a stage 1 archaeological assessment of the lands at 105 ... · been one of the earliest settlements...

A Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment of the lands at 105 Avondale Court and

143 Blue Water Place (Part of Lots 23, 24 and Block B,

Judge’s Plan 1233), City of Burlington,

Ontario.

Submitted to:

First Urban Inc. c/o Mr. Martin Quarcoopome

Weston Consulting 210 Milway Ave. Suite 19

Vaughan, ON L4K 5K8 T: 905.738.8080 x 266

M: 905.738.6637 E: [email protected]

Prepared by:

Archaeological Consultants & Contractors 14 Thorncliffe Avenue

Toronto, Ontario M4K 1V5 Mobile: (416) 894.7145

Email: [email protected] Web site: www.archaeologicalcontractors.com

Archaeological Consulting Licence G. Clark # P120

MCL PIF #: P120-0204-2016

ORIGINAL REPORT submitted May 12, 2016

A Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Resource Assessment of the lands at 105 Avondale Court and 143 Blue Water Place (Part of Lots 23, 24 and Block B, Judge’s Plan 1233), City of Burlington, Ontario. Page 2 of 33

Project Personnel (Section 7.5.4) Project Director/Archaeologist: Mr. George R. Clark (P120) Report Preparation: Mr. George R. Clark Executive Summary (Section 7.5.2 – Standards 1 & 2) Archaeological Contractors & Consultants (ACC) were retained by First Urban Inc. to conduct a Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment of the lands at 105 Avondale Court and 143 Blue Water Place (Part of Lots 23, 24 and Block B, Judge’s Plan 1233), City of Burlington, Ontario. The subject lands may potentially exhibit archaeological potential as the subject lands and/or portions of the subject lands are within 300m of water sources of primary water sources (Lake Ontario and the nearby Shoreacres Creek watershed to the west), are within 300m of accessible or inaccessible shoreline (the top-of-bank of the shoreline of Lake Ontario), lie on elevated topography (the top-of-bank of the shoreline of Lake Ontario) and lie within 100m of early historical transportation routes (Lakeshore Road). An analysis of the aerial photography and mapping of current existing conditions revealed that the current subject lands have not had their archaeological potential completely removed. Given this, there is potential of recovering undocumented and unimpacted in situ archaeological material. Therefore, a Stage 2 archaeological assessment in accordance with the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists is recommended for these lands. Therefore, it is recommended that a Stage 2 archaeological assessment in accordance with the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists is conducted on these lands as a portion of the subject lands may contain archaeological potential.

o It is an offence under Section 48 and 69 of the Ontario Heritage Act for any other 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.

o 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 the archaeological fieldwork, in compliance with sec. 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act.

o The Cemeteries Act R.S.O. 1990 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.

The above recommendations are subject to Ministry approval and it is an offence to alter any archaeological site without Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport (MTCS) concurrence. No grading or other activities that may result in the destruction or disturbance of any archaeological sites are permitted until notice of MTCS approval has been received.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROJECT PERSONNEL (SECTION 7.5.4) 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (SECTION 7.5.2 – STANDARDS 1 & 2) 2

1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT (SECTION 7.5.6, STANDARDS 1-3) 4

1.1 DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT (SECTION 7.7.1 & SECTION 7.5.6, STANDARDS 1-3) 4 1.2 HISTORICAL CONTEXT (SECTION 1.1, STANDARDS 1-2 & SECTION 7.5.7, STANDARDS 1-2) 5 1.3 HISTORICAL CONTEXT SUMMARY 12

2.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT (SECTION 7.5.8, STANDARDS 1-7). 12

2.1 CURRENT CONDITION OF THE SUBJECT LANDS (SECTION 7.5.8, STANDARD 2) 12 2.2 PHYSIOGRAPHY 13 2.3 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND REGISTRED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES (SECTION 7.5.8, STANDARD 1) 15 2.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT SUMMARY 16

3.0 FIELD METHODS (SECTION 7.7.2, SECTION 1.2 – STANDARDS 1-6) 16

4.0 STAGE 1 ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS (SECTION 7.7.3, STANDARDS 1-2) 19

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS (SECTION 7.7.4, STANDARDS 1-2) 20

6.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION (SECTION 7.5.9, STANDARDS 1-2) 20

7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES (SECTION 7.5.10, STANDARDS 1) 22

8.0 IMAGES (SECTIONS 7.5.11, 7.9.6) 23


A Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Resource Assessment of the lands at 105 Avondale Court and 143 Blue Water Place (Part of Lots 23, 24 and Block B,

Judge’s Plan 1233), City of Burlington, Ontario.

1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT (Section 7.5.6, Standards 1-3) The objectives of a Stage 1 archaeological assessment, as outlined by the Standards and Guidelines for Consulting Archaeologists (2011), are as follows:

• To provide information about the property’s geography, history, previous archaeological fieldwork and current land condition

• To evaluate in detail the property’s archaeological potential, which will support recommendations for Stage 2 survey for all or parts of the property, if warranted

• To recommend appropriate strategies for Stage 2 survey if required In this introductory section, the context for the archaeological fieldwork will be addressed, including the development context, historical context and the archaeological context. 1.1 DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT (SECTION 7.7.1 & SECTION 7.5.6, STANDARDS 1-3) Archaeological Contractors & Consultants (ACC) were retained by First Urban Inc. to conduct a Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment of the lands at 105 Avondale Court and 143 Blue Water Place (Part of Lots 23, 24 and Block B, Judge’s Plan 1233), in the City of Burlington, Ontario (see Figures 1 & 2). The archaeological assessment was triggered as a requirement for the development agreement and in accordance with the Ontario Planning Act, the Ontario Heritage Act, the Ministry of Tourism and Culture’s 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consulting Archaeologists and the City of Burlington as a Planning Requirement. The project site is located in the City of Burlington. The approximately 4-acre (1.6ha) study lands are located on the north shore of Lake Ontario, between Walker’s Line and Appleby Line south of Lakeshore Road. The residential lands currently hold multi-storey residential structures surrounded by kept lawns. This project is in pre-approval stage. The Stage 1 archaeological assessment was conducted by Mr. George Clark under consulting license P120, pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O.


1990). Permission to access the study area and perform the Stage 1 archaeological assessment was given to Archaeological Consultants & Contractors by First Urban Inc. 1.2 HISTORICAL CONTEXT (SECTION 1.1, STANDARDS 1-2 & SECTION 7.5.7, STANDARDS 1-2) Burlington History The study are lies in Halton County in the historic Township of Nelson. The land which comprises Halton County was alienated by the British from the native Mississaugas by provisional treaty number 13, known as the “Toronto Purchase,” dated at the Bay of Quinte on September 23, 1787. Due to certain irregularities contained in the original document, this purchase was confirmed by a second treaty dated August 1, 1805. Between 1784 and 1792, this part of Southern Ontario formed a part of the judicial District of Montreal in the Province of Quebec (Indian Treaties vol. 1). The study lands lie in Nelson Township, which was comprised of several historic small towns, villages and hamlets including Hannahsville, St. Ann's, Kilbride, Lowville, Wellington Square, Dakota, Zimmerman, Freeman, Cumminsville and Port Nelson. A dominant influence in the early history of Burlington was that of Chief Joseph Brant, who was the leader of the Six Nation’s peoples in the 1700’s. His loyalty to the Crown during the American Revolutions resulted in the reward of 1400 hectares in 1798 along the lakefront (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993). The origins of the name of Burlington are unknown, however it is known that Burlington Bay and Burlington Heights (where Hamilton’s’ High Level Bridge stands today) was well established by Brant's time (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993). In the late 1700s, British troops were constructing a road approximately 5 kilometers north of the Lake Ontario shoreline liking York (Now Toronto) with southwestern Ontario and the US border at Detroit as a measure of defense against border skirmishes. This road was called “Dundas Street” and has become Highway 5 in Burlington (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993).


Eight years after Brant's death in 1807, an early developer of Brant’s land named James Gage, inspired by the victories of the Duke of Wellington, named the nascent Burlington village Wellington Square and Lord Nelson was named for the Township (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993). The thriving agricultural community was soon served by other settlers, and by 1845 the population has risen to 400 residents.

Of note in the extant study are is the community of Aldershot, centered along present day Plains Road and around Townsend and Shadeland Avenues. This community, formerly in East Flamborough Township, had a "fiercely independent spirit" and always maintained a quality of independence and individual identity although it was never incorporated as a village (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993). This may be because Aldershot, originally called Burlington Plains, may have been one of the earliest settlements in East Flamborough Township (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993). It was first surveyed in 1791 by Augustus Jones. It is believed the first family to settle in the area was the Fonger Family in the early 1790s.

About 1791, the Applegarth family arrived from England. William Applegarth likely changed the name to Aldershot. He had received a crown grant of land on the north shore of the Bay east of present-day La Salle Park Road. By 1793, the Chisholm and King families had arrived in Aldershot from the Fort Erie area. The Chisholms became very prominent people in this area: one became the first toll collector for Burlington and another founded Burlington's neighboring community of Oakville (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993).

By 1801, he had with his brother John, built a grist mill on Grindstone Creek which runs through Hidden Valley. By 1823 the settlement had eleven log houses, twenty frame and three stone or brick homes. It also boasted two gristmills, five saw mills, and two merchant shops (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993).

By the 1830s, fruit farming began with the arrival of the Gallagher and Emery families. By the 1890's, John Rendall Job started the first dairy farm on the east quarter of Lot 1, on Plains Road (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993).


In Nelson Township, organized schooling was in place as early as 1831, with the founding of Applegarth School in Aldershot. This school was likely named after William Applegarth, the founder of Aldershot. In the 1846 edition of Smith's Canadian Gazette, there are 15 schools listed in Nelson Township including Applegarth school, Fisher's Corner School, Ballykill Bay School, SS No.1 Nelson, Bell's School, Barker's School in Lowville, Limestone School, Lakeshore School and log cabin schools on the Lucus and Blanshard homesteads in Appleby and the Coulson farm in Kilbride (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993). The Fisher's Corner School in Appleby, built around 1834 is characteristic of pioneer schools. It "was a log cabin twenty-four feet square. Desks were placed along the wall on each side of the room with a stool for each child. Girls attended classes with the boys, but the teacher segregated them. Boys sat on one side facing the wall and girls faced the opposite wall. When classes were being taught, each grade in its turn, the children stood in front of the room while the teacher lectured" (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993). Like most log cabin schools, it was replaced when the classes grew and federal monies for schools became available. By 1872, the old log cabin was demolished and a new brick school with arched windows was built. It was named SS No.4 Nelson Grove Academy (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993). It is believed the first church in this area was founded in the home of Gilbert Bastedo around 1816. He established a farm on Dundas Street in 1806. As a devoted Presbyterian, he offered the use of his home for worship when a travelling preacher came through the area. In 1822, Bastedo donated land on his farm for a church, St. Paul's Presbyterian Church. The Reverend King, a missionary sent to Canada who had settled on a farm in Nelson Township around 1819, was the first minister (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993). Because of its location, Burlington Bay was thought to be of military importance in the event of a British and American conflict. Lieutenant-Governor Sir John Graves Simcoe ordered the building of an inn at the southern end of the beach. This inn, called the Kings Head, was a large two storey frame house with two wings. "It was essentially a depot for stores and other provisions, as well as a rendezvous for the militia and such other troops as it might have been found expedient to have stationed on a line of communication between York, Detroit and Niagara.” (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993).


However, the harbor had limited access caused by a beach strip, which over time had built up and nearly closed off the mouth of the bay. The only access to the bay was through a small channel known as the Outlet, which at times was so shallow that a rowboat could barely get through it (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993). The water levels in this channel were at the mercy of the prevailing winds. If the wind was blowing east, off the Lake, the water would make the Outlet very deep. However, if the wind was coming westward, from across the land, the water was pushed away from the Outlet, rendering it very shallow (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993).

The need for a canal at this site was apparent and early records show that both the residents and the government were aware of this. However, after the war of 1812 the Outlet fell under control of the two most influential families in the area, the Brants and the Chisholms. Due to the limited access to the Bay both families had set up very profitable forwarding businesses at the Outlet. Goods from Hamilton and the surrounding areas were sailed or rowed to the Outlet. There they were stored in warehouses owned by the families or transferred to ships, owned by the families, moored at docks on the Lake Ontario side. The Brants and the Chisholms did not easily give up control of the Outlet nor were they willing to leave profitable business behind by allowing a canal to be built (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993).

As a result, a site 100 yards north of the Outlet was chosen for the canal. William Chisholm and William Kerr, son-in-law of Joseph Brant, were chosen as two of the commissioners to oversee construction of the canal. Later, George Chisholm, William's son, was appointed the first customs collector for the Burlington Bay harbor (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993).

On March 19, 1823, the government was authorized to obtain a loan of 5,000 pounds sterling to begin construction of the canal. It was the first public works in Upper Canada, now the province of Ontario. Francis Hall was appointed engineer of the canal works in 1823 and his original design called for a canal 72 feet wide, with piers lining both sides and a protective breakwater on the Lake Ontario side. The breakwater was wedge shaped to keep sand out of the mouth of the canal. James Gordon Stowbridge from New York was hired as contractor


and by the summer of 1826 work had progressed enough to allow passage of vessels drawing less than ten feet of water (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993).

A series of gales during the winter of 1829-30 wreaked havoc at the Burlington Bay Canal. The breakwater and lighthouse were destroyed and the piers were swept away. A vast sand bar 40 feet wide developed 300 feet from shore, with a covering of just six and half feet of water. Nine ships wintering in the bay were trapped (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993). The government set about clearing and repairing the canal. New piers were built under the direction of Captain Mann and Jacob Spaun. "Working in water up to their waists, crews used long iron bars to free stone from the lake bed and then loaded it on scows. In deeper waters, long handled two prong rakes were employed, and sometimes even larger rakes and derricks were necessary. Once the scow was loaded the cargo was transferred to awaiting schooners and taken to the piers" (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993). The stones then formed the foundations of the new piers. These crews became known as stonehookers (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993). From 1840 to 1875, the lakeshore from Port Nelson to Aldershot was a busy locale as grain and lumber handlers operated alongside shipbuilders and maintenance depots, foundries and taverns, bakeries, wagon makers, tinsmiths and grocers. The railroad arrived in 1854. By 1873, the 800 residents of Wellington Square petitioned to have their community incorporated as a village and its name changed to Burlington (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993). Two historic villages located near the current study lands include Zimmerman and Appleby. Zimmerman was settled in 1794 by Henry Zimmerman, a farmer and a miller and was located on Appleby Line, just north of Burhamthorpe on Twelve-mile Creek (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993). By 1814 he had convinced his family about this area's potential and they settled nearby. By 1869, Zimmerman had two sawmills, a furniture-turning factory, a grist mill, a shoe shop, woolen mill, post office, a tailor, dentist, blacksmith, and a school with eighty children in attendance. Other early settlers were the Bennett, Bridgeman and Campbell families (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993). Appleby was settled by the Van Normans at the intersection of Appleby Line and


the modern day QEW. The Van Normans were a prominent Late Loyalist family from Pennsylvania. Appleby was one of the earliest communities in the area and retained a strong identity (Machan 1967, Reynolds 1993).

No previous archaeological assessments have been conducted on the subject lands.

The current subject lands are located in the historic Lot 8 of Concession IV (Lots South of Dundas Street), East of Hurontario Street, in the former Geographic Township of Nelson, County of Halton. A review of mapping from 1877 of the subject lands did not depict the presence of any standing structures within the subject lands (See Figure 6). Lot 8, Concession IV Lots South of Dundas Street, in the former Geographic Township of Nelson In 1809, the 200 acre subject lands were granted to Laura Secord by a Crown Patent.

When Laura Ingersoll (Secord) (Born 1775) was eight, her mother died, leaving four little girls. Her father remarried twice and had a large family by his third wife. In the American War of Independence, Ingersoll fought on the rebel side, but in 1795 he immigrated to Upper Canada where he had obtained a township grant for settlement. His farm became the site of the modern town of Ingersoll. He ran a tavern at Queenston until his township (Oxford-upon-the-Thames) was surveyed. Within two years, about 1797, Laura married James Secord, a young merchant of Queenston. He was the youngest son of a loyalist officer of Butler’s Rangers, who had brought his family to Niagara in 1778. James and Laura Secord were to have six daughters and one son (McKenzie 2000).

They lived first at St Davids but soon settled in Queenston. Early in the War of 1812, James, a sergeant in the 1st Lincoln militia, was wounded in the battle of Queenston Heights and was rescued from the battlefield by his wife. The following summer, when neither side had a firm hold of the Niagara peninsula, Laura heard on 21 June 1813, probably by listening to the conversation of some American officers dining at her house, that the Americans intended to surprise the British outpost at Beaver Dams and capture the officer in charge,


Lieutenant James FitzGibbon. It was urgent that someone warn FitzGibbon and, since James was disabled, Laura resolved to take the message herself early the next morning (McKenzie 2000).

The distance to the outpost by direct road was 12 miles but Laura feared she would encounter American guards that way and chose a roundabout route. She went first to St Davids where she was joined by her niece, Elizabeth Secord, and then to Shipman’s Corners (St Catharines). Elizabeth became exhausted and Laura continued alone, uncertain of the way but following the general direction of Twelve Mile Creek through fields and woods. That evening, after crossing the creek on a fallen tree, Laura came unexpectedly on an Indian encampment. She was frightened, but after she explained her mission to the chief he took her to FitzGibbon. Two days later, on 24 June 1813, an American force under Colonel Charles Boerstler was ambushed near Beaver Dams by some 400 Indians led by Dominique Ducharme and William Johnson Kerr. FitzGibbon then persuaded Boerstler to surrender with 462 men to his own 50 men. In the official reports of the victory no mention was made of Laura Secord (McKenzie 2000).

The Secords lived in poverty in the postwar years until 1828 when James, who had received a small pension because of his war wound, was appointed registrar, then judge (in 1833), of the Niagara Surrogate Court. In 1835 he became collector of customs at Chippawa. He died in 1841 leaving Laura without financial resources. She ran a school for children in her Chippawa cottage for a brief period. Petitions to the government for a pension and other favours were unsuccessful (McKenzie 2000).

Laura Secord was 85 before she achieved wide public recognition for her heroic deed. While visiting Canada in 1860, the Prince of Wales (the future Edward VII) learned of Laura’s 20-mile walk. She had prepared a memorial for the prince describing her war-time service, and she also had placed her signature among those War of 1812 veterans who presented an address to him. After Albert Edward returned to England, he sent Mrs. Secord a reward of £100. She died in 1868, at the age of 93, and was buried beside her husband in Drummond Hill Cemetery, Niagara Falls (McKenzie 2000).

The entire 200 acres of Lot 8 was then sold by Lara Secords husband in 1811 to John Beauger. The lands underwent 48 land transactions between 1811 and


1884 (see Figures 7 and 8). In 1877, the extant lands are owned by Peter Zimmerman. The 1871 Census of Ontario for Halton & Peel Counties lists Peter Zimmerman as a 51-year-old Ontario born Wesleyan Methodist German Lumberman (see Figures 8 and 9). The census details his wife Sarah (51 years old) and children Peter (17 years old) and Sarah (12 years old). The 1878 historic mapping of the lot depicts the presence of the Zimmerman homestead as north of the current subject lands on the north side of what is now Lakeshore Road. All archival sources consulted do not indicate the presence of a homestead or other structure within the subject lands. 1.3 HISTORICAL CONTEXT SUMMARY The land registries and historic maps illustrate that the subject lands were mainly rural, and likely exhibited a moderate level of occupancy in the late nineteenth century. However, the proximity of the subject lands to the historic Lakeshore Road right-of-way and the shoreline of Lake Ontario point to the potential of recovering undocumented Euro-Canadian material. 2.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT (Section 7.5.8, Standards 1-7). 2.1 CURRENT CONDITION OF THE SUBJECT LANDS (SECTION 7.5.8, STANDARD 2) The approximately 4-acre (1.6ha) study lands are located on the north shore of Lake Ontario, between Walker’s Line and Appleby Line south of Lakeshore Road. The residential lands currently hold two multi-storey structures surrounded by kept lawns. The study lands are a combination of two separate addresses: 105 Avondale Court and 143 Blue Water Place (Part of Lots 23, 24 and Block B, Judge’s Plan 1233). The southern Avondale Court lands comprise an irregular parcel that bounds the shoreline of Lake Ontario. The total area of this portion of the study lands is 9146 m2. These lands hold an east-west asphalt driveway that leads to a two-storey cut stone residence and garage. The southern extent of these lands hold manicured top of bank and top of escarpment lands leading to a concrete retaining wall along the Lake Ontario shoreline. The eastern edge of the lands hold a creek surrounded by bush and shrubs.


The 7107 m2 lands at Blue Water Place (adjacent to the north of the Avondale Court lands) hold a north-south fenced and paved driveway that ends in asphalt driveway surrounding a one-storey frame dwelling and frame garage. The balance of these lands is a mixture of manicured lawns and standing trees and shrubs. The study lands lie within the extant Shoreacres Creek watershed and in-between the Applyby Creek watershed (to the east) and the Tuck Creek watershed (to the west). The Shoreacre Creek watershed originates in the Niagara Escarpment and outlets to Lake Ontario with a drainage area of approximately 12.9 km2. The creek is approximately 14 km long and exits into Lake Ontario within 200m of the western boundary of the study lands. However, it should be noted that this creek has likely been altered from its historic course as a result of the modern development within its watershed. The extant study lands lie to the west (4-5 kilometers) of the extant Twelve Mile Creek, one of the is the most historically significant creeks in Burlington. Officially known as Bronte Creek, it originates in the present-day Town of Morriston, crosses the escarpment near Flamborough and enters Lake Ontario at Oakville. When settlers first arrived in the extant township, they often first built houses, then mills. This is true in the case of Henry Zimmerman in the Village of Zimmerman (to the north of the study lands), James Cleaver in Lowville, William Panton in Kilbride, the Pegg family in Dakota and Titus Cummins in Cumminsville. All these early settlers knew the importance of establishing their respective settlements by the Twelve Mile Creek because it provided water power to their mills and later, other industries. 2.2 PHYSIOGRAPHY The study area lies within the Iroquois Plain physiographic region (Chapman and Putnam 1984), which is the former bed of glacial Lake Iroquois. In the Toronto area, the Lake Iroquois strand is situated approximately 4.5 kilometres inland from the current Lake Ontario shore. Below the strand, the quaternary sediments are dominated by outwash sands typical of nearshore deposits. The balance of the plain, towards the modern lake shore, is dominated by fine sediments of silt and clay, typical of off-shore deposits, overlying till (Chapman and Putnam 1984; Gravenor 1957).


Glacial Lake Iroquois came into existence by about 12,000 B.P. as the Ontario lobe of the Wisconsin glacier retreated from the Lake Ontario basin. Isostatic uplift of its outlet, combined with blockage of subsequent lower outlets by glacial ice, produced a water plain substantially higher than modern Lake Ontario. Beginning around 12,000 B.P., water levels dropped stepwise during the next few centuries in response to sill elevations at the changing outlet. By about 11,500 B.P., when the St. Lawrence River outlet became established, the initial phase of Lake Ontario began, and this low water phase appears to have lasted until at least 10,500 B.P. At this time the waters stood as much as 100 metres below current levels. However, isostatic uplift was already raising the outlet at Kingston so that by 10,000 B.P., the water level had risen to about 80 metres below present. Uplift since then has continued to tilt Lake Ontario upward to the northeast, propagating a gradual transgressive expansion throughout the basin. The flooded mouths of creeks and rivers that rim the basin–such as those preserved at Grenedier Pond and the mouth of the Humber (and which likely existed at the mouth of Garrison Creek) provide visible reminders of this process (Anderson and Lewis 1985; Karrow 1967; Karrow and Warner 1988, 1990). In the vicinity of the study area it has been estimated that the earliest Lake Ontario shoreline (circa 10,400 B.P.) was about five kilometres south of its present location. Over the following millennia, the shoreline gradually moved northward. Even by about 5,000 B.P., however, it is still unlikely that Toronto Harbour, protected by the submerged bank of sediment associated with the emergent Toronto spit, had yet begun to fill. Between about 5,000 and 4,000 B.P., the Nipissing Flood phase increased water levels dramatically, moving the shore some distance inland from its nineteenth century position. Levels subsided by three to four metres again between about 4,000 and 3,500 years ago, and by circa 3,000 B.P., the shoreline was established more or less in the location at which it stood at the time of the founding of York in the 1790s. The forests out of which York was carved had become established shortly after 7,000 B.P. Under median moisture regimes and eco-climates the climax forest of the Toronto lakeshore region was likely co-dominated by hard maple (Acer saccharum) and beech (Fagus grandifolia), in association with basswood (Tilia americana), red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus alba), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) and bitternut hickory (C. cordiformis) (Hills 1958; Burgar 1993).


2.3 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND REGISTERED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES (SECTION 7.5.8, STANDARD 1) For an inventory of archaeological resources to be compiled for the study area, two sources of information were consulted:

• The site record forms for registered sites housed at the Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport (MTCS).

• Published / unpublished documentary sources. In Ontario, information concerning archaeological sites is stored in the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database (O.A.S.D.), a database maintained by the Ministry of Culture. This database contains archaeological sites registered within the Borden system. The Borden system was first proposed by Dr. Charles E. Borden and is based on a block of latitude and longitude. A Borden block is approximately 13 kilometres east/west by 18.5 kilometres north/south. Sites within each block are numbered sequentially as they are found. The current stidy lands lie within Borden Block AiGw. A review of archaeological site locations establishes that no registered sites are present on the current subject property and four registered sites are within two kilometres of the study area.

Registered Sites Within 2 Km Of The Subject Property

Borden # Site Name Time Period Affinity Site Type Current Review Status AiGw-89 Tree Stump Archaic ND ND ND AiGw-88 Appleby

Line Archaic, Paleo-Indian, Woodland

ND ND ND

AiGw-27 Rosehouse Woodland ND ND ND AiGw-107 Huey

Telford’s Flint Field

ND ND ND ND


Historic and archival research has shown that a number of property owners and historical features are illustrated near the extant study area. Undocumented earlier post contact occupations are likely to be captured by the basic proximity to water model used in the identification of archaeological potential, since these historic occupations were subject to similar environmental constraints. However, historical mapping should not be considered definitive, and points of archaeological interest today may not have been included on historical maps at the time of their production (i.e. previous structures, ancillary structures or tenant farm homesteads). Additionally, during the historic Euro-Canadian period, the majority of nineteenth century, archaeologically significant structures are rarely recorded on nineteenth century maps. 2.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT SUMMARY Archaeological potential is increased by the proximity of other known archaeological sites. The Ontario Archaeological Sites Database documents four known archaeological sites within a 2km radius of the current study lands, which attests to the historic land use of the Lakeshore Road right-of-way and the shoreline of Lake Ontario, as well as the general extant study areas long period of land use. Archaeological potential is also increased by topographic features. The location of the subject lands on the well-drained soils of the Iroquois Plan physiographic region, and the fact that the study lands are within 300m of a primary water source (Lake Ontario and the Shoreacre Creek watershed to the west). 3.0 ASSESSMENT METHODS (Section 7.7.2, Section 1.2 – Standards 1-6) The following are features or characteristics of lands that indicate archaeological potential as defined by the Standards and Guidelines for Consulting Archaeologists (2011), (Section 1.3.1): • within 300m of previously identified archaeological sites • within 300m of water sources of primary water sources (lakes, rivers,

streams, creeks) or secondary water sources (intermittent streams and creeks, springs, marshes, swamps)

• within 300m of features indicating past water sources (e.g., glacial lake shorelines indicated by the presence of raised sand or gravel beach ridges, relic river or stream channels indicated by clear dip or swale in the topography, shorelines of drained lakes or marshes, cobble beaches)


• within 300m of accessible or inaccessible shoreline (e.g., high bluffs, swamp or marsh fields by the edge of a lake, sandbars stretching into marsh)

• elevated topography (e.g., eskers, drumlins, large knolls, plateau) • pockets of well‐drained sandy soil, especially near areas of heavy soil or

rocky ground • distinctive land formations that might have been special or spiritual places,

such as waterfalls, rock outcrops, caverns, mounds, and promontories and their bases. There may be physical indicators of their use, such as burials, structures, offerings, rock paintings or carvings.

• resource areas, including: food or medicinal plants (e.g., migratory routes, spawning areas, prairie), scarce raw materials (e.g., quartz, copper, ochre or outcrops of chert), early Euro‐Canadian industry (e.g., fur trade, logging, prospecting, mining)

• areas of early Euro‐Canadian settlement. These include places of early military or pioneer settlement (e.g., pioneer homesteads, isolated cabins, farmstead complexes), early wharf or dock complexes, pioneer churches and early cemeteries.

• within 100m of early historical transportation routes (e.g., trails, passes, roads, railways, portage routes) or a property listed on a municipal register or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or that is a federal, provincial or municipal historic landmark or site

• property that local histories or informants have identified with possible archaeological sites, historical events, activities, or occupations

Specifically, the subject lands and/or portions of the subject lands are within 300m of water sources of primary water sources (Lake Ontario and the nearby Shoreacre creek watershed to the west), are within 300m of accessible or inaccessible shoreline (the top-of-bank of this shoreline of Lake Ontario), lie on elevated topography (the top-of-bank of this shoreline of Lake Ontario) and lie within 100m of early historical transportation routes (Lakeshore Road). However, the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists also define land features indicating that archaeological potential has been removed (or “disturbed”) (Section 1.3.2). Archeological potential can be determined not to be present if there is evidence of extensive and deep alterations that have severely damaged the integrity of any archaeological resources. This is commonly referred to as ‘disturbed’ or ‘disturbance’, and may include:


• Quarrying • Major landscaping involving grading below topsoil • Building footprints • Sewage and infrastructural development

Activities such as agricultural cultivation, gardening, minor grading and landscaping do not necessarily affect archaeological potential.

Archaeological potential is not removed where there is documented potential for deeply buried intact archaeological resources beneath land alterations, or where it cannot be clearly demonstrated through background research and a property inspection that there has been complete and intensive disturbance of an area. When complete disturbance cannot be demonstrated during the course of the Stage 1 Assessment, it will be necessary to undertake Stage 2 Assessment.

A detailed analysis of current aerial photography and current mapping of the study lands suggests that the current subject lands have been residentially developed and hold landscaped lawns. Although it is very likely that portions of the lands were impacted by deep and significant soil disturbance, the result the planned residential development to the lands, the archival or aerial photography consulted by ACC staff cannot confirm that the entirety of the study lands have been impacted by deep and significant soil disturbance. Accordingly, it is possible that the subject lands have not completely had their archaeological potential removed. Given this, there is potential of recovering undocumented and unimpacted in situ archaeological material.


4.0 STAGE 1 ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS (Section 7.7.3, Standards 1-2) The subject lands at at 105 Avondale Court and 143 Blue Water Place (Part of Lots 23, 24 and Block B, Judge’s Plan 1233), City of Burlington, Ontario may potentially exhibit archaeological potential as the subject lands and/or portions of the subject lands are within 300m of water sources of primary water sources (Lake Ontario and the nearby Shoreacre creek watershed to the west), are within 300m of accessible or inaccessible shoreline (the top-of-bank of this shoreline of Lake Ontario), lie on elevated topography (the top-of-bank of this shoreline of Lake Ontario) and lie within 100m of early historical transportation routes (Lakeshore Road). An analysis of the aerial photography and mapping of current existing conditions revealed that the current subject lands have not had their archaeological potential completely removed. Given this, there is potential of recovering undocumented and unimpacted in situ archaeological material.

Therefore, a Stage 2 archaeological assessment in accordance with the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists is recommended for these lands.


5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS (Section 7.7.4, Standards 1-2) Section 7.7.4, Standard 1 As the subject lands may contain archaeological potential, it is recommended that the subject lands undergo further assessment (a Stage 2 archaeological assessment). Specifically, the portions of subject lands that can be ploughed should undergo a Stage 2 testpit survey. Section 7.7.4, Standard 2 All Stage 2 fieldwork was conducted according to the archaeological pedestrian survey fieldwork standards and guidelines as per Sections 2.1, 2.1.1, and 2.2 of the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists and the archaeological test pit survey fieldwork standards and guidelines as per Sections 2.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3 and 2.2 of the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists.

The following is offered as a summary of the above standards: Areas that cannot be ploughed must be assessed by test pitting. Test pitting may also be conducted in narrow corridors of field land (less than approximately 10 meters in width) directly adjacent to existing roadways. Test pits are approximately 30 centimeters square and are excavated to subsoil in order to facilitate the identification of any subsurface cultural deposits. The soil fills of all test pits in high potential areas are screened through 6-millimetre mesh (where soil types allow), to facilitate the recovery of artifactual remains. All test pits will be back-filled. Their location will be recorded on field maps. Any factors which preclude test pits (e.g. slope, drainage, previous disturbance) will be mapped and photographed. These survey techniques rely considerably on the field expertise and experience of the personnel involved; not only to recognize areas of high archaeological potential, but also to determine where testing is not required.


6.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION (Section 7.5.9, Standards 1-2)

Section 7.5.9, Standard 1a 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 0.18. The report is reviewed to ensure that it complies with the standards and guidelines that are issued by the Minister, and that the archaeological fieldwork and report recommendations ensure the conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural heritage of Ontario. When all matters relating to archaeological sites within the project area of a development proposal have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Tourism 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. Section 7.5.9, Standard 1b 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 Archaeological Reports referred to in Section 65.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Section 7.5.9, Standard 1c 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. Section 7.5.9, Standard 1d The Cemeteries Act, R.S.O, 1990 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. Section 7.5.9, Standard 2 Archaeological sites recommended for further archaeological fieldwork or protection remain subject to Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act and may not be altered, or have artifacts removed from them, except by a person holding an archaeological license.


7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES (Section 7.5.10, Standards 1) Anderson, T. W. and C. F. M. Lewis 1985 Postglacial Water-Level History of the Lake Ontario Basin. In Quaternary Evolution of the Great

Lakes, edited by P.F. Karrow and P.E. Calkin, pp. 231-253. Geological Association of Canada Special Paper 30.

Chapman, L.J. and F. Putnam 1984 The Physiography of Southern Ontario, Ontario Geological Survey Special Volume 2. Toronto:

Government of Ontario, Ministry of Natural Resources. Gravenor, C.P. 1957 Surficial Geology of the Lindsay-Peterborough Area, Ontario, Victoria, Peterborough, Durham, and

Northumberland Counties, Ontario. Memoir 288. Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa. Hills, G. A. 1958 Forest-Soil Relationships in the Site Regions of Ontario. In First North American Forest Soils

Conference, pp. 190-212. Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Karrow, P.F. 1967 Pleistocene Geology of the Scarborough Area. Ontario Geological Survey Report 46. Ministry of

Natural Resources, Toronto. Karrow, P.F., and B.G. Warner 1990 The Geological and Biological Environment for Human Occupation in Southern Ontario. In The

Archaeology of Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 5-36. Occasional Publication 5. London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, London.

Machan, Claire 1967 From Pathway to Skyway: A History of Burlington. Burlington Ontario, Confederation Centennial

Committee of Burlington McKenzie, Ruth 2000 Dictionary of Canadian Biography, Libraries and Archives Canada. University of Toronto. Ministry of Tourism and Culture 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Toronto: Ministry of Tourism and Culture. 2015 Sites within a Two-Kilometer Radius of the Project Area Provided from the Ontario Archaeological

Sites Database, April 29, 2016. Reynolds, John Lawrence 1993 Sounds by the Shore: A History of Burlington Ontario. City of Burlington Walker & Miles 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Halton, Ont. Toronto: Miles & Co. Library and Archives of Canada (LAC) Land Index Records (Halton County Land Registry Office - Abstract Index)


8.0 IMAGES & MAPS (Sections 7.5.11, 7.9.6, Section 7.5.12, 7.9.7) The images provided below address Standards 1 and 2 of Section 7.5.11, and Standard 1 of Section 7.8.6. All images provided are colour photographs, digital images or technical drawings that meet this standard. Period Archaeological Culture Date Range Attributes PALEO-INDIAN

Early Gainey, Barnes, Crowfield 9000 - 8500 BC Big game hunters

Late Holcombe, Hi-Lo, Lanceolate 8500 - 7500 BC Small nomadic groups

ARCHAIC

Early Nettling, Bi-furcate-base 7800 - 6000 BC Nomadic hunters and gatherers

Middle Kirk, Stanly, Brewerton, Laurentian 6000 - 2000 BC

Transition to territorial settlements

Late Lamoka, Genesee, Crawford Knoll, Innes 2500 - 500 BC

Polished / ground stone tools (small stemmed)

WOODLAND Early Meadowood 800 - 400 BC Introduction of pottery

Middle Point Peninsula, Saugeen, Jack's Reef Corner-Notched 400 BC - AD 800 Incipient horticulture

Late

Algonkian, Iroquoian AD 800 - 1300 Transition to village life and agriculture

Algonkian, Iroquoian AD 1300 - 1400 Establishment of large palisaded villages

Algonkian, Iroquoian AD 1400 - 1600 Tribal differentiation and warfare

HISTORIC

Early Huron, Neutral, Petun, Odawa, Ojibwa AD 1600 - 1650 Tribal displacements

Late Six Nations Iroquois, Ojibwa, Mississauga

AD 1650 - 1800s

Euro-Canadian AD 1780 - Present European settlement Table 1: Outline of Southern Ontario Prehistoric & Historic Cultures


Figure 1: Study area approximate location


Figure 2: Approximate Subject Area Location and Extent in detail (Google Maps)


Figure 3: Boundary Survey & Limits of Study Area


Figure 4: Aerial photography (2004) of the subject lands and surrounding area.


Figure 5: Aerial photography (2005) of the subject lands and surrounding area.


Figure 6: The subject lands as depicted in 1877. No structures are present in the subject lands


Figure 7: Abstract Index to Deed Titles for Lot 8, Concession IV Lots South of Dundas Street, in the former Geographic Township of Nelson (Page 1 of 2)


Figure 8: Abstract Index to Deed Titles for Lot 8, Concession IV Lots South of Dundas Street, in the former Geographic Township of Nelson (Page 2 of 2)


Figure 9: The 1871 Census of Ontario for Halton & Peel Counties detail for Peter Zimmerman.


Figure 10: Proposed Development

a stage 1 archaeological assessment of the lands at 105 ... · been one of the earliest settlements...

Documents