Final Archaeological Report

Transcription

Stage 1-2 Archaeological
Assessment: Taylor Pit
Part of Lots 22 and 23,
Concession 5, Geographic
Township of Sullivan, now
Township of Chatsworth, Grey
County, Ontario
Prepared for:
Mr. Don Drysdale
Drysdale Aggregate Consulting
450 6th Avenue West
Owen Sound, ON N4K 6K2
Tel: (519) 376-6600
Fax: (519) 376-7300
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by:
Licensee: Walter McCall, Ph.D.
License Number: P389
PIF Number: P389-0006-2013
Project Number: 160940216
SECOND REVISED REPORT
March 21, 2014
STAGE 1-2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: TAYLOR PIT
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... I
PROJECT PERSONNEL .............................................................................................................. III
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
PROJECT CONTEXT ......................................................................................................1.1
DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT .............................................................................................. 1.1
1.1.1
Objectives..................................................................................................... 1.1
HISTORICAL CONTEXT .................................................................................................... 1.2
1.2.1
Pre-contact Aboriginal Archaeological Resources ............................... 1.2
1.2.2
Post-contact Aboriginal Archaeological Resources .............................. 1.3
1.2.3
Historic Euro-Canadian Archaeological Resources ............................... 1.3
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT ...................................................................................... 1.6
1.3.1
The Natural Environment ............................................................................ 1.6
1.3.2
Previously Known Archaeological Sites and Surveys .............................. 1.7
1.3.3
Archaeological Potential ........................................................................... 1.8
1.3.4
Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 1.9
2.0
FIELD METHODS ...........................................................................................................2.1
3.0
3.1
RECORD OF FINDS.......................................................................................................3.1
LOCATION 1 (BCHF-2) ................................................................................................... 3.1
3.1.1
Ceramic Artifacts ........................................................................................ 3.1
3.1.2
Non-ceramic Artifacts................................................................................. 3.4
3.1.3
Artifact Catalogue ...................................................................................... 3.5
LOCATION 2 (BCHF-3) ................................................................................................... 3.7
3.2.1
Ceramic Artifacts ........................................................................................ 3.7
3.2.2
Non-ceramic Artifacts................................................................................. 3.9
3.2.3
Artifact Catalogue .................................................................................... 3.10
3.2
4.0
4.1
4.2
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................4.1
LOCATION 1 (BCHF-2) ................................................................................................... 4.1
LOCATION 2 (BCHF-3) ................................................................................................... 4.2
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................5.1
LOCATION 1 (BCHF-2) ................................................................................................... 5.1
LOCATION 2 (BCHF-3) ................................................................................................... 5.1
SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 5.2
6.0
ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION..........................................................6.1
7.0
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES ...................................................................................7.1
8.0
8.1
8.2
IMAGES........................................................................................................................8.1
PHOTOGRAPHS .............................................................................................................. 8.1
ARTIFACTS ....................................................................................................................... 8.6
i
9.0
MAPS ...........................................................................................................................9.1
10.0
CLOSURE ....................................................................................................................10.6
11.0
11.1
11.2
APPENDIX A ..............................................................................................................11.7
LOCATION 1 (BCHF-2) ARTIFACT CATALOGUE ........................................................ 11.7
LOCATION 2 (BCHF-3) ARTIFACT CATALOGUE ........................................................ 11.9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Cultural Chronology of Grey County ....................................................................... 1.2
Table 2: Land Registry Information Pertaining to Lot 22, Concession 5, Sullivan Township,
Grey County, Ontario ............................................................................................................... 1.4
Grey County, Ontario ............................................................................................................... 1.5
Table 4: Inventory of Documentary Record .......................................................................... 3.1
Table 5: Location 1 (BcHf-2) Artifact Summary ..................................................................... 3.1
Table 6: Location 1 (BcHf-2) Ceramic Assemblage by Ware Type .................................... 3.2
Table 7: Location 1 (BcHf-2) Ceramic Assemblage by Decorative Type .......................... 3.2
Table 8: Location 2 (BcHf-3) Artifact Summary ..................................................................... 3.7
Table 9: Location 2 (BcHf-3) Ceramic Assemblage by Ware Type .................................... 3.7
Table 10: Location 2 (BcHf-3) Ceramic Assemblage by Decorative Type........................ 3.8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Location of Study Area ............................................................................................. 9.2
Figure 2: Treaties and Purchase, adapted from Morris 1931 ............................................... 9.3
Figure 3: Portion of the 1880 Map of Sullivan Township ........................................................ 9.4
Figure 4: Stage 2 Survey Methods ........................................................................................... 9.5
ii
Executive Summary
Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by Drysdale Aggregate Consulting to conduct a Stage 1-2
archaeological assessment for a study area located on part of Lots 22 and 23, Concession 5, Geographic
Township of Sullivan, now Township of Chatsworth, County of Grey, Ontario. The study area consists of
approximately 63 hectares of land. Subsequent to this study the permit area was revised to approximately
59 hectare area by the exclusion of a small portion of the north-central area of the property.
This assessment was conducted to meet the requirements of Section 2.6.2 of the Provincial Policy
Statement (Government of Ontario 2005) related to the Planning Act (Government of Ontario 1990a) and
the Aggregate Resources Act, R.S.O. c.A.8 (Government of Ontario 1990b), prior to the submission of site
plan applications to the Ministry of Natural Resources. Moreover, this assessment was conducted in
accordance with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s (MTCS) 2011 Standards and Guidelines for
Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011).
The Stage 1 background research indicated that the entire study area exhibits moderate to high potential
for the identification and recovery of archaeological resources. A subsequent Stage 2 property survey
identified two archaeological sites, Location 1 (BcHf-2) and Location 2 (BcHf-3).
A total of 96 Euro-Canadian artifacts were collected from the surface scatter identified as Location 1
(BcHf-2) in close association with a recent poured concrete house foundation and mortared field stone
barn foundation. During consultation with MTCS it was determined that as ironstone wares can date to
either the 19th or 20th centuries they do not constitute artifacts dating to a period of occupation prior to
1900(personal communication, Paige Campbell, February 11, 2014). Therefore, the artifact assemblage
from Location 1 (BcHf-2) does not contain more than 20 artifacts dating prior to turn of the 20th century.
In light of this fact, its long period of occupation mainly falling within the 20th century and the large
amounts of foundation and 20th century debris that was left in situ, Location 1 (BcHf-2) does not meet any
of the criteria listed in Table 3.1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists
(Government of Ontario 2011) and does not retain cultural heritage value or interest. Therefore, a Stage
3 archaeological assessment is not recommended for Location 1 (BcHf-2).
The artifact assemblage from Location 2 (BcHf-3) contains at least 20 artifacts that date prior to 1900. In
accordance with Section 2.2 Standard 1c and Table 3.1 of the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for
Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011), Location 2 (BcHf-3) retains cultural heritage
value or interest and meets the criteria for a Stage 3 archaeological assessment. Therefore, a Stage 3
archaeological assessment is recommended for Location 2 (BcHf-3). At the present time
this site lies over 70 metres outside of the proposed development area and the
recommended Stage 3 archaeological assessment will not be required in advance of the
current permit application.
i
If it is decided to conduct the Stage 3 archaeological assessment of Location 2 (BcHf-3), then it will be
conducted according to the procedures outlined in the MTCS’s 2011 Standards and Guidelines for
Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011). The Stage 3 archaeological assessment will
include a CSP of the site and then Stage 3 test units excavated by hand every five metres in systematic
levels and into the first five centimetres of subsoil. All excavated soil will be screened through six
millimetre mesh; any artifacts being recovered will be recorded and catalogued by the corresponding grid
unit designation. If a subsurface cultural feature is encountered, the plan of the exposed feature will be
recorded and geotextile fabric will be placed over the unit before backfilling the unit.
The MTCS is asked to review the results presented and accept this report into the Ontario Public Register
of Archaeological Reports.
The Executive Summary highlights key points from the report only; for complete information and
findings, the reader should examine the complete report.
ii
Project Personnel
Project Director:
Jim Wilson, MA, Principal, Regional Discipline Leader,
Archaeology (P001)
Project Manager:
Adam Hossack, BA (P084)
Licensed Archaeologist:
Walter McCall, Ph.D. (P389)
Licensed Field Directors:
Sam Markham, MA (R438)
Field Technicians:
Cam Brock, Christian Meier, Jason Robertson, Ricky
Szczygielski, Matt Seguin, Sean Thomson, Brett Walker
Lab/Office Assistants:
Kent Buchanan, H.B.Sc. OCGC, Jennifer Schumacher,
MA (R465)
Report Writer:
Jennifer Schumacher, MA (R465)
Technical Review:
Jeffrey Muir, BA (R304)
Senior Review:
Jim Wilson, MA (P001), Principal, Regional Discipline
Leader, Archaeology
Proponent Contact:
Don Drysdale, Drysdale Aggregate Consulting
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport:
Robert von Bitter
iii
Project Context
March 21, 2014
1.0
Project Context
1.1
DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT
Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by Drysdale Aggregate Consulting to conduct a Stage 1-2
archaeological assessment for a study area located on part of Lots 22 and 23, Concession 5, former
Geographic Township of Sullivan, now Township of Chatsworth, County of Grey, Ontario (Figure 1). The
study area consists of approximately 63 hectares of land. Subsequent to this study the permit area was
revised to approximately 59 hectare area by the exclusion of a small portion of the north-central area of
the property. This revised permit application area is shown on the development plan map accompanying
this report.
This assessment was conducted to meet the requirements of Section 2.6.2 of the Provincial Policy
Statement (Government of Ontario 2005) related to the Planning Act (Government of Ontario 1990a) and
the Aggregate Resources Act, R.S.O. c.A.8 (Government of Ontario 1990b), prior to the submission of site
plan applications to the Ministry of Natural Resources. Moreover, this assessment was conducted in
accordance with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s (MTCS) 2011 Standards and Guidelines for
Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011).
Permission to enter the study area to document and remove archaeological resources was provided by
Don Drysdale, Drysdale Aggregate Consulting.
1.1.1
Objectives
For the purposes of this Stage 1 -2 archaeological assessment, the MTCS’s 2011 Standards and Guidelines
for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011) were followed. The objective of the Stage 1
background study is to document the property’s archaeological and land use history and present
conditions. This information was used to support recommendations regarding cultural heritage value or
interest as well as assessment and mitigation strategies. The Stage 1 research information was drawn
from:
•
The MTCS’s Archaeological Sites Database (ASDB) for a listing of registered archaeological sites
within a one-kilometre radius of the study area;
•
Reports of previous archaeological assessments within a radius of 50 metres around the property;
•
Recent and historical maps of the property area;
•
Archaeological management plans or other archaeological potential mapping when available;
•
Commemorative plaques or monuments; and
•
Visual inspection of the project area.
1.1
Project Context
March 21, 2014
The objectives of the Stage 2 assessment were to document archaeological resources present within the
study area, to determine whether any of the resources might be artifacts or archaeological sites with
cultural heritage value or interest requiring further assessment, and to provide specific Stage 3 direction
for the protection, management and/or recovery of the identified archaeological resources (Government
of Ontario 2011).
1.2
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The study area consists of approximately 63 hectares of agricultural fields and woodlot spread across part
of Lots 22 and 23, Concession 5, Geographic Township of Sullivan, now Township of Chatsworth, Grey
County, Ontario.
1.2.1
Pre-contact Aboriginal Archaeological Resources
This portion of southwestern Ontario has been demonstrated to have been occupied by people as far back
as 11,000 years ago as the glaciers retreated. For the majority of this time, people were practicing hunter
gatherer lifestyles with a gradual move towards more extensive farming practices. Table 1 provides a
general outline of the cultural chronology of Grey County, based on Ellis and Ferris (1990).
Table 1: Cultural Chronology of Grey County
Period
Characteristics
Time Period
Comments
Early Paleo-Indian
Fluted Projectiles
9000 - 8400 B.C.
spruce parkland/caribou hunters
Late Paleo-Indian
Hi-Lo Projectiles
8400 - 8000B.C.
smaller but more numerous sites
Early Archaic
Kirk and Bifurcate Base Points
8000 - 6000 B.C.
slow population growth
Middle Archaic
Brewerton-like points
6000 - 2500 B.C.
environment similar to present
Lamoka (narrow points)
2000 - 1800 B.C.
increasing site size
Broad Points
1800 - 1500 B.C.
large chipped lithic tools
Small Points
1500 - 1100B.C.
introduction of bow hunting
Terminal Archaic
Hind Points
1100 - 950 B.C.
emergence of true cemeteries
Early Woodland
Meadowood Points
950 - 400 B.C.
introduction of pottery
Late Archaic
Dentate/Pseudo-Scallop Pottery
400 B.C. - A.D.500
increased sedentism
Princess Point
A.D. 550 - 900
introduction of corn
Early Ontario Iroquoian
A.D. 900 - 1300
emergence of agricultural villages
Middle Ontario Iroquoian
A.D. 1300 - 1400
long longhouses (100m +)
Late Ontario Iroquoian
A.D. 1400 - 1650
tribal warfare and displacement
Contact Aboriginal
Various Algonkian Groups
A.D. 1700 - 1875
early written records and treaties
Late Historic
Euro-Canadian
A.D. 1796 - present
European settlement
Middle Woodland
Late Woodland
1.2
Project Context
March 21, 2014
1.2.2
Post-contact Aboriginal Archaeological Resources
The post-contact Aboriginal occupation of Southern Ontario was heavily influenced by the dispersal of
various Iroquoian-speaking communities by the New York State Iroquois and the subsequent arrival of
Algonkian-speaking groups from northern Ontario at the end of the 17th century and beginning of the
18th century (Konrad 1981; Schmalz 1991). By 1690, Algonkian speakers from the north appear to have
begun to repopulate Bruce County (Roger 1978:761). This is the period in which the Mississaugas are
known to have moved into southern Ontario and the lower Great Lakes watersheds (Konrad 1981). In
southwestern Ontario, however, members of the Three Fires Confederacy (Chippewa, Ottawa, and
Potawatomi) were immigrating from Ohio and Michigan in the late 1700s (Feest and Feest 1978:778-779).
The nature of Aboriginal settlement size, population distribution, and material culture shifted as
European settlers encroached upon their territory. However, despite this shift, “written accounts of
material life and livelihood, the correlation of historically recorded villages to their archaeological
manifestations, and the similarities of those sites to more ancient sites have revealed an antiquity to
documented cultural expressions that confirms a deep historical continuity to Iroquoian systems of
ideology and thought” (Ferris 2009:114). As a result, First Nations peoples of Southern Ontario have left
behind archaeologically significant resources throughout Southern Ontario which show continuity with
past peoples, even if they have not been recorded in historical Euro-Canadian documentation.
The study area first enters the Euro-Canadian historic record on August 9, 1836 as part of Treaty No.45 ½
which:
Sir Francis Bond Head, Lieut.-Governor of Upper Canada, met on August 9, 1836, at
Manitowaning… the Saukings residents south of Owen Sound. <To the Saugeen> I now
propose that you should surrender to your Great Father, the Sauking territory that you
presently occupy, and that you shall repair either to this island <Manitoulin> or to that part of
your territory which lies on the north of Owen Sound upon which proper houses shall be built
for you, and proper assistance given to enable you to become civilized and to cultivate land
which your Great Father engages for ever to protect for you from the encroachment of the
whites.
(Morris 1943: 27-29)
While it is difficult to exactly delineate treaty boundaries today, Figure 2 provides an approximate outline
of the limits of Treaty No. 45 ½ (identified by the letter “W”).
Given the location of the study area is in close proximity to McCullough Lake, the post-contact Aboriginal
archaeological potential of the study area is judged to be moderate to high.
1.2.3
Historic Euro-Canadian Archaeological Resources
The criteria used by the MTCS to determine potential for historic archaeological sites include the presence
of: 1) particular, resource-specific features that would have attracted past subsistence or extractive uses;
1.3
Project Context
March 21, 2014
2) areas of initial, non-Aboriginal settlement; 3) early historic transportation routes; and 4) properties
designated under the Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 1990c).
The study area falls within the former Township of Sullivan, County of Grey, Ontario. Grey County was
established in 1852 and was named after Charles the second Earl of Grey. The first townships surveyed
were ‘Alta’ and ‘Zero’, which were later renamed Collingwood and St. Vincent. By 1865, Grey County had
16 townships, 4 towns, and 44 villages or post offices. From its beginning, natural resources such as fish,
fur, forests, and minerals were integral to the expansion of trade and commerce in the area (Marsh 1931).
The Township of Sullivan was first surveyed in 1844 by Charles Rankin and J.S. Dennis and was named
after the Crown Land agent of that time, R. B. Sullivan. As early as 1842, settlers arrived via Garafraxa
Road which divides Sullivan and Holland Townships. At this time, settlers were required to live on the
property and to clear and crop one-third of the land within four years or else the land was forfeited
(Marsh 1931). Life was difficult for settlers during the initial years of settlement throughout the township,
with many cases of starvation being recorded in the initial few years. By 1855, however, the township
began to be extensively settled and by the time of the 1865-6 Census, the population had increased to
around 2300. The 1865-6 Census data lists Benjamin Doyle as the occupant of Concession 5, Lot 22 and
Bryan and William James as the occupants of Lot 5, Concession 23. These data demonstrate that much of
the township was in fact occupied prior to the sale of the various patents by the Crown (see Table 2
below). These early settlers, those who were registered on the early Census but did not purchase the land
they occupied, must be considered squatters and were common throughout Grey County (Smith
1865).Land registry and census information for Lot 22 and Lot 23, Concession 5 was reviewed at the
Archives of Ontario (A of O) at York University, Toronto, Ontario to assess the probability of a structure
existing on the property prior to 1900. Table 2 below lists the Abstract Index information pertaining to the
Lot 22, Concession 5. Table 3 below lists the Abstract Index information pertaining to the Lot 23,
Concession 5.
Grey County, Ontario
Instrument
Date of
Instrument
Patent
12 July 1875
Quick Claim
21 June 1909
Quick Claim
Timber
Contract
Grant
17 August
1909
1 April 1913
1 April 1922
Date of
Registry
12 July
1875
30 June
1909
22
November
1909
8 April
1913
4 April
1922
The Crown
Grantee
John
McCullough
Quantity
of Land
All 200
Acres
Ann and Frank McHenry/ Harriet
and Frank Shoults
John
McCullough
All 200
Acres
Sara and Ben Elder/ Sara and
John Collins/David Brozier
John McCullough
John
McCullough
Armstrong
Rutledge
John McCullough
Philip Corbett
All 200
Acres
All 200
Acres
All 200
Acres
Grantor
1.4
Project Context
March 21, 2014
In 1875, the patent was granted to John McCullough for Lot 22 comprised of 200 acres. Within the
census, John McCullough (66 years old) of Ireland is registered as the owner of the property along with
his wife Joanna, his one son John, and three daughters Ann, Sarah, and Harriet. He is registered as a
farmer but no additional schedules were available for this property, as a result it is not known whether or
not a structure was present on the property at this time. By 1891, John and his wife are still listed along
with their four children. No agricultural information is available for this lot for the 1891 census. In the
1891 Census, the son John is listed as the head of the household at the age of 31 along with his wife
Elizabeth, son John (one year old), and his mother Joanna (69 years old). It is presumed that John
McCullough, Joanna’s husband, passed away between the 1891 and 1901 census. In June of 1909 a quick
claim was completed between Ann and Frank McHenry and Harriet and Frank Shoults and John
McCullough. In August of 1909, a quick claim was completed between Sara and Ben Elder and Sara and John
Collins and David Brozier and John McCullough. In 1913, John McCullough signed over his land for a
timber contract. In 1922, John McCullough granted his land to Philip Corbett.
The 1880 Historical Atlas of the Counties of Grey and Bruce’s map of the Township of Sullivan does not
indicate any landowners for Lots 22 or 23, Concession 5 and there are no visible structures located in the
immediate vicinity (Belden and Co. 1880). Although there are no landowners shown for these lots (Figure
3), historical county atlases were produced primarily to identify factories, offices, residences and
landholdings of subscribers and were funded by subscription fees. Landowners who did not subscribe
were not always listed on the maps (Caston 1997: 100). As such, all structures were not necessarily
depicted or placed accurately (Gentilcore and Head 1984). As a result, the landowner information for Lots
22 and 23 may simply be missing from the historical atlas. By 1880 the current road system was
constructed and is still recognizable today.
The current landowner, Ron Klages, has indicated that a single squared-timber residence with barn and
associated outbuildings stood on this lot when he purchased it in 1972, and had been occupied up to that
point. In 1973 the house and barn superstructures were moved to Lot 21 Concession 5 on the north side of
Sideroad 7, where both burned down in the mid-1980s. From 1973 onwards the poured concrete
foundation on which the house had stood (Photo 5) was used for the disposal of household and
construction debris from his other properties (Ron Klages, personal communication). As poured concrete
foundations were rare in the 19th century and squared timber structures were rare in the 20th century, it is
likely that this residence superstructure had been in continuous use since the 19th century and had already
been moved at least once prior to 1973.
Grey County, Ontario
Mortgage
Date of
Instrum
ent
23
Februar
y 1870
11 July
1870
Buy and Sell
1 March
Instrument
Patent
Date of
Registry
Grantor
Grantee
Quantity
of Land
23 February
1870
The Crown
25 July 1870
William Bourgous
William Bourgous
The Western Canada L.P.S.
Company
All 200
Acres
All 200
Acres
7 April 1873
The Western
August Miller
All 200
1.5
Project Context
March 21, 2014
Instrument
Mortgage
Buy and Sell
Mortgage
Date of
Instrum
ent
1873
25
March
1873
19
March
1879
21
March
1879
Date of
Registry
Quantity
of Land
Acres
Grantor
Canada L.P.S.
Company
Grantee
7 April 1873
August Miller
Western Canada Company
All 200
Acres
10 April
1879
August Miller
George Bittorf
All 200
Acres
10 April
1879
George Bittorf
The Western Canada L.P.S.
Company
All 200
Acres
In 1870, the patent was granted to William Bourgous for Lot 23 comprised of 200 acres. In 1870 William
Bourgous was received a mortgage from The Western Canada L.P.S. Company. William Bourgous does
not appear within the 1871 census. In 1873, The Western Canada Company sold the full 200 acres to
August Miller who then received a mortgage from The Western Canada Company that same year. In 1879,
August Miller sold the land to George Bittorf who then received a mortgage from The Western Canada
Company that George Bittorf (44 years old) of Ontario is registered as the owner of the property along
with his wife Mary, his two sons (William and George), and three daughters (Annie, Anglin, and Mary).
He is registered as a farmer but no additional schedules were available for this property, as a result it is
not known whether or not a structure was present on the property at this time.
The majority of the region surrounding the study area has been subject to European-style agricultural
practices for over 100 years, having been settled by Euro-Canadian farmers by the mid-19th century. Much
of the region today continues to be used for agricultural purposes. Considering the above, the historic
Euro-Canadian archaeological potential of the study area was judged to be moderate to high.
1.3
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT
The Stage 2 field assessment for the study area was conducted between August 29, 2013 and August 30,
2013 under PIF P389-0006-2013 issued to Walter McCall, Ph.D. by the MTCS. The study area consists of
approximately 63 hectares of agricultural fields that have been worked for the past 100 years, as well as
fallow and overgrown grassy areas and woodlots.
1.3.1
The Natural Environment
The study area is situated within the Horseshoe Moraines physiographic region, as identified by Chapman
and Putnam (1984). The Horseshoe Moraines is moderately hilly with gravel terraces and swampy floors
and contains two to three morainic ridges of pale brown, hard and calcareous fine-textured till, with a
moderate degree of stoniness (Chapman and Putnam 1984). Moreover, this region
…forms the core of a horseshoe-shaped region flanking the upland that lies to the west of the
highest part of the Niagara cuesta. The associated meltwater stream deposits are also
1.6
Project Context
March 21, 2014
included giving the region two chief landform components (a) the irregular, stony knobs and
ridges which are composed mostly of till and with some sand and gravel deposits (kames);
and (b) the more or less pitted sand and gravel terraces and swampy valley floors. ... The
northern section, in Grey County, includes several tracts of shallow, stony drift on the Niagara
cuesta and, also a few scattered groups of drumlin. The “toe” of the horseshoe-shaped region
lies on the highest part of the upland south of Georgian Bay...
(Chapman and Putnam 1984:127)
The major soil type of the study area, identified as Huron clay loam, is comprised of loam with gravel
inclusions. Huron clay loam is more suited for livestock production and pasture land (Chapman and
Putnam 1984). Although not ideal, Huron clay loam would be suitable for pre-contact Aboriginal
agriculture. As discussed above, the study area has been used as farmland for over 100 years.
Potable water is the single most important resource for any extended human occupation or settlement
and since water sources in southwestern Ontario have remained relatively stable over time, proximity to
drinkable water is regarded as a useful index for the evaluation of archaeological site potential. In fact,
distance to water is one of the most commonly used variables for predictive modeling of archaeological
site location in Ontario. The closest extant source of potable water to the study area is McCullough Lake,
which is located approximately 400 metres to the east.
1.3.2
Previously Known Archaeological Sites and Surveys
In order to compile an inventory of archaeological resources, the registered archaeological site records
kept by the MTCS were consulted. In Ontario, information concerning archaeological sites stored in the
ASDB maintained by the MTCS. This database contains archaeological sites registered according to the
Borden system. Under the Borden system, Canada is divided into grid blocks based on latitude and
longitude. A Borden Block is approximately 13 kilometres east to west and approximately 18.5 kilometres
north to south. Each Borden Block is referenced by a four-letter designator and sites within a block are
numbered sequentially as they are found. The study area under review is within Borden Block AiHe.
Information concerning specific site locations is protected by provincial policy, and is not fully subject to
the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The release of such information in the past
has led to looting or various forms of illegally conducted site destruction. Confidentiality extends to all
media capable of conveying location, including maps, drawings, or textual descriptions of a site location.
The MTCS will provide information concerning site location to the party or an agent of the party holding
title to a property, or to a licensed archaeologist with relevant cultural resource management interests.
An examination of the ASDB has shown that no archaeological sites have been registered within a onekilometre radius of the study area and no archaeological studies have been undertaken within 50 metres
of the study area (personal communication, Robert von Bitter, August 8, 2013; Government of Ontario
n.d.).
1.7
Project Context
March 21, 2014
1.3.3
Archaeological Potential
Archaeological potential is established by determining the likelihood that archaeological resources may be
present on a subject property. Stantec applied archaeological potential criteria commonly used by MTCS
(Government of Ontario 2011) to determine areas of archaeological potential within the region under
study. These variables include proximity to previously identified archaeological sites, distance to various
types of water sources, soil texture and drainage, glacial geomorphology, elevated topography and the
general topographic variability of the area.
Distance to modern or ancient water sources is generally accepted as the most important determinant of
past human settlement patterns and, considered alone, may result in a determination of archaeological
potential. However, any combination of two or more other criteria, such as well-drained soils or
topographic variability, may also indicate archaeological potential. Finally, extensive land disturbance can
eradicate archaeological potential (Wilson and Horne 1995).
As discussed above, distance to water is an essential factor in archaeological potential modeling. When
evaluating distance to water it is important to distinguish between water and shoreline, as well as natural
and artificial water sources, as these features affect sites locations and types to varying degrees. The MTCS
categorizes water sources in the following manner:
•
Primary water sources: lakes, rivers, streams, creeks;
•
Secondary water sources: intermittent streams and creeks, springs, marshes and swamps;
•
Past water sources: glacial lake shorelines, relic river or stream channels, cobble beaches,
shorelines of drained lakes or marshes; and
•
Accessible or inaccessible shorelines: high bluffs, swamp or marshy lake edges, sandbars
stretching into marsh.
The closest source of extant potable water to the study area is McCullough Lake, which is located
approximately 400 metres east of the study area. Ancient and/or relic tributaries of McCullough Lake may
have existed but are not identifiable today and are not indicated on historic mapping.
Soil texture can be an important determinant of past settlement, usually in combination with other factors
such as topography. Although soil in the region is not ideal, it is suitable for pre-contact Aboriginal
agriculture. Moreover, Young et al. (1995) note that moraines, in particular, appear to have been
preferred landforms for settlement throughout prehistory.
For Euro-Canadian sites, archaeological potential can be extended to areas of early Euro-Canadian
settlement, including places of military or pioneer settlements; early transportation routes; and properties
listed on the municipal register or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or property that local
histories or informants have identified with possible historical events. The Historical Atlas for the
Counties of Grey and Bruce (Belden and Co. 1880) demonstrates that the study area and its environs
1.8
Project Context
March 21, 2014
were densely occupied by colonist by the later 19th century. Much of the established road system and
agricultural settlement from that time is still visible today.
When the above listed criteria are applied to the study area, the archaeological potential for pre-contact
Aboriginal, post-contact Aboriginal, and historic Euro-Canadian sites is deemed to be moderate to high.
Thus, in accordance with Section 1.3.1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists
(Government of Ontario 2011), the Stage 1 archaeological assessment of the Taylor Pit study area has
determined that the entire study area exhibits moderate to high potential for the identification and
recovery of archaeological resources.
1.3.4
Existing Conditions
The current study area comprises approximately 63 hectares of land. Much of the study area
(approximately 88%) consists of open ploughed agricultural land. The remaining portion of the study area
(approximately 12%) consists of a combination of sparse woodlot, overgrown grassy areas, and previous
construction disturbances.
1.9
Field Methods
March 21, 2014
2.0
Field Methods
The Stage 2 field assessment of the Taylor Pit study area was conducted on August 29, 2013 and August
30, 2013. During the Stage 2 field investigations the weather was warm and sunny. Assessment conditions
were excellent and at no time were the field, weather, or lighting conditions detrimental to the recovery of
archaeological material. Photos 1 to 4 confirm that field conditions met the requirements for a Stage 2
archaeological assessment, as per the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Section
7.8.6, Standard 1a; Government of Ontario 2011). Figure 4 provides an illustration of the Stage 2
assessment methods, as well as photograph locations and directions.
Approximately 88% of the study area consists of agricultural fields. As such, it was determined that these
portions would be assessed by pedestrian survey at a five metre interval (Photos 1 and 2). The pedestrian
survey was conducted in accordance with Section 2.1.1 of the MTCS’s 2011 Standards and Guidelines for
Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011). The fields were recently ploughed providing a
surface visibility of at least 80 percent. They were also weathered by a heavy rainfall prior to the
assessment to improve the visibility of archaeological resources. The pedestrian survey involved
systematically walking the ploughed and weathered agricultural field at five metre intervals. When
archaeological resources were identified, the survey transect was decreased to a one metre interval and
spanned a minimal 20 metre radius around the identified artifact. This approach established if the artifact
was an isolated find or if it was part of a larger artifact scatter. If the artifact was part of a larger scatter,
the one metre interval was continued until the full extent of the scatter was defined (Government of
Ontario 2011).
Approximately 10% of the study area consists of sparse woodlot and overgrown grassy areas that were
inaccessible for ploughing. These areas were subject to test pit assessment at a five metre interval in
accordance with Section 2.1.2 of the MTCS’s 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant
Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011). Each test pit was approximately 30 centimetres in
diameter and excavated five centimetres into sterile subsoil. The soils were then examined for
stratigraphy, cultural features, or evidence of fill. All soil was screened through six millimetre mesh
hardware cloth to facilitate the recovery of small artifacts and then used to backfill the pit.
The remaining 2% of the study area was not assessed due to previous construction disturbance, including
a demolished house and barn and a path accessing the adjacent pond. While these areas were not
assessed, they were photo documented. Photos 5 to 7 confirm that physical features affected the ability to
survey portions of the study area (Section 7.8.6 Standard 1b; Government of Ontario 2011). The land in
the immediate vicinity of the demolished structures, which was not subject to ploughing, was also
assessed using the test pit method at five metre intervals in accordance with Section 2.1.2 of the MTCS’s
2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011). The test pit
assessment was conducted to within one metre of the structural ruins according to Section 2.1.2, Standard
4 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011). Much
demolition debris and construction material littered the area and all of the test pits that could be dug in
the vicinity of these structural ruins were found to be disturbed (Photos 8 and 9).
2.1
Record of Finds
March 21, 2014
3.0
Record of Finds
The Stage 2 archaeological assessment was conducted employing the methods described in Section 2.0.
An inventory of the documentary record generated by fieldwork is provided in Table 4 below. A total of
123 artifacts and two archaeological sites were found during the Stage 2 archaeological assessment of the
study area.
Table 4: Inventory of Documentary Record
Document Type
Current Location of
Document Type
Additional Comments
9 Pages of Field Notes
Stantec office in Hamilton
In original field book and photocopied in project file
2 Hand Drawn Maps
In original field book and photocopied in project file
2 Maps Provided by Client
Hard and digital copies in project file
218 Digital Photographs
Stored digitally in project file
All of the material culture collected during the Stage 2 archaeological assessment of the study area is
contained in one bankers box. It will be temporarily housed at the Stantec London office until formal
arrangements can be made for a transfer to a MTCS collections facility.
3.1
LOCATION 1 (BcHf-2)
Location 1 (BcHf-2) is located in a ploughed agricultural field south of a municipal road right-of-way and
east of a demolished barn foundation (see Tiles 1 and 2 of the Supplementary Documentation). The Stage
2 archaeological assessment of this location resulted in the recovery of 96 historic Euro-Canadian artifacts
collected from a surface scatter measuring approximately 45 metres east-west by 90 metres north-south.
Table 5 provides an artifact summary for the Stage 2 archaeological assessment of Location 1 (BcHf-2).
Table 5: Location 1 (BcHf-2) Artifact Summary
Artifacts
Frequency
%
ceramics
68
70.83
household
18
18.75
structural
8
8.34
metal
2
2.08
Total
96
100.00
3.1.1
Ceramic Artifacts
A total of 68 ceramic artifacts were recovered during the Stage 2 assessment of Location 1 (BcHf-2). Of
those 37 are ironstone, 13 are utilitarian, 13 are whiteware, 3 are porcelain, and 2 are semi-porcelain.
3.1
Record of Finds
March 21, 2014
Table 6 summarizes the ceramic artifacts by ware type. The different ware types recovered from the Stage
2 assessment are discussed below and presented in Table 7. Plate 1 illustrates an example of the ceramic
artifacts recovered from Location 1 (BcHf-2).
Table 6: Location 1 (BcHf-2) Ceramic Assemblage by Ware Type
Ceramic Artifacts
Frequency
%
ironstone
37
54.41
utilitarian
13
19.12
whiteware
13
19.12
porcelain
3
4.41
semi-porcelain
2
2.94
68
100.00
Total
Table 7: Location 1 (BcHf-2) Ceramic Assemblage by Decorative Type
Ceramic Artifacts
Frequency
%
ironstone
32
47.06
earthenware, red
12
17.65
whiteware
10
14.71
ironstone, moulded
3
4.41
porcelain
2
2.94
whiteware, moulded
2
2.94
semi-porcelain
2
2.94
ironstone, sponged
1
1.47
ironstone, transfer printed
1
1.47
whiteware, banded
1
1.47
porcelain, transfer printed
1
1.47
stoneware, salt-glazed
Total
1
1.47
68
100.00
Ironstone
A total of 37 pieces of ironstone were collected from Location 1 (BcHf-2). Ironstone, also known as white
granite, stone china and graniteware, is a variety of white earthenware introduced to Canada by the 1820s.
It was widely available in the 1840s, was extremely popular in Upper Canada by the 1860s and its use
persisted throughout the 20th century (Collard 1967; Kenyon 1985). Decorated ironstone, including hand
painted, transfer printed, sponged, and stamped, became popular between 1805 and 1840; undecorated
ironstone became common after 1840 and the manufacture of both decorated and undecorated ironstone
wares continued into the 20th century (Miller 1991). Of the ironstone fragments recovered from Location 1
(BcHf-2), 32 were plain or undecorated. The remaining five pieces, 3 are moulded, 1 is flow transfer
printed, and 1 is sponged.
3.2
Record of Finds
March 21, 2014
Utilitarian Earthenware
A total of 13 pieces of utilitarian ware were recovered from Location 1 (BcHf-2), including 12 glazed red
earthenware and 1 salt-glazed stoneware. From the late 18th through to the late 19th century unrefined
earthenwares with red or yellow paste were the most common type of utilitarian vessels. Stoneware
vessels with harder, more vitrified pastes were also produced throughout the 19th century and became
more refined over time (Adams 1994).
One piece of salt-glazed stoneware identified from Location 1 (BcHf-2). North American stoneware,
usually grey bodied with a clear salt glaze, characterize Canadian sites from 1840 to 1900 (Noël Hume
1969).Typical uses for stoneware include harvest bottles, butter pots, cream pans, storage crocks and
pinched-neck pitchers.
Whiteware
A total of 13 pieces of whiteware were recovered from Location 1 (BcHf-2). Whiteware is a variety of
earthenware with a near colourless glaze that replaced earlier near-white ceramics such as pearlware and
creamware by the early 1830s. Early whiteware tends to have a porous paste, with more vitrified and
harder ceramics becoming increasingly common during the late 19th century (Kenyon 1985). Of the 13
pieces of whiteware collected from Location 1 (BcHf-2), 10 pieces were plain, 2 were moulded, and 1 was
banded.
A total of two piece of moulded whiteware were recovered from Location 1 (BcHf-2). Moulding of the
edges of tableware began in the late 18th century and remained popular until the 1870s (Adams 1994). The
earliest examples had scalloped or undulating edges. Scalloped edges were popular prior to 1840 (Adams
1994).
Only one piece of banded whiteware was recovered from Location 1 (BcHf-2). Banded whiteware was
made throughout the 19th century with the earlier pieces being more decorative, using mocha or cat’s eye
design, while later pieces tended to be simpler with only raised colour bands (Adams 1994), such as this
artifact.
Porcelain
Three pieces of porcelain were collected from Location 1 (BcHf-2). Porcelain is a type of earthenware fired
at such a high temperature that the clay vitrifies, producing a translucent material when held up to light.
Introduced just before the mid-19th century, porcelain remained an expensive luxury item until the turn of
the century (Collard 1967). Porcelain becomes relatively common during the early 20th century as less
expensive production techniques were developed in Europe (Kenyon 1980).
Semi-Porcelain
Two pieces of semi-porcelain were collected from Location 1 (BcHf-2). During the first half of the 19th
century, improved ceramic techniques resulted in the production of a durable ware known as semi-
3.3
Record of Finds
March 21, 2014
porcelain. This hard earthenware was manufactured to emulate expensive porcelain imports, but lacked
true translucency. Despite this, semi-porcelains dominated the marketplace after 1850 (Hughes 1961).
3.1.2
Non-ceramic Artifacts
A total of 28 non-ceramic artifacts were recovered from Location 1 (BcHf-2), including 18 household, 8
structural, and 2 metal. Plate 2 illustrates an example of the non-ceramic artifacts recovered from
Location 1 (BcHf-2). The various non-ceramic artifacts are discussed in further detail below.
Household Artifacts
The 18 household artifacts recovered from Location 1 (BcHf-2) are all represented by glass fragments,
including 16 bottle fragments, 1 piece of dish glass, and 1 piece of white glass.
Bottle glass colour can provide a tentative temporal range for Euro-Canadian domestic sites. Colourless,
or clear, glass is relatively uncommon prior to the 1870s but becomes quite widespread in the 1910s
(Kendrick 1971; Fike 1987). Of the 16 glass bottle fragments recovered, 5 (29.4%) are clear or colourless
and date to after 1870. The inclusion of manganese oxide, a de-colourizing agent used to offset residual
iron impurities, reacts with sun exposure turning to amethyst over time. This glass, referred to as sun
coloured amethyst glass, dates from the 1880s to 1920. Generally, aqua coloured glass originates from
medical and pharmaceutical bottles from the 19th and 20th centuries (Kendrick 1971). Four shards of aqua
coloured glass were identified at Location 1 (BcHf-2), dating to after 1870. Other colours represented in
the bottle glass assemblage from Location 1 (BcHf-2) include three brown, two green, and two purple.
Bottle glass finish or lip manufacturing style can also be used to provide temporal affiliation. One bottle
fragment was identified as having a double ring finish (Plate 2f). This popular finish was used on a variety
of bottle types between 1840 and the 1920s, including medicine bottles, liquor flasks, and ink bottles, but
was particularly common between 1850 and 1910 (Lindsey 2013). Moreover, a manufacturing seam is not
evident on the neck of this bottle fragment. Seams ending low on bottle necks or on shoulders indicate an
early 19th century date (Kendrick 1971).
One white glass fragment was identified (Plate 2a). White glass, also known as milk glass, was produced
primarily between the 1870s and the mid-20th century (Lindsey 2013). This type of glass was most
commonly used for cosmetic and toiletry bottles, as well as for ointment or cream containers.
Lastly, the clear piece of dish glass recovered from Location 1 (BcHf-2) is temporally non-diagnostic.
Structural Artifacts
A total of eight structural artifacts were recovered from Location 1 (BcHf-2), including five pieces of
window glass and three pieces of brick (Plate 2).
Window glass can be temporally diagnostic. In the 1840s window glass thickness changed dramatically.
This shift was a result of the lifting of the English import tax on window glass in 1845, which taxed glass
by weight and encouraged manufacturers to produce thin panes. Thus, most window glass manufactured
3.4
Record of Finds
March 21, 2014
before 1845 tends to be less than 1.6 millimetres thick, while later glass is thicker (Adams 1994; Kenyon
1980). All five pieces of window glass recovered from Location 1 (BcHf-2) are greater than 1.6 millimetres
in thickness, suggesting a production date after 1845.
Metal Artifacts
A total of two miscellaneous metal and metal tools were recovered from Location 1 (BcHf-2). These
artifacts are temporally non-diagnostic.
3.1.3
Artifact Catalogue
Cat. #
Subunit or Context
Depth (m)
Artifact
1
CSP 60
surface
Ironstone
1
3
CSP 7
surface
Porcelain, transfer printed
1
4
CSP 7
surface
Ironstone
1
5
CSP 33
surface
Ironstone
2
6
CSP 62
surface
Whiteware
1
7
CSP 32
surface
Metal, strap
1
8
CSP 34
surface
Glass, bottle
2
clear
9
CSP 20
surface
Glass, bottle
2
10
CSP 50
surface
Glass, bottle
1
green
double ring finish, no
seam, aqua
Quantity
Comments
floral (pink, green, and
brown)
11
CSP 64
surface
Ironstone
2
12
CSP 64
surface
Whiteware
1
14
CSP 59
surface
Glass, dish
1
15
CSP 13
surface
Glass, window
1
clear
greater than 1.6 mm
(2.28 mm)
16
CSP 18
surface
Glass, bottle
2
1 aqua, 1 clear
17
CSP 26
surface
Porcelain, semi
1
18
CSP 30
surface
Earthenware, red
1
19
CSP 63
surface
Whiteware, banded
1
20
CSP 24
surface
Brick
3
21
CSP 2
surface
Earthenware, red
1
26
CSP 53
surface
Glass, bottle
2
27
CSP 36
surface
Earthenware, red
1
28
CSP 17
surface
Earthenware, red
1
29
CSP 14
surface
Whiteware, moulded
1
30
CSP 14
surface
Ironstone
1
31
CSP 52
surface
Ironstone
1
32
CSP 15
surface
Earthenware, red
2
33
CSP 11
surface
Earthenware, red
1
34
CSP 9
surface
Ironstone
1
1 green band
clear, and 1 base frag
with "W" and "BOT"
3.5
Record of Finds
March 21, 2014
Cat. #
Subunit or Context
Depth (m)
Artifact
Quantity
35
CSP 9
surface
Porcelain, semi
1
41
CSP 1
surface
Ironstone
1
43
CSP 16
surface
Ironstone
1
44
CSP 4
surface
Earthenware, red
1
47
CSP 25
surface
Ironstone, moulded
1
48
CSP 8
surface
Whiteware
1
49
CSP 3
surface
Porcelain
1
52
CSP 58
surface
Whiteware
1
53
CSP 58
surface
Ironstone
1
55
CSP 35
surface
Whiteware
1
56
CSP 12
surface
Glass, bottle
2
57
CSP 10
surface
Ironstone, moulded
1
58
CSP 10
surface
Ironstone
1
61
CSP 28
surface
Earthenware, red
1
62
CSP 51
surface
Glass, white
1
Comments
brown
63
CSP 61
surface
Whiteware
3
64
CSP 61
surface
Ironstone
1
65
CSP 31
surface
Ironstone
2
66
CSP 5
surface
Ironstone
1
67
CSP 27
surface
Glass, window
1
68
CSP 67
surface
Whiteware, moulded
1
69
CSP 67
surface
Porcelain
1
70
CSP 41
surface
Ironstone
2
71
CSP 19
surface
Earthenware, red
1
72
CSP 22
surface
Ironstone
1
73
CSP 55
surface
Glass, bottle
1
purple
74
CSP 55
surface
Glass, window
1
1.77 mm
75
CSP 59
surface
Ironstone
1
76
CSP 47
surface
Ironstone
1
78
CSP 54
surface
Ironstone
1
79
CSP 49
surface
Glass, bottle
1
82
CSP 56
surface
Stoneware, salt-glazed
1
83
CSP 56
surface
Ironstone
2
84
CSP 46
surface
Earthenware, red
1
85
CSP 44
surface
Ironstone, moulded
1
86
CSP 48
surface
Ironstone
1
87
CSP 45
surface
Ironstone, sponged
1
89
CSP 21
surface
Ironstone
1
90
CSP 43
surface
Ironstone
1
91
CSP 65
surface
Glass, bottle
1
2.36 mm
aqua
black
"Tunstal" "England"
"LFRED"
aqua
3.6
Record of Finds
March 21, 2014
Cat. #
Subunit or Context
Depth (m)
Artifact
Quantity
92
CSP 65
surface
Glass, window
2
2.06 mm, 2.27 mm
93
CSP 57
surface
Glass, bottle
1
brown
94
CSP 23
surface
Glass, bottle
1
purple
95
CSP 42
surface
Earthenware, red
1
96
CSP 37
surface
Ironstone
1
97
CSP 66
surface
Ironstone, transfer print
1
98
CSP 6
surface
Ironstone
1
99
CSP 40
surface
Whiteware
2
102
CSP 38
surface
Miscellaneous metal
1
103
CSP 29
surface
Ironstone
2
3.2
Comments
blue
LOCATION 2 (BcHf-3)
Location 2 (BcHf-3) is located north of Location 1 (BcHf-2) in a ploughed agricultural field south of a
municipal road right-of-way and east of a demolished house foundation (see Tiles 1 and 2 of the
Supplementary Documentation). The Stage 2 archaeological assessment of this location resulted in the
recovery of 27 historic Euro-Canadian artifacts collected from a surface scatter measuring approximately
30 metres east-west by 35 metres north-south. Table 8 provides an artifact summary for the Stage 2
archaeological assessment of Location 2 (BcHf-3).
Table 8: Location 2 (BcHf-3) Artifact Summary
Artifacts
Frequency
ceramic
%
25
92.60
personal
1
3.70
household
1
3.70
27
100.00
Total
3.2.1
Ceramic Artifacts
A total of 25 ceramic artifacts were recovered during the Stage 2 assessment of Location 2 (BcHf-3). Of
those 13 are whiteware, 11 are ironstone, and 1 is utilitarian. Table 9 summarizes the ceramic artifacts by
ware type. The different ware types recovered from the Stage 2 assessment are discussed below and
presented in Table 10. Plate 3 illustrates an example of the ceramic artifacts recovered from Location 2
(BcHf-3).
Table 9: Location 2 (BcHf-3) Ceramic Assemblage by Ware Type
Ceramic Artifacts
Frequency
%
whiteware
21
84.00
ironstone
3
12.00
3.7
Record of Finds
March 21, 2014
utilitarian
Total
1
4.00
25
100.00
Table 10: Location 2 (BcHf-3) Ceramic Assemblage by Decorative Type
Ceramic Artifacts
Frequency
%
whiteware
13
52.00
whiteware, painted
3
12.00
whiteware, banded
3
12.00
whiteware, transfer printed
2
8.00
ironstone
1
4.00
ironstone, painted
1
4.00
ironstone, flow transfer printed
1
4.00
earthenware, red
Total
1
4.00
25
100.00
Whiteware
A total of 21 pieces of whiteware were recovered from Location 2 (BcHf-3). Whiteware is a variety of
earthenware with a near colourless glaze that replaced earlier near-white ceramics such as pearlware and
creamware by the early 1830s. Early whiteware tends to have a porous paste, with more vitrified and
harder ceramics becoming increasingly common during the late 19th century (Kenyon 1985). Of the 21
pieces of whiteware collected from Location 2 (BcHf-3), 13 pieces were plain, three were banded, three
were painted, and two were transfer printed.
A total of three pieces of painted whiteware were recovered from Location 2 (BcHf-3). Painted whiteware
was popular from as early as 1830 through to the 1870s. Blue and black were the dominant colours during
the first quarter of the 19th century, while polychrome patterns became increasingly popular from 1830 to
1860 (Stelle 2001). The colours present at Location 2 (BcHf-3) are pink and green, which are evidence of a
later production date.
A total of three pieces of banded whiteware were recovered from Location 2 (BcHf-3). Banded whiteware
was made throughout the 19th century with the earlier pieces being more decorative, using mocha or cat’s
eye design, while later pieces tended to be simpler with only raised colour bands (Adams 1994). The
colours present at Location 2 (BcHf-3) are green and blue.
A total of two pieces of transfer printed whiteware were recovered from Location 2 (BcHf-3). Early
transfer printed whiteware often has thicker lines because of the paper using during the transfer of
pattern from paper to ceramic. Later transfer printed whiteware was produced using tissue paper which
allowed for shading and finer line details or the use of oil and a sheet of glue were used to create a design
with little dots (Stelle 2001). The dominant colour used for transfer printing throughout the 19th century
was blue. Other colours, such as brown, black, red, green and purple, appeared in the mid-19th century but
3.8
Record of Finds
March 21, 2014
by the late 19th century only blue, black and brown remained popular (Adams 1994).The only colour
present at Location 2 (BcHf-3) was blue.
Ironstone
A total of three pieces of ironstone were collected from Location 2 (BcHf-3). Ironstone, also known as
white granite, stone china and graniteware, is a variety of white earthenware introduced to Canada by the
1820s. It was widely available in the 1840s, was extremely popular in Upper Canada by the 1860s and its
use persisted throughout the 20th century (Collard 1967; Kenyon 1985). Decorated ironstone, including
hand painted, transfer printed, sponged, and stamped, became popular between 1805 and 1840;
undecorated ironstone became common after 1840 and the manufacture of both decorated and
undecorated ironstone wares continued into the 20th century (Miller 1991). Of the ironstone fragments
recovered from Location 2 (BcHf-3), one plain or undecorated. Of the remaining two pieces, one is flow
transfer printed and one is painted.
Utilitarian Earthenware
Only one piece of utilitarian ware was recovered from Location 2 (BcHf-3): red earthenware. From the
late 18th through to the late 19th century unrefined earthenwares with red or yellow paste were the most
common type of utilitarian vessels (Adams 1994).
3.2.2
Non-ceramic Artifacts
A total of two non-ceramic artifacts were recovered from Location 2 (BcHf-3), including one household
item and one personal item. Plate 3 illustrates an example of the non-ceramic artifacts recovered from
Location 2 (BcHf-3). The various non-ceramic artifacts are discussed in further detail below.
Household Artifacts
The one household artifact recovered from Location 2 (BcHf-3) is a bottle glass fragment. Bottle glass
colour can provide a tentative temporal range for Euro-Canadian domestic sites. One shard of burnt aqua
coloured glass was identified at Location 2 (BcHf-3). Generally, aqua coloured glass originates from
medical and pharmaceutical bottles from the 19th and 20th centuries (Kendrick 1971).
Personal Artifacts
Only one personal artifact was recovered from Location 2 (BcHf-3): a plain white clay pipe bowl fragment
(Plate 3). White clay pipes were popular throughout the 19th century, with a decline in use around 1880
due to the rise in popularity of briar pipes and cigarettes (Adams 1994). Most white clay pipes were
manufactured in either Quebec or Scotland, with occasional examples from English, Dutch, French, and
American manufacturers. The maker’s name may be impressed with the city of manufacture on the
opposite side, although this did not become common practice until after 1840. Due its fragmentary state,
this white clay pipe bowl fragment is temporally non-diagnostic.
3.9
Record of Finds
March 21, 2014
3.2.3
Artifact Catalogue
Cat. #
Subunit or
Context
Depth (m)
Artifact
Quantity
Comments
2
CSP 69
surface
Whiteware, banded
1
13
CSP 78
surface
Whiteware
2
blue band
22
CSP 75
surface
Whiteware
1
23
CSP 80
surface
Whiteware, transfer printed
1
blue
24
CSP 80
surface
Whiteware, banded
1
green band
25
CSP 80
surface
Whiteware, painted
1
pink, floral
36
CSP 70
surface
Ironstone
2
37
CSP 70
surface
Whiteware
1
38
CSP 70
surface
Ironstone, flow transfer printed
1
blue
39
CSP 72
surface
Whiteware, painted
1
green on one side and pink
on the other
40
CSP 71
surface
Whiteware
1
42
CSP 81
surface
Glass, bottle
1
aqua, burnt
45
CSP 73
surface
White clay pipe bowl
1
plain fragment
46
CSP 83
surface
Whiteware
1
"IRO" on bottom with part
of lion
50
CSP 74
surface
Whiteware, painted
1
green leaf
51
CSP 74
surface
Ironstone, painted
1
pink band on inside, blue
and red on outside
59
CSP 79
surface
Whiteware
3
60
CSP 79
surface
Whiteware
1
80
CSP 82
surface
Earthenware, red
1
81
CSP 76
surface
Whiteware, banded
1
green band
88
CSP 77
surface
1
blue
100
CSP 68
surface
Whiteware
1
101
CSP 68
surface
Whiteware
1
3.10
Analysis and Conclusions
March 21, 2014
4.0
Stantec Consulting Ltd. was retained by Drysdale Aggregate Consulting to conduct a Stage 1 and 2
archaeological assessment for a study area measuring approximately 63 hectares located on part of Lots
22 and 23, Concession 5, former Township of Sullivan, now Township of Chatsworth, Grey County,
Ontario. The Stage 1 archaeological assessment of the Taylor Pit study area determined that the entire
study area exhibits moderate to high potential for the identification and recovery of archaeological
resources. As such, a Stage 2 archaeological assessment was recommended. The results of the assessment
identified two areas of archaeological concern, Location 1 (BcHf-2) and Location 2 (BcHf-3).
4.1
LOCATION 1 (BCHF-2)
A total of 96 Euro-Canadian artifacts were collected from the surface scatter identified as Location 1
(BcHf-2) in close association with a recent poured concrete house foundation (Photo 5) and mortared
field stone barn foundation (Photo 6). Artifact analysis of the collected assemblage from Location 1 (BcHf2) indicates that the area represents a homestead occupation that extends from some point the second
half of the 19th century well into the 20th century. This date of occupation range is supported by the
recovery of 32 pieces of plain ironstone, amounting to nearly 47% of the ceramic assemblage. Ironstone
was in widespread use in Ontario during both the 19th and 20th centuries. A mid-to-late second half 19th
and 20th century occupation is further supported by the recovery of a small amount of whiteware,
amounting to slightly more than 19% of the ceramic assemblage, the represented bottle glass colours as
well as and the recovery of a bottle neck fragment exhibiting a double ring finish and lacking a
manufacturing seam on the neck. Evidence of 20th century occupation of this site includes the presence of
porcelain wares, which only became common in Ontario after 1900. There was also a large amount of
concrete foundation and 20th century debris left in situ.
The property on which this site is located first enters the archival record with the listing of Benjamin
Doyle as the property’s occupant in the 1865-56 Census, although the grant of the Crown Patent to John
McCullough was not made until 1875. The McCullough family retains ownership of the lot until 1922. The
property changes hands multiple times in the 20th century, and it is indicated by the current landowner
that the residence associated with the poured concrete foundation was still in use in 1972. The 96 historic
Euro-Canadian artifacts recovered from Location 1 (BcHf-2) are consistent with a late 19th to 20th century
occupation and are interpreted as resulting from the second structure occupied on the property and its
associated outbuildings. The occupation dates of this structure fall mainly within the 20th century and it is
inferred that Location 1 (BcHf-2) represents a larger residence constructed to replace an earlier structure
present at Location 2 (BcHf-3).
During consultation with MTCS it was determined that as ironstone wares can date to either the 19th or
20th centuries they do not constitute artifacts dating to a period of occupation prior to 1900(personal
communication, Paige Campbell, February 11, 2014). Therefore, the artifact assemblage from Location 1
(BcHf-2) does not contain more than 20 artifacts dating prior to turn of the 20th century. In light of this
fact, its long period of occupation mainly falling within the 20th century and the large amounts of
foundation and 20th century debris that was left in situ, Location 1 (BcHf-2) does not meet any of the
4.1
March 21, 2014
criteria listed in Table 3.1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of
Ontario 2011) and does not retain cultural heritage value or interest.
4.2
LOCATION 2 (BCHF-3)
A total of 27 historic Euro-Canadian artifacts were collected from the surface scatter identified as Location
2 (BcHf-3). Artifact analysis of the collected assemblage from Location 2 (BcHf-3) indicates that the area
represents a homestead occupation dating to the mid-to-late19th century. This date of occupation is
supported by the recovery of 21 pieces of whiteware, amounting to nearly 84% of the ceramic assemblage.
A mid-to-late 19th century occupation is further supported by bottle glass colour, as well as the recovery of
a bottle neck fragment exhibiting a double ring finish and lacking a manufacturing seam on the neck.
The property on which this site is located first enters the archival record with the listing of Benjamin
Doyle as the property’s occupant in the 1865-56 Census, although the grant of the Crown Patent to John
McCullough was not made until 1875. The McCullough family retains ownership of the lot until 1922. The
27 historic Euro-Canadian artifacts recovered from Location 2 (BcHf-3) are consistent with a post-1865
late 19th to early 20th century occupation and are interpreted as resulting from either the Doyle family’s
residence on the property, the first structure occupied by the McCullough family on the property or
subsequent occupations by both families.
Thus, the artifact assemblage from Location 2 (BcHf-3) contains more than 20 artifacts dating prior to
turn of the 20th century. In accordance with Section 2.2 Standard 1c and Table 3.1 of the Standards and
Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011), Location 2 (BcHf-3) contains at
least 20 artifacts that date prior to 1900 and retains cultural heritage value or interest.
4.2
Recommendations
March 21, 2014
5.0
Recommendations
5.1
LOCATION 1 (BCHF-2)
During consultation with MTCS it was determined that as ironstone wares can date to either the 19th or
20th centuries they do not constitute artifacts dating to a period of occupation prior to 1900(personal
communication, Paige Campbell, February 11, 2014). Therefore, the artifact assemblage from Location 1
(BcHf-2) does not contain more than 20 artifacts dating prior to turn of the 20th century. In light of this
fact, its long period of occupation mainly falling within the 20th century and the large amounts of
foundation and 20th century debris that was left in situ, Location 1 (BcHf-2) does not meet any of the
criteria listed in Table 3.1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of
Ontario 2011) and does not retain cultural heritage value or interest. Therefore, a Stage 3
archaeological assessment is not recommended for Location 1 (BcHf-2).
5.2
LOCATION 2 (BCHF-3)
The artifact assemblage from Location 2 (BcHf-3) contains over 20 artifacts that date prior to 1900. In
accordance with Section 2.2 Standard 1c and Table 3.1 of the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for
Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011), Location 2 (BcHf-3) retains cultural heritage
value or interest and meets the criteria for a Stage 3 archaeological assessment. Therefore, a Stage 3
archaeological assessment is recommended for Location 2 (BcHf-3).
The Stage 3 assessment of Location 2 (BcHf-3) will employ both the CSP and hand excavated test unit
methodology as outlined in Section 3.2, as well as Table 3.1, of the MTCS’ Standards and Guidelines for
Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011). Prior to conducting the field work, the area
should be re-ploughed and allowed to weather for the CSP. The test unit excavation should consist of one
metre by one metre square test units laid out in a five metre grid and should be excavated by hand to a
depth of five centimetres within the subsoil. Additional test units amounting to 20 percent of the grid unit
total will be excavated around areas of interest within the site extent. All excavated soil will be screened
through six millimetre mesh; any recovered artifacts will be recorded and catalogued by the
corresponding grid unit designation. If a subsurface cultural feature is encountered, the plan of the
exposed feature will be recorded and geotextile fabric will be placed over the unit before backfilling the
unit. Site specific land registry research to supplement the previous background study concerning the land
use and occupation history specific to Location 1 (BcHf-2) should also be conducted as part of the Stage 3
assessment, as outlined in Section 3.1 of the MTCS’ Standards and Guidelines for Consultant
Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011). At the present time this site lies over 70 metres
outside of the proposed development area and the recommended Stage 3 archaeological
assessment will not be required in advance of the current permit application.
5.1
Recommendations
March 21, 2014
5.3
SUMMARY
Two archaeological sites were documented during the Stage 1-2 archaeological assessment, Location 1
(BcHf-2) and Location 2 (BcHf-3). Location 1 (BcHf-2) has not been recommended for Stage 3
archaeological assessment, while Location 2 (BcHf-3) has been recommended for Stage 3 archaeological
assessment. At the present time Location 2 (BcHf-3) lies over 70 metres outside of the proposed
development area and the recommended Stage 3 archaeological assessment will not be required in
advance of the current permit application.
The MTCS is asked to review the results presented and accept this report into the Ontario Public Register
of Archaeological Reports.
5.2
Advice on Compliance with Legislation
March 21, 2014
6.0
Advice on Compliance with Legislation
This report is submitted to the Ontario Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport as a condition of licensing
in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c 0.18 (Government of Ontario
1990b). The report is reviewed to ensure that it complies with the standards and guidelines that are issued
by the Minister, and that the archaeological fieldwork and report recommendations ensure the
conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural heritage of Ontario. When all matters relating to
archaeological sites within the project area of a development proposal have been addressed to the
satisfaction of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, a letter will be issued by the ministry stating
that there are no further concerns with regard to alterations to archaeological sites by the proposed
development.
It is an offence under Sections 48 and 69 of the Ontario Heritage Act for any party other than a licensed
archaeologist to make any alteration to a known archaeological site or to remove any artifact or other
physical evidence of past human use or activity from the site, until such time as a licensed archaeologist
has completed fieldwork on the site, submitted a report to the Minister stating that the site has no further
cultural heritage value or interest, and the report has been filed in the Ontario Public Register of
Archaeology Reports referred to in Section 65.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Should previously undocumented archaeological resources be discovered, they may be a new
archaeological site and therefore subject to Section 48(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The proponent or
person discovering the archaeological resources must cease alteration of the site immediately and engage
a licensed consultant archaeologist to carry out archaeological fieldwork, in compliance with Section 48(1)
of the Ontario Heritage Act.
The Cemeteries Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C.4 and the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, S.O.
2002, c.33 (when proclaimed in force) require that any person discovering human remains must notify
the police or coroner and the Registrar of Cemeteries at the Ontario Ministry of Consumer Services.
Archaeological sites recommended for further archaeological fieldwork or protection remain subject to
Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act and may not be altered, or have artifacts removed from them,
except by a person holding an archaeological license.
6.1
Bibliography and Sources
March 21, 2014
7.0
Adams, Nick. 1994. Field Manual for Avocational Archaeologists in Ontario. Ontario Archaeological
Society Inc., Archaeological Stewardship Project.
Belden & Co. 1880. Illustrated historical atlas of the counties of Grey & Bruce, Ont. Ingersoll: Union
Publishing Co.
Caston, Wayne A. 1997. Evolution in the Mapping of Southern Ontario and Wellington County.
Wellington County History (10), pp. 91-106.
Chapman, Lyman John and Donald F. Putnam. 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario. 3rd ed.
Ontario Geological Survey Special Volume 2. Toronto: Ministry of Natural Resources.
Collard, Elizabeth. 1967. Nineteenth-Century Pottery and Porcelain in Canada. McGill University Press,
Montreal.
Ellis, Chris J. and Neal Ferris (editors). 1990. The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650.
Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, Number 5.
Fike, Richard E. 1987. The Bottle Book: A Comprehensive Guide to Historic, Embossed Medicine Bottles.
Gibbs M. Smith Inc., Salt Lake City.
Gentilcore, Louis R. and C. Grant Head. 1984. Ontario’s History in Maps. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, Scholarly Publishing Division.
Florida Museum of Natural History. n.d. Ironstone, undecorated – Type Index. Electronic document:
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/histarch/gallery_types/type_index_display.asp?type_name=IRONSTONE,
UNDECORATED. Last accessed September 27, 2013.
Government of Ontario. 1990a. Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER P. 13. Last amendment: 2011, c.1,
Sched. 2. Electronic document: http://www.elaws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p13_e.htm. Last accessed September 27, 2013.
Government of Ontario. 1990b. Aggregate Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990. Last amendment: 2009, c. 33,
Sched. 2, s. 3. Electronic document: http://www.elaws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90a08_e.htm. Last accessed September 27, 2013.
Government of Ontario. 1990c. Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER O.18. Last amendment:
2009, c. 33, Sched. 11, s. 6. Electronic document: http://www.elaws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90o18_e.htm. Last accessed September 27, 2013.
Government of Ontario. 2005. Provincial Policy Statement. Section 2.6.2. Electronic document:
http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page1485.aspx. Last accessed September 27, 2013.
7.1
March 21, 2014
Government of Ontario. 2011. Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Toronto:
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport.
Government of Ontario. n.d. Archaeological Sites Database (ASDB) Files. Toronto: Culture Services Unit,
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport.
Hughes, G. Bernard. 1961. English and Scottish Earthenware 1660-1860. London: Abbey Fine Arts.
Kendrick, Grace. 1971. The Antique Bottle Collector. New York: Pyramid Books.
Kenyon, Ian. 1980. 19th Century Notes: Window Glass Thickness. KEWA (80-2).
Kenyon, Ian. 1985. A History of Ceramic Tableware in Ontario, 1780 – 1840. Arch Notes 85-3.
Lindsey, Bill. 2011. Historic Glass Bottle Identification and Information Website. Electronic document:
http://www.sha.org/bottle/index.htm. Last accessed on September 27, 2013.
Marsh, Edith Louise. 1931. A History of the County of Grey. Owen Sound: Fleming Pub. Co.
Miller, George. 1991. A Revised Set of CC Index Values for Classification and Economic Scaling of English
Ceramics from 1787 to 1880. Historical Archaeology 25(1):1-25.
Morris, J.L. 1943. Indians of Ontario. 1964 reprint. Toronto: Department of Lands and Forests.
Noël Hume, Ivor. 1969. A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Saint Mary’s University. n.d. Saint Mary’s University Archaeology Lab Ceramics Database. Electronic
document: http://www.smu.ca/academic/arts/anthropology/ceramics.html. Last accessed on September
27, 2013.
Schmalz, Peter S. 1991. The Ojibwa of Southern Ontario. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Smith, W.W. 1865. Gazetteer and Directory of the County of Grey for 1865-6. Toronto, Globe Steam
Press.
Stelle, Lenville J. 2001. An Archaeological Guide to Historic Artifacts of the Upper Sangamon Basin,
Central Illinois, U.S.A. Electronic document:
http://virtual.parkland.edu/lstelle1/len/archguide/documents/arcguide.htm. Last accessed on
September 27, 2013.
Wilson, J.A. and M. Horne 1995. City of London Archaeological Master Plan. London: City of London,
Department of Planning and Development.
7.2
March 21, 2014
Young, Penny M., Malcolm R. Horne, Colin D. Varley, P.J. Racher and Andrew J. Clish. 1995. A
Biophysical Model for Prehistoric Archaeological Sites in Southern Ontario. Toronto: The Research and
Development Branch, Ministry of Transportation, Ontario.
7.3
Images
March 21, 2014
8.0
Images
8.1
PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 1: Stage 2 Pedestrian Survey Ground Conditions, facing west
8.1
Images
March 21, 2014
Photo 2: Stage 2 Pedestrian Survey at Five Metre Intervals, facing northwest
Photo 3: Location 1 (BcHf-2), One-metre Intensification, facing north
8.2
Images
March 21, 2014
Photo 4: Stage 2 Test Pit Survey, facing west
Photo 5: Disturbance from Poured Concrete Foundation Remains, facing west
:
8.3
Images
March 21, 2014
Photo 6: Disturbance from Mortared Field Stone Foundation Remains, facing east
Photo 7: Disturbance from Path Accessing Adjacent Pond, facing north
8.4
Images
March 21, 2014
Photo 8: Construction Material in the Vicinity of the Demolished Structures, facing south
Photo 9: Disturbed Test Pit in the Vicinity of the Demolished Structures, facing north
8.5
Images
March 21, 2014
8.2
ARTIFACTS
Plate 1: Sample of Ceramic Artifacts from Location 1 (BcHf-2)
8.6
Images
March 21, 2014
Plate 2: Sample of Non-ceramic Artifacts from Location 1 (BcHf-2)
8.7
Images
March 21, 2014
Plate 3: Sample of Historic Euro-Canadian Artifacts from Location 2 (BcHf-3)
8.8
Maps
March 21, 2014
9.0
Maps
All maps will follow on succeeding pages. Maps identifying exact site locations do not form part of this
public report; they may be found in the supplementary documentation.
9.1
504000
506000
508000
Hig hw
±
4916000
4916000
502000
ay 6
ad 5
S id ero
4914000
ion 7c
ion 2b
4914000
C on ce ss
C on ce ss
C en tr e
C on ce ss
Sidero ad
6
Mccu llou
g h La ke
Str eet
R oad
4912000
i ve
gh
Lake
Dr i
k R oad
M
l lou
C on ce ss
cc
u
4910000
8
Co nc es
sion 2c
9b
Sidero ad
4908000
Sidero ad
500
ss ion
0
C on ce
1:50,000
1,000
m
2 Wgr
504000
oa d 25
Gre y R
e
502000
H IP OF
TOWNS
W ORTH
S
T
A
H
C
ALITY
MUNICIP GREY
T
OF WES
4906000
d 9a
Sid er oa
Ba se lin
V:\01609\active\160940216 - SullTwp_P it\work_program\drawing\MX D\160940216_Fig1_StudyA rea.mxd
Revised: 2013-11-25 By: kbuchanan
4906000
4908000
4910000
ion 4
ion 8
C on ce ss
ion 6
C on ce ss
d7
Sid er oa
ve
C O U N T Y O F
G R E Y
Moto P ar
4912000
ion 5b
r
C ountry D
506000
508000
November 2013
160940216
Legend
Project Location
Upper/Single Tier Municipality
Lower Tier Municipality
Notes
1.
2.
Client/Project
Taylor Pit Application
Stage 1 & 2 Archaeological Assessment
Watercourse
Waterbody
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
Base features produced under license with the Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2012.
Figure No.
1
Title
Project Location
84°0'0"W
82°0'0"W
80°0'0"W
78°0'0"W
76°0'0"W
74°0'0"W
±
Y
Municipal Boundary - Upper
Municipal Boundary - Lower
Watercourse
46°0'0"N
AE
48°0'0"N
Legend
Québec
Waterbody
Lake Superior
Z
X
AF
46°0'0"N
K
S
V
B(1)
B(2)
A(2)
C
44°0'0"N
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
42°0'0"N
W
X
Z
AA
AB
AF
AG
th
Treaty No. 381, May 9 , 1781 (Mississauga and
Chippewa)
th
Crawford's Purchase, October 9 , 1783 (Mississauga)
Crawford's Purchases, 1784, 1787 And 1788
(Mississauga)
John Collins' Purchase, 1785 (Chippewa)
th
Treaty No. 2, May 19 , 1790 (Odawa, Chippewa,
Pottawatomi, and Huron)
nd
Treaty No. 3, December 2 , 1792 (Mississauga)
Haldimand Tract: from the Crown to the Mohawk, 1793
Tyendinaga: from the Crown to the Mohawk, 1793
Treaty No. 3 3/4: from the Crown to Joseph Brant,
th
October 24 , 1795
nd
Treaty No. 5, May 22 , 1798 (Chippewa)
th
Treaty No. 6, September 7 , 1796 (Chippewa)
th
Treaty No. 7, September 7 , 1796 (Chippewa)
st
Treaty No. 13, August 1 , 1805 (Mississauga)
nd
Treaty No. 13A, August 2 , 1805 (Mississauga)
th
Treaty No.16, November 18 , 1815 (Chippewa)
th
Treaty No. 18, October 17 , 1818 (Chippewa)
th
Treaty No. 19, October 28 1818 (Chippewa)
th
Treaty No. 20, November 5 , 1818 (Chippewa)
th
Treaty No. 21, March 9 , 1819 (Chippewa)
st
Treaty No. 27, May 31 , 1819 (Mississauga)
th
Treaty No. 27½, April 25 , 1825 (Ojibwa and Chippewa)
th
Treaty No. 35, August 13 , 1833 (Wyandot or Huron)
th
Treaty No. 45, August 9 , 1836 (Chippewa and Odawa,
"For All Indians To Reside Thereon")
th
Treaty No. 45½, August 9 , 1836 (Saugeen)
st
Treaty No. 57, June 1 , 1847 (Iroquois of St. Regis)
th
Treaty No. 61, September 9 , 1850 (Robinson
Treaty: Ojibwa)
U
th
Treaty No. 72, October 30 , 1854 (Chippewa)
th
Treaty No. 82, February 9 , 1857 (Chippewa)
st
th
Williams Treaty, October 31 and November 15 , 1923
(Chippewa and Mississauga)
st
Williams Treaty, October 31 , 1923 (Chippewa)
AB
B1
N
A2
H
AA
Q
F
N
Lake Huron
Project Location
B2
AG
O
W
Lake Ontario
L
Notes
P
G
T
E
I
D
86°0'0"W
84°0'0"W
Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 Statistics Canada Lambert
2.
Base features produced under license with the
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen's
Printer for Ontario, 2012.
3.
Treaty boundaries adapted from MNR July 1980,
based on map compiled by J.L. Morris 2 March 1931.
For cartographic representation only.
A
D
R
J
C
September 2013
160940216
Lake Erie
Client/Project
Figure N o.
2
0
50
100
km
1:3,000,000
V:\01609\active\160940216 - SullTwp_Pit\work_program\drawing\MXD\160940216_Fig2_Treaties.mxd
1.
M
42°0'0"N
A
44°0'0"N
Georgian Bay
82°0'0"W
80°0'0"W
78°0'0"W
76°0'0"W
Title
Treaties and Purchases
(Adapted from Morris 1931)
V:\01609\active\160940216 - SullTwp_P it\work_program\drawing\MX D\160940216_Fig3_Historical.mxd
±
September 2013
160940216
Legend
Client/Project
Subject Property
Figure No.
3
Notes
1.
2.
3.
Historical information not to scale.
Plympton Township map from Grey supplement in Illustrated atlas
of the Dominion of Canada published by H. Belden and Co., 1880.
Title
Portion of 1880 Historic
Map of Sullivan Township
±
d7
Sid er oa
;
!
;3
!
1
;
!
9
!
;
!
;
!
5
6
8
!;
ENLARGED
BELOW
2
9
!
;
!
;
!
5
4
;
!
8
;
!
V:\01609\active\160940216 - SullTwp_P it\work_program\drawing\MX D\160940216_Fig4_MethodsResults.mxd
;7
!
6
20
m
0
50
100
m
1:5,500
February 2014
160940216
Client/Project
Legend
;
!
Photo Location and Direction
Stage 2 Methods
Pedestrian Survey at 5 Metre Intervals
Study Area
Test Pit Assessment at 5 Metre Intervals
Test Pit Assessment at 5 Metre Intervals, Disturbed
Figure No.
4
Previously Disturbed, Not Assessed
Title
Notes
1.
2.
2010 imagery used under license with First Base Solutions Inc., © 2013.
Stage 2 Methods
Closure
March 21, 2014
10.0 Closure
This report has been prepared for the sole benefit of Drysdale Aggregate Consulting and may not be used
by any third party without the express written consent of Stantec Consulting Ltd. and Drysdale Aggregate
Consulting. Any use which a third party makes of this report is the responsibility of such third party.
We trust this report meets your current requirements. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you
require further information or have additional questions about any facet of this report.
Walter McCall, Ph.D.
Director of Archaeological Field Operations
Tel: (519) 675-6623
Fax: (519) 645-6575
[email protected]
Jim Wilson, MA
Principal, Regional Discipline Leader, Archaeology
Tel: (613) 722-4420
Fax: (613) 22-2799
[email protected]
10.6
Appendix A
March 21, 2014
11.0 Appendix A
11.1
LOCATION 1 (BCHF-2) ARTIFACT CATALOGUE
Cat. #
Subunit or Context
Depth (m)
Artifact
1
CSP 60
surface
Ironstone
Quantity
1
3
CSP 7
surface
Porcelain, transfer printed
1
4
CSP 7
surface
Ironstone
1
5
CSP 33
surface
Ironstone
2
6
CSP 62
surface
Whiteware
1
Comments
floral (pink, green, and
brown)
7
CSP 32
surface
Metal, strap
1
8
CSP 34
surface
Glass, bottle
2
clear
9
CSP 20
surface
Glass, bottle
2
10
CSP 50
surface
Glass, bottle
1
green
double ring finish, no
seam, aqua
11
CSP 64
surface
Ironstone
2
12
CSP 64
surface
Whiteware
1
14
CSP 59
surface
Glass, dish
1
15
CSP 13
surface
Glass, window
1
clear
greater than 1.6 mm
(2.28 mm)
16
CSP 18
surface
Glass, bottle
2
1 aqua, 1 clear
17
CSP 26
surface
Porcelain, semi
1
18
CSP 30
surface
Earthenware, red
1
19
CSP 63
surface
Whiteware, banded
1
20
CSP 24
surface
Brick
3
21
CSP 2
surface
Earthenware, red
1
26
CSP 53
surface
Glass, bottle
2
27
CSP 36
surface
Earthenware, red
1
28
CSP 17
surface
Earthenware, red
1
29
CSP 14
surface
Whiteware, moulded
1
30
CSP 14
surface
Ironstone
1
31
CSP 52
surface
Ironstone
1
32
CSP 15
surface
Earthenware, red
2
33
CSP 11
surface
Earthenware, red
1
34
CSP 9
surface
Ironstone
1
35
CSP 9
surface
Porcelain, semi
1
41
CSP 1
surface
Ironstone
1
43
CSP 16
surface
Ironstone
1
44
CSP 4
surface
Earthenware, red
1
47
CSP 25
surface
Ironstone, moulded
1
1 green band
clear, and 1 base frag
with "W" and "BOT"
11.7
Appendix A
March 21, 2014
Cat. #
Subunit or Context
Depth (m)
Artifact
Quantity
48
CSP 8
surface
Whiteware
1
49
CSP 3
surface
Porcelain
1
52
CSP 58
surface
Whiteware
1
53
CSP 58
surface
Ironstone
1
55
CSP 35
surface
Whiteware
1
56
CSP 12
surface
Glass, bottle
2
57
CSP 10
surface
Ironstone, moulded
1
58
CSP 10
surface
Ironstone
1
61
CSP 28
surface
Earthenware, red
1
62
CSP 51
surface
Glass, white
1
63
CSP 61
surface
Whiteware
3
64
CSP 61
surface
Ironstone
1
65
CSP 31
surface
Ironstone
2
66
CSP 5
surface
Ironstone
1
67
CSP 27
surface
Glass, window
1
68
CSP 67
surface
Whiteware, moulded
1
69
CSP 67
surface
Porcelain
1
70
CSP 41
surface
Ironstone
2
Comments
brown
2.36 mm
71
CSP 19
surface
Earthenware, red
1
72
CSP 22
surface
Ironstone
1
73
CSP 55
surface
Glass, bottle
1
purple
74
CSP 55
surface
Glass, window
1
1.77 mm
75
CSP 59
surface
Ironstone
1
76
CSP 47
surface
Ironstone
1
78
CSP 54
surface
Ironstone
1
79
CSP 49
surface
Glass, bottle
1
82
CSP 56
surface
Stoneware, salt-glazed
1
83
CSP 56
surface
Ironstone
2
84
CSP 46
surface
Earthenware, red
1
aqua
85
CSP 44
surface
Ironstone, moulded
1
86
CSP 48
surface
Ironstone
1
87
CSP 45
surface
Ironstone, sponged
1
89
CSP 21
surface
Ironstone
1
90
CSP 43
surface
Ironstone
1
91
CSP 65
surface
Glass, bottle
1
aqua
92
CSP 65
surface
Glass, window
2
2.06 mm, 2.27 mm
93
CSP 57
surface
Glass, bottle
1
brown
94
CSP 23
surface
Glass, bottle
1
purple
95
CSP 42
surface
Earthenware, red
1
96
CSP 37
surface
Ironstone
1
black
"Tunstal" "England"
"LFRED"
11.8
March 21, 2014
Cat. #
Subunit or Context
Depth (m)
Artifact
Quantity
97
CSP 66
surface
Ironstone, transfer print
1
98
CSP 6
surface
Ironstone
1
99
CSP 40
surface
Whiteware
2
102
CSP 38
surface
Miscellaneous metal
1
103
CSP 29
surface
Ironstone
2
11.2
Comments
blue
LOCATION 2 (BCHF-3) ARTIFACT CATALOGUE
Subunit or
Context
Depth (m)
Artifact
2
CSP 69
surface
Whiteware, banded
1
13
CSP 78
surface
Whiteware
2
22
CSP 75
surface
Whiteware
1
Cat. #
Quantity
Comments
blue band
23
CSP 80
surface
1
blue
24
CSP 80
surface
Whiteware, banded
1
green band
25
CSP 80
surface
Whiteware, painted
1
pink, floral
36
CSP 70
surface
Ironstone
2
37
CSP 70
surface
Whiteware
1
38
CSP 70
surface
Ironstone, flow transfer printed
1
blue
39
CSP 72
surface
Whiteware, painted
1
green on one side and pink
on the other
40
CSP 71
surface
Whiteware
1
42
CSP 81
surface
Glass, bottle
1
aqua, burnt
45
CSP 73
surface
White clay pipe bowl
1
plain fragment
46
CSP 83
surface
Whiteware
1
"IRO" on bottom with part
of lion
50
CSP 74
surface
Whiteware, painted
1
green leaf
51
CSP 74
surface
Ironstone, painted
1
pink band on inside, blue
and red on outside
59
CSP 79
surface
Whiteware
3
60
CSP 79
surface
Whiteware
1
80
CSP 82
surface
Earthenware, red
1
81
CSP 76
surface
Whiteware, banded
1
green band
88
CSP 77
surface
1
blue
100
CSP 68
surface
Whiteware
1
101
CSP 68
surface
Whiteware
1
11.9

Final Archaeological Report

Transcription

Similar documents

Untitled

DR. PAUL HOMOLY,CSP

to full article

p r o G r a m p r o G r a m

RESEA R C H UNC O VERED

Invitation to seminar and workshop

DR. WILLIE JOLLEY`S PREP 4 SPEAKING

Ponce de Leon`s Fountain of Youth Archaeological Park is featured

prospecci n arqueol gica a trav s de lidar y ortofotogrametria en el