Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment: Proposed Whitelaw ... · a Stage 2 archaeological assessment...

Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment: Proposed Whitelaw Road Development Part of Lot 5, Concession 1 Division B, Geographic Township of Guelph, now Township of Guelph Eramosa, Wellington County, Ontario

July 4, 2018

Prepared for: Armel Corporation Commerce Court West 199 Bay Street, Suite 2900 P.O. Box 459 Toronto, Ontario M5L 1G4 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 600-171 Queens Avenue London, ON N6A 5J7 Licensee: Parker Dickson, MA License Number: P256 PIF Number: P256-0542-2018 Project Number: 160940560

ORIGINAL REPORT

STAGE 1-2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: PROPOSED WHITELAW ROAD DEVELOPMENT

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ I

PROJECT PERSONNEL ...........................................................................................................III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..........................................................................................................III

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 Indigenous Resources ............................................................ 1.2 1.2.2 Euro-Canadian Resources .......................................................................... 1.3

1.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT .................................................................................. 1.4 1.3.1 The Natural Environment ............................................................................ 1.4 1.3.2 Pre-contact Indigenous Resources.............................................................. 1.5 1.3.3 Known Archaeological Sites and Surveys ................................................... 1.7 1.3.4 Archaeological Potential .............................................................................. 1.8 1.3.5 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................... 1.9

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

3.0 RECORD OF FINDS .................................................................................................... 3.1 3.1 LOCATION 1 ................................................................................................................ 3.1

3.1.1 Chipping Detritus ......................................................................................... 3.2 3.1.2 Bifaces ........................................................................................................ 3.2 3.1.3 Location 1 Artifact Catalogue ...................................................................... 3.2

3.2 LOCATION 2 (AJHB-90)............................................................................................... 3.3 3.2.1 Chipping Detritus ......................................................................................... 3.3 3.2.2 Projectile Points .......................................................................................... 3.4 3.2.3 Location 2 (AjHb-90) Artifact Catalogue ...................................................... 3.4

4.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................... 4.1 4.1 LOCATION 1 ................................................................................................................ 4.1 4.2 LOCATION 2 (AJHB-90)............................................................................................... 4.1

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 5.1 5.1 LOCATION 1 ................................................................................................................ 5.1 5.2 LOCATION 2 (AJHB-90)............................................................................................... 5.1

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

7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES ............................................................................... 7.1

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


8.2 PLATES ....................................................................................................................... 8.4

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

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

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Generalized Cultural Chronology of the Study Area ................................................... 1.5 Table 2: Registered Sites within One Kilometre of the Study Area ........................................... 1.8 Table 3: Inventory of Documentary Record .............................................................................. 3.1 Table 4: Location 1 Artifact Summary ...................................................................................... 3.1 Table 5: Location 1 Artifact Catalogue ..................................................................................... 3.3 Table 6: Location 2 Artifact Summary ...................................................................................... 3.3 Table 7: Location 2 (AjHb-90) Artifact Catalogue ..................................................................... 3.4

LIST OF PLATES Plate 1: Artifacts from Location 1 ............................................................................................. 8.4 Plate 2: Artifacts from Location 2 (AjHb-90) ............................................................................. 8.4

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Location of Study Area .............................................................................................. 9.2 Figure 2: Treaties and Purchases (Adapted from Morris 1943) ................................................ 9.3 Figure 3: Portion of the 1861 Map of Guelph Township ............................................................ 9.4 Figure 4: Portion of the 1881 Map of Guelph Township ............................................................ 9.5 Figure 5: Stage 2 Methods and Results ................................................................................... 9.6


i

Executive Summary

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by Armel Corporation (Armel) to complete a Stage 1-2 archaeological assessment in advance of a proposed development on Whitelaw Road (the Project). The study area for the Project measures approximately 5.05 hectares and is located on part of Lot 5, Concession 1 Division B, Geographic Township of Guelph, now Township of Guelph/Eramosa, Wellington County, Ontario.

This assessment was triggered by the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) which has been issued under section 3 of the Planning Act (Government of Ontario 1990a). The PPS states that decisions affecting planning matters may be affected by other legislation; for archaeological work that would include the Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 1990b). According to Section 2.6.2 of the PPS, “development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources have been conserved” (Government of Ontario 2014).

This report supplements a previous archaeological assessment completed by D. R. Poulton & Associates (DRP) in 2006 for lands directly adjacent to the current study area (DRP 2009). No archaeological resources were identified during the Stage 1-2 archaeological assessment completed by DRP (2009) and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) concurred with the findings in a letter dated July 2, 2010. The current archaeological assessment expands the study area from that considered in the previous DRP (2009) assessment.

The Stage 1-2 archaeological assessment for the study area was conducted on June 8, 2018, under Project Information Form number P256-0542-2018 issued to Parker Dickson, MA, by the MTCS. The study area comprises agricultural field, scrubland, and existing modern disturbances. The Stage 1 archaeological assessment determined that the study area retained potential for the for the identification and recovery of archaeological resources. As such, a Stage 2 archaeological assessment was required. Two new archaeological locations were identified during the Stage 2 survey.

The Stage 2 assessment of Location 1 resulted in the recovery of three Aboriginal artifacts from a surface scatter measuring approximately 20 metres by five metres: two pieces of chipping detritus and one biface. The cultural heritage value or interest of Location 1 is judged to be sufficiently documented. Location 1 does not fulfill the criteria for a Stage 3 archaeological investigation as per Section 2.2 of the MTCS’ 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011). Therefore, no further archaeological assessment is recommended for Location 1.

The Stage 2 assessment of Location 2 (AjHb-90) resulted in the recovery of an Aboriginal projectile point and one piece of chipping detritus. The projectile point is a Nanticoke Triangular point, dating to the Late Woodland period, circa A.D. 1400 – 1600). The projectile point and piece of chipping detritus were located on the field surface, approximately 24 metres from each other. Location 2 (AjHb-90) does not fulfill the criteria for a Stage 3 archaeological investigation as per Section 2.2 of the MTCS’ 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011). Therefore, no further archaeological assessment is recommended for Location 2 (AjHb-90).


ii

The MTCS is asked to review the results presented and to accept this report into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports.

The Executive Summary highlights key points from the report only; for complete information and findings, the reader should examine the complete report.


iii

Project Personnel

Licensed Archaeologist: Parker Dickson, MA (P256)

Project Manager: Parker Dickson, MA (P256)

Licensed Field Director: Darren Kipping, MA (R422)

Field Technicians: Olivia De Brabandere, David Fournier, Lorelyn Giese, Nathan Ng

GIS Specialist: Brian Cowper

Report Writer: Parker Dickson, MA (P256)

Quality Review: Tracie Carmichael, BA. B.Ed. (R140)

Independent Review: Jim Wilson, MA (P001)

Acknowledgements

Armel Corporation: Chris Corosky – Vice President Bob Bellamy – Manager, Construction & Property Services

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport: Robert von Bitter – Archaeological Sites Database Coordinator


Project Context July 4, 2018

1.1

1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT

1.1 DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by Armel Corporation (Armel) to complete a Stage 1-2 archaeological assessment in advance of a proposed development on Whitelaw Road (the Project). The study area for the Project measures approximately 5.05 hectares and is located on part of Lot 5, Concession 1 Division B, Geographic Township of Guelph, now Township of Guelph/Eramosa, Wellington County, Ontario (Figure 1).

This assessment was triggered by the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) which has been issued under section 3 of the Planning Act (Government of Ontario 1990a). The PPS states that decisions affecting planning matters may be affected by other legislation; for archaeological work that would include the Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 1990b). According to Section 2.6.2 of the PPS, “development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources have been conserved” (Government of Ontario 2014).


1.1.1 Objectives

In compliance with the provincial standards and guidelines set out in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s (MTCS) 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011), the objectives of the Stage 1 Archaeological Overview/Background Study are as follows:

• To provide information about the study area’s geography, history, previous archaeological fieldwork, and current land conditions;

• To evaluate the study area’s archaeological potential which will support recommendations for Stage 2 survey for all or parts of the property; and

• To recommend appropriate strategies for Stage 2 survey.

To meet these objectives, Stantec archaeologists employed the following research strategies:

• A review of relevant archaeological, historic, and environmental literature pertaining to the study area; • A review of the land use history, including historical atlases; and • An examination of the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database to determine the presence of known

archaeological sites in and around the study area.

The objective of the Stage 2 assessment was to provide an overview of archaeological resources on the property and to determine whether any of the resources might be archaeological sites with cultural heritage value or interest and to provide specific direction for the protection, management and/or recovery of these resources. In compliance with the



1.2

provincial standards and guidelines set out in the MTCS’ 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011), the objectives of the Stage 2 Property Assessment are as follows:

• To document archaeological resources within the study area; • To determine whether the study area contains archaeological resources requiring further assessment; and • To recommend appropriate Stage 3 assessment strategies for archaeological sites identified.

Permission to enter the study area to conduct the archaeological assessment was provided by Chris Corosky of Armel.

1.2 HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The study area consists of approximately 5.05 hectares of agricultural field, scrubland, and areas of previous modern disturbance. The study area is located on part of Lot 5, Concession 1 Division B, Geographic Township of Guelph, now Township of Guelph/Eramosa, Wellington County, Ontario.

1.2.1 Post-contact Indigenous Resources

“Contact” is typically used as a chronological benchmark in discussing Indigenous archaeology in Canada and describes the contact between Indigenous and European cultures. The precise moment of contact is a constant matter of discussion. Contact in what is now the province of Ontario is broadly assigned to the 16th century (Loewen and Chapdelaine 2016).

The post-contact Indigenous 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). At the turn of the 17th century, the region of the study area was occupied by Iroquoian populations who are historically described as the Neutre Nations (by the French) or the Attiwandaron (by the Huron-Wendat); their autonym is not conclusively known (Birch 2015). In 1649, the Seneca with the Mohawk led a campaign into the southern Ontario and dispersed the Attiwandaron (Neutral) Nations and the Seneca established dominance over the region (Heidenreich 1978; Konrad 1981).

By 1690, Ojibwa speaking people had begun moving south into the lower Great Lakes basin (Konrad 1981; Rogers 1978); particularly, the Mississauga Nations gained dominance in the region. The Mississauga economy since the turn of the 18th century focused on fishing and the fur trade, supplemented by agriculture and hunting. The study area falls within the Treaty Lands and Territory of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, formerly the Credit River Mississauga Nation (Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation 2018). It is also located within the Traditional Territory of the Six Nations of the Grand River (Six Nations Council n.d.).

The expansion of the fur trade led to increased interaction between European and Indigenous people, and ultimately intermarriage between European men and Indigenous women. During the 18th century the progeny of these marriages began to no longer identify with either their paternal or maternal cultures, but instead as Métis. The ethnogenesis of the Métis progressed with the establishment of distinct Métis communities along the major waterways in the Great Lakes of Ontario. Métis communities were primarily focused around the upper Great Lakes and along Georgian Bay, however Métis people have historically lived throughout Ontario (Métis Nation of Ontario 2016; Stone and Chaput 1978:607-608).



1.3

The nature of Indigenous settlement size, population distribution, and material culture shifted as European settlers encroached upon their territory. However, despite this shift, “written accounts of material life and livelihood, the correlation of historically recorded villages to their archaeological manifestations, and the similarities of those sites to more ancient sites have revealed an antiquity to documented cultural expressions that confirms a deep historical continuity to…systems of ideology and thought” (Ferris 2009:114). As a result, Indigenous peoples have left behind archaeologically significant resources throughout the region which show continuity with past peoples, even if they have not been recorded in Euro-Canadian documentation.

The study area is located within the Geographic Township of Guelph. Since contact with European explorers and immigrants, and, later, with the establishment of provincial and federal governments (the Crown), the lands within Ontario have been included in various treaties, land claims, and land cessations. Though not an exhaustive list, Morris (1943) provides a general outline of some of the treaties within the Province of Ontario from 1783 to 1923. While it is difficult to exactly delineate treaty boundaries today, Figure 3 provides an approximate outline of the treaty lands described by Morris (1943). For example, according to Morris (1943), the study area is situated within Treaty Number 3. Treaty Number 3:

…was made with the Mississa[ug]a Indians 7th December, 1792, though purchased as early as 1784. This purchase was to procure for that part of the Six Nation Indians coming into Canada a permanent abode.

The area included in this Treaty is, Lincoln County excepting Niagara Township; Saltfleet, Binbrook, Barton, Glanford and Ancaster Townships, in Wentworth County; Brantford, Onondaga, Tusc[a]r[o]ra, Oakland and Burford Townships in Brant County; East and West Oxford, North and South Norwich, and Dereham Townships in Oxford County; North Dorchester Township in Middlesex County; South Dorchester, Malahide and Bayham Township in Elgin County; all Norfolk and Haldimand Counties; Pelham, Wainfleet, Thorold, Cumberland and Humberstone Townships in Welland County… .

(Morris 1943:17-18)

1.2.2 Euro-Canadian Resources

At its inception, Upper Canada was only sparsely settled and its land had not been officially surveyed to any great extent. Thus, there was an urgency, by the then Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada John Graves Simcoe, to survey this new and relatively barren province for establishing military roads and for preventing settlers from clearing and settling land not legally belonging to them. In 1791, the Provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada were created from the former Province of Quebec by an act of British Parliament (Craig 1963:17). At this time, Colonel John Graves Simcoe was appointed as the Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada and was tasked with governing the new province, directing its settlement and establishing a constitutional government modelled after that of Britain’s (Coyne 1895). The change was affected at the behest of United Empire Loyalists who wished to live under the British laws and customs they were familiar with in Great Britain and the former 13 Colonies (Craig 1963:10-11). John Graves Simcoe had ambitious plans to create a model British society in North America, stating a desire to “inculcate British customs, manners, and principles in the most trivial, as well as most serious matters” in Upper Canada (Craig 1963:21). In 1792, Simcoe divided Upper Canada into 19 counties consisting of previously-settled lands, new lands opened for settlement, and lands not yet acquired by Crown. These new counties stretched from Essex in the west to Glengarry in the east.



1.4

Originally belonging to The District of Wellington formed in 1838, Wellington County was named after Arthur Wellesley, the First Duke of Wellington. In 1854, Wellington County became an individual entity incorporating 12 townships and towns, including the Township of Guelph. The former Town of Guelph (now City of Guelph), located immediately to the northeast of the study area, was founded in 1827 by John Galt on a parcel of land belonging to the Canada Company (Smith 1846). The original town site was situated at the confluence of the Speed and Eramosa Rivers. In 1879, the City of Guelph separated and became incorporated as a City and was no longer represented on Wellington County Council. Many of the prominent features of the town were situated on large drumlins, including the Roman Catholic cathedral at the end of MacDonald Street, as well as the hospitals and cemeteries to the east of the Speed River. Additional drumlins to the south were occupied by the Ontario Agricultural College, the Macdonald Institute, the Ontario Veterinary College, and the University of Guelph (Chapman and Putnam 1984:138-139).

The study area falls within the former Township of Guelph, now Township of Guelph-Eramosa, Wellington County, Ontario. The amalgamation of the Township of Guelph, Township of Eramosa, and parts of the Townships of Pilkington and Nichol, to form the Township of Guelph-Eramosa was established in 1999.

In discussing the late 19th century historical mapping it must be remembered that historical county atlases were produced primarily to identify factories, offices, residences, and landholdings of subscribers and were funded by subscription fees. Landowners who did not subscribe were not always listed on the maps (Caston 1997:100). As such, all structures were not necessarily depicted or placed accurately (Gentilcore and Head 1984). Further, review of historic mapping, including treaty maps, also has inherent accuracy difficulties due to potential error in geo-referencing. Geo-referencing is conducted by assigning spatial coordinates to fixed locations and using these points to spatially reference the remainder of the map. Due to changes in “fixed” locations over time (e.g., road intersections), errors/difficulties of scale and the relative idealism of the historic cartography, historic maps may not translate accurately into real space points. This may provide obvious inconsistencies during the historic map review. Nonetheless, the majority of the study area has been subject to European-style agricultural practices for over 100 years, having been densely populated by Euro-Canadian farmers by the late 19th century.

The 1861 map of the Township of Guelph from the Map of the County of Wellington, Canada West (Leslie and Wheelock 1861) identify G. Hood as the landowner for Lot 5, Concession 1 Division B. No structures or other features are illustrated on the 1861 map for the lot (Figure 3). G. Hood continues to be illustrated as the lot owner on the 1881 Historical Atlas of the County of Wellington, Ont.’s (Walker & Miles 1881) map of the Township of Guelph (Figure 4). No structures are noted on the lot; however, a tributary of the Speed River is noted in the northeastern portion of the lot. The Grand Trunk Railway and Great Western Railway are depicted in the 1861 and 1881 maps, south of the study area.

1.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

1.3.1 The Natural Environment

The study area is situated within the Guelph Drumlin Field region, as identified by Chapman and Putnam (1984). The Guelph Drumlin Fields consist of a general landform pattern containing drumlins or groups of drumlins fringed by gravel terraces and separated by swampy valleys in which slow moving tributaries of the Grand River are located (Chapman and Putnam 1984:138). The till in these drumlins is loamy and calcareous, containing fragments of underlying red shale (Chapman and Putnam). Moreover, “[T]he soils of the drumlins are classed in the Guelph catena



1.5

which contains the predominant, well-drained Guelph loam…it is fertile, easily worked, and adaptable to many crops” (Chapman and Putnam 1984:138).

Potable water is the single most important resource for any extended human occupation or settlement and since water sources in southwestern Ontario have remained relatively stable over time, proximity to drinkable water is regarded as a useful index for the evaluation of archaeological site potential. In fact, distance to water is one of the most commonly used variables for predictive modeling of archaeological site location in Ontario. The closest extant source of potable water to the study area is a small, intermittent and seasonal tributary of the Speed River, approximately 10 metres to the south of the study area, while the Speed River itself is located approximately two kilometres to the east.

1.3.2 Pre-contact Indigenous Resources

It has been demonstrated that Indigenous people began occupying southern Ontario as the Laurentide glacier receded, as early as 9000 years Before Christ (B.C.) (Ellis and Ferris 1990:13). Much of what is understood about the lifeways of these Indigenous peoples is derived from archaeological evidence and ethnographic analogy. In Ontario, Indigenous culture prior to the period of contact with European peoples has been distinguished into cultural periods based on observed changes in material culture. These cultural periods are largely based in observed changes in formal lithic tools, and separated into the Early Paleo-Indian, Late Paleo-Indian, Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, and Late Archaic periods. Following the advent of ceramic technology in the Indigenous archaeological record, cultural periods are separated into the Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, and Late Woodland periods, based primarily on observed changes in formal ceramic decoration. It should be noted that these cultural periods do not necessarily represent specific cultural identities but are a useful paradigm for understanding changes in Indigenous culture through time. The current understanding of Indigenous archaeological culture is summarized in Table 1, based on Ellis and Ferris (1990).

Table 1: Generalized Cultural Chronology of the Study Area

Period Characteristics Time Period 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

Lamoka (narrow points) 2000 – 1800 B.C. increasing site size

Broad Points 1800 – 1500 B.C. large chipped lithic tools

Small Points 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 Dentate/Pseudo-Scallop Pottery 400 B.C. - A.D.500 increased sedentism

Princess Point A.D. 550 - 900 introduction of corn

Late Woodland

Early Ontario Iroquoian A.D. 900 - 1300 emergence of agricultural villages

Middle Ontario Iroquoian A.D. 1300 - 1400 long longhouses (100m +)

Late Ontario Iroquoian A.D. 1400 - 1650 tribal warfare and displacement



1.6

Period Characteristics Time Period Comments Contact Indigenous Various Algonkian Groups A.D. 1700 - 1875 early written records and treaties

Late Historic Euro-Canadian A.D. 1796 - present European settlement

Between 9000 and 8000 B.C., Indigenous populations were sustained by hunting, fishing, and foraging and lived a relatively mobile existence across an extensive geographic territory. Despite these wide territories, social ties were maintained between groups. One method in particular was through gift exchange, evident through exotic lithic material documented on many sites (Ellis 2013:35-40).

By approximately 8000 B.C., evidence exists, and becomes more common for, the production of groundstone tools such as axes, chisels, and adzes. These tools are believed to be indicative of woodworking. This evidence can be extended to indicate an increase in craft production and arguably craft specialization. This latter statement is also supported by evidence, dating to approximately 7000 B.C., of ornately carved stone objects which would be laborious to produce and have explicit aesthetic qualities (Ellis 2013:41). These changes in tool production are indirectly indicative of changes in social organization which permitted individuals to devote time and effort to craft specialization. Since 8000 B.C., the Great Lakes basin experienced a low-water phase, with shorelines significantly below modern lake levels (Stewart 2013: Figure 1.1.C). It is presumed that the majority of human settlements would have been focused along these former shorelines. At approximately 6500 B.C. the climate had warmed considerably since the recession of the glaciers and the environment had grown more similar to the present day. Evidence exists at this time for an increase in population and the contraction of group territories. By approximately 4500 B.C., evidence exists from southern Ontario for the utilization of native copper (naturally occurring pure copper metal) (Ellis 2013:42). The known origin of this material along the north shore of Lake Superior indicates the existence of extensive exchange networks across the Great Lakes basin.

By approximately 3500 B.C., the isostatic rebound of the North American plate following the melt of the Laurentide glacier had reached a point which significantly affected the watershed of the Great Lakes basin. Prior to this, the Upper Great Lakes had drained down the Ottawa Valley via the French-Mattawa river valleys. Following this shift in the watershed, the drainage course of the Great Lakes basin had changed to its present course. This also prompted a significant increase in water-level to approximately modern levels (with a brief high-water period); this change in water levels is believed to have occurred catastrophically (Stewart 2013:28-30). This change in geography coincides with the earliest evidence for cemeteries (Ellis 2013:46). By 2500 B.C., the earliest evidence exists for the construction of fishing weirs (Ellis et al. 1990: Figure 4.1). Construction of these weirs would have required a large amount of communal labour and are indicative of the continued development of social organization and communal identity. The large-scale procurement of food at a single location also has significant implications for permanence of settlement within the landscape. This period is also marked by further population increase, and by 1500 B.C. evidence exists for substantial permanent structures (Ellis 2013:45-46).

By approximately 950 B.C., the earliest evidence exists for populations using ceramics. Populations are understood to have continued to seasonally exploit natural resources. This advent of the ceramic technology is correlated with the intensive exploitation of seed foods such as goosefoot and knotweed as well as mast such as nuts. The use of ceramics implies changes in the social organization of food storage as well as in the cooking of food and changes in diet. Fish also continued to be an important facet of the economy at this time. Evidence continues to exist for the



1.7

expansion of social organization (including hierarchy), group identity, ceremonialism (particularly in burial), interregional exchange throughout the Great Lakes basin and beyond, and craft production (Williamson 2013:48-54).

By approximately A.D. 550, evidence emerges for the introduction of maize into southern Ontario. This crop would have initially only supplemented Indigenous peoples’ diet and economy (Birch and Williamson 2013:13-14). Maize-based agriculture gradually became more important to societies and by approximately A.D. 900 permanent communities emerge which are primarily focused on agriculture and the storage of crops, with satellite locations oriented toward the procurement of other resources such as hunting, fishing, and foraging. By approximately A.D. 1250, evidence exists for the common cultivation of the historic Indigenous cultigens, including maize, beans, squash, sunflower, and tobacco. These communities living within the region of the study area are believed to have spoken a form of Iroquoian language and possessed many cultural traits similar to the historic Indigenous Nations (Williamson 2013:55).

1.3.3 Known Archaeological Sites and Surveys

In order that an inventory of archaeological resources could be compiled, the registered archaeological site records kept by MTCS were consulted. In Ontario, information concerning archaeological sites is stored in the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database and maintained by the MTCS. In Canada, archaeological sites are registered within the Borden system, a national grid system designed by Charles Borden in 1952 (Borden 1952). The grid covers the entire surface area of Canada and is divided into major units containing an area that is two degrees in latitude by four degrees in longitude. Major units are designated by upper case letters. Each major unit is subdivided into 288 basic unit areas, each containing an area of 10 minutes in latitude by 10 minutes in longitude. The width of basic units reduces as one moves north due to the curvature of the earth. In southern Ontario, each basic unit measures approximately 13.5 kilometres east-west by 18.5 kilometres north-south. In northern Ontario, adjacent to Hudson Bay, each basic unit measures approximately 10.2 kilometres east-west by 18.5 kilometres north-south. Basic units are designated by lower case letters. Individual sites are assigned a unique, sequential number as they are registered (Borden 1952). These sequential numbers are issued by the MTCS who maintain the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database. The Project is associated with Borden Blocks AiHb and AjHb.

Information concerning specific site locations is protected by provincial policy and is not fully subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Government of Ontario 1990c). The release of such information in the past has led to looting or various forms of illegally conducted site destruction. Confidentiality extends to media capable of conveying location, including maps, drawings, or textual descriptions of a site location. The MTCS will provide information concerning site location to the party or an agent of the party holding title to a property, or to a licensed archaeologist with relevant cultural resource management interests.

An examination of the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database has shown that eight archaeological sites have been registered within a one kilometre radius of the Project (Government of Ontario 2018a). Table 2 provides a summary of registered archaeological sites. None of the registerd archaeological sites are located within 50 metres of the study area.



1.8

Table 2: Registered Sites within One Kilometre of the Study Area

Borden Number Site Name Cultural Affiliation Site Type

AiHb-331 Frasson Fields site Indigenous Camp

AiHb-332 Woodland Meadows site Indigenous Camp

AiHb-333 Davidson Drumhills site Indigenous Camp

AjHb-42 Mitchell Farm Site #1 Indigenous Camp

AjHb-43 Mitchell Farm Site #6 Euro-Canadian Homestead

AjHb-44 Mitchell Farm 7 Indigenous; Euro-Canadian Indeterminate

AjHb-45 IF #9 (Mitchell Farm) Indigenous Findspot

AjHb-46 IF #10 (Mitchell Farm) Indigenous Findspot

A query of the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports noted one archaeological assessment previously completed within the study area or within 50 metres of the current study area (Government of Ontario 2018b). In 2006, D. R. Poulton & Associates (DRP) completed: The 2006 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed Whitelaw Road Realignment, Part of Lot 5, Concession 1, B Division and Part of Lot 3, Concession 2, E Division, Guelph Geographic Township, City of Guelph, Wellington County, Ontario (DRP 2009). The Stage 1-2 assessment completed by DRP (2009) was conducted under Project Information Form (PIF) number P116-154-2006. No archaeological resources were identified during the assessment and no further work was recommended (DRP 2009). The MTCS concurred with the findings of the DRP (2009) report in a letter dated July 2, 2010. The previously assessed area associated with DRP (2009) is illustrated on Figure 5.

1.3.4 Archaeological Potential

Archaeological potential is established by determining the likelihood that archaeological resources may be present on a subject property. Stantec applied archaeological potential criteria commonly used by MTCS (Government of Ontario 2011) to determine areas of archaeological potential within the region under study. These variables include proximity to previously identified archaeological sites, distance to various types of water sources, soil texture and drainage, glacial geomorphology, elevated topography, and the general topographic variability of the area. Extensive land disturbance can eradicate archaeological potential (Wilson and Horne 1995).

Distance to modern or ancient water sources is generally accepted as the most important determinant of past human settlement patterns and, considered alone, may result in a determination of archaeological potential. However, any combination of two or more other criteria, such as well-drained soils or topographic variability, may also indicate archaeological potential.

As discussed above, distance to water is an essential factor in archaeological potential modeling. When evaluating distance to water it is important to distinguish between water and shoreline, as well as natural and artificial water sources, as these features affect sites locations and types to varying degrees. The MTCS categorizes water sources in the following manner:



1.9

• Primary water sources: lakes, rivers, streams, creeks; • Secondary water sources: intermittent streams and creeks, springs, marshes, and swamps; • Past water sources: glacial lake shorelines, relic river or stream channels, cobble beaches, shorelines of drained

lakes or marshes; and • Accessible or inaccessible shorelines: high bluffs, swamp or marshy lake edges, sandbars stretching into marsh.

The closest extant sources of potable water are a small, intermittent, and seasonal tributary of the Speed River, located approximately 10 metres to the south of the study area, and the Speed River itself, located approximately two kilometres to the east. Additional ancient and/or relic tributaries of the Speed and Eramosa Rivers, as well as Aberfoyle and Hanlon Creeks, may have existed but are not identifiable today and are not indicated on historic mapping. Soil texture can be an important determinant of past settlement, usually in combination with other factors such as topography. As indicated previously, the Guelph Drumlin physiographic region contains suitable soils for agricultural practices. Further, seven registered archaeological sites with Indigenous components are located within one kilometre of the study area.

For Euro-Canadian sites, archaeological potential can be extended to areas of early Euro-Canadian settlement, including places of military or pioneer settlements; early transportation routes; and properties listed on the municipal register or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 1990b) or property that local histories or informants have identified with possible historical events. The 1861 and 1881 maps of Guelph Township (Leslie and Wheelock 1861; Walker & Miles 1881) indicate that G. Hood owned of Lot 5, Concession 1 Division B, and that the limits of the former Town of Guelph are located in close proximity to the study area. Much of the established road system and agricultural settlement from that time is still visible today. Further, two registered archaeological sites with Euro-Canadian components are located within one kilometre of the study area.

When the above listed criteria are applied, the study area retains potential for the identification of pre-contact Indigenous, post-contact Indigenous, and Euro-Canadian archaeological resources. Thus, in accordance with Section 1.3.1 of the MTCS’ 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011), a Stage 2 archaeological assessment is required.

1.3.5 Existing Conditions

The Stage 1-2 archaeological assessment for the study area was conducted under PIF number P256-0542-2018 issued to Parker Dickson, MA, by the MTCS. The study area comprises approximately 5.05 hectares, located on Lot 5, Concession 1 Division B, Geographic Township of Guelph, now Township of Guelph/Eramosa, Wellington County, Ontario. The study area comprises agricultural field, scrubland, and areas of previous modern disturbance.



Field Methods July 4, 2018

2.1

2.0 FIELD METHODS

The Stage 2 archaeological assessment of the study area was conducted on June 8, 2018 under PIF # P256-0542-2018 issued to Parker Dickson, MA of Stantec by the MTCS. The study area comprises approximately 5.05 hectares and consists of agricultural field, scrubland, and areas of previous modern disturbance. During the Stage 2 survey, field, weather, and lighting conditions were suitable. At no time was the archaeological assessment conducted when the field, weather, or lighting conditions were detrimental to the identification and recovery of archaeological resources. Photographic documentation in Section 8.1 of this report confirms 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 2011). An overview of the Stage 2 assessment methodology, as well as photograph locations and directions, is depicted on Figure 5 in Section 9.0 of this report.

A portion of the study area was agricultural field and accessible for ploughing. This portion, approximately 88.6% of the study area, 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 2011). Ground surface visibility during the pedestrian survey was greater than 80% and provided for adequate conditions for the identification of archaeological resources. Photos 1 to 4 document the pedestrian survey at a five metre interval. During the pedestrian survey, when archaeological resources were identified, the survey transect was decreased to a one-metre interval and spanned a minimum 20 metre radius around the identified artifacts. This approach was established to determine if the artifact was an isolated find or part of a larger surface 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 MTCS’ 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011). As the number of identified surface artifacts were minimal, each artifact was collected and a UTM coordinate was taken. All UTM coordinates were taken using Collector powered by ESRI, customized for archaeological survey and assessment, on a handheld mobile device to an accuracy of approximately four metres. All UTM coordinates are located in zone 17T and are based upon the North American Datum 1983 (NAD83).

A portion of the study area comprises scrubland, approximately 6.9%, could not be ploughed. Thus, this area was subject to a test pit survey in accordance with Section 2.1.2 of the MTCS’ 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011). Each test pit was approximately 30 centimetres in diameter and excavated, where feasible, five centimetres into sterile subsoil. The soils and test pits were then examined for stratigraphy, cultural features, or evidence of fill. The soil was screened through six millimetre hardware cloth to facilitate the recovery of small artifacts and then used to backfill the pit. Where no evidence of previous disturbance was identified in the soil matrix, the test pit survey was completed at a five metre interval. When evidence of disturbance was encountered in the soil matrix, the test pit survey interval was increased to 10 metres in accordance with Section 2.1.8 of the MTCS’ 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011). Approximately, 3.2% of the study area was test pit surveyed at a five metre interval, and 3.7% of the study area was test pit surveyed at a 10 metre interval. Photos 5 to 10 illustrate the test pit survey of the study area. No further archaeological methods were employed since no artifacts were recovered during the test pit survey.


Field Methods July 4, 2018

2.2

The remaining portion of the study area, approximately 4.4%, consists of areas of previous modern disturbance associated with existing residential construction and municipal road rights-of-way. In accordance with Section 2.1 Standard 2b of the MTCS’ 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011), this portion of the study area was determined to retain low to no archaeological potential and was not surveyed. While this portion was not surveyed, it was photo documented. Photographic documentation in Section 8.1 confirms that physical features affected the ability to survey portions of the study area (Section 7.8.6 Standard 1b; Government of Ontario 2011). Photos 11 and 12 illustrate examples of modern disturbance within the study area.


Record of Finds July 4, 2018

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 3 below. Two new archaeological locations were identified during the Stage 2 survey. Borden numbers were assigned to applicable locations in accordance with Section 7.12 of the MTCS’ 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011). All archaeological locations are summarized below. Maps illustrating exact site locations do not form part of this public report; they may be found in the Supplementary Documentation.

Table 3: Inventory of Documentary Record

Document Type Current Location of Document Type Additional Comments

4 pages of field notes Stantec office, Hamilton In original field book and photocopied in project file

1 map provided by Client Stantec office, Hamilton Hard and digital copies in project file

40 digital photographs Stantec office, Hamilton Stored digitally in project file

All the material culture collected during the Stage 2 archaeological survey of the study area is contained in one Bankers box, labeled by location number. The box will be temporarily housed at the Stantec London office until formal arrangements can be made for a transfer to an MTCS collections facility.

3.1 LOCATION 1

Location 1 was identified during the pedestrian survey of a ploughed and weathered agricultural field. The Stage 2 assemblage comprises three Indigenous artifacts, recovered from a surface scatter measuring approximately 20 metres by five metres. All artifacts were collected and retained for analysis. Table 4 provides an artifact summary for the Stage 2 archaeological assessment of Location 1. The artifacts are illustrated in Plate 1.

Table 4: Location 1 Artifact Summary

Artifact Frequency %

Chipping detritus 2 66.7

Biface 1 33.3

Total 3 100.0

The biface and one piece of chipping detritus are manufactured from Onondaga chert, while the other piece of chipping detritus is from an indeterminate material, likely a local till chert variant. Chert type identifications were accomplished visually using reference materials located in the Stantec London office. Chert is a naturally occurring mineral found in sedimentary rocks that is a granular crystalline form of quartz, composed of cryptocrystalline and microcrystalline crystals (Eley and von Bitter 1989). Raw material acquisition and procurement strategies have long been theorized in academic literature. Some researchers suggest that raw material choices are purely utilitarian (e.g., Deller 1979; Ellis 1989; Parker 1986a; Parker 1986b; Roosa 1977; and Whitthoft 1952), while others suggest non-



3.2

utilitarian reasons (e.g., Wheat 1971; Wormington 1957; Simmons et al. 1984; and Hall 1993). Regardless of the reason, chert type identification and their respective quantities within a particular assemblage provide an opportunity to evaluate numerous archaeological variables, including: group mobility and sedentism, lithic reduction strategy and technique, transportation, trade, and symbolism.

Onondaga formation chert is from the Middle Devonian age, with outcrops occurring along the north shore of Lake Erie between Long Point and the Niagara River (Eley and von Bitter 1989). It is a high quality raw material frequently utilized by pre-contact people and often found at archaeological sites in southern Ontario. Onondaga chert occurs in nodules or irregular thin beds, it is a dense non-porous rock that may be light to dark grey, bluish grey, brown or black and can be mottled with a dull to vitreous or waxy lustre (Eley and von Bitter 1989).

3.1.1 Chipping Detritus

Two pieces of chipping detritus were recovered from Location 1. All pieces of chipping detritus, or flakes, were subject to morphological analysis following the classification scheme described by Lennox et al. (1986) and expanded upon by Fisher (1997). Primary flakes feature dorsal surfaces that are either entirely covered with cortex or have substantial visible cortex present. Secondary flakes can also have a trace of cortex on the dorsal surface. Both varieties, along with shatter, are associated with early stages of lithic reduction as chert cores or flint nodules are converted into blanks or preforms. Tertiary flakes and micro flakes are produced during the further reduction of blanks and preforms into formal tool shapes. They are the result of precise flake removal through pressure flaking, where the maker applies direct pressure onto a specific part of the tool to facilitate flake removal. Pressure flaking generally produces smaller, thinner flakes than does percussion flaking. Broadly, primary, secondary, and shatter flakes indicate early stages of lithic reduction; while, tertiary and micro flakes indicate later stages of the reduction sequence.

The chipping detritus recovered from Location 1 includes one primary flake of Onondaga chert, and one broken flake of indeterminate chert. Chipping detritus cannot be used to determine the cultural affiliation or time period of the occupation of an archaeological site.

3.1.2 Bifaces

Bifaces are the most common form of Aboriginal chipped lithic tool and can be manufactured into a variety of tools with different functions. Due to the long span of use of this tool type, bifaces cannot be used to determine the cultural affiliation or time period of the occupation of an archaeological site. The biface recovered from Location 1 is manufactured from Onondaga chert. It is a fragmentary piece with overall measurements of 34.6 millimetres (mm) for length, 31.5 mm for width, and 10.2 mm for thickness.

3.1.3 Location 1 Artifact Catalogue

Table 5 provides the complete catalogue of the Stage 2 artifact assemblage recovered from Location 1.



3.3

Table 5: Location 1 Artifact Catalogue

Cat. # Context Depth (m) Artifact Quantity Chert Morphology / Comments

1 csp 1 0 Chipping detritus 1 Onondaga Primary

2 csp 2 0 Chipping detritus 1 Undetermined Broken

3 csp 3 0 Biface 1 Onondaga Fragment, L=34.6*mm, W=31.5*mm, TH=10.2*mm

* measurement taken on an incomplete specimen

3.2 LOCATION 2 (AjHb-90)

Location 2 (AjHb-90) was identified during the pedestrian survey of a ploughed and weathered agricultural field. The Stage 2 assemblage comprises two Indigenous artifacts, located approximately 24 metres apart. All artifacts were collected and retained for analysis. Table 6 provides an artifact summary for the Stage 2 archaeological assessment of Location 2 (AjHb-90). The artifacts are illustrated in Plate 2.

Table 6: Location 2 (AjHb-90) Artifact Summary

Artifact Frequency %

Chipping detritus 1 50.0

Projectile point 1 50.0

Total 2 100.0

The projectile point is manufactured from Kettle Point chert and the piece of chipping detritus is from an indeterminate material, likely a local till chert variant. Chert type identifications were accomplished visually using reference materials located in the Stantec London office. Kettle Point formation chert is from the Late Devonian age and is situated between the Kettle Point (Late Devonian shales) and the Ipperwash Formations (Middle Devonian Limestone). It occurs as submerged outcrops that extend approximately 1,350 metres into Lake Huron (Janusas 1984). Secondary deposits have been reported in Essex County (Janusas 1984) and in the Ausable Basin (Kenyon 1980; Eley and Von Bitter 1989). Kettle Point chert can be identified by the presence of a waxy lustre and occurs in a wide range of colours including brown, grey and greenish colours as well as reddish purple and dark blue varieties (Eley and von Bitter 1989). A rusty staining on the surface of artifacts is frequently noted (Fisher 1997).

3.2.1 Chipping Detritus

One piece of chipping detritus was recovered from Location 2 (AjHb-90). All pieces of chipping detritus, or flakes, were subject to morphological analysis following the classification scheme described by Lennox et al. (1986) and expanded upon by Fisher (1997). The chipping detritus recovered from Location 2 (AjHb-90) is a tertiary flake of Kettle Point chert. Chipping detritus cannot be used to determine the cultural affiliation or time period of the occupation of an archaeological site.



3.4

3.2.2 Projectile Points

One projectile point was recovered from Location 2 (AjHb-90). The projectile point is manufactured from Kettle Point chert and is nearly complete. The point has been identified as Nanticoke Triangular projectile point, characteristic of the Late Woodland period, circa A.D. 1400 – 1600 (Fox 1981). Overall, the triangular point measures 37.6 mm in length, 17.4 mm in width, 4.3 mm in thickness, and has a base width of 12.8 mm.

3.2.3 Location 2 (AjHb-90) Artifact Catalogue

Table 7 provides the complete catalogue of the Stage 2 artifact assemblage recovered from Location 2 (AjHb-90).

Table 7: Location 2 (AjHb-90) Artifact Catalogue

Cat. # Context Depth (m) Artifact Quantity Chert Morphology / Comments

1 csp 1 0 Projectile point 1 Kettle point

Near complete, missing small portion of base, Nanticoke Triangular point, L=37.6*mm, W=17.4*mm, TH=4.3mm, Base Width=12.8*mm, Neck Width=n/a, Haft Length=n/a

2 csp 2 0 Chipping detritus 1 Undetermined Tertiary

* measurement taken on an incomplete specimen


Analysis and Conclusions July 4, 2018

4.1

4.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Stage 2 archaeological assessment of the study area identified two new archaeological locations. Maps identifying exact site locations do not form part of this public report; they may be found in the Supplementary Documentation.

4.1 LOCATION 1

The Stage 2 assessment of Location 1 resulted in the recovery of three Aboriginal artifacts: two pieces of chipping detritus and a fragmentary biface. Chipping detritus and bifaces cannot be used to determine the cultural affiliation or time period of occupation of an archaeological site. Given the isolated nature of the non-diagnostic artifacts, the cultural heritage value or interest of Location 1 is judged to be sufficiently documented. Location 1 does not fulfill the criteria for a Stage 3 archaeological investigation as per Section 2.2 of the MTCS’ 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011).


The Stage 2 assessment of Location 2 (AjHb-90) resulted in the recovery of an Aboriginal projectile point and one piece of chipping detritus. The projectile point is a Nanticoke Triangular point, dating to the Late Woodland period, circa A.D. 1400 – 1600). Given the isolated nature of the artifacts, the cultural heritage value or interest of Location 2 (AjHb-90) is judged to be sufficiently documented. Location 2 (AjHb-90) does not fulfill the criteria for a Stage 3 archaeological investigation as per Section 2.2 of the MTCS’ 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011).

.


Recommendations July 4, 2018

5.1

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The Stage 2 archaeological assessment of the study area identified two new archaeological locations. Maps identifying exact site locations do not form part of this public report; they may be found in the Supplementary Documentation.

5.1 LOCATION 1

The Stage 2 assessment of Location 1 resulted in the recovery of three Aboriginal artifacts from a surface scatter measuring approximately 20 metres by five metres: two pieces of chipping detritus and one biface. The cultural heritage value or interest of Location 1 is judged to be sufficiently documented. Location 1 does not fulfill the criteria for a Stage 3 archaeological investigation as per Section 2.2 of the MTCS’ 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011). Therefore, no further archaeological assessment is recommended for Location 1.


The Stage 2 assessment of Location 2 (AjHb-90) resulted in the recovery of an Aboriginal projectile point and one piece of chipping detritus. The projectile point is a Nanticoke Triangular point, dating to the Late Woodland period, circa A.D. 1400 – 1600). The projectile point and piece of chipping detritus were located on the field surface, approximately 24 metres from each other. Location 2 (AjHb-90) does not fulfill the criteria for a Stage 3 archaeological investigation as per Section 2.2 of the MTCS’ 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Government of Ontario 2011). Therefore, no further archaeological assessment is recommended for Location 2 (AjHb-90).

The MTCS is asked to review the results presented and to accept this report into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports.


Advice on Compliance with Legislation July 4, 2018

6.1

6.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION

This report is submitted to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport as a condition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c O.18 (Government of Ontario 1990b). The report is reviewed to ensure that it complies with the standards and guidelines that are issued by the Minister, and that the archaeological fieldwork and report recommendations ensure the conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural heritage of Ontario. When all matters relating to archaeological sites within the project area of a development proposal have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, a letter will be issued by the ministry stating that there are no further concerns with regard to alterations to archaeological sites by the proposed development.

It is an offence under Sections 48 and 69 of the Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 1990b) 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 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 (Government of Ontario 1990b).

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 (Government of Ontario 1990b). 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 (Government of Ontario 1990b).

The Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.33 (Government of Ontario 2002), requires that any person discovering or having knowledge of a burial site shall immediately notify the police or coroner. It is recommended that the Registrar of Cemeteries at the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services is also immediately notified.


Bibliography and Sources July 4, 2018

7.1

7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES

Birch, Jennifer. 2015. Current Research on the Historical Development of Northern Iroquoian Societies. Journal of Archaeological Research 22(4):263-323.

Birch, Jennifer and Ron F. Williamson. 2013. The Mantle Site: An Archaeological History of an Ancestral Wendat Community. Lanham, Maryland: AltaMira Press.

Borden, Charles E. 1952. A Uniform Site Designation Scheme for Canada. Anthropology in British Columbia, No. 3, 44-48.

Caston, Wayne A. 1997. Evolution in the Mapping of Southern Ontario and Wellington County. Wellington County History 10:91-106.

Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam. 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Third Edition. Ontario Geological Survey. Special Volume 2.

Coyne, J.H. 1895. The County of the Neutrals (As Far as Comprised in the County of Elgin): From Champlain to Talbot. St. Thomas: Times Print.

Craig, Gerald M. 1963. Upper Canada: The Formative Years, 1784-1841. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.

D. R. Poulton & Associates. 2009. The 2006 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed Whitelaw Road Realignment, Part of Lot 5, Concession 1, B Division and Part of Lot 3, Concession 2, E Division, Guelph Geographic Township, City of Guelph, Wellington County, Ontario. On file, Toronto: Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Deller, D.B. 1979. Paleo-Indian Reconnaissance in the Counties of Lambton and Middlesex, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 26:3-20.

Eley, B. E. and P. H. von Bitter. 1989. Cherts of Southern Ontario. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.

Ellis, C.J. 1989. The Explanation of Northeastern Paleoindian Lithic Procurement Patterns. In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, edited by C.J. Ellis and J. Lothrop. Pp. 139-164. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Ellis, Chris J. 2013. Before Pottery: Paleoindian and Archaic Hunter-Gatherers of Southern Ontario. In Before Ontario. Edited by Marit Munson and Susan Jamieson, pp. 35-47. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.

Ellis, Chris J. and Neal Ferris (editors). 1990. The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, Number 5.

Ellis, Chris J., Ian T. Kenyon and Michael W. Spence. 1990. The Archaic. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. Edited by Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris, pp. 65-124. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, Number 5.



7.2

Ferris, Neal. 2009. The Archaeology of Native-Lived Colonialism: Challenging History in the Great Lakes. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Fisher, J. A. 1997. The Adder Orchard Site: Lithic Technology and Spatial Organization in the Broadpoint Late Archaic. Occasional Publications of the London Chapter, OAS, Number 3.

Fox, William. 1981. Nanticoke Triangular Point. KEWA 81-4.

Gentilcore, Louis R. and C. Grant Head. 1984. Ontario’s History in Maps. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Government of Ontario. 1990a. Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13. Last amendment: 2018, c. 3, Sched. 5, s.47. Electronic document: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13. Last accessed on June 13, 2018.

Government of Ontario. 1990b. Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18. Last amendment: 2009, c. 33, Sched. 11, s. 6. Electronic document: http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18. Last accessed on June 13, 2018.

Government of Ontario. 1990c. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31. Last amendment: 2016, c. 5, Sched. 10. Electronic document: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90f31. Last accessed on June 13, 2018.

Government of Ontario. 2002. Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 33. Last amendment: See Table of Public Statute Provisions Repealed Under Section 10.1 of the Legislation Act, 2006 – December 31, 2012. Electronic document: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/02f33. Last accessed on June 13, 2018.

Government of Ontario. 2011. Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Toronto: Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Government of Ontario. 2014. Provincial Policy Statement. Toronto: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Government of Ontario. 2018a. PastPortal – Archaeological Sites Database. Electronic document: https://www.iaa.gov.on.ca/iaalogin/IAALogin.jsp?REDID=PASTPORT. Last accessed on June 8, 2018.

Government of Ontario. 2018b. PastPortal – Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports. Electronic document: https://www.iaa.gov.on.ca/iaalogin/IAALogin.jsp?REDID= PASTPORT. Last accessed on June 8, 2018.

Hall, Robert L. 1993. A Pan-Continental Perspective on Red Ocher and Glacial Kame Ceremonialism. In Lulu Linear Punctated: Essays in Honor of George Irving Quimby. Edited by R.C. Dunnell and D.K. Grayson. Pp. 75-107. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 72.

Heidenreich, Conrad E. 1978. Huron. In Handbook of North American Indians. Volume 15, Northeast. Edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 368-388. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Janusas, S. 1984. Petrological Analysis of Kettle Point Chert and Its Spatial and Temporal Distribution in Regional Prehistory. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.



7.3

Kenyon, I. 1980. The Satchell Complex in Ontario: A Perspective from the Ausable Valley. Ontario Archaeology. 34: 17-43.

Konrad, Victor. 1981. An Iroquois Frontier: the North Shore of Lake Ontario during the Late Seventeenth Century. Journal of Historical Geography 7(2).

Leslie, Guy and Charles J. Wheelock. 1861. Map of the County of Wellington, Canada West. Toronto: W.C. Chewett & Co

Lennox, P., C. Dodd, and C. Murphy. 1986. The Wiacek Site: A Late Middleport Component, Simcoe County. Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications, London.Métis Nation of Ontario. 2016. Métis Historic Timeline. Electronic document: http://www.metisnation.org/culture-heritage/m%C3%A9tis-timeline/. Last accessed April 13, 2018.

Loewen, Brad and Claude Chapdelaine (editors). 2016. Contact in the 16th Century: Networks Among Fishers, Foragers and Farmers. Mercury Series Archaeology Paper 176. Canadian Museum of History and University of Ottawa Press, Ottawa, Ontario.

Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. 2018. Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology, Direction to archaeologists working on the Treaty Lands and Traditional Territory of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. Hagersville: Department of Consultation and Accomodation.

Morris, J.L. 1943. Indians of Ontario. 1964 reprint. Toronto: Department of Lands and Forests.

Parker, L. 1986a. Haldimand Chert: A Preferred Raw Material in Southwestern Ontario During the Early Holocene Period. KEWA 86(4):4-21

Parker, L. 1986b. Haldimand Chert and its Utilization During the Early Holocene Period in Southwestern Ontario. Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Geology, Brock University, St. Catherines, Ontario.

Rogers, Edward S. 1978. Southeastern Ojibwa. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 15 Northeast. Edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 760-771. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Roosa, W.B. 1977. Great Lakes Paleo-Indian: The Parkhill Site, Ontario. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288:349-354.

Schmalz, Peter S. 1991. The Ojibwa of Southern Ontario. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Simmons, D.L., M. Shott, and H.T. Wright. 1984. The Gainey Site: Variability in a Great lakes Paleo-Indian Assemblage. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12:266-279.

Six Nations Council. n.d. Six Miles Deep: Land Rights of the Six Nations of the Grand River. Oshweken: Six Nations Council.

Smith, W.H. 1846. Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer: Comprising Statistical and General Information Respecting all Parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West. Toronto: H. & W. Rowsell.



7.4

Stewart, Andrew M. 2013. Water and Land. In Before Ontario: The Archaeology of a Province. Edited by Marit K. Munson and Susan M. Jamieson, pp. 24-34. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Stone, Lyle M. and Donald Chaput. 1978. Southeastern Ojibwa. In Handbook of North American Indians. Volume 15, Northeast. Edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 602-609. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Walker & Miles. 1881. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Wellington, Ont. Toronto: Walker & Miles

Wheat, Joe Ben. 1971. Lifeways of Early Man in North America. Arctic Anthropology 8(2):22-31.

Whitthoft, J. 1952. A Paleo-Indian Site in Eastern Pennsylvania: An Early Hunting Culture. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96(4):464-495.

Williamson, Ronald F. 2013. The Woodland Period, 900 BCE to 1700 CE. In Before Ontario: The Archaeology of a Province. Edited by Marit K. Munson and Susan Jamieson, pp. 48-61. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Wormington, H.M. 1957. Ancient Man in North America. Denver Museum of Natural History, Popular Series #4.

Wilson, J.A and M. Horne. 1995. City of London Archaeological Master Plan. London: City of London, Department of Planning and Development.


Images July 4, 2018

8.1

8.0 IMAGES

8.1 PHOTOGRAPHS

Photo 1: Pedestrian Survey at a Five Metre Interval, facing north

Photo 2: Ground Conditions during Pedestrian Survey, facing west




Images July 4, 2018

8.2

Photo 5: Test Pit Survey at a Five Metre Interval, facing southeast

Photo 6: Test Pit Survey at a Five Metre Interval, facing northwest

Photo 7: Test Pit Survey at a Five Metre Interval, facing southeast

Photo 8: Test Pit Survey at a 10 Metre Interval, facing northeast


Images July 4, 2018

8.3

Photo 9: Test Pit Survey at a 10 Metre Interval, facing south

Photo 10: Test Pit Survey at a 10 Metre Interval, facing northeast

Photo 11: Previously Disturbed Area – Not Surveyed, facing southeast

Photo 12: Previously Disturbed Area – Not Surveyed, facing northwest


Images July 4, 2018

8.4

8.2 PLATES

Plate 1: Artifacts from Location 1

Plate 2: Artifacts from Location 2 (AjHb-90)


Maps July 4, 2018

9.1

9.0 MAPS

General maps will follow on succeeding pages. Maps identifying exact site locations do not form part of this public report; they may be found in the Supplementary Documentation.

Project Location

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

KitchenerWaterloo

Guelph

WellingtonCounty

HaltonRegional

Municipality

HamiltonDivision

WaterlooRegional

Municipality Highway 7

Highway 6

Highway 7

Highw

ay6

High way 401

Highway 86

Highway 8Highway 7 & 8

Highway 6

Acton

Arrow Rd

Henry Crt

Bond Crt

Dufferin St

William St

LonsdaleDr Ju

ne Ave

Queen St

R hondaRd

Water S

t

Mac Ave

Maple

St

Huron St

Fores

t StWoodycre

s t Dr

Lane St

Erin Ave

Mary

St

Palmer

St

Morris St

Hanlon Rd

Bish

opCr

t

Harris St

Chillico D r

Johnston St

King St

Westra Dr

Arthur St S

M

arksam Rd

RaglanS

t

Campb

ell R

d

Sulta

n St

Emma St

Hazelwood

Dr

Green St

GrangeRd

Oak S

t

Claren

ce S

t

Flan

ders

Rd

James

St W

HayesAve

Ontario St

Tana

ger

Dr

WAcre

sDr

Exhibition St

Siderd 10 N

KronD

r

Shadow Dr

Hands

Dr

Skye P

l

Dormie Lane

Municipal St

Glenwood Ave

Silvercreek Pky S

Lyon Ave

Oxford St

Cedar

St

Bellev

ue S

t

Ridgewood Ave

Step

hen

Dr

Guelph St

Woods i deRd

Pacific Pl

Deerpath Dr

Liverpool St

Bailey

Ave

Few S

t

Tove ll Dr

Argyle

Dr

Bett Crt

Duke St

M

e lrose

Pl

Sagewood Pl

Galt S

t

Rooke Crt

Petroli

a St

Kend

rick

Ave

Hood St

Clara St

Penni Pl

Pica

dilly

Pl

Rese

arch Lane

Qu

eens da le

C

res

S tirling

Pl

Earl St

Kipling Ave

Ferguso

n St

AvraCrt

Pamela Pl

Harrow

Crt

Rosewood Ave

Ann S

t

Pauline Pl

Carolyn Crt

Smith Ave

Wimbledo

nR

d

Rande

ll Dr

Lewis Rd

Simco

e St

Michael Pl

Edgehill Dr

Nicklin Rd

Monarch Rd

Sunris

eCrt

Kent St

La tenda Pl

Mercer

St

Durham StCork S

t W

Merion

St

James

St E

Woolwich Guelph Tline

R enfrew Pl

Regal Rd

Stuart St

Michener Rd

Kathleen St

Lock

yerR

d

Plymouth Crt

Malcolm

Rd

Wells St

Bonar P

l

Boult Ave

Echo D

r

Hardy St

E Ring Rd

Prince

ton

Pl

Royal Rd

SugarbushPl

Hooper St

Birch

St

GlenhillPl

Vardon Dr

Grove

St

Pi oneer Trai l

Wagoners Trail

Oliver

St

Raymond St

Fair R

d

Brazolot Dr

Weir Dr

Hickor

y St

Hanlon Creek Blvd

Masse

y Rd

Rider R d

Vance Rd

Township Road 3

Inkerman St

Ferm

anDr

Sleeman Ave

CardiganSt

Sunny

leaCres

Baker St

Phe a sant Run D r

Mcelderry Rd

Roche

lle D

r

Unive

rsity

AveW

Western Ave

Fairm

eado

wD

r

Sanderson Dr

Montic ello

Cres

Moss

P l

ColeRd

Applewood Cres

Thorn

hill D r

Esse

x St

MilsonCres

Notti

ngha

m S

t

F

reeman Ave

Ko ch Dr

NorthumberlandSt

Darby

Rd

Wilb

ert S

t

Ervin Cres

Curzon Cres

Teal Dr

Chilligo Rd

Ryde RdHewitt Lane

Southgate Dr

P innacle Cre s

Lerch Rd

Ellis Creek

Hanlon's Creek

Gordon St

Scottsdale Dr

Paisley

Rd

Eram

osa

Rd

Edinburgh Rd N

Stone R

d W

Westmount Rd

Macdonell S

t

Rickson Ave

Edinburgh Rd S

Woo

dlawn R

d W

Woolwich St

York

Rd

Silvercreek Pky N

Delhi St

Lond

on R

d W

Imperial Rd S

Neeve St

Elmira Rd N

Well

ington

St W

Yorkshire St N

Speed

vale

AveW

Elizab

ethSt

Victoria Rd S

Stevenson St S

Colleg

e AveW

Norfolk St

Divisio

n St

Victoria Rd N

Fife R

d

Westw

ood

Rd

Imperial Rd N

Whitelaw Rd

Metcalfe St

Ptarmigan Dr

Willo

w Rd

Elmira Rd S

Grang

e St

Alma St N

Dea

n Ave

Stevenson St N

Kortrig

htRd W

Woodland Glen Dr

Colleg

e AveE

Niska Rd

Wellington Road 32

Well

ington

Roa

d 30

Janefield Ave

Stone R

d E

Dawson Rd

Wellington Road 86

Wellington Road 39

Laird Rd W

Forestell Rd

Township Road 1

Ironwood Rd

Wat

erloo

Ave

Laird

Rd

Arthur St N

Well

ingto

n Roa

d 12

4

Wel

ling t

onS

t E

StephanieDr

Harva

rd Rd

Dow

ney Rd

Hwy 7

Hwy 6

S pee

dRive

r

Ellis C reek

Eramosa R ive

r

Downeys

PrioryPark

RegionalMunicipalityOf Waterloo

County OfWellington

GUELPH

City Of Guelph

Township Of Puslinch

Township Of Guelph/Eramosa

City Of Cambridge

Township Of Woolwich

1

Notes

0 1,000 2,000metres

Study AreaExpressway / HighwayMajor Road

Minor RoadWatercourse

Municipal Boundary - Lower TierWaterbody

Wooded Area

\\c

d12

15-f

01\

wo

rk_g

rou

p\0

1609

\Ac

tive

\160

9405

60\0

3_d

ata

\gis_

ca

d\g

is\m

xds\

Sta

ge

1-2\

1609

4056

0_Fi

g01

_Stu

dy_

Are

a.m

xd

Re

vise

d: 2

018-

06-2

6 By

: bc

ow

pe

r

($$¯

1:40,000 (At original document size of 11x17)

160940560

Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data.

Regional Municipalityof Halton

Location of Study Area

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N2. Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2018.

ARMEL CORPORATIONDEVELOPMENT

Prepared by BCC on 2018-06-26Technical Review by MS on 2018-06-12

Project Location

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title2

Notes

\\c

d12

15-f

01\

wo

rk_g

rou

p\0

1609

\Ac

tive

\160

9405

60\0

3_d

ata

\gis_

ca

d\g

is\m

xds\

Sta

ge

1-2\

1609

4056

0_Fi

g02

_Tre

atie

s.m

xd

R

evi

sed

: 201

8-06

-26

By: b

co

wp

er

DRAFT

1:3,000,000 (At original document size of 11x17)

160940560 REVA


Prepared by BCC on 2018-06-26Technical Review by BCC on 2018-05-02

Treaties and Purchases(Adapted from Morris 1943)

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 Statistics Canada Lambert2. Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources and Forestry © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2018.3. Treaty boundaries adapted from Morris 1943 (1964 reprint).


Province ofOntario

_̂

Y

Z

AF

S

T

C

O

D

W

AG

D

V

E

R

P

L

NAA

I

M

J

A

FA2

KX

HN

G

U

AB

B2

B1Q

B

New York

Pennsylvania

Ohio

Michigan

LakeErie

LakeHuron

GeorgianBay

LakeOntario

74°W

76°W

76°W

78°W

78°W

80°W

80°W

82°W

82°W

84°W

84°W

86°W

48°N

46°N

46°N

44°N

44°N

42°N

42°N

0 75 150km

($$¯ Legend

_̂ Study Area

Municipal Boundary - Upper TierMunicipal Boundary - Lower or Single TierWatercourseWaterbody

Ontario Treaties (from Morris1931)A : Treaty No. 381,May 9th, 1781(Mississauga andChippewa)A2 : John Collins'Purchase, 1785(Chippewa)AA : Treaty No. 72,October 30th, 1854(Chippewa)AB : Treaty No. 82,February 9th, 1857(Chippewa)AE : Treaty No. 9,James Bay 1905,1906 (Ojibway andCree)AF : Williams Treaty,October 31st andNovember 15th,1923 (Chippewaand Mississauga)AG : Williams Treaty,October 31st, 1923(Chippewa)B : Crawford'sPurchase, October9th, 1783 (Algonquinand Iroquois)B1 : Crawford'sPurchase, October9th, 1783(Mississauga)B2 : Crawford'sPurchase, 1783,1787, 1788(Mississauga)C : Treaty No. 2,May 19th, 1790(Odawa,Chippewa,Pottawatomi, andHuron)

D : Treaty No. 3,December 2nd,1792 (Mississauga)E : Haldimand Tract:from the Crown tothe Mohawk, 1793F : Tyendinaga:from the Crown tothe Mohawk, 1793G : Treaty No. 3 3/4:from the Crown toJoseph Brant,October 24th, 1795H : Treaty No. 5, May22nd, 1798(Chippewa)I : Treaty No. 6,September 7th, 1796(Chippewa)J : Treaty No. 7,September 7th, 1796(Chippewa)K : Treaty No. 11,June 30th, 1798(Chippewa)L : Treaty No. 13,August 1st, 1805(Mississauga)M : Treaty No. 13A,August 2nd, 1805(Mississauga)N : Treaty No. 16,November 18th,1815 (Chippewa)O : Treaty No. 18,October 17th, 1818(Chippewa)P : Treaty No. 19,October 28th 1818(Chippewa)Q : Treaty No. 20,November 5th, 1818(Chippewa)

R : Treaty No. 21,March 9th, 1819(Chippewa)S : Treaty No. 27,May 31st, 1819(Mississauga)T : Treaty No. 27½,April 25th, 1825(Ojibwa andChippewa)U : Treaty No. 35,August 13th, 1833(Wyandot or Huron)V : Treaty No. 45,August 9th, 1836(Chippewa andOdawa, "For AllIndians To ResideThereon")W : Treaty No. 45½,August 9th, 1836(Saugeen)X : Treaty No. 57,June 1st, 1847(Iroquois of St. Regis)Y : Treaty No. 60,Robinson, Superior,September 7th, 1850(Ojibwa)Z : Treaty No. 61,Robinson, Huron,September 9th, 1850(Ojibwa)

Project Location

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

Waterloo

GuelphWellingtonCounty

HaltonRegional

Municipality

WaterlooRegional

Municipality

Highway 6

Highway

7

Highway 7

Highway6

Highway 401

Highway 7 &8

Highway 86

Highway 8

Highway 6

3

Notes

Study Area

\\c

d12

15-f

01\

wo

rk_g

rou

p\0

1609

\Ac

tive

\160

9405

60\0

3_d

ata

\gis_

ca

d\g

is\m

xds\

Sta

ge

1-2\

1609

4056

0_Fi

g03

_186

1_G

ue

lph

Hist

oric

.mxd

Re

vise

d: 2

018-

06-2

6 By

: bc

ow

pe

r

($$¯

160940560


County Of WellingtonCity of Guelph

Portion of the 1861 Map of Guelph Township

1. Historic image not to scale.2. Reference: Leslie, Guy and Charles J. Wheelock. 1861. Map of the County ofWellington, Canada West. Toronto: W.C. Chewett & Co.).



Project Location

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

Waterloo

GuelphWellingtonCounty

HaltonRegional

Municipality

WaterlooRegional

Municipality

Highway 6

Highway

7

Highway 7

Highway6

Highway 401

Highway 7 &8

Highway 86

Highway 8

Highway 6

4

Notes

Study Area

\\c

d12

15-f

01\

wo

rk_g

rou

p\0

1609

\Ac

tive

\160

9405

60\0

3_d

ata

\gis_

ca

d\g

is\m

xds\

Sta

ge

1-2\

1609

4056

0_Fi

g04

_188

1_G

ue

lph

Hist

oric

.mxd

Re

vise

d: 2

018-

06-2

6 By

: bc

ow

pe

r

($$¯

160940560



Portion of the 1881 Map of Guelph Township

1. Historic image not to scale.2. Reference: Walker & Miles. 1881. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County ofWellington, Ont. Toronto: Walker & Miles.)



Project Location

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

WellingtonCounty

Gordon St

Edinburgh Rd N

Woolwich St

Spee

dvale

AveW

Edinburgh Rd S

Willo

w Rd

Wellington Road 86

Wellington Road 32

Woolwich Guelph Tline

Mass

ey R

d

Township Road 3

Wellington Road 39

Wood

lawn R

d W

Fores

tell R

d

C

ol eR d

Fife R

d

Wellington Road 124

Kortr

ight

R dW

Southgate Dr

Downey Rd

Clair

Rd W

UV7

UV6

;!!

;! !

;! !

;!!

;! !

; !!

;!!

;!!;!!

;!!

;!!

;!!

Elmira Rd S

Whitelaw Rd

Freshmeadow Way

Paisl

ey R

d

Shoemaker Cres

8

117

10

56

9

12

3

4

12

5

Notes

0 60 120metres

LegendStudy Area

;!! Photo Location and Direction

Assessment MethodNot Surveyed, Previously DisturbedPedestrian Survey, 5 m IntervalsTest Pit Survey at 5m IntervalsTest Pit Survey, 10 m IntervalsPreviously Assessed (DRP 2009)

\\c

d12

15-f

01\

wo

rk_g

rou

p\0

1609

\Ac

tive

\160

9405

60\0

3_d

ata

\gis_

ca

d\g

is\m

xds\

Sta

ge

1-2\

1609

4056

0_Fi

g05

_Me

tho

ds.

mxd

Revi

sed

: 201

8-07

-04

By: b

co

wp

er

($

$ ¯

1:2,500 (At original document size of 11x17)

160940560



Stage 2 Methods and Results

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N2. Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources and Forestry © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2018.3. Orthoimagery © First Base Solutions, 2018. Imagery Date, 2017.




Closure July 4, 2018

10.1

10.0 CLOSURE

This report documents work that was performed in accordance with generally accepted professional standards at the time and location in which the services were provided. No other representations, warranties or guarantees are made concerning the accuracy or completeness of the data or conclusions contained within this report, including no assurance that this work has uncovered all potential archaeological resources associated with the identified property.

All information received from the client or third parties in the preparation of this report has been assumed by Stantec to be correct. Stantec assumes no responsibility for any deficiency or inaccuracy in information received from others.

Conclusions made within this report consist of Stantec’s professional opinion as of the time of the writing of this report and are based solely on the scope of work described in the report, the limited data available and the results of the work. The conclusions are based on the conditions encountered by Stantec at the time the work was performed. Due to the nature of archaeological assessment, which consists of systematic sampling, Stantec does not warrant against undiscovered environmental liabilities nor that the sampling results are indicative of the condition of the entire property.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client identified herein and any use by any third party is prohibited. Stantec assumes no responsibility for losses, damages, liabilities or claims, howsoever arising, from third party use of this report. We trust this report meets your current requirements. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require further information or have additional questions about any facet of this report.

Quality Review (signature)

Tracie Carmichael, Managing Senior Associate

Independent Review (signature)

Jim Wilson, Principal

Date post:	26-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment: Proposed Whitelaw ... · a Stage 2 archaeological assessment...

Documents