Appendix C. Archaeological Assessment Report. Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Project PROJECT FILE REPORT CITY OF PICKERING

Transcription

1 Krosno Creek Flood Reduction Project PROJECT FILE REPORT CITY OF PICKERING Appendix C Archaeological Assessment Report TMIG THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD

2

3 ARCHEOWORKS INC. Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment: Downtown Stormwater Management & Diversion Study Class Environmental Assessment Phases 3 & 4 City of Pickering Regional Municipality of Durham Ontario Project #: 007-PI Licensee (#): Nimal Nithiyanantham (P390) PIF #: P Original Report November 26 th, 2013 Presented to: The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd Dufferin Street, Suite 200 Vaughan, Ontario L4K 0C5 T: F: Prepared by: Archeoworks Inc Yonge Street, Suite 1029 Newmarket, Ontario L3X 1X4 T: F:

4 Archeoworks Inc. i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Pickering initiated the Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study: Phases 3 (Alternative Design Concepts for the Preferred Solution) and 4 (Environmental Study Report) of a Schedule C Environmental Assessment (EA) project for the diversion of stormwater flows in order to solve an existing flooding problem in the Krosno Creek watershed. Archeoworks Inc. was retained by The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd. (TMIG) to conduct a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (AA) in support of this study. The Stage 1 AA identified potential for the recovery of Euro-Canadian and Aboriginal archaeological remains within undisturbed portions of the study area due to the presence and proximity of watercourses, which carry archaeological potential within 300 metres of their limits. In addition, a review of historical mapping revealed that the study area was well-settled in the 19th century, contributing to the potential to discover historical Euro-Canadian archaeological remains. A review of reports documenting archaeological fieldwork within the study area as well as within 50 metres of its limits has revealed that some areas have already been subjected to Stage 1 and/or 2 AA. With some of these previous assessments having fulfilled Stage 2 AA requirements, it is recommended that the previously assessed areas within the study area be exempt from further assessment. A review of field conditions with the use of aerial and satellite imagery has determined that little remains of the study area s rural character, and that only small portions remain undisturbed. Areas of obvious disturbance, such as land developments since 1954, railroad alignments and paved roadways, are recommended to be exempt from further assessment, given the significant damage to any underlying archaeological resources that their construction would have caused. Potentially undisturbed areas include (but are not limited to) grassed margins flanking paved roads, rural residential frontages, agricultural fields, woodlots lots, wetlands and parklands. Also recommended for further assessment are the historic core of the community of Fairport and the adjacent Fairport United Cemetery. In conclusion, it is recommended that following the selection of a preferred solution and the identification of areas of proposed construction, a Stage 2 AA be undertaken at all undisturbed locations where no previous archaeological assessments had cleared the land of archaeological concern. No construction activities shall take place within the study area prior to the MTCS (Heritage Operations Unit) confirming in writing that all archaeological licensing and technical review requirements have been satisfied.

5 Archeoworks Inc. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary... i Table of Contents... ii Project Personnel... iii 1.0 Project Context Development Context Historical Context Archaeological Context Confirmation of Archaeological Potential Analysis and Conclusions Previously Surveyed Lands Identified Deep and Extensive Disturbances Identified Areas of Archaeological Potential Conclusion Recommendations Advice on Compliance with Legislation Bibliography and Sources Tables Table 1: Sites within One Kilometre of the Study Area... 7 Table 2: History of Occupation in Southern Ontario... 8 Appendices Appendix A: Maps Appendix B: Summary of Archaeological Potential Appendix C: List of Structures Marked in Historical Maps Appendix D: Inventory of Documentary and Material Record... 32

6 Archeoworks Inc. iii PROJECT PERSONNEL Project Director... Nimal Nithiyanantham MTCS licence P390 Report Preparation... Jay Villapando Report Review... Kim Slocki MTCS licence P029 Historical Research... Lee Templeton MTCS licence R454 Graphics... Lee Templeton MTCS licence R454 Jay Villapando

7 Archeoworks Inc PROJECT CONTEXT 1.1 Development Context The City of Pickering ( the City ) completed the Stormwater Management Master Plan for the Frenchman s Bay Watersheds ( Master Plan ) in April 2009, which identified significant flooding problems in the Krosno Creek floodplain. The Master Plan recommended the diversion of storm flows to Pine Creek through the construction of twin 2.5-metre diameter storm sewers and a stormwater management pond, although the specific location for the diversion remains to be finalized. In 2012 the City initiated the Downtown Stormwater Management and Diversion Study in order to complete Phases 3 (Alternative Design Concepts for the Preferred Solution) and 4 (Environmental Study Report) of a Schedule C Environmental Assessment (EA) project for the diversion of Krosno Creek flows. Archeoworks Inc. was retained by The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd. (TMIG) to conduct a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (AA) in support of this study. It covers the portion of the City of Pickering roughly bounded by Liverpool Road and Frenchman s Bay to the west, Montgomery Park Road and Lake Ontario to the south, the CNR spur and hydro corridor to the east, and Finch Avenue to the north (see Appendix A Map 1). This area is henceforth referred to as the study area. This study was triggered by the Ontario Municipal Class EA process. This Stage 1 AA was conducted under the project direction of Mr. Nimal Nithiyanantham, in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act (2009) and under the archaeological consulting licence number P390. Permission to investigate the study area was granted by TMIG on January 11 th, Historical Context The 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists ( 2011 S&G ), published by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) considers the following features or characteristics to be indicative of archaeological potential: previously identified archaeological sites; water sources (i.e., primary water sources, secondary water sources, features indicating past water sources; accessible or inaccessible shoreline); elevated topography; pockets of welldrained sandy soil, especially near areas of heavy soil or rocky ground; distinctive land formations; and resource areas (i.e., food or medicinal plant; scarce raw material; and early Euro-Canadian industry). Additionally, the 2011 S&G considers areas of early Euro-Canadian settlement, including places of early military pioneer or pioneer settlement (e.g., pioneer homesteads, isolated cabins, and farmstead complexes), early wharf or dock complexes, and pioneer churches and early cemeteries, as having archaeological potential. There may be commemorative markers of their history, such as local, provincial, or federal monuments or heritage parks. Early historical transportation routes (trails, passes, roads, railways, portage routes), properties listed in a municipal register or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or a federal, provincial, or municipal historic landmark or site, and properties that local histories

8 Archeoworks Inc. 2 or informants have identified with possible archaeological sites, historical events, activities, or occupations are also considered to have archaeological potential. To establish the archaeological and historical significance of the study area, a comprehensive review of listed and designated heritage properties, and registered archaeological sites within close proximity to its limits was undertaken. Furthermore, a review of the physiography of the overall area and its correlation to locating archaeological remains, as well as consultation of available archaeological and historical documentation was performed. The results of this background research are documented below and summarized in Appendix B Pre-Contact Period The region where the study area is situated was first inhabited after the final northeast retreat of the North American Laurentide ice sheet. Glacial meltwater flooded the Ontario Basin, forming glacial Lake Iroquois which expanded against the retreating ice boundary (Larson and Schaetzel, 2001, p. 531). With ice blocking the St. Lawrence River, a drainage outlet formed near Rome, New York which followed the Mohawk Valley to the Hudson Valley and into the sea (Larson and Schaetzel, 2001, p.531; Karrow and Warner, 1990, p.15). Lake Iroquois water levels continued to rise to 30 metres higher than modern levels with shoreline delineated by welldeveloped shorecliffs and gravel bars extending from St. Catharines to Belleville (Jackson et al, 2000, p.431; Karrow and Warner, 1990, p.15). By 9800 B.C., the ice that had blocked the St. Lawrence River north of the Adirondack Mountains had melted, diverting the drainage outlet to the St. Lawrence River and into the Champlain Sea (Larson and Schaetzl, 2001, p.532). This dramatically lowered the water levels in Lake Iroquois, creating a series of short-lived post-glacial lakes, whose minimum was more than 100 metres below present lake levels (Larson and Schaetzel, 2001, p.532; Karrow and Warner, 1990, p.15; Jackson et all, 2000, p.431; Coakley and Karrow, 1994, p.1619). This lake plain included 10,000 km 2 of land that was available for small groups of Palaeo-Indians who likely resided along the now submerged glacial strandlines (Jackson et all, 2000, p.433). Palaeo-Indians are considered to be small groups of nomadic hunter-gathers who depended on naturally available foodstuff such as game or wild plants (Ellis and Deller, 1990, p.38). Sites in Southern Ontario appear to be small campsites used during travel episodes commonly associated with glacial lake strandlines as they represent an edge between two environmentally different areas which would allow for a wider variety of resources to be exploited from one location (Ellis and Deller, 1990, p.51; Jackson et al, 2000, p.435). Abundant aquatic resources and open vegetation patterns allowed for easy hunting of both caribou and mastodons in low and wet habitats found within lake beds (Jackson et al, 2000, p.434). The artifact assemblage from this period is characterized by fluted and lanceolate stone points, scrapers and small projectile points produced from specific chert types (Ellis and Deller, 1990). These items were created and transported over great distances as a result of following migratory animals. As the climate steadily warmed, deciduous trees slowly began to permeate throughout southwestern Ontario, creating mixed deciduous and coniferous forests (Karrow and Warner, 1990, p.30). The extensive mast forest environment of western Ontario, with its greater

9 Archeoworks Inc. 3 densities of deer and other resources, permitted a more dispersed seasonal settlement pattern than those in eastern Ontario (Wright, 1995, p.238). Archaic Period peoples exploited seasonally abundant resources in a variety of geographic locations as they continued to hunt large game in small bands during summer months and returned to their family groups by the winter (Bursey et al., 2013a). House structures were moveable and the size of these small villages gradually grew in size as population numbers increased. The artifact assemblages from this period can be characterized by a reliance on a wide range of lithic raw materials in order to make stone artifacts, the presence of stone tools shaped by grinding and polishing, an increase in the use of wood working tools; and the appearance of tools made from native copper (Ellis et al, 1990, p. 65). As isostatic rebound, the rising of the Earth s crust, continued, all abandoned shorelines began to tilt upward to the north, causing drainage outlets to fluctuate and the water levels in Early Lake Ontario to rise (Karrow and Warner, 1990, p.15). This caused the formation of Lake Ontario. The recession of Early Lake Ontario and transgression of Lake Ontario ultimately destroyed and submerged many Palaeo-Indian and Archaic sites that were present along the Lake Ontario coastline (Ellis et al, 1990, p.68). By 800 A.D. the Woodland Period began, marked by the increased reliance on domesticated plants, the utilization of both hunting and gathering to procure a larger variety of foods, and the introduction of pottery indicative of a successful subsistence pattern that would require longterm storage of abundant resources. Furthermore, grave goods gradually became more exotic and frequent, indicative of the growing complexity and trade networks between Great Lakes communities. During the Woodland period, the distinct cultural groups of the post-contact period had begun to develop (Bursey et al, 2013b). Beginning in 900 A.D. until the 17 th century, the Ontario Iroquoian Tradition flourished throughout much of western and central Ontario. The Iroquoian Tradition refers to a cultural pattern and a linguistic family in North America which includes the Huron (Wendat), Neutral (called Attiewandaron by the Wendat), Petun (Tionnontaté) in Ontario and the Five Nations of the Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) of upper New York State (Birch, 2010, p.31). Each group had their distinctive traits but shared in a similar pattern of life already established by the sixteenth century (Trigger, 1994, p.42). Villages developed as horticulture began to take on a more central importance in subsistence patterns, particularly the farming of maize, squash and beans, supplemented by fishing, hunting and gathering. Each village was comprised of numerous multi-family longhouses where one s residence was determined on matrilineal descent (Kapches, 2007, p.176). The longhouses were compacted within a defensive palisade that overlooked cultivated fields of corn, squash and beans. Most Iroquoian sites were occupied for years with minimal reoccupation of the same site (Warrick, 2007, p.127). The village was often located near primary and secondary waterways to optimize its economic and trading capabilities. Intertribal trade consisted of small luxury items that could be carried overland (Trigger, 1994, p.44).

10 Archeoworks Inc Contact Period At the time of first contact with the French, the Wendat population was reported to be approximately 30,000 individuals whose territorial homeland, known as the Wendake, roughly stretched between the Canadian Shield, Lake Ontario and the Credit River Valley (Warrick, 2008, p.13; Heidenreich, 1978, p.369). It is speculated that four tribes the Attignawantan, Tahontaenrat, Attigneenongnahac, and Arendahronon amalgamated to form the Huron (Wendat) Confederacy, in defence against the continual aggression of the Haudenosaunee (Warrick, 2008, p.11; Trigger, 1994, p.41). The Arendahronon of the Huron Confederacy became interested in establishing a direct trading relationship with the French to obtain larger quantities European goods at cheaper prices and for the French, this opened larger fur territory to ensure greater quantities of furs would be available for trade (Trigger 1994, p.47). By 1615, the Arendahronon concluded a direct French-Huron trading alliance and by mid-1620, exhausted all available pelts in their own hunting territories and opted to trade European goods for tobacco and furs from the Attiewandaron (Trigger, 1994, pp.49-50). During the 1630s, Jesuit missionaries attempted to convert the entire Huron Confederacy to Christianity as their initial phase of missionary work to convert all the Native people in Southern Ontario (Trigger, 1994, p.51). However, the Jesuits presence in the region had become precarious following a series of major epidemics of European diseases that killed nearly twothirds of the Wendat population, lowering the total population to 10,000 individuals (Warrick 2008, p.245; Heidenreich, 1978, p.369). These epidemics hit children and elderly the worst. The death of the elders deprived the Wendat of their experienced political, war and spiritual leaders leaving them more susceptible to convert to Christianity (Trigger, 1994, p.52; Heidenreich, 1978, p.371). A small tribe within the Haudenosaunee, called the Seneca, had moved into the area and settled along the northern shore of Lake Ontario around strategic waterways, such as the Rouge Trail which rain from Lake Ontario towards the Holland River and onto Lake Simcoe, controlling the hunting and trade (Garratt, 2000, p.94). This settlement, named Ganatsekwyagon or Ganadatsetiagon, was located just east of the mouth of the Rouge River in Frenchman s Bay in close proximity to the study area. It functioned as a primary trading centre used by the French, English and Dutch traders as it was nearer to the St. Lawrence route from where they came (Manchester, 2006). By 1645, having grown dependent on European goods and with their territory no longer yielding enough animal pelts, the Haudenosaunee became increasingly aggressive towards the Huron Confederacy (Trigger, 1994, p.53). Armed with the guns and ammunition from the Dutch, the Haudenosaunee engaged in brutal warfare with the Confederacy and brutally attacked and destroyed several Wendat villages throughout southern Ontario (Trigger, 1994, p.53). The small groups that remained of the Huron Confederacy became widely dispersed throughout the Great Lakes region. As early as 1653, the Anishinaabe, of the Algonquin-speaking linguistic group, wanted to further their role in the fur trade (Johnston, 2004). After a major smallpox epidemic in 1662, the capture of New Netherlands by the English in 1664 which curtailed access to guns and powder,

11 Archeoworks Inc. 5 and a series of French military expeditions against them in 1665, the Haudenosaunee were forced to sue for peace (Warrick, 2008, p.242). In 1701, representatives of several Anishnaabe Nations and the Haudenosaunee assembled in Montreal to participate in Great Peace negotiations, sponsored by the French (Johnston, 2004; Trigger, 2004, p.58). These two groups remained peaceful well into the 18 th century Settlement History By the end of the 1700s, a small tribe within the Anishinaabe nation, called the Mississaugas, claimed portions of the County of Ontario. After the American War of Independence in the late 1700s, a large number of United Empire Loyalists and American immigrants began to move into southern Ontario, putting greater demand on the quantity of available lands of settlement within Ontario County. In 1787, senior officials from the Indian Department met with the Mississaugas of the Carrying Place on the Bay of Quinte and Toronto to acquire land along the northern shores of Lake Ontario extending northward to Lake Simcoe, known as the Johnston-Butler Purchase (Surtees, 1994, p.107). As a result of this meeting, officials believed that they had successfully obtained and paid for the large portion of land on the north shore of Lake Ontario that would allow settlers to acquire the land from the Crown and settle (Surtees, 1994, p.107). However, the document formalizing the transaction omitted a statement of land ceded and the matter of land cession within Ontario County remained a legal issue until 1923 (Surtees, 1994, p.107). After the Anishinaabe continually pressured the Federal government to review the land cession documents for lands south of Lake Simcoe, it became apparent land had not been correctly purchased by the British (Surtees, 1994, p.107; Surtees, 1986, p.19). The William s Treaty provided for the last surrender of the last substantial portion of the territory that had not been given up to government (Surtees, 1986, p.19). The Township of Pickering, initially known as Township No. 9, then given the name Edinburgh, was first surveyed in 1791 by Augustus Jones (Farewell, 1907, p.11; Wood, 1911, p.16). The township was primarily settled after Asa Danforth completed construction of Kingston Road, a commuter road from Ancaster to Kingston, which was two rods wide to accommodate horses and built a safe distance from the lake shore (Farewell, 1907, p.11). The first settler in Pickering was William Peck, an Indian trader and interpreter who settled at the mouth of Duffins Creek (Farewell, 1907, p.12). The first influx of settlers into Pickering Township dates from the second decade of the nineteenth century when the southeastern portion of the township was settled by Quakers from the eastern United States, specifically, those that came with Timothy Rogers (Wood, 1911, p.18). After helping settle numerous Quakers in Newmarket, Rogers returned to Vermont and brought over several more Quaker families and helped settle them south and east of Duffins Creek (Wood, 1911, p.18; Farewell, 1907, p.13). Formerly called Port of Liverpool and Frenchman s Bay, the community of Fairport, located in the southern portion of the study area, flourished as the port community for the Township of Pickering (Hodder, 2001). In 1840, the Pickering Harbour Company Ltd., constructed a 50-metre wide channel entrance into the deep Frenchman s Bay that is protected by two parallel breakwaters about 100 feet apart which extend 400 feet into Lake Ontario (Frenchman s Bay

12 Archeoworks Inc. 6 Marina, 2013). This port allowed the resources from interior parts of the township to be transported to other markets. In 1856, the Grand Trunk Railway opened between Oshawa and Toronto. Slowly, the population in Pickering grew with many settlers focusing on agriculture throughout the remainder of the 20 th century Past Land Use To assess the study area s potential for the recovery of historical pre-1900 remains, several documents were reviewed, namely the 1860 Tremaine s Map of the County of Ontario and the 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario. The study area encompasses parts of Lots 21-22, Range 2; Lots 18-24, Range 3; and Lots 18-23, Concession 1, in the former Township of Pickering, historical Ontario County. A review of the 1860 Tremaine s Map revealed that at least six structures in the rural countryside, along with undifferentiated structures within what is now the community of Fairport, were located within or at a distance up to 300 metres of the study area limits (see Map 2; Appendix C). The lack of markings on the map suggest that the lands within the study area were cleared of forest cover and converted for agricultural use, although the estuary of Krosno Creek and the shores of Frenchman s Bay were marked as marshlands. By 1877, despite the study area still remaining predominantly agricultural/rural in character, the Illustrated Historical Atlas showed an eightfold increase in the number of structures within and within 300 metres of the study area, indicative of more intensive land use and the growing population within the township (see Map 3; Appendix C). In addition to the documented presence of Euro-Canadian historic structures, the study area also contained several historical concession (east-west) roads and line (north-south) roads, that were originally laid out during the survey of Pickering Township. Also depicted within the historical maps are other local streets associated with Fairport village, and the Grand Trunk Railway (now Canadian National Railway) tracks. The 2011 S&G also considers transportation routes such as early settlement roads and trails (buffered by zones of 100 metres either side) to contain potential for heritage features adjacent to their rights-of-way. With the information from historical mapping confirming the area was well-settled during the 19 th century, potential for the location of Euro-Canadian historical archaeological resources within undisturbed portions of the study area within 300 metres of historical structures, and 100 metres of transportation routes can be established Designated and Listed Cultural Heritage Resources Consultation of the Ontario Heritage Properties Database which records heritage resources that have been designated for their Provincial cultural value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act (O.Reg. 10/06), confirmed the absence of Provincially designated heritage properties within the study area 1. Additionally, consultation with the Canadian Register of Historic Places (Parks 1 Clarification: As of 2005, the Ontario Heritage Properties Database is no longer being updated. The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport is currently updating a new system which will provide much greater detail to users and will become publicly accessible in the future. (

13 Archeoworks Inc. 7 Canada, 2013), Ontario Historical Plaques (2013) and the Senior Planner at Development Review & Heritage at the City of Pickering had been contacted and confirmed the absence of both designated and listed heritage properties within and within 300m of the study area (Celebre, 2013). One site of known historic significance is situated within 300 metres of the study area. Old Liverpool House at 1294 Kingston Road (northwest corner of Kingston Road and Liverpool Road), once known as the Liverpool Arms Inn, was a highway inn built in 1827 by Robert Chacker of Merseyside, Liverpool, England. It was an important stop along the Kingston Road stagecoach route and was used by many pioneer settlers who were going to York (now Toronto) to register their land claims, as well as travelers, for lodging. It was moved several metres north to its current location to make room for the widening of Kingston Road (PADA, 1989). Another property of historical significance is the Fairport United Cemetery, located across from 715 Liverpool Road, and lying within the study area limits. Its associated church was built in 1920 to serve residents of this popular summer resort area. The church was torn down in 1975 after the congregation was amalgamated with the Dunbarton United Church but the cemetery remains (Taylor, 2013). 1.3 Archaeological Context Registered Archaeological Sites In order that an inventory of archaeological resources could be compiled for this study area, the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database (OASD) maintained by the MTCS was consulted. Every archaeological site is registered according to the Borden System, which is a numbering system used throughout Canada to track archaeological sites and their artifacts. The study area is located within Borden blocks AkGs and AlGs. According to the MTCS (2013), seven archaeological sites have been registered within a one-kilometre radius of the study area (see Table 1); one of these fall within the study area limits, and an additional two are within 300 metres, thereby contributing to elevated archaeological potential within the study area. Table 1: Sites within One Kilometre of the Study Area Borden # Name Cultural Affiliation Type AkGs-1 Squires Beach Archaic, Laurentian Campsite AkGs-2 Ganadatsetiagon Historic, Seneca Campsite AkGs-7 Brown Archaic, Late * AkGs-15 Harrier Prehistoric Undetermined AkGs-49 Frenchman s Bay Harbour Entrance Euro-Canadian * AlGs-442 Palmer Euro-Canadian * AlGs-449 Disciples Church Euro-Canadian * *indicates information not available

14 Archeoworks Inc. 8 Having noted the presence of these sites in relation to the study area, it is useful to place them in the proper context by reviewing the cultural history of occupation in Southern Ontario provided in Table 2 below. This data provides an understanding of the potential cultural activity that may have occurred within the study area. Table 2: History of Occupation in Southern Ontario Period Archaeological Culture Date Range Attributes PALEO-INDIAN Early Gainey, Barnes, Crowfield BC Big game hunters. Fluted projectile points Late Holcombe, Hi-Lo, Lanceolate BC Small nomadic hunter-gatherer bands. Lanceolate projectile points ARCHAIC Early Side-notched, corner notched, bifurcate-base BC Small nomadic hunter-gatherer bands; first notched and stemmed points, and ground stone celts. Middle Otter Creek, Brewerton BC Transition to territorial settlements Late WOODLAND Narrow, Broad and Small Points Normanskill, Lamoka, Genesee, Adder Orchard etc BC More numerous territorial huntergatherer bands; increasing use of exotic materials and artistic items for grave offerings; regional trade networks Early Meadowood, Middlesex 800BC-0BC Introduction of pottery, burial ceremonialism; panregional trade networks Middle Point Peninsula, Saugeen, Jack s Reef Corner Notched 200 BC-AD 900 Cultural and ideological influences from Ohio Valley complex societies; incipient horticulture Late Algonquian, Iroquoian AD Transition to village life and agriculture Algonquian, Iroquoian AD Establishment of large palisaded villages Algonquian, Iroquoian AD Tribal differentiation and warfare HISTORIC Early Huron, Neutral, Petun, Odawa, AD Tribal displacements Ojibwa Late Six Nations Iroquois, Ojibwa, AD s Migrations and resettlement Mississauga Euro-Canadian AD present European immigrant settlements Previous Archaeological Assessments In order to further establish the archaeological context of the project area, reports documenting previous archaeological fieldwork carried out within the limits of, or immediately adjacent (i.e., within 50 metres) of the project area were consulted. A map of the limits of these assessments is provided as Map 4. Ten reports were identified, all of which were previous assessments associated with other development projects: 1. Stages 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment of Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P , Part of East Half of Lot 23, Range 3, Broken Front Concession, Geographic Township of

15 Archeoworks Inc. 9 Pickering, Ontario, County, Now the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (Archaeological Services Inc., 2003) In the spring of 2003, Archaeological Services Inc. conducted a Stage 1-2 AA of a 2-hectare parcel of land that falls within 50 metres of the southern limit of the current study area. During the Stage 2 assessment only 0.5 hectares were assessed since the other 1.5 hectares consisted of heavily disturbed soils. No significant archaeological remains were encountered and the subject area is considered free of any further archaeological concern. 2. Archaeological Assessment of Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-94014, Monica Cook Estate, Part Lot 23, Range 3, Broken Front Concession, Town of Pickering, Durham Region (London Museum of Archaeology, 1997) In the summer of 1997, the London Museum of Archaeology conducted an AA of a 3.5-acre parcel of land that falls within the current study area. During the assessment no archaeological resources were encountered and the subject area was considered free of any further archaeological concern. 3. Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment: Strategic Rehabilitation of Highway 401 from Warden Avenue to Brock Road - Preliminary Design and Class Environmental Assessment Study (URS Canada Inc., 2011) URS Canada Inc. conducted a Stage 1 AA in 2010 of the Highway 401 corridor, which established high potential for the recovery of archaeological remains within undisturbed portions of the study corridor. While a majority of the study corridor was found to be extensively disturbed due to the presence of paved roadways and artificial landscaping tied to highway construction (and therefore will require no further work), a Stage 2 AA field assessment prior to construction activities was recommended within small undisturbed areas. One of these small undisturbed areas recommended for further assessment include the northwest corner of Liverpool Road and Highway 401, which falls within Alternative iii. 4. Stage 1-3 Archaeological Assessment (AA) of: Proposed Durham Highway 2 Bus Rapid Transit Phase 1, City of Pickering and Town of Ajax, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario, Class EA (Archeoworks Inc., 2012) From fall of 2011 to spring 2012, Archeoworks Inc. conducted a Stage 1-2 AA of a segment of Durham Highway 2 (Kingston Road) which traversed the current study area limits. During test pit survey, one small collection of Euro-Canadian artifacts was encountered along on the north side of Highway 2 within a grass margin. Given the presence of modern intrusions in the collection and the clearly disturbed nature of the soil, no further work was required for the site. No other archaeological resources were discovered in the portion of Highway 2 that lay within the current study area boundaries.

16 Archeoworks Inc Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer Individual Environmental Assessment, Regions of York and Durham, Ontario (Archaeological Services Inc., 2008). Archaeological Services Inc. was retained to conduct a Stage 1 AA in 2005 and identified high potential for the recovery of both Aboriginal archaeological remains and historic Euro-Canadian remains within undisturbed portions of a subject area that encompassed portions of the Town of Markham, City of Toronto, and City of Pickering. The Stage 1 field review focused on the Preferred Alternate Sewer Route which partially ran along Finch Avenue, at the northern edge of the current study area. Since the Preferred Alternative Sewer Route was to be primarily constructed within the existing disturbed Finch Avenue right-of-way, no further work was recommended for portions of the alignment along this road. However, shaft locations, which were to be constructed in undisturbed agricultural fields or treed areas, were recommended to undergo a Stage 2 AA field assessment prior to construction activities. Some of these locations lie within 50 metres outside the study area, but not within. 6. Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer Preferred Route Individual Environmental Assessment, Regions of York and Durham, Ontario (Archaeological Services Inc., 2009) Archaeological Services Inc. conducted a Stage 2 AA along the 15-km preferred trunk sewer route consisting of fifteen proposed work sites beginning in Markham and ending at the intersection of Finch Avenue and Valley Farm Road, along the northern portion of the current study area. The Stage 2 AA of the Shaft 2 work site, which falls within 50 metres of the current study area, comprised three areas on the north side of Liverpool Road and Finch Avenue. No non-modern cultural materials were recovered at any of the three work sites, and were therefore recommended to be cleared of any further archaeological concern. The Stage 2 AA of the three work sites at the intersection of Valley Farm Road and Finch Avenue, located within 50 metres of the current study area, confirmed extensive disturbance; no further archaeological assessment was deemed to be warranted at these locations. 7. Archaeological Assessment of TRCA Property in the City of Pickering (Stage 2): York Durham Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer, Lot 20, Concession II, City of Pickering, Durham Region-DCW (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2008) In the fall of 2007, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) conducted a Stage 2 AA of a collector trunk sewer between York and Durham regions. One Euro-Canadian site, the Palmer Site (AlGr-442), was discovered and recommended for further Stage 3 AA. No archaeological concerns remained for the area east of the discovered site but further investigation was recommended by the contractor in order to honour the commitment made to First Nations as part of the individual environment assessment process.

17 Archeoworks Inc Archaeological Assessment of TRCA Property in the City of Pickering (Stage 2 Monitoring), York Durham Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer Monitoring, Lot 20, Concession 2, City of Pickering, Durham Region, Duffins Creek Watershed (Toronto Region Conservation Authority, 2011a) From the recommendation made in the 2008 TRCA report, the area east of the Palmer Site (AlGr-442) was mechanically topsoil-stripped employing a Gradall, and monitored. The Stage 2 monitoring resulted in no additional cultural materials or features and is cleared of any immediate archaeological concerns. 9. Archaeological Assessment (Stage 2 and 3) in the City of Pickering, Durham Region, York Durham Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer Shaft 1, Lot 20, Concession 2, Historic Pickering Township, Ontario County (Toronto Region Conservation Authority, 2011b) During the spring and summer of 2011, the TRCA conducted a Stage 2 testing of an area of approximately 485 square metres, and Stage 3 investigation of the Palmer Site (AlGr-442). Both the Stage 2 and 3 AA fall within 50 metres of the current study area limits. The Stage 3 AA found no cultural features, suggesting that this site is representative of a small late nineteenth or early twentieth century structure or a dump site that holds no further cultural heritage value or interest. It was therefore recommended that no further archaeological assessment of the property be required. 10. Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment of the Bayly Street Industrial/Commercial Development (Stuart Golvin Property), Part of Lot 19, Concession 3, City of Pickering, Geographic Township of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham (Advance Archaeology, 2007). Advance Archaeology conducted a Stage 1-2 AA of a parcel of land on the south side of Bayly Street near its intersection with Brock Road. During the Stage 2 assessment no artifacts or cultural heritage resources were found and no remains of historic buildings were noted. As such, the subject area was recommended to be considered free of any further archaeological concern Physical Features An investigation of the study area s physical features was conducted to aid the researcher in developing an argument for archaeological potential based on the environmental conditions of the study area. Environmental factors such as close proximity to water, soil type, and nature of the terrain, for example, can be used as predictors to determine where human occupation may have occurred in the past. The study area is situated within the Iroquois Plain physiographic region of Southern Ontario. The lowland bordering Lake Ontario, when the last glacier was receding but still occupied the St. Lawrence Valley, was inundated by a body of water known as Lake Iroquois. The undulating till plains above the old shorelines of Lake Iroquois make up the Iroquois Plain. The plain, cut in previously deposited clay and till, is partly floored with sand deposits; from Scarborough to

18 Archeoworks Inc. 12 Trenton the plain widens until the old beach is six and one-half miles inland from the present shore of Lake Ontario. The old shoreline is well marked by bluffs or gravel bars while immediately below is a strip of boulder pavement and sandy off-shore deposits which vary in width. Poorly drained, this coarse sandy soil is not very productive. Prior to 1930, until 1940, the Iroquois Plain was a general farming area, with a tendency for horticulture and growth of canning crops. Since the Second World War, the remaining farms have become larger while much of the land has been put to urban uses (Chapman & Putnam, 1984). In terms of archaeological potential, potable water is a highly important resource necessary for any extended human occupation or settlement. As water sources have remained relatively stable in Southern Ontario since post-glacial times, proximity to water can be regarded as a useful index for the evaluation of archaeological site potential. Indeed, distance from water has been one of the most commonly used variables for predictive modeling of site location. In Southern Ontario, the 2011 S&G considers undisturbed lands in proximity to a water source to be of elevated archaeological potential. Hydrological features such as lakes, rivers, creeks, swamps, and marshes would have helped supply plant and food resources to the surrounding area, and consequently support high potential for locating archaeological resources within 300 metres of their limits. Pine Creek and Krosno Creek, which both flow into Frenchman s Bay, drain the study area. Along with Lake Ontario, these would have helped supply plant and food resources to the surrounding area, and consequently support high potential for locating archaeological resources within 300 metres of their limits Current Land Condition and Uses The study area is situated within a mixed residential, commercial and industrial setting in southern Pickering. Map 5, which depicts the entirety of the study area as it appeared in 1954, shows that most of the land within the study area was used for agriculture, with only limited residential development occurring north of the then-narrower Highway 401. By 2009 (see Map 6) most of the land has been converted to other uses. Commercial developments are mainly concentrated adjacent to the Highway 401 and Kingston Road corridors, while industrial lands are located in the southeastern portion of the study area. Residential subdivisions mainly make up the northern and southwestern parts of the study area. Small park lands and vacant lands can be found throughout, but especially along the hydro corridor; undeveloped wetlands can still be found in the Krosno Creek estuary and along the shores of Frenchman s Bay. 1.4 Confirmation of Archaeological Potential Based on the information gathered from the background research documented in the preceding section, potential for the recovery of archaeological resources within the study area limits is established. Features contributing to archaeological potential are summarized in Appendix B and mapped against the current landscape in Map 7.

19 Archeoworks Inc ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS A desktop review of field conditions was carried out using satellite imagery obtained using the Google Earth application (see Map 9). In combination with data gathered from background research (see Sections 1.2 and 1.3), an assessment of archaeological potential was performed. 2.1 Previously Surveyed Lands Background research has revealed that portions of the study area had already been subjected to a Stage 2 AA by different consulting firms (see Map 4). Some Stage 1 field assessments also recommended no further work in clearly disturbed road alignments, e.g. Finch Avenue (ASI, 2008) and Highway 401 (URS, 2011) (see Map 4). With previous assessments having fulfilled the Stage 1 and/or 2 assessment requirements within their respective portions of the current study area, it is therefore recommended that these areas be exempt from further assessment. 2.2 Identified Deep and Extensive Disturbances The study area was evaluated for extensive disturbances that have removed archaeological potential. Disturbances may include but are not limited to: grading below topsoil, quarrying, building footprints or sewage and infrastructure development. Section of the 2011 S&G s counts infrastructure development among those features indicating that archaeological potential has been removed. Although the optional field inspection was not carried out, it is certain that paved roadways, the Canadian National Railway alignment, as well as the newer industrial, commercial and residential developments (which were not present in the 1954 aerial photograph) exhibit disturbed conditions. These land and infrastructure developments, the construction of which often entail soil-grading operations and the installation of utilities essential to service the areas (i.e., hydro, cable, sewer, water, etc.), would have caused extensive and deep disturbance to any archaeological resources that could have been present in the ground, thus resulting in the removal of archaeological potential within their footprints (see Map 8). Therefore, it is recommended that these areas be exempted from further assessment (see Map 9). 2.3 Identified Areas of Archaeological Potential Portions of the study area that do not exhibit extensive disturbed conditions, and were not previously assessed, are considered to have archaeological potential. Such areas include, but are not limited to, shrubbed, treed and/or grassed margins outside the paved road alignments, residential lots and frontages that had already existed prior to the 1954 aerial photograph (and therefore no extensive disturbance has been observed), woodlots, park lands, wetlands, and

20 Archeoworks Inc. 14 active agricultural fields (see Map 9). Despite the presence of modern developments within the community of Fairport, the portion of the built-up area that had already existed prior to 1900 (as depicted in the 1860 and 1877 historical maps see Maps 2-3) is still be considered to contain high archaeological potential. Any development or construction activities extending beyond the paved roads, within the portion of Fairport bounded by Commerce Street (including properties along its north side, and the adjacent Fairport United Cemetery), Liverpool Road, Wharf Street and Frenchman s Bay, will require a Stage 2 AA in order to ascertain the presence or absence of archaeological resources within this historic village. 2.4 Conclusions Given the established archaeological potential within identified areas described in Section 2.3 and illustrated on Map 9, further Stage 2 AA will be required within these areas. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are presented: 1. The paved roadways, the CNR alignment, and post-1954 developments marked as disturbances in Map 9 are considered to have had their archaeological potential removed. It is therefore recommended that these areas be exempt from further archaeological assessment. 2. Portions of the study area that had been subjected to previous Stage 2 AAs and/or had been subjected to a Stage 1 AA which cleared these specific areas of further archaeological concern (see Section 1.3.2, Map 4) are recommended to be exempt from further assessment. 3. Following the selection of the preferred solution, all undisturbed and previously unassessed areas which contain archaeological potential (as identified in Section 2.3), and that fall within the limits of proposed construction and/or staging areas should be subjected to Stage 2 field assessment, employing test pit survey at 5-metre intervals. 4. Should proposed work fall within the historic village of Fairport as described in Section 2.4, a Stage 2 AA employing test pit survey at 5-metre intervals will be required in areas within the historic village that have been determined to be undisturbed. 5. Should proposed work occur within or adjacent to the Fairport United Cemetery grounds, following the Stage 2 archaeological investigation of this area, a Stage 3 investigation involving mechanical topsoil stripping will be required in the area to be impacted, including a 10-metre buffer, to avoid disturbance to any potential grave shafts that may be present.

21 Archeoworks Inc. 15 No excavation activities shall take place within the study area prior to the MTCS (Heritage Operations Unit) confirming in writing that all archaeological licensing and technical review requirements have been satisfied. 4.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION 1. This report is submitted to the MTCS as a condition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c0.18. 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 MTCS, 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. 2. It is an offence under Sections 48 and 69 of the Ontario Heritage Act for any party other than a licensed archaeologist to make any alteration to a known archaeological site or to remove any artifact or other physical evidence of past human use or activity from the site, until such time as a licensed archaeologist has completed archaeological fieldwork on the site, submitted a report to the Minister stating that the site has no further cultural heritage value or interest, and the report has been filed in the Ontario Public Register of Archaeology Reports referred to in Section 65.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act. 3. Should previously undocumented archaeological resources be discovered, they may be a new archaeological site and therefore subject to Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The proponent or person discovering the archaeological resources must cease alteration of the site immediately and engage a licensed consultant archaeologist to carry out archaeological fieldwork, in compliance with Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. 4. 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 that any person discovering human remains must notify the police or coroner and the Registrar of Cemeteries at the Ministry of Consumer Services.

22 Archeoworks Inc BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES Archaeological Services Inc. (2003). Stages 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment of Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P , Part of East Half of Lot 23, Range 3, Broken Front Concession, Geographic Township of Pickering, Ontario, County, Now the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario (CIF# ). Archaeological Services Inc. (2008). Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer Individual Environmental Assessment, Regions of York and Durham, Ontario (PIF#: P ; P ; P ). Archaeological Services Inc. (2009). Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer Preferred Route Individual Environmental Assessment, Regions of York and Durham, Ontario (PIF#: P ; P ). Archeoworks Inc. (2012). Stage 1-3 Archaeological Assessment (AA) of: Proposed Durham Highway 2 Bus Rapid Transit Phase 1, City of Pickering and Town of Ajax, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario, Class EA (PIF#: P ; P ). Advance Archaeology. (2007). Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment of the Bayly Street Industrial/Commercial Development (Stuart Golvin Property), Part of Lot 19, Concession 3, City of Pickering, Geographic Township of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham (PIF#: P , PIF# redacted by MTCS). Beers, J.H. & Co. (1877). Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario, Ontario. Birch, J. (2010). Coalescence and Conflict in Iroquoian Ontario. [Online]. Available at: n_ontario [Accessed 26 March 2013]. Bursey, J., Daechsel, H., Hinshelwood, A., and Murphy, C. (2013a). The Archaeology of Ontario The Archaic Period. [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 26 March 2013]. Bursey, J., Daechsel, H., Hinshelwood, A., and Murphy, C. (2013b). The Archaeology of Ontario The Late Woodland Period. [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 26 March 2013]. Celebra, C. (2013). from L. Templeton re. Designated and Listed Heritage Properties within the City of Pickering, 21 March Chapman, L. J. and Putnam, D. F. (1984). Physiography of Southern Ontario. 3rd ed. Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2. Toronto: Ministry of Natural Resources.

23 Archeoworks Inc. 17 Coakley, J.P. and Karrow, P.F. (1994). Reconstruction of Post-Iroquois Shoreline Evolution in Western Lake Ontario. [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 19 March 2013]. Ellis, C.J. and Deller, D.B. (1990). Paleo-Indians. In C.J. Ellis, and N. Ferris, (Eds.). The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D London, Ontario: Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS, pp Ellis, C.J., Kenyon, I.T., and Spence, M.W. (1990). The Archaic. In C.J. Ellis, and N. Ferris, (Eds.). The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D London, Ontario: Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS, pp Energy, Mines and Resources. (1994). National Topographic Survey of Canada, Series A 751, Map 30 M/14. 9th ed. Ottawa. Farewell, J. E. C. (1907). Ontario County. [Online]. Available at [Accessed 26 March 2013]. Frenchman s Bay Marina. (2013). Frenchman s Bay. [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 28 March 2013]. Garratt, J. E. (2000). The Rouge River Valley: An Urban Wilderness. Toronto, Ontario: Natural Heritage/Natural History Inc. Google Inc. (2009). Satellite Imagery. Available from the Google Earth application. [Accessed 25 March 2013]. Harris, R. C. and Warkentin, J. (2000). Canada Before Confederation: A Study in Historical Geography. Canada: McGill-Queen University Press. Heidenreich, C.E. (1978). Huron. In B.G. Trigger (Ed.). Volume 15: Northeast. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, pp Hodder, E. M. (2001). The Harbours and Ports of Lake Ontario: The Port of Liverpool, Or Pickering, Formerly Called Frenchman s Bay. [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 28 March 2013]. Hunting Survey Corporation Limited (1954). Digital Aerial Photographs, Southern Ontario. [Online]. Available at [Accessed 25 March 2013]. Hunting Survey Corporation Limited (1964). Pickering Aerial Photographs. [Online]. Available at [Accessed 29 March 2013].

24 Archeoworks Inc. 18 Jackson, L. J., Ellis, C., Morgan, A. V., McAndrews, J.H. (2000). Glacial Lake Levels in Eastern Great Lakes Palaeo-Indians. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, 15(5). [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 26 March 2013]. Johnson, D. (2004). Connecting People to Place: Great Lakes Aboriginal History in Cultural Context. [Online]. Available at: wash/transcripts/pdf/p1_tab_1.pdf [Accessed 26 March 2013]. Kapches, M. (2007). The Iroquoian Longhouse: Architectural and Cultural Identity. In Kerber, J.E. (Ed.) Archaeology of the Iroquois: Selected Readings and Research Sources. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, pp Karrow, P. F. and Warner, B. G. (1990). The Geological and Biological Environment for Human Occupation in Southern Ontario. In Ellis, C.J. and N. Ferris (Eds.) The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D London, Ontario: Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS, pp Larson, G. and Schaetzl, R. (2001). Origin and Evolution of the Great Lakes. J. Great Lakes Res. 27(4). [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 26 March 2013]. London Museum of Archaeology. (1997). Archaeological Assessment of Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-94014, Monica Cook Estate, Part Lot 23, Range 3, Broken Front Concession, Town of Pickering, Durham Region (97-007). Manchester, L. (2006). Joliet s Map (1670) Showing Village Site Gatasekwyagon. [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 26 March 2013]. Northway Map Technology Limited (1961). Pickering Aerial Photograph. [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 29 March 2013]. Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (2011). Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Toronto. Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (2013). Sites within a One Kilometre Radius of the Project Area, provided from the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database, March 19, Ontario Historical Plaques. (2013). Location - Pickering. [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 26 March 2013]. Parks Canada (2013). Canadian Register Results Pickering. [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 26 March 2013].

25 Archeoworks Inc. 19 Pickering-Ajax Digital Archives (PADA). (1989). Those Were the Days Kindred Spirits. May pp 3-4. [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 26 March 2013]. Surtees, R. J. (1986). Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties. [Online]. Available at [Accessed 26 March 2013]. Surtees, R.J. (1994). Land Cessions, In E. S. Rogers, (Ed.). Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the First Nations. Toronto, Ontario: Dundurn Press Limited, pp Taylor, W. (2013). Erskine Cemetery and Fairport Cemetery. [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 29 March 2013]. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). (2008). Archaeological Assessment of TRCA Property in the City of Pickering (Stage 2): York Durham Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer, Lot 20, Concession II, City of Pickering, Durham Region-DCW (PIF#: P ; P ). Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). (2011a). Archaeological Assessment of TRCA Property in the City of Pickering (Stage 2 Monitoring), York Durham Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer Monitoring, Lot 20, Concession 2, City of Pickering, Durham Region, Duffins Creek Watershed (PIF#: P ). Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). (2011b). Archaeological Assessment (Stage 2 and 3) in the City of Pickering, Durham Region, York Durham Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer Shaft 1, Lot 20, Concession 2, Historic Pickering Township, Ontario County (PIF#: P ). Trigger, B.G. (1994). The Original Iroquoians: Huron, Petun and Neutral. In E.S. Rogers, (Ed.). Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the First Nations. Toronto, Ontario: Dundurn Press Limited, pp URS Canada Inc. (2011). Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment: Strategic Rehabilitation of Highway 401 from Warden Avenue to Brock Road - Preliminary Design and Class Environmental Assessment Study (PIF#: P ). Warrick, G.A. (2007). The Precontact Iroquoian Occupation of Southern Ontario. In Kerber, J.E. (Ed.) Archaeology of the Iroquois: Selected Readings and Research Sources. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, pp Warrick, G. (2008). A Population History of the Huron-Petun, A.D New York: Cambridge University Press.

26 Archeoworks Inc. 20 Wood, W. R. (1911). Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Community. Toronto: William Briggs. [Online]. Available at [Accessed 26 March 2013]. Wright, J.V. (1995). A History of the Native People of Canada: Volume I (10,000 1,000B.C.). Hull, Quebec: Museum of Civilization.

27 Archeoworks Inc. 21 Map 1: National Topographical System Map (Energy, Mines and Resources Canada, 1994) identifying the Stage 1 AA study area. APPENDIX A: MAPS

28 Archeoworks Inc. 22 Map 2: Study area within the Tremaine s Map of the County of Ontario (Tremaine, 1860).

29 Archeoworks Inc. 23 Map 3: Study area within the Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario (J. H. Beers & Co., 1877).

30 Archeoworks Inc. 24 Map 4: Map identifying portions of the study area that have been subjected to previous assessments.

31 Archeoworks Inc. 25 Map 5: Study area in 1954 (Hunting Survey Corporation Ltd., 1954).

32 Archeoworks Inc. 26 Map 6: Study area in 2009 (Google Inc., 2009).

33 Archeoworks Inc. 27 Map 7: Features contributing to archaeological potential mapped against the present landscape.

34 Archeoworks Inc. 28 Map 8: Composite map of the southwestern portion of the study area using historical aerial photographs, showing extensive land disturbance during (Northway Map Technology Limited, 1961), and after residential subdivision construction (Hunting Survey Corporation Limited, 1964).

35 Archeoworks Inc. 29 Map 9: Stage 1 AA of the entire study area showing areas requiring Stage 2 AA and areas recommended to be exempt from Stage 2 AA.