1.0 PROJECT REPORT COVER PAGE - City of Orillia · Township of Ramara, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #11901-P/MTCS File #P384-001-2013) AMICK Consultants Limited Page 4 3.0 TABLE OF

1.0 PROJECT REPORT COVER PAGE

Licensee Information:

Licensee: Kayleigh MacKinnon MSc

Archaeology Licence: P384

Contact Information: AMICK Consultants Limited

Lakelands District Office

380 Talbot Street, P.O. Box 29

Port McNicoll, ON L0K 1R0

Phone: (705) 534-1546 Fax: (705) 534-7855

Email: [email protected]

www.amick.ca

Project Information:

AMICK Project Number: 11901-K

MTC Project Number: P384-001-2013

Investigation Type: Stage 1 Archaeological Background Study

Project Name: Atherley Narrows Bridge

Project Location: Atherley Narrows Bridge, Part of Lot 12, Concession 7,

(Former Township of South Orillia), City of Orillia, and

Part of Lot 31, Concession 11 (Former Township of

Mara), Township of Ramara, County of Simcoe.

Approval Authority Information:

File Designation Number: N/A

Reporting Information:

Site Record/Update Forms: N/A

Date of Report Filing: 22 April 2015

Type of Report: REVISED

mailto:[email protected]

2013 (REVISED 2015) Stage 1 Archaeological Background Study of the Atherley Narrows Bridge, Part of Lot 12, Concession

7 (Former Township of South Orillia), City of Orillia, and Part of Lot 31, Concession 11 (Former Township of Mara),

Township of Ramara, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #11901-P/MTCS File #P384-001-2013)

AMICK Consultants Limited Page 2

2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report describes the results of the 2013 Stage 1 Archaeological Background Study of the

proposed Atherley Narrows Pedestrian/Snowmobile Bridge, Part of Lot 12, Concession 7

(Former Township of South Orillia), City of Orillia and Part of Lot 31, Concession 11

(Former Township of Mara), Township of Ramara, County of Simcoe, conducted by AMICK

Consultants Limited. This study was conducted under Archaeological Professional License

#P384 issued to Kayleigh MacKinnon by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport for the

Province of Ontario. This assessment was undertaken as a requirement under the

Environmental Assessment Act (RSO 1990b) in order to support a Municipal Class EA. All

work was conducted in conformity with Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC)

Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTC 2011), the Ontario Heritage

Act (RSO 1990a), and the Ontario Heritage Amendment Act (SO 2005).

AMICK Consultants Limited was engaged by the proponent to undertake a Stage 1

Archaeological Background Study of lands potentially affected by the proposed undertaking

and was granted permission to carry out archaeological work on 29 January 2013. A detailed

photoreconnaissance of the study area was conducted on 01 April 2013. All records,

documentation, field notes, photographs and artifacts (as applicable) related to the conduct

and findings of these investigations are held at the Lakelands District corporate offices of

AMICK Consultants Limited until such time that they can be transferred to an agency or

institution approved by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) on

behalf of the government and citizens of Ontario.

As a result of the Stage 1 Background Research, the project area potentially impacted by the

proposed undertaking has been identified as an area of archaeological potential.

As a result of the study area inspection, it has been determined that the areas of the structure

of the bridge and associated footings, permanently low-lying and wet areas, and the artificial

former railway line embankment and road bed do not require archaeological assessment

using land based archaeological survey methodology. The recommendations offered by

AMICK Consultants Limited respecting land based archaeological resources are as follows:

1. It is recommended that no further land based archaeological studies are required.

2. The proposed undertaking may be permitted to proceed where construction impacts

may occur on land within the study area addressed within this report.

However, Stage 1 Background research identified the water areas within the study area as an

area containing stakes associated with the ancient fish weirs documented in the vicinity.

Accordingly, as part of our original report prepared in 2013, an underwater archaeological

survey was recommended to determine the presence or absence of possible fish weir stakes

within the study area. Subsequent to the completion and filing of our original report a

Marine Archaeological Assessment was completed for the study area (see Scarlett Janusas

Archaeology Inc. 2014). The recommendations offered in that report area as follows:





1. Avoidance and record the fish weir stakes in situ (measurement and photography).

If avoidance cannot be accomplished, the following work must be conducted prior to any

disturbance of the area:

2. Record the fish weir stakes in detail (measurements and photography) and proceed

with the development (fish weir stakes might be impacted permanently); or

3. Record the fish weir stakes in detail (measurement and photography) and remove the

fish weirs stakes through controlled excavation for conservation; and,

4. In areas of dense marsh, where normal geotechnical investigation and diving could

not be accomplished, any proposed impact to areas within the marshy areas should

be monitored by a licensed archaeologist during development. If archaeological

resources are located in these areas, they will be disturbed, and recovery will be the

only option available. Recovery of any archaeological remains in this area must be

accompanied with provenance identification (as best as possible), and once recorded

and photographed, the artifacts should be put in temporary conservation (wet

wrapped) and sent to Parks Canada for conservation and/or preservation.

5. First Nations engagement should be conducted for all options.

(SJA 2014: 53-54)

AMICK Consultants Limited does not have staff that are qualified to undertake Marine

Archaeological Assessments and therefore, cannot legally make any recommendations for

this specialized area of study. The recommendations respecting underwater or marine

archaeological resources are quoted directly from the Marine Archaeological Assessment

report prepared by Scarlett Janusas Archaeology Inc. Any requirement to follow up on any

matters reflecting marine archaeological resources must be undertaken by persons with the

specialized knowledge and experience to address these particular resources.





3.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT REPORT COVER PAGE 1 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 3.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 4.0 PROJECT PERSONNEL 6 5.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND 7

5.1 DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT 7 5.2 HISTORICAL CONTEXT 7

5.2.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS 9 5.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT 42

5.3.1 REGISTERED FIRST NATIONS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 42 5.3.2 REGISTERED EURO-CANADIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 43 5.3.3 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS 44 5.3.3.1 ANDREW HUNTER (1903) 45 5.3.4 LOCATION AND CURRENT CONDITIONS 62 5.3.5 PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGION 63 5.3.6 SURFACE WATER 64 5.3.7 CURRENT PROPERTY CONDITIONS CONTEXT 64

5.3.7.1 BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURAL FOOTPRINTS 64 5.3.7.2 DISTURBANCE 65 5.3.7.3 LOW-LYING AND WET AREAS 66 5.3.7.4 STEEP SLOPE 66 5.3.7.5 WOODED AREAS 66 5.3.7.6 PLOUGHABLE AGRICULTURAL LANDS 66 5.3.7.7 LAWN, PASTURE, MEADOW 67

5.3.8 SUMMARY 67 6.1 PHOTO RECONNAISSANCE 68 6.2 FIELD WORK WEATHER CONDITIONS 68 6.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELDWORK DOCUMENTATION 68

7.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS 69 7.1 CHARACTERISTICS INDICATING ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL 69 7.2 CHARACTERISTICS INDICATING REMOVAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL 72 7.3 STAGE 1 RESULTS 75

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 75 8.1 STAGE 1 RECOMMENDATIONS 75

10.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES 79 11.0 MAPS 88 12.0 IMAGES 96





LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 REGISTERED FIRST NATIONS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN 1KM 42 TABLE 2 EURO-CANADIAN SITES WITHIN 1KM 43 TABLE 3 CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY FOR SOUTH-CENTRAL ONTARIO 44 TABLE 4 EVALUATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL 74

LIST OF MAPS FIGURE 1 LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA (GOOGLE MAPS 2012) 88 FIGURE 2 LIMITS OF THE STUDY AREA (AECOM 2012) 89 FIGURE 3 SEGMENT OF THE HISTORIC ATLAS MAP OF SOUTH ORILLIA TOWNSHIP 90 FIGURE 4 SEGMENT OF THE HISTORIC ATLAS MAP OF MARA TOWNSHIP 90 FIGURE 5 ATHERLEY SWING BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION GENERAL LAYOUT 91 FIGURE 6 PROPOSED NEW CROSSING (AECOM 2010) 92 FIGURE 7 FACSIMILE PLAN OF THE 1973-1974 SURVEY 93 FIGURE 8 FACSIMILE MAP SEGMENT OF PARKS CANADA KNOWN FISH WEIR

DISTRIBUTION (TURNER 2002: 70) 94 FIGURE 9 STUDY AREA AND THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE 95

LIST OF PLATES

PLATE 1 FORMER RAILWAY EMBANKMENT ON APPROACH FROM THE EAST 93 PLATE 2 ADJACENT MARINA PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH FROM THE TOP OF THE FORMER

RAILWAY EMBANKMENT 93 PLATE 3 1970 CONSTRUCTION STEEL TRESTLE THROUGH LOW-LYING AND WET AREA

FROM THE NORTH 93 PLATE 4 TIMBERS FROM FORMER CROSSING STRUCTURE(S) AT THE WEST END OF THE

STEEL TRESTLE 93 PLATE 5 VIEW EAST FROM THE WEST END OF THE STEEL TRESTLE 93 PLATE 6 VIEW OF THE LOW-LYING & WET PORTION OF THE STUDY AREA NORTHEAST

OF THE BRIDGE 93 PLATE 7 VIEW TO THE NORTH FROM THE WEST END OF THE TRESTLE 94 PLATE 8 VIEW TO THE SOUTH FROM THE WEST END OF THE TRESTLE 94 PLATE 9 FISH FENCE PLAQUE ON THE WEST APPROACH 94 PLATE 10 VIEW OF THE CROSSING ON THE WEST APPROACH 94 PLATE 11 SWING BRIDGE FROM THE CONCRETE PIER ON THE WEST BANK 94 PLATE 12 VIEW WEST FROM THE CONCRETE PIER ON THE WEST BANK 94





4.0 PROJECT PERSONNEL

Consultant Archaeologist

Kayleigh MacKinnon (MTCS Professional Archaeologist Licence #P384)

Field Director

Michael Henry (MTCS Professional Archaeologist Licence #P058)

Field Assistant

Marilyn Cornies (MTCS Professional Archaeologist Licence #P038)

Project Coordinator

Melissa Milne

Report Preparation



Draughting


Photography






5.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND

5.1 DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT




(Former Township of Mara), Township of Ramara, County of Simcoe (i.e. the study area),

conducted by AMICK Consultants Limited. This study was conducted under Archaeological

Professional License #P384 issued to Kayleigh MacKinnon by the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Sport for the Province of Ontario. This assessment was undertaken as a

requirement under the Environmental Assessment Act (RSO 1990b) in order to support a

Municipal Class EA. All work was conducted in conformity with Ontario Ministry of

Tourism and Culture (MTC) Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTC

2011), the Ontario Heritage Act (RSO 1990a), and the Ontario Heritage Amendment Act (SO

2005).










The proposed development of the study area includes a single pedestrian/snowmobile bridge

with landscape modifications. A set of proposed development drawings has been submitted

to MTCS together with this report.

5.2 HISTORICAL CONTEXT

As part of the present study, background research was conducted in order to determine the

archaeological potential of the proposed study area.

“A Stage 1 background study provides the consulting archaeologist and Ministry report

reviewer with information about the known and potential cultural heritage resources within a

particular study area, prior to the start of the field assessment.” (OMCzCR 1993)

The evaluation of potential is further elaborated Section 1.3 of the Standards and Guidelines

for Consultant Archaeologist (2011) prepared by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and

Culture:





“ The Stage 1 background study (and, where undertaken, property inspection) leads to an

evaluation of the property’s archaeological potential. If the evaluation indicates that there is

archaeological potential anywhere on the property, the next step is a Stage 2 assessment.”

(MTC 2011: 17)

Features or characteristics that indicate archaeological potential where found anywhere on

the property include:

“ - previously identified archaeological sites

- water sources (It is important to distinguish types of water and shoreline, and to

distinguish natural from artificial water sources, as these features affect site locations

and types to varying degrees.):

o primary water sources (lakes, rivers, streams, creeks)

o secondary water sources (intermittent streams and creeks, springs, marshes,

swamps)

o features indicating past water sources (e.g., 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)

o accessible or inaccessible shoreline (e.g., high bluffs, swamp or marsh fields

by the edge of a lake, sandbars stretching into marsh)

- elevated topography (e.g., 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:

o food or medicinal plants (e.g., migratory routes, spawning areas, prairie)

o scarce raw materials (e.g., quartz, copper, ochre or outcrops of chert)

o early Euro-Canadian industry (e.g., fur trade, logging, prospecting, mining)

- areas of early Euro-Canadian settlement. These include places of early military or

pioneer settlement (e.g., pioneer homesteads, isolated cabins, farmstead complexes),

early wharf or dock complexes, pioneer churches and early cemeteries. There may be

commemorative markers of their history, such as local, provincial, or federal

monuments or heritage parks.

- Early historical transportation routes (e.g., trails, passes, roads, railways, portage

routes)

- property listed on a municipal register or designated under the Ontario Heritage

Actor that is a federal, provincial or municipal historic landmark or site

- property that local histories or informants have identified with possible

archaeological sties, historical events, activities, or occupations”

(MTC 2011: 17-18)





The evaluation of potential does not indicate that sites are present within areas affected by

proposed development. Evaluation of potential considers the possibility for as yet

undocumented sites to be found in areas that have not been subject to systematic

archaeological investigation in the past. Potential for archaeological resources is used to

determine if physical assessment of a property or portions of a property is required.

“Archaeological resources not previously documented may also be present in the

affected area. If the alternative areas being considered, or the preferred alternative

selected, exhibit either high or medium potential for the discovery of archaeological

remains an archaeological assessment will be required.”

(MCC & MOE 1992: 6-7)

“The Stage 1 background study (and, where undertaken, property inspection) leads to

an evaluation of the property’s archaeological potential. If the evaluation indicates

that there is archaeological potential anywhere on the property, the next step is a

Stage 2 assessment.”

(MTC 2011: 17)

In addition, the collected data is also used to determine if any archaeological resources had

been formerly documented within or in close proximity to the study area and if these same

resources might be subject to impacts from the proposed undertaking. This data was also

collected in order to establish the significance of any resources that might be encountered

during the conduct of the present study. The requisite archaeological sites data was collected

from the Programs and Services Branch, Culture Programs Unit, MTCS and the corporate

research library of AMICK Consultants Limited.

5.2.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS

The present use of the study area is as an abandoned CN rail swing bridge. The bridge is

located in an area known as the Atherley Narrows where Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe

converge. The study area consists of an existing railway swing bridge, a former railway line

artificial embankment and bed on approach to either end of the bridge, and permanently low-

lying and wet area. The existing structure of the bridge has been described by AECOM as

follows:

“The existing CN bridge can be subdivided into three sections, the east steel viaduct,

the swing bridge and the west concrete approach structure.

The east steel viaduct is comprised of nine steel bents at 7.62 metres per span

supporting two 36WF150 through plate girders, ten 16WF45 floor beams per span

and a 15mm thick deck pan filled with ballast. Each bent has four 12BP74 piles with

a 21WF62 pile cap. The outside piles are battered at 1:6. The notes on the General

Layout for this section, dated 1969, indicate the steel specification for the piles is

CSA G40.4, ASTM A242 for the deck plate and stiffeners and ASTM A36 for all other

material.





The swing bridge information, dated 1913, indicates a 45.11 metre long steel through

plate girder draw span that rotates on a 7.98 metres x 7.98 metres concrete pivot pier

which averages 6.10 metres deep and is poured directly on hard ground. The steel

draw span in the closed position sits on concrete piers 3.2 metres x 11.58 metres x

3.28 metres deep. These east and west rest piers are founded on timber piles driven to

practical refusal. There are 21 piles per pier, four of which are battered at 1:8. The

area around the timber pile was filled with rip rap as a base for placing concrete for

the piers.

On site measuring indicated that this structure is comprised of a 4.80 metre wide

concrete deck supported on 0.65 metre thick piers spaced at four 4.3 metres and the

west pier previously denoted.”

(AECOM 2010: 3-4)

The study area consists of the existing former railway swing bridge crossing at the Atherley

Narrows, as well as a proposed working area outside of the channel and within the

permanently low-lying and wet area to the northeast of the crossing (see Figure 2). The

location of the study area is illustrated in Figure 1. An aerial photograph showing the extent

of the study area is included within this report as Figure 2.

5.2.2 GENERAL HISTORICAL OUTLINE

Historically the study area is located within two townships: Mara Township on the east bank,

and the Township of South Orillia on the west bank. The study area is also located in an area

that has a well-documented and lengthy history of occupation.

5.2.2.1 PREHISTORIC OCCUPATION AND LAND USE

What follows is an outline of Aboriginal occupation in the area during the Pre-Contact Era

from the earliest known period, about 9000 B.C. up to approximately 1650 AD. A larger

regional synthesis of archaeological data that would include much of Simcoe County, or even

of the City of Orillia and environs, has not been undertaken. Lakes Couchiching and Simcoe,

including the narrows which runs through the study area and divides these bodies of water,

formed a significant component of a major route of travel and communication, as well as a

significant source of subsistence from fishing for aboriginal occupations in the area.

PALAEO-INDIAN PERIOD (APPROXIMATELY 9000-7500 B.C.)

North of Lake Ontario, evidence suggests that early occupation began around 9000 B.C.

People probably began to move into this area as the glaciers retreated and glacial lake levels

began to recede. The early occupation of the area probably occurred in conjunction with

environmental conditions that would be comparable to modern Sub-Arctic conditions. Due

to the great antiquity of these sites, and the relatively small populations likely involved,

evidence of these early inhabitants is sparse and generally limited to tools produced from





stone or to by-products of the manufacture of these implements. Some sites of this earliest

period of First Nations occupation of Simcoe County have been documented to the south and

to the west of Kempenfelt Bay on Lake Simcoe.

ARCHAIC PERIOD (APPROXIMATELY 8000-1000 B.C.)

By about 8000 B.C. the gradual transition from a postglacial tundra-like environment to an

essentially modern environment was largely complete. Prior to European clearance of the

landscape for timber and cultivation, the area was characterized by a forest habitat. The

Archaic Period is the longest, and the most apparently stable, of the cultural periods

identified through archaeology. The Archaic Period is divided into the Early, Middle and

Late Sub-Periods, each represented by specific styles in projectile point manufacture. Many

more sites of this period are found throughout Ontario, than of the Palaeo-Indian Period.

This is probably a reflection of two factors: the longer period of time reflected in these sites,

and a greater population density. The greater population was likely the result of a more

diversified subsistence strategy carried out in an environment offering a greater variety of

abundant resources. (Smith 2002:58-59).

Current interpretations suggest that the Archaic Period populations followed a seasonal cycle

of resource exploitation. Although similar in concept to the practices speculated for the big

game hunters of the Palaeo-Indian Period, the Archaic populations utilized a much broader

range of resources, particularly with respect to plants. It is suggested that in the spring and

early summer, bands would gather at the mouths of rivers and at rapids to take advantage of

fish spawning runs. Later in the summer and into the fall season, smaller groups would move

to areas of wetlands to harvest nuts and wild rice. During the winter they would break into

yet smaller groups, probably based on the nuclear family and perhaps some additional

relatives, to move into the interior for hunting. The result of such practices would be to

create a distribution of sites across much of the landscape. (Smith 2002: 59-60).

The material culture of this period is much more extensive than that of the Palaeo-Indians.

Stylistic changes between Sub-Periods and cultural groups are apparent, although the overall

quality in production of chipped lithic tools seems to decline. This period sees the

introduction of ground stone technology in the form of celts (axes and adzes), manos and

metates for grinding nuts and fibres, and decorative items like gorgets, pendants, birdstones,

and bannerstones. Bone tools are also evident from this time period. Their presence may be

a result of better preservation from these more recent sites rather than a lack of such items in

earlier occupations. In addition, copper and exotic chert types appear during the period and

are indicative of extensive trading (Smith 2002: 58-59).

WOODLAND PERIOD (APPROXIMATELY 1000 B.C. - 1650 A.D.)

The primary difference in archaeological assemblages that separates the beginning of the

Woodland Period from the Archaic Period is the introduction of ceramics to Ontario

populations. This division is probably not a reflection of any substantive cultural changes, as

the earliest sites of this period seem to be in all other respects a continuation of the Archaic





mode of life with ceramics added as a novel technology. The seasonally based system of

resource exploitation and associated population mobility persists for at least 1500 years into

the Woodland Period. (Smith 2002: 61-62)

The Early Woodland Sub-Period dates from about 1000-400 B.C. Many of the artifacts from

this time are similar to the late Archaic and suggest a direct cultural continuity between these

two temporal divisions. At this time the introduction of pottery represents and entirely new

technology that was probably acquired through contact with more southerly populations from

which it likely originates. (Smith 2002:62)

The Middle Woodland Sub-Period dates from about 400 B.C.-800 A.D. Within the region

including the study area, a complex emerged at this time termed “Point Peninsula”. Point

Peninsula pottery reflects a greater sophistication in pottery manufacture compared with the

earlier industry. The paste and temper of the new pottery is finer and new decorative

techniques such as dentate and pseudo-scallop stamping appear. There is a noted

Hopewellian influence in southern Ontario populations at this time. Hopewell influences

from south of the Great Lakes include a widespread trade in exotic materials and the

presence of distinct Hopewell style artifacts such as platform pipes, copper or silver panpipe

covers and shark’s teeth. The populations of the Middle Woodland participated in a trade

network that extended well beyond the Great Lakes Region.

The Late Woodland Sub-Period dates from about 500-1650 A.D. The Late Woodland

includes four separate phases: Princess Point, Early Ontario Iroquoian, Middle Ontario

Iroquoian and Late Ontario Iroquoian.

The Princess Point phase dates to approximately 500-1000 A.D. Pottery of this phase is

distinguished from earlier technology in that it is produced by the paddle method instead of

coil and the decoration is characterized by the cord wrapped stick technique. Ceramic

smoking pipes appear at this time in noticeable quantities. Princess Point sites cluster along

major stream valleys and wetland areas. Maize cultivation is introduced during this time to

Ontario. These people were not fully committed to horticulture and seemed to be

experimenting with maize production. They generally adhere to the seasonal pattern of

occupation practiced by earlier occupations, perhaps staying at certain locales repeatedly and

for a larger portion of each year (Smith 2002: 65-66).

The Early Ontario Iroquoian stage dates to approximately 950-1050 A.D. This stage marks

the beginning of a cultural development that led to the historically documented Ontario

Iroquoian groups that were first contacted by Europeans during the early 1600s (Petun,

Neutral, and Huron). At this stage formal semi-sedentary villages emerge. The Early stage

of this cultural development is divided into two cultural groups in southern Ontario. The

areas occupied by each being roughly divided by the Niagara Escarpment. To the west were

located the Glen Meyer populations, and to the east were situated the Pickering people

(Smith 2002: 67).





The Middle Ontario Iroquoian stage dates to approximately 1300-1400 A.D. This stage is

divided into two sub-stages. The first is the Uren sub-stage lasting from approximately

1300-1350 A.D. The second of the two sub-stages is known as the Middleport sub-stage

lasting from roughly 1350-1400 A.D. Villages tend to be larger throughout this stage than

formerly (Smith 2002: 67).

The Late Ontario Iroquoian stage dates to approximately 1400-1650 A.D. During this time

the cultural divisions identified by early European explorers are under development and the

geographic distribution of these groups within southern Ontario begins to be defined. During

this period the Huron and Petun become established in their respective homelands familiar to

early explorers, traders and missionaries.

5.2.2.2 HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE GEORGIAN BAY FIRST NATIONS

In order to establish a regional historical context and to evaluate which cultures and time

periods may have been present within the general area of this study, it will be necessary to

examine what is historically known of the First Nations cultures that were present within the

larger area. The following is a brief overview of the documented history of First Nations

activity and settlement for southern Georgian Bay and northern Simcoe County.

As noted above, by the time the first European explorers, missionaries and traders arrived in

the area in the early 17th

Century; there were a number of First Nations peoples known to

have been active in the Georgian Bay area. This would include the Ojibwa/Chippewa,

Ottawa, Potawatomi, Nippissing, Cree, Huron, Petun and possibly other Iroquoian peoples to

the south such as the Neutral. Not all of these groups were necessarily resident in the area

but the region is noted for its long association to important trade and communication

linkages. Historic documentation indicates that persons and trade merchandise from all of

these Nations, and perhaps of other peoples moved through the local trade network that was

part of a larger continent-wide system of communication and trade. With the arrival of

Europeans, their participation in the trade and in relationships with the First Nations active in

the area would lead to the development of a new culture to be included in this list: the Metis.

THE ALGONKIAN SPEAKING NATIONS

The Algonkian speaking First Nations living in the Upper Great Lakes during the period of

initial contact with the French would have referred to themselves as “Anishinaubeg” or

“men” according to the Ojibwa historian, William Warren who completed his History of the

Ojibway People in 1852 (Warren 1984). As French exploration, missionary work and trade

expanded into the Georgian Bay area in the middle of the 17th

Century they began to make

distinctions between various groups and to apply names to them. One of the first to be

distinguished were the “Outaouak” or “Ottawa” or “Odawa”. These were the first Algonkian

people of the Upper Great Lakes with whom the French had contact.

Paul Le Jeune wrote in his “Relation of 1640” that Manitoulin Island was inhabited by “the

Outaouan”. He further relates that this group is part of “the nation of the raised hair” (Le





Jeune 1896: 231). In this passage, the Jesuit priest is clearly referencing Champlain’s

assignation of the name “Cheveux Releves” to these people during a voyage through this area

in 1615.

Claude Charles Le Roy, Bacqueville de la Potherie, writing of the First Nations of the Upper

Great Lakes in 1753, had the following to say about the use of the shoreline along Lake

Huron:

This Sauteur tribe is divided: part of them have remained at home to live on

this delicious fish in autumn, and they seek their food in Lake Huron during

the winter; the others have gone away to two localities on Lake Superior, in

order to live on the game which is very abundant there…Those who have

remained at the Saut, their native country, leave their villages twice a year.

In the month of June they disperse in all directions along Lake Huron, as also

do the Missisakis and the Otter people. This lake has rocky shores, and is full

of small islands abounding in blueberries. While there they gather sheets of

bark from the trees for making their canoes and building their cabins. The

water of the lake is very clear, and they can see fish in it at a depth of twenty-

five feet. While the children are gathering a store of blueberries, the men are

busy spearing sturgeon. When the grain that they have planted is nearly ripe,

they return home. At the approach of winter they resort to the shores of the

lake to kill beavers and moose, and do not return thence until the spring, in

order to plant their Indian corn.

(Potherie 1753: 276-280)

The “Sauteurs” (probably Ojibwa), “Missisakis” (Mississaugas), and “Otter” (probably the

Ottawa) peoples are all Algonkian speaking peoples. The Mississauga are a division of the

larger, and more generally known Ojibwa Nation. Some researchers suggest that the Ottawa

were also part of the larger Ojibwa Nation.

Mr. Carver visited the region during his travels from 1766-1768 and described the eastern

shore of Lake Huron as follows:

Lake Huron, into which you now enter from the Straights of St. Marie, is the

next in magnitude to Lake Superior. It lies between forty-two and forty-six

degrees of north latitude, and seventy-nine and eighty-five degrees of west

latitude. Its shape is nearly triangular, and its circumference about one

thousand miles.

On the north side of it lies an island that is remarkable for being near an

hundred miles in length, and no more than eight miles broad. This island is

known by the name of Manataulin, which signifies a Place of Spirits, and is

considered by the Indians as sacred as those already mentioned in Lake

Superior.





About the middle of the south-west side of this lake is Saganaum Bay. The

capes that separate this bay from the lake, are about eighteen miles distant

from each other; near the middle of the intermediate space stand two islands,

which greatly tend to facilitate the passage of canoes and small vessels, by

affording them shelter, as without this security it would not be prudent to

venture across so wide a sea; and the coasting round the bay would make the

voyage long and tedious. This bay is about eighty miles in length, and in

general about eighteen or twenty miles broad.

(Carver 1778: 144-145)

No doubt Carver is referring to Georgian Bay under the First Nations name of “Saganaum”.

The “Straights of St. Marie” separate Lakes Superior and Huron. He then goes on to relate

that, “A great number of the Chipeway Indians live scattered around this lake, particularly

near Saganaum Bay” (Carver 1778: 147). The “Chipeway” is a variant of Chippewa that

sometimes refers to a division of the larger Ojibwa Nation and sometimes refers to the whole

Ojibwa Nation. Carver is very consistent in his use of the term throughout his book and the

accompanying maps. He is clearly referring to the entirety of this Nation.

THE HURON AND ANCESTRAL TRIBES A.D. 1400-1649

By far the best-known and best-documented people of the early contact period were the

Huron (Wendat). The Huron Confederacy is generally considered to be the most populated

and most densely settled group in the Georgian Bay area. Their numbers in prehistoric times

are a matter of considerable debate since the Confederacy is believed to have been formally

constituted sometime around 1400 A.D., with groups migrating into the area up to the time of

contact with Europeans. Also complicating any computation of population numbers and

densities is the strong likelihood that disease spread from Europeans on the east coast of

North America had probably already reached the Great Lakes region and reduced populations

prior to the advent of direct contact.

“In the earliest accounts of the Huron they were estimated to number from 30,000 to

40,000 persons. This was not counting the Tionontati and the Neutrals, who together

were thought to be equally numerous. In 1640 and 1641 the three groups were

estimated to have been reduced by war, plague, and famine to a total of about 24,000

people.”

(Kinietz 1965: 3)

During the early contact period, circa 1600-1649, the Huron Confederacy was situated in

North Simcoe County and is described by Bruce Trigger in The Huron: Farmers of the North

as follows:

“Although the Huron confederacy may have embraced more people than did any of

the other Iroquoian ones, the Huron villages were concentrated in an area that

measured no more than 35 miles east to west and 20 miles north to south. The entire

country could thus be traversed in a very leisurely fashion in three or four days. On





the east the Huron settlements were bounded by Lake Simcoe, on the west by

Nottawasaga Bay, the southernmost extension of Georgian Bay. The Huron Country

was separated from the region to the north by Matchedash Bay, a narrow inlet also

opening onto Georgian Bay.”

(Trigger: 1969: 9)

In his later seminal work, Children of Aataentsic: A History of the Huron People to 1660,

which remains a standard reference in the study of the history and culture of these people,

Trigger outlines the establishment of the confederacy and the origins of the member nations,

as well as the nearby and allied Tionontati (Petun):

“The archaeological record indicates that the region where the Hurons were

found living in historical times was occupied continuously by horticulturalists

from the early Iroquoian period onwards. In the 1640s, the Attignawantan

who lived in the extreme west of the Huron country claimed they could point

out the sites their ancestors had inhabited for over two centuries. There is,

therefore, little reason to doubt that this tribe developed in the area between

Georgian Bay and Lake Simcoe and that at least some of the many

prehistoric sites found there are those of their ancestors.

“The Arendarhonon appear to have joined the Huron confederacy late in the

sixteenth century. The interest they had in the Trent Valley region, and the

presence of many late prehistoric and protohistoric sites east of Lake Simcoe,

suggest that they were among the original inhabitants of that area. The

oldest sites seem to be near the east end of Lake Ontario and in Prince

Edward County. This may indicate a gradual movement up the Trent Valley,

beginning about A.D. 1500.

“The origins of the two remaining Huron tribes are more ambiguous. Wright

has suggested that the Attigneenongnahac may have evolved in the northern

part of Simcoe County, no doubt east of the Attignawantan, while the

Tahontaenrat developed in the Humber and adjacent valleys in the Toronto

area, where numerous late Iroquoian prehistoric sites have been discovered.

This might account for the large number of prehistoric sites in the Oro

township area of Simcoe County and accords with the Jesuits’ statements that

it was both the Attignawantan and Attigneenongnahac who could point out

sites going back two centuries; however, the latter claim seems based on

Attignawantan sources, and may not apply in its entirety to the

Attigneenongnahac. Moreover, the Tahontaenrat, who were a small group in

historic times, may not have been sufficiently numerous to account for the

many sites in the Toronto area. They are also stated not to have joined the

Huron confederacy before about 1610, while the fusion of northern and

southern division traits, that gave rise to the historic Huron culture, appears

to have been underway in Simcoe County by about the middle of the sixteenth

century. In spite of a preference for matrilocal residence, this blending of





ceramic traditions no doubt came about as a result of increasing

intermarriage, as hitherto distinct tribes began to live in closer proximity to

one another. An alternative theory would have the Attigneenongnahac

moving north from the Toronto area, by about 1550, and settling in the

eastern part of the Huron country, before shifting to their historic tribal area.

Over fifty years later, the Tahontaenrat would have entered the region from

either the south or east. It is possible that the cluster of protohistoric sites

reported for Innisfil township in the southern part of Simcoe County may

have belonged to the Tahontaenrat prior to their final migration northward.

“The origins of the Tionnontate are as obscure as those of the

Attigneenongnahac or the Tahontaenrat. Their pottery types, for the historic

period, are similar to those of the Huron and have only recently been

differentiated on the basis of a few characteristic decorative motifs. Little

evidence has been found of prehistoric sites in their historic tribal area,

hence it has been suggested that they must have originated elsewhere.

Wright has proposed that they might represent a breakaway group from the

original inhabitants of northern Simcoe County, but his theory is argued on

the basis of an inaccurate interpretation of Huron social structure. Garrad

and Heidenreich tentatively derive them, along with the Tahontaenrat, from

the Innisfil sites. Alternatively, future research may reveal them to have

evolved from the Iroquoian groups who inhabited Huron and Grey Counties

during the Middleport substage. These people disappeared from the shores

of Lake Huron in the late Iroquoian period and may have clustered farther

east to become the Tionnontate.”

(Trigger 1987: 156-157)

From about 1600 to the dispersal of the confederacy in 1649, the Huron were drawn into a

trade relationship and military alliance with the French at Quebec. The Huron were key

middlemen in the Great Lakes fur trade, providing links to the western and northern tribes of

the interior where the best furs could be obtained. Their semi-permanent village settlements

attracted the interest of missionaries who sought to convert them to Christianity and French

civility. Meanwhile, whether because of jealousy over the growing economic and military

power of the Huron through trade, or because of a traditional enmity between the two

confederacies, the Five Nations Iroquois engaged the Huron in a longstanding and

unremitting conflict, which culminated in the devastating raid of 1649 that was the

immediate cause of the confederacy collapse. In reality, the dispersal of the Huron was

wrought by a series of crippling diseases coupled with the social instability caused by French

and missionary interference in their internal affairs. The political divisions and social

stresses that resulted needed only the excuse of the incursions of the Five Nations Iroquois

for the Huron (Wendat) confederacy members to disperse into smaller groups.

Following the disintegration of the Huron (Wendat) Confederacy in 1649, it is generally

believed that most of these people were absorbed into the Five Nations (later to become the

Six Nations). One group moved to the area of Quebec City to become the Huron-Wendat





Nation of today, often referred to as the Huron of Lorrette. Other bands moved further north

into the Lake Huron and Lake Superior watersheds. One group settled for a time at

Michilimackinac together with some of their Ottawa allies. French traders had been visiting

this area since about 1660.

W. Vernon Kinietz offers a detailed summary of the movements of the Huron (Wendat)

following the disintegration of the confederacy in 1649.

“After being driven from their Ontario villages, no estimate placed their

number higher than fifteen hundred. The relation of 1649 recounted that

three hundred families had gathered on St. Joseph Island. If there was an

average of five persons in a family, the total number of individuals at that

time would have been fifteen hundred. Approximately half of these retreated

to Quebec with the returning missionaries. Thereafter, the number of Huron

about the Great Lakes was very small. Reports in 1653, 1736, 1741 and 1749

set their number at eight hundred. Accounts of the years between 1653 and

1736 usually give a lower total, somewhere between four hundred and six

hundred.”

(Kinietz 1965: 3-4)

Following this initial relocation and division in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the

Huron (Wendat) Confederacy, the remaining population in the Great Lakes was compelled to

make a series of additional moves and divisions as summarized by Kinietz:

“In 1649 some Huron sought safety with the Tionontati, others among the

Neutrals, and another group on St. Joseph Island. After the attacks on the

Tionontati, and the subsequent destruction of the Neutral villages, the

survivors who escaped captivity fled by way of Mackinac Island to the north-

west shore of Lake Michigan. Hereinafter these combined groups of refugees

will be called Huron. A rendezvous with various Algonquian tribes was

reported in 1653 to be taking place three days’ journey south of Sault Ste.

Marie. A year or so later the Huron and Ottawa had their village on an

island, according to Peter Radisson and Nicolas Perrot. This was probably

Washington Island at the mouth of Green Bay, formerly known as Huron

Island. On the approach of a party of Iroquois they retreated to the mainland

and built a fort near the Potawatomi village of Mechingan, where, according

to Perrot, they successfully withstood a siege for two years. They then

retreated farther inland and in 1658 were reported by Druillette to be six

days’ journey southwest of Lake Superior, where they were visited by

Radisson and Grosseliers. Difficulties with the Sioux, upon whose territory

they were encroaching, required another move. Chaquamegon on the

southern shore of Lake Superior was their next abode. They lived there near

the Ottawa until 1670. The Ottawa then moved their residence to Manitoulin

Island and the Huron to Mackinac (St. Ignace).





“Cadillac persuaded the Huron to settle near the fort which he built at

Detroit in 1701. He reported in 1703 that only about twenty-five remained at

Mackinac. They maintained a village at Detroit throughout the rest of the

contact period. A division took place about 1738, and a group under the

leadership of Orontony, or Nicholas, moved to the vicinity of Sandusky Bay.

In 1744 at least part of this group returned to the neighbourhood of Detroit

and settled on les grands terres. Within a short time this group again moved

southward and shifted from one place to another. Originally, the Huron

village at Detroit was situated on the west side of the river, but some time

before 1733 it was shifted to the other side.”

(Kinietz 1965: 2-3)

In referring to the west side of the Detroit River, Kinietz is referring to their original village

near Fort Ponchartrain that was to become the City of Detroit on the American side.

Antoine Laumet de Lamothe Cadillac, commandant of Fort Baude, as the French post at

Michilimackinac was called, wrote the following observations concerning the Huron Band

encamped in this area:

“It was formerly the most powerful and also the most numerous tribe, but the

Iroquois destroyed them and drove them from their homeland, so they are

now reduced to a very small number; and it is well for us that it is so. For

they are cunning men, intriguing, evil-disposed and capable of great

undertakings, but, fortunately, their arm is not long enough to execute them;

nevertheless, since they cannot act like lions they act like foxes and use every

possible means to stir up strife between us and our allies.”

(c.f. Jaenen 1996: 41)

In 1701 Fort Ponchartrain was established at the future site of Detroit and Cadillac was given

command of this post. He invited the First Nations encamped in the area of Michilimackinac

to join him at Detroit. This resulted in the movement of bands of Ottawa, Potawatomi,

Mississauga and Huron people into the Detroit area. In 1721, the Jesuit, Pierre Francois

Xavier Charlevoix described the First Nations villages surrounding the fort on both sides of

the Detroit River. His description is given ascending the river from Lake Erie:

“Before you arrive at the fort, which stands on the left, a league below the

island of St. Claire (now Belle Isle), you find on the same side two pretty

populous villages very near each other; the first is inhabited by the

Tionnontatez, a tribe of the Hurons, and the same who after having wandered

to and fro for a long time, first settled at the falls of St. Mary and at

Michilimackinac; the second is inhabited by the Potawatomi Indians. On the

right, somewhat higher is a third village of the Ottawas, inseparable

companions of the Hurons from the time that both of them were driven from

their country by the Iroquois.”

(LaJeunesse 1960: 26-27)





Charlevoix specifies this group as the “Tionnontatez”, otherwise known as the “Tionnontate”

or “Tobacco Nation” or the “Petun”. This was another Iroquoian group who were not part of

the Wendat Confederacy but were close allies who formerly lived in the Collingwood and

Blue Mountain area on the west side of Nottawasaga Bay while the Huron (Wendat)

occupied the area between the east side of Nottawasaga Bay and the Narrows between Lakes

Simcoe and Couchiching. It may be that this band that settled near modern day Detroit

contained members of both former Nations.

It appears that relations between the French and the Huron of Michilimackinac must have

improved a great deal from the time that Cadillac wrote the above passage to when they

settled along the Detroit River. In an anonymous report from 1721, the French author had a

much more positive evaluation of these people:

“This is the most industrious nation that can be seen. They scarcely ever

dance, and are always at work. They raise a very large amount of Indian

corn, peas, beans; some grow wheat. They construct their huts entirely of

bark, very strong and solid; very lofty and every long, and arched like arbors.

Their fort is strongly encircled with pickets and bastions, well redoubled, and

has strong gates. They are the most faithful nation to the French, and the

most expert hunters that we have. Their cabins are divided into sleeping

compartments, which contain their Misirague, and are very clean. They are

the bravest of all the nations; and possess considerable talent. They are well

clad; some of them where close-fitting coats. The men are always hunting,

summer and winter, and the women work. When they go hunting in the fall, a

goodly number of them remain to guard the fort. The old women, and

throughout the winter those women who remain, collect wood in very large

quantities. The soil is fertile; Indian corn grows there to the height of ten to

twelve feet; the fields are very clean, and very extensive; not the smallest

weed is to be seen in them.”

(LaJeunesse 1960: 25)

About 1741 a Jesuit mission for the Huron was established on the Canadian side of the

Detroit River at the modern day location of the University of Windsor and Assumption Park.

A reserve was subsequently established adjacent to this mission for the Huron. This reserve

was purchased by the Crown to establish the Village of Sandwich in the late 18th

Century,

which is now part of the City of Windsor. The Huron also had a reserve at Amherstburg.

The Huron who resided on both sides of the Detroit River and who have descendants living

in these areas today became the present day Wyandot of Anderdon First Nation.

THE CHIPPEWA OCCUPATION A.D. 1660-PRESENT

The Chippewa occupied the entirety of Simcoe County at the time of original European

settlement in the area. These people are generally considered to have arrived in the area in

the late 17th

century (circa 1690). According to J. Hugh Hammond, an early researcher on





the history of the Ojibwa/Chippewa of Georgian Bay, they arrived much earlier, shortly after

the dispersal of the Huron. He suggests that they arrived sometime between 1648 and 1660

and that during this period engaged in a long and bitter struggle with the Mohawk who were

ultimately defeated:

“The last great struggle between the Iroquois and the Ojibwas occurred near

the present site of the town of Orillia, by the complete extinction of the

Iroquois bands then occupying this territory. The traditions of the Ojibwas

describe the final battle and the incidents in connection therewith, one of

which was the impalement of the Mohawk Chief’s wife by the victorious

Ojibwas. On Quarry Point, township of Rama, there was a rock having

painted thereon some of the incidents in connection with this last contest for

supremacy. This rock has now fallen into the water, and possibly ere this the

painting has been washed away by the action of water and ice.

“The Ojibwas were divided as was the custom among the aborigines into

different tribes and clans or totems named respectively, the reindeer, the

catfish, the otter, the pike and the snake, and each totem had its head chief

who represented his people in the councils of the nation. These assembled

from time to time in their longhouse at Orillia to settle the affairs of the

nation in peace as well as in war.”

(Hammond 1904a: 71-72)

In a separate article entitled, “The Coming of the Ojibwas”, J. Hugh Hammond records the

traditions of the Ojibwa which note a number of Mohawk settlements which were destroyed

as a result of the conflict:

“There was fighting at different places, and Lake George was one of the

battle grounds where the Mohawk village was. All of the Mohawks were

killed here. The Ojibwa’s head warrior was killed also. He was

Wahbemanidoo’s chief warrior. There was a Mohawk village between

Penetanguishene and Orillia; these were all killed at this time. There was

also a village of Mohawks at Atherley, and when the chief of the Mohawks

saw Wahbemanidoo’s chief warrior coming he went and met him, and made a

feast with him. The end of the peace talk was that the Mohawks would carry

water for the Chippewas when it was wanted, or become their slaves, so

Wahbemanidoo’s chief warrior forgave him.

“There was another Mohawk village of Mohawks at Skigawog or Pigeon

Lake, these were all killed at the same time.

“There was also a village of Mohawks at or near Kingston, on the lake, these

were killed, too.





“There is a rock at Quarry Point, now in the water, on which in Indian

picture all of this is written.

“The bank at Lake George is where the fort of the Mohawks was and the

village was close to it.

“From this time on the Chippewas and the Mohawks were enemies. There

was another big battle on Manitoulin Island between the Ojibwas and

Mohawks; you will find some of the skulls there.”

(Hammond 1904b: 76-77)

Although Hammond does not state as much in his article, the account cited above appears to

have been made from the dictation of this history from an informant member of the

Chippewa/Ojibwa, probably from the community at Rama. Hammond was a resident of

Orillia who did extensive research in the area and relied heavily on Ojibwa informants.

In his Handbook of Indians of Canada, James White informs us that:

“According to the traditions of all three tribes, the Potawatomi, Chippewa

(Ojibway) and Ottawa were originally one people, and seem to have reached

the upper end of Lake Huron together. Here, they separated, but the three

have sometimes formed a loose confederacy…Warren conjectured that it had

been less than three centuries since the Chippewa became disconnected as a

distinct tribe from the Ottawa and the Potawatomi.”

(White 1913: 390-391)

Indeed, many writers of the 17th

, 18th

and 19th

centuries noted that it was nearly impossible to

determine from which of the three tribes a person may have come, as their language, dress

and customs were indistinguishable from one another. During the 18th

century their alliance

became known as the “Council of the Three Fires”. In many of the accounts of the defeat of

the Mohawks in Southern Ontario, it was the combined might of the whole Council of the

Three Fires that actually engaged and defeated the enemy, not one of the member nations on

its own. At the time of European contact the Ottawa were settled on and around Manitoulin

Island; the Ojibwa along the north shore of Lake Huron and the shore of Lake Superior; and

the Potawatomi were located on the south shore of Lake Huron and the shore of Lake

Michigan.

The following notes on the Chippewa are extracted from the Report of a Special Commission

to Investigate Indian Affairs in Canada (1858):

“This tribe having originally migrated from Lake Superior, occupied as their

hunting ground, the vast tract stretching from Collin’s Inlet on the north-

eastern shore of Georgian Bay to the northern limits of the land claimed by

the Mississaguas.





“Of this they have surrendered at different times nearly the whole; having

ceded in 1795 28,000 acres for a payment of L100, in 1815 a further tract of

250,000 acres for L4,000. These were absolute sales, and the Indians now

derive nothing from these surrenders.

“They subsequently in 1818 they gave up to the Crown 1,542,000 acres for a

perpetual annuity of L1,200. In 1836, they surrendered the tract of 9,800

acres on the Portage road from Simcoe to Coldwater, on which they were

located by Sir John Colborne six years previously. This land was to be sold,

and under the terms of the Treaty, the proceeds were to be applied for the

benefit of the Indians generally. This however has not been carried out, and

the Lake Huron and Simcoe bands enjoy the whole benefit of the surrender.

“This is in conformity with the usual terms of land surrendered, and as they

have received the money for so many years, it would be unwise to disturb the

present arrangement.

“Their present reserves consist only of 1,600 acres purchased out of their

own funds at Rama on the east side of lake Couchiching, some islands in that

Lake and Lake Simcoe,, and the Christian Islands in the Georgian Bay.

“The tribe has split into three bands, called respectively from the location of

the Villages, the Rama, Snake Island, and Beausoleil Bands. They have lately

surrendered the Island occupied by the last named Band, who intend to

remove to the Christian Islands.”

(Murray, 1963: 119)

THE FUR TRADE ERA

Three First Nations trails known as the Rouge Trail, Don Trail and Humber Trail began on

the shore of Lake Ontario in the Toronto area and terminated on the two branches of the

Holland River (Myers 1977: 2). These trails form part of a long established trade and

communications network that linked the upper and lower Great Lakes. The route follows the

Holland River into the southern end of Lake Simcoe. The route then followed the western

shore of Lake Simcoe northward to Kempenfelt Bay and then westward to the end of the bay.

A portage was then undertaken to the Nottawasaga River and this river was followed into

Georgian Bay at the present location of the Town of Wasaga Beach. Alternatively, one could

continue north to the Narrows between Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching. The route then

followed the Severn River out of Lake Couchiching and into Matchedash Bay at the south

end of Georgian Bay. This network of trade and communication was long established by the

time Europeans began to operate in the area. The presence of artifacts dating to the Early

Archaic Period in close proximity to the upper and lower landings on the Holland River East

Branch suggests that the use of this system most likely dates back to at least that period and

sites dating from these earliest of users can be anticipated along the length of this route.





The most direct of the three trails originating on the north shore of Lake Ontario was the

Humber Trail. This trail has been variously known as the Humber Trail, the Humber-

Holland Portage, the Pass at Toronto, the Toronto Portage, le Passage de Toronto, le Portage

de Toronto, and the Toronto Carrying-Place. The trail began at the mouth of the Humber

River on Lake Ontario and headed northward following the east side of the Humber River to

the present Town of Nobleton. From Nobleton the trail crossed the East Branch of the

Humber and proceeded northward to the west branch of the Holland River (Myers 1977: 2).

The East Branch of the Holland was also employed and was known to be less swampy. The

East Branch of the Holland River connected to the Don Trail.

The first historic documentation of the use of this route comes from Champlain. In

September of 1615 Champlain and his interpreter, Etienne Brule, accompanied their Huron

allies on a raid against the Iroquois. At the narrows on the north end of Lake Simcoe, Brule

and Champlain separated. Brule and 12 Huron were to head south to the Susquehanna River

and the home of the Andastes Nation to invite them to participate in the raid. It is believed

that Brule would have taken the Humber Trail. This is the first known use by a European of

the Carrying-Place (Robinson 1965: 6). Champlain also left us the first recorded description

of the Narrows at the start of his expedition with the Huron against the Iroquois:

“When the greater part of our people were assembled, we set out from the

village on the first day of September and passed along the shore of a small

lake, distant from that village three leagues, where they make great catches

of fish which they preserve for the winter. There is another lake immediately

adjoining which is twenty-six leagues in circumference, draining into the

small one through a place, where a great catch of fish is made by means of a

number of weirs which almost close the strait, leaving only small openings in

it where they set their nets in which the fish are caught; and these two lakes

empty into the Freshwater Sea.”

(Biggar 1932: 245-246)

The Jesuits record that in 1638 a people known as the “Ouenrohronnons” abandoned their

home on the east bank of the Niagara River and traveled to the Huron country to join this

confederacy and escape the Five Nations Iroquois. It is believed that these fugitives came by

way of the Humber Trail (Robinson 1965:12). It is generally believed that Brebeuf and

Chaumonot traveled the Humber trail on their voyage to Neutral territory in 1641. This

belief arises from the fact that Brebeuf broke his left shoulder blade on the ice of Lake

Simcoe. This would seem to indicate that he was travelling this route (Robinson 1965: 10).

The Huron advised the French at least as early as 1632 that the Humber Trail was the shortest

and easiest route from Huronia to Montreal. However, because of the animosity between the

Iroquois and the Huron, the route was unsafe. Until the Five Nations Iroquois displaced the

Huron in 1649 the area remained a “no man’s land”. Once the Huron were dispersed the

Iroquois made extensive use of the three trails in the Toronto area and established villages at

the Lake Ontario terminus of each to secure them. So threatening were the Iroquois that the





French did not attempt to ascend the St. Lawrence River following the demise of the Huron

until 1654 (Robinson 1965: 11).

The most common route to the interior trade from Montreal was the Ottawa and French River

route to Georgian Bay. This was a difficult route with many portages. Some traders

preferred to travel the St. Lawrence to Lake Ontario, then up the Trent River and then

through a series lakes and streams to Georgian Bay. This route was likewise difficult with

many portages. When the French established the trading post at Michilimackinac (1660) at

the entrance to Lake Michigan from Lake Huron, the Great Lakes route became popular.

However, many considered the Humber Trail the most direct route to Georgian Bay,

Michilimackinac, and the northwest where the richest furs were to be obtained from the

colder climate (Myers 1977: 3-4).

Since the dispersal of the Huron, Neutral and Petun from the peninsula of southern Ontario

by 1650, the area was firmly in control of the Five Nations Iroquois. Around 1665 the Five

Nations began to establish their own villages in the lands of their former enemies. These

villages were established along the north shore of Lake Ontario as follows: Ganneious was

an Oneida village situated at the present day town of Nappanee; Kente was a Cayuga village

situated on the Bay of Quinte; Kentsio was a Cayuga village on Rice Lake; Ganaraske was a

Cayuga village in the present location of the Town of Port Hope; Ganatsekwyagon was a

Seneca village established at the mouth of the Rouge River and Teiaiagon was a Seneca

village at the mouth of the Humber (Robinson 1965:15-16). In 1671 de Coucelles visited the

eastern end of Lake Ontario. He observed that the Iroquois hunted exclusively in the

territory of their former enemies and that the entire trade in furs from the region was sent to

the Dutch on the Albany (Robinson 1965: 16).

In 1669 the French explorers Pere and Joliet camped at the village of Ganatsekwyagon at the

mouth of the Rouge before heading to Lake Superior in search of a reputed copper mine.

They traveled the Rouge Trail to the East Branch of the Holland and then onto Lake Simcoe

and Georgian Bay. Sulpicion missionaries also established themselves at this village. On

several maps of the period it is this trail that is shown rather than those of the Don & the

Humber. This would suggest that at the time, this route was the preferred trail (Robinson

1965: 20).

In 1670 Talon, Intendant of Quebec began to make plans to curb Iroquois power in the Great

Lakes region. Talon resented the incursions of the Five Nations into the area and the fact that

they were “plundering” First Nations who were subjects of the French Crown for furs that

were then passed on to the English and the Dutch. He proposed to establish forts that would

offer security to the Ottawa First Nation travelling to meet the French for trade. In 1673 Fort

Frontenac was founded at the present day site of Kingston. This resulted in the Iroquois

making Teiaiagon, the village at the base of the Humber Trail, the centre of their trade.

Teiaiagon was approached from the west end of Lake Ontario and allowed the English and

Dutch to avoid contact with the French at their new fort (Robinson 1965: 21-24).





After the establishment of Fort Frontenac, LaSalle established his residence at this location in

1675 and is known to have traveled the Carrying-place at least three, and likely four times,

on his excursions to the west. LaSalle chose to use the Humber Trail for a reason that likely

made it the preferred route following the development of ship navigation on the Great Lakes.

This was the fact that the Humber Trail, unlike the Rouge Trail was sheltered within the

natural deep-water harbour of the future city of Toronto. LaSalle crossed the Carrying-Place

in 1680 on his way to Michilimackinac, in 1681 on his way to Fort Frontenac from

Michilimackinac and again on a return trip to Michilimackinac that same year. It is likely

that he crossed a fourth time in 1683 on his return from the Mississippi (Robinson 1965: 25-

36). Although the French and Iroquois were traditionally at odds, they had a great deal of

respect for LaSalle as he did for them. Had they known that LaSalle was using their portage

to transport arms to their enemies, the Illinois, they may not have allowed his safe passage

(Robinson 1965: 40).

Shortly after 1700 the Chippewa gained control of the Holland River area. They referred to

the river as Escoyondy. Later the Mississauga would call it by the name Miciaguean

(Rolling 1968: 11)

Alexander Henry leaves only a brief mention of the Narrows in his travels through the area in

1764:

The next day was calm, and we arrived at the entrance of the navigation

which leads to Lake aux Claies. We presently passed two short carrying-

places, at each of which were several lodges of Indians, containing only

women and children, the men being gone to the council at Niagara.

(Henry 1901: 170-171)

Alexander Henry’s account uses the French name for Lake Simcoe, Lac aux Claies, or

Hurdle Lake, in reference to the fish fence or weir at the Narrows. The entrance to the

“navigation” would refer to the mouth of the Severn River at the bottom of Matchedash Bay.

Undoubtedly, one of the short portages he mentions would refer to the Narrows, where he

indicates that a number of First Nations people had “cabins”. At this period of time, the term

cabin was used in reference to wigwams.

In 1783, the newly formed Northwest Company undertook a detailed examination of all

available routes to the interior. Many considered the Humber Trail to be the shortest and

safest route. It was at this time that the possibility of a road following the trail from Lake

Ontario to Lake Simcoe began to be seriously considered. In 1784 Benjamin Frobisher, a

partner in the firm, wrote to Henry Hamilton, then Governor of Quebec with this project in

mind (Myers 1977: 4).

In 1785 Chevalier Philippe de Rocheblave of the Illinois country petitioned Hamilton for a

tract of land at the Toronto Carrying-Place. He proposed to construct a trading post at

Toronto and to develop this route as a competitor to the Ottawa River route. When the

American Revolution was over, the Northwest Company was concerned that they may have





to find alternative routes to the interior since the British were to relinquish control over their

forts at Oswego, Niagara, Detroit and Michilimackinac. This rekindled the interest of the

Northwest Company in the Humber Trail route. However, the government favoured de

Rocheblave’s plan. In 1787 the Toronto purchase was signed with three Mississauga chiefs

and in 1788 the purchased land was surveyed. In 1791 the surveyor Augustus Jones was sent

a letter advising him that Lord Dorchester (then Governor of Quebec) had ordered that de

Rocheblave’s tract was to be laid out. However, this letter did not arrive until a year later.

By that time the new Province of Upper Canada had been created and the newly appointed

Lt. Governor, John Graves Simcoe, had arrived. The District Land Board was the employer

of Augustus Jones and Simcoe dissolved this organization. Consequently, de Rocheblave’s

plan evaporated at that moment (Myers 1977: 5-9).

Simcoe was directed to establish his capital at Toronto and the new town was named York on

August 27, 1793. The name was chosen to honour the Duke of York who had saved Holland

from invasion during the French Revolution. Simcoe was eager to establish a direct route

from the new capital of Upper Canada to the Upper Great Lakes (Myers 1977: 12). As the

overland trail from Toronto to the Holland River East Branch and from thence via water

through to Lake Simcoe and on to Georgian Bay was long established by the First Nations as

a trade and communications route, it was only practical and efficient that Lt. Governor

Simcoe would exploit it to establish communications with Georgian Bay. On September 24,

1793 Simcoe set out to establish the route for a proposed road that would connect York with

the Holland River. Simcoe’s reconnaissance determined that the road should connect to the

east branch of the Holland River. This choice apparently accorded with advice he had

received from a First Nations elder. Simcoe renamed the Escoyondy the Holland River after

Major Samuel Holland, Surveyor-General of Canada (Rolling 1968:12).

Rolling (1968: 11) states that Simcoe’s party camped at the location of Soldier’s Bay while

Myers (1977: 17) suggests that Simcoe stayed at the Lower Landing where a fort was already

standing. Rolling makes clear distinctions between the Upper Landing and Soldiers Bay

whereas Myers states that they are the same. This issue was discussed in a conversation with

Gordon Dibb, a licensed Professional archaeologist who conducted a survey of the East

Holland Branch in 1978 and who worked on the Archaeological Master Plan of East

Gwillimbury Township. Mr. Dibb does not believe that the fort was established at the time

of Simcoe’s visit. He notes that although many secondary sources mention the fort, it is not

present in primary documents of the period. In either case, Simcoe named the site of the

landing and future terminus of his road Gwillimbury. The site of the Lower Landing was

known as an open space at the landing where First Nations and fur traders frequently

encamped (Myers 1977: 17)

Augustus Jones was hired to survey the new road in February of 1794. Simcoe directed that

the road should follow the Don Trail. This trail was less traveled by Simcoe’s time but

Simcoe wanted the road to be laid out on as straight a line as possible (Myers 1977: 21).

Jones’ survey of the route was completed up to Lot 111, Concession 1 West of Yonge Street

shortly thereafter. Mr. Jones calculated that loaded boats could communicate between Lot

111 and Lake Simcoe. The Queen’s Rangers were sent out to construct the road. They





completed the road to Lot 111 in 1796. Simcoe named the new road Yonge Street after Sir

George Yonge, Secretary of War. Settlers were established along Yonge Street and were

obligated to maintain it as a condition of receiving title to their land. However, it was found

that maintenance was not adequate to the growing volume of traffic and the road was

declared a Provincial Highway in 1803. Thereafter, treasury money was allocated to

maintain and improve it (Rolling 1968: 12). In 1816, Yonge Street was cleared of major

stumps and roots that yet remained and impeded use of the road (Myers 1977: 142).

The establishment of Yonge Street was of great interest to the Northwest Company as it was

calculated that $72.00 per ton could be saved in shipping costs if the Yonge Street route was

used in preference to the Ottawa River or the Great Lakes route. In addition, U.S. Customs

officials along the Great Lakes route had harassed the company since 1796. In 1810 they

requested 2,000 acres of land at Kempenfelt Bay and Penetanguishene and a further 200

acres at Holland Landing. Although the plan was supported, the land between

Penetanguishene and Kempenfelt Bay was not purchased and the War of 1812 intervened

(Myers 1977:51-53). However, the poor condition of the road up to 1816 and the

amalgamation of the Northwest Company with the Hudson Bay Company in 1821 meant that

the route was never developed as a major fur trade route.

During the War of 1812 Yonge Street became an important route for the shipment of naval

stores to Georgian Bay. A navy supply depot was established on the east side of the Holland

River at Soldier’s Bay north of the Queensville Sideroad. The anchor, from which “Anchor

Park” derives its name, is one example of navy materiel that traveled this route. The anchor

was hauled up Yonge Street on sleighs pulled by 12 yoke of oxen. The War ended before the

anchor completed its intended journey to Georgian Bay and was abandoned on the sleighs

and left sitting until it was moved in 1870 to its present site in the park. Following the War

of 1812, the rise of steamship navigation on the Great Lakes greatly reduced the use of this

route to convey people and goods to the upper Great Lakes (Rolling 1968: 15-16).

Plans for a railway from Toronto to Collingwood were discussed as early as 1834. Royal

Assent for a charter was granted in 1849. On October 15, 1851 the construction of a railway

from York to Collingwood officially began. This railway was chartered as the “Ontario,

Simcoe and Huron Railroad” and was later renamed the “Northern Railway of Canada”

(Mika 1972: 28-30). By the Spring of 1853 the railway had reached Holland Landing. This

had the effect of greatly reducing traffic to the village along Yonge Street. When the railway

reached Barrie, the shipment of goods from Holland Landing across Lake Simcoe virtually

ended (Rolling, 1968: 27). The railway route through this area followed the east side of the

valley of the Holland River East Branch up to the village of Holland Landing where it turns

westward. Early in 1855 the railway was completed all the way to Collingwood on Georgian

Bay, Lake Huron (Mika 1972: 32).

The establishment of Yonge Street, the Nine Mile Portage and the Penetanguishene Road,

followed by the arrival of the railway, resulted in the decreasing importance of the fur trade

canoe routes beginning in the early 19th

century. Most commercial and military traffic

entered into Georgian Bay through the Nottawasaga River route. With the completion of the





railroad to Collingwood in 1855, goods and government stores were shipped directly to

Collingwood and then loaded on ships for transport on the upper lakes.

LAND SURRENDERS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RESERVES

The first purchase of land from the First Nations in the area was concluded in 1798. This

treaty was for the harbour of Penetanguishene and adjacent lands which are all contained

within the modern Townships of Tiny and Tay. Prior to this treaty, a surrender was

concluded in 1795 that was a temporary arrangement to allow for the use of land adjacent to

Penetanguishene harbour until the formal treaty was signed in 1798. In 1808 Samuel S.

Wilmot undertook an exploration of the land between Kempenfelt Bay and Penetanguishene

for the purpose of negotiating an additional treaty for more land. In 1811 Wilmot then

surveyed the Penetanguishene Road, which was done under another provisional arrangement

until a formal treaty was concluded in 1815. The 1815 treaty was signed by three chiefs:

Kinaybicoinini, Aisance and Misquuckkey who were also known as Snake, Aisance and

Yellowhead (Hunter 1998: 12-14).

“The most prominent or best known of the Ojibway chiefs who signed the

treaties for the cessions of the different parts of the county was Musquakie, or

Yellowhead. For many years he was the head chief over all the Ojibway

chiefs in the district, and was a famous man in his day, his memory being still

kept green in the name of ‘Muskoka.’”

(Hunter 1998: 16)

This treaty covered the area between Penetanguishene harbour and Kempenfelt Bay. This

treaty was then followed by a much more extensive land surrender under a treaty signed

October 17th

, 1818. The objective of this second treaty was to complete the surrender of

lands between lakes Huron and Ontario. However, an inquiry into the status of land

surrenders within Ontario revealed that several areas within central Ontario might have been

overlooked in the early treaties. Accordingly, the Williams Treaties were signed in 1923

between Canada, Ontario and the Ojibway peoples of southern Ontario.

In 1828, Sir John Colborne became the Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada. Colborne

was determined that the government and the Anglican church could and should have the

same success in Christianizing and civilizing the First Nations as the Methodist church had

accomplished. Since 1825, the Reverend Peter Jones, himself a Mississauga convert, had

achieved remarkable success travelling across Upper Canada and converting his Ojibwa

relatives to Methodism. The Methodists also assisted their converts in the construction of

new log homes and in the development of farmlands with the view that they could become

self-sufficient now that the progress of settlement had made survival by following traditional

means impossible. Colborne desired to accomplish the same level of success for the Crown.

These developments are summarized by Andrew Hunter in his History of Simcoe County

(1998):





Prior to 1830, the Indians had wandered indiscriminately about the Lake

Simcoe region; but in that year, Sir John Colborne, the Lieut-Governor,

collected them on a reserve of 9,800 acres, stretching from the Narrows to

Coldwater. They consisted for the most part of three bands of Ojibways

under Chiefs Yellowhead, Aisance, and Snake, besides a band of

Pottawatamies, lately from Drummond Island, or Michigan. They numbered

in all about 500, and were placed under the superintendence of Captain T. G.

Anderson. The headquarters of Chief Snake’s band was the island named

after him; Yellowhead’s band, which afterwards removed to Rama, was then

located at Orillia and the Narrows; while that of Chief Aisance was settled at

Coldwater, the other extremity of the reserve. A road was at once cleared

from the Narrows to Coldwater along the famous trail, and during 1831 a

line of houses was built by the Government at a distance of a mile apart over

a portion of the route. Shortly afterward the Government also erected, at

Coldwater, a store, a school, and a grist mill, the latter which began

operations in 1833.

(Hunter 1998: 18)

Although Hunter suggests that the Ojibwa were still following a seasonal round of movement

and resource exploitation up to 1830, this way of life had already started to undergo a

transformation to a more fixed residency based on agriculture. This had started under the

influence of the Methodists. This work was accomplished through the use of a number of

Christian Ojibwa, most notably the Reverend Peter Jones. By the time Colborne determined

to launch a settlement scheme on behalf of the Crown, this work had already been started at

Coldwater and at the Narrows under the Methodists. The Methodists had already established

a school at Coldwater and another near the Narrows on Chief Yellowhead’s Island. In 1831

a new school was constructed at the Narrows (Smith 1987: 105). Missionary work had

started among the Lake Simcoe bands beginning in 1826. By 1828, 400 out of a population

of 515 had embraced Methodism (Smith 1987: 94).

These settlements were not long created before pressure from Euro-Canadian settlers

demanding these valuable lands pressured the government into closing the Coldwater and

Narrows reserves. In 1836 these reserve lands were surrendered to the government. Chief

Yellowhead’s band used their annuity payments from their land surrenders to purchase land

in Rama Township in 1838, at which time the band relocated there. Chief Aisance’s band

moved to Beausoleil and Christian Islands (Hunter 1998: 19). The Beausoleil Island group

removed to join the rest of the band on Christian Island in 1856 (Ross & Smith 2002: 80).

However, even after the beginnings of the various reserves established from 1830 onward to

settle the bands of Ojibwa/Chippewa living in northern Simcoe County, many of these people

continued to follow a modified form of their traditional practice of seasonal movements

according to the resources available in any given time of year. As the following account

from the Coutts family of Vespra Township indicates, this pattern was still practiced by some

number of First Nations people in the area at least into the early 20th

century





“Descendants of the Ojibway and Hurons from Rama and Christian Island

visited Willow Creek and Little Lake in the early 1900s. They would come in

the warmer months and build several wigwams. The men would hunt and

trap and the women would make baskets and napkin holders and come up the

concession to sell door-to-door. They sometimes camped in the pastures.

Some of the men, for a while, would work as hired hands.”

Dr. Wallace Coutts, 1984

In A History of Vespra Township 1987, p. 68

The Mnjikaning Fish Fence Circle has graciously provided an additional historical timeline

of the Atherley Narrows fishing weirs. Concern was expressed that the documentation

presented in this report has excluded the Anishinaabe from the story of the fish weirs at the

Atherley Narrows. This was never our intent and we sincerely apologize if that was the

message conveyed. The history provided by Mnjikaning Fish Fence Circle is reproduced

below as provided. We agree that this information informs and enriches that already

included here.

Historical Timeline:

1646-1650: The Wendat/Huron are dispersed from Huronia.

1650-1680: Iroquoian peoples move through the region, utilizing the former Wendat

territories as hunting grounds. A small number of Iroquoian village sites are

established along the north shore of Lake Ontario. They push both north and south-

west, beyond the boundaries of the Wendat territory, which brings them into conflict

with the Anishinaabe (ie: Mississauga, Ojibway, Chippewa, Potawatomi and Odawa).

1680-1690: The Anishnaabe push back, led mostly by the Mississauga, and return the

Iroquois to their homelands south of Lakes Ontario & Erie to the region known as the

Finger Lakes/Mohawk Valley.

1701: The Great Peace of Montreal of 1701. The French colonial authorities draw

representatives from 40 different Aboriginal nations to Montreal to secure peace.

1701-1800: The Mississauga, and other Anishinaabe groups, migrate back to the

Huronia region to resettle in lands they had vacated 350 years earlier to

accommodate a homeland for the Wendat.

1830 - 1836: The British Government relocates the Chippewas to the Coldwater-

Narrows Reserve in an effort to turn these hunter-gatherers into farmers (and to

‘Christianize’ them) so that they did not need to travel to or use their traditional

hunting and fishing grounds, freeing the land for European settlement and commerce.

Subsequent to the “surrender” of this reserve (recently deemed by the Courts to have

been illegal, resulting in the Coldwater - Narrows Reserve Land Claim Settlement)

the people were dispersed to Rama, Georgina Island and Beausoleil Island. Although





not documented, an Elder from the Beausoleil Band, whose grandfather was the last

traditional chief of that band, told us several years ago that the ancestors of the

Chippewas of Rama First Nation chose to resettle at Rama in order to be stewards of

the Fish Fence.

1867: The British North America Act is passed.

1868: The passing of the "The Fishery Acts" Including “An Act for the regulation of

Fishing and protection of Fisheries”. This Act made fishing at a weir in fresh water

streams as well as traditional methods of spearing and netting illegal (S.13.8) except

in certain circumstances and under licence by the Minister. (The document refers to

fish fences as "nishagans.")

1876: The Indian Act is created. The Indian Act was not part of any treaty made

between First Nations peoples and the British Crown. The sole purpose of the act was

to assimilate and colonize First Nations peoples.

1923: The signing of the Williams Treaties which further removed the people from the

land and outlawed hunting and gathering. Often referred to as the starvation treaties

by Elder knowledge-keepers, the treaties are now being scrutinized in a court

proceeding. As part of this proceeding, the gov't has already exempted Treaty #20

from the negotiations. This includes the southern half of Ramara and the Kawartha

Lakes Region.

See this website for Williams Treaty information:

http://www.williamstreatiesfirstnations.ca/about/#prettyPhoto

....and this second website for a map (it's the first one) of the region now exempt:

http://www.williamstreatiesfirstnations.ca/maps/

1951: The Indian Act is amended. For almost 100 years, it had been unlawful for

"Indians" to (among other things) practice their customs & culture, be allowed off-

reserve without permission of the Indian Agent and to organize & hire legal counsel.

Circa 1973: James V. Wright investigated a site on Couching Point approximately 1⁄2

mile from the Narrows. Known as the Dougall Site and referenced in Amick’s report

in Table 1 as BdGu-2, and discussed further in an excerpt from Johnson &

Cassavoy’s 1978 report, the more recent use of the site was not noted. However,

Wright determined that the site “was occupied seasonally for nearly 2000 years by

people who exploited the rich fish resource” – including a re-occupation by”

Ojibway and finally 19th and 20th century Canadians”. Please see Appendix B to this

timeline for more complete extracts from Wright’s report on the Dougall Site.

Circa 1990: Parks Canada removes approximately 134 stakes from the Narrows that

were part of the fish fence and this resulted in the birthing of the MFFC. Several

stakes were carbon dated suggesting they had been installed circa 1850. This is 200

http://www.williamstreatiesfirstnations.ca/about/#prettyPhoto





years after the dispersal of the Huron/Wendat and about 170-180 years after the

removal of Iroquoian people by the Mississauga/Odawa/Ojibway from this region.

After the Great Peace of Montreal of 1701, the territories north of Lake Ontario and

Lake Erie are Anishinaabe-controlled territories. It would seem clear through this

timeline that the use of the Narrows included Anishinaabe people up until the time of

their removal during the establishment of reserves in the Lake Simcoe region.

The above timeline was prepared by the Mnjikaning Fish Fence Circle.

*************

The story of the Fish Fence is many-faceted and does not end with the dispersal of the

Huron Nation. There are oral histories that have yet to be documented, but given the

above events, is it any wonder that local residents and many in Rama would deny that

their people had fished at the Narrows using the weirs? The Narrows was required by

settlers for transporting timber and other commerce and increasingly for tourism

including sport fishing. The fish fences had to go. It is almost miraculous that so

many remnants of these structures remain. (In their 1978 Cassavoy& Johnson

estimated that 7800 weir stakes remained in the East Channel, most of which have not

been surveyed.)

On behalf of the members of the Mnjikaning Fish Fence Circle, I respectfully request

that this submission be acknowledged and considered in some fashion in your final

report to the Minister.

Mary Lou Kirby

Appendix A to Timeline

Map 3 - Traditional Territories, Cultural Ecology, and Commercial Trade in the 19th

Century

The Chippewa asserted exclusive territorial interests over the lands drained by the

Nottawasaga, Lake Simcoe, and Muskoka watersheds through to their outlets in

Georgian Bay. Within the Magnetawan watershed, the William s Commission

documented cases of Chippewa families on the mid and upper source waters of the

Magnetawan River. The eastern coast of Georgian Bay contains multiple tertiary

watershed basins forming a panhandle from the French River to Moose Deer Point

(e.g. ., the Seguin watershed) that were under the territorial control of Ojibway

nation signatories of the Robinson-Huron Treaty.

The Mississauga asserted exclusive territorial interests over the Lake Ontario

watershed. Both the Chippewa and Mississauga territories bordered Algonquin

territory around the sinuosities of the heights of land at the sources of Ottawa River

watershed.

Chippewa and Mississauga Bands further subdivided their territories into a network





of exclusive, inherited “family hunting grounds” defined by the heights of land

around watershed basins and sub -b sins with in their Band territories. (1) In inset

illustrates the locations of specific families’ hunting ground according to records

reaching back to the 1830s. (2) Families annually moved along the well-known routes

between their southern fishing villages and their northern family hunting grounds.

Independent European fur traders erected fur trade posts at points in the watershed

where they could intercept families returning from their hunting grounds (Source:

http://www.williamstreatiesfirstnations.ca/maps/ )

Appendix B to Timeline

THE DOUGALL SITE J.V. WRIGHT

On page 3 of the report, final paragraph, the following summary is given.

"Despite the mixed nature of the cultural deposits, the Dougall site produced a

considerable body of significant data. First, there is evidence that the site was used

relatively continuously for nearly 2,000 years. Second, and most important, the site

basically functioned as a fish camp and this specialized function has expressed itself

archaeologically in a number of interesting ways. Interpretations will follow the

descriptive section which begins with the earliest occupation. Due to the disturbed

nature of the deposit most of the non-diagnostic stone and bone artifacts cannot be

accurately assigned to specific components. They will be described at the end of the

descriptive section and wherever possible comment will be made regarding their

likely association."

Wright provides his Abstract (p. 16).

"The Dougall site was occupied seasonally for nearly 2,000 years by people who

exploited the rich, local fish resource. Point Peninsula culture remains dating near

the beginning of our era were the first occupants and were followed by the entire

Ontario Iroquois development in the region. After the dispersal of the Huron, the site

appears to have been re-occupied by Ojibwa and finally by 19th and 20th century

Canadians. Throughout the occupation, however, it was the late prehistoric-historic

Huron who left the most abundant remains. These remains relate to a fish

preparation station where the major product was not consumed on the site but was

p[reserved for later consumption at other locations."

Summary of James V. Wright's report on the Dougall Site has been taken from a PDF

site. http://www.ontarioarchaeology.on.ca/publications/pdf/oa17-1-

wright.pdf Accessed 30 Sept. 2013

Robert Browne

(Mnjinkaning Fish Fence Circle 2011)





5.2.2.3 EURO-CANADIAN SETTLEMENT

The former townships of Rama and Mara were first named in 1820. The townships were

originally part of York County, but were transferred to Ontario County when they were first

incorporated as an amalgamated municipality in 1852. They were later reincorporated as

separate municipalities in 1869. A portion of Rama Township was allocated to form what

became the Mnjikaning First Nation No. 32 Indian Reserve of the Chippewas of Mnjikaning

First Nation. Many First Nations people were living on the narrow strip of land that separates

lakes Simcoe and Couchiching between the communities of Atherley and Orillia. These lands

were surrendered by treaty in 1836. After that time, the local Indian Agent began purchasing

lands in Rama Township and the natives were relocated there. North of Rama, the

community of Longford Mills was established in 1868. In 1867 American lumberman Henry

W. Sage had purchased blocks of land in Rama Township after buying timber berths in

Oakley Township in Muskoka District. Ontario County was dissolved upon the formation of

the Regional Municipality of Durham in 1974, and both townships were transferred to

Simcoe County. As part of the municipal restructuring of Simcoe County, Mara and Rama

Townships were re-amalgamated to form Ramara in 1994. (Wikipedia 2011)

In the seventeenth century Simcoe County was home to the Huron. With the arrival of French

priests and Jesuits, missions were established near Georgian Bay. After the destruction of the

missions by the Iroquois and the British, Algonquin speaking peoples occupied the area.

After the war of 1812, the government began to invest in the military defences of Upper

Canada, through the extension of Simcoe’s Yonge St. from Lake Simcoe to Penetanguishene

on Georgian Bay (Garbutt 2010).

Located at the meeting point of Lake Simcoe and Lake Couchiching, Orillia was founded in

1867 and incorporated as a town in 1875. The area was an important part of the fur trade,

with several landing places, now incorporated within the city proper, along the north shore of

Lake Ontario. There was a trading post located at the narrows where the two lakes meet.

This area had also been a long time stop over point and camp and resources for natives as

evidenced by the still existing weirs. The first white settler is said to have settled the area in

1833 and by 1836 there were as many as eight settlers in the area of the city of Orillia

(“Severn,” 2010)

HISTORIC MAPS

Figure 2 illustrates the location of the study area and environs as of 1881. The map is a

segment of the Township of South Orillia Map included in the Simcoe Supplement to the

Illustrated Atlas of the Dominion of Canada (Belden 1881). The historic map shows this

bridge was used as a railway crossing at this time. The west side of the bridge is shown to be

within the settled community of Orillia.

Figure 3 illustrates the location of the study area and environs as of 1877. The map is a

segment of the Township of Mara Map included in the Illustrated Historical Atlas of the

County of Ontario (Beers 1877). The historic map shows that this bridge was used as a





railway crossing at this time. The east side of the bridge is shown to be adjacent the settled

community of Atherley. The bridge is shown to be situated within a marsh.

5.2.2.4 ATHERLEY SWING BRIDGE

The railway corridor that the Atherley Swing Bridge carries over the Atherley Narrows was

built sometime after 1855 when the first railway corridor through Simcoe County was

completed from Toronto to Collingwood. This line was established prior to 1877 when it is

depicted on the Historic Atlas map for the Township of Mara (see Figure 4). A crossing at

this location has existed since the establishment of this railway line (Circa 1870).

“AECOM contacted CN Rail in an attempt to acquire information on the existing

bridge. CN responded to our request by providing microfiche slides of all historical

drawings of bridges at this site in their possession. The earliest drawing provided

was dated 1885.”

(AECOM 2010: 3)

Historic engineering plans obtained from CN Rail illustrate plans for the reconstruction of

the crossing in 1969 (see Figure 5). On this plan there is a note that states,

“The existing 219’1” 0 to 0 timber trestle which has deteriorated beyond economical

repair, is to be replaced with 224’11” 0 to 0 ballasted deck steel trestle, all as shown

on this drawing – base of rail, grade & alignment to remain unchanged.”

(CNR 1969)

Although some of the words on the copy obtained are illegible, it is clear that at least the

trestle portion of the bridge at the crossing was replaced. A notation on this drawing states

that the proposed steel trestle was constructed “under R.T.C. order no. R-9599 dated 25

August 1970”. The remnants of wood upright posts visible in the water today likely date

from this period when the wood trestle was replaced with a steel structure.

AECOM’s description of the bridge notes that the layout for the east viaduct dates from 1969

and that the swing bridge dates from 1913:









material.












the piers.




(AECOM 2010: 3-4)

5.2.2.5 RECOGNITION AND COMMEMORATION

Before Parks Canada staff had done any direct research on the site, Sheryl Smith, then a

project archaeologist of the Ontario Region of Parks Canada based in Cornwall, Ontario

presented a paper at the 1982 Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. She

concluded her presentation as follows:

“The Atherley Narrows Fish Weirs (BdGu-6) are the largest and best-preserved such

structures extant in eastern North America, and perhaps the entire continent.

Thorough historical and archaeological research has shown that the weirs were used

for over four thousand years, and are the only ones documented in this part of the

world. They indicate the economic importance placed on fishing by prehistoric

peoples and show the ‘…very long, and important economic tradition that warrants

further study’ (Johnston and Cassavoy 1978: 708).

“It is recommended that the Atherley Narrows Fish Weirs be declared of national

historic importance.”

(Smith 1982: 189)

The Mnjikaning Fish Weirs was officially recognized as a National Historic Site of Canada

in 1982.

Within the List of National Historic Sites maintained by the Canadian Ministry of the

Environment (CME), the “Mnjikaning Fish Weirs” at the Atherley Narrows are summarized

as the “Largest and best preserved wooden fish weirs known in eastern North America, in

use from about 3300 B. C.” (CME n.d.(a): 15).

The “Mnjikaning Fish Weirs National Historic Site of Canada” the Atherley Narrows are

also included within The Canadian Register of Historic Places. This is an online resource

administered by Parks Canada of the Canadian Ministry of the Environment that lists and





describes historic places recognized at the municipal, provincial and federal level.

The description of the location of the Mnjikaning Fish Weirs within the Register is as

follows:

“Mnjikaning Fish Weirs National Historic Site of Canada is located on portions of

the bottom of the Narrows between Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching, a part of the

Trent-Severn Waterway. This includes the navigable marked channel, the old channel

that runs to the northeast and marshland surrounding these channels. The

constriction of the Narrows allows fish to be caught as they move between the lakes,

and the shallowness of the channel permits wooden weirs to be built there. The

channel today is divided in two: the original channel curves to the northeast, and the

navigation channel runs straight to the north. The navigation channel was first

dredged in 1856-57, and dredging has also taken place in the original channel south

of the junction. A linear island has been created along the eastern side of the

navigation channel. A causeway for an old Canadian Pacific Railway bed runs

across the north end of the narrows. Marshland lies in between these channels, and

also east of the old channel. A third channel seems to have existed in the past, curving

to the west of the navigation channel and it has been largely filled in by modern

development. The official recognition refers to the location of the weirs underwater in

the channel between the two lakes.”

(CME n.d.(b))

The statement of significance included in the Register reads:

“Mnjikaning Fish Weirs was designated a national historic site of Canada in 1982

because:

- the site contains the largest and best preserved wooden fish weirs known in eastern

North America, in use from about 3300 B.C. until the recent past;

- the site was cared for and used by the Huron-Wendat in the centuries immediately

before A.D. 1650, and today the Anishinaabeg are stewards of the site; and

- for these two groups, this is a sacred place that represents an ancient and ongoing

spiritual bond between the Creator and all living things. The spirits of people, water,

animals, birds and fish are seen as all coming together in respect and gratitude at

Mnjikaning.

The oldest wooden stakes are clustered in the east channel, and samples taken from

the stakes have provided carbon dates in excess of 5000 calendar years old. This

falls within a time period referred to by archaeologists as the Late Archaic. Little is

known about this area in this period of time, and so archaeologists cannot describe

the cultural affiliations of the earliest people who used the weirs. Another cluster of

12 radiocarbon dates falls within the time that the Huron-Wendat and their

immediate ancestors lived in the area around the Narrows.”

(CME n.d.(b))





A Parks Canada plaque has been installed on the east bank of the Narrows to the south of the

existing Highway 12 bridge. This plaque is entitled, “Mnjikaning Fish Weirs.” The Text of

this plaque is reproduced below:

“About the Fish Weirs: In the Ojibwa language, Mnjikaning (‘man-jik-a-ning’)

means ‘place of the fish fence.’ This complex system of underwater fences was used

by Aboriginal people for harvesting fish. Today, very few wooden fish weirs are still

in existence. In fact, Mnjikaning is the only example of this rare technology in

Canada.

“The fish weirs were constructed here 5,000 years ago. To build them, lines of

wooden stakes were driven into the bottom of the narrows. Vegetation was then

woven through the stakes, forming the fences that guided the fish into shallower

areas. Covered in silt, and therefore protected from bacteria, the wooden stakes have

remained intact.

“A Special Place: Mnjikaning was also a meeting place for Aboriginal nations – a

cherished place where treaties were made, goods were exchanged, and ceremonies

were conducted.

“Today, Aboriginal people believe that Mnjikaning is one of the special sites in North

America where the Creator’s power and spiritual energy can be experienced. Elders

tell us that the fish still listen to the Creator, who charged them with the duty to come

together here. In recognition of this rare and special place, the federal government

officially declared Mnjikaning a national historic site in 1982.

“As you visit, look for signs that the Creator has blessed Mnjikaning with many gifts.

Fish, birds and other creatures can be seen. The grandfather Rock, with its four

colours (yellow, red, black and white), represents our connection to the ancient

world. By respecting the environment, we can make sure this special place remains

protected.

‘The Elder’s grandfather told her that the people from Mnjikaning were special, and

that it was because at one time they lived at the Narrows and took care of the fish

fence there.’

The Archaeological and Historic Sites Board of Ontario (AHSBO) has erected a plaque on

the east bank of the narrows to the south of the existing Highway 12 bridge. The plaque is

entitled, “The Huron Fish Weirs” and the text of this plaque reads as follows:

“In the adjacent Narrows joining Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching are the remains of

Indian fish weirs. They were noted by Samuel de Champlain when he passed here on

September 1, 1615, with a Huron war party en route to attack the Iroquois south of

Lake Ontario. The weirs consisted of large numbers of stakes driven into the bottom





of the Narrows, with openings at which nets were placed to catch fish. These weirs

(claies) caused Lake Simcoe to be named Lac aux Claies during the French regime.

Their remains were noted by archaeologists as early as 1887, and their location was

partially charted in 1955.”

(AHSBO n.d.)

During the Stage 1 Reconnaissance of the study area, a plaque was observed on the western

approach to the bridge situated on the north side of the multi-use path overlying the former

railway bed. This is the only plaque that is situated in in the immediate vicinity of the study

area (see Plate 9). There is no agency or organization credited with the placement of this

plague entitled, “Fish Fence.” The text of this plaque reads:

“The narrow navigational channel of water that connects Lake Simcoe to Lake

Couchiching has long been known as ‘The Narrows.’ Almost invisible from above,

there exists below the surface of the Narrows a 5,000 year old fish fence or weirs.

Developed by Aboriginal people, hundreds, even thousands of wooden stakes were

interwoven with vegetation and placed on the channel’s bed. Creating a complex

network of underwater fences, fish would be directed to an open area where they

could be easily netted or speared during seasonal migrations.

“As an efficient harvesting technology, the fish fence became a place of traditional

meeting for Aboriginal peoples and eventually all humankind. The Hurons kept the

weir for a time and were noted fishing here by Samuel de Champlain in 1615. Here

people would exchange goods and stories, hold spiritual ceremonies, resolve

differences and make agreements. Aboriginal traders and leaders from the north

would stop and replenish their physical, mental and spiritual energies before

continuing to southern communities. On their return voyage, these same parties

would pause to give their friends gifts in honour of their kindness.

“Today, the Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation maintain a stewardship role of

the fish fence, in honour of their ancient promise to their friends, the Hurons. In spite

of erosion, development and changes over the centuries, including the bustle of

today’s commercial and tourist activity, portions of the fish fence still exist.

“Ezhi gchi-piiten daa gawk – The wonder and sacredness of it all.”

(Anonymous n.d.)

5.2.2.6 CONCLUSIONS FROM DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH

The easy access to potable water and a significant fishery surrounding, and passing through,

the study area indicates a high potential for significant archaeological resources of Native

origins. Archaeological and documentary sources illustrate First Nations people have

occupied the land associated with the Narrows from at least the Middle Archaic Period (circa

6000 B.C.) until they moved from the Narrows reserve lands in 1838. The original occupants

were most likely of the Algonkian culture who gathered here owing to its importance as a





source of fish. Later, when the Huron occupied the area, they made use of the fishery already

long established. With the dispersal of the Huron in 1649, it has been suggested that the

Mohawk briefly occupied the area until the Ojibwa sometime between 1660 and 1700 A.D

forced them out. From then until 1838, the Ojibwa people who now are the people of the

Mnjikaning/Rama Reserve occupied the land at the Narrows. Background research suggests

a high potential for archaeological resources of Euro-Canadian origins. Euro-Canadian

settlement and land use of the Narrows area began immediately following the movement of

Chief Yellowhead’s band to Rama Township in 1838.

The cultural history of First Nations settlement and land use in the area suggests that

different patterns of settlement may be anticipated in the area according to the period and

culture under consideration. The earliest First Nations peoples for whom evidence has been

found in proximity to the Narrows are the Middle Archaic peoples. These sites tend to be

small in area and are interpreted to represent seasonal occupations. These sites tend to be

found adjacent to waterways as a means of navigation and communication; as a source of

potable water; and probably most importantly, as a source of fish. The potential for such

sites on dry land in the local vicinity is high. Archaeological sites yielding evidence of this

time period have been documented within close proximity to the study area (see Section 5.3

below).

The proximity of habitation sites to waterways remains the general pattern until the Late

Woodland period when the preferred settlement locations move to the high sandy-soiled

plateaus overlooking valley lands. These areas can accommodate larger village sites and the

corn horticulture associated with this settlement form. This landform does not characterize

the landscape in the vicinity of the study area. Accordingly, the potential for Late Woodland

Period village sites to be encountered in close proximity to the study area is considered to be

low. However, it must be noted that many special purpose sites, outside of villages have

been documented in association with the corn agriculturalists of Ontario. Fishing camps are

included among such sites. Given the significance of the Narrows as a fishery and the fact

that Champlain documents the use of this fishery by the Huron in 1615, the potential for

material associated with this period of occupation is very high. Archaeological sites yielding

evidence of this time period have been documented within close proximity to the study area

(see Section 5.3 below).

In the historic period, following the collapse of the Huron (Wendat) confederacy and the

arrival of Algonkian speaking peoples in the area, the focus on seasonal movements of

people and smaller campsites associated with waterways returns as the primary settlement

form. The potential for Contact Period Algonkian culture sites within the vicinity of the

study area is very high. Burials related to this period have apparently been found in the area

(see Section 5.3 below).

With the advent of Euro-Canadian style land organization and the establishment of farms,

First Nations peoples adopted a modified seasonal cycle wherein farm employment and

occupation of areas within established farmsteads is grafted onto the seasonal cycle.

Beginning in the late 1820s, log cabin homes begin to make their appearance within the





community at the narrows. A school was established at the Narrows in 1831. We do not

know precisely where these log cabins were situated or where the school was, but it should

be anticipated that evidence of such structures might be found in close proximity to the study

area. Evidence from the Tax Assessment Rolls also indicates that Euro-Canadian settlers

occupied portions of Orchard Point immediately south of the study area in the 1830s.

Evidence of these occupations may likewise be encountered near the study area.

The brief overview of documentary evidence readily available indicates that the study area is

situated within an area that was close to the historic transportation routes and in an area well

populated during the nineteenth century and as such has potential for archaeological

resources relating to early Euro-Canadian settlement in the region. Background research

indicates the study area has potential for significant archaeological resources of Native

origins.

5.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

The Archaeological Sites Database administered by MTCS indicates that there are five (5)

previously documented sites within 1 kilometre of the study area. However, it must be noted

that this is based on the assumption of the accuracy of information compiled from numerous

researchers using different methodologies over many years. AMICK Consultants Limited

assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of site descriptions, interpretations such as

cultural affiliation, or location information derived from the Archaeological Sites Database

administered by MTCS. In addition, it must also be noted that a lack of formerly

documented sites does not indicate that there are no sites present as the documentation of any

archaeological site is contingent upon prior research having been conducted within the study

area.

5.3.1 REGISTERED FIRST NATIONS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

A summary of registered and/or known archaeological sites within a 1-kilometre radius of

the study area was gathered from the Archaeological Sites Database, administered by MTCS.

As a result it was determined that three (3) archaeological sites relating directly to First

Nations habitation/activity had been formally documented within the immediate vicinity of

the study area. These sites are briefly described below:

TABLE 1 REGISTERED FIRST NATIONS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN 1KM

Site Name Borden # Site Type Cultural Affiliation

Orchard Point BdGu-18 Campsite Middle Archaic, Late Iroquoian

Dougall BdGu-2 Campsite Middle Archaic, Late Iroquoian

Atherley Narrows BdGu-6 Fishing Station Middle Archaic, Late Iroquoian





The distance to water criteria used to establish potential for archaeological sites suggests

potential for First Nations occupation and land use in the area in the past. This consideration

establishes archaeological potential within the study area.

Table 3 illustrates the chronological development of cultures within southern Ontario prior to

the arrival of European cultures to the area at the beginning of the 17th

century. This general

cultural outline is based on archaeological data and represents a synthesis and summary of

research over a long period of time. It is necessarily generalizing and is not necessarily

representative of the point of view of all researchers or stakeholders. It is offered here as a

rough guideline and outline to illustrate the relationships of broad cultural groups and time

periods.

5.3.2 REGISTERED EURO-CANADIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

A summary of registered and/or known archaeological sites within a 1 kilometre radius of the

study area was gathered from the Archaeological Sites Database, administered by MTCS. It

was determined that two (2) archaeological sites relating directly to Euro-Canadian

habitation/activity had been formally documented within the immediate vicinity of the study

area. All previously registered Euro-Canadian sites are briefly described below:

Table 2 Euro-Canadian Sites within 1km

Site Name Borden # Site Type Cultural Affiliation

The Rama Road Site BdGu-17 Homestead Euro-Canadian

Small BdGu-8 Homestead Euro-Canadian





TABLE 3 CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY FOR SOUTH-CENTRAL ONTARIO

Years ago Period Southern Ontario

250 Terminal Woodland Ontario Iroquois and

St. Lawrence Iroquois

Cultures

1000

2000

Initial Woodland Princess Point

Culture

Saugeen-Point Peninsula-

Meadowood Cultures

3000

4000

5000

6000

Archaic

Laurentian

Culture

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

Palaeo-Indian

Plano Culture

Clovis Culture

(Wright 1972)

5.3.3 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS

There have been four (4) archaeological assessments conducted within close proximity to the

study area; three were done at the Highway 12 crossing site approximately 100 metres to the

south of the study area. The fourth was an underwater assessment conducted for the

proposed undertaking. The resulting previous assessment reports on file with MTCS in

Toronto are as follows:

Mayer Heritage Consultants Inc.

1997a Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1 and 2), Highway 12/Atherley Narrows Bridge,

Township of Ramara, County of Simcoe, Ontario. Archaeological License Report on

file with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.

1997b Underwater Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1 and 2), Proposed Trestle and Rip

Rap Construction Area, Highway 12 Bridge, Atherley Narrows, Simcoe County,

Ontario. Archaeological License Report on file with the Ontario Ministry of

Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.

1997c Underwater Archaeological Assessment (Stage 3), Test Excavation of Area S6,

Highway 12 Bridge, Atherley Narrows, Simcoe County, Ontario. Archaeological





License Report on file with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport,

Toronto.

Scarlett Janusas Archaeology Inc. (SJA)

2014 Marine Archaeological Assessment, Atherley Narrows Bridge Study, Simcoe County.

SJA, Tobermory, Ontario. Archaeological License Report on file with the Ontario

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto. (MTCS File#2009-003-005-2009).

In addition, a technical report was filed with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and

Sport in support of the Mayer Heritage Consultants Inc. assessments, as follows:

Shark Marine

1997 Sub-bottom Profiling of the Proposed Bridge Site at Atherley Narrows, Orillia.

Technical Report filed in support of Mayer Heritage Consultants Inc. underwater

archaeology license reports on file with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and

Sport, Toronto.

The area surrounding the Narrows between Lakes Couchiching and Simcoe has been an area

of intensive archaeological investigation for over a century. The following outline of these

investigations is presented chronologically and limited to research of direct relevance to the

study area.

5.3.3.1 ANDREW HUNTER (1903)

Andrew Hunter compiled an overview of sites located in North and South Orillia Townships

in 1903. This data was published in 1904 and contained in the Annual Archaeological

Report for the province of Ontario, 1903. Andrew Hunter details three sites in this report of

particular interest with regard to the study area. He numbered these sites 20, 21 and 22.

These three sites are nearby the study area and are of interest in establishing the occupation

pattern of this particular area. These sites are discussed in sequential order and the

descriptions are quoted directly from Andrew Hunter:

Andrew Hunter Site No. 20

On part of lot 11, concession 6. F. S. Smith. Numerous relics have been

found on his farm, which is on the shore of Monk’s or Smith’s Bay. A

favourite landing place of the Indians existed here from early times. Metal

tomahawks have been found, indicating the occupation of the place during

historic times; but there have been also relics found of prehistoric dates.

Several years ago, on the narrow tract of land between the two lakes (Simcoe

and Couchiching) many stone axes were found. The place was nearby the

Atherley Road on the way to Invermara, and also near the bay just

mentioned.

(Hunter 1904: 122)





This site is evidently related to the study area. The landing site on the north shore of the

isthmus would have functioned as the landing point for travelers using the Severn route from

Georgian Bay or a launching point for travelers moving north from Lake Simcoe en route to

Georgian Bay. This site would also have functioned as a landing point for those arriving via

canoe to fish and camp at the Narrows, a short walk to the east. From this landing site to the

Narrows, it is likely that most, if not all, of the land was occupied by various groups at

different times from the establishment of the Narrows as a major fishing site during the

Middle Archaic Period (at the latest based on carbon-14 dating of the weirs themselves) up to

approximately 1839 when the reserve at Rama on the opposite side of the Narrows was

established.

Andrew Hunter Site No. 21

At Invermara, in the grounds of Orchard Point House (summer resort),

formerly the Red Cross Hospital, which is the property of Mr. J. P. Secord,

Orillia. A paragraph appeared in each of the three Orillia newspapers of

May 1, 1890, mentioning the finding of a human skeleton, with accompanying

Indian relics, and also other articles in the vicinity of the find. There were

numerous prehistoric, as well as recent relics, the remains thus belonging to

all periods from the earliest downwards. Beside the single skeleton

(apparently a woman’s) there were some stamped out metal ornaments; three

brooches, a double-barred silver cross, about four inches long, with

“Montreal” and the maker’s mark upon it. At a little distance away were

found fragments of roughly ornamented pottery, clay pipe heads, stone axes,

a bone disk, etc. The relics found with the skeleton indicated that it belonged

to a comparatively recent period; but the clay pipe-heads and fragments

mostly belonged to the early Huron period. The latter included a Huron

flared pipe (plain), six belt pattern pipes, and five images from pipes (an

owl’s head, a hawk’s head, the head of another bird, a nondescript image,

pig-nosed or wolf-nosed, and a human face). The foregoing relics indicate

various periods of occupation of the site, as we might expect from the fact

that the fishing station at a little distance north, and, in fact, along the entire

length of the Narrows, attracted Indians thither at all times.

(Hunter 1904: 122)

The year following Andrew Hunter’s above account, his colleague J. Hugh Hammond,

offered further details concerning Orchard Point:

At the Narrows to the west of and south of the site No. XXI, there is on the

extreme point of land on the Old Oak Orchard a number of burials, and these

bodies can be found under and near the flagpole in front of the residence of

the late Albert Fowlie, P.L.S. As this site is new, or, rather, an extension of

the site No. XXI, it is well worthy of noting. Arrow points are numerous here,

stone and bone. The ground is high and sandy back from the shore of Lake

Simcoe, where the burials are.





(Hammond 1905: 85)

The description of the pottery fragments as being “roughly ornamented” suggests that the

pottery was not of Huron origins. Presumably, Hunter is referring to pottery which has been

surface decorated through chord-wrapped stick, dentate stamp, or similar technique which

tends to roughen the surface of the vessel and present a tree bark-like appearance. This may

suggest an occupation dating to the Middle Woodland period (circa 400 BC to 1000 AD).

Alternatively, the presence of pipes, which he attributes to the Huron together with rough

surfaced pottery, may suggest occupations from one or both of the Late Woodland sub-

phases termed the Uren (Circa 1300-1350 AD) and Middleport (circa 1350-1400). Andrew

Hunter apparently favoured the latter interpretation since he suggests, “the clay pipe-heads

and fragments mostly belonged to the early Huron period”; the Uren and Middleport sub-

phases being precursor cultural developments of the Ontario Iroquoian people before the

establishment of the Huron Confederacy. The establishment of the Huron Confederacy is

generally believed to have occurred sometime in the middle of the 15th

century.

Hunter’s description of the burial goods as including trade silver suggests a historic period

for this burial which was later than the disintegration of the Huron Confederacy. The fact

that a Cross of Loraine marked “Montreal” was recovered is of interest but without a

description of the maker’s mark, it is of limited value in refining the date or cultural

affiliation of the grave. Silversmiths were known to be working in New France prior to

1700. However, their work was initially focused on work for the churches being established.

As the population grew and numbers of people grew in affluence, work began to be

dominated by demands for household goods. Around the middle of the 18th

century a new

market emerged. This rapidly expanding market was for articles of personal adornment

destined to be traded to First Nations people throughout North America (Fredrickson and

Gibb 1980: 35-37). Special objects of presentation silver played a role in the diplomatic

relations between representatives of European colonial powers and First Nations delegates

for centuries. However, evidence suggests that silver was only actively traded for the period

starting about 1760 up to about 1821 (Fredrickson and Gibb 1980: 43). The cross and

crucifix were first distributed by the earliest French missionaries to converts. During the

period when silver was actively traded the variations of the cross were a popular design that

was circulated without a religious connotation (Fredrickson and Gibb 1980: 43).

The Orchard Point House (also known as the Orchard Point Inn), which was formerly the

Red Cross Hospital, was situated to the southwest of the study area and shows the long

history of occupation within this area of the Atherley Narrows.

Andrew Hunter Site No. 22, Fishing Station at the Narrows

Remains of the fishing station and fish weir of the Hurons at the narrows.

The position of the old weir is north of the present bridges and south of the

old railway bridge. [Emphasis added] In 1887, the late Joseph Wallace, a

local archaeologist, of Orillia, identified this site as the fishing station

mentioned in Champlain’s Journal (1615), at the time when he had extracts





from that Journal printed in the Orillia Times. (See Champlain’s Works, Vol.

4, page 34). Mr. Wallace also contributed an article on the subject to the

Canadian Institute (Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.), and it appeared in the issue of

that periodical for February, 1891, pages 134-138, under the heading “A

Fishing Station of the Ancient Hurons Identified.” Owing to the rarity of that

publication, it is worth while reprinting here Mr. Wallace’s words in

reference to the fish stakes. After some general remarks on the object of

Champlain’s expedition, he says; -

“The Narrows presents much the same features as in Champlain’s days. But

its fame as a fishing ground has long vanished; bass may still be caught with

the rod, or trolling; and in the winter season, some scores of Indians and

whites may be seen spearing herrings through holes cut in the ice. Still, there

is no doubt that at the time to which reference is made, all those lakes were

literally swarming with fish. Are there any remains to point out the exact

locality where these stakes crossed the straight? In answering this question

in the affirmative, I would state that in some years since, my friend Gilbert

Williams, an Indian, informed me that he had seen very old stakes which were

used by the Mohawks for catching fish. Some time after, when I was writing

out the story of Champlain for one of our local papers, I was conversing with

Charles Jacobs on the subject, who said he had also seen the stakes, and

further, that the locality was known to this day as ‘mitchekun,’ which means a

fence, or the place which was fenced or staked across. He said that if a

strange Indian were to ask him where he came from, he would answer,

‘mitchekuning,’ the termination ‘ing’ signifying ‘from’, that is, from

Mitchekun. We were, at the time, standing on the Orillia wharf, and within

sight of the end of the Narrows. Charles Jacobs said, ask old Mr. Snake (who

was standing nearby) where Mitchekun is. As soon as I asked the old man, he

turned and pointed to the Narrows, which was between two and three miles

distant. In September, 1886, I walked down to the Narrows, and entered

into conversation with Mr. Frank Gaudaur, who is of Indian extraction,

and the keeper of the Midland railway bridge, who immediately took me to

the side of the bridge, and only a few paces distant, and showed me a

number of the stakes which remained. [Emphasis added] Dredging the

channel for the purpose of navigation had, of course, removed the greater

part of them, only those on the outside of the dredged portion being left. Mr.

Gaudaur said that there were some other places where stakes might be seen,

but that this was the most complete part. The stakes as might be expected,

were a good deal twisted by the current, but the ends were still close

together, and firmly embedded into the clay and mud at the bottom, so that it

was only after considerable pulling with a spear, that one was brought to the

surface. The stakes would be about five or six feet long, and thicker than a

walking stick. It is to be observed that they are not placed across in a

straight lie; indeed, one portion is continued in a direction half-way down the

stream, and would thus produce an angle when the line was changed





upwards, and at the opening of this angle would be placed the net; and this is

in exact accordance with the method which Champlain describes, when the

Indians were hunting deer; that is by staking out a large space in the woods,

with an angle into which the game was driven. It is not difficult to account

for the stakes lasting so many years when we consider the tops were under

the surface of the water, thus escaping the action of the air, and also that of

the ice, which in this locality is never of great thickness because of the

rapidity of the current. It must be understood that we do not assert that these

identical stakes existed there in Champlain’s time, although it is possible that

some of them may be part of the original construction. It was probably used

for fishing purposes long after the time of Champlain and even after the

destruction of the Hurons, for I am strongly inclined to suspect that a portion

of the Mohawks settled down on the vanquished territory, and remained there

a considerable time. If such was the case, the fence would be repaired from

time to time, as circumstances required, without altering the site to any

material extent. The stake which I had, had been pointed with an axe of

considerable sharpness, as evidenced by the comparatively clean cuts made

in the operation. Our present Indians, who are Ojibways, know nothing

about them, except the tradition before mentioned. Mr. Snake is an old man,

and he stated to me that the old Indians, when he was young, referred the

whole construction, and its use, to the Mohawks. I have no doubt, if they are

not molested, the remains will be in existence a century hence.”

A paragraph in the Orillia Packet of June 21, 1889, affords some further

information upon the important fishing station: -- “During his stay here, Mr.

A. C. Osborne of Penetanguishene, accompanied by Mr. Joseph Wallace, sr.,

visited Mr. F. Gaundaur, and they made a most interesting discovery. A copy

of Champlain’s journal describes the method by which the Indians took fish

in 1615. They had rows of stakes driven into the bottom of the Narrows, in

such a way as to corral the fish in passing from one lake to the other. In this

manner enough fish for the commissariat during the expedition in which they

engaged against the Iroquois, were taken in five or six days. When this part

of the journal was read to Mr. Gaudaur, he took his visitors to where the

rows of stakes could be seen under water. The Ojibways, he said, found these

stakes there when they came a hundred and fifty or eighty years since, knew

what they were for, but did not use them. They were in large numbers, and at

one time extended quite across the Narrows, but very many were thrown out

in dredging the present channel. The stakes are of tamarack. Mr. Osborne

secured two—one had evidently been put down to replace another at a date

subsequent to the other, which was soft, like cheese, when pulled out. The top

is desiccated, and is covered with slime. Though only some six inches were

visible they extend quite a long distance into the mud. Mr. Osborne believes

that the older stick is one of those there when Champlain encamped at the

spot. Mr. Gaudaur says that these under-water “fences” probably suggested





the Ojibway name of Orillia, or the Narrows—Michikaning: ‘The Place of

the Fence.”

Following the publication of the foregoing paragraph, the present writer

communicated a letter to the Orillia Packet of July 5, 1889, suggesting that

the early French name of Lake Simcoe, viz, Hurdle Lake, (Lac aux Claies),

was derived from this fishing contrivance at the Narrows. C. C. James, M. A.

made a similar suggestion in a letter to the Toronto Globe, May 26, 1896.

And in a letter to the Orillia Packet of April 2, 1903. Aubrey White, Deputy-

Minister of Crown Lands, Toronto, also suggests, or rather points out as an

established fact, (though without citing any authority,) that the early French

adopted the idea of the name Hurdle Lake from the same Indian fish fence.

These three suggestions appear to have been made independently of each

other, making the validity of the suggestion very strong. (See Gen. John S.

Clark’s article in Ontario Archaeological Report for 1899, p. 195).

(Hunter 1904: 122-125)

The passage written by General Clark and referenced by Hunter, which specifically speaks of

the fish weirs at the Atherley Narrows, is as follows:

“The Indians, known as Ojibways of the present day, speak of the locality of

Mitchekun, which means a fence, or the place, which was fenced, or staked across.

The structure was composed of small sharpened stakes, from six to ten feet in length,

driven into the clay and sand which constitutes the bottom of the channel, and were

from and inch to two inches in diameter. Probably smaller twigs were woven back

and forth in the form of what is called wattling.”

(Clark 1900: 195-196)

The close proximity of the study area to the above-described sites suggests that the

probability for First Nations occupation in close proximity to the study area is very high. In

addition, there is also a very high potential for related archaeological materials to be present

within the water portion of the subject property. Portions of the passage discussing the fish

weirs may actually indicate stakes found within the study area. An underwater

archaeological assessment of this portion of the study area is recommended in advance of any

proposed construction or existing built feature modifications in this area that could impact

the floor of the waterway.

5.3.3.2 WALTER KENYON (1965)

Subsequent to the collected information of Andrew Hunter and J. Hugh Hammond, there was

a long period without serious investigations of the fish weirs at the narrows. In 1965 Walter

Kenyon of the Royal Ontario Museum conducted the first significant attempt to document

these remains. Kenyon employed teams of divers in an effort to plot the locations of fish

weir stakes in an effort to discern meaningful patterns in their arrangements. These efforts

were not entirely successful but did demonstrate that extensive remains yet existed of these





important heritage features and this encouraged subsequent research (Kenyon 1966; Ringer

& Waddell 1995: 2).

“Although the data are not conclusive, it would appear that the weirs were

constructed as follows. A line of posts was angled slightly upstream from opposite

banks of the channel. To the tops of these poles, spaced 5 to 10 feet apart, was lashed

a horizontal pole. On the upstream side of this structure lighter poles, usually under

three inches in diameter were poked into the bottom and their upper ends leaned

against the horizontal pole. Such a structure would be fairly easy to build because

most of the poles would be held in place by the current. Only the anchor-posts used to

support the horizontal poles would have to be driven solidly into the bottom.”

(Kenyon 1966: 2)

Kenyon’s description of the structure as it appeared to him in 1965 suggests that significant

deterioration of the remains has occurred in the relatively short time between his

investigation and the present time.

While preparing this report Michael Henry of AMICK Consultants Limited was contacted by

Mr. Wayne Adam. Mr. Adam provided copies of Walter Kenyon’s original report that was

published as a Newsletter for the Royal Ontario Museum and the Cassavoy and Johnston

article that was published in the archaeology journal, American Antiquity. Their work is

discussed below. Wayne obtained these from Ken Lister of the ROM following a discussion

about the current archaeological study. Wayne also informed me that his uncle, Leo Darmitz

was one of the divers who worked with Walter Kenyon in 1965. Wayne arranged for his

uncle to contact Michael Henry directly and offer his perspective and recollection of the

work done at the weirs in 1965. The following first hand account is directly quoted from Mr.

Darmitz’s personal memoirs:

“WEIR IN THE MIDDLE OF HISTORY -- (1965)

“I had not been involved in SCUBA diving for much more than seven months when

the President of the Ontario Underwater Council (OUC), Ben Davis, put out a letter

to all of the clubs asking if there would be any divers willing to volunteer their time to

assist a Dr. Walter Kenyon of the Royal Ontario Museum on a project in the waters

of the narrows between Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching. I jumped at the opportunity.

“I do not know what day it was but it could have been any one of four days; July 31,

Aug. 1, Aug. 14 or 15. My best guess would be Aug. 1.

“When we arrived at the site, we were given instructions and a handful of nylon line,

one end of which had a white Javex bottle attached. We were told that the waters we

were about to enter had been noted in Champlain’s journal of 1615 as he passsed

through the area. He made special note of the fish weirs that were present in the

narrows. Earlier examination of the bottom in the area, revealed small wooden

stakes protruding from the mud. It was believe that these were the remnants of the





fish weirs noted in Champlain’s log. Our mission was to scour the bottom and tie a

line to every stake we could find. Each of the more than ten divers there entered the

water with great enthusiasm.

“After about two hours of swimming through the murky water with visibility at zero

much of the time, the supply of lines and time had come to an end. We gathered on

the shore and on the bridge over the narrows to survey our work. What we observed

was astounding. There, before us, were perfectly formed V’s of white bottles showing

the outline of the underwater discovery.

“Research on the area in general and the fish weirs in particular has revealed that

the practice of using weirs ceased around 1650. Therefore, what we had observed

and helped trace, was over three hundred years old.

“I had done very little diving up to that time, but this had to be a remarkable project

in which to be involved.

“I have since spent a great deal of time trying to obtain a copy of the photo taken of

the view from the bridge by one of the organizers. I hope some day to be able to

include it with my memoirs.”

(Leo Darmitz, Personal Communication 2015)

The contributions of Mr. Wayne Adam and Mr. Leo Darmitz to this research are significant,

particularly with respect to the provision of an eyewitness account of the research efforts

made by Walter Kenyon in 1965. Their generosity and unsolicited voluntary assistance in

the current study is very much appreciated. This example certainly illustrates the benefits of

public participation in heritage research. One cannot help but observe that the title for this

particular adventure is a brilliant play on words that could be used to summarize all of the

work of the many researchers to date.

5.3.3.3 CASSAVOY & JOHNSTON (1973-1974)

Ken Cassavoy and Richard Johnston conducted an underwater survey of the Narrows in 1973

and 1974. The object of this work was to cover “virtually all bottom areas of the Narrows

proper, including a substantial section south of the Highway 12 bridge (Cassavoy & Johnston

1977: 7). Their survey was a research project carried out while they were working for the

Department of Anthropology at Trent University. The map illustrating their survey coverage

(Map I from Page 8 of their report) is included in this report as Figure 7. As illustrated on

that map, they document the area on the east bank at the location of the swing bridge as

within an area of “Distribution of Documented Stage Remains.” However, it should be noted

that nowhere in their report do they specifically mention finding anything in relation to the

study area.

The results of their research were published in American Antiquity (Johnston & Cassavoy

1978). Within this published account they make mention of cursory observations made at the





narrows by Walter Kenyon of the Royal Ontario Museum in 1965 (see Kenyon 1966). They

also provide a general history of alterations in recent history to the channel, which have a

significant impact on the potential for the discovery of fish weir stakes and related

archaeological resources on the bottom of the waterway:

“The Atherley Narrows today consists of 2 channels draining northward from Lake

Simcoe into Lake Couchiching. However, only 1 major channel existed prior to

1857 when extensive dredging was undertaken to improve navigation through the

Narrows by deepening the southern part of the natural channel leading from Lake

Simcoe and excavating a new channel from approximately the position of the

present-day railroad swingbridge directly northward [emphasis added] nearly 2000

ft into Lake Couchiching (Page 1856; Rubidge 1857). Apparently the material

removed during dredging was deposited along the west bank of the navigation

channel to block off drainage through a minor ‘west channel’ beneath the area that

now has been completely altered by recent marina construction. Warping pilings

were placed across the newly created entrance to the truncated old channel, and no

dredging or other modification was carried out in this original section extending

northeastward from the excavated navigation channel.

“The bottom contours of the channels clearly reflect their histories. The navigation

channel north of the junction with the old east channel is entirely the result of the

1857 excavation, and the central portion of the channel to the south beneath the

railroad and highway bridges and beyond has been extensively dredged. [Emphasis

added] Whereas the average depth of the undisturbed east channel is 6 to 7 ft, the

depth of the main channel today is 14 or 15 ft and at its deepest some 20 ft.”

(Johnston & Cassavoy 1978: 698-699)

As the existing railway swingbridge crosses the navigation channel, we have only included

the detailed results from their paper as addresses this section of the narrows:

“The survey revealed, with a single exception to be noted, that the entire west side of

the navigation channel lacks stake remains or evidence of weirs. Any structures that

may have existed in any part of the navigation channel north of the original channel

must in any event postdate the 1857 dredging. The dumping of dredged material and

recent marina construction, including further dredging, along virtually the whole

length of the western side of the navigation channel have buried or destroyed any

weir structures that may have once existed here. The sole exception is the shallow

area beneath the west end of the highway bridge were a number of apparently old

stakes were noted, which have perhaps been protected by the bridge from complete

disruption by modern marina development. Deep dredging in the central channel

region under the bridge has left it free of any remains, but a number of stakes were

distributed at random on the bottom slope from the dredged area to the east bank. It

is out impression that this section of the natural channel, in the vicinity of the

highway bridge, must have contained numerous stakes prior to modern disturbances.





“The east side of the navigation channel, immediately north of the highway bridge,

is completely devoid of remains or weed growth underwater as a result of recent

marina dredging, but to the north, beyond the dredging, as far as the present

entrance to the original channel, stakes are commonly found singly and in clusters

or alignments of several stakes. The remains are found in the shallows and down

the bottom slope toward the dredged section in the center of the channel, and

although there are a considerable number of stakes in this area, no large-scale

patterns could be discerned [emphasis added].”


With respect to temporal and cultural interpretations of the structures documented in the

waterway at the Narrows, Johnston and Cassavoy conclude:

“The 4 radiocarbon dates derived form weir stakes form a tight chronological cluster

averaging slightly older than 2500 B. C., and place at least the 2 weirs from which

the samples were taken in the Late Archaic period. While the early contact literature

documents use of the weirs at the recent end of the time scale, prior use during the

long Woodland period is indicated at the nearby Dougall site. A small portion of this

site, on a point of land approximately ½ mi northwest of the Narrows proper, was

excavated by Wright (1971) and found to consist of mixed cultural deposits ranging

from the Middle Woodland Point Peninsula through Late Woodland Pickering and

subsequent Ontario Iroquois phases dominated by a late proto-Huron component. A

radiocarbon date of A.D. 170 +/- 110 is representative of the earlier segment of the

approximate 2000-year occupation of Dougall. Wright identifies Dougall as a fish

camp owing to its location at the Narrows, the discovery of a complete netting needle,

a net sinker, and the fact that 53% of the faunal remains, by bone count, were fish.

We are persuaded by the historical record, the findings at the Dougall site, the

extensive distribution of stake remains in the original channel. And the radiocarbon-

dated stakes that the weirs at the Atherley Narrows have been used persistently

throughout a long span of time, extending back at least to the Late Archaic period.”


Similar results as those documented at the Dougall site (BdGu-2) were also found at the

Orchard Point Site (BdGu-18) investigated by Archaeological Assessments Ltd. and by

AMICK Consultants Ltd. The Orchard Point site is situated at the extreme south end of the

west side of the channel at the north end of Lake Simcoe. Datable goods from this site

included projectile points from the Middle and Late Archaic and pottery of the Early

Woodland and Late Woodland periods in addition to a number of artifacts of European

manufacture dating to the early contact and fur trade periods of the colonial era (see

Archaeological Assessments Ltd. 2003; and AMICK 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013)

5.3.3.4 PARKS CANADA (1989-1998)

Before Parks Canada staff had done any direct research on the site, Sheryl Smith, then a

project archaeologist of the Ontario Region of Parks Canada based in Cornwall, Ontario





presented a paper at the 1982 Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. She

concluded her presentation as follows:

“The Atherley Narrows Fish Weirs (BdGu-6) are the largest and best-preserved such

structures extant in eastern North America, and perhaps the entire continent.

Thorough historical and archaeological research has shown that the weirs were used

for over four thousand years, and are the only ones documented in this part of the

world. They indicate the economic importance placed on fishing by prehistoric

peoples and show the ‘…very long, and important economic tradition that warrants

further study’ (Johnston and Cassavoy 1978: 708).

“It is recommended that the Atherley Narrows Fish Weirs be declared of national

historic importance.”

(Smith 1982: 189)

The Mnjikaning Fish Weirs became a National Historic Site of Canada in 1982.

In 1988 Parks Canada identified the fish weirs at the Atherley Narrows as a site under threat

resulting from new marina development, increased power boating activity and sport fishing

activity. A preliminary survey was made in 1989 and it was quickly determined that the

number of stakes documented as protruding from the bottom by Cassavoy and Johnston had

greatly diminished. A more detailed survey including test excavations to determine what was

happening to the stakes was planned for the following season (Ringer & Waddell 1995: 5-6).

Work in 1990 began in early spring, which afforded an examination of the channel in weed

free conditions. The strong spring current without the impediment of mature weed growth

resulted in the flushing of a good amount of sediment from the channel which uncovered

more stakes than had been seen during the previous season’s survey. Notwithstanding these

favorable conditions, it remained clear that significant damage to the fish weirs had occurred

since the earlier research of Cassavoy and Johnston.

Organic material conservation specialists, Thomas Daley and Marthe Carrier participated in

the 17-27 April 1990 survey work. Their report describes underwater conditions during the

fieldwork:

“During the diving operations, the current in the channel was estimated at 3 to 4

knots. The visibility underwater varied from 5 to 7 meters. The pH of the water was

5.6 – 5.9 and the water temperature was 3C (data recorded at the bottom of the

river).

“The channel bed is covered with a dispersed layer of vegetation below which is a

deposit of fine silt several centimetres thick. Beneath this, it gradually turns into an

extremely thick hard clay mixture that, when excavated, came out in small circular

shaped discs with similar composition to that of gravel. There were very few stones,

however.





“The banks of the channel are jacketed with a dense coverage of weeds which

protrude 20-30 cm out of the water.”

(Daley & Carrier 1990: 2-3)

Six stakes were collected from beneath the Highway 12 bridge and a further five were

collected from near the entrance of original channel from the navigation channel (Daley &

Carrier 1990: 7-12).

Daley and Carrier include a detailed general description of the stakes as found at the site of

the fish weirs:

“The exposed portions of the stakes are covered with a thick layer of marine

vegetation which has been carried down the channel by the strong current and

deposited.

“The wood on the exposed portion of each stake is very punky, although those that

were tested still had some internal strength remaining (as determined by inserting a

dissecting pin into the wood and gauging resistance). On average, the wood that is

exposed is half the diameter of the buried portion. The buried end of most stakes was

found to be in excellent condition with only minimal surface degradation. This is

probably due to the stakes having been buried in an anaerobic environment. In

regards to the exposed end it is suspected that biodegradation in combination with

the strong current and suspended particulate matter are causing the increased loss of

material when compared to the buried portion of the artifacts. This has also given

the stakes a very fragmented appearance. However, some protection from this

sandblasting effect is offered by the thick coverage of the marine vegetation which is

clinging to most of the stakes. Although it is not known at this time if the vegetation is

also having a negative effect.”

“As well as the flora, there was an abundance of monofilament (fishing line) attached

to several wooden stakes. This has probably lent itself to the removal of some stakes

by fishermen who, when attempting to remove their line or lure have inadvertently

pulled out or broken some artifacts.”

(Daley & Carrier 1990: 18-20)

A stake retrieved during the 1990 season was radiocarbon dated by two different laboratories

at 4410 +/- 80 B. P. and 4600 +/- 90 B. P. respectively. A second sample produced dates of

2980 +/- 80 B. P. and 2990 +/- 80 B. P. It was during 1990 as well, that they became aware

of plans to twin the existing highway bridge over the narrows (Ringer & Waddell 1995: 6-8).

In 1991 and 1992 surveys and excavation projects were undertaken around the existing

highway bridge with the object of mitigating impacts from the proposed new bridge

construction. Little work was done south of the existing highway bridge at that time as the

previous bridge was situated immediately south of the existing bridge of 1991. In 1962 the





previous bridge was dynamited and allowed to collapse into the channel, thereby obliterating

any stakes that may have been situated beneath that structure. The 1991 survey documented

two linear arrangements of stakes, one of six stakes and the other of eleven stakes, arranged

in diagonal lines running from the northwest to the southeast in a pattern consistent with

current knowledge of fish weir structures. In addition, a previously identified feature of

highly concentrated stakes was excavated at the west edge of the channel beneath the existing

bridge. The feature consisted of two parallel lines of closely spaced stakes running parallel

to the shoreline. The excavation of this feature revealed that the stakes were pointed with a

metal tool, probably an axe, and that the striations from a single tool were found in both lines

of stakes suggesting that both arrangements were constructed at the same time and form part

of the same structure. However, carbon dating suggested that the wood dated from between

1450 and 1615 A.D., a period before the documented introduction of steel tools to the area.

There are also no datable artifacts or other remains associated with the stakes that could help

in determining their date or cultural origins. This feature remains an enigma (Ringer &

Waddell 1995: 8-17; see also Ringer 1989, 1990, 1991; Smith 1992; and Waddell & Bernier

1992).

In 1992, Lorne Murdock, Senior Archaeological Conservator with the Historic Resource

Conservation Branch of Parks Canada visited the fish weirs site in order to assesses the on-

site condition of the wood stakes still surviving at the Narrows and to make

recommendations for their long-term care and protection. The “Summary &

Recommendations” section at the conclusion of her report states:

“Following the conservation assessment including various observations and findings

and from discussions with Peter Waddell and reviewing previous reports, one can

with a reasonable degree of accuracy state that the resource has and continues to be

in a battle with adverse human and environmental factors. This is a battle which it

cannot win in a hostile environment where the natural process of deterioration is on-

going. It would not be advisable or possible to preserve these artifacts in situ given

their fragility, regardless of the technique. Unless immediate intervention is

undertaken they will not survive. Regardless of whether the twinning of the bridge

takes place or not it is recommended that these artifacts be recovered at the earliest

convenient opportunity. Taking all factors into consideration if the primary objective

is the protection and survival of the stakes then this is the only option which should be

considered.”

(Murdock 1992: 4)

Since the close of the 1992 fieldwork, Parks Canada has been monitoring natural and man-

made impacts to the site in an effort to document, understand and mitigate damage (Ringer

2006: 44). As part of that program, Lorne Murdock, Senior Archaeological Conservator of

the Wet Organic Materials Section and John Stewart, Senior Conservation Scientist of the

Analytical Section from the Historic Resource Conservation Branch of Parks Canada in

Ottawa visited the site in October of 1994. The resulting conservation report does include

some information of value when considering archaeological potential which is not addressed

in other sources.





“Water courses moving through low lying fen land (which would describe the

narrows prior to the 19th

century) could be expected to meander and change their

course over the years [emphasis added]. The stability at Atherley may be explained

by consulting the 1933 chart. The Canadian National Railway bridge in the south

and the earthen works for the old Canadian Pacific Railway bridge to the north

effectively limit the possible points of water entry and exit in the area between them.

The northern railway bridge only allows water to exit through two routes, the north

and northeast channels. These old interventions at the Narrows have effectively

limited the ability of the water flow to change its course and meander in a natural

way across the shallow fen land. These two features must then be viewed as

stabilizing and protecting the cultural resources between them [emphasis added].”

(Murdock & Stewart 1994: 3)

With respect to the evaluation of potential for significant archaeological resources to be

found within the study area, and also with respect to archaeological potential for the general

vicinity, this is one of the most significant passages ever composed. This means that before

the railway bridges were installed, the waterway through the narrows meandered, or

wandered over the shallow and permanently wet areas associated with the margins of the

narrows and the wide outlet to the north. This means that there were many, many channels

over time and the channels investigated in the 20th

century represent only a fraction of the

potential courses through which water flowed since humans began fishing here. This means

that in any areas now contained within the low-lying and wet area or which can be shown to

have been low-lying and wet area in the past, there is reason to believe that wooden stakes

from fish weirs yet survive. We are not aware that any effort has been made previously to

document the meander of the natural channel over time. This may explain why, as Parks

staff have noted with some disappointment, they have been unable to detect wooden stakes

dating from the time of Champlain; It is because they are situated in a former channel which

did not exist at the time that the railroad bridges were constructed, but which may have been

accidentally preserved by the stability of the channel caused by construction of the railway

bridges. The best areas then to search for relatively undisturbed fish weir remnants are

within the low-lying wet areas on the margins of the existing channels. This would include

the majority of the current study area to the northeast of the existing swing bridge. Although

Parks Canada staff appear to have never put such a conclusion in print, Janet Turner’s

article,“Building Bridges From a Mnjikaning Fish Fence Circle Perspective,” published in

Ontario Archaeology No. 73 in 2002 includes a map (Figure 2, p. 70) labeled, “The known

extent of weir stakes at the Mnjikaning site (courtesy Parks Canada),” that illustrates

precisely these conclusions. A segment of this map is reproduced here as Figure 8.

The 1994 Murdock and Stewart report concludes with the following:

“A preliminary investigation of the historical charts and records indicate that the

main loss of commemorative integrity has occurred due to the disturbances of the site

by the construction of communication corridors and marinas and the dredging of the





north channel. The northeast channel appears to have received the least impact and

its resources are the least diminished.

“Since at least 1933 it appears to have been stable in both depth and direction. This

may be due largely to the construction of the CPR and CNR bridges, the use of the

north channel as the main navigation route and the control of lakes Simcoe and

Couchiching water level to a regulating curve by the Trent Canal system. All these

factors should be considered as contributing to the preservation of the site and any

changes to them should be viewed with concern.

“The main direction of the monitoring program should be towards monitoring the

previous factors and towards monitoring the loss of stakes (entire site) and the

stability of the northeast channel.”

(Murdock & Stewart 1994: 7-8)

The initial conservation monitoring report done by Murdock and Stewart was followed by a

second report prepared by John Stewart and Lorne Murdock in 1996 detailing their

monitoring work undertaken in 1995, which they liken to an appendix of the first report.

As part of this study aerial photographs for the channel were obtained for the years 1945 and

1987. The authors observed that much of the channel shoreline had been altered between

these two dates as a result of marina and property developments adjacent to the channel.

They note that the northeast channel and the east shoreline remained relatively unaffected by

development pressures during this span of over 40 years. These two photos also

demonstrated that the direction of flow within the channel had been constant throughout that

period (Stewart and Murdock 1996: 1). One of the objectives of the monitoring program was

to set up a system to observe and record changes in the condition and/or number of surviving

stakes that would be easily done by non-specialists. The 1995 fieldwork showed that the

stakes selected to be tagged and monitored were much more difficult to even find than was

previously imagined and various remedies were proposed which would allow for Trent

Waterway staff to observe the appropriate stakes and collect the required information

(Stewart and Murdock 1996: 3-4).

In 1998 John Stewart, then Head of the Analytical Services Unit of the Research and

Analysis Section, Ontario Service Centre, Parks Canada prepared a report detailing the

progress and results of the monitoring program up to May of 1998. The monitoring program

to that point had shown that the channel was accumulating silt at a rate of approximately 2

centimetres per year. The flow rate through the channel was examined for the period of 1963

to 1995. It was determined to be fairly consistent with no extremes that would indicate

periods of either scouring or excessive build-up of sediments (Stewart 1998: 1). The

apparent accumulation of silt on the floor may not have a direct negative impact on the

survival of the stakes however, if this accumulation necessitates dredging to keep the

navigation channel open, this activity does lead to instability of the channel floor and banks,

which causes further erosion. This then, would lead to exposure of further stakes and the loss

of many.





5.3.3.5 MAYER HERITAGE CONSULTANTS INC. (1997-1998)

During 1997 and 1998 Mayer Heritage Consultants were contracted to conduct both land and

marine based archaeological assessments and also to monitor construction of the second span

of the Highway 12 crossing at the Atherley Narrows anticipated by Parks Canada many years

earlier. However, the work conducted by Parks Canada to mitigate the impacts of bridge

construction to the fish weirs was not entirely successful as the plans for the construction of

the bridge and the methodology employed to complete the work had evolved and changed

over the intervening years. As a result, further underwater archaeological survey was

required to cover the area of potential impacts. The emphasis in this work was placed on

preservation of the existing stakes and the divers were employed to assist in locating pilings

and caissons well away from existing stakes and to monitor the condition of stakes during

construction (Janusas and Mayer 1998: 12-18).

5.3.3.6 SCARLETT JANUSAS ARCHAEOLOGY INC. (2014)

In 2013, an environmental study to assess the possibility of creating a recreational trail and

place of ceremony for First Nations was completed (Orillia City Centre 2013). As a

component study contributing to this project, AMICK Consultants Limited conducted a Stage

1 Archaeological Background Study including a Stage 1 Property in 2012 of the area near the

abandoned Canadian National Railway (CNR) bridge and the artificial embankments on

either end of the approach to the bridge. The east bank was found to contain stakes associated

with the fish weirs. AMICK Consultants Limited recommended that an underwater

archaeological assessment be undertaken to determine the presence or absence of stakes and

to take measures to mitigate potential impacts that the construction of a new pedestrian and

snowmobile bridge may have on the resources (AMICK 2013:68).

The primary methodology employed in the 2014 Marine Archaeological Assessment was

through a geotechnical survey employing the use of side scan sonar. The Scarlett Janusas

Archaeology Inc. report (SJA 2014) describes the methodology employed as follows:

“The geotechnical assessment consisted of side scan sonar, multi-beam sonar survey,

sub-bottom profile survey, use of the navigator for shallow areas, and video of areas

of interest. The navigator was used with sonar imaging and a positioning system to

geo- reference a video (see back cover of the report) of objects and structures located

during the assessment. Magnetometer was not employed, as results would have been

severely hampered by the abundance of ferrous material (i.e. swing bridge, rebar,

etc.) in the study area.”

(SJA 2014: 37)

The geotechnical assessment was augmented with visual assessment and photographic

documentation:

“In addition to the geotechnical survey, the clarity of the water allowed for visual

observations to be made from boat side (shallow sides of an inflatable) with use of a





dive mask. A snorkeler was used to assist with visual observations while conducting

the navigator survey.”

(SJA 2014: 37)

The side scan sonar identified a number of targets, most of which proved to be non-cultural

and of no heritage value or interest.

“Target S6 (about .3 m distant from target S7 (number S6 in Appendix A lies under

number S7), and is a possible fish weir stake remnant. This lies just northwest of the

former rail bridge. Latitude and longitude are presented in Appendix A. Target S7 is

also a possible fish weir stake remnant. As indicated above, it lies within .3 m of

Target S6. These two targets may be impacted by the proposed development.

“In addition to the side scan sonar targets, the Navigator (Appendix B), was used to

record and video any features not collected with the side scan or sub bottom profiler.

Still photographs in Appendix A (page 10 – 14 of Appendix A) illustrate possible fish

weir stake remnants. Six of these possible fish weir stakes lie immediately north of

the abandoned rail bridge (photographs 1 – 6, Appendix A, west side, north of current

walkway). These six fish weir stakes remnants may be impacted by the proposed

development. In addition to these six fish weir stakes, there are two other fish weir

stakes identified at the extreme northeast end of the open swing bridge (photographs

1 and 2, Appendix A); and one other possible fish weir stake located at the extreme

southeast end of the open swing bridge. Any development around these stakes should

consider protection.”

(SJA 2014: 38-39)

The results of the Marine Archaeological Assessment indicate that there are locations of

possible fish weir remnants within the study area for the proposed undertaking. The Marine

Archaeological report concludes with the following recommendations for the proposed

bridge construction activities in the study area are:





















(SJA 2014: 53-54)

5.3.4 LOCATION AND CURRENT CONDITIONS




(Former Township of Mara), Township of Ramara, County of Simcoe, conducted by AMICK

Consultants Limited. This study was conducted under Archaeological Professional License

#P384 issued to Kayleigh MacKinnon by the Minister of Tourism and Culture for the

Province of Ontario. This assessment was undertaken as a requirement under the

Environmental Assessment Act (RSO 1990b) in order to support a Municipal Class EA. All

work was conducted in conformity with Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC)

Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTC 2011), the Ontario Heritage

Act (RSO 1990a), and the Ontario Heritage Amendment Act (SO 2005).

The purpose of the project and its intended outcomes are described within the Atherley

Narrows Pedestrian/Snowmobile Bridge Preliminary Design Report (AECOM 2010) as

follows:

“For several years a sub-committee of the Trails for Life Committee has been

working on the idea of a pedestrian bridge spanning the Atherley Narrows that would

connect the Orillia Trail System with the Ramara Trail System. To date the

Committee has researched the area around the abandoned CN rail bridge, contacted

other jurisdictions that have taken on similar projects and identified potential

partners. It is anticipated that the bridge would require the approval of at least

eleven (11) levels of government and cost in the neighbourhood of $1 million.

“When completed the bridge would:

• Provide an easy and safe link between Orillia and the communities located

along the eastern shores of Lake Couchiching. Cyclists, walkers, runners,

skaters and wheelchairs would be able to safely access Ramara, Mnjikaning

and eventually Washago without using Highway 12.

• Provide a safe route for the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs on

which to establish their B trail. There is currently an OFSC province-wide

initiative to get all major trails off ice.

• Provide easy access to view the Mnjikaning Fish Fence site. The area is

identified as a National Historic Site and the bridge would provide a perfect





opportunity to commemorate and communicate its significance.

• Expand and enhance trail experience in Orillia and Ramara.

“As well as partnering with the City of Orillia, the Chippewas of Rama First Nation

and the Township of Ramara, the Trails for Life Committee anticipates involvement

from the Mnjikaning Fish Fence Circle, the Orillia District Snowmobile Club, the

Huronia Trails and Greenways, Ganaraska Hiking Trail Association and the Trans

Canada Trail.”

(AECOM 2010: 2)

The project location is described within the Atherley Narrows Pedestrian/Snowmobile Bridge

Preliminary Design Report (AECOM 2010) as follows:

“The site of the proposed pedestrian/snowmobile bridge is at the confluence of Lake

Simcoe and Lake Couchiching (Atherley Narrows) at the same location as the

abandoned CN rail swing bridge, on the border of the City of Orillia and the

Township of Ramara and adjacent to the Highway 12 structure. The existing Orillia

Trail System ends at the west shore of the Atherley Narrows and the existing Ramara

Trail System ends at the east shore of the Atherley Narrows. Pedestrians currently

cross the Atherley Narrows utilizing the Highway 12 structure located approximately

100 metres to the south of the proposed bridge site.”

(AECOM 2010: 1)

The study area consists of the existing former railway swing bridge crossing at the Atherley

Narrows, as well as a proposed working area outside of the channel and within the

permanently low-lying and wet area to the northeast of the crossing (see Figure 2). The

location of the study area is illustrated in Figure 1. The present use of the study area is as an

existing railway swing bridge, which has fallen into disuse since the railway line that used to

pass over this crossing has been abandoned. The former railway line is used as a multi-use

recreational trail primarily employed by pedestrians and snowmobiles. In order to allow

continued boat traffic through the Narrows, which forms a portion of the Trent Severn

Waterway, the swing bridge is currently maintained in the open position that restricts passage

over the channel by users of the recreational trial. The proposed undertaking would replace

the existing swing bridge with a permanent fixed bridge structure that would allow for

passage of boats within the channel and recreational use of the trail over the channel.

5.3.5 PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGION

The study area is situated within the Simcoe Lowlands physiographic region. For the most

part, at one time, this restricted basin was part of the floor of Lake Algonquin, and its surface

beds are deposits of deltaic and lacustrine origin, and not glacial outwash. As a small basin

shut in by the Edenvale Moraine, the Minesing flats represent an annex of the Nipissing lake

plains. Although the study area lies on the north side of the Minesing flats, noticeable

properties such as calcareous clays and overlying sands comprising the soils are similar

(Chapman and Putnam, 1984: 177-182).





5.3.6 SURFACE WATER

The project location is described within the Atherley Narrows Pedestrian/Snowmobile Bridge

Preliminary Design Report (AECOM 2010) as follows:

“The site of the proposed pedestrian/snowmobile bridge is at the confluence of Lake

Simcoe and Lake Couchiching (Atherley Narrows) at the same location as the

abandoned CN rail swing bridge, on the border of the City of Orillia and the

Township of Ramara and adjacent to the Highway 12 structure.”

(AECOM 2010: 1)

Sources of potable water, access to waterborne transportation routes, and resources

associated with watersheds are each considered, both individually and collectively to be the

highest criteria for determination of the potential of any location to support extended human

activity, land use, or occupation. Accordingly, proximity to water is regarded as the primary

indicator of archaeological site potential. The Standards and Guidelines for Consultant

Archaeologists stipulates that undisturbed lands within 300 metres of a water source are

considered to have archaeological potential (MTC 2011: 21).

As the study area consists of a crossing over a historically well-known and significant route

of travel as well as a source of fish for a period spanning thousands of years, the potential for

the study area and the surrounding environment to yield significant archaeological resources

is very clear.

5.3.7 CURRENT PROPERTY CONDITIONS CONTEXT

Current characteristics encountered within an archaeological research study area determine if

physical assessment of specific portions of the study area will be necessary and in what

manner a Stage 2 Property Assessment should be conducted, if necessary. Conventional

assessment methodologies include pedestrian survey on ploughable lands and test pit

methodology within areas that cannot be ploughed. For the purpose of determining where

physical assessment is necessary and feasible, general categories of current landscape

conditions have been established as archaeological conventions. These include:

5.3.7.1 BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURAL FOOTPRINTS

A building, in archaeological terms, is a structure that exists currently or has existed in the

past in a given location. The footprint of a building is the area of the building formed by the

perimeter of the foundation. Although the interior area of building foundations would often

be subject to physical assessment when the foundation may represent a potentially significant

historic archaeological site, the footprints of existing structures are not typically assessed.

Existing structures commonly encountered during archaeological assessments are often

residential-associated buildings (houses, garages, sheds), and/or component buildings of farm

complexes (barns, silos, greenhouses). In many cases, even though the disturbance to the





land may be relatively shallow and archaeological resources may be situated below the

disturbed layer (e.g. a concrete garage pad), there is no practical means of assessing the area

beneath the disturbed layer. However, if there were evidence to suggest that there are likely

archaeological resources situated beneath the disturbance, alternative methodologies may be

recommended to study such areas.

The study area contains structural footprints associated with the abandoned CN swing bridge.

The existing structure of the bridge has been described by AECOM as follows:









material.








the piers.




(AECOM 2010: 3-4)

5.3.7.2 DISTURBANCE

Areas that have been subjected to extensive and deep land alteration that has severely

damaged the integrity of archaeological resources are known as disturbances. Examples of

disturbances are areas of “past quarrying, major landscaping, recent built and industrial uses,

sewage and infrastructure development, etc.” (MCL 2005: 15), as well as driveways made of

either gravel or concrete, in-ground pools, and wells or cisterns. Utility lines are conduits

that provide services such as water, natural gas, hydro, communications, sewage, and others.

Areas containing below ground utilities are considered areas of disturbance, and are excluded

from Stage 2 Physical Assessment. Disturbed areas are excluded from Stage 2 Physical





Assessment due to no or low archaeological potential or because they are not assessable

using conventional methodology.

On the east and west ends of the bridge and trestle structures, are concrete piers and

significantly raised artificial railway beds. Depending upon the manner of construction,

these features may not have completely eliminated archaeological potential, however, there is

no practical means of conducting an archaeological assessment beneath them. In addition,

the navigation channel passing under the existing bridge was dredged in 1857 and recently in

association with marina developments to the north and south of the existing bridge.

5.3.7.3 LOW-LYING AND WET AREAS

Landscape features that are covered by permanently wet areas, such as marshes, swamps, or

bodies of water like streams or lakes, are known as low-lying and wet areas. Low-lying and

wet areas are excluded from Stage 2 Physical Assessment due to inaccessibility.

The study area does contain mostly low-lying and wet areas. The structures and the artificial

landscape features noted above have also been constructed within permanently low-lying and

wet areas. The low-lying and wet areas which form part of the study area cannot be assessed

using land based archaeological methodology.

5.3.7.4 STEEP SLOPE

Landscape which slopes at a greater than (>) 20 degree change in elevation, is known as

steep slope. Areas of steep slope are considered uninhabitable, and are excluded from Stage

2 Physical Assessment.

The study area does areas of steep slope. Slope areas are associated with the elevated

railway bed and bridge piers.

5.3.7.5 WOODED AREAS

Areas of the property that cannot be ploughed, such as natural forest or woodlot, are known

as wooded areas. These wooded areas qualify for Stage 2 Physical Assessment, and are

required to be assessed using test pit survey methodology.

The study area contains no wooded area.

5.3.7.6 PLOUGHABLE AGRICULTURAL LANDS

Areas of current or former agricultural lands that have been ploughed in the past are

considered ploughable agricultural lands. Ploughing these lands regularly moves the soil

around, which brings covered artifacts to the surface, easily identifiable during visual

inspection. Furthermore, by allowing the ploughed area to weather sufficiently through





rainfall washing soil off any artifacts, the visibility of artifacts at the surface of recently

worked field areas increases significantly. Pedestrian survey of ploughed agricultural lands

is the preferred method of physical assessment because of the greater potential for finding

evidence of archaeological resources if present.

The study area contains no ploughable lands.

5.3.7.7 LAWN, PASTURE, MEADOW

Landscape features consisting of former agricultural land covered in low growth, such as

lawns, pastures, meadows, shrubbery, and immature trees. These are areas that may be

considered too small to warrant ploughing, (i.e. less than one hectare in area), such as yard

areas surrounding existing structures, and land-locked open areas that are technically

workable by a plough but inaccessible to agricultural machinery. These areas may also

include open area within urban contexts that do not allow agricultural tillage within

municipal or city limits or the use of urban roadways by agricultural machinery. These areas

are required to be assessed using test pit survey methodology.

The study area contains no lawn, pasture or meadow areas.

5.3.8 SUMMARY

Background research indicates the vicinity of the study area has potential for archaeological

resources of Native origins based on proximity to a source of potable water in the past. In

addition, numerous archaeological remains have been documented in close proximity to the

study area. Some sources indicate that documented archaeological resources are situated

within the study area and within the waterway under the existing crossing. Background

research also suggests potential for archaeological resources of Euro-Canadian origins based

on proximity to a historic roadway.

Archaeological potential does not indicate that there are necessarily sites present, but that

environmental and historical factors suggest that there may be as yet undocumented

archaeological sites within lands that have not been subject to systematic archaeological

research in the past.

6.0 PROPERTY INSPECTION

A property inspection or field reconnaissance is not required as part of a Stage 1 Background

Study unless there is reason to believe that portions of the study area may be excluded from

physical assessment on the basis of the conditions of the property or portions thereof.

This report confirms that the entirety of the study area was subject to visual inspection, and

that the fieldwork was conducted according to the archaeological fieldwork standards and

guidelines, including weather and lighting conditions. The property inspection was





completed in very good conditions under overcast skies on 01 April 2013. The temperature

at the time of the reconnaissance was 1C. The locations from which photographs were

taken and the directions toward which the camera was aimed for each photograph are

illustrated in Figure 9 of this report. Although there was a thin layer of ice on the water and

trace amounts of snow on the ground, in the professional judgment of the investigating

archaeologist, Michael Henry (P058), these climatic conditions had an insufficient impact on

ground visibility to offer any impediment to ascertaining land forms and archaeological

potential. Upon completion of the property inspection of the study area, it was determined

that the entire area surrounding the bridge within the study area is permanently low-lying and

wet and is not assessable by land based archaeological methods. The dry land within the

study area is entirely of an artificial nature and constructed within a permanently low-lying

wet area.

6.1 PHOTO RECONNAISSANCE

A detailed examination and photo documentation was carried out on the study area in order

to document the existing conditions of the study area to facilitate Stage 2 assessment. All

areas of the study area were visually inspected and photographed. This work was completed

in conjunction with the Stage 1 Property Inspection. The locations from which photographs

were taken and the directions toward which the camera was aimed for each photograph are

illustrated in Figure 9 of this report.

6.2 FIELD WORK WEATHER CONDITIONS

This report confirms that the entirety of the study area was subject to visual inspection, and

that the fieldwork was conducted according to the archaeological fieldwork standards and

guidelines, including weather and lighting conditions. The property reconnaissance was

completed in very good conditions under overcast skies on 01 April 2013. The temperature

at the time of the reconnaissance was 1C. Although there was a thin layer of ice on the

water and trace amounts of snow on the ground, in the professional judgment of the

investigating archaeologist, Michael Henry (P058), these climatic conditions had an

insufficient impact on ground visibility to offer any impediment to ascertaining land forms

and archaeological potential. Weather conditions were appropriate for the conduct of a

property inspection and photo reconnaissance of the study area for the purposes of

identifying current conditions and archaeological potential within the study area..

6.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELDWORK DOCUMENTATION

The documentation produced during the field investigation conducted in support of this

report includes: one sketch map, one page of photo log, one page of field notes, and 26

digital photographs.





7.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS










Section 7.7.3 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTC 2011:

132) outlines the requirements of the Analysis and Conclusions component of a Stage 1

Background Study.

1) “Identify and describe areas of archaeological potential within the project area.

2) Identify and describe areas that have been subject to extensive and deep land

alterations. Describe the nature of alterations (e.g., development or other activity)

that have severely damaged the integrity of archaeological resources and have

removed archaeological potential.”

7.1 CHARACTERISTICS INDICATING ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL

Section 1.3.1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists specifies the

property characteristics that indicate archaeological potential (MTC 2011: 17-18). Factors

that indicate archaeological potential are features of the local landscape and environment that

may have attracted people to either occupy the land or to conduct activities within the study

area. One or more of these characteristics found to apply to a study area would necessitate a

Stage 2 Property Assessment to determine if archaeological resources are present. These

characteristics are listed below together with considerations derived from the conduct of this

study.

1) Previously Identified Archaeological Sites

Previously documented archaeological sites related to First Nations activity and

occupations have been documented in the vicinity of the study area.

2) Water Sources

Primary water sources are describes as including lakes, rivers streams and creeks.

Close proximity to primary water sources (300 metres) indicates that people had

access to readily available sources of potable water and routes of waterborne trade

and communication should the study area have been used or occupied in the past.

The channel of the Atherley Narrows runs centrally through the study area.





Secondary water sources are described as including intermittent streams and creeks,

springs, marshes, and swamps. Close proximity (300 metres) to secondary water

sources indicates that people had access to readily available sources of potable

water, at least on a seasonal basis, and in some cases seasonal access to routes of

waterborne trade and communication should the study area have been used or

occupied in the past.

The majority of the study area is marsh.

3) Features Indicating Past Water Sources

Features indicating past water resources are described as including 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, and cobble beaches. Close proximity (300 metres) to

features indicating past water sources indicates that people had access to readily

available sources of potable water, at least on a seasonal basis, and in some cases

seasonal access to routes of waterborne trade and communication should the study

area have been used or occupied in the past.

The secondary water source noted above is also documented on historic mapping and

within historic written descriptions of the area.

4) Accessible or Inaccessible Shoreline

This form of landscape feature would include high bluffs, swamp or marsh fields by

the edge of a lake, sandbars stretching into marsh, etc.

There are shorelines within the study area.

5) Elevated Topography

Features of elevated topography that indicate archaeological potential include eskers,

drumlins, large knolls, and plateaux.

There are no identified natural features of elevated topography within the study area.

6) Pockets of Well-drained Sandy Soil

Pockets of sandy soil are considered to be especially important near areas of heavy

soil or rocky ground.

The soil throughout the study area is silt overlying clay.

7) Distinctive Land Formations

These are landscape features 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.





The study area is situated within a shallow and constricted water channel between

two lakes and thereby, affords an ideal setting for a freshwater fishery.

8) Resource Areas

Resource areas that indicate archaeological potential include food or medicinal plants

(e.g., migratory routes, spawning areas, and prairie), scarce raw materials (e.g.,

quartz, copper, ochre or outcrops of chert) and resources of importance to early Euro-

Canadian industry (e.g., logging, prospecting, and mining).

There are identified resource areas within the study area. The Atherley Narrows fish

weirs are documented within very close proximity to the study area.

9) Areas of Early Euro-Canadian Settlement

These include places of early military or pioneer settlement (e.g., pioneer homesteads,

isolated cabins, and farmstead complexes), early wharf or dock complexes, pioneer

churches and early cemeteries. There may be commemorative markers of their

history, such as local, provincial, or federal monuments or heritage parks.

The study area is situated within an area settled by 1838.

10) Early Historical Transportation Routes

This includes evidence of trails, passes, roads, railways, and portage routes.

The study area is situated within the settled city of Orillia that appears on the Historic

Atlas Map of 1881. The study area is also situated adjacent to the settled area of

Atherley that appears on the Historic Atlas Map of 1877. A rail line is illustrated on

both historic maps and runs through the study area. In addition, the area surrounding

the Narrows was occupied in the 1830s as a Native reserve, and after 1838 as a Euro-

Canadian settlement site. There are early roadways associated with these

occupations. Previously, there was a portage across the land to the west of the

narrows near the study area and the narrows themselves, operated as a portion of a

major transportation route connecting Lake Ontario with Georgian Bay.

11) Heritage Property

Property listed on a municipal register or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act

or is a federal, provincial or municipal historic landmark or site.

In addition to being a registered archaeological site, the Fish Weirs is a National

Historic Site.

12) Documented Historical or Archaeological Sites

This includes property that local histories or informants have identified with possible

archaeological sites, historical events, activities, or occupations. These are properties

which have not necessarily been formally recognized or for which there is additional





evidence identifying possible archaeological resources associated with historic

properties in addition to the rationale for formal recognition.

There are not additional documented archaeological sites or historic sites that are not

already registered or recognized.

7.2 CHARACTERISTICS INDICATING REMOVAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL

POTENTIAL

Section 1.3.2 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists specifies the

property characteristics which indicate no archaeological potential or for which

archaeological potential has been removed (MTC 2011: 18-19). These characteristics are

listed below together with considerations derived from the conduct of this study.

The introduction of Section 1.3.2 (MTC 2011: 18) notes that “Archaeological potential can

be determined not to be present for either the entire property or a part(s) of it when the area

under consideration has been subject to extensive and deep land alterations that have

severely damaged the integrity of any archaeological resources. This is commonly referred

to as ‘disturbed’ or ‘disturbance’, and may include:”

1) Quarrying

There is no evidence to suggest that quarrying operations were ever carried out within

the study area.

2) Major Landscaping Involving Grading Below Topsoil

Unless there is evidence to suggest the presence of buried archaeological deposits,

such deeply disturbed areas are considered to have lost their archaeological potential.

Properties that do not have a long history of Euro-Canadian occupation can have

archaeological potential removed through extensive landscape alterations that

penetrate below the topsoil layer. This is because most archaeological sites originate

at grade with relatively shallow associated excavations into the soil. First Nations

sites and early historic sites are vulnerable to extensive damage and complete removal

due to landscape modification activities. In urban contexts where a lengthy history of

occupation has occurred, properties may have deeply buried archaeological deposits

covered over and sealed through redevelopment activities that do not include the deep

excavation of the entire property for subsequent uses. Buildings are often erected

directly over older foundations preserving archaeological deposits associated with the

earlier occupation.

Major landscaping operations involving grading below topsoil were likely carried out

within the study area in select areas. The construction of the crossing at the Narrows

necessitated the excavation of footings into which the existing concrete piers and

pilings are situated. It is likely that this work obliterated any archaeological

resources, which may have been present in those locations. As well, the central

channel of the narrows, which is used for boat navigation, has been dredged





beginning in 1857. Previous underwater archaeological investigations have

documented that this area has been cleared of archaeological potential. In addition,

the construction of the railway line through a low-lying and wet area may have also

included extensive excavation work to remove loose water saturated bottom soil in

order to introduce suitable platform material on which to construct the raised railway

bed.

3) Building Footprints

Typically, the construction of buildings involves the deep excavation of foundations,

footings and cellars that often obliterate archaeological deposits situated close to the

surface.

There is an old CN bridge within the study area. See the section above regarding

major landscape alterations.

4) Sewage and Infrastructure Development

Installation of sewer lines and other below ground services associated with

infrastructure development often involves deep excavation that can remove

archaeological potential.

There are no below ground services within the study area.

“Activities such as agricultural cultivation, gardening, minor grading and landscaping do

not necessarily affect archaeological potential.”

(MTC 2011: 18)

“Archaeological potential is not removed where there is documented potential for deeply

buried intact archaeological resources beneath land alterations, or where it cannot be

clearly demonstrated through background research and property inspection that there has

been complete and intensive disturbance of an area. Where complete disturbance cannot be

demonstrated in Stage 1, it will be necessary to undertake Stage 2 assessment.”

(MTC 2011: 18)

Table 4 below summarizes the evaluation criteria of the MTCS together with the results of

the Stage 1 Background Study for the proposed undertaking.





TABLE 4 EVALUATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL

FEATURE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL YES NO N/A COMMENT

1 Known archaeological sites within 300m Y

If Yes, potential determined

PHYSICAL FEATURES

2 Is there water on or near the property? Y If Yes, what kind of water?

2a Primary water source within 300 m. (lakeshore, river, large creek, etc.) Y


2b Secondary water source within 300 m. (stream, spring, marsh, swamp, etc.) Y


2c Past water source within 300 m. (beach ridge, river bed, relic creek, etc.) Y


2d Accessible or Inaccessible shoreline within 300 m. (high bluffs, marsh, swamp, sand bar, etc.) Y


3 Elevated topography (knolls, drumlins, eskers, plateaus, etc.) N

If Yes, and Yes for any of 4-9, potential determined

4 Pockets of sandy soil in a clay or rocky area N If Yes and Yes for any of 3, 5-9, potential determined

5 Distinctive land formations (mounds, caverns, waterfalls, peninsulas, etc.) Y

If Yes and Yes for any of 3-4, 6-9, potential determined

HISTORIC/PREHISTORIC USE FEATURES

6

Associated with food or scarce resource harvest areas (traditional fishing locations, agricultural/berry extraction areas, etc.) Y

If Yes, and Yes for any of 3-5, 7-9, potential determined.

7 Early Euro-Canadian settlement area within 300 m. Y

If Yes, and Yes for any of 3-6, 8-9, potential determined

8 Historic Transportation route within 100 m. (historic road, trail, portage, rail corridors, etc.) Y

If Yes, and Yes for any 3-7 or 9, potential determined

9

Contains property designated and/or listed under the Ontario Heritage Act (municipal heritage committee, municipal register, etc.) N

If Yes and, Yes to any of 3-8, potential determined

APPLICATION-SPECIFIC INFORMATION

10 Local knowledge (local heritage organizations, First Nations, etc.) Y


11

Recent disturbance not including agricultural cultivation (post-1960-confirmed extensive and intensive including industrial sites, aggregate areas, etc.) Y

If Yes, no potential or low potential in affected part (s) of the study area.

If YES to any of 1, 2a-c, or 10 Archaeological Potential is confirmed If YES to 2 or more of 3-9, Archaeological Potential is confirmed

If YES to 11 or No to 1-10 Low Archaeological Potential is confirmed for at least a portion of the study area.





7.3 STAGE 1 RESULTS

As a result of the Stage 1 Background Study it was determined that the study area has

archaeological potential on the basis of proximity to water, the proximity of a shoreline, the

proximity of registered archaeological sites (including the fish weirs and others), the

proximity to an area exploited for natural resources, the location of a National Historic Site

(the fish weirs) in close proximity to the study area, the presence of a historic railroad

corridor within the study area, and the location of early historic settlement roads adjacent to

the study area, the proximity of an area of early settlement, and proximity to a built feature

(the fish weirs) identified by knowledgeable local informants and heritage groups as

significant. However, there are also areas of significant disturbance where archaeological

potential is removed or is untestable at the present time. The structure of the bridge, the steel

trestle, the concrete piers and the railroad embankment have each damaged archaeological

potential or removed it entirely within the area of their construction. In addition, the

dredging of the navigation channel (first done in 1857 and periodically repeated) has

removed archaeological potential from areas of dredging including dredging conducted in

association with the development of marinas to the north and south of the existing bridge.

It has therefore been determined that the study area exhibits archaeological potential

generally, but that certain areas have had archaeological potential removed. There have been

no previous archaeological studies that have specifically targeted the study area.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 STAGE 1 RECOMMENDATIONS

Under Section 7.7.4 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTC

2011: 133) the recommendations to be made as a result of a Stage 1 Background Study are

described.

1) Make recommendations regarding the potential for the property, as follows:

a. if some or all of the property has archaeological potential, identify

areas recommended for further assessment (Stage 2) and areas not

recommended for further assessment. Any exemptions from further

assessment must be consistent with the archaeological fieldwork

standards and guidelines.

b. if no part of the property has archaeological potential, recommend

that the property does not require further archaeological assessment.

2) Recommend appropriate Stage 2 assessment strategies.

As a result of the Stage 1 Background Research, the project area potentially impacted by the

proposed undertaking has been identified as an area of archaeological potential.





As a result of the study area inspection, it has been determined that the areas of the structure

of the bridge and associated footings, permanently low-lying and wet areas, and the artificial

former railway line embankment and road bed do not require archaeological assessment

using land based archaeological survey methodology. The recommendations offered by

AMICK Consultants Limited respecting land based archaeological resources are as follows:

1. It is recommended that no further land based archaeological studies are required.

2. The proposed undertaking may be permitted to proceed where construction impacts

may occur within the study area addressed within this report.

However, Stage 1 Background research identified the water areas within the study area as an

area containing stakes associated with the ancient fish weirs documented in the vicinity.

Accordingly, as part of our original report prepared in 2013, an underwater archaeological

survey was recommended to determine the presence or absence of possible fish weir stakes

within the study area. Subsequent to the completion and filing of our original report a

Marine Archaeological Assessment was completed for the study area (see Scarlett Janusas

Archaeology Inc. 2014). The recommendations offered in that report area as follows:

















(SJA 2014: 53-54)

AMICK Consultants Limited does not have staff who are qualified to undertake Marine

Archaeological Assessments and therefore, cannot legally make any recommendations for

this specialized area of study. The recommendations respecting underwater or marine





archaeological resources are quoted directly from the Marine Archaeological Assessment

report prepared by Scarlett Janusas Archaeology Inc. Any requirement to follow up on any

matters reflecting marine archaeological resources must be undertaken by persons with the

specialized knowledge and experience to address these particular resources.

9.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION

While not part of the archaeological record, this report must include the following standard

advisory statements for the benefit of the proponent and the approval authority in the land

use planning and development process:

a. 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.

0.18. The report is reviewed to ensure that it complies with the standards and

guidelines 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.

b. 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.

c. Should previously undocumented archaeological resources be discovered, they may

be a new archaeological site and therefore subject to Section 48 (1) of the Ontario

Heritage Act. The proponent or person discovering the archaeological resources

must cease alteration of the site immediately and engage a licensed archaeologist to

carry out archaeological fieldwork, in compliance with sec. 48 (1) of the Ontario

Heritage Act.

d. The Cemeteries Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4 and the Funeral, Burial and Cremation

Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.33 (when proclaimed in force) require that any

person discovering human remains must notify the police or coroner and the

Registrar of Cemeteries at the Ministry of Consumer Services.

e. 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

licence.





10.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES AECOM

2010 Atherley Narrows Pedestrian/Snowmobile Bridge Preliminary Design Report.

Technical Report on file with the Department of Parks and Recreation, City of Orillia.

AMICK Consultants Limited

2009 Revised Report on the 2007 Stage 1-3 Archaeological

Assessment of Orchard Point Harbour, Including Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13

West of Clifford Street, Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 East of Orchard Street,

And Part of Charles Street and Part of Jane Street, Registered Plan 292, And

Water Lot in Front of Lot 13, Concession 7, Former Township of South Orillia,

City of Orillia, County of Simcoe (AMICK file #27060-P/MTCS #P058-254-2007).

Archaeological License Report on File with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and

Sport, Toronto.

2010 Report on the 2009 - 2010 Stage 4 Investigations of

the Orchard Point Site (BdGu-18), Proposed Orchard Point Harbour, Including

Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 West of Clifford Street, Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19

East of Orchard Street, And Part of Charles Street and Part of Jane Street,

Registered Plan 292, And Water Lot in Front of Lot 13, Concession 7, Former

Township of South Orillia, City of Orillia, County of Simcoe

(AMICK file #29325-P & 10638-P/MTCS #P058-471-2009 & P058-608-2010).


Sport, Toronto.

2011 2010 Stage 4 Investigations of the Orchard Point

Site (BdGu-18), Proposed Orchard Point Harbour, Including Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, and

13 West of Clifford Street, Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 East of Orchard Street,

And Part of Charles Street and Part of Jane Street, Registered Plan 292, And Water

Lot in Front of Lot 13, Concession 7, Former Township of South Orillia,

City of Orillia, County of Simcoe (AMICK file #10638-P/MTCS #P058-608-2010).


Sport, Toronto.

2013 Stage 4 Mitigation of Development Impacts of the Orchard Point Harbour Sales Centre

within the Proposed Orchard Point Development, Including Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 West

of Clifford Street, Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 East of Orchard Street, And Part of Charles

Street and Part of Jane Street, Registered Plan 292, And Water Lot in Front of Lot 13,

Concession 7 (Former Township of South Orillia), City of Orillia, County of Simcoe

(AMICK file #12053-L/ MTCS #P038-443-2012). Archaeological License Report on File

with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.

Andreae, C. A.

1972 A Historical Railway Atlas of Southwestern Ontario. London, Ontario:

C. A. Andreae

Anonymous

n.d. “Fish Fence.” Commemorative plaque situated on north side of the multi-use trail





overlying the former railway bed on the west approach to the existing former CNR

railway swing bridge.

Archaeological and Historic Sites Board of Ontario (AHSBO)

n.d. “Huron Fish Weirs.” Commemorative plaque situated on the east bank of the

Atherley Narrows and to the south of the Highway 12 bridge over the Atherley Narrows.

Archaeological Assessments Ltd.

2003 The Stage 1-3 Archaeological Assessment of the Orchard Point Condominium

Development, Part of Lots 14, 15 & 16, and Part of Charles Street and Jane Street,

Registered Plan 292, City of Orillia, County of Simcoe. Archaeological License Report on

File with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.

Beers, J.H.

1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario, Ont. J. H. Beers, Toronto

Biggar, H. P.

1932 The Works of Samuel de Champlain. 6 Volumes. The Champlain Society, Toronto.

Carver, J.

1778 Travels Through The Interior Parts of North America in the Years 1766, 1767

and 1768. J. Walter, London, 1778 (Facsimile Edition, Coles Publishing Company,

Toronto, 1974).

Canadian Ministry of the Environment (CME)

n.d.(a) “Mnjikaning Fish Weirs.” In List of National Historic Sites of Canada, Ottawa. Retrieved 15

April 2013 from http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6137766/List-of-national-historic-sites-of-

Canada---PDF

n.d.(b) “Mnjikaning Fish Weirs National Historic Site of Canada” The Canadian Register of

Historic Places. Parks Canada, Ottawa. Retrieved 15 April 2013 from

http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=9679

Canadian National Railways (CNR)

1969 Atherley Swing Bridge Reconstruction General Layout. CNR Great Lakes Region,

Newmarket.

Cassavoy, Kenneth

1993 Atherley Narrows Fishweirs: 1992 Project Report. Archaeological License Report on file


Cassavoy, Kenneth & Richard B. Johnston

1974 A Preliminary Investigation of the Atherley Narrows Fishweir (70N3) Near Orillia, Ontario.

Report submitted to Trent University Committee on Research.

1977 Further Investigations at the Atherley Narrows Fishweir Site (70N3) Near Orillia, Ontario in

1974. Unpublished Research Manuscript on File at the Department of Anthropology, Trent

University, Peterborough.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6137766/List-of-national-historic-sites-of-Canada---PDF

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6137766/List-of-national-historic-sites-of-Canada---PDF

http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=9679





1996 Atherley Narrows Fishweirs: 1994/95 Project Report. Archaeological License Report on file


Chapman, L.J. & D.F. Putnam. (1984). The Physiography of Southern Ontario (Third Edition).

Ontario Geological Survey, Special Report #2. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,

Toronto.

Clark, General John S.

1900 “A Study of the Word Toronto.” Annual Archaeological Report, 1899, Being Part of

Appendix to the Report of the Minister of Education, Ontario. Toronto: Warwick Brothers &

Rutter Limited. (pp. 76-77).

Copway, G. (Kah-Ge-Ga-Gah-Bowh)

1972 The Traditional History and Characteristic Sketches of the Ojibway Nation.

(Facsimile Reprint of the 1850 edition) Coles Publishing Company, Toronto.

Daley, Thomas and Marthe Carrier

1990 “Conservation Assessment of Underwater Historical Resources at Atherley Narrows, Ontario

– 1990 Field Season.” Laboratory Report No. 89-2850. Wet Organic Material Laboratory,

Historic Resource Conservation Branch, Parks Canada, Ottawa.

Darmitz, Leo.

2015 Weir in the Middle of History. Exerpt from the unpublished Memoirs of Leo Darmitz.

Provided to Michael Henry in a personal communication via email, dated 20 April 2015.

Fredrickson, N. Jaye & Sandra Gibb

1980 The Covenant Chain: Indian Ceremonial and Trade Silver. Ottawa:

National Museums of Canada.

Garbutt, Mary. (2010). About Simcoe County. Simcoe County Branch- Ontario Genealogical Society.

Retrieved May 12, 2010, from http://www.simcoebogs.com/About/ab_simcoe.htm.

Google Earth (Version 6.0.3.2197) [Software]. (2009). Available from

http://www.google.com/earth/index.html.

Google Maps. (2012). Available from: http://maps.google.ca/?utm_campaign =en&utm_source=en-

ha-na-ca-bk-gm&utm_medium=ha&utm_term =google%20maps.

Government of Ontario

1990a Ontario Heritage Act, RSO 1990. Government of Ontario. (Queen’s Printer, Toronto).

1990b Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, RSO 1990. Government of Ontario. (Queen’s

Printer, Toronto).

2005 Ontario Heritage Amendment Act, SO 2005. Government of Ontario. (Queen’s Printer,

Toronto).

Hammond, Hugh J.

1905a “The Ojibwas of Lakes Huron and Simcoe.” Annual Archaeological Report, 1904,

http://www.simcoebogs.com/About/ab_simcoe.htm

http://maps.google.ca/?utm_campaign=en&utm_source=en-ha-na-ca-bk-gm&utm_medium=ha&utm_term=google%20maps

http://maps.google.ca/?utm_campaign=en&utm_source=en-ha-na-ca-bk-gm&utm_medium=ha&utm_term=google%20maps





Being Part of Appendix to the Report of the Minister of Education, Ontario. Toronto:

Warwick Brothers & Rutter Limited. (pp. 71-73)

1905b “The Coming of the Ojibwas.” Annual Archaeological Report, 1904, Being Part of

Appendix to the Report of the Minister of Education, Ontario. Toronto: Warwick Brothers

& Rutter Limited. (pp. 76-77)

1905c “North and South Orillia.” Annual Archaeological Report, 1904, Being Part of

Appendix to the Report of the Minister of Education, Ontario. Toronto: Warwick Brothers

& Rutter Limited. (pp. 77-86)

H. Belden & Co.

1881 Simcoe Supplement in the Illustrated Atlas of the Dominion of Canada. H. Belden & Co.,

Toronto.

Head, George

1829 Forest Scenes and Incidents in the Wilds of North America.

John Murray, London.

Henry, Alexander

1901 Travels & Adventures in Canada and the Indian Territories Between the Years 1760

and 1776. James Bain, Ed. New York: Burt Franklin.

Hunter, Andrew

1904 “Notes on Sites of Indian Villages in the Townships of North and South Orillia

(Simcoe County).” Annual Archaeological Report, 1903, Being Part of Appendix to

the Report of the Minister of Education, Ontario. Toronto: Warwick Brothers &

Rutter Limited. (pp. 104-125)

1998 A History of Simcoe County. (Facsimile Reprint of the 1909 Edition). Oshawa:

Mackinaw Productions.

Jaenen, Cornelius J. (Ed.)

1996 The French Regime in the Upper Country of Canada During the Seventeenth Century.

The Champlain Society for the Government of Ontario, No. XVI. Toronto: University of

Toronto Press.

Janusas, Scarlett E. & Robert G. Mayer

1998 “Underwater Archaeological Assessment and First Nation Concerns: Atherley Narrows Fish

Weirs Site (BdGv-6).” Ontario Archaeological Society Arch Notes, New Series, Volume 3,

Issue 6, November/December 1998 (pp12-19)

Johnston, Richard B. and Kenneth A. Cassavoy

1978 “The Fishweirs at Atherley Narrows, Ontario.” American Antiquity.

No. 43, pp. 697-709.

Kenyon, Walter A.

1966 “Champlain’s Fish-weir.” Royal Ontario Museum Archaeological Newsletter,

New Series No. 8 (pp. 1-4). Toronto.





Kinietz, W. Vernon

1965 Indians of the Western Great Lakes 1615-1760. Ann Arbor:

University of Michigan Press.

LaFleche, Louis

1993 “Wood Degredation Study of Stakes Recovered at Atherley Narrows in 1990 and 1991.”

Laboratory Report No. 89-2850. Wet Organic Material Laboratory, Historic Resource

Conservation Branch, Parks Canada, Ottawa.

1994 “Wood Identification from Atherley Narrows.” Laboratory Report No. 89-2850.

Wet Organic Material Laboratory, Historic Resource Conservation Branch, Parks Canada,

Ottawa.

LaJeunesse, Ernest J. (Ed.)

1960 The Windsor Border Region, Canada’s Southernmost Frontier: A Collection of

Documents. The Champlain Society for the Government of Ontario, No. IV. Toronto:

University of Toronto Press.

Mayer Heritage Consultants Inc.

1997a Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1 and 2), Highway 12/Atherley Narrows Bridge,

Township of Ramara, County of Simcoe, Ontario. Archaeological License Report on file


1997b Underwater Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1 and 2), Proposed Trestle and Rip Rap

Construction Area, Highway 12 Bridge, Atherley Narrows, Simcoe County, Ontario.

Archaeological License Report on file with the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and

Sport, Toronto.

1997c Underwater Archaeological Assessment (Stage 3), Test Excavation of Area S6, Highway 12

Bridge, Atherley Narrows, Simcoe County, Ontario. Archaeological License Report on file


Mika, Nick & Helma

1972 Railways of Canada. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited.

Mnjinkaning Fish Fence Circle

2015 Memo to: Diana Addley, Environmental Planner, AECOM Canada Ltd., Re: EA for the

Atherley Narrows Bridge Project. Dated 11 March 2015.

Murdock, Lorne

1992 “1992 On Site Conservation Consultation of Fish Weir Remains at Atherley Narrows.”

Conservation Services Request Report No. 92-1333. Historic Resource Conservation Branch,

Parks Canada, Ottawa.

Murdock, Lorne & John Stewart

1995 “Atherley Narrows National Historic Site Cultural Resources Monitoring Program (Activity

Report: Field Trip of Oct 17-21, 1994).” Conservation Services Request Report No. 94-129.

Historic Resource Conservation Branch, Parks Canada, Ottawa.





Murray, Florence B. (Ed.)

1963 Muskoka and Haliburton, 1615-1875: A Collection of Documents. The Champlain Society

for the Government of Ontario, No. VI. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Myers, Jay

1977 The Great Canadian Road: A History of Yonge Street. Toronto:

Red Rock Publishing Company.

Ontario GenWeb Project

2010 “SEVERN #15: Formerly Matchedash and Orillia Townships.” Simcoe County. Retrieved

November 2, 2011, from http://www.waynecook.com/zsevern.html#historyb.

Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation (OMCzCR)

1993 Archaeological Assessment Technical Guidelines, Stages 1-3 and Reporting Format.

OMCzCR, Cultural Programs Branch, Archaeology and Heritage Planning, Toronto.

Ontario Ministry of Culture (MCL). (2005). Conserving a Future for Our Past: Archaeology, Land

Use Planning & Development in Ontario (An Educational Primer and Comprehensive Guide

for Non-Specialists). (Heritage & Libraries Branch, Heritage Operations Unit: Toronto).

Ontario Ministry of Culture and Communications (MCC) & Ministry of Environment (MOE). (1992).

Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental

Assessments. (Cultural Programs Branch, Archaeology and Heritage Planning: Toronto).

Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC). (2011). Standards and Guidelines for Consultant

Archaeologist. (Programs and Services Branch: Culture Programs Unit, Toronto).

Page, John

1856 John Page Letter to Thomas A. Bagly reporting his examination of the Atherley

Narrows and recommendations for navigational improvements, June 6, 1856.

Public Archives of Canada, Manuscript Division, Record Group 11, Series II,

Vol. 170, No. 29998.

Potherie, Claude Charles Le Roy, Bacqueville de la

1753 “History of the Savage Peoples Who Are Allies of New France.” In The Indian Tribes of the

Upper Mississippi Valley And The Region of the Great Lakes. Ed. Emma Helen Blair.

University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska. 1996

Reznicek, A. A.

1980 "John Goldie's 1819 Collecting Site Near Lake Simcoe, Ontario."

Canadian Field-Naturalist (94(4): 439-442.

Ringer, R. James

1989 Marine Archaeological Reconnaissance at Atherley Narrows, Ontario. Manuscript on file,

Canadian Parks Service, Ontario.

1990 Marine Archaeological Survey at Atherley Narrows and at the Mouth of the Severn River,

Ontario. Manuscript on file, Canadian Parks Service, Ontario.





1991 Atherley Narrows: Summary of 1991 Survey. Manuscript on file, Canadian Parks Service,

Ontario.

2006 “Atherley Narrows Fish Weirs.” In Underwater Cultural Heritage at Risk: Managing Natural

and Human Impacts. (pp. 44-45) International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS).

Biedermann Offsetdruck, München.

Ringer, R. James and Peter J. A. Waddell

1995 “The Atherley Narrows Fish Weir Complex: A Submerged Prehistoric-to-Historic-Period

Fishing Site in Ontario.” Paper presented at Hidden Dimensions: The Cultural Significance

of Wetland Archaeology Conference at the University of British Columbia April 27-30, 1995,

Vancouver.

Robinson, Percy J.

1965 Toronto During the French Regime (2nd Edition). Toronto:

University of Toronto Press.

Rolling, Gladys M.

1968 East Gwillimbury in the Nineteenth Century. Toronto: Ryerson Press.

Ross, Brian & Sheryl Smith

2002 “Aboriginal Youth Week Comes to Camp: Partners in History, Culture, and Environment at

Georgian Bay Islands National Park of Canada.” Ontario Archaeology. Number 73, pp. 79-

84.

Rubidge, F.P.

1857 F. P. Rubidge letter to Thomas A. Bagly reporting completion of dredging and other

navigational improvements at the Atherley Narrows, October 7, 1857. Public Archives of

Canada. Manuscript Division, Record Group 11, Series II, Vol. 189. No. 34796.

Scarlett Janusas Archaeology Inc. (SJA)

2014 Marine Archaeological Assessment, Atherley Narrows Bridge Study, Simcoe County. SJA,

Tobermory, Ontario. Archaeological License Report on file with the Ontario Ministry of

Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto. (MTCS File#2009-003-005-2009).

Scarlett Janusas Archaeological & Heritage Consulting & Education (SJA)

2009 Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment, Water Lot Off Lot 13, Concession 7,

Geographic Township of South Orillia, City of Orillia, Simcoe County, Ontario. SJA,

Tobermory, Ontario. Archaeological License Report on file with the Ontario Ministry of

Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto. (MTCS File#2009-003-005-2009).

Shark Marine

1997 Sub-bottom Profiling of the Proposed Bridge Site at Atherley Narrows, Orillia. Technical

Report filed in support of Underwater Archaeology License Reports on file with the Ontario

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Toronto.

Smith, David G.

2002 “Ten Thousand Years: Aboriginal Heritage in Mississauga.” In Mississauga:





The First 10,000 Years. Frank Dieterman, Ed. Mississauga Heritage Foundation,

Eastendbooks, Toronto

Smith, Donald B.

1987 Sacred Feathers: The Reverend peter Jones (Kahkewaquonaby) & the Mississauga Indians.

Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Smith, Sheryl A.

1982 “Southern Ontario Prehistoric Sites: Ontario Prehistory Framework and Site Selection.”

Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada Agenda Paper, Spring Meeting, 1982.

1992 Summary of 1992 Underwater Archaeological Fieldwork: Atherley Narrows. Unpublished

Parks Canada internal memorandum, on file at Parks Canada Ontario Region, Cornwall,

Ontario.

Stewart, John

1998 “Atherley Narrows National Historic Site Cultural Resources Monitoring Program (Up-date

May 1998).” Conservation Services Request Report No. 94-129. Analytical Services Unit,

Research and Analysis Section, Ontario Service Centre, Parks Canada, Cornwall.

Stewart, John & Lorne Murdock

1996 “Atherley Narrows National Historic Site Cultural Resources Monitoring Program (Up-date

of 1995 Field Season).” Conservation Services Request Report No. 94-129. Historic

Resource Conservation Branch, Parks Canada, Ottawa.

Trigger, Bruce G.

1969 The Huron: Farmers of the North. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

1987 The Children of Aataentsic: A History of the Huron People to 1660.

Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.

Turner, Janet

1999 “Huron Descendants Descend Upon Midland.” Ontario Archaeological Society Arch Notes.

New Series, Volume 4, Issue 5, September/October 1999, pp. 14-16.

2002 “Building Bridges From a Mnjikaning Fish Fence Circle Perspective.”

Ontario Archaeology No. 73, pp. 69-75.

Vespra Township Council

1987 A History of Vespra Township. Mika Publishing Company, Belleville.

Waddell, Peter & Marc-Andre Bernier

1992 Summary of the 1992 Marine Archaeology Survey at Atherley Narrows, Ontario. Manuscript

report on file, Canadian Parks Service, Ottawa.

Warren, William W.

1984 History of the Ojibway People. Minnesota Historical Society Press, St. Paul,

Minnesota. (Reprint of the 1885 Minnesota Historical Society edition).





Wikipedia

2011 Ramara, Ontario. URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramara,_Ontario, as of May 09, 2011.

Wright, J. V.

1972 “The Dougall Site.” Ontario Archaeology, No. 17 (pp. 3-17). Toronto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramara,_Ontario





11.0 MAPS

Figure 1 Location of the Study Area (Google Maps 2012)





Figure 2 Limits of the Study Area (AECOM 2012)





Figure 3 Segment of the Historic Atlas Map of South Orillia Township

(H. Belden & Co. 1881)

Figure 4 Segment of the Historic Atlas Map of Mara Township

(H. Belden & Co. 1881)





Figure 5 Atherley Swing Bridge Reconstruction General Layout (CNR 1969)





Figure 6 Proposed New Crossing (AECOM 2010)





Figure 7 Facsimile Plan of the 1973-1974 Survey (Cassavoy & Johnston 1977:8)





Figure 8 Facsimile Map Segment of Parks Canada Known Fish Weir Distribution

(Turner 2002: 70)





Figure 9 Study Area and the Archaeological Reconnaissance





12.0 IMAGES

Plate 1 Former Railway Embankment on

Approach from the East

Plate 2 Adjacent Marina Property to the South

from the Top of the Former Railway Embankment

Plate 3 1970 Construction Steel Trestle through

Low-lying and Wet Area from the North

Plate 4 Timbers from Former Crossing

Structure(s) at the West End of the Steel Trestle

Plate 5 View East from the West End of the Steel

Trestle

Plate 6 View of the Low-lying & Wet Portion of

the Study Area Northeast of the Bridge





Plate 7 View to the North from the West End of

the Trestle

Plate 8 View to the South from the West End of

the Trestle

Plate 9 Fish Fence Plaque on the West Approach Plate 10 View of the Crossing on the West

Approach

Plate 11 Swing Bridge from the Concrete Pier on

the West Bank

Plate 12 View West from the Concrete Pier on the

West Bank