Appendix C - Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

Transcription

1.0
PROJECT REPORT COVER PAGE
Licensee Information:
Licensee:
Archaeology Licence:
Contact Information:
Project Information:
AMICK Project Number:
MTC Project Number:
Investigation Type:
Project Name:
Project Location:
Kayleigh MacKinnon MSc
P384
AMICK Consultants Limited
Lakelands District Office
380 Talbot Street, P.O. Box 29
Port McNicoll, ON L0K 1R0
Phone: (705) 534-1546 Fax: (705) 534-7855
Email: [email protected]
www.amick.ca
11901-K
P384-001-2013
Stage 1 Archaeological Background Study
Atherley Narrows Bridge
Atherley Narrows Bridge, Part of Lot 12, Concession 7,
(Former Township of South Orillia), City of Orillia, and
Part of Lot 31, Concession 11 (Former Township of
Mara), Township of Ramara, County of Simcoe.
Approval Authority Information:
File Designation Number:
N/A
Reporting Information:
Site Record/Update Forms:
Date of Report Filing:
Type of Report:
N/A
22 April 2015
REVISED
2013 (REVISED 2015) Stage 1 Archaeological Background Study of the Atherley Narrows Bridge, Part of Lot 12, Concession
7 (Former Township of South Orillia), City of Orillia, and Part of Lot 31, Concession 11 (Former Township of Mara),
Township of Ramara, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #11901-P/MTCS File #P384-001-2013)
2.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report describes the results of the 2013 Stage 1 Archaeological Background Study of the
proposed Atherley Narrows Pedestrian/Snowmobile Bridge, Part of Lot 12, Concession 7
(Former Township of South Orillia), City of Orillia and Part of Lot 31, Concession 11
(Former Township of Mara), Township of Ramara, County of Simcoe, conducted by AMICK
Consultants Limited. This study was conducted under Archaeological Professional License
#P384 issued to Kayleigh MacKinnon by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport for the
Province of Ontario. This assessment was undertaken as a requirement under the
Environmental Assessment Act (RSO 1990b) in order to support a Municipal Class EA. All
work was conducted in conformity with Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC)
Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTC 2011), the Ontario Heritage
Act (RSO 1990a), and the Ontario Heritage Amendment Act (SO 2005).
AMICK Consultants Limited was engaged by the proponent to undertake a Stage 1
Archaeological Background Study of lands potentially affected by the proposed undertaking
and was granted permission to carry out archaeological work on 29 January 2013. A detailed
photoreconnaissance of the study area was conducted on 01 April 2013. All records,
documentation, field notes, photographs and artifacts (as applicable) related to the conduct
and findings of these investigations are held at the Lakelands District corporate offices of
AMICK Consultants Limited until such time that they can be transferred to an agency or
institution approved by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) on
behalf of the government and citizens of Ontario.
As a result of the Stage 1 Background Research, the project area potentially impacted by the
proposed undertaking has been identified as an area of archaeological potential.
As a result of the study area inspection, it has been determined that the areas of the structure
of the bridge and associated footings, permanently low-lying and wet areas, and the artificial
former railway line embankment and road bed do not require archaeological assessment
using land based archaeological survey methodology. The recommendations offered by
AMICK Consultants Limited respecting land based archaeological resources are as follows:
1. It is recommended that no further land based archaeological studies are required.
2. The proposed undertaking may be permitted to proceed where construction impacts
may occur on land within the study area addressed within this report.
However, Stage 1 Background research identified the water areas within the study area as an
area containing stakes associated with the ancient fish weirs documented in the vicinity.
Accordingly, as part of our original report prepared in 2013, an underwater archaeological
survey was recommended to determine the presence or absence of possible fish weir stakes
within the study area. Subsequent to the completion and filing of our original report a
Marine Archaeological Assessment was completed for the study area (see Scarlett Janusas
Archaeology Inc. 2014). The recommendations offered in that report area as follows:
Page 2
1. Avoidance and record the fish weir stakes in situ (measurement and photography).
If avoidance cannot be accomplished, the following work must be conducted prior to any
disturbance of the area:
2. Record the fish weir stakes in detail (measurements and photography) and proceed
with the development (fish weir stakes might be impacted permanently); or
3. Record the fish weir stakes in detail (measurement and photography) and remove the
fish weirs stakes through controlled excavation for conservation; and,
4. In areas of dense marsh, where normal geotechnical investigation and diving could
not be accomplished, any proposed impact to areas within the marshy areas should
be monitored by a licensed archaeologist during development. If archaeological
resources are located in these areas, they will be disturbed, and recovery will be the
only option available. Recovery of any archaeological remains in this area must be
accompanied with provenance identification (as best as possible), and once recorded
and photographed, the artifacts should be put in temporary conservation (wet
wrapped) and sent to Parks Canada for conservation and/or preservation.
5. First Nations engagement should be conducted for all options.
(SJA 2014: 53-54)
AMICK Consultants Limited does not have staff that are qualified to undertake Marine
Archaeological Assessments and therefore, cannot legally make any recommendations for
this specialized area of study. The recommendations respecting underwater or marine
archaeological resources are quoted directly from the Marine Archaeological Assessment
report prepared by Scarlett Janusas Archaeology Inc. Any requirement to follow up on any
matters reflecting marine archaeological resources must be undertaken by persons with the
specialized knowledge and experience to address these particular resources.
Page 3
3.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT REPORT COVER PAGE
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS
4.0 PROJECT PERSONNEL
5.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
5.1 DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT
5.2 HISTORICAL CONTEXT
5.2.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS
5.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT
5.3.1 REGISTERED FIRST NATIONS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
5.3.2 REGISTERED EURO-CANADIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
5.3.3 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
5.3.3.1 ANDREW HUNTER (1903)
5.3.4 LOCATION AND CURRENT CONDITIONS
5.3.5 PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGION
5.3.6 SURFACE WATER
5.3.7 CURRENT PROPERTY CONDITIONS CONTEXT
5.3.7.1 BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURAL FOOTPRINTS
5.3.7.2 DISTURBANCE
5.3.7.3 LOW-LYING AND WET AREAS
5.3.7.4 STEEP SLOPE
5.3.7.5 WOODED AREAS
5.3.7.6 PLOUGHABLE AGRICULTURAL LANDS
5.3.7.7 LAWN, PASTURE, MEADOW
5.3.8 SUMMARY
6.1 PHOTO RECONNAISSANCE
6.2 FIELD WORK WEATHER CONDITIONS
6.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELDWORK DOCUMENTATION
7.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
7.1 CHARACTERISTICS INDICATING ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL
7.2 CHARACTERISTICS INDICATING REMOVAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL
7.3 STAGE 1 RESULTS
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 STAGE 1 RECOMMENDATIONS
10.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES
11.0 MAPS
12.0 IMAGES
1
2
4
6
7
7
7
9
42
42
43
44
45
62
63
64
64
64
65
66
66
66
66
67
67
68
68
68
69
69
72
75
75
75
79
88
96
Page 4
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1
TABLE 2
TABLE 3
TABLE 4
REGISTERED FIRST NATIONS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN 1KM
EURO-CANADIAN SITES WITHIN 1KM
CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY FOR SOUTH-CENTRAL ONTARIO
EVALUATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL
42
43
44
74
LIST OF MAPS
FIGURE 1 LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA (GOOGLE MAPS 2012)
FIGURE 2 LIMITS OF THE STUDY AREA (AECOM 2012)
FIGURE 3 SEGMENT OF THE HISTORIC ATLAS MAP OF SOUTH ORILLIA TOWNSHIP
FIGURE 4 SEGMENT OF THE HISTORIC ATLAS MAP OF MARA TOWNSHIP
FIGURE 5 ATHERLEY SWING BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION GENERAL LAYOUT
FIGURE 6 PROPOSED NEW CROSSING (AECOM 2010)
FIGURE 7 FACSIMILE PLAN OF THE 1973-1974 SURVEY
FIGURE 8 FACSIMILE MAP SEGMENT OF PARKS CANADA KNOWN FISH WEIR
DISTRIBUTION (TURNER 2002: 70)
FIGURE 9 STUDY AREA AND THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE
88
89
90
90
91
92
93
94
95
LIST OF PLATES
PLATE 1 FORMER RAILWAY EMBANKMENT ON APPROACH FROM THE EAST
93
PLATE 2 ADJACENT MARINA PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH FROM THE TOP OF THE FORMER
RAILWAY EMBANKMENT
93
PLATE 3 1970 CONSTRUCTION STEEL TRESTLE THROUGH LOW-LYING AND WET AREA
FROM THE NORTH
93
PLATE 4 TIMBERS FROM FORMER CROSSING STRUCTURE(S) AT THE WEST END OF THE
STEEL TRESTLE
93
PLATE 5 VIEW EAST FROM THE WEST END OF THE STEEL TRESTLE
93
PLATE 6 VIEW OF THE LOW-LYING & WET PORTION OF THE STUDY AREA NORTHEAST
OF THE BRIDGE
93
PLATE 7 VIEW TO THE NORTH FROM THE WEST END OF THE TRESTLE
94
PLATE 8 VIEW TO THE SOUTH FROM THE WEST END OF THE TRESTLE
94
PLATE 9 FISH FENCE PLAQUE ON THE WEST APPROACH
94
PLATE 10 VIEW OF THE CROSSING ON THE WEST APPROACH
94
PLATE 11 SWING BRIDGE FROM THE CONCRETE PIER ON THE WEST BANK
94
PLATE 12 VIEW WEST FROM THE CONCRETE PIER ON THE WEST BANK
94
Page 5
4.0
PROJECT PERSONNEL
Consultant Archaeologist
Kayleigh MacKinnon (MTCS Professional Archaeologist Licence #P384)
Field Director
Michael Henry (MTCS Professional Archaeologist Licence #P058)
Field Assistant
Marilyn Cornies (MTCS Professional Archaeologist Licence #P038)
Project Coordinator
Melissa Milne
Report Preparation
Draughting
Photography
Page 6
5.0
PROJECT BACKGROUND
5.1
DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT
(Former Township of Mara), Township of Ramara, County of Simcoe (i.e. the study area),
conducted by AMICK Consultants Limited. This study was conducted under Archaeological
Professional License #P384 issued to Kayleigh MacKinnon by the Minister of Tourism,
Culture and Sport for the Province of Ontario. This assessment was undertaken as a
requirement under the Environmental Assessment Act (RSO 1990b) in order to support a
Municipal Class EA. All work was conducted in conformity with Ontario Ministry of
Tourism and Culture (MTC) Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTC
2011), the Ontario Heritage Act (RSO 1990a), and the Ontario Heritage Amendment Act (SO
2005).
The proposed development of the study area includes a single pedestrian/snowmobile bridge
with landscape modifications. A set of proposed development drawings has been submitted
to MTCS together with this report.
5.2
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
As part of the present study, background research was conducted in order to determine the
archaeological potential of the proposed study area.
“A Stage 1 background study provides the consulting archaeologist and Ministry report
reviewer with information about the known and potential cultural heritage resources within a
particular study area, prior to the start of the field assessment.”
(OMCzCR 1993)
The evaluation of potential is further elaborated Section 1.3 of the Standards and Guidelines
for Consultant Archaeologist (2011) prepared by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and
Culture:
Page 7
“ The Stage 1 background study (and, where undertaken, property inspection) leads to an
evaluation of the property’s archaeological potential. If the evaluation indicates that there is
archaeological potential anywhere on the property, the next step is a Stage 2 assessment.”
(MTC 2011: 17)
Features or characteristics that indicate archaeological potential where found anywhere on
the property include:
“ - previously identified archaeological sites
- water sources (It is important to distinguish types of water and shoreline, and to
distinguish natural from artificial water sources, as these features affect site locations
and types to varying degrees.):
o primary water sources (lakes, rivers, streams, creeks)
o secondary water sources (intermittent streams and creeks, springs, marshes,
swamps)
o features indicating past water sources (e.g., glacial lake shorelines indicated
by the presence of raised sand or gravel beach ridges, relic river or stream
channels indicated by clear dip or swale in the topography, shorelines of
drained lakes or marshes, cobble beaches)
o accessible or inaccessible shoreline (e.g., high bluffs, swamp or marsh fields
by the edge of a lake, sandbars stretching into marsh)
- elevated topography (e.g., eskers, drumlins, large knolls, plateaux)
- pockets of well-drained sandy soil, especially near areas of heavy soil or rocky
ground
- distinctive land formations that might have been special or spiritual places, such as
waterfalls, rock outcrops, caverns, mounds, and promontories and their bases. There
may be physical indicators of their use, such as burials, structures, offerings, rock
paintings or carvings.
- resource areas, including:
o food or medicinal plants (e.g., migratory routes, spawning areas, prairie)
o scarce raw materials (e.g., quartz, copper, ochre or outcrops of chert)
o early Euro-Canadian industry (e.g., fur trade, logging, prospecting, mining)
- areas of early Euro-Canadian settlement. These include places of early military or
pioneer settlement (e.g., pioneer homesteads, isolated cabins, farmstead complexes),
early wharf or dock complexes, pioneer churches and early cemeteries. There may be
commemorative markers of their history, such as local, provincial, or federal
monuments or heritage parks.
- Early historical transportation routes (e.g., trails, passes, roads, railways, portage
routes)
- property listed on a municipal register or designated under the Ontario Heritage
Actor that is a federal, provincial or municipal historic landmark or site
- property that local histories or informants have identified with possible
archaeological sties, historical events, activities, or occupations”
(MTC 2011: 17-18)
Page 8
The evaluation of potential does not indicate that sites are present within areas affected by
proposed development. Evaluation of potential considers the possibility for as yet
undocumented sites to be found in areas that have not been subject to systematic
archaeological investigation in the past. Potential for archaeological resources is used to
determine if physical assessment of a property or portions of a property is required.
“Archaeological resources not previously documented may also be present in the
affected area. If the alternative areas being considered, or the preferred alternative
selected, exhibit either high or medium potential for the discovery of archaeological
remains an archaeological assessment will be required.”
(MCC & MOE 1992: 6-7)
“The Stage 1 background study (and, where undertaken, property inspection) leads to
an evaluation of the property’s archaeological potential. If the evaluation indicates
that there is archaeological potential anywhere on the property, the next step is a
Stage 2 assessment.”
(MTC 2011: 17)
In addition, the collected data is also used to determine if any archaeological resources had
been formerly documented within or in close proximity to the study area and if these same
resources might be subject to impacts from the proposed undertaking. This data was also
collected in order to establish the significance of any resources that might be encountered
during the conduct of the present study. The requisite archaeological sites data was collected
from the Programs and Services Branch, Culture Programs Unit, MTCS and the corporate
research library of AMICK Consultants Limited.
5.2.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS
The present use of the study area is as an abandoned CN rail swing bridge. The bridge is
located in an area known as the Atherley Narrows where Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe
converge. The study area consists of an existing railway swing bridge, a former railway line
artificial embankment and bed on approach to either end of the bridge, and permanently lowlying and wet area. The existing structure of the bridge has been described by AECOM as
follows:
“The existing CN bridge can be subdivided into three sections, the east steel viaduct,
the swing bridge and the west concrete approach structure.
The east steel viaduct is comprised of nine steel bents at 7.62 metres per span
supporting two 36WF150 through plate girders, ten 16WF45 floor beams per span
and a 15mm thick deck pan filled with ballast. Each bent has four 12BP74 piles with
a 21WF62 pile cap. The outside piles are battered at 1:6. The notes on the General
Layout for this section, dated 1969, indicate the steel specification for the piles is
CSA G40.4, ASTM A242 for the deck plate and stiffeners and ASTM A36 for all other
material.
Page 9
The swing bridge information, dated 1913, indicates a 45.11 metre long steel through
plate girder draw span that rotates on a 7.98 metres x 7.98 metres concrete pivot pier
which averages 6.10 metres deep and is poured directly on hard ground. The steel
draw span in the closed position sits on concrete piers 3.2 metres x 11.58 metres x
3.28 metres deep. These east and west rest piers are founded on timber piles driven to
practical refusal. There are 21 piles per pier, four of which are battered at 1:8. The
area around the timber pile was filled with rip rap as a base for placing concrete for
the piers.
On site measuring indicated that this structure is comprised of a 4.80 metre wide
concrete deck supported on 0.65 metre thick piers spaced at four 4.3 metres and the
west pier previously denoted.”
(AECOM 2010: 3-4)
The study area consists of the existing former railway swing bridge crossing at the Atherley
Narrows, as well as a proposed working area outside of the channel and within the
permanently low-lying and wet area to the northeast of the crossing (see Figure 2). The
location of the study area is illustrated in Figure 1. An aerial photograph showing the extent
of the study area is included within this report as Figure 2.
5.2.2
GENERAL HISTORICAL OUTLINE
Historically the study area is located within two townships: Mara Township on the east bank,
and the Township of South Orillia on the west bank. The study area is also located in an area
that has a well-documented and lengthy history of occupation.
5.2.2.1 PREHISTORIC OCCUPATION AND LAND USE
What follows is an outline of Aboriginal occupation in the area during the Pre-Contact Era
from the earliest known period, about 9000 B.C. up to approximately 1650 AD. A larger
regional synthesis of archaeological data that would include much of Simcoe County, or even
of the City of Orillia and environs, has not been undertaken. Lakes Couchiching and Simcoe,
including the narrows which runs through the study area and divides these bodies of water,
formed a significant component of a major route of travel and communication, as well as a
significant source of subsistence from fishing for aboriginal occupations in the area.
PALAEO-INDIAN PERIOD (APPROXIMATELY 9000-7500 B.C.)
North of Lake Ontario, evidence suggests that early occupation began around 9000 B.C.
People probably began to move into this area as the glaciers retreated and glacial lake levels
began to recede. The early occupation of the area probably occurred in conjunction with
environmental conditions that would be comparable to modern Sub-Arctic conditions. Due
to the great antiquity of these sites, and the relatively small populations likely involved,
evidence of these early inhabitants is sparse and generally limited to tools produced from
Page 10
stone or to by-products of the manufacture of these implements. Some sites of this earliest
period of First Nations occupation of Simcoe County have been documented to the south and
to the west of Kempenfelt Bay on Lake Simcoe.
ARCHAIC PERIOD (APPROXIMATELY 8000-1000 B.C.)
By about 8000 B.C. the gradual transition from a postglacial tundra-like environment to an
essentially modern environment was largely complete. Prior to European clearance of the
landscape for timber and cultivation, the area was characterized by a forest habitat. The
Archaic Period is the longest, and the most apparently stable, of the cultural periods
identified through archaeology. The Archaic Period is divided into the Early, Middle and
Late Sub-Periods, each represented by specific styles in projectile point manufacture. Many
more sites of this period are found throughout Ontario, than of the Palaeo-Indian Period.
This is probably a reflection of two factors: the longer period of time reflected in these sites,
and a greater population density. The greater population was likely the result of a more
diversified subsistence strategy carried out in an environment offering a greater variety of
abundant resources. (Smith 2002:58-59).
Current interpretations suggest that the Archaic Period populations followed a seasonal cycle
of resource exploitation. Although similar in concept to the practices speculated for the big
game hunters of the Palaeo-Indian Period, the Archaic populations utilized a much broader
range of resources, particularly with respect to plants. It is suggested that in the spring and
early summer, bands would gather at the mouths of rivers and at rapids to take advantage of
fish spawning runs. Later in the summer and into the fall season, smaller groups would move
to areas of wetlands to harvest nuts and wild rice. During the winter they would break into
yet smaller groups, probably based on the nuclear family and perhaps some additional
relatives, to move into the interior for hunting. The result of such practices would be to
create a distribution of sites across much of the landscape. (Smith 2002: 59-60).
The material culture of this period is much more extensive than that of the Palaeo-Indians.
Stylistic changes between Sub-Periods and cultural groups are apparent, although the overall
quality in production of chipped lithic tools seems to decline. This period sees the
introduction of ground stone technology in the form of celts (axes and adzes), manos and
metates for grinding nuts and fibres, and decorative items like gorgets, pendants, birdstones,
and bannerstones. Bone tools are also evident from this time period. Their presence may be
a result of better preservation from these more recent sites rather than a lack of such items in
earlier occupations. In addition, copper and exotic chert types appear during the period and
are indicative of extensive trading (Smith 2002: 58-59).
WOODLAND PERIOD (APPROXIMATELY 1000 B.C. - 1650 A.D.)
The primary difference in archaeological assemblages that separates the beginning of the
Woodland Period from the Archaic Period is the introduction of ceramics to Ontario
populations. This division is probably not a reflection of any substantive cultural changes, as
the earliest sites of this period seem to be in all other respects a continuation of the Archaic
Page 11
mode of life with ceramics added as a novel technology. The seasonally based system of
resource exploitation and associated population mobility persists for at least 1500 years into
the Woodland Period. (Smith 2002: 61-62)
The Early Woodland Sub-Period dates from about 1000-400 B.C. Many of the artifacts from
this time are similar to the late Archaic and suggest a direct cultural continuity between these
two temporal divisions. At this time the introduction of pottery represents and entirely new
technology that was probably acquired through contact with more southerly populations from
which it likely originates. (Smith 2002:62)
The Middle Woodland Sub-Period dates from about 400 B.C.-800 A.D. Within the region
including the study area, a complex emerged at this time termed “Point Peninsula”. Point
Peninsula pottery reflects a greater sophistication in pottery manufacture compared with the
earlier industry. The paste and temper of the new pottery is finer and new decorative
techniques such as dentate and pseudo-scallop stamping appear. There is a noted
Hopewellian influence in southern Ontario populations at this time. Hopewell influences
from south of the Great Lakes include a widespread trade in exotic materials and the
presence of distinct Hopewell style artifacts such as platform pipes, copper or silver panpipe
covers and shark’s teeth. The populations of the Middle Woodland participated in a trade
network that extended well beyond the Great Lakes Region.
The Late Woodland Sub-Period dates from about 500-1650 A.D. The Late Woodland
includes four separate phases: Princess Point, Early Ontario Iroquoian, Middle Ontario
Iroquoian and Late Ontario Iroquoian.
The Princess Point phase dates to approximately 500-1000 A.D. Pottery of this phase is
distinguished from earlier technology in that it is produced by the paddle method instead of
coil and the decoration is characterized by the cord wrapped stick technique. Ceramic
smoking pipes appear at this time in noticeable quantities. Princess Point sites cluster along
major stream valleys and wetland areas. Maize cultivation is introduced during this time to
Ontario. These people were not fully committed to horticulture and seemed to be
experimenting with maize production. They generally adhere to the seasonal pattern of
occupation practiced by earlier occupations, perhaps staying at certain locales repeatedly and
for a larger portion of each year (Smith 2002: 65-66).
The Early Ontario Iroquoian stage dates to approximately 950-1050 A.D. This stage marks
the beginning of a cultural development that led to the historically documented Ontario
Iroquoian groups that were first contacted by Europeans during the early 1600s (Petun,
Neutral, and Huron). At this stage formal semi-sedentary villages emerge. The Early stage
of this cultural development is divided into two cultural groups in southern Ontario. The
areas occupied by each being roughly divided by the Niagara Escarpment. To the west were
located the Glen Meyer populations, and to the east were situated the Pickering people
(Smith 2002: 67).
Page 12
The Middle Ontario Iroquoian stage dates to approximately 1300-1400 A.D. This stage is
divided into two sub-stages. The first is the Uren sub-stage lasting from approximately
1300-1350 A.D. The second of the two sub-stages is known as the Middleport sub-stage
lasting from roughly 1350-1400 A.D. Villages tend to be larger throughout this stage than
formerly (Smith 2002: 67).
The Late Ontario Iroquoian stage dates to approximately 1400-1650 A.D. During this time
the cultural divisions identified by early European explorers are under development and the
geographic distribution of these groups within southern Ontario begins to be defined. During
this period the Huron and Petun become established in their respective homelands familiar to
early explorers, traders and missionaries.
5.2.2.2 HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE GEORGIAN BAY FIRST NATIONS
In order to establish a regional historical context and to evaluate which cultures and time
periods may have been present within the general area of this study, it will be necessary to
examine what is historically known of the First Nations cultures that were present within the
larger area. The following is a brief overview of the documented history of First Nations
activity and settlement for southern Georgian Bay and northern Simcoe County.
As noted above, by the time the first European explorers, missionaries and traders arrived in
the area in the early 17th Century; there were a number of First Nations peoples known to
have been active in the Georgian Bay area. This would include the Ojibwa/Chippewa,
Ottawa, Potawatomi, Nippissing, Cree, Huron, Petun and possibly other Iroquoian peoples to
the south such as the Neutral. Not all of these groups were necessarily resident in the area
but the region is noted for its long association to important trade and communication
linkages. Historic documentation indicates that persons and trade merchandise from all of
these Nations, and perhaps of other peoples moved through the local trade network that was
part of a larger continent-wide system of communication and trade. With the arrival of
Europeans, their participation in the trade and in relationships with the First Nations active in
the area would lead to the development of a new culture to be included in this list: the Metis.
THE ALGONKIAN SPEAKING NATIONS
The Algonkian speaking First Nations living in the Upper Great Lakes during the period of
initial contact with the French would have referred to themselves as “Anishinaubeg” or
“men” according to the Ojibwa historian, William Warren who completed his History of the
Ojibway People in 1852 (Warren 1984). As French exploration, missionary work and trade
expanded into the Georgian Bay area in the middle of the 17th Century they began to make
distinctions between various groups and to apply names to them. One of the first to be
distinguished were the “Outaouak” or “Ottawa” or “Odawa”. These were the first Algonkian
people of the Upper Great Lakes with whom the French had contact.
Paul Le Jeune wrote in his “Relation of 1640” that Manitoulin Island was inhabited by “the
Outaouan”. He further relates that this group is part of “the nation of the raised hair” (Le
Page 13
Jeune 1896: 231). In this passage, the Jesuit priest is clearly referencing Champlain’s
assignation of the name “Cheveux Releves” to these people during a voyage through this area
in 1615.
Claude Charles Le Roy, Bacqueville de la Potherie, writing of the First Nations of the Upper
Great Lakes in 1753, had the following to say about the use of the shoreline along Lake
Huron:
This Sauteur tribe is divided: part of them have remained at home to live on
this delicious fish in autumn, and they seek their food in Lake Huron during
the winter; the others have gone away to two localities on Lake Superior, in
order to live on the game which is very abundant there…Those who have
remained at the Saut, their native country, leave their villages twice a year.
In the month of June they disperse in all directions along Lake Huron, as also
do the Missisakis and the Otter people. This lake has rocky shores, and is full
of small islands abounding in blueberries. While there they gather sheets of
bark from the trees for making their canoes and building their cabins. The
water of the lake is very clear, and they can see fish in it at a depth of twentyfive feet. While the children are gathering a store of blueberries, the men are
busy spearing sturgeon. When the grain that they have planted is nearly ripe,
they return home. At the approach of winter they resort to the shores of the
lake to kill beavers and moose, and do not return thence until the spring, in
order to plant their Indian corn.
(Potherie 1753: 276-280)
The “Sauteurs” (probably Ojibwa), “Missisakis” (Mississaugas), and “Otter” (probably the
Ottawa) peoples are all Algonkian speaking peoples. The Mississauga are a division of the
larger, and more generally known Ojibwa Nation. Some researchers suggest that the Ottawa
were also part of the larger Ojibwa Nation.
Mr. Carver visited the region during his travels from 1766-1768 and described the eastern
shore of Lake Huron as follows:
Lake Huron, into which you now enter from the Straights of St. Marie, is the
next in magnitude to Lake Superior. It lies between forty-two and forty-six
degrees of north latitude, and seventy-nine and eighty-five degrees of west
latitude. Its shape is nearly triangular, and its circumference about one
thousand miles.
On the north side of it lies an island that is remarkable for being near an
hundred miles in length, and no more than eight miles broad. This island is
known by the name of Manataulin, which signifies a Place of Spirits, and is
considered by the Indians as sacred as those already mentioned in Lake
Superior.
Page 14
About the middle of the south-west side of this lake is Saganaum Bay. The
capes that separate this bay from the lake, are about eighteen miles distant
from each other; near the middle of the intermediate space stand two islands,
which greatly tend to facilitate the passage of canoes and small vessels, by
affording them shelter, as without this security it would not be prudent to
venture across so wide a sea; and the coasting round the bay would make the
voyage long and tedious. This bay is about eighty miles in length, and in
general about eighteen or twenty miles broad.
(Carver 1778: 144-145)
No doubt Carver is referring to Georgian Bay under the First Nations name of “Saganaum”.
The “Straights of St. Marie” separate Lakes Superior and Huron. He then goes on to relate
that, “A great number of the Chipeway Indians live scattered around this lake, particularly
near Saganaum Bay” (Carver 1778: 147). The “Chipeway” is a variant of Chippewa that
sometimes refers to a division of the larger Ojibwa Nation and sometimes refers to the whole
Ojibwa Nation. Carver is very consistent in his use of the term throughout his book and the
accompanying maps. He is clearly referring to the entirety of this Nation.
THE HURON AND ANCESTRAL TRIBES A.D. 1400-1649
By far the best-known and best-documented people of the early contact period were the
Huron (Wendat). The Huron Confederacy is generally considered to be the most populated
and most densely settled group in the Georgian Bay area. Their numbers in prehistoric times
are a matter of considerable debate since the Confederacy is believed to have been formally
constituted sometime around 1400 A.D., with groups migrating into the area up to the time of
contact with Europeans. Also complicating any computation of population numbers and
densities is the strong likelihood that disease spread from Europeans on the east coast of
North America had probably already reached the Great Lakes region and reduced populations
prior to the advent of direct contact.
“In the earliest accounts of the Huron they were estimated to number from 30,000 to
40,000 persons. This was not counting the Tionontati and the Neutrals, who together
were thought to be equally numerous. In 1640 and 1641 the three groups were
estimated to have been reduced by war, plague, and famine to a total of about 24,000
people.”
(Kinietz 1965: 3)
During the early contact period, circa 1600-1649, the Huron Confederacy was situated in
North Simcoe County and is described by Bruce Trigger in The Huron: Farmers of the North
as follows:
“Although the Huron confederacy may have embraced more people than did any of
the other Iroquoian ones, the Huron villages were concentrated in an area that
measured no more than 35 miles east to west and 20 miles north to south. The entire
country could thus be traversed in a very leisurely fashion in three or four days. On
Page 15
the east the Huron settlements were bounded by Lake Simcoe, on the west by
Nottawasaga Bay, the southernmost extension of Georgian Bay. The Huron Country
was separated from the region to the north by Matchedash Bay, a narrow inlet also
opening onto Georgian Bay.”
(Trigger: 1969: 9)
In his later seminal work, Children of Aataentsic: A History of the Huron People to 1660,
which remains a standard reference in the study of the history and culture of these people,
Trigger outlines the establishment of the confederacy and the origins of the member nations,
as well as the nearby and allied Tionontati (Petun):
“The archaeological record indicates that the region where the Hurons were
found living in historical times was occupied continuously by horticulturalists
from the early Iroquoian period onwards. In the 1640s, the Attignawantan
who lived in the extreme west of the Huron country claimed they could point
out the sites their ancestors had inhabited for over two centuries. There is,
therefore, little reason to doubt that this tribe developed in the area between
Georgian Bay and Lake Simcoe and that at least some of the many
prehistoric sites found there are those of their ancestors.
“The Arendarhonon appear to have joined the Huron confederacy late in the
sixteenth century. The interest they had in the Trent Valley region, and the
presence of many late prehistoric and protohistoric sites east of Lake Simcoe,
suggest that they were among the original inhabitants of that area. The
oldest sites seem to be near the east end of Lake Ontario and in Prince
Edward County. This may indicate a gradual movement up the Trent Valley,
beginning about A.D. 1500.
“The origins of the two remaining Huron tribes are more ambiguous. Wright
has suggested that the Attigneenongnahac may have evolved in the northern
part of Simcoe County, no doubt east of the Attignawantan, while the
Tahontaenrat developed in the Humber and adjacent valleys in the Toronto
area, where numerous late Iroquoian prehistoric sites have been discovered.
This might account for the large number of prehistoric sites in the Oro
township area of Simcoe County and accords with the Jesuits’ statements that
it was both the Attignawantan and Attigneenongnahac who could point out
sites going back two centuries; however, the latter claim seems based on
Attignawantan sources, and may not apply in its entirety to the
Attigneenongnahac. Moreover, the Tahontaenrat, who were a small group in
historic times, may not have been sufficiently numerous to account for the
many sites in the Toronto area. They are also stated not to have joined the
Huron confederacy before about 1610, while the fusion of northern and
southern division traits, that gave rise to the historic Huron culture, appears
to have been underway in Simcoe County by about the middle of the sixteenth
century. In spite of a preference for matrilocal residence, this blending of
Page 16
ceramic traditions no doubt came about as a result of increasing
intermarriage, as hitherto distinct tribes began to live in closer proximity to
one another. An alternative theory would have the Attigneenongnahac
moving north from the Toronto area, by about 1550, and settling in the
eastern part of the Huron country, before shifting to their historic tribal area.
Over fifty years later, the Tahontaenrat would have entered the region from
either the south or east. It is possible that the cluster of protohistoric sites
reported for Innisfil township in the southern part of Simcoe County may
have belonged to the Tahontaenrat prior to their final migration northward.
“The origins of the Tionnontate are as obscure as those of the
Attigneenongnahac or the Tahontaenrat. Their pottery types, for the historic
period, are similar to those of the Huron and have only recently been
differentiated on the basis of a few characteristic decorative motifs. Little
evidence has been found of prehistoric sites in their historic tribal area,
hence it has been suggested that they must have originated elsewhere.
Wright has proposed that they might represent a breakaway group from the
original inhabitants of northern Simcoe County, but his theory is argued on
the basis of an inaccurate interpretation of Huron social structure. Garrad
and Heidenreich tentatively derive them, along with the Tahontaenrat, from
the Innisfil sites. Alternatively, future research may reveal them to have
evolved from the Iroquoian groups who inhabited Huron and Grey Counties
during the Middleport substage. These people disappeared from the shores
of Lake Huron in the late Iroquoian period and may have clustered farther
east to become the Tionnontate.”
(Trigger 1987: 156-157)
From about 1600 to the dispersal of the confederacy in 1649, the Huron were drawn into a
trade relationship and military alliance with the French at Quebec. The Huron were key
middlemen in the Great Lakes fur trade, providing links to the western and northern tribes of
the interior where the best furs could be obtained. Their semi-permanent village settlements
attracted the interest of missionaries who sought to convert them to Christianity and French
civility. Meanwhile, whether because of jealousy over the growing economic and military
power of the Huron through trade, or because of a traditional enmity between the two
confederacies, the Five Nations Iroquois engaged the Huron in a longstanding and
unremitting conflict, which culminated in the devastating raid of 1649 that was the
immediate cause of the confederacy collapse. In reality, the dispersal of the Huron was
wrought by a series of crippling diseases coupled with the social instability caused by French
and missionary interference in their internal affairs. The political divisions and social
stresses that resulted needed only the excuse of the incursions of the Five Nations Iroquois
for the Huron (Wendat) confederacy members to disperse into smaller groups.
Following the disintegration of the Huron (Wendat) Confederacy in 1649, it is generally
believed that most of these people were absorbed into the Five Nations (later to become the
Six Nations). One group moved to the area of Quebec City to become the Huron-Wendat
Page 17
Nation of today, often referred to as the Huron of Lorrette. Other bands moved further north
into the Lake Huron and Lake Superior watersheds. One group settled for a time at
Michilimackinac together with some of their Ottawa allies. French traders had been visiting
this area since about 1660.
W. Vernon Kinietz offers a detailed summary of the movements of the Huron (Wendat)
following the disintegration of the confederacy in 1649.
“After being driven from their Ontario villages, no estimate placed their
number higher than fifteen hundred. The relation of 1649 recounted that
three hundred families had gathered on St. Joseph Island. If there was an
average of five persons in a family, the total number of individuals at that
time would have been fifteen hundred. Approximately half of these retreated
to Quebec with the returning missionaries. Thereafter, the number of Huron
about the Great Lakes was very small. Reports in 1653, 1736, 1741 and 1749
set their number at eight hundred. Accounts of the years between 1653 and
1736 usually give a lower total, somewhere between four hundred and six
hundred.”
(Kinietz 1965: 3-4)
Following this initial relocation and division in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the
Huron (Wendat) Confederacy, the remaining population in the Great Lakes was compelled to
make a series of additional moves and divisions as summarized by Kinietz:
“In 1649 some Huron sought safety with the Tionontati, others among the
Neutrals, and another group on St. Joseph Island. After the attacks on the
Tionontati, and the subsequent destruction of the Neutral villages, the
survivors who escaped captivity fled by way of Mackinac Island to the northwest shore of Lake Michigan. Hereinafter these combined groups of refugees
will be called Huron. A rendezvous with various Algonquian tribes was
reported in 1653 to be taking place three days’ journey south of Sault Ste.
Marie. A year or so later the Huron and Ottawa had their village on an
island, according to Peter Radisson and Nicolas Perrot. This was probably
Washington Island at the mouth of Green Bay, formerly known as Huron
Island. On the approach of a party of Iroquois they retreated to the mainland
and built a fort near the Potawatomi village of Mechingan, where, according
to Perrot, they successfully withstood a siege for two years. They then
retreated farther inland and in 1658 were reported by Druillette to be six
days’ journey southwest of Lake Superior, where they were visited by
Radisson and Grosseliers. Difficulties with the Sioux, upon whose territory
they were encroaching, required another move. Chaquamegon on the
southern shore of Lake Superior was their next abode. They lived there near
the Ottawa until 1670. The Ottawa then moved their residence to Manitoulin
Island and the Huron to Mackinac (St. Ignace).
Page 18
“Cadillac persuaded the Huron to settle near the fort which he built at
Detroit in 1701. He reported in 1703 that only about twenty-five remained at
Mackinac. They maintained a village at Detroit throughout the rest of the
contact period. A division took place about 1738, and a group under the
leadership of Orontony, or Nicholas, moved to the vicinity of Sandusky Bay.
In 1744 at least part of this group returned to the neighbourhood of Detroit
and settled on les grands terres. Within a short time this group again moved
southward and shifted from one place to another. Originally, the Huron
village at Detroit was situated on the west side of the river, but some time
before 1733 it was shifted to the other side.”
(Kinietz 1965: 2-3)
In referring to the west side of the Detroit River, Kinietz is referring to their original village
near Fort Ponchartrain that was to become the City of Detroit on the American side.
Antoine Laumet de Lamothe Cadillac, commandant of Fort Baude, as the French post at
Michilimackinac was called, wrote the following observations concerning the Huron Band
encamped in this area:
“It was formerly the most powerful and also the most numerous tribe, but the
Iroquois destroyed them and drove them from their homeland, so they are
now reduced to a very small number; and it is well for us that it is so. For
they are cunning men, intriguing, evil-disposed and capable of great
undertakings, but, fortunately, their arm is not long enough to execute them;
nevertheless, since they cannot act like lions they act like foxes and use every
possible means to stir up strife between us and our allies.”
(c.f. Jaenen 1996: 41)
In 1701 Fort Ponchartrain was established at the future site of Detroit and Cadillac was given
command of this post. He invited the First Nations encamped in the area of Michilimackinac
to join him at Detroit. This resulted in the movement of bands of Ottawa, Potawatomi,
Mississauga and Huron people into the Detroit area. In 1721, the Jesuit, Pierre Francois
Xavier Charlevoix described the First Nations villages surrounding the fort on both sides of
the Detroit River. His description is given ascending the river from Lake Erie:
“Before you arrive at the fort, which stands on the left, a league below the
island of St. Claire (now Belle Isle), you find on the same side two pretty
populous villages very near each other; the first is inhabited by the
Tionnontatez, a tribe of the Hurons, and the same who after having wandered
to and fro for a long time, first settled at the falls of St. Mary and at
Michilimackinac; the second is inhabited by the Potawatomi Indians. On the
right, somewhat higher is a third village of the Ottawas, inseparable
companions of the Hurons from the time that both of them were driven from
their country by the Iroquois.”
(LaJeunesse 1960: 26-27)
Page 19
Charlevoix specifies this group as the “Tionnontatez”, otherwise known as the “Tionnontate”
or “Tobacco Nation” or the “Petun”. This was another Iroquoian group who were not part of
the Wendat Confederacy but were close allies who formerly lived in the Collingwood and
Blue Mountain area on the west side of Nottawasaga Bay while the Huron (Wendat)
occupied the area between the east side of Nottawasaga Bay and the Narrows between Lakes
Simcoe and Couchiching. It may be that this band that settled near modern day Detroit
contained members of both former Nations.
It appears that relations between the French and the Huron of Michilimackinac must have
improved a great deal from the time that Cadillac wrote the above passage to when they
settled along the Detroit River. In an anonymous report from 1721, the French author had a
much more positive evaluation of these people:
“This is the most industrious nation that can be seen. They scarcely ever
dance, and are always at work. They raise a very large amount of Indian
corn, peas, beans; some grow wheat. They construct their huts entirely of
bark, very strong and solid; very lofty and every long, and arched like arbors.
Their fort is strongly encircled with pickets and bastions, well redoubled, and
has strong gates. They are the most faithful nation to the French, and the
most expert hunters that we have. Their cabins are divided into sleeping
compartments, which contain their Misirague, and are very clean. They are
the bravest of all the nations; and possess considerable talent. They are well
clad; some of them where close-fitting coats. The men are always hunting,
summer and winter, and the women work. When they go hunting in the fall, a
goodly number of them remain to guard the fort. The old women, and
throughout the winter those women who remain, collect wood in very large
quantities. The soil is fertile; Indian corn grows there to the height of ten to
twelve feet; the fields are very clean, and very extensive; not the smallest
weed is to be seen in them.”
(LaJeunesse 1960: 25)
About 1741 a Jesuit mission for the Huron was established on the Canadian side of the
Detroit River at the modern day location of the University of Windsor and Assumption Park.
A reserve was subsequently established adjacent to this mission for the Huron. This reserve
was purchased by the Crown to establish the Village of Sandwich in the late 18th Century,
which is now part of the City of Windsor. The Huron also had a reserve at Amherstburg.
The Huron who resided on both sides of the Detroit River and who have descendants living
in these areas today became the present day Wyandot of Anderdon First Nation.
THE CHIPPEWA OCCUPATION A.D. 1660-PRESENT
The Chippewa occupied the entirety of Simcoe County at the time of original European
settlement in the area. These people are generally considered to have arrived in the area in
the late 17th century (circa 1690). According to J. Hugh Hammond, an early researcher on
Page 20
the history of the Ojibwa/Chippewa of Georgian Bay, they arrived much earlier, shortly after
the dispersal of the Huron. He suggests that they arrived sometime between 1648 and 1660
and that during this period engaged in a long and bitter struggle with the Mohawk who were
ultimately defeated:
“The last great struggle between the Iroquois and the Ojibwas occurred near
the present site of the town of Orillia, by the complete extinction of the
Iroquois bands then occupying this territory. The traditions of the Ojibwas
describe the final battle and the incidents in connection therewith, one of
which was the impalement of the Mohawk Chief’s wife by the victorious
Ojibwas. On Quarry Point, township of Rama, there was a rock having
painted thereon some of the incidents in connection with this last contest for
supremacy. This rock has now fallen into the water, and possibly ere this the
painting has been washed away by the action of water and ice.
“The Ojibwas were divided as was the custom among the aborigines into
different tribes and clans or totems named respectively, the reindeer, the
catfish, the otter, the pike and the snake, and each totem had its head chief
who represented his people in the councils of the nation. These assembled
from time to time in their longhouse at Orillia to settle the affairs of the
nation in peace as well as in war.”
(Hammond 1904a: 71-72)
In a separate article entitled, “The Coming of the Ojibwas”, J. Hugh Hammond records the
traditions of the Ojibwa which note a number of Mohawk settlements which were destroyed
as a result of the conflict:
“There was fighting at different places, and Lake George was one of the
battle grounds where the Mohawk village was. All of the Mohawks were
killed here. The Ojibwa’s head warrior was killed also. He was
Wahbemanidoo’s chief warrior. There was a Mohawk village between
Penetanguishene and Orillia; these were all killed at this time. There was
also a village of Mohawks at Atherley, and when the chief of the Mohawks
saw Wahbemanidoo’s chief warrior coming he went and met him, and made a
feast with him. The end of the peace talk was that the Mohawks would carry
water for the Chippewas when it was wanted, or become their slaves, so
Wahbemanidoo’s chief warrior forgave him.
“There was another Mohawk village of Mohawks at Skigawog or Pigeon
Lake, these were all killed at the same time.
“There was also a village of Mohawks at or near Kingston, on the lake, these
were killed, too.
Page 21
“There is a rock at Quarry Point, now in the water, on which in Indian
picture all of this is written.
“The bank at Lake George is where the fort of the Mohawks was and the
village was close to it.
“From this time on the Chippewas and the Mohawks were enemies. There
was another big battle on Manitoulin Island between the Ojibwas and
Mohawks; you will find some of the skulls there.”
(Hammond 1904b: 76-77)
Although Hammond does not state as much in his article, the account cited above appears to
have been made from the dictation of this history from an informant member of the
Chippewa/Ojibwa, probably from the community at Rama. Hammond was a resident of
Orillia who did extensive research in the area and relied heavily on Ojibwa informants.
In his Handbook of Indians of Canada, James White informs us that:
“According to the traditions of all three tribes, the Potawatomi, Chippewa
(Ojibway) and Ottawa were originally one people, and seem to have reached
the upper end of Lake Huron together. Here, they separated, but the three
have sometimes formed a loose confederacy…Warren conjectured that it had
been less than three centuries since the Chippewa became disconnected as a
distinct tribe from the Ottawa and the Potawatomi.”
(White 1913: 390-391)
Indeed, many writers of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries noted that it was nearly impossible to
determine from which of the three tribes a person may have come, as their language, dress
and customs were indistinguishable from one another. During the 18th century their alliance
became known as the “Council of the Three Fires”. In many of the accounts of the defeat of
the Mohawks in Southern Ontario, it was the combined might of the whole Council of the
Three Fires that actually engaged and defeated the enemy, not one of the member nations on
its own. At the time of European contact the Ottawa were settled on and around Manitoulin
Island; the Ojibwa along the north shore of Lake Huron and the shore of Lake Superior; and
the Potawatomi were located on the south shore of Lake Huron and the shore of Lake
Michigan.
The following notes on the Chippewa are extracted from the Report of a Special Commission
to Investigate Indian Affairs in Canada (1858):
“This tribe having originally migrated from Lake Superior, occupied as their
hunting ground, the vast tract stretching from Collin’s Inlet on the northeastern shore of Georgian Bay to the northern limits of the land claimed by
the Mississaguas.
Page 22
“Of this they have surrendered at different times nearly the whole; having
ceded in 1795 28,000 acres for a payment of L100, in 1815 a further tract of
250,000 acres for L4,000. These were absolute sales, and the Indians now
derive nothing from these surrenders.
“They subsequently in 1818 they gave up to the Crown 1,542,000 acres for a
perpetual annuity of L1,200. In 1836, they surrendered the tract of 9,800
acres on the Portage road from Simcoe to Coldwater, on which they were
located by Sir John Colborne six years previously. This land was to be sold,
and under the terms of the Treaty, the proceeds were to be applied for the
benefit of the Indians generally. This however has not been carried out, and
the Lake Huron and Simcoe bands enjoy the whole benefit of the surrender.
“This is in conformity with the usual terms of land surrendered, and as they
have received the money for so many years, it would be unwise to disturb the
present arrangement.
“Their present reserves consist only of 1,600 acres purchased out of their
own funds at Rama on the east side of lake Couchiching, some islands in that
Lake and Lake Simcoe,, and the Christian Islands in the Georgian Bay.
“The tribe has split into three bands, called respectively from the location of
the Villages, the Rama, Snake Island, and Beausoleil Bands. They have lately
surrendered the Island occupied by the last named Band, who intend to
remove to the Christian Islands.”
(Murray, 1963: 119)
THE FUR TRADE ERA
Three First Nations trails known as the Rouge Trail, Don Trail and Humber Trail began on
the shore of Lake Ontario in the Toronto area and terminated on the two branches of the
Holland River (Myers 1977: 2). These trails form part of a long established trade and
communications network that linked the upper and lower Great Lakes. The route follows the
Holland River into the southern end of Lake Simcoe. The route then followed the western
shore of Lake Simcoe northward to Kempenfelt Bay and then westward to the end of the bay.
A portage was then undertaken to the Nottawasaga River and this river was followed into
Georgian Bay at the present location of the Town of Wasaga Beach. Alternatively, one could
continue north to the Narrows between Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching. The route then
followed the Severn River out of Lake Couchiching and into Matchedash Bay at the south
end of Georgian Bay. This network of trade and communication was long established by the
time Europeans began to operate in the area. The presence of artifacts dating to the Early
Archaic Period in close proximity to the upper and lower landings on the Holland River East
Branch suggests that the use of this system most likely dates back to at least that period and
sites dating from these earliest of users can be anticipated along the length of this route.
Page 23
The most direct of the three trails originating on the north shore of Lake Ontario was the
Humber Trail. This trail has been variously known as the Humber Trail, the HumberHolland Portage, the Pass at Toronto, the Toronto Portage, le Passage de Toronto, le Portage
de Toronto, and the Toronto Carrying-Place. The trail began at the mouth of the Humber
River on Lake Ontario and headed northward following the east side of the Humber River to
the present Town of Nobleton. From Nobleton the trail crossed the East Branch of the
Humber and proceeded northward to the west branch of the Holland River (Myers 1977: 2).
The East Branch of the Holland was also employed and was known to be less swampy. The
East Branch of the Holland River connected to the Don Trail.
The first historic documentation of the use of this route comes from Champlain. In
September of 1615 Champlain and his interpreter, Etienne Brule, accompanied their Huron
allies on a raid against the Iroquois. At the narrows on the north end of Lake Simcoe, Brule
and Champlain separated. Brule and 12 Huron were to head south to the Susquehanna River
and the home of the Andastes Nation to invite them to participate in the raid. It is believed
that Brule would have taken the Humber Trail. This is the first known use by a European of
the Carrying-Place (Robinson 1965: 6). Champlain also left us the first recorded description
of the Narrows at the start of his expedition with the Huron against the Iroquois:
“When the greater part of our people were assembled, we set out from the
village on the first day of September and passed along the shore of a small
lake, distant from that village three leagues, where they make great catches
of fish which they preserve for the winter. There is another lake immediately
adjoining which is twenty-six leagues in circumference, draining into the
small one through a place, where a great catch of fish is made by means of a
number of weirs which almost close the strait, leaving only small openings in
it where they set their nets in which the fish are caught; and these two lakes
empty into the Freshwater Sea.”
(Biggar 1932: 245-246)
The Jesuits record that in 1638 a people known as the “Ouenrohronnons” abandoned their
home on the east bank of the Niagara River and traveled to the Huron country to join this
confederacy and escape the Five Nations Iroquois. It is believed that these fugitives came by
way of the Humber Trail (Robinson 1965:12). It is generally believed that Brebeuf and
Chaumonot traveled the Humber trail on their voyage to Neutral territory in 1641. This
belief arises from the fact that Brebeuf broke his left shoulder blade on the ice of Lake
Simcoe. This would seem to indicate that he was travelling this route (Robinson 1965: 10).
The Huron advised the French at least as early as 1632 that the Humber Trail was the shortest
and easiest route from Huronia to Montreal. However, because of the animosity between the
Iroquois and the Huron, the route was unsafe. Until the Five Nations Iroquois displaced the
Huron in 1649 the area remained a “no man’s land”. Once the Huron were dispersed the
Iroquois made extensive use of the three trails in the Toronto area and established villages at
the Lake Ontario terminus of each to secure them. So threatening were the Iroquois that the
Page 24
French did not attempt to ascend the St. Lawrence River following the demise of the Huron
until 1654 (Robinson 1965: 11).
The most common route to the interior trade from Montreal was the Ottawa and French River
route to Georgian Bay. This was a difficult route with many portages. Some traders
preferred to travel the St. Lawrence to Lake Ontario, then up the Trent River and then
through a series lakes and streams to Georgian Bay. This route was likewise difficult with
many portages. When the French established the trading post at Michilimackinac (1660) at
the entrance to Lake Michigan from Lake Huron, the Great Lakes route became popular.
However, many considered the Humber Trail the most direct route to Georgian Bay,
Michilimackinac, and the northwest where the richest furs were to be obtained from the
colder climate (Myers 1977: 3-4).
Since the dispersal of the Huron, Neutral and Petun from the peninsula of southern Ontario
by 1650, the area was firmly in control of the Five Nations Iroquois. Around 1665 the Five
Nations began to establish their own villages in the lands of their former enemies. These
villages were established along the north shore of Lake Ontario as follows: Ganneious was
an Oneida village situated at the present day town of Nappanee; Kente was a Cayuga village
situated on the Bay of Quinte; Kentsio was a Cayuga village on Rice Lake; Ganaraske was a
Cayuga village in the present location of the Town of Port Hope; Ganatsekwyagon was a
Seneca village established at the mouth of the Rouge River and Teiaiagon was a Seneca
village at the mouth of the Humber (Robinson 1965:15-16). In 1671 de Coucelles visited the
eastern end of Lake Ontario. He observed that the Iroquois hunted exclusively in the
territory of their former enemies and that the entire trade in furs from the region was sent to
the Dutch on the Albany (Robinson 1965: 16).
In 1669 the French explorers Pere and Joliet camped at the village of Ganatsekwyagon at the
mouth of the Rouge before heading to Lake Superior in search of a reputed copper mine.
They traveled the Rouge Trail to the East Branch of the Holland and then onto Lake Simcoe
and Georgian Bay. Sulpicion missionaries also established themselves at this village. On
several maps of the period it is this trail that is shown rather than those of the Don & the
Humber. This would suggest that at the time, this route was the preferred trail (Robinson
1965: 20).
In 1670 Talon, Intendant of Quebec began to make plans to curb Iroquois power in the Great
Lakes region. Talon resented the incursions of the Five Nations into the area and the fact that
they were “plundering” First Nations who were subjects of the French Crown for furs that
were then passed on to the English and the Dutch. He proposed to establish forts that would
offer security to the Ottawa First Nation travelling to meet the French for trade. In 1673 Fort
Frontenac was founded at the present day site of Kingston. This resulted in the Iroquois
making Teiaiagon, the village at the base of the Humber Trail, the centre of their trade.
Teiaiagon was approached from the west end of Lake Ontario and allowed the English and
Dutch to avoid contact with the French at their new fort (Robinson 1965: 21-24).
Page 25
After the establishment of Fort Frontenac, LaSalle established his residence at this location in
1675 and is known to have traveled the Carrying-place at least three, and likely four times,
on his excursions to the west. LaSalle chose to use the Humber Trail for a reason that likely
made it the preferred route following the development of ship navigation on the Great Lakes.
This was the fact that the Humber Trail, unlike the Rouge Trail was sheltered within the
natural deep-water harbour of the future city of Toronto. LaSalle crossed the Carrying-Place
in 1680 on his way to Michilimackinac, in 1681 on his way to Fort Frontenac from
Michilimackinac and again on a return trip to Michilimackinac that same year. It is likely
that he crossed a fourth time in 1683 on his return from the Mississippi (Robinson 1965: 2536). Although the French and Iroquois were traditionally at odds, they had a great deal of
respect for LaSalle as he did for them. Had they known that LaSalle was using their portage
to transport arms to their enemies, the Illinois, they may not have allowed his safe passage
(Robinson 1965: 40).
Shortly after 1700 the Chippewa gained control of the Holland River area. They referred to
the river as Escoyondy. Later the Mississauga would call it by the name Miciaguean
(Rolling 1968: 11)
Alexander Henry leaves only a brief mention of the Narrows in his travels through the area in
1764:
The next day was calm, and we arrived at the entrance of the navigation
which leads to Lake aux Claies. We presently passed two short carryingplaces, at each of which were several lodges of Indians, containing only
women and children, the men being gone to the council at Niagara.
(Henry 1901: 170-171)
Alexander Henry’s account uses the French name for Lake Simcoe, Lac aux Claies, or
Hurdle Lake, in reference to the fish fence or weir at the Narrows. The entrance to the
“navigation” would refer to the mouth of the Severn River at the bottom of Matchedash Bay.
Undoubtedly, one of the short portages he mentions would refer to the Narrows, where he
indicates that a number of First Nations people had “cabins”. At this period of time, the term
cabin was used in reference to wigwams.
In 1783, the newly formed Northwest Company undertook a detailed examination of all
available routes to the interior. Many considered the Humber Trail to be the shortest and
safest route. It was at this time that the possibility of a road following the trail from Lake
Ontario to Lake Simcoe began to be seriously considered. In 1784 Benjamin Frobisher, a
partner in the firm, wrote to Henry Hamilton, then Governor of Quebec with this project in
mind (Myers 1977: 4).
In 1785 Chevalier Philippe de Rocheblave of the Illinois country petitioned Hamilton for a
tract of land at the Toronto Carrying-Place. He proposed to construct a trading post at
Toronto and to develop this route as a competitor to the Ottawa River route. When the
American Revolution was over, the Northwest Company was concerned that they may have
Page 26
to find alternative routes to the interior since the British were to relinquish control over their
forts at Oswego, Niagara, Detroit and Michilimackinac. This rekindled the interest of the
Northwest Company in the Humber Trail route. However, the government favoured de
Rocheblave’s plan. In 1787 the Toronto purchase was signed with three Mississauga chiefs
and in 1788 the purchased land was surveyed. In 1791 the surveyor Augustus Jones was sent
a letter advising him that Lord Dorchester (then Governor of Quebec) had ordered that de
Rocheblave’s tract was to be laid out. However, this letter did not arrive until a year later.
By that time the new Province of Upper Canada had been created and the newly appointed
Lt. Governor, John Graves Simcoe, had arrived. The District Land Board was the employer
of Augustus Jones and Simcoe dissolved this organization. Consequently, de Rocheblave’s
plan evaporated at that moment (Myers 1977: 5-9).
Simcoe was directed to establish his capital at Toronto and the new town was named York on
August 27, 1793. The name was chosen to honour the Duke of York who had saved Holland
from invasion during the French Revolution. Simcoe was eager to establish a direct route
from the new capital of Upper Canada to the Upper Great Lakes (Myers 1977: 12). As the
overland trail from Toronto to the Holland River East Branch and from thence via water
through to Lake Simcoe and on to Georgian Bay was long established by the First Nations as
a trade and communications route, it was only practical and efficient that Lt. Governor
Simcoe would exploit it to establish communications with Georgian Bay. On September 24,
1793 Simcoe set out to establish the route for a proposed road that would connect York with
the Holland River. Simcoe’s reconnaissance determined that the road should connect to the
east branch of the Holland River. This choice apparently accorded with advice he had
received from a First Nations elder. Simcoe renamed the Escoyondy the Holland River after
Major Samuel Holland, Surveyor-General of Canada (Rolling 1968:12).
Rolling (1968: 11) states that Simcoe’s party camped at the location of Soldier’s Bay while
Myers (1977: 17) suggests that Simcoe stayed at the Lower Landing where a fort was already
standing. Rolling makes clear distinctions between the Upper Landing and Soldiers Bay
whereas Myers states that they are the same. This issue was discussed in a conversation with
Gordon Dibb, a licensed Professional archaeologist who conducted a survey of the East
Holland Branch in 1978 and who worked on the Archaeological Master Plan of East
Gwillimbury Township. Mr. Dibb does not believe that the fort was established at the time
of Simcoe’s visit. He notes that although many secondary sources mention the fort, it is not
present in primary documents of the period. In either case, Simcoe named the site of the
landing and future terminus of his road Gwillimbury. The site of the Lower Landing was
known as an open space at the landing where First Nations and fur traders frequently
encamped (Myers 1977: 17)
Augustus Jones was hired to survey the new road in February of 1794. Simcoe directed that
the road should follow the Don Trail. This trail was less traveled by Simcoe’s time but
Simcoe wanted the road to be laid out on as straight a line as possible (Myers 1977: 21).
Jones’ survey of the route was completed up to Lot 111, Concession 1 West of Yonge Street
shortly thereafter. Mr. Jones calculated that loaded boats could communicate between Lot
111 and Lake Simcoe. The Queen’s Rangers were sent out to construct the road. They
Page 27
completed the road to Lot 111 in 1796. Simcoe named the new road Yonge Street after Sir
George Yonge, Secretary of War. Settlers were established along Yonge Street and were
obligated to maintain it as a condition of receiving title to their land. However, it was found
that maintenance was not adequate to the growing volume of traffic and the road was
declared a Provincial Highway in 1803. Thereafter, treasury money was allocated to
maintain and improve it (Rolling 1968: 12). In 1816, Yonge Street was cleared of major
stumps and roots that yet remained and impeded use of the road (Myers 1977: 142).
The establishment of Yonge Street was of great interest to the Northwest Company as it was
calculated that $72.00 per ton could be saved in shipping costs if the Yonge Street route was
used in preference to the Ottawa River or the Great Lakes route. In addition, U.S. Customs
officials along the Great Lakes route had harassed the company since 1796. In 1810 they
requested 2,000 acres of land at Kempenfelt Bay and Penetanguishene and a further 200
acres at Holland Landing. Although the plan was supported, the land between
Penetanguishene and Kempenfelt Bay was not purchased and the War of 1812 intervened
(Myers 1977:51-53). However, the poor condition of the road up to 1816 and the
amalgamation of the Northwest Company with the Hudson Bay Company in 1821 meant that
the route was never developed as a major fur trade route.
During the War of 1812 Yonge Street became an important route for the shipment of naval
stores to Georgian Bay. A navy supply depot was established on the east side of the Holland
River at Soldier’s Bay north of the Queensville Sideroad. The anchor, from which “Anchor
Park” derives its name, is one example of navy materiel that traveled this route. The anchor
was hauled up Yonge Street on sleighs pulled by 12 yoke of oxen. The War ended before the
anchor completed its intended journey to Georgian Bay and was abandoned on the sleighs
and left sitting until it was moved in 1870 to its present site in the park. Following the War
of 1812, the rise of steamship navigation on the Great Lakes greatly reduced the use of this
route to convey people and goods to the upper Great Lakes (Rolling 1968: 15-16).
Plans for a railway from Toronto to Collingwood were discussed as early as 1834. Royal
Assent for a charter was granted in 1849. On October 15, 1851 the construction of a railway
from York to Collingwood officially began. This railway was chartered as the “Ontario,
Simcoe and Huron Railroad” and was later renamed the “Northern Railway of Canada”
(Mika 1972: 28-30). By the Spring of 1853 the railway had reached Holland Landing. This
had the effect of greatly reducing traffic to the village along Yonge Street. When the railway
reached Barrie, the shipment of goods from Holland Landing across Lake Simcoe virtually
ended (Rolling, 1968: 27). The railway route through this area followed the east side of the
valley of the Holland River East Branch up to the village of Holland Landing where it turns
westward. Early in 1855 the railway was completed all the way to Collingwood on Georgian
Bay, Lake Huron (Mika 1972: 32).
The establishment of Yonge Street, the Nine Mile Portage and the Penetanguishene Road,
followed by the arrival of the railway, resulted in the decreasing importance of the fur trade
canoe routes beginning in the early 19th century. Most commercial and military traffic
entered into Georgian Bay through the Nottawasaga River route. With the completion of the
Page 28
railroad to Collingwood in 1855, goods and government stores were shipped directly to
Collingwood and then loaded on ships for transport on the upper lakes.
LAND SURRENDERS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RESERVES
The first purchase of land from the First Nations in the area was concluded in 1798. This
treaty was for the harbour of Penetanguishene and adjacent lands which are all contained
within the modern Townships of Tiny and Tay. Prior to this treaty, a surrender was
concluded in 1795 that was a temporary arrangement to allow for the use of land adjacent to
Penetanguishene harbour until the formal treaty was signed in 1798. In 1808 Samuel S.
Wilmot undertook an exploration of the land between Kempenfelt Bay and Penetanguishene
for the purpose of negotiating an additional treaty for more land. In 1811 Wilmot then
surveyed the Penetanguishene Road, which was done under another provisional arrangement
until a formal treaty was concluded in 1815. The 1815 treaty was signed by three chiefs:
Kinaybicoinini, Aisance and Misquuckkey who were also known as Snake, Aisance and
Yellowhead (Hunter 1998: 12-14).
“The most prominent or best known of the Ojibway chiefs who signed the
treaties for the cessions of the different parts of the county was Musquakie, or
Yellowhead. For many years he was the head chief over all the Ojibway
chiefs in the district, and was a famous man in his day, his memory being still
kept green in the name of ‘Muskoka.’”
(Hunter 1998: 16)
This treaty covered the area between Penetanguishene harbour and Kempenfelt Bay. This
treaty was then followed by a much more extensive land surrender under a treaty signed
October 17th, 1818. The objective of this second treaty was to complete the surrender of
lands between lakes Huron and Ontario. However, an inquiry into the status of land
surrenders within Ontario revealed that several areas within central Ontario might have been
overlooked in the early treaties. Accordingly, the Williams Treaties were signed in 1923
between Canada, Ontario and the Ojibway peoples of southern Ontario.
In 1828, Sir John Colborne became the Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada. Colborne
was determined that the government and the Anglican church could and should have the
same success in Christianizing and civilizing the First Nations as the Methodist church had
accomplished. Since 1825, the Reverend Peter Jones, himself a Mississauga convert, had
achieved remarkable success travelling across Upper Canada and converting his Ojibwa
relatives to Methodism. The Methodists also assisted their converts in the construction of
new log homes and in the development of farmlands with the view that they could become
self-sufficient now that the progress of settlement had made survival by following traditional
means impossible. Colborne desired to accomplish the same level of success for the Crown.
These developments are summarized by Andrew Hunter in his History of Simcoe County
(1998):
Page 29
Prior to 1830, the Indians had wandered indiscriminately about the Lake
Simcoe region; but in that year, Sir John Colborne, the Lieut-Governor,
collected them on a reserve of 9,800 acres, stretching from the Narrows to
Coldwater. They consisted for the most part of three bands of Ojibways
under Chiefs Yellowhead, Aisance, and Snake, besides a band of
Pottawatamies, lately from Drummond Island, or Michigan. They numbered
in all about 500, and were placed under the superintendence of Captain T. G.
Anderson. The headquarters of Chief Snake’s band was the island named
after him; Yellowhead’s band, which afterwards removed to Rama, was then
located at Orillia and the Narrows; while that of Chief Aisance was settled at
Coldwater, the other extremity of the reserve. A road was at once cleared
from the Narrows to Coldwater along the famous trail, and during 1831 a
line of houses was built by the Government at a distance of a mile apart over
a portion of the route. Shortly afterward the Government also erected, at
Coldwater, a store, a school, and a grist mill, the latter which began
operations in 1833.
(Hunter 1998: 18)
Although Hunter suggests that the Ojibwa were still following a seasonal round of movement
and resource exploitation up to 1830, this way of life had already started to undergo a
transformation to a more fixed residency based on agriculture. This had started under the
influence of the Methodists. This work was accomplished through the use of a number of
Christian Ojibwa, most notably the Reverend Peter Jones. By the time Colborne determined
to launch a settlement scheme on behalf of the Crown, this work had already been started at
Coldwater and at the Narrows under the Methodists. The Methodists had already established
a school at Coldwater and another near the Narrows on Chief Yellowhead’s Island. In 1831
a new school was constructed at the Narrows (Smith 1987: 105). Missionary work had
started among the Lake Simcoe bands beginning in 1826. By 1828, 400 out of a population
of 515 had embraced Methodism (Smith 1987: 94).
These settlements were not long created before pressure from Euro-Canadian settlers
demanding these valuable lands pressured the government into closing the Coldwater and
Narrows reserves. In 1836 these reserve lands were surrendered to the government. Chief
Yellowhead’s band used their annuity payments from their land surrenders to purchase land
in Rama Township in 1838, at which time the band relocated there. Chief Aisance’s band
moved to Beausoleil and Christian Islands (Hunter 1998: 19). The Beausoleil Island group
removed to join the rest of the band on Christian Island in 1856 (Ross & Smith 2002: 80).
However, even after the beginnings of the various reserves established from 1830 onward to
settle the bands of Ojibwa/Chippewa living in northern Simcoe County, many of these people
continued to follow a modified form of their traditional practice of seasonal movements
according to the resources available in any given time of year. As the following account
from the Coutts family of Vespra Township indicates, this pattern was still practiced by some
number of First Nations people in the area at least into the early 20th century
Page 30
“Descendants of the Ojibway and Hurons from Rama and Christian Island
visited Willow Creek and Little Lake in the early 1900s. They would come in
the warmer months and build several wigwams. The men would hunt and
trap and the women would make baskets and napkin holders and come up the
concession to sell door-to-door. They sometimes camped in the pastures.
Some of the men, for a while, would work as hired hands.”
Dr. Wallace Coutts, 1984
In A History of Vespra Township 1987, p. 68
The Mnjikaning Fish Fence Circle has graciously provided an additional historical timeline
of the Atherley Narrows fishing weirs. Concern was expressed that the documentation
presented in this report has excluded the Anishinaabe from the story of the fish weirs at the
Atherley Narrows. This was never our intent and we sincerely apologize if that was the
message conveyed. The history provided by Mnjikaning Fish Fence Circle is reproduced
below as provided. We agree that this information informs and enriches that already
included here.
Historical Timeline: 1646-1650: The Wendat/Huron are dispersed from Huronia.
1650-1680: Iroquoian peoples move through the region, utilizing the former Wendat
territories as hunting grounds. A small number of Iroquoian village sites are
established along the north shore of Lake Ontario. They push both north and southwest, beyond the boundaries of the Wendat territory, which brings them into conflict
with the Anishinaabe (ie: Mississauga, Ojibway, Chippewa, Potawatomi and Odawa).
1680-1690: The Anishnaabe push back, led mostly by the Mississauga, and return the
Iroquois to their homelands south of Lakes Ontario & Erie to the region known as the
Finger Lakes/Mohawk Valley.
1701: The Great Peace of Montreal of 1701. The French colonial authorities draw
representatives from 40 different Aboriginal nations to Montreal to secure peace.
1701-1800: The Mississauga, and other Anishinaabe groups, migrate back to the
Huronia region to resettle in lands they had vacated 350 years earlier to
accommodate a homeland for the Wendat.
1830 - 1836: The British Government relocates the Chippewas to the ColdwaterNarrows Reserve in an effort to turn these hunter-gatherers into farmers (and to
‘Christianize’ them) so that they did not need to travel to or use their traditional
hunting and fishing grounds, freeing the land for European settlement and commerce.
Subsequent to the “surrender” of this reserve (recently deemed by the Courts to have
been illegal, resulting in the Coldwater - Narrows Reserve Land Claim Settlement)
the people were dispersed to Rama, Georgina Island and Beausoleil Island. Although
Page 31
not documented, an Elder from the Beausoleil Band, whose grandfather was the last
traditional chief of that band, told us several years ago that the ancestors of the
Chippewas of Rama First Nation chose to resettle at Rama in order to be stewards of
the Fish Fence.
1867: The British North America Act is passed.
1868: The passing of the "The Fishery Acts" Including “An Act for the regulation of
Fishing and protection of Fisheries”. This Act made fishing at a weir in fresh water
streams as well as traditional methods of spearing and netting illegal (S.13.8) except
in certain circumstances and under licence by the Minister. (The document refers to
fish fences as "nishagans.")
1876: The Indian Act is created. The Indian Act was not part of any treaty made
between First Nations peoples and the British Crown. The sole purpose of the act was
to assimilate and colonize First Nations peoples.
1923: The signing of the Williams Treaties which further removed the people from the
land and outlawed hunting and gathering. Often referred to as the starvation treaties
by Elder knowledge-keepers, the treaties are now being scrutinized in a court
proceeding. As part of this proceeding, the gov't has already exempted Treaty #20
from the negotiations. This includes the southern half of Ramara and the Kawartha
Lakes Region.
See this website for Williams Treaty information:
http://www.williamstreatiesfirstnations.ca/about/#prettyPhoto
....and this second website for a map (it's the first one) of the region now exempt:
http://www.williamstreatiesfirstnations.ca/maps/
1951: The Indian Act is amended. For almost 100 years, it had been unlawful for
"Indians" to (among other things) practice their customs & culture, be allowed offreserve without permission of the Indian Agent and to organize & hire legal counsel.
Circa 1973: James V. Wright investigated a site on Couching Point approximately 1⁄2
mile from the Narrows. Known as the Dougall Site and referenced in Amick’s report
in Table 1 as BdGu-2, and discussed further in an excerpt from Johnson &
Cassavoy’s 1978 report, the more recent use of the site was not noted. However,
Wright determined that the site “was occupied seasonally for nearly 2000 years by
people who exploited the rich fish resource” – including a re-occupation by”
Ojibway and finally 19th and 20th century Canadians”. Please see Appendix B to this
timeline for more complete extracts from Wright’s report on the Dougall Site.
Circa 1990: Parks Canada removes approximately 134 stakes from the Narrows that
were part of the fish fence and this resulted in the birthing of the MFFC. Several
stakes were carbon dated suggesting they had been installed circa 1850. This is 200
Page 32
years after the dispersal of the Huron/Wendat and about 170-180 years after the
removal of Iroquoian people by the Mississauga/Odawa/Ojibway from this region.
After the Great Peace of Montreal of 1701, the territories north of Lake Ontario and
Lake Erie are Anishinaabe-controlled territories. It would seem clear through this
timeline that the use of the Narrows included Anishinaabe people up until the time of
their removal during the establishment of reserves in the Lake Simcoe region.
The above timeline was prepared by the Mnjikaning Fish Fence Circle.
*************
The story of the Fish Fence is many-faceted and does not end with the dispersal of the
Huron Nation. There are oral histories that have yet to be documented, but given the
above events, is it any wonder that local residents and many in Rama would deny that
their people had fished at the Narrows using the weirs? The Narrows was required by
settlers for transporting timber and other commerce and increasingly for tourism
including sport fishing. The fish fences had to go. It is almost miraculous that so
many remnants of these structures remain. (In their 1978 Cassavoy& Johnson
estimated that 7800 weir stakes remained in the East Channel, most of which have not
been surveyed.)
On behalf of the members of the Mnjikaning Fish Fence Circle, I respectfully request
that this submission be acknowledged and considered in some fashion in your final
report to the Minister.
Mary Lou Kirby
Appendix A to Timeline
Map 3 - Traditional Territories, Cultural Ecology, and Commercial Trade in the 19th
Century
The Chippewa asserted exclusive territorial interests over the lands drained by the
Nottawasaga, Lake Simcoe, and Muskoka watersheds through to their outlets in
Georgian Bay. Within the Magnetawan watershed, the William s Commission
documented cases of Chippewa families on the mid and upper source waters of the
Magnetawan River. The eastern coast of Georgian Bay contains multiple tertiary
watershed basins forming a panhandle from the French River to Moose Deer Point
(e.g. ., the Seguin watershed) that were under the territorial control of Ojibway
nation signatories of the Robinson-Huron Treaty.
The Mississauga asserted exclusive territorial interests over the Lake Ontario
watershed. Both the Chippewa and Mississauga territories bordered Algonquin
territory around the sinuosities of the heights of land at the sources of Ottawa River
watershed.
Chippewa and Mississauga Bands further subdivided their territories into a network
Page 33
of exclusive, inherited “family hunting grounds” defined by the heights of land
around watershed basins and sub -b sins with in their Band territories. (1) In inset
illustrates the locations of specific families’ hunting ground according to records
reaching back to the 1830s. (2) Families annually moved along the well-known routes
between their southern fishing villages and their northern family hunting grounds.
Independent European fur traders erected fur trade posts at points in the watershed
where they could intercept families returning from their hunting grounds (Source:
http://www.williamstreatiesfirstnations.ca/maps/ )
Appendix B to Timeline
THE DOUGALL SITE J.V. WRIGHT
On page 3 of the report, final paragraph, the following summary is given.
"Despite the mixed nature of the cultural deposits, the Dougall site produced a
considerable body of significant data. First, there is evidence that the site was used
relatively continuously for nearly 2,000 years. Second, and most important, the site
basically functioned as a fish camp and this specialized function has expressed itself
archaeologically in a number of interesting ways. Interpretations will follow the
descriptive section which begins with the earliest occupation. Due to the disturbed
nature of the deposit most of the non-diagnostic stone and bone artifacts cannot be
accurately assigned to specific components. They will be described at the end of the
descriptive section and wherever possible comment will be made regarding their
likely association."
Wright provides his Abstract (p. 16).
"The Dougall site was occupied seasonally for nearly 2,000 years by people who
exploited the rich, local fish resource. Point Peninsula culture remains dating near
the beginning of our era were the first occupants and were followed by the entire
Ontario Iroquois development in the region. After the dispersal of the Huron, the site
appears to have been re-occupied by Ojibwa and finally by 19th and 20th century
Canadians. Throughout the occupation, however, it was the late prehistoric-historic
Huron who left the most abundant remains. These remains relate to a fish
preparation station where the major product was not consumed on the site but was
p[reserved for later consumption at other locations."
Summary of James V. Wright's report on the Dougall Site has been taken from a PDF
site. http://www.ontarioarchaeology.on.ca/publications/pdf/oa17-1wright.pdf Accessed 30 Sept. 2013
Robert Browne
(Mnjinkaning Fish Fence Circle 2011)
Page 34
5.2.2.3 EURO-CANADIAN SETTLEMENT
The former townships of Rama and Mara were first named in 1820. The townships were
originally part of York County, but were transferred to Ontario County when they were first
incorporated as an amalgamated municipality in 1852. They were later reincorporated as
separate municipalities in 1869. A portion of Rama Township was allocated to form what
became the Mnjikaning First Nation No. 32 Indian Reserve of the Chippewas of Mnjikaning
First Nation. Many First Nations people were living on the narrow strip of land that separates
lakes Simcoe and Couchiching between the communities of Atherley and Orillia. These lands
were surrendered by treaty in 1836. After that time, the local Indian Agent began purchasing
lands in Rama Township and the natives were relocated there. North of Rama, the
community of Longford Mills was established in 1868. In 1867 American lumberman Henry
W. Sage had purchased blocks of land in Rama Township after buying timber berths in
Oakley Township in Muskoka District. Ontario County was dissolved upon the formation of
the Regional Municipality of Durham in 1974, and both townships were transferred to
Simcoe County. As part of the municipal restructuring of Simcoe County, Mara and Rama
Townships were re-amalgamated to form Ramara in 1994. (Wikipedia 2011)
In the seventeenth century Simcoe County was home to the Huron. With the arrival of French
priests and Jesuits, missions were established near Georgian Bay. After the destruction of the
missions by the Iroquois and the British, Algonquin speaking peoples occupied the area.
After the war of 1812, the government began to invest in the military defences of Upper
Canada, through the extension of Simcoe’s Yonge St. from Lake Simcoe to Penetanguishene
on Georgian Bay (Garbutt 2010).
Located at the meeting point of Lake Simcoe and Lake Couchiching, Orillia was founded in
1867 and incorporated as a town in 1875. The area was an important part of the fur trade,
with several landing places, now incorporated within the city proper, along the north shore of
Lake Ontario. There was a trading post located at the narrows where the two lakes meet.
This area had also been a long time stop over point and camp and resources for natives as
evidenced by the still existing weirs. The first white settler is said to have settled the area in
1833 and by 1836 there were as many as eight settlers in the area of the city of Orillia
(“Severn,” 2010)
HISTORIC MAPS
Figure 2 illustrates the location of the study area and environs as of 1881. The map is a
segment of the Township of South Orillia Map included in the Simcoe Supplement to the
Illustrated Atlas of the Dominion of Canada (Belden 1881). The historic map shows this
bridge was used as a railway crossing at this time. The west side of the bridge is shown to be
within the settled community of Orillia.
Figure 3 illustrates the location of the study area and environs as of 1877. The map is a
segment of the Township of Mara Map included in the Illustrated Historical Atlas of the
County of Ontario (Beers 1877). The historic map shows that this bridge was used as a
Page 35
railway crossing at this time. The east side of the bridge is shown to be adjacent the settled
community of Atherley. The bridge is shown to be situated within a marsh.
5.2.2.4 ATHERLEY SWING BRIDGE
The railway corridor that the Atherley Swing Bridge carries over the Atherley Narrows was
built sometime after 1855 when the first railway corridor through Simcoe County was
completed from Toronto to Collingwood. This line was established prior to 1877 when it is
depicted on the Historic Atlas map for the Township of Mara (see Figure 4). A crossing at
this location has existed since the establishment of this railway line (Circa 1870).
“AECOM contacted CN Rail in an attempt to acquire information on the existing
bridge. CN responded to our request by providing microfiche slides of all historical
drawings of bridges at this site in their possession. The earliest drawing provided
was dated 1885.”
(AECOM 2010: 3)
Historic engineering plans obtained from CN Rail illustrate plans for the reconstruction of
the crossing in 1969 (see Figure 5). On this plan there is a note that states,
“The existing 219’1” 0 to 0 timber trestle which has deteriorated beyond economical
repair, is to be replaced with 224’11” 0 to 0 ballasted deck steel trestle, all as shown
on this drawing – base of rail, grade & alignment to remain unchanged.”
(CNR 1969)
Although some of the words on the copy obtained are illegible, it is clear that at least the
trestle portion of the bridge at the crossing was replaced. A notation on this drawing states
that the proposed steel trestle was constructed “under R.T.C. order no. R-9599 dated 25
August 1970”. The remnants of wood upright posts visible in the water today likely date
from this period when the wood trestle was replaced with a steel structure.
AECOM’s description of the bridge notes that the layout for the east viaduct dates from 1969
and that the swing bridge dates from 1913:
material.
Page 36
the piers.
(AECOM 2010: 3-4)
5.2.2.5 RECOGNITION AND COMMEMORATION
Before Parks Canada staff had done any direct research on the site, Sheryl Smith, then a
project archaeologist of the Ontario Region of Parks Canada based in Cornwall, Ontario
presented a paper at the 1982 Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. She
concluded her presentation as follows:
“The Atherley Narrows Fish Weirs (BdGu-6) are the largest and best-preserved such
structures extant in eastern North America, and perhaps the entire continent.
Thorough historical and archaeological research has shown that the weirs were used
for over four thousand years, and are the only ones documented in this part of the
world. They indicate the economic importance placed on fishing by prehistoric
peoples and show the ‘…very long, and important economic tradition that warrants
further study’ (Johnston and Cassavoy 1978: 708).
“It is recommended that the Atherley Narrows Fish Weirs be declared of national
historic importance.”
(Smith 1982: 189)
The Mnjikaning Fish Weirs was officially recognized as a National Historic Site of Canada
in 1982.
Within the List of National Historic Sites maintained by the Canadian Ministry of the
Environment (CME), the “Mnjikaning Fish Weirs” at the Atherley Narrows are summarized
as the “Largest and best preserved wooden fish weirs known in eastern North America, in
use from about 3300 B. C.” (CME n.d.(a): 15).
The “Mnjikaning Fish Weirs National Historic Site of Canada” the Atherley Narrows are
also included within The Canadian Register of Historic Places. This is an online resource
administered by Parks Canada of the Canadian Ministry of the Environment that lists and
Page 37
describes historic places recognized at the municipal, provincial and federal level.
The description of the location of the Mnjikaning Fish Weirs within the Register is as
follows:
“Mnjikaning Fish Weirs National Historic Site of Canada is located on portions of
the bottom of the Narrows between Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching, a part of the
Trent-Severn Waterway. This includes the navigable marked channel, the old channel
that runs to the northeast and marshland surrounding these channels. The
constriction of the Narrows allows fish to be caught as they move between the lakes,
and the shallowness of the channel permits wooden weirs to be built there. The
channel today is divided in two: the original channel curves to the northeast, and the
navigation channel runs straight to the north. The navigation channel was first
dredged in 1856-57, and dredging has also taken place in the original channel south
of the junction. A linear island has been created along the eastern side of the
navigation channel. A causeway for an old Canadian Pacific Railway bed runs
across the north end of the narrows. Marshland lies in between these channels, and
also east of the old channel. A third channel seems to have existed in the past, curving
to the west of the navigation channel and it has been largely filled in by modern
development. The official recognition refers to the location of the weirs underwater in
the channel between the two lakes.”
(CME n.d.(b))
The statement of significance included in the Register reads:
“Mnjikaning Fish Weirs was designated a national historic site of Canada in 1982
because:
- the site contains the largest and best preserved wooden fish weirs known in eastern
North America, in use from about 3300 B.C. until the recent past;
- the site was cared for and used by the Huron-Wendat in the centuries immediately
before A.D. 1650, and today the Anishinaabeg are stewards of the site; and
- for these two groups, this is a sacred place that represents an ancient and ongoing
spiritual bond between the Creator and all living things. The spirits of people, water,
animals, birds and fish are seen as all coming together in respect and gratitude at
Mnjikaning.
The oldest wooden stakes are clustered in the east channel, and samples taken from
the stakes have provided carbon dates in excess of 5000 calendar years old. This
falls within a time period referred to by archaeologists as the Late Archaic. Little is
known about this area in this period of time, and so archaeologists cannot describe
the cultural affiliations of the earliest people who used the weirs. Another cluster of
12 radiocarbon dates falls within the time that the Huron-Wendat and their
immediate ancestors lived in the area around the Narrows.”
(CME n.d.(b))
Page 38
A Parks Canada plaque has been installed on the east bank of the Narrows to the south of the
existing Highway 12 bridge. This plaque is entitled, “Mnjikaning Fish Weirs.” The Text of
this plaque is reproduced below:
“About the Fish Weirs: In the Ojibwa language, Mnjikaning (‘man-jik-a-ning’)
means ‘place of the fish fence.’ This complex system of underwater fences was used
by Aboriginal people for harvesting fish. Today, very few wooden fish weirs are still
in existence. In fact, Mnjikaning is the only example of this rare technology in
Canada.
“The fish weirs were constructed here 5,000 years ago. To build them, lines of
wooden stakes were driven into the bottom of the narrows. Vegetation was then
woven through the stakes, forming the fences that guided the fish into shallower
areas. Covered in silt, and therefore protected from bacteria, the wooden stakes have
remained intact.
“A Special Place: Mnjikaning was also a meeting place for Aboriginal nations – a
cherished place where treaties were made, goods were exchanged, and ceremonies
were conducted.
“Today, Aboriginal people believe that Mnjikaning is one of the special sites in North
America where the Creator’s power and spiritual energy can be experienced. Elders
tell us that the fish still listen to the Creator, who charged them with the duty to come
together here. In recognition of this rare and special place, the federal government
officially declared Mnjikaning a national historic site in 1982.
“As you visit, look for signs that the Creator has blessed Mnjikaning with many gifts.
Fish, birds and other creatures can be seen. The grandfather Rock, with its four
colours (yellow, red, black and white), represents our connection to the ancient
world. By respecting the environment, we can make sure this special place remains
protected.
‘The Elder’s grandfather told her that the people from Mnjikaning were special, and
that it was because at one time they lived at the Narrows and took care of the fish
fence there.’
The Archaeological and Historic Sites Board of Ontario (AHSBO) has erected a plaque on
the east bank of the narrows to the south of the existing Highway 12 bridge. The plaque is
entitled, “The Huron Fish Weirs” and the text of this plaque reads as follows:
“In the adjacent Narrows joining Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching are the remains of
Indian fish weirs. They were noted by Samuel de Champlain when he passed here on
September 1, 1615, with a Huron war party en route to attack the Iroquois south of
Lake Ontario. The weirs consisted of large numbers of stakes driven into the bottom
Page 39
of the Narrows, with openings at which nets were placed to catch fish. These weirs
(claies) caused Lake Simcoe to be named Lac aux Claies during the French regime.
Their remains were noted by archaeologists as early as 1887, and their location was
partially charted in 1955.”
(AHSBO n.d.)
During the Stage 1 Reconnaissance of the study area, a plaque was observed on the western
approach to the bridge situated on the north side of the multi-use path overlying the former
railway bed. This is the only plaque that is situated in in the immediate vicinity of the study
area (see Plate 9). There is no agency or organization credited with the placement of this
plague entitled, “Fish Fence.” The text of this plaque reads:
“The narrow navigational channel of water that connects Lake Simcoe to Lake
Couchiching has long been known as ‘The Narrows.’ Almost invisible from above,
there exists below the surface of the Narrows a 5,000 year old fish fence or weirs.
Developed by Aboriginal people, hundreds, even thousands of wooden stakes were
interwoven with vegetation and placed on the channel’s bed. Creating a complex
network of underwater fences, fish would be directed to an open area where they
could be easily netted or speared during seasonal migrations.
“As an efficient harvesting technology, the fish fence became a place of traditional
meeting for Aboriginal peoples and eventually all humankind. The Hurons kept the
weir for a time and were noted fishing here by Samuel de Champlain in 1615. Here
people would exchange goods and stories, hold spiritual ceremonies, resolve
differences and make agreements. Aboriginal traders and leaders from the north
would stop and replenish their physical, mental and spiritual energies before
continuing to southern communities. On their return voyage, these same parties
would pause to give their friends gifts in honour of their kindness.
“Today, the Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation maintain a stewardship role of
the fish fence, in honour of their ancient promise to their friends, the Hurons. In spite
of erosion, development and changes over the centuries, including the bustle of
today’s commercial and tourist activity, portions of the fish fence still exist.
“Ezhi gchi-piiten daa gawk – The wonder and sacredness of it all.”
(Anonymous n.d.)
5.2.2.6 CONCLUSIONS FROM DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH
The easy access to potable water and a significant fishery surrounding, and passing through,
the study area indicates a high potential for significant archaeological resources of Native
origins. Archaeological and documentary sources illustrate First Nations people have
occupied the land associated with the Narrows from at least the Middle Archaic Period (circa
6000 B.C.) until they moved from the Narrows reserve lands in 1838. The original occupants
were most likely of the Algonkian culture who gathered here owing to its importance as a
Page 40
source of fish. Later, when the Huron occupied the area, they made use of the fishery already
long established. With the dispersal of the Huron in 1649, it has been suggested that the
Mohawk briefly occupied the area until the Ojibwa sometime between 1660 and 1700 A.D
forced them out. From then until 1838, the Ojibwa people who now are the people of the
Mnjikaning/Rama Reserve occupied the land at the Narrows. Background research suggests
a high potential for archaeological resources of Euro-Canadian origins. Euro-Canadian
settlement and land use of the Narrows area began immediately following the movement of
Chief Yellowhead’s band to Rama Township in 1838.
The cultural history of First Nations settlement and land use in the area suggests that
different patterns of settlement may be anticipated in the area according to the period and
culture under consideration. The earliest First Nations peoples for whom evidence has been
found in proximity to the Narrows are the Middle Archaic peoples. These sites tend to be
small in area and are interpreted to represent seasonal occupations. These sites tend to be
found adjacent to waterways as a means of navigation and communication; as a source of
potable water; and probably most importantly, as a source of fish. The potential for such
sites on dry land in the local vicinity is high. Archaeological sites yielding evidence of this
time period have been documented within close proximity to the study area (see Section 5.3
below).
The proximity of habitation sites to waterways remains the general pattern until the Late
Woodland period when the preferred settlement locations move to the high sandy-soiled
plateaus overlooking valley lands. These areas can accommodate larger village sites and the
corn horticulture associated with this settlement form. This landform does not characterize
the landscape in the vicinity of the study area. Accordingly, the potential for Late Woodland
Period village sites to be encountered in close proximity to the study area is considered to be
low. However, it must be noted that many special purpose sites, outside of villages have
been documented in association with the corn agriculturalists of Ontario. Fishing camps are
included among such sites. Given the significance of the Narrows as a fishery and the fact
that Champlain documents the use of this fishery by the Huron in 1615, the potential for
material associated with this period of occupation is very high. Archaeological sites yielding
evidence of this time period have been documented within close proximity to the study area
(see Section 5.3 below).
In the historic period, following the collapse of the Huron (Wendat) confederacy and the
arrival of Algonkian speaking peoples in the area, the focus on seasonal movements of
people and smaller campsites associated with waterways returns as the primary settlement
form. The potential for Contact Period Algonkian culture sites within the vicinity of the
study area is very high. Burials related to this period have apparently been found in the area
(see Section 5.3 below).
With the advent of Euro-Canadian style land organization and the establishment of farms,
First Nations peoples adopted a modified seasonal cycle wherein farm employment and
occupation of areas within established farmsteads is grafted onto the seasonal cycle.
Beginning in the late 1820s, log cabin homes begin to make their appearance within the
Page 41
community at the narrows. A school was established at the Narrows in 1831. We do not
know precisely where these log cabins were situated or where the school was, but it should
be anticipated that evidence of such structures might be found in close proximity to the study
area. Evidence from the Tax Assessment Rolls also indicates that Euro-Canadian settlers
occupied portions of Orchard Point immediately south of the study area in the 1830s.
Evidence of these occupations may likewise be encountered near the study area.
The brief overview of documentary evidence readily available indicates that the study area is
situated within an area that was close to the historic transportation routes and in an area well
populated during the nineteenth century and as such has potential for archaeological
resources relating to early Euro-Canadian settlement in the region. Background research
indicates the study area has potential for significant archaeological resources of Native
origins.
5.3
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT
The Archaeological Sites Database administered by MTCS indicates that there are five (5)
previously documented sites within 1 kilometre of the study area. However, it must be noted
that this is based on the assumption of the accuracy of information compiled from numerous
researchers using different methodologies over many years. AMICK Consultants Limited
assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of site descriptions, interpretations such as
cultural affiliation, or location information derived from the Archaeological Sites Database
administered by MTCS. In addition, it must also be noted that a lack of formerly
documented sites does not indicate that there are no sites present as the documentation of any
archaeological site is contingent upon prior research having been conducted within the study
area.
5.3.1 REGISTERED FIRST NATIONS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
A summary of registered and/or known archaeological sites within a 1-kilometre radius of
the study area was gathered from the Archaeological Sites Database, administered by MTCS.
As a result it was determined that three (3) archaeological sites relating directly to First
Nations habitation/activity had been formally documented within the immediate vicinity of
the study area. These sites are briefly described below:
TABLE 1
REGISTERED FIRST NATIONS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN 1KM
Site Name
Borden #
Site Type
Cultural Affiliation
Orchard Point
BdGu-18
Campsite
Middle Archaic, Late Iroquoian
Dougall
Atherley Narrows
BdGu-2
BdGu-6
Campsite
Fishing Station
Page 42
The distance to water criteria used to establish potential for archaeological sites suggests
potential for First Nations occupation and land use in the area in the past. This consideration
establishes archaeological potential within the study area.
Table 3 illustrates the chronological development of cultures within southern Ontario prior to
the arrival of European cultures to the area at the beginning of the 17th century. This general
cultural outline is based on archaeological data and represents a synthesis and summary of
research over a long period of time. It is necessarily generalizing and is not necessarily
representative of the point of view of all researchers or stakeholders. It is offered here as a
rough guideline and outline to illustrate the relationships of broad cultural groups and time
periods.
5.3.2 REGISTERED EURO-CANADIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
A summary of registered and/or known archaeological sites within a 1 kilometre radius of the
study area was gathered from the Archaeological Sites Database, administered by MTCS. It
was determined that two (2) archaeological sites relating directly to Euro-Canadian
habitation/activity had been formally documented within the immediate vicinity of the study
area. All previously registered Euro-Canadian sites are briefly described below:
Table 2
Euro-Canadian Sites within 1km
Site Name
Borden #
Site Type
Cultural Affiliation
The Rama Road Site
BdGu-17
Homestead
Euro-Canadian
Small
BdGu-8
Homestead
Euro-Canadian
Page 43
TABLE 3
CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY FOR SOUTH-CENTRAL ONTARIO
Years ago
250
Period
Terminal Woodland
1000
Initial Woodland
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
Southern Ontario
Ontario Iroquois and
St. Lawrence Iroquois
Cultures
Princess Point
Culture
Saugeen-Point PeninsulaMeadowood Cultures
Archaic
Laurentian
Culture
Palaeo-Indian
Plano Culture
Clovis Culture
(Wright 1972)
5.3.3 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
There have been four (4) archaeological assessments conducted within close proximity to the
study area; three were done at the Highway 12 crossing site approximately 100 metres to the
south of the study area. The fourth was an underwater assessment conducted for the
proposed undertaking. The resulting previous assessment reports on file with MTCS in
Toronto are as follows:
Mayer Heritage Consultants Inc.
1997a Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1 and 2), Highway 12/Atherley Narrows Bridge,
Township of Ramara, County of Simcoe, Ontario. Archaeological License Report on
file with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.
1997b Underwater Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1 and 2), Proposed Trestle and Rip
Rap Construction Area, Highway 12 Bridge, Atherley Narrows, Simcoe County,
Ontario. Archaeological License Report on file with the Ontario Ministry of
Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.
1997c Underwater Archaeological Assessment (Stage 3), Test Excavation of Area S6,
Highway 12 Bridge, Atherley Narrows, Simcoe County, Ontario. Archaeological
Page 44
License Report on file with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport,
Toronto.
Scarlett Janusas Archaeology Inc. (SJA)
2014 Marine Archaeological Assessment, Atherley Narrows Bridge Study, Simcoe County.
SJA, Tobermory, Ontario. Archaeological License Report on file with the Ontario
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto. (MTCS File#2009-003-005-2009).
In addition, a technical report was filed with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and
Sport in support of the Mayer Heritage Consultants Inc. assessments, as follows:
Shark Marine
1997 Sub-bottom Profiling of the Proposed Bridge Site at Atherley Narrows, Orillia.
Technical Report filed in support of Mayer Heritage Consultants Inc. underwater
archaeology license reports on file with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and
Sport, Toronto.
The area surrounding the Narrows between Lakes Couchiching and Simcoe has been an area
of intensive archaeological investigation for over a century. The following outline of these
investigations is presented chronologically and limited to research of direct relevance to the
study area.
5.3.3.1 ANDREW HUNTER (1903)
Andrew Hunter compiled an overview of sites located in North and South Orillia Townships
in 1903. This data was published in 1904 and contained in the Annual Archaeological
Report for the province of Ontario, 1903. Andrew Hunter details three sites in this report of
particular interest with regard to the study area. He numbered these sites 20, 21 and 22.
These three sites are nearby the study area and are of interest in establishing the occupation
pattern of this particular area. These sites are discussed in sequential order and the
descriptions are quoted directly from Andrew Hunter:
Andrew Hunter Site No. 20
On part of lot 11, concession 6. F. S. Smith. Numerous relics have been
found on his farm, which is on the shore of Monk’s or Smith’s Bay. A
favourite landing place of the Indians existed here from early times. Metal
tomahawks have been found, indicating the occupation of the place during
historic times; but there have been also relics found of prehistoric dates.
Several years ago, on the narrow tract of land between the two lakes (Simcoe
and Couchiching) many stone axes were found. The place was nearby the
Atherley Road on the way to Invermara, and also near the bay just
mentioned.
(Hunter 1904: 122)
Page 45
This site is evidently related to the study area. The landing site on the north shore of the
isthmus would have functioned as the landing point for travelers using the Severn route from
Georgian Bay or a launching point for travelers moving north from Lake Simcoe en route to
Georgian Bay. This site would also have functioned as a landing point for those arriving via
canoe to fish and camp at the Narrows, a short walk to the east. From this landing site to the
Narrows, it is likely that most, if not all, of the land was occupied by various groups at
different times from the establishment of the Narrows as a major fishing site during the
Middle Archaic Period (at the latest based on carbon-14 dating of the weirs themselves) up to
approximately 1839 when the reserve at Rama on the opposite side of the Narrows was
established.
Andrew Hunter Site No. 21
At Invermara, in the grounds of Orchard Point House (summer resort),
formerly the Red Cross Hospital, which is the property of Mr. J. P. Secord,
Orillia. A paragraph appeared in each of the three Orillia newspapers of
May 1, 1890, mentioning the finding of a human skeleton, with accompanying
Indian relics, and also other articles in the vicinity of the find. There were
numerous prehistoric, as well as recent relics, the remains thus belonging to
all periods from the earliest downwards. Beside the single skeleton
(apparently a woman’s) there were some stamped out metal ornaments; three
brooches, a double-barred silver cross, about four inches long, with
“Montreal” and the maker’s mark upon it. At a little distance away were
found fragments of roughly ornamented pottery, clay pipe heads, stone axes,
a bone disk, etc. The relics found with the skeleton indicated that it belonged
to a comparatively recent period; but the clay pipe-heads and fragments
mostly belonged to the early Huron period. The latter included a Huron
flared pipe (plain), six belt pattern pipes, and five images from pipes (an
owl’s head, a hawk’s head, the head of another bird, a nondescript image,
pig-nosed or wolf-nosed, and a human face). The foregoing relics indicate
various periods of occupation of the site, as we might expect from the fact
that the fishing station at a little distance north, and, in fact, along the entire
length of the Narrows, attracted Indians thither at all times.
(Hunter 1904: 122)
The year following Andrew Hunter’s above account, his colleague J. Hugh Hammond,
offered further details concerning Orchard Point:
At the Narrows to the west of and south of the site No. XXI, there is on the
extreme point of land on the Old Oak Orchard a number of burials, and these
bodies can be found under and near the flagpole in front of the residence of
the late Albert Fowlie, P.L.S. As this site is new, or, rather, an extension of
the site No. XXI, it is well worthy of noting. Arrow points are numerous here,
stone and bone. The ground is high and sandy back from the shore of Lake
Simcoe, where the burials are.
Page 46
(Hammond 1905: 85)
The description of the pottery fragments as being “roughly ornamented” suggests that the
pottery was not of Huron origins. Presumably, Hunter is referring to pottery which has been
surface decorated through chord-wrapped stick, dentate stamp, or similar technique which
tends to roughen the surface of the vessel and present a tree bark-like appearance. This may
suggest an occupation dating to the Middle Woodland period (circa 400 BC to 1000 AD).
Alternatively, the presence of pipes, which he attributes to the Huron together with rough
surfaced pottery, may suggest occupations from one or both of the Late Woodland subphases termed the Uren (Circa 1300-1350 AD) and Middleport (circa 1350-1400). Andrew
Hunter apparently favoured the latter interpretation since he suggests, “the clay pipe-heads
and fragments mostly belonged to the early Huron period”; the Uren and Middleport subphases being precursor cultural developments of the Ontario Iroquoian people before the
establishment of the Huron Confederacy. The establishment of the Huron Confederacy is
generally believed to have occurred sometime in the middle of the 15th century.
Hunter’s description of the burial goods as including trade silver suggests a historic period
for this burial which was later than the disintegration of the Huron Confederacy. The fact
that a Cross of Loraine marked “Montreal” was recovered is of interest but without a
description of the maker’s mark, it is of limited value in refining the date or cultural
affiliation of the grave. Silversmiths were known to be working in New France prior to
1700. However, their work was initially focused on work for the churches being established.
As the population grew and numbers of people grew in affluence, work began to be
dominated by demands for household goods. Around the middle of the 18th century a new
market emerged. This rapidly expanding market was for articles of personal adornment
destined to be traded to First Nations people throughout North America (Fredrickson and
Gibb 1980: 35-37). Special objects of presentation silver played a role in the diplomatic
relations between representatives of European colonial powers and First Nations delegates
for centuries. However, evidence suggests that silver was only actively traded for the period
starting about 1760 up to about 1821 (Fredrickson and Gibb 1980: 43). The cross and
crucifix were first distributed by the earliest French missionaries to converts. During the
period when silver was actively traded the variations of the cross were a popular design that
was circulated without a religious connotation (Fredrickson and Gibb 1980: 43).
The Orchard Point House (also known as the Orchard Point Inn), which was formerly the
Red Cross Hospital, was situated to the southwest of the study area and shows the long
history of occupation within this area of the Atherley Narrows.
Andrew Hunter Site No. 22, Fishing Station at the Narrows
Remains of the fishing station and fish weir of the Hurons at the narrows.
The position of the old weir is north of the present bridges and south of the
old railway bridge. [Emphasis added] In 1887, the late Joseph Wallace, a
local archaeologist, of Orillia, identified this site as the fishing station
mentioned in Champlain’s Journal (1615), at the time when he had extracts
Page 47
from that Journal printed in the Orillia Times. (See Champlain’s Works, Vol.
4, page 34). Mr. Wallace also contributed an article on the subject to the
Canadian Institute (Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.), and it appeared in the issue of
that periodical for February, 1891, pages 134-138, under the heading “A
Fishing Station of the Ancient Hurons Identified.” Owing to the rarity of that
publication, it is worth while reprinting here Mr. Wallace’s words in
reference to the fish stakes. After some general remarks on the object of
Champlain’s expedition, he says; “The Narrows presents much the same features as in Champlain’s days. But
its fame as a fishing ground has long vanished; bass may still be caught with
the rod, or trolling; and in the winter season, some scores of Indians and
whites may be seen spearing herrings through holes cut in the ice. Still, there
is no doubt that at the time to which reference is made, all those lakes were
literally swarming with fish. Are there any remains to point out the exact
locality where these stakes crossed the straight? In answering this question
in the affirmative, I would state that in some years since, my friend Gilbert
Williams, an Indian, informed me that he had seen very old stakes which were
used by the Mohawks for catching fish. Some time after, when I was writing
out the story of Champlain for one of our local papers, I was conversing with
Charles Jacobs on the subject, who said he had also seen the stakes, and
further, that the locality was known to this day as ‘mitchekun,’ which means a
fence, or the place which was fenced or staked across. He said that if a
strange Indian were to ask him where he came from, he would answer,
‘mitchekuning,’ the termination ‘ing’ signifying ‘from’, that is, from
Mitchekun. We were, at the time, standing on the Orillia wharf, and within
sight of the end of the Narrows. Charles Jacobs said, ask old Mr. Snake (who
was standing nearby) where Mitchekun is. As soon as I asked the old man, he
turned and pointed to the Narrows, which was between two and three miles
distant. In September, 1886, I walked down to the Narrows, and entered
into conversation with Mr. Frank Gaudaur, who is of Indian extraction,
and the keeper of the Midland railway bridge, who immediately took me to
the side of the bridge, and only a few paces distant, and showed me a
number of the stakes which remained. [Emphasis added] Dredging the
channel for the purpose of navigation had, of course, removed the greater
part of them, only those on the outside of the dredged portion being left. Mr.
Gaudaur said that there were some other places where stakes might be seen,
but that this was the most complete part. The stakes as might be expected,
were a good deal twisted by the current, but the ends were still close
together, and firmly embedded into the clay and mud at the bottom, so that it
was only after considerable pulling with a spear, that one was brought to the
surface. The stakes would be about five or six feet long, and thicker than a
walking stick. It is to be observed that they are not placed across in a
straight lie; indeed, one portion is continued in a direction half-way down the
stream, and would thus produce an angle when the line was changed
Page 48
upwards, and at the opening of this angle would be placed the net; and this is
in exact accordance with the method which Champlain describes, when the
Indians were hunting deer; that is by staking out a large space in the woods,
with an angle into which the game was driven. It is not difficult to account
for the stakes lasting so many years when we consider the tops were under
the surface of the water, thus escaping the action of the air, and also that of
the ice, which in this locality is never of great thickness because of the
rapidity of the current. It must be understood that we do not assert that these
identical stakes existed there in Champlain’s time, although it is possible that
some of them may be part of the original construction. It was probably used
for fishing purposes long after the time of Champlain and even after the
destruction of the Hurons, for I am strongly inclined to suspect that a portion
of the Mohawks settled down on the vanquished territory, and remained there
a considerable time. If such was the case, the fence would be repaired from
time to time, as circumstances required, without altering the site to any
material extent. The stake which I had, had been pointed with an axe of
considerable sharpness, as evidenced by the comparatively clean cuts made
in the operation. Our present Indians, who are Ojibways, know nothing
about them, except the tradition before mentioned. Mr. Snake is an old man,
and he stated to me that the old Indians, when he was young, referred the
whole construction, and its use, to the Mohawks. I have no doubt, if they are
not molested, the remains will be in existence a century hence.”
A paragraph in the Orillia Packet of June 21, 1889, affords some further
information upon the important fishing station: -- “During his stay here, Mr.
A. C. Osborne of Penetanguishene, accompanied by Mr. Joseph Wallace, sr.,
visited Mr. F. Gaundaur, and they made a most interesting discovery. A copy
of Champlain’s journal describes the method by which the Indians took fish
in 1615. They had rows of stakes driven into the bottom of the Narrows, in
such a way as to corral the fish in passing from one lake to the other. In this
manner enough fish for the commissariat during the expedition in which they
engaged against the Iroquois, were taken in five or six days. When this part
of the journal was read to Mr. Gaudaur, he took his visitors to where the
rows of stakes could be seen under water. The Ojibways, he said, found these
stakes there when they came a hundred and fifty or eighty years since, knew
what they were for, but did not use them. They were in large numbers, and at
one time extended quite across the Narrows, but very many were thrown out
in dredging the present channel. The stakes are of tamarack. Mr. Osborne
secured two—one had evidently been put down to replace another at a date
subsequent to the other, which was soft, like cheese, when pulled out. The top
is desiccated, and is covered with slime. Though only some six inches were
visible they extend quite a long distance into the mud. Mr. Osborne believes
that the older stick is one of those there when Champlain encamped at the
spot. Mr. Gaudaur says that these under-water “fences” probably suggested
Page 49
the Ojibway name of Orillia, or the Narrows—Michikaning: ‘The Place of
the Fence.”
Following the publication of the foregoing paragraph, the present writer
communicated a letter to the Orillia Packet of July 5, 1889, suggesting that
the early French name of Lake Simcoe, viz, Hurdle Lake, (Lac aux Claies),
was derived from this fishing contrivance at the Narrows. C. C. James, M. A.
made a similar suggestion in a letter to the Toronto Globe, May 26, 1896.
And in a letter to the Orillia Packet of April 2, 1903. Aubrey White, DeputyMinister of Crown Lands, Toronto, also suggests, or rather points out as an
established fact, (though without citing any authority,) that the early French
adopted the idea of the name Hurdle Lake from the same Indian fish fence.
These three suggestions appear to have been made independently of each
other, making the validity of the suggestion very strong. (See Gen. John S.
Clark’s article in Ontario Archaeological Report for 1899, p. 195).
(Hunter 1904: 122-125)
The passage written by General Clark and referenced by Hunter, which specifically speaks of
the fish weirs at the Atherley Narrows, is as follows:
“The Indians, known as Ojibways of the present day, speak of the locality of
Mitchekun, which means a fence, or the place, which was fenced, or staked across.
The structure was composed of small sharpened stakes, from six to ten feet in length,
driven into the clay and sand which constitutes the bottom of the channel, and were
from and inch to two inches in diameter. Probably smaller twigs were woven back
and forth in the form of what is called wattling.”
(Clark 1900: 195-196)
The close proximity of the study area to the above-described sites suggests that the
probability for First Nations occupation in close proximity to the study area is very high. In
addition, there is also a very high potential for related archaeological materials to be present
within the water portion of the subject property. Portions of the passage discussing the fish
weirs may actually indicate stakes found within the study area. An underwater
archaeological assessment of this portion of the study area is recommended in advance of any
proposed construction or existing built feature modifications in this area that could impact
the floor of the waterway.
5.3.3.2 WALTER KENYON (1965)
Subsequent to the collected information of Andrew Hunter and J. Hugh Hammond, there was
a long period without serious investigations of the fish weirs at the narrows. In 1965 Walter
Kenyon of the Royal Ontario Museum conducted the first significant attempt to document
these remains. Kenyon employed teams of divers in an effort to plot the locations of fish
weir stakes in an effort to discern meaningful patterns in their arrangements. These efforts
were not entirely successful but did demonstrate that extensive remains yet existed of these
Page 50
important heritage features and this encouraged subsequent research (Kenyon 1966; Ringer
& Waddell 1995: 2).
“Although the data are not conclusive, it would appear that the weirs were
constructed as follows. A line of posts was angled slightly upstream from opposite
banks of the channel. To the tops of these poles, spaced 5 to 10 feet apart, was lashed
a horizontal pole. On the upstream side of this structure lighter poles, usually under
three inches in diameter were poked into the bottom and their upper ends leaned
against the horizontal pole. Such a structure would be fairly easy to build because
most of the poles would be held in place by the current. Only the anchor-posts used to
support the horizontal poles would have to be driven solidly into the bottom.”
(Kenyon 1966: 2)
Kenyon’s description of the structure as it appeared to him in 1965 suggests that significant
deterioration of the remains has occurred in the relatively short time between his
investigation and the present time.
While preparing this report Michael Henry of AMICK Consultants Limited was contacted by
Mr. Wayne Adam. Mr. Adam provided copies of Walter Kenyon’s original report that was
published as a Newsletter for the Royal Ontario Museum and the Cassavoy and Johnston
article that was published in the archaeology journal, American Antiquity. Their work is
discussed below. Wayne obtained these from Ken Lister of the ROM following a discussion
about the current archaeological study. Wayne also informed me that his uncle, Leo Darmitz
was one of the divers who worked with Walter Kenyon in 1965. Wayne arranged for his
uncle to contact Michael Henry directly and offer his perspective and recollection of the
work done at the weirs in 1965. The following first hand account is directly quoted from Mr.
Darmitz’s personal memoirs:
“WEIR IN THE MIDDLE OF HISTORY -- (1965)
“I had not been involved in SCUBA diving for much more than seven months when
the President of the Ontario Underwater Council (OUC), Ben Davis, put out a letter
to all of the clubs asking if there would be any divers willing to volunteer their time to
assist a Dr. Walter Kenyon of the Royal Ontario Museum on a project in the waters
of the narrows between Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching. I jumped at the opportunity.
“I do not know what day it was but it could have been any one of four days; July 31,
Aug. 1, Aug. 14 or 15. My best guess would be Aug. 1.
“When we arrived at the site, we were given instructions and a handful of nylon line,
one end of which had a white Javex bottle attached. We were told that the waters we
were about to enter had been noted in Champlain’s journal of 1615 as he passsed
through the area. He made special note of the fish weirs that were present in the
narrows. Earlier examination of the bottom in the area, revealed small wooden
stakes protruding from the mud. It was believe that these were the remnants of the
Page 51
fish weirs noted in Champlain’s log. Our mission was to scour the bottom and tie a
line to every stake we could find. Each of the more than ten divers there entered the
water with great enthusiasm.
“After about two hours of swimming through the murky water with visibility at zero
much of the time, the supply of lines and time had come to an end. We gathered on
the shore and on the bridge over the narrows to survey our work. What we observed
was astounding. There, before us, were perfectly formed V’s of white bottles showing
the outline of the underwater discovery.
“Research on the area in general and the fish weirs in particular has revealed that
the practice of using weirs ceased around 1650. Therefore, what we had observed
and helped trace, was over three hundred years old.
“I had done very little diving up to that time, but this had to be a remarkable project
in which to be involved.
“I have since spent a great deal of time trying to obtain a copy of the photo taken of
the view from the bridge by one of the organizers. I hope some day to be able to
include it with my memoirs.”
(Leo Darmitz, Personal Communication 2015)
The contributions of Mr. Wayne Adam and Mr. Leo Darmitz to this research are significant,
particularly with respect to the provision of an eyewitness account of the research efforts
made by Walter Kenyon in 1965. Their generosity and unsolicited voluntary assistance in
the current study is very much appreciated. This example certainly illustrates the benefits of
public participation in heritage research. One cannot help but observe that the title for this
particular adventure is a brilliant play on words that could be used to summarize all of the
work of the many researchers to date.
5.3.3.3 CASSAVOY & JOHNSTON (1973-1974)
Ken Cassavoy and Richard Johnston conducted an underwater survey of the Narrows in 1973
and 1974. The object of this work was to cover “virtually all bottom areas of the Narrows
proper, including a substantial section south of the Highway 12 bridge (Cassavoy & Johnston
1977: 7). Their survey was a research project carried out while they were working for the
Department of Anthropology at Trent University. The map illustrating their survey coverage
(Map I from Page 8 of their report) is included in this report as Figure 7. As illustrated on
that map, they document the area on the east bank at the location of the swing bridge as
within an area of “Distribution of Documented Stage Remains.” However, it should be noted
that nowhere in their report do they specifically mention finding anything in relation to the
study area.
The results of their research were published in American Antiquity (Johnston & Cassavoy
1978). Within this published account they make mention of cursory observations made at the
Page 52
narrows by Walter Kenyon of the Royal Ontario Museum in 1965 (see Kenyon 1966). They
also provide a general history of alterations in recent history to the channel, which have a
significant impact on the potential for the discovery of fish weir stakes and related
archaeological resources on the bottom of the waterway:
“The Atherley Narrows today consists of 2 channels draining northward from Lake
Simcoe into Lake Couchiching. However, only 1 major channel existed prior to
1857 when extensive dredging was undertaken to improve navigation through the
Narrows by deepening the southern part of the natural channel leading from Lake
Simcoe and excavating a new channel from approximately the position of the
present-day railroad swingbridge directly northward [emphasis added] nearly 2000
ft into Lake Couchiching (Page 1856; Rubidge 1857). Apparently the material
removed during dredging was deposited along the west bank of the navigation
channel to block off drainage through a minor ‘west channel’ beneath the area that
now has been completely altered by recent marina construction. Warping pilings
were placed across the newly created entrance to the truncated old channel, and no
dredging or other modification was carried out in this original section extending
northeastward from the excavated navigation channel.
“The bottom contours of the channels clearly reflect their histories. The navigation
channel north of the junction with the old east channel is entirely the result of the
1857 excavation, and the central portion of the channel to the south beneath the
railroad and highway bridges and beyond has been extensively dredged. [Emphasis
added] Whereas the average depth of the undisturbed east channel is 6 to 7 ft, the
depth of the main channel today is 14 or 15 ft and at its deepest some 20 ft.”
(Johnston & Cassavoy 1978: 698-699)
As the existing railway swingbridge crosses the navigation channel, we have only included
the detailed results from their paper as addresses this section of the narrows:
“The survey revealed, with a single exception to be noted, that the entire west side of
the navigation channel lacks stake remains or evidence of weirs. Any structures that
may have existed in any part of the navigation channel north of the original channel
must in any event postdate the 1857 dredging. The dumping of dredged material and
recent marina construction, including further dredging, along virtually the whole
length of the western side of the navigation channel have buried or destroyed any
weir structures that may have once existed here. The sole exception is the shallow
area beneath the west end of the highway bridge were a number of apparently old
stakes were noted, which have perhaps been protected by the bridge from complete
disruption by modern marina development. Deep dredging in the central channel
region under the bridge has left it free of any remains, but a number of stakes were
distributed at random on the bottom slope from the dredged area to the east bank. It
is out impression that this section of the natural channel, in the vicinity of the
highway bridge, must have contained numerous stakes prior to modern disturbances.
Page 53
“The east side of the navigation channel, immediately north of the highway bridge,
is completely devoid of remains or weed growth underwater as a result of recent
marina dredging, but to the north, beyond the dredging, as far as the present
entrance to the original channel, stakes are commonly found singly and in clusters
or alignments of several stakes. The remains are found in the shallows and down
the bottom slope toward the dredged section in the center of the channel, and
although there are a considerable number of stakes in this area, no large-scale
patterns could be discerned [emphasis added].”
With respect to temporal and cultural interpretations of the structures documented in the
waterway at the Narrows, Johnston and Cassavoy conclude:
“The 4 radiocarbon dates derived form weir stakes form a tight chronological cluster
averaging slightly older than 2500 B. C., and place at least the 2 weirs from which
the samples were taken in the Late Archaic period. While the early contact literature
documents use of the weirs at the recent end of the time scale, prior use during the
long Woodland period is indicated at the nearby Dougall site. A small portion of this
site, on a point of land approximately ½ mi northwest of the Narrows proper, was
excavated by Wright (1971) and found to consist of mixed cultural deposits ranging
from the Middle Woodland Point Peninsula through Late Woodland Pickering and
subsequent Ontario Iroquois phases dominated by a late proto-Huron component. A
radiocarbon date of A.D. 170 +/- 110 is representative of the earlier segment of the
approximate 2000-year occupation of Dougall. Wright identifies Dougall as a fish
camp owing to its location at the Narrows, the discovery of a complete netting needle,
a net sinker, and the fact that 53% of the faunal remains, by bone count, were fish.
We are persuaded by the historical record, the findings at the Dougall site, the
extensive distribution of stake remains in the original channel. And the radiocarbondated stakes that the weirs at the Atherley Narrows have been used persistently
throughout a long span of time, extending back at least to the Late Archaic period.”
Similar results as those documented at the Dougall site (BdGu-2) were also found at the
Orchard Point Site (BdGu-18) investigated by Archaeological Assessments Ltd. and by
AMICK Consultants Ltd. The Orchard Point site is situated at the extreme south end of the
west side of the channel at the north end of Lake Simcoe. Datable goods from this site
included projectile points from the Middle and Late Archaic and pottery of the Early
Woodland and Late Woodland periods in addition to a number of artifacts of European
manufacture dating to the early contact and fur trade periods of the colonial era (see
Archaeological Assessments Ltd. 2003; and AMICK 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013)
5.3.3.4 PARKS CANADA (1989-1998)
Before Parks Canada staff had done any direct research on the site, Sheryl Smith, then a
project archaeologist of the Ontario Region of Parks Canada based in Cornwall, Ontario
Page 54
presented a paper at the 1982 Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. She
concluded her presentation as follows:
“The Atherley Narrows Fish Weirs (BdGu-6) are the largest and best-preserved such
structures extant in eastern North America, and perhaps the entire continent.
Thorough historical and archaeological research has shown that the weirs were used
for over four thousand years, and are the only ones documented in this part of the
world. They indicate the economic importance placed on fishing by prehistoric
peoples and show the ‘…very long, and important economic tradition that warrants
further study’ (Johnston and Cassavoy 1978: 708).
“It is recommended that the Atherley Narrows Fish Weirs be declared of national
historic importance.”
(Smith 1982: 189)
The Mnjikaning Fish Weirs became a National Historic Site of Canada in 1982.
In 1988 Parks Canada identified the fish weirs at the Atherley Narrows as a site under threat
resulting from new marina development, increased power boating activity and sport fishing
activity. A preliminary survey was made in 1989 and it was quickly determined that the
number of stakes documented as protruding from the bottom by Cassavoy and Johnston had
greatly diminished. A more detailed survey including test excavations to determine what was
happening to the stakes was planned for the following season (Ringer & Waddell 1995: 5-6).
Work in 1990 began in early spring, which afforded an examination of the channel in weed
free conditions. The strong spring current without the impediment of mature weed growth
resulted in the flushing of a good amount of sediment from the channel which uncovered
more stakes than had been seen during the previous season’s survey. Notwithstanding these
favorable conditions, it remained clear that significant damage to the fish weirs had occurred
since the earlier research of Cassavoy and Johnston.
Organic material conservation specialists, Thomas Daley and Marthe Carrier participated in
the 17-27 April 1990 survey work. Their report describes underwater conditions during the
fieldwork:
“During the diving operations, the current in the channel was estimated at 3 to 4
knots. The visibility underwater varied from 5 to 7 meters. The pH of the water was
5.6 – 5.9 and the water temperature was 3C (data recorded at the bottom of the
river).
“The channel bed is covered with a dispersed layer of vegetation below which is a
deposit of fine silt several centimetres thick. Beneath this, it gradually turns into an
extremely thick hard clay mixture that, when excavated, came out in small circular
shaped discs with similar composition to that of gravel. There were very few stones,
however.
Page 55
“The banks of the channel are jacketed with a dense coverage of weeds which
protrude 20-30 cm out of the water.”
(Daley & Carrier 1990: 2-3)
Six stakes were collected from beneath the Highway 12 bridge and a further five were
collected from near the entrance of original channel from the navigation channel (Daley &
Carrier 1990: 7-12).
Daley and Carrier include a detailed general description of the stakes as found at the site of
the fish weirs:
“The exposed portions of the stakes are covered with a thick layer of marine
vegetation which has been carried down the channel by the strong current and
deposited.
“The wood on the exposed portion of each stake is very punky, although those that
were tested still had some internal strength remaining (as determined by inserting a
dissecting pin into the wood and gauging resistance). On average, the wood that is
exposed is half the diameter of the buried portion. The buried end of most stakes was
found to be in excellent condition with only minimal surface degradation. This is
probably due to the stakes having been buried in an anaerobic environment. In
regards to the exposed end it is suspected that biodegradation in combination with
the strong current and suspended particulate matter are causing the increased loss of
material when compared to the buried portion of the artifacts. This has also given
the stakes a very fragmented appearance. However, some protection from this
sandblasting effect is offered by the thick coverage of the marine vegetation which is
clinging to most of the stakes. Although it is not known at this time if the vegetation is
also having a negative effect.”
“As well as the flora, there was an abundance of monofilament (fishing line) attached
to several wooden stakes. This has probably lent itself to the removal of some stakes
by fishermen who, when attempting to remove their line or lure have inadvertently
pulled out or broken some artifacts.”
(Daley & Carrier 1990: 18-20)
A stake retrieved during the 1990 season was radiocarbon dated by two different laboratories
at 4410 +/- 80 B. P. and 4600 +/- 90 B. P. respectively. A second sample produced dates of
2980 +/- 80 B. P. and 2990 +/- 80 B. P. It was during 1990 as well, that they became aware
of plans to twin the existing highway bridge over the narrows (Ringer & Waddell 1995: 6-8).
In 1991 and 1992 surveys and excavation projects were undertaken around the existing
highway bridge with the object of mitigating impacts from the proposed new bridge
construction. Little work was done south of the existing highway bridge at that time as the
previous bridge was situated immediately south of the existing bridge of 1991. In 1962 the
Page 56
previous bridge was dynamited and allowed to collapse into the channel, thereby obliterating
any stakes that may have been situated beneath that structure. The 1991 survey documented
two linear arrangements of stakes, one of six stakes and the other of eleven stakes, arranged
in diagonal lines running from the northwest to the southeast in a pattern consistent with
current knowledge of fish weir structures. In addition, a previously identified feature of
highly concentrated stakes was excavated at the west edge of the channel beneath the existing
bridge. The feature consisted of two parallel lines of closely spaced stakes running parallel
to the shoreline. The excavation of this feature revealed that the stakes were pointed with a
metal tool, probably an axe, and that the striations from a single tool were found in both lines
of stakes suggesting that both arrangements were constructed at the same time and form part
of the same structure. However, carbon dating suggested that the wood dated from between
1450 and 1615 A.D., a period before the documented introduction of steel tools to the area.
There are also no datable artifacts or other remains associated with the stakes that could help
in determining their date or cultural origins. This feature remains an enigma (Ringer &
Waddell 1995: 8-17; see also Ringer 1989, 1990, 1991; Smith 1992; and Waddell & Bernier
1992).
In 1992, Lorne Murdock, Senior Archaeological Conservator with the Historic Resource
Conservation Branch of Parks Canada visited the fish weirs site in order to assesses the onsite condition of the wood stakes still surviving at the Narrows and to make
recommendations for their long-term care and protection. The “Summary &
Recommendations” section at the conclusion of her report states:
“Following the conservation assessment including various observations and findings
and from discussions with Peter Waddell and reviewing previous reports, one can
with a reasonable degree of accuracy state that the resource has and continues to be
in a battle with adverse human and environmental factors. This is a battle which it
cannot win in a hostile environment where the natural process of deterioration is ongoing. It would not be advisable or possible to preserve these artifacts in situ given
their fragility, regardless of the technique. Unless immediate intervention is
undertaken they will not survive. Regardless of whether the twinning of the bridge
takes place or not it is recommended that these artifacts be recovered at the earliest
convenient opportunity. Taking all factors into consideration if the primary objective
is the protection and survival of the stakes then this is the only option which should be
considered.”
(Murdock 1992: 4)
Since the close of the 1992 fieldwork, Parks Canada has been monitoring natural and manmade impacts to the site in an effort to document, understand and mitigate damage (Ringer
2006: 44). As part of that program, Lorne Murdock, Senior Archaeological Conservator of
the Wet Organic Materials Section and John Stewart, Senior Conservation Scientist of the
Analytical Section from the Historic Resource Conservation Branch of Parks Canada in
Ottawa visited the site in October of 1994. The resulting conservation report does include
some information of value when considering archaeological potential which is not addressed
in other sources.
Page 57
“Water courses moving through low lying fen land (which would describe the
narrows prior to the 19th century) could be expected to meander and change their
course over the years [emphasis added]. The stability at Atherley may be explained
by consulting the 1933 chart. The Canadian National Railway bridge in the south
and the earthen works for the old Canadian Pacific Railway bridge to the north
effectively limit the possible points of water entry and exit in the area between them.
The northern railway bridge only allows water to exit through two routes, the north
and northeast channels. These old interventions at the Narrows have effectively
limited the ability of the water flow to change its course and meander in a natural
way across the shallow fen land. These two features must then be viewed as
stabilizing and protecting the cultural resources between them [emphasis added].”
(Murdock & Stewart 1994: 3)
With respect to the evaluation of potential for significant archaeological resources to be
found within the study area, and also with respect to archaeological potential for the general
vicinity, this is one of the most significant passages ever composed. This means that before
the railway bridges were installed, the waterway through the narrows meandered, or
wandered over the shallow and permanently wet areas associated with the margins of the
narrows and the wide outlet to the north. This means that there were many, many channels
over time and the channels investigated in the 20th century represent only a fraction of the
potential courses through which water flowed since humans began fishing here. This means
that in any areas now contained within the low-lying and wet area or which can be shown to
have been low-lying and wet area in the past, there is reason to believe that wooden stakes
from fish weirs yet survive. We are not aware that any effort has been made previously to
document the meander of the natural channel over time. This may explain why, as Parks
staff have noted with some disappointment, they have been unable to detect wooden stakes
dating from the time of Champlain; It is because they are situated in a former channel which
did not exist at the time that the railroad bridges were constructed, but which may have been
accidentally preserved by the stability of the channel caused by construction of the railway
bridges. The best areas then to search for relatively undisturbed fish weir remnants are
within the low-lying wet areas on the margins of the existing channels. This would include
the majority of the current study area to the northeast of the existing swing bridge. Although
Parks Canada staff appear to have never put such a conclusion in print, Janet Turner’s
article,“Building Bridges From a Mnjikaning Fish Fence Circle Perspective,” published in
Ontario Archaeology No. 73 in 2002 includes a map (Figure 2, p. 70) labeled, “The known
extent of weir stakes at the Mnjikaning site (courtesy Parks Canada),” that illustrates
precisely these conclusions. A segment of this map is reproduced here as Figure 8.
The 1994 Murdock and Stewart report concludes with the following:
“A preliminary investigation of the historical charts and records indicate that the
main loss of commemorative integrity has occurred due to the disturbances of the site
by the construction of communication corridors and marinas and the dredging of the
Page 58
north channel. The northeast channel appears to have received the least impact and
its resources are the least diminished.
“Since at least 1933 it appears to have been stable in both depth and direction. This
may be due largely to the construction of the CPR and CNR bridges, the use of the
north channel as the main navigation route and the control of lakes Simcoe and
Couchiching water level to a regulating curve by the Trent Canal system. All these
factors should be considered as contributing to the preservation of the site and any
changes to them should be viewed with concern.
“The main direction of the monitoring program should be towards monitoring the
previous factors and towards monitoring the loss of stakes (entire site) and the
stability of the northeast channel.”
(Murdock & Stewart 1994: 7-8)
The initial conservation monitoring report done by Murdock and Stewart was followed by a
second report prepared by John Stewart and Lorne Murdock in 1996 detailing their
monitoring work undertaken in 1995, which they liken to an appendix of the first report.
As part of this study aerial photographs for the channel were obtained for the years 1945 and
1987. The authors observed that much of the channel shoreline had been altered between
these two dates as a result of marina and property developments adjacent to the channel.
They note that the northeast channel and the east shoreline remained relatively unaffected by
development pressures during this span of over 40 years. These two photos also
demonstrated that the direction of flow within the channel had been constant throughout that
period (Stewart and Murdock 1996: 1). One of the objectives of the monitoring program was
to set up a system to observe and record changes in the condition and/or number of surviving
stakes that would be easily done by non-specialists. The 1995 fieldwork showed that the
stakes selected to be tagged and monitored were much more difficult to even find than was
previously imagined and various remedies were proposed which would allow for Trent
Waterway staff to observe the appropriate stakes and collect the required information
(Stewart and Murdock 1996: 3-4).
In 1998 John Stewart, then Head of the Analytical Services Unit of the Research and
Analysis Section, Ontario Service Centre, Parks Canada prepared a report detailing the
progress and results of the monitoring program up to May of 1998. The monitoring program
to that point had shown that the channel was accumulating silt at a rate of approximately 2
centimetres per year. The flow rate through the channel was examined for the period of 1963
to 1995. It was determined to be fairly consistent with no extremes that would indicate
periods of either scouring or excessive build-up of sediments (Stewart 1998: 1). The
apparent accumulation of silt on the floor may not have a direct negative impact on the
survival of the stakes however, if this accumulation necessitates dredging to keep the
navigation channel open, this activity does lead to instability of the channel floor and banks,
which causes further erosion. This then, would lead to exposure of further stakes and the loss
of many.
Page 59
5.3.3.5 MAYER HERITAGE CONSULTANTS INC. (1997-1998)
During 1997 and 1998 Mayer Heritage Consultants were contracted to conduct both land and
marine based archaeological assessments and also to monitor construction of the second span
of the Highway 12 crossing at the Atherley Narrows anticipated by Parks Canada many years
earlier. However, the work conducted by Parks Canada to mitigate the impacts of bridge
construction to the fish weirs was not entirely successful as the plans for the construction of
the bridge and the methodology employed to complete the work had evolved and changed
over the intervening years. As a result, further underwater archaeological survey was
required to cover the area of potential impacts. The emphasis in this work was placed on
preservation of the existing stakes and the divers were employed to assist in locating pilings
and caissons well away from existing stakes and to monitor the condition of stakes during
construction (Janusas and Mayer 1998: 12-18).
5.3.3.6 SCARLETT JANUSAS ARCHAEOLOGY INC. (2014)
In 2013, an environmental study to assess the possibility of creating a recreational trail and
place of ceremony for First Nations was completed (Orillia City Centre 2013). As a
component study contributing to this project, AMICK Consultants Limited conducted a Stage
1 Archaeological Background Study including a Stage 1 Property in 2012 of the area near the
abandoned Canadian National Railway (CNR) bridge and the artificial embankments on
either end of the approach to the bridge. The east bank was found to contain stakes associated
with the fish weirs. AMICK Consultants Limited recommended that an underwater
archaeological assessment be undertaken to determine the presence or absence of stakes and
to take measures to mitigate potential impacts that the construction of a new pedestrian and
snowmobile bridge may have on the resources (AMICK 2013:68).
The primary methodology employed in the 2014 Marine Archaeological Assessment was
through a geotechnical survey employing the use of side scan sonar. The Scarlett Janusas
Archaeology Inc. report (SJA 2014) describes the methodology employed as follows:
“The geotechnical assessment consisted of side scan sonar, multi-beam sonar survey,
sub-bottom profile survey, use of the navigator for shallow areas, and video of areas
of interest. The navigator was used with sonar imaging and a positioning system to
geo- reference a video (see back cover of the report) of objects and structures located
during the assessment. Magnetometer was not employed, as results would have been
severely hampered by the abundance of ferrous material (i.e. swing bridge, rebar,
etc.) in the study area.”
(SJA 2014: 37)
The geotechnical assessment was augmented with visual assessment and photographic
documentation:
“In addition to the geotechnical survey, the clarity of the water allowed for visual
observations to be made from boat side (shallow sides of an inflatable) with use of a
Page 60
dive mask. A snorkeler was used to assist with visual observations while conducting
the navigator survey.”
(SJA 2014: 37)
The side scan sonar identified a number of targets, most of which proved to be non-cultural
and of no heritage value or interest.
“Target S6 (about .3 m distant from target S7 (number S6 in Appendix A lies under
number S7), and is a possible fish weir stake remnant. This lies just northwest of the
former rail bridge. Latitude and longitude are presented in Appendix A. Target S7 is
also a possible fish weir stake remnant. As indicated above, it lies within .3 m of
Target S6. These two targets may be impacted by the proposed development.
“In addition to the side scan sonar targets, the Navigator (Appendix B), was used to
record and video any features not collected with the side scan or sub bottom profiler.
Still photographs in Appendix A (page 10 – 14 of Appendix A) illustrate possible fish
weir stake remnants. Six of these possible fish weir stakes lie immediately north of
the abandoned rail bridge (photographs 1 – 6, Appendix A, west side, north of current
walkway). These six fish weir stakes remnants may be impacted by the proposed
development. In addition to these six fish weir stakes, there are two other fish weir
stakes identified at the extreme northeast end of the open swing bridge (photographs
1 and 2, Appendix A); and one other possible fish weir stake located at the extreme
southeast end of the open swing bridge. Any development around these stakes should
consider protection.”
(SJA 2014: 38-39)
The results of the Marine Archaeological Assessment indicate that there are locations of
possible fish weir remnants within the study area for the proposed undertaking. The Marine
Archaeological report concludes with the following recommendations for the proposed
bridge construction activities in the study area are:
Page 61
(SJA 2014: 53-54)
5.3.4
LOCATION AND CURRENT CONDITIONS
(Former Township of Mara), Township of Ramara, County of Simcoe, conducted by AMICK
Consultants Limited. This study was conducted under Archaeological Professional License
#P384 issued to Kayleigh MacKinnon by the Minister of Tourism and Culture for the
Province of Ontario. This assessment was undertaken as a requirement under the
Environmental Assessment Act (RSO 1990b) in order to support a Municipal Class EA. All
work was conducted in conformity with Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC)
Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTC 2011), the Ontario Heritage
Act (RSO 1990a), and the Ontario Heritage Amendment Act (SO 2005).
The purpose of the project and its intended outcomes are described within the Atherley
Narrows Pedestrian/Snowmobile Bridge Preliminary Design Report (AECOM 2010) as
follows:
“For several years a sub-committee of the Trails for Life Committee has been
working on the idea of a pedestrian bridge spanning the Atherley Narrows that would
connect the Orillia Trail System with the Ramara Trail System. To date the
Committee has researched the area around the abandoned CN rail bridge, contacted
other jurisdictions that have taken on similar projects and identified potential
partners. It is anticipated that the bridge would require the approval of at least
eleven (11) levels of government and cost in the neighbourhood of $1 million.
“When completed the bridge would:
•
Provide an easy and safe link between Orillia and the communities located
along the eastern shores of Lake Couchiching. Cyclists, walkers, runners,
skaters and wheelchairs would be able to safely access Ramara, Mnjikaning
and eventually Washago without using Highway 12.
•
Provide a safe route for the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs on
which to establish their B trail. There is currently an OFSC province-wide
initiative to get all major trails off ice.
•
Provide easy access to view the Mnjikaning Fish Fence site. The area is
identified as a National Historic Site and the bridge would provide a perfect
Page 62
•
opportunity to commemorate and communicate its significance.
Expand and enhance trail experience in Orillia and Ramara. “As well as partnering with the City of Orillia, the Chippewas of Rama First Nation
and the Township of Ramara, the Trails for Life Committee anticipates involvement
from the Mnjikaning Fish Fence Circle, the Orillia District Snowmobile Club, the
Huronia Trails and Greenways, Ganaraska Hiking Trail Association and the Trans
Canada Trail.”
(AECOM 2010: 2)
The project location is described within the Atherley Narrows Pedestrian/Snowmobile Bridge
Preliminary Design Report (AECOM 2010) as follows:
“The site of the proposed pedestrian/snowmobile bridge is at the confluence of Lake
Simcoe and Lake Couchiching (Atherley Narrows) at the same location as the
abandoned CN rail swing bridge, on the border of the City of Orillia and the
Township of Ramara and adjacent to the Highway 12 structure. The existing Orillia
Trail System ends at the west shore of the Atherley Narrows and the existing Ramara
Trail System ends at the east shore of the Atherley Narrows. Pedestrians currently
cross the Atherley Narrows utilizing the Highway 12 structure located approximately
100 metres to the south of the proposed bridge site.”
(AECOM 2010: 1)
The study area consists of the existing former railway swing bridge crossing at the Atherley
Narrows, as well as a proposed working area outside of the channel and within the
permanently low-lying and wet area to the northeast of the crossing (see Figure 2). The
location of the study area is illustrated in Figure 1. The present use of the study area is as an
existing railway swing bridge, which has fallen into disuse since the railway line that used to
pass over this crossing has been abandoned. The former railway line is used as a multi-use
recreational trail primarily employed by pedestrians and snowmobiles. In order to allow
continued boat traffic through the Narrows, which forms a portion of the Trent Severn
Waterway, the swing bridge is currently maintained in the open position that restricts passage
over the channel by users of the recreational trial. The proposed undertaking would replace
the existing swing bridge with a permanent fixed bridge structure that would allow for
passage of boats within the channel and recreational use of the trail over the channel.
5.3.5 PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGION
The study area is situated within the Simcoe Lowlands physiographic region. For the most
part, at one time, this restricted basin was part of the floor of Lake Algonquin, and its surface
beds are deposits of deltaic and lacustrine origin, and not glacial outwash. As a small basin
shut in by the Edenvale Moraine, the Minesing flats represent an annex of the Nipissing lake
plains. Although the study area lies on the north side of the Minesing flats, noticeable
properties such as calcareous clays and overlying sands comprising the soils are similar
(Chapman and Putnam, 1984: 177-182).
Page 63
5.3.6 SURFACE WATER
The project location is described within the Atherley Narrows Pedestrian/Snowmobile Bridge
Preliminary Design Report (AECOM 2010) as follows:
“The site of the proposed pedestrian/snowmobile bridge is at the confluence of Lake
Simcoe and Lake Couchiching (Atherley Narrows) at the same location as the
abandoned CN rail swing bridge, on the border of the City of Orillia and the
Township of Ramara and adjacent to the Highway 12 structure.”
(AECOM 2010: 1)
Sources of potable water, access to waterborne transportation routes, and resources
associated with watersheds are each considered, both individually and collectively to be the
highest criteria for determination of the potential of any location to support extended human
activity, land use, or occupation. Accordingly, proximity to water is regarded as the primary
indicator of archaeological site potential. The Standards and Guidelines for Consultant
Archaeologists stipulates that undisturbed lands within 300 metres of a water source are
considered to have archaeological potential (MTC 2011: 21).
As the study area consists of a crossing over a historically well-known and significant route
of travel as well as a source of fish for a period spanning thousands of years, the potential for
the study area and the surrounding environment to yield significant archaeological resources
is very clear.
5.3.7 CURRENT PROPERTY CONDITIONS CONTEXT
Current characteristics encountered within an archaeological research study area determine if
physical assessment of specific portions of the study area will be necessary and in what
manner a Stage 2 Property Assessment should be conducted, if necessary. Conventional
assessment methodologies include pedestrian survey on ploughable lands and test pit
methodology within areas that cannot be ploughed. For the purpose of determining where
physical assessment is necessary and feasible, general categories of current landscape
conditions have been established as archaeological conventions. These include:
5.3.7.1 BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURAL FOOTPRINTS
A building, in archaeological terms, is a structure that exists currently or has existed in the
past in a given location. The footprint of a building is the area of the building formed by the
perimeter of the foundation. Although the interior area of building foundations would often
be subject to physical assessment when the foundation may represent a potentially significant
historic archaeological site, the footprints of existing structures are not typically assessed.
Existing structures commonly encountered during archaeological assessments are often
residential-associated buildings (houses, garages, sheds), and/or component buildings of farm
complexes (barns, silos, greenhouses). In many cases, even though the disturbance to the
Page 64
land may be relatively shallow and archaeological resources may be situated below the
disturbed layer (e.g. a concrete garage pad), there is no practical means of assessing the area
beneath the disturbed layer. However, if there were evidence to suggest that there are likely
archaeological resources situated beneath the disturbance, alternative methodologies may be
recommended to study such areas.
The study area contains structural footprints associated with the abandoned CN swing bridge.
The existing structure of the bridge has been described by AECOM as follows:
material.
the piers.
(AECOM 2010: 3-4)
5.3.7.2 DISTURBANCE
Areas that have been subjected to extensive and deep land alteration that has severely
damaged the integrity of archaeological resources are known as disturbances. Examples of
disturbances are areas of “past quarrying, major landscaping, recent built and industrial uses,
sewage and infrastructure development, etc.” (MCL 2005: 15), as well as driveways made of
either gravel or concrete, in-ground pools, and wells or cisterns. Utility lines are conduits
that provide services such as water, natural gas, hydro, communications, sewage, and others.
Areas containing below ground utilities are considered areas of disturbance, and are excluded
from Stage 2 Physical Assessment. Disturbed areas are excluded from Stage 2 Physical
Page 65
Assessment due to no or low archaeological potential or because they are not assessable
using conventional methodology.
On the east and west ends of the bridge and trestle structures, are concrete piers and
significantly raised artificial railway beds. Depending upon the manner of construction,
these features may not have completely eliminated archaeological potential, however, there is
no practical means of conducting an archaeological assessment beneath them. In addition,
the navigation channel passing under the existing bridge was dredged in 1857 and recently in
association with marina developments to the north and south of the existing bridge.
5.3.7.3 LOW-LYING AND WET AREAS
Landscape features that are covered by permanently wet areas, such as marshes, swamps, or
bodies of water like streams or lakes, are known as low-lying and wet areas. Low-lying and
wet areas are excluded from Stage 2 Physical Assessment due to inaccessibility.
The study area does contain mostly low-lying and wet areas. The structures and the artificial
landscape features noted above have also been constructed within permanently low-lying and
wet areas. The low-lying and wet areas which form part of the study area cannot be assessed
using land based archaeological methodology.
5.3.7.4 STEEP SLOPE
Landscape which slopes at a greater than (>) 20 degree change in elevation, is known as
steep slope. Areas of steep slope are considered uninhabitable, and are excluded from Stage
2 Physical Assessment.
The study area does areas of steep slope. Slope areas are associated with the elevated
railway bed and bridge piers.
5.3.7.5 WOODED AREAS
Areas of the property that cannot be ploughed, such as natural forest or woodlot, are known
as wooded areas. These wooded areas qualify for Stage 2 Physical Assessment, and are
required to be assessed using test pit survey methodology.
The study area contains no wooded area.
5.3.7.6 PLOUGHABLE AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Areas of current or former agricultural lands that have been ploughed in the past are
considered ploughable agricultural lands. Ploughing these lands regularly moves the soil
around, which brings covered artifacts to the surface, easily identifiable during visual
inspection. Furthermore, by allowing the ploughed area to weather sufficiently through
Page 66
rainfall washing soil off any artifacts, the visibility of artifacts at the surface of recently
worked field areas increases significantly. Pedestrian survey of ploughed agricultural lands
is the preferred method of physical assessment because of the greater potential for finding
evidence of archaeological resources if present.
The study area contains no ploughable lands.
5.3.7.7 LAWN, PASTURE, MEADOW
Landscape features consisting of former agricultural land covered in low growth, such as
lawns, pastures, meadows, shrubbery, and immature trees. These are areas that may be
considered too small to warrant ploughing, (i.e. less than one hectare in area), such as yard
areas surrounding existing structures, and land-locked open areas that are technically
workable by a plough but inaccessible to agricultural machinery. These areas may also
include open area within urban contexts that do not allow agricultural tillage within
municipal or city limits or the use of urban roadways by agricultural machinery. These areas
are required to be assessed using test pit survey methodology.
The study area contains no lawn, pasture or meadow areas.
5.3.8
SUMMARY
Background research indicates the vicinity of the study area has potential for archaeological
resources of Native origins based on proximity to a source of potable water in the past. In
addition, numerous archaeological remains have been documented in close proximity to the
study area. Some sources indicate that documented archaeological resources are situated
within the study area and within the waterway under the existing crossing. Background
research also suggests potential for archaeological resources of Euro-Canadian origins based
on proximity to a historic roadway.
Archaeological potential does not indicate that there are necessarily sites present, but that
environmental and historical factors suggest that there may be as yet undocumented
archaeological sites within lands that have not been subject to systematic archaeological
research in the past.
6.0
PROPERTY INSPECTION
A property inspection or field reconnaissance is not required as part of a Stage 1 Background
Study unless there is reason to believe that portions of the study area may be excluded from
physical assessment on the basis of the conditions of the property or portions thereof.
This report confirms that the entirety of the study area was subject to visual inspection, and
that the fieldwork was conducted according to the archaeological fieldwork standards and
guidelines, including weather and lighting conditions. The property inspection was
Page 67
completed in very good conditions under overcast skies on 01 April 2013. The temperature
at the time of the reconnaissance was 1C. The locations from which photographs were
taken and the directions toward which the camera was aimed for each photograph are
illustrated in Figure 9 of this report. Although there was a thin layer of ice on the water and
trace amounts of snow on the ground, in the professional judgment of the investigating
archaeologist, Michael Henry (P058), these climatic conditions had an insufficient impact on
ground visibility to offer any impediment to ascertaining land forms and archaeological
potential. Upon completion of the property inspection of the study area, it was determined
that the entire area surrounding the bridge within the study area is permanently low-lying and
wet and is not assessable by land based archaeological methods. The dry land within the
study area is entirely of an artificial nature and constructed within a permanently low-lying
wet area.
6.1
PHOTO RECONNAISSANCE
A detailed examination and photo documentation was carried out on the study area in order
to document the existing conditions of the study area to facilitate Stage 2 assessment. All
areas of the study area were visually inspected and photographed. This work was completed
in conjunction with the Stage 1 Property Inspection. The locations from which photographs
were taken and the directions toward which the camera was aimed for each photograph are
illustrated in Figure 9 of this report.
6.2
FIELD WORK WEATHER CONDITIONS
This report confirms that the entirety of the study area was subject to visual inspection, and
that the fieldwork was conducted according to the archaeological fieldwork standards and
guidelines, including weather and lighting conditions. The property reconnaissance was
completed in very good conditions under overcast skies on 01 April 2013. The temperature
at the time of the reconnaissance was 1C. Although there was a thin layer of ice on the
water and trace amounts of snow on the ground, in the professional judgment of the
investigating archaeologist, Michael Henry (P058), these climatic conditions had an
insufficient impact on ground visibility to offer any impediment to ascertaining land forms
and archaeological potential. Weather conditions were appropriate for the conduct of a
property inspection and photo reconnaissance of the study area for the purposes of
identifying current conditions and archaeological potential within the study area..
6.3
ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELDWORK DOCUMENTATION
The documentation produced during the field investigation conducted in support of this
report includes: one sketch map, one page of photo log, one page of field notes, and 26
digital photographs.
Page 68
7.0
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Section 7.7.3 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTC 2011:
132) outlines the requirements of the Analysis and Conclusions component of a Stage 1
Background Study.
1)
2)
“Identify and describe areas of archaeological potential within the project area.
Identify and describe areas that have been subject to extensive and deep land
alterations. Describe the nature of alterations (e.g., development or other activity)
that have severely damaged the integrity of archaeological resources and have
removed archaeological potential.”
7.1
CHARACTERISTICS INDICATING ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL
Section 1.3.1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists specifies the
property characteristics that indicate archaeological potential (MTC 2011: 17-18). Factors
that indicate archaeological potential are features of the local landscape and environment that
may have attracted people to either occupy the land or to conduct activities within the study
area. One or more of these characteristics found to apply to a study area would necessitate a
Stage 2 Property Assessment to determine if archaeological resources are present. These
characteristics are listed below together with considerations derived from the conduct of this
study.
1) Previously Identified Archaeological Sites
Previously documented archaeological sites related to First Nations activity and
occupations have been documented in the vicinity of the study area.
2) Water Sources
Primary water sources are describes as including lakes, rivers streams and creeks.
Close proximity to primary water sources (300 metres) indicates that people had
access to readily available sources of potable water and routes of waterborne trade
and communication should the study area have been used or occupied in the past.
The channel of the Atherley Narrows runs centrally through the study area.
Page 69
Secondary water sources are described as including intermittent streams and creeks,
springs, marshes, and swamps. Close proximity (300 metres) to secondary water
sources indicates that people had access to readily available sources of potable
water, at least on a seasonal basis, and in some cases seasonal access to routes of
waterborne trade and communication should the study area have been used or
occupied in the past.
The majority of the study area is marsh.
3) Features Indicating Past Water Sources
Features indicating past water resources are described as including glacial lake
shorelines indicated by the presence of raised sand or gravel beach ridges, relic river
or stream channels indicated by clear dip or swale in the topography, shorelines of
drained lakes or marshes, and cobble beaches. Close proximity (300 metres) to
features indicating past water sources indicates that people had access to readily
available sources of potable water, at least on a seasonal basis, and in some cases
seasonal access to routes of waterborne trade and communication should the study
area have been used or occupied in the past.
The secondary water source noted above is also documented on historic mapping and
within historic written descriptions of the area.
4) Accessible or Inaccessible Shoreline
This form of landscape feature would include high bluffs, swamp or marsh fields by
the edge of a lake, sandbars stretching into marsh, etc.
There are shorelines within the study area.
5) Elevated Topography
Features of elevated topography that indicate archaeological potential include eskers,
drumlins, large knolls, and plateaux.
There are no identified natural features of elevated topography within the study area.
6) Pockets of Well-drained Sandy Soil
Pockets of sandy soil are considered to be especially important near areas of heavy
soil or rocky ground.
The soil throughout the study area is silt overlying clay.
7) Distinctive Land Formations
These are landscape features that might have been special or spiritual places, such as
waterfalls, rock outcrops, caverns, mounds, and promontories and their bases. There
may be physical indicators of their use, such as burials, structures, offerings, rock
paintings or carvings.
Page 70
The study area is situated within a shallow and constricted water channel between
two lakes and thereby, affords an ideal setting for a freshwater fishery.
8) Resource Areas
Resource areas that indicate archaeological potential include food or medicinal plants
(e.g., migratory routes, spawning areas, and prairie), scarce raw materials (e.g.,
quartz, copper, ochre or outcrops of chert) and resources of importance to early EuroCanadian industry (e.g., logging, prospecting, and mining).
There are identified resource areas within the study area. The Atherley Narrows fish
weirs are documented within very close proximity to the study area.
9) Areas of Early Euro-Canadian Settlement
These include places of early military or pioneer settlement (e.g., pioneer homesteads,
isolated cabins, and farmstead complexes), early wharf or dock complexes, pioneer
churches and early cemeteries. There may be commemorative markers of their
history, such as local, provincial, or federal monuments or heritage parks.
The study area is situated within an area settled by 1838.
10) Early Historical Transportation Routes
This includes evidence of trails, passes, roads, railways, and portage routes.
The study area is situated within the settled city of Orillia that appears on the Historic
Atlas Map of 1881. The study area is also situated adjacent to the settled area of
Atherley that appears on the Historic Atlas Map of 1877. A rail line is illustrated on
both historic maps and runs through the study area. In addition, the area surrounding
the Narrows was occupied in the 1830s as a Native reserve, and after 1838 as a EuroCanadian settlement site. There are early roadways associated with these
occupations. Previously, there was a portage across the land to the west of the
narrows near the study area and the narrows themselves, operated as a portion of a
major transportation route connecting Lake Ontario with Georgian Bay.
11) Heritage Property
Property listed on a municipal register or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act
or is a federal, provincial or municipal historic landmark or site.
In addition to being a registered archaeological site, the Fish Weirs is a National
Historic Site.
12) Documented Historical or Archaeological Sites
This includes property that local histories or informants have identified with possible
archaeological sites, historical events, activities, or occupations. These are properties
which have not necessarily been formally recognized or for which there is additional
Page 71
evidence identifying possible archaeological resources associated with historic
properties in addition to the rationale for formal recognition.
There are not additional documented archaeological sites or historic sites that are not
already registered or recognized.
7.2
CHARACTERISTICS INDICATING REMOVAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL
POTENTIAL
Section 1.3.2 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists specifies the
property characteristics which indicate no archaeological potential or for which
archaeological potential has been removed (MTC 2011: 18-19). These characteristics are
listed below together with considerations derived from the conduct of this study.
The introduction of Section 1.3.2 (MTC 2011: 18) notes that “Archaeological potential can
be determined not to be present for either the entire property or a part(s) of it when the area
under consideration has been subject to extensive and deep land alterations that have
severely damaged the integrity of any archaeological resources. This is commonly referred
to as ‘disturbed’ or ‘disturbance’, and may include:”
1) Quarrying
There is no evidence to suggest that quarrying operations were ever carried out within
the study area.
2) Major Landscaping Involving Grading Below Topsoil
Unless there is evidence to suggest the presence of buried archaeological deposits,
such deeply disturbed areas are considered to have lost their archaeological potential.
Properties that do not have a long history of Euro-Canadian occupation can have
archaeological potential removed through extensive landscape alterations that
penetrate below the topsoil layer. This is because most archaeological sites originate
at grade with relatively shallow associated excavations into the soil. First Nations
sites and early historic sites are vulnerable to extensive damage and complete removal
due to landscape modification activities. In urban contexts where a lengthy history of
occupation has occurred, properties may have deeply buried archaeological deposits
covered over and sealed through redevelopment activities that do not include the deep
excavation of the entire property for subsequent uses. Buildings are often erected
directly over older foundations preserving archaeological deposits associated with the
earlier occupation.
Major landscaping operations involving grading below topsoil were likely carried out
within the study area in select areas. The construction of the crossing at the Narrows
necessitated the excavation of footings into which the existing concrete piers and
pilings are situated. It is likely that this work obliterated any archaeological
resources, which may have been present in those locations. As well, the central
channel of the narrows, which is used for boat navigation, has been dredged
Page 72
beginning in 1857. Previous underwater archaeological investigations have
documented that this area has been cleared of archaeological potential. In addition,
the construction of the railway line through a low-lying and wet area may have also
included extensive excavation work to remove loose water saturated bottom soil in
order to introduce suitable platform material on which to construct the raised railway
bed.
3) Building Footprints
Typically, the construction of buildings involves the deep excavation of foundations,
footings and cellars that often obliterate archaeological deposits situated close to the
surface.
There is an old CN bridge within the study area. See the section above regarding
major landscape alterations.
4) Sewage and Infrastructure Development
Installation of sewer lines and other below ground services associated with
infrastructure development often involves deep excavation that can remove
archaeological potential.
There are no below ground services within the study area.
“Activities such as agricultural cultivation, gardening, minor grading and landscaping do
not necessarily affect archaeological potential.”
(MTC 2011: 18)
“Archaeological potential is not removed where there is documented potential for deeply
buried intact archaeological resources beneath land alterations, or where it cannot be
clearly demonstrated through background research and property inspection that there has
been complete and intensive disturbance of an area. Where complete disturbance cannot be
demonstrated in Stage 1, it will be necessary to undertake Stage 2 assessment.”
(MTC 2011: 18)
Table 4 below summarizes the evaluation criteria of the MTCS together with the results of
the Stage 1 Background Study for the proposed undertaking.
Page 73
TABLE 4 EVALUATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL
FEATURE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL
YES
1
Known archaeological sites within 300m
PHYSICAL FEATURES
2
Is there water on or near the property?
Primary water source within 300 m. (lakeshore,
2a river, large creek, etc.)
Secondary water source within 300 m. (stream,
2b spring, marsh, swamp, etc.)
Past water source within 300 m. (beach ridge,
2c river bed, relic creek, etc.)
Accessible or Inaccessible shoreline within 300 m.
2d (high bluffs, marsh, swamp, sand bar, etc.)
Elevated topography (knolls, drumlins, eskers,
3
plateaus, etc.)
Y
4
7
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Pockets of sandy soil in a clay or rocky area
Distinctive land formations (mounds, caverns,
5
waterfalls, peninsulas, etc.)
HISTORIC/PREHISTORIC USE FEATURES
Associated with food or scarce resource harvest
areas (traditional fishing locations,
6
agricultural/berry extraction areas, etc.)
Early Euro-Canadian settlement area within 300
m.
NO
N
Y
Y
Y
N/A
COMMENT
If Yes, potential
determined
If Yes, what kind of water?
If Yes, potential
determined
If Yes, potential
determined
If Yes, potential
determined
If Yes, potential
determined
If Yes, and Yes for any of 49, potential determined
If Yes and Yes for any of 3,
5-9, potential determined
If Yes and Yes for any of 34, 6-9, potential
determined
If Yes, and Yes for any of 35, 7-9, potential
determined.
If Yes, and Yes for any of 36, 8-9, potential
determined
Historic Transportation route within 100 m.
If Yes, and Yes for any 3-7
(historic road, trail, portage, rail corridors, etc.)
Y
or 9, potential determined
Contains property designated and/or listed under
the Ontario Heritage Act (municipal heritage
If Yes and, Yes to any of 39
committee, municipal register, etc.)
N
8, potential determined
APPLICATION-SPECIFIC INFORMATION
Local knowledge (local heritage organizations,
If Yes, potential
10 First Nations, etc.)
Y
determined
Recent disturbance not including agricultural
cultivation (post-1960-confirmed extensive and
If Yes, no potential or low
intensive including industrial sites, aggregate
potential in affected part
11 areas, etc.)
Y
(s) of the study area.
If YES to any of 1, 2a-c, or 10 Archaeological Potential is confirmed
If YES to 2 or more of 3-9, Archaeological Potential is confirmed
If YES to 11 or No to 1-10 Low Archaeological Potential is confirmed for at least a portion of the study
area.
8
Page 74
7.3
STAGE 1 RESULTS
As a result of the Stage 1 Background Study it was determined that the study area has
archaeological potential on the basis of proximity to water, the proximity of a shoreline, the
proximity of registered archaeological sites (including the fish weirs and others), the
proximity to an area exploited for natural resources, the location of a National Historic Site
(the fish weirs) in close proximity to the study area, the presence of a historic railroad
corridor within the study area, and the location of early historic settlement roads adjacent to
the study area, the proximity of an area of early settlement, and proximity to a built feature
(the fish weirs) identified by knowledgeable local informants and heritage groups as
significant. However, there are also areas of significant disturbance where archaeological
potential is removed or is untestable at the present time. The structure of the bridge, the steel
trestle, the concrete piers and the railroad embankment have each damaged archaeological
potential or removed it entirely within the area of their construction. In addition, the
dredging of the navigation channel (first done in 1857 and periodically repeated) has
removed archaeological potential from areas of dredging including dredging conducted in
association with the development of marinas to the north and south of the existing bridge.
It has therefore been determined that the study area exhibits archaeological potential
generally, but that certain areas have had archaeological potential removed. There have been
no previous archaeological studies that have specifically targeted the study area.
8.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1
STAGE 1 RECOMMENDATIONS
Under Section 7.7.4 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTC
2011: 133) the recommendations to be made as a result of a Stage 1 Background Study are
described.
1)
2)
Make recommendations regarding the potential for the property, as follows:
a. if some or all of the property has archaeological potential, identify
areas recommended for further assessment (Stage 2) and areas not
recommended for further assessment. Any exemptions from further
assessment must be consistent with the archaeological fieldwork
standards and guidelines.
b. if no part of the property has archaeological potential, recommend
that the property does not require further archaeological assessment.
Recommend appropriate Stage 2 assessment strategies.
As a result of the Stage 1 Background Research, the project area potentially impacted by the
proposed undertaking has been identified as an area of archaeological potential.
Page 75
As a result of the study area inspection, it has been determined that the areas of the structure
of the bridge and associated footings, permanently low-lying and wet areas, and the artificial
former railway line embankment and road bed do not require archaeological assessment
using land based archaeological survey methodology. The recommendations offered by
AMICK Consultants Limited respecting land based archaeological resources are as follows:
1. It is recommended that no further land based archaeological studies are required.
2. The proposed undertaking may be permitted to proceed where construction impacts
may occur within the study area addressed within this report.
However, Stage 1 Background research identified the water areas within the study area as an
area containing stakes associated with the ancient fish weirs documented in the vicinity.
Accordingly, as part of our original report prepared in 2013, an underwater archaeological
survey was recommended to determine the presence or absence of possible fish weir stakes
within the study area. Subsequent to the completion and filing of our original report a
Marine Archaeological Assessment was completed for the study area (see Scarlett Janusas
Archaeology Inc. 2014). The recommendations offered in that report area as follows:
(SJA 2014: 53-54)
AMICK Consultants Limited does not have staff who are qualified to undertake Marine
Archaeological Assessments and therefore, cannot legally make any recommendations for
this specialized area of study. The recommendations respecting underwater or marine
Page 76
archaeological resources are quoted directly from the Marine Archaeological Assessment
report prepared by Scarlett Janusas Archaeology Inc. Any requirement to follow up on any
matters reflecting marine archaeological resources must be undertaken by persons with the
specialized knowledge and experience to address these particular resources.
9.0
ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION
While not part of the archaeological record, this report must include the following standard
advisory statements for the benefit of the proponent and the approval authority in the land
use planning and development process:
a. 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 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.
b. 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.
c. 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 archaeologist to
carry out archaeological fieldwork, in compliance with sec. 48 (1) of the Ontario
Heritage Act.
d. 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.
e. 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,
Page 77
or have artifacts removed from them, except by a person holding an archaeological
licence.
Page 78
10.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES
AECOM
2010 Atherley Narrows Pedestrian/Snowmobile Bridge Preliminary Design Report.
Technical Report on file with the Department of Parks and Recreation, City of Orillia.
2009 Revised Report on the 2007 Stage 1-3 Archaeological
Assessment of Orchard Point Harbour, Including Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13
West of Clifford Street, Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 East of Orchard Street,
And Part of Charles Street and Part of Jane Street, Registered Plan 292, And
Water Lot in Front of Lot 13, Concession 7, Former Township of South Orillia,
City of Orillia, County of Simcoe (AMICK file #27060-P/MTCS #P058-254-2007).
Archaeological License Report on File with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and
Sport, Toronto.
2010
Report on the 2009 - 2010 Stage 4 Investigations of
the Orchard Point Site (BdGu-18), Proposed Orchard Point Harbour, Including
Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 West of Clifford Street, Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19
East of Orchard Street, And Part of Charles Street and Part of Jane Street,
Registered Plan 292, And Water Lot in Front of Lot 13, Concession 7, Former
Township of South Orillia, City of Orillia, County of Simcoe
(AMICK file #29325-P & 10638-P/MTCS #P058-471-2009 & P058-608-2010).
Sport, Toronto.
2011
2010 Stage 4 Investigations of the Orchard Point
Site (BdGu-18), Proposed Orchard Point Harbour, Including Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, and
13 West of Clifford Street, Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 East of Orchard Street,
And Part of Charles Street and Part of Jane Street, Registered Plan 292, And Water
Lot in Front of Lot 13, Concession 7, Former Township of South Orillia,
City of Orillia, County of Simcoe (AMICK file #10638-P/MTCS #P058-608-2010).
Sport, Toronto.
2013
Stage 4 Mitigation of Development Impacts of the Orchard Point Harbour Sales Centre
within the Proposed Orchard Point Development, Including Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 West
of Clifford Street, Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 East of Orchard Street, And Part of Charles
Street and Part of Jane Street, Registered Plan 292, And Water Lot in Front of Lot 13,
Concession 7 (Former Township of South Orillia), City of Orillia, County of Simcoe
(AMICK file #12053-L/ MTCS #P038-443-2012). Archaeological License Report on File
with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.
Andreae, C. A.
1972 A Historical Railway Atlas of Southwestern Ontario. London, Ontario:
C. A. Andreae
Anonymous
n.d.
“Fish Fence.” Commemorative plaque situated on north side of the multi-use trail
Page 79
overlying the former railway bed on the west approach to the existing former CNR
railway swing bridge.
Archaeological and Historic Sites Board of Ontario (AHSBO)
n.d.
“Huron Fish Weirs.” Commemorative plaque situated on the east bank of the
Atherley Narrows and to the south of the Highway 12 bridge over the Atherley Narrows.
Archaeological Assessments Ltd.
2003 The Stage 1-3 Archaeological Assessment of the Orchard Point Condominium
Development, Part of Lots 14, 15 & 16, and Part of Charles Street and Jane Street,
Registered Plan 292, City of Orillia, County of Simcoe. Archaeological License Report on
File with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.
Beers, J.H.
1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario, Ont. J. H. Beers, Toronto
Biggar, H. P.
1932 The Works of Samuel de Champlain. 6 Volumes. The Champlain Society, Toronto.
Carver, J.
1778 Travels Through The Interior Parts of North America in the Years 1766, 1767
and 1768. J. Walter, London, 1778 (Facsimile Edition, Coles Publishing Company,
Toronto, 1974).
Canadian Ministry of the Environment (CME)
n.d.(a) “Mnjikaning Fish Weirs.” In List of National Historic Sites of Canada, Ottawa. Retrieved 15
April 2013 from http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6137766/List-of-national-historic-sites-ofCanada---PDF
n.d.(b) “Mnjikaning Fish Weirs National Historic Site of Canada” The Canadian Register of
Historic Places. Parks Canada, Ottawa. Retrieved 15 April 2013 from
http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=9679
Canadian National Railways (CNR)
1969 Atherley Swing Bridge Reconstruction General Layout. CNR Great Lakes Region,
Newmarket.
Cassavoy, Kenneth
1993 Atherley Narrows Fishweirs: 1992 Project Report. Archaeological License Report on file
Cassavoy, Kenneth & Richard B. Johnston
1974 A Preliminary Investigation of the Atherley Narrows Fishweir (70N3) Near Orillia, Ontario.
Report submitted to Trent University Committee on Research.
1977
Further Investigations at the Atherley Narrows Fishweir Site (70N3) Near Orillia, Ontario in
1974. Unpublished Research Manuscript on File at the Department of Anthropology, Trent
University, Peterborough.
Page 80
1996
Atherley Narrows Fishweirs: 1994/95 Project Report. Archaeological License Report on file
Chapman, L.J. & D.F. Putnam. (1984). The Physiography of Southern Ontario (Third Edition).
Ontario Geological Survey, Special Report #2. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,
Toronto.
Clark, General John S.
1900 “A Study of the Word Toronto.” Annual Archaeological Report, 1899, Being Part of
Appendix to the Report of the Minister of Education, Ontario. Toronto: Warwick Brothers &
Rutter Limited. (pp. 76-77).
Copway, G. (Kah-Ge-Ga-Gah-Bowh)
1972 The Traditional History and Characteristic Sketches of the Ojibway Nation.
(Facsimile Reprint of the 1850 edition) Coles Publishing Company, Toronto.
Daley, Thomas and Marthe Carrier
1990 “Conservation Assessment of Underwater Historical Resources at Atherley Narrows, Ontario
– 1990 Field Season.” Laboratory Report No. 89-2850. Wet Organic Material Laboratory,
Historic Resource Conservation Branch, Parks Canada, Ottawa.
Darmitz, Leo.
2015 Weir in the Middle of History. Exerpt from the unpublished Memoirs of Leo Darmitz.
Provided to Michael Henry in a personal communication via email, dated 20 April 2015.
Fredrickson, N. Jaye & Sandra Gibb
1980 The Covenant Chain: Indian Ceremonial and Trade Silver. Ottawa:
National Museums of Canada.
Garbutt, Mary. (2010). About Simcoe County. Simcoe County Branch- Ontario Genealogical Society.
Retrieved May 12, 2010, from http://www.simcoebogs.com/About/ab_simcoe.htm.
Google Earth (Version 6.0.3.2197) [Software]. (2009). Available from
http://www.google.com/earth/index.html.
Google Maps. (2012). Available from: http://maps.google.ca/?utm_campaign =en&utm_source=enha-na-ca-bk-gm&utm_medium=ha&utm_term =google%20maps.
Government of Ontario
1990a Ontario Heritage Act, RSO 1990. Government of Ontario. (Queen’s Printer, Toronto).
1990b Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, RSO 1990. Government of Ontario. (Queen’s
Printer, Toronto).
2005
Ontario Heritage Amendment Act, SO 2005. Government of Ontario. (Queen’s Printer,
Toronto).
Hammond, Hugh J.
1905a “The Ojibwas of Lakes Huron and Simcoe.” Annual Archaeological Report, 1904,
Page 81
Being Part of Appendix to the Report of the Minister of Education, Ontario. Toronto:
Warwick Brothers & Rutter Limited. (pp. 71-73)
1905b “The Coming of the Ojibwas.” Annual Archaeological Report, 1904, Being Part of
Appendix to the Report of the Minister of Education, Ontario. Toronto: Warwick Brothers
& Rutter Limited. (pp. 76-77)
1905c “North and South Orillia.” Annual Archaeological Report, 1904, Being Part of
Appendix to the Report of the Minister of Education, Ontario. Toronto: Warwick Brothers
& Rutter Limited. (pp. 77-86)
H. Belden & Co.
1881 Simcoe Supplement in the Illustrated Atlas of the Dominion of Canada. H. Belden & Co.,
Toronto.
Head, George
1829 Forest Scenes and Incidents in the Wilds of North America.
John Murray, London.
Henry, Alexander
1901 Travels & Adventures in Canada and the Indian Territories Between the Years 1760
and 1776. James Bain, Ed. New York: Burt Franklin.
Hunter, Andrew
1904 “Notes on Sites of Indian Villages in the Townships of North and South Orillia
(Simcoe County).” Annual Archaeological Report, 1903, Being Part of Appendix to
the Report of the Minister of Education, Ontario. Toronto: Warwick Brothers &
Rutter Limited. (pp. 104-125)
1998
A History of Simcoe County. (Facsimile Reprint of the 1909 Edition). Oshawa:
Mackinaw Productions.
Jaenen, Cornelius J. (Ed.)
1996 The French Regime in the Upper Country of Canada During the Seventeenth Century.
The Champlain Society for the Government of Ontario, No. XVI. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Janusas, Scarlett E. & Robert G. Mayer
1998 “Underwater Archaeological Assessment and First Nation Concerns: Atherley Narrows Fish
Weirs Site (BdGv-6).” Ontario Archaeological Society Arch Notes, New Series, Volume 3,
Issue 6, November/December 1998 (pp12-19)
Johnston, Richard B. and Kenneth A. Cassavoy
1978 “The Fishweirs at Atherley Narrows, Ontario.” American Antiquity.
No. 43, pp. 697-709.
Kenyon, Walter A.
1966 “Champlain’s Fish-weir.” Royal Ontario Museum Archaeological Newsletter,
New Series No. 8 (pp. 1-4). Toronto.
Page 82
Kinietz, W. Vernon
1965 Indians of the Western Great Lakes 1615-1760. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
LaFleche, Louis
1993 “Wood Degredation Study of Stakes Recovered at Atherley Narrows in 1990 and 1991.”
Laboratory Report No. 89-2850. Wet Organic Material Laboratory, Historic Resource
Conservation Branch, Parks Canada, Ottawa.
1994
“Wood Identification from Atherley Narrows.” Laboratory Report No. 89-2850.
Wet Organic Material Laboratory, Historic Resource Conservation Branch, Parks Canada,
Ottawa.
LaJeunesse, Ernest J. (Ed.)
1960 The Windsor Border Region, Canada’s Southernmost Frontier: A Collection of
Documents. The Champlain Society for the Government of Ontario, No. IV. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Mayer Heritage Consultants Inc.
1997a Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1 and 2), Highway 12/Atherley Narrows Bridge,
Township of Ramara, County of Simcoe, Ontario. Archaeological License Report on file
1997b Underwater Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1 and 2), Proposed Trestle and Rip Rap
Construction Area, Highway 12 Bridge, Atherley Narrows, Simcoe County, Ontario.
Archaeological License Report on file with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and
Sport, Toronto.
1997c Underwater Archaeological Assessment (Stage 3), Test Excavation of Area S6, Highway 12
Bridge, Atherley Narrows, Simcoe County, Ontario. Archaeological License Report on file
Mika, Nick & Helma
1972 Railways of Canada. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited.
Mnjinkaning Fish Fence Circle
2015 Memo to: Diana Addley, Environmental Planner, AECOM Canada Ltd., Re: EA for the
Atherley Narrows Bridge Project. Dated 11 March 2015.
Murdock, Lorne
1992 “1992 On Site Conservation Consultation of Fish Weir Remains at Atherley Narrows.”
Conservation Services Request Report No. 92-1333. Historic Resource Conservation Branch,
Parks Canada, Ottawa.
Murdock, Lorne & John Stewart
1995 “Atherley Narrows National Historic Site Cultural Resources Monitoring Program (Activity
Report: Field Trip of Oct 17-21, 1994).” Conservation Services Request Report No. 94-129.
Historic Resource Conservation Branch, Parks Canada, Ottawa.
Page 83
Murray, Florence B. (Ed.)
1963 Muskoka and Haliburton, 1615-1875: A Collection of Documents. The Champlain Society
for the Government of Ontario, No. VI. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Myers, Jay
1977 The Great Canadian Road: A History of Yonge Street. Toronto:
Red Rock Publishing Company.
Ontario GenWeb Project
2010 “SEVERN #15: Formerly Matchedash and Orillia Townships.” Simcoe County. Retrieved
November 2, 2011, from http://www.waynecook.com/zsevern.html#historyb.
Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation (OMCzCR)
1993 Archaeological Assessment Technical Guidelines, Stages 1-3 and Reporting Format.
OMCzCR, Cultural Programs Branch, Archaeology and Heritage Planning, Toronto.
Ontario Ministry of Culture (MCL). (2005). Conserving a Future for Our Past: Archaeology, Land
Use Planning & Development in Ontario (An Educational Primer and Comprehensive Guide
for Non-Specialists). (Heritage & Libraries Branch, Heritage Operations Unit: Toronto).
Ontario Ministry of Culture and Communications (MCC) & Ministry of Environment (MOE). (1992).
Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental
Assessments. (Cultural Programs Branch, Archaeology and Heritage Planning: Toronto).
Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC). (2011). Standards and Guidelines for Consultant
Archaeologist. (Programs and Services Branch: Culture Programs Unit, Toronto).
Page, John
1856 John Page Letter to Thomas A. Bagly reporting his examination of the Atherley
Narrows and recommendations for navigational improvements, June 6, 1856.
Public Archives of Canada, Manuscript Division, Record Group 11, Series II,
Vol. 170, No. 29998.
Potherie, Claude Charles Le Roy, Bacqueville de la
1753 “History of the Savage Peoples Who Are Allies of New France.” In The Indian Tribes of the
Upper Mississippi Valley And The Region of the Great Lakes. Ed. Emma Helen Blair.
University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska. 1996
Reznicek, A. A.
1980 "John Goldie's 1819 Collecting Site Near Lake Simcoe, Ontario."
Canadian Field-Naturalist (94(4): 439-442.
Ringer, R. James
1989 Marine Archaeological Reconnaissance at Atherley Narrows, Ontario. Manuscript on file,
Canadian Parks Service, Ontario.
1990
Marine Archaeological Survey at Atherley Narrows and at the Mouth of the Severn River,
Ontario. Manuscript on file, Canadian Parks Service, Ontario.
Page 84
1991
Atherley Narrows: Summary of 1991 Survey. Manuscript on file, Canadian Parks Service,
Ontario.
2006
“Atherley Narrows Fish Weirs.” In Underwater Cultural Heritage at Risk: Managing Natural
and Human Impacts. (pp. 44-45) International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS).
Biedermann Offsetdruck, München.
Ringer, R. James and Peter J. A. Waddell
1995 “The Atherley Narrows Fish Weir Complex: A Submerged Prehistoric-to-Historic-Period
Fishing Site in Ontario.” Paper presented at Hidden Dimensions: The Cultural Significance
of Wetland Archaeology Conference at the University of British Columbia April 27-30, 1995,
Vancouver.
Robinson, Percy J.
1965 Toronto During the French Regime (2nd Edition). Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Rolling, Gladys M.
1968 East Gwillimbury in the Nineteenth Century. Toronto: Ryerson Press.
Ross, Brian & Sheryl Smith
2002 “Aboriginal Youth Week Comes to Camp: Partners in History, Culture, and Environment at
Georgian Bay Islands National Park of Canada.” Ontario Archaeology. Number 73, pp. 7984.
Rubidge, F.P.
1857 F. P. Rubidge letter to Thomas A. Bagly reporting completion of dredging and other
navigational improvements at the Atherley Narrows, October 7, 1857. Public Archives of
Canada. Manuscript Division, Record Group 11, Series II, Vol. 189. No. 34796.
Scarlett Janusas Archaeology Inc. (SJA)
2014 Marine Archaeological Assessment, Atherley Narrows Bridge Study, Simcoe County. SJA,
Tobermory, Ontario. Archaeological License Report on file with the Ontario Ministry of
Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto. (MTCS File#2009-003-005-2009).
Scarlett Janusas Archaeological & Heritage Consulting & Education (SJA)
2009 Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment, Water Lot Off Lot 13, Concession 7,
Geographic Township of South Orillia, City of Orillia, Simcoe County, Ontario. SJA,
Tobermory, Ontario. Archaeological License Report on file with the Ontario Ministry of
Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto. (MTCS File#2009-003-005-2009).
Shark Marine
1997 Sub-bottom Profiling of the Proposed Bridge Site at Atherley Narrows, Orillia. Technical
Report filed in support of Underwater Archaeology License Reports on file with the Ontario
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.
Smith, David G.
2002 “Ten Thousand Years: Aboriginal Heritage in Mississauga.” In Mississauga:
Page 85
The First 10,000 Years. Frank Dieterman, Ed. Mississauga Heritage Foundation,
Eastendbooks, Toronto
Smith, Donald B.
1987 Sacred Feathers: The Reverend peter Jones (Kahkewaquonaby) & the Mississauga Indians.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Smith, Sheryl A.
1982 “Southern Ontario Prehistoric Sites: Ontario Prehistory Framework and Site Selection.”
Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada Agenda Paper, Spring Meeting, 1982.
1992
Summary of 1992 Underwater Archaeological Fieldwork: Atherley Narrows. Unpublished
Parks Canada internal memorandum, on file at Parks Canada Ontario Region, Cornwall,
Ontario.
Stewart, John
1998 “Atherley Narrows National Historic Site Cultural Resources Monitoring Program (Up-date
May 1998).” Conservation Services Request Report No. 94-129. Analytical Services Unit,
Research and Analysis Section, Ontario Service Centre, Parks Canada, Cornwall.
Stewart, John & Lorne Murdock
1996 “Atherley Narrows National Historic Site Cultural Resources Monitoring Program (Up-date
of 1995 Field Season).” Conservation Services Request Report No. 94-129. Historic
Resource Conservation Branch, Parks Canada, Ottawa.
Trigger, Bruce G.
1969 The Huron: Farmers of the North. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
1987
The Children of Aataentsic: A History of the Huron People to 1660.
Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.
Turner, Janet
1999 “Huron Descendants Descend Upon Midland.” Ontario Archaeological Society Arch Notes.
New Series, Volume 4, Issue 5, September/October 1999, pp. 14-16.
2002
“Building Bridges From a Mnjikaning Fish Fence Circle Perspective.”
Ontario Archaeology No. 73, pp. 69-75.
Vespra Township Council
1987 A History of Vespra Township. Mika Publishing Company, Belleville.
Waddell, Peter & Marc-Andre Bernier
1992 Summary of the 1992 Marine Archaeology Survey at Atherley Narrows, Ontario. Manuscript
report on file, Canadian Parks Service, Ottawa.
Warren, William W.
1984 History of the Ojibway People. Minnesota Historical Society Press, St. Paul,
Minnesota. (Reprint of the 1885 Minnesota Historical Society edition).
Page 86
Wikipedia
2011 Ramara, Ontario. URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramara,_Ontario, as of May 09, 2011.
Wright, J. V.
1972 “The Dougall Site.” Ontario Archaeology, No. 17 (pp. 3-17). Toronto.
Page 87
11.0 MAPS
Figure 1
Location of the Study Area (Google Maps 2012)
Page 88
Figure 2
Limits of the Study Area (AECOM 2012)
Page 89
Figure 3
Segment of the Historic Atlas Map of South Orillia Township
(H. Belden & Co. 1881)
Figure 4
Segment of the Historic Atlas Map of Mara Township
(H. Belden & Co. 1881)
Page 90
Figure 5
Atherley Swing Bridge Reconstruction General Layout (CNR 1969)
Page 91
Figure 6
Proposed New Crossing (AECOM 2010)
Page 92
Figure 7
Facsimile Plan of the 1973-1974 Survey (Cassavoy & Johnston 1977:8)
Page 93
Figure 8
Facsimile Map Segment of Parks Canada Known Fish Weir Distribution
(Turner 2002: 70)
Page 94
Figure 9
Study Area and the Archaeological Reconnaissance
Page 95
12.0 IMAGES
Plate 1
Former Railway Embankment on
Approach from the East
Plate 3 1970 Construction Steel Trestle through
Low-lying and Wet Area from the North
Plate 5
View East from the West End of the Steel
Trestle
Plate 2 Adjacent Marina Property to the South
from the Top of the Former Railway Embankment
Plate 4 Timbers from Former Crossing
Structure(s) at the West End of the Steel Trestle
Plate 6 View of the Low-lying & Wet Portion of
the Study Area Northeast of the Bridge
Page 96
Plate 7
View to the North from the West End of
the Trestle
Plate 9
Fish Fence Plaque on the West Approach
Plate 11
Swing Bridge from the Concrete Pier on
the West Bank
Plate 8
View to the South from the West End of
the Trestle
Plate 10
Plate 12
View of the Crossing on the West
Approach
View West from the Concrete Pier on the
West Bank
Page 97

Appendix C - Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

Transcription

Similar documents

featuring darren niedermeyer

The Penn Township Campus Landscaping Beautification Project

Loyalist Township - County of Lennox and Addington

RESEA R C H UNC O VERED

Invitation to seminar and workshop

2013/2014 YMCA of Simcoe Muskoka Annual Report

PC Minutes - Warwick Township

View Flyer - Conewago Township

US EB-3 Unskilled Worker Program