Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment, Huron Street and 0 Oliver Street, City of Guelph. Detritus Consulting Ltd. archaeology~heritage

Transcription

1 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment, Huron Street and 0 Oliver Street, City of Guelph Part of Lots 1 and 2, Range 2 Division F and Lot 29, Registered Plan 244 Geographic Township of Guelph, Historical County of Wellington, now City of Guelph, Ontario Submitted to: Kimshaw Holdings Ltd Prince Albert Court, Suite 2 Mississauga, ON L5H 3S1 and The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Submitted by: Detritus Consulting Ltd. archaeology~heritage 69 Claremont Avenue, Kitchener Ontario, N2M 2P5 Mobile/Office: garth@golden.net Licensee: Garth Grimes License Number: P017 PIF Number: P CP Number: ORIGINAL REPORT October 31, 2017

2 Executive Summary Detritus Consulting Ltd. ( Detritus ) was retained by Mr. Mitchell Fasken of Kimshaw Holdings Ltd. ( the Proponent ) to conduct a Stage 1-2 archaeological assessment on part of Lots 1 and 2, Range 2 Division F and Lot 29, Registered Plan 244, Geographic Township of Guelph, Historical County of Wellington, now City of Guelph, Ontario (Figure 1). This assessment was conducted in advance of a proposed development at Huron Street and 0 Oliver Street in the City of Guelph ( Study Area ). The 0 Oliver Street portion of the Study Area is rectangular and measures 0.08 hectares (ha) and comprises a gravel parking lot; it is bound by Huron Street to the northeast, Oliver Street to the southeast, and neighbouring residential properties to the northwest and southwest. The Huron Street portion of the Study Area is irregular in shape and measures 2.5ha; it comprises primarily industrial buildings, with associated asphalt and gravel driveway, sidewalks, manicured lawn as well as a woodlot. This portion of the Study Area is bound by Alice Street to the northwest, Huron Street to the southwest, an agricultural field to the southeast and Guelph Junction Rail Road to the east and northeast. The entirety of both the 0 Oliver Street and Huron Street portions of the Study Area were subject to assessment. The assessment was triggered by the Provincial Policy Statement ( PPS ) that is informed by the Planning Act (Government of Ontario 1990a), which states that decisions affecting planning matters must be consistent with the policies outlined in the larger Ontario Heritage Act (1990b). According to Section of the PPS, development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources have been conserved. To meet this condition, a Stage 1-2 assessment of the Study Area was conducted during the pre-approval phase of the development under archaeological consulting license P017 issued to Mr. Garth Grimes by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport ( MTCS ) and adheres to the archaeological license report requirements under subsection 65 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 1990b) and the MTCS 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists ( Standards and Guidelines ; Government of Ontario 2011). The Stage 1 background research indicated that a portion of the Study Area exhibited moderate to high potential for the identification and recovery of archaeological resources. These areas included the manicured lawn and the woodlot located within the Huron Street portion of the Study Area. A Stage 2 assessment was recommended for these areas. The subsequent Stage 2 assessment of the Study Area was conducted on October 12, This investigation consisted of a standard test pit survey at five metre intervals across the manicured lawn and woodlot, or as closely as possible given the visible rocks on the surface of the woodlot and resulted in the identification and documentation of no archaeological resources. Given the results of the Stage 2 assessment, wherein no archaeological material was encountered, no further archaeological assessment of the Study Area is recommended. The Executive Summary highlights key points from the report only; for complete information and findings, the reader should examine the complete report. Detritus Consulting Inc. ii

3 Table of Contents Executive Summary... ii Table of Contents... iii Project Personnel... iv Acknowledgments... iv 1.0 Project Context Development Context Historical Context Post-Contact Aboriginal Resources Euro-Canadian Resources Land Registry Records Study Area Land Use Archaeological Context Property Description and Physical Setting Pre-Contact Aboriginal Land Use Previous Identified Archaeological Work Archaeological Potential Field Methods Record of Finds Analysis and Conclusions Recommendations Advice on Compliance with Legislation Bibliography and Sources Maps Photos Field Photos Images Detritus Consulting Inc. iii

4 Project Personnel Project Manager: Garth Grimes (P017) Field Director: Mathew Gibson (R1160) Report Preparation: Amanda Laprise (R470) Mapping and GIS: Amanda Laprise (R470) Licensee Review: Garth Grimes (P017) Acknowledgments Generous contributions by the following individuals and agencies made this report possible. Mr. Mitchell Fasken of Kimshaw Holdings Ltd. Mr. Chris Pidgeon, GSP Group Inc. Detritus Consulting Inc. iv

5 1.0 Project Context 1.1 Development Context Detritus Consulting Ltd. ( Detritus ) was retained by Mr. Mitchell Fasken of Kimshaw Holdings Ltd. ( the Proponent ) to conduct a Stage 1-2 archaeological assessment on part of Lots 1 and 2, Range 2 Division F and Lot 29, Registered Plan 244, Geographic Township of Guelph, Historical County of Wellington, now City of Guelph, Ontario (Figure 1). This assessment was conducted in advance of a proposed development at Huron Street and 0 Oliver Street in the City of Guelph ( Study Area ). The 0 Oliver Street portion of the Study Area is rectangular and measures 0.08 hectares (ha) and comprises a gravel parking lot; it is bound by Huron Street to the northeast, Oliver Street to the southeast, and neighbouring residential properties to the northwest and southwest. The Huron Street portion of the Study Area is irregular in shape and measures 2.5ha; it comprises primarily industrial buildings, with associated asphalt and gravel driveway, sidewalks, manicured lawn as well as a woodlot. This portion of the Study Area is bound by Alice Street to the northwest, Huron Street to the southwest, an agricultural field to the southeast and Guelph Junction Rail Road to the east and northeast. The entirety of both the 0 Oliver Street and Huron Street portions of the Study Area were subject to assessment. The assessment was triggered by the Provincial Policy Statement ( PPS ) that is informed by the Planning Act (Government of Ontario 1990a), which states that decisions affecting planning matters must be consistent with the policies outlined in the larger Ontario Heritage Act (1990b). According to Section of the PPS, development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources have been conserved. To meet this condition, a Stage 1-2 assessment of the Study Area was conducted during the pre-approval phase of the development under archaeological consulting license P017 issued to Mr. Garth Grimes by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport ( MTCS ) and adheres to the archaeological license report requirements under subsection 65 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 1990b) and the MTCS 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists ( Standards and Guidelines ; Government of Ontario 2011). The purpose of the Stage 1 assessment is to compile all available information about the known and potential archaeological heritage resources within the Study Area and to provide specific direction for the protection, management and/or recovery of these resources. In compliance with the provincial standards and guidelines set out in the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011), the objectives of the Stage 1 Archaeological Overview/Background Study are as follows: To provide information about the Study Area s geography, history, previous archaeological fieldwork and current land conditions; To evaluate in detail, the Study Area s archaeological potential which will support recommendations for Stage 2 survey for all or parts of the property; and To recommend appropriate strategies for Stage 2 survey. To meet these objectives Detritus archaeologists employed the following research strategies: A review of relevant archaeological, historic and environmental literature pertaining to the Study Area; A review of the land use history, including pertinent historic maps; and An examination of the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database ( ASDB ) to determine the presence of known archaeological sites in and around the Study Area. The purpose of the Stage 2 assessment is to provide an overview of archaeological resources within the Study Area and to determine whether any of the resources might be archaeological sites with cultural heritage value or interest ( CHVI ) and to provide specific direction for the protection, management and/or recovery of these resources. In compliance with the provincial standards and guidelines set out in the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011), the objectives of the Stage 2 Assessment are as follows: Detritus Consulting Inc. 1

6 To document all archaeological resources within the Study Area; To determine whether the Study Area contains archaeological resources requiring further assessment; and To recommend appropriate Stage 3 assessment strategies for archaeological sites identified. The licensee received permission from the Proponent to enter the land and conduct all required archaeological fieldwork activities, including the recovery of artifacts. 1.2 Historical Context Post-Contact Aboriginal Resources The post-contact Aboriginal occupation of Southern Ontario was heavily influenced by the dispersal of various Iroquoian-speaking communities by the New York State Iroquois and the subsequent arrival of Algonkian speaking groups from northern Ontario at the end of the 17 th century and the beginning of the 18 th century (Konrad 1981; Schmalz 1991). By 1690, Algonkian speakers from the north appear to have begun to repopulate Bruce County (Rogers 1978:761). This is the period in which the Mississaugas are known to have moved into southern Ontario and the lower Great Lakes watersheds (Konrad 1981). In southwestern Ontario, however, members of the Three Fires Confederacy (Chippewa, Ottawa and Potawatomi) were immigrating from Ohio and Michigan in the late 1700s (Feest and Feest 1978: ). The Study Area first enters the Euro-Canadian historic record with Treaty Number 3, which...was made with the Mississa[ug] a Indians 7 th December, 1792, though purchased as early as This purchase in 1784 was to procure for that part of the Six Nation Indians coming into Canada a permanent abode. The area included in this Treaty is, Lincoln County excepting Niagara Township; Saltfleet, Binbrook, Barton, Glanford and Ancaster Townships, in Wentworth County; Brantford, Onondaga, Tusc[a]r[o]ra, Oakland and Burford Townships in Brant County; East and West Oxford, North and South Norwich, and Dereham Townships in Oxford County; North Dorchester Township in Middlesex County; South Dorchester, Malahide and Bayham Township in Elgin County; all Norfolk and Haldimand Counties; Pelham, Wainfleet, Thorold, Cumberland and Humberstone Townships in Welland County.... Morris 1943:17-18 The Speed River would supply enough natural resources to serve as hunting grounds or areas for resource extraction for nearby First Nations groups. The size and nature of the pre-contact settlements and the subsequent spread and distribution of Aboriginal material culture in Southern Ontario began to shift with the establishment of European settlers in Southern Ontario. Despite the inevitable encroachment of European settlers on previously established Aboriginal territories, written accounts of material life and livelihood, the correlation of historically recorded villages to their archaeological manifestations, and the similarities of those sites to more ancient sites have revealed an antiquity to documented cultural expressions that confirms a deep historical continuity to Iroquoian systems of ideology and thought (Ferris 2009:114). As Ferris observes, despite the arrival of a competing culture, First Nations communities throughout Southern Ontario have left behind archaeologically significant resources that demonstrate continuity with their pre-contact predecessors, even if they have not been recorded extensively in historical Euro-Canadian documentation Euro-Canadian Resources The history of the area began on July 24, 1788, when Sir Guy Carleton, the Governor-General of British North America, divided the Province of Québec into the administrative districts of Hesse, Nassau, Mecklenburg and Lunenburg (Archives of Ontario 2009). Further change came in December 1791 when the former Province of Québec was rearranged into Upper Canada and Detritus Consulting Inc. 2

7 Lower Canada under the Constitutional Act. Colonel John Graves Simcoe was appointed as Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada (Coyne 1895:33) and he initiated several initiatives to populate the province including the establishment of shoreline communities with effective transportation links between them. In July 1792, Simcoe divided Upper Canada into 19 counties stretching from Essex in the west to Glengarry in the east. Each new county was named after a county in England or Scotland; the constituent townships were then given the names of the corresponding townships from each original British county (Powell and Coffman 1956:17-18). Later that year, the four districts originally established in 1788 were renamed the Western, Home, Midland, and Eastern Districts. As population levels in Upper Canada increased, smaller and more manageable administrative bodies were needed resulting in the establishment of many new counties and townships. As part of this realignment, the boundaries of the Home and Western Districts were shifted and the West Riding Districts was established. Under this new territorial arrangement, the Study Area became part of the West Riding District (Archives of Ontario 2009). The township of Guelph was acquired by the government in 1792 but settlement did not begin for 35 years (Johnson 1977). This is a result of government policy, which set aside the Township of Guelph as crown reserves for new settlers once areas were established and the money from the leased land would support the government (Johnson 1977). The first survey of the area was in 1826 by George Sylvester Tiffany. Tiffany reported that the area was favourable to settlement and decided where the town of Guelph should be settled (Irwin 1993). In 1827, the Canada Company was granted the Huron Tract, a one-million-acre parcel of land. The Township of Guelph was officially founded in 1827 by the symbolic felling of a tree on St George s Day by John Galt (Burrows 1877). Galt thereafter selected Guelph as the headquarters for the Canada Company. Originally the town of Guelph was only one square mile in area from Speed River to Edinburgh Road. Waterloo Road, now Highway 8, was cut through the forest by Absalom Shade and opened for travel in the summer of 1827 (Irwin 1993). Waterloo Road extended from Galt to Dundas and was three chains wide (Irwin 1993). John Galt, a Scottish author, was the architect of the formation and design of the layout of Guelph and the area was settled by Scottish immigrants from the Midlands and Borders of Scotland with the focus on agriculture. The initial wave of Scottish immigrants helped to establish an agricultural landscape that was quick to yield the benefits of the fertile landscape. A second wave of Scottish immigrants brought a wealthier group of families to the area in 183os. Among these were the Allan family, who were knowledgeable in milling. William Allan and his elder son, David Allan bought and developed the first mill known as Allan Grist Mill on the west portion of the original property next to the Speed River. David Allan became a prominent member of the Guelph community and helped to design and build St. Andrews Church and the Court House in the 1850s. In 1878 the mill was taken over by David Spence who in turn sold the property to The Electric Light Station. The remaining portions of the old Allan Mill, located across Surrey Street East, were destroyed by a small fire in 1953 and a larger fire in The damaged remains were demolished in the late 1950s. The area became Guelph s Downtown Trail where part of the old mill was preserved Land Registry Records The Land Registry Office Records for the chain of title for 120 Huron Street, on Lots 1 and 2 Range 2 Division F indicate that in 1871 Lot 1 changed hands from John MacDonald to Henry Hatch. Four years later Henry Hatch sold the property to Robert Emslie who sold the property to Fred J. Chubb in the same year. In 1879 Mr. Chubb sold the lot to William Hart who in 1882 took out a mortgage with James Walter Lyon. The Land Registry Records from 1882 to 1891 were mostly illegible however it appears as though Mr. Lyon financed multiple mortgages on the property. Thomas Birmingham owned a portion of the lot, which he mortgaged through Mr. Lyon and later assigned to Thomas Gibbs Blackstock in November Mr. Birmingham defaulted on the mortgage and the land was sold by means of public auction by Mr. Lyons to the Kennedy s. Another portion of the lot was owned by Robert Carroll and William Franklin Dunspaugh. Mr. Detritus Consulting Inc. 3

8 Blackstock held a mortgage on that property, the mortgage was assigned to The People s Loan and Deposit Company. Mr. Carroll and Mr. Dunspaugh defaulted on the mortgage and the Kennedy s purchased this portion of the lot for the outstanding balance. In 1891 part of Lot 2 changed hands from David Kennedy, builder and widower to John Kennedy and builder. A year later part of Lot 1 was purchased from Mr. Lyon by David and John Kennedy. The deed for a portion of Lot 1 changed hands from Thomas Gibb Blackstock to David and John Kennedy. In 1894 part of Lots 1 and 2 which belonged to the Estate of David Kennedy were deeded to John Kennedy, his son. It was in 1919 that parts of Lots 1 and 2 were granted from John Kennedy to The Northern Rubber Company, Limited. In April of 1942 parts of Lots 1 and 2 were sold to Northern-Woodstock Rubber, Limited (incorporated 11 Jan 1939) from the Northern Rubber Company, Limited (incorporated 16 Dec 1930). In 1958 the property transferred hands from Northern-Woodstock Rubber, Limited to Uniroyal Chemicals Ltd./Uniroyal Chemical Ltee however this transfer was never registered. A vesting order in 1988 provided the title to Uniroyal Chemicals Ltd/Uniroyal Chemical Ltee. In 2001 there was a name change from Uniroyal Chemicals Ltd/Uniroyal Chemical Ltee. To Crompton C./CTE. The Land Registry Office Records for the chain of title for 0 Oliver Street, on Lot 29 Registered Plan 244 indicates that in The City of Guelph owned the property until 1891 when they sold it to David Kennedy who owned it until In 1894 the deed to the property was passed to John Kennedy following the death of his father, David Kennedy. In 1919 John Kennedy sold the property to The Northern Rubber Company, Limited who in 1943 sold it to Woodstock Rubber Company Limited. It us unknown how long the Woodstock Rubber Company Limited owner the property. In 1988 Woodstock Rubber Company Limited sold the property to Uniroyal Chemicals Ltd/Uniroyal Chemical Ltee. It was in 2001 that the property changed hands from Uniroyal Chemicals Ltd/Uniroyal Chemical Ltee. to Crompton Co./CIE, who currently still own the property. Further information on the above can be found in earlier studies conducted for the Study Area; The Cultural Heritage Resource Impact Assessment conducted by CHC Limited (2017) and the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment conducted by Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (2007) Study Area Land Use The Study Area occupies part of Lots 1 and 2, Range 2 Division F and Lot 29, Registered Plan 244, Geographic Township of Guelph, Historical County of Wellington, now City of Guelph, Ontario. The Illustrated Historical Atlas of the Counties of Waterloo and Wellington (Historical Atlas), demonstrates the extent to which Guelph Township had been settled by 1877 (Parsell & Co 1877; Figure 2). Landowners are listed for every lot within the township, many of which had been subdivided multiple times into smaller parcels to accommodate an increasing population throughout the late 19 th century. Structures and orchards are prevalent throughout the township, almost all of which front early roads and water bodies. Also depicted on the Historical Atlas is the early Town of Guelph as well as the Grand Trunk Railway and Great Western Railway. According to the Historical Atlas map of Guelph Township, landowners are not listed for Lots 1 and 2, Range 2 Division F or for Lot 29 Registered Plan 244. No structures or orchards are visible on either lot. Although significant and detailed landowner information is available on the current Historical Atlas map of Guelph Township, it should be recognized that historical county atlases were funded by subscriptions fees and were produced primarily to identify factories, offices, residences and landholdings of subscribers. Landowners who did not subscribe were not always listed on the maps (Caston 1997:100). Moreover, associated structures were not necessarily depicted or placed accurately (Gentilcore and Head 1984). No development seems to have occurred at Huron Street until the portions of Lots 1 and 2 of Range 2 Division F, owned by John Kennedy, were sold in 1919 to The Northern Rubber Company Limited. The Northern Rubber Company Limited began erecting buildings between 1919 and Production of rubber footwear at the factory began in April 1920 (CHC Limited 2017). Detritus Consulting Inc. 4

9 The 1929 Fire Insurance Map shows the extent of the buildings erected by the Northern Rubber Company Limited including the four extant buildings and four buildings no longer standing at Huron Street (Figure 3). This plan also shows the railway and the approximate extent of the stone quarry ponds with a note above them stating Old Stone Quarry Silent March The 1948 and 1950 aerial photographs show the extent to which the Study Area was developed at the time. Visible at Huron Street are the buildings, the abandoned quarry, the railway and the general environment of the Study Area (Plates 1, 2 and 3). It was in 1939 that The Northern Rubber Company Limited found itself in financial difficulty and merged with the Woodstock Rubber Company Limited to form Northern-Woodstock Rubber Limited. In 1942 the Study Area was purchased by Northern-Woodstock Rubber Limited from the Northern Rubber Company Limited. In 1958 the Study Area was sold to the Dominion Rubber Limited and in 1988 the property was transferred to the Uniroyal Chemical Ltd./Uniroyal Chemical Ltee. In 1999 Uniroyal Chemical became Cropton Corporation and in 2006 Chemtura Canada. Chemtura vacated the Study Area in The Proponent reported that the southern half to two-thirds of the Study Area was a surface rock quarry, as is visible in the aerial imagery (Plates 1, 2 and 3) and in the 1970s the southern half of the Study Area was filled with 2.5m to 5m of fill material consisting of foundry sand, asphalt, concrete and rock rubble. The Proponent also reported the soils do not meet the Ministry of Environment s criteria and therefore the woodlot will be removed and a 1m fill cap will be placed on top after the site remediation occurs to remove any areas of high impact to the environment. The portion of the Study Area located at 0 Oliver Street can be seen in the aerial photographs from 1948 (Plates 1 and 2); visible is the transformer sub-station. In 1992 the building was demolished and in 2000 the concrete foundation was removed. This property has been used as a parking lot since the 1950s and remains a gravel parking lot today. 1.3 Archaeological Context Property Description and Physical Setting The 0 Oliver Street portion of the Study Area is rectangular and measures 0.08ha and comprises a gravel parking lot; it is bound by Huron Street to the northeast, Oliver Street to the southeast, and neighbouring residential properties to the northwest and southwest. The Huron Street portion of the Study Area is irregular in shape and measures 2.5ha; it comprises primarily industrial buildings, with associated asphalt and gravel driveway, sidewalks, manicured lawn as well as a woodlot. This portion of the Study Area is bound by Alice Street to the northwest, Huron Street to the southwest, an agricultural field to the southeast and Guelph Junction Rail Road to the east and northeast. The majority of the region surrounding the Study Area has been subject to European-style agricultural practices for over 100 years, having been settled by Euro-Canadian farmers by the mid-19 th century. Much of the region today continues to be used for agricultural purposes. The Study Area is situated within the Guelph Drumlin Field. According to Chapman and Putnam The Guelph drumlin field occupies an area of 320 square miles lying northwest, or in front of the Paris Morraine. Within this area, including parts of the Regional Municipalities of Hamilton-Wentworth, Waterloo, and Halton, and part of Wellington County, there are approximately 300 drumlins of all sizes. For the most part these hills are of the broad oval type with slopes less steep than those of the Peterborough drumlins. Chapman and Putnam 1984: Detritus Consulting Inc. 5

10 The closest potable water sources are the Eramosa and Speed Rivers which are located 560 metres (m) to the southeast and 571m to the southwest of the Study Area respectively. The soil type within the Study Area is Burford Loam (Figure 4; Hoffman, Matthews and Wicklund 1963). Burford loam is well drained soils consisting of loam surface horizons on gravel deposits. The gravel was deposited by glacial meltwaters in the form of spillways, which are most common in the southern part of the County the largest of which occurs on the terraces that border the Speed River (Hoffman, Matthews and Wicklund 1963). The gravel, stone and cobbles present in the soil do not interfere with cultivation. Burford soils are suitable for crops such as spring grains, winter wheat, hay, pasture and silage corn as well as orchards and certain canning crops however these are not common of the area. The underlying gravel in the soil is highly in demand for construction of highways, county road and manufacturing of building materials. Large gravel pits are located on the outskirts of Guelph (Hoffman and Matthews 1963) Pre-Contact Aboriginal Land Use This portion of Southwestern Ontario has been demonstrated to have been occupied by people as far back as 11,000 years ago as the glaciers retreated. For the majority of this time, people were practicing hunter gatherer lifestyles with a gradual move towards more extensive farming practices. Table 1 provides a general outline of the cultural chronology of Guelph Township, based on Ellis and Ferris (1990). Table 1: Cultural Chronology for Guelph Township Period Characteristics Time Comments Early Paleo-Indian Fluted Projectiles B.C. spruce parkland/caribou hunters Late Paleo-Indian Hi-Lo Projectiles B.C. smaller but more numerous sites Early Archaic kirk and Bifurcate Base Points B.C. slow population growth Middle Archaic Brewerton-like points B.C. environment similar to present Lamoka (narrow points) B.C. increasing site size Broad Points B.C. large chipped lithic tools Late Archaic Small Points B.C. introduction of bow hunting Terminal Archaic Hind Points B.C. emergency of true cemeteries Early Woodland Meadowood Points B.C. introduction of pottery Middle Woodland Pseudo-Scallop/Dentate Pottery (Saugeen Complex) 500 B.C. -A.D. 700/1000 large fisher-gathererhunter basecamps, cemeteries continued pattern of traditional fishing, Pre-Iroquoian Late Woodland A.D Middle Iroquoian-like (Uren and Middleport) A.D gathering and hunting longhouse village, continued fishing, gathering and hunting A.D tribal warfare and Late Woodland Late Ontario Iroquoian-like 1650/1690 displacement early written records and Contact Aboriginal Various Algonkian Groups A.D present treaties Historic Euro-Canadian A.D present European Settlement Previous Identified Archaeological Work In order to compile an inventory of archaeological resources, the registered archaeological site records kept by the MTCS were consulted. In Ontario, information concerning archaeological sites stored in the ASDB (Government of Ontario n.d.) is maintained by the MTCS. This database contains archaeological sites registered according to the Borden system. Under the Borden system, Detritus Consulting Inc. 6

11 Canada is divided into grid blocks based on latitude and longitude. A Borden Block is approximately 13km east to west and approximately 18.5km north to south. Each Borden Block is referenced by a four-letter designator and sites within a block are numbered sequentially as they are found. The Study Area under review is within Borden Block AjHb. Information concerning specific site locations is protected by provincial policy, and is not fully subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Government of Ontario 1990c). The release of such information in the past has led to looting or various forms of illegally conducted site destruction. Confidentiality extends to all media capable of conveying location, including maps, drawings, or textual descriptions of a site location. The MTCS will provide information concerning site location to the party or an agent of the party holding title to a property, or to a licensed archaeologist with relevant cultural resource management interests. An examination of the ASDB has shown that there is one archaeological site registered within a 1km radius of the Study Area (Table 2). The site is a mid 19 th century post-contact Euro-Canadian site. Table 2: Registered Sites within 1 km of the Study Area Borden Number Site Name Time Period Affinity Site Type AjHb-86 Harrison House Post-Contact Euro-Canadian agricultural, farmstead, homestead, house, outbuilding, residential The best of Detritus knowledge, no other assessments have been conducted within 50m of the Study Area. It should be noted, however, that previous archaeological assessments (Stage 1 and 2) may have been conducted within 50m of the Study Area, however, if no archaeological resources were registered with the MTCS, no notification on any such previous assessment is provided to consultant archaeologists Archaeological Potential Archaeological potential is established by determining the likelihood that archaeological resources may be present on a subject property. Detritus applied archaeological potential criteria commonly used by MTCS (Government of Ontario 2011) to determine areas of archaeological potential within the region under study. These variables include proximity to previously identified archaeological sites, distance to various types of water sources, soil texture and drainage, glacial geomorphology, elevated topography and the general topographic variability of the area. Potable water is the single most important resource for any extended human occupation or settlement and since water sources in southwestern Ontario have remained relatively stable over time, proximity to drinkable water is regarded as a useful index for the evaluation of archaeological site potential. In fact, distance to water is one of the most commonly used variables for predictive modeling of archaeological site location in Ontario. Distance to modern or ancient water sources is generally accepted as the most important determinant of past human settlement patterns and, considered alone, may result in a determination of archaeological potential. However, any combination of two or more other criteria, such as well-drained soils or topographic variability, may also indicate archaeological potential. Finally, extensive land disturbance can eradicate archaeological potential (Wilson and Horne 1995). As discussed above, distance to water is an essential factor in archaeological potential modeling. When evaluating distance to water it is important to distinguish between water and shoreline, as well as natural and artificial water sources, as these features affect sites locations and types to varying degrees. The MTCS categorizes water sources in the following manner: Primary water sources: lakes, rivers, streams, creeks; Secondary water sources: intermittent streams and creeks, springs, marshes and swamps; Detritus Consulting Inc. 7

12 Past water sources: glacial lake shorelines, relic river or stream channels, cobble beaches, shorelines of drained lakes or marshes; and Accessible or inaccessible shorelines: high bluffs, swamp or marshy lake edges, band bars stretching into marsh. The closest potable water sources are the Eramosa and Speed Rivers which are located 560m to the southeast and 571m to the southwest of the Study Area. Furthermore, as noted above, Burford Loam is well drained with deposits of gravel, which is suitable for pre-contact and post-contact Aboriginal agriculture. The pre-contact and post-contact Aboriginal archaeological potential is judged to be moderate to high. For Euro-Canadian sites, archaeological potential can be extended to areas of early Euro-Canadian settlement, including places of military or pioneer settlements; early transportation routes; and properties listed on the municipal register or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 1990b) or property that local histories or informants have identified with possible historical events. The Historical Atlas map of Guelph Township (Parsell & Co 1877; Figure 2) demonstrates that the entire township was densely occupied by Euro-Canadian farmers by the late 19 th century. Much of the established road system and agricultural settlement from that time is still visible today. Moreover, the ASDB recognizes one registered Euro-Canadian site within 1km of the Study Area (Government of Ontario n.d.). Finally, given the proximity of the Study Area to the early Town of Guelph as well as the Grand Trunk Railway and Great Western Railway, the Euro-Canadian archaeological potential of the Study Area is judged to be moderate to high. When the above listed criteria are applied to the Study Area, the archaeological potential for precontact Aboriginal, post-contact Aboriginal, and Euro-Canadian sites is deemed to be moderate to high. Detritus Consulting Inc. 8

13 2.0 Field Methods The Stage 1-2 archaeological assessment of the current Study Area was conducted under archaeological consulting license P017 issued to Mr. Garth Grimes by the MTCS (P ). The 0 Oliver Street portion of the Study Area is rectangular and measures 0.08ha and comprises a gravel parking lot; it is bound by Huron Street to the northeast, Oliver Street to the southeast, and neighbouring residential properties to the northwest and southwest. The Huron Street portion of the Study Area is irregular in shape and measures 2.5ha; it comprises primarily industrial buildings, with associated asphalt and gravel driveway, sidewalks, manicured lawn as well as a woodlot. This portion of the Study Area is bound by Alice Street to the northwest, Huron Street to the southwest, an agricultural field to the southeast and Guelph Junction Rail Road to the east and northeast. The entirety of both the 0 Oliver Street and Huron Street portions of the Study Area were subject to assessment. The Stage 1 background research indicated that a portion of the Study Area exhibited moderate to high potential for the identification and recovery of archaeological resources. These areas included the manicured lawn and the woodlot located within the Huron Street portion of the Study Area. A Stage 2 assessment was recommended for these areas. The remainder of the Study Area comprised areas of previous disturbance including the gravel parking lot of the 0 Oliver Street portion of the Study Area and the industrial buildings, with associated asphalt and gravel driveway, sidewalks of the Huron Street portion of the Study Area. The Stage 2 assessment was conducted on October 12, 2017 and involved a test pit survey at a 5m intervals across the manicured lawn and woodlot, or as closely as possible given the visible rocks on the surface of the woodlot as per Section 2.1.2, Standards 1 and Guideline 1 of the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011; Figure 5). The weather during the assessment was overcast and cool. During the Stage 2 field work, assessment conditions were excellent and at no time were the field, weather, or lighting conditions detrimental to the recovery of archaeological material. Photos 1 to 18 demonstrate the current land conditions throughout the Study Area as per Section 7.8.6, Standards 1a of the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011). Figure 3 provides an illustration of the Stage 2 assessment methods, as well as photograph locations and directions. Approximately 50% of the Study Area consisted of woodlot and manicured lawn, which were inaccessible for ploughing. These areas were subject to a standard test pit survey at 5m intervals across the manicured lawn and woodlot, or as closely as possible given the visible rocks on the surface of the woodlot (Photos 5 and 6) as per Section 2.1.2, Standards 1 and Guideline 1 of the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011; Figure 5; Photos 1 to 12 and 14). Test pits were excavated to within 1m of all standing structures as per Section 2.1.2, Standard 4 of the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011). All test pits were approximately 30 centimetres (cm) in diameter and were excavated 5cm into sterile subsoil. The soils were then examined for stratigraphy, cultural features, or evidence of fill. All soil from the test pits was screened through six-millimetre (mm) hardware cloth to facilitate the recovery of small artifacts and then used to backfill the pit. No further archaeological methods were employed since no artifacts were identified during the test pit survey. The remaining 50% of the Study Area was evaluated as having no potential based on the identification of extensive land alteration that has severely damaged the integrity of archaeological resources as per Section 2.1, Standard 2b of the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011). These areas of deep disturbance include a gravel parking lot, industrial buildings, an asphalt and gravel driveway and sidewalks. These areas were mapped and photo documented (Photos 4, 7 to 18) in accordance with Section 2.1, Standard 6 and Section 7.8.1, Standard 1b of the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011). Detritus Consulting Inc. 9

14 3.0 Record of Finds The Stage 2 archaeological assessment was conducted employing the methods described in Section 2.0. An inventory of the documentary record generated by fieldwork is provided in Table 3 below. Table 3: Inventory of Document Record Document Type Current Location of Document Additional Comments Type 1 Page of Field Notes Detritus Consulting Ltd. office Stored digitally in project file 1 Maps provided by the Client Detritus Consulting Ltd. office Stored digitally in project file 1 Field Map Detritus Consulting Ltd. office Stored digitally in project file 39 Digital Photographs Detritus Consulting Ltd. office Stored digitally in project file No archaeological resources were identified within the Study Area therefore no material culture was collected. As a result, no storage arrangements were required. Detritus Consulting Inc. 10

15 4.0 Analysis and Conclusions Detritus was retained by the Proponent to conduct a Stage 1-2 archaeological assessment on part of Lots 1 and 2, Range 2 Division F and Lot 29, Registered Plan 244, Geographic Township of Guelph, Historical County of Wellington, now City of Guelph, Ontario (Figure 1). This assessment was conducted in advance of a proposed development at Huron Street and 0 Oliver Street in the City of Guelph ( Study Area ). The 0 Oliver Street portion of the Study Area is rectangular and measures 0.08 hectares (ha) and comprises a gravel parking lot; it is bound by Huron Street to the northeast, Oliver Street to the southeast, and neighbouring residential properties to the northwest and southwest. The Huron Street portion of the Study Area is irregular in shape and measures 2.5ha; it comprises primarily industrial buildings, with associated asphalt and gravel driveway, sidewalks, manicured lawn as well as a woodlot. This portion of the Study Area is bound by Alice Street to the northwest, Huron Street to the southwest, an agricultural field to the southeast and Guelph Junction Rail Road to the east and northeast. The entirety of both the 0 Oliver Street and Huron Street portions of the Study Area were subject to assessment. The Stage 1 background research indicated that a portion of the Study Area exhibited moderate to high potential for the identification and recovery of archaeological resources. These areas included the manicured lawn and the woodlot located within the Huron Street portion of the Study Area. A Stage 2 assessment was recommended for these areas. The subsequent Stage 2 assessment of the Study Area was conducted on October 12, This investigation consisted of a standard test pit survey at five metre intervals across the manicured lawn and woodlot, or as closely as possible given the visible rocks on the surface of the woodlot and resulted in the identification and documentation of no archaeological resources. The remainder of the Study Area comprised areas of previous disturbance including the gravel parking lot of the 0 Oliver Street portion of the Study Area and the industrial buildings, with associated asphalt and gravel driveway, sidewalks of the Huron Street portion of the Study Area. These areas were not subject to Stage 2 assessment, but were photo documented only as per Section 2.1 Standard 2b and Standard 6 of the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011). Detritus Consulting Inc. 11

16 5.0 Recommendations No archaeological resources were documented during the Stage 1-2 assessment of the Study Area. Therefore, no further archaeological assessment of the Study Area is recommended. Detritus Consulting Inc. 12

17 6.0 Advice on Compliance with Legislation This report is submitted to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport as a condition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c 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 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 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. 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. Detritus Consulting Inc. 13

18 7.0 Bibliography and Sources Archives of Ontario The Evolution of the District and County System, Electronic document: Last accessed, October 5, Burrows, Charles Acton The annals of the town of Guelph, Herald Steam Printing House, Guelph. Caston, Wayne A Evolution in the Mapping of Southern Ontario and Wellington County. Wellington County History 10: Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Third Edition. Ontario Geological Survey. Special Volume 2. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. CHC Limited Partial Draft Cultural Heritage Resource Impact Assessment 120 Huron Street, Part of Lot 2, Range 2, Division F and all of Lot 29, Registered Plan 244, City of Guelph, ON. Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Chemtura Canada co./cie Guelph, Ontario. Coyne, J. H The Country of the Neutrals (As Far as Comprised in the County of Elgin): From Champlain to Talbot. St. Thomas: Times Print. Ellis, Chris J. and Neal Ferris (editors) The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, Number 5. Feest, Johanna E. and Christian F. Feest The Ottawa. In Handbook of North American Indians. Vol.15 Northeast, pp B.G. Trigger, ed. Washington: Smithsonian Institute. Ferris, Neal The Archaeology of Native-Lived Colonialism: Challenging History in the Great Lakes. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Gentilcore, R. Louis and C. Grant Head Ontario s History in Maps. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Government of Ontario. 1990a. Ontario Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER P.13. Last amendment: 2016, c. 25, Sched. 4. Electronic documents Last accessed October 05, Government of Ontario. 1990b. Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER O.18. Last amendment: 2009, c. 33, Sched. 11, s. 6. Electronic document: Last accessed October 05, Government of Ontario. 1990c. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER F.31. Last amendment: 2017, c. 2, Sched. 12, s. 4. Electronic document: Last accessed October 05, Government of Ontario Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Toronto: Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Government of Ontario. n.d. Archaeological Sites Database Files. Toronto: Culture Services Unit, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Hoffman, D.W., B.C. Matthews and R.E. Wicklund Soil Survey of Wellington County Ontario. Report No. 35 of the Ontario Soil Survey. Research Branch, Canada. Department of Agriculture and the Ontario Agricultural College. Guelph, Ontario. Irwin, Ross W How We Got Into the Shape We re In. Wellington County History 6: Johnson, Leo History of Guelph: Guelph Historical Society. Guelph. Detritus Consulting Inc. 14

19 Konrad, Victor An Iroquois Frontier: the North Shore of Lake Ontario during the Late Seventeenth Century. Journal of Historical Geography 7(2): Morris, J.L Indians of Ontario reprint. Department of Lands and Forests, Government of Ontario. Parsell, H. & Co Illustrated Atlas of the Counties of Waterloo and Wellington. Powell, Janet R. and Barbara F. Coffman Lincoln County, St. Catharines: Lincoln County Council. Rogers. E. S Southeast Ojibwa. In Handbook of North American Indians. Volume 15, Northeast, edited by Bruce Trigger. Pp Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Schmalz, Peter S The Ojibwa of Southern Ontario. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Wilson, J.A. and M. Horne City of London Archaeological Master Plan. London: City of London, Department of Planning and Development. Detritus Consulting Inc. 15

20 8.0 Maps Detritus Consulting Inc. 16

21 Detritus Consulting Inc. 17

22 Detritus Consulting Inc. 18

23 Detritus Consulting Inc. 19

24 Detritus Consulting Inc. 20

25 Detritus Consulting Inc. 21

26 9.0 Photos 9.1 Field Photos Photo 1: Test Pit Survey at 5m Intervals, facing northeast Photo 2: Test Pit Survey at 5m Intervals, facing southwest Photo 3: Test Pit Survey at 5m Intervals, facing east Photo 4: Test Pit Survey at 5m Intervals, Disturbed Industrial Buildings Not Assessed, facing northwest Photo 5: Rocks on Surface of Woodlot, facing northwest Photo 6: Rocks on Surface of Woodlot, facing east Detritus Consulting Inc. 22

27 Photo 7: Manicured Lawn Test Pitted at 5m Intervals, Disturbed Driveway Not Assessed, facing southwest Photo 8: Manicured Lawn Test Pitted at 5m Intervals, Disturbed Sidewalk Not Assessed, facing southwest Photo 9: Manicured Lawn Test Pitted at 5m Intervals, Disturbed Industrial Building Not Assessed, facing southeast Photo 10: Manicured Lawn Test Pitted at 5m Intervals, Disturbed Industrial Building and Sidewalk Not Assessed, facing northwest Photo 11: Manicured Lawn Test Pitted at 5m Intervals, Disturbed Industrial Buildings and Driveway Not Assessed, facing south Photo 12: Manicured Lawn Test Pitted at 5m Intervals, Disturbed Industrial Buildings and Driveway Not Assessed, facing southwest Detritus Consulting Inc. 23

28 Photo 13: Disturbed Industrial Buildings and Driveway Not Assessed, facing northeast Photo 14: Manicured Lawn Test Pitted at 5m Intervals, Disturbed Industrial Buildings and Driveway Not Assessed, facing southeast Photo 15: Disturbed Industrial Buildings and Driveway Not Assessed, facing northeast Photo 16: Disturbed Industrial Building Not Assessed, facing south Photo 17: Disturbed Industrial Building and Driveway Not Assessed, facing north Photo 18: Disturbed Gravel Parking Lot at 0 Oliver Street Not Assessed, facing northwest Detritus Consulting Inc. 24

29 9.2 Images Plate 1: 1948 Aerial Photo, facing northwest Plate 2: 1948 Aerial Photo, facing southeast Plate 3: 1950 Aerial Photo, facing north Detritus Consulting Inc. 25