LunarLight STAGE 1 & 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Transcription

1 LunarLight STAGE 1 & 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

2

3 Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Ministère du Tourisme, de la Culture et du Sport Culture Programs Unit Unité des programmes culturels Programs and Services Branch Direction des programmes et des services Culture Division Division de culture 435 S. James St., Suite rue James sud, Bureau 334 Thunder Bay, ON, P7E 6S7 Thunder Bay, ON, P7E 6S7 Telephone: Téléphone: Facsimile: Télécopieur: January 16, 2012 SkyPower 130 Adelaide Street West, 30 th Floor Toronto, ON M5H 3P5 Attn.: Grace Pasceri RE: Lunar Light Solar Farm Part of Lots 9&10, Concession 9, Geographic Township of Thurlow, County of Hastings FIT # FBZAGHN-Lunar Light F SPV MTC File HD MTC PIF P Dear Proponent: This letter constitutes the Ministry of Tourism and Culture s written comments as required by s. 22(3)(a) of O. Reg. 359/09 under the Environmental Protection Act regarding archaeological assessments undertaken for the above project. Based on the information contained in the report(s) you have submitted for this project, the Ministry believes the archaeological assessment complies with the Ontario Heritage Act's licensing requirements, including the licence terms and conditions and the Ministry's 1993 Archaeological Assessment Technical Guidelines or the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (whichever apply). Please note that the Ministry makes no representation or warranty as to the completeness, accuracy or quality of the report(s).* Archaeological Assessment Report Entitled, Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment Lunar Light Solar Farm, Part Lot 9 and 10, Concession 9, Thurlow, As in QR except

4 QR442901, Part 2 and 4 21R 1063, S/T QR Belleville, County of Hastings, Ontario, Revised Report FIT-FBZAGHN-Lunar Light F SPV , dated September 13, 2011, received by MTC Toronto Office September 19, Revised report dated December 10, 2011, received by MTC Toronto Office December 15, 2011, recommends the following: Based upon the background research of past and present conditions, and the Stage 2 archaeological assessment, the following is recommended: A Stage 3 archaeological assessment is recommended for historic farmstead site BbGi-24; With respect to the remainder of the study area, no further archaeological assessment is required. The Ministry is satisfied with these recommendations. This letter does not waive any requirements which you may have under the Ontario Heritage Act. A separate letter addressing archaeological licensing obligations under the Act will be sent to the archaeologist who completed the assessment and will be copied to you. This letter does not constitute approval of the renewable energy project. Approvals of the project may be required under other statutes and regulations. It is your responsibility to obtain any necessary approvals or licences. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Andrew Hinshelwood Archaeology Review Officer cc. Scarlett Janusas Archaeological and Heritage Consulting and Education 269 Cameron Lake Road Tobermory, ON N0H 2R0 * In no way will the Ministry be liable for any harm, damages, costs, expenses, losses, claims or actions that may result: (a) if the Report(s) or its recommendations are discovered to be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or fraudulent; or (b) from the issuance of this letter. Further measures may need to be taken in the event that additional artifacts or archaeological sites are identified or the Report(s) is otherwise found to be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or fraudulent.

5 STAGE 1 AND 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT LUNAR LIGHT SOLAR FARM Part Lot 9 and 10, Concession 9, Thurlow As in QR except QR442901, Part 2 and 4 21R 1063, S/T QR Belleville, County of Hastings, Ontario REVISED REPORT FIT-FBZAGHN-Lunar Light F SPV Prepared for SkyPower Limited and Ministry of Tourism and Culture SCARLETT JANUSAS ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HERITAGE CONSULTING AND EDUCATION 269 Cameron Lake Road Tobermory, Ontario N0H 2R0 phone and fax cell jscarlett@amtelecom.net License # P027, PIF #P December 10, 2011

6 ii Table of Contents Project Personnel Acknowledgements Executive Summary v v vi 1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT Development Context Historical Context Current Environment Prehistory of Study Area Native Historic Period Historic Period Plaques or Monuments Determination of Archaeological Potential Rationale for Fieldwork Strategy Archaeological Context Previously Known Archaeological Resources/Assessments Current Environment Existing Features Physiography, Bedrock and Topography Prehistoric Shorelines Soils Drainage Vegetation Dates of Fieldwork Unusual Physical Features Affecting Fieldwork FIELD METHDOLOGY Stage 1 (Background Research) Stage 2 (Field Assessment) RECORD OF FINDS Summary of Finds Inventory of Documentary Records Made in Field ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES 29 Tables 1. Chain of Title Artifact Summary of Metals, BbGi Artifact Summary of Ceramics, BbGi Artifact Summary of Glass, BbGi Artifact Summary of Remaining Classes, BbGi UTM Coordinates for Photographs 39

7 iii Illustrations/Figures 1. Regional Setting of Study Area Local Setting of Study Area Satellite Imagery of Study Area Study Area County of Hastings Map Map Showing Champlain s Route Through Hasting s County French Map (1632) Showing Champlain s 1615 Explorations Indian Lands in Upper Canada Indian Treaties Covering Hastings County Historic Sites and Monuments Board Plaque Commemorating Crawford Purchase, The Crawford Purchase Map of Thurlow Township Illustrated Map Section Field Identification Location of Photographs Assessment Methodology Record of Finds BbGi-24 Artifact Locations Expanded View of Historic Scatter Component A Expanded View of Historic Scatter Component B M Buffer for Stage 3 57 Images 1. Field A facing West Field A Conditions Field B facing West Field C facing South Field C facing South Field D facing West Field E facing South Field F facing South Field G facing South Field H facing South Field I facing South Field I facing North Field J facing Southeast Field K facing South Field L facing Southeast Field M facing South Field N facing North Field O facing West Field P facing Northeast Field Q facing East BbGi-4 facing North Artifacts from BbHi BbGi-24 Artifacts BbGi-24 Artifacts 70

8 Appendices A. Site Catalogue, BbGi B. Locational Information of Findspots of BbGi iv

9 v Project Personnel Project Manager Principal Archaeologist, Field Director And Report Preparation Field Director Assistant Field Director Field Assistants Historic Researcher Scarlett Janusas (P027) Susan Bazely (P020) Chelsea Robert Rachel Boniface Marian Clark John Grenville Brian Horeczy Jordon MacArthur Megan Powers Amelia Sweiger Gina Martin Acknowledgments Scarlett Janusas Archaeological and Heritage Consulting and Education extend our thanks to Ms. Grace Pasceri, SkyPower Limited, for providing data, maps and arranging permission to access the study area. Thanks are also extended to Mr. Robert von Bitter, Ministry of Tourism and Culture, for providing registered site data.

10 vi Executive Summary The proponent, SkyPower Limited., retained the services of Scarlett Janusas Archaeological and Heritage Consulting and Education (SJAHCE) to conduct a Stage 1 and 2 archaeological resource assessment on property proposed for a solar farm. Permission to access the property and to conduct all activities associated with the Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessment, including recovery of artifacts, was provided through SkyPower Limited. This property is located on part of Lot 9 and 10, Concession 9, geographic township of Thurlow, as in QR except QR442901, Part 2 and 4, 21R 10631, S/T QR124331, in the City of Belleville, County of Hastings, Ontario. The property is located south of Clearview Road, north of Bethel Road, and to the east of Kelly Road. The study property is approximately 47.4 hectares in size. The site is made up of agricultural fields, woodlots, and permanently wet meadow and wetlands. The archaeological assessment was triggered by the Green Energy Act. Background research indicated that there are no registered archaeological sites within one kilometer of the study area, or previous archaeological assessments within 50 m of the study area. There are no extant structures or ruins located on the property. A wetland is located in the large woodlot, and this extends to the adjacent meadow (permanently wet), that connects to the two small branches of a stream on the east side of the property. There are no plaques near the study area. The closest plaques are within the City of Belleville proper, speaking to its founding and early settlers. Historic records indicate that a structure may have been built by J. Deynes in The 1878 illustrated historic map indicates a farmstead owned by P. S. Deynes and one slightly to the southeast owned by J.W. Sills. The roadway is depicted on the 1878 illustrated historic map, and is considered to be an historic roadway. Soils are identified as Dummer and Bondhead sandy loams, but field assessment determined that the soils were very stoney. Topography is level to gently sloping to rolling hill and steeply sloping topography. The property exhibits high archaeological potential based on the presence of wetlands and streams, sandy loam soils, two recorded historic farmsteads on the property, and an historic roadway to the south. The Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessment of the study property was conducted under license P027 (Scarlett Janusas, PIF #P ) during July and December, The Stage 2 archaeological assessment was

11 vii conducted on July 6-8, 11-14, and December 1 st, 2011 under good to excellent assessment conditions with 80 to 100% open ground cover for ploughed areas. One historic site was located on the property near the south end of the survey area. This site was assigned the Borden number BbGi-24. The site has two components probably representing the locations of the barn/outbuilding and the house. The site, BbGi-24, is an Euro-Canadian farmstead site, with a broad date range, however, there are sufficient artifacts that predate 1900 to recommend Stage 3 assessment. These dates are based on a limited assemblage. The site, BbGi-24, is considered to be of further cultural/archaeological interest, and a Stage 3 archaeological assessment is recommended to be conducted for the site as per the 2011 Standards and Guidelines. Based upon the background research of past and present conditions, and the Stage 2 archaeological assessment, the following is recommended: A Stage 3 archaeological assessment is recommended for the historic farmstead site, BbGi-24; A partial clearance for the remainder of the property is recommended, however, a 50 m buffer must be established around the site prior to any development proceeding; With respect to the remainder of the study area, no further archaeological assessment is required. All work must be conducted per the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Ministry of Tourism and Culture 2011). This archaeological assessment has been conducted under the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Ministry of Tourism and Culture, 2011).

12 STAGE 1 AND 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT LUNAR LIGHT SOLAR FARM Part of Lots 9 and 10, Concession 9 Geographic Township of Thurlow As in QR except QR442901, Part 2 & 4, 21R 10631, S/T QR City of Belleville, County of Hastings, Ontario FIT-FBZAGHN-Lunar Light F SPV Original Report 1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT 1.1 Development Context The proponent retained the services of Scarlett Janusas Archaeological and Heritage Consulting and Education (SJAHCE) to conduct a Stage 1 and 2 archaeological resource assessment on property for a proposed solar farm. This property is located on Part of lot 9 and 10, Concession 9, in the geographic Township of Thurlow, as in QR except QR442901, Part 2 & 4, 21R 10631, S/T QR124331, in the City of Belleville, County of Hastings, Ontario (Figures 1 and 2). The study property lies north of Bethel Road, south of Clearview Road, east of Kelly Road and west of the hydro transmission corridor. The study property is approximately 47.4 hec in size. The archaeological assessment was undertaken as part of Ontario Regulation 359/09 within the Renewable Energy Approvals (REA) process under part V.0.1 of the Environmental Protection Energy Act. The Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessment of the study property was conducted under license P027, (Scarlett Janusas, PIF #P ) during July of The owner s agent, SkyPower Limited, provided permission for SJAHCE and it agents to enter the property and conduct all activities as required under the 2011 Standards and Guidelines to conduct a Stage 1 and 2 archaeological resource assessment, including recovery of artifacts. This archaeological assessment has been conducted under the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consulting Archaeologists (Ministry of Tourism and Culture, 2011).

13 2 1.2 Historical Context Current Environment The study property is currently being used as agricultural land and passive woodlot. There are no extant structures or ruins on the property. All agricultural fields were ploughed and disked for purposes of archaeological assessment. Woodlots could not be ploughed, and the wetland areas (permanently wet) were not archaeologically assessed Prehistory of Study Area Prior to any human occupation, glaciers covered much of Southern Ontario. As these glaciers retreated, they left behind large meltwater lakes and streams and a landscape of barren tundra interspersed with open forests. This environment supported large mammals such as moose, elk and large herds of caribou and left the waters teeming with fish. The first human inhabitants probably moved into this region of Ontario approximately 11,000 years ago following the retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet. Nomadic Paleo-Indian hunters usually maintained a band level society while living in small camps, moving often as they followed the various herds across the area. Their population was small and they did not stay in the same place for long, making evidence of their existence somewhat scarce. However, some Paleo-Indian campsites have been found along the shorelines of glacial waters where a number of their stone tools and weapons have been found. People of the early and middle Archaic periods (7000BC-2500BC) lived similar lives to those of the Paleo-Indians. They remained in small nomadic groups, often moving further inland during the winters as they followed the caribou herds. However, their stone tools and weapons became more advanced as the level of their skill and craftsmanship progressed, often adding ornamentation and intricate carved details to their items. By the late Archaic period (2500BC- 1000BC) they were involved in trade networks for sought after raw materials such as tobacco and also engaged in burial ceremonies as evidenced in the discovery of several mortuary sites in nearby Prince Edward County. Although daily life probably remained relatively the same, there were at least two changes earmarking the subsequent early Woodland period ( BC). During this period, ceramics appear to have come into use and very elaborate burial practices made an appearance that included the burial of precious and ornate objects with the dead. The Middle Woodland period saw an increase in the trading of these objects and limited agricultural practices coupled with longer site occupations made an appearance during the transitional Woodland period ( AD).

14 3 During the Late Woodland or Iroquoian period (900AD-1650AD), there was a major shift to agriculture as well as the establishment of more permanent camps and villages. The social structure of communities also changed with the development of political systems based on families and the need for alliances with other groups of people. The early villages were small with a series of longhouses surrounded by wooden palisades. Later villages housed as many as two thousand people and had very entrenched political structure. It was a group of Iroquoian speaking people who, by the transitional Woodland period, occupied the Bay of Quinte area Native Historic Period Native life changed dramatically with the arrival of the European explorers. Explorer Jacques Cartier was the first known European to have come down the St. Lawrence toward the Great Lakes. Memoirs of his 1534 voyage make reference to his meetings with native people along his route. But the first white man to enter the Bay of Quinte area was probably Samuel de Champlain who, in 1615, traveled with a group of guides through the lakes of present day Hastings, Durham, Northumberland and Peterborough. At that time, Iroquois speaking Hurons lived along the north shore of Lake Ontario including Hastings County and the Bay of Quinte area where they built villages and grew fruits and vegetables as they established themselves as the main inhabitants of the area. Bands from the Iroquois Confederacy lived south of Lake Ontario but often came north of the lake for summer hunting. The many favourable reports from Champlain s latest trip to the new land were certain to bring other European entrepreneurs. As early as 1608, Champlain made efforts to build the first European settlement at Quebec, thereby paving the way for the fiercely competitive fur trade wars that would eventually ensue between the French, English and Natives. During the mid-1600s, both the English and French entered the Toronto area and engaged the area Indians in the fur trade, resulting in the Iroquois siding with the English and the Huron with the French. As a result, many Indian wars erupted as the two sides battled for fur trade supremacy. Tension reached a peak in 1649 and, after years of bloody wars between the two groups, the Iroquois dispersed the Huron and other tribes in southern Ontario, some returning to upper New York State. With the Huron gone, an Ojibwa band known as the Mississauga, moved into the Hastings area and continued involvement in the fur trade. Once the British destroyed the main French trading post at Toronto in July 1759, the association between the French and the Lake Ontario Indians all but ended. Having been a prisoner at Fort Frontenac (now Kingston, Ontario) during the Seven Years War, Captain Michael Grass of New York reported favourable settlement conditions at the Bay of Quinte to Sir Guy Carlteton who was the Governor-General of the Canadian Colonies. Carleton then asked Governor Haldimand at Montreal if the bands of Mississauga natives living along the Quinte

15 4 and Lake Ontario shores would be willing to sell their land for Loyalist settlement. Sir John Johnson, the new chief Superintendent of Indian Affairs, approached the Mississauga who agreed to the request and negotiations began. As Johnson had more pressing affairs, actual negotiations were left to Captain William Redford Crawford, a young officer recently brought into Indian Affairs. In October 1783, Crawford traveled to Carleton Island at the east end of Lake Ontario where he assembled a council of Mississauga and Onondaga chiefs as well as the Mohawk Chief Mynas from Kanesatake. On October 9, 1783, Crawford reported that the Mississauga agreed to sell all lands from Toniato or Onagara River to a river in the Bay of Quinte within eight leagues of the bottom of the Bay including all the islands, extending back from the lake so far as a man can travel in a day. This represented lands along the Lake Ontario shore from the Trent River to the Gananoque River. In return, the Mississauga would receive clothing for all families, guns for those who had none, some powder and ball, twelve laced hats and enough red cloth for twelve coats. The agreement is today referred to as the First Crawford Purchase. Also at that time, a plot of land east of the future Thurlow Township was carved out and reserved for Joseph Brant s Mohawk Indians. His Indian name being Thy-en-den-aga, this reserved land eventually became Tyendinaga Township on the eastern border of Thurlow. However, Brant chose to take most of his followers to other lands reserved for him at present day Brantford, leaving his cousin, Isaac Brant, to settle the reserve at Quinte Historic Period The study area lies in the northwest corner of the current City of Belleville adjoining the border with Huntington Township and comprises part of lots 9 and 10 in the 9 th concession of the former township of Thurlow. The old township is bound on the north by the former Huntington Township, west by the former Sidney Township, east by Tyendinaga Township and south by the Bay of Quinte. The Township of Thurlow is one of the oldest settled municipalities on the Bay and is named for Lord William Thurlow, the Chancellor of Britain at the time of the American Revolution and an ardent supporter of the Loyalist movement. On January 1, 1998, the entire township of Thurlow amalgamated with the City of Belleville and became known as Thurlow Ward in that city s political system. Originally the site of a Native settlement known as Asukhknosk, Belleville is the political seat for Hastings County and the centre for Ontario s Bay of Quinte Region. The name Belleville honours Lady Arabella Gore, wife of Lieutenant- Governor Sir Francis Gore, who visited the area with her husband in The Moira River runs through the Thurlow section of Belleville in a southwesterly direction, emptying into the Bay of Quinte. The irrigation provided by the many tributary streams of the Moira account for the county s excellent agricultural reputation. The Moira was originally named Sagonashkokan by the Mississauga natives and later referred to as Sagonaska by the United Empire Loyalist settlers. It was also known as Singleton s Creek and Meyer s Creek

16 5 before finally being named after the Earl of Moira who afterwards became the Marquis of Hastings. During the mid-1700s, what is now Ontario was still part of the Province of Quebec. With the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1763 there came the end of all French activity in the area and the Crown proceeded to secure lands in Ontario for future settlement. The history of settlement in Hastings County, and hence the Township of Thurlow, must begin with the American Revolution from which emerged an important part of Canada s roots. By September 1777, troops loyal to the British Crown had been gradually forced back to the border of the Canadian colonies and to the east coast, making an exodus all the more imminent. It is estimated that, in July 1783, over 12,000 Loyalists left New York, some going to Bermuda, the British West Indies and England. Many, however, traveled to new homes in Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick with the future Hastings County becoming the destination of choice for a large number. Crawford negotiated the sale of lands from the native people. Surveying of the Crawford lands began in the spring of 1784 and, within three years, most lots in the first five townships had all been assigned. Flotillas of Loyalist ships began arriving in the spring of 1784 and, in July, Sir John Johnson reported that he had placed nearly four thousand people on their lots. He also reported the settlement of the Indian reservation. But, with many Loyalists still waiting for land, new townships needed to be surveyed and, in 1787, 8 th Town (Sidney Township), 9 th Town (Thurlow Township) and 10 th Town (Richmond Township) were the last townships surveyed in the circle around the Bay of Quinte. Townships along the shores of Lake Ontario and the Bay of Quinte became known as the front by which many still refer to them today. Lt. Louis Kotte, an officer and surveyor with the British Surveyor-General s office, surveyed Thurlow. The new township was nine concessions deep, with thirtyone lots across each concession, and an added broken front of twenty-seven lots along the shore of the bay. At the time of the survey, all lots in the first two concessions were already granted out to men from the King s Royal New York Regiment of which a number were absentee owners who never occupied their land. As persecution continued in the States long after the Revolutionary War ended, Loyalist refugees continued to flow into the township and it would be another decade before Thurlow lots were taken up, the final surveys being completed in Between 1787 and 1792, the government provided the settlers with provisions and made Peter Van Alstyne the quartermaster for the whole Quinte area in charge of government stores. After 1792, the government supplied no provisions other than land. On July 24, 1788, the Governor-General to the Crown, Lord Dorchester, issued a proclamation dividing Quebec into a series of four geographic regions. The future Hastings County, including all of the former Township of Thurlow, fell into District #2 to be known as Mecklenburg District, extending from the Trent River down to Gananoque. In 1792 the Province of Quebec was divided into Upper

17 6 and Lower Canada and Lord John Graves Simcoe assumed the government of Upper Canada, now Ontario. At the first session of the first parliament of Upper Canada, the Mecklenburg District became known as the Midland District to be governed from Kingston. A further proclamation issued at Kingston on July 16, 1792 divided Upper Canada into nineteen counties of which Hastings was the eleventh. In 1798, the Midland District was reorganized to include the counties of Hastings, Lennox, Addington, Prince Edward and Frontenac. As populations grew, new districts were added and, in 1837, the Victoria District which would include Hastings. Victoria District existed until 1849 when the district system was abolished and each county became responsible for its own government. The lack of roads throughout the Midland District made crossing the rivers very difficult and access to the back lots of the new townships nearly impossible. An old Indian path along the shoreline of the lake, later called Lakeshore Road, was the only passable road in existence. In October 1796, Governor Simcoe ordered that a horse path running from York (Toronto) to the Trent River be explored and surveyed, a task carried out by surveyor, Augustus Jones. For the most part, this horse path was an often broken rough dirt road forged by travelers transporting cattle to new settlement areas in the eastern part of Upper Canada. By 1800, the multiple sections of the horse path had been connected by newly constructed dirt roads. However, during the winter, much of the road was impassable, making access to the new townships still very difficult. The horse path would eventually become King s Highway #2 with a portion of it being the present day Dundas Street in Belleville. Thurlow Township had four distinct periods of settlement, the first being the arrival of the Loyalists during the decade from 1784 to1794. The second involved the sons and daughters of Loyalists whom Governor Simcoe decreed in 1792 would be entitled to their own grants of two hundred acres each either upon marriage or reaching the age of twenty-one years. If they did not want to claim their grants they were free to sell them. This resulted in a large number of lots being cleared and settled in the years after the initial Loyalist arrivals. The third settlement period occurred between 1800 and 1812 when a wave of American settlers entered the township wishing to escape the unrest that was building in the years up to the War of And the fourth period involved the many British and European settlers who came between 1812 and In 1830, the population of Thurlow stood at 2,444 and climbed to 2,649 by By that time, any empty lots were either Crown or Clergy Reserves or were held by absentee military officers or officials. The study area is made up of part of the east and west halves of lot 9 and part of the west half of lot 10 in the 9 th concession of the Township of Thurlow. Initially, all of lot 9 was Clergy Reserve land as designated on April 16, Clergy Reserves were tracts of land in Upper Canada reserved for the support of the Protestant clergy by the Constitution of Chaired by the Anglican Bishop of Quebec, The Clergy Corporation managed the reserves. The Constitution

18 7 directed that 1/7 of all Crown lands be reserved for this purpose and that all revenue from the lands go to the Protestant Church of England. The Clergy Reserves were a serious obstacle to economic development and, in 1840, the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada passed a law to sell them. However, the British government overturned this law and the reserves were not removed from church ownership until At that time, the revenues from the lands were transferred to the government. On October 5, 1840, the Clergy sold the west half of lot 9 to brothers Samuel and Philip Alkembrack ( Alcombrack in the sale papers - #4038). The Alkembracks were originally part of the Palatine German migration to America in the early 1700s, eventually settling in Duchess County, New York. About 1808, Samuel and Philip s parents joined another small migration of young German families who went north to Quebec and then to the Napanee area of Fredericksburg where most of their children were born. Born in 1805, Samuel Alkenbrack married the former Eliza Garrison at Thurlow on October 6, 1840, just one day after purchasing the study area lot from the Clergy. In Thurlow, they raised two sons and three daughters. Philip Alkenbrack was born in 1809 and, on January 11, 1842, married Sophia Haight with whom he raised six sons and two daughters. It is difficult to pinpoint the brothers use of the study lands. The Alkembrack family held additional lots across the ninth concession road in Huntington Township, two of which Samuel and his family occupied and farmed for many years. Philip and his family left Thurlow in 1846 and settled back in Napanee where they remained until Philip s death in The brothers sold the property on April 1, 1848 to John Wilson Gordonier who owned the adjoining farm to the west (Assignment #7547). Given that they did not take out any mortgages and both commenced farming on other lots so shortly after attaining ownership of the study area it is unlikely that they ever, in any way, occupied the land. Born in 1824, John Wilson Gordonier was the grandson of United Empire Loyalist Henry Gordonier who settled in nearby Ernestown. On March 12, 1844, he married Eleanor (Ellen) Phillips, a daughter of Thurlow resident and United Empire Loyalist James Phillips and his wife Mary Dafoe. John Wilson Gordonier grew up on his parents farm located immediately west of the study area on the east half of lot 8 in the 9 th concession. He purchased the west half of lot 9 four years after his marriage, no doubt with the intention of homesteading. He immediately took out a sizeable mortgage indicating a probable desire to improve his land. However, in 1857, he moved his family to North Gwillimbury Township in York County and sold his land in Thurlow the following year. There is no concrete evidence that he ever occupied or improved the study area in any way. The 1851 census shows he and his wife living with his parents on the farm next door. It is however possible that he worked at clearing at least some of the study area lands and planted crops in an effort to provide for his family. On January 19, 1856, John Wilson Gordonier sold the west half of lot 9 to Philip Roblin Palmer (Assignment #7548). It was Palmer who applied for and received a Patent from the Crown for the land. The Patent was registered December 31,

19 The Palmer family had a long history in Hastings County and counted many successful farmers and blacksmiths among their ranks. Since at least the late 1850s, Palmer lived with his wife Lydia and their son and daughter on a ninety-acre ( hectares) farm down the road at lot 13 in the 9 th concession where he continued to live until his death. He also owned a twentyfive acre ( hectares) parcel across the road on lot eleven of the 8 th concession as well as the acreage at lot 9. He may have planted crops on the study lands to supplement his farm profits or could possibly have rented out the property. Land records indicate that he never took out any mortgages against the land and only owned it for five years. The first indication of any real improvement to the west half of lot 9 came after Philip Roblin Palmer sold the land on March 27, 1863 to Jacob Denyes who had been farming for some years across the road on lots six and seven in the 8 th concession (Deed #529). He took out a mortgage at the time of purchasing the study lands and then died just a few months later, bequeathing the west half of lot 9 to his son, Robert Sills Denyes (Will #554). Robert Sills Denyes was born at Thurlow in 1838, the seventh of eleven children born to another Palatine German descendant, Jacob Denyes and his wife Sarah Lake. On January 29, 1867, he married Jacobiah Lacey of Sidney Township with whom he raised a family. Upon inheriting the land, he assumed the mortgage that his father had secured before his death and built what appeared to be the first home on the west half of lot 9. On April 21, 1873, Robert Sills Denyes sold the land to his brother, Phillip Sidney Denyes who farmed it until selling it on March 15, 1882 to John Solomon Vermilyea who was the nephew of his sister Elizabeth and her husband, Ashael Vermilyea (Deed #4478 and #4524). John and his wife, the former Irene Harriet Reid, had no children and lived on the farm until December 21, 1900 when they sold it to Charles Mitchell (Deed #339). Charles and his wife Melissa sold it August 7, 1906 to Edward Carter who sold it October 10, 1919 to William Burton Tufts (Deed #1829 and #7915). Tufts and his wife Victoria stayed on the farm until March 26, 1931 when they sold it to Milton Robson whose family owned the east half of the lot (Deed #8048). Although early roots were somewhat different, the east half of lot 9 and the adjoining west part of lot 10 in the 9 th concession eventually followed similar paths of settlement. While lot 9 was reserved for the clergy on April 16, 1795, Joseph Wright applied for a free grant of the entire two hundred acres ( hectares) of lot 10 which he was awarded just a few days later on April 21 st. Wright was a relative of Sophia Haight, the wife of Philip Alkembrack on the west half of lot 9. He was given the Patent for all of lot 10 on May 17, He kept the lot until March 10, 1818 when he sold it to John Ellis (Deed #1900).

20 9 Although Ellis kept the property for twenty-five years, there is little indication from records that he ever occupied it. He came from a Loyalist family and lived in the South Marysburgh area of Prince Edward County where he had a wife and family. He appears never to have left Marysburgh and died there in Land records indicate that John Ellis never mortgaged or attempted to secure any kind of financing for lot 10 and he did not appear to have owned any other property in Thurlow. Finally, on April 2, 1833, he sold the entire lot to Robert Sills of Thurlow (Deed #2176). On June 29, 1846, Philip Alkembrack purchased the east half of lot 9 in a sale of clergy lots and then sold it on April 1, 1848 to Robert Sills. Sills received a Crown Patent for this land on October 18, He now owned the east half of lot 9 and all of lot 10. The Sills family would own the merged land for the next three generations. Robert Sills was a son of John Conrad Sills and his wife Sarah Blanchard of Fredericksburg. Conrad was a United Empire Loyalist and served with the King s Royal Regiment of New York. Robert was born July 17, 1803 in Fredericksburg and, on January 26, 1825, married Eunice Ann Cadman with whom he would have eight children. Their eldest son William would eventually become the first reeve of Thurlow as well as Thurlow s school superintendent and a parson of the Wesleyan Methodist Church. Robert Sills built a homestead on the east half of lot 9 and successfully farmed until selling it along with the west 47 ½ acres ( hectares) of lot 10 to his son, John Wesley Sills, on April 20, 1873 (Deed #1445). John Wesley Sills and his wife, Mary Adelaide Massey, appear to have made some improvements to the land, having secured a mortgage in 1878 and another in The remainder of Robert Sills land he sold to his son, Benson Smith Sills. However, this land is not a part of the study area. After Robert Sills died in 1884, there was considerable dispute over his sizeable estate for which his children went to court. A vesting order from the court registered April 21, 1885 put the land into the name of Nelson William Sills who was Robert s second eldest son (Order #5553). Nelson, his wife Roseanna Phillips and their four children lived on the farm until Nelson s death on March 13, 1896, at which time the farm was bequeathed to Nelson s youngest son, Everett Sills (Will #877). Roseanna Phillips Sills remained on the farm with her son Everett and his family until her death in Everett and his wife, Magdalena (Maggie) Jones, lived on the farm until January 24, 1920 when they sold it to Lewis Robson (Deed #5536). Lewis Robson was born February 6, 1862 in London, England and came to Canada in the mid-1880s. On January 12, 1891, he married Ida May Carney in Picton and raised a family of four sons and one daughter. Upon his death in 1942, he left the farm to his two youngest sons, Milton Harold Robson and Roscoe Lewis Robson (Will#8062). Milton Robson had owned the west half of lot

21 10 9 since Roscoe Lewis Robson was a Thurlow Township reeve from 1939 to 1942 and the Member of Parliament for Hastings East from 1943 to Plaques or Monuments There are no historic plaques located on or near the study area. The plaque regarding the Crawford Purchase is discussed in the following section as it pertains to the area in general Determination of Archaeological Potential There are a number of variables that are evaluated when determining archaeological potential. These include: presence of previously identified archaeological sites, water sources (primary, secondary, features indicating past water sources, accessible or inaccessible shoreline), elevated topography, pockets of sandy soil in heavy soil or rocky ground, distinctive land formations, resource areas (food or medicinal plants, scarce raw materials, early Euro- Canadian industry), non-aboriginal settlement (monuments, cemeteries), areas of early Euro-Canadian settlement; early historic transportation routes; listed or designated heritage property; and properties with archaeological potential as identified by local histories or informants Rationale for Fieldwork Strategy The study area exhibits archaeological potential based on the proximity of a wetland, permanent wet meadow, and two small tributaries of a stream. In addition, potential exists for historic resources based on the early historic transportation routes and the historic records indicating the presence of an historic farmstead on the property. The latter was supported by local informants who lived adjacent to the property (name withheld). With the exception of areas of extreme slope (20 plus), and permanently wet areas, all other areas were subject to Stage 2 archaeological assessment.

22 Archaeological Context Previously Known Archaeological Resources/Assessments There are no known registered archaeological sites within one kilometer of the study area ( May 2011 Robert von Bitter, Site Data Coordinator, Ministry of Tourism and Culture 2011b). There are no archaeological assessments within 50 m of the study area Current Environment Existing Features The existing features include wire and post fencing surrounding the property, hedgerows and wire and post fencing separating agricultural fields, and large deposits of rock from attempts at field clearing. The local informant indicated that they routinely brought stone pickers in, but that the rocks continued to surface in the fields Physiography, Bedrock and Topography The study area lies in the physiographic region known as the Peterborough Drumlin Field. To the south of the study area is the Napanee Plain. The Peterborough Drumlin field is described by Chapman and Putnam (1973) as a rolling till plain. The area is descried as the triple handicap of stoniness, steep slopes and wet swampy hollows. Trenton limestone is the underlying bedrock, and the topography of the study area is a rolling hill topography with areas of level topography. There are areas of steep slope located along the west and northwest areas of the study area which exceed 20 degrees in slope Prehistoric Shorelines There are no prehistoric shorelines near the study area Soils There are two main soil types identified for the study area: Dummer sandy loam, shallow phase, and Bondhead sandy loam. Bondhead loam is also identified as slightly stoney. The Stage 2 assessment indicated this was not accurate and that the entire study area was dominated by very rocky soils (Photograph 1). In addition, the wetland was not indicated, nor was the permanently wet meadow area. At the time of the soils assessment, this area was likely covered in forest and accurate soil regimes were not identified.

23 Drainage There is a permanent wetland located approximately in the center of the woodlot and it extends into the wet meadow (permanently wet) to the east. There are two tributaries of a stream that feed into these two wetlands Vegetation The majority of the study area is agricultural fields, but the woodlots are composed primarily of hardwood trees, shrubs, vines, and typicaly eastern Ontario understorey Dates of Fieldwork Field assessment was conducted on July 6-8th, th, and December 1 st, As per the Ministry of Tourism Standards and Guidelines (2011a: Section 2.1, Standard 3) the field work was conducted under the appropriate lighting and weather conditions Unusual Physical Features Affecting Fieldwork There are no unusual physical features that affected the fieldwork.

24 Field Methodology 2.1 Stage 1 (Background Research) As part of the background research, an examination of the following was conducted: the Site Registration Database (maintained by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture) was examined for the presence of known archaeological sites in the project area and within a radius of one kilometer of the project area by contacting the data coordinator of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture; reports of previous archaeological fieldwork within a radius of 50 m around the property; topographic maps at 1: (recent and historical) or the most detailed map available; historic settlement maps such as the historic atlases; available archaeological management/master plans or archaeological potential mapping; commemorative plaques or monuments; and, any other avenues that assist in determining archaeological potential were examined. No property inspection was undertaken for Stage 1 archaeological assessment as the Stage 1 was conducted concurrently with the Stage 2 assessment. 2.2 Stage 2 (Field Assessment) The following table identifies the standard within the Ministry of Tourism and Cultures Standards and Guidelines document (2011a) and how they were met with respect to Stage 2 Field Assessment. Standard Section Property Survey 2.1, Standard 1 2.1, Standard 2a Standard Survey the entire property, including lands immediately adjacent to built structures (both intact and ruins), excepting those areas identified by Section 2.1, Standard 2 Survey is not required where: a. lands are evaluated as having no or low potential based on the Stage 2 identification of physical features of no or low archaeological potential, including but not limited to: permanently wet areas, exposed bedrock, steep slopes (greater than 20 ) except in Action Entire property surveyed, except those areas identified in Section 2.1, Standard 2. Areas in excess of 20 slope and permanent wetlands and permanent wet meadows were not assessed

25 14 Standard Section 2.1, Standard 3 2.1, Standard 4 Standard locations likely to contain pictographs or petroglyphs b. lands are evaluated as having no or low potential based on the Stage 2 identification of extensive and deep land alteration that has severely damaged the integrity of archaeological resources c. lands have been recommended to not require Stage 2 assessment by a Stage 1 report, where the ministry has accepted the Stage 1 report into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports d) lands are designated for forest management activity without potential for impacts to archaeological sites, as determined through the Stage 1 forest management plans process (see section 1.4.3) e) lands are formally prohibited from alteration such as areas in an environmental easement, restrictive setback, or prohibitive zoning, where the constraint prohibits any form of soil disturbance. (Open space and other designations where allowable uses include land alterations must be surveyed.) f) it has been confirmed that the lands are being transferred to a public land-holding body, e.g., municipality, conservation authority, provincial agency. (This does not apply to lands for which a future transfer is contemplated but not yet confirmed.) Survey the property when weather and lighting conditions permit good visibility of land features Using the Global Positioning System (GPS) according to the requirements set out in section 5, record the locations of the following: all diagnostic artifacts, sufficient artifacts to provide an estimate of the limits of the archaeological site, and all fixed reference landmarks Action July 6 th was hot and overcast with a high of 30 C; July 7 th was hot and sunny with a high of 26 C; July 8 th was hot and sunny with a high of 31 C; July 11 th was hazy with a high of 31 C; July 12 th was sunny with some clouds and a high of 28 C; July 13 th was sunny with a high of 25 C; July 14 th was sunny with a high of 31 C, July 15 th was sunny with a high of 30 C, and December 1 st was sunny with cloudy periods and temperatures ranging from 2 to 5 C. using a GARMIN GPSmap 60CSx, with an accuracy of 2 m or less, recorded position of all diagnostic artifacts, sufficient artifacts to provide estimate of site boundaries, all fixed landmarks. 2.1, Map all field activities (e.g., extent and No fixed landmarks, survey stakes or

26 15 Standard Section Standard 5 2.1, Standard 6 2.1, Standard 7 Pedestrian Survey 2.1.1, Standard , Standard , Standard , Standard , Standard , Standard , Standard , Standard 8 Standard location of survey methods, survey intervals) in reference to fixed landmarks, survey stakes and development markers. Mapping must be accurate to 5 m or to the best scale available. Use any mapping system that achieves this accuracy. Photo-document examples of all field conditions encountered Do not use heavy machinery (e.g., gas-powered augers, backhoes) to remove soil, except when removing sterile or recent fill covering areas where it has been determined that there is the potential for deeply buried or sealed archaeological sites Actively or recently cultivated agricultural land must be subject to pedestrian survey. Land to be surveyed must be recently ploughed. Use of chisel ploughs is not acceptable. In heavy clay soils ensure furrows are disked after ploughing to break them up further. Land to be surveyed must be weathered by one heavy rainfall or several light rains to improve the visibility of archaeological resources. Provide direction to the contractor undertaking the ploughing to plough deep enough to provide total topsoil exposure, but not deeper than previous ploughing. At least 80% of the ploughed ground surface must be visible. If surface visibility is below 80% (e.g., due to crop stubble, weeds, young crop growth), ensure the land is re-ploughed and weathered before surveying. Space survey transects at maximum intervals of 5 m When archaeological resources are found, decrease survey transects to 1 m intervals over a minimum of a 20 m radius around the find to determine whether it is an isolated find or part of a larger scatter. Continue working outward at this interval until the full extent of the surface scatter has been defined. Collect all formal artifact types and diagnostic categories. For 19th century archaeological sites, also collect all refined Action development markers on study area lands. Done No heavy machinery was used during the Stage 2 assessment Done All lands subject to survey that could be ploughed, were ploughed prior to assessment. No chisel ploughs were used. Weathered by at least one heavy rainfall. Done Between 80 to 100% of the ground surface was visible. Survey intervals were spaced at 5 m or less. Done Done formal and diagnostic categories collected, refined ceramics collected, sufficient material collected.

27 16 Standard Section 2.1.1, Standard 9 Test Pit Survey 2.1.2, Standard , Standard , Standard , Standard , Standard , Standard Standard Standard Standard 9 Standard ceramic sherds (or, for larger sites collect a sufficient sample to form the basis for accurate dating). Based on professional judgment, strike a balance between gathering enough artifacts to document the archaeological site and leaving enough in place to relocate the site if it is necessary to conduct further assessment Test pit survey only on terrain where ploughing is not possible or viable, as in the following examples: wooded areas, pasture with high rock content abandoned farmland with heavy brush and weed growth, orchards and vineyards that cannot be strip ploughed (planted in rows 5 m apart or less), gardens, parkland or lawns, any of which will remain in use for several years after the survey properties where existing landscaping or infrastructure would be damaged. The presence of such obstacles must be documented in sufficient detail to demonstrate that ploughing or cultivation is not viable. Test pits were spaced at maximum intervals of 5 m (400 test pits per hectare) in areas less than 300 m from any feature of archaeological potential. Space test pits at maximum intervals of 10 m (100 test pits per hectare) in areas more than 300 m from any feature of archaeological potential Test pit to within 1 m of built structures (both intact and ruins), or until test pits show evidence of recent ground disturbance Ensure that test pits are at least 30 cm in diameter. Excavate each test pit, by hand, into the first 5 cm of subsoil and examine the pit for stratigraphy, cultural features, or evidence of fill. Screen soil through mesh no greater than 6 mm. Collect all artifacts according to their associated test pit Backfill all test pits unless instructed not to by the landowner. Action Sufficient artifacts left in field, at least 100 additional artifacts (ceramics, glass). The areas subject to test pitting were wooded areas. Done Not applicable. No built intact or ruins on the property. Done Done, no complex stratigraphy, cultural features or evidence of fill present. 6 mm mesh used. No positive test pits. All test pits backfilled.

28 17 Figure 14 identifies the fields and the following describes each field assessed. Field A is a ploughed field that rises in elevation from east to west. It had 85 95% open ground cover. The ground was a sandy loam and very rocky (Photographs 1 and 2). Field B is a ploughed field that rise in elevation from east to west. It has a gently rolling hill topography and observation conditions were 85-95% open ground. It was also a very rocky field (Photograph 3). Field C is a ploughed field with 85 95% open ground cover. It has a rolling hill topography and is very rocky, in places the ground is almost solid rock (Photographs 4 and 5). Field D is a wet meadow with a stream entering the property from the east end. The wet meadow is permanently wet and extends into the woodlot along the west side of the property (Photograph 6). The wet meadow was not assessed, as it is permanently wet. Field E is a ploughed field with a rolling hill topography and very stoney (Photograph7). Observation conditions were from %. Field F is a ploughed field with a rolling hill topography and very stoney (Photograph 8). Observation conditions were from %. Field G is a ploughed field with a rolling hill topography and very stoney (Photograph 9). Observation conditions were from %. Field H is a ploughed field with a gently rolling hill topography and very stoney (Photograph 10). Observation conditions were from %. Field I was a very large field in a rolling hill topography (Photographs 11 and 12). The woodlot shown in the satellite imagery was removed in 2010 by the property owner, and the entire area had been ploughed. Observation conditions were %. Field I was the location of the historic site. Field J was not ploughed, and consisted of an area of natural regeneration. It was also used by the owner as a junkyard for various machinery (Photograph 13). Field K is a woodlot that extended between fields C, D and E, as large treelines. The wet meadow extended into this area as a permanently wet area. This area was subject to a test pitting methodology (Photograph 14).

29 18 Field L is a woodlot with a steep slope running through the area on a diagonal. Areas that were less than 20 degrees in slope were subject to test pitting in five metre intervals (Photograph 15). Field M is a ploughed field on a level topography. The fields were rocky and observation conditions ranged from 90 to 100% (Photograph 16). Field N is a ploughed field on a level topography. The fields were rocky and observation conditions ranged from 90 to 100% (Photograph 17). Field O is a woodlot with a steep slope running diagonally through the field in excess of 20 degrees. Those areas of less than 20 degree slope were subject to test pitting in five metre intervals (Photograph 18). Field P is a ploughed field. The soils in the bottom lands are clay and wet, and there are two hills with sandy till and cobbles 10 to 20 cms in diameter (Photograph 20). Field Q is a ploughed field. The soils are clay with stone cobbles, and the topography is generally level with the occasional small knoll. There are also some low, wet areas (Photograph 21). Figure 15 illustrates areas of low archaeological potential that were not assessed. These include areas where slopes were in excess of 20 degrees, and areas that were permanently wet. Approximately 70% of the property was subject to pedestrian transect methodology conducted in 5 metre intervals. Approximately 150% of the property was subject to a test pitting methodology conducted in 5 metre intervals. Approximately 15% of the property was not assessed due to low archaeological potential as determined during the Stage 2 archaeological assessment. This was further subdivided into areas of steep slope (5%) and permanent wetlands (10%). In addition, the area of the historic scatter was subject to pedestrian transect conducted in 1 m intervals to determine limits of the historic scatter. This was conducted in addition to the standardized 5 metre pedestrian transect interval and took place over approximately 8% of the total study area. Section 2.2 of the Standards and Guidelines (MTC 2011a) sets out standards to determine the need for Stage 3 archaeological assessment. Standard Standard Section Section 2.2, Analysis, Determining Requirement for Stage 2 Assessment 2.2, Standard 1 Artifacts, groups of artifacts or archaeological sites meeting the following criteria require Stage 3 assessment Action

30 19 Standard Standard Action Section 2.2., Standard 1a Pre-contact diagnostic artifacts or a Not applicable concentration of artifacts (or both) 2.2, Standard 1a, i Within a 10 x 10 m pedestrian survey area 2.2, Standard 1a, i, (1) At least one diagnostic artifact or fire cracked Not applicable rock in addition to two or more non-diagnostic artifacts 2.2, Standard 1a, i, (2) In areas east or north of the Niagara Not applicable Escarpment, at least five non-diagnostic artifacts 2.2, Standard 1a, i, (3) In areas west of the Niagara Escarpment, at Not applicable least 10 non-diagnostic artifacts 2.2, Standard 1a, ii Within a 10 x 10 m test pitting area 2.2, Standard 1a, ii, (1) At least one diagnostic artifact from combined Not applicable test pit and test unit excavations 2.2, Standard 1a, ii, (2) At least five non-diagnostic artifacts from Not applicable combined test pit and test unit excavations. 2.2, Standard 1b Single examples of artifacts of special interest 2.2, Standard 1b, i Aboriginal ceramics Not applicable 2.2, Standard 1b, ii Exotic or period specific cherts Not applicable 2.2, Standard 1b, iii An isolated Paleo-Indian or Early Archaic Not applicable diagnostic artifact 2.2, Standard 1c Post-contact archaeological sites containing at least 20 artifacts that date the period of use to before Yes, more than 20, recommend Stage 3 2.2, Standard 1d Twentieth century archaeological sites, where Not applicable background documentation or archaeological features indicate possible cultural heritage value or interest 2.2, Standard 1e The presence of human remains Not applicable

31 RECORD OF FINDS According to Standard (MTC 2011a) the following is required and has been satisfied or found to be non-applicable. Standard Detail Action Standard 1a A general description of the types of artifacts and features that were identified. No evidence of any foundations or other features, see Appendix A (catalogue for types of artifacts and Tables 2-5 for breakdown of types of artifacts (ceramics, window glass, bottle glass, nails, brick, etc.). SJAHCE had been informed by one of the residents (name withheld) that his back gate used to be the farm laneway for the house that stood on the property, but that the farmhouse and barn had been long demolished before he moved into the current house (about 15 years ago). The 7.8.2, Standard 1b 7.8.2, Standard 1c 7.8.2, Standard 1d 7.8.2, Standard , Standard 3 A general description of the area within which artifacts and features were identified including the spatial extent of the area and any relative variations in artifact density A catalogue and description of all artifacts retained. A description of the artifacts and features left in the field, nature of material, frequency, other notable traits. Provide an inventory of the documentary record generated in the field. Submit information detailing exact site locations on the property, separately from the project report. scatter is located north of this gateway. An historic scatter. The historic scatter was located at the south end of the study area, north of relatively recent residences. Component A is distributed over a gentle slope, and Component B is located on a steeper slope and north of the scatter. Component A is approximately 60 by 70 m in area, and Component B is approximately 20 by 12 m in area. There is a distance of approximately 250m between them. Component B has considerably less artifacts, and the owner indicated that this area was where the old barn had been, and that Component A is where the house once stood. Appendix A. The materials recovered include formal and diagnostic categories, and refined ceramics. Artifacts not recovered include glass, small sized ceramics, non- diagnostic material, informal material. A count of the material left behind was not made, but it is estimated to be approximately artifacts. Digital Photographs of field conditions and site. Field notes of field conditions and site. Daily Record Log of personnel, weather conditions, hours, field conditions. GPS Coordinates of four corners of site, and one central location are West: 18T E, N; East: 18T E, N; South: 18T E, N; North: 18T E, N; Central: 18T E; N. This information is excluded for MTC and provided in the supplementary documentation. Included for client. Excluded for MTC and presented separately.

32 21 Standard Detail Action 7.8.2, Standard 3a A table of GPS readings for locations of all archaeological sites Only one site located with two components , Standard , Standard 3b Maps showing detailed site location information. See Illustration section (MTC is provided this information as supplementary documentation) Figure 15 illustrates the location of photographs of the study area. 3.1 Summary of Finds Only one historic site was located, BbGi-24, which had two components, A and B. Photograph 19 illustrates the field conditions of the site. Photographs 22 and 23 illustrate a representative sample of the site assemblage. The artifacts have been packed in one box which measures 40.5 by 34.5 by 32 cms. Long term storage and care of the artifacts will be conducted by SJAHCE at the offices of SJAHCE until such time as a suitable repository is located for these artifacts. 3.2 Inventory of Documentary Records Made In Field Documents made in the field include: GPS readings Daily record log Photograph log Field notes.

33 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS The following illustrates the standards and actions regarding analysis and conclusions. Standard Description Action (Analysis and Conclusions) Standard 1 Summarize all findings from the Stage 2 survey, or state that no archaeological sites were identified. 7.8., Standard 2 For each archaeological site, provide the following analysis and conclusions: 7.8., Standard 2a 7.8., Standard 2b A preliminary determination, to the degree possible, of the age and cultural affiliation of any archaeological sites identified A comparison against the criteria in 2 Stage 2: Property Assessment to determine whether further assessment is necessary. One site, two components, registered as BbGi-24 Euro-Canadian, farmstead, broad date range is 1780-present, 24 artifacts date to between 1830 and 1875, 30 artifacts dates to between 1796 and the present, 51 artifacts date to between 1796 and 1930, and only one artifact dates to between 1780 and The majority of the site falls into a date range of between 1875 to 1930, however, there are sufficient artifacts that predate 1900 to recommend Stage 3 assessment. These dates are based on an limited assemblage. Section 2.2, Standard 1c has been met. Stage 3 assessment is required. 7.8., Standard 2c A preliminary determination regarding whether any archaeological sites identified in Stage 2 show evidence of a high level of cultural heritage value or interest and will thus require Stage 4 mitigation. A preliminary analysis of the material suggests that a Stage 4 may be required, but this is not certain, and will be evaluated during a Stage 3 assessment. It is not known how much of the former foundations were destroyed when the farmstead was razed by the current owner. Areas of low archaeological potential included those areas of slope with more than 20 degrees, and permanently wet areas (wetlands and wet meadows). All other areas were considered to exhibit archaeological potential. Figure 16 illustrates the assessment methodology and shows those areas of low archaeological potential.

34 23 The site, BbGi-24, is an Euro-Canadian farmstead site, with a broad date range. Twenty four artifacts date to between 1830 and 1875, 30 artifacts dates to between 1796 and the present, 51 artifacts date to between 1796 and 1930, and only one artifact dates to between 1780 and The majority of the site falls into a date range of between 1875 to 1930, however, there are sufficient artifacts that predate 1900 to recommend Stage 3 assessment. These dates are based on an limited assemblage. A total of 477 artifacts were recovered from the Stage 2 assessment. Figures illustrate the artifact distribution. Based on Section 2.2 of the Standards and Guidelines, Standard 1c says that if there are more than 20 artifacts that predate 1900, a Stage 3 archaeological assessment must be recommended.

35 RECOMMENDATIONS Standard Description Compliance (General Recommendations) For each archaeological site, provide a statement of the following: 7.8.4, Standard 1a Borden No. or other BbGi-24 identifying number 7.8.4, Standard 1b Whether or not it is of further The site is of further cultural cultural heritage or interest , Standard 1c Where it is of further cultural heritage or interest, appropriate Stage 3 assessment strategies 7.8.4, Standard 2 Make recommendations only regarding archaeological heritage and interest. The Stage 3 archaeological assessment must follow the 2011 Standards and Guidelines. These standards require additional historic research (although, for this particular site, more than sufficient additional historic research has already been conducted); a surface collection following additional ploughing of the area, and the following with respect to the number and placement of one metre test units. Place multiple grids over areas of artifact concentration and excavate 1 m square test units across those grids at 5 m intervals. Place and excavate additional test units, amounting to 20% of the initial grid total unit, between the areas of concentration to document areas of lower concentration. Place and excavate further additional units on the periphery of the surface scatter to determine the site extent and sample the site periphery (MTC 2011a:52). It is anticipated that a total of 208 one metre test units will be required to complete the Stage 3 assessment of the site, BbGi- 24. Done.

36 25 Standard Description Compliance matters , Standard 3 If the Stage 2 survey did not Not applicable identify any archaeological sites requiring further assessment or mitigation of impacts, recommend that no further archaeological assessment of the property be required Recommendations for Partial Clearance Standard 1 A recommendation for partial clearance may only be made if all of the following conditions have been met: 7.8.5, Standard 1a Stage 2 archaeological Done fieldwork has been completed within the entire project limits (Archaeological sites are present that still require Stage 3, and possibly Stage 4, archaeological fieldwork)) 7.8.5, Standard 1b The recommendation forms part of a final report on the Stage 2 work. Partial clearance is recommended for those parts of the property that have no archaeological resources 7.8.5, Standard 1c The recommendation includes a request for the ministry to provide a letter confirming that there are no further concerns with regard to alterations to archaeological sites for some specified part of the project area , Standard 1d The Stage 2 report includes recommendations for further archaeological fieldwork for all located on them. As part of the recommendation, it is requested that the MTC provide a letter confirming that there are no further concerns with regards to the propose Lunar Solar Facility, with the exception of the area of BbGi-24 and a 50 m buffer as illustrated on Figure 21. The area of exclusion which forms the site and 50 m buffer has the following 4 GPS cardinal coordinates: (these are withheld for MTC, but provided in the supplementary documentation. Done.

37 26 Standard Description Compliance sites that meet the criteria requiring Stage 3 archaeological field assessment , Standard 1e Include the following documentation in the report package 7.8.5, Standard 1 e, i Development map showing the location and extent of all archaeological sites for which Stage 3 archaeological assessment is recommended, including a 20 m protective buffer zone for each site, and a 50 m monitoring zone for each site , Standard 1e, ii Detailed avoidance strategy, and written confirmation from the proponent regarding the proponent s commitment to implementing the strategy and confirmation that ground alterations (e.g. servicing, landscaping) will avoid archaeological sites with outstanding concerns and their buffer areas 7.8.5, Standard 1e, iii Construction monitoring schedule, and written confirmation from the proponent that a licensed consultant archaeologist will monitor construction in areas within the 50 m monitoring buffer zone, and that the consultant archaeologist is empowered to stop construction if there is a concern for impact to an archaeological site 7.8.5, Standard 1e, iv Timeline for completing remaining archaeological fieldwork. No development map, but map indicating location and extent of BbGi-24 for which Stage 3 is recommended, including a 20 m and a 50 m buffer zone (Figure 21 illustrates the 50 m buffer). Avoidance strategy is not necessary. Site will not be developed until after the Stage 3 archaeological assessment has been completed Not applicable. Anticipated time line for completion of Stage The Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessment of the study property was conducted under license P027 (Scarlett Janusas, PIF #P ) during July and December, The Stage 2 archaeological assessment was

38 27 conducted on July 6-8, 11-14, and December 1 st, 2011 under good to excellent assessment conditions with 80 to 100% open ground cover for ploughed areas. One historic site was located on the property near the south end of the survey area. This site was assigned the Borden number BbGi-24. The site has two components probably representing the locations of the barn/outbuilding and the house. The site, BbGi-24, is an Euro-Canadian farmstead site, with a broad date range. Twenty four artifacts date to between 1830 and 1875, 30 artifacts dates to between 1796 and the present, 51 artifacts date to between 1796 and 1930, and only one artifact dates to between 1780 and The majority of the site falls into a date range of between 1875 to 1930, however, there are sufficient artifacts that predate 1900 to recommend Stage 3 assessment. These dates are based on an limited assemblage. A total of 477 artifacts were recovered from the Stage 2 assessment. Based upon the background research of past and present conditions, and the Stage 2 archaeological assessment, the following is recommended: A Stage 3 archaeological assessment is recommended for the historic farmstead site, BbGi-24; With respect to the remainder of the study area, no further archaeological assessment is required. This archaeological assessment has been conducted under the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (Ministry of Tourism and Culture, 2011).

39 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION According to the 2011 Standards and Guidelines (Section 7.5.9) the following must be stated within this report: This report is submitted to the Minister of Tourism and Culture as a condition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c The report is reviewed to ensure that it complies with the standards and guidelines that are issued by the Minister, and that the archaeological fieldwork and report recommendations ensure the conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural heritage of Ontario. When all matters relating to archaeological sites within the project area of a development proposal have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, a letter will be issued by the ministry stating that there are no further concerns with regard to alterations to archaeological sites by the proposed development. It is an offence under Sections 48 and 69 of the Ontario Heritage Act for any party other than a licensed archaeologist to make any alteration to a known archaeological site or to remove any artifact or other physical evidence of past human use or activity from the site, until such time as a licensed archaeologist has completed archaeological fieldwork on the site, submitted a report to the Minister stating that the site has no further cultural heritage value or interest, and the report has been filed in the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports referred to in Section 65.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Should previously undocumented archaeological resources be discovered, they may be an archaeological site and therefore subject to Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The proponent or person discovering the archaeological resources must cease alteration of the site immediately and engage a licensed consultant archaeologist to carry out archaeological fieldwork, in compliance with sec. 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Cemeteries Act, R.S.O c. C.4 and the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.33 (when proclaimed in force) require that any person discovering human remains must notify the police or coroner and the Registrar of Cemeteries at the Ministry of Consumer Services. Archaeological sites recommended for further archaeological fieldwork or protection remain subject to Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act and may not be altered, or have artifacts removed from them, except by a person holding an archaeological license.

40 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES Belden, H Illustrated Historical Atlas for the Counties of Hastings and Prince Edward. H. Belden & Co. Toronto. Bowell, Sir MacKenzie 1889 Directory of County of Hastings, Intelligencer Printing & Publishing Co. Boyce, Gerald E Historic Hastings. Hastings County Historical Society, Ontario Intelligencer Limited, Belleville. Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam 1973 The Physiography of Southern Ontario. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Chiarenza, Frank and James Alexander Slater 1998 The Milk Glass Book. A Schiffer Book. French, Orland 2011 Heritage Atlas of Hastings County. Wallbridge House Publishing, Belleville, Ontario. Garrad Hassan 2011 Lunarlight Solar Project Records Review and Preliminary Analysis. Prepared for SkyPower. Gillespie, J.E., R.E. Wicklund and N.R. Richards 1962 Soil Survey of Hastings County. Research Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture, and Ontario Agriculture College. Government of Ontario 1990a The Ontario Heritage Act R.S.O Ontario Regulation 9/06, made under the Ontario Heritage Act. Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Queen's Printer, Toronto. 1990b The Environmental Assessment Act. R.S.O. 1990, C. E c The Planning Act. R.S.O Guillett, Edwin C The Valley of the Trent. The Champlain Society for the Government of Ontario, University of Toronto Press.

41 30 Jones, Olive and Catherine Sullivan 1985 The Parks Canada Glass Glossary for the description of containers, tableware, flat glass, and closures. Studies in Archaeology, Architecture and History, National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Environment Canada. Jouppien, Jon 1980 The Application of South s Mean Ceramic Formula to Ontario Historic Sites. In Arch Notes, May/June Kenyon, Ian 1986 The Consulting Archaeologist and the Analysis of 19 th Century Ceramic Tableware. Ministry of Citizenship and Culture. Workshop A History of Ceramic Tableware in Ontario: Distributed at An Introduction to English Ceramics for Archaeologists workshop sponsored by Association of Professional Archaeologists. Lee, Robert C The Canada Company and the Huron Tract, Natural Heritage Books, Toronto. Majewski, T. and M.J. O Brien 1987 Use and Misuse of 19 th Century English and American Ceramics in Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 11: Ed. By M. Schiffer, Academic Press, New York. Martin, Gina 2005 A Rocky Path for Ontario s Land Records. Heritage Gazette of the Trent Valley. Middleton, Jesse Edgar and Fred Landon 1927 Province of Ontario A History, Dominion Publishing Co., Toronto. Miller, George L A Revised Site of CC Index Values for Classification and Economic Scaling of English Ceramics. Historical Archaeology 25 (1): Telling Time for Archaeologists. In Northeast Historical Archaeology, Volume 29. Ministry of Tourism and Culture 2011a Standards and Guidelines for Consulting Archaeologists. Ministry of Tourism and Culture.

42 b Archaeological Data Base Files. Heritage Branch, Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Toronto. Natural Resources Canada n.d. Toporama Topographic Maps. Accessed August 6 th, On line. Nelson, Lee H Nail Chronology as an aid to dating old buildings. American Association for State and Local History Technical Leaflet 48, History News, Volume 24, No. 11. November. Newlands, David L Early Ontario Potters. McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto. Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation n.d. The ACO Guide to 19 th Century Sites. Historical Planning and Research Branch, London Office. Hand out at Ceramic Workshop. Plumpton, Mary G The Rambling River History of Thurlow Township. Thurlow Township Council, Ontario Intelligencer Limited, Belleville. Rogers, Edward S. and Donald B. Smith 1994 Aboriginal Ontario Historical Perspectives on the First Nations. Dundurn Press Limited, Toronto. On Line and Other Sources Cook, Wayne 2011 Historical Plaques of Hastings County. Accessed on line on August 6 th, Smith, W.H Map of Hastings County, Land records for the County of Hastings, Archives of Ontario, 134 Ian MacDonald Blvd., Toronto, Ontario. Maps for land use, landmarks, heritage properties, aerial maps for the Township of Thurlow Hastings County census reports for 1851, 1861, 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901, Vital Statistics of Ontario,

43 Personal Communication (2011) with owner (name withheld by request). 32

44 33 TABLES Table 1 Chain of Title West ½ lot 9, East ½ lot 9, West ½ lot 10, Concession 9, Township of Thurlow, Hastings County West ½ Lot 9, Concession 9 April 16, 1795 Reserved for Clergy All lot 9, con. 9 Clergy October 5, 1840 Samuel Alcombrack West ½ lot 9 Sale Philip Alcombrack #4028 Ass t. April 1, 1848 John Wilson Gordonier #7547 Ass t Jan. 19, 1856 Philip Roblin Palmer #7548 PATENT Dec. 31, 1858 Philip Roblin Palmer Deed March 27, 1863 Jacob Denyes #529 Will Aug. 10, 1863 Robert Sills Denyes #554 Deed April 21, 1873 Philip Sidney Denyes #4478 Deed March 14, 1882 John Solomon Vermilyea #4524 Deed Dec. 19, 1900 Charles A. Mitchell #339 Deed Aug. 7, 1906 Edward Carter #1829 Deed Oct. 10, 1919 William Burton Tufts #7915 Deed March 26, 1931 Milton Robson #8048

45 34 East ½ Lot 9, Concession 9 April 16, 1795 Reserved for Clergy All Lot 9 Clergy June 29, 1846 Philip Alkambrack E ½ Lot 9 Sale Ass t. April 1, 1848 Robert Sills Patent Oct. 18, 1850 Robert Sills (from Crown) Deed April 20, 1873 John Wesley Sills #1445 Vesting April 18, 1885 Nelson William Sills Order #5553 Will January 28, 1903 Everett Sills #877 Deed Jan. 2, 1920 Lewis Robson #5536 Will Nov. 24, 1942 Lewis Robson #8062 Milton Harold Robson West 47 ½ Acres of Lot 10, Concession 9 Application April 21, 1795 Joseph Wright All Lot 10 PATENT May 17, 1802 Joseph Wright (from Crown) Deed March 10, 1818 John Ellis #1900 Deed April 2, 1833 Robert Sills #2176 Deed April John Wesley Sills West 47 ½ #1445 acres ( hectares) lot 10 Vesting Order #5553

46 35 Will #877 see East ½ Lot 9 Deed #5536 Will #8062 Table 2 Artifact Summary of Metals, BbGi-24 Class Form Function Freq. Date Range Reference Metal Chain Chain Track 1 Hinge Door Hinge 1 Iron Indeterminate 6 Wire Spike present Nelson 1968 Washer Washer 1 10 Table 3 - Artifact Summary of Ceramics BbGi 24 Sub Class Decoration # Date Range Reference Refined White Earthenware Plain present Burke 1982 Painted Late Palette OMCR n.d. Black Transfer Print OMCR n.d. Flow Blue Jouppien 1980 Blue Sponged Jouppien 1980 Blue Transfer Print Present Jouppien 1980 Green Transfer Print Jouppien 1980 Red Transfer Print Present Jouppien 1980 Moulded 9 Stamped Purple Magid 1984 Transfer Print White Granite Plain Miller 2000 Black Transfer Print OMCR n.d. Blue Transfer Print present Jouppien 1980 Moulded Miller 2000 Moulded Cable 2 Painted Late Palette OMCR n.d. Moulded and Ribbed 1 Maker's Mark 1 Unreadable 36

47 36 Sub Class Decoration # Date Range Reference Coarse Red Earthenware Plain Jouppien 1980 Coarse Yellow Earthenware Plain Jouppien 1980 Newlands 1979, Rockingham Glazed OMCR n.d. Grey Stoneware Plain Jouppien Salt Glazed Jouppien 1980 Maker's Mark 1 Unreadable Salt Glazed and Albany Glazed Jouppien 1980 Salt Glazed and Rhennish Blue Jouppien 1980 Newlands 1979, Rockingham Glazed Kenyon n.d. Buff Stoneware Plain 4 Semi Porcelain Plain 11 Maker's Mark 1 Unreadable Black Transfer Print OMCR n.d. Blue Painted 1 Etching OMCR n.d. 8 4 Flow Blue Jouppien 1980 Moulded 1 Moulded Cable 1 Polychrome Transfer 1 Porcelain Plain present Jouppien 1980 Blue Painted Majewski et al 1987 Miller Blue Transfer Print present Jouppien 1980 Etching OMCR n.d. Gilt 1 Painted Late Palette OMCR n.d. Moulded 1 18th - 20th C. Kenyon 1986 Painted Early Palette OMCR n.d. Painted Late Polychrome OMCR n.d. Polychrome 1 Red Painted 1 Transfer Print 1 32

48 37 Sub Class Decoration # Date Range Reference Yellow Earthenware Blue Sponged OMCR n.d. Blue Transfer Print present Jouppien 1980 Newlands 1979, Rockingham Glazed Kenyon n.d. Plain 4 Bisque Unglazed Table 4 - Artifact Summary of Glass BbGi 24 Class Form Freq. Date Range Reference Light Green Cylindrical Bottle 26 Cylindrical bottle Patent date on bottle Rectangular Bottle 11 Cylindrical Jar 8 Cylindrical Vial 1 Indeterminate Bottle 9 Indeterminate Jar 1 57 Amber Cylindrical Bottle 20 Rectangular Bottle 6 26 Clear, Colourless Cylindrical Bottle 23 Rectangular Bottle 10 Open Mouth 1 Indeterminate 14 Cylindrical Jar 4 Hollowware 7 Tableware 1 60 Olive Green Cylindrical Bottle 22 Indeterminate 2 24 Light Blue Rectangular Bottle 1 1 Clear, Colourless Chimney Jones et al

49 38 Class Form Freq. Date Range Reference Milk Container 3 Late 19 th C Chiarenza et al Flat Window Glass 26 Requires Larger Sample for Dating 26 Black Cylindrical Bottle 1 1 Blue Tableware 1 1 Green Cylindrical Bottle Jones et al Solarized Cylindrical Bottle Jones et al 1985 Rectangular Bottle Jones et al 1985 Indeterminate Jones et al 1985 Cylindrical Jar 1 Tableware Major date range for bottles is Table 5 - Artifact Summary of Remaining Classes BbGi 24 Class Form Function Freq. Date Range Reference Faunal Mammal Indeterminate 5 Mammal/Cut Indeterminate 3 Burnt Indeterminate 1 Calcined Indeterminate 4 13 Misc. Graphite Rod Rod 3 Coal Fuel 3 Spark Plug Plug s Marine Shell 1 8 Personal Shell Button

50 39 ILLUSTRATIONS/FIGURES Figure 1 Regional Location of Study Property

51 40 Figure 2 Local Setting of Study Property 1: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2011.

52

53 Figure 3 Satellite Imagery of Study Area 41

54 Figure 4 Conceptual Plan 42

55 Figure County of Hastings Map (From Historic Hastings, p. 3) 43

56 44 Figure 6 Map Showing Champlain s Route Through Hastings County 1615 (Heritage Atlas of Hastings County 2011, pg. 38) Figure 7 French Map (1632) Showing Champlain s 1615 Exploration Deer shown over Hastings County area indicate his hunting grounds (Historic Hastings pg. 14)

57 45 Figure 8 Indian Lands in Upper Canada (The Canada Company and the Huron Tract, pg. 21) Figure 9 Indian Treaties Covering Hastings County Crawford s Purchase in section A (red) (Heritage Atlas of Hastings County 2011, pg. 30)

58 Figure 10 Historic Sites and Monuments Board Plaque Commemorating Crawford Purchase, 1783 (Plaque located at Kingston, Ontario where treaty negotiations took place) 46

59 47 Figure 11 The Crawford Purchase 1783 (Heritage Atlas of Hastings County pg. 31) Figure Figure of Thurlow Township W.H. Smith 1862

60 Figure Illustrated Historical Map Section 48

61 Figure 14 Field Identification 49

62 Figure 15 Location of Photographs 50

63 Figure 16 Assessment Methodology 51

64 Figure 17 Record of Finds 52

65 Figure 18 BbGi-24 Artifact Locations 53

66 Figure 19 Expanded View of Historic Scatter Component A 54

67 Figure 20 Expanded View of Historic Scatter Component B 55

68 Figure M Buffer for Stage 3 56

69 57 ILLUSTRATIONS Photograph 1 Field A facing West Photograph 2 Field A Conditions

70 58 Photograph 3 Field B facing West Photograph 4 Field C facing South

71 59 Photograph 5 Field C facing South Photograph 6 Field D facing West

72 60 Photograph 7 Field E facing South Photograph 8 Field F facing South

73 61 Photograph 9 Field G facing South Photograph 10 Field H facing South

74 62 Photograph 11 Field I facing South Photograph 12 Field I facing North

75 63 Photograph 13 Field J facing Southeast Photograph 14 Field K facing South

76 64 Photograph 15 Field L facing Southeast Photograph 16 Field M facing South

77 65 Photograph 17 Field N facing North Photograph 18 Field O facing West

78 66 Photograph 19 Field P facing Northeast Photograph 20 Field Q facing East

79 Photograph 21 BbGi-24 facing North 67

80

81 Photograph 22 Artifacts from BbGi-24 68

82 Photograph 23 BbGi-24 Artifacts 69

83 Photograph 24 BbGi-24 Artifacts 70