Stage 3 Town Lands (August 19, 2014)

Transcription

August 19, 2014
ORIGINAL REPORT
STAGE 3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
East Fonthill Lands Location 1 (AgGt198) and Location 2 (AgGt-199),
Part of Lots 161 and 166,
Former Geographic Township of
Thorold,
Welland County,
Now Town of Pelham,
R.M. of Niagara,
Ontario
Submitted to:
Cari Pupo, MBA, CGA,
Treasurer/Director, Corporate Services,
Town of Pelham,
20 Pelham Town Square, P.O. Box 400,
Fonthill, ON
L0S 1E0
Licensed Archaeologist:
Barbara Leskovec, M.A., Golder Associates Ltd.
Licence Number:
P346
PIF Numbers:
P346-0039-2014 (AgGt-198)
P346-0040-2014 (AgGt-199)
Report Number:
13-1154-0037-R02
Distribution:
1 Hard Copy & 1 PDF Copy - Town of Pelham
1 PDF Copy - Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture
and Sport
2 Hard Copies - Golder Associates Ltd.
STAGE 3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, EAST FONTHILL
LANDS
Executive Summary
The Executive Summary highlights key points from the report only; for complete information and findings, as well
as the limitations, the reader should examine the complete report.
Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) was contracted by the Town of Pelham (the Client) to conduct a Stage 3
archaeological assessment of two pre-contact archaeological sites: East Fonthill Lands Location 1 (AgGt-198)
and East Fonthill Lands Location 2 (AgGt-199), located within the East Fonthill Lands (the Local Study Area or
LSA), a 32 acre (12.9 ha) parcel of land located within part of Lots 161 and 166, former Geographic Township of
Thorold, Welland County, now Town of Pelham, Regional Municipality of Niagara, Ontario (Map 1; Supplement
A). This Stage 3 archaeological assessment was undertaken as part of a Plan of Subdivision application which
includes an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-Law Amendment, as required by the Planning Act. The
planned subdivision development includes mixed-use areas, medium density residential development and
parks/open spaces.
The Stage 3 archaeological assessment was conducted under the project management of Dr. Scott Martin.
Barbara Leskovec was the professional archaeological licence holder (P346) (PIF P346-0039-2014 [AgGt-198]
and P346-0040-2014 [AgGt-199]). The licenced field director with duly delegated authority and responsibility for
the day-to-day supervision of the carrying out of the archaeological fieldwork at both sites was Carey Matthews
(R404). All activities undertaken during the assessment were in compliance with the Ontario Heritage Act and
the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists
(MTCS 2011).
Given the findings of the Stage 3 archaeological assessment of East Fonthill Land Location 1 (AgGt-198) and
Location 2 (AgGt-198), recommendations are made below on a site by site basis.
Location 1 (AgGt-198): The cultural heritage value or interest of Location 1 (AgGt-198) has been
sufficiently assessed and documented, the site may be considered free of further archaeological
concern, and no further archaeological assessment of this site is required.
Location 2 (AgGt-199): Location 2 (AgGt-199) possesses cultural heritage value or interest and a portion
of the site should be subject to a Stage 4 archaeological assessment as indicated in Map 6.
Avoidance and protection of archaeological sites is the preferred method of mitigation. The Town of Pelham has
confirmed that ground disturbance activities at Location 2 (AgGt-199) in connection with the development of the
property cannot be avoided (Appendix B). Because avoidance and protection of Location 2 (AgGt-199) is not a
viable option, mitigation will proceed via excavation.
The MTCS is requested to review, and provide a letter indicating their satisfaction with, the results and
recommendations presented herein, with regard to the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant
Archaeologists and the terms and conditions for archaeological licences, and to enter this report into the Ontario
Public Register of Archaeological Reports.
The Executive Summary highlights key points from the report only; for complete information and findings, as well
as the limitations, the reader should examine the complete report.
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
LANDS
Table of Contents
1.0
PROJECT CONTEXT ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
1.1.1
1.2
Historical Context ................................................................................................................................................. 2
Post-Contact Period Context .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.2
Euro-Canadian Settlement ............................................................................................................................. 3
1.3.1
Archaeological Context ........................................................................................................................................ 3
General Overview of the Pre-Contact Period in Southern Ontario ................................................................. 3
1.3.1.1
Paleo-Indian Period .................................................................................................................................... 4
1.3.1.2
Archaic Period ............................................................................................................................................ 5
1.3.1.3
Woodland Period ........................................................................................................................................ 7
1.3.2
Regional Physiography ................................................................................................................................ 11
1.3.3
Existing Conditions and Current Land Use of the LSA ................................................................................. 11
1.3.4
Dates of Archaeological Fieldwork ............................................................................................................... 13
1.3.5
Documented Archaeological Sites and Surveys .......................................................................................... 11
1.3.5.1
Documented Archaeological Assessments of Land Adjacent to the LSA ................................................. 11
1.3.5.2
Documented Archaeological Assessments of Land Within the LSA ......................................................... 12
FIELD METHODS ........................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.1
Controlled Surface Pick-up (CSP) ..................................................................................................................... 14
2.2
Test Unit Excavation .......................................................................................................................................... 14
2.2.1
Location 1 (AgGt-198) Test Unit Excavation ................................................................................................ 15
2.2.2
Location 2 (AgGt-199) Test Unit Excavation ................................................................................................ 15
2.3
3.0
Stage 3 Objectives ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2.1
1.3
2.0
Development Context .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Weather, Lighting, and Visibility ......................................................................................................................... 17
RECORD OF FINDS ....................................................................................................................................................... 18
3.1
3.1.1
3.2
3.2.1
East Fonthill Lands Location 1 (AgGt-198) ........................................................................................................ 18
Location 1 (AgGt-198) Artifact Patterning and Site Activity Areas ................................................................ 19
East Fonthill Lands Location 2 (AgGt-199) ........................................................................................................ 19
Pre-contact Aboriginal Artifacts .................................................................................................................... 20
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
i
LANDS
3.2.1.1
Chipped Lithic Tools ................................................................................................................................. 20
3.2.1.2
Chipping Detritus ...................................................................................................................................... 20
3.2.2
Historical Euro-Canadian Artifacts ............................................................................................................... 20
3.2.3
Recent Artifacts ............................................................................................................................................ 21
3.2.4
Location 2 (AgGt-199) Feature 1 ................................................................................................................. 21
3.2.5
Location 2 (AgGt-199) Artifact Patterning and Site Activity Areas ................................................................ 22
4.0
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................. 23
5.0
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................... 24
No Further Archaeological Assessment Required ........................................................................................................... 24
Further Archaeological Assessment (Stage 3) Required................................................................................................. 24
6.0
ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION ........................................................................................................ 25
7.0
IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT ......................................................................... 26
8.0
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES ................................................................................................................................. 27
9.0
IMAGES .......................................................................................................................................................................... 33
10.0 MAPS .............................................................................................................................................................................. 43
TABLES
Table 1: Cultural Chronology for the Regional Municipality of Niagara ...................................................................................... 4
Table 2: Registered Archaeological Sites Within 1 km of the East Fonthill Lands LSA ............................................................ 12
Table 3: Location 1 (AgGt-198) Test Unit Descriptions ............................................................................................................ 15
Table 4: Location 2 (AgGt-199) Test Unit Descriptions ............................................................................................................ 16
Table 5: Summary of Weather and Lighting Conditions During the Fieldwork Portion of the Stage 3 Archaeological
Assessment ............................................................................................................................................................. 17
Table 6: Inventory of Documentary Record .............................................................................................................................. 18
Table 7: Location 1 (AgGt-198) Complete Artifact Catalogue .................................................................................................. 19
Table 8: Location 2 (AgGt-199) Artifact Summary .................................................................................................................... 19
Table 9: Location 2 (AgGt-199) Chipped Lithic Tool Metrics .................................................................................................... 20
Table 10: Location 2 (AgGt-199) Chipping Detritus by Type and Material ............................................................................... 20
Table 11: Location 2 (AgGt-199) Historical Euro-Canadian Artifact Summary ......................................................................... 21
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
ii
LANDS
IMAGES
Image 1: 5 x 5 m grid set-up indicating the sub-square numbering system.............................................................................. 33
Image 2: Stage 3 test unit excavation at Location 1 (AgGt-198), facing west. ......................................................................... 33
Image 3: Stage 3 test unit excavation at Location 1 (AgGt-198), facing south. ........................................................................ 34
Image 4: Stage 3 test unit excavation at Location 1 (AgGt-198), facing southwest.................................................................. 34
Image 5: Stage 3 test unit excavation at Location 1 (AgGt-198), facing southeast. ................................................................. 35
Image 6: Stage 3 test unit excavation at Location 2 (AgGt-199), facing west. ......................................................................... 35
Image 8: Stage 3 test unit excavation at Location 2 (AgGt-199), facing northwest. ................................................................. 36
Image 10: Stage 3 test unit excavation at Location 2 (AgGt-199), facing west. ....................................................................... 37
Image 11: Plan view of Feature 1 in unit 305E 485N:01, Location 2 (AgGt-199). It was determined through excavation
that Feature 1 was not an archaeological feature but a modern post-mould created for a tree-support pole. ......... 38
Image 12: Profile view of Feature 1 in unit 305E 485N:01, Location 2 (AgGt-199). It was determined through
excavation that Feature 1 was not an archaeological feature but a modern post-mould created for a treesupport pole. ........................................................................................................................................................... 38
Image 13: Stage 3 test unit excavation at Location 2 (AgGt-199). Unit 290E 485N:01 showing the plough-zone and
subsoil as typical at the site. .................................................................................................................................... 39
Image 14: Location 2 (AgGt-199) Feature 1 plan view. It was determined through excavation that this was not an
archaeological feature. ............................................................................................................................................ 40
Image 15: Location 2 (AgGt-199) Feature 1 profile view. It was determined through excavation that this was not an
archaeological feature. ............................................................................................................................................ 40
Image 16: Location 1 (AgGt-198) historical Euro-Canadian ceramic assemblage. .................................................................. 41
Image 17: Location 2 (AgGt-199) historical Euro-Canadian artifacts. Clockwise from upper left: blue shell-edged
pearlware, transfer-printed ironstone, vitrified white earthenware (VWE), fluted white clay pipe bowl,
porcelain figurine head. Scale is 10 cm. .................................................................................................................. 41
Image 18: Location 2 (AgGt-199) historical Euro-Canadian artifacts. From left to right: semi-machine-made
rectangular bottle with unidentified manufacturer’s mark, amber glass stopper. Scale is 10 cm. ............................ 42
Image 19: Location 2 (AgGt-199) pre-contact artifacts. Clockwise from upper left: pre-form drill, two cores, utilized
flake, retouched flake, primary flake, two secondary flakes, tertiary flake. Scale is 10 cm ...................................... 42
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
iii
LANDS
MAPS
Map 1: Location of the Local Study Area.................................................................................................................................. 44
Map 2: The Local Study Area Overlaid on the 1876 Map of Welland County ........................................................................... 45
Map 3: Pre-Contact Aboriginal Culture History of Southern Ontario ........................................................................................ 46
Map 4: Stage 3 Excavation Map Location 1 (AgGt-198) .......................................................................................................... 47
APPENDIX A
Location 2 (AgGt-199) Stage 3 Complete Artifact Catalogue
APPENDIX B
Proponent Letter
APPENDIX C
MTCS Correspondence
APPENDICES
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
iv
LANDS
Project Personnel
Project Director
Carla Parslow Ph.D. (P243), Associate, Senior Archaeologist
Project Manager
Scott Martin, Ph.D. (P218), Project Archaeologist
Licensed Consultant Archaeologist
Barbara Leskovec, M.A. (P346), Project Archaeologist
Licensed Field Directors
Carey Matthews (R404), Martha Tildesley (R399)
Field Assistants
John Wasilik, Robert Fleming, Adam van Buskirk, Julia Wither, Donny
Vongphakdy, Talis Talving
Report Production
Peter Popkin, Ph.D., MIfA (P362), Project Archaeologist
Graphics Production
Jeff Todd, GIS Analyst
Senior Review
Carla Parslow, Ph.D. (P243), Associate, Senior Archaeologist
Acknowledgements
Proponent Contact
Cari Pupo, MBA, CGA, Treasurer/Director, Corporate Services,
Town of Pelham
Aboriginal Monitors
Blake Sault, Haudenosaunee Development Institute
Joe Gouthro, The Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation
Colleen McNaughton, Six Nations of the Grand River First
Nation Eco-Centre
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
Robert von Bitter, Archaeological Data Coordinator,
Malcolm Horne, Archaeology Review Officer
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
v
LANDS
1.0
1.1
PROJECT CONTEXT
Development Context
Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) was contracted by the Town of Pelham (the Client) to conduct a Stage 3
archaeological assessment of two pre-contact archaeological sites: East Fonthill Lands Location 1 (AgGt-198)
and East Fonthill Lands Location 2 (AgGt-199), located within the East Fonthill Lands (the Local Study Area or
LSA), a 32 acre (12.9 ha) parcel of land located within part of Lots 161 and 166, former Geographic Township of
Thorold, Welland County, now Town of Pelham, Regional Municipality of Niagara, Ontario (Map 1; Supplement
A). This Stage 3 archaeological assessment was undertaken as part of a Plan of Subdivision application which
includes an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-Law Amendment, as required by the Planning Act. The
planned subdivision development includes mixed-use areas, medium density residential development and
parks/open spaces.
The Stage 3 archaeological assessment was conducted under the project management of Dr. Scott Martin.
Barbara Leskovec was the professional archaeological licence holder (P346) (PIF P346-0039-2014 [AgGt-198]
and P346-0040-2014 [AgGt-199]). The licenced field directors with duly delegated authority and responsibility for
the day-to-day supervision of the carrying out of the archaeological fieldwork at both sites were Carey Matthews
(R404) and Martha Tildesley (R399). All activities undertaken during the assessment were in compliance with
the Ontario Heritage Act and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s 2011 Standards and Guidelines for
Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011).
The Town of Pelham granted Golder permission to enter the Project Area and conduct archaeological fieldwork,
including removing archaeological artifacts, on September 5, 2013.
1.1.1
Stage 3 Objectives
The objectives of the Stage 3 archaeological assessment were to establish the limits of the two archaeological
sites and to systematically test both sites’ cultural heritage value or interest in order to make a determination of
whether or not they would require Stage 4 mitigation. All assessments of cultural significance were made in
accordance with the MTCS’ Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011).
To meet these objectives Golder archaeologists employed the following research strategies:

A review of relevant archaeological, historic and environmental literature pertaining to the study area;

Engagement with interested Aboriginal communities (see Supplement Document C); and

Stage 3 test unit excavations and artifact analysis.
In addition, Golder also examined relevant background data sources located within the Ontario Archaeological
Sites Database (OASD), at the Ontario Archives and Land Registry Office and within Golders’ corporate library.
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
1
LANDS
1.2
1.2.1
Historical Context
Post-Contact Period Context
The post-contact Aboriginal occupation of Southern Ontario was heavily influenced by the dispersal of various
Iroquoian-speaking peoples, such as the Huron and closely related Petun, by the New York State Iroquois and
the subsequent arrival of Algonkian-speaking groups from northern Ontario at the end of the seventeenth
century and beginning of the eighteenth century (Schmalz 1991).
The nature of their settlement size, population distribution, and material culture shifted as European settlers
encroached upon their territory. However, despite this shift, “written accounts of material life and livelihood, the
correlation of historically recorded villages to their archaeological manifestations, and the similarities of those
sites to more ancient sites have revealed an antiquity to documented cultural expressions that confirms a deep
historical continuity to Iroquoian systems of ideology and thought” (Ferris 2009). First Nation peoples of Southern
Ontario have left behind archaeologically significant resources throughout Southern Ontario which show
continuity with past peoples, even if they have not been recorded in historical Euro-Canadian documentation.
The study area first enters the historic record when the Mississauga First Nation entered into a treaty
arrangement in 1784, known as Treaty No. 3. This treaty
th
was made with the Mississa[ug]a Indians 7 December, 1792, though purchased as early as
1784. This purchase in 1784 was to procure for that part of the Six Nation[s] Indians coming
into Canada a permanent abode. The area included in this Treaty is, Lincoln County excepting
Niagara Township; Saltfleet, Binbrook, Barton, Glanford and Acaster Townships, in Wentworth
County, Brantford, Onondaga, Tusc[a]r[o]ra, Oakland and Burford Townships in Brand County;
East and West Oxford, North and South Norwich, and Dereham Townships in Oxford County;
North Dorchester Township in Middlesex County; South Dorchester, Malahide and Bayham
Townships in Elgin County; all Norfolk and Haldimand Counties; Pelham, Wainfleet, Thorold,
Cumberland and Humberstone Townships in Welland County (Morris 1943:17-18).
Following actual survey and a geographical revision of the first version, the treaty lands were
described as:
All that parcel or tract of land lying and being between the Lakes Ontario and Erie, beginning at
Lake Ontario, four miles south westerly from the point opposite to Niagara Fort, known by the
name of Mississa[uga] Point, and running from thence along the said lake to the creek that falls
from a small lake, known by the name of Washquarter into the said Lake Ontario, and from
thence north forty-five degrees west, fifty miles; thence south forty-five degrees west, twenty
miles; and thence south until it strikes the River La Tranche; then down the stream of the said
river to that part or place where a due south course will lead to the mouth of Catfish Creek
emptying into Lake Erie, and from the above mentioned part or place of the aforementioned
River La Tranche following the south course to the mouth of the said Catfish Creek; thence
down Lake Erie to the lands heretofore purchased from the Nation of Mississa[uga] Indians; and
from thence along the said purchase at Lake Ontario, at the place of beginning as above
mentioned, together with all the woods, ways, paths, water, watercourses and appurtenances
thereunto belonging (Morris 1943:18).
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
2
LANDS
The Treaty was signed by six representatives of the King, John Butter, R. Hamilton, Robert Kerr, Peter Russell,
John McGill and David William Smith and five Mississauga chiefs, Wabukanyne (or Wabukayine), Wabanip,
Kautubus (or Kautabus), Wabaninship and Mattatow together with J. Graves Simcoe (Morris 1943:18).
1.2.2
Euro-Canadian Settlement
The LSA is located within part of Lots 161 and 166, in the former Geographic Township of Thorold, Welland
County, now in the Town of Pelham, Regional Municipality of Niagara, in an area known as Fonthill. The
municipal affiliation of the LSA has changed numerous times since the late-eighteenth century. The EuroCanadian settlement history of the LSA and the surrounding region has been described in detail in the Stage 2
archaeological assessment (Golder 2014) and is not repeated here because it is not directly relevant to the two
pre-contact Aboriginal archaeological sites under consideration, as per Sections 3.1 and 7.5.7 of the Standards
and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011).
Both Location 1 (AgGt-198) and Location 2 (AgGt-199) are located on Lot 166 of the former Geographic
Township of Thorold. Lot 166 was owned by David F. Damude in 1876 as indicated within the Illustrated
Historical Atlas of the Counties of Lincoln and Welland (Page 1876) (Map 2). No structures are depicted within
Lot 166 on the 1876 map. There is no evidence that any structure has ever been located in the immediate
vicinity of either archaeological site or that the area has been used for anything but agricultural purposes since
European settlement.
1.3
1.3.1
Archaeological Context
General Overview of the Pre-Contact Period in Southern Ontario
Previous archaeological assessments and research surveys in the Regional Municipality of Niagara have
demonstrated the presence of pre-contact Aboriginal communities (Archaeologix 2004; Pengelly and Pengelly
1986; Williamson and MacDonald [eds.] 1997). The Wainfleet Marsh, approximately 14 km south of the Project
Area, has provided plentiful natural resources for occupation in the area since at least the late Early Archaic
Bifurcate Base Period (Pengelly and Tinkler 2004). Chert quarries and outcrops are also plentiful in the Port
Colborne area with Onondaga chert quarries along the Erie shore (Eley and von Bitter 1989:28) and inland
(Archaeologix 2004:3), while Haldimand ‘Colborne’ chert also occurs inland (Fox 1979:6, 2009:361). Findspots
and lithic reduction sites have been documented from the late Paleo-Indian Period onwards (Archaeologix 2004;
Pengelly and Tinkler 2004). During periods of higher water levels in Lake Erie, a greater proportion of sites were
situated in inland locations, as opposed to along the Lake Erie shore. One such period was the Nipissing High
Stand, occurring during the Middle Archaic and into the early Late Archaic Period, approximately 3780-2490 B.C.
Exotic lithic materials from the Midwestern United States declined during this period, implying the possibility of
reduced mobility or exchange (Pengelly and Tinkler 2004). The culture history of the Regional Municipality of
Niagara, based on Ellis and Ferris (1990), is summarised in Table 1 and a general pre-contact Aboriginal culture
history figure is presented in Map 3.
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
3
LANDS
Table 1: Cultural Chronology for the Regional Municipality of Niagara
Period
Characteristics
Time
Comments
Early Paleo-Indian
Fluted Projectiles
9000 - 8400 B.C.
spruce parkland/caribou hunters
Late Paleo-Indian
Hi-Lo Projectiles
8400 - 8000 B.C.
smaller but more numerous sites
Early Archaic
Kirk and Bifurcate Base Points
8000 - 6000 B.C.
slow population growth
Middle Archaic
Brewerton-like points
6000 - 2500 B.C.
environment similar to present
Late Archaic
Lamoka (narrow points)
2000 - 1800 B.C.
increasing site size
Broad Points
1800 - 1500 B.C.
large chipped lithic tools
Small Points
1500 - 1100 B.C.
introduction of bow hunting
Terminal Archaic
Hind Points
1100 - 950 B.C.
emergence of true cemeteries
Early Woodland
Meadowood Points
950 - 400 B.C.
introduction of pottery
Middle Woodland
Dentate/Pseudo-Scallop
Pottery
400 B.C. - A.D. 500
increased sedentism
Princess Point
A.D. 500 - 900
introduction of corn
Early Ontario Iroquoian
A.D. 900 - 1300
emergence of agricultural
villages
Middle Ontario Iroquoian
A.D. 1300 - 1400
long longhouses (100m +)
Late Ontario Iroquoian
A.D. 1400 - 1650
tribal warfare and displacement
Contact Aboriginal
Various Algonkian
communities (esp.
Mississaugas)
A.D. 1700 - 1875
early written records and treaties
Historic
Euro-Canadian
A.D. 1796 - present
European settlement
Late Woodland
1.3.1.1
Paleo-Indian Period
The first human occupation of south-central Ontario begins just after the end of the Wisconsin Glacial Period.
Although there were a complex series of ice retreats and advances which played a large role in shaping the local
topography, south-central Ontario was finally ice free by 12,500 years ago.
The first human settlement can be traced back 11,000 years, when this area was settled by Native groups that
had been living south of the Great Lakes. The period of these early Native inhabitants is known as the PaleoIndian Period (Ellis and Deller 1990).
Our current understanding of settlement patterns of Early Paleo-Indian peoples suggests that small bands,
consisting of probably no more than 25-35 individuals, followed a pattern of seasonal mobility extending over
large territories. One of the most thoroughly studied of these groups followed a seasonal round that extended
from as far south as Chatham to the Horseshoe Valley north of Barrie. Early Paleo-Indian sites tend to be
located in elevated locations on well-drained loamy soils. Many of the known sites were located on former beach
ridges associated with glacial lakes. There are a few extremely large Early Paleo-Indian sites, such as one
located close to Parkhill, Ontario, which covered as much as six hectares. It appears that these sites were
formed when the same general locations were occupied for short periods of time over the course of many years.
Given their placement in locations conducive to the interception of migratory mammals such as caribou, it has
been suggested that they may represent communal hunting camps. There are also smaller Early Paleo-Indian
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
4
LANDS
camps scattered throughout the interior of southwestern and south-central Ontario, usually situated adjacent to
wetlands.
The most recent research suggests that population densities were very low during the Early Paleo-Indian Period
(Ellis and Deller 1990: 54). Because this is the case, Early Paleo-Indian sites are exceedingly rare.
While the Late Paleo-Indian Period (8400-8000 B.C.) is more recent, it has been less well researched, and is
consequently more poorly understood. By this time the environment of south-central Ontario was coming to be
dominated by closed coniferous forests with some minor deciduous elements. It seems that many of the large
game species that had been hunted in the early part of the Paleo-Indian Period had either moved further north,
or as in the case of the mastodons and mammoths, become extinct.
Like the early Paleo-Indian peoples, late Paleo-Indian peoples covered large territories as they moved about in
response to seasonal resource fluctuations. On a province wide basis Late Paleo-Indian projectile points are far
more common than Early Paleo-Indian materials, suggesting a relative increase in population.
The end of the Late Paleo-Indian Period was heralded by numerous technological and cultural innovations that
appeared throughout the Archaic Period. These innovations may be best explained in relation to the dynamic
nature of the post-glacial environment and region-wide population increases.
A number of sites with Paleo-Indian components have been identified to the west in Haldimand County, such as
at Wardell’s Creek Ullman (AfGw-95) (Golder 2013b). Few of these appear to represent single-component
Paleo-Indian sites, and instead, many were reused later during the pre-contact and also historic Euro-Canadian
Periods. This site is a large multi-component pre-contact Aboriginal lithic workshop and camp site. Golder’s
Stage 3 assessment of this location resulted in the recovery of three diagnostic items. One of two projectile
points is a Gainey type dated to the Early Paleo-Indian Period circa 9,000- 8,400B.C. (Ellis and Deller 1990:4246). A second projectile point is a midsection fragment of a point with serrated edges, most characteristic of the
Nettling type dated to the Early Archaic Corner-Notched horizon circa 8,000-6,000 B.C. (Ellis, Kenyon and
Spence 1990:73). A projectile point preform is classified as a Lamoka point dating to the Late Archaic Narrow
Point horizon circa 2,000-1,800 B.C. (Ellis, Kenyon and Spence 1990:97). The Gainey Paleo point was surface
collected from the extreme northeast edge of the site area.
A wide variety of other formal and informal lithic tools were recovered here including knives, bifaces, scrapers,
spokeshaves, gravers and perforators. There are also retouched flakes, utilized chert flakes, several chert cores
and over 2,300 pieces of chipping detritus. The assemblage demonstrates that a variety of activities took place
here. These activities included the manufacture and maintenance of lithic tools including points and bifaces, lithic
reduction, and specialized activities which resulted in the manufacture and/or use of specialized tools such as
knives, scrapers, spokeshaves, gravers and perforators. The recovery of numerous bifaces, chert cores and
chipping detritus lead to the conclusion that lithic reduction was a major activity at this location.
1.3.1.2
Archaic Period
During the Early Archaic Period (8000-6000 B.C.), the jack and red pine forests that characterized the Late
Paleo-Indian environment were replaced by forests dominated by white pine with some associated deciduous
trees (Ellis, Kenyon and Spence 1990:68-69). One of the more notable changes in the Early Archaic Period is
the appearance of side and corner-notched projectile points. Other significant innovations include the
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
5
LANDS
introduction of ground stone tools such as celts and axes, suggesting the beginnings of a simple woodworking
industry. The presence of these often large and not easily portable tools suggests there may have been some
reduction in the degree of seasonal movement, although it is still suspected that population densities were quite
low, and band territories large.
During the Middle Archaic Period (6000-2500 B.C.) the trend to more diverse toolkits continued, as the presence
of netsinkers suggest that fishing was becoming an important aspect of the subsistence economy. It was also at
this time that "bannerstones" were first manufactured.
Bannerstones are carefully crafted ground stone devices that served as a counterbalance for "atlatls" or spearthrowers. Another characteristic of the Middle Archaic is an increased reliance on local, often poor quality chert
resources for the manufacturing of projectile points. It seems that during earlier periods, when groups occupied
large territories, it was possible for them to visit a primary outcrop of high quality chert at least once during their
seasonal round. However, during the Middle Archaic, groups inhabited smaller territories that often did not
encompass a source of high quality raw material. In these instances lower quality materials which had been
deposited by the glaciers in the local till and river gravels were utilized.
This reduction in territory size was probably the result of gradual region-wide population growth which led to the
infilling of the landscape. This process forced a reorganization of Native subsistence practices, as more people
had to be supported from the resources of a smaller area. During the latter part of the Middle Archaic,
technological innovations such as fish weirs have been documented as well as stone tools especially designed
for the preparation of wild plant foods.
It is also during the latter part of the Middle Archaic Period that long distance trade routes began to develop,
spanning the northeastern part of the continent. In particular, native copper tools manufactured from a source
located northwest of Lake Superior were being widely traded (Ellis, Kenyon and Spence 1990:66). By 3500 B.C.
the local environment had stabilized in a near modern form (Ellis, Kenyon and Spence 1990:69).
During the Late Archaic (2500-950 B.C.) the trend towards decreased territory size and a broadening
subsistence base continued. Late Archaic sites are far more numerous than either Early or Middle Archaic sites,
and it seems that the local population had definitely expanded. It is during the Late Archaic that the first true
cemeteries appear. Before this time individuals were interred close to the location where they died. During the
Late Archaic, if an individual died while his or her group happened to be at some distance from their group
cemetery, the bones would be kept until they could be placed in the cemetery. Consequently, it is not unusual to
find disarticulated skeletons, or even skeletons lacking minor elements such as fingers, toes or ribs, in Late
Archaic burial pits.
The appearance of cemeteries during the Late Archaic has been interpreted as a response to increased
population densities and competition between local groups for access to resources. It is argued that cemeteries
would have provided strong symbolic claims over a local territory and its resources. These cemeteries are often
located on heights of well-drained sandy/gravel soils adjacent to major watercourses.
This suggestion of increased territoriality is also consistent with the regionalized variation present in Late Archaic
projectile point styles. It was during the Late Archaic that distinct local styles of projectile points appear. Also
during the Late Archaic the trade networks which had been established during the Middle Archaic continued to
flourish. Native copper from northern Ontario and marine shell artifacts from as far away as the Mid-Atlantic
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
6
LANDS
coast are frequently encountered as grave goods. Other artifacts such as polished stone pipes and banded slate
gorgets also appear on Late Archaic sites. One of the more unusual and interesting of the Late Archaic artifacts
is the "birdstone". Birdstones are small, bird-like effigies usually manufactured from green banded slate.
Numerous Archaic Period sites have been identified in Haldimand County to the west (e.g. Golder 2013a). Many
of these witnessed reuse or reoccupation throughout the long span of the Archaic Period. One such site is
Stantec Site #3 (AfGx-712) (Golder 2014). Based on the combined results of the Stage 2, Stage 3 and Stage 4
assessments, the site is interpreted as multicomponent pre-contact Aboriginal camp and/or lithic workshop with
occupations spanning the Late Paleo-Indian to Late Archaic Periods. A range of activities took place here,
including lithic reduction (cores, chipping detritus, hammerstones), tool production (projectile points, bifaces,
knives), tool maintenance and specialized activities which necessitated the use of, or resulted in the deposition
of retouched flakes, utilized flakes, spokeshaves, scrapers, gravers and perforators. The site discussed herein is
of an age or time period of such antiquity that, in conjunction with localized soil types and conditions, means that
there was no preservation of organic materials such as bone, antler, wood and leather/hide. However, the formal
and informal tools such as projectile points, bifaces, knives, spokeshaves, scrapers, gravers, perforators,
grinding stones and utilized flakes that were found at this site indicate that such organic materials were being
used and worked.
1.3.1.3
Woodland Period
The Early Woodland Period (940 to 400 B.C.) is distinguished from the Late Archaic Period primarily by the
addition of ceramic technology. While the introduction of pottery provides a useful demarcation point for
archaeologists, it may have made less difference in the lives of the Early Woodland peoples. The first pots were
very crudely constructed, thick walled, and friable. It has been suggested that they were used in the processing
of nut oils by boiling crushed nut fragments in water and skimming off the oil. These vessels were not easily
portable, and individual pots must not have enjoyed a long use life. There have also been numerous Early
Woodland sites located at which no pottery was found, suggesting that these poorly constructed, undecorated
vessels had yet to assume a central position in the day-to-day lives of Early Woodland peoples.
Other than the introduction of this rather limited ceramic technology, the life-ways of Early Woodland peoples
show a great deal of continuity with the preceding Late Archaic Period. For instance, birdstones continue to be
manufactured, although the Early Woodland varieties have "pop-eyes" which protrude from the sides of their
heads.
Likewise, the thin, well-made projectile points which were produced during the terminal part of the Archaic Period
continue in use. However, the Early Woodland variants were side-notched rather than corner-notched, giving
them a slightly altered and distinctive appearance.
The trade networks which were established in the Middle and Late Archaic also continued to function, although
there does not appear to have been as much traffic in marine shell during the Early Woodland Period. During the
last 200 years of the Early Woodland Period, projectile points manufactured from high quality raw materials from
the American Midwest begin to appear on sites in southwestern Ontario.
In terms of settlement and subsistence patterns, the Middle Woodland (300 B.C. to 500 A.D.) provides a major
point of departure from the Archaic and Early Woodland Periods. While Middle Woodland peoples still relied on
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
7
LANDS
hunting and gathering to meet their subsistence requirements, fish were becoming an even more important part
of the diet.
In addition, Middle Woodland peoples relied much more extensively on ceramic technology. Middle Woodland
vessels are often heavily decorated with hastily impressed designs covering the entire exterior surface and
upper portion of the vessel interior. Consequently, even very small fragments of Middle Woodland vessels are
easily identifiable.
It is also at the beginning of the Middle Woodland Period that rich, densely occupied sites appear along the
margins of major rivers and lakes. While these areas had been utilized by earlier peoples, Middle Woodland
sites are significantly different in that the same location was occupied off and on for as long as several hundred
years. Because this is the case, rich deposits of artifacts often accumulated. Unlike earlier seasonally utilized
locations, these Middle Woodland sites appear to have functioned as base camps, occupied off and on over the
course of the year. There are also numerous small upland Middle Woodland sites, many of which can be
interpreted as special purpose camps from which localized resource patches were exploited. This shift towards a
greater degree of sedentism continues the trend witnessed from at least Middle Archaic times, and provides a
prelude to the developments that follow during the Late Woodland Period.
The Late Woodland Period began with a shift in settlement and subsistence patterns involving an increasing
reliance on corn horticulture (Fox 1990:185; Smith 1990; Williamson 1990:312). Corn may have been introduced
into southwestern Ontario from the American Midwest as early as 600 A.D. or a few centuries before. However,
it did not become a dietary staple until at least three to four hundred years later, and then the cultivation of corn
gradually spread into south-central and southeastern Ontario.
During this period, of the early Late Woodland, particularly with the Princess Point Complex (circa A.D. 5001050), a number of archaeological material changes have been noted: the appearance of triangular projectile
point styles, first seen during this period begin with the Levanna form; cord-wrapped stick decorated ceramics
using the paddle and anvil forming technique take over from the mainly coil-manufactured and dentate stamped
and pseudo-scallop shell impressed ceramics; and if not appearance, increasing use of maize (Zea mays) as a
food source are three visible changes (e.g. Bursey 1995; Crawford et al. 1997; Ferris and Spence 1995:103;
Martin 2004 [2007]; Ritchie 1971:31-32; Spence et al. 1990; Williamson 1990:299). This period is widely
acclaimed as the beginning of agricultural life ways in south-central Ontario. Researchers have suggested that a
warming trend during this time may have encouraged the spread of maize into southern Ontario, providing a
greater number of frost-free days (Stothers and Yarnell 1977). Shifts in the location of sites have also been
identified with an emphasis on riverine, lacustrine and wetland occupations set against a more diffuse use of the
landscape during the Middle Woodland (Dieterman 2001). One such site, located on the Grand River near
Cayuga, Ontario is the Grand Banks site (AfGx-3). As of 1997, 40 maize kernels and 29 cupules had been
recovered at this site (Crawford et al. 1997). The earliest AMS radiocarbon assay run on maize from palaeosol II
produced a date of approximately AD 500 (Crawford et al. 1997:116). This site is interpreted as a long-term
basecamp that may have been used year-round or nearly year-round (Crawford and Smith 1996:785). This
growing sedentism is seen as a departure from Middle Woodland hunting and gathering and may reflect growing
investment in care of garden plots of maize (Smith 1997:15). The riverine location of Grand Banks (AfGx-3) may
have also provided light, nutrient-rich soil for agriculture (Crawford et al. 1998). While Levanna projectile points
are formal tools, Princess Point Complex toolkits are predominantly characterized by informal or expedient flake
tools and ground stone and bone artifacts are rare (Ferris and Spence 1995:103; Shen 2000). At Grand Banks,
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
8
LANDS
experimental archaeology suggests that chert flakes were put to a variety of use tasks, from butchering to boneworking to wood-working to plant-working. Formal bifaces and projectile points had less evidence of usewear
(Shen 2000). Local cherts appear to have been used, although Onondaga, albeit also a local resource, was
preferred at Grand Banks (AfGx-3) (Shen 1997).
While the early Late Woodland was a time of growing sedentism and witnessed the growth of maize farming by
c. A.D. 1000, ephemeral, short-term sites such as this would have been found throughout Haldimand County as
people worked away from their main base camps. A small site of this period Bull’s Point (AhGx-1) was
investigated in Cootes Paradise, Hamilton, Ontario. A maize-producing feature was located at Bull’s Point
(AhGx-1) (Smith 1997).
The first agricultural villages in southern Ontario date to the 10th century A.D. Unlike the riverine base camps of
the Middle Woodland Period, these sites are located in the uplands, on well-drained sandy soils. Categorized as
"Early Ontario Iroquoian" (900-1300 A.D.), many archaeologists believe that it is possible to trace a direct line
from the Iroquoian groups which later inhabited southern Ontario at the time of first European contact, back to
these early villagers.
Village sites dating between 900 and 1300 A.D., share many attributes with the historically reported Iroquoian
sites, including the presence of longhouses and sometimes palisades. However, these early longhouses were
actually not all that large, averaging only 12.4 metres in length (Dodd et al. 1990:349; Williamson 1990:304-305).
It is also quite common to find the outlines of overlapping house structures, suggesting that these villages were
occupied long enough to necessitate re-building.
The Jesuits reported that the Huron moved their villages once every 10-15 years, when the nearby soils had
been depleted by farming and conveniently collected firewood grew scarce (Pearce 2010). It seems likely that
Early Ontario Iroquoians occupied their villages for considerably longer, as they relied less heavily on corn than
did later groups, and their villages were much smaller, placing less demand on nearby resources.
Judging by the presence of carbonized corn kernels and cob fragments recovered from sub-floor storage pits,
agriculture was becoming a vital part of the Early Ontario Iroquoian economy. However, it had not reached the
level of importance it would in the Middle and Late Ontario Iroquoian Periods. There is ample evidence to
suggest that more traditional resources continued to be exploited, and comprised a large part of the subsistence
economy. Seasonally occupied special purpose sites relating to deer procurement, nut collection, and fishing
activities, have all been identified. While beans are known to have been cultivated later in the Late Woodland
Period, they have yet to be identified on Early Ontario Iroquoian sites.
The Middle Ontario Iroquoian Period (1300-1400 A.D.) witnessed several interesting developments in terms of
settlement patterns and artifact assemblages. Changes in ceramic styles have been carefully documented,
allowing the placement of sites in the first or second half of this 100-year period. Moreover, villages, which
averaged approximately 0.6 hectares in extent during the Early Ontario Iroquoian Period, now consistently range
between one and two hectares.
House lengths also change dramatically, more than doubling to an average of 30 metres, while houses of up to
45 metres have been documented. This radical increase in longhouse length has been variously interpreted.
The simplest possibility is that increased house length is the result of a gradual, natural increase in population
(Dodd et al. 1990:323, 350, 357; Smith 1990). However, this does not account for the sudden shift in longhouse
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
9
LANDS
lengths around 1300 A.D. Other possible explanations involve changes in economic and socio-political
organization (Dodd et al. 1990:357). One suggestion is that during the Middle Ontario Iroquoian Period small
villages were amalgamating to form larger communities for mutual defense (Dodd et al. 1990:357). If this was
the case, the more successful military leaders may have been able to absorb some of the smaller family groups
into their households, thereby requiring longer structures. This hypothesis draws support from the fact that some
sites had up to seven rows of palisades, indicating at least an occasional need for strong defensive measures.
There are, however, other Middle Ontario Iroquoian villages which had no palisades present (Dodd et al. 1990).
More research is required to evaluate these competing interpretations.
The lay-out of houses within villages also changes dramatically by 1300 A.D. During the Early Ontario Iroquoian
Period villages were haphazardly planned at best, with houses oriented in various directions. During the Middle
Ontario Iroquoian Period villages are organized into two or more discrete groups of tightly spaced, parallel
aligned, longhouses. It has been suggested that this change in village organization may indicate the initial
development of the clans which were a characteristic of the historically known Iroquoian peoples (Dodd et al.
1990:358).
Initially at least, the Late Ontario Iroquoian Period (1400-1650 A.D.) continues many of the trends which have
been documented for the proceeding century. For instance, between 1400 and 1450 A.D. house lengths
continue to grow, reaching an average length of 62 metres. One longhouse excavated on a site southwest of
Kitchener stretched an incredible 123 metres (Lennox and Fitzgerald 1990:444-445). After 1450 A.D., house
lengths begin to decrease, with houses dating between 1500-1580 A.D. averaging only 30 metres in length.
Why house lengths decrease after 1450 A.D. is poorly understood, although it is believed that the even shorter
houses witnessed on historic Period sites can be at least partially attributed to the population reductions
associated with the introduction of European diseases such as smallpox (Lennox and Fitzgerald 1990:405, 410).
Village size also continues to expand throughout the Late Ontario Iroquoian Period, with many of the larger
villages showing signs of periodic expansions. The Late Middle Ontario Iroquoian Period and the first century of
the Late Ontario Iroquoian Period was a time of village amalgamation. One large village situated just north of
Toronto has been shown to have expanded on no fewer than five occasions. These large villages were often
heavily defended with numerous rows of wooden palisades, suggesting that defence may have been one of the
rationales for smaller groups banding together. Late Ontario Iroquoian village expansion has been clearly
documented at several sites throughout southwestern and south-central Ontario. The ongoing excavations at the
Lawson site, a large Late Iroquoian village located in southwestern Ontario, has shown that the original village
was expanded by at least twenty percent to accommodate the construction of nine additional longhouses
(Anderson 2009).
During the late 1600s and early 1700s, the French explorers and missionaries reported a large population of
Iroquoian peoples clustered around the western end of Lake Ontario. The area which was later to become
Halton Region was known to have been occupied by ancestors of two different Late Ontario Iroquoian groups
who evolved to become the historically known Neutral and Huron. For this reason the Late Ontario Iroquoian
groups which occupied parts of south-central Ontario prior to the arrival of the French are often identified as
"Prehistoric Neutral" and “Prehistoric Huron” (Lennox and Fitzgerald 1990; Smith 1990:283).
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
10
LANDS
1.3.2
Regional Physiography
The LSA is situated within the Haldimand Clay Plain (Chapman & Putnam 1986:156-159).
Although it was all submerged in Lake Warren, the till is not all buried by stratified clay; it comes to
the surface generally in low morainic ridges in the north. In fact, there is in that area a confused
intermixture of stratified clay and till. The northern part has more relief than the southern part
where the typically level lake plains occur.
(Chapman and Putnam, 1984:156)
The Haldimand Clay Plain is situated between the Niagara Escarpment and Lake Erie, excluding the fruit belt
below the Niagara Peninsula. The region covers 3,497 km². The southeastern portion of the region is fairly level;
this contrasts the rest of the region’s scattering of moraines. The principal soil of the area is black loam and clay
loam, with an equal amount of gravelly and sandy soils in the area. Sandy loam is present, and a small amount
of heavy clay can be found. The majority of the terrain is flat, but some areas are gently rolling. None of the land
is too rocky to cultivate, and there is no wet or springy land, although some marshes are present.
The soils of the former Welland County are mainly heavy clay and the southern part of the Regional Municipality
of Niagara is poorly drained with Wainfleet and Humberstone marshes, featuring peat bogs (Chapman and
Putnam 1984:157; Ontario Division of Mines 1972).
1.3.3
Existing Conditions and Current Land Use of the LSA
The portion of the LSA containing both Location 1 (AgGt-198) and Location 2 (AgGt-199) consists of a relatively
flat agricultural field, a large portion of which was recently used as a tree nursery. The northern extremity of the
LSA, adjacent to Canboro Road East is unploughed and the northeastern corner of the LSA contains a few
trees. The soil within the LSA is a dark brown silty-clay loam topsoil overtop of a reddish silty clay subsoil as
indicated by test pitting (Image 13).
1.3.4
1.3.4.1
Documented Archaeological Sites and Surveys
Documented Archaeological Assessments of Land Adjacent to the LSA
Mayer Heritage Consultants Inc. (MHCI) have completed numerous archaeological assessments within the
vicinity of the LSA. In 2007 MHCI completed a Stage 1 archaeological assessment which covered the LSA and
adjacent lands to the south, which recommended that Stage 2 assessment be performed on all land within the
larger study area, including the LSA, that are to be developed (MHCI 2007a).
MHCI also completed Stages 1 through 4 archaeological assessments and mitigation on the property to the
south of the LSA (MHCI 2007b, 2007c, 2007d). These reports variously documented two temporally nondiagnostic pre-contact Aboriginal lithic scatters, AgGt-148 and AgGt-151, one mid-nineteenth century Euro
Canadian site, AgGt-150, and two Late Archaic sites River Realty 2 (AgGt-147) and AgGt-149. AgGt-149 also
has a Late Woodland component.
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
11
LANDS
In preparation for the widening of Regional Road 20 (Canboro Road East), immediately north of the LSA, ASI
conducted a Stage 1 (ASI 2003) and Stage 2 (ASI 2007) archaeological assessment. No archaeological
resources were identified during either of these assessments.
A query of the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database, maintained by MTCS, was undertaken on June 19, 2014,
for Golder’s Stage 2 assessment of the LSA (Golder 2014) to determine how many archaeological sites are
registered within 1 km of the LSA. Fifteen archaeological sites are registered within 1 km of the LSA as indicated
in Table 2.
Table 2: Registered Archaeological Sites Within 1 km of the East Fonthill Lands LSA
Borden
Site Name
Cultural
Affiliation
Site Type
Researcher
AgGt-33
Bell
Late Archaic
Campsite
ASI 1984
AgGt-34
Goar
Late Archaic
Chipping Station
ASI 1984
AgGt-147
River Realty 2
Late Archaic
Not Determined
MHCI 2007
AgGt-148
n/a
Undetermined
Pre-Contact
Lithic Scatter
MHCI 2007
AgGt-149
n/a
Late Archaic
Lithic Scatter
MHCI 2007
AgGt-150
n/a
Euro-Canadian
Homestead
MHCI 2007
AgGt-151
Harkes
Undetermined
Pre-Contact
Lithic Scatter
MHCI 2007
AgGt-153
Fonthill 1
Euro-Canadian
Homestead
MHCI 2007
AgGt-154
Fonthill 2
Undetermined
Pre-Contact
Lithic Scatter
MHCI 2007
AgGt-155
Fonthill 3
Findspot
MHCI 2007
AgGt-156
Fonthill 4
Findspot
MHCI 2007
AgGt-162
AgGt-162
Euro-Candian
Residential
Archaeologix 2008
AgGt-164
AgGt164
Undetermined
Pre-Contact
Lithic Scatter
Archaeologix 2008
AgGt-165
AgGt165
Lithic Scatter
Archaeologix 2008
AgGt-166
AgGt166
Lithic Scatter
Archaeologix 2008
1.3.4.2
Undetermined
Pre-Contact
Undetermined
Pre-Contact
Undetermined
Pre-Contact
Undetermined
Pre-Contact
Documented Archaeological Assessments of Land Within the LSA
The Stage 1 archaeological assessment which covered the LSA was completed in 2007 by Mayer Heritage
Consultants Inc. (MHCI 2007a). This assessment recommended that Stage 2 assessment be performed on all
land within the LSA that are to be developed (MHCI 2007a).
A Stage 2 archaeological assessment was carried out on the LSA by Golder in June 2014 and consisted of
pedestrian survey of approximately 11.7 ha of ploughed agricultural field at five metre intervals and
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
12
LANDS
approximately 1.2 ha of test pit survey at five metre intervals (Golder 2014). The Stage 2 archaeological
assessment resulted in the identification of three pre-contact lithic scatters, designated Location 2 (AgGt-199),
Location 3 and Location 4, as well as one pre-contact isolated findspot, designated Location 1 (AgGt-198).
The East Fonthill Lands Location 1 (AgGt-198) findspot was identified during Stage 2 pedestrian survey and
consisted of an isolated Lamoka side-notched projectile point made from Onondaga chert, dating to the Late
Archaic Period. Because Late Archaic occupation has been documented in the vicinity of the LSA at the River
Realty 2 (AgGt-147) and AgGt-149 archaeological sites (MHCI 2007b, 2007c, 2007d) this site was
recommended for Stage 3 archaeological assessment. It was recommended that no Stage 3 CSP was required
at Location 1 (AgGt-198) because the Stage 2 pedestrian survey was performed to Stage 3 CSP standards and
that the assessment could proceed directly to test unit excavation. It was recommended that test excavation
units be located on a five by five metre grid with additional off-grid units excavated amounting to 20% of the grid
unit total.
The East Fonthill Lands Location 2 (AgGt-199) site was identified during Stage 2 pedestrian survey and
consisted of a pre-contact lithic scatter containing 10 pieces of chipping detritus, two scrapers, one graver and
one spokeshave, all of Onondaga chert. The artifact scatter measured approximately 4 m x 30 m along a northsouth axis. Because Late Archaic occupation was present within the LSA the immediate vicinity, and it is
possible that the scrapers, graver and spokeshave, as well as the chipping detritus at Location 2 (AgGt-199),
represent a Late Archaic activity area, Location 2 (AgGt-199) was recommended for Stage 3 archaeological
assessment. It was recommended that test excavation units be located on a five by five metre grid with
additional off-grid units excavated amounting to 20% of the grid unit total.
The East Fonthill Lands Location 3 lithic scatter consisted of one scraper and one piece of chipping detritus,
both of Onondaga chert, located approximately 15 m apart. Because only two non-diagnostic artifacts were
recovered it was determined that the cultural heritage value or interest of Location 3 had been sufficiently
assessed and documented through the Stage 2 archaeological assessment and it was not recommended for
Stage 3 archaeological assessment.
The East Fonthill Lands Location 4 lithic scatter consisted of seven non-diagnostic Onondaga chert flakes in
an area measuring approximately 35 x 30 m. Because of the low density and non-diagnostic nature of Location 4
is was determined that Location 4 had been sufficiently assessed and documented through the Stage 2
archaeological assessment and it was not recommended for Stage 3 archaeological assessment.
1.3.5
Dates of Archaeological Fieldwork
The fieldwork portion of the Stage 3 archaeological assessment Location 1 (AgGt-198) and Location 2 (AgGt199) took place on July 3, 4, 11, and August 5, 2014 (see Table 5).
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
13
LANDS
2.0
FIELD METHODS
The fieldwork portion of the Stage 3 archaeological assessment of the East Fonthill Lands Location 1 (AgGt-198)
and Location 2 (AgGt-199) took place on July 3, 4 11, and August 5, 2014 under the archaeological consulting
licence P346 issued to Barbara Leskovec (East Fonthill Lands Location 1 [AgGt-198]: PIF P346-0039-2014; East
Fonthill Lands Location 2 [AgGt-199]: PIF P346-0040-2014). On July 3, 4 and 11, 2014, Carey Matthews (R404)
was the field director for the Stage 3 field work and she had the duly delegated responsibility for some or all of
the day-to-day supervision of the carrying out of the archaeological fieldwork at the above named archaeological
sites as per Section 12 of the MTCS 2013 Terms and Conditions of Archaeological Licences. On August 5,
2014, Carey Matthews was unavailable and Martha Tildesley (R399) was the field director for the Stage 3 field
work and she had the duly delegated responsibility for some or all of the day-to-day supervision of the carrying
out of the archaeological fieldwork at the above named archaeological sites as per Section 12 of the MTCS 2013
Terms and Conditions of Archaeological Licences.
2.1
Controlled Surface Pick-up (CSP)
In accordance with the recommendations of the Stage 2 report, no controlled surface pick-up (CSP) was
conducted during the Stage 3 archaeological assessment of either archaeological site. The Stage 2 pedestrian
survey of both Location 1 (AgGt-198) and Location 2 (AgGt-199) took place on June 3, 2014 and was performed
to Stage 3 CSP standards (Golder 2014) as per Section 3.2.1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant
Archaeologists (MTCS 2011). No change in field conditions had occurred between the Stage 2 pedestrian
survey and the start of the Stage 3 fieldwork save for a small amount of vegetation growth.
2.2
Test Unit Excavation
A series of 1 x 1 m test units were excavated at both Location 1 (AgGt-198) and Location 2 (AgGt-199). Datum
stakes and a grid were established at both sites for controlled excavation of test units. Each 5 m x 5 m square in
the grid is referred to by the intersection coordinates of its southwest corner. Each 5 m grid square was divided
into 25 1 x 1 m test units (sub-squares), with sub-square number one located in the southwest corner of the 5 m
square, number five in the southeast corner, number six located immediately north of number one, and so on
(Image 1).
Each 1 x 1 m test unit excavated at both sites was excavated by hand in stratigraphic levels (Images 2 to 13). As
is typical of archaeological sites discovered in ploughed agricultural fields, most test units only contained a single
stratigraphic level made up of the ploughzone itself. Underlying the ploughzone was subsoil, which was cleaned
and examined for subsurface cultural features. If no subsurface cultural features were evident, at least five cm of
subsoil was excavated to determine whether it contained archaeological resources (Image 11, 12 and 13). All
soil excavated was screened through 6 mm mesh to facilitate the identification and recovery of archaeological
resources. All artifacts identified within a test unit were collected, retained, recorded and catalogued by their test
unit’s grid unit designation.
The test unit excavation methods employed at Location 1 (AgGt-198) and Location 2 (AgGt-199) and described
here meet the standards and guidelines for archaeological fieldwork as described in the the Standards and
Guidelines for Archaeological Consultants (MTCS 2011) and in particular all relevant standards and guidelines in
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
14
LANDS
Section 3.2.2 and Section 3.2.3. The test unit excavation is desribed below in further detail for both Location 1
(AgGt-198) and Location 2 (AgGt-199).
2.2.1
Location 1 (AgGt-198) Test Unit Excavation
The placement strategy of test units at Location 1 (AgGt-198) was designed to follow a 5 m grid as per Table 3.1
Standards 1 and 2 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011) as it was not
clear whether the level of cultural heritage value or interest of this isolated pre-contact findspot would result in a
recommendation to proceed to Stage 4.
A total of 5 test units were excavated at Location 1 (AgGt-198) (Table 3; Map 4). One unit, 300E 500N:01 was
placed directly over the location of the Stage 2 isolated findspot. Four additional units were placed five metres in
all cardinal directions from the central unit. The ploughzone-subsoil interface at Location 1 (AgGt-198) ranged
from 23 cm to 28 cm below surface with an average depth of 25 cm below surface.
Table 3: Location 1 (AgGt-198) Test Unit Descriptions
Unit
Grid or Additional
Strata: Depth (cm)
Comments
295E 500N:01
Additional Unit
Ploughzone: 0-25
-
300E 495N:01
Additional Unit
Ploughzone: 0-24
1 historical artifact
300E 500N:01
Grid Unit
Ploughzone: 0-25
-
300E 505N:01
Additional Unit
Ploughzone: 0-28
-
305E 500N:01
Additional Unit
Ploughzone: 0-23
3 historical artifacts
Despite careful scrutiny, no subsurface cultural features were observed at Location 1 (AgGt-198).
2.2.2
Location 2 (AgGt-199) Test Unit Excavation
The placement strategy of test units at Location 2 (AgGt-199) was designed to follow a 5 m grid as per Table 3.1
Standards 1 and 2 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011) as it was not
clear whether the level of cultural heritage value or interest of this small pre-contact archaeological site would
result in a recommendation to proceed to Stage 4.
Upon discussion with MTCS (Horne 2014 pers comm) it was determined that due to the linear nature of the
Stage 2 artifact scatter it would be best to place a row of test units up the centre of the Stage 2 scatter, rather
than have the units bracket the scatter on either side. It was felt that this strategy was most likely to capture
evidence of any subsurface cultural feature that may have been partially disturbed by ploughing in the recent
past leading to the distribution of the artifacts recovered during the comprehensive Stage 2 pedestrian survey.
This conversation, and course of action, forms part of the Stage 2 recommendations for Stage 3 work at
Location 2 (AgGt-199) (Golder 2014).
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
15
LANDS
A total of 24 test units were excavated at Location 2 (AgGt-199), 20 grid units and an additional four in-fill units
totalling 20% of the grid units were excavated as per Table 3.1 Standard 2 of the Standards and Guidelines for
Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011) (Table 4; Map 5). The ploughzone-subsoil interface at Location 1
(AgGt-198) ranged from 15 cm to 26 cm below surface with an average depth of 19 cm below surface.
After completion of the test unit excavation, the placement and yield of the test excavation units, as well as the
area recommended for Stage 4 mitigation, as depicted in Map 5 and Map 6, were reviewed by the MTCS and it
was agreed that the no further Stage 3 test units were required at Location 2 (AgGt-199) to determine the extent
of the site or its level of cultural heritage value or interest (Appendix C).
Table 4: Location 2 (AgGt-199) Test Unit Descriptions
Unit
Grid or Additional
Strata: Depth (cm)
Comments
290E 475N:01
Grid Unit
Ploughzone: 0-20
-
290E 475N:13
Additional Unit
Ploughzone: 0-17
-
290E 480N:01
Grid Unit
Ploughzone: 0-15
-
290E 485N:01
Grid Unit
Ploughzone: 0-19
-
295E 475N:01
Grid Unit
Ploughzone: 0-18
-
295E 480N:01
Grid Unit
Ploughzone: 0-18
-
295E 480N:13
Additional Unit
Ploughzone: 0-16
-
295E 485N:01
Grid Unit
Ploughzone: 0-23
-
295E 490N:01
Grid Unit
Ploughzone: 0-26
-
300E 475N:01
Grid Unit
Ploughzone: 0-22
-
300E 480N:01
Grid Unit
Ploughzone: 0-21
-
300E 485N:01
Grid Unit
Ploughzone: 0-20
Possible Feature
300E 485N:03
Additional Unit
Ploughzone: 0-17
-
300E 485N:11
Additional Unit
Ploughzone: 0-18
-
300E 490N:01
Grid Unit
Ploughzone: 0-18
-
300E 495N:01
Grid Unit
Ploughzone: 0-15
-
300E 500N:01
Grid Unit
Ploughzone: 0-16
-
300E 505N:01
Grid Unit
Ploughzone: 0-18
-
305E 480N:01
Grid Unit
Ploughzone: 0-24
-
305E 485N:01
Grid Unit
Ploughzone: 0-15
-
305E 490N:01
Grid Unit
Ploughzone: 0-16
-
305E 495N:01
Grid Unit
Ploughzone: 0-16
-
305E 500N:01
Grid Unit
Ploughzone: 0-19
-
305E 505N:01
Grid Unit
Ploughzone: 0-23
-
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
16
LANDS
2.2.3
Location 2 (AgGw-199) Feature 1 Excavation
A single possible subsurface feature was identified within unit 300E 485N:01. When Feature 1 was exposed its
function and date were unclear. It was determined that, to better inform the Stage 3 recommendations of
Location 2 (AgGw-199), Feature 1 would be excavated to Stage 4 standards during the Stage 3 archaeological
assessment as per Section 3.2.2, Guideline 3 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists
(MTCS 2011). Feature 1 was completely exposed within unit 300E 485N:01 and its surface cleaned by trowel. It
was drawn and photographed in plan view prior to being excavated by hand. It was sectioned and its profile was
drawn and photographed (see Images 11, 12, 14 and 15). It was determined through excavation that Feature 1
was a modern post mould and not an archaeological feature.
2.3
Weather, Lighting, and Visibility
The fieldwork portion of the Stage 3 archaeological assessment of East Fonthill Lands Location 1 (AgGt-198)
and Location 2 (AgGt-199) which took place on July 3, 4, 11 and August 5, 2014, was conducted when the
weather, lighting and visibility conditions all permitted good visibility (Table 5). At no time was work conducted
when weather, lighting or visibility conditions were detrimental to the observation or recovery of archaeological
resources.
Table 5: Summary of Weather and Lighting Conditions During the Fieldwork Portion of the Stage 3
Archaeological Assessment
Date
Weather
Lighting
July 3, 2014
Overcast and warm, approximately 22 degrees Celsius
Good
July 4, 2014
Sunny and warm, approximately 24 degrees Celsius
Good
July 11, 2014
Sunny and hot, approximately 27 degrees Celsius
Good
August 5, 2014
Overcast with periods of light rain, approximately 20 degrees Celsius
Good
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
17
LANDS
3.0
RECORD OF FINDS
Artifacts recovered from the Stage 3 archaeological assessment of East Fonthill Lands Location 1 (AgGt-198)
and Location 2 (AgGt-199) are contained in one banker’s box, measuring 40.0 x 31.5 x 25.0 cm, divided by site,
and will be temporarily housed at Golder’s Mississauga office until formal arrangements can be made for their
transfer to an MTCS approved collections facility. An inventory of the documentary record generated during the
archaeological assessment is provided in Table 6.
Table 6: Inventory of Documentary Record
Document Type
Current Location of
Document Type
Additional Comments
Quantity
Field Notes
Golder offices in
Mississauga
In original field book, photocopied in
project file, and stored digitally on
Golder server
L1: 6 pages
L2: 15 pages
Maps Provided by
Client
Golder offices in
Mississauga
In project file and stored digitally on
Golder server
L1: 2 maps
L2: 2 maps
Digital Photographs
Golder offices in
Mississauga
Stored digitally on Golder server
L1: 40 photos; 128 MB
L2: 49 photos; 192 MB
UTM Coordinates
Golder offices in
Mississauga
Stored digitally on Golder server
L1: 5
L2: 10
L1 = Location 1 (AgGt-198); L2 = Location 2 (AgGt-199); UTM Coordinates are presented in Supplement
Document B
All pre-contact artifacts recovered during the Stage 3 archaeological assessment of Location 2 (AgGt-199) were
lithics produced from Onondaga chert.
The Onondaga chert type identifications were accomplished visually using reference materials located in
Golder’s Mississauga office. Published source material includes: DeRegnaucourt and Georgiady (1998), Eley
and von Bitter (1989), and Fox (2009). The flake assemblage was subject to morphological analysis following the
classification scheme described by Lennox et al. (1986) and expanded upon by Fisher (1997), with the exception
that no attempt was made to distinguish “primary” from “primary bipolar” flakes.

3.1
Onondaga chert: a high quality raw material that outcrops along the north shore of Lake Erie east of the
mouth of the Grand River. This material can also be recovered from secondary, glacial deposits across
much of southwestern Ontario, east of Chatham.
East Fonthill Lands Location 1 (AgGt-198)
The Stage 3 test unit excavation of Location 1 (AgGt-198) produced two sherds of plain vitrified white
earthenware (VWE), one fragment of transfer printed VWE with a red floral motif, and a sherd of semi-porcelain.
Vitrified white earthenwares and semi-porcelaneous wares became quite popular during the latter half of the
nineteenth century. No pre-contact archaeological resources were observed or recovered from Location 1 (AgGt198). The complete artifact catalogue is provided in Table 7, and the four artifacts recovered are depicted in
Image 16.
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
18
LANDS
Table 7: Location 1 (AgGt-198) Complete
Cat.
Loc.
Unit
Stratum
No.
Plough
1
2
300E 495N:01
zone
Plough
1
3
305E 500N:01
zone
Plough
1
4
305E 500N:01
zone
3.1.1
Artifact Catalogue
Artifact
Freq.
Comment
Box
Vitrified White Earthenware,
transfer printed
1
red floral pattern
1
Vitrified White Earthenware
2
1
Semi-porcelain
1
1
Location 1 (AgGt-198) Artifact Patterning and Site Activity Areas
The extremely low yield of archaeological resources recovered during the Stage 3 archaeological assessment of
Location 1 (AgGt-198), and the lack of any pre-contact material, indicates that the Late Archaic Lamoka sidenotched projectile point recovered during the Stage 2 assessment was an isolated find, likely deposited through
a hunting loss event.
3.2
East Fonthill Lands Location 2 (AgGt-199)
The Stage 3 archaeological assessment of Location 2 produced 97 pre-contact Aboriginal artifacts, 68 historical
Euro-Canadian artifacts and two recent finds. All of the artifacts were recovered through test unit excavation
save for two pieces of chipping detritus that were recovered as surface finds (Map 5). Combined historical and
pre-contact artifact yields in the test units ranged from one to 18. A summary of the recovered Stage 3 artifacts is
provided in Table 8. The complete artifact catalogue for Location 2 (AgGt-199) is provided in Appendix A, and
Images 17-19 illustrate a representative sample of the recovered artifacts.
Table 8: Location 2 (AgGt-199) Artifact Summary
Artifact
Freq.
%
Pre-Contact Aboriginal
97
58.08%
Chipping Detritus
81
48.50%
Utilized Flake
8
4.79%
Retouched Flake
5
2.99%
Core
2
1.20%
Drill Preform
1
0.60%
Euro-Canadian Historical Artifacts
68
40.72%
Domestic
53
31.74%
Architectural
13
7.78%
Personal
2
1.20%
Recent
2
1.20%
167
100.00%
Total Stage 4 Artifacts
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
19
LANDS
3.2.1
3.2.1.1
Pre-contact Aboriginal Artifacts
Chipped Lithic Tools
A single chipped lithic tool was recovered from Location 2 (AgGt-199), a drill preform made from Onondaga chert
(Image 19). This tool is non-diagnostic to temporal or cultural periods, save for being pre-contact Aboriginal.
Metrics for the drill preform are provided in Table 9.
Table 9: Location 2 (AgGt-199) Chipped Lithic Tool Metrics
Cat. No.
Tool
Material
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Comments
81
drill preform
Onondaga
44.00
11.50
8.20
worked on two
sides
3.2.1.2
Chipping Detritus
Eighty-one pieces of chipping detritus were recovered from East Fonthill Lands Location 2 (AgGt-199), all of
which were Onondaga chert. None of the chipping detritus was heat altered. A breakdown of the chipping
detritus collected by morphology and raw material type is provided in Table 10.
Table 10: Location 2 (AgGt-199) Chipping Detritus by Type and Material
Chert
Onondaga
3.2.2
Primary Flake
Secondary Flake
Tertiary Flake
Flake Fragment
Total
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
4
4.94
28
34.57
47
58.02
2
2.47
81
100.00
Historical Euro-Canadian Artifacts
The Stage 3 archaeological assessment of Location 2 (AgGt-199) produced 68 historical Euro-Canadian artifacts
(Table 11). Over 75% of the historical Euro-Canadian artifacts recovered during the Stage 3 excavation of
Location 2 are domestic artifacts, which include highly fragmented sherds of glass bottles, ceramic tablewares
and coarse red kitchenwares. The glass bottle assemblage includes neck and body sherds from an olive wine
bottle and solarized glass bottles (popular from the 1880s to the First World War), and a base from a semimoulded rectangular bottle bearing an unidentified manufacturer’s mark. The domestic ceramic assemblage
includes pieces of pearlware, refined white earthenware, vitrified white earthenware and twentieth-century
porcelaneous wares. One shell-edged pearlware specimen was recovered, however, this piece is too
fragmentary to discern its exact shell-edge pattern. Pearlware is an earlier variety of earthenware that was
popular from 1780 to circa 1830. Refined white earthenware, a slightly porous white-pasted earthenware with a
near colourless glaze, became common after 1830 replacing earlier pearlwares and creamwares. Ironstone was
introduced in the 1840s and became extremely popular in Upper Canada by the 1860s (Kenyon 1985). Usually
much thicker than other refined white earthenwares and often decorated with raised moulded designs of wheat
or fruit, ironstone was commonly used for ceramic tablewares and toiletwares.
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
20
LANDS
The Personal category includes a porcelain figurine head, a fluted pipe bowl fragment, popular during the
nineteenth-century, and an amber glass stopper, possibly from a perfume or cosmetic bottle given its size.
Overall the historical Euro-Canadian artifact assemblage dates predominantly to the latter half of the nineteenth
century, with a couple of early nineteenth-century pieces.
Table 11: Location 2 (AgGt-199) Historical Euro-Canadian Artifact Summary
Artifact
Freq.
%
Domestic
52
76.47%
glass, bottle
34
50.00%
coarse red earthenware
8
11.76%
pearlware
2
2.94%
vitrified white earthenware
2
2.94%
porcelaneous ware
2
2.94%
glass, dish
1
1.47%
refined white earthenware
1
1.47%
earthenware
1
1.47%
ironstone
1
1.47%
Architectural
13
19.12%
glass, window
13
19.12%
Personal
3
4.41%
figurine
1
1.47%
glass, stopper
1
1.47%
pipe bowl fragment
1
1.47%
68
100.00%
Total Historical Euro-Canadian Artifacts
3.2.3
Recent Artifacts
Two pieces of black electrical wire were also recovered during the Stage 3 excavation of Location 2. The recent
artifacts are of no archaeological value and their counts are not included in the artefact mapping (Map 5).
3.2.4
Location 2 (AgGt-199) Feature 1
A potential cultural feature, Feature 1, was encountered beneath the ploughzone in unit 300E 485N:01. Subcircular in plan and completely exposed within the unit, this feature was excavated to Stage 4 standards during
the Stage 3 archaeological assessment to inform the Stage 3 recommendations as per Section 3.2.2, Guideline
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
21
LANDS
3 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011). Through excavation it was
determined that this feature was a modern post mould created for the placement of a pole or large stake that
was used to support a tree when the property was operating as a tree nursery in the recent past. Feature 1 was
located immediately adjacent to a second disturbance in the subsoil that was identified as being caused by tree
roots. Modern, uncharred wood, the remnant of the tree support pole, was recovered from within Feature 1. No
archaeological resources were recovered within Feature 1. Because this was determined to not be an
archaeological feature, its location is not shown on Map 5. For completeness of the archaeological record,
however, drawings and photographs of the plan and profile view are included within this report (Images 11, 12,
14 and 15).
3.2.5
Location 2 (AgGt-199) Artifact Patterning and Site Activity Areas
The Stage 3 archaeological assessment of Location 2 (AgGt-199) produced a low yield of historical EuroCanadian artifacts, mostly window and bottle glass. There is no apparent patterning to the distribution of the
historical artifacts, rather they are thinly spread across the entire site extent. There are no high-density or earlydating concentrations of historical artifacts present at the site.
Three Stage 3 test excavation units at Location 2 (AgGt-199) had a yield of greater than 10 non-diagnostic precontact artifacts: 300E 485N:01, 295E 480N: 01 and 295E 480N:13 (Map 5). The concentration of pre-contact
artifacts extends in a diagonal from 295E 480N:01 in the southwest to 300E 485N:01 in the northeast and does
not extend beyond a few metres in the northwest or southeast directions. It appears there was a concentration of
deposition of pre-contact artifacts within this small area that has subsequently been distributed in a general
northeastern direction through repeated ploughing events within the field.
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
22
LANDS
4.0
4.1
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Location 1 (AgGt-198)
The Stage 3 archaeological assessment of Location 1 (AgGt-198) recovered an exceedingly low yield (n=4) of
historical Euro-Canadian artifacts and no pre-contact Aboriginal artifacts. The very few historical Euro-Canadian
artifacts recovered have no cultural heritage value or interest and do not warrant further archaeological
assessment. This conclusion is consistent with Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 of the Standards and Guidelines for
Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011). It is concluded that the isolated Late Archaic Lamoka side-notched
point recovered at Location 1 (AgGt-198) during the Stage 2 archaeological assessment was indeed isolated
and represents an accidental loss rather than an activity area or other more permanent archaeological location.
4.2
Location 2 (AgGt-199)
The Stage 3 archaeological assessment of Location 2 (AgGt-199) recovered a low yield of historical EuroCanadian artifacts, mostly made up of window and bottle glass. These artifacts displayed no apparent pattern to
their distribution and there were no high density or early-dating concentrations of historical artifacts at the site. It
is not uncommon for modern agricultural fields to have late-nineteenth and early-twentieth-century artifacts
present within them and the historical Euro-Canadian component of Location 2 (AgGt-199) is interpreted as
having resulted from general farmstead activities within the LSA. The historical Euro-Canadian component of
Location 2 (AgGt-199) does not have cultural heritage value or interest and does not warrant further
archaeological assessment. This conclusion is consistent with Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 of the Standards and
Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011).
The Stage 3 archaeological assessment of Location 2 (AgGt-199) also recovered 97 pre-contact Aboriginal
artifacts. None of these artifacts were diagnostic relative temporal or cultural periods, save for being pre-contact
Aboriginal. A single non-diagnostic drill preform made from Onondaga chert was recovered from the site.
Because Feature 1 was identified as a modern post mould and not an archaeological feature, no subsurface
cultural features of cultural heritage value or interest were recovered at Location 2 (AgGt-199). Three test
excavation units at Location 2 (AgGt-199) yielded 10 or more pre-contact artifacts: 300E 485N:01, 295E 480N:
01 and 295E 480N:13. The area surrounding these units, measuring approximately 12 m by 4 m, has cultural
heritage value or interest and warrants further archaeological assessment (Stage 4 mitigation). This conclusion
is consistent with Section 3.4.1, Standard 1.a of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists
(MTCS 2011).
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
23
LANDS
5.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
Given the findings of the Stage 3 archaeological assessment of East Fonthill Land Location 1 (AgGt-198) and
Location 2 (AgGt-198), recommendations are made below on a site by site basis.
No Further Archaeological Assessment Required
Location 1 (AgGt-198): The cultural heritage value or interest of Location 1 (AgGt-198) has been sufficiently
assessed and documented; the site may be considered free of further archaeological
concern, and no further archaeological assessment of this site is required.
Further Archaeological Assessment (Stage 4) Required
Location 2 (AgGt-199): Location 2 (AgGt-199) possesses cultural heritage value or interest and a portion of the
site should be subject to a Stage 4 archaeological assessment as indicated in Map 6.
Avoidance and protection of archaeological sites is the preferred method of mitigation. The Town of Pelham has
confirmed that ground disturbance activities at Location 2 (AgGt-199) in connection with the development of the
property cannot be avoided (Appendix B). Because avoidance and protection of Location 2 (AgGt-199) is not a
viable option, mitigation will proceed via excavation.
Stage 4 excavation will take place in the form of hand excavation of all 1 x 1 m units surrounding the Stage 3 test
units that had pre-contact artifact yields above 10: 295E 480N:01, 295E 480N:13 and 300E 485N:01. Excavation
will continue until there are yields of fewer than 10 pre-contact Aboriginal artifacts at the edge of block
excavation. It will also continue if units include at least two of the following: formal tools or diagnostic artifacts
and fire-cracked rock, bone or burnt artifacts. If cultural features are identified, they will be excavated by hand
and documented by photographs and drawings. Stage 4 hand excavation will expand a minimum of 2 m beyond
all cultural features identified. All features will only be excavated when they have been completely exposed.
Flotation samples will also be collected from identified pre-contact Aboriginal cultural features and retained for
laboratory analysis as per Section 4.4 of the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. All
fieldwork will be documented in detail. Archaeologists will also engage with First Nations groups expressing
interest in the archaeological resources of the area.
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
24
LANDS
6.0
ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION
This report is submitted to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport as a condition of licensing in accordance
with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c O.18. The report is reviewed to ensure that it complies
with the standards and guidelines that are issued by the Minister, and that the archaeological fieldwork and
report recommendations ensure the conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural heritage of Ontario.
When all matters relating to archaeological sites within the project area of a development proposal have been
addressed to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, a letter will be issue by the ministry
stating that there are no further concerns with regards to alterations to archaeological sites by the proposed
development.
It is an offence under Sections 48 and 69 of the Ontario Heritage Act for any party other than a licenced
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 licenced archaeologist has completed
archaeological fieldwork on the site, submitted a report to the Minister stating the site has no further cultural
heritage value or interest, and the report has been filed in the Ontario Public Register of Archaeology Reports
referred to in Section 65.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Should previously undocumented archaeological resources be discovered, they may be representative of a new
archaeological site or sites and therefore subject to Section 48(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The proponent or
person discovering the archaeological resources must cease alteration of the site immediately and engage a
licensed consultant archaeologist to carry out archaeological fieldwork, in compliance with Section 48(1) of the
Ontario Heritage Act.
The Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.33, requires that any person discovering or
having knowledge of a burial site shall immediately notify the police or coroner. It is recommended that the
Registrar of Cemeteries at the Ministry of Consumer Services is also immediately notified.
Archaeological sites recommended for further archaeological fieldwork or protection remain subject to Section 48
(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act and may not be altered, or have artifacts removed from them, except by a person
holding an archaeological licence.
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
25
LANDS
7.0
IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT
Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) has prepared this report in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by members of the archaeological profession currently practicing under similar conditions in
the jurisdiction in which the services are provided, subject to the time limits and physical constraints applicable to
this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied is made.
This report has been prepared for the specific site, design objective, developments and purpose described to
Golder by the Town of Pelham (the Client). The factual data, interpretations and recommendations pertain to a
specific project as described in this report and are not applicable to any other project or site location.
The information, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of the Client. No
other party may use or rely on this report or any portion thereof without Golder’s express written consent. If the
report was prepared to be included for a specific permit application process, then upon the reasonable request of
the Client, Golder may authorize in writing the use of this report by the regulatory agency as an Approved User
for the specific and identified purpose of the applicable permit review process. Any other use of this report by
others is prohibited and is without responsibility to Golder. The report, all plans, data, drawings and other
documents as well as electronic media prepared by Golder are considered its professional work product and
shall remain the copyright property of Golder, who authorizes only the Client and Approved Users to make
copies of the report, but only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those
parties. The Client and Approved Users may not give, lend, sell, or otherwise make available the report or any
portion thereof to any other party without the express written permission of Golder. The Client acknowledges the
electronic media is susceptible to unauthorized modification, deterioration and incompatibility and therefore the
Client cannot rely upon the electronic media versions of Golder’s report or other work products.
Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations and opinions given in this report are intended only
for the guidance of the Client in the design of the specific project.
Special risks occur whenever archaeological investigations are applied to identify subsurface conditions and
even a comprehensive investigation, sampling and testing program may fail to detect all or certain
archaeological resources. The sampling strategies incorporated in this study comply with those identified in the
Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s Standards and Guidelines for Consultants Archaeologists
(MTCS 2011a).
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
26
LANDS
8.0
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES
Anderson, Jacob
2009
The Lawson Site: An Early Sixteenth Century Neutral Iroquoian Fortress. Museum of Ontario
Archaeology, Special Publication No. 2. London.
Archaeologix Inc.
2004
Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1, 2 & 3), Hard Rock Paving – Law Quarry, Lots 3, 6 &7,
Concession 2, Township of Wainfleet, R.M. Niagara, Ontario. Report on file, Ontario Ministry of
Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.
ASI (Archaeological Services Inc.)
2003
Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment for the Reconstruction and Widening of Regional Road 20 (Former
Highway 20) Between Regional Road 36 (Pelham Street) and Highway 406, Town of Pelham and City of
Thorold, R.M. of Niagara. Report on file, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport.
2007
Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment, Reconstruction and Widening of Regional Road 20 from Station
Street to Highway 406, Regional Municipality of Niagara, Ontario. Report on file, Ministry of Tourism,
Culture and Sport. (PIF P057-426-2007).
Bursey, Jeffrey
1995
The Transition from the Middle to Late Woodland Periods: A Re-Evaluation. In Origins of the People of
st
the Longhouse: Proceedings of the 21 , Annual Symposium of the Ontario Archaeological Society,
edited by André Bekerman and Gary Warrick, pp. 43-54. Toronto: Ontario Archaeological Society.
Chapman, Lyman John and Donald F. Putnam
1984
The Physiography of Southern Ontario. 3rd edition. Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto.
Crawford, Gary and David Smith
1996
Migration in prehistory: Princess Point and the Northern Iroquoian case. American Antiquity 61(4):782790.
Crawford, Gary, David Smith and Vandy Bowyer
1997
Dating the entry of corn (Zea mays) into the Lower Great Lakes region. American Antiquity 62(1):112119.
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
27
LANDS
Crawford, Gary, David Smith, Joseph Desloges and Anthony Davis
1998
Floodplains and Agricultural Origins: A Case Study in South-Central Ontario, Canada. Journal of Field
Archaeology 25:125-137.
DeRegnaucourt, T. and J. Georgiady
1998
Prehistoric Chert Types of the Midwest. Occasional Monographs Series, No. 7. Upper Miami Valley
Archaeological Research Museum, Arcanum, OH.
Dieterman, Frank
2001
Princess Point: the landscape of place. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Toronto.
Dodd, Christine F., Dana R. Poulton, Paul A. Lennox, David G. Smith and Gary A. Warrick
1990
The Middle Ontario Iroquoian Stage. In: The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. Occasional
Publication of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, Number 5: 321-360.
Eley, Betty and Peter von Bitter
1989
Cherts of Southern Ontario. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.
Ellis, Chris J. and D. Brian Deller
1990
Paleo-Indians. In: The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. Occasional Publication of the
London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, Number 5: 37-64.
Ellis, Chris J. and Neal Ferris (editors)
1990
The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter,
Ontario Archaeological Society, Number 5.
Ellis, Chris J., Ian T. Kenyon and Michael W. Spence
1990
The Archaic. In: The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. Occasional Publication of the
London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, Number 5: 65-124.
Ferris, Neal
2009
The Archaeology of Native-Lived Colonialism: Challenging History in the Great Lakes. University of
Arizona Press, Tucson.
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
28
LANDS
Ferris, Neal and Michael Spence
1995
The Woodland traditions in southern Ontario. Revista de Arqueología Americana 9:83-138.
Fisher, J.
1997
The Adder Orchard Site: Lithic Technology and Spatial Organization in the Broadpoint Late Archaic.
Occasional Publications of the London Chapter, OAS, No. 3. London, Ontario.
Fox, William
th
1979
Southern Ontario Chert Sources. Paper presented at the 11
Archaeological Association, Québec City, Québec.
Annual Meeting of the Canadian
1990
The Middle Woodland to Late Woodland Transition. In: The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D.
1650. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, Number 5: 171188.
2009
Ontario Cherts Revisited. In Painting the Past With a Broad Brush: Papers in Honour of James Valliere
Wright, edited by David Keenlyside and Jean-Luc Pilon, pp. 353-370. Mercury Series, Archaeology
Paper 170. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau, Québec.
Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder)
2013a Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, 54 Locations, Wind Lands, Samsung Grand Renewable Energy
Park, Various Lots, Concessions 1N and 2N, Dunn Township, Concessions 1 and 5, Rainham
Township, Concessions 1S and 2S, North Cayuga Township, Concessions 4S, 5S 6S and 7S, South
Cayuga Township and Concession 4S, Fradenburgh Tract, South Cayuga Township, Haldimand
County, Ontario. Report on file with MTCS, Toronto.
2013b Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, Wardell’s Creek Ullman Site (AfGw-95), Samsung Grand
Renewable Energy Park, Additional Wind Lands, Part of Lot 29, Concession 5 South, Geographic
Township of South Cayuga, Haldimand County, Ontario. Report on file with MTCS, Toronto.
2014
Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment, East Fonthill Lands, Part of Lots 161 and 166, Former Geographic
Township of Thorold, Welland County, Now Town of Pelham, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario. P346-00332014. Report on file with MTCS, Toronto.
Horne, Malcolm (Personal Communication)
2014
Telephone conversation between Dr. Scott Martin of Golder and ARO Malcolm Horne of MTCS
regarding the placement of Stage 3 test excavation units at East Fonthill Lands Location 2 (AgGt-199).
June 26, 2014.
Kenyon, Ian
1985
A History of Ceramic Tableware in Ontario, 1780-1840. Arch Notes May/June 1985.
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
29
LANDS
Lennox, P.A., C.F. Dodd and C.R. Murphy
1986
The Wiacek Site: A Late Middleport Component, Simcoe County, Ontario. Ministry of Transportation and
Communications, Toronto.
Lennox, P. A. and Fitzgerald, W.R.
1990
The Culture History and Archaeology of the Neutral Iroquoians. In: The Archaeology of Southern Ontario
to A.D. 1650. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, Number 5:
405-456.
Martin, Scott
2004 [2007]
Lower Great Lakes Region Maize and Enchainment in the First Millennium AD. Ontario
Archaeology 77/78:135-159.
MHCI (Mayer Heritage Consultants Inc.)
2007a Archaeological Assessment (Stage 1) Town of Pelham/East Fonthill Secondary Plan Study, R.M. of
Niagara, Ontario. Report on file at the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. CIF: P040-208-2007.
2007b Archaeological Assessment, Stages 1-2, Proposed River Realty Development, Town of Pelham, R.M. of
Niagara, Ontario. Report on file, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport.
2007c Archaeological Assessment (Stage 3) Proposed River Realty Development, Town of Pelham, R.M. of
2007d Archaeological Assessment (Stage 4) Proposed River Realty Development, Town of Pelham, R.M. of
Morris, J.L.
1943
Indians of Ontario. Department of Lands and Forests, Government of Ontario.
MTCS (Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport)
2011
Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Cultural Programs Unit, Programs and
Services Branch, Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.
Page, H.R.
1876
Illustrated Historical Atlas of the Counties of Lincoln & Welland, Ont. H.R. Page, Toronto.
Pearce, Robert J.
2010
Southwestern Ontario: The First 12,000 Years. Electronic Document: http://www.diggingontario.uwo.ca.
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
30
LANDS
Pengelly, J. and S. Pengelly
1986
A Port Colborne Archaeological Survey. KEWA 86(6).
Pengelly, J.W. and K.J. Tinkler
2004
Lake level changes and aboriginal cultural manifestations in areas adjacent to and including Niagara
Peninsula. In The Late Paleo-Indian Great Lakes: Geological and Archaeological investigations of Late
Pleistocene and Early Holocene Environments, edited by L. J. Jackson and A. Hinshelwood, pp. 201224. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau, Quebec.
Ritchie, William
1971
A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. Revised Edition. New York State
Museum and Science Service, Bulletin Number 384. The University of the State of New York, The State
Education Department, Albany, New York.
Schmalz, Peter S.
1991
The Ojibwa of Southern Ontario. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Shen, Chen
1997
Towards a Comprehensive Understanding of the Lithic Production System of the Princess Point
Complex, Southwestern Ontario. Ph.D. Dissertation, Graduate Department of Anthropology, University
of Toronto.
2000
Tool use-patterning at the Grand Banks site of the Princess Point Complex, southwestern Ontario.
Northeast Anthropology 60:63-87.
Smith, David G.
1990
Iroquoian Societies in Southern Ontario: Introduction and Historic Overview. In: The Archaeology of
Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological
Society, Number 5: 279-290.
1997
Recent Investigations of Late Woodland Occupations at Cootes Paradise, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology
63:4-16.
Spence, Michael, Robert Pihl and Carl Murphy
1990
Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland periods. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario
to A.D. 1650, edited by Christopher Ellis and Neal Ferris, pp. 125-169. Occasional Papers of the London
Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, No. 5. London, Ontario: Ontario Archaeological Society.
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
31
LANDS
Stothers, David and Richard Yarnell
1977
An agricultural revolution in the lower Great Lakes. In Geobotany, edited by R. C. Romans, pp. 209232. Plenum, New York.
Williamson, Ronald F.
1990
The Early Iroquoian Period of Southern Ontario. In: The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650.
Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, Number 5: 291-320.
Williamson, Ronald and Robert MacDonald (editors)
1997
In the Shadow of the Bridge: The Archaeology of the Peace Bridge Site (AfGr-9), 1994-1996
Investigations. Occasional Publications of Archaeological Services Inc., Volume 1. Archaeological
Services Inc., Toronto.
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
32
LANDS
9.0
IMAGES
Note: The location and direction of Image 2 – 13 are indicated on Maps 4 and 5.
Image 1: 5 x 5 m grid set-up indicating the sub-square numbering system.
Image 2: Stage 3 test unit excavation at Location 1 (AgGt-198), facing west.
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
33
LANDS
Image 3: Stage 3 test unit excavation at Location 1 (AgGt-198), facing south.
Image 4: Stage 3 test unit excavation at Location 1 (AgGt-198), facing southwest.
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
34
LANDS
Image 5: Stage 3 test unit excavation at Location 1 (AgGt-198), facing southeast.
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
35
LANDS
Image 8: Stage 3 test unit excavation at Location 2 (AgGt-199), facing northwest.
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
36
LANDS
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
37
LANDS
Image 11: Plan view of Feature 1 in unit 305E 485N:01, Location 2 (AgGt-199). It was
determined through excavation that Feature 1 was not an archaeological feature but a
modern post-mould created for a tree-support pole.
Image 12: Profile view of Feature 1 in unit 305E 485N:01, Location 2 (AgGt-199). It was
determined through excavation that Feature 1 was not an archaeological feature but a
modern post-mould created for a tree-support pole.
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
38
LANDS
Image 13: Stage 3 test unit excavation at Location 2 (AgGt-199). Unit 290E 485N:01
showing the plough-zone and subsoil as typical at the site.
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
39
LANDS
Image 14: Location 2 (AgGt-199) Feature 1 plan view. It was determined through excavation that this was not an
archaeological feature.
Image 15: Location 2 (AgGt-199) Feature 1 profile view. It was determined through excavation that this was not
an archaeological feature.
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
40
LANDS
Image 16: Location 1 (AgGt-198) historical Euro-Canadian ceramic assemblage. Clockwise
from left: semi-porcelain, vitrified white earthenware (VWE), VWE painted, VWE. Scale is 10
cm.
Image 17: Location 2 (AgGt-199) historical Euro-Canadian artifacts. Clockwise from upper
left: blue shell-edged pearlware, transfer-printed ironstone, VWE, fluted white clay pipe bowl,
porcelain figurine head. Scale is 10 cm.
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
41
LANDS
Image 18: Location 2 (AgGt-199) historical Euro-Canadian artifacts. From left to right: semimachine-made rectangular bottle with unidentified manufacturer’s mark, amber glass
stopper. Scale is 10 cm.
Image 19: Location 2 (AgGt-199) pre-contact artifacts. Clockwise from upper left: pre-form
drill, two cores, utilized flake, retouched flake, primary flake, two secondary flakes, tertiary
flake. Scale is 10 cm
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
42
LANDS
10.0 MAPS
All maps follow on the succeeding pages.
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
43
155
170
180
PORT ROBINSON ROAD
4766000
205
180
MERRITT ROAD
LINE AVENUE
NIAGARA STREET
PELHAM STREET SOUTH
4766000
18
0
RICE ROAD
195
640000
180
185
641000
500
Topographic Contour (masl)
Roads
Watercourse
Waterbody
PROJECT
Lake Ontario
Hamilton
St. Catharines
Site Location
Niagara Falls
Welland
Wooded Areas
REFERENCE
Base Data - MNR LIO, obtained 2009
Produced by Golder Associates Ltd under licence from
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, © Queens Printer 2012
Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: NAD 83 Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17
TITLE
250
0
643000
500
SCALE 1:25,000
INDEX MAP
1,000
METRES
STAGE 3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT,
TOWN OF PELHAM, EAST FONTHILL LANDS
LOCATION OF THE LOCAL STUDY AREA
PROJECT NO. 13-1154-0037
Lake Erie
17
5
642000
Local Study Area
Railways
4768000
185
200
639000
4767000
185
19
5
195
215
230
195
4769000
165
175
190
220
22
5
AD
STATION STREET
240
HURRICANE RO
T
AS
CATARACT ROAD
200
2
245 50
4768000
180
210
4767000
NA
IO
G
RE
D
OA
R
L
E
20
MERRITTVILLE HIGHWAY
PELHAM STREET NORTH
HAIST STREET
5
19
5
18
5
18
180
0
16
17
0
4769000
OW
180
5
18
ROAD
5
18
235 225
0
22
195
4770000
14
5
16
0
17
0
155
160
180
175
180
G:\Projects\2013\13-1154-0037_Fonthill\GIS\MXDs\Reporting\Archaeology\Stage3\TopographicMap.mxd
180
170
16
5
HOLL
LEGEND
643000
175
190
17
5
642000
0
15
17
0
5
18
641000
175
0
16
5
16
640000
155
5
18
170
5
155
16
165
0
16
4770000
639000
150
DESIGN
GIS
CHECK
Mississauga, Ontario REVIEW
JMC 25 Nov. 2013
JMC 7 Aug. 2014
SM 7 Aug. 2014
SCALE AS SHOWN
MAP 1
REV. 0.0
640500
641000
641500
642000
639500
640000
640500
641000
641500
642000
4768500
4768000
4767500
4767000
4766500
4766500
G:\Projects\2013\13-1154-0037_Fonthill\GIS\MXDs\Reporting\Archaeology\Stage3\Stage3_HistoricalMap.mxd
4767000
4767500
4768000
4768500
4769000
640000
4769000
639500
200
LEGEND
Local Study Area
NOTE
Historical Map - Page, H.R. 1876 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the Counties of Lincoln & Welland,
Ont. H.R. Page, Toronto.
REFERENCE
Base Data - MNR LIO, obtained 2009
PROJECT
TITLE
100
0
200
SCALE 1:15,000
400
600
METRES
THE LOCAL STUDY AREA OVERLAID ON THE
1876 MAP OF WELLAND COUNTY
PROJECT NO. 13-1154-0037
DESIGN JMC 6 Jun. 2014
JMC 7 Aug. 2014
GIS
7 Aug. 2014
CHECK SM
Mississauga, Ontario REVIEW
SCALE AS SHOWN
MAP 2
REV. 0.0
G:\Projects\2013\13-1154-0037_Fonthill\GIS\MXDs\Reporting\Archaeology\Stage3\ExcavationMap_Location1.mxd
LEGEND
1
Photo Location Direction
Excavated Unit and Artifact Frequency
Datum
4
PROJECT
Artifact Location (Stage 2)
TITLE
REFERENCE
2
0
SCALE 1:300
4
8
12
METRES
STAGE 3 EXCAVATION MAP
LOCATION 1 (AgGt-198)
PROJECT NO. 13-1154-0037
DESIGN JMC 1 Aug. 2014
JMC 8 Aug. 2014
GIS
8 Aug. 2014
CHECK SM
Mississauga, Ontario REVIEW PP
8 Aug. 2014
SCALE AS SHOWN
MAP 4
REV. 0.0
G:\Projects\2013\13-1154-0037_Fonthill\GIS\MXDs\Reporting\Archaeology\Stage3\ExcavationMap_Location2.mxd
LEGEND
1
Photo Location Direction
Excavated Unit and Artifact Frequency
Datum
Surface Find (Stage 3)
REFERENCE
6
PROJECT
TITLE
3
0
SCALE 1:400
6
12
18
METRES
STAGE 3 EXCAVATION MAP
LOCATION 2 (AgGt-199)
PROJECT NO. 13-1154-0037
JMC 8 Aug. 2014
GIS
8 Aug. 2014
CHECK SM
8 Aug. 2014
SCALE AS SHOWN
MAP 5
REV. 0.0
G:\Projects\2013\13-1154-0037_Fonthill\GIS\MXDs\Reporting\Archaeology\Stage3\Stage4Mitigation_Location2.mxd
LEGEND
6
Excavated Unit
Datum
PROJECT
Surface Find (Stage 3)
Extent of Site Recommended for Stage 4
REFERENCE
3
TITLE
0
SCALE 1:400
6
12
18
METRES
EXTENT OF LOCATION 2 (AgGt-199)
RECOMMENDED FOR STAGE 4 MITIGATION
PROJECT NO. 13-1154-0037
JMC 8 Aug. 2014
GIS
8 Aug. 2014
CHECK SM
8 Aug. 2014
SCALE AS SHOWN
MAP 6
REV. 0.0
LANDS
Report Signature Page
GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.
Peter Popkin, Ph.D., MIfA
Project Archaeologist
Carla Parslow
Associate, Senior Archaeologist
PRWP/CAP/am
Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.
\\golder.gds\gal\mississauga\active\2013\1154\13-1154-0037 town of pelham - stage 2 aa - pelham\stage 3\to mtcs\p346-0039-2014_p346-0040-2014_16aug2014_re.docx
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
LANDS
APPENDIX A
Location 2 (AgGt-199) Stage 3 Complete Artifact Catalogue
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
LANDS
Cat #
Context
Depth
Artifact
Freq.
Comment
15
300E 480N:1
21.00
secondary flake
1
Onondaga
16
300N 480:1
21.00
flake fragment
2
Onondaga
17
300E 480N:1
21.00
tertiary flake
1
Onondaga
18
300E 480N:1
21.00
glass, window
2
clear
19
300E 480N:1
26.00
glass, bottle
1
amethyst colour
20
300E 480N:1
26.00
secondary flake
1
Onondaga
21
295E 490N:1
26.00
secondary flake
3
Onondaga
22
295E 490N:1
26.00
utilized flake
1
Onondaga
23
295E 490N:1
26.00
tertiary flake
1
Onondaga
24
295E 480N:1
23.00
utilized flake
1
Onondaga, tertiary flake?
25
295E 480N:1
23.00
glass, bottle
3
one white, one aqua, one clear
26
295E 480N:1
23.00
recent material
1
black wire
27
295E 480N:1
23.00
secondary flake
4
Onondaga
28
295E 480N:1
23.00
tertiary flake
9
Onondaga
29
305E 495N:1
16.00
semi-porcelain
1
30
305E 495N:1
16.00
glass, window
1
clear
31
305E 495N:1
16.00
glass, bottle
7
1 olive, 2 amethyst, 1 aqua, 3 clear
32
295E 485N:1
23.00
retouched flake
1
Onondaga
33
295E 485N:1
23.00
secondary flake
2
Onondaga
34
295E 485N:1
23.00
tertiary flake
4
Onondaga
35
295E 485N:1
23.00
glass, bottle
3
1 olive, 1 amethyst, 1 white
36
300E 475N:1
22.00
retouched flake
1
Onondaga
37
305E 480N:1
24.00
figurine
1
white, porcelain, glazed (not bisque)
head
38
305E 480N:1
24.00
pipe bowl fragment
1
white
39
305E 480N:1
24.00
glass, bottle
2
1 clear, 1 amethyst
40
295E 475N:1
18.00
glass, bottle
1
clear
41
290E 480N:1
15.00
glass, window
1
clear
42
300E 495N:1
15.00
retouched flake
1
Onondaga, retouched on two sides
43
300E 495N:1
15.00
retouched flake
1
Onondaga,
edge
44
300E 495N:1
15.00
semi-porcelain
1
blue transfer print
45
300E 495N:1
15.00
1
no glaze
46
300E 495N:1
15.00
tertiary flake
1
Onondaga
47
300E 495N:1
15.00
glass, window
1
clear
48
290E 475N:1
20.00
tertiary flake
1
Onondaga
49
305E 490N:1
16.00
core
1
Onondaga
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
retouch
on
rounded
LANDS
Cat #
Context
Depth
Artifact
Freq.
Comment
50
305E 490N:1
16.00
tertiary flake
3
Onondaga
51
305E 490N:1
16.00
1
no glaze
52
300E 500N:1
15.00
glass, window
3
clear
53
300E 500N:1
15.00
tertiary flake
1
Onondaga
54
300E 500N:1
15.00
earthenware
1
yellow interior, brown exterior
55
290E 475N:13
17.00
secondary flake
1
Onondaga
56
290E 475N:13
17
tertiary flake
1
Onondaga
57
290E 475N:13
17.00
glass, bottle
2
clear
58
305E 505N:1
23.00
glass, bottle
5
3 aqua (1 bottle base, semimoulded,
unidentified
maker's
mark), 1 amethyst, 1 clear
59
305E 505N:1
23.00
glass, window
1
clear
60
305E 505N:1
23.00
tertiary flake
3
Onondaga
61
305E 505N:1
23.00
1
62
300E 485N:3
17.00
retouched flake
1
Onondaga
63
300E 485N:3
17.00
tertiary flake
1
Onondaga
64
305E 500N:1
19.00
utilized flake
1
Onondaga
65
305E 500N:1
19.00
secondary flake
1
Onondaga
66
305E 500N:1
19.00
tertiary flake
1
Onondaga
67
305E 500N:1
19.00
glass, bottle
1
amethyst colour
68
305E 485N:1
20.00
2
69
305E 485N:1
20.00
tertiary flake
1
Onondaga
70
305E 485N:1
20.00
glass, bottle
1
amethyst colour
71
305E 485N:1
20.00
glass, window
2
clear
72
305E 485N:1
20.00
2
*tree hole
73
305E 485N:1
20.00
recent material
1
black wire, *tree hole
74
300E 490N:1
18.00
1
75
300E 490N:1
18.00
refined white earthenware
1
76
300E 490N:1
18.00
glass, bottle
2
one aqua, one amethyst
77
300E 490N:1
18.00
ironstone
1
brown transfer printed, geometric
pattern
78
300E 490N:1
18.00
tertiary flake
2
Onondaga
79
300E 490N:1
18.00
secondary flake
2
Onondaga
80
300E 490N:1
18.00
utilized flake
2
Onondaga
81
295E 480N:13
16.00
drill preform
1
Onondaga, worked on two sides
82
295E 480N:13
16.00
utilized flake
1
Onondaga
83
295E 480N:13
16.00
secondary flake
1
Onondaga
84
295E 480N:13
16.00
secondary flake
3
Onondaga
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
LANDS
Cat #
Context
Depth
Artifact
Freq.
Comment
85
295E 480N:13
16.00
glass, window
1
clear
86
295E 480N:13
16.00
glass, dish
1
white
87
295E 480N:13
16.00
pearlware
1
88
300E 485N:11
18.00
secondary flake
5
Onondaga
89
300E 485N:11
18.00
tertiary flake
2
Onondaga
90
300E 485N:11
18.00
utilized flake
1
Onondaga
91
300E 485N:11
18.00
glass, window
1
clear
92
300E 505N:1
18.00
core
1
Onondaga
93
300E 505N:1
18.00
secondary flake
1
Onondaga
94
300E 505N:1
18.00
tertiary flake
4
Onondaga
95
300E 505N:1
18.00
1
part of a dish
96
300E 505N:1
18.00
1
clear glaze
97
300E 505N:1
18.00
glass, bottle
3
two clear, one aqua
98
300E 485N:1
20.00
primary flake
4
Onondaga
99
300E 485N:1
20.00
secondary flake
1
Onondaga
100
300E 485N:1
20.00
utilized flake
1
Onondaga
101
300E 485N:1
20.00
tertiary flake
6
Onondaga
102
300E 485N:1
20.00
glass, bottle
3
two brown, one olive
103
300E 485N:1
20.00
glass, stopper
1
amber
104
300E 485N:1
20.00
pearlware
1
edgedware
105
295E 480N:13
16.00
tertiary flake
5
Onondaga
106
Surface Find 1
surface
secondary flake
1
Onondaga
107
Surface Find 2
surface
secondary flake
1
Onondaga
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
LANDS
APPENDIX B
Proponent Letter
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
August 11, 2014
Culture Programs Unit
401 Bay Street, Suite 1700
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 0A7
Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, East Fonthill Lands
Part of Lots 161 and 166, Former Geographic Township of Thorold,
Welland County, Now Town of Pelham, R.M. of Niagara, Ontario
MTCS PIF NUMBER: P346-0033-2014
Dear Sir/Madam:
Golder Associates Ltd. was contracted by the Town of Pelham to conduct a Stage 3
archaeological assessment East Fonthill Lands Location 2 (AgGt-199). The archaeological site is
located within a 32 acre (12.9 ha) parcel of land within part of Lots 161 and 166, former
Geographic Township of Thorold, Welland County, now Town of Pelham, Regional
Municipality of Niagara, Ontario (the Local Study Area). The archaeological assessment was
undertaken as part of a Plan of Subdivision application which includes an Official Plan
Amendment and a Zoning By-Law Amendment, as required by the Planning Act. The planned
subdivision development includes mixed-use areas, medium density residential development and
parks/ spaces. Archaeological sites East Fonthill Lands Location 2 (AgGt-199) represents a
significant archaeological resources possessing cultural heritage value or interest and is
recommended for Stage 4 archaeological assessment prior to disturbance of the sites resulting
from future development within the Local Study Area.
This letter documents acknowledgement that the avoidance and protection of archaeological sites
is always the preferred method of archaeological mitigation. Because Stage 4 archaeological
mitigation was recommended for Location 2 (AgGt-199), Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder)
discussed site avoidance and protection with the Town of Pelham as required by Section 3.5 and
Section 7.9.4 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011).
After careful consideration the Town of Pelham confirmed that avoidance and protection is not a
viable option for Location 2 (AgGt-199) within their development plan so mitigation of the site
will occur through excavation.
Until such time as Stage 4 excavation can be completed at Location 2 (AgGt-199), the Town of
Pelham commits to the following statements:

No ground disturbing construction activities will take place within the areas of Location 2
(AgGt-199) recommended for Stage 4 mitigation, including a 10 m protective buffer zone
surrounding the sites as per Section 7.9.5 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant
Archaeologists (MTCS 2011). Fencing must be erected around the site if construction
activity is going to take place prior to the completion of the Stage 4 mitigation.

A 50 m construction monitoring buffer will be established beyond the 10 m protective
buffer and all ground disturbing construction activity occurring within this area will be
monitored by a licensed archaeologist. The licensed archaeologist will have the authority
to halt all construction activity if there is concern for impact to an archaeological site.
Mapping of the areas of Location 2 (AgGt-199) recommended for Stage 4 mitigation is provided
in Map 6.
We trust that these securities will be sufficient for the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
until such time as Location 2 (AgGt-199) can be completely mitigated.
Regards,
Cari Pupo, MBA, CGA,
Treasurer/Director, Corporate Services,
Town of Pelham,
20 Pelham Town Square, P.O. Box 400,
Fonthill, ON
L0S 1E0
LANDS
APPENDIX C
MTCS Correspondence
August 19, 2014
Report No. 13-1154-0037-R02
From: Horne, Malcolm (MTCS) [mailto:Malcolm.Horne@ontario.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 12:37 PM
To: Popkin, Peter
Subject: FW: P346-0033-2014 - Town of Pelham - informal request for advice for Stage 3
Based on the information provided, and given the highly linear nature of the lithic scatter, this is to
confirm that the test units as excavated are sufficient for the purposes of establishing limits and for
determining the level of cultural heritage value or interest for this site. No further Stage 3 test units will
be required.
Sincerely,
Malcolm Horne
Archaeology Review Officer
Archaeology Program Unit
401 Bay Street, Suite 1700
Toronto ON M7A 0A7
Tel. 416-314-7146
Fax 416-314-7175
Email: Malcolm.Horne@ontario.ca
Golder Associates Ltd.
6925 Century Avenue, Suite 100
Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 7K2
Canada
T: +1 (905) 567 4444

Stage 3 Town Lands (August 19, 2014)

Transcription

Similar documents

Invitation to seminar and workshop

Playdium is pleased to present our new Education Program

From: Smith, Roland [mailto:Roland.Smith@reading.gov.uk] Sent: 09

Hukay - UP Diliman Journals Online - University of the Philippines

Presentation to the Port Arthur Rotary Club

Working with the Media

Nineteenth-century Apache wickiups

3 - Ontario Archaeological Society

Guide Map - Ontario Science Centre

Bob Rae-Levine: Confirm or Deny