Ontario

The purpose of this essay is to provide an outline of the prehistoric events that have taken place in the province of Ontario over the last 11,000 years. Technical terms and concepts have been avoided but in attempting to present a general picture of Ontario's prehistory, it has been necessary to make the complex appear simple, the poorly known appear well known, and to favour one interpretation when, in fact, several conflicting interpretations exist. Most archaeologists, however, will be in essential agreement with the major themes as presented here.

Archaeology is a discipline that attempts to reconstruct human events and developments that took place prior to written records. Samuel de Champlain was able to make many important observations concerning the Hurons with whom he wintered in A.D. 1615-1616, but he was unable to comment on where the Hurons originally came from, how they learned to plant corn, beans, and squash, and when they first began smoking tobacco. The how, why, when, and where of the past are the questions that must, for the most part, be answered by archaeology. To achieve these ends, archaeologists have developed a wide range of field and laboratory techniques which assist in the reconstruction of past cultures. Admittedly, most of these reconstructions of what was are only rough approximations but they are continuously being built upon, modified, and in general, refined.

The vast bulk of material studied by archaeology consists of such things as broken tools and discarded food bones and, in a very real sense, archaeologists are glorified collectors and analyzers of prehistoric garbage. Unfortunately, most of the cultures that archaeologists attempt to reconstruct disappeared a long time ago. If you look around the room in which you are now reading and exclude everything except glass, china, brick, and a few other imperishable objects, you will have some idea of how little future archaeologists will have to work with in terms of our own culture. Despite these limitations, sufficient information survives the ravages of time and nature to permit the archaeologist to at least partially decipher the past. Different prehistoric cultures made different stone and bone tools, built their houses, and buried their dead in different ways. Some were hunters and others were farmers, some made pottery vessels and others did not. These similarities and differences allow the archaeologist to recognize various prehistoric cultural groups and to trace their development through time.

In writing about prehistoric cultures, archaeologists usually begin with the earliest known groups and advance towards the late or historic period when European explorers recorded their observations. The reason for going from early to late is probably related to the fact that in so doing we progress from the simple (more ignorance) to the complex (less ignorance). During the actual process of establishing sequences, however, the archaeologist often begins with the historic period and works successively further back into prehistoric times. In other words, one works from the known to the unknown.

Historic native villages, recorded by early explorers and missionaries, are located and their identification is supported by the presence of European trade goods and other evidence. The native artifacts of pottery, stone and bone associated with the European metal tools and glass beads are then compared with those of a nearby site not containing European artifacts. If the comparisons are close then it is assumed that the latter site was occupied by the ancestors of the people who lived in the historic site. The artifacts and other evidence from the prehistoric village are then compared with other prehistoric villages and, on the assumption that the degree of similarity reflects a relationship in time, it is possible to extend a series of site relationships down through time with the identified historic sites as a starting point. This sequence of sites is taken to represent the prehistoric development of the native people identified by the historic sources.

The great value of this approach is that it allows the archaeologist to make more meaningful cultural reconstructions through the use of historic and present-day studies of native peoples. Such cultural information could not possibly be provided by the limited remains recovered from prehistoric sites.

 In order to re-create history from the fragmented and vague evidence left by prehistoric man, the archaeologist must be a jack-of-all trades. One must know sufficient geology to be able to distinguish man's work from that of nature, to identify varieties of stone, and to interpret the manner of soil deposition and modification. An adequate knowledge of biology permits the accurate identification and interpretation of the animal and plant remains recovered from sites. The archaeologist must also know some chemistry, physics, mathematics and a range of other disciplines that will assist in archaeological research.

Above everything else, however, the archaeologist must attempt to know and understand man. The broken tools and other items found around an ancient camp fire are only garbage. The vague outlines of ancient houses and other features are only ghostly reflections of what has been. But, all of these things are the products of man, man with his infinite variety and complexity.

The Northern and Southern Regions Ontario and the Archaeological Periods
The Palaeo-Indian Period (9000 B.C. - 5000 B.C.)
The Archaic Period (5000 B.C.-1000 B.C.)
The Woodland Period (1000 B.C.-- Historic Period)
The Initial Woodland Period (1000 B.C.-- A.D. 1000)
The Terminal Woodland Period (A.D. 1000 - Historic period)

• The Ontario Iroquois
• The St. Lawrence Iroquois
• The Algonkians
• The Eastern Area
• The Western Area
• The Northern Area