Stage 3 AA - May 7 2013

Transcription

Stage 3 Site-Specific Archaeological Assessment of
Site BcGs-12, SparkleLight Solar Farm
Part of Lot 1, Concession 6,
Geographic Township of Thorah, Township of Brock,
Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario
FIT Contract # FIT-F8YD638 (F-01550-SPV-130-505)
Prepared by
THE ARCHAEOLOGISTS INC.
Licensee: T. Keith Powers
Archaeological Consulting Licence P052
Project Information Number P052-384-2012
Original Report
Report Filed: May 7, 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Archaeologists Inc. was contracted to conduct Stage 3 site-specific archaeological
assessments of the Euro-Canadian Site BcGs-12, located within Part of Lot 1, Concession
6, Geographic Township of Thorah, Township of Brock, Regional Municipality of
Durhm, Ontario. The assessment was conducted in advance of development related to a
Renewal Energy Approval project FIT # FIT-F8YD638 (F-01550-SPV-130-505),
underOntario Regulation 359/09 of the Green Energy Act, s. 20 (1) and s. 21. The site is
located in an agricultural field on the north half of Lot 1 approximately 60 metres west of
Simcoe Street.
Site BcGs-12 was discovered by pedestrian survey during a Stage 1-2 assessment of the
subject property by Scarlett Janusas Archaeological and Heritage Consulting and
Education (SJAHCE 2012). The site was identified as a mid to late 19th century EuroCanadian scatter. The site was identified as a potentially significant archaeological
resource and it was recommended for Stage 3 site-specific archaeological assessment.
The Stage 3 assessment strategy for the site was consistent with that outlined in the 2011
Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists for small post contact sites
where it is not yet evident that the level of cultural heritage value or interest will result in
a recommendation to proceed to Stage 4 mitigation. The Stage 3 assessment consisted of
a controlled surface pick-up (CSP) and the excavation of one-metre square test units at 5
metre intervals followed by an additional 20% of the initial grid unit total focusing on
areas of interest within the site extent as recommended in the Stage 2 report by SJAHCE.
The Stage 3 CSP resulted in the recovery of 24 surface artifacts. The test unit excavation
resulted in the excavation of 67 test units and the recovery of 144 artifacts. No midden
area was identified and no activity areas were noted. Given that most of the time span of
occupation of the archaeological site appears to date after 1870 it is recommended that
the site has no further cultural heritage value or interest, and does not warrant Stage 4
mitigation.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
Project Personnel
1.0 Project Context
1.1 Development Context
1.2 Historical Context
1.3 Archaeological Context
2.0 Field Methods
3.0 Record of Finds
4.0 Analysis and Conclusions
5.0 Recommendations
6.0 Advice on Compliance with Legislation
7.0 Bibliography and Sources
8.0 Images
9.0 Maps
APPENDIX A
i
iii
iv
1
1
2
5
7
10
13
15
16
17
18
21
27
ii
PROJECT PERSONNEL
Project/Field Director:
Mr. T. Keith Powers (P052)
Field Archaeologists
Mr. T. Keith Powers
Mr. Norbert Stanchly (R149)
Mr. Barclay Powers
Mr. John Rivalo
Mr. Casey Johnston
Mr. Jason Delacarsa
Mr. Misha Stecyk
Mr. Henry Windsor
Mr. Peter Barrington
Report Preparation:
Mr. Norbert Stanchly
Graphics
Mrs. Karen Powers
Mr. T. Keith Powers
Mr. Norbert Stanchly
iii
Stage 3 Site-Specific Archaeological Assessment of Site BcGs-12, SparkleLight Solar Farm, Part of Lot 1,
Concession 6, Geographic Township of Thorah, Township of Brock, RM of Durham, Ontario
INTRODUCTION
The Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. O.18, requires anyone wishing to carry out
archaeological fieldwork in Ontario to have a license from the Ministry of Tourism,
Culture & Sport (MTCS). All licensees are to file a report with the MTCS containing
details of the fieldwork that has been done for each project. Following standards and
guidelines set out by the MTCS is a condition of a licence to conduct archaeological
fieldwork in Ontario. The Archaeologists Inc. confirms that this report meets ministry
report requirements as set out in the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant
Archaeologists, and is filed in fulfillment of the terms and conditions an archaeological
license.
1.0
PROJECT CONTEXT (Section 7.5.5)
This section of the report will provide the context for the archaeological fieldwork,
including the development, historical and archaeological context.
1.1 Development Context (Section 7.5.6, Standards 1-3)
Section 7.5.6, Standard 1
The Archaeologists Inc. was contracted to conduct Stage 3 site-specific archaeological
assessments of the Euro-Canadian Site BcGs-12, located within Part of Lot 1, Concession
6, Geographic Township of Thorah, Township of Brock, Regional Municipality of
Durhm, Ontario. The assessment was conducted in advance of development related to a
Renewal Energy Approval project FIT # FIT-F8YD638 (F-01550-SPV-130-505),
underOntario Regulation 359/09 of the Green Energy Act, s. 20 (1) and s. 21. The site is
located in an agricultural field on the north half of Lot 1 approximately 60 metres west of
Simcoe Street.
Canadian Solar Solutions Inc., acting on behalf SparkleLight LP, proposes to develop a
solar facility with a maximum name plate capacity of approximately 10 megawatts (MW)
alternating current (AC), located near Beaverton, in the Township of Brock and Region
of Durham, Ontario. Canadian Solar Solutions Inc. is coordinating and managing the
approvals process for SparkleLight LP. The renewable energy facility will be known as
SparkleLight and will be rated as a Class 3 Solar Facility. SparkleLight LP has received a
contract from the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) for the sale of electricity generated by
this renewable facility through the province’s Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) program (enabled by
the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009). The project will require a Renewable
Energy Approval (REA) as per Ontario Regulation 359/09 under Part V.0.1 of the
Ontario Environmental Protection Act.
The proposed Class 3 Solar Facility is located at B29530 Simcoe Street, approximately
11 kilometres from the community of Beaverton. Figure 1 shows the general location of
the project in Ontario. The project location covers the north half of Lot 1, Concession 6 in
the Township of Brock, and consists of 38.86 hectares of privately owned land (leased by
the proponent) with geographic coordinates (centroids) as follows:
1
The project is seeking a Renewable Energy Approval according to Ontario Regulation
359/09 issued under the Environmental Protection Act, Sections 20, 21 and 22. The
project has been awarded Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) contract number F-01550-SPV-130-505.
There is no additional development-related information relevant to understanding the
choice of fieldwork strategy or recommendations made in the report.
Permission to access the study area to conduct all required archaeological fieldwork
activities, including the recovery of artifacts was given by the landowner and their
representative.
1.2 Historical Context (Section 7.5.7, Standards 1-2)
In advance of the Stage 3 assessment, a Stage 1 background study of the subject property
and Stage 2 archaeological assessment was conducted by Scarlett Janusas Archaeological
and Heritage Consulting and Education in order to document the property archaeological
and land use history and present condition. According to her report:
•
“The study area exhibits archaeological potential based on the presence of
nearby watercourses (White’s Creek, and a channelized stream) and a small
permanent wetland in the southeast corner of the study area which leads to an
unevaluated wetland. In addition, the property has sandy loam soils, an historic
roadway (Simcoe Street), and a relatively undisturbed property all contribute
towards defining archaeological potential for the property”(SJAHCE 2012).
The Stage 2 archaeological assessment consisted of a systematic pedestrian survey of the
subject property during the course of which Site BcGs-12 was discovered. A detailed
land use history of Lot 1, Concession 6, is provided in the archaeological assessment
report entitled “Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment, Sparkle Light Solar Farm,
North Half of Lot 1, Concession 6, Geographic Township of Thorah, former Ontario
County, Township of Brock, Regional Municipality of Durham” (SJAHCE 2012).
Her detailed research indicated the following:
“The study area consists of the north half of lot 1, concession 6 in the former
township of Thorah and now part of the Township of Brock. Established in 1820
as part of York County, the former township of Thorah was incorporated in 1850
and transferred in 1852 to the newly formed Ontario County. Upon the
dissolution of Ontario County on January 1, 1974, Thorah amalgamated with the
adjoining Brock Township and became part of the new Durham Region.
2
According to the Land Index at the Archives of Ontario, interest in the study area
lot came early. A location ticket for the entire 200 acres (~80.9 hectares) of lot 1,
concession 6 was reserved on March 8, 1826 for Robert Bailey who was listed as
a yeoman living in Scotland. However, Mr. Bailey never came to look at the land
and, on April 27, 1827, the study lot was included in the vast number of “ticket
location” lots in both Thorah and Eldon given to Donald Cameron as he secured
lands for the incoming Scottish settlers. However, there is no indication in the
Land Index that Donald Cameron ever gave away the location ticket for the study
lot. The lot appeared to be unoccupied in the 1837 directory for the Home District
as well as later assessment rolls. There was also no entry or occupant listed in the
1861 Agricultural Census although the same census did list an occupant for the
south half of the lot. The north half though seemed to be completely unoccupied
until a Crown Patent was issued on May 7, 1873 to Neil McDonald.
Neil McDonald was born in Scotland on Christmas Day, 1846 to John McDonald
and his wife Flora McLean. The family immigrated to Canada in 1858 and
appeared farming in Thorah in the 1861 census. On March 25, 1875, Neil
McDonald married Catherine Smith of Eldon who was a daughter of John Smith
and Janet MacInnis. The pair had two children, a daughter Janet born in Thorah
on March 3, 1877 and a son John also in Thorah on August 3, 1883.
It is difficult to determine Neil McDonald’s exact use of the study lot. The fact that
he was given the patent indicates that he must have performed at least some of the
required settlement duties. Patentees were required to clear a certain amount of
land and build and occupy a dwelling at least 18 by 20 feet (5.4684 x 6.096 m) in
size by the end of the first two years.
However, it must be noted that the 1877 Historical Atlas Map for Ontario County
while noting the ownership of Neil McDonald, shows no buildings on the study
lot. Settlement duties were often waived in the case of military patentees but there
seems to be little reason for waiving duties in the case of Neil McDonald. The
atlas map also showed that he owned the southeast 50 acres (~20.23 hectares) of
the lot directly across the street with the remainder of that lot owned by his
brother-in-law. The map showed no buildings on his 50-acre (20.23 hectares)
parcel of land either, leaving the possibility that Neil McDonald and his family
may have shared the home of his brother-in-law, a building clearly marked on the
neighbouring lot.
In any event, Neil McDonald appeared to have some financial difficulty given the
fact that, in October 1876, he took out the first of four mortgages against the
study lot, none of which were ever discharged. In 1881 he secured his fourth
mortgage from the Hamilton Provident and Loan Society later defaulting on the
payments resulting in him quit claiming the property back to the bank on May 27,
1884. Whether he ever farmed the land in any way is debatable. The 1881 census
listed his occupation as “farm labourer” as opposed to “farmer”, indicating that
he did not work on his own farm but rather took a wage from another farmer.
3
Whatever the case, after leaving the study lot, he and his family moved to
Beaverton where he became a clerk and salesman in a general store, an
occupation he kept until his death on May 11, 1918.
On April 1, 1887, the Hamilton Provident and Loan Society sold the study lot to
John Sheehy, his wife Harriet and son John Wesley Sheehy for the sum of
$2550.00. However, the deed was not registered until January 28, 1910 (Deed
#4964). John Sheehy was born February 7, 1834 in County Clare, Ireland and
immigrated to Canada in the late 1850s. He married Harriet Irwin of Mariposa
Township about 1863 and the couple raised a family of four sons and four
daughters. Census reports for 1891, 1901 and 1911 all show John and Harriet on
the study lot even though, on January 1, 1901, they sold their interest in the land
to their sons Robert and John Wesley Sheehy (Deed #4112). On January 24,
1910, John Wesley Sheehy and his wife Minnie quit claimed his interest in the
study lot to Robert Sheehy who remained the sole owner until April 17, 1920
(Quit Claim #4965). The Sheehy family most likely made numerous improvements
to the lot. During their ownership, two long-term mortgages were secured on the
property both of which were discharged before Robert Sheehy sold the property.
On April 17, 1920, James Andrew Miller McCrorie purchased the study lot from
Robert Sheehy (Deed #5879). He was born in Brechin, Ontario on May 11, 1901
to James Miller McCrorie Sr. and his wife Catherine Ann Whelan. He was
married twice, first to Theresa Hazel Speiran and then to Blanche E. Bernier. In
1944, he sold a half interest in the study lands to his brother, John Henry
McCrorie and the two held title to the land until selling it in October 1954 (Deed
#8524). James McCrorie lived a long life, becoming one of the township’s most
prolific storytellers. His many reminisces about life in Thorah have been recorded
by various historical organizations. He died on October 26, 2000 at the advanced
age of 99 years.
To summarize, the historical background records indicate that the scatter identified
during the Stage 2, registered as BcGs-12 likely corresponds to the occupation of the lot
associated with Neil MacDonald. By the time of the 1881 census, no building is listed
within this portion of the lot. The Atlas also does not depict any structures within the
north half of Lot 1.
Given the site’s location in relation to the structure depicted on the Atlas, and the lack of
structural artifacts, it is likely not the location of a homestead but is rather a refuse
deposit, as suggested by SJACHE in their Stage 2 report. Given this, our analysis and
conclusion of the Stage 3 assessment (see below), and the above detailed nature of the
historical documentation research undertaken by SJACHE, we did not conduct any
further archival research as in our professional judgment, no further research would aid in
the interpretation of the site.
4
The fieldwork strategy for the Stage 3 assessment of Site BcGs-12 followed that
recommended in the Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessment report prepared by Ms.
Scarlett Janusas (SJACHE 2012 [PIF# P027-149-2011]). The Stage 1 and 2 report
recommended that a Stage 3 assessment is required for BcGs-12, as per the Standards and
Guidelines. No specific Stage 3 recommendations were included in her report.
1.3 Archaeological Context (Section 7.5.8, Standards 1-7)
In order that an inventory of archaeological resources could be compiled for the study
area, three sources of information were consulted: the site forms for registered sites
housed at the Ministry of Tourism and Culture; published and unpublished documentary
sources; and the files of The Archaeologists Inc.
In Ontario, information concerning archaeological sites is stored in the Ontario
Archaeological Sites Database (O.A.S.D.), an inventory of the documented
archaeological record in Ontario.
Information on the known archaeological sites in the vicinity of the study area was
obtained form the Ministry of Tourism and Culture site database. There are no known
archaeological sites located within the study area limits and no sites were registered
within a one kilometre radius of the subject property.
The subject property is currently used as agricultural land. The study property lies within
the physiographic region of the Simcoe Lowlands, specifically the Lake Simcoe Basin
(Chapman & Putnam 1984). The Simcoe Lowlands lie between Lake Simcoe and
Georgian Bay and falls into two major divisions separated by the Simcoe Uplands: the
Nottawasaga basin to the west and the Simcoe Basin to the east. Both of these basins
were flooded by glacial Lake Algonquin and are bordered by shore cliffs, beaches, and
bouldery terraces, and are floored by sand, silt and clay. The Lake Simcoe Basin to the
south of Lake Simcoe is covered in a low, swampy, sandy plain. The Lowlands form the
basin of the ancient proglacial Lake Algonquin. The entire township of Thorah lies within
the eastern part of the lowlands. The major soil type of the property is Mallard sandy
loam. This soil type is imperfectly drained, stone free (Gillespie and Richards 1957, Soil
Survey Map No. 25, north half).
A small permanent wetland occupies part of the southeastern corner of the property and
White’s Creek lies to the south of the property, and a channelized stream lies to the north
of the property.
The Stage 3 fieldwork was undertaken between November 16, and December 20, 2012.
5
With the exception of the above Stage 1-2 assessment conducted by S. Janusas, the
Archaeologists Inc. is unaware of any previous archaeological fieldwork carried out
immediately adjacent to the project area.
We are unaware of previous findings and recommendations relevant to the current stage
of work, with the exception of the recommendations made by Scarlett Janusas in her
Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessment report which are discussed above.
There were no unusual physical features that may have affected fieldwork strategy
decisions or the identification of artifacts or cultural features (e.g., heavy and wet soils,
dense root mats, boulders, rubble).
There is no additional archaeological information that may be relevant to understanding
the choice of fieldwork techniques or the recommendations of this report.
6
2.0 FIELD METHODS (Section 7.9.1, Standards 1-5)
This section of the report addresses Section 7.9.1 of the 2011 Standards and Guidelines
for Consultant Archaeologists.
All Stage 3 fieldwork was conducted according to the archaeological fieldwork standards
and guidelines as per Sections 3.2, 3.2.2, and 3.2.3 of the 2011 Standards and Guidelines
for Consultant Archaeologists.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Section 3.2, S1 – All relevant reports of previous fieldwork within the property
were reviewed prior to the Stage 3 assessment. The relevant Stage 1 and 2
archaeological assessment report is discussed in greater detail above.
Section 3.2, S2 – The archaeological site assessment was conducted when
weather and lighting conditions permitted good visibility of all parts of the
archaeological site. No fieldwork was carried when weather and lighting
conditions (e.g., snow cover, frozen ground, excessive rain or drought, heavy fog)
reduced the ability to identify and document any part of the archaeological site.
Section 3.2, S3a&b – The Global Positioning System (GPS) was used to record
the locations of a central fixed point within the archaeological site and a
permanent datum that can be tied to a development map. The GPS readings are
provided below. GPS MAKE AND MODEL: Magellan Explorist 610
Section 3.2, S4 – Representative photographs of all field conditions have been
provided in the Images section of this report.
Section 3.2.2, S1 – Test unit excavation was conducted systematically to
document the presence and extent of buried artifacts, structures, stratigraphy and
cultural features, and to collect a representative sample of artifacts, across the
entire archaeological site. All test units measured 1 m square.
Section 3.2.2, S2 – The placement of test units followed an established grid on the
site based on the permanent datum to at least the accuracy of transit and tape
measurements. No test units were placed in unmeasured, estimated locations.
Section 3.2.2, S3 – All test units were excavated by hand.
Section 3.2.2, S4 – Test units were excavated by standardized systematic levels.
Section 3.2.2, S5 – Test units were excavated into the first 5 cm of subsoil, where
possible, unless excavation uncovered a cultural feature. No cultural feature was
noted during test unit excavation.
Section 3.2.2, S6a&b – n/a
Section 3.2.2, S7 – All excavated soils were screened through mesh with an
aperture of no greater than 6mm.
Section 3.2.2, S8 – All artifacts were collected, retained, recorded and catalogued
by their corresponding grid unit designation (see Appendix A).
Section 3.2.3, S1 – The location and number of test units was determined using
standards presented in Table 3.1 of the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for
Consultant Archaeologists as well as professional judgment. The objectives of the
test unit placement strategy was to provide a uniform level of data collection from
across the site, focus testing on key areas (as deemed appropriate based on
7
professional judgment), gather a representative artifact sample from across the
site, determine the nature of subsurface deposits, and determine the extent of the
archaeological site, in order to support the recommendations for Stage 4
mitigation strategies. The test unit strategy employed followed that for small postcontact sites where it is not yet evident that the level of cultural heritage value or
interest will result in a recommendation to proceed to Stage 4. We placed and
excavated 1 m square test units in a 5m grid across the site and placed and
excavated additional test units, amounting to at least 20% of the grid unit total.
This standard is not applicable as no alternative methods acceptable through guidelines or
special conditions was used for the Stage 3 assessment.
See Table 1 below for GPS co-ordinates.
NAD 83
GRID 17T
Table 1: SITE BcGs-12 – GPS READINGS
CENTRE/DATUM E654454
NORTH
E654449
WEST
E654412
SOUTH
E654459
EAST
E654487
N4924750
N4924797
N4924739
N4924734
N4924769
The controlled surface pick-up (CSP) followed the relevant standards as per Section 3.2.1
of the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Section 3.2.1, S1 – The site are had been re-cultivated and weathered, following
the standards set out for pedestrian survey in Section 2 of the 2011 Standards and
Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists.
Section 3.2.1, S2 – The location of all artifacts on the ground surface was
accurately mapped using a total station. Artifacts were recorded and catalogued
by their mapped location, and any relevant information (e.g., spatial relationship
of diagnostics, artifact concentration areas) was recorded. The map was tied to the
general site GPS readings by recording a central point in the scatter
Section 3.2.1, S3 – n/a
Section 3.2.1, S4 – We ensured that decisions regarding the type and number of
artifacts collected struck a balance between gathering enough artifacts to
document the archaeological site and leaving enough in place to relocate the site
if required.
Section 3.2.1, S5 – We collected all formal artifact types and diagnostic categories,
including all refined ceramic sherds.
Section 3.2.1, S6 – We collected a representative sample of non-diagnostic
artifacts, taking into consideration the archaeological site type, type and frequency
8
of non-diagnostic artifacts, and the likelihood that further fieldwork will be
required.
Section 7.9.1, Standard 5a
Test unit excavation met the applicable standards for archaeological fieldwork as per
Section 3.2.2 of the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists, as
detailed above.
Section 7.9.1, Standard 5b
The test unit grid was established in a systematic 5-metre grid pattern in relation to a
fixed permanent datum. The datum is located at 500N-200E. Unit designations are
assigned based on the southwest corner of the unit. The grid strategy was based on the
standards most appropriate to the type of site based on Table 3.1 of the 2011 Standards
and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists as described in above. A total of 67 onemetre square test units were excavated. The strategy met the standards and guidelines for
archaeological fieldwork.
The objectives of the test unit placement were to provide a uniform level of data
collection from across the site, gather a representative artifact sample from across the
site, determine the nature of subsurface deposits, to determine the extent of the
archaeological site, and to support recommendations for Stage 4 mitigation strategies.
Section 7.9.1, Standard 5c
Ploughzone depths averaged 22cm and ranged from between 18cm to 26cm in depth.
There was relatively little variation in soil depths across the test units.
9
3.0 RECORD OF FINDS (Section 7.9.2, Standards 1-5)
No features were uncovered during the test unit excavations.
The CSP resulted in the recovery of 24 artifacts. The test unit excavation of 67 test units
produced 144 artifacts. Artifact density is considered low for a possible Euro-Canadian
homestead site. No specific artifact patterning was noted. Artifact frequencies in test units
are provided in Table 2.
Table 2: Site BcGs-12 – Stage 3 Test Unit Artifact Frequency
Test Unit
495-185
495-190
495-195
495-200
495-205
495-210
500-180
500-185
500-190
500-195
500-200
500-205
500-210
500-215
500-220
505-175
505-180
505-185
505-190
505-195
505-200
505-205
505-210
505-215
505-220
509-195
509-205
510-175
510-180
510-185
510-190
510-194
510-195
510-196
510-200
510-204
510-205
510-206
Artifact Frequency
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
2
1
3
2
2
0
0
2
2
7
3
4
0
1
1
5
1
0
0
3
3
7
10
6
2
4
9
8
10
Table 2: Site BcGs-12 – Stage 3 Test Unit Artifact Frequency
Test Unit
510-210
510-215
510-220
511-195
511-205
514-200
515-175
515-180
515-185
515-190
515-195
515-199
515-200
515-201
515-205
515-210
515-215
515-220
520-175
520-180
520-185
520-190
520-195
520-200
520-205
520-210
520-215
520-220
Total
Artifact Frequency
2
1
0
5
3
9
0
0
1
0
0
2
14
7
2
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
144
The types of artifacts identified during the Stage 3 assessment include diagnostics that fit
into a date range within the late 19th century (ca. 1860-1880s). This is based on the
recovery of diagnostic ceramic types including blue and brown transferprint, banded
ware, and ironstone.
Glass artifacts consisted entirely of bottle glass. Wire nails and machine cut nails were
found, but in minimal quantities. Faunal bone was also recovered. Very few architectural
items were noted and no window glass was recovered. This suggests that the site
represents a refuse scatter rather than the location of a homestead.
The majority of the artifact assemblage is composed of ceramic tableware. Please see
Appendix A for a complete catalogue of all retained artifacts. These represent items
related to the following classes of materials: kitchen/foodways, following the Canadian
Parks Service (1992). The catalogue and artifact description below follow the
requirements regarding artifact analysis and description as per Section 6.0 – Artifact
Analysis, 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists.
11
•
•
•
•
•
•
Section 6, Standard 1 - Formal artifact typologies follow the "Classification
System for Historical Collections" (Canadian Parks Service 1992), The Parks
Canada Glass Glossary (Jones and Sullivan 1989), and articles by Ian Kenyon
(1980, 1995) and J.K. Jouppien (1980). Citations are provided in report Section
7.0.
Section 6, Standard 4 – There were no unstable artifacts.
Section 6, Standard 5 – There were no large assemblages of unstable artifacts.
Section 6, Standard 6 - see Appendix A for the artifact catalogue. The catalogue
conforms to Standards 6a-6d.
Section 6, Standard 7 - The packed collection consists of one banker box of
artifacts. The long-term curation plan is to store the artifacts at the laboratory
facilities of The Archaeologists Inc.
Section 6, Standard 8 - Sampling was not conducted.
There were no unusual or unexpected findings.
Table 3 below provides an inventory of the documentary record generated in the field
during the Stage 3 assessment.
Table 3: Inventory of Documentary Record
Document Type
Field Notes
Photographs
Maps
Description
• 2 pages of written field notes detailing daily
weather conditions, excavation results, artifact
yields per test unit; field crew
• 10 digital photographs
• 2 hand drawn grid maps on graph paper detailing
placement of test units in relation to 500-200
datum and mapping included in this report
12
4.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS (Section 7.9.3, Standards 1-4)
The results of Stage 3 assessment of Site BcGs-12 indicates that the site represents a
Euro-Canadian refuse scatter dating to the mid to late 19th century, based on the artifact
types recovered. As detailed in Section 3.0 of this report, these include diagnostic
ceramics such as: blue and brown transferprint, banded ware, and ironstone
These diagnostics account for the majority of the assemblage. The lack of window glass,
nails and brick fragments also supports this interpretation and indicates that the deposit is
not related to any structural debris.
The Stage 3 archaeological findings suggest that Site BcGs-12 may be a primarily late
19th century refuse scatter related to the occupation of the lot associated with Neil
MacDonald. By the time of the 1881 census, no building is listed within this portion of
the lot. The Atlas also does not depict any structures within the north half of Lot 1.
Given the site’s location in relation to the structure depicted on the Atlas, and the lack of
structural artifacts, it is likely not the location of a homestead but is rather a refuse
deposit, as suggested by SJACHE in their Stage 2 report. Given this, our analysis and
conclusion of the Stage 3 assessment, and the above detailed nature of the historical
documentation research undertaken by SJACHE, no further research would aid in the
interpretation of the site.
The analysis of the artifact types, frequency, and distribution all indicate that the site is a
mid to late 19th century refuse scatter.
The evaluation of the level of cultural heritage value or interest of the site is based on the
Stage 3 assessment findings in relation to Table 3.2 of the 2011 Standards and
Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Indicators showing cultural heritage value or
interest include the sites 1) information value, 2) value to a community, and 3) value as a
public resource. Each of these is determined by a set of criteria. The information value is
defined as how the archaeological site contributes to local, regional, provincial or
national archaeological history. The community value is defined as the archaeological
site’s intrinsic value to a particular community or group. The value as a public resource is
defined as how the site contributes to enhancing the public’s understanding and
appreciation of Ontario’s past. The site is evaluated against set criteria outlined by Table
3.2 of the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists in Table 3
below:
Table 4: Indicators Showing Cultural Heritage Value or Interest
Information Value
Criteria
Indicators
• Cultural historical value
• Information from the site has no potential
to advance our understanding of the
13
•
•
Historical value
•
•
Integrity
•
Value to a community
Criteria
• The site has traditional, social or religious
value
Value as a public resource
Criteria
• The site has potential for public use for
education, recreation or tourism
cultural history of Thorah township
Information from the site has no potential
to advance our understanding of past
human social organization at the family
and household level
The site is not associated with the earliest
settlement of the township
The site retains no degree of original
material
Indicators
• No indicators
Indicators
• The site has no potential for public use for
education, recreation or tourism
Table 4 indicates that the site has no indicators supporting criteria for the site to
contribute to local and provincial archaeological history. The site has been evaluated to
possess a low level of cultural heritage value or interest.
14
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS (Section 7.9.4, Standards 1-5)
Site BcGs-12 is identified as a mid to late 19th century refuse scatter and therefore the
recommendations made in this report have not been informed by input from Aboriginal
communities.
It is concluded that Site BcGs-12 has no further cultural heritage value or interest and we
recommend that Stage 4 mitigation is not necessary or warranted.
Section 7.9.4, Standard 2 – n/a
Stage 4 mitigation is not recommended for Site BcGs-12.
15
6.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION (Section 7.5.9, Standards
1-2)
This report is submitted to the Minister of Tourism and Culture as a condition of
licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c 0.18.
The report is reviewed to ensure that it complies with the standards and guidelines that
are issued by the Minister, and that the archaeological fieldwork and report
recommendations ensure the conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural
heritage of Ontario. When all matters relating to archaeological sites within the project
area of a development proposal have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Ministry of
Tourism and Culture, a letter will be issued by the ministry stating that there are no
further concerns with regard to alterations to archaeological sites by the proposed
development.
It is an offence under Sections 48 and 69 of the Ontario Heritage Act for any party other
than a licensed archaeologist to make any alteration to a known archaeological site or to
remove any artifact or other physical evidence of past human use or activity from the site,
until such time as a licensed archaeologist has completed archaeological fieldwork on the
site, submitted a report to the Minister stating that the site has no further cultural heritage
value or interest, and the report has been filed in the Ontario Public Register of
Archaeological Reports referred to in Section 65.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Section 7.5.9, Standard 1c
Should previously undocumented archaeological resources be discovered, they may be a
new archaeological site and therefore subject to Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage
Act. The proponent or person discovering the archaeological resources must cease
alteration of the site immediately and engage a licensed consultant archaeologist to carry
out archaeological fieldwork, in compliance with Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage
Act.
Section 7.5.9, Standard 1d
The Cemeteries Act, R.S.O, 1990 c. C.4 and the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services
Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.33 (when proclaimed in force) require that any person
discovering human remains must notify the police or coroner and the Registrar of
Cemeteries at the Ministry of Consumer Services.
Archaeological sites recommended for further archaeological fieldwork or protection
remain subject to Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act and may not be altered, or
have artifacts removed from them, except by a person holding an archaeological licence.
16
7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES (Section 7.5.10, Standards 1)
Beers, J.H. and Co.
1877 An Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario. J.H. Beers and
Co., Toronto.
Canadian Parks Service
1992 Classification System for Historical Collections. National Historic Sites,
Canadian Parks Service, Ottawa.
Chapman, L.J. and F. Putnam
1984 The Physiography of Southern Ontario, Ontario Geological Survey
Special Volume 2. Toronto: Government of Ontario, Ministry of Natural
Resources.
Jones, O. and C. Sullivan
1989 The Parks Canada Glass Glossary. Minister of Supply and Services
Canada, Hull.
Juppien, J.K.
1980 The Application of South’s Mean Ceramic Formula to Ontario Historic
Sites. Arch Notes 1980(3):24-28.
Kenyon, I.
1980
1995
Some General Notes on 19th Century Ceramics. Kewa 80-3.
A History of Ceramic Tableware in Ontario: 1780-1910. Paper presented
at Table Talks Lecture Series, Montgomery’s Inn, Toronto.
Dillon Consulting Ltd.
2012 Sparklelight. Construction Plan Report. Prepared for Canadian Solar
Solutions Inc.
Gillespie, J.E. and N.L. Richards
1957 Soil Survey of Victoria County, Report No. 25 of the Ontario Soil Survey,
Canada. Ontario Dept. of Agriculture, Guelph.
Ministry of Tourism and Culture
2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists.
Scarlett Janusas Archaeological Heritage Consulting & Education
2012 Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment, Sparkle Light Solar Farm,
North Half of Lot 1, Concession 6, Geographic Township of Thorah,
Township of Brock, RM of Durham. (PIF# P027-149-2011)
17
8.0 IMAGES
Plate 1: Stage 3 test unit excavation.
Plate 2: Stage 3 Test Unit excavations.
18
Plate 3: Stage 3 test unit infill excavation (root burn at
left of photo).
Plate 4: Representative ceramic and metal artifacts.
19
Plate 5: Representative glass artifacts.
20
9.0 MAPS
Map 1: General location of Site BcGs-12.
21
Stage 3 Site-Specific Archaeological Assessment of Site BcGs-12, SparkleLight Solar Farm, Part of Lot 1, Concession 6, Geographic Township of Thorah,
Township of Brock, RM of Durham, Ontario
Map 2: Clear copy of development mapping provided by proponent.
22
Map 2: Stage 3 results overlaid on Stage 2 assessment results (after Janusas 2012).
23
Map 3: Approximate location of datum overlaid on development mapping.
24
Map 4: Stage 3 results (in red) overlaid on development mapping (see Map 5 for detailed results).
25
Map 5: Detail of Stage 3 results – Site BcGs-12.
26
Cat#
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
Prov.
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
H6
H7
H8
H9
H10
H11
H12
H13
H14
H15
H16
H17
H18
H19
H20
H21
H22
H23
H24
H25
H26
H27
H28
H29
H30
H31
H32
H33
surface
surface
surface
surface
500-185
500-190
500-190
500-195
500-195
500-200
500-200
500-205
500-210
500-210
500-210
500-215
500-220
500-220
505-185
505-185
505-190
505-195
505-195
505-195
505-195
505-200
505-205
505-205
Layer
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
Qty.
2
3
3
3
4
Material
Glass
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
3
1
1
Ceramic
Ceramic
Bone
Metal
Ceramic
Ceramic
Metal
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Metal
Ceramic
Metal
Bone
Glass
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Metal
Glass
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Bone
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
APPENDIX A: STAGE 3 ARTIFACT CATALOGUE – SITE BcGs-12
Type/Ware
Motif/Technique/Colour
Function/Form
Container, bottle
mould blown
clear
RWE
transferprint, brown
teas
RWE
transferprint, blue
flatware
RWE
transferprint, blue
teas
RWE
banded
holloware
RWE
Ironstone
Faunal
Nail
RWE
Ironstone
Buckle
Ironstone
Ironstone
Buff earthenware
Nail
RWE
Nail
Unidentifiable
Container, bottle
RWE
Ironstone
Unidentifiable
Ironstone
Nail
Container, bottle
RWE
RWE
RWE
Unidentifiable
RWE
RWE
RWE
undecorated
Moulded
indeterminate
wire
transferprint, blue
plain
teas
holloware
plain
plain
coarse, glazed
wire
transferprint, blue
machine cut
indeterminate
holloware
holloware
mould blown
transferprint, blue
Moulded
clear
flatware
holloware
undecorated
wire
molded
Comments
base
blue
"OBAN, Dale Hall Pot, England" makers
mark
incomplete
teas
indeterminate
complete
exfoliated interior
incomplete
teas
square
plain
banded
clear
indeterminate
holloware
flatware
banded
flatware
teas
holloware
incomplete
calcined
body
exfoliated
indeterminate frags
incomplete
neck/lip
blue
blue
27
Cat#
H34
H35
H36
H37
H38
H39
H40
H41
H42
H43
H44
H45
H46
H47
H48
H49
H50
H51
H52
H53
H54
H55
H56
H57
H58
H59
H60
H61
H62
H63
H64
H65
H66
H67
H68
Prov.
505-205
505-205
505-215
505-220
509-195
509-195
509-205
510-185
510-185
510-185
510-190
510-190
510-194
510-194
510-194
510-195
510-195
510-195
510-195
510-195
510-196
510-196
510-196
510-196
510-200
510-204
510-204
510-204
510-204
510-205
510-205
510-205
510-206
510-206
510-206
Layer
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
Qty.
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
2
1
Material
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Bone
Glass
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Metal
Metal
Bone
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Metal
Metal
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Glass
Ceramic
Ceramic
Glass
Type/Ware
Function/Form
RWE
transferprint, blue
teas
RWE
plain
unidentifiable
Unidentifiable
holloware
RWE
indeterminate
RWE
spongeware, blue
indeterminate
Faunal
indeterminate
Bottle
mould blown
clear
RWE
transferprint, blue
teas
RWE
banded
holloware
RWE
undecorated
teas
Nail
wire
Scrap
Mammal
long bone
RWE
transferprint, blue
teas
Unidentifiable
Ironstone
plain
flatware
Nail
wire
Scrap
RWE
transferprint, blue
teas
RWE
teas
RWE
undecorated
flatware
RWE
transferprint, blue
flatware
Ironstone
Moulded
holloware
Unidentifiable
RWE
transferprint, blue willow
teas
Ironstone
plain
indeterminate
RWE
banded
holloware
RWE
transferprint, blue
teas
RWE
teas
RWE
plain
indeterminate
Ironstone
plain
holloware
Container, bottle
mould blown
green
RWE
teas
RWE
transferprint, blue
teas
Container, bottle
brown
Comments
exfoliated
medicine base?
blue
incomplete
charred
exfoliated
fragment
incomplete
exfoliated
body
body
28
Cat#
H69
H70
H71
H72
H73
H74
H75
H76
H77
H78
H79
H80
H81
H82
H83
H84
H85
H86
H87
H88
H89
H90
H91
H92
H93
H94
H95
H96
H97
H98
Prov.
510-206
510-206
510-210
510-215
511-195
511-195
511-195
511-205
511-205
511-205
514-200
514-200
514-200
514-200
515-185
515-199
515-200
515-200
515-200
515-200
515-200
515-201
515-201
515-201
515-201
515-205
515-215
515-215
520-175
520-190
Layer
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
PZ
Qty.
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
1
2
6
3
2
2
1
3
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
Material
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Bone
Metal
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Metal
Bone
Ceramic
Ceramic
Bone
Tooth
Metal
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Ceramic
Metal
Ceramic
Ceramic
Type/Ware
Function/Form
RWE
plain
indeterminate
RWE
banded
holloware
Ironstone
plain
holloware
Ironstone
molded
indeterminate
RWE
teas
Unidentifiable
Scrap
Ironstone
Moulded
holloware
RWE
banded
holloware
RWE
banded
indeterminate
Ironstone
plain
flatware
RWE
transferprint, blue
teas
RWE
transferprint, blue
flatware
Ironstone
Moulded
holloware
Scrap
Mammal
long bone
Ironstone
Moulded
Cup
RWE
transferprint, blue
teas
Unidentifiable
cow
Nail
wire
RWE
transferprint, blue
indeterminate
RWE
flatware
RWE
teas
RWE
indeterminate
RWE
undecorated
indeterminate
RWE
plain
unidentifiable
Scrap
Ironstone
plain
indeterminate
Ironstone
plain
indeterminate
Comments
blue
calcined
butchered
Incomplete
calcined
molar
incomplete
29

Stage 3 AA - May 7 2013

Transcription

Similar documents

featuring darren niedermeyer

Loyalist Township - County of Lennox and Addington

RESEA R C H UNC O VERED

The Penn Township Campus Landscaping Beautification Project

Invitation to seminar and workshop

2014 Art in Three Dimensions

Ceramic Ventilated Cladding

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

TBDHU.COM/CAREERS

Investment Ready Site - Industrial Drive, South