THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DIGITAL COMPARATIVE COLLECTION...

THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DIGITAL COMPARATIVE COLLECTION OF

CHERT TYPES IN ONTARIO AND THE EVALUATION OF CHANGE IN

ACCURACY AND CONFIDENCE OF CHERT TYPE IDENTIFICATIONS

A Thesis Submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the Faculty of Arts and Science

TRENT UNIVERSITY

Peterborough, Ontario

© Copyright by Mackenzie P. Armstrong 2018

Anthropology M.A. Graduate Program

January 2019

ii

Abstract

The Development of a Digital Comparative Collection of Chert Types in Ontario and the

Evaluation of Change in Accuracy and Confidence of Chert Type Identifications

Mackenzie P. Armstrong

The objective of this thesis is to create a foundation for a digital comparative collection of

chert types found on archaeological sites in Ontario, both local and non-local varieties, and to

evaluate the impact of a digital reference collection on the confidence and accuracy of the

user in comparison to hard copy guides or hand samples that are more often traditionally

used. Spatial and temporal variation in the use of different lithic raw materials has shown to

provide insight into cultural interaction, resource exchange and control across multiple

periods in the study of Indigenous archaeology; however comparative collections needed to

conduct analyses remain accessible only in a physical form. This study will build a

foundation, develop a prototype using a represented sample of hand specimens from the

William Fox Northeastern North American Lithic Reference Collection (referred to hereafter

as The Fox Collection) at Trent University, and create a prototype digital system to assist the

user in identifying the chert type through the use of a simple expert system using a decision

tree. The digital identification system was tested by a group of volunteers with to compare

accuracy and confidence in analysis against traditional methods of hand samples and hard

copy guides. When supplied with the digital reference collection, a statistically significant

improvement in the accuracy and confidence of chert identification was identified.

Keywords: Ontario archaeology, digital comparative collection, raw material analysis,

expert system, digital identification system, database design, cherts of Ontario.

iii

Acknowledgments

First and foremost, I’d like to thank my supervisor, James Conolly for all his assistance,

patience, and understanding. There were times where I felt myself lost, but he had a

knack to help guide me back to see the path I needed to take. Thank you to my

committee, Marit Munson, Laure Dubreuil, and William Fox. Marit was instrumental in

helping me see the practical side of this thesis, and how it could be a tool to better bring

to light the hidden bias we as archaeologists project into our research. Laure showed me

the importance of good lab skills, and it was Laure who gave me a lab with the equipment

needed to take high quality photographs of the chert specimens in this thesis. As for

William Fox, I owe no end of gratitude whether it is the generous use of the collection

that he has been instrumental in building, to his knowledge of geomorphology and

geology of the chert of Ontario and elsewhere, to his assistance and feedback on

specimen identification when I was unsure. Thanks to Kate Dougherty for all her help and

suggestion in database design. Using access and creating a database was all new to me,

but Kate helped me out whenever I got stuck, or had a strange error in the coding.

I’d like to thank the Trent University Archaeological Research Centre (TUARC),

and the Richard B. Johnston Scholarship for their financial contributions to this thesis

project. It made a significant difference to be able to have funding for supplies and

equipment that would ensure long-term and continued progress on this digital

comparative collection.

iv

I’d also like to thank my colleagues and cohort of the Department of

Anthropology at Trent University. You’ve all been extremely supportive and helpful in

your feedback and suggestions. I’d like to also thank the volunteers who helped me out

with the construction of the database, Annapaola Passerini, Justine Levesque, Corie

Hyland, Breanne Simon, Shannon Dwyer, Daniel LaPierre, Alison MacMillan, Donald

Webb, Shauna O’Rourke, and Makayla Roper. Without your help and enthusiasm, this

project would not be possible! I can’t thank you all enough for all the extra time you put

into this project! I’d like to thank Tristan Carter, and Meghan Burchell, both whom are

responsible for encouraging me to become an archaeologist and to pursue an M.A.

I’d like to thank my parents, for their support and assistance with looking over my

work, and offering suggestions where they could, even though much of the database

creation and archaeological knowledge was not something they were experts on. Thank

you to my brother, McCallum, who helped to offer suggestions on coding remedies when

the occasional error occurred, and my sister Maggie. I’d like to thank Anne-Marie

Warden, who has been a wonderful and helpful better half through her encouragement,

and support through the writing and submission process of this thesis. I’m thankful for all

the hours she spent beside me, while I wrote and rewrote chapters, keeping me focused

and productive with her supportive feedback.

Finally, I’d like to dedicate this thesis to Watson, whom has always been a joyous,

comical, loving beacon in my life, and was an ever present presence as I wrote these

chapters. He never neglected to remind me when it was time to take a break, and I will

miss his happy face, confident swagger, and polite opinion, now that he is gone.

v

Table of Contents

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. ii

Acknowledgements............................................................................................................ iii

Table of Contents............................................................................................................... v

List of Figures................................................................................................................... vii

List of Tables...................................................................................................................... xi

Chapter 1 − Introduction..................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 2 – Geological Background................................................................................... 8

2.1 Geological and Geomorphological History....................................................... 8

2.2 Chipped Stone Lithic Types............................................................................ 12

2.2.1 Quartz............................................................................................... 12

2.2.2 Quartzite........................................................................................... 13

2.2.3 Chalcedony....................................................................................... 13

2.2.4 Metasediments.................................................................................. 14

2.2.5 Chert................................................................................................. 15

2.3 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 20

Chapter 3 – Methods of Chert Identification and Characterization.................................. 21

3.1 Chert Identification......................................................................................... 21

3.1.1 Colour............................................................................................... 23

3.1.2 Lustre................................................................................................ 23

3.1.3 Texture.............................................................................................. 24

3.1.4 Fossil Inclusions............................................................................... 24

3.1.5 Structural Characteristics................................................................. 25

vi

3.1.6 Other Variables – Geographical Provenience.................................. 25

3.1.7 Other Variables – Heat Treatment................................................... 26

3.2 Chemical Characterization.............................................................................. 27

3.3 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 28

Chapter 4 – Designing a Digital Chert Reference Collection........................................... 29

4.1 The William Fox Reference Collection ……………………………………. 29

4.2 Chert Specimen Selection............................................................................... 30

4.3 Database Relations.......................................................................................... 35

4.3.1 Formation Table............................................................................... 39

4.3.2 Locality Table.................................................................................. 41

4.3.3 Material Table.................................................................................. 43

4.3.4 Specimen Table................................................................................ 45

4.3.5 SpecimenImages Table..................................................................... 48

4.3.6 Reference and LocalityImages Tables............................................. 50

4.4 Digital Comparative Collection Database Construction and Progress............ 51

Chapter 5 – Documenting Variability............................................................................... 52

5.1 Kettle Point Chert…………………………………….................................... 52

5.2 Onondaga Chert............................................................................................... 58

5.3 Bois Blanc Formation Chert............................................................................ 64

5.4 Fossil Hill Formation Chert............................................................................. 69

5.5 Goat Island/Lockport Formation Chert........................................................... 70

5.6 Dundee Formation Chert................................................................................. 72

5.7 Upper Bobcaygeon Formation Chert.............................................................. 74

vii

5.8 Lower and Middle Bobcaygeon/Upper Gull River Formation Chert...............77

5.9 Other Chert Types........................................................................................... 80

5.10 Summary....................................................................................................... 87

Chapter 6 ─ Using the Database and Evaluation.............................................................. 90

6.1 Development and Use of the Digital Chert Identification System.................. 90

6.2 Overview of Testing Procedure....................................................................... 99

6.3 Results of Assessment – Accuracy……........................................................ 102

6.4 Results of Assessment – Degree of Confidence............................................ 104

6.5 Feedback ....................................................................................................... 105

Chapter 7 – Discussion on Digital Comparative Collection and Conclusion................. 107

7.1 Digital Comparative Collection in Review................................................... 107

7.2 Digital Identification System in Review....................................................... 109

7.3 Conclusion..................................................................................................... 111

7.4 Next Steps ..................................................................................................... 112

References Cited ............................................................................................................. 117

Appendix A .................................................................................................................... 124

Appendix B is digitally attached

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Canadian Shield geological region ................................................................... 9

Figure 2. Interior Platform geological region………...……. ............................................10

Figure 3. Geographic location of chert bearing formations in Southern Ontario...............16

Figure 4. Chert-bearing formations of southern Ontario................................................... 19

Figure 5. Screenshot of Formation Table in Database...................................................... 40

Figure 6. Screenshot of Locality Table in Database ........................................................ 42

Figure 7. Screenshot of Material Table in Database......................................................... 44

Figure 8. Screenshot of Specimen Table in Database....................................................... 47

Figure 9. Screenshot of SpecimenImage Table in Database............................................. 49

Figure 10. Photo of Kettle Point Chert from KP2b (KP2b-06-05-Standard).................... 54

Figure 11. Photo of Kettle Point Chert from KP2b (KP2b-02-07-Standard).................... 54

Figure 12 Map of Kettle Point Chert Specimen Locations............................................... 56

Figure 13. Photo of Essex County Kettle Point Chert (Essex County-02-02-Standard)... 56

Figure 14. Photo of Colasanti Kettle Point Chert (Colasanti-02-04-Standard)................. 57

Figure 15. Map of Onondaga Chert Specimen Locations................................................. 59

Figure 16. Photo of Reeb’s Bay Onondaga Chert (Reeb’s Bay-01-05-Standard)............. 60

Figure 17. Photo of Fort Erie Onondaga Chert (Fort Erie-01-02-Standard)..................... 60

Figure 18. Photo of Point Abino Onondaga Chert (Point Abino-01-02-Standard)........... 61

Figure 19. Photo of South Cayuga Beach Onondaga Chert

(South Cayuga Beach-02-05-Standard)............................................................ 62

Figure 20. Photo of Lilac Quarry Onondaga Chert (Lilac Quarry-02-05-Standard)......... 62

Figure 21. Photo of Mount Olivet Onondaga Chert (Mount Olivet-01-01-Standard)...... 63

ix

Figure 22. Photo of Beaver Creek Location 1 Onondaga Chert

(Beaver Creek Loc 1-01-02-Standard)............................................................. 64

Figure 23. Photo of Moershfelder Quarry Bois Blanc Chert

(Moershfelder Quarry-02-05-Standard)................... .......... ............................ 65

Figure 24. Photo of James Quarry Bois Blanc Chert (James Quarry-07-04-Standard).... 66

Figure 25. Photo of Colbourne Location M Bois Blanc Chert

(Colbourne Loc M-01-03-Standard)..................... .......................................... 67

Figure 26. Photo of Dunkeld Bois Blanc Chert (Dunkeld-01-01-Standard)..................... 68

Figure 27. Photo of Dunkeld Bois Blanc Chert (Dunkeld-21-04-Standard)..................... 68

Figure 28. Photo of Banks Fossil Hill Chert (Banks-03-03-Standard)............................. 70

Figure 29. Photo of Clappison Ancaster Chert (Clappison-04-01-Standard) .................. 72

Figure 30. Photo of Sherk Quarry Selkirk Chert (Sherk Quarry-02-02-Standard)........... 73

Figure 31. Photo of Selkirk Quarry Selkirk Chert (Selkirk Quarry-09-02-Standard)....... 74

Figure 32. Photo of Grand Island Balsam Lake Chert (Grand Island-01-10-Standard).... 75

Figure 33. Photo of Indian Point Balsam Lake Chert (Indian Point-01-02-Standard)...... 75

Figure 34. Photo of Dalrymple Trent Chert (Dalrymple-12-03-Standard)....................... 78

Figure 35. Photo of Hwy 38 Trent Chert (Hwy 38-01-02-Standard)................................ 78

Figure 36. Photo of Lovesick Lake 1 Trent Chert (Lovesick Lake 1-01-02-Standard).... 79

Figure 37. Close Up of Quartz Inclusions in Trent Chert ................................................ 80

Figure 38. Photo of Stamford Reynales Chert (Stamford-05-02-Standard)...................... 81

Figure 39. Photo of Grimsby Eramosa Chert (Grimsby-01-01-Standard)........................ 83

82

Figure 40. Photo of Bar River Quartzite (Bar River-01-04-Standard).............................. 84

Figure 41. Photo of Ramah Chert (Ramah-01-02-Standard)............................................ 86

Figure 42. Photo of Ramah Chert (Ramah-03-01-Standard)............................................ 86

x

Figure 43. Colour options for chert type that is glassy and medium coarse..................... 92

Figure 44. Simplified decision tree layout for digital identification system..................... 93

Figure 45. Point found during 2017 field season near Brantford, ON.............................. 94

Figure 46. First question on digital identification system example test............................ 95

Figure 47. Second question on ddigital identification system example test..................... 96

Figure 48. Third question on digital identification system example test.......................... 96

Figure 49. Fourth question on digital identification system example test......................... 97

Figure 50. Fifth question on digital identification system example test........................... 97

Figure 51. Result of the digital identification system example test.................................. 98

xi

List of Tables

Table 1. Ontario Cherts and Number of Specimens in the William Fox Collection......... 30

Table 2. Chert types included in database construction.................................................... 32

Table 3. Database Formation Table headers of each field................................................ 35

Table 4. Database Locality Table headers of each field................................................... 36

Table 5. Database Material Table headers of each field................................................... 37

Table 6. Database Specimen Table headers of each field................................................. 37

Table 7. Database SpecimenImages Table headers of each field...................................... 38

Table 8. Database LocalityImages Table headers of each field........................................ 38

Table 9. Database References Table headers of each field............................................... 38

Table 10. Hand sample sets used in digital identification system testing....................... 103

Table 11. Number of Respondents with a Correct Answer by Question and Session.... 105

Table 12. Number of Respondents with a Confidence over 60%

by Question and Session.................................................................................... 104

1

Chapter 1 – Introduction

Culturally modified lithic materials are durable records of past human behaviour found on

the vast majority of archaeological sites. The identification of the geological source of

these materials is critical for providing information about the economic organization of

lithic acquisition, production strategies, resource management, and significance. To

identify lithic source material, archaeologists typically make use of comparative

collections. A comparative collection is an assortment of specimens, often multiples of

similar components or types, to provide an exemplar that may best reflect the object being

studied (Feder 2008:304). Comparative collections are of special importance for modern

archaeology as they provide access and interoperability, helping to establish stronger

basic conceptual categories (Katalin 2011:225). It is therefore important for

archaeologists to have access to a robust and accessible comparative raw material

collection, as a way in which to determine the type of lithic materials on a site.

“Reference collections for comparative purposes help to identify and fingerprint the

materials used by prehistoric - and historical - population and are imperative to preserve

ancient knowledge” (Katalin 2011:225). Comparative raw material collections can serve

as an important tool for the investigation of archaeological lithic assemblages, since

archaeologists cannot usually rely on memorizing the characteristics of the many lithic

types found within a region and surrounding regions.

Comparative collections are used in all studies within archaeology, including

lithic, faunal, and ceramic items from Indigenous sites and historic artifacts from settler

sites. For example, zooarchaeological assemblages undergo analysis to properly

2

distinguish the species, age, sex, and elements of food remains, providing archaeologists

with information about the diet, what portions of the animals may or may not have been

preferred, and if certain selection of age or gender in hunting strategies were being

employed. Typically, assemblages are fragmentary and a comparative collection of intact

skeletal remains of the full range of potential prey animals are needed to make the

identifications (Feder 2008:283). In this way, a comparative collection is a valuable

resource for precise and accurate identifications. Such collections are not often accessible

while in the field and moreover, access to permanent comparative collections for many

cultural resource management firms in Ontario, the commercial face of Ontario

archaeology, may be limited to what the supervisor or manager has managed to acquire

over their career. With physical comparative collections requiring a lot of space, having

access to a large personal comparative collection may not be feasible to many companies,

or prioritizing a visit to an associated university may take too long when meeting project

deadlines. Having access to a digital version, provides a more accessible additional

resource to archaeologists, both experienced and less experienced, in the lab and in the

field.

Cultural resource management firms (CRMFs) are the major contributor to

archaeological employment. I have first-hand experience of observing how

archaeologists, especially in smaller firms, are contributing to the interpretation, analysis,

and decision-making processes. This often takes place on site due to the increased

demands on time for completing contracts. Developer-led archaeology enabled by

cultural resource management (CRM) companies has always been a source of contention

and concern, with most archaeologists appreciating the preservation and protection of

3

archaeological material that comes from CRM work, but fearing the destruction and loss

of sites in the process (Ferris 1998:58). This generates a preference towards mitigation by

excavation for significant archaeological sites that are at risk. Unfortunately, as the

demands of development increase, and larger CRMFs require larger crews, additional

resources, especially those to support less experienced archaeologists, are necessary to

improve the accuracy of the identification of archaeological finds.

As lithic analysis is critical to site identification and characterization, James

Keron’s (2003) study, Comparability of Published Debitage Analysis: An Experimental

Assessment, recorded the impact of non-uniformity in lithic analysis. In the study, several

lithic analysts were asked to examine both the object class (typology) as well as the

potential source material, from which it originated. The results indicated that there were

differences in identification between the analysts in the way they identified the objects

(Keron 2003). The study presented in this thesis will address similar concerns with

accuracy of classification, looking specifically at lithic source material analysis. The

objective is to develop a technological solution to improve the accuracy of source

material analysis, while also providing a much-needed resource: a digital comparative

collection, the natural progression of the Fox Collection.

Comparative collections for the purpose of lithic source material identification,

based in the digital world, have been created in the United States and Europe with some

degree of success. Among one of the largest online comparative collections in Europe,

Flintsource.net, describes flint and other rocks across much of the Western European

mainland. It is an excellent resource. Once one knows the type of material they have

4

found, this database allows an individual to gain specific facts and information about the

lithic source, either determined through searching up the name, or looking for its location

on the searchable map. However, it is a comparative collection designed for those already

knowledgeable in lithic analysis. Other collections in the United States suffer from

similar problems: the assumption that the user is aware of the lithic type they have found

and wants to know more about the background of the lithic source. Moreover, some

“online” comparative collections, such as the University of Iowa’s Lithic Raw Material

Assemblage Resource, while aesthetically pleasing, are in my opinion hard to navigate,

and harder to use in terms of lithic identification, especially when working from a state of

limited knowledge. In fact, a few comparative collections at universities that are said to

be available online are actually a listing of the catalogue numbers and holdings of raw

materials held by the university’s physical comparative collection and require an

appointment to go view the samples in person. Clearly there is still a shortage and a need

for a more user-friendly and comprehensive system, to assist inexperienced and

experienced individuals alike.

With an interest in making the comparative collection both user-friendly, and

useful in helping less-experienced archaeologists who may not know the lithic material

about which they seek knowledge, this study will focus on the development of a digital

comparative collection, designed to assist less-experienced individuals in archaeological

practice in Ontario identify common chert types. To assist the user when the lithic type is

unknown, this study takes inspiration from The Archaeological Guide to Chert Types of

East Central Illinois (Stelle and Duggan 2003). This digital comparative collection

incorporates the use of a digital identification system built around a simple expert system

5

decision tree as part of a diagnostic search tool to locate and provide a best guess to the

user, when the lithic material is unknown and then provides additional data for the

material type.

An expert system is best described as a simple artificial intelligence that uses a

series of questions to narrow down all possible outcomes to the most likely outcome

based on the provided data (Barceló 1996). A simplified expert system known as a

decision tree is often used in medical books as a way to determine possible ailments

based on the symptoms and characteristics observed, or within osteology as a way to

determine skeletal element. Avian Osteology (1996) is an excellent example of a decision

tree, using a series of questions that refers the user to the next question depending on the

response given, until a final result is provided (Gilbert, Savage, and Martin 1996).

Usually the decision tree starts with a broad question, narrowing down the possibilities

with each following question and result, till one possibility remains. In terms of use

within lithic analysis, a decision tree could and would incorporate commonly used visual

and observation cues from the sample in question, with the end result expected to be close

to a match, or an exact match of the lithic type. The comparative collection digitized as

part of this study will incorporate a digital identification system that will make use of a

decision tree, using the Archaeological Guide to Chert Types of East Central Illinois as

inspiration for design and user-oriented usability.

As part of the background to this study, in Chapter 2, the geological and

geomorphological background of Ontario is reviewed, including the origins of lithic

material, and where and how material was deposited across the landscape. Discussion on

6

the use of lithic material and the importance of knowing where material originated from,

geographically, can tell us a lot about the interaction between Indigenous groups in the

past.

Chapter 3 focuses on the characterization of lithic material and identification of

material types. This chapter provides an overview of the main lithic material that is used

in chipped stone tool making in Ontario, providing basic characteristics of chipped stone

material types with a focus on chert and its characteristics. Chert is the main focus of this

thesis due to the widespread use of chert in the archaeological record likely due to its

forgiving knapping qualities.

In Chapter 4, an overview of the database design is discussed, along with the

decisions made in program use and selection, and the choice of variables to focus on for

each chert or lithic type. This chapter examines the importance visual characteristics play

in chert identification, its drawbacks, and why the five visual characteristics of lustre,

texture, colour, fossil inclusions, and structural characteristics were chosen as the primary

variables over non-macro or non-visual methods, such as chemical analysis. This chapter

also examines the classification of chert material types, and why certain specimens have

been grouped together.

Chapter 5 focuses on the examination and overview of the database, providing

examples, and a summary of the content. The database and specimen entries, when

examined, show variability between locations along the chert bed, some of which has

never been fully examined. As part of the cataloguing process the specimens catalogued

7

were individually recorded, allowing for the potential in slight variability within the

formation itself to be recorded from a visual perspective.

Chapter 6 addresses issues related to the construction and assessment of the digital

identification system. A detailed overview on what a digital identification system is, and

how it functions, using examples from other studies is provided, along with an overview

showing the analysis of an example projectile point to showcase how one would follow

the series of questions to an end result. This chapter also provides the details and review

of the digital identification system assessment provided through its use against traditional

methods, over the course of two assessment periods in the fall of 2016. These assessments

were carried out, after receiving ethics approval, by volunteer analysts from the Lab

Methods: Lithics and Bone course (3151H) at Trent University. The undergraduate

students from the class best comprised the target demographic in terms of age,

educational level, and experience of the majority of field technicians within Ontario

archaeology.

Finally, Chapter 7 will provide a discussion on the importance and use of a digital

comparative collection as it relates to digital archaeology and open access, the importance

of open access to archaeology as a whole, and the potential use of this project as a guide

for other comparative collections of similar and different focuses. This chapter also

includes an overview and conclusion on the findings of this project, as well as the ways in

which the digital comparative collection and digital identification system can be

improved in the future.

8

Chapter 2 – Geological Background

This chapter therefore focuses on the methods concerning geological and

geomorphological origins of archaeological chipped stone tools. This chapter also

provides a background on lithic stone material types, explaining the difference between

quartz, quartzite, chalcedony, medasediments, and chert, with a focus on the origin and

properties of chert, along with the difficulties involved in classification and nomenclature

among archaeology in Ontario and outside of Ontario for chert identification.

2.1 Geological and Geomorphological History

Over the past 2.5 billion years, the area that makes up the province of Ontario has been a

component of four different continents: Artica, Nena, Rodinia, and Pangea (Eyles

2002:88). The movement of the land throughout these continents have created a

geologically diverse province that straddles the Canadian Shield and the Interior Platform

(Eyles 2002:5). Each of these geological zones are layers, which overlap and intersect

throughout the province, creating an environment in which lithic resources are diverse in

both type and abundance.

9

Figure 1: Canadian Shield Geological Region, adapted from (Miall 2006)

The first layer is the Canadian Shield, which acts as a “basement layer” for the

entire province, except where it has been exposed on the surface in the central and

northern parts of the province (Fox 2009:335). The second layer of the Interior Platform

is composed of mostly sedimentary rock and was deposited approximately 550 million

years ago, resulting in the burial of the Canadian Shield in southern Ontario (Eyles

2002:119). A third layer composed of glacial deposits from the Pleistocene glaciations

beginning approximately two million years ago also exists, and is just a small part of the

impact glaciation had on the geomorphology of the province (Eyles 2002:174). The

Canadian Shield possesses one of the most mineralogically dense and diverse areas in

Canada and it is not surprising that material from the Canadian Shield has been used on

sites across Ontario. However, material from the Shield is still only found commonly in

10

shorter distances from its point of origin due to abundance and availability of other, often

preferred chert types in Southern Ontario (Eyles and Miall 2007:79).

Figure 2: Interior Platform Geological Region, adapted from (Miall 2006)

Parts of Northern Ontario, and Southern Ontario fall within the region known as

the Interior Platform. This geological region is made up by layers, which overlap and

intersect throughout the province, and all relate to a specific time period in which the

geological formations were first formed. Most Ontario chert-bearing formations are

predominantly sedimentary in origin and are associated with one of the Paleozoic

Silurian, Ordovician, and Devonian periods (Eley and von Bitter 1989:1). It is among the

Interior Platform region of Southern Ontario where we see the predominant source of

lithic material, and for this reason, most chert sourcing tends to focus on the identification

of lithic material in Southern Ontario. Along with the sparse habitation of Indigenous

11

groups in the northern part of the province, and the fewer number of archaeological

excavations and development taking place there, much of the regional focus of this

project will be on the Southern Ontario region and therefore a greater focus on the

geology and geomorphology of the Interior Platform over that of the Canadian Shield.

Approximately 500 million years ago, the continent of Rodinia began to break up,

and Laurentia (early North America) became surrounded by the Iapetus Ocean, which

inundated southern Ontario. Over millions of years, sediments underwent subsidence

across the inundated region, creating sedimentary rock (Eyles 2002:119–121).

Between 440 and 350 million years ago Laurentia collided with Gondwana

(ancient Africa and South America) to create Pangea (Eyles 2002:143). This resulted in

the burial of the Iapetus Ocean shoreline with mud around 440 million years ago and a

subsequent inundation creating shallow sea and lagoon environments in Ontario around

360 million years ago (Eyles 2002:131–143). The resulting rock layers created from this

sedimentary process are mainly limestone and sandstone, and dolostones types (Eyles

2002:127). However, the region has undergone further geological processes of “regional

uplift, subsidence, gentle tectonic warping, and repeated sea-level change” (Eyles and

Miall 2007:126) that has since resulted in the varied geological and geographical

appearance and makeup of Ontario in the years leading up to, and including, the arrival of

humans.

12

2.2 Chipped Stone Lithic Types

Quartz, quartzite, chalcedony, metasediments, and chert are all commonly

identified lithic material types found on archaeological sites across Ontario and

distinguishing their differences in characteristics and understanding their uses within the

archaeological record are important to Ontario archaeologists.

2.2.1 Quartz

Quartz is one of the most common minerals in the world and is extremely prevalent on

archaeological sites because of its abundance throughout Ontario (Hewitt 1965:13).

Quartz is a macro or microcrystalline, silica-based mineral, is made entirely of silicon

dioxide (SiO2), and has a conchoidal fracture pattern (Dietrich and Skinner 1979:32).

While quartz usually appears clear, minor mineral impurities create different colours such

as white, pink, purple, brown, and yellow (Plummer, et al. 2007:130). Quartz often forms

as veins, or in cavities of rock, and is usually vitreous, but can vary depending on the

impurities present (Plummer, et al. 2007:130). While chert and chalcedony are usually

considered a form of quartz, they possess micro and cryptocrystalline structures, resulting

in different characteristics when worked, and therefore are often separated into their own

categories (Dietrich and Skinner 1979:32–33). Quartz, compared to other silica-based

lithic types, is used as an expedient tool, and not widely used for biface production due to

the cleavage pattern of the material (William Fox, personal communication 2017). Due to

the weathering and stress fractures present in many quartz nodules, the material cannot be

worked in a predictable fashion, and therefore is usually undesirable for bifacial tool

production.

13

2.2.2 Quartzite

There are two types of quartzites known as orthoquartzite and metaquartzite.

Metaquartzite is the material referred to when discussing quartzite and is a metamorphic

rock that has recrystallized from metamorphosed sandstone or chert (Long, et al.

2002:267). In comparison, orthoquartzite is a sedimentary rock, and it is a silica-

cemented sandstone or silicified sandstone made almost entirely of quartz grains, (Long,

et al. 2002:267). Metaquartzite fracture patterns range from conchoidal to irregular

depending on the degree of recrystallization, while orthoquartzite fractures conchoidally

(Long, et al. 2002:280). Quartzite can, like quartz, exist in numerous colours, and this is

impacted on the occurrence of inclusions of other elements, such as potassium feldspar or

white mica (Long, et al. 2002:270). Since quartzite is an extremely resistant material

against weathering and breakage, it is an important resource for lithic manufacturing in

the archaeological record (Long, et al. 2002:267). While this material is useful for its

fracture resistance, it is also difficult to shape into a tool, and though there are examples

of quartzite tools made and used by Indigenous people, lesser quality quartzite would be

made into expedient tools rather than bifacially knapped (Long, et al. 2002:266). Due to

the time commitment required to make lithic tools out of quartzite, it is thought that the

use of the material to do so may have held a certain significance (Long, et al. 2002:267).

2.2.3 Chalcedony

Chalcedony is often difficult to distinguish from chert, and even the definition of

chalcedony varies between archaeologists, petrologists, and mineralogists; however, what

can be said about chalcedony is that it is a sedimentary rock that is composed of

14

microcrystalline quartz (Luedtke 1994:6). As a member of the silica group, chalcedony

has a fibrous quartz structure, distinguishing it from the granular structure of chert, and

this fibrous structure is normally only visible thin-sections (Luedtke 1994:6). Like chert,

chalcedony contains impurities that cause the material to exhibit different colours,

sometimes within the same source (Luedtke 1994:6). Within archaeology, chalcedony is

used as a term to describe translucent cherts, while petrologists define chalcedony as a

fibrous quartz. Furthermore, mineralogists will sometimes combine both categories of

chert and chalcedony due to both material types containing very similar chemical

signatures (Luedtke 1994:6).

2.2.4 Metasediments

Metasedimentary rock encompass many different types of stone, and it is a general term

used by archaeologists to refer to raw materials often associated with ground-stone

technology in Ontario as well as Broadpoint use west of London and into Michigan.

Metasediments may not always be of a sedimentary origin, with examples including

gneiss, schist, amphibolite, slate, and soapstone/serpentinite (Fox 2009:4). While not all

of these rock types are hard enough, such as soapstone, or provide the right fracture

pattern to allow for use as chipped stone tools through a flintknapping, such as gneiss,

many have been used for other tool types, such as groundstone tools made out of gneiss,

or schist, or for artistic expression, as seen with soapstone carvings.

15

2.2.5 Chert

One of the most commonly found lithic material in the archaeological record in Ontario is

chert. Due to its low economic value, chert has been a geologically understudied material

(Luedtke 1994:35). The relative disinterest from geologists in chert raw material has

made archaeological work in lithic material acquisition a challenging and rewarding focus

(Fox 2006:353). Chert as a material resource is important to archaeological research

because lithics are one of the few Indigenous ancestral belongings recovered from

Indigenous sites that can be used as a proxy to study trade and mobility in the past.

Chert is a sedimentary rock composed primarily of micro and cryptocrystalline

silicon dioxide (SiO2) and contains impurities, such as manganese oxides, iron sulphides,

clay, and carbon, which are often used to identify the formation from which it originates,

and occasionally its place of origin within the chert-bearing formation (Eley and von

Bitter 1989:1). The impurities in chert corresponds with trace-elements, minerals, and

micro-fossils (Luedtke 1978:414). These different trace-elements and inclusions, when

added to the same silica material, result in differing chipped stone lithic types that have

been divided into other types, such as jasper and flint (Luedtke 1994:5–6).

Chert makes up less than one per cent of the total volume of sedimentary rocks in

Ontario (Blatt 1982:381) and is extremely important as a resource for Indigenous peoples.

While chert is primarily associated with sedimentary rock in southern Ontario, it also

forms in igneous and metamorphic rock, in both deep and shallow bodies of water, in

spheroid and irregular patterns, as well as thin lenses and thick beds (Luedtke 1992:17).

Most chert-bearing formations used by Indigenous people in Ontario come from the

Interior Platform mentioned in section 3.1, geologically identified as south of North Bay,

16

where the rock is made up of softer limestone, shale, and sandstone over the Precambrian

shield rock. The chert-bearing formations of southern Ontario originated as marine

sediments of marl, clay, and sand, in marine and lacustrine environments and are the

oldest rocks to harbour the petrified remains of saltwater organisms (Chapman and

Putnam 1984:1). Due to the Ordovician-Silurian and Devonian mass extinction events,

marine life living in the shallow seas of southern Ontario, died, sedimented, and

compacted to form the geological deposits from these periods (Brunton et al. 2009). Over

time, chemical processes caused a replacement of carbon matter with silica, resulting in

the chert beds and nodules found across southern Ontario (Eley and von Bitter 1989:1).

The distribution of these chert-bearing formations can be seen in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Geographic location of chert bearing formations in Southern Ontario, (adapted from Eley and von

Bitter 1989:4).

17

While there is a general agreement among archaeologists on the defining

characteristics of the various chert formations, the names of the formations, and the

variations within the formations, known as “members”, may differ from region to region.

Chert sources from within certain members can also be variable, making exact

identification of a chert member and locational origin a difficult task (Eley and Von Bitter

1989:1). To further complicate the classification of chert, nomenclature for formations

and members have not been consistent with some formations and members being named

for their geological formation from which they derive, while others are referred to by a

specific geographical location (Eley and Von Bitter 1989:1). Further difficulties include

the inconsistency of nomenclature across provincial and national borders, such as the Gull

River formation becoming the Leray formation in south-eastern New York (Fox

2009:359).

According to Eley and Von Bitter (1989), southern Ontario contains a total of ten

formations that possess chert: Kettle Point, Dundee, Bois Blanc, Lockport, Amabel,

Fossil Hill, Manitoulin, Bobcaygeon, Gull River, and Onondaga (Eley and von Bitter

1989:2). While the Canadian Shield region contains fewer sources of chert, due to the

lack of overlying sedimentary rock, formations in the far northern part of the province are

normally characterized by the general name of Hudson Bay Lowland (HBL) chert and are

contemporary with many formations found in southern Ontario (Fox 2009:355). Due to

the continental glacial movement of the Laurentide Ice Sheet, and ice sheets before,

massive amounts of HBL chert have been transported to the south (Fox 2009:355-356).

While Cherts of Southern Ontario (Eley and von Bitter 1989) is still used as a

resource among lithic analysts, the categorization of specific chert types, and known use

18

by Indigenous people have changed over the past few decades. With chert sources and

their members being a focal point in this study, newer understandings of the geological

layering in Ontario has been used to update and nullify previous divisions of chert bed

formations and members. For example, Amabel and Manitoulin, are both referenced by

Eley and von Bitter (1989) as being readily available as a source to Indigenous people,

however both sources were almost never utilized (Fox 2009:355). Further confusion over

the years as the result of archaeologists not keeping step with geological discoveries has

resulted in some names being shifted and used to refer to other geological deposits. For

ecample, Brunton and Britnell (2011) refer to the Niagara member of the Goat Island

Formation as part of the “Amabel Group” (Brunton and Britnell 2011:3-4), which has no

relation to Eley and von Bitter’s (1989) Amabel chert in Cherts of Southern Ontario.

Figure 4 shows an altered and updated version of chert bearing formations and its

members in southern Ontario. Included in these changes are the alteration of Ancaster as

a member of the Goat Island Formation, as the terms “Goat Island”, “Ancaster”, and

“Lockport” have all been used interchangeably in reference to both the formation and/or

the member. These changes were made to follow recent studies on the geological

formations in Ontario (Brunton and Britnell 2011, Brunton et al. 2009), where Goat

Island was identified as the formation, and Ancaster and Lockport as members. Eramosa

was included in the chart in Figure 4, as several specimens from two locations in Grimsby

exist within the collection, catalogued during the course of this thesis, and were identified

by William Fox as possibly Eramosa, and not Ancaster upon re-examination. The

specimens were kept as part of this study due to Eramosa’s similar appearance to other

chert types, such as Bois Blanc and Onondaga. Other changes include the combined

19

reference of Middle and Lower Bobcayegon and Upper Gull River as all elements of the

same formation, with Trent Valley and Ottawa chert listed as members along this

widespread, transitional chert type (Brunton et al. 2009).

Figure 4 Chert-bearing formations of southern Ontario, adapted and modified from (Eley and von Bitter

1989:2)

20

Chert is often divided between primary and secondary deposits. While primary

deposits often relate to chert beds and nodules found within the formation, their use is

dependent on availability and accessibility (Eley and von Bitter 1989:2). Secondary

deposits range from chert outcrops brought ashore along the present and ancient lakes of

southern Ontario by a process known as rafting, as well as through glacial movement of

larger deposits, as well as glacial till deposits in moraines, drumlins, and eskers. Using the

knowledge gained from geology, and combining it with archaeological analysis on the

habits of Indigenous people, chert source analysis has become a major component of site

dating, and occasionally, cultural affiliation within Ontario archaeology.

2.3 Conclusion

Lithic analysts use the knowledge on specific archaeological sites to determine how far

indigenous groups of the period traveled to acquire the resources they used, and whether

they have a preference towards local or long-distance acquisition, based on the ratio of

lithic material found on site, and whether some of the range of material acquisition can be

accounted for by social interaction with other groups through trade. However, to

determine how far a worked stone tool and preforms have travelled, lithic analysts need to

know how to identify one lithic type from another, making use of visual characteristics as

the most basic and common form of lithic identification. Visual characteristics, along

with other characteristics and forms of identification will be discussed further in Chapter

3: Methods of Chert Identification and Characterization.

21

Chapter 3 – Methods of Chert Identification and Characterization

In this chapter, methods of chert identification and analysis as it applies to chert source

analysis is examined, along with reviewing the main visual characteristics that are widely

used by archaeologists, lustre, colour, texture, fossil inclusions, and structural

characteristics. This chapter will indicate additional methods used to determine chert

sourcing, including thin sections and chemical analysis. However, due to the interest in

making chert source analysis more accessible to archaeologists in the field using visual

characteristics, this study did not make use of chemical analyses or thin sections.

The methodology outlined in this chapter is the foundation used in the

comparative collection as a means to determine chert variability. Unlike the few

exemplars often employed in a small comparative collection, having a variety of sources

and multiple specimens from each source will provide an increased understanding of the

variability within chert formations. Chapter 5 provides an overview of the observations

made using the characteristics recorded in the electronic database in this chapter.

3.1 Chert Identification

Chert identification and characterization traditionally involves the use of visual

identification at both a microscopic and macroscopic level of analysis. When examining

chert at a microscopic level, the focus is on identifying the crystalline structure, mineral

inclusions, and microscopic fossils. While chert may be viewed under a microscope

without alteration, chert source analysts often employ the use of thin-sections to provide a

more in-depth study of specific chert types and locations (Eley and von Bitter 1989:3).

22

Through thin-section analysis, the composition and texture of chert can be determined.

However, thin-sections can only determine the composition of the original material

replaced by silicification, and therefore some Devonian chert types may be

indistinguishable from that of an Ordovician chert type (Eley and von Bitter 1989:3).

Therefore, the classification of chert by thin section is suggested by Eley and von Bitter

(1989) to be used in conjunction with other methods and criteria.

Macroscopic analysis is one of the most widely used methods and includes the

analysis of the parent rock formation (when present), the analysis of the patina (the

weathered outer coating of the chert specimen), and the unweathered, flaked surface of

the material in question (Eley and von Bitter 1989:3) It is one of the quickest, and most

practical methods of determining chert type, and has the added benefit of being the least

expensive analysis to apply (Eley and von Bitter 1989:3). However, chert types from a

single formation, or from different locations along a formation often vary in appearance

(Eley and von Bitter 1989:3). Capturing this variability within formations is part of the

purpose of creating a comparative collection, electronic or otherwise. Chapter 5 reviews

the challenge and opportunity that the electronic catalogue database creates in recording

and identifying this variability. Furthermore, cherts from formations of different

geological ages may look alike, such as chert from the Lockport Formation of Silurian

age can be mistaken for the light to medium grey varieties of chert from the Bois Blanc or

Onondaga formations of Devonian age (Eley and von Bitter 1989:3). Chert source

analysis is correspondingly highly impacted by subjective bias and should be

supplemented by other objective and repeatable methods (Eley and von Bitter 1989:3).

23

3.1.1 Colour

As noted earlier, colour traditionally is one of the first discriminators between chert

formations and members, and while colours may appear similar, patterns on the surface

may differ between and within chert formations. Colour can determine differences

quickly between different formation types, however due to its heterogeneous nature, chert

varies widely in colour within a formation, both over distance, and depending on the

depth of the chert within the stratigraphic layer of the formation. Traditionally analysts

have determined colour by giving a visual range of colour type for each chert type, such

as “light grey, to dark grey”, but this is highly subjective, and therefore a proper colour

system needed to be implemented from the onset of the project to provide a more

definitive gauge of colour alongside traditional colour ranges. While various forms of

colour identification palettes exist, Munsell Colour Palettes were chosen for use in this

project due to their long-term use within the sciences, especially in related fields, where

Munsell Colour Charts have been designed to assist in determining soil and rock colour in

geology and geomorphological studies (Cochrane 2014).

3.1.2 Lustre

Lustre is the amount of light that a chert sample or tool reflects, and is an indicator of

chert material type, and possible parent source in terms of chert identification, Lustre

provides some knowledge of the properties of the crystalline structure and elements that

make up the chert from a geological perspective. The traditional divisions of lustre are

dull, waxy and glassy, with some sources also using vitreous as a descriptor. Dull means

24

that little or no light will be reflected, while waxy means that some light will be reflected

as if it were from the lip or rim of a used candle (Stelle and Duggan 2003). An example of

this is Onondaga, which reflects some light, and has a slight shine to it. Glassy, much like

it suggests, is a glass-like shine to the surface, while vitreous was often used

synonymously with glassy.

3.1.3 Texture

Though the silica crystals that make up the matrix of chert are quite small, they are

nonetheless variable. Chert is a microcrystalline, cryptocrystalline, and sometimes

microfiborous silica-based rock, and texture relates to the size of the crystals, which can

be determined by visual and tactile differences along the worked edges of lithic tools. The

three traditional divisions are coarse, medium, and fine. Coarse means that the crystals are

visible to the unaided eye and the surface would be rough to the touch. Medium requires

8X magnification to view the crystals; however, one can feel the rougher texture of the

medium crystals by running a finger nail along the surface of the lithic material. Fine

grained chert requires the use of a microscope to view individual crystals while the

surface feels almost as smooth as glass (Eley and von Bitter 1989).

3.1.4 Fossil Inclusions

Since chert is the result of silicate aquatic faunal remains, fossil inclusions are often

found and associated with certain types of chert. Some examples of fossil types include

25

brachiopods, corals, bryozoa, crinoids and sponge spicules. These differences tend to be

more uniform within the chert source than other elements, such as colour. However, like

texture, the use of a microscope may be necessary for distinguishing some chert types, as

not all fossil inclusions are macroscopic. This characteristic proved to be a challenge to

impart the knowledge necessary to less experienced analysts to be able to detect and

identify with relative ease. Therefore, fossil inclusion identification was simplified and

ultimately played a lesser role in the characterization of the chert in this database during

initial construction to prevent mistakes.

3.1.5 Structural Characteristics

Structural characteristics contains a variety of identifiers, such as the presence of iron

oxide, and voids, called oolites (Stelle and Duggan 2003). Impurities in the structure of

the chert can also be an identifier that falls within the structural characteristics category.

This category tends to be a catch-all for identifying traits that may be more of a present-

absent identifier compared to the degree of difference found in the first four identifiers.

As the final determining characteristic, this section was used to determine differences

between chert types that were very similar.

3.1.6 Other Variables – Geographical Provenience

Location of the specimens’ origin is important, however geographic location refers to the

location of the individual when using the database remotely. Geographic location of the

26

individual plays a role in determining if a chert type in question is Kettle Point, or Trent

by noting the location in Ontario where the individual may be standing when making the

query. Should an individual be standing in a field outside London, Ontario, the results for

a dark grey, waxy, smooth material should likely be identified as Kettle Point, or

Onondaga. However, while sitting in the lab at Trent University, the result for the same

variables should suggest Trent or Onondaga chert types as the most likely candidate.

Determining likelihood of chert regionally makes chert analysis easier, and more accurate

than taking into consideration all possible chert types that could be found on a site within

Ontario. However limitations could cause exotic chert to be incorrectly identified as

unidentified due to uncommonality. Having a system that can still identify futher sources

of chert, while eliminating out unlikely candidates, could reduce the amount of

unidentified chert finds on archaeological sites. Due to time constraints, I found it

difficult to implement this factor effectively with the initial test of the digital

identification system. After considering the use of geographic location of the user as a

variable to determine chert type, I found it unnecessary to the overall goals of the project

at this stage. However, future versions will see a much more focused effort on

determining geographic provenience and should include resource distance as a factor in

ruling out some chert types over others.

3.1.7 Other Variables – Heat Treatment and Burning

Heat treatment and burning is a variable that only exists if a specimen of chert has been

exposed to a heat source. Heat treated materials are deliberately exposed to a heat source,

27

as a way of causing a change in the crystal structure of the chert itself. This can be useful

in changing the workability of the chert, or may be for aesthetic reasons due to colour

change of the chert itself. Burning is often used in reference to chert that has been

accidentally exposed to a heat source, likely as the result of knapping near a hearth or

burning a midden. However, heat treatment and burning was not made a key

characteristic due to the limited number of burnt or heat treated specimens, and the fact

that heat treatment only resulted in an overall major change to the chert in a few chert

types, with most only becoming more cloudy and dull (Elaschuk 2015:85) Therefore, heat

treatment was chosen as a present/absent option to include within the variables, but does

not act as a determining factor in the current chert query results due to the extensive

variation between reactions. As the test would be performed with non heat treated or

burnt specimens, the decision was made to include heat treatment and burning as

variables to be incorporated on future versions.

3.2 Chemical Characterization

Further attempts to verify chert source identification have been made over the years with

chemical analysis, which has involved the use of determining the elemental inclusions

within chert specimens to create a “chemical characterization” of the chert type (Julig, et

al. 1992:37). Some of the methods attempted have included the use of Intercoupled Mass

Spectrometry (ICP-MS) Isotopic Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) and X-Ray

Diffraction (XRF), with varying results due to sample size, and regional and formational

location (Hancock 1978, Hancock, et al. 1990, Julig, et al. 1989a, 1989b, and 1991,

28

Luedtke 1978, and 1979). Chemical compositional analysis of chert to is often thought to

be a possible objective and repeatable method and a direction in which chert source

analysis will head (Biittner and Jamieson 2006:26). However, the variable heterogeneous

nature of chert prevents most methods of chemical analysis from providing a single

definitive chemical signature that incorporates the wide variability of chemical

differences within different spots along chert formations (Janusas 1984:83). Furthermore,

while some of these methods are non-destructive (XRF), others are destructive (INAA

and ICP-MS), and the cost and usefulness of chemical composition tests do not make this

method a viable replacement to visual identification (Janusas 1984:83).

3.3 Conclusion

Visual characterization is still the most cost effective, reliable, quickest, and least

destructive way to analyze chert. While visual characterization is preferably done in a lab,

and after a lithic tool has been properly washed, it is extremely beneficial to have the

option to perform a source material analysis anytime and anywhere, including

immediately after excavation while in the field.

29

Chapter 4 – Designing a Digital Chert Reference Collection

This chapter provides an overview of the data sample used to construct the prototype

system, the William Fox Collection of Northeastern Cherts. This is a very large

collection, which is only accessible by visiting Trent University, and is still undergoing

organization and acquisition of additional specimens. This section provides the motive for

my selection of regionally specific specimens to Southern Ontario, during the process of

creating the database catalogue and digital identification system prototype. This chapter

discusses the selection of the programs used for both the catalogue and digital

identification system, and the balance between developer usability and effectiveness as a

finished product that had to be found when developing both the digital comparative

collection database and chert identification system.

4.1 The William Fox Reference Collection

The William Fox Northeastern North American Lithic Reference Collection

includes chert from southern Ontario, Quebec, Labrador, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin,

Ohio, Michigan, New York, Maine, and Pennsylvania, with an additional number of chert

from outside the adjacent provinces and states, such as Texas, Montana, and Kentucky.

Specimens of obsidian, chalcedony, quartzite, and metasediments from Ontario, Ohio,

Oregon, Germany, Denmark, France, and England can also be found in the collection.

This is either due to occasional occurrence on archaeological sites in Ontario, such as

European flint, Knife River chert of Montana, or Flint Ridge Chalcedony of Ohio or the

potential for finding material on an archaeological site in Ontario, such as obsidian from

30

Oregon, due to its potential as a trade item. Of the specimens in the collection, there are

about 650 – 700 specimens from Ontario sources alone. Table 1 shows the amount of

specimens per chert type in Ontario.

Ontario Chert Type Number of Specimens in the WFC

Kettle Point 40

Onondaga 150

Ancaster 30

Haldimand/Colbourne 100

Selkirk 30

Collingwood 20

Saugeen 40

Trent 100

Balsam Lake 15

Ottawa 30

Eramosa 40

Huronia 30

Reynales 5

Hudson’s Bay Lowland 25

Total 655

Table 1 Ontario Cherts and Number of Specimens in the William Fox Collection

Furthermore, a combination of all specimens from the United States, Europe, and other

parts of Canada would total about 1000 additional sources. Therefore, limiting the scope

of chert specimens to make the project more manageable was the first step in this study.

4.2 Chert Specimen Selection

Due to this project taking place at Trent University, I thought it best to start my focus at a

local level and expand from there as there would not be enough time to add all specimens

from the entire reference collection. I found that there were a greater number of

31

specimens, and therefore more variability across the source rock, among the chert types

within Southern Ontario This is not surprising, as the amount of development and

resultant CRM archaeology throughout southern Ontario has provided an increased

opportunity to collect a greater number of chert specimens across the southern half of the

province.

For this reason, it seemed prudent to return to Eley and von Bitter’s (1989) Cherts

of Southern Ontario as a guide to what chert sources should be the focus. The chert types

included in this study are defined in Table 2. Due to the constant use of Onondaga by

Indigenous people in the archaeological record, Onondaga immediately seemed a

necessary candidate, as did Upper and Lower Bobcaygeon as local representatives in the

area around Peterborough. Onondaga is also found on sites within the Kawartha Lakes

region, and thus choosing to include it was necessary. Bois Blanc and Fossil Hill (with

Collingwood as the major member), are included due to Bois Blanc’s use, at times, equal

to Onondaga’s use, within southwestern Ontario, and Collingwood’s importance in

material acquisition theories of the Paleoindian period. While not always used farther

from formational source outcrops, Lockport/Goat Island chert seemed a necessary

inclusion as it is often mistaken for Bois Blanc or Onondaga, and Kettle Point chert,

though often regionally centered around its point of origin at Kettle Point, has on

occasion been found as far as the Kawarthas. Dundee formation chert was another

necessary inclusion due to its close resemblance to Onondaga, as it is a part of the same

formation.

32

Chert Types Included in Database

Kettle Point

Onondaga

Ancaster

Haldimand

Colbourne

Collingwood

Saugeen

Selkirk

Balsam Lake

Trent

Eramosa

Quartzite

Reynales

Ramah

Table 2 Chert Types included in Database Construction

Reynales chert is found as only a small part of the Clinton Formation within

Ontario near Niagara Falls, with most of the formation existing south of the border in the

United States. While the selection of chert types to include within the initial construction

of the database was meant to focus on types that were often used, Reynales has not had a

common use or occurrence in Ontario, but is included due to an opportunity to record

variability within a single location, as well as examine the effects of subjective decision-

making on dominant visual properties. Eventually all specimens within the region would

be included within this project, and therefore Reynales was selected as an uncommon but

geographically present type to include within the initial cataloguing process.

Ramah chert from Labrador, due to its presence within the archaeological

assemblages within the area around Peterborough was selected as a good example of

long-distance material acquisition. While this material is not local, it has been found on

sites within Ontario, and therefore represents the need for non-local material to be

included in the database to represent material use and social interaction of Indigenous

33

groups across a greater distance. Quartzite is also included due to its use as a chipped

stone type that was not chert, but still found on multiple sites in Ontario. For more

information on each individual formation, see Chapter 5. With the method of visual

characteristics chosen, and the specimens narrowed to southern Ontario chert types, I had

to decide which programs to use in the creation of the database and digital identification

system.

In terms of lithic chert identification, as most archaeologists are non-experts, it

makes sense that a database intended for chert identification should focus on readily

observable criteria the characteristics of which non-experts can easily discriminate (Snow

et al. 2006:958). This concept of focusing on visual characteristics was further supported

by Stelle and Duggan’s (2003), work on The Archaeological Guide to Chert Types of

East Central Illinois. This guide uses a very basic series of webpages with hyperlinked

buttons, which allow the user to follow a series of diagnostic questions, selecting the

button that best answers the visual characteristics of the chert in question. After the series

of questions, the internal linkages direct the user to a possible chert type based on the

responses given. This simple, yet effective, method of directing an inquiry based on

observable characteristics is a well-known diagnostic tool called an “expert system”

(Barceló 2009:38). Stelle and Duggan’s (2003) system use a simplified expert system

decision tree to determine a chert type from a set of known variables, however the system

also allows the user to browse the chert types by name should they wish to gain direct

information on a specific material type. The design for my own identification system

seemed best to include a decision tree while providing the user the ability to review chert

types directly without having to go through the diagnostic process. By using a similar

34

diagnostic tool to Stelle and Duggan’s (2003), the need for subjective interpretation by

the user was reduced to a number of pre-selected answers. The hope was that this would

remove the differences in interpretation of such terms as “medium grey” and hopefully

create a more uniform method of analysis. For more information on the digital

identification system, see Chapter 6: Using the Database and Evaluation.

Looking at other examples of online comparative collections, such as faunal

comparative collections, the importance of visual variables at a macroscopic level seemed

to be the most common and easily reproducible in a digital environment outside of the lab

housing the collection. The Virtual Zooarchaeology of the Arctic Project (VZAP) is a

good example of a digital comparative collection, as it provides a fully two and three-

dimensional view of skeletal elements as well as full and partial skeletal anatomies of

many species of bird, mammal, and fish from arctic biomes (Betts et al 2011). While

Stelle and Duggan (2003) did include some information within the profile of each chert

type on the microscopic attributes, this was not a component of the digital identification

system and not a determining factor in their chert identification system. They also did not

use chemical analysis in the identification process. Due to the need to make the system as

effective as possible for those with varying degrees of experience, I identified visual

characteristics as being the easiest way to determine lithic types, and macroscopic photos

over thin sections seemed to provide the most information, especially to those with less

knowledge and experience in lithic analysis. Therefore, it seemed prudent to focus on the

macroscopic visual characteristics that have long since been the method employed by

chert source analysts of colour, lustre, texture, fossil inclusions, and structural

35

characteristics. While thin sections and chemical analysis can contribute to chert

identification, it seemed best to earmark the inclusion of both in successors to this project.

4.3 Database Relations

The following tables are an overview of the headers and properties of each

database table. I chose to use Microsoft Access as my primary database as it is commonly

available and data is easily transferable to other programs.

Formation

ID – Basic identifier of each entry

FormationID – Identifier for each formation. Two-letter abbreviation of Formation name. This is a

connecting table variable to the Locality table. Formation is the Parent table.

FormationName – Name of formation

Period – Geological period of origin, Ordovidian, Silurian, or Devonian as well as Early, Middle, or Late

Distribution – Relative expanse within and outside of Ontario

Equivalents – Known terms used for the same formation outside of Ontario

Table 3 Database Formation Table headers of each field

36

Locality


LocalityID – Identifier for each locality. Two to three-letter abbreviation of Locality name. This is a

connecting table variable to the Specimen table. Locality is the Parent table.

LocalityName – Name of location often based on nearest settlements, geographic landmarks, or Borden

Numbers

FormationID – Connection in relationship to Formation table. Locality is the Child table.

FormationName – Name of the corresponding FormationID

MaterialID – Connection in relationship to Material table. Locality is the Child table.

MaterialName – Name of corresponding MaterialID

UTMEasting – Universal Transverse Mercator Easting coordinate

UTMNorthing – Universal Transverse Mercator Northing coordinate

Latitude – Latitude Coordinate

Longitude – Longitude Coordinate

Province – Province in which the location is found

County – County in which location is found

Township – Township in which location is found

Exposure – Type of exposure, such as outcrop, road cut, river cut, etc.

Map – Location shown on a map

Activity – Known activity, Indigenous or Settler, within this location

ActivityDetail – Detail on activity taking place at location

LocalityImages – Connection in relationship to LocalityImages table. Locality is the Parent table.

Table 4 Database Locality Table headers of each field

37

Material

ID – Basic Identifier of each entry

MaterialID – Identifier of each member. Two to three-letter abbreviation of Material name. This is a

connecting table variable to the Specimen, Locality, and Reference tables. Material is the Parent table.


Synonyms – Other names used in literature for this Material type

Lustre – Lustre variance given in literature for each Material type

Texture – Texture variance given in literature for each Material type

ColourDescription – Colour description and variance given in literature for each Material type

MunsellColour – Munsell Colour variance given in literature for each Material type

FossilInclusion – Possible Fossil inclusions given in literature for each Material type

StructuralCharacteristics – Structural characteristics given in literature for each Material type

Table 5 Database Material Table headers of each field

Specimen


FormationName – Name of parent formation

LocalityID – Connection in relationship to Locality table. Specimen is the Child table.

LocalityName – Name of corresponding LocalityID

MaterialID - Connection in relationship to Material table. Specimen is the Child table.


SpecimenID - Identifier of each Specimen. Two to three-letter abbreviation of Material name, a two to

three-letter abbreviation of the Locality name, with a two digit identifier. This is a connecting table variable

to the SpecimenImages table. Specimen is the Parent table.

Lustre – Lustre of specimen

Texture – Texture of specimen

ColourDescription – Colour description of specimen

MunsellColour – Munsell Colour of specimen

FossilInclusion – Fossils visible in specimen

StructuralCharacteristics – Structural characteristics of specimen

HeatTreatment – Presence or absence of heat treatment in specimen

Table 6 Database Specimen Table headers of each field

38

SpecimenImages


SpecimenID – Connection in relationship to Specimen table. SpecimenImages is the Child table.

Image(attachment) – Attached image of Specimen

ImageID – Image identifier using a two to three letter abbreviation of Material name, Locality name, two

digit Specimen number, and two digit photo number.

ImageType – Denotes either a Standard macroscopic image, or a magnified, with noted magnification (5x,

10x, etc.) of image.

Table 7 Database SpecimenImages Table headers of each field

LocalityImages


LocalityImages – Connection in relationship to Locality table. LocalityImages is the Child table.

ImageID – Identifies image identification corresponding to locality

Caption – Identifies image subject, and direction of photo if applicable.

Table 8 Database LocalityImages Table headers of each field

References


MaterialID - Connection in relationship to Material table. References is the Child table.


RefYear – Year of the reference

RefAuthor – Author of the reference

RefTitle – Title of the reference

Table 9 Database References Table headers of each field

A nested Specimen table within Material, and a nested SpecimenImages table

within Specimen make up the majority of the recorded data. By nesting these tables, by

linking the information they share with each other, and creating a hierarchy from which

information at the bottom relies on the information at the top, the database ensures each

39

specimen is organized along a specific path, so that it is directly connected to the

formation, location, and parent material source. This organization decision to have

Locality as second highest in the parent-child relationship between Formation and

Material came about when it was noted that some locations have more than one chert type

attributed to it. A good example of this situation is glacial till, where glacial till found at

one location, had specimens of Onondaga, Kettle Point, and Bois Blanc, and therefore it

was necessary to make Locality one of the top divisions of this database. Since chert

specimens do not come from more than one location, and are a single material type, the

natural order is:

Formation

Locality

Material

Specimen

SpecimenImages

4.3.1 Formation Table

Formation, seen in Table 3, consists mainly of data pertaining to the large scale, regional

distribution of the chert formation itself. The information therefore pertains to identifying

the name of the corresponding formation, the geological age of the formation, the

geographical distribution and range of the formation within and outside of Ontario, and

any other equivalents or alternative names given to the formation outside of Ontario. The

Formation table, as it appears in the database, can be seen in Figure 5.

40

Fig

ure

5 S

cree

nsh

ot

of

Fo

rmat

ion T

able

in D

atab

ase

41

4.3.2 Locality Table

The Locality Table (Table 4) consists of the geographical location name given to the chert

origin point referred to in the database as LocationName, the formation, material, UTM

coordinates or Latitude and Longitude coordinates, when available, and a map showing

general location. Due to my concern over archaeological site protection as well as the

protection of ancient chert sources, these locations are general locations, and not exact

markers to the chert source. Province, County, and Township record the corresponding

locational information for the source location, and Activity and Activity Detail provide

further information on locational impact and use. This may include noting the presence of

Indigenous or Settler sites. Exposure helps to detail this information more clearly by

defining the way in which the material is available at this location. This could include an

outcrop, roadcut, riverbank erosion, or ancient or modern quarry. Lastly, a link to the

LocalityImages table provides a means to include images detailing the environment and

area. While both the map and locality images will be important to a later phase of

development, they are currently not included in this initial test. Figure 6 demonstrates the

layout, as it appears in the database, of the Locality table.

42

Fig

ure

6 S

cree

nsh

ot

of

Lo

cali

ty T

able

in D

atab

ase

43

4.3.3 Material Table

While locality plays an important role in the organization of the comparative collection, I

wanted to ensure the organization of specimens by material type, due to the practicality of

sorting by material type over geographic location. Therefore, the Material table, as seen in

Table 5, was created to act as a fixed overview for each chert type, and act as a parent

table to the Specimen table, mainly used to hold all the individual specimens entered into

the catalogue.

The material table contains linkages between the Formation and Locality table, as

well as the Specimen table, but also contains its own set of information useful to chert

identification, including synonyms of the various chert material types, the lustre, colour,

texture, fossil inclusions, and structural charateristics of the chert, based on traditional

resources, such as Eley and von Bitter’s (1989) Cherts of Southern Ontario. In

comparison to the dynamic nature of the chert specimens themselves, which are

individually analyzed and recorded, the Material table acts as a way to record all known

variability within the chert. This thus allows me, in my research, to determine whether the

descriptions given by Eley and von Bitter (1989) and others provide the full spectrum of

variability by comparing the results of the Material table against Specimen table, or

whether standard sources suggest a wider array of possible characteristics that may not be

visible among the specimens catalogued in this thesis. Figure 7 shows the Material table

as it appears in the database.

44

Fig

ure

7 S

cree

nsh

ot

of

Mat

eria

l T

able

in D

atab

ase

45

4.3.4 Specimen Table

The Specimen table (Table 6) is by far the most important table, as it contains the

information specific to each individual specimen catalogued. The five characteristics of

colour, lustre, texture, fossil inclusions, and structural characteristics, the inclusion of

Munsell colour descriptors, links to the Specimen Image table, and evidence of heat

treatment, are all provided on this table, and are specimen-specific. Therefore, variability

within the formation, and within chert from the same locale can be observed, while still

being able to examine the differences between formations, locales, and members of

differing specimens. Within the database, I developed a short-hand identifier for

formations, members, and chert locations to keep everything organized and systematic.

For each specimen, the Location ID, Material ID, and specimen number make up the

Specimen ID. For example: CO-FL-02 is a Collingwood specimen from the Flesherton

Locality, and is the second specimen recorded in the database from the spot.

Much like preceding tables, the Specimen table also contains the LocalityID and

MaterialID, as well as the FormationName of the connected Parent tables. It shares

similarities with the Material table in containing characteristic identifiers for lustre,

texture, colour description, Munsell colour description, fossil inclusions, and structural

characteristics. However, unlike the Material table, this information is gained from

analysis of the specimen itself, and therefore is specimen specific rather than including

characteristics that may not be present within that specimen.

This table also includes a yes/no indicator for whether there is evidence of heat

treatment on the specimen. This was included as part of a long-term consideration of

46

including example specimens of each material type, that had been subject to heat

treatment. While not all chert types show a significant change when exposed to heat, a

collection of heat treated samples would help with identification of otherwise hard to

distinguish chert debitage that may show signs of heat exposure. Beyond the practical use

of heat exposed debitage, certain material types, such as Collingwood, are well known for

being purposely heat treated during the Paleoindian period due to the colour changes that

take place with the material’s exposure to a heat source (Ellis 1990).

The Specimen table also contains a connection to its child table, SpecimenImages,

which acts as a location for the various images of each specimen catalogued within the

collection. See Figure 8 for an example of the Specimen table as it appears in the

database.

47

Fig

ure

8 S

cree

nsh

ot

of

Sp

ecim

en T

able

in D

atab

ase

48

4.3.5 SpecimenImages Table

The SpecimenImages table (Table 7) links to the Specimen table, and provides a place to

store the numerous photographs of the chert at both a micro and macroscopic level. While

the focus has been on the macroscopic level, photos of fossils at a microscopic level were

a secondary goal, in completing the database, and only about 10-15 specimens with

fossils have been photographed. Successor versions will include microscopic photographs

of fossils, as well as images from thin-sections for a better overview and analysis of each

individual chert specimen, however time and funding have prevented the inclusion of

these images.

For the macroscopic photographs of the specimens catalogued, the photographs

were taken from multiple sides, using a digital camera and photographic lighting to get

the best quality images possible. Backgrounds were mainly a medium grey, but in some

cases multiple photographs, with different coloured backgrounds, or darker and lighter

grey-toned backgrounds were used to bring out the colour variability of the chert

specimens. The macroscopic photographs were taken using a high-quality digital camera,

and the microscopic photographs were taken with the aid of a microscope, with a range of

5–15 x magnification. Photos were checked and colour corrected as needed to adjust for

slight changes between specimen, background, lighting, and camera settings. By using a

semi-permanent setup in a windowless lab, and using photography lighting, photos often

required very little correction. Photographs all included a specific naming convention,

though they differed from the code used for the specimens themselves to prevent any

confusion between the two during the development of the database. This naming

49

convention used the first two letters that corresponded to the material type, followed by a

dash and the next name of the locality, another dash and the number given to the chert

specimen from that location of that specific material type, followed by a dash and the

number of the photograph. The final label of “Standard” or the magnification at which it

was taken was used to denote the photograph as either a standard macroscopic photo, or a

microscopic photograph, and the magnification at which it was taken. For example: AN-

Clappison-01-07-Standard.jpg denotes that the photo is a specimen of Ancaster chert

from the Clappison location, it is specimen number one from that location, and the photo

is the seventh photo taken of the specimen. It is a standard macroscopic photo, as it has

the “standard” descriptor added.

See Figure 9 for an example of the SpecimenImages table as it appears in the

database.

Figure 9 Screenshot of SpecimenImage Table in Database

50

4.3.6 Reference and LocalityImages Tables

The final two tables shown in the relationship pane are the References table (Table 9) and

the Locality Images table (Table 8). The References table is self-explanatory, and pools

known sources of information on each chert type into one location where one can find

bibliographic entries for additional information and sources on specific chert types. The

Locality Images is also more of a background table used to store images pertaining to

specific locations of chert specimen sources, such as the landscape, or nearby geological

features. However, this table does not contain a lot of information currently due to

emphasis on the cataloguing of the specimens themselves, as well as my own hesitation to

document areas near the chert origin point as a matter of privacy and security.

When I began this project, I had some preliminary information and test database

examples to work with, constructed in collaboration between Kate Dougherty and

William Fox. Therefore, certain information in the LocalityImages table, such as the

inclusion of locale photos were deemed as low priority in the initial construction of the

database, and ultimately treated as a potential question of ethics for locations that are

archaeological sites. While this may be acceptable for an internal database meant to

catalogue the specimens of the collection and would work more as a reference and aid in

a more hard-copy form, I had some reservations about making some of this information

public, if and when this project became available online. Since my experience with

Microsoft Access was limited, I could not determine how easily this information could be

blocked from view. The purpose of this project for me was to make the chert collection

more accessible and available, however certain choices had to be made based on common

51

sense. For this reason, very little has been included thus far on the locality of the

specimens other than the coordinates and a named location, both of which are provided

on the Locality Table. As my experience with database creation and Microsoft Access

grows, I will ensure that this information is blocked from access by the general public,

but visible to the appropriate individuals.

4.4 Digital Comparative Collection Database Construction and Progress

Data entry was ongoing from April 2016 up until April 2017. Due to the nature of

this project, the catalogue is far from complete. About 195 specimens have been

catalogued, nearly a quarter of the estimated 600 – 650 specimens from Ontario. The

progress made on this thesis is designed as a proof of concept to make a comprehensive

digital comparative collection for chert types in Ontario a reality. It is expected that the

digital comparative collection will continue to grow after this thesis as more entries are

included.

52

Chapter 5 – Documenting Raw Material Variability

The goal of this chapter is to review the observed variability in raw material

characteristics within major chert varieties found in Ontario. Chert analysis provides an

important component to study Ontario’s past, and while the methods for conducting this

study were reviewed in Chapter 3, this chapter provides an overview of the major

categories of chert types as documented in specimens in the catalogue previously

overviewed in Chapter 4.

The chapter is structured into eight sections that review the variability within

eight major chert-bearing geological formations: Kettle Point, Onondaga, Bois Blanc,

Fossil Hill, Goat Island, Dundee, Upper Bobcaygeon and Lower Bobcaygeon. A final

section on three chert types that were also included in the database are described,

followed by a summary section that highlights the major findings of this chapter. The full

catalogue of material is provided in Appendix B.

5.1 Kettle Point Chert

Kettle Point is one of the youngest chert types in Ontario, and one of the most variable in

colour. The chert derives its name from a geographic feature on Lake Huron: "Kettle

Point is a small point of land located at the tip of Cape Ipperwash, extending north from

Ipperwash Beach into Lake Huron in Lambton County, Ontario" (Janusas 1984:2). Kettle

Point chert occurs naturally as submerged outcrops off Cape Ipperwash extending for

53

approximately 1350 meters northward into Lake Huron (Janusas 1984:2). The main bed

of Kettle Point Chert is 2–20 cm and is situated at the boundary between the Kettle Point

Formation, made up of Late Devonian shales, and the Ipperwash Formation, which is

composed of Middle Devonian Limestone (Janusas 1984:2; Eley and Von Bitter

1989:15).

The Fox Collection includes 8 specimens from points along the main Kettle Point

bed where the chert formation is most easily accessible and not inundated by water. These

locations include Kettle Point Reef, Kettle Point Location 1, Kettle Point Location

2b/Beach, and Kettle Point Location 2c. The specimens are all located along the main

exposure at Kettle Point, and were given these identifiers by William Fox. These

specimens all generally contain the same degree of variability in characteristics as each

other, which is to say that they all vary widely in the same way in terms of colour, mainly

being a medium dark to dark grey, to blue grey colour, or at times almost a dark lavender

colour. Some specimens also include elements of lighter, softer reds and pinks, such as

magenta, as well as whites, and golden yellow hues. Due to the nature of Kettle Point

colour variability, which is at times a maddening task to identify, the specimens from the

chert bed sources come in various colours and shades, though all mainly consist of shades

of either an opaque white with black dots, to dark blue/black, to a reddish purple, or a

brown, grey, and at times a “brassy and greenish colours from pyrite and marcasite

mineralization” (Eley and von Bitter 1989:15).

The high degree of variability meant attempting to photograph each specimen

from all angles while using photography lamps was important, however determining an

exact colour identifier for each specimen was difficult as each specimen contained

54

multiple colour identifiers depending on the colour the individual focused on (see Figure

10). Therefore, it was more prudent to include as many of the observable colours as

possible in the database for each specimen. As recorded in the Fox collection, colours are

usually considered to range from 10R 6/4 (Pale Red) to 2.5Y 5/2 (grayish-brown) on the

Munsell Scale for the exterior weathered surface, with interior surface colours ranging

from 2.5YR N/6 (gray) to 2.5Y N/6 (gray) (see Figures 10 and 11).

Figure 10 Photo of Kettle Point Chert from KP2b (KP2b-06-05-Standard)

55

Figure 11 Photo of Kettle Point Chert from KP2b (KP2b-02-07-Standard)

Secondary deposits of Kettle Point chert have also been reported in Essex County

(Janusas 1984:3) as well as the Ausable Basin (Kenyon 1980b:12). Further specimens of

secondary deposits found within The Fox Collection include Yeates Ridge, Colasanti,

Middle Island, Perch, and Birch specimens alongside the Ausable Rapids and Essex

County specimens (Figure 12). Compared to the chert bed specimens, the secondary

deposits are much more variable, and may include other variables not often seen in

specimens from chert bed sources, such as a dull lustre, or a much wider variation on

colour. For example, a specimen from Essex County contains a light brown, golden,

almost dull orange colour on the exterior, while being a much lighter grey, with a hint of

light purple interior, while being much duller in lustre than the normal darker and waxier

characteristics of the bed chert (Figure 13). One of the more notable variations is the

baby-blue colouration of two specimens from Colasanti, which seem to be unique to this

56

location (Figure 14). No other specimens within the collection contain a shade of blue

close to these specimens.

Figure 12 Map of Kettle Point Chert Specimen Locations

(Yellow = Primary Sources, Red = Secondary Sources)

57

Figure 13 Photo of Essex County Kettle Point Chert (Essex County-02-02-Standard)

Figure 14 Photo of Colasanti Kettle Point Chert (Colasanti-02-04-Standard)

Compared to previous literature on Kettle Point chert, more variation was

observed among the colour of the chert than previously described. Some minor variations

between lustre and texture within the secondary deposits, not previously mentioned in

Eley and Von Bitter (1989), and Janusas (1984) were also observed.

58

5.2 Onondaga Chert

The Onondaga Formation in Ontario runs along the Northeast shore of Lake Erie, up

through Southwestern Ontario to the Eastern edge of Lake Huron, and south of the border

the formation continues down across and through New York State. The Formation

consists of the Edgecliff. Clarence, and Moorehouse Members and macroscopically these

three members cannot be differentiated easily (Eley and von Bitter 1989:17–18).

Onondaga chert occurs as nodules or in beds that vary from 2–8 centimetres thick (Eley

and von Bitter 1989:17). Secondary glacial deposits also exist to the Southwest of the

primary beds and are abundant along the shores and beaches of Lake Erie, and the banks

of the Grand River (Kenyon 1980b:16). Onondaga has been recovered from Paleoindian

(Deller et al. 1985:7), Archaic, Woodland and historic sites, and Onondaga chert was

used extensively throughout the Archaic.

Key criteria for identifying Onondaga chert include its colour, a dull to waxy

lustre, and the presence of megafossils such as crinoid columnals, rugose and tabular

corals (Eley and von Bitter 1989:17). The colour range of Onondaga chert is not as

spectacular as that of Kettle Point chert. Colours range from brown or black, to dark grey,

to light grey with cream to sandy mottling, to a bluish grey (Eley and von Bitter 1989:17).

Other colours include sandy brown, and sandy yellow with light grey mottling (Fisher

1990:30). Patina ranges from yellow, to buff, to pink (Eley and von Bitter 1989:17). On a

macroscopic level, Onondaga appears homogenous, making visual distinction of

specimens along the chert bed difficult (Jarvis 1990:3). However, at a microscopic level,

the chert varies widely, containing different fossils and inclusions, even within the same

region and depth within the chert source (Jarvis 1990:3).

59

Some of the major chert bed source sites include Haldimand South Quarry, Reeb’s

Bay, Beaver Creek, Fort Erie, Mustard Mill Creek Quarry, Mount Olivet Quarry, Sherk

Quarry, and Rockford Quarry (Figure 15). However, this is far from an exhaustive list. In

total, 51 specimens from 13 different locations were entered into the catalogue, however

there are many more locations with multiple specimens that have yet to be included into

the database. To provide a full range of variability many more specimens will need to be

included into the database. However, the striking differences in visual variability between

the large numbers of specimens does at times seem to confirm the suggestion of limited

visual variability between Onondaga chert sources, though indicating more variability

within the formation than originally suggested. After first glance, one can agree with the

suggestion that visual variability, including the texture of Reeb’s Bay, Fort Erie, and

Point Abino are almost indistinguishable due to the same dark grey colour (Figures 14 –

16). These tended to fall within the Munsell range of N6, N7, and N8.

Figure 15 Map of Onondaga Chert Specimen Locations

60

Figure 16 Photo of Reeb’s Bay Onondaga Chert (Reeb’s Bay-01-05-Standard)

Figure 17 Photo of Fort Erie Onondaga Chert (Fort Erie-01-02-Standard)

61

Figure 18 Photo of Point Abino Onondaga Chert (Point Abino-01-02-Standard)

There are also examples of chert specimens that are much lighter, with Munsell

colours of N4 and N3, or other colours other than grey within the same formation (Figure

19 and 20). There is also the presence of a marble mottling among almost all specimens

from the darkest grey, to a lighter grey that is almost white, and ranges from very

noticeable, to barely noticeable depending on the specimen. For example, specimens from

Mount Olivet, contain a reversal colouration of the dark grey with lighter marbled

mottling, for a light grey colour, with dark grey marbled mottling (Figure 21). Granted

this is just a polarization of colour, and most of Onondaga chert is one of many shades of

grey, however specimens from Lilac Quarry also contain a medium, almost chocolate

brown colouration, not often seen among other specimens in the collection.

62

Figure 19 Photo of South Cayuga Beach Onondaga Chert (South Cayuga Beach-02-05-Standard)

Figure 20 Photo of Lilac Quarry Onondaga Chert (Lilac Quarry-02-05-Standard)

63

Figure 21 Photo of Mount Olivet Onondaga Chert (Mount Olivet-01-01-Standard)

In this way, it could be said that mottling is for almost all specimens, a

determining and unifying factor of Onondaga chert. Of the specimens examined, a large

majority, about 90% of them contain mottling to some degree, but these statistics are

based on the specimens catalogued, and how they were interpreted, and does not take into

account a truly objective and significant sample set of all specimens from the collection.

However, saying all specimens contain either a dark or light grey mottling pattern would

be incorrect. In some specimens the mottling is so faint, or unclear, it is difficult to know

whether it is the subjective bias of the individual that is picking up on small changes in

colour and attributing elements, such as mottling, that would be otherwise not present.

Further examples of variability not often noted, with the exception of Eley and Von Bitter

(1989), include the rougher, duller Beaver Creek chert specimens (Figure 22) in contrast

64

to an exemplar specimen from Reeb’s Bay or Point Abino that tend to be more waxy and

smoother.

Figure 22 Photo of Beaver Creek Location 1 Onondaga Chert (Beaver Creek Loc 1-01-02-Standard)

5.3 Bois Blanc Formation Chert

The Bois Blanc Formation includes the Haldimand, Colbourne, and Saugeen types.

Colour differs between all three types, and to a lesser extent, in texture and lustre between

Haldimand/Colbourne and Saugeen. The chert beds are often irregular, varying from thin

to medium, about 3–6 cm thick, across Southern Ontario from Fort Erie to the Bruce

Peninsula (Eley and Von Bitter 1989:19) The colouration of Bois Blanc chert types range

from shades of light to dark grey, grey blue, or brown, and are sometimes mottled within

the extent of the chert formation mainly referred to as Haldimand and Colbourne, while

Saugeen is more often considered very light to white in colouration (Eley and Von Bitter

1989:19). Haldimand, Colbourne, and Saugeen nodules may be found in glacial till, as

with most chert types in Ontario.

65

Eley and Von Bitter (1989:19) note that Bois Blanc tends to be vitreous or

porcellaneous in nature, however some of the various specimens entered into the system

appeared more waxy than vitreous. Specimens from Colbourne Location M were much

darker, with some being a bluish grey in colour, which fits with Colbourne descriptions

given by Fox (2006:361), however very few of these samples had a lustre much greater

than waxy, and in some cases even appeared to be better described as dull. All together 40

specimens were catalogued and entered into the catalogue. In this case, Moershfelder

Quarry specimens and James Quarry both show a significant amount of similarities to

those from the same location, however they do appear to differ visually and vary from the

other locations. Moershfelder Quarry specimens are usually dull, medium grained, and

are lighter grey in colour (Figure 23), while James Quarry sees a number of specimens

that are waxier, medium or fine grained, and light to medium grey in colour (Figure 22).

Figure 23 Photo of Moershfelder Quarry Bois Blanc Chert (Moershfelder Quarry-02-05-Standard)

66

Figure 24 Photo of James Quarry Bois Blanc Chert (James Quarry-07-04-Standard)

In fact, some James Quarry samples tended to have a more bluish hue, similar to

the Colbourne specimens from Colbourne Location M (Figure 25). In comparison, to both

Colbourne and Haldimand types of Bois Blanc chert, Saugeen specimens showed both a

high degree of similarity, yet with some variability. Some specimens were noted for

having an orange or brown tint while others did not, yet all types seemed to be

characterised the same way as having a dull lustre, and a medium texture (Figure 26 and

27). A lot of these specimens seemed to have a number of fossil impressions in them, and

while some fossils were noted, many fossils were not easily visible or identifiable at a

macroscopic level.

67

Figure 25 Photo of Colbourne Location M Bois Blanc Chert (Colbourne Loc M-01-03-Standard)

68

Figure 26 Photo of Dunkeld Bois Blanc Chert (Dunkeld-01-01-Standard)

Figure 27 Photo of Dunkeld Bois Blanc Chert (Dunkeld-04-06-Standard)

69

5.4 Fossil Hill Formation Chert

The Fossil Hill Formation is part of the Middle Silurian deposits that are found in Bruce

and Grey Counties of Ontario. In fact, this small regionally specific chert has had a

significant impact and focus in Ontario archaeology due to its heavy use in the

Paleoindian period, about 11,000 BCE until 8,000 BCE (Ellis 2011, Ellis and Deller

1990). Paleoindian sites in Ontario have been found as far south as the shores of Lake

Erie. These sites contain projectile points made of Fossil Hill chert, mainly Collingwood

Chert, the main member of the Fossil Hill type, and most widely used chert source from

this formation (Eley and Von Bitter 1989). There are three separate beds in this

formation, with one at 4 cm in thickness and the other two at 20 cm thickness.

Figure 28 Photo of Banks Fossil Hill Chert (Banks-03-03-Standard)

70

Based on the eight specimens entered into the database, the variation between

Collingwood specimens is surprisingly small. All samples are mainly white to light-grey

in colour, with the odd amount of a red or yellow undertone, but mainly being about N0–

N2 on the Munsell Colour chart (Figure 28). The current specimens provided come from

chert bed sources, and a few specimens from Cabot Head, still pending catalogue entry,

show a slight difference in colour, often appearing rustier, with little to no change in

texture or lustre. Collingwood chert tends to be mainly dull on lustre, and rougher in

texture due to the size of the crystals, and presence of certain fossil types and inclusions.

Subtle variation in colour and inclusions have been noted. However, all specimens

seemed to contain the same minute pattern of slightly lighter and darker banding in all

specimens.

5.5 Goat Island/Lockport Formation Chert

The Goat Island Formation, with Ancaster Chert making up the more commonly found

and used specimens from this formation, has undergone several reclassifications. The

most recent reclassification puts Ancaster as a Member under the Goat Island Formation,

with the term “Lockport” being used for the grouping of Guelph, Eramosa, Ancaster, and

Gasport (Brunton and Brintnell 2011). For this thesis, Ancaster will therefore be treated

as a chert type under the Goat Island Formation, with Ancaster being part of the Grey

Niagaran, or Lockport type. Ancaster chert can be found from Niagara Falls, following

the escarpment up to Hamilton, in lenses and nodules. The chert lenses are roughly 7–10

cm thick and 0.75–1 m long; with the average nodule being 5 cm in diameter (Eley and

71

Von Bitter 1989:20). The colouration of Ancaster is medium grey, usually mottled with

darker inclusions of carbonate and lighter grains of replacement quartz, along with

extensive "rusty" staining by iron oxide (Eley and Von Bitter 1989:20). The patina of

Ancaster is usually a white to light grey, and the lustre of Ancaster can be anywhere from

dull or earthy, to vitreous (Eley and Von Bitter 1989:20). Secondary sources may also be

present, though no secondary sources were used within the database at this time, with

most Ancaster types coming from roadcuts or exposures mainly along the escarpment

between Grimsby and Flamborough.

Figure 29 Photo of Clappison Ancaster Chert (Clappison-04-01-Standard)

72

What was noticed among the Ancaster specimens was a general visual similarity,

with a few notable exceptions from distinct locations. Ancaster chert at each location

appeared to all have a Munsell value between N0 and N4, with similar chalky textures,

and mainly dull lustre (Figure 29). In total, twelve specimens were catalogued. There

were additional specimens initially catalogued, however after some discussion with

William Fox, the Grimsby specimens, identified as Ancaster, were more characteristic of

Eramosa and moved to represent Eramosa chert accordingly.

5.6 Dundee Formation Chert

Selkirk Chert is part of the Dundee formation within the Middle Devonian limestone

found across Southwestern Ontario. Usually the chert can be found in beds and lenses of

6 cm deep within the parent limestone and appears to extend up under Lake Huron and

across into Manitoba, where exposures of Selkirk can be found along the Red River

(Leonoff 1970). A total of eleven specimens from two separate locations were

catalogued.

Selkirk appears as a grey, yellowish grey, brown grey, brown, to dark grey (Figure

30). Due to the visual similarities in colour between Selkirk and Onondaga, it is

sometimes difficult to make an immediate distinction between the two. However Selkirk

is often much more commonly found with slight bands of brown and does not contain the

same mottling found in Onondaga. Some mottling does occur, but it usually involves the

presence of brown mottling compared to a lighter, contrasting colour, such as light-grey

or white. In fact, macroscopically they are hard to distinguish, according to Eley and von

Bitter (1989), who state that the main differences are the “presence of Tornacia and the

73

absence of Ozoiobrachion fossils that distinguish the Dundee Formation chert assemblage

from those of other Devonian formations,” such as Onondaga. The Munsell colours are

between N4 and N6, as well as 5YR 6/1, 5Y 8/1, and 5YR 7/2. The chert is often a fine

texture, with a dull to waxy lustre. The two major locations entered into the database

include Sherk Quarry and Selkirk Quarry.

Figure 30 Photo of Sherk Quarry Selkirk Chert (Sherk Quarry-02-02-Standard)

What was notable was the variability between Selkirk samples from these two

sites, with some appearing more grey than brown, with some containing more brown than

grey. Translated into the Munsell colour sets, this was shown with a predominance of

specimens from Selkirk Quarry (Figure 31) as being identified as 5Y 6/1, and Sherk

Quarry (Figure 30) as predominantly having a colour of N4 or N5. Furthermore, nearly all

specimens from Sherk were regarded as waxy, while Selkirk was identified as dull in

lustre.

74

Figure 31 Photo of Selkirk Quarry Selkirk Chert (Selkirk Quarry-09-02-Standard)

5.7 Upper Bobcaygeon Formation Chert

Upper Bobcaygeon is the first of two major transitory chert types that make up part of

Central Ontario. However, due to the overall variable nature of transition zones, it is

extremely difficult to determine where one chert type ends and another begins, and

therefore distinguishing the difference Upper Bobcaygeon from the Middle and Lower

Bobcaygeon Formation is not an easy task. The major diagnostic feature that defines

Upper Bobcaygeon is the peloidal texture (made up of minute particles of micro or

crptocrystalline carbonate) of the chert, visible with a hand lens, and cemented by the

light-coloured quartz crystals that make up the chert (Eley and von Bitter 1989:24). This

75

is most clearly seen in specimens of Balsam Lake chert from Fenelon and Grand Island

(Figure 32).

Figure 32 Photo of Grand Island Balsam Lake Chert (Grand Island-01-10-Standard)

Figure 33 Photo of Indian Point Balsam Lake Chert (Indian Point-01-02-Standard)

76

Balsam Lake Chert dates to the Middle Ordovician period, and it can visually be

easily distinguished from its neighbouring chert-bearing members due to the bluish grey

colour seen in types from Fenelon and Grand Island (Figure 32). Fossils are also more

visible with this chert type due to quartz replacement (Eley and von Bitter 1989:24).

However, Balsam Lake has another appearance seen in several other location specimens

examined at Indian Point (Figure 33), and Douglas, and is noted as part of the same

material type by Eley and Von Bitter (1984) and Fox (2013a). Sources from Indian Point,

and Douglas differ from Grand Island and Fenelon, as they appear to be a light to medium

grey tone and tend to have a finer texture. Balsam Lake chert occurs as the thickest lens

within the Bobcaygeon Formation, with the beds usually found at about 5–6 cm thick, and

the chert can range from waxy to dull in lustre for all specimens. The material can also be

found in glacial till as pebbles to the south-west of the Balsam Lake area (Fox 2009:359).

The visual differences between Balsam Lake types found at Grand Island and

Indian Point, by Eley and von Bitter (1989), are confirmed by the additional specimens

included in this catalogue database. There are a total of four specimens from four

different locations, and while this has provided a more accurate ratio of Grand Island

appearance versus Indian Point, the inclusion of more locations and specimens may

provide an even greater indication of variability from the already variable Balsam Lake

chert.

77

5.8 Lower and Middle Bobcaygeon/Upper Gull River Formation Chert

Middle and Lower Bobcaygeon and Upper Gull River Formation cherts are usually

referred to as Trent chert or Trent Valley chert. For the sake of simplicity, and continuity

with other lithics experts, I have included Middle and Lower Bobcaygeon and Upper Gull

River chert types as a single formation, simply called Lower Bobcayegon. Distinction and

differences may be seen in thin-section and under high powered microscopic

examinations, however with the interest in visual identification, these avenues were not

considered in this study. Finally, Fox (2013a) notes that there are many issues in the

identification and mapping of Upper Gull River and Middle and Lower Bobcaygeon

Formations, and therefore it would be best to refer to them as Trent Chert (Fox 2013a:6).

The Lower Bobcaygeon Formation is a Middle Ordovician era formation, and Trent chert

can be found as nodules in erratic limestone boulders transported through the Kawartha

Lakes region and to the south towards Lake Ontario. The beds of Trent chert range from

1–6 cm, and Eley and Von Bitter suggest that the main distinguishing quality among all

types is the black appearance of the chert type (Eley and Von Bitter 1989:25). While there

is evidence of local use of Trent chert, it is rarely found outside of the region as better

material was available (Fox 2013a).

As the second chert type with an inherent variability, determining some similarity

and common attributes seems a much better goal than listing differences between the

specimens examined, as Trent chert is quite variable both in colour, inclusions, and lustre.

The material has been described as black, brown, grey, and various colours in between.

Trent chert has been identified as mottled or speckled with lighter coloured quartz

inclusions (Eley and Von Bitter 1989:25). Elaschuk notes that there are often mineral

78

inclusions present in Trent chert, mainly iron oxides, which produce rusty-brown to

orangy-green coloured patinas on the chert (Elaschuk 2015:96) The lustre of the material

can be waxy to dull, and earthy depending on the specimen (Figure 34 and Figure 35).

Figure 34 Photo of Dalrymple Trent Chert (Dalrymple-12-03-Standard)

Figure 35 Photo of Hwy 38 Trent Chert (Hwy 38-01-02-Standard)

79

Among the seven specimens included, there were varying shades of colour,

though most specimens tended to be dark grey to black, usually N1 – N5, with a medium

texture, and a dull to waxy lustre as seen in the specimen from Hwy 38 (Figure 35). The

specimen from Dalrymple provides an excellent example of the much lighter light to

medium grey colouration seen in some specimens (Figure 34). A major defining

characteristic, usually taken into consideration under the structural characteristics

category of chert analysis is the presence of white quartz inclusions in Trent chert. Figure

35 demonstrates this well, as the specimen is peppered with small and large quartz

inclusions. Though this is often a defining characteristic, some samples, such as Lovesick

Lake 1 (Figure 36) have fewer quartz inclusions (Figure 37).

Figure 36 Photo of Lovesick Lake 1 Trent Chert (Lovesick Lake 1-01-02-Standard)

80

Figure 37 Close Up of Quartz Inclusions Trent Chert

5.9 Other Chert Types

Several additional chert and non-chert types used in lithic manufacture were also included

in the database for three reasons. First and foremost, to determine whether a noticeable

difference in variability could be examined among specimens that appeared more

homogenous, visually. Secondly, most of these specimens are important to the Kawartha

region, as tools made of such material have been found on sites within the area in various

degrees of use. Finally, the presence of certain lithic types on sites within the Kawartha

Lakes region that have their origin from outside the Trent drainage region, or Ontario in

general indicates a wider resource exchange. These additional types are Reynales Chert,

Eramosa Chert, Bar River Quartzite, and Ramah Chert.

81

5.9.1 Reynales Chert

Reynales Chert is an interesting grouping of specimens from this collection that were

included in the initial cataloguing sequence due to the single origin point in Ontario from

which these specimens originated. While the Reynales formation is mainly a small bed

that is mainly found in the United States, a very small section crosses the border and is

exposed somewhere around Stamford in the Niagara Falls area. While this chert has not

been present on sites within the Kawartha Lakes region, the close proximity to the border,

and single source, means that including this specimen set as part of the study on

variability provides a potential lower variability among the specimens. However, as seen

in Figure 38, this is not always the case, and the various pieces were catalogued and

identified as having various colour differences, inclusions, and presence of fossils. This

set of specimens all contain oolites, a major identifier of Reynales chert.

Figure 38 Photo of Stamford Reynales Chert (Stamford-05-02-Standard)

82

Reynales chert is a Silurian period chert, and a part of the Clinton formation. Most

Reynales specimens were identified as ranging from white to light grey, to medium or

blue grey, the texture medium and the lustre being dull for all specimens. A total of five

specimens were catalogued, with Munsell colours ranging from N9-N4, 5YR 6/1, 10YR

6/2, and 10YR 8/2. The inclusion of additional specimens of Reynales would be of great

interest in the future, as this chert is unusual to what is often seen in Ontario, with a

similar colouration to Balsam Lake, but clearly originating from a different period and

under different conditions.

5.9.2 Eramosa Chert

Eramosa chert is a medium grey chert, with a smooth texture, a waxy lustre, and a thicker

patina than that of Ancaster. Brunton and Britnell (2011) indicate the chert found at

Grimsby Location 1 and the 36 specimens that were catalogued from this location, are

examples of Eramosa chert, a chert type originating from the Silurian period. Eramosa

was originally described as being a member of the Lockport Formation, along with Goat

Island and Gasport, by Eley and Von Bitter (1989:20).

83

Figure 39 Photo of Grimsby Eramosa Chert (Grimsby-01-01-Standard)

However, Brunton and Britnell (2011) suggest that Eramosa is a subset unto itself,

in what has been termed “Brown Niagaran”, with Goat Island Members consisting of

Niagara and Ancaster, and referred to as “Grey Niagaran” (Brunton and Britnell

2011:30). Among the 25 – 30 specimens catalogued, all tend to have very similar texture

and lustre, being fine and dull, though not as dull or chalky as Ancaster. Colours range

from light to medium grey, to brown grey, but nearly all specimens have similar

appearance to each other (Figure 39). Variability does exist between the specimens, but

has only been recognized within the database through variation in colour.

84

5.9.3 Bar River Quartzite

Though referred to as Bar River Quartzite, the majority of identified samples in the

collection come from the Sheguiandah quartzite quarry, on Manitoulin Island in Lake

Huron (Elaschuk 2015:18). Quartzite is important as a source for certain tools and has

been noted on various sites across Ontario (Long et. al 2002:267). Quartzite is, by

definition, a quartz-rich lithic material, made up of over 95% silica. Quartzite found at the

Bar River Formation is either a smoky white, or contains a pink hue, and can be found in

beds over 900m thick (Long, et al. 2015:268). While considered to have some visual

variability, it is difficult to distinguish between specimens from different locations by

visual analysis alone (Long, et al. 2015:268).

Figure 40 Photo of Bar River Quartzite (Bar River-01-04-Standard)

85

The three specimens examined tended to have a lot of similarities, however, there

was some noticeable minor differences in colour shade. This most likely relates to the

impurities noted by Long et al (2015), and at a macroscopic level, seems to be the most

variable characteristic between the three specimens. While all specimens contained

mainly a white to pale yellow colouration (Figure 40), additional specimens could

provide the pink variation that has often been discussed in literature on quartzite.

5.9.4 Ramah Chert

Ramah chert deposits come from the North coast of Labrador and has an appearance in

colour and texture to that of fine-grained quartzite (Elaschuk 2015). It has a translucent,

and occasional smoky-look, with black inclusions (Lazenby 1980). The material

possesses a sugary texture (Brake 2009:20), and can come in various colour appearances,

but is often distinguished by the dark inclusions within the chert. While not a common

chert to Ontario, it has previously been found in Ontario, most notably on the Trent

University Archaeological Field School at Jacob Island (Elaschuk 2015). Much as it has

been described, the specimens catalogued were often translucent along the edges,

described as a white, light grey, approaching a dark grey, almost dark blue or black in the

thickest sections. The patina tended to be a light brown colouration along the edges, and

the material tended to take a dull lustre. Figures 41 and 42 show the variable appearance

of Ramah chert depending on the thickness and size of the specimen.

86

Figure 41 Photo of Ramah Chert (Ramah-01-02-Standard)

Figure 42 Photo of Ramah Chert (Ramah-03-01-Standard)

87

5.10 Summary

Lithic analysis and the observations made on chert variability within this chapter

demonstrate the challenge of determining chert identification by visual means. Due to a

prominence of shades of grey in Ontario chert, and a tendency for analysts to rely so

heavily on colour as the first and foremost reason for identifying chert type, chert

identification has often relied on the wisdom of the lithics experts to identify the variation

within chert types and distinguish between inter and intra chert differences.

The digital comparative collection database provides a foundation for further

exploration into determining the full range of variability within chert formations by

identifying specimens individually, but still organizing them by location of origin. As

indicated in Chapter 4, examining the specimens by origin rather than linking all

specimens to their parent source allows one to see spatially where chert material is

originating, and possibly how it is moving across the region.

As a resource, the positive benefit of this digital comparative collection is much

more immediate, as it will allow the user a one-stop solution for information on chert

types within Ontario both in terms of geographical origin, and presence on archaeological

sites. A digital comparative collection database will save time in hunting through a

number of resource books, or searching through information online, as one just has to

search for the corresponding chert type and the information, both simplified and

summarized, as well as references to the original resources are provided, while deeper

examination of the more dynamic and individualized entries may help analysts to find an

identification for some of the unknown types found in excavation. While the catalogue

88

database does provide a significant resource for analysts, the interest in making lithic

analysis easier is still an important part of this project. As someone who has found it

difficult in the past to gather the resources needed to become a more proficient analyst in

lithic analysis without access to the William Fox Collection, providing a readily

accessible lithic analysis tool is something in which I strongly believe. Therefore, the

creation of a digital chert identification system seems a natural step in making the

William Fox Collection more accessible and available to all archaeologists. Chapter 6

will highlight the methods used in creating this digital identification system and the test

used to determine its efficacy in assisting less experienced archaeologists to improve their

skills as analysts and improve their confidence in their analyses.

89

Chapter 6 – Using the Database and Evaluation

This chapter presents the results of the classroom-based test of the efficacy of the digital

chert identification guide, the digital identification system that accompanies the database,

compared to the use of traditional physical hand-specimens or the use of a hardcopy

reference guide. To test the potential of the digital chert identification guide, I followed a

similar methodology to that of Keron’s (2006) Comparability of Published Debitage

Analysis: An Experimental Assessment.

In Keron’s study, four lithic analysts were asked to sort and identify lithics by

chert type and five for flake type. The study and test of the digital identification system in

this chapter makes use of the same focus on chert source type identification in Keron’s

study, but seeks to shift the demographic from lithic experts to less experienced

archaeologists by focusing on archaeologists who are relatively new to the field. For this,

I had the 3151H Lab Methods: Lithics and Bone class of the 2016 Fall Term participate in

testing the digital identification system in a controlled environment with a trial set of

specimens. The results of Keron’s (2006) study suggested a 60% to 70% accuracy in the

answers given by the analysts, and an agreement on the identification of some material,

but a disagreement on others. Using this study as a baseline model for the results and

expected outcome, I hypothesized that a digital chert identification system should provide

a more accessible resource to those currently available, and therefore a digital chert

identification system could provide a greater degree of accuracy, resulting in an overall

increase in confidence among analysts.

90

6.1 Development and Use of the Digital Chert Identification System

With the catalogue parameters and system chosen, the digital identification system

needed to be designed to search for and determine chert type by using the visual

characteristics provided. The original goal was to build a digital identification system to

integrate with the Access data either directly in Access, or indirectly via MySQL and

PHP or Javascript. The choice for using Access was due to its functionality with MySQL,

and PHP, allowing these web-based programs to make use of the data and present it

online, as most database-centered information makes use of these programs alongside an

Access database (Valade 2007:14). However, as creating a database was a skill I had to

learn, and the design and function of a rudimentary digital identification system was

looking unfeasible within the confines of the Access programming, constructing a

working proof of concept version of the digital identification system to test its usefulness

became a primary goal. This proof of concept was constructed using Microsoft

PowerPoint, as this provides the ability to move between slides without distracting the

user. A similar system was employed by Stelle and Duggan (2003), using linked web

pages, but the general concept used was the same: provide the user with a set of

consecutive questions, which would provide a best probable answer based on the answers

given by the user.

Creating a digital identification system for chipped stone lithics using only visual

characteristics meant that the variability seen within and between formations prevented an

absolute identification due to some overlap in visual characteristics, such as colour. To

counter this problem, it seemed prudent to allow the system to provide a “best guess”

91

rather than an absolute answer. This meant that the answer generated in the digital

identification system for this study needed to provide similar types to the chert type given

in case the individual’s response provided a similar but not exact response to the query.

This concept of “similar species” is something often used in bird identification books,

such as Bezener’s (2000) Birds of Ontario, where each page provides an overview of a

specific species of bird along with a section of similar looking birds, the page number on

which they can be found, and the visual differences of the other species from the one on

the current page.

To provide a similar system and decision tree, I decided on using lustre and

texture first as major points of separation due to less options from which to choose. This

means that the first few branches of this decision tree are much smaller, and therefore,

chert types with major differences in texture and lustre, but overlapping in colour with

other types, are eliminated from the potential results early in the discrimination process.

The decision tree would then examine the colour, fossil inclusions, and structural

characteristics, with colour having the most diverse options. Fossil inclusions vary in

options based on previous choices made, but generally have between 3 and 8 options.

Finally structural characteristics are used as a determinant between two very similarly

coloured, textured, chert types with similar lustre and fossil inclusions.

While each part of the diagnostic process is divided into five questions, the

number of options in response vary depending on the previous response given. Therefore,

some chert types said to be dull and coarse may have half as many options available for

colour of the examined chert compared to waxy and fine chert. This is due to either the

92

limited colour variability of the remaining chert types, or the much smaller pool of

possible remaining chert types as some have already been ruled out. For example, in

Figure 48, there are 26 colour options in the provided Munsell colour chart, while below,

in Figure 43, there are only 15 options, as a number of the chert types with more varied

colours have already been removed as potential options.

Figure 43 Colour options for a chert type that is glassy and medium coarse in texture

Within the system, I used a shorthand employed in the catalogue database, an

abbreviation of the chert names, to keep track of chert types that were still possible given

previous answers to the question. As seen in Figure 43, this results in Onondaga, Ottawa,

and Trent as options based on the current choices of glassy lustre and medium texture. I

also recorded the path that the individual had followed through the tree by noting the

answers to the previous questions, such as, Glassy, Medium, near the top of the slide.

Figure 44 shows the decision tree, and the way in which options are divided. Note that

this is a simplified form, and that once the Munsell colour stage has been reached by the

user, the options often become more numerous.

93

Fig

ure

44

Sim

pli

fied

Dec

isio

n T

ree

Layo

ut

for

Dig

ital

Id

enti

fica

tio

n S

yst

em

94

As mentioned earlier, the variable nature of chert meant that even with the use of

the system, there could be a margin of error, and thus like the bird identification resource

books, I employed a “similar type” system upon reaching the provided result. This used a

direct hyperlink to a corresponding “similar type” chert, so that a user had the opportunity

to jump to other chert overview slides directly from the result given. This meant that a

result of “Onondaga” could provide a suggested similar type of Haldimand, Trent, or

Kettle Point, as they all have similar colourations, lustre, and texture within their ranges

of variability.

As an example, of the workings of the digital identification system the material on

which the point in Figure 45 was manufactured was examined.

Figure 45 Point found during 2017 field season near Brantford, ON

95

Figure 46 First question on digital identification system example test

As seen above in Figure 46, the first step of the decision tree asks the user about

the lustre of the chert type. In this case, the material is waxy, as it reflects light, but is not

glassy.

Figure 47 Second question on digital identification system example test

96

In Figure 47, the second question concerns chert texture with either a smooth,

coarse, or medium grain as possible answers. As the chert has a smooth surface the

answer is smooth or fine grained texture.

Figure 48 Third question on digital identification system example test

As seen in Figure 48, colour is the third variable available to the user. This

required manually comparing all possible colours selected for different specimens of

different chert types. Looking at the colour of the specimen in Figure 45, it seems that it

best matches N3 of the Munsell colour chart given in Figure 48.

97

Figure 49 Fourth question on digital identification system example test

The fourth question, asks about fossil inclusions in the (Figure 49).

Figure 50 Fifth question on digital identification system example test

The fifth question focuses on the structural characteristic of the chert in question

and therefore is used as a final determining factor when two highly similar chert types

cannot be defined by the fossil inclusions alone (Figure 50).It is clear the projectile point

98

does not have any quartz inclusions, but is a consistent dark colouration. Therefore, no

was selected as a response.

Figure 51 Result of the digital identification system example test

In Figure 51, we are given the result of this example test, which in this case is

Onondaga chert. Due to the original location of this projectile point, outside of Brantford,

Ontario, this seems highly likely. Several specimens from the catalogue are provided,

showing the variation in colour of this chert formation, as well as the use of similar types

linked to the bottom of the results page. Should the results appear to be close but not

exact, this would provide the user with the option to examine other types from this screen.

As indicated by Barcelló (1996), an digital identification system is not a

replacement for an expert, and only functions as well as the expertise level of the

individual building it. Therefore, my application of my own observation and choice of

colour options does create a bias inherent in the system beyond those mentioned earlier in

this chapter, when looking at visual characteristics. The issue around subjectivity and

99

bias, will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 7 Discussion on Open Data and

Conclusion. By using PowerPoint to create the digital identification system, it was much

easier to create a user-friendly interface and to make corrections when needed. There was

a secondary, and unexpected benefit from building the system in this manner and that was

the accessibility of the digital identification system in the field. By creating a digital

identification system in a PowerPoint file, it allows the user to access the system while in

the field, making chert identification in-field much easier, and a secondary goal that

became much more attainable. The digital identification system, now constructed, had to

be tested to determine if it did indeed provide an increase in confidence and accuracy

among analysts.

6.2 Overview of Testing Procedure

To evaluate the efficacy of the digital identification system, two tests were implemented.

The first test, taking place in October, used traditional resources in chert identification

strategies. This comprised the use of a reference book providing a photograph and

characteristics of each chert type, as well as 14 labelled hand specimens, with one to two

examples of each type (See Table 10). The purpose of the test was to evaluate accuracy of

identifications when emulating the resources usually available in either a university or

CRMF environment. The second test took place in November. This evaluated whether a

digital identification system would increase overall accuracy and uniformity among a

similar cohort of individuals.

100

Material Type Quantity

Onondaga 2

Ancaster 1

Collingwood 1

Haldimand 2

Saugeen 2

Selkirk 1

Trent 1

Ottawa 1

Quartzite 1

Colbourne 2

Table 10 Hand sample sets used in digital identification system testing

Undergraduate students in their third or fourth year or graduate students made up

the demographic of participants, which is consistent with the focus of this study being

less experienced archaeologists that make up the bulk of field technicians.

Similar to Keron’s (2006) research that examined subjectivity in lithic analysis,

the two tests needed to control as many of the factors as possible, while retaining some

degree of flexibility to account for subjective interpretation. For this reason, creating a

multiple-choice questionnaire seemed the best way to provide a set of possible answers as

this did not require extensive knowledge on the part of the volunteer test group, while

allowing some flexibility of the answers.

To ensure that each session took no longer than a single lab session, a total of 15

questions were asked. Each question asked the volunteer to identify the chert sample, as

well as to what degree of confidence they had in their response. Each participant was

provided their own set of 15 specimens, which were numbered and labelled to correspond

with each question on the questionnaire.

101

Following the October session that used traditional methods of chert guides and

hand samples, the November test focused on the efficacy of the digital identification

system. Volunteers once again were given another set of 15 specimens, provided in the

same order, and made up of the same chert types, and using the same questionnaire, were

asked to identify the specimens again, this time using the digital identification system. No

initial feedback on whether the participant was correct in their analysis was given

following the October assessment as part of an effort to ensure that results from the first

test would not impact the second test. By providing almost a month gap in time between

each session, I attempted to control the potential of respondents “remembering” answers

from the first session.

The expected result was that an increase in accuracy with the use of the

comparative collection would be observed. The point of creating a digital identification

system was to make the decision-making process easier, and therefore, it was expected

that the confidence of the volunteers would increase by the second round of testing, as a

series of questions relating to visual cues would likely be more helpful than comparing

photos or hand specimens to the specimens provided for identification. The advantage of

the identification system is the reduction of the human decision-making process, and

therefore the impact of incorrect identification based on an individual’s judgement with

and without the benefit of confirmation of their interpretation should become more

apparent. However, it is possible that incorrect interpretations could create false positives,

and an increase in confidence on incorrect interpretations. For this reason, the benefit of

examining both the accuracy and confidence became necessary to the questionnaire, and

why both questions would provide a measure of both accuracy and confidence.

102

The results of these tests were compiled following each assessment session. 19

students participated in both sessions, and subsequent analysis is based on these

participants.

6.3 Results of Assessment – Accuracy

The most important concern about the creation and use of a digital comparative collection

and an accompanying chert identification system is whether or not the system shows an

overall impact on accuracy of the identification. As the system provides a potential

“second-opinion” by listing and linking similar chert types to the one provided through

diagnostic problem-solving, the respondents had an equal opportunity to either follow the

advice of the digital identification system or decide one of the other potential suggestions

was more correct. Unfortunately, there was no method employed to determine if this was

occurring, and how frequently it was occurring, mainly as the focus was to determine

whether the accuracy regardless of such a decision, was increased among the respondents

using different identification resources.

103

Respondent Number Correct

in October Test

Number Correct

in November Test

1 6 7

2 3 8

3 6 6

4 4 8

5 5 8

6 3 6

7 5 5

8 5 6

9 1 5

10 6 7

11 8 3

12 5 2

13 5 6

14 6 1

15 5 6

16 4 5

17 4 4

18 3 6

19 4 5 Table 11: Number of Respondents with a Correct Answer by Question and Session. Both the October and

November tests had 19 participants.

In Table 11, results of the two sessions are provided, where the sum of each

respondents’ total correct responses per session are recorded. These results were then

examined using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test to determine if there is a statistical

significance. The results are as follows:

W = 119.5, p-value = 0.03567

The difference between the first and second test is statistically significant and

confirms an increase in accuracy.

104

6.4 Results of Assessment – Degree of Confidence

The questionnaire used as part of the assessment sought to gain both the quantitative data

of accuracy and inaccuracy, as well as the impression of accuracy accompanying the use

of the digital identification system. While objective accuracy is foremost important in the

creation of a reference system, the ability for an individual to gain some level of

confidence through use and feedback of their skills was also important to gauge. Looking

at Keron’s study, degree of confidence was used to question the assumed accuracy and

reliance on an often subjective typological analysis. The findings suggested that even

with the best of their knowledge and abilities, lithic experts still have a much wider range

of confidence depending on the size of the lithic material being examined, and the

condition in which the lithic tool was found. Size can make it difficult to determine a

series of definite visual characteristics, and the weathering of the material can affect the

condition and appearance as well.

While this assessment did not intend to find a solution to the subjective nature of

the analysis of lithic source material, it did hope to offer a reference and guide, which was

much more user friendly, and theoretically would leave archaeologists with more

confidence in their analysis of chert material.

To evaluate whether the use of the digital identification system increased

confidence, all responses with a confidence of 60% or greater were counted and

compared between the two test periods.

105

Question Degree of

Confidence

Above 60% in

October Test

Degree of

Confidence

Above 60% in

November Test

1 8 12

2 7 11

3 14 12

4 11 12

5 9 13

6 6 11

7 9 11

8 8 15

9 10 8

10 9 10

11 9 13

12 8 14

13 7 14

14 7 11

15 11 12 Table 12: Number of Respondents with a Confidence over 60% by Question and Session. Both the October

and November tests had 19 participants.

In Table 12, results of the two sessions are provided, where the sum of each

session and question relates to the number of respondents with a degree of confidence of

60% or greater in their interpretation. These results were then examined using the

Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test to determine if there is a statistical significance. The results are

as follows:

W = 28, p-value = 0.0004421

6.5 Feedback

While the formal assessment between both sessions relied on the collection of

quantitative data, I received additional qualitative data in the form of feedback and

106

responses to the system by the analysts within the test group, as well as others within the

department and within the CRM community.

Feedback from the assessment analysts were received and relayed via one-on-one

communication with the respondents after the second test. Some of the response received

was positive, noting the relative ease of using the digital identification system, as it

provided the multiple choice questions to choose from, making problem solving a matter

of choosing the closest response rather than requiring a greater knowledge and range of

descriptors. It was also noted to be relatively easy to follow, as the digital identification

system guided the user through the process, step-by-step, while traditional methods

tended to have a “tedious” aspect to analysis.

107

Chapter 7 – Discussion on Digital Comparative Collection and Conclusion

In this chapter, I discuss and review the findings of this thesis, and examine the merits of

these findings within the greater collection of digital access and digital archaeology.

7.1 Digital Comparative Collections in Review

For archaeology, the digital frontier has often focused on either the conservation and

protection of archaeological finds or the use of technology adopted from other fields, and

yet the focus and use of technology alongside long-standing resources, such as

comparative collections, have not been fully pursued. Currently digital comparative

collections have a much more significant development and use among faunal analysis due

to the much more easily accessible nature of faunal remains that may be made available

through governmental and wildlife protection agencies, as well as fishing and hunting

interest groups. The Virtual Zooarchaeology of the Arctic Project (VZAP) (Betts et al

2011), has shown to be an example of the best-case scenario where funding and expertise

in creating a useable digital comparative collection has been used to not only create an

excellent reference collection, but makes use of technology to recreate three dimensional

renderings of skeletal elements, that are far more useful than a static photo of the same

object. While VZAP is an excellent example of digital comparative collections from a

faunal analysis standpoint, lithic analysis comparative collections, while just as necessary

have not been as technologically extensive or widely available as faunal collections. The

creation of such collections are also an overlapping interest of zooarchaeology and

108

biology-based research and businesses, who may also have a desire to make use of

anatomical comparative collections of fauna.

Through the process of this thesis, the importance of the creation of a similar

comparative collection for lithic source analysis to those found within faunal analysis

continues to be clear. Reviewing the process and progress made through this thesis, a

number of choices on what to include and what to exclude in an initial foundation for a

regional digital collection had to be made to be sure progress was made in the given

timespan. It became clear to me through this study, that future comparative collections

will require the same continual attention and care seen in other open access database

repositories, perhaps less for continual adjustments of new material and more so to ensure

stability and functionality of the collection. For this reason, I see future versions of the

digital comparative collection needing to review and adopt similar methods to other larger

external academic databases, though likely needing less concern over information

security except for site and specimen locations.

While the current comparative collection database uses simple and easy to acquire

and understand programming, future models should make use of Free and Open Source

Software (FOSS) programs and be built within an Open Data framework (see appendix A

on Open Data). This will allow for the development of a better user interface and

improved functionality over the current versions of the comparative collection and digital

identification system built in Microsoft Access and Microsoft Powerpoint, respectively.

This requirement of a more advanced program would mean a much more easily editable,

accessible, and usable comparative collection with the side effect of requiring more initial

109

coding knowledge to maintain, and hence a need for a dedicated group of individuals to

maintain the digital comparative collection.

While these needs and requirements are a significant burden on the institution that

may be required to fulfill them, having a large and far-reaching comparative collection of

lithic source material, is and should be a desirable investment for most archaeologically-

focused institutions. While the impact and usefulness among the Ontario archaeological

community alone is a significant factor, similar studies may be able to make use of this

resource, including geology, geomorphology, and environmental studies, where in depth

information on lithic sources may be useful to related studies on soil, erosion, and

environmental impact studies.

7.2 Digital Identification System in Review

The digital chert identification system and the decision tree methodology it employed had

positive results when put to the test, though the test itself relied on measuring subjectivity,

which is difficult to measure due to a number of unknown factors that could impact the

results. Were individuals confusing one chert type for another? Were individuals second-

guessing their answers or analyses?

Due to the need to provide a clear and simple test, many factors were unable to be

examined, and by nature may continue to elude assessment due to the complex nature of

subjective analyses frameworks. The question over whether archaeology is more an art

than a science feels all the more clearly in favour of being an arts-based study, when one

examines the reliance archaeology still has on subjective analyses such as lithic analysis.

110

These methods show promise but will always rely on the need and importance of the

lithic expert to confirm whether the visual characteristics match the chemical signatures.

The identification system for this project suggests some potential for improvement

in source identification among users. Clearly there is still an important need for the

archaeological expert, as a less experienced archaeologist with a greater access to

resources, may be able to more confidently attempt analysis, but it does not guarantee the

accuracy of the analysis. Still, this suggests that the chert identification system does have

the ability to encourage and assist others who are less confident in their ability to provide

analysis. As an additional note, the ten volunteers who assisted in the creation of the

database showed remarkable improvement in lithic source analysis by their continued

work within the lab over the course of fifteen weeks, suggesting that the system alone

does not improve the individual, but the system with continual use and feedback will

provide the means to encourage and cultivate the knowledge needed to provide accurate

lithic analysis.

Clearly the system has a function and purpose, though it cannot function within a

vacuum, without an individual also receiving feedback from a lithics expert, and thus as

indicated in the Introduction, digital identification systems are not replacements for an

expert, but used as a substitute when an expert is not present. For me, this suggests that

lithics experts and a digital identification system-based chert identification system are not

a replacement for each other, but are both actively needed within archaeology, especially

for the purpose of training and passing on the knowledge to create more experts.

111

7.3 Conclusion

In this thesis I developed a digital reference collection of cherts and examined the

importance that technology plays in archaeology. While there have been some concerns

and fears over the sharing of digital data, digital archaeology is something that

archaeologists can and should embrace as part of their usual duties. While it is not easy to

make the time to either learn how to share digital data, or make it readily available, digital

archaeology and digital humanities are part of the solution to ensuring that the data

collected by past archaeologists remains available and accessible into the future.

While certainly digital archaeology is important to the study of archaeology and

the sharing of data between academics, making digital data useful and available to the

public and to indigenous groups is also important to archaeology as a form of continued

accountability. As an online resource, digital comparative collections are important to

creating a greater, more accessible resource for archaeologists. Typological methods that

have been and are still used in Ontario archaeology present a difficulty to overcome

towards the creation of an identification system. This study saw the use of additional

specimens from the same locales, with the intent of identifying variability, which may

have previously remained unobserved within known chert types. In comparison to other,

long-used sources, such as Eley and Von Bitter’s Cherts of Southern Ontario (1989), the

variability of the specimens catalogued and discussed in Chapter 5 shows the necessity

for a more extensive and dynamic comparative collection system, such as the one in this

thesis, as it may initiate further research into specific chert formations and members.

112

Similarly, the use of the digital identification system was meant to provide a more

user-friendly and accessible option to non-experts when using a digital comparative

collection, the results suggest a strong correlation between the use of the digital chert

identification system and overall improvement, Though the improvements were a few

percentage points between the first and second questionnaires, the usefulness of the

system as a resource for non-experts is undisputed. Future studies could examine the

impact of such a resource on more knowledgeable individuals, who have had additional

field experience, as this thesis was meant to target a very specific demographic of mainly

current students in an archaeological program with no experience, only a field school

equivalent of experience, or 1 – 2 summers of experience at the most. Due to all

respondents used in the review of this assessment fitting within this range of experience, I

would speculate that the impact on accuracy may increase with the experience of the

individual, should such a study be pursued.

7.4 Next Steps

As the digital identification system and digital comparative collection have shown to not

only show a strong positive result in initial testing, but also has been well-received by the

archaology community, it would be remiss of me to not discuss further steps and

suggestions to make improvements for successor projects.

While the William Fox Collection is large, future versions will need to include as

much of the specimens as possible. For this reason, many more specimens will continue

to be entered into the database after this project is complete, and it is anticipated that at

113

least 1 year of additional data entry will be needed to create a finished product with all

specimens, including all material from outside of Ontario, and outside of North America.

This would also iinclude non-chert material, such as quartzite, jasper, chalcedony,

obsidian, metasediment, and a number of other lithic materials that make up the original

physical comparative collection. Therefore, future versions of the database and digital

identification system will need to include as many of the 1600 or so specimens in the

William Fox Collection, especially specimens from across the border in Ohio and

Michigan due to the amount of material from these states found in Southwestern Ontario.

Technical difficulties discovered later in the cataloguing process reduced the

number of photos attached to each entry. By getting multiple photos of each specimen, it

is much easier to see if colour variation is constant or only seen on some areas and sides

of the specimen. Furthermore, heat treated and burnt samples will need to be included, as

often it is the visual cues that are most impacted by either variable. Other photographic

needs include the use of microscopic photos and thin sections, as both need to be included

in the comparative collection as well.

Another variable not entirely discussed is the appearance of translucency along

the edge of some chert types. This is more common among Kettle Point and Knife River,

and is much more observable with knapped lithic tools than blocks of chert. Future

considerations should be the inclusion of knapped lithics within the collection to allow for

the recording of this variable.

The creation of a more advanced system that can take into account the geographic

provenience is also necessary as location can impact the results if not taken into

114

consideration. For the purpose of this study, geographic provenience was eliminated, but

will be necessary in further studies and to identify the chert locale from within the

formation. Whether it is entirely possible to determine the specific source point on a

formation is still to be determined and would require research looking specifically into

whether this is possible to record within the comparative collection and digital

identification system.

Continued material acquisition should be considered, and solutions on identifying

till chert will be major considerations. Till chert remained a considerable problem that

was not actively discussed and could be avoided in the initial database as till chert

specimens within the William Fox Collection were not actively sought and included due

to their much higher variability and difficulty to identify. However, future attempts to

identify and analyze till chert could make a significant impact on archaeology in Ontario

as the use of till chert has been recorded on some archaeological sites. Depending on the

state of the lithic, these may be considered “unidentified” by archaeological reports, and

with an extensive database, it may not be unfeasible to see a day when these lithics may

be able to be identified.

From the digital identification system test, there was some concern raised about

the use of Munsell colour charts, and the way in which the colour appeared to the

respondents. In most cases, the colours did not seem to match any of the samples all that

well, and this had to do with screen brightness on laptop or phone displays. This factor

had not been taken into account before the test, and it was suggested that a brightness

corrector, much in the fashion used within the video game industry for calibrating

115

settings, could be a possible tool to implement in future versions of the identification

system. Furthermore, the quality of the photos provided in the results section may have

impacted the confidence level of the individual. While most photos provided were as true

to the original colour of the chert samples as could be provided, there were a few

examples where shadows and brightness of the photos could impact the confidence of the

user. Ensuring all photos are as clear as possible will be important for future versions of

the identification system.

The difficulty in conveying some of the more technical aspects of identification,

such as fossil inclusions and structural characteristics was also a confounding issue.

While initially I had hoped to have a much more intuitive system to identify fossils, my

own level of experience meant that photos of the fossils were not as useful as hoped.

Structural characteristics were a little more informative, however the same issues around

providing a clear indicator of what was meant by these characteristics, and what to look

for was not easy to describe. The fossil inclusion photos mainly contained non-chert

examples of the shape and appearance of fossils, while structural characteristics mainly

contained examples of the chert surfaces. For future versions of the digital identification

system, examples of fossil inclusions in chert should be included, however this may make

identification harder as the quartz replaced fossils may not appear as discernable by the

untrained eye.

Outside of the test group from the 3151H Lab Methods: Lithics and Bone class,

other individuals testing the system have also provided feedback. From among some of

my colleagues, I have heard a positive feedback about the ease of use of the system, with

116

the minor difficulty of navigating back to the beginning. This is a rather minor problem

that can be easily corrected in future versions with a link to “start over”.

Finally, training in lithic analysis should be a complementary component to the

use of the comparative collection and identification system as a means to mentor and train

archaeologists to better describe and analyze lithics. This could bridge the gap in

knowledge needed to better tackle issues of identification of fossils and how to best

describe the visual nuances that an expert may be able to convey, not currently presented

in the current version of the database and digital identification system.

Overall, there is a strong positive response for a digital identification system, and

it is clear that the digital identification system and the comparative collection fill a

valuable and needed role within archaeology in Ontario.

117

References Cited

Barceló, Juan A.

1996 Arqueología Automática. Inteligencia Artificial en Arqueología. Cuadernos

de Arqueología Mediterránea (2): 13-149.

2009 Computational Intelligence in Archaeology. Information Science Reference:

Hershey, New York

Beale, Nicole

2012 How Community Archaeology Can Make Use of Open Data to Achieve

Further Its Objectives. World Archaeology 44(4): 612-633.

Betts, Matthew W., Herbert D.G. Maschner, Corey D. Schou, Robert Schlader, Jonathan

Holmes, Nicholas Clement, and Michael Smuin.

2011 Virtual Zooarchaeology: Building A Web-Based Reference Collection of

Northern Vertebrates for Archaeofaunal Research and Education.

Journal of Archaeological Science 38(4): 755-762.

Bezener, Andy

2000 Birds of Southern Ontario. Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton, Alberta.

Biittner, Katie M. and Susan M. Jamieson

2006 Chert Raw Material Utilization at the Bark Site (BbGp-12), Peterborough

County, Southern Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 81/82: 13-29.

Brake, Jamie

2009 The Fergusson Bay I Site, and the Culture History of Western Labrador.

Occasional Papers in Northeastern Archaeology (18) Copetown Press, St.

John’s, Newfoundland.

Brunton F. R. and C. Britnell

2011 Final Update of Early Silurian Stratigraphy of the Niagara Escarpment and

Correlation with Subsurface Units Across Southwestern Ontario and the

Great Lakes Basin. In Sedimentary Geoscience Section, Ontario

Geological Survey (30) 1-11.

Brunton, F. R., Elizabeth Turner, and Derek Armstrong

2009 A Guide to the Paleozoic Geology and Fossils of Manitoulin Island and

Northern Bruce Peninsula, Ontario, Canada. Canadian Paleontology

Conference Field Trip Guidebook No. 14 Ontario Geological Survey &

Laurentian University, Willet Green Miller Centre, Sudbury, Ontario.

118

Burchell, Meghan

2008 Digging up the Basement: Unearthing McMaster University’s

Archaeological Collections. Arch Notes 13(3): 6-8.

Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam.

1984 The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Third Edition. Ontario Geological

Survey Volume 2.

Cochrane, Sally.

2014 The Munsell Color System: A Scientific Compromise from the World

of Art. Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A (47):26-41

Conolly, J., and Lake, M.W.

2006 Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Costopoulos, Andre

2016 Digital Archaeology is Here (and Has Been for a While). Frontiers in

Digital Humanities 3(4).

Deller. D. Brian, Christopher Ellis, and Ian Kenyon.

1985 The Archaeology of the Southeastern Huron Basin. KEWA.

Newsletter of the London Chapter. Ontario Archaeological Society. 85

(9):3-16.

Dietrich, Richard Vincent, and Brian J. Skinner

1979 Rocks and Rock Minerals. Wiley, New York.

Elaschuk, Kathleen A.

2015 Lithic Raw Material Characterization and Technological Organizations of a

Late Archaic Assemblage from Jacob Island, Kawartha Lakes, Ontario.

M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent University,

Peterborough, Ontario.

Eley Betty E. and von Bitter, Peter H.

1989 Cherts of Southern Ontario. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario.

Ellis, Christopher J.

2013 Before Pottery: Paleoindian and Archaic Hunter-Gatherers. In Before

Ontario: The Archaeology of a Province, edited by Marit K. Munson and

Susan M. Jamieson, pp. 35-47. McGill-Queen’s University Press,

Kingston.

2011 Measuring Paleoindian range mobility and land-use in the Great

Lakes/Northeast. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30: 385-401.

119

1990 Introduction. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to AD, 1650,

edited by Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris, pp. 1-4. London Chapter, O.A.S.,

London, Ontario.

Ellis, Christopher J. and D. Brian Deller

1990 Paleo-Indians. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to AD, 1650,

edited by Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris, pp. 37-63. London Chapter,

O.A.S., London, Ontario.

Evans, Thomas L. and Patrick Daly

2006 Digital Archaeology: Bridging Method and Theory. Routledge, New York.

Evans, Tim and Ray Moore

2017 Preservation Policy. Archaeological Data Service

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/advice/PreservationPolicyRev.xhtml,

accessed November 28, 2018.

Eyles, Nicholas

2002 Ontario Rocks: Three Billion Years of Environmental Change.

Fitzhenry & Whiteside, Markham, Ontario.

Eyles, Nicholas., and Andrew D. Miall

2007 Canada Rocks. Fitzhenry & Whiteside, Markham, Ontario.

Feder, Kenneth L.

2009 Linking to the Past: A Brief Introduction to Archaeology. Second Edition.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Ferris, Neal

1998 “I Don’t Think We’re in Kansas Anymore…” The Rise of the

Archaeological Consulting Industry in Ontario.” In Bringing Back the

Past: Historical Perspectives on Canadian Archaeology, edited by P.

Smith and D. Mitchell, pp. 225-247. Mercury series archaeological paper

158. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau.

Fernie, Kate, Franco Niccolucci, and Julian Richards

2016 Ariadne Booklet 2016: Building a Research Infrastructure for Digital

Archaeology in Europe Ariadne. ARIADNE Network.

https://www.slideshare.net/ariadnenetwork/ariadne-booklet-2016-building-

a-research-infrastructure-for-digital-archaeology-in-europe,

accessed November 28, 2018.

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/advice/PreservationPolicyRev.xhtml

https://www.slideshare.net/ariadnenetwork/ariadne-booklet-2016-building-

120

Fisher, Jacqueline A.

1990 The Adder Orchard Site (AgHk-16): Lithic Technology and Spatial

Organization in the Broadpoint Late Archaic M.A. Thesis. Department of

Anthropology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.

Fox, William A.

1978 Southern Ontario Chert Sources. Presented at Canadian Archaeological

Association 11th Annual Meeting in Quebec City.

2006 Ontario Cherts Revisited. In Papers in Honour of James Valliere Wright,

edited by David L. Keenlyside and Jean-Luc Pilon, pp. 339–354. Mercury

series archaeological paper 170. Canadian Museum of Civilization,

Gatineau.

2013a Trent Chert: An Update. Arch Notes 18(1): 5-8.

2013b The ‘Old Sites’ Project. Arch Notes 18(3): 7-10.

2014 Lithic Source Research in Northeastern Ontario – A Brief History.

Arch Notes 19(1): 5-7.

Gilbert, B. M., Michael Martin, and H. G. Savage

1996 Avian Osteology. Missouri Archaeological Society, Springfield, Missouri.

Graham, S.

2015 Mapping the Structure of the Archaeological Web. Internet Archaeology 39.

Hancock, R.G.V.

1978 Some Aspects of the Analysis of Ancient Artefacts by Neutron Activation.

Journal of International Institute of Conservation 3(2): 21-27.

Hancock, R.G.V., P.J. Julig, L.A. Pavlish and P.J. Sheppard

1990 The Advantages of Low Flux Reactors to Archaeology.

Paper presented at the Canadian Archaeological Association, 1990

Meeting, Whitehorse, Yukon.

Hewitt, D.F.

1965 Rocks and Minerals of Ontario. Geological Circular 13.

Ontario Department of Mines, Toronto.

Janusas, Scarlett.

1984 A Petrological Analysis of Kettle Point Chert and its Spatial and Temporal

Distribution in Regional Prehistory. Archaeological Survey of Canada

Paper 128.

121

Jarvis, Hugh.

1990 Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis of Onondaga Chert in the Niagara

Frontier. Ontario Archaeology 51: 3-16.

Julig, Patrick J., Laurence. A. Pavlish, C. Clark, and Ronald V. G. Hancock

1989a Aspects of Late Palaeo-Indian Lithic Technological Organization in the

Northwestern Lake Superior Region of Canada. In Eastern Paleoindian

Lithic Resource Use, edited by Chris J. Ellis and Jonathon C. Lothrop,

pp. 293-322. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

1989b INAA of Lithic Materials from the Western Lake Superior Region, North

America: Determination of Raw Material Sources. In Proceedings of the

26th International Archaeology Symposium, edited by R.M. Farquhar,

R.G.V. Hancock and L.A. Pavlish, pp. 233-238. University of Toronto,

Ontario.

1991 INAA Provenance Studies of Lithic Materials from the Western Great Lakes

Region of North America. In Archaeometry ’90: Proceedings of the 27th

International Symposium on Archaeometry, edited by E. Pernicka and

G. Wagner, pp.435-444.

1992 Chemical Characterization and Sourcing of Upper Great Lakes Cherts By

INAA. Ontario Archaeology 54: 37-50.

Julig, Patrick J. and Darrel G. F. Long

2013 Spanish River Lithic Cache, Sudbury Region of Ontario. Ontario

Archaeology 93: 32-51.

Katalin, T. Biro

2011 Comparative Raw Material Collections in Support of Petroarchaeological

Studies: An Overview. Emlékkönyv Violának Papers in honour of Viola T.

Dobosi. Hungarian Electronic Library (MEK)

http://mek.oszk.hu/indexeng.phtml, accessed November 28, 2018.

Keron, James

2003 Comparability of Published Debitage Analysis: An Experimental

Assessment KEWA, 03(1): 1-13

Kenyon, Ian T.

1980 The George Davidson Site: An Archaic ' Broadpoint' Component in

Southwestern Ontario. Archaeology of Eastern North America. 8: 11-28.

Lazenby, M.E. Colleen

1980 Prehistoric Sources of Chert in Northern Labrador: Field Work and

Preliminary Analyses. ARCTIC 33(3): 628-645.

http://mek.oszk.hu/indexeng.phtml

122

Leonoff, Leslie M.

1970 The Identification, Distribution, and Sources of Lithic Raw Materials in

Manitoba Archaeological Sites. M.A. Thesis, Department of

Anthropology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba

Long Darrel G. F., Patrick. J. Julig, and Ronald V. G. Hancock

2002 Characterization of Sheguiandah Quartzite and Other Potential Sources of

Quartzarenite Artifacts in the Great Lakes Region in The Sheguiandah

Site: Archaeological, Geological and Paleobotanical Studies at a

Paleoindian Site on Manitoulin Island, Ontario, edited by P. J. Julig

Canadian Museum of Civilization Mercury Series Archaeolgical Survey of

Canada paper 161: 265-295.

Luedtke, B.E

1978 Chert Sources and Trace-Element Analysis. American Antiquity

43: 413-423.

1979 The Identification of Sources of Chert Artifacts. American Antiquity

44: 744-757.

1992 An Archaeologist’s Guide to Chert and Flint. UCLA Institute of

Archaeology, Los Angeles.

Miall, Andrew D.

2006 Geological Regions in The Canadian Encyclopaedia.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/geological-regions/,

accessed January 30, 2018

Plummer, Chares C., Diane H. Carlson, David McGeary, Carolyn Eyles, and Nick Eyles

2007 Physical Geology and the Environment. Second Canadian Edition,

McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd., Toronto, Ontario

Richards, J.D.

2008 Managing Digital Preservation and Access: The Archaeology Data

Service, Managing Archaeological Resources: Global Context,

National Programs, Local Actions. World Archaeological Conference,

Edited by F. P. McManamon, A. Stout, and J. A. Barnes.

Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California.

Richardson, L.

2013 A Digital Public Archaeology? Papers from the Institute of Archaeology.

23(1).

Roosevelt, C.H., Cobb, P., Moss, E., Olson, B.R., and Unlusoy, S.

2015 Excavation is Digitization: Advances in Archaeological Practice.

Journal of Field Archaeology 40: 325-46.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/geological-regions/

123

Snow, Dean R., Mark Gahegan, C. Lee Giles, Kenneth G. Hirth, George R. Milner,

Prasenjit Mitra, and James Z. Wang.

2006 Cybertools and Archaeology. Science 311(5763): 958-959.

Stanco, F., Baltiato, S., and Gallo, G.

2011 Digital Imaging for Cultural Heritage Preservation.

Boca Raton: CRC Press, Taylor Francis.

Stelle Lenville, J. and Thomas P. Duggan

2003 An Archaeological Guide to Chert Types of East-Central Illinois. Center for

Social Research, Parkland College.

http://virtual.parkland.edu//lstelle1/len/biface_guide/chert/documents/chert

_types.html, accessed November 28, 2018.

Valade, Janet

2007 PHP & MySQL for Dummies 3rd Edition. Wiley Publishing Inc.

Indianapolis, Indiana.

Wilson, Andrew T. and Ben Edwards

2015 Open Source Archaeology: Ethics and Practice. De Gruyter Open Ltd,

Berlin.

124

Appendix A

Open Data

While archaeologists have always recorded detailed excavation notes and kept

track of their records and finds in the physical world by using forms, sketches, maps,

graphs, and field notes, the advent of the computer and technological advancements have

provided archaeologists with a much better option for sharing primary data. However,

what has started as a means to store and conserve archaeological data has created its own

field of study in the ways in which data might be shared and saved, often termed “digital

archaeology”. Digital archaeology is described as the use of computer-based knowledge

collection and web-based knowledge sharing, as well as debates over accessibility of data

(Snow et al. 2006). Digital archaeology is in part an offshoot of Digital Humanities, but

over the years has grown into a study in its own right, often comprising of the use of

technology to store data and material from primary sources, and not just the notes and

findings of the archaeologists themselves. It has also grown to include many other

technologies and the use of technology involving mapping, Geographic Information

Systems (GIS), three-dimensional modeling, and the creation of collaborative

environments. However, “one can say that digital archaeology is not so much a

specialism, nor a theoretical school, but an approach—a way of better utilizing computers

based on an understanding of the strengths and limits of computers and information

technology as a whole” (Evans and Daly 2006:2). Costopoulos (2016), notes that a

significant percentage of the archaeological community widely accepts the use of digital

access, and digital archaeology as part of common and everyday use. Such practices

125

include data collection and curation (Roosevelt et al. 2015), analysis, such as the use of

GIS (Conolly and Lake 2006), visualization (Stanco et al. 2011), public outreach and

participation (Richardson 2013), and training methods. In this way, it is not surprising

that an emerging approach towards archaeological material and analysis has become

increasingly centered on technology, and the possibility of reducing the need to excavate,

focusing on technologies and ideas to reduce the crisis in space and conservation of

excavated material, and to support and collaborate by making both objects and

information available to others (Burchell 2008).

While making data accessible is a concept that academia often speaks about, the

traditional manner and method of sharing data has always been limited to the publication

of data in journals, where those aware of the research would know where to find it (Lake

2012:471). The solution to this problem has been termed “open data”, and takes on a

broad spectrum of services for the expressed purpose of making data secure, accessible,

and useable, including research reports, data sets, GIS raw data, images, sketches, and

other forms of digitalized primary sources contributing to current or past archaeological

projects and initiatives. It should be noted that open data is made up of two different but

equally important focuses; “Open Source Archaeology” and “Open Archaeology”. Open

source archaeology makes use of FOSS (free and open source software) programs, which

allows the user to manipulate and tailor the program to their special requirements (Wilson

and Edwards 2015:1). Open archaeology is the process of ensuring datasets and

publications are freely available to others (Wilson and Edwards 2015:2). For the purpose

of this project, as it relates to both views, open data is both the importance of open access,

and open source programming in archaeology.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fdigh.2016.00004/full#B15




126

Digital archaeology may be used to refer to an even broader spectrum of

archaeological resources, including the curating of archaeological material digitally, as

seen in open data, the importance of open data is usually a core component and a guiding

point behind most of digital archaeology’s tenets. For this reason, open data as a digital

curatorial focus can exist without digital archaeology, however digital archaeology as an

application and use of the focus on digital curatorial practices, is reliant on open data.

Within the greater archaeological community, the concepts around open data

become even more highly prized, as open data ensures the continued preservation and use

of datasets, especially in a field where the primary method of gathering data often relies

on the destruction of the original site through excavation. Therefore, it seems clear that

open data is not just an optional, but necessary process in the archival end process of any

study as a benefit to both the researcher and others, who may be able to make use of the

data in new and creative ways. Such services as the Archaeological Data Service (ADS)

and projects, such as the ARIADNE Project are examples of best practices to deal with

the open data dilemma of making academic datasets secure, available, and accessible,

while maintaining a financial accessibility to researchers.

The Archaeological Data Service (ADS) is a UK-based curatorial database for

archaeological datasets with the purpose of preserving digital data over a long period of

time, while disseminating and preserving a broad range of data in archaeology (Evans

and Moore 2017). While mainly working to preserve datasets, the ADS also works to

“normalize” datasets, by migrating all data into useful and preferable formats (Evans

and Moore 2017). Part of the benefit of ADS and the storage system is the active

127

oversight of the entire system, with multiple backups and redundancies, the

availability of the material, while maintaining security, and observation on its use

through metadata collection and storage, and the ease of accessibility to researchers,

both professional and students alike (Evans and Moore 2017).

While the ADS has been functioning for over twenty years, there are still only

a handful of similar data storage services available. One of the major difficulties for

researchers using data storage services, such as ADS is the financial accessibility, as

storage and curation of datasets does require a cost to maintain. This, however seems

a necessary, though unfortunate, model and has been used by other services working

with similar goals of curatorial preservation, such as the Sustainable Archaeology

centres at Western University in London, Ontario, and McMaster University in

Hamilton Ontario. Due to the need and cost for maintenance and upkeep of the very

equipment used to house and preserve the digital datasets of the ADS, researchers

who store their data with this service do have to pay a fee based on file size, and data

type, but gain the peace-of-mind knowing that their datasets are easily accessible and

protected with multiple backups.

The ARIADNE project has the goal of connecting and integrating archaeological

information from across Europe (Fernie, et al. 2016:5). At the time of its inception in

2013, there was no singular database that provided integrated archaeological information

between countries (Fernie, et al. 2016:5). Regionally specific services, for which ADS is

a good example, functioning mainly for the use of archaeological data relating to sites and

archaeology within the UK, were difficult to collect and compile across multiple services

128

with multiple ways of recording data when examining archaeological data across regions

(Fernie, et al. 2016:5). Therefore, ARIADNE sought to discover and connect the

resources available between isolated databases, datasets, and repositories, and create a

community of researchers with an interest in the potential for data sharing in archaeology

(Fernie, et al. 2016:5). Much like this project, ARIADNE contains a comparative

collection component, which is made accessible to researchers across Europe, many who

may not have a comparable solution outside of this system.

There are still some potential drawbacks, as data within ARIADNE is by nature

open source, but not always open access. Further concerns about complexity of data will

always need to be addressed, however Fernie, et al. (2016) notes that the use of the

ARIADNE Data Cloud has assisted in linking material that may be otherwise fragmentary

or unable to be accessed (Fernie, et al. 2016:5).

While open access and digital archaeology has a valuable role to academics, the

importance and potential value of open access in terms of public outreach, and connection

with the Indigenous communities with whom we work with are often forgotten. There

have been some strides made by archaeologists who have engaged with the public or

Indigenous groups using technology however, in Ontario archaeology, most

archaeologists have had to pursue implementing digital archaeology and open access

policies on their own time. This reliance on personal time to pursue learning and

investing time in making use of digital archaeology and its resources can be hard within

academia, and even harder among those in CRMFs due to the time commitment involved

in even the most basic forms of public outreach, such as blogging and social media. With

129

the vast amount of information currently available online, and the potential for false

information circulating, archaeologists will be required more than ever to step more into

the digital realm to ensure information is not being misused, or misinterpreted.

Graham (2015) examined the use of archaeological blogs, and whether their

presence made an impact on the information presented against the greater noise of the

internet. His findings suggest that there is an impact that can be made, and that

archaeological blogs show a significant following and point of contact for the public, but

still may be less appealing or inaccessible due to the more common use of academically-

oriented language (Graham 2015). The study found that blogging wasn’t enough, and a

much more heavily engaged focus was needed by archaeologists in the digital realm, as

the internet now constitutes the main source of information retrieval for most people.

“The world wide web of 2014 is ever more of a closed garden, walled off into different

zones of control. If we hope that our blogging, our digital public archaeology, makes an

impact and reaches our public, then we need to shout together and engage with

Wikipedia” (Graham 2015). He continues noting that sources such as Wikipedia can

provide a good source of knowledge when properly maintained, and ultimately ensures

that data collection and data sharing continues in an accessible and accountable way.

However, use of data management sites does require one to have some knowledge

and understanding in browsing the datasets stored on the site, knowledge in reading the

datasets, and knowledge in manipulation of the datasets, which is less likely to draw the

attention of vandals, who are looking for a quick and easy target. Repositories such as the

ADS do take steps to ensure the proper use of data, by securing the webpage, monitoring

130

use of data, and when all else fails, having multiple redundant backup versions, which are

desynchronized from the active database (Richards 2009:12). In this way, while security

will always be a concern, there are many benefits to promoting digital access, and digital

archaeology, such as the use of a web-based platform as a tool and resource for experts,

students, and researchers that may not have access to these resources due to time or

location.

In my own reflection over this project, I did notice that the greatest challenge to

working on a digital comparative collection and the creation of a working digital

identification system was the amount of time and knowledge required for such an

endeavour. Starting this process, I did have the challenge of learning how to create a

working database, while also ensuring that the way in which the database was organized

was both practical and clear, while extensive and dynamic. Information for each specimen

needed to be properly connected, photos of the specimen associated with the correct

specimens, and general descriptors and background data linked to each record. What

became clear early on was the importance of knowledge in cataloguing and database

creation. While I had some experience with cataloguing, database creation and design was

something that required time to learn. Noting that my thesis required me to learn the skills

to create a database, I had to ensure I made the time to develop these skills, however this

is something that is not always possible for those working within Ontario archaeology.

Considering the time requirements of contract bidding, planning, excavation, report

writing, and general administration, many archaeologists in CRMFs do not have extra

time in a day to put towards the development of online resources. The same could be said

about academic-based archaeologists, who must focus on developing and teaching

131

courses, marking assignments, submitting marks to the educational institutions, and

nurturing the development of graduate students under their supervision.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DIGITAL COMPARATIVE COLLECTION...

Documents

Transcript of THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DIGITAL COMPARATIVE COLLECTION...