Arch Notes - Ontario Archaeological Society

Ontario Archaeological SocietyBOARD OF DIRECTORSPresidentNeal Ferris519-473-1360president@ontarioarchaeology.on.caPresident-ElectRob MacDonaldpresidentelect@ontarioarchaeology.on.caTreasurerJim Montgomeryt r e a s u r e r @ o n t a r i o a rc h a e o l ogy.on.caVice-PresidentSheryl Smithv i c ep r e s i d e n t @ o n t a r i o a rc h a e o l ogy.on.caDirector of Avocational ServicesBill Foxavo c a t i o n a l @ o n t a r i o a rc h a e o l ogy. o n . c aDirector of Chapter ServicesChris Daltonchapters@ontarioarchaeology.on.caDirector of Heritage AdvocacyPeter Popkinadvocacy@ontarioarchaeology.on.caDirector of MembershipJohn Sleathm e m b e rs h i p @ o n t a r i o a rc h a e o l ogy.on.caDirector of Membership ServicesLindsay Foremanm e m b e rs e rv i c e s @ o n t a r i o a rc h a e o l ogy.on.caDirector of Educationeducation@ontarioarchaeology.on.caDirector of PublicationsGrant Karcichp u bl i c a t i o n s @ o n t a r i o a rc h a e o l ogy.on.caDirector of Public OutreachMegan Brooksp u bl i c o u t r e a c h @ o n t a r i o a rc h a e o l ogy.on.caDirector of Student ServicesJohn Moodys t u d e n t s @ o n t a r i o a rc h a e o l ogy.on.caExecutive DirectorLorie HarrisPO Box 62066Victoria Terrace Post OfficeToronto, Ontario M4A 2W1Phone/fax: 416-406-5959exe c u t i ve - d i r e c t o r @ o n t a r i o a rc h a e o l ogy.on.caAPPOINTMENTSEditor, Ontario ArchaeologyChris Ellisoaeditor@ontarioarchaeology.on.caEditors, Arch NotesSheryl Smith & Carole Stimmellaneditor@ontarioarchaeology.on.caEditor, WebsiteJean-Luc Pilonjlucpilon@hotmail.comFirst Nations LiaisonTBASymposium 2013/Niagara Falls Liaison:Sheryl Smithsymposium@ontarioarchaeology.on.caModerator – Ontario Archaeological SocietyListserve (OAS-L)http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/OAS-L/Vito VaccarelliThe Ontario Archaeological Society gratefullyacknowledges funding from the Ministry ofTourism and Culture through the ProvincialHeritage Organization Operating Grant Program.

3PRESIDENT’S MESSAGEGreetings. We are fastapproaching the annual OASconference, and everyone isworking full out to make it a memorableone! Please check out the program online,if you haven't lately, since it has beenupdated. And don't forget to book yourtours... spirits of a libation (and of ahaunting!) nature are both on tap for youand family members also attending. Plus,there is everything Niagara Falls and theregion have to offer when you aren'tinvolved with fascinating session papers!And don't forget to attend the annualbusiness meeting Saturday, to hear aboutand provide input on the direction theOAS is heading.Life has been focussed for quite awhileon administrative changes andoperational needs of the OAS, so I hopewe'll be able to finalize some of thosemeasures. Of course, there are alwaysnew changes we need to address, notablythe looming changes to the Non ProfitCorporations Act, which does aff e c torganizations such as ours.The good news is that the changeswe've made in recent years anticipatedthe change in law, and so we are in goodstead and will not have to underg omassive change during the transitionperiod, following whenever this actcomes into effect.Beyond operations, the OAS continuesto hum along. I am told by the OA editorthat one of two volumes heading our waythis year is about to go into production.Likewise, awards nominations have beencoming in, and the day to day of thingslike submitting yet another version of thePHO grant application have beenaccomplished.We will be needing to replace threemembers of our executive next year (twodirectors and a treasurer), so please, ifyou think you would like to help out, letanyone on the board or nomination chairChris Watts know of your preference.As well, there seems no end of variousadvocacy issues to keep the board andmembers hopping. One such issue thathas received a fair amount of mediaattention and even attention on the floorof Queen's Park has related to thediscovery of unmarked burials onhomeowner properties.Many of the media accounts wereflagged on the OAS Facebook page,coming from places like Lambton andBrant Counties, and entail a similar storyof one or some burials being found insomeone's backyard, or future backyard,driveway, etc. Under the Funeral, Burialand Cremation Services Act (née theCemeteries Act), the landowner mustundertake an investigation of suchdiscoveries to determine the extent andcultural affiliation of the remains,typically completed by a consultantarchaeologist hired to complete the task.The cost of these undertakings, rangingfrom a few thousand to a few tens ofthousands of dollars, are the focus of thelandowner's hardship – framed in manyof these media reports as a punishmentfor doing the right thing and reporting thediscovery.It IS the case that the CemeteriesR e g i s t e r, under the act, can declare thecost of this investigation a burden to thel a n d o w n e r, and cover the cost of theinvestigation directly, but the benchmarkto prove burden is pretty onerous,requiring people to reveal their finances,and even liquidating assets.Caught in the middle of these issues isthe consultant archaeologist, who is hiredto undertake the investigation. T h o u g htypically absorbing a fair amount of thecosts when private landowners areinvolved, these investigations do costsignificant labour, time, reportproduction, and, often, endless andemotional meetings and conversationsbetween landowner, registrar, FirstNations representatives, and othersseeking to define extent of theinvestigation, and disposition over whatshould happen to the remains. T h e s ecosts then become framed in mediareports, and by the comments of localMPPs, as archaeologists exploiting poorhomeowners. In one case the local MPPdemanded that archaeology provisions beeliminated from the process.Clearly such comments reflect an utterlack of understanding of the needs of theact, the difficulties in defining andidentifying burials in the field, theinformation the Registrar needs to makea ruling, the expectations of the representativesfor the deceased, and thelegitimate costs of doing anything otherthan destroying the internments.The more germane comments,h o w e v e r, are the observations in thesemedia reports, and in the endlesscomments sections attached to onlineversions of the articles, that theexpectations of cost on the individualonly encourages people to NOT r e p o r tthese discoveries. This is a concern bothto the Registrar AND to law services whoknow such attitudes mean that forensicdiscoveries also will not be reported.While such an action would be aviolation under the Funeral, Burial andCremation Services Act and theC o r o n e r’s Act, it is certainly hard not toimagine some people being so inclined.That is a worrisome direction forunmarked burial discoveries to take,particularly because unreported discoveries,anecdotally, are not uncommonalready. And state regulation should notbe designed to encourage suchtendencies. There should be alternativeoptions available in these particularcircumstances. It is certainly easy toimagine options such as the Ministry ofConsumer Services employingCemeteries Inspectors who couldundertake those investigations on behalfof the Registrar (who remembers back inthe day when the province actuallymaintained several such positions acrossthe province?!); or maintainingSeptember/October 2013 Arch Notes 18 (5)

4provincial archaeological staff allocatedto doing such investigations. Morep r a g m a t i c a l l y, the Ontario Coroner’sO ffice contracts local doctors andforensic archaeologists to investigatesuch discoveries under the Coroner’s A c t ,whose work is billed back to theprovincial office.Perhaps a similar arrangement shouldbe instituted within the Ministry ofConsumer Services? A l t e r n a t i v e l y,maybe there could be a standard costsharing arrangement to these expenses, incases where the landowner is a privatecitizen and not a developer, and thus hasno way of recouping costs, with theprovince picking up the majority of thecost. I am sure it would even be possibleto provide some pro-bono support fromthe Ontario archaeological communityand society for particularly demandinginstances, or a funded “volunteer” groupof willing archaeologists, akin tovolunteer firemen. And I am sure otherideas can come to mind, too.The point is that surely the solutionshould not remain that individuallandowners need to face bankruptcybefore the province assists. There is alegitimate necessary cost involved that aprivate landowner might not be able toabsorb. Meanwhile the state has aninterest in absorbing some portion ofthese costs, since the process mitigatescontested values over land and care forthe deceased. Moreover, consultants arenot charitable organizations and shouldnot be expected to, or guilted into,undervaluing their worth and theimportant role they play in this process ofinvestigation and mediation.The OAS Board, some chapters, andseveral members have expressed theseconcerns in letters to the editor, letters toMPPs, and to the Cemeteries Registrar.The solution(s) should also involve,o b v i o u s l y, communities and families whorepresent the interests of the deceased. Ifthe province remains of the view that thedeceased must be treated with the respectthey deserve when discovered, then stepsshould be made to ensure suchdiscoveries do not go unreported, and thatthe living are not punished for doing theright thing. Who knows, maybe theseexamples that have come to light willhelp fuel a broader discussion on thetopic.Until next time, see you in NiagaraFalls!Neal FerrisPresidentNOTES AND NEWSLA ST CA L L F O R SYM P O S I U M 2013 –OCTOBER 25 TO 27Our 40th Annual Symposium titled‘Where the Water is Loud: A r c h a e o l o g yof the Niagara Region and Beyond’ takesplace near the end of October in beautifulNiagara Falls. Organizers have beenworking hard to ensure this is amemorable weekend of tours, talks, andget-togethers.Along with a book launch of B e f o r eO n t a r i o by McGill Queen’s UniversityPress, we will have our usually popularBook Room and Silent Auction so comeprepared to buy some Christmas presents!The ABM will take place on Saturday,Oct. 26, 2013 from 4:30 to 6:00 p.m. Ifyou want your say in the OAS, pleaseplan on attending.Anyone wanting a print copy instead ofa digital version of the OAS A n n u a lReport, please contact Lorie Harris in theOAS office and it will be mailed to you.Copies will also be available at the ABMin Niagara Falls.FROM SASKATCHEWANThe Saskatchewan A r c h a e o l o g i c a lSociety is pleased to announce that it haspublished Occasional Papers inArchaeology No. 2. The second publicationof this series covers a variety oftopics on Saskatchewan archaeologicalsites.This edition is titled, ‘Contributions toNorthern Plains Archaeology’. A r t i c l e sinclude: ·•The Farr Site - DjNf-8 - S. Biron Ebell•It Must Be the Company’s PostBecause of the Marks of Fire All Over theChimney – Morton’s Identification ofSouth Branch House (FfNm-1) – MichaelMarkowski• Vision Quest Structures in theEthnographic and Archaeological Record,With Examples from Saskatchewan –Nathan Friesen•So Why Were People Here? Researchand Preliminary Results on Sand DuneOccupations on the Northern Plains –Tim Panas• Two Middle Precontact Period Burialsfrom Southern Saskatchewan – ErnieWalker and Heather Milsom•Re-Evaluating Climatic Conditionsand Human Adaptive Responses to theHypsithermal on the Northern Plains –Bradley Schiele and Ernie WalkerThe second edition is now available for$25. Shipping to Canadian and USaddresses will be $13.Copies of Occasional Papers inArchaeology Number 1 (A R e - E v a l u a t i o nof the McKean Series on the NorthernPlains by Sean Webster) are still availablefor the sale price of $25 plus $13shipping. Please request your copy byvisiting their website, where you canorder this book and others online (servicecoming soon) via PayPal.ERRATUMAn editing error resulted in a missingreference in Bill Fox’s ‘Old Sites' articlein the May / June issue. The full referenceis:Mackintosh, J.1836 The Discovery Of America, ByChristopher Columbus; And TheOrigin Of The North AmericanIndians. Printed by W.J. Coates,King Street. Toronto.September/ October 2013 Arch Notes 18 (5)

5PO I N T S AT T H E BOT TO M O F T H E BAYby William FoxIshould begin by explaining that the “bottom of the bay” wasa term used in the 17th century by the Hudson’s BayCompany to refer to their trading posts situated along theshore of James Bay (Warkentin 2012: 66). The ‘points’ c o n s i s tof a handful of bifacially flaked triangular chert points whichhave been recovered from two such posts – Fort Albany andCharles Fort (Rupert House) (Figure 1).A single specimen from the latter site was shown to me in2009 by Jim Chism, when I dropped by the Cree village ofWaskaganish during a chert survey with Adrian Burke(Rousseau 2011). That survey was connected with Arkeos Inc.archaeological investigations associated with the Hydro-QuebecRupert River Diversion project. During a fueling stop on ourh e l i c o p t e r-based survey, I took the opportunity to contact aformer Parks Canada archaeologist resident in the community –Jim, and he proceeded to enlighten me concerning everythingfrom secondary deposits of chert along local shorelines to hisarchaeological activities in the Rupert River region over theprevious several decades.One artifact which caught my eye was a finely craftedtriangular chert arrowpoint from the late 17th century site ofCharles Fort. While it appeared to be manufactured from a localPaleozoic chert, it did not look like anything I had ever seen orread about from northern Canadian Shield or Hudson’s BayLowland Native sites. It looked much more like a point whichwould have been found on an early 17th century OntarioFigure 1: European Travels and Native Site Distribution (map courtesy of Andrew Stewart, StrataConsulting)September/October 2013 Arch Notes 18 (5)

6two, one derived from the ‘compound’ excavated within the fortin 1963 (Kenyon 1986: 13,18) and the second was excavated in1970 from the ‘courtyard' of the first building (presumablyHouse 3 – Kenyon 1986: 26, Fig. 14) constructed on site (AprilHawkins pers. comm. 2009).While all these items could have been incorporated into thefort deposits from unrelated earlier ones, the form and size ofpoints strongly suggest a 17th century date and Walter makesno mention of a pre-fort occupation on site. The fact that a verysimilar point was found at Charles Fort adds to thecircumstantial evidence for contemporaneity with the HBCp o s t s .Figure 2: Charles Fort Point (photo by W. Fox, withpermission of theWaskaganish Cultural Institute)Iroquoian site – based on the lateral edge serrations, probably aNeutral site (Fox 1982: 3).The point is manufactured of amottled grey HBL chert, possibly derived from the KenogamiRiver formation. Both lateral edges display fine edge serrations,ranging from 4 to 5 per centimeter (Figure 2), andmeasurements in millimeters and grams are presented in Ta b l e1.Given that its association with Charles Fort could befortuitous (perhaps associated with an earlier visit to the mouthof the Rupert River), I could only marvel at its southernattributes. However, I remembered a photo plate in Wa l t e rK e n y o n ’s volume on the history of James Bay, displaying threechert points of similar form from Fort Albany (Kenyon 1986:Plate 113, c-e) (Figure 3, Table 1). The largest even displays atendency to serration (3-4/cm) along the lower portion of bothlateral edges, and all are manufactured from HBL chert, whichmay derive from the Kenogami River Fm.Two of these points were excavated from outdoor deposits,while the third was recovered from Level 2 of the House 1 floor(Kenyon 1986: 14, Fig. 6), which also produced a window glassfragment (April Hawkins pers. comm. 2009). Of the previousHI STO R I CA L OV E RV I E WAssuming that these projectile points date to the earliestperiod of these establishments, or the late 17th century, thefollowing is a synopsis of European activities in the regiontaken from Kenyon and Turnbull (1971):1 6 6 8 The Nonsuch sails into Hudson Bay and the crewoverwinter at the mouth of the Rupert River, constructingCharles Fort.1 6 7 2 Father Albanel reconnoitres Charles Fort.1 6 7 3 Priests at Sault St. Marie Mission report that localNative groups, including Odawa, are trading with the HBC.1 6 7 4 Fort Albany is constructed by Charles Bayly.1 6 7 4 Father Albanel returns to Charles Fort, is arrested andtaken to England, and convinces Radisson and Groseilliers todefect to France in 1675.1 6 7 9 Louis Jolliet undertakes reconnaissance mission to theRupert River.1 6 8 2 Radisson and Groseilliers promote the establishmentof the Compagnie du Nord, and establish Fort Bourbon on theNelson River. They over-winter with private New Englandtrader Ben Gillam, and HBC governor John Bridgar.1683 Radisson captures the two competitors, destroys theirposts and sails the remaining intact vessel to Quebec, where hereceives a poor reception. Based on an equally poor reception inFrance, Radisson defects to England.1684 Radisson sails to FortBourbon, takes it for the HBC andrenames it Port Nelson. He staysthere until 1687.1686 The Compagnie du Nordoutfits Chevalier de Troyes with ana r m y, consisting of 30 troupes de lamarine and 70 Canadian canoe menand officers, and he takes threeHBC posts – Moose Fort, CharlesFort and Fort A l b a n y.1693 James Knight takes FortAlbany and the French in retreatburn Moose and Rupert (Charles)F o r t s .1 6 9 4 Pierre Le Moyne, SieurSeptember/ October 2013 Arch Notes 18 (5)

7Figure 3: Fort Albany Points (photo by W. Fox, with permission of the Royal Ontario Museum)d’Iberville takes York Fort (replaced former Port Nelson).1696 English take back York Fort.1697 Iberville takes back York Fort.1713 Treaty of Utrecht turns over all posts to the HBC.ARC H A E O LO G I CA L EV I D E N C EThe contemporaneity of these chert points with the HBCforts seems plausible, considering the other stone, bone andantler Native artifacts recovered from excavations at FortAlbany (Kenyon 1986: Plates 11 4 – 119). Kenyon (Ibid: 46)notes of the “bone lances” that “According to the local Creewho were working with me at the site, these specimens(including those illustrated in Pl. 118) were traditionallyfashioned from the cannon bone of a caribou and were in useuntil fairly recently.”I n t e r e s t i n g l y, Walter states that two antler foreshafts “... (Pl.119) were almost certainly made by the Eskimo.” (Ibid: 46); asthe recoveries may reflect the aforementioned violentinteraction between these Native groups reported by de Tr o y e sin June of 1686 on James Bay.From Radisson’s accounts, we know that northernAlgonquian groups continued to use bows and arrows into thelate 17th century. Archaeological evidence from post-contactOdawa sites in Ontario provides no suggestion that thesegroups produced chert biface points of the refined natureobserved for the James Bay specimens. Tomenchuk and Irving(1974: 41) present a useful description of a Cree triangularchert arrowpoint from the Brant River Site Number 2,comparing its attributes to similar forms from northern Ontario,Quebec and Manitoba. These northern Algonquian points areprimarily smaller than the James Bay specimens and invariablyare not completely bifacially flaked. That is, retouch is focussedon the edges of the flake blank and does not extend completelyacross both faces of the point (see also points from Lake A b i t i b i– Marois and Gauthier 1972: Plates V, 1 and 2 and VII, 1-5).The authors also compare the Brant River specimen tocontemporary Inuit and also to Dorset end blades fromH u d s o n ’s Bay sites, but determine that such an affiliation isunlikely (Tomenchuk and Irving 1974: 41).A comparison of the James Bay points with Arctic traditionend blades indicates that there are similar triangular forms fromDorset sites; however, edge serration has only beendocumented on Pre-Dorset sites (Daniel Gendron pers. comm.2013). Based on isostatic rebound data from the Hudson’s Baybasin (Hodgetts 2007: 356-357, Fig. 3), the Fort Albany sitewould have been under water in Pre-Dorset and almostcertainly in Dorset times. Given the elevation of the CharlesFort point findspot (James Chism pers. comm. 2013), it wasalso inundated during Pre-Dorset times.To the south in the Great Lakes region, Rock Islandexcavations in the Green Bay area of Lake Michigan didproduce a contemporary chert triangular biface pointassemblage of similar form to the James Bay specimens.Mason associates these points with the second Pottawatomioccupation, indicating the at least some central A l g o n q u i a ngroups continued to use chert tipped arrows during the latterhalf of the 17th and the early 18th century (Mason 1986: 154,Pl. 14.1). The ‘early’ Pottawatomi assemblage (c. 1670)displayed in the lower two rows of Plate 14.1 appears mostsimilar in size and shape; although, the James Bay specimensare thinner (Table 1, Mason Table 14.1, 1). An early 17thcentury Pottawatomi assemblage from the Dumaw Creek site inwestern Michigan, illustrated by Quimby (1966: 20-27, Fig. 5-7), is smaller on average and highly variable in workmanship.Individual specimens from later occupations at Rock Island aresimilar in size and form; however, a “six-point set” (cache)from the 18th century Odawa occupation consists solely oftypical northern Algonquian edge retouched flake triangularpoints (Mason 1986: Plate 14.2, 1).The serrated lateral edges of the Charles Fort point are notrepresented in the Rock Island assemblages, but arecharacteristic of 17th century Ontario Iroquoian, particularlyNeutral, forms (Fox 1982: 3). Further to the south, several ofthe late 17th century bifacial triangular points from the Illinoisvillage of Peouarea also appear to be similar in refinement tothe James Bay points (Ehrhardt 2004: 294, Figure 6), as doseveral, albeit smaller specimens recovered from the late 17thcentury Lasanen cemetery in St. Ignace, Michigan (Murray1971: 64, Fig. 33 and 36), which has tentatively been identifiedwith a 1790’s Odawa occupation (Cleland 1971: 144). T h eSeptember/October 2013 Arch Notes 18 (5)

8contemporary Marquette Mission site in St. Ignace alsoproduced a chert point of similar form (Fitting 1976: 169, Fig.13, D). That chert tipped arrows were still in use among someother 18th century mid-western groups is evidenced by theassemblage from the Meskwaki Bell village in Wi s c o n s i n( Wittry 1963: 27-29, Figs. 18, 19 and Behm 2008: 46, Fig. 22);although, the late 17th century Gros Cap cemetery at St. Ignace,Michigan included no chert arrow points (Nern and Cleland1 9 7 4 ) .DI S C U S S I O NO b v i o u s l y, these were tumultuous times during the Europeanstruggle for dominance in the Canadian fur trade. The latter halfof the 17th century was similarly tumultuous from a FirstNations perspective, due to the Iroquois wars and populationdislocations. These impacted not only pre-existing Nativeexchange systems in the Great Lakes region, but basic socialstructure involving conceptions and perceptions of ethnicity (ie.who was an ‘Odawa’ after 1650?). Similar to the precedingFrench documentation of events, the English record is focusedunderstandably on European economic and political (not somuch religious) self-interest. Observations concerning the FirstN a t i o n s ’ world view tend to be contingent on their service to‘King and Country’.One may well ask what the record of late 17th centuryEuropean activities has to do with a handful of triangular chertarrowpoints. However, these events could set the context for theJames Bay arrows, which do not appear to be Cree in form. Ye t ,these anomalous points have been manufactured from localH B L chert. If contemporary with the HBC establishments, as Isuspect; were they left ‘in anger’ or simply lost on site?C e r t a i n l y, there was enough warfare associated with CharlesFort (Rupert House) and Fort Albany that they could represent ahostile encounter. If conflict related, there are specific Europeandocumented events: Rupert House (1686), Fort Albany (1686and 1693).A review of de Tr o y e s ’ journal provides 17 references toNative activities. The first sets a tone and subtext for futureencounters, when he declines the offer of Christian Mohawks atQuebec to join him on the campaign. This refusal of militaryassistance is repeated on June 20th, when he refuses the offer oftwo Cree on the Moose River to assist in attacking the English,due to a grudge against the factor Harry Sargeant at FortA l b a n y. He has an initial distrust of Native peoples, which hearticulates in his journal on May 12 at Mattawa. Neverthelesshe is prepared to hire locals as guides, and he depended onNative groups along the route for the sale of canoes for hisa r m y. There is no mention of Native fighters at any point duringhis 1686 campaign, although he does mention a Cree war partyencountered on James Bay on June 29th, returning from anattack on the Inuit to the north. His incidental observations areenlightening concerning the travels of specific A l g o n q u i a nbands: four canoes of Temiskaming people arrive at Quebec onMay 1st, he encounters Nipissings camped on LakeTemiskaming on May 21st, a Temiskaming Native offers todraw a map of the route to the bay on May 25th, and the arrivalat Rupert House of Native people from Nemiscou prepared totrade with the HBC. The conclusion is that no Native fighterswere recruited into the 1686 expedition against the HBC.The mobility of various northern Algonquin groups duringthe late 17th century is presaged by the archaeological evidenceof extensive exchange systems prior to European contact, basedon the wide distribution of Iroquoian style ceramics,particularly after 1400 A.D. (Fox 1990: 463 and 2008: 8, andGuindon 2009). The Nipissing appear to be particularly activeto the north, as middlemen in a network of exchange betweenIroquoian (primarily Huron/Wendat) to the south and northernAlgonquian bands as for north as the Hudson and James Baylowlands. The first Europeans to become actively involved inthe Native exchange system of the Lake Superior basin wereMedard Chouart, Sieur Des Groseilliers and Pierre-EspritRadisson, during their 1659/60 travels to the west. As theybattled their way westward through the Iroquois blockade of theOttawa River with an Odawa brigade of 14 canoes, the fluidityof ethnicity was expressed in one canoe carrying Nipissings,who planned to visit friends who had lived with the Mascouten,but now resided with the people of the Sault (Warkentin 2012:248).Of potential relevance to the topic of this article, isR a d i s s o n ’s statement that he encouraged the Odawa use ofbows and arrows in close quarter fighting with the Iroquois whowere using firearms (Ibid.: 251). Indeed, during a 1656 firefightwith the Iroquois at the Lake of Two Mountains, Radissonnoted that the Odawa were using bows and arrows and wearingtraditional body armour, and were “not used to shooting norheare such noise” (Ibid. 241). The various Native groupsencountered during their winter in the west included a Christino(Cree) camp on the south shore of Lake Superior, west of theKeewanaw Peninsula, Odawa at Chequamegon Bay, Saulteauxgroups in western Lake Superior and at Lac Courte Oreilles andthe Mille Lacs area of Minnesota, and the Santee or EasternDakota Sioux, whose territory included much of present dayMinnesota. Hostilities are recorded between the Cree and Siouxin the region and between the Huron and Odawa at Rock Islandin Green Bay. In the Spring of 1660, possibly at Spring BrookHill, in the Mille Lacs area of Minnesota, Radisson and DesGroseilliers participated in a Feast of the Dead ceremony at agathering of 18 Nations, including the Sioux (Ibid.: 275).T h e r e a f t e r, they travelled west to the prairie edge with theSaulteaux to visit a Sioux village. They may also have met theA s s i n i b o i n e .Following their adventures in the west, Radisson’s voyagemanuscript describes a trip to James Bay in 1660, possibly viathe Albany River; however, Warkentin (2012: 286) feels that itis unlikely that Radisson participated on the trip, and has simplyrecorded Des Groseilliers’ account. There is a reference to an“old howse all demolished and battered with boulletts,” whichWarkentin (Ibid. 286) takes to be Henry Hudson’s formerSeptember/ October 2013 Arch Notes 18 (5)

9residence at the mouth of the Rupert River, and observationsconcerning northern Ontario Ojibway and Cree bands.Following a description of the Swampy Cree peoples, there is areference to a group, apparently encountered on the return tripto Lake Superior and possibly on the Kenogami drainage –“There is a nation called among themselves Neuter, they speakethe Beefe (Sioux) and Christanos (Cree) speech being friends toboth. Those poore people could not tell what to give us. T h e yweare overjoyed when we sayd, we should bring themcommodities.” Warkentin suggests that they may have been aband of refugee Neutral Iroquoians (Ibid: 289)!CO N C LU S I O N SNo matter which upper Great Lakes sites dating to the late17th century are considered, the authorship of chert triangularpoints is virtually impossible to determine, given the dynamicstate of ethnogenesis resulting from massive populationdislocations caused by the Iroquois wars. The Jesuits stationedat Sault Ste. Marie inform us that the Saulteaux (Ojibway) andOdawa were travelling north to the bay to trade with the HBCduring the 1670’s; however neither group is known to havemanufactured chert projectile points of similar form to theJames Bay specimens. They may have been carrying and usingcentral Algonquian arrows, but these would have been tippedwith local (Lake Michigan region) chert points manufacturedfrom material such as Norwood chert. They may have beenaccompanied by an accomplished flintknapper (perhaps, aPottawatomi individual) who utilized some HBL chert toproduce or repair an arrow; yet the Pottawatomi forms are notexactly similar to the relatively large and thin James Bay points.While it appears to be a ‘stretch’ to argue that Groseillersencountered a band of refugees from the 1651 dispersal of theNeutral Iroquoian confederacy of southern Ontario during his1660 return to Lake Superior from James Bay, anything ispossible during this period when Iroquois aggression dispersedboth Iroquoian and Algonquian groups widely to the west. T h eattributes of the James Bay points are not characteristic ofnorthern Algonquian or Inuit forms, but are of more southerlypopulations, yet they are manufactured from local HBL chert. Itmay be more than coincidence that Groseillers met thisapparently destitute group between James Bay and LakeSuperior; as a major and logical travel route would include theAlbany and Kenogami River drainages, where HBL c h e r t -bearing outcrops have been documented (Wilson 1890: 85), onhis way southwest to the eastern shore of Lake Superior.AC K N OW L E D G E M E N TSAccess to collections was kindly provided by James Chismof the Waskaganish Cultural Institute and April Hawkins andKen Lister of the Royal Ontario Museum. April also suppliedvaluable intra-site provenience data for antler and chert artifactsfrom Fort A l b a n y. Ken, Dave Denton, Daniel Gendron andLeigh Syms provided comparative information relating to Cree,Inuit, Dorset and Pre-Dorset assemblages in the Hudson’s Bayregion. Finally, Andrew Stewart kindly produced the mapwhich constitutes Figure 1 of this article. None are responsiblefor any errors or omissions by the author.RE F E R E N C E SBehm, J.A.2008 The Meskwaki in Eastern Wisconsin: Ethnohistory andArchaeology. The Wisconsin Archeologist. Vol. 89, No.1&2: 7-85.Ehrhardt, K.L.2004 Linking History and Prehistory in the Midcontinent:Archaeological Investigations at Marquette and Jolliet’s“Peouarea”. Aboriginal Ritual and Economy in theEastern Woodlands: Essays in Memory of HowardDalton Winters. Ed. A-M. Cantwell, L.A. Conrad, J.E.Reyman. Illinois Museum Scientific Papers, Vol. XXX.Illinois State Museum. Kampsville Studies inArcheology and History, Vol. 5. Center for AmericanArcheology: 287-302. Springfield.Fitting, J.E.1976 Archaeological Excavations at the Marquette MissionSite, St. Ignace, Michigan, in 1972. The MichiganArchaeologist. Vol. 22, No. 2-3: 103-282.Fox, W. A .1982 Edge Serration: A Proto-Historic/Historic Iroquoian ToolAttribute. KEWA Newsletter of the London Chapter,Ontario Archaeological Society 82-3: 2-5. London.1990 The Odawa. The Archaeology of Southern Ontario toA.D. 1650 London Chapter, Ontario ArchaeologicalSociety, Occasional Paper 5: 457-473. London.2008 Reciprocal Symbols: A Review of Ontario IroquoisArchaeological Evidence Relating to Long-DistanceContacts. Northeast Anthropology No. 75/76: 1-22.Albany.Guindon, F.2009 Iroquoian Pottery at Lake Abitibi: A Case Study of theRelationship Between Hurons and Algonkians on theCanadian Shield. Canadian Journal of Archaeology33(1): 65-91.Hodgetts, L.M.2007 The Changing Pre-Dorset Landscape of SW HudsonBay, Canada. Journal of Field Archaeology. Vol. 32:353-367.Kenyon, W. A .1986 The History of James Bay 1610-1686 A Study inHistorical Archaeology. Archaeology Monograph 10.Royal Ontario Museum. Toronto.Kenyon, W.A. and J.R. Tu r n b u l l1971 The Battle For James Bay 1686. Macmillan of Canada.Toronto.Marois, R. and P. Gauthier1972 Les Abitibis. Canadian Museum of Civilization.September/October 2013 Arch Notes 18 (5)

10Archaeological Survey of Canada Mercury Series PaperNo. 140. Hull.Mason, R.J.1986 Rock Island: Historical Indian Archaeology in theNorthern Lake Michigan Basin. Midcontinental Journalof Archaeology Special Paper No. 6. Kent StateUniversity Press. Kent.M u r r a y, P.1971 Chipped and Ground Stone Artifacts in An HistoricBurial Locality in Mackinac County Michigan theLasanen Site. Ed. C.E. Cleland: 59-68. Publications ofthe Museum, Michigan State University.Anthropological Series Vol. 1 No. 1. East Lansing.Nern, C.F. and C.E. Cleland1974 The Gros Cap Cemetery, St. Ignace, Michigan: AReconsideration of the Greenlees Collection. TheMichigan Archaeologist. Vol. 20, No. 1: 1-58.Q u i m b y, G.I.1966 The Dumaw Creek Site. A Seventeenth CenturyPrehistoric Indian Village and Cemetery in OceanaCounty, Michigan. Fieldiana: Anthropology. Vol. 56,No. 1. Field Museum of Natural History. Chicago.Rousseau, G.2011 Exploration de la region de Waskaganish et du sud de labaie James a la recherche de sources de chert.Archeologiques No. 24 : 56-67. Quebec.Tomenchuk, J. and W.N. Irving1974 Archaeology of the Brant River, Polar Bear Park,Ontario, 1972 A Preliminary Report. OntarioArchaeology 22: 33-60.Warkentin, G.2012 Pierre-Esprit Radisson The Collected Writings VolumeI The Voyages. The Champlain Society. Toronto.Wilson, Sir Daniel1890 Trade and Commerce in the Stone Age. Proceedingsand Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada For theYear 1889 Vol. VII: 59-87. Dawson Bros, Publishers.Montreal.Wi t t r y, W. L.1963 The Bell Site, Wn9, An Early Historic Fox Village. TheWisconsin Archeologist N.S. Vol. 44, No. 1: 1-57.40th OAS SymposiumOctober 25 – 27, 2013Crowne Plaza Fallsview Hotel, Niagara FallsSeptember/ October 2013 Arch Notes 18 (5)

1119TH-20TH CENTURY SETTLEMENT BYIMMIGRANTS TO NORTHWESTERN ONTARIOby Marga ret Sch we i t zerEighteenth and 19th century settlement innorthwestern Ontario by non-aboriginal persons isevidenced by historic artifacts discovered in theThunder Bay area. The remains of a stone barn foundationwere explored by the author in 2012, leading to anoverview of both government policy of the time andindividuals who were affected by it.The modern city of Thunder Bay began its history as afur trade post, Fort William, in 1805. Following thedecline of the fur trade decades later and the signing of theRobinson-Superior Treaty between the NorthernAlgonquian people and the Crown in 1850, the areasurrounding the Lakehead was surveyed in 1859 byThomas Herrick. Large tracts of territory then becameavailable through the Free Grants and Homestead Act of1868.Northwestern Ontario was viewed as a potentialeconomic driver of Upper Canada, fueled by recent mineraldiscoveries. The region was also seen as agriculturallyimportant, and the plan of the provincial government wasto promote settlement through immigration. Settlersattracted by promises of prosperity in an untested landbegan to arrive in the area, some from great distances.People primarily from southern Ontario and Great BritainInterior view of north section of wall, detailing two different construction methods. Photo by M.Schweitzer.September/October 2013 Arch Notes 18 (5)

12were encouraged to move to the northwest; however, adiverse mix of people from Scandinavia, Eastern Europe,and the United States also made their way into the regionby the 1890’s.Although agricultural settlement was the goal of theprovincial government, no assessment of agriculturalpotential was ever done of the Canadian Shield countryprior to efforts being made to attract immigrants. Manywho arrived soon learned that much of the land wasunsuitable for productive farming due to the climate andsoil conditions that awaited them. As a result, they oftencut the timber off their land, sold it to the railroad, and leftthe area soon after. Approximately 70% of the landremained as bush lots, and some 10-15% of the landbecame farms growing crops. The non-aboriginalpopulation in rural northwestern Ontario never exceeded40,000 persons between 1871 and 1931.Northwestern Ontario did thrive and grow as a resourcebasedeconomy, primarily from the forest industry, and thetwin cities of Port Arthur and Fort William eventuallybecame a busy shipping port on Lake Superior.The property in the former Oliver Township on which thestone barn foundation is located was originally deeded in1889 to Peter Pyke. It was surveyed as 160.5 acres in size.Free Grant land had to be cleared of trees, cultivated, andbuilding construction undertaken, for a residency period ofsix months per year. If these conditions were not met, theland was ceded back to the Crown and became available toanother settler.Pyke, the original landowner, did not have his deedregistered until 1909, and it may have taken him that longto meet the conditions of the land grant; the exact reasonfor the delay is not known.A search of the Land Titles Registry office in T h u n d e rB a y, plus information garnered from the Thunder BayHistorical Museum and the Oliver-Paipoonge libraryhelped to fill in a record of the subject parcel of land.Following the grant being made, the property changedhands a number of times before being purchased by OscarMutkala, a Finnish immigrant, in 1930. He farmed dairycattle for over 30 years, selling milk and cream to a dairyin Thunder Bay before retiring and transferring the farm tohis son’s ownership. The barn foundation’s ruggedassembly appears to have been carried out through manuallabour alone, due to the appearance of stone wallconstruction.It was not possible to determine exactly when the barnhad been built, but it was probably after 1900. Byconferring with a descendent of Mutkala, the author wasable to learn that his son, Reino, enlarged the barn in theearly 1950’s. Examination of the remaining foundationshowed that there were apparently two separateconstruction periods, as the latter used formed concrete.The only artifact discovered in the foundation itself wasa horseshoe, hidden in a space between the two types offorming in the north wall. Visual inspection only suggeststhat the shoe was forged sometime between 1900 and the1 9 4 0 ’s. A few pieces of farm machinery lie close to thebarn foundation, but the author was not able to locaterecognizable dates of manufacture on the cast iron of theimplements due to weathering and wear.Elsewhere on the same property, an old garbage dumpcontained numerous metal food tins, milk cans, glassbottles, and other household discards as might be expectedon a farm.Carrying out a site condition inspection on the stone barnfoundation resulted in a more comprehensive history ofimmigrant settlement in the Thunder Bay area. The storyof a single property was repeated hundreds and perhapsthousands of times before W W II, as land was populated bythe forefathers of many who still live there today.RE F E R E N C E SB r a y, M. and E. Epp, Editors.1984 A Vast and Magnificent Land: An IllustratedHistory of Northern Ontario. Toronto: Queen’sP r i n t e r.Douglas County Museum, Colorado.2012 Website accessed December 2, 2012.h t t p : / / w w w. d o u g l a s . c o . u s / h i s t o r i c / m u s e u mMutkala, Cathrine.2012 Personal communication; telephone conversationDecember 15, 2012.Mutkala, Lorie.2012 Personal communication; telephone conversationDecember 15, 2012.Oliver Township History Committee.1981 Oliver Township – The First Century Unfolding1879-1979. Thunder Bay: Oliver Township HistoryC o m m i t t e e .Provincial Land Titles Registry Office.2012 Personal visit July 31, 2012. Ontario GovernmentBuilding, Thunder Bay, Ontario.Rogers, E.S.1994 Northern Algonquians and the Hudson’s BayC o m p a n y, 1821-1890. In: Aboriginal Ontario, Editedby E.S. Rogers and D.B. Smith. Toronto: DundurnPress Limited.Thunder Bay Historical Museum Society.1989 Papers and Records Volume XVII. Thunder BayMuseum Archives. Personal visit August 7, 2012.Wightman, W.R. and N.M. Wightman.1997 The Land Between: Northwestern Ontario ResourceDevelopment, 1800 to the 1990’s. To r o n t o :University of Toronto Press.September/ October 2013 Arch Notes 18 (5)

13By Gary Wa rr i ckOver the last 40 years, Art Howey earned renown in thearchaeological community for his passion anddedication to saving Ontario’s archaeological past. Helived and breathed archaeology, conducting licenced fieldworkand report writing, participating in the A r c h a e o l o g i c a lConservation Officer program and in the OntarioArchaeological Society at theprovincial level and in theHamilton Chapter, org a n i z i n gand creating archaeologicalexhibits, advocating forimprovements to archaeologicalconservation and artifact storage,deterring illegal looting ofarchaeological sites, and acting asa liaison between avocational andprofessional archaeologists.The depth of A r t ’s love for allthings archaeological and hisselfless devotion to conservingthe archaeological heritage ofOntario was remarkable. On June19, 2013, Art was the recipient ofthe OAS Tim Kenyon MemorialAward, which is “awarded tonon-professional archaeologistswho have made an exceptionalcontribution to the developmentof Ontario archaeology and whohas earned acclaim for excellenceand achievement.” Less than amonth after receiving his award,Art Howey died on July 8, 2013from cancer.Art was born on May 15, 1926and grew up in Paris, Ontario. A sa boy, in his spare time, A r tprowled the fields and forests ofthe countryside on foot in thesummer and by snowshoe inw i n t e r. Following World War II,Art earned a Bachelor of Engineering from the University ofToronto and was employed by Proctor & Gamble as ane n g i n e e r, working in Hamilton and Toronto. In 1974, A r tconducted his first archaeological investigation in A n c a s t e r,Ontario. The Hamilton Golf and Country Club had decided toART HOWEY(1926 - 2013)expand its golf course with an additional nine holes and beganearthmoving in 1973. Living close to the golf course at thetime, Art noticed artifacts when walking over the bulldozed andgraded areas in the spring of 1974. Consequently, he regularlysurface collected the landscaped site areas between April andDecember 1974, often accompanied by his wife Doreen andsometimes by his son Cameron and continued to record andpick up artifacts from January to November in 1975.Art applied for one of thefirst archaeological licencesto be awarded under thenewly proclaimed OntarioHeritage Act in 1975. A r t ’ssurface collections of theHamilton Golf and CountryClub site (AhGx-20)e ffectively constituted one ofthe first salvage archaeologyprojects in Ontario. T h eHamilton Spectator ran astory on A r t ’s archaeologicalwork on July 4, 1974 and A r tmounted an exhibit ofrecovered points, ranging inage from Paleo-Indian toLate Woodland, in the clubhouse of the Hamilton Golfand Country Club.The focus of A r t ’sfieldwork was thearchaeology of Ancaster andBrant County. From 1976 to1978, Art continued his sitesurvey and surfacecollections of the HamiltonGolf and Country Club siteand other sites in theAncaster region. In his 1977licence report, Art explainedthat the goal of his fieldworkwas “to stay ahead of theArt Howey at the Redeemer College Site in Aprilbulldozers” and “to find and2010.report sites before they aredestroyed.” In the 1970s and 1980s, planned housingsubdivisions were rapidly expanding across the A n c a s t e rlandscape and Art began building a site inventory, anticipatingthe Planning Act that would not be passed until 1983. Hissurvey concentrated on the Meadowlands subdivision inSeptember/October 2013 Arch Notes 18 (5)

14Ancaster and the lands owned by Redeemer College. Under thePlanning Act, archaeological sites in the Meadowlands thatwere found, collected, and reported by Art were eventuallyexcavated by Archaeological Services Inc. in the late 1980s andearly 1990s, and Redeemer College sites by the firm NewDirections in the first decade of the 21st century.A r t ’s fulltime job as an engineer occupied his time in theearly1980s and took him away from both the Ancaster area andhis archaeological work. In 1987, Art resumed his site surveywork in the Regional Municipality (RM) of Hamilton-Wentworth and in Brant County. He held licences in 1988-1990, 1992-1996, and in 1998, documenting 20 significant sitesand a number of isolated finds. He deposited his artifactcollections, licence reports, and hand-written field notes withthe Fieldcote Museum in 2001, where they can be found today.Public education was an important part of archaeology forArt. As early as 1974, he mounted an exhibit of recent artifactfinds in the clubhouse of the Hamilton Golf and Country Club,educating members about the ancient past of A n c a s t e r. In 2001,Art assisted Lois Corey, Curator of the Fieldcote Museum, withan exhibit of A n c a s t e r’s archaeology and a display of precontactarchaeological artifacts. In 2002, Art organized a similarexhibit of artifacts for the foyer of Redeemer College, which isstill on display today. Art promoted the distribution of OASposters and brochures, the Passport to the Past program, andvisited local schools using the OAS teaching kits. Art was astrong advocate for the use of film in archaeological education.In addition to his field research, Art was committed to theprotection of archaeological heritage in Ontario. He acted as anArchaeological Conservation Officer (ACO) for RM ofH a m i l t o n - Wentworth in the 1980s, supported by Bill Fox andIan Kenyon. In 1983, Art contributed important information toassist Bill Fox with the conviction of the looters of the Freeltonsite under the Ontario Heritage Act. In fact, Art was zealous inhis pursuit of illegal looters and had no qualms aboutapproaching looters in the field, taking licence plate numbers,and reporting them to the authorities. There are fewprofessionals who would go to these lengths to ensure sitep r o t e c t i o n .While serving on the OAS Board of Directors in the early1990s, he attempted to revive the Archaeological ConservationProgram and ACOs and interviewed about 30 members of thearchaeological community to gain support for a new program,writing a report for the OAS about his findings. In addition, hewrote numerous letters to the Province of Ontario pushing forbetter protection for archaeological sites and long-term curationof artifact collections. Always a true gentleman, Art quietly butfirmly pushed government bureaucrats and archaeologists aliketo ensure that Ontario’s archaeological past was properlyp r o t e c t e d .Art also made significant contributions to the OAS. Heserved as a Director on the OAS Board in 1991 and 1992. A f t e rits creation in 1994, the OAS’ Hamilton Chapter held regularmonthly meetings with guest speakers. Art was the backbone ofthe Hamilton Chapter since its inception, serving as the editorof The Heights, newsletter of the Chapter, from 2005-2009, andwas instrumental in inviting guest speakers and org a n i z i n gmonthly meetings. Art encouraged Hamilton Chapter membersto get involved in local field archaeology and acted as a mentorto and liaison for both students and avocationals, linking themwith professional archaeologists.Art possessed a love of archaeology and a commitment topreserving Ontario’s archaeological past rarely found even inthe most dedicated professionals. Art was an exceptionalmember of the Ontario archaeological community and will bemissed tremendously by all of us.HO N O U R I N G AVO C AT I O NA L ARC H A E O LO G I S T ART HOW E Yby Lindsay Fo re m a n ,D i rector of Member Serv i c e sOn June 19, 2013, severalgenerations of Ontario archaeologistsmet at the FieldcoteMuseum in Ancaster to honouravocational archaeologist, Art Howey. A r tand his family have been advocating forthe protection and preservation of southernOntario archaeological sites for nearly halfa century. They came together on thiswarm June evening to watch Art accept theTim Kenyon Memorial Award in thepresence of many friends and OASm e m b e r s .Art was a member of the MinistryA C O P programme in the 1980s and hasdocumented, researched, and written upnumerous archaeological sites during thepast five decades. Members of theHamilton OAS Chapter nominated him forthe award, which was presented byChapter president, Gary Warrick. Gary’sheartfelt speech summarized A r t ’s manyarchaeological accomplishments andmoved all that were present. Art and hisfamily were proud to receive the award. Infact, Art was rendered speechless at onepoint during his acceptance – he couldn’tbelieve that the members of the Ontarioarchaeological community held him insuch high regard.Following the award ceremony, A r tmade the rounds and chatted with hisarchaeological comrades. There wasmuch ‘shop talk’and the usual ‘show-andte l l ’ over refreshments provided by theCity of Hamilton. A great time was had bya l l !Thank you to Lois at the FieldcoteMuseum for setting up the venue for theevent, to the City of Hamilton forproviding the refreshments, to RudyFecteau for photodocumenting the event,and to Gary Warrick for the awardp r e s e n t a t i o n .Congratulations to the Howey family!September/ October 2013 Arch Notes 18 (5)

15By Peter Dav i sONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETYHURONIA CHAPTER:Saturday and Sunday, 17 and 18 of August 2013, were the‘Public Archaeology Days’, sponsored and hosted by theHuronia Chapter of the OAS. Nature smiled on us withtwo gorgeous days of sunand soft breezes (nothunder storms as weendured last year), andthe turnout wass p e c t a c u l a r, at least 25people on each day, withages ranging fromyoungsters to oldsters,each and every one beingavid to get going andmake great discoveries.The dig was held atthe Allen tract, in theSimcoe County Forestsof the Tay Peninsula,lying between Midlandand Penetanguishene.The task ahead of us wasto continue sifting thesoil of a midden whichhad been disturbed bypot-hunters, which wehad spent two days onlast year, to find whatthey had missed, and tobring the disturbed leveldown to untouched soil.The dig is under thelicence and aegis of Dr.Alicia Hawkins ofLaurentian University(Sudbury campus); alsoattending both days wereDrs. Bonnie Glencross( Waterloo Campus) andGary Warrick (BrantfordCampus) both of Wi l f r i dLaurier University; wewere also graced with the inspired and inspirational presence ofseveral happy youngsters – imagine their utter delight: an openinvitation to get dirty.And our hard work and dedication were rewarded: manyPUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY DAYBonnie Glencross and Gary Warrick at workbeads (both glass and shell), some copper material, severalchert sherds, and the ever present burned corn, fish andmammal bones. There were some anomalies: some .22 shellcasings (presumably not Ouendat or the books will have to berewritten) and a broken axe head (whether it is trade period ornot will have to bedetermined by much wiserminds, but it sure raised theblood pressures of several ofus).The beads were distinctiveand varied, ranging fromround shell or bone beads to al a rge, indigo coloured‘ f o o t b a l l ’ bead, tovaricoloured striped glass,tiny round red glass, longwhite and blue glass beads,and even a double round,fused, and striped bead ofdark indigo colour, verydistinctive and a neat find.Gary Warrick took a walkin the creekbed, upstreamfrom our dig, and came backwith a huge collar of a pot,about the size of the openpalm of one’s hand. Hereported more such sherds,too, but left them in situ.D r. Hawkins has given apreliminary date to this site,from the beads being foundthere, of Glass Bead Period 2,somewhere around 1600-1625 CE: it is, of course, acontact site, with the presenceof French trade materialbeing very evident.It is the intention of thechapter to continue theinvestigations next year, andit is fervently hoped that bothLaurentian and Wifrid LaurierUniversities will conduct field schools on this site and nearbysites in the years to come.All are invited to attend next year, and are encouraged to jointhe Ontario Archaeological Society. See you then.September/October 2013 Arch Notes 18 (5)

PO Box 62066Victoria Terrace Post OfficeToronto, Ontario M4A 2W1(416) 406-5959oasociety@ontarioarchaeology.on.cawww.ontarioarchaeology.on.caMembership(Canadian $. Second figure includes asubscription to Ontario Archaeology)Individual 36 / 48Family 40 / 52Student 25 / 34Institution / Corporate 62Life 800HamiltonPresident: Gary WarrickVice President: Jacqueline Fisherc h a p t e r Treasurer: Ruth MacdougallThe Heights Editor: Brad BandowE-mail: hamiltonOAS@hwcn.orgWeb: http://hamilton.ontarioarchaeology.on.caMail: c/o Dr. Gary Warrick, Laurier Brantford,73 George St. Brantford, ON N3T 2Y3Phone: (866) 243-7028Meetings: 3rd Thursday of the month, Sept. toMay, Fieldcote Museum, 64 Sulphur SpringsRoad, AncasterMembership: Individual $11, Family $18HuroniaPresident: John RaynorVice President: Jamie HunterSecretary: Marg RaynorTreasurer: Kristin ThorThe Pot Editor: Bill GibsonMail: P.O. is PO Box 638 Midland On L4R 4P4Meetings: 2nd Thursday of every month Sept. toMay at The Huronia Museum, 549 Little LakePark Rd., Midland, ONMembership: Individual $15, Family $18 ,Student $10c h a p t e rLondonc h a p t e rPresident: Nancy VanSasVice President: Darcy FallonTreasurer: Jim KeronSecretary: Chris DaltonDirector: Lindsay ForemanKEWA Editors: Christine Dodd, Chris Ellis&Arthur FiguraWeb: www.ssc.uwo.ca/assoc/oasMail: Museum of Ontario Archaeology, 1600Attawandaron Rd.,London, ON N6G 3M6Phone: (519) 473-1360 Fax (519) 473-1363Meetings: 8 pm on 2nd Thursday of the monthO n t a r i oA r c h a e o l o g i c a lS o c i e t yTheexcept May–August; at MOAMembership: Individual/Family $18, Student,$15, Institutional $21O t t a w ac h a p t e rInc.Arch Notes submissionsContributor deadlines:January 15March 15May 15July 15September 15November 15Send articles to:aneditor@ontarioarchaeology.on.caorArch Notes editorPO Box 62066Victoria Terrace Post OfficeToronto, Ontario M4A 2W1President: Glenna RobertsVice President: André MillerSecretary: Manuel Lapensée-PaquetteTreasurer: Bill MacLennanDirector of Public Archaeology: Paul T h i b a u d e a uDirector at large: Stacey Girling-Christie, KarenLochhead & Elizabeth ImrieOttawa Archaeologist Editor: Marion ClarkWeb master: Yvon RiendeauPeggi Armstrong Public Archaeology Aw a r d :Lois KingWeb: www. o t t a w a o a s . c aEmail address: contact@ottawaoas.caMail: PO Box 4939, Station E,Ottawa ON K1S 5J1Meetings: Every 2nd Thursday of the monthfrom Sept. to May; usually at RouthierCommunity Centre, 172 Guigues Street,Ottawa (in the Byward Market)Membership: Individual $20, Family $25,Student $12P e t e r b o r o u g hPresident: Tom MohrTreasurer: Harry JohnsonVice-President: Bill FoxSec: Dirk Ve r h u l s tDirectors: Julie Kapryka, Morgan Tamplin, PatAisling & Deb MohrMeetings: the fourth Tuesday of each month,Location: St.Paul’s ChurchMembership: Individual $12, Family $15,Student $8S t r a t a Editor: Dirk Ve r h u l s tWeb: peterborough.ontarioarchaeology.on.ca.c h a p t e rThunder BayPresident: Clarence Surettec h a p t e r Vice-President: Bill RossSecretary/Treasurer: Jennifer SuretteDirector: Jill Taylor-HollingsE-mail: clarence.surette@lakeheadu.cahttp://anthropology.lakeheadu.ca/?display=page&pageid=80Meetings: 7 pm on the last Friday of the monthin Room BB0017, Braun Building, LakeheadUniversityMembership: $5TorontoPresident: Marti LattaPast President: Janice TeichroebVice President:Penny YoungTreasurer: Jane SimserSecretary: Mima KapchesPROFILE Editor: Carole StimmellWeb: http:/toronto.ontarioarchaeology.on.caEmail: TorontoArchaeology@gmail.comMeetings: 7:30 pm on the 3rd Wednesdayof the month, except June–Augustin U of T Anthropology Building,Room 246, 19 Russell St.Membership: Individual $12, Family $14c h a p t e rWindsorPresident: Amanda BlackPast President: Katherine GrahamVice President: Rosemarie DenunzioSecretary: Barbara JohnsonTreasurer: Bob DragoWebsite/Newsletter Editor: Katherine GrahamWeb: http://sites.google.com/site/windsoroasContact: oaswindsor@gmail.comMembership: Individual $15, Family $20,Students $ 5c h a p t e r