenbeaL I976)

0. Smith Mound 4 (Lukens, in Stoltman 1973)

P. McKinstry Mound 1 (Lukens, in Stoltman L973) a. Pike Bay Mound 1 (Lukens, in Stoltman 1973) R. Lady Rapids Site (Callaghan 1982)

S" McCluskey Site (Burns, in Dawson L974) 15

suggesting and interpretÍng cultural change and relationshiptt. Cera- nÍc differenÈÍatÍon has continued to be the basis for idencifying prehistoric "culturestt and díscussíng rrcultural change". Ceramícs have been traditionally used as the hallnarks of archaeological culËures, given thaÈ the deÈails and varÍeties of patterned traits are (1) relatÍvely abundanÈ, and (2) they are assumed to reflect culture-specific notrtrs to a greater degree rhan lírhíc or bone rools (TÍsdale L97B:73). Ceramic complexes are traditionall-y more sensit,ive indicaÈors of culÈural boundaríes and evolvíng changes than lithic tools such as projectile poínts (Syns 1977 zI2). The development of thÍs emphasís is relaÈed to the high visibilíty of differences in ceramics. The differences Ín decoration and vessel morphology exhibit spatio-temporal patterning, the ¡oeaning of which, hor¿ever, has not been seriously addressed in relation to the meaning of the Patterníng of other classes of remains. The proportíonal content of stylístic and functional (in the sense of actual use of the Ítern) variation in, and their relative cont.ríbution to, the ceramic typologies has not been examíned. This can result in the dírection of inappropriate quest.ions to the data and a lack of attentíon Èo other classes of data which rnay yield sinilar and/or complementary information. A major problem r¿ith the Manítoba and norËhwestern Ontarío cultural sequence is Èhat it was defined and perpetuated on the basis of archaeological materials from complicated contexts in sites wíth compact strat,ification, sÍtes r¡hich contain the remains of nultiple occupations that do not have sterile soil separaËing them or clear sequentíal stratification (syrns 197724, 66, 301). Alrhough he did arrempr to derive a sequence from floodplain as opposed to lakeshore deposíts, MacNeish excavated in six inch levels and hís rfocit were treated as sequential, non-overlapping entities even though the materials did exhíbíÈ overlap L6

or mixture. This cuLtural seguence has been generall-y adhered to by other researchers, and overlap has been ignored even when foci could noË be stratÍgraphically separaÈed and when carbon-l4 dates began to indicate overlap of foci. Clarke (1978t263) cal-led this the cul-rural bríck theory in whÍch artifact assembl-ages are viewed as "... rigid monothetÍc grouPs of artefacts with identÍcally shared distributíons".

Although overlap was occasionally acknowledged, it nas assumed to resul-t from some sorÈ of (usually unspecified) nixture, and the ceramic and lithic materlal-s were treated as if they occurred in temporally discrete uníts. Materials were often forced ínto the existing structure and the significance of any overlap \ras not addressed (Syms 1977 z4).

An inplicit assumption of this rnethod of analysis is that ceramícs constituted an integral and inportant enough part of the culture which produced them that they could be equaÈed r¿ith socÍal groups, and that changes ín the ceramics would reflect changes in the rest of Èhe culture. This assumes, however, that the behavíoural paÈËerns resulting in different cl-asses of archaeologieal remains are directly related and covary (cf. Binford 19722262-263). Thís approach has ÍmportanÈ inplications for the interpretation of faunal remaíns associated r¿ith the ceramics. The faunal remaÍns get tÈemporally forced into these discrete cultural unÍtst without reBard for patterníng in the remains themselves. The faunal sanples have been rcomponentsr analysed ín vertícal groupings or as defÍned by the ceramÍc (and sornetimes líthic) materials, which often overlap, ie., faunal remains are treat.ed as dependent varj.ables while ceramícs and lithícs are treated as índependent. varíab1es. Thus, tculturalr units are predefined and faunal samples play líÈtle or no parË in their definitíon T7 or in the delineati.on of fculÈuralt changes. DefinÍng comPonents Ín this way uray easily obscure patterns of variation or sÈabiliÈy in the faunal sanple and it ígnores the fact that, though ceramíc stylistic decoration and subsistence choÍces may serve related functions wíthin the livfng society, they do not serve identical functions and do not necessarily vary Ín the same way, at the same tÍme, or in response to the same pressures. The faunal remaíns from excavations in the study area have us- ual1y been included as a mÍnor section of the report" They have occa- síonaI1y been used to provide some evidence of seasonal occupation and/or acÈivity and a suggestion of the general subsistence base. For example, Wiersum and Tisdale (1977:35) identÍfy "... a diffuse Middle I.Ioodland repertoire directed toward larger game" and a rùa:rn season oecupation. DÍckson (1980:41) lists the species recovered and reports that "Most najor food resources rTere represenÈed, although fish and birds rrere present in minor quantities". He concludes, on the basis of evidence for occupatíon duríng more than one season, that "The prehistoric occupation probably occurred in early and/or late winter, the spríng and early suruuer although other Èimes of the year cannot be ruled out" (Dicksor: 1980:42). General trends have been suggested or asstrmed often on the basÍs of very sma11 samples.

RecenÈ Exc avation ReDorts Fourteen excavaÈion reports, published since 1970 and pertaining to the study area, were chosen for examination of theÍr approaches to the recovery, analysis, and presentatíon of faunal remains (Figure l)" Thís selection was intended to include the raajority of final excavation reports published on Woodland period naterials in the last decade for 1B

the study area" All of the reports pertain to sites located along the southern and western edges of the Canadian Shield, locations that are comparable in terms of landscape E.o the Lake of the woods sites. The aim was to provide an overview of Ehe approaches to zooarchaeological data as índicated by published reports. Although academic theses are líkely to be more detailed in soüe respecËs than reports, two have been included because of their relevance to the Lake of the trloods area (Lugen- beal 1976; Arthurs 1982). Similar excavation techniques were.reporÈed for all but two of the excavations, for which there were incomplete descriptions. They all represenË foraging leve1 adaptations.

The tirne range was decided c.¡n part,iy due Ëo the scarciÈy of publications prior to 1970. rt a1so, roughly coincides wiËh "... clason's (L972) article on the ninimum requirements for publication and paynets

(L972) arËicle on the biases of poor recovery Èechniques" and is.a Èime by which "... most Canadian archaeologists should have been aware of the necessity for intensive recovery strategies as well as explicit description for the recovered faunal remains" (Bobrowsky t9g0:l0t).

The four main categories of minimum requirements discussed above were used as indicators of the approach Èo, and Èreatment of, faunal. material. The reports were examined for three aspects regarding sampling and recovery methodology, and soil stratification and disturbance: 1) a description of methodology and evidence of soil sËratificatÍon and/or natural disÈurbance, 2) an assessment. of the effects of methodological choices or disturbance on art.ifact recovery, and 3) an attempË to incorporate any biases identífied in 2) into rhe overall interpretation. For the bone, the presentation of a taxonomic 1ist, the discussion of the context and vertical and horizontal distribution, and L9

the description of the quantifÍcat.Íon nethods nere assessed. The fourth category' inÈegration of the bone analysis, íncludes an assessment of the discussíon regardÍng adaptive sÈrategy, boÈh local and regional, and the attention paÍd to temporal varÍaÈion in the bone sample (Table 2). Al-1 of the reports contain sorne descríption of excavation stra-

tegy and recovery techniques. In tl¡o of then the use of tror¡els must

be assr¡med and screens are noÈ mentioned. The other twelve report the use of trowels and arbÍtrary excavatíon levels, and eleven reporË the use of % inch mesh screens. In one case all artifacts !¡ere precisely located wÍthin each level and shovels ¡vere used in areas of lor¡ arÈÍ-

fact concentration (TÍsda1e and Janieson 1982). Some mentíon of the sample and the choice of excavation location appears in all of them, but wíth the exception of general conments referríng Èo possible saurpling bias due to partial recovery of total site conÈents, only tno reporËs (Dickson 1980:32; Arthurs r9B2:27, 37) menrion rhe possibilíry of a bias in the bone sample resulÈing from recovery methodology. only two present an explicit attempt at assessÍng possible biases and correcting for them in the inÈerpretatíon of the data (Tisdale and Jamíeson l9g2; Arthurs 1982).

ALl of the reports mention the potentiaL taphononic processes with reference to post-depositional disturbance and/ot problems with the interpretation of the stratificatÍon of the deposit and the am- biguity of the recovery context of the artifacts. Again, hor¡ever, there is little or no attempt made to incorporate the estimaÈed effects of the observed conditions into the inÈerpretation.

l'lith regard Ëo the presentation of the faunal data and. descríp- tion of their analysis, there is considerable variatÍon among the reports. 20

TabLe 2 Exarnination of the treatmenË of faunal remaíns in excavation reports from the sËudy area.

SAMPLING & DISTURBANCE BONE INTEGRATION EXCAVATION ANALYSTS

h ÊÉ ò0 oo o r{Fl ¡J ÐÐ d dË$ ¡{ +.¡ o +J +J OFIO U) hþrjþ>r ò0Ê(üê.öc o oþoþo o FiOF{CrFl É ohur+{Ðo o toËrlFl É+r¡O ¿J Odtl+rdnXO oÊtD tÞ€rlO¡ .rtOÉ o +JCr'Ol¡¡JO+J+J O.rlOË N CrqJrJ+JË+rdq) F+JOO rl É€Ér/loÉoÊ 5 d '.{ 'rl ø d.Fl!rl O úlÐl¡r¡ (}{l+{o+Jl+{ ord(d o or.{ÉoÈÉtûr+fo r+{ t{ À .¡ Fl ooodo OÊÊ¡¡ Ê. ÉF{ËOÌlFlÊ þoG Ë OeJlOUrJlJdO Êoo> (ü r{ÉdtlÉÉtdoOï-l O+J (n +)oJþ+J(doþ.FtFt ¿J 'rl Ê .l Fl ê.ÉoÀ.oEoÊtlrÀ O.rl tÚ$ r-{ t'lOÀFlþOÀOø.rt u¡ât{ Total d þ(r¡¡¡tl!JlJ't¡Ê5t¡ a¿oo É ooo(ol/¡utoxoocrooo+rooooo od.rlÀ (ú úloò0É CrOÊO.Ê{UtÉrd'rlO .rl O C., C, |l tdd€€dd+r.o¡o € F-l ¡f +J xo

A 35,892 x o o o oo 158

B 309 x o o o o o o o L7 6 c 96r x x o x x o o o o o o o o 491

D 17,7O7 o o o x x o o o o o o o o 2II 1

E 22,613 o o x o x o o o x x o x x 7 7 0 F 959 x o o o x o 248 G. o o o o o o 068 H. x o x x o NA o x o NA 642 I. 2,469 x x o o o o o 35 6 M. 2,900 X X o x x x x o o o x x x x r040 N. 9,688 x o x o o o o o x x x 563 O'P'Q x x o o o x x x tJc 8, 089 R. x o I IL2 S. 254 o o x o o - o o o o 18s

Ã 11 3 0 9 4 3 I 0 0 2 4 5 4 4GT50fo rât Totals 37 5 3 4 7 6 1l 8 9 I 4 2 'na 80 -d1 04 9 2 6 4 7 2 6 3 2 5 8 bs 64 Key: x - relat.ively complete, o - partial or anbiguorls, - - absent NA - not applicable A - S: The identification letters are keyed to Fígure 1. 21.

Sixteen sites are represenÈed by the fourteen site reports and fÍfteen

of theu produced Ídentifiable bone. The size of the sample eTas not

specified for two sites (pocato rsland and Lady Rapids) but rhe sample

sízes from the rest ranged from 254 to 35,8g2 bones (Table 2). whí1e eleven rePorts Present a taxonomic 1ist, eight do so v¡iEhout reference to horizontal context (except for bones assocíated with hearth or pit features) " One rePort includes anatomical element ínfornation in the species list (Hanna 1975:Appendices I and 9). Descriptions of. methods of quanÈífication and analysis are generally lacking. Mini¡oum numbers of individuals (lû{r) are presented in four reporÈs, but, excepE in the two cases where the use of the whole deposit or different components is specified (Hanna 1975:35; Lugenbeal 1976:370), rhe calcularion i.s done without reference to specified units of analysis.

Thus, the effects of recovery strategy and analysis meÈhods on the bone sample and the resulting ínterpretation of site subsístence activities, seasonality, size and/or duration of occupation, and 1ocal and regional adaptive straÈegies are, in most cases, noE addressed. rn addition, the information Èo be gained from the faunal renains is often only partially integrated into the overall archaeological analysis.

In a report on the vertebrate faunal remains from Tailrace Bay in Manitoba, Lukens (1970:297) ciEes Meighan, er a1. (195g:1) saying,

"0f the reports r¿hich presenÈ lists of faunal remains, few nake any inferences from them". Despíte this observaE.íon, made twenty-four years ago, and a plea for increased attention to the importance of zooarchaeological data for interpretation and explanaÈion in ecological archaeology, Lukens? report, which "... represents the first serious 22

effort to evaluate the Manitoba archaeological record wÍthín an ecological framework using faunal remains rather than ethnographic anal-ogy" (Sps

L977 268), remains the most detaíled and extensÍve faunal report for the study area.

In sunrmary, thís examination of the archaeological reports from the study area indicates thaÈ many of the mj.nÍmrln requiremenËs are not being fulLy net. This night be atÈrÍbuted by some researchers Èo the limited amount of work accomplished Ín the study area, but the scarcity of field work and published reports 1s no excuse for lack of comprehen- sÍ-veness. Thís l-ack of knowledge itself makes critícal the careful recovery of valíd daÈa pertaíning to adaptive strategies and changes, paleoenvironmental condítíons, and socÍal behavÍour, alJ_ of whích may paÈtern faunal remaíns.

Fortunat.ely, collection and. analysis of faunal remains has become common, and att.empts are now being made at interpretíng patterns such as the horízontal distribution of bones in a síte (Dickson l98O:32;

Tísdale and Jamíeson 1982247). The approach Èo the collection and analysÍs of this naterial, however, indicates that excavation projects are being conceíved without the benefits of zooarchaeological research in nind.

Zooarchaeology has rel-evance for a wide range of questions and is íntegral to cultural ecologÍcal studies. Faunal remaÍns are related to other artifact classes in so far as the cultural subsystems producíng them are related, and to the extent Èhat related cultural subsystems influence the Patterning of the material remains of each other. Despite their pot.ential for yielding important cultural information, ninimal use has been made of faunal remains within the study area to date. The 23

present situation is not surprisíng in light of Bobrowskyts (1980)

recent revÍew of the state of zooarchaeol-ogical research in Canada as

a whore, but it is disturbing given the importance of and emphasis on Èhe recovery and interpreËation of cultural ecologícal data, and it is deÈrimental to zooarchaeological research as well as general archaeological research in the study area.

More detailed anaLysis of the potenÈÍal and limitations of zoo- archaeologicaL research for studies of l,Joodland period peoples in the canadian shíerd is needed. The firsÈ step in Èhis process ís to

isolat.e the reasons for the present level of attenËion to zooarchaeological data and to determine which ones can be rnodifíed.

Reasons for the Under-utilÍzation of Zooarchaeolosical Data in the Study Area

Several reasons for this lack of attention Èo detailed recovery, analysÍs, int,erpretaÈion, and reporting of. zooarchaeoLogÍcal data in the study area htere identifÍed during examination of the excavatÍon reports (Table 2). The reasons can be divided into thro categories to

facilítate their evaluatíon; 1) the physicar conditions encountered

during survey and excavati¡n and 2) the conceptual and methodological

approach to the daÈa.

Physical Conditions

The most apparent linitation on the use of faunal remains from

sites on the Shíe1d Ís imposed by the physical conditions conmon to many sites in the study area. A serious problen is created by the slov¡ rate of soil accumulation and consequent shallow deposition. Repeated occupations under Èhese condítions usually result ín the lack of visíble 24.

stratification wiÈhin the culturaL deposit. MateriaLs, such as bone, that are not in themselves diagnostic of a cultural or ethnic designation, cannot be associated wíth a particular occupation, time period, or other arÈifacts whích have been given a cultural designation. In additíon, in many locations the soil is acidic, yielding poorly preserved bone. Consequently, faunal remains are usually treat,ed as a source of mínirnal

info:mation. A1so, the relaÈive1y rough terraín, dense vegetation, and Ínaccessibility of the study area tend to bias the recognitÍon and examination of sítes toward shoreline sÍtes of major l-akes and rivers, part,icularly in the absence of a regional sampling strategy. This could produce an unrepresentaËive sample of sice types, further complicating Èhe interpretation of an annual and regional adaptive strategy.

Conceptual and Methodo 1op íeal Approach to the Data The conceptual approach of the archaeologist to the data largely deternines Èhe meÈhodological approach to sampling, recovery and analysis, and the response Ëo physical conditions encountered during excavation and analysis. 0n the basis of the foregoing discussion, Ít appears that there is a tendency, at least Ín the study area, to view faunal remains as a secondary class of data, the anal-ysis and interpretation of t¿hich are dependent upon, and supplementary to, what are often víewed. tmore as valid cultural datat such as ceramic and lÍthic remains and evidence of hearths and house structures. This results in the attempt to define boundaries within the faunal remains on the basis of one or more other artifact classes, usually without reference to how that artifact class reflects culËural behaviour. As discussed above, however, the boundaries of the various classes of cultural- data are not. identical and the assocíation of the faunal remains with one or another of Ëhese 25

classes of data could produce different results for each different associatíon (cf. clarke 1978:104). rt also Ís likely to obscure par-

terns and trends within the faunal material that do not mirror those in the diagnostic artifact class.

The methodologieal approaches to recovery and analysis of zooarchaeological- data, as evidenced in the excavation reporÈs from the study area, Índicate that the potential of these data is not generally

recognized. The l-ack of attention to obËainíng a valid bone sample

through sÍte sampling strategies, recovery techniques (such as small screen mesh size), and provenÍence control, means that the Ínformation

to be gained fron the faunal material is missed. There is also a gen-

eral lack of consideration for methodological issues in analysis, such as representativeness of the sarople and the derivation of neaningful units of analysis. commonl-y, problem areas related Èo subsistence strategy information are not explicitly outlined before data collectíon begíns and consequently, research designs are not "... deliberately st.ructured toward maximum recovery of data pertinent..." to those problem areas (smith 1978:145). This, of necessity, results in a similar lack of integration ÍnÈo the rest of the archaeologícal ínterpretatÍon.

The result is a paucity of comparative data ín Èhe literature and a lack of íncentíve to produce data that other researchers can use for

comparaÈÍve Purposes.

In concl-usíon, a revíew of selected archaeological reports from

the study area indicates that the minimum requírements reconxnended for

the recovery, analysis and reportÍng of faunal bone (clason 1972) are not being met consistently. The result is that zooarchaeologícaL data are under-utilized Ín the study area. ThÍs appears to reflect a general 26

lack of clear artículation of zooarchaeologícal questions and the víew that zooarchaeological data must be dependent upon other artifact classes for analysis and ínÈerpretation. Reasons for thís situation were Íso-

lated and divided into two categoríes; I) the physical conditions en-

countered during survey and excavation and 2) the conceptual- and

¡nethodological approach to the data. The physícal conditions cannot be changed, but atÈempts to compensate for them can. Also, procedures for analysing and íntegrating the recovered materials can be modified.

Zooarchaeology is integral to an ecological approach to archaeology and attent.ion should be directed toward increasing the informatíon obtained from zooarchaeological data in the study area. solutions to these problems are discussed after the Lake of the Woods materials and site condiÈíons are described.

This thesis contrÍbutes to the study of zooarchaeology in par- ticul-ar, and archaeology in general, within the study area in the fo1- lowing ways:

1) Provicies new faunal data for Lake of the l.loods,

2) Argues for a ner¡ level of critical evaluation of the possible sources of mixture in excavated archaeological uaterial,

3) Suggests the necessíty for refinement of the general subsÍstence model used for this area,

4) Presents an argument for a more comprehensive approach to the analysis of faunal remains from sites with unclear stratification, and 5) Argues for more comprehensive and standardized reporting of zooarchaeological data and analysis to facílitate comparatíve rsork. 27

ThesÍs OuÈline

Ghapter r demonstrated thaÈ the minimum requirements for re- portíng data (clason "oorr"ir""ologícaL 1972) are not consistently meË in the study area. Reasons for this situation r¡ere Ísolated and

suggestions nere made for nodifying the approach to these daËa.

Chapter II describes the faunal material from three sites on

Lake of Èhe lloods to be used in an example of one procedure for de- rÍving seasonalÍty estÍnates and information on faunal resource

selecÈi.on" The setting, the sites, the recovery methodology, and the artifacts are described. Various potential sources of artifact mixture are assessed for this area and the general implÍcations of the artÍfact distributÍon for the faunal remaíns are discussed.

Chapter III presents a faunal resource use schedule based. on ethnographic records and environmental information from the study area.

Hypotheses for seasonal occupaÈion, based on t.his schedule, are used to derÍve test irnplications for archaeological faunal remains for evaluatÍon against the archaeological material fron Lake of the l.toods.

In chapter IV the seasonal hypotheses and Èest implications are evaluated using the faunal material from t,hree Lake of the I^Ioods sites. The nateríal- frorn these sites as well as those reported in the IÍterature, lePresent hunting and gathering adaptations of predoroinantly l{oodland period occupatÍons. Six of the nineteen sites contained a sma11 amounË of Archaic period 'naterial. Therefore, this study is relevant mainly to I,Ioodland period adaptations.

Chapter V presents the conclusions of the study and suggestions for further research with regard to zooarchaeological data from sites on the Canadian Shield" CHAPTER II

A CASE STIIDY FROM LAKE OF THE WOOD S

The Setting

There are two distinct physiographic regions in the vicinity of Lake of the woods. The lake lies near the southern edge of the central

Precambrian Shield (Canadian ShieId) where the Shield turns no'rrh along

the east shore of Lake winnipeg. The rnterior plains extend Eo Ehe west and south, meetíng the Shield betr,reen 50 and 75 km v¿est of Lake of

the Woods. The vegetation is mixed conifer-hardwood forest \./íth the

boreal forest exÈending norÈh from the north shore of che Lake. A narrorv belt of Aspen Parkland separaEes the conifer-hardr.¡ood, forest

from È,he Prairies about 75 km to the wesÈ of the 1ake. The lake can

be dÍvided roughly inÈo rhree differenr physical zones which wa1l (1981:97) has described as;

1) the flat and open areas of the souÈhern portion of the lake; i.e. that area adjacenÈ Èo the prairies; 2) land bordering Èhe open sÈret,ches of water where stol:rn beaches and potentialiy rough v/aters are a comñon occurrence; and 3) Ehe relatively sheltered v¡aÈerways of the archipelago of islands in the northern section of the 1ake.

Phvsiographv

The Precambrian Shield (Figure 2) consisrs of bedrock composed largely of coarsely crystalline granític rock" Subdivfding the granite are numerous greenstone belts "composed predorainantly of dark coloured, fine-grained volcanic and sedinenrary rocks" (wplup I97g:3). These belts are oriented in a roughly linear east.-v/est pattern and usually

2B 29

-_t-----9-

Hudson Bay Lowlands ffil¡:ilix Canadian Shield InEerior Plains

Lake Süp€rior

Figure 2: Physiographic regions of the study area (after Syms IglT) 30

occur at or near the surface. Lake of the l.Ioods lies Ín the l,Iabigoon

Greenstone Belt r¿hich provided ra\í materÍal for liÈhic tool manufacture.

Lithic material of suffÍcientl-y hÍgh quality for use in stone tool manufacture Ís in great abundance on the shíeld. The najor types of stone that were avail-able t,o prehistorÍc flintknappers include argill_ite, sÍltstone, jasper and quartzite. Cobble cherts are also common in glacial- till features and stream beds (I,Ial1_ lggl :51).

As a result of glaciation, this area exhibÍts relatívery ]-ow relief, averaging between 61 and 9l metres (200-300 ft.) above sea leve1. Sharper relief results fron Èhe weathering of the less resis- tant rock tyPes in the greenstone belÈs creaËing troughs r¡hich tend to orient the lakes and river systems. The darnrring of these troughs r'... by moraines and eskers creaËes thousands of lakes, ponds and muskeg swanps, in some areas of the shÍeld exceeding 257" of. the surface area " (Bostock L976:Lr. in I.Iall lgBi :55) . Excellent transporÈatíon and conrmunication with regions beyond the local area would have been afforded by several major ríver systems ín the vicínity of Lake of the woods; the Rainy, the l{innÍpeg, the English, the Albany, and the Red (Figure I). The network of interconnecting lakes and smaller rívers would have provided the easiesË means of travel r.rithin the region, both during the sunrmer and !¡inter. IÍt¡en it is not exposed, the bedrock ís covered by a thin l-ayer of glacial til-l- and/or shallow soil accumu- l-atíon. The shield drops into Èhe Hudson Bay Lowlands approxiurately

800 kn to the norrh of Lake of the Woods. To the r¡est and south of the lake lies the relaÈÍvely flat

Manitoba P1ain, the eastern extension of the Northern plains. The deposition of lacusÈríne clays and sÍlts of Glacial Lake Agassiz has contributed to this flat Lopography in the southern portion of the 3t

plain. The bedrock in thís area is domÍnated by younger sedimentary rocks overlain by a generally deep glaciar till and thick, rich soils

(wal1 1981:49, 57). "Alrhough a variety of cherts and rhyolites are prevalent in the bedrock of the Northern Plains, outcrops are rare

except along the deeply incised river valleys..." (wal1 lggl:59). The

lakes and rivers of this region are not as numerous as those of the Shield.

Climate

Lake of the woods lies betveen 49o and 50o ncirth latitude. The climaÈe of northern 0ntario has been classified as modified continental.

The seasonal temperature extrenes are sonewhat nodified by the GreaÈ Lakes to the southeast, and Hudsonrs Bay co the northeast. Northeast

winds predominate in r,¡inter, although north and wesÈ are also common.

west winds prevail in the summer (chapman and rhomas 196g:12). The

precipitation varies between about 2.5 cu in the winter, and 7.5 to 10 cur in Èhe sunmer for the western portion of norÈhern Ontario, with

most of it falling betlteen May and Septerober (Chapman and Thomas 1968:

48). The mean annual snor¿fall is about 160 cn (chapnan and rhomas

1968:50) "

Vegetation

There are six major vegetation zones in the Lake of the l^Ioods vicinity (Figure 3). The four closest to the lake are 1) the Boreal Forest, 2) the Great Lakes-St. Lar¿rence or mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest,

3) the Aspen Parkland and 4) the Prairie. Mod.ern vegecation communities r^7ere escablished in most areas of the Lake of the l^/oods region by around

3000 B.P. (Iùall lgBL:76). More recenr changes (Syms L977:35 Tabre 3) 32

Lake 4

Winn¡p€g

4 ô 4

Figure 3: VegetaLion zones in the studv area (after RoÌve lgTZ\ 33

Probably had nininal effects upon the overall composition of the vegetation on Lake of the l,Ioods and on the shield to the norÈh. The Boreal Forest, borderíng on the northern margín of the lake, comprÍses the Largest forested section of Canada. Typícal species are;

balsaur fir, white birch and jackpine, wiÈh trembling aspen, baLsaur pop-

lar and whíte spruce on better drained sites, and black spruce and tamarack in shallow bogs (Rowe 1972230). Mosses, lichens, blueberríes, and cranberries are conmon, and wild rice grows in some isolated lakes.

Except for the north shore, Lake of the trIoods Ís situated in the northwestern extensíon of the Conifer-Hardr.¡ood or Great Lakes-St. Law- rence Forest which conÈinues southeastward around the GreaÈ Lakes.

Dominant species include jackpine, trembling and largetooth aspens, white bírch, balsarn fir and r¡hiÈe and brack spruce (Rowe r972:ll0). Rowe (I972:110) states that eastern whÍte and red pines were formerly much more conmon but have been largely replaced by boreal species as a resulÈ of logging actívíties and recent fires. Other species include bur oak, basswood, whíte cedar and tamarack. The presence of large birch trees in suffÍcienÈ numbers for building canoes ¡¿ou1d have made this an ideal location for the construction or acquisition of canoes in trade. Blueberries are common and wild rice thríves in selected favourable locations.

Wild rÍce gro¡ûs in large stands in favourable locations in the lake today. It has been suggested that the northward and northwest spread of Laurel ceramics may have been related to the spread of wÍ1d rice and the Conifer-Hardwood Forest (Stoltnan L97326; Buchner 1979:113)

This is the only plant food available for harvesting in large amounts. Landes, (1968:161-214, ín syms 1977:45) reporrs rhe collecrion of pranrs 34

such as the water li1y and wild turníp by the Sancee Dakota in north-

ern Mínnesota. The lack of local ethnoboÈanical research makes the

identification of specific plant foods difficult. Plant resources

other than those rnentioned would undoubtedly have been imporÈ.ant for an adequate supply of nutrienEs.

Between the forest and the prairie lies a narro!¡ band of As-

pen Parkland to the west and southwest of the lake. It is an ecotone

consisting of the decíduous element of the Boreal Forest intermixéd wiÈh

grassland sections of varying sizes which are short and tal1 grass ex-

tensions of the prairie. Aspen predominates in the forested secÈions r¡ith some balsarn poplar and other species such as bur oak found accor-

ding to local conditíons. rn addition, t.here ís a variety of shrubs

including hazernuÈ, highbush cranberry, chokecherry, píncherry, sas-

katoon and rose (Syms L977 zL9) .

Extending west from the Aspen Parkland, the large prairie zone

consists of a combinatío{r of tall grass and nixed grassland. There are 1ocal stands of coniferous and/or deciduous trees where drainage and slope pennit.

To the.south of the study area, the Aspen parkland gives way to an Oak savanna ecotone with oak replacing the aspen, wild plum replacing choke cherry, and other tree species such as barsam, poplar, sumac, paper birch, hawthorn and crab apple increasing in number (sy¡rs l977zL9)" The Deciduous Forest extends south from the Conifer-Hard- wood ForesÈ and consists of "... local variations of oak-hickory, maple- basswood, e1m-ash and beech-rnaple forest with coumon occurrences of wil1ow, cottonl/ood, uap1e, e1m, hackberry and bur oak" (shelford r973: 6, in l,Jall 1981:78). 35

Fauna

The faunal cornmunities of the Shield and the plains each required subsistence strategíes adapted to theír respective characteristics. The large marmal populations of the shield and the p1aíns differed in both seasonal location and diffusíon. Bison, large ma¡nmals living in large q/ere herds' found in the prairi.e and Aspen parkland. They migrated seasonally, however, and their availabiliEy depended upon seasonal pur_ suit. During the sr,nmer they moved ouÈ onÈo the prairie, and.in t.he wi.nter sought shelter in the Aspen parkland. rn conÈrast, the large marmal species of the Shield, moose, woodland caribou and black bear, are largely diffuse populations that remain in much the same loca1 range a1r year with short disËance moves beÈween suitable st¡nmer and winter habitats. Moose ís common and the presence of moose bone in the Lake of the woods sítes supPorts the argunent of I^Iinterhalder and others (Lg77: L72-I75) Èhat moose is índigenous to norEhern ontario. I^Ihite-tailed deer is also present in the Lake of the woods area, but becomes ress common co Ehe north as the conifer-Hardwood Forest gives way to the Boreal Forest.

i'traterfowl are conmon to both the Plains and the canadian shield. There are both nesting species and those that raígrate through in the spring and fall. The nigration routes and breeding grounds of the nort.hern Plains are r'ore heavily populated than those of the shield ín northwestern 0ntario (Bellrose r976:2L-22), buE many birds and vrarer_ fowl (ducks,loons, herons, pelicans, ospreys, eagles) nest in the Lake of the Woods area. The other resource within the Shield that congregates seasonally is f ish. I^/ith tvro exceptions, the f ish species generally found in the 36

lakes of the shield also occur in Lake of the woods. Lake sturgeon occurs only in the largest lakes and rivers, and muskellunge, present in Lake of the woods, does not occur farther north. Several species of fish are conmon and j.nclude both spríng and fall spawning species.

Sturgeon was formerly available in large numbers in Lake of the Woods and was exploited'in the early historic period. sturgeon, whitefish,

and lake trout were all fished commerci.ally as well by both the Natives

and commercial companies. Sparaning time is the easiesÈ time E-o take species thaL congregate to spa\^lrr. All of them are dispersed the rest of the year and some (walleye, trout, r^lhiÈefish) remain in deep water

throughout the summer. consequently, although they are availabre, they are much less accessible than when spawning.

Under certain conditions, large amount,s of fish can be harvested with 1ittle energy expenditure- Linp and Reidhead (1979:7L) suggesr Èhat,

using aborÍginal techniques, the rarge guantities of fish in major river channels can ordÍnarily ue iaten only by invesËing a high or moderately high labor input, while even the most rudimentary technologies yield high output to low input raËios when producÈion is concentrated on stouits and backwaters. They describe rolling logs across a bay less than a foot deep to drive the fish toward the shore. Lake of the l,loods, however, has predominantly steep rocky shores with only a few shallow bays, and pike, muskerunge and sucker are the nain species that inhabit and spawT] in shallow lake margins, bays or s!/ampy areas. These are the species Èhat would have been most available when noÈ spawning, but they disperse at oEher tÍnes and it is questionable whether they wourd have been present in sufficient numbers or whether the terrain would have been conducive to the tech_ nique described by Limp and Reidhead. Although fish courd remporarily 37

suPport a large human population at spae¿nÍng tine, they could not do so at other times rvithout being preserved

The Shield and Boreal Forest. also contain smaller more diffuse mannalian resources such as snor¿shoe hare and grouse. The aEount of

aquatic habitat, coupled v¡ith scattered aspen, birch and other decÍduous trees ' support relatively plentiful beaver and muskraË populations. The faunal resources are discussed. in more detail in the next chapEer.

The Sites

The maÈerial presented here comes from three sites on Lake of

the woods (Figure 4). These sÍEes are considered relevant to Èhe present discussion because their excavation and physical characteristics

are similar to nany sites in the srudy area. Not arr sites on the Shield have the same set of excavaÈion or physical characteristics

but these three exhibit faunal and zooarchaeological proble¡os ÈhaE characterize the area.

The three sítes are located within the sheltered norÈhern por-

tÍon of Èhe 1ake. The tr^¡o Ash Rapids sites are at Ehe north end. of

the channel leading inÈo Shoal Lake, and the Meek site is farther sourh Ehe cn lake at the north end of anoEher channel. Ar1 three sites are shoreline siÈes, two of them with s¡0a11 sand beaches. The two Ash Rapids sites are situated on either side of a small seË of rapids, whí1e the Meek siÈe is on an island of approxiuately three acres.

Meek Site: (DjKo3) Area B This site appears to occupy most of a three acre is1and.. A sma11 area at the southrtest end was excavated and oEher areas of the 3B

LAKE T OF THE WOODS

.''

Penins¡,¡la

Big Traverse Bay

AS¡.r R,ÀP|OS E¡.ST S¡TE

TIE€K SJIE

ASH RÂPIOS wEsr srrE a2 L/-

'-c2

Figure 4: Lake of the Woods and site locations. 39

island r¡ere miniurally tested. There is a large circular pit approxi-

mately seven metres across and half a meÈre deep to the easÈ of the excavated area' and extensíve petroglyphs at the southeastern end of the island. Although Èhere are no rapids today, there is a narrow,

deep channel with a discernable current between this site and a small-

island to the east. It Ís likely that the channel used to be a s¡naL1 set of rapÍds before the lake level was artificially raised. There are also a few petroglyphs on the snall island across the channel. The nain

island is fairly heavily r¡ooded with predominantly decíduous growth com-

posed of ash, basswood, bírch, aspen and wild plum. There are very few

conifers today. There 1s a cl-ay-loam bank two metres high between the

excavatíon units and the water. some of the bank has probably been eroded by the raised water levels. The site soíl appears to be predominantly clay-1oam. There were 26 units of one by one metre square excavated in the section to be examined (Figure 5). FlotatÍon was carrÍed

out on some leveIs fron selected excavation units, but the results have not been rnade available yet.

Ash Ra ds West Site : (DjKq-5) This síte is situated on the west side of a snall set of rapids.

rt has an eastern exposure, and the shoreline, except for a smal1 sand beach, is a rocky point. The site area is flat and at prèsent is grassy,

though there is heavy nixed coníferous-decíduous vegetation ínland. from

the excavation area. The clearíng is probably a result of historic ac- tÍvity on the síte. There is a large marshy bay around the point to the northwest. The soil is predomínantly sandy loarn. There were 22 units of one by one metre excavated ín three blocks (Figure 6). 40

pit

5 I 6 7 9 ro tl t2 2l aa B 24 r3 l4 t5 t6 4 3

Figure 5 Meek Site, excavation plan, Area B. (from sketch in Reid's field notes) 4I

a o

E o

6 7 l4 t5 I I t6 t7

G @ a o q + a

Figure 6: Ash Rapids I.Iest Site, excavation p1an. (from sketch Ín Reid's field notes)

r.: álr¡ 'xi '{i i. (¡¡ì

ült ôl.i;,¡ iîï*4

{/¿r,r¿¡¡liil¿ 42

Ash Rapids East Site: (DjKq-4) Area A This síte, situated on the east side of the same rapids as Èhe previous site, is on a low sandy point onith a north facing sand beach.

The cenÈre of the point fs hlgher than the rest of the srce and drops off behind as v¡e1l as down toward the beach. The low elevation of this sfte has probably nade ft the nosE vulnerable of the three to erosion fron hígh water levels. The vegetatÍon is nixed conj-ferous-deciduous. There were I unlts of one by one Eetre excavaËed in Area A, a fairry open, grassy section (Figure 7). The soil varles fron a sandy to a clayey matrfx.

Excavation Methodo loev

The excavations were carried out by the ontario Ministry of cÍti- zenship and Culture between 1975 and 1977 as part of their regular heritage The Program. sites have been only partially excavaËed and in mosc cases the excavation units r¡ere close to the water. I.lith the exception of a fer¿ Ísolaeed test units, they were located in blocks of 4 co 20 units" All excavation lras done r¿ith trowels, and all back dirt was screened through a I inch mesh*. Scil deposition here is minirnal; there are no sterile layers betveen occupaEÍon deposits and soil changes are difficult to distinguish during excavati.on. vertical conÈrol on t,he artifacts was obtaíned by the use of flat arbiErary 3 cm 1eve1s measured below surface. The belov¡ surface EeasureuenEs llere taken fron the ground surface of the unit and the excavation blcck was later tied Ínto a site datuu point' The vertical distribution of the artifacts varies across

*Due to their conmon usage, standard uniÈs have been used for screen mesh sizes" One quarter inch rnesh = .6 cm. 4J

I 7 6 5 il .1 o

\ T

Iigure 7: Ash Rapids East SiEe, excavaEion p1an, Area A. (fron sketch in Reid's field notes) 44

the sítes fron 9 to 30 cm, wlth the roajority of artÍfacts falllng in a 12 to 15 cn range. All naterfal was measured fn two dinensions horizontally and uapped as to type (i.e. fabrfc body sherd, bone, Lake of

the l{oods chert flake) on a level diagram for each 3 cn level, and rdfagnosticf artifacts wet'e glven individual numbers. All artifacts were bagged by excavatlon unft and 3 cm,level. Any observed soil changes or outlÍnes were also uapped on each level diagran" A soíl profile r¡as drar¡n, usual-ly by the excavator, for at least one çal_l of each unít. l{all profiles and floor plans were photographed when fea_

tures weie present. The potential sources of bias Íntroduced by these trethods are discussed later"

The Artifac ts

The archaeological analysis, for these data, has not yet been published" Consequently, the fÍeld notes were used for informaÈj.on on attrÍbuÈes, tyPes, freguencies and context for artifacËs oÈher than bone.

CeramÍcs

The ceramic sanple for all three sÍtes is conprised of varieties of Laurel, Blackduck, and Selkirk sherds. Laurel is represenÈed largely by dentate stanP and pseudo scallop shell impressions and sÈraÍght rim profiles' Blackduck and Selkirk sherds display cord wrapped paddle and fabrÍc Ínpressions on the body and cord wrapped object impressions on the neck, rinn and f.ip. The typícal Blackduck everted rim and splayed lip is usually associated r¿ith cord Írnpressions and the straighter Selkirk profile \ríth fabríc impressions.

For the PurPose of deterrnining the context'of the bone relative 45

to other reuains, the general vertical distributions of ceramic wares r¿ere tabulated from the field notes by ware and plotted by excavation leve1 against frequency. The frequencies were obtaíned from leve1 dia- grams recorded at the Èine of excavation. AlEhough these were field identifications, they were checked at the tine by the project supervi- sors. Only positive identifications lrere included. Questíonable itens were excluded. The use of the field notes has resulted in two main lini- tations. FirsÈ, Blackduck rims are dÍfficult to distinguish from'the

descriptions given sÍnce they sometimes exhibit only cord wrapped object inpressions which also appear, at leasÈ occasíona11y, on Laurel and Selkirk rins, and the profile, which could distinguish them Ís often not ¡rentioned. consequently, Blackduck rims may be under-repre-

sented. Second, information on specific attribuÈes is insufficÍent to a1low a oore detailed examination and identification of types.

For this laÈter reason, the record of various over-a11 surface Ëreatments of the body decoraÈion and, in the case of rins, profiles as we1l, q¡ere used to distinguish the ceramic sTares. This was carried out on tito assumPÈions: 1) that all fabric inpressed surface treatloent can be associated with Selkirk rather than both Selkirk and Blackduck e¡ares' even though there is some preliminary evidence to suggest the latter situation (pers. conrm. Campbell 1980, with reference to ceramics from near-by l.Janipigow Lake, in southeastern Manitoba), and thaÈ cord wrapped paddle irnpressed surface treatment can be associaÈed with BIack- duck ware; and 2) thaË the use of fragment counÈs rat.her than vessel counts and the possible bias introduced is not critical to identifying the existence and locaEion of overlap of the r,rares. Fragments rather than vessel counÈs were used also because the use of che field notes 46

precluded the recognitÍon of fraguents from the saue vessel.

Iltren the distribution of the three ceramic rùares was examined

by unit and level (Appendix B r, c 1, D l), ít became clear that the

rùares overlapped each other almost conpletely. This was unexpected,

at least for the Meek site, considering its descriptÍon as a rt... rarge (3 acre) stratified" site (Reíd l97gz22) containing "... prÍnariry selkÍrk, with some Blackduck, overlyíng a Laurel stratr¡n" (Rajnovích and Reíd 1978:43). Selkirk rùare may predomÍnate, but the distriburÍon índicated by Ëhe fíeld note count,s does not suggest stratification. Laboratory identÍficatíons of rins fron the Meek sÍte were available

for tweLve uníts and Ëhese frequencíes were plotted as a check on the accuracy of the field note counts. The rirn distributions also ex- hibiÈed overlap (Appendíx B la).

The same degree of overlap is exhÍbited by all three sites, and has important iurplications for the faunal analysis. rf thís ceramic distrÍbutfon cannot be accepted as undisturbed, it implies míxture of

the faunal naterial as well. Three possible causes of this mixture are

excavaÈion techniques, Post deposiÈional disturbance, or a combínation of both. These possibilítÍes will be discussed in the followÍng section.

rf, however, thís ceranic distríbution is accepted as representing the actual cul-tural deposition, the Chronological- ModeL must be questioned at these sítes. This compl-eËe overlap could have resurted from different groups of people (producing different ceramic forms) co-occu- pying the area and depositÍng reuains at the same sites, or alÈerna- tíveLy' one group of people producing a variety of ceramic forms.

The fÍrst possibility, in particular, poses problems for the faunal_ analysís. 47

Lirhics

The lithic raw materíal used for artifact manufacture consists

predominantly of Local rhyol-ite, chert and quartz. There is some Hud- son Bay Lor¿Land chert found locally in the form of glacially deposited

cobbles. The poínt types are typical of those associaËed with Middle

and Late lJoodland period materials in northern Minnesota and easËern

Manítoba. The other lithic artÍfacts appear to be more uniform and are found widely throughout the area. The liËhic artifact frequencies

were arrlved at in the same ltay as the ceramíc frequencies (Appendix B 5, C 5' D 5). The tool categories from these sites have been Èabulated for comparison with the faunal remains and are discussed 1ater.

Faunal Remains

All of the bone was kept duríng excavatÍon and examined and iden-

tífied as closely as possible to species by the author. The mammalogy collection aÈ the Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature and the Zooarchaeo- logy laboratory at the University of Toronto were used for identification of the marmnal and fish bone. The comparatíve collection of the grnitho- logy Department at the Royal Ontario Museum was used for the bird bone ídentifícation. The total nunbers of bones and bone fragments ín relation to identifiable bones and fragments and the amount of excavated area for each site appear in Table 3. The nethodology is described in chapter rv preceeding the bone analysis and interpretation.

Artifact Context and Pos t-Depositional Disturbance

Introductíon

As Syms has stressed (1977 z4) , the connon response in the study 48

Table 3: Faunal taxonomic class breakdor¿n.

MEEK ASH RAPIDS I.ITEST ASH RAPIDS EAST

NISP unident. NISP unident. NISP unidenË.

Mammal 3s3 2,297 3L2 L,82I 233 3,L22

Bird 10 35 74 t45 28 95

Fish 20 3s8 82 494 10 88

Reptile 8 270 l6 193 6 2L2

Mollusc 28 26 i1

Sub-totals 391 2 ,9Bg 484 2,679 277 3,529

Totals 3,379 3, 163 3, 805

7. of. TotaI r 1" 6 88.4 15.3 84.7 7.0 93.0

ExcavaÈion Units 26 22 I I Volume (n") 5.7 3.9 3

Average Density 593 811 r,268 area to unexPected verEical overlap in excavated materials is to assert that nixture has taken place and to then proceed as if rhe materials appeared sequentially with no overlap. This is clearly inadequate. An understanding of the context in which archaeologíca1 ¡naterials are found is critical to an analysis of Ehose materials. The potential for various types of post-depositional disturbance in the particular site context must be assessed against the kind and degree of overlap present. Míx- ture should be demonstrated and, lacking evidence of posÈ-depositional disturbance, the overlap must be explained in some other e¡ay, or the interpreËation qualified. Although the carbon-14 dates associated with the three vrares found at oÈher sites exhibit considerable overlap, 49

they also indicate a temporal separation that Ís not apparenÈ at the Lake of the l,Iood,s sites.

Cultural maËerials uay be noved by several processes and in all directions in the soil.

Before ne proeeed to nake interpretations that depend on artifacts' being in their oríginal posÍtion, re rnsl demonstrate that they rùere not moved by one or another form of soil mixing - or qualÍfy our interpretatÍons accordíng to the types of soil nixíng possible in a given soil. rn sum, we must pay more atten- tíon to the dynanÍc nature of the nedium in rshich we dig (I.Iood and Johnson 1978:369). since this is not yet general procedure in archaeological reports, it was decíded that a discussion of the main disturbance processes relevant to Lake of the lÙoods should be included here. Due to the above limitations on information fron the excavations, however, it will necessaríly take the form of the projected pot.ential for disturbance rather than an assessment of the actual dísturbance.

The diffículty most frequently recognized and cornmented upon when analysing archaeological materials from this area (except those from river flood-plains) is the shallor¡ness of deposit wíth no visible sepa_ ratÍon between what are assumed to be many repeated occupatíons. rn contrast to Èhe frequency r¡ith rshich mixture is cLaimed, the assessment of stratÍfÍcaËion and artifact context Ís generally ninimal. One coro- llary of the tradÍrional-ly used (or inpl-ied) chronological Model is that, based on the concept of superposition of deposits, certaín artifact styles, ceramic wares in particular, should occur vert.ically in sequential order, wÍth one rrare representíng an earlíer deposiÈ and another a later one. As ment.ioned above, overJ-ap of the three main ceramic \.rares has ofÈen been vi.ewed as mixture. perceÍved. míxÈure may be the result of; 50

1) co-occupation of the site, 2) actÍvities during repeated occupation of the site and deposition of rnaterials, 3) natural- post-depositional disturbance, and 4) sanplíng and recovery nethodology. Again, assessment of the extent and kind of disturbance and artifact míxÈure ín the excavation reports exauined for this thesis was ninínal- to non-exístent. Recent research on disturbance processes and artifact transloca- tion (cf. I.Jood and Johnson 1978, Conaty and Bobrowsky 1981) stresses the líkelihood of some dísturbance of every archaeological deposíÈ. From this point of viev¡, ít becomes critical to collect and record data per-

Èinent to the assessment of the degree of disturbance and its effect on artifact placement. Ar¡areness of thÍs potential problem is unavoidable in cases Ín which the artifacts do not conform to expecÈed distributions. Even these cases, however, are seldom assessed from the point of view of cultural and/or natural disturbance (though naÈura1 disturbance is usually assumed). Many disturbance processes leave no concrete evÍdence and there is a tendency to overlook the possibil-ity of artifact displacement as long as the observed pattern does not conflict strongly Itith expectations. The lack of evidence for disturbance does not con- stÍtute proof that no disturbance has taken place. The l-Íkelíhood of disËurbance should be assessed for these cases as well as. those that exhibit evidence. Any interpretation without this kínd of assessment is subject to uncertainty. In additíon, the excavation rneÈhodology must be assessed for possibLe contribution to perceived rmixturer (e.g. combining of artifacts from more than one occupation Ín one arbÍtrary excavatÍon level). If neíther of these processes appears to explain tmixturer, the it must be examined in terms of cultural activÍty. Each 51

of these possible causes of mixture has major ínplications for the faunal maÈería1. The following sections provide a bríef descríption of the possible processes relevant to the study area that could have contributed to disturbance or mixture and an examinaEion of their potential at these Lake of the l.Ioods sit.es.

Disturbance Processes

There are a number of processes affecÈing the soÍl formatíon and sÈratificatíon aÈ a particular locatíon that nay result in disturb.r.." of the materials in the soi1. The agents responsible for the most com- Inon types of disturbance are;

1) aninal and human activity, 2) vegetaÈion growth and decay, 3) erosion, and 4) Èemperature fluctuaËion. 1) There is no indication of subsurface disturbance resulting from recent human activíty at any of the sites. Although remains of rodent burrows were visible during excavati.on, Ehey appeared to be few and to constitute localized, visible disturbance in Èhe soil profile and p1an. ArtÍfacEs from obviously disturbed areas such as anirnal burrows and tree falls have been excluded from the counts.

2) Limbrey (1975:286) states that the formation of the B horizon in a xnature forest soil depends on the process of growth and decay of genera- tions of trees. rt has been suggesËed (Mueller and cline 1959) Ëhar over ext,ended periods of time, tree falls in a forested area result in substantial míxture of soil horizons. Mueller and Cline (1959:111), on Ehe basis of work done in New York State, coneluded that the evidence indicated "... that uuch of the upper two feet. has been disturbed during the last 500 years". rn an area with shallow soils over bedrock 52

or tíl-l, and trees with shaLlow root systems, a períod of 2000 - 3000 years could witness considerable disturbance. However, the nr¡mber of

tímes a specÍfic locatÍon would undergo complete vegetational- succes-

sion and reach a climax vegetatíon with large trees might not be as great as ít ¡¡oul-d seem. Alsor not al-l trees fall , pulling their root,s out of the ground. Many decay in pLace and fall when the roots disin- tegraÈe. Recent tree falls would l-eave visibl-e signs though early tree fal1s would probably be obscured by subsequent deveLopment of soíl

horizons. Careful collection of artifacts should help to ísolate areas

where they have been moved by a wíndthrown Èree.

Artífact distrÍbutíons would also be affected by the normal growth of vegetatíon, particularly trees. Tree root grorüth would shift objects and alter artifact provenience. The normal growth of roots

would noÈ be expected to cause exËensive dísturbance such as that caused by tree falls pullíng clusters of artifacts right out of the ground.

Given the network of roots and the length of ti¡ne, however, it seems

likely that many of the artifacts r¡ould have been disturbed to some

extenÈ by the growth of roots. Thus, tree falls and root growth pose Potential threats to the context of the arti-facËs, but not necessarily major ones.

3) ErosÍon does not seen to pose a threat to the sÈructure of these

sites. They are relaÈively f1at, well vegetated, and elevated above seasonal lake leve1 fluctuation. Neither wind, urater, nor gravity (causing soil creep), should have been erosive forces. The only possi- bílity appears to be dísturbance from unusually high water levels at

the Ash Rapids East site which is tower than the other two sites. The beach of Area A would have been vulnerable. Artifacts from this area 53

lJere not lncluded.

4) The renaÍníng cause of disturbance 1s seasonal temperaÈure fluctua-

tion. The soil in this area thaws in the srrtrmer and freezes to a depth of about 175 to 250 cm only for the duration of the winter (Johnson

and Eansen 1974:90). During the fatl freeze up and the spring thaw, the temperature flucÈuates around the freezing point twice a day for a perÍod of days or r¡eeks, thus subjectlng the soil to a seri.es of freeze-t'haw cycles. These daily cycles would Ínvolve so6e portíon of

the upper part of Èhe deposit and the freezlng would gradually ÞeneÈrate

deeper fnto the soÍ1. The depth of the daily fluctuation r¡ou1d depend on the so11 and moisture characteristÍcs present as well as the clinatíc conditions- Although the upper levels of the deposi.t r¿ould currently undergo nore freeze-thar.¡ fluctuation than the lor¡er 1evels, all the artifacts were in the upper levels at one time and would have been subjected to this fluctuation. There have been a nu¡rber of studies con- cucted on the nechanics of freezíng soil-water systems and the potential for movement of objects from frost heave. They include tr¡o with reference to archaeological problens by Johnson and Hansen (Lg74) and Johnson, Huhs and Barnhardt (L977) and an overvÍew of disÈurbance processes in archaeological sire fonoation by wood and Johnson (197g).

0f the cryoturbaÈory processes discussed by l{ashburn (rg7g) and

I'Iood and Johnson (1978), frost heave appears to be the mosÊ inportant potential source of disturbance at Èhese sices. The pressures generated by freezing water are exerted in all dÍrections, but they are expressed in soil r'ovements only upward and horizontally. The verÈÍcal expression has been teroed heave; the horizonÈa1, thrusr (Eakin tgi6:26, in i^Iashburn L979:79). DespiÈe frequenÈ reference t.o frosË heave as a source of disturbance, and relÍance on it as an explanation for assr¡med mixture, there are 54

few discussíons of the mechanics of this process in relatíon to specific sites or justÍfications for assuming this disturbance mechanísm v¡as aÈ work. For this reason, a discussion of it ís included in Appendíx A, and concl-usions are presenÈed here as t.o the potentÍal for disturbance from frost heave on Lake of the tloods.

several factors indÍcaÈe a hígh potential for frost heave on these sÍtes. The seasonal temperature fluctuatÍon and the rat.e and depth of frost Penetration are all favourable to frost disturbance.

The site soils appear to have a fairly high clay and organic content that gives then high noÍsture retent,ion capabílítÍes. Though the soils are not saÈurated' water is avaílable from the high wat.er table Ín most of thÍs area. The length of ti¡ne the objects have been buríed and the number of treeze-tha¡,¡ cycles they have been subjected to greatly Ín- crease the chances that heaving has t.aken place. Although the wall profÍles do not appear to reflect najor dÍsturbance, ít is not cLear from the lÍterature rshether the profíle itself should do so except ín extreme cases of cryoturbation. 0n the other hand, several factors indicaÈe a lo¡¡er potential for frost heave than the above characteristícs. The presence of vegetatíon and snor¡ are stabilizing factors. The najority of artifacts would have been deposíted in a horizontal positíon, and their discoidal shape may suggest a minímum potential- for movemenÈ. At least one set of laboratory exPeriments (Burrous 1977> found that horizontal-Jy oriented objects and sma1l discs, even at shallow depths, failed to be extruded within 32 freeze-thaw cyeles. The forces promoting frost heave in the site areas may have been neutralízed by Èhose promoting stability, although further experigrental work is needed. It ís worth noting, however, that artifacts 55

of all classes and sizes are still found at the bottom of the deposÍts after up to 2000 years or more indicatíng that frost-heave ís not a ubiquitous and irresÍstable force. There are examples from archaeological sites of apparently sÍg- nificant artifact displacemnt. A convincing case is íllustrated by the distribution analysis of lithic rnaterial fron the Hungry lrrhistler site ín the Rocky Mountains whÍch indicated vertical sorting of artifacts by síze. In four size elasses of artÍfacts rangíng froro flakes at 9 mm Èo nill-ing slab fragments at 83 rrm, Benedict found that the larger the size class, the higher the percentage that were ejected at the surface

(Johnson et al. 1977:i46). conaty and Bobrowsky suggest thar sínce a number of dísturbance processes (e.g. frost. heave, trampling) have a tendency to move larger objeets upward, one technique for judging the amount of disturbance of this sort is to plot Èhe vertical distribution of the varíous size classes. For t.his reason, they stress the importance tt... of obtaÍníng sample rel-iability 1n all size classes" (conaty and

Bobrowsky 1981:12). lJíth aecess to informatíon from the fíeld notes only, the sÍze classes could not be determÍned in the present case. The danger with a síngle disturbance factor such as frost-heave becorning emphasized Ín the literature is that iÈ tends to become an automatic expl-anation for phenomena that do not conform to expectations. rn the study area iÈ is often used to account for lack of patterned assocíatÍon of artifacts. It tends to take precedence over other plau- sible explanations and Èo be assumed without first being demonsËrated. In surnrnary, sínce little is known about the visible results of disturbances such as frost heave, it is difficult to demonstrate its action. A círcular argr¡ment based on the artífacts and preconceptions 56

as to how the artifacts should be distributed is insufficíent. Tf frosÈ

heave had been a major agent of disturbance, the expected result wculd

be a general upward displacement of materials. Examination of the

vertíca1 distributions of the arÈifacts and bones reveals that they

aPPear to be uore clustered within a 10 to 18 cur depth below surface than r¡ould be expected, and are.not being ejected at the surface in any great nuubers.

Recognitíon of Disturbance I'Jood and Johnson (197b) have avoided presenting any criteria for

recognizing the results of disturbance processes because some of the

nore comPlex (includÍng frost actíon) are as yet only poorly understood

by soil scientists themselves. This is al1 the more reason for the careful collection of data relevant t.o a critical assessment of arti-

fact context' parÈicu1ar1y in areas such as Lake of Èhe l"loods with com-

pact soil stratÍfication where a surall distance could represent a long tiue span.

Although Wood and Johnson believe that most archaeological sites have not been seriously disturbed, they do stress thaÈ, ... a reasonably accurate assessutent of the pedoturbaÈory hÍstory of the soils and sedinents at every archaeological site is absolutely prerequisite to valid archaeologícal ínterpreEation (1978 :370) .

Putting the case even more strongly, conaty and Bobrowsky claim that, rt is apparent that the movenent of artifacts within sedi- rnents is commonplace... 0n1y after judging the amount of artifact dislocation can one begin Eo assess the significance of artífact associations (1981: Il).

This requires the collection and maintenance of good photographic and written records and analysis of systenatically collected sòi1 samples. 57

The records and soil samples should document any variatÍon across the site ín soil conditions and physical feaÈures such as slope. Arthurs (1982:28) states that he found the detailed records kept on soíl types and stratification at the Long Saul-t sÍte "... of considerable irnportance in Èhe interpretation of the complex depositional- history of the sitert.

Other Sources of MÍxture

Two other possÍble sources of generaLízed artifact mixture are

1) slow soil deposition coupl-ed with repeated occupation activity such as trampS-ing, and 2) excavation techniques. I,lith slo¡^r rates of soil accumulation, artifacts deposíted on or near the surface should be subjected to sone mixture with those from subsequent occupatÍons. As artifacts are covered up by vegetation and eventually by soíl after síte abandon¡nent, general- nixing due Èo surface disturbance should stop.

Any localized subsurface activity by subsequenÈ occupants would increase the chance of nÍxing artifacts from previous occupations, but Èhis type of disturbance should be recognizabLe duríng excavation. It might be expected that nith a tíme depth of up to 2000 years, the artífacts should be míxed only with Èhose adjacent to Èhem, not throughout the deposit. Slor.r soil accumulation and the frequency of repeated occupa- ti.ons, however¡ may have a greater effect on artifact movement than is generall-y recognized. Thís seems l-ikely, partícularly in f-ight of the concentration of most of the cultural materiaL within five levels, a distance of only 15 cn. The lack of stratified cultural deposits (excluding flood plain deposits) and indistinct natural soil horizons in the study area often 5B

results in the use of arbitrary excavation levels for provenience control. There is, however, a strong l-ikelihood that the arbitrary 1-evels will cross-cut undulating occupaÈion floors. Variation in the depth of culÈural and natural deposition across the site must be assumed, and rüith extrenely thin deposíts representÍng cultural occupatÍons, arbitrary l-evels parallel to the surface are likeLy to cross-cut Èhe occu- patÍon strata. Thus, despite the use of extremely thin layers, portions of undulaÈing occupatÍon deposÍts become mixed with portÍons of others, rnakíng reconstruction and Ínterpretatíon of sequences difficult íf not impossÍble.

Even a slightly undulating occupational stratu¡x may result in mistaken associatíons of artifacts in the same three centimeter leve1. It is suggested that exact provenience recording should be a necessary requirement aÈ any boreal forest - Shield site ¡cith. .. Icompact] sÈratigraphy, if any vertical or horÍzontal conrrol is to be mainrained (Wall 1981:135).

Speaking of Manitoba archaeology Ín the 1950's, Syms says,

Since foci were defined on the basÍs of materials from míxed components, excavated in arbít.rary levels, their definitions reflecÈed this mixture in a serÍes of gradual shifting frequencies of types rather than as possible discrete clusters of types; ít was irnpossÍble to know if each focus represented a stage in a local development, if there r¿ere distinctive groups moving in and ouË of the area, or sone combinat.ion of the two (1977 266) . This situatíon has not changed signifícantly.' I.fithout precíse control of provenience on all recovered information, the resultíng mixture of materÍals from one level- appears to be contemporaneous and cannot be sorted out. Ïüith thín deposits eovering long tÍne spans, undulating ground surfaces due t.o differential soil accumulat.ion and artÍfact de- posíÈion, and surface and subsurface nodification due to habitatíon, the use of arbitrary excavation levels (even as small as 3 crn) for vertical provenience control, serves to increase the difficulty in recognizing artífact assocíaríons (cf. shay 1982:g3). This difficulry ís a 59

Problen for all artifacts but parÈicularly for 'culturally undiagnostic' ones such as faunal remains. The approach taken Èo the other culEural naterials and their distributÍons has major implÍcations for the faunal ¡rat,erial. Although exact provenience recording would not eliminaÈe all

the problems associated with the recognition of related and contemporaneous remains (cf. shay 1982:87), it would greatly increase the possibility of isolaÈing clusËers of related artifacts. In conclusion, three main sources of posE-depositional dis.turbance .considered and artifact mixture have been for these sites on Lake of the I,Ioods:

l) repeated occupation of the sites combined with slow soil accumulation, 2) natural posË-depositional disËurbance, and 3) recovery methodology. It was concluded that the potenEial exists for mixture in these sites

from more than one source. Given the length of tine these arEifacts have been buried, upward dÍsplacemenÈ due to (2) frost action probably has not been as fast as the laboratory experiments suggest (Appendix A), or everything should have been ejected by now - even horizontally oriented disc shaped objects. Although some movemenE from frosE action as well as tree fa1ls and root growth is a possibility, these processes do not seem to account for the extenÈ and nature of the overlap observed in Ëhese sites" Frost action should noE be depended upon Ëo explain differences beEr¡een the acÈual and expected dÍstribution. The two most likely sources of the observed pattern of overlap appear, at the noment, to be (l) repeated occupaÈion under conditions of slow soil accumulation, conbined with (3) the use of arbitrary excavation levels for provenience control" This means that, although Ehe bones cannot be associated with one ceramic ware, they have not necessarily been badly disturbed.. 60

rt also means rhat the faunal naËerial from separate occupations (pos-

sibly widely separared t.emporally) probably has been, in some cases, differentially included in Ehe same arbitrary levels. This problem is discussed later with regard Eo resource scheduling and the bone analysis.

Bias and Mi-xture of Ehe Faunal Samples

Disturbance

Although there is some poËential indicated for the process-of frosE heaving, there is no strong direct or indirect evidence to suggesË that natural disturbance has greaÈly nodified the cultural deposits at these sites" By extension, major disturbance is not indicated here with fespect to the faunal remains. A more likely source of disturbance was mixÍng of previous deposits by repeated occupaEion of the sites"

On-Site Sampline

rn order to locate occupaEion areas, Èhe excavations nere, nor

Ehe nost part, carried out in brocks of contiguous units of one by one metre" lrhile this is important for exposÍng large areas of the occu-

Pation deposits and assessing stratification, when the excavated area is small it leaves potentially large areas of the siÈe unsampled. As a result, it cannot be assumed that the excavaEed areas are representative of their respective sites. This nay be particularly true when considering butchering refuse which is 1ikely to be processed, or de- posÍted after processingr on the periphery of the occupation area. rf so, it could easily be missed wÍthout benefit of effeccive on-site sampling- A systemati.c sampling design would not eliminate this pos_ sibility (cf" Flannery 1976:159), but, in combination with block excavations, it could reduce it. 61

Recovery Techn ].ques

The use of arbitrary levels, the screen mesh size, and the pre-

sence or absence of flotation also affect Ëhe context and content of the faunal sanple. It was concluded above t.hat the use of arbitrary levels with no precise datum reference has cont,ributed to mixing of the cu1- tural material that cannot no\./ be sorted out. Several studies have been conducted on the recovery efficiency associated with different screen mesh sizes (e.g. Linp and Reidhead

1979:, Garson 1980; Thomas 1969). They claiur a urajor bias against rhe recovery of s¡naIl faunal and floral remai-ns. This claim is dÍfficult to assess with regard to Lake of the Woods l¡ithout more deÈai1ed reference to the physical conditions involved. For Ínstance, Thomas (1969:Table l) indicates thaÈ only wiÈh l/16 inch mesh was fish bone recovered at a1l.

This is not enÈirely supported by Èhe present case since fish bone r¡as recovered during excavaÈions using trowels and a l/4 inch mesh screen.

One reason for fish bone recovery in Èhe screen on the Lake of the tJoods sites may be E.he relatively high clay content of the soils in this area.

This decreases the ease with whích the back dirt goes Èhrough the screen and requires more manual manipulation. Also, nany of the bones of the species recovered (northern pike and walleye) are large enough to be plainly visible and to be recovered during excavation or to get caught in a 1/4 inch mesh screen. Although it does not seem that the losses are as great as those suggested in studies from other areas, there has probably been considerable loss of surall bones and fragments. At the present Ëime, however, a specific assessment cannot be nade. The fact that only a snall amount of flotation was carried out at one siËe (the Meek Site) would suggest that there is a definiEe bias 62

against very sma1l specimens such as fish scaLes (a snaller screen mesh size should recover these as well). ït is llkely that for this area, floral remains, probably in carbonized form, could be recovered in substantial amounts only by surall screen mesh sizes and flotation.

Di f ferential Preservation

There ís the potentÍal for bias of the recovered sample from differential preservation of bone from different taxa. BÍrd bones, having

a thin cortex' and fish bones are generally more fragile than most mam-

mal and reptile bones and are therefore more suceptible Èo dísintegratíon from burníng and acidic soils. IÈ Ís diffícult to assess the exËent to

r¡hich these different characteristícs have shaped the present samples. There ís the possibility that the raríty of fish remaíns in these sites,

and of duck bone as opposed to the heavier loon bone, mây be due to the physical characteristics of the bones. However, bone frorn all four taxonomic classes was recovered in states of both good and poor preservation. rt appears that the processing of bone and the localized soil- condítions may have affected the condítion of particular pieces more than differential preservation of bone from different zoological taxa.

Certain skeletal elements and parts of elements also tend to decay faster than others. ExcepÈ for the scarcity of cranial remaíns, however, all other skeletal elements are well enough represented to suggest tha¡

Ëhis is not an important source of bj_as.

rn sunmary, it is suggested that the possibility for sample bias exists predominantly as a result of the lack of a systematic sarnpling procedure, and secondaríly, from the use of % inch mesh screens and very 63

little flotation. The possibilÍty of context mixture from the use of arbít.rary levels for provenience control is high, as ís mixture fron occupation activíties at the tine of deposition. This reduces the ability to make detaÍled context and content analyses and to draw specific conlusÍons on the basis of Èhese data. ChoÍces of recovery nethodologies and techniques are involved Ín all the major sources of bÍas and nixture except for t.he process of mixture durÍng occupation. Therefore, it Ís possíble to minirníze the sanple bias and context mixture by modifying sampling and excavation nethodologies and techniques. Some modifications are discussed below.

Susses ted ModificaÈions to Procedures The physical conditions conÈrolling bone preservation and stratification of the deposÍts cannot. be changed, but they can be controlled for during planning, analysis, and interpretation in order t.o increase the recovery and usefulness of Èhe data. FírsÈ, however, the importance of the daÈa must be recognized and the information sought must be iden- tifÍed and incorporated into the research design. In sites with compact sEratifícation, conÈextual informatÍon on the bone is critical for at least three reasons. FÍrst, with the l-ack of discrete occupational straÈa' tighÈ provenÍence control is necessary to obtain information on depositional events. Second, detailed analysÍs of patterns within the faunal sampl-e is possíble only with good contextual information. ThÍrd, assocÍation of the bones with other artifacts requires an accurate record of their relative context.s and provenience.

More precise contextual inforuration can be obtaÍned, and the problen of the overlap of remains frou separate occupations can be minimized 'wíth the use of ; 64

r) adequate sampling design includíng a random sample for representative recovery of site contenls, and block ex- cavaEion to determine the degree of any diéturbance, 2) point provenience, 3) detailed soil stratification and sample analysis, 4) detailed analysis of horizont.al arLifact distributíon to identify the areas of least overlap so faunal ma_ terial can be used with greater confidence, and s) more attention to carbon-14 dating.

The size and composition of the faunal sample itself, as ¡nen-

tioned above, is affected by the quality of preservatÍon, the recovery techniques and the samplÍng procedure. To maximize bone recov.ery, screen mesh sízes of less than k inch are suggested in combínation l¡ith flotation when feasible. On-site sampling Ehat takes the recovery of faunal remains as well as other artifacts into account would increase the probability of obtaining a sanple that is representative of the site contents.

The inÈerpreÈaÈion of faunal remains and subsistence activities at individual sites would be greatly facilitated by the development of a regional subsistence strategy model(s). This requires a regional samplíng prodedure that samples the different topographic and habitat tyPes in an effort to isolate season and activity specific habitation locaÈions for human foraging populaÈions. rt also requíres siÈ,e sampling procedures dÍrected toward identifying the range, season, and structure of activities that took place at specific sites. The fo11ow- ing chapters present one procedure for exÈracting seasonality and subsistence activity infornation from saraples Ehat conEain what r¿ould. usually be considered ninimal nmounEs of eÍther. CHÄPTER IIT

EXP ECTATTONS FOR SEASONAL FAI]NAL EXPLOITATION

Introduction

This chapter presents a reviev¡ of the general subsistence strategy roodel usually employed for the study area. A possible faunal resource exploitation schedule is derived fron ethnographic rnd ""ological liÈerature. In order to arrive at seasonality esÈiûates for the sites, this schedule Ís used Êo derive test implications regarding; I) the range of faunal procurenent activities, 2) relative abundance of faunal taxa, and 3) site location.

Review of Current Sub s is tenc e Strategy Model

Archaeological research in the study area has not yet been used to produce a comprehensive reconstruction of seasonal and long Èerm woodland period adapEive strategies on the canadian shield. Neirher is there an explÍcit1y used ethnographic subsistence model. Jochim's (r976) seÈÈlenent - subsisÈence model, derived from Rogersr (1962) etir- nographic data' provides Èhe only fornal framework for predicting faunal exploitation patterns withÍn the study area. However, his model has been criticized with regard to the use of inaccurate and unrealistic ecological assumptions, foraging assurpcions and quantitative ecological daÈa estimates, as well as st.atic treaÈment of dynanic boreal forest processes (Winterhalð,er L977:565-570). Inplied in Ehe archaeological literature is a generalized subsistence - settlement dichotomy beEween summer and l¡inÈer. It involves a pattern of large population aggregations

65 66

fÍshing on major lakes or rívers during the spring and surrrer and pos-

ibly gathering wíld rice in the Late s mmer and fall, in contrast to snall family groups hunting and trappíng inland duríng the winter

(steínbrÍng 1980:18-19; Buchner L979:107; Lugenbeal L976:316). This Pattern is sinilar to that descríbed ethnographÍeally for areas with

trading Posts (cf. Rogers 1962, 1973), but has not yet been demonstrated archaeologicall_y for the study area.

The use of the term f ínlandr is misleading in an area r.¡ith a high

Percentage of water coverage. Inland ínplies a dífferent terrain and habitat from the surtrner shoreline locati.on, and therefore the necessÍty

to move seasonally, possíbly substantial distances. This construct and

the terminology for it may derive from patterns observed in the i¡mnedíat,e

vÍcÍnity of the upper Grear Lakes (cf. Fitting 1975). However, rhe

Canadian Shield and the boreal and mixed conifer-hardwood forest asso-

ciated with ít do not provide Èhe human forager with the contrast be-

tween the large lake and interior land environment provided by the Great Lakes.

The Shield and Boreal Forest, with respect to subsistence adap-

ÈatÍons, "... can be characterízed as a spatíally extensíve biome con-

sisting of repetitive fine-scaled patches through ¡¡hích anímal resources

are dispersed and Ín whích notably successional and oscillatory popu-

lation cycles are corîmonplace" (rves and sonopolí l9g0:37). The canadian Shield is characterized by an irregular configuration of land forms.

Lakes' streams, swamps, bogs and muskeg cover a large portíon of the surface area. The various dry land forms are associated wÍth distinct floral communities whích form a mosaic of vegetation patch types. l^linterhalder (r977:57) states that these vegeËation patches 67

differ ín their species compositions, physiognomy, and pro- ducÈivity, and consequently in the resources and shelter they offer various anímal species" Each has different qualÍties with respect to the game it attracts, and the impediments it places between forager and prey.

The game species are each associated with specific vegetaÈion patch types and consequently are dispersed according to these habitats. As a result, each patch type would have dífferential importance for the hu¡nan forager with respect to other patch types. I.Jhich patches were imgortant would depend upon the game being sought and upon variaÈion in seasonal climatic features such as freeze-up and break-up, snor.z cover and stream flow (Winterhalder 198lb :72). Patch types providing favourable habirat for preferred prey specíes would be of primary import.ance to the forager. l^linterhalder (1981b:77) stresses that the sma1l scale of these patches makes this area different from the woodlands to the souÈh and the grasslands to the nest.

The scale of heterogeneity of this habitat is importaat. The mean size of the productive upland patches is smal1 (generally less than I klr¿) relative to the range normàl1y covered by a human forager. For instance, Rogers (1963:57) records family "hunting group" (3 - 5 famílies) areas of approximarely 700 tm2 for the Pekangekum area of OnÈario.

Boch winterhalder (1977) for the northern onÈario cree, and Nelson (1973) for the Alaskan Kutchin, stress the foragerts need for familiar- ity with the local characÈeristics of this fine-grained ecological variatíon in order to exploit the resources successfully. This knowledge combíned with the degree of reliabiliry or predicrabiliry of a given specíes will greatly affect the energy exgended in proportion to the return for various subsistence activities. A faunal resource exploitation schedule, with reference to the season and location of human occupation, is derived frorn the ecological 68

and ethnograPhic data on the acquisÍtion of the faunal resources. The

population characterisÈics of the faunal resources arå combined with the ethnographic data on the seasons of highest acquisition efficiency

for the índividual species, and on the speci.es procured by two groups

ín northern Ontario, the Round Lake Ojibwa (Rogers 1962) and the Muskrat

Dam cree (winterhalder 1977). This infor¡oation i.s suoplemented by

reports on tero other groups, the Mistassini cree of northern Quebec

(Rogers 1973), and the Alaskan Kutchin (Nelson Ig73). The dara in rhese reports çras collected beËween 1953 and 1975. The groups lived in vi1- lages for part of the year but either moved to special purpose huntíng, físhing or trapping camps for part of the year or made extended trips to pursue Èhese acÈivities. Rogers (1962:c53) esrinares that store bought foods conprised between a quarter and a Lhird of all food con- sumed by the Round Lake Ojibq¡a.

Faunal Resource Procurement Schedule

HabítaE associations and populacion charact.eristics for some faunal resources ín the study area are shown in Table 4. These data are largely drarnm f rom l^IinËerhalder IgEl (Tables 4.2, 4.3, 4.5) . The species dealt wiEh here are chose most empha.sized as subsistence resources in the ethnographic literature referred to above. Syms (L977222) ]nas defineå faunal subsistence resources as "... those animals which influence the movements of people most stronglyt'. He differentiates between several 1eve1s of explo i ta E ion .

Faunal resources include animals that are: (a) primary subsistence resources Èhat provide most of che basic items, such as bison, on the Plains; (b) peripheral resources that augment the main resources; (c) starvation resources utilized only during periods of food shortage; and (d) non-resources thar. are noÈ utilized because of cultural values, lack of procurement Eech- nÍques, or availability of more desireable resources (syus L977222) Tabl-e 4; Population characteristics of che faunal subsistence resources for the study area

bb llve welghra blonassb dens I tyb scablllry recurrencr sl¡e! ¡t-termc populâtton aggregatfon earX.y wlnterb range ave. kg/tm2 no / I 00k*2 r" I i.abf Ilry spr Bum fall sln group slzc fn kg MJTM}ÍÂI-S Largc mamnale l. Moose F 350 t7,2! 5.6 I rregula r low AIces alccs M 385-535 435 modera te DD D 1.8 ind. 6hor t- ferm 680 kg t '2. Woodland Carlbou F 63- 94 o. 7r f rregu lar low Rangl fer tarandu6 M 8l-ls3 0.5 rnodera t e D-F D-F D-F F 6. 0 i.nd . l.ong-te rm 900 kg t Wtlte-ta1l Deer F 57- 63 NA Odt¡collerrs NA modera te NA NA virAlnlanus [1 8ó- 96 t)-F D-t D-F F Bl ack Bear F 92-ì40 NA NA NA Ursus amerfcanus M r r5-270 NÂ NA DDt) D

Med lum n¡¿¡mna ls 5. [Jcaver F L rregu1a r modera Ee 20 20.9!- 185 modera te DDDD 5.0 ind, Cas¿or ca¡¡adensls M 35 slrorr-term 100 kg t Srnall malnnals 6. S¡rowshoe llare f' 4 I,6tû It5"000 cyc I fc 1 ol¡ modera te l,epus amerlcanus M 5 -18.2 - l ,300 l0 yr. D-F D-F D-F D-F I.0 1nd. -h 1gh 1.5 kg Iluskra c lrregula r ()rìdatra t.0 34.2!! 3,900 low zibeClt{cus cycllc, l0 yr nì()def' a Ce D-F D-F D-F D-F i,0 Ind. 0.9 kg

II I RI)S

I llu f fed Crouse 54.0 8. 600- NA low cycllc II¡¡¡rsa unrbel I us -6. 0 Ì moderate D-F D-F D-F D-F O lnd ,000 l0 yr. Skgt 9. [.J¿tcrfowl NA NA NÂ NA NÄ môderate -low F-F'+ D F-F+ lrl]! NA 675 "O NA hlgh NA hlgh F+D F+D

r,) Syrns l<)ll:21 Srability rt.fcrs to populariorì sr¿rbi lit.y. lr) lrtirrt r ¡ l¡.r lJt.r l98llr:7t) R(t:t¡rrt'¡ì¡'e r.fúrs tÒ recrrrrence fron pt,inr. of r ) t'l i ¡l t I rou ¡rrrptrr:¡r idrì derìsicy, t.r l¡.r tlr.r l9tJ lt¡:tl7 sttrrr¡-tcrm reli¿rl¡ility refcrs to rcli.¿¡r¡iriry or ,.'r)rrrrc ¿rr(.(. Ilre organjsnì is lo(.¿ttc.ì f) rlitl¡r:rt., lr - lrrr.¡l (i.:ir¡m.rtt.tlitti,Lrlt), tri . Z1-lol)r, l,,t+ = l()00r (S'n¡.; lgltr,4.r. NA -- (j¡'r¡lrl ¡¡,rr bt. ¡lt.t<.rnri¡rr.d I rrlu ..xist ing I I t(,ritt(t_r:

o\ \o 7A

Fish and waterfowl are the only animals that congregate seasonally

in large numbers" Hare, muskrat, and grouse all occur in small groups

at tines. Banfierd (1972:82) describes hares as gregarious and, â1- though they 1íve indivídually, they often live in the vícinity of other

hares, playíng together and usíng the same runs. MuskraÈ líve in sma1l farnily groups, but they too, ofÈen inhabit a lake with several other

grouPs of muskrat (BanfieId L972:198). Winrerhalder (198Ib279 Table 4.2) rePorts the early winter group síze of ruffed grouse as three; but grouse

do sometimes occur in larger groups of 15 Èo 20 aÈ least during the

sulllner (Pers- experience, Lake of the l.loods). The populations of moose, caríbou, and beaver are diffuse, although beaver live in fanily groups. During a hard winter v¡ith thick snow, moose and caríbou will congregate

ín larger than usual nunbers to make use of packed traíls and avaÍIable browse (winterhalder 198lb:80; Pererson 1955:r57), Table 4 shows rhar, on the average, the woodland caribcu population is noÈ dense relaÈive to the moose population. rt is probable, consid.ering the preferred habitats of woodland caribou, that they were never very numerous in the conifer-hardr¿ood forest along the southern edge of the shield. As a resulÈ of variable degrees of predictability of geographical and seasonal changes in resource availability, certain species would be expected to be consistently more important than others. For example, fish, a highly stable resource with 1or¡ rnobility, are subject to regular periods of populaËion aggregation and can be obtained with relatively 1ow energy output, thus providing high short-term reliability of capture success. Evidence of a Middle tr^/oodland Lake-Forest adaptation in the GreaË Lakes region indicates that índeed, people gathered seasonally ín laqge groups to exploit Èhe spring spawning fish (FiËting r975:99, 7I

L29-142).

The ecological characteristÍcs of the animal popuLations must be related to the effects they night have on the choices of the fora-

ging population. As l,linterhalder (l98lb:94) poinrs out, the indgpen-

dent ecological variabl-es only becorne relevant for generating hypo- f'. theses when they are vÍened rrithín Èhe context of . . the skills and behavíor of the foragerst'. The technoLogy available, the ecological knowledge of the foragers, and cuLÈural mechanísms such as food sharing

and storage, affect the abilÍty of the foragers to satisfy dietary and non-food requirements from a particuLar resource set and ínfluence heavily the ways these requirements can be uet. ïn analysing the foraging strategies of one group of cree in

northern ontario in 1975, l^Iinterhalder (l9glb:g6) found Èhat rhe ner

acquisitíon effici".r"yl of the varÍous faunal species Èaken corres- ponded more closely to the actual harvest Èhan the biomass estímates

for the same species did. This suggests that energy capture r.7as an

important factor ín deciding the faunal resource exploitation schedule. I'Iinterhalderts efficiency estÍmates, however, were calculated with reference to the technology of the cree he was observíng. fn his particular sÈudy, Ëhis incLuded outboard motors and snorvmobiles used for searchíng, and repeating rifles, steel traps, snare wire and nylon fÍsh nets for pursuing the prey. As mentioned above, the technology available to the forager wíll affect decisions concerning the choice of species and the most efficíent

1l^lirrt".hrlder uses acquisition efficÍency "... in terms of time and energy investment and energy return" (1981b:81) measured j-n kcal/hr. This involves search, pursuit and processing time and energy. 72

exploitation procedures. IlinÈerhalder (198lb:88) argues that as technological changes cause variaÈion in search and pursuit times, the di- versíty of species exploited wÍll vary. For example, glven the present technol-ogy of the cree, both for search and pursuit, Èhe range of species exploiÈed by then would be fairly narron because of the abílity Èo re1-y on the preferred species as a result of the low risk of capture failure. In the recent past, prior to the use of snomrobiles and outboard motors, the tirne spent searchíng for prey would have been greater than at present. Consequently, a ¡slder range of exploíted specíes urould have been necessary because of the greater risk of not locating the preferred si:ecies. rn the more distant past, with higher search time and with pursuit tiure greater than that for the above tvro cases, the species which presented a low rísk of capture failure would have been given high prioriÈy. This would be expected to resulÈ ín a narrower range of exploited speeies (at least in the short term) than ín the second case, but as trIÍnterhalder (198lb:88) notes, this need not include the same specíes as the first example. The first range of species was narroÍI as a result of the abiliÈy to choose preferred species. The third range of species hlas narro\'v out of the necessÍty to concentrate on the mosÈ relíable species.

Prehistoric subsistence economies ranged fron diffuse with an unspeeialízed and varied resource base, to focal with an emphasis on one or two primary resources (c1eland 1966244). The subsistence adaptation to the Boreal and Great Lakes Forests that is described ethno- graphícally is a diffuse subsistence base (Rogers 1962, r973; Dunning

1959; Feit 1973; I^Iinterhalder I977). Archaeologícal data from rhe area also indÍcaËe a díffuse subsisËence adaptation (Dawson 1974; Lukens 73

1970; Cleland 1966). ThÍs conÈrasts wÍth Èhe grasslands adaptation more

focused on the exploÍtation of one primary resource, the bÍson. An un- specialízed díffuse foraging strategy Ís adapted to exploit simultaneous- 1y and/or seasonally a range of resources, no one of rvhich occurs ín

sufficÍent abundance or with sufficÍent predíctability to support Èhe economy singly (I,Iinrerhalder 1977; cleland 1966244). This resulrs in

the flexÍbility to shift exploiÈatíon emphases and adapt new methods,

an ability that is advantageous in an area that experiences frequenË

and often unpredÍctable fluctuations in the populations of nany of Èhe resource species. cleland (L966:44) suggests that there are several

disadvantages or characteristics assocíated with this type of adap-

tation. These include the rel-atively hígh degree of nobility and the

large technological ínventory required to exploít geographically and seasonally variable resources, a lirnited abilíty to utilize food sur- pJ-uses, and reliance on the natural abundance and availabilíty of food resources.

subslstence adaptation to an area, and Èhe adaptíve process in general ' cannot be examíned until the resource use schedule ís deter- míned. The eval-uatÍon of the seasonality of site occupation and the range of activÍties that took place there are an important part of de- ternining the nature of the subsisÈence decisions made in adapÈing to an area. Given the eÈhnographic evídence for the practÍce of sËorage and transport of food items such as Eeat hrith bones, caution must be exercised Ín distinguishing, on Ëhe basis of single Índicators, between t,he season of site occupation and the season of procuremenË.

rn a recent overview of seasonalÍty sËudÍes, Monks (l9gl 2223) rt. argues that i-f ". seasonality of site occupation is the research 74 problem, then the spectruln of procurement activiÈies and their seasons must be evaLuated as a wholer'. Thís point of víew is supported by an observation of the seasonal subsistence activíties of the Round Lake 0jibwa by Rogers (1962:C4). "There is no síng1e economic actívity which characterizes any one period [Íe. season]. Rather, each period is sepa- rated on the basis of particular combinatíons of activitÍes and theír Íntensity'r. Thls points out that there are recognizable sets of ac- tivitles and that there is qrrantitative variation between the activiÈÍes srithin a set from season to season. It also focuses on Ídentifying the range of procurement activities at a site. The rarity, for Lake of the Ï,loods (and possíbl-y Ëhe study area Ín general) , of seasonal indicators thaÈ are specific to a single season makes it necessary to use a r,¡hol-e set of procurement activities to evaluate seasonality.

One method of assessing individual seasonalíty indicators Ís by recording presence or absence. l'lonks (1981:182) notes that, while this nethod does yield infornatíon, it tt... masks quantitative variatíon among seasonal- indicators" and he urges sensiÈivity to numbers of indÍcators. Al-though he is referring here to the abundance of índividual seasonaliÈy indícaËors, attention to quanÈitative variaÈÍon ís also important to an assessment of conbínations of resource procurement activities represented by the archaeofaunas from siÈes. Most species might be represented in al-l seasons but emphasis on the procuremenÈ of different species during dÍfferent seasons would be expected. This would resul-t in varying relative abundances of the species represented by the faunal remains fron different seasons of site occupation. Monks (1981 z23l) suggests that an intuiËive ranking of the abundance of IseasonalÍty 75

índicators] (abundant, contrnon, rare, absent), although subjective, t¿ould peruit testing of hypotheses of great.er detail - and hence potentíally greater accuracy - than is the case only with nominal scale of measurement.

Thus, a qualitative assessment of an assenblage conEaining walleye, pike, rnigratory ducks, nesÈing ducks, nuskrat, beaver, tnoose and hare would only be able to suggest an occupation any tine between break-up and freeze-up without ruling out winter àccupatíon. A quantitative assessment of the same assenblage, however, that recognized abundances of pike, walleye, waterfowl and uuskrat would be able to suggest strongly a spring occupatíon.

In the following section, the expecÈed abundance for species with variable seasonal acquisition efficiency and/or availability is estimated for each season. Tables 5 and 6 conbine the data on species population characteristics shov¡n in Table 4 wiEh ethnographic information on subsistence actívities and species exploitatíon efficiency. Table 5 suurarizes the following discussion of individual taxa of primary imporÈance. This

ís done h?ithin the framework of the technology available t.o Woodland period people.

Moose Alces alces

The evidence for rnoose procurenent is somewhat contradictory" l.linterhalder (L9772327,485) reports that almost 502 of the moose procurement at Muskrat Dam took place during the fa1l. Nelson (1973:86) also reports Ehat this is the principle season for ¡noose hunÈing. On the other hand, Rogers (L962:C43) indicares rhar the najoriry of moose were taken from January to March and only a few during the fa11. How- ever, he does say that moose are sought after the first snow fa11 in the fal1 (Bogers L96Z:c42) . Both Rogers (L962:C42) and i^/interhald.er ( lgglb : 84) 76

Table 5 Seasonal availability of faunal subsj-stence resources ( from Table 4) in the study area ("..) and expecred. periods of main exploitation (_)

Species AM J J A S O N D J F M A

Moose Caribou l{trite-taÍl Deer 7177122 Black Bear Beaver MuskraË Snowshoe Hare Grouse Waterfowl Fish (spring spawning)

Table 6: Seasonal availability of other faunal resources in the study area.

Species Aì,f J J A S O N D J F M A Wapiti I Canis sp. Lynx Raccoon River OrÈer Porcupine Skunk Mink Marten Eastern CotÈon- tail Rabbic Turtles

ISee Àppendix F for scientific nomenclature. 77

state thaÈ late winter or earLy spring snow condÍtions wíth deep snow

and a crust that wilL supporË the hunter but not the moose províde fdeaL

conditions. Rogers (L962:c11) suggests that, although some hunting ís

done duríng January, February and March, the cold tenperatures and snow depth inhlbit most activitíes. rf, as NeLson suggests (1973:109), snaríng was an Ímportant tech- nÍque for taking large, sol-itary, and sometimes dangerous garne prÍor Ëo

the use of firearms, the periods of híghest acquisition efficiency may have been different. Ilowever, snaring success depends upon knowíng where the prey Ís and that ít will encount,er the snare and wal-k through Ít raÈher than around it. The best condÍtÍon for this ís a traii- in fairly deep snow or thick underbrush. In the v¡ínter, moose tend to congregat.e to take advantage of packed trails in a l-ocaLízed area. March and early

April, with a crust on deep snow and nanner temperatures, provide good conditj-ons for locating both the moose and a good place to set a snare. The rut in the fall-, with the moose more active than usual and probably travellíng along predÍctable paths, mây also have been a good time for snaring.

One reference to sr¡rnmer moose hunting r¿as made (Helm L972267).

Helm commented that the Dogrib consíder Jul-y, when the moose are found along ríver and lake nargins, a good tine of year for moose hunting because they are easily approached, probably fron the rsater. It is díf- fÍcul-t to assess this practice with reference to the period prior to the use of fÍrearms. Both the Muskrat Dam Cree and the Round Lake Ojibwa claímed that surrmer is the hardest time of year to hunt. moose (Rogers

L962¿C42; l.Iinterhalder 19772328). An Ínformant explained to I{interhal-der

(\977:328) that r¿hen the waËer Levels are high Ín Èhe sunmer, Lhe moose 78

can stay back in the swamps away frou the main water channels and lake

shores" With low water levels they are more visÍble along lake and

river margins. For the present purposes, the fall rut and March and

April are taken as the expecÈed times of highest moose acquisition.

None of Èhe references mentioned selective hunting of males or females at dífferent times of year although it nay have been practiced.

Woodland Caribou Ran ifer tarandus

carÍbou are currently very sparse in the study area and'they may

never have forrned a large part of the þrrm¿¡ foraging diet. There was

only a li¡aíted amount. of caribou hunËÍng aE Round Lake. Rogers

(I9622C46) records that most of it t,ook place during the winÈer, Novem-

ber to March, with very lÍtt1e occurring between April and October.

Lrlrite-taíled Deer Odocoileus vir ]-nlanus

Deer do not occur very far north of Lake of the Woods and there-

fore did not aPPear in the Round Lake or Muskrat Dam Lake sauples. In a subsistence model for the saginaw va1ley in central Michigan, Keene

(1981:184) calculated that deer would have been procured from June to

November r¡ith Èhe majority being Èaken in October. On the other hand,

syos (r977:45), synÈhesizing Landes (i968:161-214), reporrs rhar rhe

Santee Dakota hunted deer in western Minnesota beginning in late Septeur- ber or October and continued until sometime in January. Variation ín the season of procurement, may reflect scheduling decisíons relat,ive to differences in other resources available. However, the fal1 and winter procurement is more compatible with other descriptions of large game hunting for the study area. 79

Black Bear Ursus americanus

Bear could be taken all year but were preferred in the fall when t,hey were fat and in the spring when Èhey predietably appeared at rapids to f.ish (Rogers 1962:C44). Bear Ís another anímal that Nelson (L973:i15)

says was tradítionally snared. Both sources sÈaÈe that bear formed a sna1l portion of the dÍet.

Beaver Câstor canadensÍs

Break-up and freeze-up appear t'o be significant times for beaver

procurement,. Rogers (19623c41), winrerhalder (1977:430) and Nelson

(1973:250) report that large numbers of beaver are trapped and snared

Ín May just after break-up. Rogers (L962:C4I, L973:Tab1e 2) and l/inrer-

halder (1977:485) reporÈ that late November and December is also a major

trapping period, while Nelson (1973:250) srates thar only a few are taken at this tÍme. Rogers (L973:44) states thar "Formerly beaver were taken with bov¡s and arro\¡/s and deadfalls". similarly, Nelson (r973:250) states that traditionally there was no underr¡ater snarÍng. Although there is

insufficíent Ínformation to establish the accuracy of Nelson's statemenÈ

for lhe study area, for the purpose of the presenÈ dLscussion, the assump-

tion is made that, there was no underwater snaring and that beaver were taken primarily accordíng to Rogerst description. This should result in more concentraÈion on the post break-up and pre freeze-up periods.

consequent.ly, the expectation would be for higher nunbers of beaver bones from late fall activíty before freeze-up than is the case at the present time with snaring under the ice. 80

Snowshoe Hare (Lepus americ us)

Rogers (1962:C45) records the heaviest exploitalion fro¡o November to March s¡íth less ín the spríng and fall and almost none in the sumner.

I,linÈerhalder (19Blb:81) estimates Èhe period of highesc acquÍsition efficÍency to be early winter after freeze-up (Decenber). He (1977:

379) and Nelson (L973:134) report thaÈ more snaring was done in the fa11 and spring than nid-r¿inter when cold tenperaËures decreased the aetÍviÈies of hares and humans a1ike. The díscrepancy may be due. to different uses of the seasonal terus, and, for the present case, Rogersr description of the tining of hare exploitation has been provisionally accepÈed.

MuskraÈ Ondatra zibethicus

Spring lras generally described as the main season for muskrat procurement. Reports from Rogers (1962:c4l), llinterhalder (L977:405), and Nelson (1973:263) indicate that the vast najority of muskrar are procured in April and May. l.Iinrerhalder (1977:485) also sÈates that this season has Èhe highest acquisition efficiency for muskrat. Accor- dÍng to Winterhalder (L977:403) and Nelson (19732267) a good number were also taken Ín the fa1l prior to freeze-up. Rogers (r962:c4l) however, indicates that very few r¡ere taken during this period by the Round Lake

Ojibwa" Those that vrere taken ín Èhe fal1 and early winter were taken in November and December, both prior to and after freeze-up. hrinter- halder (i981b:81) suggests that the acquisition efficiency for muskrat drops sharply at freeze-up, and for the present case his estinate is accepted " Support for the relevance of Winterhalderfs acquisit.ion efficiency estimaÈe to prehisLoric procurement activities is supplied by corgtents 81

on the Ëraditio¡al nethods of taking muskrat. Nelson (I973:267) reporËs

that "The Kutchín formerly took muskrat during the fall using a dipnet made from babÍche". He Íncludes September and OcÈober ín the fal-1 sea-

son. I.Iinterhalder (1977:403) states that muskrat Ì.¡ere t,aken with bows

and arrows prior to the use of rifles and sÈee1 traps. Both of these nethods r¿ou1d serve to raise the acq.uisition efficiency of the period prior to freeze-up rel-aÈive t,o that after freeze-up. Thus, the spring

afÈer break-up appears to have been the uain period for taking muskrat

with a secondary Procure¡Dent period occurring in the late fa}l and early winter prior to freeze-up.

Grouse (Tetraonidae)

Ruffed' spruce, and sharp tailed grouse are all sought" Rogers

(r962:c45) states Èhat fa1l is the season that the rnajority of grouse are taken in the Round Lake area, buE that they are taken all e¡inter 'Nelson and spring whenever possible. Fel¡ are taken in the su¡runer.

(1973:81) says that the Alaskan Kutchin combine grouse hunting wirh the fa1l hare hunting near the vi11age.

'[.Iaterf ow1

Fa11 and spring are the periods of greaÈest waterfowl population aggregation and this is when mosÈ are taken (Rogers Lg62:c45). since the Round Lake people took fer¡ in the surnmer, it appears that the local nesting species, even though they were avaj.lable alI summer, \.¡ere no¡ necessarily expl0ited any more than the non-nesting species.

Nelson (I973:79) describes flocks being herded by several canoes and killed wiEh arrov¡s during the molting period.sl when the ducks could

I July and late September. 82

no¡ fly. This rnay have been one of Èhe most efficient ways of capturing waterfowl prior to the use of firearms, and it would have put emphasis on the,periods of nolt. Another technigue lras to hunt ducks fron behind blinds on the shore or in a canoe (Nelson L973276; Rogers 1962:C45). I{aterfov¡l }tere an important di.etary suppleroent but formed only a suall portion of the diet (Rogers I9622C46; Nelson 1973:81). In north- wesÈern Ontario this nay be related to the fact that the area is not a main migration route, and although large numbers of waterfowl.may pass

Èhrough, they could disperse in the many bays and ponds available.

Rogers (1973:59) reports that, among the Mistassíni, bírd bone was often thror¡n into Èhe water if there was no bone rack available to deposit it on. This could affect the recovered bird bone frequencíes.

Fish

Sone fish congregate in large numbers during their annual'spalm- ing period, forrning a concentrated easily exploitable populaEion. This does not aPPly to all species present in the study area since some spaurt in a dispersed distribution. The spawning períods and habitat are shown belol¡ for those specÍes that aggregate seasonally (Table 7).

The fishing activiEies described by both Rogers (L962:Cl7) and winterhalder (1977:350-377) involve the use of gill ners. Ners are ser and then checked at intervals. The lower the productivity, the longer

the net is left betv¡een checks. For Muskrat Darn in 1975,

the pattern of the catch shows peaks in the spring and again in the fal1. These are periods when many species inhabit the shallow margins of lakes and rivers where the nets are seE. The lower productivity of mid-winter is probably related to the migration of the fÍsh into deeper areas to avoid the ice; that of uid-sunmer related to migration out of the waru shoal waters in- to deeper and cooler areas (WinterhaLder L977:363). 83

Table 7 Spawning times and habitats for fish species that aggregate seasonally on Lake of the l+Ioods (Scott and Crossman 1973) AMJJASONDJFM Walleye 1 Pike Yellow Perch Muskellunge Sturgeon Sucker Sauger Goldeye Fresh Water Drum Lake Trout Ì{hitef ish Herring

S alJn1n habitat Walleye rapids or shoals, whiÈe-water Píke 2-5 metres, floodplain, vegetated bays Yellow Perch shallow, variable Muskellunge less than 1 metre, vegeÈated flooded areas St,urgeon Less than 5 metres, rivers at rapids or falls Sucker shallow streams and lake margíns Sauger 3-5 ueÈres, shoals, gravel, large Èurbid lakes or rÍvers Goldeye turbid pools or backwaters Fresh Ílater Drrm less than 2 metres, bays, lower rivers Lake Trout less than 12 netres, lakes WhiEefish less than I metres, 1akes, hard bottou Herring 1-3 netres (buË variable), over gravel bottom, variable

There is some question, hor,¡ever, as to whether fish net.s were used in the study area prehistoricarly (cleland 19g22765, Figure l;

S1'ns 1977:45)- The acquisitíon efficiency for summer and wint.er would probably be rower for fishing with spears, hooks and 1ines, and, possib-

1y wiers than that for fishing with nets. If nets were not used. Ín the study area, the prehistorÍc Surrmer and winter procurement l¡ould have been considerably lor¡er than t.hat after the inEroduction of nets. This

i See Appendix F for scientific nomenclaLure. 84 rrtould serve to increase the relative importance of spring and fall exploí- tation of aggregated spawning populations. It is questionable whether

Procurement of the fal1 spawning species, trout and whiËefish, rvould have been possible without neEs. They spar/rn in deeper r,/ater than the spring spawning speeies and stay relatively deep during the summer. In most cases they would not have been easily accessÍble in large numbers. Cle- land (L982:774) poínts out that. "IE is clear frorn the archaeological record that the greatest exploitation of fish took place during the spring spawning season". I^iÍthout nets, the use of spears and wiers ro,r1à h"rru emphasized species such as sturgeon and pike because of their size, and sturgeon, pike and sucker because of their accessibiliËy (Cle1and I982 2773).

The expectations with regard co abundance of any fish remains in Ëhe sites must be modified due to three factors; l) preservation charact.eristics, 2) excavation procedures biased against recovery of a represen¡ative sample, and 3) possÍble deposition of fish refuse in the v/ater at the time of processíng. These factors also apply in varying degrees to the remaj-ns of other taxonomic classes.

The other faunal resources (Table 6) are Èhose Ehat probably did not form a large portion of the diet or for which Èhere is insufficient information to suggest main seasons of acquisition. It is likely, however, that there e/ere some resources Ehat were exploited in small amounts but that contributed a critical ingredient to t.he diet., such as certain viËa- mins or minerals. For example, Keene (1981:lB7) suggests that the procurement of turtles, fish and leafy greens would have been important for ob- Eaining sufficient amounts of calcium. Following this reasoning, turtles could have been more Ímportant than is generally recognized, even though they are often represented by small numbers of bones in sites. 85

ArchaeoloeÍcaL Test Imolicati ons of Six Seasonal Hypotheses for Site Occupations

Based on a predícted resource use schedule for northwestern Ont- ario, Jochiro (1976:45) identified periods of relatively uniform subsÍs-

tence actlvity with abrupt changes between then. His 'reconomic seasons" coincide closely with the fÍve periods of economÍc actívíty íden- tified for the Round Lake 0jÍbwa by Rogers (L962:c4); spring (April - May), sunmer (June - early sepÈember) , fal-1 (l-ate septernber - early October), early wínter (l-ate october - December), late winter (January - March). The foregoíng descriptions of faunal resource exploitation given l^loodland period technology, however, suggest the need to modify these seasonal divisions for their application to prehistoric subsis-

tence analysís. It appears that break-up and freeze-up would have had

a greater effect on the acquisition effícíency for several resources

than they do given presenË technology. It rvas suggested above that the Procurement of fish, waterfowl, nuskrat, and beaver would begin with break-up and be sharply curtailed by freeze-up. In addition, hrinter- halder (L9772328) suggests that, in general, moose were noÈ hunted duríng these two períods because of the diffÍculty of travelling.

consequently, seasonal divisions that change at break-up and freeze-up would appear to be more useful than those that span these per-

iods. In the southern portion of northwestern Ontario, break-up occurs between April 20th and May 10th, and freeze-up occurs between November

20th and December lst (Crowe et al. L973253-60). The following seasonal dívisions srere chosen for the presenÈ analysis as a means of organizing the seasonality hypotheses; spring (nid AprÍ1 - to"y), sunmer (June - early september) , fa1l (rrid september - nid November) , early r{rinter 86

(mid November - December) , mid r.¡inter (January - February) , late winter (March - mid Aprj_l)

Exo ected Seasonal Abundance of Faunal Remains

Based on Èhe seasonal acquisition efficiencies for the subsistence resources r expectations for the seasonal abundance of their remains are

derived as EesE implications of each of the seasonal occupation hypothe-ses.

Spríng (nid April - May)

The resources exPected to dominaÈe the spring assenblage Í.nclude beaver, muskrat, I.Taterfowl and spring spar+ning fish. These are all_ asso- ciaÈed with an aquatic habítat. The spring spar+ning fÍsh Ínhabit two different kinds of habitat. sturgeon and walleye spawn at the foot of rapids in rÍvers or lakes, while the other fish prefer lake margins, shallor¿ sÈreams or bays. Any combination of these resources could have been eurphasÍzed. rÈ is 1ike1y, however, that the efficiency of exploiting adjacenE and simultaneously available resources was recognized,. Muskrat and beaver Procurement could have been carried out on trips made from a base camp v¡here those r¡ho remained caught and dried fish and did sooe hare and grouse snaring. i.Iaterfowl hunt.ing could have been done at any tine from the caüp. rt is not expected that waterfowl hunting was ever a major activity in the Lake of the Woods area, since the main ní- graËion routes pass to the west of the lake.

Suumer (June - early Septenber) one characterÍstic of the ethnographic reports is the absence of any concentrated subsistence activity during the summer. This may be a function of the fact that the reference data involve groups who live in villages during the summer, and have access to connercial goods and B7

wage labour. Rogers (1962:c5) reporÈs that a moderate amount of wage labour l¡as engaged in during June and August

The lack of expected subsistence actÍvity for the suûmer raises

a problen thaÈ is relevant here. The abundance measures being used are

based on seasonal intensity of exploitation reported for each of the

species. Thus, for each animal, the abundance measures for season are

estímated with reference to the other seasons. For the suuner, however,

when most of the species are expected to be minimally expLoÍted (due to the lowest seasonal acquisition efficíency), it becor"" .,u"""""r, to assess Èhe specÈru¡n of resources and their suruner acquisitíon efficiency with reference to each other.

Prior to access to cotulercial actívitj-es and resources Eo sup- plement the diet during the surnmer, needs may have been met by a 1ow Íntensity exploitation of a broader range of resources than at other seasons. More emphasÍs may have been placed on plant foods such as various greens, roots, berries and wild rice. Keene (l9gl:lgg) poincs out that gathered foods are the 'r... primary means by which scarce nu- trients are introduced Ínto the dieÈtr. Moose snaring and summer fishing also may have taken place. Rogers (1962:c6) notes that rr... one charac- teristic task of the women during the suumer months ís the dressing an¿ drying of fish..."n Large amounts of fish from Ehe spring procurement could have been dried to last through the sr¡mmer. Moose meat could also have been dried. Although Rogers (1962:C45) reports thar few vere raken in the suûmer, hare and grouse uay have supplemenEed the suuuner diet. rn the southern part of the sEudy area, deer roight have been hunted. The nesting ducks undergo a molt around midsuumrer and, being flightless, are relatively easily caught ar this time (Bellrose L976:36), Beaver, 88 muskrat and bear are thin at thís tíne of year and are usually avoÍded (llinterhaLder L977t4L4, 430; NeLson 1973:116, 270)" During the late surmrer, harvesting wil-d rice would have been a prÍority wherever it grew. This could have been combined with some fowLing since several of the nesting ducks (e.g. nallard, b1-ackduck, pintail) feed on wild rice.

Fall (nid September - nid November) This season could have seen some ernphasis on fowling while the waterfowl were vuLnerabLe during their second molt, and during the fa1-L migration. Moose hunÈÍng would have been important during the fall rut when the moose are aetive along the lake shores. This is projected as the nain season for beaver procurement nlth the activity i-ntensifying after the moose ruttíng season and during the period before freeze-up. Muskrat, bear and deer also could have been taken, and hare and grouse snaring would have begun. The importance of fall fishing, given the absence of nets, is uncertain.

Earl-y l{inter (nid November - December )

The projected emphasÍs is on hare and grouse snaring. Moose hunting is expected to have Èapered off as weather condÍtions became increasÍngly difficult causing moose to l-eave the lake edges, and as more predÍctable resources were coming ínto season" Some moose, carÍbou, and deer hunting was probably carried out.

Mid Winter (Janua ry - February) Hare snaring would have been the primary activÍty, with secondary emphasis on grouse procurement. Caribou are soughÈ during stormy 89

s¿eaÈher' since they are easÍesÈ to approach then. Moose are sometimes sought "... but Èheír capture is diffieult" (Rogers.1962:cli)"

Late Winter (Mareh - níd April)

As wínter temperatures began to rise, moose (and possibly carÍbou)

hunting would have become more important, and proxirnity to moose popula-

tíons and habitat r,¡ould have been advantageous. Grouse and hare snaríng

would have begun to taper off. Although hare and grouse are more

reliable than moose v¡ith respecÈ to the risk of capture failure, and can be harvested at least as ef f ieiently ('t^Iinterhalder lgBIb:96) , one moose would equal a lot of hare and grouse. rn addition, the presÈige assocÍated r¿ith successfully hunting rnoose (Jochim L976:26), would have been worth the effort and risks. This season can provide the best moose hunting conditions.

Set tlenent Location

The faunal resources are associated v¡ith specific envirorunental patch tyPes that are dispersed in a fine-graíned mosaic over the landscape" Beaver and muskrat habitation locations remain stable from year to year. Moose, although they move seasonarly from one habiËat t,ype to anotherr apParently return to the sar¡e locations year after year, usually moving only short distances (ülinterhaLder 1977:189-190). Annual- climatic variation (e.g" sno\,7 cover thíckness, vrater levels), forest fire, and resource population fluctuation probably cause more variation ín the loca-

tions inhabited by the resource species than individ.ual mobility. Conse- quenË1y, human occupatíon sÍtes could have been used repeatedly for the procurement of specific resources or combinations of resources.

The exploitation of a combinaÈion of resources t.hat can be 90

procured from a cenÈral base canp is a more reliable and less risky procedure than relyíng on one resource in a given location. Rogers (1962¿ c25) suggests that fanily bonds and the desire for subsÍstence acquisi-

tion partners are strong enough thaÈ an extended family would not choose to split uP to exploit símultaneously resources Ín different areas.

They would be nore likely to setËl.e in approxinrately three-family groups

in locatÍons from which they could gain access to a number of resources. (L972:106) Rogers indicates that the Mistassini group rhar he observed

ín northern Quebec occupied síx base camps between nid-septeurber and late llay' These llere camPs from which a range of resources \./ere exproÍ- ted' Each move was no more than 20 miles and some erere considerably

1ess. EÍght hunting car'ps Ìdere established on the periphery of the base camps. These probably involved the extraction of a more linited number of resourees than the base canps. rn additíon Èo proxinity to economic resources, another factor lnfluencing choices of occupation locatíon is the need for suitable shelter (Jochim r976t49). A recenr srudy in norrhern Quebec (Hanks 1979) of criteria affecting settlement location choiees, found that protection from the l¡ind was imporrant ín the winter, and exposure, as protection frou insects, I.¡as inportanc in the suuner. Shelter from the wind for cânoe travel on lakes is also hypothesized as critical (Reid L977a:19; l{al1 1981:r47). Lake of the woods, wírh iËs rhousands of islands and large expanses of open water, provídes numerous choices for sheltered travel routes. I^Iall (iggl:146), on the basis of a study of preceramic sites on the lake, suggests that "... areas containing high qualicy lithic resources are favoured settlement zones...r and that exploitation r¿ou1d have occurred where lithic outcrops intersected these 9I travel routes. This would affect the seasonality of site location to the extent thaÈ quarrying !¡as a seasonal activity

Spring (mÍd April - May) Prime settlement locations vrould have been the first open water near a spawning site, both for fishing and fowling. Ideally this would also be near muskrat and/or beaver. habitats. Rogers (1973:4) notes that the spring canp was located near the fal1 canp so that the canoes, cached for the erinter, could be retrieved. The resources available in the spring could have supported a group of people larger - than the winter hunting group and perhaps several extended fanily units caurped together at this season. Muskrat and beaver procureuent, however, are a sma1l group or individual procedure. If co¡ununal fishing andfor fowling \rere practiced, a number of srnaller winter groups could have worked t.ogether. Spring would have been a busy time.

Summer (June - early Septernber) During the surmer site locatÍon could have been chosen to give access to plant foods frou both aquatie (water f-ily) and forest (roots and berries) habitats. Fishíng nay have continued all sr.runer, particu- 1ar1y for pike which inhabit shallow weedy bays and are relatíve1y accessible" Moose may also have been sought during this season. Locations thaÈ were central to a diversity of habitats allowíng 1ow level foraging for a wide range of faunal resources would have been preferred. Occupa- tion sites night have been moved to be close to rÍce beds during harvesting. In addition, locaËions exposed to the wind and therefore offering relief from Ínsects would probably have been preferred. 92

The períod of ht¡¡nan population aggregation and socializing des-

crÍbed by Rogers (I9622c6,1973:5), strrnmer, is associated r¡ith a decrease in subsistence acEivities. If this were also the case prehistorically,

susuuer' with the projecÈed 1u11 in faunal resource procurement, could have been the besÈ tine for large gatherings. l,lall (19g1:167) points ouÈ t'The that summer pattern of g{oup aggregaLion on shoreline encamp- Eents seems to have been a conmon phenomenon in the boreal forest" (cf. Rogers 1962:A23, rg73:80; Firzhueh I972). Travel in the foresr ís easiest when the water is open and canoes can be used. A large gathering would require a site location large enough to accomodate the grouP' or several snaller occuPatj.on sites close enough for socializing.

Fall (níd September - mid Noverober) Locations favourabre to fowling, such as marshes or vegetated (Bellrose bays 1976:242), would also have been good for moose hunting as well as muskraÈ procurement. Access to beaver habitat would have been a high priority" The sum¡er gathering of people would probably splÍt uP into smaller groups of extended farnílies to exploít the fall resources in locations spread throughout the area.

Earlv I^I inter (¡rid November - December) Hare, grouse and moose all prefer an aspen - birch forest habÍtat in the winÈer (winterhalder 1977 2277). spruce grouse occur in the same habitat as ruffed but prefer a higher spruce contenÈ and are arso found in closed black sPruce forest. Locations offering access to these habitats would have been inportant for the r¡inter. Another settlement priority r¿ou1d have been shelter from increasingly cold r¿inds. 93

Mid Winter (Janua ry - February) Simílar requirements r¡ou1d have existed for this season as for early winter. Shelter from north r"¡inds night have become nore inportant and protected south facing slopes could have been sought.

Late Winter (March - mid April) Access to hare and grouse populations would still have been im-

Portant, but, as condítions for moose hunting inproved, proximity to wínÈer moose populations would have increased in inportance. rhese populations would be expected in upland areas wÍth good sÈands of white birch, aspen and balsan fir, all of whieh form a relatively high proportion of winter moose bror¿se (peterson 1955: I27) .

The foregoing discussion of test implications for each seasonal hypothesis is summarized in Table 8. Because of their li¡nited seasonal- availabilíty, turtles have been included in the expectaÈions. The sub- sístence activities tend to form recognizable co¡rbinations that can be associated wíth the various seasons. In the absence of reliable season- alÍty indicators, this procedure could be developed as a means of assessing seasonalíty of síte occupancy as well as the range and relative importance of procurenent actÍvities. For example, if a faunal assemblage was domínated by snowshoe hare and moose with some grouse and bear, it would most closely roatch the test iuplications of a hypothesis for late winrer occupation. Thus, it could be suggested Lhat hypothesized occupaÈion durÍng other seasons was invalid for this case. rn most actual cases the fit would not be this neat and there night be more than one way of interpret.ing the results, buÈ the estimates could be nade r¿ith more confidence than is the case with an intuitive impression. a/,

Table I Archaeological test íuplÍcations of six seasonal hypotheses for sÍte occupations regarding abundance of faunal remaÍns of the primary resource specÍes.

Species SprÍng Summer Fall Early Mid LaËe lÙinËer I,Jinter I^linter

Moose rare-* rare moderate- moderate rare coltrmon moderate cofîmon

Caríbou rare rare trare moderate noderaLe uoderate- conmon

Deer rare 7 coumon moderaEe moderate rare

Bear moderate rare moderate rare rare rare

Beaver coEìmon- rare abundant räre rare rare abundant

Hare moderaÈe rare common abundant abundant common- abundant

Muskrat abundant rare coulmon- rare rare rare abundant

Grouse moderate rare coIImon- coln'mon co[trnon moderate abundanE

Waterf ov¡l conmon- uoderate coûmon- absent absent absent abundant coûmon abundant

Fish abundant coutrnon moderate rare absenÈ absent (spring spawning)

Turtle moderate moderate moderate absent absent absent

* The abundance measures in increasing order are; rare, moderate, coutruon and abundanE. They have been derived from ethnographic literaËure for the study area, buÈ remain subjective. The effect of animal size on these measures is discussed laEer. CHAPTER IV

LÀKE OF THE I^/OODS ARCHAEOFAUNAS

Introduc tion

In this chapter, the faunal remaíns from the three Lake of the i^Ioods ,sites are analvsed. First, the methods used for quantifying and presenting the bone data are described. Then the dat.a are used to test the expectations for occupation during each season derived from ethnographic and environmental literature regarding; 1) the range of faunal procurement activities, 2) relative abundance of faunal Eaxa, and 3) site location. Following this, a general discussion summarizing the faunal exploitation strategy or strategies indícated at these sites is presented. Implications of the discrepancies for the seasonal hypotheses, their test implications, and the faunal samples are discussed. Information critical to more detailed analysis and interpretation is suggested. Finally, these data and interpretatÍons are compared with the findings of other excavations in the study area.

Me thodology

Quantificat ion The calculation of bone quantj-tíes can be carríed out using either the number of ídentified specimens per taxon (NISP), or the minimum number of individuals per taxon (!trll). There are problems with, and criti- cisms of, both of these methods, and although many researchers have dealE v¡ith these, Grayson (1978, L979) and Lyman (1982) have presented sorne of

95 96 the most. detailed clÍscussions.

The main problem wíth the use of MNI is that l4NI values vary different.ially between taxa as the sample used to calculate MNI is aggre: gated differently. MNI values cal-culated for the whole site will be lower Ëhan MNI values calculated by excavation unit or level, ie., total

MNI values íncrease as the size of the analytic unit decreases. Thís is partly due to dÍfferential distríbutÍon of the most abundant element used to calculate MNI as well- as Èhe use of different element.s to calculate

MNI with different aggregations of analytic, units. It ís also païËly due to the fact that Èhe relationship of MNI to NISP changes with sample size. Uerpman (1973:311) has suggested that f'... only the minimum numbers of individuals calculated from similar sized bone samples...Ican be] ...consídered". For a sample of one elemenË, one individual is indicated, whereas a sample of five or eight elemenËs might still represent only one individual. As the sample size increases, this ratio contínues to decrease (Grayson L978254, L9792204). Thus, small sample sizes exaggerate

MNI values and large sample sizes minimize Èhem. This al-so means the

MNI values are non-addiÈj.ve and must be recalculated for each new aggregation of the sample. Choosíng meaningful aggregations of faunal maËer- ial is often difficult, and the way siËe materíals are aggregated often reflects an implicit bÍas that affects the results of the faunal analysís.

Since MNI is a minÍmum representation and NISP is a maximum rep- resenËat.ion of the number of índividuals required to account for the number of specimens of a particular taxon,

For any minimum number, N [MNI], Ëhe actual number of animals that N may represent has a frequency distribution that begíns at N and conËínues upward to NISP. As a result, the actual distances be- Er,reen minimum numbers are unknown: ít is not possíble to say Ëhat an MNI of, for instance, 40 reflects twíce as many individuals as 97

an MNI of. 20' or that, equal mínimum number values for different taxa reElect equal abundances (Grayson 1979:22L) " . ConsequenEly, MNI values do not accurately represent relative frequency or ratio scale information. They cannot provide greater than ordinal scale inf ormati.on.

Grayson (L979:223) also argues that due to the interdependence of specimens Èhe same is true of NISP values. Although there are several problerns associated wÍth the use of this measure (Grayson I9792201), Ehe ínt.erd.ependence of specÍmens is the main orr" ir this case. sirr"e *".ry different individual skeleÈal elenents can represenË one animal, they can skew the NISP values. The extent Èo which a sample might be affected by this problem is noE detectable with exiscing knowledge. A whole skeleton Present for one taxon v¡ould inflate those numbers while other taxa may be represented by one element per individual, resulting in a differentíally skewed measure of abundance. Other problems are Ëha_t butchering techniques, different.ial breakage and preservation, differential identification of specimens per taxon, and collection techniques ruay affect NrsP varues (Grayson 1979:201). These problems, however, may be minimized or removed by ". .. deEailed sËudies of the taphonomy of archaeological faunal assemblages. . . ", although

there is no known way of demonstrating which bones and. fragments bone necessarily came from different individ,uals across an entire faunal sample, and thus no way of resolving the patterns of specimen interdependence thaE must surely characterile rnany specimen samples (Grayson I979:202).

Grayson suggests thar the sett,ings in which NISp values should give ordinal scale information on taxonomic abundances are similar to those for MNr values and are characterized by wide separation of the more numerously represented taxa. This minimi_zes the possibility cf changes in the rank orders r¿ith dlfferent sample sizes and actual 98

abundances. Whether this is the case or not must. be determined empiri- ca1ly for each sarnple (Grayson 1979:223) " He goes on-to say rhac,

since counts of identified specirnens per taxon provide much t.he same information on ordinal scale abundances as is provided. by mÍ"nímum numbers, there would seem 1ittle reason to enrploy minÍmum number analysis unless there is some special and convincing reason for doing so (Grayson L9792224). And,

I{hen ordinal scale taxonomic abundances can be obEained,, they can be obtained direct.ly from specimen counËs (Grayson 1979 z23L) . The lack of straÈífication of cultural materials Ín the deposj-ts'on Lake of the Woqds, and the excavaEion meÈhods used, make Ehe isolation of culturally meaningful units of analysis for the calculation of MNr values Í'rnpossible' Fer¿er assumptions about relationships between materials throughout the deposit are necessary with the use of Nrsp values. The numerical distribuEion of taxa for the three sites examined here is that described by Grayson as most likely to províde accura.,e or_ dinal scale information. Figure B presents the aggregated Nrsp varues for each of the species wiEhin each of Ehe three sÍtes. rt i11usÈrates that there are generally severar taxa which are r-ess numerously repre_ sented' For example, aE the Ash Rapids East site, eleven taxa are represented by only one id.entified specimen each and five taxa by two specimens each. The more numerously represenEed taxa, however, become more widely spaced. only one taxon, beaver, fa11s within the range of 90 identified specimens, and only muskraÈ, within the range of I19 specimens. rn summary, neither r"fNr nor Nrsp values can provide grea.er than ordinal scale taxonomi-c abund,ances. Nrsp counts can provide ordinal scale information under the same conditions as MNr values can, and these three siEes meet the criteria for providing valid ord.inal scale infor_ maËion. For Èhese reasons, Nfsp values have been used,. These ordinal 99

Meek Site i0 9 I xl$_ +r6(d t+f o- 5 o1"4 2 2 I 0 10 03040 50 60 70 80 90 r70 180 NISP

Ash Rapids trtrest Site

ß 6 x (ú 5 +J 4 t+r o J 2 o I z I' 0 I lr 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 160 170 NISP

Ash Rapids East Site t2 L1 1O o9 tr7ãa t+loO .5 z¿+Ot J 2 I 0 0102030 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 NISP

Figure B: Numerical distribution of Lake of the woods faunal taxa. 100

sequences should reflecÈ Èhe site faunal subsístence acÈivities and the function of the site in a subsistence (Table cycle B) "

Skele ta1 Elements

For the purPose of assessing frequency of occurrence, the skeletal elements were divÍded into five categories, loosely coincident with butchering units; A) cranium, B) vertebrae and ribs, c) pectoral girdle and fore-legs, D) pelvic girdle and hind-legs, and E) phalanges, carpals and tarsals. For the plantigrade species, metacarpals and metatarsars were íncluded with the foot bones. For the ungurates they r¿ere included v¡ith fore-legs and hind-:legs respectively.

AssumptÍons

The analysis of Ëhese faunal remains is based on the following four assumpÈions' The first is used in any zooarchaeological analysis involving inEerpretations based. on speeies identification of excavated faunal material and. present-day behaviour of those species. rt involves Èhe uniformitarian assumption that identification of the skeletal- struc- ture and "" 'r+hat is knov¡n concerning the growth patterns and seasonal movements of present-day animal populations can be applied to prehisEoric animal popularions" (Smirh l97g:150). As Smirh (1973:150) poi.nrs our, this is generally accepted by archaeologists as long as accurate ecological information is used and caution is exercised 1n its application. The second assumpti'on ís that prehi.storic human foraging behaviour would have developed toward maximum efficiency of resource exploitation as far as competing soeio-cu1tura1 goals would allow. This applies not only to food resources but to lithic, clay and shelter resources as well. For the purpose of the present discussion, it is assumed that these other 101

goals did noE greaLly interfere with the efficient extraction of faunal resources.

Third, except for the possible preservation of fish, it is assumed that the season of death for the faunal resources was the same as that for the occupaËion of the sites. Fourth, the assumption ís made, on the basis of sígnificant amounts of ceramic remai-ns and the range of fauna represented, that r^io_ men v/ere particípating in the act,ivities at these sites. This excrudes consideration of the possibility that the si.tes represent the remains of smal1 short term male hunting or fishing camps or kil1 sites.

Seasonalit y of the 0ccupation S

The range and abundance of taxa found, aE each of the three sites are shovm in Table g. These quantities represenE the Nrsp values per taxon for the whole excavated. deposit at each site. This procedure can obscure differential resource use patterns over long periods of time and/or differen.ial use of the same site during the year by combining the maEerial representing different patterns of faunal exploitati-on. rn the present case, however, iÈ is not possible to arrive at divisions representing different deposi.cional events. This is a common problem in the study area (Lukens 1970; Hanna 1975; Koezur and r^irigh t 1976; shay i9B2)' As mentioned above, Ehe variatj.on in seasonal irnportance and, to some extenÈ' l0ca.ion of resources, as well as suòh factors as protec_ tion from winter wind,s, would increase the tendency to occupy and re_ occupy particular settlement l0cations during certain seasons. conse_ quently, while a site may have experienced multiple season occupation, the site use probably follor¿ed a repeated pattern rather than random use. 102

Table 9 Range of fauna represented at three Lake of as the woods sites indicated by NISp per taxon. A.R.I^I. _ Ash Rapids ldest Site. A"R"E. - Ash Rapíds Easr Sice.

TAXA NISP Meek A"R.l^I. A"R Í. I Man¡ma1s A" Large Manu-nals Artiodactyla 1. Moose Alces alces 62 4 9 2 Caribou Rangifer tarandus i 5 3. I.Iapíti Cervus canade ns].S I 4 I^Ihite-tai1 deer Odocoileus vir inianus 20 1 2 Carnivora 5 Black Bear Ursus americ anus 10 7 2 B. Medium Mammals Carnivora 6. Canis sp 2 6 1 7 Raccoon

Procyon lotor 1 8. Lynx L¡rnx IYnx I 9. River Otter Lontra c anadensis 3 4 Rodentia 10. Beaver Castor canadensls 186 73 91 1 1. Porcupine Erethizon dorsa tum 2 1 12 " lJoodchuck Marmota monax 8 4 I C. Sma11 Mammals Carnivora 13. S triped Skunk hiris hiris I 14. Mink Mustela vi son 1 15. Marten Martes ame r].Cana I Lagomorpha 16. Eastern Cottontail Silvilagus vir ginianus 4 L7, Snowshoe Hare Lepus amer]-canus 3B I i03

Table 9: contÍnued

TAXA NISP Meek A.R.W. A.R.E Mammals Rodentia 18. Muskrat Ondatra zibethícus 56 169 119

Total NISP 353 3L2 233 Number of species I4 11 11

II. Birds A. Terrestrial 1. Sandhill Crane Grus canadensís I 2 Forsterr s Tern

SÈerna forsteri 1 3 Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus I 4 Crow Corvus brac r chos I B. Aquatic Non-nesting 5. Oldsquaw

Clangula hvemalís 1 6 Canada Goose Branta canadensis I 2 2 7 Snow Goose Chen hvperborea i NesËing 8 Mallard plaÈyrvnchos Anas 1 9. Black Duck Anas rubri pes 2 9 3 10. Pinraíl

Anas acuta 1 1 1. Blue-winged Teal

Anas discors 3 1 L2. Common Merganser lfer merganser 6 13. Red-breasted Merganser Merqus se rrafor 2 74. Common Loon Gavia immer 42910 15. Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus i r04

Table 9: continued

TAXA NISP Meek A"R.üI. A"R.E BÍrds 16, Red-necked Grebe PodÍceps grisegena 2

17. Anatidae 2 T9 6 Total NISP 10 74 28 Number of specíes 4 10 9

III Fish A. Spríng Spawning 1. Northern Pike Esox 1ucíus 13 27 5 2 I,rIalleye Stizostedium vitreum 552 2 3 Lake SÈurgeon Acipenser ful vescens 2 3 4. Catfish ïctalurus sp. I 5. NorËhern Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepídotum 1 B. Summer Spawning 6. Fresh-water Drum lodinotus runniens 1 Total NISP 20 82 10 Number of species 4 4 3

IV. Reptiles 1. Snapping Turtle he1 AS entina 7 I4 5 2 Painted Turtle Chrysemvs picta I 2 I Total NISP B L6 6 Number of species 2 2 2 r05

Future research will- have to be directed toward establishíng the amount of change that may have occurred over time"

Taking Èhe faunal assemblage from each siÈe as a whole, they can be compared with the expected seasonal importance of the species for each hypothesized season of occupatíon (Table 8) " The NISP counts for each site had to be converted Eo the four measures for expected seasonal abundance. Values under t.en r¡rere arbitrarily considered as Rare. For each site, the range of NISP counts from 10 to the maximum was divided inÈo three equal parts. Each of these parts was assigned a Moderate,

Common or Abundant measure. For example, the NISP values from Èhe Meek

Site range from 0 to 186. Therefore, Rare = 0-9, Moderate = 10-68, Common = 69-127, and Abundant = 128-186. It was necessary to assess the taxonomíc abundances for each site separately because of differences in the sample sizes, the area excavated, and the representativeness of the samples. This procedure tends to under-emphasize large animals thaE. are not usually as numerously represented as sma1l animals such as hare and fish. However, an attempt vras made to control for this problem in the formulation of the expectations, ê.g., although moose was probably heavily relied upon aË certain times of the year, its bone remains are not expecËed to be as numerous as those of fish resulting from heavy fish exploiEation, and consequently, moose bone was not expected to be Abun-- dant, at any season"

Table 9 represents other faunal resources as well as subsistence resources, and therefore exhibits a wider range of species than that discussed for Table B. These other resources will be discussed for each site following the seasonality assessment based on Table 8. For the purposes of assessing Ëhe seasonality of occupatíon, only single 106

season use is considered initially. The result.s are Ëhen used E.o evaluate the evidence for multiple season use. The possib-ility of multiple

season use and of the exploitation of a limited range of available species is considered in the general discussion following the evaluatíon of the seasonality hypotheses.

Meek Site (Area B)

Spríng (mid April - May)

Three of the eleven expecEatÍons \¡/ere met for this seasoa (Tab1e

10). caríbou r"¡as rare, bear was moderate, and beaver was abundant.

Turtle v/as present at the upper end of the rare category and does not contradict a spring occuPatÍon hypothesis. However, moose rernains were more numerous than expected, and those of hare, grouse, muskrat, r^raterfowl and fish were less numerous than expeeËed.

Summer (June - early September)

Three of the eleven expectations hrere meÈ for this season as well. The support for sunner season occupations comes from the expected rarity of specific species. This kind of evidence is difficult to assess until- more is known about the reasons for the absence or rarity of certain taxa. The abundances of moose, beaver and muskrat, and Ehe lack of waÈerfowl and fish bone contradicE the expectations for a summer faunal assemblage.

Fa1l (mid September - mid November)

0f the eleven expecEations for fa11, five were met, two had ambiguous results and four were not met. Moose remains, more common than in the other tTn/o sit,es, $rere recovered in the expected amount, as Tdere beaver, caribou, bear and fish. The presence of turtl_e in a small_er r07

Table l0: Meek Site fauna; comparison with expected seasonal abundances.

Taxa NISP Abundance Spr. Sum. Fal1 E.l^I. M.t{. L"W

1. Moose 62 moderate + +

2 Caríbou 1 rare + + +

3 trlhite- tail Deer 20 moderate 2 0 + +

4 B1ack Bear 10 moderate + +

5 Beaver 'abundant l- 186 + = 6 Hare 0 absent +

7 Muskrat 56 moderate

I Grouse 0 absent +

9 I.IaEerfowl 10 rare- moderate i0" Fish 20 moderate + (spr. spawning)

1 1 . Turtle 8 rare 0 0 0

Total: + 335 2 I 0

0 112 0 0 0

764 9 IO 11 Rare = l-9; Moderate = 10-68; Common = 69-L27; Abundant = l28-l86 Expectat.ions met * Results ambiguous 0 ExpecÈations not meË - 108

amount' than expected does not contradict a fall occupatíon hypothesis.

Neither does t.he presence of deer in only a moderate à¡nount r"rhen it was

expected to be cormon. Deer may never have been plentiful in the Lake

of the tr^Ioods area. The absence or raríty, however, of muskrat, hare, grouse and waterfowl were all unexpeeted for a fal1 occupation.

Early Winter (mid November - December)

Two of the eleven expectatÍons ríere met for this season. Moose, and deer v¡ere recovered in the expected amounts. Bear, beaver, muskrat,

!¡aterfo\"¡l , cranial specimens of spring spawning fish and turtle vTere not expecËed in the amounts recovered. Hare and grouse \¡/ere expecËed in much greater amounÈ,s.

Mid l^linter (Janua ry - February) One expectation, a moderate amount of deer bone, vras met for this season. The absence of hare and grouse argue against occupaEion during this season, as do the abundance of beaver, and the presence of $lat.er- fow1, fish and turtle.

Late Winter (March - ¡nid April) No expectations were met for this season. Late $rinEer occupation is contradicted by the presence of migratory birds and waterfowl and fish, as vrell as the abundance of muskrat and beaver. Ilare, whích was expecËed to be abundant, r¡/as absent and grouse, which $zas expected to be moderate, was also absent.

Summarv

The fal1 occupation hypothesis received the most support and the leasE contradiction. The faunal procurement acEivities expected for the r09

fal1 fit the site assemblage better than those for any other season. In particular, the amounts of beaver and moose support a fa11 occupation hypothesis. The absence of grouse and hare, however, r^¡as not expected for any seasonal assemblage except summer. The rarity of waÈerfowl in a fal1 assemblage could be accounted for by emphasis on other activities or the acquisition and processing of waterfowl in a location removed frcm the excavated area. The assemblage appears Èo represent a predominance of fall occupaÈions.

Reid (Lg77b:14) has described this as a sturgeon harpooning site. If sturgeon procurement Ì"ras a prímary activity at this site, late spring to early summer occupation would be suggested. The present. sample does not indicate this but further excavation might produce more sturgeon bone.

Other Fauna Represented

At the Meek Site, five mammals not discussed above, wapit.i, raccoonr 1ynx, skunk and marten $/ere each represented by one specimen.

There \^rere tvro Canis sp. and three river otter specimens" Wapiti were probably relatively rare in Ëhe Lake of the Woods area" Lukens (1970:316) comment,ed on the scarcity of wapiti in sites in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Banfield (1972:399) states that "...they seek wooded hillsid.es and lake- shores in summer and open grasslands in winter. They search out areas of lighter snowfall in v¡inter such as windblovm s1opes"" The winter herds do not. begin to form until after the rut in September and October. The specimen from this site could be from a wapiti taken in Ehe fa11. The other mammalian specimens recovered are compatible with a fal1 season of occupaÈ j-on. 110

Site Location

The site is in a sheltered situation being located at the end of a protected channel, among larger islands, and between the Western Penin- sula and the Aulneau Península. The peninsulae offer the possibi-lity of good winter moose habitat and the location could have been suitable for year-round occupation. Therefore, one musE rely exclusively on the faunal (and possibly floral) remains for ínformation on the seasonality of gccupation"

Ash Raoids I^lest Site

Spring (mid April - May) Nine of the eleven expectations for this season were meÈ (Table

1t). Muskrat, beaver and hare were recovered in the expected amounts.

Moose, caribou and deer were rare as expected. Although fish and waterfowl remains were present in greater numbers than at the other two sites, they were still lower than expected for a spring occupation. Grouse and black bear, expected in'moderate amounts, were absent and rare respectively.

Summer (June - early September)

Seven of the eleven expectations for sunmer v/ere met. The abundance of beaver, hare and muskrat, however, contradict an exclusively sunmer occupation since they represent emphasis on activities not report.ed anywhere as surtrner actj-vities. The waterfowl, fish and turtle remains are all compatible with sunmer occupation.

Fall (mid September - mid November) Five expectations for a fall occupation \"/ere met. Muskrat, 111

Table 1l: Ash Rapids WesE Site fauna; comparison with expected seasonal abundances.

Taxa NISP Abundance Spr. Sum. Fa1l E.l^I. M.l^1. L.W

1 Moose 4 rare + + +

2 Caríbou 0 absent + + +

3 Irrhit e- tail Deer 1 rare + ? +

4 Black Bear 7 rare + + + .L

5 Beaver 73 common +

6 Hare 38 moderate +

7 Muskrat 169 abundanË + +

8 Grouse 0 absent +

9 Waterfowl 72 common + + +

10. Fish 82 conmon + + + (spr. Spar^'r'ring)

I 1. Turtle 16 moderate + + +

Total: + 9751 2 2

236r0 9 9

Rare = 1-9; Moderate = 10-63; Common = 64-ll6; Abundant rL7-169. Expectations met + ExpeeEations not met - TL2

Idaterfor¡7l , fish and turtle remains r^rere recovered as expected. Hare and beaver $7ere not as well represenËed as expected, buÈ most conspicuously absent is evidence of the fall moose hunting expected.. Also, more deer, bear and grouse were expecËed.

Earl trrlint,er (níd November - December) One of the eleven exPectaËions üras met for this season, the rarity

of bear. Expected as well, however, r^rere abundant amounts of hare, common amounts of grouse, and moderate amounts of moose, caribou and/or deer remaíns. None of these expectatíons \,üas meÈ. Also, waterfowl , spring spawning fish and turtle should be absent rather than moderate to common.

Mid l,Iinter (January - February) This seasonal hypothesís received little support. The rarity of moose and bear were the only two of the eleven expectations Ëhat were met.

The low numbers of hare and grouse, and the abundance of muskraË and beaver are noË compaÈible with a mid winter occupation.

LaLe Winter (March - mid April)

Hypothesized occupatj.on during this season received almost no support. The only expectaËions met r¡rere the rarity of bear and deer.

The abundance of muskrat and beaver and Ëhe rariÈy of moose, hare, grouse and caribou strongly conÈradíct a late winter occupation.

Summary

A spring occupation appears Èo be most supported by this assem- b1age. Summer occupation \¡/as contradicted by the abundance of beaver and muskrat. Fal1 was supported by Ëhe amounts of muskrat, waterfowl, ti3

fish and turtle, buÈ moose remains were not recovered in the expected. abundance" rt is likery that the spring spar^ming fish were procured during the spring, raÈher than in the summer or fall afÈer they had dispersed. The 1ow numbers of hare and beaver also weaken the support for a fa11 occupaËion. Early and 1aËe winter were not strongly supported. The assemblage as a whole meets the expectations for spring faunal pro-

curement activities better than those for any other season. Combined

spríng and sumrner occuPation would also be compatible wiËh this assemblage.

Other Fauna RepresenEed

At this site four other mammalian species were represented by

sixteen specimens, canís sp., river otter, porcupine an¿ eastern cocton- tail. None of these contradicts a spri'ng season of occupation. of che Èwo birds, the crow is a year-round resident and Ehe Forsterts Tern ar- rives around the begínning. of May.

SiLe Location

The point, on which the site is located, faces east and is ex_ posed in all directions except rn¡esÈ. rt is also higher than the east

side of t.he rapids and affords a view to the north up the bay. The

rapids would have been a good spauming locatíon for walleye, and the sha1low, reedy bay near the siLe would have been a good. rocaEion for pike' The marsh near the site would probably have offered. good muskrat and waterfowl habitat, and beaver are found Ehroughout the area today. The site would have been suitable for spring, suûrmer, and/or fal1 occupation. IL4

Ash Ra ids East Site (Area A)

Spring (mid April - May) Of the eleven expectations for a spring season of occupaEion, five l¡ere observed as expected and two were ambiguous (Table 12). Moose, carí-

bou and deer were rare, being represented by very few specimens. Beaver and muskraË bone was abundant as expected.

The resulÈs of tTnro expectaÈi.ons, abundant waterfowl and mod.erat,e

turtle remains, are ambiguous" The amounts presenÈ in the siÈe do not contradict a spring occupation hypoËhesis, but neithe¡ do they support

it. Rogersr (i973:59) comnent on bÍrd bone being deposited in the warer should be kept in mind here, as thís practice could account for less

than expected amounEs of fish and turËle bone, as well as bird bone.

Four of the expectations vrere not met. Black bear, grouse and hare, all expected in moderate amounts, r.rere eilher rare or absent. The absence of hare and grouse is surprising. According to all the ethnographic accounts consulted, hare and grouse e/ere important faunal resources, both as seasonal and supplementary food sources and as anj-mals that could be easily capEured near camp. Rogers (1973:Table 2) however, indicates Ehat the MisÈassini Cree took these animals almost exclusively during the winter.

Summer (June - early September)

Six of Ehe eleven expectations for this season v/ere met an¿ one was ambi-guous. The only conEradictory results are the presence of muskrat and beaver bone in greater amounts than expected and. the rarity of fish, expected to be an important summer resource relative Ëo muskrat and beaver. Turtle remains $¡ere expecEed to be more numerous but t.heir rariËv does not contradict summer occupation. 115

Table 12: Ash Rapids East Síte fauna; comparison with expected seasonal abundance"

Taxa NISP Abundance Spr. Sum. Fa1l E.W" I'i"t^J. t.W

I Moose 9 rare + + +

2 CarÍbou 5 rare + + +

3 I{hire-rai1 Deer 2 ?tfõ + ? +

4 Black Bear 2 rare + + + +

5 Beaver 91 abundant + +

6 Hare I rare +

'7 Muskrat 1i9 abundant + +

8 Grouse 1 rare +

9 Waterfowl 26 moderate 0 + 0

10 Fish 10 rare + (spr. spawning)

I 1 . Turtle 6 rare 0 0 0

Total: + 56 3 2 2 2

0 2T 2 0 0 0

43 6 9 9 9 Rare = 1-9; Moderate = 10-46; Common = 47-83; Abundant = 84-i19. Expectations met + Results ambiguous 0 Expectations noË met - 1i6

Thesupportforasunmerseasonofoccupationisbasedonthe resources except fish, nesting expected absence or rarity of all faunal above the expectations f or sunmer r,raterf o\,rl and Èurtles. As mentioned ' more informaticn on faunal exploitation are probably low' WíthouE whichspecieswouldhavebeenre]-ieduponduringthesummer,Èhestrength ofthishypothesisisdifficu]-tÈoassess.Thepresenceoftwomigra- goose' argue against an occupation tory waÈerfor¿I, oldsquaw and Canada limited to Èhe summer season'

Fali- (mid September - rnid November) is not strong' Of The support for a fall occupation hypothesis theeleveneX?ectations,threehTeresuPported.Therarityofcaribou wasexpected,aslTereÈheabundantamountsofbeaverandmuskrat.The rareamountofturtle,andthemoderateamountof!.Taterfor¿lneithersup- portnorcontradictÈhehypothesis.Severalspecies,ê.B.,hare'grouse' moderate to abundant amounts' moose, deer and black bear' expected in were either rare or absent'

Earlv t{inter (mid November - December) Tr¿ooftheelevenexpecta.tionsvTeremetforthisSeason.Both bearandfishwererareasexpected.Moosel.Iasexpectedtobemorenu- expected in large amounts. Cari- merous, and beaver and muskrat \dere not bouanddeer,which\¡IereexpectedinmoderaÈeamounts'\,Iererare.Hare andgrousevTereexpectedinabundantandcornmonamountsandtheirabsence are easy Èo catch and were contradicts an early winter occupation. They takenintherecentpastinabundantamountsaLthistimeofyear (Rogers 1962 C46, l973zTable 2)' LL7

Mid l^Iinter (January - February)

There is almost no support for a mid winÈer occupation. The

rarity of moose and bear are the only expectaEions met. The absence

or rariËy of all species expect,ed in moderate to abundant amounEs (e.g.,

caribou, deer, hare, grouse) argues againsÈ. occupaÈion during this sea-

son. In additíon, there is the abundance of muskrat and beaver which were both expected to be rare, and the presence of migratory vraterfowl, fish and turtle, all expected to be absent.

Late l.Iinter (March - mid April)

The only tv/o expectatíons met vrere the expected. rarity of bear

and deer. The evidence agaínst occupation during this season Ís the same as thaË for mi-d winEer.

Summarv

Although more expectatíons r,¡ere me! for a sunmer occupation than for any other season, nost.of these are based on the expected rarÍty of the renains of the resource species, and argumenüs based on negative evidence are weak- The abundance of muskrat and. beaver bones argues strongly against a suÌnmer occupation. The assemblage ís dominated by the remains of muskrat and beaver Procurement activities. The two seasons for r¿hich this pattern is expected are spring and fal1. There are, howeverr êx- pectations for both of these seasons that Ì/ere not met. The rarÍt.¡ of spring spawning fish undermines the evidence in favour of a spring occu- paEion. 0n the other hand, Èhe absence of moose, hare and grouse is not coincident with the expectaÈions for a fa11 occupation. Nor is the rarity of either deer or bear. A1so, muskraË remains appear to d.ominaEe and spring was the expected season for the main muskrat exploitaEion. Thus, ltB the strongest support is for sprÍng occupation, with the possibilíty of continued occupation into the summer. There is no substantial evidence of repeated occupations at another season.

Other Fauna Represented

Three mammals aside from those discussed above were represented by one specimen each, Canis sp., iorcupine and mink. None of them con-

Ëradícts the hypothesis of a spring season of occupation. One sandhill crane element is compatible with a spring occupation. The same is Erue of the five snapping turtle elements and one painEed turtle element recovered.

Site Location

The site, which is locat.ed ori a v/est facing point with a small north facing beach, would be suitable for spring occupation. The only disadvantage would be that it is low and does not afford any view of the surrounding area and may be flooded during periods of extreme high \^/ater or bad storlns.

Skeletal Representation b y Species

Seasonal differences in skeletal elemenÈ frequencies per species are not expected for small and medium sized mammals. All but one of the species at these siEes \,/ere represented by all categories of skeletal elements (ie. cranial, vertebrae and rÍbs, pecLoral, phalanges, pelvic). The absence of snowshoe hare vertebrae and ribs aE Ash Rapids l{est

(Appendix c) could be due to the sma1l sample size, and the rarity of muskrat foot bones at Ash Rapids East (Appendix D) could be a result of rhe sma1l size of the bones. 119

Differential transport of carcasses back to camp is expected for large mammals killed too far from the main camp for easy transport back.

Nelson (1973:98) reports that among the Kutchin, "... the lov¡er legs are usual-ly cut away and discarded or cooked on Èhe spot for marro\,r". He also states Ëhat the carrying capacíty of the tradítional dog or human pulled toboggan is less than that of a boat, suggesting that Ëhere might be more differential transporÈ in the winter Ëhan the summer (Nelson

L9732 109). For transporËing moose in the summer, the Athapaskans used a canoe made of moose hide streËched over a frame like that of a bírch bark canoe (Nelson L973246). The Algonkians could have had a similar method. Except for the presence of several tooth fragments, black bear, moose, caribou, and deer were represented by a predominance of foot bones. The larger sample of Cervidae at the Meek site indicates, however, that all skeletal element categoríes \¡rere Ëransported back to camp.

The unidentifiable large mammal bone r¡as very fragmented, suggesting the manufacture of bone grease. A1so, foot bones, being small, would probably be dropped and left in place whíle the larger articular ends of the long bones might have been removed from the main occupation area, possibly to a midden. ThÍs is a question that requires more detailed samplíng of site areas. There is nothing in these relative proport.ions to suggest anything ot.her than an open rrrater season of occupation, whích is compatible wíth Èhe hypoËhesized spring and fall uses of the sítes.

DuraËion and Purpose of Occupatíons

Faunal remains, and to some exËent artifactsr mây also provide infcrmation on the duration of sequential occupations as well as procurement activities. Although the problems with distinguíshing between 120

evidence of a long occupation with varied activities over more than one season' as opposed to repeaEed occupations lrith dífferent acEivitíes

during different seasons, are by no means uníque to the Boreal Forest and canadian shield (cf. conkey l9B0), rhey are complicared in the study area by the common lack of occupation horizon dÍfferentiatÍon, shallow deposits, and excavation techniques. In discussing evidence for longer occupations, conkey (1980:619) points ouË thaE rhe probabilicy rhar a range of activities (too1 manufacture and repair, pottery manufacture) will take place at the site rises as the rength of the occupation increases from a shorE term sÍngle purpose stay. The artifacts lend support to the hypothesís that these sites reflect more than short and/or single Þurpose stays. The d.ensity of ceramic remains, particularly at the Meek site, and Ehe range of lithic

Eools and raw maÈerials indicate that these sites were chosen for the purpose of exploiting a number of resources. The variety in the dieÈ made necessary by a diffuse subsisLence strategy requires this sorÈ of mixed exploitation which may involve occupation of a location for up to several months- Although a similar effect might be prod.uced by several shorter occupations with a few activities performed each time, the range of exploited fauna reflected by these sites indicates more Ehan a brief single purpose stay. rn each case it suggests an integrared set of activities rePresentaEive of particular seasonal resource availability and exploitation efficiency.

Despite Ehe small size of the excavated areas at each site, some general observations can be made on the purposes and duraEion of si te occupancy. Notable concenËrations occur for each artifact class in sma11 number of units. The concentrations of different artifact clas ses L2T

dc not necessarily coincíde with each other or wiLh the presence of hearths, and they usually span tv/o to four three-cenLimeEre 1eve1s of the same excavation unit. With regard to the deposition of bone refuse,

this pattern suggests a good deal of continuÍ.ty through repeated occupations. In some cases bone concentrations coincide with hígh densitíes of ceramícs and/or liEhics and prob,ably reflect multi-purpose processing

areas. This is most evident at the Ash Rapids East Site in ExcavatÍon units 2 and 3 which are on the periphery of a rock lined pit or hearth. Most of Èhe bone came from these two uniEs or from the feature itself, as did the Laurel ceramics and 1Íthics (Appendix D). The other

notable example is at the Ash Rapíds West SiEe where the limited areas of bone concentraEion coincide with the highest frequencies of 1íthic remains (Appendix c). Although at rhe Meek siEe rhe areas of high

density of bones coíncide with Ehose of ceramics in some cases, Ehe over- 1ap is not as pronounced as aE the Ash Rapids sÍtes. This could result

from more frequent occupations or longer occupacj-ons with more secondary deposition of bone refuse"

The partial coi-nci-dence of bone concentrations v¡ith those of other

artifacts at these sites contrasts with the pattern reported by Buchner (L976) for the Bjorklund site on the winnipeg River in eastern }laniroba. at n¡orklund most of the faunal remains rn¡ere located in the area of lowest artifact density (Buchner 1976:41). This difference could be due to disposal paEterns, the length of repeated occupations or even Èhe purpose of occupation.

I{ith a few exceptions, the predominance of bone, both idenÈified and unidentifiable, from all zoological Eaxa occurs withín a limiced number cf units. There appears Eo have been no separation of areas for I22 the processing or use of different kinds of animals, and these activities and the deposition of their by-producËs appear to have occurred in 1ími-

Èed locations. Most of Èhe bone concentrations are in Èhe vicinity of identified pits or hearths (or rock groupings possibly representí.ng hearths). The skeletal elements of each of the species were evenly dístributed horizontally and vertically throughouË Èhe bone deposits and exhíbited no differential deposition. Except for Units 18 and 26 aË the Ash Rapíds trùest síte, r¡hích have a higher ratio of burnt bone to normal- bone, the amount of burnt bone per unit at all three sÍtes co- varies with the total amount of bone per unit.. The occurrence of most of the bone ín the vicinity of the hearths and the overlap of concenÈrations of different classes of materials (including bone) suggest that much of the material represents primary refuse deposiËed at multi-purpose activity areas. The even dÍstributíon of taxa and skeletal elements per taxon also índicaÈes deposition at t,he location of processing rather than removal of certain types and sizes of refuse material to a secondary locatíon away from the main actívities. Although Schíffer (I972:178) notes that 'f... relatively useless by-products of activity performance such as debitage or butchering waste. . . [have been] observed to closely reflecË locatÍons of activity performance", he also suggesËs that the likelihood cf secondary refuse deposíËion gror,rs as the number of people and/or the length of occupation increase. If so, these sites, wiËh the possíble exception of the Meek site, were probably either occupied by small groups or represent relat.ively short term occupatíons.

The most numerous lithic tool categories are shown in Table 13. Scrapers predominate within the finished tool categories. Most of the r23 other sites discussed above for the study area exhibit similar frequencies, possibly reflecting sirnilar types of subsísLerice adaptations. Points form a larger proportion of the finished tools at the Meek síte than at the t\úo Ash Rapids sítes. The fact that they are approximately equal to the scrapers at the Meek site could be a result of the greater concentration on large mammals at this sit.e. Utilized flakes are by far the most numerous category. These are generally medíum to large flakes of local material and Ëheir use would have been more expedient than Ëhe manufacture of a finished tool for every job. A varíety of other tools, id.entifÍed in the field, occurred in small numbers, ê.9. r drills, wedges, knives, hammerstones, choppers and spokeshaves.

In summary, the range of activities represented by the varieEy of artifacts and the range of fauna exploíted índicate multí-purpose occupations. The faunal assemblages suggest specific seasons, and the suggesÈion that much of the material is prímary refuse supports an hypothesis of relatively short t.erm occupancy (ie. a few weeks to a fevr months at a time as opposed to years).

Table 13: Lithíc tool frequencies. Meek A.R.W. A.R. E.

no' % no. 7. no. 7. poinËs 61 18.9 24 8.7 20 13.0 scrapers 62 L9.2 43 15.6 52 33.8 bifaces 33 r0.2 18 6.5 25 L6.2 utilized 167 51.7 191 69.2 57 37.0 flakes total 323 100.0 276 100.0 154 100.0 124

General Discussion

In this study the approach taken to the faunal remains from Lake of the trtioods indicates their potential for increasing our knowledge of

subsistence strategies adapted to year-round exploitation of Canadian

Shield resources. The bone material provided information on the sea-

sonality and length of occupaEion, and the range and intensÍty of faunal procuremenE activities. These pieces of information provide an outline of the regional resource exploitation strategy. The subj""t ,rpor, r¿hich Ehe data yield the least information is the nature of the temporal change in this strategy. The problems discussed. above with regard to the lack of stratification as well as imprecise vertical control result in a lack of sensitivity to change through tíme. The following is a brief discus_ sion of Ehe segmenLs of an exploit.ation straËegy suggested by the faunal remains from these sites.

As represented by these archaeofaunas, the spring and fa11 activities appear to have cenÈered around the procurement of ¡nammals found

in aquatie habitats (Table 9). The remains of fish and waterfowl were much less numerous than those of mammals. The lack of fish bone ís surprising ín viev¡ of ethnographic reports of fishing villages and the ex-

lensive mention in the early Hudson Bay co. journals from Lake of the i'loods of hundreds of pounds of sturgeon caught and traded by the Natives. Although sturgeon leave few remains, their bones are abund.ant at sites where sturgeon acquisition \^/as apparently an importane acEivity (Tailrace B"y, Smith Vi11age, McKi.nstry Mound 1).

The two Ash Rapids sites appear to have been occupied repeatedry in the spring for the purpose of muskrat and beaver acquisition. The r2s

Ash Rapíds West site contained proportions of muskraÈ, beaver, moose, deer and caribou similar to those on the east sid,e of the'rapids (Table 9).

0n the wesE side, however, waEerfowl, hare and fÍsh appear to have prayed

a Sreater part in acquisition act.ivities and meat provision than at the

other tr¡o sites. The bone density was consj-derably higher at the Ash

Rapids East site than ar Ash Rapíds west (Table 3), bur the only numer-

ously represented species were muskrat and beaver. perhaps the west síde was preferred as the prirnary occupation area while the east. sid.e was used as a secondary occupation area and at times, as a proeessing locati.on for muskrat and beaver.

The faunal material from the Meek site suggests a predominance of fa11 occupations. Beaver, muskrat and moose, supplemented by white-tail deer and black bear, appear to have been the focus of che faunal resource procurement activities. The migratory \"/aterfov¡1 , f ish, snapping turtres and freshr^rater (represented bivalves by a few sherl fragments) found ae all three sÍtes could have been taken in the sprÍng and fa1l. The data from Lake of the Wood.s provid.e information on seasonality procurement and activities associated with lhe occupations of these sites. The range of artifacts provides evidence of occupation by family groups. The faunal assenblages indicaEe integrated sets of seasonal activities. These data also raise questions for the study area concerning the tacitly accepted settlement-subsistence model of large spring and summer lakeshore fishing encampments and smal1 v¡inter interior hunEÍng camps. Assurning thaÈ the tr,¡o Ash Rapids sites represent spring occupations and the Meek Site fall occuoaEions, Ehe absence and/or rarity of taxa that were expected to be moderate Lo abundant raises questions. Although the two Ash Rapids sites are near pocentially good fishing and t26

fowling locations, fish and waterfowl remains were less numerous than expect.ed. At the Meek site hare, grouse, waterfowl and fish were re-

covered in smaller amounts than expected for a fall occupatj_on. These

unexpected results suggest that. Lhe ethnographic data may not apply per- fectly to Lake of rhe trIoods and that varying combinations of the faunal procurement activíties discussed above for each season might be expected. Itlith the evideoce for a significant bias against recovery of a represeri-

taËive sample of fish remains as a result of some excavation techn.iques

(Garson 1980:565; Lirnp and Reidheað. L979:74-75; Thomas 1969), Èhe absence of large amounts of fish bone from sites thought to be good fishing loca-

tions must be viewed with cauti-on until more is known about the reasons for the scarcity of these remains.

Resional Comparisons

In order to understand the regional dynamics of subsistence strategies, sit.es throughout Ëhe area must be compared. FittÍng (Lg75:l3l) emphasizes the importance of examining this cultural subsystem on a re-

gional scale when he places more st.ress on the adapt.ive patÈern Ehan on artifacu similarities and differences, saying,

r am more ímpressed by the integríty of the adaptive pattern and., in spite of differences in the ceramics, r would gro,rp such sites as Mero and Summer Island ËogeËher Eo examine the adapcive pactern in the area.

Despite some lack of detailed reporting on faunal recoveries and int.er- pretations from sites in the study area, some general comparisons can be made. The siEes reviewed in Chapter r are used, for comparison here. Table 14 summarizes the zoological class breakd,ovm and species diversity within each class for each site. The chree Minnesota Laurel site faunal assemblages analysed by Lukens (i973) are presented ind.ividually. Since r27

Table 14: ZoologÍcal class breakdovm for faunal remains from 19 sites in Ëhe study area (by NISP values and unidentifiable fragment counts). The numbers in parentheses índicate the number of species represented for each class.

SíËes Mammals Bírds Fish Reptiles

A. Kame Hí1ls 34,908 (I2) 6I (5) 923 (4) B. srl. 2s7* 244 (9) 24 (2) 4r (1) c. Notigi Lake* 806 (9) II7 (-) 38 (3) D. Wapisu Lake 17,581 (7) I (-) ti8 (2) E. Tailrace Bay 9,595 (18) 2,515 (34) 10,498 (l> 5 (t) F. rM-8 7s7 (7) rs6 Q) 30 (2) 16 (1) G. Potato Island amounts not specified H. I,lenesaga Rapids amounts not specified I. Fisk 2,3s0 (6) 13 (t) 2s (1) B0 (1)

J. Ash Rapíds trüest 2,133 (11) ZI9 (10) 576 (4) 2Og (Z) K. Ash Rapids Easr 3,355 (10) 123 (9) 98 (3) zIB (2)

L. Meek 2,650 (14) 4s (4) 378 (3) z7B (2) M. Long Saull 2,464 (8) il (1) 424 (4) 1 (I) N. Smíth Village* 5,092 (14) 37 (4) 4,503 (1*) 29 (?) 0. Smith Mound 4 559 (13) t5 (4) 32 (?) P. McKinstry Mound I 2,670 (19) 4g (4) 4,560 (3) 47 (?) a. Pike Bay Mound L54 (6) 3 (?) R. Lady Rapids amounËs not specified s. McCluskey za4 (s) 39 (7) tO (1) I (t) * SIL 257 and Notigi Lake: These fígures represent only NISp values. The rest include unidentifiable fragments.

¡t Smith Village: The fish bone vras not identífied. Sturgeon was the only species recognized as plentiful. I2B

the faunal data from Lady Rapids (Callaghan 1982), llenesaga Rapids

(Hamilton 1981) and Potaro rsland (Koezur and i^Irighr '1976) v/ere nor

tabulated in the reports, these sites have been excluded from Ehe table.

Ma¡runals

Cne salienE characEeristic of these site faunal assemblages ís the degree to which mammalian remains ouEnumber the oLher classes in all except three sites. Mammals erere clearly an ímportant resource r¿ith

a wÍde range of species being exploited, at least during some seasons.

The species diversiËy does not vary r^riÈh the síze of the sample. A s¡nal1

sample size, hoçrever, reduces the probability thaË rare species will be represented. If the McCluskey and Pike Bay Mound assemblages r,lere larger, the range of species rePresented would probably be greater. The Tailrace Bay mammalian fauna indicate a diverse exploítacion with energy going

into the capture of several species. For example, five mammalian taxa

are represented by more than 100 specimens each, and five are reoresen- ted by more than l0 specimens each. rn contrast, the oÈher sites, in-

cluding Lake of the'[^loods, produced a predominance of two or three spe-

cies with the rest rePresenËed by a much smaller number of elements. The

greaEer range of well represented species at Tailrace Bay may be relaEed tc; 1) longer occupation, through several seasons, 2) larger pgpulation (cf. Conkey i980), or 3) less specialized seasonal faunal resource procurement.

The composition of the mammalian faunal assemblages exhibits some strong Ínter-siEe similarities. Table l5 presents the seasonalíty es-

timates from the rePorts and the rank order of the three most abundant species for each site. Except for t.he Meek site, the sites v¡ere Table 15; Seasonallty*and t.he rank orders of the three most abundant"mammallan species from 19 sites f.n the study area.

Sl-tes Seasonallty Rank order of 3 most abundant mammalfan specles

A Kame Hll-ls win, spr, e. sutn beaver (334)* carlbou (176) muskrat (94) (hfst?) B SIL 257 spr, fall carlbou (59) beaver (35) muskrat (33) c Notlgi Lake spr-fa11 beaver (l2l) muskrat (67) hare (12)

D trùap1su Lake ? beaver (81) muskrat (13) bear (6) E Tailrace Bay spro fa1l (sum) hare (341) beaver (216) rnoose (192) F LM-8 ? beaver (18) lynx (10) muskrat (9) G Potato Island spr-fa11 rank not specified: beaver, haren moose H I^lenesaga Rapl-ds spr (sun-f a1-1) no ldentfffable speclmens I Fisk spr-fa11 beaver (28) deer (3) moose (2) rnuskrar (2) J Ash Raplds West spr rnuskrat (119) beaver (91) moose (9) K Ash Rapids East spr muskrat (169) beaver (73) hare (38) L Meek fa11 beaver (186) moose (62) nuskrar (56) M Long Saultr MI^l* sPr beaver (21) moose (6) muskrat (2) LI4r* sPr beaver (135) moose (27) muskrar (6) N Smlth Vl1lage sPr beaver (1086) moose (42) rnuskrar (38) o Smlth Mound 4 spr-sum (fa11) woodchuck (59) ¡nuskrat (31) beaver (25) P McKinstry Mound I spr-sum (fall beaver (383) rnoose (191) woodchuck (65) a Pike Bay Mound spr-sum (fafl) woodchuck (29) hare (26) beaver (lt) R Lady Rapids ? rank noC specifíed: beaver, ¡nuskrat, moose S McCluskey spr-fa11 beaver (21) bear (8) moose (3) * Seasonality estimates are from the reports. * Numbers in ( ) represent the NISP values for bone * associated i+ith prehis.toric material, Long Sault Site: MI^i = Middle l^Ioodland componento LW = Late l,loodlánd componenc.

ts NJ \o 130

ídentified as representÍng predominanÈly spring occupations with varying

combinations of summer, fall and winter occupation as rvel1. Although

there is variation in the rank order of the three maín species at each sÍte, a smal1 number of species clearly emerges as being of primary importance throughout the study area. Table 16 summarizes these results.

Table l6: Number of occurrences in the rank orders for the main marrnalían species for 16 sitesl (based on NISP counrs).

Rank l,Iood- Beaver Muskrat Moose Hare Caribou Black 0rder chuck Bear Deer Lynx llr 1t 2 I 2 I li2 4 3 5 I I 1 1 I ltJ 22 63 4 z 1 I To ta1 t7 11 9 4 3 2 2 I 1

No rank order was gÍ-ven for the potato rsland site, but moose, beaver and hare r¡/ere named as being the mosÈ plentiful (Koezur and I'/right 1976:4). The sample from the Lady RapÍds site was small and no rank order T¡ras given, but beaver and muskrat \.Jere listed as imporEanÈ and moose !/as present in smaller amounts (callaghan l9B2 zL7). There T¡/ere nc identifiable specimens from the I^/enesaga Rapids Site and the unidentifiable fragments were not listed (Hamilron tgBl:7).

lTh" Long Sault Site has Ë,wo Woodland period componenÈs and they have been included separately here. 2s*iah Mound 4 contain ed. 27 strlped skunk and 25 beaver specimens. Beaver was ranked third on the assumption that further excavation would demonstraEe its imporEarlce relative to skunk. 3Th" L"t" woodrand component at Long sault conEaíned 7 marEen anci 6 muskrat specimens. Muskrat r^/as ranked third on the assumption further excavation that would demonstrate ics importance relative co marEen. 13r

Beaver ís the mosÈ abundant species, ranking first, second or

third in all cases. Muskrat is the next most conmon, ranking first,

second or third in eleven sites. Although moose does not rank first in

any case, it is second or third in nine sites. IE must be kept in mind thaË these ranks are based on NISP values and Èhat any evaluation of

the proportional amounts of food and shelter producÈs provided by each

species v¡ou1d increase the rank order of moose. Hare ranks in the top three in only four sítes, and woodchuck is important only in the three

Minnesota mound sítes. CarÍbou is well represented only at Kame Hills

and SIL 257, both on Southern Indian Lake. Sma11 amounts of black bear rank in the top three in two siEes. White-tail deer and lynx rank in the top three in only one site each. These two latter samples are small

and the imporÈance of deer and lynx could change if Èhe sample sizes were

increased. Tailrace Bay, because of the size and diversi¡y of the sam- P1e, has large numbers of some species that do not rank in the top three (e.g. dog, black bear and some caribou).

Beaver, muskrat and moose appear to have forrned Ehe mammalian

faunal subsj-stence base v¡ithin the study area for aL least part of the year. Caribou (probably barren ground) is numerous in only two northern

sj"tes, ancJ woodchuck is ímportanÈ in only three southern sites. Undoub-

ted1y, thís restricted occurrence is partially due to geographical range,

but it may provide information on the season(s) of site occupancy. Hare are much more scarce than rnight be expected. from Èheir natural abundance, the ease with which Ehey can be snared., and ethnographic re-

Ports on Ëheir exploitaEion. This could indicate E],at the sites \4/ere oc-

cupied during seasons of low hare exploitation, or that Èhey were not exploited as heavily prehistorically as Lhey were histori-ca11y. Tailrace 132

Bay is the only site that produced an abundance of hare remains. The general diversity of fauna at Tailrace Bay suggests the possibility of

multiple season occupation. If this is true, Ehe hare could have been

procured at a season during whích most of the other sites \./ere noÈ occupied.

Ifuskrat forms a much smaller portion of the mamnialian bone recover-

íes at the other sites in the study Ëhan at the Ewo Ash Rapids sites.

This does not aPpear Eo be a result of different seasons of occupa¡ion

or differences in available habitat. Insteed, it may be due to differ-

ences in subsistence strategies. The scarcity of muskrat may alsc be

related to Èhe fact that Selkirk ware is more conmon at the Lake of the Woods sites than at the others, and intensíve muskrat exploitaÈion

may have been a late developmenÈ. Some support for this is lent by the sÈrong association of muskrat bone with historic features at the Notigi Lake Site in northern Manitoba (trrliersum and Tisdale 1977:33). Most of

the muskrat remains from the Kame Hil1s Site also appeared. in the upper

1eve1s ín associaEion with historic fearures (Dickson 1980:36). On the other hand, at Ash Rapids and Meek, the highest muskrat. counts corres- ponded v¡ith the lorvest Selkirk v/are counts. Cn the basis of an increase

in the amount of beaver and a decrease in Èhe amount of fish from the Middle l^loodland to the Late Woodland components at the Long Sault Site,

Arthurs (1982:171) suggests that emphasis on beaver procurement \^/as a relatively late development, possibly related to early fur trad,e influence. However, wíth sma11 samples thaE may not be representaEive of

their respective sites, and 1itt1e information on change through ti-me, interpretations such as these must remain tentative until they are subjected to further Eescing. 133

Fish The paucity of fish remaíns (Table 14) from sites in Ëhe study area is unexpected, especially in view of the spring occupation estimate for most of the sites, and the importance attributed to físhing in the ethnographic literature (cf. Casteel L972). Numbering in the thousands, the fish bone counts from the Tailrace Bay, Smith Village and McKinstry

Mound I sites hrere more in líne with expectations for a fishing encamp- ment. These fish bone counts approximated the mammal bone counËs from their respectíve sítes and were therefore proportionally much hígher than Ëhose from "the other sítes. Although northern pike was well represented at Tailrace Bay, the most common físh identified from all the sites !ùas sturgeon, indícating that this may have been the only físh exploíted in large numbers prehÍstorically in the study area. Lukens (L970:309, 1973:38) staËes that both of these locations were good for sturgeon spawníng. Fall spawning fish (whÍtefish, lake trout) appear to be very scarce in sÍtes in the study area, suggesting that these specíes ïilere not exploited prehistorically, or that fa1l fishing sites have noÈ been located. The former seems Èo be a more likely possÍbi1ity. The fact thaË so many sites, identified as the remains of spring occupations, produce very little físh bone, raises questions about Ëhe ways in which 1) the maËerial is recovered, 2) Èhe subsistence adaptation ís viewed, 3) the seasonality estimates are arrived at, and/or 4) the cultural behaviour affecting the deposition of refuse ís viewed. The combination of numbers 1) and 4) mÍght prove Èo be important in determining whether físhing T¡ras actually a major part of the subsistence act.ivities at t.hese sítes. I,üith sma11 excavations, the chance exists ,of missing material concentrated in a small area unless all possible 134

parÈs of the site are sampled in detail.

Birds

Birds, includíng waterfowl, were also relatively rare excepE at the Tailrace Bay Site (Table 14). The large number of bird and duck specíes from this site might be due to iËs location on a major migration route and at the edge of the prairÍè duck breeding grcunds. The rest of the sites contained a limited range of four to nine bird species represented by relatively smal1 sarnples

To summarize, the faunal assembl-ages from all the sites reviewed exhibit similarities indicaÈing that beaver, muskrat and moose \"/ere the primary resource specÍes for parË of the year Ehroughout mosL of the study area. Most of the sites contained. a predominance of a few well represented species r.rirh the rest represented by only a few elemenLs. This suggests fairly specialized subsistence activiÈies. If these ac- tiviEies, focused on a few species, did vary seasonally as Rogers (L962:

C4) suggests, it should be possible co distinguish those of one season from those of anoEher.

The emphasis on t.he exploitaËion of aquacic mammals, and Lhe scarcity cf waterfowl and fish evidenÈ in most of the sites, in combina- t,ion with the seasonality esËimates, point out discrepencies between the ethnographically derived expectations and the archaeological daËa.

Either the expectaËions are inaccurate for prehistoric adaptation to the study area or the archaeological data are incompleEe. IÈ is unlikely thaE any archaeologist wculd contesE the latter possibility, but the main point is thaE certain kinds of data are either very scarce or have not. been recognized (e.g. evidence of winter occu- paEions, exploitation of terrestrial resources such hare and. ", ".ror¿"hue 13s grouse, a group of sites representing an integrat,ed seasonal subsistence cycle). The Tailrace Bay (Lukens 1970), Kame lIills_ (Dickson 1980) and STL 257 (Hanna L975) siËes are partíal exceptions. If iË were not for Tailrace Bay, the prehístoric exploitation r:rf hare and grouse in large amounÈs might be questionable. Kame HÍlls and possibly SrL 257 may ín- dicate winter exploÍtaLion of barren ground caribou herds, and Tailrace Bay of hare and some bison. The location of these sites on main lake- shores provídes prelininary evidence that winter habitatíon lras not always limited to interior locations" It also emphasizes the fact Èhat other lakeshore r^¡inter occupatÍons have not been identified. Questions concerning these gaps in Èhe data require specific atËention in the formulation of regional surveys and síËe excavations.

There is always the possibility that the expectations are not applicable to prehistoric resource exploitation within the study area. since this does not appear to be the case wiÈh regard to al1 of the resources, however, iË may be more accurat.e to suggesË that the expecËa- tions are not detailed enough in some cases. One example that emerges from the regíonal comparísons is fishing. The daÈa suggest that sturgeon was the only fish taken in 1-arge amounts. The pike from Tailrace Bay eould have been acquired incÍdentally in the process of sturgeon fishing.

0n1-y certain locations would have been suitable for stuïgeon spawning and only a límíted number of sites would produce large amounts of stur- gecn bone. This could be incorporated into expecËations for particular sítes or areas. Thus, it is possible that, while some groups of people r,¡ere fishing in the spring, others were doing something else such as procuring beaver and muskrat. Questions concerning the relationships beÈween the possible sets of subsistence activities should be examined, 136 particularly in view of the ethnographically and archaeologically reported import.ance placed upon fishing ín the study area. For example, of the total availabl-e resources, Èhe combinations that were likely to be sought in a particular season, the factors that affected these choices, and whether the exploit.ation was carried ouË by surall farnily groups or large gatherings of people, are all issues that should be addressed. There is a patenË need for more coniparat.ive ínformation in the form of detailed excavations and reports before observations such as those mad.e above can be integrated into a comprehensive concept of the adaptation to the study area.

The seasonal subsistence schedule used here to derive the test

ímplications cannot be rnodífied in detail at thís poÍnt. rt is prema- ture to modify it on the basis of incongruíties with the archaeological data since much of the data is prelimínary. The subsist.ence sched.ule

ís meant as a general framework from which to work i.n a specific .area or on a specific síËe. The ecological characteristics of each location, including the surrounding terrain and available habitat types, shoul¿ be incorporated into the test implicatíons derived for each site. The main general modification suggested is to the perception of the seÈ of subsistence activities expect.ed for occupatÍon duríng a partÍeular season. A monothetic seÈ of activities cannot be expected for every sprÍng occupation, sunmer occupation, etc. The data suggest that varying combinations of spring activities might be represented at different spring sites. consequently, the absence of some expected taxa would not in- validaËe a particular hypothesis in the same üray that Èhe presence of unexpected taxa would' The emphasís should be on determining the reasons behínd the selection of particular sets of resources, so that the reasons can be incorporated into Èhe expectations for particular sites. CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

A Procedure for Interpreting Faunal Assemblages from Lake of the l^Ioods and the Study Area

Over the past tT¡/o decades faunal recoveries frorn the study area have indÍcated. a wide range of exploited faunal resources with an emphasis on the exploitation of resources associated wiEh aquati.c traUitats

(".g. beaver, muskrat, moose, in some cases fish). LimiÈations are imposed on the analysis of faunal remains from the study area by the lack of cultural strat.ification in most of the sites. Consequently, analysis of long term temporal changes in subsistence strategies has rernained difficult. In most cases these sites have been identified as the rernains of some combination of spring to fa1l occupations. Little synthesis has been carried out pertaÍ.ning to detaíled annual subsistence schedules represented by the sites, or the place of individual sites in a regional subsistence strategy.

This thesis presents the first regional comparison of faunal assemblages from Èhe study area. Three kinds of observations were made:

1) the researcherts approach Êo zooarchaeological data, 2) types of faunal material recovered, and 3) the pattern of similarities and differences betr¿een the various faunal assemblages. An examinatíon of fourteen excavation reports from the study area indicated that the minimum requirements outlined in chapter r for the recovery, analysis and. reporting of zooarchaeological data are not being meE. (Table 2). consequently, these data are not being used to their ful1 potential.

r37 138

There appears to be a tendency to vi ew faunal remaíns as a dependent class of materials. It is critical that Ëhe faunal materials be perceived as independent of other excavated materials for analysis and interpretation. All excavat.ed maËerials are complementary Èo each other but none are r,¡hol1y dependent. Another problem with the analysis of zooarchaeologieal daÈa from the study area is the lack of clear seasonality indicators ín Ëhe sÍtes. Most of the seasonal índicators for the

Lake of the I,Ioods area yield arnbiguous esËimates such as occup.at.íon any time between spring and fa1l. In addítion, the procurement of many taxa takes place during more than one season (i.e. spring and fall for migratory hTaterfowl). Consequently, specific seasonality estimates cannot be made on the basis of individual species. However, estimates of seasonality of site occupations are essential for the interpretation of a regional annual subsistence strategy. This thesis presents a basic procedure for antÍcipatíng and interpreting t.he subsistence activitÍes at a síte, and the rnost likely season of síte occupancy. This is a procedure that could be easily incorporated into any general archaeological project. Its usefulness for preliminary data has been demonstrated by this study. It Ì¡ras argued above that, since an annual subsistence cycle involves seasonal sets of activities (Rogers I962zc4; Jochim 1976:45), ir should be possíb1e ro identify rhose acri- vities most likely to occur together during a particular season. In the absence of clear seasonalj.ty indicators t,his provi.des a means of assessing site seasonality as well as primary subsistence actj.vities and, eventually, a eomplete subsistence sErategy. For the present case, ethnographic and environmental 1íterature for the study area lüere used to derive expectations for seasonal faunal 139

resource exploitation. The economic seasons Ídentified by Jochim and

Rogers closely coincided with each other. However,. it was t.hought ne-

cessary to place more imporLance on the estimated effects of break-up

and freeze-up on faunal procurement activities dependent upon prehis-

toric technology Èhan was done by Jochim (1976:45). The economic seasons

represenE periods of time within which Ëhe subsistence activities are ex-

pected to have remaíned relatively consistent. The beginning of a seascn ís signalled by a change in the emphasis within Èhe subsistence activities involving the addition or deletion of a resource procurement activi.ty, or an íncrease or decrease ín intensity with r¿hich one or more activities are pursued. The seasons and Eheir associated faunal procurement activities v/ere presented as multiple working hypotheses to be tested by each of three site assemblages f rom Lake of the l^Ioods. Spring rJas exPected to have been dominated by the procurement of beaver, muskrat, fish and waterfowl, supplemented by some black bear, hare and turtle hunt,ing. Muskrat huntingn Í-n particular, r¡ras expected to be Í.mportant at. this season. IE ldas argued that, with the technology available to Woodland period people, Èhe aquatic based activities would not have begun bef ore break-up. In the Lake of E.he tr^loods area break-up occurs ín the latter part of April and the beginning of the spring season \¡/as consequently set at mid Aori1.

Summer would have begun with the cessation of the main spring ac-

tivities about the beginning of June. Físhing vTas expected to have been

the most important faunal procurement activity, with some r./aterfowl and. turtle hunting. It !,/as expected that plant food would have been of primary importance during the summer as well. The wild rice harvest is in late August or early September and the fa11 activities v¡ould have begun t40

after Ehis.

Fall would have been dominated by the acquísition of beaver, musk-

rat, \^raterfowl and moose. This was described as the season of the main beaver procurement. Hare and grouse snaring should have begun in Ëhe

fa1l. The hare, grouse and moose hunting would distinguish fall activities from those of spring

Agaín, freeze-up (latter part of November) would have brought to a close the aquatÍc based activities. Hare and grouse snaring were expected to dominate the early winter activities" Some moose, caribou and./or deer hunÈing could have taken place.

January and Fevruary (mid winter) were described as the months with the least activi.ty because of the cold temperatures- and snow cover

thickness. The procurement act,iviEies, hov¡ever, \À/ere expected to have been similar to those for early winter, and it is possíb1e that the two seasons could be combined. The main difference v/as that moose huntíng ú/as not expected during this period.

Late winter v/as timed to coincíde with the íncrease in moose hunting Loward the end of the v¡inter. This, along with hare snaring, was expected to have been a primary activity at thís time of year. Grouse hunting l¡/as expected to taper off and some caribou hunting \¡ras expected. Test inplic'ations for the relative abundances of taxa in the archaeological remains for each season r¡/ere derived from the seasonal hypotheses (Table B). Each assemblage from three Lake of the Woods sites was compared to the test implications of each seasonal hypothesis and the best fit was det.errnined. This procedure served to present nevT faunal data from an area that has seen almost no subsistence study, as well as to demon- straËe the use of a method for estimating season of síte occupancy. T4I

As a resutt of the lack of cultural stratification in the site deposíts, the assenblages r¡rere treated as single components. Although there would clearly have been more than one occupatÍonal event, it was assumed that the sites would have been re-used for similar procuremenÈ actÍvities tíme after time. The recovered faunal rnateríals appear to support. this argument. A wíde range of fauna Ís represented at these sites, but only two or three species are numerously represenÈed, while the rest are represented by less than four specimens (Table 9) " The presenË Lake of the trrloods assemblages indícate a límited set of activiLÍes focused on beaver and muskrat procuremenË with the addition of moose at the Meek síte. tr{hen analysed with reference to the test implications, the Èwo Ash Rapids sites indícated spring occupations and the Meek site Índicated fal1 occupations.

The faunal assemblages reflect an emphasis on specíes associated with aquatic habítats, which was expected for the spring to fall seasons.

However, the emphasis on mammals as opposed Èo fish and waterfowl was not expected. Spring and summer sit,es on the shore of a large lake such

as Ëhis are generally thought to involve fishing activity (Hanna 1975:38,

Lugenbeal I9762376, Syms L97724I, Buchner 1979:I07, Steinbring 1980:18-19,

!üa11 198I zI76). Although snowshoe hare !,ias better represented at the

Ash Rapids hlest site than at the oÈher tr¿o siÈes, the remains \¡rere scarce

relative to the expectations. The scarcíty of waterfowl and grouse r/tras also unexpected. I^Iith regard to the presence of white-taÍled deer at the Meek siËe and the rarity of caribou at all three sites, the Lake of the I^loods assemblages are more Èypical of the conifer-hardwood forest than of the boreal forest to the north. Deer should decrease while caribou íncrease, the farther north one goes. r42

Comparison of the Lake of Ëhe l¡toods faunal material wíth that from sixËeen. other sites in the study area revealed strong similarities. Twelve of the other sites also contaíned very little fish material. Other unexpected results hrere, agaín, Lhe scarcity of waterfowl, hare and grouse in most of the sites. For spring to fal1 occupaËions, vlater- fowl remains were expected in greater numbers than those in whích they rtrere recovered. The scarcity of hare and grouse could indicate that these species r^rere not heavily relied upon prehistorícally or that occupation sites representing the seasons of exploitation for Ëhese species have not been located. This latter possibility emphasízes Ëhe apparent lack of wínter occupatíon sites in the present sample of sites from the study area.

The fact that three of the site assemblages contained large amounËs of fish bone suggests that Èhe scarcity of fish in the other sites \.ras not entirely due to recovery bias, since símilar techniques were employed in all the sites (trowel and Þ,* inch mesh screen). Sampling error could accounË for the lack of fish bone if the refuse was consistently deposited in isolation away from t.he main occupatíon andfor other artifact.ual debris. There is insufficient evidence to assess this possibility at present. The three large fish samples were comprised predominantly of sturgeon, suggesting that sturgeon was the only físh species exploited in Large numbers. 0ther explanations for Ëhe predominance of sturgeon include the possíbility that other species and theír refuse T¡rere processed and dísposed of differently from sturgeon and have noË been found in excavations. However, there ís no evj-dence for this. Alternatively, sites occupied for the purpose of procuríng físh species other than sturgeon 143 may not have been found by the regional sampling procedures used to date. Even if this ís the case, the present data suggesÈ that not all spring anð.for summer occupation sites involved intensive fishíng. Hanna (19752

38) argues that the coincidence of archaeological sites with fish spa\,rn- ing locaÈions in the SouLhern Indian Lake area suggests that fishing was a primary actÍ-vity and that the fish remains simply have not been recovered. The nature of prehistoric fishing activity, including disposal of remaÍns, forms an import.ant topíc for further research.

The analysÍ-s of the Lake of Èhe l^Ioods archaeofaunas and the regional comparisons have demonstrated that, despÍte the limitations Ím- posed on the data by the lack of cultural stratification, aËtention to the range and relative proportions of species at a síte can provide valuable information on subsistence sÈrategÍes, seasonality of siËe occupancy and the archaeological sample.

Modifícations to the Procedure

PoÍnts of incongruence between the expectations and síte materials suggesË limitations wiËh the ethnographíc expectations and/or the present archaeologícal sample of sites. The archaeologÍcal sampling is díscussed ín the next section under methodologÍcal considerations. The use of eth- nographíc records línits the range of expected activiËÍes and their seasonal emphasis Ëo those reported ethnographically. It is recommended that the identifícaÈion of the seasonal sets of procurement activities be securely based on ethnohistorical documentation and ecologícal data specific to the study area, as well as ethnographic data. rn particular, the formulation of ËesË irnplicaËions for a site or limited area should incorporate detailed ecological information concerníng physíographíc I¿+4

features and possible habitats in Ëhe vi-cínity of the site. This infor-

matíon could then be applíed ot the expectations for specífic taxa. For

example, the archaeological data suggested that siqrply to expect major fishíng activíty in the spring is too general. More detail is required

with regard to the particular specíes exploited (e.g. sturgeon) and the

appropriate locations for the activity. Consequently, expectations must

be formulated with reference to specific sites or a small area, or they must. entail qualifying statements, such as "If the locatíon ís appropríate for sturgeon spawrì.ing and exploitation, then...". Also, the ássumptions

upon which the test inplications and analysis are based should be kept explícit and provisional.

The data suggest the possibilíty of divergence between the subsistence strategies represented by the archaeological record and the eth-

nographíc record" This could be a function of the characteristics of the two kj.nds of record, of evolutionary change, of differences in scheduling

decisions, or of an incomplete sample from either the ethnographic or the archaeological record. Attention to varíety in the sources of ínformation

for the derivaEion of hypotheses and test impllcatíons, to temporal change in the archaeological assemblages, and to adequate sampling procedures wíll help to isolate the reasons for the divergence in subsistence strategies not.ed. The data also suggest, however, the possible existence of prehistoric seasonal subsistence alternatíves. For example, the distrí-

bution of fish remains between sites suggesEs that some members (probably

famí1y units) of a broader kinshíp and social network concentrated on

fishing in Ehe spring, while other members (also family units) coricen-

traEed on procuring other resources such as beaver and muskrat. The pro- babílity of alternative prehistoric subsistence strategíes r not recorded r45 ethnographically, emphasizes the írnportance of carefully examining the subsistence st.rategies within the study area, and t-he ways in which they are related to the natural environnent and to other cultural phenomena. It is necessary t.o do this from the perspective of the archaeological record as well as living systems. The general subsistence strategy model should be refined to reflect better a prehistoric boreal forest Shíeld adaptation as opposed. Ëo a Great Lakes adaptation or a present day adaptation. For example Kane Hills, SIL 257 ar.d Tailrace Bay provide preliminary indication thaÈ winter habitation r{as not limited to inËerior locations, but sometimes occurred on the shores of major lakes. Atten- tion should also be directed toward identifying Èhe combinations of taxa and procurement activít.ies usually associated Eogether in archaeological siÈe assemblages and ethnohístorical descriptions.

Methodologícal Considerations

Sampling : Introduction

The major problem encountered ín many sites in the study area is the compact stratificat,ion. Repeated occupations combined with slow soil accumulation have resulted in the lack of sËratification wíthin the cu1- tural deposits. This creates difficultj-es for the analysis of any arÈi- facts, but is a particular problem with culturally or ethnically undiagnostic materíals such as bone. consequently, it is necessary to maximize the zooarchaeologíca1 information collected, including the kind of sample obtained and contextual informaËion on the bone with regard to other artifacts, soil changes and the bone assemblage itself. There are a number of modificaEions that can be made to the existi-ng approaches to the recovery and analysis of faunal material that could aid in increasing r46

the subsistence strategy ínformation obtained fron sites with compact stratificatíon. First, the importance of. zooarchae.ologícal data must be recognLzed, and subsistence questions must be int.egrated into research designs in the early stages.

Site

In order Ëo interpret and .draw comparÍsons between faunal assemblages, it is best to have as representative a sample as possible from each site. Sampling across a site should take info account tþe possibility that bone refuse may have been dumped some distance away from the main habitation area.

Regional

On a regional scale, the location ana excavation of stratified sites would help to sorÈ out the association of bone assemblages wj.th other artifacts. stratified sítes, however, are 1ike1y to occur.in a limited number of locatíon types, such as major river flood plains.

Therefore, a reconstruction of a complete subsistence strategy from stratified sites alone would not be possible. The development of an understanding of regíonal foraging adaptations requires a representative sample of site Lypes and subsistence activities. It is necessary to be able to interpret the activities represenEed by the faunal remains at individual sites in the context of an inËegrated set of seasonal activities. Systematic procedures should be employed for sampling all environmental zones and animal habicat types. The faunal data from Lake of the l^/oods as well as the other sixteen sítes, represent parts of larger integrated subsistence strategies.

The absence and/or scarcit.y of certain taxa from most or all sites in the r47

study area suggests that the current regional sample of sites is not representative of a whole seasonal adaptation, or all possÍble kinds of habitation locations. Wal1 (19812179) poínts out that

. . . the primary focus of archaeological research on Lake of the l.Ioods and most other areas of the Shield in prevíous years has been toward lakeshore survey along eroding beaches and mud flats where artifact collections are easily obtained. Little effort has been organized in previous years to sLructure a hypothetical settlement system given the eòologica1, ethnographic, ethnohis- torícal, geographical and archaeological record from the Shield and adjacent areas. Therefore little or no effort has been placed on the sampling of all environmental zones such as the interior uplands.... Also requiring examinatíon are small lakes and headwater areas that could have been occupied during certain periods of resource population fluctua-

tíon or cerÈain seasons. The absence and/or scarcity or some Ëaxa in the

site assemblages emphasizes the need for representative site samples

Recovery The artifact rnixture evident in many of the sites in Ehe study area is usually attributed to frost heave disturbance. An examination

of the possible sources of artifact mixture in the Lake of the Woods sites concluded that, although there \^¡as some potent.ial for disturbance from frost action, the most likeIy sources \dere: 1) repeaÈed occupation of the siËes in combination with 2) slow rates of soil accumu.l-ation, and

3) the use of arbitrary excavation 1eve1s which may, and probably do, cross-cut occupation deposits. Two implications fol1ow from this conclusion: i) natural disturbance, such as frost heave, cannoE be assumed

Eo be a rnajor source of mixture, and should be assessed at each site, and 2) precise provenience control over all excavated material is critical tc sorting out the amount of mixture versus overlap in each deposit. Over- 1ap is used here to denote the roughly conternporaneous deposition of L48

materials by different groups or an artifact.ual deposit represenEing ac- Eual culEural contact.

In order Eo be able t,o use the faunal material with as much confidence as possible, the identificat.ion of the areas of least artifactual overlap ís of prime importance. It is suggested here that the use of poinE provenience is necessary for minimízíng the problem of overlap and for obtaíning maximum information on artifact associations in Èhese shallow compact deposits. The archaeological literature contai-ns. several similar recommendations (Shay 1982:83; Wiersum and Tisdale L977:

145; Tisdale and Jamieson 1982:911 l,Iall l98l:135). If arbirrary excavation levels are used, artifacts from one leve1 can be bagged separately according to soil changes to assist in the separation of different occu- Pations as Arthurs did (1982:27). Block excavatíon and detailed analysis of soil stratificaËion and scil samples would aid in deÈermining the degree of disturbance or overlap. DetaÍled analysis of horizontal artifact distribution to identify Ehe areas of 1east. overlap was also suggested. More aËtention to carbon-14 dates with clear associaEions would provide supporting evidence for the sEructure of the deposits. fn order to obtain as representaEive a faunal sample of siEe contenE.s as possible, the use of sma11 screen mesh sizes, floÈation (when feasible), and site sampling procedures that take into account the recovery of faunal remains as well as other artifacts r¡/ere suggested.

Reportinq

Finally, the information included in the report is critical for inËersite and regional comparisons (Table 2). There should be an explicit description of recovery methods including excavation, screen mesh size, 149

flotation, and the size and kind of sample, as well as an assessment of the possible bíases resulting from these methodological choices. The methods used in analysing the bone should also be described and. the d.ata presented. If these tt'7o types of information are omitted, other researchers have no means of assessing the validity of the data or its inter- Pretations. In additÍon, a taxonomic list of the faunal material, including proveníence, increases the usefulness of the report and the data to other researchers. Any information gaÍned frorn the zooarchaeological data should be incorporated inËo the general archaeological analysis. The comparison of archaeofaunas on a regional scale is necessary for the reconstruction and und.erstanding of subsistence straEegies adapted Eo an area such as Èhe boreal forest and Canadian Shield where indivi<ìuaI siLes represent only sma11 portions of a larger picture. standard.iza- tion in the reporting of faunal data r.¡ould facilitate Èhis process. 150

FurËher Research

This study and the approach Eaken to the analysis of. zooaxchaeo-

logical data and Èhe regional comparisons have not only contributed new

data for the study area, but have pointed ouf some major gaps ín Lhe exis t ing data. These gaps suggest critical issues requiring further research:

l) the process behind the selection of a subseÈ of a larger available

set. of faunal resources, the season, and the characteristics cif the human procurement group,

2) the formati-on of the bone sample at a site with reference to spatial

patterning and the possibility of taxa processed away from the main occupation area,

3) prehistoric fishing activity and disposal of refuse, 4) sunmer faunal exploitaEíon, 5) winter habitation locatíons and faunal exploitation,

6) the effects of poinË provenience control versus arbÍtrary excavation levels on the mj-xture of maEerials,

7) a regional survey directed toward locati-ng a representative cross-

seetion of subsistence site types, and B) Èemporal change in subsistence strategies (e.g. is the exploítaticn of beaver and muskrat a response to the Fur Trade?). REFERENCES CITED

Banfield, A.l.LF. 1972 The Marrnals of Canada. 0ttar.¿a: Nati.onal Musetm of Natural Science.

Binford, L.R t97 2 An Archaeolosical Perspective. New York: Seninar Press. t978 Dimensional analysis of 'behavior and site struct,ure: learning from an Eskimo huncing st.and. American Antiquity 43 (3) :330- 361 .

1980 I.Jil1ow smoke and dog t s tairs: hunÈ.er-gat,herer settlement systems and archàeological siÈe formation. American Antiqui¡v 45(l):4-20.

l98l Bones: Ancient Man and Mo dern Myths. New York: Academic Press. Bel1rose, F.C. L976 Ducks Geese and Swans of North America. Harrisburg: S t.ack- pole Books. Originally published in 1942, Bobrowsky, P.T. 1980 Canadian zooarchaeology: aqui esEa? Saska tchewan Archaeologv Journal I (2):96-105.

l98i Olsen and Olsen's identity crisis in faunal sEudies. American Antiquity 47 ( I ):180-183.

Brain, C K. 197 6 some principles in the inËerpretation of bone accumulations assocj.ated wíEh man. In Human Origins , persÞectives i n human evo ur,ion G v. 3:97-116. L. Isaac and E. llcC ov¡n eds. Calif : il.A. Benjamin

Brink, J 197 7 FrosË-heaví-ng and archaeological interpretation. I{estern Canadian Journal of Anthro poloev 7 (3) : 6L-73. Buchner, ÀÞ 197 6 Cultural Dynamics in the Grassland-Boreal-De c iduous Transitional Zone of Southeastern Manitoba: 1000 B.C. ro A.D. I 000. Unpub. M.A. thesis, Ilemorial University, St. Johnts, Newfoundland.

1979 The L978 Ca ribou Lake project, including a surrmary oi the prehis tory of East-Cent.ral Manitoba. papers in Manitoba Archaeo logy , Finar Repr:rt No. B. o"p"ffi"a Cultural Af fairs, Historic Resources Branch.

1s1 r52

Burrous, c.M. L977 ExperimenÈa1 upfreezíng of objects: EffecÈs of object geometry. university of Llashíngton, Quaternary Research centre, Peri.glacial Laboratory Report (Ms.). From Washburn 1979.

Callaghan, R.T. 1982 Test excavations at the Lady Rapids Síte (DcKc-I); a multí- component síte in the Boundary I,Jaters area of Northwestern Ontario. Archaeology Research Report 18. Ontario Minist ry of Citizenship and Culture.

Casteel, R. 1972 Two statíc maximum population densiEy models for hunÈer-gatherers: a first approximation I,lor1d Archaeolosv 4 (1).

Chapman, L.J. and M.K. Thomas 1968 The Climate of Northern OnÈario. Department of Transport lule teorological Branch. Climatoloeical Studies No. 6. Clark, J.G.D. 1952 The econorníc approach Èo prehÍstory. Procedings of Èhe British Academy 39:275-238.

1954 Excavations at Star Carr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clarke, D.L. l97B Analytical Archaeolo gv. New York: Columbia University Press, (orig. pub. 1968). Clason, A.T. 1972 Some remarks on the use and presentatíon of archaeozoological data. Helinium L2(2):139-153.

Cleland, C. E. 1966 The PrehisÈoric Animal Ecology and Paleozoology of the Upper Great Lakes Reg ion. Museum of AnthroDo 1ogv. Anthropolosical Papers 29. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. 1982 The inland shore fishery of the northern GreaÈ Lakes: its development, and importance in prehistory . American AntiquíËy 47 (4):761-784.

Conaty, G.T. and Bobrowsky P.T. 1981 Artifact taphonomy: thoughts on the tyranny of the rheory of stratigraphic superposition. Paper presented at the 14th annual meeting of the Canadian Archaeological Association, Edmonton.

Conkey, M.W. 1980 The idenÈification of prehÍstoric hunter-gatherer aggregation sites: the case of Altamira. Current Anthropology 21(5):609-629. 153

Froom, B. 1976 The Turtles of Canada. Toronro: McClelland and Srewart Ltd

Garson, A I 980 Comment upon Èhe economic potential of fish utilization in riverine environments and poÈential archaeological biases. American Antiquíty 45 (3) :562-567 .

Gifford, D. P. 1981 Taphonomy and paleoecology: a crítica1 revÍew of archaeology's sisÈer discip 1ines. In. Advances in Archaeological l"lethod and Theorv. M.B. Schíffer, ed. V. 42365-438

Godfry, W"E. 1979 The Birds of Canada. Ott.awa: National Museum'of Natural Science. (FirsÈ edition, 1966)

Grayson, D.K. 1978 Minimum numbers and sample size in vertebrale faunal analysis American Antiquity 43:53-65.

L979 On Ehe quantificaE.ion of vertebraËe archaeofaunas. In Advances in Archaeoloeical Method and Theorv. M.B. Schiffer ed V. 2:199-237.

1981 The effects of sample size on some derived measures in verÈebraEe faunal analy sis. Journal of Archaeological Science 8:77-88.

Hanilton, S. i98l The Archaeology of the l,Ienesaga Rap ids . Archaeology Research Report 17 Ontario Ministry of Cul ture and Recreation.

Hanna, M. t97 5 Investígations of the MacBride - Barrington Locale. Archaeo- logical Research Centre, l.tinnipeg. Research Reports: t.

Hanks, C I 197 9 seasonality of Historic cree sites. Paper presented ar the i2th annual meet.ing of the canadian Archaeological Association. Helm, J. 197 2 The Dogrib Indians " In Hunters and Gatherers Today. l'1 " G. Bicchieri, ed. New York: Holt. Ives, J.W. and C.M. Sinopoli L979 The archaeological correlates of the Athapaskan Kaska In The Archaeolo ical Correlates of Hunter-Gatherer Societies : Studies rom the Ethnographic Record" F.E. Smiley, et a1., eds. p- '))_ 39. Ann Arbor: Universiry of Michigan.

Jochimn M.A. I976 Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence and Settlement: A Preciictive Mode1. Ner¿ York: Academic Press. 1.5 t+

Crowe, RrB., G.A. l"lcKay, I^I .l{. Baker 197 3 The Tourist and Outdoor Re creaLion Climate of Ontarío Vo1. I , Objectives and Definit,íons of Seasons. Department. of the Environment, Canada, MeE.eorological Applicacions Branch.

Dawson, D.C.A. L974 The llcCluskey Síte. Mercury Series Paper 25. 0ttawa: National Museum of Man

Dickson, G.A. papers 19 80 The Karne Hills Sire. in Manitoba ArchaeoloÂy Final Report No. 9. Department of Cultural Affairs and His- toric Resources, Historic Res-ources Branch.

Driver, J r982 Deríving cultural informatj.on frorn environmental data: a use of large mammal bones. Paper presented at the annual meeEing of the Canadian Archaeological AssociaÈion, Hamilton.

Dunníng, R.W. I 959 Social and Economic Change among the Northern 0'i ibwa. Toronto: Unj.versity of Toronto Press.

Feit, H. 197 3 The ethno-ecology of the l,Iaswanipi Cree: or how hunters can manage their resources. In Cultural Ecology. B. Cox, ed. Toronto: McClelland and Scewart Ltd.

Fí t ting , J. E. 197 5 The Archaeolo y of Michisan. Michigan Cranbrook Institute of Science. (First edition, r970)

Fitting, J.E. and Cleland C.E" r969 Late prehisÈoric setElement paEEerns in the upper Great Lakes. Ethnohistory 16: 289-301. Fitzhugh, I972 Environmental Archaeology and Cultural Systems in Hamilton In1et, Labrador. Smithsoni ConËributions to Anthropcloev Nc 16 Flannery, K.V. 1967 The vertebrare fauna and hunting patterns. In The prehisto rv of the Tehuacan Vallev (Vo1. 1) Environment and subsistence. D.S. Byers, ed. Austj-n: University of Texas Press. Pp . 132-L77 . I972 The culEural evoluEion of civilizations. Annual Review of Ecolo and S stenatics 3:339-426

1976 The Early Mesoarnerican Vil1a ge. New York: Academic Press

Flannery, K.V. and M. Coe 1968 social and eeonomic systems in Formative I'fesoamerica In New Persoectives in Archaeolosv. S.R. Binford and L R. Binford, eds. Pp. 267-284. Chicago: Aldine publishing Co. 155

Johnson, D.L. and K.L. Hansen I974 The effects of frost-heaving on objects in soils. Plains Anthropologist 19:81-98. Johnson, D.L., D.R. Muhs, and M.L. Barnhardt 1977 The effects of frost heaving on objects ín soils, II: Labora- tory experiments. Plains Anthropologist 222I33-I47.

Keene, A.S. 1981 Optirnal foraging in a nonmarginal environment: a model of prehistoric subsistence sÈrategÍes ín Michigan. In Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies: Ethnographic and Archaeological Analyses. B. Winterhalder and E.A. Smit,h, eds. Pp. 171-193. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Koezur, P. and J.V. Wright L976 The Potato Island Site, Distríct of Kenora. Archaeoloeical Survey of Canada Paper tro.j. Ottawa: National Museum of Man Lee, R.B 1 968 I,Ihat hunters do for a living, oÍ¡ how to make out. on scarce resources. In Man the HunÈer. R.B. Lee and I. DeVore, eds. Pp. 30-48. Chicago: Aldine Press.

Legge, A. J. r97 I Archaeozoology - or Zooarchaeology? In Research Problems in Zooarchaeol-ogy. D.R. Brothvrell- K.D. Thonas and J. Clutton- Brock, eds. Pp. L29-L32. London: University of London, Institute of Archaeology. Occ. Pub. No. 3.

Limbrey, S. t97 5 Soils and Archaeology. London: Academic Press.

Límp, I^1.F. and V.A. Reidhead 1979 An economi-c evaluation of the poËential of fish utilization in riverine environments. Amerícan Antíquity 44(I)270-78.

Lugenbeal, E.N. 1976 The Archaeoloev of the SmiÈh Site: A SÈudv of the Ceramics and Culture History of MinnesoÈa Laurel and Blackduck. Unpub. PhD dissertation, Universíty of l,Iisconsin at Madison.

Lukens, Jr., P.hI. L970 Description and analysis, Tailrace Bay faunal Materials. In Archaeologic4l l¡vee¡jgations in the Grand Rapids, Manitoba Reservoir , L96l-I962. I^I. J. Jayer-Oakes, ed. Winnipeg: Uni- versity of Manitoba, Department of Anthropology, Occ. Papers 3.

1973 The vertebrate fauna from Pike Bay Mound, Smith Mound 4, and McKinstry Mound 1. In The Laurel Culture in Minnesota. J.B Stoltman, ed. Pp. 37-45. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society, Minnesota Prehistoric Archaeology Series No. 8. r56

L1man, L t982 Archaeofaunas and subsistence studies. Advances Ín Archaeo- loeÍcal Method and Theory V. 5:331-393. M.B. Schíffer, ed. MacNeísh, R.S. 1958 An rntroductÍon to the Archaeology of southeast Manitoba National Museum of Canada Bulletin I57. Ottawa: National Museum of Canada.

Mayer-Oakes, W.J. L967 Prehistoríc human population hisÈory of the glacíal Lake Agassiz Region. In Life Land and l^Iater . W.J. Mayer-Oakes, ed. Pp. 339-378. I^Iinnipeg: Unj-versiry of Manitoba press .

Meadow, R.H. 1978 Effects of context of the Ínterpretation of faunal remains: a case study . In Approaches to Faunal Anal ysis in the Middle East . R.H. Meadow and M.A" Zeder, eds. Pp. I5-2I. tr{ashington D.C.: Peabody Museum Bulletin No. Z.

Monks, G.G. 1981 Seasonality studíes. In Advances in Archaeolosical Method and Theory. V. 4:177-240. M.B. Schiffer, ed Mueller, O.P. and M.G. Cline 1959 Effects of mechanical soil barriers and soil vretness on rooting of trees and soil nixing by blow-down in cenEral New york. Soil Science 88: 107-1 I l. Munson, P.J., P.I,J. Parmalee, and R.A. Yarnell l97l Subsístence ecology of Scovill, a Terninal Middle l^loodland village . American Antíquitv 36:4I0-43I.

Nelson, R.K. 197 3 HunÈers of the Northern Forest. Chicago: Uníversity of Chicago Press.

Olsen, S.L. and J.W. Olsen 1981 A corment on nomenclature in faunal studies. American Antiquíty 46 (1) :192-193.

Pa1me, S r972 Partial recovery and sample bías: The results of some síeving exPer iments. In Papers i.n Economic Prehis torv . E.S. Higgs, ed. Canbridge: Cambridge University Press.

L975 Partial recovery and sample bías. In Archaeozoolo ical Studies. A.T. Clason, ed. Amsterdam: North Holland publishers. Pet,erson, R.L. 1955 North American Moose. Toronto: Uníversity of Toronto Press. 157

Rajnovich, M.G.N. and C.S. Reíd 1978 selkirk and clearwater Lake ceramics on Lake of the woods: An overvier.r. Archae-Facts 5(2 , 3) :43-48.

Rajonovich, M.G.N., C.S. Reid and C.T. Shay 1982 Rescue excavations at the Fisk Site in northwestern Ontario. Archaeologv Research Report 18. Ontario Ministry of Citizen- ship and Culture.

Redman, C.L., et al. ' eds. 1978 Soc ial Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and DaEins. New York: Academic Press.

Reed, C. 1969 The pattern of ani¡nal domestication in the prehistoric Near EasÈ. ïn The Domesticati on and Exoloítation of Plant s and Animals. P.J. Ucko and G.1rr. DÍurblebey, eds. Pp. 149'L72. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co. lgTL Animal domestication in the prehistoric Near East. In Prehis- toric Aericulture. S. Struever, ed. Pp. 423-450. Garden Cíty' New York: American Museum of NaÈural History' Natural History Press.

Reid, C.S I977a Environment, man and maym.aygwayshi: The dimensions of past cultural impact in Èhe Lake of the Woods area. Staff archaeology report on file, Heritage Branch, Ontario l"finistry cf Citizenship and CulÈure.

L977b Transcript of the selkirk Symposium, Association of Manitoba Archaeologists. I.Iinnipeg, Ifanitoba.

197 I End of season report, The Lake of the l,rroods archaeological programme: third season, Ontario Minístry of Cult.ure and Recreation. Archae-Facts 5 (2 ,3) 222. Rogers, E.S. 1962 The Round Lake O ibwa. Royal Ontario Museum, Art and Archaeo- logy Division, Occ. Paper No. 5. ToronEo: Unlversity of

I972 The Mistassini Cree. In Hunters and Gatherers Todav. M.G. Bicchieri, ed. New York: Holt.

L973 The Ouest f or Food and Furs. The Mistassini Cree 1953-1954 National Museum of Canada Publications in Ethnology No. 5. Ottawa.

Rowe, J.S. L972 Forest Reeions of Canada. Canadían Forestry Service Publica- tion No. 1300. Department of the Environment. OÈtawa. 158

Schiffer, M.B 1972 Archaeological context and systemic context. American Antiquíty 37:156-165.

L97 5 The effects of occupation span on site content. In The Cache Ríver Archaeological Project: An experiment ín contract archaeology. M.B. Schiffer and J.H. House, eds. Arkansas Arch- aeological Survey, Research Series No. 82265-269

Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman 1973 FreshwaËer Fishes of Canada. Físheries Board of Canada. Ottawa.

Shay, C.T. I97L The Itaska Bison Kill Site: An Ecoloeical Analvsis. St Paul: Minnesota HísËorical Society.

1982 The spacía1 analysis of lithíc materials from rhe Fisk site. rn Rescue excavations at the Fisk site ín northwestern Ontario. Rajnovích et a1. Archaeology Research Report 18. cnÈario Ministry of Citizenship and Cu1Èure.

Srnith, B.D. L976 "Twitching": a minor ailment affectíng human paleoecological research. In CulËura1 Change and Continuit y. C.E. Cleland ed. Pp. 275-292. New York: Academic Press.

L978 Prehístoríc Patterns o f Human Behavior: A Case Studv in the Mississi i Vall . New York: Academic Press. Smith, E.A. and B. l.Iinterhalder 1981 New oerspectives on hunter-gatherer socioecology. rn Hunter- Gatherer Foraging StraË ies: Ethno r hic and Archaeolo ical ses. ter an ,e Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Spiess, A D 1979 Reindeer and caribou hunters: an archaeological study. New York: Academic Press. Steinbring, J. 1980 An Introduction to Archaeology on the hlinnipeg River. Papers in ManiÈoba Archaeology , MÍscellaneous Paper No. 9 . Deparlment of cultural Affairs and Historical Resources, Historic Resources Branch.

Stoltman, J.8., ed. I973 The Laurel Culture in MinnesoÈa. St. Paul: Minnesota Histori- cal Society, Mínnesota Prehistoric Archaeology Series No. I

Strauss, L. G. 197 7 0f deerslayers and mountain men: pa1eolíthic faunal exploita- t.íon in CanËabrian Spain. In For Theory Building in Archaeo- 1ogv. L.R. BÍnford, ed. Pp. 4L-76. New York: Academíc Press. 159

Struever, S. I968 l,Ioodland subsistence-seÈtlement syst.ems in the lower Illinois Valley , In New Perspectives ín Archaeology. S.R. Binford and L.R. Binford, eds. Pp. 285-312. Chicago: Aldine. Syms, E.L. 1977 Cultural ecology and ecological dynamics of the ceramic period in southwestern l,fanitoba. Plaj-ns Anthropologíst Memoir 12,

Tisdale, M.A. 1978 Investigat.ions at. the Stott Site: A revíew of research from L947-L977. Papers in ManÍtoba Archaeology, Final Report No. 5. Department of Tourism and Cultural Affairs, Hist.oric Resources Branch.

Tisdale, M.A. and S.M. Jamieson 1982 rnvestigations at lrlapÍsu Lake r972-1976. P4pers in Maniroba Archaeology, Fínal Re port No. 11. Department of Cultura1 Affairs and Historical Resources Thomas, D.H. 1969 Great Basin hunting patterns: a quantitative method for trea- Èing faunal remaÍns. @ 342392-40I. l97I On dístínguishing natural from cultural bone in archaeological sítes. Aurerican Ant iquity 36:366-371 " Uerpmen, H.P. L973 Aninal bone finds and economic archaeology: A critical study of 'rosteo-archaeological" ¡nethod. I^Iorld {Lcbaeology 42307-322. Wall, R.D. r9 81 The Preceramic Pe ríod in the Southwest Canadian Shíeld: an Ini 1a Model Formulation . Unpub. PhD dissertation. Catholic University of America, I.Iashington, D. C. l,Jashburn, A.L. r979 Geocryologv. Edward Arnold Publisherrs, Lrd. (Firsr ed. L973),

I,Ieissner, P. 1982 Beyond willorv smoke and dogst taí1s: A comment on Binfordts analysís of hunter-gatherer seÈtlement systems. American Antiquity 47 (I) zITI-I77.

I'liersum, tl.E. and M.A. Tisdale 1977 Excavations at UNR 23: The Notígi Lake Site. Publications in Archaeologv, HisÈoric Resources Branch , Department of Tourism, Recreation and cultural Affatrs and the ManiËoba Museum of Man and NaËure, Llinnípeg.

I.Iinterhalder , B. P. 1977 Forasins Stratesy Adap tatíons of the Boreal Forest Cree: An Evaluatíon of Theorv and Model s from Evolutionary Ecologv. Unpublished PhD dessertatíon, Cornell University. Ithaca, New York. 160

Winterhalder 198la 0ptimal foraging strategies and hunter-gatherer research in anthropology: Theory and ¡rodels. In Hunfer-GaËherer Foraging Strategies: Ethnosraphic and Archaeolo eical Analvses. B. Winterhalder and E.A" Smith, eds. pp. I3-35. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

198lb Foraging strategies in the Boreal Forest: An analysis of Cree hunting and gatheríng. In HunEer-Gatherer Foraging Strategies: Ethnosraphic and Archaeolo gical Analyses" B" ttrinterhalder and E.A. Smith, eds. Pp" 66-98. Chicago: University of Chícago Press.

I,linterhalder, B. E D. and "4. Smith (eds " ) 1981 Hunter-Gatherer Foraei S tratesies : Ethnoeraphic nd Archaeo- 1o ical Anal CS . Chicago: Uníversity of Chicago Press. Pre- his toríc Archaeology and Ecology Series, ed. by l(.trJ. Butzer and L. G. Freemari. Wood, W"R. and D.L. Johnson L978 A survey of disturbance processes in archaeological siÈe formation. In Advances in Archaeolo ical Method and Theorv. M.B. Schiffer, êd. V. t:315-38i.

I.Iest PaÈricia Land Use Plan (WpLUp) 1978 An Introduction to Bedrock and Superficial Geology" Toronto: 0ntario Ministry of Natural Resources.

ZeigJ-er, A. C. 197 3 Inference from prehisEoric faunal remai.ns Addison-Weslev Module in Anthropology No. 43. APPENDICES

161 APPENDIX A: THE MECHANICS OF FROST HEAVE

r62 163

THE MECHANICS OF FROST HEAVE

There are numerous documented observations of objects rising toward the ground surface after varying numbers of freeze-thaw cycles (I{ash-

burn 1979279-9I, trüood and Johnson 1978). According to i'lashburn (L979:86),

: however, the mechanics of upfreezíng are poorly understood. It must be kept in mínd thaË the studÍes of frost heave have been conducted on arctic

soils that are hraËer-saturated. Although the mechanics are Ëhe same in any soil, the degree of heaving will be proportionall-y less in soí1s contaÍnÍng less water. Sites in the study area are seasonally frozen

from the top dovrn with no permafrost table underneath. Consequently,

the freezing isotherm or freezíng plane is horizonËal, so the movement

of heaved objects would be vertical. In discussing frost heave, tr{ashburn states that

Taber (19292447-50, 1930a, 1930b:116-118) demonstrated ÈhaÈ the pressure generated by the growth of ice crystals is at righË angles to the f.reezing isotherm and noÈ necessarily in all directions ...(I979279).

The frost heave poËent,ial for a soil has been found to relate to the following críteria:

(1) The amount of avaílable \,rater affects the poÈential amounË of frost heave. During freezing, ice lenses which form in the soil pores increase

the volume of the soil and moisËure is drav¡n to Ëhe freezLng plane so that if the soil is r¡et or has \nrater available from a high water table, the resulting heaving will be greater Ëhan for a dry soil. The three sites under examination are well drained. and. the water table appeared to be well below the depth of artifacÈ occurrance. t64

(2) Soil particle size and shape are factors. Clays and sílts (typical of boreal forest soíls), because of their moisture retaining capabiliÊy, Eend to heave more than sandy soíls. Accord.ing to l{ashburn (Lg7g:89), ".. -freezíng is parËly a funct,ion of grain síze so that silt and clay freeze solid at a lower temperature than coarser material". There also appears Èo be a temperat.ure range wiLhin which clay can contain íce

lenses while remaining soft and containing sÍgníficant amounËs of un- frozen ü/ater (15-207" at -10o c). This "...can cause appreciable varia-

tions in strength " throughout the matrix (Washburn Ig79:90). Washburn

(L979:90) poinLs out thaË t'...frost-heaved stones are commonly in materials having an appreciable content of fines".

The soíls in the Lake of the Inloods area are predominantly fine grained, though there are localized pockets of sand at beaches. Since therq'have been no general soil surveys in the study area because of the

1or^r agricultural potential, most of the present information must come from the archaeological si_tes (3) The rate of frost penetration is critical for the resulting frost heave. The temperature decrease must be slor.¡ enough Èo allow the for- maËion of ice lenses by drawíng additional water to the freezing plane. If the freezing rate is too fasË the soil material wíll freeze solid with a minimum of disturbanee.

(4) The amounË of vegetaËíon appears to inhibit the amount of heave. l{ashburn (1979286) found from field experiments with upfreezing of objects thaÈ "...targeÈ heaves T^rere consistently greater in thin tundra than in more richly vegetated areas". The three Lake of the lüoods sites are relatively heavily vegeËated. Snow also appeârs to ínhíbit heaving. 165

rn the study area, Ëhe ground is snow covered from approximately late

October to early May. From January to March, the snow cover Ëhickness varies frorn 30 cm to 100 cm (Chapman and Thomas 1968:9).

(5) tr^Iith reference to the movement of objects, several physical charac- terÍstics of the objects seem to aff,ecÈ Ëhe amount of heave. Laboratory and field experiments índicate thaÈ, ...the geometric form of an object (cylÍnder, parallelepiped, etc.), iËs surface area, and Íts effective heíght (which compensates for and includes the objectrs orientatíon and Íts length-width para- meters)... (I^Iood and Johnson l97B:339),

all affect the degree of heave an objecË may experience. The effective

height, or t.hetr...vertical dimension of the buried portion frozen Eo

and therefore heaved with adjacent maËeríal", seems to be a critical

facÈor in the amounÈ of upward movemenË (l,lashburn 1979:86). Johnson

and Hansen (I974) found that rod shaped objects moved upward faster as

their long axÍ-s neared the verËical. They also found that Ëhese objectg, when oriented at right angles to the f.reezíng plane, moved up faster than spherical objects. This may be related to differences ín effective

height but also appears Ëo have somethj-ng to do with the shape of the

object. Not only do linear objects (dowels, tabular stones) move upward in correspondence wit.h greater effective height, but they also tend to rotate toward the verËical duríng successive freeze-thar¿ cycles, thus increasing Ëheir effective height (Johnson, Muhs, and BarnhardÈ r9l7:

139-45, I^lashburn I979:80-81) .

Burroust (I977) laborat.ory experiments suggesË however, Èhat either the original angle of orienËaÈion or Ëhe depth of burial rnighÈ be critical to this tendency to rotate toward the vertical. He found. that, 166

at a 45o angle ...all discs and lath shapes thaÈ were buried atadepttlofg.lcmrotaledtowardsthehorízontalwhilemoving to emerge at the surface wíthin 32 fteeze- upward and...failed whereas all thaw cycles when the experiient was terminated, inclinedobjecÈsexceptsrnalldiscsËhaÈwereorigínallyburied atadepthofl.4crnllereextrudedwithlittleornochangeínwere initíally angle wiÈhin 10 cycles""All- objects that failed to emerge within the 32 horízonral moved bur slightiv ""ä cycles (I'Iashburn 1979 :89) ' ThreeaspectsofÈhisareint'eresÈingwithrespectt'oarchaeological 2) that materials: 1) that the depth of buríal may make a difference, horizontalobjectsdidnotmovemuch,and3)thatsmalldiscs(whÍchwere notdescribed),evenwhensha].lowandinclined,werenotext'ruded. objects are less According to Johnson and Hansen (Lg74:91), deeper likelytoheavethanshallowonesbecauseofthegreateroverburdenpres- surewit'hgreaLerdepthandtheprobabilitythatno!asmanyfreeze_ more deeply buried ob- thaw cycles will penetrate far enough to reach pottery sherds' flakes' jects. The facÈ that small discs (comparable to (the natural burial and some bone fragrnents) and horizontal objects much movement means orientation of mosÈ cultural debris) did not exhibit thatarchaeologicalmaterialsmayexperienceamÍnimumofheaving. archaeological remains could However, the long burial time involved with Èhat that of objects with mean that the movement has merely been less also point out thaË' other orientations. Johnson and Hansen (1974:95) in thermal based on experimental work, it appears Èhat ""'variations but this propertíes of buried objects affect their rate of frost-heave"' relationshipisverypoorlyunderstoodatthepresenttimeanditísnot possibletopredictthedifferentialfrost-heavingpotentíalrelatedto

the ProperËies of bone and stone' APPENDIX B

The Meek SÍte, Area B (DjKp-3)

r67 168

Table B 1 CeramÍc distribution by excavatíon unit and level, Meek Síte, Area B.

ExcavaÈion units 23 t4t5t6 13 L4 23 24 21 22 1l L2 9 i ffdB-- s&B s&B : tì sa¡ ¡ ¡s2s2st s 3s S7 I 70i B I i,,g !r, I 40 I BI I i llz I :¡S&B S&B s&8 t2 T+-T-? 1s 291-s-5õ-TZA S ll S r7l S I þ-zï-f t II !!ttz 77 ¡ 64 ¡83 3i B 4 B ,1 B6 B ¡B , :11115 lrI LI LI L it! !I L t ¡ t- s&B s&B c 7T s 88 É irîr I t" s 41 Þ'-sB s16 s58 I 36 s50 s ù4 U 1 TII 621 108 34 100 B 12 B3 rB2 BI B B L2 B3 B 6 BL2 B 6 õ .li LIl L I LISL 4 L5 I L3 L 1 L , L2 L T LIO L 2 L i--J ¡ ø SEB S&B Fs o?f ¡:S &B S&B S 68 s78 s 57 s 5l ''a s86 ss4 F'62 s44 S 27 5 2 o IV :l 90 49 37 53 Br0 837 B5 8l B 6 B o þ Ê J.JQ- -L_ 8L t LL6 L2 L5 I i'it?!-il'l I I L .l¡ s 104 o !:s&B ! S&B: s45 s64 s66 s77 s70 s54 S63 s6l st24 S v :l 55 I 't2 B 20 Blot B3 B lt B t3 B12 BT5 B 8 B12 B14 Þ 4ii ñ .l- ^t :LL-1, L16 LL2 L4 L2 L4 L9L5LIL3 L5 L o o 'ii x S&B 25 s45 s54 s52 s85 s78 s27 s60 s42 s 107 s t4 VI 3 l9 844 Bt9 822 837 823 B28 B12 823 B II B iSil 6 Lt6 L6 L ll L5 L li Ll0 L1 L6 L t3 L jii 9 s t7 s32 s30 s45 S 30 S 29 c ,t s30 s is! -- L2t VII t0 834 826 B l1 B 30 832 32 B15 B t0 B3l B 2t ', L15 L9 L I4 L 5 r13 L 6 L tl L5 L6. c t s 3 sl9 sl gl- S 3 ls 3s 3 Jlt S4 VIII 5 B 3 BIO BI B 6 rB 2R u B B3l 'o!B;I 31 7 L ll L 4

Excavation unfts 10675 825 26 19 20 L7 t8 18 S11 S 5 S 6ll rl I BI t., J 68 t9 t i" L 6 L lLlltL lr ?-Js &B lsru S&B s 50 S L7 S 58 a II 5 4t 108 '!; !: B 3 B I B 5 B 1L 5 i,, L 2 L 2l: I L 5 L J L L r---l 25 S&B S&B S&B FEB : s85 s I64 III 9 127 I05 107 l40 i lB I9 B9 B4 B2 B 5 L2 L I L7 ¡L 5 Lt9 L19 L7 L -ti!l:ti t^ S&B S&B ¡Þ 39 S c U 38 s&B s 72 9I st30 s 6l oIv l0 80 66 97 40 r: 6 B 6 B I B6 B4 B 3 L 4L7 Lro l ¡li I L 7 L t4 L16 L lr l. L6 ø I to d 45 S&B s&B s&B ser ¡i S59 S 85 5ðJ c

Selkj.rk---- Blackduck Laurel .---- SelkÍrk and Blackduck (undj-fferentiated) r69

Table B la: Distribution of ceramic rims from eight excavation unÍts aÈ the Meek Site, Area B. Excavation Units I 2 3456 '-sl'-íí-1;--rt78 \s3 1 s 4l I I ï I I I I I L 1l I ì E ì ts2 S4 s3 s8 S5 s2 sl s1 I II I BI B2 I I t l-E I I S 2 S2 S 6 S2 i I I III I B1 I I I L2 I I L L Ít I I S2 I -----I s2 S2 I IV I ti I I I --*z-.1 -1ii,-- li-iT S2 S2 v il,,,ii B1 Bi 1u.-¡-t - -àl I SI \ VI B1 I L4 L It si ¡ VII iir'ì

Selkirk Blackduck Laurel-

- l:x(ì¿vütirrrr Ir.vels (ì cnr) l:x('¿rvatlon levels (3 t.m) Þl xà<< XH<< Þ itu-XHÊH

U) PÞ FN H5 N5 NÞ FN Can i s s¡r, r-1 FÉ tsN FN uU OIJ O{ OO N@ H@ P@ mammals uts ON @{ uS {@ @O @Ô ø{ OO ñ tÒi\ (tP. rac c()on L u ars F{ Ô5 blrds ñ H. I ynx o (J H{ flsh FO Q ûNF uO â{O ^ÞF{ ^ÑrJu ÞN rlver otter Hl Fa u! reptl lcs Fe frO aJa ^¡-@Þ. OO N{-a FÔtsSô^N 0) ÉO UÞ a{ ú@ A{ @ts F;- bcaver ts NôoA nulluscs ts woodclruck c/ )o s kr¡ nk ID

m3 rtcn o ID F Fu ñO ÞA a-5 NO musk ra t CN P. (ì I dsquaw ñ fD

CarìJd¿ B()r)se Þ d ID black dr¡ck Þ

UJ .r\¡¡.¡ t i tl.r.

(-{ìnrm{rn Ior)n

--J O 171

Table B 3: Horizontal disEribution of all bone, Meek Site.

uhire Eail deer

ç3!}-9 s P .

lresh-eaÈe! d¡uE

snapping Eurtle

ftsh 172

Table B 4: Skeletal element representation by species, Meek Site, Area B

tr o q,

Ë Fl ¡r FlG.(!0J9. !po ,Ë¡-r'? o 9¡¡EÉ$É c) ,o !o'lls: oþooj¿qjþo Ø .F{ ! (J ïl oxo>"oÊuj¿É o L¡ ÊrlrUÉ OÊ!rñO3liØE (ü (ÚSÈt(Ú fuàrlqioJgoJõ É 33€q) r]Flo¡3øÉÉ()

Cranial 16 3 254 I 23 Vert. & ribs I 2 i 11 29 l 31 Pectoral I 3 I2 443 9 PelvÍc 4 5 I 33 19 2

Feet 33 I t i0 6 54 I 1

Table B 5: Lithic horizonral distribution, Meek Site, Area B

Excavation Flakes Tools units

2 307 7 J t64 T4 i 57 4 4 111 9 l5 120 I 16 283 18 l3 175 L6 14 133 2l 23 127 11 24 145 15 2T 270 15 22 117 l3 l1 179 7 L2 749 2T 9 153 t4 10 135 L9 6 409 20 7 181 15 5 303 9 I 94 5 25 94 I 26 94 15 L9 129 18 20 2L7 25 L7 66 L4 l8 57 l5 APPENDIX C

The Ash Rapids llest Site (DjKq-5)

173 174

Table C 1: Ceramic distribution by excavation unit and level, Ash Rapids West Site.

Excave!ion unics 2345 20 22 t8 19 2t 23 24 25 26

í-s ,.ì s -.í¡ I -l', I I I I I s2 I 4 II 5 B BI Bi L4 L I s III B5 B4 I B6 B 3l B B 3t 815 B I BIO !ì I L-) L2 L1 ,l L 3l I I 'l c1 I I cl S8 l' S I 5 I S3 s7 IV B5 tt I 0 B 1l B 3 BI 7 837 Dtl I I L2 L3 L 2 L 2 L I L 2l L -s¡-l !, ¡ S ') Jq I S7 sl3 I v Br6 BI I B 3 lr B3 0 B8 Bl9 BIlr !i I L 5 rl- LI L 6 L3 rzl r s 4 S 0 s2 S 2 I sl0 B ri- 7 B 7 VI B5 I B2 g,?_ Lu I o L 6 , I -.ri---li "il 11 l: ses I sl SI 'l VII r0 t: I B 5 BII B2 li r r ¡i rt i¡.t-3- I i;; I L1 IJ c s&B 5 i SI S I VIII 6 B 2 B B3 I L2 s&B Ix I

! ¡S &B! X :l rl !L-ri ! se¡ Yll :....r.

ExcavaÈion unÍts 68 791416 15 17

I t 4 BI BI ( LI L2 L1 È S&B I SEB I II B2 I I I8 B Þ 2 B1 I t:1 L1 L6 .lLJ L L3 {7 S&B D< III B7 B 6 l3 B6 B2 B 4 L3 L 3 L l6+ 1 1a L4L t( LI 6 c S&B ¡ I t IV 82l J. B6 I I 3 L LZ L16 L 5 L10 I

I I iI I Þl v B 4 ¡ ! I Llo I I LLJ- I l-L I VI t Þt L2l selkirk, - - _ Blackduck Laurel SeLkirk and Blackduck ,...... (undj.fferenciaced) Excavation levels (3 cn) Excavatlon levels (3 cm) H Ê) d *x XH xxH<<< HX ÉHÉ

AP wall eye FÞ rlver otter o. {ou P. Ø F PN tsN rt lake sturgeon PN6U N O5 NÞ ^NÞ Éts Fb beaver ñ P. d catflsh porcuulne rl H. snapplng turtle woodchuck o o 5 o N palnted turtle as cottonÈafl l.rt

Êi PH SU ÞU HN H ^HFO ^tsNU snowshoe hare H HH 5T\ @@ su 5e Po @N ua ^u6 PÑ namals Ð@ NU OH o@ FO ø{ Nô u@ NÞ þu ÔF H H! Cf ^ts nuskra t N{ A HO P@ NO ^ÔNN 6@ s Q ^S{O US ^HU@ birds 3 É Forsterrs tern o o ^NF5 ô þ G@ {@ Us ^oPo ^PU ftsh Þ conmon crow (n P NO HS rePtlles ^Ñ ^Þ HP NF Oñ Sç S +U @{ OO SO Canada goose F NOÞ mo1 lu scs rdÊ) P. snog goose a. Ø black duck o Q pintail 11 u) blue-wlnged teal rtH. o comnon ner8anser

! L¡ 176

Table C 3: HorizonÈal distribution of all bone, Ash Rapids WesÈ Site.

Excåvation unlts a c

{hi!e ta11 deer

black bear

canis sp

rivel ot!er

beaver

porcuP ine

eoodchuck

cot ton ta i I

snoushoe hare -a

muskra t

Forster's Èe¡n

comon clow

canada Soose

snow Eoose

black duck

pintail

blue-winged teal

comon Berganser

red breas!ed úerSansel

Anaridae

comon loon

norchern Pfke

ea 1 Ieye

lake s!urgeon

ca Èf ish

snappíng EurcIe

palnced turtle

î* a- îo ¡ måmal s ^ g j g; Jæ ¡u eo No - g- := Ër 3- :s bi¡ds

fish

leptiles

mol luscs 177

Table C 4: Skeletal element, representatÍon by specíes, Ash Rapíds l.{esÈ Site.

' t'. o o q) 'Ú þH Fl Èt OFI ..Ê T{d +roJ¿.il (llo Ê !Êoq,o +JF o O.'-.1 9+rOU trÈ.1É..c$ OOJ¿ ol t{oÞooürl¡oøv, orJ(J F{l 9>o'ú+JÞ¡¿o¡¿Ë oTlq, Êl >dtrOÐOøoJ'UO O'CFl (ül .FIOOOOÉAO5O Ë8.ô ul ¡{.oÈBuØÈÒ0Ttrl

Cranial 6 L2 11 19 Vert. & ribs I 6 42 I 2 T2 Pectoral 2L5 r23 T4 342 10 6

Pelvic 1 ll I 2 I 3 53 8 4 Feet 2 T7 226 II 2L I 7

Table C 5: Lithic horizontal distributÍon, Ash Rapids l^Jest Site.

Excavation Flakes Tools units

I 234 11 2 288 18 3 151 25 4 35 5 5 123 T2 18 178 26 l9 108 6 20 242 31 2t 161 8 22 189 l6 23 223 35 24 82 T4 25 336 29 26 330 19 6 77 3 7 60 10 I T2T 4 9 89 6 L4 r44 11 15 162 15 l6 130 2 I7 L28 27 APPENDIX D

The Ash Rapids East Site, Area A

(DjKq_4)

178 179

Table D l: Ceramíc distribution by excavation unit and level, Ash Rapids East Site, Area A.

Excavation units 9r0 1 235 68 I

II B1

rt-- I III I BI B3 B1 lL2 ¡ --7 ¡S I IV B2 I B4 tB2 B2 L2 L6 lLl I I ts5 I V B 5 B2 r 817 lB29 B 1 I B4 I L 3 I Lra ìlzs L I _t S1 t. SI I VI B 9 t B2 826 B9 815 B8 B2 L L72 I L{ L4 L39 I L9

VII B2t B 5 BI2 B2 B7 B2 818 L9 L33 L48 L3 L I 0 t S4 VIII 843 ns!nrr BI4 B4 B3 7 _-Jt8 Ll8 L5 L3 S I ¡ 2 814 B4 IX I I B3 ! B3 B5 L7 L2 L9 L1 -4)---J- l_r- I X B7 Bz!r. tB5 B5 B3 L1 L 1l lrs L 2 L6 L2 L1 I r' r I t XI 4 ¡83 B7 B7 B4 ii i' rL3 L2 L1 L10 L2 l -t -i-! XII B 4 B1 B1 BlO B 4! B I L L I :2 L9

I XIII B2!r' B B2 I L2 L _3J Selkirk ----- Blackduck- Laurel o co

!ã-3, Ooooio ooÉulodrd !ldoO@lOÞp (Ú o Ê!_P53:35€oÉ.S3ä.å60Joodoro! oooèÉuod@tdo:Ðgçã@ lr atd¡ø.Àtqld!!.idoþo!ÉtØoo o!lqgEo.ddFS€Êloobø.¡o¡¡ o ¡ o .i & ql 9 a 9 -o ! t a; id I T d õ o ç s o Þ ! s ø .¿ ) Ø áu > o...11> olI >x! oJ o óu É o ÀÉ !r o F.H k o ! É q ç È Þ! þ Ht E ooEadr Elq _o a É; 6 I d E 6.¡ C þ ø c. JJ É õ E õ - 3lå R 3'É ã Z ü 3 P : Ë 5 3 -e fl 3 9.1 5 3. C : I g Ê ÚJ (d I t¡l (f) II 39 I €.rt (2) ( lo) (l) p. III T 4 34 200 (d 3 I rr 4 ú (3) ( 33) (3) (l) (r84) (s) (4) llI IV T I tl 33 ltIl 2 543 t8 22249 (s) (29) (l) (404 C,l) (1) ) (t0) (7) (15)

v13 IO ll t4 5 2 649 27 27342 (7) (r) (4) (1) (2) (391) (2t) 13¡ (2s) q.) vt 2 2 É 27 t2 Lz (r) t 562 5 L7 93 o ( l2) (s) (287) (4) (2' (6) ,.o VII I l0 6 390 3 I 14 (6) (3) (r52) (2, (¡) (s) Ê{-{ vttt ! 4 238 d o 2 I 13 (t) * (3) (2) ( 109) (4) l+r o ¡X 4 I lt5 I (2) (r) (e0) (1) É o X 4 4 2 'rl (2) (2) (45) JJ XT 2 20 ll .r{F (11) (6) t..t XTI 2 3l 4 }J (1) (f) ( r9) (4) .rl .Ú xllr ¡ 6 (4) Fl XIV t8 d U (t) ( 1o) 'ri XV ¡J I þ (4) 0) XVI I 4 (3)

XVI I 20 c..¡ ( 13) ê xvlfr - xx 4 (4) a) eXcav¿ t l.{ìn uni C lt rl 2 F I 2 197 40 I ll d H * burncd bont: 181

Table D 3 Horizontal distributíon of all bone, Ash Rapids East Site, Area A.

ooÉo!"Ëooo 9þGAC dÞ.8b33,.13iÉ.O!rOoæO 6oqecaoiÐóJçod oÞÞÀ3SFi!6!-¡EÉ?u6¡oitold!!iñ o ! o r J ol o t I E ! t o ! 6 I i * O 9 r u > o rl> e a ! ¡ J !* d ; ¡ d¡ s È o ! i ts ñ cl 6 ! o É o D E s É d 6 t ñ E o 6 t o Ê Él o o o d Ê t 6 r E 6 j ; È õ Ê o ¡ (J ¡ Al ¡ è I E ó E o þ O É D ¡ < ú

I 3 (2)*

2l a 1' 56 2 4 ( ¡4) (48) (2) 3lt 2231 33 llt 43 2 4 ( (28) (l) ø ls) 9 7 ¡ Ê 7 (3) (4) (l) o l0 ñ õ U l3 t rx (r) 52 9 2 It (4) (2)

6 2 2 (2, (r) I 2 I

rr2 t2 I (4) (6)

o o o do OCe-ì o ú lolu i03! o ! Èæua ð o þ9 a É=ú E o o EcÈ!66.iìtEigt.:-qP I !ÈoèçÉlEuã I ! xÊJ6rEþoèd o Et.rEsE!¡9e I t9 I I (28) (r) 2t3l 902 12 32 86 (533) (8) (t2) (23) 3r2rl3l 1402 t5 37 802 (737) (ó) (5) (2r) q 9l 303 42 20 (2n) (r) (l6) o r0 I 35 ¡ 32 a (26) (3) ñ I3 80 3 a (80)

5 96 23 93 (7 4) (21 ) (3) 6t 5l 64 (47) (l) (4) 8 4 (4)

lr 2 t91 40 I ll (I28) (3e ) (3)

* burned bone r82

Table D 4: Skeletal element representation by species, Ash Rapids East Síte, Area A.

¡l 0') oJ c) €tr (ú Èl l'{ .i Ftd.OJldoãÊcro o¡{ÈEt!doilÐ.o(/)'rltOÐ ol it t'o o H o o € i¿ F J 9q J É'o ö ij .r{ ca Hl ¡o È o É Q q? o o o c) õ ä õl or ô Õ ; É a- 9t- 5 o l''- Ë Ü E-c -rb Ùl .o F! Þ É Ø É òo'o F{ òo Cranial I I 19 11 T6 verr. & ríbs I 1 3 30 2

Pectoral 2 32 22 264t

Pelvic 3 I L7 I 31 231 Feet 4 I 22 20 I 20 2T

Table D 5: Lithic horizontal distributÍon, Ash Rapids East site' Area A. Excavation Flakes Tools units

I 92 6 2 222 26 3 386 11 9 t45 34 l0 ,L6 2 5 152 20 6 100 5 I 20 5 APPENDIX E

Faunal Taxonomic Lists

183 184

Abbreviations used in the faunal taxonomic lists: Prov. provenÍence, Excavation Unit: level (1:III) C.N. catalogue number Skel" Ident. skeletal identif icatÍon F fragment (less than L the bone) P portion (¡nore than % the bone) c complete Pr Prox. proxinal Di' dist. dísta1 L left R rÍght U undeternined Epiphysis: P present A absent VEL visible epiphyseal line SVEL slight visible epiphyseal line NVEL no visible epiphyseal line P proximal (under presence or absence of epiphysis) D distal (under presence or absence of epiphysis) D burned bone ant. anterior post. pos Èerior verE. vertebra ep., epiph. epiphysis yLÞ. pieces phal. phalanx cerv " cervical (vertebrae)

See Table 3 for the numbers of bones and fragments per class for each site.

See Table 9 for the number of identified specimens (NISP) per raxon for each site. 185

Table E l: Faunal texonomlc lfst of tdentlflable bone fron the Meek Site, Area B (DJKp-3)

Prov. C.N. Classiflcation Skel.Ident. FPC PrDl SIDE EPIPHYSIS LRU P A VEL SVEL NVEL

l:III I beaver talus x x x x 2 DOOge Eolar x x l:IV I muskrat tlbla x x x x x x uuskrat vert. eplph. x x 2:I t EOOSe uld. phalanx x x x x 2 Canfs sp. fenur epfph. x x x x 2:III I moo6e n1d. phalanx x x x x 2 black bear lst metatarsal x x x x 3 beaver d16t.. phalan¡< x x x x x x 3: II I EOOae iucieor x 2 I.hite ta1l deer ecapula x neck x 3 beaver nandlble x Efd x x 4 beaver ¡.andlb1e x x 5 beaver ¡andlble x x x x 6 beaver dlst. phalanx x x 7 uuskraÈ Dandlble x ¡¡1d x 8 auskrat hr¡uerus x x x x x x 9 Duskrat hr.¡merus x x x x x l0 Euskrat fenur x x x x x ll uuskrat Èlbfa x x x x x x 3: III I Canfs sp. thorecic verÈ., pos!. x x 2 Euskret ecapula x fossa x 3: IV I enapplng turtle 11fu¡u x x 4;I I beaver talus x 4: II I beaver humerue x x x x x 4: III I beaver lncfsor x 5:I I 8lOOSe uolar x x , ¡¡hite tail deer disÈ. phalanx x x xxx 3 beaver rib x x xxx x 4 beaver ulna x (x) x 5 beaver tarsel 5 x x 6 beaver orox, ohalanx 'hind III x xx x 7 beaver orox. ohelanx 'hlnd ' x x x I ¡!arten tarsal 4 x x 5: II I EOOSe netapodlal ep. x x x 2 EOOge oetapodlal ep. x x x ? beaver scapula x neck x x 4 beaver hunerus eplph. x x x 5 beaver ferour head ep. x x 6 beaver prox. phalanx x x x x 7 beaver prox. phalanx x I x x I beaver dfst. phalanx x x x 9 northern plke dentary x snt. x 5:III I noo6e nld. phalanx x x x a r¡hlte ta1l deer dlst. phalanx x x xx x 3 black bear 5th netatarsal x x xx x 4 beaver caudal vert. x xx 5 beaver tfbia x shaft x 6 beaver talus x x 7 Euskrat nandible x x x I black duck tibfa x x x 9 black duck tlblo tarsus x x l0 norÈhern pike denEary x ant. x ll fresh rrater drun splne x L2 snapplng turtle prox. phalanx x 5: IV t tnOOSe dlst. phalaDx x x x , beaver caudal vert. x x x 186

Table E l: Concinued

Prov. C.N. Classificatfon Ske1. Ident. FPC PrDl SIDE EPIPHYSIS LRU P A VEL SVEL IWEL 5: IV 3 beaver ceudal verÈ. x x x 4 beaver dist. phelsnx x x 5 muskrat oa¡dfble x x 6 ¡ouskrat nandlble x x x 5:v I DOOSe ffbula x x 6:I I moose eesauoid x t l¡OOSe eeea.nold x (ûrrr) 3 black bear atleÊ (5 pcs.) x (4 pcs. 1evel III) 4 beaver fncfsor x 5 beaver thoracfc vert. x 6 beaver front 3rd DetecarPal x x x x x x 7 beaver ufd ohalanx hlnfl x x x I beaver dlst. phalanx x x x 9 beaver phalanx epiph. x x x l0 ouskrat fenur x x x x x 6: II I beaver caudal vert. x x unfused t beaver hwerus x x x x 3 beaver hrmerus x x x x x 4 beaver femur x shaft x 5 beaver old phalanx x x x x x 6 beaver u1d phalanx x x x 7 r¡oodchuck hunerus x x x x x I EuskraÈ ulna x ehaft x I northern plke dentary x ent. x IO snapping turtle prox. phalanx x x x x x 6: III I black bear talus x x 2 black bear d16t. phalanx x x x x 3 beaver rib x x x x 4 beaver caudal vert, x x unfused 5 beaver tlbla epiph. x x x 6 woodchuck huoerus ep1ph. x x x DuskraÈ hu¡nerus x x x x I uuskrat fnnoDinate x flltn & x acetabuh.@ 6: Iv I 8lOOSe uolar x t beaver tibla epiph. x x x x 3 muskrat tfbia x ehaft x 4 snapplng Èurtle dlst. phalanx x x x 7:L I beaver 8th thoraclc vertebra x x x 7: I1 I lltoOEE carpal 4 x x t EOOSe d1st. phalanx x x x x 3 beaver thoracfc vert. x 4 beaver thoracic vert. x x x 5 beaver r1b, anterfor x ahaf t x 6 beaver hr-merus epiph. x x x 7 beaver ulna x x x x I beaver tlb1a x xx x x 7 ¿ITl I lllooSe ¡nolar x 2 EOOSe nolar 3 lDOOSe carpal radlall x x 4 llloOSe nfd phalanx x xx x 5 ¡DOOSe sesauofd x 6 beaver incisor x 7 beaver caudal vert. x x I beaver caudal vert. x x x 9 beaver vert. epiph. x 10 beaver 2nd rib x x x ll beaver humerus x x DP x t2 beaver humerus x x x x x r3 beaver radius x x x x x L4 beaver tibia epiph. x r87

Table E Contluued

Prov. c.N Classification Skel.Ident. FPC PrDl SIDE EPIPIÍYS IS B LRU P A, VEL SVEL NVEL 7: III l5 beaver pEtella x x l6 beaver netatarsal II x x x x x L7 beaver Eetatårsal V x x x x l8 rroodchuck ¡andible xDldx l9 ouskret caudal vert. x x x 20 suapplng turtle vertebra x 2L snapping turtle Phalånx x xx x 7: IV I beaver focísor x 2 beave¡ vert. eplph. x 3 beaver vert. eplph. x 4 beaver radfus x x x x x 5 muskrat nandible x x 6 northern pike dentary x ant. x 7 walleye preopercultrm x x I welleye clefthruE x x 7:V I beaver Lnclsor x beaver h¡.uerus x x x x x 3 walleye quadrate x x 4 enapplng turÈle caraPace x 8:I I ¡DOOSe oolar x 2 u¡oose sesa.Dofd x 3 beaver lr¡mbar vert. x x 4 beaver thoråclc vert. x x 5 beaver humerug x x x x x 6 beaver tlb1a x x x x 7 beaver orox. ohalanx nl.nd x x 8: II I llloOSe tfbla x x x x x ,, beaver lnclsor x 3 beaver f e¡¡ur x x x Juvenlle cortex 8¡III t beaver Íncfsor x a beaver caudal vert. x x 8: IV t norÈhern pike deutary x ant. x 8:V I beaver tfbfa eplph. x x x 8¡VI I beaver ulna x shaft x t nuskrat frontal bone x 9: III t ùoo3e uolar x 2 lynx ulna x x x x x x 9: Iv I DOO6e ¡olar x x , DOOAe sesauoid x 3 Eroose sesamold x 4 ¡rhlte ta1l deer vertebra x x ? canfne cher¡ed 5 whlte tail deer tfble x shaft x cut Eark6 A beaver lnclsor x 7 muskrat uandible x x x 9:V I black bear ¡ax11la x x t beaver tlbla x ehaft x 3 nuÊkraÈ nandlble x uld x x 4 muskraÈ oend{b1e x n1d x 5 muskrat ht¡merug x x x x x 6 nuskrat Lnnoolnate x f1lun & x acetabulr¡E 93vI I n¡oose prox. phalanx x x x n Cervldae prox. phalanx x x 9:VII t whlte tall deer prox. phalanx x x x x x x 1 r{thite ta1l deer 5th prox. phal.x x x 3 woodchuck uax1lla x x 9:VI-VII I ¡¡oo6e nld phalanx x x x x x feature 2 llloOSe scapula x neck x x 3 carlbou prox. phalanx x x x x cut Earks 4 beaver ulna x 6heft x 5 beaver fenur eplph. x x x 6 beaver fenur epLph. x x x 7 beaver femur x shaft x 188

Table E l: Continued

Prov. C.N. Classiflcation Skel,Ident. FPC PrDf SIDE EPIPHYSIS B LRU P A VEL SVEL NVEL 9:VI-VII 8 beaver femur x ehaft x feature 9 noodchuck lncisor x l0 auskrat femur x ehaft ll uuskraÈ feour x Bhåft x L2 ûortherû pike dentary x x 9:IX I comon loon thoraclc verÈ x x x l0: II I shorthead redhoree cleithnn x x l0: IV I beaver ecapula x foesa x x x x l0:VI I Cervldae fenur epfph. x x l0:VII I r¡hlte ta1l deer tlbla x eheft x 2 beaver talue x x I 0:VIII I ouskrat hu¡oerus x x DP l0:Ix I $h1te talI deer prox. phalanx x x 2 Canada goose tarsonetataraus x x x 10:X I raccoon rfb x x x x x l1:I I beaver LucLsor x x llrIII I beaver calcaneus x x x ll:IV I beaver uandible x x x x 2 beaver rlb x x x x 11:V I beaver u1¡a x x x x x 2 beaver nid phalanx x x x ll:VI I beaver uld phalanx x x x x 2 beaver prox phalarx x x x x 3 uuskrat oolar x x I l:VII I beaver caudal vert. x x 2 Euskrat molar x 9-ll: I !¡oo6e lhoracfc verÈ. x I, III ,VII uhfte tafl deer thoraclc vert. x VIII, 3 black bear calcaireus x fealure 4 beaver oandlble x aid x 5 beaver humerus x x x x x 6 beaver lnnominate x old x 7 beaver calcaneus x x I beaver calcaneus x x 9 ¡ouskraÈ nandlble x ¡¡id x x l0 Euskret uandfble x x l2:III I EOOge vertebra x x x 2 nuskrat huoerus epiph. x x x x 3 nuskrat fenur x x x x x x 12¡tlI I beaver fncfsor x l3: III I E¡OOAe aesamoid x cenine che¡¡ed 2 EOOÉ¡e dlst. phal.anx x 3 ¡roose ¡esamold x 4 t'hfÈe tall deer sesamold x l3:IV I lDOOSe prox. phalanx x x 2 t¡OO6e df6t. phelånx x x x x 3 beaver lDcfsor x 4 beaver radlus x x x x x 5 beaver fernur ep1ph. x x x 13:V I whlte tall deer caroal lnteroedlall 'x x x l3 3VII wapftl nid phalanx x x x x l4: II ¡¡OOSe vertêbra x x x x l4: III DOOSe hmbar vert. x x x 14: Iv beaver oandlble x uld x beaver femur x shafc x x l4:V lloOSe sesanold x beaver fenur x shaft x beaver tarsal x 189

Table E l: Continued

Prov. C.N. Classiflcatlon Skel.Ident. FPC PrDf SIDE EPIPEYSIS LRU PAVEL NVEL l5: II t beaver feour x 6haf t x x l5: III I lloOSe fenur head x x xx x 2 Cervldae feuur head x x xx unfused x 3 beaver scapula x foss x 4 beaver prox. phalanx x x x x x 5 rlver otter radlus x x x x x 6 comon loon targoEetaterau6 x x x x 15:Iv I ehlle tefl deer netapodlal x x x x unclear l5:V t ¡rhite tail deer nfd phalaox x x l6: I I nooae nandlble x ufd x l6: II I moose oid phal.arx x x ló: III I EOOSe eesa¡oÍd x 2 beaver fnclsor x 3 beaver fenur x shaft x 4 beaver feour x x xx unclear 5 beaver 111un x x unfused 16: IV I u¡oose nola¡ x 2 nhlte tafl deer netapodlal x x x x x 3 beaver lncisor x 4 beaver feuur epiph. x x x 5 beaver tfbla x ehaft x 6 beaver prox. phalanx x x x cheçed 7 nuskrat ¡¡andfble x x&n1d x 16:V t DOOSe verÈebre x x x 2 beaver petrous bone x x 3 beaver vertebre x x 4 beaver vertebra x x 5 beaver humerus x x x x 6 Duskrat nandible x x 7 nuskraÈ tibfa epiph. xx x l6:vI I beaver ulna x x x 7 beaver ulna xx 3 beaver netatarsal xx 4 beaver !¡etaÈarsal xx x 5- beaver prox. phalanx x x x 6 ¡ouskrat nandlble x dlasteoå x 7 uuskrat nandlble x nld x l6:vII I beaver ¡oolar x 17 zT I EOOSe aesamoid x x x 17:II I ¡¡oo8e central incisor x 2 ll¡OOSe tersal c ô 4 x x x x x 3 northern Plke denEary x x 17: III I lthite Eall deer neÈacarpal x x x x x 2 Euskra! femur x Bhaft x 3 Euskrat feuur x x x x 4 ouskrat femur x x x 5 uuskrat fenur x x x x x 6 pafnÈed turtle long bone (?) x l7: IV I beaver aceÈabuù¡u x x 2 beaver t1bla x Êheft x 3 t¡oodchuck ht¡merus x x DP 4 uuskrat etles x x 5 uuskra! tibla x x x x x 6 comon loon tarsortletaÈarsus x x 7 northern plke erÈ1cu1ar x ant. x l7:V I Euskrat nolar x x l7:VI I tllooSe prox. phalanx x x x x x t beaver caudal vert. x xx l8: II I ¡¡oose nid 5th phal. x 7 beaver noler x 3 beaver radlus x x x X 18: III I beaver lnclsor x 2 beaver caudal vert. x x 190

lable E l: Contfnued Prov. C.N. Classlflcation Skel. Ident. F P C Pr Di SIDE EPIPHYSIS B LR P A t¡EL SVEL l8: III 3 northern pfke dentary x x 18: V I DOOSe vertebra x x 2 black bear 3rd upper 1ncÍsor x x 3 beaver hruerus x x x x x 4 beaver prox. phalanx x x x 5 nuskrat tfblå x x x x 6 comon loon uld phalanx u, x l9:II I DOOge phalanx ,, nfd x x xx x bLack bear prox. phalanx x xx x 3 beaver hrmeruE x shaft l9: x x III I beaver caudal vert. x x 7 beaver huuerus x x x x x x 3 ¡¡oodchuck ¡andible x body x l9: IV x I beaver radlus x x x x l9:V I Cervldae radlus x x x 2 beaver patella x x 3 Bkunk nandlble x x x 4 auskraÈ uandlble x body x 19:VII I Cervldae eesaoofd x l9: IX I beaver netapodlal ep. x x x x 2 beaver netapodial ep. x x x x 3 beaver phalanx x x x x x 20: II I beaver ecapula ¡eck x 20: III I EOO6e vert. epfph. 2 whlte tall deer EetatarÊa1 shaft x 3 beaver naxflla 4 beaver ¡¡andible Eld x x 5 beaver nax111a 6 beaver radlus x x 7 beave¡ radlus x x x x I beaver ulna shaft x 9 beaver tretacarpal x x x x 10 beaver lnnoninaÈe x lt uuskrat uandlble uld x t2 ¡uskraÊ hu¡nerus x x x l3 ouskrat tlbia x x x x x t4 northerD pl.ke voE¡er x l5 northern pfke palatfne x 20: IV I oldsquaw tarsoIDetatar6u6 x x x x x 2 Aves tarsoDetaÈarau6 x x x x x 2QtY I moose molar x 2 uuskrat feuur x ahaf t x 20: VI I rrhfte tafl deer prox. phalanx x x xx x 2 Cervfdae dlst. phalanx x x xx x x 3 beaver netapodlal ep. x x 20:VII I beaver calcaneus x 6haft x 2I:II t beaver calcaneus x x 2 beaver prox. phalaox x 2I:III x x I beaver tlbfa x shaft x x 2l:IV I beaver caudal vert. x x beaver humerus epiph. xxx 2!.Y I beaver uloa x shaft x 2 beaver prox. phalanx x x x 2L:YI I beaver talus ,) x x x nuskrat ¡andlble x body x 2l IVII I beaver tarsal x x 22¿II I beaver Lncísor x 22.v I EOOSe uoler x 2 nuskrat uandible x body x 22:uî ¡I¡OOSe I nolar x 191

Table E l: Continued

Prov. C.N. Classiftcatlon Skel. Ident. FPC PrDi SIDE EPIPIÍYSIS B LRU P A VEL SVEL }ÍVEL 23:VII I beaver netapodial x shaft x 24:TI I EOOAe nolar x x 2 Cervldae aolar x 24zITI I EOOÊe 5th nld phalanx x T x 2 Cervldae phalanx x 3 Cervidae ulna x x x x x x 24:.lY t ¡¡hite tafl deer ffbula x x 2 beaver tlbla eptph. x x x 3 beaver prox, phal. ep. x x 4 nuskrat nandible x D1d x 5 muskrat ¡oandlble x body x 24 zt'l I DOOSe rib x shaft 25: III t lDOOSe prox. phal. ep. x x , beaver ulna (&lev.IV) x ehaft x x 3 norÈhern pike articular x x 25: IV I ¡¡hite ta1l deer prox. phalan:i x x a beaver talus x x 3 beaver prox. phal. ep. x 26;I I beaver ulna x .' ehsft x x northern pike palatine x x 26:.Tl I l[OOSe oid phal. ep. x x 2 Elver oÈler hu¡erus x x x x 3 river otter lnnoolnate x acetabulu¡ x 26: III t lDOOSe uid phalanx x x 2 beaver redius (e¡0a11) x x x x 3 beaver radfus epfph. x x x 4 beaver 4th ¡netatarsal x x x 5 Aylhva sp. coracoid x x x x x 26zTY I black bea¡ aolar x x 2 beaver lnclsor x 3 beaver scapula x x x x x 4 beaver hr¡merus x x x x 5 beever radlus x x x x x 6 beaver ulna x x x 7 beaver ulna x x x x x I beaver tibia x x x x 7 9 woodchuck rediue x x x x l0 auskrat nandlble x body x ll ralleye dentary x x 26zYl I beaver rnfd phalanx x x x x x x Table E 2: Llst of unldentlflable bone by taxononlc class, Meek Slte, Area B

ttA¡tl.tALs FISI{ REPTILES MOLLUSCS ? MA}IMALS FISH REPTILES MOLLUSCS ? Excavatlon NrB*NBN B Excavatlon unlts unl ta NBNB NB l:l t4 I 93III 6 3 2 l: Il 9 2 9:lv 18 l9 2 l:III t 2 9:v l5 l4 l:Iv 3 I I 9:vr 5 u 2 9:VII 2?l I 6 2 z 3 I l0 2: III 6 44 5 I 2 6 9:VIII t 45 2: lV 6 37 2 3 I 2 9:Vl-VII 5 7 2:v I 9 I l0: II I 33I l0 6 l0: IV l6 3: I1 t8 46 l0: V 20 l0: VI 3: III 23 9 5 l0: VI 3: Iv l 3 I 4 l0:VIII 3 4rl 6 l0 2 l0: IX 6 4:II 8 l4 l0: X 3 43III 3 4: lV 5 ll:I 1l:11 5:l 28 2 I 2 ll:III 4 6 5: 47 lI t2 7 9 I ll:IV 3 6 2 5:III 42 I l3 5 I l:V 6 I 5: lV t4 IO 3 3 2 I l:vt l7 2t I 5:v 1 5 I 2 ll:VtI 2 I t ll 3 I l:VIII 6;l 64 t4 2 l3 26 6: II 26 l5 l5 12: I I 6: III 35 l2 3 u 2 6 3 l2:IlI t7 6: Iv 4 I 2 I l2:Iv l0 24 L2 3 6:v I 2 l2 rv I l3 2 6: vI 3 l2:vI l0 l9 6 7tI l8 L2 2 9 l2:VlIl I 7 ?lL l7 t2 2 I 7 l3: II t 7:TII 35 l6 22 7 26 l3:Ill 4 3 7:Iv t2 7 2 9 2 l3: lv 5 2 7:v 2 2 l3: vI 4 7:Vl 2 I 4 I 3: vII 7:VII 2 l3:VIII 8:l l8 7 6 t4:lI I 2 8:II I l4:III 5 8: IV 2 I l4:Iv 5 4 8:V l4: v 25 2 8:vI l4:VI l5 5 t4:VII 3 l4:VtlI 4 * N - normal bone, B - burned bone t5:II I I I5:III 4 9 l5:IV l4 4

H \o NJ Table E 2 Continued

MAMHALS BIRDS FISH REPTILES MOLLUSCS ? MAMH.ÀLS BIRDS FISH REPTILES MOLLUSCS ? Excavatlon Excavatlon B N BNBNB N unlt s unl. t s BNBNBNB l5:V z2 2l:v ll 2 l5:vl I 2l :vI , l5:VII 2 2l:vrr 5 16: I 26 2l:vIII I l6: II 28 22211 t4 ló:III l0 3l I I 22.llf 3 l6: Iv 305 I 3 22zIv 5 5 l6:v 38 l0 5 3 22zv 6 3 2 l6:vI 30 16 6 22.v1 3 16:vII 3t 22:VII a l6: vI 1I I 22?vIll 2 17 zl I 23: II I 2 l7:II 32 1 3 3 2 23.|U 2 z 3 I7:III t26 3 2 23ztl t 4 2 l73IV 7t 10 I 23:vt 3 l7:v 54 3 I 23:vII l7:vI 310 3 2 l7:VIII 2 24.f 6 5 24zll 20 l8: II 5 I 3 24?llf I 2 l8: III l7 7 3 2 24.|v 9 5 3 2 l8:v t6 5 I 9 24.V 2 8 I I h l8:Vll I 2 24:Vl 2 9 l9rII I ll I I I 25¡II I I l9;IlI t2 l6 I 4 6 25:III 3 5 h l9:Iv l0 3 4 2 2 2 25 tIv I I 3 2 l9:v I 2 5 7 25:vI 2 I l9:vI 7 t 25:vll l9:VlI I 19:VIII I 26zl 3 3 I 19: IX 15 26zll l6 9 l9:x 2 2ó!III l5 6 l4 2 263Iv l8 l9:xl 7 l3 l8 6 I9:XIIT I 26:vl 2 4 7 26:vII 4 a 20tll 7 2 26:VIII I 20: III 3l 22 2 I9 3 I 20: IV 8 I I 2 I I features 20: V l7 3 25 I 2 9&l l: I, III 20: VI 9 I 7 2 vlr, vItI 48 4 20:VII 2 I I l9:hearth 20:vIII I 9 20: xl

21:II 5 4 2l:III 7 2 2I:Iv 4 3

\o U) 194

Table E 3: Faunal taxonomic ltst of identifiable bone fron Ehe Ash Rapids l,lest Site (Djfq-s).

Prov. C.N. Classiffcation Ske1. Ident. F P C Pr Di SIDE EPIPHYSIS B LRU P A VEL SVEL NVEL l: II I porcupine humerus x x x juvenile cortex t snowshoe hare nandlble x body x 3 snor¡shoe hare ¡nandible x body x l: III I porcupíne tÍbla eplph. x x 7 r,¡oodchuck ulna x x x x x 3 snowshoe hare mandible x x 4 snowshoe hare ulna x x x x 5 snor¡shoe hare radlus x x x 6 muskrat rib x x 7 nuskrat ribla/f1bula x x x I sno$7 goose vert, ant. cerv. x 9 black duck femur x x l0 black duck metacarpal x x x l1 northern pike denÈary x ant. x L2 northern plke dentary x ant. 13 northern plke dentary x ent. T4 northern píke dentary x ant. x l5 northern pike palatine x x I6 northern plke vomer x t7 walleye denEary x ant. x l8 walleye dentary x ant. x 19 walleye dentary x ant. x 20 walleye dentary x ant. x 2L walJ.eye nax1l1a x post x 22 walleye premaxflla x 23 walleye prernaxllla x x 24 walLeye palatlne x x 25 walleye paLatlne x ant. x 26 walleye clelthrun x x 27 walleye quadrate x 28 walleye articular x x 29 walleye pelvlc fin x l:IV I beaver rib x x x ) snor+shoe hare scapula x x 3 snowshoe hare scapula x x x x 4 snowshoe hare radius x x x x 5 Canada goose steroum x ant 6 black duck coracoid x x 7 northern plke voner x I walleye voner x 9 walleye artlcular x 10 walleye cleithru¡n x x 1t walleye ceratohyal x x t2 walleye ceratohyal x x l:V I beaver humerus x shaft 2:VIT I ¡ûoo€¡e metatarsal x x x x juvenile cortex 2 beaver scapula x fossa x 3 beaver tlbia ep1ph. x x I whlte tail deer prox. phalanx x 3: III I beaver radLus x x x x 5:I I muskrat femur x x x x x 6: IV I beaver ulna x x x x x x 9: IV I muskrat fernur epiph. x x ) northern pike dentary x x l4: I I beaver scapula x fossa x l4:I1 I muskrat femur x x l5: Iv I black bear talus x 2 beaver molar 3 beaver molar 195

Table E 3: Continued

Prov. C.N. Classification Ske1. Ident. FPC PrDi SIDE EPIPHYSIS 3 LRU P A VEL SVEL NVEL 18:IV I black duck ulna x x x 19: I I blue-winged teal coracoid x x x x 20zII I muskrat uLna x x x x x t Euskrat fenur x shaft x x 20: IV I muskrat max111a x 2 Euskrat f eurur x shaft x 3 muskrat tfbia x x 4 northern plke dentary x x 5 northern pike dentary x x 20:Y I noose lunbar vert. x 2 ¡nuskrat radlus x x x x x 20:VI I beaver ulna x shaft x 22:IY I uruskrat lnnominaÈe x x 2 northern pike dencary x x x 3 norÈhern pfke angular x facet x x 22:YI I black bear n1d phalanx x x 2 beaver molar x 3 beaver petrous bone x x 4 beaver hu¡nerus x x x x 5 beaver radlus x x x x x 6 beaver prox. phalanx x x x 7 beaver prox. phalanx x x x x I beaver dist. phalanx x x 9 beaver mÍd phalanx x l0 muskraÈ caudal vert. x x lI nuskrat caudal vert. x v L2 muskra! tlbia x x 22:.YLI I nuskrat nandl.ble x x 2 northern pike voner x 23: II I ouskrat scapula x x 2 nuskrat clavicle x x x 3 muskrat fenur x PD 4 black duck coracold x x 5 black duck tarsoDetatarsus x x x x 6 loon phalanx 23.fIT I snowshoe hare scapula x fossa X 2 sno¡¡shoe hare humerus x x x 3 ¡ûuskrat r1b x x 4 nuskrat calcaneus x x x 5 nuskrat hu¡nerus x x DP x 6 muslcraÈ ischlun x x 7 nuskrat femur x x x dist. unfused, prox. fused I muskrat fenur x PD 9 muskrat tibfa x x DP l0 muskraE tlbia x x x x II muskrat tíbia x x x x L2 Forsterl s tern hunerus x x x x l3 black duck tarsome tatarsusx x x x x L4 black duck phalanx x x x 15 corulon Derganset synsacrum x old L6 conmon merganser fenur x x x x T7 loon coracold x x x l8 loon ulna x x x x t9 northern pike dentary x 20 norÈhern plke palatlne x x 2L northern plkê arÈlcular x 22 walleye prenaxllla x x 23 snapplng turlle phalanx X 24 snapping turtle phalanx x 196

Table E 3: Continued

Prov. C.N. Classificatlon Skel. Ident. FPC PrDl SIDE EPIPI{YSIS B LRU P A VEL SVEL NVEL 23: III 25 snappfng Èurtle phalanx x 26 snapping turÈle phalanx x 23|ÎV t noose dist. phalanx x x 2 beaver ¡oandible x r¿uDus x 3 beaver ulna x x x 4 beaver llfac crest x 5 beaver lnnomfnate x x x 6 beaver femur x shaft x x 7 beaver tfbia x x I beaver prox. phalanx x 9 beaver dist. phalanx x x x 10 beaver dlst. phalanx x x x 1l beaver dlst. phalanx x x x T2 beaver roid phalanx x x x I3 Canls sp. pre-nolar x x t4 woodchuck illum x x unfused l5 r¡oodchuck llfun x x unfused l6 coEtonEall radlus x x x x I7 cottontall radfus x x x x x r8 snowshoe hare tlbla x x x x l9 sno¡¿shoe hare 5th netatarsal x x x 20 snowshoe hare 5th meÈatarsal x x x x 2t snowshoe hare metatarsal x x 22 snowshoe hare metatarsal x x 23 EuskraÈ molar x 24 Euskrat nolar x 25 muskrat lunbar vert. x x 26 muskra! lunbar vert. x 27 nuskrat scapula x fossa 28 muskrat scapula x fossa 29 muskrat humerus epiph. x x 30 uruskrat humerus epiph. x x 3i ¡nuskrat humerus x shaft 32 muskrat hunerr:s x shaf È 33 muskrat illum x x 34 muskrat innouLnat.e aceËabulum x 35 muskrat ínnonLnate x acetabulum x 36 muskrat ilfun x x x 37 muskrat femur x x x x 38 nuskrat fenur epfph. xx 39 muskrat fenur epiph. xx x 40 muskrat femur x x x 4L muskrac fenur x PD x 42 nuskrat fenur x x PD 43 rûuskrat fenur epiph. xx x 44 Euskrat feruur eplph. xx x 45 sruskraË tibia x 46 nuskrat Èlbia x x x 47 nuskrat 5th ¡netatarsal x x 48 nuskrat 5th netatarsal x x 49 cormon nerganser vertebra x 50 co¡mon nerganser vertebra x 5l co¡mon loon phalanx x 52 conmon loon phalanx x x x 53 comon loon tarsoEe ta Carsusx >l x 54 comon loon vertebra x 55 conrnon loon vertebra x 56 comon loon verÈebra x 57 comon loon verlebra x 58 comon loon vertebra x 59 co¡mron loon ulna x x 60 coromon loon radius x x 197

Table E 3: Continued

Prov. C.N. Classification Skel.Ident. FPC PrDi SI,DE EPIPHYSIS LRU P A VEL SVEL NVEL

23: IV 6l cornmon loon carpal x 62 norÈhern pike dentary x 63 northern pike dentary x x 64 norÈhern pLke parasphenoid x 65 walleye dentary x x 66 walleye denËary x x 67 walleye dentary x x 68 walleye dentary x x 69 walleye dentary x x 70 walleye nax111a x x 7l walleye parasphenoid x 72 walleye quadrate x x 73 walleye quadraËe x x 74 walleye preoperculum x x 75 walleye dorsal spine x 76 walleye dorsal spine x 77 snapplng turtle tíbia x 78 snapplng turtle phalanx x 79 snapplng turtle phalanx x 80 painted turtle fenur x x x x 23:.Y I black bear mld phalanx x x x 2 beaver lncisor x 3 beaver molar x 4 beaver ¡no1ar x 5 beaver 3rd tarsal x x 6 beaver prox. phalanx x x x 7 snowshoe hare oandíble x I snov¡shoe hare nandlble x x 9 nuskrat ulna x x x 10 muskraÈ femur x x x x x I I cormon loon phalanx x x x 12 northern plke palatlne x t3 walleye dentary x x L4 walleye parasphenoid x 15 walleye scapula x x l6 walleye scapula x L7 lake sturgeon dernal plate l8 lake sturgeon dermal plate 19 snapplng turtle phalarrx x 20 snapping turtle phalanx x x 23:VII I black bear dist. phalanx x 2 beaver molar x 3 snowshoe hare tibla x x x x x 4 nuskrat fllum x x 5 snapplng turtle phalanx x x 23:VIII I bLack bear phalanx x x 2 beaver molar x 24:YII I beaver lumbar vert. x x 24zYTLT 1 beaver radius x x x x x 242\X I beaver scapuJ.a x fossa x x 24zX I snowshoe hare mandlble x x 25: II 1 moose nid phalanx x x 2 beaver femur x x x x x 3 muskrat mandlble x nld x 4 muskrat nandlble x nid x 5 muskrat rlb x x x 6 muskrat humerus x x x prox. unfused 7 muskrat radlus x x x 8 nuskrat ulna x x 9 muskrat innominate x l0 muskrat íl1un x ll coromon loon Phalanx x 198

Table E 3: Continued Prov. C.N. Classification Ske1.Ident.. FPC PrDf SIDE EPIPHYSIS B LRU P A VEL SVEL NVEL 25zIIL l beaver scapula x fossa x x ) beaver dlst. phalanx x 3 snovshoe hare molar x 4 snowshoe hare nolar x 5 snor¡shoe hare humerus x x x 6 snowshoe hare netatarsal x x x 7 nuskrat noLar x I nuskrat nandible x x 9 nuskrat vertebra x x l0 nuskrat vertebra x II nuskrat vertebra X L2 nuskrat vertebra x 13 muskrat vertebra x r4-22 nuskrat rLbs 23-27 nuskra! caudal verts. x 28 muskrat lumbar vert. x x x 29 ¡nuskrat sacrum x 30-3r nuskrat clavlcles x x 32 muskrat cLavfc1e x x 33 rnuskrat huuerus epiph. x x 34 muskrat humerus x xDP 35 muskrat ulna x x xx xx 36 nuskrat ulna x x xx x 37 muskrat radius x x xx 38 muskrat ínnoulnate x x l1iun 39 nuskraÈ fnno¡¡lnate x x flirur, Íschiun 40 muskrat innomlnate x x ilium, lschium, acetabulum nuskrat. 4I femur x x prox, SVEL, dlst. unfused 42 nuskrat Ëlbia x x x 43-44 muskrat metatarsals x 45 nuskrat lst s¡etatarsal x x x 46 nuskrat 5th netatarsal x x 47 nuskrat 3rd netatarsal x x x 48 ¡ruskrat 4th netaËarsal x x 49 nuskraÈ 2nd uetaÈarsal x x x 50-54 nuskrat phalanges 55 muskrat talus 56 black duck hunerus x xx x 57 p1nra11 carpal x 58 co¡mon ¡nerganser coracoid x 59 cormon nerganser fenur x x 60 conmon loon phalanx x 6I northern pike palatine x 62 northern plke denÈary x x 63 r¡a11eye dorsal splne x 64 catflsh pectoral splne x 65-66 snapping turtle phalanges x 25: IV I beaver molar x 2 beaver incisor x 3 beaver ulna x x x 4 beaver femur x shaft x 5 beaver totd phal., hlnd x x 6 beaver prox. phal., front x x x 7 rfver otter radlus x x x x x I rlver otter tarsal 3 x x 9 rfver otter tarsal centrall x x l0 woodchuck hunerus x x x 1I coÈtontel1 tlbia x x x L2 cottontall uLna x x x x l3 snowshoe hare nandlble x diasterna t4 snorvshoe hare humerus x x x t5 snor¡shoe hare humerus x x x l6 snowshoe hare radlus x x T7-19 snor¿shoe hare phalanges x x 199

Table E 3: Continued

Prov. C.N. Classification Skel.Ident. FPC PrDl SIDE EPIPHYSIS LRU P A VEL SVEL NVEL 25zIY 20-21 muskrat ¡nandlbles x x 22-23 muskrat nandibles x x 24-25 rnuskrat ¡oandibles x condyles x 26 nuskrat rlb x 27 muskrat saclu¡n x xx 28 muskrat lst thoracic verË. x x 29-32 muskrat vertebrae x x 33-34 muskraÈ caudal vert. x x 35 muskraE caudal vert. x x x 36 Duskrat hunerus x x DP x 37 nuskrat humerus epiph. x x x 38 muskrat humerus x x x x 39 ¡ouskrat humerus x x 40 Eusk¡at humerus x x x x 4l nuskrat ulna x x x xx 42 Buskrar ulna x x xx 43 uuskrat ulna x x x xx 44 muskrat radlus x x x xx 45 muskrat lnnomlnate x x acetabulum, lschiun x 46-48 nuskrat Lnnominate x x acetabulum, ischÍun 49 ¡nuskrat femur x x xx 50 Euskrac femur x x xDP 5I muskrat femur x shaft x x unfused 52 muskrat ferour eplph. x x x 53 muskrat tfbla epiph. x x x 54 muskrat tibla x shaft x 55 muskrat tlbla x x x x 56 muskrat tlbla/ftbula x ' shaft x x 57 muskrat calcaneus x x x 58 muskraÈ prox. pha1. front x x 59-60 muskrat prox. phal. hind x x 61 conmon crow humerus x x x x 62 Canada goose carpal ulnarí x 63 conDon rnerganser coracold x x x 64 conmon Berganser coracoid x x x x 65 conmon loon humerus x x x 66 cornmon loon tlblotarsus x x x x 67 conmon loon tiblotarsus x x x 68-72 comon loon vertebrae x 73 co¡mon loon atlas x 74 comon loon phalanx x X 75 northern plke vou¡er x 76 northern pike dentary x x 77 northern Plke dentary x x 78 northern pike quadrate x 79 northern pike hyornandl-bu1ar x 80 walleye naxll-1a x x 81 walleye prenaxllla x x 82 walleye dentary x x 83 walleye quadrate x x 84 walleye guadraËe x x 85-92 walleye dorsal splnes 93 snapping Èurt1e ulna x 94 painEed turtle feour x x 25zY I black bear phalanx x x 2 Canis sp. upper incf.sor I x x 3 @ sp. upper prernolar 4 x Ã 4 Canis sp. upper indisor 3 x x 5 Canis sp. canlne x x 6 ríver otter radius x x x x 7 beaver lst rib x x x x a beaver rfb x x x 9 beaver scapula x x x x 200

Table E 3: Contfnued

Prov. C.N. Classlfication Skel.Ident. FPC PrDl SIDE EPIPHYSIS B LRU P A VEL SVEL NVEL 25:V l0 beaver ulna x x X ll beaver radfus x x x L2 beaver LnnoninaEe x acetabulum 13 beaver tlbia x x x x t4 beaver patella x x x l5 beaver lsl netatarsal x x x x x x 16 beaver prox. pha1. hind x x x x t7 beaver dlst. phalanx x x l8 beaver prox. phal. hlnd x x x l9 beaver nld phaI. hind x x x 20 snowshoe hare naxllla x x 2t snowshoe hare scapula x x x tt snowshoe hare hunerus x x x 23 snowshoe hare ulna x x x 24 snos¡shoe hare lnnoninate x x lschJ.um, acetabulum 25-27 snowshoe hare prox. phalanges x x 28 DuskraË nandlble x x 29 muskrat axis x x 30 muskrat caudal vert. x x 3l uuskrat hunerus x x x x x 32 muskraE 3rd ruetatarsal x x x x 33 walleye branchial arch x 34 walleye palatlne x x 35 walleye preoperculum x x 36 snapplng turEle nld phalanx x x x 25:VI I beaver nandfbular x x x Process 2 beaver dlst. phalanx x x x x x 3 snowshoe hare nandlble x ant. x 25:VII I beaver dfst. phalanx x x x 25:VIII I blue-wl,nged teal tarsorDe ta tar sus x x x x 2 blue-winged teal tibl-otarsus x x x 25: IX I black bear lst netacarpal x x x x x 2 couunon loon vertebra x 26:LL I EuskraÈ nandlble x 2 muskrat nandlbLe x x 3- 4 muskrat caudal verE. x x 5 muskrat ulna x x x x x x 26tIfI I muskrat ¡oandible x x t muskrat femur x x PD 26¡IY I beaver scapula x x x x 7 beaver 4th tarsal x x 3 nuskrat ínnonlnate x x 26:Y I beaver vertebra x 2 beaver femur x x unfused x 3 beaver prox. phalanx x x x x 4 beaver dlst. phalanx x x x 5 beaver d1st. phalarx x x x 6 conmon loon tarsometatarsus x shaft x 26:VI I beaver axls x x 26:YLT I beaver 2nd netatarsal x x xx 2 nuskrat nolar x 26 : VIII I Canis sp. nandibLe x ant. X 20r

Table E 3: Addendum

Prov. C.N. Classfficatlon Ske1. Ident. FPC PrDl SIDE EPIPHYSIS B LRU P A VEL SVEL NVEL I Anatidae Eibiotârsus x 23: III 27 Anarldae carponetacarpus x 28-33 Anatidae phalanges 34 Anatidae synsacrum x 35 Anatidae vertebra x 23:IV 8l Anatldâe carpometacarpus x x x x 23zY 2l AnaEldae 7 x 22 Anatldae coracold x x x 25: III 67 Anâtidâe vertebra x 252îY 95 Anatldae ulna x x 96 Anatidae scapula x X x 25tY 37 Anatidae humerus x x x 38 Anatidae cervlcal vert. x 39 Anatidae humerus x x Table E 4: List of unidenÈlflable bone by tâxonomlc class, Ash Raplds trest Site

MAMMALS ßIRDS FISH REPTILES MOLLUSCS 2 I4AMMALS BIRDS FISH REPTILES MOLLUSCS ? ExcavaÈfon Excavatlon N*B*N B N B unlÈs NB units NBN B N B N B l: II 2 I l5: III 9 l: III 32 ll t 68 I 2 I 15: IV 5 I I l:IV I 2? t3 37 2 2 l5:VI I:v 4 13 2 3 l6:I 3 l:VI 3 6 I 16 : I:VII 4 III I l:VIII I l6:V 3 I I6:VI 2iIV I I6:VII I 2:Y 2 2 2tvI 3 l8:II 2:VII I 3 l8 : III 34 I l8:IV 177 2 2 2:VIII 3 7 3 I t.lv 18:v 27 t4 l8:VI 1.Y 2 l0 5 2.NL I I 8:vII I 3: II 2 I9:I l9:II 3: III 3 4 I 3: rv 5 8 I9: III 32 I 3 l9: IV 3:v 4 9 3: vI 2 l9:V 3 19:VI 2 4tI I I 4:lI 2t 20: I 5 20: 4:III 5 t7 II I 3 20: III 3 2 5:I 2 5 20: Iv l3 8 7 2 I 2 5: II 2 l0 202V 8 7 I 3 5: III I I 20:VI 7 2 6:I 20:VII I 20:VIII t 6: II 3 I 3 2 203IX 6:III 9 I 2 I 20:Xl 6: trV l5 2 I 6:v 4 2! zf 2 7 zlf 4 2l:III 3 7:III J 2I:IV I 7: IV 5 2I:v 7:VI 2l:VI t 2l:VIII 8: lI 8: III 22:I I 22tW I 9 :11 I 22zt!I t2 62 3 326 9: IIl 7 6 5 22;\ILI 2 9: Iv 5 22tIx I 14: I 23zLI I I 14:II 23:Ill 9 I 4 3 l4: III t2 t0 * N - nomal bone, B - burned bone

N) O l.J lable E 4: Continued

MAMMALS BIRDS FISH RETTILES MOLLUSCS ? Excavation N B rrñ{ ts N NBNB

23: IV 67 83 29 7 108 6 10 5 2 86 23:Y 72 t29 22 53 5 t8 6 I 151 23:vII 3 l5 2 5 23: VIII 6 36 2 J 1 23:Ix t2 23zX Ì J 24tIII 4 24,Iv 24 t\] I 24 rVIII 2 t 25:TT 6 5 I I 25: III T7 I5 II 4 30 2 I63 253IV 39 37 l8 4 76 J ll 7 5 113 25:V 50 5I 6 2 33 I r3 7 I 27 25:Vf L4 39 3 5 25:VII 4 l5 4 5 4 J o 25:VIII 4 23 1 25rIX I 1t 2 2 25:X I 25?xI I 26:IY L7 I 26:Y T7 t72 5 I2 6 5 26:Vl ll 2T 6 I 26|vIT t 2 3 J 2 26: VIII 1 7 I 26:IX I 26 tx

f.J O (J) 204

Table E 5 Faunal Èaxonomic list of identifiable bone from the Ash Rapids East Síte, Area a (DjKq-4).

Prov. C.N. Classlfication Skel. Ident. F P C Pr Di SIDE EPIPI{YSIS B L R UP A VET, SVET, NVEI, 1:III beaver phalanx x x 1:VI beaver nolar x l:VII beaver netapodlal x xx I:VIII black bear d1st. phalanx x 2: III I beaver phalanx x x 2 nuskrat nandlble x râmus x 3 muskrat urandible x condyle x x 4 ¡ruskrat uandlble x ramus x 5 ¡ouskrat vert. epiPh. 6-L4 muskraÈ vertebrae x x 15 muskraE scapula fossa x x X l6 muskrat humerus shaft x x L7 muskrat hunerus x x unfused x l8 muskrat hunerus shaft X l9 muskrat humerus x 20 muskraE ulna x x x 2t muskraË ulna x x x 22 muskrat innoninate acetabulum, ilium 23 nuskra! lschlun 24 muskrat tibla x x x x 25 muskÌat tlbla shaft x 26 nuskrat lst ¡neEatarsal x x x x 27 muskrat metatarsal x x x 28 Anatldae coracoid x x x 29 AnaEldae ulna x x 2: IV I caribou cibla x x t beaver scapula x x 3 beaver ulna x x x 4-6 beaver nid phalanges x x x x 7-8 muskrat vertebrae x x 9-r0 nuskrat caudal verts. x X 1l nuskraÈ scapula X T2 uruskraE femur x x X x X x t3 muskrat f ernur shaft x t4 ¡ouskrat tibia x x x x l5 nuskrat tibla x x x 16 rouskraÈ calcaneus x x x L7 uuskrat calcaneus x x x x x l8 muskrat calcaneus x x t9-2L nuskrat metaEarsals x x x )7 nuskraE 3rd netaLarsal x 23 common loon carpal radiali 2zY I caribou upper molar x 2 Canis sp. ríb x x 3 beaver hu¡rerus x x 4 beaver calcaneus x c muskraE lst sacral vert. 6 muskrat vertebra x 7-8 muskrat tibias x x 9 common loon tarsoDetatarsus x x x l0 conmon loon 3rd phalanx x X x l1 horned grebe tibiotarsus x x t2 Aves cranium x 2:Vl t-2 beaver molars 3 beaver humerus x x 4 beaver humerus x x xx 5 beaver humerus x x 6 beaver radius x x x 7 beaver lnnominate x i1íum, acetabulum I beaver prox. phalanx x xx X 9 beaver netapodial ep. x x x l0 beaver nid phalanx x x 20s

Table E 5: ConEÍnued

Prov, C.N. ClasslfÍcation Ske1. Ident. FPC PrDí STDE EPIPHYSIS B LRU P A VEL SVEL NVEL 2:\11 l1 nuskrat molar t2 nuskraE max1lla x x 13-r4 muskrat vertebra t5 muskrat verÈebra l6 ¡nuskrat femur x x x t7 conmon loon cerv. vert. x 18 northern plke dentary x ant. x L9-20 northern pike denÈaries x ant. 2ztüaT I moose f ernur x x x 2 beaver molar 3 beaver caudal vert. x x x 4 beaver prox. phalanx x x 5 muskrat humerus x x x 2:VIII I beaver molar x 2 muskrat humerus x x x x 3 muskrat lnnomínate x acetabulum X 4 snapping turtle femur x x x 2:ÍX I muskrat ulna x broken

3:II 1 muskrat clavfcle x X 2 muskraÈ ulna x x x J nuskrat fenur x x 4 nuskrat tibia x x 5 northern pike quadrate x x 3:1II I ¡noose thoracfc vert. x t muskrat caudal vert. x 3-4 nuskrat caudal verts. x x X 5 ¡ruskrat hunerus x x x 6 nuskrat tlbia x shaft 7 muskrat 4th ureËatarsal x .x I Canada goose hu¡nerus x shaft 9 Anatidae ulna x x x 3: Iv I moose mecaEarsal x shaft 2 CervÍdae rnolar x 3 black bear dÍst. phalanx x x xx 4 beaver ulna x x x xx 5-6 beaver lnnominate x acetabulum, llium 7 beaver mid phalanx x I beaver dlst. phalanx x 9 ¡olnk nandlble x ramus x 10 nuskrat sacral vert. x It-12 rnuskrat caudal verÈs. x l3 muskraE humerus x shaft. x x 14 muskraÈ ulna x x x x t5- l6 nuskrat lnnomlnate x x acetabulum, Íschium L7 muskrat tibla x shafr x 18 nuskraE tlbia x X x X x I9 muskrat tibla x x x 20 muskrat clbia epiph. 2T muskrat talus x x 22 nuskrat phalanx x x x 23 muskraL calcaneus x post. x X 24 muskrat calcaneus x post. x x ,< nuskrat rnetapodial x x x 26 Canada goose eoracoLd x x x 27 blue-winged teal sternum x 28 courmon loon fenur x shaf c x broken, VEL 29 red necked grebe tibiotarsus x x x x x 30 northern pike palaEine x x 3:V I noose nolar x 2 carlbou radius x x x x 3 carLbou ulna x x x broken 4 Cervl-dae molar x 5 beaver molar 206

Table E 5: Conti.nued P¡ov. C.N. CLassificarion Skel.Ident. FPC PrDi SIDE EPIPHYSIS B LRU P A VEL SVEL NVEL 3:V 6 beaver humerus x x 7 beaver hunerus x I beaver ulna x shaft x 9 beaver prox. phal. ep. x l0 porcupine dist. phalanx x x II r,¡oodchuck incísor x L2 snowshoe hare lnnominate x acetabulum, i.1ium l3 nuskrat uandible x ranus x t4 nuskrat vertebra x x 15 uuskrat caudal vert. x x l6 nuskrat lnnominate x x acetabulurn L7 nuskrat fenur x x x x l8 Euskrat neLapodial x x x x t9 uruskrat talus x x 20-2r nuskrat talus x 22 comon loon rib x x 23 connon loon carpal radiali x x 24 snapplng turtle phalanx x x 25 snapping Èurtle phalanx x 26 paínted turtle femur x x 3:VI I ttrOOSe calcaneus x x 2 c¡hlte tail deer phalanx x x 3 whlte Eail deer sesaooid x 4 Cervldae molar x 5 beaver incLsor x 6 beaver caudal vert. x 7 beaver scapula x fosse x I beaver ulna x x x 9 beaver femur epiph. l0 beaver nld phalanx l1 beaver nid phalanx X t2 beaver phalanx l3 beaver X carpal X x L4 beaver carpal x l5 beaver netapodlal t6 beaver phalanx epiph. L7 beaver calcaneus x x l8 rnuskrat nandlble x condyle x l9 nuskrat x lnnominate x Ã ic ramus 20 nuskrat Pub innonlnaEe x x pub ic ranus 2L muskraE Èa1us 22 conmon x loon carpometacarpus X x 23 Anatidae phalanx 24 lake sÈurgeon dernal plate x 25 snapping turtle dist. phalanx x 3:VII I Cervldae nolar x t beaver radius x 3 beaver innominate x x acetabulum 4 beaver tibia epiph. x 5 beaver netapodial x À 6 muskra! nandlble ramus 7 Euskrat tibla x shafc x x ö uuskraÈ tibla x shaft 9 walleye naxilla 3: VIII I beaver nolar x beaver humerus x x x 3: IX I beaver humerus x 2 beaver netapodía1 X 3 beaver phalanx x 3:X x À I beaver humerus x x 2 nuskrat tíbia x X x 5:III I muskrat caudal vert. x x 207

Table E 5¡ Continued

Prov. C.N. Classlfication Skel,Idenl. FPC PrDí SIDE EPIPHYSIS B LRU P A VEL SVEL NVEL 5: Iv I nuskrat scapula x x 7 mallard carpomeÈacarpus x X X 3 black duck 2nd prox. phal. x x 5:V I beaver uraxilla x centre 2 beaver maxilla x X X 3 black duck coracoid 5:vI I moose metatarsal x shaft X 2 beaver radlus x shaft 3 beaver ulna x x X 5:VII I sandhill crane È ib io tar sus shaft x I beaver rnolar x 5:XI t-2 beaver molars 5:XII I beaver rnolar x 5:XVI I moo se prox. phalanx x x 5:XVII I beaver lnnoninaÈe x ilium x x 6: IV walleye dentary 6:v beaver ulna x x x x x 6:VIII beaver urld .phalanx 6:XIV nuskraL nandlble x ramus x 6 : XIX-)O( muskraÈ nandlble x body 8: Iv I beaver humerus shaf t 8:vI I beaver innominete x i1lum 8:VII I muskrat inci.sor x 9: III I beaver radius x x 2 snappÍng turtle phalanx x x 9:V I nuskraE ulna x x 2 common loon femur x shaft x 3 AnaÈídae tarsomeÈatarsus x 9:vI I ûruskrat humerus epiph. xx 2 muskrat. humerus epiph. xx x X 9:VII I beaver radius x x x x 2 beaver lnnoEinaÈe x ilium 3 muskrat tibÍa eplph. x x x 9: rX I beaver humerus x x x 9:X I beaver humerus shaf t t beaver ulna x x x 3 muskrat nândible x body 4 muskrat ¡nandible x body 5 nuskrat tibla x x 9:XII 1 beaver calcaneus x 9:XIII I caribou carpal ulnarí x 10:XIV I red necked grebe coracold x x I l:A* t xûuskrat hume¡us 2 black duck tibiotarsus x Il:B I beaver radlus x x x 2 beaver tlbla shaf t x 3 rnuskrat caudal verÈ. X x 4 nuskrat scapula x fossa x 5 muskrat tibía x x 6 ruffed grouse ulna x x x II:C I noose prox. phalanx x 2 noose mid phalanx x x 3 beaver fnclsor x X 4 beaver atlas x 5 beaver humerus shaf t 6 beaver humerus x x x X x X 7 beaver ulna x shaf ! ö beaver tíbÍa x shaft x 9 muskraÈ íncisor x X 10 lake sturgeon dermal plate x ll lake sturgeon derrnal p1a!e x t::.¡

208

Table E5 Contlnued

Prov. c.N . Classlflcatlon Skel. Ident. FPC PrDl SIDE EPIPHYSIS B LRU P A VEL SVEL NVEL II:D t-2 beaver molar x 3 beaver lor¿er rnolar 4 beaver tlbia x shaft 5 n¡uskrat caudal vert x x ll:E I muskraE ¡nandlble body t nuskra È nandíbIe body 3 common loon humerus x x x

I3:III I beaver phalanx x X

* natural leve1s 209

I N €d Ø øI J J N t

e É N .¡ H F À s¡ É

É ø H k z

ø F Éê H É z

iO OÈ *9€óódOr dddNÀOdgNrñ ø É dóñór €Or FI ON ñ9 ã E 2 il €NÈOÈóç € _oNd N o c

a HH HHH H *Ë+ HH H HH> 0 >o . HH> HHHX H HH HHH > HHX HHHH5 > HHHX HHÊ>>>>È H> HHHX HHH> H>>>HXXXXXi< xÉ H>>>>HXXXXXXXXX HH>>>>HXXXXX <Éo ø gã €ç€€ç9€99€€€99€ @€@ 60ao600aoo6q ooooooooooo o 6 g ooño e ! 4 4 d ø & F¡ oJ ø E

@ 6 Ø q E o F¡ a Êi F E N €€os9ñN o ú z Ê x 6

o H þ. NO€@Nê 0 z Ê o o E o É Á ¡6 ø 4 o Ê É !o ¡ I € N I oÊÈçN6ñÈ6N Èor€NÕNOç @A@ ø ø É N@6Èó ó ñ6ÈÈÈNd iN o J a ø o Nd óóisñ iÊ6 €€ñsoÈ@9ro Èi9óg@NoÈ Á J iN6-N NddNOøÈ¡ 6 C E € o ! q 6 HH H H o H HÈ HH I >ó HH> H tsÉ É H HH Ê ÉH > ÊH 6! HH>HHH! HH> HÊHX ÊH HH> HHH H H> HHHX q HHÊ>>>ÊXXXXX HHH>>>>HXXX H>>>)< z x Êl HÉÉ>>>>XX HÊ>>>>HX)

MAMMALS BIRDS FISH REPTILES MOLLUSCS ? Excavation unlts NBNBNBNB l1:D 3 t7 l1:E t6 23 J l1:F 7 7 1 Il:c 7 2 l3: III 2 l3: lV l5 I3:v 24 l3: VI I4 l3: vII 7 l3:vIII l2 l3: IX 6

N) c) APPENOIX F

FAUNA: SCIENTIFIC NOMENCLATURE

21r 2L2

FAT]NA: SCIENTIFIC NOMENCLATTIRE

MAMI''IALIA* Artiodactyla Cervidae Moose Alces aLces Caribou Rangifer tarandus I,Iapíti Cervus canadensís I,Itríte-taíl deer Odocoileus virgÍnianus Bovidae Bison Bíson bison Carnivora Canidae Canis sp. Canis sp. Ursidae Black Bear Ursus americanus Procyonídae Raccoon Procyon lotor Mustelidae Marten Martes americana MÍnk Mustela víson Striped Skunk Mephítis rnephÍtis Ríver Otter Lontra canadensis Felidae Lynx Lynx lynx RodentÍa Sciuridae Sciuridae I{oodchuck Marmota monax Castoridae Beaver Castor canadensís Erethi-zontidae Porcupine Erethizon dorsaÈum Muridae MuskraÈ Ondatra zíbethicus

* Scientific nomenclature from BanfíeLd L972. 2I3

FAIINA: conÈinued

Lagomorpha Leporidae EasÈern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Snowshoe Ëare Lepus americanus

* AVES Gaviformes Gaviidae Common Loon Gavia immer Podicipediformes Podicípedidae Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus Pelecaníformes Pelecanidae I^Ihite Pelican PeLecanqs erythrorhynchos CÍconiiformes Ardeidae Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Anseriformes Anatidae (Anserinae) Canada Goose Branta canadensis Snow Goose Chen caerulescens (Anatinae) Mallard Anas platvrhvnchos Black Duck Anas rubripes PinÈai1 Anas acuta Blue-winged Teal Anas discors (Aythyinae) Ol-dsquaw Clanula hyenalis (Merginae) Common Merganser Mergus merganser Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator

*Scientific nomenclature from Godfrev 1979. 2L4

FAIINA: continued

Falconiformes Aecipitridae Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus PandionÍdae Osprey Pandion haliaetus Galliformes Tetraonidae Spruce Grouse Canachites canadensis Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus Sharp-tailed Grouse Pedioecetes phasÍanellus Gruiformes Gruídae Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis Charadriiformes Laridae Forstert s Tern Sterna forsterí Passeriformes Corvidae Cornmon Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos

OSTEICHTHYES* Acipenseriformes Acipenseridae Lake Sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens Clupeifornes Clupeidae Ilerring Alosa sp. Salmonidae Lake Trout Salvelinus namavcush (Coregoninae) Lake \^lhitefish Coregonus clupeaformís Híodontidae Goldeye Hiodon alosoides

*Scientific nomenclature from Scott and Crossman 1973. 2L5

FAUNA: continued

Esocidae Northern Pike Esox lucius Muskel-lunge Esox masquínonqy Catostomídae Suckers CatosÈomus sP. Northern Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum Ictalurídae Catfish Ietalurus sp. Perciformes Percidae Yellow Perch Perca flavescens Sauger StÍzostedion canadense Wa1l-eye Stizostedíon viEreum Sciaenídae Fresh-r¿ater Drurn Aplodinotus grunniens

REPTILTA* Testudinata Chelydridae Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina Testudinidae PainËed Turtle Chrysemys picta

*Scientific nomenclature from Froom 1976. APPENDIX G

FLORA: SCIENTIFIC NOMENCLATURE

2r6 217

FLORA: SCIENTIFIC NO¡.ÍENCLATURE

* I,Itrite Pine Pinus strobus Red Pine PÍnus resinosa Jack Pine PÍnus banksiana Tamarack Larix laricina hltrite Spruce PÍcea glauca Blue Spruce Pícea maríana

Bal-sa¡o Fir Abies balsamea

White Cedar a occidentalís

l^Ii11ow Salix sp.

Trembling Aspen Po ulus tremuloides LargetooÈh Aspen Populus erandiden tata Balsam Poplar ul-us balsamifera Eastern Cottonwood P ulus deltoides

HÍckory Ca¡yê sp. White Birch ¡e!r¡1e papyrifera

Beech Fagus grandifolia

Oak Que¡qus sp. Bur Oak reus macroca a

El¡n Ulmus sp.

Hackberry Celtis sp.

Ash Fraxínus sp.

Basswood TilÍa americana

Maple Acer sp.

HawÈhorn Crataegus sp. Crabapple Malus coronaria

HazeI Corylus americana

*Scientific nomenclature frour Rowe 1972 218

FLOR.A,: continued

i,lil-d Ph:n Prunus amerÍcana Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana Pin Cherry Prunus pensylvaníca

Sumac Rhus sp Saskatoon Amelanchier alnifolía

Wíld Rose Rosa arkansana

Blueberry (late lowbush) Vacciniurn angus tif o1íum Cranberry (hieh) Vaccinium macrocarpum (low) Vacciníum oxycoccus trIÍ1d Rice Zizania aquatica

Water Lily (fragrant) Nyqphaea odorata