Northeast Subsistence-Settlement Change: A.D. 700 –1300

classification system has been applied. At present,
there are three archaeological “manifestations”
assigned to the period from A.D. 500 to 1000, each classified
using somewhat different schemes:
1. the Riviere au Vase phase of the Late Woodland
Western Basin Tradition in southwestern Ontario;
2. the Princess Point Complex in southcentral
Ontario (not assigned to a tradition); and
3. the Sandbanks Tradition in southeastern Ontario.
Sandbanks is a nebulous entity that has not been formally
defined; use of the term ‘Tradition’ here should
be viewed as an interim device (see Fox 1990). Riviere
au Vase is the first of four sequential phases in the
recently defined Western Basin Tradition in Ontario
(Murphy and Ferris 1990). The Princess Point
Complex, which is our primary concern in this paper,
has been the focus of more investigation than the other
two, but its classification remains unclear.
As noted above, David Stothers identified and
defined the Princess Point Complex in the southcentral
and southwestern regions of the province (Stothers
1977). He divided it spatially into three foci (Point
Pelee, Ausable, and Grand River) and temporally into
three phases (Early, A.D. 600-750; Middle, A.D. 750-
850; and Late, A.D. 850-900). More recently, Fox (1990)
revised both the spatial and temporal parameters of
Princess Point. He excluded the Ausable focus as too
poorly known to classify, reassigned the Point Pelee
focus to the Riviere au Vase phase of the Western Basin
Tradition, and shortened the time period by dropping
Stothers’ Late phase. Thus, the Grand River focus
inherited the label Princess Point complex, although
the rationale for using the term “complex” appears to
have been eliminated.
Although Princess Point is not directly assigned to a
more inclusive classification scheme, many researchers
consider it most closely related to the Ontario
Iroquoian Tradition (Wright 1966), and likely ancestral
to it. The internal divisions of Wright’s framework are
at variance with those of other systems defined for the
Northeast, most notably the Western Basin Tradition
(Murphy and Ferris 1990) and the New York Iroquois
sequence. Both the Western Basin and New York
Iroquois systems are divided into “phases” named
after important sites, whereas the Ontario Iroquoian
Tradition is divided into Early, Middle, and Late
“stages.” Because of this, Princess Point is difficult to
label and to slot into the Ontario Iroquois Tradition
model. We cannot call it a “phase” because it does not
relate directly to the Western Basin or New York
Iroquois sequence and because this would violate the
nomenclature of Wright’s stage system. Using the term
“stage” is also unsuitable unless the Ontario Iroquoian
Tradition is revised to include an additional class such
as the “Formative stage.” We resist this because the
actual relationship of Princess Point to later Iroquoian
societies in southern Ontario has not been established
clearly; such ad hoc restructuring of an existing classification
system is not appropriate in any case.
Another solution is to elevate the notion of
“Transitional Woodland” (see Spence and Pihl 1984) to
the status of a new period, as opposed to it simply
being a bridging concept between the Middle and Late
Woodland as it is presently used. There are numerous
problems with this. To begin with, it is now clear that
there is definite chronological overlap between what is
called Middle Woodland and Transitional Woodland
(Smith 1996b) that would be masked by another
pigeonhole category. Second, the labeling of periods as
Early, Middle, and Late is exclusive by definition. This
applies to both the Woodland periodization and the
Ontario Iroquoian Tradition. Third, the existing regime
of Early, Middle, and Late Woodland is applied over a
much wider area than Ontario, and even the Northeast;
modifying it within a limited region violates its integrity
over the larger area. Fourth, the label “transitional”
by itself is not inherently applicable to the Middle to
Late Woodland transition alone, but could equally be
applied to Early to Middle, or even Archaic to
Woodland. Finally, the current scheme is highly
ingrained in archaeological consciousness, as is evidenced
by previous attempts to revise it. Wright’s
(1972) attempt to replace the three-period framework
with Initial and Terminal Woodland met with mixed
success. Mason’s (1981) scheme of Woodland I, II, and
III has not seen wide application. In order for any revision
to be effective, it must be seen as both necessary
and useful by as many researchers as possible.
Thus, there is no clearcut solution to the issue of classification
for Princess Point. The current state of culture
classification in Ontario and the Northeast, with its historically
derived mix of approaches, is simply not flexible
enough to for allow either redefinition of existing
taxons or insertion of new ones. For the time being, we
are forced to continue to refer to Princess Point as a
“complex” within the nebulous “Transitional
Woodland.”
Distribution and Chronology
Our research does not modify Fox’s (1990) description
of the geographical distribution of Princess Point
(Figures 5.1 and 5.2), but clarifies Princess Point
Chapter 5 Recent Developments in the Archaeology of the Princess Point Complex in Southern Ontario 109