1. THE FUTURE: THE RICKELY SITE AND BEYOND ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY: PRESENT
The Archaeology of Southern Ontario Bioarchaeology: A Case Study of the Rickley Site
Chelsea Meloche and John Albanese
University of Windsor
Contact:
ABSTRACT
The Rickley collection and excavation will be utilized as an example of how detrimental midcentury policies have been in terms of the collection itself and future research prospects. We frame some problems doing research with this collection and some of the solutions to these problems moving forward. Accountability, both in the form of professionalism and recognition of the important role that First Nations play in the involvement and consultation processes today, whether it be for academic or cultural resource management reasons, is a large and deciding factor in the development for future procedures of documentation and excavation. The path that bioarchaeological practice takes is an evolutionary one, where the context of the past will continue to influence growth in the future.
THE RICKLEY SITE
In the late 1960’s an amateur archaeologist, Murray Tuck, located and conducted preliminary excavations of an archaeological site in Southwestern Ontario. Over several seasons in the late 1960s and early 1970s Tuck recovered numerous artifacts and some human skeletal remains. Tuck brought the site to the attention of Professor Leonard Kroon at the University of Windsor, who established a field school where students excavated the site for two summer semesters in 1974 and Those events in 1974 and 1975 have been pieced together from Leonard Kroon’s site report and the field notes, drawings and photographs of the students who completed the field courses (see figures for examples).
The remains were somewhat fragmentary and efforts were made to observe and analyse the remains in situ before reburial was to take place. Remains were pedestaled, thoroughly investigated, and it was claimed not disturbed or collected.
At the discovery of multiple cremated bundle burials, a student noted that the ‘previous investigator [Tuck] and his friend’ took over the unit, contributing to the loss of data from the site. Along with several individual flexed and bundle burials, significant grave goods located included two tubular pipes, with pebble inserts, and a roughly made, full-bodied, nubbin-eyed birdstone of green slate (Donaldson and Wortner 1995; Figure A). These artifact are typical of the Glacial Kame burial complex in Ontario. Other artifacts and several distinct types of human burial indicate the site is a multicomponent burial site used from the Late Archaic to Late Woodland periods (Donaldson and Wortner 1995).
The official site report states that “all articles uncovered…were left in-situ,” (Kroon 1975: 6) and the exposed burials were apparently back-filled in place. However, although there is some evidence that some remains were re-buried after the site was looted, Kroon’s claim is complicated by the existence of skeletal remains from the Rikley site at the University of Windsor.
THE FUTURE: THE RICKELY SITE AND BEYOND
Considering the state of the many collections that remain from excavations conducted under less than ideal conditions, the road to successful repatriation is a long one. The process must be fluid and must include the views of many different groups including academics, the general public and of course First Nation communities.
In the case of the Rickley remains, housed at the University of Windsor, we are pursuing a multipronged multidisciplinary approach. We continue to “conduct the archaeology” of bioarchaeological investigations conducted before We are continuing to locate, review and scan relevant documents and we are compiling a database that includes an inventory of skeletal remains and original documents. We are continuing to sort through the skeletal remains in order to assess what is currently at the University of Windsor. Rickley is only the first of many sites that needs attention and we are continuously working with aboriginal communities to establish a dialogue over of cultural and biological heritage and repatriation. Before any analysis is done, we want to develop a plan with the local communities for the analysis and eventual repatriation of the remains.
Collections everywhere are in need of well-deserved attention. For how long can they remain forgotten on a shelf in a basement?
ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY: PRESENT
TO PAST
The Ontario Heritage Act originally enacted in 1975, was enacted to protect properties and sites that are of archaeological significance. The Cemeteries Act 1990 applies to any discovery of human remains within Ontario and takes precedence over the Ontario Heritage Act. Although some problems may still persist, the enactment of these laws has resulted in a significant shift towards regulated, scientific archaeological excavation and analysis.
Before 1975, some archaeological excavations in Ontario resembled popular culture views of archaeology as a grave-robbing and treasure-hunting enterprise and was considered a source of outdoor entertainment rather than a real science (Latta 2004). In some cases, as long as permission was obtained from the landowner, any land could be excavated. Disagreements arose regarding the ownership of any items, as well as the noted pocketing of collectibles. Often the location of digs were kept as secret as possible for fear of looters and grave robbers coming to prey upon the exposed artifacts while no one was watching. Many “excavations” were plagued by poor curatorial practices, data recording and management problems, and there was a failure to publish and share research (Latta 2004). The general practice was, at best, to minimally include First Nations.
REFERNCES
Donaldson, W.S. and Wortner, S The Hind Site and the Glacial Kame Burial Complex in Ontario. Ontario Archaeology. 59: 5-95.
Kroon, E. L University of Windsor Site Report: Rikley, Ms. on file, Ontario Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, London, Ontario.
Latta, Martha A An Archaeological Generation: View From the New Millennium. Ontario Archaeology. 77/78:
Above: Overview map of the excavation in 1975.
Above: Two distinct types of burials uncovered during the excavation in 1975, including the Glacial Kame burial and associated artifacts on the left and flexed burial with burning on the right.
At left: Photographs from the 1974 field school showing the site survey and preliminary excavations.