Ministère du Tourisme, de la Culture et du Sport

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 1 Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Archaeology Programs Unit Programs and Services Branch Culture Division 401 Bay Street, Suite 1700 Toronto ON M7A 0A7 Archaeology@ontario.ca Ministère du Tourisme, de la Culture et du Sport Unité des programmes d'archéologie Direction des programmes et des services Division de culture 401, rue Bay, bureau 1700 Toronto ON M7A 0A7 Archaeology@ontario.ca Dec 4, 2017 Thomas Irvin (P379) This Land Archaeology Inc. 136 Orsi Newmarket ON L3Y 3H6 RE: Entry into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports: Archaeological Assessment Report Entitled, "Report on the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment of the Toronto Board of Trade Golf Course Redevelopment, Located on Part of Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, Concession 7; and Part of Lots 10 and 11, Concession 8, In the Town of Woodbridge, Regional Municipality of York, Historic County of York, Ontario ", Dated Nov 27, 2017, Filed with MTCS Toronto Office on N/A, MTCS Project Information Form Number P , MTCS File Number Dear Mr. Irvin: The above-mentioned report, which has been submitted to this ministry as a condition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c 0.18, has been entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports without technical review. 1 Please note that the ministry makes no representation or warranty as to the completeness, accuracy or quality of reports in the register. Should you require further information, please do not hesitate to send your inquiry to Archaeology@Ontario.ca cc. Archaeology Licensing Officer Ian MacLead,The Muzzo Group of Companies City of Vaughan,Planning Department 1In no way will the ministry be liable for any harm, damages, costs, expenses, losses, claims or actions that may result: (a) if the Report(s) or its recommendations are discovered to be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or fraudulent; or (b) from the issuance of this letter. Further measures may need to be taken in the event that additional artifacts or archaeological sites are identified or the Report(s) is otherwise found to be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or fraudulent.

2 November 27, 2017 Report on the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment of the Toronto Board of Trade Golf Course Redevelopment, Located on Part of Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, Concession 7; and Part of Lots 10 and 11, Concession 8, In the Town of Woodbridge, Regional Municipality of York, Historic County of York, Ontario Submitted to: Clubhouse Properties Inc. And to: The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Licensee: Thomas Irvin, Licence Number P379 PIF Number: P Report Type: Original

3 Executive Summary This Land Archaeology Inc. was contracted by Clubhouse Properties Inc.to conduct a Stage Archaeological Assessment of the Toronto Board of Trade Golf Course Redevelopment project, located on part Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, Concession 7; and Part of Lots 10 and 11, Concession 8, in the Town of Woodbridge, Ontario. The Stage 1 study provided background information on the property s geography, history, previous archaeological fieldwork and current land conditions. Despite evidence of disturbance over most of the property over the past 150 years; the background information indicates high Aboriginal and Euro-Canadian archaeological potential. Given the archaeological potential indicators, a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment of the Study Area is required in accordance with the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. This includes: A test pit assessment of areas where a visual pedestrian survey cannot be undertaken. This involves systematically excavating test pits, 30 cm in diameter, by hand at 5 meters intervals, screening the soil through a 6 mm mesh to recover artifacts and examining the profiles of the test pit for cultural stratigraphy. Test pits are dug 5 cm into subsoil and are then backfilled. During the Stage 2 assessment, portions of the property that have been disturbed, and which are found to hold low/no archaeological potential will be identified and recorded during fieldwork; photographed, mapped and shown on the results of assessment. It is recommended that this report be entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports and a letter of confirmation be issued by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport supporting these recommendations. Page ii

4 Project Personnel Project Director: Graphics: Report Production: Thomas Irvin (P379) Leslie Town Thomas Irvin Claire Milligan Janine Stroud Leslie Town Page iii

5 Table of Contents Select Table of Contents to jump to subject. Executive Summary... ii Project Personnel... iii Table of Contents... iv Location and Environment... 5 Stage Project Context: Development Context Project Context: Study Area Determination Project Context: Pre-Contact Historical Context... 5 Table 1: Occupation of South-Central Ontario Summary Project Context: Post-Contact History of the Area Project Context: Archaeological Context... 8 Table 2: Sites within 1 km of the Current Study Area Stage 1: Analysis and Conclusions Stage 1: Recommendations Advice on Compliance of Legislation Bibliography Figure 1: Location of Study Area Figure 2: 1860 Map of the County of York Figure 3: 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York Figure 4: Current Land Use Figure 5A: Stage 1 Recommendations Archaeological Potential Figure 5B: York Region Archaeological Potential Map Page iv

6 Location and Environment The Study Area, currently used as a golf course, is approximately 117 hectares in size. The property is positioned approximately 2.5 km north of Highway 407 and 500 m north-east of the historic Toronto Grey and Bruce Railway. The Humber River transects the Study Area and the land is located within the Peel Plain physiographic region. Stage Project Context: Development Context This Land Archaeology Inc. was contracted by Clubhouse Properties Inc to conduct Stage 1 archaeological assessment of the Toronto Board of Trade Golf Course Redevelopment, located on part Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, Concession 7; and Part of Lots 10 and 11, Concession 8, in the Town of Woodbridge, Ontario (Figure 1). The Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment was initiated in support of an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) submission. Currently, the proponent is planning on developing the property for residential purposes. The development of residential lands is listed under the Planning Act (R.S.O. 1990) and the Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O. 1990). The proponent provided TLA with the property limits and verified the Study Area via the maps provided within this report. 2.2 Project Context: Study Area Determination This Land Archaeology Inc. has been contracted by the proponent to archaeologically assess specific land areas. These areas consist of the lands subject to an archaeological assessment within the current Study. Permission to conduct an archaeological assessment was given by the proponent. This assessment has been limited by the proponent to the Study Area as reported herein. 2.3 Project Context: Pre-Contact Historical Context A general summary of the pre-contact and post-contact settlement of South Central Ontario is presented below in Table 1. Page 5

7 Table 1: Occupation of South-Central Ontario Summary Date Period Sub-Period Culture Peoples Diagnostic Traits/Actions Present Euro-Canadian Europeans Euro-Canadian Settlement of the land Historic A.D Algonquian Mississaugas Tribal Displacements and Re-locations A.D Historic Huron Dispersal by Five Nations Iroquoians Introduction of European trade goods Late Ontario Prehistoric Huron Village planning for defense Tribal Differentiation and warfare A.D Large palisaded villages common Terminal Woodland Middleport Elaboration of smoking pipes Middle Introduction of beans A.D Iroquoians Uren Expansion into SW Ontario A.D. 800 Early Pickering 2.4 Project Context: Post-Contact History of the Area Conquest of Glen Meyer peoples by Pickering Peoples from SE Ontario Settled village life A.D. 800 Princess Point Incipient horticulture Saugeen Trade with Hopwellian peoples in Ohio A.D. 0 Initial Woodland Introduction of Bow and Arrow Meadowood 1000 B.C Late Introduction of Pottery Mortuary ceremonialism Long distance trade Archaic Middle Ground stone and copper tools Hunters and gathers Early Introduction of spear thrower 8000 B.C. Late Big game hunters Paleo-Indian Occupation of tundra environment 8900 B.C. Early Glaciers retreat Originally known as Burwick, the area of Woodbridge was settled circa 1837 after Rowland Burr constructed a flour mill and laid out village lots (Rayburn, 1997). When Burr applied for the establishment of a post office in the area, his application was rejected due to concern that his Burwick would be confused with Eastern Ontario s Berwick (Rayburn, 1997). As such, the village was subsequently identified as Vaughan (the name of the township in which it was located) until 1855 when the name Woodbridge was suggested (Rayburn, 1997). In 1885 a historical sketch of the town indicated it was supporting a population of 1,100 of which approximately 112 were children attending the local school. The Page 6

8 description also indicates the town included a saw-mill, distillery and woolen factory in addition to Burr s flour mill (Adam, 1885). Two general stores, a carriage works, two churches, two hotels, a library and two newspapers had also been established within the community, evidently suggesting a thriving locale (City of Vaughan, 2016). In the 20 th century, Woodbridge grew to encompass the former hamlets of Brownsville, Elder s Mills, Vaughanville and Pine Grove. Today, its population stands at approximately 40,000 inhabitants (City of Vaughan, 2016). A total of 2 historic maps were consulted for this study as follows: - The Tremaine Map from 1860 indicates the Study Area had multiple owners and contained a number of structures (Figure 2). A majority of the land was owned by S. Smith including the southern tip of the Study Area which was comprised of Woodbridge s town center. The north and north western portions of the Study Area were owned by C. Wallas, T.Musson and N. Shaver. Regarding the structures located within the Study Area, only one was identified (illustrated as a saw mill), the balance were located within Woodbridge s town center and presumably included some of the businesses previously mentioned (i.e. generals stores, carriage works etc.). - The 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York also indicated the Study Area had multiple owners and contained a number of structures (Figure 3). A majority of the land is still shown as being owned by Samuel Smith, while the northern and north-western portions of the property (the more agricultural areas) were owned by others including Charles Wallace, George Elliott and James Thompson. Regarding the structures located within the Study Area, the following illustrations were included: o A structure and orchard on Lot 12, Con. 7 (owned by James Thompson ); o A structure on Lot 11, Con. 8 (owned by George Elliott ); o Multiple structures (presumably residential/commercial) located within the southern tip which extends into the town center of Woodbridge. It should also be noted that a Methodist church is illustrated within close proximity to the edge of the current Study Area on the 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York. This church was established in 1836 on Meeting House Road but was subsequently torn down and relocated in 1883 (City of Vaughan Heritage Inventory). The associated pioneer cemetery, known as the Woodbridge Methodist Cemetery was left intact on the grounds and was assumed by the City of Vaughan in the late 20 th century. Current mapping indicates the pioneer cemetery is located Page 7

9 approximately 100 m south-west of the current Study Area with a steep slope and residential housing dividing the properties. According to the historical sources consulted, since the onset of Euro-Canadian settlement in the area, the southern portion of the Study Area has been used for both residential and commercial purposes, as it extends into the town center of Woodbridge, while the northern portion has predominantly been used for agricultural and rural, residential purposes. As per a search conducted with the Ministry of Consumer Services on January 25, 2017 the Study Area contains no registered cemeteries. Nor are there any structures designated under Section IV of the Ontario Heritage Act that fall within the current Study Area.* *Please Note: While no designated structures are location within the current Study Area, three designated properties are located on Lot 8, Concession 7 (117 Clarence St.; 8177 Kipling Ave.; 8161 Kipling Ave.) and an additional three properties located within 50 m of the current Study Area are listed as holding Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. It should also be noted that the southern tip of the Study Area is included within the Woodbridge Heritage Conservation District. 2.5 Project Context: Archaeological Context A review of the Ontario Sites Database was conducted to determine the nature of any known archaeological sites within a 1 km radius of the Study Area (MTCS, 2017). A centroid of the Study Area was selected at UTM 17T ; , in conjunction with the property dimensions along cardinal axis from this centroid was used to conduct the search in the Sites Module. In addition, assistance was requested and given by the MTCS Sites Coordinator due the irregular and large Study Area size. A review of the Ontario Sites Database indicated there were 11 known archaeological sites within 1 km of the Study Area. These sites are shown below in Table 2. Of the 11 sites within 1 km of the current Study Area, the Little Dunpar Site (AkGv- 284) was located on Lot 9-10, Concession 7 and the Dalmosh Site (AkGv-68) was located on Lot 11, Concession 8. None of the sites were located within the current Study Area. The Little Dunpar Site was a pre-contact site found by Archaeological Assessments Ltd. in 2008; the Dalmosh Site was a campsite found by Mayer, Pihl, Poulton & Assoc. Inc. in It should be noted that previous archaeological assessments (Stage 1 and 2) may have been conducted within 50 m of the Study Area by other consulting Page 8

10 archaeological firms. However, if no archaeological resources were registered with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, no notification on any such previous assessment is provided to consultant archaeologists. No other documentation indicating additional/previous archaeological assessments have been conducted on or within 50m of the Study Area was readily available. Table 2: Sites within 1 km of the Current Study Area Borden Number Site Name Time Period Site Type Affinities AkGv-69 Constellation 2 Other Camp/Campsite AkGv-68 Dalmosh Other Camp/Campsite AkGv-63 Kline Mills Post-Contact Homestead Euro-Canadian AkGv-62 Reiss Woodland, Late Camp/Campsite Aboriginal AkGv-61 Constellation 1 Other Camp/Campsite AkGv-60 Boyd West Other Camp/Campsite AkGv-284 Little Dunpar Pre-Contact - AkGv-283 Dunpar Archaic, Middle - AkGv-2 McKenzie Woodland Burial; Village AkGv-139 Latree Woodland Village Aboriginal AkGv-128 McLean Post-Contact Homestead Euro-Canadian The Study Area is currently comprised of a golf course, Club House and parking areas owned by the Woodbridge County Club (Figure 4). The surficial geology of the Study Area indicates the land is comprised predominantly of diamicton (poorly sorted materials) and sand with small sections of silt. The topography of the property indicates the land is rolling with a steady decline towards the south. The golf course opened in 1965; construction has altered the landscape and watercourses within, as such several areas of disturbance may be present within the Study Area. Historically, the Study Area would have been an appropriate area for resource procurement by both pre-and post-contact cultural groups. 2.6 Stage 1: Analysis and Conclusions As per the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists, a Study Area with high archaeological potential requires assessment, whereas one with low potential does not. A number of factors are employed in determining a property s archaeological potential, which includes both Euro-Canadian and Aboriginal potential. Criteria include physiographic variables such as a property s distance from a water source, as well as geographic characteristics such as distinct topographic features and soils which may also indicate archaeological potential. Page 9

11 Also considered in determining archaeological potential is the presence of known archaeological sites within or in the vicinity of the Study Area. Since water sources have remained relatively stable in Southern Ontario since the post-glacial period, proximity to water is regarded as a useful index for the evaluation of archaeological site potential for both the Aboriginal and Euro-Canadian periods of occupation. Furthermore, areas of early Euro-Canadian settlement and proximity to historic transportation corridors such as roads and railways also affect a property s historic archaeological potential. According to the background information sources consulted, the following characteristics indicate high Aboriginal and Euro-Canadian archaeological potential for the property as per the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists: - The York Region Master Plan of Archaeological Potential indicates archaeological potential is present (Figure 5B); - 11 archaeological sites are located within 1 km of the current Study Area; - The Study Area is in close proximity to an early historic transportation route (Kipling Ave. Islington Ave.); - The Study Area is in close proximity to an area of historic settlement (i.e. Woodbridge); - Structures/areas of historic development are shown within the Study Area on the historic mapping; - A watercourse transects the Study Area (Humber River). 2.7 Stage 1: Recommendations Given the archaeological potential indicators, a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment of the Study Area is required in accordance with the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Figure 5A). This includes: A test pit assessment of areas where a visual pedestrian survey cannot be undertaken. This involves systematically excavating test pits, 30 cm in diameter, by hand at 5 meters intervals, screening the soil through a 6 mm mesh to recover artifacts and examining the profiles of the test pit for cultural stratigraphy. Test pits are dug 5 cm into subsoil and are then backfilled. During the Stage 2 assessment, portions of the property that have been disturbed, and which are found to hold low/no archaeological potential will Page 10

12 be identified and recorded during fieldwork; photographed, mapped and shown on the results of assessment. Advice on Compliance of Legislation This report is submitted to the Ministry of Tourism and Culture as a condition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c The report is reviewed to ensure that it complies with the standards and guidelines that are issued by the Minister, and that the archaeological field work and report recommendations ensure the conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural heritage of Ontario. When all matters relating to archaeological sites within the project area of a development proposal have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, a letter will be issued by the Ministry stating that there are no further concerns with regard to alterations to archaeological sites by the proposed development. It is an offence under Sections 48 and 69 of the Ontario Heritage Act for any party other than a licensed archaeologist to make any alteration to a known archaeological site or to remove any artifact or other physical evidence of past human use or activity from the site, until such time as a licensed archaeologist has completed archaeological field work on the site, submitted a report to the Minister stating that the site has no further cultural heritage value or interest, and the report has been filed in the Ontario Public Register of Reports referred to in Section 65.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Should previously undocumented archaeological resources be discovered, they may be a new archaeological site and therefore subject to Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The proponent or person discovering the archaeological resources must cease alteration of the site immediately and engage a licensed consultant archaeologist to carry out archaeological field work, in compliance with Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Cemeteries Act, R.S.O c. C. 4 and the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.33 (when proclaimed in force) require any person discovering human remains must notify the police or coroner and the Registrar of Cemeteries at the Ministry of Consumer Services. Archaeological sites recommended for further archaeological fieldwork or protection remain subject to Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act and may not be altered, or have artifacts removed from them, except by a person holding an archaeological licence. Page 11

13 Bibliography Adam G.M., Mulvany, C.P, Robinson, C.B. (1885). History of Toronto and County of York, Ontario. Toronto, ON: C. Blackett Robinson. City of Vaughan. (2016). A Brief History of Woodbridge. Retrieved from Docu ments/a%20brief%20history%20of%20woodbridge.pdf ESRI Canada. (2015). Digital Globe, GeoEye, l-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS user Community [software]. Available from First Base Solutions. (2015). Ontario Base Mapping [software]. Available from Miles & Co. (1878). [Historical Mapping] Illustrated Historical Atlas for York County. Retrieved from frames.php Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. (2011). Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Toronto: Queen s Printer. Ontario Geological Survey. (n.d.). Surficial Geology Data for Southern Ontario [computer software]. Sudbury: Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines Rayburn, A. (1997). Place Names of Ontario. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Smith, W. H. (1846) Canadian Gazetteer. Retrieved from Tremaine, G. (1860). [Historical Mapping] Map of the York County. Retrieved from York Region, York Maps (2017). Interactive Maps, Land Information, Archaeological Potential. Retrieved from Page 12

14 Figure 1: Location of Study Area. Page 13

15 Figure 2: 1860 Map of the County of York. Page 14

16 Figure 3: 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York. Page 15

17 Figure 4: Current Land Use. Page 16

18 Figure 5A: Stage 1 Recommendations Archaeological Potential. Page 17

19 Figure 5B: York Region Archaeological Potential Map. Page 18