Research ArticleANTHROPOLOGY

Radiocarbon re-dating of contact-era Iroquoian history in northeastern North America

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science Advances  05 Dec 2018:
Vol. 4, no. 12, eaav0280
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aav0280
  • Fig. 1 Map showing the locations of the four sites investigated in this study in southern Ontario, Canada.
  • Fig. 2 14C-derived chronology for the Warminster site.

    (A) The OxCal (32, 35) dating model for the Warminster site Phase with TPQ from a tree ring–sequenced 14C wiggle match on a wood post (36) and then the 14C dates on short-lived plant material, using the IntCal13 14C dataset (34), with the dates on the same plum and bean samples combined (table S5A). The nonmodeled calibrated dating probabilities are indicated by the gray distributions; the modeled probabilities are shown by the black distributions. The lines under the modeled distributions indicate the 68.2% highest posterior density (hpd) and 95.4% hpd ranges. OxCal agreement indices (A, Amodel, and Aoverall) >60 indicate good agreement between the 14C data and the model. O values are posterior/prior probabilities that the date is an outlier. (B) The modeled Date estimate for the Warminster site from (A). (C) Date estimate from an alternative model treating each date on the plum and bean samples as independent estimates within independent “plum” and “bean” sub-Phases (table S5B). No outliers, but one low agreement date (A:5 = UGAMS-25451). (D) As (C) but excluding UGAMS-25451. Amodel and Aoverall values are now >60. The dates of Champlain’s visit to Cahiagué, 1615–1616, are indicated in each panel.

  • Fig. 3 The 14C-derived chronology for the Draper, Spang, and Mantle sites with each site modeled as an independent phase.

    (A) The OxCal (32, 35) model for each of the three site Phases (Draper, Spang, and Mantle) using IntCal13 (34). All the data in table S1 except those four dates with suspect δ13C values are included. The Charcoal Outlier model is specified for the wood charcoal samples (35), and the General Outlier model (35) is specified for all other materials. Compare results using the modified Charcoal Plus Outlier model (30, 37) in fig. S6. The OxCal agreement indices both indicate good agreement between the data and the model (Amodel = 96.4 and Aoverall = 93.5, both >60). There are still a few minor possible outliers: compare with the results in fig. S7. The nonmodeled calibrated dating probabilities are indicated by the light gray distributions; the modeled probabilities are shown by the smaller black distributions. The lines under these modeled distributions indicate the 95.4% hpd ranges. (B) The modeled Date estimates for the Draper, Spang, and Mantle sites are shown in detail and compared with the currently accepted date estimates (“current date”) for each site (3, 14).

  • Fig. 4 The Rouge River-West Duffins site sequence of the successive Draper, Spang, and Mantle sites modeled as an ordered sequence of sites as indicated by the 14C data (see text) and existing archeological assessments (3, 1416) with intervening trapezoidal boundaries (49) to allow for some overlaps.

    (A) The site sequence uses the data from Fig. 3 with analysis using OxCal (32, 35), including the Charcoal Outlier model for dates on wood charcoal (35) and using IntCal13 (34). The Amodel and Aoverall values of 65.7 and 64.8 are above the satisfactory value of 60. (B) Details on the modeled dates for the Draper, Spang, and Mantle sites—contrasted with the currently accepted dates for the sites (3, 14)—and for the transitions between Draper and Spang and between Spang and Mantle (see also Table 2).

  • Table 1 The existing traditional chronology for the Iroquoian region of south-central Ontario up to the contact era in the second millennium CE [(14, 13, 14, 17, 18); see the Supplementary Materials].
    Traditional chronologyArcheological phasesSociocultural characteristics and key events
    1000–1300Early IroquoianSettlement is in base camps by seasonally mobile populations; limited agriculture.
    1300–1350Middle IroquoianSmall villages, initiation of widespread interaction networks. Migration of early farming communitie
    to the north and east.
    1350–1400Small- to medium-sized, dispersed villages, extensive interregional interaction.
    1400–1450Late IroquoianPrecoalescent; small villages clustered in major drainages.
    1450–1500Coalescence; formative aggregate towns, palisaded, with multiple palisade expansions. Some small
    villages remain. Internal conflict within the region.
    1500–1550Postcoalescent; initial nation formation. Consolidated aggregate towns. All settlements are palisaded,
    no evidence for expansions. Internal conflict in decline. Interregional interaction increases.
    1550–1600ProtohistoricConsolidation of nations. Consolidated aggregate towns (north shore of Lake Ontario), smaller, often
    unpalisaded village settlements (historic Wendake). Initiation of external conflict. First appearance
    of European-manufactured metals and glass beads (GBP I, ca. 1580–1600).
    1600–1650Contact eraConsolidation of Wendat confederacy. Population clusters in historic Wendake. Consolidated
    aggregate towns (southern Wendake), smaller village settlements (northern Wendake).
    Intensification of external conflict. Direct European contact, ca. 1608 (Etienne Brule); ca. 1615
    (Champlain); ca. 1630s Jesuit presence increases. In 1650, the Wendat were dispersed by the
    Haudenosaunee (Iroquois). Extensive presence and diversification of European-manufactured
    metals and glass beads (GBP II, ca. 1600–1615/1620, GBP III ca. 1615/1620–1650).
  • Table 2 The calendar date ranges or periods (in calendar years) determined for selected Dates, Spans, and Boundaries in the Draper-Spang-Mantle site sequence model shown in Fig. 4 and compared with a rerun of this model but using (i) the Charcoal Plus Outlier model (30, 37) and (ii) after excluding the six minor possible outliers noted in the Supplementary Materials and fig. S5.

    This rerun model runs with typical values of Amodel of 86.5 and Aoverall of 84 each above the satisfactory threshold value of 60. Calendar dates CE in regular font, calendar years (duration) in italics.

    Figure 4 modelRerun revised model
    68.2% hpd95.4% hpd68.2% hpd95.4% hpd
    Start Draper1523–15391517–15511522–15401515–1553
    Date Draper1528–15441523–15551527–15441521–1557
    Span Draper1–130–251–130–26
    Mid end
    Draper
    1532–15491528–15591531–15501527–1561
    Duration end
    Draper
    0–50–150–50–16
    Mid start
    Spang
    1543–15661535–15801543–15671535–1581
    Duration
    start
    Spang
    0–60–190–60–19
    Date Spang1551–15771543–15911551–15781542–1592
    Span Spang4–231–384–231–39
    Mid end
    Spang
    1564–15901551–15991564–15911550–1600
    Duration end
    Spang
    0–70–230–70–23
    Mid start
    Mantle
    1593–16081580–16141593–16081579–1615
    Duration
    start
    Mantle
    0–70–230–60–21
    Date Mantle1599–16141587–16231599–16141586–1623
    Span Mantle2–190–371–170–38
    End Mantle1604–16181599–16311604–16181596–1631

Supplementary Materials

  • Supplementary material for this article is available at http://advances.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/4/12/eaav0280/DC1

    Supplementary Materials and Methods

    Fig. S1. A comparison of the 14C ages [conventional radiocarbon years before the present (BP)] reported on samples of short-lived plant remains in table S1 by site (excluding the four dates with problematic δ13C values—see table S1).

    Fig. S2. The nonmodeled, individual, calibrated calendar dating probability ranges for the 14C dates reported in table S1 (excluding the four with problematic δ13C values—see table S1).

    Fig. S3. The nonmodeled, individual, calibrated calendar dating probability ranges for the 14C dates reported in table S1 shown against the IntCal13 calibration curve and the (nonmodeled) calibrated age probabilities for the subset of dates on samples just from Mantle early contexts.

    Fig. S4. Photos and ring-width measurements, WAR-1 sample.

    Fig. S5. Comparison of the 14C range (overall 1σ) of the set of 14C dates on short-lived plant remains from Warminster (see table S1) against the modeled (mid-point) and raw (constituent) IntCal13 (34) data (shown with 1σ errors) (raw data from: http://intcal.qub.ac.uk/intcal13/) placed within the calendar period, ~1596–1619, identified in the analysis reported in Fig. 2.

    Fig. S6. Results from an alternative run of the dataset in Fig. 3 as summarized in Fig. 3B but using the Charcoal Plus Outlier model.

    Fig. S7. Results from an alternative run of the dataset in Fig. 3 as summarized in Fig. 3B but after excluding the six minor possible outliers identified by the SSimple Outlier model in the various R_Combines (VERA-6286 O:8/5, OxA-33079 O:8/5, VERA-6215_2 O:12/5, VERA-6219 O:12/5, OxA-33082 O:16/5, and VERA-6217 O:6/5).

    Fig. S8. Revised model of the Spang site data as a Sequence with the Midden 2 Level 4 date treated as earlier than the Phase of Midden 2 Level 3 dates.

    Fig. S9. Revised model of the Mantle site as a Sequence using those samples best associated with the intrasite phasing.

    Fig. S10. Comparisons of the Warminster Date Estimate probability density function (PDF) from Fig. 2D with the Date Mantle PDF from Fig. 3.

    Fig. S11. Comparison of the PDFs for the Date Mantle estimate from 10 runs of the Mantle model in Fig. 3.

    Table S1. The samples and conventional radiocarbon dates used in this study.

    Table S2. UGAMS radiocarbon dates on the Warminster Feature 12 Prunus Americana (plum) sample using several different pretreatment approaches (data as listed in table S1).

    Table S3. Details of the results from the Mantle internal site sequence model in fig. S9.

    Table S4. Order calculation from OxCal determining the probability that t1 is less than (i.e., older than) t2.

    Table S5. OxCal runfiles for the Warminster site in Fig. 2.

    Table S6. OxCal runfile for the Draper, Spang, and Mantle site analysis shown in Fig. 3.

    Table S7. OxCal runfile for the Spang Sequence analysis shown in fig. S8.

    Table S8. OxCal runfile for the Mantle Sequence analysis shown in fig. S9 and with results in table S3.

    Table S9. The OxCal runfile for the Draper-Spang-Mantle sequence analysis shown in Fig. 4 and with results in Table 2.

    References (50102)

  • Supplementary Materials

    This PDF file includes:

    • Supplementary Materials and Methods
    • Fig. S1. A comparison of the 14C ages conventional radiocarbon years before the present (BP) reported on samples of short-lived plant remains in table S1 by site (excluding the four dates with problematic δ13C values—see table S1).
    • Fig. S2. The nonmodeled, individual, calibrated calendar dating probability ranges for the 14C dates reported in table S1 (excluding the four with problematic δ13C values—see table S1).
    • Fig. S3. The nonmodeled, individual, calibrated calendar dating probability ranges for the 14C dates reported in table S1 shown against the IntCal13 calibration curve and the (nonmodeled) calibrated age probabilities for the subset of dates on samples just from Mantle early contexts.
    • Fig. S4. Photos and ring-width measurements, WAR-1 sample.
    • Fig. S5. Comparison of the 14C range (overall 1σ) of the set of 14C dates on short-lived plant remains from Warminster (see table S1) against the modeled (mid-point) and raw (constituent) IntCal13 (34) data (shown with 1σ errors) (raw data from: http://intcal.qub.ac.uk/intcal13/) placed within the calendar period, ~1596–1619, identified in the analysis reported in Fig. 2.
    • Fig. S6. Results from an alternative run of the dataset in Fig. 3 as summarized in Fig. 3B but using the Charcoal Plus Outlier model.
    • Fig. S7. Results from an alternative run of the dataset in Fig. 3 as summarized in Fig. 3B but after excluding the six minor possible outliers identified by the SSimple Outlier model in the various R_Combines (VERA-6286 O:8/5, OxA-33079 O:8/5, VERA-6215_2 O:12/5, VERA-6219 O:12/5, OxA-33082 O:16/5, and VERA-6217 O:6/5).
    • Fig. S8. Revised model of the Spang site data as a Sequence with the Midden 2 Level 4 date treated as earlier than the Phase of Midden 2 Level 3 dates.
    • Fig. S9. Revised model of the Mantle site as a Sequence using those samples best associated with the intrasite phasing.
    • Fig. S10. Comparisons of the Warminster Date Estimate probability density function (PDF) from Fig. 2D with the Date Mantle PDF from Fig. 3.
    • Fig. S11. Comparison of the PDFs for the Date Mantle estimate from 10 runs of the Mantle model in Fig. 3.
    • Table S1. The samples and conventional radiocarbon dates used in this study.
    • Table S2. UGAMS radiocarbon dates on the Warminster Feature 12 Prunus Americana (plum) sample using several different pretreatment approaches (data as listed in table S1).
    • Table S3. Details of the results from the Mantle internal site sequence model in fig. S9.
    • Table S4. Order calculation from OxCal determining the probability that t1 is less than (i.e., older than) t2.
    • Table S5. OxCal runfiles for the Warminster site in Fig. 2.
    • Table S6. OxCal runfile for the Draper, Spang, and Mantle site analysis shown in Fig. 3.
    • Table S7. OxCal runfile for the Spang Sequence analysis shown in fig. S8.
    • Table S8. OxCal runfile for the Mantle Sequence analysis shown in fig. S9 and with results in table S3.
    • Table S9. The OxCal runfile for the Draper-Spang-Mantle sequence analysis shown in Fig. 4 and with results in Table 2.
    • References (50102)

    Download PDF

    Files in this Data Supplement:

Navigate This Article