Upper York Sewage Solutions Environmental Assessment

Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report

Prepared for: The Regional Municipality of York

Prepared by:

Conestoga-Rovers

& Associates APRIL 2013 REF. NO. 050278 (71) 1195 Stellar Drive, Unit 1

YORK REGION NO. 74270 Newmarket, L3Y 7B8

Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

Executive Summary

Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) was contracted by AECOM, on behalf of The Regional Municipality of York (York Region), to conduct a Stage 1 Baseline Conditions study as part of the Upper York Sewage Solutions (UYSS) Environmental Assessment (EA) in York Region, Ontario. The purpose of this study was to determine archaeological potential within the UYSS EA study area. Information generated from this study will be utilized in the screening, analysis, and evaluation of Alternative Methods and the assessment of impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative during the UYSS EA.

The background research, conducted in compliance with Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s (MTCS) Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (2011), determined that 148 archaeological sites have been registered within the UYSS EA study area plus a one kilometre (km) buffer. Archaeological potential modelling confirmed the possibility of encountering additional pre-contact Aboriginal and historical Euro-Canadian archaeological resources throughout the majority of the UYSS EA study area.

In addition to the baseline conditions prepared for the preliminary UYSS study area, a refined archaeological assessment was prepared for the short list of Alternative Water Reclamation Centre Sites and associated conveyance infrastructure routes, and the York Durham Sewage System (YDSS) Modifications Alternative Routes. This assessment determined that six archaeological sites have been registered within one km of the short list of Alternative Water Reclamation Centre Sites and associated conveyance infrastructure routes (none within 50 m), while fourteen known archaeological sites have been registered with one km of the the YDSS Modifications Alternative Routes (one within 50 m).

A Stage 1 Property Inspection was conducted for the short list of Alternative Water Reclamation Centre Sites and associated conveyance infrastructure routes. The property inspection determined that, while parts of Sites 24, 30, WH1, and WH2 do not exhibit archaeological potential due to previous disturbances, poorly drained conditions, and steeply sloped lands, the majority of these sites do exhibit archaeological potential. While no property inspection was conducted for the YDSS modifications Alternative Routes, archaeological potential modelling was carried out on the basis of aerial images. It was determined that parts of the Alternative Routes A, B, and C had been disturbed by previous construction activity including road construction, sewage and infrastructure installation, and building footprints. The study also found that parts of the Alternative Routes A, B, and C remained relatively undisturbed and retain archaeological potential.

In light of the results of the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (Background Research and Property Inspection) of the UYSS EA study area, the following recommendations are made:

1. Archaeological potential exists in the short List of Alternative Water Reclamation Centre Sites and associated conveyance infrastructure routes and the Alternative Routes selected for the YDSS Modifications. These lands require a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment, which will be conducted by pedestrian survey and/or shovel test pit survey in accordance with MTCS Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (2011);

050278 (71) Page i York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

2. Those portions of the short List of Alternative Water Reclamation Centre Sites and associated conveyance infrastructure routes that do not exhibit archaeological potential, due to lack of archaeological integrity, poorly drained conditions, and steeply sloping terrain, do not require further archaeological assessment; 3. The high-level desktop data study suggested that the majority of lands within the YDSS Modifications Alternative Routes do not retain archaeological potential due to previous disturbance caused by construction activity. Once a preferred route is chosen, a Stage 1 property inspection should be conducted in order to confirm this evaluation; 4. A small cemetery is located adjacent to one section of YDSS Modifications Alternative Route C on Bayview Avenue, between Stonehaven Avenue and Laurelwood Gate. The Bayview Avenue right-of-way lands adjacent to the cemetery should be avoided, however, should the proposed work impact the lands adjacent to the cemetery then a Cemetery Investigation should be undertaken to confirm the presence or absence of unmarked graves. Such an assessment typically entails mechanical stripping of topsoil and examining the subsoil for the presence of grave shafts under the supervision of a licensed archaeologist. This work will be done in accordance with the MTCS’s 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists and the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002; and, 5. Should the proposed work extend beyond the lands evaluated in this study, then further Stage 1 assessment must be conducted to determine the archaeological potential of the surrounding lands.

Notwithstanding the results and recommendations presented in this report, Archaeological Services Inc. notes that no archaeological assessment, no matter how thorough or carefully completed, can necessarily predict, account for, or identify every form of isolated or deeply buried archaeological deposit. In the event that archaeological remains are found during subsequent construction activities, the consultant archaeologist, approval authority, interested First Nations, and the Cultural Programs Unit of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport should be immediately notified.

050278 (71) Page ii York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

Table of Contents

Page

1.0 Introduction 10 1.1 Report Objectives and Organization 10 1.2 Development Context 11

2.0 Upper York Sewage Solutions Environmental Assessment Study Area 12

3.0 Methodology 14

4.0 Archaeological Context 16 4.1 Previous Archaeological Research 16 4.2 Pre-Contact Aboriginal History 17 4.2.1 Paleo-Indian Period (ca. 13,000 to 11,000 cal BP) 17 4.2.2 Archaic Period (11,000 – 3,000 cal BP) 18 4.2.3 Woodland Period (3,000 – 350 cal BP) 19 4.3 Geography 22

5.0 Historical Context 28 5.1 Contact Period 28 5.1.1 Early Post-Contact Period (AD 1600-1650) 28 5.1.2 The Later Post-Contact Period (1650-1700) 29 5.1.3 The Colonial Period (1700-present) 31 5.2 Township Survey and Settlement 33 5.2.1 Township of North Gwillimbury 33 5.2.2 Township of 34 5.2.3 Township of Whitchurch 34 5.2.4 Township of King 34 5.3 Historic Map Review 35 5.3.1 Holland Landing 41 5.3.2 The Town of Newmarket 41 5.3.3 Village of Queensville 42 5.3.4 Village of Sharon 42 5.3.5 42 5.3.6 Northern Railway 43 5.3.7 Transit Commission 43 5.4 Cemeteries and Burials 43

050278 (71) York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

6.0 Short List of Alternative Methods and York Durham Sewage System Modifications Alternative Routes 45 6.1 Previous Archaeological Research within the Final UYSS EA Study Area 46 6.1.1 Registered Sites – Short List of Alternative Water Reclamation Centre Sites and Conveyance Infrastructure Routes 46 6.1.2 Registered Sites – York Durham Sewage System Modifications (Alternative Routes) 47 6.2 Geography 48 6.3 Historic Map Review within the Final UYSS EA Study Area 49 6.3.1 Historic Map Review – Short List of Alternative Water Reclamation Centre Sites and Conveyance Infrastructure Routes 49 6.4 Analysis of Property Inspection Results – Short List of Alternative Water Reclamation Centre Sites and Conveyance Infrastructure Routes 61 6.4.1 Alternative Water Reclamation Centre Site 24 – Results of Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment 63 6.4.2 Alternative Water Reclamation Centre Site 30 - Results of Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment 66 6.4.3 Alternative Water Reclamation Centre Site WH 1- Results of Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment 70 6.4.4 Alternative Water Reclamation Centre Site WH 2 - Results of Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment 74 6.4.5 Conveyance Infrastructure Routes – Results of Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment 78 6.5 Analysis of Archaeological Potential – York Durham Sewage System Modifications (Alternative Routes) 99

7.0 Analysis and Conclusions 111 7.1 Analysis of Archaeological Potential 111 7.2 Archaeological Potential Mapping 111 7.3 Conclusions 112

8.0 Recommendations 114

9.0 Advice on Compliance with Legislation 115

10.0 References 116

11.0 Glossary of Terms 120

050278 (71) York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

List of Figures

Page

Figure 2.1: Upper York Sewage Solutions Service Area and Study Area 13 Figure 4.1: Surficial Geology in the UYSS EA Study Area 24 Figure 4.2: Soil Drainage in the UYSS EA Study Area 25 Figure 5.1: The UYSS EA Study Area overlaid on the 1860 Tremaine Map of York County 37 Figure 5.2: The UYSS EA Study Area overlaid on the 1878 maps of the Townships of North Gwillimbury, East Gwillimbury, King North, King South, and Whitchurch 38 Figure 5.3: The UYSS EA Study Area overlaid on the 1928 maps of Alliston and Newmarket 39 Figure 5.4: The UYSS EA Study Area overlaid on the 1950 map of Alliston and the 1951 map of Newmarket 40 Figure 6.1: Sites 24, 30, WH 1, WH 2 and Conveyance Infrastructure Routes overlaid on Tremaine’s 1860 map of York County 50 Figure 6.2: Sites 24, 30, WH 1, WH 2 and Conveyance Infrastructure Routes overlaid on 1878 map of the Township of East Gwillimbury 51 Figure 6.3: Sites 24, 30, WH 1, WH 2, and Conveyance Infrastructure Routes Overlaid on the 1928 Historic Topographic Map 54 Figure 6.4: Sites 24, 30, WH 1, WH 2, and Conveyance Infrastructure Routes overlaid on the 1950 and 1951 Historic Topographic Maps 55 Figure 6.5: York Durham Sewage System Modifications Alternative Routes A, B, and C overlaid on Tremaine’s 1860 map of York County 56 Figure 6.6: York Durham Sewage System Modifications Alternative Routes A, B, and C overlaid on the 1878 maps the Townships of Whitchurch and East Gwillimbury 57 Figure 6.7: York Durham Sewage System Modifications Alternative Routes A, B, and C overlaid on the 1928 historic topographic map of the Town of Newmarket 58 Figure 6.8: York Durham Sewage System Modifications Alternative Routes A, B, and C overlaid on the 1951 historic topographic map of the Town of Newmarket 59 Figure 6.9: Upper York Sewage Solutions Sites 24, 30, WH 1, WH 2, and Conveyance Routes– Key Map 62 Figure 6.10: UYSS Alternative Water Reclamation Centre Site 24 – Results of Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment 64 Figure 6.11: UYSS Alternative Water Reclamation Centre Site 30 – Results of Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment 67 Figure 6.12: UYSS Water Reclamation Centre Site WH 1 – Results of Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment 71

050278 (71) York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

Figure 6.13: UYSS Alternative Water Reclamation Centre Site WH 2 – Results of Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment 75 Figure 6.14: UYSS Conveyance Infrastructure Routes (Sheet 1) – Results of Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment 80 Figure 6.15: UYSS Conveyance Infrastructure Routes (Sheet 2) – Results of Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment 81 Figure 6.16: UYSS Conveyance Infrastructure Routes (Sheet 3) – Results of Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment 82 Figure 6.17: UYSS Conveyance Infrastructure Routes (Sheet 4) – Results of Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment 83 Figure 6.18: UYSS Conveyance Infrastructure Routes (Sheet 5) – Results of Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment 84 Figure 6.19: UYSS Conveyance Infrastructure Routes (Sheet 6) – Results of Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment 85 Figure 6.20: UYSS Conveyance Infrastructure Routes (Sheet 7) – Results of Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment 86 Figure 6.21: UYSS Conveyance Infrastructure Routes (Sheet 8) – Results of Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment 87 Figure 6.22: UYSS Conveyance Infrastructure Routes (Sheet 9) – Results of Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment 88 Figure 6.23: UYSS Conveyance Infrastructure Routes (Sheet 10) – Results of Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment 89 Figure 6.24: UYSS Conveyance Infrastructure Routes (Sheet 11) – Results of Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment 90 Figure 6.25: UYSS Conveyance Infrastructure Routes (Sheet 12) – Results of Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment 91 Figure 6.26: UYSS Conveyance Infrastructure Routes (Sheet 13) – Results of Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment 92 Figure 6.27: YDSS Modifications Alternative Routes A, B, and C – Key Map 100 Figure 6.28: YDSS Modifications Alternative Routes A, B, C (Sheet 1) – Archaeological Potential 101 Figure 6.29: YDSS Modifications Alternative Routes A, B, C (Sheet 2) – Archaeological Potential 102 Figure 6.30: YDSS Modifications Alternative Routes A, B, C (Sheet 3) – Archaeological Potential 103 Figure 6.31: YDSS Modifications Alternative Routes A, B, C (Sheet 4) – Archaeological Potential 104 Figure 6.32: YDSS Modifications Alternative Routes A, B, C (Sheet 5) – Archaeological Potential 105 Figure 6.33: YDSS Modifications Alternative Routes A, B, C (Sheet 6) – Archaeological Potential 106

050278 (71) York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

Figure 6.34: YDSS Modifications Alternative Routes A, B, C (Sheet 7) – Archaeological Potential 107 Figure 6.35: YDSS Modifications Alternative Routes A, B, C (Sheet 8) – Archaeological Potential 108 Figure 6.36: YDSS Modifications Alternative Routes A, B, C (Sheet 9) – Archaeological Potential 109 Figure 6.37: YDSS Modifications Alternative Routes A, B, C (Sheet 10) – Archaeological Potential 110

List of Tables

Page

Table 1: Aboriginal Temporal/Cultural Periods 17 Table 2: Soils of the UYSS EA Study Area 26 Table 3: Township Lot and Concession Numbers included in the UYSS EA Study Area 35 Table 4: Known Cemeteries in the UYSS EA Study Area 44 Table 5: Details of archaeological sites registered within 1 km of Alternative Water Reclamation Centre Sites 24, 30, WH 1, WH 2 and Conveyance Infrastructure Routes 46 Table 6: Details of Archaeological Sites Registered within 1 km of Alternative Routes A, B and C 47 Table 7: Historic Property Owners and Features in the short list of Alternative Water Reclamation Centre Sites and Conveyance Infrastructure Routes 52 Table 8: Historic Property Owners and Features in the YDSS Modifications Alternative Routes 60

List of Plates

Page

Plate 1: West-southwest view of Site 24. Site appears to retain archaeological potential. 65 Plate 2: West-southwest view of Site 24. Recent farm complex – all disturbed. 65 Plate 3: West-southwest view of Site 24. Northern boundary of site appears to retain archaeological potential. 65 Plate 4: East-northeast view of Site 30. Sloping terrain with no potential. Potential on top of rise. 68

050278 (71) York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

Plate 5: East-southeast view of historic house on Site 30. Potential surrounding house. 68 Plate 6: Northwest view of Site 30. Rolling fields with potential. 68 Plate 7: South view of Site 30. Potential in field. Slope with no potential in background. 68 Plate 8: North-northeast view of Site 30. Rolling fields with potential. Slope and watercourse in distance. 69 Plate 9: Northwest with of eastern boundary of Site 30. Potential in fields. 69 Plate 10: East-northeast view of WH1. Potential in fields. 72 Plate 11: South-southwest view of WH1. Sloping topography – no potential. 72 Plate 12: Southwest view of WH1. Potential in fields. 72 Plate 13: Northwest view of WH1. Area is graded and disturbed – no potential. 72 Plate 14: East-southeast view of WH1. Recent farm complex and graded landscape. No potential. 73 Plate 15: West-southwest view of northern boundary of WH1. Potential in fields south of road. 73 Plate 16: North-northeast view of WH2. Fields have potential. 76 Plate 17: North view of WH2. Sloping landscape with no potential. Potential on top of slope on level ground. 76 Plate 18: West-southwest view of WH2. Sloping landscape with no potential. Potential on top of slope on level ground. 76 Plate 19: East-northeast view of WH2. Regenerating and sloped landscape – no potential. Potential on level ground. 76 Plate 20: East-southeast view of WH2. Sloped land and disturbance caused by aggregate activity. No potential. 77 Plate 21: South-southwest view of WH2. Landscape is sloped and wet – no potential. Potential in fields on level ground. 77 Plate 22: East-northeast view along Queensville Sideroad. Right-of-way and poorly drained lands. No potential. 93 Plate 23: East-northeast view along Queensville Sideroad. Right-of-way, grading, ditching, and utilities. No potential. Potential in level, undisturbed areas. 93 Plate 24: East-northeast view along Queensville Sideroad. Right-of-way, grading, and utilities – no potential. Potential in lawn beyond ROW. 93 Plate 25: West view of Queensville Sideroad. Recent development and infrastructure. All disturbed – no potential. 93 Plate 26: West-southwest view along Queensville Sideroad. Right-of-way, ditching, and utilities. All disturbed and no potential. Potential in field on left. 94 Plate 27: North-northwest view of field east of 2nd Concession. Field has potential. 94 Plate 28: South view of field south of Queensville Sideroad. Field has potential. 94

050278 (71) York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

Plate 29: North view of regenerating farmland located east of 2nd Concession – all potential. 94 Plate 30: Northwest view of field with potential west of 2nd Concession. Note recent development on right. 95 Plate 31: West-southwest view from 2nd Concession. Row – all disturbed and no potential. Potential in fields. 95 Plate 32: South-southeast view from Holborn Road. All potential. 95 Plate 33: North view from Holborn Road. Recent residential development – all disturbed and no potential. 95 Plate 34: East-northeast view from 2nd Concession. Fields have potential. 96 Plate 35: East view from Holborn Road. Right-of-way and sloping terrain – no potential. Potential to right beyond right-of-way. 96 Plate 36: West-southwest view along Holborn Road. Right-of-way and steep slope. All disturbed – no potential. 96 Plate 37: East-northeast view along proposed convey route. Area is graded and disturbed – no potential. 96 Plate 38: East-northeast view from Holborn Road. All potential beyond right-of- way. 97 Plate 39: East-southeast view across Holborn Road. Potential in fields beyond right-of-way. Note road cut and slope in distance. 97 Plate 40: South-southeast view along Leslie Street. Right-of-way and Utilities – all disturbed. Potential beyond ROW. 97 Plate 41: Northwest view towards historic farmstead. Potential in fields. 97 Plate 42: South-southwest view along Leslie Street. Right-of-way, ditching, and utilities – all disturbed and no potential. Potential in fields beyond right-of-way. 98

Appendices

Appendix A Registered Archaeological Sites in the UYSS EA Study Area and Surrounding 1 km Appendix B List of Reports Documenting Previous Archaeological Work

Appendix C Archaeological Potential in the UYSS EA Study Area

Appendix D Maps: Short List of Alternative Water Reclamation Centre Sites, Conveyance Infrastructure Routes and York Durham Sewage System Modifications Alternative Routes

050278 (71) York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

Section 1.0 Introduction

This report documents the existing archaeological baseline conditions associated with the Upper York Sewage Solutions Environmental Assessment (UYSS EA) study area in accordance with Archaeological Work Plan included in the Minister of the Environment approved (as amended) UYSS EA Terms of Reference, March 2010.

The approved UYSS EA Terms of Reference proposed the following investigative studies (individual work plans) for the purposes of generating a more detailed description and understanding of the environment and outlining how that generated information would be utilized in the screening, analysis and evaluation of alternatives and assessing the impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative during the UYSS EA:

. Agricultural . Archaeological . Cultural Heritage . Natural Environment . Land Use . Noise and Vibration . Odour

The approved UYSS EA Terms of Reference also stated that the results from undertaking each of these work plans would be documented in two reports during the UYSS EA as follows:

. Baseline Conditions Report − Documenting the results of collecting and reviewing available existing information sources and carrying out the proposed field investigations. . Impact Assessment Report − Documenting the results of the impact assessment including additional required field investigations.

Upon completion, each report would be made available during the UYSS EA to review agencies, First Nations and Métis organizations, and the public for their information via the project website and upon request and will become either a reference or supporting document to the submitted EA Report. The EA Report will be based on and reflect the information contained in the two reports.

1.1 Report Objectives and Organization

More specifically, the objectives of this report are as follows:

050278 (71) Page 10 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

. To provide information about the geography, history, previous archaeological fieldwork and current land condition of the UYSS EA study area; . To evaluate in detail the archaeological potential of the UYSS EA study area which can be used, if necessary, to support recommendations for Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment for all or parts of the Preferred Alternative; and . To recommend appropriate strategies for Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment, if necessary.

This report is organized as follows:

. Section 2.0 describes the study area associated with the UYSS EA; . Section 3.0 describes the methodologies used during the baseline conditions study; . Section 4.0 provides the archaeological context of the study area; . Section 5.0 provides the historical context of the study including a historic map review and inventory of cemeteries and burials; . Section 6.0 documents the existing archaeological conditions based on field investigations and property inspections of the short list of Alternative Methods (i.e., the short list of potential alternative Water Reclamation Centre sites and associated conveyance infrastructure routes) and the York Durham Sewage System (YDSS) modifications Alternative Routes. . Section 7.0 presents an analysis of the baseline conditions and evaluates the archaeological potential of the UYSS EA study area; . Section 8.0 provides recommendations for the next assessment steps; the remaining sections contain other report information that is required by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport’s (MTCS) Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (2011) e.g., advice on compliance with legislation, works cited, glossary of terms, and photo-documentation.

1.2 Development Context

All work has been undertaken as required by the Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. (1990) and regulations made under the Act, and are therefore subject to all associated legislation. This project is being conducted as an Environmental Assessment.

All activities carried out during this assessment were completed in accordance with the terms of the Ontario Heritage Act (2005) and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport’s Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (2011).

050278 (71) Page 11 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

Section 2.0 Upper York Sewage Solutions Environmental Assessment Study Area

A preliminary study area was defined as part of the UYSS EA Terms of Reference for generating a general description of the potentially affected environment with the intent of finalizing it during the UYSS EA. The finalized study area is similar to what was proposed in the approved UYSS EA Terms of Reference with a more substantive change in the south where the boundary was revised northerly reflecting the Preferred Alternative To the Undertaking.

The final study area for the UYSS EA extends north to , east to Woodbine Avenue, west to Bathurst Street, and south to Green Lane East where the east/west boundaries constrict to Yonge Street and Leslie Street, respectively, and the southern boundary terminates at St. John’s Sideroad. The UYSS EA study area includes the Towns of Aurora (very northern portion), Newmarket (bounded by Yonge Street and Leslie Street), East Gwillimbury (western half) and Georgina (extreme southwestern portion). Figure 2.1 shows the boundaries of the UYSS service area and the final UYSS EA study area.

050278 (71) Page 12 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

Figure 2.1: Upper York Sewage Solutions Service Area and Study Area

050278 (71) Page 13 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

Section 3.0 Methodology

The Archaeological Work Plan in the approved UYSS EA Terms of Reference included the provision of a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment that is consistent with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport’s Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (2011). This assessment would summarize the baseline archaeological conditions within the final UYSS EA study area using existing information sources supplemented and enhanced with archaeological potential modelling.

The research was conducted in two phases. The first phase involved a high-level background study and development of an archaeological potential model for the UYSS EA study area documented in Sections 4.0 and 5.0.

The background study included information from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s Ontario Archaeological Sites Database for a radius of one kilometre around the study area, topographic maps, surficial geology maps, soils maps, historical vegetation maps, historical settlement maps, published and unpublished reports of previous archaeological fieldwork, archaeological management plans, commemorative plaques or monuments, and the project files of ASI, as per Section 1.1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011). These sources were examined in order to determine the presence and locations of known pre-contact Aboriginal and historic Euro-Canadian archaeological resources within the UYSS EA study area.

Archaeological potential modelling used indicators of archaeological potential as outlined in Section 1.3.1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011) to partition the landscape into zones that exhibit archaeological potential and zones that do not. The archaeological integrity of the UYSS EA study area was taken into account during the modelling process and used the criteria listed in Section 1.3.2 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011). It should be noted that the archaeological potential model is a tool to assist in the selection of Preferred Alternative Methods and cannot eliminate archaeological potential in the UYSS EA study area.

Following the identification of the short list of Alternative Methods (i.e., short list of alternative Water Reclamation Centre sites and the York Durham Sewage System (YDSS) Modifications Alternatives Routes (see Appendix D), a property inspection was carried out for the short list of Water Reclamation Centre sites and associated conveyance infrastructure routes. The YDSS modifications Alternative Routes were evaluated through a high-level study of the archaeological potential mapping and aerial photographs (see Section 6.0). This method of evaluation was chosen since the majority of the YDSS modifications Alternative Routes are located within existing road right-of-ways or infrastructure easements. Further, Archaeological Services Inc. had previously conducted high-level studies of this area for the York Region Archaeological Masterplan, which provided significant amounts of data on a Geographical Information System (GIS) platform. A review of GIS data showing proposed infrastructure and areas of archaeological potential, combined with an analysis of features of archaeological

050278 (71) Page 14 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

potential, enabled an appropriate level of identification of potentially adverse effects on areas of archaeological potential.

The property inspection was conducted in order to gain first-hand knowledge of the geography, topography and current conditions of the short list of Alternative Methods (i.e., short list of Alternative Water Reclamation Centre sites and associated Conveyance Infrastructure Routes) and YDSS Modifications Alternative Routes. The property inspection was a visual inspection only and did not include excavation or collection of archaeological resources. The property inspection was conducted in accordance with Section 1.2 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011).

050278 (71) Page 15 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

Section 4.0 Archaeological Context

This section provides background research pertaining to previous archaeological fieldwork conducted within and in the vicinity of the UYSS EA study area, its environmental characteristics (including drainage, soils or surficial geology and topography, etc.), and current land use and field conditions. Three main sources of information were consulted to provide information about previous archaeological research in the study area: the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database; published and unpublished documentary sources; and the files of ASI.

4.1 Previous Archaeological Research

In Ontario, information concerning archaeological sites is stored in the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database maintained by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport. This database contains archaeological sites registered within the Borden system. Under the Borden system, has been divided into grid blocks based on latitude and longitude. A Borden block is approximately 13 km east to west, and approximately 18.5 km north to south. Each Borden block is referenced by a four-letter designator, and sites within a block are numbered sequentially as they are found. The UYSS EA study area under review is located in Borden blocks BaGu, BaGv, and BbGu.

In accordance with Section 1.1(Standard 1) of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011), a Stage 1 Background Study must include the most up-to-date listing of sites from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s Ontario Archaeological Sites Database for a radius of one kilometre around the subject property.

A query of this database (email communication, Robert von Bitter, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s Data Coordinator, November 22, 2011) yielded 148 identified archaeological sites within the UYSS EA study area and its one kilometre buffer. Details of the registered sites are provided in Appendix A and a list of reports associated with these sites is provided in Appendix B. Archaeological potential mapping including the locations of registered archaeological sites is presented in Appendix C.

The archaeological sites registered in the UYSS EA study area reflect the long-term use and occupation of the York Region area, which dates from the Paleo-Indian period and continues to the present day. Of the 148 known sites in the study area, seven date to the Paleo-Indian period, 14 to the Archaic period, seven to the Woodland period, one to the pre-contact Iroquoian culture, and three to the Mississauga occupation of the contact period. A further 19 sites are listed as Prehistoric (Aboriginal), eight are Pre-Contact (Aboriginal), and 67 are listed as Euro- Canadian. Temporal or cultural affiliation for the remaining sites is unavailable. The majority of sites were identified during archaeological assessments conducted in advance of development, but some of the sites were identified in the course of academic research projects.

Gordon Dibb conducted research in the area during the 1970s and 1980s. He published a few works on the area including a survey of the East and its Environs (1978) and a study of Late Paleo-Indian settlement patterns in the Lake Simcoe Lowlands (1985).

050278 (71) Page 16 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

John Prideaux conducted a survey of sections of the glacial Lake Algonquin shoreline during the late 1970s. Prideaux’s archaeological materials and accompanying survey records are on file with the Department of New World Archaeology at the Royal Ontario Museum.

ASI produced a Master Plan of Archaeological Resources for the Town of East Gwillimbury in 1990, including a Phase 1 Report (1988) and a Phase 2&3 Report (1990). The master plan study is comprehensive and discusses the background history of the Town of East Gwillimbury as well as identified and analyzed archaeological resources within the Town’s boundaries.

Archaeological assessments, conducted through the Environmental Assessment Act and Planning Act approvals processes, have been undertaken in York Region since the 1980s. Most of the studies have been of small parcels examined in the course of development, most typically for residential subdivisions. A list of archaeological studies relevant to the UYSS EA study area is provided in Appendix B of this report.

4.2 Pre-Contact Aboriginal History

The UYSS EA study area has a cultural history which begins approximately 13,000 years ago and continues to the present. Due to the diversity and richness of its natural environment, the region has attracted human habitation from the time of their first arrival in Ontario. The chronology is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Aboriginal Temporal/Cultural Periods

Period Radiocarbon Date* Calendar Date** Cultural Traditions/Horizons Contact/Colonial 350 – 0 cal BP AD 1600 - 1800 Huron-Wendat, Ojibwa, Mississauga, Late Woodland 1,000 – 350 cal BP AD 1400 - 1600 Late Iroquoian AD 1300 - 1400 Middle Iroquoian AD 900 - 1300 Early Iroquoian Transitional Woodland 1,350 – 1,000 cal BP AD 600 - 900 Princess Point Middle Woodland 2,000 – 1,350 cal BP AD 1 – 600 Point Peninsula, Saugeen Early Woodland 3,000 – 2,000 cal BP 1,000 – 1 BC Meadowood, Middlesex, Adena Archaic 11,000 – 3,000 cal BP 9,000 – 1,000 BC Nettling, Bifurcate Base, Brewerton, Narrow Point, Broad Point, Small Point, etc. Paleo-Indian 13,000 – 11,000 cal BP 11,000 – 9,000 BC Gainey, Barnes, Crowfield, Hi-Lo, etc.

Note: * - calibrated years before present ** - approximate date ranges

4.2.1 Paleo-Indian Period (ca. 13,000 to 11,000 cal BP)

While the entry of Paleo-Indian hunting bands into Ontario has not been accurately dated, radiocarbon dates from other North American Paleo-Indian sites suggest that the earliest sites found in Ontario date between approximately 13,000 and 11,000 years ago.

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 flaked stone industry, the hallmark being large, fluted spear points (Gainey, Barnes, and Crowfield types). Fluted points are distinctive in that they

050278 (71) Page 17 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

have channels or grooves parallel to their long axis and usually on both faces of the tool. These grooves are created by the removal of long, thin, singular flakes from the base of the point.

Given the tundra-like or taiga-like environment which prevailed during this period and the location of their hunting camps, it is thought that Paleo-Indian economy focused on the hunting of large Pleistocene mammals such as mastodon, moose, elk and caribou. Of particular interest in this regard is the frequent location of Paleo-Indian sites adjacent to the strandlines of large glacial melt-water lakes. This settlement pattern has been attributed to the strategic placement of camps in order to intercept migrating caribou herds. As noted in Section 4.4, below, the strand of glacial Lake Algonquin traverses York Region, and several Paleo-Indian sites have been discovered along this feature.

Seven sites dating to the Paleo-Indian Period are registered within the UYSS EA study area and environs. These include the Badali (BbGu-25), Draper (BbGu-6), Draper Hi-Lo (BbGu-21), Dudley (BbGu-16), Fenton (BbGu-1), Hodgins (BbGu-18), and Paine (BbSu-43) sites. Of these, all are findspots or are of undetermined site type with the exception of the Badali site, which includes a house and midden and is also associated with Archaic finds. Details of these sites are summarized in Appendix A and site locations are presented in Appendix C.

4.2.2 Archaic Period (11,000 – 3,000 cal BP)

The Archaic period is commonly divided into three sub-periods: Early Archaic (circa 11,000- 9,000 cal BP), Middle Archaic (circa 9,000-5,000 cal BP), and Late Archaic (circa 5,000-3,000 cal BP). Only a few Early or Middle Archaic period sites have been investigated and they, like Paleo-Indian sites, are often identified on the basis of the recovery of isolated projectile points.

The UYSS EA study area includes one Early Archaic site and two Middle Archaic sites. The Drive-In site (BaGu-6) dates to the Early Archaic period and includes a burial and a campsite. The three Middle Archaic sites (Solstice BaGu-22, BaGu-117, Upper Canada BaGv-38) are all findspots. Details of these sites are summarized in Appendix A and site locations are presented in Appendix C.

Recent environmental data suggest that a deciduous forest cover had been established in southernmost Ontario by circa 8,500 cal BP and that the nomadic hunter-gatherers of this period exploited deer, moose and other animals, as well as fish and some plant resources. Archaeological data, however, suggest a broader more adaptable subsistence base for Late Archaic foragers. Their annual subsistence cycle involved interior fall and winter microband hunting camps, which were situated to exploit nuts and animals attracted to nut-producing forest, and larger spring and summer macroband settlements, which were located near river mouths and lakeshores in order to exploit rich aquatic resources (e.g., spawning fish).

Ten Late Archaic sites are located within the UYSS EA study area. All Late Archaic sites in the UYSS EA study area are findspots with the exception of the Orpel (BaGu-3) and Sparrow (BaGu-25) sites, which respectively feature a burial/camp and a camp. Details of these sites are summarized in Appendix A and site locations are presented in Appendix C.

050278 (71) Page 18 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

4.2.3 Woodland Period (3,000 – 350 cal BP)

The Woodland period is divided into four sub-periods: Early (3,000 – 2,000 cal BP), Middle (2,000 – 1,350 cal BP), Transitional (1,350 – 1,000 cal BP) and Late Woodland (1,000 – 350 cal BP). Moreover, the latter sub-period, which witnessed the florescence of Iroquoian society in the Northeast, is divided in Ontario into the Early, Middle and Late Iroquoian stages.

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

The analyses of Early Woodland cemeteries have provided evidence of ritual burial behaviour such as the application of large quantities of symbolically important red ochre to human remains. In addition, these cemeteries often contain grave offerings of art indicative of prevailing social and spiritual perspectives. Much of this art is often 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 often displays a considerable investment of time and artistic skill. Moreover, the nature and variety of these exotic grave goods suggest that members of the community outside of the immediate family of the deceased were contributing mortuary offerings. Thus, social integration during the Early Woodland period appears to have increased and expanded relative to earlier times.

Four Early Woodland sites are registered within the UYSS EA study area. The Druid (BaGu-20), Cottontail (BaGu-34), and Tempest (BaGu-37) sites are findspots. The Orpel site (BaGu-3), which is also associated with the Late Archaic period, features a campsite and burial. Details of these sites are summarized in Appendix A and site locations are presented in Appendix C.

The Middle Woodland period similarly represents a continuation of earlier settlement- subsistence activities, the exploitation of spring-spawning fish being especially well documented. In some areas of Ontario, the influences of complex societies focused in the Ohio are exhibited, especially in the realm of mortuary ceremonialism. While many of the origins of the elaborate funeral rites of the Middle Woodland ultimately lie in the preceding Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods, several regional populations, as they became increasingly sedentary, established large cemeteries, which, on occasion, featured the use of prominent natural features (such as sand dunes or drumlins) or artificial mounds. No such mounds have been recorded in the UYSS EA study area.

One Middle Woodland site is registered within the UYSS EA study area; the East Holland Site (BaGv-42), which features a fishing station and a Euro-Canadian homestead from a later period. Details of these sites are summarized in Appendix A and site locations are presented in Appendix C.

During the Transitional Woodland period earlier subsistence strategies continued to be practiced. This period also witnessed the beginnings of profound changes to Aboriginal society due to increased utilization of horticultural crops (particularly corn) that were introduced to

050278 (71) Page 19 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

southern Ontario as a result of interaction with communities living south of the . Agricultural practices during the Transitional Woodland period also led to a re-orientation in settlement patterns. As a result, sites from this period appear to have been more intensively occupied and subject to a greater degree of internal spatial organization. Transitional Woodland sites were also increasingly located on terraces overlooking the floodplains of large rivers, on floodplain bars, or on the shores of extensive .

The Late Woodland period continues the revolutionary changes in the settlement-subsistence regime of southern Ontario’s Aboriginal peoples. As the most populous group and the most involved in the development of this new life-style, Ontario Iroquoian society often forms a distinct focus of Late Woodland archaeology. The Late Woodland period is often subdivided into an Early (AD 900 - 1300), Middle (AD 1300 - 1400) and Late Iroquoian Period (AD 1400 - 1650).

Two Late Woodland sites are located in the UYSS EA study area; the Gander site (BaGu-28), which is a findspot and the Harvey Graham site (BaGu-1) which features a campsite/burial and is also associated with Iroquoian culture. Appendix A and site locations are presented in Appendix C.

The use of the term “Iroquoian” to describe these communities is based on the fact that the peoples encountered by the French in southern Ontario circa AD 1600 (as well the Iroquois of western New York) spoke languages related to Cherokee and Tuscarora the homelands of which lay in the southern Appalachians, North Carolina and Virginia, rather than forms of the Algonquian language which dominated much of the remainder of eastern North America.

The existence of this enclave of Iroquoian-speakers within the eastern Great Lakes basin has led to two major schools of thought regarding their origins. Arguably, the most accepted theory, known as the in situ model, is that these Iroquoian-speakers are simply the descendants of the Middle Woodland bands that were already established in the region, who gradually adopted a semi-sedentary agricultural way of life. The alternative theory - which is largely contradicted by the evidence of continuities in many aspects of material culture between the Middle and Late Woodland periods and by current understandings of the chronology of the adoption of agriculture in the region - is that they represent a migration of people into the area from southern Pennsylvania, who brought with them their distinctive lifeways, and who succeeded in displacing the resident Algonquian-speaking populations. One Iroquoian Village (Green Lane BaGu-107) is located within the UYSS EA study area (Appendix C).

Early Iroquoian society is thus best viewed as a continuation of the important transitional stage between Middle Woodland hunting and gathering society and later, fully agricultural Iroquoian society. Villages tended to be small, palisaded compounds with longhouses occupied by either nuclear or, with increasing frequency, extended families. These extended families formed the basis of community socio-politics and, to a lesser extent, the basis of intercommunity integration. Around the villages, camps and hamlets were strategically placed in order to facilitate the traditional exploitation of naturally-occurring food resources by the community, while corn horticulture continues to assume greater importance in subsistence systems.

The Middle Iroquoian period marks a stage in Iroquoian cultural evolution characterized by fully developed corn-bean-squash agriculture, a more fully integrated village political system based

050278 (71) Page 20 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

on extended kinship, and a further development of intervillage alliances. Widespread similarities in pottery and smoking-pipe styles also point to increasing levels of intercommunity communication and integration.

In most cases, it appears that Early Iroquoian communities may have actually coalesced during the beginning of the fourteenth century precipitating these dramatic changes in the economic, social and political spheres of Iroquoian life. While the data are still difficult to interpret, it is also clear at this time that villages and village alliances were in conflict with each other and/or together against Algonquian-speaking peoples to the southwest. Whatever the cause/effect relationship, some villages become more heavily palisaded and some household groups (and longhouses) become larger at this time. In part, this may be due to a general increase in population over Middle Woodland levels.

Settlement and subsistence patterns appear to remain relatively stable during the Late Iroquoian period. The most noticeable changes appear in the socio-political system. Through the fifteenth century, certain village households appear to have been consistently larger and more variable in membership than others within the same community. This trend peaks around the turn of the sixteenth century with some longhouses reaching lengths of over 120 metres with three or more extensions evident. Some villages attain a size of over four hectares. This trend may reflect changes in the fortunes and solidarity of dominant lineages within villages and/or the movement of families between allied communities.

During the sixteenth century, longhouses become more regular in size. This modification of residential patterning suggests that changes had occurred in the kin-based political system. It has been suggested that this change reflects increased importance of clans over lineages. Since clan membership cut across related communities, this aspect of kinship was an important source of tribal integration. When European explorers and missionaries arrived in Ontario at the beginning of the seventeenth century, Iroquoian villages were under the direction of various chiefs elected from the principal clans. In turn, these villages were allied within three powerful tribal confederacies: the Huron (Wendat), Petun and Neutral, each of whom had complex relations with one another and their various Algonquian-speaking neighbours.

The Huron-Wendat confederacy (many of the ancestors of whom had occupied the north shore of Lake Ontario in the Greater Toronto, Kawartha Lakes, and Kingston areas, until the sixteenth century) were concentrated in between Barrie and Midland, while the villages of the Petun confederacy were located in the Collingwood area to the west. The third confederacy, known as the “Neutrals”, occupied the Niagara peninsula region. Intertribal warfare with the Five Nations Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) of New York State during the seventeenth century, exacerbated by the deleterious effects of the intrusion of Europeans (most notably the spread of epidemic diseases), resulted in the dispersal of the three Ontario Iroquoian confederacies by circa 1650.

The years immediately following the dispersal of the Huron-Wendat, the Neutral and their Algonquian allies in the 1640s and 1650s are poorly documented. Migrations, fissioning and amalgamation of formerly independent groups, and shifting territories further complicate the picture. The continuing effects of European diseases, warfare and periods of starvation through

050278 (71) Page 21 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

the mid-to-late seventeenth century contributed to further population reductions among all aboriginal peoples. Those who survived were freely adopted into remaining groups.

4.3 Geography

In addition to the known archaeological sites, the state of the natural environment is an important predictor of archaeological potential. Accordingly, a description of the physiography and soils is briefly discussed for the UYSS EA study area.

Section 1.3.1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011) stipulates that primary water sources (lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, etc.), secondary water sources (intermittent streams and creeks, springs, marshes, , etc.), ancient water sources (glacial lake shorelines indicated by the presence of raised sand or gravel beach ridges, relic river or stream channels indicated by clear dip or swale in the topography, shorelines of drained lakes or marshes, cobble beaches, etc.), as well as accessible or inaccessible shorelines (high bluffs, or fields by the edge of a lake, sandbars stretching into marsh, etc.) are hydrographic features that indicate archaeological potential.

Water has been identified as the major determinant of site selection and the presence of potable water is the single most important resource necessary for extended human occupation or settlement. Since water sources have remained relatively stable in Ontario after the Pleistocene era, proximity to water can be regarded as a useful index for the evaluation of archaeological site potential. Indeed, distance from water has been one of the most commonly used variables for predictive modelling of site location.

Section 1.3.1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011) also lists other geographic characteristics that can indicate archaeological potential including: elevated topography (eskers, drumlins, large knolls, plateaux), pockets of well-drained sandy soil, especially near areas of heavy soil or rocky ground, distinctive land formations that might have been special or spiritual places, such as waterfalls, rock outcrops, caverns, mounds, and promontories and their bases. There may be physical indicators of their use, such as burials, structures, offerings, rock paintings or carvings. Resource areas, including food or medicinal plants, migratory routes and spawning areas are also considered characteristics that indicate archaeological potential.

The UYSS EA study area straddles two major physiographic regions, the Simcoe Lowlands to the north and west and the Schomberg clay plain to the south and east (Chapman and Putnam 1984: 113). The interface of these regions is demarcated by the strandline of glacial Lake Algonquin, which traverses the study area obliquely along a roughly northeast-southwest alignment running west of the communities of Holland Landing and Queensville (Figure 4.1).

There are no outcrops of the underlying Paleozoic bedrock in the UYSS EA study area. The surficial deposits begin with a sequence of Late Pleistocene tills that were deposited by the -Lake Simcoe lobe of the Laurentide ice sheet moving in a southerly direction. The most prominent of these in the UYSS EA study area is the sandy Newmarket till (Gwyn and DiLabio 1973). Numerous drumlins on the till plain have produced a relatively rolling

050278 (71) Page 22 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

topography, although this has been subdued somewhat by the later deposition of glacio- lacustrine sediments (Chapman and Putnam 1984: 176).

These lacustrine deposits, including widespread silt and clay with some sand, were laid down in high-level meltwater bodies known as the Schomberg during the retreat of the Newmarket and Kettleby ice, thereby creating the dominant features of the Schomberg clay plain. Continuing retreat of the continental glacier resulted in the formation of glacial Lake Algonquin throughout the Huron-Michigan basin as well as the Simcoe basin. In the UYSS EA study area, the remnant shoreline of Lake Algonquin occurs at about 235 metres above sea level, as evidenced by beaches, terraces, and prominent wave-cut bluffs (Gwyn and DiLabio 1973; Mulligan 2011). The margins of the Schomberg clay plain are dissected above the strand, especially within the valley of the Holland River East Branch between the Town of Newmarket and Holland Landing (Chapman and Putnam 1984: 176). Below the Algonquin strand are basinal deposits of silt and clay and northwest of Holland Landing a large deposit of sand which may be a delta formed by the paleo-Holland River East Branch (Mulligan 2011). Much of this level lowland is poorly drained and extensive deposits of organic soil now demarcate the former extent of vast —part of the well-known Holland Marsh market gardening area.

The principle drainage of the UYSS EA study area (Figure 4.2) is the Holland River East Branch, which rises in the northern flanks of the and flows northerly through the Towns of Aurora, Newmarket, and Holland Landing before traversing the Holland Marsh on its way to Lake Simcoe at Cook’s Bay. The entire watershed has an area of 247 km2. Numerous canals and drainage channels have been constructed within the Simcoe Lowland and Holland Marsh polder to permit farming (LSRCA 2010a). East and north of Sharon and Queensville the study area is drained by the Maskinonge (Jersey) River, a small watershed (63.5 km2) flowing northerly before turning to the west to meet Cook’s Bay on Lake Simcoe south of Keswick. Wetlands and organic deposits occur in the central reaches of this watershed, including one substantial complex immediately northeast of the UYSS EA study area (LSRCA 2010b).

050278 (71) Page 23 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

Figure 4.1: Surficial Geology in the UYSS EA Study Area

050278 (71) Page 24 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

Figure 4.2: Soil Drainage in the UYSS EA Study Area

050278 (71) Page 25 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

Thirteen soil series have been mapped for the UYSS EA study area (Hoffman and Richard 1955), plus organic soils (muck) and bottom land (Table 2). The majority (61%) of the upland soils are well drained sandy to silty loams rated Class 1 or 2 for agricultural capability by the Canada Land Inventory, the only exception being the steeply sloping Pontypool series which is rated Class 6. Imperfectly drained soils (8%), including the paleo-Holland , are similarly rated Class 1 or 2. The remaining lowland soils (31%) are poorly or very poorly drained and range from Class 3 to Class 5 where rated.

Table 2: Soils of the UYSS EA Study Area

Percent (%) Area (ha) Series CLI* Drainage 23.4 5053 Schomberg Silt Loam 1 W** 22.4 4834 Bondhead Sandy Loam 1 W 14.7 3172 Bottom Land 5 P 7.7 1670 Simcoe Silt Loam 2W P 6.8 1475 Brighton Sandy Loam 2FM W 6.8 1469 Percy Fine Sandy Loam 1 W 6.2 1330 Tecumseth Sandy Loam 2F I 4.0 868 Muck n/a VP 3.9 849 Granby Sandy Loam 4 P 1.3 280 Guerin Sandy Loam 1 I 1.0 224 Pontypool Sandy Loam 6T W 0.8 178 Smithfield Clay Loam 1 I 0.7 144 Wauseon Sandy Loam 3W P 0.2 41 Bookton Sandy Loam 2FM W 0.1 17 Lyons Loam 2W P 100.0 21603 Note: *CLI: Canada Inventory Soil Capability for Agricultural rating, W=Excess Moisture, F=Low natural Fertility, M=Low Moisture-holding Capacity, T=Adverse Terrain **W= Well, I=Imperfect, P=Poor, VP= Very Poor

Reconstruction of the vegetation of the UYSS EA study area prior to European land clearance (Puric-Mladenovic et al., 2011) shows that the distribution of forest communities largely reflected the edaphic conditions and nutrient qualities of the substrate. The rich, well-drained soils of the Schomberg clay plain supported a climax northern hardwood forest with maple (Acer saccharum) and beech (Fagus grandifolia) as co-dominants together with a variety of shade- tolerant hardwoods and softwoods such as elm (Ulmus sp.), basswood (Tilia americana), and white pine (Pinus strobus). The imperfectly drained sandy soils of the paleo-Holland River delta supported a predominantly maple mixed forest. The wetland soils of the Holland Marsh supported a mixed cedar (Thuja occidentalis), spruce (Picea sp.), and tamarack (Larix laricina) swamp, while the lowlands immediately below the Algonquin strand were predominantly cedar swamp.

Finally, in the northeastern portion of the UYSS EA study area there was mixed hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) forest on imperfectly drained soils as well as pockets of other forest communities reflecting the topographical and drainage complexity of this area. Notwithstanding the dynamics of forest succession due to disturbance agents such as wind and fluctuations in forest composition due to climatic change, it is suggested that the distribution of forest communities described above has probably prevailed within the study area for roughly 8,000 years, ever

050278 (71) Page 26 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

since the current zonal forests became established in the early Holocene (Karrow and Warner 1990). Prior to that, pollen spectra from regional sites like Van Nostrand Lake and Wilcox Lake on the Oak Ridges Moraine (Westgate et al., 1999: Figure 1.18) indicate that spruce and pine (likely Jack pine (Pinus banksiana)) dominated the regional forest in the period following deglaciation until around 11,000 B.P. White pine assumed dominance at that time, and was joined by subordinate taxa including birch (Betula sp.), oak (Quercus sp.), ash (Fraxinus sp.), and elm. Around 8,500 B.P. the dominance of pine went into decline as the northern hardwood taxa became established. Beech quickly achieved a dominant position, while elm, sugar maple, cedar, and especially hemlock gained in importance. Hemlock declined dramatically after about 6,000 B.P., rebounding somewhat thereafter (Bennett 1987; Karrow and Warner 1990: 29-31; Westgate et al., 1999:26-27).

050278 (71) Page 27 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

Section 5.0 Historical Context

This section provides a brief summary of historic research for the UYSS EA study area. A review of available primary and existing desktop material was undertaken to produce a contextual overview, including a general description of settlement and historic land use. Historically, the UYSS EA study area is located within York County and in following townships:

. North Gwillimbury; . East Gwillimbury; . Whitchurch; . King North; and, . King South

A summary of the lot and concession numbers included in the UYSS EA study area is provided in Section 5.3 of this report.

5.1 Contact Period

The contact period includes the time that Europeans first made contact with Aboriginal peoples in Ontario. The contact period for York Region can be divided into three periods: the Early Post- Contact Period (AD 1600-1650), the Late Post-Contact Period (AD 1650-1700) and the Colonial Period (1700-present day).

5.1.1 Early Post-Contact Period (AD 1600-1650)

Following the final abandonment of the north shore of Lake Ontario in favour of Huronia in the mid-sixteenth century, it remains possible that the Huron-Wendat people did not relinquish all claims on their former territory, returning occasionally to mount large-scale deer-hunting expeditions similar to those known to take place by the Huron as far east as Kingston on a more or less annual basis in the early seventeenth century (Biggar 1922-1936: 59). These ventures, however, were likely brief and sites established would have been of short duration. It is also likely that Six Nations Iroquois hunting parties were attracted to the north shore (Konrad 1981:136-137).

The conclusion of Ontario Iroquoian culture, as it then existed, took place during the first half of the seventeenth century. Intertribal warfare with the Five Nations Iroquois of New York State (the Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida and Mohawk) during the seventeenth century, exacerbated by the harmful effects of the intrusion of Europeans (most notably the spread of epidemic diseases), resulted in the dispersal of the three Ontario Iroquoian confederacies and many of their Algonquian-speaking allies of the southern Canadian Shield by circa 1650. While many of the surviving Ontario refugees were dispersed to Quebec, Michigan, Ohio (and ultimately Kansas and Oklahoma), many others were incorporated into the New York Iroquois populations. Seventeenth century European commentators frequently remarked upon the fact

050278 (71) Page 28 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

that former Huron-Wendat and Neutrals comprised high proportions of the residents of post- dispersal settlements, in certain New York villages (e.g., Thwaites 1896-1901:53:19, 54:79, 81) and Iroquois could be found as accepted members of the community on Algonquian settlements (e.g., Thwaites 1896-1901:41:176).

5.1.2 The Later Post-Contact Period (1650-1700)

The years immediately following the dispersal of the Huron, the Neutral and their Algonquin allies in the 1640s and 1650s are poorly documented. Migrations, fission and amalgamation of formerly independent groups, and shifting territories, further complicate the picture. The continuing effects of European diseases, warfare and periods of starvation through the mid-and late seventeenth century contributed to further population reductions among all Aboriginal peoples. Those who survived were freely adopted into remaining groups.

During this period, the Five Nations Iroquois established a series of settlements at strategic locations along the trade routes inland from the north shore of Lake Ontario (Konrad 1981:135). From east to west, these Iroquois villages consisted of Ganneious, on Napanee Bay an arm of the Bay of Quinte; Quinte, near the isthmus of the Quinte Peninsula; Ganaraske, at the mouth of the Ganaraska River; Quintio, at the mouth of the Trent River on the north shore of Rice Lake; Ganestiquiagon, near the mouth of the Rouge River; Teyaiagon, near the mouth of the Humber River; and Quinaouatoua, on the portage between the western end of Lake Ontario and the Grand River (Konrad 1981:135). Ganestiquiagon, Teyaiagon and Quinaouatoua were primarily Seneca; Ganaraske, Quinte and Quintio were likely Cayuga, and Ganneious was Oneida, but judging from accounts of Teyaiagon, all of the villages might have contained peoples from a number of the Iroquois constituencies. It seems likely that at least some of the people who occupied the Seneca north shore sites were former Huron who had been incorporated into Iroquois communities and were thus descendants of the South Slope Iroquoian communities of the sixteenth century. Some of these individuals may even have had first-hand familiarity with the area as a result of forays south from Huronia prior to the dispersal of the Huron Confederacy.

Their main settlements were located near the mouths of the Humber and Rouge Rivers, two branches of the Toronto Carrying Place, the route that linked Lake Ontario to the upper Great Lakes through Lake Simcoe. The west branch of the Carrying Place followed the Humber River valley northward over the drainage divide, skirting the west end of the Oak Ridges Moraine, to the East Branch of the Holland River. Another trail followed the Don River watershed.

Given the physiographic, hydrographic, and ecological foundations on which these major north- south trails were established, they are likely of great antiquity. While there is certainly a correspondence between the portage route and local Late Woodland settlement distribution, it is reasonable to presume that the residents of these communities simply availed themselves of the same access routes and resources that were of importance to their ancestors.

When the Senecas established Teiaigon at the mouth of the Humber, they were in command of the traffic across the peninsula to Lake Simcoe and the Georgian Bay. Later, the Mississauga and early European traders also utilized the area’s strategic importance for accessing and controlling long-established economic networks. Prior to the arrival of the Seneca, these

050278 (71) Page 29 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

economic networks would have been used by the Huron for over five hundred years, and before them, by the Algonquians. While the trail played an important part during the fur trade, people would also travel along the trail in order to exploit resources across south-central Ontario, including the various spawning runs, such as the salmon coming up from Lake Ontario or herring or lake trout in Lake Simcoe.

Due, in large part, to increased military pressure from the French upon their homelands south of Lake Ontario, the Iroquois abandoned their north shore frontier settlements by the late 1680s. However, the Iroquois did not relinquish their interest in the resources of the area, as they continued to claim the north shore as part of their traditional hunting territory (e.g., Lytwyn 1997). The settlement vacuum, however, was immediately filled by the Anishinabek, a collective term for the Algonquian-speaking groups of the upper Great Lakes such as the Mississauga, Ojibwa (or Chippewa) and Odawa. At the time of European contact in the early seventeenth century, the Anishinabek “homeland” was a vast area extending from the east shore of Georgian Bay, and the north shore of Lake Huron, to the northeast shore of Lake Superior and into the upper peninsula of Michigan (Rogers 1978:760). Individual bands were politically autonomous and numbered several hundred people. These groups were highly mobile, with a subsistence economy based on hunting, fishing, gathering of wild plants, and garden farming (Rogers 1978:760). During the Late Woodland period, extensive exchange systems had developed between the Odawa, Ojibwa and Cree of north-central and north-eastern Ontario and the Huron and other Iroquoian groups to the south. The Odawa, in particular, played an important role in this trade through dominating traffic in goods on the upper Great Lakes.

In the European-oriented fur trade that developed in the early contact period, the Odawa continued to play an important intermediary role, although this became increasingly difficult due to the disruptions caused by the conflict between the Neutral and the Algonquian Mascouten or “Fire Nation” of central Michigan and between the Ontario Huron, Petun and Neutral and the League Iroquois of New York. There was also a brief period of rivalry with the Potawatomi, who were based on the southern shores of Lake Michigan and had long been on close terms with the Odawa, although peaceful relations were re-established in face of the greater threat posed by the Iroquois. In the battles fought in Georgian Bay and on the north shore of Lake Huron, however, the Odawa and Ojibwa were relatively successful against the Iroquois and were only temporarily driven westward from their homes on Lake Huron (Feest and Feest 1978; Schmalz 1991). The Potawatomi, on the other hand, were forced to relocate temporarily to the Green Bay area on the western side of Lake Michigan.

The Mississauga and other Ojibwa groups began expanding southward from their homelands in the upper Great Lakes in the late seventeenth century, coming into occasional conflict with the New York Iroquois, although alliances between the two groups were occasionally established as well. It is likely that the former Iroquois settlements were maintained. While the continued appearance of these sites on maps produced during the remainder of the French regime probably reflects, to a certain degree, simple copying of earlier sources, it seems that the villages were taken up by the Anishinabek. Since the same settlements continued to function in the fur trade, their original village names remained on the maps (Konrad 1981:141-142).

One Early Mississauga site (McClellan Locality 2 BbGu-23) is located within the UYSS EA study area.

050278 (71) Page 30 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

5.1.3 The Colonial Period (1700-present)

There is little information in the historical documents of the first half of the 18th century on the exact locations of Anishinabek settlements in southern Ontario. While some data are available for a population that was settled in the Detroit area, the written records are far less informative for elsewhere. The Anishinabek settlement near the mouth of the Rouge River that was noted in the 1700 Peace Treaty, for example, may have been one of several identified in a 1736 French report. Under the heading for the north shore of Lake Ontario, the report indicated that there were no Iroquois settled but that “Mississagués were dispersed along this lake, some at Kenté [Bay of Quinte], others at the River Toronto [Humber River], and finally at the head of the Lake, to the number of one hundred and fifty [warriors] in all” (O’Callaghan 1853-1887: 1054-1058). By 1736, however, French estimates placed the Ojibwa population at 60 men near Lake St. Clair, and 150 men at Quinte, the head of Lake Ontario, the Humber, and Matchedash each, totaling 1000-1500 in Southern Ontario (Rogers 1978:762).

In 1751, a French officer named LaJonquiere reported that Apaequois, a Missisague Chief of the village at the head of Lake Ontario, had sent a message to support the wampum belt he gave in 1747 to the “Saulteux at the foot of the Quinibitanon rapid.” On the eve of the so-called French and Indian War, the Anishinabek settlement of southern Ontario was probably limited to small seasonally occupied villages. Much of the year may have been spent in small family hunting groups, thus escaping notice by French and English travelers and writers.

In 1754, war in North America broke out between France and Britain. The records relating to that conflict shed some light on the geographic locations of Anishinabek settlements and the movements of people. For example, a 1755 map included a notation marked “Country of the Messessagues” north of Lake Ontario and a French report attributed to De Bouganville and dated about 1758, gave information on the French posts in the Great Lakes region. The report identified a post near Toronto, and noted: “the Indians who come there to trade are the Saulteux and the Mississaguas – they can supply forty to fifty bales [of furs]” (Riddell 1932).

Five years later, in 1759, Sir William Johnson led British troops to victory over the French at Niagara. As the French had already abandoned their fort at Toronto, when English troops arrived there, a “Chippewa” man was found and taken to Niagara. Johnson released him soon thereafter. Johnson met with several Nations who had been allies of the French and made a preliminary peace treaty with them. In a letter Johnson wrote to Major General Jeffery Amherst on 30 August 1759, he noted that he had met with a number of “Missassagas and other Indians” from the area on the other side (north and west) of Lake Ontario.

On 10 February 1763, the Treaty of Paris was signed and ended the long period of warfare between Britain and France. When news of the Treaty spread throughout the region, the Anishinabek around Detroit expressed anger after hearing that their country had been ceded to the English and indeed complained that they had never been conquered and the French had no right to give away their country. British efforts followed to address these complaints in a series of treaties with Pontiac and other Aboriginal leaders in Niagara and Detroit.

Following the 1764 Niagara Peace Treaty, and the follow-up treaties, the British colonial government considered the Anishinabek to be their allies since they had accepted the Covenant

050278 (71) Page 31 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

Chain. The English administrators paid heed to the terms of the Royal Proclamation and insured that no settlements were made in the hunting grounds that had been reserved to Aboriginal Nations. As a result, there is very little documentary evidence from this period regarding the Anishinabek settlement or use of the area north of Lake Ontario.

Again in 1783 following the Treaty of Paris, signed between representatives of England and the United States thus ending the revolution in North America, the division of territory by these European powers was viewed by Anishinabek leaders as inappropriate since they had not been consulted nor did they agree to the line running through their territories.

For the next three decades, the Anishinabek of the north shore of Lake Ontario engaged in a number of treaties with agents of the British Crown which the British claimed provided vast tracts of land to the Crown in exchange for paltry quantities of goods and money. It is unlikely that the Aboriginal leaders comprehended the European concept of the absolute ownership of land by individuals; land belonged to the tribe” (Smith 1981). At least the British now recognized the Mississauga as the rightful owners.

In 1783 and 1784, extensive tracts of land were purchased along the north shore of Lake Ontario in the Bay of Quinte area although no written deeds seem to have been produced. In 1787 and 1788, the remaining land along the north shore of Lake Ontario from Etobicoke Creek to the Bay of Quinte was purchased in the so-called “gunshot treaties” because their distance inland from the lakeshore was said to be measured in terms of how far back a gunshot could be heard. A blank deed later forced a second land surrender in 1805.

Two more treaties had similar problems and it would seem that the government ignored verbal promises they had made to the Mississaugas; they deliberately abrogated fishing and water rights that the Mississauga had bargained for and relied instead exclusively on the written treaty texts (Telford 1999). While the English were purchasing vast tracts of land north of Lake Ontario, Six Nations continued to remind them of old treaties that protected their access to hunting grounds.

By the 1830s most land had been sold to the British Crown, which resulted in overcrowding and the formation of reserves ─ between 1820 and 1850, Rice Lake, Saugeen, Walpole Island, Credit, and Chemong reserves were founded. During this period of economic and cultural upheaval, Anishinabek spiritual beliefs remained relatively static (Rogers 1978:764). Despite many conversions to Christianity, most converts retained their belief in the spirit residing in all things in the natural world, and traditional medicine men remained the most influential people in the community. Further, traditional spiritual ‘vision quests’ remained important for young men to determine their guardian spirit, even in the face of continuous European social and political encroachment.

In January of 1840, a Grand Council was held at the Credit River at which representatives from many communities in southern Ontario discussed Treaty and Aboriginal rights all in an effort to maintain the dish with one spoon concept to ensure peace between the nations and free access to shared hunting territories.

Having negotiated the right to fish in several of the rivers traversing through Toronto, the Toronto-based Mississaugas were documented in the area as late as the mid-1800s. However, with increasing European settlement of the area and the inability to exercise their harvesting

050278 (71) Page 32 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

rights, they eventually settled on lands purchased from the Six Nations of the Grand River and came to be known as the Mississaugas of the New Credit.

In 1986, the Mississaugas of the New Credit filed a specific claim with the Government of Canada related to the Toronto Purchase of 1805. The basis for this claim was that the Crown had appropriated additional lands not previously mentioned and had not compensated the Mississaugas accordingly. This claim was officially settled on October 8, 2010. The Mississaugas of the New Credit retain treaty rights (hunting, gathering and fishing) on Crown land within the purchase area and participate actively in consultation regarding their interests in this area.

Other Mississauga and Ojibwa groups who had migrated southward from their homelands in the upper Great Lakes in the late seventeenth century to south-central Ontario were signatories of the Williams Treaty in 1923. Collectively known as the Williams Treaty nations, these communities include the Hiawatha First Nation, Beausoleil First Nation, Georgina Island First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, Scugog Island First Nation, Alderville First Nation and the Mnjikaning (Rama) First Nation. These First Nations maintain an active interest in their traditional lands and are involved in negotiations with the Federal and Provincial governments at the present time, presumably concerning those rights and other grievances.

5.2 Township Survey and Settlement

As discussed in Section 5.0 of this report, the UYSS EA study area includes the former Townships of North Gwillimbury, East Gwillimbury, Whitchurch and King. A brief description of the survey and settlement of each township included in the UYSS EA study area is provided below.

5.2.1 Township of North Gwillimbury

The township of North Gwillimbury was the smallest township in York County in terms of both size and population. It was approximately 29,011 acres and was bounded by Lake Simcoe to the north, the Township of East Gwillimbury to the south, Cook’s Bay to the west and Georgina Township to the east. North Gwillimbury was settled at the beginning of the nineteenth century and the first patent for the township is dated 1800 (Mulvaney and Adam 1885:164). By 1821 the combined population of North Gwillimbury and Georgina was 272 and by 1843 North Gwillimbury boasted a population of 697 inhabitants.

The townships of North Gwillimbury and Georgina have been united since the 1820s (Mulvaney and Adam 1885:166). These two townships formally merged in 1971 and were incorporated as the Town of Georgina in 1986. The present day Town of Georgina includes the Village of Sutton, and the former townships of Georgiana and North Gwillimbury.

York County contained three townships bearing the name Gwillimbury; North, East and West. All townships bearing this name were named after the wife of Governor Simcoe, whose family name was Gwillim (Mulvaney and Adam 1885:170).

050278 (71) Page 33 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

5.2.2 Township of East Gwillimbury

In an attempt to uncover the best route from York to the British naval posts on Georgian Bay, Governor Simcoe commissioned the first survey of the Township of East Gwillimbury. This work was initiated in 1800 by John Stegman, and was followed by a number of other surveyors over the next century: Hambly in 1803, Wilmot in 1811, Lount in 1819, Chewitt in 1824, Lindsay in 1859, Haller in 1864 and Gossage in 1865 (Canniff 1878:XVII).

Many of the early settlers in the Township of East Gwillimbury were Empire Loyalists, hired by the British to help fight in the American War of Independence. A number of Quakers were also attracted to the area by the promise of land grants and also the freedom to practice their faith in peace. A number of hamlets were established early on in the township, including Holland Landing, River Drive Park, Sharon, Queensville, and Mount Albert. Holland Landing, Sharon, and Queensville are located within the UYSS EA study area and are discussed separately in Section 5.3 of this report.

5.2.3 Township of Whitchurch

The Township of Whitchurch was originally surveyed by John Stegman in 1800, who surveyed the first four Concessions of the township (Miles & Co. 1878). The Township was named in honour of the village of Whitchurch, Herefordshire, in England, where Elizabeth Simcoe, wife of Upper Canada Lieutenant Governor Sir , was born, and included the area bounded by present day Stouffville Road to the south, Yonge Street to the west, Davis Drive to the north and Durham Regional Road 30 to the east. The original concession and side roads still remain today: Woodbine, Warden, Kennedy, McCowan, Highway 48, Ninth Line, Tenth Line and Regional Road 30 were the concession roads and Stouffville Road, Bethesda, Bloomington, Vandorf, Aurora, St John's, Vivian and Davis Drive were the side roads.

Within the Township of Whitchurch, several villages of varying sizes had developed by the end of the 19th century, including Newmarket, Aurora, and Stouffville. The Town of Newmarket is located in the UYSS EA study area and is discussed in Section 5.3 of this report.

Like other townships in York County, many of the early settlers in Whitchurch were United Empire Loyalists, hired by the British to help fight in the American War of Independence. A number of Quakers were also settled in the area in order to take advantage of free land grants and the ability to practice their faith in peace.

5.2.4 Township of King

The Township of King was also first surveyed in 1800 by John Stegmen and additional surveys were undertaken in 1836-8, 1852 and 1859. A number of settlements were established in King Township during the nineteenth century, including Aurora, Schomberg, Lloydtown, Glenville, Kettleby, Pottageville, Linton, and Nobleton.

The land within King Township was acquired by the British from the Mississaugas in 1784. The first township survey was undertaken in 1800, and the first legal settlers occupied their land holdings in the same year. The township was probably named in honour of John King, who was

050278 (71) Page 34 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

British under-secretary of state for the Colonies during the 1790s and early 1800s. King Township was initially settled by the United Empire Loyalists, Quakers, and by immigrants from the United States, England, Ireland and Scotland. By the 1840s, the township was noted for its good land and fine farms (Armstrong 1985:144; Boulton 1805:82; Rayburn 1997:181; Smith 1846:90-91).

5.3 Historic Map Review

Historic mapping from the nineteenth century and historic topographic maps from the early to mid-twentieth century were reviewed to determine the presence of major settlements or historic features in the UYSS EA study area (see Figures 5.1 to 5.4). A summary of the historic Lot and Concession numbers included in the study area is provided in Table 3.

Table 3: Township Lot and Concession Numbers included in the UYSS EA Study Area

Township Concession Lots North Gwillimbury Broken Front 1-5 1 1-6 2 1-6 3 1-6 4 Part of Lots-1-6 East Gwillimbury Concession 1 West of Yonge Street 100-130 1 96-130 2 1-35 3 1-35 4 Part of Lots 5-35 Whitchurch 1 85-95 2 25-35 3 Part of Lots 25-35 King (North) Concession 2 Old Survey 5-28 King (South) Concession 1 West of Yonge Street 85-95

Although some features are illustrated on the historical atlas maps, it should be noted that not all features of interest were mapped systematically in the Ontario series of historical atlases. Given that the atlases were financed by subscription, and subscribers were given preference with regard to the level of detail provided on the maps, some features might not be represented in the atlas. Moreover, not every feature of interest would have been within the scope of the atlases.

For the Euro-Canadian period, the majority of early nineteenth century farmsteads (i.e., those which are arguably the most potentially significant resources and whose locations are rarely recorded on nineteenth century maps) are likely to be captured by the basic proximity to the water model outlined in Section 4.3 of this report since these occupations were subject to similar environmental constraints.

Section 1.3.1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTCS 2011) stipulates that areas of early Euro-Canadian settlement (pioneer homesteads, isolated cabins, farmstead complexes), early wharf or dock complexes, pioneer churches and early cemeteries, are considered to have archaeological potential. Early historical transportation routes (trails,

050278 (71) Page 35 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

passes, roads, railways, portage routes), properties listed on a municipal register or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or a federal, provincial, or municipal historic landmark or site are also considered to have archaeological potential.

A review of the 1860 Tremaine’s Map of York County and the 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York revealed that a number of major settlements and major historic transportation routes are present within the study area. The significant historic settlements in the study area include Holland Landing, Newmarket, Queensville, and Sharon and the major historic transportation routes in the UYSS EA study area include Yonge Street and the Northern Railway. A brief discussion of each historically significant settlement and transportation route is provided below.

The 1860 and 1878 maps were examined to determine major changes in the UYSS EA study area during the nineteenth century (Figures 5.1 and 5.2). Major historic settlements within the UYSS EA study area include Holland Landing, Newmarket, the Village of Queensville, and the Village of Sharon. Both maps depict the Northern Railway running north and northwest through the study area. One major change is that the Holland Marsh, located in the northwest corner of the study area, is depicted as being drained and surveyed in the 1878 map. Further, the 1860 map depicts an “Old Indian Landing” in the Holland Marsh area, adjacent to the Holland River. It should be noted that this landing site correlates with a registered archaeological site that dates to the Middle Woodland Period (See Appendix A: BaGv-42).

The 1928 and 1950/1951 historical topographic maps of Alliston and Newmarket were examined to identify major changes in the UYSS EA study area during the early to mid-twentieth century (Figures 5.3 and 5.4). Both maps depict the Holland River as channelized south of Holland Landing. The river is labeled as the Newmarket Canal in the channelized portion of the river north of Newmarket. One major change between the 1928 and 1950/1951 maps is that a Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) line is depicted running through Newmarket and in a general northeast direction towards Lake Simcoe. This rail line is not present in the 1950/1951 mapping.

050278 (71) Page 36 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

Figure 5.1: The UYSS EA Study Area overlaid on the 1860 Tremaine Map of York County

050278 (71) Page 37 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

Figure 5.2: The UYSS EA Study Area overlaid on the 1878 maps of the Townships of North Gwillimbury, East Gwillimbury, King North, King South, and Whitchurch

050278 (71) Page 38 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

Figure 5.3: The UYSS EA Study Area overlaid on the 1928 maps of Alliston and Newmarket

050278 (71) Page 39 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

Figure 5.4: The UYSS EA Study Area overlaid on the 1950 map of Alliston and the 1951 map of Newmarket

050278 (71) Page 40 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

5.3.1 Holland Landing

Holland Landing is situated halfway between Newmarket and Bradford at the former terminus of Yonge Street. It was an important point in the line of travel between Lake Simcoe and Lake Ontario long before York County was settled (Mulvaney and Adam 1885:200). Holland Landing acted as a launching place of Aboriginal peoples for centuries and later served as a post for traders of the Northwest Fur Company (Town of East Gwillimbury 2011). Aboriginal groups used to meet at Holland Landing to receive their treaty payments (Mika and Mika 1981). In 1965 an Aboriginal burial ground was discovered at Holland Landing that contained forty skeletons (Mika and Mika 1981). It is believed that the site was previously a Mississauga village.

Governor John Graves Simcoe believed that the site of Holland Landing would make an ideal shipping and defense point between York (now Toronto) and Georgian Bay. By 1797 Yonge Street had been constructed to Holland Landing and provided an overland route for travelers. The first settlers arrived in Holland Landing in 1802 but the village was not formally established until the 1820s. By 1853, Holland landing was a busy centre and benefited from activity from Yonge Street, the Holland River, and the building of the Northern Rail Road.

Six registered archaeological sites are located in close proximity to Holland Landing. These include three historic sites (Swasey BaGu-44, Swezie BaGu-4, Thompson BaGu-5,) and three prehistoric sites (Blue Heron BaGu-45, Oriole BaGu-51, Toucan BaGu-52). Details of these sites are summarized in Appendix A and site locations are presented in Appendix C.

5.3.2 The Town of Newmarket

The Town of Newmarket is situated in the former Township of Whitchurch, close to the northern boundary and a short distance east of Yonge Street, about 28 miles north of Toronto. The Newmarket area was first settled between 1801 and 1803 when a group of Quakers from Pennsylvania secured extensive land grants for the area (Mika and Mika 1983). The Quaker community built a log meeting house and a board-and-batten church, which was the first house of worship erected north of Toronto. Throughout the mid-nineteenth century a number of other places of worship were constructed including Methodist, Christian, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Roman Catholic and Congregational churches. A number of schools were also constructed during this period.

The settlement soon became an important trade centre and served as commercial hub for people who previously had to travel to Toronto to do business (Mika and Mika 1983). By the 1850s the population of Newmarket was 500 and the community had three doctors, two breweries, one distillery, a cloth factory, five stores, three taverns, a druggist, a gunsmith, three blacksmiths, a tinsmith, three wagon makers, and a number of excellent farms (Mika and Mika 1983). Fire destroyed a large part of Newmarket in 1862 but the village recovered and was eventually incorporated as a town in 1880.

In 1970 the Town of Newmarket became part of The Regional Municipality of York and in the following year it annexed part of the Townships of Whitchurch and East Gwillimbury. No known archaeological sites are registered within the historic limits of the Town of Newmarket.

050278 (71) Page 41 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

5.3.3 Village of Queensville

The Village of Queensville, originally known as Hackett’s Corners, was a part of the various land routes between Lake Simcoe and Yonge Street. Queensville attracted a large number of Quakers who came from the nearby Village of Sharon. By the 1850s, Queensville boasted a school, post office, hotels, various churches, several shops, a flour mill and a grist mill (Town of East Gwillimbury 2011).

No known archaeological sites are registered within the historic limits of the Village of Queensville.

5.3.4 Village of Sharon

Sharon, originally known as Hope, was originally settled in the early 1800s by the United Empire Loyalists. Many of the early settlers were Quakers, who were attracted to the area by land grants offered at the time. David Wilson, one of the first settlers in the area, established a new religious sect called The Children of Peace, after breaking away from the Quaker Church (Town of East Gwillimbury 2011). The Children of Peace founded their society based on the values of peace, equality, and social justice (Sharon Temple 2011). The Children of Peace built a temple to raise money for the poor, built the province’s first shelter for the homeless, established the province’s first cooperative and credit union. They were also politically active and played a role in the development of democracy in Canada through their support of (Sharon Temple 2011). The Children of Peace built a number of unique structures including the Sharon Temple, which is now a National Historic Site and museum.

Seven Euro-Canadian archaeological sites are registered in close proximity with the historic Village of Sharon (Wilson BaGu-15, McLeod BaGu-33, Temple Farm BaGu-57, Lake Family Dump BaGu-110, Graham BaGu-111, Calvin Washburn BaGu-116, and Sharon Temple National Historic Site BaGu-151). Details of these sites are summarized in Appendix A and site locations are presented in Appendix C.

5.3.5 Yonge Street

Yonge Street was conceived by Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoe who envisioned it as a way to connect York (Toronto) to Lake Simcoe (Gentilcore and Head 1984:150). The construction of Yonge Street began in 1794 under the supervision of Mr. , a well-known surveyor. In the beginning, Yonge Street was largely impassable south of Bloor and only extended south to Queen Street (Mulvaney and Adam 1885:15). By 1797, Yonge Street had been extended north to Holland Landing. Yonge Street was frequently used by the North- West Company who encouraged the building of roads and used them for commercial purposes. The North-West Company even supplied funds for the improvement of Yonge Street and by 1810 the road was serviceable along its entire length. The land on both sides of Yonge Street was granted to settlers on the condition that they build a house, clear a portion of the land, and contribute to the construction of the road fronting the lot (Berchem 1977:28). Settlers were given one year to accomplish these requirements or their claims would be considered forfeit. The original terminus of Yonge Street was the Pine Fort on the western branch of the Holland River.

050278 (71) Page 42 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

Five historic archaeological sites are present within the UYSS EA study area adjacent to the Yonge Street transportation corridor (Hicksite Meeting House BaGu-18, Philips BaGu-64, Huntly BaGu-65, Lount BaGu-152, and Oliver Philips Cheese Factory BaGu-164). Details of these sites are summarized in Appendix A and site locations are presented in Appendix C.

5.3.6 Northern Railway

The Northern Railway is depicted in the UYSS EA study area running southeast through the Holland Marsh and then south through Newmarket and just east of Aurora (Figures 5.1 and 5.2). The Northern Railway was incorporated in 1899 as the result of the amalgamation of two smaller branch lines. William Mackenzie and Donald Mann were the principal promoters who worked to build up the line to become a transcontinental system over a period of 20 years. The Northern Railway encountered stiff competition from rivals and undertook extensive expansion in order to compete. The construction of the Northern Railway was completed in 1915 but by that time it became clear that the line had overextended itself (Matthews 1990:18). The federal government was given control of the Northern Railway, which then became part of the publicly owned Canadian National Railway. Both the 1928 and 1950/51 topographic maps depict the rail line running through the study area as the Canadian National Railway (Figures 5.3 and 5.4).

Four archaeological sites are present within the UYSS EA study area along the Northern Railway transportation corridor. Two sites are pre-contact Aboriginal (Soltice BaGu-22, Kelly BaGu-42) and two are historic Euro-Canadian sites (Tophilus Wakefield BaGu-49, HLQS H1 BaGu-141). Details of these sites are summarized in Appendix A and site locations are presented in Appendix C.

5.3.7 Toronto Transit Commission

The Toronto Transit Commission began operating in 1921 when it took over the operations of the Toronto Railway Company, the Toronto Civic Railway, and parts of the City-owned Toronto and York Radial Railway (TTC 2011). In 1927, the Toronto Transit Commission took over the City-owned Hydro Electric Railways including the Toronto & York Division interurban radial railway lines outside the City of Toronto to Port Credit, Lake Simcoe, and Scarborough. The presence of the Toronto Transit Commission in York County is reflected in the 1928 historic topographic map of the Town of Newmarket, which depicts a Toronto Transit Commission rail line operating from the Town of Newmarket north to Lake Simcoe (Figure 5.3). This rail line was short lived and by 1930 the Toronto Transit Commission’s rail service to Lake Simcoe had been replaced by buses (TTC 2011). The Toronto Transit Commission rail line is not depicted on the 1951 historic topographic map of Newmarket, suggesting that the rail had been removed by this time (Figure 5.4).

5.4 Cemeteries and Burials

Cemeteries and burials have special significance and sensitivity and are often associated with areas of archaeological potential. These sites must be treated in accordance with the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002. Based on Ontario Archaeological Sites Database data, two burial sites are registered in the UYSS EA study area (See Appendix A and

050278 (71) Page 43 York Region No. 74270 Archaeological Baseline Conditions Report Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

Appendix C: Harvey Graham BaGu-1, Orpel BaGu-3). With the exception of isolated finds, registered Late Woodland or Contact period Aboriginal archaeological sites have a heightened probability that burials will be found on, or in close proximity to, the site.

With respect to historic Euro-Canadian cemeteries, while the historic atlas map does not indicate cemetery locations, the Genealogical Society of Ontario (2009) identifies 10 cemeteries in the study area. Table 4 is a compilation of the available date, which will be verified during the future property inspections, as necessary.

Table 4: Known Cemeteries in the UYSS EA Study Area

Township Cemetery Name(s) OGS# Location Comments East Gwillimbury Children of Peace Burial Ground, 5022 Concession 3, On Leslie Street north of Sharon Burying Ground Lot 7 Greenlane Christ Church Anglican Cemetery 4729 Concession 1, Near Holland Landing Lot 107 Cowieson Cemetery 3375 Concession 3, - Lots 27/30 Pegg Cemetery 4735 Concession 4, - Lot 7 Queensville Cemetery 4736 Concession 2, At north end of the village Lot 22 Selby Burying Ground 4738 Concession 2, Includes Weddel Family Lot 14 plot Weddell Family Cemetery 3486 Concession 2, In section of Selby Lot 14 Burying Ground Whitchurch Heise Hill Brethren in Christ 5029 Concession 3, - Cemetery, Lot 33 Heise Hill Dunkard Cemetery Petchville Cemetery, 4895 Concession 3, Some burials moved to Wesley Pioneer Cemetery Wesley Lot 21 Aurora United Church Cemetery Cemetery/Dickson’s Hill Starr Farm Cemetery 5050 Concession 3, 3-6 burials, not visible (Pleasantville) Lot 29

While cemeteries and burials are often associated with areas of archaeological potential, predictive modelling for the pre-contact period and for rural areas as late as the nineteenth century cannot reliably account for all possible burial locations. This is due to the complex cultural and ideological considerations that may be involved in the selection of burial sites. It should be noted that the formerly mapped limits or present-day limits of cemeteries dating to the nineteenth century or earlier may not reflect the actual limits of the interment area.

050278 (71) Page 44 York Region No. 74270