REPORT OF THE MASTER PLAN OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ( OF THE DISTRICf MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AND THE WAHTA MOHAWKS

VOLUME 1 BACKGROUND RESEARCH

~...",.,.--_ ...... ,~".~-"'''---

'- (

scale o 20 em ope Petroglyph Site (BeGu-4)

Submitted to THE DISTRICf MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA and THE WAHTA MOHAWKS

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC.

February 1994 REPORT OF THE MASTER PLAN OF HERITAGE RESOURCES OF THE DISTRICf MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AND THE WAHTA MOHAWKS

VOLUME 1 BACKGROUND RESEARCH

Submitted to THE DISTRICf MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA and THE WAHTA MOHAWKS

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. 662 Bathurst St Toronto, Ontario M5S 2R3

in association with

Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates Mount McGovern Co., Ltd. Dr. Carole Carpenter Ms. Susan L. Maltby, Conservator

February, 1994 Project Personnel

Project Director: Dr. Ronald F. Williamson'

Research and Report Preparation: Dr. Carole H. Carpenter" Mr. Martin S. Cooper' Mr. David Cuming" Ms. Eva M. MacDonald1 Mr. Robert 1 MacDonald1 Ms. Barbara McPhail 2 Ms. Susan L Maltby" Mr. David A Robertson! Ms. Jean Simonton" Mr. Phillip J. Wright3

Report Editors: Mr. David A Robertson Dr. Ronald F. Williamson

Project Information and Communication Co-Ordinators: Ms. Beverly J. Gamer' Ms. Eva M. Maclsonald! lArchaeological Services Inc. 2Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates 3Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. "Susan L. Maltby, Conservator sYork University ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many individuals have contnbuted to the collection and compilation of data for this study. It is only through their co-operation and generosity that this work was made possible.

We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Mr. Ron Reid, of the Muskoka Heritage Areas Program, for providing detailed environmental data which has been generated as part ofthe Heritage Areas study; Ms. Judi Brouse, of the District of Muskoka, for her support and provision ofmapping; Ms. Bernice Field, of the Ministry of Culture and Communications, for providing access to the database of archaeological sites listed with that Ministry; Mr. Peter Carruthers, of the Ministry of Culture and Communications, for information regarding the survey of the Severn waterway; and Dr. Barry Warner, of the University of Waterloo, for discussing his own unpublished data on the paleoecology of Plastic Lake.

Fmally, we thank all those who responded to our appeal for information concerning the history of the Muskoka region and its heritage as well as those members of the Muskoka Cultural Advisory Committee who provided comments on an earlier draft of this document.

Logistical and financial support was provided by the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Muskoka Heritage Foundation, through the Muskoka Heritage Areas Program, the Wahta Mohawks, the Lake of Bays Heritage Foundation, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Culture Tourism and Recreation.

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Project Personnel i Acknowledgements ii Table of Contents iii list ofFigures ...... : . . . . v list of Tables v

INTRODUCTION by RF. Williamson and DA Robertson 1

CHAPTER 1 LANDBASED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN MUSKOKA by RI. MacDonald, DA Robertson and M.S. Cooper 5 1.1 Culture History of the Study Area 5 1.2 Archaeological Research in the Study Area Prior to the Master Plan 9 13 Modelling Archaeological Site Potential 19 1.4 Modelling in Ontario: A Selective Review...... 23 1.5 Research Design ...... 25 1.6 Paleoenvironmental Constraints 26 1.7 Analysis and Interpretations 42 1.8 Recommendations and Application ...... 46

CHAPTER 2 THE UNDERWATER AND INUNDATED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD INMUSKOKA by Phillip Wright 53 2.1 The Marine Archaeological Record 53 2.2 The Approach 53 23 A Freshwater Maritime Perspective: Prehistoric to Contact ...... 55 2.4 The Underwater Archaeological Record in Other Southern Shield Areas ...... 59 2.5 A Case Study of Underwater Ceramic Deposits in the Frontenac Axis ...... •.••....••..•..••••...•••••....•...•..•..•. 61 2.6 Assessing Submerged and Inundated Prehistoric Site Potential in the Muskoka Area by Theme ...... 63 27 A Freshwater Maritime Perspective: The Historic Period 66 2.8 Conclusions: The Marine Archaeological Record and Predictive Modelling . . . . 79

iii CHAPTER 3 BUILT HERITAGE AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPES IN MUSKOKA by D. Cuming, B. McPhail and J. Simonton ~ 81 3.1 The Approach to Planning for Built Heritage and Cultural Landscapes 81 32 Thematic Overview of the Settlement History of Muskoka 82 33 Identification of Cultural/Historic Landscape Units 114 3.4 Review of Existing Built Heritage Resource Databases 122 3.5 Conclusions and Delineation of Historic Thematic Zones 143

CHAPTER 4 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF mSTORIC EURO-CANADIAN SE'ITLEMENT by M.S. Cooper and DA Roberston 183 4.1 Introduction...... 183 42 The Archaeology of Euro-Canadian Settlement 183 43 Defining Euro-Canadian Archaeological Site Potential 183 4.4 Historic Euro-Canadain Site Potential: Applications 185

CHAPTER 5 THE INTANGmLE HERITAGE OF MUSKOKA by Carole Carpenter 187 5.1 Introduction to the Concept of Intangible Heritage ...... •.. 187 5.2 Sources of Intangible Heritage Identified in Muskoka ...... 188 5.3 Historical Outline " 193 5.4 Conclusions and Rationale for Phase 2 Collection ...... 195

REFEREN"CES 199

APPENDICES Appendix 1: Vessels in the Muskoka Lake Fleet (c. 1866 to present) Appendix 2: Lake of Bays Vessels (c. 1877-1958) Appendix 3: Severn River Vessels (c. 1875-1920) Appendix 4: Major Ports and Desitinations on Lake Muskoka and Severn River Appendix 5: Historic Theme Mapping Appendix 6: Intangible Heritage: Individuals, Agencies and Insitutions Consulted

( iv List of Figures

Figure 1 The District Municipality of Muskoka, Master plan Study Area 2 Figure 2 Surveyed Areas and Documented Archaeological Sites on the Severn River 16 Figure 3 Time Series Diagram, Inferred Regional Vegetation Communities for the Study Area and Vicinity 35 Figure 4 Cultural Landscapes and Historic Thematic Zones 145 Figure 5 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31D/14) ...... 147 Figure 6 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31D/14) ...... 148 Figure 7 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31D/14) ...... 149 Figure 8 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31D/14) 150 Figure 9 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31D/13) 152 Figure 10 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31D/13) 153 Figure 11 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31D/13) 154 Figure 12 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31D/13) 155 Figure 13 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E;2) 157 Figure 14 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E!3) 159 Figure 15 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E!3) 160 Figure 16 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E!3) 161 Figure 17 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E/3) 162 Figure 18 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E/3) 163 Figure 19 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E/3) 164 Figure 20 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E!3) 165 Figure 21 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E/4) 167 Figure 22 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E/4) 168 Figure 23 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E/4) 169 Figure 24 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E/4) 170 Figure 25 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E/5) 172 Figure 26 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E/6) 175 Figure 27 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E/6) 176 Figure 28 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E/6) 177 Figure 29 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E/6) 178 Figure 30 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31EI7) 180 Figure 31 Identification of Cultural Landscape Units (NTS Map 31E17) 181

List of Tables

Table 1 Summary Data: Documented Archaeological Sites 17 Table 2 Climate of the Study Area 30 Table 3 Land Use Constraints 42 Table 4 Survey Localities 50

v INTRODUCTION byRF. Williamson and D.A. Roberston

Archaeological Services Inc. (AS!), in association with Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates, Dr. Carole Carpenter of York University, Mr. Phillip Wright of Mount McGovern Co. Ltd., and Ms. Susan Maltby of Susan L. Maltby, Conservator, was contracted by The District Municipality of Muskoka and the Wahta Mohawks to prepare a master plan of heritage features for those lands within their respective jurisdictions. The project study team was under the direction of Dr. Ronald F. Williamson, Senior Archaeologist, (AS!).

The ultimate objective of the research was the preparation of a high quality heritage planning study which identifies, analyses and establishes priorities concerning archaeological and other heritage sites located within the study area's boundaries. This study area was defined as those lands within the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Reserve lands of the Wahta Mohawks, incorporating approximately 3000 square kilometres (Figure 1).

This study also resulted in the provision for land developers of a set of clear procedures to follow with respect to heritage features prior to securing development approvals. The benefits to the community at large include an enhanced understanding of the region's heritage, and the delineation and protection of archaeological sites, some of which, in the future, may provide recreational and educational opportunities in archaeology for the general public.

Master plans of heritage resources, by their nature, are capable of serving as effective management tools in the effort to reconcile the goals of heritage preservation with the need for development, through the establishment ofa planning process. In order to do so, a master plan must take adequate account of the cultural and historical development of its study area. Nevertheless such research is not intended to be- nor should it be construed to be- an attempt to compile a comprehensive or definitive "history" of its particular study area or its inhabitants. Such an objective can never be met within the fiscal or scheduling limitations to which such a project is subject. For the purposes of a master plan study, the general understanding of a region's past, which is built up during the background research component (phase 1), and can be critically examined in subsequent phases, is sufficient for its specific goals to be achieved. Inevitably, therefore, a large body of specific data related to a study area's past must be omitted, however, this in no way reflects a judgement of that data's qualititive value or cultural interest. Rather, it is expected that the completed master plan will be utilized in conjunction with input from local historical and cultural experts. It is also to be hoped that it may, in addition to meeting the demands of the planning and development process, serve as a useful point ofdeparture for those individuals or organizations conducting their own more detailed research on specific subjects or regions.

The study was designed within a framework that comprised three phases. The first phase, reported herein, concerned the collection, assessment and synthesis of information from various public and private sources in an effort to 1) provide an inventory ofpreviously known or documented landbased and marine archaeological features, 2) prepare a thematic historical review of the study area and 3) prepare an overview of intangible heritage resources within the District. It also involved the delineation of archaeological potential zones for the entire district, and the setting of priorities for field research. This work was carried out during 1991 an 1992. Following a process ofreview by the members of the Cultural Advisory Committee, the final report, making specific recommendations regarding Phase 2 activities, was submitted in July, 1992. Minor modifications to the document ~ ~ ~ "l.... N rIS' ~. !:.ill.!!!!. J[HS']['IFUC'][' M UNllCllIPAIU']['Y OF 5 ® PROVINCIAL HICHwa, IU'"- jffiftri'iDiiiiIIIeWIUit ~ ~ , I o DISTAICT ROAD I - RAILROAO TOWNSHIP ! I ~ 1:11 OISt RIC T 80UNDARY ,I ~ --- IQwNSt4I' 80UNDARY : I , ~ PARRY SOUND :I

~ ~ ----_.--,, s : OF BAYS ~ -J ~

P, .. ( r~[ t..'::'\..... E ,. - ~2> '~_'!~)II!~) '-- ' r;: O".M'VO

SIMCOE

SCA\.[ o~"_.I", ••

..- Introduction Page 3

were made to the document in order to incorporate the results of the subsequent archaeological survey.

The second phase (Volume 2: Traditional Use Study and Archaeological Survey) consisted of field research based upon assessments of archaeological potential, planning priorities, and those sites documented during the Phase I research. Due to logistical difficulties this field work was not carried out until the summer of 1993. The final report on the results of these activities was submitted in February of 1994. Other components of this phase involved the collection of oral histories from native elders in order to identify significant traditional use and sacred sites within the study area; and the collection of data relating to the major themes of intangible heritage. A summary of the latter research may be found in Appendix 3, Volume 3).

The final third phase (Volume 3: Conservation andManagement Guidelines) developed planning and management guidelines for each of the major heritage categories, as well as recommend the development of an overall management strategy for heritage resources. A draft Phase 3 report was submitted for review to the Cultural Advisory Committee in April of 1993. The final report was completed in February of 1994.

This document constitutes the final Phase I report. The activities conducted during this phase include: 1) the review of the existing archaeological site locational data, 2) the construction of an archaeological site potential model, 3) the preparation of a historic overview ofthe settlement of the study region, 4) the review of existing databases of architectural/structural resources 5) the identification of culturallhistoricallandscape units, 6) the identification of the inundated underwater archaeological record, 7) the identification of sources of intangible heritage, 8) the preliminary review ofexisting cultural facilities, and 9) the preparatory establishment ofcommunications with the relevant First Nations, local heritage authorities and the general public.

The remainder of this document is structured to present the final results of the Phase I research. Chapter 1 details the landbased archaeological record and regional environmental data relevant to the creation of an archaeological site potential model Similarly, Chapter 2 discusses the existing marine archaeological record, and its implications for the study area. Chapter 3 provides a thematic overview of the history of settlement in Muskoka. Chapter 4 provides a general discussion of the archaeology of Euro-Canadian settlement in the region. Chapter 5 presents a discussion of the concept of intangible heritage, as well as the potential sources and nature of this type of resource in the study area.

All chronological placements of cultural periods and environmental events discussed in the report have been made with respect to the following temporal referents: B.c.- "before Christ"; AD.- anna Domini (in the year of our Lord); and B.P.- years before present (1950).

Archaeological Services Inc. Page 4 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

(

(

Archaeological Services Inc. 1 LANDBASED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN MUSKOKA by RL MacDonald, DA. Robertson & M.S. Cooper

1.1 CULTURE mSTORY OF THE STUDY AREA AND VICINI1Y

Prior to discussing the archaeological research which has been conducted in the study area and its vicinity, it would be useful to outline the major temporal and cultural periods of the prehistory and early history of northcentral Ontario. The study area represents a transition zone between two cultural and ecological areas. It will therefore be necessary to review the culture history of both northeastern Ontario and southern Ontario.

1.1.1 PALEO-INDIAN PERIOD (c. 11,000-8,000 B.P.)

In regions south of the Great Lakes, Early Paleo-Indian groups were present between 11,000 and 10,000 B.P. Late Paleo-Indian settlement may have occurred in the Muskoka District immediately following the lowering of the Lake Algonquin water levels. This initial settlement took place when the climate and vegetation of the area was comparable to that of the modem sub-arctic. Recent radiocarbon dates received from the Sheguiandah site (BlID-2) indicate that the eastern portion of Manitoulin Island was occupied by Paleo-Indian peoples by approximately 9,500 B.P. (AS~ 1992).

Evidence concerning these people is very limited since populations were not large and since little of the sparse material culture of these nomadic hunters has survived the millennia Virtually all that remains are the tools and by-products of their sophisticated chipped stone tool industry. Characteristic Paleo-Indian tool types from surrounding areas include fluted points, large lanceolate projectile points, bifacialleaf-shaped and semi-lunate knives, and a variety of unifacial scrapers and gravers. During this period, there was a marked preference for lithic raw materials derived directly from bedrock outcrops, over secondary sources such as glacial tilL Paleo-Indian populations in the Muskoka District may have obtained quartzite toolstone from one of several sources located along the La Cloche range. The Sheguiandah site on Manitoulin Island and the Killarney site in the Killarney area represent two important quarry sites that have been associated with the late Paleo­ Indian period. An important chert source during this period was the Fossil Hill quarry situated in the Collingwood area

Given the tundra- or taiga-like environment which prevailed during this period, and the locations of their hunting camps, it has generally been postulated that the Paleo-Indian subsistence economy focused on the hunting of large Pleistocene mammals such as mastodon, moose, elk and especially canbou. Of particular interest in this regard is the frequent location of the larger Paleo-Indian sites adjacent to the strandlines of large pro- and post-glacial lakes. This settlement pattern has been attnbuted to the strategic placement of camps, representing larger population aggregates, in order to intercept migrating caribou herds. This traditional view of Paleo-Indian subsistence practices is currently being modified, as it is becoming more apparent that smaller game and fish were also important dietary contributors (McNett 1985; Storck 1988).

Whether the Paleo-Indians were dependent on the constantly moving herds or on less communal species, these subsistence strategies would have necessitated thatsocial groups remain relatively small and egalitarian. These highly mobile bands probably moved in seasonal patterns throughout very large territories. Page 6 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipalitv ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

To date no Paleo-Indian components have been identified within the study area. However, there is significant potential for sites of this time period, given the occurrence ofsites in adjoining areas and the mobility of groups. The Lake Algonquin strandline, that appears to be an important focus of Paleo-Indian settlement in the Lake Simcoe lowlands, extends in a north-south direction through the Muskoka District, however, as discussed in Section 1.6.1, it remains poorly defined.

1.1.2 ARCHAIC PERIOD (c. 8,000 - 3,000 B.P.)

Very few confirmed Early or Middle Archaic sites have been recorded in the Canadian Shield However, in the area to the south there are numerous finds of projectile points which are diagnostic of this period. While Early Archaic sites (c. 8,000-7,000 B.P.) have not been identified in the Muskoka District, several Middle Archaic components (c. 7,000-4,5(0) have been identified from the district and adjoining areas. Itwas during this period that present day plant and animal communities were becoming established.

By the Late Archaic period (c. 4,500-3,000 B.P.), however, almost every lake and river system in northcentral and northeastern Ontario had been occupied or travelled across.

The Late Archaic artifact assemblage and subsistence and settlement patterns were relatively uniform for a long period of time over a large area. Sites normally occur as small, thin scatters of flakes, and occasionally, include a hearth feature. Given the length oftime encompassed by this cultural period, and the typically small size and short term occupation of its sites, many of the ephemeral lithic ( scatters in the study area which lack diagnostic artifacts (for example, the quartzite lithic scatters in the vicinity of Regional Road Five and Highway 69) may well date to Archaic times.

During the Archaic period, people developed an adaptation to the environment that involved the use ofmany diverse animal and plant resources. Exploitation ofthese resources required being in specific places at certain times of the year (fish spawning areas, moose yards, berry patches, beaver ponds). This resulted in a set pattern of repetitive seasonal movement through a territory. FIShing became a more important part of the subsistence base, and the use of canoes probably developed in this period. The appearance of small projectile points indicates the introduction of the bow and arrow for hunting smaller game species. The annual subsistence cycle probably involved interior fall and winter microband hunting camps which were situated to exploit nuts and animals attracted to mast­ producing deciduous forests, and larger spring and summer macroband settlementswhichwere located near river mouths and lakeshores in order to exploit rich aquatic resources.

Archaic artifact assemblages are characterized by the presence ofbiface and uniface blades, stemmed and side-notched projectile points, large and variable slate and greywacke choppers, a relatively high proportion of a variety of scrapers, knives, stone axes, as well as groundstone gouges and tetrahedral adzes. Large axes, socketed spear points, pendants and chisels cold-hammered from copper obtained from Lake Superior sources are also frequently reported on Archaic sites.

In the Muskoka District Middle and Late Archaic components have been identified at the Buck Lake 2 site (BiGu-2). Additionally, many of the twelve documented undiagnostic lithic scatters probably relate to the Archaic period

Archaeological Services Inc. Landbased Archaeological Research Page 7

1.13 EARLY WOODLA!'ID (c. 3000-1500 RP.)

The Early Woodland period is poorly represented in the Shield area and until recently was subsumed in Ontario under a catchall referred to as Initial Woodland (Wright 1972). However, it appears that artifacts related to the Meadowood Phase of the lower Great Lakes do appear in the Shield area (Spence et al. 1990).

The Early Woodland period differed little from the previous Late Archaic period with respect to settlement-subsistence pursuits. On the other hand, the period is marked by the introduction of ceramics into Ontario and can be characterised as a time of increasing social or community identity. In southern Ontario, this latter attnbute is especially evident in changes to, and elaboration of, mortuary ceremonialism.

Early Woodland cemeteries contain evidence of ritual behaviour such as the application of large quantities of symbolically important red ochre to human remains. In addition, they often contain grave offerings of art indicative of prevailing social and spiritual perspectives. Much of this art is fabricated from exotic raw materials such as native copper from the western end of Lake Superior, and as in the case of certain ground slate figurines, it displays a considerable investment of time and artistic skill. Moreover, the nature and variety of these exotic grave goods suggests that members of the communityoutside ofthe immediate family ofthe deceased were contnbuting mortuary offerings. Thus, social integration during the Early Woodland period appears to have increased and expanded relative to earlier times.

In the Muskoka District, Early Woodland occupation is represented. by a single Meadowood component at the Camp Kitchi site (BfGx-13). In Algonquin Park an Early Woodland site, BkGT-1 (Rosebary Lake), contained Meadowood projectile points and a slate gorget (Hurley and Kenyon 1970:115).

1.1.4 MIDDLE WOODLAND (c. 1,500 - 1,000 B.P.)

The Middle Woodland period is manifested across the southern Canadian Shield and in northern Minnesota by the Laurel artifact assemblages and sites. These sites extend from Quebec to Minnesota and, with regionalvariations, exhibit similar artifact inventories, subsistence, andsettlement patterns. Similarly, in southcentral Ontario, sites ofthis time period are classified as Point Peninsula, which occurs throughout the lower Great Lakes and St, Lawrence River areas. On the basis of research in Algonquin Park:, Hurley and Kenyon (1970) have descnbed the regional Middle Woodland components as being similar to the Point Peninsula assemblage. While the majority ofthe sites, have been documented some distance east on the Petawawa River, Middle Woodland materials have been recovered from and adjacent to the study area Three components have been identified within the district including a site which produced rocker stamped ceramics located just north of the Severn River near Georgian Bay.

Remains from Laurel sites show a strong riverine and lake adaptation. The subsistence strategies during this period involved, like the Archaic period, a wide range of faunal and floral resources. Seasonal gatherings of people for subsistence and social purposes began to occur during this period, resulting in the appearance oflarge settlements at prime fishing locations. A Middlesex burial mound

Archaeological Services Inc. Page 8 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

occurs in the Killarney area northeast of Georgian Bay, and later Laurel mounds are known from the Rainey River area of northwestern Ontario, indicating a strongly developed mortuary practice influenced by the Hopewell groups ofthe Ohio valley. In general, the grave offerings associated with these burial monuments continue to place an emphasis on the exotic origin ofraw materials'and the high quality of finished goods, suggesting that social changes- first evidenced in the preceding Early Woodland period- continued to develop and be expanded upon.

In northern Ontario, this period saw the addition of pottery and net sinkers to the artifact assemblage. The Laurel artifact assemblage is also characterized by distinctive side notched projectile points, small blade knives, great numbers of scrapers, some bone harpoons, and some use of native copper. Laurel pottery is finely made, thin ware with numerous rows ofa variety ofstamped patterns decorating the shoulders, necks, and/or collars of the conically shaped vessels.

1.1.5 LATE WOODLAND PERIOD (c. 1,000 B.P.- contact)

This is the period prior to the arrival of Europeans and their trade goods. Before the European arrival, however, extensive exchange systems had already developed between the Odawa, Ojibwa and Cree of northcentral and northeastern Ontario and the Huron and other Iroquoian groups to the south. The Odawa, in particular appear to have played an important role in this trade through dominating traffic in goods on the upper Great Lakes.

Sites from this period appear to be more numerous than the previous periods, and the pattern of large seasonal settlements appears to have remained well established from the Middle Woodland period. Towards the close of the period, however, some of these sites may have grown in scale and density to resemble the large villages of the Huron who were situated a short distance to the south in Simcoe County. Indeed, it is probable that Iroquoian speaking peoples established sizable communities in the study area. These people were horticulturalists and the southern fringe of Muskoka, in the area of Beausoleil Island and Sparrow Lake contains suitable soils for horticulture.

One site, dating to the Late Woodland period, has been documented within the study area. The Severn Bridge site (BeGw-21) has components containing Early, Middle and Late Iroquoian ceramics. This site probably represents a fishing camp used either by Iroquoians orAlgonkian speaking peoples who had obtained Iroquoian vessels or learned ceramic techniques. A second, unregistered site, is descnbed as producing Huron pottery (Historical Planning and Research Branch, Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation 1981: 331). Numerous other similar Late Woodland sites have been documented in adjacent areas including Algonquin Park and Renfrew County. The possible implications of such finds of Huron ceramics on sites in the Shield and southern Shield regions are more fully discussed in Chapter 2 below.

No sites within Muskoka have yet produced the characteristic Black Duck or Selkirk ceramics of northern Ontario, however, given the present evidence for existence of well developed interaction networks operating throughout Ontario at this time, such finds should occasion no surprise.

Blackduck ceramics are generally characterized by a variety of cord wrapped object impressions over the whole pot, while Selkirk decorations consist of fabric impressions on the body of the vessel and

Archaeological Services Inc. LandbasedArchaeological Research Page 9

a variety of decorations between the shoulder and the lip, consisting of cord-wrapped object impressions, incised impressions, punctates and bosses. Iroquoian influences upon these ceramic traditions are apparent in traits such as castellations and distinctive decorative motifs on the vessel rims.

In addition to sophisticated ceramics, the Late Woodland artifact assemblage is characterized by small triangular and side-notched projectile points, use of relatively unmodified greywacke flake or spall tools, flat slate knives, and, towards the end of the period, clay smoking pipes.

The end of the Late Woodland period in the District of Muskoka is marked by the appearance of European Trade goods c. AD. 1620. In the fur trade which was to subsequently develop, the Ojibwa continued to play an important intermediary role, although this became increasingly difficult due to the disruption caused by the dispersal of the Ontario Iroquoian groups by the Five nation Iroquois from New York State and increasing conflict with central Algonkian "Fire Nation" of the southern Lake Huron Basin.

To date no seventeenth century sites have been identified in the Muskoka District, although the iron trade axe from the Campbell site (BfGx-12) could date to this period. Considering the intensive occupation of Huronia, it is to be expected that more evidence of the early contact period will be forthcoming from Muskoka.

1.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE STUDY AREA PRIOR TO THE MASTERPlAN

In order that an inventory of archaeological resources could be compiled for the study area, three sources of information were consulted: the site record forms for registered sites, housed at the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation; published and unpublished documentary sources; and the files of Archaeological Services Inc.

In Canada, information concerning archaeological sites is stored in the Canadian Heritage Information Network (CHIN), a database maintained by the National Museum of Civilization. In Ontario, the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation maintains the Borden numbers for the province. The Borden system was first proposed by Dr. Charles E. Borden, and is based on a block oflatitude and longitude. A Borden block is approximately 13 kilometres east-west by 18.5 kilometres north-south. Sites within each block are numbered as they are found.

Archaeological survey in the District Municipality of Muskoka has, in the past, been largely of a sporadic and unsystematic nature. Unlike many areas, such as Simcoe County or areas further south, Muskoka does not have a long tradition of research carried out by avocational or professional archaeologists. Several intensive survey projects which have been conducted within the study area, such as the Heritage Studies on the Rideau-Quinte-Treni-Sevem Waterway (Historical Planning and Research Branch, Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation 1981), have identified a number of sites, but for the most part, archaeological finds have come to light primarily as a result of chance or, less frequently, during the course of predevelopment assessments which are relatively narrowly focused in their coverage.

Archaeological Services Inc. Page 10 MasterPlan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

This situation leads to certain obstacles in to assembling an inventory of sites for the study area. In the first place, private artifact collections are seldom reported and cannot, in the absence of detailed inspection, be usefullyincorporated into existingculture-historical or interpretive frameworks. Phase 2 of the project, however, will allow an opportunity for many of these collections to be documented and added to the existing database. Data derived from formal archaeological assessments, on the other hand- such as the significant nineteenthcentury Ojibwaycemetery and settlement site complex on BigwinIsland in Lake of Bays (peter Goering, Lake ofBays Heritage Foundation, pers, comm..)­ is generally treated as confidential until such a time as it is put on file with the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. Given that there is usually a considerable time lag between the discovery of a site, and its formal registration, information of this type remains, in the short term, largely inaccessible. Thus, it must be recognized that the inventory ofsites presented below cannot provide a complete account of all archaeological data recovered within the study area. Despite these limitations, however, the fact remains that the existing inventory is adequate as a representative sample of the total constellation of known sites in Muskoka.

Prior to the onsetof the master plan, 29 archaeological sites had been documented within the study area. Twenty-two of these sites were formally registered with the Ontario Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, and assigned site specific designations within the Ministry's archaeological site database. Descriptions ofthese sites, based on MCIR records, published accounts, or discussions with the main researchers are presented below, as is a summary table (Table 1).

Severn Bridge (BeGw-21)

Located on the north shore at the mouth of the Severn River, this large multi-component site was discovered in 1981 through the work of the Ministry of Transportation. Initial work at the site revealed Early, Middle and Late Iroquoian occupations as well as an Early Historic log cabin. Excavations at the site are scheduled for the Summer of 1992 (paul Lennox, MTO, pers. comm.).

The presence of four additional lithic scatters, consisting of non-diagnostic quartzite debitage, has been noted less than 50 metres north of the main site.

Slightlyfurther north, at Muskoka Road 5, a Middle Woodland site, dated by the presence ofrocker stamp ceramics, has also been documented. The final report on the investigation of the site is currently being prepared by Mr. Peter Timmins of MTO (P. Lennox pers. comm..).

MacNeice (BfGt-l)

Located to the south of Reay Lake, on a small knoll to the north of an intermittent stream on Lot 3 Concession 5, Muskoka Township, this lithic scatter measures approximately 20 metres in diameter. Mr. Brian Ross of the Canadian Parks Service, upon examining the collection of the landowner, Mr. Tom MacNeice, concluded that the scatter represents an Archaic campsite.

Archaeological Services Inc. Landbased Archaeologifal Research Page 11

Site BgGx-S

In 1973, Mr. Bruce Emerson reported the presence of a submerged site (BgGx-5) on the south side of Moon River on Lot 36, Concession 9 in Freeman Township. One lithic artifact was collected: a retouched quartz side scraper which has been slightly waterworn. No site type, temporal or.cultural affiliation has been determined for the site.

Moon River Bridge (BgGw-I)

Further upriver, above the Seven Sisters Rapids, Dr. John Pollock, of Settlement Surveys Ltd., documented the Moon River Bridge site (BgGw-1). Located within 150 metres of Highway 69 on the south shore ofthe river, the site consists ofthe remains ofan early bridge with a number ofrock­ filled log abutment supports.

Macey (BfGw-I)

Dr. J.V. Wright ofthe Archaeological Survey ofCanada reported a findspot ofundetermined cultural affiliation in a gravel quarryin Baxter Township. The find was made inland from Macey Bay roughly 200 metres north of the drainage outlet from Barron's Lake.

Grise (BfGw-2)

Wright also documented a campsite, presumably represented by a scatter of non-diagnostic lithic artifacts, on the eastern outskirts of Honey Harbour. The site is located on Lot 36 Concession 2 of Baxter Township on the property of the Delawana Inn.

Baxter Lake Stone (BfGw-3)

The Baxter Lake Stone site is a stone cairn (petroform) located on the south shore of Baxter Lake, roughly 500 metres west of the outlet from little Go Home Bay. Pollock reports that the structure is situated 10 metres from the water's edge, measuring 80 centimetres in height and one metre in diameter with a 10 centimetre diameter opening in the top. Investigation of the surrounding area failed to produce any diagnostic artifacts, but the site is presumed to be Historic Native in date.

McDonald River Stone Circle (BfGw-4)

Pollock has documented a second petroform on the northeastern shore ofMcDonald Lake, 50 metres from the shoreline and roughly 100 metres below the inlet from Crooked Bay at the northern end of Six Mile Lake. The site consists of a 3.2 metre ovoid stone circle surrounding a small cairn. No artifacts were recovered from the vicinity. Pollock suggests that the circle may represent a structure associated with Algonkian vision ceremonies.

Archaeological Services Inc. Page 12 Master Pion ofHeritage Resources for the District Munidpality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Gibson River (BfGw-S)

In Baxter Township, Pollock has also reported the presence of a small lithic scatter on a bedrock outcrop on the north shore of a wide bend in the GIbson River, roughly 200 metres west ofHighway 69. Thirty-four quartzite flakes and two quartzite core remnants were recovered. The temporal and cultural affiliations of the site are unknown.

Campbell (BfGx-12)

In 1958, an isolated find of a "metal hatchet head" was collected from an unspecified location on Beausoleil Island by Mr. G.P. Campbell. Iron trade axes date from as early as the seventeenth century, however, as this specimen appears to be smaller in size, it is more likely dates to the eighteenth or nineteenth century.

Camp Kitchi (BfGx-13)

The Camp Kitchi site is a large multi-component site located on the grounds of Camp Kitchikewana in Georgian Bay Park on Beausoleil Island. Limited test excavations have been carried out at the site by Mr. Brian Ross of the Canadian Parks Service. The site is situated on a sandy post-glacial Lake Algoma beach ridge which forms a high bank at the base of Chapel Point, overlooking Beausoleil Bay.

Over 2,500 artifacts have been recovered from the site which has been intermittently occupied since c. 1,000 B.C. These largely date to the Meadowood, Point Peninsula and Historic Ojibway periods.

Tonch Homestead (BfGx-14)

In 1970, J. Swamack reported the presence of structural remains near a marsh on the southeast side ofTonch Point, on Beausoleil Island. The site was recently examined by Mr.Brian Ross, who reports that while the buildings are no longer extant, their locations remain visible as structural depressions. Scattered debris, the remains of a garden and dock, indicate a relatively recent date for the occupation.

Cedar Springs Protestant Cemetery/Cemetery of the Oak (BfGx-1S)

On a sandy beach post glacial Algoma beach ridge, overlooking Papoose Bay on Beausoleil Island, a small historic cemeterywas investigated by Mr.Brian Ross, who recorded theexisting grave markers and used remote sensing techniques to locate the possible locations of additional graves. The cemetery, measuring approximately 34 by 25 metres in size is enclosed by a wooden fence. Currently, eighty grave markers survive, although there are possibly as many as 39 additional unmarked graves in the burial ground.

Archaeological Services Inc. Landbased Archaeological Research Page 13

The cemetery is located near a historic Ojibway village (BfGx-16) with which it is likely related.

Cedar Springs Native Village/Pamedenagog Ojibwa Village (BfGx-l6)

First documented in 1985by Mr. Gary Foster, formerly of the Canadian Parks Service, this nineteenth century Ojibwaysite was recently re-investigated by Brian Ross. Located on the same Algoma beach ridge as BfGx-15, the site consists of 25 artifact concentrations, occurring either in association with house mounds or as discrete scatters. Ross suggests that a Woodland component may also be present at the site.

The village may be associated with a nearby relict road or trail system which is known in the area

Beausoleil Island Site 13H

Numerous artifact scatters have been documented along the recreational trail network in Georgian Bay Islands National Park on Beausoleil. These have collectivelybeen designated as Site 13H within the Park Service's database, although two of the sites have also been assigned Borden numbers.

Huron Trail 1 (13H14X1BfGx-17) was originally recorded by Mr. Gary Foster on the crest of a post glacial Algoma beach ridge overlooking Treasure Bay. A possible chert tool fragment, utilized flakes and debitage as well as ceramic sherds occur as a 25-30 metre long scatter along the exposed surface of the trail. A second, smaller scatter of slate flakes (13H14Y) was located nearby. The finds from Huron Trail 1 are probably associated with Middle Woodland (point Peninsula) activity.

A second scatter of non-diagnostic lithic flakes, designated Huron Trail 2 (BfGx-18)/13H18, was recorded roughly 450 metres southwest of Huron Trail 1. In the immediate area, a chimney mound designated Huron Trail 2 (Catholic Church)/13H10 was also documented.

Several other cultural features have been documented along the trails including: the "Chimneys Area"/13H11, a cluster of structural depressions and chimney foundations; Huron Trail 3 ("Burial Mound")/13H3; Treasure Pits Area/13H2; and Treasure Trail 1/13H19.

Little Dog Campground (BfGx-19)

At the western mouth of Little Dog Channel, on the sandy north shore between two large bedrock outcrops, Brian Ross recorded the presence of three small artifact scatters. Historic ceramics were recorded closest to the shoreline (13HlbAl), while a possible quartz flake (13HlbA2», and a chert core associated with burnt faunal remains (13HlbA3) were recorded further inland. The site may have been used historically as a picnic spot, and may also have seen use as a temporary prehistoric or historic native campsite.

Archaeological Services Inc. Page 14 Master PlanofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Camp Kitchi Cemetery (BfGx-20)

In 1990 Mr. Mike Elrick reported the presence of an unregistered cemetery on Beausoleil Island to the Canadian Parks Service. Subsequent investigation revealed the presence of a single cement grave marker, and a further 17 possible grave depressions. Additional human bone was found eroding out of the ground on a nearby pedestrian trail. This material was reinterred in the cemetery. The burial ground probably dates to the mid-nineteenth century, being related to the Catholic Ojibway Village at Camp Kitchi (BfGx-l3).

Old Superintendent's Dump (BfGx-21)

A small dump, dating to the 19208 and 19308 was documented near the park headquarters on Beausoleil Island. A representative sample collected by Brian Ross consists of bottles, glassware, ceramics, tin cans and an enamel basin.

BfGx-22

No information regarding this recently discovered site, also on Beausoleil Island, has yet been submitted to the Ministry of Culture and Communication.

Whitehead (BgGv-l)

A unifacial quartz blade/scraper and a single quartz flake were collected from this site, located approximately 05 kilometres north ofBala (Lots 679 and 680 Bala Town Plan) by Mr. Laurie Jackson in 1975. Subsequent test excavations at the site failed to produce any additional material or evidence of occupational features.

Buck Lake 1 and 2 (BiGu-l and BiGu-2)

Dr. David Stothers, as a PhD student at Case Western Reserve University, documented two small lithic scatters on the south shore of Buck Lake at the mouth of the Buck River, near the village of Dfracombe.

Buck Lake 1, located to the south of the river was surface collected and excavated, yet its cultural and temporal associations remain undetermined.

Buck Lake 2, on the north side of the river produced material diagnostic of the Middle and Late Archaic periods.

In addition to these formally registered sites, a further seven sites were documented in the study region during the course of study along the Rideau-Ouinte-Trent-Sevem Waterway (Historical (

Archaeological Services Inc. Landbased Archaeological Research Page 15

Planning and Research Branch, Ontario Ministry ofCulture and Recreation 1981). Conducted during the summer of 1977, this project was the most systematic programme of field research to have been undertaken to date. Attention was focused upon both shores of the Severn in an effort to identify as many high potential locales as possible. The criteria used to define potential included sandy deposits, lake and stream inlets and outlets, points of land with soil accumulation and relatively flat topography, possible portages or stopover points, islands, narrows and rapids (p.Carruthers pers. comm.).

The presence ofnumerous sites along the shores ofLittle Lake and Gloucester Pool, near the mouth of the Severn (Figure 2), attest that this waterway played as important a role in the prehistoric occupation of the area as it did during the historic period. Similarly, a possible series of multi­ component sites on the north shore of Sparrow Lake indicates that this area was virtually continuously occupied from the Archaic to the Historic period.

Hendricks and Sweets Portage 1 and 2

The Hendricks site on the western shore of Little Lake and the Sweets Portage 1 and 2 sites on the peninsula between Little Lake and the Lower Gloucester Pool are poorly recorded. No indication of their physical attnbutes, type or cultural and temporal affiliations are available.

Archaeological Services Inc. Page16 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality o(Muskoko. and the Wahta Mohawks (

-f """b i

~ .... G .... ~~ I a: J;; J '0 w I) > 'Os., G 0. a. a: o G 0'" ~ r- Z G • 0- a: "'l: , w "0 > ~ w ....- (J) J ( ~

Figure 2 Surveyed areas and documented sites on the SeVElIIl River (Source: OMCR 1981).

Archaeological Services Inc. Landbased Archaeological Research Page 17

TABLE 1 SUMMARY DATA: DOCUMENTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN MUSKOKA

BORDEN SITE NAME CULTURAL lBolPORAL N.T.SMAP AFFlUAnON AFFIUAnON REF:

1leGw;!1 _Bridge ~ Lale Woodland 310/13 HlsloneNarMte< E.at1y- 012613 Euro-Canadian 310/14 BfGI..t MacNeoce Unknown = 8gG><·5 unnamed Unknown -Unknown 31E14 834952

BgGw.., Moon RNe< Bridge E~ HisloriC 31E14 llS2905

BfGw..l Macey Unknown Unknown 310/14 973656

BIGw..2 Gnse Unknown ~ 310/13 9:39686

BlGwoJ 8aXI« Lake Slone Hisloric (?) AIgonl

BfGw-4 McOonaId River Slone _one (?) AJgonldan ~ 310/13 9OrTS7

BfGw..5 Gi<>son River UnIcmwn Unknown 31013 9638'5

!llGx.12 eatnpbeJl Unknown HistoriC 310/13 no kX:a%M

!llGx..13 Camp Kiletli Meadowood E.at1yWoodIand 310/13 Pcinl Peninsula Middle Woodland 904695 Ojibway Hisloric

~,,'4 Toncn Homestead Unknown Recenl HisZoric 310/13 906687

!llGx·15 CodatSpmgs Ojibway HisloriC 3'0/13 C

!llGx ..16 ceee- Spmgs Village Ojibway Historic 3101/13 897662 .- Be....-. ISland 13H Pcinl Peninsula Middle WOOdland 310/13 EUlOoCanadian Hisloric 900695

!llGx..,9 l.lllle Dog Campground Unknown Unknown 3'0/13 HisZoric Native or _one & 9'4708 --_. Eut<>-CanaCan Unknown HislOtic !llGx·20 Camp Kiletli C

!llGx..21 Old Supennoent..... E~ Hislone(2Clh C) 310/13 Dump 896665 !llGx··22 NClCavaiiable NCIC_ Neeavailable NCIC

BgGY.., wnitenead Unknown Unknown 31E14 PrehIsloric -085863 BiGu·' Bud< Lake 1 Unknown Unknown 31E16 PrehIsloric 266293

IliGu-2 Suck Lake 2 UnIcmwn Middle & Late 31E16 Archaic 266295 - Unkmwn Unknown 310/13 - 009659 S-. Portage 1 & 2 Unknown Unknown 310/13 - 0256S3

_. Suntise Point Unknown Middle WOOdland 310/13 039659 - Buena V.... Huron l.aleWoedIand 310/13 019578

O"'e< Unkmwn mullicomponenl Unknown 310/13 - 268843 - Donnelly , MUIllc:oml>Onent l.aleP~ndian 310/14 l.ale_ 264657 Middle Woodland lAZeWOOdland - Donnelly 2 Eur<>Canadian _one (19lll C) 310/14 263657

rva 8igwonISland Ojibway HistoriC (19lll C) available"'"

"NT,S, map reference numoer and U T,M, Gridreterence

Archaeological Services Inc. Page 18 Master PlanofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality ofMuskoka and the Wahza Mohawks

Sunrise Point

Limited testexcavations onthe west side ofBurrows Island, offthe western shore ofGloucester Pool, produced a number of archaeological finds including a unifacial chert scraper, a bifacially worked chert fragment- possibly from a projectile point, and a possible crudely worked quartz scraper. A Middle Woodland date has been suggested for the site, but this should not be regarded as definitive (P, Carruthers pers. comm.).

Buena Vista

Adjacent to a ridge on high ground on Buena Vista Point, overlooking Gloucester Pool, a small scatter of ceramics and bone was documented. The ceramics may represent a single Lalonde High Collar vessel of the early Late Woodland period (P, Carruthers pers. comm.). It is interesting to note that a similar find of a single, apparently isolated, ceramic vessel was made from an area along Highway 103 between Honey Harbour and Port Severn. This vessel is currently housed in the Huronia Museum in Midland (J. Hunter pers. comm).

Donnelly 1

The Donnelly 1 site was recorded on the basis of a large artifact collection assembled early in the twentieth century by Mr. Hugo Stein, an early resident of the Sparrow Lake area. While the site is ( currently mapped as being located on Ellis Point, south ofMcLean Bay on Sparrow Lake, the exact provenience of the material remains open to question. As the Stein family initially settled on Grandview Point, the artifacts may, in fact, have been collected from the Darker site. Test excavations at this latter site (located in Simcoe County) indicate that it is a muli-component occupation, evidenced by the presence of considerable quantities of chert, quartzite and faunal remains (P, Carruthers pers. comm.).

The Donnelly collection includes material dating from 9,000 RP up to the eighteenth AD., indicating repeated use throughout human occupation of the area. The collection consists of a Late Paleo­ Indian chert projectile point; a sizeable Late Archaic assemblage comprised of one chert and one groundstone projectile point, a cold-hammered copper lance head, a groundstone gouge, several celts or axes and a possible plummet. The Middle Woodland component is represented by six chert projectile points, an asymmetric chert blade or point, and a pair of groundstone axes. Later material includes several Late Woodland or Iroquoian groundstone axes. An iron trade axe typical of those common during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was also present in the collection (P. Carruthers pers. comm.).

The Donnelly collection is clearly ofconsiderable importance, but its interpretation is severely limited in the absence of precise knowledge of its provenience. The collection is currently held by the Donnelly family.

,

Archaeological Services Inc. LandbasedArchaeological Research Page19

Donnelly 2

A shoreline granite outcrop at the tip of Ellis Point, bears an inscription, just above the waterline, reading:

L Lawrence E.[F?] A Robinson 188[?]

1.3 MODEI,I,ING ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE POTENTIAL

13.1 IN1RODUCTION

Prehistoric archaeological sites in the District Municipality of Muskoka, probably numbering in the thousands, represent an important heritage resource for which virtually no inventories or locational data exist. While access to such distnbutional information is imperative to land-use planners and heritage resource managers, the undertaking ofa comprehensive archaeological survey ofthe District in order to compile this information is clearly not feasible. As an alternative, therefore, planners and managers must depend on a model which predicts how sites are likely to be distnbuted throughout the region. The model can take many forms depending on such factors as its desired function, the nature and availability of data used in its development, the geographic scope of the project, and the financial resources available. Ideally these constraints are balanced in order to produce a model of maximum validity and utility.

In the following sections, a model ofprehistoric site potential is developed for the Muskoka District. It begins with a brief review of the method and theory associated with site potential modelling. Selected modelling exercises, previously ci>nducted in Ontario, are then reviewed with a view to selecting an approach suitable to Muskoka. A deductive strategy is selected which employs a descriptive reconstruction of prehistoric landscapes in Muskoka together with a reconstruction of prehistoric land-use patterns derived from archaeological and ethnographic analogues. This information is brought together in the definition of a list of criteria which are used to define three zones of archaeological potential on National Topographic Series (N.T.S.) 1:50,000 base maps. The final section outlines the need for field testing ofthe model and presents a series ofrecommendations for application of the model in a planning context.

132 BACKGROUND AND THEORy1

Archaeological site potential modelling can trace its origins to a variety of sources, including human geography, settlement archaeology, ecological archaeology, and paleoecology. The basic assumption is that prehistoric land use was constrained by ecological and socio-cultural parameters. If these

1 Much ofthis theoretical discussion has been derived from AS.L (1990) and Pihl and MacDonald (1991). ,

Archaeological Services Inc. Page 20 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the DistrictMunicipality otMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks parameters can be discovered, through archaeology and paleoecology, prehistoric land-use patterns can be reconstructed.

Two basic approaches to predictive modelling can be descnbed. The first is an empirical or inductive approach, sometimes referred to as correlative (Sebastian and Judge 1988) or empiric correlative modelling (Kohler and Parker 1986). This method employs known site locations, derived from either extant inventories or through sample surveys, as a guide for predicting additional site locations. The second is a theoretical or deductive approach which predicts site locations on the basis of expected behavioural patterns as identified from suitable ethnographic, historical, geographical, ecological, and archaeological analogues. While data requirements or availability tend to influence the particular orientation of the study, every modelling exercise will incorporate both inductive and deductive elements. Foremost is the need to employ any and all available data effectively and expeditiously.

It is important to note that, while planners and resource managers generally prefer to work with specific inventories ofresource locations, predictive models do not provide this degree of resolution. Instead they classify the environment into zones ofarchaeological potential. Three major factors limit the resolution ofour images of the past and hence our ability to predict prehistoric site locations with precision.

First, our knowledge of the structure of the socio-political environment in the past is limited by both the inadequacies of the existing archaeological database and the inherent difficulties in interpreting extinct socio-political systems. With respect to the database, the coverage of archaeological survey in Ontario remains spotty at best. Comprehensive survey, using officially sanctioned methods, has only recently been implemented in the context of various pre-development approval processes and archaeological master plans. Areas that have been the object of such comprehensive surveys are relatively few. Although coverage in some other areas may be adequate, through the cumulative efforts of both professional and avocational archaeologists over time, there is currently no quantification of this work that would permit analysis of the province-wide quality of coverage. It is known, however, that vast tracts, including the Muskoka District, have never been systematically surveyed.

Second, our knowledge of the prehistoric natural environment is limited by both the inadequacies of the existing paleoenvironmental database and the inherent difficulties in interpreting extinct ecosystems. Just as reconstruction of past social environments minimally requires a basic understanding of the structure of prehistoric social networks, so does reconstruction of past natural environments require some minimal direct evidence of the structure of extinct biotic communities. Although evidence from early historic land surveys, pollen cores, floral and faunal remains, and other sources is slowly accumulating, it remains difficult to carry paleoenvironmental reconstruction past a fairly general leveL As in archaeology, stochasticity, or randomness, imposes interpretive limits on the data since the dynamic character ofbiotic systems makes them increasingly difficult to reconstruct at larger scales. More importantly, it is clear that the distnbution of natural resources on the landscape merely constrained rather than strictly determined prehistoric land use.

Third, from a modern perspective it is probably not reasonable to assume that decisions made in prehistoric cultural contexts necessarily followed the same lines of economic logic that we might employ today. These people possessed a world view that was both structurally and substantively

Archaeological Services Inc. Landbased Archaeological Research Page 21

different than our own. Therefore, our own concepts ofrational behaviour may not completely apply to the prehistoric case. Moreover, there are certain classes of sites, for example rock art sites or burial grounds, that were situated primarily for ideological or aesthetic reasons and are therefore impossible to assess using economically based methods of spatial analysis.

In spite of these limitations, predictive modelling efforts to date have proven successful to the extent that they can permit site potential assessments at a level of probability that is useful in the context of heritage resource assessment and planning.

Scale and Resolution

The portrayal of land use patterns, in either a modem or prehistoric context, must also address the limitations imposed by mapping scales. Specifically, one must consider the requirements of accuracy and resolution of the intended analysis. In southern Ontario, archaeological sites typically range between about 10 and 250 metres in diameter, although most are probably around 25 metres. It is therefore possible to place known sites on existing 1:50,000 topographic base maps and in fact the Heritage Branch, M.C.C. site database is maintained in this format (although more detailed locational references are also compiled and available in machine-readable format).

In evaluating the utility of site mapping at this or any scale one must consider both the accuracy of the base map and the accuracy with which additional features can be added to it. For example, the accuracy ratings of Class A Standard 1:50,000 N.T.S. maps are as follows: horizontal - 90% ± 25 m; vertical 90% ± 0.5 of contour interval (Surveys and Mapping Branch 1976). In other words, a feature mapped at this scale has a 90% chance of being within 25 metres (0.5 m.m on the map) of its actual location on the ground. Displacement of archaeological sites, due to inaccuracies of the base map alone, could therefore range from 250% of the site diameter for the smallest sites to 10% for the largest. Additional displacement, stemming from difficulties in accurately relating the site to existing features on the map, can be expected to be equally, ifnot more, severe. Such distortion may be entirely acceptable in the context of evaluating broad categories of archaeological site potential. In contrast, it would clearly be unacceptable as the basis for locating the majority ofsites in the field (AS.l 1990).

In addition to accuracy, one must consider the implications of generalization that pertain to various scales. Since maps are abstractions of reality, and given the constraints of accuracy noted above, maps at different scales exhibit different degrees of resolution. In other words, a feature visible on a 1:2,000 map may be too small to represent at 1:50,000. Resolution standards are arbitrary and subject to cartographic licence, however published guidelines are available. For example, N.T.S. 1:50,000 series maps employ the following minimum dimensions for topographic features: islands ­ 15 m (width); eskers - 500 m (length); lakes - 60 m (width); marshes - 150 m (width) (Surveys and Mapping Branch 1974). The ramifications of generalization apply primarily to the utility ofvarious mapping scales as sources ofphysiographic data. For instance, at a scale of 1:50,000 one might have difficulty relating known sites to all parts of a drainage system since springs and smallest water courses might not be represented (AS.l 1990).

Archaeological Services Inc. Page 22 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Modelling Criteria

A useful analogy can be drawn between the criteria used to construct predictive models and the optical filters used in photography: each is used to clarify an image by screening out nonessential information. In predictive modelling, we seek to improve our image of past land-use patterns by focusing on places with a positive attractive value to humans and filtering out places with a neutral or negative value. Some filters are designed to admit a very narrow spectrum while others are less discriminating. Since the efficacy of each filter is in part determined by what is being viewed, none are truly all-purpose. The best image is often achieved by selectively combining several filters. Proper use, therefore, requires knowledge ofboth the characteristics of the filters and the proposed context of application.

In Ontario, most criteria for predicting prehistoric site potential modelling can be considered narrow­ spectrum filters. The best broad-spectrum filter to date, and by far the most methodologically developed, is the one implemented in the "Ontario Hydro Distance to Water Model," also known as simply "The Hydro Model" The success of this model can be attnbuted to its focus on a criterion that is arguably the most fundamental human resource: water. Regardless of a group's subsistence economy, whether based on hunting herds ofcaribou or growing corn, it willrequire access to water. The universality ofthe need for this resource makes its consideration a logical point-of-departure for most predictive modelling exercises (AS.L 1990).

Having considered proximity to water there are a variety of narrow-spectrum filters that can be considered. Selection of additional criteria willdepend on consideration ofthe context ofuse as well as a cost-benefit analysis oftheir application. While the concatenation ofvarious criteria willimprove the filtering effect, there will always be residual sites that cannot be isolated by modelling. The objective, therefore, is to implement a logical series of criteria until one reaches a threshold of diminishing returns that is determined by the needs of the particular study (AS.L 1990).

Reconstructing Paleoenvironment

Even before modelling criteria can be invoked, however, it must be recognized that the biotic landscape of southern Ontario has not been static during the span of human occupation. Since deglaciation, it has progressed through a sequence of stages in response to climatic warming. In addition to these broad paleoenvironmental trends, fluctuations in regional and local microenvironments have continued up to the present. Fluctuations in the water levels of the Great Lakes basins, for example, had profound effects upon early prehistoric settlement and subsistence patterns, alternately opening up and then covering vast land areas which, being at different stages of ecological development, would have been the locale of alternative sets of resources (cf. Storck 1984). Therefore, when implementing site potential modelling criteria, it is necessary to reconstruct the prehistoric environment at time intervals and degrees of resolution appropriate to the study requirements.

The geological history and structure of the landscape, particularly with respect to the distnbution of water, is perhaps the most fundamental aspect ofsite potential modelling since it not only influenced the distribution of sites in the past but also may have affected the survival or accessibility of those

Archaeological Services Inc. LandbasedArchaeological Research Page 23

sites in the present. Related to geology is the distnbution ofsoil types. Soil distnbution affected the distnbution of past floral communities and, in turn, faunal communities. Moreover, soils can be considered a resource which to some extent influenced the distnbution of groups that practised horticulture (pihl and MacDonald 1991).

Climate is another important determinant of the distnbution of biotic communities. Ideally archaeologists would like to be able to resolve climatic changes in the past within the range of a century or even a few decades. Although such relatively fine-grained climatic change may have had few recognizable effects in terms of vegetative distnbutions, it may have caused significant changes in floral, faunal, and agricultural productivity. At present, however, the resolution ofclimatic change lies more in the range of centuries. In southern Ontario, paleoclimatic reconstruction is further complicated by the influences of the Great Lakes, Modem climatic data for Ontario are published., although detailed mapping of microclimatic variability, a potentially useful source of analogues for paleoclimatic reconstruction, is very limited (pihl and MacDonald 1991).

The botanical features ofthe landscape are extremely difficult to retrodict in detail, while at the same time they may have most directly influenced settlement in the past. Various efforts have been directed at using early historical records, such as surveyors notes, to reconstruct the distnbution of botanical communities immediately prior to the onset of land clearance and logging by European settlers (e.g, Heidenreich 1971; 1973; MacDonald 1986; Janusas 1987). Modelling of forest composition and dynamics in earlier periods has also been undertaken, largely through the compilation of fossil pollen profiles (e.g. Marsters 1990; McAndrews 1981). Yet in most cases the spatial and temporal resolution of these reconstructions is either coarser or more geographically restricted than archaeologists would hope for (pihl and MacDonald 1991).

Zoological landscapes of the past may be the most difficult of all to reconstruct in detail given the constant flux of animal populations. Moreover, as Semken (1983:182) has noted., this difficulty is exacerbated by a general lack of interest in the Holocene among vertebrate paleontologists. Archaeologists have therefore depended on the reconstruction of prehistoric habitats and modem analogues from wildlife ecology to retradict the availability of faunal resources. Unfortunately this evidence remains circumstantial and zooarchaeologists have yet to supersede paleontologists with a paleoecological programme of their own. Ironically, archaeological sites offer one of the best paleofauna data sources, albeit in a culturally selected form (pihl and MacDonald 1991).

1.4 MODET,T.ING IN ONTARIO: A SELECTIVE REVIEW

Prehistoric land-use interpretation and modelling has traditionally been conductedon an intuitive and implicit level. This has been possible since it usually involved fairly localized contexts: a single site or a small constellation of regional sites. Only recently have attempts been made to make these intuitive concepts explicit and to design predictive models for broader geographic and temporal contexts. Although the work to date has been encouraging, the extant models must still be considered as prototypes requiring field assessment and on-going development. The following discussion examines this development process in the context of a review of several earlier predictive modelling studies with geographic settings similar to that of this study (i.e. the southern Canadian Shield).

Archaeological Services Inc. Page 24 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Munii:ipality ofMuskaka and the Wahta Mohawks

1.4.1 EASTERN ONTARIO

In 1981, James Pendergast produced a prehistoric aboriginal site potential model for Ontario Hydro for their Eastern Ontario Route Stage Study Area. Pendergast began his study by reviewing the extant literature on sites in the Northeast, organizing these by cultural period or group, and identifying locational trends within these classes. Trends so identified became the criteria for the subsequent modelling exercise. This involved three steps: (1) matching locational criteria to actual areas on 1:50,000 N.T.S. maps; (2) substantiating matches through detailed examination of aerial photographs, surface geology maps, and soils maps; and (3) plotting confirmed areas, colour-coded by cultural period/group, on 1:50,000N.T.S. base maps. Thesewere subsequently digitized by Ontario Hydro for inclusion in their project geographic information system (GIS).

Pendergast's approach can be seen as a fairly straightforward and logical attempt to formalize the largely intuitive process that archaeologists had been using to guide site surveys,and was a very useful first step in this process. However, no clear explanation of the methodology employed in defining zones of archaeological potential was provided, and there are risks associated with this approach. Because of the paucity of registered sites in Eastern Ontario, Pendergast was forced to rely on site locational analogues from elsewhere in the Northeast. This can result in the mapping of biases from other areas onto the predictive model being constructed, and in the selection ofcriteria inappropriate to the study area.

1.4.2 NORTHERN ONTARIO

In 1982, Settlement Surveys Ltd. developed a predictive model for Ontario Hydro to facilitate planning for several transmission projects across northern Ontario. The principal author of this model was John Pollock. Like Pendergast, Pollock adopted an approach which sought to formalize the intuitive procedures already used by archaeologists for site survey. This began with a distillation of site locational criteria drawn from many years of experience in boreal forest archaeology. These criteria were categorized into three mutually exclusive hierarchical classes and each was assigned a numerical value. By applying his scoring system to certain known sites, score ranges corresponding to archaeological site potential were suggested. For the modelling process itself, it was recommended that at a scale of 1:50,000, the 1000 metre square Universal Transverse Mercator (V.T.M.) Grid units could be used as analytical units. Smaller squares of 500 or 200 metres could be used at correspondingly larger analytical scales or if greater resolution was required. Each unit could thus be evaluated by scoring for the different variables, summing these to produce an aggregate score, then ranking this as low, medium, or high potential according to the score ranges noted above.

One of Pollock's major achievements was the consideration of different analytic and planning scales. The use of 1000metre U.T.M. Grid squares for initial constraint mapping ties in well with the coarse­ grained analyses typically required in the early stages of Ontario Hydro's planning process. The use of smaller grid squares in subsequent analytical stages would be a move in the right direction, although it can be argued that such artificial units become a liability in large-scale analyses. While Pollock's attempt to produce a more systematic approach to predictive modelling is laudable, certain fundamental problems remained in his methodology. For example, there does not appear to have

Archaeological Services Inc. Landbased Archaeological Research Page 25

been any systematic use made of the MCC site database. More importantly, no explicit rationale was provided for the selection and weighting of loeational criteria

1.43 lEMAGAMI DISTRICT

In 1990, Archaeological Services Inc. was commissioned by the Ontario Ministry ofNatural Resources to conduct a heritage resources study of the Temagami Comprehensive Planning Area (AS.L 1990). The development of a prehistoric site potential model was one component of this project and this was undertaken by Ann Balmer ofAlgonquin Associates with AS.L staffsupport. Due to the paucity of registered sites in the district, a predominantly deductive approach was adopted. The scale employed for analysis and constraint mapping was 1:50,000, although certain physiographic data were only available at a scale of 1:100,000. Criteria for assessing archaeological site potential were compiled through the consideration of documented (archaeological and ethnographic) and inferred prehistoric land-use trends in the boreal forest zone of the Canadian Shield. Given the ubiquity of hydrographic features in the region, particular attention was paid to evaluating the potential of specific feature types and configurations. Constraint mapping employed a hierarchical classification system whereby four levels of archaeological potential-very high, high, moderate, and low-were defined on the basis of occurrence or overlap of three, two, one, or no criteria, respectively (cf. Balmer and Peters 1991).

This project exemplifies the second generation of predictive modelling in Ontario. While methodologically improved, it remains constrained by limitations in available data The most significant innovations were the development of hydrographically oriented criteria applicable to Canadian Shield terrain and the consideration of ethnographic land-use data in order to mitigate potentiallocational biases in the extant archaeological survey data

1.5 RESEARCH DESIGN

Given the very limited archaeological data available for the Muskoka District, a primarily deductive modelling approach will be employed in this study. The first stage in the process (Section 1.6) will involve an assessment ofthe paleoenvironmental constraints which may have affected prehistoric land use in the district. This assessment will begin with a review of the most fundamental determinants of the landscape, namely bedrock and Quaternary geology, and will proceed through considerations of climate, flora, and fauna The second stage (Section 1.7) will involve an assessment of inferred prehistoric land use as derived from \uitable archaeological and ethnographic analogues. Modelling criteria will be established through the consideration of both paleoenvironmental and cultural data, and zones of archaeological potential will be mapped on N.T.S. 1:50,000 base maps. The final stage (Section 1.8) will review the modelling process and offer implementation recommendations for modem land-use planning.

Archaeological Services Inc. Page 26 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality otMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

1.6 PALEOENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

1.6.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY

The landscape of the Muskoka District primarily reflects the structure and erosional history of the Precambrian bedrock. Although the bedrock geology is not well understood in detail (Geddes and McClenaghan 1984; Marmont 1986:332; Sharpe 1978:152), the available information is adequate for the purposes of this study.

At a regional scale, the landscape can be descnbed as a peneplain gently rising from Georgian Bay, at around 177 metres as.L, to the crown of the Algonquin Dome, which stands at more than 500 metres as.l, to the northeast (Chapman: 1975). At a local scale the topography is variable. In the south, bedrock ridges oriented to the northwest provide 15 to 20 metres of local relief (Bajc 1991:142). Towards the northeast, variation in local relief ranges from about 15 to 70 metres and occasionally up to 150 metres (Chapman 1975:2; Kaszycki 1987:2373; Long 1989:18).

Lying at the southern edge of the Laurentian Highlands, Muskoka falls within the Central Gneiss Belt ofthe Grenville Province, a structural component ofthe Canadian Shield (Thurston 1991). This belt comprises complex assemblages of gneissic and migmatitic rocks which have been divided into domains and subdomains on the basis of lithological, metamorphic, and structural characteristics. Ductile thrusting along a northwesterly axis has heavily folded, faulted, and foliated these rocks. The ridges, linear inlets, and long, narrow, para1lellakes which dominate the western quarter ofMuskoka highlight the underlying geological structure ofthe landscape. The Moon River Syncline, which runs from Healy Lake southeast through Bala, is a prominent example ofthis structure. The Moon River flows northwesterly along the foliations ofits southern margin (Bajc 1990:153, 1991:141; Geddes and McClenaghan 1984; Hewitt 1967:2-3, 20-21; Kor and Miller 1987; Kar and Delorme 1989, 1990; Sharpe 1978:152).

Quaternary deposits are mostly thin and discontinuous, particularly in the western quarter of Muskoka, although there are locally significant deposits. Three major depositional zones trending west to east can be delineated: Chapman and Putnam (1984) refer to these as the Georgian Bay Fringe, the (Highway) Number 11 Strip, and the Algonquin Highlands. These zones roughly correspond to the area ofglacial Lake Algonquin inundation, the Lake Algonquin littoral region, and the exposed, till-mantled uplands, respectively.

The Muskoka District was deglaciated around 11,000 years• B.P. Glacial Lake Algonquin adjoined the rapidly retreating margin of the ice sheet which stagnated in the eastern highlands. During this period significant quantities ofoutwashwere deposited along, and at the mouths of, meltwater rivers and streams which entered the lake along the Number 11 Strip. Subaquatic deposits are found below 335 m as.l, in the north and below 300 m as.l, in the south, particularly along the North Branch Muskoka River valley, the Big East River valley, and northwest ofHuntsville. Subaerial deposits are primarily found along the upper reaches of the Big East River valley, the Lake of Bays south shore, and the South Branch Muskoka River valley. Glaciolacustrine deposits of laminated silts and clays can also be found in isolated topographic depressions away from the major fan systems (Bajc 1990, 1991).

Archaeological Services Inc. Landbased Archaeological Research Page 27

The Lake Algonquin shoreline is poorly developed in Muskoka, likely as a result of nearshore erosional dampening. This can be attnbuted to the irregular bedrock topography which produced a complex coastal archipelago much like the modem Georgian Bay shoreline (Bajc 1990; Chapman 1975; Sharpe 1978). As previously mentioned, the highest shoreline occurs at about 335 m a.s.L north of Huntsville falling to about 305 m a.s.L near Bracebridge (Bajc 1990). Lake Algonquin began withdrawing between c. 10,500 and 10,000 B.P. once the ice sheet had retreated beyond a series of low-level outlets to the north (Eschman and Karrow 1985; Karrow and Warner 1990). Wave action during this withdrawal removed much ofthe thin till from the Georgian Bay Fringe area leaving only pockets in bedrockdepressions and concentrations ofboulders stripped offiner sediments (Bajc 1990, 1991; Kor 1986). During the subsequent Lake Hough phase (c. 10,000 to 8,500 RP.)(Eschman and Karrow 1985), the glacial spillways became entrenched, establishing such modem drainage systems as the Big East River and the North and South Branches of the Muskoka River (Bajc 1990). The Lake Hough phase was followed by a long period oftransgression culminating in the Nipissing phase which once again inundated the western margin ofMuskoka around 5,500 RP. (Eschman and Karrow 1985; Kor 1986). This transgression resulted in additional small lacustrine deposits in bedrock depressions below 195 m a.s.L (Bajc 1991; Chapman 1975:8; Kor 1986). Modem lake levels developed sometime after 3,000 B.P. (Eschman and Karrow 1985; Karrowand Warner 1990; Kor 1986).

While there is proportionally more till coverage in the Algonquin Highlands than to the west, the hard bedrockwas quite resistant to glacial erosion hence the overall quantity ofsediment is relatively low. As a result, the till cover tends to be thin and discontinuous, although thicker deposits occur on the lee slopes of rock knobs, in bedrock troughs or depressions transverse to ice flow, and along valley sides. Some of the deepest deposits occur in the vicinity of Lake of Bays. Stagnation of the ice sheet in the region was precipitated by the irregular bedrock topography which trapped ice blocks within closed basins of all sizes. Kettle lakes formed in some of the larger basins where ice blocks persisted for long periods (Bajc 1990; Kaszycki 1987; Sharpe 1978).

1.6.2 SOILS

Unfortunately large-scale soils mapping is not available for the Muskoka District. Nevertheless, the general distnbution ofsoils can be interpreted from small-scale soils maps and large-scale (1:50,000) quaternary geology maps. Generalized mapping of soil associations in southern Ontario (Hoffman et aL 1964) reveals three dominant soil groups in the study area: Wendigo, Monteagle, and Magnetawan. In the Wendigo soil family there are four soil series. Wendigo, Uplands, and Bancroft are all well-drained Orthic Humo-Ferric Podzols which have developed on glaciofluvial outwash sand. S1.Thomas is an Orthic HumicGleysol which has developed on fine outwash deposits. Magnetawan, the only series of its family, is a well-drained Orthic Dystric Brunisol which has developed on glaciofluvial silty loam over clay. Monteagle is a well-drained Orthic Humo-Ferric Podzol which has developed on till.

Podzolic soils are well- to imperfectly drained mineral soils that have developed under the influence of forest or heath vegetation in mild to cold, humid to perhumid conditions. Weathering has produced amorphous complexes of soluble organic matter and mobile compounds of aluminum and iron which have accumulated to form a discrete podzolic B horizon. This B horizon typically has an abrupt upper boundary and may form a cemented pan. The A and B horizons, and usually the C horizons, are characteristically acidic. In the study area, Podzolic soils belong exclusively to the

Archaeological Services Inc. Page 28 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality otMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Humo-Ferric Podzol great group. These usuallyform on acidic, iron-rich, non-calcareous materials and are characterized by podzolic B horizons high in iron and aluminum colloids and low in organic matter. Humic A horizons are thin and eluvial Ae horizons are highly bleached. Parent materials are typically coarse, frequently stony, glacial till, outwash, or glaciofluvial sand deposits. Loamy­ textured parent materials are less common. Podzolic soil development usually occurs on gently to steeply rolling lands. The productivity of Podzolic soils is generally not great, owing to fertility limitations as well as local constraints, including stoniness, shallowness to bedrock, and imperfect drainage due to topography. Strueturallimitations are usually not a problem except where iron pans occur (Clayton et aL 1977:1:120-124).

Brunisolic soils are a broad group of well- to imperfectly drained mineral soils that have developed under vegetative regimes ranging from forest to alpine to tundra They occur in varying climatic zones, from Mesic to Arctic and from semiarid to perhumid. Their distinguishing characteristic is a prominent brownish Bm horizon which has developed in situ and hence mostly lacks the illuviation that typifies Podzolic and Luvisolic soils. Since leaching and weathering are relatively poorly developed in Brunisolic soils, their chemical characteristics tend to reflect those of the parent material. In the study area, soils of the Dystric Brunisol great group, formerly referred to as Acid Brown Wooded soils, represent the Brunisolic order. These are characterized by organic surface horizons of forest litter overlying acidic Bm horizons and acidic parent materials. Dystric Brunisols frequently intergrade with Humo-Ferric Podzols and, where they do, they usuallyoccupy upper slopes and dryer positions than the podzols. Fertility limitations are moderate to serious and structural limitations include stoniness, shallowness to bedrock, and steepness of slope (Clayton et aL 1977:1:124-131).

Gleysolicsoils are poorly drained mineral soils that are saturated with water and are under reducing conditions, due to lack of aeration, for some or all of the year. Vegetative regimes are hydrophytic and range from tundra to forest and meadow. Bydefinition these soils include dull, greenish to bluish grey gleyed horizons, although surface horizons mayvary from organic 0 horizons to organic-mineral Ah and Ae horizons, with or without a B horizon. In the study area those of the Humic Gleysol great group predominate. These have well-developed humic A horizons, over 8 em in depth, overlyinggleyed B or C horizons. Parent materials are typically alluvial, glacio-lacustrine, or resorted till deposits. Where Humic Gleysols are dominant the topography is usually level to gently rolling. Where they are subordinate, they often occupy local depressions or kettles. Fertility limitations of Humic Gleysols are minor and productivity can be high for a variety of crops ifdrainage is artificially improved. Meadow grasses and sedges are commonly supported in the natural state (Clayton et aL 1977:1:136-140).

In addition to these mineral soils, extensive deposits of organic soils have been mapped in the Muskoka District. At present, however, different types of organic soils have not been differentiated. The environmental context of organic soil formation is discussed further in Section 1.6.4.

As classified by the Canada Land Inventory (ell Soil Capability for Agriculture Maps 31D & 31E; Hoffman 1970) less than 1 percent of the Muskoka District soils are suitable for agriculture. Geographic townships with significant agricultural soil hectareages include: Watt (868), Morrison (790), Monck (624), Muskoka (316), Stephenson (204), Franklin (124), and Chaffey (116). Stoniness and shallowness ofbedrock are the primary factors affecting agricultural capability. These limitations

Archaeological Services Inc. Landbased Archaeological Research Page 29

similarly apply to the capability of the District for forestry, particularly in the Georgian Bay Fringe (CLI Land Capability for Forestry Maps 31D & 31E).

1.63 PALEOCLIMATOLOGY

Three climatic regions, as defined by Brown et al. (1980), are represented in the municipality. The Muskoka climatic region, which is aligned from northwest to southeast, parallel to the shore of Georgian Bay, incorporates the western half of the study area. The Hahburton Slopes region, covers most of the eastern portion of the study area. The remaining extreme northeast comer of the study area falls within the Algonquin Park region. The modem characteristics ofthese climatic regions are listed in Table 2 below.

The climate of southcentral Ontario is descnbed as having warm summers, cold winters and high precipitation levels. Regional variations are due primarily to topography, prevailing winds and proximity to the Great Lakes. The last determinant contnbutes to a general moderation of the climate, reducing the "continentality", that is the range between mean daily minimum and maximum temperatures (Kopec 1965: Brown et al. 1980). The moderating effects of the Great Lakes are clearly reflected in the climatic trends presented in Table 2, as climatic conditions become more extreme from west to east through the study region.

The fossil pollen record available for southcentral Ontario and the Upper Great Lakes (summarized in Section 1.6.4 below) has provided a relatively detailed picture of the region's paleoclimate. After adjustments are made for the differential dispersion of pollen by various species, a diachronic reconstruction of the prevailing climatic conditions can be undertaken on the basis of the preferred habitats of those species.

During the period of initial deglaciation and the high water phase of Glacial Lake Algonquin (c. 11,000-10,500 RP.), a harsh climate characterized by cool and extremely dry conditions prevailed in the study area. Mean annual temperatures in the study region were probably less than _3° Celsius (McAndrews 1981). These low temperatures are probably attnbutable to the inflow oflarge volumes of glacial meltwater or proglaciallakewater (Lewis and Anderson 1989; Marsters 1990).

A trend towards warming temperatures may have occurred between c. 10,500 and 10,000 B.P. as the glacial lake levels receded. The period between c. 9,600 and 8,000 B.P., however, witnessed an apparent climatic reversal with winters becoming longer and more severe, and summers warmer and more dry than previously. This trend has traditionally been seen a result of the extremely low waters ofthe Lake Hough-Lake Stanley phase, which reduced the moderating effects ofthe evolving Great Lakes (e.g. Warner et al. 1984), however, it has recently been suggested that this deterioration was also caused by a new influx: of cold waters from Glacial Lakes Agassiz and Ojibway during the brief "Mattawa flood" (Lewis and Anderson 1989; Anderson 1992).

Archaeological Services Inc. Page 30 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District MunicipalityofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

TABLE 2 CUMATE OF THE STUDY AREA

VARIABLE MUSKOKA HAUBURTON ALGONQUIN REGION SLOPES PARK Mean Annual Temperature °C 5.5 5,0 5.0

Mean Daily Max. TemperatureoC '/ <',"". January -4,,4 -5.0 -5.5 April 9.4 10,0 8,8 July 25.5 25.5 25.0 October 13.3 12.7 12.2

.: ... , ...•.. , Mean Daily Min. Temperature °C '}\ ...

January -14.4 -16.6 -17.7 April -1.6 -1.6 -3.3

July 12.7 12.2 11.7 October 3.3 1.7 0.6 , ",~ 'C DauyRa;,ge Of "~I11~rati.Ji~oC , ..' January 10 11.6 12.2 July 12.8 13.2 13.3 Lowest Recorded Temperature °C -44.4 -45.6 -45.6 Highest Recorded Temperature °C .36.7 39.4 39.4 Mean Annual Precipitation (em) 94.0 67.5-96.4 65.1-89.2 Mean Annual Snowfall (em) 265.1 192.8 192.8

(Brown et aJ. 1980)

From c. 8,000-6,500 B.P., the Muskoka region's climate became more moderate, as lake waters rose again from their minimum Hough-Stanley levels, experiencingwarmer mean annual temperatures and greater precipitation. At their maximum, during the Hypsithermal, temperatures probably exceeded present levels by 1° to 2° Celsius. Itis unlikely, however, that this climatic amelioration wassufficient to effect the zonalvegetation (McAndrews 1981). Essentially modem mean annual temperatures (7° Celsius) and precipitation levels were reached by c. 6,000 RP.

Climatic trends and fluctuations play a significant role in determining the character of the natural environment to which human populations must adapt. As the shift in climatic conditions which occurred following deglaciation was very gradual, the concomitant changes which were necessary to the subsistence modes of prehistoric populations were alsogradual. Since long term climatic trends did not directly influence the subsistence practices of a population in the short term, no further discussion ofclimatic influence will be offered here. Effectsof climate with respect to the ecosystem will be discussed in subsequent sections. Short term climatic fluctuations, however, likely required significant short term modifications to hunting and gathering behaviour, although current data do not permit the reconstruction of such events.

Archaeological Services Inc. Landbased Archaeological Research Page 31

1.6.4 FLORA

While a comprehensive discussion of the prehistoric vegetation ofthe study area is beyond the scope ofthis study, it is possible to draw some general conclusions regarding the development ofMuskoka's plant communities since the Pleistocene. In addition, as the nature of understorey and forest floor vegetation is often dependent on the same factors which determine forest cover, and on the forest cover itself, an understanding of these factors may be useful in the recognition of particular floral resources within the environment which may have been activelysought out by past populations. The identification ofthese potential resources, and the determination oftheir general spatial and temporal variation within the study area will further assist in reconstructing the subsistence strategies of the region's prehistoric occupants, and the diachronic changes these practices may have undergone.

Muskoka is located within the Georgian Bay section of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forest region (Rowe 1972). The southern extent of this belt of irregular topography supporting mixed forest is defined by the Frontenac Axis, which marks the interface of the Precambrian Shield and the more recent sedimentary deposits of the southern peninsula and their Carolinian deciduous forests. Its northern limits are formed by the increasingly boreal forests of the lowlands of the Sudbury-North Bay section.

Four general vegetational zones characterize Muskoka today: mixed deciduous-coniferous upland forests; conifer forests; deciduous forests; and wetlands of various types. Within these broadly defined forest zones, however, the actual distnbution of arboreal and understorey vegetation is both complex and dynamic. Typical habitats and species associations have been recorded as part of the ongoing work of the Muskoka Heritage Areas Program (Reid et al: 1991; Geomatics International 1991) which forms the basis of much of the following discussion.

Mixed Deciduous-Coniferous Forests

Mixed deciduous-coniferous forests are typicallyfound in upland areas ofgood to imperfect drainage. The predominant species include sugar maple (Acer saccharum), beech (Fagus grandifolia), basswood (Tilia americana), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), easternhemlock (Tsuga canadensis), white pine (Pinus strobus), red maple (Acer rubrum), and white ash (Fraxinus americana) (Rowe 1972; Marsters 1990). The mixed upland forests can be further subdivided on the basis oftopography, soil conditions and drainage.

Dry Oak Barrens occur in areas of exposed bedrock outcrops with intervening shallow soil deposits. Limited nutrients and moisture retention inhibits tree growth, resulting in open canopy dominated by red oak (Quercus rubra). White pine, red maple, white birch (Betula papyifera) and white oak (Quercus alba) are of secondary importance. Dense thickets of common juniper (Juniperus communis) are frequent The exposed bedrock supports numerous lichens (Cladina spp.), Herbs such as sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella), hair-grass (Deschampsia flexuosa) and poverty grass (Danthonia spicata) occur in cracks or depressions where sufficient soil is present (Geomatics International 1991).

Open canopy Mixed Pine-Oak Forests occur in upland areas characterized by dry, immature, shallow and coarse soils with low fertility. Such habitats are susceptible to fire which results in the

Archaeological Services Inc. Page 32 MasterPlan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality otMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

predominance of certain fire-adapted species. White pine and red oak tend to be co-dominants, joined in much lesser frequencies by red pine (Pinus resinosa), red maple, black cherry (Prunus serotina), and white oak. The open understorey is typicallycomprised of low blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium), spinulose wood fern (Dryopteris carthusianay; fly honeysuckle (Lonicera canadensis and wild lily-of-the-valley (Maianthemum canadensey (Geomatics International 1991).

Conifer Forests

A variety of conifer forests occur in the study area Dry upland areas which have experienced intense fire activity are dominated by closed stands ofwhite and red pine of uniform age. The density of the forest canopy in these areas severely limits the variety of undergrowth in these' forests. Significant understorey species include low blueberry, bracken fern (Ptennidium aquilinium), and wintergreen (Gaultheria procumbens) (Geomatics International 1991).

On inland sand flats and other coarse-textured soils,white spruce (Picea glauca) typicallydominates, however, eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) increases in abundance in the cooler areas of steeply sloping topography closer to Georgian Bay. Sub-dominant species in these forest zones include: white pine; yellow birch; white birch and red maple. Understorey vegetation is represented by a relatively diverse array ofspecies such as spinulose wood fern, star-flower (Trientalis borealis), wild lily-of-the­ valley,partridgeberry (Mztchella repens), and bunchberry (Comus canadensis)(Rowe 1972;Geomatics International 1991).

Along the rocky shores of Georgian Bay, in areas of shallow soil, occur scrubby stands of jack pine (P. banksianay; trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides), red oak, white birch, white spruce and black spruce (Picea mariana) (Rowe 1972). Variation in understorey shrub, herb and vascular plant species correlates with topography and moisture and can generally be assigned to submerged, emergent, nearshore or backshore zones (Geomatics International 1991).

At the highest altitudes of the uplands, the forest cover takes on a more boreal aspect, with white spruce, black spruce and balsam fir (Abies balsamea) predominating (Rowe 1972).

Deciduous Forests

Deciduous forests, made up of more typically southern tree species, require deeper, and better developed soils than typically found in Muskoka They therefore make up a relatively minor proportion of the study region.

Climaxdeciduous forests are dominated by sugar maple in association with beech, red maple, yellow birch, hop hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana) and red oak. Understorey growth is usually dense in such forests, consisting ofstriped maple (Acerpensylvanicum), beakedhazel (Corylus comuta), hobble-bush (Vzburnum alnifolium), nannyberry (V: lentago) and serviceberry (Amelanchiersp.). Several types of spring herbs such as trilliums (Trillium sp.) and hepatica (Hepatica aeutiloba) are found on the forest floor (Geomatics International 1991).

Archaeological Services Inc. Landbased Archaeologifal Research Page 33

Successional deciduous forests may occur in dry upland areas previously disturbed by forest fire or logging activities. The exact nature and extent of this disturbance will have considerable impact on the type and degree of regenerative growth. Frequently, rapidly growing successional species will form nearly pure stands, although mixed stands comprised of both successional species and species characteristic of the original forest population may also develop. Typical species include large­ toothed aspen and white birch, as well as red and sugar maple, black cherry, and white pine. The young saplings often form a dense sub-canopy, limiting the amount of sunlight reaching the forest floor. This results in a poorly developed herbaceous layer (Geomatics International 1991).

Wetlands

Numerous types ofwetlands are present in the study area. While each of these may form a habitat which supports a distinctive floral assemblage, wetlands of different types frequently overlap. The major classes of wetlands noted for the study area are briefly described below.

Located along the shores of larger bodies of water, such as Georgian Bay, or the many inland lakes in Muskoka, shoreline wetlands support complex associations of plant species. Except in cases of extremely steeply sloping shorelines, the spatial ordering of specific plant types within shoreline wetlands is generally defined by variations in soil moisture which form several different zones. Submerged or floating aquatic macrophytes occur farthest from shore. In shallow standing water, tall emergent graminoidsdominate, in association with submergent and floating plants. On the nearshore, which is saturated for most of the year, rushes, worts and sedges predominate. Farthest from the water, in the backshore zone, shrubs, sedges and herbaceous plants which require drier conditions are dominant (Geomatics International 1991).

Inland wetlands, continuously fed by surface runoff and groundwater, form in depressions which lack any significant drainage outlets. Beaver activity also contnbutes to the formation of wetlands by damming existing watercourses and flooding new areas.

Bogs develop in deep water-filled bedrock depressions, and occasionally around the edges of small lakes and ponds. Thick layers of peat (undecomposed organic material) form the basal layers ofthese wetlands, encouraging the growth of thick mats of sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.) on the surface. The accumulation ofsphagnum and organic debris may be sufficient to create a "raised bog" effect. The drier margins of bogs may support open growth of low shrubs such as sweet gale (Myrica gale) and leatherleaf (Chamaedaphne calyculata), or may be densely populated by eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis), trembling aspen, and larch/tamarack (Larix laricina) (Skelton and Skelton 1991; Geomatics International 1991). The latter association would appear to represent the successional climax in a variety of wetland environments (Crum 1976). Among the other plant species common to bogs are cranberries (Vaccinium spp.), bog-laurel (Kalmia polifolia), buckbean (Menyanthes trifoliata), and a variety of sedges and grasses (Skelton and Skelton 1991).

Treed swamps occur in large shallow depressions of poorly drained mineral soils, although undecomposed organics are also present. Conifer swamps consist ofnorthern boreal species such as black spruce, larch/tamarack, balsam fir and eastern white cedarwith an understorey ofshrubs, herbs and sphagnum. Deciduous swamps are less frequent, but are typicallycomprised ofa mixture ofblack

Archaeological Services Inc. Page 34 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

ash (Fraxinus nigra), red maple and silver maple (A. saccharinwn) (Skelton and Skelton 1991; Reid et al. 1991).

The flooding of wooded areas due to obstructions in established watercourses often results in the formation of dead tree swamps or slough forests. Beaver activity is a frequent cause of such changes in drainage patterns, although recent development has often been responsible for similar disruptions. If the water in such areas is relatively deep, floating macrophytes may be present and duckweed (Lemna minor) may cover much of the surface. Otherwise, these wetlands may support a mixture of grasses on perpetually moist hummocks and aquatic plants in smaller areas of standing water (Skelton and Skelton 1991).

Wet thickets may form along tbe saturated margins of wetlands, or in discrete bedrock depressions in the upland forests, as undecomposed organic debris accumulates, provided a betterdrained medium for the growth of various shrub species. Speckled alder (Alnus rugosa), willows (Salix spp.), winterberry (Rex vertidllata), mountain-holly (Nemopanthus mucronatai, wild raisin (Vubinum cassinoides), chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa), leatherleaf, and sweet gale comprise the dominant shrub species, while sphagnum, sedges, and ferns form the understorey growth (Geomatics Intemational1991; Skelton and Skelton 1991).

Located around the margins of ponds and in lake bays, marshes provide a habitat for a variety of plants, including cat-tails (Typha spp.), reeds (Scirpus spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), sedges, and a diverse array of numerous other plant species (Geomatics Intemational1991; Skelton and Skelton 1991).

Paleovegetation

While an understanding ofthe contemporaryvegetational patterns ofMuskoka is fundamental to any formulation of an archaeological potential model for the study area, it must be recognized that these patterns are not static. Indeed, the current distnbution of forest types and their constituent species is a relatively recent phenomenon. Logging activities, forest fires and alteration of drainage patterns have all combined to distort the prehistoric character of the forests. Due to differences in reproductive and adaptive capabilities between plant species, their presentrelative distnbution cannot be expected to be a fully accurate reflection of that which existed in the past. It is important, therefore, to attempt a reconstruction ofthe broad trends which have characterized the vegetational history of the region in order to assess the changes which have occurred through time in order that they may be adequately incorporated in a model which seeks to define criteria for past human spatial patterning.

Following deglaciation, pollen rain began accumulating in postglacial lakes and ponds throughout Ontario. Core samples of the basal sediments from these bodies ofwater contain numerous pollen fossils which can be used to reconstruct the paleovegetation, given what is known about the production and dispersal of pollen by modem trees and shrubs.

Numerous palynological studies, several in or near the Muskoka study area, have been undertaken in south-central Ontario which have identified the general trends in the development of the region's plant communities. Cores have been analyzed from Mayflower Lake in Arrowhead Provincial Park

Archaeological Services Inc. ~ I ~ w I Greaf Greenbush Moose Nutt Mayflower Barre Found Ii Chronology Lake ~ Swamp Bog Lake Lake Lake Lake ~ i Phases "..

.... l:i m 1- "e: Modern -~ J'l Ii 2- ~ Po 0 :::r ~ Mixed P :i 0 0 HI ....-... 3- Q.l Forest :i c, V) -- 0 co 2 Q.l Algoma ~ -Q.l Q.l V) -- CD I.. co co It 0 -Q) 2 4- I.. Q.l V) Vi I.. I.&.. Pinus -Q) Q) 0 co ~ >- I.. I.. , -0 strobus I.&.. I Vi 0 0 '"0 Q) Q) I.&.. I.&...... 5- x ~ 1.. ~--- I [ x I 0 -0 Nipissing ~ I.&.. -0 '--" X Q) Q) I ~--- x x ~ Q) ::i -0 0) 6- II) Q) ~ ~ x « ::J Pinus II) II) e: ~ g '- ::J ::J c Q.. II) strobus r: 0 7- 'S '- ..0 ::J Q.. Q.. ~ I.. e: transition 0 Q.. 0 0 '- zone ------Stanley- 0 8- P.resinosa/ -0 ------Pinus Hough I... 0 Picea- .QQ.nk~q[I Q Pinus rt a:::: 9- Pinus resinosal resinosa/ P.res·lbank Pic. -Bet. -Pop. ------resinosa/ banksiana banksiana HI P.res/bank. - Pic. -Bet. -Pop. =~ 10- Pinus-Pop, banksiana i ------!i.£e,E =!!!p.:------.. 11- Picea-Herbs rt Main Lake t ~ Picea-Herbs Picea-Herbs Picea-Herbs Picea-Herbs ~ Algonquin f. z~ - It> - - - - approximate age (AFTER MARSTERS 1990) < ...0 ...p ~ I ~ 4 ~ ff b: Page 36 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

(Gold 1977); from Nutt Lake, located south of Skeleton Lake (Bennett 1987); from a small cedar swamp near Plastic Lake slightly north of Dorset (Barry Warner pers. comm.); from Moose Bog, located near the village ofBurk's Falls (Marsters 1990); from Barre Lake, located slightly east of the village of Kearney (Marsters 1990) and from several lakes in Awenda Provincial Park (Burden et aL 1986). Several more distant sites, such as Greenbush Swamp (Warner et aL 1984), and Sheguiandah (Anderson 1992) both on Manitoulin Island, as well as Found Lake in Algonquin Park (McAndrews 1981), have provided additional comparative data (Figure 3).

Although each of these studies reflect the unique developmental histories of their respective subject areas, four significant pollen zones can generally be distinguished from one another on the basis of major changes in the occurrence ofregional or indicator taxa, largely corresponding to the geological events and climatic changes outlined in the above sections.

Subsequent to the glacial retreat, and throughout the high water phase ofLake Algonquin (c.11,000­ 10,500 B.P.), the vegetation communities of the study area were dominated by herbaceous, open terrain species such as aster (Artemisia sp.), ragweed (Ambrosia sp.), composites, grasses and possibly sedges in a tundra-like environment. Herbs probably grew in areas of shallow immature soils, or in cracks in the scoured bedrock. In this cool and dry parkland environment, trees and shrubs such as spruce and juniper were probably few and scattered, while along the glacial lakeshore large numbers of spruce probably grew in association with deciduous shrubs such as dwarf birch, buffalo berry (Shepherdia canadensis), willow and alder (Alnus sp.),

Towards the end ofthe initial period ofdeglaciation, with the recession ofLake Algonquin, jack and red pine began to rapidly colonise the areas that had formerly been submerged. Between c. 10,000 B.P. and 8,000 B.P. these species became dominant, occurring as open woodlands, occupying large areas of well-drained, but poorly developed and infertile soils, as well as the sandy beaches and former lakebeds abandoned by the receding Lake Algonquin. This process may have been briefly interrupted c. 9,600 B.P. by the sudden return of spruce as the dominant species. This may be correlated with climatic deterioration linked to the rising lake levels of the Early Mattawa Flood event which has been postulated for the Huron-Georgian Bay Basin (Lewis and Anderson 1989).

In areas of greater soil development, birch, oak and elm grew in association with the red and jack pine, in proportions typical of southern boreal forests (Webb and McAndrews 1976). Openings in the pine woodland cover were inhabited by ferns (Pteridium sp.), aster and buffalo berry, while enclaves of other coniferous species such as cedar, larch/tamarack and balsam were likely present in less well-drained areas.

Beginning at c. 8,000 B.P., white pine became more dominant. Subsequently joined by hemlock and beech, thistrend indicates theestablishment ofearly mixed coniferous-hardwood forests in the region, implying a decline in the direct influence of the post glacial lakes on the developing forest communities (Marsters 1990:87,226). Hemlock and beech continued to increase in dominance, as the forests took on more modem characteristics, until c. 5,000 B.P. Restricted stands of deciduous trees, especially maple and beech, or mixed deciduous-coniferous forests were also present. Oak and elm were only marginally represented (McAndrews 1981).

Archaeological Services Inc. Landbased Archaeological Research Page 37

Afterc.5,000 B.P., hemlock declined sharply, an occurrence noted throughout eastern North America which has been interpreted as the result of a forest pathogen (Webb 1982; Davis et al. 1986). Concomitantly, white pine wasincreasingly replaced by birch as the dominant forest taxon, and spruce populations also appear to have increased slightly, perhaps as a response to a slight decline in mean annual temperatures (McAndrews 1981).

The development of many of the bogs in the study area had probably stabilized by c. 4,700 B.P., as is evidenced by a general increase and subsequent constancy of larch/tamarack and spruce in the pollen record, as did the essentially modem southern boreal mixed forest cover. Within the past 150 years, however, the natural forest community has been considerably disturbed by logging activities. White and red pine were selectively harvested, distorting the relative proportions of arboreal species and encouraging the spread of opportunistic plants such as ragweed and other scrubby pioneering taxons.

Forest fires, both recent and prehistoric will also have had an important impact on the complexion of micro-environments within the study area. As a result of these fires, large areas will have been cleared of growth, only to be recolonized by successional plant species, creating an even wider and more complex variety of ecological habitats within the broadly defined forest zones. Within the closed canopy forest, only a limited number ofshade tolerant understorey plants would have grown, offering relatively few resources to people with a·foraging economy. However, such openings in the forest cover, where grasses, herbs, shrubs and pioneering tree species flourished, would have made several types offruit-bearing plants available as a potential food resource. Regardless oftheir cause, therefore, such conflagrations may have had a considerable impact on human adaptation both in their short term. disruptive effects and in their longer term. re-distnbution of plant resource availability. Wind damage to trees would have initiated similar processes ofsuccessional growth, albeit on a much smaller scale, within the closed forests.

The swamps, another complex vegetational zone, would also have had a major potential effect upon human subsistence practices. Soil moisture conditions, ranging from perpetually inundated to moist but well drained, would determine the distnbution ofarboreal, understorey and emergent vegetation. Whereas understorey growth may have been inhibited in closed stands of cedar or other wetland trees, there were likely open areas where standing water or high water tables prevented such dense arboreal cover from developing. Undoubtedly such swamps offered the greatest variety and quantity of floral resources to aboriginal populations These would include not only foods such as roots, tubers, greens and berries, but also fibres and building materials, especially bark and cedar poles.

As with vegetation, a comprehensive discussion of fauna within the study area is not relevant to this study, however, local fauna did provide an extensive resource base for prehistoric populations and are worthy of consideration. The forest zones discussed above will be considered as micro­ environments to which certain anima] species may be principally adapted, although clearly, faunal habitats are of a clinal rather than a discrete nature.

Due to the wide diversity of fauna native to the study area, only certain key species will be considered. The selection of these species for consideration was based primarily on the cost effectiveness of their exploitation to prehistoric peoples. Significant criteria for determining cost

Archaeological Services Inc. Page 38 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality otMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks effectiveness include, harvesting potential, density estimates, habitat preferences, and seasonal behaviour of a species (Smith 1975;Keene 1981). The selection process utilized studies concerning fauna and aboriginal faunal exploitation in environments similar to the study area, historical records about Native hunting and prey, the first-hand knowledge of wildlifebiologists and present day hunters and fishers.

Caribou (Rilngifer tarandus)

Caribou are gregarious animals which usually form bands of ten to fifty animals or loose herds of about a thousand individuals. The latter are composed of social groups based on sex and age depending on the season. Three annual periods of congregation are observed at which time massed herds totalling fifty to one hundred thousand animals form: in late winter prior to the spring migration, immediately after the fawning period, and before the fall migration and rutting period Only during the mating season do all the age- and sex-groups unite. Reasons for seasonal migrations include availabilityof food, rutting and fawningrequirements, adverse snow conditions, weather, and the prevalence of biting insects. Woodland caribou (R.t. caribou) occupy climax boreal forest and forest edge/secondary growth areas. In winter their principal food is arboreal lichens, supplemented by horsetails and sedges, and the twigs ofwillows and birch. The summer diet includes mushrooms, lichens, grasses, sedges, herbs, fruit, and the twigs and leaves of willow and birch (Banfield 1974:383-388).

Woolly Mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) and American Mastodon (Mammut americanum)

Whereas the woollymammoth wasadapted to cold, tundra-like conditions and apparently had become extinct by about 11,000 B.P., the American mastodon appears to have had a wider range ofhabitats, a fact which may have helped delay its extinction until about 9,000 B.P. Spruce forests and open spruce woodlands, and especially swampyareas or stream valleyswith spruce nearby, appear to have been the preferred habitat. From preserved specimens it is known that mastodons were browsing animals which fed on conifer twigs including hemlock, pine, spruce, cedar, and tamarack as well as grass, swamp plants and mosses (Harrington 1983; 1986).

Moose (Alces aIces)

The moose is the largest livingmember of the deer family, the average bull weighing 453 kilograms. Essentially solitary animals, moose are primarilybrowsers feeding on the foliage of a wide variety of trees as well as water plants. In summer they are known to spend considerable time grazing on the roots and tubers of the water lily. It prefers areas of forest edge/ secondary growth as well as lakeshores and swamps. In the north moose are currently known to range far out onto the tundra in summer, moving to drier forested slopes in winter. If snow cover exceeds one metre in depth, moose restrict their movement to well-worn trails along river banks and to moose yards in shrubby

Archaeological Services Inc. Landbased Archaeolwa1 Research Page 39 open woodland. The yarding behaviour of moose, however, is less common and less gregarious than that practised by white-tailed deer.

White-tailed Deer (Odocoi1eus virginianus)

Deer are browsing ruminants which feed on a variety of plants and plant products depending on season and availability. They typically inhabit forest edge/secondary growth areas or swamps where they can find both sufficient browse and protective cover. In the summer they feed on the leaves and shoots of trees and shrubs as well as a wide variety of herbaceous plants. To avoid danger, white-tailed deer feed mostly during the early morning and in the evening, and they alternate their daily regime with periods of feeding and periods when they seek out cover in order to rest and chew their cud. Only in spring when the early shoots appear do deer feed much on grasses. In the fall, their attention is turned to ripening fruit and especially to nuts. Depending on the mast crop, they are attracted in large numbers to more open, mast-producing hardwood forest, since typically closed canopies limit the growth offorage plants. During the winter, accumulation ofdeep snow may induce white-tailed deer to move into conifer groves known as "yards" where there is plenty of browse and where evergreen boughs reduce the amount of snow on the ground (Banfield 1974; Cumming and Walden 1970; Keene 1981; Peterson 1966; Smith 1975).

Wapiti (Cervus ClUUldensis)

Unlike white-tailed deer, wapiti or elk are herd animals congregating in groups of varying size depending on the season and the habitat. These grazing ruminants likely preferred the meadows and forest edge/secondary growth areas where grasses and herbaceous plants were in abundance. As wild wapiti are virtually extinct in the east, little information is available concerning their habits in the eastern woodlands. However, like white-tailed deer, modern populations are reported to yard in conifer groves when deep snow threatens their mobility. It is also possible that herds ofwapiti made migrations to preferred seasonal ranges (Banfield 1974; Keene 1981).

Black Bear (Ursus amerU:anus)

Although the black bear is the largest carnivore in the eastern woodlands, it is aetual1y an opportunistic omnivore and studies have shown its diet to consist largely of vegetal matter. Black bearsare solitary and range over a relatively large area taking advantage ofseasonally available food resources. In the fall they may be attracted to berries and mast forage. Having stored body fat during the fall, black bears go into a period of dormancy which lasts from November until March. The dens which they use during this dormancy may be any sheltered location including root holes from overturned trees, caves, or hollow trees (Banfield 1974; Keene 1981; Peterson 1966; Smith 1975).

Archaeological Services Inc. Page 40 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the DistrictMunu:ipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Raccoon (Procyon lotor)

The raccoon is also omnivorous, but it tends to inhabit a more restricted home range. Raccoons prefer climax hardwood forest close to water in order to have access to denning trees (especially elms, maples, and basswoods), and to aquatic foods such as crayfish, frogs and bivalves. They also feed on fruits, insects, eggs, and especially acorn mast. Raccoons also store body fat in order to carry them through a winter dormant period. During this dormancy, they may congregate in small groups to den in hollow trees, hollow logs, overturned stumps or animal burrows (Banfield 1974; Keene 1981; Peterson 1966; Smith 1975).

Beaver (Castor canadensis)

The beaver is an amphibious, herbivorous rodent which requires a habitat where there is access to water and to immature hardwood trees. The beaver is one ofthe few animals which is able to modify its environment to suit its needs. By damming slow moving rivers or tnbutary streams, beavers are able to flood extensive areas offorest thereby providing both a suitable pond habitat and close access to the trees which are its principal food. Beavers live in family groups consisting ofparents, yearlings and kits, and several families may inhabit a given pond At the age of two, beavers leave the family group to form their own families. While most beavers live in lodges built in the centre ofthe pond, some beavers are known to inhabit bank burrows. In the early winter, beavers coat their lodges with mud which, when frozen, binds the exterior into a hard shell impenetrable to most predators. Branches for winter food are stockpiled at the bottom of the pond where they can be brought to the lodge through its underwater entrances (Banfield 1974; Keene 1981; Peterson 1966; Smith 1975).

Muskrat (Ondtztra zibethko.)

Another important amphibious herbivore is the muskrat. This animal prefers slow moving rivers, streams, ponds, and marshes where there is an abundance of emergent vegetation such as reeds and cattails. Their food varies seasonally and includes vegetation, fish, turtles, frogs, and bivalves. Muskrats live in family groups of four or five animals and are strongly territorial. Most of the time, they inhabit a quite limited range, however, when water levels rise in spring or drop in early autumn, muskrats may seek out more suitable habitat. In the fall, they seek out areas where water exceeds a depth of 1.5 metres and will not freeze to the bottom in winter. Here they inhabit bank burrows or construct lodges similar to those built by beavers, although these are abandoned when flooded in the spring. In addition, muskrats construct caches of food called "push-ups" which consist of holes in the ice covered with frozen vegetation (Banfield 1974; Keene 1981; Peterson 1966).

Snowshoe Hare (Lepus americanus)

Like the white-tailed deer, the snowshoe hare is crepuscular, preferring to forage in the early morning or in the evening. It feeds upon the foliage and fruits of a variety of grasses and herbs and inhabits the forest edge/secondary growth as well as swamp and bottomland environments. Populations are known to experience drastic fluctuations in numbers and although the snowshoe hare is seldom far

Archaeological Services Inc. Landbased Archaeological Research Page 41 from protective cover, this animal experiences intensive predation. Generallysolitary, snowshoe hares inhabit a fairly limited range and are active throughout the winter. During the fall moult, white pelage is adopted which decreases their visibility against snow (Banfield 1974; Peterson 1966).

Woodchuck (Marmota mo1U1X)

The woodchuck is a grazing herbivore which feeds on a variety of grasses and herbs. It prefers the open habitat of meadows or forest edge/secondary growth where it has access to food and protective cover. Woodchucks live in burrows which have multiple entrance tunnels and a variety of chambers. This animal is a true hibernator storing up body fat in order to carry it through a period of torpor which begins in late fall and usually lasts until April (Banfield 1974; Peterson 1966).

Grey Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis)

This arboreal rodent is an inhabitant of the hardwood forest, preferring the depths of the forest to the forest edge. Depending on the season, grey squirrels may eat a number of fruits, berries and nuts. In the fall, mast is collected for storage in shallow holes underground to be dug up as required. It has been shown that populations fluctuate with mast production. Grey squirrels build winter nests in hollow trees from which they make frequent forays throughout the winter to retrieve food (Banfield 1974; Keene 1981; Peterson 1966; Smith 1975).

Waterfowl

The extensive wetland habitats of the study provide ideal habitats for various species of waterfowl which feed upon and nest in the reeds and grasses of wetland margins. Availability of waterfowl would be particularly high during migration periods.

Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius)

This colonial game bird was once extremely abundant in the northeast but is now extinct. Mass migrations would bring passenger pigeons into Ontario beginning in late March and they would stay until October. Roosting colonies ranged in size from less than a hectare to thousands of hectares. Passenger pigeons preferred to nest in deciduous trees in, or adjacent to, beech stands since beech mast was their primary food. They also fed on the seeds of elm, maple, birch, alder, hickory, pine, hemlock, and dogwood. However, it has been shown that pigeon movement was related to beech mast production and therefore the presence of passenger pigeons from year to year in a given area was highly unpredictable (Godfrey 1966; Keene 1981).

Fish

The inland lakes and waterways of Muskoka as well as the waters of Georgian Bay, particularly in the more sheltered bays and island channels, provide habitats for a large number of cold water fish

Archaeological Services Inc. Page 42 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

species. Annual spawning runs during both the spring and fall, depending upon species, would have been times of particular emphasis on fishing activities, however, this general food source would have been available year round

Among the species common to the study area are: brook and lake trout (Sa/velinus fontinalis and S. namaycush), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)(introduced c. 1895), lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis), northern pike (Esox lucius), perch (Perea sp.), bass (Microterpus sp.), pickerel/walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) and musky/muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) (MacKay 1969;Scott 1967; Scott and Crossman 1973).

1.7 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRErATIONS

As discussed in Section 13 above, the prehistoric inhabitants ofthe Muskoka District were primarily hunter-gathererswho exploited a broad range ofresources throughout their annual subsistence round Since distnbution and availability of these resources constrained the movement and settlement of these people, the goal ofthis modelling exercise is to understand what these resources were, how they may have been distnbutecl, and'how their use and distnbution may have changed over time. At the same time it willbe necessary to understand how the landscape itselfmay have constrained movement and access to resources as well as settlement location. In the following sections the process of paleoenvironmental interpretation is descnbed and a list of land-use variables or constraints is compiled (Table 3) which can be used as a source of criteria for mapping zones of archaeological potential. These have been highlighted in bold text to facilitate reference to the table. Specific mapped examples of each criterion are presented using the N.T.S. map reference number (e.g. 31 E/6) followed by a U.T.M. Grid reference (e.g. 31 E/6:355215)2.

TASLE3 LAND-USE CONSTRAINTS PRIMARY SECONDARY

Major Navigable Waterways BreaI

Minor Navigable Waterways OutwashDeltas Headwater Stream & lBke Systems Alluvial Deltas

Wetlands Ponages lBke Algonquin Strand. inet Islands Falls& Rapids

Upland Margins Ridges ConIIuences SpiUway Tenaces Narrows

Soils Suilable lor Agricullure Channels CcmpIex Sl'Iorelines InIelS/Oullels Poinls OfLand Bays Beactles

Deer Yards

FISh Spawning LocaliIies

2 U.T.M. Grid numbers where both easting and northing end in zero, for example 320560, are used for examples which encompass more than a specific point,

Archaeological Services Inc. Landbased Archaeological Researcb Page 43

1.7.1 LAND-USE CONSTRAINTS

The process ofunderstanding prehistoric land use in Muskoka began with an intensive interpretation of the landscape from a paleoecological perspective. The principal tools in this interpretation were the Ontario Geological Survey preliminary maps of Quaternary geology which utilize the N.T.S. 1:50,000 map series as a base. These provided a relatively detailed view of abiotic aspects of the Muskoka environment, including topography, hydrography, and landforms, which for the purposes of this study can be considered to have been stable through most of the Holocene. Soil distnbutions were inferred from the distnbution ofQuaternary parent materials since detailed soils mapping is not available for the District The Lake Algonquin strand, which is notwell developed through Muskoka, was also inferred from topography and the distnbution of glaciolacustrine and outwash deposits. Unfortunately, this was only accomplished with any confidence onthe Bracebridge map sheet (31E13).

The Quaternary geology maps were also used as a basis for interpreting the prehistoric structure of the biotic environment. Although the Holocene record shows progressive biotic change, soils have been a constant constraint on the distnbution of flora. It is argued, therefore, that at this scale of analysis, the distnbution of soils (or in this case their parent materials) can be used as a proxy for interpreting broad trends in the floristic paleoenvironment. These trends can in turn be used to infer probable trends in faunal habitat. For the Muskoka District, five major environmental zones were identified on this basis: upland areas with virtually no till cover; upland areas with thin, or discontinuous till cover; upland areas with moderate to thick till cover; lowland areas with till, glaciolacustrine, or outwash deposits; and lowland areas with organic deposits. In the modem context, these zones would tend to correlate with: scrubby, open canopy conifer forest; dry oak barrens and open canopy mixed forest; open to closed canopy mixed forest; closed canopy mixed forest; and wetlands, respectively (see Section 1.6.4). More generally, these zones make up a continuum of less to more biotically productive environments-with increasing exploitive potential for prehistoric foragers-that has existed throughout the Holocene evolution of the biotic landscape.

Having acquired an understanding of the basic paleoenvironmental structure of Muskoka, attention was then focused on different periods ofhuman occupation, beginning with the Paleo-Indian period.

It is likely safe to assume that no sites dating before the retreat ofglacial Lake Algonquin (c. 10,500 B.P.) will be found west ofthe strand, islands notwithstanding. Conversely, it is highly likely that such sites exist along the Lake Algonquin strand (31 E!3:377065), particularly at breaks (31 EI3:360980) such as stream or river mouths (see Storck 1982). Unfortunately, since the strand is poorly expressed in the study area, and apparently attained various elevations during retreat, it may be difficult to precisely define archaeological potential on this basis. Nevertheless, the distnbution of major glaciolacustrine deposits indicates that a broad band centred on the Number 11 Strip can be defined as the area of prime concern in this regard.

During this period the open boreal woodlands likely offered a rather limited selection of floral resources, hence subsistence would have been primarily oriented towards hunting and fishing. Spillway terraces, such as those which flank the Big East River (31 :.EI6:420280), may have particularly attracted Paleo-Indians. The upper terraces may have tended to channel movement of canbou herds and the lower terraces and waterways would have offered prime animal habitat as well as water transportation routes. Large lakes, which remained after the Algonquin retreat, would have also provided productive habitat, particularly where outwash deltas created rich wetlands. One such area is the mouth of the Big East River where it flows into Lake Vernon (31 :.EI6:370220) .

Archaeological Services Inc. Page 44 MasterPlan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

The transition from the Paleo-Indian to the Archaic period occurred during the Lake Hough low­ water stage in the Georgian Bay basin. Major and minor navigable waterways (31 E/6:400145, 31 E/6:350129), including rivers and high order streams, would also have provided important local and regional travel corridors. However, as ice blocks melted to form kettle lakes, the drainage system matured, and adaptive patterns shifted with the disappearance of certain games species such as canbou, smaller headwater stream and lake systems, such as that around Waseosa Lake (31 E/6:3503(0), may have increased in importance. These would have provided access to the more productive mixed forests, which were developing on the terraces and upland margins and ridges (31 E/6:29018O), as well as the rich wetlands of the lowlands. Stands of mast-producing forest, such as oak and beech, would have been especially sought out, both for the nuts they provided and the game they attracted, including deer, raccoons, squirrels, and passenger pigeons.

Such headwater stream and lake systems may have comprised fall and winter microband hunting and fishing territories analogous to those recorded historically. Throughout these waterways, stream confluences (31 E/6:407166), lake inlets (31 E/6:390141) and outlets (31 E/6:410188), and portages (31 E/6:515205) around falls (31 E/6:402269), rapids (31 E/6:440279), and between lakes may have been routinely used as stop-over spots, leaving traces in the archaeological record. Portages may also have been important between certain bays (31 E/6:515205) or channels (31 D/13:916708) on the larger lakes and narrows (31 E/6:370202) may have similarly directed movement. Upland margins and ridges would have provided strategically located, well-drained campsites and local land transportation routes.

Large lakes would have been used both as navigable waterways and for the resources they offered, including fish, waterfowl, moose, beaver, muskrat, and aquatic roots and tubers. The richest habitats would occur at inlets where streams and rivers discharged nutrients into the lake, especially where deltaic sedimentation produced extensive wetland networks. Such microenvironments may have been productive enough to sustain seasonal macroband camps, especially in localities where major fish spawning localities (31 E/6:360210) could be exploited. Complex shorelines (31 E/6:340190), combining such features as bays, wetlands, points, beaches, alluvial deltas and especially bays with stream inlets would offer a greater diversity of local microenvironments within a given radius than would a similar area of straight shoreline thereby increasing the exploitive potentiaL

Like complex shorelines, wetlands are areas ofincreased biotic productivity and microenvironmental diversity. While settlement directly within the wetlands would have been hindered most of the year by the poor drainage and biting insects, winter occupation may have been encouraged by such factors as access to deer yards (31 E/6:32018O) and wind protection.

The likelihood ofcontinuous utilization ofthe Great Lakes shoreline, through the Lake Hough low­ water phase and the Nipissing transgression, suggests the likelihood that there are submerged Archaic sites in Georgian Bay. It also suggests that there may be Archaic sites which were inundated by the Nipissing transgression but are now exposed along the Georgian Bay fringe. H such sites still exist they may be in secondary deposits or capped with lacustrine sediment.

During the interval between the Lake Hough phase and the Nipissing transgression, the Muskoka landscape continued to mature and by the end of this period the biotic landscape was essentially similar to that of today. The development of wetlands in bedrock depressions and kettle lakes and

Archaeological Services Inc. Landbased Archaeological Research Page 45 shifts in the dominant tree taxa in the mixed forest are perhaps the most significant changes of this period.

The end of the Nipissing transgression and the beginning of the modem levels of Georgian Bay occurred at around the end ofthe Archaic period and the beginning of the Woodland period. While the environment continued to fluctuate and evolve up to the historic period as a result of natural processes such as forest fire, sedimentation ofwaterways, organic infilling oflakes and wetlands, lake level oscillation, animal population cycles, and others, these generally cannot be resolved with currently available paleoenvironmental data. Nor is it necessary to do so given the scope and analytical scale of this study. It is suggested, therefore, that the land-use patterns already descnbed for the latter part of the Archaic period, and based on ethnohistoric analogues, continued with only local variation throughout the Woodland period.

One potentially significant addition to this land-use pattern, however, was the use of Muskoka by Iroquoian agriculturalists who initiated an increasingly intensive occupation ofthe lands immediately to the south after 600 B.P. Although soils suitable for agriculture, such as those south ofThree Mile Lake (31 E/3:21(010), are limited in the District, those formed on well-drained glaciolacustrine and outwash deposits such as those of the Lake Algonquin strand, outwash deltas, and spillway terraces could have attracted semipermanent agricultural settlements during the Late Woodland period. Certainly the area would have offered good hunting and fishing territory with easy access from Huronia along the major navigable waterways. These routes would have provided passage between Lakes Simcoe and Huron and along the southwestern side ofthe Algonquin Dome right up to the divide between the Ottawa Valley and Georgian Bay drainages.

Given that Muskoka's rugged topography would have impeded medium- to long-distance land travel, the distnbution of major navigable waterways is considered to be the primary land-use constraint in the District. Although water levels have been artificially modified during the historic period, it has been suggested that current levels remain within prehistoricseasonal and long-term extremes (Wayne Corry, M.N.R, pers. comm. 1992). Notable exceptions include Distress Pond and Fmlayson Pond on the Big East River, the Big Eddy Reservoir on the Musquash River, and the Matthiasville Reservoir on the South Muskoka River (Long 1989:128-130). Localized natural and artificial transformations notwithstanding, the fundamental structure ofthemajordrainage systems in Muskoka have remained the same since the retreat ofLake Algonquin and have acted as travel and settlement corridors ever since.

1.7.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE POTENTIAL MAPPING

Byexamining the MuskokaDistrictin light ofboth paleoenvironmental interpretations and prehistoric land-use constraints, zones of archaeological site potential were mapped using three hierarchical classes: low to moderate, moderate to high, and high to very high. In addition, two zone types were used: general and specific. General zones were used to define broad areas where certain potential classes were predominant. For example, within a general zone defined as moderate to high potential the actual potential might locally vary from low to very high with the norm falling somewhere between these extremes. Specific zones were used to identify those localities where the potential was significantly elevated from that indicated by the general zonation. While rational and systematic, this system is arbitrary and qualitative. Moreover, as discussed below in Section 1.8, at this stage of the modelling process these zones remain untested, hypothetical, and appropriate only to the scale at which they are mapped.

Archaeological Services Inc. Page 46 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

It will be immediately apparent that the general zones have a pronounced hydrographic orientation. This reflects the assumption, discussed in Section 1.7.1 above, that navigable waterways were the primary land-use constraint in prehistoric Muskoka. The initial step in mapping archaeological potential, therefore, was to define general zones of high to very high potential. A boundary approximately 200 metres inland of the major rivers, along potential landfalls bordering the principal routes across major lakes, and encompassing all islands3 was chosen as appropriate to this mapping scale. Within these zones, specific zones were defined using additional criteria from Table 3. Examples of these zones can be found along the North Branch Muskoka River south of Huntsville (31 E/6:400150), the west shore of Fairy Lake (31 E/6:410210), and at the mouth of the Big East River (31 E/6:360220).

The next step involved defining a zoneofmoderate to high potential approximately 200 metres inland of all minor navigable waterways, lakes greater than about 80 hectares in area (c. 1 km diameter), headwater stream and lake systems, and reasonably accessible wetlands. Where appropriate, this zone was broadened to include upland margins, spillway terraces, and significant deposits of soils suitable for agriculture. Specific zones were defined using additional criteria from Table 3. Examples ofthese zones can be found throughout the Big East River watershed (31 E/6:400250).

Finally, a broad zone was defined between the North Branch Muskoka River eastward to include the break-in-slope which has been interpreted as the main Lake Algonquin strand Several specific zones were defined at localities interpreted as breaks in this apparent strand (e.g. 31 E13:360980).

1.8 RECOMMENDATIONS AND APPLICATION

The largely deductive modelling exercise undertaken above presents a first approximation of the overall distnbution of prehistoric archaeological resources in the District Municipality of Muskoka. The purpose of this exercise has been to provide land-use planners and heritage resource managers with a theoretically supported estimate of the scope of a resource for which there is little or no substantive data available. Given the hypothetical nature ofsuch a model, however, potential users must be fully aware of its limitations in order to employ it appropriately.

Every modeller's dilemma is the inability to simultaneously achieve realism, precision, and generality. In achieving a balance between these competing ideals a compromise must be reached which is appropriate to the situation. In this study, the logistical problems of reconstructing prehistoric landscapes and land-use patterns in an area as large as the Muskoka District dictated an analytical scale no larger than 1:50,000. Thus, the ideal of generality was favoured over realism and precision. The result is relatively wide areal coverage at a scale suitable for preliminary constraint mapping. Considerable caution must be exercised, however, in using the mapped zones of archaeological potential for larger scale or "on-the-ground" planning decisions, because of the limits imposed on resolution and accuracy by the 1:50,000analytical scale. Indeed, from

3 Although the classification of islands is not represented on the maps, all are rated as high to very high potential Shorelines and interior uplands are considered to be of highest potential, although the latter may not be adequately resolved at the current mapping scale.

Archaeological Services Inc. Landbased Archaeologipal Research Page 47 a theoretical perspective, systematic field testing of the potential zones remains a prerequisite for their credible use as preliminary constraint maps.

The unknown but undoubtedly complex distnbution ofsites in the District can be descnbed in terms of a geographical continuum ofdensity, or potential for discovery, ranging from very low to very high. In this study, the continuum has been arbitrarily subdivided into three qualitative classes: low to moderate, moderate to high, and high to very high. Through a consideration of the changing prehistoric landscape, including both biotic and abiotic elements, and the expected land-use patterns of its prehistoric human occupants, Muskoka has been tentatively partitioned into general zones representing the three classes ofsite potential. In addition, smaller, specific zones have been defined where potential may be locally higher. Since the principal orientation of the model revolves around travel, settlement, and subsistence, it is anticipated that certain site classes, sacred sites for example, may not conform to the mapped zonation. Residual sites of this kind, and sites in localized zones ofhigh potential that could not be resolved at this mapping scale, can be expected to occur throughout the District. It is expected that oral history data, to be collected in a later phase ofthis heritage study, may shed considerably more light on both economic and non-economic land-use patterns, at least during the historic period. Such data may also help to better define the scope and nature of microband hunting territories.

Although the distnbution of the few sites recorded to date in Muskoka contnbuted very little to the development of the site potential model, it is encouraging to note that all of these sites are situated within zones defined as moderate-to-high or high-to-very-high potential. Moreover, in several cases they occur within the specific zones. Some would argue that this may reflect nothing more than the relationship between prevailing assumptions about prehistoric land use and archaeological survey strategies-sites will only be found where one looks for them. Nevertheless, it may also reflect the veracity ofthese assumptions. Only systematic field testing ofthe model will be able to resolve this question.

1.8.1 MODEL EVALUATION

The validity and utility of archaeological site potential models can be assessed in terms of predictive capacity or gain. Predictive gain has been explicitly defined as follows (Kvamme 1988:329):

Gain ;: 1 _ (percentage of total area cC1Vered by model) percentage of total sites within model area

Of course since the total number of sites is never known, the evaluation of gain cannot be based on a random sample ofsites. The most common alternative, therefore, is to undertake a random sample of the study area in the hope that this will constitute a suitable proxy for a random sample of sites. In most cases, where there is reason to believe that site distnbutions may be non-random, the confidence ofthis approach can often be improved by stratifying the sample into hypothetical density classes. For example, the site potential model for the Muskoka District has suggested that sites may be non-randomly distnbuted and has defined a hierarchy of three zonal classes to predict the nature of the distnbution. A stratified random sample of the Muskoka District would therefore draw separately from all three of these classes.

Archaeological Services Inc. Page 48 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality o(Muskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Although a random sampling approach may be the most methodologically rigorous method of testing the Muskoka site potential model, it is probably not logistically feasible because of the size of the District and the resolution of the modeL A hypothetical example may best illustrate the inherent problems.

Our objective in this example will be to estimate the size of sample required in order to estimate the total number of sites in Muskoka within a suitable confidence interval This can be accomplished using the formula:

sN n -_ (Zff.--J2 d

where n is the required sample size, Z« is the required probability level, s is an estimate of the standard deviation of the sample, d is the required tolerance level, and N is the total number of sample units in the population (Shennan 1988:310). A survey grid of one hectare units would likely provide adequate resolution for such a study, hence the value of N for Muskoka would be approximately 405,760 (after Hoffman 1970). A 95 percent probability level, (Z score = 1.96) is commonly employed in such cases and will be used for this hypothetiCal example. Estimating the standard deviation ofthe sample is more difficult since figures on systematic survey results in southern Ontario are rare. One recent study (Coleman and Williamson 1991) has calculated a mean site density of .031 per hectare. Although no standard deviation is provided, a value of .01 may be an appropriate estimate. Ifthe site density in Muskoka is anywhere near that of .031, a rough estimate would place the total number over 12,000. If the tolerance level (plus or minus value) were set at about 1 percent or 120, the result would be as follows:

5760 n = (1.96%.°:0 r 1

n = (66:27)2 n = 4392

It will be obvious that the tolerance level is the crucial component of this calculation. A higher tolerance level, say 500, would render a required sample size of253 while a lower level, say 50, would boost the figure to 25,299. This is all rather academic, however, since this formula is predicated on the assumption that the sites are randomly distnbuted, an assumption which is patently false. Designing a survey strategy that will prove a sample adequate for establishing useful confidence limits must therefore rely onvery large samples, say over 20 percent, or on data acquired through some sort of preliminary investigation (cf. Altschul and Nagle 1989:265-268; Kvamme 1989:403-404; Rose and Altschul 1989:205; Shennan 1988:307). The latter alternative is clearly the only feasible one for Muskoka.

Archaeological Services Inc. LandbasedArchaeological Research Page 49

It was, therefore, determined that preliminary investigation and testing of the Muskoka District archaeological site potential model could proceed in one of two ways: through through a passive programme of data collection or through an active survey programme. Both of these would require a systematic compilation of site locational data for each of the site potential zones defined in the model

1.8.2 PASSIVE DATA COLLECfION

A passive programme would involve the compilation of a data set over an undetermined number of years as archaeological survey work was completed in the District. Although it was recognized that the initial costs ofthis alternative may be lower than those incurred through an active survey, it would have had a number of major disadvantages. Since the selection of survey areas would not be systematic, it may take many years before sufficient data are accumulated to enable a comprehensive re-evaluation ofthe model In the meantime, the use ofan untested model and the on-going logistics of compiling and analysing the data may result in development and administrative costs which far exceed the cost of an active testing programme.

In order to ensure that the three zones of archaeological potential receive adequate coverage in a passive programme, it was suggested that a one percent sample of the District be divided equally between each zone, comprising about 1350 ha each. This area, totalling 4050 hectares, was significantly larger than that proposed for the active survey programme since the survey localities are not selected using criteria derived from the model The U.T.M. Grid would provide a convenient means of defining one hectare sampling units within each zone. Field assessment would then be required on all properties slated for development until the 1350 hectare threshold was achieved for each zone. A small percentage of the 4050 hectare area is already likely to have been achieved through past predevelopment assessments, however, since this work has been carried out be a large number ofindividuals or agencies, and reporting ofthe data is variable in quality and distnbution, the precise figures remain unavailable. It is, however, possible that the District planning office could provide a general estimate of the scope of such work through review of the reports which they have recieved to date. Nevertheless, these activities are not likely to have been carried out in manner which satisfactorily samples each ofthe three potential zones. Like the active programme descnbed below, passive data collection would only provide a qualitative assessment of the model, however, it too would provide an improved empirical base for future quantitative analyses.

Taking into account both the advantages and disadvantages of such a passive approach, a short term active programme was deemed a more effective means of meeting the immediate demands of the master plan.

1.83 ACTIVE SURVEY PROGRAMME

As discussed above, there is currently no empirical basis for designing a random sampling strategy to statistically test the site potential model Thus, the objective of the preliminary survey programme, carried out in the summer of 1993, was to strategically sample the District, focusing on the localities listed in Table 4 below, in order to increase the site database as much as possible for each potential zone. While such a programme did not test the model in a purely statistical sense, it did qualitatively assess the model's robustness and serve as an empirical foundation for any future quantitative analyses

Archaeological Services Inc. Page 50 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Munidpality otMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

TABLE 4 SURVEY LOCAUTIES I POTENTIAL ZONE I SITE PRIORITY I LOCAUTY/TRANSECT I Low to Moderate Hunting/Fishing Along roadways within 4 km of SparrowLake Camps Along roadways within the Gibso,:, Indian Reserve Along Highway69 Along Highway117

Moderateto High Paleo-Indian Camps Potential gaps in Lake Algonquin strand at Sharpe Creek, Sage Creek, Bonnie Lake, Fawn . Lake, and Devine Lake Hunting/Fishing Vicinity of Muldrew and Morrison Lakes Camps Vicinityof Fox LakelBuck River

Vicinity of Bellaand Rebecca Lakes

Vicinity of Stoneleigh and Healy Lakes Vicinity of Arrowhead Provincial Park

Iroquoian Vicinity of SparrowLake Settlements Vicinity of Three MileLake Vicinityof Bracebridge

High to Very High Macroband Camps Big East River Delta Oxtongue RiverDelta Muskoka River Delta

Layovers, Portages, Vicinity of Moon Chute, Moon & Musquash & Rivers Break-of-Bulk Points Vicinity of Port Severn Vicinity of Huntsville South Branch Muskoka Riverin Vicinity of Fraserburg Vicinity of North and South Portage

Archaeological Services Inc. LandbasedArchaeological Research Page 51

that might be desired. It had the further advantage that the results for fine-tuning the model became immediately available at the completion of the project.

Strategic sampling was accomplished by selecting areas ofsuggested maximum potential for each zone on the 1:50,000 maps and subjecting each to field evaluation followed by selective pedestrian survey or test pitting. The results of these undertakings are presented in detail in Volume 2 (Traditional Use Study and Archaeological Survey).

1.8.4 MODEL IMPLEMENTATION

Land-use planners and heritage resource managers, seeking to make use of this model of prehistoric archaeological site potential in the District Municipality of Muskoka, are reminded that:

• neither this nor any model can specifically predict where a site or sites will be found;

• neither this nor any model can specifically predict where a site or sites will not be found;

• some sites will occur in areas where the model predicts they are not likely to occur;

• until field testing provides corroborative empirical evidence, this model remains purely hypothetical;

• although phrased in terms of probability, without empirical data this model remains purely qualitative, having no probabilistic basis in the mathematical sense;

• this and any such models must remain open to revision in light of new data.

With these limits in mind, the following recommendations are offered for the practical application of this model:

• all lands within the general and specific zones of moderate to high and high to very high potential should be subjected to comprehensive field assessment by licensed archaeological personnel prior to any land development;

• this model should be subjected to revision by qualified archaeological personnel as new data become available.

Archaeological' Services Inc. Page 52 MasterPlan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Archaeological Services Inc. 2 THE UNDERWATER AND INUNDATED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD IN MUSKOKA by PJ. Wright

2.1 THE MARINE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

One of the major tasks of the study was to identify the inundated and underwater archaeological record that is associated with the waterways of the Muskoka District. Two types of submerged archaeological deposits or sites may be expected to be present in this study area. Underwater sites are those which have formed through the deliberate or inadvertent deposition of material in bodies of water. Shipwrecks, canoe spills and refuse disposal are typical processes which lead to the formation of such sites. Inundated sites, on the other hand, are those whichwere formerly terrestrial, such as shoreline occupation sites, which have subsequently been submerged due to changes in local hydrology. Given the hydrographic focus of the prehistoric occupants of the region (see Chapter 1 and below), the considerable alterations which the lake and river systems have undergone through natural processes, and due to farming and lumbering activitiesand hydro-electrical developments, the potential for the presence of such inundated sites in Muskoka is considerable.

2.2 THE APPROACH

The archaeological record of underwater and inundated sites, representing submerged cultural resources has been identified as being of particular significance to Muskoka. The first step in evaluating the nature and extent of marine archaeological potential for the study area involves compiling a series ofcomprehensive theme assessmentsthat pertain to the inundated and underwater heritage resources in the Muskoka District. This data will provide the basis for future active documentation of submerged cultural resources; for the development of appropriate policies for the conservation of those resources; and for the ultimate development of programmes that will involve the various elements of the community at large which have a multitude of different interests.

The District contains both Great Lakes coastal and interior waterways. The variety of shoreline environments that existed mayhave been exploited by people for the last 10,000years. The heritage resources along the coastal and interior shorelines reflect both land and water adaptation, occupation and exploitation activities.

The human activities which are representative of the study area are presented chronologically in a thematic fashion. These themes are based on those presented inA Topical Organization ofOntario History (Historical Sites Branch, Division of Parks, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 1974). While these themes are also presented in Chapter 3, as employed here they specificallyreflect the economic pursuits and the communities associated with the present shoreline and offshore areas of the waterways that make up the study area. Each theme is based on the "common" life way involving a portion of the population within a defined time period and geographic area. These could range from hunting and gathering to industrial resource extraction. These geographic areas (usuallydefined by drainage systems) can include areas that lie outside of the study area. Page 54 Master Plan ofHeruage Resources for the District MunicipaliJy ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Each theme is presented in the following manner:

1 Theme title (time span)

• a brief definition of the life way

2 Sections of the study area or comparative areas that could be subjected to the adaptation, exploitation or occupation by the contemporary population

• outlines a general level of location analysis to reconstruct the environment(s) that would have been the focus of human activity

3 Elements of the defined life ways that could be associated with specific sections of the study area

• refers to those elements (such as economic pursuits) that have occurred within specific environmental areas (Great Lake coastline, interior lake shorelines) of the study area

4 Heritage resources (both underwater and inundated) associated with the defined theme that are located in the study or comparative areas. In the relatively few instances where the provenience ofsuch resources in Muskoka has been reliably documented, these locations are indicated on the appropriate 1:50 000 topographic maps. The accuracy of these locations, however, can only be verified in the field.

The data presented within this thematic structure is the result of a sampling strategy of the existing documentary sources, both primary and secondary, relating to activities or sites associated with the waters and shorelines within the boundaries of the District of Muskoka. Such an approach imposes limitations on the amount of data presented, however, it provides a sufficiently detailed overview of the extent and range of the potential submerged cultural resource base ofthe study area. This work is simply the first stage in a process that will require the creation of a detailed inventory, or database, which assembles all the various forms of data in a format that will be useful for a wide variety of purposes. The establishment ofsuch a database could certainly be a community-oriented project that would develop out of this particular master planning exercise.

2.2.1 TIlE PHYSICAL SETTING: MUSKOKA AND RELATED REGIONS

The South Shield of Muskoka

Both the coastal and interior drainage shorelines of the District fall within the southern section of the Canadian Shield (also referred to as the Laurentian Shield). Its southern boundary (the Severn River) is located immediately north of clay and till plains of the adjoining southern area

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. The Underwater and Inundated Archaeological Record Page 55

The Muskoka District forms the southwestern edge of the Canadian Shield. It is made up primarily of Grenville province clastic metasediments with a few small patches of late felsic igneous rocks. Along the west shore of Lake Joseph and Lake Muskoka and extending south of the Severn River are small sections of Southern Province sedimentary and volcanic rock (Ontario Geological Map 2196; see Chapter 1 above).

The Southern Shield Section of the Ottawa

The Ottawa drainage area is located in the adjoining northern and eastern sections of the southern Shield. The northern section represents a landmass that consists primarily of Grenville Province clastic metasediments with large patches of late felsic igneous rocks. The eastern section of the Ottawa drainage contains a section of the Southern Province which is made up of sedimentary and volcanic rocks (see Ontario Geological Map: Southern Sheet Map 2197 and East Central Sheet Map 2198). This eastern section of Southern Province rock funnels south to form a bridge of Precambrian rock termed the Frontenac Axis.

The Southern Shield Section of the St. Lawrence

The St. Lawrence River is crossed east of Kingston by the Frontenac Axis. It is a narrow bridge of Precambrian rock that extends south from the Canadian Shield across the St. Lawrence River and into the Adirondack Mountains of New York State. The Frontenac Axis contains large sections of Grenville Province (middle to late Precambrian) clastic and carbonate metasediments and late felsic igneous rocks (see Ontario Geological Map: South Sheet (Map 2197).

This particular southern Shield area contained an environment that reflects a wide diversity of plant and animal life. This unique area provided an optimum environment that was heavily exploited by prehistoric groups (Wright 1979).

2.3 A FRESHWATER MARITIME PERSPECTIVE: PREHISTORIC TO CONTACF

The Muskoka District represents a section of Great Lakes coastal shoreline area with associated interior drainage systems. The prehistoric period will be viewed from a freshwater maritime perspective. Such a perspective takes in not only the "seafaring" activities associated with the largest and most complex machines, the boat, produced by pre-industrial societies (Muckelroy 1978: 3), but also the coastal and shoreline occupations and activities associated with the waterways that bore these watercraft.

The landbased portion of an archaeological record may not clearly delineate its "maritime" connection. The freshwater maritime cultural record must be considered to be amplnbious. It is a material culture record that has both an underwater segment and a landbased segment that has been deposited along the associated shorelines.

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. Page 56 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality otMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

2.3.1 THE FIRST WATERCRAFT TYPES

Greenhill (1976: 91-94) states that there are four principal boat types: the raft boat; the skin boat; the bark boat; and the dugout. To build all four types ofboats, the only tools needed are axes, adzes, chisels, needles, fire, water and rope or cord.

Skin And Raft Boats

The data on skin and raft boat types in the Great Lakes area are quite limited in nature. Skin boats were built in those regions where bark canoes were used when bark was not readily available. Finally it can only be surmised that raft boats were used in the Great Lakes region as a temporary craft that could be quickly improvised from locally available material (Leshikar 1988).

The Dugout

Rogers (1965) stated that dugouts were used south of the Great Lakes. Leshikar (1988:15-19) stated that the dugout was used extensively from south of the Great lakes to the Gulf of Mexico and from the Atlantic Ocean west to the major river systems that flow into the Gulf. The oldest dugout in southeastern North America dates to 3,000 B.C. (Leshikar 1988: 16). The Ringler dugout from Savannah Lake, Ohio dates to 1,500 B.C. and was made from white oak using stone axes and fire. Early historic accounts ofthese southern areas show the dugout being used for hunting, fishing, trade, war and transportation.

Aboriginal dugouts have been found in Ontario. Kidd (1960) reported that a dugout, which he believed to be of some antiquity, was raised from the shallow waters of Balsam lake in Victoria County. A second dugout ofsimilar slim proportions was found buried upside down in the mud along the shore ofRice lake in 1923 (Johnston 1962). Both canoes had been hollowed out, but there were no traces of tool or fire marks.

Rogers (1965) noted that the examples he had documented were all from the late historic period. Dugout canoes (in some cases made out ofbasswood that was carved with the aid ofa chisel and axe) were used for hunting, fishing and travel between 1875 and 1925 by both the Ojibwa and Potawatomi who settled at Perry Island (Rogers 1965: 455). One report mentions that a dugout carrying 2 to 3 men with supplies went fishing at Moon River. Itwas also noted that the dugout eventually replaced birch bark canoes.

During the winter, dugouts were brought on shore, turned over and covered in balsam boughs to prevent the sun cracking the solid wood hulls. An informant, raised at the Shawanaga Reserve, noted that her grandfather used a dugout to hunt for frog legs for the tourist trade. An informant from Moose Deer Point remembered her father making a dugout from basswood over a period of two weeks, using an adze to shape the interior and a crooked knife to form the outer hull. When finished, the outside ofthe hull was coated with deer, bear or raccoon fat to prevent it from cracking. At the Matagami Reserve on Georgian Bay, the dugouts' ends were more rounded than pointed to prevent the sun from splitting the wood.

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. The Underwater and Inundated Archaeologifal Record Page 57

The construction and use of dugouts is restricted to those areas where a sturdy vessel is required to cross bodies of water and where there are no portages to be made along the route.

Finally, the use of dugouts was not restricted to native people. There is a reference to one being built by a white man in the Foote's Bay area of Lake Joseph prior to 1903 (Rogers 1%5).

The Bark Boat

Informants at Matagami Reserve, north of Georgian Bay, note that earlier Indians did not use dugouts because they were cumbersome to portage. The ease with which a portage could be made with a birch bark canoe is why this form of craft was preferred in the Cheat Lakes region. The canoe was made from shell of bark which formed the shape and was the main structural member of the vessel The ends were sealed and an internal strengthening framework (nbs, gunwales, thwarts, end pieces and internal sheathing) made ofwood lashed together was made to fit the bark shell in order to support it and to maintain the vessel's shape (Cheenhill1976: 91-94; 124). It was a water craft that could be adapted to the different waterways of the Cheat Lakes region.

The physical record of the bark vessel is non-existent because it is too perishable to survive in a recognisable form even in wet or submerged site conditions. When the first Europeans saw this craft, it was already highly developed. Cartier observed two canoes in 1535. Champlain provided the first measurements ofAlgonquian canoes (20 and 23 feet long, 40 and 50 inches in beam). He noted that it was capable of carrying about half a ton and yet could be carried over a portage by one man. At the time of contact, native canoes in the Cheat Lakes region were as long as the later historic fur trade 5 fathom canoes. The largest was recorded in 1684 as being 33 feet overall with a 60 inch beam and a depth of21 inches. These vessels could be carried bytwo men around rapids and falls and had a shallow draft. They were of little use on the lakes, however, as they could not be used in windy weather. In calm weather they were sometimes used to cross 4 to 5 leagues of open water. These canoes carried small sails that were used in fair winds of moderate force. Details on these early bark canoes are lacking.

Access to birch groves to supply bark of desired quality and in suitable quantity was important. The model and size of the canoe depends on the requirements of use: lake, coastal or river navigation; smooth, rough or fast-running water; transportation of a hunter, a family or cargo; the condition and length of portages and the permanence of construction. Thus within anyone specific group (be it Huron or Ojibwa), canoes of various models, sizes, methods of construction, or decoration are possible. Furthermore, within a specific area, the canoes of different groups may show similarity in models (Adney and Chapelle 1983:27-57,113-133).

The technology was highly developed at the time ofcontact and the only European influence on the craft was an increase in size, but not design. It was the awareness of the craft's speed, durable construction and adaptability to travel through the wilderness of the Cheat lakes region, that led Europeans to adapt this form of craft quite early to the fur trade. Out of this native building tradition developed the birch bark Maitre Canot of the historic fur companies. Once these large canoes were developed, they evolved and continued in use and development for a span of over 200 years. The first French fur-trade canoes evolved from the Algonquian and later the Cheat lakes Ojibwa form of high-ended canoe. The era of the bark trading canoe faded out during the last

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. Page 58 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the DistrictMunicipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

decade of the 19th century and had disappeared from most of the old routes. In their place, the trade continued using York boats, scows, bateaux and canvas or wooden canoes (Adney & Chapelle 1983:135-153).

2.3.2 BARK CANOES IN THE MUSKOKA AREA

Both the Huron and other northern groups were using bark canoes in the Muskoka area The earliest illustrations indicate that there were distinct differences in the canoe forms of the various "tribal" groups. These variations existed with little change in form until recent times (Adney and Chapelle 1983).

During the early 17th century, Heidenreich (1971: Map 24) shows the Muskoka area being located immediately north of the land of the Iroquoian Huron group. Here, he has located a group of Ottawa (Outaouac, Cheveux Releves), the Ouiaouakmigouek; occupying most of the west half of Muskoka between 1615 to 1640 AD. Along the northern boundary of Muskoka, a second northern Algonquian group called the Sagahiganirini are located. In a more recent atlas, Heidenreich (Harris 1987: Plate 18) shows the whole Muskoka area being in the Huron Iroquoian zone with a northern Algonkian group of Ojibwa called the Sagahanirini being located along the northern boundary of Muskoka No Ottawa group is located in this area on this map. A recent map in another publication denoting group locations up to AD. 1650 AD. (Heidenreich 1990: Figure 1.51) shows the Sagahanirini located in a similar position again with the absence of an Ottawa group in the Muskoka area

The Huron birchbark canoe was a superior craft to those ofother Iroquoian groups which were made of other barks such as elm. Sagard descnbes the largest as being 20 to 22 1/2 feet in length, 2 1/2 to 3 3/4 feet in width at the middle and tapered at both ends (Wrong 1939:1(0). The size ofthe Huron craft varied according to use with the largest holding five to six men; the intermediate holding 3 men and the smallest holding two men (Wrong 1939: 56). The smaller canoes were used for treacherous waters with long portages (Wrong 1939: 246). The largest canoes could carry about 400 pounds and given good weather, could cover 25 to 30 leagues in a day (Wrong 1939: 101). It was also noted that the Huron did not like to travel by water out of sight of land because bark craft were fragile, leaky and easily damaged (Biggar 1922-36, vol 3:45).

As well as serving as a mode of transportation there are references to the Huron using bark canoes in deer drives where the animals are driven into the water and killed from the canoe (Biggar 1922-36, vol, 3:60-61). The canoe is also descnbed as being used to set fishing nets (Thwaites 1896-1901, vol 23:95). Champlain makes reference to a large Huron war party travelling by canoe (Biggar 1922­ 1936, voL 3:62-81). There are also references to the canoe being used for trading activities (Wrong 1939: 56,247,255).

Finally, there are specific references to birchbark canoes being associated with the Huron tradition of using dreams. Dreams were an important influence in the daily lives of the Hurons. Trading, fishing and hunting were often undertaken in response to dreams (Thwaites 1896-1901, vol 10:171). Dreams were used to predict the future and to warn ofmisfortunes. They were consulted on various occasions: There are specific references to an occasion where dreams are used to reveal the "desires

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. The Underwater and InundatedArchaeological Record Page59

of the soul". This consultation through dreams was necessary as the Hurons believed that these "desires of the soul" could cause diseases and other misfortunes. The "desires" might be an activity like a dance or an object like a new robe, a wampum collar or a canoe (Thwaites 1896-1901, voL15:179). Once the specific "desire" had been met, the health (and fortune) of the effected person would be restored to a more positive status (Thwaites 1896-1901, vol, 33:193). Two dream-guessing feasts included canoes amongst the items "desired" and therefore necessary to cure the inflicted individual (Thwaites 1896-1901, vol.l0:177; vol, 17:165-187).

It probably is no mere coincidence that the Hurons would have used the superior birchbark craft rather than the elm bark canoes of the Iroquois and the Neutral Iroquoian groups. The superiority of the birchbark canoes is illustrated by an incident involving a small group of northern Algonkians, the Iroquet (Ononchatraronon) (Heidenreich 1971: Map 24) who defeated a party ofIroquois in June of 1637. They won because ofthe tactical advantage ofhaving a water craft that was swifter, because ofthe lightness ofits birchbark construction, rather than the heavier elm bark vessels (Thwaites 1896­ 1901, vol.12:181).

2.4 THE UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD IN OTHER SOUTHERN SIDEl,D AREAS

The following presents a representative sample of the type of prehistoric archaeological sites and artifacts associated with this freshwater maritime perspective from southern Shield areas outside of the Muskoka District.

The Atherley Narrows fish weirs site is located between Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe on the Severn drainage system. At this location, just south ofthe Muskokas, fish have been caught from the Late Archaic period, based on radiocarbon dates that cluster around 2500Be which were taken from samples of the underwater wooden stubs (Johnston & Cassavoy 1978), through to Contact when Champlain observed it in operation in the fall of 1615 (Biggar 1922-36, voL3:56-57). This type of archaeological resource (an organic record) indicates what can survive underwater over a long period of time.

Evidence of two different underwater finds associated with the Archaic period has been examined by the author. In both cases, the artifacts were isolated finds made by others and there is no wayof knowing if these locations represent inundated or submerged deposits. The first find was a ground and polished stone tool descnbed in the literature as an "ice pick" and associated with Laurentian Archaic artifact assemblages. It was found in over 20 feet of water offshore of the St. Lawrence River at Brockville. The second artifact was a large oval biface preform made of Lorrain quartzite which was located in over 30 feet of water offshore of Manitoulin Island in the North Channel.

The most common artifacts found underwater are ceramic vessels of the Middle and Late Woodland periods. They have been found in both submerged and inundated contexts and are representative of various cultural groups who used ceramic technologies. It is quite possible that cultural groups other than the group that manufactured the ceramic vessels were responsible for the final deposition of these items. These submerged deposits ensured that, once deposited in an underwater environment, the vessels survive intact.

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. Page 60 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the DistrictMunicipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

The underwater ceramic vessels found in the interior lakes ofthe Frontenac Axis are discussed in the following section as a separate case study. Other ceramic vessels have been found on the Thousand Island section ofthe St Lawrence River. Four separate underwater discoveries ofWoodland ceramic vessels have been documented by the author. At the Ivy Lea bridge crossing, a small conical Middle Woodland Point Peninsulavessel was found offshore with nothing else being observed on the bottom. The other three finds were all from the same section of the Lost Bateaux channel of the St. Lawrence River in the vicinity of the mouth of the Gananoque River. One find was an isolated late Middle Woodland Point Peninsula vessel, located offshore of an island. The second find consisted of two nested pots recovered from deep water in the middle of the channel The pots were late Middle Woodland vessels and, because they were nested, are thought to have been lost from a water craft. The third site, offshore of Howe Island, contained an underwater deposit of two Iroquoian vessels in association with animal bone.

In other Shield areas, ceramic material has been recovered from a portage site on Lake Nipigon (Bill Ross pers. comm.). At Isle Royale, a ceramic vessel relating to the Late Woodland Juntunen Stage was found underwater offshore of Moss Island, by Rock Harbour, in 1985. This pottery is related to the Straits of Mackinac area and is believed to be associated with the prehistoric copper mining activities of these people. Historically, fur trade items have been recovered from rapids on the French and other rivers. This represents material from canoe spills that ended up deposited in these sections of fast water, as well as around landing sites.

The closest documented prehistoric underwater find to the Muskoka region is a portion ofa ceramic vessel that was excavated from the clay bottom of the Pottawatomi River at Owen Sound (Ravenhurst). The vessel is described as being Odawa (Algonkian) based on vessel size and the late use of dentate stamping on a channelled shouldered vessel The Owen Sound vessel resembles Iroquoian vessels from eastern Ontario. It maywell be that it wasthe Odawa who were in possession of this vessel at the time it was deposited, but the vessel was probably of Iroquoian manufacture. This once again illustrates the problem that both Iroquoian and Algonkian groups were exploiting southern Shield areas and underwater depositions may relate to either or both of these groups. Secondly there is strong evidence to show that at least Iroquoian ceramics were being utilised and transported about by both Iroquoian and Algonkian groups often outside of traditional territories. The portability of ceramic vessels and the wide distnbution of this pottery was enhanced by the use of the birch bark canoe.

Given the location ofthe Muskoka area, similar underwater deposits should be found in this western section of the southern Shield. It is assumed that the primary underwater deposits will represent discard behaviour as well as accidental events. In addition, there are secondary underwater deposits that have been created by inundation. Inundation has been documented as occurring from natural processes and human activities such as farming, lumbering and hydro generation.

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. The Underwater and Inundated Archaeologifal Record Page 61

2.5 A CASE STUDY ON UNDERWATER CERAMIC DEPOSITS IN THE FRONTENAC AXIS

The case study involves the Gananoque drainage system of the southern Shield defined as the Frontenac Axis. The Gananoque drainage system contained a great diversity of plant and animal life which provided an optimum environment to be exploited by groups of people during the late prehistoric period (Wright 1979).

In the interior at Charleston Lake, a small camp site (BdGa-12) was discovered on a portage route to Red Horse Lake (Swayze 1976). The site overlooks the portage landing where offshore, prehistoric ceramic vessels, faunal remains, and a few lithic items were found underwater (Cassavoy 1981). Both isolated finds and a midden area were located underwater suggesting the occurrence of two types ofdeposition: discard from a small camp site overlooking the portage landing and activities at the landing itself (Wright 1979).

Ceramics from this site indicate that this portage had been in use throughout the prehistoric Woodland period. The ceramics recovered are representative ofPoint Peninsula (Middle Woodland) wares, and ceramics dating to the Early, Middle and Late Iroquoian periods. There is a smaller number ofvessels which are thought to be representative of southern Shield Algonkian wares. This mixture ofvessels from different temporal, cultural andperhaps linguistic, groups with distinct ceramic traditions indicates that the area was exploited by many groups through time. The problem is that while we may know who made the pots, it is difficult to determine how they were deposited. This demonstrates that ceramic vessels were a portable cultural item. This portability is further highlighted by the number of vessels recovered with drill holes, indicating vessel repair.

On South Lake, 50 kilometres south west of Charleston Lake, five landbased sites (BcGb-2,3,4,5,6) were located (Wright and Engelbert 1978), with three of the sites having offshore underwater deposits ofceramics vessels and faunal remains. The ceramics recovered underwater from these sites represented the same variety of archaeologically defined ceramic traditions as found at the BdGa-12 site at Charleston Lake (Wright 1984, 1986). One South Lake site has an large offshore deposit (105 square metres in size) of animal bone (primarily deer) at a depth of less than 3 metres. The second site has a single underwater deposit oftwo vessels associated with a few animal bones. The final site has a series of underwater deposits of ceramic vessels associated with faunal remains. This site also has both primary and secondary underwater deposits. The secondary deposits are a result of a rise in lake levels. This rising water level occurred due to infilling of the lake's outlet channel, within the past 100 years, as an indirect result of earlier forest clearance and agricultural practices. The raised water levels have causeshoreline erosion. In a southern Shield environment this means thewholesale loss ofthe organic and soil cover, and the exposure ofbare rock along shoreline areas. The waterway edges oflandbased archaeological sites are thus impacted upon by shoreline erosion and can end up as underwater deposits.

At both Charleston and South Lakes, mammals made up the majority of the faunal assemblage with white-tailed deer being the predominant species, Bear and other fur bearing mammals (beaver, muskrat, fisher, otter, marten, mink) made up the remainder of the mammal assemblage. There appears to have been no change in the subsistence pattern through time.

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. Page 62 MasterP1Jm ofHeritage Resources for the District MunicWalitvofMuskokil and the Wahta Mohawks

At Charleston Lake, small groups of people moved onto the lake on a short term basis to exploit seasonally available natural resources. The chief resource exploited was the white-tailed deer. The deerwere apparently killed and butchered elsewhere and transported to be processed at the shoreline habitation sites. The shoreline sites appear to have been stations where the animals were processed for hides, meat and fat in a work area that is separate from the living area (Hamalainen 1975). The South Lake sites had subsistence and activity patterns that are similar to the Charleston Lake sites in all but one important way. The South Lake sites indicate that the animals were being killed close by and were then being butchered and processed at lakeshore sites. This difference may simply reflect the fact that South Lake is a very small lake while Charleston is large, with many bays, coves and islands which would contain more deer yards.

In the Gananoque drainage system,water craft would have been used to reach the natural resources being exploited over a long period of time.

In the fall of 1615 after the raid on the New york Iroquois, Champlain was taken on a deer drive with a group of 25 men led by Darontal (Atironta) who was head man of the Rock tnbe of the Huron Nation. They went up a river system by canoe into a section of the southern Shield north of the Kingston area. Over a period of 38 days 120 deer were killed and processed. The fat and marrow was rendered down for later use in the winter, some meat was dried for later used in winter "feasts" and the skins were prepared so that they could be used to make clothes. On December 4th, 1615, the hunting party left on foot, equipped with sleds and snowshoes, and travelled overland back to the Lake Simcoe area with each hunter carrying 100 pounds of the bounty procured from the drive.

This incident illustrates the use of canoes to travel for warfare and to far off deer yards. The question then is how is it possible that a group of Huron could successfully conduct a deer drive in eastern Ontario after an expedition to conduct a raid on a village of the Iroquoian Confederacy in the interior ofadjacent New York state and then return home, cross-country, a distance of200 miles? Obviously the Huron knew how to exploit the southern Shield environment to the north ofHuronia. It is also apparent that they were familiar with the southern Shield area between Huronia and eastern Ontario. The party of Huron hunters was under the leadership of Darontal who was the successor to the Rock tnbe headman who concluded the first trading alliance with the French. The Rock tnbe was noted for speaking a different dialect of the Iroquoian language. They had arrived in Huronia from the Trent Valley area shortly before 1600. Prior to this it was thought they had gradually moved away from the east end of Lake Ontario and up the Trent Valley. Is it possible that in Darontal's time, they were still familiar with the eastern Ontario area as witnessed in Champlain's description of this particular deer drive. Certainly the archaeological record of the Gananoque drainage system indicates the area was being used by people who brought in Iroquoian ceramic vessels prior to 1500.

Given the location of the Muskoka area, similar underwater deposits should be found in the study area. It is assumed that the primary underwater deposits would represent discard behaviour as well as accidental events. In addition, there are secondary underwater deposits that have been created by inundation.

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. The Underwater and Inundated Archaeological Record Page 63

2.6 ASSESSING SUBMERGEDAND INUNDATED PREHISTORIC SITEPOTENTIAL IN THE MUSKOKA AREA BY THEME

The following themes cover the groups of people who would have exploited the southern Shield environments of the Muskoka District. More detailed discussions of the material cultures and practices ofthe prehistoric occupants of the study area and adjacent regions are presented in Section 1.1 of Chapter 1.

2.6.1 TIIE PALEO-INDIAN PERIOD (c. 11,000 B.P. - 8,000 B.P.)

1 The Paleo-Indians would have been the first occupants of the region following the retreat of the WISconsinan ice sheets. Throughout Ontario the record of this period is incomplete due to low population levels and their highly mobile settlement and subsistence patterns within an environmental setting of low biotic productivity.

2 Paleo-Indian occupations should be expected to occur along the strandline of Glacial Lake Algonquin,however this feature ispoorlydocumented in Muskoka (see Chapter 1, Sections 1.6.1 and 1.7.1)

3 The current state of research does allow precise resolution of economic and environmental variableswhichwouldlead to the identification of high potential zones for submerged or inundated Paleo-Indian sites.

4 No sites of this period have been identified in the study area.

26.2 EARLY ARCHAIC PERIOD (c. 8,000 B.P-7,000 B.P.)

1 Throughout the entire Archaic period, people began to diversify their subsistence practices, more fully exploiting the specific emergent environments.

2 Early Archaic occupations should be expected to occur along the continuously evolving shorelines and inland water systems.

3 The current state of research does not allow precise resolution of economic and environmental variableswhichwould lead to the identification of high potential zones for submerged or inundated Early Archaic sites.

4 No sites of this period have been conclusively identified in the study area. It is possible, however, that some of the inundated prehistoric sites of undetermined affiliation documented during the Phase 2 survey (Volume 2: Table 3; Volume 3: Table 1) may date to this period.

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. Page 64 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wah/a Mohawks

2.6.3 MIDDLE ARCHAIC PERIOD (c. 7,000 B.P.-4,500 B.P.)

1 This period is poorly represented in the archaeological record of the study area, but likely represents continuation of Early Archaic trends.

2 At the end of this period the environment was finally stabilised. It is possible that a drop in water levels on Georgian Bay may have led eventually to the inundation of sites occupied during that period.

3 The occurrence of underwater sites of this period is possible. Native copper artifacts have been recovered in fish nets on a number of occasions, and with great frequency in certain areas on Lake Superior. Submerged forests dating to this period have been found in Lake Michigan, although no cultural material has yet been found in association with these forest remnants.

4 No underwater sites ofthis period have been conclusively identified in the study area. Three inundated sites (lewitt [BgGv-5], Hungerford [BgGv-6] and Knight [BgGv-7]) dating to this period were documented during the Phase 2 archaeological survey. It is also possible thatsome ofthe inundated prehistoric sites ofundetermined affiliation documented during the Phase 2 survey (Volume 2: Table 3; Volume 3: Table 1) may date to this period.

2.6.4 LATE ARCHAIC PERIOD (c. 4,500 B.P.-3,000 B.P.)

1 The first major increase of population occurred at this time. This period represents the adaptation to biotic boundaries that were approaching those known historically, resulting in a broader subsistence base. Seasonal resource failure could be offset by the availability of other resources. Exploitation of this diverse resource base was focused on local, regional and seasonal resources. Aquatic and plant resources became increasingly more important. This is reflected in the increase of fish bones in the midden deposits and the types of fishing gear found on sites.

2 Open waters and marshland areas would have been exploited for aquatic mammals as well as for fishing and fowling. These specific shoreline and riverine environments served as focal points for these seasonal activities. These people (often referred to as the Laurentian Archaic) used large base camps on islands, near river mouths, and on the shores of embayments where a variety of vegetation, fish, fowl could be harvested during the spring, summer and fall seasons. During the hunting season, small hunting and specialized sites were occupied in upland areas and along small water courses.

3 Lakeshore settlements are identified from this period, both in the study area and the adjacent regions. There is a definite aquatic orientation at these sites with fish bones dominating the faunal remains. This coincides with the occurrence of fishing gear in

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. The Underwater and InundatedArchaeological Record Page 65

the tool assemblagesrecovered from these sites. These lakeshore sites were occupied from spring to fall and exhibit a wide range of exploitation activities occurring.

4 No underwater sites of this period have been conclusively identified in the study area. It is possible, however, that some of the inundated prehistoric sites of undetermined affiliation documented during the Phase 2 survey (Volume 2: Table 3; Volume 3: Table 1) may date to this period

2.6.5 EARLY WOODLAND PERIOD (c. 3,000 B.P. - 1500 B.P.)

1 The Early Woodland period is poorly represented in the Shield area, although material related to the Meadowood phase of the lower Great Lakes is present in Muskoka.

2 This period likelymarks a continuation from the Archaic, with a full adaptation to the now stabilized environment of the area. A new technology, that of ceramics, was introduced during the course of this period.

3 The current state of research does allow precise resolution of variables which would lead to the identification of high potential zones for submerged or inundated Early Woodland sites.

4 No underwater sites of this period have been conclusively identified in the study area.

2.6.6 MIDDLE WOODLAND PERIOD (c. 1,500 B.P.-1,000 B.P.)

1 The culture associated with this period is known as Point Peninsula. It is identified by its distinct ceramics which are often decorated with dentate tools.

Individual bands followed an annual occupation and subsistence round within a specific territory. These bands would break into smaller units and re-combine as the seasonal resources permitted

2 Specific area of Muskoka would have formed part of the environment that would have been exploited by these peoples.

3 The main activities would have been fishing, hunting and trapping.

4 No underwater sites of this period have been conclusively identified in the study area. Nevertheless the underwater evidence from the east end ofLake Ontario shows these people were exploiting this section of the southern Shield The Severn Bridge site (BeGw-21) appears to have been inundated by prehistoric fluctuations in water levels (p. Lennox, pers. comm.)

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. Page 66 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Munidpality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

2.6.7 LATE WOODLAND IROQUOIAN PERIOD (c. 1,000 B.P. to contact)

1 The cultures identified with this period are associated with the introduction of horticulture. During this late prehistoric period, these people adapted horticultural pursuits with the traditional hunting and gathering strategies.

2 The Muskoka's southern Shield environment would have been associated with the continuation of the traditional hunting, fishing and trapping activities.

3 The people of the transitional Late Woodland period (c. AD. 600(900) would have been using coastal areas to operate fishing stations and the interior area for fishing,hunting and trapping activities. The Early Iroquoian people (c.AD. 900-13(0) continued to go to fishing camps at the appropriate times of the year and to other locations to hunt and trap. The Middle (c. AD. 1300(1400) and Late (c. AD. 1400­ 1650) Iroquoians continued to exploit specific areas on a seasonal basis for the natural resources.

4 No underwater sites ofthis period have been conclusivelyidentified in the study area. One possibly inundated Middle Iroquoian site (Turners Island [BhGr-5]) was documented during the Phase 2 archaeological survey. Given the location of the study area relative to Huronia and the southern portage route to the north shore of Lake Ontario, it is assumed that Iroquoians would have exploited the study area on a fairly regular basis. The evidence from the St. Lawrence's Frontenac Axis section of the southern Shield area indicate it was being exploited by Iroquoian groups.

As discussed in Section 2.5 above, the sites at Charleston and South Lakes had underwater deposits of ceramics representative of the full period of occupation by Iroquoian people at the eastern end ofLake Ontario. These Iroquoian ceramics were found in association with other earlier and perhaps contemporary ceramic traditions. As previously stated, some, but not all, of the Iroquoian ceramics could have been carried in by other groups of people. Nevertheless, the amount and numerous locations of Iroquoian ceramics suggest that Iroquoian groups were exploiting southern Shield environments on a seasonal basis.

2.6.8 TIm SHIElD WOODLAND - ALGONKIAN (c. 3,000 B.P.- contact)

1 Up to the time that the fur trade changed the economy of the Shield Algonkian peoples, they conducted a way of life that was similar to that of the previous Archaic and Middle Woodland peoples, who either exploited or occupied the Muskoka area.

2 The territories of these people are not known.It is suspected that various pressures caused these territories to fluctuate and shift through time. Finally, the late movement of Huron groups to the area south of Muskoka may have effected these territories. At contact, the Huron were trading with neighbouring Algonkian groups, using birch bark canoes and exploiting southern Shield environments.

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. The Underwater and Inundated Archaeological Record Page 67

3 The activities being carried out include fishing, hunting, gathering, trapping and trading. The waterways of the District would have been used.

4 No underwater sites have been identified in the study area, but it is expected that submerged and inundated archaeological deposits will be present. At South and Charleston Lakes, the archaeological record shows a close association between Algonkian and Iroquoian groups. The exact nature of these relationships at any particular time, orbetween particular groups, must be examined. It should be stressed that the southern Shield included areas exploited by different groups through time.

2.7 A FRESHWATER MARITIME PERSPECTIVE: THE IDSTORIC PERIOD

Various aspects ofhistoric marine activity and exploitation along the Georgian Bay coast ofMuskoka must be viewed within the larger context of developments and practices within the Upper Great Lakes as a whole. Nevertheless, a detailed account of the history and development of the entire Upper Great Lakes system is beyond the scope of this study. The majority of the following discussions are, therefore, focused specificallyon trends and developments within the Muskoka study area itself, although reference is frequently made, for comparative purposes, to areas further afield.

2.7.1 POST-CONTACT TRIBES AND BANDS

Both natives and Europeans continued to use the waterways of Muskoka into the industrial era. The definitions of the fresh water maritime tradition presented in Section 26 of this report apply to this period as well. More detailed historic overviews are provided in Chapter 3.

2.7.2 ONTARIO IROQUOIAN FUR TRADERS (AD. 1550-1650)

1 The Huron were made up of a number of tnbal groups drawn primarily from the Iroquoian populations of southern Ontario. One of the reasons for their location northwest of Lake Simcoe at this period was its advantageous position with respect to exchange networks with the Algonkian groups of the Shield.

Huronsubsistence wasbased on local agriculture which wassupplemented by hunting, fishing and gathering. In addition, trade was being conducted with other Iroquoians, the Algonkian groups and with the French. While the Huron enjoyed the benefits of trade during this early period, the epidemics of the 16305 decimated the population. Other pressures and the dispersal of the Ontario Iroquoians between 1648 and 1652 resulted in a disruption of trade in this area and the eventual abandonment of southern Ontario by the Ontario Iroquoians.

2 The Muskoka River was located along the historic fur trade route from the French River. It was no doubt exploited as a hunting, fishing and trapping territory

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. Page 68 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

3 The Muskoka River would have been used in the same manner as the pre-contact groups using this area

4 No underwater sites ofthis period have been conclusively identified in the study area

2.73 ALGONKIAN HUNTERS AND TRADERS (AD. 1500-1900)

1 Following the abandonment of the central Ontario region by the New York Iroquois Confederacy, by the early eighteenth century, the Muskoka River came to be occupied by the Algonkian allies of the French. Ojibwa settled in the Georgian Bay­ Lake Simcoe area The groups were small in size and semi-nomadic in their subsistence patterns. They continued to hunt, fish and trap even though the main centre ofthe fur trade had moved west by this point. In addition, they cultivated small garden patches and obtained European items through trapping. Thus the traditional land use patterns of these people continued well into the historic period. They lived a semi-nomadic way oflife within a defined hunting area The sparse population was organised into family groups.

2 Groups would have exploited both the interior watersheds and along the coastline. The areas exploited would include fish spawning beds, area of aquatic mammals, etc.

3 The area may have been exploited on a seasonal basis for specific locations. The same pattern was probably established in the prehistoric period.

4 No underwater sites ofthis period have been conclusively identified in the study area

27.4 THE FUR mADE (AD. 155Q-1880s)

1 While the fur trade underwent many changes during its existence it remained focused upon the major waterways, although the intensity of traffic fluctuated considerably.

2 Thecoastalwaters ofthe Muskoka section ofGeorgian Bay; the French River-Ottawa route and the Severn were all·utilized in these activities.

3 Canoe spills and the termini of portage trails are key areas, as are stopover points along the transportation routes. Sites will likely be typified by material accidentally lost in the process of transportation, or discarded at stopover points.

4 No underwater sites ofthis period have been conclusively identified in the study area

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. The Underwater and Inundated Archaeological Record Page 69

2.7.5 EXPLORATION OF THE MUSKOKA WATERWAYS AND EARLY LAND SURVEYS (AD. 1783-1878)

1 The survey of the coastal section of Muskoka was started in 1815. In that year Captain William Fitzwilliam. Owen was appointed to survey a section of shoreline of the Bay. Due to various problems, only the Severn area was surveyed. Henry Wolsey Bayfield, his assistant in 1816 (McKenzie 1984: xvii), completed the survey ofthe area in 1820, including the Muskoka section of Great Lakes coastline.

The initial interior survey work was a result of the British government looking for a route that would connect Georgian Bay and the Ottawa River. It was believed that such a route would be the shortest one from the upper Great Lakes to the international fur markets. Officers ofthe Royal Engineers crossed and recrossed the Muskoka and Haliburton region between 1819 and 1827. Their observations provide a great deal of information concerning the original landscape of the various watersheds.

The strategy for the settlement of the southern Shield area called for the development of colonization roads. The result of settlement was that more people began to exploit the waterways of the Muskoka area. One of the reasons for this survey work was the establishment of settlement roads into the area. In the Shield area of Muskoka, surveying proceeded slowly. Wood Township was the last one to be laid out along the Severn waterway in 1878.

2 The best description ofthe coastal section ofthe Muskoka District is found in a letter written by Bayfield. In it, he apologised for taking so long to survey only 45 miles of coastal shoreline over a period of 10 weeks. His reason relates to the environment presented along the Muskoka section ofthe coast. The picture he presents is an area that contained over 6,000 islands, flats and rocks of various sizes. These were scattered along a main shore that was broken with deep bays and coves. The entire areawas described as being made up ofgranite bedrock. Thisshoreline wasdescribed as being unnavigable for vessels of any size while the channels between the many islands were navigable. Along the shoreline there were few streams that permitted upriver navigation by boat beyond a few miles because of rapids and falls. Finally, he noted that this "barren rocky country ceases 8 or 9 miles back" (McKenzie 1984:xxi­ xxii; Murray 1963:22-23). Bayfield's description of the bay section represents one of the better "rocks, trees and water" narrations of the area prior to any settlement.

Bayfield's charts of Georgian Bay became inadequate and unreliable for safe inshore navigation. Between 1883 and 1893, Captain John George Boulton, R.N. did a major resurvey that included the Muskoka section. Unmarked reefs and rocks were added and non-existent steamer channels were removed to update the charts (McKenzie 1984:xxvii). The strategy for the settlement ofthe Southern Shield area called for the development of colonization

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. Page 70 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

The observation of the early military surveys also provide descriptions of the nature of the various waterways. In addition, they provide a great deal oflocational data for native activities associated with the interior waterways of the Muskoka,

Charles Shirreff of Fitzroy Harbour undertook the initial survey for the water route through the Ottawa-Georgian Bay Tract on hisown in 1829 and descnbes the interior route he took across the two watersheds (Murray 1963:xlvii). The search for the water route between Lake Huron and the Ottawa was still ongoing as late as 1837. In that year, David Thompson travelled from Penentanguishene to the Ottawa via the Madawaska

3 Examples of the settlement activities are presented under the lumber and transportation and navigation themes.

4 See site development under the other themes

2.7.6 GEORGIAN BAY FISHERIES (AD. 1850s- 1940s)

1-2 See Chapter 3, Section 3.25 for thematic overview of this industry.

3 The environmental factors characteristic of the Bay led to the use of specific forms of boats and fishing techniques. The main boat type used on the Bay was called a "Mackinac". Hamilton provides a description ofthe "Mackinac" he used in his voyage around the major harbours and ports of Georgian Bay. The vessel was 32 feet from stem to stern, had a pointed bow, a 8'4''beam, a fo'castle that was 10'6" and a smaller locker at the stern. Her two masts carried 600 feet of canvas. Her ballast was made up of large stones and wooden railway ties. The provisions were stored in under the fore deck, stuffed mattresses were stored in the fo'castle or under the seats during the day. At night the seven people on this trip slept on the stored mattresses in an oval tent that measured 7'6" by 10' and that had been unrolled and hooked to the deck. A 16' skiff was towed behind as a dingy (Hamilton 1893:10). The "Mackinac" descnbed by Hamilton wasin reality the second boat type found on the Bay, the other being the larger Huron boat.

In Georgian Bay, the Mackinac was often called a Collingwood boat (McCullough 1989: Figure 20). This vessel type may have originated at Collingwood in the 1850s. It is described as a double ended boat, open except for a foredeck and usually under 30' in length. Its two masts were 28'long and the bowsprit was6' in length. It carried a jib, a loose-footed gaff foresail and a boom-and-gaff majnsail. It was considered very seaworthy but had limited cargo space and could only be used for the small rigs of gill nets at inshore locations. For the deeper offshore waters, a larger boat, the Huron boat (McCullough 1989-.Figure21), was used to fish deepwater rigs ofgill nets. It was a square stemed, two masted vessel that was 30 to 40 ' in length, 8 to 9' in beam and had a large cargo carrying capacity. They remained , however, relatively uncommon on the Bay (McCullough 1989:41).

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. The Underwater and Inundated Archaeological Record Page 71

The fishing tugs descnbed in the Government Returns of 1890 began making their appearance in the mid-1870s. These early fishing boats were modelled on regular tug designs and were used as tugs in the off-fishing season. The tugs were big (50' in length and 12 to 14' in beam) and heavily built with wood. The steam engine, boiler and coal bunkers were located amidships with fish storage located in the foredeck and net storage below the aftdeck. The tug crews were larger, with a captain, an engineer and five fishermen. Tugs were used in the gill net fisheries. They could fish further from shore in worse weather and were faster than the sailing Mackinaw type boats. Tugs brought in twice the amount of net. Tugs increased in numbers in the 1890s and peaked at the end of the First World War. By the 1920s, the steam tugs were being replaced by smaller diesel and gasoline powered tugs (McCullough 1989:41-43).

In the Bay, the predominant means of capture was by gill net. These nets were made of fine thread with sinkers attached to the bottom ofthe net and oiled wooden floats attached at the top. The size of the mesh varied with the type or size of fish caught. Gill nets were introduced on Georgian Bay between 1835 and 1838 (McCullough 1989:29).

Gill nets were cheaper to operate than other systems. A crew of two or three men could operate a vessel and bring in 18 to 20 tons a season (a ton was worth 70 to 80 dollars). Each operation had its own colour of buoy. Each end of a gang (a gang could be made up of six smaller gill nets and could reach a length of 9360') was anchored and had a small flag attached. The nets were left out two to three nights or more, if the weather was rough. Catches included whitefish, lake trout, pickerel, catfish, herring, bass and the occasional sturgeon. November was the close of the season (Hamilton 1893).

Onshore activities included the production of fish oil from the entrails of the processed fish that were boiled down in iron vats. The oil fetched prices of $10 to $ 12 a barrel in Toronto. The process created a considerable smell, and was done some distance from the residential areas of these fish settlements (Hamilton 1893).

4 Kohl (1990-.229) describes an unidentified wooden hulled tug lying in the shallow offshore of a small bay on the northeast comer of Galbraith Island. It consists of a 53 foot section of keel and some attached framing. No doubt there are many more wreck sites associated with the fisheries. More information is needed on the location of temporary fish stations operating along the Muskoka coastline.

The ruins of the fishery research station at Go Home Bay should be examined. Data on fishing grounds and spawning beds should be collected.

2.7.7 SQUARE TIMBER INDUSTRY (AD. 1860-1890)

1 Muskoka was first logged when the trade in the square timber market was at its peak around 1865. The decline and almost total disappearance ofsquare timber coincided

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. Page 72 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wahra Mohawks

with the boom of Muskoka's sawn lumber industry at the end of the last century (Murray 1963:lxxxviii).

2 The first areas lumbered were located in those interior areas which were accessible along the coastal section of the District. Accessibility is defined by the presence of no major impediments along the waterways the logs travelled. The waterway of the Muskoka had too many of these impediments.

3 No areas were identified. See sawn lumber industry theme for the basic method of timber harvest and transportation to mill sites.

4 No sites related to this theme have been identified in the study area.

27.8 GEORGIAN BAY SAWN LUMBER INDUSTRY (AD.1860-present)

1 In the Muskoka area, the demand for 3 to 4 inch planks had grown to the point where the export of planks to the British market exceeded the export of square timber in the 18608.

The American Market to supply Chicago and New York also began to grow with the depletion of US forests. During the 18608, the Michigan forests were depleted and the pressure for new sources of timber led to obtaining logs from the Canadian side ofLake Huron. The exports to the American markets consisted ofsawn logs, planks and boards (Murray 1963:lxxxvix-xc). Mansfield (1899:526) states that by 1892, 184,500,000 feet of logs were removed from the Georgian Bay region, by making the logs into rafts and towing the rafts across Lake Huron to the mills in Michigan. Mansfield (1899) states that many of the smaller vessels on the lake were involved in the lumber trade because they could navigate the shallow rivers up to the first rapids.

The practice of towing old schooners that had been cut down to be barges originated with the timber trade. Towing barges started in 1861 and the introduction ofpropeller driven, cargo carrying tugs around 1870 increased the practice ofusing tow barges for lumber and timber transport to mills elsewhere on the Great lakes.

The American market called for other species of woods towards the end of the nineteenth century. Muskoka was able to offer a variety of species (cedar, spruce, tamarack, balsam, black ash, yellow birch, maple, beech, basswood, and oak) to meet this market. In the 18805, hemlock bark was in demand for use in the tanning process.

2 This industry was centred on the interior river watersheds. At first the areas were restricted to those which permitted the use of waterways to get the logs out to transhipment points. The late 19th century transition from the pines to other tree species meant that the sawing of the lumber had to be done at interior mills. This was because hardwoods species don't float.

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. The Underwater and Inundated Archaeological Record Page 73

3 The 19th century lumbering practices are outlined for the 1835 to 1913 period in the shield highland areas of Algonquin Park by McKenna (1976). Tote roads along the river banks link structures and permit men and supplies to enter the bush in the winter. Structures such as shanties and depots were located along the waterways, Shanties were used only in the winter and were constantly being moved. Various structures, such as booms, chutes, slides and dams, were made to improve the waterway to permit the easy movement ofthe saw logs to the mills. The alligator boat, whose remains are often found on land, was designed for both land and water based operations. This type of craft could also move itself along a tote road to a new area of a watershed.

The cut logs were moved down river to the mills or transhipment points. The network ofwaterways in Muskoka were restricted by obstructions such as rapids and falls. Fewer slides and dams were built in Muskoka than in other areas such as the Ottawa Valley.

The early saw mills were placed along the waterways where water power and timber were available.

The cuttings increased with the coming of the railway which could move out the forest products more economically. Part of the Black River area was reached by railway by 1855. In 1875, the Northern Railway had reached Gravenhurst. The result was a significant increase in the lumber trade because it was now more economical to take material out and bring supplies in by rail.

Lumbering began as late as 1892 in the Oxtongue River area when the timber rights to the Muskoka watershed were sold to assist the development of the new sawmill towns (Gravenhurst, Huntsville and Bracebridge). It should be pointed out that most of the trees cut in this area were sent to mills elsewhere in southern Ontario by the Ottawa, Arnprior and Parry Sound railways that penetrated the Muskoka watershed from the east in 1896 (McKenna 1976:56-58).

The saw lumber industry continued to be important until the 1930s. The industry dominated social and economic life of the area. The railroad had an impact on the use ofthe waterways for the lumbering industry, although the latter did remain in use.

4 Underwater deposits associated with lumbering have been observed offshore of lumber mill sites in the North Channel area. Log booms on the Ottawa are known to be anchored in place by old sunken vessels.

One of the earliest sawmills in Muskoka was set up at the first falls from the mouth ofthe Severn in 1830 and was in decay in 1835. In 1854, a mill was set up on or near the first falls, about 4 kilometres from the mouth of the Muskoka (Muskosh) river. From here the lumber was shipped to Chicago by boat. Later extensive mills and docks (Muskoka Mills) were built at the mouth of the Muskoka as a terminus between the overland railway corridor and the Great Lakes shipping trade (Murray 1963:xciv).

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. Page 74 Master PlanofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Kohl mentions dive wrecks associated with the lumber industry along the Bay coastline of Muskoka, The wreck of the wooden barge Ontario (built at WeIland in 1867) was abandoned after years of service in the timber trade on Georgian Bay at this particular site. The barge is located on the north bank of the Musquash River just below the second rapids (3 kilometres from Longuissa Bay). It is in four metres of water and the hull is recorded as being 131' in length and 24' in beam (Kohl 1990:227-228).

A second vessel associated with the lumber trade is located just one kilometre upstream of Louissa Bay. This is the Chippewa, a 94' long, 132 ton wooden steamer which sank a short distance from where it was launched, in 1874, at Muskoka Mills, at the mouth ofthe Musquash River. After 32 years ofservice in the local Georgian Bay lumber industry, it wasabandoned in 1906in 12 metres of water (Kohl 1990:228).

2.7.9 GEORGIAN BAY COASTAL NAVIGATION (AD. 1790s-present)

1 The coastal shoreline of the Muskoka District lacks good harbours for the movement ofcommerce. Mansfield (1899) notes harbours at Penetanguishene and Midland and then at the Parry Sound Narrows. No harbours are mentioned for the Muskoka shores. Ashdown (1988:22-24) also indicated a lack ofany railwayharbours along this same shoreline. The Muskoka side ofthe Bayserved as a location for lighthouses and navigational aids.

Most traffic along the Muskoka shoreline was in response to the lumber trade. Mansfield states that as the railway moved west to the principal lake ports, in the early 18508, the quality passenger ships and general cargo steamers fell into decline because they could not compete with the railways.

2 Current topographic maps (Lake Simcoe 31D, edition 4, 1964 and Tobermory 41H, edition 2, 1974,scale: 1:250,(00) and hydrographic charts( Chart No. 2202, Georgian Bay Small Craft Chart, Canadian Hydrographic Service, 1986)show that the Muskoka District section of coastline represents a most hazardous environment for ship navigation. Beausoliel Island marks the course ofnavigation into a channel that leads to the open waters ofthe Bay. The northern coastline boundary ofMuskoka District is Moose Point at Twelve Mile Bay.

There is also an inshore back channel navigation route that permits travel through various channels north to the next major harbour on Georgian Bay at Parry Sound. This back channel route provides access through the Musquash Channel to the mouth of the Musquash River while Bushby Inlet and Go Home Bay provide access to the Go Home River. A light house wasestablished on Gin Island (west side ofBeausoliel Island) in 1875 to guide vessels to Penetanguishene and Midland harbours. The present hydrographic chart shows no lighthouse presently standing on the Gin Islands.

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. The Underwater and Inundated Archaeological Record Page 75

3 Apart from the navigation aids, the Muskoka shoreline was associated with the lumber trade. Mansfield (1899: 516) notes that in the Georgian Bay district, in 1880, 54,528,380 feet of lumber was cut.

4 The most likely underwater site in this area would be a shipwreck. Parker( 1986:64) maintains that his list of 211 shipwrecks is the most complete single source for the Georgian Bay and North Channel area. It indicates a wide range of vessels (schooners,sloops, brigs,steamers, steamer tugs, propeller driven vessels and tugs) that were sunk, burnt, lost, foundered, or stranded in this area between 1804 and 1958.

Kohl (1990:230) descnbes the wreck of a small 75' wooden freighter, the W 1 Morton. It was launched from Midland in September 1905 and burned in November of the same year in the small craft channel between Fairlie and Ward Islands west of Big David Bay. Today, the boiler and the remains of the hull are visible.

27.10 SEVERN RIVER NAVIGATION (AD. 1860s-1920s)

1 This theme is not well developed, as documentation within the Muskoka District is lacking in comparison to other portions of the Severn system.

2 In 1875 the Pioneer, a "neat little steamer", was in operation between Severn Bridge and Sparrow Lake. This was a necessary service as there were no roads (apart from a winter road) in that portion ofMorrison Township (Murray 1963:336). Operations continued into the twentieth century.

3 Appendix 3 outlines the vessels servicing the Severn and the Sparrow Lake area.

4 No sites were defined on the Muskoka side of the Severn River. It is clear from Appendix 3 that vessels were often sold and moved elsewhere, often within the Muskoka area.

2.7.11 MUSKOKA LAKE NAVIGATION (AD.1860s-1958)

1 Once the colonisation roads had opened up the interior (Murray 1963:lxxxi), steamboats were still used in the summer to move cargo and people because the roads were rough and dusty. For the rest of the year, stage coaches were operated on the roads for passengers and freight services. The railway replaced the stages shortly before 1885. The association between the railway and steamship service continued into the erawhen a seasonal steamship service for mixedpassenger and freight service was not required.

2 Development occurred along the waterway to improve transportation. There was a lock development at what is now Port Carling in 1869-71. This linked Lakes Rousseau and Muskoka. At the same time another cut was made from Lake Joseph to Lake Rousseau at Port Sandfield.

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. Page 76 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality otMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Tied in closely with passenger and freight services were the support services to the lumbering industry by water navigation. This reliance on water navigation was greatly diminished once the railway took over the movement of lumber and supplies.

3 Prior to 1862, row boats and sail boats were used to carry freight and passengers to various points on the lake. Steamboats took over from earlier craft in the 1860s. Appendix 1 lists the vessels which were used on Muskoka Lakes. The Wenonah, in 1866, was the first steamship to operate on the Muskoka Lakes. It had a regular run and provided for the transportation ofpassengers, livestock and farm produce. It was followed by the steamships Waubomik in 1869 and Nipissing in 1871. The latter vessel could carry 148 passengers and was enlarged, in 1877, to carry 243 passengers. It burned in 1896. The steam.tug-boat Simcoe was added in 1876 to what was called the Muskoka Lakes Navigation Company. In 1875, the Northern Railway reached Muskoka Wharf near Gravenhurst In 1881 the company was reincorporated as the Muskoka and Nipissing Navigation Company. In 1886, the company was again reincorporated as the Muskoka & Georgian Bay Navigation Company. The operations on Georgian Bay failed and the company withdrew to its interior routes in 1893. With the acquisition of the Royal Muskoka Hotel on Lake Rosseau in 1902, the company was yet again reincorporated and called the Muskoka Lakes Navigation and Hotel Company. Operations were concentrated in 1906 on Muskoka Lake (Ashdown 1990:178).

Othersecondary railway-steamship transfer points included the Bala Park, Footes Bay and Lake JosephJDocking Siding stations of CNR's Bala subdivision and CPR's Bala station and Bracebridge depot (Ashdown 1990:178). Appendix 4 presents a list ofthe major ports on Lake Muskoka.

The influence of the navigation system on local settlements was considerable. The arrival ofsteamship service to Bracebridge and Gravenhurst brought prosperity during the 1860s. In Gravenhurst, large log booms were towed to sawmills. In addition, visitors were being toured about the lakes from the Muskoka Wharf in vessels such as the Wenonah, Ahmic; Sagamo. The Sagamo was in operation in 1907. At Port Carling, economic development was enhanced by the construction of the locks between Muskoka and Rosseau.

In 1956, the steamship line lost its mail contract and CNR closed down the Muskoka Wharf. Poor service and lack of patronage meant the end of steamship service in 1958.

Today the Segwun survives and provides summer excursions to Gravenhurst Her hull originally belonged to the Nipissing II which was built in 1887.

Kohl (1990:238) descnbes the wreck of the Nipissing off of Blueberry Island in the north part of Lake Joseph. The wreck is in 4 to 12 metres of water.

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. The Underwater and InundatedArchaeological Record Page 77

The wreck of the Waome is located in North Lake Muskoka, near Milford Bay offof Keewaydin Island The wreck sits in 18 to 25 metres of water. This vessel was built at Gravenhurst as the Mink in 1912. This steel-framed steamer was 78' in length and 14' in the beam. On May 28, 1928, new owners re-registered the vessel as Waome. On October 6, 1934, she was hit by a squall ofwind that knocked the vessel onto her port side. Water rushed in and the vessel sank in less than one minute. Three lives were lost The vessel now lies intact and upright on the bottom (Kohl 1990:240).

2.7.12 LAKE OF BAYS NAVIGATION (1877-1920s)

2 Navigation along the northern chain of Vernon, Fairy, Peninsula and Mary Lakes required the construction oflocks between Fairy and Mary Lakes (1873-1877) and of a canal between Fairy and Peninsula Lakes (opened in 1888). Finally in 1904, a short narrow gauge portage railway (1 1/4 miles in length) was built to connect Lake of Bays with Peninsula Lake (Murray 1963:c-ci).

3 Steamships also brought prosperity to this area. The 80' paddlewheel steamer Northern was launched at Port Sydney on June 18, 1877. Itwasdesigned to carry 400 passengers and 60 tons ofsupplies (Murray 1963:338). This vessel made a 56 mile run from Port Sydney to Mary Lake via Huntsville to the head of lake Vernon. It returned to Huntsville and then onto Fairy Lake (Murray 1963:c).

In 1895, the Huntsville & Lake of Bays Navigation Company was established It operated steamers until 1950. It also relied on the railway transfer points. In the 1920s, there were ten CNR trains daily at the Huntsville dock during the summer because ofthe area's importance as a tourist destination. The automobile and paved roads were responsible for the abandonment of the steamship service.

Baysville had a sawmill and a steamer connection. Huntsville was stimulated by the engineering of a navigable water route to Port Sydney.

4 Appendix 2 presents the vessels operating in this area. It has also been noted that the derelicts of the "Huntsville Fleet" were scuttled in Lake Vernon at the mouth of the Big East River.

2.7.13 RECREATION AND RESORTS (18605-1914)

1 This theme is closely linked to the creation of the navigation companies on the lakes of Muskoka.

2 By 1880 there were 3-4 tourist hotels in operation in Muskoka, with all having facilities for steamer service.

3 The vessels serving these tourist destinations carried passengers, freight and mail. In addition, supply boats serviced the permanent residents of the district.

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. Page 78 MasterPlan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oi Muskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

4 Kohl (1990:242) notes that cultural material is scattered in "pre-ordained" garbage areas in the lakes. He notes that these deposits were created by the many resorts that were scattered through this area at the tum of the century. Many underwater bottle dumps associated with this period have been located on the bottom.

Kohl makes reference to cultural material being found around the government dock at Port Carling (Kohl 1990:239). There is a reference to the remains of the old hotel that sits on the point on the Lake Rosseau end of the Port Sandfield channel (Kohl 1990:238). Historic ceramics were located on underwater rock ledges offshore of the site of another old hotel which is situated on the west side of Lake Muskoka at Bala Falls (Kohl 1990:239).

The shipwreck of the Nipissing is also associated with this period.

There is a reference to a large resort (The Pratt Tourist Hotel) being built at the head of Lake Rosseau in 1870. The hotel was enlarged in 1875, but burned down in 1883 (Murray 1963:402).

Submerged cultural resources associated with this theme can be expected to involve those shoreline areas directly associated with water activities. Thus structural features (such as dock cnbbing) will be found in locations of passenger and/or freight docking facilities, mooring areas, and other types ofconvenient water access points associated with the resort and recreational "industry", A second type of of deposit, which may or may not be associated with such structural elements are offshore refuse deposits. These middens mayoccur at some distance from their place of origin.

2.7.14 SUMMER COTTAGES (AD. 1920s-present)

1 This theme is not well developed in relation to the potential for significant submerged cultural resources. Potentiallyvaluable submerged cultural resources, however, could include the remains of vessels that served as travelling or floating general stores, recreational boats, underwater dumps, and the various types of shoreline facilities associated with cottaging.

4 One documented underwater site is associated with this period. This is the wreck of the 87' private yacht Wawinet. The vessel was built in 1904 and sold to Bertrand Corbeau ofPenetanguishene in 1938. On September 21, 1942, the vessel heeled over while returning from Honey harbour to Penetanguishene. The vessel sank in 2 minutes with 25 of the 42 people on board, including Corbeau, drowning. The vessel sank off of Beausoleil Point near Candlemas Shoal in 10 metres of water.

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. The Underwater andInundated Archaeological Record Page 79

2.7.15 HYDRO DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER FORMS OF INUNDATION

1 The development of conservation areas, control dams to maintain lake levels and the continued use of old lumber dams has flooded sections of land which contain archaeological resources. The most dramatic inundation along the waterways are associated with hydro development. On the South Muskoka, the following hydraulic stations are located: Hanna Chute built in 1926, South Falls built in 1904 and Trethewey Falls built in 1929. Hydraulic generating stations on the Muskoka include Big Eddy (built in 1941) and Ragged Rapids (built 1938). Big Chute (built in 1909) is located on the Severn River (Fram 1980:60-61).

4 The examination of areas that were once inundated and are now exposed once again shows evidence ofshoreline occupations associated with habitation and portage sites, ranging in date from the Archaic through to the Historic period on the Mattawa and the Montreal rivers. Similar patterns should be apparent in Muskoka.

2.8 CONCLUSIONS: THE MARINE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD AND PREDICTIVE MODEIJ,ING

As both this and the previous chapters have made clear, the waterways of Muskoka have proved to be critical determinants, in shaping the nature and extent of human settlement in the District, from the time ofthe earliest occupations through to the present day. Accordingly, the potential for marine archaeological sites throughout the study area is considerable. This being recognized, it must also be acknowledged that the influences which these watercourses have exerted have never been static, since Muskoka's hydrology itself has undergone a process ofmore or less continuous evolution since the final retreat of the Wisconsinan glaciers some 11,000 years ago.

Perhaps the most critical changes, however, at least from the perspective of submerged sites, have taken place within the last two centuries. Considerable alterations in water levels are known to have occurred throughout the study area during this period. One source ofchange has been the increases in soil erosion and surface run-off in the wake of land clearance activities. More dramatically, fluctuations have resulted from large scale engineering projects associated with hydro-electrical, industrial and transportation development. Although not all of these facilities necessarily remain in operation, artificially high water levels have frequently been maintained for recreational purposes.

As a result of the Phase 2 archaeological survey, it has been suggested that the current water levels are, in general, approximately 13 metres higher than in the recent past (Volume 3, Chapter 3), resulting in the seasonal or permanent inundation of many shoreline sites. Unfortunately, however, these hydrological changes are likely to have been extremely variable throughout the study area, and in the absence of specific data, cannot be quantified in any meaningful fashion.

Given this situation, therefore, ratherfew specific statements can be made regarding the identification of areas of high potential for the recovery ofsubmerged archaeological material Nevertheless, land use and settlement in Muskoka has been such that there is no real need for a predictive model focused specifically upon the region's marine heritage. The offshore areas of those zones identified as being of high archaeological potential, on the basis of the model presented in Chapter 1 of this

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. Page 80 Master Plan of Heritage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

document, hold equal promise for the presence of underwater and inundated prehistoric archaeological sites, as well as for historic features related to the Euro-Canadian settlement and development of the region. The validity ofthis assumption has largely been borne out by the results of the Phase 2 archaeological survey (Volume 2, Chapters 2 and 3).

The exceptions to this generalization are, of course, the numerous shipwrecks known to be present within the major lakes and rivers of the study area. At present, however, far too few wrecks have been reliably provenienced, or documented in an accessible manner, to allow for more than a vague identification ofareas ofhigh potential. They are, in essence, "paper shipwrecks", which may not exist as archaeological shipwrecks. Hopefully, this situation can be clarified through Phase 2 ofthe project, as field work and consultation with local experts are carried out. These efforts can be expected to result in the delineation of particularly treacherous areas which may have claimed numerous vessels in the past 150 years. It should, however, also be anticipated that these "high potential shipwreck zones" will shift through time, for as marine technology evolved, the specific environmental factors which posed threats to shipping also changed.

Not all the shipwrecks which occurred in the Muskoka District, however, can be accounted for in this manner. For compounding the fact that the exact resting places ofvessels are rarely known in detail, is the fact that, shipwrecks are frequently chance events, occurring as a result haphazard accidents on board, such as fire, or through deliberate scuttling, as opposed to navigational error in especially dangerous areas. Such randomness cannot be accounted for by any predictive model,

Mount McGovern Co. Ltd. 3 BUll..T HERITAGE AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPES IN MUSKOKA by D. Cuming, B. McPhail, and 1. Simonton

3.1 THE APPROACH TO PLANNING FOR BUILT HERITAGE AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

This chapter examines the built heritage and cultural landscape potential ofMuskoka. The potential ofthe area is derived through identifying broad historical themes ofhuman activity, examining existing heritage inventories and data bases, and descnbing those types of built features or modifications to the landscape that are associated with or representative ofthe previously identified historical themes. Mapping ofthemes (Appendix 5), individually and collectively then enabled the identification ofareas of potential where cultural landscapes and individual heritage features might be found.

For the purposes of heritage conservation planning and management, some caution is required with the use ofhistorical themes. The identification ofhistorical themes as a tool ofheritage conservation featured most prominently during the early 1970s, as part of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Historical Systems Plan. The intent of this Plan, as expressed by A Topical Organi:zl.ltion ofOntario HIStory, was to promote an organized approach to Ontario's historical resources, as they related to outdoor recreation and land management programmes in the province, particularly through Ontario's provincial parks. Specifically, the plan sought to present history "in an integrated manner, communicating a specific sense oftime and place" (Historical Sites Branch, Division ofParks, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 1974).

A Topical Organization ofOntario History, was limited in its scope to "only the topical organization of Ontario history as it should be expressed in a historical parks context" (Historical Sites Branch, Division of Parks, OMNR 1974). It was not intended that the topical organization would be used outside discrete areas, ie. those Crown Lands managed as provincial historical parks.

One objective of a later study by the Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation's Heritage Studies on theRideau-Quinte-Treni-Sevem Waterway (1981), was to critique and refine the concepts described above. Importantly, the study distinguished between documentary history (ie. the written document as studied by professional historians), and material history (ie. human history as expressed as changes or modifications to the environment or landscape). Material history, therefore, comprises objects made by human action in the landscape, and includes individual buildings and structures, as well as combinations of these into broad and distinctive landscape types, generally referred to as "cultural landscapes". The basic utility of the thematic approach is that it allows for an evaluation of the significance ofparticular aspects ofthe study area's past, which have contributed to the growth and development ofits material heritage.

Accordingly, the identifications ofhistorical themes presented in this chapter are aimed at providing a description ofthose agents ofchange which account for modifications ofthe landscape, rather than being concerned with providing an analysis of the social history of Muskoka. The mapping of individual historical themes (documentary history), in and of themselves, are not useful management tools for day-to-day heritage conservation planning. Most importantly and obviously, historical themes do not explain the present state, value, significance, nature or condition ofthe landscape today. Only on-site fieldwork can enable such evaluation and explanation.

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Page 82 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality ofMuskoka and the Wanta Mohawks

Continuing change in the landscape, over many decades, may account for a succession of removal; replacement of, and additions to, buildings features and the environment in general. The material remnants ofone historical theme may be completely obliterated by another. Alternatively, abandoned landscapes may be radically transformed by the advancement of natural regeneration.

For each theme described in the following sections, an attempt has been made to identify those distinctive types of material heritage that are linked, directly or indirectly, to that specific theme. In addition, at the end of each theme description, there is a concluding segment structured thus:

• Theme Significance: describes the significance of the theme in the historical development of the nation, province or region;

• Theme Rating: expressed as 'A', 'B', or 'C', according to the extent that the theme contnbuted to the development of Muskoka:

'A' usually involved a large segment of the resident population, over a large area, for an extended and continuous period of time;

'B' usually involved a substantial segment of the resident population, over a smaller area, for a shorter, and sometimes intermittent period of time;

'C' usually involved a small segment of the resident population, confined to a localized area, for a short period of time;

• Associated Themes: lists those themes that are directly associated with the theme under consideration; and

• Contemporary Landscape Impacts: describes generally whether the theme has a major or minor impact on the modem cultural landscape.

Following the presentation ofthe historical themes and their attnbutes, the resultant types ofmaterial heritage which may be expected to be present in the study area are identified in Section 33. These general types are also further broken down into more specific subtypes and their relationships to the historical themes are explored.

3.2 THEMATIC OVERVIEW OF THE SETI'LEMENT mSTORY OF MUSKOKA

The physiographic nature of the Muskoka region was a major factor in determining the course of human activity in this area. Although the poor soil in Muskoka did not allow wide agricultural development, its vast timber resources attracted lumbering interests on a large scale. The extensive water systems in Muskoka were widely used for transportation, the development of the lumbering

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 83

trade and steamboat navigation, as power sources, and as a basis for the development of the recreational industry.

The Muskoka region is generally underlain by granite and other hard Precambrian rocks which form part of the Canadian Shield. The area to the east of Highway 11 is located within the Algonquin Highlands, and is characterized by frequent outcrops of bare rock, knobs and ridges, and shallow, sandy and acidic soils, making it a submarginal area for agricultural pursuits. The hollows in the landscape, which are frequently filled with small lakes, swamps or bogs, also served as a deterrent to agriculture. Most of the area is forested.

The area west ofHighway 11 is known as the Georgian Bay Fringe. It is characterized by even more shallow soils, bare rocks, ridges and knobs. The bare rocks are partly due to the wave action of glacial Lake Algonquin that once covered the area. This area is even less suitable for agriculture than the Algonquin Highlands to the east.

The areas on both sides of Highway 11, from Gravenhurst to North Bay, consists of a narrow strip of sand, silt and clay deposits which occupy the hollows in the landscape. The strip is located just below the former shoreline of Lake Algonquin. This area supports most of the agricultural activity in the Muskoka region. Clay plains, which also support agriculture, exist intermittently on the west side of Highway 11 around Bracebridge; in the Bardsville area; around the shores of Three Mile Lake; and in the Windermere and Dee Bank area. Clay plains are also found on the north shores of Mary Lake around Huntsville, Fairy Lake and Peninsula Lake.

The north and south branches ofthe Muskoka River system both rise on the edge ofAlgonquin Park. The north branch consists of the East River, which flows to Mary Lake and then on to Bracebridge, where it joins the south branch to drain into Lake Muskoka. Lake Muskoka is drained to the west by several rivers- including Moon, Musquash and Go Home- which ultimately flow into Georgian Bay. The south branch of the Muskoka River system consists of the Oxtongue River, which flows to Lake of Bays and on to its confluence with the north branch at Bracebridge. The southern boundary of Muskoka is partially defined by the Severn River. The Severn is joined by the Black River, which runs through the southeastern section of Muskoka.

3.2.1 FUR lRADE

The Early French Fur Trade (A.D. 1550-1650)

While the fur trade had earlier indirect influences on this area, it was not until 1609 and 1615 when Champlain began exploring the area that the direct fur trade developed. All along the waterways, native groups learned to deal with the French in this trade. This period ended with the dispersal of the Huron.

The coastal waters of the Muskoka section ofGeorgian Bay was on the water routes ofnative copper from Lake Superior and the Algonquin-Huron trade. In addition, new trade developed with the penetration ofEuropean goods from the French River-Ottawa route to Huronia in the 1530 to 1600 period (Harris 1987: Volume L Plate 33).

Unierman McPhail Cuming Associates Page 84 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the DistrictMunicipality ofMuskoka and the Wanta Mohawks

Between 1600 to 1650, native goods continued to come from northern groups (Ojibwa traded furs, native copper, reed mats, dried berries, moose antlers, red slate, plus fish and furs; Nipissing traded fish and furs; Algonquin and Montagnais groups both traded moose skins and antlers) to Huronia, In addition, the trade in European goods continued until it was interrupted by disruptions between 1640 and 1648 and the dispersions (1648-1653) (Harris 1987: Volume 1, Plate 35).

Theme Significance: NationallProvincial

Theme Rating: B

Associated Themes: None

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor; any remains of this activity are archaeological in nature.

Middle Fur Trade (A.D. 1670s-1784)

After the fall of Huronia, there was little activity until the peace with the Iroquois in 1667. The French once again began to intensify their trading activities along the waterways. Between 1749 and 1754, they operated a military post, Fort Rouille, at the mouth of the Humber River. This post was the southern terminus of a portage that ran north to Lake Simcoe, the Severn River and the Muskoka area of Georgian Bay. French trade between 1667 and 1696 was with the Mississauga of the Parry Sound area which is located north of the Muskoka section of shoreline (Harris 1987: Volume 1, Plate 38).

During the 1697 to 1739 period, the Mississaugas moved south to the Severn area of Muskokas and traded with Mississauga located to the south along the trade route that led to Lake Ontario at Fort Rouille. This trade continue until 1755 (Harris 1987: Volume 1, Plate 40).

The Seven Years War (1756-1763) resulted in a reduction ofFrench activity in the Great Lakes area (Fort Rouille was abandoned in 1759) (Harris 1987: Volume I, Plate 42). The result of this withdrawal was that by the last half of the 18th century, these waterways were being used solely for local fur trading activities.

This period drew to a close after the American Revolution when agricultural settlement began to compete for land and push the fur trade west.

Theme Significance: NationallProvincial

Theme Rating: B

Associated Themes: None

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor; any remains of this activity are archaeological in nature.

Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 85

Later Fur Trade (A.D. 1784-1880s)

The government control on fur trade activities was lifted in the late 1780s. Free trade was declared and private navigation was permitted on the Great Lakes. Even after 1821, the fur trade was being carried on at Midland Bay and other isolated points on the waterways of the area (Harris 1987: Volume 1, Plate 69).

Through the 1880s, the traditional elements were maintained at Penetanguishene with furs being collected and shipped from here to a southern market.

Theme Significance: Nationa1/Provincial

Theme Rating: C

Associated Themes: None

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor; any remains of this activity are archaeological in nature.

3.2.2 ALIENATION OF 1HE LAND

Purchase of Indian Lands

The principal treaties bywhich the Crown obtained land for settlement purposes were conducted with the Ojibway nations who held acknowledged rights to land in Muskoka during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The first known surrender of land was recorded in Deputy Surveyor General John Collin's "Memorandum on Indian Purchase" dated August 9, 1785, and the particulars were certified by Interpreter Jean Baptiste Rousseau in May of 1795. According to Rousseau, the surrender involved a one mile wide strip of land on either side of the Severn River, and was agreed to by the chiefs of the Mississaugas who lived between Lake Simcoe and Matehedash Bay (Murray 1963:97-99). In 1818, by Treaty No 20, a large tract of land that included parts of Muskoka and Hahburton was surrendered by the Mississaugas who occupied land south of the forty-fifth parallel (Murray 1963:101-103). These people came to settle reserves in the Rice Lake area, outside of Muskoka.

Another Ojibway group that held rights in Muskoka were known to the Crown as the "Chippewas of Lakes Simcoe and Huron," and two of their chiefs were Mesquakie, also known as Yellowhead, and Aisance. By 1820, this group had surrendered much of their land in present-day Simcoe County and it became necessary to set aside land for them that was removed from Euro-Canadian settlements. Sir John Colborne planned a settlement in the Coldwater and Couchiching Narrows areas in 1830, and Chiefs Aisance and Yellowhead eventually agreed to settle in the government villages that were built there. In 1836, however, the government required that the settlements be dismantled. Chief Yellowhead re-established his band at Rama in 1839, on land purchased after it had been abandoned by Euro-Canadian farmers (Murray 1963:lviii). Chief Aisance moved with his band to Beausoleil Island in 1842, and used neighbouring islands for agricultural purposes. In 1856, by Treaty No. 76, the Chippewas ofLakes Couchiching, Simcoe and Huron surrendered their claims

Unterman McPhilil CumingAssociates Page 86 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources fOT the District Municipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

to certain islands, including Beausoleil, and Chief Aisance moved with the Beausoleil band to Christian Island (Murray 1963:lviii,lix).

Through Treaty No. 61, the Robinson Treaty, the government arranged in 1850 for the surrender of a large, ill-defined area that was to include those lands which remained to be purchased in the Muskoka District (Murray 1963:lix). One signatory of the treaty was Mekis, Chief of the Ojibway band known to the Crown as the Muskoka Indians. They claimed a tract of land between Lakes Muskoka and Rosseau, and their village of Obajewanung (present day Port Carling) was occupied as late as 1868. Soon after, however, they joined the Shawanaga band located at Parry Island.

Although members of the Rama band hunted throughout Muskoka, none of their representatives signed Treaty No. 61. Chief Yellowhead's traditional trapping limits were in the district between Lake Muskoka and Lake of Bays and the Bigwin family also hunted around Lake of Bays (Murray 1963:lviii). Some Ojibway questioned the government's interpretation of the Robinson Treaty and pressed claims on land for which they had not been compensated. In 1923, following an official inquiry into the claims,the Federal and Provincialgovernments drew up the WilliamsTreaty and paid compensation to the Ojibwaywho lost land in Muskoka (Murray 1963:lix).

Theme Significance: NationalJProvincial

Theme Rating: B

Associated Themes: South Shield Settlement

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor

Early Land Surveys (1815-18905)

Captain William FitzwilliamOwen was appointed in 1815 to survey a section of the shoreline of the Great Lakes including the Muskoka section of Georgian Bay. Due to various problems, only the Severn River area was surveyed. The survey of the Muskoka section of the Georgian Bay coastline was completed in 1822 by Henry Wolsey Bayfield.

The British government became very interested in finding an alternative water route to the Georgian Bay area and the Upper Great Lakes from the 81. Lawrence - Lake Ontario after the War of 1812 Between 1819 and 1827 the British Engineers sent numerous teams to explore the waterways seeking a potential canal route along the southern fringe of the Algonquin Dome between the Ottawa River and Georgian Bay. In 1819, Lieutenant James Catty found the country difficult and unsuitable for canalization. In 1826,Lieutenants Wm. Morrow and Wm. Smith went up part ofthe Black River and back to Lake Simcoe. In the same year, Lieutenant Henry Briscoe became the first European to travel in Muskoka and leave a written record. After 1827 the British military did not send out any more exploration teams.

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 87

In 1829, Alexander Shireff explored the Muskoka River for the purposes of assessing its potential for a private canal and settlement. His accounts became the basis of an 1834 map of the Muskoka River. By 1835 the Upper Canada government sent out Lieutenant John Carthew and Lieutenant Frederick Baddely to survey the rivers and lands on the Georgian Bay side of the Algonquian Dome, including the Muskoka River, in order to report on the resources and potential of the region. Baddely went as far as Bracebridge Falls and Carthew ascended the Indian River to Lake Rosseau, the Dee River to Three Mile Lake,and visited Skeleton Lake providing the first known European descriptions of these areas.

No further official survey of the area was carried out until 1847-1848 when Robert Bell established an east west boundary, later to be known as Bell's line, between Macauley and McLean townships on the north and Draper and Oakley townships on the south. In 1852, J.W. Bridgland examined the land around Lake Muskoka and the south bank of the Muskoka River towards Georgian Bay and declared it unfit for agricultural purposes. Consequently, the surveying ofthe Townships ofFreeman, Gibson and Baxter did not proceed until much later in the nineteenth century. This assessment of the land did not, however, put off the opening ofthe Ottawa Huron Tract to the east for settlement.

In 1860, surveyor John Dennis became the first Euro-Canadian to discover Lake Vernon and the Big East River while surveying for the Muskoka Colonization Road. In 1865, Alexander Peter Cockburn extensively surveyed the Lake of Bays, Peninsula Lake, Fairy Lake, Vernon Lake and then the Muskoka Lakes for the purposes of evaluating the potential for steam boat traveL

In the 1850s, the government announced an ambitious plan for colonization roads. In the Muskoka District a road line was surveyed from Washago Mills to Muskoka Falls to meet Bell's east west line and work began in 1858 on the Muskoka Colonization Road. The Townships of Muskoka, Draper, and Macauley were surveyed along the Muskoka Road in 1858. Morrison Township wassubdivided into farm lots in 1860. The north south line between present Morrison and Ryde Townships had been established in 1835 while the internal survey of Ryde Township was completed in 1861.

Most of the other townships in Muskoka were surveyed for settlement between 1865 and 1868: Chaffey and Sinclair were surveyed in 1869; Wood Township in 1869 and 1870; Gibson Township in 1879-8; and Baxter in the late 1870s. The northern boundary of Freeman Township was surveyed in 1865; the eastern boundary in 1869; the southern boundary in 1880; and the interior in 1895 and 1896.

Theme Significance: National/Provincial

Theme Rating: B

Associated Themes: South Shield Settlement; Colonization Roads; South Shield Farming

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor; the Muskoka survey system was based upon a 1,000 acre sectional system (100 chains by 100 chains), comprising lots of 50 chains by 20 chains. Roads and farming, although related to the survey system did not reinforce the rectangular grid upon the landscape.

Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates Page 88 MasterPlan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

The Reserve System (1880-1920)

The development ofEuro-Canadian agricultural settlement on the land resulted in the settling ofthe former Indian allies of the British to specific areas. This practice became the basis of the present reserve system.

Gibson Reserve IR 79 was organized in 1881. In the 1870s a large number of the Iroquois natives living on the lands owned by the Seminary of St, Sulpice outside Oka, Quebec, converted to Wesleyan Methodism from Roman Catholicism. After the Iroquois built a Methodist church on the land, .the Seminary sought and was given court permission to remove the church from their lands. The disagreement received national coverage when tensions rose and the Roman Catholic church was destroyed. The Oka natives, who were the forefathers of the Gibson Band, were moved to the Muskoka district in 1881 by the government

Moose Deer Point IR 79 was organized in 1917. Muskoka Road 12 to the reserve was opened in 1966. This area is the Wah Wah Taysee (FIrefly) Indian Reserve section of the Georgian Bay shoreline and is inhabited by the Ojibway. The Moose Deer Point Indian Band which has about 125 members was formed in 1917.

Theme Significance: Provincial

Theme Rating: C

Associated Themes: None

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor

3.23 EARLY EURO-CANADIAN SETILEMENT

South Shield Settlement (1850-1870)

The government played a prominent role in the settlement ofMuskoka by providing free land grants and improving the transportation system with colonization roads and betterwater navigational routes. In 1868, the government initiated the Free Grants and Homestead Act, in order to attract British settlers to Ontario, and to counteract the effects ofthe United States' HomesteadAct on immigration to, and emigration from Ontario. It was hoped that this act would speed up settlement in the northern regions. The land set aside for settlement extended from Georgian Bay to the Upper Ottawa River, and was known as the Ottawa-Huron Tract Some of the first townships selected for free grant were located in Muskoka.

Patterns of early settlement in Muskoka reflect these government initiatives, with the spread of settlement along lakefronts, major watercourses and tnbutary streams, and along the colonization roads. Typically settlement wasspread out over the district with great distances between population centres. The population tended to concentrate around an initial settlement such as a sawmill or a

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 89

grist mill, spread outwards from the centre and then jump a distance to a new location. Later generations filled in some of the settlement gaps.

In 1858, a bridge was built at the Severn River and a few people settled in the area This site, Severn Bridge, became the earliest settlement area in Muskoka since it served as a gateway and point of transfer for goods and travellers into the Muskoka area The Muskoka Colonization Road construction from Severn Bridge was under way when in 1859, the Crown Lands Department announced that lands in Muskoka, Draper and Macauley townships were open for the settlement along the road. By 1862 there were approximately 287 people located along the route of the Muskoka Road and a further 745 in the townships of Morrison, Macauley, Draper and Muskoka The best farming land in Morrison was around Sparrow Lake. Muskoka Falls (also known as South Falls and Muskokaville) was the second community to be established in Muskoka By 1862, Richard Hanna had opened the Muskoka Falls post office and a town was surveyed the next year.

Gravenhurst and Bracebridge received post offices in 1862 and 1864. The waterfront area of the Muskoka Lakes was settled first in the 1860s. The Peterson Road was built in 1858-1863 in order to encourage settlement to the east of the Muskoka Lakes. The Free Land Grant Act (1868) provided for the distnbution oflands in the townships of Cardwell, Macauley, Watt, Brunel, Draper, McLean, Muskoka and Stephenson townships: Emigration societies in England contnbuted to Muskoka's settlement capitalizing on the free land grants. The steamship routes on the Muskoka Lakes and later the Lake of Bays system helped to determine the settlement patterns on the major lakes and waterways.

Baxter Township was settled first at Port Severn in the 1870s by french Canadian workers from the Georgian Bay Lumber Company, who squatted on the Baxter side of the Severn River. These squatters were eventually granted patents to their land after Baxter was included in the 1868 Free Grants and Homestead Act in 1880. The eastern portion of GIbson Township was settled by the Oka natives moved from Quebec in 1881. Approximately one third of the western section of Freeman Township was taken up, in the late 1880s and 1890s, by the Tadenac Cub of Toronto. The land, however, was not settled. Itwas turned over to the Province in 1896 and subsequently surveyed. The eastern section of Freeman was not settled until the Canadian Pacific Railway established MaeDer in 1906.

Theme Significance: Provincial

Theme Rating: B

Associated Themes: Forest Industry; Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery; Manufacturing; Transportation; Utilities; Public Works and Communications; Centres of Settlement.

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor; although early settlement accounted for the coalescence of settlers, and their associated buildings and structures, there are few substantial remains of these early settlements. Remains may be largely archaeological in nature.

Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates Page 90 MasterPlan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

3.2.4 FOREST INDUS1RY

Georgian Bay Lumber (1850-1920s)

The first logging in Muskoka started on the lower reaches of the Moon and Musquash Rivers near Georgian Bay due to its ready accessibility. William Hamilton built a sawmill at Three Rock Chute in the early 1850s and Muskoka Mills was also built at this time at the mouth of the Musquash River. In 1856, the government issued a number of licenses for logging on the Moon and Musquash Rivers starting the main thrust of logging in the area. Until the railway arrived in Gravenhurst in 1875 all logs were driven down the Muskoka river system to Georgian Bay.

The lumber industry was revived in the mid 1800s when the trade in square timbers experienced a second boom between 1868 and 1877. There was also an increase in the demand for sawn lumber associated with a building boom in both Canada and the United States, which lasted for several decades. A!. the railway moved up from the south, toward the shores of Georgian Bay, and the American markets developed in the west, the Severn River and Georgian Bay watersheds were increasingly exploited by the timber industry. Both ready access to transport and efficient sawmill operations were required for a profitable lumber industry. By 1850, steam powered sawmills had resulted in a tremendous increase in the output of sawn lumber. Every year, the lumber camps moved further north along the Georgian Bay coast, and expanded inland to find new timber. Logs were floated downstream to Georgian Bay, and log booms were towed across the Bay to sawmills, including those at Port Severn and Waubaushene.

The first sawmill on Georgian Bay was built at the mouth of the Severn River, in 1830, by the Government of Upper Canada. Later called Port Severn, a small village grew up around the mill, known as the Severn Mills. The mill was idle for several years until purchased by William Robinson in 1850. In 1857, it was leased to Alexander Christie and Andrew Heron, who had acquired a timber license in Baxter Township east from Port Severn to the Big Chute area. Bythe 1860s, it was known as Christie Mill. The mill burnt down in 1869, but was subsequently rebuilt.

Anson Dodge was the principal owner of the Georgian Bay Company. This firm, based in Waubaushene, primarily used the Musquash and Severn Rivers to transport logs out of Muskoka. By 1871, Dodge had acquired or owned the majority of shares in almost all of the sawmills on Georgian Bay, form Collingwood to Byng Inlet. Since the forests of Simcoe County had been depleted, Dodge proceeded to obtain timber licenses in Muskoka and Parry Sound in order to supply his mills with the large pine required by the square timber trade. Dams and slides were built at Ragged Rapids and Big Chute on the Severn to facilitate the log drives. Bythe 1890s, Christie Mill at Port Severn, and the Georgian Bay Lumber Company mill at Waubaushene, were working to capacity.

Theme Significance: Provincial

Theme Rating: B

Associated Themes: None

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 91

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor; although lumbering is an activity of substantial impact at the time of operation, there is little direct evidence of its existence in the contemporary cultural landscape. Regrowth is a long, slow process, and the modem species composition of the forest is likely very different from that prior to logging. Nevertheless forest cover has been re-established throughout the vast majority ofMuskoka. From the perspective offeatures within the landscape, on the other hand, the deterioration oftimber buildings, including lumber camps, sawmills,and log slides suggests that these remains may be largely archaeological in nature.

Huron-Ottawa Tract (1860-1940)

The opening ofthe Muskoka Colonization Road in 1860 allowed ready access to the Muskoka Lakes area for lumbering for the first time. In 1862 a sawmillwas built in Bracebridge. The logs were sent down the Musquash and Moon Rivers to Georgian Bay. In 1870, a sawmill was established at Bala Falls. By the early 18705, there was logging activity on Lakes Rosseau and Joseph, as well as the Lake of Bays area and Huntsville.

In 1875, the railway reached Gravenhurst making it practical for the first time to establish large sawmills in the Muskoka Lake region. The main promoter of the railway was Anson Dodge, owner of the Georgian Bay Lumber Company. Logging rapidly spread up the Muskoka River system after 1875 and had reached the headwaters in the Algonquin Park area by the 18908. Gravenhurst became one of the leading sawmill centres on the Canadian Shield during the 1880s, due to the presence of the railway, and the fact that it was not extended further northward for another 10 years. Agriculture was rapidly abandoned by the inhabitants of many areas within Muskoka, in order to pursue more lucrative work in the lumber industry.

In 1886, the railway was extended northward and large mills opened in both Bracebridge and Huntsville. As timber resources were depleted in the lower Muskoka Lakes, lumbering moved northeast, to the upper regions of the Muskoka River system. Two of the biggest names in the lumber business were Mickle-Dyment Company, Gravenhurst and the J.D. Shier Lumber Company, Bracebridge. Lumbering and log drives on the Muskoka River system were at their height in the 1890s.

The Gilmour Tramway was built, in 1894 bythe Gilmour Company, to carry logs out ofthe Muskoka River system to their mills at the mouth of the Trent River. The Tramway connected Lake of Bays to Raven Lake at the head of the Black River, and then ran through a marshy valley to Nora Lake, which is at the headwaters of the Gull-Trent River. The Tramway consisted of a jackladder west of Dorset, which lifted logs up the hillside. A steam engine in a power house (which still exists today) operated the jackladder, pumping water up the hill for the log slide which ran 1000 metres cross country to the entrance of a narrow creek valley leading to Raven Lake. A second jackladder, at the end of the slide, lifted the logs to the top of the stone Tramway Dam (which also survives to the present day), and deposited them in the Tramway Pond, created by flooding a pass over to Raven Lake, the levels ofwhich were also raised. The Tramway proved, however, to be a rather inefficient means of transporting logs, and was closed, in 1896, in favour of a sawmill at Canoe Lake.

By the late 1890s, the pine tree supply was almost depleted in Muskoka and the industry began a rapid decline, particularly in the lower Muskoka Lakes. The survivors in the industry were sustained

Unterman McPhlJiJ Cuming Associates Page 92 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks in the twentieth century by smaller quantities of pine, other softwoods and hardwoods. Log drives were much smaller and less frequent, becoming, by the 19208 and 19308, largely a thing of the past. By the 19408, logging had virtually ceased in Muskoka. Although lumbering wasa significant activity in the Muskoka region, most evidence of its existence is now archaeological in nature.

Theme Significance: Regional

Theme Rating: A

Associated Themes: Transportation; Utilities; Public Works and Communications.

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor; although lumbering is an activity of substantial impact at the time of operation, there is little direct evidence of its existence in the contemporary cultural landscape. Regrowth is a long, slow process, and the modem species composition of the forest is likely very different from that prior to logging. Nevertheless forest cover has been re-established throughout the vast majority ofMuskoka. From the perspective offeatures within the landscape, on the other hand, the deterioration oftimber buildings, including lumber camps, sawmills, and log slides suggests that these remains may be largely archaeological in nature.

3.2.5 RURAL LIFE: AGRICULTURE AND FlSHERY

South Shield Farming (1860-1920)

Soils were typically poor in a large part of the Muskoka district resulting in only a few areas suitable for sustaining agriculture. Farming was initially pursued as a requirement of the Free Land Grant Act, but was soon abandoned in many areas of Muskoka.

Although grain was grown initially, accompanied by the appearance of grist mills, agriculture was generally based on the production ofhay, peas, oats, potatoes and livestock. These supplied the local forest industry market. Sheep raising was also pursued on a large scale. The Bird Woollen Mill in Bracebridge assisted local farmers during the late 1800s in establishing flocks in order to supply a local supply ofwooL The sheep farmers also supplied the local resort hotels later in the 1890s and into the 19008 with Muskoka lamb which became internationally known.

Most farming in Muskoka tended to be marginal and only a seasonal pastime in many areas with the men working at the lumber camps in the winter to make extra money. As the tourist trade increased in the 1880s and 1890s, a large number of farmers began to take in boarders. As numerous family farms expanded to became boarding houses and in some cases resort hotels, farming was abandoned completely. Other farmers managed to make a living supplying fresh produce to the resorts and tourist trade.

Several agricultural societies and annual agricultural fairs were held in the late 1800s in Muskoka. Monck Township was noted in the 1878 Guide Book andAtlas ofMuskoka and Parry Sound Districts as having excellent agricultural land particularly around Bracebridge. Watt Township was noted as one of the best for agriculture in the Muskoka District with the area around Dee Bank being some

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 93 ofthe best farming land. The southern regions of Stephenson Township were considered to be good quality land in 1879. Port Sydney had a grist mill and an oat meal mill indicating local farming. Farming around Dfracombe in Stisted Township started in 1877. Medora Township was noted as having some good farms although most of the land was not suitable for agriculture.

Farming was at its height in the 19205 with many local farms supplying the tourists industry and the resorts with fresh produce and meat. As transportation and communications improved during the post World War I period, the resorts relied less on local producers and the Muskoka farms declined.

Theme Significance: Provincial

ThemeRating: B

AssociatedThemes: EarlyEuro-CanadianSettlement; ForestIndustry; Manufacturing; Transportation; Utilities; Public Works and Communications; Recreation and Conservation.

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor; the poor soils of the Muskoka area did not provide for sustained agricultural production or expansion. Farm abandonment and natural regeneration has accounted for the survival of only a few pockets of rural landscape.

Georgian Bay Fishery

The fishery was responsible for the development of unique, often seasonal communities along the coastal shorelines of the Great Lakes. These communities did not solely depend on fishing for a livelihood. Local ship building enterprises produced "MacKinaw"vessels, designed specifically for the environment of Georgian Bay.

A paucity of historically documented fishing stations along the Georgian Bay coast of Muskoka (peters 1981: Figure 7), suggests that the industry was of somewhat less direct significance to Muskoka than to the adjacent regions of Algoma, Parry Sound, Manitoulin Island and the Bruce Peninsula

Based on 1890 government figures, the Georgian Bay Division Returns noted that there were 15 tugs and 152 boats employed in the fisheries of this Division. In addition, there were 738,600 fathoms ( 1 fathom = 6 feet or 1.83 meters) of gill nets and 465 fathoms of seines used to catch fish, valued at $530,500. For the same period, the Lake Huron Division showed that in 1890 there were 10 tugs and 131 boats catching $223,752 worth of fish. The Georgian Bay fisheries employed almost 15% of the labourers involved in fishing activities in the province.

Around the 1890s, the use of steam and American capital was increasing in the Canadian Great Lakes fisheries. After 1893, Canadian government regulations stated that nets had to have a 5 inch mesh and no more than 6000 yards of nets per boat were to be used. These regulations were being brought in because the Canadian fisheries were being depleted because of the American practice of using smaller mesh nets and of having a shorter closed season. In addition, the opening up of the area was causing a depletion of the fisheries and the pollution of spawning and feeding beds by

Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates Page 94 MasterPlan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municinaliiv oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

"decayed fish and offal" and "sawdust" from "mill refuse". Thus by the 1892 period, there was a decrease in the fish population (Hamilton 1893:113).

In 1898, a board was set up to manage marine biological stations. These stations were to organise and coordinate fishery research. In 1904, thisboard took over the management ofthe Go Home Bay station on the Muskoka coast and operated it unti11914 when it was closed (McCullough 1989:91).

In southern Georgian Bay, the charter boat industry began to compete with the commercial fishermen for the trout stocks. By the 1930s, as many as 90 boats (including many former commercial vessels) were involved with charters. Both the commercial and charters folded in the 19408with the collapse of the trout stocks.

Theme Significance: Provincial

Theme Rating: B

Associated Themes: None

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor; seasonal communities and the nature of this activity did not account for substantial or sustained change in the landscape.

3.26 MINING

South Shield Mining (1900-1920)

Mining was a marginal economic activity and was generally small-scale in the Muskoka region. Large quantities of sand and gravel deposits located in the southern part of the district along the Grand Trunk (CNR) railway were worked in the early 1900s. In 1909, the Muskoka Sand and Gravel Company was incorporated. Two principal gravel pits were operated on Lots 4 and 5, Concession 13 in Draper Township outside Bracebridge in 1918. Large deposits of sand and gravel located at the locks on the North Muskoka River, BruneI Township had been used for building purposes and road work by 1918.

Deposits ofSaugeen clay were used to establish brickyards in both Bracebridge and Huntsville in the early 1900s. The Muskoka Quarries Ltd. operated a granite quarry in Draper Township in 1922, and the Gravenhurst Crushed Granite Company operated a gneiss quarry in the early 1920s. Granite, feldspar and phosphate were extracted by the National Potash Corporation of Gravenhurst in 1917 to 1924. The company also produced potash. Some molybdenum was extracted in Monck Township in the early 1920s as well.

Theme Significance: Regional

Theme Rating: C

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 95

Associated Themes: Transportation; Utilities; Public Works and Communications; Centres of Settlement.

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor; visible as abandoned sand, gravel and clay pits.

3.2.7 MANUFACfURING

Local Staple Milling (1860-1890)

The first manufacturing businesses were water powered sawmills and grist mills. Theywere small and numerous generally servicing local areas within a day's journey. Most were built in the 18605 and 18705. The sawmill at Three Rock Chute, built in the 18505, preceded settlement in the Muskoka district by six years. The sawmill at Muskoka Mills was built in late 18505 or early 18605at the mouth of the Musquash River. A third sawmillwasestablished at Bala in 18705. The majority of the water powered sawmillswere located between the Muskoka Lakes and the Lake ofBays which wasthe area of most settlement.

The first grist mill in the Muskoka River system was established in Bracebridge in 1865; the second at Dee Bank Falls in 1871. Other grist mills included Matthiasville (18705); Hollow River (1874); Baysville (1877); and Port Sydney (1876). Grist mills had declined by the 18908.

Theme Significance: Regional

Theme Rating: C

Associated Themes: Forest Industry; Rural Life: Agriculture and FIShery.

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor; grist and saw mills were associated with the rise and fall of forest and agricultural activity. Constructed from timber, most mills survive only as ruins or archaeological sites.

Regional Staple Mjlljng (1870-1950)

With the development of better transportation routes into Muskoka, some sawmills and grist mills began to service larger areas and to centralize. The introduction of the steam powered engine eventually reduced the need for a water site for the mills. By the 1880s, Gravenhurst, the terminus for the railway, had seventeen sawmills in operation including the Mickle-Dyment Mills. Huntsville also supported several sawmill operations in the late nineteenth century including: the Riverside Lumber Company, the Huntsville Lumber Company, and the J. Stephenson Mill. In 1902, R. J. Hutchinson began to cut hardwood and formed the Muskoka Wood Company of Huntsville, which became the first integrated hardwood mill in Canada. Now known as Tembec Forest Products Ltd., it is the sole survivor of the pioneer lumber operations in Muskoka.

Unterman McPhIJil CumingAssociates Page 96 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Birds Woollen Mill (1872-1954) in Bracebridge began as a local mill for carding wooL Eventually it started to spin yarn and to weave cloth. Initially it relied on local wool sources but by World War I it was supplied from across Canada The Hall Woollen Mill operated in Huntsville during the late nineteenth century until 1907.

The Bracebridge Flour Mill (1865-1909). started as a small scale industry but by the 18908 was processing wheat from the Canadian West Brown's Beverages (1873) in Gravenhurst produces Muskoka dry ginger ale from local artesian well water.

Theme Significance: Regional

Theme Rating: B

Associated Themes: Forest Industry; Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery; Mining; Transportation; Utilities; Public Works and Communications; Centres of Settlement

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor; some mill buildings probably survive only as ruins or archaeological sites.

Handicraft Processing: Wooden Boat Building (1870-1930)

Manufacturing processes which were originally handled in the home in the initial stages ofagricultural settlement were eventually taken on by specialized industries which processed goods for the local market

Muskoka was once the custom boat building capital ofNorth America. In the 1880s, local residents, sensing a need for small water craft, began to construct small boats and canoes for camping and hunting excursions, as well as for the local resorts. As tourism grew rapidly to become Muskoka's economic mainstay in the 1880s and 1890s, custom boat building also prospered. By the 1890s, local building firms were constructing mahogany launches, steam yachts and runabouts for wealthy cottagers. As more private cottages were built in the 19008, the demand for watercraft continued to increase.

The custom boat building industry survived until the 1930swhen it was affected by the Depression, causing some companies closed. After World War IT the industry largely disappeared due to the introduction of fibreglass boats in the 1950s. In the past few years the industry has seen a revival as antique boats have become a popular pastime.

Greavette Boatworks in Gravenhurst was the first assembly line boatworks in Canada Ditchburn Boat Manufacturing Company was founded in Rosseau in the 1870s, where the Ditchburn brothers built rowboats and canoes for the tourists. In 1890, they moved to Gravenhurst in the Muskoka wharf area It was closed in the 1930s. In Port Carling, boatbuilders included Johnston Boatworks (1869),John Matheson (1910) and Duke Boats (1910),which is the sole survivor today. Bert Minett started building launches at Cleveland House in the 1870s. In 1910, he moved his business to

Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 97

Bracebridge. The partnership of Minett-Shields Boatworks was formed in 1925. The firm closed in 1948.

Theme Significance: Provincial

Theme Rating: B

Associated Themes: Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery; Recreation and Conservation.

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor.

Factory Production (1870-present)

Large scale manufacturing developed into a thriving export market, primarily in Bracebridge, during the late 18705. Economic growth and the development of an industrial base resulted in the urbanization of the centre. In 1876, the Beardmore Tanning Company was founded in Bracebridge, relying on local supplies of hemlock bark, a vital component in the leather tanning process. The hemlock bark was delivered to the factory by steamer boats up the North Muskoka River.

Shaw, Cassels and Company, later known as the Anglo-Canadian Leather Company, arrived in Bracebridge and Huntsville in 1891. The Anglo- Canadian Leather Company in the 1890s was one of the largest sole-leather tanneries in the British Empire. When both the Beardmore and Anglo-Canadian Leather companies were working at the same time, Bracebridge was considered to be one of the largest centres of heavy leather tanning in the British Empire. The company also had a major impact on the development of Huntsville.

The Bird Woollen Mill also operated on an international scale during the early 1900s. During World War I it supplied both the Canadian and British armies with blankets and clothing. Another large scale manufacturer was J. D. Shier Lumber and Supply Mill.

Theme Significance: Regional

Theme Rating: B

Associated Themes: Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery; Manufacturing; Transportation; Utilities; Public Works and Communications; Centres of Settlement.

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor.

Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates Page 98 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality ofMuskoka and the Wanta Mohawks

3.2.8 TRANSPORTATION, UTILITIES, PUBUC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS

Early Water Routes

Water, road, rail and air transportation have served in successivewaves as integral components of the economic, social and physical development of the Muskoka region. Earliest access to, and within Muskoka, was by the network of lakes and rivers of the Muskoka River system. The Muskoka River system has its headwaters in Algonquin Park. The Oxtongue and Big East Rivers lead to the Lake of Bays lakes and rivers, down North and South Muskoka Rivers to the Muskoka Lakes area and down the Musquash and Moon Rivers to Georgian Bay.

Theme Significance: Regional

Theme Rating: B

Associated Themes: Fur Trade; Early Euro-Canadian Settlement.

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor

Colonization Roads

In 1856, the Government made a grant for a new road. The survey began in 1856 and the Bobcaygeon Colonization Road had reached Dorset by 1862 forming the east boundary of Ridout and Franklin Townships in the Muskoka District. A range of free land grants were surveyed on each side of the road including Ridout and Franklin townships.

The road reached the Oxtongue River in 1863 and was abandoned. Another road was extended from the Muskoka Colonization Road from a point north ofHuntsville via Fairy Lake, Peninsula Lake and Lake of Bays to connect with the Bobcaygeon Road just north of Dorset

Surveyors established the route of the road from Severn Falls to Muskoka Falls and work started in 1858 on the Muskoka Colonization Road. The route of this road determined the pattern of settlement and the transportation routes in the region. The road was extended north to Bracebridge and by 1869 reached just below Lake Vernon. In 1870, it was completed to Huntsville. When the railwaywas built to Huntsville in 1886,the original road wasdiverted to follow the railwayline in the Falkenburg area.

The Peterson Colonization Road was established in 1858-1863 as an east west access road to the north south colonization roads. Provincial Land Surveyor Joseph Peterson examined the line established by Bell in 1847 for such a road and it was approved with some improvements. It was 114 miles long and ran from the Muskoka Road to the Opeongo Road in the east which connected it to the Ottawa river. Rocky sections of the route attracted few settlers. By the 18708, many of the settlers who had located along the Peterson Road had left their farms and the road became

Unterman McPhailCumingAssociates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 99

impassable in certain sections. Only the western section of the Peterson Road to Vankoughnet remained open.

Theme Significance: Provincial

ThemeRating: C

Associated Themes: Early Euro-Canadian Settlement; Rural Life: Agriculture and FIShery; Centres of Settlement .

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor; some routes, such as the Muskoka Road, have been radically transformed, through widening and other improvements. Their earlier appearances are unrecognizable. Other routes are now abandoned and overgrown.

Early Roads

The Parry Sound Road was opened in 1867 to encourage settlement in the area. It extended forty-five miles between Parry Sound and Bracebridge. Other early roads ran around the edges of the Muskoka Lakes linking the various communities. Frequently travelled roads included the Musquosh Road (Bala Road) which joined Bala and Gravenhurst ending at Glen Orchard and the Port Carling Road which was built in 1872 A section of the road from Gravenhurst to Bala was diverted north of Pidgeon Lake in the 19005. The Port Carling Road (also Lake Joseph Road) was built in the 1870sand ran around the west side ofLake Joseph and connected with the Parry Sound Road Another road linked Port Carling to Bracebridge. A short road ran from the Parry Sound Road at Three Mile Lake into Dee Bank and Windermere on Lake Rosseau.

Dalton Road was built in 1886from Severn Bridge east to Cooper's Falls in Morrison Township and then to Dalton Township. The Brunel Road was laid out east from the Muskoka Road along the Sixth ConcessionofStephenson Township around MaryLake to the eastern line ofBrunei Township. In 1873, the Baysville Road through McLean Township was opened.

Theme Significance: Regional

Theme Rating: B

Associated Themes: Early Euro-Canadian Settlement; Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery; Centres of Settlement

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor; see impacts noted above. Some roads, such as the Port Carling to Bracebridge Road and the Brunei Road, may survive, being neither abandoned nor improved.

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Page 100 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Steamboat Navigation

In 1865, Alexander Peter Cockburn proposed to the Government that he would put a steamboat on the Muskoka Lakes ifthey would encourage settlement in the area and undertake some navigational improvements on the lakes, notably a lock between Lakes Muskoka and Rosseau. In 1866, Cockburn launched the Wenonah on Lake Muskoka; in 1869 the Waubamik was launched on Lake Rosseau. A canal had been built between the two lakes in 1869 and by 1870 a second canal had been built between Lakes Rosseau and Joseph, connecting water navigation amongst all three lakes. By 1872, it was possible to sail from Gravenhurst directly to the heads ofLakes Rosseau and Joseph. In 1873, the government constructed a dam. at Bala to regulate the water levels on Lake Muskoka for navigational purposes.

With the arrival of the railway to Gravenhurst, in 1875, the lumbering trade boomed, and more tug steamboats worked the lakes. In 1881,Cockburn organized the Muskoka and NipissingNavigational Company. Passenger steamboats carried settlers to the colonization roads and to points further north; vacationers to the new resorts which had sprung up along the steamboat routes; mail and freight to the communities on the lakes; and towed log booms to the various sawmills. Consequently, the Muskoka and Nipissing Navigational Company prospered until about 1886. Other steam. scows and tugs towed hemlock bark to the tanneries at Bracebridge. Private supply boats, such as those operated by the Hanna Company, began to service the far-flung communities and resorts with goods and produce until the 1890s.

In 1886, the railway was extended to Lake Nipissing, and steamers were no longer part of the transhipping route. The Muskoka and Nipissing Navigational Company was left with only the local trade, and that bound for Parry Sound. A new branch was opened on Georgian Bay, in 1886,in the hopes of generating revenue, but it was discontinued in 1893. Other steamboat services continued to operate along the Georgian Bay coast, providing transportation to the resorts that developed in the late 188908 and early 1900s. By the 1890s,the Muskoka and Nipissing was dependent upon the tourist trade on the Muskoka Lakes. In 1904, the company opened the Royal Muskoka Hotel, becoming the Muskoka Lakes Navigational and Hotel Co. Ltd.

Since roads were slow to arrive in northern areas, and were often impassable, the waterways played a central role in the development of Muskoka's transportation systems. From 1873 to 1876, the government built the Brunei locks between Mary and Fairy Lakes to facilitate steamboat navigation on the northern lakes. With further channel improvements in 1877,a navigable waterway was opened up from Port Sydney, through to Huntsville, and to the west end of Lake Vernon. The Northern, launched from Port Sydney in 1877, was the first steamboat on the upper Muskoka lakes. The Waubamik which had been renamed the Dean was launched on Lake of Bays in 1878. Peninsula Lake was connected at the east end to the Lake of Bays by a stagecoach and wagon service (Long 1989:137). The Huntsville Navigation Company, formed in 1895by captain George Marsh, built the Portage Railwaybetween Peninsula Lake and Lake ofBaysin 1903-1904, which eliminated the traffic bottleneck on the lake system. The steamboat service on the upper Muskoka Lakes, and the railway extension in 1886,were instrumental in the development of the resort tourism trade in the late 1890s.

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 101

There was also small scale steamboat activity on Sparrow Lake, due to the lack of roads in that section ofMorrison Township. A steam tug operated on Sparrow Lake in the 1870s for the Christie Lumber Company, while in the 1890s, a steamboat ran between Severn Bridge, Sparrow Lake and Port Stanton, carrying passengers, supplies and mail This service was carried into the twentieth century when the resort trade flourished on Sparrow Lake.

The steam tug business ended on the lower Muskoka Lakes, in the 1890s, due to the decline in lumbering; it was continued on the upper Muskoka Lakes for a longer period due to the continuation of the timber industry in this area until the 1900s. Scows stopped taking hemlock bark to the Bracebridge tannery in the 1930s due to a lack of local supply and the introduction of chemical processing. The golden years of the passenger steamer services were between 1908 and 1928, as new resorts were built prior to World War 1,and resort tourism remained steady into the 1920s. By the 1920, however, the big passenger steamers which were used primarily for cruise boats and mail delivery, since automobiles and improved roads provided more ready access to the lakes. The passenger steamers remained viable into the late 1940s. The last steamers on the Lake ofBays and the Muskoka Lakeswent out of operation in the 1950s. In the last few years, however, the steamer Segwun has been restored and now in use on the Muskoka Lakes as a tourist cruise boat, operating from Gravenhurst.

Steamboats profoundly influenced settlement locations and economic development in the Muskoka District. In total, twenty townships touch the Muskoka Lakes, Lake of Bays and the four lake chain on the North Muskoka river and few settled parts of Muskoka are far from these waterways. All of the major towns, many of the smaller villages and the big resort hotels are all located on the shores of these waterways.

Theme Significance: Regional

Theme Rating: A

Associated Themes: Forest Industry; Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery; Mining; Manufacturing; Transportation; Utilities; Public Works and Communications; Recreation and Conservation; Centres of Settlement

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor; although steam navigation wasa major activity, accounting for substantial change in the environment, few substantial remnants, directly associated with this theme, survive.

Trent Severn Waterway

Work on the canal started in 1833 and was finally finished in 1920. Controlled by the Ontario Government until 1892, the waterway was taken over by the federal government and put under the Department of Railways and Canals. The canal was originally intended as an important commercial transportation link between Lake Ontario and Georgian Bay. By the time it was completed more efficient modes of transportation had been developed. It now serves recreational uses and was acquired by the Canadian Parks Service in 1972

Unierman McPhail Cuming Associates Page 102 Master PlanofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality ofMuskokil and the Wahta Mohawks

Theme Significance: Provincial

Theme Rating: B

Associated Themes: Fur Trade; Early Euro-Canadian Settlement; Forest Industry; Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery; Recreation and Conservation.

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor; marine railway, swift locks.

Railways

In 1869, Anson Dodge, a prominent lumberman who was interested in accessing the timber in the Muskoka Lakes area, led a group of officials from the Northern Railway on a tour of the Muskoka and Parry Sound districts, to show them the advantages of investing in a railway in the north. As a result of the tour, it was decided to extend the Northern Railway from Barrie to Orillia, and then to Muskoka.

The Toronto, Simcoe and Muskoka Junction Railway which joined with the Northern Railway in Orillia reached Severn Bridge in September 1874 and arrived in Gravenhurst in August 1875. In November of that year, a spur line was added to Muskoka Wharf. The arrival of the railway in Gravenhurst created a lumbering boom on lower Lake Muskoka. A multitude of sawmills were quickly erected in close proximity to the railway. Many farmers, who were eking out a subsistence living on their farms, turned to the lumber industry to supplement their income. Eventually, many ofthese people abandoned farming altogether. The railwayalso provided easy access to the Muskoka Lakes for tourists, and was instrumental in the growth of the passenger steamboat industry on the lakes. An 1883 advertising brochure put out by the Muskoka and Nipissing Navigation Company notes that the railway connections from Toronto and Hamilton were by the Northern and North Western Railway which departed from Toronto. The Northern and Pacific Junction Railway arrived in Huntsville in 1885. The Northern and Pacific became part of the Grand Trunk Railway in 1892 and the Canadian National in 1923.

The arrival of the railway in Huntsville provided a great boost to the economy and marked the decline of Hoodstown on the west end of Lake Vernon. Early in the 19008, the Grand Trunk Railway published a number of promotional brochures for the Muskoka vacation lands advertising their express train from Toronto and Buffalo to Muskoka and connections with the Muskoka Navigational Company in Gravenhurst and the Huntsville Navigational Company in Huntsville.

The west side of the Muskoka Lakes was serviced by two railways. One, the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway (CNOR) ran from Toronto to Washago and then to Sparrow Lake - Ragged Falls - Bala Landing- Foote's Bay in 1907. It is now part of the Canadian National Railway.

The second railway on the east side of the Muskoka Lakes was the Canadian Pacific Railway. Originally the Grand Bruce Railway (1869) from Toronto to Bolton, it was extended by the Canadian Pacific Railway between 1905 and 1908 to join the transcontinental line at Romford just east of Sudbury. The CPR reached Bala in 1907 crossing overland from Severn Falls and continued on along

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 103

the west side ofthe Muskoka Lakes. Mactier (originally Muskoka Station), the halfway point on the line, was designated as a divisional point for switching crews. A roundhouse and a boarding house were built to repair and house the engines and to accommodate the railway employees.

Theme Significance: Provincial

Theme Rating: B

Associated Themes:Manufacturing; Recreation and Conservation; Centres of Settlement.

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor; restricted to narrow corridors, often hidden from public view. Few stations survive.

King's Highway

The 1918 Guidal Tourist Road Map of the Muskoka shows a proposed trunk road from north of Bracebridge to Mary Lake and Huntsville. This proposed road now forms part of Highway 11 between Bracebridge and Huntsville. Paved highways which first appeared in the 19208 and 19308 eliminated the barriers between southern urban centres and Muskoka making it more accessible by private car to urbanites. Highway 11, known as the Ferguson Highway in the 19208, now forms part of the Trans-Canada Highway route.

Other modem highways introduced to the Muskoka landscape include Highway 69, which was the first major north south road in the Georgian Bay township it wasbuilt in the 19405. Muskoka Road 12 to the Moose Point Indian Reserve was built in 1969. Highway 169 from Gravenhurst was built in the mid 1960s.

Theme Significance: Provincial

Theme Rating: B

Associated Themes: Recreation and Conservation; Centres of Settlement.

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Major; broad linear corridors, open to public view with associated bridges and commercial highway facilities.

Hydro-Electric Development

In 1892, the Shaw Cassels and Company tannery built a 60 kilowatt generating station in Bracebridge for its use. Two years later the town of Bracebridge bought the generating station and became the first Ontario municipality to own and operate its own hydroelectric station as a public utility. Shaw, Cassels and Company also built a small private generating station in Huntsville in the 1890s. It supplied a few private residences and some street lighting. Huntsville built its own small steam powered generating plant in 1896 and 1901.

Unte:rman McPhail Cuming Associates Page 104 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District MunicipaJiJy otMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

The first two decades of the twentieth century were the first period of extensive hydroelectric development in Ontario. Financed by private interests, these initial developments resulted in a number of small generating stations built to serve a local market. Bracebridge, Gravenhurst, Bala and Orillia are indicative of this period. In 1900, due to increased demand, Bracebridge began to build a second generating station at the foot of the falls. Opened in 1902 with one generator (a second was installed in 1906), the 1892 generating station was converted to a water pumping station. Bracebridge constructed a second generating station at Wilson Falls in 1910. Orillia built a generating station on the Severn River at Ragged Rapids in 1901; this plant was later replaced with a new one downstream at Swift Rapids in 1917. Gravenhurst built a generating station at South Falls in 1907. Bala Electric Light & Power Company built a station in 1917 which supplied power to Mactier, Port Carling as well as Bala,

The Hydro-Electric Power Commission (established by the province in 1906, and now known as Ontario Hydro) acquired Big Chute Generating Station in 1911. Big Chute had been built 2 years previously by the Simcoe Railway and Power Co., in order to provide commercial power to Simcoe County and Muskoka It was thus the first station owned and operated by Ontario Hydro, and was the largest source of hydraulic power in the central district. Ontario Hydro itself built a generating station at Wasdell Falls in 1914.

South Falls was acquired from Gravenhurst by H.E.P.C. in 1915 and they began to expand the site to service Huntsville. In the 19205, RE.P.C. began an expansion programme in Muskoka to provide necessary power to the South. South Falls was remodelled in 1924 and a new dam and plant were constructed upstream (originally as South Falls No.2) at Hanna Chute in 1925. Trethewey Falls, which was in service by 1929, completed the group.

During the 19405 in Muskoka, the trend toward large-scale development resulted in a shift of focus to the water resources in the western part of the district. Ragged Rapids (1938) and Big Eddy (1940) completed Ontario Hydro's network of stations on the Muskoka River system.

In 1950, Orillia Light and Power put its Matthiasville station in service. In the 19808, small private generating stations were established at Rosseau River and Bala (Burgess Generating Station).

Theme Significance: Regional

Theme Rating: B

Associated Themes: Manufacturing; Recreation and Conservation; Centres of Settlement.

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor; usually restricted to specific sites (generating stations) or linear corridors (transmission lines).

Public Works

In 1869, the Canadian Department ofPublic Works began building a navigational lock on the Indian River at Port Carling between Lakes Muskoka and Rosseau. This was Completed in 1871. In 1870,

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 105

a canal between Lakes Rosseau and Joseph was completed at Port Sandfield in order to connect all three Muskoka Lakes.

In 1873, to encourage steamboat navigation on the northern Muskoka, the government let a contract to build a lock and canal (The Locks) on the North Muskoka River between Mary, Fairy and Vernon Lakes. Completed in 1877 with some associated channel improvements, this work opened up a navigable waterway from Port Sydney up through Huntsville to the west end of Lake Vernon at Port Vernon. Peninsula Lake joined these lakes in 1888 when a canal was cut from Fairy Lake. The portage between Lake of Bays and Peninsula Lake was serviced by a private railway in 1904.

The introduction of steamboats to the Muskoka Lakes led to the need for water control for the navigation season, resulting in the Department of Public Works (D.P.W.) becoming involved in the construction of dams. The first D.P.W. dam was built on Lake Muskoka in 1873 which acted as a control dam on the main outlet channel at Bala. The second dam was constructed in 1878 at the southern outlet channel at Bala. Other dams included Mary Lake (1876); Fairy Lake (1877) as well as the Huntsville lock which also controlled Lakes Vernon, and later Peninsula; Lake ofBays (1918) replacing earlier dams built by mill owners; and Indian River near Port Carling Lock (1882) to regulate levels of Lake Rosseau and Joseph. The dams were used to maintain water levels for navigation, mill dams, flood control, water conservation and log drives. The D.P.W. also rebuilt or replaced many old lumbering dams to conserve spring run-off.

In 1940, the DepartmentofPublic Works and Ontario Hydro signed the Hackner-HoldenAgreement, in order to better manage the water levels in the Muskoka River system. The agreement specified regulations for several major lakes in the system, in order to provide adequate river flows for generating hydro-electric power, to protect the fish spawning beds, and to service navigation and flood control need within the system.

In light of the decline of the importance of the Muskoka River for power production after World War IT, the D.P.W. turned their attention to maintaining water levels in lakes for recreational purposes, due to the growth of tourist activity and cottages on the lakes and rivers. In 1969, the Hackner-Holden Agreement was revised to reflect the importance of summer recreational water levels on the major Muskoka Lakesover extra water for the power stations. The Ministry of Natural Resources took over the management of the water levels in the Muskoka River system in the early 1970s.

Theme Significance: Regional

Theme Rating: B

Associated Themes: Forest Industry; Manufacturing; Recreation and Conservation; Centres of Settlement.

Contemporary LandscapeImpacts: Minor; usually restricted to specific sites.

Unterman McP1uJil CumingAssociates Page 106 Master PIan ofHeritage Resources for the DistrictMunicipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

32.9 RECREATION AND CONSERVATION

Early Recreational Activity (l860s-1920)

The first summer visitors to the Muskoka Lakes are believed to have been James Bain and John Campbell in 1862, who wanted to camp and explore the lakes. They were guided around the lakes by a local inhabitant, Thomas Robinson. These two "pioneer tourists", from Toronto, formed the Muskoka Club with some friends in 1866, and set up a permanent camp on Chaplain's Island in Lake Joseph.

Steamboat navigation was introduced to Lake Muskoka in 1866 by AP. Cockburn, with the launching of the Wenonah. By 1869, steamboats plied Lake Rosseau, and in the following year, Lake Joseph was connected with this growing system, allowing free navigation between the three lakes. Accessibility to the lakes encouraged the growth of summer tourism.

Although tourism was but in its infancy in the 18708, fishing clubs with members from Toronto, Hamilton, and the United States, were actively using the area and employing local guides as well as purchasing supplies from local farmers and businesses. Tent cities were erected at their camps to accommodate the club members who were attracted to the excellent fishing, fresh air and wilderness. Soon, brochures promoting the health restoring qualities of the lakes, the fresh air and relief for sufferers of hay fever, were sent out to advertise the Muskoka Lakes as a vacation area.

Local farmers began to supply vacationers with provisions for their camping excursions and to take in boarders during the summer season, in order to augment their incomes. Gradually, these farmhouses were extended to accommodate more guests, and full-time farming was eventually abandoned. In their promotional pamphlet of1883, the Muskoka and Nipissing Navigation Company noted that camping necessities as well as fresh provisions were easily available from the farmers in the Muskoka Lakes district. A few private cottages can be dated to the late 18708 and early 1880s on the Muskoka Lakes. Beaumaris Landing, on Lake Muskoka, was founded in 1873 as a steamboat landing. Edward Prowse apparently opened the first golf course in Muskoka, in 1879, at Beaumaris, followed by the Beaumaris Hotel, in the 1890s, which primarily catered to wealthy Americans.

A cottage colony was started c. 1885, in the Beaumaris area, by three men from Toronto, two of whom became the founders of the Grand & Toy Company. The heyday ofbuilding grand cottages­ generally by wealthy Americans and Torontonians- in the Beaumaris area was between 1895 and 1915. Other areas where private cottages were built during the early 1900s include Port Carling and Windemere.

In 1865, four men from Oshawa became the first tourists to visit the northern lakes, accompanied by a guide. A report of their expedition appeared in the Toronto Globe, however, as a result of the relatively remote location of this area, and its difficulty of access, tourism did not begin to flourish in the region until the 18908.

Theme Significance: Provincial

Theme Rating: C

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 107

Associated Themes: Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery.

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor; usually restricted to specific sites.

The Resort Era (1870s to 1920s)

Only two resort hotels were established on the Muskoka Lakes in the 18705. The first of these was Rosseau House, or Pratt's, which was opened by William H. Pratt, in 1870, at the top of Lake Rosseau. It was a very successful operation, attracting guests from as far away as England and the southern United States. Travel to the resort was either through Gravenhurst and by a steamboat departing from the Muskoka Wharf, or via stagecoach from Parry Sound. Destroyed by fire in 1883, the resort was not rebuilt. The second resort in the Muskoka Lakes was Summit House, built at the top of Lake Joseph, at Port Carling, by Hamilton Fraser. It too was very successful until destroyed by fire in 1915.

As more tourists arrived in the 1880s, the local farmers began to extend their homes, gradually becoming fulltime hotel keepers. New resorts proliferated, and the Muskoka Lakes were promoted by the Northern Railway, and the Muskoka and Nipissing Navigational Company, as being ideal for hunting, camping and fishing. The new resorts were always located in close proximity to steamboat docks, for ease of access. Consequently, they were either situated in established villages, or they became the nuclei of new settlements on the steamboat routes around the lakes.

Prospect House was opened in 1882 at Port Sandfield, while Windemere and Cleveland House grew up at steamboat docks which had dailydeliveries ofmail, supplies and excursionists. Montleith House replaced Rosseau House after the latter burned down.

In geographical terms, therefore, all the new resorts of the 1880s were situated on Lake Rosseau, Lake Joseph, and the northern parts of Lake Muskoka. Bala, Beaumaris, Rosseau, Minett and Port Carling quickly became dependent upon the tourist trade. The southern section of Lake Muskoka, which wasstill dominated by the lumbering industry at that time, remained undeveloped for tourism. By the end of the 1880s, there were approximately 19 tourist resorts on the lakes. An express train, which ran two to three times daily from Union Station to Gravenhurst, began service in 1889.

During the 18908, the resorts became more refined, catering to the more affluent, The new hotels of this decade, which were still primarily confined to Lakes Joseph and Rosseau, were still built on the routes ofthe Muskoka and Nipissing Navigation Company. Some inroads were made, during the 18908, into Lake Muskoka, as lumbering declined in the area. Although the local economy thus experience a decline, from the mid 1880s into the 18908, hotels continued to increase in numbers on the lakes. Through trains continued to run on a daily basis to Muskoka. By the end of the 18908, agriculture in the Muskoka area had been abandoned, and with the additional decline of the lumber industry, tourism was seen as the only viable economic activity in Muskoka.

The "golden years" ofthe Muskoka resorts were from 1896 to 1914. With the strong economy of the early 1900s, many American and Canadian tourists continued to use the Muskoka resort, and approximately 46 new resorts were built during this period on the Muskoka Lakes, including the Royal Muskoka Hotel, built by the Muskoka and Nipissing Navigation Company, on Lake Rosseau. , Uraerman McPhail CumingAssociates Page 108 Master Pion ofHeritage Resources for the DistrictMunicipality o(Muslwka and the Wahta Mohawks

This trend was brought to a halt by the onset of World War L with very few resorts being built after 1914.

During the late 18908, the tourist overflow from the Muskoka Lakes led to the discovery ofSparrow Lake. Although Station House had been established as early as 1884,the main resort era on Sparrow Lake occurred after the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway opened access to the southwest side of the lake. Port Stanton flourished, and new resorts, such as the Delmonte Inn, Franklin House, the Idylwild, and numerous others, were built. Kahshe Lake experienced a minor tourist boom later in the 19208, when Rockhaven Inn and the Kahshe Lake Resort were built. A later operation, Wigwam Lodge, was built in the 19408.

The resorts in the northern areas of Muskoka did not develop until the late nineteenth century, due to their more remote location, the delayed arrival of the railway, a lack of promoters, and the predominance of the lumbering industry until the 19208. The Northern Railway did not extend its line north from Gravenhurst to Callendar through Huntsville until 1886. Shortly after this occurred, however, Captain George Francis Marsh established the Huntsville Navigational Company in the 1890s.

Prior to 1896, only a few hotels- and no tourist resorts per se- existed in the northern area. The Colbridge Hotel, in Dorset, was established as early as 1874 to serve the Bobcaygeon Road traffic, as well as some sportsmen. Gouldie House, in Dwight, was opened in 1882 on the Lake of Bays; Hotel La Portage, on Peninsula Lake, in 1889; Port Cunnington Lodge, on Lake of Bays, c. 1886; and Ronville Lodge in 1880. Deerhurst Lodge, built in 1896 on Lake of Bays, was the first large summer resort to be built in northern Muskoka. In 1899, Marsh succeeded in getting the Muskoka Express extended from Gravenhurst to Huntsville, heralding the beginning ofa summer resort boom. Between 1899 and 1914, there was a proliferation of resort construction in the vicinity, with the exception of Lake Vernon. Resorts built on Lake ofBays from 1900 to the early 19208 include:Nor Loch Lodge (c. 1900); Pine Grove Inn (1906); Britannia Lodge (1908); WaWa Hotel (1907); and Bigwin (1920).

After World War L as automobiles made inland areas more accessible, some resorts, such as Limberlost, Royal OakLodge, Interlaken, OxbowLodge, and Camp Billie Bear, were built on smaller lakes, mainly north of Huntsville.

The Georgian Bay area did not develop its tourist trade until the late 1890s and early1900s, despite its accessibilityby railway and steamer. A few sportsmen and anglers were using the area in the late 1880s, but there were few tourist hotels. In 1898, Didace Grise built the Royal Hotel on an island at Honey Harbour. In 1900, he built the Victoria Hotel and the Georgiana Hotel on the mainland In the early 19208, the Victoria and Georgiana merged as the Delawana Inn. The Minnicoganashene Hotel was built north of Honey Harbour, on an island of the same name, which had a steamboat dock. The Franceville Hotel was constructed (c. 1900) near the mouth of the Musquash River on the steamer route. Port Severn did not become a tourist centre until completion of the Trent-Severn Waterway in 1920.

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates t Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 109

The resort industry went into decline in the 19308, and few resorts were erected after World War IT. The resorts in northern Muskoka have tended to survive more successfully than those on the south Muskoka Lakes, due to the introduction of winter sports such as skiing.

Theme Significance: Provincial

Theme Rating: A

Associated Themes: Rural Life: Agriculture and FIShery; Transportation; Utilities; Public Works and Communications; Centres of Settlement.

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Major; this theme accounted for development on most major lakes within Muskoka. Less than one half of all resort hotels and lodges survive to the present day.

Tuberculosis Sanitaria

In 1898, the privately funded Muskoka Cottage Sanitarium for tuberculosis patients was opened on a forty acre site north of Gravenhurst, The Town of Gravenhurst had provided a $10,000 grant to the National Sanitarium Association as well as the site in order to have the hospital located nearby. It was the first tuberculosis sanitarium in Canada. The location was considered to be ideal due to the restorative qualities of the Muskoka air.

In 1902, a second sanitarium was built beside the Muskoka Cottage site for tuberculosis patients who could not pay for hospital care. Itwas named the Muskoka Free Hospital for Consumptives. It was only the second tuberculosis sanitarium in Canada and the first for the needy. The two institutions were run as separate centres until 1920. The Sanitarium became a major employer in the Gravenhurst area as well as serving as recreational grounds. Scott Hall was used as a community centre by the locals. In 1960 the site waspurchased by the Ontario Government as part ofthe Orillia Hospital facility for the mentally handicapped. In 1973, it became known as the Muskaka Centre.

Theme Significance: Provincial

Theme Rating: C

Associated Themes: None

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor; usually restricted to specific sites.

Automobiles and the Summer Cottages

During the 19208 access to the Muskoka region was enhanced by the construction of the Ferguson Highway. Better road access and the increased use of the private automobile contnbuted to a surge in the recreational activity in Muskoka. There was a growth in private camps, motels and cottages. Camps typically emphasized wilderness experiences and canoeing while motels catered to motorists.

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Page 110 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

The cottagers still originated primarily from Toronto and the southeastern industrialized areas of the United States. The more recent proliferation of private cottages in the Muskoka District is a post World War IT phenomenon.

Theme Significance: Provincial

Theme Rating: A

Associated Themes: Transportation; Utilities; Public Works and Communications; Centres of Settlement

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Major; this theme accounted (and continues to account) for cottage development on most major lakes and watercourses within Muskoka.

Public Parks

In order to provide for the need for recreation in the countryside and to minimize the effects on the environment and other rural land uses, a public parks system was devised. These parks provide areas of intensive recreational activities that are compatible with the conservation of the natural environment and which draw urban recreation to the area which will not contlict with rural land uses. Since the 1920s, public land has been made available for roadside picnic areas for motorists.

After 1955 a number of public parks and park reserves were established to serve the public. According to the Huntsville office of the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Muskoka Region presently has six provincially owned parks, ofwhich Arrowhead and Six Mile Point are the only two open for camping. Six Mile was established in 1958, while Arrowhead was created in 1971. The remaining provincially owned parks include the Bauer Estates, Bigwind Lake, Hardy Lake and Dividing Lake. The Leslie M. Frost Resource Centre is also operated by the Ministry of Natural Resources for public and government use.

Under federal jurisdiction, Georgian Bay Islands National Park was established in 1929. The Trent Severn Waterway was designated as being nationally significant in 1929 and was acquired by the Canadian Parks Service in 1972 Bethune House, in Gravenhurst, is a national historic site.

Theme Significance: Provincial

Theme Rating: C

Associated Themes: Transportation; Utilities; Public Works and Communications; Recreation and Conservation.

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor.

Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 111

3.2.10 CENTRES OF SETTLEMENT

Urban Centres

Urban centres developed in parallel with rural activities. They provided institutional, commercial, industrial, residential and recreational services to the immediate area and beyond They may also have served as administrative centres, gatewaysto a region or supplycentres for the surrounding rural settlements. Road and water accessibility was also important in determining the evolution of a town centre. In the Muskoka Region there are three distinct town centres: Gravenhurst; Bracebridge; and Huntsville.

Gravenhurst was the terminus for the first section of the Muskoka Colonization Road and for the first railway in 1875 as well as being the starting point for the Muskoka Navigation Company's steamboat service to the Muskoka Lakes from Muskoka Wharf. By the 1880s, Gravenhurst supported seventeen sawmills.

Gravenhurst's importance in the sawmill industry was as much due to the fact that the railway terminated there in 1875 as the fact that it wasnot extended north for another ten years. By the late 18008, Gravenhurst had become the gatewayfor all transportation into the Muskoka district. Express trains carried urban vacationers to Gravenhurst in order to board the passenger steamers to the Muskoka resorts in the 18908 and early 19008.

Bracebridge was founded in 1862. It originallyserved as a local centre with a sawmilland grist mill Its accessibility on the North Muskoka River made it an important steamboat stop and allowed steamboats to haul hemlock to the tannery at Bracebridge. Several other industries established themselves in Bracebridge such as the Bird Woollen Millwhich became a Canada-wide business. The Bracebridge Flour Millground western Canadian wheat during the early 19008. Bracebridge became the administrative centre for the region, being the site of the County Court House and Jail and the Registry Office.

Huntsville was founded in 1869 by Captain George Hunt. Originally a farm centre, it turned to lumbering in the 1870s. Huntsville became the home port of the steamer Northern. The railway arrived in 1886 and Huntsville was incorporated as a village in the same year. The railway created a boom in the Huntsville economy, and it became a lumbering town with several sawmills in operation. The opening of the Anglo-American Tannery in the 18908 encouraged continued growth. By 1900, it had become a manufacturing centre.

Theme Significance: Regional

Theme Rating: A

Associated Themes: Early Euro-Canadian Settlement; Forest Industry; Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery; Mining; Manufacturing; Transportation; Utilities; Public Works and Communications; Recreation and Conservation.

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Page 112 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Major; towns account for concentrated areas of activity, often reflected in successive waves ofeconomic development and building activity. Roads, rail lines, public buildings, commercial, industrial and residential areas are key characteristics.

Rural villages

Rural villages tended to grow up around crossroads, established industries such as local grist and saw mills, on travelled waterways and in farming areas to serve the local population. Poor transportation access to the community was usually the limiting factor in determining the growth of these local centres. In the late nineteenth century the location of the railway was often crucial to the survival of a community such as the former community ofHoodstown which was bypassed by the railway for Huntsville in 1886.

According to the 1878 township maps in the Guide Book and Atlas ofMuskoka and Parry Sound Districts, there were between thirty and forty rural centres in the Muskoka Region. Most ofthe rural centres had developed around a landing for the steamboats, on a waterway which provided power for a sawmill or a grist mill, along a colonization road or around a resort hoteL Later some rural centres shifted to the railway line such as Falkenburg Station. Some examples of rural centres, surviving to the presentin Muskoka, include Bala, Port Carling, Port Sandfield, Dee Bank, Windermere, Baysville, llfracombe, Muskoka Falls, Vankoughnet and Severn Bridge.

Rural villages did not develop in the Georgian Bay area, with the exception of Port Severn, until the late 18908 and 19008. Theywere mainlydispersed rural communities associated with the development of resorts in the area. Honey Harbour was established c.l900 by Didace Grise, who built several hotels in the area. Go Home was founded in 1898 by the Madawaska Club, which was made up of . members of the staff of the University ofToronto. A summer port office was opened in 1899. The club was originally incorporated to preserve the wildlife and fish in the area and to run a research station. The station was disbanded in 1912 and individual members began building cottages. The community ofFranceville, which had a summer post office in 1919, wasfounded by the France family and subsequently developed into a summer resort. Whalen Island, or Cognashene, had few cottages prior to 1900. By 1919, it had a summer post office. Big Chute was not really developed until the marine railway was built, in 1920, as part of the Trent-Severn Waterway.

Theme Significance: Regional

Theme Rating: B

Associated Themes: Early Euro-Canadian Settlement; Forest Industry; Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery; Manufacturing; Transportation; Utilities; Public Works and Communications.

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor; unlike towns, rural villages often succumb to abandonment once their economic base (mill, rail stop etc.) is lost, although some may survive to the present day as residential areas with ancillary uses and buildings.

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 113

3.2.11 MILITARY

World War II

In 1940, a camp was set up on Muskoka Road 8, at Interlaken between Oxbow and Dotty Lakes, as a haven for refugee Norwegian pilots fleeing the Nazi occupation of their homeland. The camp became known as Vesle Skaugum ("home" or "clearing in the woods"), being named in honour of the Norwegian residence of Crown Prince Olaf and Princess Martha. Prior to 1942, the Norwegians underwent basic training at Vesle Skaugum, and then marched to the "Little Norway" flying school, in Toronto, to complete their flight training. In 1942, the Command of the Royal Norwegian Air Force built a flying instruction camp on Reay Road, outside ofGravenhurst, adjacent to the Muskoka airport. The airport was leased from the federal government. This second "Little Norway" was officially opened, in 1942, by Crown Prince Olaf and Princess Margaret. The graduates of the basic training course at Vesle Skaugum were then sent to Gravenhurst for their flight instruction. Vesle Skaugum was sold, in 1945, to the Kiwannis Club of Toronto, and is today a children's camp. The original buildings still stand. A granite monument to the services of the Royal Norwegian Air Force in the Second World War is located on the grounds. The "little Norway" flyingschool was converted to the Beaver Creek Correctional Centre, by the federal government, in 1961.

Another Muskoka military site operated during WWII was the former Gravenhurst Calydor Sanitorium, which operated between 1916 an 1935, as a tuberculosis hospital under the direction of Dr. Charles Parfitt. The empty hospital buildings and grounds were taken over by the federal government, in 1940, and converted to a Prisoner of War camp for high-ranking Nazi officers captured by the British army. At one time, the PoW camp held from 400 to 500 prisoners.

Theme Significance: Regional

Theme Rating: C

Associated Themes: None

Contemporary Landscape Impacts: Minor; usually restricted to specific sites.

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Page 114 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the DistrictMunicipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

3.3 IDENTIFICATION OF CULTIJRALlHISTORIC LANDSCAPE UNITS

33.1 IN1RODUCTION: CULTURAL LANDSCAPES AND BUILT HERITAGE FEATIJRES

Ontario's man-made or man-modified cultural heritage may be perceived as two distinct yet inextricably linked elements: individual built heritage features or cultural features and cultural landscapes. Both types ofresource may be valued for a variety ofreasons, such as architectural merit, historical associations, engineering virtuosity, scenic interest or cultural investment. Cultural landscapes have been defined as:

the use and physical appearance of the land as we see it now as a result of man's activities over time in modifying pristine landscapes for his own purposes. A cultural landscape is perceived as a collection of individual man-made features into a whole. (Guidelines on the Man-Made Heritage Component of EnvironmentalAssessments, 1981).

Aggregations of individual man-made or modified features usually form areas of homogenous character e.g. a rural area, a village, a waterscape, etc. MCI'R guidelines describe the necessary information for cultural landscapes as including the identification and evaluation of any discrete aggregation of man-made features that have one or more of the following attnbutes:

• it is the only one of its kind or one of the remaining few;

• it is the most outstanding example of its kind;

• it is perceived by the moving eye as a built-up area with a particularly interesting and attention-catching series of visions;

• it provides the observer with a strong and definite sense of position or place;

• it has a unique or typical material content well executed in terms ofcolour, texture, style, and scale;

• it is exemplary of distinctive cultural processes in the historic development and use of land;

• it is part of a complex of outstanding scenic/historic areas or is perceived as an ensemble of different landscape categories such as townscape, agricultural landscape, natural landscape, or waterscape; or

• it is part of a network of landscape categories as mentioned above, and presents to the moving eye opportunities for special sequential experiences or a series ofvisions ofdistinctive scenic views.

Of importance here is the essential distinction between two types of attnbutes that may be ascribed to cultural landscapes: an historical attnbute that descnbes the importance of the feature i.e. its quantity and quality, within an historical context and a human visual or perceptive attnbute that

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 115

descnbes the importance of today's landscape to the observer's senses. Accordingly, a single cultural landscape unit, such as a waterscape may have several historical associations: cottages or lodges associated with tourism and recreation; chutes and dams associated with logging and so on. Of these distinctive components some may be of scenic value such as the setting of a resort settlement

Other areas may be less easily categorized. An abandoned industrial site close to shore may appear to one observer as a picturesque ruin. Yet to another it may be an unsightly industrial landscape that intrudes upon the "natural" prospect of scenery.

A cultural feature has been defined as:

an individual part of a cultural landscape that maybe focused upon as part of a broader scene, or viewed independently. The term refers to any man-made or modified object in or on the land or underwater such as buildings of various types, street furniture, engineering works, plantings and landscaping, archaeological sites, or a collectionof such objects seen as a group becauseof close physical or social relationships.

MCTR guidelines have generally identified the following heritage attnbutes that aid in determining the value or merit of a cultural feature:

Historical associations of a feature with:

• a well known event;

• a well known person or group;

• the first or formative aspect of activity;

• activity or endeavour of relative antiquity;

• activity of substantial duration;

• an activity or endeavour that affected a substantial population or geographic area.

Architectural or engineering qualities of a building that:

• are representative work of a well known surveyor, architect, engineer, master builder, or craftsmen;

• has group value, especially as an example of town planning, e.g. squares, terraces, or model villages;

• has been well executed within the conventions of a recognized period style or method of construction;

• is a technological innovation or adaption or represents engineering virtuosity;

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Page 116 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality q(Muskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

• is a good typical example of an early style or construction technique or of an early structure or device commonly used for a specific purpose throughout an area or period; • has an unusual or unique style or construction technique; • is the first or earliest of a surviving specimen of a type;

• is the last or latest surviving specimen of a type;

• the only example of a particular type or one of a remaining few;

• is a landmark in a road or streetseape or countryside setting; or

• contnbutes to the harmony of its neighbourhood.

33.2 RELATING THEMES TO MATERIAL HERITAGE

In order to adequately determine the characteristics of both individual cultural features and cultural landscapes, heritage conservation planning studies typically comprise a number of components: background research, on-site survey, heritage evaluation, condition assessment and the development of conservation, planning and management strategies.

A number of studies have sought to define, identify, categorize, manage, conserve and plan for cultural features, cultural landscapes and their attnbutes. A Topical Organization ofOntario HIStory, prepared by the Historical Sites Branch, Division of Parks, Ministry of Natural Resources, descnbed how Ontario's history could be organized into a number of topics or themes for presentation in a historical parks context.

Heritage Studies on the Rideau-Quime-Trent-Sevem Waterway prepared by the Historical Planning and Research Branch ofthe Ministry ofCulture and Recreation, critiqued, refined and applied the topical organization thematic approach to a single, large region, within a broader context of multi-agency, planning and environmental management.

A key element of this approach involved sorting out material landscape artifacts into specific classes or types. The material types of heritage features are intended to organize the environment into its most recognizable constituent components. In turn these material types are capable ofbeing related to the historical themes or sub-themes of human activity.

The historic themes descnbed in this report identify those basic processes of human activity that account for the remnant cultural landscapes that can be seen today. The various historical themes and their associated activities, and in certain instances their component sub-themes, were often inter-related and resulted in dramatic changes in the landscape in a relatively short time period. Inevitable boom-bust cycles that often characterized resource development also accounted for the abandonment of landscapes and their eventual surrender to the forces of nature, particularly climate and natural regeneration.

Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 117

In the absence of a comprehensive detailed field inventory of heritage features, the historical themes/material types model is a useful aid to planners, environmental managers and others involved in resource management. It accomplishes a number of objectives:

1. Historical themes and sub-themes within Muskoka are identified as discrete agents ofchange in the environment;

2. The material types of built cultural heritage can be associated in varying degrees to the historical themes and are useful for the purposes of evaluation.

The thematic overview process may also raise awareness of the possible existence of heritage or landscape features in any area for which historical documentation is lost or never existed. Importantly, the overview may be used for making certain assumptions or predictions about those features that may be found within a particular area and that should be addressed in future planning, conservation and resource management processes.

These historical themes and sub-themes have accounted for change in the landscape in varying degrees, intensities and duration. The present dayMuskoka landscape does not necessarily represent all historical themes and activitiesequally. Some historical activitiesresulted in localized change and had little impact upon the landscape or the broader social and economic environment. Today such activities may be barely discermble in the landscape.

Other activities were widespread and resulted in long lasting and a more enduring landscape, especially where a number of historical themes were dependent on each other, sustaining and reinforcing their continued existence, e.g. settlement and transportation.

3.3.3 THE MATERIAL TYPES OF HERITAGE

For the purposes of this study, and because of a lack of a complete field inventory of heritage features, a number of material types of heritage feature were identified. These were derived from the established historical themes and sub-themes, knowledge of the planning area and available studies or field information.

The material types represent those essential characteristics of the man-made or modified heritage environment. The types of material heritage are either generally known to have existed within the Muskoka area or they are known to be representative of the historical themes, yet their existence within the planning area is not confirmed. Importantly, some historical themes have left very little change in the landscape.

Unierman McPhail Cuming Associates Page 118 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

THEMES AND DISTINGUISHING HERITAGE FEATURES

FOREST INDUSTRY Features Waterways Railways Undomesticated land Forest lands Dwellings Mills and Manufactories Mercantile Establishments

EARLY EURO-CANADIAN SETTLEMENT Features Waterways Roads Dwellings Mills and Manufactories

MINING Features Mines Roads

RECREATION AND CONSERVATION Features Waterways Railways Hotels and Entenainments Roads Undomesticated land Dwellings

TRANSPORTATION, UTILITIES PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS Features Railways Roads Fields and farmsteads Mills and Manufactories Mercantile Establishments Undomesticated land Forest lands Mines Dwellings Public Works Hotels and Entenainments

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 119

RURAL LIFE Features Railways Roads Fields and farmsteads Dwellings Mills and Manufactories Mercantile Establishments Hotels and Entertainments

MANUFACTURING Features Mills and Manufactories Roads Waterways Railways

CENTRES OF SETTLEMENT Features Roads Waterways Railways Mines Dwellings Churches and cemeteries SChools Public Works Energy and communications Community enterprises Mills and Manufactories Mercantile :Establishments Hotels and Entertainments

While these general feature types are of use in linking features to themes, the feature types may be further categorized into sub-types ofbuilt features. Several ofthese sub-types have been the subject of heritage surveys and designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The sub-types of material heritage and their distinguishing characteristics are described below:

Roads: • overgrown single track wagon or tote roads; • one to two lane gravel concession roads; • ditches, swales, soft shoulders, forest edge and tree-lines and fencerows; • two to four lane paved asphalt roads; • borrow pits and quarries • timber, steel, and concrete bridges with piers and abutments, and culverts; • overgrown abandoned rights-Of-way; • former bridge crossings with remnant decks, piers or abutments; and, • gas stations, truck stops, roadside diners, motels, signage and billboards.

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Page 120 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Waterways: • dams; • docks and wharfs; • marinas and launches; • lighthouses and marker buoys; and, • breakwaters. Railways: • rails, bearing plates, timber ties and gravel or cinder bed; • embankments and cuttings; • timber and steel bridges, and culverts; • stations; • round houses, workshops and freight sheds; • utility poles, mileage and speed limit signs; • water towers and coal bunkers; and, • abandoned rights-Of-way and bridge crossings.

Undomesticated land: • pre-lumbering wilderness, as yet untouched directly by human use and exploitation; • rock outcrops, marshes, bogs and swamps, usually left untouched as they had no economic value or use potential; and, • wasteland, the land and landscape left after exploitation and poor forestry and agricultural management.

Forest lands: • tree stands; • fire-breaks; ~ fire lookout stations; • cutting camps; • access routes and landings; • waterway dams, chutes, flumes and controls; • saw mills; and, • pulp and paper mills.

Fields and farmsteads: • stone, rail and wire fences; • tree lines and woodlots; • cultivated fields; • barns, sheds, weigh scales and silos; and • abandoned fields and farmsteads.

Dwellings: • shanties and cabins; • single detached private house; • the cottage or summer home; • semi-detached, row-house, and terraces; and, • retirement homes.

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 121

Churches and cemeteries: • church, meeting house, hall and places of worship; • church and cemetery; and, • dead house, burial ground/cemetery.

Schools: • one-room schoolhouses • church schools; • colleges; • private schools/academies; and • multi room schooL

Public Works': • courthouses and jails; • registry office; • town hall, post office, public utility commission office and armoury; • water tower, sewage and water works; and • fire halls, police stations and municipal work stations and garages.

Energy and communications: • dams; • generating stations; • transmission lines; • transformer stations; • communications towers; • small airports; and, • pipelines and storage facilities.

Community enterprises: • clinics and hospitals; • meeting houses; • Carnegie libraries; • parks, community arenas and fairgrounds;

Mills and Manufactories: • workshops; • blacksmith; • tannery; • brickworks • saw mills, grist mills and pulp and paper mills; • food processing; and • machine shops.

Mercantile Establishments: • general store; • outfitters; • banks; and, • commercial blocks.

Unzerman McPhtlil Cuming Associates Page 122 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality ofMuskoka and the Wah/a Mohawks

Hotels and Entertainments: • inns, hotels and taverns; • resort hotels, motels and cabins; and, • theatres, cinemas, dance halls, pavillions, and opera houses.

These types and sub-types of material heritage are of use in several ways:

1 The types may be linked directly to the historical themes of human activity descnbed previously.

2 They are capable of forming the basis of a systematic and comprehensive heritage inventory system for the Muskoka area.

If, for example, one is interested in the types of built heritage related to the theme of South Shield Settlement (discussed in Section 3.25 above), one would find that the primary types of heritage features which have had an impact upon the landscape would include: Waterways, Railways, Undomesticated Land, Forest Lands, Dwellings, Mills and Manufactories and Mercantile Establishments. These can be then be reviewed in further detail, in order to determine the material expressions of anyone of these feature types within the landscape. Roads, as a type of heritage feature related to South Shield Settlement for example, may take numerous forms and are closely associated with other specific elements. Material heritage sub-types related to the theme of Roads, therefore, may include: overgrown single trackwagon or tote roads; one to two lane gravel concession roads; ditches, swales, soft shoulders, forest edge and tree-lines and fencerows; two to four lane paved asphalt roads; borrow pits and quarries; timber, steel, and concrete bridges with piers, abutments and culverts; overgrown abandoned rights-of-way; former bridge crossings with remnant decks, piers and abutments; and, gas stations, truck stops, roadside diners, motels, signage and billboards. The direct relevance of anyone of these subtypes to the particular theme, and their relative significance, may then be assessed within the specific context of any particular heritage planning review.

3.4 REVIEW OF EXISTING BUll.T HERITAGE RESOURCE DATABASES

3.4.1 DATABASE IDENTIFICATION

A built heritage resource database refers to the activities of collecting and organizing information on built heritage resources. Usually the database takes the form of a list; it may be computerized or maintained in a paper format. The terms inventory and register are frequently used in discussions ofheritage resource databases. An inventory tends to be a collection ofbasic information on a large number of sites. Often an inventory is research oriented; its purpose being to bring together comparable information on a large number of sites in a standard format in a central repository. In contrast, a register is an official or authoritative list. To be listed in a register, a heritage property must meet the requirements ofan established set ofcriteria. In this sense an inventory is quantitative and a register is qualitative. In examining existing built heritage resource databases of application in Muskoka, both inventories and registers were identified.

Unterman McPhailCuming Associates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 123

Existing built heritage resource databases held by federal, provincial, district and local authorities were contacted. The identified databases can be broken down by ownership as follows:

Federal: Canadian Inventory of Historic Buildings, Federal Register of Heritage Buildings, National Historic Sites and Monuments, Heritage Railway Stations,

Provincial: Provincial Heritage Conservation Easements, Provincial Plaques, Ontario Heritage Road Bridges Program, Ontario Heritage Properties Program, Municipal Water and Sewage Works, Railway Stations, Ontario Hydro Hydroelectric Generating Stations, Dams,

District: Official Plan,

Municipal: Register of Designated Properties, Bracebridge, Register of Designated Properties, Gravenhurst, Register of Designated Properties, Huntsville, List of Significant Public Interest Buildings, Township of Muskoka Lakes LACAC,

Other: Lake of Bays Inventory, Lake of Bays Heritage Foundation.

Contact with each database owner was made to collect information on the purpose of the database, the categories of sites included (buildings, structures and/or cultural landscapes), the implication of inclusion in the list (research, commemoration or protection) and the number of resources listed in the database within the District Municipality of Muskoka. As well, the owner of the database, its physical location and a contact name and a telephone number are identified. When possible a break down of the types of sites included in the database is included. For the purposes of consistency, the categories of building type developed by the Canadian Inventory of Historic Building (CllIB) were used: residential, social or recreational, educational, mercantile/commercial, farming and ranching, industriallmanufaeturing, transportation, communications, government, military, medical, religious and funerary. A summary sheet on each database was developed to provide comparative information on each of the identified databases. These are presented in the following 18 pages.

Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates Page 124 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the DistrictMunicipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

EXISTING DATABASES

NAME: Canadian Inventory of Historic Building (ClliB), Canada. OWNER: Federal Government LOCATION: Architectural History Branch, National Historic Parks and Sites Directorate, Canadian Parks Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, KIA DID.

CONTACI': Steve Dale mLEPHONE: (613) 997-6739

PURPOSE: To record and photograph examples of pre-1914 architecture in Canada.

FEATIJRES LISTED: Buildings and structures.

IMPLICATION OF LISTING: The cum was established to provide site information on a comparative basis to the National Historic SItes and Monuments Board to aid in the commemoration ofsites of national historic significance. Listing in the inventory does not provide any protection for the property.

NO. OF RECORDS LISTED IN MUSKOKA: 501

COMMENTS: The date of survey was not entered on most of the site record forms; those that included a date indicated that the work was undertaken between 1973 and 1m. There does not appear to have been a comprehensive update since that date so that some of the structures listed may no longer exist. The list of501 sites includes sites in Bala (19), Baysville (15), Bear Cave (11), Bracebridge (175), Glen Orchard (3), Gravenhurst (127), Huntsville (132), MacTier (2) and Port Carling (17). Most ofthe sites that were recorded were residential properties (378); 69 commercial properties were listed and 30 religious. The balance (24) were made up of industrial, agricultural, transportation, public works, institutional and recreational building and structures.

Unterman McPJuzil CumingAssociates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 125

EXISTING DATABASES

NAME: Register of Federal Heritage Buildings, Canada

OWNER: Federal Government

LOCATION: Architectural History Branch, National Historic Parks and Sites Directorate, Canadian Parks Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A OID.

CONTACT: Steve Dale

TELEPHONE: (613) 997-6739

PURPOSE: To identify, evaluate and manage federally owned heritage buildings to promote their conservation and continued use.

FEATURES LIS1ED: Buildings in direct ownership of the Federal Government.

IMPLICATION OF LISTING: Classifiedbuilding: development control Recognized building: development review.

NO. OF RECORDS LIS1ED IN MUSKOKA: 1 recognized

COMMENTS: CIHB manages the computerization of the records. The only property in Muskoka listed through FHBRO is the Bethune House in Gravenhurst, a site managed by the National Park Service. This program relates only buildings, not structures or engineering works and does not include facilities ofeither the railroad companies or crown corporations.

Unzerman McPIuzil Cuming Associates Page 126 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

EXISTING DATABASES

NAME: National Historic Sites and Monuments

OWNER: Federal Government

LOCATION: Architectural History Branch, National Historic Parks and Sites Directorate, Canadian Parks Service, Environment Canada, Onawa, Ontario, K1A DID

CONTACT: Steve Dale

1ELEPHONE: (613) 997-6739

PURPOSE: To commemorate persons, places and events of national historic and architectural importance,

FEATURES LISTED: Persons, places and events.

IMPLICATION OF LISTING: Commemoration: plaques, monuments, cost-sharing agreements, national historic parks.

NO. OF RECORDS LISTED IN MUSKOKA: None

COMMENTS: Applications for consideration ofa site as national historic site or monument can be made to the Board.

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 127

EXISTING DATABASES

NAME: Heritage Railway Stations

OWNER: Federal Government

LOCATION: Architectural History Branch, National Historic Parks and Sites Directorate, Canadian Parks Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A OH3

CONTACT: Rob Hunter

1ELEPHONE: (613) 997-6974

PURPOSE: To identify,evaluate and conserve historic railway stations across Canada still owned by chartered railway companies.

FEATURES LISTED: Railwaystations.

IMPLICATION OF LISTING: Protection for railway stations designated by the Minister of the Environment.

NO. OF RECORDS LISTED IN MUSKOKA: None

COMMENTS: None of the railway stations in Muskoka have been assessed to date under this program. The Gravenhurst station is not eligJ.ole because it is no longer owned by a railway company. The Huntsville station is a potential candidate. Heritage Huntsville have requested that the railway station be considered for possible designation can contact the Historic Sites and Monuments Board. This program relates only to railwaystations and not to ancillary buildings or engineering works.

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Page 128 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

EXISTING DATABASES

NAME: Provincial Heritage Conservation Easements

OWNER: Ontario Heritage Foundation

LOCATION: 10 Adelaide Street East, Toronto, Ontario, MSC 1J3

CONTACT: Jeremy Collins

1ELEPHONE: (416) 325-5017

PURPOSE: To protect, through legal agreements, heritage features of any type of real property.

FEATURES LISTED: Natural heritage properties, archaeological sites, historic buildings and historic bridges.

IMPLICATION OF LISTING: OHF as easement holder has right of approval over any proposed changes or alterations that may affect the identified heritage features of the property.

NO. OF RECORDS LISTED IN MUSKOKA: 1 (Woodchester Villa, Bracebridge)

COMMENTS: Easements are accepted on properties of identified heritage significance; a property owner may donate an easement to ensure the long term protection of the property and there may be tax incentives for entering into such an agreement. As of 1 October 1991the OHF held easement agreements on 145 properties of which 6 are natural sites. 3 are archaeological sites, 5 are bridges and 131are historic buildings. (Of the buildings:30% are residential, 30% are institutional, 15% are religious, 11% are commercial and 7% are industrial.)

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 129

EXISTING DATABASES

NAME: Provincial Plaques

OWNER: Ontario Heritage Foundation

LOCATION: 10 Adelaide Street East, Toronto, Ontario, MSC 1J3

CONTACT: Paul Litt

TELEPHONE: (416) 314-4913

PURPOSE: To commemorate people, places, events, sites and structures of importance to the history of Ontario.

FEATURES LISTED: People, places, events, sites and structures.

IMPLICATION OF LISTING: Commemoration: plaque

NO. OF RECORDS LISTED IN MUSKOKA; 15

COMMENTS: Provincial plaques have been erected in Ontario since 1956;one of the first plaques unveiled in 1956 commemorated the founding of Port Carling. Of the 15 sites recognized in Muskoka, 2 are in Bala, 2 in Baysville, 2 in Bracebridge, 5 in Gravenhurst, 2 in Huntsville, 1 in Muskoka Falls, 1 in Port Carling. These plaques commemorate the Precambrian Shield, the foundings of Port Carling, Bracebridge, Baysville, Bala, Gravenhurst and Huntsville, Dr. Henry Norman Bethune, the explorers of Muskoka and Haliburton, Woodchester Villa, Madill Church, steamboating in Muskoka and the Toronto, Simcoe and Muskoka Junction Railway Company. Applications can be made to the OHFfor consideration of sites that may be of provincial historical significance.

Unzerman McPhailCumingAssociates Page 130 Master Plan ofHeriulge Resources for the DistrictMunicipality otMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

EXISTING DATABASES

NAME: Ontario Heritage Road Bridges Program.

OWNER: Ontario Ministry of Culture and Communications and Ontario Ministry of Transportation

LOCATION: Architectural Conservation Unit, Ministry of Culture and Communications, 77 Bloor Street West, 2nd Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M7A 2R9.

CONTACT: Fred Cane

TELEPHONE: (416) 314-7127

PURPOSE: To encourage the identification,evaluationand conservationof heritage road bridges throughout Ontario.

FEATURES LISTED: Road bridges.

IMPLICATION OF LISTING: Recognition of heritage value, possibility of funding, for bridges in provincial ownership some degree of protection.

NO. OF RECORDS LISTED IN MUSKOKA: 2 (port Sandfieldand Huntsville)

COMMENTS: The approach to the through truss bridge in Bracebridge was evaluated under the program. and not listed; however, the main bridge was not assessed. Nominations to the program. is through application to MCC. (Replacement of the Port Sandfield bridge is a current issue.)

Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 131

EXISTING DATABASES

NAME: Ontario Heritage Properties Program (OHPP)

OWNER: Ontario Ministry of Culture and Communications and Ontario Ministry of Government services

LOCATION: Architectural Conservation Unit, Ministry of Culture and Communications, 77 Bloor Street West, 2nd Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M7A 2R9.

CONTACI': Fred Cane

TELEPHONE: (416) 314-7127

PURPOSE: To identify, evaluate and conserve properties of heritage significance within the Accommodation Program of the Ministry of Government services.

FEATURES LISTED: Buildings, structures, landscapes, archaeological sites.

IMPLICATION OF LISTING: Commitment by MGS to consider heritage value of listed structures when undertaking work including disposition.

NO. OF RECORDS LISTED IN MUSKOKA: 2 (SCottHall, Ontario Fire College, Gravenhurst and Gazebo, Muskoka Regional Centre, Gravenhurst, both former sanatorium facilities)

COMMENTS: Freight shed, Wharf, Pon Carling was also assessed under this program but did not meet the established criteria. All of the buildings on the site of the Ontario Fire College and the Muskoka Regional Centre greater than 40 years old were assessed, only the 2 identified were listed. Muskoka Centre is scheduled to be closed by the Provincial Government; this action may affect the future of the Gazebo. Applications for consideration of sites under the program can be directed to the Minister of Government services.

Utuerman McPhail CumingAssociates Page 132 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

EXISTING DATABASES

NAME: Municipal Water and Sewage Works

OWNER: Ontario Ministry of Culture and Communications

LOCATION: Architectural Conservation Unit, Ministry of Culture and Communications, 77 Bloor Street West, 2nd Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M7A 2R9.

CONTACT: Fred Cane

lELEPHONE: (416) 314-7127

PURPOSE: To identify, evaluate and encourage appreciation of municipal water and sewage works that are heritage significance.

FEATURES LISTED: Buildings and structures

IMPLICATION OF LISTING: Commemoration: plaque.

NO. OF RECORDS LISTED IN MUSKOKA: None.

COMMENTS: Consultation with the tiles of the Architectural Conservation Unit indicates that the District Engineer of Muskoka did not respond to a request for information on water andsewageworks ofpotential heritage significancewithin the District. Thepotential for listing sites in Muskoka (eg, Water Pumping Station, Bracebridge) should be discussed with MCC. Whlle listing does not confer protection, it does afford public recognition of the heritage value. As most sites are in municipal ownership, designation under the Ontario Heritage Act is an option. Bird's Mill Pumping Station in Bracebridge has been designated under the Ontario Heritage Act and pIaqued by the American Water Works Association as •A Canadian Water Landmark - significant in the history of public water supply".

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 133

EXISTING DATABASES

NAME: Railway Stations

OWNER: Ontario Ministry of Culture and Communications

LOCATION: Architectural Conservation Unit, Ministry of Culture and Communications. 77 Bloor Street West, 2nd Floor. Toronto. Ontario. M7A 2R9.

CONTACI': Fred Cane

TELEPHONE: (416) 314-7127

PURPOSE: To identify. evaluate and encourage the conservation of CN and CP historic railway stations in Ontario. FEATURES LISTED: Railway stations along CN and CP lines.

IMPLICATION OF LISTING: Commitment on the part of CN and CP to tty to preserve listed stations; possibility offinancial assistance should thestation moved from federal to municipal ownership.

NO. OF RECORDS LISTED IN MUSKOKA: 5

COMMENTS: This program predated the Federal Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act but is complimentary as it may provide assistance to new owners if a station moves out of federal ownership. Listed CN stations include Gravenhurst (not graded) and Huntsville (Class B). Some information on stations at North Falls (CN) and MacTier (CP).

Unierman McPhail Cuming Associates Page 134 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality otMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

EXISTING DATABASES

NAME: Ontario Hydro Hydroelectric Generating Stations

OWNER: Ontario Ministry of Culture and Communications and Ontario Hydro

LOCATION: Architectural Conservation Unit, Ministry of Culture and Communications, 77 Bloor Street West, 2nd Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M7A 2R9.

CONTACT: Fred Cane

TELEPHONE: (416) 314-7127

PURPOSE: To identify, evaluate and encourage the conservation of Ontario Hydro's hydroelectric generating stations as a cultural resource.

FEATURES LISTED: Sites of hydroelectric generation including buildings, dams, transmission facilities, equipment,

IMPLICATION OF LISTING: Commitment by Ontario Hydro to seek to preserve important heritage features as part of the operation, maintenance and improvement of its generation facilities.

NO. OF RECORDS LISTED IN MUSKOKA: 5

COMMENTS: Stations included in Muskoka are South FaIls (Class B), Hanna Chute (Class C), Trethewey (Class C), Ragged Rapids (not graded) and Big Eddy (not graded). Although not within the mandate of the program, some information in paper files on private and municipally owned stations within Muskoka.

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 135

EXISTING DATABASFS

NAME: Dams

OWNER: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

LOCATION: Water Management, Ministry of Natural Resources, Box 9000, Hun~e,Ontario,POAlKD

CONTAcr:

TELEPHONE: (70S) 789-9611

PURPOSE: To maintain information on the dams that MNR operates and manages.

FEATURES LISTED: Dams

IMPLICATION OF LISTING: None

NO. OF RECORDS LISTED IN MUSKOKA: 2S dams used to manage the Muskoka River System.

COMMENTS: This program does not reflect the heritage value of any of the dams but may contain useful historical data.

Unterman McPhoil Cuming Associates Page 136 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

EXISTING DATABASES

NAME: Official Plan, District Municipality of Muskoka

OWNER: District Municipality of Muskoka

LOCATION: 10PmeStr~~ Bracebridge, Ontario, P1L 1N3.

CONTACI': Judi Brouse

TELEPHONE: (70S) 645-2231

PURPOSE: To identify historically significant structures tn Muskoka.

FEATURES LISTED: Buildings and structures.

IMPLICATION OF LISTING: Consideration of sites under development permitted by the plan.

NO. OF RECORDS LISTED IN MUSKOKA: 41

COMMENTS: Criteria for mclusion in official plan list and status of list not included, The list appears to be a compilation ofproperties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act as well as those identified through local Inventories and provincial and federal plaques and administrative agreements, The list is recognized as being incomplete and will be updated as additional information becomes available. Sites listed mclude 8 residential, 4 commercial, 4 religious, 6 transportation, 5 education, 3 government, 3 industrial, 3 socialIrecreation, 3 communication, 1 medical and 1 movable.

Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 137

EXISTING DATABASES

NAME: Register of Designated Properties, Bracebridge

OWNER: Town of Bracebridge

LOCATION: Box 360, 23 Dominion Street, Bracebridge, Ontario, POB 1CO.

CONTACI': K.C. Veitch, Clerk

TELEPHONE: (705) 645-5264

PURPOSE: Register of properties designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

FEATURES LISTED: Real property of architectural and/or historical value.

IMPLICATION OF LISTING: Legal protection under the Ontario Heritage Act (temporary demolition control), possibility for financial assistance for restoration work.

NO. OF RECORDS LISTED IN MUSKOKA: 5

COMMENTS: Designated properties include 3 institutional (former Post Office, Library, Upper Falls generating station and pumping station), 1 residence (Woodchester Villa) and 1 religious (St. Thomas Anglican Church). Bracebridge does not have a heritage advisory committee (LACAC) but will undertake designation at the owner's request. Usually designation is pursued so that the owner may access financial assistance programs for eligible restoration work. Municipal easements are held on the former Post Office building and St. Thomas Anglican Church. Bracebridge participates in the Designated Property Grant program sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Culture and Communications.

Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates Page 138 MasterPlan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

EXISTING DATABASES

NAME: Register of Designated Properties, Gravenhurst

OWNER: Town of Gravenhurst

LOCATION Box 1360, 190 Harvie Street, Gravenhurst, Ontario, POC 1GO.

CONTACf: Sylvia Purdon-Maguire

TELEPHONE: (70S) 687-3412

PURPOSE: Register of properties designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

FEATURES USTED: Real property of architectural and/or historical value.

IMPLICATION OF LISTING: Legal protection under the Ontario Heritage Act (temporary demolition control), possibility for financial assistance for restoration work.

NO. OF RECORDS LISTED IN MUSKOKA: 6

COMMENTS: Designations include 2 commercial properties (Albion Hotel, Severn River Inn), 2 transportation (Wheel House of the R.M.S. Islander, Wheel House of the R.M.S. Cherokee), 1 social/governmental! education (Opera House, former Town Hall and Library) and 1 residential (White/Augustine House). In addition a preliminary inventory of approximately 30 buildings has been undertaken. No information provided on easements held by the municipality, in particular the status of the train station, is provided.

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 139

EXISTING DATABASES

NAME: Register of Designated Properties, Huntsville

OWNER: Town of Huntsville

LOCATION: Box 2700, 37 Main Street East, Huntsville, Ontario, POA lKO

CONTACf: Maureen Hunt

TELEPHONE: (705) 789-1751

PURPOSE: Register of properties designated under Pan IV of the Ontario Heritage Act

FEATIJRES LISlED: Real property of architectural and/or historical value.

IMPLICATION OF LISTING: Legal protection under the Ontario Heritage Act (temporary demolition control), possibility for financial assistance for restoration work.

NO. OF RECORDS LISlED IN MUSKOKA: 10

COMMENTS: 10 designated properties include 4 residential properties (Han House, Proudfoot House, HOwland House, Butcher-Rummey House), 2 recreational sites (former Bandstand, Stisted Agricultural Society Building). 2 transportation (Railway Station, the Locks) and 1 communication (the Forester) and 1 government (Town Hall).

The municipality holds no heritage easements.

Heritage Huntsville has undertaken a general inventory of approximately 80 heritage properties in Huntsville.

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Page 140 Mastel' Plan ofHeruage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

EXISTING DATABASFS

NAME: List of Significant Public Interest Buildings, Township of Muskoka Lakes.

OWNER: Township of Muskoka Lakes LACAC

LOCATION: Township of Muskoka Lakes, Box 129, Port Carling, Ontario, POB lJO.

CONTACT: Ian Turnbull (former LACAC member)

1ELEPHONE: (705) 645-2231

PURPOSE: To identify heritage properties within the township to heighten awareness of their importance both to property owners and Council.

FEATIJRES LIS1ED: Buildings, structures.

IMPLICATION OF LISTING: Research/identification.

NO. OF RECORDS LIS1ED IN MUSKOKA; 43

COMMENTS: No properties have been designated under the Ontario Heritage Act within the Township of Muskoka Lakes• .According to Ian Turnbull, former LACAC member, the LACAC is not meeting regularly currently. Previously, an attempt to establish inventories: List of Significant Public Interest Buildings and also List of Churches. These lists were perhaps presented to Council but have no formal status in the municipality. Some work done developing a framework to undertake an inventory of cottages; a cottage inventory may be underway by the Muskoka Lakes Heritage Foundation, possible contact: Tony Marsh, Architect, Toronto. Mr. Turnbull provided a copy of the initial inventory work with some background research, but no separate list of churches.

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 141

EXISTING DATABASES

NAME: Lake of Bays Inventory

OWNER: Lake of Bays Heritage Foundation

LOCATION: c/o Peter Goering, 12 Brendan Road, Toronto, Ontario, M4G 2Xl

CONTACT': Peter Goering

TELEPHONE: (416) 964-7118 (office) (705) 635-2548 (cottage)

PURPOSE: To identify sites that represent man's activities on the lake.

FEATURES LISTED: Buildings, structures, landscapes modified by man.

IMPLICATION OF LISTING: Identification only to date.

NO. OF RECORDS LISTED IN MUSKOKA: Approximately 200, inventory under development.

COMMENTS: Information hasbeen collected on approximately 200 sites over a two year period by using volunteers to complete a standard inventory form developed by the foundation (map, photographs, architectuI'a1 description, history, contact name and phone #). Not all the information is reliable or complete and there are obvious gaps in the information. Intent is to take these initial efforts and direct activities in the next year to fill in missing information and sites. There hasbeen an attempt to identify major themes ofdevelopment around the lake and to correlate sites to these themes of development. Long term goal is to publish inventory and to make it available to the public through the library in Baysvilleand perhaps through the Township offices and museum in Huntsville. Inventory relates to the physical entity ofLakes ofBays, that is, the lake, as distinct from the Township.

Unterman McPhIlil Cuming Associates Page 142 MasterPlan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

3.4.2 DATABASE CHARACfERISTICS

Based on an analysis of the existing heritage resource databases there are some general comments that can be made on the completeness, quality and the accessibility of the current data.

Completeness

There is no comprehensive database of built heritage resources in the District Municipality of Muskoka, either in existence or under development. Muskoka is not well represented in some of the federal and provincial databases. Certainly, one could expect better representation on the National Historic Sites and Monuments, Provincial Easements and Municipal Water and Sewage Works lists. Local inventories have generally not been well developed, with the exception of Huntsville, which has 80 inventoried structures. None of the communities with heritage advisory committees (Huntsville, Gravenhurst and Township of Muskoka Lakes) has an inventory which is regularly updated and used by the municipality to guide its decisions on matters where built heritage resources may be affected. As expected, the three municipalities without heritage advisory committees are in the same position.

Geographically, there is a disparity of representation of sites in existing databases across Muskoka. Gravenhurst is the best represented, followed by Bracebridge and Huntsville. The three townships are underrepresented. Designations under the Ontario Heritage Act have been used sparingly throughout the District such that the Registers of Designated Properties from Huntsville, Gravenhurst and Bracebridge represent only a limited number and type ofheritage resources. None ofthe three townships have designated any properties. Some specific types ofresources and building types that are particularly important in the historical development of Muskoka are not well represented in existing databases. The almost total absence of cottages, lodges and agricultural features is noteworthy.

Quality of Information

The overall quality ofthe data contained in the existing databases is relatively good. From the sample checked in the field the structures listed were still extant and in many cases well cared for and obviously function as landmarks in the community. The sample included the communities of Bracebridge, Gravenhurst and Muskoka Falls and included samples from Register ofFederal Heritage Buildings, Provincial Heritage Conservation Easements, Provincial Plaques, Ontario Heritage PropertiesProgram, InventoryofOntario's RailwayStations, Ontario Hydro Hydroelectric Generating Stations, Official Plan and local Designations. The Canadian Inventory of Historic Building (CIHB) in Muskoka has not been updated since it was undertaken between 1973 and 1977. The intent of the program was to obtain examples of pre-1914 architecture in Canada. Volunteers were used to collect the information and in most cases the material was gained solely through visual survey without the benefit of historical research to confirm construction dates, original use and alterations.The information included in the CIHB should thus be treated with caution and in all cases be confirmed with field checks.

Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 143

Accessibility of Data

There is no central repository of information on built heritage resources in Muskoka readily available to the public. The information is held by a number of different organizations from the Federal Government to local amenity societies. In some cases the material is too far away to be readily accessible, for example, Ottawa or Toronto. In other cases, the data are maintained in a private residence and known only by a small group. The information on built heritage resources is thus fragmented and it is difficult to structure a comprehensive picture of built heritage resources in Muskoka,

3.5 CONCLUSIONS AND DELINEATION OF mSTORIC THEMATIC ZONES

Typically, the identification of cultural landscapes occurs through a process of field survey. On-site observations are made in order to identify those attnbutes that can only be experienced by the "moving eye" or as an "observer".

In lieu of on-site field survey and the precise derivation of attnbutes e.g. outstanding scenic areas, sequential experiences, serial visions; observations regarding cultural landscapes and their delineation have been drawn from review of available mapping (supported by the work undertaken in preparing the thematic overviews), review ofthe built heritage inventories and data bases and consultation with local experts. This has permitted the maintenance of a consistent approach throughout the entire study area

Mapping ofthese landscape units is a broad-brush approach, but is considered a satisfactory context, within the study framework. Importantly, it is assumed that all the landscape units willpossess some degree of scenic value and be able to demonstrate varying forms of distinctive cultural processes in the historic development and use of land

Those historical themes that are related to sites, larger areas or linear corridors such as centres of settlement and transportation were individually mapped at a scale of 1:125,000. In order to derive cultural landscape mapping all the themes were compiled on a "working map" at a scale of 1:80,000. Review at that scale then permitted the identification ofbroad areas ofcultural interest where it may be expected that cultural landscapes and their individual constituent elements exist.

Importantly, the cultural landscape map delineates areas of human activity undertaken in the recent and distant past. The cultural landscape map encompasses areas where historic human activities are generally expected, or known, to have made some form of impact upon the environment. The majority of those material types described previously are expected to be found within this defined area

The area of human activity described in the cultural landscape mapping defines two types of areas:

• Area A, where it is likely that the majority of material types will be found representing a variety ofhistorical themes, e.g. transportation routes, centres ofsettlement and rural life; and

Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates Page 144 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the DistrictMunicipaJiJy oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

• Area B, where it is unlikely that many material types of heritage exist or remain; and where only one or two themes may be represented, e.g. undomesticated or abandoned rural lands.

Eight areas were identified as A (Figure 4). They are as follows:

Gravenhurst-Bracebridge Corridor Bala Port Carling Dee Bank Huntsville-Lake Vernon Port Sydney-BruneI Road Grassmere-Peninsula Lake Dwight-Dorset Corridor

The lands outside of these areas are categorized as B areas, and include all remaining lands within Muskoka District (Figure 4). These are predominantly undomesticated or partially rural in character.

The distinction between Areas A and B is not an assessment which states that specific sites of heritage significance are to be found only within the former. Rather, it delineates those areas, within the entire District, in which the greatest number of historic themes overlap. This overlap suggests, to the cultural resource manager, that these areas will contain the broadest and most representative sample of the considerable range of material heritage types to be found in Muskoka.

Mapping was also undertaken on N.T.S. topographic base maps, at a scale of 1:50,000, wherein previously identified areas were reassessed in order to more accurately identify discrete areas where potential cultural landscapes may exist.

Units were identified on the basis of available historical data, i.e. the existence of known features, major existing natural or cultural boundaries or edges, and the number or concentration of features recorded at the 1:50,000 scale.

Each identified cultural landscape unit was assigned a name, and a number of predominant themes associated with the unit were indicated.

The cultural landscape areas thus identified are presented below.

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates !oi.Q!:.':l~~ llHSTI£HCT MUNHCHIPALH1l''j( OF uUU§KOKA NlPISSING IHIHM'HHHiHmHmHHH~)IHM'm_~ (~D PRUVn,! 1'\ ItlGIIWA1 HHMH,mm_H"rimam I I \~j OISllU(' ROAD I : TOWNSHIP "'-..-... RAILROAD TOWNSHIP I I etll" IWUWJ OISI mc r OOUNOAUV ~ ~..

I ~~.'"•• I ....fCC .... lJ l,ut lU. i] GrassmerO-Pomnsula lake

1 <: :? g; ~ --J ~

SIMCOE FIGURE 4 CuhuralLandscap.. andHlatorlcThematic Zones

AroaA SCAL£ fliI o I • • • ll) ll_.... ~ D Area B Page 146 Master Plan ofHeriUzge Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Map 311D14 (Figures 5-8)

Gravenhurst Mining; Manufacturing; Transponation, Utilities, PublicWorks and Communications; Recreation and Conservation; Centres of Settlement,

Housey's Rapids-Barkway Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications; Centres of Settlement,

Severn Bridge Early Euro-Canadian Settlement; Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications; Centres of Settlement,

Rural Settlement 1 Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery.

Rural Settlement 2 Rural Life: Agriculture and FlShery.

Reay Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications; Centres of Settlement,

Muskoka Fa1Js-Uffington-Vankoughnet Manufacturing; Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications; Centres of Settlement.

Germania Centres of SettlemenL

Lewisham Centres of Settlement,

Malta Centres of Settlement,

Norwegian FlyingSchool Military.

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates ~. e.t,'··" \)

\'j

C>

MASTER Pl..AHOf"HERITAGE RESOURCES rORniE OtSTRlCT UUNtClPAUTY OF MUSKOKA , TliE MOt....WKS Of 018S0N

PKASE. IOEH11ftcATtONOf CUlTURAllAHDSCAPE UHI'S

UNIT ASSOClArED HISTORIC TMEMECSI AND/OR FEAJURECS.

Or.,.,... T~leamNHgailiOJVMantAacturing/Rosorts MUSIlob F* VIIageJRoadSltfydro.-etricJManufaatMinQllumbel1ng Genna"'. V"ooo Rea., VlIageIRoad ...... "" -_ NTSMAP31 0/14 Scale 1:50,OOD F"".' ;-~:r--=,-- \ ~ -,

1-.l.. ...l.....11...__...... '" t.·~ c_,~~.) )

Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 151

Map 31JD13 (Figures 9-12)

Big Chute Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications. Port Severn Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery. HoneyHarbour Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery. Torrance Manufacturing; Centres of Settlement,

Muskoka Mills Forestry Industry. Swift Rapids Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications. Macey Bay Bridge Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications. Tobey Bridge Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications. Whites Farm Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery. King Farm Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery. Pilou Farm Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery. Tobey Farm Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery. Orville Wright Cottage Recreation and Conservation. David Milne Cottage Recreation and Conservation. BiologIsland Recreation and Conservation. Franceville Recreation and Conservation. Beausoleil Island Recreation and Conservation. Quarry Island Mining.

Unterman McPhilil CumingAssociates • Long ; Itlnnd \ ",

VnJcnlll\n,il. I~ClCk!\ •• /-~ ) ()~

(\ Conoid. HII 1..",,1 ~, . nock_ H," I, C~h"'lIfll'lll f W \I~""I' I, lftll'ltut' H" ; l

MIIllIl IllU\o.

~ Townsend •• ! (4"\,,1 Nl"wlon •• 1"I"fld~ ~ !;wnnll11nn I!lllnnn

E!lhl"'fthnknnQ I~tnnd

l \ \ ~ \ r Bare \ Rock \ . Bathe' \ Islane .. \ .,-,,- ..,

MASTER PlAN OF HERITAGE RESOURCES \..-::.." Kind~r$ley ..... " / FOR THE '.(- Island PenelM~ Ro~k DISTRICT MUNICIPAUTY OF MUSKOKA & THE MOHAWKS OF GIBSON Gull ROCk • HotchkiSS ROCk PHASE 11DENTlFlCATION OF CULTURAL lANDSCAPE UNITS

UNIT Governor. :·0 . ASSOCIATED HISTORIC THEME(S) AND/OR FEATURE(S) Island • .. ~ Talbol I' <'.•-.'" Biolog Island RecreationIlnstitutionai \ Islands. Bur~(' I ROCk Thit ~" Franceville ResottIColtage " ,. Is I '::;. , Minnicognashene Figure 9 NTS MAP 31 0/13 I Scale 1:50,000 I / Nl ,. Island " '{'(~ ,:\I~\o )'~',"~"1~:"'" !lLv<,~.~~, \~,

, IJ', '\ ,) '" '''\\\ i . /, 1 ' /~' , C1 r. ',' -,' .( ( \ I, . '{ r»; '\) I S"I -.:) . '" I' ,,/ V- \ \ ... _\ I\ ,,~ \)(~I':' (,,'> ( ,\. ~",:, ,: '1~~C• • .....--' I "1::::: '". *IC ( \ _1\,' "",. 'S').O \)'" \ "/"'" 1 1 ,','. \:' '\> \\'\ ,,,' ...' 0 /\. .... ' ",' --- r ,! I \ I"", ) td' },A''I'~!J 1/ ,,,,,..,.,, ~ ;:> ~,' :!.] ~ .\} ... , '\ .. \' ,) ~ \ f ) Itl~T 'i'""."~~( ., {J IS~,/f -" '( . coo~'"'"'~hflne4~/"".\ ....~ .,- ",," IJ ~~ll'" \\~'\ 'Mil' II ( I O. .' if;:? '"r" lry."", ,"'. ,,'I j "I ). 'I "", ~ -..\.. ~I ' ~ (,.J ",'" ..1 \• ~ -, " ' ....,.i loSm'lh$ "...... "-.J~ . K '(~) '"'.1\ \" \ '---,- ), ...,~'11'.r ~. '\ ( o ~·rtl'''tY Io"'.;,~M.,t,t.O"'.,:::::~:• ~~J~:\w. b. ' ~ ,,'~";Y;:'J~9--'-....l CJ 'l' ~ .. \ \ '\ : n,:', .. fJ\' / I Q '/. C .'0{' "• Q', '/, ... .( -, \)\' \ II I It· \/' '((I \ ,,e'" ...,,;.~ J' • n! '\J "'1 'n, , • \J Y,!, "Ii /', 'I I) :,~, I, VC\.ll \ i(" f """' ~ ~ , ,', ,,/ -, ',' ' 'I, Q .. ' " ~ Ie, u J' I !,\} I

,..oi..::~:Vl1leW:;ghIICOllage'W".'~: • .,'~"',yo~1~ f~ < '\)~~-,:~"'~'" '/.'1 ~~ -- } : "";~'d;'N"". i' (' fi~" ","':; ,~\l~ :;::,~~~~ .'~-, 1\ '0 .' J' .. '" I," ",,'m,.'Po_a.. \'. '. • 10 \) " f , l)' ~ 'I. J,.1" \I. II m""".", ,. ,.,,", 0',' ..., \~',,~'. 'C\: ,,' \[7.." '\1 _", ,'t ," "Q )' Q_ '"" " • I ',\ ", '. ,I, , ) ". '_~ I· .. ",11,<, .M.' • --, ( q, l:), ,I 'I ' '>" ",,:" \, ,,',, "'" .' " _ 'homo,"", V () ,fl; :\. ~Qa I _) ,\ ,,' I,'!;, ,;.r'.I ) 1 Sl~~:·"'~:." ~o -~ ()~ .\ :,.I"~._ t-w .. , ~ <1 ,I Q , ,~,\l.',,,J.1I....'''f'(ll,rt~rx--l . -..../ .. CI,llCO, ".':~~:': \. ...", Jl" c) y' ',", "',n' ;,'" David Milne COllage . 'M. . 'hlboduu ' It f,1'i~U"'s";~:7I ~f mi. -....- 'J In . I .. ' • )g"lISh~~f!..' t::i"hl.nd D., O~_. <)"' UASTERPUHOFHERfTAOERESOURCES,"" \ ' ,'., ""./.: -c-. ..<.\ 't,~,),~"\ I I'l b:r>"~"",,1 I L) fOR THE , • IF::.:~""', ~,'"~\~")',' 'd" ''''',,',~" (,~.~) ,."V._-~\ o,sm,c, ..UNlCIPAUlYOf"USIIOKA.THE ..OHAW1' ' • ",'" "" ~"'l i~ \ \', \' ••'ffi~"'~'Uti., "-~r..' . \S .... I .·'.,i ~'~>.'.!/ "'-) "" ( .... ,'.~;".... ~', \\. "- '-C. -" ' ' ' UN" ASSOCIATEOtnTORlCTHE ..ElSIANOIORFEATUAEISJ .\ ,", J' (' ',d':" < ii" \ f~~~'!· ,·Q\/I';1\J.,Jtr • ~fh f,}-~.-J.J'\"_~ '<,) MU$SIok8MlI$ foresuy J ~ ~_\:~'! "". ' I[))hl.nd:~; 1·.iJ.IJ~f ("', ' ;/.(-'i\" , r-..l, - '-----J ;----..LJ ~yvl'f., ') 0fViIe Wnv- eon. Rectealon Shme Place ~ Wcnf'I> DMd MIne eonage AeaNtion

flgur.10 HIS MAP 31 0/13 Scale 1:50,000 ·,,~ ...- \ \ i

\ -,

~'-\):-;,t .... ./'S

':, a ( ':-?; ;-

j \

-:: ._~-' ..

Su I (t ..- .::--;- - ).{ ... , h

MASTERPU.H =="THE MOHAWKS OF GJ MUNlCJPAUTY OF M L.AHOSCAPE UHrT'S OIS.""CT TlOH OF CU"""'" R F.... TUREIS) PHASE 1 tCEHTrFICA TORlC THEMEIS) AHOla UHrT V~Xl:urng

T...... T_ I s.- 150.000 ~-'~':".j "­ '- ./ Page 156 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Map 31E'2 (Figure 13) Dorset Centres of Settlement.

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates PHASE 1 IDENTIFICATION OF CULTURAL LANDSCAPE UNITS

UNIT ASSOCIATED HISTORIC THEME(S) AND/OR FEATURE(S)

Dorset Village Figure 13 NTS MAP 31 EI2 Scale 1:50,000 \ Page 158 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the Distria Municipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Map 3lFJ3 (Figures 14-20) Alport-South Falls-Bracebridge Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery; Mining; Manufacturing; Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications; Centres of Settlement,

High Falls-Stoneleigb Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications; Centres of Settlement, Bardsville-Falkenburg Station Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery; Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications; Centres of Settlement, RaymondlUfford Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery; Manufacturing; Transportanon, Utilities, Public Works and Communications; Recreation and Conservation; Centres of Settlement, Utterson Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications; Centres of Settlement, Port Sydney-BruneI Road Manufacturing; Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications; Recreation and • Conservation; Centres of Settlement, Peterson Road Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications.

Newholm Centres of Settlement, Bigwin Recreation and Conservation.

Ullswater Centres of Settlement; Rural Life: Agriculture and FIShery. Fraserburg Centres of Settlement; Manufacturing; Forest Industry.

Purbrook Rural Life: Agriculture and FIShery. Clear Lake Centres of SettlemenL Farming1 Rural Life: Agriculture and FIShery. Farming2 Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery. Farming3 Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery.

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates ";;; ! ~ ~ • ,." ...... i c ? - z ~ ;0 g n ~ z 'i :l ..'" ::l s; ~ 0 z ~ 0 c~~ s; "0", n ~~; c ~m; ~ .. ~ '"~ ~ il\ >: ~ z 0 isc ~ i '" ;:: .." a c s; z ;;i "ii isz

? J

... I,/ .' ~ \ IlP)f:.'J _ ~.'~'"\ :1'-\ MA5ff:H PLAN Of HERITAOE RESOURCES 'DRntE DISTRICY MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA a.me MOHAWKS Of OIBSON

PHASE I toEHflFtCAnoN Of CULTURAllAHDSCAPE UNITS

UNIT ASSOCIATEDH'STORIC ntUtECSJAH.!'/on fUJURECSJ .-.... RaymondUtlOl'd , 'Islend

.~ \' to- ~' nocky @lllllnd

MASTER PLAN OF HERITAGE RESOURCES FOR THE DISTRICT MUNICIPAUlY OF MUSKOKA .. THE MOHAWKS OF GIBSON

PHASE 1 IDENTlFICAnON OF CULTURAL LANDSCAPE UNITS

UNIT ASSOCIATED HISTORIC THEME(S) AND/OR FEATURE(S)

Port Sydney VillagelManutacturlng/RoadISteam NavigationlResorts

Utterson VillagelRoadIRail

Farming 1 AgricultUre Farming 2 Agriculture

Figure 17 /

\1 ;1,1 t

/1" \

I ~ Crown l~IDnd ,)! Roolho Islant I'

(l

F======-====....,;:.;.,.....-;~=...... = ...... ==....====-=="i1 anes Island

PHASE 1 IDENTIFICATION OF CULTURAl LANDSCAPEUNITS

UNIT ASSOCIATED HISTORIC THEME(S) ANDIOR FEATURE(S) 11======'======'=9] ,I Newtlolm Village

Baysville VillagelManufaeturingiSteam NavigationlResorts Mllllcnnmp 11I1t'lnc1 .{

.~

\'- Chnmplon '\' ' Mnlinnlnncn 1"lftnc1 • l",t/\ll{1 C••lle '.'.nd

~, ~ I Plica \" Poont \,

Island

Ensko Island

I t:i' Burnt Island

MASTER PLAN OF HERITAGE RESOURCES FOR THE DISTRICT MUNICIPAUlY OF MUSKOKA &. THE MOHAWKS OF GIBSON

PHASE 1 IDENTIFICATION OF CULTURAL LANDSCAPE UNITS

UNIT ASSOCIATED HISTORIC THEME(S) AND/OR FEATURE(S)

Bigwin Island Resort

Figure 19 NTSMAP31 EJ3 ,..,---.~~~~ __ ' ,.. ) II )( .' { '-.: "'" '\\~ "'SflRPLANO"lERIf'OERESOURCOS 1 f' I\ ',' '\,f. ,\ ',' \, I ," "I \ ":' ,j( ~,.';;, l', I' \\I ) fOR UtE /,0'>,0" I.. \\1_1 .) \ ' -: f,,,III,,,111" II, OISlfllCf UUNICIPAIJTYOf MUSKOKA'rHE MOIIAWKSOfGIBSON -. C. ) t \ I (J /\/ ;, c , ( ..J, ) \\. \,oj) \ l)) ...... 1' I, 1 \' 'l>i ' \ 1" I I I 1(' ., < "\ I' "" ",",' PttASEIIOENflf-ICAnONOfCUI.TURALLANOSCAPEUNlfS '; .~ll~) \ ' I I ' I \ "."( \ I. 'j; ,I I, )2' \ _ , ,\ I I" 'I \ r, ,." J )' I I i )'"" J -- I IJ f,.""",.. v...... ""',"'.."""'''''''''''''''' ,,_<~ >;. . \' .II' ,I \ . ~u\' f II I \) I', "l. ~r",' JIfN} ~ ~S""""""",,,, ~ \' ~.~ rti"'~ '~I~ '~ P,"''''''~"",.lOad R...... ,,~''''h,), ',I " .:\.,)'. 'l< "{I ''. .. 11 .. '''; ) ~ P.. Rood . ,fn"/'..\ \ \ ":/" II 1,'41., J ' /1.\/' II \, \1,\\ )1 .I ,''., \\, • s,,..""t'I I' ~ ,1 (/ "1/, ~ V~anulaet,.tng ~ lake /" "II.,.,.. I )', (I r r' ,-, \. )" ,, « •, .t , \ t \'({ ~ ~7 'I~ ,~~ ~ .. I ms MAP3W. S,... 150000 '. \ '". I • \J: "( I ''\ -. f \ \\ I I( (( "' ) "\' \ ,'~' ',,\)/';;'·':Jy<\2.:''(~. :Jt>"l'e/;'"':, ' ; t; '1,1 1(11: J\VA'I" 'j' .rrro , "1\ \I , 1i'."J' ", Jj' J;, ~~.,\\ £' I •. , , ",. ,,, /' \ ,/ -r v I ,,!til ), I (. l 1 ) f J ' ~ ~" r s , I J l" ,/ I "f'-, \, f il J""'" " ! I," ( j - -v .». . \ /' /)" .,; /}\" : • , ~ f \' :,;1-"-/0 \ Faserburg \ If'., (, I ,),7. 0./ / ,("' " f·' ~' ~" ' ,,,,,.f~., '~(.' ~/,\ '(;,\~' I•.'!\\ \f ly\'-/ fl' / , I I', ' .., " II ,Li """ .: ) ' .. ,/ :1,'" Dlj:.//. ·\,1 ~ I. ) '\I t-. ,-CO""J\ ,((, \) \\ • ._) '''.''." I d·" ' ~ '~~l" 1'"" ' t : .1 l \ 'J\\ - I~ \<...~. '<, .'~'I, ! ,'\ \I\J. I /\ ;\,/ , ,f f.'" ',','.'1 (,' ,fill' ( ~" ' ,.,1j" I'.;"" J 1100')\/ ,~, \ ~: ,~,r i I I I "....., ;, :, I '{,\ .' ,,/, \'.' I ,/' 0.... ' -, (( 'i'~,,!, ' .~ \v'' .' , , ' I J /. ' • ,Li",' ,:,' ~ \: , ' '" x.. 'I " I, l ('j, y f) ""I, ' ,,1\\,,1/ '" "" (,/, .,\ill.I\"'~'.·\. ,,'::':;', (, (:~,f"l(\);\' " \ ( -\ '\\',,,,. ,,~,:\ .":, '.fl\),'{l. 1\ /".'. ,\..,("",>,~.' ~,.x'''_/'';.. ' I 'l\\ I, ,\,\'0- j\ )1) \'1,,;,,\,"\~l'-: '",\ .~ " GU~,('~" J(ll .\(\ / 'I \)), l \', 1'-' \\ " L) ,.. /, I /' (.1. \' I I (_,I-'t\,(' J 'II)' o2: ~( \ \, \ .l"~\:!~')'·~ I ,;',' '("I '."f. '1\ l)/,\, \\\ .,./~'/- .,' 'f, , I j', ,. = \", l,] ,/. ' ,, J... \ .'/ ')' \\~I I)" ,; jJ{I' ) ." '.'!' ,) ,,(/..;"i.[< 'J< I, LJ,'/\ S'; \\ 'J, '\ .,"'1,' (I I:Ii' (.'J/ ,('j (""" / ,,,,) " !Y.' .. ;> .""-•• I "" I, • fM,' I , , \ V', I (§, "", ~) I )~(), ('JI • """ j ,l.\ I r' (("'''\'& 'll" \" ,,' le ':1 . / .\ \-,l \\ I J ' (\ • Moe" r "~"" ,,_ \I( I( 1"1-' I, I " ..' , (\".."" II: .,. \ " I I I'''' ), \\ \ f J " .'). '. r , ,) '-._ ~) j' \~, , 1- ,,~,{,,\~"" !'I " "I", I' """ ( I f) t~ ",>J", I~\ ~ty, " ',? f ' , ,0,,, ";";;;:N' 'I': , ') (\\I 1"'('1 I, \ \ III ",' '''·!lII. '"''.''' , , \~ (' ,)( \' ' ~./J" . \ ) t';;'; lll'r J ,~ , ~., \.. \./ )\ }~ ~ ~ \ \ r) 'i r I' ) \ { 1 '·i I i (! ,' '~~)j ~'.'.l ~'7.~.,)\ ~.~. :;'>1~\\ \J.".... ' .. ( "";'1 'I , v .. ; (','~'"U ',,) '0 _. \ ~../ '? ,1,:.1'/\)" 't)/ ''\..\k'II .) ~" \"'\ ':, ( '('!'t'.. / ./ J; /.1I) , .~~Jl(\S:''" I'· ()J~.),\," II ~J/ V ) \ - J~':~-;? "'/I~!',~'\;'\ (f".;J\IC~l.1I'~ ". / / '.>, (,;1'/1~ _0' .,..... '\,( ( 1)1, /"-;1.. '1 ',/' I \ ',> ,,/('I.-/'J' " (/--71 / \Ie "... ". ,("".. ..\ f\\ . I~ ~O c.<~ '\ _~.-~~:;.~, ~~( /-~)\..'" (~~'. j \r .. f\.o.: ')'. r' <.. t, \ "W I( ',- I ,< • II "'" "'. , I /;.,.r , I i \) n ',) 'h I I) I )':"'\, \1 ''''>} , .\~~('f:\)) VI' " . ( j ().,,' ·1 I, I, t":"""" 0""",, " ':'\' I -... - I. , ' '''"Clear , I) "\\~,)~}~'~ , ." 1\ \11, ,.~" I.""" .'~:·Uk.... ~~.u,.:· '(".'~".\ t'.\ .' lakel'l~ > ,1. ~\J: t \\ 1 : ..... 'I••",,;. ..' )'.' ') ,..r: \.~>,,' ,I;]. '\\,'." f\\\)V I.' I."","y:., '\"'") (\,\p\. 1 \1' " /.",. ,""~"I'> (1" ~"i,' ,c<"'~.,//, \ ,/\,,1 . i /\J -- . - etersonRoad II '. S'u~I ..'~" ~" C/. AI .18 .•• iO~ ,) ,•, l~ \ \ • I . I e' , '.. \". ,i f. '. .J<: ' \ \\) i .. ' 'lliand .. I . '0J(,';",~...... ,5 (,., ,.0. (,/i:.)' ," ~" : I ".. ,I' ..1- ...f·-y;:,'b''::>';'$p~-''.P\-ll' , J ;, I ," i~~.. \. " . I"'~".L"":_,,L.2lL ), L';_,,(iAJJ~rrJ?- ,./.' [\ .),' ...::::.....JL:sh,· ' , . , Page 166 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oi Muskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Map 31.FJ4 (Figures 21-24) MacTier Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications; Centres of settlement. Big Eddy Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications. Foots Bay Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications; Recreation and Conservation

Bala Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications; Centres of settlement; Recreation and Conservation; Manufacturing. Port Carling Centres of settlement; Recreation and Conservation; Manufacturing. Minett Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications.

Royal Muskoka Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications. Windermere-Dee Bank Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications; Recreation and Conservation; Manufacturing; Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery. Port Sandfield Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications; Recreation and Conservation; Manufacturing. RaggedRapids Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications. Bent River Centres of settlement. Mu~hibacker Mill Manufacturing. Cape Elizabeth Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications. Kews Bay Forestry Industry. Bala Park Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications.

Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates

., . I ,,~ " ~.::..

'., ~ .. -' i \

MASTER PLAN OF HERITAGE RESOURCES FOR THE DISTRICT MUNICIPAUTY OF MUSKOKA " THE MOHAWKS OF GIBSON

PHASE 1 IDENTIFICATION OF CULllJRAL LANDSCAPE UNITS

UNIT ASSOCIATED HISTORIC THEME(S) AND/OR FEAllJRE(S)

PHASE I IOENnflCATlON OF CULTURAL LANDSCAPE UNIJS

UNIJ AS50CIAJID HISTORIC mEtA£(5) AND/OR FEAI\JRE(S)

C~ElUtlbelh StNmH~1on UUlcfllbolCkllfU. .. .. Bel'll fv"ltI V.... RoyalU'1Skoh AesoosJSlflam NilII'igaClOO ..""" Resot1t/Sleam NavigaliOrl W'kldenneIe 000 u...

'lgufe 24

,.

Fifllket...".....ncI ~~,;,~. ""-'0', I...tld tIand .'" I. 1 "'&lenGlh

, 't)~'I.I'" ~.\..~ " , < ,. -

I -- \ ;J.'':' Pfotped ~. \,1.'Ii)t"'.... Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 171

Map 3lFJS (Figure 25) Hekkla centres of SettleDlent

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates MASTER PLAN OF HERITAGE RESOURCES FOR THE DISTRICT MUNICIPAUTY OF MUSKOKA & THE MOHAWKS OF GIBSON ./ PHASE 1 IDENTlFICATION OF CULlURAL LANDSCAPE UNITS -,

UNIT ASSOCIATED HISTORIC THEME(S) AND/OR FEAlURE(S)

Heklda Centres of Settlement Figure 25 I NTS MAP 31 E/5 I Scale 1:50,000 Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 173

Map 31.FJ6 (Figures 26-29) Ilfracombe Centres of Settlement.

Aspidin Centres of Settlement. Lancelot Centres of Settlement. Martin's Siding Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications.

Allensville Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications; Centres of Settlement. Huntsville Early Euro-Canadian Settlement; Forest Industry; Rural Ute: Agriculture and Fishery; Mining; Manufacturing; Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications; Recreation and Conservation; Centres of Settlement.

North Branch Muskoka Early Euro-Canadian Settlement; Rural Ute: Agriculture and Fishery; Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications. RIlvenscliff Centres of Settlement.

Dwight Early Euro-Canadian Settlement; Rural Ute: Agriculture and FIShery; Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications; Recreation and Conservation.

BruneI Road Early Euro-Canadian Settlement; Rural Ute: Agriculture and Fishery; Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications. Canal Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications. Limberlost Recreation and Conservation. Grassmere Recreation and Conservation; Centres of Settlement. Bona Vista Recreation and Conservation. Hillside Centres of Settlement. WzlIiamspon Centres of Settlement. Hoodstown Centres of Settlement. Farm] Rural Ute: Agriculture and Fishery.

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates Page 174 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Farm 2 Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery. Sugar Bush 1 Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery. Distress Pond Forestry Industry. Portage Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications,

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates S/(ELLTO"

L ,\ /( E~ _

MASTER PI.AH0#=HERITAGE: ItE$OURCES FOIt TWE Cl$TRlCT WUNIC1PALtTY OftMUSKOK.A a. TlotE MOHAWKS Of GIBSON

PHASE t 1OEH'T'\FlCA1"ION Of' CU\.1\JRAL L.AHO:$C.A.P£ UN'rTS I

UNTT .&SSOQAn.D HrsTO~IC TH!We(S1 ANO!O~ FEATURE(S) c.,.. P.-wonos G<-. V_ H.....

80NI ViSa Rea'UbOn te:tlltt9l CCIT\I'7'Ul"'I) --, -...... ,..... v~eam~1ClI'" -F.."..,.,"""'" ...... ,.. F.."..,. 2 AgnCuIUI"e(MOfta1atm]

Figure 21 NTS MAP 31 Elf : Soc.aie 1:50.00c - -' !2 ~ E c ~ ;; .c ... :< ~ ~ I JI E I' c~ ;;l \i1g e 0o!~m in " ~ 0 ~ ~ E ~ 0 E ."~ ~ .." ~ ~ s ~ " til a z

:---V Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Page 179

Map 31F17 (Figures 30-31) ChevalierPoint Recreation and Conservation. Vesle Skaugum Norwegian Basic Training Camp Military.

Unterman McPIulil CumingAssociates MASTER PLAN OF HERITAGE RESOURCES FOR THE DISTRICT MUNICIPAUTY OF MUSKOKA & THE MOHAWKS OF GIBSON

PHASE 1 IDENTIFICATION OF CULTURAL LANDSCAPE UNITS

UNIT ASSOCIATED HISTORIC THEME(S) AND/OR FEATURE(S)

Chevalier POint

sneaks Island MASlER PlAN OF HERITAGE RESOURCES FOR lliE DISTRICT MUNICIPAUlY OF MUSKOKA & lliE MOHAWKS OF GIBSON

PHASE 1 IDENTIFICATION OF CULTURAL lANDSCAPE UNITS

UNIT ASSOCIATED HISTORIC lliEME(S) AND/OR FEATURE(S)

Vesle Skaughum Militaly

Figure 31 NTS MAP 31 en

[\.,.,.~ ~" ~ ) '-' I \ , II ->, I "'" \\ \.. \ \ fill Page 182 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the DistrictMunicipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Unterman McPhail CumingAssociates 4 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF IDSTORIC EURO-CANADIAN SETTLEMENT by M.s. Cooper and D.A. Robertson

4.1 INTRODUCTION

From an archaeological perspective, the historic period represents a series of both continuity and change in the nature and extent of human settlement in Muskoka

First Nation occupatants ofthe area, while forced to respond to the new circumstances brought about by Euro-Canadian colonization, maintained, in several respects, many of the basic characteristics of their prehistoric lifeways. Thus, the recording of traditional use sites (Volume 2, Chapter 1), which can be identified on topographic base maps, through the collection oforal histories, will lead not only to the preservation of these sites themselves and their associated traditional knowledge, but also to an enhanced understanding of the prehistory of the region.

The archaeology ofhistoric Euro-Canadian settlement in Muskoka, on the other hand, presents many new cultural and historical variables, such as those discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, which must be examined in order to effectively predict site location.

4.2 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF EURO-CANADIAN SETTLEMENT

As the historical theme outlines provided in Chapters 2 and 3 make clear, many aspects of the Euro­ Canadian settlement of Muskoka were conditioned by the same environmental constraints (particularly the numerous waterways) which played an important role in shaping the prehistoric and continued historic Native occupation of the study area There were, however, several significant cultural, or ideological, differences between these societies which have had an important impact on the nature of the Euro-Canadian archaeological record

Euro-Canadian settlement, premised ontheexploitation and domestication ofthe wilderness, resulted in dramatic re-ordering of the environment. Colonial concepts of settlement, based on buildings located within blocks ofland bounded by roads (typically a militarygrid system), somewhat mitigated against the need to work closely within the constraints of the existing environment. White settlers, seeking greater permanence in their surroundings cleared their forested landscapes on a comparatively large scale, for the industrial extraction of resources and, to a lesser degree, for the purposes ofagriculture. The eventual growth ofcentres ofsettlement, offering a range ofspecialized industrial and commercial services, and later providing distinct residential areas, also denoted a new permanence in the landscape.

4.3 DEFINING EURO-CANADIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE POTENTIAL

As the essential trajectory of Euro-Canadian settlement in Muskoka, and its distnbution across the landscape, have been discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, it is not necessary to enter into detailed discussion of the predictive modelling of historic site selection processes. Several general observations, however, are in order. From an archaeological perspective, the Euro-Canadian presence in the study region can be divided into two basic phases- an "Initial" phase, and an Page 184 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

"Expansion and In-Filling" phase- which, while not mutually exclusive, may be expected to exhibit slightly different patterns archaeologically.

4.3.1 THE INITIAL PHASE

The initial, pioneering, phase of Muskoka's colonization includes those historic themes outlined in Chapters 2 and 3 above, such as the fur trade, early land survey, early lumbering, early agriculture and fishing and, to a lesser extent, local staple milling. While these themes are largely related to resource extraction, the activities conducted were on a relatively small scale, involving only limited intrusion upon the physical landscape.

The location of sites can, therefore, be expected to largely conform to the same environmental constraints which operated in the prehistoric period. Thus the potential model presented in Chapter 1 is of equal relevance for the early historic period as well.

Campsites associated with the fur trade and early forestry, for example, will have been located in topographically suitable areas with access to the-transportation and communication routes which the Georgian Bay coast and interior waterways provided.

Agricultural occupations may be correlated with the limited areas ofsuitable soil development noted as being attractive to Iroquoian agriculturalists. Similarly,early industries established to accommodate settlers, for example, water-powered mills (which will have their owncomplexes ofrelated structures) can be expected to be located along the major watercourses previously identified.

4.3.2 THE EXPANSION AND IN-FllliNG PHASE

As Muskoka's Euro-Canadian population grew through the later half ofthe nineteenth century, and the infrastructure established to supportthese growing populations expanded and became increasingly dense, the impacts of the environmental constraints are somewhat modified (at least at the macro­ scale), and several additional considerations are required.

Distance to navigable waterways becomes less of a critical factor, as historic occupations become increasingly focused upon the newly developed transportation and communication networks formed by surveyed roads. Main travel routes will be the primary location of many residential settlements and commercial enterprises. Cross-road communities developed around services and industries established to accommodate the growing population.

Accordingly, corridors of moderate to high archaeological potential should be placed along all colonization roads. In order to ensure the discovery of nineteenth century structures along these early travel ways, it is recommended that 300 metre wide corridors be delineated along either side of major roads and 100 metres wide along side roads. It is further proposed that a 500 metre zone of high archaeological potential be established around all known historic industrial sites and cross­ road communities.

Archaeological Services Inc. Euro-Canadian Settlement Page 185

4.4 mSTORIC EURO·CANADIAN SITE POTENTIAL: APPLICATIONS

For a number of reasons, the predictive modelling of historic Euro-Canadian sites does not require as stringent a theoretical approach as that for prehistoric site potential modelling. In the first place, historic sites, in contrast to prehistoric ones, frequently remain highlyvisible in the modem landscape as structural ruins or areas of physical disturbance. Clearings in the bush or relict garden plots which may also indicate former occupation sites are also readily identifiable. A further consideration is the fact that only those historic sites which date to the early period of Euro-Canadian settlement in a region (which can be expected to form only a very small percentage of the total) are considered to be archaeologically significant. The more numerous sites of relatively recent date seldom yield data which usefully contribute to an archaeological understanding of a study area's past.

In the final analysis, therefore, it is neither necessary, nor desirable to carry out potential mapping of Euro-Canadian archaeological sites. The restricted quantity of significant archaeological features dating to this period does not warrant such an exercise. This is particularly true in light of the fact that sufficient historic documentation exists in the form ofcensuses, assessment roles and atlases and other maps, that the actual pattern of settlement within the landscape can be reconstructed, superseding the need to develop a model of predicted site distnbution. For the Muskoka District, therefore, it is recommended that such documentary and cartographic review- which is both practical and effective- take place as the need arises during the development process.

Archaeologiall Services Inc. Page 186 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the DistrictMunicipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Archaeological Services Inc. 5 THE INTANGffiLE HERITAGE OF MUSKOKA by Carole H. Carpenter

5.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE CONCEPT OF INTANGffiLE HERITAGE

Intangible heritage comprises the accumulated cultural aspects that are conceptual, oral and/or behavioural, passed over time amongst a collectivity of people who identify themselves as a group, or are so termed by outsiders. It is the traditional, expressive culture shared by familial, ethnic, occupational, religious, regional and other groups. Even though such information may be amorphous, knowledge of it is central to participation in, or appreciation of, any such group's way of life.

It is perhaps best to explicate intangible heritage through listing a range ofits possible manifestations which include non-physical, creative and symbolicforms such as beliefs, customs, collective memories, traditions, gestures, verbal arts, skills or techniques, rites of passage, celebrations, speech patterns, stories, dances, song and instrumental music, habits, values, attitudes, tastes, games and foadways. Much intangible heritage is encompassed by the term folklife which is in common use internationally.

By its very nature, intangible heritage is open to adaptation and interpretation; it can be, and very commonly is, transformed to suit circumstances, personnel and purposes. As a result, it is often mistrusted or under-valued in ourcontemporary culture, for it does notnecessarily represent objective or "scientific" truth, nor does it operate in accord with modem technology. It is much more likely to reflect the emotional truth, the subjective reality of experience, the people's own vision of truth and meaning expressed in thoughts, words and deeds ormade tangible in an array ofobjects produced within the cultural group. As such, intangible heritage is at least as good a measure ofwhat people have taken from and made of existence as any tangible remains that they might leave.

The most intriguing characteristic of intangible heritage is that it may embody, at one and the same time, the most specific localized aspects of a culture as well as the most universal, human characteristics. It belongs to people themselves, whether they are self-consciously aware of this invisible cultural baggage or not, and it moves from person to person because it has meaning orvalue to them.

Intangible heritage generally does not need to rely on formal education and elite mechanisms for its perpetuation. Rather, it is dependent upon the will of individuals and groups who bother to remember it; what persists is that which is strong enough (i.e., important enough in that it has value by virtue ofits use, meaning and function) to be passed on by word-of-mouth or by observation and imitation. Sometimes, intangible heritage takes on tangible form- it is written down and published in books, collected on audio tape, captured on film, preserved in archival documents and the like. Indeed, most often when it is studied, intangible heritage is made tangible in the process. Frequently though, much of any group's intangible heritage passes into oblivion over time if the group and/or its circumstances and those of the world around transform such that this cultural data is no longer alive- in active use amongst the people- and vanishes before it is recorded. It is typical that people pay most attention to their intangible heritage when they feel it to be threatened or disappearing: a "get-it-before-it-is-dead" attitude. In modem times, power groups, namely those who perceive their culture as entrenched in institutions and daily operation, generally have not focused much attention on their intangible heritage, until recently when the cultural distinctions amongst the world's Page 188 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the DistrictMunicipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

developed countries have become blurred as a result of increasing global communication and transportation which promotes homogenization.

Contemporary cultural movements emphasize intangible heritage in the effort to empower people by enculturating them, making each and every person aware of themselves as cultural beings. All humans possess intangible heritage, and it is that which largely determines their daily manner of being. To focus attention, therefore, on the intangible is to highlight the everyday culture of everyone and to move away from the elitist approach to culture that typically has fostered concentration on the tangible. The move to preserve and appreciate intangible heritage is an international endeavour bolstered by a UNESCO resolution.

That the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Mohawks of GIbson have seen fit to include intangible heritage within the purview of a major heritage plan is, then, very forward thinking. It is, as this report will indicate, fully consistent with the cultural complex of the region which has been known to exist, by outsiders as well as insiders, despite a relative paucity ofscholarly documentation. The significance of this intangible heritage is clearly revealed in recent comments by Patricia Walbridge Ahlbrandt in her account ofBeaumaris. She notes:

It is for the large cottagesbuilt on the islands and along Millionaires'Row around the turn of the century that Beaumaris is best known. But to the peoplewho lovethis placeit is more than a collectionof buildings; for some it is the place where they feel the most at home....The length of time their families have come to Beaumaris is a source of pride to many cottagers...What bringsthem backis the fact that Beaumaris is as steeped in memories and traditions as it is in physical beauty. (1989: 9-11).

If history is the process of living, with structures and objects being the products of existence, then intangible heritage is the fabric ofbeing, contnbuting substantially to how people make sense of the world, their lives and each other, and resulting in the whole having meaning and purpose.

5.2 SOURCES OF INTANGffiLE HERITAGE IDENTIFIED IN MUSKOKA

Any region includes a large number ofcultural groups, each ofwhich has a characteristic and distinct historical aspect and intangible heritage. The intangible heritage of a region is, however, more than the sum of the traditional expressive culture of each resident group throughout history, for it also includes what outsiders possess as a result of experience in or knowledge of the region and what the region as a whole presents both dehberately and inadvertently to the outside.

Thus the sources for the intangible heritage of an area are potentially to be found both within the area concerned and wherever those associated with it have gone. FIrst and foremost, the sources are people, the active or passive bearers of the heritage, that is, those who either use it or know of it. These sources are as numerous as the people connected with the region. Some are necessarily better sources than others, for they remember more or recount the information in an aesthetically superior manner. Other sources may include collections to be found in archives and museums; scholarly and

Carole H. Carpenter Intangible Heritage Page 189

popular publications; audio-visualmaterial; media presentations; as well as on-going cultural activities and programming carried out by organizations and institutions.

Identification of the sources for the intangible heritage of Muskoka first requires a characterization of the nature and extent of that heritage. From the outset, it is obvious that Muskoka should have a particularly rich heritage, for many different people have been involved with the region, engaged in a diversity of activities throughout its history. Considerable transformation in the region has occurred within memory of persons still living, and noteworthy people and events have been associated with the area, so that it has become well known in Ontario, across Canada and abroad. Such factors tend to produce traditions of, or associated with, a region.

Given the nature of the people associated with Muskoka, there ought to be a preponderance of Anglo-Saxon material-WASP, in fact, for Catholics have been a decided minority. Relatively little material associated with other ethnicities should be anticipated, though somewhat more interest in minority ethnic enclaves (such as the Finns at Hekkla or Italians around Huntsville) is evident in recent years. There ought to be considerable intangible cultural artifacts amongst or associated with the three native groups, the GIbson First Nation, the Rama First Nation and the Moose-Deer Point Frrst Nation.

As a result of the type of activities that have been undertaken in Muskoka, the intangible heritage of the region should include extensive occupational and industrial-based material, associated in particular with the lumberwoods, the railways, the steamships and other boats, various mills, farming, fishing, recreational activities and tourism. Byvirtue of the fact that there have been so many resorts for so long in Muskoka, there ought to be a substantial amount of material associated with them and similarlywith the many organized camps of long-standing, for camps tend to revolve around tradition. Finally, cottaging should have created considerable intangible heritage since, as the editor ofCottage Life recently said, "Cottaging is a traditional activity" (A Vanderhoof, pers. comm.).

The physical locale itself can be expected to have fostered certain types ofintangible heritage. There should be substantial woodslore, and weatherlore associated with conditions on the many lakes. There should be stories of disaster on those lakes, of encounters with Mother Nature and her many ,creatures in the area, and of a multitude of adventures on land and on the water. There ought to be tales explaining physical features and accounting for the names ofplaces, and terms for localisms, both natural and man-made.

The many clubs, organizations and institutions that have long-existed in Muskoka should have produced manyintangible cultural artifacts. These groups include fishing camps/clubslike the Sharon Social Fishing Club (founded in 1891) and the Madawaska and Tadenac Clubs; the various cottagers' associations; groups like the Boy Scouts, the Morrison Pioneer Club, the Women's Institutes, and quilters guilds; and institutions like Rosseau Lake College.

The intangible heritage of Muskoka surfaces as soon as one attempts to define the region, for in people's minds it differs from the political entity- for instance, MacTier is seldom thought of as Muskoka whereas Rosseau certainly is even though the reverse is officially true. One continues to encounter attitudes associated with Muskoka throughout Canadian culture, for instance, in exploring the very nature of Canadian identity. This identity is contextualized visually in the works of the Group of Seven and is included in many literary works that involve experience on the land ranging,

Carole H. Carpenter Page 190 Mastel' Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality otMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks from Lucy Maud Montgomery to Margaret Atwood, or that is directly recounted, for instance by one informant who said "the north is what Canada is about...up there in Muskoka you really feel Canadian" (Goldie Konopny, pers. comm.).

To identify the sources for this vast and multi-faceted intangible heritage, then, is a formidable task. Experience elsewhere has demonstrated that questionnaires dealing with intangible heritage are generally only of significant value when they can be followed up by personal contact. Since the time allotted to the survey has not permitted such an approach, a representative sample of responses to a general questionnaire are incorporated in this chapter.

From late January to date, the sources have been surveyed with specific reference to Muskoka both within and outside the District Municipality by means of letters, telephone conversations, visits (to hbraries, archives and heritage sites), some extended interviews with individualsrepresenting typical resources, and media appeals to the public which are still under way. A list of individuals, agencies, institutions and organizations directly consulted or who responded to the questionnaire is provided in Appendix 6.

First, all folklorists who were known to have done work in Ontario were contacted about their work, if any, in Muskoka, as well as for additional source contacts. Then the major depositories of pertinent oral traditional material- the Memorial Universityof Newfoundland Folklore and Language Archive (MUNFIA), the Canadian Centre for Folk Culture Studies and the Ontario Folklore­ Folklife Archive- were contacted regarding their relevant holdings. This consultation, along with a review of extant folklore-folklife bibliographies, revealed that there are very few collections of Muskoka material. There is one extended collection of camp songs and stories at MUNFLA: a number of material artifacts (carvings, decoys, lumberjacks, furniture, hairdressing and wigmaking tools) in the CCFCS but no tales or songs. Three student collection projects (on camplore, family traditions in Gravenhurst, and drumming at Rama) as well as numerous items of colleetanea of cottaging are on file at the Ontario Folklore-Folklife Archive. One study, by LS. Posen and Maxine Miska, is currently underway. Contracted by the CCFCS, it concerns the rustic tradition in Muskoka and is focused more on traditional material culture (signs, twig/stick furniture, architecture) than on intangible heritage, though traditional ideas and attitudes are involved.

A bibliographical search revealed only three books by folklorists directly pertinent to Muskoka: John D. Robins' Paul Bunyan: Superhero ofthe Lumberjacks (1980) which contains versions of tales in logging camps early in this century, along with an account of lumbering in Ontario and a list of lumbering terms; Edith Fowke's Traditional Singers and Songs from Ontario (1965), which includes material from three singers who once worked in the Muskoka lumberwoods and reference to a song entitled "Muskoka"; and her (1970) Lumbering Songs from Northern Ontario, which includes an excellent account of lumberwoods traditions as well as songs by the same three singers, one of which is entitled "The New Limit Line" about a trip from Bobcaygeon to a camp in Muskoka. None of these, however, was based on collecting directly in Muskoka.

Two records include pertinent material: Folkways FE 4052: "Lumbering Songs from the Ontario Shanties" and Folk-Legacy FSC-10 "Tom Brandon of Peterborough, Ontario". There are no major documentaries relating to Muskoka tradition; indeed, only two films are pertinent, "Muskoka - A Look Back" by Julius Kohanyi (1983) dealing primarilywith the R.M.S. Segwun and life on the lakes

Carole H Carpenter Intangible Heritage Page 191

in her hey-day; and the National Film Board documentary,"Bethune" in as much as it concerns his early years in Gravenhurst.

Consultation with leading oral historians and sound and film archivists revealed a paucity ofscholarly documentation. The Public Archives of Ontario (PAO) has no sound recordings from Muskoka whatsoever, and only two film collections (the Frederick Gabby papers, which include family films of cottaging in 1931-2 and the well-known Ewart McLaughlin collection offilm from the early twenties). Neither of these are professional documentations, but both are of value as portraits of the folklife of wealthy cottagers. The National Archives (NAC) has a variety of holdings, but no major collections. It is hoped that the survey currently underway by the Oral History Society will uncover some scholarly work, but thisis somewhat unlikely as none has been reported to date. Both the PAO and the NAC, however, have extensive photographic collections which contain many relevant images.

Further survey ofpublic collections has revealed some solid sources. There is a substantial collection of tape-recorded camp songs and stories amongst the material deposited by the Ontario Camping Association in the Bata Library at Trent University. Also, there is an important account oflumbering in the woods north ofPeterborough and into Muskoka, recorded from a George Cobb in the 19608, which is deposited in the Peterborough Museum and Archive. The Girl Guides of Ontario are compiling an archive (including extensive oral documentation of history, traditions and folklore) for their Provincial Camp at Doe Lake, on the edge of Muskoka.

The Ontario Geographical Names Board, a branch of the Ministry of Natural Resources, is an exceptional source for local stories about placenames which are preserved in extensive files at its office in Toronto. The Baldwin Collection in the Metropolitan Toronto Library contains a cottager's diary from a century ago, "The Log of the Cottage at Ponemah Point," the subject of an article in Cottage Life, Sept. 1991.

Within Muskoka, there are several institutions with important intangible heritage collections. For instance, the YMCA-run Camp Pinecrest has an active interest in its oral history and traditions, and is preserving this information along with artifacts in an on-site museum in an historical building. Muskoka Pioneer Village has numerous recorded interviews of reminiscences and oral history pertaining to the Huntsville area. Most recently, they have been showing special interest in particular ethnic groups such as the early Italian population. The Woodmere Logging Museum documents the traditional methods and activities ofthe lumber industry and the Muskoka Lakes Museum documents the traditions of boat-building through artifacts and displays. The latter organization has recently been undertaking fieldwork with old-timers (particularly boat-builders to date) and hopes to pursue this work. Residents, both permanent and seasonal, have also shown considerable interest in reminiscences and oral history and have published them in various forms.

The best single source for this material is the Muskoka Collection in the Bracebridge Public LIbrary. The works range from numerous expensive coffee-table works, for example, John de Visser and Judy Ross'Muskoka (1989), through local histories such as George Johnson's Port Sydney Past (1980), to several Tweedsmuir histories and individual recollections (Redmond Thomas, Reminiscences Bracebridge, Muskoka) and poetic accounts (B. G. Schelle, Earth Feelings). The topics range over steamboating, the waterways and their significance, particular communities, to given traditions. Some of the works, such as Sidney G. Avery's Reflections: Muskoka and Lake ofBaysofYesteryear (1974), contain actual anecdotes and tales while others, like Tom Fmlay's Muskoka Book of Lists, offer

Carole H. Carpenter Page 192 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

substantial guides for further research. Local newspapers, especially the Bracebridge Herald-Gazette, have long had a special interest in local history and events, many of them traditional (for example, regattas, maple sugar festivals and winter carnivals). The summer newspapers, such as the Muskoea Sun, run regular columns oflocal interest, especially items dealing with life and customs ofyesteryear. There are, as well, two magazines that regularly publish material on intangible heritage, Muskoka Life and Cottage Life and are very actively interested in promoting understanding of cottaging as a tradition.

Other valuable publications include the yearbooks, annuals and commemorative works produced by the various lake and/or cottager associations. Such books invariably include accounts of local events or characters, reminiscences, descriptions ofcustoms and celebrations, and documentary photographs (see, for example, The History ofMuldrew Lakes, VoL IT (1971).

There are, as well, works not directly dealing with Muskoka, which descnbe traditions pertinent to the area. One of the best such sources is Joe Mason's account of logging on the French River, My Sixteenth Wznter.

The numerous local organizations directly involved with intangible heritage reflect through their numbers and orientation a decided emphasis on the historical rather than the more expressive, creative aspects of this heritage. There are, for instance, very active historical societies in several communities, but no organized folk arts council anywhere in Muskoka. However, there are several folk dance groups (mostly square dance) and music groups (the Muskoka Music Men and an early band group). Muskoka Arts and Crafts is especially important as a result of its interest in characteristic Muskoka work and its promotion of local crafts (such as stick furniture) through workshops and exhibitions, MAC keeps a list of local artists, artisans and craftspeople, many of whom are also listed with the Ontario Crafts Council. No groups have applied to the Ontario Arts Council, through its community and folk arts funding programme, which has no client groups whatsoever registered for Muskoka. Only within the last two years have there been any applications to the OAC's First Nations Organizations Project program when the Rama FlISt Nation sought support for traditional workshops.

The FlISt Nations in Muskoka are a special case in terms of their intangible heritage. There is a considerable record of both the Iroquoian and the Ojibway cultures, in general, and specifically through ethnographic research during the past century. Certainly the Rama FlISt Nation has been the focus of some of this study simply due- to its proximity to major urban centres. Neither the Moose-Deer Point nor the Gibson First Nations have been so studied. There are no major collections of song, stories, drumming or dancing from any of these groups, and there is only one published oral history (philip LaForce, The History ofGibson Reserve), and a more recent account, Sylvia DuVemet'sAn Indian Odyssey: Tribulations, Trials and Triumphs ofthe Gibson Band. Only passing mention is made of the FlISt Nations in local histories and there are no extended popular accounts ofnative traditions other than a single volume entitled IndianLegends ofMuskokil and the North Country (1953). There are virtually no data on the tradition of native hunting and fishing guides; on the traditional native routes and portages; on the exploitation of the "Indian identity" at Fort Kawandag in Rosseau during the summers of 1965 and 1966 for tourism, or at the numerous camps which even today use such images to promote rustic experiences and "back-to-nature" sentiments. Fmally, there is no effort currently underway to record the oral history that is still

Carole H. Carpenter Intangible Heritage Page 193 retrievable from the elders or to preserve the expressive, creative heritage that remains alive. There are, however, references to native traditions and activities in contemporary tourist literature, for example, tours of the cranberry marsh on the GIbson Reserve and Iroquois artisans who sell their work in Bala.

The tourist literature is an excellent source for ideas about external and internal conceptualizations of Muskoka and its identity. The Chamber of Commerce in Bracebridge and Muskoka Tourism are good sources for current material. Some historical tourist literature has been preserved by the Muskoka Lakes Steamship and Resort Company and other local archives and some is reproduced in Boyer's Muskoka's GrandHotels (1987). Numerous guide, travel and recreation books also provide insight into the nature and extent of Muskoka's intangible heritage.

When asked to identify major living heritage resources, virtually every person contacted who was directly involved in presenting or preserving Muskoka's heritage immediately respondedwith priorities for documenting well known bearers of traditional knowledge. A data base of potential informants has been established by the Ontario Folklife Centre and willbe available to all interested researchers. It is constantly being added to as a result of media appeals via CBC's "Fresh Air", one forthcoming on "Country Morning" and others through the Muskoka newspapers and magazines.

One additional source of intangible heritage connected with the people of Muskoka is the popular oral histories concerning the two World Wars and the Depression produced by Barry Broadfoot, Joyce HIbbert and CA Mathieson. These include information from some Muskoka residents and certainly pertain to experiences which many of them had It is such experiences that could be elicited from survivors connected with the Royal Canadian Legions, but these are not directed at Muskoka though the material is alive there.

Fmally, the survey indicated that there is a fair amount of relevant material in the CBC radio and television archives, though little in-depth coverage. There are, as well, a number of valuable tape recordings dealing with intangible heritage in private collections, mostly those of writers who did interviews as background for their works. Some of this material has been transenbed and discarded, while some other still languishes out of public reach. The process of identifying these sources and encouraging the individuals involved to donate them to an appropriate facility is a continuing aspect of this work.

5.3 mSTORICAL OUTLINE

The awareness of, and concern for, the intangible heritage of Muskoka began very early in the recorded history of the area. The special qualities of the life to be enjoyed there were noted and publicized by visitors and recorded by early residents in journals and letters. The distinctive names and landscape attachments were used to promote an image ofthe rustic and the natural. A tradition grewof Muskoka as a separate place, an escape from urban dispersal to rural centredness through attachment to the land and activities associated with it. Even the era of opulence centred around the resorts, manorial cottages and steamboats fostered this cultural perspective. A symbiotic relationship between the permanent residents and seasonal visitors evolved that, increasingly, supported the perception ofMuskoka's significant intangible heritage as focused around tourism and

Carole H Carpenter Page 194 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the DistrictMunicipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

cottage. In this process, the traditions of the people who resided year-round in Muskoka, or worked there on a seasonal basis, tended to be ignored by those who did not live them. What was valuable and documented was what appealed to the outside. Consequently, not much was made ofthe logging traditions or the steamboat traditions until they were no longer in use. Nor was attention directed on the living Native groups and their work, or on commonplace indigenous activities such as farming or trapping.

As the popularity of cottage use grew, so the traditions associated with it evolved and prospered. There was no need to document them, for people lived them and felt no pressing need to protect or to share them. But as the lakes were transformed, new demands were placed on everyone associated with Muskoka's heritage. An increase in non-WASP cottagers and permanent residents threatened the Anglo-Saxon cultural dominance; development and increased traffic on the lakes challenged tradition and conjured up memories of bygone peace and small community life; satellite dishes and microwaves threatened ideas of the rustic, natural life that then became necessary to document. One by one the grand resorts burned and with these relics the heritage of the past seemed to be vanishing. As surviving pioneer woodsmen, steamboat captains, boat-builders and the like aged, the urge to make tangible the heritage their bore increased.

External pressures also contributed to the changes. Multiculturalism heightened awareness of, and increased attention on, minority cultural groups. The transformation in attitudes towards aboriginal people likewise increased their cultural profile, encouraging them to revitalize their traditions and to reclaim their own voice.

In general, the history of Muskoka's intangible heritage is similar to that of Anglo Canada's as a whole. There has been an intense focus on the documentary, the historical rather than on the imaginative and fanciful. Folkloreper se has not been valued, for it has been considered to be the property ofothers, not the Anglo majority. Particular elites and localized sub-cu1tures have received considerable attention, while the common or everyday has gone relatively unnoticed. Traditions of minority ethnic groups have largely been treated as interesting exotica ifnoticed at all in the presence of a strong Anglo norm, and usually only been given serious attention by members of the groups themselves. Treatment of the native traditions has generally been exploitative and characterized by an overwhelming tendency to pseudo-Indianism (as in many camps).

Most recently, especially following the return of the R.MS. Segwun to active service, value has been placed on all things pioneer. A resurgence of tourism has resulted in a demand for marketing of Muskoka. It is interesting to note the selection of a pioneer image for this purpose. But it is a rustic rather than frontier pioneer- not crude, but earthy; not primitive, but simple after the best romantic fashion. Tourist literature advertises Bracebridge's Winter Carnival as celebrating "Olde Tyme Carnival" and the adjective "pioneer" heightens the significance of materials (Pioneer Handcraft Furniture) or events (a Pioneer Tools show). This celebration of Muskoka as Ontario's or, indeed, Canada's pioneer heartland results in selective remembering and preserving of the past as viewed to benefit the present. Now is a time conducive to intangible heritage preservation and celebration because this material breathes life into objects, sites and occasions necessary to tourism.

Meanwhile, the First Nations are engaged in recovering their cultural identity and struggling to reactivate their traditions. As a result, they view their intangible heritage as a VIbrant part of their

Carole H Carpenter Intanwle Heritage Page 195 living culture. In addition to the compilation ofdata related to specific traditional use sites discussed in the preceding chapter, the recording of the less concrete aspects of their cultural heritage is an important part of this process.

5.4 CONCLUSIONS AND RATIONALE FOR PHASE 2 COu.ECTION

In many respects the intangible heritage resources ofMuskoka are being well managed while marked lacunae exist in the recording and appreciation of other aspects. There is a strong commitment within the region to gather and publish oral history; there is not, and never has been, the same involvement with verbal arts such as jokes, folktales, legends and songs. No one has been concerned with the distinctive Muskoka terminology that exists. There are no collections ofghost stories or tall tales, even though residents know them. No one has collected accounts about farming or about the daily pattern of cottaging. In sum, both the most obvious and, for many people, the most appealing subjects, remain relatively untouched.

What needs to be done in Phase 2 is to fill some of the gaps. In particular, there must be interviews taped (and videotaped where possible) with identified bearers of traditional lore, and local resource persons, who are knowledgable about a wide range of the region's intangible heritage. Attention should be directed at recording traditions offarming, guiding, hunting and trapping. Also, lore ofthe lakes (fishing, navigation or weather lore, for instance) and the woods (traditional portage and travel routes and stories of survival) should be of special concern. Every effort should be made to record the verbal arts in various manifestations and to document other performance genres (song, instrumental music and dance). It is hoped that the media appeals for informants in these areas will continue to have positive results.

There must be extended recorded sessions with cottagers about the traditions of cottaging both formerly and today. It would be particularly useful to incorporate in these discussions the cottage log and photograph album that many people traditionally keep. Similarly, there should be recordings with persons who have frequented the resorts of Muskoka. And still others with both campers and camp staff, for the camping tradition merits further attention especially given the diversity of camps (of different religions, different degrees of rusticity, and with particular foci such as sports or arts).

Within the region, there needs to be greater focus on the rural areas, since the documentation currently available pertains largely to urban centres. Also, more work should be carried out in the southern Georgian Bay region, especially the fishing traditions there.

Efforts should be made to document traditions associated with identifiable minorities oflong-standing such as the Finns, Italians and Germans in the area There is no significant and localized Francophone community in Muskoka today and no documentation oftheir historical contnbution to the intangible heritage. Any attempts to pursue research on Francophones in Muskoka are not likely to be fruitful.

There should be particular consideration given to the unique individual: characters and eccentrics as well as the famous and infamous who are remembered in tradition. Very little has been collected or published about them, though they are a cherished aspect of Muskoka. The prevailing tendency

Carole H. Carpenter Page 196 MasterPlan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wah/a Mohawks

towards the documentable and verifiable have mitigated against publicizing the more personal, chatty accounts that exist in oral tradition and widely serve to entertain and sometimes instruct.

A particularly significant task to be undertaken in Phase 2 involves assisting the First Nations in in recording their own intangible heritage. A growing awareness of the value of such work in heightening cultural awareness amongst youth, in raising self-esteem has emerged among many native groups in recent years.

The impact ofthe themes outlined in Chapter 3 on intangible heritage ofthe area should be a major focus for investigation. How, if at all, each of the phases and aspects of the life of the region, has impacted on the heritage and where each is evident in the overall tradition- past and present- merits attention.

Finally, some effort should be expended in determining what is characteristic ofMuskoka's intangible heritage or peculiar and, possibly even, exclusive to it. The "Muskokaness" of Muskoka tradition is worthy of study; indeed, it is perhaps the ultimate aim of the study, for it is that which gives the material its meaning over time.

Carole H. Carpenter REFERENCES

Adney, E.T. and Hd, Chapelle 1983 The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America. Washington: Smithsonian Institute Press. Ahlbrandt, P.W. 1989 Beaumaris. Erin: The Boston Mills Press.

Altscul, J.W. and C.L Nagle 1988 Collecting New Data for the Purpose of Model Development. In WJ. Judge and L W. Sebastian (eds), Quantifying thePresent andPredicting the Past: Method, Theory, and Application ofArchaeological Predictive Modeling, pp. 257-299. Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center.

Angus, J.T. 1990 A Deo Victoria: The Story oftheGeorgian BayLumberCompany 1871-1942. Ontario Heritage Foundation Local History Series #2 Thunder Bay: Severn Publications Ltd.

Anderson, T. 1992 Preliminary Report ofPalynological Investigations at the Sheguiandah Archaeological Site, Ontario. In DA Robertson and RF. Williamson (eds), Reporton Phases 1 and 2 ofthe Archaeological Master Plan for the Township ofHowland, The Ojibways of Sucker Creek, and the Sheguiandah First Nation, pp.83-87. Report on file, Archaeological Services Inc., Toronto.

Anonymous n.d. Muskoka Lakes and Georgian Bay. Canadian Pacific Railway.

n.d. Muskoka Lakes:Bryan's time tables. Canadian Pacific Railway.

n.d. Muskoka Lakes Grand TrunkRailway System. Grand Trunk Railways.

1878 GuideBook andAtlas ofMuskoka and Parry Sound Districts. Toronto: a R Page.

1883 Muskoka and Nlpissing Navigation Company.

1891 The Log of the Cottage at Ponemah Point, July 2-September 8, 1891. Unpublished manuscript on file, Scott Family Papers, Baldwin Collection, Metropolitan Toronto Public Library.

1899 Map & Chart of the Muskoka Lakes: Rosseau; Joseph, Muskoka. Toronto: G.W. Marshall.

1907 TheLake Shore ofMuskoka: TheScenic Routeto theBestSummerResorts in Northern Ontario. Canadian Northern Ontario. Page 198 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

1914 Muskoka Lakes Map & Chart Rosseau Joseph Muskoka. Canadian Northern Railway.

1918 Guidal Tourist Road Map ofMuskoka. Peterborough, Ontario: Sales Service Co.

Archaeological Services Inc. 1990 A Guide to PrehistoricArchaeologicalResources:Approaches to Site Potential Modelling for EnvironmentalAssessment: Report on file, Land Use and Environmental Planning Department, Ontario Hydro, Toronto.

Ashdown, D. 1988 Railway Steamships ofOntario, 1850-1950. Erin, Ontario: Boston Mills Press.

Atwood, Margaret 1990 Wilderness Tzps. Toronto: McOelland and Stewart.

Avery, S.G. 1974 Reflections: Muskoka and Lake ofBays ofYesteryear. Bracebridge: Herald-Gazette.

Bajc, AF. 1990 Quaternary Geology ofthe Huntsville-Bracebridge Area. Summary ofField Work and Other Activities, Ontario Geological Survey Mzscellaneous Paper 151: 152-156.

1991 QuaternaryGeology ofthe Christian Island, Penetanguishene and Gravenhurst Areas. Summary ofFieldwork and Other Activities, Ontario Geological Survey Mzscellaneous Paper 157: 141-144.

Balmer, AL and J.H. Peters 1991 A Method for Assessing Prehistoric Site Potential in Regional Studies. Paper presented at the Canadian Archaeological Association Annual Meeting, S1. John's, Nfld

Banfield, A W.F. 1974 The Mammals ofCanada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Bennett, K.D. 1987 Holocene History ofForest Trees in Southern Ontario. Canadian Journal ofBotany 65:1792-1801.

Biggar, H.P. (ed.) 1922-36 The Wo~ ofSamuel de Champlain. Toronto: The Champlain Society. References Page 199

Boyer, Barbaranne 1987 Muskoka's GrandHotels. Erin, Ontario: Boston Mill's Press.

Boyer, E.V. 1975 Memories ofBracebridge. Bracebridge: Herald-Gazette.

Boyer, G.W. 1970 Early Days in Muskoka. Bracebridge: Herald-Gazette.

Boyer, R 1979 Early Exploration and Surveying ofMuskoka District. Bracebridge: Herald-Gazette.

Bramah, B. 1985 BillBramah's Ontario: Stories ofInteresting People and Places as seen by GlobalTV's RovingReporter. Toronto: Cannon.

Broadfoot, Barry 1973 Ten Lost Years, 1929-1939: Memories of Canadians Who Survived the Depression. Toronto: Doubleday.

1975 Six War Years, 1939-1945: Memories ofCanadians at Home and Abroad. Toronto: Doubleday.

1985 The Veterans' Years: Coming Homefrom the War. Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre.

Brown, D.M., GA McKay and LJ. Chapman 1968 The Climate ofSouthern Ontario. Canada Department of Transport, Meterological Branch, Climatological Studies No.5.

Burden, E.T., J.H. McAndrews and G. Norris 1986 Palynology ofIndian and European Forest Clearance and Farming in Lake Sediment Cores from Awenda Provincial Park, Ontario. Canadian Journal ofEarth Sciences 23:43-54.

Canadian Automobile Association 1991 Tourism Guidebook ofOntario. Toronto: CAA

Cassavoy, K 1981 Initial Report on the Charleston Lake Prehistoric Portage Site. In Wm. Cockrell (00.), In the Realms of Gold: Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Underwater Archaeology, pp. 163-175. Page 200 Master P1Jm ofHeritage Resources for the DistrictMunicipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Chapman, LJ. 1975 The Physiography of the Georgian Bay-Ottawa Valley Area of Southem Ontario. Ontario Division of Mines Geoscience Report 128.

Chapman, LJ. and D.F. Putnam 1984 The Physiography ofSouthern Ontario. Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2. Toronto.

Clayton, J.S., WA Ehrlich, D.B. Cann, J.H. Day and LB. Marshall 1977 SoilsofCanada, Volume 1, Soils Report. Research Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture.

Cline, M.H. and F.R Dickson 1970 History of Muldrew Lakes, Volume IT. Unpublished manuscript.

Coleman, D. and RF. Williamson 1991 Landscapes Past to Landscapes- Future: Planning for Archaeological Resources. Paper presented at the Quaternary Sciences Institute Symposium "Great Lakes Archeology and Paleoecology: Exploring Interdisciplinary Initiatives for the Nineties", September 1991, Waterloo.

Cookson, J. 1984 Early Footsteps in Muskoka. Sprucedale: Olympic Printing.

Coombe, G. 1976 Muskoka Pastand Present. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

Craig, J. 1977 Simcoe County: The RecentPast. The Corporation of the County of Simcoe.

Crum, H. 1976 Mosses ofthe GreatLakes Forest. Ann Arbour: University of Michigan Press.

Cumming, H.G. and FA Walden 1970 The White-tailed Deerin Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Davis, M.B., K. Woods, S.L Webb and RP. Futyma 1986 Dispersal versus Oimate: Expansion ofFagus and Tsuga in the Upper Great Lakes Region. Vegetatio 67:93-103.

Devine, T. 1864 Government Map of part of the Huron and Ottawa Territory, Upper Canada. Department of Crown Lands. References Page 201

de Visser, J. and J. Ross 1989 Muskoka. Erin: The Boston Mills Press.

Dewdney, S. and K.E. Kidd 1967 Indian Rock Paintings ofthe Great Lakes. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Dickson, J. 1959 Camping in theMuskoka Region. Ontario Department ofLands and Forests Reprint.

Drew, G., S. Phillips and M Gower 1986 A Taste ofMuskoka. Bracebridge: Cottage Books.

DuVemet, S. 1986 An Indian Odyssey: Tribulations, Trials and Triumphs of the Gibson Band of the Mohawk Tribe ofthe Iroquois Confederacy. Bracebridge: Muskoka Publications.

Eschman, Donald F. and Paul F. Karrow 1985 Huron Basin Glacial Lakes: A Review. In P.F. Karrow and P.E. Calkin (eds), Quaternary Evolution oftheGreatLakes, pp.79-93. Geological Association ofCanada Special Paper 30.

Finlay, T. 1982 MuskokIJ Book ofLists. Toronto: Venture Press.

Fowke, E. 1965 Traditional Singers and Songs from Ontario. Hatboro, PA: Folklore Associates.

1970 Lumbering Songs from the Northern Woods. Publications of the American Folklore Society, Memoir Series, Volume 55. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Fram, M 1980 Ontario Hydro, Ontario Heritage. Heritage Planning Study No.4, Historical Planning and Research Branch, Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation, Toronto.

Geddes, R.S. and MB. McQenaghan 1984 Quaternary Geology of the Kawagama Lake Area, Nipissing and Muskoka Districts and Hahburton County. Ontario Geological Survey, Map P. 2705. Geological Series­ Preliminary Map. Scale 1:50,000. Geology 1983.

Gentilcore, R. L. and C.G. Head 1989 Ontario's History in Maps. The Ontario Historical Studies Series. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Page 202 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the DistrictMunicipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Geomatics International 1991 Candidate Heritage Area Inventory and Evaluation. Draft report prepared for the Muskoka Heritage Areas Program.

Godfrey, W.E. 1966 The Birds of Canada. National Museum of Canada, Bulletin No. 203, Biological Series No. 73.

Gold, M. 1977 Vegetation and Vegetation History of Arrowhead Provincial Park and their Interpretation for a Recreational Public. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, University of Toronto.

Greenhill, B. 1976 Archaeology ofthe Boat. London: AC. Black Ltd.

Hamalainen, P. 1975 Faunal Analysis of the Charleston Lake Site (BdGa-1). Unpublished InS. on file, Historical Planning and Research Branch, Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation, Toronto.

Hamilton, J.C. 1893 The Georgian Bay. Toronto: James Baine and Son.

Hamilton, W.E., J. Rogers and S. Penson 1879 Guide BookandAtlas ofMuskoko.anti Parry SoundDistricts. Toronto: H.R. Page and Co.

Harrington, C.R 1983 The Woolly Mammoth. Neotoma 17. Ottawa: National Museum ofNatural Sciences.

1983 The American Mastodon. Neotoma 19. Ottawa: National Museum of Natural Sciences.

Harris, RC. (ed.) 1987 Historical Atlas of Canada, Volume 1: From the Beginning to 1800. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Haystack Women's Institute 1951 By Wagon and By Water. Unpublished manuscript. References Page 203

Heidenreich, CEo 1971 Huronia. Toronto: McOelland 'and Stewart.

1990 History of the St, Lawrence-Great Lakes Area to AD. 1650. In CJ. Ellis and N. Ferris (eds), The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, pp. 475-492. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, No. 5.

Heritage Huntsville 1988 A Guide to the Historical & ArchitecturalHeritage ofDowntown Huntsville. Huntsville, Ontario,

1989 Huntsville,An HIStorical & Scenic Guide to the lakes ofVernon, Fairy, Peninsula Mary. Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee.

Hewitt, D.F. 1967 Geology and Mineral Deposits of the Parry Sound-Huntsville Area. Ontario Department of Mines Geological Report 52

HIbbert, J. 1978 The War Brides. Scarborough: The New American LIbrary of Canada Ltd.

Historical Planning and Research Branch 1981 Heritage Studies on the Rideau-Quinte-Trent-Severn Waterway. Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

Hoffman, Douglas W. 1970 Land Use Capabilityfor Agricuhure:Acreages by Counties and Townships in Ontario. Canada Land Inventory, ARDA Branch and the Ontario Department of Agriculture and Food, Toronto.

Hoffman, D.W., B.C. Matthews, and RE. Wicklund 1964 Soil Associations ofSouthern Ontario. Ontario Soil Survey Report No. 30.

Hurley, W.M., and 1T. Kenyon 1970 Algonquin Park Archaeology 1970. Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto Research Report No.3.

Jackes, LB. 1953 Indian Legends of Muskoka and the North Country. Toronto: Canadian Historical Press. Page 204 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the DistrictMunicipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Janusas, Scarlett E. 1987 An Analysis of the Historic Vegetation of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario.

Johnson, George 1980 Port Sydney Past. Erin, Ontario: Boston Mills Press.

Johnston, RB. 1962 Another Dugout Canoe from Ontario. American Antiquity 28(1):95-96.

Johnston, RB. and K. Cassavoy 1978 The Fishweirs at Atherly Narrows. Amencan Antiquity43(4):697-709.

Karrow, P.F. and B.G. Warner 1990 The Geological and Biological Environment for Human Occupation in Southern Ontario. In CJ. Ellis and N. Ferris (eds), The Archaeology ofSouthern Ontario to A.D. 1650, pp. 5-35. Occasional Publications of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, Number 5.

Kaszycki, Christine A 1987 A Model for Glacial and Proglacial Sedimentation in the Shield Terrane of Southern Ontario. Canadian Journal ofEarth Sciences 24: 2373-2391.

Keene, AS. 1981 Prehistoric Foraging in a Temperate Forest: A Linear Programming Model. Toronto: Academic Press.

Kelly, W. 1988 The Crokinole Book. Erin, Ontario: Boston Mills Press.

Kerr, Donald et al. 1990 Historical Atlas of Canada: Addressing the Twentieth Century 1891-1961. VoL Ill. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Kidd, K.E. 1960 A Dugout Canoe from Ontario. American Antiquity 25(3):417-418.

Kohl, C. 1990 Dive Ontario!. Chatham: CrisKohL

Kohler, TA and S.C. Parker 1986 Predictive Models for Archaeological Resource Location. In M.B. Schiffer (ed.), AdvancesinArchaeological Method and Theory 9:397-452. Toronto: Academic Press. References Page 205

Kopec, RJ. 1965 Continentality Around the Great Lakes. Bulletin of the American Meterologi.cal Society 46(2):54-57.

Kar, P.S.G. 1986 Quaternary Geology of the Parry Sound Area Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, Ontario Geological Survey Miscellaneous Paper 132: 190-192

Kar, P.S.G. and Michael J. Miller 1987 Quaternary Geology ofthe Lake Joseph-Sans SouciArea, District ofParry Sound and District Municipality of Muskoka. Ontario Geological Survey Map P. 3103. Geological Series-Preliminary Map. Scale 1:50,000. Geology 1986.

Kor, P.S.G. and RJ. Delorme 1989 Quaternary Geology oftheOrrvilleArea; Southern Ontario. Ontario Geological Survey, Map P. 3134. Geological Series-Preliminary Map. Scale 1:50,000. Geology 1987.

Kvamme, K.L 1988 Development and Testing of Quantitative Models. In WJ. Judge and L W Sebastian (eds), Quantifying thePresent and Predicting thePast: Method, Theory, andApplication ofArchaeological Predictive Modeling, pp. 325-428. Denver. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center.

LaForce, P. n.d. The History of the Gibson Reserve. Unpublished manuscript.

Leshikar, ME. 1988 The Earliest Watercraft: From Rafts to Viking Ships. In G. Bas (ed.), Ships and Shipwrecks ofthe Americas, pp. 13-32 London: Thames and Hudson.

Lewis, C.F.M and T.W. Anderson 1989 Oscillations of levels and cool phases of the Laurentian Great Lakes caused by inflows from glacial Lakes Agassiz and Barlow-Ojibway. Journal ofPaleolimnology 2:99-146.

Long, Gary 1989 This River, The Muskoka. Erin, Ontario: Boston Mills Press.

McAndrews, J.H. 1981 Late Quaternary Climate of Ontario: Temperature Trends from the Fossil Pollen Record. In W.C. Mahaney (ed.), Quanernary Paleoclimate, pp. 319-333. Norwich: Geological Abstracts. Page 206 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the DistrictMunicipality otMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

McCullough, AB. 1989 The Commercial Fishery ofthe Great Lakes: Studies in Archaeology, Architecture and History. Ottawa: Environment Canada

MacDonald, E.M 1992 Collection of Oral Histories: Traditional Use Sites. In DA Robertson and RF. Williamson (eds), Reporton Phases 1 and 2 oftheArchaeological Master Plan for the Township of Howland, The Ojibways of Sucker Creek, and the Sheguiandab First Nation, pp.103-147. Report on file, Archaeological Services Inc., Toronto.

MacDonald, Robert L 1986 The Coleman Site (AiHd-7): A Late Prehistoric Iroquoian Village in the Waterloo Region. Unpublished M.A Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent University.

Mackay, H.H. 1969 Fishes ofOntario. Ontario Department of Lands and Forests.

McKenna, E. 1976 A Systematic Approach to the History of the Forest Industry in Algonquin Park, 1835-1913. Unpublished IDS on file, Historical Planning and Research Branch, Ministry of Culture and Recreation, Toronto.

McKenzie, R 1986 The St. Lawrence Survey JoU11Ulls of Captain Henry Wolsey Bayfield, 1829-1853. Toronto: The Champlain Society.

McNett, C.W. 1985 Shawnee Minisink: A Stratified Paleoindian-Archaic Sitein the Upper Deleware Valley ofPennsylvania. New York: Academic Press.

Mansfield, J.B. 1899 HIStory ofthe GreatLakes. Chicago: Beers and Co.

Marmont, C. 1986 Industrial Minerals and Rare Earth Element Deposits in the Muskoka-Parry Sound­ Nipissing Area. Summary of Field Work and Other Activities, Ontario Geological Survey Mzscellaneous Paper 132: 331-334.

Marsters, S.G. 1990 Post-Glacial Vegetation History near Burke's Falls, Eastern Lake Algonquin Basin, Ontario. Unpublished MSc. Thesis, University of Waterloo. References Page 207

Mason, J. 1974 My Sixteenth Winter: An Account ofLogging on the French River. Cobalt: Highway Book Shop.

Mathieson, W.D. 1981 My Grandfather's War: Canadians Remember the First World War, 1914-1918. Toronto: Macmillan.

Montgomery, LM 1926 Blue Castle. Toronto: MacLellan.

Muckleroy, K. 1978 MaratimeArchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The Muldrew Lakes Cottagers Club 1971 The History of Muldrew Lakes. Unpublished Centennial Project manuscript.

Murray, F.B. 1963 Muskoka and Haliburton, 1615-1875. Toronto: The Champlain Society.

Muskoka Lakes and Muskoka Navigation Company 1903 Highlands ofOntario. Grand Trunk Railway System.

Muskoka Lakes Navigation and Hotel Co. Ltd 1908 A Land ofLakes and Islands. Toronto: Rice Lewis & Son.

Ontario Hydro 1991 Ontario Hydro's History and Description of Hydro-Electric Generating Stations. Toronto: Ontario Hydro. Parker, J. 1986 Shipwrecks ofLake Huron. Au Train, Micb.: Avery Color Studios.

Parks Planning Branch, 1975 Topical Organization of Ontario's History. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto.

Pendergast, J. 1981 Potential Pre-Historic Archaeological Sites in the Ontario Hydro Eastern Ontario Route Stage Study Area. Report on file, Ontario Hydro, Toronto. Page 208 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality ofMuskokil and the Wah/a Mohawks

Peters, J.R. 1981 Commercial Fishing in Lake Huron, 1800-1915: The Exploitation and Decline of Whitefish and Lake Trout. Unpublished M.A Thesis, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario.

Peterson, R.L 1966 The Mammals ofEastern Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Pihl, Robert H. and Robert L MacDonald 1991 Prehistoric Landscapes and Land Uses: The Role ofPredictive Modelling in Cultural Resource Management. Paper presented at the Quaternary Sciences Institute Symposium "Great Lakes Archaeology and Paleoecology: Exploring Interdisciplinary Initiatives for the Nineties," September 1991, Waterloo, Ontario.

Pryke, S. 1987 Explore Muskoka. Erin: The Boston Mills Press.

Reid, R., D. Sutherland, B. Bowles, L Sober and S. O'Donnell 1991 Results of the 1990 Field Program. Muskoka Heritage Areas Program, Report No.I.

Research Committee of the Muskoka Pioneer Village 1986 Picturesfrom the Past: Huntsville, Lake ofBays. Erin: The Boston Mills Press.

Robins, J.D. 1980 Paul Bunyan Superhero ofthe Lumberjacks. Edited by Edith Fowke. Toronto: N.C. Press.

Rogers, B.S. 1965 The Dugout Canoe in Ontario. American Antiquity 30(4):454-459.

1973 The Quest for Food and Furs. National Museum of Canada, Publications in Ethnology, No.5.

Rogers, J. 1883 Rogers New Tourist Map of Muskoka Lakes.

Ross, M.R. and J.R. Altschul 1988 An Overview of Statistical Method and Theory for Quantitative Model Building. In WJ. Judge and L W Sebastian (eds), Quantifying thePresent and Predicting the Past: Method, Theory, andApplication ofArchaeological Predictive Modeling, pp. 173-255. Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center. References Page 209

Rowe, J.S. 1972 Forest Regions ofCanada. Canadian Forest Service Publication 1300.

Schell, J.l 1974 Through the Narrows on Lake Muskoka. Bracebridge: Muskoka Lithograph.

Schelle, B.G. 1980 Earth Feelings. Toronto: Osprey Press.

Scott, H.E. 1969 Tales ofthe Muskoka Steamboats. Bracebridge: Herald-Gazette Press.

1980 More Tales ofthe Muskoka Steamboats. Bracebridge: Muskoka Graphics.

1987 Steam Tugs and Supply Boats of Muskoka. Lancaster, New York: Cayuga Creek Historical Press.

Scott, W.B. 1967 FreshwaterFishes ofEastern Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Sebastian, L W. and J. Judge 1988 Predicting the Past: Correlation, Explanation, and the Use ofArchaeological Models. In WJ. Judge and LW Sebastian (eds), Quantifying the Present and Predicting the Past:Method, Theory, andApplication ofArchaeologicalPredictive Modeling, pp.1-18. Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center.

Semken, HA, Jr. 1983 Holocene Mammalian Biogeography and Climatic Change in the Eastern and Central United States. In H.E. Wright (ed.), Late-quaternary Environments of the United States, Volume 2, The Holocene, pp. 182-207. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press.

Settlement Surveys Ltd. 1982 Ontario Hydro Archaeological Predictive Models and Their Uses in Transmission Facility Planning. Prepared by J. Pollock. Report on file at Ontario Hydro, Toronto.

Sharpe, D.R. 1978 Quaternary Geology of the Gravenhurst, Bracebridge and Huntsville Areas, District Municipality of Muskoka. Summary ofField Work, 1978, Ontario Geological Survey Miscellaneous Paper 82: 152-154.

Shennan, S. 1988 Quantifying Archaeology. New York: Academic Press. Page 210 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Skelton, E.G. and E.W. Skelton 1991 Halibunon Flora. Royal Ontario Museum Life Sciences Miscellaneous Publications.

Skene-Melvin, D. 1981 Heritage Planning Study 6, Historical Planning and Research Branch, Ministry of Culture and Recreation, Toronto.

Spence, M W., RH. Pihl and C. Murphy 1990 Cultural complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In CJ. Ellis and N. Ferris (eds), The Archaeology ofSouthern Ontario to A.D. 1650, pp. 5-35. Occasional Publications of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, Number 5.

Storck, P.L 1982 Palaeo-Indian Settlement Patterns Associated with the Strandline of Glacial Lake Algonquin in Southern Ontario. Canadian Journal ofArchaeology 6: 1-31.

1984 Research into the Paleo-Indian Occupations of Ontario: A Review. Ontario Archaeology 41:3-28.

1988 Recent Excavations at the Udora Site: A Gainey/QovisOccupation Site in Southern Ontario. Current Research in the Pleistocene 5:23-24.

Surveys and Mapping Branch, E.MR 1974 Topographic Mapping Manual of Compilation Specifications and Instructions. Compiled by the Topographic Mapping Division, Surveys and Mapping Branch, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa.

1976 A Guide to the Accuracy ofMaps. Surveys and Mapping Branch, Technical Report Series. M52-46/1976.

Swayze, K. 1976 Charleston Lake Project, 1974-1975. Unpublished ms on file, Historical Planning and Research Branch, Ministry of Culture and Recreation, Toronto.

Tatley,R 1972 Steamboating in Muskoka:A Condensed History ofthe Steamboatsin Muskoka from 1866 to the Present Time. Bracebridge: Muskoka Litho.

1983 The SteamboatEra in the Muskokas, Volume1: The Golden Year:s. Erin: Boston Mills Press.

1983 The Steamboat Era in the Muskokas, Volume 2: The Golden Year:s to the Present. Erin: Boston Mills Press. References Page 211

Thomas, R 1969 Reminiscences Bracebridge, Muskoka. Bracebridge: Herald Gazette.

Thurston, P.C. 1991 Geology of Ontario: Introduction. In P.C. Thurston, H.R Williams, RH. Sutcliffe, and G.M. Stott, (eds), Geology of Ontario, pp. 3-25. Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 4, Part 1. Toronto.

Thwaites, RG. (ed.) 1896-1901 The Jesuit Relations andAllied Documents. Ohio: The Burrows Bros. Co.

Unterman McPhail Heritage Resource Consultants 1987 Muskoka Centre, Gravenhurst, Ontario Heritage Properties Program. Report on file, Ministry of Culture and Communications, Toronto.

Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates 1991 Ontario Hydro South Muskoka Environmental Study. Report on file, Ontario Hydro, Toronto.

Warner, B.G., RJ. Hebda and BJ. Hann 1984 Postglacial Paleoecological History of a Cedar Swamp, Manitoulin Island, Ontario, Canada. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 45:301-345.

Webb, T.m 1982 Temporal Resolution in Holocene Pollen Data. Proceedings of the Third North American Paleontological Convention, Montrea~ 2:569-572

Wright, J.V. 1972 The ShieldArchaic. National Museum of Canada Publications in Archaeology No.3.

Wright, PJ. 1979 Prehistoric Ceramics from the Red Horse Lake Portage Site (BdGa-12), Eastern Ontario. Archaeology ofEastem North America 8.

1982 The Woodland Occupation of Charleston Lake. Proceedings of the Archaeological Historical Symposium, October 2-3, 1982, pp. 57-68. Rideau Ferry, Ontario.

1984 South Lake Underwater Archaeological Survey 1983: A Preliminary Report. Conservation Archaeology Report Series, Eastern Ontario 4(M), Ottawa.

1986 Underwater Archaeology and the Volunteer Sports Diver. Second Annual Scientific Diving Symposium, Diving for Science-1986: Practical Aspects of Diving, pp. 58-67. Victoria: Canadian Association of Scientific Divers. Page 212 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

1989 Foraging Behaviour on Woodland Underwater Sites. Paper presented at the International Joint Archaeological Congress, Baltimore, Maryland.

1991 Great Lakes Prehistoric Activities: A Freshwater Maritime Perspective. Ottawa Archaeologist 18:2.

Wrong, G.M. 1939 The Long Journey to the Country ofthe Hurons by Father Gabriel Sagard. Toronto: The Champlain Society.

RECORDINGS

"Lumbering Songs from the Ontario Shanties." Recorded by Edith Fowke. Folkways FE 4052, 1961.

"Tom Brandon of Peterborough, Ontario." Recorded by Edith Fowke. Folk-Legacy FSC-10, 1963.

FILMS

Bethune. 1964, 59 minutes, 16mm black and white. Produced by the National Film Board of Canada (Donald Brittain).

Muskoka- A Look Back. 1983, 25 minutes, 16mm, colour. Produced by Julius Kohanyi. APPENDIX 1 VESSELS IN MUSKOKA LAKE FLEET (c. 1866 TO PRESENT)

Wenonah: 1866-1890;8T-99' wooden hulled passenger/freight side-wheeler steamer,towed scows, retired 1886, sunk derelict 1890 (off Cinderwood Is. Lake Muskoka)

Waubamic: 1869-1878; (previously the Dean, built 1866 and moved in from Lake Couchiching) 41' wooden hull mixed steamer then tug, retired and replaced by Simcoe

Nipissing: 1871-1886;110'-123'wooden hull passenger/freight side-wheeler steamer, burnt and sank (hull grounded offshore Pon Cockburn wharf)

Simcoe: 1875-1880; (moved in from lake Simcoe) 49' wooden hull steam-tug, mainly log towing but some passenger, dismantled

Southwood: 1892-1920?; (built in 1884 as 41.6' Ella Alice, rebuilt and renamed in 1888 and moved up to Gravenhurst in 1892) 67.5' steam-tug .

Rosseau: 1880-1913; 70' wooden-steel hull passenger steamer-tug, dismantled 1913

Muskoka: 1880-1912; 74'-94' wooden hull steam-tug then steel hull passenger steamer, retired 1907, dismantled

Lake Joseph: 1881-1896or 1908;52' wooden hull steam-tug, burnt and beached (close to shore in Milford Bay, L Muskoka)

Kenozha: 1883-1918; 101'-120' wood-steel hull passenger/freight steamer, burnt and sank (off Stanley House, Lake Joseph)

Oriole: 1886-1927; 75' wooden-steel hull mixed steamer, replaced Wenonah, dismantled 1927

Nipissing II: 1887-1925; (rebuilt Nipissing on steel hull) passenger/freight steamer, derelict, dismantled 1925, hull used for Segwun

Segwun: 1925-still in operation 1992; (last steamboat built on Muskokas and rebuilt from NipissingII derelict steel hull) 123' passenger steamer, retired 1958, restored as the SegwunSteamboat Museum in 1962 (remains the only Muskoka vessel)

Cherokee: 1909-1969; 120' steel hull passenger steamer, retired 1950, hull usedto float a crane to pull logs from bottom of Muskoka Bay in 1961, pilot house on a company wharf, smokestack used by Gravenhurst High School asan incinerator

Medora: 1893-1949;23'-143' wooden-steel hull passenger steamer retired 1932,hull dismantled in 1949

Ahmic: 1896-1951; 61'-80' wooden-steel hull tow then passenger steamer-tug, retired in 1949, dismantled 1951

Queen ofthe Isles: 1892-1938; (built 1885and moved to Gravenhurst in 1892) 72' passenger then tow steam-tug, scrapped Page 214 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

Islander: 1900-1954; 100' wooden-steel hull passenger steamer, rebuilt 1934, retired in 1950, hull used as a barge 1954

Sagamo: 1906-1969; 152' steel hulled passenger steamship, retired 1958, floating restaurant 1962, fire 1969, hull dismantled in 1969 (near shore in West Gravenhurst)

Alporto: 1912-1936; 85.15' supply steamer, used to tow as well as a food store, burnt and sank (offshore Milford Bay dock)

Gypsy: ?-?; supply steamer, replaced by CityofBala

CityofBala: 1901-1912; 76.3' wood-steel supply steamer then tug (1906), dismantled

Edith May: ?-?; replaced by Constance

Constance: 1898-1937; 65'-82' wood-steel supply steamer then tug, scrapped

Ethel May: ?-?; supply steamer, operated from Windermere

Devenish: ?-?; supply steamer, operated from Torrance

Lady ofthe Lake: 1896-?; supply steamer

Mink: 1893-1909; 57'-72' wooden-steel hull supply steamer replaced by Newminko

Waome: 1928-1934; (rebuilt from Mink II) steel hull passenger steamer, sank 1934 (3 lives lost) (60' ofwater between Beaumaris and the Indian River)

Newminko: 1909-1955; 84' wooden-steel hulled, wood burning supply steamer, retired 1940, moved to Milford Bay, Lake Muskoka in 1954 for a floating restaurant but it burnt in 1955 before the restaurant was started, surviving hull was cut in two for a Milford Bay boat slip

Lady of the Lake: 1896-1910; 49.6' supply steamer

Mink II: 1912-1927; (rebuilt from Mink) 78' supply steamer, sold and renamed Waome

Mildred: 1905-1955; wooden hull passenger steamer, retired 1955

Florence Main: 1905-1907; wooden hull passenger steamer, rebuilt as the Mohawk Belle APPENDIX 2 LAKE OF BAYS VESSELS (c. 1877-1958)

Northern: 1877-1896; 745' side-wheeler passenger steamer, retired, derelict (bottom ofFairy Lake near exit of Muskoka River)

Algonquin II: 1928-1958; passenger steamer

Iroquois: 1907-1948; passenger steamer, dismantled (hull lies at South Portage)

Mohawk Belle: 1907-?; (rebuilt from Florence Main) passenger steamer

(many of the Huntsville fleet were scuttled in Lake Vernon at the mouth of the Big East River)

Milford: 1909-19?; 66.5' passenger steamer Page 216 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks APPENDIX 3 SEVERN RIVER VFSSELS (C. 1875.1920)

Pioneer. 1875-1893; passenger/Supply/mail steamer with scow tow for freight, (operated out of Severn Bridge and served the Sparrow Lake area)

Simcoe: 1884-1893; ?-90' stern-wheeler tug, log tows, rebuilt as Pocahontas, (operated between Sparrow lake and Severn Bridge)

Pocahontas: 1893-1895; 90' passenger/supply/mail stern-wheeler tug, replaced Pioneer, dismantled 1895, (operated out of Severn Bridge and served Sparrow Lake area)

Spartan: 1895-1901; 24' screw-yacht steamer with scow tow for freight, rebuilt as Lady Franklin, (operated to resorts on Sparrow Lake area)

Lady Franklin: 1901-1903; 36' passenger/SupplyJmaillaunch, sold and moved to Whitney area (operated to resorts in Sparrow Lake area)

Lome: 1890's-?; small private launch (operated by a reson on Sparrow lake)

Rob Roy: 1900-19??; steam launch for Bennett's Hotel guests, mail, and supplies and in service until 1911

Beaver. 1904?; an improvised double hulled paddlewheel steamboat, dismantled

Lakefield: 1905-1916; 70' wooden hulled passenger steamer operating between Severn Bridge to Stanton House, Sparrow Lake, sold 1916, sunken derelict (left in river a few miles downstream of Severn Bridge)

Glad Tidings: 1903-1913; passenger steam-tug, used as a supply boat starting in 1904, sold and moved to Huntsville to be a tow boat in 1913, (operated on Sparrow Lake route)

Champion: 1905-1911; 70'+ passenger steamer operating between Severn Bridge to Idyl Wild Lodge, Sparrow Lake, sold and moved away

Glympse: 1908-?; 40' passenger steam launch to operate Sparrow lake service then the Severn River after 1920 opening of the waterway

G. Whiz: 1911-1919; 85' wooden hulled passengerlmai1/freightsteamer to operate Sparrow lake resorts, retired 1917, burnt derelict hull in 1919, remains can be seen on Severn)

Glyde: 191?; passenger motor boat on the Severn River

(vessels on the Sparrow Lake route did not survive the opening of the Trent-Severn Waterway in 1920)

Niska: 1912; 36' steam-launch operated briefly on Sparrow lake, moved to Lake of Bays 1912 Page 218 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oi Muskoka and the Wahta Mohawks APPENDIX 4 MAJOR PORTS AND DESTINATIONS ON LAKE MUSKOKA AND SEVERN RIVER

Sparrow Lake: steamer connection between Cdn. Northern RR and points on lake

Muskoka Wharf: Muskoka lakes steamer transfer station for the Cdn. Northern RR's Gravenhurst station (built 1870's, wrecked 1959)

Huntsville Dock: steamer transfer station for Grand Trunk RR

Bala: main CPR transfer point for Muskoka Lake steamers

Bala Park: Cdn. Northern RR-CNR Muskoka lakes transfer point

Lake Joseph Wharf: Cdn. Northern RR-CNR Muskoka Lakes transfer point

Summit House Hotel: Port Cockburn, Lake Joseph (built 1872, burnt 1915)

Beaumaris Hotel: Tondern Island, Lake Muskoka (built 1883, burnt 1945)

Royal Muskoka Hotel: Lake Rosseau (built 1902)

Rosseau House ("Pratt'sft): Rosseau Village, Lake Rosseau (built 1870, burnt 1883)

Monteith House: Rosseau Village, Lake Rosseau (built c. 1883)

Brighton Beach: Torrance (burnt)

Prospect House: Port Sandfield, Lake Rosseau (built 1882, burnt 1916)

Windermere House: Windermere, Lake Muskoka (built c. 1882)

(After Ashdown 1988) Page 220 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oi Muskoka and the Wahta Mohawks APPENDIX 5 HISTORIC THEME MAPPING

1. Rural Life: Agriculture and Fishery Forestry Industry

2. Manufacturing

3. Transportation, Utilities, Public Works and Communications

4. Alienation of the Land centres of Settlement r, F '''PI5SII'~ NO [5' c'n !T) .'fH)II1N(IAl fUC.UWAY

\~} OISHHCt ROAl)

...-•• " RAil. ROAO TOWNSHIP IIllIllD 0151AI(T OmlNOAIlV ~' : ~~~ "., .. - - - TQWNSluP OOlJUOlHir ~\~ _IIHC"l.'" 0l)~ lU( 'Ii'

1 ~ ~ ---1 g; I I OF BAYS ~ I -J I ~

(~

I c,' Theme. :::4...... I I U' Rurel life: Agriculture" FI.hery Foreetry Indu.try

SCALE GeorgianBayFishery o I • • • 0 lI_t.... ~ ._-- ElIIly Farming -.- ForestryIndustry h~~~f.'10 llJJR§THH~T OJF MIIJ§KOKA N1?1SSING

CfD PROVINCIAL UIGHWAY

t~] OISTRICt ROAO TOWNSHIP ..... RAILROAO TOWNSHIP 1II111W 01 S' RIC' 80UNOAlfY ...c~~.~~~: --- - IOWNSltlP eOUNDARY 'A •• .(~~~~~~~ ~U( "

1 <: ~ ~ !!1 -.J ~

SIMCOE Theme: Manufacturing

SCALE '" Sawmill ~'1_.1'"

.. Gristmill -NO ""ll:.iTrr""C'll' 1\11 Nillj.JIN(;

E) PflOvlN(IAl. HIr,IIWAY til o,SInICT ROAO TOWNSHIP 4_4 4· RAil ROAO IilllUU 01 S' R Ie f 80UNO/lflY ~~<~~~: ----- TOWNSHIP OOUNQAny

OF

1 ~ :2 ~ -J '« :t

ill!~

Theme: "NARVON Traneportatlon, Utliitlea, Public Works and Communlcltlons ..._. RaU

._--, Road SCAt( - ...Navigablewaterways o and lakes .. Generating Stations • Canals and Locks NIPI5SIN(i !:!: <:'!:: NO llJJll;jT HU(; 'H' MUNHCHIPALHTY OF M U§KOK A

("(!:) PROVINe IAI_ HICtIlWhY ~1IIIIlIl,

r~] OISTRH.1 ROAO TOWNSHIP ...... RAil ROAO TOWNSHIP .(LL" IIlIlUU OI$T RIC r OOUNOAny

- _.- rOWN$tuP 80UNOAny

LAK.~ \-'V~!! 1 <: 2 ~ OF BAYS !!:! 'if -J <{ :t:

Themel: SIMCOE Allenillon of the LAnd Centrel of Senlement ~ First Nation Reserves SCALE @ Urban Centres o , ... • 0"_"" ~ ... Rural Villages

i> Abandoned Senlements Page 226 MasterPlan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks APPENDIX 6 INDIVIDUALS, AGENCIES AND INSTITUTIONS CONSULTED

* = the subjects of extended test interviews ... = respondent to general questionnaire

Baldwin Collection, Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library

John & Janny Beare (Toronto) - cottagers

Cliff Bennett (Lanark County) - Community Heritage Ontario

Bethune Memorial House (Gravenhurst)

...Paula Boon (Huntsville) - the Italian Community of Huntsville

...Bracebridge Public Library • Muskoka Collection

...Ron Breckbill (Port Severn) - sawmills & tourist lodges of Port Severn

...Russ Brown (Gravenhurst) - Muskoka Lakes Navigation & Hotel Co. Ltd.

Carolyn Bigley (Toronto) • Ontario Arts Council, Folk and Community Arts Programmes

Boys & Girls House, Metropolitan Toronto Public Library

CBC Archives (Toronto)

Chamber of Commerce (Bracebridge)

-Jean and Stan Clipsham (Orillia) - history of Sparrow Lake, Morrison Township

Russ Cooper (Toronto) - former director, Black Creek Pioneer Village

John Denison (Erin) - Editor, Boston Mills Press

Bill Derby (Rosseau) - Teacher, Rosseau Lake College

Beverley Diamond (Ottawa) - Ethnomusicologist

Jill Dundas (Toronto) - Director, Girl Guides Camp at Doe Lake

Dorothy Duncan (Toronto) - Ontario Historical Society

Ethnology Division, Royal Ontario Museum (Toronto)

Ethnology Service, Canadian Museum of Civilization (Hull)

David Fayle (Toronto) - Forester, Univ. of Toronto Page 228 Master Plan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipalitv oiMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks

*Allan Foster (Kleinburg) - naturalist (Konright Conservation Centre) & cottager

Edith Fowke (Toronto) - folklorist

*Mike Freeman (Toronto) - long-time camp staffer

Elene Freer (port Carling) - folklorist/Muskoka Arts & Crafts

Philip Franks (Gibson) - Gibson Band Office

*Susan Graffi (Kleinburg) - long-time cottager

...Gravenhurst Public Library - Archives Committee manages collection

...Huntsville Public LIbrary - Muskoka Collection with emphasis on Huntsville

Pauline Greenhill (Winnipeg) - folklorist

Lindsay Hill (port Carling) - Muskoka Lakes Museum

Philip Hiscock (SL John's) - Archivist, MUNFLA

Don Hull (Muskoka) - District Commissioner, Boy Scouts

Stephen Inglis (Ottawa) - ethnographer/Chief, CCFCS

Winnie Jacobs (Brantford) - Woodlands Cultural Centre

Goldie Konopny (Toronto) - long-time resort goer

Douglas Lochead (Ottawa) - sound archivist/National Archives

...The Madawaska Cub Ltd. - cottage community organized in 1898

Reg McCormick (Sudbury) - Ontario Library Services carol McDougall (Toronto) - Canadian Children's Book Centre

Bill McNeil (Toronto) - writer/broadcaster, CBC

Mengya Meng (peterborough) - Archivist, Bata Library, Trent University

Maxine Miska (Ottawa) - folklorist

Cathy & Morris Mostowyk (Toronto) - cottagers

Muskoka Pioneer Museum (Huntsville) Appendices Page 229

Ontario Camping Association (Toronto)

Ontario Crafts Council (Toronto)

Osborne Collection, Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library

.Barbara Patterson (Huntsville) - Sinclair, Lake of Bays Township histories

Peterborough Museum & Archive

Anne-Marie Poulin (Sudbury) - Directrice generale/Centre Franco-ontarien de folklore

L Sheldon Posen (Ottawa) - folklorist

Susan Pryke (Muskoka) - writer

Keith Publicover (North York) - Director, Camp Pinecrest

Marjorie Robinson (Toronto) - Producer, TVO

Rene Rogers (Toronto) - Multicultural History Society of Ontario

Corinne Rubin (Toronto) - Public Relations Officer, Girl Guides of Canada

Shirley Shilling (Orillia) - RaIna Native Language Coordinator

Janice Simpson (Toronto) - Sound Archivist/Archives of Ontario

Mike Smart (Toronto) - Ontario Geographical Names Board

.Gail Stupka (Huntsville) - Chaffey,Stisted, BruneI & Stephenson Township histories

Mac Swackhammer (WeIland) - folklorist

Michael Taft (saskatoon) - folklorist

Mike Turner (Dorset) - Leslie Frost Centre

Carolyn Vachon (Onawa) - National Archives

Ann Vanderhoof (Toronto) - Editor, Cottage Life Page 230 MasterPlan ofHeritage Resources for the District Municipality ofMuskoka and the Wahta Mohawks