Jonathan Micon - OAS Project Summary - Valerie Sonstenes Award           

This past May I was graciously funded by the Ontario Archaeological Society’s Valerie Sonstenes Award to support my dissertation research on fifteenth and sixteenth century Iroquoian-speaking populations in Grenville County in southeastern Ontario. These groups were located in a geopolitical borderland between the nascent Wendat (Huron) and Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) confederacies and Lower St. Lawrence Iroquoians in the pivotal years prior to direct European contact (Hart et al. 2017). My research relies on chronological, demographic, and material data to investigate how these borderland Iroquoians navigated their central position amid multiple overlapping social networks and the impact, if any, this intermediary position had on their subsequent dispersal from Grenville County, Ontario in the sixteenth century.

            At the center of my methods is a sub-regional chronology that will be developed using advanced AMS radiocarbon dating and Bayesian statistical techniques. This chronology will allow me to reconstruct the timing and tempo of interactions between Grenville County Iroquoian groups and their neighbors in south-central Ontario, central New York, and southern Quebec. It will also help me better understand the movement of people into and out of Grenville County, Ontario in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries during a complex period of heightened conflict and migration.

            Funds from the Valerie Sonstenes Award were used to help build this chronology by collecting three AMS radiocarbon dates on carbonized maize kernels from the Waupoos site (BaGg-1) located in Prince Edward County (PEC), Ontario directly west of Grenville County. All samples were processed through the radiocarbon dating laboratory at the UGA Center for Applied Isotopic Studies. Waupoos is part of a settlement cluster in PEC that includes the Lite (BbGi-1), Waupoos (BaGg-1), Hiller (AlGi-1), and Payne (AlGh-2) sites. James Pendergast, the archaeologist who excavated Waupoos and other PEC sites in the mid-twentieth century (Pendergast 1964), noted that sites in this cluster contained significant quantities of both Wendat and St. Lawrence-type materials and that the relationship between PEC sites and their neighbors was uncertain. There is now an ongoing debate among archaeological practitioners (Birch and Abel, personal communications 2018) regarding whether this mixture of cultural material reflects the migration of PEC groups into the Upper St. Lawrence Valley or vice-versa. Current age-estimates for one of the PEC sites - the Lite site - suggests that it pre-dates sites in Grenville County, however more data is needed to confirm this.

            The three dates retrieved from the Waupoos site produced a result different from that of the Lite site (these data are as yet unpublished). The age-estimates for Waupoos post-date those recovered from Lite and other sites in Grenville County. This suggests that the settlement cluster in PEC may be more complex than previously thought. As this research develops, it promises to yield news understandings about the position of Iroquoians in Prince Edward and Grenville Counties, particularly with respect to the  interregional networks connecting Ontario and St. Lawrence Iroquoian communities and the dispersal of Iroquoians from Grenville County in the sixteenth century.

 

             Future investigations will be directed toward acquiring dates from other PEC sites as well as those in other parts of southeastern Ontario to determine if the temporal trends observed at Lite and Waupoos continue to persist. Updated sub-regional chronologies for Waupoos and other PEC sites will feed into a new-NSF funded, regional AMS chronology being developed by my advisor, Dr. Jennifer Birch, and collaborators in Ontario and New York State, as well as a new sub-regional chronology developed by Dr. Timothy Abel for upper St. Lawrence Iroquoian sites located south of Grenville County, Ontario in Jefferson and St. Lawrence Counties, New York.

References

Hart, John P., Jennifer Birch, and Christian Gates St.-Pierre

2017    Effects of population dispersal on regional signaling networks: An example from northern Iroquoia. Science Advances, 3:e1700497                     

Pendergast, James F.

1964    The Waupoos Site.  Pennsylvania Archaeologist, 34(2):69-89.

Proposed Revisions to the Provincial Policy Statement (2014)

By Abbey Flower

The Ontario Archaeological Society has been called on to provide comment on proposed changes to the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). For those who may be unfamiliar with the PPS, this is an important document issued under the Planning Act R.S.O 1990 by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). The PPS applies across the province and provides guidance and direction on matters related to land use planning. The scope of the PPS is broad and some language applies to archaeology and Indigenous rights.

Several of the changes are very positive and should receive strong support, specifically those that strengthen the requirements for Indigenous Engagement early in the planning process. Other proposed changes need careful consideration and clarification.

A proposed change to the definition of areas of archaeological potential appears to remove language specific to permitting the use of municipal approaches to determining archaeological potential, such as Archaeological Management Plans. Instead the criteria for potential is determined solely at the provincial level through the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. This may limit a municipality’s ability to strengthen Archaeological Management Plans by including criteria that are fine-tuned to the contexts of their region.  

Perhaps most telling is how the proposed changes are summarized by the province. The goals of these changes place cultural heritage under the heading of “Reducing Barriers and Costs”, when it should instead fall under the goal of “Protecting the Environment”. Cultural Heritage and archaeological sites are not roadblocks to development. They are essential and irreplaceable parts of our environment that can attract and enhance economic growth. It is imperative that we continue to communicate the inherent, tangible and economic value of cultural heritage conservation.

In this we need your help! The OAS is encouraging, individual members and especially members of the public to comment through the ERO website. Express your support for the strengthening of Indigenous engagement. Give examples of how cultural heritage and archaeology has brought long-term value to communities and businesses. Are there cultural heritage sites where you take visitors from out of town? Do you know a business that has thrived by showcasing its history and archaeological findings? Help us show that it is not a barrier or frivolous cost, but that it should be viewed as an essential part of our environment, worthy of protection and conservation.

OAS will be providing formal comment on these proposed changes before the closing date, October 21, but the more voices that join the call, the better chance we have to be heard.

Please take a moment to provide your comment, and encourage your colleagues, local historical and heritage societies, and your friends and family to lend their voice.

We have summarized the proposed changes that pertain to archaeology below (changes in bold):

Current language	Proposed new language
1.2.2 Planning authorities are encouraged to coordinate planning matters with Aboriginal communities.	1.2.2 Planning authorities shall engage with Indigenous communities and coordinate on land use planning matters.
2.6 Cultural heritage and archaeology 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. 2.6.2 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources have been conserved. 2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. 2.6.4 Planning authorities should consider and promote archaeological management plans and cultural plans in conserving cultural heritage and archaeological resources. 2.6.5 Planning authorities shall consider the interests of Aboriginal communities in conserving cultural heritage and archaeological resources.	2.6 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. 2.6.2 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources have been conserved. 2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. 2.6.4 Planning authorities should consider and promote archaeological management plans and cultural plans in conserving cultural heritage and archaeological resources. 2.6.5 Planning authorities shall engage with Indigenous communities and consider their interests when identifying, protecting and managing cultural heritage and archaeological resources.
Archaeological resources: includes artifacts, archaeological sites, marine archaeological sites, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act. The identification and evaluation of such resources are based upon archaeological fieldwork undertaken in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. Areas of archaeological potential: means areas with the likelihood to contain archaeological resources. Methods to identify archaeological potential are established by the Province, but municipal approaches which achieve the same objectives may also be used. The Ontario Heritage Act requires archaeological potential to be confirmed through archaeological fieldwork.	Archaeological resources: includes artifacts, archaeological sites, marine archaeological sites, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act. The identification and evaluation of such resources are based upon archaeological fieldwork undertaken in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. Areas of archaeological potential: means areas with the likelihood to contain archaeological resources. Criteria to identify archaeological potential are established by the Province. The Ontario Heritage Act requires archaeological potential to be confirmed by a licensed archaeologist through archaeological assessment and/or fieldwork.

The comment period ends October 21 and comments can be made through the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO). The ERO is a platform open to the general public allowing anyone comment on actions the Province takes that could affect the environment, including cultural heritage.

https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-0279

For those members who want to see a comprehensive list of all of the proposed changes to the PPS, an unofficial blackline comparison can be found here:

https://www.osler.com/osler/media/Osler/Content/PDFs/2019-pps-blackline.pdf

Proposed revised Provincial Policy Statement:

https://prod-environmental-registry.s3.amazonaws.com/2019-07/EN_PPS%20Proposed%20Policies_July2019.pdf

Current Provincial Policy Statement (2014):

https://www.ontario.ca/document/provincial-policy-statement-2014

Welcome to the installment of our Connections and Pathways blog series. This time we’re interviewing Caitlin Coleman, an Ontario archaeologist  who works at ASI Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Services in Toronto! If you'd be willing to be interviewed for a future post, please contact Megan Anne Conger at megan.conger25@uga.edu. We'd love to hear from you!

1- First, thank you so much for participating in this! Please tell us your name, who you are, and how you’re involved in Ontario archaeology.

Thanks for asking me! My name is Caitlin Coleman, and I am the Assistant Manager of Communications and the Acting Lab Manager at ASI, the largest archaeological and cultural heritage consulting firm in Ontario.

2- Describe your own pathway to becoming involved in Ontario archaeology. How or why do you feel connected with Ontario’s past?

I did my undergrad in history and archaeology at McGill University, where I gained an interest in historical archeology and food history. I wanted my career to involve public outreach, so I next pursued a master’s of museum studies from the University of Toronto. After I graduated, I started working at ASI as a lab technician, and from there I was able to work my way up to assistant lab manager. In 2016 I took over the communications role, which I have really enjoyed! I now manage the internal and external communications at ASI, including our social media. 

Because of social media, I feel connected to the larger conversations that are taking place within the archaeological world about everything from exciting new discoveries to our shared challenges. I also feel connected to Ontario’s past because I am lucky enough to work in an archaeology lab where I get to see artifacts come in fresh from the field from historical and indigenous sites across the province!

3- The theme of this year’s OAS symposium is “Connections and Pathways through the Past”. The organizers have highlighted a number of interesting connections that warrant exploration— “between the past and present, regional centers, archaeologists and the public, archaeology and history, Canada and the United States”. Are any of these connections especially important to you? How?

The connection between archaeologists and the public is the one I consider most often, due to my communications role. There is a certain segment of the public that is deeply interested in all new archaeological projects and news. For example, we connect with a lot of OAS members on social media. I try to remember that as comfortable as it is to communicate primarily with our colleagues, as archaeologists it is our responsibility to disseminate the knowledge we have gained as widely as possible. Most Ontarians don’t realize that archaeology takes place in their province, and that is an audience we need to reach! Cultural memory can be pretty short, and we are in real danger of the public losing touch with the people and lifeways that were here before.

4- We’ve invited a lot of reflection on the past, but it’s hard not to consider the future of Ontario archaeology as well. Is there any one question about Ontario’s past you’d love to have answered in the future? Or any one theme you think needs more exploration?

In archaeology, we often get excited about new discoveries and new excavations, but there is so much still to learn from legacy collections! I would love to see a movement towards revisiting older collections, questioning some of the conclusions that we have come to in the past, and rethinking past sites in the context of newer discoveries. 

5- We’re ending every interview with a question provided by the last person we featured. Our last interviewee, Lisa Small, asked: “The archaeology of Ontario is an archaeology that considers diverse histories and retellings of the province’s multicultural past. That being said, how can archaeology in Ontario be used to promote and acknowledge these alternative understandings of the past that extend beyond normative narratives of Ontario’s history? “

I think that archaeology is essentially democratic. We learn about all types of people through our archaeological digs, whether rich or poor, well-established or recent immigrants. In a historical context, archaeology helps us fill in information about people who have fewer written records to trace their stories. I think that as archaeologists, we need to collaborate more with historians, museums, popular writers, and documentary film makers. Too often the diverse stories we uncover are placed into site reports or academic articles that are less accessible for people outside our discipline. Its so important that the stories we uncover get shared and spread wide!

6- Finally: What question do you want us to ask our next interviewee? It doesn’t have to be related to the theme of connections and pathways, but should be related to Ontario archaeology in some way.

I’m going to ask a fun one- what’s the craziest thing that has ever happened to you on site?

Thanks, Caitlin! Readers, if you liked this post and would be willing to be interviewed for a future entry, please contact Megan Anne Conger at megan.conger25@uga.edu. We'd love to hear from you!

After a bit of a hiatus, we have the second installment of our Connections and Pathways blog series! Our guest this time is Lisa Small, a graduate student at York University!

1- First, thank you so much for participating in this! Please tell us your name, who you are, and how you’re involved in Ontario archaeology.

My name is Lisa Small and I am currently a graduate student at York University pursuing the archaeology of the Canadian Underground Railroad.

2- Describe your own pathway to becoming involved in Ontario archaeology. How or why do you feel connected with Ontario’s past?

My pathway to becoming involved in Ontario archaeology stems from my general interest and connections to African Diasporic histories. While attending the University of Toronto I took a number of courses with professors at both the Mississauga and St. George Campus’ and was involved in the University’s field school. It was also my encounters with Karolyn Smardz-Frost, Dena Doroszenko of Ontario Heritage Trust and my working opportunity at Timmins Martelle that connected me directly to an underrepresented area of Canada’s/Ontario’s past that is of African Canadian Archaeology.

Why I feel connected to Ontario past? Next to Atlantic Canada, Ontario more specifically in the southwestern regions, places such as Chatham, Buxton, Dresden, Toronto, Oakville, Amherstburg, Hamilton and many others became the nuclei for the establishment of black settlements. This year’s themed event at the OAS symposium will be such an amazing opportunity for enthusiasts, researchers, archaeologists and the wider public to connect and contribute to a growing body of knowledge and heritage outside of dominate historical narratives.

3- The theme of this year’s OAS symposium is “Connections and Pathways through the Past”. The organizers have highlighted a number of interesting connections that warrant exploration— “between the past and present, regional centers, archaeologists and the public, archaeology and history, Canada and the United States”. Are any of these connections especially important to you? How?

All of these above connections are particularly important to me because they show how archaeological work is not just a singular dialectic between the past and present, archaeologists and the public, or Canada and U.S etc..., but rather archaeological work is very much entangled in multiple connectivity’s, intersectionalities, histories and contemporaries. Such themes teach us how important our work is in making archaeology relevant, engaging and accessible to diverse disciplines, publics and peoples.

4- We’ve invited a lot of reflection on the past, but it’s hard not to consider the future of Ontario archaeology as well. Is there any one question about Ontario’s past you’d love to have answered in the future? Or any one theme you think needs more exploration?

I would like to see explorations of how archaeology speak to themes of belonging, place-making and even pressings topics such as race, social justice, human rights and the politics of representation within the province. An anthropological look to understanding the changing relationships between people, spaces and objects can give valuable insights into what it means to be human in Ontario, furthermore Canada.

5- We’re ending every interview with a question provided by the last person we featured. Our last interviewee, Jon Micon, asked: “Who in Ontario archaeology has been a role model in your life and made a major contribution to the field and/or your own work?”

There are a number of people that have shaped my interests in becoming more involved in archaeology. Within the province of Ontario, individuals such as Karolyn Smardz-Frost has been a key figure in Ontario archaeology where she has taken African Canadian history a step further to contextualize the stories and memories of early Black settler life with the stories and memories behind the material remains and landscapes. Her use of public engagement and collaboration at the Lucy and Thornton Blackburn archaeological site in the early 1990’s was an approach that extended well beyond conventional ways of “doing” archaeology in the province at the time. It’s a method today that’s informing how new generations of archaeologists such as myself are mixing public archaeology with contemporary issues, social justice, human and cultural rights for marginalized and historical underrepresented communities. 

6- Finally: What question do you want us to ask our next interviewee? It doesn’t have to be related to the theme of connections and pathways, but should be related to Ontario archaeology in some way.

The archaeology of Ontario is an archaeology that considers diverse histories and retellings of the province’s multicultural past. That being said, how can archaeology in Ontario be used to promote and acknowledge these alternative understandings of the past that extend beyond normative narratives of Ontario’s history?

Thanks for taking the time to share with us, Lisa!

If you’d like to be featured in a future post, please contact Megan Anne Conger at megan.conger25@uga.edu. We'd love to hear from you.

This is the first in a series of blog posts we're running in the lead-up to this year's Ontario Archaeological Symposium. The theme of this year’s symposium is “Connections and Pathways through the Past”. We're going to be asking OAS members from all walks of life some questions around that theme to showcase the pathways they've taken and how they connect to Ontario's past. We’ve even found a fun way to connect each interview to the one that came before...

Our first guest is Jonathan Micon, a graduate student at the University of Georgia in the US.We're looking for OAS members with all backgrounds and kinds of experience to participate, so if you'd be willing to be interviewed for a future post, please contact Megan Anne Conger at megan.conger25@uga.edu. We'd love to hear from you!

First, thank you so much for participating in this! Please tell us your name, who you are, and how you’re involved in Ontario archaeology.

My name is Jonathan Micon. I am a graduate student at the University of Georgia entering my third year of study. My research deals with themes related to polity formation, mobility, and identity among Iroquoian-speaking groups. Specifically, I study sixteenth century dynamics in the upper St. Lawrence valley, located in southeastern Ontario. Though I have done archaeology in the U.S. for a few years now, I did not explicitly focus on Ontario archaeology until I started graduate school two years ago. Last summer was my first experience conducting fieldwork in Ontario.  

Describe your own pathway to becoming involved in Ontario archaeology. How or why do you feel connected with Ontario’s past?

My interest in Ontario archaeology developed not in Ontario, but rather near my childhood home in North-Central Indiana. During a visit to an eighteenth century French trading post, I was confronted by a display of artifacts – namely Jesuit rings, English flintlocks, and Iroquoian-styled pottery - that demonstrated the close relationship between the “Pays d’en Haute” (i.e. Midwestern United States) and the region of present-day Ontario. I became fascinated by the entangled history of these two regions and continually sought out more information. My interest in Lower Great Lakes history was further fueled by my family’s annual visits to relatives in Niagara Falls, New York where I would venture to nearby historic sites, such as Fort Niagara and Lundy’s Lane Battlefield. The history of the Great Lakes region is the history of where I grew up and the friends and family that I have made over the course of my life. It is this connection that makes me so passionate about Ontario archaeology and motivates me to share it with others.

The theme of this year’s OAS symposium is “Connections and Pathways through the Past”. The organizers have highlighted a number of interesting connections that warrant exploration— “between the past and present, regional centers, archaeologists and the public, archaeology and history, Canada and the United States”. Are any of these connections especially important to you? How?

In the previous question I touched on my interest in connecting Ontario and Midwestern archaeology, however another connection that I feel warrants attention is the relationship between archaeologists and the public. Archaeology demonstrates that many contemporary issues are not recent isolated phenomena, but rather a modern variation to recurring themes in society. It is for this reason that archaeologists can provide a unique perspective to important issues, such as migration, climate change, and inequality among others. Providing the public with more opportunities to access peer-reviewed archaeological knowledge and combating instances of pseudo-archaeology is an issue that I feel is crucial to archaeology today. A topic that goes along with this is ensuring that archaeology reaches younger audiences. I personally did not learn about archaeology (as a career at least… thank you Indiana Jones) until my second year of university. Exposing children to archaeology at a younger age is a crucial part of connecting archaeologists with the public and in my opinion should be pursued incessantly by archaeologists.

We’ve invited a lot of reflection on the past, but it’s hard not to consider the future of Ontario archaeology as well. Is there any one question about Ontario’s past you’d love to have answered in the future? Or any one theme you think needs more exploration?

Ontario archaeology has come a long way in working to collaborate with descendant communities and to confirm that our interpretations and claims are beneficial to all groups involved. Still, this relationship is far from perfect and there is much work that needs to be done. Ontario archaeologists need to continue to incorporate Indigenous perspectives and knowledge into all aspects of research in an on-going attempt to decolonize archaeology and recognize its utility in the efforts of descendant communities attempting to reclaim their own histories. Collaboration between descendant communities and archaeologists is not always easy and can be complicated by competing views and perspectives on the proper role of archaeology in today’s world. However, the only way forward is to continue to discuss these issues and to keep all avenues of communication open. I think that a greater focus on developing the relationship between archaeologists and descendant communities will ultimately prove beneficial for both groups.

Okay, so, I'm going to end every interview by asking the interviewee to come up with one interesting question, which the next person I interview will have to answer. It doesn’t have to be related to the theme of connections and pathways, but should be related to Ontario archaeology in some way. So, what one question would you like to ask the next person?

Who in Ontario archaeology has been a role model in your life and made a major contribution to the field and/or your own work?                                

Finally, to be fair, I’m going to ask you a question to get things started. What was the first archaeological dig you ever participated in in Ontario?

My first excavation in Ontario was last summer at a duel-component Wendat site located in Simcoe County, Ontario. This excavation was part of an archaeological field school put on by Dr. Alicia Hawkins at Laurentian University. I volunteered to acquire hands-on experience working in Ontario as well as to better familiarize myself with material culture from the region; I was not disappointed. This experience was challenging, informative, and just plain fun. During the excavation, I learned about various aspects of Ontario archaeology through regular museum visits and talks by various speakers representing CRM companies, academic institutions, and descendant communities. As with any field excavation, however, it was the friends and fellow archaeologists excavating alongside me that made the experience truly memorable. I look forward to excavating in Ontario more in the future and building the relationships and knowledge established during this experience.

Great! Thank you for sharing your experiences with us. If any readers are interested in being featured in a post like this, please email Megan Anne Conger at megan.conger25@uga.

I am sorry to report that our chapter's founding Treasurer and good friend Harry Johnson has passed away after an extended illness. Always known for his enthusiasm and good cheer, he will be missed. Our condolences go out to his wife, Carol, and his extended family. Details follow...

JOHNSON, Harry
Uxbridge Chapel

Peacefully at home with his family by his side, on Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at the age of 80. Beloved husband of Carol for over 58 years. Loving father of Diane, David (Alexandra) and foster dad to Ashley. Cherished Grampa of Kevin, Tyler and Casey. Harry was a dedicated volunteer in the community and was always willing to lend a hand to someone in need.

Funeral service will be held at the Low and Low Funeral Home, 23 Main Street South, Uxbridge (905-852-3073) on Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 10am with visitation for one hour prior. A reception will follow on the lower level.

As the work for the project winds down for the summer, the time has come for another blog post. This summer has been a very productive time for us and we were able to make a great start with the collection.

Personally, this has been a very rewarding project to be involved in. Being exposed to such an amazing and rich collection is really a dream come true for any archaeology student. My knowledge of Petun cultural artifacts has expanded immensely over the course of the summer.

One of my favourite things about archaeology is the exhilaration that occurs when you find something that no one has touched for hundreds of years. This project definitely evoked the same feelings in me. Whenever I would start on a new site, and open a new box, I had no idea what I would encounter and I would inevitably come across some really amazing artifacts.

For me the most interesting aspect of the collection is the evidence of localized production. Artifacts such as pre-form stone pipes, stone bead blanks, or a ceramic pipe stem with marks in the interior. For example, a pipe stem from the collection was broken in half at some point, and because of that we can see the impression of braided grass or twine which was used to form the stem. Aspects like this really let us visualize the way the pipe was made and even who had made it. 

The project is almost halfway completed and I am very happy that I was able to work on it for 6 weeks. We will also be posting some photos of interesting artifacts from the collection, so be sure to keep an eye out for those!

-Katie Anderson

From the Charles Garrad collection, which is currently being organized and examined by OAS summer student Katie Anderson. Other pieces from Charles' collection will soon be up on the OAS website, so stay tuned! 

This beautiful example of a human effigy pipe comes from the Connor-Rolling site, a contact era Tionontate (Petun) village from the‪ Collingwood‬ area. These types of pipes are called “pinch-face” pipes, and some scholars believe they represent shamans, or shamanistic power. The pipes are very standardized in their form and were made by Iroquoian speaking peoples across the Great Lakes region in the early 17th century.

The distinctive shape of the mouth has been interpreted by some as representing the practice of sucking or blowing that were a part of healing ceremonies; ceremonial sucking tubes are often found on sites from this era. The increase in shamanic pipes coincides with, and was perhaps caused by, the influx of disease and societal changes brought on by European contact.

(Thanks to Caitlin for the blurb and Katie for all your hard work this summer!) 

The Toronto Chapter hosted a wonderful barbeque for their members and the executive board of the OAS. It was held on July 19^th at the OAS head office, located at the Ashbridge Estate.

Forecasts warned those who were outside that the day would be extremely hot, with temperatures reaching a high of 30 degrees Celsius. Fortunately, the trees surrounding the estate provided everyone with full coverage from the heat along with a refreshing breeze to keep cool. 

(Centre, waving: Christine Caroppo, Past OAS President, Right, waving: Rob Macdonald, OAS President)

Tables were lined with various types of delicious food, ranging from salads to desserts and then to burgers and hot dogs! They were brought in by members and shared--eliciting hearty conversation and laughter. The OAS Executive Board also provided fruit and veggie trays to the event.

(Neil Gray, Chef Master, Toronto Chapter Executive)

Marti Latta gave a small tour, explaining the archaeological activity done on the property and the history of the location. A trench was dug towards the edge of the property and a well was discovered before it collapsed. According to historical documentation, the lake’s shore reached what is known to be the current Queen Street which borders one end of the property, providing some insight into the little boathouse located behind the Ashbridge family’s estate. Several members present at the event had participated in the excavation as well!

Overall, it was a successful social filled with great food and interesting talks. It wouldn’t have been possible without Sylvia Teaves, the Clarence family, and the Gray family for organizing the event and helping the day run smoothly. Thank you to Lorie Harris who applied for permission to have the event on the property. Thank you to Mary Kapches of Bosley Real Estate who acquired the rental of the BBQ. Lastly, thank you to everyone who came out to have a good time! I know the Toronto Chapter is looking forward to hosting the same event next year!

(Left: Chris Dalton, OAS Director of Chapter Services, Middle: Rob Macdonald, OAS President, Right: Abbey Flower, OAS Director of Member Services)

(Left: Margie Kenedy, OAS Director of Heritage Advocacy, Middle: Rob Macdonald, OAS President, Right: Lorie Harris, OAS Executive Director)

View our gallery for more pictures from the event.

 

 

 

 

 

My name is Katie Anderson and I am one of the two summer students working for the Ontario Archaeology Society this summer. I graduated this month from Wilfrid Laurier University with a bachelors degree in North American Archaeology. In the fall I will be attending the University of York in England taking a Masters in Historical Archaeology.

This summer my project is working on the Charles Garrad collection. This collection is made up of the assembled material that Garrad has excavated and collected over his career. The collection is made of Petun artifacts. The main goal of the project is to organize the collection, and the long-term goal is to transfer the collection to a museum, as the quality of the collections, and their significance to Ontario, is well-deserving of a permanent place that would benefit the pubic immensely. Garrad has been instrumental over the years in providing this material to researchers, and we want to help continue making these collections accessible, as there is much potential for future research.

The collections are in excellent condition with the provenience information intact. The main focus of the project is updating the material to reflect current archival standards, including the use of non-gassing polyethylene bags. We are going through each site and removing the artifacts from their current means of storage and then putting them into new bags. As we are going through the collections we are also separating out the unique and interesting artifacts and photographing them so we have a record of the material that is easily accessible.

I am really looking forward to carrying out this project this summer and can’t wait to see what else I will encounter and learn as I progress further into the collection.

-       Katie Anderson