BACKGROUND

The Archaic dates from about 10,000 to 2800 radiocarbon years ago and is subdivided into an Early (10,000-8000), Middle (8000-4500) and Late Archaic (4500-2800 B.P.) by archaeologists (Ellis et al. 1990b, 2007). It is distinguished from the preceding Paleoindian by changes in artifact styles such as the introduction of notched and markedly stemmed stone weapon tips and the appearance of some kinds of stone artifacts made by grinding and polishing rather than flaking, notably tools used in woodworking such as celts (ungrooved axes) and adzes. While focusing on Paleoindian research in the 1970s to 1990s I did carry out work on sites with Archaic components, particularly the Early Archaic but also did some work on Late Archaic occupations found "accidentally" when working on the Paleoindian sites (e.g. Deller and Ellis 1992; Ellis 1998; Ellis et al. 1990a; Ellis and Spence 1997; Muller 1989). However, over the last six years I have begun concerted efforts through a field testing programme, to locate undisturbed Late Archaic sites that fall in the period from 4000 to 2800 radiocarbon years ago (RCYBP).

The Late Archaic era is a fascinating period archaeologically. For example, it is at the beginning of this time period when we have begin to have evidence of widespread communication over large areas such that the forms of stone points seen in Ontario are matched in collections from other areas farther afield such as the Carolinas or the Mississippi River drainage. It is also an era in which actual cemeteries, or areas set aside solely for the purpose of interring the deceased, first become widespread, when grave goods and associated burial ritual become common, elaborated and in some cases, plentiful, and where there is direct evidence for non-utilitarian or valuables exchange networks in materials such as marine shell (Ellis et al. 1990b, 2004). There also seems to be a marked increase in the number of sites at this time, sites increase in size with actual middens or garbage dumps appearing, and significant technological changes occur including the introduction of the bow and arrow (e.g. Snarey 2000; Snarey and Ellis 2006) and at the end of the period, ceramics (Spence and Fox 1986). Together, all these changes suggest many major shifts in the lifestyles of First Nations groups including changes in subsistence practices, increasing territoriality, a greater degree of sedentism, increasing social complexity and status differentiation, and increasing populations -- changes that demand explanation.

Examples of Genesee Style Broad Points from southwestern Ontario, Croft Garnham Collection, University of Western Ontario.

The period of concern encompasses what are broadly referred to as the "Broadpoint" Archaic, which began about 4000 RCYBP and lasted until sometime just after 3500 RCYBP, and the Smallpoint Archaic of ca. 3500-2800 RCYBP (Ellis et al. 1990; Spence and Fox 1986). These are so named after their distinctive stone point forms (see pictures). Our knowledge of the lifestyles of these groups has been hampered by the fact few component have been excavated or reported in detail. Also, most knowledge to date of Late Archaic sites has come from markedly multi-component sites (e.g. with occupation at several times), which are most often in ploughed fields, and the few undisturbed components investigated are largely in littoral areas on major lakes such as Huron or Erie (W. Kenyon 1959; Ramsden 1976; Williamson and MacDonald 1997; Wright 1972), thus providing a biased or incomplete view of Late Archaic settlement and subsistence practices. The disturbed nature of most sites often make it difficult to sort out the material from different occupations as they have been mixed up by the site cultivation. These deeply ploughed sites also have been truncated, raising the distinct possibility that many cultural features such as storage pits and hearths have been completely destroyed or encompassed within the ploughed zone. These features are important because they represent a good short-term use context in which to find materials in dateable contexts (e.g. with charcoal and other organic remains) and associate different kinds of artifacts such as the different point forms with other tools. As short term events, these features also may have more functional integrity and allow more inferences as to artifact function and site activities. Also, in many areas sites in ploughed fields have been extensively collected off by relic hunters and we have no clear idea how these have affected lithic assemblage composition whereas this is obviously not a problem with regard to undisturbed sites. Finally, I also believe that unploughed sites, because the soils have not been aerated by cultivation, have a greater probability of having preserved faunal remains. Such materials are obviously essential in evaluating any models about the settlement and subsistence practices of these Late Archaic peoples.

Examples of Small Points (Crawford Knoll Style), University of Western Ontario Collections.

Given the above, I have been explicitly concerned in the last five years with finding undisturbed Archaic sites that have never been ploughed. Once located, such sites can then be tested to determine their potential for future, more extensive excavations. I began with testing in 2001 at a site called Edith Smith (AdHk-36) located beside the Thames River near Wardsville, Ontario but in my most recent research I have been focusing on an area, namely the lower Ausable River valley of southwestern Ontario, where previous research had suggested intensive Late Archaic occupation in non-littoral areas (e.g. Deller and Ellis 1992; Fisher 1987, 1997; I. Kenyon 1980a, 1980b), including the the presence of such undisturbed components (e.g. I. Kenyon 1980b). To date I have carried out test excavations at two sites in that area Green Hill (AgHk-39; Pearce and Ellis 2008) and George Davidson (AhHk-54; Ellis 2006). Work at the latter site was so successful that I will be carrying out extensive excavations at that site in 2008 and 2009. Details of my work at these and other sites with Archaic occupations can be found by clicking on the site links below.

References Cited

Deller, D. Brian and Christopher J.  Ellis (1992): Thedford II: A Paleo-Indian Site in the Ausable River Watershed of Southwestern Ontario. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan 24.

Ellis, Christopher J. (1998): The Pits (Part III) or Evidence from the Parkhill Site Pertaining to the Age of Late Archaic "Smallpoints". Kewa 98(7-8):18-24.

Ellis, Christopher J. (2006): A Preliminary Report on the 2006 Test Excavations at the Davidson Site: An Archaic ‘Broad Point’ Component. Kewa 06(7):1-16. Click here to view a PDF copy

Ellis, Christopher J., D. Brian Deller, Carl Murphy and Christine F. Dodd (1990a): The Pits, Part I: A Radiocarbon-Dated "Small Point" Late Archaic Feature from the Thedford II Site. Kewa 90(7):8-12.

Ellis, Christopher J., Ian T. Kenyon and Michael W. Spence (1990b):  The Archaic. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris, pp. 65-124. Occasional Publications, London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, No. 5.

Ellis, Christopher J. and Michael W. Spence (1997): Raw Material Variation and the Organization of "Smallpoint" Archaic Lithic Technologies in Southwestern Ontario. IN: Preceramic Southern Ontario, edited by Philip Woodley and Peter Ramsden, pp. 119-140. Occasional Papers in Northeastern Archaeology No. 9. Copetown Press, Hamilton, Ontario.

Ellis, Christopher J., Peter Timmins and Holly Martelle (2009): At the Crossroads and Periphery: The Archaic Archaeological Record of Southern Ontario. In Archaic Societies: Diversity and Complexity Across the Midcontinent, edited by Thomas E. Emerson, Andrew C. Fortier and Dale McElrath, pp. 787-839. State University of New York Press, Albany, in press.

Fisher, Jacqueline A. (1987):  Brodie and Parkhill: An Analysis of Two Late Archaic Broadpoint Samples from Southwestern Ontario. Kewa 87(8):3-21.

Fisher, Jacqueline A. (1997): The Adder Orchard Site (AgHk-16): Lithic Technology and Spatial Organization in the Broad Point Late Archaic. Occasional Publications of the London Chapter, OAS, No. 3.

Kenyon, Ian T. (1980a): The Satchell Complex in Ontario: A Perspective from the Ausable Valley. Ontario Archaeology 34:17‑43.

Kenyon, Ian T. (1980b): The George Davidson Site: An Archaic 'Broad Point' Component in Southwestern Ontario. Archaeology of Eastern North America 8:11‑28.

Kenyon, Ian T. and Kristy Snarey (2002):  The Crawford Knoll Site. Kewa 02(1):1-19.

Kenyon, Walter (1959):  The Inverhuron Site. Royal Ontario Museum, Art and Archaeology Division, Occasional Paper 1.

Muller, Joseph E. (1989): A "Smallpoint" Archaic Component at the Welke-Tonkonoh Site, Ontario. Kewa 89(3):3-22.

Pearce Sherri and Christopher J. Ellis (2008): Area C of the Green Hill Site (AgHk-39): A Small Point Archaic Component. Kewa 08(3-4):1-21.

Ramsden, Peter G. (1976):  Rocky Ridge: A Stratified Archaic Site Near Inverhuron, Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation, Historical Planning and Research Branch, Research Report 7.

Snarey, Kristen (2000): The Adoption of the Bow and Arrow in Southwestern Ontario: A View from the Smallpoint Archaic. M.A. Thesis, Dept of Anthropology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.

Snarey, Kristen and Christopher J. Ellis (2006): Evidence for Bow and Arrow Use in the Smallpoint Late Archaic of Southwestern Ontario. To appear in Papers in Honor of Michael Spence, edited by Neal Ferris, Peter Timmins, Christine D. White and Chris J. Ellis. Joint publication of Museum of Ontario Archaeology and London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society.

Spence, Michael W. and William A. Fox (1986):  The Early Woodland Occupations of Southern Ontario. In Early Woodland Archaeology, edited by K. B. Farnsworth and T. E. Emerson, pp. 4-46. Center for American Archaeology Press, Kampsville, Illinois, Seminar in Archaeology 2.

Williamson, Ronald F. and Robert I. MacDonald (editors) (1997): In the Shadow of the Bridge, The Archaeology of the Peace Bridge Site (AfGr-9), 1994-1996 Investigations. Occasional Publications of Archaeological Services Inc., Volume 1. Toronto, Ontario.

Wright, James. V. (1972):  The Knechtel I Site, Bruce County, Ontario. National Museum of Canada, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mercury Series Paper No. 4.