On the Nature of Archaeology in the Ottawa Area and ......tant chapters in the history of Bytown/Ottawa, including the first settlers landing there in the early 1800s, the first tavern,

Beginning in the spring of 2002, a number ofarticles dealing with the archaeology in andaround the city of Ottawa appeared in localnewspapers (Boswell 2002a, 2002b, 2002c).Indeed, there has not been so much attentiondrawn to the ancient history of the area sur-rounding the Chaudière Falls since nearly a cen-tury ago when T.W. Edwin Sowter was activelyresearching and publishing his discoveries as amember of the Ottawa Field Naturalists’ Club(Jamieson 1999; Pilon 2004; Sowter 1895,1900, 1901, 1909, 1915, 1917).

The current round of interest in archaeologystems, however, from a much different source. Inthe spring of 2002, work finally began on the con-struction of a new Canadian War Museum build-ing, to be located within Lebreton Flats just besidethe Chaudière Falls on the south side of theOttawa River. The museum construction projectin particular, and the overall redevelopment plansproposed by the National Capital Commission ingeneral, directed much public attention to thishilly, park-like area at the end of WellingtonStreet, overlooked by the Library and Archives ofCanada. This area had been the stage for impor-tant chapters in the history of Bytown/Ottawa,including the first settlers landing there in theearly 1800s, the first tavern, vast lumber yards,lumber barons, senators, etc. (Jenkins 1997;MacAdam 2002). Continuous human occupation

of the Flats came to an abrupt end in the mid-1960s when the National Capital Commissionexpropriated and demolished an entire communi-ty and covered it over with landfill, some of ittoxic. Much is at stake with the redevelopment ofLebreton Flats and many elements combine tomake it a volatile subject to discuss in some quar-ters, especially in the media (MacAdam 2002).

A number of newspaper articles, as well as radioand television reports, have discussed the poten-tial threats posed to the heritage resources of theFlats that any construction there could represent.In particular, some of these articles identified,among other concerns, issues dealing with thepotential of discovering Native archaeologicalremains (see Boswell 2002c). The latter possibili-ty was put forward based, in large part, on veryclear and unambiguous statements made by theavocational archaeologist T.W. Edwin Sowter inarticles he published in 1909 and in 1915, andagain in a 1917 map of site distributions in thegeneral Ottawa area. In all instances, Sowter wasvery adamant that the ossuary discovered by Dr.Edward Van Cortlandt (Figure 1) in 1843 andreported in 1853, was “in Ottawa, on the spotthat now occupies the north-west angle formedby the intersection of Wellington and Bay Streets”(Sowter 1909:98). In his 1915 article, he furtheradded that the location was “on the spot nowoccupied by the Capital brewery” (1915:50). In

Pilon On the Nature of Archaeology in the Ottawa Area and Archaological Mysteries 17

On the Nature of Archaeology in the Ottawa Area andArchaeological Mysteries

Jean-Luc Pilon

Scientific discourse usually takes place within the pages of journals published by scholarly societies. The goalis to create a corpus of information that can be referred to and added to by later research. A recently redis-covered, unsigned newspaper article published days following the 1843 excavation of the Ottawa Ossuaryby Dr. Edward Van Cortlandt shares some points with Dr. Van Cortlandt’s own account published in theCanadian Journal of 1853. While there are clear similarities between the two documents, there are alsoimportant differences that are not easily reconciled. This instance reminds us of the importance of publica-tions of record published by learned societies. It also cautions us against the uncritical acceptance of unveri-fiable information. Résumé à la fin de l’article.

both accounts, Sowter cited Dr. Edward VanCortlandt’s 1853 publication to substantiate hisown statements.

This strong assertion was repeated by LucienBrault (1946:37-38), a much respected authorityon the history of Ottawa, who appeared to be cit-ing “Dr. Van Cortland” (sic), but who obviouslywas familiar with Sowter’s writings, as he referredto the existence of other archaeological discover-ies in the Ottawa region only presented bySowter, although he did not cite him directly.

More recent investigative work by RandyBoswell, a reporter with the Ottawa Citizen, ledto the discovery of a brief note published in theBytown Gazette of June 15, 1843 (Anonymous

1843). This note is unsigned and its content, whilemuch abridged, bears some interesting resem-blances to the article published by Dr. VanCortlandt ten years later (Van Cortlandt 1853).Boswell appears to have accepted all of the infor-mation contained in that 1843 story at face value;in fact he chides scholars for not having discoveredthis valuable record before him. At least, this is aconclusion that might be gathered from the fol-lowing headline:

How Ottawa’s history took a wrong turn.The Citizen reveals how an Indian buryingground ‘about a half-mile below theChaudière’ was discovered and then lost fora century—all because generations ofscholars overlooked a simple newspaperstory. It’s equal parts tragedy, farce and epic(Boswell 2002a).

In the present article I will attempt to comparethe two published statements relating to theOttawa Ossuary in order to assess the degree ofconfidence that can be placed in one or the other,especially as this bears on the location of thisancient burial ground. Further, the implications ofthe uncritical acceptance of the 1843 note in thewhole discussion of the Ottawa region’s archaeo-logical past will be reviewed.

Some Background onDr. Edward Van Cortlandt

Dr. Edward Van Cortlandt (also spelled vanCortlandt, Van Courtland) was one of Bytown’sfirst citizens and a very colourful individual. Inaddition to being a medical doctor, he had a greatinterest in a wide range of natural phenomena. Inan unpublished biography, Margaret Moffat relateshow Van Cortlandt’s home at the intersection ofBay and Wellington Streets once housed “the bestprivate archaeological museum in Canada of thatday” (Moffat 1973:15).

Dr. Edward Van Cortlandt was a very activemember of the Bytown Mechanics’ Institute andAthenaeum. His name first appears in the surviv-ing records of the Bytown Mechanics’ Institute(founded in 1847) in the spring of 1849 when he

18 Ontario Archaeology No. 75, 2003

Figure 1. Photographic portrait of Dr. Edward Van Cortlandt,September 1870, by William James Topley, Library and ArchivesCanada, Ottawa (copy negative number E002505151). VanCortlandt served as military medical attendant for the militaryhospital on Barracks Hill (today Parliament Hill) in Ottawa(Moffat 1973).

assumed the role of a trustee. Between 1849 and1852, the organization suffered greatly from alack of interest. Van Cortlandt would continue toserve the Institute as a trustee on several occasions(the last time was in 1863) or as the Institute’sHonorary Librarian. An 1858 passage in theInstitute’s annual report shows that he was alsoinvolved in the management of the Institute’smuseum: “Report of Dr. Van Cortlandt dated 6April 1858 was read referring to the very imperfectstate of the Museum” (Anonymous 1869).

In 1853, the Bytown Mechanics’ Institute andAthenaeum was reorganized and on March 19,1853 (for a more detailed history of the BytownMechanics Institute and Athenaeum, see Hirsch1992), Dr. Edward Van Cortlandt presented thenew Institute’s first lecture: “the Phenomena ofVegetation.” In 1865 he is named a life memberof the Institute.

The Institute maintained both a library and anewsroom. They were, along with the public lec-tures, central to the Institute’s activities, allowingmembers to stay abreast of current affairs fromacross the country and a broad range of topicsrelating to the natural world (which includedarchaeology) (see Kapches [1994] for a discussionof the place of learned societies in the nineteenthcentury world and Dyck [2001] for a sense oftheir impact in Canada, in particular).Additionally, the Institute maintained a museumthat appeared to gather mostly geological and bio-logical specimens but also antiquities of varioustypes including, of course, native artifacts. Indeed,the published annual reports of the Institute oftencontain tantalizing clues of the richness and diver-sity of artifacts held in this Museum; everythingfrom Egyptian idols, coins, stone gouges and chis-els, an old French sword and an “Indian scalpingknife.” Clearly, artifacts were coming in to theircollection from near and far. Several donationswere noted over the years from the Renfrew areabut there were also native artifacts given by a Dr.J. Newton of Sault Ste-Marie. One can only imag-ine the task that the storage and display of a col-lection such as this must have represented.

By 1869, the situation had deteriorated to sucha point that “No addition has been made duringthe past year to the Museum; it remains as it was,

exceedingly valuable, but almost perfectly useless,owing to the confined space in which so manyspecimens are huddled together without order orclassification” (Anonymous 1869).

While Van Cortlandt’s formal participation inthe Institute dropped off in the early to mid1860s, his interest in intellectual pursuits didnot. His obvious thirst for knowledge about thenatural world appears as strong as ever because in1863 the Natural History Society was founded:

We the undersigned being desirous todevelop the Natural History of theOttawa, and general resources of the sur-rounding country; Subscribe our nameswith a view to organize some association;whereby the different specimens in thevarious departments of natural historymay be collected preserved and classed bysome competent person and placed in asuitable room for exhibition. Oct. 3, 1863.

Dr. Edward Van Cortlandt’s name appears at thetop of this list and his signature is the first oneappended to the document.

In October 1869, a joint committee of represen-tatives from the Bytown Mechanics’ Institute andAthenaeum and the Natural History Society rec-ommended amalgamating the two societies and byJanuary, 1870 the Bytown Mechanics’ Instituteand Athenaeum was no more. From this union wasborn the Ottawa Literary and Scientific Societythat would eventually be replaced by the OttawaField Naturalists’ Club in 1879 (formally incorpo-rated as such in 1884). Interestingly, many artifactsfrom the Ottawa area (currently in the collectionsof the Canadian Museum of Civilization) weredonated to the Geological Survey of Canada’smuseum in the early 1880s (Figure 2). The periodlabels, which still adhere to many of these pieces,indicate that the gifts were made by the OttawaLiterary and Scientific Society.

A Comparison of Two Articles

For years, archaeologists (Keatley and Desjardins1991:14-17; Swayze 2002:9-12), including thepresent writer (Pilon and Marois 2001:22), have


repeated T.W.E. Sowter’s very clear and unam-biguous assertion that an ossuary burial had beenlocated in the northwest angle of Bay andWellington Streets in the city of Ottawa. Thenorthwest angle of this intersection lies some-where within Lebreton Flats (Figure 3).

In spite of Sowter’s unequivocal statementsabout the location of Van Cortlandt’s OttawaOssuary burial, many archaeologists had nonethe-less expressed discomfort with the poor fit of theLebreton Flats area with Van Cortlandt’s physicaldescription of the location (Table 1). It was tacitly

accepted, however, that the shore area below theLibrary and Archives of Canada on WellingtonStreet had been so changed by modern activities asto have probably obliterated the original featuresof the landscape in which Van Cortlandt had livedand worked.

The recently rediscovered Bytown Gazette arti-cle yields new data concerning the exact locationof the ossuary. Thus, it is appropriate to review indetail the information contained in both theshort 1843 article, and also in the more complete1853 statements, in order to attempt to identifysimilarities and differences.

A careful comparison of the two articles, pre-sented in Table 1, suggests that there is perfectagreement on only a small number of points.Moreover, there are disturbing discordancesbetween the articles. Divergences must be ana-lyzed before credibility can be assessed for each ofthese accounts and the history of the area sur-rounding the Chaudière Falls can be told.

In both accounts, it is clear that the ossuary wasdiscovered by workmen extracting sand but onlythe 1853 article provides the reason for its extrac-tion—the construction of a bridge over theOttawa River. Another point where the twoaccounts coincide perfectly is the number of indi-viduals represented in the ossuary—about 20.Even then, however, the actual words used in the


Figure 2. Paper label affixed to a ground stone artifact (VIII-F-8586) in the collections of the Canadian Museum of Civilization,Gatineau. The item was originally donated to the GeologicalSurvey of Canada by the Ottawa Literary and Scientific Society(later, Ottawa Fields Naturalists Club) in 1884.

Figure 3. Map of the immedi-ate area around ChaudièreFalls. Map adapted from W.A.Austin & Co: “Plan of the Cityof Ottawa shewing the positionof the buildings available forlegislative & departmentalaccommodation,” 1858. Thisadaptation shows the approxi-mate locations of Bédard’sLanding and the CapitalBrewery relative to the intersec-tion of Bay and WellingtonStreets in Ottawa. The map isoverlain with concentric quar-ter mile radius circles centeredon a point well below the footof the Chaudière Falls.


1843

Acc

ount

1853

Acc

ount

Agr

eem

ent

Init

ial D

isco

very

3“w

hils

t so

me

wor

kmen

wer

e en

gage

d in

dig

ging

san

d fr

om a

pit”

“whi

lst

wor

kmen

wer

e en

gage

d in

dig

ging

san

d fo

r th

e m

orta

r us

ed i

n th

e co

nstr

ucti

on o

f the

pie

rs o

f the

wir

e su

spen

sion

bri

dge

at B

ytow

n”

Num

ber

of I

ndiv

idua

ls“a

bout

twen

ty b

odie

s, o

f var

ious

age

s, a

goo

dly

shar

e of

them

bei

ng c

hild

ren”

“am

ount

ing

in a

ll to

abo

ut t

wen

ty,

of b

oth

Sexe

s, a

nd

som

e fe

w C

hild

ren”

3

Use

of R

ed O

chre

no m

enti

on“I

n ev

ery

inst

ance

the

bon

es w

ere

deep

ly c

olou

red

from

the

Red

Hem

atit

e w

hich

th

e ab

orig

ines

use

d in

pai

ntin

g, o

r ra

ther

bed

aubi

ng th

eir

bodi

es”

1

Con

diti

on o

f Sku

lls“O

ne s

kull

alon

e be

ars

any

mar

ks o

f ap

pare

nt v

iole

nce,

ha

ving

a d

isti

nct

frac

ture

and

dep

ress

ion

on o

ne s

ide,

an

d a

fissu

re o

n th

e ot

her.”

“not

hing

, ho

wev

er,

coul

d be

det

ecte

d on

the

sku

lls,

to i

ndic

ate

that

the

y fe

ll by

th

e to

mah

awk…

six

perf

ect s

kulls

”1

Con

diti

on o

f Oth

er B

ones

“the

rem

aind

er c

rum

bled

into

dus

t on

expo

sure

to th

e ai

r”no

men

tion

1

Den

titi

on“t

eeth

in a

ll of

them

are

per

fect

and

ent

ire”

“the

teet

h w

ere

perf

ect,

and

not o

ne u

nsou

nd o

ne w

as to

be

dete

cted

, at t

he s

ame

tim

e th

ey w

ere

all w

ell w

orn

dow

n by

trit

urat

ion”

2

Ass

ocia

ted

Art

ifact

s“a

War

Clu

b, n

ow p

erfe

ctly

pet

rifie

d; a

sm

all

ston

e in

stru

men

t,

rese

mbl

ing

a go

uge,

an

d a

ston

e ch

isel

…no

w i

n th

e po

sses

sion

of

Dr.

V.

Cor

tlan

dt,

Byt

own”

“1st

, a p

iece

of

Gne

iss

abou

t tw

o fe

et lo

ng, t

aper

ing

and

evid

ently

inte

nded

as

a so

rt o

f w

ar c

lub…

2nd,

a s

tone

gou

ge…

3rd,

a s

tone

hat

chet

…4t

h, a

san

dsto

ne

boul

der

wei

ghin

g ab

out f

our

poun

ds”

2

Pres

ence

of D

og R

emai

ns“T

oget

her

wit

h a

few

dog

hea

ds”

“por

tion

s of

the

rem

ains

of t

wo

dogs

hea

ds”

2

Sepa

rate

Bur

ials

“a s

ands

tone

bou

lder

…fo

und

lyin

g on

the

ste

rnum

of a

Chi

ef o

f gig

anti

c st

atur

e,

who

was

bur

ied

apar

t fr

om t

he o

ther

s, a

nd w

ho h

ad b

een

wal

led

roun

d w

ith

grea

t car

e”

no m

enti

on1

Feat

ures

of L

ocat

ion

“in

a sm

all b

arro

w o

f the

rud

est d

escr

ipti

on”

no m

enti

on1

Prop

osed

Cau

ses

of D

eath

s“v

icti

ms

to s

ome

pest

ilenc

e, n

ot im

prob

ably

sm

all P

ox”

“hav

ing

falle

n vi

ctim

s to

som

e ep

idem

ic,

or b

enea

th t

he h

ands

of

som

e ot

her

host

ile tr

ibe”

2

Man

ner

of B

uria

lno

men

tion

“the

con

fuse

d st

ate

in w

hich

the

bon

es w

ere

foun

d, s

hew

ed t

hat

no c

are

wha

teve

r ha

d be

en ta

ken

in b

uryi

ng th

e or

igin

al o

wne

rs”

1

Loca

tion

“im

med

iate

ly in

the

rear

of B

edar

d’s

Hot

el, a

t Hul

l”1

“on

a pr

ojec

ting

poi

nt o

f lan

d di

rect

ly in

rea

r of

the

ir e

ncam

pmen

t, at

a c

arry

ing

plac

e, a

nd a

bout

hal

f a

mile

bel

ow t

he m

ight

y ca

tara

ct o

f th

e C

haud

ière

…th

e sa

nd,

form

ing

a su

pers

trat

um o

f m

any

feet

thi

ckne

ss a

t it

s up

per

part

, an

d gr

adua

lly e

ndin

g in

a f

eath

ery

edge

ove

r th

e fo

ssili

fero

us l

imes

tone

whi

ch

cons

titu

tes

the

bed

of th

e ri

ver.”

Agr

eem

ent:

1=

com

ple

te d

isag

reem

ent

2

=ge

ner

al a

gree

men

t b

ut

sign

ific

ant

dif

fere

nce

s in

det

ails

3

=co

mp

lete

agr

eem

ent

Tabl

e 1.

Com

pari

son

of th

e 18

43 B

ytow

n G

azet

tear

ticle

and

the

1853

Van

Cor

tland

t Can

adia

n Jo

urna

l art

icle

.

1843 article (Table 1) could be read to suggestthat the remains of children (no number given)were in addition to the roughly 20 adults, andthus there could well have been more than 20individuals represented.

Of the remaining points brought out in thearticles, there is partial or fair agreement for fourof these points and complete disagreement onseven. Some of these disagreements can be easilydisregarded but most of them serve as a basis onwhich to question the authorship of the 1843article.

For example, when the dentition of the indi-viduals is discussed, both articles indicate thatthe teeth were in good condition. However, thelater article adds that they were worn from use(“trituration”). It could easily be accepted thatsuch a detail was not essential to the main pointthat there were no caries in these teeth. Similarly,in 1853 it was noted that the remains of twodogs’ heads were included in the burial while ear-lier a precise number was not given. Clearly, thenumber is not important. In 1843, a guess wasadvanced about the cause of death of the indi-viduals found in the burial (smallpox). While thetheory of disease is again put forth in 1853, thepossibility of violent death in armed conflict wasnot entirely dismissed.

This last point regarding cause of death is evenmore curious when we consider that in 1853 VanCortlandt states quite emphatically that there wasnothing to suggest “that they fell by the toma-hawk,” seemingly contradicting his earlier sugges-tion (in the same article) of possible violence.Similarly, the 1843 article interprets damage to oneskull as indicative of violence, yet elsewhere in thisarticle the unknown author only gives “pestilence”as a possible cause of death.

Major points not raised in the 1843 articleinvolve elements that should have warranted somekind of mention. For example, the 1843 article failsto mention that, in addition to 20 or so individu-als, there was a single individual buried “apart fromthe others.” This individual also stands out for hav-ing had a large sandstone boulder placed on hischest, surely an unusual and noteworthy feature.

In 1853, Van Cortlandt informs us that, with theexception of the skulls, the other skeletal elements

“crumbled into dust on exposure to the air.” Thismust have been very disturbing for the excavatorhoping to recover these mute witnesses to anancient burial pattern. Yet no mention is made ofthis fact in 1843. Similarly, in 1853 we areinformed that the bones were covered in redochre but no such mention in found in the 1843article.

Even more fundamental traits of this burial arenot found in both accounts. For example, in1843 we are told that the burial was in a small“barrow” or mound. This is not an insignificantfeature, yet in the more elaborate and signed1853 article no mention whatsoever is made of it.

Finding the remains of 20 or more peopletogether in a large burial feature must be quiteunusual, especially if the remains are all mixedtogether and possibly fractured, in addition tobeing disarticulated. This is in fact mentioned byVan Cortlandt in 1853, but not even hinted at in1843.

Two final observations must be made beforeconsidering the whole question of the location ofthe site. The first observation is the mention of“Dr. V. Cortlandt” (sic) in the 1843 article. Asmentioned above, this article is unsigned and thisreference to Dr. Van Cortlandt is in the thirdperson. Could this be a literary device? Possibly.Secondly, Van Cortlandt, as we know, was anavid student of natural history. When comparingthe list of artifacts included with the humanremains in the two articles (lists which generallycompare well), a significant difference relates tothe long club-like item. In 1843, it is suggestedthat this artifact is made of wood that had sincepetrified, while in 1853, it is indicated that theelongated piece of gneiss was “intended” to beused as a war club. In addition to the question ofwhether it was intentionally shaped or simply aconvenient natural form, the incorrect identifica-tion of the raw material is quite remarkable (ofcourse, we cannot be certain which is correct!).

Finally, regarding the location of the mass bur-ial, Van Cortlandt only provides a general descrip-tion of the physical location and a vague indica-tion of the distance from the Chaudière Falls,about a half mile. The 1843 article, however, givesvery precise information about the location,


namely behind Bedard’s Hotel in Hull, whichwas actually situated between three-quarters anda full mile from the falls (Figure 3). Why wouldthis precise location not have been included byVan Cortlandt in his 1853 article, especiallywhen writing for a scientific audience where pre-cision and detail are paramount? Moreover, howdo we account for the significant difference inthe estimation of the distance between the site, ifit was at Bédard’s Landing, and the falls?

Taken together, there are many reasons to sug-gest that the original sources of information forthe two articles were not the same. Significantpoints were either omitted from one or the otherthat cannot be explained by space restrictions inthe newspaper alone. These points were sensa-tional and one would presume that they wouldhave been worthy of inclusion in an article, thepurpose of which was to attract attention as wellas to inform the readers.

The Burden of Proof

The question now becomes one of whom tobelieve. Was all of the information in VanCortlandt’s article accurate? Did he estimateproperly the distance between the falls and theossuary? Who wrote the 1843 article if not VanCortlandt? How well did they pay attention todetail? Did they make some assumptions aboutlocation?

In the final analysis, we have no choice but toplace the greatest amount of trust in the infor-mation provided by Dr. Edward Van Cortlandthimself. It was, after all, he who excavated andkept this unique collection of human remains(which have long since been lost to us). Hisaccount, while published ten years after the fact,must be accepted as best reflecting the circum-stances and the nature of the discovery. Further,when he wrote his short article for the CanadianJournal, he most likely still had in his possessionthe human remains and so the 1853 descriptionmust be considered accurate. While we mightallow for details of the initial discovery to havefaded with time, it is difficult to imagine new ele-ments being added to the collection itself—suchas red ochre, when first there was no mention of

it; perfect skulls, when earlier one was a severelyfractured skull; or a separate individual’s burialwith a four pound boulder on his chest, thoughtto have been used as armour! Still, there are sig-nificant points in common, which suggests thatthe anonymous 1843 author did have access tofirst-hand information, but erred in some details.One of several possibilities may explain points ofdiscrepency and agreement: (a) the writer of the1843 article more than likely received his or herinformation from Van Cortlandt but incom-pletely reported his findings; (b) the 1843 writerwas given incorrect information for unknownreasons (such as the need to meet the expecta-tions of an editor); and (c) the writer simplymade mistakes in reporting the observations thatwere supplied by Dr. Van Cortlandt.

On this basis, can we doubt the precise loca-tional information provided in 1843? Put differ-ently, can we accept it uncritically? Can we use the1843 locational information as a basis for ques-tioning the veracity of later statements made bySowter regarding the Ottawa Ossuary’s location?

In Defense of the Bédard’s Landing

The grounds of the Canadian Museum ofCivilization straddle a portion of Bédard’sLanding that is shared with a parking lot of theScott Paper plant in Gatineau (Hull sector),directly across from Parliament Hill (Brousseau1984:36). The embayment lying between thepoint on which the former ferry landing waslocated and the Alexandra Bridge (i.e., where themuseum buildings are currently situated) isknown to have yielded archaeological remains inthe mid to late nineteenth century. Such a refer-ence is found in Sowter’s (1909:94) writings:

One may observe, on approaching Hull bythe Alexandra bridge, an extensive cut bankof sand and gravel, between the E. B. EddyCo.’s sulphide Mill and the end of thebridge, and between Laurier Ave., and theriver. This is the place from which the lateEdward Haycock procured sand for build-ing purposes on the Eastern and WesternBlocks of the Departmental buildings, at


Ottawa. During the excavation of thisbank, a great many Indian relics were dis-covered, such as womens’ (sic) knives,arrow-heads, tomahawks and pottery, butno description of this pottery is, obtain-able. Here, according to white and redtradition, many bloody encounters tookplace between parties ascending ordescending the river.

Additionally, there is a series of bone imple-ments in the collections of the McCord Museumin Montréal that are reported to have been recov-ered from “Redard’s (sic) Landing, Hull” and tohave been in the “Van Cortlandt” collection(these and other items attributed to the VanCortlandt collection were accessioned inOctober of 1937 into the collections of theEthnological Museum of McGill University,some 62 years after his passing; however, with theexception of a list of objects, there is no furtherinformation associated with Van Cortlandt)(Barbara Lawson, Redpath Museum, personalcommunication, 28 September 2004).

Clearly, this was an area of sustained use byNative people for many centuries, and all indica-tions are that it was one end of a portage leadingover the Chaudière Falls as well as a temporarycamping place. It would, therefore, not be entire-ly surprising to learn that a burial place had alsobeen located nearby.

T.W. Edwin Sowterand a Possible Basis for his Certainty

Given that the above comparison shows signifi-cant discrepancies between the two accounts ona number of important points, caution must beexercised. We can now review the great certaintyexhibited by T.W. Edwin Sowter (Figure 4) in hisarticles and attempt to understand what the pos-sible source of that confidence might have been.

T.W. Edwin Sowter began working at the ageof 22 years for the Topographical Survey Branchof the Department of the Interior and he spentthe next four decades in its employ. He almostcertainly came into contact with members of theGeological Survey of Canada (who fell under the

same Department until 1890) who may havedirected or channeled his keen interests in bothpaleontology and archaeology (Pilon 2004).

Sowter was also an active member of the OttawaField Naturalists’ Club (OFNC), joining in 18811.There, he would have met, if he did not alreadyknow him, the eminent paleontologist and archae-ologist Henri-Marc Ami (1858-1931) (Figure 5),who was also a member of the Geological Survey ofCanada from 1882 until 1911. Together, Sowterand Ami would become the archaeological special-ists of the OFNC, leading that group’s first officialarchaeological excursion to Aylmer, Québec, aboutten miles upriver from the Chaudière Falls (whereSowter had lived all of his life), in 1899. From thatparticular outing, a collection of human remainswas gathered from Aylmer Island (then also knownas Lighthouse Island). In fact, Sowter had alreadypublished on the occurrence of human remains onthat island near Aylmer, Québec, in his 1895 arti-cle. Two hand-written labels that accompanied


Figure 4. Photographic portrait of T.W. Edward Sowter, privatecollection; electronic copy in the Archives, Canadian Museum ofCivilization, Gatineau.

remains reported to be from Aylmer Island in thecollections of the Canadian Museum ofCivilization2 appear to have been written by Amiand are dated to the same day as the OFNCexcursion. Similarly, two labels that accompanyfossils donated to the GSC by Sowter in 1908

appear to be of Ami’s hand when compared tosamples of his hand-writing in the Archives ofthe Canadian Museum of Civilization (Figure6). Clearly, the two individuals were frequentcollaborators.

Sowter was born in 1860 and Edward VanCortlandt died in 1875 (Moffat 1973:30). Itwould appear unlikely that Sowter acquired first-hand knowledge of the location of the OttawaOssuary from Van Cortlandt himself. Instead, hewould more probably have received this informa-tion from a contemporary or associate of VanCortlandt, or even third-hand from someone whohad known such an individual. It is highly likelythat such a person would have been a member ofthe Ottawa Field Naturalists’ Club since individ-uals interested in the “natural world” gravitated tothis organization, as they had to its precursors, theOttawa Literary and Scientific Society and theearlier Natural History Society and the BytownMechanics’ Institute and Athenaeum (see above).Given Sowter’s association with Ami, and Ami’sobvious interest in archaeological matters, it isquite possible that the information concerningthe location of the Ottawa Ossuary had comefrom Ami or some unidentified but otherwise rep-utable source, at least in Sowter’s eyes.

One last perplexing point lies in the firm asser-tion by Sowter that the Ossuary had been found


Figure 5. Photographic portrait of Henri-Marc Ami in 1891,by William James Topley, Library and Archives Canada,Ottawa (copy negative number E002505156).

Figure 6. Labels which accompany palaeontological fossils in the collections of the Geological Survey of Canada (left), and artifactlabels found with human remains in the collections of the Canadian Museum of Civilization (right). Note the similarities in the waythe word “Aylmer” is written among all four specimens. Lastly, a sample of Henri-Marc Ami’s signature (centre) taken from a letterhe wrote in 1926.

within the northwest angle of the intersection ofBay and Wellington Streets in Ottawa. Dr. VanCortlandt’s home for much of his life in Ottawawas on the southeast corner of that same inter-section (394 Wellington) (Moffat 1973:15),where today Veterans’ Affairs Canada have largeand imposing buildings. Could the site of VanCortlandt’s home somehow have been confusedwith proximity to the site of the ossuary?

Final Considerations

Ultimately, the story of Edward Van Cortlandt’sOttawa Ossuary, as presented here, is not somuch an archaeological story as it is a usefulreminder about one of the fundamental raisond’être of scholarly associations and scientific pub-lications. While the 1843 article may, in fact,provide a seemingly accurate location for theossuary, other details differ from informationgiven in the one attributed source, the 1853 VanCortlandt article. The 1853 article, written bythe excavator of the ossuary, must stand as thepublication of record. The 1843 article willalways remain tantalizing but, without knowl-edge of its author, one that is impossible to sub-ject to any kind of essential and critical scrutiny.Essentially, it has the weight of hearsay evidence,as in a court of law. We do not know the experi-ence of the writer or the rigor of the reporter. Itmust be rejected, or at the very least, consideredas unsubstantiated and suspect.

This instance reminds us of the reason why sci-entific societies publish the findings of their mem-bers in journals. It is not to sell subscriptions, oradvertising, nor to instigate controversies in an oth-erwise curious but ill-informed readership. Rather,it is to serve as an exchange of scientific informationamong readers who share methods and goals, andby openly and fully sharing their findings, acknowl-edging and documenting their sources, knowledgeremains democratic and broadly owned and, mostimportantly, accessible, verifiable and cumulative,allowing future investigators to build upon earlierdiscoveries and further our collective quest forknowledge.

Acknowledgements. It is important to acknowl-edge the detective work of Randy Boswell of theOttawa Citizen, who relocated the 1843 article.Jill Delaney of the Library and Archives ofCanada was very helpful in tracking down photo-graphs in the Topley and Ottawa Field Naturalistscollections. Moira McCaffrey kindy facilitatedaccess to the McCord Museum’s Van Cortlandtcollection. Guylaine Lemay of the McCordMuseum, along with Barbara Lawson of theRedpath Museum, generously attempted to trackdown information on the Van Cortlandt collec-tion that may have survived from the formerEthnological Museum of McGill University. JeffEarle helped locate the Capital Brewery withinLebreton Flats. Earlier versions of this article werereviewed and commented upon by Janet Youngand David Keenlyside of the Canadian Museumof Civilization. Finally, I thank Ken Swayze forthe frequent conversations that have helped mebring a better perspective to some of the ques-tions addressed herein. Nevertheless, all errorsand omissions are entirely my own.

Notes

1Ottawa Field-Naturalists’ Club fonds. R5475-0-0-E(formerly MG28-I31).

2Repatriated to the Algonquin Nation and reburiedduring the summer of 2005.

References Cited

Anonymous 1843 Indian Burying Ground. Bytown Gazette,

and Ottawa and Rideau Advertiser,Thursday, June 15, 1843, No.49, page 3.

1869 Annual Report for 1869. Bytown Mechanics’Institute and Athenaeum Fonds. R2845-0-2-E (formerly MG28-I1), Volume 2. Libraryand Archives Canada, Ottawa

Boswell, R.2002a How Ottawa’s History Took a Wrong Turn.

The Ottawa Citizen, May 18, 2002, pp. B1-B3.

2002b Solved: Ottawa’s Greatest ArchaeologicalMystery. The Ottawa Citizen, May 18, 2002,pp. A1-A2.

2002c Racing to Save Ottawa’s Past. The OttawaCitizen, April 28, 2002, pp. A9-A10.


Brault, L.1946 Ottawa Old & New. Ottawa Historical

Information Institute, Ottawa.Brousseau, F.

1984 Historique du nouvel emplacement du Muséenational de l’Homme à Hull. CollectionMercure en Histoire No.38. Musée nationalde l’Homme, Ottawa.

Dyck, I.2001 Founding the Anthropology Division at the

National Museum of Canada: AnIntertwining of Science, Religion and Politics.In Revelations: Bi-Millennial Papers from theCanadian Museum of Civilization, edited byR.B. Klymasz and J. Willis, pp. 3-41.Mercury Series Paper 75. Canadian Centrefor Folk Culture Studies. Canadian Museumof Civilization, Hull.

Hirsch, R.F.1992 The Bytown Mechanics’ Institute. Improving

the Mind of the Working Class. BytownPamphlet Series No.39. Historical Society ofOttawa, Ottawa.

Jamieson, J.B. 1999 Histoire de la recherché archéologique dans

la vallée de la rivière des Outaouais/TheHistory of Archaeological Research in theOttawa Valley. Outaouais 6:15-26.

Jenkins, P.1997 An Acre of Time: the Enduring Value of Place.

MacFarlane, Walter and Ross, Toronto.Kapches, M.

1994 Antiquarians to Archaeologists in Nineteenth-Century Toronto. Northeast Anthropology47:87-97.

Keatley, J.O., and F. Desjardins 1991 Archaeological Site Identification Strategy,

Core Area West (Lebreton, Bayview, theIslands and Brewery Creek), Ottawa,Ontario and Hull, Québec. Ms. on file,National Capital Commission, Ottawa.

MacAdam, P. 2002 A Federal Field of Dreams. In The Ottawa

Sunday Sun, June 2, 2002, p. 4.Moffat, M.E.

1973 Dr. Edward Van Cortlandt, 1805-1875,Surgeon, Bytown-Ottawa. Ms. on file,Archives of the City of Ottawa, Ottawa.

Nagy, T.L. 1974 Ottawa in Maps: a Brief Cartographic History

of Ottawa, 1825-1973. National MapCollection, Public Archives Canada, Ottawa.

Pilon, J.-L.2004 Passions and Pastimes: Thomas Walter Edwin

Sowter, the Ottawa Valley’s First Archaeologist.In A Passion for the Past, Papers in Honour ofJames F. Pendergast, edited by J.V. Wright andJ.-L. Pilon, pp. 49-58. Archaeology MercurySeries Paper 164. Canadian Museum ofCivilization, Gatineau, Québec.

Pilon, J.-L. and R. Marois2001 Une question de temps: Plus de 6000 ans

d’histoire dans la région de la capitale nationaledu Canada. In Construire une capitale, Ottawa,Making a Capital, edited by J. Keshen and N.St-Onge, pp.21-37. University of OttawaPress, Ottawa.

Sowter, T.W.E.1895 Notes on the Antiquities of Lake Deschenes.

The Ottawa Naturalist, 9:114-116. 1900 Archaeology of Lake Deschenes. The Ottawa

Naturalist, 13(10):225-238. 1901 Prehistoric Camping Grounds Along the

Ottawa River. The Ottawa Naturalist,15(6):141-151.

1909 Algonkin and Huron Occupation of theOttawa Valley. The Ottawa Naturalist,23:61-68, 92-104.

1915 Highway of the Ottawa. Papers and Records(The Ontario Historical Society) 13:42-52.

1917 Indian Villages. Lake Deschênes. Twenty-Ninth Annual Archaeological Report, pp. 78-85. Appendix to the Report of the Minister ofEducation, Ontario. A.T. Wilgress, Toronto.

Swayze, K.2002 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment of

LeBreton Flats (Excluding Blocks X and W)and Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment,LeBreton Flats (Blocks V, L, M, N, O, K, J,I). Report prepared for Dessau-Soprin Inc.,Gatineau. Ms. on file, National CapitalCommission, Ottawa.

Van Cortlandt, E.1853 Notice of an Indian Burying Ground. The

Canadian Journal, February 1853, pp.160-161.



La discussion scientifique a normalement lieu entre les pages de publications émises par des sociétéssavantes. L’objectif de ces publications est de créer un corpus de données auquel les recherches futurespeuvent ajouter. On a dernièrement identifié un article anonyme publié quelques jours suivant lafouille d’un ossuaire à Ottawa en 1843 par le Dr. Edward Van Cortlandt. Cet article partage plusieurspoints en commun avec un article publié en 1853 par le Dr. Van Cortlandt dans le Canadian Journal.En plus de similitudes évidentes, on note aussi des differences significatives qu’on a de la peine à expli-quer. Ce cas nous rappelle l’importance des publications de sociétés savantes et nous enjoint d’exercerbeaucoup de précautions avant d’accepter des données qui ne peuvent pas être vérifiées.

Jean-Luc PilonCanadian Museum of CivilizationP.O. Box 3100, Station B,100 Laurier Street,Gatineau, Québec J8X [email protected]

Documents

On the Nature of Archaeology in the Ottawa Area and ......tant chapters in the history of Bytown/Ottawa, including the first settlers landing there in the early 1800s, the first tavern,