MACRO-REGIONAL MEADOWOOD: A COMPARATIVE APPROACH TO EARLY WOODLAND LITHIC TOOL PRODUCTION IN THE MARITIMES AND ONTARIO By Lauren Cudmore BA, University of New Brunswick 2014 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the Graduate Academic Unit of Anthropology Supervisor: Susan Blair, Ph.D., Anthropology Examining Board: David Black, Ph.D., Anthropology Melanie Wiber, Ph.D., Anthropology Matthew Sears, Ph.D., Classics This thesis is accepted by the Dean of Graduate Studies THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK May, 2016 ©Lauren Cudmore, 2016 ABSTRACT For several decades, the Archaic─Woodland transition, and, in particular, interpretations of the Early Woodland Meadowood phenomenon, have been controversial aspects of the culture-history sequence for the Northeast. The focus of most past studies has been the identification of diagnostic artifacts, and the spatial and temporal distributions of these diagnostics, leading to conceptions of Meadowood as a homogenous phenomenon encompassing much of the Northeast. The distributions of these diagnostic artifact types have been interpreted at a macroregional scale using a variety of political, social and economic models. In the research reported here, I compared three spatially and chronologically constrained Early Woodland archaeological assemblages from interior New Brunswick (traditional Wolastoq’kew territory) and southern Ontario. I found that similar artifact forms were produced in the two areas during the Early Woodland period, using different lithic reduction strategies applied to different lithic material types. These differences may warrant a broader re-examination of the utility of the Meadowood concept in Maritime Peninsula prehistory. Keywords: Early Maritime Woodland, Early Woodland, Meadowood, Maritime Peninsula, Great Lakes Basin, Cache Bifaces, Cache Blades, Quaternary Blanks, Multidimensional Hyperspace, Onondoga Chert, Jemseg Crossing, Fulton Island, Beaverbrook Site ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis was not a lone effort, but was made possible by the support of two organizations and some very supportive individuals. Archaeological Services New Brunswick allowed me to analyze artifacts from the Jemseg Crossing site and the Fulton Island site in their facilities in Fredericton, New Brunswick. I am grateful for their readiness and assistance to work on these collections in a timely manner. I so appreciated the flexibility of Timmins Martelle Heritage Consultants, in particular Dr. Peter Timmins, in allowing me to have the Beaverbrook site artifacts on loan. When no one else had the time to answer my inquiries about sites in the region, Dr. Timmins came through with a truly fascinating site. I would not be at this point without the support of my graduate committee: my supervisor, Dr. Susan Blair; my tutor and internal reader, Dr. David Black; my external reader, Dr. Matthew Sears; the Directors of Graduate studies, Dr. Victoria Gibbon and Dr. Melanie Wiber; as well as the other Anthropology Department members, Dr. Evie Plaice, Dr. Christiane Paponnet-Cantat and Dr. Ryan Gibbon. I am also grateful for the support of my fellow graduate students; their encouragement gave me strength and knowing they were going through the same thing reinforced that I could do it. I hope I supported them in turn. I met Dr. Susan Blair in my final year of high school, when I was deciding what I was going to study for my undergraduate degree. The day I met her was the day that I decided I would attend the University of New Brunswick, Fredericton and that I would study archaeology, ultimately pursuing my Master of Arts under her supervision. I would not have done this with any other person. From the very start she has supported iii my sometimes-harebrained ideas and mentored me, putting countless hours into my education, encouraging me to keep going and setting me straight when I was going off course. I can only hope she knows what an inspiration she is to me and how much I appreciate her. To my Mom and Dad, thank you for inspiring me to pursue my dreams and always supporting me, even when I was discouraged. I never doubted your love or desire to help when I needed a hand with school or life. I could not have asked for more patient and loving parents. Most importantly, I cannot even express my gratitude for my “partner in crime,” Alex Bezeau, who encouraged me to push on when I was laying face down on the couch considering a possible career as a “garbage lady” (I wish I could say that this was an isolated incident). He was there taking me out of the house for a break from research and writing to go on our many drives and even Photoshopped the cat hair out of the Plates found throughout this thesis. Thank you for your constant support and love, even when I was so absent minded. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ......... .. ........... … .............................................................................................. ...ii Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ ..iii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1 Background ........ .............................................................................................................. 4 Thesis Outline..... .............................................................................................................. 9 CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND AND CULTURE-HISTORICAL CONTEXT ........... 16 The Meadowood Phenomenon ........................................................................................ 17 Meadowood at the Macroregional Level ........................................................................ 25 Meadowood Interpretations ............................................................................................ 31 CHAPTER 3: ANALYTICAL REVIEW AND METHODOLOGY ............................. 39 The Jemseg Crossing, Fulton Island and Beaverbrook Sites ......................................... 39 The Jemseg Crossing Site ................................................................................... 41 The Fulton Island Site ......................................................................................... 43 The Beaverbrook Site .......................................................................................... 44 The “Four Phase” Approach ........................................................................................... 44 Phase 1 ... ............................................................................................................ 45 Phase 2 ... ............................................................................................................ 46 Phase 3 ... ............................................................................................................ 47 Phase 4 ... ............................................................................................................ 48 Tool Terminology ........................................................................................................... 48 Unstemmed Bifaces ............................................................................................ 49 Quaternary Blanks ......................................................................................... 50 Projectile Points .................................................................................................. 51 Scrapers (Unifacial and Bifacial) ........................................................................ 52 Anatomy of a unifacial endscraper ......................................................... 54 Two sides of a bifacial scraper ................................................................ 55 Other Formal Types ............................................................................................ 56 Drills ........................................................................................................ 57 Perforators/Gravers ................................................................................. 57 Informal Retouched Tools................................................................................... 57 Analytical Terminology .................................................................................................. 58 Data Collection.................................................................................................... 58 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ................................................................................................ 81 New Brunswick Early Maritime Woodland Lithics ....................................................... 82 Unstemmed Bifaces ............................................................................................ 82 Projectile Points .................................................................................................. 87 Unifacial Scrapers ............................................................................................... 88 Bifacial Scrapers ................................................................................................. 89 Informal Retouched Tools................................................................................... 92 Lithic Material ..................................................................................................... 92 Formal Tool Fragmentation ................................................................................ 92 v The Beaverbrook Site AfHh-386