Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street
All of Lots 35 and 36 Registered Plan 42, City of Guelph, County of Wellington, Ontario
Submitted to: The Fischer Family c/o Zachary Fischer 5524 Watson Road North Guelph, ON N1H 6J1
and
Ontario’s Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries
Submitted by:
69 Claremont Avenue, Kitchener Ontario, N2M 2P5 Mobile/Office: 519-744-7018 e-mail: [email protected] www.detcon.net
Licensee: Mr. Mike Pitul License Number: P462 PIF Number: P462-0049-2020 CP Number: 2020-220
ORIGINAL REPORT
January 29, 2021 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Executive Summary Detritus Consulting Ltd. (‘Detritus’) was retained by Zachary Fischer on behalf of the Fischer Family (‘the Proponent’) to conduct a Stage 3 assessment at archaeological site AjHb-93, located on Lots 35 and 36, Registered Plan 42 within the Geographic Township of Guelph and historical County of Wellington, now the City of Guelph, Ontario (Figure 1). This investigation was conducted in advance of a proposed residential development at 151 Bristol Street (‘Study Area’; Figure 10). Assessment at the site was triggered by the Provincial Policy Statement (‘PPS’) that is informed by the Planning Act (Government of Ontario 1990a), which states that decisions affecting planning matters must be consistent with the policies outlined in the larger Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 1990b). According to Section 2.6.2 of the PPS, “development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources have been conserved.” To meet this condition, a Stage 3 assessment was conducted at AjHb-93 during the pre-approval phase of the development under archaeological consulting license P462 issued to Mr. Mike Pitul by the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (‘MHSTCI’) and adheres to the archaeological license report requirements under subsection 65 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 1990b) and the MHSTCI’s Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (‘Standards and Guidelines’; Government of Ontario 2011). AjHb-93 was the only site identified during a Stage 1-2 archaeological assessment of the Study Area, conducted by Detritus in the fall of 2020 (PIF# P462-0039-2020; Detritus 2020). The Study Area measures approximately 0.15 hectares (‘ha’) and spans the entire residential property. It is bound by Bristol Street to the southeast, Emslie Street to the northwest, and neighbouring residential properties on the other two sides. At the time of assessment, a house occupied the northeast corner of the Study Area, fronting Bristol Street. Access to the street was provided by a gravel driveway and paved sidewalk, running adjacent to the southwest side house and terminating at a detached rear garage (Figure 8). Most of the remainder of the Study Area was covered by manicured lawn; exposed limestone and mature trees bordered the Study Area to the southwest, northwest, and northeast. Based on the results of the Stage 1 background research, the Study Area was determined to exhibit moderate to high potential for the identification and recovery of archaeological resources. As such, a Stage 2 field assessment was recommended for the manicured lawn area. The existing house, garage, sidewalk, and gravel driveway were determined to have been previously disturbed, and were mapped and photo documented only. The Stage 2 field assessment was conducted on September 22, 2020 and consisted of a typical test pit assessment conducted at a 5m interval (Figure 8). AjHb-93 was identified along the northwestern edge of the Study Area, adjacent to Emslie Street in the yard area behind the existing house and garage (Tile 8 of the Supplementary Documentation). The Stage 2 assessment of the site resulted in the documentation of 383 Euro-Canadian artifacts from nine positive test pits covering an area measuring approximately 33 metres (‘m’) northeast-southwest by 5m northwest-southeast. Over half of the artifact assemblage consisted of household and structural artifacts that were common during the late 19th to the early 20th century. The majority of the household artifacts comprised glassware including primarily clear glass bottle pieces, a complete patent bottle finish, and four large mouth external thread Mason jar finishes. The structural artifacts, meanwhile, consisted solely of window glass pieces, almost all of which were thick, and nails, most of which were wire-drawn. A late 19th to early 20th century occupation range was supported also by the ceramic assemblage, which was dominated by sherds of ironstone, porcelain, and semi-porcelain. Finally, the presence of much later specimens in the Stage 2 assemblage, including terracotta pot and glass lightbulb fragments, a bottle cap, an electrical fuse, a plastic pen, a porcelain resistor, and a piece of rubber suggested that the site was subject to 20th century contamination.
Detritus Consulting Ltd. ii Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Given the presence of at least 20 artifacts within the Stage 2 artifact assemblage that date the period of use at AjHb-93 to before 1900, the site was recommended for a Stage 3 Site Specific Assessment. The Stage 3 assessment of AhGx-797 was conducted on November 6 and November 10, 2020, and resulted in the documentation of 2,430 Euro-Canadian artifacts from the hand excavation of eight Stage 3 test units covering an area of 30m by 15m (Figure 9). The Stage 3 ceramic assemblage is dominated by sherds of RWE, most of which are unadorned. The decorated specimens featured designs and colours that are considered typical for the middle to late 19th century. Also well represented in the ceramic assemblage are ware types that were common in the late 19th to early 20th century, including sherds of ironstone, porcelain, semi- porcelain, and an unknown glossy ware type that is reminiscent of more recent ceramic material; a single sherd of yellowware dates from 1840 onwards. A late 19th to 20th century occupation is supported also by the predominance of clear, machine manufactured bottle glass, wire drawn nails, and thick window glass. Furthermore, over 10% of the Stage 3 assemblage comprises exclusively recent material, or miscellaneous metal tool fragments and hardware that is commonly used in the 20th century. This range of occupation at the site corresponds with the period immediately following the closure of Emslie and Morrison Quarry in the late 19th century. The quarry was founded on the limestone ridge that extended along Bristol, between Yorkshire Street and Edinburgh Road and included all of AjHb-93 (Figure 2). Following their closures, many of the quarries throughout Guelph were reclaimed for residential use. It is unknown exactly when the property at 151 Bristol was filled in and resodded. According to historic mapping and 20th century aerial images of the region, no structures are documented on the property until 1955, and the addition of the one- storey brick house and garage that was still standing on the property at the time of the assessment. An aerial image from 1930, although blurred, suggests that the quarry pit may still have been open at that time. Evidence for the previous quarry was observed within the Stage 3 test units themselves. All of the units featured at least three layers, including the topsoil, Layer 1. Below this was Layer 2, an irregular stratum of gravel and crushed rock that also appeared in all units, but varied in thickness across the site. Within the three test units excavated along the northwest edge of the site, adjacent to Emslie Street, Layer 2 directly sealed Layer 3, a thick, compact layer of refuse and debris. A sondage excavated in Test Unit 210E, 510N revealed that Layer 3 extended to a depth of at least 1.35m below the surface; the subsoil was not reached. Layer 3 was also observed in Test Unit 200EW, 500N in the southwest corner of the site. Here, the debris layer was only 10cm thick, and directly sealed Layer 4, a stratum of friable gravel and stone in a silty soil matrix that was determined to be the subsoil. No traces of Layer 3 were observed in the four test units excavated in the southeast corner of the site. Instead, Layers 1 and 2 directly sealed Layer 4. Based on the stratigraphic evidence, Detritus determined that AjHb-93 occupied the edge of the quarry pit, which became deeper towards Emslie Street extending well below the grade of the subsoil. Despite the presence of multiple soil layers, however, the artifacts recovered from the site were not deposited stratigraphically, with 20th century material and middle to late 19th century artifacts observed cheek by jowl within the same layers. Furthermore, the upper soils layers (Layers 1 and 2) yielded higher percentages of the middle to late 19th century artifact types, including cut nails, white clay pipe fragments, shell buttons, transfer printed refined white earthenware pieces, and yellowware. Based on this evidence, Layer 3 has been identified as an accumulation of debris and refuse that was deposited into the open quarry pit as a series of intermittent tip fills following its closure in the late 19th century. This layer extended to depth of at least 1.35mm below the surface, and presumably continued to the bottom of the quarry cut. Layer 2 represents the crushed stone and gravel that was added as levelling fill above this debris sometime after 1830, prior to resodding. Layer 1 is the post-1830 topsoil that was imported from an unknown offsite location. This layer contained the remains of a possible middle to late 19th century Euro-Canadian site intermingled with 20th century remains. None of the artifacts documented during the Stage 3 assessment at AjHb-93 are believed to document Euro-Canadian activities conducted at 151 Bristol Street.
Detritus Consulting Ltd. iii Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Given period of occupation represented in the Stage 3 assemblage, as well as the absence of any primary artifact deposition, AjHb-93 does not fulfill any of the criteria for further Stage 4 archaeological investigation as they are outlined in Section 3.4, Standard 1 and Section 3.4.2 of the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011). AjHb-93 retains no further CHVI; a Stage 4 mitigation of developmental impacts is not recommended. The Executive Summary highlights key points from the report only; for complete information and findings, the reader should examine the complete report.
Detritus Consulting Ltd. iv Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Table of Contents 1.0 Project Context ...... 8 1.1 Development Context ...... 8 1.2 Historical Context ...... 8 1.2.1 Post-Contact Aboriginal Resources ...... 8 1.2.2 Euro-Canadian Resources ...... 9 1.2.3 Land Registry Record ...... 11 1.2.4 Recent Reports ...... 11 1.3 Archaeological Context ...... 11 1.3.1 Property Description and Physical Setting ...... 11 1.3.2 Pre-Contact Aboriginal Land Use ...... 12 1.3.3 Previous Identified Archaeological Work ...... 12 1.3.4 Summary of Previous Investigations ...... 12 1.3.4 Archaeological Potential ...... 13 2.0 Field Methods ...... 15 3.0 Record of Finds ...... 17 3.1 Cultural Material ...... 17 3.1.1 Household Items (see Appendix 10.2.1) ...... 17 3.1.2 Structural Artifacts (see Appendix 10.2.2) ...... 18 3.1.3 Ceramics (see Appendices 10.2.3 and 10.2.4) ...... 19 3.1.4 Metal Tools and Hardware ...... 20 3.1.5 Recent Material ...... 21 3.1.6 Personal Items (See Appendix 10.2.5) ...... 22 3.2 Artifact Distribution and Settlement Pattern ...... 22 3.3 Artifact Catalogue ...... 23 4.0 Analysis and Conclusions ...... 24 5.0 Recommendations...... 25 6.0 Advice on Compliance with Legislation ...... 26 7.0 Bibliography and Sources ...... 27 8.0 Maps ...... 30 9.0 Images ...... 40 9.1 Field Photos ...... 40 9.2 Artifact Photos ...... 41 10.0 Appendix ...... 44 10.1 AjHb-93 Stage 3 Artifact Catalogue ...... 44 10.2 Euro-Canadian Artifact Descriptions ...... 67 10.2.1 Household Artifacts ...... 67
Detritus Consulting Ltd. v Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
10.2.2 Structural Artifacts ...... 67 10.2.3 Ceramic Fabrics ...... 67 10.2.4 Decorative Techniques ...... 69 10.2.5 Personal Artifacts ...... 69
Detritus Consulting Ltd. vi Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Project Personnel Project Manager: Garth Grimes, P017 Field Director: Jon Cousins, P296 Field Technician: Aaron Burden; Ryan Eden; Mathew Gibson, R1160; Laura Savoie, R1237 Report Preparation: Walter McCall, P389 Mapping and GIS: Amanda McCall, R470 Licensee Review: Mike Pitul, P462
Acknowledgments Generous contributions by the following individual made this report possible. • Mr. Zachary Fischer, Fischer Family.
Detritus Consulting Ltd. vii Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
1.0 Project Context 1.1 Development Context Detritus Consulting Ltd. (‘Detritus’) was retained by Zachary Fischer on behalf of the Fischer Family (‘the Proponent’) to conduct a Stage 3 assessment at archaeological site AjHb-93, located on Lots 35 and 36, Registered Plan 42 within the Geographic Township of Guelph and historical County of Wellington, now the City of Guelph, Ontario (Figure 1). This investigation was conducted in advance of a proposed residential development at 151 Bristol Street (‘Study Area’; Figure 10). Assessment at the site was triggered by the Provincial Policy Statement (‘PPS’) that is informed by the Planning Act (Government of Ontario 1990a), which states that decisions affecting planning matters must be consistent with the policies outlined in the larger Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 1990b). According to Section 2.6.2 of the PPS, “development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources have been conserved.” To meet this condition, a Stage 3 assessment was conducted at AjHb-93 during the pre-approval phase of the development under archaeological consulting license P462 issued to Mr. Mike Pitul by the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (‘MHSTCI’) and adheres to the archaeological license report requirements under subsection 65 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 1990b) and the MHSTCI’s Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (‘Standards and Guidelines’; Government of Ontario 2011). The purpose of a Stage 3 Site Specific Assessment is to assess the cultural heritage value or interest (‘CHVI’) of a site through a controlled collection of material. This information is used to support a determination of whether the site has been sufficiently documented or if further measures are required to protect or document it fully. In compliance with the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011), the objectives of the Stage 3 assessment AjHb-93 were:
• To collect a representative sample of artifacts; • to determine the extent of the archaeological site and the characteristics of its artifacts; • to assess the CHVI of the archaeological site; and • to determine the need for mitigation of development impacts and recommend appropriate strategies for mitigation and future conservation. The licensee received permission from the Proponent to enter the land and conduct all required archaeological fieldwork activities, including the recovery of artifacts. 1.2 Historical Context
1.2.1 Post-Contact Aboriginal Resources The post-contact Aboriginal occupation of Southern Ontario was heavily influenced by the dispersal of various Iroquoian-speaking communities by the New York State Iroquois, and the subsequent arrival of Algonkian speaking groups from northern Ontario at the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century (Konrad 1981; Schmalz 1991). By 1690, Algonkian speakers from the north began repopulating Bruce County (Rogers 1978:761). During this period the Mississaugas are also known to have moved into Southern Ontario and the lower Great Lakes watersheds (Konrad 1981). In Southwestern Ontario, members of the Three Fires Confederacy (Chippewa, Ottawa and Potawatomi) were immigrating from Ohio and Michigan in the late 1700s (Feest and Feest 1978:778-779). The Study Area first enters the Euro-Canadian historic record with Treaty Number 3, which, ...was made with the Mississa[ug] a Indians 7th December, 1792, though purchased as early as 1784. This purchase in 1784 was to procure for that part of the Six Nation Indians coming into Canada a permanent abode. The area included in this Treaty is, Lincoln County excepting Niagara Township; Saltfleet, Binbrook, Barton, Glanford and Ancaster Townships, in Wentworth
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 8 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
County; Brantford, Onondaga, Tusc[a]r[o]ra, Oakland and Burford Townships in Brant County; East and West Oxford, North and South Norwich, and Dereham Townships in Oxford County; North Dorchester Township in Middlesex County; South Dorchester, Malahide and Bayham Township in Elgin County; all Norfolk and Haldimand Counties; Pelham, Wainfleet, Thorold, Cumberland and Humberstone Townships in Welland County ... Morris 1943:17-18 The size and nature of the pre-contact settlements and the subsequent spread and distribution of Aboriginal material culture in Southern Ontario began to shift with the establishment of European settlers in Southern Ontario. Despite the inevitable encroachment of European settlers on previously established Aboriginal territories, “written accounts of material life and livelihood, the correlation of historically recorded villages to their archaeological manifestations, and the similarities of those sites to more ancient sites have revealed an antiquity to documented cultural expressions that confirms a deep historical continuity to Iroquoian systems of ideology and thought” (Ferris 2009: 114). As Ferris observes, despite the arrival of a competing culture, Aboriginal communities throughout Southern Ontario have left behind archaeologically significant resources that demonstrate continuity with their pre-contact predecessors, even if they have not been recorded extensively in historical Euro-Canadian documentation.
1.2.2 Euro-Canadian Resources AjHb-93 is located within the Geographic Township of Guelph and historical County of Wellington. The history of the area began on July 24, 1788, when Sir Guy Carleton, the Governor- General of British North America, divided the Province of Québec into the administrative districts of Hesse, Nassau, Mecklenburg and Lunenburg (Archives of Ontario 2012-2015). Further change came in December 1791 when the former Province of Québec was rearranged into Upper Canada and Lower Canada under the Constitutional Act. Colonel John Graves Simcoe was appointed as Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, and initiated several initiatives to populate the province including the establishment of shoreline communities with effective transportation links between them (Coyne 1895:33). In July 1792, Simcoe divided Upper Canada into 19 counties stretching from Essex in the west to Glengarry in the east. Each new county was named after a county in England or Scotland; the constituent townships were then given the names of the corresponding townships from each original British county (Powell and Coffman 1956:17-18). Later that year, the four districts originally established in 1788 were renamed the Western, Home, Midland, and Eastern Districts. As population levels in Upper Canada increased, smaller and more manageable administrative bodies were needed resulting in the establishment of many new counties and townships. As part of this realignment, the boundaries of the Home and Western Districts were shifted and the West Riding Districts was established. Under this new territorial arrangement, the Study Area became part of the West Riding District (Archives of Ontario 2012-2015). The Township of Guelph was acquired by the British government in 1792, but settlement did not begin for 35 years. According to the policy at the time, the area of the township was set aside as Crown reserves for new settlers once the area was surveyed. The money from the leased land was then used support the British government (Johnson 1977). The first survey of the area was completed in 1826 by George Sylvester Tiffany. Tiffany reported that the area was favourable to settlement and decided where the Town of Guelph should be settled (Irwin 1993). In 1827, the Canada Company was granted the Huron Tract, a one-million-acre parcel of land that included the property at 151 Bristol Street. The Township of Guelph was officially founded that same year by the symbolic felling of a tree on St George’s Day by John Galt (Burrows 1877). The township was settled by Scottish immigrants from the Midlands and Borders of Scotland. The initial wave of Scottish immigrants helped to establish an agricultural landscape that was quick to yield the benefits of the fertile landscape (Irwin 1993). Galt, himself, was a Scottish author who served as the architect for the new community at Guelph, and designed its layout. He also selected Guelph as the headquarters for the Canada Company.
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 9 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
The original Town of Guelph was only one square mile in area, extending from Speed River to Edinburgh Road. Waterloo Road, now Highway 8, was cut through the forest by Absalom Shade and opened for travel in the summer of 1827. Waterloo Road extended from Galt to Dundas and was ‘three chains’ wide (Irwin 1993). Guelph's first buildings were hastily built structures, initially constructed of logs then of milled lumber. As the town grew, more substantial commercial and industrial structures were built for permanence and durability. The first stone building was a one room schoolhouse commonly known as the "Stone School", constructed in 1828. This was followed by the first stone house, built by James D. Oliver in 1831 on Canada Company Lot 1 (Piper 2007). A second wave of Scottish immigrants brought a wealthier group of families to the area in the 183os. Among these affluent newcomers was the Allan family. William Allan and his elder son, David Allan bought and developed the first grist mill in the area, known as Allan Grist Mill, next to the Speed River. David Allan became a prominent member of the Guelph community. He helped to design and build St. Andrews Church and the Court House in the 1850s (Irwin 1993). Guelph’s peak period of limestone architecture, known as the ‘stone age,’ extended from 1850 until the 1880s, before suffering a decline 1890s once limestone sources had been depleted. The Emslie and Morrison Quarry was founded on the limestone ridge that extended along Bristol Street, between Yorkshire Street and Edinburgh Road (Figure 2). The exposed limestone here formed the natural grade between the streets. Evidence of quarrying is still visible today along Bristol Street. The Emslie and Morrison Quarry was named after stonemason Robert Emslie, who served as the contractor for many of the major stone building projects throughout Guelph including the construction of St. James the Apostle Anglican church between 1891 and 1892. The firm of Emslie and Morrison was also contracted to provide the masonry during the construction of the Wellington County Court House between 1841 and 1843, making the structure the oldest public stone building in Wellington County. Although the exact provenance of the limestone for the structure is unknown, the quarry along Bristol Street was the most obvious source given its proximity to the building site (Piper 2007). AjHb-93 was fully situated within the Emslie and Morrison Quarry, occupying Lots 35 and 36 within Registered Plan 42 (Figure 2). Following their closures, many of the quarries were released for residential use. It is unknown exactly when the property at 151 Bristol was reclaimed. The Illustrated Historical Atlas of the Counties of Waterloo and Wellington (‘Historical Atlas’; Parsell, H. & Co 1877) demonstrates the extent to which Guelph Township had been settled by 1877 (Figure 3). Landowners are listed for every lot within the township, many of which had been subdivided multiple times into smaller parcels to accommodate an increasing population throughout the late 19th century. Structures and orchards are prevalent throughout the township, almost all of which front early roads and water bodies. Also depicted on the Historical Atlas is the early Town of Guelph as well as the Grand Trunk Railway and the W. G & B Railway/Great Western Railway. No landowner or building information, however, is provided for the lots within the Town of Guelph itself, including 151 Bristol Road on Town Lots 35 and 36. Historical county atlases, however, were funded by subscriptions fees and were produced primarily to identify factories, offices, residences and landholdings of subscribers. Landowners who did not subscribe were not always listed on the maps (Caston 1997:100). Moreover, associated structures were not necessarily depicted or placed accurately (Gentilcore and Head 1984). Fire insurance plans, conversely, were specifically drafted to provide a detailed account of structures throughout the Town. No structures are indicated within the Study Area on either the 1897 (Figure 4) or 1929 (Figure 5) fire insurance maps for the Town of Guelph. An aerial image from 1930 (Figure 6), although blurred, suggests that the quarry pit may still have been open at that time. The first structures at 151 Bristol Street appear on an aerial image from 1955 (Figure 7), which illustrates the same one-storey brick house, garage, and driveway that occupied the property at the time of the assessment.
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 10 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
1.2.3 Land Registry Record The Land Registry Records for Guelph Township and the Town of Guelph were consulted in an attempt to determine the land ownership history for Lots 35 and 36, Plan 42 (Government of Ontario 2021). Folios for the two lots were present in the records, but no transactions had been documented. Nevertheless, based on the historical background research noted above, it can be concluded that the lots were granted to the Canada Company in 1827 as part of the Huron Tract, a one-million-acre parcel of land that included the Study Area at 151 Bristol Street. By at least 1841 and the construction of the Wellington County Court House, Lots 35 and 36 were owned by the firm of Emslie and Morrison, who were using the them as a quarry pit at that time. Presumably the quarry remained in the possession of Emslie and Morrison until its closure in the late 19th century.
1.2.4 Recent Reports AjHb-93 was discovered during a Stage 1-2 assessment of the Study Area, conducted by Detritus in the fall of 2020 (PIF# P462-0039-2020). The results of this investigation have been documented in the following assessment report: Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment, 151 Bristol Street. All of Lots 35 and 36 Registered Plan 42, City of Guelph, County of Wellington, Ontario (Detritus 2020) The results of this investigation will be discussed in greater detail below in Section 1.3.4. 1.3 Archaeological Context
1.3.1 Property Description and Physical Setting The Study Area measures approximately 0.15 hectares (‘ha’) and spans the entire residential property at 151 Bristol Street in the City of Guelph. It is bound by Bristol Street to the southeast, Emslie Street to the northwest, and neighbouring residential properties to the northeast and southwest. At the time of assessment, a house occupied the northeast corner of the Study Area, fronting Bristol Street. Access to the street was provided by a gravel driveway and paved sidewalk, running adjacent to the southwest side house and terminating at a detached rear garage (Figure 8). Most of the remainder of the Study Area was covered by manicured lawn. Exposed limestone and mature trees bordered the Study Area to the southwest, northwest, and northeast. AjHb-93 was identified along the northwestern edge of the Study Area, in the yard area behind the existing house and garage (Tile 8 of the Supplementary Documentation). Prior to the expansion and urbanisation of the City of Guelph, the land surrounding AjHb-93 had been subject to agriculture for over 100 years, having been settled by European farmers since the middle of the 19th century. AjHb-93 is situated within the Guelph Drumlin Field. According to Chapman and Putnam, the Guelph drumlin field occupies an area of 320 square miles lying northwest, or in front of the Paris Morraine. Within this area, including parts of the Regional Municipalities of Hamilton-Wentworth, Waterloo, and Halton, and part of Wellington County, there are approximately 300 drumlins of all sizes. For the most part these hills are of the broad oval type with slopes less steep than those of the Peterborough drumlins. Chapman and Putnam 1984:174-176 The primary soil type within the Study Area has been identified as Guelph Loam (Hoffman and Matthews 1963). Guelph loam is well drained soil consisting of loam till and is suitable for pre- contact and post contact Aboriginal agriculture. The closest source of potable water, meanwhile, is Speed River, which runs approximately 238 metres (‘m’) to the southeast of the Study Area.
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 11 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
1.3.2 Pre-Contact Aboriginal Land Use AjHb-93 occupied a portion of Southwestern Ontario that has been occupied by people as far back as 11,000 years ago as the glaciers retreated. For the majority of this time, Aboriginal communities were practicing hunter gatherer lifestyles with a gradual move towards more extensive farming practices. Table 1 provides a general outline of the cultural chronology of Guelph Township (Ellis and Ferris 1990). Table 1: Cultural Chronology for Guelph Township Time Period Cultural Period Comments first human occupation 9500 – 7000 BC Paleo-Indian hunters of caribou and other extinct Pleistocene game nomadic, small band society ceremonial burials 7500 - 1000 BC Archaic increasing trade network hunter gatherers large and small camps 1000 - 400 BC Early Woodland spring congregation/fall dispersal introduction of pottery kinship based political system 400 BC – AD Middle Woodland incipient horticulture 800 long distance trade network Early Iroquoian limited agriculture AD 800 - 1300 (Late Woodland) developing hamlets and villages shift to agriculture complete Middle Iroquoian AD 1300 - 1400 increasing political complexity (Late Woodland) large palisaded villages regional warfare and AD 1400 - 1650 Late Iroquoian political/tribal alliances destruction of Huron and Neutral
1.3.3 Previous Identified Archaeological Work In order to compile an inventory of archaeological resources, the registered archaeological site records were consulted. In Ontario, information concerning archaeological sites stored in the ASDB (Government of Ontario n.d.) is maintained by the MHSTCI. This database contains archaeological sites registered according to the Borden system. Under the Borden system, Canada is divided into grid blocks based on latitude and longitude. A Borden Block is approximately 13km east to west and approximately 18.5km north to south. Each Borden Block is referenced by a four- letter designator and sites within a block are numbered sequentially as they are found. According to this system, AjHb-93 was documented within Borden Block AjHb. Information concerning specific site locations is protected by provincial policy, and is not fully subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Government of Ontario 1990c). The release of such information in the past has led to looting or various forms of illegally conducted site destruction. Confidentiality extends to all media capable of conveying location, including maps, drawings, or textual descriptions of a site location. The MHSTCI will provide information concerning site location to the party or an agent of the party holding title to a property, or to a licensed archaeologist with relevant cultural resource management interests. According to the ASDB, the only archaeological site registered within a 1km radius of AjHb-93 is Baker Street (AjHb-71), a Euro-Canadian industrial, commercial, and cemetery site. To the best of Detritus’ knowledge, no assessments have been conducted on properties adjacent to the Study Area, nor have any sites been registered within 50m of AjHb-93.
1.3.4 Summary of Previous Investigations As was noted above, AjHb-93 was the only site identified during a Stage 1-2 archaeological assessment of the Study Area, conducted by Detritus in the fall of 2020 (PIF# P462-0039-2020; Detritus 2020).
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 12 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Based on the results of the Stage 1 background research, the Study Area was determined to exhibit moderate to high potential for the identification and recovery of archaeological resources. A Stage 2 field assessment was recommended for the manicured lawn areas. The existing house, garage, concrete sidewalk, and gravel surface were determined to have been previously disturbed, and were mapped and photo documented only. The Stage 2 field assessment was conducted on September 22, 2020 and consisted of a typical test pit assessment conducted at a 5m interval (Figure 8). AjHb-93 was identified along the northwestern edge of the Study Area adjacent to Emslie Street, in the yard area behind the existing house and garage (Tile 8 of the Supplementary Documentation). The Stage 2 assessment of the site resulted in the documentation of 383 Euro-Canadian artifacts from nine positive test pits covering an area measuring approximately 33m northeast-southwest by 5m northwest- southeast. Over half of the Stage 2 artifact assemblage consisted of household and structural artifacts that were common during the late 19th to the early 20th century. The majority of the household artifacts comprised glassware including primarily clear glass bottle pieces, a complete patent bottle finish, and four large mouth external thread Mason jar finishes. The structural artifacts, meanwhile, consisted solely of window glass pieces, almost all of which (90.0%) were thick, and nails, most of which were wire-drawn (86.0%). A late 19th to early 20th century occupation range was supported also by the ceramic assemblage, which was dominated by sherds of ironstone, porcelain, and semi-porcelain. Finally, the presence of much later specimens in the Stage 2 assemblage, including terracotta pot and glass lightbulb fragments, a bottle cap, an electrical fuse, a plastic pen, a porcelain resistor, and a piece of rubber suggested that the site was subject to 20th century contamination. Given the presence of at least 20 artifacts within the Stage 2 artifact assemblage that date the period of use at AjHb-93 to before 1900, the site was recommended for a Stage 3 Site Specific Assessment.
1.3.4 Archaeological Potential Archaeological potential is established by determining the likelihood that archaeological resources may be present on a subject property. Detritus applied archaeological potential criteria commonly used by the MHSTCI to determine areas of archaeological potential within Study Area. According to Section 1.3.1 of the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011), these variables include proximity to previously identified archaeological sites, distance to various types of water sources, soil texture and drainage, glacial geomorphology, elevated topography, and the general topographic variability of the area. Distance to modern or ancient water sources is generally accepted as the most important determinant of past human settlement patterns and, when considered alone, may result in a determination of archaeological potential. However, any combination of two or more other criteria, such as well-drained soils or topographic variability, may also indicate archaeological potential. When evaluating distance to water it is important to distinguish between water and shoreline, as well as natural and artificial water sources, as these features affect sites locations and types to varying degrees. As per Section 1.3.1 of the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011), water sources may be categorized in the following manner: • Primary water sources: lakes, rivers, streams, creeks; • secondary water sources: intermittent streams and creeks, springs, marshes and swamps; • past water sources, glacial lake shorelines, relic river or stream channels, cobble beaches, shorelines of drained lakes or marshes; and • accessible or inaccessible shorelines: high bluffs, swamp or marshy lake edges, sandbars stretching into marsh. As was discussed above, the closest source of potable water is Speed River, which runs approximately 238m to the southeast of the AjHb-93. Prior to European settlement, the Speed River provided hunting grounds and an area of resource extraction for nearby Aboriginal groups.
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 13 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Soil texture is also an important determinant of past settlement, usually in combination with other factors such as topography. AjHb-93 is situated within the Guelph Drumlin Field physiographic region. As was discussed earlier, the soils within this region are well drained and suitable for pre-contact and post-contact Aboriginal agriculture. Considering also the and the length of occupation of Guelph Township prior to the arrival of Euro-Canadian settlers, the pre- contact and post-contact Aboriginal archaeological potential of the Study Area is judged to be moderate to high. For Euro-Canadian sites, archaeological potential can be extended to areas of early Euro- Canadian settlement, including places of military or pioneer settlements; early transportation routes; and properties listed on the municipal register or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 1990b) or property that local histories or informants have identified with possible historical events. As was discussed above, the Historical Atlas map demonstrates the extent to which Guelph Township had been settled by 1877. Landowners are listed for every lot within the township, many of which had been subdivided multiple times into smaller parcels to accommodate an increasing population throughout the late 19th century. Structures and orchards are prevalent throughout the township, almost all of which front early roads. The Study Area is located with the Town of Guelph; no landowner, structures or orchards are illustrated for the properties within the town limits. According to the historical background presented above, the Study Area formed part of the Emslie and Morrison Quarry from around 1827 until the end of the century. The depth of the quarry pit is currently unknown. It is unknown when exactly 151 Bristol Street was reclaimed for residential use, although the property appears to have been vacant until sometime before 1955 and the construction of the house, garage and driveway the currently occupy the property. Illustrated to the north and west of the Study Area on the Historical Atlas map are the W. G & B Railway/Great Western Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway. Considering also the presence of one Euro-Canadian site registered within 1km of the Study Area, and the Euro-Canadian archaeological potential of the Study Area is judged to be moderate to high. Finally, despite the factors mentioned above, extensive land disturbance can eradicate archaeological potential, as per Section 1.3.2 of the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011). A Stage 2 property inspection identified a number of disturbance areas within the Study Area, including the aforementioned house, garage, and gravel driveway, as well as a concrete sidewalk accessed from Bristol Street. AjHb-93 was identified in the lawn area behind the house. Given an absence of additional disturbance areas, the manicured lawn throughout the Study Area demonstrates the potential for the recovery of pre-contact Aboriginal, post-contact Aboriginal, and Euro-Canadian archaeological resources.
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 14 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
2.0 Field Methods The Stage 3 assessment of site AjHb-93 was conducted on November 6 and November 10, 2020, under archaeological consulting license P462 issued to Mr. Mike Pitul by the MHSTCI. This investigation began with a review of all relevant reports of previous fieldwork on the property as per Section 3.2, Standard 1 of the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011). During the field assessment, the weather ranged from sunny to partly overcast with daily high temperatures of 20˚C (Table 2). Lighting and soil conditions were suitable and visibility was excellent. At no time were field or weather conditions detrimental to the recovery of archaeological material, as required by Section 3.2, Standard 2 of the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011). Photos 1 to 9 confirm assessment conditions, as per Section 7.9.1, Standard 1 and Section 7.9.6, Standard 1a of the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011). Table 2: Field and Weather Conditions Date Field Director Activity Weather Field Conditions November 6, 2020 Jon Cousins unit excavation sunny, high 20˚C soil dry and screens easily November 10, 2020 Jon Cousins unit excavation mix of sun and soil dry and screens easily clouds, high 20˚C Upon arrival at the site, geographic reference markers that were established at AjHb-93 during the Stage 2 archaeological assessment were relocated using a Garmin eTrex 10 handheld GPS unit, with a minimum accuracy 1-2.5m (North American Datum 1983 and Universal Transverse Mercator (‘UTM’) Zone 17T). Two permanent datum stakes were placed in the ground and a 5m- by-5m grid was established across the Stage 2 site limits using hand tapes in combination with an optical theodolite, as per Section 3.2.2, Standard 2 of the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011). Maps indicating the exact site location of the site, and all UTM coordinates recorded during the Stage 3 assessment, are included in the Supplementary Documentation that accompanies this report. Typically, a Stage 3 assessment for a site documented during a pedestrian survey of ploughed agricultural land begins with an intensive controlled surface pickup (‘CSP’) across the Stage 2 limits of site, conducted as per Section 3.2.1 of the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011). AjHb-93 was documented during a test pit survey of a manicured lawn, therefore no CSP was conducted. Instead, the Stage 3 investigation consisted of test unit excavation only, conducted as per Section 3.2.2 of the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011). Photographs of the Stage 3 test unit excavation are provided in Section 9.1 of this report. Figure 9 illustrates the results of the assessment, along with photo locations and directions. In total, the Stage 3 assessment at AjHb-93 included the hand excavation of nine test units, as per Section 3.2.2, Standards 1 and 3 of the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011). The units were strategically positioned to test the nature and density of the subsurface artifact distribution at the site. Given that it was not evident that the level of CHVI at the site would result in a recommendation to proceed to Stage 4, the Stage 3 assessment strategy initially involved the hand excavation of test units every 5m across the site limits, as per Section 3.2.3, Table 3.1, Standard 1 of the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011). All test units were excavated in systematic levels as per Section 3.2.2, Standard 4 of the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011). All of the units featured at least three layers, although not all were excavated to the level of the subsoil. Layer 1 was identified as the topsoil layer, which covered the entire site. Below this was Layer 2, an irregular stratum of gravel and crushed rock that appeared in all units, but varied in thickness across the site. Among the three units along the northwest edge of the site and the single unit in the southwest corner, Layer 2 directly sealed Layer 3, a compact layer of refuse and debris. The two units in the northwest corner of the site at 200E and 210E along the 510N grid line were excavated to depths of 50 and 45cm respectively; no traces of the subsoil were encountered. A sondage excavated in Test Unit 210E, 510N revealed that Layer 3 extended to a depth of at least 1.35m below the surface; once again, the subsoil was not reached. In Test Unit 200EW, 500N in the southwest
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 15 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph corner, Layer 3 was only 10cm thick, and directly sealed a stratum of friable gravel and stone in a silty soil matrix (Layer 4) that yielded no artifacts. Based on these observations, Detritus determined that Layer 3 represented the material that had been deposited within the open quarry pit after it had fallen out of use. It was also assumed that fill material within the quarry cut grew deeper towards Emslie Street and the northwestern edge of the site, extending well below the grade of the subsoil. Given that over 800 artifacts had already been recovered from Layer 3, Test Unit 220E, 510N was not excavated below Layer 2. No traces of Layer 3 were observed the four test units excavated in the southeast corner of the site. Here, Layers 1 and 2 directly sealed Layer 4 at a depth ranging from 36 to 58cm below the surface. Among the two southernmost units along the 495N and 496N grid line, this soil and rock layer was excavated to depths of 84 and 70cm respectively, until the soil and rock became too compact to hand excavate; no artifacts were observed. Based on this observation, Layer 4 was determined to represent the subsoil at AjHb-93. For the test units where Layer 4 was encountered, excavation extended at least 5cm into the subsoil as per Section 3.2.2, Standard 5 of the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011). The soil excavated from the Stage 3 test units was screened through six-millimetre (‘mm’) hardware cloth to facilitate the recovery of small artifacts, as per Section 3.2.2, Standard 7 of the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011). All of the recovered artifacts were recorded and catalogued with reference to their corresponding layer and test unit grid coordinate, and were retained for laboratory analysis and description as per Section 3.2.3, Standard 8 of the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011). Wherever applicable, the subsoil surface was shovel shined and examined for any evidence of subsurface cultural features, none of which were observed. Once it was determined that the artifacts recovered from AjHb-93 represented late 19th and 20th century contamination rather than primary deposition, and that no material culture associated with the use of the quarry was forthcoming, test unit excavation at the site was terminated following the excavation of nine test units.
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 16 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
3.0 Record of Finds The Stage 3 archaeological assessment of site AjHb-93 was conducted employing the methods described in Section 2.0 above. An inventory of the documentary record generated by the fieldwork is provided in Table 3 below. Table 3: Inventory of Document Record Document Type Current Location of Document Additional Comments Type 3 Page of Field Notes Detritus office stored digitally in project file 1 Map provided by the Client Detritus office stored digitally in project file 1 Field Map Detritus office stored digitally in project file 60 Digital Photographs Detritus office stored digitally in project file All of the material culture collected during the Stage 3 archaeological assessment of site AjHb-93 is contained in one box and will be temporarily housed in a Detritus office until formal arrangements can be made for its transfer to Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of Ontario or another suitable public institution acceptable to the MHSTCI and the site’s owners. 3.1 Cultural Material The Stage 3 assessment of AjHb-93 yielded 2,430 Euro-Canadian (Table 4). A sample of the artifacts recovered from the Stage 3 assessment is illustrated in Section 9.2 of this report. Table 4: AhGx-797 Artifact Summary Artifacts Frequency % household 857 35.27 structural 768 31.60 ceramics 476 19.59 miscellaneous metal 225 9.26 recent material 83 3.42 personal 21 0.86 Total 2,430 100.00
3.1.1 Household Items (see Appendix 10.2.1) Over one-third of the Stage 3 artifact assemblage from AjHb-93 consisted of household artifacts (Table 5). Table 5: Stage 3 Household Artifact Summary Artifact Frequency % bottle glass 591 68.96 faunal remains 179 20.89 drinking glass 37 4.32 glass plate 17 1.98 sheet glass 9 1.05 melted glass 5 0.58 chimney glass 4 0.47 glass dish 3 0.35 coal 2 0.23 glass vial 2 0.23 milk glass 2 0.23 miscellaneous glass 1 0.12 glass platter 1 0.12 ceramic vase 1 0.12 glass stopper 1 0.12 light bulb 1 0.12 ceramic plug 1 0.12 Total 857 100.00 Most of the household artifacts comprised glassware (78.6%; n=674), including a high percentage of glass bottle pieces. Although bottle glass is generally not considered to be diagnostic, over half
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 17 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph of the bottle fragments (52.8%; n=356) were clear and suggestive of a late 19th to early 20th century occupation. A number of makers marks and bottle finishes observed among the clear bottle fragments support this conclusion (Table 6). Table 6: Diagnostic Features on Clear Bottle Glass Fragments Cat. # Diagnostic Detail Identification Date Reference Feature 17 maker’s mark maple leaf on base unknown unknown - 18 maker’s mark D inside a diamond Dominion Glass Co. 1928-early Lindsey 1970s 2021 19 maker’s mark C inside a triangle Consumers Glass 20th century Lindsey Company or Canada 2021 Dry 114 maker’s mark “ola” ‘registered FL. Coca Cola post 1899 Shaw 2018 OZ” 317 bottle finish fragment bead finish 19th to 20th Lindsey century 2021 325 maker’s mark “APPROV…” unknown unknown - 484 complete baby food jar with finish external thread post 1915 Lindsey finish 2021 Other colours represented within the bottle glass assemblage include green (n=59), aqua (n=52), brown (n=51), olive (n=44), blue (n=22), purple (n=4) and yellow (n=3). Most of these resembled fragments of 20th century beer, wine, and spirits bottles. A few diagnostic specimens were observed, which further support a late 19th to early 20th century occupation at the site (Table 7). Table 7: Diagnostic Feature on Coloured Bottle Glass Fragments Cat. Colour Diagnostic Detail Identification Date Reference # Feature 13 light maker’s “EMOT…” “…TON” unknown unknown Lindsey 2021 blue mark 112 green bottle finish crown finish 20th Lindsey 2021 century 342 aqua bottle finish patent post 1850 Lindsey 2021 483 aqua maker’s “HIRES HOUSEHOLD Hires Root post 1910 Seattle mark EXTRACT” Beer bottle History PHILADELPHIA P.A. Company U.S.A” None of the remaining glass fragments are considered to be temporally diagnostic, although Miller notes that bottle glass is infrequent on earlier sites (Miller 1980b: 9). Furthermore, a high quantity of glassware within an assemblage is typically considered to represent a family of means. The remainder of the household artifacts comprise 179 faunal remains, two coal pieces, a ceramic vase, and a lightbulb. Most of the faunal remains were mammal bones fragments (n=144), including 32 cow bones and 25 pig bones. The remaining mammal bones, and all 35 bird bones, were too fragmentary to be classified further. Under one quarter of the bones (21.2%; n=38) demonstrated evidence for butchering.
3.1.2 Structural Artifacts (see Appendix 10.2.2) Almost one third of the Stage 3 assemblage from AjHb-93 were structural artifacts (Table 8). Table 8: Stage 3 Structural Artifact Summary Structural Frequency % window glass 442 57.55 wire nails 227 29.56 cut nails 87 11.33 brick 8 1.04 mortar 4 0.52 Total 768 100.00
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 18 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Window glass fragments and nails comprised a combined 98.4% of the structural artifact assemblage. Most of the window glass pieces (95.7%) measured greater than 1.6mm in thickness, suggestive of a post-1845 occupation. Almost three quarters of the nails (72.3%), meanwhile, were wire-drawn and date from 1890 onwards. The remaining structural artifacts consisted of eight red brick fragments and four pieces of mortar, none of which are considered to be diagnostic.
3.1.3 Ceramics (see Appendices 10.2.3 and 10.2.4) Less than one-quarter of the Stage 3 assemblage comprised ceramic pieces. Table 9 provides a summary of the ceramic pieces from AjHb-93 by ware type and Table 10, by surface decoration technique. Table 9: Stage 3 Ceramic Assemblage by Ware Type Ceramics Frequency % RWE 307 64.50 ironstone 75 15.76 utilitarian 59 12.39 porcelain 17 3.57 recent ceramics 9 1.89 semi-porcelain 8 1.68 yellowware 1 0.21 Total 476 100.00 Table 10: Stage 3 Ceramic Assemblage by Decorative Technique Ceramics Frequency % RWE 264 55.46 ironstone 64 13.45 red earthenware 51 10.71 RWE, transfer printed 24 5.04 porcelain 17 3.57 recent ceramics 9 1.89 semi-porcelain 8 1.68 RWE, flow transfer printed 8 1.68 stoneware 8 1.68 RWE, banded 8 1.68 ironstone, transfer printed 6 1.26 ironstone, moulded 5 1.05 RWE, moulded 2 0.42 yellowware 1 0.21 RWE, edged 1 0.21 Total 476 100.00 Over three quarters of the sherds within the ceramic assemblage were either refined white earthenware (‘RWE’; n=307) or utilitarian wares (n=59). Most of the RWE sherds were plain (n=264). Among the decorated specimens, transfer or flow transfer printed examples were encountered most often (n=32), although banded (n=8), moulded (n=2), and edged pieces (1) were also represented in the Stage 3 catalogue. A variety of colours were observed among the transfer printed pieces including blue, green, turquoise, black, brow, red, and gold; six pieces features polychromatic designs. The banded examples, meanwhile featured simple bands of either blue (n=5), gold (n=2) or red (n=1), while the edged sherd was unscalloped. These observations suggest a late 19th century occupation at the site. The remainder of the assemblage consists of ware types that were common in the late 19th to early 20th century, including sherds of ironstone (n=75), porcelain (n=17), semi-porcelain (n=8), and an unknown glossy ware type that is reminiscent of recent material; the single sherd of yellowware dates from 1840 onwards. Additionally, all ceramic sherds were examined in order to describe the function of the item from which the ceramic sherd originated. However, for those sherds that were too fragmentary for a functional assignment, an attempt was made to at least provide a formal description, such as to
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 19 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
which portion of an item the sherd belonged. For example, a sherd of what used to be a porcelain teacup could be classified archaeologically in the artifact catalogue in a descending order of specificity depending on preservation and artifact size: a teacup (function), a cup (function), a hollowware (form), or a rim fragment (form). Flatware was differentiated based on the absence of curvature in the ceramic cross-section of each sherd. The classification system used here is based upon that proposed by Beaudoin (Beaudoin 2013: 78-82). If Beaudoin’s classifications could not be applied, then the broader definitions of Voss (Voss 2008:209) were used. Ultimately, if sherds were small enough that even a general functional or formal ware type could not be determined, then the sherd was simply classified as a rim fragment, a non-rim fragment, a base fragment, or indeterminate. Table 11 summarizes the ceramic assemblage by ware type and Table 12, by function. Over one third of the ceramic sherds (37.0%; n=176) were identified as hollowware vessels, including a number of bowl pieces (n=52), cup pieces (n=35), urinal pieces (n=33), storage vessel pieces (n=29), basin pieces (n=18), jug pieces (n=7), and an inkwell fragment. Another 117 fragments were identified as flatware vessels, and included 58 plate pieces, 5 platter pieces, and 1 lid fragment. The remaining fragments were unable to be classified by form or function. Table 11: Stage 3 Ceramic Assemblage by Form Ceramics Flat Hollow Indeterminate RWE 79 55 130 ironstone 16 34 14 red earthenware 1 30 20 RWE, transfer printed 9 11 3 porcelain 0 15 2 recent ceramics 2 5 2 semi-porcelain 2 5 1 RWE, flow transfer printed 2 0 6 stoneware 0 8 0 RWE, banded 1 5 3 ironstone, transfer printed 0 5 1 ironstone, moulded 3 1 1 RWE, moulded 1 1 0 yellowware 0 1 0 RWE, edged 1 0 0 Total 117 176 183 Table 12: Stage 3 Ceramic Assemblage by Function Ink Ceramics Basin Bowl Cup Figurine Well Jug Lid Plate Platter Storage Urinal Unknown RWE 0 20 3 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 33 181 ironstone 11 19 3 1 0 0 0 14 2 0 0 14 red earthenware 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 26 0 22 RWE, transfer printed 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 3 porcelain 0 3 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 recent ceramics 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 2 semi-porcelain 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 RWE, flow transfer printed 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 6 stoneware 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 RWE, banded 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 ironstone, transfer printed 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ironstone, moulded 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 RWE, moulded 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 yellowware 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RWE, edged 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Total 18 52 35 1 1 7 1 58 5 29 33 236
3.1.4 Metal Tools and Hardware Almost 10% of the Stage 3 assemblage from AjHb-93 comprised miscellaneous tool and hardware pieces (Table 13 on the following page). Over 40% of these comprised unidentified, and often very corroded metal pieces of unknown function. None of the remaining artifacts are considered to be
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 20 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph temporally diagnostic, although the entire metal tool assemblage would not be out of place in a late 19th and 20th century occupation. Table 13: Stage 3 Miscellaneous Metal Artifacts Artifact Frequency unidentified 95 metal wire 35 metal bucket 22 slag 14 sheet metal 13 screws 9 metal strap 4 bracket 4 bolt 3 staple 3 bucket handle 3 copper wire 3 miscellaneous tin 2 washer 2 copper strap 1 watch gear 1 brass nozzle 1 suspension hook 1 brass fitting ring 1 fence wire 1 bell 1 metal cap 1 spike 1 tin clasp 1 iron pipe 1 nut 1 corroded bolt and washer 1 Total 225
3.1.5 Recent Material A total of 83 artifacts within the Stage 3 assemblage from AjHb-93 dated exclusively to the 20th century. Included in this list are a number of bottle caps, terracotta flower pot and field drain fragments, roofing nails and shingle pieces, a Mason jar lid and glass jar body fragments, a cat’s eye marble, a battery, and various pieces of rubber, aluminum, Bakelite, plastic, and graphite. Artifact Frequency terracotta flower pot 34 bottle caps 12 rubber 5 roofing nails 5 plastic figurine 3 miscellaneous aluminum 3 Mason jar 3 Bakelite 3 aluminum cap 2 ceramic tile 2 roof shingle 2 graphite rod 1 aluminum wire 1 aluminum seal 1 ceramic field drain 1 plastic jewel 1 rubber cap 1 Mason jar lid 1 battery 1
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 21 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Artifact Frequency glass marble 1 Total 83
3.1.6 Personal Items (See Appendix 10.2.5) Very few personal items were included in the Stage 3 assemblage from AjHb-93 and include eight pieces of cloth or leather, six white clay pipe fragments, and four buttons as well as a single brass pen nib, shell casing, and toy jack (Table 14). Overall, these personal items comprise less than 1% of the Stage 3 assemblage. Table 14: Stage 3 Personal Items Personal Frequency % white clay pipe stem 4 19.05 shoe leather 4 19.05 cloth 3 14.29 shell button 3 14.29 white clay pipe bowl 2 9.52 brass pen nib 1 4.76 miscellaneous leather 1 4.76 ceramic button 1 4.76 shell casing 1 4.76 toy jack 1 4.76 Total 21 100.00 One of the white clay pipe stems was stamped with a maker’s marks (‘BANNERMAN’) and place of production (‘MONTREAL’), and was assigned to a period spanning 1858-1907 (Adams 1994). The shell buttons, meanwhile, typically belong to the early 19th century, just prior to the emergence of ceramic, or ‘Prosser’ buttons in 1940. The continued to be used, however, albeit less frequently than Prosser varieties given their higher cost of production. None of the remaining personal items are considered to be temporally diagnostic, although the brass pen nib, in addition to the ink well observed among the ceramic pieces, suggests that the occupants of the site were affluent enough to afford writing paper, as opposed to slate tablets and pencils. 3.2 Artifact Distribution and Settlement Pattern The Stage 3 assessment of AjHb-93 resulted in the documentation of 2,430 Euro-Canadian artifacts from the hand excavation of eight Stage 3 test units. All of the units featured at least three layers, although not all were excavated to the level of the subsoil. Layer 1 was identified as the topsoil layer, which ranged in thickness from 20 to 33 centimetres (‘cm’). Below this was Layer 2, an irregular stratum of gravel and crushed rock that appeared in all units, but varied in thickness across the site. In some units it occurred as a discreet layer up to 23cm thick; in others it appeared as a thin lens that was intermixed with Layer 1 above. Among the three units along the northwest edge of the site and the single unit in the southwest corner, Layer 2 directly sealed Layer 3, a thick, compact layer of refuse and debris. Within these four units, Layer 3 was encountered at a depth of 20 to 34 cm below the surface. The two units in the northwest corner of the site at 200E and 210E along the 510N grid line were excavated to depths of 50 and 45cm respectively; no traces of the subsoil were encountered. A sondage excavated in Test Unit 210E, 510N revealed that Layer 3 extended to a depth of at least 1.35m below the surface; the subsoil was not reached. In Test Unit 200EW, 500N in the southwest corner, Layer 3 was only 10cm thick, and directly sealed a stratum of friable gravel and stone in a silty soil matrix (Layer 4) that yielded no artifacts.
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 22 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
No traces of Layer 3 were observed the four test units excavated in the southeast corner of the site. Here, Layers 1 and 2 directly sealed Layer 4 at a depth ranging from 36 to 58cm below the surface. In the two southernmost units along the 495N and 496N grid line, this soil and rock layer was excavated to depths of 84 and 70cm respectively, until the soil and rock became too compact to hand excavate; no artifacts were observed. Based on this observation, Layer 4 was determined to represent the subsoil at AjHb-93. The stratigraphic evidence observed among the Stage 3 test units at AjHb-93 suggests that the site is located on the edge of a much larger quarry pit, which grew deeper towards Emslie Street to the northwest extending well below the grade of the subsoil. Despite the presence of multiple soil layers, however, the artifacts recovered at the site were not deposited stratigraphically, with 20th century material and middle to late 19th century artifacts observed cheek by jowl within the same layers. Furthermore, the upper soils layers (Layers 1 and 2) yielded higher percentages of the middle to late 19th century artifact types, including 69 of the 87 cut nails (79.3%); five of the six white clay pipe fragments (80.0%); two of the three shell buttons (66.7%); 21 of the 24 (87.5%) transfer printed RWE sherds; and the only sherd of yellowware in the Stage 3 assemblage. Based on this evidence, Layer 3 has been identified as an accumulation of debris and refuse that was deposited into the open quarry pit as a series of intermittent tip fills following its closure in the late 19th century. This layer extended to depth of at least 1.35mm below the surface, and presumably continued to the bottom of the quarry cut. Layer 2 represents the crushed stone and gravel that was added as levelling fill above this debris sometime after 1830, prior to resodding. Layer 1 is the post-1830 topsoil that was imported from an unknown offsite location. This layer contained the remains of a possible middle to late 19th century Euro-Canadian site intermingled with 20th century remains. None of the artifacts documented during the Stage 3 assessment at AjHb-93 are believed to document Euro-Canadian activities conducted at 151 Bristol Street. 3.3 Artifact Catalogue Appendix 10.1 below provides a complete catalogue of the Stage 3 artifact assemblage recovered from AjHb-93.
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 23 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
4.0 Analysis and Conclusions Detritus was retained by the Proponent to conduct a Stage 3 assessment at archaeological site AjHb-93, in advance of a proposed residential development at 151 Bristol Street in Guelph. This investigation was conducted on November 6 and November 10, 2020, and resulted in the documentation of 2,430 Euro-Canadian artifacts from the hand excavation of eight Stage 3 test units covering an area of 30m by 15m. The ceramic assemblage was dominated by sherds of RWE, most of which were plain. The decorated examples featured designs and colours typical of the middle to late 19th century. Also well represented in the ceramic assemblage are ware types that were common in the late 19th to early 20th century, including sherds of ironstone, porcelain, semi-porcelain, and an unknown glossy ware type that is reminiscent of recent material; a single sherd of yellowware dates from 1840 onwards. A late 19th to 20th century occupation is supported also by the predominance of clear, machine manufactured bottle glass, wire drawn nails, and thick window glass. Furthermore, over 10% of the Stage 3 assemblage comprises exclusively recent material, or miscellaneous metal tool fragments and hardware that were commonly used during the 20th century. This documented range of occupation at the site corresponds with the period immediately following the closure of Emslie and Morrison Quarry in the late 19th century. Evidence for the previous quarry was documented in the three soil layers that were observed above the subsoil within the Stage 3 test units at AjHb-93. More specifically, Layer 3 has been identified as an accumulation of debris and refuse that was deposited into the open quarry pit as a series of tip fills following its closure in the late 19th century. This layer extended to depth of at least 1.35mm below the surface, and presumably continued to the bottom of the quarry cut. Layer 2 represents the crushed stone and gravel that was added as a levelling fill above this debris sometime after 1830, prior to resodding. Layer 1 is the post-1830 topsoil that was imported from an unknown offsite location. This layer contained the remains of a possible middle to late 19th century Euro-Canadian site intermingled with 20th century remains.
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 24 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
5.0 Recommendations Given period of occupation represented in the Stage 3 assemblage, in addition to an absence of observed culturally significant layers, AjHb-93 does not fulfill any of the criteria for further Stage 4 archaeological investigation as they are outlined in Section 3.1, Standard 1 and Section 3.4.2 of the Standards and Guidelines (Government of Ontario 2011). AjHb-93 retains no further CHVI; a Stage 4 mitigation of developmental impacts is not recommended.
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 25 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
6.0 Advice on Compliance with Legislation This report is submitted to the Minister of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries as a condition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c 0.18. The report is reviewed to ensure that it complies with the standards and guidelines that are issued by the Minister, and that the archaeological fieldwork and report recommendations ensure the conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural heritage of Ontario. When all matters relating to archaeological sites within the project area of a development proposal have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries, a letter will be issued by the ministry stating that there are no further concerns with regard to alterations to archaeological sites by the proposed development. It is an offence under Sections 48 and 69 of the Ontario Heritage Act for any party other than a licensed archaeologist to make any alteration to a known archaeological site or to remove any artifact or other physical evidence of past human use or activity from the site, until such time as a licensed archaeologist has completed archaeological fieldwork on the site, submitted a report to the Minister stating that the site has no further cultural heritage value or interest , and the report has been filed in the Ontario Public Register of Archaeology Reports referred to in Section 65.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Should previously undocumented archaeological resources be discovered, they may be a new archaeological site and therefore subject to Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The proponent or person discovering the archaeological resources must cease alteration of the site immediately and engage a licensed consultant archaeologist to carry out archaeological fieldwork, in compliance with Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Cemeteries Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C.4 and the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.33 (when proclaimed in force) require that any person discovering human remains must notify the police or coroner and the Registrar of Cemeteries at the Ministry of Consumer Services.
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 26 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
7.0 Bibliography and Sources Adams, Nick. 1994. Field Manual for Avocational Archaeologists in Ontario. Ontario Archaeological Society Inc., Archaeological Stewardship Project. Archives of Ontario. 2012-2015. The Evolution of the District and County System, 1788-1899. Electronic document: http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/english/on-line- exhibits/maps/ontario-district-maps.aspx. Last accessed, January 20, 2021. Beaudoin, Matthew A. 2013. De-essentializing the Past: Deconstructing Colonial Categories in 19th-Century Ontario. University of Western Ontario: Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Burrows, Charles Acton. 1877. The Annals of the town of Guelph, 1827-1877. Herald Steam Printing House, Guelph. Caston, Wayne A. 1997. Evolution in the Mapping of Southern Ontario and Wellington County. Wellington County History 10:91-106. Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam. 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Third Edition. Ontario Geological Survey. Special Volume 2. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Coyne, J. H. 1895. The Country of the Neutrals (As Far as Comprised in the County of Elgin): From Champlain to Talbot. St. Thomas: Times Print. Detritus. 2020. Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment, 151 Bristol Street. All of Lots 35 and 36 Registered Plan 42, City of Guelph, County of Wellington, Ontario. Report of file with the MHSTCI, Toronto. Ellis, Chris J. and Neal Ferris (editors). 1990. The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, Number 5. Feest, Johanna E. and Christian F. Feest 1978. The Ottawa. In Trigger, B.G. (editor), Handbook of North American Indians. Vol.15 Northeast, pp. 772-786. Washington: Smithsonian Institute. Ferris, Neal. 2009. The Archaeology of Native-Lived Colonialism: Challenging History in the Great Lakes. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Garrow, Patrick H. 2016. “The Fallacy of Whiteware.” Presented at Society for Historical Archaeology, Washington, D.C. 2016. Gentilcore, R. Louis and C. Grant Head. 1984. Ontario’s History in Maps. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Government of Ontario. 1990a. Ontario Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER P.13. Last amendment: 2019, c. 15, Sched. 31. Electronic document: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13. Last accessed January 20, 2021. Government of Ontario. 1990b. Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER O.18. Last amendment: 2019, c. 9, Sched. 11. Electronic document: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18. Last accessed January 20, 2021. Government of Ontario. 1990c. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER F.31. Last amendment: 2019, c. 7, Sched. 60, s. 9. Electronic document: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90f31. Last accessed January 20, 2021. Government of Ontario. 2011. Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Toronto: MHSTCI. Government of Ontario. n.d. Archaeological Sites Database Files. Toronto: MHSTCI. Hoffman, D.W., B.C. Matthews and R.E. Wicklund. 1963. Soil Survey of Wellington County Ontario. Report No. 35 of the Ontario Soil Survey. Research Branch, Canada. Department of Agriculture and the Ontario Agricultural College. Guelph, Ontario.
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 27 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Hughes, G. Bernard. 1961. English and Scottish Earthenware 1660-1860. London: Abbey Fine Arts. Hunter, Robert and George L. Miller. 2009.Suitable for Framing: Decorated Shell-edged Earthenware, Early American Life August, 8-19. Irwin, Ross W. 1993. How We Got into the Shape We’re In. Wellington County History 6:79-88. Johnson, Leo. 1977. History of Guelph: 1827-1927. Guelph: Guelph Historical Society. Jervis, William Percival. 1911. A Pottery Primer. The O’Gorman Publishing Company, New York. Kenyon, Ian. 1980. 19th Century Notes. KEWA (80-2). Konrad, Victor. 1981. An Iroquois Frontier: The North Shore of Lake Ontario during the Late Seventeenth Century. Journal of Historical Geography 7(2):129-144. Lamb, Lisa Nicole. 2003. Historical Archaeology of the Indian Key (8M015) warehouse: An analysis of nineteenth - Century ceramics. University of South Florida. Lindsey, Bill. 2020. Historic Glass Bottle Identification and Information Website. Electronic document: http://www.sha.org/bottle/index.htm. Last accessed on January 20, 2021. Majewski Teresita and Michael J. O’Brien. 1987. The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth-Century English and American Ceramics in Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 11, edited by Michael Schiffer, 98-209. Academic Press, New York. Miller, George L. 1980a. Ceramics - The ACO Guide to 19th C. Sites. Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation, Historical Planning and Research Branch. London, Ontario. Miller, George L. 1980b. Classification and Economic Scaling of 19th Century Ceramics in Historical Archaeology 14: 1-40. Morris, J.L. 1943. Indians of Ontario [1964 reprint]. Toronto: Department of Lands and Forests, Government of Ontario. Parsell, H. & Co. 1877. Illustrated Atlas of the Counties of Waterloo and Wellington. Piper, Leanne. 2007. Quarries and Quarrymen: The Limestone Industry in Guelph. Historic Guelph, Volume 46. Guelph Historic Society. Powell, Janet R. and Barbara F. Coffman. 1956. Lincoln County, 1856-1956. St. Catharines: Lincoln County Council. Rogers. E. S. 1978. Southeast Ojibwa. In Trigger, B.G (editor), Handbook of North American Indians. Volume 15, Northeast, pp. 760-771. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press Schmalz, Peter S. 1991. The Ojibwa of Southern Ontario. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Seattle History Company. 2018-2021. “Hires to You!” The Illustrated History of Hires Root Beer. Electronic Source: http://hiresbook.com/Chapter%20Directory%20- %201910/default.html. Last accessed, January 20, 2021. Shaw, Simeon. 1829. History of the Staffordshire Potteries and the Rise and Progress of the Manufacture of Pottery and Porcelain; with Reference to Genuine Specimens and Notices of Eminent Potters. Reprinted 1968 by Beatrice C. Weinstock, Great Neck, New York. Shaw, Gabbi. 2018. Here’s how Coca-Cola has changed over the past 132 years. Electronic Source: https://www.insider.com/evolution-of-coke-coca-cola-history-2018-5. Last accessed, January 20, 2021. Sprague, Roderick. 2002. China or Prosser Button Identification and Dating in Historical Archaeology vol. 36 (2): 111-27. Tharp, Lars. n.d. The Origin of Ironstone. In Stoke on Trent: Resources on the North Stafforshire Pottery Industry. Electronic Source: http://www.thepotteries.org/features/ironstone.htm. Last accessed January 20, 2021.
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 28 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
The Potteries.org. 2003. Ironstone. In Stoke on Trent: Resources on the North Stafforshire Pottery Industry. Electronic Source: http://www.thepotteries.org/types/ironstone.htm. Last accessed January 20, 2021. Venovcevs, Anatolijs. 2013. Dressed for Life and Death: The Archaeology of Common Nineteenth-Century Buttons. Paper presented at Forward into the Past conference, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, 6 April 2013. Electronic Document: http://www.fitp.ca/articles/FITPXXIII/Dress_for_Life_and_Death_Paper.pdf. Last accessed January 20, 2021. Voss, Barbara L. 2008. The Archaeology of Ethnogenesis: Race and Sexuality in Colonial San Francisco. Berkeley: University of California Press. Weiland, Jon. 2009. “A Comparison and Review of Window Glass Analysis Approaches in Historical Archaeology.” Technical Briefs in Historical Archaeology 4: 29-40.
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 29 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
8.0 Maps
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 30 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 31 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 32 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 33 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 34 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 35 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 36 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 37 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 38 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Figure 10: Development Map
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 39 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
9.0 Images 9.1 Field Photos Photo 1:Stage 3 Test Unit Excavation at Photo 2: Stage 3 Test Unit Excavation at AjHb-93, looking northwest AjHb-93, looking west
Photo 3: Stage 3 Test Unit Excavation at Photo 4: Stage 3 Test Unit Excavation at AjHb-93, looking east AjHb-93, looking south
Photo 5: Stage 3 Test Unit Excavation at Photo 6: Sondage in Test Unit 200E, 510N, AjHb-93, looking west looking grid north
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 40 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
9.2 Artifact Photos Plate 1: Hires Household Extract Complete Plate 2: Dark Blue and Brown Glass Bottle Glass Bottle (Cat#483) Fragments (Cat# 222, 11), Chimney Glass (Cat#328)
Plate 3: Green Glass Bottle with Crown Plate 4: Wire Nail (Cat#49) (top), Two Cut Bottle Finish (Cat#112), Clear Glass Bottle Nails (Cat#48) (middle and bottom) with Bead Finish (Cat#317), Aqua Glass Bottle with Patent Finish (Cat#342)
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 41 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Plate 5: Undecorated Ironstone with Plate 6: Stoneware (Cat#248, 459) Maker’s Mark (Cat#242) (left), Transfer Printed Ironstone with Maker’s Mark (Cat#183) (right)
Plate 7: Porcelain Fragments (Cat#471, 470, Plate 8: Brass Pen Nib (Cat#41), Battery 469) (Cat#42)
Plate 9: Bakelite Fragments (Cat#391, 424) Plate 10: White Clay Pipe Bowl Fragment (Cat#35), Bannerman White Clay Pipe Stem Fragment (Cat#277)
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 42 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Plate 11: Ceramic Button (Cat#422), Shell Button (Cat#153)
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 43 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
10.0 Appendix 10.1 AjHb-93 Stage 3 Artifact Catalogue
Unit Unit Ceramic Ceramic Cat# Easting Northing Layer Depth (m) Artifact Freq. Form Function Colour Comments 1 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 glass bottle 85 clear 2 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 glass bottle 8 brown 3 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 glass bottle 18 forest green 4 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 glass bottle 3 olive green 5 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 glass bottle 10 light blue 6 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 glass plate 1 aqua 7 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 glass bottle 3 yellow horizontal ribbing 8 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 glass plate 4 clear 9 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 glass plate 5 clear vertical ribbing 10 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 glass bottle 2 clear cross hatch design 11 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 glass bottle 5 brown 12 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 drinking glass 2 clear embossed with "EMOR" 13 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 glass bottle 1 light blue "TON" 14 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 glass bottle 3 aqua 15 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 glass bottle 1 clear horizontal ribbing bottle base with fan 16 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 glass bottle 1 clear pattern bottle base with maple 17 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 glass bottle 1 clear leaf diamond with "D" inside 18 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 glass bottle 1 clear it, number "3" on base triangle with "C" inside it, as well as letters "RD" on 19 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 glass bottle 1 clear base 20 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 glass bottle 1 clear "E" embossed
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 44 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Unit Unit Ceramic Ceramic Cat# Easting Northing Layer Depth (m) Artifact Freq. Form Function Colour Comments 21 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 glass bottle 1 clear "N" embossed 22 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 glass platter 1 clear moulded floral design 23 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 drinking glass 1 clear red painted design 24 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 sheet glass 1 aqua 25 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 chimney glass 1 26 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 window glass 64 >1.6 mm 27 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 RWE 22 flat plate 28 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 RWE 15 flat bowl 29 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 RWE 37 flat unknown 30 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 RWE 14 hollow unknown 31 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 porcelain 1 unknown unknown 32 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 ironstone 2 hollow basin 33 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 ironstone tile 2 34 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 RWE 3 flat plate white clay pipe 35 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 bowl 1 undecorated 36 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 ceramic plug 1 RWE, transfer 37 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 printed 1 flat plate light green RWE, transfer 38 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 printed 2 flat bowl dark green moulded edges RWE, flow 39 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 transfer printed 3 unknown unknown blue 40 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 RWE, banded 2 hollow cup blue horizontal banding 41 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 brass pen nib 1 42 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 battery 1 43 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 slag sample 6 44 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 brick sample 1 red
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 45 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Unit Unit Ceramic Ceramic Cat# Easting Northing Layer Depth (m) Artifact Freq. Form Function Colour Comments 45 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 brick sample 1 grey 46 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 mortar sample 2 47 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 metal bell 1 48 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 cut nails 16 49 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 wire nails 21 50 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 screw 2 51 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 bucket handle 1 52 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 iron pipe 1 53 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 copper wire 1 54 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 bottle cap 9 55 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 metal bracket 1 56 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 aluminum wire 1 miscellaneous 57 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 metal 32 58 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 sheet metal 6 59 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 metal wire 8 60 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 aluminum cap 1 61 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 tin mason jar lid 1 62 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 shoe leather 4 63 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 roof shingle 1 64 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 red earthenware 1 hollow storage 65 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 stoneware 1 hollow storage 66 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 red earthenware 1 hollow storage 67 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 red earthenware 1 hollow storage 68 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 red earthenware 2 hollow storage 69 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 red earthenware 2 hollow storage
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 46 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Unit Unit Ceramic Ceramic Cat# Easting Northing Layer Depth (m) Artifact Freq. Form Function Colour Comments 70 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 stoneware 1 hollow jug 71 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 red earthenware 1 hollow storage terra cotta flower 72 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 pot 3 hollow pot 73 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 red earthenware 1 hollow unknown faunal remains 74 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 mammalian 8 s. Suinae, butcher faunal remains 75 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 mammalian 8 bos. Taurus faunal remains 76 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 mammalian 7 bos. Taurus, butcher faunal remains unknown, small 77 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 mammalian 30 fragments faunal remains 78 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 avian 14 79 200 510 3 0.34-1.35 RWE 33 hollow urinal RWE, flow 80 200 500 3 0.30+ transfer printed 1 unknown unknown blue 81 200 500 3 0.30+ RWE 1 hollow cup 82 200 500 3 0.30+ ironstone 1 hollow cup 83 200 500 3 0.30+ ironstone 1 flat plate 84 200 500 3 0.30+ RWE 1 unknown unknown 85 200 500 3 0.30+ red earthenware 1 hollow storage 86 200 500 3 0.30+ red earthenware 1 hollow unknown terra cotta flower 87 200 500 3 0.30+ pot 1 hollow pot 88 200 500 3 0.30+ stoneware 1 hollow jug 89 200 500 3 0.30+ mortar sample 2 90 200 500 3 0.30+ wire nails 14 91 200 500 3 0.30+ roofing nails 4
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 47 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Unit Unit Ceramic Ceramic Cat# Easting Northing Layer Depth (m) Artifact Freq. Form Function Colour Comments 92 200 500 3 0.30+ screw 1 93 200 500 3 0.30+ copper wire 1 miscellaneous 94 200 500 3 0.30+ metal 2 95 200 500 3 0.30+ metal wire 2 metal suspender 96 200 500 3 0.30+ hook 1 miscellaneous 97 200 500 3 0.30+ aluminum 3 98 200 500 3 0.30+ miscellaneous tin 2 99 200 500 3 0.30+ cut nails 2 faunal remains 100 200 500 3 0.30+ mammalian 11 unknown small fragments faunal remains 101 200 500 3 0.30+ mammalian 1 bos. Taurus, rib, butcher faunal remains 102 200 500 3 0.30+ mammalian 2 s. Suinae faunal remains 103 200 500 3 0.30+ avian 1 mendable pieces, small 104 200 500 3 0.30+ plastic figurine 3 white and pink hole drilled through heavy glass with thin 105 200 500 3 0.30+ glass plate 3 aqua moulded lines 106 200 500 3 0.30+ window glass 56 >1.6 mm 107 200 500 3 0.30+ glass bottle 26 clear 108 200 500 3 0.30+ glass bottle 1 clear vetical ribbing 109 200 500 3 0.30+ mason jar 1 clear, threaded finish 110 200 500 3 0.30+ glass bottle 3 brown 111 200 500 3 0.30+ glass bottle 5 green 112 200 500 3 0.30+ glass bottle 1 green crown finish 113 200 500 3 0.30+ glass bottle 4 aqua
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 48 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Unit Unit Ceramic Ceramic Cat# Easting Northing Layer Depth (m) Artifact Freq. Form Function Colour Comments 114 200 500 3 0.30+ glass bottle 1 clear "ola" "registered FL. OZ" 115 200 500 3 0.30+ glass bottle 1 dark green 116 200 500 3 0.30+ drinking glass 2 clear 117 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 semi-porcelain 2 flat plate ironstone 118 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 moulded 1 flat platter dotted pattern ironstone 119 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 moulded 1 flat platter wavey pattern 120 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 ironstone 2 hollow cup 121 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 ironstone 3 unknown unknown 122 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 RWE 3 unknown unknown 123 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 RWE, banded 2 hollow bowl gold thin band 124 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 red earthenware 1 unknown unknown 125 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 unknown leather 1 126 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 window glass 11 >1.6 mm 127 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 drinking glass 1 clear 128 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 window glass 1 <1.6 mm 129 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 glass bottle 1 brown 130 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 glass bottle 2 dark brown 131 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 glass bottle 1 forest green 132 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 glass bottle 15 clear complete vial, rim and 133 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 glass vial 1 clear neck gold painted 134 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 glass stopper 1 blue faunal remains 135 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 mammalian 2 unknown, butcher faunal remains unknown, small 136 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 mammalian 5 fragments
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 49 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Unit Unit Ceramic Ceramic Cat# Easting Northing Layer Depth (m) Artifact Freq. Form Function Colour Comments faunal remains 137 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 mammalian 1 s. Suinae, rib, butcher faunal remains bos. Taurus, femur, 138 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 mammalian 1 butcher faunal remains 139 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 mammalian 2 bos. Taurus, rib faunal remains 140 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 avian 3 miscellaneous 141 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 metal 7 142 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 wire nails 12 143 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 cut nails 2 144 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 bottle cap 1 145 220 510 2 0.20-0.25 metal strap 1 146 220 510 1 0-0.20 glass bottle 2 brown 147 220 510 1 0-0.20 glass bottle 1 olive green 148 220 510 1 0-0.20 glass bottle 1 dark blue 149 220 510 1 0-0.20 glass bottle 1 light blue 150 220 510 1 0-0.20 glass bottle 2 aqua 151 220 510 1 0-0.20 glass bottle 3 clear 152 220 510 1 0-0.20 drinking glass 3 clear 153 220 510 1 0-0.20 shell button 1 two holes 154 220 510 1 0-0.20 window glass 18 70 >1.6 mm 155 220 510 1 0-0.20 window glass 4 26 <1.6 mm 156 220 510 1 0-0.20 copper strap 1 157 220 510 1 0-0.20 cut nails 4 158 220 510 1 0-0.20 wire nails 1 terra cotta flower 159 220 510 1 0-0.20 pot 1
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 50 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Unit Unit Ceramic Ceramic Cat# Easting Northing Layer Depth (m) Artifact Freq. Form Function Colour Comments 160 220 510 1 0-0.20 red earthenware 2 unknown unknown 161 220 510 1 0-0.20 porcelain 1 hollow bowl RWE, flow 162 220 510 1 0-0.20 transfer printed 1 unknown unknown blue 163 220 510 1 0-0.20 ironstone 5 flat plate 164 220 510 1 0-0.20 RWE 2 unknown unknown partial maker's mark, 165 220 510 1 0-0.20 ironstone 1 flat plate "IRO" shield and unicorn 166 220 510 1 0-0.20 RWE, moulded 1 hollow jug brown, yellow single band on interior 167 220 510 1 0-0.20 RWE, banded 1 hollow cup red and exterior 168 225 500 1 0-0.30 shell button 1 4 holes 169 225 500 1 0-0.30 sheet metal 6 170 225 500 1 0-0.30 wire nails 16 171 225 500 1 0-0.30 cut nails 10 172 225 500 1 0-0.30 brick sample 2 red faunal remains 173 225 500 1 0-0.30 mammalian 1 s. Suinae, rib, butcher 174 225 500 1 0-0.30 metal wire 1 175 225 500 1 0-0.30 red earthenware 1 hollow bowl 176 225 500 1 0-0.30 red earthenware 1 flat platter 177 225 500 1 0-0.30 red earthenware 1 unknown unknown 178 225 500 1 0-0.30 red earthenware 1 unknown unknown ironstone 179 225 500 1 0-0.30 moulded 1 hollow basin 180 225 500 1 0-0.30 ironstone 5 hollow basin 181 225 500 1 0-0.30 ironstone 8 unknown unknown small fragments ironstone transfer 182 225 500 1 0-0.30 printed 1 unknown unknown grey
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 51 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Unit Unit Ceramic Ceramic Cat# Easting Northing Layer Depth (m) Artifact Freq. Form Function Colour Comments partial maker's mark, "RO" "ALF" lion on part 183 225 500 1 0-0.30 ironstone 1 flat plate coat of arms 184 225 500 1 0-0.30 semi-porcelain 2 hollow bowl red, green, RWE, transfer blue, black, 185 225 500 1 0-0.30 printed 4 hollow cup gold rose and leaves RWE, transfer 186 225 500 1 0-0.30 printed 1 hollow bowl blue willow pattern RWE, transfer 187 225 500 1 0-0.30 printed 1 flat plate blue buildings RWE, flow 188 225 500 1 0-0.30 transfer printed 2 flat plate blue leaf design 189 225 500 1 0-0.30 RWE, banded 1 unknown unknown blue single blue band RWE, flow 190 225 500 1 0-0.30 transfer printed 1 unknown unknown blue RWE, transfer 191 225 500 1 0-0.30 printed 1 unknown unknown blue 192 225 500 1 0-0.30 RWE 2 flat plate 193 225 500 1 0-0.30 RWE 3 hollow bowl 194 225 500 1 0-0.30 RWE 24 unknown unknown small fragments partial maker's mark, "St. 195 225 500 1 0-0.30 ironstone 1 flat plate JO" 196 225 500 1 0-0.30 porcelain 1 unknown unknown 197 225 500 1 0-0.30 glass bottle 4 light green 198 225 500 1 0-0.30 glass bottle 1 forest green 199 225 500 1 0-0.30 glass bottle 5 light blue 200 225 500 1 0-0.30 glass bottle 1 blue 201 225 500 1 0-0.30 glass bottle 10 olive green 202 225 500 1 0-0.30 drinking glass 2 aqua 203 225 500 1 0-0.30 drinking glass 3 light green
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 52 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Unit Unit Ceramic Ceramic Cat# Easting Northing Layer Depth (m) Artifact Freq. Form Function Colour Comments 204 225 500 1 0-0.30 drinking glass 1 olive green 205 225 500 1 0-0.30 milk glass 1 206 225 500 1 0-0.30 glass bottle 17 clear 207 225 500 1 0-0.30 drinking glass 5 clear 208 225 500 1 0-0.30 window glass 43 >1.6 mm 209 225 495 2 0.56-0.84 ironstone 1 flat plate 210 225 495 2 0.56-0.84 brick sample 1 red 211 225 495 2 0.56-0.84 window glass 1 >1.6 mm 212 225 495 2 0.56-0.84 red earthenware 1 unknown unknown 213 225 495 2 0.56-0.84 drinking glass 2 aqua 214 225 495 2 0.56-0.84 RWE 2 unknown unknown small fragments 215 230 496 1 0-0.33 cut nails 10 miscellaneous 216 230 496 1 0-0.33 metal 2 217 230 496 1 0-0.33 metal cap 1 218 230 496 1 0-0.33 tin clasp 1 press moulded, white clay pipe 219 230 496 1 0-0.33 stem 2 faunal remains unknown, small 220 230 496 1 0-0.33 mammalian 2 fragments miscellaneous 221 230 496 1 0-0.33 glass 1 aqua glass teardrop 222 230 496 1 0-0.33 glass bottle 1 dark blue 223 230 496 1 0-0.33 glass bottle 4 green 224 230 496 1 0-0.33 glass bottle 3 brown 225 230 496 1 0-0.33 glass bottle 5 olive green 226 230 496 1 0-0.33 glass bottle 2 aqua 227 230 496 1 0-0.33 sheet glass 4 aqua
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 53 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Unit Unit Ceramic Ceramic Cat# Easting Northing Layer Depth (m) Artifact Freq. Form Function Colour Comments 228 230 496 1 0-0.33 glass bottle 28 clear 229 230 496 1 0-0.33 drinking glass 2 clear 230 230 496 1 0-0.33 window glass 36 >1.6 mm 231 230 496 1 0-0.33 window glass 7 <1.6 mm 232 230 496 1 0-0.33 porcelain 1 hollow lid 233 230 496 1 0-0.33 ironstone 3 hollow bowl 234 230 496 1 0-0.33 ironstone 1 hollow basin 235 230 496 1 0-0.33 RWE 20 unknown unknown small fragments terra cotta flower 236 230 496 1 0-0.33 pot 6 237 230 496 1 0-0.33 recent ceramic 2 hollow jug brown, yellow 238 230 496 1 0-0.33 red earthenware 1 unknown unknown small fragment 239 230 496 1 0-0.33 red earthenware 1 unknown unknown small fragment 240 230 496 2 0.33-0.36 ironstone 1 hollow bowl 241 230 496 2 0.33-0.36 screw 1 partial maker's mark, "WARRANTED" "R.COCHR", 242 225 495 1 0-0.33 ironstone 1 flat platter unidentifiable shield motif 243 225 495 1 0-0.33 ironstone 1 flat platter 244 225 495 1 0-0.33 ironstone 1 hollow bowl 245 225 495 1 0-0.33 ironstone 1 unknown unknown small fragment 246 225 495 1 0-0.33 RWE 8 unknown unknown small fragments 247 225 495 1 0-0.33 semi-porcelain 1 hollow bowl 248 225 495 1 0-0.33 stoneware 1 hollow storage 249 225 495 1 0-0.33 metal strap 1 250 225 495 1 0-0.33 wire nails 1
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 54 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Unit Unit Ceramic Ceramic Cat# Easting Northing Layer Depth (m) Artifact Freq. Form Function Colour Comments 251 225 495 1 0-0.33 cut nails 1 252 225 495 1 0-0.33 glass bottle 5 clear 253 225 495 1 0-0.33 glass bottle 1 brown 254 225 495 1 0-0.33 drinking glass 1 clear 255 225 495 1 0-0.33 window glass 8 >1.6 mm 256 210 510 3 0.25-0.45+ roof shingle 1 257 210 510 3 0.25-0.45+ shell casing 1 unknown calibre 258 210 510 3 0.25-0.45+ bottle cap 1 259 210 510 3 0.25-0.45+ fencing wire 1 260 210 510 3 0.25-0.45+ metal bucket 22 small fragments 261 210 510 3 0.25-0.45+ metal strap 1 262 210 510 3 0.25-0.45+ wire nails 11 faunal remains 263 210 510 3 0.25-0.45+ avian 8 faunal remains unknown, small 264 210 510 3 0.25-0.45+ mammalian 3 fragments faunal remains 265 210 510 3 0.25-0.45+ mammalian 2 bos. Taurus 266 210 510 3 0.25-0.45+ glass bottle 31 clear 267 210 510 3 0.25-0.45+ mason jar 1 clear 268 210 510 3 0.25-0.45+ glass bottle 1 clear clear, milk bottle fragment 269 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 bottle cap 1 270 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 slag sample 2 271 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 brick sample 1 red 272 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 red earthenware 2 unknown unknown 273 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 red earthenware 2 hollow storage 274 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 red earthenware 1 unknown unknown
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 55 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Unit Unit Ceramic Ceramic Cat# Easting Northing Layer Depth (m) Artifact Freq. Form Function Colour Comments 275 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 stoneware 1 hollow ink well terra cotta flower 276 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 pot 5 white clay pipe BANNERMAN, 277 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 stem 1 MONTREAL 278 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 red earthenware 1 unknown unknown 279 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 RWE 16 unknown unknown small fragments RWE, transfer 280 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 printed 1 hollow bowl black geometric design 281 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 recent ceramic 1 hollow cup brown 282 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 ironstone 4 hollow bowl RWE, transfer brown, red, 283 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 printed 2 hollow cup gold leaf design light green, 284 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 porcelain 1 hollow bowl pink rose design light blue, 285 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 porcelain 1 hollow bowl black 286 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 porcelain 1 hollow cup dark brown small fragment 287 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 graphite rod 1 288 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 cut nails 14 289 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 wire nails 14 290 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 bucket handle 2 291 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 metal wire 15 miscellaneous 292 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 metal 15 293 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 roofing nails 1 294 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 bolt 2 295 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 screw 1 296 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 metal washer 1 297 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 copper wire 1
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 56 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Unit Unit Ceramic Ceramic Cat# Easting Northing Layer Depth (m) Artifact Freq. Form Function Colour Comments 298 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 aluminum seal 1 299 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 bolt and washer 1 300 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 gaming jack 1 301 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 plastic jewel 1 black miscellaneous 302 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 rubber 5 303 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 rubber cap 1 faunal remains 304 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 mammalian 3 s. Suinae, ribs, butcher faunal remains 305 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 mammalian 2 s. Suinae, scapula faunal remains 306 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 mammalian 1 s. Suinae, femur faunal remains 307 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 mammalian 2 bos. Taurus faunal remains unknown, small 308 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 mammalian 21 fragments faunal remains 309 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 avian 2 310 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 window glass 36 >1.6 mm 311 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 sheet glass 3 aqua 312 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 glass marble 1 clear cat's eye 313 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 glass bottle 4 brown 314 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 glass bottle 8 green 315 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 glass bottle 1 olive green 316 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 glass bottle 2 green honeycomb pattern 317 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 glass bottle 1 clear bead finish 318 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 glass bottle 6 aqua purple milk bottle 319 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 glass bottle 2 purple fragments
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 57 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Unit Unit Ceramic Ceramic Cat# Easting Northing Layer Depth (m) Artifact Freq. Form Function Colour Comments 320 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 mason jar 1 aqua 321 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 melted glass 2 clear 322 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 glass bottle 1 clear vertical ribbing 323 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 glass vial 1 clear 324 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 glass bottle 36 clear 325 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 glass bottle 1 clear "APPROV" "SHILOH" "CONSUMP" 326 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 glass bottle 1 purple "CURE" 327 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 drinking glass 4 clear 328 200 500 1 & 2 0-0.20 chimney glass 3 diamond pattern 329 210 510 2 0.20-0.25 shell button 1 two holes 330 210 510 2 0.20-0.25 bakelite 1 faunal remains unknown, small 331 210 510 2 0.20-0.25 mammalian 2 fragments 332 210 510 2 0.20-0.25 wire nails 35 333 210 510 2 0.20-0.25 cut nails 2 miscellaneous 334 210 510 2 0.20-0.25 metal 8 335 210 510 2 0.20-0.25 light bulb 1 336 210 510 2 0.20-0.25 watch gear 1 337 210 510 2 0.20-0.25 sheet glass 1 aqua 338 210 510 2 0.20-0.25 glass bottle 5 aqua 339 210 510 2 0.20-0.25 glass bottle 1 clear 340 210 510 2 0.20-0.25 glass bottle 2 green 341 210 510 2 0.20-0.25 glass bottle 1 forest green 342 210 510 2 0.20-0.25 glass bottle 1 aqua patent finish 343 210 510 2 0.20-0.25 glass bottle 2 clear vertical ribbing
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 58 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Unit Unit Ceramic Ceramic Cat# Easting Northing Layer Depth (m) Artifact Freq. Form Function Colour Comments 344 210 510 2 0.20-0.25 melted glass 1 clear 345 210 510 2 0.20-0.25 window glass 11 >1.6 mm 346 210 510 2 0.20-0.25 window glass 1 <1.6 mm 347 210 510 2 0.20-0.25 drinking glass 2 clear terra cotta flower 348 210 510 2 0.20-0.25 pot 3 349 210 510 2 0.20-0.25 recent ceramic 1 hollow jug brown, yellow 350 210 510 2 0.20-0.25 RWE 2 hollow bowl ironstone transfer 351 210 510 2 0.20-0.25 printed 5 hollow basin blue willow pattern 352 210 510 2 0.20-0.25 red earthenware 1 hollow cup white clay pipe 353 200 510 1 0-0.22 stem 1 undecorated faunal remains 354 200 510 1 0-0.22 mammalian 2 bos. Taurus, butcher faunal remains 355 200 510 1 0-0.22 mammalian 1 s. Suinae, butcher 356 200 510 1 0-0.22 glass bottle 5 olive green 357 200 510 1 0-0.22 glass bottle 2 forest green 358 200 510 1 0-0.22 glass bottle 4 brown 359 200 510 1 0-0.22 glass bottle 9 aqua 360 200 510 1 0-0.22 glass bottle 10 clear 361 200 510 1 0-0.22 drinking glass 1 clear 362 200 510 1 0-0.22 window glass 1 <1.6 mm 363 200 510 1 0-0.22 window glass 12 >1.6 mm terra cotta flower 364 200 510 1 0-0.22 pot 1 365 200 510 1 0-0.22 ironstone 1 flat plate 366 200 510 1 0-0.22 ironstone 1 hollow basin
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 59 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Unit Unit Ceramic Ceramic Cat# Easting Northing Layer Depth (m) Artifact Freq. Form Function Colour Comments 367 200 510 1 0-0.22 ironstone 1 hollow bowl 368 200 510 1 0-0.22 ironstone 2 unknown unknown 369 200 510 1 0-0.22 RWE 1 hollow cup 370 200 510 1 0-0.22 RWE, banded 1 unknown unknown blue single band RWE, transfer 371 200 510 1 0-0.22 printed 1 unknown unknown blue small fragment 372 200 510 1 0-0.22 RWE 11 unknown unknown small fragments 373 200 510 1 0-0.22 recent ceramic 1 hollow jug brown, yellow 374 200 510 1 0-0.22 stoneware 1 hollow basin 375 200 510 1 0-0.22 recent ceramic 1 flat plate white, orange raised dots around rim 376 200 510 1 0-0.22 red earthenware 1 unknown unknown 377 200 510 1 0-0.22 red earthenware 1 unknown unknown 378 200 510 1 0-0.22 red earthenware 1 hollow storage 379 200 510 1 0-0.22 brick sample 1 red 380 200 510 1 0-0.22 bolt 1 381 200 510 1 0-0.22 brass fitting ring 1 382 200 510 1 0-0.22 metal staple 1 383 200 510 1 0-0.22 cut nails 8 384 200 510 1 0-0.22 wire nails 24 385 200 510 1 0-0.22 sheet metal 1 386 200 510 1 0-0.22 metal wire 3 miscellaneous 387 200 510 1 0-0.22 metal 1 faunal remains 388 210 510 1 0-0.20 mammalian 2 bos. Taurus, ribs, butcher 389 210 510 1 0-0.20 cut nails 4 390 210 510 1 0-0.20 wire nails 4
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 60 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Unit Unit Ceramic Ceramic Cat# Easting Northing Layer Depth (m) Artifact Freq. Form Function Colour Comments 391 210 510 1 0-0.20 bakelite 1 392 210 510 1 0-0.20 red earthenware 3 hollow storage 393 210 510 1 0-0.20 stoneware 1 hollow storage 394 210 510 1 0-0.20 recent ceramic 1 unknown unknown brown, yellow terra cotta flower 395 210 510 1 0-0.20 pot 5 396 210 510 1 0-0.20 drinking glass 4 clear 397 210 510 1 0-0.20 glass bottle 7 clear 398 210 510 1 0-0.20 glass bottle 3 brown 399 210 510 1 0-0.20 glass bottle 3 aqua 400 210 510 1 0-0.20 glass bottle 5 olive green 401 210 510 1 0-0.20 glass bottle 1 green 402 210 510 1 0-0.20 metal washer 1 RWE, transfer 403 210 510 1 0-0.20 printed 1 hollow cup blue pink, green, 404 210 510 1 0-0.20 porcelain 5 hollow cup gold rose design 405 210 510 1 0-0.20 RWE 4 unknown unknown small fragments ironstone 406 210 510 1 0-0.20 moulded 1 flat plate wheat sheaf pattern 407 210 510 1 0-0.20 ironstone 3 hollow bowl 408 210 510 1 0-0.20 window glass 37 >1.6 mm 409 230 500 1 0-0.54 ironstone 2 hollow basin 410 230 500 1 0-0.54 ironstone 2 hollow bowl 411 230 500 1 0-0.54 ironstone 3 flat plate crenallated edge; floral 412 230 500 1 0-0.54 RWE, moulded 1 flat plate design ironstone 413 230 500 1 0-0.54 moulded 1 unknown unknown
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 61 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Unit Unit Ceramic Ceramic Cat# Easting Northing Layer Depth (m) Artifact Freq. Form Function Colour Comments 414 230 500 1 0-0.54 RWE 35 unknown unknown small fragments RWE, transfer 415 230 500 1 0-0.54 printed 1 hollow cup dark green small fragments RWE, transfer 416 230 500 1 0-0.54 printed 1 unknown unknown blue small fragments 417 230 500 1 0-0.54 yellowware 1 hollow cup 418 230 500 1 0-0.54 semi-porcelain 2 hollow cup partial maker's mark, 419 230 500 1 0-0.54 semi-porcelain 1 unknown unknown light blue "IMPE" "SEMI PORC" 420 230 500 1 0-0.54 porcelain 1 hollow cup 421 230 500 1 0-0.54 porcelain 1 hollow cup pink, green rose design 422 230 500 1 0-0.54 ceramic button 1 4 holes terra cotta flower 423 230 500 1 0-0.54 pot 5 424 230 500 1 0-0.54 bakelite 1 white clay pipe 425 230 500 1 0-0.54 bowl 1 undecorated 426 230 500 1 0-0.54 brick sample 1 red 427 230 500 1 0-0.54 red earthenware 2 hollow storage 428 230 500 1 0-0.54 red earthenware 1 hollow storage 429 230 500 1 0-0.54 red earthenware 2 unknown unknown 430 230 500 1 0-0.54 red earthenware 5 hollow storage 431 230 500 1 0-0.54 red earthenware 1 unknown unknown green, yellow, 432 230 500 1 0-0.54 recent ceramic 1 unknown unknown brown, red faunal remains 433 230 500 1 0-0.54 avian 3 faunal remains 434 230 500 1 0-0.54 mammalian 1 bos. Taurus faunal remains unknown, small 435 230 500 1 0-0.54 mammalian 5 fragments
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 62 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Unit Unit Ceramic Ceramic Cat# Easting Northing Layer Depth (m) Artifact Freq. Form Function Colour Comments faunal remains 436 230 500 1 0-0.54 mammalian 1 s. Suinae 437 230 500 1 0-0.54 glass bottle 4 brown 438 230 500 1 0-0.54 glass bottle 7 aqua 439 230 500 1 0-0.54 glass bottle 3 green 440 230 500 1 0-0.54 glass bottle 1 light green 441 230 500 1 0-0.54 glass bottle 2 blue 442 230 500 1 0-0.54 glass bottle 6 olive green 443 230 500 1 0-0.54 glass bottle 1 purple moulded; heavily 444 230 500 1 0-0.54 glass dish 3 aqua patinated 445 230 500 1 0-0.54 glass plate 2 aqua 446 230 500 1 0-0.54 window glass 39 >1.6 mm 447 230 500 1 0-0.54 window glass 5 <1.6 mm 448 230 500 1 0-0.54 melted glass 2 aqua 449 230 500 1 0-0.54 drinking glass 1 clear 450 230 500 1 0-0.54 glass bottle 41 clear 451 230 500 1 0-0.54 slag sample 3 452 230 500 1 0-0.54 coal sample 2 453 230 500 1 0-0.54 metal nut 1 miscellaneous 454 230 500 1 0-0.54 metal 6 455 230 500 1 0-0.54 brass nozzle 1 456 230 500 1 0-0.54 wire nails 21 457 230 500 1 0-0.54 cut nails 6 458 230 500 1 0-0.54 screw 1 459 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 stoneware 1 hollow cup
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 63 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Unit Unit Ceramic Ceramic Cat# Easting Northing Layer Depth (m) Artifact Freq. Form Function Colour Comments 460 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 RWE, edged 1 flat plate blue unscalloped 461 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 ceramic vase 1 hollow vase yellow RWE, transfer 462 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 printed 2 flat plate green floral design RWE, transfer 463 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 printed 2 flat plate turquoise geometric design RWE, transfer 464 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 printed 1 flat plate turquoise floral design 465 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 ironstone 4 hollow bowl 466 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 RWE, banded 1 flat plate three thin rings 467 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 RWE 1 hollow cup 468 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 RWE 4 unknown unknown small fragments blue, orange, 469 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 porcelain 1 hollow cup yellow floral design blue, orange, 470 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 porcelain 1 hollow cup black, green floral design 471 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 porcelain 1 hollow cup pink RWE, transfer 472 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 printed 1 hollow cup red leaf design 473 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 RWE, banded 1 unknown unknown blue small fragment 474 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 recent ceramic 1 flat plate blue burnt "7112" impressed into 475 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 ironstone 1 hollow figurine base 476 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 red earthenware 2 unknown unknown 477 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 red earthenware 1 unknown unknown 478 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 red earthenware 1 hollow storage 479 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 red earthenware 2 hollow storage terra cotta flower 480 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 pot 4 ceramic field 481 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 drain 1
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 64 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Unit Unit Ceramic Ceramic Cat# Easting Northing Layer Depth (m) Artifact Freq. Form Function Colour Comments 482 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 milk glass 1 complete, "HIRE'S HOUSEHOLD EXTRACT" "PHILADELPHIA P.A. U.S.A." "MAUFACTURED BY THE CHARLES HIRE's CO" "FOR HOME 483 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 glass bottle 1 aqua USE" complete baby food jar, 484 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 glass bottle 1 clear screw top 485 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 glass bottle 2 clear pickle jar 486 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 glass bottle 8 olive green 487 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 glass bottle 4 green 488 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 glass bottle 9 aqua 489 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 glass bottle 11 brown 490 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 glass plate 2 clear 491 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 window glass 51 >1.6 mm 492 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 glass bottle 31 clear 493 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 cloth 3 linen or cotton faunal remains 494 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 avian 4 faunal remains unknown, small 495 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 mammalian 6 fragments faunal remains 496 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 mammalian 5 s. Suinae, butcher faunal remains 497 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 mammalian 4 bos. Taurus, butcher 498 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 slag sample 3 499 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 wire nails 53 500 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 cut nails 8 501 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 aluminum cap 1
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 65 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Unit Unit Ceramic Ceramic Cat# Easting Northing Layer Depth (m) Artifact Freq. Form Function Colour Comments 502 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 metal wire 6 503 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 screw 3 504 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 wire spike 1 505 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 metal bracket 3 506 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 metal strap 1 507 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 metal staple 2 miscellaneous 508 200 510 2 0.22-0.34 metal 22
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 66 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
10.2 Euro-Canadian Artifact Descriptions
10.2.1 Household Artifacts Bottle Glass Bottle glass fragments are generally not diagnostic and are often simply categorized according to colour. Whereas clear glass was used for pharmaceuticals, brown, green and olive-green were popular for wines, beers and spirits. Uncommon prior to the 1870s, clear or colourless glass came into widespread use after the development of automatic bottle manufacturing machines in the early 20th century (Lindsey 2020).
10.2.2 Structural Artifacts Window Glass Window glass can be temporally diagnostic in a limited manner, but only if at least ten specimens are available. In the 1840s, window glass thickness changed dramatically, in large part due to the lifting of the English import tax on window glass in 1845. This tariff taxed glass by weight and encouraged manufacturers to produce thin panes. Most window glass manufactured before 1845 tended to be thinner, while later glass was thicker (Weiland 2009). Because window glass thickness varied even within a single pane, however, an assemblage of ten specimens is required to provide an adequate sample (Kenyon 1980). Nails Originally, all nails were hand made (wrought) and required skill, as well as a forge. As a result, nails were relatively expensive and methods were sought to have them machine made. Whereas cut, or square nail manufacture began in the late 1790s, cut nails only become readily available in Upper Canada by the 1830s. Cut nails revolutionized house framing and were common for a long period, from approximately 1830 to 1890 by which time they had been largely supplanted by wire nails. Although wire nails began to show up in the 1860s, their presence on a site usually indicates a 20th century occupation (Adams 1994). Other Structural Material Mortar is not temporally diagnostic, outside of being a common building material for both log houses (chinking) and for masonry in stone houses or the rubble-stone foundations for brick homes in the 18th, 19th centuries, and 20th centuries.
10.2.3 Ceramic Fabrics RWE In the 1820s, the blue-tinted pearlware glaze gave way to whiter varieties, sometimes termed “whiteware”; this term, however, was not used by manufacturers (Garrow 2016). According to Miller (1980a:18), the white appearance of whiteware was caused by reducing the amount of cobalt added to the glaze and adding it instead to the paste. It was manufactured by many different recipes, however, and can be difficult to distinguish from other ceramics in the period, including sherds of pearlware, especially when examining small sherds. As Miller suggests, …if an assemblage of ceramics from the first half of the 19th Century is placed before six archaeologists and they are asked for counts of creamware, pearlware, whiteware, and stone china wares, the results will probably be six different enumerations Miller 1980b: 2 Accordingly, the term RWE is used in this report to identify the whiter ceramic sherds that likely post-date pearlware, but which do not display the characteristics of the later ironstone fabric.
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 67 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Yellowware Yellowware is a type of coarse earthenware that was produced in England in the late 18th century. It first appeared on sites in Southern Ontario in the 1840s, and remained popular throughout the remainder of the 19th century. In addition to the distinctive mustard-yellow glaze, yellowware vessels can be identified by their porous, buff-coloured fabric. They were often slip decorated and commonly used for utilitarian kitchen bowls (Adams 1994). Ironstone Ironstone was a variety of RWE designed by the Turner family in the late 1700s (Tharp n.d). Like its contemporaries, it featured a white surface, but with a bluish tint. Furthermore, ironstone vessels were usually thicker than earlier whiteware varieties with a dense, heavy paste. The impetus behind the development of ironstone was a desire among Staffordshire potters to find a cheap alternative to imported porcelain. By 1813 James Mason had reworked and patented “ironstone china.” The patent lasted only fourteen years; by that time a variety of Staffordshire potteries were producing a similar product. Nevertheless, the Mason’s brand name had become associated with all of the various stone china ceramics that were in production. Ironstone began to be imported from England to Canada during the 1840s and came to dominate the ceramic trade during the middle part of the century (The Potteries.org 2003). In terms of appearance, ironstone vessels were commonly left plain with infrequent applied surface decoration, although moulded designs were common (Adams 1994). Semi-Porcelain Semi-porcelain is a variety of RWE featuring a thick body and a hard, opaque paste. Like ironstone, it was developed by English potters during the first half of the 19th century in an attempt to create a less expensive alternative to imported porcelain. By the latter half of the century, semi-porcelain vessels became widespread throughout North America. Decoration with hand-painted lustrous gold over glaze or ‘gilding’ became popular in the 1880s and persisted until the 1940s (Hughes 1961:82). Porcelain Porcelain was a variety of RWE that was first manufactured in China in the 16th century. It is produced with very high firing temperatures resulting in a partial vitrification of the paste. Porcelain vessel bodies tend to be translucent and can be very thin. Because of its prohibitive cost, porcelain is rare on 19th century sites in Ontario but became relatively common by the 20th Century as less expensive production techniques were developed in England, Germany and Holland (Kenyon 1980). Throughout the 19th Century, potters in Staffordshire, England, sought to replicate Chinese porcelain resulting in the creation of many variations of RWE, including creamware, pearlware and whiteware. English porcelain, also known as bone china or English soft-paste porcelain, was the most common variety of porcelain represented in Euro-Canadian sites throughout the 19th century. It was a vitreous ceramic with high silicon oxide content that maintained glass-like sharpness on breakage (Majewski and O'Brien 1987: 129). Given its cost, its presence of porcelain in large numbers on Euro-Canadian sites in Southern Ontario usually indicates a higher economic status. Red Earthenware Red earthenware is a variety of utilitarian coarse earthenware that is fired at a lower temperature than more refined earthenwares and is made from a coarser, more porous paste. Red earthenwares cannot be used to date an archaeological assemblage since they were in use throughout the entirety of the 19th century. Their frequency on sites began to decline slowly from the 1850s onwards with the importation of stoneware from the United States and then dramatically after 1890 when they were replaced by glass jars (Miller 1980b: 9). Earthenware vessels were also less expensive than other, more refined, tablewares. As a result, an abundance of earthenware pieces relative to other ware types, especially on a late 19th century site, may indicate lower economic status.
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 68 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Stoneware Stoneware ceramics are made from a heavy non-porous paste and, although naturally impermeable, were usually glazed with a grey or brown slip. Early 19th century varieties were manufactured in England, Germany and the United States and featured a salt glaze. Stoneware vessels were relatively infrequent in Southern Ontario until the mid-1800s; by 1850, at least two potteries in Ontario (Brantford and Toronto) were producing stoneware. Because they were large and durable, stoneware vessels were typically utilitarian, functioning as food storage containers, beer jugs and tankards, butter crocks, and cream jars (Lamb 2003:112).
10.2.4 Decorative Techniques Banding Banding is one of several terms that describes the use of coloured slip to decorate a vessel. Others names for banded vessels include ‘annular ware’ and ‘slip-decorated ware.’ In addition, several specific designs within this category have their own names, including, dendritic, mocha, cable and cat’s eye. Banding can also include machine-turned impressed marks and banding was often used in concert with hand-painted and sponged elements. In all cases, however, bands of colour were the common motif. Banded vessels were manufactured throughout the 19th century. As the century progressed, patterning tended to become simpler with blue dominating the colour spectrum (Adams 1994: 101). Edging In edged wares, the rim of the vessel is coloured and often moulded and occurs almost entirely on flatware (plates, saucers, platters). The earliest edged vessels bore asymmetrical, rococo shell- edging and date from roughly 1775. Over time, the style of the edge design changed, becoming symmetrical scalloping (often with impressed lines or moulded florettes) from around 1800, to straight-edged with feathering by 1840 and non-embossed, straight edges (unscalloped edgeware) by 1860 (Hunter and Miller 2009:13). Dates vary for somewhat for the popularity of the dominant colours, blue and green, with green edged wares having an earlier median date and appearing only on creamware and pearlware bodies. Transfer Printing and Flow Transfer Printing The technique of transferring a pattern from an engraved metal plate to the surface of a ceramic vessel is thought to have developed in the middle of the 18th century (Jervis 1911); it became more widely used among Staffordshire potteries in the 1790s (Shaw 1829). In Southern Ontario, transfer printing was popular through the first half of the 19th century before simpler techniques, or no decoration whatsoever, became popular. It underwent a revival after 1870 until the end of the century (Majewski and O’Brien 1987:145, 147). Blue was the most popular colour for transfer printed designs throughout the 19th century, and was the dominant colour available for printed wares before 1830. Brown and black transfer print wares were popular for an approximate 40- year span between 1830 and 1870 (Adams 1994:103). Flow transfer printing was similar to regular transfer printing, with the exception that designs were allowed to bleed into the glaze giving them a misty appearance. Flow transfer printing was popular in the late 1840s and 1850s and was later revived in the 1890s. Traditionally, blue is the most predominant colour used in flow-transfer printing, although examples in black do exist (Adams 1994).
10.2.5 Personal Artifacts Clay Pipes White clay pipes were popular throughout the 19th century, with a decline in use around 1880 due to the rise in popularity of briar pipes and cigarettes. Most white clay pipes were manufactured in either Québec or Scotland, with occasional examples from English, Dutch, French, and American manufacturers. The maker’s name is commonly impressed on one side with the city of manufacture on the opposite side, although this did not become common practice until after 1840 (Kenyon 1980).
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 69 Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, AjHb-93, 151 Bristol Street, Guelph
Buttons Shell buttons, also known as pearl buttons, were fashioned from the discs of fresh water shells. They were often used as shirt buttons prior to the development of less expensive agate and ceramic, or Prosser buttons in the middle of the 19th century. The patent for the Prosser method provides a terminus post quem of 1840. They were the most inexpensive buttons available in the 19th century, remained popular through to the 1920s and were produced in France until the 1960s (Venovcevs 2013). The method involves pressure moulding powdered minerals common in the recipe of ceramics, such as clay, flint and feldspar, before firing at high temperatures to achieve a vitrified finish. While the buttons were moulded in various patterns, embossed and decorated with transfer and hand-painted glazes, the most common are simple white, sew-though, dish type buttons used on men’s shirts (Sprague 2002).
Detritus Consulting Ltd. 70