LAKE ONTARIO MARITIME CULTURAL LANDSCAPE PROJECT

Institute of Nautical Archaeology Sponsored Project
Ben Ford, Principal Investigator

In process, expect updates Fall 2007.

Social, political, and physical environments determined how people arranged themselves on the landscape, what natural resources they pursued, and when these activities took place. The archaeological record contains evidence of these decisions, and by recording and analyzing archaeological sites over a large area, it is possible to understand the mindset and priorities of a past culture. Furthermore, by analyzing the protracted effects of humans on the shoreline environment, it should be possible to discover subtle repercussions of human interaction with bodies of water that are only tenable through archaeology. The identification of these repercussions will make this research relevant to historians, archaeologists, planners, environmentalists, and humanity in general.

Archaeological Significance
Archaeological understanding of the littoral zone lags far behind that of terrestrial environments (Buckley 2000; Tomalin 2000). Consequently, any study focusing on the shore has the potential to significantly increase our understanding of human history, both along shorelines and in general. Water is of central importance to humans and has been subject to human manipulation since antiquity (Goudie 2006:121; Steffen et al. 2004:111), thus a better understanding of human interaction with water should be important to all archaeologists. Shores are a primary interface between humans and water and are consequently an excellent location to study human-water interaction (Bourne 2006). The shore is also an excellent location to study cultural interactions among cultures that depended heavily on water for transportation, such as all of those surrounding Lake Ontario prior to the mid-19th century (Brown 1985). The shore was a key transit node for goods moving from either the hinterland or “hintersea” (McGrail 1997b; Westerdahl 1992). Thus, the archaeology of the shore has the potential to address trade routes in a more complete way than archaeology generally allows. This research is an important piece in the mosaic of human-environment interaction and human historical ecology.
Despite this importance, the Lake Ontario shoreline has been subjected to relatively few comprehensive archaeological surveys. Studies that have approached the shore from a larger perspective include the work of Archaeological Service Inc. (2004), James Esler (1993), Paul Lennox (1976), Jonathan Moore (1995), Bruce Stewart et al. (1988), and Ronald Williamson (1994). The majority of these studies, however incorporate areas smaller than the proposed study, few of them conscientiously span the shoreline, and none of them bridge the international border. As a result, the proposed study will address issues not previously explored and engage a larger number of groups than any previous studies of the region. Similarly, the proposed study has access to technology not available to earlier scholars, which will allow more sophisticated and detailed analysis. The methods and models developed during this project can be applied to the other Great Lakes and other inland bodies of water (e.g., Lake Champlain). Each lake is distinct; however, many of the same patterns of historical development, cultural expansion, and varying uses of the shore are repeated throughout the region.
This research also forms a bridge between the well-established disciplines of maritime and terrestrial archaeology. The growing interest in this and similar bridges is demonstrated by the recent launch of the Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology (edited by Scott Fitzpatrick and Jon Erlandson). The liminal spaces where land and water intersect are some of the few remaining archaeologically under-investigated portions of the globe.

Broader Impacts
The proposed study is also a component of a larger discussion regarding the relevance of archaeology to the general public (Minnis 2006). Archaeology has a responsibility to reciprocate with the community not only though increased education and heritage studies but also through information that address current concerns. The ability for archaeology to inform people about the possible effects of their actions on their descendants is as important as archaeology’s goal of educating populations regarding their cultural heritage. We utilize water and shore environments every day for recreation, sanitation, industry, and agriculture, but seldom consider the repercussions of our actions. As a result, the shore environment has been seriously altered and degraded (Berkes et al. 1979; Bourne 2006). Human impacts on the environment are not an insurmountable problem (Goudie 2006:151), but they do require the attention of scientists from all fields. The time-depth particular to archaeology and its ability to consider the long-term effects of human actions, will make the study particularly relevant to modern Canadian and United States citizens, planners, and environmentalists. While there is no doubt that most ecological systems take decades or centuries to develop and are often based on ancient modifications of nature, ecosystem studies typically span no more than a few years. This research will contribute to the larger interdisciplinary field of global change science by providing the time-depth that other specialist require to more effectively address pressing environmental concerns (Steffen et al. 2004).

Research Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: The archaeological resources of the shore environment are under-represented in the historical and archaeological records (Erika Laanela, personal communication 2006; Ringer 2003; Tomalin 2000).
Test Implications: A systematic survey of the shore will encounter a significant number of previously unrecorded archaeological resources, both in their original context (e.g., docks that were built to span from land to water) and in contexts altered by recession and aggradation of the shoreline (e.g., submerged terrestrial site components). The null hypothesis is to not find submerged components adjacent to terrestrial sites or to record large stretches of shore with no archaeological material.

Hypothesis 2: The natural environment played a more significant role than culture in the position of sites.
Test Implications: The correlation between major Native American portage sites and European commercial settlements is well established (Stewart 1982; White and Montgomery 2003; Williamson 1994). However, the relationships between Native American and European minor transportation nodes, habitation sites, and resource procurement sites have not been explored. Pre-Contact and historic sites of similar types will occur in the same locations because there are a limited number of environments beneficial to trade, habitation, and resource procurement. Spatial and geostatistical analyses of site distributions will help to demonstrate statistical similarities between these cultures. Furthermore, it will be possible to relate any differences to other social, cultural, and technological patterns such as trade, politics, warfare, and colonialism. The null hypothesis is widely dispersed, single-component archaeological sites that can be associated with specific cultures.

Hypothesis 3: Technological and cultural changes during the mid-19th century will be reflected in the archaeology of shore sites.
Test Implications: The shift from extractive industries (primarily lumber) to agriculture combined with the advent of steam locomotives and associated trends toward population and commercial centralization caused changes in the nature and distribution of human occupation along the shore (Brown 1985:382–383; Ten Cate 1982; Wood 2000:96,102). These changes will be associated with a decline in the number of shore transportation nodes and an increase in resource procurement sites throughout the 19th century as the population increases and through-shipping becomes more prevalent. The null hypothesis is no noticeable changes in the nature and distribution of sites during the 19th century.

Hypothesis 4: Past human actions have quantifiable effects on the environment that are visible in the archaeological record (Braje et al. 2006; Reitz 2004; Walker 1990).
Test Implications: Correlation and analysis of collected archaeological data and modern environmental data will suggest direct linkages between past human actions and current conditions. Comparison between single-component sites will bear on the environmental consequences of specific pre-Contact and historic period activities, while analysis of multi-component sites will provide information regarding the repercussions of cumulative human action. The null hypothesis is no statistically significant relationship between the current environment and past human actions.