Settlement and Land Use Patterns in the Hudson Bay Lowlands of Northern Ontario, Canada

SETTLEMENT AND LAND USE PATTERNS IN THE HUDSON BAY LOWLANDS OF NORTHERN

ONTARIO, CANADA

Jean-Luc PILON*

Abstract

The lower Severn River has been occupied, at the very least, for the past 1500 to 2000 years. The archaeological remains left behind are modest and consist quite often of hearth features surrounded by faunal remains and lithic debris from tool manufacture. Ceramics, while known were not a significant component of the material culture of the region’s inhabitants. An annual cycle existed over most of this time span which was focused on the seasonal movements of caribou, giving the people of the Hudson Bay Lowlands a dis-tinct adaptive pattern when compared to their neighbours in northern Manito-ba and Québec.

Resumen

Patrones de asentamiento y del suelo en las tierras bajas del norte de la Bahía de Hudson, Ontario, Canadá La parte baja del río Severn ha sido ocupada, por lo menos, durante los últi-mos 1500-2000 años. Los restos arqueológicos encontrados son pocos y muy a menudo están rodeados con solera de restos de fauna y líticos proce-dentes de la fabricación de herramientas. Hasta donde se sabe la cerámica no era un componente significativo de la cultura material de los habitantes de la región. Un ciclo anual existió durante la mayor parte de este periodo que se centra en los movimientos estacionales del caribú, dando a los habitantes de las tierras bajas de la bahía de Hudson un patrón adaptativo distinto en comparación con sus vecinos del norte de Manitoba y Quebec.

* Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau, Québec, Canada.

Revista de Arqueología Americana No. 31

8

Résumé

Schèmes d’établissement et utilisation du territoire dans les Basses Terres de la baie d’Hudson du Nord ontarien, Canada Le cours inférieur de la rivière Severn a été occupé depuis au moins 1500 à 2000 ans. Les témoignages archéologiques qui y ont été trouvés sont mo-destes et consistent en des foyers souvent entourés de restes fauniques et de débris de taille lithique. Les céramiques, quoique connues, ne consti-tuaient pas un élément important de la culture matérielle des occupants de la région. Un cycle annuel fut développé dès le début qui était centre sur les mouvements saisonniers du caribou, conférant ainsi au schéma adapta-tif unique aux gens des Basses Terres lorsque compare à leurs voisins du Québec et du Manitoba.

Resumo

Padrão de estabelecimento e uso da terra nas terras baixas da Baía de Hud-son do norte de Ontario, Canadá O curso inferior do rio Sevem foi ocupado no passado entre 1500 a 2000 anos. Os testemunhos arqueológicos encontrados são modestos e consis-tem em fogueiras com restos faunísticos e estilhas de pedra lascada. A ce-râmica, mesmo sendo conhecida não constitui um elemento importante da cultura material dos ocupantes da região. Um ciclo anual foi desenvolvido tendo como base central os movimentos sazonais do caribu, que conferiu um esquema adaptativo único aos habitantes das terras baixas da Baía de Hud-son, em comparação com o de seus vizinhos de Manitoba e Quebec.

Settlement and Land Use Patterns in the Hudson Bay Lowlands…

9

Introduction

Canada has a very large landmass with a great diversity of landscapes rang-ing from mountainous shorelines through the largest freshwater lakes in the world, to the open skies of the prairies, seemingly endless coniferous forests and vast expanses of treeless tundra. Its peoples and their regional histories are equally diverse, but the reality is that the vast majority of Canadians to-day live sprinkled along the country’s southern border within a day’s driving distance of the United States of America. The Hudson Bay Lowlands, an area of over 300,000 square kilometres (Sims et al. 1979:2), lies well beyond the area commonly visited by anyone save for those seeking isolation and ad-venture in remote, untouched regions. Currently there are only a handful of tiny communities within the Hudson Bay Lowlands of Ontario lived in almost uniquely by First Nations people. These settlements are centered on modern conveniences of stores, schools, churches and band administration offices. Most are quite recent creations resulting, to no small extent, from the imposition of government administered services in the mid-twentieth century. Previous land use and settlement pat-terns were quite different. This article will attempt to provide an overview of the elements which help to identify and define those earlier ways of living in the Hudson Bay Lowlands, in particular along the lower Severn River, by small, band-level foraging groups completely dependent on the resources of the region obtained through hunting, fishing and gathering.

The Setting

In an earlier article dealing with the parameters for human occupation of the Hudson Bay Lowlands (Pilon 2006), I spent some time outlining the main characteristics of the region: its geomorphological history, the current envi-ronmental characteristics and challenges of the area, and the resources which could form the economic basis for human occupation in pre-contact times. Without repeating that information, I will offer a succinct summary of those data below. The Hudson Bay Lowlands lie mostly within the Canadian province of Ontario (Figure 1), with a minor portion located in the neighboring province of Manitoba to the west and an even smaller extension in Québec to the east (Bostock 1970). This physiographic region consists principally of lands ex-posed during the Holocene, over the course of the past several millennia, by isostatic rebound. These lands are comprised of flat-lying and, for the most part, poorly-drained, former marine, glacio-lacustrine and glacial deposits (Craig 1969). Situated along the southern edge of Hudson’s Bay, the envi-ronmental conditions of the area reflect the great influence of this inland sea which funnels weather patterns southward from the Arctic (Chapman and


10

Thomas 1968, Thompson 1968). Both the harsh climatic conditions (very Arctic-like in character, especially in wintertime) and the surprisingly diverse faunal resources of the region (sea mammals, land mammals, fish and avian species), including typically Arctic animals as well as more Subarctic species, reflect the ecotonal setting that the Lowlands occupy (Cooch 1968, MacPher-son 1968, Mansfield 1968, Russell 1975, Scott and Crossman 1973, Ser-geant 1968).

Figure 1. The Hudson Bay Lowlands (dark shaded area) are a small yet quite dis-

tinctive portion of the Subarctic Culture Area (light shaded area) lying along the southern rim of Hudson Bay.

There is a dynamic and critical relationship between weather patterns, plant and animal species, and landscape which is unique in Ontario. For ex-ample, continuous and discontinuous permafrost is present in the Lowlands while absent in neighboring regions (Remmert 1980:3). Caribou in the Hud-son Bay Lowlands, while of the woodland variety, adopt a herding behavior in the summertime which is much more reminiscent of their Barrenland caribou cousins to the northwest (Simard 1979). In this instance, the treeless coastal tundra of the immediate coastal reaches of the Lowlands appears to be a determining factor.


11

The singularity of the environmental setting of the Hudson Bay Lowlands is the result of no single factor but rather the intricate interplay between sev-eral. In short, the environment of the Hudson Bay Lowlands is characterized by complexity, diversity and a distinctly dynamic nature.

The Hudson Bay Lowlands in History

Historical sources pertaining to the Hudson Bay region are remarkably nu-merous. Ever since Henry Hudson in 1610-1611 and many other subsequent voyages of discovery in the XVIIth century up to the founding of the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1670, travelers were usually seeking the fable Northwest Passage, a way through the area to Asia rather than being interested in learning about Hudson Bay itself. Yet those voyages often left behind records which sometimes contained observations about the land, its resources and even on occasion about its people. In 1631, Thomas James —whose early and difficult voyage through the region would be commemorated by naming a large bay in the southeastern portion of Hudson Bay, James Bay, after him— recorded the following entry in his journal:

They reported that there was a great quantity of driftwood on the shore, and that the land itself was thickly wooded. Deer and bear tracks were seen, and birds were so plentiful that several were shot, but there was no sign of people (James 1975:44)… From Port Nelson to Cape Henrietta Maria the coast trends general-ly east southeast, although a number of points and bays will alter this at specific locatlities as much as two or three points. The distance is about 130 leagues: the variation at the cape, taken by amplitude, is about 16º. This is a shoal and perilous coast, with not a harbour to be found (ibid:46).

Thus we are provided with a first glimpse of the shores of the Hudson Bay Lowlands but the region’s inhabitants remained elusive. The incorporation of the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1670 signaled a dramatic and irreversible shift in the attitude of Europeans towards the large inland sea; it would henceforth be a source of wealth and eventually a se-ries of fur trade posts were built along the bottom of the Bay. Importantly, the maximization of profits for the company was dependent upon close relationships between traders, trappers and middlemen. Post factors or managers thus became careful observers and wrote extensive reports to their overseers in England which quite often included observations and information directly or indirectly related to the lifestyles of the First Nations of the Lowlands. Some 60 years after Thomas James, the French and English were bat-tling each other for control of the posts on Hudson Bay and access to the rich furs of its vast hinterland. New Severn Post, located near the mouth of to-


12

day’s Severn River, was destroyed by Pierre Lemoyne d’Iberville at the end of the summer of 1690 (Paul-Émile 1952: Note 7 to Chapter V; Rich 1960:290) but Native people are virtually absent, perhaps only distant and silent witnesses to the curious, wasteful event:

Walsh had warning of the French threat from an Indian boy, and he and his men burned the post and took to the woods. Iberville took the beaver, which would not be heavy. Walsh and his men made their way, with some hardship, overland to York Fort (Rich 1960:290).

Several decades later two Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) employees undertook extensive observations of the First Nations inhabitants of the re-gion, the so-called Homeguard Cree, as well as those travelling to the bay-side posts from areas much removed from the Lowlands. These precious notations, as well as the detailed records kept by other post factors, form the bases for a detailed ethno-historic account of the occupants of the Hudson Bay Lowlands (Lytwyn 1993, 1994). Andrew Graham (1969) and James Isham (1949) both occupied important positions in northern Manitoba posts (York Fort, Fort Churchill) as well as at the re-established (since the mid-XVIIIth century) Fort Severn. Their interests far exceeded the needs of their positions within the HBC and their legacies surpass any expectations they may have once entertained. Interest in the First Nations who inhabit the Hudson Bay Lowlands by anthropologists began in the early XXth century (Mooney 1907) and actual fieldwork was carried out by Alanson Skinner (1911). However, a renewal of interest would have to wait until the middle of the XXth century. In some cas-es these First Nations were as the center of the research, such as John Ho-nigmann’s fieldwork at Attawapiskat (1956, 1961). In other cases, such as Charles Bishop’s writings (1972, 1974; Bishop and Smith 1975), the people of the Lowlands were relegated a peripheral, marginal and recent role in the history of the Central Subarctic. In fact, he saw the presence of Lowlands groups as directly contingent on the establishment of European fur trade posts, an opinion echoing Skinner’s earlier assessment (1911:11). Still, the second half of the XXth century witnessed new anthropological interest in the Near North (the area south of the Arctic, occupying the north-ern half of the boreal forest) that seemed to parallel the expanding economic interests of the Canadian state into its northern regions. Especially critical in this respect were the hydro-electrical developments in both northern Québec and northern Manitoba that were built during the 1970s.

Some Ethnographic Considerations

The historic occupants of the Hudson Bay Lowlands were members of the Algonkian linguistic family and known as Lowlands Cree (see Mooney 1907


13

for a list of the many names used to designate this group). At the time that most ethnographic observations were made, they were fully incorporated into the fur trade. In the regions where fur trade posts were located, the local populations became labeled Home or Homeguard Cree by the fur traders. Morantz (1980) has argued that a number of James Bay Cree cul-tural features have been mistakenly attributed to their involvement in the fur trade (see also Francis and Morantz 1983). Based on a judicious reading of fur trade post journals, she felt that notions of territoriality and social organ-ization as well as economic patterns, which were recorded a substantial time after contact with Europeans, were but continuations of existing pre-contact patterns. These would have undergone certain adjustments to the altered economic system, but, in her view, involved no substantial struc-tural shifts. Anthropologists have attempted to understand the changes in Algonkian culture brought about by contact with Europeans. Some (e.g., Leacock 1954) have proposed that historic land tenure systems were the direct result of involvement in the fur trade. The purportedly rapid dependence of Native groups on trade articles was seen as a prime agent of change (Bailey 1969). Others felt these patterns pre-dated the fur trade (Cooper 1939; Speck 1915, Speck and Eiseley 1942). Some ethnohistoric studies suggest that proximity to the fur trading posts was important in determining the degree of involve-ment of Native groups in the fur trade, or at least the degree of departure from aboriginal economic patterns (Morantz 1980). Another important point, that is not often considered by many authors as they attempt to discuss or reconstruct aboriginal lifeways, is that since con-tact was made with Europeans along the southern coast of Hudson Bay, there have been very serious ecological changes, some of which were not well documented. I am thinking in particular, of the purported depletion of woodland caribou in northern Ontario and the concomitant northern expan-sion of moose range (Peterson 1955; see also Trudel 1985). The food re-quirements, densities and habits of these two species differ markedly. Thus the disappearance of caribou and the expansion of moose into the Lowlands would entail significant changes in hunting strategies. Morantz felt that in eastern James Bay, caribou hunting activities may have been intensified with participation in the fur trade in order to allow trap-ping of non-food species (1980:356). If such an increase in large game hunt-ing occurred in northern Ontario and coincided with poorly-understood caribou population crash cycles, serious readjustments on the part of the hunters would be required for survival. It is thus difficult to accept seasonal cycle descriptions and extrapolations back to contact times and earlier which rely on knowledge of existing conditions only. These may differ substantially from those of pre-contact times.


14

The History of Archaeology within Ontario’s Hudson Bay Lowlands

Prior to 1980, the number of archaeological studies that had been carried out within the Hudson Bay Lowlands could be counted on the fingers of a single hand. Even fewer were those which concerned themselves with Native sites. Although of significant historical interest, the archaeology that has been car-ried out on the fur trade posts at Fort Albany (Kenyon 1986), Moose Factory (Doroszenko in press) and Fort Severn (Pollock 1980, Christianson 1980) dealt mostly with the European presence at these localities. The archaeologi-cal pasts of the local inhabitants remained subjects of speculation with very little, if any, evidence to substantiate the proposed scenarios.

Figure 2. The Hudson Bay Lowlands (shaded area) showing some of the localities

where archaeological work has been undertaken.


15

The earliest recorded recovery of archaeological materials within the Hud-son Bay Lowlands was apparently made by the geologist Robert Bell at the mouth of the Nelson River (Wright 1968:66) in the late XIXth century. It con-sisted of two late pre-contact ceramic rim sherds. These fortuitous finds were followed decades later in the 1960s by brief excursions made into the Low-lands in the vicinity of Churchill, Manitoba by William Irving (1968) and Ronald Nash (1969, 1972, 1975). In all cases, they were following up on leads reported by amateurs. Ken Dawson made trips down the Hayes (Mani-toba) and Albany (Ontario) rivers to their mouths on Hudson and James Bay respectively, but failed to locate any evidence of pre-contact occupation ex-cept for the recovery of a ceramic rim sherd at the mouth of the Hayes River (1976:79). He offered the following explanation for this lack of evidence of pre-contact human presence:

Given the very short seasonal abundance of exploitable littoral resources on this dismal post-glacial uplifted coast, it seems reasonable to speculate that the pattern of occasional visits only has been a long standing pattern. In other words, prehistoric populations were living inland on the Shield where resources, while scarce, could be exploited the year round and in the course of this sub-sistence pattern they would make an occasional visit to the shores of Hudson Bay (Dawson 1976:79).

The 1970s witnessed the first sustained efforts to identify pre-contact and historic occupations in Ontario’s portion of the Hudson Bay Lowlands. This pioneering work took place along the Brant River where John Tomenchuk and William Irving (1974) visited two sites which had been brought to their attention by personnel of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources working in the then newly established Polar Bear Provincial Park. These sites were tested during their brief visit to the area in 1972. That work demonstrated conclusively that the Lowlands had been used in pre-contact times by people whose material culture suggested strong links with known groups to the south, in the Lake of the Woods area and into Manitoba. However, the full nature of this use could not be ascertained because of the limited data they had recovered. They perceived a settlement pattern, or at least a portion of the yearly cycle, which differed importantly from the “typical” subarctic pattern of sum-mer congregation at rich fishing localities, such as documented by Edward Rogers among the Mistassini Cree (1963). Instead, they found evidence of a pre-contact summer occupation by what appears to have been a small group subsisting mainly on caribou and geese. They explained this by pointing to the very different resource potential of the Cape Henrietta Maria area. Finally, they documented a difference between the pre-contact and historic use of the area: the modern Cree visit the tundra in winter and spring, probably to trap


16

fur-bearers. No evidence of pre-contact or early historic occupation during the winter season was recognized during their admittedly brief research expedi-tion. Two years later John Pollock and William Noble (1975) located 16 pre-contact archaeological sites on Hawley Lake, located to the south of the Brant River sites, on the Precambrian outcropping of the Cape Henrietta Maria Arch. Here, they were able to establish a human presence dating back to at least A.D. 915. These earliest occupants were of the Shield Archaic tradition and were followed by Late Woodland people who made ceramic vessels. Pollock and Noble described the Hawley Lake area as a “Northern Oasis” where:

...the well-drained and well-forested shoreline; the abundance of fish and cari-bou; the large quantities of readily available chert; and, the relatively easy transportation route afforded by the Sutton river to the coast... [makes] the Haw-ley Lake area stand out as a fertile pocket within an otherwise dismal topogra-phy of muskeg bog so typical of the Lowlands (1975:79).

The situation which prevailed in 1980, the year before I initiated my doc-toral research in the region, indicated that indeed there had been a significant utilization of the Lowlands for at least the last millennium. The material which had been found suggested that these occupants could be related to southern, presumably Amerindian manifestations. There was no indication of either a Palaeo-Eskimo or a Neo-Eskimo presence which could be expected given their presence along both the east and west coasts of Hudson Bay where such sites have been documented (Harp 1976, Meyer 1977, Nash 1969, Plumet 1976). Moreover, the sites which had been found along the Brant River also demonstrated that pre-contact occupations were not limited to the main rivers and large lakes. Thus, these sites attested to more than occa-sional visits. The retreat to the Shield posited by some (Bishop and Smith 1975) may thus not have been a preoccupation of the occupants. Indeed, that model of southern retreat in the wintertime seems to have been predi-cated on a limited understanding of the dynamic nature of the region’s envi-ronmental setting alluded to earlier. Lastly, the brief incursions into the Lowlands by archaeologists demon-strated that a broad spectrum of faunal resources were both available and exploited in pre-contact times. These included migratory waterfowl, caribou and fish. The archaeological data pertaining to the lower Severn River which are presented below were gathered between 1981 and 1984 (Pilon 1986). Sur-prisingly, the passage of three decades has added no new significant infor-mation, not even from the larger Northern Ontario region. Ontario, north of the shores of Lake Superior, has gradually become less remote; permanent


17

and winter roads have pushed northward and scheduled air service has been extended to once isolated communities. This process has been greatly spurred on by a renewed interest in the economic potential of the mineral resources of the region as well as a growing interest in the vast wood re-serves that constitute the boreal forest. The development of both wood and mineral resources are today governed by protocols and environmental impact legislation requiring due concern for heritage resources. Consequently there have been a considerable number of archaeological undertakings throughout this vast region. Unfortunately, this type of consulting archaeology very rarely results in the production of widely available information about the projects. Brief, compliance reports are duly filed with the appropriate government min-istries in order to obtain permission to proceed with the development. The consultant then moves on to another project. As a result, very little is known about the results of these projects outside of a small circle of colleagues and competitors. Very little knowledge about northern Ontario’s past is actually created, let alone disseminated.

Sources of Ethnographic Severn River Information

When I undertook my archaeological research along the lower Severn River in the early 1980s, there were several elders in the community of Fort Severn with whom I spent some time discussing life in the past (Pilon 1986:Appendix B). These were individuals who had lived a lifestyle very much different from that of the young people who were in Fort Severn at that same time. One elder, Munzie Albany (Figure 3) had seen the government Treaty party come through their settlement area and had actually signed Treaty No. 9 on behalf of his band in 1930 (Long 2010:89). Sometime in the 1950s, a variety of government services and social assis-tance was made available to members of the Fort Severn band, including education. However, some believed these programmes could best be admin-istered if the people lived in the settlement of Fort Severn. Small spring and winter camps saw a marked reduction in use as people spent more time in the community and eventually set up permanent residence there. They spent less time on the land. In addition to this movement to village life that was taking place, there a worldwide trend away from the use of wild furs. This brought greater economic uncertainty for those whose lifestyle was predicat-ed upon trapping. The threat to the economic base was countered by social assistance which heightened the need to live in the village. Consequently, the second half of the twentieth century witnessed a marked break from the pre-vious, centuries-old way of life; a new generation was born and lived most of the time in a village setting and their experience with the traditional lifestyle was quite different from previous generations.


18

For example, when working at Whiteseal Rapids, a mere 40 kilometres or so from Fort Severn, I would speak with young people of my age who had never been to this place that archaeology showed to have been fairly im-portant in both pre-contact and historic times. Village life and edging towards a greater dependence on government services (especially with a heightened international concern for animal rights and the use of fur) had created a cul-tural watershed between generations. At this critical juncture in the history of the Fort Severn people, the importance of the transmission of traditional knowledge could not be any greater. Even the detailed and oft-times intrusive and personal observations of the HBC managers began to be curtailed. An informal discussion in the 1980s with one manager revealed that much of the XXth century reports generated in a particular community had been destroyed and that such information was no longer being recorded.

Nature of the sites

When I began my work along the lower Severn River in 1981 the prospect of sustained occupation of the Lowlands in pre-contact times was not widely anticipated. Yet, within days of the initiation of work along the river, a number of sites was identified and in subsequent years, a selection of these was further investigated. The first two field seasons focused on the lowermost reaches of the Sev-ern River up to the first major rapids located some 40 kilometres from the shores of Hudson Bay (Pilon 1981, 1982). Preliminary analyses of the mate-rials collected, especially the faunal remains, strongly suggested that the lowermost portion of the river, which was considered part of the “coastal” zone, was occupied only during the warm season, i.e. more of less between the time when the river became ice-free in the spring (break-up) and when it became covered over with ice in the fall (freeze-up). Particularly revealing was the significant presence of migratory waterfowl remains, along with small, medium and large mammals and numerous varieties of fish. Material evidence attesting to the cold season, it was hypothesized, was to be found much further upriver, to the south. This was in fact the objective of the 1983 field season which took place some 200 kilometres up the Severn River at its junction with the Sachigo River and up the Sachigo, at its junction with the Beaverstone River or Ouis-sinaou Sibi (Pilon 1984). The sites encountered in the southern portion of the study area showed a greatly reduced inventory of exploited animal species consistent with winter occupation with caribou being the principal species exploited.


19

Figure 3. Mr. Munzie Albany (right) with his son and his wife in Mr. Albany’s home

in 1981. In 1930, Mr. Albany was one of the signatories to Treaty No. 9 for the Fort Severn Band (photo: Jean-Luc Pilon, Canadian Museum of Civili-zation, S97-145).

In both zones multi-component sites were found (Figure 4). The seasonal flooding of these regions due to early break up in the south sending large volumes of water to the still frozen northern reaches of the river often results in overbank sediment deposition, effectively sealing and separating distinct occupation episodes. Many of these sites attest to both pre-contact and post-contact occupations. While there are obvious and dramatic changes in mate-rial culture, with trade items replacing locally made pre-contact objects, there are also instances of continuities, especially in areas outside of common European daily experience such as the preparation of hides for leather mak-ing and trade (Pilon 1990). The introduction of certain trade items such as copper kettles, eventually results in changes in the ways that foods are prepared and hence the ap-pearance of hearth features. In pre-contact site components, the most ubiqui-tous artifact is the fire-cracked rock: fist-sized, round river cobbles heated in open fires and dropped into liquid-filled bark containers to help cook the con-tents. The repeated thermal shock thus produced distinctive angular break-age patterns with the exterior surface of the stones often exhibiting both blackening and reddening from exposure to the fires.


20

Figure 4. Frequent spring flooding can leave behind fine overbank deposits (the

light coloured soil layers) which separate vegetation surfaces and occupa-tion episodes. In this profile, a lenticular-shaped, pre-contact hearth fea-ture is visible. It was followed by later re-occupations. The clear separation of occupations allows comparisons through time (photo: Jean-Luc Pilon, Canadian Museum of Civilization, S97-55).

The banks of the Severn River have exposed thick beds of Tyrrell Sea clays. In spite of this great availability and accessibility, ceramics were only found at two sites during my fieldwork. Instrumental Neutron Activation Anal-ysis strongly suggests that these ceramics were not of local manufacture but trade items. As such, it appears clear that the use of ceramics was known but eschewed by the occupants of the lower Severn River (Pilon et al. 1994). Finally, pre-contact sites are first and foremost characterized by lithic deb-itage scatters. While the shores of the Severn River yield high quality chert nodules, especially at rapids where the otherwise deeply buried bedrock is exposed, access to these critical resources during wintertime is severely reduced. The lithic collections, both in the coastal zone and inland, are char-acterized by a distinct paucity of refined, formalized stone implements. Ra-ther, these collections reflect the need for flexibility and the multi-purpose capacity of these artifacts.


21

Figure 5. The Ouissinaougouk Cache included only 1 projectile point and 3 bifaces,

pictured here, a reflection of the relative importance of formalized tools in daily life (photo: Jean-Luc Pilon, Canadian Museum of Civilization, IMG2013-0145-0001-Dm).

A good example of the anticipation of the undefined needs by pre-contact occupants (112050 B.P.) was the recovery, in the inland wintering area, of a


22

cache of 343 items once held in a birchbark container (Figures 5 and 6). There was but a single formalized projectile point, 3 bifaces, 4 pièces esquil-lées, 4 gravers, 2 core fragments, 13 used/utilized flakes, 62 scrapers and 249 large flakes suitable to be transformed into any number of artifact types according to the needs of the moment. The lithic cache is likely the most eloquent statement that the pre-contact occupants of the region could have made about the realities of their world (Pilon 2002).

Figure 6. The great part of the Ouissinaougouk Cache was comprised of large chert

flakes which could easily be converted into simple yet effective imple-ments such as these scrapers (photo: Jean-Luc Pilon, Canadian Museum of Civilization, IMG2013-0145-0002-Dm).


23

If the lithic collections point to the need for great flexibility, the worked bone collections argue for greater formality. While not numerous, fragments of broken implements were recovered from most sites. Bone tools, compared to stone implements, are more resilient, harder to break and, since they are larger, they are harder to loose or leave behind. Finding a few fragmentary or worn out specimens suggests that daily life involved the manufacture and use of a greater number of these kinds of tools.

The Lowlands Adaptive Pattern

Coastal Zone Land Use

There are marked distinctions between the faunal assemblages recovered from riverine sites along the last 40 kilometres or so of the river and those located around Ouaouiastine, a former meander located at the foot of the last rapids (Whiteseal Falls) on the Severn River (Figure 7). When people camped along the river, the most significant class of subsistence resource, by far, was mammalian (Pilon 2001: Figure 30). This can be observed in pre-contact times as well as into the historic period.

Figure 7. Ouaouiastine is a former meander of the Severn River just below

Whiteseal Falls, the last set of rapids on the Severn River before it reach-es Hudson Bay. A number of sites are located on the cut-off meander fea-ture and elsewhere in the general vicinity. In addition to the oxbow lakes of Ouaouiastine, ancient beach ridges are visible in the distance which provide caribou with their preferred food: lichens (photo: Jean-Luc Pilon, Canadian Museum of Civilization, S97-608).


24

Figure 8. This photograph was taken from the low lying, former river bottom at

Ouaouiastine. A series of archaeological localities were recorded along the top edge of the eroding bluff. While the low area can be camped upon (as we did), it floods every spring and has little vegetation on which to comfortably set up a camp. As such, it is suitable for transient camps but not very hospitable for longer stays (photo: Jean-Luc Pilon, Canadian Museum of Civilization, S97-286).

In contrast, the Ouaouiastine assemblages exhibit a wide diversity of ex-ploited subsistence species. This is a trend that begins prior to contact with Europeans and continues well into the twentieth century. Among the various components there is a substantial amount of variation between the relative importances of the three classes depending upon the precise time of year when the site was occupied. For example, it may be more feasible to hunt caribou in this area in either the spring or fall as they move through on their way to the coast while in the summer they are absent or scarce. Waterfowl may similarly be present in greater numbers and thus easier to hunt in the summer or fall. Ouaouiastine area has a richer ecological potential, compared to the river. There is easy access to a variety of ecological niches at Ouaouiastine, while the same is not true along the river. At Ouaouiastine, one can exploit the oxbow lakes and the adjacent floodplain, but with equal ease one has access to the riverine resources as well as those of the surrounding upland areas.


25

The latter include additional, older oxbow lake complexes as well as very important spruce-lichen forests. These forests are quite suitable to a wide range of resource species, especially caribou. The absolute importance of caribou in the Ouaouiastine components is certainly a factor related to the time of year at which particular sites were occupied. An additional factor, which appears to come into play within the last century or so, is the population dynamics of the animal species themselves, and in particular of caribou. Caribou populations are purported to have expe-rienced very important losses in the mid-nineteenth century and are only now beginning to recover (Bergerud 1974; see also Trudel 1985). In the Severn area, Lytwyn documented this population reduction even earlier, in the late eighteenth century (Lytwyn 1993:431). Caribou are present in lower frequencies on the Ouaouiastine sites when compared to the riverine sites. With the exception of the Ouskane assem-blage, caribou never exceeded 20% of the identified elements in the Ouaoui-astine sites. This fact appears to be indicative of the significance of the other subsistence resources during the warm-weather period around Ouaouiastine through time. The successful exploitation of this area evidently played an important role in providing needed variation in the diets, necessary skins for the manufacture of clothing and footwear, and certainly also preserved foods to supplement winter hunting. At the riverine sites, caribou never fell below 80% of the identified assem-blage and almost always constituted the unique mammalian species repre-sented on these sites. This fact alone is suggestive of the intimate knowledge that the occupants had of the behaviour patterns and movements of caribou along the river and in the coastal zone. In fact, one site contained only the remains of caribou (a minimum of 6 individuals). These remains were recovered from the top of the steep slope leading up to the top of an island in the Severn River, eroding from the frozen permafrost. Evidence for the processing of a number of caribou carcasses in the form of spirally fractured long bones and some calcined bone, combined with the site’s location atop an island, suggest that a mass-capture technique such as a caribou fence had been used. A radiocarbon date of 91040 B.P. (Beta 139757) indicates that this technique has clearly pre-contact roots.

Inland Zone Land Use

The data from the southern Lowlands sites indicates one overriding trend. Essentially, this is the very significant importance of caribou remains at all inland sites, irrespective of when the site was occupied. Fish and waterfowl are present in trace quantities in only two assemblages, although the actual contribution of fish and waterfowl in these assemblages is extremely slight. These may also represent the remains of preserved foods taken elsewhere.


26

It is no surprise that these archaeological observations simply reinforce and repeat what the Fort Severn elders had indicated to me during informal conversations some 30 years ago; this region was used during the winter months. However, this stands in marked contrast to models that some an-thropologists had proposed (see the earlier discussion of ethnographic con-siderations) which would have seen a withdrawal from the Lowlands at that time of the year. The predominance of mammalian remains within the total assemblages as well as among the identified elements alone is the same. Obviously cari-bou forms the major constituent of the mammalian remains. The locations of the sites, well within the known wintering grounds of the caribou herds which frequent the Fort Severn area, strongly argue for cold season occupation of these sites. Other substantiating evidence includes the physical settings of the particular sites, the characteristics of the lithic collections and the pres-ence of antler with thick cortex. The presence of beaver remains, in a number of pre-contact and historic components from this area, hints at the importance of this mammal as a sig-nificant secondary food resource as well as a source of valuable, warm furs.

Site Locations

It is a fact that while the flooding spring rivers can preserve archaeological sites along the rivers of the Hudson Bay Lowlands, these can also be re-sponsible for their destruction through erosion and ice scouring (Julig 1982, 1988). However, a nearly complete sample of the yearly cycle is attested to by the faunal remains. Thus, although the settlement pattern may not be reflect the total range of possible site types and locations, it does represent elements from the complete yearly cycle and as such this description should be instructive. It is of course a given that the occupants of all these sites were seeking high bluffs which offered some protection from spring high water levels. It is also significant that this was achieved at all periods of the year and not just during the spring high water levels. This may in part reflect the nature of these camps as well as the comparative advantages of locating one’s camp atop a bluff rather than at water’s edge. When considering the requirements of a base camp which is destined to be occupied for a few weeks, the materials needed to set up the camp are likely only secondary to the economic reasons for selecting a given area. These needs will differ substantially from those of a transient camp set up for a brief stay of a day or even a few days. When a lengthy occupation is in-tended at the outset, the resources of the locality must be considered. These could include the supply of building materials such as spruce poles with which to build the frame of a tent, a sod lodge or various drying racks; the


27

availability of spruce boughs as a flooring material; the amount of good fire-wood in the neighboring forest; the availability of secondary foods (small game, berries, etc.) and materials (roots, bark, etc.). Evaluation of these various needs, and there are surely others, allows a better appreciation of the locations of substantial camps away from the low shores of the river where quick access to the water may be the sole attrac-tion. On the other hand, brief stops may be much more easily made on such shores and thus this undoubtedly important portion of the routine of the bore-al forest hunter is certainly lost with every spring flood.

Discussion

By far, the single most important species being exploited, or at least whose remains are consistently recovered, is caribou. In fact, caribou remains are present in nearly all components along the lower Severn River. Clearly there is a seasonally varying emphasis placed upon this species, yet it constitutes a common denominator on all sites and at all time periods. The seasonal movements of foragers in this river basin thus appear to be closely linked to the seasonal movements of caribou populations living within the same region. Caribou can thus be described as a focal resource of the groups exploiting the lower Severn River over time, well into the historic period and even as recently as the beginning of the present century if not later. Along the lower course of the Severn River, environmentally rich and di-verse micro-environments, such as Ouaouiastine, offered a wide variety of faunal resources during the warm weather season. While caribou was always present, fish, migratory waterfowl and small game were added to the range of exploited resources. Elsewhere along the river where less ecological diversity was encountered, caribou played a much greater role in the diet. The actual coast also constitutes a potentially diverse area as regards subsistence resources such as fish and especially migrating waterfowl. The available evidence clearly indicates that warm weather occupation of the inland zone is a recent and limited phenomenon contingent upon access to store-bought supplies and motorized means of transportation. Quite simp-ly, the resource base of the inland zone during the summer months would not easily support a traditional lifestyle based on hunting, fishing and gathering activities. Thus, the evidence which is available from a large number of pre-contact and historic components along the lower Severn River drainage indicates a seasonal subsistence/settlement pattern predicated primarily upon the sea-sonal movements of caribou within the Lowlands. The actual contribution of caribou to the diet of the inhabitants varied significantly with an apparent maximum contribution during the winter, in the inland zone, when caribou was the major species exploited. The warm period witnessed the exploitation


28

of the greatest array of subsistence species and was spent primarily in the coastal zone. The absence of evidence for the exploitation of sea mammals in the coastal zone remains enigmatic. The only archaeological indications of sea mammal exploitation were recovered from historic period, European-occupied, New Severn Post (Balcom 1980). Yet, at least one elder inter-viewed in the 1980s spoke of hunting and using sea mammals. While not for human consumption, these uses of seals and beluga for dog food should nonetheless leave some evidence although perhaps only at certain special-ized sites. Beluga and seals may have been hunted at the mouth of the Severn Riv-er, but the processing could have been carried out in such a manner that no recoverable evidence could ever have found its way into the tested sites. Similarly, filleted or dried and pounded fish and waterfowl may have been very important dietary elements at some of the inland sites sampled, but their skeletal remains may have been left elsewhere, perhaps in the coastal zone. These are cultural practices that are difficult to deal with archaeologically. The earliest occupation that has been documented to date took place some 1,500 to 2,000 years ago at the Kitché Ouessecote site in the Inland Zone. Soon after this first group, a pattern of resource utilization emerged which remained virtually unchanged until contact with Europeans. It is a pat-tern which differed significantly from their neighbours (Pilon 1988). Even fol-lowing contact, change does not appear to be as radical, or as profound as had been posited by many XXth century anthropologists. Certainly the set-tlement/subsistence pattern does not seem markedly different until the XIXth century, following serious reductions in the number of caribou, which was a focal element in the Lowlanders’ economy, although by no means the unique subsistence resource. The material culture of the people underwent marked and obvious change following contact. Still a number of bone and antler items, whose origins are very ancient, continue to be made to this very day. Some trade items were quickly accepted into the material culture of the Low-landers; some of these became useful as raw materials after their original functions could no longer be fulfilled. More than any other cultural feature, this capacity to assimilate new items and raw materials speaks eloquently of the continued process of adaptation following contact with Europeans (Pilon 1990). Over the whole course of human occupation of the lower Severn River demonstrable links can be made with Algonkian-speaking groups to the west and south. Indeed, if the pattern we have described is any indication, this suggests that during the course of most of ancient history, Lowlanders main-tained ties with their neighbours and linguistic cousins, but also carried on a way of life which set them apart (Pilon 1988).


29

In a similar fashion, discussions of the effects of contact between Natives and Europeans, which attempt to generalize across vast areas, can only meet with poor success until specific variables have been better understood. Our data indicate that occupation of the Lowlands, both in pre-contact and historic times was predicated upon the successful exploitation of a number of seasonally available animal species of which caribou was a focal resource. As such, given the habit of these animals, access to large areas had to be maintained and information networks regarding the movements of the migra-tory species had to exist. Such a state of affairs must have differed radically from the situation prevailing, for example, in an around North Caribou Lake, in central Northern Ontario, where human populations exploited the re-sources of a much smaller area (Gordon 1983). One might also expect the Lowlands situation to encourage broad-scale bilateral kinship networks be-cause of the unpredictable nature of specific caribou movements. This might contrast with more restrictive kinship networks documented elsewhere which sought to limit access to the more dependable resources of particular areas. In these discussions, the reader would be forgiven for believing that they had finally found Eden. In actual fact, while there is a wide range of bird, fish and mammal species available, seasonal variations are very strong. If sum-mertime was a period of relative abundance, the opposite was true of winter; it was a difficult and far less certain period of the year. At the end of winter, as temperatures warmed and travel on frozen rivers and lakes became dan-gerous, it was likely the most precarious time of the year as movements across the landscape in search of game became difficult and at times impos-sible. Such conditions could easily transform Eden into Hell.

Bibliography

Bailey, A.G. 1969 The Conflict of European and Eastern Algonkian Cultures, 1504- 1700.

A Study in Canadian Civilization, 2nd Edition, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada.

Balcom, R.J. 1980 “Appendix B. New Severn Faunal Analysis”, in New Severn or Nieu

Savanne: The Identification of an Early Hudson Bay Fur Trade Post, pp. 227-245, by D. Christianson, Master’s thesis, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.

Bergerud, A.T. 1974 “A decline of caribou in North America following settlement”, Journal of

Wildlife Management, 38:757-770. Bishop, C.A. 1972 “Demography, Ecology and Trade Among the Northern Ojibwa”, West-

ern Canadian Journal Of Anthropology, 3(1):58-71.


30

1974 The Northern Ojibwa and the Fur Trade, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Toronto, Canada.

Bishop, C.A. and M.E. Smith 1975 “Early Historic Populations in Northwestern Ontario. Archaeological

and Ethnohistorical Interpretations”, American Antiquity, 40(1):54-63. Bostock, H.S. 1970 “Physiographic Subdivisions of Canada”, in Geology and Economic

Minerals of Canada, pp. 9-30, R.J.W. Douglas. Economic Geology Re-port No.1. Geological Survey of Canada, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa, Canada.

Chapman, L.J. and M.K.Thomas 1968 The Climate of Northern Ontario. Climatological Studies No. 6. Ontario

Department of Transport, Meteorological Branch, Toronto, Canada. Christianson, D. 1980 “New Severn or Nieu Savanne: the Identification of an Early Hudson

Bay Fur Trade Post”, Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of An-throplogy, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.

Cooch, F.G. 1968 “Birds”, in Science, History and Hudson Bay, Volume 1, pp. 443-465,

edited by C.S. Beals, Canada Department of Energy, Mines and Re-sources, Ottawa, Canada.

Cooper, J. 1939 “Is the Algonkian Family Hunting Ground System Pre-Columbian?”,

American Anthropologist, 41:66-90. Craig, B.G. 1969 “Late-Glacial and Post-Glacial History of the Hudson Bay Region”, in

Earth Sciences Symposium on Hudson Bay, edited by P.J. Hood, pp. 63-77, Paper 68-53 Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.

Dawson, K.C.A. 1976 Albany River Survey, Patricia District, Ontario, Mercury Series Paper

51, Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Man, Otta-wa, Canada.

Doroszenko, Dena In press “Starting Over & Managing the Past: The Archaeology of the Hudson

Bay Company Staff House, Moose Factory Island”, Ontario Archaeology.

Francis, D. and T.Morantz 1983 Partners in Furs: A History of the Fur Trade in Eastern James Bay

1600-1870, McGill-Queen’s University Press, Kingston and Montréal, Canada.

Gordon, D. 1983 North Caribou Lake Archaeology: Northwestern Ontario, Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, McMaster University, Hamilton.


31

Graham, A. 1969 Andrew Graham’s Observations on Hudson’s Bay. 1767-1791, Edited

by G.Williams, Publications of the Hudson’s Bay Record Society 27, London, UK.

Harp, E. 1976 “Dorset Settlement Patterns in Newfoundland and Southeastern

Hudson Bay”, in Eastern Arctic Prehistory: Paleoeskimo Problems, edited by Moreau S. Maxwell, pp. 119-138, Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, No. 31.

Honigmann, J.J. 1956 “The Attawapiskat Swampy Cree, An Ethnographic Reconstruction”,

Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska, 5:23-82. 1961 Foodways in a Muskeg Community, Northern Co-Ordination and

Research Centre Publication 62(1), Canada Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Ottawa, Canada.

Irving, W.N. 1968 “The Barren Grounds”, in Science, History and Hudson Bay, Volume

1, pp. 26-54, edited by C.S. Beals, Canada Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa, Canada.

Isham, J. 1949 Observations on Hudson’s Bay, 1743, edited by E.E. Rich,

Champlain Society, Toronto, Canada. James, Capt. Thomas 1975 The Strange and Dangerous Voyage of Capt. Thomas James, edited

by W.A. Kenyon, Royal, Ontario Museu, Toronto, Canada. Julig, P.J. 1982 Human Use of the Albany River From Preceramic Times to the Late

Eighteenth Century, Unpublished Master’s thesis in the Department of Geography, York University, Toronto, Canada.

1988 “Prehistoric Site Survey in the Western James Bay Lowlands, Northern Ontario”, in Boreal Forest and Sub-Arctic Archaeology, edited by C.S. Reid, Occasional Publications No. 6, London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, London, Canada.

Kenyon, W.A. 1986 The History of James Bay 1610-1686. A Study in Historical

Archaeology, Archaeology Monograph 10, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario.

Leacock, E. 1954 “The Montagnais ‘Hunting Territory’ and the Fur Trade”, American

Anthropology Association Memoir No. 78, American Anthropologist, 56(5), part 2.


32

Long, J.S. 2010 Treaty No. 9. Making the Agreement to Share the Land in Far

Northern Ontario in 1905, McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montréal & Kingston, Canada.

Lytwyn, V.P. 1993 The Hudson Bay Lowland Cree in the Fur Trade to 1821: A Study in

Historical Geography, Unpublished Doctoral thesis in the Department of Geography, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.

1994 “Pleinement conscients de leur propre importance: Les Cris des basses terres de la baie d’Hudson et la chasse aux oies (xviiie siècle)”, Recherches amérindiennes au Québec, XXIV(3):53-65.

MacPherson, A.H. 1968 “Land Mammals”, in Science, History and Hudson Bay, Volume

1:466-501, edited by C.S. Beals, Canada Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa, Canada.

Mansfield, A.W. 1968 “Seals and Walrus”, in Science, History and Hudson Bay, Volume 1,

pp. 378-387, edited by C.S. Beals, Canada Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa, Canada.

Meyer, D. 1977 Pre-Dorset Settlements at the Seahorse Gully Site, Mercury Series

Paper No. 57, Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Man, Ottawa, Canada.

Mooney, James 1907 “Maskegon”, in Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico, Part

1, pp. 813-814, edited by Frederick W. Hodge. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 30, Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Morantz, Toby 1980 The Impact of the Fur Trade on Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century

Algonkian Social Organisation: An Ethnographic, Ethnohistoric Study of the Eastern James Bay Cree From 1700-1850, Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

Nash, R.J. 1969 The Arctic Small Tool Tradition in Manitoba. Occasional Paper 2.

Department of Anthropology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.

1972 “Dorset Culture in Northeastern Manitoba, Canada”, Arctic Anthropology, 9(1):10-16.

1975 Archaeological Investigations in the Transitional Forest Zone: Northern Manitoba, Southern Keewatin, N.W.T. Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature, Winnipeg, Canada.


33

Paul-Émile, Sœur 1952 La Baie James, trois cents ans d’Histoire militaire, économique,

missionnaire. Éditions de l’Université d’Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. Peterson, R.L. 1955 North American Moose. University of Toronto Press, Toronto,

Canada. Pilon, J.L. 1981 “An Archaeological Reconnaissance Along the Lower Severn River,

Northwestern Ontario”, Ms. No. 2822, Vol. 2, on file in the Archives of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau.

1982 “Excavations Along the Lower Severn River, Northwestern Ontario”, Ms. No. 2823, Vol. 2, on file in the Archives of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau.

1984 “Archaeological Investigations in the Rocksands Area, Severn River, Northwestern Ontario-1983”, Ms. No. 2825, Vol. 2, on file in the Archives of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau.

1986 “Washahoe Inninou Dahtsuounoaou: Ecological and Cultural Adapta-tion Along the Severn River in the Hudson Bay Lowlands of Ontario”, Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of To-ronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

1988 “Culture History and Ethnicity in the Hudson Bay Lowlands”, in Boreal Forest and Sub-Arctic Archaeology, edited by C.S. Reid, pp. 100-120, Occasional Publications No. 6, London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, London, Canada.

1990 “Historic Native Archaeology Along the Lower Severn River, Ontario”, Canadian Journal of Archaeology, 14:123-142.

1994 (with C. Stimmell and R.G.V. Hancock) “Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis as an Archaeological Tool”,

in Tools for Tomorrow: Archaeological Methods in the 21st Century, pp. 47-58. Ottawa Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, Ottawa, Canada.

2001 “Ways of Life in Cold Climates – the North American Subarctic”, Re-vista de Arqueología Americana, 20:233-288.

2002 “A Stone Tool Cache from the Hudson Bay Lowlands”, Ontario Archaeology 74:4-21.

2006 “Parameters for Human Occupation of the Hudson Bay Lowlands and General Results of Archaeological Inquiries Along the Lower Severn River, Ontario, Canada”, Revista de Arqueología Americana, 24:207-251.

Plumet, P. 1976 Archéologie du Nouveau-Québec: habitats Paléo-Esquimaux à

Poste-de-la-Baleine. Collection Paléo-Québec no. 7, Centre d’études nordiques de l’université Laval, Québec, Canada.


34

Pollock, J.W. 1980 “An Archaeological Inspection and Assessment of Two Historical

Archaeological Sites on the Severn River, Ontario”, in Collected Archaeological Papers, edited by David Skene Melvin, pp. 65-96. Archaeological Research Report 13, Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation, Toronto, Canada.

Pollock, J.W. and W.C. Noble 1975 “Archaeology of the Hawley Lake Area, Hudson’s Bay Lowlands,

Ontario”, in Archaeological Research Report Volume 6, pp. 71-94. Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation, Toronto, Canada.

Remmert, H. 1980 Arctic Animal Ecology, Springer-Verlag, New York, USA. Rich, E.E. (editor) 1960 Hudson’s Bay Company, 1670-1870, Volume 1, pp. 1670-1763.

McCelland and Stewart, Toronto, Canada. Rogers, E.S. 1963 The Hunting Group-Hunting Territory Complex Among the Mistassini

Indians, Bulletin 195, National Museum of Canada. Ottawa, Canada. Russell, R.H. 1975 “The Food Habits of Polar Bears of James Bay and Southwest

Hudson Bay in Summer and Autumn”, Arctic, 28(2):117-129. Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman 1973 Freshwater Fishes of Canada, Bulletin 184, Canada Fisheries

Research Board of Canada, Ottawa, Canada. Sergeant, D.E. 1968 “Whales”, in Science, History and Hudson Bay, Volume 1, pp. 388-

396, edited by C.S. Beals, Canada Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa, Canada.

Simard, B.R. 1979 “Éléments du comportement du caribou du Nord québécois”,

Recherches amérindiennes au Québec, IX(1-2):29-36. Sims, R.A., J.L. Riley and J.K. Jeglum 1979 Vegetation, Flora and Vegetational Ecology of the Hudson Bay

Lowland: A Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography, Report 0-X-297, Canadian Forestry Service, Canada Department of the Environment, Ottawa, Canada.

Skinner, A. 1911 Notes on the Eastern Cree and Northern Saulteaux. Anthropological

Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, Volume IX, Part I:1-116.

Speck, F.G. 1915 “The Family Hunting Band as the Basis of Algonkian Social

Organisation”, American Anthropologist, XVII:289-305.


35

Speck, F.G. and L.C. Eiseley 1942 “Montagnais-Naskapi Bands and Family Hunting Districts of the

Central and Southeastern Labrador Peninsula”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association, 85(2):215-242.

Thompson, H.A. 1968 “The Climate of Hudson Bay”, in Science, History and Hudson Bay,

Volume 1, pp. 263-286, edited by C.S. Beals, Canada Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa, Canada.

Tomenchuk, J. and W.N. Irving 1974 “Archaeology of the Brant River, Polar Bear Park, Ontario, 1972”,

Ontario Archaeology, 22:33-60. Trudel, P. 1985 “Feux de forêt et chasse abusive: Le rôle imputé aux autochtones

dans le déclin du caribou au Nouveau-Québec vers 1880-1920”, Recherches amérindiennes au Québec, XV(3):21-38.

Wright, J.V. 1968 “The Boreal Forest”, in Science, History and Hudson Bay, Volume 1,

pp.55-68, edited by C.S. Beals, Canada Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa, Canada.

Documents

Settlement and Land Use Patterns in the Hudson Bay Lowlands of Northern Ontario, Canada