APPENDIX A · Image 9 Culvert in Area B, Facing East 14 Image 10 Erosion in Area B, Facing Northwest 14 List of Maps Map 1 Project Area Location 15 Map 2 Development Plan of Area

APPENDIX A

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT (STAGE 1 - 2) IN THE CITY OF TORONTO

WILKET CREEK REHABILITATION PROJECT

LOT 4, CONCESSION II EAST LOT 3, CONCESSION III EAST

HISTORIC YORK TOWNSHIP, YORK COUNTY

DRW-11-008

PIF P303-104-2011

ORIGINAL REPORT NOVEMBER 17 2011

Archaeology Resource Management Services 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, ON M3N 1S4 trca.on.ca/archaeology

MTC Licence Issued to: Alistair Jolly (P303) (416) 661-6600 ext. 6405 [email protected]

trca archaeology resource management services (stage 1 - 2) wilket creek rehabilitation

MTC Licence Number: P303 TRCA Project Number: DRW-11-008 PIF P303-104-2011 Page i

Executive Summary A Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessment was triggered by internal TRCA policy outlined in the Archaeology Resource Management Services Guidelines and Procedures and was completed for the proposed channel rehabilitation and trail realignment for the Wilket Creek Tributary of the Don River, as a part of TRCA’s geomorphic systems and habitat study on behalf of the City of Toronto. The project area consists of two parts located in Sunnybrook Park, northwest of the Eglinton Avenue East and Leslie Street intersection, on Lot 2, Concession III East and Lot 3, Concession III East, in the City of Toronto. TRCA’s Archaeology Resource Management Services conducted the Stage 1 and 2 investigations in the summer of 2011. Test pitting was conducted along the length of the proposed two project sections – area A and area B, which extended for a distance of approximately 280 and 60 metres respectively. Both areas have been partially identified as disturbed along the existing trail line due to previous trail construction. No artifacts or cultural features were found in either area. It is therefore recommended that no further archaeological assessment of the property, as assessed, be required. However, if there is any deviation from the agreed upon project area, additional assessment may be necessary. Furthermore, if any deeply buried deposits or human remains are encountered, all activities will cease and the TRCA Archaeology Resource Management Services as well as the proper authorities will be contacted immediately.


MTC Licence Number: P303 TRCA Project Number: DRW-11-008 PIF P303-104-2011 Page ii

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary i Table of Contents ii List of Images iii List of Maps iii Project Personnel iv

1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT 1

1.1 Development Context 1 1.2 Historical Context 1 1.3 Archaeological Context 5

2.0 FIELD METHODS 6

2.1 Site Preparation 6 2.2 Survey Methods 6

3.0 RECORD OF FINDS 6

4.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS 7

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 7

Advice on Compliance with Legislation 8 Bibliography and Sources 9 Appendix A: Images 10 Appendix B: Maps 14 Appendix C: Document Inventory 21


MTC Licence Number: P303 TRCA Project Number: DRW-11-008 PIF P303-104-2011 Page iii

Table of Contents, continued

Page List of Images

Image 1 Project Area A Facing East 10 Image 2 Project Area A Facing West 10 Image 3 Test Pitting, Project Area A, Facing East 11 Image 4 Erosion on the Project Area A, Facing South 11 Image 5 Disturbance Beside the Path, Area A 12 Image 6 Example of an Undisturbed Test Pit, Area A 12 Image 7 Project Area B, Facing South 13 Image 8 Project Area B, Facing North 13 Image 9 Culvert in Area B, Facing East 14 Image 10 Erosion in Area B, Facing Northwest 14

List of Maps

Map 1 Project Area Location 15 Map 2 Development Plan of Area A 16 Map 3 Detail of 1860 Tremaine Map - York County 17 Map 4 Detail of 1878 Miles and Co. Atlas – York County 17 Map 5 Local Topography 18 Map 6 TRCA Archaeological Potential Model 19 Map 7 City of Toronto Predictive Model 19 Map 8 Project Area A 20 Map 9 Project Area B 20 Map 10 Location and Direction of Photos, Project Area A 21 Map 11 Location and Direction of Photos, Project Area B 21


MTC Licence Number: P303 TRCA Project Number: DRW-11-008 PIF P303-104-2011 Page iv

Project Personnel

Project Management and Field Direction: Alistair Jolly (P303) Field Archaeologists: Scott Eckford

Spenser Freeland Heather Massey Lilit Mirzoyan Barry Orme Amanda Parks

Field Volunteers (Liaison trainees): Nicole Vokes Tracy Yeo

Archival Research: Barry Orme Report Preparation: Lilit Mirzoyan Graphics: Jessie Francavilla

Lilit Mirzoyan Edited By: Janice Teichroeb (P338) Amanda Parks


MTC Licence Number: P303 TRCA Project Number: DRW-11-008 PIF P303-104-2011 Page 1

1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT

1.1 Development Context

A proposal for erosion control and a trail realignment along Wilket Creek, a tributary of the Don River, has resulted in a Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessment that was triggered by the Environmental Assessment Act in the summer of 2011. Two project areas (Area A and Area B) were identified within Wilket Creek Park as requiring erosion repair in order to provide long term protection of the existing infrastructure. The project areas are located northwest of the intersection between Eglinton Avenue East and Leslie Street on Lot 3 Concession III East and Lot 4 Concession II East in the former Borough of North York, City of Toronto (Map 1). This project is part of the overall geomorphic systems and habitat study for Wilket Creek that was initiated by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) on behalf of the City of Toronto. TRCA has been working in partnership with the Toronto City Parks, Forestry and Recreation Department and Toronto Water since the August 2005 storm event, with the goal of repairing parkland areas where infrastructure and public safety risks resulting from the storm were identified. The two components discussed in this report were targeted during this study and are located on City of Toronto land. Proposed changes for Area A include widening the channel to accommodate greater storm water flow, realigning the existing trail, and installing new pedestrian bridges (Map 2). The channel rehabilitation identified as Phases I-IV on the development plan measures approximately 2200m2 and the trail realignment measures approximately 225 metres in length and three metres in width. Area B is part of a continuing erosion control project along the bank of Wilket Creek and includes a staging area and an access route on the western side of the creek, and measures approximately 1550m2. Two components of the overall developments were targeted during this assessment in the northern and southern parts of the project area corresponding to the area A and area B. Proposed changes for area A include: widening the channel to accommodate greater storm water flow; realign the existing trail; install two new pedestrian bridges (Map 2). Area B is part of a continuing erosion control project along the bank of Wilket Creek and includes a staging area and access route on the western side of the creek. It was staked out by the proponent and no development map was provided for this area. The combined area of investigation was approximately 240 hectares. The archaeological assessment was undertaken in advance of the final channel rehabilitation, trail realignment and erosion control projects. Permission for this assessment was granted to TRCA’s Archaeology Resource Management Services by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA).

1.2 Historical Context

The study area is found within the Don River watershed, which has provided sustenance for humans for over 12,000 years and today flows through heavily urbanized areas. In fact, it is the most urban river in Canada. The entire watershed is approximately 360 square kilometres in size. The source of the 38 kilometer long river is the Oak Ridges Moraine. Interestingly, the Don River is a misfit or underfit river with floodplains as wide as four hundred metres yet the river is only 15 metres wide. The Don River once provided the eastern boundary of the original settlement of Toronto along Lake Ontario. The river splits into eastern and western branches approximately seven kilometres north of the lake. The current project area is located on the west side of the East Don River. The river was originally known by various Aboriginal names including Necheng Qua Kekonk and Wonscoteonoch. The latter may be interpreted as “black burnt lands” which may refer to fire damage. The river received its English name in 1793 when Simcoe realized the similarities between the Ontario River



and the River Don in Yorkshire. During the nineteenth century, a number of industries sprang up along the Lower Don and pollution soon contaminated the mouth of the river. During the late nineteenth century, the river was straightened with a channel to create harbor space and divert pollution. The river became increasingly polluted during the twentieth century as over 30 sewage treatment facilities were constructed and industrial refuse was dumped along the river. By the 1960s the river was polluted nearly beyond repair. However, in recent years, successful efforts have been made to restore the Don. PalaeoIndian Period – 12,000 to 10,000 BP. Twelve thousand years ago, as the glaciers retreated from southern Ontario, nomadic peoples gradually moved into areas recently vacated by the massive ice-sheets. These people lived in small family groups and it is presumed that they hunted caribou and other fauna associated with the cooler environment of this time period. It should be remembered that as the glaciers melted at the end of the last ice age, the landscape of southern Ontario was very much like the tundra of the present day eastern sub-arctic. Traditionally, the PalaeoIndian occupation of southern Ontario has been associated with glacial lake shorelines, however recent investigations in the Toronto vicinity indicate that these peoples also exploited interior locations situated inland from the glacial lakes. Archaic Period – 10,000 to 2800 BP. As the climate in southern Ontario warmed, Aboriginal populations adapted to these new environments and associated fauna. Thus, many new technologies and subsistence strategies were introduced and developed by the Archaic peoples of this time period. Woodworking implements such as groundstone axes, adzes and gouges began to appear, as did net-sinkers (for fishing), numerous types of spear points and items made from native copper, which was mined from the Lake Superior region. The presence of native copper on archaeological sites in southern Ontario and adjacent areas suggests that Archaic groups were involved in long range exchange and interaction. The trade networks established at this time were to persist between Aboriginal groups until European contact. To harvest the new riches of the warming climate, the Archaic bands of southern Ontario followed an annual cycle, which exploited seasonably available resources in differing geographic locales within watersheds. As the seasons changed, these bands split into smaller groups and moved inland to exploit other resources that were available during the fall and winter such as deer, rabbit, squirrel and bear, which thrived in the forested margins of these areas. Initial Woodland Period – approximately 1000 B.C. (3000/2800 BP) to A.D. 700 Early in the Initial Woodland period, band size and subsistence activities were generally consistent with the groups of the preceding Archaic period. Associated with the earliest components of this cultural period is the introduction of clay pots. Additionally, around two thousand years ago a revolutionary new technology, the bow and arrow, was brought into southern Ontario and radically changed the approach to hunting and warfare. These two technological innovations allowed for major changes in subsistence and settlement patterns. As populations became larger, camps and villages with more permanent structures were occupied longer and more consistently. Generally, these larger sites are associated with the gathering of macrobands. Often these larger groups would reside in favourable locations to cooperatively take advantage of readily exploitable resources. It was also during this pe riod that elaborate burial rituals and the interment of numerous exotic grave goods with the deceased began to take place. Increased trade and interaction between southern Ontario populations and groups as far away as the Atlantic coast and the Ohio Valley was also taking place. Late Woodland Period – A.D. 700 to 1650 Around A.D. 700, maize was introduced into southern Ontario from the south. With the development of horticulture as the predominant subsistence base, the Late Woodland Period gave rise to a tremendous population increase and the establishment of permanent villages. These villages consisted of longhouses measuring six metres wide and high and extending anywhere from three to 15 metres in length. Quite often these villages, some of which are one to four hectares in size, were surrounded by multiple rows of palisades suggesting that defence was a community concern. Aside from villages, Late Woodland



peoples also inhabited hamlets and special purpose cabins and campsites that are thought to have been associated with larger settlements. Social changes were also taking place, as reflected in the fluorescence of smoking pipes; certain burial rituals; increased settlement size; and distinct clustering of both longhouses within villages (clan development) and villages within a region (tribal development). One interesting socio-cultural phenomenon that occurred during this period as a result of the shift in emphasis from hunting to horticulture was a movement away from the traditional patrilineal and patrilocal societies of the preceding band-oriented groups to a matrilineal orientation. According to oral traditions, Anishinabe peoples migrated from the Eastern coast into the Great Lakes region around 1400. Living on the Canadian Shield, these groups remained largely nomadic well into the Historic or EuroCanadian Period. The Late Woodland groups that inhabited the Toronto area eventually moved their villages northward toward Georgian Bay. It was these and other groups in southwest Ontario that eventually evolved into the Aboriginal nations who interacted with and were described by French missionaries and explorers during the early seventeenth century. PostContact Period – A.D. 1650 to 1783 Also called the Early Historic Period, these years are characterized by the arrival of a small number of Europeans interested in exploration, trade, and establishing missions, coupled with a gradual adoption of European materials by First Nations peoples. In terms of material culture, it is often difficult to distinguish between Haudenosaunee, Anishinaabe, Métis and colonial settler campsites during these early years. This is due to the interaction and adoption of each others’ material goods and subsistence strategies which blur cultural boundaries. Such interaction was essential to early explorers and missionaries who relied on local people for survival strategies and knowledge of the local landscape. These permeable boundaries continued until the Crown established segregated reserves in the 18th and early 19th centuries for the Haudenosaunee and Anishinaabe communities who remained here while granting properties to European settlers. EuroCanadian Period – A.D. 1783 to Present York County Following the American Revolutionary War, the British government decided to reopen the overland trade route from Lake Ontario to Lake Huron, the Passage de Taronto. Thus, in 1783 the British secured from the Mississauga nation a tract stretching from Cataraqui to the Etobicoke Creek. Due to irregularities in the treaty and in order to establish the actual lands negotiated, on September 23 1787, the Crown obtained the lands from the Mississauga nation specific to the Toronto Purchase, resulting in relocation of the Mississauga nation. Additional negotiations in 1805 led to clarification of the lands and were finally settled in 1923 by the Williams Commission. Since 1788 the land north of Lake Ontario formed part of the District of Nassau in the Province of Quebec. The Province of Upper Canada was created in 1791, and the following year Colonel John Graves Simcoe renamed it the Home District and formed York County along with eighteen other counties. York County originally included modern day York Region, Peel Region, Halton Region, Toronto, parts of Durham Region and the City of Hamilton. Ten other townships formed York County and these included, East Gwillimbury, East York, Etobicoke, Georgina, King, North Gwillimbury, North York, Scarborough, Vaughan, Whitchurch and York (Reaman 20:1971). “Simcoe made every effort to give English names to countries, towns, townships and rivers, in order to impress on the Loyalists that there was a continuing British presence north of the lost American Colonies” (Rayburn 1996). Early land patents were rewards to soldiers in the British fight against the American Colonies. Townships that were further inland, were not a desirable location by the Loyalists and were therefore of secondary importance to the settlement policies of Simcoe. As a result, the prime waterfront townships were quickly occupied by the Loyalists, while other townships were left for the children of Loyalists, “late-Loyalists” and settlers from Europe and the United States to clear.



York Township Lieutenant-Governor Simcoe originally established the Town of York in 1793 as the military headquarters of Upper Canada. He also renamed the township from Dublin Township to York Township. The former title had been bestowed by the surveyor Augustus Jones the previous year and the new name was in honor the Duke of York for his recent victory in Flanders (Rayburn 1996). Jones was instrumental in the surveying of York Township. Appointed crown surveyor in 1787, he was adept at completing surveys of townships and town sites. His claim to fame was the surveying of Dundas Street in York and Yonge Street which was the dividing line between East and West York. Yonge Street was completed in 1796 and stretched from York through dense bush and forest to Holland Landing. This was a forty-three day endeavor that required extensive clearing before it could be properly surveyed (Stamp 1991). Unfortunately no survey diaries are available for York Township earlier than 1821 and accordingly, there is no record of this area or the terrain as it existed when it was initially surveyed. However, early accounts provide insight into the conditions of the area during the late 18th century from Lady Simcoe’s descriptions and drawings from her diary dating between 1791 and 1796. Additionally a drawing of the Town of York dating to 1818 by Lieutenant Phillpotts of the Royal Engineers indicates the town boundaries at that time. Fort Rouille is shown to the west, where the present day CNE is located, to the east is the Don River and the Toronto Islands are indicated to the south. The town of York was laid out as a ten-block town site with 100 acre (40.5 hectare) park lots north of the town, running from Queen Street (originally Lot Street) north to Bloor Street. These were intended for government officials for compensation for having to move to a wilderness outpost (Alexander 2005 Later, 200 acre (81 hectares) land grants were given outside of the town core as a reward to soldiers who fought for the British in the fight against the American colonies. Land patents were then issued to attract settlers from the British Isles as well as United Empire Loyalists from the United States. These land patents were granted under conditions written in the Settlement Duty Agreement that required patent holders to clear and fence five acres (two hectares) of land, and build a house 18 feet by 20 feet (5.5 metres by 6.1 metres) within the first 18 months of settlement. Settlers arrived in York as early as 1794 and in some cases were squatters who obtained squatters rights at the time of the first survey. Townships were quickly settled by Scottish, Irish and English immigrants and French émigré families from the French Revolution. Many were also from Pennsylvania. These included the Pennsylvania Dutch (more correctly Pennsylvania Deutsch or German), Quakers, Mennonites and Brethren in Christ – known as “Dunkards” or “Tunkers.” ). The name Toronto is a variation of the Huron term meaning “poles in water” (Steckley 2007) and an earlier name for the town and was restored when it was incorporated as a city in 1834 (Rayburn 1996). Lot 3 Concession III E According to Tremaine’s 1860 map Lot 3 Concession IIIE is registered to John Taylor and Brothers (Map 3). A section of the West Branch of the Don River runs through the western edge of the property. Miles and Company’s 1878 Atlas shows Lot 3 Concession III E as being registered to a Thomas Taylor (Map 4). No structures are indicated on either map. Lot 4 Concession IIE Tremaine’s 1860 map divides Lot 4 Concession IIE into two unequal parcels of land (Map 3). The larger parcel measures approximately 150 acres and is registered to Robert Jones. Two structures are depicted on this parcel, including a structure near the north edge of the property and a saw mill located in the center of the lot along the west branch of the Don River. The smaller parcel, located in the southeast corner of the property lot, is registered to a William Jones. No structures area indicated on his property. Miles and Company’s 1878 Atlas divides Lot 4 Concession IIE into two equal parcels of land (Map 4), divided by a road. The western parcel is registered to a Robert Jones. There is a single structure with an associated orchard near the center of the parcel and a laneway leading from the structure to the western



edge of the lot. The eastern parcel is registered to a James Moorhead, with a single structure located near the southeastern corner of the property. There is a laneway leading west from the structure to the center of the lot where it connects to the road that divides the lot into two parcels. No other structures appear on the property. Tremaine’s 1860 map divides Lot 4 Concession IIE into two unequal parcels of land (Map 3). The larger parcel measures approximately 150 acres and is registered to Robert Jones. Two structures are depicted on this parcel, including a structure near the north edge of the property and a saw mill located in the center of the lot along the west branch of the Don River. The smaller parcel, located in the southeast corner of the property lot, is registered to a William Jones. No structures area indicated on his property. Miles and Company’s 1878 Atlas divides Lot 4 Concession IIE into two equal parcels of land (Map 4), divided by a road. The western parcel is registered to a Robert Jones. There is a single structure with an associated orchard near the center of the parcel and a laneway leading from the structure to the western edge of the lot. The eastern parcel is registered to a James Moorhead, with a single structure located near the southeastern corner of the property. There is a laneway leading west from the structure to the center of the lot where it connects to the road that divides the lot into two parcels. No other structures appear on the property. There are no structures located within either of the project areas. It is possible that previously undocumented structures may be encountered within the current project area relating to nineteenth century residential and industrial activity areas. It should be stressed that not every aspect of potential interest today would have been illustrated on the historic maps and unknown features could be located within the project area.

1.3 Archaeological Context

The general geography and geology, previous archaeological sites registered in the vicinity and site predictive models (Burgar 2003, Toronto 2011) were reviewed to provide archaeological context for the current study area. As mentioned, the project area consisted of two areas located along Wilket Creek, a tributary of the Don River. General topography is smooth with steep inclines along the west bank of the river topography (Map 5) and was situated on Bottom Land soil, mainly stonefree alluvial soil with variable colouring and variable drainage. The Ontario Archaeological Sites Database (OASD) maintained by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC), indicates that no archaeological sites have previously been registered within the project area and no sites were located within one kilometre of the project area. An application of the TRCA’s Archaeological Site Potential Model (Burgar 2003) (Map 6) indicates that the project areas may be classified as a High Probability Area for encountering Aboriginal sites. This is largely based on proximity to water and adequate soil drainage and does not take into account impacts due to previous development. Within the Greater Toronto Area’s watersheds, nearly 80% of all Aboriginal archaeological sites have been found within these areas. The City of Toronto potential model also indicates that the project area has archaeological potential (Map 7). Fieldwork was conducted on June 30 and July 8, 2011.



2.0 FIELD METHODS

2.1 Site Preparation

Due to the location of the project area in wooded publicly used park, no preliminary site preparation was necessary. Consequently, test pit investigation was the methodology employed across the project area (Areas A and B). Though formal plans were available for Area A (Map #), none were available for Area B. Consequently, the entire area of impact was staked by the proponent prior to the assessment.

2.2 Survey Methods

A thorough investigation of the project area was conducted to determine if any cultural heritage resources were present and in danger of being impacted by the proposed Creek Rehabilitation and Trail realignment project. The Stage 2 test pit investigation was conducted according to 2011 Ministry of Tourism and Culture standards. Test pitting involved crew members excavating 30 centimetre by 30 centimetre test pits along a five metre grid. In standard practice, test pits containing archaeological material trigger intensified investigation which entails an additional eight test pits excavated in a grid spaced 2.5 metres around the initial test pit as well as a one metre unit. All excavated material was screened through six millimetre mesh. The depth, soil characteristics and the absence of artifacts or subsurface features were recorded and all test pits were back filled. When ground disturbance was encountered the area was shovel tested at five metre intervals by lifting the sod and digging into the topsoil to visually assess the extent of disturbance. The result was confirmation of disturbance throughout sections of the project area.

As noted, there were two project areas. It was proposed that three test pits would be excavated at five metre intervals along the trail on either edge of the trail. It was discovered that sections along the existing trail in Area A were disturbed due to prior landscaping and grading impacts, accounting for nearly 45% of the whole project area (Image 5, Map 8). However, the bulk of Area A (55%) and majority of Area B (90%) were assessed as undisturbed (Image 6, Map 8 and 9). In total, 65 test pits were excavated across Area A with an average depthe of 38 centimetres, ranging between 12 and 59 centimetres. In Area B, 61 test pits were excavated with an average depth of 37 centimetres and ranging between 10 and 50 centimetres. The weather during the investigation was seasonal, being sunny and hot, with lighting conditions that permitted good visibility of land features. In normal practice, as points of reference, all positive test pits as well as those situated in strategic locations, such as the initial or terminal test pits in a row, are referenced with Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates. These coordinates are recorded using a Garmin eTrex global positioning system, NAD 83, 17T, with a plus-minus error of three metres. All field conditions were recorded photographically with a Canon PowerShot G12, 10.0 megapixel digital camera (Images 1 to 10, Maps 10 and 11).

3.0 RECORD OF FINDS No artifactual material or cultural features were located within Area A or Area B during the Stage 2 archaeological investigation. All field records and photographs are on file with TRCA’s Archaeology Resource Management Services (Appendix C: Document Inventory).



4.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS TRCA’s Archaeology Resource Management Services has completed a Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessment of the proposed channel rehabilitation and trail realignment for Wilket Creek Lot 3, Concession III East and Lot 4, Concession II East, historic York Township of York County. No archaeological material was encountered. No heritage resources will be impacted by the Wilket Creek rehabilitation project.

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS It is therefore recommended that: No further archaeological assessment of the project areas as tested (Maps 8 and 9) be required.



Advice on Compliance with Legislation

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 that are issued by the Minister, and that the archaeological fieldwork and report recommendations ensure the conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural heritage of Ontario. When all matters relating to archaeological sites within the project area of a development proposal have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, a letter will be issued by the ministry stating that there are no further concerns with regard to alterations to archaeological sites by the proposed development.

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 Archaeology 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 consultant archaeologist to carry out archaeological fieldwork, in compliance with Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act.

TRCA Archaeology Resource Management Services: (416) 661-6600 ext 5323 City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services: (416) 392-1975 Programs and Services Branch of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture: (416) 314-7144

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.

Toronto Regional Police: (416) 808-4960 Registrar of Cemeteries at the Ministry of Consumer Services: (416) 326-8392



Bibliography and Sources Burgar, R.W.C. 1990 An Archaeological Master Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation

Authority. On file with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2003 Archaeological Site Predictive Model. On file with the Toronto and Region Conservation

Authority. Rayburn, A. 1996 Yorkshire Names In Canada. www.bifhsgo.ca/classics/classics_arayburn.htm, accessed Feb. 19,

2008. Reaman, G. E. 1971 Vaughan Township, Two Centuries of Life in the Township. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Stamp, R. M. 1991 Early Days in Richmond Hill: a history of the community to 1930. Richmond Hill Public Library

Board, Richmond Hill, Ontario. Steckley, J. 2007 A Huron-English/English-Huron Dictionary. Edwin Mellen Press, Lewistion, NY. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) 2008 Archaeology Resource Management Services: Guidelines and Procedures (draft). On file with

the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. City of Toronto 2011 Interim Archaeological Potential. toronto.ca/open accessed on August 18, 2011.

Maps 1860 Tremaine’s Map of The County of York Canada West. G.R Tremaine, Toronto. 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York. Miles & Co., Toronto.



Appendix A: Images

Image 1 Project Area A Facing East

Image 2 Project Area A Facing West



Image 4 Erosion on the Project Area A, Facing South

Image 3 Test Pitting, Project Area A, Facing East



Image 6 Example of an Undisturbed Test Pit, Area A

Image 5 Disturbance Beside the Path, Area A



Image 7 Project Area B, Facing South

Image 8 Project Area B, Facing North



Image 9 Culvert in Area B, Facing East

Image 10 Erosion in Area B, Facing Northwest



Appendix B: Maps

Map 1 Project Area Location

trca

arc

haeo

logy

reso

urce

man

agem

ent s

ervi

ces

(sta

ge 1

- 2)

wilk

et c

reek

reha

bilit

atio

n

MTC

Lic

ence

Num

ber:

P30

3

TRC

A P

roje

ct N

umbe

r: D

RW

-11-

008

PIF

P30

3-10

4-20

11

Page

16

Map

2 D

evel

opm

ent P

lan

of A

rea

A



Map 3 Detail of 1860 Tremaine Map - York County

Map 4 Detail of 1878 Miles and Co. Atlas – York County



Map 5 Local Topography



Map 7 City of Toronto Predictive Model

Map 6 TRCA Archaeological Potential Model



Map 8 Project Area A

Map 9 Project Area B



Map 10 Location and Direction of Photos, Project Area A

Map 11 Location and Direction of Photos, Project Area B



Appendix C: Document Inventory Photo Log:

Date Photo Number Description June 30/2011

Area A 106-0425 project area facing North 106-0426 erosion facing South

106-0427 project area trail view facing North 106-0428 disturbance beside path 106-0429 erosion facing North-West 106-0430 project area facing East 106-0431 test pitting, facing East 106-0432 disturbance 106-0433 bridge and disturbance facing North 106-0434 erosion, North side of bridge 106-0435 erosion, East side of bridge 106-0436 erosion , facing North-West 106-0437 project area facing West, test pitting 106-0438 wet pocket and trail 106-0439 marsh along trail facing South 106-0440 trail and project area facing South 106-0441 disturbed test pit 106-0442 test pit example July 8/2011

Area B 106-0482 marsh facing North 106-0483 disturbed and wet project area, facing North

106-0484 standing water, facing North 106-0485 culvert, facing East 106-0486 disturbance and culvert, facing West 106-0487 disturbed test pit 106-0488 test pit example 1 106-0489 test pit example 2 106-0490 project area facing North 106-0491 project area facing West (slope) 106-0492 slope facing West 106-0493 erosion facing North-West 106-0494 project area facing North 106-0495 disturbance 106-0496 river and armour stone facing North-West 106-0497 bridge facing South Field Notes:

Date Page(s) June 30/2011 3.137-3.141 July 08/2011 3.155-3.161 Field Maps: Date Page June 30/2011 3.138 July 08/2011 3.158

Sep 23, 2014 Janice Teichroeb (P338) Toronto and Region Conservation Authority - Downsview 5 Shoreham Downsview ON M3N 1S4

Dear Ms. Teichroeb: This office has reviewed the above-mentioned report, which has been submitted to this ministry as acondition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c 0.18.1 Thisreview has been carried out in order to determine whether the licensed professional consultantarchaeologist has met the terms and conditions of their licence, that the licensee assessed the propertyand documented archaeological resources using a process that accords with the 2011 Standards andGuidelines for Consultant Archaeologists set by the ministry, and that the archaeological fieldwork andreport recommendations are consistent with the conservation, protection and preservation of the culturalheritage of Ontario. The report documents the assessment of the study area as depicted in Map 1 and Map 18 of the abovetitled report and recommends the following: 1. A Stage 2 archaeological assessment is required in all of the areas identified as holding potential (Maps18 to 20) prior to any ground disturbing activities within the boundaries of the study area. No archaeologicalpotential exists in those areas that have been previously been subject to archaeological assessment, as nocultural material was identified in the study. No archaeological potential exists within the permanently wetWilket Creek watercourse. 2. The study area is located within a green space corridor that runs along Wilket Creek, and is comprisedprimarily of woodlot and manicured public parkland. As a result, it is recommended that the Stage 2assessment be conducted via a test pit survey within the proposed areas of impact. 3. Future areas determined for construction that are not covered by this Stage 1 archaeological such asstaging areas, temporary access roads, etc., should also be subject to a Stage 1, and if recommended, aStage 2 archaeological assessment. Based on the information contained in the report, the ministry is satisfied that the fieldwork and reporting forthe archaeological assessment are consistent with the ministry's 2011 Standards and Guidelines forConsultant Archaeologists and the terms and conditions for archaeological licences. This report has beenentered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports. Please note that the ministry makes norepresentation or warranty as to the completeness, accuracy or quality of reports in the register.

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport

Culture Programs UnitPrograms and Services BranchCulture Division401 Bay Street, Suite 1700Toronto ON M7A 0A7Tel.: (416) 212-5107Email: [email protected]

Ministère du Tourisme, de la Culture et du Sport

Unité des programmes culturelsDirection des programmes et des servicesDivision de culture401, rue Bay, bureau 1700Toronto ON M7A 0A7Tél. : (416) 212-5107Email: [email protected]

RE: Review and Entry into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports:Archaeological Assessment Report Entitled, "Archaeological Assessment (Stage 1)in the City of Toronto, Wilket Creek EA, Lots 4 through 10 Concession II East ofYonge and Lots 1 through 4 Concession III East of Yonge, Historic Township ofYork, York County (DRW-14-004) ", Dated Aug 25, 2014, Filed with MTCS TorontoOffice on Sep 12, 2014, MTCS Project Information Form Number P338-0092-2014

Page 1 of 2

Should you require any further information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely,Wai Hadlari Archaeology Review Officer

1In no way will the ministry be liable for any harm, damages, costs, expenses, losses, claims or actions that may result: (a) if the Report(s) or itsrecommendations are discovered to be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or fraudulent; or (b) from the issuance of this letter. Further measuresmay need to be taken in the event that additional artifacts or archaeological sites are identified or the Report(s) is otherwise found to be inaccurate,incomplete, misleading or fraudulent.

cc. Archaeology Licensing OfficerPatricia Newland,Toronto and Region Conservation AuthorityMargie Kenedy,Toronto and Region Conservation AuthoritySusan Hughes,City of Toronto, Heritage Preservation Services

Page 2 of 2

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT (STAGE 1) IN THE CITY OF TORONTO

WILKET CREEK EA

LOTS 4 THROUGH 10 CONCESSION II EAST OF YONGE LOTS 1 THROUGH 4 CONCESSION III EAST OF YONGE

HISTORIC TOWNSHIP OF YORK, YORK COUNTY

DRW-14-004

PIF P338-0092-2014

ORIGINAL REPORT

JULY 8, 2014

Archaeology Resource Management Services 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, ON M3N 1S4 trca.on.ca/archaeology

MTCS Licence Issued to: Janice Teichroeb (P338) (416) 661-6600 ext. 6406 [email protected]

trca archaeology resource management services (stage 1) wilket creek ea

MTCS Licence Number: P338 TRCA Project Number: DRW-14-004 PIF P338-0092-2014 Page i

Executive Summary A Stage 1 archaeological assessment was triggered by the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act for the Wilket Creek Geomorphic and Habitat Systems Master Plan in the City of Toronto. Following several large storm events over the last decade, the Wilket Creek valley lands have been identified as having significant damage to nearby infrastructure within and adjacent to Wilket Creek. As a result, an Environmental Assessment (EA) is being undertaken in order to identify the works that need to be completed along the length of Wilket Creek in order to address the stability and habitat issues currently present. The objectives of this Stage 1 archaeological assessment are to provide information about the property’s geography, history, previous archaeological fieldwork and current land condition in order to evaluate the property’s potential to contain cultural heritage resources that might be impacted by the modifications proposed in the EA. The study area follows the Wilket Creek valley lands and is bounded to the north by York Mills Road, to the east by Banbury Road and Leslie Street, to the south by Suncrest Drive, and to the west by Bayview Avenue. The study area measures approximately 63.5 hectares and is located on City of Toronto, TRCA, and private property. As no property inspection was to be conducted as part of this assessment, permission to enter the property was not required. The study area has been subjected to minimal disturbance around twentieth century housing construction activities, as well as sewer lines and trails. These areas demonstrate long term impacts of urban development and consequently, it is possible that evidence of previous settlements have been impacted by these developments and natural changes. In light of these results, the following recommendations are made: It is therefore recommended that:

- A Stage 2 archaeological assessment is required in all of the areas identified as holding potential prior to any ground disturbing activities within the boundaries of the study area.

o In specific reference to the Wilket Creek project, a Stage 2 archaeological

assessment will be required for any staging areas, temporary access roads, and other areas of potential construction impact, prior to any ground disturbing activities.

- Future areas determined for construction that are not covered by this Stage 1

archaeological such as staging areas, temporary access roads, etc., should also be subject to a Stage 1, and if recommended, a Stage 2 archaeological assessment.


MTCS Licence Number: P338 TRCA Project Number: DRW-14-004 PIF P338-0092-2014 Page ii

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary i Table of Contents ii List of Images iii List of Maps iii Project Personnel iv

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT CONTEXT 1

1.1 Development Context 1

2.0 BACKGROUND 1

2.1 Historical Context 2 2.1.1 Overview of Historic Environment 2 2.1.2 Overview of Local Area Historical Context 5

2.2 Archaeological Context 15 2.2.1 General Geography and Geology 15 2.2.2 Known Archaeological Sites within One Kilometre of the Study Area 16 2.2.3 Previous Archaeological and Heritage Assessments 16

2.3 Built Features and Heritage Context 16 2.3.1 Identified Built Features 17 2.3.2 Existing Cultural Heritage Resources 18

3.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS 21

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 25

Advice on Compliance with Legislation 26 References Cited or Consulted 27

Appendix A: Images 31 Appendix B: Maps 33


MTCS Licence Number: P338 TRCA Project Number: DRW-14-004 PIF P338-0092-2014 Page iii

Table of Contents, continued

Page

List of Images

Image 1 1949 Aerial Photograph 31 Image 2 Edwards Gardens Looking East ca.1950s 32 Image 3 Edwards Gardens Looking West ca.1950s 32

List of Maps

Map 1 General Study Area 33 Map 2 Study Area 34 Map 3 Property Ownership within Study Area 34 Map 4 Glacial Lake Iroquois Shoreline and Historic River Courses 34 Map 5 1851 Browne Map 34 Map 6 1860 Tremaine Map of Ontario County 34 Map 7 1878 Miles and Co. Atlas of York County 34 Map 8 1909 Topographic Map 34 Map 9 1915 Topographic Map 34 Map 10 1918 Topographic Map 34 Map 11 1931 Topographic Map 34 Map 12 Modern Topographic Map 34 Map 13 Identified Built Features 34 Map 14 Identified Built Features - Sewers 34 Map 15 Identified Heritage Resources – Plaques, Cemeteries, Built Heritage 34 Map 16 TRCA Archaeological Potential Model 34 Map 17 City of Toronto Potential Model 34 Map 18 Recommendations Overview Map 34 Map 19 Locations Requiring Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment – North of Lawrence 34 Map 20 Locations Requiring Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment – South of Lawrence 34


MTCS Licence Number: P338 TRCA Project Number: DRW-14-004 PIF P338-0092-2014 Page iv

Project Personnel

Project Management: Margie Kenedy (R182)

Report Preparation: Amanda Parks (R450) Loren Scott

Archival Research: Loren Scott Graphics: Eric Beales (R1030) Sean Nash Edited By: Amanda Parks


MTCS Licence Number: P338 TRCA Project Number: DRW-14-004 PIF P338-0092-2014 Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT CONTEXT

1.1 Development Context

A Stage 1 archaeological assessment was triggered by the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act for the Wilket Creek Geomorphic and Habitat Systems Master Plan in the City of Toronto (Maps 1 and 2). Following several large storm events over the last decade, the Wilket Creek valley lands have been identified as having significant damage to nearby infrastructure within and adjacent to Wilket Creek. As a result, an Environmental Assessment (EA) is being undertaken in order to identify the works that need to be completed along the length of Wilket Creek in order to address the stability and habitat issues currently present. This EA is being undertaken by the City of Toronto and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) through the planning and design process prescribed in the Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects. The objectives of this Stage 1 archaeological assessment are to provide information about the property’s geography, history, previous archaeological fieldwork and current land condition in order to evaluate the property’s potential to contain cultural heritage resources that might be impacted by the modifications proposed in the EA. The study area follows the Wilket Creek valley lands and is bounded to the north by York Mills Road, to the east by Banbury Road and Leslie Street, to the south by Suncrest Drive, and to the west by Bayview Avenue. The study area measures approximately 63.5 hectares and is located on City of Toronto, TRCA, and private property (Map 3). As no property inspection was to be conducted as part of this assessment, permission to enter the property was not required.

2.0 BACKGROUND

Following the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists set by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS 2011), the background study conducted for this report includes the following research information and sources:

the most current list of archaeological sites from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s archaeological sites database for the presence of sites in the project area and sites within a one kilometre radius of the project area

reports of previous archaeological field work within a radius of 50 metres around the property

topographic maps at 1:10,000 (recent and historical) or the most detailed scale available

historic settlement maps and atlases known archaeological management plans or other archaeological potential mapping aerial photography (both recent and historical) title deeds and other land registry documents historical land use and ownership records including assessment rolls, census records

and commercial directories organizations with oral or written information about the land use of the property and

area



secondary historical document sources such as local and regional histories and academic research

known built heritage resources within or adjacent to the project area The background investigation for the study area encompasses the historical and cultural contexts of the people who lived both within and adjacent to the study area boundaries. Archival research of historic and modern heritage documents was conducted using available resources through the Ontario Archives and various internet genealogical resources to provide a detailed synopsis of EuroCanadian/ Settlement period families on these properties. Relevant heritage documents accessed for this study included nineteenth century surveyor’s maps and land abstracts for each property. Secondary sources that document the settlement of York Township, the villages of Don Mills, York Mills, and Eglinton, and the surrounding area were also reviewed. In addition to archival research, a review of documented nineteenth and twentieth century property alterations within the study area provides the means to evaluate the potential for cultural heritage resources and landscapes to remain intact within undisturbed pockets of these properties. Despite the level of archaeological potential evaluated through the modelling process, the potential for encountering intact resources is often mitigated by the degree of modern development and construction activities, largely in urban and near urban settings. Detailed archival research into historic and modern heritage documents was conducted as a component of this study and is presented in Section 2.1.

2.1 Historical Context

The project area is located within the Don River Watershed on Lots 4 through 10 Concession II East of Yonge (EYS) and on Lots 1 through 4 Concession III EYS in historic York Township, York County. Archival research into historic and modern heritage documents was conducted as a component of this study. A brief historical overview of the historic environment is provided below, following which an in depth review of the local area historical context is detailed.

2.1.1 Overview of Historic Environment

Prehistoric Environment Located primarily within the South Slope but also within the Iroquois Plain physiographic regions (Chapman and Putnam 1984:190), the former shoreline of Glacial Lake Iroquois is situated within the project area approximately 7 kilometres north, or inland, of the existing shoreline (Map 4). Lake Iroquois was formed before 12,000 BP (before present) as the Ontario lobe of the Wisconsin glacier retreated from the Lake Ontario basin. Isostatic uplift of its outlet, combined with blockage of subsequent lower outlets by glacial ice, produced a water plain substantially higher than modern Lake Ontario. Waterlaid sediments that are free of stones and have a very level topography, evident within the Iroquois Plain physiographic region, are typical of beach deposits laid down in shallow waters (Chapman and Putnam 1984:61, Karrow and Warner 1990:7). The South Slope is the southern slope of the Oak Ridges Moraine, and the underlying geological material is comprised of both sandy and clay till (Chapman and Putnam 1984:173). The topography of this physiographic region generally slopes south toward Lake Ontario, though the rivers that bisect the South Slope, including the Don River and Wilket Creek, have deep cut valleys (Chapman and Putnam 1984:173).



By 10,000 years ago Early Lake Ontario was considerably smaller than the earlier Lake Iroquois. This low water phase began around 11,400 BP when the St. Lawrence River outlet became established. Climatic changes during the Holocene were the result of “interplay of movements of continental cyclonic weather systems, fluctuating Great Lakes levels and associated climatic influences, and site-specific microclimate regimes" (Karrow and Warner 1990:35). Changes in forest composition reflect these climatic changes. During the Early Holocene ameliorating winters and warm, dry summers that were longer and warmer than present resulted in changes in the landscape in southern Ontario from treeless tundra to spruce forest by ca. 10,000 BP (Karrow and Warner 1990:33-35). After 10,000 BP a gradual increase in atmospheric humidity in conjunction with warm summers led to the replacement of spruce forests by jack pine which were dominant between 9800 and 8500 BP but were replaced by white pine by 8000 BP, suggesting a gradual increase in humidity and a continuation of hot summers. These forests would have been similar to, although not directly analogous with a modern boreal forest, insofar as a variety of hardwood and mast trees such as oak were present. In this relatively open boreal forest, subsistence resources were probably woodland caribou and/or elk, moose, beaver, hare and fish (Dibb 2004:126; Lennox 2002:8). With the exception of a mid-Holocene warm/dry period between 6000 and 3000 years ago (Yu and McAndrews 1994:151), after ca. 7500 years ago the southern Ontario climate shifted from deglacial to postglacial (Yu 2003:387), and experienced an essentially modern but slightly drier climate. Mixed coniferous-deciduous forest dominated the region. Subsistence resources at this time likely included a wide variety of aquatic animals, as well as waterfowl attracted to the riverine and marsh environment. Deer, fish, beaver, hare, duck and turtle as well as seasonal plants such as berries, sedges and nut trees were all possible food items established at this time (Ellis et al. 1990:111-114; Jamieson 2002:31; Ritchie 1994:34). Sand plains were rich in nut bearing trees such as oak, hickory, chestnut, walnut and beech. Historical Environment The Don River watershed covers 360 square kilometres in size. The river itself measures 38 kilometres in length and is comprised of two main branches, the East Don River and the West Don River. A number of tributaries branch off from each arm of the Don River, providing a network of watercourses throughout the watershed. The two main branches of the Don River converge at what has become known as the Forks of the Don, located approximately eight kilometers north of Lake Ontario. At the time of European arrival to the Toronto area, there existed a path connecting the Don River to the Humber River. This path linked the Don River to the Toronto Carrying Place, a travel and trade route utilized by First Nations that connected the Toronto area north to the Holland River and beyond to the upper lakes. As a result, the Don River was utilized by First Nations as both a major corridor for travel and as an excellent source of food. The river was originally known by various Aboriginal names including Necheng Qua Kekonk and Wonscoteonoch. The latter may be interpreted as “black burnt lands” which may refer to fire damage. The river received its English name in 1793 when Simcoe realized the similarities between the Ontario river and the River Don in Yorkshire. During the nineteenth century, a number of industries sprang up along the Lower Don and pollution soon contaminated the mouth of the river. During the late nineteenth century, the river was straightened with a channel to create harbor space and divert pollution. The river became increasingly polluted during the twentieth century as over 30 sewage treatment facilities were constructed and industrial refuse



was dumped along the river. By the 1960s the river was polluted nearly beyond repair. However, in recent years, successful efforts have been made to restore the Don. The Don River valleylands were known for its steep, picturesque banks overlooking lush flood plains and marsh land made of dark, nutrient-rich soil. The valleylands were filled with a wide variety of trees and fruit-bearing bushes, a diverse collection of wildlife, and a river teaming with many species of fish. As a result, the Don River Valley was well-known for its hunting and fishing, was a perfect location for agricultural and manufacturing purposes, and was a preferred camping and picnicking locale. It is no wonder that First Nations, as well as the Europeans who immigrated to Upper Canada, regarded the Don River Valley as a place of great beauty and natural wealth. European settlement along the Don did not begin to grow with any regularity until the 1820's and even then remained sparse, with large areas of rural forest interspersed with homesteads until the 1900's. This was due in part to the lands west of the Don River being held as a government reserve (for military purposes, and then for a hospital endowment), while lands east of the Don were separated from the urban center of York by the river itself. The lands west of the Don remained as government reserves from the late 18th Century until the late 1820’s when the land was surveyed and offered for sale to prospective buyers. The ecology of the Don Valley prior to the 1820's is described as dense forests thick with numerous species of trees and shrubs. The earliest account of a population estimate for European settlers in the Don is from 1797 when 35 men and 34 women were accounted for. Clearing the forest along the Don was a slow process that was still ongoing well into the 1900’s. During the mid-1800’s, land had been cleared sufficient to pasture cattle in some parts of the valley. The numerous mills meant that mill races and mill ponds were a constant along the Don River from the 1790’s onward. The multitude and variance of trees throughout the Don River valley offered ample material for homesteads, barns and cottages for those earliest settlers, and supplied sufficient lumber for the large industrial mill complex that became synonymous with the Don. The Don River was known to have regular flooding episodes. Large areas of land surrounding the river were prone to seasonal flooding, varying in severity from only a few acres to large swaths of land equaling hundreds of acres. This was witnessed in the floods of 1850, 1878, and in 1954 with Hurricane Hazel, which cost 81 people their lives. Broad marshland extended out from the mouth of the Don where it empties into Lake Ontario. These flooding events caused the course of the Don River and its tributaries, including Wilket Creek, to change. Significant changes of the creek’s course occurred in the southern three quarters of the study area. This is observed on Miles and Co. 1878 map (Map 7), a topographic map from 1909 (Map 8) and two aerial photographs, one predating Hurricane Hazel in 1949 (Image 1) and one postdating Hurricane Hazel in 1967 (on file with TRCA). These courses are illustrated against the creeks present course on Map 4. Slight errors are not unusual for the nineteenth century maps, but it is reasonable to expect that the course of the river has changed due to the effects of nineteenth century milling activities along the Don, storm events and erosion during the past 300 years, and urban development during the last 75 years.



During the twentieth century the urbanization of the City of Toronto affected the northern half of the creek’s course which included cutting off its headwaters originating on the northwest corner of Sheppard Avenue West and Willowdale Avenue, to the southeast corner of York Mills Road and Bayview Avenue. The urbanization of the western branch of the Don River and its surroundings are illustrated through the aerial photography on file at the TRCA dating between 1949 and 1989, and well as through topographic maps dating between 1909 and 1932 (Maps 8 to 11).

2.1.2 Overview of Local Area Historical Context

The objectives of the background study are to provide “detailed documentary research providing a record of the property’s archaeological and land use history and present condition” (MTCS 2011). The following sections provide an inclusive review of geographic and cultural features of both the study area and its surroundings in order to evaluate the potential for cultural resources. Archival research of the nineteenth century settlement of the property provides an historical overview of the local area and documentary evidence of twentieth and twenty-first century construction, and provides a summary of the landscape history and use. This research was completed to determine the potential for cultural materials to be recovered from the study area, or conversely to identify if and where the study area has been subjected to extensive modifications that have damaged or removed any archaeological potential. The following historic background is written to document the chronological history of the lands within the Wilket Creek study area. The subsequent PreContact chronology was constructed from research contained within The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, edited by C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris (1990). The EuroCanadian period is presented from its broadest scale and refined down to individual properties. That is, the discussion reviews the history of York County, York Township (North York), the Milne family, Edwards Garden and followed by a historic map review. PalaeoIndian Period – 12,000 to 10,000 BP. As the glaciers retreated from southern Ontario, nomadic peoples gradually moved into the areas recently vacated by the massive ice-sheets. It should be remembered that, as the glaciers melted at the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago, the landscape of southern Ontario was very much like the tundra of the present day eastern sub-arctic. During this time, the entire population of southern Ontario is thought to be somewhere between 100 and 200 individuals. These PalaeoIndians lived in small family groups and presumably hunted caribou and other fauna associated with the cooler environment of this time period. This reconstruction is substantiated by the location of a single toe bone of a caribou at a site in Detroit and the presence of arctic hare, arctic fox and a large ungulate at the Udora site (a PalaeoIndian encampment) near the south shore of Lake Simcoe. During this time, the water levels and shorelines of lakes Huron and Ontario were fluctuating due to the run-off of the melting glaciers. Traditionally, the PalaeoIndian occupation of southern Ontario has been associated with these glacial lake shorelines. However, recent investigations in the greater Toronto area indicate that these peoples also exploited interior locations away from the glacial lakes, such as kettle lake areas along the Oak Ridges Moraine.



Archaic Period – 10,000 to 2800 BP. As the climate in southern Ontario warmed, Aboriginal populations adapted to these new environments and associated fauna. Thus, many new technologies and subsistence strategies were introduced and developed by the Archaic peoples of this time period. Woodworking implements such as groundstone axes, adzes and gouges began to appear, as did net-sinkers (for fishing), numerous types of spear points and items made from native copper, which was mined from the Lake Superior region. The presence of native copper on archaeological sites in southern Ontario and adjacent areas suggests that Archaic groups were involved in long range exchange and interaction. The trade networks established at this time were to persist between Aboriginal groups until European contact. To harvest the new riches of the warming climate, the Archaic bands of southern Ontario followed an annual cycle, which exploited seasonably available resources in differing geographic locales within watersheds. For example, from spring through fall, bands joined together and inhabited sites in lakeshore environments where abundant foodstuffs such as fish, waterfowl and wild rice enabled the establishment of larger multi-season occupations. As the seasons changed and aquatic resources became scarce, these bands split into smaller groups and moved inland to exploit other resources that were available during the fall and winter, such as deer, rabbit, squirrel and bear, which thrived on the forest margins of these areas. Unfortunately, due to the fluctuating Lake Ontario water levels at the end of the ice age, the shoreline would have sat at a location that is currently 10 to 20 meters below the present surface level. Aboriginal groups of this era would have exploited the shoreline environments in these now submerged locations and associated archaeological sites representing these seasonal activities are now under water. Consequently, our understanding of the Archaic uses of the Lake Ontario shoreline is poor. Initial Woodland Period – approximately 1000 B.C. (2800 BP) to A.D. 700 Early in the Initial Woodland period, band size and subsistence activities were generally consistent with the groups of the preceding Archaic period. Associated with the earliest components of this cultural period is the introduction of clay pots. Ceramic vessels provided a means for long-term storage of abundant resources. With the ability to store foodstuffs during times of plenty, the stress of harder times was greatly reduced as it would have been possible to take advantage of accumulated goods. Additionally, around two thousand years ago a revolutionary new technology, the bow and arrow, was brought into southern Ontario and radically changed the approach to hunting and warfare. These two technological innovations allowed for major changes in subsistence and settlement patterns. As populations became larger, camps and villages with more permanent structures were occupied longer and more consistently. Generally, these larger sites are associated with the gathering of two or more band groups into what are referred to as Amacrobands@. Often, these larger groups would reside in favourable locations to cooperatively take advantage of readily exploitable resources such as fish. It was also during this period that elaborate burial rituals and the interment of numerous exotic grave goods with the deceased began to take place. Increased trade and interaction between southern Ontario populations and groups as far away as the Atlantic coast and the Ohio Valley was also taking place. It was also during this period that a brief horizon of Hopewellian influences (from Ohio) emerged, resulting in more elaborate burial rituals, such as cremation, burial mound construction (as with those most popularly seen at the Serpent Mounds near Peterborough,



Ontario, for example) and the interment of numerous exotic grave goods with the deceased began to take place. In fact, these goods, which include large caches of well-crafted lithic blades, sheets of mica, marine shells, shark teeth, silver and copper beads, and artifacts such as platform smoking pipes and decorative ear ornaments, all indicate that the Initial Woodland period was one of increased trade and interaction between southern Ontario populations and groups as far away as the east coast and the Ohio Valley. Late Woodland Period – A.D. 700 to 1650 Around A.D. 700, maize was introduced into southern Ontario from the south. With the development of horticulture as the predominant subsistence base, the Late Woodland Period gave rise to a tremendous population increase and the establishment of permanent villages. These villages consisted of longhouses measuring six metres wide and high and extending anywhere from three to 15 metres in length. Quite often these villages, some of which are one to four hectares in size, were surrounded by multiple rows of palisades suggesting that defence was a community concern. Aside from villages, Late Woodland peoples also inhabited hamlets and special purpose cabins and campsites that are thought to have been associated with larger settlements. A hamlet consisted of a small scattering of longhouses (approximately one acre in size) that were used on a year-round basis by lower numbers of people that were related to those in the village, but for various reasons lived outside of the village. Cabin sites are those sites that consist of just one longhouse, perhaps built for those individuals whose crops were located a fair distance away from the original village. As such, they were only inhabited on a seasonal basis during times of planting and harvest. Finally, there are special purpose campsites: locations that were temporarily used by Late Woodland peoples in order to extract a particular resource (such as fish, deer, or plant foods). Unfortunately, because of their short-term use, there are generally few artifacts and they rarely contain evidence of structural remains. Many of these campsites are associated with Algonkian-speaking nations who continued a relatively nomadic lifestyle (primarily on the Canadian Shield areas where crop cultivation was not predictable) although travel to and trade with their Iroquoian-speaking counterparts was common. Social changes were also taking place, as reflected in the fluorescence of smoking pipes; certain burial rituals; increased settlement size; and distinct clustering of both longhouses within villages (clan development) and villages within a region (tribal development). One interesting socio-cultural phenomenon that occurred during this period as a result of the shift in emphasis from hunting to horticulture was a movement away from the traditional patrilineal and patrilocal societies of the preceding band-oriented groups to a matrilineal orientation. Also associated with the Late Woodland period are the large communal grave sites known as ossuaries. Ossuaries are large circular pits (approximately 4 to 10 meters in diameter) that contain the skeletal remains of hundreds of individuals. Historically we know that, every ten years or so, the inhabitants of one or several villages would exhume the remains of their ancestors from their original resting places, clean and wrap them in fur robes, and re-inter them in prepared pits a short distance from the hosting village. The purpose of this secondary and final burial was to reaffirm and strengthen community ties. At the end of this tremendously powerful ceremony, which could last up to 10 days, it was believed that the souls of the deceased were finally at rest and united with one another in the spiritual world. After centuries of small-scale warfare and the gradual depletion of resources, such as soil nutrients and firewood, the Late Woodland groups that inhabited the north shore of Lake Ontario began moving their villages northward towards Georgian Bay. It was these groups that



eventually evolved into the Petun and Huron Nations witnessed and recorded by the early French missionaries and explorers during the seventeenth century as the newcomers traveled up the Trent-Severn waterway on their journeys inland from the St. Lawrence. By AD 1650, the numbers of people in both of those nations dwindled through contact with Europeans (and their diseases) and many relocated or were adopted through continued warfare with the League Iroquois (Five Nations) from New York State. Descendants of the PreContact indigenous peoples continue to reside on reserve lands and in urban areas throughout Ontario, as well as in other provinces and many U.S. states, and are actively involved in consultations with the provincial and federal governments relating to ancestral sites (particularly burial grounds and other sacred spaces) and proposed projects that might have an impact on ancestral territories and Aboriginal rights under the Canadian constitution. PostContact Period – 1650 to 1791 Also called the Early Historic Period, these years are characterized by the arrival of a small number of Europeans interested in exploration, trade, and establishing missions, coupled with a gradual adoption of European materials by First Nations peoples. In terms of material culture, it is often difficult to distinguish between Haudenosaunee, Anishinaabe, Métis and colonial settler campsites during these early years. This is due to the interaction and adoption of each other’s material goods and subsistence strategies which blur cultural boundaries. Such interaction was essential to early explorers and missionaries who relied on local people for survival strategies and knowledge of the local landscape. These permeable boundaries continued until the Crown established segregated reserves in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries for the Haudenosaunee and Anishinaabe communities who remained here while granting properties to European settlers. The French explorers and fur traders began to travel along the Lake Ontario shoreline and explore parts of the north shore inland. They followed the centuries-old route of the well-established west branch of the Toronto Carrying Place Trail along the Humber River and the east branch along the Rouge River north to the Holland River and beyond, to the upper lakes. It was at this time that the Métis culture developed, resulting initially from the union of indigenous women with the fur traders and a blending of cultural traditions with the ensuing generations began. During the late PreContact times, conflict with the Iroquois forced the Huron further north and small groups of Seneca subsequently moved into the area around the 1660’s. The Seneca established the village of Ganatsekwyagon close to the Rouge River portage, a strategic location that allowed ongoing trade with the French, English, and Dutch. Though the exact location of this village has not been identified archaeologically there are a number of possible locations including one registered within a 20th century housing development on the northeast side of Frenchman’s Bay. The Seneca desired peace with the French and, in 1669, requested a missionary to be sent as a goodwill gesture. Abbe Fenelon came from the Kente Mission in the Quinte area to build a school for the Native children in and around Frenchman’s Bay. That winter proved to be particularly harsh and the village was forced to disperse into smaller groups and move further inland. Father Fenelon went with them but due to ill health returned to Kente one year later.



Due to disruption in their trade resulting from French and English fur trade disputes, the Seneca abandoned Ganatsekwyagon leaving the Pickering area without a permanent First Nations settlement after 1695. The more nomadic Mississauga people moved into the area in the 1700’s, traversing the area on their seasonal rounds. In 1763, the Treaty of Paris was signed which passed New France into British hands. However, it was not until 20 years later that land acquisition and development in the region began. Following the American Revolutionary War, the British government decided to reopen the overland trade route from Lake Ontario to Lake Huron which was known as the “Passage de Taronto.” Consequently, in October 1783 the British bought from the Mississauga Nation a tract of land stretching from Cataraqui (Bay of Quinte) to the Etobicoke Creek at the west end of Toronto. The treaty was named the Gun Shot Treaty and had immediate implications since the proper procedures detailed in the Treaty of Paris and outlined below had not been followed.

No purchase of Lands belonging to the Indians, whether in the Name and for the Use of the Crown, or in the Name and for the Use of proprietaries of Colonies be made but at some general Meeting, at which the principal chiefs of each Tribe, claiming a property in such Lands, are present; and all Tracts, so purchased, shall be regularly surveyed by a Sworn Surveyor in the presence and with the Assistance of a person deputed by the Indians to attend such Survey; and the said Surveyor shall make an accurate Map of such Tract, describing the Limits, which Map shall be entered upon Record, with the Deed of Conveyance from the Indians (Ball 2000).

Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoe reviewed the Gun Shot Treaty documents in 1795 and concluded that even though they were not done properly, the Treaty would remain in effect since the Mississauga people were not lodging a dispute (Johnson 1973). Due to irregularities in the treaty and in order to establish the actual lands negotiated, on September 23, 1787 the Crown further purchased lands from the Mississauga, which is known as the “Toronto Purchase”. However, additional negotiations in 1805 led to clarification of the treaty boundaries, and the lands were finally settled in 1923 by the Williams Commission.

EuroCanadian Period – A.D. 1791 to Present York County Since 1788, the land north of Lake Ontario formed part of the District of Nassau in the Province of Quebec. The Province of Upper Canada was created in 1791, and in the following year Colonel John Graves Simcoe, the first lieutenant-governor, renamed it the Home District and formed York County along with eighteen other counties. York County originally included modern day York Region, Peel Region, Halton Region, Toronto, parts of Durham Region and the City of Hamilton. It was divided into two ridings, East and West York and the former included Markham Township. Ten other townships formed York County and these included East Gwillimbury, East York, Etobicoke, Georgina, King, North Gwillimbury, North York, Scarborough, Vaughan, Whitchurch and York (Reaman, 1971:20). “Simcoe made every effort to give English names to countries, towns, townships and rivers, in order to impress on the Loyalists that there was a continuing British presence north of the lost American Colonies” (Rayburn 1996).



During the early nineteenth century, land grants of 200 acres (81 hectares) were given outside of the town core as a reward to soldiers who fought for the British in the fight against the American colonies. In addition, land patents were issued to attract settlers from the British Isles as well as United Empire Loyalists from the United States. Townships situated further inland were not a desirable location by the Loyalists and were therefore of secondary importance to the settlement policies of Simcoe. As a result, the prime waterfront townships were quickly occupied by the Loyalists, while other townships were left for the children of Loyalists, “late-Loyalists” and settlers from Europe and the United States to clear. These land patents were granted under conditions written in the Settlement Duty Agreement that required patent holders to clear and fence five acres (two hectares) of land and build a house 16 feet by 20 feet (5.5 metres by 6.1 metres) within the first twelve months of settlement. The townships of York County were partially surveyed in 1793 and 1794 by Abraham Iredell. The first complete survey was begun in 1801 and finished in 1802 by Johann Stegman, an officer in the Hessian Regiment during the American Revolution. The townships were laid out in ten concessions one and a quarter miles apart, running north and south from Yonge Street east to the Pickering Town Line and were divided by six sideroads also one and a quarter miles apart running east and west. Each concession was divided into 200 acre lots, with five concessions between every sideroad. Thus, a lot and concession referred to a 200 acre parcel of land defined by the concession road on its western boundary. The Constitutional Act of 1791 provided for a reserve of land in each township for the support of the Crown and the Protestant clergy. These reserves were to equal one seventh of the lands granted in each township. The Surveyor-General, D.W. Smith, evolved the Chequered Plan for the location of these Clergy and Crown Reserves. No doubt, Abraham Iredell’s 1793 survey was based on the Chequered Plan. Simcoe wished to maintain Yonge Street as a military road to the north and therefore decided the reserve plan should not include concessions bordering the street. These reserves hindered road improvement as each settler was only responsible for clearing the road fronting his own lot. Access to streams was also blocked. Settlers could lease the reserve lots for a period of 21 years and if the duties of building the house and clearing the road were performed he could then sell his lease and be compensated for his work. In 1828, the Crown Reserves were turned over to King’s College (later to become the University of Toronto) and then sold off. Interestingly, the Clergy Reserves were a contributing factor to the Upper Canada Rebellion of 1837. Settlers arrived in York as early as 1794 and in some cases were squatters who obtained squatters rights at the time of the first survey. Many of the earliest settlers in both townships arrived from the United States, including United Empire Loyalists and Hessian soldiers. Others were attracted by the conditional offer of 200 acre land grants as outlined in the Settlement Duty Agreement. Townships were quickly settled by Scottish, Irish and English immigrants and French émigré families from the French Revolution. Many were also from Pennsylvania. These included the Pennsylvania Dutch (more correctly Pennsylvania Deutsch or German), Quakers, Mennonites and Brethren in Christ – known as “Dunkards” or “Tunkers.” Many Pennsylvania Dutch family names continue to be prominent throughout the area. Censuses and other records throughout the nineteenth century reveal how extensively these families intermarried, the frequency of land transactions amongst themselves, and how it was common for them as kin to be adjacent landowners over the generations. For example, in 1802 Eli Player noted passage through York of three wagons of “Pennsylvanians” on their way to Markham. Also, Timothy Rogers, a Quaker from Vermont, led a settlement of forty Quaker families into



Whitchurch from Vermont, New York and Pennsylvania. Settlement commonly grew around waterways, fertile land and timber resources with the Oak Ridges Moraine influencing the settlement patterns. To the north and south of this land ridge could be found hamlets and villages. Stretching from Orangeville to Rice Lake, the Oak Ridges Moraine, an extensive area of sandy and gravely hills, forms the watershed between Lake Ontario and Lake Simcoe. The sources of the tributaries of the Humber, Don and Rouge Rivers to the south and the Holland River to the north are found here. The early development of the township occurred as small communities began at intersections of main roads or adjacent to a stream or river providing a source of power for a mill. Around the mill, facilities to serve the settler sprang up, including a general store, church, school and later a post office. Hardwood forests of maple mixed with beech, cherry, oak basswood, hemlock and pine were located in the fertile soils of the highlands while stands of white and red pine were found in the lighter sandy soil. The wet and moist areas supported cedar, black ash, elm, soft maple and spruce. The earliest settlers needed to clear these trees to cultivate their lands and make their homes. The tributaries of the rivers were home to many small sawmills throughout the townships, supplying lumber for local use, the mast and spar industry for the Royal Navy and planks for the roadways. These were soon followed by larger sawmills, grist mills for flour, woolen mills and distilleries. York Township Lieutenant-Governor Simcoe originally established the Town of York in 1793 as the military headquarters of Upper Canada. He also renamed the township, changing it from Dublin Township to York Township. While the former title had been bestowed by the surveyor Augustus Jones the previous year, the new name was in honour the Duke of York for his recent victory in Flanders (Rayburn 1996). Jones was instrumental in the surveying of York Township. Appointed crown surveyor in 1787, he was adept at completing surveys of townships and town sites. His claim to fame was the surveying of Dundas Street in York and Yonge Street which was the dividing line between East and West York. The Yonge Street survey was completed in 1796 and extended from York through dense bush and forest to Holland Landing. This was a 43 day endeavor that required extensive clearing before it could be properly surveyed (Stamp 1991). Unfortunately no survey diaries are available for York Township earlier than 1821 and accordingly York Mills Village In 1794, Thomas Mercer was granted a tract of land comprised of Lot 10 Concession I East of Yonge Street. The Mercers were United Empire Loyalists who came from Pennsylvania and are regarded as the first to settle this area. Early accounts suggest the ground was too wet for farming, making the area a suitable and natural site for milling along the west branch of the Don River. The first mill was built by Samuel Heron in 1804, and in the following century many additional mills were erected in the vicinity of York Mills. The mills in the village were located along the trade route of Yonge Street, and as a result other industries, merchants, and settlers were attracted to the area. Early names of the village include Big Creek Bridge (1797-1809), Heron’s Bridge (1810-1822), and Millford Mills (ca.1817- 1824). In 1836, a post office was built and named York Mills. In 1856, J. and W. Hogg submitted a plan for a subdivision called Hogg’s Hollow, which quickly became a prosperous community and a nickname for the village of York Mills. The village was



soon equipped with clergymen, a physician, trades including a blacksmith and cooper, several churches, a school house, stores, a post office, and a brick yard alongside two extensive flour mills and a steam saw mill. The community thrived throughout the nineteenth century, and its last mill, operated by Pratt, closed its doors in 1926. Eglinton During the first half of the nineteenth century, the lands around Yonge and Eglinton were predominately grazing fields for cattle. At one point, these lands were even regarded as the largest cattle grazing region in Upper Canada. Eglinton received its name in 1839 from a mock-medieval tournament held in the castle of the 13th Earl of Eglinton in France. Like most other four corners along the Yonge Street trading route to Lake Simcoe, settlement came with the opening of several mills along the western branch of the Don River, followed by inns and taverns for visitors who came to get their wood cut and their grain ground. Don Mills The earliest settler to this area was James Gray who arrived in 1816 from Scotland who built his first log home on Lot 9 Concession III overlooking the middle Don River. Two years later his brothers arrived and joined him in Canada. Alexander built a saw mill and a house on the east side of the river and William built a grist mill and house in on the west side. Mills sprung up throughout the nineteenth century, attracting proprietors of business which complimented the milling industry such as blacksmiths and barrel makers. The prospect of finding work and having the conveniences of stores, doctors and other trades made it a desirable location for arriving pioneers to settle here. The Don Mills area remained predominately rural until the postwar development years, where suburban growth exploded in Toronto, as elsewhere in North America. Don Mills was designed by Macklin Hancock in 1954 and built between 1954 and 1962. This was the brainchild of E.P. Taylor who hired the young Harvard graduate to design the first planned suburb in Canada. In doing so, a new model for Canadian suburban development was developed as green spaces coupled with industrialization and suburban homes were planned out to meet the needs of a growing postwar community and sprawling urbanization. The designs for the modern and famous suburb included all of the elements needed in a model for future communities. Lot Histories The eleven lots specific to the Wilket Creek study area are in York Township, York County. Table 1 lists the original land grantees issued by the Crown along Wilket Creek in the study area. Table 1 List of Patented Land in the Wilket Creek Study Area

Lot Concession Acres Date Patented Grantee 4 II E 200 1799 Isabella Chewit 5 II E E 100 1817 James Fitzgibbon 5 II E W 100 1819 John Blewett 6 II E 200 1803 John McIntosh 7 II E W 100 1851 Thomas Chadwick 7 II E E 100 1851 Hugh Laird 8 II E 200 1804 Francis Brock 9 II E W 100 1856 William Hogg



Lot Concession Acres Date Patented Grantee 9 II E E 100 1877 Alexander B. Whitney

10 II E 200 1803 Alexander Montgomery 1 III E W 40 1846 William Hill Jr. 1 III E W 60 1861 Sarah Johnston 1 III E E 100 1851 George Taylor 2 III E 200 1798 Ann Powell 3 III E 200 1828 Kings College 4 III E 200 1799 Rev. Edmund Burke

As previously mentioned, the lands east of the Don River were separated from the urban town of York by the river, while the west side was held as government reserves. Lots closest to the Don River on the east side were settled sooner due to their proximity to York and prospective milling opportunities. Many of the original grantee’s noted in Table 1 never lived on their properties, but rather sold them for profit. Those noted in Table 1 who appear on the 1860 map (Map 6) include Chadwick, Laird, Whitney and Taylor. Chadwick, Laird and the Taylor family still owned their properties as illustrated in 1878 (Map 7). Milne’s Mills and Edwards Garden In 1797, Peter Milne of Dundee, Scotland immigrated to New York and was soon followed by his older brother Alexander, and his younger brothers David and William. All of the Milne brothers were trained in the weaver’s trade. In 1823, Peter immigrated to Canada and purchased Lot 9 Concession VII in the Township of Markham from Nicholas Miller. By 1809, it is known that Miller had constructed a saw and grist mill, but it is unknown if the mills were still present on the property when Peter Milne acquired the lot. Peter, lacking the experience to operate the mills, required the assistance of his older brother Alexander to act as miller, while Peter operated a general store and expanded the business to include a fulling mill and an ashery (Champion 1989:122). This operation became locally known as both Milne’s Mills and Markham Mills. Alexander did not stay long in Markham, moving his family to York Township in 1824 to open up his own woolen mill along the Don River. Alexander’s operation would quickly thrive, eventually becoming known as Milne’s Hollow. Alexander and his family settled on Lot 5 Concession II East in York Township where he began to erect a mill on a tributary of the West Don River, now known as Wilket Creek. This mill was the first of three erected by the Milne family, the second being built in 1832 and the third in 1878. The subsequent two mills would be built on Lot 5 Concession II along the east branch of the Don River, the largest of which was the third mill, erected in 1878-1879 by descendants of Alexander Milne. The area became known as Milne’s Hollow before the mill closed its doors in the early 1900s. In 1944, R. E. Edwards purchased Alexander Milne’s property on Lot 5 at the location of Milne’s first woolen and saw mill. Seeing the beauty in the property, Edwards proceeded to build a rockery that was 500ft long and dammed Wilket Creek to provide water supply to a large steel water wheel to pump water throughout the grounds. It is noted by Charles Sauriol ( Sauriol 1981: 85) that Edwards removed some of the timbers of the original mill dam that were still embedded in the bank when he purchased the property. Furthermore, the Milne family plot, with remains of the Milne pioneers, is situated on a small rise overlooking the original mill site.



In 1955, the 27 acres comprised of Edwards Garden was purchased by Metropolitan Toronto to become a public park which opened the following year. In 1958, the Garden Club of Toronto and the Federation of Ontario Naturalists moved its headquarters into the old Milne House on property, which burned down four years later. A new building was erected in its place by 1964. Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Map Review The presence of early milling activities and lush forests made these lands an attractive location for families and potential mill workers to call home. Several structures have been identified within and adjacent to the study area based on a desktop review of available historic maps (Maps 5 to 7) and historic topographic maps (Maps 8 to 11). Table 2 is a summary of the structures identified within and adjacent to the study area, based on the historic map review. Structures that were considered adjacent to the study area were listed below if it was considered possible that related farm structures or features to their homes might have archaeological potential within the study area. All structures are mapped on Maps 17 to 19. Table 2 Summary of Structures Identified within and adjacent to the Study Area

Lot Con Structure Type 1851

1860

1878

1915

1918

1931

1948

Within or Adjacent to Study Area

1 II/III Carding Mill x adjacent

Saw Mill x x

within

5 II House

x x x x x within/adjacent

9 II House x x x adjacent

10 II Steam Saw Mill x adjacent

House x x x x within/adjacent

Six structures are illustrated on nineteenth century maps within or adjacent to the study area, including three mills and three houses. One saw mill is located on Lot 1 Concession II and/or III, as depicted on both the 1851 Browne map (Map 5) and the 1860 Tremaine map (Map 6). Unfortunately, no further information regarding this mill could be found in the census records, land abstracts or township paper records for either lot. One carding mill is depicted as adjacent to the study area on Lot 1 Concession II and/or III on the 1851 map (Map 5), and a steam saw mill is illustrated on the 1860 map on Lot 10 Concession II (Map 6). No further information could be obtained for either mill. Three houses are illustrated within or adjacent to the study area in the 1878 map. Two of the houses appear to be within the study area, and one is clearly adjacent. The house that is adjacent to the study area is located on Lot 9 Concession II. Of the two structures located within the property boundaries, one is found on Lot 5 Concession II and the other on Lot 10 Concession II (Map 7). However, topographic maps and historic aerials clearly demonstrate that the two houses are located just outside the study area limits (Maps 8 to 11, Image 1). Despite this, given the proximity of the structures to the study area boundaries, it is possible remnants of outbuildings, such as barns, will still be discovered within the study area. Summary The Wilket Creek study area has demonstrated the potential to locate intact cultural heritage resources in the form of archaeological sites within the study area. There is potential to locate



a saw mill on Lot 1 Concession II and/or III, as well as one steam saw mill, one carding mill and remnants of three houses and outbuildings on Lots 5, 9 and 10 in Concession II EYS. Additionally, while the location of Alexander Milne’s first mill (ca.1824) is currently unknown, it is known to have been located on the eastern bank of the West Branch of the Don River on the property currently known as Edward’s Gardens. As previously noted, Edwards removed the original timber from the old dam upon purchasing the property, and it is possible that he removed further remnants of Milne’s first mill on Wilket Creek. The level of twentieth century landscaping disturbances in Edwards Gardens remains unknown. It is also noted here that not every aspect of potential interest today would have been illustrated on these historic maps. Consequently, the possibility remains that undocumented houses, farm middens, outbuildings or other structures still exist within the property limits. The review of historic maps, topographic maps and aerial photographs revealed that the study area and surrounding has not been subjected to heavy disturbances during the first half of the twentieth century. During the second half, the study area remained greenspace, while the adjacent land succumbed to urban expansion.

2.2 Archaeological Context

The general geography and geology, previous sites registered in the vicinity of the study area and previous archaeological research were reviewed to provide archaeological context for the current study area.

2.2.1 General Geography and Geology

The study area is located along Wilket Creek within the Don River watershed in the City of Toronto. The Don River watershed has provided sustenance for humans for over 12,000 years and today flows through heavily urbanized areas. In fact, it is the most urban river in Canada. The entire watershed is approximately 360 square kilometres in size. The source of the 38 kilometre long river is the Oak Ridges Moraine. The Don River is considered a misfit or underfit river with floodplains as wide as four hundred metres, while the river is only 15 metres wide. The Don River once provided the eastern boundary of the original settlement of Toronto along Lake Ontario. The river splits into eastern and western branches approximately seven kilometres north of the lake. The study area is located primarily within the greenspace of the Wilket Creek valley lands. Wilket Creek is a tributary of the Don River, and the greenspace that surrounds it includes forest with overgrown vegetation interspersed with some meadow lands. Steep slopes are found within the valleylands (Map 12), and in some areas these slopes are subject to on-going episodes of erosion. The creek channel itself has been subject to frequent and severe flooding events over the last decade. The soil profile along the Wilket Creek is bottomland, an alluvial soil with variable drainage that is associated with hydrological activities. Also located within the project area is Oneida clay loam, a grey-brown podzolic with few stones and good drainage.



2.2.2 Known Archaeological Sites within One Kilometre of the Study Area

A site record request was sent to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport to review their Ontario Archaeological Sites Database (OASD) and determine if archaeological sites were located within one kilometre of the study area. However, at the time of this report’s submission, the Ministry had not fulfilled this request. A review of the OASD that is maintained by TRCA revealed that while no sites are located within the study area, two sites are located within one kilometre of the study area (Table 3). Unfortunately, the data maintained by TRCA only contains the location and Borden number of sites within the Greater Toronto Area and does not include additional information in regards to site type, affiliation, or researchers involved. Table 3 Archaeological Resources within and adjacent to the Wilket Creek Study Area

Site Name Borden # Site Type Affiliation Lot Concession Researcher

AkGu-077

AkGu-082

2.2.3 Previous Archaeological and Heritage Assessments

Two reports documents previous archaeological and heritage assessments that occurred within the current study area, or within 50 metres of the current study area. One report is entitled Archaeological Assessment (Stage 1-2) in the City of Toronto, Wilket Creek Rehabilitation Project, Lot 4, Concession II East, Lot 3, Concession III East, Historic York Township, York County (DRW-11-008) (PIF P303-104-2011), and details fieldwork completed as a component of this current EA. No archaeological material was recovered from this assessment, and it was recommended that no further archaeological assessment of the project area was required. A second report entitled Historical Overview and Assessment of Archaeological Potential, Don River Watershed, City of Toronto was researched and written by Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI 2006). It is a heritage report that provides a historical overview of the Don River Watershed. The current study area boundaries are included within the report.

2.3 Built Features and Heritage Context

The City of Toronto heritage inventory was reviewed in order to determine if the study area contained any identified built heritage features and resources. The built features discussed in this report include features such as parks and sewer lines, and the built heritage resources include known heritage resources such as municipally designated and listed structures, as well as cemeteries, plaques, bridges, and cultural heritage landscapes. Built features are included in this section as their construction often has an impact on the landscape. Built features may also act as gateways for historical interpretation to the public, and are thus important to examine in more detail for plaques and interpretive signage. For the Wilket Creek study area, all built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and relevant built features within or adjacent to the study area have been included, and are detailed below (Maps 13 to 15).



2.3.1 Identified Built Features Edwards Gardens Located southwest of the intersection between Leslie Street and Lawrence Avenue, the property on which Edwards Gardens sits today was once land owned by Alexander Milne, a prosperous weaver, farmer, and miller (Map 13). The property stayed in the Milne family for over one hundred years, eventually being purchased in 1944 by Toronto businessman Rupert E. Edwards. Edwards had a vision of transforming the land into a large park, and during the following decade made improvements to the property that included the creation of large rockeries, ponds, bridges, flower beds and a 9-hole golf course. Edwards sold the land to the City of Toronto in the 1950s, and by 1956 Edwards Gardens was open to the public. Today the park includes formal and informal gardens, rockeries, wood arch bridges, fountains, and kilometres of paved, gravel, and natural trails. Additionally, the Toronto Botanical Gardens are located beside Edwards Gardens, which offers numerous programming related to horticulture and gardening. Irving Paisley Park Irving Paisley Park is located southeast of the intersection between York Mills Road and Bayview Avenue (Map 13). The park measure 3.8 hectares in size and features a baseball diamond and a children’s playground. A trail runs south from York Mills Road. Sunnybrook Park Sunnybrook Park is located north of Leaside and south of the Bridle Path between Bayview Avenue and Leslie Street. The park measures 154 hectares, and features a public riding school, stables, multi-use trails, dog parks, and greenspace. In the late nineteenth century, the property was the country estate of Joseph Kilgour and was known as Sunnybrook Farms. Upon Kilgour’s death, his wife donated the property to the City of Toronto to be used as a park. Wilket Creek Park Wilket Creek Park is 44 hectares in size and is located northwest of the intersection between Leslie and Eglinton Avenue East (Map 13). This property was once owned by Alexander Milne, and interestingly, until the 1950s the creek was known as Milne Creek. Wilket Creek Park boasts a two kilometre multi-use paved trail, undisturbed woodlands, picnic areas and fire pits. The creek itself flows through valley lands that support mature trees and rare plant and bird species. Windfields Park Windfields Park is situated at the former location of Windfields Farm, a property owned by Canadian businessman and thoroughbred horse breeder E.P. Taylor. Established in 1937, the farm produced the 1964 Kentucky Derby winner, and was considered a top racing stable in North America. Taylor sold a portion of the farm in 1968 to developers, and at the same time donated the remaining 31 hectares and his mansion to the City of Toronto, which now exists as a park. Windfields Park is located along a paved trail that follows Wilket Creek south from York Mills and Irving Paisley Park (Map 13). Trails The Thomas J. Bata trail is a winding paved trail along Wilket Creek that stretches from Eglinton Avenue to the southern edge of Edwards Gardens. The trail is popular amongst



bikers and is known for its diverse trees and animal species. Within Edwards Gardens there are several paths that lead visitors to explore on either side of the creek. Lastly, a paved walking path is also located within Windfields Park, which stretches from York Mills Road to Banbury Road (Map 13). Sewers One sewer line extends across the entirety of the study area, with a total length of 715 metres of storm sewer and 5,180 metres of sanitary sewer. Additionally, there are 77 manholes and 19 stormwater outfalls within the study area (Map 14). The sewer line was constructed in 1957/58 with a round pipe shape and a combination of concrete bedding and sections of concrete encasements where the sewer crosses the creek channel. It is unknown if the sewer was constructed through open cut methods or bore holed and channeled, although design plans from the consulting engineers (R. V. Anderson and Associates 1957) indicate a 7.5 metre construction easement on each side of the sewer line with notes to deposit additional fill from cutting within the easement (Map 14). 2.3.2 Existing Cultural Heritage Resources Heritage Register The Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) gives municipal heritage advisory committees the responsibility of researching and recommending to municipal council properties of cultural value or interest. The properties are recorded and monitored through a heritage register as designated (under the OHA) or listed (non-designated properties with cultural heritage interest or value that may become candidates for designation). The City of Toronto register is compiled by the City’s Heritage Preservation Services and makes recommendations to City Council of properties that should be included on the inventory or designated under the OHA. Presently, no heritage properties are known to be located immediately within the study area. However, two designated buildings, four listed buildings, and two demolished buildings were located adjacent to the study area (Map 15). Table 4 City of Toronto’s Listed and Designated Heritage Features within One Kilometres

of the Study Area

Name Address Lot Con Structure Type Year Built

Condition

78 The Bridle Path 78 The Bridle Path 6 II House 1961 Listed

Windfields Estate 2489 Bayview Ave. 9 II Estate 1937 Designated

Watson House 14 Blaine Dr. 6 II House 1885 Demolished

Cedar Croft 35 Country Lane 8 II House 1961 Listed

Inn on the Park 1100 Eglinton Ave. E 1 III Residential 1963 Demolished

Penryn 9 Versailles Crt. 10 II House 1926 Listed

Edwards Gardens 777 Lawrence Ave. E 5 II Public Gardens 1964 Listed

Frederick Compton Buildings

70 York St. 10 I Commercial 1889 Designated



Of the two designated structures, one is the Windfields Estate, which was the home of E.P. Taylor, a Canadian business tycoon and thoroughbred horse breeder. The stone house was constructed in a neo-Georgian style in 1937, and was designated by the City in 1992. The second designated property is the Frederick Compton Buildings, designated as an example of

late 19th century (1889) commercial architecture with Romanesque Revival detailing in Toronto's financial district. Of the four listed buildings, three are houses and one is a public garden. The houses include one located at 78 The Bridle Path (built in 1961), the house at 35 Country Lane (built in 1961), and Penryn (built in 1926). The public garden is Edwards Gardens, which was established in 1964 as a public space and was listed by the City in 1997. The demolished buildings include the Watson House, built in 1885 and demolished in 2006, and the former hotel known as Inn on the Park, which was built in 1963 and demolished in 2006. Cemeteries One known cemetery was established immediately adjacent to the study area (Map 15). An expanded search of one kilometre around the study area did not reveal any additional cemeteries. The known cemetery is the family plot of the Milne Family located on Lot 5 Concession II EYS. The plot is currently found in a fenced enclosure at the south-west corner of the Edwards Gardens parking lot (ASI 2006). The earliest burials at this cemetery include Silas (d. September 25, 1830 aged 20 years), James (d. January 17, 1837 aged 21 years) and David (d. September 3, 1835 aged 22 years) sons of Alexander and Jane Milne (ASI 2006). Plaques One plaque has been erected within the Wilket Creek study area and a second plaque is located within 500 metres of the study area (Map 15). The Edwards Garden plaque is located within Edwards Gardens west of the parking lot in front of the greenhouse. The plaque reads as follows:

European settlement began in this area shortly after the War of 1812. Alexander Milne, a Scottish weaver, arrived here with his family in 1817. Milne's farm and mill operation prospered for over a century, eventually expanding to 240 hectares in size. For many years, the watercourse passing through this park was known as Milne Creek. In 1944, Rupert E. Edwards, proprietor of Canada Varnish Ltd., purchased the original 11-hectare Milne homestead. Over the next 12 years, Mr. Edwards introduced many landscape features into the garden including a large rockery, ponds, rustic bridges, flower beds, and a 9-hole golf course. Mr. Edwards' vision was to see the gardens become a public park. Accordingly, in 1955, Metropolitan Toronto purchased the property and, since then, has maintained the beauty and original character of this unique landscape

The Windfields Estate plaque is located approximately 300 metres west of the study area in Windfields Park. The plaque reads as follows:



Windfields Estate was the residence of Edward Plunkett "E.P." Taylor (1901-1989), prominent Canadian businessman and breeder of champion racehorses. Taylor founded Argus Corporation, once Canada's most powerful conglomerate. In 1936, he commissioned architect Ian Jocelyn Davidson to design the main house and adjoining stables. Built in the Georgian Revival style, the house features a Palladian window in the front-facing gable and a swan's-neck pediment above the entrance. This 8-hectare site was one of the first to be developed following the 1929 extension of Bayview Avenue north from Eglinton Avenue East. In 1946, architect Earle C. Morgan produced the designs for the gatehouse, greenhouse, and the three workers' cottages. The Taylor family continued to reside on the property until 1987, when the estate was transferred to the City of Toronto with the agreement that it be leased to the Canadian Film Centre and adapted for its use.

Bridges There are no registered historic bridges located within or adjacent to the study area. Cultural Heritage Landscapes There are no known cultural heritage landscapes within or adjacent to the study area.



3.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

The determination of archaeological potential can be ascertained through various research routes. In the present Stage 1 archaeological assessment, archaeological potential is determined based on available potential modeling, proximity to known archaeological sites, proximity to known built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes, and potential for encountering EuroCanadian structures based on a nineteenth century map review. This data was tempered with an analysis of aerial photographs, not only to determine additional archaeological potential, but also to identify alterations to the land which may have impacted both Aboriginal and EuroCanadian sites within the study area. Archaeological Site Predictive Models Archaeological Site Predictive Models (ASPM) are tools used to assist in determining the probability of encountering archaeological sites. Probability models are created under careful consideration of several variables including: distance to water, stream order, soil type, drainage, physiographic region, degree of slope, proximity to registered archaeological sites, and degree of disturbance. In 1990, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s Archaeological Master Plan was designed for use by TRCA project planners in order to assess the potential for cultural resources within a particular property. The model employs High, Medium and Low probability categories based on the several variables noted above. The three most significant factors that determine settlement location of past peoples are close proximity to water, well drained soils, and flat to gently sloping terrain. While the model does not forecast exact site locations, it does present a generalized prediction based on the known settlement patterns of PreContact and EuroCanadian settler populations. The accuracy of such models has not been thoroughly studied and compared with archaeological finds in the last two decades, however, it is quite clear that most sites are located in high probability areas. A scenario where archaeological potential is nil occurs when there is reliable, convincing data to determine that a location has been thoroughly disturbed and that no potential remains for intact archaeological resources to survive. Nevertheless, even in areas of disturbance, there is still the possibility to encounter deeply buried deposits containing cultural resources. Low potential is often found in low lying wetlands and scenarios like this greatly reduce the potential for encountering archaeological sites, except in small pockets of undisturbed land at higher elevated locations within the study area. It should be stressed that accessible water is one of the most fundamental influences on human settlement and is therefore a major indicator of archaeological potential. In its 2011 Standards and Guidelines, the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport notes that archaeological sites are likely to be discovered in project and study areas that are within 300 metres of primary water source (lakes, rivers, streams and creeks), secondary water sources (intermittent streams and creeks, springs, marshes and swamps) and features that indicate past or ancient water sources (glacial lake shorelines). Thus, areas with high probability to contain PreContact cultural resources are approximately within 300 metres of a water source with good soil drainage and level to gently undulating topography. An application of TRCA’s ASPM indicates that the majority of the project area can be considered an area of high potential, with the exception of steep slopes which are considered



medium potential, for the presence of archaeological resources (Map 16). This is based on distance to water, drainage and slope, and does not take into consideration disturbance to the land. The project area is situated primarily on grey brown podzolics with good drainage. Within the floodplain of the river, Bottom Land muck is present, which is a variable alluvial deposit that is associated with hydrological activities. The combination of the various aforementioned variables significantly adds to the archaeological potential of the area. Within the Greater Toronto Area’s watersheds, nearly 80% of all Aboriginal archaeological sites have been located in these high potential areas. Accordingly, there is a strong possibility that additional archaeological sites may be identified within the study area. The City of Toronto potential model also indicates that nearly the entire project area has archaeological potential (Map 17) and this model takes into consideration previous development. Proximity to Known Archaeological Sites A review of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport’s Ontario Archaeological Sites Database (OASD) was not obtained at the time of this report’s submission. However, a review of the OASD that is maintained by TRCA for the General Toronto Area revealed that while no archaeological sites have been previously registered within the boundaries of the Wilket Creek study area, two archaeological sites have been registered within one kilometre of the study area. It is noted here that few archaeological assessments have been conducted within the study area which likely accounts for the lack of registered sites in the area. As a result, the potential for encountering archaeological sites remains high. Proximity to Known Built Features and Heritage Resources Several inventories were reviewed in order to determine if the local study area contained any identified built features or heritage resources. Built features include areas such as parks, railways and roads, while heritage resources include municipally designated and listed structures, as well as cemeteries, plaques, bridges, and cultural heritage landscapes. Several built features were identified within the study area including five parks, trail systems, and sewer lines (Maps 12 and 13). While no built heritage resources were identified within the study area, the search was expanded to account for built heritage resources located adjacent to the study area. This expanded survey identified several properties including two designated, three listed and two demolished properties, as well as two plaques and one cemetery adjacent to the study area. These heritage resources are considered outside the study area, and will not be affected by the Wilket Creek project (Map 14). Twenty and Twenty-First Century Alterations to the Land The urbanization of the Don Valley and its surroundings are illustrated through aerial photography dating between 1949 (Image 1) and 1989 (on file at the TRCA), and well as through topographic maps dating between 1909 and 1932 (Maps 8 to 11). A review of these maps indicates the majority of the study area has not been heavily disturbed by twentieth century construction. An exception to this includes the landscaping activities within Edwards Gardens and at the headwaters of the creek stretching from the northwest corner of Sheppard and Willowdale Avenue, being cut off at the southeast corner of York Mills Road and Bayview Avenue. Additional disturbances may have resulted from the widening of roads, such as York Mills Road and Lawrence Avenue. Another known source of disturbance can be attributed to seasonal flooding, with several severe floods occurring in the nineteenth century and



culminating with the highly destructive flood of 1954, associated with Hurricane Hazel. Without doubt, the mid-twentieth century urban sprawl rapidly changed the environment and led to a significantly different looking landscape than of that dating to before 1900. Furthermore, while it is unknown what construction technique was used to place the sewer line that runs through the project area, some disturbance from the construction can be expected. Potential for Encountering PreContact Sites It is unknown if the two sites registered within one kilometre of the study area are affiliated with the PreContact occupation of the area. However, the lack of sites is likely due to the limited number of archaeological assessments within the study area, rather than the nature of the study area itself. The Don River and surrounding area would have offered rich resources such as fish, waterfowl and game which would have been exploited as part of a people’s seasonal round. As a result, there is potential for encountering PreContact sites within the study area. Potential for Encountering EuroCanadian Structures While EuroCanadian and other PostContact settlement were dictated by the same needs as those of PreContact peoples, environmental constraints were lessened due to land clearances and road building. However, primary and permanent water resources were crucial for establishing mills, which were vital for further settlement. Areas with high probability to contain EuroCanadian sites are typically within 100 metres from historic transportation routes. These routes, in many cases, have a similar alignment to modern roads. Based on the variables for archaeological predictive modeling, the study area would be expected to demonstrate high potential for EuroCanadian sites. An extensive review of nineteenth and early twentieth century cartographic documents, including historic and topographic maps as well as twentieth century aerial photographs was conducted to determine if there was potential for encountering EuroCanadian structures within the study area. The review included historic maps (Maps 5, 6 and 7), topographic maps (Map 8 to 11) and a series of aerial photographs on file at the TRCA that date between 1946 and 1993. These maps and images have revealed that the study area and surrounding has not been subjected to heavy disturbances during the first half of the twentieth century. During the second half, the study area remained a greenspace, but the adjacent land succumbed to urban expansion. Several structures have been identified within the study area, or in close proximity to the study area and are outlined in Table 2. These nineteenth century structures were built along Wilket Creek and include one saw mill depicted on Lot 1 Concession II and/or II in 1851 (Map 5) and 1860 (Map 6); two houses illustrated within the study area in 1878 including one on Lot 5 Concession II and another on Lot 10 Concession II (Map 7), though topographic maps and historic aerials show the houses as immediately outside the study area (Maps 8 to 11, Image 1); a third house depicted adjacent to the study area in1878 on Lot 9 Concession II; and one steam saw mill illustrated in 1860 (Map 6) as adjacent to the study area on Lot 10 Concession II. Conclusion The Wilket Creek study area has demonstrated the potential to locate intact cultural heritage resources in the form of archaeological sites. The presence of the Don River and transportation routes such as Yonge Street made these lands a desirable location to call home as illustrated on nineteenth century maps. In summary, cartographic evidence has revealed



the potential to locate one saw mill within the study area, as well as several additional structures including a carding mill, a steam mill and several houses adjacent to the study area. These adjacent structures may have impacted land within the study area due to their proximity. However, it should be stressed that not every aspect of potential interest today would have been illustrated on these historic maps. It is possible that outbuildings, such as barns were located on some of the properties that are not illustrated on nineteenth century maps. Consequently, the possibility remains that undocumented houses, farm middens, outbuildings or other structures still exist within the property limits. The study area has been subjected to minimal disturbance around twentieth century housing construction activities, as well as sewer lines and trails. Areas assessed as having archaeological potential based on the analysis depicted above are illustrated on Maps 18 to 20.



4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The review of latent geographic and cultural features, with careful consideration of available aerial photography, has indicated that the Wilket Creek study area has the potential for buried cultural resources (Maps 18 to 20). It is therefore recommended that:

- A Stage 2 archaeological assessment is required in all of the areas identified as holding potential (Maps 18 to 20) prior to any ground disturbing activities within the boundaries of the study area.

o In specific reference to the Wilket Creek project, a Stage 2 archaeological

assessment will be required for any staging areas, temporary access roads, and other areas of potential construction impact, prior to any ground disturbing activities.

- Future areas determined for construction that are not covered by this Stage 1

archaeological such as staging areas, temporary access roads, etc., should also be subject to a Stage 1, and if recommended, a Stage 2 archaeological assessment.



Advice on Compliance with Legislation

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 that are issued by the Minister, and that the archaeological fieldwork and report recommendations ensure the conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural heritage of Ontario. When all matters relating to archaeological sites within the project area of a development proposal have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, a letter will be issued by the ministry stating that there are no further concerns with regard to alterations to archaeological sites by the proposed development.

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 Archaeology 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 consultant archaeologist to carry out archaeological fieldwork, in compliance with Section 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.



References Cited or Consulted Archaeological Services Inc. 2006 Historical Overview and Assessment of Archaeological Potential, Don River Watershed,

City of Toronto. on file, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Burgar, R.W.C. 1990 An Archaeological Master Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation

Authority. Ms. on file, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2003 Archaeological Site Predictive Model. Ms. on file, Toronto and Region Conservation

Authority. Chapman, L.J., & D.F. Putman. 1984 The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Third Edition. Toronto, Ontario: Ontario

Geological Survey. Darke, Eleanor 1995 "A Mill Should Be Build Thereon": An Early History of the Todmorden Mills. Hignell Printing Ltd, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Dibb, G. 2004 The Madina Phase: Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene Occupation Along the Margins of

the Simcoe Lowlands in South-Central Ontario. In The Late Paleo-Indian Great Lakes: Geological and Archaeological Investigations of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Environments, L. J. Jackson and A. Hinshelwood eds., pp. 117-126. Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 159, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull.

Ellis, C. J., I. T. Kenyon, and M. W. Spence 1990 The Archaic. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, C. J. Ellis and N.

Ferris eds., pp. 65-124. London Chapter of the Ontario Archaeological Society Occasional Publication No.5, London, Ontario.

Guthrie, Ann 1986 Don Valley Legacy: A Pioneer History. Boston Mills Press, Erin, Ontario. Hart, Patricia 1968 Pioneering in North York. A History of the Borough. General Publishing Company Ltd,

Toronto, Ontario. Historica Research Limited 2006 Bala Subdivision Structure/Don River Bridge Abutment: Preliminary Report. July 2006. Jamieson, S. M. 2002 Limited Activity and Low Visibility Remains in the Middle Trent Valley: Wishin' and Hopin'

at the West Burleigh Bay Site. Ontario Archaeology 73:29-37.



Karrow, P. F. and B. G. Warner 1990 The Geological and Biological Environment for Occupation in Southern Ontario. In The

Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, C. J. Ellis and N. Ferris, eds., pp. 5-36. London Chapter of the Ontario Archaeological Society Occasional Publication No.5, London, Ontario.

Lennox, P. A. 2002 The McKean Site: A Late Paleo-Indian/Early Archaic Site in Simcoe County, Ontario.

Adamsheritage.com/articles/lennox/mckean site. Mellen, Frances N. 1974 The Development of the Toronto Waterfront During the Railway Expansion Era 1850 -

1912. Doctoral Thesis, University of Toronto. On file, City of Toronto Archives (Fonds 92, Item 335;207137-1).

Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport (MTCS) 2010 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Queens Printer for Ontario,

Toronto. Rayburn, A. 1996 Yorkshire Names In Canada. www.bifhsgo.ca/classics/classics_arayburn.htm, accessed Feb. 19, 2008. Reaman, G. E. 1971 Vaughan Township, Two Centuries of Life in the Township. University of Toronto Press,

Toronto. Reid, C.S. Paddy 1975 New Trends in the Early Ontario Iroquois Tradition. Ontario Archaeology 25:7-25. Ritchie, W. A. 1994 The Archaeology of New York State. Reprinted. Purple Mountain Press, Fleischmanns,

New York. Originally published 1965, Doubleday & Company, New York. Robertson, John Ross 1911 The Diary of Mrs. John Graves Simcoe, Wife of the First Lieutenant-Governor of the

Province of Upper Canada, 1792-6. (Toronto: William Briggs). Sauriol, Charles 1981 Remembering the Don: a rare record of earlier times within the Don River Valley.

Consolidated Amethyst Communications Inc. Scarborough, Ontario. Stamp, R.M. 1991 Early Days in Richmond Hill: A History of the Community to 1930, the Road Through

Richmond Hill, Augustus Jones Finishes the Road. http://edrh.rhpl.richmondhill.oln.ca/default.asp?ID=s1.6, accessed Feb. 19, 2008.



Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) 1999 Archaeological Assessment (Stage 1-2) in the City of Toronto, WIlket Creek Rehabilitation

Project, Lot 4, Concession II East, Lot 3, Concession III East, Historic York Township, York County (DRW-11-008) (PIF P303-104-2011). Ms on file with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

Yu, Z. 2003 Late Quaternary Dynamics of Tundra and Forest Vegetation in the Southern Niagara

Escarpment, Canada. New Phytologist 157:365-390. Yu, Z. and J. H. McAndrews 1994 Holocene Water Levels at Rice Lake, Ontario, Canada: sediment, pollen and plant

macrofossil evidence. The Holocene 4(2): 141-152. Archival Material Land Abstracts

Lots 4 through 10 Concession II East of Yonge and Lots 1 through 4 Concession III East of Yonge, York Township, York County. Ontario Archives, Toronto, Ontario.

1851 York Township census, Library Archives of Canada, C-11760. 1861 York Township census, Library Archives of Canada, C-1103-1104 1871 York Township census, Library Archives of Canada, C-9968. Walton, G. 1837 City of Toronto and the Home District Commercial Directory. Printed by T. Dalton & W.J.

Coates, Toronto. Maps and Aerial Photographs 1851 Plan of the Township of York. B.O. Browne 1860 Tremaine’s Map of the County of York, Upper Canada. George C. Tremaine, Toronto 1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York. Miles and Co, Toronto.. 1909 Topographic Map. Department of Militia and Defense. Toronto Sheet. 1915 Topographic Map. Department of Militia and Defense. Toronto Sheet 1918 Topographic Map. Department of Militia and Defense. Toronto Sheet 1931 Topographic Map. Department of Militia and Defense. Toronto Sheet 1949 Aerial Photograph (Ministry of Natural Resources) 1954 Aerial Photograph (Ministry of Natural Resources) 1967 Aerial Photograph (Spartan Air Services) 1978 Aerial Photograph (Ministry of Natural Resources) 1989 Aerial Photograph (Aquarius Flight Inc.) Websites Don Valley Historical Mapping Project, http://maps.library.utoronto.ca/dvhmp/maps.html Historical Maps of Toronto, http://oldtorontomaps.blogspot.ca/p/index-of-maps.html Hoggs Hollow, http://www.hoggshollow.net/history.html Library and Archives Canada, http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/index-e.html



Lost Rivers, Charles Sauriol Conservation Reserve, http://www.lostrivers.ca/points/Sauriol.htm#s Contacts: Susan Hughes, Supervisor Special Projects, Archaeology, Heritage Preservation Services, City of Toronto



Appendix A: Images

Image 1 1949 Aerial Photograph



Image 3 Edwards Gardens Looking West ca.1950s

Image 2 Edwards Gardens Looking East ca.1950s



Appendix B: Maps

Map 1 General Study Area



Map 2 Study Area



Map 3 Property Ownership within Study Area



Map 4 Glacial Lake Iroquois Shoreline and Historic River Courses



Map 5 1851 Browne Map



Map 6 1860 Tremaine Map of Ontario County



Map 7 1878 Miles and Co. Atlas of York County



Map 8 1909 Topographic Map












Map 12 Modern Topographic Map



Map 13 Identified Built Features



Map 14 Identified Built Features - Sewers



Map 15 Identified Heritage Resources – Plaques, Cemeteries, Built Heritage



Map 16 TRCA Archaeological Potential Model



Map 17 City of Toronto Potential Model



Map 18 Recommendations Overview Map



Map 19 Locations Requiring Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment – North of Lawrence



Map 20 Locations Requiring Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment – South of Lawrence

Documents

APPENDIX A · Image 9 Culvert in Area B, Facing East 14 Image 10 Erosion in Area B, Facing Northwest 14 List of Maps Map 1 Project Area Location 15 Map 2 Development Plan of Area