Duffins Creek - Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

Transcription

Duffins Creek
State of the Watershed Report
Human Heritage
June 2002
Other topics in this series for both the Duffins Creek and the Carruthers Creek include:

Introduction
Study Area
Greenspace, Trails and Recreation
Land Use
Air Quality
Climate
Surface Water Quality
Surface Water Quantity
Stormwater Management
Fluvial Geomorphology
Hydrogeology
Aquatic Habitat and Species
Terrestrial Natural Heritage
Cover photograph: 1856 House Preserved, George Washington Post II built his Gothic Revival style house near Millers
Creek when Kingston Road was just a dirt track. The Ajax Municipal Housing Corporation renovated and preserved it as
office space for an apartment complex.
Photo credit: TRCA
This document is intended to be shared for non-commercial use.
We are promoting the electronic use of this document
to minimize the consumption of paper resources.
Images appear courtesy of the
Ontario Archaeological Society
Toronto and Region Conservation, 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4
Telephone: (416) 661-6600 Fax: (416) 661-6898 www.trca.on.ca
Table of Contents
Introduction to Human Heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Current Inventory of Human Heritage Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Archaeological Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee Heritage Inventories . . . . . .4
Historical Review of the Duffins Creek Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Early Contact and Euro-Canadian History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Appendix A: 1999-2000 Human Heritage Study Methodology . . . .21
Appendix B: Heritage Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Appendix C: Architectural Styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
Appendix D: Archaeological Case Study
The Glen Major Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
Appendix E: Second Nations (Euro-Canadian) Case Study
The Glen Major Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Tables and Figures
Table 1: Human Heritage Designation of Sites Per Subwatershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Table 2: Archaeological Sites: Cultural Affiliations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Table 3: Built Heritage Structures and Other Visible Features: Original Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Table 4: Built Heritage Structures and Other Visible Features: Municipalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Table 5: Built Heritage Structures: Architectural Styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Figure 1: Registered Archaeological Sites in the Duffins Creek Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Figure 2: Built Heritage Features and Centres of 19th Century Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
1
Introduction to Human Heritage
Over thousands of years and into the present, geological processes such as
glaciation, erosion, flooding and deposition have shaped the Duffins Creek
watershed into a region of unique and noteworthy natural heritage value.
Physiographic features contained in the region, such as the Oak Ridges
Moraine and the Duffins Marsh, are some of Ontarios most outstanding
natural features. These features, and the environmentally significant areas
along the valley corridors of the Duffins Creek, provide critical habitat for
flora and fauna, in addition to providing a diverse and resource-rich
environment for human habitation. This chapter details the known human
heritage resources, in other words the history of the people both Aboriginal
and non-Aboriginal and the remnants of the human past, in the Duffins
Creek watershed.
The study area consists of the entire Duffins Creek watershed, including the
East and West Duffins plus 10 tributaries. In contemporary political terms,
this watershed falls within the boundaries of the municipalities of Uxbridge,
Pickering and Ajax in Durham Region, and Whitchurch-Stouffville and
Markham in York Region, and is the least urbanized of the Greater Toronto
Area watersheds. Less urbanized areas contain greater numbers of human
heritage resources, in general, since there is less pressure to remove the old to
make way for the new as urban areas expand.
An analysis was undertaken in 1999-2000 to begin an open-ended inventory
of the human heritage resources within the Duffins Creek watershed. These
non-renewable resources included archaeological sites that have been
registered with the Ontario Ministry of Culture, and heritage buildings and
other structures, plus plaques and cemeteries, that have been identified by
municipal and provincial heritage agencies. Each feature or resource was
researched and mapped in order to obtain a basic understanding of the
relationships between these, as well as their relationships to the natural
features within the watershed. This information will form the basis of future
planning, stewardship, consultation and regeneration efforts.
2
The methodology employed in the 1999-2000 study is detailed in Appendix A.
Working definitions of basic terminology appear in Appendix B which
identify the types of assessments that were involved in the Duffins human
heritage study.
Current Inventory of
Human Heritage Features
A total of 464 individual human heritage features were defined during the Resource Definition
component of the project. These heritage features are defined below in Table 1. The built heritage
features have all been field surveyed to determine such characteristics as precise location, subwatershed
association, architectural style and original use.
Table 1: Human Heritage Designation of Sites Per
Subwatershed
Subwatershed Listed Designated Cemeteries Plaques
Borden
Total
and deand Burial
Archaeological
Designated
Places
1) Stouffville
Creek
58
1
2
4
3
68
2) Reesor Creek
7
0
1
0
10
18
3) West Duffins
17
9
4
3
61
94
4) Wixon Creek
0
0
0
0
2
2
5) Mitchell Creek
1
1
1
0
13
16
6) East Duffins
81
15
9
4
42
151
7) Major Creek
8
0
0
0
18
26
8) Whitevale
Creek
3
0
2
1
0
6
9) Ganatsekiagon
Creek
2
0
1
0
17
20
10) Urfé Creek
1
0
5
1
6
13
11) Brougham
Creek
4
1
3
4
10
22
12) Millers Creek
13
3
2
0
10
28
TOTAL
195
30
30
17
192
464
Archaeological Sites
It is well established that human activity has always
centred on a regions rivers and lakes in order to
fill the need for a stable water supply, to utilize
associated resources and to take advantage of
transportation potential. The main channels, all
orders of streams and the headwaters of the
Duffins Creek on the south slope of the Oak
Ridges Moraine provided ample opportunity for
the utilization of aquatic resources.
A total of 192 archaeological sites (Table 2,
Figure 1) have been located within the Duffins
Creek watershed. These sites represent a use of
the watersheds by both Aboriginal peoples and
Euro-Canadians for thousands of years. Of note,
is that while many historic mills were in use during
the Euro-Canadian settlement of the region, very
little specific spatial information is available to
assist in the location of these structures in the
Duffins Creek watershed. While each of these
properties is considered to be an archaeological
3
site, most have not been registered with the
Ministry of Culture, and consequently, these
resources have not been defined in the present
project. It is important to note that mills were
fundamental to the development of communities
in Upper Canada and while, in most instances,
these mills are represented now as archaeological
sites, they must be included in any inventory of
an historic landscape. Future studies should
endeavour to define the location of the mill sites
which are not presently known.
Local Architectural
Conservation Advisory
Committee Heritage
Inventories
Each of the municipalities found within the
Duffins Creek watershed, through their Local
Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee
(LACAC), has prepared an inventory of buildings
of architectural and historic importance.
TABLE 2: Archaeological Sites: Cultural Affiliations
4
Culture / Time Period
Palaeo-Indian
undetermined
Late
Archaic
undetermined
Early
Middle
Late
Woodland
undetermined
Early
Middle
Late (Iroquoian)
Early Iroquoian
Middle Iroquoian
Late Iroquoian
undetermined Iroquoian
undetermined Aboriginal
Pre-contact
undetermined
Historic Mississauga
Multi- component
Historic Euro- Canadian
Undetermined
TOTAL
1
2
Duffins Creek Subwatersheds
3 4 5
6 7 8
9 10 11
1
1
1
1
2
13
3
1
12
2
3
2
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
2
2
2
1
3
3
1
3
6 36
10 61
25
1
1
2
8
13
1
1
1
3
2
1
5 11
42 18
0
1
4
17
1
2
2
4
2
6
5
10
4
10
Total
5
1
4
30
28
1
0
1
30
5
4
4
17
4
4
2
7
39
36
3
1
2
6
79
192
Figure 1:
Registered Archaeological Sites in the Duffins Creek Watershed. The apparent lack of sites on the Oak Ridges
Moraine and along the East Duffins reflects the lack of fieldwork that has been required to-date in these areas.
5
Examination of these inventories identified a
total of 272 built heritage features and their original
uses, 30 of which are designated properties which
fall within the study area (Table 3, Figure 2). It
should be noted that this list is not definitive. If
an individual structure is not classified as
designated or listed by a municipality, it is not
included in the local inventory and consequently
is not included in the present study, with the
exception of cemeteries, cenotaphs and plaques.
Table 4 defines the distribution of the built
heritage features for each municipality.
The sophistication and complexity of the EuroCanadian settlement of the Duffins Creek
watershed is demonstrated in the vast array of
architectural styles found in the heritage structures
defined in this project. The variety of different
architectural styles (Table 5) lends a unique
identity to the 19th century Duffins Creek landscape
which sets it apart from elsewhere in the Toronto
area. Appendix C provides a description of these
individual architectural styles.
Historical Review
of the Duffins
Creek Watershed
Archaeological Resources
To place the human history of the Duffins Creek
watershed into the proper context, the following
descriptions briefly encapsulate the Aboriginal
and historic Euro-Canadian cultural periods (and
associated diachronic positions) for the
archaeological record of southern Ontario.
Palaeo-Indian Period:
10,000 to 7,000 BC
As the glaciers retreated from southern Ontario,
nomadic peoples gradually moved into the areas
recently vacated by the massive ice sheets. These
Palaeo-Indians lived in small family groups and
it is presumed that they hunted caribou and other
fauna associated with the cooler environment of
Table 3: Built Heritage Structures and Other Visible Features:
Original Uses
6
Type
Residential
Commercial
Religious
Educational
Institutional
Industrial
Coach House
Barn
Plaque
Cemetery
Cenotaph
Gates
Heritage Area
TOTAL
1
40
10
3
3
1

1
5
2

65
2
6
1

1

8
3
13
1
3
3
2
1

1
3
5

1
33
Duffins
4
5

1

0
3
Creek
6
78
9
3
2

1

4
10
1
1

109
Subwatersheds
7
8
9
10
8
2
2

1

2
1
5

8
6
3
7
11
3
1

1

4
3

12
12
14

1

2

18
Total
167
22
10
12
3
1
2
2
18
32
1
1
1
272
Figure 2:
Built Heritage Features and Centres of 19th Century Settlement.
7
Table 4: Built Heritage Structures and Other Visible Features:
Municipalities
Municipality
Ajax
Markham
Pickering
Uxbridge
WhitchurchStouffville
TOTAL
1

13

2

1
2

3

1
22
10
Duffins
4
5

3

65
8
33
0
52
5

Creek
6
104

5

3

109
Subwatersheds
7
8
9
10

8

6
3
7

11

12

12
18

Total
122
23
60
10
8
12
18
272

6

3

7

57
Table 5: Built Heritage Structures: Architectural Styles
Architectural Style
Vernacular
99
Ontario House
38
Georgian
14
Edwardian/Foursquare
12
Italianate
19
Classical Revival
6
Georgian Revival
4
Gothic Revival
Modern
Boomtown
8
1
5
Picturesque
2
Second Empire
2
Arts and Crafts
1
Queen Anne Revival
2
unknown (includes barns)
1
Romanesque Revival
Industrial
Regency
Saltbox
Total
8
Frequency
3
1
1
1
220
Note: Architectural style does not apply to the remaining 52 built heritage features which include
cemeteries, plaques, gates and designated heritage area.
this time period. It should be remembered that
as the glaciers melted at the end of the last ice
age 12,000 years ago, the landscape of southern
Ontario was very much like the tundra of the
present day eastern sub-arctic. This reconstruction
is substantiated by the location of a single toe
bone of a caribou at a site in Detroit, and by the
presence of arctic hare, arctic fox and a large ungulate
at the Udora site (a Palaeo-Indian encampment)
near the south shore of Lake Simcoe.
Palaeo-Indian Hunters
During this time, the water levels and shorelines
of lakes Huron and Ontario were fluctuating due
to the runoff of the melting glaciers. Traditionally,
the Palaeo-Indian occupation of southern Ontario
has been associated with these
glacial lake shorelines. However,
recent investigations in the
vicinity of Toronto indicate that
these peoples also exploited
interior locations away from the
glacial lakes.
A Palaeo
Fluted Point
At present, evidence of PalaeoIndians in the Duffins Creek
watershed exists in the West
Duffins, the East Duffins and the
Urfé Creek subwatersheds (Figure
1), for a total of five isolated
findspots. Four of these five sites
produced Hi-Lo projectile points,
which date to the Late PalaeoIndian period, at the transition to
the Early Archaic period. The
acidic nature of the soils in the Great Lakes area
dictates that other artifact types, made of bone
or ivory, do not survive as they have in other
areas of North America from this time period.
Archaic Period:
7,000 to 1,000 BC
As the climate in southern
Ontario warmed, the
Aboriginal populations
adapted to these new
environments and associated
fauna. Thus, many new
technologies and subsistence
strategies were introduced
and developed by the
Archaic peoples of this time
period. Wood-working
implements such as
Archaic Points
groundstone axes, adzes
and gouges appeared, as
did net-sinkers (for fishing), numerous types of
spear points, and items made from native copper
mined from the Lake Superior region. The
presence of native copper on archaeological sites
in southern Ontario and adjacent areas suggests
that Archaic groups were already involved in
long-range exchange and interaction with one
another. The trade networks established at this
time were to persist between Native groups until
the time of European contact.
Archaic, Making Dug-out Canoe
To harvest the new riches of the warming
climate, the Archaic bands of southern Ontario
followed an annual cycle which exploited
9
seasonably available resources in differing
geographic locales with unique watersheds. For
example, from the spring through to the fall,
bands would have joined together and inhabited
sites in lakeshore environments where abundant
foodstuffs such as fish, waterfowl and wild rice
enabled the establishment of larger multi-season
occupations (Ellis et al., 1990). As the seasons
changed, and aquatic resources became scarce,
these bands split into smaller groups and moved
inland to exploit other resources which were
available during the fall and winter, such as deer,
rabbit, squirrel and bear, who thrived on the
forest margins of these areas.
Due to the fluctuating Lake Ontario water levels
at the end of the ice age, the mouth of Duffins
Creek would have entered into Lake Ontario at a
location 10 to 20 metres below the present
surface level. Aboriginal groups of the era would
have exploited the shoreline environments in
these now submerged locations and, as a result,
any archaeological sites representing these
seasonal activities are now under water.
Consequently, our understanding of the Archaic
uses of the Lake Ontario shoreline in the vicinity
of this creek is poor.
There have, however, been thirty-five sites and
findspots located in the Duffins Creek watershed
that can be attributed to inland exploitation by
Archaic groups (Figure 1). Typically, these sites,
or interior camps, appear on the landscape as
scatters of chert (flint) tools and flakes.1 Such is
the case with the Steele Valley (AlGs-216) site
which is located within 500 metres east of
Millers Creek. Artifacts recovered from the
surface of this site include one end scraper, one
serrated projectile point and several flakes
suggesting that butchering activities were likely
carried out here by Archaic peoples sometime
around 7,000 BC.
10
1
The term "flake" is used by archaeologists to
describe the pieces of chert that are "flaked" off
during the stages of stone tool manufacturing.
Although these thirty-five sites and findspots
would indicate that Archaic peoples hunted and
camped in the Duffins Creek watershed, very
little else can be said regarding specifics as to
their habitation here. This is due in part to the
lack of detailed excavation of these sites, and in
part to the changes in water levels as discussed
above. As well, archaeological sites representative
of these activities are small and, therefore, are
often deemed as not significant. Without protecting
and investigating these small extraction/processing
and habitation localities, our understanding of
the Archaic use of the Duffins Creek, and indeed
of Ontario, will never be complete.
Initial (Early and Middle) Woodland
Period: 1,000 BC to AD 700
Early in the Initial Woodland period (1,000 - 1 BC),
band sizes and subsistence activities were generally
consistent with the groups of the preceding
Archaic. Associated with the earliest components
of this cultural period is the introduction of clay
pots. Ceramic vessels provide a means for longer
term storage of foodstuffs. With the ability to
store foodstuffs during times of plenty, the stress
of harder times was greatly reduced as it would
have been possible to take advantage of the
Initial Woodland Pottery
Initial Woodland Camp
accumulated goods. Additionally, at around AD 1
a revolutionary new technology, the bow and
arrow, was brought into southern Ontario and
radically changed the approach to hunting.
These two technological innovations allowed for
major changes in subsistence and settlement
patterns. As populations became larger, camps
and villages with more permanent structures
were occupied longer and more consistently.
Generally, these larger sites are associated with
the gathering of two or more band groups into
what are referred to as macrobands. Often these
larger groups would reside in favourable
locations to cooperatively take advantage of
readily exploitable resources such as fish.
It was also during this period that more
elaborate burial rituals, such as cremation, burial
mound construction (as seen at the Serpent
Mounds near Peterborough, Ontario, for
example) and the interment of numerous exotic
grave goods with the deceased began to take
place. In fact, these goods, which include large
caches of well-crafted lithic blades, sheets of
mica, marine shells, shark teeth, silver and
copper beads, and artifacts such as platform
smoking pipes and decorative ear ornaments, all
indicate that the Initial Woodland period was
one of increased trade and interaction between
southern Ontario populations and groups as far
away as the East Coast and the Ohio Valley.
There are ten sites in the Duffins Creek
watershed that can be attributed to the Initial
Woodland period (Figure 1). While these sites
appear to represent short-term campsites, none
of them have received any detailed archaeological
investigations and, therefore, not much can be
said regarding their function and/or possible
settlement patterns. Due to the Initial Woodland
peoples exploitation of seasonally available
resources (as seen with earlier Archaic and PalaeoIndian groups), their habitation sites do not
display evidence of substantial structures, lengthy
occupations, or deep or extensive middens (garbage
deposits) (Spence et al., 1990:167). Therefore,
their visibility on the landscape is minimal, making
them difficult for archaeologists to find. Thus,
when they are happened upon, it is important for
these sites to be properly investigated so that this
crucial period of Aboriginal history can be better
understood.
Late Woodland (Ontario Iroquoian)
Period: AD 700 to 1651
Around AD 700 Maize (corn) was introduced
into southern Ontario from the south. With the
development of horticulture as the predominant
subsistence base, the Late Woodland period gave
rise to a tremendous population increase and to
the establishment of permanent villages (which
were occupied from five to 30 years). These
11
Late Woodland Settlement
Late Woodland Pottery
villages consisted of numerous cigar-shaped
structures, or longhouses, made from wooden
posts placed in the ground and tied together at
the top in an arch-like fashion. Although these
windowless structures were only 6 metres (20 feet)
wide (and the same in height) they extended
anywhere from 9 to 45 metres (30 to 150 feet) in
length providing shelter for up to 50 people2.
12
2
This number is based on a longhouse with 4
hearths, one family on either side of each hearth,
and six people in each family. Past researchers
have employed similar models based on what is
known from the early missionaries that lived among
these Iroquoian groups in the seventeenth century.
Quite often Iroquoian villages, some of which were
three to 10 acres in size, were surrounded by
multiple rows of palisades, suggesting that defence
was a community concern during this period.
Seventeen Late Woodland (Iroquoian) sites have
been registered in the Duffins Creek watershed
(Figure 1). The Draper site (AlGt-2) is the largest
Late Woodland village site currently known to
be within the Duffins Creek watershed. It was
completely excavated in the mid-1970s in
anticipation of the new Toronto Airport in Pickering.
The excavation of this entire village provided an
unprecedented amount of information, as new
technologies were employed for systematically and
quickly retrieving data (Ramsden, 1990:363).
After centuries of small-scale warfare and the
gradual depletion of such resources as soil nutrients
and firewood, the Late Woodland groups who
inhabited the Duffins Creek and adjacent watersheds
began moving their villages northward towards
Georgian Bay. It was these groups that eventually
evolved into the Tionontati (Petun) and Wendat
(Huron) Nations witnessed and recorded by the
early French missionaries and explorers during
the seventeenth century.
Appendix D contains a detailed case study of
the First Nations history of the Glen Major
Complex in the north-east portion of the Duffins
watershed on the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Early Contact and
Euro-Canadian History
For more than 10,000 years the Duffins Creek
watershed has served as a stage upon which the
drama of history unfolded: First Nations hunters
and farmers, European explorers, traders,
soldiers, surveyors, farmers, holiday makers, and
finally, city dwellers and suburbanites. They all
came to use the creek in some way; to make it
their home and to earn a living.
Contact Period: AD 1650 to 1800
Following the dispersal of the Tionontati (Petun)
and Wendat (Huron) by the Iroquois in 1650,
southern Ontario lay vacant for fifteen years.
Then, during the mid-to-late 1600s, in an
attempt to expand their fur hunting grounds to
the north, Iroquois groups established a number
of villages along the north shore of Lake Ontario.
Two of these villages, called Ganatsekiagon and
Teiaiagon, were built by the Seneca near the
mouths of the Rouge and Humber Rivers,
respectively. Current research shows that no
villages of this size and importance were built in
the Duffins Creek watershed.
After the Seneca abandoned the north shore of
Lake Ontario in the last half of the seventeenth
century, the Algonkian-speaking Mississauga
moved in to what is now the Greater Toronto
Area, particularly in the western reaches, where
they were flourishing when the French, and later
the British, arrived. However, local resources
near the Duffins Creek were without doubt used
by Native peoples in this late period as is
evidenced by the numerous archaeological sites
in the area. The mouth of the creek would have
been particularly useful for hunting and fishing
as a part of the seasonal round of the Native
populations living in the area. In addition,
parties travelling by canoe would have stopped
here for resting or camping on journeys between
the St. Lawrence River and the Toronto Carrying
Place Trail, the head-of-the-lake (modern day
Hamilton) and points farther south.
As with most of the other creeks and rivers under
the auspices of the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority, the Duffins creek has
lost its Aboriginal name. Augustus Jones, surveyor
for the area in 1791, noted that the Native name
for the Duffins Creek was Sin.qua.trik.de.que.onk,
which he described as meaning pine wood on
side (RDHP, 1956:11). Although the spelling of
Duffins has been inconsistent during the past
two centuries, it is recognized to be in honour of
the first known European to reside near the
creek, in what was later called Pickering Village,
now part of the Town of Ajax.
Euro-Canadian History
While the Duffins Creek has its mouth in the
Town of Ajax, its upper reaches extend through
the Town of Pickering to the Township of
Uxbridge and through the Town of Markham to
the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville. Although
located 30 kilometres to the east of York (Toronto),
it nevertheless contributed to the development
of the region.
The earliest record that places Europeans at the
Duffins Creek involves French representatives at
around 1660 (RDHP, 1956:4). The French
explorers and fur traders undoubtedly knew
about the Duffins Creek and probably explored
and camped in the watershed. The earliest
French name for the Duffins Creek was Riviere
au Saumon, after the Atlantic salmon which
annually migrated upstream to spawn. However,
the Duffins Creek was always overshadowed by
the Rouge River to the west. The presence of an
established trail along the Rouge reaching all the
way to the Holland River and the route to the
upper Great Lakes meant that the Duffins Creek
did not figure as prominently in the history of
Ontario as did the Rouge River. The sand bar at
the mouth of the Duffins Creek, together with
the fact that canoes could be paddled upstream
for only six kilometres, made this creek
undesirable for long-distance travel into the
north (Harvey, 1999:286).
13
Early Settlement Period:
AD 1800 to 1825
The first known European settler near Duffins
Creek was an Irish trader who subsisted on
salmon from the creek, wild fowl and deer from
the forest, and tubers from the earth. He built a
cabin in the 1780s on the east bank of the creek,
to the north of what was to become Kingston
Road in the modern municipality of Ajax. By the
time of Augustus Jones exploration of the
township in 1791, Duffin had disappeared from
the area. The large amount of blood in his empty
cabin suggested that he had been murdered by
one of the occasional travellers for whom he
provided lodging (RDHP, 1956:9).
14
Settlement came later in the Duffins Creek area
than in other locations closer to York (later Toronto).
The Township of Markham was the third in the
county to be surveyed, as the process began in
1794 with Yonge Street
as its baseline. During
the next decade, the
townships were surveyed
and mapped in great
detail, and lands were
granted by LieutenantGovernor John Graves
Simcoe. Whitchurch
and Uxbridge were the
last in the Duffins
Creek watershed to be
surveyed, with the
former in 1800-02 and
the latter in 1804-05.
Patents were being
granted largely to sons Early Settlement
and daughters of the
United Empire Loyalists, military veterans and
government officials. These first settlers were
primarily absentee landowners, many of whom
sold their lands for profit shortly after receiving
their grant. Grants generally involved lands of
200 acres in size, unless the LieutenantGovernor deemed that a larger grant, of up to
1,000 acres, was warranted. Within each township,
one-seventh of the holdings were retained as
Crown land to be leased for farming, and another
one-seventh were granted to the Church.
The first pioneering families lived in log homes
and drove their wagons along poorly-defined
roads that needed to be kept clear of trees and
other vegetation. Supplies into the area were
infrequent, and it seems that the Duffins Creek
was not as useful for transportation as was the
Rouge River to the west. Families were required
to clear portions of their lands for simple crops.
Most of the early farming was carried out with
the spade or the harrow rather than the plough,
and large stumps in the fields posed problems. In
their favour, the majority of the settlers prior to
the War of 1812 were experienced with life in
North America, having first lived in the United
States (RDHP, 1956:95). The war certainly
disrupted life for the new residents by taking
some of the able-bodied men and by cutting off
the flow of new settlers and supplies for a time.
However, it did increase the demand for
produce, keeping the mills very busy grinding
imported grain. A steady increase in population
was felt following the war (RDHP, 1956:102).
The early settlement of Markham took place first
at its southern margin, to the west of the Duffins
Creek watershed. In the mid-to-late 1790s Loyalists
and, in particular, a German group led by William
Berczy, made their homes along Yonge Street.
Within the Duffins Creek watershed was the small
community of Mongolia (first known as California),
situated on the tenth concession (Tenth Line) at
18th Avenue. Many of the farmers in the area were
the Pennsylvania Dutch, who had discovered that
the soil was suitable to bring them much prosperity
for their labours (Watson, 1977:155). Among the
early arrivals were the Barkey, Hoover and Stouffer
families, circa 1804, the Boyles, the Nighswanders,
the Reesors and the Burkholders. Families such
as these played an important role in opening up
this north-eastern portion of the township.
Two concessions north, in the modern Township
of Whitchurch-Stouffville, where Stouffville Creek
crosses through the Ninth Concession, families
were establishing themselves as early as 1804.
This location became known as Stouffersville
once Abraham Stouffer opened his two mills in
1817-24 (RDHP, 1956:131). This was to become
a prime area for industry as well as a convenient
stop between the settlements in Markham and
Uxbridge by the 1830s. To the north of Stouffville
lies the community of Bloomington, of which the
northern half drains into Stouffville Creek.
The south-western corner of the Township of
Uxbridge, which drains into Duffins Creek
tributaries, began to be occupied circa 1806 by
families from New York State. Common surnames
from this period include Morden, Kester, Brown,
Wideman, Forsyth, McWain and Townsend. These
families, and others, formed the communities of
Glasgow, Goodwood and Glen Major (first known
as Glen Sharrard). Goodwood saw a boom in
population prior to 1850, once Stouffville Road was
improved and transportation around the vicinity
was enhanced. Glasgow and Glen Major also
expanded mid-century, as they became known as
mill towns.
An unusual situation in Pickering Township
served to slow the progress of the early settlers
along the lakeshore during the 1790s. In the
front of the township, a solid block of 5,000
acres was granted to Major John Smith, with an
additional 1,200 acres for his son, Lieutenant
David William Smith. Since they were Loyalists,
military men and had the means to cultivate,
these privileged citizens were entitled to a grant
of discretion by the Lieutenant-Governor. It was
not long before this unusually large block was
broken by the checker-board pattern of lots held
in reserve for the Clergy and the Crown, but they
still formed a large portion of the area (RDHP,
1956:14). Many of the early settlers could not
obtain Crown grants and were content for a time
to be tenants on private lands. Groups were forced
to locate far inland, with much undeveloped land
separating them from Lake Ontario (RDHP,
1956:31). It was in these areas that the communities
of Brougham, Whitevale, Green River, Greenwood,
Claremont, Altona and Balsam were established.
Later Settlement Period:
AD 1825 to 1900
The population grew steadily during the nineteenth
century as more settlers were attracted to the
rich farm land so near to the growing markets of
the town of York. Mixed farming and milling
prevailed as the mainstays of the economy in the
rural communities. The larger centres, such as
Pickering Village and Stouffville, supported the
additional industries of lumbering, carpentry,
carriage-making, harness-making, cooperages
and brewing, and inns.
Pickering Village (known in early days as the
village of Duffins Creek) provides a superb
illustration of a prosperous community in the
Duffins Creek watershed (Figure 2). LieutenantGovernor Simcoe had envisioned a road which
stretched from London to Kingston in 1793. For
many years, the lack of both money and a local
labour pool made it difficult to keep the road
clear, but by 1816, it was a reasonably good dirt
road as far east as the Rouge River. From that
time on the roads improved, and Pickering
Village became relatively well connected to
points west and east (RDHP, 1956:62,69).
A post office had arrived in Pickering Village in
1829, with Francis Leys as the postmaster
(Wood, 1911:128). Many of his family members
15
The monuments remaining in the Leys Family Cemetery have been amalgamated into a common
cement block to help prolong their preservation. Most of the inscriptions are still legible.
were buried in the Leys Family Cemetery, located
on Mill Street beside the Friends (Quaker)
Cemetery. A monument to these early settlers is
still visible. Several inns, many stores and other
commercial enterprises filled the village by the
1820s and 30s, and mills and schoolhouses began
appearing at the same time. Residences were
sprawling both east and west on Kingston Road
and north and south on Church Street. By 1850,
the village contained a few stone and brick homes
as well as the more prevalent frame varieties.
Pickering Village was prospering on the Stage
Route between York and Kingston, being only
23 miles from York (RDHP, 1956:32,103).
16
One unique attribute of Pickering Village was
brought about by its Quaker heritage. Timothy
Rogers is credited with bringing 21 Quaker
families to the village in 1809. Rogers purchased
approximately 800 acres at the east end of the
village from David William Smith. It was on his
property that the Friends Meeting House and
Cemetery were built (Wood, 1911:134-135).
The Quaker heritage in this area later attracted
the new Pickering College in 1877, which was
the successor to the Friends Boarding School in
Picton. This institution became internationally
famous and by the 1890s attendance filled the
capacity of the building, with students from all
over Canada, Japan, Russia, Persia, Armenia,
Australia, the United States, Mexico, Central
America and the West Indies (Wood, 1911:136).
The Duffins Creek was never as important as a
source of hydraulic power as its neighbour the
Rouge River. However, many mills were
recorded as having been built in the Duffins
watershed throughout the nineteenth century.
The first was likely Timothy Rogers grist mill
circa 1809. Most of the villages which appeared
in the Duffins Creek watershed existed, many
having become very prosperous, directly due to
their mills. By 1824, when dozens of mills were
operating along the Rouge River, only a small
handful of mills are recorded along the Duffins.
In addition to Rogers mill in Pickering Village,
two of these were Mr. Stouffers in Stouffville; one
to the north of Main Street and one to the south.
Many more mills were built throughout the area
during the 1830s and 40s, so that by the time of
George Tremaines county survey in 1859-60, he
recorded locations for 48 operating mills. The
uses for these were recorded as: 13 grist, flour or
oatmeal mills, 29 sawmills, and three woolen mills
or factories, plus three steam sawmills in areas
with an unsatisfactory supply of water power (as
was the situation on the moraine) (RDHP,
1956:115-126). Numbers began to decline fairly
rapidly after 1860. This was particularly true of
sawmills, many of which converted to processing
flour. Remnants of early mills, such as the
Elmdale Mill site (AlGs-110) near Highway 401
and Church Street South (in Pickering Village,
now part of the municipality of Ajax), stand as
evidence to the first Euro-Canadian industries in
the Duffins Creek watershed.
The coming of the railway to the Duffins Creek
area in the mid-1850s changed the communities
along the stage routes, as the transportation of
goods shifted away from the highways. As with
all rural areas surrounding Toronto, a certain
amount of depopulation occurred as job
opportunities presented themselves in the city.
Intensive agricultural practices and improved
machinery meant that fewer acres were needed
under cultivation and fewer farm hands were
required. It seems that none of the villages of the
Duffins watershed were entirely abandoned,
although some dwindled to a few families.
Unlike the other watersheds within the Greater
Toronto Area, the Duffins has largely avoided
being populated by post-World War II bedroom
communities for people working in Toronto.
Although this phenomenon is evident to a certain
extent in the southern reaches of Pickering and
Ajax, a unique situation has held back this kind
of change, particularly in Pickering. During the
1960s and 1970s, the federal government
purchased 18,600 acres (7,527 hectares) of land
on portions of the 6th to the 9th Concessions in
Pickering in the north-west part of the township,
a small portion of the south-west corner of Uxbridge,
a portion of the north-east corner of Markham,
and a small portion of the south-east corner of
Whitchurch-Stouffville, and began plans for a
new Toronto airport. In addition, lands to the
south of the Pickering portion, known as the
Seaton Lands, were proposed by the province to
house a community development for the support
staff of the airport. These plans involve a large
proportion of the Duffins Creek watershed, and
have served to restrict development from the
early 1970s to the present (Harvey, 1999:286).
As a result, the historic communities which fall
into this area, namely Brougham, Whitevale,
Altona and Glasgow, which, under alternate
circumstances would have likely been engulfed
by modern subdivisions, instead retain their rural
character and many of their original historic
structures. These historic structures have all been
inventoried and evaluated by a Federal Board,
which has recognized that certain buildings need
to be protected for their historical value. These
select buildings have been incorporated into the
present study of human heritage features in the
Duffins Creek watershed.
A prominent feature of the lower watershed area
is the relatively recent community of Ajax. Ajax
exists because of World War II; the town being
established at the site of the shell filling plant of
Defence Industries Limited (DIL). The site was
chosen on the grounds of several qualifications,
including access to 1 million gallons of water per
day, transportation routes and a large labour pool,
as well as being well-removed from established
residential concentrations. It required enough
space to keep the production lines well separated
and enough room to build a sewage treatment
plant nearby (Smith, 1989:11).
By mid-1941, nearly 3,000 workers lived in
residences at the plant and postal services
became problematic. The plant decided that it
needed its own post office, and a contest was
held to give it a name. Entries such as Dilville,
Dilco and Powder City were entertained
(Smith, 1989:44). Ajax was chosen, in honour
of the H.M.S. Ajax, which had recently shown
courage in a battle with the Germans. The word
Ajax was borrowed from Greek mythology and
given to several British battleships in World War
II (Smith, 1989:1). The H.M.S. Ajax was
commanded by Admiral Harwood. Later, a good
number of the streets in town were named after
ships and officers, such as Harwood Avenue
(Smith, 1989:2). Today, Ajax is home to many
well-preserved examples of war-time housing
and industrial buildings.
Appendix E contains a detailed case study of the
Second Nations (Euro-Canadian) history of the
Glen Major Complex in the north-east portion of
the Duffins watershed on the Oak Ridges Moraine.
17
Summary
Two main issues have limited the 1999-2000 study of human
heritage features in the Duffins watershed. The first concern deals
with the level and quantity of data which is available for each site.
Individual LACAC Heritage Inventories vary considerably in terms
of the level of data provided. Without conducting an exhaustive
research program to examine primary documentation for each
heritage property, it was impossible to be consistent in providing
specific data (i.e. date of construction for historic structures) across
the watershed.
Secondly, the quality and reliability of spatial data varies depending
upon the source. As an example, the mill locations provided by the
Rouge, Duffin, Highland, Petticoat Valley Conservation Report, 1956 are
vague, and most of the mills mentioned in that work have not yet
been identified and surveyed as archaeological sites. Consequently,
it would take a considerable amount of effort to locate the mill sites.
For this reason, mills have not been included in the present
mapping inventory, despite the fact that they were so integral to the
European settlement and development of this watershed.
The communities within the Duffins Creek watershed have a rich
and varied history, which we have just begun to understand. From
the time of the retreat of the most recent glacier to the present, the
environmental conditions in this watershed welcomed human
inhabitants. Currently, 464 archaeological and built heritage features
are known, but vast areas of the watershed are yet to be explored.
18
References Cited
Burgar, Robert W.C., 1990. An Archaeological Master Plan for the Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Report on file with The Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority, Toronto, Ontario.
Ellis, Chris J., Ian T. Kenyon and Michael W. Spence, 1990. The Archaic. In
The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by Chris J. Ellis
and Neal Ferris. Pp 321-359. Occasional Publication of the London
Chapter of the Ontario Archaeological Society, Number 5. London:
Ontario Archaeological Society.
Government of Ontario, 1887-1928. Annual Archaeological Reports for Ontario,
(AARO), reports to the Minister of Education.
Government of Ontario, 1956. Rouge, Duffin, Highland, Petticoat Valley
Conservation Report, 1956, (RDHP). Toronto: Department of Planning and
Development.
Government of Ontario, 1992. Guidelines for Preparing the Cultural Heritage
Resource Component of Environmental Assessments.
Harvey, Harold H., 1999. Duffins Creek. In Special Places: The Changing
Ecosystems of the Toronto Region. Roots, Betty I., Donald A. Chant and
Conrad E. Heidenreich, eds. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Konrad, V.A., 1973. The Archaeological Resources of the Metropolitan
Toronto Planning Area: Inventory and Prospect. York University,
Department of Geography, Discussion Paper No. 10.
Ontario Archaeological Society
Arch Notes, Newsletter of the Ontario Archaeological Society.
Ontario Archaeology, Journal of the Ontario Archaeological Society.
Perry, D. Vanessa, 1974. Of Days Gone By...History Pertinent to Claremont
Conservation Area. Unpublished manuscript.
Ramsden, Peter G., 1990. The Hurons: Archaeology and Culture History. In
The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by Chris J. Ellis
and Neal Ferris. Pp 361-384. Occasional Publication of the London
Chapter of the Ontario Archaeological Society, Number 5. London:
Ontario Archaeological Society.
Smith, Ken, 1989. Ajax: The War Years 1939/45. Oshawa: Ken Smith. Printed
by Alger Press Limited, Canada.
19
Spence, Michael W., Robert H. Phil and Carl Murphy, 1990. Cultural
Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In The Archaeology
of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris.
Pp 125-169. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter of the Ontario
Archaeological Society, Number 5. London: Ontario Archaeological
Society.
The STORM (Save the Oak Ridges Moraine) Coalition, 1997. Oak Ridges
Moraine. Erin, Ontario: Boston Mills Press.
Watson, Trevor, 1977. Mongolia. In Canadian-German Folklore: Pioneer Hamlets
of York. Compiled and published by the York Chapter of the Pennsylvania
German Folklore Society of Ontario.
Wood, William R., 1911. Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the
Community. Toronto: William Briggs.
Historical Maps Consulted:
1860 Tremaine's Map of the County York. Toronto: George C. Tremaine.
1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario. Toronto: J.H.
Beers & Co.
1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York. Toronto: Miles & Co.
20
APPENDIX A
DUFFINS CREEK WATERSHED
1999-2000 HUMAN HERITAGE STUDY
METHODOLOGY
Specific Tasks
Document numbers and locations of archaeological sites, historic sites,
cemeteries and other burial sites in the Duffins Creek watershed.
Document, in both written and photographic form, numbers and
locations of built heritage structures, cemeteries and plaques in the
Duffins Creek watershed.
Prepare a GIS model (map) of the above information for the Duffins
Creek watershed.
Provide a generalized summary of the above resources.
Products
An open-ended inventory of the archaeological sites in the watershed.
An open-ended inventory of the built heritage and historic sites in the
watershed.
A background report summarizing the cultural heritage character of the
watershed.
Operational Structure
Define individual human heritage resources which fall within the study area.
Locate individual resources on the relevant 1:10,000 Ontario Base Maps
and determine spatial coordinates.
Enter information pertaining to each resource into the database.
Photograph the available built structures and develop a CD-ROM
version of the images.
Examine relevant documentation for each resource.
Resource Definition
Two separate approaches will be employed in the definition of individual
human heritage resources:
An examination of individual compilations of built heritage resources as
defined by municipal Local Architectural Conservation Advisory
Committees (LACACs).
An examination of individual compilations of archaeological sites as
defined by the Ontario Ministry of Culture (formerly Tourism, Culture
and Recreation).
21
LACAC Heritage Inventories
Each of the municipalities found within the Duffins Creek watershed, through
their Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC), has
prepared an inventory of buildings of architectural and historic importance.
Examination of these inventories located a total of 272 extant cultural heritage
sites, 30 of which are Designated and de-Designated properties (three were deDesignated during the formation of the Whitevale Heritage Conservation
District), which fall within the study area. It should be noted that this list is not
definitive. If an individual structure is not classified as Designated or Listed by
a municipality, it is not included in the local inventory and consequently is not
included in the present study, with the exception of cemeteries, cenotaphs and
plaques.
A total of 192 archaeological sites have been located within the watershed. It is
important to note that mills were fundamental to the development of
communities in Upper Canada, and while in most instances these mills are
represented now as archaeological sites (although most have yet to be surveyed
and registered with the province), they must be included in any inventory of an
historic landscape. However, in the present study information detailing the
precise locations of mills was not available and, therefore, mill sites are not
included on the project mapping. Rather, a brief description of the mills in the
Duffins Creek watershed (see the Rouge, Duffins, Highland, Petticoat Valley
Conservation Report, 1956 [RDHP] for mapping of the Duffins Creek mills) is
provided below.
Secondary Sources
The principal source of data examined in respect to the study area was the
Archaeological Database of the Heritage Branch of the Ontario Ministry of
Culture. The database is a summary of the archaeological investigations
conducted in and around the study area during the past century. Both newly
found sites and resources rediscovered due to archival research (primarily by
Konrad 1973) are documented in MTCR records.
Archival research of historic documents was also conducted to ensure that
all previously located archaeological sites were recorded with the ministry.
These archival sources included the A.J. Clark Papers (n.d.), the Annual
Archaeological Reports for Ontario (1887- 1928), research notes on file
with the Department of Anthropology at the Royal Ontario Museum, and
Arch Notes and Ontario Archaeology published by the Ontario
Archaeological Society.
22
Historical Resources
Many volumes describing the history of the Duffins Creek watershed have been
written. One of the most comprehensive and among the best of these histories
is the historical summary contained within the RDHP, 1956. This report is a
remarkable resource for cultural geographers, historians, archaeologists and
other researchers interested in the Duffins Creek watershed.
Spatial Definition
A total of 464 individual heritage features were defined during the Resource
Definition phase of the project. Each heritage site is considered a positive landscape
feature. In order to integrate known heritage resources with other features (biotic) of
the watersheds, spatial coordinates for each of the 464 data points were determined.
This process was facilitated through use of 1:10,000 Ontario Base Maps (OBMs).
The full extent of the Duffins Creek watershed is defined on Ontario Base Maps.
After individual drainage systems, subwatershed boundaries and municipalities were
defined on these maps, and each site was graphically represented in its proper
position. Individual Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates were derived
for each feature or landscape centroid. These coordinates define each site in space in
respect to number of metres north of the equator and east of the false transect
positioned in relation to the prime meridian. The spatial data collected was then
entered onto the database for GIS purposes.
Site Data
The individual content of the heritage inventories used to prepare this report varied
considerably in terms of information defined for each feature. Consequently, it was
difficult to collect a common set of data for each site. The information that was
commonly available was recorded onto the Duffins Creek Watershed Heritage Study
Database. The format of the database was loosely modelled on the Heritage Record
Form For Environmental Assessments, contained within the Ontario Ministry of the
Environments Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of
Environmental Assessments, 1992. This database is summarized below.
Duffins Creek Watershed Heritage Study Database
To expedite immediate access to information on individual human heritage features
and landscapes, a Duffins Creek Watershed Heritage Study Database was developed.
This data file is written with SPSS software and is accessed with an IBM-compatible
computer. The specific record format used was patterned after the Heritage Record
Form For Environmental Assessments, defined by the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment. The database was designed to be used in conjunction with this report,
the individual Ontario Base Maps which describe the location of each site and the
GIS maps produced for the study. All OBMs and GIS mapping are on file with the
TRCAs Archaeological Resource Management Units map library. Each of the 464
individual sites identified were defined within this database. Table 1 illustrates an
example of the fields employed in this data file.
23
Table 1: Duffins Creek Watershed Heritage Study Database
Field
DATABASE ID
NAME
ADDRESS
ORIGNLUSE
DATECONSTR
ARCHITSTYL
CULTAFFIL
REFERENCE
LACAC DESIGNATED
EXTENT
OBM
NORTHING OBM
EASTING OBM
MUNICIPAL
SUBWTRSHED
OBMID OBM
COMMENTS
24
Description
unique database identifier
name of feature
street address or Lot/Concession
original use
date of construction, if applicable
architectural style, if applicable
cultural affiliation, for archaeological sites
reference
designation (Designated, Listed, or n/a)
number of structures (single or multiple)
Ontario Base Map number
north coordinate
east coordinate
municipality
watershed or subwatershed number
sheet identifier
additional comments
Data
46
Gordon House
103 Old Kingston Rd
Commercial
1881
Italianate
n/a
Ajax
Designated
Single
77
4857310
655950
Ajax
6 (East Duffins)
27
LACAC plaque
APPENDIX B
HERITAGE DEFINITIONS
Archaeological Resources
Archaeological Resources are defined as the remains of any building, structure, event,
activity, place or cultural feature or object which because of the passage of time is
on or below the surface of the land or the water and which is associated with Aboriginal
history (pre AD 1608) or the post-contact (historic) period (post AD 1608) in Ontario.
Architectural Resources
Architectural Resources are defined as buildings, structures, or remains built by people
which reveal some of the broad architectural, cultural, social, political, economic or
military patterns of Ontarios Euro-Canadian history or are associated with specific
events or people that have shaped Euro-Canadian history. These would include resources
such as: individual buildings; groups of buildings; historic settlements; foundations;
cemeteries; barns and other outbuildings; fences; bridges etc. Architectural Resources
of outstanding historical or architectural character can be protected under the
Ontario Heritage Act by being Designated. This procedure requires the passing of
a by-Law by the local municipal government. Architectural Resources considered
as potential or candidates for this protective measure are defined as Listed.
Cultural Heritage Landscapes
Cultural Heritage landscapes are defined as any discrete aggregation of features
made by people where the arrangement of the features that exist in conjunction with
one another is representative of distinct cultural processes in the present, and
historical development and use of the land within the watershed. Cultural landscapes
include any scenic/heritage or contemporary area perceived as an ensemble of
culturally derived landscape features such as a neighbourhood, a townscape,
landscape or waterscape that illustrates noteworthy relationships between people
and their surrounding environment.
For practical purposes Historic Landscapes may be considered as part of, or a
subset of, the cultural landscape but are differentiated by their historical merit.
They can be remnant or existing landscapes but have a specific association to
historical events, people, heritage building(s)/structures or archaeological sites.
They can be clearly identified as providing an important contextual and spatial
relationship necessary to preserve, interpret or reinforce the understanding of
important historical resources, settings and past patterns of land use.
Heritage Conservation Districts/Heritage Area
Heritage Conservation Districts are defined as any aggregate of buildings, structures
and open spaces that as a group is a collective asset to the community and which
may have architectural, historical, archaeological or scenic value. Districts may be
found in urban and rural environments and may comprise residential, commercial
or industrial areas landscapes or entire villages. Heritage Conservation Districts
are designated by municipal by-law, under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.
25
APPENDIX C
ARCHITECTURAL STYLES
Style
Boomtown
Bridge
Burial Place
Cenotaph
Classical Revival
Description
A style commonly used for commercial structures during
the mid-1800s. The Boomtown style is characterized
by a front gable roof hidden by a false facade to make
the structure appear a full storey taller. The top of the
crown was typically rectangular or stepped.
A structure linking two sections of road or pathway
over an obstacle such as a river.
A cemetery, family burial ground, or other location
where deceased individuals have been interred.
A monument erected in memory of members of a
community, generally in military service, who died in war.
Also called Neo-Classical, this style is characterized by
its balanced composition (often symmetrical), low
pitch gabled roofs (often with returned eaves) or
square hipped roofs, and the use of columns,
pediments, and elliptical transoms with sidelights
around the doors. The architectural details are
reminiscent of Roman or Greek architecture.
Edwardian/Foursquare Edwardian houses are built on a square or rectangular
plan. They generally have medium to high pitch
hipped roofs, usually with one or more dormers, and
are two to three stories high. The front entrance often
has a porch or stoop, and windows are rectangular.
Foursquare houses are essentially Edwardian houses
built on a square plan. Most Edwardian or Foursquare
houses were built between 1900 and 1925.
Georgian
26
A house of this style is built on a rectangular plan and
will generally have a medium pitch gable roof with
returned eaves, a symmetrical facade with the door at
the centre, and paired chimneys on each side. Other
common elements include a frieze under the eaves, a
transom and sidelights around the door, and in larger
structures, a second floor hall light in the centre of the
front facade. Larger Georgian houses often have a
Palladian window on the front facade over the
entrance. Most surviving Georgian houses in Ontario
were built between 1830 and 1850.
Style
Georgian Revival
Gothic Revival
Italianate
Ontario House
Picturesque
Description
These houses are almost identical in design to
Georgian houses. The primary difference is the date of
construction, which is generally after 1850 but before
the turn of the century.
These houses are irregular in plan and have multiplegabled, steeply pitched roofs, often over Gothic
(pointed) windows. Other elements of traditional
Gothic architecture that sometimes occur (especially
on churches) include buttresses and high pointed
steeples or belfries. Some Gothic Revival houses have
decorative bargeboard in the gables and may resemble
Picturesque houses. They were commonly built
between 1860 and 1880.
Italianate houses in Ontario vary greatly in plan, but
are recognized by their elongated, arched windows,
often with elaborate moulded hoods or surrounds. Some
houses had towers incorporated into the construction,
or lantern openings on the roof. Other common features
include hipped roofs, overhanging bracketed eaves,
arched porches, and balustraded balconies.
These commonly occurring houses are built to a
rectangular or T plan, and are symmetrical in
design. They usually have medium to high pitched
gable roofs with a centre or cross gable over a
decorative window on the front facade. These gable
windows are often gothic or arched. In older
structures there may be a suicide door in place of the
gable window, and the end gables may feature
returned eaves. Many Ontario Houses have been
embellished with decorative wood trim under the eaves
and in the gables. These houses were generally built
between 1875 to 1900, though earlier examples exist.
Some Ontario houses may be modified Georgian or
Georgian Revival houses.
This style of house is generally built on an L plan,
with a medium or high pitch gabled roof, and an
entrance and verandah in the enclave. The projecting
section of the front facade contains a single or double
storey bay window. Other windows usually have
segmental heads. Elaborate bargeboards, pendils, and
other decorative elements are common on gables,
under the eaves, and around the verandah roof, if any.
These houses were built between 1880 and 1900, with
some earlier examples.
27
Style
Romanesque Revival
Saltbox
Vernacular
War-time Bungalow
28
Description
These structures are generally rectangular in plan, with
a projecting portico and an elaborate entrance. Doors
are often surrounded by a transom and sidelights.
Windows are generally long and often round headed.
The use of columns and other monumental
ornamentation characterizes this style. Townhouses and
public buildings built in this style often have carved
stone ornamentation. This style was most popular
between 1880 and 1910.
A storey to storey-and-a-half residential structure
topped by a shed roof, which is formed by a highpitched plane covering the entire structure, with the
peak at the front and the slope towards the rear.
A structure not designed by an architect in a
recognized style. The building reflects locally available
materials, environmental factors and prevailing tastes.
Form often follows function in these structures.
A narrow, rectangular residence with a low-pitched
gable or, less frequently, a hipped roof, and often
containing small front porches. Often, entire
subdivisions built during the Second World War
contained variations of this style.
APPENDIX D
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CASE STUDY THE GLEN
MAJOR COMPLEX
In general, the properties within the Glen Major Complex have experienced
little need for archaeological survey. However, suggestions may be made
regarding the potential for archaeological sites to exist on the lands using the
TRCAs Archaeological Site Predictive Model (ASPM). Among the sites
already known in the Duffins drainage system, the following generalizations
were discovered: 40 percent are situated on level to gently undulating
topography and another 40 percent are located on rolling terrain; 60 percent
had good soil drainage, while the remaining 40 percent had imperfect drainage;
most sites were located near 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th order streams and lakes; and,
the mean distance to water was 109.2 metres (Burgar, 1990:172).
The ASPM primarily examines distance to the nearest water source, soil
drainage, and the areas topography to determine whether that locale has a high,
medium or low potential for containing archaeological sites. A location would
be rated a high probability area if it is within 253 metres of water, has good soil
drainage, and is situated on level-to-gently undulating terrain. Since water is
such an essential resource, distance to water is rated as either high or low,
thereby ensuring that all sites would be identified. In this manner, the various
properties within the Glen Major Complex may be evaluated for their
archaeological potential.
Glen Major Resource Management Tract
While there are no registered archaeological sites located within the Glen Major
R.M.T., two are situated within 100 metres of the property. One, the Hingston
site (BaGs-2), is located approximately 40 metres from the eastern edge of the
Glen Major property, on Lot 2, Concession 7 (Uxbridge Township). This site is
located between two branches of the East Duffins Creek with several ponds to
the east and south. This area belongs to the northwest portion of the hamlet of
Glen Major. The Hingston site represents a burial pit of unknown cultural and
temporal affiliation. Local residents believed that looting activities had occurred
in the past, and only a few pieces of bone remained within the burial pit at the
time of the investigation.
The Glass site (BaGs-4) was discovered approximately 80 metres west of the
western edge of the Glen Major R.M.T., on Lot 5, Concession 5; just to the east
of Brock Road. This site is located on a small plateau overlooking a kettle marsh
200 metres to the west, and is associated with the historic period Mississauga
(ca. AD 1750) culture. One modified piece of lavender-coloured glass, also
known as Pioneer Glass, was identified as a side scraper indicative of the
Mississauga Glass Tool Tradition (Burgar, 1990:110).
29
In addition to these two registered sites, the location of a pre-contact Aboriginal
ossuary is known by local historians. This site is said to be situated near the East
Duffins Creek on Lot 5, Concession 6, at the north edge of the lot. Since these
burial places were typically situated within a few kilometres of village sites, it may
be expected that a large Late Iroquoian site exists on or near the Glen Major
R.M.T. which has yet to be discovered. Elsewhere in Concession 6, on Lot 1,
stone foundations are still visible. This represents the remains of a EuroCanadian farmhouse built prior to 1877. These foundations may be seen from
one of the Oak Ridges trails that run through the property.
The Glen Major R.M.T. has also been examined for its potential to hold
archaeological sites via the ASPM. Due to the variability in terrain and presence
of year-round water sources, 33 per cent of the area was deemed high
probability, 33 per cent was considered medium probability, and 33 per cent was
found to have a low probability for containing archaeological sites (Burgar,
1990:182).
Secord Property
The Secord property, on parts of Lots 10 and 11, Concession 3 (Uxbridge Township),
is very likely home to prehistoric Aboriginal archaeological sites. An Archaic period
stone maul was located on the property and given to the TRCA by Mrs. Secord.
This large wood-working tool is approximately 21.5 cm (8.5 inches) long by
11.0 cm (4.25 inches) wide by 4.5 cm (1.75 inches) thick, and dates to 7,000 to
3,000 years before present, or 5,000 to 1,000 BC. This artifact appears to have
broken and been abandoned by people taking advantage of the natural springs in
the area. The majority of the Secord property is within 253 metres of these springs,
and the associated ponds and streams. According to the ASPM, approximately
90 per cent of the land is considered high probability and 10 per cent medium
probability to contain archaeological sites.
Claremont Conservation Area
Two registered archaeological sites, Pegg 2 (AlGs-32) and Sep (AlGs-158), have
been located on the eastern edge of the property, on Lot 11, Concession 7
(Pickering Township), in the area now occupied by a septic bed. Both sites are
within 300 metres of the East Duffins Creek. Due to the ambiguous nature of the
artifacts located at these two small sites, dates of occupation, cultural affiliations
and original uses are unknown. Pegg 2 is known as a findspot, which indicates that
only one artifact was recovered from a visual inspection of a ploughed surface.
Six chert flakes and one chert scraper were collected from the ploughed surface
of the Sep site. Plans for the placement of the newest addition to the septic
system were altered in order to preserve the remainder of the Sep site.
30
A third site, Pegg 3 (AlGs-33), is located within 200 metres of the Claremont
property, on Lot 10. The single chert artifact recovered from the ground surface
is recognizable as a tool that was typically used during the Archaic period (7,000
to 1,000 BC). The rise of land on which this site is situated would have provided
a clear view of the immediate area. The inhabitants of this site would have
drawn upon the resources associated with that section of the Duffins Creek (East
Duffins and Mitchell creeks) which runs through the present-day Claremont
Conservation Area.
The Claremont property has been analyzed according to the TRCAs Site
Predictability Model. Of the total 160 acres, 95 per cent is considered high
probability for archaeological sites, and the remaining 5 per cent is medium
probability (Burgar, 1990:182).
Walker Woods
One unregistered historic archaeological site is known by local historians on the
west half of Lot 7, Concession 6 (Uxbridge Township). This site is composed of
Euro-Canadian barn foundations which were likely built by Edward McBrien,
circa 1877.
The Walker Woods property is high on the southern slope of the Oak Ridges
Moraine and does not contain many water sources. The East Duffins Creek itself
does not flow year-round through this area, but several small ponds and one
small marsh are present on or adjacent to the property. Therefore, based upon
soil drainage and distance to water, the majority of these lands are deemed
medium or low probability by the ASPM.
Clubine
To date, no archaeological sites have been identified on the Clubine property, Lot 14,
Concession 4 (Uxbridge Township). As this land is not within 253 metres of a water
source, it contains medium and low probability areas according to the ASPM.
Goodwood Resource Management Tract
Several water sources, in the form of the Reesor Creek, ponds and marshes, are
present on the Goodwood R.M.T., on Lots 7 and 8, Concession 2 (Uxbridge
Township). Approximately 70 per cent of this tract corresponds to the high
probability category of the ASPM, while the remaining 30 percent of the land
falls within the medium probability zone.
Summary
Surveys for archaeological sites on the Glen Major Complex properties is highly
recommended in order to identify and protect these resources. Destructive
excavation procedures would not be warranted, unless disturbance of the soil is
planned for construction purposes. However, as the ASPM indicates, a great
potential exists that archaeological sites are located on these lands. Knowledge
about these past occupations would significantly contribute to the picture that
is forming about the human use of the Duffins Creek watershed. A small
collection of local Aboriginal stone and ceramic artifacts which are not
associated with any particular archaeological sites, but which date to the past
several thousand years, is housed and on display at the Uxbridge-Scott Museum.
31
APPENDIX E
SECOND NATIONS (EURO-CANADIAN) CASE
STUDY THE GLEN MAJOR COMPLEX
The assistance of Mr. Allan McGillivray with the compilation of the Historic
Period occupation of these lands is very much appreciated. Mr. McGillivray is
the Curator at the Uxbridge-Scott Museum on Quaker Hill.
The following historical descriptions are organized by property, specifically by
lots and concessions. These areas are shown on the 1877 Illustrated Historical
Atlas of the County of Ontario (which later became Durham Region). Copies
of the Atlas are available for viewing at the Pickering Central Library and the
Uxbridge-Scott Museum.
Initially, clearing of the lands in Uxbridge Township was conducted chiefly for
access to the lumber resources of the virgin forests. Potash was also sold, having
been produced from the hardwood ash during the clearings. The deeds specified
that the rights to all large white pines belonged to the King and, when logged,
were turned over for the construction of ship masts for the Kings fleet. In
addition, the King reserved all mineral rights on the properties. By the 1830s
and 1840s, many of the landowners resided on their lands, and began to clear
portions of their plots for farming activities. Countless farmhouses and barns
dating to the mid- and late-1800s surround the Glen Major Complex,
reminding contemporary residents of the agricultural history of the local area.
Glen Major Resource Management Tract
The expansive Glen Major tract encompasses sections of Concessions 5, 6 and 7
in Uxbridge Township, plus portions of Concession 9 in Pickering Township.
These lands are either on or to the south of the Oak Ridges Moraine and were,
therefore, utilized for a mixture of milling and agricultural activities during the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The Glen Major lands located in
Concession 5 of Uxbridge Township incorporate the eastern half of Lot 2, Lot 3
in its entirety, and most of the western halves of Lots 4 and 5.
Lot 2 was divided in half early in the nineteenth century. The eastern 100 acres
was patented to John Huff in 1807, who immediately sold his holdings to Charles
Henderson. Other probable non-resident owners during the first half of the
nineteenth century included Nicholas Hebner (1811), John Brillenger, a Mennonite
(1828) and Henry Powell (1838). William Powell purchased the 100 acres in
1858 and in 1869, sold 50 acres to Stephen Powell and the remaining 50 acres
to Ira Powell. The Powells were likely clearing parts of the land for farming
activities. Later owners also used the land, in part, for lumber.
32
Lot 3 was surveyed in 1804-05, and was initially reserved for the Canada
Company. In 1842, Peter Rushnell purchased the lot, set up residence there, and
cleared the west half. In 1843, Rushnell sold the east half to Henry Powell.
Subsequently, the lot was divided further and used mostly for agriculture, but
also partially as a lumber resource.
The west half of Lot 4 was patented to Christian Sancebough in 1807.
Subsequent owners who were most likely absentee included Charles Anderson
(1807), Benjamin Pope (1810) and Alexander McKee (1817). In 1825, John
Forsyth purchased these 100 acres and it remained within the Forsyth family
until the 1850s. By the 1870s, this part of the lot became further divided as it
was owned by various other local families. A farmhouse stood on the western
margin of Lot 4; an area which is not currently part of the Glen Major property.
As with Lot 4, Lot 5 was patented to Christian Sancebough in 1807 and largely
followed the same ownership within the first three decades. In the 1820s, John
Forsyth purchased the west 20 acres. Charles Anderson held the remaining 180 acres
until 1864, when it was transferred to John Evans. By 1877, the lot was primarily
divided into eastern and western halves, owned by the Evans family, with the
exception of the extreme western 20 acres, owned by M. Brown. It is the 80 acres in
the eastern portion of the west half which is now part of the Glen Major
property. In 1877, a farmhouse stood on this section of Lot 5.
In Concession 6, Uxbridge Township, the road allowance could not be followed
between Lots 1 and 6, due to the rugged landscape. Instead, a road was cut
farther to the east, into Concession 7, as an easier route and as access to the saw
mills along the creek valley. This situation often served to alter the property
holdings, so that the owners of land in Concession 6 might also own the portion
of Concession 7 to the west of the concession road. In Concession 6, the Glen
Major lands include: the eastern 150 acres of Lot 1, to the original road
allowance; the majority of Lot 2, with the exception of the extreme southwestern 4 acres; the majority of Lot 3, other than approximately 20 acres;
approximately 60 acres in the west half of Lot 4; and, the east half of Lot 5.
Although these lots are relatively rugged, the early owners tended to clear
whatever they could manage for either farming or logging activities.
Lot 1 was patented to Levi Hixon in 1807. Many transactions took place
between owners on this lot. In 1846, John Young purchased the west half, and
James McMillan bought the east half. The following year, Young divided the
west half and sold 50 acres to John Collins. By 1877, Collins owned the full
western 100 acres. Subsequently, the west half became divided again as it passed
through various local owners. In 1849, McMillan sold the east half to William
Osborne. Osborne sold these 100 acres to William Harbron in 1855. John
Barry, a local lumberman who owned several other parcels of land in the area,
purchased the east half in 1861. Following many transactions with this land,
High Hills Limited purchased the east half in 1930.
33
Initially a clergy reserve lot, Lot 2 was patented to Caleb Forsyth, a local man,
in 1857. In 1856, James Howitt (or possibly Howett?) and George Hopkins
each owned 50 acres of the west half, and each had built farmhouses. John Weir, Sr.
owned the east half of the lot at that time. These properties changed ownership
many times, largely remaining in the hands of local owners, such as the Weir, Hopkins
and Holden families. In 1932, High Hills Limited purchased the east 50 acres of
the east half of Lot 2, and in 1934, the company purchased the east 50 acres of the
west half. Currently, the Timbers gravel pit is located on the west quarter of Lot 2.
Lot 3 was patented in 1808 to Selene Fowler, a daughter of the UEL. By 1840,
following several ownership changes, the sheriff held the west half. Gradually,
other portions of the land belonged to the sheriff or were purchased by Thomas
Street, a local lumberman. By the 1860s and beyond, the properties on Lot 3
were owned by a number of local families. By 1877, one farmhouse stood on the
property which is now part of the Glen Major tract.
Solomon Snyder was granted the 200 acres on Lot 4 in 1807. Not unlike many
of the properties in the area, this lot was divided and changed ownership
frequently during the nineteenth century. By the 1850s local owners took up
residence. The west half of this lot was registered to various members of the
Pugh family from the 1860 township survey until at least the survey of 1914.
By 1877, a farmhouse stood on the west half of Lot 4, although its location is
not included in the section now known as the Glen Major tract.
Lot 5 was originally reserved for the Canada Company. By the 1860 survey, Mrs.
H. Lisrom owned the east half, which is now incorporated in the Glen Major
property. In 1874, William Anderson purchased the east 100 acres and built a
farmhouse set in from the road. William Beverley procured this property in
1900. Shortly thereafter, Beverley perished in a house fire. His property
remained in his family until at least the township survey of 1914. In 1950,
James Woods Walker purchased this land for a sum of $2,500.
Several portions of the first four lots in Concession 7 now belong to the Glen
Major R.M.T. The East Duffins Creek runs southward through this area. Due to
the creek, this became a choice location for mills, which quickly gave rise to the
settlement of Glen Sharrard, later to be known as Glen Major. Glen Sharrard
was named for the Sharrard family of Pickering, who built the first mills in that
spot. The Glen Major tract does not incorporate much of the lands immediately
adjacent to the road and, therefore, does not include most of the historic hamlet
of Glen Major. However, the lands which are included would have been owned,
lived on, logged and farmed by people who formed much of the hamlets
population.
34
Lot 1 was patented to absentee owner Samuel Wisner. By 1860, William
Harbron (or possibly Harborn?) owned the western portion of the lot, that
which was on the west side of the road, along with his holdings in Lot 1,
Concession 6. At that time, Samuel Harding owned the remainder of the lot. In
1871, Edward Major invested in the lot in order to acquire lumber for his nearby
saw mill. By 1877, the land alongside the road had been sold in small segments,
for houses and a school. In 1904, Stephen Picket purchased the 50 acres to the
east of the road and raised bees.
The Glen Major R.M.T. includes a small section in the south-west corner of Lot
2. This portion of land is immediately to the west of where the Glen Major Post
Office was situated. Directly across the road, farther east in Lot 2, a sawmill, a
grist mill and several houses stood. The Sharrard family, who operated these
mills, owned parts of Lots 2 and 3 in 1860. By 1877, Edward Major owned all
200 acres of Lot 2. Glen Sharrard became known as Glen Major around this
time, since Edward Major took over the mills and also ran the post office.
Lot 3 was originally held by the Canada Company. The east half was sold to
Thomas Ball in 1854. The Ball family owned the 127 acres, over to the town
line road, until 1912. In 1854, the west half of Lot 3 was sold to Amos Way,
who immediately sold a portion to lumberers. Further divisions occurred on the
west half of the lot, for additional homes and a church. At the close of the
nineteenth century, the local Anglers Society also established a meeting place at
this location, on the west side of the road. A second road ran through this
section of Lot 3 which adhered to the originally surveyed road allowance, and
provided access to the properties on the east halves of Concession 6.
Lot 4 was patented to Stephen Chase in 1808. The lot was sold to Ezra Hawley
in 1819, and then to Henry Hull in 1823; both were absentee owners. Israel
Powell was likely the first resident owner when he purchased the land in 1840.
In 1842, Powell divided the lot, selling the east half to Thomas Hall and the
west half to Thomas Way. By 1860, John Ball, who also owned the east half of
Lot 3, had purchased the east half of Lot 4. As with Lot 3, the east half remained
in the Ball family until Levi Storeys purchase occurred. In 1860, the Mathewson
family owned the west half of Lot 4. A schoolhouse stood on the southern edge
of the lot, on the west side of the road. Edward Major had purchased the west
half of the lot at some point prior to the 1877 survey. The west half continued
to pass through subsequent local ownership.
The original survey of Pickering Township resulted in east-west concession roads
and north- south sideroads, which creates an opposing orientation of the lots
when compared with those in Uxbridge Township. Within Concession 9 of the
Township of Pickering, the Glen Major R.M.T. encompasses the northern halves
of Lots 5, 6 and 7, and small portion in the mid- section of Lot 8. All of these
lots had been divided into two by the time of the 1860 township survey. At that
time, Lot 5 was owned by C. McAvon. Lot 6 had further been divided into a
northern portion of 40 acres, which was owned by M. Hughes, and a southern
parcel of 60 acres, owned by D. Williams. Williams also owned several other
properties in the immediate vicinity. S. Jones owned the northern half of Lot 7.
The southern half of Lot 8 was owned by the Garland family. Presently, the
southern margin of the Glen Major lands on these lots is bounded by a C.N.R.
rail line. In 1911 a train bridge was built on this line, just to the west of the
current project area spanning Westney Road.
35
Secord Property
The Secord property consists of 250 acres of land with one 15-acre pond and two
smaller ponds, located on Lots 10 and 11, Concession 3, Uxbridge Township. It
is located on the north and south sides of Sideroad 10, known as Secord Road,
on the east side of Road 3, south of the village of Goodwood. Known as Sky
Hill, this property was owned most recently by Dr. and Mrs. Alan Secord and
was acquired by the TRCA in July of 1997.
The 200 acres of Lot 11 were patented to Mary Harrison, likely a daughter of
the United Empire Loyalists (UEL), in 1807. Children of Loyalists were granted
200 acre lots at that time. The land passed through several absentee owners,
until Henry White bought the west half in 1895. These 100 acres were filled
with solid brush and some stands of timber, never having been cleared. White
began work on Lot 11 in 1896 and he set up a portable steam sawmill in 1907.
He built a farmhouse here circa 1914 with brick manufactured on-site. White
built a Type III barn nearby circa 1915 and added a silo on the north side circa
1918. A two-car garage was built just to the north of the house circa 1930. A
small pond is located to the north of the barn, which was used to house Dr.
Secords brook trout hatchery after he purchased the land from White in 1948.
Lot 10, in its entirety, was patented to Margaret Ashley in 1807. She was also
most likely a daughter of the UEL and an absentee owner. The land was valued
for its timber, and was purchased in 1871 by the Honourable David Reesor.
Reesor immediately sold the west 183 acres to Hugh Clark, who owned a
lumber mill in Goodwood. Clark removed the timber and brush, and planted
grass seed to be used for pasture. As of 1878, there was no house on Lot 10,
according to the historical county atlas. In 1883, Clarks portion of the lot was
passed on to William and John Clark, who sold the east 60 acres of the west half
to Henry White in 1908. Since these 60 acres were too low and wet for crops,
White began to dredge a mill pond with slush scrapers drawn by a team of
horses in 1910. By 1920, a 15 acre spring-fed pond was completed, which forms
the headwaters of the Duffins Creek. This pond contains self- sustaining brook
trout from Dr. Secords hatchery on Lot 11. Whites Mill was erected in 1922,
with a water wheel which generated about 30 horsepower for the saw.
Approximately 200,000 board feet of lumber per year was cut at the mill. This
mill was still operating in 1953. Dr. Secord bought these 60 acres from White
in 1948 and another 90 acres at a later date.
36
At the time of the Secords purchase of the Whites holdings, the farmhouse,
garage, barn and silo were the only built structures. A cottage was then built
immediately to the south of the 15-acre pond, as the Secords summer home.
This cottage is a modest structure which contains a fieldstone fireplace. The
Secords lived in the cottage until 1965, when a modern house was built to the
southeast. After this time, Dr. Secord used the cottage to entertain his hunting,
fishing and poker associates. The cottage has now been covered with aluminum siding,
and contains personal fishing journals, photographs, vinyl records, and other personal
belongings which Mrs. Secord plans to donate to the University of Guelph.
The main house, designed under the direction of Mrs. Secord, contains a
fieldstone fireplace and a family crest over the front entrance. A sun room was
added which overlooks the large pond. The bell from an old schoolhouse stood
on the property near the house, but has now gone missing. This bell was given
to Dr. Secord in appreciation of his funding for a new school after the original
had burned. The property on Lot 10 also contains the pet cemetery, used for
many of the deceased family pets from the doctors veterinary practice. Opened
in 1949, it is not presently active but is maintained and visited. A modern house
stands on the western edge of the Lot 10 holdings, which was built for the
caretakers residence.
The Secords bought the property on Lot 11 to save it from use for gravel
extraction. They converted the historic farmhouse on Lot 11 into a triplex,
which they rented to various tenants. The farmhouse has been unoccupied for
several years and is in need of repairs, as is the adjacent garage. Having been
built around 1914, the house is considered an historic structure. The exterior
architecture does not feature any distinctive detailing in the form of roof trim,
window shape or entranceway decoration. It is a two storey, brick, U-shaped
structure with a truncated roof and a poured concrete foundation. There is some
wall detailing above the windows and central doorway in the form of vertical
brickwork. Some modification has occurred since the original construction. A
central door on the second floor has been partially bricked in to form a window,
and concrete has been poured in front of basement-level windows to form the
front verandah. The overall architectural style is referred to as vernacular, due to
the relative lack of stylistic features. The Secords modified the barn by repairing
and raising its foundation.
Dr. Secord was a doctor of veterinary medicine, and an avid hunter and angler.
He was a member of the Goodwood Game Club and the Goodwood Fish Club.
He entertained wealthy associates and politicians at Sky Hill, including
William Davis, former premier of Ontario. Several equestrian trails were raised
above the swampy wetland and run throughout the property for the benefit of
Mrs. Secord. Gravel was quarried for the trails from the two gravel pits
located on the property. The Oak Ridges Moraine trail runs alongside the
property; the name Sky Hill originates from the low range of hills to the north
of the farmhouse.
Claremont Conservation Area
Claremont Conservation Area encompasses all 400 acres of Lots 11 and 12 in
Concession 7, Pickering Township. The presence of the East Duffins Creek
generated much activity on this property during the nineteenth century.
Although only one of the original historic buildings is still occupied, foundations
on the property indicate the locations of past buildings, as do the remnants of
land modifications relating to milling.
37
At the time of the 1860 survey, Lot 11 was divided between Ebenezer Birrell on
the northern 100 acres, William Coultis on the south quarter, and Samuel Boyer
on the remaining central 50 acres. Additionally, Birrell owned the 400 acres on
adjacent Lots 9 and 10, and Boyer owned the southern half of Lot 12, on which
he had built two mills. On the northern half of Lot 12, Richard Ward owned 80
acres. George Middleton owned 20 acres, plus an additional 100 acres across the
road on Lot 13. Middleton purchased this land in 1854 and lived there until his
death in 1903 (Wood, 1911:270).
Ebenezer Birrell, having come to Canada from Scotland in 1834, settled on his
Pickering property and called it Maple Hall. Birrell was a well-educated man
who became a prominent citizen as president of the Pickering Agricultural
Society from 1853 to 1859 and local superintendent of education from 1856 to
1865 (Wood, 1911:223). A log cabin once stood roughly in the centre of
Birrells property, and to the north of the modern Claremont Field Centre. Later
house foundations, however, may still be seen just to the northwest of the log
cabin site, among apple trees and hawthorns. The Birrells continued to own
Maple Hall until at least 1961 (Perry, 1974).
Samuel Boyer, of Pennsylvania descent, settled on the Claremont property in the
early 1840s, and became a renowned woodsman and hunter of wild bees (Wood,
1911:224). Boyer built two mills on his Lot 12 lands. Based upon extensive
surveys of the area and direction from local residents, the layout of the mill
complex has been mapped in considerable detail (Perry, 1974). Still visible is an
earthen dam and the millrace associated with the first sawmill, constructed by
Boyer circa 1830. Bark refuse has been found in the approximate location of this
mill, which likely represents the remains of this structure. Boyer built the second
sawmill and grist mill structure during the 1840s a short distance from the first
mill, and the millrace was extended to accommodate the new facility. The
tailrace, leading from the mill back to the Duffins Creek, is also still visible on
the landscape. The third sawmill at this location was built approximately 100
years later and ran by tractor power. Boyers nephew, David, purchased 200
acres on Lots 13 and 14 circa 1845. On the southeastern quadrant of Lot 13,
just upstream from his uncles mills on Mitchell Creek, David built a carding
mill for processing wool (Wood,1911:225).
Samuel Boyers son, Abraham, subsequently owned the southern 100 acres of
Lot 12. Abraham ran his fathers mill until 1904, at which time he was accidentally
killed by the mills machinery (Wood, 1911:224). George Graham was living in
a home on the southwest corner of Abrahams lot, and ran his blacksmiths shop
on the south side of the road. A pile of large stones and a cedar grove currently
represent the remains of the blacksmith shop (Perry, 1974).
38
By 1877, William Coultis had sold 49 of his 50 acres on Lot 11 to Arthur
Johnson, and Thomas Pugh had purchased Richard Wards 80 acres on Lot 12.
A hired hand had built his home on the remaining acre at the extreme southwest
corner of Lot 11. The farmhouse indicated at the southeast corner on the 1878
county atlas is still standing, but is somewhat camouflaged by modern siding.
Pughs farm complex was located at the northeast corner of his holdings on Lot
12. Barn foundations from this complex are still evident. Members of the Pugh
family are still residing in the Pickering area.
Walker Woods
The property known as Walker Woods is located on the east halves of
Concession 5, Lots 12, 13 and 14, and portions of Concession 6, Lots 6 through 10.
James Woods Walker was a lawyer who believed in reforestation. During the
1930s, 40s and 50s, Walker purchased the land known as Walker Woods.
Walkers vision was to replace the barren farmlands with a sustainable forest
that would restore the landscape by attracting wildlife and by feeding the
springs that supply Duffins Creek (Storm Coalition, 1997:31).
In Concession 5, Lot 12 was initially reserved in its entirety for the clergy, but
was eventually divided and used, in part, as a lumber source. The south-east
quarter of Lot 12 was patented to a local man, James Sharrard, who immediately
sold half of his holding (25 acres) to William Miller. This land was subsequently
owned by many local families, until Walker purchased it in 1951. The northeast quarter of this lot was patented to David Reesor in 1857. Reesor sold the
property that same year to Edward Wheler, who began to harvest the lumber.
By 1895, John Barry owned the entire 100 acres of the east half of the lot. In
general, it appears that little farming took place on this property. At the time of
the 1877 township survey, there were no houses on the east half of Lot 12.
Lot 13 was patented in 1807 to Andrew Burns, who immediately sold the land
to James Dobie. There were several short-term owners of this lot, and it fell into
the ownership of the sheriff in 1831. In 1846, a local man named John
Burkholder purchased the lot. At the time of the 1860 township atlas, the east
half of this lot was unoccupied (the owner was a non- resident). John Miller
purchased the north-east quarter in 1872. Lot 13 changed ownership many
times, but largely remained undivided.
In 1807, Andrew Burns was given title to the east half of Lot 14, as well as the
200 acres on Lot 13. This land passed through several non-resident owners until
it was purchased by Thomas Street, a local miller, in 1855. Later, other millers
owned the property, including Edward Pilkey. By 1877, Pilkey was running a
steam saw mill on the east half of the lot. In addition to the mill, 3 houses also
stood on this section of the lot. In 1951, Walker took out a mortgage on this
100 acres for $5,250. Another saw mill in operation in 1877 was located across
the road. Owned by Miller and Nesbit, this mill was later relocated to Black
Creek Pioneer Village.
The terrain in Concession 6 is quite rugged, as it is situated on the Oak Ridges
Moraine. In general, more logging than farming activities took place during the
nineteenth century on this section of Walker Woods. The presence of a gully on
the western edge of Lot 6 and the rugged terrain on the eastern end result in an
atypical shape for the lot. Lot 6 was patented to Ann Ball, an absentee owner
and likely a daughter of the UEL. The first half of the nineteenth century saw
39
several absentee owners for this property. By the 1850s, ownership of Lot 6
passed among local names. At the time of the 1877 township survey, a church
stood on the east side of Concession Road 6, just to the south of Lot 6.
Walker Woods incorporates the western half of Lot 7. In 1808, the 200 acres on
this lot was patented to Daniel Showers. This lot remained undivided,
throughout changing absentee ownership, until 1874. At that time, the lot was
divided into halves; the west half passed through some local families and some
absentee. By 1877, Edward McBrien had built a farmhouse on the portion of
Lot 7 which is now known as Walker Woods. The foundations from a barn of
unspecified antiquity remain in the location of the McBrien farm.
The western half of Lot 8 is included on this property, with the exception of an
area of approximately 10-15 acres in the south-west quarter. This lot was
reserved for the clergy until 1857, when it was patented to Ezra Picket, a local
woman. The property passed through her family into the 1900s. In 1934,
Walker purchased 4 acres in the north-west quarter, upon which stood an
historic log house. This house, constructed prior to the 1861 census, is one of
five original log houses remaining in Uxbridge Township. This house became
Walkers summer home, and is now camouflaged by modern siding.
Lots 9 and 10 were patented in December 1807 to Lieutenant-Colonel Boyton, a
French Royalist. At the time, Frenchmen who were loyal to the King of England
were given land grants in the area. Generally, the recipients were not farmers,
but held the land as an investment. In January of 1808, Boyton sold these 400
acres to another wealthy land owner, Quetton de St. George. In 1849, the
Honourable Robert Baldwin owned the two lots. Three years later, in 1852,
Baldwin sold the property to St. Georges son, Henry. St. George eventually sold
these two lots as separate units. Lot 9 was sold to Caleb Forsyth, who was likely
the first to farm the land. This lot began to be passed through local names, such
as Ezra Picket, who purchased the west half of Lot 9 in 1878. This lot largely
remained in the two halves as it changed ownership. By 1877, a schoolhouse was
in use directly across the road from this property. Walker purchased a portion of
this lot in 1948, for the purpose of planting trees. Meanwhile, Lot 10 was sold
by St. George to John Stouffer in 1855, likely for its lumber resources. This lot
remained in the Stouffer family until the 1870s, when it was turned over to local
families and divided.
Clubine
40
The Clubine property consists of approximately 120 acres on the western
portion of Lot 14, Concession 4. In 1806, Lot 14 was patented to John Miller.
Joshua Miller, Jr. owned the east half of the lot between 1811 and 1818, at
which time the entire 200 acres was sold to William Robinson. The property,
particularly the east half of the lot, changed ownership several times during the
1820s through to the 1850s. During the 1850s, the lot was divided into several
segments and sold to various owners, including some mill owners who were
interested in the lumber. By 1877, at least two homesteads stood on the east
half of the lot, outside of the current Clubine boundary. In 1878, John May
purchased the west half of Lot 14 and began a farm. This portion of Lot 14
remained in the May family until at least 1914.
Goodwood Resource Management Tract
This property consists of approximately 140 acres, located in Concession 2,
involving most of the eastern three-quarters of Lot 7 and most of Lot 8.
Lot 7 was patented to John Evans, a Quaker, in 1805. John Harr owned these
100 acres from 1809 until 1839, when the property was split into two halves.
The east half was purchased by Christian Hoover, a Mennonite, and the west
half by Henry May. These owners were likely the first to build homes on the
property. Mr. Hoover sold the east half to Samuel Roach in 1851, who remained
the owner of the property at the time of the 1860 township survey. The east half
of Lot 7 was divided into three segments, according to Roachs will in 1862. As
evidenced on the township map of 1895, the northern segment remained in the
Roach family until at least the end of the nineteenth century. The west half of
Lot 7 was sold by Mr. May one year following his purchase, to George Fockler,
who sold the land to John Forfar in 1848. Later in 1848, Mr. Forfar sold the land
to Charles Keller. By will, in 1859 the west half was divided among members of
the Keller family, including Francis Keller, who later owned the Uxbridge
Journal. These 100 acres passed through Keller ownership until the early 1870s.
Lot 8 was originally a reserve lot for the Crown, owned by the Canada Company.
It was divided early, with the west quarter patented to John Pearson in 1861,
and portions of the east half patented to Anson Vanzant and Naomi Brown in
1867. Prior to the grants in 1867, the east half had been leased to James
Vanzant to acquire timber for his sawmill which was located elsewhere.
By 1877, five homesteads were standing on Lots 7 and 8. One, owned by Mr.
Roach on the northeast quarter of Lot 7, was located within the current domain
of the Goodwood R.M.T. Several historic homes still stand on lands adjacent to
the Goodwood property, and the nearby Glasgow North Cemetery is the final
resting place for many of the early inhabitants of this area.
Summary
The history of the Glen Major Complex is a rich tapestry of cultural groups and
land uses, fostered by the varied environs and natural qualities of the land and
the Duffins Creek. Currently, a great deal of information is known about the
Aboriginal and early Euro-Canadian residents which aids in an appreciation of
the current land uses of the complex and neighbouring communities. It is clear,
through known heritage resources and the application of the Archaeological
Sites Predictive Model, that the Glen Major Complex contains a wealth of
heritage resources. As urban areas expand around the conservation lands within
the next 50 years, such resources will be replaced by modern developments. This
inevitable situation serves to illuminate the increasingly rare and priceless nature
of those heritage resources that are protected within the Glen Major Complex.
41