stage 2 archaeological assessment: windsor solar project...license number: p389 pif number:...

Stage 2 Archaeological

Assessment: Windsor Solar

Project

Part of Lots 105 to 123,

Concession 3 Petite Côte

Geographic Township of

Sandwich

Now City of Windsor, Ontario

Prepared for:

Windsor Solar LP

55 Standish Court, 9th Floor

Mississauga, ON L5R 4B2

Tel: 1 (866) 236-5040

Prepared by:

Stantec Consulting Ltd.

171 Queens Avenue, 6th Floor

London, ON N6A 5J7

Tel: (519) 645-2007

Fax: (519) 645-6575

Licensee: Walter McCall, Ph.D.

License Number: P389

PIF Number: P389-0121-2014

Project Number: 160940284

FIT Number: N/A

ORIGINAL REPORT

July 18, 2014

STAGE 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: WINDSOR SOLAR PROJECT

al v:\01609\active\160940284 - samsung phase iii ontario solar - windsor\work_program\report\draft\stage 2\draft_p389-0121-

2014_18july2014_re.docx i

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ VII

PROJECT PERSONNEL .............................................................................................................. IX

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ IX

1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT ......................................................................................................1.1

1.1 DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT .............................................................................................. 1.1

1.1.1 Objectives..................................................................................................... 1.1

1.2 HISTORICAL CONTEXT .................................................................................................... 1.2

1.2.1 Post-contact Aboriginal Resources ........................................................... 1.2

1.2.2 Euro-Canadian Resources ......................................................................... 1.3

1.2.3 Recent Reports ............................................................................................ 1.5

1.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT ...................................................................................... 1.6

1.3.1 The Natural Environment ............................................................................ 1.6

1.3.2 Pre-contact Aboriginal Resources ............................................................ 1.6

1.3.3 Previously Known Archaeological Sites and Surveys .............................. 1.8

1.3.4 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 1.9

2.0 FIELD METHODS ...........................................................................................................2.1

3.0 RECORD OF FINDS .......................................................................................................3.1

3.1 ARTIFACTS DOCUMENTED ............................................................................................. 3.2

3.1.1 Site 1 (AbHr-20) ............................................................................................ 3.2

3.1.2 Site 2 ............................................................................................................ 3.10

3.1.3 Site 3 (AbHr-21) .......................................................................................... 3.11

3.1.4 Site 4 (AbHr-22) .......................................................................................... 3.19

3.1.5 Site 5 (AbHr-23) .......................................................................................... 3.20

3.1.6 Site 6 (AbHr-24) .......................................................................................... 3.29

3.1.7 Site 7 (AbHr-25) .......................................................................................... 3.35

3.1.8 Site 8 (AbHr-26) .......................................................................................... 3.41

3.1.9 Site 9 (AbHr-27) .......................................................................................... 3.48

3.1.10 Site 10 (AbHr-28) ........................................................................................ 3.55

3.1.11 Site 11 (AbHr-29) ........................................................................................ 3.66

3.1.12 Site 12 (AbHr-30) ........................................................................................ 3.78

3.1.13 Site 13 (AbHr-31) ........................................................................................ 3.85

3.1.14 Site 14 (AbHr-32) ........................................................................................ 3.93

3.1.15 Site 15 (AbHr-33) ........................................................................................ 3.94

3.1.16 Site 16 ........................................................................................................ 3.103

3.1.17 Site 17 (AbHr-34) ...................................................................................... 3.107

3.1.18 Site 18 (AbHr-35) ...................................................................................... 3.118

3.1.19 Site 19 (AbHr-36) ...................................................................................... 3.125

3.1.20 Site 20 (AbHr-37) ...................................................................................... 3.136

3.1.21 Site 21 (AbHr-38) ...................................................................................... 3.137



2014_18july2014_re.docx ii

3.1.22 Site 22 (AbHr-39) ...................................................................................... 3.143

3.1.23 Site 23 ........................................................................................................ 3.149

4.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................4.1

4.1 SITE 1 (ABHR-20) .............................................................................................................. 4.1

4.2 SITE 2 ................................................................................................................................ 4.1

4.3 SITE 3 (ABHR-21) .............................................................................................................. 4.1

4.4 SITE 4 (ABHR-22) .............................................................................................................. 4.2

4.5 SITE 5 (ABHR-23) .............................................................................................................. 4.2

4.6 SITE 6 (ABHR-24) .............................................................................................................. 4.3

4.7 SITE 7 (ABHR-25) .............................................................................................................. 4.3

4.8 SITE 8 (ABHR-26) .............................................................................................................. 4.4

4.9 SITE 9 (ABHR-27) .............................................................................................................. 4.4

4.10 SITE 10 (ABHR-28) ............................................................................................................ 4.4

4.11 SITE 11 (ABHR-29) ............................................................................................................ 4.5

4.12 SITE 12 (ABHR-30) ............................................................................................................ 4.6

4.13 SITE 13 (ABHR-31) ............................................................................................................ 4.6

4.14 SITE 14 (ABHR-32) ............................................................................................................ 4.7

4.15 SITE 15 (ABHR-33) ............................................................................................................ 4.7

4.16 SITE 16 .............................................................................................................................. 4.7

4.17 SITE 17 (ABHR-34) ............................................................................................................ 4.8

4.18 SITE 18 (ABHR-35) ............................................................................................................ 4.8

4.19 SITE 19 (ABHR-36) ............................................................................................................ 4.9

4.20 SITE 20 (ABHR-37) ............................................................................................................ 4.9

4.21 SITE 21 (ABHR-38) ............................................................................................................ 4.9

4.22 SITE 22 (ABHR-39) .......................................................................................................... 4.10

4.23 SITE 23 ............................................................................................................................ 4.10

4.24 PRELIMINARY INDICATION OF SITES POSSIBLY REQUIRING STAGE 4

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MITIGATION ............................................................................... 4.11

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................5.1

5.1 SITE 1 (ABHR-20) .............................................................................................................. 5.1

5.2 SITE 2 ................................................................................................................................ 5.1

5.3 SITE 3 (ABHR-21) .............................................................................................................. 5.2

5.4 SITE 4 (ABHR-22) .............................................................................................................. 5.2

5.5 SITE 5 (ABHR-23) .............................................................................................................. 5.2

5.6 SITE 6 (ABHR-24) .............................................................................................................. 5.3

5.7 SITE 7 (ABHR-25) .............................................................................................................. 5.3

5.8 SITE 8 (ABHR-26) .............................................................................................................. 5.3

5.9 SITE 9 (ABHR-27) .............................................................................................................. 5.3

5.10 SITE 10 (ABHR-28) ............................................................................................................ 5.4

5.11 SITE 11 (ABHR-29) ............................................................................................................ 5.4

5.12 SITE 12 (ABHR-30) ............................................................................................................ 5.4

5.13 SITE 13 (ABHR-31) ............................................................................................................ 5.4



2014_18july2014_re.docx iii

5.14 SITE 14 (ABHR-32) ............................................................................................................ 5.5

5.15 SITE 15 (ABHR-33) ............................................................................................................ 5.5

5.16 SITE 16 .............................................................................................................................. 5.5

5.17 SITE 17 (ABHR-34) ............................................................................................................ 5.5

5.18 SITE 18 (ABHR-35) ............................................................................................................ 5.5

5.19 SITE 19 (ABHR-36) ............................................................................................................ 5.6

5.20 SITE 20 (ABHR-37) ............................................................................................................ 5.6

5.21 SITE 21 (ABHR-38) ............................................................................................................ 5.6

5.22 SITE 22 (ABHR-39) ............................................................................................................ 5.6

5.23 SITE 23 .............................................................................................................................. 5.6

5.24 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 5.7

6.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION ..........................................................6.1

7.0 BIBLOGRAPHY AND SOURCES ....................................................................................7.1

8.0 IMAGES........................................................................................................................8.1

8.1 PHOTOS ........................................................................................................................... 8.1

8.2 ARTIFACTS ....................................................................................................................... 8.5

9.0 MAPS ...........................................................................................................................9.1

10.0 CLOSURE ....................................................................................................................10.1



2014_18july2014_re.docx iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Landowner Information from the 1883-1884 Farmer’s Directory .......................... 1.5

Table 2: Cultural Chronology for Essex County ..................................................................... 1.8

Table 3: Field and Weather Conditions .................................................................................. 2.1

Table 4: Inventory of Documentary Record .......................................................................... 3.1

Table 5: Site 1 (AbHr-20) Artifact Summary ............................................................................ 3.2

Table 6: Site 1 (AbHr-20) Ceramic Assemblage by Ware Type ........................................... 3.2

Table 7: Site 1 (AbHr-20) Ceramic Assemblage by Decorative Type ................................ 3.3

Table 8: Bottle Glass Bases and Finishes Recovered from Site 1 (AbHr-20) ....................... 3.5

Table 9: Site 1 (AbHr-20) Complete Artifact Catalogue ...................................................... 3.7

Table 10: Site 2 Complete Artifact Catalogue .................................................................... 3.10

Table 11: Site 3 (AbHr-21) Artifact Summary ........................................................................ 3.11

Table 12: Site 3 (AbHr-21) Ceramic Assemblage by Ware Type ....................................... 3.11

Table 13: Site 3 (AbHr-21) Ceramic Assemblage by Decorative Type ............................ 3.12

Table 14: Bottle Glass and Finishes Recovered from Site 3 (AbHr-21) .............................. 3.14

Table 15: Site 3 (AbHr-21) Complete Artifact Catalogue .................................................. 3.16





Table 20: Bottle Glass Finishes Recovered from Site 5 (AbHr-23) ...................................... 3.24









Table 29: Bottle Glass Finishes Recovered from Site 7 (AbHr-25) ...................................... 3.38










Table 39: Site 10 (AbHr-28) Artifact Summary ...................................................................... 3.56

Table 40: Site 10 (AbHr-28) Ceramic Assemblage by Ware Type ..................................... 3.56

Table 41: Site 10 (AbHr-28) Ceramic Assemblage by Decorative Type .......................... 3.56

Table 42: Site 10 (AbHr-28) Complete Artifact Catalogue ................................................ 3.62




2014_18july2014_re.docx v







Table 50: Bottle Glass Finishes Recovered from Site 12 (AbHr-30) .................................... 3.81











Table 61: Site 16 Artifact Summary ...................................................................................... 3.103

Table 62: Site 16 Ceramic Assemblage by Ware Type..................................................... 3.103

Table 63: Site 16 Ceramic Assemblage by Decorative Type .......................................... 3.104

Table 64: Site 16 Complete Artifact Catalogue ................................................................ 3.105

Table 65: Site 17 (AbHr-34) Artifact Summary .................................................................... 3.108

Table 66: Site 17 (AbHr-34) Ceramic Assemblage by Ware Type ................................... 3.108

Table 67: Site 17 (AbHr-34) Ceramic Assemblage by Decorative Type ........................ 3.108

Table 68: Bottle Glass Finishes Recovered from Site 17 (AbHr-34) .................................. 3.112

Table 69: Site 17 (AbHr-34) Complete Artifact Catalogue .............................................. 3.113








Table 77: Bottle Glass Finishes Recovered from Site 19 (AbHr-36) .................................. 3.130







Table 84: Site 22 (AbHr-39) Artifact Summary Table ......................................................... 3.144

Table 85: Site 22 (AbHr-39) Ceramic Assemblage by ware type .................................. 3.144

Table 86: Site 22 (AbHr-39) Ceramics by decorative style .............................................. 3.144


Table 88: Site 23 Artifact Summary ...................................................................................... 3.150



2014_18july2014_re.docx vi

Table 89: Site 23 Complete Artifact Catalogue ................................................................ 3.151

Table 90: Possible Stage 4 Mitigation Recommendations ................................................. 4.11

Table 91: Sites Recommended for Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment .......................... 5.7

Table 92: Sites Not Recommended for Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment .................. 5.7

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Location of Project Area .......................................................................................... 9.2

Figure 2: Treaties and Purchases (Adapted from Morris 1943) ............................................ 9.3

Figure 3: Portion of 1847 Historic Map of Western District .................................................... 9.4

Figure 4: Portion of 1881 Historic Map of Sandwich Township ............................................. 9.5

Figure 5: Portion of 1905 Historic Map of Sandwich Townships ........................................... 9.6

Figure 6: Soil Classification ........................................................................................................ 9.7

Figure 7: Stage 2 Methods ........................................................................................................ 9.8



2014_18july2014_re.docx vii

Executive Summary

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by Dillon Consulting Limited on behalf of Windsor

Solar LP (WSLP) to complete a Stage 2 archaeological assessment for the area to be impacted

by the Windsor Solar Project (WSP). The Project Area comprises a 245.2 hectare parcel of land

within an area generally bounded by Rhodes Drive to the north, Division Road to the south,

Lauzon Parkway to the east, and Walker Road to the west, in the City of Windsor, Ontario. The

entire Project Area is located on the Windsor International Airport property, which is owned by

the City of Windsor and operated by Your Quick Gateway (Windsor) Inc. (YQG). The Project

Area therefore spans part of Lots 105 to 123, Concession 3 Petite Côte, Geographic Township of

Sandwich, now City of Windsor, Ontario. The Stage 2 assessment conducted by Stantec was

undertaken in order to meet the requirements for an application for a Renewable Energy

Approval (REA) (Government of Ontario 2011a), as outlined in Ontario Regulation 359/09

sections 21 and 22 under Part V.0.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (Government of Ontario

1990a).

The Stage 2 archaeological assessment was conducted between June 5, 2014 and June 16,

2014 under the PIF P389-0121-2014 issued to Walter McCall, Ph.D., by the Ministry of Tourism,

Culture and Sport (MTCS). A total of 245.2 hectares were assessed during the Stage 2

archaeological assessment conducted on behalf of Windsor Solar LP. The Aamjiwnaang First

Nations and Caldwell First Nation provided monitors during the Stage 2 field investigation.

The Stage 2 assessment conducted by Stantec resulted in the identification of 23 archaeological

sites including 4 pre-contact Aboriginal sites (Sites 2, 4 (AbHr-22), 14 (AbHr-32), and 20 (AbHr-37))

and 19 Euro-Canadian sites (Sites 1 (AbHr-20), 3 (AbHr-21), 5 (AbHr-23), 6 (AbHr-24), 7 (AbHr-25), 8

(AbHr-26), 9 (AbHr-27), 10 (AbHr-28), 11 (AbHr-29), 12 (AbHr-30), 13 (AbHr-31), 15 (AbHr-33), 16, 17

(AbHr-34), 18 (AbHr-35), 19 (AbHr-36), 21 (AbHr-38), 22 (AbHr-39), and 23. Given that Sites 2, 14

(AbHr-32) and 20 (AbHr-37) are isolated findspots and Sites 16 and 23 date to the early 20th

century, the cultural heritage value or interest of these sites is considered to be sufficiently

documented and no further archaeological assessment is recommended. Otherwise, further

Stage 3 archaeological assessment is recommended for 18 sites, including: 1 (AbHr-20), 3 (AbHr-

21), 4 (AbHr-22), 5 (AbHr-23), 6 (AbHr-24), 7 (AbHr-25), 8 (AbHr-26), 9 (AbHr-27), 10 (AbHr-28), 11

(AbHr-29), 12 (AbHr-30), 13 (AbHr-31), 15 (AbHr-33),17 (AbHr-34), 18 (AbHr-35), 19 (AbHr-36), 21

(AbHr-38), and 22 (AbHr-39).

The Stage 3 archaeological assessment of Site 4 (AbHr-22) should employ both the controlled

surface pick-up and hand excavated test unit methodology as outlined in Sections 3.2, as well

as Table 3.1, of the MTCS’ Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government

of Ontario 2011b) to further test the nature and density of this site. Prior to conducting the field

work, if ground visibility has decreased since the Stage 2 pedestrian survey, the site should be

reploughed and allowed to weather for the controlled surface pick-up. The test unit excavation



2014_18july2014_re.docx viii

should consist of one metre by one metre test units laid out in a five metre grid across the site.

Each test unit should be excavated by hand in systematic levels and into the first five

centimetres of subsoil. Additional one-metre test units, amounting to 20% of the grid total, will be

placed in areas of interest within the limits of the site. Given that Site 4 (AbHr-22) is a confirmed

single component Paleo-Indian site situated in heavy soil, at least 10% of excavated soil will be

screened through three millimetre mesh as per Section 3.2.2 Standard 7 of the MTCS’ Standards

and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011b). The rest of the

excavated soil will be screened through six millimetre mesh. Any artifacts recovered will be

recorded and catalogued by the corresponding grid unit designation. If a subsurface cultural

feature is encountered, the plan of the exposed feature will be recorded and geotextile fabric

will be placed over the unit before backfilling the unit. The already existing program of

Aboriginal engagement should be continued during the Stage 3 archaeological assessment.

The Stage 3 archaeological assessment for all other sites listed above should employ both the

controlled surface pick-up and hand excavated test unit methodology as outlined in Section

3.2, as well as Table 3.1, of the MTCS’ Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists

(Government of Ontario 2011b) to further test the nature and density of this site. Prior to

conducting the field work, if ground visibility has decreased since the Stage 2 pedestrian survey,

the site should be reploughed and allowed to weather for the controlled surface pick-up. The

test unit excavation should consist of one metre by one metre test units laid out in a five metre

grid across the site. Each test unit should be excavated by hand in systematic levels and into the

first five centimetres of subsoil. Additional one-metre test units, amounting to 20% of the grid

total, will be placed in areas of interest within the limits of the site. All excavated soil will be

screened through six millimetre mesh; any artifacts recovered will be recorded and catalogued

by the corresponding grid unit designation. If a subsurface cultural feature is encountered, the

plan of the exposed feature will be recorded and geotextile fabric will be placed over the unit

before backfilling the unit.

The Stage 3 archaeological assessment for all sites except Site 4 (AbHr-22) will also include

additional site-specific archival research, in order to supplement previous background study

concerning land use and occupation history. This additional research should include, but is not

limited to: land registry documents, census records, and historical settlement maps.

The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport is asked to accept this report into the Ontario Public

Register of Archaeological Reports. Additional archaeological assessment is still required and so

the archaeological sites recommended for further archaeological fieldwork remain subject to

Section 48(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act and may not be altered, or have artifacts removed,

except by a person holding an archaeological license.

The Executive Summary highlights key points from the report only; for complete information and

findings, the reader should examine the complete report.



2014_18july2014_re.docx ix

Project Personnel

Licensed Archaeologist: Walter McCall, Ph.D. (P389)

Project Manager: Tracie Carmichael, BA, B.Ed. (R140)

Licensed Field Directors: Lena Zepf (R1033)

Field Technicians: Krista Lane (R382), Lauren Zapishny (R464), Matt Seguin

(R1014), Sam Bratina, Andy Chillman, Mike Golloher,

Johnny Humphries, John Johnson, Rick Johnson, Mandy

MacKinnon, Kalvin Lowe-Thomason, Christian Meier, Helen

Ohlke, Laura Riffel, Sergei Vassilliev

First Nations Monitors: Jody Peters (Caldwell First Nation)

Nate Stonefish (Aamjiwnaang First Nations)

Dennis Plain (Aamjiwnaang First Nations)

Report Writer: Arthur Figura, MA (P083), Amanda Laprise, BA (R470),

Gemma Calgie (R472)

GIS Specialist: Kent Buchanan, H.B.Sc., OCGC

Office Assistants: Kurt Kostuk, Cultural Material Analyst

Technical Review: Jeffrey Muir, BA (R304)

Licensee Review: Walter McCall, Ph.D. (P389)

Senior Review: Jim Wilson, MA (P001)

Acknowledgements

Proponent Contact: Mr. Bruce McAllister, Dillon Consulting Limited

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport: Mr. Robert von Bitter

Ministry of Natural Resources: Ms. Lauren Workman



2014_18july2014_re.docx x

Walpole Island First Nation: Mr. Dean Jacobs, Director of Walpole Island

Heritage Centre

Walpole Island First Nations: Mr. Jared MacBeth, Project Review Coordinator

Aamjiwnaang First Nations: Mrs. Wanda Maness

Caldwell First Nation: Mrs. Robyn van Oirschot, Employment and Training

Coordinator


Project Context

July 18, 2014


2014_18july2014_re.docx 1.1

1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT

1.1 DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by Dillon Consulting Limited (Dillon) on behalf of

Windsor Solar LP (WSLP) to complete a Stage 2 archaeological assessment for the Windsor Solar

Project (WSP) located within an area generally bounded by Rhodes Drive to the north, Division

Road to the south, Lauzon Parkway to the east, and Walker Road to the west, in the City of

Windsor, Ontario (Figure 1). The Stage 2 assessment conducted by Stantec was undertaken in

order to meet the requirements for an application for a Renewable Energy Approval

(REA)(Government of Ontario 2011a), as outlined in Ontario Regulation 359/09 sections 21 and

22 under Part V.0.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (Government of Ontario 1990a).

Windsor Solar LP proposes to develop a solar facility with a maximum name plate capacity of 50

megawatts alternating current (MWac), located on the Windsor International Airport property in

the City of Windsor, Ontario. The Windsor International Airport is owned by the City of Windsor

and operated by Your Quick Gateway (Windsor) Inc. (YQG). The renewable energy facility will

be known as the Windsor Solar Project. Approximately 197,000 to 207,000 solar panels of

between 290-305 watts (DC) each will be installed for the Windsor Solar Project. Solar panels

create DC electricity, which is then converted to AC electricity through the inverter. The AC

voltage created by the inverters will be “stepped-up” through multiple Medium Voltage (MV)

Stations. The AC electrical energy output from the MV Stations will be collected via

underground/overhead cables and connected to the main substation transformer. The collector

system voltage will be stepped up to the IESO’s transmission grid voltage at one

collector/interconnection substation. Approximately 245.2 hectares of agricultural lands,

roadways, and municipal drains were evaluated as part of the Project Area. The Project Area

spans parts of Lots 105 to 123, Concession 3 Petite Côte, Geographic Township of Sandwich,

now City of Windsor, Ontario.

Permission to enter the subject property and remove archaeological resources was granted by

Mr. Bruce McAllister of Dillon Consulting Limited on behalf of Windsor Solar LP. For the purposes of

the Stage 2 assessment, the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s (MTCS) Standards and

Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011b) were followed.

1.1.1 Objectives

The objectives of the Stage 2 archaeological assessment are to document archaeological

resources present within the subject property, to determine whether any of the resources might

be artifacts or archaeological sites with cultural heritage value or interest requiring further

assessment, and to provide specific Stage 3 direction for the protection, management, and/or

recovery of the identified archaeological resources (Government of Ontario 2011b).


Project Context

July 18, 2014


2014_18july2014_re.docx 1.2

1.2 HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The Project Area comprises 245.2 hectares of primarily agricultural fields, plus municipal drains

and roadways, within the Geographic Township of Sandwich, now City of Windsor (formerly part

of Essex County), Ontario (Figure 1).

1.2.1 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 17th

century and beginning of the 18th century (Konrad 1981; Schmalz 1991). By 1690, Algonkian

speakers from the north appear to have begun to repopulate Bruce County (Roger 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, Odawa, and Potawatomi) were immigrating from Ohio

and Michigan in the late 1700s (Feest and Feest 1978:778-779).

In Essex County, and specifically in the Windsor region, a splinter group of Odawa settled in the

area (CRM Group Limited et al. 2005:2-14 to 2-15). Also, the surviving remnants of the Huron and

Petun were settling in the Windsor region as the Wyandot, exhibiting continuities with their 16th

and 17th century predecessors from the Midland and Blue Mountain regions (Garrad 2014;

Steckley 2014). Given the amalgamated nature of the Wyandot people, sometimes one of the

contributing Aboriginal peoples was recognized over another, hence the Wyandot were known

as Huron in the Windsor region (Garrad 2014:16-54). Therefore, the Wyandot settlement in the

Windsor region is commonly referred to as the “Huron Village” and related place names survive

in Windsor today, such as Huron Church Road (but also note Wyandotte Street).

Despite the dispersal and movement of Aboriginal groups throughout Southern Ontario during

the 17th and 18th centuries, archaeologically they can be characterized by continuity with their

pre-contact Aboriginal counterparts. These peoples still maintained a Terminal Woodland

archaeological culture albeit with some features of European material culture. While there was

cultural and social change occurring due to contact with European colonial powers, there was

equally a definite persistence of Aboriginal socio-cultural practices since these groups were not

so profoundly affected by European contact that they left their former lifeways behind (Ferris

2009).

The Ojibway and Wyandot groups present within the Essex County region surrendered the land

to the Euro-Canadian inhabitants in 1790 through Treaty Number 2, within which the Project Area

falls (Jacobs 1983: 61-68). Treaty Number 2:

... was made with the O[dawa], Chippew[a], Pottawatom[i] and Huro[n] May 19th,

1790, portions of which nations had established themselves on the Detroit River all of

whom had been driven by the Iroquois from the northern and eastern parts of the


Project Context

July 18, 2014


2014_18july2014_re.docx 1.3

Province, from the Detroit River easterly to Catfish Creek and south of the river La

Tranche [Thames River] and Chenail Ecarte, and contains Essex County except

Anderdon Township and Part of West Sandwich; Kent County except Zone Township,

and Gores of Camden and Chatham; Elgin County except Bayham Township and parts

of South Dorchester and Malahide. In Middlesex County, Del[a]ware and Westminster

Townships and part of North Dorchester [are included].

(Morris 1943:17)

While it is difficult to exactly delineate treaty boundaries today, Figure 2 provides an

approximate outline of the area encompassed by Treaty Number 2 (identified by the letter “C”).

1.2.2 Euro-Canadian Resources

The first French settlers arrived in the Detroit-Windsor area in 1701 when the Sieur De Lamothe

Cadillac and roughly 100 military and civilian personnel established Fort Pontchartrain on the

Detroit side of the river (Fuller 1972:6-8). The French settlement remained on the Detroit side until

1748 when the Jesuit mission to the Huron (or Wyandot) was established on the south shore near

the foot of the present-day Huron Church Road and the Ambassador Bridge. Fort Pontchartrain

surrendered to the British in 1760 and remained under British control until 1796, although it was

officially a part of the United States from 1783 onwards. During this period, the settlement

continued to grow, but remained predominantly French. The area (now in present-day Windsor)

across the river from Fort Pontchartrain (later to become Detroit) was called “Petite côte” and

served the agricultural needs of the fort (Archives of Ontario 2014). The street pattern of the City

of Windsor still reflects the French method of agricultural land division, for example, the long

narrow parcels fronting the river where the “Petite côte” was located (Morrison 1954:3-4). In

1796, the original townsite of Sandwich was established to accommodate new immigrants of

both French and British origin from the United States who wished to remain under British rule

following American occupation of Detroit. This constituted the first urban settlement in what are

now the City of Windsor, and also the first significant migration of English speaking people into

the Windsor area (Neal 1909:86-87).

As the area began to attract more Euro-Canadian interest, Patrick McNiff was assigned to

survey and organize the area into a township, also to be named Sandwich. His survey of the

township was completed in 1793. The form of the concessions noted as “Petit côte” were

dictated by the land divisions already used by the French farmers in the “Petit côte” area, in

what was to become Concession 1 Petit Côte. In fact, on his original township map where he

measured the Concession 1 lots, Patrick McNiff notes that “on my measuring the farms in front

from No. 1 to No. 154 found their division Lines to run in the very Irregular manner they appear on

the Plan” (McNiff 1793). Abraham Iredell then resurveyed the area and renumbered the lots

from Lot 82 onwards in Concessions 1 to 3 Petit Côte (including the Project Area) in 1797 (Morris

1929). The most accurate map produced of the township survey was ultimately Abraham

Iredell’s map (Iredell 1800) registered in 1800. No structures are noted on this map but there are

landowner names noted throughout the Project Area.


Project Context

July 18, 2014


2014_18july2014_re.docx 1.4

In the meantime, the community of Windsor was established and grew large enough to

compete with the community of Sandwich for important development stimuli. For example, the

Great Western Railway chose Windsor over Sandwich as its termination point in 1854. The arrival

of the railway also allowed for the foundation of Walkerville, the third oldest settlement that is

now part of the City of Windsor. In 1857, Hiram Walker established his distillery in the downtown

area of Windsor, where the Great Western Railway first met the waterfront (Morrison 1954:26).

In 1858, both Windsor and Sandwich were incorporated as towns (Morrison 1954:42). In 1861 the

Township of Sandwich was subdivided into the Townships of Sandwich West, Sandwich East, and

Sandwich South (Neal 1909:12).

The Historical Atlas of 1881 documents a total population of 36,258 for Essex County at that time.

Of the total population, 25,303 settlers lived in rural settings, while 10,955 lived in urban settings

(Belden 1881:8). By 1898, the Canadian Pacific Railway had been built north of the Project Area

(Figure 5). By the early 1930s, the separate border cities of Windsor, East Windsor, Walkerville, and

Sandwich amalgamated politically into a single community with a population of over 100,000.

Following the amalgamation in 1935, the City of Windsor purchased the land that includes the

Project Area from the Walker family in the Township of Sandwich East. The Walker Airport, named

after Hiram Walker and his distillery business but eventually renamed Windsor Airport (Morrison

1954: 275), was built in 1928 prior to the land purchase.

The Project Area is illustrated in various 19th century and early 20th century maps during the

development of the City of Windsor. No landowners are shown on either the 1847 Map of the

Western District in the Province of Canada (Figure 3) or the 1881 H. Belden & Co. Essex County

Supplement to the Illustrated Atlas of the Dominion of Canada’s map (Belden & Co. 1881) of

Sandwich Township. The atlas shows no structures within the Project Area (Figure 4). Historical

atlases were produced primarily to identify factories, offices, residences and landholdings of

subscribers since these atlases were funded by subscription fees. As such, landowners who did

not subscribe were not always listed on the maps. In addition, all structures were not necessarily

depicted or placed accurately (Gentilcore and Head 1984). As a result, landowner information

for the seemingly vacant lots is probably just missing from the Historical Atlas. The presence of

Pillette Road within the west end of the Project Area and of Division Road to the south of the

Project Area illustrates the persistence of the historic road grid until the present day. Mapping

from 1905 shows landowner names, but again no structures are depicted within the Project Area

(Figure 5). The map does show water sources related to the Project Area: the Little River to the

east, a watercourse along the south side, and an intermittent watercourse to the north.

Landowner names are known from the late 19th century due to farmer’s directories that were

published for all of Essex County, such as the Farmer’s Directory published biennially by the Union

Publishing Company (e.g., Union Publishing Company 1884 or as included in a modern day

printing of Belden & Co. 1881). Multiple landowners are listed for some lots but it is not

differentiated what portion of the lot each landowner owned. However, such directories will be

helpful in conjunction with land registry data and census returns if individual information on

landowners is required for further archival research during any Stage 3 archaeological


Project Context

July 18, 2014


2014_18july2014_re.docx 1.5

assessment. Table 1 provides the information from the 1883-1884 Farmer’s Directory (Belden &

Co. 1881) and notes where the archaeological sites found during this Stage 2 archaeological

assessment would have been located. Some of the sites straddle a lot line and are therefore

listed under two lots with the notation “split” beside their number. Also, as explained above,

since Iredell and McNiff used different lot numbering systems at various times, the modern day

lot numbers as used throughout this report differ from the lot numbers given by the historic

mapping and directories. Both numbers are provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Landowner Information from the 1883-1884 Farmer’s Directory

Historic Atlas

and Directory

Lot Number

Modern

Lot

Number

Concession Owner Place of

Residence Archaeological Site

106 105 3 Rubien Gentry Windsor 23

106 105 3 Joseph Marshel Windsor

109 108 3 Not listed N/A 17, 18

110 109 3 A. Lappen Tecumseh

19, 20, 21, 22 110 109 3 D. Lappen Tecumseh

110 109 3 B. Janisse Walkerville

112 111 3 Not listed N/A 3, 5

113 112 3 Napoleon Rivard Tecumseh 6

114 113 3 Henry Rivard Tecumseh 4, 7

115 114 3 Fabien Charet Tecumseh 1, 2, 11 (split), 12

116 115 3 V. Joinville Tecumseh 9, 10, 11 (split)

117 116 3 Not listed N/A 8, 13 (split)

118 117 3 Not listed N/A 13 (split), 14, 15, 16

1.2.3 Recent Reports

The only archaeological report that discusses the Project Area or land within 50 metres of it is

related to the current project: the Stage 1 archaeological assessment report, entitled Stage 1

Archaeological Assessment: Windsor Solar Project, Parts of Lots 105 to 123, Concession 3 Petite

Cote, Geographic Township of Sandwich, Now City of Windsor, Ontario (Stantec 2014).


Project Context

July 18, 2014


2014_18july2014_re.docx 1.6

1.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

1.3.1 The Natural Environment

The Stage 2 assessment area is situated in the St. Clair Clay Plains physiographic region

(Chapman and Putnam 1984:146-147).

Adjoining Lake St. Clair in Essex and Kent County Counties and the St. Clair River in

Lambton County are extensive clay plains covering 2,270 square miles. The region is

one of little relief, lying between 575 and 700 feet a.s.l., except for the moraine at

Ridgetown and Blenheim which rises 50 to 500 feet higher….Glacial Lake Whittlesey,

which deeply covered all of these lands, and Lake Warren which subsequently covered

nearly the whole area, failed to leave deep stratified beds of sediment on the

underlying clay till except around Chatham, between Blenheim and the Rondeau

marshes, and in a few other smaller areas. Most of Lambton and Essex Counties,

therefore, are essentially till plains smoothed by shallow deposits of lacustrine clay

which settled in the depressions while the knolls were being lowered by wave action.

(Chapman and Putnam 1984:147)

The two main soil types are Brookston Clay and Brookston Clay Loam (Figure 6). Brookston Clay is

a dark clay over mottled clay then a blue-grey compact gritty clay, while Brookston Clay Loam

is a dark clay loam over mottled and blue-grey gritty clay and clay loam. Both soils have few

stones (Richards et al. 1949). These soils would have been suitable for native agriculture and are

still used for modern day agricultural practices including the cultivation of corn, beans, and

wheat.

The closest sources of potable water are three drains running through the Project Area: the

Lappan Drain, the McGill Drain, and Rivard Drain (Figure 7). While municipal drains today, the

1905 mapping of the area indicates that at least the McGill and Rivard Drains were small

watercourses present at that time. Otherwise, the closest potable water would have been the

Little River, approximately 700 metres to the east of the Project Area (Figure 1). Little River drains

into Lake St. Clair very near the confluence of the lake and the Detroit River, approximately

seven kilometres northeast of the Project Area.

1.3.2 Pre-contact Aboriginal Resources

This portion of southwestern Ontario has been occupied by First Nations peoples since the retreat

of the Wisconsin glacier approximately 11,000 years ago. Local environmental conditions were

significantly different from what they are today. Ontario’s first peoples would have crossed the

landscape in small groups in search of food, particularly migratory game species. In this area,

caribou may have been a Paleo-Indian diet staple, supplemented by wild plants, small game,

birds, and fish. Given the low density of populations on the landscape at this time and their

mobile nature, Paleo-Indian sites are small and ephemeral. They are sometimes identified by the


Project Context

July 18, 2014


2014_18july2014_re.docx 1.7

presence of fluted points. Sites are frequently located adjacent to the shorelines of large glacial

lakes.

Archaeological records indicate subsistence changes around 8000 B.C. at the start of the

Archaic Period in southwestern Ontario. Since the large mammal species that formed the basis

of the Paleo-Indian diet became extinct or moved north with the warming of the climate,

Archaic populations had a more varied diet, exploiting a range of plants and bird, mammal,

and fish species. Reliance on specific food resources like fish, deer, and several nut species

became more noticeable through the Archaic Period and the presence of warmer, more

hospitable environs led to expansion of group and family sizes. In the archaeological record, this

is evident in the presence of larger sites. The coniferous forests of earlier times were replaced by

stands of mixed coniferous and deciduous trees by about 4000 B.C. The transition to more

productive environmental circumstances led to a rise in population density. As a result, Archaic

sites become more abundant over time. Artifacts typical of these occupations include a variety

of stemmed and notched projectile points; chipped stone scrapers; ground stone tools (e.g.,

celts, adzes) and ornaments (e.g., bannerstones, gorgets); bifaces or tool blanks; animal bone;

and chert waste flakes, a byproduct of the tool making process.

Significant changes in cultural and environmental patterns occurred in the Early and Middle

Woodland periods (circa 950 B.C. to 800 A.D.). Occupations became increasingly more

permanent in this period, culminating in major semi-permanent villages by roughly 1,000 years

ago. Archaeologically, the most significant changes by Woodland peoples were the

appearance of artifacts manufactured from modeled clay and the emergence of more

sedentary villages. The earliest pottery was crudely made by the coiling method and early house

structures were simple oval enclosures. The Early and Middle Woodland periods are also

characterized by extensive trade in raw materials, objects and finished tools, with sites in Ontario

containing trade items with origins in the Mississippi and Ohio River valleys.

By the Late Woodland period there was a distinctive cultural occupation in Southwestern

Ontario, including Essex, Kent, and Lambton counties. The primary Late Woodland occupants of

the Windsor area were populations described by archaeologists as Western Basin Tradition.

Murphy and Ferris (1990:189) indicate that these people had ties with populations in

southeastern Michigan and northwestern Ohio, and represent an in situ cultural development

from the earlier Middle Woodland groups. The Western Basin Tradition seems to have been

centered in the territory comprising the eastern drainage basin of Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair, and

the southern end of Lake Huron. The Western Basin Tradition is divided up into four phases based

on differences in settlement and subsistence strategies and pottery attributes. By the time of

increased European interaction in the last half of the 16th century and early 17th century, there

were no Western Basin Tradition sites in the Essex County area, having moved west into Michigan

(Ferris 2007:32-33).

Table 2 provides a general outline of the cultural chronology of Essex County, based on Ellis and

Ferris (1990).


Project Context

July 18, 2014


2014_18july2014_re.docx 1.8

Table 2: Cultural Chronology for Essex County

Period Characteristics Time Comments

Early Paleo-Indian Fluted Projectiles 9000-8400 B.C. spruce parkland/caribou hunters

Late Paleo-Indian Hi-Lo Projectiles 8400-8000 B.C. smaller but more numerous sites

Early Archaic Kirk and Bifurcate Base

Points 8000-6000 B.C. slow population growth

Middle Archaic Brewerton-like Points 6000-2500 B.C. environment similar to present

Late Archaic

Narrow Point 2000-1800 B.C. increasing site size

Broad Point 1800-1500 B.C. large chipped lithic tools

Small Point 1500-1100 B.C. introduction of bow hunting

Terminal Archaic Hind Points 1100-950 B.C. emergence of true cemeteries

Early Woodland Meadowood Points 950-400 B.C. introduction of pottery

Middle Woodland Couture Corded Pottery 400 B.C.-A.D. 500 increased sedentism

Riviere au Vase Phase A.D. 500-800 seasonal hunting and gathering

Late Woodland

Younge Phase A.D. 800-1200 incipient agriculture

Springwells Phase A.D.1200-1400 agricultural villages

Wolf Phase A.D. 1400-1550 earthworked villages, warfare

Contact Aboriginal Various Algonkian and

Iroquoian Groups A.D. 1600-1875 early written records and treaties

Historic French/Euro-Canadian A.D. 1749-present European settlement

1.3.3 Previously Known Archaeological Sites and Surveys

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 archaeological sites database (ASDB) maintained by the MTCS. This database

contains archaeological sites registered according to the Borden system. Under the Borden

system, Canada is divided into grid blocks based on latitude and longitude. A Borden Block is

approximately 13 kilometres east to west and approximately 18.5 kilometres 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 Project Area under review is located within Borden Block

AbHr.

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. 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


Project Context

July 18, 2014


2014_18july2014_re.docx 1.9

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.

The review of the ASDB determined that there are no registered archaeological sites within one

kilometre of the Project Area (Government of Ontario n.d.). The only archaeological report that

discusses the Project Area or land within 50 metres of it is the Stage 1 archaeological assessment

report for this Project, entitled Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment: Windsor Solar Project, Parts of

Lots 105 to 123, Concession 3 Petite Cote, Geographic Township of Sandwich, Now City of

Windsor, Ontario (Stantec 2014). The report recommends that any areas that will be subject to

construction disturbance as a part of the Project Location will be subject to a Stage 2

archaeological assessment prior to construction. However, the existing roadways (Pillette Road

and Jefferson Boulevard) and the municipal drains (Lappan, McGill, and Rivard Drains) do not

retain archaeological potential and therefore the Stage 1 archaeological assessment report

recommends no further archaeological assessment for those elements.

1.3.4 Existing Conditions

The Project Area is predominantly composed of ploughed agricultural fields, along with

municipal drains and roadways passing through the Project Area. The existing conditions are

further discussed in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 below.


Field Methods

July 18, 2014


2014_18july2014_re.docx 2.1

2.0 FIELD METHODS

Prior to the property survey all available archaeological reports were reviewed. The Stage 2

assessment of the Windsor Solar Project study area was conducted on June 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,

and 16, 2014 under archaeological consulting license P389 issued to Walter McCall, Ph.D., of

Stantec by the MTCS. The study area comprises 245.2 hectares of agricultural fields, plus

municipal drains and roadways, located on parts of Lots 105 to 123, Concession 3 Petite Côte,

Geographic Township of Sandwich, now City of Windsor, Ontario.

During the Stage 2 survey, assessment conditions were excellent and at no time were the field,

weather, or lighting conditions detrimental to the recovery of archaeological material (Table 3).

Photos 1 to 5 in Section 8.1 of this report confirm that field conditions met the requirements for a

Stage 2 archaeological assessment, as per the MTCS’ 2011 Standards and Guidelines for

Consultant Archaeologists (Section 7.8.6 Standard 1a; Government of Ontario 2011b). Figure

7provides an illustration of the Stage 2 assessment methods, as well as photograph locations and

directions.

Table 3: Field and Weather Conditions

Date Activity Weather Field Conditions

June 5, 2014 Stage 2 pedestrian survey Sunny, warm 85-95% visibility; dry and friable soil

June 6, 2014 Stage 2 pedestrian survey Sunny, hot 85-95% visibility; dry and friable soil

June 9, 2014 Stage 2 pedestrian survey Overcast later

sunny, hot

85-95% visibility; dry and friable soil

June 10, 2014 Stage 2 pedestrian survey Overcast, hot 85-95% visibility; dry and friable soil



June 13, 2014 Stage 2 pedestrian survey Overcast, warm 85-95% visibility; dry and friable soil

June 16, 2014 Stage 2 pedestrian survey Sunny, hot 85-95% visibility; dry and friable soil

Approximately 98% of the study area consists of agricultural fields and was subject to pedestrian

survey at a five-metre interval in accordance with Section 2.1.1 of the MTCS’ 2011 Standards

and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011b) (Photos 1 to 4 in

Section 8.1 of this report). During the pedestrian survey, when archaeological resources were

identified, the survey transect was decreased to a one-metre interval and spanned a minimal 20

metre radius around the identified artifacts. Transects were intensified at a one-metre interval at

23 archaeological sites. This approach was established to determine if the artifact was an

isolated find or part of a larger surface scatter. If the artifact was part of a larger scatter, the

one-metre interval was continued until the full extent of the scatter was defined, as per Section

2.1.1 Standard 7 of the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists

(Government of Ontario 2011b).


Field Methods

July 18, 2014


2014_18july2014_re.docx 2.2

For sites with artifact counts of under 125, all artifacts were collected. For large sites of 125

artifacts or more, all formal diagnostic artifact types were collected including a sufficient sample

of refined ceramic artifacts to form the basis for accurate dating as per Section 2.1.1 Standard 8

of the MTCS’ Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario

2011b). Based on professional judgement, the sample size for each site was based partly on the

number of artifacts present on the surface and partly on the need to strike a balance between

gathering enough artifacts to document the archaeological site and leaving enough in place

to relocate the site if it is necessary to conduct further assessment as per Section 2.1.1 Standard 9

of the MTCS’ Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario

2011b).

For each artifact collected, a UTM coordinate was taken using a Topcon FC-25A handheld GPS

unit with Magnet Field software at an accuracy of four metres. All UTM coordinates are located

in zone 17T and are based upon the North American Datum 1983 (NAD83). All collected surface

finds were numbered sequentially beginning at one at each archaeological site. However, in

some cases if an item was discarded during analysis in the archaeological laboratory since it

was found not to be an artifact, there will be a gap apparent in the sequence of numbered

surface finds (and sometimes the catalogue numbers assigned) from the archaeological site in

question.

The remaining 2% of the study area consists of modern disturbances, including paved roads and

municipal drains. These areas were photo documented and not assessed. Photos 6 and 7 in

Section 8.1 of this report confirm that physical features affected the ability to survey portions of

the study area (Section 7.8.6 Standard 1b; Government of Ontario 2011b).

Three First Nations monitors also participated in the Stage 2 archaeological assessment on behalf

of the Caldwell First Nation and the Aamjiwnaang First Nations; their roles are summarized in the

Supplementary Documentation.


Record of Finds

July 18, 2014


2014_18july2014_re.docx 3.1

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

4 below. A total of 23 sites were identified during the Stage 2 archaeological assessment of the

study area.

Table 4: Inventory of Documentary Record

Document Type Current Location of

Document Type Additional Comments

60 Pages of field notes Stantec office, London In original field book and photocopied in project file

1 Hand drawn map Stantec office, London In original field book and photocopied in project file

2 Maps provided by Client Stantec office, London Hard and digital copies in project file

107 Digital photographs Stantec office, London Stored digitally in project file

All of the material culture collected during the Stage 2 archaeological assessment of the study

area is contained in two Bankers boxes. It will be temporarily housed at the Stantec London

office until formal arrangements can be made for a transfer to an MTCS collections facility.

For any pre-contact Aboriginal lithic artifacts recovered and discussed below, chert type

identifications were accomplished visually using reference materials located in the Stantec

London office.

For Euro-Canadian sites, all ceramic sherds were examined in order to describe the function of

the item from which the ceramic sherd originated. However, for those sherds that were too

fragmentary for a functional assignment, an attempt was made to at least provide a formal

description, such as to which portion of an item the sherd belonged. For example, what used to

be a porcelain teacup but now found in an archaeological context could be classified

archaeologically in the artifact catalogue in a descending order of specificity depending on

preservation and artifact size: a teacup (function), a cup (function), a hollowware (form), or a

rim fragment (form). Hollowwares and flatwares were differentiated based on the presence or

absence, respectively, of curvature in the ceramic cross-section of each sherd. The classification

system used here is based upon Beaudoin (2013:78-82), but teas were differentiated as teacups

and tea saucers as necessary. If Beaudoin’s classifications could not be applied, then the

broader definitions of Voss (2008:209) were used. Ultimately, if sherds were small enough that

even a general functional or formal ware type could not be determined, then the sherd was

simply classified as either a rim fragment, a non-rim fragment, a base fragment, or

indeterminate. Ceramic functions, as many as were able to be determined, are provided in the

artifact catalogue for each site.


Record of Finds

July 18, 2014


2014_18july2014_re.docx 3.2

3.1 ARTIFACTS DOCUMENTED

A total of 23 archaeological sites were documented during the Stage 2 archaeological

assessment, 20 of which were Bordenized, as directed by Section 7.12 of the Standards and

Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011b). All 23 archaeological

sites are summarized below.

3.1.1 Site 1 (AbHr-20)

Site 1 (AbHr-20) was discovered during the pedestrian survey of a ploughed and weathered

agricultural field on Lot 114, Concession 3 Petite Côte, Geographic Township of Sandwich East.

The Stage 2 scatter consisted of 97 Euro-Canadian artifacts spread over an area of

approximately 42 metres east-west by 35 metres north-south. All 97 artifacts were collected for

analysis. Table 5 provides an artifact summary for the Stage 2 archaeological assessment of Site

1 (AbHr-20). A representative sample of artifacts is depicted in Plates 1 and 2 of Section 8.2 in this

report.

Table 5: Site 1 (AbHr-20) Artifact Summary

Artifact Frequency %

ceramics 53 54.64

household 38 39.18

structural 4 4.12

metal 1 1.03

leather 1 1.03

Total 97 100.00

3.1.1.1 Ceramic Artifacts

More than 50% of the artifacts recovered during the Stage 2 assessment of Site 1 (AbHr-20) are

refined ceramics. Almost 40% of these, 21 in total, are stoneware. The remaining wares

represented within the finds assemblage include 18 pieces of ironstone, 12 pieces of porcelain,

and 2 fragments of semi-porcelain. Table 6 summarizes the ceramic artifacts by ware type and

Table 7 by decorative type. Examples of ceramic artifacts are illustrated in Plate 1 of Section 8.2

in this report and the different ware types and decorative styles recovered from the Stage 2

assessment are discussed below.

Table 6: Site 1 (AbHr-20) Ceramic Assemblage by Ware Type

Ceramic Artifacts Frequency %

stoneware 21 39.62


Record of Finds

July 18, 2014


2014_18july2014_re.docx 3.3


ironstone 18 33.96

porcelain 12 22.64

semi-porcelain 2 3.77

Total 53 100

Table 7: Site 1 (AbHr-20) Ceramic Assemblage by Decorative Type


stoneware 21 39.62

ironstone, undecorated 13 24.53

porcelain, undecorated 8 15.09

ironstone, transfer printed 4 7.55

porcelain, moulded 2 3.77

semi-porcelain 2 3.77

ironstone, painted 1 1.89

porcelain, transfer printed 1 1.89

porcelain, painted 1 1.89

Total 53 100.00

Stoneware

Almost 40% of the Stage 2 ceramic assemblage of Site 1 (AbHr-20), 21 pieces in total, comprised

stoneware sherds. Stoneware has a vitrified stone-like paste due to the high temperatures used

to fire the pottery. The paste colours vary between white, grey, and tan and are generally quite

thick and durable. Stoneware was made in Ontario from 1849 onwards (Adams 1994). All pieces

of stoneware were identified as hollowware fragments.

Ironstone

The Stage 2 ceramic assemblage of Site 1 (AbHr-20) contained 18 ironstone sherds. Ironstone,

also known as white granite, stone china, and graniteware, is a variety of white earthenware

introduced to Canada in the 1820s. It was widely available in the 1840s and became extremely

popular in Upper Canada by the 1860s (Collard 1967; Kenyon 1985). Decorated ironstone,

including hand painted, transfer printed, sponged, and stamped, generally dates to between

1805 and 1840; undecorated ironstone was most common after 1840 (Miller 1991). By 1897,

ironstone was the cheapest dinnerware available and prices charged for moulded patterns

were the same as those charged for plain, undecorated types (Sussman 1997:9). Of the

ironstone fragments recovered from Site 1 (AbHr-20), 13 are plain or undecorated. The

undecorated ironstone pieces consist of three flatware fragments and one hollowware


Record of Finds

July 18, 2014


2014_18july2014_re.docx 3.4

fragment. The remaining fragments are too fragmentary to discern either form or function. Of

the decorated ironstone fragments, four are transfer printed and one is painted.

Four pieces of transfer printed ironstone were recovered from Site 1 (AbHr-20). Transfer printing

was popular throughout the 19th century. Early transfer printed ironstone often has thicker lines

because of the paper used during the transfer of pattern from paper to ceramic. Later transfer

printed ironstone was manufactured either using tissue paper which allowed for shading and

finer line details or using oil and a sheet of glue to create a design with little dots (Stelle 2001).

Before the 1830s blue was the most common colour used; during the 1830s and 1840s other

colours like brown, black, red, green and purple became popular and between 1850 and 1890

only blue, black and brown were popular with a variety of colours becoming popular again in

the late 19th century (Adams 1994). The transfer print ironstone assemblage from Site 1 (AbHr-20)

consists of red, green, teal, and polychrome transfer printed colours. As to the function of the

transfer printed ironstone assemblage, one was identified as a saucer piece, one was a flatware

fragment, one was a hollowware fragment, and the remaining piece was too fragmentary to

discern either form or function. The transfer print ironstone assemblage is characteristic of a mid-

to-late 19th century Euro-Canadian site.

One piece of hand painted ironstone was recovered during the Stage 2 assessment of Site 1

(AbHr-20). Typical early 19th century painted ironstone vessels are almost completely covered

with colour with very little white showing through while later 19th century vessels tended to have

more white showing through. Blue and black were the dominant colours during the first quarter

of the 19th century with the palette being expanded over the course of the century (Stelle 2001).

The painted ironstone found at Site 1 (AbHr-20) consisted of brown painted lines and indicates a

mid-to-late 19th century date. The piece was identified as a flatware rim fragment.

Porcelain

Twelve pieces of porcelain were recovered from the Stage 2 assessment of Site 1 (AbHr-20).

Eight pieces were undecorated, two were moulded, one was painted, and one was transfer

printed. Porcelain wares are produced with very high firing temperatures which result in a partial

vitrification of the paste. Vessel bodies tend to be translucent and can be very thin. Because of

its prohibitive cost, porcelain is extremely rare on 19th century sites in Ontario but becomes

relatively common by the 20th century as less expensive production techniques were developed

in Europe (Kenyon 1980c). Of the undecorated porcelain pieces recovered, three were

identified as cup fragments, a further two were also hollowware, two were flatware, and one

was too fragmentary to discern either form or function. The transfer printed porcelain piece was

also identified as a cup fragment, while the painted piece was a plate fragment, and both

moulded porcelain fragments were identified as hollowware.

Semi-porcelain

Two pieces of undecorated semi-porcelain were recovered from Site 1 (AbHr-20). One was

identified as flatware, and one was too fragmentary to distinguish form or function. Semi-


Record of Finds

July 18, 2014


2014_18july2014_re.docx 3.5

porcelain wares were developed by English potters during the first half of the 19th century in an

attempt to replicate imported porcelain. This refined earthenware was relatively thick-bodied,

with a hard opaque paste. In 1850, semi-porcelains were reintroduced and this vitreous, hard-

glazed white earthenware quickly became widespread throughout North America. Decoration

with hand-painted lustrous gold overglaze or “gilding” became popular in the 1880s and

persisted until the 1940s (Hughes 1961).

3.1.1.2 Non-ceramic Artifacts

Just under half of the artifacts recovered from Site 1 (AbHr-20), or 45.36%, consisted of non-

ceramic artifacts. This assemblage included 38 household artifacts, 4 structural artifacts, 1 metal

artifact, and 1 leather artifact. Plate 2 in Section 8.2 of this report illustrates examples of the non-

ceramic artifacts recovered from the Stage 2 assessment. The various non-ceramic artifacts are

discussed in further detail below.

Household Artifacts

The 38 household artifacts recovered from Site 1(AbHr-20) include 28 pieces of bottle glass, 5

undetermined glass fragments, 2 pieces of white glass, 1 glass knob, 1 glass dish fragment, and 1

faunal remain.

Among the 28 bottle glass fragments recovered from Site 1 (AbHr-20), three have recognizable

finishes, including one wide prescription finish, one double ring finish, and one large mouth

external thread finish. One partial base was also recovered. Table 8 summarizes the bottle glass

bases and finishes recovered from Site 1 (AbHr-20). Plate 2 in Section 8.2 of this report illustrates

examples of household artifacts recovered during Stage 2 assessment of Site 1 (AbHr-20).

Table 8: Bottle Glass Bases and Finishes Recovered from Site 1 (AbHr-20)

Cat. # Frequency Bottle

Segment Finish Type Colour Date Range

5 1 finish wide prescription olive mid-1870s to early 1920s

13 1 finish double ring aqua 1840 to 1920s

30 1 base n/a violet mid-to-late 19th century

40 1 finish large mouth external thread colourless 1858 to present

The double ring finish was a very popular bottle finish over a long time span. It had a two part

finish comprising two connected rings: a thicker and wider rounded ring at the top of the finish

and a thinner, narrower rounded flat ring below. This popular finish was used on many different

bottle types but was most common on a wide array of patent/proprietary medicines, many

varieties of liquor flasks, various sauce or narrow-necked food bottles, figured or pictorial flasks,

and occasionally ink bottles. Between about 1840 and the 1920s, and particularly between 1850

and 1910, this style of finish was one of the most popular and functional finishes used (Lindsey


Record of Finds

July 18, 2014


2014_18july2014_re.docx 3.6

2014). The prescription finish is most common on prescription medication bottles manufactured

from mid-1870s to the early 1920s. External thread bottles date from 1858 to present day and

were commonly found on food storage jars (Lindsey 2014).

One bottle base fragment was recovered from Site 1 (AbHr-20). It was from a post bottom mould

produced bottle, with a visible post plate seam and side mould seam continuing on the base.

Post bottom moulds are a result of a separate base mould plate or section and were made

predominantly during the mid-to-late 19th century (Lindsey 2014).

Some bottle glass colours can provide a tentative temporal range for Euro-Canadian domestic

sites, although most are temporally non-diagnostic (Lindsey 2014). Generally, aqua coloured

glass originates from medical and pharmaceutical bottles from the 19th and 20th centuries

(Kendrick 1971). Colourless, or clear, glass is relatively uncommon prior to the 1870s but becomes

quite widespread in the 1910s (Kendrick 1971). Colours represented in the bottle glass

assemblage from Site 1 (AbHr-20) include colourless, olive, brown, aqua, violet, and green.

Two white glass shards were recovered from Site 1 (AbHr-20). White glass, also known as milk

glass, was produced primarily between the 1870s and the mid-20th century. This type of glass was

most commonly used for cosmetic and toiletry bottles as well as ointments or creams (Lindsey

2014).

Other temporally non-diagnostic material was recovered as well, including five undetermined

glass fragments, one glass knob, one glass dish fragment, and one butchered mammalian

faunal remain. The unidentifiable glass fragments were either burnt or colourless, and too

fragmentary to discern a function.

Structural Artifacts

Four window glass shards were recovered from Site 1 (AbHr-20). Window glass can be temporally

diagnostic. In the 1840s window glass thickness changed dramatically. This shift occurred as a

resul

stage 2 archaeological assessment: windsor solar project...license number: p389 pif number:...

Documents