Taiaiako'n draft report€¦ · Appendix: Applicable City of Toronto by laws ... The most important lesson that I learned was that . Taiaiako’n Draft Report 2009-2010 4 as someone

Taiaiako’n Draft Report 2009-2010

1

Taiaiako’n

Draft

Report

June 2009 – May 2010

Rastia’ta’non:ha- (Elder) – Project

Coordinator/Director

Laureen Waters- (Elder) – Field researcher,

Administrator

Fareed Ismail- Administrator

Adrian Rhodes- Field Researcher- (volunteer)

Researcher/Writer

Shawn Gill- (Song Carrier) Student and Field

Researcher

Report Written By Adrian Rhodes

Activity/Research

Summary v. 1.2


2

Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3

1. Description of the High Park Land form .......................................................................... 4

2. Description of Observed Plants and Wildlife.................................................................... 7

3. Excavating a Hidden History: The Indigenous Peoples claims ......................................... 8

4: The Issue: Archaeological and Cultural Damage............................................................ 11

5. The Secondary Issue: Environmental and Ecological Damage........................................ 13

Result of the damage............................................................................................................. 14

6. Field Research, June 2009 – May 2010............................................................................. 15

7. Current Analysis: 2010 May ........................................................................................... 17

8. The Preservation Team .................................................................................................. 21

9. Sociology of the Group................................................................................................... 23

10. A sociological analysis of the different interested parties involved............................... 25

11. Social Conflict between the different groups at the Park............................................... 28

The incident at the Snake Mound, 2009 .............................................................................. 28

The Conflict between the Hawks and the Bears .................................................................... 29

Getting away from it all: the summer meeting...................................................................... 30

12. Jurisdiction and administration of the Park .................................................................. 31

Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................. 32

Field Methodology: The GPS Measurements ..................................................................... 34

DATA SET I: Data from the Blue Notebook ....................................................................... 36

DATA SET II: GPS readings from typed report, summer 2009 ........................................... 39

DATASET III: GPS readings from blue notebook in 2009 typed report .............................. 50

Data set IV: The ordered and collected data....................................................................... 51

Appendix: Applicable City of Toronto by laws. ................................................................. 61

Works Cited...................................................................................................................... 61


3

Introduction

There is nothing more satisfying than being able to think of, hunt down, and find, elusive information,

especially when that information has been hidden by others in a deliberate effort to keep it hidden. When that

information is publicly available, and it is hidden, it becomes a triumph when the quarry is caught and affixed

to paper. This roughly describes the process of gathering the information in the following report. Information

for this report has come from a variety of sources, for example, Toronto Public Libraries. Some of the

information has come from field work, both observational and ecological. It has all been gathered here so it

cannot be lost once more.

This is an annual report of work by the Taiaiako’n Historical Preservation Society. This is a group of

people dedicated to the preservation and restoration of our sacred sites. We are dedicated to sharing the trueth

of our past, something which has been forgotten. Examples include located archaeocultural evidence; ironically

such evidence must be kept buried, for various reasons. Those reasons are outlined below.

The group of unpaid volunteers made it their task to map significant sites in Toronto’s High Park in an

effort to gather evidence to make a case for archaeocultural preservation. I became involved in the Preservation

Society when I was at a gathering with a friend in June 2009. I saw a man standing before a table, laden with

various maps and pamphlets about damage in High Park. We approached and asked questions, learning there

were forgotten and damaged Indigenous Peoples sites in the park. I heard that the volunteer was looking for a

way to mark the sites so that a better case for preservation could be built.

I asked, “Would a GPS machine help?” I learned that it would, and since that meeting in June 2009, we

have been meeting regularly with a number of people who helped create the included data set. In addition to

mapping High Park, we also conducted advocacy meetings in the Park, and I conducted library research in

various sites around Toronto.

It was an interesting summer’s work. I never knew what was going to happen when we got together.

We did everything from book-research to on-site GPS surveys and mapping as well as individual advocacy and

group advocacy. Our work was peaceful and non-confrontational teaching. It is clear that our work can be

useful to other groups who would like assistance in doing similar research in their area. There is scope within

our group to network with other similarly oriented groups. The most important lesson that I learned was that


4

as someone who has had multiple challenges in my life, I still had a place as part of the High Park Research

Team, and for that I shall be ever thankful.

In writing this, I tried to balance the sociology, the events, the research and the implications of the

group’s activities. I tried to be as fair and balanced as possible with the writing. As well, I have tried to be

conservative in my conclusions, so as not to burden this writing with too much speculation. Even with all this

in mind, it still yields some surprising results. It must be understood that this is a team effort; the team

members will have had an opportunity to review, comment on, and add their information to the report so as to

balance the data.

The following writings are a summary of the activities and outcomes of those activities, undertaken

from June 2009 to May 2010. I have attempted to approach this work with respect that I have been shown, and

as well, to treat each aspect in its turn to give what I hope is a balanced and fair approach. I am painfully aware

of my limitations in this case, and apologize for any errors I have made; they will be corrected in an edited

report later on

1. Description of the High Park Land form

The volunteer group determined that we would need to observe, monitor and collect data from High

Park in Toronto during the summer of 2009. High Park is a public park, co-administered by the Toronto Region

Conservation Authority (TRCA) on the west side, bounded by the east shore of Grenadier Pond and the Toronto

Parks Commission for the rest of the area. (Toronto Region Conservation Authority, 2010) East of High Park

lays the TRCA’s Don Valley watershed; and west is TRCA’s Humber River watershed. Park boundaries are

Bloor Street to the north; the west shore of Grenadier Pond to the west; the Queensway to the south and

Parkside Drive to the east. The Park comprises 120 hectares, (70) acres of space. (August, 2010)

This area is defined as an oak savannah and is part of 0.01% of the natural environment in North

America; therefore this is a rare ecosystem. This ecosystem was based on oak trees as anchor flora; there are also

rare plants and birds embedded in this ecosystem.1 This ecosystem was once predominant east of the prairies.

In the Pleistocene Era, the area of High Park was submerged under what is known as Lake Iroquois. This

1 For instance, an article in The Toronto Star Mon, Jun 7th 2010 states that rare purple martins have been seen in High Park for the first time in at least two decades.


5

resulted in the creation of the Lake Iroquois sand plain, which helped to form the savannah. This savannah was

considered to be both ecologically sensitive and unique.

These trees are nominally protected under the heritage act (Ontario) and are in need of protection. If

one part of the park can be protected this way, then the rest of the park’s flora can also be protected. In the area

harmed by bike ramps, there are at least three red oak trees (quercus rubra) on the site and are protected in the

environmentally sensitive area.2 (Aronson, 1997) An oak savannah is a unique ecosystem, endangered based on

the amount left in North America, when compared to how much Oak savannah was existent in the past. The

anchor trees are black oaks (quercus velotina). They require very specific growing conditions, and the

conservation authority has assisted in maintaining this area in the past through controlled burns, helping to

create an ideal ecology for the oaks.

High Park was deeded to Toronto as a gift in the 19th Century by John G Howard. In accepting the gift,

the City of Toronto had to agree that the land would not be drastically altered; they also had to agree that the

Park would remain ‘dry’ – no alcohol was permitted anywhere in the Park. Indeed, the Grenadier Café is a dry

café, and this might be a large part of the reason why my Indigenous Peoples colleagues met there.

Several features at the park indicate an altered landscape; the café is one example, as are the various

auxiliary buildings used to keep the park functioning. There are also paved and dirt paths and wooden stairs

through the park. Signs point the way to features like the playground, tennis courts and the swimming pool.

Generally, the Park does not appear to have been razed and completely rebuilt from its original state, but is

altered by the dominant developed culture now using it.

The volunteers were interested in destructive activities at High Park; specifically in the

physical/ecological damage at the south end of High Park to the east. We were interested in locating the

different hills in the Park, so we could map them and strengthen claims of ancestral use of the area.

The area is a long ridge, approximately 30 feet high, running roughly north-west for about one

hundred yards. It is hard to see the boundaries of the area because the ridge is bounded by a heavy canopy of

trees. The mound is accessed by a path which runs from north to south. There are numerous places where rare

plants and animals can find shelter. The area is a habitat for various bird species.

2 I have been able to prove that these are not white oaks - ar


6

While we are concerned with the park generally, the specific area under discussion is located at the

south east end of High Park. It is west of Parkside Drive and north of the Queensway. The area is accessed by a

north/south dirt trail at the feature’s south end, and the trail is situated along the shore of a protected pond.

There are control signs at the south, north and east sides of this feature, indicating there is at least nominal

administrative control of the area. This does not mean, however, there is enforcement of those controls.

The specific area is the mound itself and was probably covered in ground plants at one time. Presently,

the area is denuded of most cover. Ground plants are almost nonexistent because the area is being illegally used

as a bike park. This led to erosion and the potential destruction of the feature. Specifically, there is only a four

foot high fence holding the washed out soil from entering the nearby east pond.

The area’s dominating feature is the rise of the mound, which is stepped down to a bowl near the

shore. There are adjacent wetlands and grasslands to the east and west respectively. The wetlands are nesting

areas for birds in the park, and are habitats for frogs. This area is approximately 25 ft in height, sloping sharply

upward in two steps, making it a ‘natural’ area for trick bikers who use the hills to their advantage. As the

landform is long and narrow, it abuts a track for a land-train which runs through High Park at the feature’s

extreme north end. This area is a habitat for varied bird and animal species; as well as being part of the oak

savannah itself.


7

2. Description of Observed Plants and Wildlife

The area under discussion offers many areas of shelter for wildlife. We have seen different birds and

animals on our journey through the Park. Observed birds at the site include but are not limited to:

Red-wing blackbirds agileaus phoenicius

Great Blue herons ardes herodias3 (MTRCA, 1982)

Egrets agretta thula

Canada Geese branta canadensis

Chickadees poecile atricapilla

Robins turdus migratorius

Nuthatches sitta canadensis

Downy woodpeckers picoedes pubescens

Golden Eagles aquila chrysatos

Mallards anas fulmigatus

Cardinals cardinalis cardinalis

Mourning Doves4 zenaida macroura

Observed animals include but are not limited to:

Garter snakes5 thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis

American toads bufo americanus

Uncommon Bullfrogs rana catesbiana – heard but not seen6 (MTRCA, 1982)

3 These birds were cited in the 1982 MTRCA Report as being seen, but not known to nest in the area. We believe that these birds nested in the pond adjacent to the Snake Mound; another reason to stop the incursion by bikers. 4 The Latin names for these birds, animals and plants were found on Wikipedia.org keyword: birds of Ontario etc. 5 Two large specimens were noted in May 2010. 6 This was misidentified as rana clamitans in an earlier version – ar.


8

Chipmunks tamias minimus

Red Squirrels tamiacurus hudsonicus

Coyotes canis latrans

Rabbits sylvanus floridanus – possible sighting

Other observers insist that white-tailed deer have been seen in the Park.7

Approximately 75 examples of trillium grandifloum have been seen at the mound. There is little to no

ground protection for this flower because there is no control over erosion, ground cover destruction and no local

access control. As of May 2010, according to the best current field research, the plants at the site are the

protected species.

These elements make up the High Park ecosystem. It is trite but true to point out that what happens

here will have effects on the rest of the Park. If the erosion is not stopped, there is a danger that the runoff will

overwhelm the storm pond at the south end of the specific feature. This is another, ecological reason why we

need to protect the area from damage by bikers.

3. Excavating a Hidden History: The Indigenous Peoples claims

There is a hidden history around us wherever we are. Some measure North American history from

1867 and the passage of the British North America Act; others, from 1776 and the first shots of the American

Revolution; yet others measure it from the time of the first explorers to North America. This history does not go

back far enough; there is a deeper history which has been ignored and downgraded by those with an interest in

rubbing out all traces of an Indigenous Peoples past.

Jane Jacobs calls this cultural amnesia in her book Dark Age Ahead. In this book, Jacobs argues that we

are suffering from, and are in danger of worsening Western cultural amnesia. We are seeing the effects of this

cultural amnesia on Indigenous Peoples peoples, through the loss of sacred and ancestral sites through re-

7 Personal communication to ar.


9

definition (by vested archaeological interests and developers); by development (I did not know until recently

that Yonge and Bloor was the site of a Indigenous Peoples burial); and willful destruction of inadequately

protected sites (which will be discussed later.) Jacobs argues we are mis-managing our cultural resources, and

this is what creating a danger of loss. (Jacobs, 2005) This report is a detailed analysis of the micro loss in High

Park, Toronto, and its effects on people and the land. Vested interests are not interested in helping protect

various sites around Toronto, because this would interfere with commerce.

Jacobs is not alone in m arguing about loss of culture. Anthropologist Wade Davis argues convincingly

we are overlooking cultural contributions Indigenous Peoples have made and what they can teach us in our

regulated and artificial world. Davis describes endangered land in British Columbia, sacred to the West Coast

Indigenous Peoples and sited for destruction so mining companies can extract minerals from the ground.

(Davis, 2009) This ground is situated around the headwaters of three rivers, and these rivers are revered as

sacred to the regional Indigenous Peoples peoples. The vested mining interests are not interested in helping to

protect these sacred sites as such protections would interfere with profit.

Joel Bakan outlines in The Corporation efforts to stop British Petroleum from drilling in the High Arctic.

Such drilling will result in destruction of the way of life and ancestral grounds of the Gwi’chin people, as well as

the destruction of the traditional environment on which their caribou depend. (Bakan, 2004) The theme is

consistent. British Petroleum has shown no interest except for lip service in protecting these contested sites as

such protections would interfere with building profit.

These examples show how corporate and developmental interests ignore social and cultural argument

in favour of profit at any cost. The area around the park is increasingly being built-up, and despite the fact that

the land was deeded by JG Howard in the 19th century, one wonders how long it would be before someone

decides it wouldn’t hurt to sell off just a tiny piece of land.

An alternative to this view lies outside the realm of profit and power. However, it requires effort to

alter viewpoints and protect alternative views. As in democracy and corporate life, alternate views which

question the correctness of prevalent thought are ridiculed and held up as not rational. However, in the

following section, I want to indirectly challenge this view.

I have an irresponsible question to ask, with regard to Indigenous Peoples land-claim-of-use in High

Park, based on cultural, anecdotal and archaeological evidence:


10

How unlikely is it that the area of High Park was not used by Indigenous Peoples in time past?

Archaeological evidence suggests a deeper ancestry of the Iroquois peoples in Ontario, according to

some researchers. (Snow, 2007) We know there were Iroquois villages nearby the site of High Park; we also

know that there was a village near Bathurst and Sheppard; we know that there was another village site near

Don Mills and York Mills Road. There was also a village to the north and west of the High Park site, called

Taiaiako’n. This was an Erie/Neutral, Seneca and Mohawk site, comprising a palisade and 50 longhouses. The

area was excavated and explored. Some would say that the area was disturbed and destroyed by these

excavations. Others would say that the artifacts unearthed there were stolen and are being held wrongfully.

Whatever the case, the village was very close to High Park and near known archaic trade ways, and this leads us

to a logical question about social use of the area.

How unlikely is it that these peoples did not use the land nearby, whatever use they put it to? There

are cultural sanctions against using certain areas for limited times, but consider the following quotation:

“High Park: this was a huge pharmacy, grocery store and lumber yard for natives. The area had astonishingly rich plant and wild life and was carefully managed by Huron, Seneca, and Ojibwe people.

Tea made from willow bark provided an early pain killer; the juice from rosehips was used to treat cataracts; goldenrod was used to treat liver, kidney and pancreas problems. Elm and birch trees were used to make canoes.”

(Green, 1999)

Note: Other Nations also carefully managed the land nearby such as the Erie/Neutral and Mohawk.

This quote clearly points to use of the land by Indigenous Peoples in the area. It is logical that the land given by

Creator to the people would be used as a resource; it is also unlikely that the area would be ignored. The area in

and around High Park is naturally diverse and rich. Building is limited by Toronto by-laws, and interestingly,

the whole park is a dry zone – no alcohol is served. Perhaps John G Howard knew from his Indigenous Peoples

neighbours that the area was sacred and so included the prohibition against alcohol to ensure the sacred

properties of this land.


11

4: The Issue: Archaeological and Cultural Damage

Indigenous Peoples have a longer history, deeper culture and a vital connection to the land and the

area that Europeans do not have. What else the Indigenous Peoples do not have, for the most part, is a written

record of their activities, and this is the basis for most cultural clashes. History of these peoples is kept in song,

story and ritual, as well as an awareness of the uses of the land in a traditional sense.

The heart of the controversy is this: we are asked to accept Indigenous Peoples claims as a matter of

belief; and the proof is in the cultural history.

Europeans say that the claim is fine, but there has to be incontrovertible proof of ‘ownership’ or there is

no claim at all.

Every other attitude and thought depends upon these two above formulations.

This is the heart of controversy in practice on the social stage. The proof required to substantiate a

claim of ownership is beyond what the land in question is able to give, and there are physical reasons for that.

In short, the archaeological evidence used by mainstream academics is rendered moot by the cultural traditions

and understanding of the Indigenous Peoples who hold the disputed land in trust.

The general claim is that there is a ritual historical use of the land in the area; the fact that Taiaiako’n

village is a site suggests that this is true, given the supporting evidence. It is also clear that there are burials in

Toronto; Yonge and Bloor is one such example of many possible sites in the area.

Proof of use for the land around High Park is predicated on people’s living experience of using the

land as a ritual space in the 1950s; one person mentioned his grandfather was present at the site performing a

ritual. There is proof in the general archaeology of the area; the proximity to Taiaiako’n village is another piece

of evidence and four factors are outlined below.

I learned about an archaeologist in Toronto who refused to accept that there were Indigenous Peoples

sites in the Park; this position was so strong on his part that any suggestion of this was met with open hostility.

So too are any claims of other Indigenous Peoples sites anywhere else in Toronto. However, the proof provided

by the group is as follows:

i. Red ochre has been found on the lands in question.

ii. An arrowhead was found on one of the sites.


12

iii. Pottery has been located around the area.

iv. Bone fragments have also been found in the area.8

Further evidence substantiates past Indigenous Peoples use of the land. An Ojibwe burial site found at

a construction site near Bloor Street and Wendigo Way in the 1920’s. Six partial skeletons were found along

with artifacts which suggested an Ojibwe cultural burial. The remains were located in a circle, and excavated by

a professional archaeologist. (Miles, 1995)

This is another point of contention to the Indigenous Peoples peoples: numerous artifacts and remains

have gone to museums, not to be displayed or honoured but kept in seclusion, away from ancestral lands. The

Indigenous Peoples position is that these artifacts are disturbed – some say stolen – and must be returned to

their rightful nations. (Jamieson, 2007) The use and abuse of the artifacts found on the High Park site is

therefore a worry for the volunteer team, which leads team members to act with discretion when gathering data.

The research team ensures artifacts are carefully documented where found; photos are taken; notes are

carefully made. Tobacco is also given as an offering for the ancestors revealing there existence to us through the

material culture often exposed on top of the ground. By this way, it ensures that we build a cumulative record

of artifacts and findings. Like a pile of sand, it grows slowly but will get more massive and impossible to ignore

over time.

There is a wider sense of social organization with the mounds in the park. These mounds are

connected to others in North America. This was made clear to Rhodes when visiting the Thunderbird Mound.

Something negative was said, leading to a verbal caution; the Thunderbird Mound is a hyper telegraph for

thought and communication. Care must be taken to be ritually and behaviorally correct when at this site, for

the ‘energy’ goes to other related sites in Ohio, for instance.

These sites in Ohio are examined in a book entitled Indian Mounds of the Middle Ohio Valley.

(Woodward, 1986) For example, there is a diagram of a snake mound which looks similar to the snake mound

in Ontario. The academic opinion is that the same culture created both mounds and used the general areas as

burial grounds in the same way over thousands of years. (Woodward, 1986) This tradition has been lost in time

8 This information has been kept very confidential, and indeed, has not been mentioned anywhere else but here. – ar.


13

with development of the land and historians and archaeologists as well as anthropologists are now working

with Indigenous Peoples to preserve these sites, both for future generations and cultural continuity.

5. The Secondary Issue: Environmental and Ecological Damage

In Tennessee at Buffalo Creek in the 1970s, there was a flood, caused by environmental damage as a

result of a mining company’s carelessness. The result was flooding and destruction of the workers’ home town.

The sociological analysis examined the emotional and social reaction of the townsfolk to their displacement. In

summary, the disaster caused an emotional displacement of and resultant psychological damage to the citizens

of the town. (Erikson, 2005) I observed similar social effects in the volunteer group as a result of them observing

ecological damage to the site. The social pain caused by observing the destruction is evident in those who have

a stake in protecting these areas.

We can advocate for protection of the damaged land from an ecological perspective. The data is

provided below. The ecological position is the same as the Indigenous Peoples position: cessation of use of the

land as a bike park. The emphasis is on damage to the landform and the potential damage to the trees, plants

and animals in the area as opposed to the cultural destruction.

People I spoke to about the damage all agree there should be control over the area, although some

people disagree: they see the advocates as taking the fun out of the park for the children, which, according to

one commentator, “…seems like a pretty asshole thing to do.” This was said despite teaching about the damage;

and despite the pointing out of how ecologically sensitive the area is. This response illustrates how difficult it

can be to shift people’s perceptions in the field, once they have made up their minds.

There is no administration and protection regardless of what the law says and regardless of the wishes

of Indigenous Peoples interested in protecting the site. This means that there is no ecological protection either,

regardless of the laws in place and the resources available to the City of Toronto. If we cannot appeal to

sympathy for the ancestors, then perhaps we can appeal to others who have an interest in protecting the local

ecology, which avoids the problem of publicizing the fact of sensitive artifacts which could be plundered and

allows the end view – protection of the damaged land – to happen under a different banner. This is not an ideal

situation, but it is practical for the end result: the protection of the sacred lands by other means.


14

There is a scenario in which the erosion could cause damage to the life in the area. There are bullfrogs

at the site; I have heard them. I also heard them at a neighbouring Toronto park. These reptiles have been

affected by a fungal infection which has wiped out colonies of the creatures, with the result that mosquito

populations have exploded in some areas. Consider:

“There are fungi that are responsible for catastrophic epidemics among animals. Batrachochytrium deondrobatidis is a fungal disease responsible for the death and extinction of millions of frogs and other reptiles…” (Baker, 2007)

If the fungus is present in soil, which can happen, and that soil is not stopped from washing down to the runoff

pond, and the frogs are susceptible to that fungus, then they could be in danger of harm. This means that all it

would take to offset that danger is control and enforcement of the area to stop any further damage and erosion.

Result of the damage

There is a great deal of environmental damage at the south end of the Park. This damage can actually

be seen from space, as can be found out from accessing Google Earth satellite maps: the damaged area stands

out in the satellite photo. This is a direct result of the lack of enforcement of by laws in the park and continued

illegal use of the land by bikers. Field researchers noticed that the specific area under discussion has lost most of

its ground cover plants, resulting in soil surrounding the tree roots washing down to a retaining fence at the

bottom of the feature. The only thing keeping this soil from draining completely into the pond is the fence and

the rotting organic material on the other side of that fence.

There is an ongoing financial threat to the citizens of the city as a result of lawsuits from families of

injured bikers, who will undoubtedly sue if their children are hurt in an uncontrolled area. There are no signs

pointing out the prohibition of bicycles in the vicinity; nor are there signs stating that the soil cannot be moved.

These facts could explain why By Law officers are not willing to issue tickets: they do not have any physical

back-up in the area.

The implications of not protecting this area with signs and barriers include erosion of soil holding these

sensitive protected trees in place; loss of habitat for local fauna and flora; loss of a major landform; potential for


15

overflow in the case of excess rain runoff; destruction of trillium plants in the area; destruction of the trees; loss

of animal and plant species; and continued illegal use of the land.

The further implication of not protecting and rehabilitating this land is that the area could be altered

significantly, particularly if we experience heavy rains that we had last summer and fall. (2009) There is a risk of

losing the soil anchor at the bottom of this feature. The social implication is that the disturbance continues

unabated and unanswered; and those who are hurt continue to feel social pain as a result. As well, by not

intervening, tacit permission is given to the bikers to continue destroying the land.

6. Field Research, June 2009 – May 2010

In order to substantiate a claim of use for the land, the volunteer group had to gather information in the

field. I found it fascinating how when we walked on the land, it would yield up different stories and traditions

and seemingly mundane places had tales attached to them which stretched back over about 3000 years. Field

research was, after all, why the group was present; we wanted to get the information before it was lost or

forgotten. The tension between traditional archaeology and the Indigenous Peoples culture lent an air of

urgency to the work that we were doing. Yet, the stories and cultural significance of the land enhanced my

enjoyment of the long hikes we were taking, even as we were collecting data at the same time.

Moving through the Park, we would walk for long distances to get to different features. If anything,

we can say that we were more physically fit at the end of the summer just from the walking alone. We would

transit through the Park using the trails, paved paths and stairs, stopping every now and then to take a reading

and carefully note where we were on the path. Every now and then a feature would give us reason to meditate

on what we were seeing. Over time, we built up a database of information which we used to build a

substantiated claim for Indigenous Peoples presence, based on ritual historical use of the lands.

Another aspect of the field research involved observations of the misuse of the land at the south end of

High Park. This was a ritual/burial area nominally in the shape of a snake, an animal sacred to the Indigenous

Peoples peoples. The mound became the focus of our activities and we would find ourselves gathering at this

place after our data collection was finished.

Other Indigenous Peoples groups meet regularly to perform rituals and ceremonies at the site; for

instance there is a monthly song meeting at the place to both honours the ancestors and the moon. This is


16

considered a very acceptable and desirable use of the land, as it honours the ancestors and reinforces the ritual

space and traditions. However, since this is a ‘hidden’ history, outsiders were carefully vetted before they were

made privy to the sensitive information.

Field research revealed environmental devastation in the area of the Snake Mound; this was seen as a

secondary tragedy but interlinked with the issue of illegal bike use in the area. Abuses of ancestral land and

environmental damage are therefore interlinked.

Further field observations led us to conclude there were no signs posted in the park prohibiting or

otherwise advising people about restricted areas for bikes anywhere. This meant that the by laws, which apply to

the park, are not enforced because park patrons are not informed of the prohibitions. And signs might not be

placed until the laws are enforced; the laws won’t be enforced until the signs are placed. This dialectic created a

social tension in the group and added to the sense of mission urgency. The Parks Commissioner, who, under

by-law 608 – 50 and 608 – 51 can make this happen, but it has not happened yet.

Data collection was the most time consuming aspect of the work. The collection proceeded slowly for a

number of reasons; the weather – which made it impossible to get GPS readings; the speed of the slowest person

in the party – which the group adapted to and worked with; uncertainty as to where we were exactly on the

hand drawn map that was provided for us; and the distance involved between readings as well as the needed

transit time between readings. The group decided early on to take time to do the readings correctly.

On average, eight mounds were catalogued at each session during the sixteen weeks that the group

met. This yielded a great amount of map data that had to be reconciled and analyzed for correctness. This was

the second most time consuming aspect of the work. Our time was divided between gathering data and

checking it in the field and advocating at what became known as the Snake Mound.

In this way, members of the volunteer team became aware of issues in other parts of the park. For

example, there is a place in the Park known as Eagle Mound; it lies up the side of a very steep hill, and ends in a

gully running roughly northwest. Despite being very steep, the area is allegedly used by local youth to hold

bottle parties because they can start a bonfire in the gully, which is about approximately 8 feet deep, and fires

cannot be seen except at a certain angle. This is dangerous as there is a canopy of oak and maple trees above

and the heat from the fire can cause the trees to ignite.

While we gathered our data, we learned about the park’s size; we learned the park’s history and we

learned how to navigate and advocate for the land. We taught each other why the land was significant in ways


17

that were invisible to outsiders, increasing the camaraderie and the feeling that our work was of paramount

importance for all, not just ourselves. In short, we were doing what Benedict calls ‘capacity building.’

“Capacity building means reinforcing a relationship between our contemporary elected community governments and our tradition cultural government based on long-standing cultural principles and values. It means enacting contemporary enforceable laws and practices that are harmonized with traditional cultural principles and practices.”

(Benedict, 438)

This quote is a good summary regarding the approach and philosophy of what we are attempting to do at the

Park and elsewhere. It is the heart of our struggle and at the heart of the social justice and the heart of the all of

the disturbed ancestors: we need to increase our capacity in all respects so that justice can be done today for

them and into the future for all.

7. Current Analysis: 2010 May

The Taiaiako’n Preservation Society is a group of volunteers who are practicing a combination of

advocacy, teaching, research and in situ groundwork to preserve the heritage and knowledge of Indigenous

Peoples cultures in and around High Park. The group’s purpose is a peaceful and socially oriented one. The

emphasis on peaceful action is no mistake, as this is vital to the ancestors not being further disturbed. The

group advocated for respectful use of the land; this is done by discreetly spreading the word about the damage

and what it means to Indigenous Peoples peoples. Advocacy includes using the land as a ritual stage, as

happened in December of 2009. Ironically, this was done through official channels and a permit to have a fire

was purchased. Despite following the rules, the group was subjected to an inspection by the Fire Department,

even though the Fire marshal’s opinion was that the ritual fire was ‘tiny’. Youth have built illegal fires in the

east central point of the park with no oversight or permit and nothing happened to them.9

Where possible, visitors to the park interacting with the volunteers are taught about the ‘alternative’

history of the area as used for a burial/ritual site and as a stage for those rituals. Stories have been told about

the land, and according to participants, the ancestors are still active in certain parts of the park. Interestingly,

9 This was a personal communication to the author by one of the participants in December 2009.


18

those people who see it as a bad thing to take the bike park away from the bikers get nervous at the mention of

angry ancestors. Research into the history and ecology of the Park is ongoing; as is building links between

different groups. In situ groundwork, which consisting of GPS readings, map making, drawing, photography of

the affected areas and regular ritual use of the lands helps develop the group. Ritual use of the land is the

lowest impact use the author (Rhodes) has seen at the Snake Mound site.

This research is a call to awareness and respect. The call to awareness comes from the knowledge that

there are ancestors at rest in the area; bone fragments have been found on site. Though some in the

archaeological community scoff at this possibility, it has been confirmed by some researchers. In this case, a

deep respect for the land includes honouring those ancestors by keeping them in mind and acting respectfully

while in sensitive areas in the Park. There is a social tension between publicizing the fact of ancestral remains

and exposing those remains to less scrupulous people who would damage the artifacts or locate and sell the

same. This is why the group practices what Homer calls in his Iliad ‘…that better part of valour which is

discretion.”

Recently the group has experienced internal conflict but this is not a failure of leadership, it means the

group must continue the project and work toward its goals in an organized way. Conflicts are to be expected

when human beings get together, even if they are working on a common task. A certain amount of conflict is

welcome, provided it helps clarify the group’s focus and mission. Conflict is unwelcome when it divides the

group or draws resources away from issues at hand, clouding the group’s activities.

One of the team members has been trying to find ways to create a charitable foundation so the group

can access resources and forge links with a sense of legitimacy. This is a good move, but we need to obviously

consider our organization and mission, amongst other elements. We also need to ensure we could carry on

research and continue networking. I think such formalization would establish group rules and help the group

to present a good public image.

The group’s response to obstacles we encountered has verged on despair and surrender. I think this

emotional response is inaccurate and un-necessary. First, the group, for being ad hoc and voluntary, has done a

tremendous amount of work to make others aware of and offset, the damage done at the site in question.

Second, given the complexity of Native/European relations, the group has been very effective at getting the

message across that the site is sensitive and worthy of better treatment. Third, given we do not have funding or

official backing; we accomplished a tremendous amount of good work on this and other sites. Fourth, we have


19

had a positive effect on younger members of the group, empowering and teaching them good ways of

conducting themselves and interacting with others and the land.

An email of early 2010 announced that a ‘curse’ was put on the land by the ancestors because of the

problems at the site. This comes a year after the work was done which was outlined above. The interdiction

based on a curse is a sociological response to frustration that members felt in 2009, and I think it is in response to

the new ramps built in 2010. My concern is that this sanction might diminish our efforts to date, if it goes on too

long. Recall the ethos of our society is that silence equals consent, and absence equals permission.

There are alternate modalities for advocacy and protection of the site which go beyond the theological

curse/prohibition axis. Prohibiting long-term access would halt the good work which has been done and leave

the ancestors vulnerable. This would cause us to stop our attempts to forge links and find alternatives to protect

the site. This would negate the efforts made to date, and this is a serious error from a sociologic viewpoint.

There are alternatives to the destructive, interested archaeology of sites in and around Toronto. In an

essay entitled “Made in Akwesasne.” (Benedict, 2007) the author points out the pitfalls of classical archaeology

as practiced without reference to the founding culture’s living members. Further, it is noted that there is a

revolution in archaeology whereby Indigenous Peoples archaeologists are charged with being respectful of their

finds while exploring the lands in a good way, compatible with the Law of the Great Peace. The author states

that there are Indigenous Peoples approaches in archaeology which can be careful, respectful and considerate of

the ancestors, restoring to them the honour and dignity lost in previous times.

The Indigenous Peoples archaeologists practice appropriate techniques of exploration and good rituals

in exploring, documenting, and protecting those sites. I argue that this is precisely what the Historical Preservation

Society is all about. This is in sharp contrast to the us/them dichotomy which has grown up around the axis of

amateur versus professional archaeologists, and this potentially blinds us to respectful and viable options even

if they do not look like they fall within a Indigenous Peoples philosophy or worldview.

For all the diverse people involved in the project, the leaders have been very careful to teach members

‘good’ ways of approaching and interacting with the land. It was taught that the ground we were walking was

sacred. We had to participate in particular rituals to honour and give respect to the ancestors and the land

before entering or transiting across the land in question. This begs a question: if we were not doing this to

honour the ancestors, then why try to preserve the land at all? We would not be socially unique (or as effective)


20

if we did not approach our work in this good way, and if we were not as committed to teaching good things at

the sites.

For instance, Rhodes needed to access the land to take photographs of the damage in 2010, to document

what was happening. A disposable camera was bought, and 27 various pictures were taken. Among other

things, these pictures showed

a) Ecological damage at the specific site

b) Illegal ramps in their situation

c) The source of the sand for construction of those ramps

d) That there were no by-law control signs on these sites

e) that other areas were appropriately signed in the Park, with by-law numbers

f) that other areas in the Park were access-controlled with fences

The pictures were taken on site with one other researcher, and two sets of copies were made and a CD

of the pictures has been retained. We now have benchmark pictures, documenting what the damage is on the

site. The presented pictures are dramatic and are an effective tool for getting our point across about in a way

that the written word cannot.

Once more, any effort of social change will never be as idealized; I think that the ‘curse’ is an example

of this gap. Also, I think any gains will be made over the long-term and therefore will never go as far as

interested parties envision. These two facts do not mean the effort is not worth it, however. It means we need

to be patient as we work with what resources we have at hand to preserve and honour the site.

The summary is as follows: I think we need to keep forging links. I think we need to contact the

Indigenous Peoples archaeologists at Akwesasne if possible, to seek their advice. I think we need to find

alternative pathways to protection of these sensitive areas. If we can get the area cordoned off and rehabilitated

through environmental emphasis, then the protection of the ancestors will follow from that environmental

position. This is not a perfect solution, but it is still one which is, hypothetically, acceptable to those who have

worked so hard to honour and protect the resting ancestors.


21

Future Developments

a) There is a need to review the GPS co-ordinates with the help of a good topographical map; this

would help the team to find connection between the numbers and the land. To date this has not been done

satisfactorily. A good topographical map must be located first.

b) There is a need to continue the advocacy for the land and its preservation; this would help raise the

status of the team, both internally and externally. To date, this has been done on a small scale, but our

accumulated experience can be brought to bear on events for the summer of 2010.

c) There is a need to research the possibility of placing signs at the sensitive areas in the park discussed

in this paper; we have made connections and gathered photographic data to support the position that the area is

in danger.

It is believed that these three avenues, if continued, would allow us to better advocate for the group. It

would also allow for development of the techniques of the team; for instance, in the case of gathering data about

a new area, we can more efficiently create a position summary in a faster way. This means that we can learn to

streamline our activities as we gather new experience and data.

8. The Preservation Team

The High Park preservation team is a voluntary organization. We bring every talent and resource that

we have individually to help the group reach its goals. For example, after meeting Rastia’ta’non:ha and offering

the use of my GPS machine in June of 2009, I and a friend became part of the team dedicated to collection and

preservation of data found in High Park Toronto. The group gathered at the café once per week and plotted our

strategy for that session. When we were rained out we concentrated on making strategy while keeping dry (and

caffeinated) in the restaurant.


22

Our diverse team has members ranging from elders and youth; Indigenous Peoples and Canadians;

professionals and students. My impression was that whatever someone could bring to the effort was welcome

however it arrived. As one member pointed out, the issue for the members is that the person involved presents

themselves in a good way with a good mind.

The group’s constitution was simple and clear: we worked within the precepts of the Law of the Great

Peace. Once that Law was accepted as the working constitution, everything else followed. Discipline in the

group was kept by the elders, who were strict on access to and dissemination of, information about the project. I

found it easy to work within these bounds as I was always able to ask for, and get, clarification as to what was

expected of me.

For instance, we had a situation where one of the members allowed people access to the lands who

were not part of the group; the elder in charge learned of this and pointed out that in future, he would have to

be informed and approve after meeting, when Indigenous Peoples teachings were going to happen. The elders

were also relied upon as spokesmen when a public statement had to be made.

I agreed to and understood this approach, and even asked about bringing relatives to the site – the

same rules applied. I confess I made some interaction errors, which caused me emotional hurt. I was taught the

correct way to approach things and I was excused for the error, on the understanding that I not make that error

again.10 The same rules applied democratically to all, with the elders being respected and deferred to on

questions of conduct or protocol.

We were always seemed to be adding team members helping out at the Park. Each week I would get to

the café to learn of someone new assisting us. Auxiliary members of the group who would arrive at the sites and

help as they were able; any help was always welcome to us. I found that interesting and welcoming, as it meant

that the burdens of protecting the area were not falling on the same few people. This created a point of tension

between confidentiality and revelation, but I think as a group we coped with it admirably well. Being able to

welcome new members also helped spread out the work load, which meant that we were more effective overall.

10 For me, this created a tension between following the rules and coping with my learning disability. – ar.


23

9. Sociology of the Group

I am trained in the social science of sociology. This means my actions can have an impact on the group

as a whole, because I am studying that group. What was impressed upon me during my studies is that the

researcher is nominally responsible for the social outcomes of his research. I am trained in qualitative research

of the type presented here. However, I must state my biases before I proceed.

For me, (Rhodes) it is not just that I have done research and written a report; I have a social

responsibility for my research. I am not getting paid for this; nor am I trying to use this in an academic sense to

further a career or field of study. I am volunteering my time to write this summary and analyze the data as far

as possible.

I do not have an Indigenous Peoples background. My parents were both from England, and they came

to Canada in 1953. My late mother always had an interest in Indigenous Peoples culture, and I suppose that this

was inherited by me. There is a concept in sociology called colonization, and it is something I wish to avoid.

This happens when one culture intellectually takes over a ‘weaker’ culture. We have seen the disastrous results

of this intellectual colonization on Indigenous Peoples experience on Reservations in Canada.11 This was the

virtual destruction and – to my opinion – intellectual enslavement of an entire race of people. That is a tragedy

of immeasurable proportions.

That is why I am disclosing my professional position; if any bias shows in the resultant document, it is

my error and my responsibility. During research, I kept careful note of materials and sources used as they

arose. For example there was a periodical printed during the 1990s called The Park Lover’s Quarterly. This series

of volumes celebrated the history and natural beauty of High Park from the view of park users. Topics ranged

from development of children’s programs to naturalist significance of the lands to reclamation efforts of the

lands. I used this as a resource, however, for our purposes, although generally helpful, it did not yield much

significant information.

I learned more about the group as I observed their interactions and dynamics. These were very stable,

thanks to the explicit rendering of rules and expectations. I determined to use what sociological information I

had to socially strengthen the group, so that individually we become more effective and socially, more aware of

11 This is not an experience I have any familiarity with at all.


24

what we were doing. I did not limit myself to the research at hand in the park; but made myself available in

other capacities as the need arose.

During writing, I kept in mind the notion of how I was going to reconcile what I was writing with

sociological theory. I knew I was advocating for a better social use of the land, but didn’t know how that was

going to work out. I realized the best social theory I had to hang observed events on was the dynamic

framework of social change.

There have been social developments in the group; some members have come and gone and there have

been social sanctions against members from time to time, (including the author) as the need has arisen. Our

interactions within the group helped all members grow and develop as persons, and this set up a dialectic with

the social development of the group.

I found theoretical underpinnings in theories of social change. One sociologist pointed out, “We will

never succeed in changing society the way we want….Every society is a complex system, and this is why it

cannot be changed or renewed simply by a decision, even one arrived at democratically by majority rule.”

(Crozier, 2005) We have to be patient; avoiding the disappointing mistake of thinking we will create blanket

changes. We are working on a micro scale of social change...

Indigenous Peoples issues are difficult to bring to the fore, because cultural artifacts are hidden in

museum and under the ground. Some people argue that items in museum were stolen from their ancestors – an

example of colonization mentioned earlier. (Hill, 2007) The idea that there are Indigenous Peoples artifacts in

the Park is dismissed by some critics. This created a tension between those who espoused a traditional approach

versus those who advocated for an academic approach.

The acceptable outcomes for this group are: cessation of the use of the land designated as an ancestral

resting place as a bike park. The group’s feelings are very strong that the ancestors are worthy of respect and

defense. However, as it is fashionable to be atheist, it is difficult to convince outsiders of the theological

significance of the site’s destruction.

A second acceptable outcome for the group is the placement of control signs in the area, so that in this

way enforcement can be highlighted. Presently there are no signs, there is no enforcement, and silence equals

consent in our culture. (Virilio, 2009) One research team found in 2010 that there were no signs enforcing or

explaining proper bike use in High Park as they moved through high traffic areas. By-laws, outlined in the


25

appendix, cover the placement and enforcement of bike control signs, and absent political will, can easily be

placed in the desired areas.

Further academic research is called for. There is little written on social change in situations like this; as

a result I had little to ground my theory as I worked. Hopefully, this writing offers a springboard to those who

want to help improve the situation. The basic concept is social justice; we can interact with the land and each

other in a more positive manner than is presently happening. There is scope to expand this

amateur/commitment model to other groups in order to improve social justice for the larger community.

10. A sociological analysis of the different interested parties involved

There are two major sociological positions at work within this writing. The first is the orientation of

conflict between groups in society; the second is the orientation of social change. These are both positions which

can be addressed by sociological theory. I propose to examine the social conflict at the site in micro in the

following section. My position is that humans can always find a way to become co-operative, and we can

always find common ground in any conflict. Sometimes it just takes time and committed effort. That being

said, I do tend to take a nominally critical viewpoint, as I believe that this view is lacking in contemporary

postmodern society.

It is axiomatic that social conflicts cannot happen without social actors working on a social stage. In

this case the social stage is High Park; the specific social stage is the damaged area of the Snake Mound. In my

observations I noticed four social groups involved in this controversy. These groups are those with an

archaeological aim; those with an immediate desire to use the land; those charged with administration of the

land; and those charged with enforcing the land’s administration.

The first social group is the historical preservation group. They have a desire to stop destruction of,

and control access to, the land in question. This claim is predicated on the view that this public land is held in

trust for all present and future generations, but the viewpoint goes beyond mere trust for present use; the

historical and mystical use of the land is no less important.


26

This desired control of the area has a practical side, avoiding and minimizing environmental damage to

sacred spaces. The group also has a social claim to use of the site in that heritage is proven in the form of

archaeological artifacts found both in the immediate area and in the Park itself. Further this group believes

strongly that regular, ritual use of the land ensures spiritual peace.

This group has, on direct observation, tried to advocate for better control of the space. Members have

taken an approach that individual teaching, advocacy, research and use of existing channels to advantage.

Individual and pacifist approaches are not as directly effective: this group must monitor use and control of the

area consistently to preserve this sensitive part of the park. The downside is that there is effort fatigue in the

group, manifesting as disillusionment and burnout of the team members.

The second group is the group with an immediate desire to freely use the land for their own purposes:

the bikers. There are two subgroups within this category; those who were passing through the area and those

who were using the local area as a bike park.

The first element, riders transiting through the area, did not stay around. The second element, the

bikers, were clandestine; they altered the park when people weren’t looking, probably because if people were

looking, they would have to stop their alterations. This immediate purpose is the source of the conflict over the

ground; use of the area for a park for bikes versus respecting the fact that the area is sacred ground for resting

ancestors. The bikers are bolder in that they break the rules by constructing bike ramps, and do it even after

they have been told not to.

The bike park consists of artificially constructed ramps in the disputed area, so riders can use the

ramps for tricks and velocity. The ramps are constructed from materials at hand fir instance, logs, sticks, even

pop bottles and fabric. Erecting jumps contravenes Toronto Park by-laws (608-29) As well, because the ramps

are not professionally constructed or well sited, are a hazard in themselves. For instance, I was on one of the

table ramps constructed in 2010 and after jumping up and down on it a few times, I noticed that the edges

started to crumble.

Bikers have been observed acting in an intimidating manner to outsiders. In one instance, a rider took

a run at a patron of the park, who was sketching in what the biker saw as his ride way. Tactics by bikers have

included throwing stones and verbally attacking park patrons. This group, therefore, has attempted to use


27

violence to achieve their ends. It is my contention that this is a diametric opposition to the social tactics and

efforts of the preservation group; and this violence is what is at heart, disturbing the volunteers.

The third group in this social drama are the by law officers. I have not seen the officers myself, as I

have not been present at the time the officers have been called. The officers are, needless to say, charged with

enforcing the by laws in the city of Toronto, including the public parks.

By-law officers have allegedly been called on numerous occasions to help with by-law enforcement. To

my direct knowledge, to date, not one ticket has been issued. However, the volunteers who are trying to enforce

the by laws have been threatened with being ticketed themselves for calling the officers in the first place. The

reluctance on the part of the by law officers to enforce the by laws might have something to do with the fact that

there are no by law signs posted anywhere near, on or about the feature under question.

However, ambulance technicians have been called on at least two occasions to assist bikers who have

fallen and hurt themselves badly. It is my understanding that first aid has been rendered by the volunteers at

the park until the ambulance arrived.

The problem is that by not enforcing the by laws the attitude on the part of the bikers is that they have

permission to continue damaging the sensitive and protected land. This deepens social pain felt by advocates

for rehabilitation of the lands and respect for those lands as burial sites. The damage is not only social, as but it

is physical and ecological as well.

Park administration has been kept aware of what is happening. During the summer of 2009, one

administrator visited the area to observe the damage. This person came away with a new sense of what had

happened in the area under her jurisdiction. I believe that it was at this time, or shortly after, that one of our

members became part of the Park’s volunteer committee.

At the heart of the conflict is the fact that the public land can be used by anyone. It is therefore a formal

common good. This means that without enforcement of the by laws which are in place to forestall conflicts, the

conflict will continue. It is possible that the conflict will deepen resulting in increased danger for all parties.

The claims and counterclaims are therefore difficult to enforce and disentangle. In spring 2010, we

have already had conflicts between volunteers and bikers. At one point the ramps which were disabled were


28

put back up again. A biker was sent away from the area with a shovel in his backpack; this person said they had

the express purpose of coming to the area to create a bike park. It was at this point again that the police were

called and a complaint was lodged.

Some facts are indisputable, however. First, someone put up these illegal bike ramps in contravention

of by law. This was after they were torn down. Second, the by law states clearly that such constructions are

illegal. The conclusion is that there is no effective control of the disputed site and that we can infer into the

future that this situation will continue. Third, the damage to the land and the ecology will continue, if not

increase.

11. Social Conflict between the different groups at the Park

We have a saying in sociology: conflict happens. Conflict is part of what makes us human; working

through conflict with others to a hopefully positive outcome determines our social maturity. We have a choice

on how we present ourselves and how that presentation gets worked out determines our status as a society.

One major point of conflict is that the land in dispute is publicly administered. Any citizen can use the land at

the park at any time. This means two groups can use the land for cross-purposes, within the bounds of

acceptable use as written in the by-laws. Conflict might continue or worsen if signs are not posted and enforced.

This lack of enforcement led volunteers into conflict with the bikers last summer. When broken by-

laws were pointed out to the bikers, they scoffed. Their reasons for ignoring the by laws were numerous: the

land isn’t really damaged; no-one is getting hurt; there aren’t really any burials in the park; would you really

deprive kids of innocent fun? and so on. At no point was the claim of ancestry seriously discussed by a majority

of the bikers. The issue that the by laws were being broken was glossed over into a dialogue of my rights versus

your claims, leaving the ancestral claims out in the cold. The following three sections outline two examples of

the conflict and one example of our advocacy in action.

The incident at the Snake Mound, 2009

The site is considered to be a burial site and is an ancestral resting place. It is also a place where the

living can come and ritually commune with their relations. There is a strict code of conduct for the use of the


29

land: no alcohol is used; tobacco and other offerings must be given before approaching the land; and one must

not swear or act violently while at this site. This is the expected code of conduct at any of the other sites in the

Park. This is an accepted professional archaeological practice by Indigenous Peoples archaeologists. (Benedict,

2007)

Since the fact of Indigenous Peoples land use is not common knowledge, outsiders did not respect

these positions. For instance the bikers dismissed claims the land was used as ritual and burial grounds. I recall

from observation one teenager becoming nervous at the thought of what he called ‘skeletons’ nearby. If I recall

correctly, he was taught that this was not the case, but the ancestors were close at hand, so respect was called

for. It seems to me as though pointing out that the area was sacred propelled a certain number of people to

become more disrespectful of the volunteers.

When volunteers were cleaning up the site of debris and garbage as a way of maintaining the sacred

space, for instance, the bikers would gather at the top of the hill and hurl insults down at the workers. Some

members took the insults with apparent neutrality. One of the younger members was seen to get visibly upset

and had to physically calm himself down while the insults were thrown. What was interesting was how

efficiently the bikers were able to taunt the volunteers, and how effective they were at it.

Volunteer members encouraged the target of these verbal assaults to remain calm, which seemed to

help. Eventually, the group disengaged from any discussion whatsoever with the youths. This created an

escalation to physical violence by them, who threw a rock which hit an elder, causing an increase in tension.

Then a second rock was lobbed at another volunteer, who was hit below the eye. After the authorities were

called, the youths left without incident. This means that the youths are not only unwilling to listen to the

reasons for proper use of the site, they are willing to use violence to enforce their sense of entitlement. This

resort to violence was something not seen in the voluntary group whatsoever.

The Conflict between the Hawks and the Bears

Social conflict between the volunteers and birdwatchers on what is known as ‘Hawk Hill’ is a typical

example of the tension between different users of High Park. This hill is situated to the north of the Grenadier

Restaurant, and rises about twenty five feet high above the paved parking lot. The soil is sandy and the hill is

covered in a loose layer of grass. There are a few trees scattered about. The birdwatchers state and show that


30

there are hawks in the sky in the area, as a birdwatcher myself; it is a good vantage point to watch those

creatures.

Birdwatchers take their chairs, notebooks and binoculars and sit on top of the hill during migration and

take note of the hawks they see floating in the sky. I noticed that birdwatchers seem territorial in their use of the

land in this purpose, but I think this is because they do not wish to be disturbed, as opposed to having a sense of

permanent ownership. It is also noticed that they can be just as vehement in defending their ‘right’ to sit on

Hawk Hill.

By contrast, the Indigenous Peoples people I work with have taught me that the area the birdwatchers

are sitting on is not known as Hawk Hill, but rather is known as the Bear Mound. In topography, the mound

roughly resembles a bear. Rituals associated with the bear are performed here, and I have had the privilege of

being present at two such ritual sessions. My first day working on site was at the Bear mound, and the bears

seemed interested in me as a person, if spiritual perception is to be believed. As a personal comment and in all

honesty, both sides do not impact the use of the land any differently. What is different is the reverence and

emphasis of use placed on the land in question: the ritual and sacred elements of the land are completely

ignored and downplayed by the birdwatchers. This is the sociopsychological root of the conflict in the psyches

of both parties.

Getting away from it all: the summer meeting

Two members of the group determined they were going to do some consciousness-raising at a summer

meeting in southwestern Ontario. Myself and another member of the group agreed that I should stay at a

friend’s house over the weekend, where we would stage our preparations. We went to the meeting and with the

maps and documentation at hand, educated all who might be interested in preserving sacred sites.

As I can recall, we signed interested parties up to the group’s email list. I do not recall any hostility

toward the group. What I do remember was another group with a competing claim on lands in Ontario being at

the same meeting but we did not interact with them.

Interested people ranged from foreign visitors, (Germany and France) to youth, to elderly people,

Indigenous Peoples or European. Some people seemed interested, but did not sign the sheets; others took


31

information away to consider. There were minor disputes, but on the whole, it was an interesting way to expose

people to an alternative view of the history of Canada during pre-Confederation.

After the day’s meeting, I was able to access my friend’s computer to write an interim report and

summarize my findings to date. This interim report has been printed and stored for safekeeping. I learned a

great deal that week-end and it was a nice ‘getaway’ from the usual routine of going to sit vigil at the park.

Additionally, it was agreed that we were ‘counting coup’ right in the middle of the ‘opposition’s’ territory!

The result of this work was a report outlining the GPS readings that had been taken to that date; it was

also a very short summary of what we had been doing over the summer to that date. That GPS data is included

here as one of the Appendices in Part II.

12. Jurisdiction and administration of the Park

The group’s focus is High Park as a whole, specifically paying attention to the damaged mound. The

area under study is designated as ecologically sensitive by the Metro Toronto Regional Conservation Authority

(MTRCA) in 1982. The area was designated as area #112, and in the 1982 report, included the whole of High

Park. The report pointed out that the area’s oak savannah was unique; the variety of trees, plants and birds also

meant that the area should be protected. There are rare plants in danger because users of the park are

destroying the natural land forms. (MTRCA, 1982)

In 1991, a report by a company called Geomantic recommended that the specific area in Snake Mound

– the area in question – be protected because of its proximity to wetlands and the high diversity of species in the

area. The Geomantic map clearly shows the outline of the area in question as falling into an ecologically

sensitive zone. (Taylor, 1991) This same report states clearly that the criterion for ecological sensitivity were

satisfied. The Geomantic report outlines several points which support the notion of High Park as an

environmentally sensitive area:

Areas that exhibit relatively high native plant and animal species richness in the City of Toronto. Areas that contain rare native plant communities. Areas that contain plant species which are provincially or nationally rare. (Taylor, 1991)


32

We can see from the above that there has been formal analysis of the area in question, and the ecological

conclusions for protection would dovetail with our desire to see the area protected.

A combination approach to land protection, highlighting ecological damage, and pointing out the

area’s ecological uniqueness, is the best method of gaining control over, and rehabilitating the area. It is

possible that Toronto Urban Forestry can be enlisted to help with this project, as High Park, being designated

both a park and a ravine respectively, falls under the mandate of this group. Toronto Urban Forestry also

welcomes volunteers to help in reclamation, which means the preservation society can increase its profile.

I was able to prove through online research that the area of interest does not fall under the control of

Toronto Region Conservation Authority and although the area of Grenadier Pond to its east shore is covered,

the area at the south east is not. This area at the south east is also not covered under Toronto’s Waterfront Plan.

By process of elimination, the area must therefore fall under the jurisdiction of Toronto Parks and Recreation.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This is a more complex document than I intended to write. Essentially, I wanted to give a snapshot of

different activities and observations made with and in the group in the last eleven months. While some

conclusions might seem overly critical, it must be borne in mind that the group has done a tremendous amount

of work on preserving and defending the sites. Clearly, there is minimal enforcement of the area in question, it

is also apparent that there needs to be better administration of the area. It is also clear that there is

environmental damage in the specific area under study, which needs to be addressed.

Different members of the group have worked to forge links with the wider community, albeit with

discretion, to find official inroads to protection of the sensitive areas. The group has an official voice in the area

of High Park with the Voluntary Board, which means these efforts have been successful. Additionally, the

group has become socially strong and working relationships and friendships have grown up in the time the

different people have been working together.

There must be a more formal organization of the group to better set goals and find allies. The group

must move from ad hoc organization to formal organization. One member of the group has been researching

funding as a charitable group as a result of this need. If we found funding and stakeholders we would be able


33

to share data with other groups, help fledgling groups to grow, and spread the word about the urgency of

protecting endangered lands, while creating positive social roles for the group members.

Overall, this action would increase the social solidarity for the community, strengthening the group

and furthering its goals. This would raise our credibility in the eyes of our critics and allies alike. There is a

tremendous possibility for education and empowerment of young people in teaching history and culture; we

could give hope to future researchers and community members in a very positive way by becoming ‘official.’

We can show that a diverse and unique group of people can unite for a common purpose and create a positive

outcome, regardless of how insurmountable the obstacles might seem at the outset.

It is my conclusion that the work we are doing is not for ourselves; it is also not for the users of the

Park; it is also not for the people of Toronto; I think it is an effort undertaken for social justice for everyone. I

think that there is a real need for this sort of committed, amateur respectful effort to create networks and teams to

preserve and defend those areas which are in danger of obliteration.

With this in mind, I offer the following recommendations to action, supported by the preceding report:

i. We need to stay present on the land to monitor any damage and report this damage to interested parties

ii. We need to work to get signs posted indicating that bikes and alteration of the land is not

welcome

iii. We need as a group to continue the local advocacy to protect the land

iv. We need to find environmental partners in this struggle

v. We need to forge supportive community links

vi. We need to find funding to continue the work and offset personal costs

vii. We need to find alternate pathways to reaching the same end

viii. We need to find allies in the Indigenous Peoples community

ix. We need to continue petitions to control and rehabilitate the damaged land

x. We need to forge local political links, if possible

xi. We need to continue to observe the destruction in situ, and record it to build up a case

xii. We need to explore alternatives to current actions

xiii. We need to continue academic research to stay current with the state of the art

xiv. We also need to consider setting up an advocacy website


34

PART II THE GPS DATA SETS

Field Methodology: The GPS Measurements

The reason the group got together was so we could do the field research. We wanted to know the

locations of the structures in High Park, and learn if possible, what the relationships were to those locations and

each other. The sites in High Park are very close on the Taiaiako’n village site; it would have been local, and

known, to the villagers. There must be some connection between the site and the village, and that was why

documentation in the field was so important.

It was determined by the team that endangered areas in the Park be located within the framework of a

GPS grid, so that specific sites could be anchored to the land in a ‘technological’ way. Measurements were taken

with a GPS machine, used to pinpoint the features on a map. The GPS machine was a Magellan 12 reader. This

unit can track up to 12 satellites at a time to get a location reading, displaying that on its LCD face. The machine

runs off two batteries and is loaded with different map measurement data. The GPS was calibrated carefully

during use and co-ordinates were double checked before they were accepted. In this way, we minimized data

errors; yet in compiling the data approximately six notation errors were found from 99 readings.12

Sometimes one team member would take readings; and another would take notes. When team

members were fatigued, the task was switched to minimize data error. We are not the first or only researchers

to summarize data in this fashion: According to “Made in Akwesasne”, an article in the book, Archaeology of the

Iroquois, “When goods are uncovered, good notes and photographs are taken and the site is GPS’d.” (Benedict,

2004) This is exactly the procedure the group followed if artifacts or areas of interest were located.

The specific procedure was as follows: a feature would be noticed or located from a map which we had

supplied to us, and the GPS machine would take the reading which was displayed. The numbers were then

carefully called out and double checked for accuracy before being accepted as correctly entered. In this way, a

cumulative record of the sites visited in the park was kept, and this information was entered into a

Documents

Taiaiako'n draft report€¦ · Appendix: Applicable City of Toronto by laws ... The most important lesson that I learned was that . Taiaiako’n Draft Report 2009-2010 4 as someone