«By James R. Keron Graduate Program in Anthropology Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Faculty of ...»
1996 Mapping Middleport: A Case Study in Societal Archaeology. Research Report No 25, London Museum of Archaeology, London, Ontario.
1985a Salvage Archaeology in London: The 1983-1984 C.O.E.D. Program and the Magrath, Willcock and Pond Mills Sites. Manuscript on file at the London Museum of Archaeology.
1985b A Preliminary Report on the 1980 Archaeological Survey of the Catfish Creek Drainage, East Elgin County, Ontario. Museum of Indian Archaeology Research Report 11, London, Ontario.
1998 The Replicability and Validity of a Lithic Debitage Typology: Implications for Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 63: 635-650.
Prentiss, W.C. and E.J. Romanski 1988 Experimental Evaluation of Sullivan and Rozen=s Debitage Typology. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by D.S. Amick and R.P.
Maudlin pp 89-99. BAR International Series No 528. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, U.K.
2003 Middle Woodland Fishing Methods at the Bluewater Bridge South Site (AfHo-7). Unpublished M.A. Thesis in preparation, Dept. of Anthropology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario Ramsden, C., R. Williamson, S. Thomas and T. Hanley 1998 Chapter Five: Artefact Analysis. In The Myers Road Site: Archaeology of the Early to Middle Iroquoian Transition, edited by R. Williamson, pp 133-192. Occasional Publications of the Ontario Archaeological Society,
London Chapter, No. 7, London, Ontario.Reid, P.
1986 Models for Prehistoric Exchange in the Middle Great Lakes_ Basin.
Ontario Archaeology 46: 33-44.
1977 Alternative Models for Exchange and Spatial Distribution. In Exchange Systems in Prehistory, edited by T.K.Earle and J.E.Ericson, pp 71-90.
Academic Press, New York.
Renfrew, C., J.E. Dixon and J.R. Cann 1968 Further Analysis of Near Eastern Obsidians. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 9: 319-331.
1952 The Huron and Lalonde Occupations of Ontario. American Antiquity 18:
1961 The Archaeology of the Neutral Indians. Etobicoke Historical Society, Port Credit.
1971 The Typology and Nomenclature of New York State Projectile Points. New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin Number 384. Albany.
1972 Forest Regions of Canada. Canadian Forest Service Special Publication 1300.
1965 On the Sociology of Primitive Exchange" In The Relevance of Models for Social Anthropology, edited by M. Banton, pp39-236 ASA Monographs 1.
Sandford B.V. and A.J. Baer 1971 Map 1335 Southern Ontario, Ont. - Que. - U.S.A. Sheet 30S Geological Survey of Canada, Dept. of Mines Energy and Resources, Ottawa.
1999 Were AUtilized Flakes@ Utilized? An Issue of Lithic Classification in Ontario Archaeology. Ontario Archaeology 68: 63-73.
1994 Size and Form in the Analysis of Flake Debris: Review and Recent Approaches. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 69-110.
Sidrys, R 1977 Mass-Distance Measures for the Maya Obsidian Trade. In Exchange Systems in Prehistory, edited by T.K. Earle and J.E. Ericson, pp 91-108.
Academic Press New York.
1983 An Analytic Approach to the Seriation of Iroquoian Pottery. Museum of Indian Arcahaeology, Research Report 12. London, Ontario.
1994 Mortuary Programmes of the Early Ontario Iroquoians. Ontario Archaeology 58: 6-20.
Stokes, W.L., S. Judson and M.D. Picard 1978 Introduction to Geology: Physical and Historical. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs N.J.
1987 Probing the Sources of Lithic Assemblage Variability: A Regional Case Study Near the Homolovi Ruins, Arizona. North American Archaeology, 8: 41-71.
Sullivan, AP. and K.C. Rozen 1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 50: 755-779.
Taylor, P. J.
1975 Distance Decay Models in Spatial Interactions. Concepts and Techniques in Modern Geography Series No 2. University of East Anglia U.K.
Telford, P.G. and A.P. Hamblin 1980 Paleozoic Geology of the Simcoe Area, Southern Ontario. O.G.S Preliminary Map P.2234.
1983 The Final Report of the City of London Archaeological Survey (License Number 82-49). License Report on file at the Ministry of Culture, Toronto.
1997 The Calvert Site: An Interpretive Framework for the Early Iroquoian Village. Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper 156.
Canadian Museum of Civilization, Ottawa.
1989 Differentiating Lithic Reduction Techniques: An Experimental Approach.
In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by D.S. Amick and R.P.
Maudlin, pp 137- 161. BAR International Series No 528. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.
1991 An Ethnography of the Huron Indians 1615-1649. Syracuse University Press. Syracuse, New York.
1986 Production and Exchange of Stone Tools: Prehistoric Obsidian in the Aegean. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
1989a Time, Energy and Stone Tools. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
1989b Retooling, Towards a Behaviourial Theory of Stone Tools. In Time, Energy and Stone Tools, edited by R. Torrence, pp 57-66. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
1969 The Huron: Farmers of the North. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
1987 The Children of Aataentsic: A History of the Huron People to 1660.
McGill-Queens University Press, Kingston and Montreal, Canada.
1971 Onondaga Iroquois Prehistory: A Study in Settlement Archaeology.
Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, New York.
2000: The Precontact Iroquoian Occupation of Southern Ontario.
Journal of World Prehistory 14(4):415-466.
1963 Analytical Description of the Chipped-Stone Industry from the Snyders Site, Calhoun County, Illinois. In Miscellaneous Studies in Typology and Classification, edited A.M. White, L.R. Binford, and M.L. Papworth, pp 1-70. Anthropological Papers Ni 19, Museum of Anthropology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
1982 Beyond Willow Smoke and Dog’s Tails: A Comment on Binford_s Analysis of Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems. American Antiquity 47(1) : 171-178.
1985 Glen Meyer: People in Transition. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec.
1986 The Mill Stream Cluster: The Other Side of the Coin. In Studies In South-western Ontario Archaeology, edited by W. A. Fox, pp 25-31.
Occasional Publications of the London Chapter, OAS, London Ontario.
1990 The Early Iroquoian Period of Southern Ontario. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D 1650, edited by C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp 291-320. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society 5. London, Ontario.
Williamson, R.F. and D.A. Robertson 1994 Peer Polities Beyond the Periphery: Early and Middle Iroquoian Regional Interaction. Ontario Archaeology 58: 27-44.
1939 Lawson Prehistoric Village Site, Middlesex County, Ontario. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin 94 Ottawa.
Wonnacott, T.H. and R.J. Wonnacott 1990 Introductory Statistics for Business and Economics. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
1966 The Ontario Iroquois Tradition, National Museum of Canada Bulletin
210. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.
1990 Archaeology of Southern Ontario: A Critique. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp 493-503. Occasional Publications of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society 5. London, Ontario.
1992 The Conquest Theory of the Ontario Iroquois Tradition: A Reassessment.
Ontario Archaeology 54: 3-15.
1978 Excavations at the Glen Meyer Reid. Ontario Archaeology 29: 25-32 1986 The Uren Site AfHd-3: An Analysis and Reappraisal of the Uren Substage Type Site. Monographs in Ontario Archaeology 2, Ontario Archaeological Society.
Appendix A: Site Inventory
Comments Problematic Representativeness - This is applied where ever the sample was obtained by only partial excavation of the site since the entire site must be covered to ensure that the sample is representative.
Published KP% Only The collection was not analyzed as part of this study. The only fact taken from the report was the % of Kettle Point chert in the debitage. This percent was then adjusted so that unidentified chert did not count towards the total percentage.
Surface Collection or CSP The sample is a complete collection of the surface of the site and so representative. However, some samples are small and this is noted.
Note 1: While the sample from Skinner is an excavation from a single midden, it is the only midden on the site and the size has been determined to be similar to that observed for cabins elsewhere.
Note 2: The sample from Norton is from a transect that cuts across the village hitting most houses at right angle. It may still be problematic but is much more likely to be representative than an excavation from a small locus within the site.
Note 3: A randomly selected subset of the debitage was analyzed in this analysis.
Appendix B: Spatial Analysis with GIS This appendix provides the detailed description of how the intra-site spatial analysis was done using a Geographic Information System (GIS), MFWorks, by Keigan Systems of London, Ontario. The mathematics used and the GIS scripts are included. This discussion assumes some knowledge of MFWorks. There are basically three steps to this analysis.
1. Create a GIS map that divides up the site under consideration into a series of areas to be analyzed. Ideally, the areas so defined should represent units that reflect the cultural use of the space by the inhabitants, for example, longhouses or middens.
2. The flake data must be imported into the GIS creating one map for each type being analyzed. For example, for chert type analysis four maps would be imported, one for each of Kettle Point chert, Onondaga chert, local till chert and AOther@ chert.
3. Finally the maps from the above two steps are used to calculate the differences by area and the statistical significance of the differences.
1. Assignment of Village Space The ideal situation for conducting internal spatial analysis would be where we are dealing with fully excavated sites with complete settlement pattern data. Unfortunately, there is only one fully excavated village site in the London area, the Calvert Site (Timmins 1997).
While there are several fully excavated agricultural cabin sites, these are not suitable for the purpose of determining intra-village differential access to chert sources since they usually consist of one or two long houses with an associated midden. Furthermore, these sites would be best interpreted as being occupied by a single lineage. Partial excavations, such as the two midden samples from Harrietsville that initiated this investigation, can be indicative of internal patterning but only tell a partial story and are highly dependent on the areas actually excavated. The only other source of data, then, are the controlled surface pick-ups (CSP) of village sites. While a CSP fails to identify the internal house structure, it defines the site boundaries and can generally define the midden areas. The middens can generally be related to nearby longhouses and consequently to the occupants of those houses. Thus, the midden areas, at least, could be used to define discrete spatial units. The areas between the middens are more problematic with the difficulty coming from not knowing the house orientation. However, if the analysis is restricted to the middens much other information located in the non-midden areas of the site would be discarded. Thus, we are faced with the problem of assigning space within the village but not knowing the underlying settlement patterns.
One possible technique for assigning spatial categories to non-midden areas would be to assign the non-midden area within the site boundary to the nearest midden.
With this assignment, various categories of artefacts could then be analyzed using this division of the village as the spatial control. This procedure involves carving up the internal village space and assigning it to the nearest midden by constructing a Voronoi network (Chrisman 1997: 152 ) around the middens with the MFworks operation _Fence_. Another term for this carving up of space is Theisen polygons (see Hodder and Orton  for another archaeological use of this technique). The script that creates these areas follows.
Briefly, this script breaks all the area within the village into a number of subareas. Each midden is a sub-area and all of the interior space within the village is assigned to the nearest midden giving twice as many sub-areas as there are middens.
The script requires two input maps, NumberedMiddens and SiteMask. The first map shows only the midden locations and was created from a map that plots all artefacts recovered with the CSP by tracing out the midden areas. Everything inside the midden boundaries is numbered preferably with the assigned midden numbers (e.g. Midden 1 etc.) and everything else is Avoid@. The second map defines the site boundary and has a value of _1_ outside the village and Avoid@ inside. This map was created by tracing the site boundary as was evident in the original CSP. The result of this process is a map labeled CulturalAreas, and it defines the divisions used in this analysis. This map is used as input to the internal spatial analysis.