Navigating ancestral landscapes in the Northern Iroquoian world

12 Pages·2015·1.05 MB·English

by  Jennifer Birch

JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology39(2015)139–150
ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa
Navigating ancestral landscapes in the Northern Iroquoian world
Jennifer Bircha,⇑, Ronald F. Williamsonb
aUniversityofGeorgia,UnitedStates
bArchaeologicalServicesInc.,Canada
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Articlehistory: Afterthetransitiontosettledvillagelifeca.AD1300,theNorthernIroquoianpeoplesofnortheastern
Received13January2015 NorthAmericarelocatedtheirsettlementseveryfewdecadesorless. Frequentvillagelocationmeant
Revisionreceived17March2015 that,afterlessthan100years,thelandscapetheyinhabitedwouldhavecontainedmoreabandonedthan
occupiedvillagesites.WedrawuponancestralWendatsiterelocationsequencesonthenorthshoreof
LakeOntario,Ontario,Canadatoexplorefactorsinfluencingvillagerelocationandhowthecontinued
Keywords: abandonment of village sites created ancestral landscapes that included sites of pilgrimage, resource
Iroquoian
extraction,andceremony.Ascommunitiesofthedead,abandonedvillagesandassociatedossuarieswere
Settlementpatterns
partofalargersetofspiritualresponsibilitiestomeaningfulplacesinthelandscape.Asancestralsites,
Mortuarypractices
theseplaceswerepartofongoingprocessesofemplacementthroughwhichWendatcommunitieslaid
Landscape
claimtopolitically-definedterritories.
(cid:2)2015ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.
1.Introduction acquisition, and how communities of the living were recursively
entangledwithcommunitiesofthedead.
Asanthropologists,weareprimarilyconcernedwiththesocial
dynamics of living human communities. Archaeologists likewise
2.Communitiesandlandscapes
tendtoconcernthemselvesprimarilywiththecreationofhistori-
calnarrativesinwhichthemainagentsarelivingpeoples.Inour
In archaeology, most understandings of community have a
reconstructions of settlement dynamics, we acknowledge the
socio-spatial basis (e.g., Flannery, 1976; Yaeger and Canuto,
temporality of settlement patterns, including processes of con-
2000).Asananthropologicalconstruct,theconceptofthecommu-
struction,occupation,aggregation,ormigration.Lessoftendowe
nityhaschangedlittlesincethetimeofLewisHenryMorgan.Itis
explicitly consider how actively occupied settlements relate to
generally taken to mean a group comprised of multiple nuclear
abandoned settlements and associated mortuary populations.
families that forms a basic unit of production characterized by
How might we seek to understand the relationships between
cohesiveness, solidarity, and self-identification (Bohannan, 2003
communities of the living and communities of the dead? In this
[1965]: xi; Morgan, 1965 [1881]). Positioned between domestic
paper, we wish to explore how processes of village construction,
householdsandsocietieswritlarge,thevillagecommunityisoften
inhabitation, and abandonment created ancestral landscapes in
the largest socio-political unit in non-state societies (Gerritsen,
whichemergentNorthernIroquoiantribalnationsandconfedera-
2004;WilliamsonandRobertson,1994).
cieswereculturallyemplaced.
Kolb and Snead (1997: 611) redefined the community as an
Webeginwithaconsiderationofhowconceptsofcommunity
archaeologicallydefinablespatialsettingfor‘‘humanactivitythat
and landscape may be mutually constitutive. We then provide a
incorporates social reproduction, subsistence production, and
brief introduction to the archaeology of the ancestral Wendat, a
self-identification.’’ Other perspectives on archaeological
fieldinwhichtheseideasresonate.Processesofvillagerelocation
communitiesacknowledgethattheydonotnecessarilyarticulate
areexplored,togetherwithaconsiderationofhowtheformation
neatly with the boundaries of archaeological sites (Isbell, 2000).
ofancestrallandscapesbecamesettingsforceremonyandresource
Rather than reify communities as building blocks or scalar units
in larger social systems, contemporary scholars have redefined
thecommunityconceptinthecontextofthephenomenatheyseek
⇑ tounderstand(e.g.,Birch,2013:6;Boulware,2011;MacSweeney,
Correspondingauthorat:DepartmentofAnthropology,UniversityofGeorgia,
250ABaldwinHall,JacksonStreet,Athens,GA30602-1619,UnitedStates. 2011). Acknowledging flexibility in the community concept per-
E-mailaddress:[email protected](J.Birch). mits the interrogation of multiple types of data and theory to
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2015.03.004
0278-4165/(cid:2)2015ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.
140 J.Birch,R.F.Williamson/JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology39(2015)139–150
explore relationships between settlement patterns, sociopolitical settlement patterns over time (Allen, 1996; Hasenstab, 1996;
andeconomicpractices,cooperationandcompetition,culturalpro- MacDonald, 2002) and influence choices about site relocation
duction,andsocialreproduction. (Jones and Wood, 2012). We acknowledge the value of this
In this paper,our conceptualization ofIroquoiancommunities approachanddonotviewecologicalandenvironmentalvariables
seesthemasdynamiclociforhabitationandassociatedactivities asmutuallyexclusiveofthesymbolic,ritual,orideologicalfactors
andactivefieldsforthenegotiationofsocialidentityandcollective basedfurtherupHawkes’(1954)ladderofinference,whicharethe
memory(seealsoBlitz,2012;Pauketat,2007:107).Thisdefinition focusofthispaper.
is flexible enough to include groups inhabiting individual settle-
ments,clusters ofaffiliatedsettlements, as wellas thelivingand 3.NorthernIroquoianpeoples
deceasedmembersofthosegroups.Anactivedefinitionofcommu-
nityrecognizesthatindividualsandgroupsnegotiatecommunity At the time of sustained European contact in the early 1600s,
membership and community-based identities through both rou- Northern Iroquoian speakers inhabited southern Ontario, south-
tinized and ritual practice. As discussed below, for the Wendat, western Quebec, New York State, and the Susquehanna Valley
burialincommunalossuarieswithcomingledremainswasaprac- (Fig. 1). They include the five nations of the Haudenosaunee
tice which materialized and reinforced community membership (Iroquois; Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, Mohawk) in the
andlinkedthosecommunitiestoparticularlociinthelandscape. Finger Lakes region and Hudson River Valley, the Neutral
Thelandscapeinwhichacommunityissituatedisanimportant Confederacy, who formed a broad band of villages spanning the
component of cultural identity. Spiritual and cultural values link north shore of Lake Erie and west end of Lake Ontario, the Erie,
people to particular ancestral landscapes and associativecultural occupyingterritorynearthesoutheasternshoreofLakeErie,and
landscapes(UNESCO,2005).Ancestrallandscapesarenotmutually the Wendat (Huron) and Tionontaté (Petun), who lived in settle-
exclusiveofculturallandscapes,thoughthetermmorespecifically mentsclusteredbelowGeorgianBayonLakeHuron.
links people and place through intangible ties established by Northern Iroquoian economies involved a primary reliance on
genealogy,heritage,andhistory(Kawharu,2009).Associativecul- horticulture with settlements often surrounded by hundreds of
turallandscapesaredefinedaslargeorsmallcontiguousornon- acres of maize fields, beyond which were expansive watershed-
contiguousareas, routes,or otherlinearlandscapes embedded in basedhuntingterritoriesnecessarytosecurenecessaryhides,fish,
a people’s spirituality, cultural tradition and practice (Australia plants, and other natural resources (Trigger, 1969).
ICOMOS,1995).Theimmediateaswellasthedistantpastisoften Anthropological constructions of Northern Iroquoian societies
invokedandreferencedintheinterestoflegitimatingorreinforc- include villages composed of matrilineal extended families inha-
ing group membership. Throughout pre-contact North America, biting bark-covered longhouses, often surrounded by defensive
communities and their leaders used monumental forms of archi- palisades. Archaeological remains dating back to AD 900 which
tecture such as Chacoan great houses (Van Dyke, 2004) or include Iroquoian cultural traits are thought to represent
Woodland and Mississippian earthen mounds (Milner, 2012) to Iroquoian-speaking peoples—though the relationship between
reinforce or legitimize community authority and group identity material culture, language, and ethnicity is far from clear, as is
through processes of emplacement (Cobb, 2005; Rodning, 2009). what constitutes early forms of longhouses, horticulture, or
Monumentsarefrequentlymobilizedinarchaeologicalnarratives demonstrably Iroquoian socio-political organization (e.g., Hart
that link people to meaningful places in the landscape (e.g., and Brumbach, 2003; Engelbrecht, 2003; Warrick, 2000).
ThompsonandPluckhahn,2012).Yet,thematerialityoftheland- Differentialhistoricaltrajectoriesdefinedthedevelopmentofvari-
scape includes also settlements (both occupied and abandoned), ous Northern Iroquoian communities and societies (Birch, 2015;
plants,animals,rivers,springs,andpeople(bothlivinganddead) Birch and Williamson, 2013a) and their relationships to adjacent
that are entangled (Hodder, 2011) or bundled (Pauketat, 2012) peoples (e.g., Bradley, 2007; Fox and Garrad, 2004), with whom
togetherinmeaningfulways.Sensesofbelongingarelinkedtorou- theysharedcertainculturalpractices.Thevariableenvironmental
tinizedpassagethroughmaterialsettings,includingbuildings,pal- context and physiography of each sub-region would have also
isades, fields, trails, and landscapes (Bourdieu, 1977; Joyce and resultedindifferentrelationshipstothelandscape.
Hendon, 2000; Tilley, 1994). These articulations serve to create This paper focuses on the Wendat, the northernmost of the
new contexts in which social relations and cultural schemas Iroquoians.Betweenca.AD1300and1600,theancestorsofthecon-
(Beck et al., 2007; Sewell, 2005) play out in meaningful ways. temporaryHuron-WendatNationinhabitedthenorthshoreofLake
Snead (2008: 18, 85) argues that culturally constructed percep- Ontario,theTrentValleyandthepeninsulabetweenLakeSimcoe
tionsofthelandscapecombinecomplexarraysofnaturalandcul- and Georgian Bay known as Wendake. Historically, their settle-
tural features into landscapes of ‘‘contextual experience,’’ where mentsclusteredinthelatterareahavingformedapoliticalalliance
history and action are tied to cultural concepts of identity, legit- knowntohistoriansastheHuronConfederacy.Itconsistedoffour
imacy, and a sense of place. As archaeologists, we can fruitfully allied nations: the Attignawantan (Bear), Attigneenongnahac
approachlandscapesasmeaningfullyconstitutedphenomenathat (Cord), Arendarhonon (Rock), and Tahontaenrat (Deer). The
help us to explain the relationships between people and place. ethnohistoric record of Wendake suggests that initial Wendat
Ideasaboutthemutuallyconstitutiverelationshipsbetweenpeo- alliance-building and confederacy formation occurred during
plesandlandscapeshavebeenmostfullyexploredinphenomeno- the mid-fifteenth century between the Attignawantan and
logical scholarship (Gosden, 1994; Thomas, 2008; Tilley, 1994, Attigneenongnahac, some 200years before the arrival of
2010). Though we do not take an explicitly phenomenological Europeans;bothgroupshadbeenresidentinWendakeforatleast
approachhere,werecognizethat,followingTilley(2010:31),land- 200years(Thwaites,1896–190116:227–229).Laterin-migrations
scapesarenotjustpassivestagesforhumanaction,‘‘theyalsodo to the confederacy were the Arendahronon, who moved into
things and have experiential effects in relations to persons.’’ At Wendake ca. 1590 from the Trent Valley, and the Tahontaenrat,
the same time, non-phenomenological approaches to landscape whojoinedca.1610fromthenorthshoreofLakeOntarioregion.
have also been highly influential in conceptualizing the relation- Thereisarichseventeenthcenturydocumentaryrecordofthe
ship between people and place. A number of landscape-oriented lives of the Wendat, the three principal sources of which are the
approaches to Northern Iroquoian archaeology have been rooted accounts of Samuel de Champlain, an experienced soldier and
inGeographicInformationSystems,culturalecology,andhowcli- explorer who recorded his observations of a winter spent with
matic, environmental, and social factors impact distributions of the Wendat in 1615–16 (Biggar, 1929); the account of Gabriel
J.Birch,R.F.Williamson/JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology39(2015)139–150 141
St. Lawrence Iroquoians
Nippising
Algonquin
Odawa
Lake Huron Wendat Abenaki
Tionontaté St. Lawrence/Jefferson County
Iroquoians
Ancestral Wendat
Lake Ontario
Ancestral Haudenosaunee
Neutral Mohawk
Oneida
Ancestral Neutral Onondaga Mahican
Wenro Seneca
Erie
Cayuga
Lake Erie
Susquehannock
Areas of precontact Iroquioan settlement,
ca. A.D. 1000 - 1550/1600
Locations of historically documented
Iroquoian nations and communities Susquehannock
Adjacent populations
0 60 120 180 240 km
Fig.1. LocationofNorthernIroquoianandadjacentsocieties.
Sagard,aRecolletfriar,whospentthewinterof1623–24withthe basecampsmayhavebeenutilizedforaslongasacentury(e.g.,
Wendat (Wrong, 1939); and the annual accounts of the Jesuit Fox,1986;Timmins,1997),after AD1300villagesiteswereonly
priests who lived among the Wendat from 1634 until 1650 occupiedforapproximately10–30yearsbeingrelocatedelsewhere
(Thwaites,1896–1901). (Warrick,1988).Explanationsforvillagerelocationgenerallyfocus
Aseriesofepidemicsbetween1633and1639resultedincatas- on depletion of arable land and firewood, although social and
trophicpopulationlossfortheWendat,ontheorderofsome60% political factors also influenced decisions to relocate (Birch and
(Warrick, 2003). In 1650–1651, the remaining Wendat were dis- Williamson, 2013a; Heidenreich, 1971; Trigger, 1976; see also
persed from their homeland in the context of sustained attacks Jones and Wood, 2012) New villages were usually constructed
from the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois). A few hundred Wendat within 5km of the previous site, often within the same drainage
migrated east and established a settlement at Lorette, outside of (e.g., Birch and Williamson, 2013a; Snow, 1995; Tuck, 1971),
Quebec City, some migrated west, eventually establishing them- although longer migrations also took place (Ramsden, 1990;
selvesintheupperMichiganpeninsula;otherswereincorporated Sutton,1996).
into nations of the Haudenosaunee confederacy, both as captives ProcessesofWendatvillagerelocationarecentraltothediscus-
andwillingmigrants(LaBelle,2013a;Trigger,1985). sion presented herein. Village relocations were anticipated and
Inthispaper,archaeologicalsites believedtohavebeenoccu- meticulouslyplanned.Eachindividualcouldexpecttoexperience
pied by groups whose descendants formed the confederacy and at least one such relocation within their lifetimes. These events
whichdatetoearlierthanca.AD1600arereferredtoasancestral wereprecededbyextensivediscussion,negotiation,andplanning,
Wendat.Sinceboththeirhistoric,seventeenth-centuryhomeland andoncethoseplanswereputintomotiontherelocationitselfwas
in Ontario and the town in Quebec where the contemporary bothalaboriouspracticeandanoccasionforhighceremony(e.g.,
Huron-WendatNationresidesarecalledWendake,toavoidconfu- Trigger, 1969: 17; Wrong, 1939: 93). Village relocations were
sion,werefertotheseventeenthcenturyWendathomelandashis- accompaniedbysocio-politicaltransformationswithincommuni-
toricWendake. ties. They offered groups the opportunity to recreate their built
environment and materialize social relations through changes in
4.‘‘Detachingfromplace’’andvillagerelocation the size and placement of households, as well as desires for, and
designs of, the overall community plan (e.g., Birch, 2012; Birch
The temporal resolution of the archaeological record of andWilliamson,2013a).
Iroquoianpeoplesisideallysuitedtoexploringchange overtime While,ontheonehand,somemightpointtoformervillagesites
within contiguous community groups. Although early Iroquoian asabandoned,wearguethatthesesitesandlandscapescanonlybe
142 J.Birch,R.F.Williamson/JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology39(2015)139–150
partially abandoned. For Northern Iroquoians, ‘‘detaching from discussionsofWendatsitesequencessee(Birch,2012;Birchand
place’’ (McAnany and St.-Hilaire, 2013) created ancestral land- Williamson,2013a:25–40;157–159).
scapes that included sites of pilgrimage, resource extraction, and The archaeological record of ancestral Wendat occupation on
religiouspractice.Ascommunitiesofthedead,abandonedvillages the north-west shore of Lake Ontario is unambiguous on two
andtheirassociatedossuarieswerepartofalargersetofcontinu- things:villagesiteswereneverre-occupiedandvillagerelocations
ingspiritualresponsibilitiestomeaningfulplacesinthelandscape. tookplaceinauniform,northwarddirection(Fig.2).Thegeneral
Betweenca.AD1300and1600,ancestralWendatsettlements patternofrelocationwastomoveoffthelakeshoresandplainat
evolved from small semi-sedentary bases around which maize theendofthefourteenthcenturyandontotheadjacenttillplain
wasgrowninsmallgardenplotsandfromwhichhouseholdmem- andthencontinuetomovenorthwardalongthedrainageswithout
bers journeyed regularly to harvest naturally occurring seasonal reversingtheirdirectionofsettlement.Bythelatethirteenthcen-
resources—tomuchlargerandmoresedentarycommunitieswhere tury,village relocationsseem tohave involved a search for more
the contribution of maize to the diet reached upwards of 50% productive agricultural soils, in the context of increasing pop-
(Birch and Williamson, 2013a: 25–44; Pfeiffer et al., 2014; ulationsandacontinuingrelianceonhorticulture,ascommunities
Katzenbergetal.,1995). relocatednorthoffoftheeasilycultivated,yetdrought-prone,soils
ThechronologicalplacementofancestralWendatarchaeologi- oftheLakeIroquoisPlain,andontothedrought-resistantloamsof
calsiteshasbeendeterminedonthebasisof(a)calibrated,radio- theSouthSlopesTillPlain(MacDonald,2002).
carbon dates (where available); (b) ceramic vessel seriation, in Over the next century, the expansion and movement of those
particular,thefrequenciesofIncisingandNotchingonvesselcol- communities appear to have been defined by the hydrographic
lars and decoration on the necks of ceramic vessels, the latter of structureoftheSouthSlopeswatersheds,whichgenerallyconsist
which virtually disappear by the early sixteenth century in ofroughlyparallelsouth-flowingstreamsthatemptyintoestuaries
south-central Ontario (Birch et al., in press; Birch and alongLakeOntario.MacDonald(2002:354)hasarguedupstream
Williamson, 2013a: 130); (c) the presence of various temporally migrationintothedendriticstreamsofthesewatershedsallowed
sensitiveceramicpipetypes(e.g.,coronettypes,whichonlyappear for increasing east–west separation of communities, at a time
atthebeginningofthefifteenthcenturyinanyappreciablenum- whenpopulationsandthereforeterritorialneedsforhuntingand
bersinsouth-centralOntario[BirchandWilliamson,2013a:140– agriculture were increasing. A continuing reliance on the rich
142]); (d) recovery and varieties of objects of European origin, resources of the various estuary environments, which is evident
none of which pre-date AD 1500; (e) the settlement pattern of in the faunal assemblages of fourteenth and fifteenth century
thesiteanditsplacementwithinthepre-coalescenttopost-coales- communities, may have promoted inter-community competition.
centcontinuum(Birch,2012;BirchandWilliamson,2013a);(f)the Whilecommunitiesstillneededtoaccessthoserichenvironments,
settlementsequencingwithinitsriverdrainageandinparticular, themiddleandupperreachesofthewatershedsprovidedaninex-
the number of post-coalescent sites present in a drainage before haustible supply of arable farmland. MacDonald argues that the
the community’s move north to join the Wendat confederacy continuingexploitationofthelowerreachesandestuarieswithin
around the end of the sixteenth century. For more detailed what were now ancestral landscapes stretched the community
Iroquoian village sites
Date of occupation (A.D.)
1000-1200
1200-1300 Known ossuary
1300-1350 Physiographic Regions
1350-1400
Oak Ridges Moraine
1400-1450
Lake Ontario 1450-1500 Peel Plain
1500-1500
South Slopes
1500-1550
0 5 10 15 20km 1550-1600 Iroquois Plain
Fig.2. LocationsofknownIroquoianvillagesitesandossuariesonthenorthwestshoreofLakeOntario.
J.Birch,R.F.Williamson/JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology39(2015)139–150 143
catchmentareasintoparallellinearpolygonsspreadingnorthward insouthernOntariopeaksinthemid-fifteenthcenturyanddecli-
and thereby limiting the east–west boundaries of community nesthereafter(Birch,2012;BirchandWilliamson, 2013a:82–83,
territoriestotheirwatersheds. 160–161; Williamson, 2007) before picking up again in the late-
Havingmovedontothesouthslopesregionbytheearlyfour- sixteenthcenturywhennationsoftheHaudenosauneebegantheir
teenthcentury,itiscuriousthatcommunitieschosenottorecycle campaigns against neighbouring Iroquoian peoples. While it is
southwardwithin those catchments. It is estimated thatfields in unclear which specific communities were engaged in hostilities
south-central Ontario regain full fertility after approximately withoneanotherduringthemid-fifteenthcentury,thereissome
60years.Bytheearlytomid-fifteenthcentury,thousandsofacres evidencethatconflictwasoccurringamongancestralWendatpop-
of old agricultural fields should have regained their fertility and ulations (Birch and Williamson, 2013a: 161–162; Dupras and
been covered in easy-to-clear early succession forest (Birch and Pratte, 1998; Engelbrecht, 2003: 115), as opposed to between
Williamson,2013a:99–101).Theremusthavebeensignificantrea- ancestral Wendat communities and those located farther afield.
sonsforpopulationsonthenorth-westshoreofLakeOntariotonot Indeed, the crystallization of tribal nations and alliance-building
re-useformeragriculturalfields.Perhapsthefactthattheywould among ancestral Wendat communities appears to have been dri-
havebeencoveredineasilyaccessiblebrowsefordeerprecluded ven,inpart,byprocessesofcoalescence,anddidnotprecedethem
their clearance for agriculture and contributed to their preserva- (Birch, 2015). If we assume that warfare was not a factor in the
tionashuntingterritories. directionalityofsettlementrelocationuntilthelate-sixteenthcen-
Inthemid-fifteenthandearlysixteenthcenturies,settlements tury,thenotherenvironmentalorculturalfactorsassumeamore
throughout Iroquoia became fewer in number and larger in size. prominentroleindeterminingpatternsofsiterelocation.
Among ancestral Wendat populations on the north shore of Lake Themostoft-citedexplanationsforsettlementrelocationisthe
Ontario and in the Trent Valley, there is ample evidence for the exhaustion of agricultural fields, vulnerability of women in ever-
coalescenceofmultiplesmallvillagecommunitiesintofourorfive moredistantfields, problemswithpestinfestations,and exhaus-
large settlements—a process the authors have explored in detail tionofresourcessuchasfirewoodintheimmediatevicinityofset-
elsewhere (Birch, 2012; Birch and Williamson, 2013a). These tlements(Heidenreich,1971:213–216;Wrong,1939:92–93).The
communitiesare,withoutexception,surroundedbymultiple-row firstEuropeanvisitorstotheregionintheearlyseventeenthcen-
palisades.Mostlatefifteenthcenturysitesalsocontaindirectevi- tury claimed that Wendat fields became exhausted after twelve
denceforviolentconflict,includingbutcheredandburnedhuman years at the most and usually after eight to ten years. A century
bone in middens—interpreted as evidence for trophy-taking and earlieronthenorthshore,villageswerelikelyoccupiedforatleast
prisoner sacrifice—and burials bearing signs of violent trauma twentyyears.Forlate-fifteenthandearlysixteenthcenturycoales-
(Williamson,2007).Sitesofthisperiodalsocontain70%ofthearti- centcommunities,contiguousfieldsystemswouldhaveextended
factsmadeofhumanboneinthesiterecordofIroquoia(Jenkins,in oneandahalftotwokilometersfromthevillageineverydirection
press).Thisincreaseinviolenceisthoughttohavebeendrivenin after twenty years (Birch and Williamson, 2013a: 99–100).
part by demographic growth (Warrick, 2008), social circumscrip- Declining availability of locally-gathered resources and the
tion(LeBlanc,2008),andpossiblyconflictoverhuntingterritories accumulationoforganicrefusewithincommunitiesmayhavealso
between local populations (Birch and Williamson, 2013a: 117– driven the desire to relocate (Birch and Williamson, 2013a: 98–
118). Whatever the cause, the deposition of scattered pieces of 101).ThesituationwasapparentlythesamefortheIroquoissouth
thebodiesofenemiesorartifactsmadeoftheirboneswithrefuse ofLakeOntario.AccordingtoWilliamFenton’s(1998:23)descrip-
suggestadifferentdeathwayfromthatofcemeteryorossuarybur- tion of Iroquois settlement relocation, the soil around a village
ial,oneinwhichthesoulattachedtotheboneshaddepartedasa would be exhausted and firewood would became scarce ‘‘about
resultoftheirpurposefulfragmentation.Theobjectswerewithout twice in a generation, although some towns persisted much
identityandrendereduselesstoboththelivinganddead(Jenkins, longer.’’ Jones and Wood’s (2012) analysis of factors influencing
inpress). settlement abandonment among Haudenosaunee suggested that
These large communities then underwent several subsequent population,asinferredfromsitesize,wasthesinglemostimpor-
villagerelocationsuntilthelatesixteenthand/orearlyseventeenth tant factor limiting village duration. The formation of very large,
centurywhenthenorthshoreofLakeOntarioandtheTrentValley densely populated settlements in the late fifteenthand sixteenth
wereabandoned—thatis,theywerenolongeraplacewhereper- centuries would have placed considerably more stress on local
manent village settlements were located. However, Champlain’s resourcesthandidearlierpopulations,resultinginmorefrequent
(Biggar, 1929) early seventeenth century accounts of travel villagerelocations.
throughandhuntinginthatregionsuggeststheyremainedessen- Social and political motivations would have also influenced
tiallyWendatplacesuntilatleastthe1620s.Theymayhave,how- community relocation (Heidenreich, 1971; Jones and Wood,
ever, been places to travel through with caution after the 2012; Warrick, 1988). Given the logistics involved, we might
Champlain period due to the threat of Iroquois attacks from the assume that the decision to relocate would have been made at
north shore. Early Europeans were well aware of the dangers in thecommunity level,by membersofa co-residential community
using theHumbercarryingplacebetweenLake Ontario and Lake as awhole.It isclear,however,that eachhouseholdor clan seg-
Simcoe duringthehistoric period.In describinghis journeyfrom mentwasnotboundtothatdecision,asvillagefissionandfusion
Quebec to Huronia, Father Brébeuf wrote in 1635: ‘‘It is true the arecommoninboththearchaeologicalandethnohistoricrecords
wayisshorterbytheLakeoftheHiroquois(Ontario);butthefear (e.g., Birch and Williamson, 2013a: 78; Fenton, 1998: 59;
ofenemies,andthefewconveniencestobemetwith,causethat Ramsden, 2009; Thwaites, 1896–1901: 8: 105). Planning and
route tobe unfrequented’’ (Thwaites,1896–1901,8: 75), a senti- operationalizingrelocationwouldhavethereforeoccurredatboth
mentalsoechoedinlaterRelations(16:227;33:65).Thefearof thecommunityandhouseholdlevels,andmayhaveinvolvedassis-
the Humber trail was presumably due to the potential presence tance from relations in other villages (Thwaites, 1896–1901: 8:
of Seneca while the Trent valley would have been unsafe due to 107). In some cases, the accumulation of midden deposits over
thepotentialpresenceofeasternHaudenosauneeraidingparties. abandonedhousesmakesitclearthatsomelonghousesmayhave
Itmightbearguedthattheconsistentnorthwardrelocationof beenabandoned anddeconstructedwhileotherscontinuedtobe
ancestral Wendat villages was related to threats—real or per- occupied (e.g., Finlayson, 1985; Ramsden, 2009), and that village
ceived—of conflict from Haudenosaunee communities south of fission may have not occurred in an amicable fashion (Ramsden,
LakeOntario.Aswehavediscussedelsewhere,evidenceforconflict 2009).
144 J.Birch,R.F.Williamson/JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology39(2015)139–150
InthecaseoftheDraperandMantlesites,twoofthemostcom- couldseenothing;towhichtheyrepliedthattheycould,andthat
pletelyexcavatedandstudiedcommunitiesinancestralWendake they could also hear and eat. Similarly, Champlain recorded
(Birch, 2012; Birch and Williamson, 2013a; Finlayson, 1985) we speeches,dances,andofferingsmadetowaterfallsandwhirlpools,
seethesocialandspatialtransformationofacommunitythought fromwhichitwasclearthatthesegesturesweremadetobeings
tohavebeeninhabitedbyapproximately1800people.Whenthis capable of hearing, seeing, receiving, and protecting (Biggar,
group cametogether at the aggregated Draper village(Finlayson, 1929:802;Johnson,2005:12).Recentscholarshiphasrecognized
1985),itconsistedofsixnewly-joinedyetspatiallyseparatedclus- thisperspective.ChrisWatts,forexample(2012),hasarguedthat
ters of houses; a village composed of smaller villages, perhaps zoomorphic effigy pipes were fashioned by people as persons
retaining distinct political and economic functions. Two genera- themselves with which relationships would be formed including
tionslater,thespatialarrangementofthecommunitywastrans- theinhabitingoftherepresentedanimal’sbodyinordertoassume
formed into a more cohesive layout, which we have interpreted itsviewpoint.
as materializing a socially integrated community identity and In the remainder of the paper we discuss how ongoing
organizationalstructure. perceptions of, and responsibilities to, ancestral village sites and
Theseeventswouldhavebeenlesscomplexpriortothemid-fif- mortuary populations underlay what might be construed as pri-
teenth century, when sites encompassed areas of approximately marily economic motivations and claims to ancestral landscapes
1ha and were occupied by 200–500 persons. Relocating a newly ashuntingterritoriesandareasforresourceextraction.
aggregated three-hectare villagewithapopulationof1500–2000
wouldhavebeenanenormousundertakinginvolvingskilledplan- 5.Ceremonyandvillagerelocation
ningandco-ordination—bothintermsofconstructionanddecon-
struction—and a degree of organizational complexity that has Villagelifewastiedtocontinuouscyclesofrenewal.Forexam-
perhaps not always been conferred upon Iroquoian peoples ple,theMidwinterCeremonialinvolvedtheextinguishmentofold
(Birch and Williamson, 2013b). The social complexities involved firesandtherekindlingofnewones(Tooker,1970).Theendofa
invillagerelocationwouldalsohaveincreasedconcomitantlywith village’s life would have meant the termination of such rituals.
greaternumbersofhouseholdsandsupra-householdunits,eachof There may have been a village-closing ceremony echoing similar
whichmayhavepursuedtheirowninterestscooperativelyorcom- themesofregeneration.Suchbeliefsarewidespreadintheeastern
petitively.The‘‘socialwork’’involvedinthemaintenanceoflarge, Woodlands,andechoed,forexample,intheburningandrenewal
co-residential communities may have been particularly laborious oftownhousesamongtheCherokee(Rodning,2009,2013).
during processes of relocation, when the chances of cleavage The most important event in the ceremonial calendar of the
mayhavebeenheightened. WendatwastheFeastoftheDead,heldatthetimeofvillagerelo-
While the direction of movement seems to have been cation.Whilewereallydonotknowhowitwasscheduledaspart
pre-determined—north-west along the major drainages—other of the abandonment process, it involved the reburial of most of
factorsconsideredinchoosingthelocationforanewvillagewould thosewhohaddiedduringavillage’stenure,theremainshaving
haveincludedsoiltypes,theproximityoftrailsystemsandnatu- beenoriginallyinterredelsewhereorstoredaboveground,inlong-
rally-occurring resources, the hinterland of other communities, houses or on scaffolds, and removed for inclusion in an ossuary
and culturally determinant factors such as dreams and omens (Seeman,2011;WilliamsonandSteiss,2003).
(Engelbrecht, 2003; see alsoJones and Wood, 2012). Recognizing Ossuaries are burial features which are typically 3–6m in
that the village they were leaving was a wealth of resources, diameter and approximately 2m deep (see Williamson and
scheduling decisions would have been made about scavenging Steiss, 2003: Table 3.1). Human remains, in various states of
barkaswellashouseandpalisadeposts. decomposition, were co-mingled in the ossuary. On the basis of
Among the Iroquois, removal was also a gradual process, one presentevidence,theearliesttrueossuariesappeartobethethree
towngoingupwhiletheotherwasdecaying,aprocesscommemo- eleventhtofourteenthcenturyfeaturesatSerpentMoundsonRice
rated in the place-name theme ‘‘New Town’’ and ‘‘Old Town’’ Lake, which combined, contained the remains of 69 individuals
(Fenton, 1998: 23). Indeed, the temporal scale of abandonment (Johnston,1979:92–93,97).Atthelatetwelfth-centuryMillersite,
would have to accommodate the land clearance for fields and to east of Toronto, a single feature containing the commingled
acquiretheresourcesrequiredforconstruction,evenwiththesal- remainsof13individualsmayhavebeenorientedtoanextended
vagingof20–30%oftheformervillage’sinfrastructure.Itwouldall family(Kenyon,1968:21–23).Thelatethirteenth-earlyfourteenth
havetobestagedwithadvanceconstructionparties,fieldplanning centuryMoatfieldossuarycontainedatleast87peopleandrepre-
and maintenance parties; and possibly involved part of the pop- sentstheearliestfirmlydocumentedancestralWendatcommunity
ulation staying at the old village until all of the fields had been single-event ossuary. These sites, in their different ways, fore-
harvested. shadowthedevelopmentsoffourteenthandfifteenthcenturyoss-
Therelocationofvillagesfromaregiondidnot,however,signal uaryburialthatculminateswiththeWendatFeastoftheDead.It
anendtotheirterritorialclaimtotheareasurroundingthatvillage seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that other basic aspects
anditsassociatedhinterland.Iroquoianpeople’sattachmenttothe oftheWendatmortuaryprogramandregardforsacredlandscapes
territoriesoccupiedbytheirancestorswassignificantnotjustfor weretakingshapeatthesametime.
economic reasons. The relationships between people and places Bytheearly14thcentury,thecreationofossuariessometimes
wereenmeshedinaculturalframeworkthatviewedthelandscape alsoinvolvedthedeceasedofmultiplealliedvillagesinajointbur-
as being alive with Manitous, spirits associated with particular ial ceremony such as those at Fairty and Tabor Hill (Williamson
landscapefeatures,and ancestors.AsTim Ingold(1993:154) has andSteiss,2003),althoughitisnoteworthythatsomesocialdis-
suggested, landscape is both qualitative and heterogeneous. tance may have been maintained on the basis of the presence of
Landscapesare experienced,andas suchtheyare constructedby multiplepitsforthedead.Insouth-centralOntario,theparticipat-
cultureasmuchastheyareproductsofnatureandecology.This ing villages appear to belong to the same networks that shared
was never more evident in the case of the Wendat then when drainage-based local territories and, in the next century, aggre-
Gabriel Sagard (Wrong, 1939: 186) relays a story of having been gated into large co-residential village communities (Birch, 2012).
prevented by members of a Wendat household from discarding The fourteenth-century Hutchinson site is located across a small
theskinofasquirrelintoafireforfearthatthefishnetsintheir creekfromtheStainesRoadossuary,whichcontainedtheremains
longhousewouldtellthefish.Startled,Sagardtoldthemthatnets of 302 individuals from two or more nearby communities
J.Birch,R.F.Williamson/JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology39(2015)139–150 145
(WilliamsonandSteiss,2003:102).Thesiteconsistsoftwolong- villages and planted their crops in the former clearings (cf. Hall,
houses and separate mortuary areas which led Robertson (2004) 1976:363;Trigger,1976:87;vonGernet,1994:42–45).Giventhis
to suggest that relations of one or more communities were pre- worldview, it is likely that the places chosen for ossuaries were
pared for the Feast of the Dead at Hutchinson(Robertson, 2004). onlydecideduponaftermuchdeliberationrootedinthecomplex
These would have been important events that served to cement symbolictraditionsofthesecommunities.
alliances and re-establish ties of real and fictive kinship (LaBelle, Thefactthatsomeossuariescontainedtheco-mingleddeadof
2013b;Trigger,1976:426–427). multiplecommunitiesmayhavemeantthatentiresectionsofthe
However,itmustbenotedthattheoft-citeddescriptionofthe landscapepopulatedbyactivesettlementsandossuariesmayhave
1636FeastoftheDeadatOssossanébyJeandeBrébeuftookplace beenperceivedcommonlyasbeinginhabitedbythelivingandthe
in extraordinary times. This event involved the co-mingling of spiritsoftheirancestors.
the remains of members of multiple communities from within In Wendat culture and among their close neighbours, the
the Attignawantan (Bear) Nation (LaBelle, 2013a,b; Thwaites, OdawaandotherAnishinaabeg,thereisacontinuousrelationship
1896–1902, 10: 279–285). This multi-community, possibly pan- betweenthelivingandthedead.Johnston(2005:6)hasnotedthat
confederacyFeastoccurredinthemidstofthesmallpoxepidemics it was ‘‘the obligation of the Living to ensure that their relatives
of1636–1640whichresultedinthecatastrophiclossofsome60% wereburiedinthepropermannerandintheproperplaceandto
of the Wendat population (Warrick, 2003). According to Warrick protectthemfromdisturbanceordesecration. Failuretoperform
(2003:266)‘‘[m]anyvillageswereabandonedafter1639because thisdutyharmsnotonlytheDeadbutalsotheLiving.’’TheDead,
theywerenolongerdemographicallyorpoliticallyviablecommu- shenoted(2005:6),needed‘‘tobeshelteredandfed,tobevisited
nities.’’ So, while traditional elements of the practice may have and feasted.’’ Gabriel Sagard similarly observed in 1623, that
remainedunchanged, this descriptionmust be understood in the Wendatwomenvisitedcemeteriestocarefullyattendtothesouls
context of depopulation,complexentanglements withEuropeans oftheirdeceasedrelativeswhomtheybelievedneededhelpfrom
and other Indigenous groups, and widespread disruption in the theliving(Wrong,1939:75).WhenBrébeufwitnessedaFeastof
Wendatworld. the Dead in 1636, he described a daughter of a prominent Chief
This final burial released the souls of the dead and allowed combingthehairofherdeceasedfather,handlinghisboneswith
themtotravelwestwardtothelandoftheancestors.Intheseven- affection and putting beside him his Atsatonewai or package of
teenthcentury,itwasbelievedthatthislandcontainedvillagesof Councilsticks,whichwerehisrecordsoftheCountry.Shesimilarly
souls,eachofwhichcorrespondedtoeachoftheNations,ormajor cared for her dead children, placing on their arms bracelets of
villages, of the Wendat (Trigger, 1976: 87). The ceremony in shell(wampum)andglassbeads.Inthisway,thebondsbetween
essenceaffirmedacommunityofthedead,sometimesnumbering the living and the dead were reinforced (Thwaites, 1896–1901,
asmanyasfivehundredindividuals(WilliamsonandSteiss,2003). 10:293).
Therelationshipbetweenindividualsandancestrallandscapes Sagardalsorecordedthattheburialhutsorshrinesovergraves
can be explained, in part, by reference to beliefs about the body, mightbesurroundedby‘‘ahedgeofstakes...outofhonourforthe
the soul, and the resting place of each. The Wendat called the deadandtoprotecttheburialhousefromdogsandwildanimals’’
bonesofthedeadAtisken.WhenBrébeufinquiredwhatthismeant (Wrong,1939:208).Deathandburialwereoccasionsforfeasting,
ofoneoftheWendat‘‘Captains:’’ and public lamentation and bereaved spouses were expected to
continue to follow a prescribed code of mourning behaviour for
Hegavemethebestexplanationhecould,andIgatheredfrom
some time in order to demonstrate their grief over their loss.
his conversation that many think we have two souls, both of
Women, in particular, would visit the cemetery frequently to
them being divisible and material, and yet both reasonable;
mourn at the graves and memorial feasts wereheld on a regular
theoneseparatesitselffromthebodyatdeath,yetremainsin
basis (Thwaites, 1896–1901: 10: 269–275). The Jesuit Paul
theCemeteryuntilthefeastoftheDead,-afterwhichiteither
LeJeune similarly described coming upon a band of Wendat who
changes into a Turtledove, or, according to the most common
werehavingafeastnearthegravesoftheirdeceasedrelatives,to
belief, it goes away at once to the village of souls. The other
whomtheygavethebestpartofthebanquetbythrowingfoodinto
is,asitwere,boundtothebody,andinforms,sotospeak,the
thefireandexplainedtheirbeliefthatthesoulsofthedeadhave
corpse;itremainsintheditchofthedeadafterthefeast,and
thesameneedsasthebodiesoftheliving(Thwaites,1896–1901
neverleavesit,unlesssomeonebearsitagainasachild.
8: 21–23). Erik Seeman (2011: 133–134) captures the essence of
[Thwaites,1986–1902,10:285]
these behaviours when he observes that bones in particular and
deathwaysmoregenerallywerecrucialelementsofWendatiden-
That an individual’s soul is tied to their corporeal remains is tity and that as they fled the mainland from Iroquois attacks in
essentialtounderstandingboththereverencewithwhichhuman 1649 for Gahendoe (Christian Island) during the final moments
remainsweretreatedafterdeathandtheabhorrenceofgravedis- ofthe dispersal, the Wendattooklittle more thanmemories, the
turbanceamongFirstNationstoday. most powerful of which were the cemeteries and ossuaries that
According to ethnohistoric records, the soul’s journey to the sanctifiedWendake’slandscape.
landofthedeadincludedpassagethroughamixtureofidentifiable Thatthedeadmustbeappropriatelyfeasted,storesconsumed,
landscapefeaturesandmythologicalfigures.Thejourneywasdan- and giftsgivenisa critical componentin understandinghow the
gerous. It involved passage by a 16m tall standing rock called creationofcommunitiesofthedeadcreatedsocialmemoryamong
Ekarenniondi, located near present-day Collingwood, Ontario, the living. The active participation of members of the relocating
where a spirit named Oscotarach (Pierce-head) would draw the community was critical in this process of social and territorial
brainsoutoftheheadsofthedead.Whilethisseemslikeagrue- emplacement. At the same time, invited visitors from other
some act, if the memories of the dead were not removed, they communities, some no doubt located on adjacent drainages, and
would be tempted to linger in the land of the living. Beyond perhapsvisitorsortradingpartnersfromafarwouldhaveextended
Ekarenniondi was a deep ravine into which souls might fall and collectivememoriesofemplacedancestorsandterritorialassocia-
be drowned. Because of the difficulties involved in reaching the tions. Furthermore, a successful feast of the dead, and those
land of the dead, the souls of children and of the very old who, responsible for its performance, could enhance the status of the
for one reason or another, were unable to make the journey to communityanditsprominentlineages.Receivinganinvitationto
the Land of the Dead were believed to remain in the abandoned a feastofthedeadin a neighbouringcommunitymayhavebeen
146 J.Birch,R.F.Williamson/JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology39(2015)139–150
a powerful alliance-buildingact, and one that was likely enacted forthemid-fifteenthcenturyKeffervillage(Finlaysonetal.,1987:
priortotheformationoftheconfederacy.Assuch,mortuaryrituals 14),theturnofthesixteenthcenturyMackenzie-Woodbridgevil-
mayhaveservedasvenuesforboththenegotiationofpoliticalalli- lage (Saunders, 1986), and the early sixteenth century Mantle
ancesandthemoresubtleestablishmentofterritorialclaims. cemetery(BirchandWilliamson,2013a).Giventhescaleofvillage
The belief that individuals were inhabited by multiple souls, excavationwithinthepasttwodecades,itwouldappearthatwhile
one of which rests with the remains of the deceased, is essential oneortwoindividualburialsmightbefoundontheperipheryof
to appreciating the responsibility to the ancestral landscapes in villages,theselargeprimarycemeterieswerenotlocatedimmedi-
which the dead are located. LeJeune, speaking of his experience ately adjacent to the settlement compound, but at a greater dis-
amongtheMontagnais,spokeofanoldmanwhosaidthathissoul tance, as the historical sources on the Wendat suggest. Gabriel
hadlefthimtwoorthreeyearsbefore,inordertobewithhisdead Sagard noted that the village cemetery was usually located ‘‘an
relativesandthatallthatwasleftwithinhimwasthesoulofhis harquebus-shot’’ from its village (Wrong, 1939: 75), which
ownbody—thesoulthatwouldgodownintothegravewithhim, Heidenreich(1971:149)suggestsadistanceof250–350m.Ifthis
which the Wendat called the Soul of their Nation (Thwaites, isindeedthecase,thenthesecemeteriesarealsolikelytoremain
1896–190116:191–3).Thisreferenceto‘‘theSouloftheNation’’ largelyinvisibleunlesstheyhappenedtoincludeanoccupational
canbeunderstoodasconnectedtoAnishinaabegandIroquoianori- component, as has been documented at the fourteenth-century
gin traditions and the belief that human remains return to the Hutchinsonsite,discussedabove(Robertson,2006).
earth with their essence intact, continuing the spiritual cycle of While dozens of village sites have been documented in York
birthandrebirth. (including Toronto) and Durham Regions, only 18 ossuaries have
beenidentifiedandthelevelofdocumentationfortheseishighly
6.Archaeologicalapproachestoossuaries variable.Whileitwouldbepossibletoexpandthesamplebycon-
sidering ossuary sites documented in other areas of southern
Ossuaries are essentially invisible in the modern landscape. Ontario,includingSimcoeCounty(Wendake),theyaresituatedin
Mostofthosethatareknowntoarchaeologistswerefirstdiscov- substantiallydifferentlandscapesandarenotlikelytoberelevant
ered as a result of land clearance in the nineteenth century. to this paper. The density of Late Woodland villages along the
Several modern discoveries of ossuaries have also been docu- north shore of Lake Ontario, however, strongly suggests that a
mented,mosttheaccidentalresultoflargescaleearth-movingor number of more as yet undetected ossuaries are present within
other construction activities, as occurred in the Moatfield soccer theregion.Unfortunately,thereareonlyasmallnumberofossuary
pitchin Toronto in 1997(Williamsonand Pfeiffer[eds.] 2003) or sitesforwhichwehaveinformationofsufficientdetailtobeofuse
during the widening of Teston Road in the City of Vaughan (ASI, in understanding their landscape settings. Precise locational and
2005). site setting information is generally lacking and there are fre-
Inanefforttounderstandthegeographicrelationshipsbetween quentlyuncertaintiesconcerningthedatesofspecificossuarysites
ossuaries and the villages with which they were associated, con- and/ortheidentityorlocationoftheirassociatedvillagesites.
sideration of the ancestral Wendat archaeological record for Indeed, of the eighteen confirmed ossuaries located in those
Durham and York regional municipalities (including Toronto) regions,onlynine,togetherwiththeirpotentiallyassociatedsettle-
was undertaken (ASI, 2012); the communities situated therein ments,canbemappedwithanydegreeofprecision.Noclearpat-
togetherformedacoreareainthedevelopmentofthepopulations terns of ossuary location relative to their presumably associated
that ultimately participated in the formation of Tahontaenrat settlements are immediately evident on the basis of this limited
(Deer) Nation within the historic Wendat Confederacy in Simcoe information (Table 1). In two instances, the ossuary is located
County. withinoronthelimitsofthevillage,acharacteristicoftheearly
Itshouldbenotedthatlike ossuaries, large primary,buttem- phaseinthedevelopmentoftheossuaryburialtradition,reflecting
porary,cemeteriesindirectassociationwithvillagesasdescribed the gradual transition from family to community burial cere-
in the seventeenth century French accounts do not seem to be monies.Twoothersarelocatedwithin200mfromtheirassociated
regularlyvisiblefeaturesofthearchaeologicalrecordofsouth-cen- villages while three others are located between 400 and 1000m
tralOntario.Theonlypublishedexamplesseemtobethosenoted from their presumed settlements. In the other two cases, known
Table1
Attributesofossuarylocation.
Ossuary Ossuarydate Distance Ossuary Associated Associated Distancefrom Directionfrom Elevationrelative
towater elevation settlement settlement associated associatedvillage toassociated
(m) (MASL) elevation(mASL) village(m) (m) village
Fairty(AlGt-3) 1350 200 177 Robb 168 1000 NNE Higher
Faraday 170 700 N Higher
TaborHill(AkGt-5) 1300 600 162 Thompson 165 1800 SE Lower
StainesRoad(AkGt-55) 1250–1300 30 158 Hutchinson 155 280 SSE Same
Archie 154 920 SW Higher
little2
Russell 152 1400 SE Higher
Moatfield(AkGu-65) 1275–1325 70 135 Moatfield 135 10 E Same
Testonossuary 1450 100 252 Testonsite 252.5 150 SSW Same
Kleinburg(AlGv-1) 1580–1610 370 210 Skandatut 219 870 W Lower
Keffer(AkGv-15) 1450–1500 110 162 Keffer 162 200 S Same
village
Garland(AlGs-13) 1450 100 180 – – – – –
Pearse(AlGs-29) 1300–1400 260 250 Pearse – – – –
Hoar 250 570 SE Same
Uxbridge(BbGs-3) 1450 470 292 Balthazar/ 275 400 SSW Higher
Harshaw
J.Birch,R.F.Williamson/JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology39(2015)139–150 147
villagesofasimilaragehavebeendocumentedmorethan1000m and innovative forms of agency (Pauketat, 2005: 205–208). John
distant,butothernearersettlementswerelikelyformerlypresent Blitz, writing about the Mississippian Southeast has noted that
given the early date and greater degree of urban development, suchinnovationcanbeahingepointthat‘‘punctuatesandalters
extensivelandscapemodification,andhydrographicalterationsin incremental practice’’ and facilitates ‘‘rapid makeovers of land-
their vicinities. Most of the ossuaries, where water resolution on scapetoremakememory’’(2010:16).Throughatleasttwodistinct
available mapping is accurate, are also within close proximity to processes of cultural transformation, ancestral Wendat pop-
awatersource. ulationsengaged,intentionallyornot,inaprocessofculture-mak-
Inafewcases,ossuariesarelocatedonhighergroundthantheir ing that created landscapes inhabited by the living and the dead
potentially associated settlement or settlements but are more whichdefined ancestral territories for spiritually-,economically-,
often located on terrain that is at roughly the same elevation. andpolitically-investedgroups.
More rarely, the ossuary is on markedly lower ground. In terms Theinitiationofthepracticeofossuaryburialbyacommunity
oftheirrelativeorientation,theonlyorientationnotencountered aroundtheturnofthefourteenthcenturymayhave,initially,been
isthatofanossuarylyingtothenorthwestofitsassociatedsettle- apracticethatintegratedpreviouslydistinctgroupsandservedto
ment.Giventhelimitedsample,however,thisshouldnotbecon- reinforcecommunity-basedidentitieswithinalandscapeofsimi-
sideredmeaningful. lar, autonomous groups (Williamson and Steiss, 2003). Over the
Whiletheconstraintsimposedbythelimitedsampleandgen- nextcentury-and-a-half,thecontinuedcreation ofossuariesnear
erallackofdataareconsiderable,areasonablelevelofconfidence abandoned village sites, and in some cases, the participation of
maybeachievedbythesuggestionthatanyossuarieswithinthe multiple communities in joint mortuary rites, extended and con-
northshoreofLakeOntarioregionaremostlikelytooccurwithin nectedsocialgroupstothelandscapestheyinhabited.Atthesame
1000mofdocumentedvillagesitesandwithin300mofanycur- time, continued village relocation in a north-westerly direction
rentorformerwatersource. expanded and demarcated ancestral territories along catchments
definedbythewatersheds.
Later,thecoalescenceofmultiplevillage-communitiesintolarge
7.Ancestrallandscapesandterritoriality aggregatedtownsandformativetribalnationsinthefifteenthand
sixteenthcenturiesonceagainpunctuatedtherelationshipbetween
Permanentsettlementinvillages,formalmechanismsforpoliti- regional groups and the landscapes they inhabited. When pre-
cal organization, ossuary burial, and the unwillingness to re-oc- viously distinct communities came together, their members
cupy village sites, all appear in the archaeological record of the broughtwiththemtiestotheirancestralplaces.Sharedconnections
ancestral Wendat around ca. AD 1300, at least along the north- tocontiguouslandscapeshelpedtounitenewly-formedco-residen-
west shore of Lake Ontario. This may be when some aspects of tialcommunitiesand,inturn,reinforcednew,communalidentities.
theconstellationofpracticesandbeliefsdescribedabovecameinto The formation of tribal nations and political confederacies trans-
beingduringtheprocessofIroquoianethnogenesis.AfterAD1300, formed ancestral landscapes, into politically charged, territorial
thecontinualestablishment,occupation,andabandonmentofset- claims.Thefactthatclaimedancestralterritorieswerenotactively
tlementsmarkedthelandscapewithtangiblereferentstothepres- occupieddoesnotprecludetheirbeingclaimedaspoliticalterrito-
enceofindividualsandcommunitieswho,bythesixteenthcentury ries and cultural landscapes in which social memory, economic
AD had coalesced, both physically and politically, into tribal rights,andgroupidentitieswereemplacedandnegotiated.
nations. AthesisadvancedbyKujit(2008)toexplainthemortuaryprac-
TherelationshipbetweenIroquoianpeoplesandthelandscapes tices of pre-pottery Neolithic farmers in the Levant may bear on
they inhabited is reflected in endonyms that reference the land- thisargument.Indiscussingtheplasteredskullsfoundindeposits
scape.Forexample,theArendarhonon(Rock,‘peopleattherock’) atsitessuchasJerhicoand‘AinGhazal,Kujit(2008:174)suggests
originatedintheTrentValley,alandscapemarkedbyoutcropsof that when skulls were retrieved from graves and plastered with
the southern Canadian Shield and Peterborough Drumlin Fields. life-likefeatures,theywerestillrememberedasknownornamed
The Ataronchronon, a group that does not appear to have been individualswhosepresenceorinfluencehadbeenexperiencedby
an independent member of the confederacy and were a division living communitymembers. However, after two to three genera-
of the Attignawantan (Trigger, 1976: 30), were named for (Bog; tions, the memories of these individuals became depersonalized
‘peopleoftheswamp,mud,orclay’)astheyoccupiedtheswampy andabstract.Ratherthanbeingconceptualizedasactualpersons,
cedar lowlands surrounding the Wye River; references to land- theybecamereferential,andassociatedwithhomogenized,collec-
scape features or natural resources are also common among the tive entities. This approach requires an explicitly historical,
Haudenosaunee (Hart and Engelbrecht, 2011: 335). Wendat is genealogical approach to the creation and re-creation of social
translated as meaning ‘‘dwellers on a peninsula’’ (Hodge, 1971 memory.
[1913], p. 24) or people of a drifting or floating island (Steckley, A framework which contrasts experiential versus referential
2007,pp.26–28).ThehistoricHuron-Wendat,occupyingthearea memory (Kujit, 2008; Hodder, 1990) allows us to move beyond
betweenLakeSimcoeandGeorgianBaysharedacommonhunting simple references to ancestors and develop a theoretical frame-
territorythatstretchedacrossthenorthshoreofLakeOntariofrom workabout how abandonedvillagesites, mortuarycommunities,
theTorontoareaeasttotheheadoftheSt.LawrenceRiver,encom- andtheirenclosingterritoriesbecamepartofthesocialmemories
passing the total area of precontact ancestral Wendat settlement andidentitiesoflatercommunities.Ifindividualstookpartinone
until the onset of Iroquois aggression in the early sixteenth cen- ortwovillagerelocationsandfeastsofthedeadwithintheirlife-
tury.Similarly,Tuck(1971:216)notedthatitismorethancoinci- times,theirexperientialmemorywouldhave extendedout toan
dencethattheareaofcentralNewYorkclaimedbytheOnondaga equivalentnumberofformervillagesites.
in historic times corresponds almost exactly with the combined FollowingSnead(2008:83),inthelatefifteenthcentury,asan
territoriesinhabitedbytheirancestors,extendingbacktoasearly individual left their village, travellingsouthtowards the shore of
asAD1000. LakeOntariotheywouldhavefirstencounteredextensivefieldsys-
Wesuggestthattheturnofthefourteenthcenturyinvolvedsig- tems,plantedinmaizeandperhapsbeansandsquash,followedby
nificant cultural innovation associated with the development of territoriesthatincludedformerfieldsystems,villagesofthefamil-
permanentvillage-basedcommunitieswhichincludedlong-stand- iar dead, which would have perhaps included kin to be grieved
ingbeliefsandtraditionsintheEasternWoodlandsaswellasrapid over and who still loomed large in experiential memory. These
148 J.Birch,R.F.Williamson/JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology39(2015)139–150
territoriesmayhavealsobeenlandscapesforresourceextraction, DavidRobertson,andJean-LucPilonforthoughtfulcommentson
thegatheringofplantsandfruits,andthehuntingofsmallmam- and discussions about the material contained herein. This manu-
mals and deer that came to browse in the succession forests of script was improved by helpful commentaries from Christopher
abandoned fields. Beyond those sites, along the north shore of Rodning and two anonymous reviewers. Our gratitude is further
Lake Ontario, would exist a landscape of referential memory, extended to the Huron-Wendat Nation of Wendake, Quebec;
including villages of the dead who were depersonalized, part of esk8arih8ateha,‘‘wewillcomeagaintoknowit.’’
an extended ancestral territory which referenced the community
or nation, as opposed to remembered individuals who could be
References
identifiedaskin.Duringtheprocessofnation-buildinginthelate
fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries (Birch, 2015), ancestral
Allen,KathleenM.S.,1996.Iroquoianlandscapes:people,environment,andtheGIS
landscapesmayhavebeenthoughtofaspoliticalterritorieswith context. In: Maschner, Herbert D.G. (Ed.), New Methods, Old Problems:
fluidboundaries,overlappingwiththeterritoriesusedandclaimed Geographic Information Systems in Modern Archaeological Research.
byothernations,throughwhichmentravelledtotradeandwage Occasional Paper No. 23. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern
IllinoisUniversityatCarbondale,pp.198–222.
war with enemies among the Haudenosaunee across the ‘great
ASI(ArchaeologicalServicesInc.),2005.ArchaeologicalInvestigationoftheTeston
water’ of Lake Ontario (Biggar, 1929). To the north, the cultural SiteOssuaryCityofVaughan,RegionalMunicipalityofYork,Ontario.Reporton
landscape may have been less defined by territorial claims, and File,CemeteriesRegistrarandArchaeologicalServicesInc.,Toronto.
ASI(ArchaeologicalServicesInc.),2012.OssuaryPotentialModel.InArchaeological
mayhavepresentedalandscapeintowhichexpansionwaspossi-
Management Plan for the Region of York, Technical Report, on File at York
ble, and into which groups eventually extended their territories Region,Newmarket,Ontario.
beforerelocatingnorthtojointheHuronconfederacy,afterwhich Australia ICOMOS, 1995. A report by Australia ICOMOS to the World Heritage
Committee.AsiaPacificRegionalWorkshoponAssociativeCulturalLandscapes,
timetheentirenorthlakeshoremayhavebeenperceivedasaland-
New South Wales, Australia, April 27–29. <http://whc.unesco.org/archive/
scape defined and claimed by the social memories of multiple cullan95.htm>(accessed17.11.14).
allied nations. By conceptualizing the historical development of BeckJr.,RobinA.,Bolender,DouglasJ.,Brown,JamesA.,Earle,TimothyK.,2007.
Eventful archaeology: the place of space in structural transformation. Curr.
Iroquoian cultural landscapes in this way, we can envision how
Anthropol.48(6),833–860.
processesofvillagerelocation,theintermentofthedead,andthe Biggar,HenryP.(Ed.),1929.TheWorksofSamueldeChamplain,6vols..Champlain
continuedpassagethroughthelandscapeservedtoemplacepeo- Society,Toronto.
plesandnationswithinit. Birch,Jennifer,2012.Coalescentcommunities:settlementaggregationandsocial
integrationinIroquoianOntario.Am.Antiq.77(4),646–670.
Birch,Jennifer,2013.Betweenvillagesandcities:settlementaggregationincross-
culturalperspective.In:Birch,Jennifer(Ed.),FromPrehistoricVillagestoCities:
8.Conclusions SettlementAggregationandCommunityTransformation.Routledge,NewYork,
pp.1–20.
Whatever the environmental and socio-political influences Birch,Jennifer,2015.CurrentresearchonthehistoricaldevelopmentofNorthern
Iroquoiansocieties.J.Archaeol.Res.23(3),PublishedonlineFeb.14,2015.
there were on relocation patterns along the north-west shore of Birch,Jennifer,Williamson,RonaldF.,2013a.TheMantleSite:AnArchaeological
LakeOntario,itisclearfromthearchaeologicalanddocumentary HistoryofanAncestralWendatCommunity.AltaMira,Lanham.
recordthattheWendatconsideredtheircemeteriesandossuaries Birch, Jennifer, Williamson, Ronald F., 2013b. Organizational complexity in
ancestral Wendat communities. In: Birch, Jennifer (Ed.), From Prehistoric
tobe‘‘living’’placesthatrequiredvisitationandmaintenance.Itis
Villages to Cities: Settlement Aggregation and Community Transformation.
likelythat,theyconsideredtheactualvillagesthathadbeenasso- Routledge,NewYork,pp.153–178.
ciatedwiththeseplacestoassumeanewstatusasvillagesofthe Birch,Jennifer,Wojtowicz,RobertB.,Pradzynski,Aleksandra,andPihlRobertH.in
press. Multi-scalar perspectives on Iroquoian ceramics: Aggregation and
deadandtreatedinawayconsistentwiththecemeteries.
interaction in precontact Ontario. In: Eric E. Jones, John L. Creese (Eds.),
The temporal, spatial, and cognitive distances between ProcessandMeaninginSpatialArchaeology:InvestigationsintoPre-Columbian
communitiesoftheliving,communitiesofthedead,andtheircon- IroquoianSpaceandPlace,UniversityPressofColorado,Boulder.
Blitz,John,2010.NewperspectivesinMississippianarchaeology.J.Archaeol.Res.
stituentparts,createdlandscapesofcontextualexperience(Snead,
18,1–39.
2008)inwhichindividualsandcommunitiessituatedthemselves Blitz,John,2012.Moundvilleinthemississippianworld.In:TimothyR.Pauketat
vis-à-visemplacedancestorsoftherecentandmoredistantpast, (Ed.),TheOxfordHandbookofNorthAmericanArchaeology.OxfordUniversity
Press,Oxford,pp.534–543.
andashiftingtapestryofallies,tradingpartners,andenemies.
Bohannan,Paul,1965.Introduction.In:Morgan,LewisH.(Ed.),HousesandHouse-
Inthisway,theWendatnegotiatedcomplexsocialandenviron- LifeoftheAmericanAborigines.UniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago,pp.v–xxi.
mentallandscapesbothwithinvillagecommunitiesandbetween Boulware, Tyler, 2011. Deconstructing the Cherokee Nation: Town, Region and
them, manifested archaeologically in sequences of village reloca- Nation among Eighteenth-Century Cherokees. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville.
tions. Within that landscape, with the practice of ossuary burial, Bourdieu,Pierre,1977.OutlineofaTheoryofPractice.CambridgeUniversityPress,
the living laid claim to those landscapes by emplacing the souls Cambridge.
of their ancestors within them. Together, this constitutes an Bradley,James,2007.BeforeAlbany:AnArchaeologyofNative-DutchRelationsin
theCapitalRegion1600–1664.NewYorkStateMuseum,TheNewYorkState
ongoing process of place-making which inscribed the identities
EducationDepartment,Albany.
of communities, nations and confederacies onto a landscape that Cobb, Charles R., 2005. Archaeology and the ‘‘Savage Slot’’: displacement and
was not,and has neverbeen,abandoned.Today, membersofthe emplacementinthepremodernworld.Am.Anthropol.107(4),563–574.
Dupras,ToshaL.,Pratte,DavidG.,1998.Craniometricstudyoftheparsonscrania
Huron-Wendat Nationareactivelyseekinga greaterroleindeci-
frommidden4/feature245.OntarioArchaeol.65(66),140–145.
sions about the management and investigation of their sacred Engelbrecht,William,2003.Iroquoia:TheDevelopmentofaNativeWorld.Syracuse
and ancestral sites. They are continuing the practices of their UniversityPress,Syracuse.
Fenton,WilliamN.,1998.TheGreatLawandtheLonghouse:APoliticalHistoryof
ancestorsindefininghowtheculturallandscapeisperceivedand
theIroquoisConfederacy.UniversityofOklahomaPress,Norman.
constructedbyboththelivingandthedead. Finlayson,WilliamD.,1985.The1975and1978RescueExcavationsattheDraper
Site: Introduction and Settlement Patterns. Mercury Series Archaeological
SurveyofCanadaPaper130.NationalMuseumofMan,Ottawa.
Acknowledgments Finlayson,WilliamD.,Smith,DavidG.,Spence,MichaelW.,Timmins,PeterA.,1987.
The1985SalvageExcavationsattheKeffersite:Alicensereport.Reportonfile.
TheOntarioMinistryofCulture,Toronto.
TheauthorswouldliketothankMaximeSt-HilaireandPatricia
Flannery, Kent V. (Ed.), 1976. The Early Mesoamerican Village. Academic Press,
McAnanyforinvitingustocontributetoasessionon‘‘Detaching NewYork.
from Place’’ at the 2013 Society for American Archaeology Fox, William A., 1986. The Elliott villages (AfHc-2); an introduction. Kewa 86,
11–17.
MeetingsinHonolulu,whereaversionofthispaperwaspresented.
Fox, William A., Garrad, Charles, 2004. Hurons in an Algonquian land. Ontario
We would also like to thank Peter Carruthers, Rob MacDonald, Archaeol.77(78),121–134.