The Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment planning/da-131103...This report details the rationale,...

The 2010 Stage 2-3 Archaeological Assessment

of the Shieldbay Developments Inc. Property,

Lot 11, Concession 1 N.D.S.,

Geographic Township of Trafalgar,

Town of Oakville,

Halton Regional Municipality,

Ontario

Submitted to

Trinison Management Corp. 8600 Dufferin Street,

Vaughan, Ontario L4K 5P5

Telephone – 416 798-1127 Facsimile – 416 798-2159

and

The Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport

Prepared by

D.R. Poulton & Associates Inc.

69 Langarth Street West, London, Ontario, N6J 1P5 Office – 519 434-0319 Facsimile - 519/434-0517

E-mail - [email protected]

PIF # 316-053-2010

April 13, 2011, revised June 13, 2013

The 2010 Stage 2-3 Archaeological Assessment of the Shieldbay Developments Inc. Property, Town of Oakville, Regional Municipality of Halton, Ontario Page ii

D. R. Poulton & Associates Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Personnel iv Acknowledgments iv Executive Summary v

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 3

3.0 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS 4

4.0 2010 STAGE 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 5

4.1 METHODS 5 4.2 RESULTS 6

5.0 THE SHIELDBAY 1 SITE (AIGW-522) 10

5.1 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 10 5.2 HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS 10 5.3 ARTIFACT ANALYSIS 11 5.4 EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE 12

6.0 THE SHIELDBAY 2 SITE (AIGW-523) 14

6.1 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 14 6.2 HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS 14 6.3 ARTIFACT ANALYSIS 15 6.4 EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE 18

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 19

8.0 REFERENCES CITED 20

The 2010 Stage 2-3 Archaeological Assessment of the Shieldbay Developments Inc. Property, Town of Oakville, Regional Municipality of Halton, Ontario Page iii


List of Tables

Table 1 Summary Data on Archaeological Sites in the Shieldbay Property 6 Table 2 Frequency of Cultural Remains from Shieldbay 12 7 Table 3 Frequency of Cultural Remains from the Shieldbay 1 Site 11 Table 4 Frequency of Cultural Remains from the Shieldbay 2 Site 16 Table 5 Summary Data on Lithic Tools from the Shieldbay 2 Site 17

List of Figures

Figure 1 Location of the Shieldbay Developments Property 24 Figure 2 Facsimile of the 1877 Historic Atlas Map of Trafalgar Township 25 Figure 3 Archaeological Survey Coverage and Site Locations 26 Figure 4 Stage 3 Investigations of the Shieldbay 1 Site 27 Figure 5 Stage 3 Investigations of the Shieldbay 2 Site 28 List of Plates

Plate 1 Stage 2 Test Pit Survey in Progress, View Northwest 30 Plate 2 Poorly-Drained Area, View East 30 Plate 3 Stage 2 Survey of the Euro-Canadian Farmstead Area, View Southeast 30

Plate 4 Stage 3 Controlled Surface Collection of Site 1, View Northeast 30 Plate 5 Stage 3 Test Excavations of Site 1 in Progress, View Southeast 30 Plate 6 Stage 3 Test Excavations, East Locus of Site 2, View Southeast 30 Plate 7 Select Artifacts from the 2010 Archaeological Investigations 31

Appendix

2010 Stage 2-3 Artifact Catalogues for the Shieldbay 1, Shieldbay 2 and Shieldbay 12 Sites

The 2010 Stage 2-3 Archaeological Assessment of the Shieldbay Developments Inc. Property, Town of Oakville, Regional Municipality of Halton, Ontario Page iv


Project Personnel

Consulting Archaeologist Dana R. Poulton Project Archaeologist Sherri H. Pearce Report Preparation Dana R. Poulton Daniella Horley Nancy Van Sas Sherri Pearce Field Director Sherri H. Pearce Field Assistants Lorelyn Giese Daniella Horley Maddie Hague Nancy Van Sas Simeon Ehrlich Amy Scott Martha Elliott Photography Sherri H. Pearce Lorelyn Giese Draughting Christine F. Dodd

Acknowledgments This assessment was facilitated by the following individuals and their agencies:

Michael Telawski, Vice President, Land Development, Trinison Management Corporation;

Melissa Plati, B.U.R. Pl, Development Coordinator, Trinison Management Corporation; and

Robert von Bitter, Archaeological Data Coordinator, Heritage and Libraries Branch, Heritage Operations Unit, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

The 2010 Stage 2-3 Archaeological Assessment of the Shieldbay Developments Inc. Property, Town of Oakville, Regional Municipality of Halton, Ontario Page v


Executive Summary

The Shieldbay Developments property is slated for a proposed residential development. The property is located in the Town of Oakville, Regional Municipality of Halton, Ontario (Figure 1). A Stage 1 background study and a partial Stage 2 survey of the property and Stage 3 controlled surface collections were conducted in 2007 by D.R. Poulton & Associates Inc. (2009). In the spring and summer of 2010 the firm completed the Stage 2 survey of the property and conducted a Stage 3 assessment of two potentially significant sites. This report details the rationale, methods and results of the 2010 Stage 2-3 archaeological assessment of the Shieldbay property. As detailed in the previous Stage 1-3 report (D.R. Poulton & Associates Inc.), the Stage 1 background study determined that no archaeological sites had been documented within the property. The subsequent 2007 Stage 2 survey was limited to the arable portions of the property. It covered lands with a surface area of 34.3 hectares, representing 72% of the total 45-hectare surface area of the property. The partial 2007 survey documented the presence of 11 archaeological sites. Nine of the sites discovered in 2007 consist of isolated First Nations findspots. The other two sites consist of pre-contact First Nations lithic scatters of unknown age and cultural affiliation. They are the Shieldbay 1 site, which consists of two discrete clusters or loci, and the Shieldbay 2 site, which consists of three discrete clusters. The 2010 survey completed the Stage 2 assessment of the non-arable lands that will be subject to impact from the proposed development and were considered to have a potential for archaeological sites. One site was discovered by the 2010 survey. It is a late 19th to early 20th century farmstead that was designated the Shieldbay 12 site. It is too late to be considered to be a significant archaeological resource and planning concern. Altogether, the 2007 and 2010 surveys covered lands with a combined surface area of 40.2 hectares. They represent 89.3% of the proposed development lands and 95.7% of the entire surface area of the property. The only portion of the property that had archaeological potential and was not surveyed in 2007 and 2010 consisted of the Natural Heritage System lands. They represent 6.7% of the 45-hectare property and are exempt from potential impacts from the proposed development. The 2010 Stage 3 assessment of the Shieldbay 1 and Shieldbay 2 sites involved the manual test excavations of one-metre squares. In addition, the Stage 3 assessment of the Shieldbay 1 site included an intensive controlled surface collection. The 2010 assessment confirmed that portions of the two sites are significant archaeological resources and planning concerns. They are the North Locus of the Shieldbay 1 site and the East and West Loci of the Shieldbay 2 site. Preservation by avoidance is not an option for the aforementioned loci of the Shieldbay 1 and 2 sites. The archaeological assessment of the Shieldbay property resulted in the formulation of two recommendations. They are as follows. Firstly, it is recommended that Stage 4 salvage excavations be conducted to mitigate the

North Locus of the Shieldbay 1 site and the East and West Loci of the Shieldbay 2 site in advance of the proposed development of the property.

The 2010 Stage 2-3 Archaeological Assessment of the Shieldbay Developments Inc. Property, Town of Oakville, Regional Municipality of Halton, Ontario Page vi


Secondly, it is recommended that none of the other archaeological sites that have been

documented for the Shieldbay Developments Inc. property have any cultural heritage value or interest, and that there are no other outstanding archaeological planning concerns for the proposed development with the exception of the North Locus of the Shieldbay 1 site and the East and West Loci of the Shieldbay 2 site.

The 2010 Stage 2-3 Archaeological Assessment of the Shieldbay Developments Inc. Property, Town of Oakville, Regional Municipality of Halton, Ontario Page 1


1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report details the rationale, methods and results of the 2010 Stage 2-3 archaeological assessment of the proposed development of the Shieldbay Developments Inc. property, Town of Oakville, Regional Municipality of Halton, Ontario. The subject property is located in Lot 11, Concession 1 N.D.S., Geographic Township of Trafalgar. The archaeological assessment of the property was undertaken by D.R. Poulton & Associates Inc. (DPA) on behalf of the Trinison Management Corp. The technical guidelines for archaeological assessment formulated by the Ontario Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation (now Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport) (MCTR 1993) define up to four sequential stages in an archaeological assessment. The same applies to the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Ministry of Tourism and Culture 2011) that came into effect on January 1, 2011. Stage 1 consists of background research to identify any past archaeological investigations or known sites. The background study also identifies the potential for as-yet undiscovered sites. Stage 2 consists of a field survey to confirm the presence or absence of archaeological sites. Stage 3 consists of a more detailed assessment of any sites that are of demonstrable or potential significance as heritage resources and planning concerns. Finally, Stage 4 consists of the mitigation by salvage excavation of any significant sites that are subject to impact from a potential development and cannot be mitigated by preservation and avoidance. A Stage 1 background study and a partial Stage 2 survey of the Shieldbay Developments Inc. property were conducted in 2007 by D.R. Poulton & Associates Inc. (2009). In 2010 the firm completed the Stage 2 survey of the property and conducted a Stage 3 assessment of two potentially significant sites. This report details the rationale, methods and results of the 2010 Stage 2-3 archaeological assessment of the Shieldbay property. The report is divided into eight sequential sections. The present section provides an introduction to the assessment. The location and description of the property are detailed in Section 2.0. Section 3.0 describes the previous archaeological investigations of the property. Section 4.0 describes the methods and results of the 2010 Stage 2 survey of the property. Section 5.0 describes the Stage 3 investigations conducted on the Shieldbay 1 site and Section 6.0 describes the Stage 3 investigations conducted on the Shieldbay 2 site. Section 7.0 details the recommendations that arose from the 2010 assessment. Finally, Section 8.0 presents the references cited in the report. In Ontario, licensed archaeological consultants are required to submit individual Project Information Forms (PIFs) to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport for one or more stages of each archaeological assessment they conduct and the Ministry then issues a unique PIF number to each assessment or stage thereof. The Ministry designated the 2010 Stage 2-3 investigations of the subject property as PIF # P316-053-2010. The 2010 assessment was conducted under Archaeological Consulting Licence P316, issued by the Province of Ontario to Sherri Pearce of D.R. Poulton & Associates. It was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 1990) and with the technical guidelines for archaeological assessment formulated by the Ontario Ministry



of Culture, Tourism and Recreation (now Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport) (MCTR 1993). Further to the above, the assessment was also conducted in accordance with the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement 2.6.2, which has provisions for the conservation of archaeological resources, a definition of the same, and provisions for archaeological assessments. Finally, it was conducted in accordance with the Ontario Ministry of Culture’s 2006 Heritage Tool Kit, most particularly with respect to Infosheet #3 and Infosheet #6; they detail provisions for the conservation of archaeological resources and provisions for heritage impact statements, respectively. Permission for access to the subject property and to remove and curate artifacts was granted by the landowner. The artifacts and records pertaining to this project are currently housed in the corporate offices of D.R. Poulton & Associates Inc. If the opportunity permits, however, the project archive will be transferred to a suitable long term repository. Potential repositories include local or other museums and the storage facilities maintained by the Toronto office of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport.



2.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The subject property is located in the northwest portion of the Town of Oakville (Figure 1). It forms the south half of Lot 11, Concession 1 N.D.S., Geographic Township of Trafalgar, Halton Regional Municipality, Ontario. The property has a total surface area of approximately 45 hectares (111.15 acres). Figure 1 shows the location of the property. Figure 2 shows the location of the property relative to a segment of the 1877 Historic Atlas map of Trafalgar Township. As illustrated in Figure 2, the property was owned by an individual named George H. Ryan as of 1877. By convention, the Historic Atlas map depicted the Ryan farmstead as a single structure with an associated orchard. It was situated in the south-central portion of the property. A neighbour who was interviewed during the course of the 2010 survey stated that a barn had stood on the farmstead until sometime in the late 1990s when it was demolished and removed. The house and any other associated outbuildings were removed some time before that. Conditions within the property are best illustrated in the aerial photograph presented as Figure 3 of this report. It also shows the locations of the three archaeological sites that were investigated during the course of the 2010 archaeological assessment. As illustrated, the majority of the property consists of eight agricultural fields. They have a combined surface area of 34.3 hectares and represent 76% of the surface area of the property. The fields were numbered sequentially during the course of the 2007 pedestrian survey of the property. The balance of the property consists of 10.7 hectares of non-arable lands. They include low and wet stream courses or swales in the south-central portion of the property with a surface area of 0.5 hectares, a 0.2 hectare pond in the southeast portion of the property, and forested or other non-arable lands with a combined surface area of 10.0 hectares. Part of the latter consists of forested Natural Heritage System lands in the northeast corner of the property. Other non-arable lands include the site of the former farmstead in the south-central portion of the property, hedgerows that separate agricultural fields, forested lands that line the edge of the northwest corner of the property and poorly-drained forested lands along the west side of the north half of the property. Of the non-arable portions of the property, only the Natural Heritage System lands are exempt from the proposed residential development. They have a combined surface area of approximately 3.0 hectares and represent 6.7% of the surface area of the property. The Shieldbay Developments Inc. property is located in the South Slope physiographic region. The South Slope is situated between Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine. The region between Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges is divided into three regions: Trafalgar Moraine, Peel Plain and the South Slope. The South Slope is the southern slope of the Oak Ridges Moraine and as a result rises in elevation to 250 to 300 metres a.s.l. at the line of contact with the Oak Ridges (Chapman and Putnam 1984: 172). The southern portion of the property is transected by a contour line with an elevation of 170 metres a.s.l. The lands involved in the proposed development are level to gently rolling. The immediate area of the property is drained by East Morrison Creek, which is situated to the west of the subject lands, and Joshua’s Creek, which is located east of the property. A tributary of East Morrison Creek flows southeast through the southern half of the Shieldbay property.



3.0 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS

The 2007 Stage 1 background study determined that no archaeological sites had been recorded within the Shieldbay property prior to the assessment but that the property had at least a moderate potential for as-yet undiscovered archaeological remains. In consequence, possible archaeological planning concerns for the proposed residential development were limited to the potential for as-yet undiscovered sites. The subsequent Stage 2 pedestrian survey was carried out on July 11 and 12, 2007. It was conducted by a crew of five under the direction of Chris Neill and included all of the arable lands in the property. The 2007 survey resulted in the discovery of 11 archaeological sites. Two of the archaeological sites were determined to represent potentially significant archaeological resources and planning concerns. Both were First Nations lithic scatters of unknown age and cultural affiliation. The first is designated the Shieldbay 1 site; it has been registered as AiGw-522 under the Borden system, the Provincial system of archaeological site registry. The second is designated the Shieldbay 2 site; it has been registered as AiGw-523. As documented in the report on the 2007 assessment (D.R. Poulton & Associates Inc. 2009: 21), these two sites were determined to represent potentially significant archaeological resources and planning concerns. The other nine sites discovered in 2007 consisted of pre-contact First Nations isolated findspots. Eight of them are of unknown age and cultural affiliation. The exception, Site 11, consists of the mid section of a projectile point; it has tentatively been identified as being of the Genesee type. Projectile points of that type pertain to the Broad Point Horizon of the Late Archaic period, which dates ca. 4500-3500 B. P. (Ellis, Kenyon and Spence 1990:99). Given the isolated nature of the nine findspots, none of them is considered to represent a significant archaeological resource or planning concern.



4.0 2010 STAGE 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY

4.1 Methods

The Stage 2 archaeological survey of the Shieldbay property was completed over the course of five days in 2010. As the arable lands had been surveyed in 2007, the 2010 survey focussed on the non-arable portions of the property that will be subject to impact from the proposed development. Figure 3 shows the extent of the lands that were of concern to the 2007 and 2010 archaeological surveys. It also shows the techniques that were used as well as the location of lands that were omitted by the survey. Finally, it shows the location of the three archaeological sites that were investigated in 2010. The 2010 Stage 2 survey of non-arable lands commenced on May 12 and continued on May 13, 19, and 20. It was completed on September 20, 2010. The temperatures were warm and the lighting conditions were good on all five days. The weather was overcast on May 12 and sunny or sunny with cloudy periods on the other four days. The 2010 survey was conducted by shovel test pitting at a five-metre interval. The test pits measured approximately 30 centimetres in diameter and were dug to five centimetres below subsoil. All soils were screened though 6 mm mesh to maximize artifact recovery and all test pits were backfilled immediately upon completion. The lands surveyed in 2010 included the abandoned farmstead in the south-central portion of the property. The survey also included two discrete hedgerows that have widths in excess of five metres; they extend east-west and separate the agricultural fields in the northern half of the property. In addition, the 2010 survey included the forested fringe of the northwest corner of the property to the west of the Natural Heritage System lands. The lands that were covered by the 2010 shovel test pit survey have a combined surface area of 5.9 hectares. They represent 13.1% of the entire 45-hectare Shieldbay property. Altogether, the 2007 pedestrian survey and the 2010 shovel test pit survey covered lands with a combined surface area of 40.2 hectares. Those lands represent 89.3% of the proposed development and 95.7% of the entire 45-hectare Shieldbay property. The only lands that are included in the proposed development but were omitted by the archaeological survey consisted of areas that were visually examined and were found to have no potential for archaeological remains by virtue of poor drainage. One such area is the poorly-drained woodlot that is located on the west edge of the north half of the property. The second consisted of the swale of the stream course that flows from the poorly-drained woodlot southeast through the property. The third such area is the pond that is located in the southeast quadrant of the property. The poorly-drained lands have a combined surface area of 1.8 hectares. They represent 4.0% of the proposed development and 1.8% of the entire property. Of the non-arable portions of the Shieldbay property, only the Natural Heritage System lands are exempt from the proposed residential development. They have a combined surface area of 3.0 hectares and represent 6.7% of the entire surface area of the property. The 2010 archaeological fieldwork also included a visual examination of the forested Natural Heritage System lands in the northeast corner of the property. It determined that they are well drained and have a



moderate to high potential for archaeological sites. It also determined that the forest cover consists of mature oak and maple trees. Plates 1-6 inclusive illustrate the conditions that were encountered during the course of the 2010 archaeological fieldwork. Plate 1 is a view of the test pit survey in progress in the wooded northwest fringe of the property. Plate 2 is a view of the poorly-drained woodlot that is located on the west edge of the north half of the property. Plate 3 is a view of the test pit survey in progress in the former farmstead in the south-central portion of the property. Plates 4 and 5 are two views of the Stage 3 assessment of the Shieldbay 1 site and Plate 6 is a view of the Stage 3 assessment of the East Locus of the Shieldbay 2 site. 4.2 Results

The 2010 survey of the Shieldbay Developments Inc. property resulted in the discovery of one archaeological site. It has been designated the Shieldbay 12 site. The site is situated in the non-arable area in the south-central portion of the property and corresponds to the location of the farmstead which, as of 1877, was owned by an individual named George Ryan (D.R. Poulton & Associates 2009). Figure 2 shows the location of the George Ryan farmstead. Figure 3 shows the location of the Shieldbay 12 site. Plate 3 shows the test pit survey in progress on the site. This site, added to the 11 sites that were discovered by the 2007 survey, results in a total of 12 archaeological sites in the Shieldbay property. Summary data on the archaeological inventory are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary Data on Archaeological Sites in the Shieldbay Developments Property

Site Location Site Type Artifact Type Cultural Affiliation Significance

Shieldbay 1 (AGw-522) Field 4 Scatter flakes Indeterminate

First Nations Yes

Shieldbay 2 (AiGw-523) Field 3 Scatter cores, flakes Indeterminate

First Nations Yes

Shieldbay 3 Field 4 Findspot flake Indeterminate First Nations No





Shieldbay 8 Field 2 Findspot core fragment Indeterminate First Nations No

Shieldbay 9 Field 2 Findspot biface Indeterminate First Nations No


Shieldbay 11 Field 1 Findspot projectile point fragment

Late Archaic – Genesee Point No

Shieldbay 12 Homestead Misc. Euro-Canadian No



The five-metre interval test pit survey of the area of the former farmstead recovered artifacts from two pits. Additional test pits were excavated at a 2.5 metre interval at cardinals surrounding each of the positive test pit but no additional artifacts were recovered. Summary data on the artifact sample from the Shieldbay 12 site are presented in Table 2. The small sample of 13 specimens consists of nine pieces of ceramic tableware, three nails and one piece of glass tableware. Select artifacts from the site are illustrated in Plate 7.

Table 2 Frequency of Cultural Remains from Shieldbay 12

Class Type Description Frequency

Tableware Ironstone Transfer Print 2

Moulded 2 Plain 5

Hardware Nails Wire 3 Glass Tableware Press Moulded 1

Total 13

The nine pieces of ceramic tableware that were recovered from the Shieldbay 12 site are all of Ironstone. Also known as white graniteware, it is a hard, thick bodied vitreous ceramic. Ironstone was introduced into the Ontario market place in the 1840s (Sussman 1985:7) and an early mention of it occurs in an invoice of 1847 (Kenyon 1985). During the period of the 1850s and 1860s ironstone comprised approximately 10% of storekeepers stocks (Kenyon 1991:7). By the last quarter of the 19th century, ironstone had saturated the market (Kenyon 1991:8). It was manufactured into the 1930s. Plate 7g illustrates one of the two pieces of transfer printed ironstone, Plate 7i and Plate 7j illustrate the two pieces of moulded ironstone and Plate 7h illustrates one of the pieces of plain ironstone. With rare exceptions, the nails that are found on 19th and 20th century archaeological sites are made of iron or steel. By the 1820s, machines were developed for the manufacture of cut nails that included mechanical headers (Rempel 1980:369). These nails dominated the market until the late 19th century (Wells 2000: 88). They were originally made of iron plates, however, starting in the 1880s, with improvements to the Bessemer process of steel production, steel became cheaper than iron and began to replace iron for the manufacture of cut nails (Wells 2000: 87). The three nails in the small sample of artifacts from the Shieldbay 12 site are wire nails. Wire nails were first manufactured in France in 1834 (Rempel 1980:102). However, as they were expensive to produce and were long considered inferior to cut nails, they were not in common supply until late in the last quarter of the 19th century (Wells 2000: 86). These nails are still in production today (Wells 2000: 92). The single piece of glass that was recovered from the Shieldbay 12 site is clear. It is a press moulded piece of glass tableware.



The available artifact sample from the Shieldbay 12 site is quite small. However, the analyses indicate that the material recovered most likely dates from sometime between the last two decades of the 19th century and the first few decades of the 20th century. It remains to consider whether the Shieldbay Site 12 is a significant archaeological resource and planning concern. The original framework for assigning levels of archaeological significance in Ontario was drawn from Provincial environmental assessment guidelines (Weiler 1980). The information included the identification and evaluation of any site that met one or more of the following criteria:

it has the potential through archaeological exploration, survey, or fieldwork to

provide answers to substantive questions (i.e. relate to particular times and

places) about events and processes that occurred in the past and therefore add to

our knowledge and appreciation of history;

it has the potential through archaeological exploration, survey, and fieldwork to

contribute to testing the validity of general anthropological principles, cultural

change and ecological adaptation, and therefore to the understanding and

appreciation of our man-made heritage; or

it is probable that various technical, methodological, and theoretical advances

are likely to occur during archaeological investigation of a feature, alone or in

association with other features, and therefore contribute to the development of

better scientific means of understanding and appreciating our man-made

heritage (Weiler 1980:8).

The document quoted above was prepared a quarter of a century ago and while the principles it was based upon are still current, some of the language is now dated, including phrases such as “man-made”. The issue of archaeological site significance is also covered in a more recent publication entitled Conserving a Future for Our Past: Archaeology, Land Use & Development

in Ontario (Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation 1997). As stated in that document, the key factors an archaeologist considers in evaluating the significance of an archaeological site include the following:

1. The Integrity of the site (e.g. is it in pristine or near pristine condition; despite past disturbances; can important data still be recovered from it?).

2. The Rarity or Representativeness of the site (e.g. is it one of a kind, locally, regionally or

provincially; is it a good comparison to similar sites from other regions, etc?).

3. The Productivity of the site (e.g. does it have the potential to contain large quantities of artifacts or exceptionally detailed data about what occurred there; etc?).

4. The Age of the site.

5. The Potential for Human Remains within the site.



6. The Geographic or Cultural Association (e.g., does the site have a clear and distinct relationship with the surrounding area or to a particular geographic feature, such as a unique rock formation, historic transportation corridor, etc.; is the site associated with a distinctive cultural event, ceremony or festival, etc.?).

7. The Historic Significance of the site (i.e., is the site associated with a renowned event,

person or community?).

8. Community Interest (e.g., is the site important to a particular part of the community; does it represent a significant local event; etc.?).

Further to the above criteria, the history of Euro-Canadian settlement in the area of the Shieldbay property can be used to place this date range in context. Briefly, Trafalgar Geographic Township, within which the Shieldbay property is located, was first settled by Euro-Canadians in the 1790s. The crossroads hamlet of Trafalgar, which is located less than half a kilometre west of the property, was first settled by emigrants from Pennsylvania who arrived in 1806. Given the above, the George Ryan farmstead that is depicted in the 1877 Historic Atlas dates to some four generations after the initial pioneer settlement of the township. In addition, the material recovered from the Shieldbay 12 site could date as much as a century after the initial settlement of the township. Given the late date of the site, it is not considered to represent a significant archaeological resource or planning concern for the proposed residential development of the property.



5.0 THE SHIELDBAY 1 SITE (AiGw-522) 5.1 Location and Description

The Shieldbay 1 site is located near the eastern edge of an agricultural field in the eastern half of the subject property. The site is located about 40 metres east of a tributary of East Morrison Creek. It is also located 417 metres north of Dundas Street West and 750 metres east of Trafalgar Road. Figure 3 shows the location of the site. The Shieldbay 1 site consists of two discrete loci in an agricultural field that was designated Field 4 of the 2007 survey. The northern of the two was designated the North Locus; it is situated 35 metres west of the fence line that marks the eastern boundary of the subject property and 60 metres north of a line of trees that transect the southern third of the field. The other locus is designated the South Locus; it is approximately 55 meters south of Locus 1, in the southeast corner of the same field. 5.2 History of Archaeological Investigations

2007 Investigations

The Shieldbay 1 site was discovered on July 11, 2007 during the course of a pedestrian survey of Field 4. The survey was conducted by a crew of five under the direction of Chris Neill. An intensive one-metre interval controlled surface collection of the site was conducted for a distance of 20 metres beyond the original discovery. Ten individual artifact locations were recorded on July 11, 2007. The material recovered consisted entirely of chipping detritus. As discussed in the previous report, the sample collected on July 11, 2007 included three flake fragments, three tertiary flakes, and four biface thinning flakes (D.R. Poulton & Associates 2009). All of the flakes were of Onondaga chert.

2010 Investigations

A systematic controlled surface collection (CSC) of the site was carried out on June 22, 2010. The weather was overcast and cool and lighting conditions were good. The purpose of the CSC was to better determine the limits of the site as indicated by the distribution of artifacts on the surface of the field. As artifacts were observed they were initially marked by coloured survey flags and left in-situ. Once the intensive surface examination had been completed a transit and tape were used to record the precise location of each find; these locations are termed Astations.@ As each station was recorded it was assigned an individual number. The last step in the process was to bag, tag and collect the artifacts.



Figure 4 shows the location of the two loci relative to each other. It also shows the artifact distributions recorded by the CSC, the location of the 11 test units and the pertinent artifact frequencies in the units. Plate 4 is a view of the CSC in progress on this site; the pink survey flags visible in this photograph mark the locations of the artifact stations. Plate 5 is a view of the test excavations of the site in progress looking southeast. The 2010 CSC recovered artifacts from the North Locus, where material had been recovered in 2007. It also confirmed the presence of the southern locus; no remains were found on that locus in 2007. The CSC of the Shieldbay 1 site recovered ten individual artifacts from eight artifact stations. The material recovered consisted entirely of chipping detritus, with six flakes from the northern locus and four from the South Locus. The CSC sample consists of six fragmentary flakes, three biface thinning flakes and one tertiary (early stage reduction) flake. All of the chipping detritus was of Onondaga chert. The 2010 Stage 3 assessment also included the manual excavation of one-metre test squares in the North Locus. They were conducted on September 14, 15 and 20, 2010. The weather was sunny and the lighting conditions were excellent. Ten units were excavated in a checkerboard pattern in the North Locus at a five-metre interval. An additional test unit was excavated in the South Locus. All of the test squares were excavated to 5 cm below subsoil and all excavated soils were screened through 6 mm mesh in order to maximize the potential for artifact recovery. The depths of the test units ranged from 20 to 29 cm with an average of 25.8 cm. Artifacts were recovered from seven of the 10 test units in the North Locus; no artifacts were recovered from the one test unit in the South Locus. Artifact counts in the positive units ranged from one to 14 pieces per one-metre square. The test unit with 14 artifacts was the only one of the positive units that had an artifact count of ten or more specimens per unit. The test excavations of the Shieldbay 1 site recovered 27 artifacts.

5.3 Artifact Analysis

The 37 artifacts recovered by the 2010 Stage 3 investigations of the Shieldbay 1 site all consist of chipped lithics. Summary data on the material are presented in Table 3. All but one specimen recovered from this site in 2010 consists of chipping detritus, the waste product of chipped stone tool manufacture and maintenance. The exception is a utilized flake. The majority of the chipping detritus consists of incomplete or partial flakes lacking the platform. They are identified as flake fragments (n=23). The sample also includes two pieces of shatter. Two of the flakes were produced during the early stage of biface reduction and are identified as tertiary flakes, while the remainder of the sample consists of chipping detritus that was produced



during the later and final stages of the biface manufacturing process. They include eight biface thinning flakes and one biface retouch flake.

Table 3 Frequency of Cultural Remains from the Shieldbay 1 Site

Category Class Type

Stage 3

Total Controlled

Surface

Collection

Test

Squares

Chipped Lithics Chipping Detritus

Biface Retouch 1 1

Biface Thinning 3 5 8

Fragment 6 17 23

Shatter 2 2

Tertiary 1 1 2

Tool Utilized Flake Fragment 1 1

Total 10 27 37

Utilized flakes result from the expedient use of a suitable piece of chipping detritus to fulfill a practical need rather than the deliberate manufacture of a specific tool form. The location of utilization on the specimen recovered from this site in 2010 is on the dorsal/lateral edge; the length of utilization is 1.7cm and is concave in shape. The specimen is illustrated in Plate 7a. All 37 of the specimens recovered from this site in 2010 are of Onondaga chert. The primary outcrops of this material are in the Onondaga Formation; it extends from just west of the Grand River eastward through the Niagara Escarpment and into Upper New York State (Eley and von Bitter 1989). The nearest primary source of Onondaga chert is located approximately about 85 kilometres southeast of the site. Secondary sources of this material also occur along the north shore of Lake Erie, approximately 140 km south and southwest of the site.

5.4 Evaluation of Significance

As previously stated in Section 4.2 of the report, integrity is one factor that is considered in evaluating the significance of an archaeological site. The fact that the Shieldbay 1 site happens to be situated in agricultural fields does not enter into the issue of integrity. The reason is that ploughing does disturb sites to some extent but it does not destroy them; nor does it eradicate meaningful distribution patterns (e.g., Poulton and Dodd 2007). In fact, most archaeological sites in southern Ontario that are identified as being significant and requiring preservation or salvage excavation happen to be located in agricultural fields. The quantity of cultural remains in the plough zone is a key determinant of the significance of a pre-contact site such as a lithic scatter. The standard approach of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport in these matters is that any pre-contact site or portion thereof that has artifact-



bearing topsoil deposits of ten or more pieces per one-metre square represents a significant archaeological resource and planning concern. Sites with lower quantities of artifacts may also be deemed significant if they contain a high proportion of diagnostic artifacts such as formal tools, or if they include burnt chert indicating the possible presence of subsurface cultural features such as hearths. In the present case, no formal tools or burnt chert were discovered by the Stage 3 investigations of the Shieldbay 1 site. However, one of the 11 one-metre test squares had a double digit artifact count of 14. Based on that factor, the Northern Locus of the Shieldbay 1 site is considered to represent a small but potentially significant archaeological resource and planning concern.



6.0 THE SHIELDBAY 2 SITE (AiGw-523) 6.1 Location and Description

The Shieldbay 2 site is located in the central portion of the survey unit that was designated Field 3; it is situated in the western half of the subject property. More specifically, the site is located 400 metres north of Dundas Street West and 470 metres east of Trafalgar Road. Figure 3 shows the location of the Shieldbay 2 site. Shieldbay 2 actually consists of three discrete and well-defined First Nations sites that have been lumped together for purposes of convenience. There are two main clusters at opposite ends of the greater Shieldbay 2 site. The western cluster, which has been designated the West Locus, has a surface area measuring 22 metres north-south by 15 metres east-west. The eastern cluster, which has been designated the East Locus, has a surface area measuring 21 metres north-south by 20 metres east-west. These two clusters are separated by a relic stream course. There is also a much smaller scatter of seven artifact stations that is located just south of the relic stream course, between the two main clusters. No diagnostics were recovered from either the 2007 Stage 2 survey or the 2010 Stage 3 assessment of the collective Shieldbay 2 site. In consequence, the three clusters may be totally unrelated, could have different cultural affiliations and could relate to activities or occupations that were hundreds or thousands of years apart in time. 6.2 History of Archaeological Investigations

2007 Investigations

The Shieldbay 2 site was discovered during the course of the Stage 2 pedestrian survey of Field 3 of the Shieldbay Investment Inc. property. The survey was conducted by a crew of five under the direction of Chris Neill on July 11, 2007. On July 12, 2007 a one-metre interval Stage 3 controlled surface collection of the site was conducted. A total of 106 stations were recorded and 114 artifacts were collected. As discussed in the previous report, the sample was composed entirely of chipped lithic material (n=114) (D.R. Poulton & Associates 2009). The sample was dominated by chipping detritus (n=105, 92.1%) although a small amount of informal tools (n=6, 5.4%) and cores (n=3, 2.6%) were also recovered. The informal tools consisted of utilized flakes (n=4, 3.5%) and gravers (n=2, 1.8%). While most of the 2007 collection from the Shieldbay 2 site was of Onondaga chert (n=108, 90)), nine pieces were of Haldimand chert, while three others were of an unidentified chert. In addition, 16 specimens were burnt. The results of the CSC clearly demonstrated that Shieldbay 2 was a potentially significant archaeological resource and planning concern. In order to better assess the site, it was recommended that a more detailed Stage 3 test excavation be conducted.



2010 Investigations

The site was visited on April 20, 2010 and the excavation grid was established on that date. The site was in corn stubble at the time. The Stage 3 investigations were carried out on May 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, and 19, 2010. The weather on those days was seasonal and ranged from clear and sunny to overcast. Lighting conditions for the archaeological test excavations were excellent on all days. Figure 5 shows the location of the loci of the Shieldbay 2 site. It also shows the surface artifact distributions that were recorded by the CSC, the location of the test units and the pertinent artifact frequencies in the units. Plate 6 is a photograph of the test excavations in progress on the East Locus. The Stage 3 assessment of the East Locus and the West Locus consisted of the manual excavation of one-metre test squares in a checkerboard pattern at a five-metre interval. An additional test unit was excavated in the small intermediary artifact scatter. All of the test squares were excavated to 5 cm below subsoil and all excavated soils were screened through 6 mm mesh in order to maximize the potential for artifact recovery. In all, 366 one-metre test squares were excavated. Artifacts were recovered from 31 of the 36 test units. Counts in the positive units ranged from 1 to 40 pieces per one-metre square. Eight of the units had an artifact count of 10 or more specimens per unit. The depths of the test units in the West Locus ranged from 20 to 32 cm with an average of 25.9 cm. Artifacts were recovered from 14 of the 16 test units in this cluster. Three of the units in the West Locus had artifact counts of ten or more specimens per unit. The units in question had counts of 11, 14 and 40 specimens per unit. The depths of the test units in the East Locus ranged from 17 to 33 cm with an average of 26.8 cm. Artifacts were recovered from 16 of the 19 test units in this cluster. Five of the units in the East Locus had artifact counts of ten or more specimens per unit. The units in question had counts of 10, 11, 20, 21 and 22 specimens per unit. A single test unit was excavated in the small artifact scatter that is located between the East Locus and the West Locus. It had a depth of 29 cm and yielded three artifacts, all of which consisted of chipping detritus. 6.3 Artifact Analysis

The artifacts recovered by the Stage 3 test excavations of the greater Shieldbay 2 site are composed entirely of chipped lithic material (n=225). Summary data on the artifact collection are presented in Table 4. As shown, the sample is dominated by chipping detritus (n=220, 97.8%). The exceptions consist of three tools and two cores. The informal tools consist of a utilized flake and a retouch flake; the only formal tool is a scraper. A representative sample of the artifacts is illustrated in Plate 7.



Four raw materials are represented in the 2010 artifact sample from the greater Shieldbay 2 site: Onondaga chert; Colborne chert; Haldimand chert; and unidentified chert. Primary sources of Onondaga chert outcrop in Fort Erie and along the northeast shore of Lake Erie, about 85 kilometres southeast of the site. Secondary deposits of Onondaga chert are present in the form of cobbles in the bluffs along the north-central Lake Erie shore, about 140 km south of the site. The former represents the most likely source of the Onondaga chert present at the Shieldbay 2 site. Both Colborne and Haldimand cherts occur further west. Haldimand chert crops out inland, in the Haggersville area, about 70 km southwest of the Shieldbay property. Colborne chert derives from the Lower Niagara Peninsula, a distance of 80 kilometres from the site as the crow flies or 120 kilometres by land around the west end of Lake Ontario.

Table 4 Frequency of Cultural Remains from the Shieldbay 2 Site

Category Class Type Material

Total % Colborne Haldimand Onondaga Unidentified

Chipping Detritus & Cores

Chipping Detritus

Biface Thinning 2 2 .9

Biface Retouch 3 3 1.3

Biface Thinning 1 2 26 29 12.9

Fragment 23 139 10 172 76.4

Shatter 9 1 10 4.4

Tertiary 4 4 1.8

Core Exhausted 2 2 0.9

Subtotal - Chipped Detritus & Cores 24 2 185 11 222 98.7

Chipped Lithic Tools

Scraper Fragment 1 1 0.4

Retouch Flake Fragment 1 1 0.4

Utilized Flake Fragment 1 1 0.4

Subtotal - Tools 3 3 1.3

Total Frequency 24 2 188 11 225 100

Total % 10.7 0.9 83.6 4.9 100

The chipping detritus is divided into several groupings intended to reflect the stages of manufacture between raw material and a finished biface or other tool. The majority of the chipping detritus consists of incomplete or partial flakes lacking the platform. They are categorized as flake fragments (n=172, 76.4%). While most of the flake fragments are of Onondaga chert (n=139, 61.8%), some are of Colborne chert (n=23, 10.2%); the remainder could not be identified to raw material (n=10, 4.4%). Also recovered are ten pieces of shatter (4.4%), nine of which are of Onondaga chert (4.0%) and one of which is of unidentifiable chert (0.4%). A small number of flakes were produced during the initial stage of reduction and are identified as tertiary flakes (n=4, 1.8%); all of them are of Onondaga chert.



The largest group of chipping detritus relates to the process of biface manufacture and shaping. Pertinent examples include biface thinning flakes (n=29, 12.9%), biface retouch flakes (n=3, 1.3%) and biface finishing flakes (n=2, 0.9%). Most of this sample is of Onondaga chert (n=31, 13.8%) although Haldimand chert (n=2, 0.9%) and Colborne chert (n=1, 0.4%) are also present. The Haldimand and Colborne cherts only occur on biface thinning flakes (n=3, 1.3%). Of the overall sample of chipping detritus, Onondaga chert accounts for 188 specimens (83.6%). The other materials consist of lesser amounts of Colborne chert (n=24, 10.7%), Haldimand chert (n=2, 0.9%) and unidentified chert (n=11, 4.9%). A small amount of the chipping detritus has been thermally altered (n=19, 8.4%), either intentionally to improve the working properties or, more likely, as the accidental result of being discarded into a camp fire or cooking fire. Most of the thermal alteration or burning is present on the flake fragments (n=17), although a piece of shatter (n=1) and a biface thinning flake (n=1) were also affected. As expected, given the dominance of Onondaga chert in the sample, most of the burnt chipping detritus is of Onondaga chert (n=10), although the unidentified chert sample was almost equally affected (n=9, 4.0%) and, in fact, the raw materials of many pieces are unidentifiable due to significant burning. Both of the cores are of Onondaga chert and both are exhausted. One specimen (Plate 7f) has nodular cortex, with a length of 38 mm, width of 15.4 mm and thickness of 6.2 mm. The second specimen (Plate 7e) measures 27.6 mm in length, 26.6 mm in width and 16.5 mm in thickness. The informal tools consist of a utilized flake (Plate 7d) and a retouch flake (Plate 7c). They reflect the expedient use of a suitable piece of chipping detritus to fulfill a practical need rather than the deliberate manufacture of a specific tool form. Formal tools are represented by a single fragmentary scraper (Plate 7b). All of the informal and formal tools were made of Onondaga chert and on flake fragments. The location of utilization, the length of utilization, and the shape of the utilized edge vary. Table 5 provides summary data on the tools.

Table 5 Summary Data on Lithic Tools from the Shieldbay 2 Site

Square Class Type Location of

Modification Length of

Modification L W T

N75E50 Scraper Fragment DDS 19.5 19.9 13.7 6.8

N70E00 Retouch Flake Fragment DLCC 8.2 11.2 16.4 3.4

N65W05 Utilized Flake Fragment VLS 7.4 17.8 14.9 3.4

* DDS = dorsal/distal/straight, DLCC = dorsal/lateral/concave, VLS = ventral/lateral/straight



6.4 Evaluation of Significance

As previously stated in Sections 4.2 and 5.4 of the report, integrity is one factor that is considered in evaluating the significance of an archaeological site. The fact that the Shieldbay 2 site happens to be situated in agricultural fields does not enter into the issue of integrity. The reason is that ploughing does disturb sites to some extent but it does not destroy them; nor does it eradicate meaningful distribution patterns (e.g., Poulton and Dodd 2007). In fact, most archaeological sites in southern Ontario that are identified as being significant and requiring preservation or salvage excavation happen to be located in agricultural fields. The quantity of cultural remains in the plough zone is a key determinant of the significance of a pre-contact site such as a lithic scatter. The standard approach of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport in these matters is that any pre-contact site or portion thereof that has artifact-bearing topsoil deposits of ten or more pieces per one-metre square represents a significant archaeological resource and planning concern. Sites with lower quantities of artifacts may also be deemed significant if they contain a high proportion of diagnostic artifacts such as formal tools, or if they include burnt chert indicating the possible presence of subsurface cultural features such as hearths. Burnt chert was recovered from both the East Locus and the West Locus of the Shieldbay 2 site. In addition, although culturally diagnostic artifacts have not yet been recovered from the greater site, a scraper was recovered from the West Locus and a wider range of tools have been recovered from the East Locus. The latter include a retouch flake, a utilized flake and a graver as well as two cores. Finally, the test excavations confirmed the presence of double-digit artifact counts in three of the test units in the West Locus and in five of the test units in the East Locus. These factors confirm that the East and West Loci of the Shieldbay 2 site represent significant archaeological resources and planning concerns.



7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

As detailed in Section 3.0 of this report, the 2007 Stage 1 archaeological assessment determined that no archaeological sites had been recorded within the Shieldbay Developments Inc. property but the property had at least a moderate potential for as-yet undiscovered archaeological remains. In consequence, possible archaeological planning concerns for the proposed residential development were limited to the potential for as-yet undiscovered sites. The subsequent Stage 2 survey encompassed all portions of the Shieldbay property that were considered to have a potential for archaeological sites and were subject to impact from the proposed development. The only portion of the property that had archaeological potential and was not surveyed consisted of the Natural Heritage System lands. They represent 6.7% of the 45-hectare property and are exempt from potential impacts from the proposed development. The 2007 and 2010 archaeological surveys of the property confirmed the presence of 12 sites. The 2010 test excavations also confirmed that portions of two of the sites have cultural heritage value and interest. They are the North Locus of the Shieldbay 1 site and the East and West Loci of the Shieldbay 2 site. There are two alternative means to mitigate a significant archaeological site that is subject to impact from a proposed development. One is preservation by avoidance. The other is mitigation by the implementation of Stage 4 salvage excavations. In the present case, consultation with Trinison Management Corp. determined that preservation by avoidance is not an option for the North Locus of the Shieldbay 1 site or the East and West Loci of the Shieldbay 2 site. The archaeological assessment of the Shieldbay property resulted in the formulation of two recommendations. They are as follows.

Firstly, it is recommended that in advance of the proposed development of the property Stage 4 salvage excavations be conducted to mitigate the North Locus of the Shieldbay 1 site and the East and West Loci of the Shieldbay 2 site.

Secondly, it is recommended that none of the other archaeological sites that have been

documented for the Shieldbay Developments Inc. property have any cultural heritage value or interest, and that there are no other outstanding archaeological planning concerns for the proposed development with the exception of the North Locus of the Shieldbay 1 site and the East and West Loci of the Shieldbay 2 site.



8.0 REFERENCES CITED Chapman, L.J. and D.F. and Putnam 1984 The Physiography of Southern Ontario. 3rd Edition, Ministry of Natural Resources,

Toronto. Eley, B.E. and P.H. von Bitter 1989 Cherts of Southern Ontario. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada. Ellis, Chris J., Ian T. Kenyon and Michael W. Spence 1990 The Archaic in The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A. D. 1650. Pages 65-124.

Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5, London, Canada Government of Ontario 1990 The Heritage Act (RSO 1990). Queen's Printer, Toronto. Kenyon, Ian 1985 A History of Ceramic Tableware in Ontario, 1780-1840. Arch Notes 1985:41-57. 1991 A History of Ceramic Tableware in Ontario: 1780-1890. Paper prepared for distribution

at AAn Introduction to English Ceramics for Archaeologists Workshop@, sponsored by the Association of Professional Archaeologists, and held in Toronto.

Ontario Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation (MCTR) 1993 Archaeological Assessment Technical Guidelines (Stages 1-3 and Reporting

Format). Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, Cultural Programs Branch, Archaeology and Heritage Planning Unit.

Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation 1997 Conserving a Future for Our Past: Archaeology, Land Use Planning &

Development In Ontario. An Educational Primer and Comprehensive Guide for

Non-Specialists. 1997 (Revised March 1998). Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, Cultural Programs Branch, Archaeology and Heritage Planning Unit.

Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists.



D.R. Poulton & Associates Inc. 2009 License Report on the 2007 Stage 1-3 Archaeological Assessment of the Shieldbay

Investments Inc. Property, Part of Lot 11, Concession 1 NDS, Geographic Township of Trafalgar, Town of Oakville, Halton Regional Municipality, Ontario. Report on File, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Revised June 13, 2013.

Poulton, Dana R., and Christine F. Dodd 2007 Approaches to the Excavation of Plough-disturbed Early Nineteenth Century Domestic

Sites in Southern Ontario. In Exploring Best Practices in Historical Archaeology. Ontario Archaeology Number 83/84, London Chapter Occasional Publication 9.

Rempel, John I. 1980 Building with Wood: and other aspects of nineteenth-century building in central

Canada. Revised Edition. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario. Sussman, Lynne 1985 The Wheat Pattern: An Illustrated Survey. Studies in Archaeology, Architecture and

History. National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Environment Canada. Walker & Miles 1877 Historical Atlas of Halton County, Ontario. Toronto. Weiler, John 1980 Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments.

Historical Planning and Research Branch, Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, Toronto.

Wells, Tom 2000 Nail Chronology: The Use of Technologically Derived Features. In Approaches to

Material Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists, 2nd Edition. A Reader from Historical Archaeology. Compiled by D. Brauner. The Society for Historical Archaeology.

FIGURES

SUBJECT PROPERTY


Page 24

Figure 1 Location of the Shieldbay Developments Property

The 2010 Stage 2-3 Archaeological Assessment of the Shieldbay Developments Inc.Property, Town of Oakville, Regional Municipality of Halton, Ontario

1000 m

N

Figure 2 Facsimile of the 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of Trafalgar Township

Page 25



TR

AFA

LG

AR

RO

AD

DUNDAS STREET

100m

N

Previously Surveyed

2010 Survey

Low and Wet

To Be Preserved

0


Figure 3 Archaeological Survey Coverage and Site Locations


Page 26

SITE 2 SITE 1

SITE 12

Figure 4 Stage 3 Investigations of the Sheildbay 1 Site


Page 27The 2010 Stage 2-3 Archaeological Assessment of the Shieldbay Developments Inc.Property, Town of Oakville, Regional Municipality of Halton, Ontario

Figure 5 Stage 3 Investigations of the Shieldbay 2 Site


Page 28The 2010 Stage 2-3 Archaeological Assessment of the Shieldbay Developments Inc.Property, Town of Oakville, Regional Municipality of Halton, Ontario

PLATES

The


Page 30

Plate 5 View Southeast

Stage 3 Test Excavations of Site 1 in Progress, Plate 6 View Southeast

Stage 3 Test Excavations, East Locus of Site 2,

Plate 3 View Southeast

Stage 2 Survey of the Euro-Canadain Farmstead Area, Plate 4 View Northeast

Stage 3 Controlled Surface Collection of Site 1,

Plate 1 Stage 2 Test Pit Survey in Progress, View Northwest Plate 2 Poorly Drained Wooded Area, View West



Page 31

Plate 7 Select Artifacts from the 2010 Archaeological Investigations

a Site 1 (AiGw-522): Utilized Flakeb Site 2 (AiGw-523): Scraperc Site 2 (AiGw-523): Retouched Flaked Site 2 (AiGw-523): Utilized Flakee Site 2 (AiGw-523): Core

f Site 2 (AiGw-253): Coreg Site 12: Transfer Printed Ironstoneh Site 12: Plain Ironstonei Site 12: Moulded Ironstonej Site 12: Moulded Ironstone

a

b c

d e f

g

h

i

j


APPENDIX A A A A

A A

The

Owner

Typewritten Text

Owner

Typewritten Text

2010 SHIELDBAY SITE 1 (AIGw-522) CATALOGUE

MaterialfTypeClassSub-CategoryCategoryCat #ExcavatorsDateDepthLevelProvenience

onondaga1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic1June 22, 2010surfaceCSC 1onondaga1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic2June 22, 2010surfaceCSC 2onondaga1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic3June 22, 2010surfaceCSC 3onondaga1tertiarychipping detrituschipped lithiclithic4June 22, 2010surfaceCSC 4onondaga1biface thinningchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic5June 22, 2010surfaceCSC 5onondaga1biface thinningchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic6June 22, 2010surfaceCSC 6onondaga1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic7June 22, 2010surfaceCSC 7onondaga1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic8June 22, 2010surfaceCSC 8onondaga1biface thinningchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic9June 22, 2010surfaceCSC 9onondaga1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic10Sept 20, 2010surfaceCSC 10

0NVS, SPSept 20, 20100-29cmtopsoilN80E450NVS, SPSept 15, 20100-20cmtopsoilN75E400LG, NVSSept 15, 20100-25cmtopsoilN70E450MH, SP, DHSept 15, 20100-20cmtopsoilN20E51

onondaga3fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic1DH, LG, NVSSept 14, 20100-28cmtopsoilN80E50onondaga3fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic2LG, NVS, DHSept 14, 20100-27cmtopsoilN75E55onondaga1biface thinningchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic3LG, NVS, DHSept 14, 20100-27cmtopsoilN75E55onondaga1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic4DH, LGSept 20, 20100-28cmtopsoilN80E55onondaga1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic5SP, DH, MHSept 15, 20100-24cmtopsoilN70E55onondaga1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic6DH, MH, SPSept 15, 20100-28cmtopsoilN70E50onondaga1tertiarychipping detrituschipped lithiclithic7DH, MH, SPSept 15, 20100-28cmtopsoilN70E50onondaga2shatterchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic8NVS, DH, LGSept 15, 20100-28cmtopsoilN75E50onondaga1biface retouchchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic9NVS, DH, LGSept 15, 20100-28cmtopsoilN75E50onondaga1fragmentutilized flakechipped lithiclithic10NVS, DH, LGSept 15, 20100-28cmtopsoilN75E50onondaga4biface thinningchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic11NVS, DH, LGSept 15, 20100-28cmtopsoilN75E50onondaga6fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic12NVS, DH, LGSept 15, 20100-28cmtopsoilN75E50onondaga2fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic13DH, NVS, LGSept 14, 20100-27cmtopsoilN75E45


MaterialfTypeClassSub. CategoryCategoryCat #DepthEcxavatorsDateLevelSquare

00-40 cmNVS, SEMay 6, 2010topsoilN60W45onondaga2fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic10-32cmLG, DH, MHMay 6, 2010topsoilN70W55onondaga1biface thinning chipping detrituschipped lithiclithic20-32cmLG, DH, MHMay 6, 2010topsoilN70W55

00-17cmDH, MEMay 13, 2010topsoilN55E00onondaga1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic30-26cmNVS, SEMay 6, 2010topsoilN85W55onondaga1biface thinning chipping detrituschipped lithiclithic40-26cmNVS, SEMay 6, 2010topsoilN85W55

00-30cmDH, SPMay 19, 2010topsoilN50E10onondaga1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic50-27cmMH, LG, DHMay 6, 2010topsoilN80W55onondaga1biface thinning chipping detrituschipped lithiclithic60-27cmMH, LG, DHMay 6, 2010topsoilN80W55haldiman2biface thinning chipping detrituschipped lithiclithic70-26 cmSE, NVSMay 6, 2010topsoilN85W50onondaga1shatterchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic80-26 cmSE, NVSMay 6, 2010topsoilN85W50onondaga5fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic90-26 cmSE, NVSMay 6, 2010topsoilN85W50onondaga1exhaustedcorechipped lithiclithic110-21cmNVS, MHMay 5, 2010topsoilN70W50onondaga1shatterchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic120-21cmNVS, MHMay 5, 2010topsoilN70W50onondaga1biface retouchchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic130-21cmNVS, MHMay 5, 2010topsoilN70W50onondaga3biface thinning chipping detrituschipped lithiclithic140-21cmNVS, MHMay 5, 2010topsoilN70W50onondaga1tertiarychipping detrituschipped lithiclithic150-21cmNVS, MHMay 5, 2010topsoilN70W50onondaga1biface finishingchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic160-21cmNVS, MHMay 5, 2010topsoilN70W50onondaga27fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic170-21cmNVS, MHMay 5, 2010topsoilN70W50colborne5fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic180-21cmNVS, MHMay 5, 2010topsoilN70W50

00-23cmSE, NVS, MEMay 19, 2010topsoilN50E00onondaga1biface thinning chipping detrituschipped lithiclithic190-21cmSE, NVSMay 13, 2010topsoilN60E00colborne1biface thinning chipping detrituschipped lithiclithic200-21cmSE, NVSMay 13, 2010topsoilN60E00onondaga2tertiarychipping detrituschipped lithiclithic210-21cmSE, NVSMay 13, 2010topsoilN60E00onondaga3fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic220-21cmSE, NVSMay 13, 2010topsoilN60E00colborne3fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic230-21cmSE, NVSMay 13, 2010topsoilN60E00onondaga2biface thinning chipping detrituschipped lithiclithic240-32cmLG, DHMay 18, 2010topsoilN65E05onondaga1tertiarychipping detrituschipped lithiclithic250-32cmLG, DHMay 18, 2010topsoilN65E05onondaga1shatterchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic260-32cmLG, DHMay 18, 2010topsoilN65E05onondaga1exhaustedcorechipped lithiclithic270-32cmLG, DHMay 18, 2010topsoilN65E05onondaga14fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic280-32cmLG, DHMay 18, 2010topsoilN65E05colborne2fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic290-32cmLG, DHMay 18, 2010topsoilN65E05onondaga1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic300-29cmDH, SPMay 19, 2010topsoilN55E10onondaga1biface thinning chipping detrituschipped lithiclithic310-29cmDH, SPMay 19, 2010topsoilN55E10onondaga1biface thinning chipping detrituschipped lithiclithic320-27cmLG, SE, DHMay 5, 2010topsoilN75W50onondaga1fragmentscraperchipped lithiclithic330-27cmLG, SE, DHMay 5, 2010topsoilN75W50onondaga12fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic340-27cmLG, SE, DHMay 5, 2010topsoilN75W50colborne1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic350-27cmLG, SE, DHMay 5, 2010topsoilN75W50unidentified1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic360-23cmMH, LGMay 19, 2010topsoilN70E10onondaga1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic370-33cmNVS, SE, MEMay 19, 2010topsoilN50E05onondaga1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic380-23cmSP, DHMay 19, 2010topsoilN60E10onondaga1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic390-23cmAS, DHMay 13, 2010topsoilN80W45onondaga1biface thinning chipping detrituschipped lithiclithic400-23cmAS, DHMay 13, 2010topsoilN80W45onondaga14fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic410-20cmMH, ASMay 13, 2010topsoilN65E00unidentified5fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic420-20cmMH, ASMay 13, 2010topsoilN65E00



colborne1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic430-20cmMH, ASMay 13, 2010topsoilN65E00onondaga2biface thinning chipping detrituschipped lithiclithic440-20cmMH, ASMay 13, 2010topsoilN65E00onondaga1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic450-30cmDH, LGMay 18, 2010topsoilN55W05onondaga1biface thinning chipping detrituschipped lithiclithic460-24cmSP, DHMay 19, 2010topsoilN70E05onondaga2biface thinning chipping detrituschipped lithiclithic470-26cmLG, MHMay 19, 2010topsoilN55E05onondaga1shatterchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic480-26cmLG, MHMay 19, 2010topsoilN55E05onondaga6fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic490-26cmLG, MHMay 19, 2010topsoilN55E05colborne1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic500-26cmLG, MHMay 19, 2010topsoilN55E05unidentified1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic510-26cmLG, MHMay 19, 2010topsoilN55E05onondaga1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic520-22cmDH, ASMay 12, 2010topsoilN65W55onondaga1biface thinning chipping detrituschipped lithiclithic530-22cmMH, LGMay 19, 2010topsoilN65E10onondaga1shatterchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic540-22cmMH, LGMay 19, 2010topsoilN65E10onondaga2fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic550-29cmMH, LG, DH, SPMay 19, 2010topsoilN62W29onondaga1biface thinning chipping detrituschipped lithiclithic560-29cmMH, LG, DH, SPMay 19, 2010topsoilN62W29onondaga2fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic570-20cmME, MH, ASMay 13, 2010topsoilN82W53colborne1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic580-20cmME, MH, ASMay 13, 2010topsoilN82W53unidentified1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic590-31cmLG, MHMay 19, 2010topsoilN70W05onondaga1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic600-31cmLG, MHMay 19, 2010topsoilN70W05onondaga1biface thinning chipping detrituschipped lithiclithic610-31cmLG, MHMay 19, 2010topsoilN70W05onondaga2fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic620-24cmDH, LG, MHMay 6, 2010topsoilN75W55onondaga1biface thinning chipping detrituschipped lithiclithic630-24cmDH, LG, MHMay 6, 2010topsoilN75W55onondaga2biface retouchchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic640-26cmSP, MHMay 18, 2010topsoilN60E05onondaga1biface thinning chipping detrituschipped lithiclithic650-26cmSP, MHMay 18, 2010topsoilN60E05onondaga3shatterchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic660-26cmSP, MHMay 18, 2010topsoilN60E05onondaga13fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic670-26cmSP, MHMay 18, 2010topsoilN60E05colborne1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic680-26cmSP, MHMay 18, 2010topsoilN60E05onondaga1biface finishingchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic690-35 cmMH, NVSMay 5, 2010topsoilN65W50onondaga3fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic700-35 cmMH, NVSMay 5, 2010topsoilN65W50onondaga4fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic710-25cmLG, DHMay 18, 2010topsoilN60W05colborne1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic720-25cmLG, DHMay 18, 2010topsoilN60W05unidentified1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic730-25cmLG, DHMay 18, 2010topsoilN60W05onondaga2fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic740-28cmSE, DH, LGMay 5, 2010topsoilN80W50colborne4fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic750-28cmSE, DH, LGMay 5, 2010topsoilN80W50onondaga4fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic760-21cmMH, SPMay 18, 2010topsoilN65W05unidentified1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic770-21cmMH, SPMay 18, 2010topsoilN65W05onondaga1shatterchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic780-21cmMH, SPMay 18, 2010topsoilN65W05onondaga1fragmentutilized flakechipped lithiclithic790-21cmMH, SPMay 18, 2010topsoilN65W05onondaga1biface thinning chipping detrituschipped lithiclithic800-27cmMH, SPMay 18, 2010topsoilN70E00unidentified1shatterchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic810-27cmMH, SPMay 18, 2010topsoilN70E00onondaga2fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic820-27cmMH, SPMay 18, 2010topsoilN70E00onondaga1fragmentretouch flakechipped lithiclithic830-27cmMH, SPMay 18, 2010topsoilN70E00onondaga1biface thinning chipping detrituschipped lithiclithic840-26cmMH, DH, LGMay 6, 2010topsoilN74W45onondaga6fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic850-26cmMH, DH, LGMay 6, 2010topsoilN74W45colborne1fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic860-26cmMH, DH, LGMay 6, 2010topsoilN74W45onondaga2biface thinning chipping detrituschipped lithiclithic870-29cmDH, SE, LG, MHMay 5, 2010topsoilN70W45



onondaga7fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic880-29cmDH, SE, LG, MHMay 5, 2010topsoilN70W45colborne2fragmentchipping detrituschipped lithiclithic890-29cmDH, SE, LG, MHMay 5, 2010topsoilN70W45

00-30cmSE, NVSMay 13, 2010topsoilN75W400topsoilN65W45

2010 SHIELDBAY SITE 12 CATALOGUE

PortionBurntFrequencyColourDescriptionTypeClassCategoryCat #ExcavatorsDate

rim2blacktransfer printironstonetablewareceramic1NVS, SE, MEMay 13, 2010rim1whitemouldedironstonetablewareceramic2NVS, SE, MEMay 13, 2010rim1whitemouldedironstonetablewareceramic3NVS, SE, MEMay 13, 2010rim1whiteplainironstonetablewareceramic4NVS, SE, MEMay 13, 2010rim1whiteplainironstonetablewareceramic5NVS, SE, MEMay 13, 2010rim1whiteplainironstonetablewareceramic6NVS, SE, MEMay 13, 2010sherd2whiteplainironstonetablewareceramic7NVS, SE, MEMay 13, 2010complete3ferrouscorrodedwire roumdnailshardware8NVS, SE, MEMay 13, 2010sherd1colourlessmouldedglasstabelware9NVS, SE, MEMay 13, 2010

Date post:	04-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

The Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment planning/da-131103...This report details the rationale,...

Documents