Rouge RiverRouge RiverRouge RiverRouge River State of the Watershed ReportState of the Watershed ReportState of the Watershed ReportState of the Watershed Report

Cultural HeritageCultural HeritageCultural HeritageCultural Heritage

Goal: Recognition, preservation, and celebration of cultural heritage in the

Rouge River watershed to increase awareness and understanding of past human relationships with the environment.

Cultural HeritageCultural HeritageCultural HeritageCultural Heritage Key Findings:Key Findings:Key Findings:Key Findings:

• For 10,000 years, the Rouge River Watershed has been used by humans in some way, beginning with aboriginal hunters and farmers, explorers, traders, men of God, soldiers, surveyors, and finally settlers.

• Over 1,360 archaeological and heritage sites located in the Rouge River watershed and historical accounts reveal the watershed is rich in heritage value. Knowledge gained from these sites and many more potential sites can provide an appreciation of past human relationships with the environment.

• Early aboriginal inhabitants were nomadic hunters and later farmers and villagers with the introduction of agriculture about AD 700. The 3 acre Milroy site, overlooking Little Rouge River, is an example of a Late Woodland Iroquoian longhouse village, and one of a dozen such sites in the watershed.

• European settlement began in Markham Township in the eighteenth century with the German-speaking Berczy settlement. Settlement in other parts of the watershed was slower due to absentee owners.

• By 1861 there were 54 mills on the River.

• Over 22 architectural styles lend a unique identity to the 19th century Rouge River landscape. This array of architecture has arisen due to the sophistication and complexity of its Euro-Canadian settlers.

• The 2001 Canadian census showed that in the Rouge River watershed people of Canadian or British heritage make up 31% of the population, with the remainder being Chinese (21%), East Indian (9%) and over 35 other cultures.

Summary of Current CondSummary of Current CondSummary of Current CondSummary of Current Condiiiitions Ratings:tions Ratings:tions Ratings:tions Ratings:

Overall RatingOverall RatingOverall RatingOverall Rating Objective:Objective:Objective:Objective:

• Identify, document, protect and celebrate cultural heritage resources.

Good

TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS 11.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE.................................................................................................. 11-1 11.1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 11-1 11.2 Understanding Cultural Heritage in the Rouge River Watershed............................. 11-1 11.2.1 Aboriginal Heritage............................................................................................ 11-4 11.2.2 Euro-Canadian History ...................................................................................... 11-9 11.2.3 20th and 21st Century Culture ........................................................................ 11-12

11.3 Measuring Cultural Heritage.................................................................................... 11-13 11.4 Existing Inventory .................................................................................................... 11-16 11.4.1 Archaeological Sites ........................................................................................ 11-16 11.4.2 Built Heritage Structures.................................................................................. 11-18

11.5 Objective for Cultural Heritage ................................................................................ 11-19 11.6 Summary and Management Considerations .......................................................... 11-23 11.7 References ............................................................................................................... 11-26

LIST OF FIGURESLIST OF FIGURESLIST OF FIGURESLIST OF FIGURES

Figure 11-1: Cultural Heritage Highlight Areas...................................................................... 11-25

LIST OF TABLESLIST OF TABLESLIST OF TABLESLIST OF TABLES

Table 11-1: Heritage Definitions ............................................................................................... 11-2 Table 11-2: Rouge River Watershed Heritage Study Database ............................................ 11-14 Table 11-3: Definition of Terms used in the Cultural Heritage Database.............................. 11-15 Table 11-4: Rouge River Watershed Archaeological Sites: Cultural Affiliation .................... 11-17 Table 11-5: Rouge River Watershed Built Heritage Structures: Original Use ...................... 11-18 Table 11-6: Rouge River Watershed Built Heritage Features by Municipality ...................... 11-19 Table 11-7: Rouge River Watershed Built Heritage Structures: Architectural Style............. 11-20 Table 11-8: Architectural Styles Found in the Rouge River Watershed ................................ 11-21

11-1

Unique Rouge Unique Rouge Unique Rouge Unique Rouge River River River River Watershed FeatureWatershed FeatureWatershed FeatureWatershed Feature

TTTThe Rouge Valley formed the east branch of the famous fur trade route known he Rouge Valley formed the east branch of the famous fur trade route known he Rouge Valley formed the east branch of the famous fur trade route known he Rouge Valley formed the east branch of the famous fur trade route known

as the Toronto Carrying Place Trailas the Toronto Carrying Place Trailas the Toronto Carrying Place Trailas the Toronto Carrying Place Trail....

CHAPTERCHAPTERCHAPTERCHAPTER

11111111

CULTURAL CULTURAL CULTURAL CULTURAL HERITAGEHERITAGEHERITAGEHERITAGE

11.011.011.011.0 CULTURAL CULTURAL CULTURAL CULTURAL HERITAGEHERITAGEHERITAGEHERITAGE 11.111.111.111.1 IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction Over thousands of years and into the present, geological processes such as glaciation, erosion, flooding and deposition have shaped the Rouge River watershed into a region of unique and praiseworthy natural heritage value. They also provided a diverse and resource-rich environment for human occupation. Humankind has always been fascinated with its history. The remains of what was past continue to intrigue and educate us. Evidence of past human settlement, transmitted through material culture (artifacts) is considered a non-renewable environmental resource that can provide information that allows us to contemplate and attempt to understand our present relationship with the environment. This chapter details the known cultural heritage resources, in other words, the history of the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people and remnants of their past in the Rouge River watershed. The chapter also introduces the concept of living culture and various means by which contemporary watershed residents express their diverse cultural heritage. The chapter will contribute to future planning, education, stewardship, and restoration efforts. 11.211.211.211.2 Understanding Cultural Heritage Understanding Cultural Heritage Understanding Cultural Heritage Understanding Cultural Heritage in the Rin the Rin the Rin the Rouge River Watershedouge River Watershedouge River Watershedouge River Watershed The identification of archaeological and architectural resources form the basis for an appreciation of cultural heritage (See Table 11-1 for Definitions).

11-2

Table

Table

Table

Table 11

1111

11- ---1 111:

: :

: Heritage Definitions

Heritage Definitions

Heritage Definitions

Heritage Definitions

Archaeological

Resources

Archaeological Resources are defined as: The remains of any building, structure, event, activity, place or cultural

feature or object which because of the passage of time is on or below the surface of the land or the water and which is

associated with Aboriginal history (pre AD 1608) or the post-contact (historic) period (post AD 1608) in Ontario.

Architectural

Resources

Architectural Resources are defined as: Buildings, structures, or remains built by people which reveal some of the

broad architectural, cultural, social, political, economic or military patterns of Ontario's Euro-Canadian history or are

associated with specific events or people that have shaped Euro-Canadian history. These would include resources

such as: individual buildings; groups of buildings; historic settlements; foundations; cemeteries; barns and other

outbuildings; fences; bridges etc. Architectural Resources of outstanding historical or architectural character can be

protected under the Ontario Heritage Act by being Des

Des

Des

Designated

ignated

ignated

ignated. This procedure requires the passing of a By-Law by

the local municipal government. Architectural Resources considered as potential or candidates for this protective

measure are defined as Listed

Listed

Listed

Listed.

Heritage

Conservation

Districts/Heritage

Area

Heritage Conservation Districts are defined as: Any aggregate of buildings, structures and open spaces that as a

group is a collective asset to the community and which may have architectural, historical, archaeological or scenic

value. Districts may be found in urban and rural environments, and may comprise residential, commercial or industrial

areas, landscapes or entire villages. Heritage Conservation Districts are designated by municipal by-law, under Part V

of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Cultural Heritage

Landscapes

Cultural Heritage landscapes are defined as: Any discrete aggregation of features made by people where the

arrangement of the features that exist in conjunction with one another is representative of distinct cultural processes in

the present and historical development and use of the land within the watershed. Cultural landscapes include any

scenic/heritage or contemporary area perceived as an ensemble of culturally derived landscape features such as a

neighbourhood, a townscape, landscape or waterscape that illustrates noteworthy relationships between people and

their surrounding environment.

For practical purposes Historic Landscapes may be considered as part of, or a subset of, the cultural landscape but

are differentiated by their historical merit. They can be remnant or existing landscapes but have a specific association

to historical events, people, heritage building(s)/structures or archaeological sites. They can be clearly identified as

providing an important contextual and spatial relationship necessary to preserve, interpret or reinforce the

understanding of important historical resources, settings and past patterns of land use.

11-3

Archaeological evidence highlights how watershed resources were used and impacted in the past, revealing environmental reasons for settlement. These relationships include proximity to water (water-taking, food procurement, transportation) soil characteristics (for agriculture), slope conditions (for settlement), local biotic communities (food, shelter, clothing) and landscapes (spirituality). Watershed planning must take these fragile, non-renewable archaeological resources into account in order to facilitate a deeper understanding of our past, present and future relationship with our environment. Another important aspect of the prehistoric legacy of the watershed is found in the study of its cultural ecology. Cultural ecology provides information of our everlasting ties with the watershed and intimate relationship with our environment. Just as archaeology provides us with physical evidence of the human use of the watershed in Ontario’s prehistory, cultural ecology allows us to understand the symbiotic relationship that people had with the land and water. Human settlement was directly dictated by the presence of resources and these resources in turn were impacted through their use by the earliest inhabitants of the watershed. In a manner of speaking, cultural ecology at one level is the study and recognition of prehistoric sustainability. Ontario’s earliest advocates of sustainability recognized the necessity of this form of environmental praxis. Without this understanding they could not have survived. For more than 10,000 years the Rouge River has beheld the pageant of history that has been unrolled before it: Aboriginal hunters and farmers, explorers, traders, men of God, soldiers and surveyors and finally, settlers. They all came to use the river in some way; to make it their home, to earn a living. Today, much of the river still flows through green forests and prosperous fields but, increasingly, it flows by urban development. Its patchwork of small agriculturally-based villages is vanishing as the biggest urban concentration in Canada, the Greater Toronto Area, expands. The story of the Rouge River begins with the Aboriginal peoples who walked this land 10,000 years ago in search of game, and later planted the rich loamy soil with their corn, beans and squash. By the time the first Europeans (the French) arrived in the area, the Aboriginal people on the Rouge River had evolved into a cultural group we call Iroquoian after the language they spoke. From this time forward, glimpses into the past are provided by the written record: maps of exploration, reports, and letters in the early period. Later, these were bolstered by government documents, newspapers and books as the settlement period advanced. The following sections reveal the story of human occupation and cultural ecology that can be interpreted from heritage features.

11-4

11.2.111.2.111.2.111.2.1 Aboriginal HeritageAboriginal HeritageAboriginal HeritageAboriginal Heritage Palaeo-Indian 10,000 to 7,000 B.C. As the glaciers retreated from southern Ontario, nomadic peoples gradually moved into the areas vacated by the massive ice-sheets. These Palaeo-Indians 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 12,000 years ago, the landscape of southern Ontario was very much like the tundra of the present day eastern sub-arctic. This reconstruction is substantiated by the discovery of a single caribou toe-bone at a site in Detroit and the presence of arctic hare, arctic fox and a large ungulate at the Udora site (a Palaeo-Indian encampment) near the south shore of Lake Simcoe. At present, the only evidence of Palaeo-Indians in the Rouge River watershed comes from

three separate isolated finds. The Barker site (AlGu-11), is a multi-component1 site which overlooks the Rouge River, where a single Palaeo-Indian spear point has been found by the land owner. The point is of the "Hi-Lo" type and is typical of Palaeo-Indian tool kits that date to around 10,000 years ago. Although Hi-Lo points were primarily used as spear points for hunting, evidence from elsewhere in southern Ontario suggests that they likely served as multi-purpose tools such as knives and scrapers. As a result, they are most commonly found on occupation sites where they would have been used in a wide variety of tasks, rather than just hunting weapons at isolated short-term encampments. Unfortunately, because no detailed excavations have been carried out at the site, it is not known whether it represents one of the few Palaeo-Indian occupation sites in the province, or a short-term extraction location. Despite the fact that only three Palaeo-Indian artifacts have been found associated with the Rouge River, several well-defined sites are known from areas to the west (the Humber River watershed) and to the east (Peterborough area) suggesting that it is simply a matter of time before more discoveries are made in this watershed. Archaic 7,000 to 1,000 B.C. As the climate in southern Ontario warmed, the 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 do 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 already involved in long range exchange and interaction with one another. The trade networks established at this time were to persist between Native groups until European contact.

1 The term 'multi-component' refers to an archaeological site that was used by various Native groups over a long period of time. Thus, several time periods may be represented at the same site, or location on the landscape.

11-5

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 would have 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 (Ellis et al., 1990). As the seasons changed, and aquatic resources became scarce, these bands split into smaller groups and moved inland to exploit other resources which were available during the fall and winter, such as, deer, rabbit, squirrel and bear which thrived on the forested margins of these areas. Archaeological evidence of the Archaic use of the Lake Ontario shoreline in the vicinity of the Rouge River is poor as any archaeological sites representing these seasonal activities are now under water. There have, however, been forty-three sites and findspots (isolated finds) located in the Rouge River watershed that can be attributed to the "inland" exploitation of the Archaic groups. Typically these sites, or "interior camps," appear on the landscape as scatters of chert

(flint) tools and flakes2 in areas adjacent to where the particular resource would have been. Such is the case with the Pratt site (AlGt-184) which is located on a drumlin just east of Sewells Road overlooking a tributary of Little Rouge River. Artifacts recovered from the surface of this site suggest that a wide range of activities were carried out here by Archaic peoples sometime around 3,000 B.C. Found were two projectile points and two bifaces indicative of hunting and butchering practices; two nodules of chert, or "cores" from which usable flakes were struck during stone tool manufacture; one highly polished groundstone celt used for chopping and carving wood; and one anvil stone that would have served as a platform for crushing and processing plant foods such as nuts. At the Cleave site (AlGt-31), the presence of a groundstone gouge of banded slate suggests that at least some of the Archaic peoples in the Rouge River had a form of transportation since these artifacts, which have a bevelled or channelled end, are thought to have been used in the manufacturing of dug-out wooden canoes (Ellis et al., 1990). Although the 43 sites and findspots would indicate Archaic peoples hunted and camped in the Rouge River watershed, very little else can be said regarding specifics as to their habitation here. This is due in part to the changes in water levels discussed above, but also to the lack of detailed excavation of these sites. The sites representative of these activities are deemed “not significant” due to their small size and they have not been protected from land use change. Without protecting and investigating these small extraction/processing and habitation localities, our understanding of the Archaic use of the Rouge River and Ontario, will never be certain.

2 The term "flake" is used by archaeologists to describe the pieces of chert that are "flaked" off during the stages of stone tool manufacturing.

11-6

Initial Woodland 1,000 B.C. to A.D. 700 Early in the Initial Woodland period (1,000 B.C. - A.D. 0), band size and subsistence activities were generally consistent with the groups of the preceding Archaic. Associated with the earliest components of this cultural period is the introduction of clay pots. Ceramic vessels provide a means for longer term storage of foodstuffs. With the ability to store foodstuffs during times of plenty, the stress of harder times was greatly reduced. Additionally around A.D. 0 a revolutionary new technology, the bow and arrow, was brought into southern Ontario and radically changed the approach to hunting. These two technological innovations allowed for major changes in subsistence-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 'macrobands.' 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 more elaborate burial rituals such as cremation, burial mound construction (as 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 population, and groups as far away as the east coast and the Ohio Valley. To date there are eight sites (including multi-component sites) in the Rouge River watershed that can be attributed to the Initial Woodland period. While the majority of these sites appear to represent short-term campsites, none have received any detailed archaeological investigations, and therefore, not much can be said regarding their function and/or possible settlement patterns. What can be said, however, is that these people were in contact with more southerly groups at some point in their seasonal rounds. The multi-component Murphy-Goulding (AlGu-3) and Barker (AlGu-11) sites, for example, have each produced what archaeologists have termed "Adena" type projectile points that are most commonly found in the tool kits of groups south of the Great Lakes. Similarly, the Garnett site (AlGt-176), located in a field just south of Steeles Avenue and west of the Little Rouge River Valley, has produced several lithic artifacts; including a "Vanport" type projectile point made out of Ohio Flint Ridge chert. Both the shape and the material of this particular point are direct indicators that the people of the Garnett site were receiving trade goods (perhaps via a series of hand-to-hand exchanges involving other groups) from the Initial Woodland groups in present day Ohio and Illinois.

Due to the seasonal mobility of the Initial Woodland bands, as seen with the previous Archaic and Palaeo-Indian groups, their habitation sites do not display evidence of substantial structures, lengthy occupations, or deep or extensive middens (garbage deposits) (Spence et al., 1990). Therefore, their visibility on the landscape is minimal, making them difficult for archaeologists to find. Thus, when they are happened upon, it is important for these sites to be

11-7

properly investigated so that this crucial period of Aboriginal history can be better understood. Ontario Iroquoians (Late Woodland) A.D. 700 to A.D. 1651 Around A.D. 700, corn was introduced into southern Ontario from the south and horticulture became the predominant subsistence base. This gave rise to the tremendous population increase and establishment of permanent villages (which were occupied from 5 to 30 years) associated with the Late Woodland period. The villages consisted of numerous "cigar shaped" structures, or "longhouses," made from wooden posts placed in the ground and tied together at the top in an arch-like fashion. Although these windowless structures were only 7 metres wide (and the same in height) they extended anywhere from 10 to 50 metres in length

providing shelter for up to 50 people3. Quite often these villages, some of which were 1 to 4 hectares in size, were surrounded by multiple rows of palisades, suggesting that defence was a community concern during this period. The Milroy site (AlGt-1) is one of about a dozen Late Woodland villages currently known to be within the Rouge River watershed. In total, it is approximately 3 acres in size and is situated on a plateau overlooking a tributary of Little Rouge River. Excavations at Milroy have recovered numerous artifacts including fragments of ceramic pots, smoking pipes, chert projectile points, scrapers, celts, grinding stones and bone beads. In short, all of the types of artifacts generally associated with village life. Faunal remains at the site consisted of deer, bear, beaver, raccoon, dog, passenger pigeon (which is now extinct), and various types of fish and turtles that would have been available in the nearby water source. Although only small scale excavations have been carried out at the site, part of one longhouse was exposed (Kapches, 1981). Interestingly, the walls of this house were represented at the subsoil level by what are known as “wall trenches.” Wall trenches are shallow, linear trenches that were presumably dug by the house builders in order to plan, or outline, where the longhouse was going to be situated within the village; essentially a blue-print - to assure it would fit comfortably with neighbouring structures. Once the outline of the house was complete, the wooden posts of the house wall were placed in the trench which was then filled in. Wall trenches are relatively rare on Late Woodland sites in Ontario, and are thought to represent attempts of organizing large populations into an already established or limited space. 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 0.5 hectares in size) that were used on a year-round basis by lesser numbers of people that were related to those in the village, but for various reasons lived outside of the village. Several of the sites in the Rouge River watershed are thought to represent Late Woodland hamlet sites. The Burkholder 2 site (AlGt-35) for example, is thought to be a hamlet site. Surveyed several times over the past few years, Burkholder 2 has produced numerous artifacts indicative of a wide range of activities - despite the fact that it is only 0.5 hectares in size.

3 This number is based on a longhouse with 4 hearths, one family on either side of each hearth, and six people in each family. Past researchers have employed similar models based on what is known from the early missionaries that lived among these Iroquoian groups in the seventeenth century.

11-8

Cabin sites are those sites that consist of just one longhouse, perhaps built for those individuals whose crops of corn were a fair distance away from the original village. As such, they were only inhabited on a seasonal basis during times of planting and harvest. A number of sites within the Rouge River watershed are thought to be cabin sites related to larger villages. Finally, there are several sites within the watershed that appear to be special purpose campsites, that is, 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 rarely have any indications of structural remains. The pottery types found at these sites date from between A.D. 1300 to 1450. This was a time when a number of social changes were taking place in Iroquoian society, as reflected in the florescence of smoking pipe types (which were used as magio-religious implements, increased size in settlements, and distinct clustering of both longhouses within villages (clan development) and villages within a region (tribal development) (Dodd et al., 1990). 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/patrilocal societies of the preceding band-oriented groups to a matrilineal/matrilocal orientation, where women, as the major provider of food, played an integral role in the political life of the Ontario Iroquois groups. After centuries of small scale warfare and the gradual depletion of such resources as soil nutrients and firewood, the Late Woodland groups that inhabited the Rouge River and adjacent watersheds 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. Ultimately, both of these groups were exterminated through contact with Europeans (and their diseases) and continued warfare with the Iroquois from New York State. Contact A.D. 1650-1800 Following the dispersal of the Petun and Huron by the Iroquois in 1650, southern Ontario lay vacant for fifteen years. Then, during the mid 1660's in an attempt to expand their fur hunting grounds to the north, the Iroquois established a number of villages along the north shore of Lake Ontario. One of these, called Gandatsekiagon, was built by the Seneca upstream from the mouth of the Rouge River. This was a strategic position for two reasons. First, the village was in a prime location to control the trade routes along the north shore. Second, the Rouge River could be followed to a portage that led to the east branch of the Holland River and from there to Lake Simcoe. Archaeologically, Gandatsekiagon is believed to correspond to the Bead Hill site (AkGs-8) where evidence from test excavations suggests that the Seneca village was home to about 500 to 800 people for about 22 years (1665-1687). Written accounts by those Europeans who visited Gandatsekiagon itself indicate that the village played a key role in the trade and interaction between the two cultures during this politically turbulent era of Canada's history - a

11-9

fact confirmed by the number of seventeenth century European and Native artifacts that have been recovered from this site to date. As such, the Bead Hill site was designated as a site of national historical significance by the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board in November 1991. 11.2.211.2.211.2.211.2.2 EuroEuroEuroEuro----Canadian HistoryCanadian HistoryCanadian HistoryCanadian History Early French Period The historic period is said to have begun in Ontario in the winter of 1614-1615 when Samuel de Champlain traversed the Ottawa-French River canoe route and made his way to Huronia. While wintering in a Huron village and learning the customs and culture of the people, he explored this new territory and sent colleagues on errands that took them through, what was for them, uncharted territory. While there is no direct evidence that either Champlain or his associate Etienne Brûlé ventured into the watershed of the Rouge River, Brûlé probably walked the length of the Humber Trail on his way to an embassage with the allies of the Hurons to the south of the Great Lakes. They doubtless learned of the existence of the Rouge River and its associated trail. The famous Toronto Carrying-Place Trail had two arms: the more widely known Humber River arm to the west of what is now Toronto and to the east, the Rouge River arm. These two arms of the same passage seem to have been used as alternates depending upon the preferences of the users, the direction in which they were travelling, and the political situation prevailing at the time. Both arms are approximately the same length, the Rouge River path being slightly longer at 23 miles in length. Both arms lead the traveller from the shores of Lake Ontario over the Oak Ridges Moraine and down to the Holland River-Lake Simcoe watershed, and thence into Georgian Bay and the upper Great Lakes. This relatively easy passage cut short the long and often dangerous journey via Niagara Falls, Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair. It seems that each of these two arms was favoured during different periods in the past. Based upon archaeological evidence of settlement patterns and documents dating to the French period in Ontario, the Rouge River arm seems to have been the one in use earlier. The Humber branch was favoured later and at the time of European contact. The Seneca moved into the abandoned territory of the north shore of Lake Ontario after the annihilation and expulsion of the Iroquoian-speaking tribes of Ontario by 1650 at the hands of the Iroquoian tribes south of the Lake. However, it was at the foot of the Rouge River trail that the Sulpician priests from Montreal, Fathers Fénelon and d’Urfé, decided to establish their mission in 1669. The winter they spent there is the first recorded residence of Europeans in the vicinity of Toronto. The Seneca village of Ganatsekwyagon (or Gandatsekiagon) was established here at about the same time as her sister village of Teiaiagon was set up at the foot of the Humber arm of the portage. Also in 1669, possibly before the mission was established, the notable explorers, Péré and Joliet, camped for a while at Ganatsekwyagon before they made their way up the Toronto passage on their way to Lake Superior to search for a fabled copper mine. Some of the details

11-10

of this trip, of the Rouge River Trail and of Ganatsekwyagon appear on the very early Dollier-Gallinée map (Robinson:1933). The first detailed map of the Lake Ontario region has been ascribed to Joliet and was drawn not earlier than 1673. This is the first map upon which the name “Toronto” appears. Both Teiaiagon and Ganatsekwyagon appear as well as a dotted line indicating the Rouge River branch of the Carrying-Place Trail (Robinson, 1933: facing p. 21). Ganatsekwyagon was strategically placed to intercept traffic to the upper lakes and to control the flow of furs and trade goods on their way to and from the Dutch, English and French. The village was relatively short-lived from about 1665 to 1687 when it appears to have been abandoned because of changes in the balance of power and in the politics of the region. Still, those years saw the passage of many early figures in Canadian history: la Salle, Péré and Joliet, Fénelon and others. Because in this early period the Toronto Carrying-Place Trail could refer to either the Humber or the Rouge River branches, there were doubtless other visits from figures in our history but we are sometimes unsure which half of the trail they followed. Early Settlement Period With the defeat of the French at Quebec in 1759, the power passed to the English regime. French traders still plied the waters along the north shore of Lake Ontario and would certainly have used the Toronto Carrying-Place portage. When a flood of loyalist refugees from the new United States put pressure on the British administration to find land for them as compensation for their losses, eyes turned toward Toronto. Land was secured by treaty and surveyed, and conveyed to settlers with legitimate claims. However, the Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, John Graves Simcoe, largely ignored the Rouge River. Unlike the Humber arm of the Toronto Carrying-Place Trail, which he traversed shortly after arriving in Toronto (York), he does not seem to have visited the Rouge River Trail. Some of the earliest European settlers on the Rouge River were a group of German-speaking farmers lead by artist, architect, and businessman William von Moll Berczy. Berczy had organized a group of Mennonites to emigrate and settle in upper New York State in 1793. After a difficult start there due to some business disagreements Berczy appealed to the government of Upper Canada to allow his group to settle there. Filling up the hinterland of York with a sturdy farming class seemed appropriate to men like Simcoe. This idea appealed to him and Dorchester, the Governor. In the winter of 1794-5 the lots became available and families began travelling overland to claim their lots. A block of land was assigned for Berczy’s Germans in Markham Township from about Lots 6 or 7 to Lot 25, Concessions II to VI. Part of the bonus for the government was the road clearing duties assigned to the party. By 1796, the Yonge Street allowance bordering the German settlement had been made passable as well as several surveyed Concession and Side roads within the settlement. In addition, it appears that Berczy also cleared and “improved” the ancient Rouge River arm of the Toronto Carrying-Place Trail. There are accounts of some of the settlers travelling along the Rouge River in bateaux and thence on a trail to reach their lots in Markham. Berczy wrote that the Rouge River was navigable by canoe and bateau as far upstream as Lot 6, Concession III. There is a sharp bend in the river at that spot and he noted that it would make a good landing place for off-loading goods to the trail. This area is the location of the nineteenth century Kirkham’s Mill.

11-11

The Berczy German settlement had a major impact on the watershed. Families bearing names which appeared on those early patents still live today in the area. They prospered as farmers and business owners building mills and founding communities. Settlement patterns of building on the backs of lots to be nearer adjacent families was evident on Concession roads II, V and VII until well into the second half of this century. Another “planned” community, Windham, was underway in 1797. A group of French Royalist refugees was encouraged to move from England and settle in a reserve set aside for them in Whitchurch Township. Many of the Windham settlers were army veterans. Having them settle close to the portage along Yonge Street, a military supply route, meant that they could act as militia guarding the vital link to the interior, useful in the climate of aggression that hung over the new colony. The exercise was a miserable failure as the officers and gentlemen were poorly adapted to clearing farms out of the bush. Later Settlement Period While the portion of the watershed in Markham was settled very early on, the part which passed through Scarborough and southwestern Pickering, as well as the upper reaches in Whitchurch Township, were all very slow to be settled. This was largely because of absentee landowners. Many of what would later be called the Family Compact who had settled in York had taken the additional lands to which they were entitled as United Empire Loyalists or for military service, in neighbouring townships like Scarborough. In this way they were close enough to York for the owners to keep an eye on them to discourage squatting, and also to deal with buyers and arrange sales when prices improved. Many of the choice lots in the watershed, as elsewhere, were reserved for the support of the Anglican church. This meant that settlers wanting to buy land, rather than improve with back-breaking labour a rented property, had to look farther afield. By 1817 there were 8 mills on the Rouge River. The majority were sawmills. The old Rouge River Trail had been opened up for wagons and was certainly comfortably passable in winter. There was still no settlement at all in the watershed in the townships of Scarborough and Pickering. By 1861 the number of mills had grown to 54. There were 36 water-powered sawmills, 10 grist mills, 4 woollen mills and 4 steam-driven sawmills on the various tributaries of the Rouge River. The ancient Rouge River Trail had passed out of use. Highway 2, the Kingston Road, was already improved to an all-weather thoroughfare. Highway 48, the Markham Road, was now the main north-south road in the watershed. By this time settlement had advanced to the point that there were about 17 recognized villages and many smaller hamlets and crossroads communities. Some of the larger settlements included: Rouge Hill, Cedar Grove, Milneville, Lemonville, Markham, Unionville, Cashel, Gormley’s Corners, Buttonville and Headford. William Lyon Mackenzie’s Rebellion of 1837 had many supporters in the watershed. Planning meetings took place in the homes of agitators for reform in Markham and Whitchurch Townships. After the debacle ended many of the rebels fled into the watershed. Mackenzie himself is said to have sheltered in a house that was formerly on the property around the Bruce Mill and David Gibson fled across Scarborough and Pickering escaping in a schooner from the

11-12

mouth of the Rouge River (ODPD, 1956). As in the case of all the townships around Toronto, the area drained by the Rouge River experienced rural depopulation after the mid-nineteenth century. Although descendents of these first settlers continue to reside in the watershed, they have been joined by new settlers throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. 11.2.311.2.311.2.311.2.3 20th and 21st Century Culture20th and 21st Century Culture20th and 21st Century Culture20th and 21st Century Culture Since the first European settlers arrived in the watershed, there have been waves of immigration throughout the 20th century and generations of families that have each made their mark on the watershed’s cultural landscape and adapted to its natural elements. The Mennonite farming communities carried on in the eastern and northern portions of the watershed, and many of the family names can still be observed on signage along the roads. Farms buildings exhibit their unique architectural styles. The lower Rouge River area south of Highway 2 has been the local recreational “cottage country” since Victorian times. Cedarena, built in the 1920s, remains in use as an example of a natural outdoor skating rink in the valley near the hamlet of Cedar Grove. The watershed underwent a population boom in the post World War II years as returning veterans looked to the new suburbs of Scarborough, Markham and Unionville to raise their burgeoning families. The Villages of Markham and Unionville, located along the mid reaches of the Main Rouge River, subsequently suffered some flood damage in 1954 in response to Hurricane Hazel. Several bridges were lost in the high flows, and so temporary Bailey Bridges were installed until new permanent bridges could be built. An example of these bridges remains in use today, on Old Finch Road in Scarborough. The expropriation of farmland in east Markham and Pickering by the federal and provincial governments in the early 1970s for a future airport has meant that a significant portion of land has remained in agricultural uses in contrast to the neighbouring urban areas. These countryside landscapes have become a valued component of the watershed’s heritage. The Rouge River remained relatively rural in character until the 1970s, when more urban growth began to occur in Scarborough and Markham. In recent years, the waves of immigrants have come from an increasingly broad range of cultural backgrounds. The present built landscape reflects the architectural styles that have evolved through time and are reflective of the different cultural communities, such as can be seen in the many churches in the watershed. New Canadians

The role and impact of immigration continues to be seen in the changing cultural fabric of the watershed’s residents. As of the 2001 Canadian census, the prevalent ethnic origins in the Rouge River watershed remained Canadian or British heritage (31%), followed by Chinese (21%), East Indian (9%). Italian (5%), Jamaican (3%) and a long list of other groups respectively lesser proportions. Of the recent immigrants (i.e. those who immigrated to Canada between 1996 and 2001), the predominant countries of origin were: Hong Kong

11-13

(27%), China (18%), and India (10%). The remaining new immigrants come from over 35 different countries. Many new Canadians celebrate their cultural heritage and continue to practice their traditions. They are also often keen to learn about their adopted Canadian heritage. They are common users of local tourist destinations and natural spaces, and are often eager volunteers in events, such as tree planting, where they can begin to develop a sense of community. This means that there is an ever evolving living culture in the watershed that should be appreciated and documented. In addition, there is a need to understand the changing needs and appreciation of nature. There are opportunities to offer educational programs which will welcome newcomers and encourage the exchange of cultural heritage and stewardship of the natural environment. Living Expressions of Culture There are many ways in which we express our past and present relationships with the environment. Photography, drawing, painting, and performance arts are just a few of the activities that help foster an awareness and appreciation for living things and enstill in us a sense of stewardship. These forms of media can also represent some of the most compelling means of communication about the need for protection and conservation of natural and cultural heritage. By looking at the past work of artists, we can learn of their perspectives on their environment. The Varley Gallery in Unionville houses a collection of the Group of Seven Artist Frederick Horsman Varley’s work. Varley lived in Unionville in the early 20th century. Gardening represents another form of cultural expression, in the choice of foods, plants and design. By working with the soil and relying on the garden as a source of food, we also learn to respect the natural environment. These “living cultural” forms of expression should be promoted and celebrated as a means of engaging new and existing members of the community in an entertaining celebration of the watershed’s natural and cultural heritage. The Rouge River watershed is and has always been linked economically and developmentally to the greater Toronto area. Luckily, much of the river’s “green” setting has been preserved in Rouge Park and TRCA’s conservation areas along its path, providing a basis for contemporary residents to explore their relationship with nature. 11.311.311.311.3 Measuring Cultural HeritageMeasuring Cultural HeritageMeasuring Cultural HeritageMeasuring Cultural Heritage An analysis was undertaken for the present study to provide an open-ended inventory of the cultural heritage resources within the Rouge River watershed. These non-renewable resources include archaeological sites that have been registered with the Ontario Ministry of Culture and heritage buildings and other structures, plus plaques and cemeteries, that have been identified by municipal and provincial heritage agencies. Each feature or resource was researched and mapped in order to obtain a basic understanding of the relationships between resources, as well as their relationships to the natural features within the watershed. Ontario Base Maps

11-14

were used, at a scale of 1:10,000 and, from these, Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates were derived for each heritage feature for GIS purposes. The database is accessible by computer in a format that is modelled on the Heritage Record Form For Environmental Assessments, contained within the Ontario Ministry of the Environment's “Guideline For Preparing The Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments”, 1992. Table 11-2 illustrates an example of the ‘fields’ employed in the database, and Table 11-3 presents definitions of terms. To facilitate an understanding of the distribution of sites, the database is divided into seven subwatersheds: Little Rouge, Lower Rouge, Middle Rouge, Upper Rouge Rivers, Rouge Marshes, and Berczy and Bruce Creeks. Appendix A presents a case study of a historical site in the watershed.

Table Table Table Table 11111111----2222: : : : Rouge Rouge Rouge Rouge River River River River Watershed Heritage Study DatabaseWatershed Heritage Study DatabaseWatershed Heritage Study DatabaseWatershed Heritage Study Database

FieldFieldFieldField DescriptionDescriptionDescriptionDescription DataDataDataData

NAME Name Maple Villa

ADDRESS Address 159 Main St, Markham

ORIGNLUSE Original Use Residential

DATECONSTR Date of Construction 1845

REFERENCE Reference MVHCD (6)-82

DESIGNATED Designation (designated/Listed, Listed or not applicable)

EXTENT Number of Structures (single, Single or multiple)

OBM OBM (map number) 73

NORTHING UTM North Coordinate 4859785

EASTING UTM East Coordinate 639700

SUBWTRSHED Subwatershed number 6-Lower Rouge

MUNICIPALI Municipality Markham

OBMID OBM Sheet Site Identifier yellow-170

ARCHSTL Architectural Style Vernacular

11-15

Table Table Table Table 11111111----3333: : : : Definition of Terms used in the Cultural Heritage DatabaseDefinition of Terms used in the Cultural Heritage DatabaseDefinition of Terms used in the Cultural Heritage DatabaseDefinition of Terms used in the Cultural Heritage Database

Definition of TermsDefinition of TermsDefinition of TermsDefinition of Terms

Historical Those built structures and heritage areas with an original construction date that allows for heritage status. Many of the extant structures have obtained a Designated or Listed status.

Single Extent Those extant historical entries that consist of one structure, such as a residence.

Multiple Extent Those extant entries that consist of more than one associated structure, such as a residence and its original outbuildings.

Heritage Area Also known as Heritage Conservation Districts, these are any aggregate of buildings, structures and open spaces that as a group may have architectural, historical, archaeological or scenic value.

Cultural Landscapes These represent discrete aggregations of features where that arrangement of the features that exist in conjunction with one another is representative of distinct cultural processes and historical development and use of the land.

Numerous volumes describing the history of the Rouge River watershed have been written. One of the most comprehensive and among the best of these histories is the historical summary contained within the Rouge Valley Conservation Report, (ODPD, 1956). Of particular importance is the wealth of spatial information provided. The Conservation Report describes, in some detail, the location of numerous historic structures or landscapes. For example, the discussion and mapping of the mills in the watershed provided general data which may allow for the inclusion of these important resources in the data base. It is important to note that mills were fundamental to the development of communities in Upper Canada, and while in most instances these mills are represented now as archaeological sites, they must be included in any inventory of an historic landscape. Recently, several reports have been prepared by the TRCA for the Rouge Park which summarize the cultural heritage resources of the Rouge River watershed. These reports include: • Rouge Valley Watershed: Cultural Heritage Program For Inventory And Archaeological Data Consolidation (1998);

• 2002 Archaeological Inventory of the Oak Ridges Moraine Area of the Rouge Watershed; • 2003 Archaeological Inventory of the Little Rouge Area of the Rouge Watershed.

There are two main themes which limit the study. The first concern deals with the level and quantity of data which is available for each site. In respect to contemporary features and landscapes, without field checking each site, it was not possible, in many cases, to determine or confirm the actual name and address of selected properties. Future studies of this nature should incorporate field investigation within the methodological approach. In addition, individual Heritage Inventories vary considerably in terms of the level of data provided. Without

11-16

conducting an exhaustive research program, examining each heritage property or primary documentation, it was impossible to be consistent in providing specific data (i.e., type of architecture) across the watershed. The second problem involves the quality and reliability of spatial data. Again this information varies depending upon the source data. As an example, the mill locations provided by Blake are delineated on several small scale maps. Consequently, the locations are very general. When incorporated into the present study, the position of each mill was defined on OBM's based upon a best estimate of the original location. Even when actual locations were available (for example from the Toronto Historical Board) this information had to be transferred onto the current study’s base maps. When moving from 1:2000 scale to 1:10000 scale maps, generalization again is built into the process. The above problems can be addressed by incorporating field examination of individual sites and by using larger scale maps (1:2000). Individual Municipal Heritage Committees should be encouraged to standardize the information basis of inventories. 11.411.411.411.4 Existing InventoryExisting InventoryExisting InventoryExisting Inventory A total of 1,360 heritage sites has been identified to date in the Rouge River watershed, including archaeological and architectural resources. 11.4.111.4.111.4.111.4.1 Archaeological SArchaeological SArchaeological SArchaeological Sitesitesitesites It is well established that human activity has always centred near rivers and lakes to fill the need for a stable water supply, to utilize associated resources, and to take advantage of transportation potential. All orders of streams throughout the Rouge River watershed provided ample opportunity for human utilization of aquatic resources. The Rouge River watershed contains 369 surveyed archaeological sites (Table 11-4) and the potential for many more. A large central area of the watershed has not been intensively surveyed yet. Also absent from the data are the many historic mills (50 -100) that were in use during the Euro-Canadian settlement of the valley systems for which there is no spatial information. The potential for discovery of additional archaeological sites is limited only by urbanization and the lack of research. Future studies will endeavour to enhance field investigations and confirm the location of mill sites. The Rouge River archaeological sites represent a use of the watershed by both Aboriginal peoples and Euro-Canadians for the past 10,000 years. To place the cultural history into the proper context, refer to Section 11.2 which briefly encapsulates the Aboriginal and Euro-Canadian historic cultural periods (and associated diachronic positions) for the archaeological record of the Rouge River watershed.

11-17

Table Table Table Table 11111111----4444: : : : Rouge Rouge Rouge Rouge River River River River Watershed Archaeological Sites: Cultural AffiliationWatershed Archaeological Sites: Cultural AffiliationWatershed Archaeological Sites: Cultural AffiliationWatershed Archaeological Sites: Cultural Affiliation

TYPETYPETYPETYPE SUBWATERSHEDS*SUBWATERSHEDS*SUBWATERSHEDS*SUBWATERSHEDS*

1111 2222 3333 4444 5555 6666 7777 TotalTotalTotalTotal TTTTotalotalotalotal

PPPPalaeoIndianalaeoIndianalaeoIndianalaeoIndian 3333

Undetermined 3 - - - - - - 3

ArchaicArchaicArchaicArchaic 43434343

Early 3 1 1 1 - - - 6

Middle 4 1 - 1 - - - 6

Late 10 1 4 4 1 20

Undetermined 10 1 - - - - - 11

WoodlandWoodlandWoodlandWoodland 43434343

Early - - - 2 - - - 2

Middle - - - 1 - - 1 2

Late 4 1 - 1 1 1 - 8

Middle Iroquoian 4 6 - 1 - - - 11

Late Iroquoian 5 - - 3 - 1 - 9

Undetermined 5 4 1 1 - - - 11

HistoricHistoricHistoricHistoric 79797979

Seneca - 2 - - 2 - - 4

Mississauga 1 1 - - - - - 2

Euro-Canadian 23 16 14 16 - 2 2 73

MultiMultiMultiMulti----ComponentComponentComponentComponent 4 - - - - - 1 5 5555

UndeterminedUndeterminedUndeterminedUndetermined 100 27 16 25 0 11 17 196 196196196196

TotalTotalTotalTotal 176176176176 61616161 36363636 56565656 3333 16161616 21212121 369369369369 * 1) Little Rouge River, 2) Lower Rouge River, 3) Beaver Creek, 4) Upper Rouge River, 5) Delta Marsh, 6) Berczy Creek, and 7) Bruce Creek.

11-18

11.4.211.4.211.4.211.4.2 Built Heritage StructuresBuilt Heritage StructuresBuilt Heritage StructuresBuilt Heritage Structures The current database for the Rouge River watershed includes 991 built heritage structures located through Municipal Heritage Committee inventories of buildings of architectural and historical importance and their original use (Table 11-5). It should be noted that this list is not definitive. If an individual structure is not classified as “Designated” or “Listed” by a municipality, it is not included in the local inventory and consequently is not included in the present study. Table 11-6 defines the distribution of the built heritage features for each municipality and by subwatershed.

Table Table Table Table 11111111----5555: : : : Rouge River Watershed Built HeriRouge River Watershed Built HeriRouge River Watershed Built HeriRouge River Watershed Built Heritage Structures: Original Usetage Structures: Original Usetage Structures: Original Usetage Structures: Original Use

TYPETYPETYPETYPE SUBWATERSHEDS*SUBWATERSHEDS*SUBWATERSHEDS*SUBWATERSHEDS*

1111 2222 3333 4444 5555 6666 7777 TotalTotalTotalTotal

ResidentialResidentialResidentialResidential 247 275 105 79 - 96 77 879

ReligiousReligiousReligiousReligious 3 3 8 1 - 4 1 20

FarmFarmFarmFarm - - - - - - 2 2

EducationalEducationalEducationalEducational 2 4 - 3 - - 4 13

InstitutionalInstitutionalInstitutionalInstitutional - 3 - 1 - - - 4

CommercialCommercialCommercialCommercial 5 5 - - 1 - 11

BridgeBridgeBridgeBridge 1 2 - - - - - 3

CemeteryCemeteryCemeteryCemetery 20 10 14 6 - 3 3 56

MillMillMillMill 1 1 - - - - - 2

CairnCairnCairnCairn - - - 1 - - - 1

TOTALTOTALTOTALTOTAL 274 303 132 91 0 104 87 991

* 1) Little Rouge River, 2) Lower Rouge River, 3) Beaver Creek, 4) Upper Rouge River, 5) Delta Marsh, 6) Berczy Creek, and 7) Bruce Creek.

11-19

Table Table Table Table 11111111----6666: : : : Rouge River Wate Rouge River Wate Rouge River Wate Rouge River Watershed Built Heritage Features by rshed Built Heritage Features by rshed Built Heritage Features by rshed Built Heritage Features by MunicipalitMunicipalitMunicipalitMunicipalityyyy

TYPETYPETYPETYPE SUBWATERSHEDS*SUBWATERSHEDS*SUBWATERSHEDS*SUBWATERSHEDS*

1111 2222 3333 4444 5555 6666 7777 TotalTotalTotalTotal

Whitchurch-Stouffville 129 - - 1 - 26 36 192

Markham 121 286 126 32 - 44 48 657

Richmond Hill 1 - 6 58 - 34 3 102

(Toronto) Scarborough 23 17 - - - - - 40

TOTAL 274 303 132 91 0 104 87 991

* 1) Little Rouge River, 2) Lower Rouge River, 3) Beaver Creek, 4) Upper Rouge River, 5) Delta Marsh, 6) Berczy Creek, and 7) Bruce Creek.

The sophistication and complexity of the Euro-Canadian settlement of the Rouge River watershed are demonstrated in the vast array of architecture found in the heritage structures defined in this project. Over 22 different architectural styles (Table 11-7 and Table 11-8) for descriptions) lend a unique identity to the 19th century Rouge River landscape which sets it apart from other areas in the Toronto area. 11.511.511.511.5 Objective for Cultural HeritageObjective for Cultural HeritageObjective for Cultural HeritageObjective for Cultural Heritage The objective of “to identify, document and protect cultural heritage resources” was adopted to address cultural heritage in the Rouge River watershed. This is provided below, along with the indicators, measures, targets and an associated rating for existing conditions in the watershed.

Overall RatinOverall RatinOverall RatinOverall Ratingggg Objective:Objective:Objective:Objective: Identify, documentIdentify, documentIdentify, documentIdentify, document, , , , protect protect protect protect and celebrate and celebrate and celebrate and celebrate cultural cultural cultural cultural heritage resourcesheritage resourcesheritage resourcesheritage resources....

GoodGoodGoodGood

IndicatorIndicatorIndicatorIndicator MeasureMeasureMeasureMeasure TargetTargetTargetTarget

Cultural heritage resources

Database of known archaeological, historic and burial sites; and built structures.

Increase the database of known archaeological, historic and burial sites, and built structures.

An overall rating of “Good” for cultural heritage reflects a watershed where work is progressing toward identifying gaps in the data but improvement is required.

11-20

Table Table Table Table 11111111----7777: : : : Rouge River Watershed Built Heritage Structures: Architectural Style Rouge River Watershed Built Heritage Structures: Architectural Style Rouge River Watershed Built Heritage Structures: Architectural Style Rouge River Watershed Built Heritage Structures: Architectural Style

FrequencyFrequencyFrequencyFrequency PercentPercentPercentPercent

VernacularVernacularVernacularVernacular 346 34.9

Ontario HouseOntario HouseOntario HouseOntario House 97 9.8

GeorgianGeorgianGeorgianGeorgian 90 49.1

Classical RevivalClassical RevivalClassical RevivalClassical Revival 70 7.1

PicturesquePicturesquePicturesquePicturesque 67 6.8

Edwardian/FoursquareEdwardian/FoursquareEdwardian/FoursquareEdwardian/Foursquare 62 6.3

Georgian RevivalGeorgian RevivalGeorgian RevivalGeorgian Revival 59 6

Burial PlacesBurial PlacesBurial PlacesBurial Places 56 5.7

Gothic RevivalGothic RevivalGothic RevivalGothic Revival 55 5.5

Queen Anne RevivalQueen Anne RevivalQueen Anne RevivalQueen Anne Revival 17 1.7

ItalianateItalianateItalianateItalianate 13 1.3

RegencyRegencyRegencyRegency 11 1.1

Second EmpireSecond EmpireSecond EmpireSecond Empire 9 0.9

Regency CottageRegency CottageRegency CottageRegency Cottage 7 0.7

Arts and CraftArts and CraftArts and CraftArts and Craft 6 0.6

MennoniteMennoniteMennoniteMennonite 5 0.5

Dutch ColonialDutch ColonialDutch ColonialDutch Colonial 4 0.4

BoomtownBoomtownBoomtownBoomtown 3 0.3

BridgeBridgeBridgeBridge 3 0.3

Romanesque RevivalRomanesque RevivalRomanesque RevivalRomanesque Revival 2 0.2

Shed/BarnShed/BarnShed/BarnShed/Barn 2 0.2

UnknownUnknownUnknownUnknown 2 0.2

MillMillMillMill 2 0.2

ChateauesqueChateauesqueChateauesqueChateauesque 1 0.1

Fieldstone CairnFieldstone CairnFieldstone CairnFieldstone Cairn 1 0.1

Ethnic TraditionEthnic TraditionEthnic TraditionEthnic Tradition 1 0.1

TotalTotalTotalTotal 991991991991 100100100100

11-21

Table

Table

Table

Table 11

1111

11- ---8 888:

: :

: Architectural Styles Found in the Rouge River Watershed

Architectural Styles Found in the Rouge River Watershed

Architectural Styles Found in the Rouge River Watershed

Architectural Styles Found in the Rouge River Watershed

Style

Style

Style

Style

Description

Description

Description

Description

Boomtown

A style commonly used for commercial structures during the mid-1800s. The Boomtown style is characterized by a front gable

roof hidden by a false facade to make the structure appear a full storey taller. The top of the ‘crown’ was typically rectangular or

stepped.

Bridge

A structure linking two sections of road or pathway over an obstacle such as a river.

Burial Place

A cemetery, family burial ground, or other location where deceased individuals have been interred.

Cenotaph

A monument erected in memory of members of a community, generally in military service, who died in war.

Classical Revival

Also called Neo-Classical, this style is characterized by its balanced composition (often symmetrical), low pitch gabled roofs

(often with returned eaves) or square hipped roofs, and the use of columns, pediments, and elliptical transoms with sidelights

around the doors. The architectural details are reminiscent of Roman or Greek architecture.

Edwardian/

Foursquare

Edwardian houses are built on a square or rectangular plan. They generally have medium to high pitch hipped roofs, usually

with one or more dorm

ers, and are two to three stories high. The front entrance often has a porch or stoop, and windows are

rectangular. Foursquare houses are essentially Edwardian houses built on a square plan. Most Edwardian or Foursquare

houses were built between 1900 and 1925.

Georgian

A house of this style is built on a rectangular plan and will generally have a medium pitch gable roof with returned eaves, a

symmetrical facade with the door at the centre, and paired chimneys on each side. Other common elements include a frieze

under the eaves, a transom and sidelights around the door, and in larger structures, a second floor hall light in the centre of the

front facade. Larger Georgian houses often have a Palladian window on the front facade over the entrance. Most surviving

Georgian houses in Ontario were built between 1830 and 1850.

Georgian Revival

These houses are almost identical in design to Georgian houses. The primary difference is the date of construction, which is

generally after 1850 but before the turn of the century.

Gothic Revival

These houses are irregular in plan and have multiple-gabled, steeply pitched roofs, often over “G

othic” (pointed) windows.

Other elements of traditional Gothic architecture that sometimes occur (especially on Churches) include buttresses and high

pointed steeples or belfries. Some Gothic Revival houses have decorative bargeboard in the gables and may resemble

Picturesque houses. They were commonly built between 1860 and 1880.

11-22

Italianate

Italianate houses in Ontario vary greatly in plan, but are recognized by their elongated, arched windows,

often with elaborate moulded hoods or surrounds. Some houses had towers incorporated into the

construction, or lantern openings on the roof. Other common features include hipped roofs, overhanging

bracketed eaves, arched porches, and balustraded balconies.

Ontario House

These commonly occurring houses are built to a rectangular or “T” plan, and are symmetrical in design.

They usually have medium to high pitched gable roofs with a centre or cross gable over a decorative

window on the front facade. These gable windows are often Gothic or Arched. In older structures there

may be a “suicide door” in place of the gable window, and the end gables may feature returned eaves.

Many Ontario Houses have been embellished with decorative wood trim under the eaves and in the

gables. These houses were generally built between 1875 to 1900, though earlier examples exist. Some

Ontario houses may be modified Georgian or Georgian Revival houses.

Picturesque

This style of house is generally built on an “L” plan, with a medium or high pitch gabled roof, and an

entrance and verandah in the enclave. The projecting section of the front facade contains a single or

double storey bay window. Other windows usually have segmental heads. Elaborate bargeboards,

pendils, and other decorative elements are common on gables, under the eaves, and around the verandah

roof, if any. These houses were built between 1880 and 1900, with some earlier examples.

Romanesque

Revival

These structures are generally rectangular in plan, with a projecting portico and an elaborate entrance.

Doors are often surrounded by a transom and sidelights. W

indows are generally long and often round

headed. The use of columns and other monumental ornamentation characterizes this style. Townhouses

and public buildings built in this style often have carved stone ornamentation. This style was most popular

between 1880 and 1910.

Saltbox

A 1 to 1.5 storey residential structure topped by a shed roof, which is form

ed by a high-pitched plane

covering the entire structure, with the peak at the front and the slope towards the rear.

Vernacular

A structure not designed by an architect in a recognized style. The building reflects locally available

materials, environmental factors and prevailing tastes. Form

often follows function in these structures.

War-time Bungalow A narrow, rectangular residence with a low-pitched gable or, less frequently, a hipped roof, and often

containing small front porches. Often, entire subdivisions built during the Second W

orld W

ar contained

variations of this style.

11-23

11.611.611.611.6 SummarSummarSummarSummary and Management Considerationsy and Management Considerationsy and Management Considerationsy and Management Considerations Over 1,360 archaeological and heritage sites located in the Rouge River watershed and historical accounts from various published volumes reveal that the watershed is rich in heritage value. From a cultural ecology perspective, these cultural heritage resources help to gain an appreciation for past human relationships with the environment. For more than 10,000 years, people have used the Rouge River in some way. Artifacts such as spear points from the Paleo-Indian, Archaic, and Initial Woodland periods (10,000 BC to 700 AD) give evidence that the early aboriginal inhabitants were hunters. Their visibility on the landscape was minimal, due to their seasonal mobility. Around 700 AD, the introduction of corn into southern Ontario gave rise to a tremendous population increase and the establishment of permanent villages associated with the Late Woodland period (AD 700 to AD 1651). The Milroy site, about 3 acres in size and overlooking a tributary of Little Rouge River, is one of about a dozen Late Woodland villages currently known to be within the Rouge River watershed. Excavations have recovered faunal remains, including deer, bear, passenger pidgeon, and various types of fish and turtles. After the gradual depletion of resources such as soil nutrients and firewood, these Late Woodland groups began moving northward towards Georgian Bay, where they evolved into the Petun and Huron Nations, witnessed by the early French missionaries during the seventeenth century. In expanding their fur trade to the north, the Iroquois found the Rouge River could be followed to a portage that led to the east branch of the Holland River and from there to Lake Simcoe. This route became known as the east branch of the Toronto Carrying-Place trail, although the Humber branch was favoured later at the time of European contact. Early European settlement in the watershed began in the eighteenth century, when a group of German speaking farmers led by artist, architect, and businessman William von Moll Berczy appealed to the government of Upper Canada to allow his group to settle there. In return for road clearing duties, a block of land for Berczy’s Germans was assigned in Markham Township. To this day, families bearing names which appeared on those early patents still live in the area. The lower portion of the watershed, in Scarborough and Pickering, and the upper reaches in Whitchurch Township were slower to be settled, due to absentee landowners. The Family Compact who had settled in York had taken the additional lands to which they were entitled as United Empire Loyalists or for military service, in neighbouring townships like Scarborough, and waited to arrange sales when prices improved. By 1861, there were 54 mills on the river, including sawmills, grist mills, and woollen mills, and seventeen recognized villages. Since the first European settlers arrived, waves of immigration have continued. The 2001 Canadian census showed that on the Rouge River watershed, people of Canadian or British heritage make up 31% of the population with the remainder being Chinese (21%), East Indian (9%) and over 35 other cultures. Many new Canadians celebrate their cultural heritage and join long time residents in expressing culture through art, architecture, gardening or other means of relating to their environment. Cultural awareness and celebration programs need to address both heritage and living aspects of culture in our landscape.

11-24

Cultural heritage resources continue to be valued in the Rouge River watershed, and in fact their consideration represents one of the ecological criteria used in the establishment of the Rouge Park North boundary. Although a substantial database of archaeological resources exists, there is potential for many more sites to be located given the physical and historical characteristics of this watershed. Continued field investigations will be important in identifying, interpreting and preserving this history. With built heritage, there is a need to standardize the information basis of inventories, often carried out by individual Municipal Heritage Committees. Urban development and associated infrastructure and even regeneration projects have the potential to destroy or limit access to cultural heritage resources. While the current provincial level of protection is limited to recovery of the material, opportunities should be investigated for preservation in situ. Storage of artifacts also remains a concern, as there is currently inadequate space at any one facility and, as a result, Rouge River artifacts are distributed among several locations. There is need for a suitable artifact storage facility and an appropriate place for display and interpretation. Significant opportunities exist to raise awareness and appreciation of past human relationships with the Rouge River watershed, using this rich cultural database as a basis. Figure 11-1 illustrates several of the cultural heritage “highlight areas” that are particularly representative of aboriginal and non-aboriginal heritage in the Rouge River watershed. These highlight areas could provide a focus for education and awareness programs.

11-25

Figure Figure Figure Figure 11111111----1111: Cultural Heritage Highlight Areas: Cultural Heritage Highlight Areas: Cultural Heritage Highlight Areas: Cultural Heritage Highlight Areas

11-26

11.711.711.711.7 ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferences

Ellis, Chris J., Ian T. Kenyon and Michael W. Spence. 1990. The Archaic. In The

Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. Edited by Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5, pp. 65-124. London, Ontario.

Kapches, Mima. 1981. The Middleport Pattern in Ontario Iroquoian Prehistory. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.

Ontario Department of Planning and Development. 1956. Rouge Duffins Highland Petticoat (RDHP), Valley Conservation Report. Toronto.

Spence, Michael W., Robert H. Pihl and Carl Murphy. 1990. Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D.1650. Edited by Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5, pp. 125-169. London, Ontario.

A. Books.

Armstrong, Frederick H. 1985. Handbook of Upper Canadian Chronology. Dundurn Press. Toronto.

Champion, Isabel (editor). 1979. Markham 1793-1900. Printed by the Hunter Rose Co Ltd for the Markham Historical Society. Toronto.

Champion, Mary B. (editor). 1988. Markham Remembered. A Photographic History of Old Markham Township. Published for the Markham Historical Society. Toronto.

Miles & Company. 1878. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York. Miles and Company. Toronto.

Robinson, Percy J. 1933. Toronto During the French Regime: A History of the Toronto Region from Brule to Simcoe, 1615-1793. Toronto: The Ryerson Press.

Thomson, Don W. 1966. Men and Meridians. The History of Surveying and Mapping in Canada. Vol. 1 Prior to 1867. The Queen’s Printer. Ottawa.

Winearls, Joan. 1991. Mapping Upper Canada 1780-1867. An Annotated Bibliography of Manuscript and Printed Maps. University of Toronto Press. Toronto.

11-27

[----------] 1985. The Centennial of the Settlement of Upper Canada by the United Empire

Loyalists, 1784-1884. Rose Publishing Company. Toronto.

[[[[----------------------------------------] ] ] ] Markham “Township Papers” RG1-58. Ontario Archives microfilm MS658 reels 280 and 282.

[----------] Markham Township Abstract Index to Deeds. Volume “A” 1801-1897. OntarioArchives microfilm GS5867.

[----------] Markham Township Assessment Rolls. 1853-1899. Ontario Archives microfilm GS5879-GS5885.

[----------] 1842. Markham Township census. NAC microfilm C1344.

[---------] 1851. Markham Township census. Division 3, pp. 213 & 341. NAC microfilm C11759.

[---------] 1861. Markham Township census. Division 16, pp 160, 163, 164 and agricultural return page 34. NAC microfilm C1088, 1091.

[---------] 1871. Markham Township census. Division D6, pp. 31-32 NAC microfilm C9969.

[----------] Upper Canada Land Petitions. M6/29 (1802), RG1 L3 vol. 332 (NAC microfilm C2194); M9/170 (1810) RG1 L3 vol. 335 (film C2197); M21/126 (1839) RG1 L3 vol. 364a (film C2219); M leases/136 (1815) RG1 L3 vol. 378 (film C2234); G2/8 (1796) RG1 L3 vol. 203 (film C2028) and G miscellaneous/45 (1809) RG1 L3 vol. 222 (film C2042.)

B. Maps.

1794: Abraham Iredell. Patent Plan of Markham (Winearls A1213) Ministry of Natural Resources SR1570.

1795: W[illiam] C[hewett]. Markham. (Winearls A1214) Ontario Archives C277-1-272- 0-1 container N930).

1796: William Berczy. Plan of Markham (reproduced in Champion).

1817: Thomas Ridout. Markham, Home District. Patent Plan No. 21. (Winearls A1216, Ontario Archives RG1-100 drawer C73.).

11-28

1824: John Goessman. Plan of Roads, Paths, Churches, Meetinghouses, Saw and Grist Mills. Map Y26. Ontario Archives RG1 (SR2387, acc. 18627).

1843: Thomas Parke. Markham, Home District. (Winearls A1217, Ontario Archives C277-1-272-0-2, container N930).

1854-55: George McPhillips. Map of the Township of Markham, According to a Re-survey (reproduced in Champion).

1855: Map Showing the School Sections of the Township of Markham. (reproduced in Champion).

1860: George R. Tremaine, Tremaine’s Map of the County of York. Toronto: George C. Tremaine.

1861: Markham Township. Enumeration District 16 map, page 160 (NAC microfilm C1088).

1878: Miles’ Atlas map of Markham.

11-29

CHAPTER 11CHAPTER 11CHAPTER 11CHAPTER 11 APPENDIX AAPPENDIX AAPPENDIX AAPPENDIX A Case Study of a Historical Site in the Rouge Case Study of a Historical Site in the Rouge Case Study of a Historical Site in the Rouge Case Study of a Historical Site in the Rouge River River River River WatershedWatershedWatershedWatershed The land which comprises the project area is situated on the east side of the 9th Line (York Regional Road 69) in close proximity to the Little Rouge River, and between 16th Avenue (Regional Road 73) and 17th Avenue (Regional Road 25.) Its legal description for land registration purposes is part lot 18 Concession 9, in the former geographic township of Markham in the County of York. The lot is watered by the Little Rouge Little Rouge Little Rouge Little Rouge RiverRiverRiverRiver and by one of its’ tributaries known as Katabokokonk CreeKatabokokonk CreeKatabokokonk CreeKatabokokonk Creek.k.k.k. This land was alienated by the British from the native MississaugasMississaugasMississaugasMississaugas in 1783. Originally this township formed part of the District of NassauDistrict of NassauDistrict of NassauDistrict of Nassau in the Province of Quebec until 1791 when the Province of Upper Canada officially came into existence. In 1792 it became part of the territory encompassed by the East Riding of YorkEast Riding of YorkEast Riding of YorkEast Riding of York in the Home DistrictHome DistrictHome DistrictHome District, and after May 1849 when the Districts were abolished, it simply formed part of the County of YorkCounty of YorkCounty of YorkCounty of York. Although Markham was included in the first land purchase made by the British on the north shore of Lake Ontario, instructions were not given to Abraham IredellAbraham IredellAbraham IredellAbraham Iredell to survey the land until September 13, 1794. Since there had been difficulties with the “Toronto PurchaseToronto PurchaseToronto PurchaseToronto Purchase” lands of 1787, D.W. SmithD.W. SmithD.W. SmithD.W. Smith, Acting Surveyor-General, was explicit in his instructions to Iredell: Mr. AitkenMr. AitkenMr. AitkenMr. Aitken has just expressed his fears to me, that the whole of the tract to be surveyed...may not have been purchased from the Indians. Should you find this to be the case you will, of course, not extend your survey beyond the limits of the [Toronto] purchase, as no grounds of jealousy must exist between us and the Indians, nor any of their land taken, but what is purchased4. It should be noted that the first townships to be surveyed were the “choice” locations which fronted directly upon the waters of Lake Ontario. These “front” townships were the most desirable for the early settlers since they were closer to the seat of government, and routes of trade and communication. It was only when the “front” townships had been filled up by settlers that the second line of townships in the “rear,” such as Markham, were surveyed and opened up for settlement. Unfortunately the diaries for the first two surveyors of Markham, those of Abraham Iredell and John StegmanJohn StegmanJohn StegmanJohn Stegman,5 have not survived. These diaries supply us with information about the

4 Quoted in Isabel Champion, Markham 1793-1900, pp. 5-6.

5 Abraham Iredell (1751-1806) was a Deputy Land Surveyor. John Stegmann (or Staggman, 1754-1804,) UEL, was a Lieutenant in a Hessian Regiment at Louisburg, Nova Scotia and served until the end of the Revolutionary War. He was appointed Provincial Land Surveyor on October 18, 1790 and completed several surveys in the region before he drowned on Lake Ontario on October 8, 1804 in the wreck of the SpeedySpeedySpeedySpeedy. His daughter Mary married Major Samuel Wilmot who was appointed surveyor on Stegmann’s death. (Champion, Markham, p. 94.)

11-30

“primeval” conditions encountered by the surveyors, with remarks about the topography, soil conditions and timber stands, that was found in the township before the forests were cleared by the first settlers. Iredell’s survey of Markham was undoubtedly based upon D.W. Smith’s “Chequered Plan” which would locate the Crown and Clergy Reserve lots in a staggered pattern within each township. This method of surveying was illustrated particularly well in a map of Markham prepared by William BerczyWilliam BerczyWilliam BerczyWilliam Berczy on November 3, 1796 which showed that the first five Concessions east of Yonge Street had been taken up by settlers while the remaining Concessions were still unoccupied. An important fact to note at this point is that since John Graves SimcoeJohn Graves SimcoeJohn Graves SimcoeJohn Graves Simcoe wished Yonge Street to remain as a strategic military road to the north, he decided that no Crown or Clergy Reserves would be allocated along Yonge Street. Therefore in King, Vaughan, Whitchurch and Markham Townships eight large blocks of land were set aside, two in each township, one being for the Crown and the other for the benefit of the Clergy. In Markham Township, lot 18 Concession 6 was situated directly in the block of Crown Reserve lotsCrown Reserve lotsCrown Reserve lotsCrown Reserve lots which were clearly demarcated in Iredell’s Patent Plan of the township. These Reserve lots were a hindrance to the early settlers since they often blocked the passage of a road or the improvement of an existing one, and also in certain cases denied settlers direct access to a river or stream. The Reserve lots could be leased by settlers for a period of 21 years and, upon the expiry of the lease, they would be compensated for any improvements made upon the land such as the clearing of acreage or the building of a house. Since there are no surviving “Township PaperTownship PaperTownship PaperTownship Paperssss” for this lot, it is not known if the lots were leased during the time that they remained Crown Reserves. On July 17, 1801 Stegman was instructed to examine or re-survey parts of Markham, and he wrote to the Surveyor-General with the request “I beg you will have the goodness to send me a bush sextant,” an indication that conditions must still have been difficult for Stegman and his crew6. On January 3, 1828, the Crown Reserves were turned over to Kings’ CollegeKings’ CollegeKings’ CollegeKings’ College, the forerunner of the University of Toronto, which had been founded in the previous year. The Patent Plan for Markham, dated March 1817, showed this lot marked “Kings’ College” and then, in a later hand, the annotation “Canada CompanyCanada CompanyCanada CompanyCanada Company” was written in and the name “Kings’ College” struck out7. From the abstract index to deeds we find that the PatentPatentPatentPatent on this lot was granted to The Canada The Canada The Canada The Canada

6 Thomson, Men and MeridiansMen and MeridiansMen and MeridiansMen and Meridians, p. 231.

7 Markham, Home District” Markham, Home District” Markham, Home District” Markham, Home District” Patent Plan, map #21. Copy signed by Thomas Ridout (Winearls, map A1216; Archives of Ontario RG1-100 drawer C73.) This patent plan shows three of the adjoining lots leased by Schefer, Gamble and DeGeer. The Goessman surveyGoessman surveyGoessman surveyGoessman survey of Markham conducted in 1824-1825 clearly showed the fabric for lot 18 but no other details, although Goessman noted a large number of mills in Markham by that date. The Thomas Parke Thomas Parke Thomas Parke Thomas Parke surveysurveysurveysurvey of July 1843 does not show any structures in Concession 9 beyond the township fabric or grid and the route of the Little Rouge through lot 18. However Parke marked each of the Clergy Reserve lots in Concession 7 with an “X.” A map of the School Sections of MarkhamSchool Sections of MarkhamSchool Sections of MarkhamSchool Sections of Markham, dated 1855, showed the lot fabric but no other details.

11-31

CompanyCompanyCompanyCompany on December 26, 18298. Ownership was retained by the Company until March 10, 1832 when the lot was split into east and west halves and sold to individual owners. At that date a deed for the west half of the lot was made out for Peter Gordon MustardPeter Gordon MustardPeter Gordon MustardPeter Gordon Mustard, the consideration being £62.10.0. The east half of the lot was sold on the same date and for the same amount to Gordon MustardGordon MustardGordon MustardGordon Mustard who may have been one and the same person as Peter Gordon Mustard. The name on the deed may also have been made out incorrectly since the actual owner of the east half of this lot was really Alexander MustardAlexander MustardAlexander MustardAlexander Mustard, the brother of James9. The farm remained in the possession of the Mustard family into the 20th century, and title to the east half was bequeathed to Robert Mustard upon the death of his father, Alexander, in 188510. The family originated with Alexander MustardAlexander MustardAlexander MustardAlexander Mustard in Farness, Cromarty, Scotland who had three sons who emigrated from Scotland to Pennsylvania in 1795 and thence to Markham, Upper Canada in 1800. James MustardJames MustardJames MustardJames Mustard (1768-1858) was the eldest son and by 1807 he was married to Elizabeth Gordon Elizabeth Gordon Elizabeth Gordon Elizabeth Gordon (d. 1828), the daughter of Peter GordonPeter GordonPeter GordonPeter Gordon, UEL, of Ancaster. James settled on lot 28 Concession 5 in Markham, and during the War of 1812 he served as Captain in the 1st York Militia and was captured at the Battle of York in 1813. After the war in April 1815 he petitioned for a lease on a Reserve lot in Markham and his petition referred to the fact that he owned a large farm, was “very loyal” and possessed an “exemplary character.” His wife Elizabeth petitioned for lands in her own right as the daughter of a Loyalist on May 14, 1810. James and Elizabeth had at least four children, including Peter Gordon Mustard (1807-1879) and Alexander Mustard (1809-1885) who were the first purchasers of this township lot11. Unfortunately we do not have documentary records for the period 1832-1851 which would have presented us with a clearer understanding of this lot and the land usage under the Mustard family at this time. The 1842 census only exists as an aggregate return with no personal names or information recorded, and township assessment records are unavailable until 1853.

8 The Canada Company was established in England in 1824 by John GaltJohn GaltJohn GaltJohn Galt, novelist and the “founder” of Guelph, and chartered in 1825. Organized as a land and colonization company, in 1826 it purchased 2.5 million acres of land in Upper Canada for $295,000 which were composed of scattered Crown Reserves and lands in the Huron Tract. The company operated until the 1950's when it disposed of the last of its’ lands.

9 The attorneys acting on behalf of the company were the Hon. William AllanHon. William AllanHon. William AllanHon. William Allan and Thomas Mercer JonesThomas Mercer JonesThomas Mercer JonesThomas Mercer Jones. William Allan was at this time acting as the first president of the Bank of Upper Canada. Both men were named Commissioners of the Canada Company in 1829.

10 Markham Abstract Index to Deeds, volume A (1801-1897) page 535. 11 Note that although Elizabeth Mustard’s petition named her as the daughter of a Loyalist, her father’s name never appeared on the old United Empire Loyalist Listold United Empire Loyalist Listold United Empire Loyalist Listold United Empire Loyalist List. Peter Gordon was a resident of New Jersey where he “joined the Royal Standard” in 1776. Described as a “faithful subject,” he aided British army recruiters who stayed at Gordon’s home. He “gave every assistance to conceal, pilate and help them off with their men.” He was prosecuted, fined a large sum and imprisoned for his activities during the war and for this reason, he claimed, was unable to come to Upper Canada with the other Loyalists. He sent two of his children to Upper Canada, and in 1793 he was finally able to leave the United States with his wife and five children. He petitioned for land on May 3, 1796 and was granted 300 acres. He settled in Ancaster, where he died sometime after 1814. Peter Gordon Mustard married Ann ClarkAnn ClarkAnn ClarkAnn Clark on March 24, 1835 and had at least three children. Alexander Mustard married Elizabeth [----------] and had at least four children. George MustardGeorge MustardGeorge MustardGeorge Mustard (b.1771), brother of James, set out from Scotland and on the journey his ship was raided in mid-Atlantic and he was pressed into naval service. He escaped while in the West Indies and eventually made his way to Markham where he settled on lot 29 Concession 5. Hugh MustardHugh MustardHugh MustardHugh Mustard (b. 1780), brother of James, did not settle in Upper Canada until 1830 in Scott Township in Ontario County.

11-32

Records found in the 1851-52 census showed that Peter and Ann Mustard resided on this lot in a 1½ story brick home. They had three children, two of whom attended school, and the family religious affiliation was Presbyterian. The family cultivated 60 acres, 32 of which were under crop and 28 in pasture. The other 40 acres was “wild land.” Mixed agriculture was carried out on the Mustard land, and farm produce included wheat, peas, oats, potatoes, and hay. The presence of apples is suggested from the fact that cider was enumerated in the agricultural census return for this family. Livestock included milch cows, calves/heifers, horses, sheep and pigs. Additional farm produce included butter, cheese, barrels of beef and pork, wool and flannel cloth. (Markham census division 3 page 213, agricultural census page 341). It is not surprising that the family home was constructed out of brick since a brickmaker named William King was a tenant on the east half of lot 18, and he may have manufactured some bricks directly on the premises. The 1861 census assessed Peter Mustard’s farm at a value of $6,000. The crops were slightly different and now included spring and fall wheat, peas, oats, pototoes, turnip, carrots and hay. The remainder of Peter’s return was incomplete, and there is no further information about livestock or other farm products. (Markham census division 16 page 164, agricultural census page 34). The map for the enumeration district clearly indicated the Mustard farms but no structures were shown. The 1871 census noted that the Peter Mustard farm contained one house, 4 barns/sheds, 2 carriages, 3 wagons, 3 ploughs, one reaper and one fanning mill.Crops included spring and fall wheat, barley, oats, peas, potatoes, hay and 75 bushels of apples. Livestock included horses, colts, milch cows, horned cattle and sheep. Firewood was cut on the lot. Barrels of beef and mutton were produced, as well as butter and wool. James Mustard, son of Peter, resided on the farm with his wife and two children. Their return indicated that they also owned a threshing machine and pigs. Assessment records collected between 1853 and 1899 consistently showed the presence of livestock on the farm, which consisted of cattle, horses, sheep and pigs. The presence of dogs was noted on the farm throughout this period. By the 1890's the wooded portion of the farm had decreased to a mere ten acres, and the 1896 assessment noted some “swamp” in addition to the arable land. The farm was valued at $4400 in 1899. The Mustard men served in the local militia during the 1860's in 1st or 2nd class service, or else they were on reserve. The neighbouring farm of Alexander Mustard presented a very similar picture to that of the farm owned by his brother James. Alexander’s family consisted of a wife and four children. The family resided in a one story brick home as early as 1861. The only difference found was that Alexander also grew mangel-wurzel, corn, and grass/clover seed on his farm. In 1871 his farm contained one house, 2 barns/sheds, 3 carriages, 2 wagons, 3 ploughs, 2 reapers, one horse rake and one fanning mill. It is unusual to note that no firewood was cut on his farm lot and his wood-lot still contained 20 acres as late as 1896. Evidence from later maps clearly show the locations of the houses on both halves of lot 18. The 1854 McPhillips surveyMcPhillips surveyMcPhillips surveyMcPhillips survey showed two structures (house and barn?) near the south-west corner of the lot, while a grouping of three structures (house and barns?) stood near the north-

11-33

east corner of the lot. The wooded area on the lot was shown at the centre point on either side of the dividing line between the farms. By the time of the Tremaine mapTremaine mapTremaine mapTremaine map of 1860, the two structures at the south-west corner still appeared to be in their original location. By this point, however, Alexander Mustard had constructed another house on the south side of a tributary flowing into the Little Rouge River from the east. Another structure from the group seen in the 1854 survey was still extant in the north-east corner of the lot. It is unclear from the records whether Alexander Mustard suffered any loss or destruction from the original group of 1854 structures. A search of period newspapers or even a survey of the ground in this corner may provide the answer. Finally the Miles’ AtlasMiles’ AtlasMiles’ AtlasMiles’ Atlas map of 1878 shows Peter Mustard’s home and orchard in its’ original location although no other structures were indicated on this west half of the lot. Alexander’s “new” home of 1860 was shown with a nearby orchard, but there was no indication of the structures at the north-east corner. The land within the project area has a well-documented history both in terms of primary source materials and cartographic evidence. This lot was part of the large Crown Reserve block established by Simcoe in this township, which was granted to Kings’ College (1828), the Canada Company (1829) and finally sold to Peter and Alexander Mustard in 1832. It is not known whether the lands were leased by Kings’ College to tenants although this was their practice on the surrounding Reserve lots. It would appear unlikely that any permanent structures existed on this lot until after the time that it was purchased by the Mustard brothers. The census evidence recorded in 1871 indicated that multiple buildings were found on the lot. Peter Mustard owned one house and four barns, while his brother Alexander owned one house and two barns. The cartographic evidence suggests that while Peter Mustard’s home and barns were always situated in the south-west corner of the lot, Alexander Mustard replaced his home with another structure slightly to the south at some point between 1860 and 1871. The census and assessment records from this period showed that mixed agriculture was carried out on both these farms, and it is known that a variety of livestock and other domestic animals was present here from 1853 to 1899 and quite likely at an even earlier date. Both families owned a variety of farm tools and equipment. The potential for archaeological finds on the site is therefore quite high, since the remains of multiple 19th century structures and domestic/household objects may be uncovered, in addition to discarded farm equipment, floral and faunal remains and farm middens.