Huron-St. Lawrence Iroquois Relations in the Terminal Prehistoric ...

24 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY NO. 44auspices of the New York Historical Society andthe Smithsonian Institution. He published theresults of this survey twice, first with the SmithsonianInstitution then commercially in Buffalo(Squire 1851a:17-26; 1851b). In 1850 and again in1851 Franklin B. Hough published short papers inwhich he noted the locations and nature of sites inJefferson County and described some pottery andpipes from these sites (Hough 1850:100-105;1851:103-109). In 1854 Hough re-published muchof this information in his History of JeffersonCounty (1854:10-13). The Jefferson CountyHistorical Society published a booklet in 1895which includes a paper by Henry Woodworth thatnotes the presence of archaeological sites in generalterms. In 1898 Edgar C. Emerson published hiswork on Jefferson County in which he noted thelocation of many archaeological sites using a seriesof sketch maps. In 1900 William M. Beauchamppublished an inventory of the archaeological sitesin the County.But it was not until 1906, when a PeabodyMuseum field party under M.R. Harrington excavatedon fourteen Iroquois sites, that a record ofthe Iroquois material culture from Jefferson Countybecame available. Harrington reported on thirteenof these sites in his paper Prehistoric Iroquois Sitesin Northern New York (1922) but a more detailedaccount of his work on the Putnam site remainsunpublished (Harrington n.d.). In 1922 Arthur C.Parker published a catalogue of archaeological sitesin New York State which includes those inJefferson County. This work was largely derivedfrom Beauchamp's earlier inventory. William A.Ritchie visited Iroquois sites in Jefferson Countybut he did not publish an account of his work there(Funk 1977).In 1966 Robert Weber, a graduate student at theState University of New York at Buffalo(SUNYAB) surveyed the Sandy Creek drainageand the Watertown area. He succeeded in locatingseventeen of the sites recorded in the early literature(Weber 1968; White n.d.a:l).In 1967 a Highway Salvage Survey Team fromSUNYAB surveyed areas in Jefferson County andthe Durham site in particular. In part due to thesuccess of this work, Marian White formulated aresearch proposal entitled "The Nature of Warfareand Confederacies among the Northern Iroquois"and in 1968 conducted the SUNYAB SummerSchool which located some twenty sites in theSandy Creek drainage. Excavations were conductedon eight sites including the Durham siteagain. In 1969 the SUNYAB Summer Field Schoolundertook a major excavation on the Durham site(Sidler 1971). Plans to continue work by SUNYABin Jefferson County were terminated by Dr. White'suntimely death.Over the past decade excavations have been conductedon a number of St. Lawrence Iroquois sitesin Jefferson County. Marjorie Burger and PeterPratt have excavated on the Camp Drum 1 site;Peter Miller of SUNY at Potsdam on the Depauvillesite and the late Merill Waters of Water-town, NewYork on the Frank site near Dexter. Earl Sidlerconducted a field school on the Carlos site and onthe Morse site. He also excavated on the Potockisite. Accounts of this work have not beenpublished.The long and varied history of Iroquois archaeologicalsites in Jefferson County is characterized bytheir having been ravaged by collectors from farand wide. Large collections remarked upon in the19th century for their sophisticated artifacts can nolonger be located. Tales of collectors who saved onlypipes and those who only saved reconstructedpottery rims are still recounted. Apart from the JackCarter collection at Clayton, the Merill Waters collectionin Watertown and a few others which providereliable provenance, no private collectionshave survived for study.The literature suggests there were some sixty-oddIroquois sites in the County, nearly double that innearby Ontario and Quebec. However this estimateshould be noted with reservations. There has notbeen a comprehensive archaeological survey of theCounty and current site listings are flawed by themany names by which some sites have been knownover the years. The earlier Algonquin-Iroquoisdichotomy by which sites in the County wereclassified also continues to conceal some earlyIroquois sites.European MaterialAlthough extensive and at times exhaustive digginghas been carried on in Jefferson County sinceat least 1849, not one article of European origin hasbeen excavated in an archaeological context whichpermits it to be attributed to the St. LawrenceIroquois.However, European material has been found onor near Iroquois sites. In 1802 Taylor observed:"The point of a steel sword — 2 edges — about afoot long, was found last spring in ploughing in thefort [embankment] located on the south branch ofSandy Creek" (1850:1139). Hough (1854:11),Beauchamp (1886:66) and Edgar Emerson(1898:576) repeat this account of the find atEllisburg without adding details. Hough andEmerson also mention how musket balls, hatchetsand knives have been found in the County attributingthem to the presence of the French and Englishin the 17th century and later. Emerson also notesthat a star-shaped silver ornament with the initials'P.H.' was found in Adams Township near Sandy

PENDERGAST: HURON-ST. LAWRENCE RELATIONS 25Creek (1898:399) and an 8-ounce iron ball wasfound near the Iroquois site at Burville (1898:327).Harrington (1922:333) raises the possibility ofthere being European material in an Iroquois contexton the Durfee site but upon reflection he rejectsthat association. Robert Weber (1968:37-38)indicates a kaolin pipe stem and an iron axe wereseen in a collection of St. Lawrence Iroquois artifacts,all of which were alleged to be from the samelocation in the Sandy Creek area.Nevertheless, Marian White with full access tothe literature and to the extant collections, and withthe benefit of recent scientific excavations byBurger and Pratt, Miller, Waters and Weber, inaddition to her own experience on some twentyvillage sites on Sandy Creek, concluded: "None ofthese sites contain European trade material..."(n.d.b:10). As Beauchamp had noted earlier(1886:107), intensive French and English activityin this region and the proximity of their forts andbattles, account for the presence of the Europeanmaterial found to date in Jefferson County.Connecting LinksPrior to 1853 W.E. Guest, a resident ofOgdensburg, New York, visited Jefferson Countyto see at first hand the archaeological sites describedby Squire. That same year he crossed the St.Lawrence River to visit the sites we know today asthe St. Lawrence Iroquois village sites at Roebuckand 27/VII or possibly the Cleary site. Although hedid not comment specifically on the similaritybetween the artifacts he excavated on these sitesnorth of Prescott and those in Jefferson County, histext and illustrations make that connection clear(Guest 1856:271).In 1853 Hough published his History of St.Lawrence and Franklin Counties, New York inwhich he noted the presence of earthworks ineastern Ontario in the townships of Augusta,Williamsburg and Osnabruck which resembledthose in St. Lawrence and Franklin counties, and byextrapolation those in Jefferson County. He toodescribed the Roebuck site and either 27/VII or theCleary site nearby. His reference to the earthworksat Williamsburg, the Beckstead site, predate theearliest record of this site in Canadian literature byeight years and that in Osnabruck at Aultsville byover ninety years.Sir John William Dawson published the first accountof the Iroquois artifacts being unearthed indowntown Montreal in 1860. These were believedto be the remnants of Cartier's Hochelaga (Dawson1860:430-449). In a second paper published in1861 Dawson became the first to remark on thesimilarity of this material and that recovered byGuest at Roebuck (1861:362-373). By associationhe was also the first to connect the Montrealmaterial with that in Jefferson County. In 1891Laidlaw (1891:76-77) and Boyle (1891:24) remarkedupon the similarity of certain ceramicspecimens recovered on some Huron sites in VictoriaCounty, Ontario, and those Dawson hadrecovered in Montreal. Their speculations pioneeredthe thinking which associates these ceramicsimilarities with the disappearance of theHochelagans and the movement of their survivors tothe Trent River valley in Victoria County. In 1936Wintemberg described the Roebuck site in detailremarking on how the pottery resembled that fromMontreal, Victoria County and Jefferson County(Wintemberg 1936:121) thereby confirming, in part,the connections Guest had implied eighty yearsearlier. In 1946 Wintemberg excavated Roebuck-Hochelaga-like pottery on the protohistoric Sidey-Mackay Petun site near Collingwood withoutmentioning the Jefferson County resemblence(Wintemberg 1946:P1.20C4, C9-I4 and El).Possibly this was inferred through the Roebuckconnection he observed.Over the period 1947-1956 Norman Emerson excavatedRoebuck-like pottery on a number of lateprehistoric Huron sites located on the Humber Rivernorth of Toronto; the Parsons, Black Creek andMcKenzie (Woodbridge) sites (Emerson 1954:1968:42). He also recovered it on the protohistoricBenson site located on the Trent River axis inVictoria County (1954:218) where it was also excavatedby Ramsden (1977). Commencing in 1949Pendergast excavated this distinctive pottery on thePayne site (1963:11) and Waupoos site (1964:76) inPrince Edward County and on the Lite site(1972a:40, P1.2) on the Trent River axis in HastingsCounty. Wintemberg earlier (1936:14) hadassociated the latter two sites with Roebuck. In1973 Burger and Pratt (1973:14) reported thedistinctive Roebuck-like pottery on the protohistoricTrent site in Victoria County, and Nasmith (1981)reports it from the Kirche site, another lateprehistoric site on the Trent River axis. Lattarecovered it on the protohistoric and historicCharlebois, Cedar Point and Robitaille Huron sitesin Huronia (Latta 1976:360, 392, 427). Finlayson(1985) excavated over 2000 Roebuck-like rimsherdson the Draper site, a late prehistoric Huronsite in Durham Regional Municipality (Pearce 1978;Pendergast n.d.). Here too as at the other Huronsites mentioned, this ware was a minority categorynot exceeding ten percent of the pottery sample.Over the years, the Iroquois in Jefferson Countyand those on the St. Lawrence River have beenidentified as various Five Nation Iroquois tribes.Beauchamp (1894:61-69) considered them to beOnondaga. Wintemberg (1936:121) suggested the

26 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY NO. 44Roebuck site had been occupied by the Mohawk-Onondaga before those tribes became distinct.MacNeish attributed the Roebuck and Dawson(Hochelaga?) sites and the sites in Jefferson Countyto the Onondaga (1952:56) and the Oneida(1952:57). More recently Tuck (1969:397) andPendergast (1975) have demonstrated that the Iroquoisin Jefferson County, eastern Ontario andsouthern Quebec are a group, now called the St.Lawrence Iroquois, which are distinct from theFive Nation Iroquois. However work is not yetcomplete which will make it possible to differentiatebetween the material culture from each of thewidely dispersed regions in which St. LawrenceIroquois sites have been identified; i.e., JeffersonCounty (Harrington n.d.; Skinner 1921; Sidler1971; personal observation), the St. LawrenceRiver valley in Ontario, New York and Quebec(Pendergast 1966; Girouard 1975; Pratt: personalcommunication; personal observation) and theRichelieu River valley including the north end ofLake Champlain (Perkins 1909; Schuyler Miller:personal communication; Anonymous n.d.). As aresult, attributing the Roebuck-like pottery excavatedon Huron sites to the St. Lawrence Iroquoiscarries the corollary, for the time being, thatthis pottery may be from any of the regions inwhich St. Lawrence Iroquois sites occur.ArchaeologyThere are two clusters of St. Lawrence Iroquoisarchaeological sites in Jefferson County. One groupof seven sites is located north of Black River on orat the headwaters of the several small rivers andcreeks which flow into Lake Ontario betweenClayton and Chaumont Bay. This cluster includesthe Mud Creek, St. Lawrence, Matteson andSwarthout sites. The second cluster, which includestwenty-seven sites, lies generally on the axis ofSouth Sandy Creek between Lake Ontario and theBlack River at Watertown. It includes the Durfee,Caen (Whitford), Morse, Putnam, Heath, TalcottFalls, Durham and Saunders sites.PotteryIn 1952 MacNeish drew attention to the presenceof Huron pottery on four sites in Jefferson County,suggesting it was "aberrant." These sites wereDurfee, Caen (Whitford), Swarthout and Ivey(1952:65). Harrington (n.d.: Pls. 19,22,30) andSkinner (1921:Pl. 36) also illustrate Huron rimsherdsfrom St. Lawrence Iroquois sites in JeffersonCounty. As a result of my having examinedsamples of pottery from seventeen JeffersonCounty St. Lawrence Iroquois sites, I have identifiedHuron pottery on six sites. Photographs ofpottery in the Heye Foundation and the PeabodyMuseum, Cambridge, collections indicate Huronrimsherds occur on an additional six sites inJefferson County. Table 1 identifies by types theHuron pottery found on these twelve St. LawrenceIroquois sites in Jefferson County.It should be clear the presence of Huron potteryon Iroquois sites in Jefferson County is not uniquein New York State. Huron pottery also occurs, forexample, in the Mohawk River area (Lenig1965:109-113), on Onondaga sites in the Syracusearea (Tuck 1971:163, 173-174, 176) and on Senecasites (MacNeish 1952:46).Examples of Huron pottery from St. LawrenceIroquois sites in Jefferson County are illustrated inFig. 1.Pot HandlesJefferson County and the Huron also share thetrait of having some pottery vessels with handles.These are strips of clay, usually round in crosssection,luted to the vessel to join the bottom of anoverhanging castellation to the neck or shoulder ofthe vessel immediately below the castellation.Beauchamp (1898:142) notes their presence inJefferson County and Parker (1922:113) states theyare more common in Jefferson County than elsewherein New York State. Harrington (1922:337)notes they are present on the Durfee and Heath sitesin Jefferson County. Orr (1912:27) illustrates theirpresence on a Huron site in York County andEmerson (1954:83) indicates they are present onthe protohistoric Sidey-Mackay Petun site. Ridley(1952:202) illustrates their presence on the Fallissite, a prehistoric Huron site in Tiny Township,Simcoe County.Ceramic PipesTen of Emerson's twenty-four Huron ceramicpipe types (1954:45-64; 1966:238-240) occur inJefferson County (Weber 1970:Appendix D). Theyare the Coronet, Decorated Collared, DecoratedVasiform, Decorated Bulbous, Wolf, Owl, Bear,Snake, Bird (duck) and Roebuck Human Effigypipes. Of the six Huron pipes Donaldson (1958:7)includes in his paper on Huron ceramics, theCoronet, Decorated Collared and Roebuck HumanEffigy are also present in Jefferson County. Twelveof Noble's Huron pipe types (1968:249-250; 1979);the Coronet, Decorated Collared, Bird (duck),Owl, Bear, Wolf, Snake, Roebuck Human Effigy,Sitting Human Effigy, Open-Lipped HumanEffigy, Human Janus and Human-Animal Janus;also occur in Jefferson County.Weber's exhaustive inventory of Iroquois pipes(1970:Appendix D) indicates that ten Huronceramic pipes also occur in Jefferson County. Theyare the Owl, Wolf, Bear, Snake, Decorated Vasi-

P E N D E R G A S T : H U R O N - S T . L A W R E N C E R E L A T I O N S 27T A B L E IHuron Pottery on Sites in J e f f er s o n C o u n t ySite Huron Pottery Types* and Frequency SourceClayton site cluster (total rims = 223)St. Lawrence HI= 11; BN=10; C I = 6 ;S N = 1 ................................................................................................ Heye Foundation (98 rims)total = 2 8Swarthout (a) B N = 5 ; HI =5 .................................................................................... Carter collection (78 rims)HI=2; BN= 1 ....................................................................................... Rochester Museum (h)BN=8; L O = 3 ; S N = 1 ................................................................ MacNeish (1952:65)total = 2 5Chaumont H I = 6 ; B N = 6 ; C I = 5 ................................................................Heye Foundation (94 rims)total= 17Mud Creek HI= 1; C I = 1 ......................................................................................Carter collection (30 rims)H I = 1 ................................................................................................SUNYAB (18 rims)total = 3Matteson BN=2; HI= I .......................................................................................total=3SUNYAB (32 rims)No provenience HI=81 ; BN=24; W H = 1 7 ; C I = 14;S N = 4 ; L I = 4 ; S I = 3 ................................................................total = 1 4 7Carter collection, including theConger collection (c)Sandy Creek site cluster (total rims = 66)Durfee B N = 8 ; H I = 3 ; S X = 1 ................................................................ Peabody Museum (d) (236 rims)H I = 1 ................................................................................................ MacNeish (1952:65)total = 1 3Caen (Whitford) H I = 6 ; S N = 2 ; BN= 1; LO= I ........................................................ MacNeish (1952:65)total= I0Morse BN =3; HI=1 ..................................................................................... Carter collection (19 rims)W X = 2 ; H I = 1 .................................................................................... SUNYAB (85 rims)total = 7Putnam H I = 2 ; S X = I .................................................................................... Heye Foundation (123 rims)total = 3Heath H I = 2 ; CI= I ...................................................................................... Peabody Museum (d) (90 rims)total — 3Talcott Falls H I = 3 ; BN= I .................................................................................... Carter collectionH I = 2 ; WH= I ..................................................................................... Mihalyi collectionLI =1 ................................................................................................ Weber (1968:28)total = 8Durham L I = 5 ; P N = 4 ; B N = 4 ;L O = 2 ; MX=1 ..................................................................................... SUNYAB (Sidler 1971:20) (e)total = 1 6Saunders (f) B N = 2 ; H I = 1 .................................................................................... Carter collection (14 rims)total= 3No provenience B N = 1 ; H I = 1 ; W H = 1 ................................................................ Harrington (n.d.:PIs.22, 30)total = 3Uncertain Provenience (total rims = 9)Lewis (Roche) (f) HI= 1; B N = 1 ; C I = 1 ................................................................ Rochester Museum (b)total = 3Jefferson County H I = 4 ; BN= 1; CI= I ................................................................ Carter collectiontotal = 6TOTAL Jefferson County = 298*Huron pottery types:BN = Black NeckedCI = Copeland IncisedHI = Huron Incised LI =Lawson Incised LO =Lawson OpposedMX = Middleport Criss-CrossPN = Pound Necked SI= Seed Incised SN =Sidey Notched SX = SideyCrossed WH = WarminsterHorizontal WX = WarminsterCrossedNotes:(a) A multicomponent site(b) Rochester Museum and Science Center, Rochester, New York(c) Includes undifferentiated material from the Chaumont. St. Lawrence. SwarthoutandMatteson sites in the Clayton site cluster (Carter, personal communication)(d) Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University,Cambridge.Massachusetts(el Pottery expressed in terms of vessels; remainder are in terms of rimsherds(f) Probably another name for one of the sites listed above

28 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY NO. 44Fig. IHuron pottery from St. Lawrence Iroquois sites in Jefferson County.1: Black Necked with Warminster Crossed collar motif from the Morse site (Carter collection);2: Black Necked from the Morse site (Carter collection);3: Huron Incised from the Durfee site (Peabody Museum, Cambridge);4: Black Necked from the Matteson site (Carter collection);5: Miscegenated Durfee Underlined rimsherd with Huron Sidey Crossed motif superimposed from the Durfee site(Peabody Museum, Cambridge);6: Black Necked with Warminster Crossed collar motif from the Durfee site (Peabody Museum, Cambridge);7: Copeland Incised from the Mud Creek site (Carter collection).

PENDERGAST: HURON-ST. LAWRENCE RELATIONS 29form, Decorated Collared, Decorated Bulbous,Roebuck Effigy, Open-Lipped Human and SittingHuman pipes. It is noteworthy that she indicatesthat of these only the Decorated Bulbous pipe mayhave temporal or spatial significance (Weber1970:130-137). The work is flawed in this regard.The clustering of her Coronet, Mortice, WolfEffigy and Bird Effigy pipes, as it is revealed byher research, does indeed indicate the clusteringof these pipes in both time and space. It indicatesthe involvement of the Huron with the Seneca,Mohawk and St. Lawrence Iroquois on specific butdifferent time levels in each of the three regionsinvolved. The clustering of Huron ceramic pipes inthe Seneca and Mohawk regions, as defined byWeber, reflect the Huron captive villages with thoseFive Nation tribes after 1649. The earlier involvementof the Huron and the St. Lawrence Iroquoisis, in part, the subject of this paper.Squire (1851a:77), Harrington (n.d.:P1.32),Sidler (1971:11 and personal communication) andMathews (1980:296) indicate the presence of theOwl effigy pipe in Jefferson County. Harrington(n.d.:P1.33) and the Carter Collection (personalobservation) indicate Decorated Vasiform pipes arepresent. Sidler (personal communication) andMathews (1980:296) indicate the Wolf effigy pipealso is present. Rutsch (1973:195, 202, 209) illustratesWolf and Bird pipes from JeffersonCounty and adds seven coronet pipes to theinventory (Rutsch 1973:165).Emerson (1954) indicates Owl, Bear and Snakeeffigy pipes are `Intermediate Pipe Forms' inOntario while the Coronet, Decorated Vasiform,Decorated Bulbous, Decorated Collared, Wolf,Bird (duck) and Human Effigy pipes are attributableto his `Historic and Late Prehistoric'period. Emerson does not suggest dates for theseperiods. Noble (1968:249-250) attributes theCoronet, Decorated Collared, Bird, Owl, Bear,Wolf, Snake, Roebuck Human, Sitting Human,Open-Lipped Human, Human Janus and theHuman-Animal Janus pipes to the late prehistoricprotohistoricperiod. Weber (1970) attributes allthe pipes she catalogues in Jefferson County to anundetermined `Prehistoric Period'. Noble (1979:74)indicates the Owl, Snake, Bear, Wolf, Open-LippedHuman and the Sitting Human effigy pipes wereintroduced in Ontario over the period 1450-1500and the Duck effigy circa 1580. Mathews(1980:305, note 3) states "Emerson (1954:50, 57)was mistaken about the `Wolf and bird beinghistoric period markers and about owls and `bears'becoming less popular in the historic period. Mydata also indicate that Noble's (1979:74) beginningdates for `ducks' and `ravens' are too late." She alsosuggests that the open-lips of Noble's (1979) Open-Lipped pipe are attributeswhich appear throughout the Ontario sequence anddo not warrant designation as a pipe type (Mathews1980:306, note 4).Mathews' work (1981a:4) on Janus pipes,generally pipes with human or animal effigies facingin opposite directions on a pipe bowl, indicatesthe largest concentration of these pipes, nine innumber, is found in Huron territory, principally inVictoria and Simcoe counties. She also indicatesmultiple human effigy pipes (Mathews 1981a:8)and human effigies in juxtaposition (Mathews1981a:9) are most common on Huron sites inOntario. Mathews's work reveals the greatest concentrationof these ceramic pipe forms in Iroquoiaoutside of Huronia is in Jefferson County. ParentheticallyJanus ceramic pipes also occur on St.Lawrence Iroquois sites outside Jefferson County inthe Prescott village cluster and on the Dawson sitein Montreal. However these are not in the quantityor variety noted in Jefferson County and Huronia.Weber (1970:Appendix D) indicates Janus pipesoccur in her late prehistoric period, circa 1400 tocontact, while her Janus Human-Animal andDouble-Headed Ghost varieties occur in the postcontact period to circa 1650. Noble (1979:74) indicatesJanus effigy pipes appear in the Ontario Iroquoiscirca 1475. Mathews (1981a) does not suggestdates by which Janus pipes occur. Emersondoes not include Janus pipes in his Huron pipeinventory.These data on Janus ceramic pipes, which attributessixteen Janus pipes to the Huron and ten toJefferson County, are set out at Table 2.The presence of ceramic pipes in Huronia andJefferson County are set out at Table 3.In summary these data on ceramic pipes indicate15 of the 63 ceramic pipe types identified by Weberas having been found in Huron territory, or 24 percent;and 15 of the 39 ceramic pipe types identifiedin Jefferson County, or 39 percent of those pipes,are shared by the Huron and Jefferson County St.Lawrence Iroquois.Stone PipesThere are also similarities between Huron stoneeffigy pipes and those from Jefferson County.Skinner (1921:166) illustrates a stone Bird Effigypipe from Jefferson County and Woodworth(1895:52) another. Both strongly resemble the BirdEffigy pipe from Durham County (Laidlaw1914:46) and in a more general context others fromSimcoe County (Laidlaw 1913:51; 1916:67) andYork County (Laidlaw 1913:52).Skinner (1921:29, 162) notes the similarity ofthe Lizard Effigy pipes from Jefferson County(Laidlaw 1914:52; 1916:79) and those from Halton

32 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY NO. 44Bone ToolsJefferson County and Huron bone tools alsoshare similarities. Beauchamp (1902:P1.5 No. 47,P1.8 No. 84) illustrates carved bone pins fromJefferson County which closely resemble thecarved and sometimes decorated carved bone pinsrecorded by Emerson (1954:90, 93, 186, 189, 190,204, 209, 210) on the late prehistoric Hard-rock siteand the protohistoric Benson site. Both these areHuron sites in Victoria County.Beauchamp (1902:P1.11 No. 114) also illustratesa bone dagger-like tool from Jefferson Countywhich resembles the bone dagger-like tools excavatedon the late prehistoric Huron Payne andWaupoos sites in Prince Edward County(Pendergast 1963:6; 1964:70, 87). Emerson alsorecords a similar specimen from the prehistoricHuron site at Downsview (1954:102).OssuariesThe Huron Feast of the Dead and the associatedHuron custom of ossuary burial are well known(Tooker 1964:134). However the existence ofossuaries in Jefferson County is not as well known,although their presence has long been recorded. By1849 Squire had located two bone pits which hedescribed as follows:One is found near the village of Brownville,on Black River. It is described as a pit, ten ortwelve feet square, by perhaps four feet deep,in which are promiscuously heaped together alarge number of human skeletons. It will beseen ultimately, that these accumulations owetheir origin to a remarkable custom, common tomany Indian tribes, of collecting anddepositing together the bones of their dead, atstated intervals.Another pit, very unlike this, however, existsabout three miles east of Watertown. It issituated upon the slope of a hill, and wasoriginally marked by a number of large stonesheaped over it. Upon removing these and excavatingbeneath them, a pit about six feetsquare, and four feet deep, was discovered,filled with human bones, all well preserved,but in fragments. Upwards of forty pairs ofpatella were counted, showing that at least thatnumber of skeletons had been deposited in thepit. . . All the bones are those of adults.. . Norelics of any kind were found with them(Squire 1851:25-26).Hough (1850:102-103) located the ossuarydescribed by Squire "three miles east of Watertown"as having been found in 1842 in Rutland on acommanding height on the farm of E. Hunting-ton.He adds the information that the pit was covered byflat circular stone under the stone pileand that the pit was "four feet square and two feetdeep filled with bones thrown promiscuouslytogether". He estimates "between thirty to fortyskeletons were buried here." Later Hough (1854:13-14) remarked `bone pits' were common in JeffersonCounty before recounting Squire's account of theBrownville ossuary adding the comment that "agreat deal of skeletons" had been thrown in the pit.His account of the Rutland ossuary added theinformation that the pit was "filled with bones ofmen and animals in great con-fusion" (italicsadded). He estimated the bones of forty people werepresent. Hough also provides in-formation on a thirdtheretofore unreported ossuary "in Ellisburg nearlyopposite an ancient earthwork on Sandy Creek neara house occupied by J.W. Ellis, where in digging acellar in 1818 [human] bone in great numbers werefound."Beauchamp (1886:112) acknowledges thepresence of "bone pits in Brownville, Ellisburg andelsewhere" (italics added) without elaborating. Hetwice remarks they are indicative of Huron customsand "a thing of special interest in Jefferson County ...which suggests the ossuaries of Canada but on amuch smaller scale" (Beauchamp 1886:125). Laterhe noted "in Jefferson County ... there are somesmall bone pits suggesting this custom [Feast of theDead] but I know of none among the easternIroquois," the Onondaga, Oneida and Mohawk(Beauchamp 1889:135). Much of this he reiteratesin his Aboriginal Occupation of New York Statenoting again that the "ossuaries show Huron ideasprevailed among the New York Iroquois"(Beauchamp 1900:79).In his comments on Cusick's Sketches of AncientHistory of the Six Nations, Beauchamp remarks(1892:80, 108) "Except in Jefferson County bonepits barely occur as far east as Onondaga" and again"There are ossuaries in Jefferson County, NewYork, but in no great numbers."Woodworth (1895:53) noted the presence of whatmay be an ossuary south of Rutland on "the Allenplace" without further details.Edgar Emerson (1898:474) notes the existence ofthe ossuary at Brownville and provides the additionalinformation that it was ten or twelve feetsquare. He believed it was associated with the Feastof the Dead. Emerson located the pit on the "northbank of Black River below Brownville a little belowand on the opposite side of the road from the presentvillage cemetery near where a small ravinecrosses the highway." He also provides the informationthat the Rutland ossuary was located "onthe farm of T.E. Beecher on the left side of the roadleading north from his house just above the turn(about 15 rods from the road) on a graduallysloping hillside." He notes the pit was six feetsquare and four feet deep and "More than forty pair

PENDERGAST: HURON-ST. LAWRENCE RELATIONS 33of patella were counted. All were adult bones. Norelics of any kind were included in the pit."Skinner (1921:125) notes "a number of suchossuaries were found in the Rutland Hills in formeryears" without details. Parker (1922:576, 579)remarks on the ossuaries in Jefferson County ingeneral terms and later repeats some of the informationset out by Squire and Hough.It is alleged that a local collector dug into anotherossuary in 1930 but details are not available. Thismay be the graves excavated in 1930 by Jack Nicolson the isthmus leading to Point Peninsula whichwere not Iroquois (Jack Carter, personal communication).The multiple burials at Three MileBay (Harrington 1922:316), sometimes said to beHuron, are not Iroquoian.DiscussionGeneralConnections between Jefferson County and theHuron are not limited to a comparison of artifactsalone. In 1889 Beauchamp wrote: "I have littledoubt ... that the Onondaga were driven out ofJefferson County by the Huron ..." (1889:130). Theidea that the Jefferson County Iroquois wereOnondaga prevailed into the 1960s. But the hypothesisthat the Huron impacted on the JeffersonCounty Iroquois does not appear to have survivedthe 19th century. Beauchamp goes on to remark onthe presence of Huron customs in JeffersonCounty in the context of the now discredited conceptof the Onondaga having moved to central NewYork from Jefferson County: "It is very likely thatthere was an earlier Huron Iroquois settlement ofCentral New York from Jefferson County wherethere are many fort sites. Among these are tracesof Huron burial customs and the earthenware isgenerally finer than further south." (Beauchamp1889:123-124).As early as 1886 Beauchamp had noted that theossuaries in Jefferson County reflected Huroncustoms (1886:112-113) and he reiterated thisviewpoint on two occasions. In 1889 he remarked"In Jefferson County ... there are small bone pitssuggesting this custom [Huron Feast of the Dead]but I know of none among the eastern Iroquois [theOneida, Onondaga and Mohawk]" (1889:135). In1900 he noted again "... ossuaries show Huronideas prevalent among the New York Iroquois."(1900:79).But Beauchamp's viewpoint was not held unanimously.Skinner's findings (1921:174) stand insharp contrast. Although he had earlier noted thepresence of ossuaries in Jefferson County (Skinner1921:125), and the similarity between JeffersonCounty ceramic and stone pipes and their Huronequivalents, Skinner concluded, once again interms of the then current but now discredited concept,that the Jefferson County Iroquois wereOnondaga: "... there is no indication that outsideinfluences of any kind were at work on the ancientculture of the Onondaga, or that there was notableinternal change in their material life [artifacts]during the period of the native occupancy of JeffersonCounty."OssuariesIt may transpire that the ossuaries in JeffersonCounty differ from their Ontario Iroquois counterpartsother than by their being smaller, but therecan be no doubt that the scholars mentioned wereable to differentiate between an ossuary and otherforms of multiple burials. Squire's familiarity withossuaries in western New York, Beauchamp's comparisonof the Jefferson County `bone-pits' and theossuaries in Ontario, and Parker's definition(1922:422) of an ossuary in his lexicon substantiatethis conclusion.Possibly the ossuaries in Jefferson County do notreflect only the impact of the Huron on JeffersonCounty Iroquois in the late prehistoric period. J.V.Wright (1966:52) has suggested that "The bundleburials (single and multiple) of the Miller andBennett [Pickering] sites may represent the beginningof the ossuary burial practice of the OntarioIroquois." Wright (1966:100-101) places thePickering Branch of the Early Ontario IroquoisStage in the period circa AD 1000 to 1250. Coupledwith Pendergast's hypothesis, which attributes thegenesis of the St. Lawrence Iroquois in JeffersonCounty to a "Pickering-mixed Canandaigua Owascoinfluence" (1975:47), it is possible that the nascentossuary trait detected by Wright was introducedinto Jefferson County by the Pickering on an earlyIroquois time level. Clearly there is a need to seekarchaeological data which will establish temporallythe place these ossuaries hold in the JeffersonCounty Iroquois sequence.PipesIt has been suggested that the pre-eminence ofJefferson County potters indicate that they wereprobably the originators and donors of the sophisticatedceramic pipe forms which occur in manyregions of northern Iroquoia. It should be noted,however, that the St. Lawrence Iroquois in JeffersonCounty were no more skilled than the St.Lawrence Iroquois in several other regions. As aresult, this hypothesis may be extended to the St.Lawrence Iroquois generally with some validity.Mathews (1980:298) has recognized the similaritybetween some St. Lawrence Iroquois pipe forms andthose used by the Ontario Iroquois in southernOntario, including Huron, much as has been

34 ONTARIO A RCHAEOLOGY NO. 44demonstrated in the body of this paper. She explains:"There are two possible explanations for thesimilarity of the animal pipes in the two regions. Thesouthwestern Ontario pipe traditions may have itsroots among the various St. Lawrence [Iroquois]people or, as all of the early dates overlap to someextent, the pipes may stem from a common traditionand appear in the two locations at about the sametime." (1980:298). In support of the first alternativeshe notes the presence of the St. Lawrence Iroquoison late prehistoric and protohistoric Huron sites onthe basis of their artifacts being present. Alternativelyshe notes the feasibility of postulating a diffusion ofpipe styles. While it seems probable that theseoptions are likely to em-brace the actuality, it will bedifficult to demonstrate one or the other withcredibility until St. Lawrence Iroquois archaeology,and Jefferson County archaeology in particular,reveals a dated ceramic pipe sequence.ChronologyReturning to the data set out in the body of thispaper. it is asserted that the concomitant sharing ofcertain material culture traits by the St. LawrenceIroquois in Jefferson County and the Huron hasbeen demonstrated. This situation is believed tohave prevailed as a result of these Iroquoiangroups having come into close contact during thelate prehistoric period while the St. LawrenceIroquois were still extant in Jefferson County.There is no evidence in Jefferson County toindicate this liaison continued into the protohistoricperiod. There are no protohistoric Iroquoissites in Jefferson County. The St. Lawrence Iroquoismaterial culture traits discerned later on protohistoricand historic Huron sites reflect thepresence of St. Lawrence Iroquois survivors onthese sites at a time when the St. Lawrence Iroquoisin eastern Ontario and Jefferson County hadceased to exist. A possible exception to this generalsituation could be the presence of the St. LawrenceIroquois from the lower St. Lawrence River whowere extant in the protohistoric and historic periodsfrom the time Europeans arrived in these regionsuntil circa 1580.The presence of St. Lawrence Iroquois material onthe Black Creek (Emerson 1954:142) and theParsons sites (Emerson 1968:37) on the HumberRiver axis; the Benson (Emerson 1954:203:Ramsden 1977) and the Trent sites (Burger andPratt 1973) on the Trent River axis and theCharlebois site (Latta 1976:356) in Huronia are examplesof very late prehistoric and protohistoricHuron sites on which St. Lawrence Iroquoismaterial culture items are found which may be attributed,in part at least, to St. Lawrence Iroquoissurvivors from Jefferson County. The historicWarminster site (MacNeish 1952:37), Cedar Point(Latta 1976:387) and Robitaille (Latta 1976:410) areexamples of historic Huron sites where the presenceof St. Lawrence Iroquois artifacts indicate thatsurvivors, or their descendants, were present longafter the St. Lawrence Iroquois had ceased to exist asa separate entity.Disappearance of the St. Lawrence IroquoisThe hypothesis which suggests the St. LawrenceIroquois in eastern Ontario and southern Quebecwere destroyed by the Huron circa 1580 is premised,in part, on our understanding of Iroquoianindustry and social practices. Because pottery isbelieved to have been made by females (Wrong1939:109) and pipe-smoking is believe to have beenpracticed by men alone (Biggar 1924:184; Wrong1939:149), it is concluded that the presence of theseartifacts indicate, as appropriate. the presence ofmale or female Iroquoians.Archaeology has revealed both Huron pipes andpottery on late prehistoric St. Lawrence Iroquoissites in eastern Ontario and southern Quebec; forexample the Dawson site (Hochelaga?) (Pendergastand Trigger 1972:234-235. 253-254) and at theGlenbrook site (Pendergast 1981:171, 175) and inJefferson County (Pendergast 1981). This suggeststhe presence of both Huron men and women in St.Lawrence Iroquois villages in eastern Ontario, JeffersonCounty and southern Quebec. ConverselySt. Lawrence Iroquois pottery occurs on a numberof late prehistoric Huron sites. for example thePayne, Waupoos (Pendergast 1963, 1964) andDraper sites (Pearce 1978). which indicates St.Lawrence Iroquoian women were present in theseHuron villages in the late prehistoric period.However it has not been demonstrated that the pipetypes used by St. Lawrence Iroquois men in easternOntario and southern Quebec, including BarredTrumpet and Vasiform pipes. occur on late prehistoricand protohistoric Huron sites. This hasbeen interpreted to indicate there were no lateprehistoric St. Lawrence Iroquois males fromeastern Ontario or southern Quebec in these Huronvillages. In concert these archaeological data andour understanding of Iroquois cultural practiceshave led to the conclusion that the St. LawrenceIroquois were engaged in a war with the Huronwhich, in part, led to their destruction; a war inwhich the Huron took female captives but no maleswhile the St. Lawrence Iroquois accepted both maleand female captives.The data presented in the body of this paperdemonstrates a different situation existed as regardsJefferson County St. Lawrence Iroquois and theHuron in the late prehistoric period when ceramicand stone pipe forms and pottery occur reciprocally.Huron pottery occurs on late prehistoric St.

PENDERGAST: HURON-ST. LAWRENCE RELATIONS 35Lawrence Iroquois sites in Jefferson County and St.Lawrence Iroquois pottery which can he attributedto Jefferson County is present on late prehistoricHuron sites. On the basis of the concept describedabove, this suggests Huron men and women werepresent in late prehistoric St. Lawrence Iroquoisvillages in Jefferson County. And St. LawrenceIroquois men and women lived in late prehistoricHuron villages.This is quite unlike the situation which prevailedwith regard to the St. Lawrence Iroquois in easternOntario and southern Quebec. Their men were notpresent in late prehistoric and protohistoric Huronvillages.However, the condition which permitted St.Lawrence Iroquois males from Jefferson County tobe present in Huron villages and not those fromeastern Ontario and southern Quebec should not betaken to indicate amicable relations prevailedbetween the Jefferson County Iroquois and theHuron. It seems more likely that the reciprocaldistribution of artifactual traits demonstrated hererepresent a phase in the conflict when both maleand female captives were acceptable on each side.Certainly the changes in the conduct of the war,which was fought initially under prehistoric conditionswhen the St. Lawrence Iroquois in JeffersonCounty and eastern Ontario were destroyed and later,circa 1580, under historic conditions when the St.Lawrence Iroquois in southern Quebec weredestroyed, strongly suggests there were phases inthis war when the rules differed.Huron WarInteresting observations have been raised regardingthe movement of the Huron from the regionadjacent to Lake Ontario to the hinterland betweenLake Simcoe and Nottawasaga Bay. The hypothesiswhich attributes the destruction of the St. LawrenceIroquois to the Huron appears inconsistent with theHuron withdrawal from their traditional territoryalong the north shore of Lake Ontario, some ofwhich was adjacent to the St. Lawrence Iroquois.Withdrawal from traditionally held territory is amark of defeat and the Huron, the hypothesisalleges, were the victors, not the losers.Archaeological evidence indicates the late prehistoricHuron sites on the Trent River axis inPrince Edward and Hastings counties, theWaupoos, Payne and Lite sites (Pendergast 1963,1964, 1972), were in contact with the St. LawrenceIroquois. But there is no evidence of a sequence ofHuron sites in this region which continues throughto the protohistoric period. Protohistoric Huron siteson the Trent River axis, Benson and Trent(Emerson 1954; Ramsden 1977: Burger and Pratt1973 and personal communication), first occur wellnorth in Victoria County immediatelyeast of Huronia. This suggests the Huron on theTrent River axis adjacent to St. Lawrence Iroquoisterritory did withdraw as a result of St. LawrenceIroquois pressure in the late prehistoric period. Thisis in sharp contrast to the Huron adjacent to LakeOntario west of the Trent River axis. The Drapersite (Finlayson 1985) and others in that clusterwhich were in contact with the St. Lawrence Iroquoisremained adjacent to Lake Ontario in the lateprehistoric period. Other Huron also in contact withthe St. Lawrence Iroquois, Parsons and BlackCreek (Emerson 1954; 1968), remained on in theToronto area well into the late prehistoric period.It is noteworthy that the Huron in the region westof the Trent River axis remained in the region afterthose on the Trent River axis adjacent to LakeOntario, closer to the St. Lawrence Iroquois territoryin eastern Ontario and Jefferson County, hadmoved northward into Victoria County immediatelyeast of Huronia. Presumably St. Lawrence Iroquoispressure on these Hurons was greater than itwas on the more remote Huron to the west of theTrent River. The eastern Huron were forced tomove northward in late prehistoric times while theHuron west of the Trent remained adjacent to LakeOntario. This interpretation of currentarchaeological data would deny the premise thatthere was a monolithic one-time movement of theHuron from the region adjacent to Lake Ontarionorthward to Huronia.ConclusionThe above interpretation does not deny thehypothesis that the Huron destroyed the St.Lawrence Iroquois. Rather it suggests that theHuron adjacent to St. Lawrence Iroquois wereforced to react to St. Lawrence Iroquois pressures,as reflected by their move northward to VictoriaCounty, before the St. Lawrence Iroquois weredefeated. A corollary of this interpretation suggeststhat the Huron west of the Trent River axis werenot forced to move northward by Five Nation Iroquoisuntil after the late prehistoric Parsons andBlack Creek sites were occupied. That is, after theSt. Lawrence Iroquois had ceased to exist, apartfrom the remnants who remained until circa 1580on the St. Lawrence River east of Hochelaga wherethey met Cartier and the Frenchmen who followedhim in the 16th century. Then they too succumbedto many pressures including the Five Nation Iroquois,the Huron, and European disease.At present the hypothesis which suggests thathostilities with the Huron were, in part, responsiblefor the elimination of the St. Lawrence Iroquois ineastern Ontario, and later on the St. LawrenceRiver in southern Quebec circa 1580, has beenneither refuted nor improved upon. The

36 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY NO. 44data set out here supports a conclusion that thishypothesis may be extended to explain, in part, thedisappearance of the St. Lawrence Iroquois inJefferson County, New York.AcknowledgementsI am deeply indebted to the Reverend Earl Sidler forhaving shared unstintingly with me over the lasttwenty years his detailed knowledge of JeffersonCounty archaeology. My perceptions of JeffersonCounty have been greatly enhanced by his havingmade available to me the unrestricted use of hislibrary, the results of his fieldwork and the long-lostcollections he has painstakingly brought to light. Ithank him too for the private tours he con-ducted overthe countryside to show me the sites. I wish to expressparticular thanks to Jack Carter of Clayton, New York,who for more than twenty years has shared with me hisknowledge of Jefferson County archaeology, hislibrary, and his archaeological collection. I thank hiswife Helen for the gracious manner in which shealways made Margaret and I welcome. I express myappreciation to Arthur Einhorn of Lowville, NewYork, who, while Curator, Lyons Falls Museum, obtaineda number of private collections for study and formy use of Museum facilities to assist me. I thankMerill Waters (deceased) of Watertown, New York,for his having made his collection available to me forstudy. I appreciate the assistance provided by theJefferson County Historical Society by making theirlibrary and collections available to me from time totime over a very long period, since 1949, and morerecently the courtesies ex-tended by MargaretShaeffer, Director of the Society Museum, Laura L.Scharer, Registrar Researcher and Elaine Norton,Museum Secretary. I thank Carol Johnson for havingtyped and proof-read this and other works.References CitedAnonymousn.d.Mandeville. Unpublished paper on a Iroquois site on the Richelieu River.Beauchamp, William M.1886 The Aborigines: Traces of a People LongSince Departed. Transactions of the JeffersonCounty Historical Society at Watertown,New' York, 1886-1887.1889 The Origin and Early Life of the NewYork Iroquois. Transactions of the OneidaHistorical Society at Utica, 1887-1889.1892 The Iroquois Trail or Foot-Prints of the SixNations in Customs, Traditions, andHistory. H.C. Beauchamp, Fayetteville,New York.1894 The Origin of the Iroquois. AmericanAntiquarian and Oriental Journal 16(2).1898 Earthenware of the New York Aborigines.New York State Museum Bulletin No. 22.1900 Aboriginal Occupation of New York. NewYork State Museum Bulletin No. 32.1902 Horn and Bone Implements of the NewYork Indians. New York State MuseumBulletin No. 50.Biggar, Henry P. (editor)1924 Voyages of Jacques Cartier. Public Archivesof Canada Publication 11. Ottawa.Boyle, David1891 Pottery. Fourth Annual Report of theCanadian Institute, (Session of 1890-91).An Appendix to the Report of theMinister of Education, Ontario. Toronto.1906 Notes on Some Specimens. Annual ArchaeologicalReport Ontario for 1905. Appendixto the Report of the Minister ofEducation. Toronto.Burger, Marjorie K., and Peter P. Pratt1973 SUNY-Oswego Excavations in OntarioRelating to the Disappearance of the St.Lawrence Iroquois. Eastern States ArchaeologicalFederation, Bulletin No. 32.Cline, M.G., and R.L. Marshall1977 Soils of New York Landscapes. PhysicalSciences, Agronomy 6, Bulletin 119. NewYork State College of Agriculture and LifeSciences, Cornell University.Dawson, Sir John William1860 Notes on Aboriginal AntiquitiesRecently Discovered in the Island ofMontreal. Canadian Naturalist andGeologist and Proceedings of the NaturalHistory Society of Montreal (volume 5).Reprinted in Cartier's Hochelaga and theDawson Site, by James F. Pendergast andBruce G. Trigger, McGill-QueensUniversity Press, 1972.1861 Additional Notes on the Aboriginal Antiquitiesfound at Montreal. CanadianNaturalist and Geologist and Proceedingsof the Natural History Society of Montreal(volume 6). Reprinted in Cartier'sHochelaga and the Dawson Site, by JamesF. Pendergast and Bruce G. Trigger,McGill-Queens University Press, 1972.Donaldson, William S.1958 Research Guide to Pottery Sequences inOntario. Research Guide No. 2, PublicationNo. 5, Ontario Archaeological Society.Emerson, Edgar C.1898 Our County and its People: A DescriptiveWork on Jefferson County, New York.Boston History Company. Boston.

38 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY NO. 44Orr, Rowland B.1912 Pottery. Annual Archaeological Report1912, Minister of Education, Ontario.Toronto.Parker, Arthur C.1922 The Archaeological History of New York.New York State Museum Bulletin Nos. 237,238. In The Archaeological History of NewYork, Part 2 (Arthur C. Parker, editor).Pearce, Robert J.1978 A Preliminary Report on the Draper SiteRim Sherds. Museum of Indian Archaeologyat The University of Western Ontario,London, Ontario, Research Report No. 1.Pendergast, James F.1963 The Payne Site. National Museum ofCanada, Bulletin No. 193.1964 The Waupoos Site — An Iroquois Componentin Prince Edward County, Ontario.Pennsylvania Archaeologist 34(2).1966 Three Prehistoric Iroquois Components inEastern Ontario: The Salem, Grays Creekand Beckstead Sites. National Museum ofCanada Bulletin No. 208.1972 The Lite Site: An Early Southern DivisionHuron Site Near Belleville, Ontario.Ontario Archaeology 17:24-61.1975 An In-Situ Hypothesis to Explain theOrigin of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians.Ontario Archaeology 25:47-55.1981 The Glenbrook Village Site: A Late St.Lawrence Iroquoian Component in GlengarryCounty, Ontario. National Museum ofMan, Mercury Series, ArchaeologicalSurvey of Canada Paper No. 100.n.d. The Origin of the St. Lawrence IroquoisRim Sherds at the Draper Site. Report onfile at the Museum of Indian Archaeologyat the University of Western Ontario.London.Pendergast, James F., and Bruce G. Trigger1972 Cartier's Hochelaga and the Dawson Site.McGill-Queens University Press. Montrealand London.Perkins, G.H.1909 Aboriginal Remains in Champlain Valley.American Anthropologist I1(4).Ramsden, Peter G.1977 The Benson Site — 1977: A PreliminaryReport to the Canada Council. Copy on fileat McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.Ridley, Frank1952 The Huron and Lalonde Occupations ofOntario. American Antiquity 17(3): 197-210.Rutsch, Edward S.1973 Smoking Technology of the Aborigines ofthe Iroquois Area of New York State.Farleigh Dickinson University Press.Rutherford, Madison, Teaneck.Sidler, Earl R. III1971 The Durham Site: A Prehistoric Componentin Jefferson County, New York.Unpublished MA thesis, Department of Anthropology,State University of New York,Buffalo, New York.Skinner, Alanson1921 Notes on the Iroquois. Indian Notes andMonographs. Museum of the AmericanIndian, Heye Foundation. New York.Squire, Ephriam G.1851a Aboriginal Monuments of the State of NewYork Comprising the Results of OriginalSurveys and Explorations with an IllustrativeAppendix. Smithsonian Contributionsto Knowledge (volume 2).185l b Antiquities of the State of New York Beingthe Result of Extensive Original Survey andExplorations with a Supplement on the Antiquitiesof the West. Geo. H. Derby & Co.Buffalo.Stewart, David P.1958 The Pleistocene Geology of the Watertownand Sackets Harbour Quadrangles, NewYork. New York State Museum and ScienceService Bulletin No. 369.Taylor, John1850 Journal of the Reverend John Taylor'sMissionary Tour through the Mohawk &Black River Countries in 1802. DocumentsRelative to the Colonial History of the Stateof New York (volume I) (Edmund B.O'Callaghan, editor). Weed, Parsons andCo. Albany.Tooker, Elisabeth1964 An Ethnography of the Huron Indians,1615-1649. Bureau of American EthnologyBulletin 190.Tuck, James A.1969 Iroquois Cultural Developments in CentralNew York. Unpublished PhD dissertation,Department of Anthropology, SyracuseUniversity, Syracuse, New York.1971 Onondaga Iroquois Prehistory: A Study inSettlement Archaeology. Syracuse UniversityPress. Syracuse, New York.Weber, Joann Cynthia1970 Types and Attributes in the Study of IroquoisPipes. Unpublished PhD dissertation,Department of Anthropology, HarvardUniversity, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Weber, Robert A.1968 An Archaeological Survey in JeffersonCounty, New York. Report on file at theDepartment of Anthropology, State Universityof New York, Buffalo.White, Marian E.n.d.a Current Work on Iroquois Archaeology inNorthern New York. Paper presented to theNew York State Archaeological AssociationAnnual Meeting 1969.

PENDERGAST: HURON-ST. LAWRENCE RELATIONS 39n.d.bThe Nature of Warfare and ConfederaciesAmong Northern Iroquoians. Paper on fileat the Department of Anthropology, StateUniversity of New York at Buffalo.Wintemberg, W.J.1936 Roebuck Prehistoric Village Site,Grenville County, Ontario. NationalMuseum of Canada Bulletin No. 83.1946 The Sidey-Mackay Village Site. AmericanAntiquity 11(3): 154-182.Woodworth, Henry1895 Indian Villages in Jefferson County. InThe Jefferson County Historical Society,Water-town, N.Y. (volume 3). F.M. Herrick& Co. Watertown.Wright, J.V.1966 The Ontario Iroquois Tradition, NationalMuseum Bulletin No. 210.Wrong, George M. (editor)1939 The Long Journey to the Country of theHuron (by Gabriel Sagard). The ChamplainSociety. Toronto.Box 314Merrickville, Ontario KOG 1N0