STAGE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT...The Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment of the Swain Kettle Site...

STAGE 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTOF MAY LAKE AREA 1 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT

PIF# P041-171-2012Joubin Township, ON

City of Elliot LakeDistrict of Algoma

Submitted to:Rhona Guertin

Manager Finance & Business Development Elliot Lake Retirement Living

289 Highway 108Elliot Lake, ON

P5A 2S9Phone: (705) 848-4911 ext 254

E-mail: [email protected]

PIF # P041-171-2012Dr. David J.G. Slattery (License number P041)

Horizon Archaeology Inc. 220 Chippewa St. W.

North Bay, ON P1B 6G2

Phone: (705) 474-3864Fax: (705) 474-5626

E-mail: [email protected]

Date of Filing: May 22, 2014Type of Report: Revised

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Horizon Archaeology Inc. was contacted by Elliot Lake Retirement Living to conduct a Stage 2Archaeological Assessment of the proposed May Lake development in the Township of Joubin,City of Elliot Lake, District of Algoma (Map 1). This report describes the methodology andresults of the Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment of the Area 1 of the May Lake property whichis around the North shore of May Lake in Joubin Township, City of Elliot Lake, AlgomaDistrict. This study was conducted under the Archaeological Consulting License P-041 issued toDavid J.G. Slattery by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport for the Province of Ontario.This assessment was undertaken in order to recover and assess the cultural heritage value ofinterest of any archaeological sites within the project boundaries. All work was conducted inconformity with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) Standards andGuidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011), and the Ontario Heritage AmendmentAct (SO 2005).

Horizon Archaeology Inc. was engaged by the proponent to undertake a Stage 2 ArchaeologicalAssessment of the study area and was granted permission to carry out archaeological fieldworkby the owner’s representative. The study area was subject to Stage 2 assessment from October 23to November 20, 2012. This included a Stage 2 test-pit survey, on a 5m grid with test-pits beingexcavated 5cm into subsoil, and being at least 30cm round. Historical research was conductedbetween February 13 and 14 , 2013. A review of the available documents, MTCS database, allth th

available local sources and research at the Archives of Ontario and the test-pit survey identifiedone area requiring further archaeological assessment.

Based upon the information gathered, Horizon Archaeology Inc. is recommending that:

1. A Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment be completed for the Swain Kettle Site (CcHo-1) on the east side of the project area

2. The Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment of the Swain Kettle Site (CcHo-1) will beconducted using the “small pre-contact and post-contact sites where it is not yet evidentthat the level of cultural heritage value or interest will result in recommendation toproceed to Stage 4" in Table 3.1 of the Standards and Guidelines for ConsultantArchaeologists (MTCS 2011a). This states that 1m square test units are to be placed on a5m grid across the site, with an additional 20% focused on areas of interest within thesite.

3. No further archaeological assessment is recommended for the western section of MayLake Area 1

i

Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment of Area 1 of the May Lake Property Development, Joubin Township, City of

Elliot Lake, Algoma District

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary iProject Personnel iv1.0 Project Context 1

1.1 Objectives 11.2 Development Context 11.3 Historical Context 2

1.3.1 Historical Documentation 21.3.2 Pre-Contact Period 21.3.3 Post Contact Period 31.3.4 Study Area Specific History 31.3.5 Summary of Historical Context 3

1.4 Archaeological context 41.4.1 Current Conditions 41.4.2 Physiography 41.4.3 Previous Archaeological Assessments 41.4.4 Registered Archaeological Sites 4

2.0 Field Methods 53.0 Record of Finds 54.0 Analysis and Conclusions 6

4.1 Analysis 64.1 Conclusions 7

5.0 Recommendations 86.0 Advice and Compliance With Legislation 97.0 Bibliographic Sources 108.0 Images 119.0 Maps 20

Appendix 1 26

Appendix 2 27

Supplemental Documentation 30

iiHorizon Archaeology Inc.



List of Figures

Figures 1: Narrow, hilly terrain in Area 1, May Lake. Facing Northwest 11Figures 2: Positive test-pit from the East part of Area 1. Facing North 11Figure 3: Positive test-pit profile. Facing North. 12Figure 4: Test Unit 1. Facing North 12Figure 5: Crew at work in Test Unit 3. Facing Southeast 13Figure 6: Remains of a stove found on the East shore of May Lake

Area 1. Facing Southeast 13Figure 7: Lumberman boiler found on the East shore of May Lake

Area 1. Facing Southeast 14Figure 8: One of the kettles found on the East shore of May Lake

Area 1. Facing East. 14Figure 9: Embossed detail of the M.Swain Kettle 15Figure 10: Possible Building foundations and Test Unit 4. Facing North 15Figure 11: Nails from the Swain Kettle Site (CcHo-1) 16Figure 12: Glass from the Swain Kettle Site (CcHo-1) 17Figure 13: Door latch from the Swain Kettle Site (CcHo-1) 18Figure 14: Unidentifiable metal objects from the Swain Kettle Site (CcHo-1) 19

List of Maps

Map 1: May Lake Map 20Map 2: Development Map for all of May Lake 21Map 3: May Lake development map showing area with their numbers 22Map 4: Detail of Area 1, with cleared areas from Stage 1 23Map 5: Detail of Area 1, with Stage 2 cleared areas and the

Euro-Canadian site requiring further assessment 24Map 6: Details of the East end of May Lake Area 1, showing

location and direction of figures. 25

iiiHorizon Archaeology Inc.



PROJECT PERSONNEL

Consultant Archaeologist: David J.G. Slattery, PhD (P-041)

Field Director: Dayle Elder, M.A. (P-335)

Field Assistants: Victoria Brooks, M.A. (P-387)Marina Russell, B.Sc (R-423)

Report Preparation: Victoria Brooks

Archival Research: Marina Russell

Pre-Contact Historical Background: David J.G. Slattery

Euro-Canadian Historical Background: Marina Russell

Draughting: Dayle Elder Victoria Brooks

Photography: Dayle Elder

ivHorizon Archaeology Inc.

Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment of May Lake, Joubin Township, City of Elliot Lake, Algoma District

1.0 Project Context

1.1 Objectives

The objectives of a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment, as outlined by the Standards andGuidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (2011), are as follows:

· To determine all archaeological resources on the property· To determine whether the property contains archaeological resources requiring further

assessment· To recommend appropriate Stage 3 assessment strategies for archaeological sites

identified

1.2 Development context

Horizon Archaeology Inc. was contacted by the proponent, Elliot Lake Retirement Living, toconduct a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment of the proposed cottage development area on theshores of May Lake, Township of Joubin, City of Elliot Lake, District of Algoma (Map 1-3).Prior to the proposed development the subject property formed part of a buffer zone for severaluranium mines in the vicinity of May Lake, but was not subject to archaeological survey.

This archaeological assessment has been triggered by the Environmental Assessment Act and theproposal to develop waterfront retirement living cottages. The City of Elliot Lake has takenprecautions to conserve their cultural heritage in Section 4.3 of the Official Plan for the city,which includes archaeological sites, and conservation is to be considered prior to anydevelopment (City of Elliot Lake, Official Plan). The archaeological assessment will beperformed prior to any ground being broken by the developer

The study area consists of 7 areas on the waterfront of May Lake (Map 2 and 3), with a 1kilometer buffer area around the proposed cottage development areas and the proposed wateraccess areas. The area includes proposed roads with the roads to access the properties runningalong the edge of the property furthest from May Lake. Permission was granted by theproponent, Elliot Lake Retirement Living, to conduct the property inspection. This propertyinspection took place from October 23 and November 20, 2012.

All records, documentation, field notes and photographs related to the conduct and findings ofthese investigations are held at the office of Horizon Archaeology Inc. in North Bay until suchtime as they can be transferred to an agency or institution approved by the Ontario Ministry ofTourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) on behalf of the government and citizens of Ontario

1Horizon Archaeology Inc.


1.3 Historical Context

1.3.1 Historical Documentation

Historic research could not be done in the Elliot Lake library because it was located in the mallthat collapsed in spring 2012. Historical research was conducted at the Archives of Ontario onFebruary 13 and 14 2013.th th

1.3.2 Pre-Contact

Based upon the work of Kennedy (1970) and Ellis (1990) occupation of the area would not havebeen earlier than sometime between 5500-4500 B.P. as glaciers finally retreated and the drainagepattern currently in existence was created. This Shield Archaic culture, traditionally consideredto be derived from more western areas (Wright, 1972) is manifested in North Eastern Ontario inthe form of small seasonal/nomadic encampments. While contact with more southerly groupsundoubtedly did occur, it is difficult to identify clearly imported influences in this area. Huntingand gathering of the available animals, fish and plants provided both food and clothing. Theartifact assemblage typically reflects this economy with larger points and scrapers dominating.

Laurel Culture (700 B.C.-A.D. 1000)Apparently a natural evolution within a northern context, this period is marked by little changein lifestyle (more highly developed hunter/gathering), and is most clearly defined by theintroduction of pottery. This introduction is typically considered to have come from the southrather an being an internal development. Significantly larger numbers of Laurel sites have beenfound in comparison to those of the earlier period noted above. However, given the ratherlimited amount of research archaeology conducted in northern Ontario, coupled with the over-representation of CRM driven assessment (modern as verses traditional land-use/exploitationdriven), caution must be noted. Yet, the tool assemblage does show the development of morespecialized items (awls, net weights, points and scrapers of greater stylistic range and size)which appears to suggest that a wider range of food sources were exploited with a greater result(netting rather than simply harpooning fish, for example). The larger and more varied faunalrange identified from Laurel as verses Archaic sites adds to this view; albeit age/preservationissues must form a caution. Still, in the main, the evidence suggests the ability to feed largerpopulations. The widespread and, apparently, fairly rapid development of a ceramic traditionimplies a higher level of contact both within the northern zone and between it and the south.

Late Woodland Period (A.D. 800-Contact (17th century))While essentially an internal evolution, during the Late Woodland Period marked differences canbe observed between the cultures of the west and the east within northern Ontario. By the datestraditionally used for the Contact Period (Mid 16th C), defined trade routes, their jurisdiction anda general political/trade relationship had been clearly formed. Little evidence of a similarsituation exists along East-West lines. Pottery, the importation of corn and, perhaps, sacredtraditions (dog burials, pipes et al.) all appear to have been heavily influenced from the south



with the exception of some aspects of western “Black Duck” traditions evidenced, especially inthe early phases, in the pottery. Interestingly, the tool assemblage remains somewhat moretraditional and probably reflects little change in the economic base of the area. The distinctionbetween Late Woodland and Contact remains open to interpretation in this part of northernOntario. While it can be defined by the introduction of trade items, until the establishment ofactual trading “posts” in the north, the significance of these items as cultural influences islimited.

1.3.3 Contact (1650-1890)

By the time of historic contact, two distinct Algonkian groups inhabited northern Ontario. TheCree generally were to be found in the James Bay drainage system and were more in contactwith the traders associated with the Hudson’s Bay Company operations to the north. The Ojibwaappear to have been resident in the area of this project and continued their traditional North-South orientation in terms of trade. The Ojibway presence in this area is corroborated as Elliotlake lies within the area covered by treaty number 61, Robinson-Huron for the Ojibways signedon September 9th 1850, as shown on the 1930 Department of Surveys map Combined Plan ofthe Main Indian Treaties and Purchases in the Province of Ontario (Archives of Ontario, 1930).

1.3.4 Study Area Specific History

The name “Elliot Lake” is first recorded on a 1910 Dominion map, but Elliot Lake was notestablished as a community until 45 years later in 1955 after the discovery of a huge ore body ofuranium in 1953. Previous to the boom caused by the uranium find the history of the area ischaracterized by fur trading and extensive logging operations which lasted up until 1950. Touristoutfitters catering to the hunting and fishing industries have also been active in the area since theturn of the 20th century. The area in which the city of Elliot Lake and May Lake are located in isin the territory of the Ojibway Nation and pictographs have been found on Quirke Lake, locatedto the North of May Lake. (City of Elliot Lake, 2011)

Past land use for the proposed development falls within the buffer zone for the decommissioneduranium mines of the area, but the land for this development was never directly mined. Maps forthis area are too large of a scale to discern the property area in order to gain any further insightsabout the property area specifically. In the vicinity of the project area there were eleven uraniummines, all of which were located to the north of May Lake.

1.3.5 Summary of Historical Contents

Historical research has shown that the documentation of this region is limited. Development inElliot Lake and the surrounding townships since 1955, up until the closure of the uranium mines,has almost exclusively revolved around mining. Since the closure of the uranium mines ElliotLake has become a retirement community and most development beyond the core of the city hasceased.



1.4 Archaeological Context

1.4.1 Current Conditions

The study area consists of Canadian Shield with forest cover. All of the property is located onthe waterfront along the North shore of May Lake (Map 3-5). Access to the development areainvolves the use of an all terrain vehicle (ATV) and then either by foot or by boat. The currentland use for the property lies within the buffer zone of decommissioned uranium mines and hasbeen, by law, reforested to its pre-mine condition, as much as possible. In proximity to theproject area, running approximately north-south along the western edge of May Lake there is awell maintained ATV trail, which provides access to May Lake. The topography of the projectarea is characterized by narrow shorelines leading up to broken hilly terrain with areas ofexposed bedrock (Figure 1). The Stage 2 assessment of May Lake took place from October 21to November 20, 2012. Temperatures ranged from a morning low of 4 degrees Celsius to adaytime high of 16 degrees Celsius with a mix of sunny and overcast conditions.

1.4.2 Physiography

The property area is located on the Canadian Shield which is composed of gneiss and granitebedrock dating to the late Precambrian Age. The topography varies from the Algonquinhighlands to rocky knolls and ridges. The soil of this area is generally high in clay values. Interms of the soil the majority of the project area sits in a soil area defined as rock land, with itscharacteristics being less than 10 centimetres of soil material overlying bedrock and areas ofexposed bedrock (Baldwin, Desloges, and Band 2000: 3). Both conifers and hardwoodsdominate the area. In the case of the development areas on May Lake, the forest is the result ofreforestation after the closure of the uranium mines in the vicinity of the project area.

1.4.3 Previous Archaeological Assessments

The Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment of the May Lake Property Development, P041-169-2012 took place over four days from October 21 to November 21, 2012. In the Stage 1assessment the property was divided into 7 areas for ease of communication (Map 4). Theresults of the Stage 1 concluded that the West quarter of Area 1, the majority of Area 2, thesouth-east section of Area 3b, the north half of Area 4, Area 5 and the south-west portion of Area6 meet these requirements and will require Stage 2 assessment. The remaining areas are clearedof further archaeological concerns. This report, P041-171-2012 deals only with Area 1, whichwas partially cleared during Stage 1 survey (Map ).

1.4.4 Registered Archaeological Sites

Reference to the MTCS data base yielded no indications of archaeological sites within a 1kilometre radius of the property.



2.0 Field Methods

Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment included a test-pit survey using section 2.1.5 of theStandards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011). Section 2.1.5 is amodified test pit survey where test piting is done on a 5m grid between 0 and 50m from a featureof archaeological potential, and then at a 10m interval from 50 to 150m from the feature ofarchaeological potential with survey not required beyond this point. All test-pits were dug 5cminto subsoil and were at least 30cm in diameter (Figure 2). Test-pits consisted of three layers. Ablack loam layer followed by a grey podzoil layer and then an orange subsoil (Figure 3). Allphotographs, positive test pits and test unit locations were recorded using a WAAS enabledMagellan Explorist 610 using NAD 83 as a datum. No restrictions were placed on the work, asthe archaeological assessment was carried out during the preliminary/planning stage of thedevelopment process. Detailed maps of where each lot will be situated are not available at thisstage in the development process. The maps and plans contained in this report represent the bestavailable. The subject property forms part of a larger development of May Lake, detailed inP041-169-2012. This report, P041-171-2012 deals specifically with Area 1, along the northshore of May Lake.

The north shore of May Lake was found to consist primarily of steep slope and bedrockoutcropping. The Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment of the May Lake Property Development,P041-169-2012, cleared the central portion of the North Shore/Area 1 (Map 3-5). Theremainder of the area was subject to a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment from October 23,2012 to November 20, 2012. The stage 2 assessment of Area 1 was a test pit survey on a 5mgrid, with test pits being dug 5cm into subsoil and being approximately 30cm in diameter.Approximately 50% of Area 1 was not cleared for development during the Stage 1Archaeological Assessment of the May Lake Property Development (P041-169-2012) and thisremaining 50% was all subject to a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment.

The West end of Area 1 (Map 3-5) was found to be entirely sterile and no archaeological orcultural remains were recovered.

Euro-Canadian artefacts were recovered from 4 test pits on the East shore of May Lake (Map ). In accordance with section 2.1.3s2 Option A of the Standards and Guidelines for ConsultantArchaeologists four test units were excavated over the positive test pits to determinearchaeological potential. Eight additional test pits were dug around each test unit at a maximumof 2.5 m from each positive test pit. The results of the findings are detailed below.

3.0 Record of Finds

A total of four were found on the north shore of May Lake. The four test-pits were 30cm indiameter, and dug 5cm into subsoil. The artefacts recovered from the test pits include windowglass, melted glass, and small glass container fragments. Several modern wire nails wererecovered. One single machine cut nail was recovered, which dates from 1830 to 1890 (Suttonand Arkush 2002: 161).



In accordance with section 2.1.3s2 Option A of the Standards and Guidelines for ConsultantArchaeologists (MTCS 2011) a 1x1m test unit (Figure 4 & 5) was excavated over each positivetest pit, with an additional eight test pits within a 2.5m radius of the positive test pit. The fourtest units excavated all produced more artefacts, along with an additional 10 positive test pits. These test units were excavated as per Section 3.2.2 of the Standards and Guidelines forConsultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011). This section states that all test units must be 1msquare and with an established grid based on a permanent datum. The test units must also beexcavated by hand and by systematic levels. They must also be dug into the first 5cm intosubsoil, unless a cultural feature is discovered. All soils must be screened through 6mm mesh,with all artefacts retained, and all test units backfilled after excavation. Details of what wasfound is detailed below in Section 4.0 Analysis and Conclusions.

4.0 Analysis and Conclusions

4.1 Analysis

A total of 1031 artefacts were recovered from the Stage 2 assessment of May Lake Area 1. Ofthese 1031 artefacts, 87.5% (903 artefacts) were made of glass, 12% (123 artefacts) were madeof metal, and 0.5% (5 artefacts) were associated with construction.

Artefacts from Test Unit 2 consisted of a mixture of the machine cut nails, shoe grommets, andbottles. The machine cut nail (Figure 11) dates from 1830 to 1890 (Sutton and Arkush 2002:161). One large piece of bottle was too severely melted to be of any analytical use, but two largefragments of bottle were found (Figure 12). The first of these, was the top part of a purplemedicinal bottle. It is a panel bottle, with a long neck. The mould seem does not extend all theway to the lip, and so is only partially machine made. This type of bottle dates from 1820 to1915 (Lindsay 2013). The base of another medicine bottle was also recovered. It is made with abody mould, and it embossed with the letter “C”. This type of body mould, which was a twopiece body mould with a base stamp, dates as early as 1820. They stopped being produced by1880 (Lindsey 2013).

Test Unit 4 had 706 artefacts. The majority of these were either melted pieces of glass, or smallpieces of glass that were unidentifiable beyond material. Three metal artefacts were recovered. One of them appear to be part of a door handle (Figure 13). The second is a long piece, with aturn at the end and a metal cylinder stuck on it. Its purpose has yet to be identified. Anothermetal cylinder was also recovered (Figure 14). Indentation on the inside suggest it was stuck onto a piece of wood, but no function has come to light at present.

Several large artefacts were left on site, due to their size as well as the fact that they are halfburied in the ground. These included two cast iron stoves (Figure 6) as well as what is possiblya boiler embossed with LUMBERMAN (Figure 7). Thus far no additional information aboutthis boiler has been found. A few cauldrons/kettles were also found (Figure 8). One kettle isembossed with the manufacturer. It is embossed with “M SWAIN, NEWTON HEATH,MANCHESTER, 10 GAL” (Figure 9). In the August 12, 1864 edition of The London Gazette,



(page 3992) it is posted that the partnership of John, Peter and Matthew Swain has ended, andthat Matthew and John will continue the company. They are listed as being engineers and patentmetallic piston makers. In the February 7, 1890 edition of The Engineer lists Matthew Swain, ofNewton Heath is listed as being an iron founder on page 123. Additionally, Matthew Swain islisted as being an exhibitor at the 1937 British Industries Fair (Grace’s Guide 2008). Unfortunately, not definite dating for this object has come to light, but the company existed fromthe middle to late 19 Century, until at least 1937.th

In addition to the kettles, stoves and boiler left on site, formations on the ground suggest theimprint and dirt foundation of a building (Figure 10). Another area appears to be dug out,possibly as a saw pit, if this was a logging camp, as it is presently being suggested.

This site, named the Swain Kettle Site (CcHo-1), meets the requirements for Stage 3 assessmentbasedon Standard 2.2.1.c and d in the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists(MTCS 2011). This is based on the artefacts assemblage suggesting artefacts are present datingto before 1900.

4.2 Conclusion

Dating evidence for the site found on the Northeast shore of May Lake (Map 3-6) suggests adate of the late 19 and early 20 Century. The function of the site suggests a logging camp as ath th

large section of sheet metal that looks like the main part of a saw was found near Test Unit 4. The date of late 19 Century to the early 20 Century comes from the evidence of the glassth th

bottles, nails and the Swain kettle found on the site.

Horizon Archaeology Inc. recommends that a Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment take place onthe Swain Kettle Site (CcHo-1) based on Standard 2.2.1.c and d in the Standards and Guidelinesfor Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011). This is based on the artefacts assemblagesuggesting artefacts are present dating to before 1900. Additionally the background researchsuggests that logging occured in the Elliot Lake area before its founding in the 1950s but there islittle documentary evidence to give details about the logging camps. This site possesses culturalheritage value and interest, especially to the local residents of Elliot Lake.

It is recommended that the Stage 3 assessment take place using the “small pre-contact and post-contact sites where it is not yet evident that the level of cultural heritage value or interest willresult in recommendation to proceed to Stage 4" in Table 3.1 of the Standards and Guidelinesfor Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011a). This states that 1m test units should be placedand excavated across a 5m grid. Additionally, extra test units should be excavated across thegrid, amounting to 20% of the grid unit total, focusing on areas of interest within the site extent.It is recommended that at least two test units be placed on the possible building foundation toexamine the structure.



5.0 Recommendations

As detailed in Section 2.2.1.c and d the Swain Kettle Site (CcHo-1) requires Stage 3Archaeological Assessment. As stated in section 2.2.1.c and d of the Standards and Guidelinesfor Consultant Archaeologists (2011) Stage 3 archaeological assessment is required when sitescontain more than 20 artefacts dating before 1900 as well as then a 20 Century site indicatesth

features of possible heritage value and interest. The West section of May Lake Area 1 is clearedof any further archaeological concerns. It recommended that:

1. A Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment be completed for the Swain Kettle Site (CcHo-1).

2. The Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment of the Swain Kettle Site (CcHo-1) will beconducted using the “small pre-contact and post-contact sites where it is not yetevident that the level of cultural heritage value or interest will result inrecommendation to proceed to Stage 4" in Table 3.1 of the Standards and Guidelinesfor Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011a). This states that 1m test units shouldbe placed and excavated across a 5m grid. Additionally, extra test units should beexcavated across the grid, amounting to 20% of the grid unit total, focusing on areasof interest within the site extent.

3. No further archaeological assessment is recommended for the western section of MayLake Area 1



6.0 Advice On Compliance With Legislation

This report is filed with the Minister of Culture as a condition of licensing in accordance withPart VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c 0.18. The report is reviewed to ensure that itcomplies with the standards and guidelines that are issued by the Minister, and that thearchaeological fieldwork and report recommendations ensure the conservation, protection andpreservation of the cultural heritage of Ontario. When all matters relating to archaeological siteswithin the project area of a development proposal have been addressed to the satisfaction of theMinistry of Tourism and Culture, a letter will be issued by the ministry stating that there are nofurther concerns with regard to alterations to archaeological sites by the proposed development.

It is an offence under Section 48 and 69 of the Ontario Heritage Act for any party other than alicensed archaeologist to make any alteration to a known archaeological site or to remove anyartifact or other physical evidence of past human use or activity from the site, until such time asa licensed archaeologist has completed archaeological fieldwork on the site, submitted a reportto the Minister stating that the site has no further cultural heritage value or interest, and thereport has been filed in the Ontario Public Register of Archaeology Reports referred to inSection 65.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Should previously unknown or deeply buried archaeological resources be uncovered duringdevelopment, they may be a new archaeological site and therefore subject to Section 48 (1) ofthe Ontario Heritage Act. The proponent or person discovering the archaeological resourcesmust cease alteration of the site immediately and engage a licensed consultant archaeologist tocarry out archaeological fieldwork, in compliance with Section 48 (1) of the Ontario HeritageAct.

The Cemeteries Act, R.S.O. 1990 c C.4 and the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act,2002, S.O. 2002, c.33 (when proclaimed in force) require that any person discovering humanremains must notify the police or coroner and the Registrar of Cemeteries at the Ministry ofConsumer Services.

Archaeological sites recommended for further archaeological fieldwork or protection remainsubject to Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act and may not be altered, or have artifactsremoved from them, except by a person holding an archaeological license.



7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHIC SOURCES

1930 Archives of Ontario; Map 20a Combined Plan of the Main Indian Treaties andPurchases in the Province of Ontario. Province of Ontario Department of Surveys

2000 Baldwin, David; Desloges, Joseph and Band, Lawrence. Chapter 2: PhysicalGeography of Ontario, in Ecology of a Managed Terrestrial Landscape, UBC Press

1990 Ellis, Christopher, Ian Kenyon and Michael Spence; The Archaic. In TheArchaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Edited by C. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp.65-124. Occasional Publications of the London Chapter of the Ontario ArchaeologicalSociety, London

2008 Grace’s Guide: British Industrial History http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Matthew_Swain

1970 Kennedy, C. The Upper Ottawa Valley, Renfrew County Council, Pembroke

2013 Lindsey, Bill. Historic Glass Bottle Identification & Information Websitehttp://www.sha.org/bottle/index.htm

2011 Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Standards and Guidelines for ConsultantArchaeologists

2002 Sutton, Mark Q. And Arkush, Brooke S. Archaeological Laboratory Methods: AnIntroduction, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company,

2011 The City of Elliot Lake “City of Elliot Lake Official Plan”http://www.cityofelliotlake.com/en/cityservices/resources/ConsolidatedOfficialPlan98-2206Oct19_app.pdf , pp. 9, The City of Elliot Lake “History of Elliot Lake”,http://www.cityofelliotlake.com/en/cityhall/history.asp

1890 The Engineer, February 7, 1890 p. 123.

1864 The London Gazette, Augsut 12, 1864. P. 3992

1972 Wright, J.V. “Ontario Prehistory” National Museum of Man, Ottawa


http://www.cityofelliotlake.com/en/cityservices/resources/ConsolidatedOfficialPla

http://www.cityofelliotlake.com/en/cityservices/resources/ConsolidatedOfficialPla

http://www.cityofelliotlake.com/en/cityhall/history.asp


8.0 Figures

Figure 1: Narrow, hilly terrain in Area 1 of May Lake. Facing Northwest.

Figure 2: Positive Test-Pit from the East part of Area 1. Facing North.



Figure 3: Positive test-pit profile. Facing

North.

Figure 4: Test Unit 1. Facing North.



Figure 5: Crew at work in Test Unit 3. Facing Southeast.

Figure 6: Remains of a Stove found on the East shore of May Lake Area 1.

Facing Southeast.



Figure 7: Lumberman boiler found on the East shore of May Lake Area

1. Facing Southeast.

Figure 8: One of the kettles found on the East shore of May Lake Area

1. Facing East.



Figure 9: Embossed detail on the M. Swain kettle.

Figure 10: Possible building foundations and Test Unit 4. Facing North.



Figure 11: Nails from the Swain Kettle Site (CcHo-1): 1) MLA1.TP5.003, 2)

MLA1.TP5.001



Figure 12: Glass from the Swain Kettle Site (CcHo-1): 1) MLA1.TP9.001, 2)

MLA1.TP8.009



Figure 13: Door latch from the Swain Kettle Site (CcHo-1):

MLA1.TU4.711



Figure 14: Unidentifiable metal objects from the Swain Kettle Site (CcHo-1): 1)

MLA1.TU4.704, 2) MLA1.TU4.705



9.0 Maps

Map 1: May Lake Map (NTS Map 41J7 and 41J8)



Map 2: Development Map for all of May Lake.



Map 3: May Lake Area Development Map showing the areas with their

numbers.



Map 4: Detail of Area 1, with

cleared area from Stage 1



Map 5: Detail of Area 1 with

Stage 2 Cleared Areas and the

Euro-Canadian Site requiring

further assessment.



Map 6: Detail of the East end of May Lake Area 1,

showing location and direction of figures.





Appendix 2: Inventory of Documentary Records Generated in the Field

In Table 1is the inventory of documentary record generated in the field, as well as the weather foreach day. Table 2 details the photograph log

Table 1

Date Weather Documents generated in thefield

October 23, 2012 Morning low of 3, daytime high of 11sunny

2 photographs2 pages of field notes

October 24, 2012 low of 4, high of 8sunny


November 11, 2012 low of 2, high of 8sunny





4 photographs2 pages of field notessketch map





November 20, 2012 low of 1, high of 6 5 photographs2 pages of field notessketch map

Table 2

Date Photograph Number Description

October 23, 2012 17051706

Test PitTest pit profile



October 24, 2012 170717091710171217131714171517161717

Test PitTest pit profileProject areaTest Pittest pit profilework in progresstest pittest pit profileproject area

November 11, 2012 180318041805180618071809

project areaswain kettlekettleNo. 25 cast iron stovemetal debrisLumberman furnace

November 13, 2012 18101811181218131814181518161817

lumbermancooking potcooking pot/ironsawproject areaproject areaproject areakettle/stove

November 16, 2012 1843184418451846

wet test pitwet test pit profileproject areaproject area

November 17, 2012 185518561857185818591860186118621863186418651866

test pittest pit profiletest pittest pit profiletest pittest pit profiletest pittest pit profiletest pittest pit profiletest pittest pit profile



November 19, 2012 1867186818691870187118721873187418751876187818801881188218831884188518861887188818901891

test pittest pit profiletest pittest pit profiletest pittest pit profiletest pittest pit profiletest pit test pit profiletest pittest pit profiletest pittest pit profiletest unit 1test unit 1 profiletest unit 2 test unit 2 profileproject areawork in progresstest unit 3test unit 3 profile

November 20, 2012 18921893189418951896

test unit 4test unit 4 profileproject areaNOR stove doorproject area


Date post:	24-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times