praying mantis: a unique glen meyer village in london

Pearce PrayingMantis:AUniqueGlenMeyerVillage 97

Praying Mantis: A Unique Glen Meyer Village in London

RobertJ.Pearce

Thispapersummarizesdiscoveriesat thePrayingMantissite(AfHi-178),anunusualEarlyOntarioIroquoian village in the Byron area of southwestLondon, Ontario (Figure 1). The site exhibitsmanyuniqueaspectsintermsoflocation,internalvillage organization, burial practices and moregenerally, Iroquoian ceremonial behaviour,includingahouseextensionapparentlypurposefullycreated to encompass several ritual features andassociatedactivities.Theseuniqueaspectsare thefocusofthispaper.

Background

ThePrayingMantissitewasdiscoveredin1993by the London Museum of Archaeology (nowMuseumofOntarioArchaeology)duringarou-tineStage2archaeologicalassessmentoflandstobe developed as a housing subdivision. Stage 3assessment was completed later in 1993, andthen the sitewas totally excavated in the fallof1993 and spring of 1994 (London Museum ofArchaeology 1993, 1994). The site clearly fallsintotheGlenMeyerbranchoftheEarlyOntarioIroquoian stage based on its geographical loca-tion in southwestern Ontario (between clustersofGlenMeyerbranchsitesontheCaradocSandPlaintothewestandNorfolkSandPlaintotheeast-southeast; see Williamson 1990) and con-formity to a wide variety of characteristics asinitially elucidated by Jim Wright in his defin-itionof“GlenMeyer”(J.V.Wright1966:101).These characteristics include, for example, thenature of the ceramic assemblage (vessel forms,motifs and techniques) and the presence ofcrude, poorly-decorated elbow-shaped ceramicpipes,triangularchertprojectilepointsandshalepebble pendants. Characteristic Glen Meyer

branchceramictypesoccurringatPrayingMantisincludeOntarioOblique,GlenMeyerOblique,GlenMeyerLinearStamped,GlenMeyerNeckedandStaffordStamped. Specific traits atPrayingMantis which are consistent with a number ofother Glen Meyer sites (as tabulated in Wright1966:138-144) include a high incidence ofcollarless ceramic vessels (96.5%), a high inci-denceof vesselswithpunctates andbosses, andeclecticmixturesofexteriormotifs(plain,simpleobliques, opposed obliques, cross-hatchedobliques, horizontals and multiple bands com-bining different motifs) and techniques (linearstamp, dentate stamp, crescent stamp, turtlesuture stamp, incised, push-pull) (for details ofthe site ceramic assemblage see Howie-Langs[1998]).

Wright (1966:101) assigned a time range of1000to1300A.D.tothecontemporaneousGlenMeyer (in southwestern Ontario) and Pickering(in southeastern Ontario) branches of the EarlyOntarioIroquoisStage.SincethetimeofWright’spublication,a largenumberof radiocarbondateshavenotonlyconfirmedthatgeneralagerangebutalsoextendeditbackslightlyintime,suchthat“aca. A.D. 900 inception date appears mostreasonablewiththepresentevidence”(Williamson1990:310).

Due to the presence of specific motifs andtechniques on the ceramic vessels, the PrayingMantis site is assigned to the latter portion orterminalendoftheGlenMeyersequence.Thesespecificmotifsandtechniques include,especially,the incised and push-pull horizontals on theexterior,lipandinteriorofsomevessels.Althoughthose traits are present at Praying Mantis, theyoccur inminoramountsbutneverthelesspresagethe subsequent Middle Ontario Iroquoian Stage(UrenandMiddleportSubstages)wheresuchtraits

98 OntarioArchaeologyNo.85-88/LondonChapterOASOccasionalPublicationNo.9

attainveryhighpercentages.Specific instancesofsuch traits at Praying Mantis include just fourvessels with an exterior rim motif of push-pullhorizontals,asinglevesselwithanexteriormotifofincised horizontals, 18 vessels with horizontals(executedbybothincisingandpush-pull)ontheneck,andasinglevesselwithapush-pullhorizontalmotifontheinterior.

Settlement Pattern

ThephysicallocationofthePrayingMantissitein itself is somewhatunusual (Figure1). ItwassituatedonasmalleastwardextendinglobeoftheCaradoc Sand Plain (Chapman and Putnam1984:146)knownastheByronAnnex,which,insouthwest London, is wedged in between theThames River spillway to the north and theIngersollMoraineandDingmanCreekdrainage

tothesouth.Thesiteislocatedinaslighthollowor valley at an elevationof276metres (905.5’)A.S.L.,whereastotheimmediatenorththeter-rain rises sharply up the Byron Ski Hill (alsoknown as Boler Mountain), to an elevation of300.8 metres (987’) A.S.L. The ski hill is thehighestpointoflandinLondon.Theareajusttothe west of Praying Mantis and at the base ofBoler Mountain contains the headwaters of asmall tributary flowing south into DingmanCreek.Thus,thePrayingMantissitelocationissurroundedonthreesidesbymuchhigherland.Theoverburdensoilsinthisareaareamixtureofstonyglacialtillandsandyloam,butthesubsoilunderthesitewasveryyellowsand,whichcon-tributedgreatlytooursuccessinrecognizingthedarkblackpostmoulds,blackfeaturesandbrightorangehearths.

ThePrayingMantissitedidnotsitinisolation,since there is evidence for another Glen Meyer

Figure 1. Site location in Byron, Southwest London (based on NTS 1:25,000).


componentontopoftheByronSkiHill(AfHi-78)andseveralEarly,MiddleandLateOntarioIroquoian components within a four kilometreradius.Infact,duringthesameassessmentofthe10.2hectaresubdivisionthatledtothediscoveryofPrayingMantis, threeadditionalGlenMeyercomponents, interpretedasactivityareasassoci-atedwithPrayingMantis,werealsodiscoveredbythe Museum (London Museum of Archaeology1993);thesewereregisteredastheOfftheBeatenPath(AfHi-176),GrasshopperRidge(AfHi-177)andBabyHawk(AfHi-179)sites.Ourselectionof site names here was purposeful, to recognizetheabundantfaunathatcharacterizethetinybutextremely diverse eco-zone where the sites werelocated.Readyaccesstowater,easilytillablesoilsandplentifulfloralandfaunalresourcesnodoubtcontributed to the selectionof this location forthePrayingMantisvillage.

PrayingMantiswasavillage0.23hectare(0.57acre) inextent,consistingofat leastthree long-housessurroundedbyapalisade.Discontinuousrows of post moulds and a variety of featuresoutsideofthethreedefinedlonghousesmaypos-

siblyindicatethatotherstructuresonceexistedatthesite.

Thethreehouseswereallorientedinageneralwest-eastdirection,buttherewassomevariationinthe orientation and placement of these threehouses within the village. With reference to theoverallvillageplan(seeFigures2and3),thethreehouseswerelabelledfromsouthtonorthasHouse1,House2andHouse3. Houses1and2wereparallel to eachother,orientedona longitudinalaxisofalmost55degreeswestofgridnorth(thus,running slightly northwest to southeast), andstacked closely together (average of 2.5 metresbetweennorthwallofHouse1andsouthwallofHouse 2) at the south end of the village. Incontrast,House3wasorientedalmosttruewest-east (longitudinal axis 90 degrees west of gridnorth) and was placed well to the north, at thenorth end of the village. There was a minimaldistanceof12.5metresandamaximumdistanceof16metresbetweenthenorthwallofHouse2andthesouthwallofHouse3.ThespacebetweenHouses1and2atthesouthandHouse3atthenorth contained several individual features and

Figure 2. Praying Mantis site plan.


clusters of features to indicate an extensiveexterioractivityareaorseriesofactivityareas.Infact,itwassomeoftheseexteriorhousefeaturesthatyieldedthelargestnumbersofreconstructableceramicvesselsfoundatthissite.

House1was21.0metres longand6.5metreswide.Aninternalrowofpostmouldscrossingthehouse at its east end suggests that it was eitherextendedfromanoriginallengthof16metres,orthat it was internally partitioned with a storagecubicleattheeastend.Thehousecontainedatotalof 39 interior house features, including fourhearthsaligneddownthecentreaxisand12larger,stratifiedrefuse-filledpits.Thefeaturesinsidethehouseweredefinitelyclusteredintothreegroups,oneatthewestend(withonehearth),oneinthecentre (with two hearths), and the third in theeastern extension or storage cubicle (with onehearth). All four of the hearths were quitesubstantialinsize(seeTable1).

House2wasamaximumof23.7metreslong(Figure 4). There was evidence that this househadundergoneconsiderablealterationduringitslifespan, which involved widening it from 6.0metres to perhaps as much as 8.0 metres. The

south sidewallof thehousewas relatively clearand uniform, but a confusing array of postmoulds and features including several overlap-pingorintersectingfeaturesalongthenorthsidewallmadeitverydifficulttodetermineitsprecisefinal alignment. All of the re-building requiredthe re-alignment of interior support posts toaccommodate the widening, and the construc-tionoftheeastwardextensionofthehouse.Thisalterationofthehouseishighlysignificantsinceaburialpitwithsevenindividuals,auniquepitwithanunusualarrayofanimalbonedepositedinto it, and a sweat lodge feature (all of whichwillbediscussedbelow)wereall situated inthearea of the eastern house expansion (see Figure4). There were 84 features within this house,including four hearths and 31 larger, stratified,refuse-filledpits.UnlikeHouse1,thesefeatureswere randomly scattered throughout the houseand included ones in the central corridor andothersunderthesidebenches.Thefourhearthsweremoreor lessaligneddownthecentralcor-ridorofthehouse,andasinHouse1theywerequite substantial in size (Table 1). The secondhearthfromtheeastendofthehouseintersected,

0 10Grid N

LEGENDHearth

BurialAnimal Burials(Otters & Raccoons)

Skeletal Remainsof 3 RaccoonsDog Burial

Pits with CopperBeadsPit with StoneHuman EffigyAmuletSweat Lodge House 1

House 2

House 3?

?

Midden

B1

B2

B1

Pits withComplexlyDecorated Ceramic Vessels

Pit withTurtleShell Rattle

Pit with ShalePebble Pendant

Figure 3. Interpretive map of the Praying Mantis site.


orwasintersectedby,alargerefuse-filledpit(190cmlong,139cmwideand40cmdeep),withthehearth abutting the southeast corner of therefuse-filledpit.An interestingdiscoverywithinthisrefuse-filledpitwassegmentsoftwobrokenceramicvesselswith“boilingrocks”insidethem.

House3was24.0metreslongand7.1metreswide.Theeastendofthishousecametowithinonemetreofthepalisadealongtheeastedgeofthesite.Thehousecontained84interiorfeatures

(the same as House 2), including three hearthsand 21 larger, stratified, refuse-filled pits. LikeHouse2andunlikeHouse1,thesefeatureswererandomly scattered throughout the house andincludedonesinthecentralcorridorandothersunder the sidebenches.The threehearthswerealigned down the central axis of the house butwerealllocatedinthewesternhalfofthehouse;there was no evidence for any hearths in theeasternhalfofthestructure.Intheexactcentreof

Square # Feature # Location Length (cm) Width (cm) Depth (cm) Plan View Profile

430-615 7 House1,westend 153 98 68 Ovate Basin

425-620 14 House1,centre 56 36 36 Ovate Basin

425-625 5 House1,centre 45 45 53 Circular Conical

425-625 7 House1,eastend 47 25 33 Ovate Conical


435-625 1 House2,centre-west 35 21 13 Ovate Basin

435-630 7 House2,centre-east 90 76 23 Ovate Basin

430-630 5 House2,eastend 103 82 45 Ovate Basin


450-640 6 House3,centre-west 128 80 21 Ovate Basin

455-640 8 House3,centre-west 25 25 5 Circular Basin

440-635 8 NorthofHouse2 92 52 21 Ovate Irregular

460-650 2 NorthofHouse3 60 42 47 Ovate Irregular

Table 1. Data on hearths.

Figure 4. Detail of House 2 at the Praying Mantis site.


the west end wall of the house and in directalignment with the end wall post moulds therewasarectangulararea,70cmlong(north-south)and54cmwide(east-west),ofveryhard-packedgravel. This area was interpreted as a doorwaywheregravelhadbeenthrowndownandpackedintothesoiltokeeptheentrancewaydry.

The palisade surrounding the village wascontinuous but varied from one to three rows.Beginningat thenortheastcornerof thevillage,thepalisadewasasinglerowofpostsallthewayaroundthenorthandwestsidestothesouthwestcorner,whereitbecamedouble.Thedoublerowofpostscontinuedalongthesouthsideandmostofthewayuptheeastsideofthevillage,atwhichpointitdiverged.AsshowninFigure2,therewasaclusterofsubsurfaceculturalfeatures(includingaprimaryburialpit)beyondthenortheastedgeofthevillageandthedivergingpalisadeuptheeastside might potentially have been expandedoutward to enclose those features. However,despite a concerted effort of shovel-shining, noactualevidenceforsuchahypotheticalpalisadeinthatlocationwasfound.Atthesoutheastcornerofthesite,andagainpartwayuptheeastsideofthevillage,segmentsofan“extra”orthirdrowofpalisade were inserted; these may have beenconstructed to create funnel-shaped entrancesintothevillage,ortorestrictaccessintoit.

The orientation and spacing of the threehouses within the palisade enclosure suggeststhere might possibly have been some form ofinternal village segmentation, perhaps with theoccupants of Houses 1 and 2 being “aligned”together in a social grouping that was differentfromthepeoplelivinginHouse3.Howevertheceramics from each of the three houses wereinternally distinct, suggesting that in fact therewere three separate social groupings at the site,onelivingineachhouse.

Amiddenareathatwasmoreofarefuse-filleddepressionthanatruemiddenaccumulation,waslocated between the three palisade rows at thesoutheast cornerof thevillage (Figure3) and itwassystematicallyexcavatedbyhandasaseriesofcontiguousone-metresquares.

Therewereawidevarietyoffeaturesoutsideofthe houses, including two hearths (one in the

centre of the village and one in the northeastcornerofthesitebetweenHouse3andthepali-sade) and a series ofquite complex refuse-filledpits, especially in the activity area betweenHouses2and3,andalongtheinsideofthepali-sadeinthesouthwestcornerofthesite.

The Praying Mantis village is different frommostotherEarlyOntarioIroquoianvillagesinthatitwasquitesmallandseeminglydidnotundergotheexpansionsorcontractionswhichcharacterizedmany of the other known villages of that timeperiod.Forexample,theVanBesiensiteexpandedat least three times into a complex village 1.2hectares (3 acres) in size (Noble 1975:8-10), aminimumof14housestructuresattheCalvertsitewere constructed with different orientations atvarious times throughout the century it wasoccupied(Timmins1997:35;alsoseeWilliamson1990:306), and multiple construction periodsindicating expansionor contractionwere evidentatDeWaele(Fox1976:177-178).Allthreeofthosesites also had evidence for multiple rows ofpalisades built at different times throughout thelife of the village, as well as house structuressuperimposedononeanotherandhousestructureswhich were placed over top of former palisadelines.NoneofthatsettlementpatterncomplexityexistedatPrayingMantis,althoughasnotedabovethereweresomediscontinuousrowsofpostsandseveral features (some of which intersected/overlapped) outside of the three defined houses,which might indicate the presence of otherstructures.

Human Remains

Two burial features were discovered on the siteandexcavatedunderthedirectionofDr.MichaelSpenceafterthenecessarypermissionshadbeenobtainedfromtheRegionalCoroner,theOntarioCemeteriesBranchRegistrar,andOneidaNationof theThames (Onoyota’a:ka).Dr.Spence thenundertook a detailed analysis of the recoveredremains.

Burial 1Burial 1 consisted of the partially exhumedremains of an adult female aged 50 to 60 whohad initially been interred as a primary burial


withinashallowpit(135cmeast-westby130cmnorth-south)locatedjustoutsideofthepalisadebeyondthenortheastcornerofthevillage(Square465-660,FeatureB1)(seeFigure3).

Thewomanhadbeen laid to rest in a flexedposition,layingontheleftside,orientednorth-westtosoutheastwiththeheadtothesoutheast.The pit fill contained an occasional chert flakebutwasotherwisesterile.Threeflotationsamplestotalling13.6kgofsoilfrominandaroundtheburialweresterile.

Burial1wasfascinatingbecauseofthenatureoftheskeletalelementspresentversusthosethatwere absent.The cranium, mandible, all teeth,both scapulae, cervical vertebrae 1 through 5,andallofthearmandlegbonesexcepttherightpatella had been purposefully removed,presumablyforreburialbythesiteinhabitantsatsomeotherlocation.However,aswillbediscussedbelow, those removed elements were notre-interred into the “ossuary”-type burial pitelsewhereonthesite,whichcontainedthepartialremainsofsevendifferent individuals.Theonlyskeletal elements remaining in the originalprimaryburialpit,allintheircorrectanatomicalposition, were the remainder of the vertebral

column (C6 down to coccyx), the manubriumand sternum, all of the ribs, both clavicles, thesacrum,bothinnominates,therightpatellaandasmallfragmentoftherightparietal.

Burial 2The partial remains of at least seven differentindividuals were deposited as secondary inter-ments into a single large pit located along andjustinsideofthenorthwallofHouse2(Square435-635,Feature5;seeFigures3,4and5).Theplanviewandprofileofthepitwerequitecom-plexandindicatetheburialswereconfinedtoasmallareainthesouthhalfofoneoftwointer-sectingrefuse-filledpits(Figure5).

When the feature was first exposed in planview,itwasalarge,irregular-shapedstainofdarkblack soil in the yellow subsoil, measuring 199cm long (east-west) by 134 cm wide (north-south). When profiled, it was found that therewasauniform18cmthicklayeroffillandarti-facts,butbelowthis18cmthicklayerthefeaturecould be segregated into two distinct compon-ents.The western portion, labelled Feature 5A,wasatypicalrefuse-filledpit80cmindiameter,extending to a depth of 56 cm with a basin-

Figure 5. Location, plan and profile of Burial 2, Feature 5b, House 2.


shaped profile. The eastern portion, labelledFeature 5B, was bathtub-shaped in profile, 110cmindiameter,extendingtoamaximumdepthof90cm.Thenorthhalvesofboth5Aand5Bwereremoved.Whencleaningthefacestorecordtheprofiles,ahumanlongbonewasnotedinthewall of the unexcavated south half, extendingfrom a depth of 50 to 65 cm in Feature 5B.Subsequentexcavationrevealedadenseconcen-trationofhumanboneinFeature5B,primarilyatthe50to80cmdepthandsomewhatcrammedintoadepositonly50cminplanviewdiameter.Exceptingthehumanbone inFeature5B,bothFeatures 5A and 5B contained typical villagerefuse,andtherewasrefuseandalensofdarkercolouredsoilandcharcoal,withartifacts,underthemassofhumanboneinFeature5B.Thus,itwouldappearthatthehumanbonewasdeposit-edwithinanalreadyexistingrefusepit,andafterthehumanbonewasdeposited,additionalvillagerefusewasaddedtothepit.

Intotal,Features5Aand5Byielded599arti-facts.The18 cm thick layeron topof the twofeatureswasthemostproductive,with169cer-amicsherdsincludingfourfragmentaryrims,twolumpsofclay,56piecesofchippingdetritus,twopieces of schist, and 39 animal bones (38 ofwhichwerecalcined).The56cmlayeroffill inFeature5Acontained73itemsincluding37cer-amicsherds,23piecesofchippingdetritus,oneground stone schist fragment and 12 animalbones(11ofwhichwerecalcined).ThefillabovethehumanbonemassinFeature5Byielded198items including 163 ceramic sherds (three ofwhichwerefragmentaryrims),28piecesofchip-ping detritus and seven animal bones (five ofwhichwerecalcined).Thelensofsoilbelowthemassofhumanbone inFeature5B (85 to110cmbelowsurface)yielded42itemscomprisedof13ceramicsherds,13piecesofchippingdetritusand16piecesofanimalbone(13ofwhichwerecalcined). Flotation samples from Feature 5B,including fill fromamid thehumanbone, con-tained one ceramic body sherd, seven fragmen-taryceramic sherds, fourchert flakes,onepieceof mica, and five animal bones (four of whichwerecalcined).Charcoalwaspresentthroughoutthefillofbothfeatures,aswasfire-crackedrock.

ThespecificindividualssecondarilyinterredinFeature5Bwereasfollows:

2a sub-adult13-14years2b sub-adult12years2c sub-adult4-6years2d infant,lessthanoneyear2e adultmaleapproximately40years2f adultfemale17-20years2g adultfemaleapproximately30-40 years

Evidencesuggeststhat,ingeneral,thecraniaandmandibles were purposefully laid around theperimeterofthepit(Figure6).AsinglearticulatedvertebralcolumnfromC7toL4wasalsolaid,inacurving fashion, around the outside ring. Then“clusters”or“handfuls”oflongboneswereplacedwithinthecircleofcrania.Theseclustersof longbones(containingfromtwoto19skeletalelements)appear to have been handfuls of bones that hadbeenpickedupandlaidcarefullyandmeaningfullyinto the pit, sometimes maintaining the correctanatomicalpositions,althoughinterestinglysomeof theclustersorhandfuls containedbones frommorethanoneofthesevenidentifiedindividuals.This practice suggests a totally new meaning forthephrase“bundle”burial.Thiswasobviouslypartof a carefully planned ceremonial ritual for there-intermentofthevillagedeceased,althoughthenumber of specific skeletal elements from eachindividualwashighlyvariable.

NoneoftheskeletalelementsdiscoveredintheBurial2featurewerefromanadultfemaleaged50 to 60 and so the woman who had beeninterredintheBurial1featureoutsideofthevil-lage,andwhowaspartiallyexhumed,couldnothavebeenplacedwithintheBurial2feature.Themysteryastoherfinal(secondary)restingplaceremains unsolved. It must be emphasized thatDr. Spence’s excellent technical report (1994a)outlined several complex and unique aspectsabout these burials. One of the most unusual,however,was thecaseof individual2f,anadultfemaleaged17to20.Therehadbeenextensiveperimortem or post-mortem alteration of hercranium as it exhibited a large number of cutmarks,especiallyclusteredontheoccipital,rightparietal, both temporals and the right zygoma.Furthermore,arighthumerus(upperarmbone),


notnecessarilybelongingtoher,hadbeendelib-eratelyinsertedthroughaholeintheleftsideofthecraniumwith“theproximalendoftheboneagainsttheinteriorsurfaceofthesupero-poster-iorpartoftheleftparietal”(Spence1994a:13;seeFigure6#13and#14).Asidefromthatcraniumandtheculturally-modifiedmandible tobedis-cussedbelow,onlyoneotherskeletalelementintheBurial2assemblagehadanyevidenceofcutmarks; that element was the left humerus ofIndividual2E(adultmaleapproximately40yearsofage)thathadaseriesofmarksindicatingthatthesofttissueandmuscleshadbeendeliberatelycut to severe it from the forearm (Spence1994a:12).

Culturally-Modified Human MandibleA unique inclusion within the Burial 2 featurewasasingleculturally-modifiedmandiblefromamiddle aged adult male (Figure 6: #10). This

mandibledidnotcorrespondtoanyofthecraniaorotherskeletalelementsbelongingtothesevenindividuals identifiedintheBurial2feature(orthesingleindividualinBurial1).Thus,theman-dible represents another individual. The man-dible seems tohavebeen carefully laid into thesecondaryburialpitjustoutsideofthe“ring”ofcrania, and was positioned to directly abut thecraniumofIndividual2A(sub-adult13-14yearsofage;Figure6:#11),whichitselfwaspositionedjust below (under) and to the north of (buttouching) the cranium of Individual 2B (sub-adult12yearsofage;Figure6:#12).Theman-dible was found in two pieces, separated alongthenaturalfusionlineatthechin,butapparentlylaid down side by side with the chin pointingnorthandtheramipointingsouth,asifthebonehad been snapped in half, folded together andthen laid in thepit.The superiorpartsofboththeascendingramihadbeendeliberatelycutoff

Figure 6. Arrangement of crania and culturally-modified man-dible in Burial 2 (from Spence 1994a: Figure 1).


(Figure7).Therewerenumerous cutmarks andstriations on the two pieces, and a total of fiveholeshadbeenpurposefullydrilled(4)orpunchedorreamed(1)throughthem.Theholesrangedindiameterfrom2to8mm,andatleasttwooftheholesappearedtohavebeenmadeaftertheman-diblewassnappedinhalf.Dr.Spence(1994a:17)concluded that this cultural modification mayhave been undertaken to convert the mandibleintoamask,orforattachmentofthetwopiecestosomeotherobject.Noneoftheotherskeletalele-ments within the Burial 2 feature could bematchedtothisoneindividual,andonepossibleinterpretationisthatthemandiblebelongedtoareveredancestor(Spence1994a:17).

Instancesofhumanmandiblesmodifiedinthismanner are, apparently, exceedingly rare andpreviously unreported from any Iroquoian site.Masksmadefromdrilledhumanmandibleswerereported from a Mississippian site in Kentucky(Cook and Munson 2002), a unique mask-headdressmadefrompiecesofmodifiedhumancraniumwasinterredwithacrematedHopewellburial at Mound City, Ohio (Baby 1956:303-305;1959:33)andfivemodifiedhumanmandi-bles were recovered at the Hopewell EdwinHarness Mound in Ohio (Greber 1979:33).Thus, the Praying Mantis specimen is highlysignificant andnodoubt an indicationof someformofritualthathasheretoforenotbeendocu-mentedaspartoftheIroquoianrepertoire.

Animal Burials

Therewasasmallfeature(33cmindiameter,20cmdeep)intheHouse2extension(Figures3and4),whichcontainedadeliberatelyinterredmassofanimal bone consisting of elements from onlythreespecies.Of231faunalelementsfoundinthispit,160wereidentifiedtospecies,asfollows:21elements representing a minimum of two otters(both immature); 134 elements representing aminimumofnine raccoons (almost all ofwhichwere immature or juvenile); and five elements(mandibleandlegfragmentsonly)thatrepresentone immature deer (Muir 1994). No other cul-turalmaterialwasdepositedintothispit.

The identifiable faunal elements for the twootters and nine raccoons indicate that entireanimalswereinterredinthispit,sincevirtuallyallskeletal areas are represented: skulls (mandible,maxilla,andfragmentedpiecesoftheskullbonessuch as the occipital, temporal, frontal andparietal),vertebrae(includingatlasandaxis),ribs,scapulae, pelvis (ilium and ischium), front legs(humerus,radiusandulna),backlegs(femur,tibia,patella)andfeet(carpals,tarsals,talus,calcaneum).None of the skeletal elements exhibited any cutmarks or evidence of exposure to heat. Theassemblage was composed overwhelmingly of

Figure 7. Culturally modified mandible in Burial #2 (from Spence 1994a: Figure 6).


bones from immature animals, the only notableexceptionsbeingafewlegbonesfromamaximumof two juvenile-aged raccoons (i.e. two rightfemursandtwoleftradii,plusone lefthumerus,onerightulnaandoneleftulna)andtheleftandright humeri from a slightly larger / older (i.e.“sub-adult”)raccoon.

There is archaeological and ethnographicaldocumentation for the ritual treatment of bothotters and raccoons. It is known that raccoonswere revered by many North American FirstNations(Thwaites1896-1901:67:251),thattheIroquoians distinguished raccoons from otheranimalsduetotheircharacteristiceyes(Thwaites1896-1901:8:302) and that both otter and rac-coon(“wildcat”)robeswerevaluedcommoditiesfor the Iroquoians to wear, and to trade to theFrenchintheContactPeriod(Biggar1924:158;Sagard 1939:224; Thwaites 1896-1901:11:315;41:81).TheIroquoianshad(have)specificmythsand legends featuring both Otter (Curtin andHewitt 1918:151-154; Johnson 1911:52;Thwaites1896-1901:5:155;6:159;67:153)andRaccoon(CurtinandHewitt1918:191-193)andthere isa specific Iroquoianword(gahado-goka-gogosa)referringtoRaccoonas“MaskedDemonSpirit” (www.loon.com/raccoons/info/name-sakes.html).Itthereforeseemsprobablethatthedeliberate deposition of largely immature andcertainlyallyoungotterandraccoonbones(andthedeer)inasinglepitfeatureatPrayingMantiscouldreflectasymbolicreverenceforthoseani-mals at a very early stage in the Iroquoiansequence.

Theanimalbonepit(Square435-635,Feature1) was situated inside of House 2, less than 2metresfromtheBurial2featureandasweatlodge(Figures 3 and 4).The location of these uniquefeaturessoclosetoeachotherobviouslyleadsonetospeculatethattheywerecreatedatthesametimeaspartofthehumanre-intermentritual.

Anotherfeatureatthesitewasalsoremarkablebecause it contained the skeletal elements of atleastthreeraccoonsandlittleelse:partofasingleceramic vessel, a handful of chert flakes and ahammerstone. That feature (Square 420-605,Feature 1) was situated outside of the palisadebeyond the southwest corner of the site (see

Figure3),itbeingtheonlyfeaturelocatedthere.None of the bones exhibit cut marks so theseanimalsapparentlywerenotbutcheredfortheirmeatorhide.Onecanonlyspeculateaboutwhythatpitwaspositionedwhereitwasandwhyitcontainedprimarilyraccoonbones.Doesitpro-videfurtherevidencefortheceremonialorritualtreatmentofthatparticularanimal?

Dog BurialsAsmalldogwaspurposefullyinterredinarefuse-filledpit(Square440-645,Feature1),locatedinasomewhatisolatedareadevoidofotherfeatures,inthecentral-eastareaofthesitebetweenHouses2and3(seeFigure3).Thepitwasquitesubstan-tial, 256 cm long (north-south), 125 cm wide,with an ovate plan view and a bathtub-shapedprofile35deepintothesubsoil.Thepititselfwaslittered with all the usual items one finds in arefusepitincludingceramicsherds,lithicdetritusandanimalbone(includingcalcinedfragments).Butinthesouthwestcornerofthispit,therewasasmall,discretemassofbones,somearticulatedand in the correct anatomicalposition, to indi-cateadoghadbeeninterredthere.Therewerenocutorbutchermarksonthebones.

Another small dog was deposited in anotherrefuse-filled pit (Square 450-670, Feature 2),located outside of the palisade at the northeastcorner of the site (see Figure 3). The pit con-tained an array of artifacts including seven rimsherds,over300ceramicbodysherds,afewchertflakes and a tubular bone bead. An interestingaspectofthisparticularfeature,however,wasthatthe vast majority of the animal bone depositedintoitwasderivedfromasingleimmaturedog,including both mandibles, both maxillae, andmost of the longbones (and theirunfused epi-physes)andfeet,butonlyacoupleoftheverte-braeandribswereincluded.Otherthanthedogbones,thispityieldedsixsmallfragmentsofcal-cinedbone,twowoodchuckteethandafewdeerskeletalelementsincludinganunmodifieddistalphalange.

Itcouldsimplybethatthevillageinhabitantsinterredtwooftheirpetdogs(puppies)inthesetwopits,buttheselectivedisposalofonlycertainelementstotheexclusionofothersinoneofthe


deposits, like the obvious ceremonial animalburialinHouse2,seemstoindicatesomeprefer-entialorreverenttreatmentofatleastoneofthedogs.

ItiswellknownthatinlatertimeperiodstheIroquoians used dogs for a variety of purposes,including for hunting (i.e. Thwaites 1896-1901:6:299) and as scouts (Thwaites 1896-1901:32:27). The Iroquoians gave their dogsnames (Thwaites 1896-1901:31:263-265) andthe Jesuits documented that in one instance aHuronmanwholosthisdogtoabearwhenouthuntingwassoovercomewithgriefthathespokeof the death “so pathetically that you wouldalmost have believed that he was relating thedeathofoneofthebraveCaptainsofthecoun-try” (Thwaites 1896-1901:14:33-35). TheIroquoianskeptdogsaspetsandhadsuchfond-nessforthemthattheyweresometimesinterredwiththeirowners,asinaspecificinstancedocu-mentedbytheJesuitsinwhichtheHuronwant-edtoburywithayounggirlhertwodogsbecause“it isourcustomtogive to thedeadwhat theyloved or possessed when they were living”(Thwaites1896-1901:8:267).

TheIroquoianshadstrongbeliefsaboutthesoulofadog,andsomeritualsconcerningdeathalsoapplied to dogs. It is well documented, ethno-graphically, that the Iroquoians sometimes atedogsatfeasts(i.e.Thwaites1896-1901:7:223)andthe Iroquoian White Dog Sacrifice is legendary(see J. M. Wright 2004:306-309). Sagard(1939:172)recordedthattheHuronbelievedthatdogshadsoulsandthatwhendogsdiedtheirsoulsfollowedapathparalleltothepathfollowedtothestarsbythesoulsofdeceasedpeople.AfewyearslatertheJesuitsrecordedthattheHuronbelievedthe path leading to the “Villages of Souls” wasguardedbyadog(Thwaites1896-1901:10:147).It has also been written that many cultures inNorth America believed dogs were “spirit guidesforthehumansoultotheafterworld”(Engelbrecht2003:67),andOberholtzer(2002:3)citedawidevarietyofsourcesthatdocumenttheoccurrencesof dog sacrifices and burials stretching acrossCanada from the Maritime Archaic period inNewfoundlandtohistoricNorthwestcoastgroups.Both Engelbrecht (2003:15) and J. M. Wright

(2004:314) noted a source (Cantwell 1980:491)thatclaimeddogswere“intermediatebetweentheforest,theworldoftheanimals,andthecamp,theworldofman”andthatthisthereforemadedogsan “ideal mediator or messenger between theseworlds” in the Iroquoian cosmos (Engelbrecht2003:15).SomeIroquoiansalsobelievedthatdogscould warn them about the approach of ghostsand evil spirits (Beauchamp 1922:221). JoyceWright (2004:305-306) noted that one of thereasons the Wendat (Huron) had such strongregardfordogs(andbears)andbeliefsinthesoulsofdogs(andbears)wasduetotheroleofadogasapivotalcharacterintheIroquoiancreationstory:Aataentsic fell through a hole in the sky onlybecauseshewaschasingadogwhowaschasingabear(seeThwaites1896-1901:10:127).

Complete or nearly complete dog skeletonshavebeenfoundasburialsatmanyarchaeologi-calsites intheNortheast,fromat leasttheLateArchaic period onward. For the Iroquoiansequence,dogburialswerepresentfromtheEarlyOntarioIroquoisstagePickeringbranchBennettsite (Wright and Anderson 1969:13) to theMiddle Ontario Iroquois stage Nodwell site(Wright1974:88)toLateOntarioIroquoisstagesites such as Cleveland. A dog mandible alsoaccompaniedahumanburialinanEarlyOntarioIroquoisstagePickeringbranchburialpitattheSerpent Mounds complex (Johnston 1968:50,132).Someofthedataaboutactualdog“burials”are equivocal, such as the case at the EarlyOntarioIroquoisStage,GlenMeyerbranchVanBesien village where a complete dog skeletonencountered in a midden square “shows thatwhilethiscaninewasdiscardedinanarticulatedcondition,nospecialburialpitorritualaccom-panied its demise” (Noble 1975:11). Also, thepreciseculturalaffiliationofsomesiteswheredogburials havebeen found remainsopen to inter-pretation, such as the case at the Dymock IIcomponent in Elgin County, southwesternOntario (Fox 1982:7); that site might be EarlyOntario Iroquoian and/or Western BasinAlgonkian.Anextensivecompilationofnumer-ousknownIroquoiandogburialsiscontainedinJ.M.Wright(2004:311-313).


Items of Potential Ritual Significance

Beads, Pendants and Amulets Five native copper beads were recovered atPrayingMantis,representingsomeoftheearliestknown copper beads from any Iroquoian site.Copper beads have previously been reported atonly three other Glen Meyer branch sites:Dewaele(Fox1976:190),Yaworski(Williamson1985:315) (also see Williamson 1990:300) andStafford(Wright1966:39).

Allfiveofthesebeadsaretubularandeachwasmadeby“rolling”upasinglesmallpieceofcop-per. They have lengths ranging from 8.89 to22.25 mm (mean = 14.26 mm) and diametersranging from 6.0 to 9.57 mm (mean = 7.65mm).Twoof thebeadswere found ina52cmdeepfeatureunderthebenchrowinthesouth-east end of House 2, and the other three weretogetherina29cmdeeprefuse-filledpitlocatedbetweenHouse1 and thepalisade at the southendofthesite(seeFigure3).

Therewere five tubularbeads andbead frag-ments made from bird long bone shafts. Thecompletebeadshavelengthsrangingfrom14.61mmto24.59mm(mean=19.78mm)anddiam-etersrangingfrom6.10mmto9.40mm(mean=7.95mm).Twoofthesewerefoundinadjacentone-metre squares in the midden, a third wasfrom a refuse-filled pit along the western pali-sade,afourthwasfromarefuse-filledpitoutsideofthepalisadeatthenortheastcornerofthesiteand the fifthwas froma refuse-filledpitwithinHouse 1.There were also three bird long boneshaftsthathadbeenscoredaroundthecircumfer-encefortheremovalofbeadtubes.Oneofthesewas found in a refuse-filledpitwithinHouse3and the other two were found together in arefuse-filled pit outside of the north wall ofHouse3.TheshaftfoundinthepitinHouse3was 110.78 mm long and had a partial scorearound its circumference which, if completed,wouldhave removed a tubularbead25.68mmlong and 9.9 mm in diameter, still leaving an85.1mm long shaft that could very easilyhaveprovidedtwoorthreeadditionalbeads.

In addition a single stone bead and a singlestonependantwererecovered.Thestonebeadis

adiscoidalfossil,9.94mmindiameterand3.10mmthick.ItwasdiscoveredinaonemetretestsquareduringtheStage3assessmentofthesite,inanareawhichultimatelyprovedtobeontopoftheeastendofHouse3.

Thestonependantisablackshalepebble,tear-dropshaped,withasingleperforationdrilledinthenarrowtopend.Itis26.88mmlong,23.13mmwideand3.66mmthick,andthebi-conical-ly drilled hole is 2.54 mm in diameter. It wasfound in the lower portion of a 36 cm deeprefuse-filledpitinthenorthwestcornerofHouse2 (see Figure 3). William Fox (2004) recentlypresented the astute suggestion that particularblack shale pebble pendants found on diversesites in the Lake Erie drainage basin had sym-bolicandspiritualsignificance.Thissuggestionissupportedbyonesuchpendantwithan incisedsnake/lightningmotif,foundonthepre-contactNeutral Alward site in Elgin County (artifactcuratedatMuseumofOntarioArchaeology).ItisnoteworthythatFox’s(2004)studydemonstrat-edthatthematerialfromwhichtheseshalepeb-bles were made derives from a single geologicalformationinsouthwesternOntario,thatunmodi-fiedpebblesofthatmaterialcanstillbecollectedtodayalongthenorthshoreofLakeEriearoundand between Port Stanley and Port Bruce (justwestofLongPoint),andthattheearliestarchae-ologically documented use of those pebbles forpendantscomesfromtheEarlyOntarioIroquoisStage(GlenMeyerbranch)GoessensandStaffordsitesontheNorfolkSandPlainnearLongPoint(Wright 1966:37). Fox’s research also verifiedthat theuseof thesepebblependants reacheda“zenithofpopularityinthenorthErieshorecoreareaduringthethirteenthandfourteenthcentu-ries, with numerous specimens recovered fromsites such as the Pound village” (where over 40were found) ... “Thereafter, theyoccur sporadi-cally on sixteenth century villages, such asLawson, Brian and the Southwold Earthworks”(Fox2004:296).Thepresenceofa shalepebblependantatPrayingMantisisthereforeconsistentwith present knowledge and confirms an EarlyOntarioIroquoiangenesisfortheiruse.

Asinglemarineshellbead,probablyMarginellasp.,wasrecoveredfromarefuse-filledfeaturein


thecentre-eastendofHouse2(Square435-630,Feature16).This find isconsistentwithsimilardiscoveriesatotherGlenMeyerbranchsitessuchas DeWaele (Fox 1976:190) and Elliott (Fox1988:6,8);itcanalsobenotedthatmarineshellbeadshavebeenfoundatacoupleofearliersitesassigned to the Princess Point complex (Fox1990:176).

A single brachiopod fossil fragment wasencounteredinthemiddenatthesoutheastcor-nerofthesite,andfragmentsoftwoLateArchaicperiod “Genesee” type Broadpoints were alsofound (one ofwhichwas in a 77 cmdeep fea-ture).Theuseof fossils forbeadsandpendantsand the curationof fossils andprojectilepointsfrom earlier time periods as “curios”, has beendocumented on a number of other IroquoiansitesinLondonarea(Pearce2003).

A human effigy stone amulet with an open(blowing or sucking?) mouth (Figure 8) wasfoundamidthefillinapitsituatedinthenarrowcorridor separating Houses 1 and 2 (see Figure3).Theeffigyis28.45mmtall,14.75mmwideand16.76mmthick. Itwasmadebycarvingapiece of mudstone or siltstone (material identi-fied by Dr. James V. Wright after a personalinspection of the item in 1998). The effigy isshapedsomewhatlikeamushroomortoadstoolwithhumanheadperchedatopa“stem”orped-estal.Thebaseofthepedestalisunevenandtheeffigydoesnotstanduprightonitsown.Thereisa5.25mmholedrilledinthepedestal,fromthebase,partwayup the shaft and exitingout theside of the shaft; this hole is 13.68 mm longwithin the 20.06 mm long shaft. It is possiblethattheeffigywasmountedontoanotherobjectsuchasapieceofboneorwood,likeaneraserontheendofapencil.Thehumanfacesitsata45degreeangle(chinslopingdown)onthepedestal,andconsistsoftwoeyes,anose,themouthandapointy chin.The eye sockets are quite deep (3mm)andafurtherpinholeinthelefteyesocketleavesthedistinctimpressionthatitwasmeanttorepresent the pupil of the eye. The foreheadslopesupwardandbackwardandinthecentreoftheverytopoftheheadthereisadistinctconcav-ity6.41mmindiameterand4.0mmdeep,asifthe medial halves of the parietals had been

removedfromtheskull.Justbehindtheconcav-itythereisadistinctnubprotrudingupward,likeaverytiny“topknot”.Theheadmeasuredfromthebottomofthechintothetopofthenubis18.82mmlong.Onthefrontofthepedestal,ontheneckbelowthechin,thereisanarrowverticalridgeextending three-quartersof thewaydownthepedestal;thiswascreatedinbas-reliefbycarv-ingthesoftstonematerialawayfrombothsidesofit.Thisnarrowridge(lookingsomewhatlike,in modern parlance, a neck tie) parallels theesophagus.

EffigieshavebeenfoundatotherEarlyOntarioIroquoian stage sites, but most of those otherknownexamplesareanimaleffigies,nothumaneffigies.Therewasareported“medallionhumanface” on a pipe stem from the Glen MeyerDeWaele site, a supposed human effigy at thePickering Bolitho site (Williamson 1990:299),and recently a carved piece of sandstone withsimple punctate indentations to represent twoeyes and a mouth was uncovered at the GlenMeyer King’s Forest Park site (AhGw-1) inHamilton (Martin Cooper, personal communi-cation,October2006).Humaneffigiescertainlyoccurredinmuchearliertimeperiodselsewhereas known, for example, by an engraved pebble

Figure 8. Stone human effigy amulet.


fromtheLateArchaicCoteau-du-LacsiteontheSt.LawrenceRiverinQuebec(Marois1987:13,23,33),aclay(orstone?)onefromLesGalopsRapidssitenearBrockville,Ontario(J.V.Wright1995:248,250)andamarineshellonefromthePicton site on the Bay of Quinte (Ritchie1949:37; J.V.Wright1995:252).However, thePraying Mantis human effigy, and perhaps theKing’sForestPark specimen, are apparently thefirstoftheirkindfromOntarioIroquoiansites,sincetheyarestand-alonestoneamuletsandnotpart of an effigy pipe or ceramic medallion.Anotherhumaneffigystoneamuletormaskettewithablowingor suckingmouthwas foundatthe Middle Ontario Iroquois stage (Middleportsubstage) Nodwell site (J.V.Wright 1974:153)on the east shoreofLakeHuron atPortElgin,Ontario.Stand-alonehumaneffigyfigurinesarealso known from later sites, as for example aspecimendescribedintheAnnual Archaeological Report, Ontario (AARO) for1896-97 (page59)from the Huron village referred to as the “OldFort”inWhitchurchTownship,YorkCounty.

ThePrayingMantis effigy isquiteunlike theeffigy on any human effigy pipe known fromlaterIroquoiansites.Forexample,thereisnoth-ing similar to it among the many effigies illus-trated or described in the pages of the AARO(issued first by the Canadian Institute, then bythe Provincial Museum, between 1887 and1928),byLaidlawinaseriesofsixarticlesintheAARO(1903,1913,1914,1915,1916,1924),or in articles by Mathews (1976, 1979, 1980,1981) or Noble (1979). However, some of thespecific elements on or characteristics of thePrayingMantis effigydidappearonmany laterhuman effigy pipes. Of especial interest is oneparticular Huron Iroquoian ceramic effigy pipefromMedonteTownship, SimcoeCounty illus-trated by Mathews (1976: Plate Ic, NationalMuseum of Canada catalogue numberVIII-F-8494), which had a “blowing” openmouth, deep eye sockets, a topknot and anincisedmotifontheneck/chestarearesemblingribsand thevertebral column.Could itbe thatthePrayingMantisspecimenwasanearlyproto-typeforconceptsthatwouldmuchlaterintimebecomeensconcedinIroquoianbeliefsystems?

ThePrayingMantishumaneffigymustalsobeconsideredinthecontextofthehumanpunctatefacemotifs,whichappearedforthefirsttimeinthe Iroquoian sequence on Early OntarioIroquoian ceramic vessels (three punctates, tworepresenting the eyes and one representing themouth, almost always positioned on a castella-tion). Examples are known from many sitesincluding theGoessensGlenMeyerbranch site(Wright1966:PlateI,Figure14)andtheBennettPickering branch site (Wright and Anderson1969:Figure6;PlateIX,Figurec;andPlateXI,Figureb).Asnotedelsewhereherein,thehumanface punctate motif also occurred at PrayingMantis,beingpresenton10castellatedceramicvessels.These 10 vessels were distributed acrossallareasofthesite:oneinHouse1,twoinHouse2,oneinHouse3,twointhemidden,threeinrefusepitsalongthewesternpalisade,andoneinarefusepitinanactivityareabetweenHouses2and3(Howie-Langs1998:164).

As a matter of some interest, the pit whichcontainedtheeffigy(Square430-625,Feature2)wassomewhatatypical.Itwasovateinplanview,81cmlongand74cmwide.Whenexcavated,itwas found to have a bell-shaped profile whichwidenedoutatthebottom,atadepthof60cmbelowsurface,tobe80cmindiameter.Theverybottom of the pit had been deliberately lined,first with a shallow layer of solid clay (whichstood out remarkably in contrast to the yellowsandsubsoil)andnextwithrowsofbrokencer-amicsherds,alllayingfacedown.Inonecornerofthepit,restingonthesherds,wasadensecon-centrationof fishbone.Abovethiswasaratherlarge,intact,ceramicvesselsegmentandanum-berofsherdswhichcouldberefittedtoit,aswellassherdsfromasecondvesselthatcouldbepar-tiallyrestored.Aswithsomeofthepitsinotherareasofthesite,thisoneseemstoindicateaone-timeceremonialeventwhichinvolvedthedelib-erate preparation of a hole in the ground fol-lowedbythedepositionofspecificobjectsintoit,includingpotsandtheremnantsofwhatmighthavebeenfeasts.ThesamemightalsobesaidforaHouse2pitintowhichwasdepositedalargelyintact ceramic vessel, sitting upright and con-taining within it a dense mass of fish bone.


Evidenceforone-timefeastingeventsoccurredatother Early Ontario Iroquoian sites, such asElliott (Fox 1988:5-6) and Calvert (Timmins1997:231-232).

Mica and Red OchreThe site yielded12 fragments ofmica and twotinypiecesofredochre.Thesesubstancesdonotoccurnaturally in thearea, so theyhad tohavebeen transported to the village.These materialsaremostoftenemployedinaceremonialcontextand thus their presence at Praying Mantis pro-videsfurtherevidenceforritualsandceremonialactivitiesatthesite.

Significantly one of the pieces of mica wasfound in a flotation sample from the Burial 2featureandmightverywellhavebeendepositedthereinaspartofthereburialritual.Nineotherpiecesofmicawereintheflotationsamplefromarefuse-filledpit in thecentreofHouse3,onewas from a refuse-filled pit in the activity areabetweenHouses2 and3, and the twelfthpiecewasfoundinthemidden.Thetwopiecesofredochrecamefromtwoadjacentfeatures(depthsof42cmand62cm)inthesoutheastendofHouse1.

Modified Turtle ShellSeveral fragments from the carapace of a snap-ping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) were depositedinarefuse-filledpitinthewestendofHouse2(Square 435-615, Feature 2; location shown inFigure 3), and some of those pieces had beenculturally-modified. The fragments include amajorityof theupper leftquadrantof thecara-pacewhenviewed from theventral (inner) sur-face,headtothetop.Threeoftheouterperipher-alshaveanelongatedburnorscorchmarkonthedorsal(outer)surface.Theinteriorsurfacesofthecorresponding costal, nuchal and neural boneswhichattachedtothoseperipheralsareallwornsmoothorpolished, as are someof the interiorsurfacesofothercostalsfromthelowerleftquad-rantofthecarapace.Theaforementionedneural,wheretheturtle’satlasandaxisvertebraewouldhaveattached,hadthespinyprocessforvertebralattachment ground off and polished, and a 4.9mmdiameterholewas reamed through the top

edgeofit.Thecorrespondingbottomedgeofthenuchalwhichattachedtothatneuralisdamagedbutappears tohaveareamedhole in itaswell,formingtheotherhalfoftheholeintheneural.Themodificationandwearontheturtlecarapacearevirtuallyidenticaltothatonasnappingturtleshell rattle recovered from the early sixteenthcentury Lawson pre-contact Neutral Iroquoianvillage in northwest London (personal observa-tion). Although pieces of modified turtle shellinterpreted as parts of rattles have been discov-eredatotherEarlyOntarioIroquoisstage,GlenMeyerbranchsitesincludingWoodsmen(Wright1966:38) andVanBesien (Noble1975:36), thePraying Mantis carapace, if used as a rattle, ishighlysignificantbecauseitwouldrepresenttheearliestknownuseofasnappingturtleforarattlefromanyIroquoiansite.

A single piece of carapace from a Blanding’sturtle (Emydoidea blandingi) found in a refuse-filled pit (Square 420-615, Feature 9) at thesouth end of Praying Mantis had several cutmarksandstriationsontheinteriorsurface,andthat surface also exhibits a very high degree ofpolish.This fragment obviously had been usedforsomething,butwhetherofnotitwaspartofa rattle isunknown; itmayhavebeenpartofautilitariancontainer,oritmayhavebeenusedtocreate someof the turtle suture stampedmotifsonsomeoftheceramicvesselsfoundonthesite.

Ceramics

Consideringthesmallsizeofthesite,therewereanextraordinarily large number of ceramic vessels.There were well over 500 analyzable rim sherdsandafurther484fragmentaryrimsherds,manyofwhich could be reassembled into complete ornearly complete vessels. Significantly, large seg-mentsofpotsweresometimesdepositedintocer-tainfeaturesonthesite,asforexampletherecov-ery of all or the major portions of five differentpotsinonefeatureabuttingthepalisadealongthewest side of the site, outside of the west end ofHouse 2. Such actions might possibly be con-struedastheceremonialdumpingofthesevesselsafteracommunalfeast.Theverybottomofthatfeature that contained the five vessels was lined


with rocks, perhaps the boiling rocks that hadbeenusedtoheatupwhateverwasinthepots.

Linda Howie-Langs (1998) undertook adetailedanalysisof theceramicvessels.The fol-lowingpointsarenoteworthy:

1) After reconstruction andmending, therewereatotalof82vesselswhichcouldbeclassified as “complete” (insofar as all oftheattributesoftheinterior,lipandexter-iorfromlipedgedowntolowerbodyorbase could be accurately determined).Overone-halfofthese“complete”vesselswerefoundinrefusepitswithinthethreehouses(eightinHouse1,23inHouse2,16inHouse3),andsixofthe“complete”vesselswerefromthemidden.

2) There were a minimum of 287 distinctceramicvessels(the82“complete”vesselsplus205othersrepresentedbydistinctorunique analyzable rim segments varyingfromasingleanalyzablerimsherdtosev-eral large reconstructed rim segmentsfromlipdowntobaseofneckortoshoul-der),broadlycategorizedas277collarless,fivecollaredandfive“rolledcollar”.

3) Far more vessels were associated withHouse2(84innumber)thanwithHouse1(31),House3(46)oranyoftheexteriorhouseactivityareas.4)Themeanexteriordiameter of the “complete” vessels was20.97cm,buttherewere19vesselswithrimdiametersof30cmormore,thelar-gest being 46 cm in diameter; nine oftheselargevesselsweredepositedinrefusepitsinsidethethreehouses.

5) 65vesselshadcastellations,andon10ofthose vessels the decoration associatedwith the castellationwas apunctate facemotif.

6) Therewasadefinitedifferentiationinthedistributionofspecificattributes,indica-tive of internal segmentation of the vil-lage.Forexample,theuseofturtlesuturestampwasconfinedtotheceramicsasso-ciated with Houses 1 and 2 and totallyabsent from House 3. Several otherspecifictraitswerefoundornotfoundonthe ceramics associated with a specific

house, such as an absence of the cordedandpush-pulltechniquesinHouse1butpresentinHouses2and3,andthepres-enceofseveraldistinctattributesormotifsonlyontheceramicsfromHouse2.

The two most complexly decorated ceramicvesselsfoundatthesitewereassociatedwithHouse2.Theexteriormotifsontheentireassemblageofvesselsfromthesitewerehighlyvaried,andrangedfrom boringly plain (28 vessels with no exteriordecorationwhatsoever)toonesthatwereextremelycomplex.Therewereeightvesselsthateachhad10or more separate bands or zones of exteriordecoration, with the two most complex oneshaving 21 and 26 bands. Aside from those twomost complexly decorated vessels, the next mostcomplexlydecoratedvesselwasonefromHouse3thathad14bands.

The vessel with 21 bands of decoration(ReconstructedVessel#19,AfHi-178:220,228)wasoneofthelargestfoundatthesite,withanexteriordiameterof45cm.Ithadthefollowingsequenceofexteriormotifs/techniques, fromlipedgedowntothebodybelowtheshoulder:

Band1:cross-hatched linear stampobliques(lefttorightsuperimposedoverrighttoleft).Band2:onehorizontalrowofclosely-spacedexteriorpunctates(whichdidnotraiseinter-iorbosses).Band3:onehorizontalrowofrighttoleftlinearstampobliques.Bands4-8:fiveseparateincisedhorizon-tallines.Bands9-11:threeseparaterowsofrighttoleftlinearstampobliques.Bands 12 - 20: nine separate rows ofincisedhorizontals.Band21:acomplex“zig-zag”motifcom-prised of multiple overlapping chevronsconsisting of sets of from eight to tenincised obliques alternating left to rightandrighttoleft(i.e.asetofeighttotenlefttorightobliquesabuttingonboththeleftand right sides other sets of eight to tenrighttoleftobliques).Wherethe“tails”oflefttorightandrighttoleftobliquesinter-sect,themotifiscross-hatched.

The21-bandedvesselistrulyuniqueinmany


ways.Itiscollaredbutthereisnocleardemarca-tionofthecollarinprofileview;thecollariscon-vexgraduatingintoconcaveattheneckbelowit.Bands1to3areonthecollarportion,whileBands4 through20extenddown fromthebaseof thecollartothebottomoftheneck.Notcountedasaseparate “band” is a fairly wide plain zone (nodecoration) located between Bands 11 and 12.Band21occursontheshoulder,andthatparticu-larmotifdidnotoccuronanyothervesselatthesite.Thebodybelowthecomplexshoulderdecor-ation is heavily cord-roughened. Under Wright’s(1966:126-127)typologicaldefinition,thisvesselwould be classified as Glen Meyer Necked. Inaddition, the 21-banded vessel had both lipdecorationandinteriordecoration.Thelipdecor-ationconsistedofalternatingrighttoleftandleftto right linear stamp obliques which extendedacross the lip/interior interface to give the visualimpression of notching when viewed from theinterior, but not from the exterior.The interiordecorationconsistedofthreerowsofrighttoleftlinear stamp obliques. This vessel had multiplecastellations.ThedecorativemotifsofBands1and2hadbeenpurposefullyomittedfromthecastella-tionarea,andinsteadthepunctatefacemotifhadbeen applied (that is, the addition of three stra-tegically-placed punctates to represent two eyesand themouthof ahumaneffigy).Whereas thepunctatesformingBand2ofthevesselhadbeenmadewithadull,roundedstylusappliedhorizon-tally,thethreepunctatesofthecastellationmotifhadbeenmadewithanoblongstylusappliedinanobliqueupwarddirection.

Thevesselwith26bandsofdecorationwasofmediumsize,being20cminexteriordiameteratthelip.Onfirstinspection,itdoesnotappeartobecomplexlydecorated,asonefirstseesonlyfivebands, all right to left obliques created by thesame turtle suture stamp tool. However, uponcloser inspectiononecan see thateachof thosefivebandsisreallycomprisedofmultipleoverlap-pingbandsoftheidenticalmotif.Inotherwords,Band1isnotonerowofobliques,butratheracombination of five superimposed/overlappingrows of obliques, Band 2 is not one row ofobliquesbutratheracombinationofsixsuperim-posed/overlapping obliques, and so on. The

bandsalloccurontheupperrimportionofthecollarless vessel, and the neck and shoulder areplain.Thebodybelowtheshoulderisroughenedwith a ribbed paddle. In Wright’s (1966:111-112)terminology,thisvesselwouldbeclassifiedasOntarioOblique.Thelipandinteriorofthisvessel are decorated in the same manner as theupper exterior, with overlapping obliques madewith a turtle suture stamp tool. There are nocastellations. Considerable effort and care wentintotheapplicationofthestampedmotifsonthisvessel.

Majorportionsof eachof the twocomplexlydecoratedvesselswererecoveredfromtwosepar-aterefuse-filledpitsinwhatHowie-Langs(1998:Map3)definedasthe“WesternPalisadeRefusePits”activityarea.Thesepitsweresituated12to14 metres beyond the western end of House 2(see Figure 3), but, significantly, several sherdsfromfeatureswithinHouse2couldbephysicallycross-mended to the twovessel segments foundinthepalisadepits.Thisprovesbeyondadoubtthatthetwomostcomplexceramicvesselsorigin-ated in, or were used in, House 2, and werebrokenwithinHouse2.Mostofthesherdsfromthebroken vesselswere thendiscarded into thepalisade pits outside of the house, but some ofthesherdsremainedinHouse2andcametobedepositedinfeaturesinthehouse.

Sweat Lodge

Aturtleorkey-holeshapedfeaturewithaslopedorrampedentrancewaslocatedatthesoutheastcorner of House 2, extending under the wallpostsofboththesouthwallandeastendofthehouse(seeFigures3and4).Afterthefeaturewasexcavated,asinglepostmouldwasfoundinthecentre of the feature and several other smalleroneswerearoundtheslopingwallsoftheperim-eterofthefeature.Thisfeaturehasanumberofsimilarities to sweat lodges, most of which hadinterior post moulds apparently placed there tosupportsomesortofcoveringorsuperstructure.Itistheonlysuchfeatureatthesite.

Sweatlodgefeaturesareknownfromanumberof other southern Ontario Iroquoian villages


including the Early Ontario Iroquoian stage,PickeringbranchBennett(WrightandAnderson1969:22-23,describedassix“pear-shapedpits”)and Gunby (Rozel 1979:14; described as pits‘intrusive through the west wall” of House 1)sites, the transitional Early to Middle OntarioIroquoianstageMyersRoadsite(Ramsdenetal.1998),theMiddleOntarioIroquoian,Middleportsubstage Seppala site (Lennox et al. 1997:34;describedas“turtleshaped”sweatlodge)andtheLateOntarioIroquois stagepre-contactNeutralColeman and Moyer sites (MacDonald 1988)(alsoseeMacDonaldandWilliamson2001:67).

ThePrayingMantisfeatureidentifiedasasweatlodge(Figure9)isquitesimilartosomeoftheonesdocumentedatseveralothersites,inthatthemainpartof the“turtleshaped”pitwasoutsideof thelonghousebut entrywasgainedvia a rampedorslopedentrance(theheadof the“turtle”) locatedinside thehouse.ThePrayingMantispithadanoverallkeyhole-shapedplanviewwithamaximumlength(north-south)of282cmandamaximumwidth (east-west) of 185 cm. The lobe-shapedentrance component of this pit was 90 cm longand70cmwide,whilethemainbodyofthepit

was rectangular, 192 cm long (north-south) and185 cm wide. The profile was bathtub-shaped,shallowest at the north end (the entrance) andsloping downward to the south. The overalldimensionsand3.42cubicmetrecapacityof themain pit are virtually identical to those at theColemansite(seeMacDonald1988:21andFigure4).UnlikethesweatlodgesnotedatColemanandother sites, however, the Praying Mantis pit wasquiteshallow,extendingonlytoamaximumdepthof28cmbelowthetopsoil/subsoilinterface.ThePrayingMantisfeaturehadalayeredandlensedfillwiththebasallayerbeingamixtureofdarkblackorganicsoilandcharcoal.Thepitfillcontainedarange of artifacts consisting of three fire-crackedrocks, 55 ceramic sherds including one rim, 19pieces of chert chipping detritus, two pieces ofanimal bone, charcoal and, perhaps reflecting aspecializeduseofthepit,asingleceramicgamingdisc. MacDonald (1988:17-19) reviewed thedocumentary evidence for how and why theIroquoians (and other First Nations) used sweatlodges: forpersonalhygiene, as amechanism forsocial integration, but above all for religious orspiritualfulfillment.Healsonotedthattherewas

Figure 9. Location, plan and profile of sweat lodge feature.


an essential link between sweat-bathing andshamanism, and he quoted a passage from theJesuit missionary Jerome Lalemant (Thwaites1896-1901:26:175-177),whichdescribedhowintheseventeenthcenturyaHuronshamanbuiltasmall,one-mansweatlodgetofacilitatehiscontactwith the spirit world. Furthermore, MacDonaldcited a variety of additional passages from theethnohistoric recordwhichdealtwithcommunalsweats“bygroupsofmenforcuringceremonies,religious convocation, ritual purification,maintenanceofphysical/spiritualhealth,recreationandsocialinteraction”(MacDonald1988:18).

The Praying Mantis feature confirmsMacDonald’s(1988:24)conclusionthatritualorcommunalsweat-bathingwasonecomponentofdailylifeintheEarlyOntarioIroquoianvillage.The location of this sweat lodge at the easternend of House 2 near other interesting featuresdemonstratestheritualusesofthathouseandofthesefeaturesatanearlytimelevel.

Faunal Remains

There were remarkable differences in the overallnumber and distribution of faunal remains inHouse2asopposedtootherareasofthesite.First,faunalremainswerepresentinvirtuallyalloftheHouse2featureswhereas inHouses1and3lessthan 75% of the in-house features containedfaunalremains(Muir1996:5).Tobeprecise,ofthe84 features in House 2, 77 had faunal remains,equatingto91.7%ofthefeatures;ifoneexcludesthe four hearths, the percentage of House 2features with faunal remains was 96.3%. ThecorrespondingfiguresforHouse1were74.4%(or82.9% of all features excluding hearths) and forHouse3,71.4%(or74.1%ofallfeaturesexcludinghearths). Second, there were far more faunalremains(andalsofarmoreartifactsintotal)fromHouse2thanfromtheothertwohouses.Infact,there were three times as many animal bones inHouse2thanineitherHouse1orHouse3.WhileHouse 1 had 1513 pieces of animal bone andHouse3had1187pieces,House2hadover4500pieces(Muir1996:5).Theprimaryreasonforthisdifference was due to the fact that two features

within House 2 had extremely large numbers offishbonesdepositedinthem,perhapstheremnantsoffeasts.

Discussion and Conclusions

House2atthePrayingMantissitewassomewhatdifferent from the other two houses. It wasexpanded in terms of both width and length. Ithadwithinitthreetrulyuniquefeatures:arefuse-filled pit that was also used for the secondaryinterment of seven individuals plus a culturally-modified human mandible that might havefunctionedaspartofamask;anearbypitwhichcontainedaprimarydepositof thebonesof twoimmatureottersandnineraccoons(immatureandjuvenile specimens); and near both the Burial 2featureandtheotter/raccoonbonepittherewasasweatlodgefeature.Onehastoconcludethatoneormoresacredceremonies tookplace in theeastend of House 2, which minimally involved thesecondary re-burial of seven individuals, thepossible use of a mask made with a humanmandible,theritualdepositionofsomeottersandraccoons,andtheactofsweatinginasweatlodge.Whetherornotalloftheseactivitiestookplaceasasingleeventispurelyamatterofspeculation.Yet,it can be noted that in later Iroquoian timeperiods, there are unequivocal data that sweatlodges and burial ceremonies were coeval, as forexample at the Middle Ontario Iroquoian StageHutchinsonsite(AkGt-34)wheretwosweatlodgeswerefoundwithinamortuaryareaoffourburialfeatures (where primary interments had beenlargelyexhumedforre-burialelsewhere)(Robertson2004).

SeveralotherinterestingfindsalsocamefromthissameendofHouse2, includingtwooftheoverallrarerolledcopperbeads,themarineshellbead and a ceramic gaming disc. The stonehuman effigy amulet was recovered from a pitjustoutsideofHouse2.Asnotedabove,thepitwiththeamulet(Square430-625,Feature2)wasvery atypical in that it involved the deliberatepreparationofapit,thecarefulinclusionofsev-eral specific objects into the pit including potsand what might be the remnants of a feast. In


addition,anotherHouse2pit,locatedjustnorthoftheonejustdescribed,alsohadanotherlargelyintact ceramic vessel, sitting upright and con-tainingwithin itadensemassof fishboneper-hapsalsosuggestingaone-timefeastingevent.Itis also noteworthy that the culturally-modifiedsnapping turtle carapace was discovered withinHouse2,albeitfromapitinthewestendofthisstructure.Asaprobablerattle,animportantrit-ual object in post-contact times, this item alsohighlights the ceremonial role of this structure.AlsoassociatedwithHouse2wastheonlyshalepebblependantfoundatthesite.

That human burials were found at PrayingMantis was not unexpected, since Spence(1994b:9-14) had documented the presence ofhumanburialsonatleast21otherEarlyOntarioIroquoian sites (16 Glen Meyer branch sitesincluding Praying Mantis and six Pickeringbranch sites). Those burials included primaryinterments, secondary interments of the partialremains of one to several individuals, the “dis-carding”of left-over skeletalelements frompre-sumedprimaryburialswhichhadbeenexhumedandhadamajorityoftheirskeletalelementsre-buriedelsewhere(i.e.atlocationsnotyetdiscov-ered),and“ossuary”-likeburialpitswiththesec-ondarydepositionofasmanyas29individuals.OneofthefeaturesexcavatedattheGlenMeyerbranch Elliott site (overlapping villages) wassomewhatsimilartothePrayingMantisBurial2featureinthatithadlikewisebeenfirstusedforrefuse disposal before human remains wereinterredinit(Fox1988:5-7).Yet,thereappeartohavebeenthreeuniquecharacteristicsaboutthePraying Mantis burials. The first was that theindividualinterredinaprimaryfashioninBurial1hadbeenpartiallyexhumedforre-burialelse-where.Thesecondwasthat intheBurial2fea-ture, the crania from seven individuals werecarefullyarrangedinanouterringbefore“hand-fuls” or “clusters” of longbonesweredepositedwithintheringofcrania.ThethirdwasthattheBurial2featurealsoincludedthedepositionofaculturally-modifiedmandiblefromanotherindi-vidual,atraitheretoforenotdocumentedamongtheOntarioIroquoians.

TheevidenceforceremonialactivityatPraying

Mantisdoesnotstandalone.AttheCalvertsitethere was a unique feature containing specificbonesfromthehead,wingsandtailofararebird(Carolina parakeet) in association with a stonepipebowl(Timmins1997:232;vonGernetandTimmins1987).Agroundandcarvedmudstoneobjectwith a reptilianor salamander-like effigyon it was also found at Calvert (Timmins1997:123), as was a one-of-a-kind rattlesnakeeffigycarvedonapieceofantler(Fox2003).Ininterpreting theseCalvert site finds,one authorwrotethattheysymbolizedboththeunderworldandtheupperworldandthattheirappearanceatone site “reinforces the spirit world dichotomycharacteristic of Great Lakes Native religiousbeliefsystems”(Fox2003:6).AttheElliottvilla-ges,Fox(1986:14)inferredthat“minoramountsof certain bird species such as hawk, eagle andblue jay may reflect localized ritual activities.”This was especially the case for Feature 283 atElliott,wherearefusedisposalpitwasfirstusedtoreceiveaceramicvesselandsomefishbones,which perhaps were indicative of a ceremonialfeast,andsubsequentlyusedfortheintermentofsomehumanremains (representingat least fourindividuals; Spence 1988:10-11) along with abonefromaneaglewing(tentativelyidentifiedasgoldeneagle)andthreesmallmarineshellbeads(Marginella sp.) (Fox 1988:6, 8). Thus thePrayingMantissitehasaddedvaluabledatatoagrowingbodyofevidenceforritualismandcere-monialism in the Early Ontario Iroquoian per-iod.

Acknowledgments. The author wishes to thankthefollowing:LindaHowieforherpermissiontoutilizesomeofthedataandgraphicsfromherMAthesis on the Praying Mantis ceramics; KarenMattila foroverseeingmostof the fielddirectiondutiesandrecordingofsettlementpatterndatainthefallof1993;JefferyMuirforoverseeingmostof the field direction duties and recording ofsettlementpatterndatainthespringof1994,forhisspecificanalysisofthefaunalelementsfromtheotterandraccoonbonepitandforsharinghisdataregardingtheanalysisofthefaunalremainsfromthe entire site; Harri Mattila for overseeing thelaboratoryworkandpreparingacursoryinventory


ofthefaunalremains;HarryLernerforhisworkon the site plan andgraphics; and especiallyDr.MichaelSpenceforhissupervisionoftheexcavationoftheburialfeaturesandhissubsequentosteologicalanalysis.

The Regional Coroner (Dr. Keith Johnston),the Registrar, Cemeteries Branch, OntarioMinistryofConsumerandCommercialRelations(Mr. Stewart Smith), and members of OneidaNation of the Thames (Onoyota’a:ka) (electedChief Al Day and traditional Chiefs/Bear claneldersRayJohnandBelangerBrown)facilitatedthe site disposition agreement, which precededtheexcavationandanalysisoftheburialfeatures.

TheStage2archaeologicalassessmentofPhaseIIof theSumercrest subdivision,Stage3assess-ment and Stage 4 mitigation of the PrayingMantissitewerefundedbythedeveloper,Mr.W.W. Willcock of Bilmar Developments Corp.(London), with logistical and technical supportfrom that company’s planning consultant Mr.DonRiley,PlanCanAssociatesInc.(London).

A large number of volunteers, particularlystudents from the Department of Anthropology,University of Western Ontario, assisted in theinitialexcavationofthesiteinthefallof1993,andin the subsequent laboratory work including theprocessingofanextremelylargequantityofsoilviaflotation, and washing and cataloguing of theartifacts. The names of these 46 individuals arelistedintheMuseum’s1993licencereport(LondonMuseumofArchaeology1993:ix).

AllofthedataandartifactsrelatingtoPrayingMantis are curated at the Museum of OntarioArchaeology,1600AttawandaronRoad,London.

References Cited

Baby,Raymond1956 A Unique Hopewellian Mask-Headress.

American Antiquity21(3):303-305.1959 CertainFeaturesoftheAdenaCulture.The

West Virginia Archaeologist11:31-34.Beauchamp,William

1922 Iroquois Folk Lore, Gathered from the Six Nations of New York. The Dehler Press,Syracuse, for the Onondaga HistoricalSociety.Biggar,Henry.

1924 The Voyages of Jacques Cartier.Publicationsofthe Public Archives of Canada, No. 11.Ottawa.

Cantwell,Ann-Marie1980 Middle Woodland Dog Ceremonialism in

Illinois. The Wisconsin Archaeologist61(11):480-496.

Chapman,L.J.andD.F.Putnam1984 The Physiography of Southrn Ontario,Third

Edition.OntarioGeologicalSurvey,SpecialVolume2.Toronto.

Cook,DellaandCherylMunson2002 ScanningElectronMicroscopyof Modified

Human Bone from Mississippian Caborn-Welborn Phase and Angel Phase Sites inWest-Central Kentucky and SouthwesternIndiana. Paper presented at the 9th AnnualMeetingoftheMidwestBioarchaeologyandForensic Anthropology Association,University of Indianapolis, Indianapolis,Indiana. [Abstract posted at http://archlab.uindy.edu/BARFAA-2002.html]

Curtin,JeremiahandJ.N.B.Hewitt1918 Seneca Fiction, Legends and Myths,Part1and

Part 2. Smithsonian Institution Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology, 32nd Annual Report1910-1911,pp.37-819.Washington,D.C.

Engelbrecht,William2003 Iroquoia: The Development of a Native World.

SyracuseUniversityPress,Syracuse.Fox,William

1976 The Central North Shore. In The Late Prehistory of the Lake Erie Drainage Basin,edited by David Brose, pp. 162-192. TheCleveland Museum of Natural History,Cleveland.

1982 An Initial Report on the Dymock Villages(AeHj-2).Kewa82(1):2-10.

1986 The Elliott Villages (AfHc-2): AnIntroduction.Kewa86(1):11-17.

1988 The Elliott Village: Pit of the Dead. Kewa88(4):2-9.

1990 The Middle Woodland to Late WoodlandTransition. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650,editedbyChrisEllisand Neal Ferris. Occasional Publication oftheLondonChapter,OntarioArchaeologicalSocietyNo.5:171-188.London.

2003 The Calvert Village Underworld. Kewa03(3):2-7.

2004 Horned Panthers and Erie Associates. In APassion for the Past: Papers in Honour of James F. Pendergast,editedbyJ.V.WrightandJ-L.Pilon. Canadian Museum of Civilization,


Archaeological Survey of Canada MercurySeries Paper 164:283-304. Gatineau,Quebec.

Greber,Naomi.1979 A Comparative Study of Site Morphology

and Burial Patterns at the Edwin HarnessMound and Seip Mounds 1 and 2. InHopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, edited by David Brose andN’omi Greber, pp. 27-38. Kent StateUniversityPress.

Howie-Langs,Linda1998 ThePrayingMantisSite:AStudyofCeramic

VariabilityandCulturalBehaviouratanEarlyIroquoian Village. Unpublished MA Thesis,Department of Anthropology, University ofWesternOntario,London.

Johnson,Pauline1911 Legends of Vancouver.DavidSpencerLimited,

Vancouver.Johnston,RichardB.

1968 The Archaeology of the Serpent Mounds Site.RoyalOntarioMuseumArt&ArchaeologyDivision,OccasionalPaper10.Toronto.

Laidlaw,George1903 EffigyPipesinStone.Annual Archaeological

Report, Ontario 1902:37-57.1913 OntarioEffigyPipes inStone-2ndReport.

Annual Archaeological Report, Ontario1913:37-67.

1914 OntarioEffigyPipes inStone -3rdReport.Annual Archaeological Report, Ontario 1914:44-76.

1915 OntarioEffigyPipes inStone -4thReport.Annual Archaeological Report, Ontario 1915:58-62.

1916 OntarioEffigyPipes inStone -5thReport.Annual Archaeological Report, Ontario1916:63-83.

1924 Effigy Pipes in Stone - 6th Paper. Annual Archaeological Report, Ontario1923:57-80.

Lennox,Paul,PeterTimminsandChristineDodd1997 Ministry of Transportation Archaeological

Investigations by the Southwest RegionArchaeology Office. Annual Archaeological Report, Ontario 7:32-40. Ontario HeritageFoundation,Toronto.

LondonMuseumofArchaeology1993 InterimReportonArchaeologicalAssessment

andMitigationintheSumercrestSubdivision(PhaseII),DraftPlan39T-89028,London.Prepared for PlanCan Associates Inc.(London) and Bilmar Developments Corp.

(London).Licencereport93-017-10onfile,OntarioMinistryofCulture.

1994 1994 Fieldwork at the Praying Mantis Site(AfHi-178),London.Licencereport94-009-02onfile,OntarioMinistryofCulture.

MacDonald,Robert1988 Ontario Iroquoian Sweat Lodges. Ontario

Archaeology48:17-26.MacDonald,RobertandRonaldWilliamson

2001 Sweat Lodges and Solidarity: TheArchaeology of the Hubbert Site. Ontario Archaeology71:29-78.

Marois,Roger1987 Souvenirs D’Antan: Les Sépultures

Archaïques de Coteau-du-Lac, Québec.Recherches Amérindiennes au QuébecXVII(1-2):7-25.

Mathews,ZenaP.1976 Huron Pipes and Iroquoian Shamanism.

Man in the Northeast 12:15-32.1979 Pipes With Human Figures from Ontario

andWesternNewYork.American Indian Art Magazine 4(3):42-89.

1980 Of Man and Beast: The Chronology ofEffigy Pipes among Ontario Iroquoians.Ethnohistory27(4):295-307.

1981 Janus and Other Multiple-Image IroquoianPipes.Ontario Archaeology35:3-22.

Muir,Jeffery1994 A Brief Listing of Faunal Remains from

Feature 1, Square 435-635 at the PrayingMantisSite(AfHi-178)intheSouthEndofLondon, Ontario. Unpublished manuscripton file, Department of Anthropology,University of Toronto and Museum ofOntario Archaeology. (Cited with author’spermission.)

1996 Faunal Findings at the Praying Mantis Site(AfHi-178). Paper presented at the 29thAnnual Meeting, Canadian ArchaeologicalAssociation, Halifax. (Copy of presentationonfile,MuseumofOntarioArchaeology.)

Noble,William1975 Van Besien (AfHd-2): A Study in Glen

Meyer Development. Ontario Archaeology24:3-95.

1979 Ontario Iroquois Effigy Pipes. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 3:69-90

Oberholtzer,Cath2002 Fleshing Out the Evidence: From Archaic

DogBurialstoHistoricDogFeasts.Ontario Archaeology73:3-14.

Pearce,RobertJ.2003 Items and Means of Personal Adornment


Among the Neutral: Evidence from theLawsonSite.Kewa03(6-7):1-31.

Ramsden, Carol, Ronald Williamson, RobertMacDonaldandCarolShort

1998 SettlementPatterns.InThe Myers Road Site: Archaeology of the Early to Middle Iroquoian Transition, edited by Ronald Williamson.Occasional Publications of the LondonChapter, Ontario Archaeological Society,No.7:11-84.London.

Ritchie,William1949 An Archaeological Survey of the Trent

Waterway in Ontario, Canada. New York State Archaeological Association, Researches and Transactions XII(1).Rochester.

Robertson,David2004 TheHutchinsonSite:APlacetoPreparefor

the Final Journey. Ontario Archaeology77/78:95-120.

Rozel,Robert1979 The Gunby Site and Late Pickering

Interactions. Unpublished MA Thesis,Department of Anthropology, McMasterUniversity,Hamilton.

Sagard,FatherGabriel1939[1632]The Long Journey to the Country of the

Hurons,editedbyG.M.Wrong.TranslatedbyH.H.Langton.TheChamplainSociety,Toronto.

Spence,Michael1988 TheHumanSkeletalMaterialoftheElliott

Site.Kewa88(4):10-20.1994a The Praying Mantis Burials: Technical

Report.Manuscript on file,Department ofAnthropology, University of WesternOntario, Museum of Ontario Archaeology,andRegistrar,CemeteriesBranch.

1994b MortuaryProgrammesoftheEarlyOntarioIroquoians.Ontario Archaeology58:6-26.

Thwaites,ReubenG.1896-1901The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents.73

vols.BurrowsBrothers,Cleveland.

Timmins,Peter1997 The Calvert Site: An Interpretive Framework

for the Early Iroquoian Village. CanadianMuseum of Civilization, Mercury SeriesArchaeologyPaper156.Gatineau,Quebec.

vonGernet,AlexanderandPeterTimmins1987 PipesandParakeets:ConstructingMeaning

inanEarlyIroquoianContext.InArchaeology as Long-Term History,editedbyIanHodder,pp. 31-42. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Williamson,Ronald1985 Glen Meyer: People in Transition.

UnpublishedPhDdissertation,Departmentof Anthropology, McGill University,Montreal.

1990 The Early Iroquoian Period of SouthernOntario. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650,editedbyChrisEllisand Neal Ferris. Occasional Publication oftheLondonChapter,OntarioArchaeologicalSocietyNo.5:291-320.London.

Wright,JamesV.1966 The Ontario Iroquois Tradition. National

MuseumofCanadaBulletin210.Ottawa.1974 The Nodwell Site.NationalMuseumofMan,

Archaeological Survey of Canada, MercurySeriesPaper22.Ottawa.

1995 A History of the Native People of Canada, Volume I, 10,000 - 1,000 B.C. CanadianMuseum of Civilization, Mercury SeriesArchaeologyPaper152.Gatineau.

Wright,JamesV.andJamesE.Anderson1969 The Bennett Site. National Museum of

Canada,Bulletin229.Ottawa.Wright,JoyceM.

2004 Ouatit’s People: The CosmologicalSignificanceofDogsinWendatSociety.InA Passion for the Past: Papers in Honour ofJamesF. Pendergast,editedbyJ.V.WrightandJ-L.Pilon. Canadian Museum of Civilization,MercurySeriesArchaeologyPaper164:305-319.GatineauQuebec.

RobertJ.Pearce,MuseumofOntarioArchaeology,London,Ontario