Detritus Consulting Ltd.

Transcription

1 Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1, 2) Plan 55, Part Lot 18 RP 17R2952, Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4, Geographical Township of West Grey, Formerly Part of Lot 1 and 2, Concession 2, Historical Township of Bentick, County of Grey. CP# , PIF# P Original Report Submitted to: Karl Thompson 297 Kingswood Drive Kitchener, ON N2E 1S2 And County of Grey Department of Planning and Development 595 9th Ave East Owen Sound, ON N4K 3E3 And The Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Submitted by: archaeology~heritage 69 Claremont Avenue, Kitchener Ontario, N2M 2P5 Mobile/Office: garth@golden.net Licensee: Garth Grimes, Archaeological Consulting License Number: P017 Submitted July 17, 2014

2 2 Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1, 2) Plan 55, Part Lot 18 RP 17R2952, Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4, Geographical Township of West Grey, Formerly Part of Lot 1 and 2, Concession 2, Historical Township of Bentick, County of Grey. CP# , PIF# P Original Report 1.0 Executive Summary A stage 1-2 archaeological assessment was undertaken at the project area located in the northern portion of the Town of Hanover. The project area consists of approximately 10ha of farm fields and undeveloped residential land north of the Saugeen River. Field survey was completed in June 2014 but no artifacts were encountered. In accordance with the criteria in the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists MTCS 2011, no further work was recommended. The study was directed Ms. Melanie Hains under license number R350 issued by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS). Assessment techniques and recommendations follow the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (2011) established by MTCS and the archaeological license report requirements under subsection 65 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act.

3 3 Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 List of Tables 3 List of Maps 3 List of Images 4 Project Personnel 4 Acknowledgments PROJECT CONTEXT Development Context Historical Context Historic Land Use Archaeological Context Registered Archaeological Sites Property Description and Physical Setting Archaeological Potential FIELD METHODS RECORD OF FINDS ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION 10 Bibliography and Sources 12 List of Tables 1. Ontario Prehistory Chronology 7 List of Maps 1. Project Area and Environs Part of the 1880 Illustrated Atlas of Grey County Project Area Site Plan and Stage 2 Methodology 15

4 4 List of Images 1. Western edge of ploughed field and grass lawn strip Ploughed field central portion Ploughed field - southwest portion Forested area in northwest Forested area on west side Cul de sac at north end of 8 th Ave. 16 Project Personnel Project Manager Field Director Field Technicians Garth Grimes P017 Melanie Hains R350 Scott Thompson Report Preparation Garth Grimes Melanie Hains Acknowledgments Generous contributions by the following individuals and agencies made this report possible. Mr. Robert von Bitter, MTCS Toronto Mr. Karl Thompson Ms. Loukia Georgiou Mr. Ron Davidson land Use Planning Consultant Inc.

5 5 2.0 Project Context 2.1 Development Context The Provincial Planning Act in Part 1 section 2 (d) calls for the conservation of features of architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest. Regional and municipal planning departments often implement this policy on behalf of the Provincial government. As such, and in advance of the expected request from the County of Grey to conduct an archaeological assessment, the proponent requested an archaeological assessment be conducted as part of preparations for a draft plan of subdivision application. The archaeological assessment was carried out during the pre-approval phase of the application. Detritus Consulting was contracted by the proponent in May 2014 to conduct a stage 1-2 archaeological assessment of the subject property. The licensee received permission from the owner of the subject property to enter the land and conduct all required archaeological fieldwork activities, including the recovery of artifacts. 2.2 Historical Context Historic Land Use Background research was undertaken in order to: determine the potential for any archaeological resources which may exist on the property establish the proximity of known archaeological sites by compiling all available data on previous archaeological surveys in the area determine the prior land use of the property including prior construction impacts Archival information relating to the subject property was examined at the following locations: Canadian Archaeological Database Files, Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport; Kitchener Public Library. The area now known as Grey County had been explored as early as 1613 when Samuel de Champlain and several Recollet priests arrived in the country of the Hurons, explored along Georgian Bay and established a small mission in the vicinity of Craigleith. By the 1790 s the British had charted the coastline of

6 6 Georgian Bay and Lake Huron and determined to build a naval base at Penetanguishene. In 1825 exploring parties were sent into the interior to identify major waterways and surveying began in The first settlers began moving in the early 1840 s. The first to arrive in the vicinity of Hanover, both in 1849 were Abraham Buck, who set up a hotel near a ford point on the Saugeen River which he operated for over 25 years and Christian Hassenjaeger, who established an informal church in his cabin. The small settlement continued to grow from this point, eventually acquiring the name Hanover, perhaps because it was Hassenjaeger s birthplace (Marsh 1931). The 1880 Illustrated Atlas of Grey County shows no owners or dwellings located on the project area. Not all property owners or structure locations are shown on these maps.

7 7 2.3 Archaeological Context Table 1 Ontario Prehistory Cultural Chronology Chart 7000 B.C B.C. Paleo Indian first human occupation hunters of caribou and other extinct Pleistocene game nomadic, small band society 1000 B.C B.C. Archaic ceremonial burials increasing trade network hunter gatherers 400 B.C B.C. Early Woodland large and small camps spring congregation/ fall dispersal introduction of pottery 800 A.D B.C. Middle Woodland kinship based political system incipient horticulture long distance trade network 1300 A.D A.D. Early Iroquoian limited agriculture (Late Woodland) developing hamlets and villages 1400 A.D A.D. Middle Iroquoian shift to agriculture complete (Late Woodland) increasing political complexity large palisaded villages 1650 A.D A.D. Late Iroquoian regional warfare and political/tribal alliances destruction of Huron and Neutral

8 Registered Archaeological Sites Research in the National Archaeological Sites Registration Database for the Province of Ontario at the MTCS office in Toronto indicates there are no registered archaeological sites within a 1km radius of the study area. No archaeological assessments have been conducted on adjacent properties Property Description and Physical Setting The subject property is located within the Port Huron Moraine sub-area of the Horseshoe Moraines physiographic Region. (Chapman and Putnam 1984: ). This area characterized by two different landform components: (a) a region of stony knobs, kames and ridges composed largely of till, sand and gravel and (b) pitted sand gravel terraces intervening between swampy river and creek bed floors. Morainic ridges and drumlins are common. Soils are dominated by hard calcerous gravel and sand tills. The project area is located on a large, gently undulating sand terrace created by outwash of the Saugeen River. The entire town of Hanover is situated on this large sand and gravel terrace. The project area exhibits gently undulating topography. It consists of a 8.5ha farm field located between the Walkerton and Lucknow Railway line and several residential lots making up an additional 1.5ha along 8 th Avenue. Parts of the project area touch 8 th Avenue on the west side and one potential road ROW crosses 8 th Avenue in the southwest corner of the property. The western side of the project area is characterized by long grass meadow and bush while the remainder is cultivated field. Soils are Sullivan sand. This soil type is well sorted sandy outwash from the Saugeen River generally consisting of 10cm of dark grey sandy loam over 25-35cm of reddish brown sand gradually grading into high lime sand. It has good drainage characteristics Archaeological Potential The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport has designated a set of criteria that allow for a determination of archaeological potential for a given property. These criteria include: the distance from the study area to any known archaeological site, elevated topography, pockets of sandy soil and proximity to historic transportation routes. However the most important and overarching criterion, which when present indicates potential for the discovery of archaeological resources is proximity to a source of water. Water sources may be in the form of primary sources such as lakes or rivers or secondary sources such as old beach ridges or ancient river beds.

9 9 The study area is rated high for archaeological potential based on the following criteria: The southern portion of the project area is within 140m of the Saugeen River. The project area is located within 70m of a historic transport corridor (8 th Avenue). Two small portions of the project area were disturbed by road construction where the project area crosses 8 th Avenue in the southern part of the property and at the northwest end where part of the project area includes the cul de sac at the north end of 8 th Avenue. These two area have low archaeological potential. 3.0 Field Methods The project area was surveyed by a combination of test pit and pedestrian survey. Test pit survey was conducted in forested and grass lawn areas along the western edge of the property. All test pits were excavated to a diameter of 30cm and 5cm below the subsoil interface and screened through 6mm mesh. Test pit holes were examined for evidence of stratigraphy, cultural features and evidence of fill. All test pits were backfilled. All agricultural areas were pedestrian surveyed at 5m intervals. Stage 2 survey fieldwork was conducted on June 14, Weather was sunny. All fieldwork was undertaken when weather and lighting conditions were sufficient to permit good visibility. 4.0 Record of Finds No finds were encountered during field survey. The documentary record generated from the assessment consists of 20 digital photographs, field notes, and survey map. The documentary record will be curated at the offices of until such time as arrangements

10 10 can be made for their transfer to Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of Ontario or another suitable public institution acceptable to the Ontario Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Sport and the project areas owners. 5.0 Analysis and Conclusions The study area appears devoid of archaeological resources. 6.0 Recommendations No archaeological resources were encountered at the project area; therefore in accordance with the 2011 MTCS Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists the following recommendation is made: 1. No further archaeological assessment of the property is required. 7.0 Advice on Compliance with Legislation This report is submitted to the Minister of Tourism and Culture as a condition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c 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 issued by the ministry stating that there are no further concerns with regard to alterations to archaeological sites by the proposed development. It is an offence under Sections 48 and 69 of the Ontario Heritage Act for any party other than a licensed archaeologist to make any alteration to a known archaeological site or to remove any artifact or other physical evidence of past human use or activity from the site, until such time as a licensed archaeologist has completed archaeological fieldwork on the site, submitted a report to the Minister stating that the site has no further cultural heritage value or interest,

11 11 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 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. 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.

12 12 Bibliography and Sources Chapman, Lyman John and Donald F. Putnam 1984 The Physiography of Southern Ontario (Third Edition) Ontario Geological Survey Special Volume 2. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto. McAndrews, J.H. and G.C. Manville 1987 Descriptions of Ecological Regions in Historical Atlas of Canada From the Beginning to 1800 Editor R. Cole Harris, University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Government of Ontario 1990 The Planning Act R.S.O Queen s Printer, Toronto. n.d. Archaeological Data Base Files. Heritage Branch, Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists, Ministry of Tourism and Culture 1979 Soils of Grey County, Report Number 17 of the Ontario Soil Survey, Canada Department of Agriculture, Ontario Agricultural College 1880 Illustrated Historical Atlas of Grey County, Ontario. H. Belden & Co. Marsh, E.L 1931 A History of the County of Grey, In cooperation with the Official Committee, County of Grey McAndrews, J.H. and G.C. Manville 1987 Descriptions of Ecological Regions in Historical Atlas of Canada From the Beginning to 1800 Editor R. Cole Harris, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

13 13 Maps 1. Project Area and Environs Scale 1:35000 N

14 14 2. Part of the 1880 Illustrated Atlas of Grey County Project area Not to scale N

15 15 3. Project Area Methodology Scale 1:4000 N

16 16 Images 1. Western edge of ploughed area showing strip of lawn 2. Ploughed field central portion 3. Ploughed field southwest portion 4. Forested area in northwest 5. Forested area on west side 6. Cul de sac at end of 8 th Ave.