Fox and Garrad Hurons in an Algonquian Land 121 Hurons in an Algonquian Land William A. Fox and Charles Garrad Archaeological and ethnohistoric data from the Great Lakes region are assembled in an attempt to situate the Algonquian residents of the southern Georgian Bay littoral region in what has come to be defined as a classic Iroquoian homeland—Huronia. The evidence presented suggests that Algonquian-speaking groups occupied this area for millennia prior to the arrival of Iroquoian agriculturalists, and that they continued to reside in the area up until the mid-seventeenth century. It is suggested that the conundrum of their “invis- ibility” in the archaeological record is due to a shared material culture with their Iroquoian neighbours but that their presence can be detected when a range of archaeological evidence is considered beyond a stereo- typical perception of Algonquian culture, as discussed by Latta (1987:181). Introduction anniversary of Andrew Hunter’s 1904 report on “Indian Village Sites In North and South Orillia When the first Iroquoian adventurers entered the Townships,” in which he attempted to ascertain region now known as “Huronia,” roughly a mil- the defining attributes of “Algonkin” villages on lennium ago, they found a landscape little differ- the eastern frontier of historic Huronia. Hunter ent than their home to the south, yet still clothed (1904:106-107) listed the following attributes in in a maple/beech climax forest (Monckton order to differentiate Algonkin from Huron sites: 1992:7). These exploratory forays into the south- 1) an abundance of stone and pottery disks; 2) ern Georgian Bay littoral by small parties of individual burials; 3) highly decorated pipes and Iroquoians were far different in environmental pottery; 4) an abundance of bone needles and and cultural impact than the arrival of agricul- awls; 5) more abundant flint tools; and 6) arrow- tural communities, circa A.D. 1300, who began points cut from brass kettles. The writers’ knowl- settling in the region. It is likely that some exper- edge of the material culture of the early seven- imental horticultural activities were practised at teenth century residents of this region does not this time by resident Algonquian peoples, associ- approach that of Andrew Hunter so that we are ated with their summer fishing camps. This did unable to comment on the majority of his defin- not, however, entail major forest clearance by rel- ing attributes. Importantly, however, Hunter’s atively large village-based populations. Despite criteria are primarily quantitative, not qualitative the environmental and social revolution which in nature. must have characterised the following centuries, from an Algonquian perspective, early French The Pre-Iroquoian Context documents testify to the continued presence of Algonquian-speaking peoples in the region now Perhaps, the most constructive approach to this known as Huronia, 300 years later, albeit in a conundrum is to begin by considering the pre- numerically marginal status. Iroquoian landscape. To begin, there is very like- What should an Algonquian site in “Huronia” ly to be a considerable difference between a thir- look like? As Latta notes with regard to teenth century Algonquian site and a seven- Algonquian sites in Iroquoia: “ethnolinguistic teenth century one—much as is the case with distinctions are not necessarily clearly visible in Iroquoian sites. Based on the well documented the archaeological record” (Latta 1987:182). seasonal round and mobility of Great Lakes This is not a new question. In fact, it is timely to region hunter-gatherers, one would expect to reconsider this issue on the one hundredth find sites reflecting seasonal agglomerations at 122 Ontario Archaeology No. 77/78, 2004 strategic riverine and lacustrine fish procurement some comparable to those documented archaeo- sites—near river or creek mouths and on islands logically for earlier Middle Woodland groups, and in sheltered bays adjacent to favourable sum- and not greatly different in outline to many early mer-fall spawning habitat: the settlement pattern Iroquoian forms. The house structures on the archaeologically documented along the Georgian Saugeen Middle Woodland Donaldson site come Bay coastline to the west and northeast of to mind (Wright and Anderson 1963:11-15), as Huronia. Locations such as the Atherley narrows do the range of Early Iroquoian Elliott village (Dougall site [Wright 1972]), the Coldwater, house forms (Fox 1986:15, Figure 4). Sagard Sturgeon, Wye (Ste. Marie and Heron sites [Smith described a lodge “erected in the Algonquin fash- 1995; Tomenchuk 1995]), and Nottawasaga River ion” at an island fishing camp in Georgian Bay mouths (Schoonertown site [Cooke 1990]), north of Huronia that accommodated at least Beausoleil (Camp Kitchi site [Ross and d’Annibale eight individuals, had four corners and contained 1994; Ross 1995]), Giants Tomb, Beckwith, two hearths, and was the site of communal feasts Hope and Christian Islands, and the Severn (Wrong 1939:185). This transient shelter was Sound, Methodist Point (Methodist Point site not a “wigwam,” in the sense of a circular lodge. [Smith 1979]), Thunder and Kampenfelt Bays One would expect a knowledge and use of local come to mind as high potential sites for seasonal- toolstones. Drift-derived metasediments and ly occupied strategic fish procurement camps over cherts would be supplemented by the use of mate- the long term. Winter hunting grounds in the rials from primary deposits throughout the region. interior would include any number of cervid yard- Chief among the latter would be quartz obtained ing areas, surely including the extensive Minesing from the massive veins characteristic of Canadian swamp, and strategic ice-fishing locations in Shield Precambrian outcrops in the Honey Georgian Bay and on Lake Simcoe. This would Harbour vicinity and Collingwood chert from have been the settlement pattern as it had existed Silurian Fossil Hill Formation outcrops in the for millennia prior to the arrival of the first Beaver Valley (Eley and von Bitter 1989:22) to the Iroquoian agriculturalists from the south, com- west. The latter had been exploited since Early mencing at around A.D. 1250. Palaeo-Indian times but continued to be utilized Would such a mobile population have experi- throughout the southern Georgian Bay region up mented with horticultural pursuits? It is probable, until the seventeenth century (Fox 1984). As given the multi-millennia-long tradition of plant evinced on these quarry sites, local populations tending and harvesting in the Canadian biotic also imported tools of exotic material, such as province and the relatively benign climate of the Onondaga chert from the south. Exotic toolstone southern Georgian Bay coastline. Exotic squash or and native copper tool distributions from at least gourds were being used by Saginaw valley native Archaic times onward reflect considerable mobili- groups from at least Early Woodland times (Ozker ty of goods, if not people, within and through the 1982:37), while the introduction of tobacco into Georgian Bay basin from the west and south. the Great Lakes region occurred at least 2,000 Ceramic technology was introduced from the years ago (Wagner 2000:190). Such species would south in the form of Early Woodland Vinette I not require constant tending once established (but ware (Wright 1972:3, 19, Plate 1, Figure 1) fol- note Winter 2000:19 regarding the Kickapoo). lowed by a diversity of pottery making traditions, Certainly, Sagard was treated to fish and “boiled including Point Peninsula from the southeast pumpkins” (Wrong 1939:63) upon his arrival at a (Johnston 1968; Spence and Harper 1968; Nipissing settlement. Wright 1972: 4-5), Laurel from the north and What would their house forms have looked west (Brizinski 1980:148-151; Conway and like? Obviously, that would depend upon func- Adams 1979), Middle Woodland wares from the tion, and group size and composition. A wide Lake Michigan Basin, and locally produced range of bark and reed mat-covered lodges are Saugeen ceramics (Ross 1995:13). Very little evi- documented for post-contact Algonquian bands, dence is available concerning ceramic use towards Fox and Garrad Hurons in an Algonquian Land 123 the end of the first millennium A.D., but what Northern Algonquian wares (Brizinski and appears to be a locally manufactured imitation of Buchanan 1977:63-98), and x-ray fluorescence a Princess Point vessel was recovered from the and trace element neutron-activation analysis for Hunter site on the Huron shore to the west of Iroquoian and Central Algonquian wares (Trigger Georgian Bay (Fox 1990b:Figure 6.6) and et al. 1980, 1984). The former study, based on Blackduck ceramics are distributed on sites to the Michipicoten area ceramic assemblages and clay north of Georgian Bay (Carscallen 1995:118; sources, indicated that Middle Woodland (Laurel) Pollock 1975:17-19, Plate 8; Ridley 1966:28, potters used local clays but that exotic sources Figure 13c-e). As the Early Ontario Iroquoian were represented among the various Terminal ceramic industry evolved in the south, these wares Woodland (Iroquoian, Juntunen, Oneota) wares. began to find their way into the Georgian Bay The Southern Ontario study of Iroquoian vessels basin (Garrad 1969b, 1986; Ross and d’Annibale suggested that these articles were moved between 1994:3; Smith 1979:53, Figure 13g, 1995:65, villages to a greater extent than previously suspect- Plate 3.1E, F)—distributed as far west as Sault ed (Trigger et al. 1980:131).