«By James R. Keron Graduate Program in Anthropology Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Faculty of ...»
The second issue relevant to this study concerns Wright=s (1966) chronology that has been challenged with respect to the absolute dating of the various sequences. Over the years there have been numerous attempts to adjust the chronological scheme. Early on, this involved an attempt to push back the dates on the Pickering sequence sometimes as early as AD 700 (e.g. Kapches 1982). These were largely discredited by Fox (1980c) who noted that if you looked at the dates as given and ignored the rejection by the authors as being Atoo late@, the dates largely fell within Wright=s A.D. 1000-1300 original time scale. Other jiggling with the dates involves tinkering with the boundaries and making minor adjustments (see Dodd et al. 1990 and Williamson 1990). More recently, William Finlayson (1998) has proposed significant date changes based on varved sediments in Crawford Lake and the village sequences identified in that area. Briefly in the Crawford Lake area, he puts the Uren substage at A.D. 1330-1420 and the Middleport substage at A.D. 1420 to 1504, thus elongating the Middle Ontario Iroquoian Stage considerably.
This major shift in timing has been challenged by Warrick (2000) who noted the difficulty in matching corn pollen to specific sites as well as the fact that it contradicts most of the radio-carbon dates that have accumulated. In the London area, an elongated Middleport substage would make sense since there seem to be more Middleport villages than Neutral villages. But there are not many Uren villages known, so increasing the duration of this substage from 50 - 90 years would not seem to accord with the data. In any event, again as the boundaries used here are the traditional cultural historical boundaries of Ontario Iroquoian Tradition rather than the more preferable absolute dating, this study will largely be impervious to shifts in the dating of these time periods.
The Site Sample Initial recognition that there were a number of Iroquoian sites in the London
region dates back to Wintemberg who added a foot note to his Lawson site report (1939:
2) stating that The Lawson site is one of several sites of the same culture in London Township (one on lot 17 and another on lot 18 con. IV, one on lot 26, con. III, one on the Norton farm on Pipeline road, and another at the corner of Edward and Tecumseh Sts., London) as well as Westminster township (on Park=s lot and McArthur farm London South), on the Thomas farm near Lambeth, on the E. Hodgetts farm north of Talbot road, on the Nixon farm near Pond Mills (Lot 18, con. I), and on Lot 33, con. B, known as the Bogue farm.
In subsequent research and Cultural Resource Management (CRM) work that will not be summarized here (see Pearce 1996 for an overview), a significant number of Iroquoian sites were located and identified. In the course of work on his PhD dissertation, Robert Pearce, traced the developmental sequence of a number of sites north and west of London in a manner not unlike that employed by Tuck (1971) for the Onondaga in New York State. The main focus of his thesis was that three Glen Meyer clusters, Byron, Caradoc and Arkona had coalesced and relocated to the Oxbow Creek area and that this community through time evolved through the Middleport sequence on Oxbow Creek and gradually moved east to the Lawson site. He also looked into the adjoining areas and identified several other clusters in the region that he interpreted as communities beyond the immediate focus of his thesis. These are the Dingman Creek community, the Whittaker Lake community, both within the present study area, and the Catfish Creek community and the Talbot Creek community to the south of it in Elgin County (see Figure 3 for communities and sites).
As the validity of this identification is tentative, for the purposes of this study, links between and within the various communities will be considered only after examining the lithic evidence. While the base unit for this study will be the individual site, the evident existence of localized geographic clusters of sites is readily observable and the assumption that at least the sites of the same cluster form a community sequence through time is not unreasonable. The main problem in substantiating a sequence from early to late is that the movement from the Glen Meyer branch clusters with their associated Uren substage sites to the Middleport substage sites is problematic in the absence of a great deal of comparative data. An alternative developmental sequence was proposed by the author (Keron 1986) where the integrity of the Dingman community was questioned on the basis of lithic evidence. Based on these differences, Pearce=s Dingman community was divided in two producing the Pond Mills community in the east and the Lambeth community in the west. It was proposed that only the Caradoc and Arkona Glen Meyer clusters coalesced into the Middleport sites on the Oxbow and then relocated through time to the Lawson Site. The Glen Meyer cluster in Byron remained autonomous much longer, evolving through Middleport sites such as Norton into the Neutral sites in the Lambeth area. In the east, one or more Glen Meyer groups in the Dorchester area coalesced to form the large Uren substage village, Dorchester (AfHg-24), and thence commenced a series of westward movements through Nilestown to the Brian Site near Pond Mills. The Whittaker Lake sites were derived not from the Dorchester area but through movement from Glen Meyer sites to the south on Catfish Creek or from the east on the Norfolk sand plain. Fox (1976:172) notes the movement out of the Norfolk sand plain at the Middleport Substage.
During the Early Ontario Iroquoian Stage, three distinct clusters of Glen Meyer sites have been identified. All three of these are located on the Caradoc sand plain. The Dorchester cluster is the easternmost and is found on the London Annex of the Caradoc sand plain in the area near Dorchester south of the Thames River and north of the Ingersoll moraine. Samples exist for three sites in the area. One site, the Calvert site (AfHg-1) has been excavated and intensively analyzed by Timmins (1997). Another nearby is the Mustos site (AfHg-2) which has had a controlled surface pick up performed (Keron 1986). The third site is a large Uren substage site: the Dorchester Village Site (Keron 2000a, 2000b). Several other sites are known to exist but none of these have been documented and no artefactual collections exist for these sites.
The Byron cluster is located in southwest London on a series of sandy knolls that are part of the Caradoc sand plain. These sites are largely known through CRM work that was carried out as the City of London expanded into the area. While large and well documented collections exist, they are very large, being the results of rescue excavation.
Thus, the collections had to be sampled for purposes of this study. Sites included here are the Ski Club (AfHi-78), the Preying Mantis site (AfHi-178), McGrath (AfHi-62) and several Middle Ontario Iroquoian sites including Willcock (AfHi-52) and Sosad (AfHiand TGIF/Crop Circle site (AfHi-198) which Pearce (personal communication 2002) considers to be a single village site.
Further west in Caradoc Township is the Caradoc cluster which was the subject of a regional study (Williamson 1985) that provided a number of well-documented collections from various Glen Meyer sites. Oddly, while the other two clusters terminate temporally with Uren substage sites, this is not the case with this cluster, although the probability of an undiscovered or destroyed site is very high. Sites included in this analysis are MiV18 (AfHj-19), Roeland (AfHj-14), and Caradoc -13 (AfHj-26) that Williamson (1985) interprets as villages, and Kelly (AfHi-20), Caradoc-3 (AfHj-105), Komoka-3 (AfHi-31) and Melbourne-7 (AfHj-17) that are interpreted as cabin sites as defined by Finlayson and Pearce (1989).
The later clusters include both Middleport substage sites and Neutral sites. In general, after the Uren substage in the London area there is a very clear and well documented movement from the sandy soils of the Caradoc sand plain to the clay soils located in the Mount Elgin ridges and the Stratford till plain. In the farthest southeast of the study area is the Whittaker Lake cluster, located such that it straddles the top of the Westminster moraine in the area south of Dorchester, Ontario. This cluster includes both Middleport and prehistoric Neutral sites. The Messenger site is a large Middleport site located just north of Whittaker Lake. While there is a large analyzed (Smith 1983) ceramic sample from the site, there are very few lithic artefacts. This cluster developed through time in an as yet uncertain sequence up to the Harrietsville site (Keron 1986) or possibly the Pine Tree site (AfHf-4). Samples included here are from Pine Tree, Harrietsville, Gravel Pit (AfHf-7) and Dyjack (AfHf-5). These sites have all been identified as village sites, excepting Dyjack that is most likely a cabin site.
In the Dingman Creek drainage south of the Thames River in the Mount Elgin Ridges, Pearce (1996) has identified the Dingman community. Following previous work (Keron 1986), this community will be treated as two separate communities as they are spatially distinct. The Pond Mills cluster is found in the area south of the Thames River and east of the developed area of London. Most of the sites are in the immediate vicinity of Pond Mills where there is at least one large village site, Brian (AfHh-10), and several other sites that are most likely cabin sites which are also included in this study: the Skinner site (AfHg-13), the Bradley Ave. site (AfHh-160) and Pond Mills (AfHh-2). The Laidlaw site (AfHh-1) is included and has frequently been identified as a village site but this remains as yet unproven. Further to the east are two cabin sites: the Lone Duck site (AfHg-37) and the Paraducks site (AfHg-38). These sites are most likely associated with a now destroyed village site on the Thames River north of Nilestown (Keron 1986).
The Lambeth cluster is located further east and north of the village of Lambeth.
Most of the sites are located on minor tributaries of Dingman Creek that flow from the Ingersoll moraine south into Dingman Creek. Two village sites, Thomas Powerline (AfHh-3) and Pincombe (AfHh-27), have been identified here but neither has had anything more than a controlled surface pick up done to document it. Several cabin sites near the Pincombe site have been excavated through contract work. The Cassandra site (AfHh-65), included in the analysis, was originally interpreted as a cabin site but subsequent investigations and a CSP revealed three middens over a one hectare area so the possibility that it is a small village or hamlet can not be ruled out. Only detailed excavation to examine the settlement patterns will decide its classification. Two cabin sites, Mathew William (AfHh-66) and Marna (AfHh-69) are included. The final site, the Norton site (AfHh-86), is a Middleport village site but it is spatially somewhat distinct from the rest of the Lambeth cluster being located north of Commissioners Rd. and south of the Thames River. This site is one of those referred to by Wintemberg (1939) quoted above. As noted in the same quote there are at least two other sites which were located in nearby areas of the city which have now been developed. These sites could conceivably form a cluster distinct from Lambeth but are herein lumped with that group for descriptive purposes.
The final cluster of sites considered here is Pearce=s (1996) London community.
This cluster is generally accepted to be the movement of a single community that starts with the Middleport substage sites on Oxbow Creek and moves through a series of village movements through time to the Lawson Site (AgHh-1). Site samples included in the current study include Edwards (AfHi-23), Drumholm (AfHi-22) and Alway (AfHi-2) on the western end of the sequence. In the central part of the sequence are the Sackrider (AfHh-320) and Sifton (AfHh-85) sites. The Lawson site (AgHh-1) is the last village in the sequence. Also in the vicinity of the Lawson site are a large number of agricultural cabin sites which are interpreted as belonging to the Lawson site but some of which could be associated with earlier sites in the sequence.
Chapter 3: Research Design This chapter documents the research design used in this study which is loosely based on Clark (1982). This methodology provides a structured process for developing and executing a research project. The starting point for this methodology is what Clark (1982) termed a set of Abehaviourial hypotheses@. These hypotheses are drawn from general anthropological knowledge and problem and area specific background research. The next stage in the design process is to identify and define a set of implications of the behaviourial hypotheses that can be operationalized and tested against the data. In the case of the current study, there are two primary sources for these hypotheses. First, is a methodological or possibly theoretical orientation termed AOrganization of Technology@ and second, a body of work developed around distance decay processes and their relationship to inter-group exchange. A short review of each of these areas follows.
Organization of technology is best described as an approach that relates strategies for organizing technology to environmental and social variables that influence them. In the past, lithic analysis was primarily focused on reduction techniques and definition of types which were reflective of function based on morphological characteristics and time period based on stylistic patterns. The articulation of such materials with the overall cultural sphere was ignored or minimized. More recently, analysts following Binford (e.g. 1979) have developed a body of theory known as technological organization (e.g. Torrence 1989a; Carr 1994). As defined by Nelson (1991: 57), organization of technology studies focus on the selection and integration of strategies for making, using, transporting, and discarding tools and the materials needed for their manufacture and maintenance. Studies of technological organization consider the economic and social variables that influence those strategies.
This focus provides a methodological vehicle to move beyond typological studies on artefact form and function by considering these in a larger context where form and design are seen as the result of technological strategies that implement social and economic strategies within an environmental context.