In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

469 Chapter 10 The Petun and their Neighbours 10.0 Introduction Archaeological data can be used as proxy data for cultural aspects which otherwise do not directly preserve in the archaeological record.These less tangible cultural features are nonetheless essential for understanding the overall context of the archaeological remains and, while there may be an additional layer of subjectivity added, the greater distance from the material evidence results in an increased understanding of the history being examined simply due to contemplation of the subjects. This chapter is divided into two main sections.The first presents reflections on aspects of the population dynamics during the period under consideration as well as some basic elements surrounding the social organisation of Petun society, so critical to understanding internal dynamics which greatly influenced the archaeological record.The second section examines the relations that the Petun maintained with their various neighbours.Once again, the nature of those relations varied from cordial to warring and our appreciation of both states could be informed by the archaeological remains left behind. 10.1 Social Aspects of Petun Culture 10.1.1 PETUN POPULATION DYNAMICS There were continuous variations in the Petun Country’s population. During the entry period it grew steadily, and after diseases arrived it progressively declined. A population estimate has not been explicitly given by any contemporary observer.However,the number of occupied Petun villages at various times is known, their sizes have been estimated, and the number of houses in the two principal Petun villages and the number of families in one of them are given (see 10.1.1.6.1 below).This information can be complemented with and compared to insights from the better-documented Huron experience, and particularly the statement by Father Jérôme Lalemant in 1640 that the Jesuits had taken“the census not only of the villages, large and small, but also of the cabins, the fires, and even very nearly of the persons in all the country,”and had found“thirty-two hamlets and straggling villages, which comprise in all about seven hundred cabins, about two thousand fires, and about twelve thousand persons.” The numbers of individuals, families and fires are often related because two families shared the same fire-hearth, living on opposite sides.This practice was not recorded among the Petun, but it is assumed to have been the case because of the recorded similarity of Petun customs to those of the Huron (Champlain 1929: 96) and because theWyandot word for hearth, tsenh, itself implies opposite division (Steckley 1987: 26;Warrick 1989: 278). 470 THE PETUN AND THEIR NEIGHBOURS Lalemant’s statistics included the nine villages (in 1640) of the Petun (JR 19: 125-127, 269n7; Heidenreich 1978c: 369, 370).The populations enumerated were survivors of the disease epidemics, particularly the smallpox epidemic of 1639-1640, and did not reflect the population at the earlier time of contact. The terminology used by Lalemant to distinguish settlements—hamlets, straggling or small villages, and large villages—finds parallels with that used by Daillon (1866, cited by Noble 1984: 13), and the “hamlets, villages and towns” in Neutralia. In Daillon’s usage, a hamlet covers less than one acre and comprises “seven to eight houses, built in various locales advantageous for fishing, hunting, or agriculture.” In Petun usage, a hamlet defined as being a seasonal camp is termed a‘camp,’and all permanent groups or clusters of dwellings ‘villages.’ Two approaches appear available to estimating Petun population, that is, archaeological and historical. One is not practical and neither are convincing in terms of accuracy. The archaeological approach ideally would be to excavate every village site, and for each village count and measure its size, the actual number of houses and their sizes, and the number of fire-hearths in each. Even then it would have to be determined if every house was contemporary and still occupied, and assumptions would have to be made as to the actual number of persons per hearth. Excavations on such a scale cannot be contemplated or justified in the Petun Country. Another archaeological approach would be to count skeletons in ossuaries.This approach is too sacrilegious to contemplate. In any case, most ossuaries in the Petun Country were dug out by early settlers in their quest for metal axes and kettles and are now lost (Garrad 2010: 6). The simplest historical approach would be to reduce Lalemant’s 1639 figures for 32 villages , etc. to the number that were Petun. For the Petun, this...

Share