ANT300-24+Week+10+Notes.docx

University of Toronto at Mississauga Department of Anthropology ANT300 Cultural Heritage Management: The past in the present and for the future Week 10 Lecture These notes are for ANT300 student use only and may not be redistributed or posted to online access sites. Ontario Provincial Policy 1: Site...

University of Toronto at Mississauga Department of Anthropology ANT300 Cultural Heritage Management: The past in the present and for the future Week 10 Lecture These notes are for ANT300 student use only and may not be redistributed or posted to online access sites. Ontario Provincial Policy 1: Site Identification and Recording Borden System Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism The four-stage approach to CRM in Ontario Borden System Site Identification system used in Canada was created by Charles Borden in 1952. This system uses a grid that covers the entire country – Large blocks: Northern Blocks = 2 deg. Lat. x 8 deg. Long. Southern Blocks = 2 deg. Lat. 4 deg. Long. Each Borden block is designated by four letters, e.g., HaRb- Large blocks are identified by two upper case letters, one for the latitude axis and one for the longitude axis on the main grid: Latitude axis A-U from south to north Longitude axis A-W from east to west Large blocks divided into smaller blocks by grid based on 10-minute interval, each of these smaller blocks – Borden Blocks – are designated with two lower case letters, one for the latitude axis and one for the longitude axis. Latitude axis a- l from south to north Longitude axis a-x from east to west These letter designations are written out with the two latitude letters first, uppercase then lower case followed by the two longitudinal letters, again upper case then lower case. The portion of the UTM campus we work on for the Department of Anthropology’s field school is located primarily within the Borden block AjGw (Deerfield Hall is in the adjacent block AjGv to the east). Each site is assigned a sequential number based on the order in which they were found/recorded within each Borden block. As an example, the two field school sites were the 534th and 535th sites recorded in Borden Block AjGw, written in full as AjGw-534 and AjGw-535. The Borden number is the official “name” and is used by the Ministry to track the site. Some sites also have a common name. In Ontario is it was once common practice for the archaeologists who found the site to give it a name. The Ministry has stopped this practice unless it is a name given by an Indigenous Nation, or the name of a settler that can be associated with the site through primary documentation. AjGw-535, for example, was named Iverholme by the family that built the house in the early 1880s, it is appropriate therefore that this name be associated with the site in the Ontario Archaeological Sites Database. To date, we have not been able to associate AjGw-534 with a specific house, so it is known only by its Borden number. Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM) Responsible for Ontario Heritage Act Within the Ministry the Archaeology Programs Unit is responsible for administering Part 6 of the Ontario Heritage Act titled Conservation of Resources of Archaeological Value As you read the following information, think about the nine aspects Christopher Turnbull (1976) outlined as important for a provincial archaeology program (from Week 8), and you will see that many of them are addressed in the Ontario government’s program. Archaeology Programs Unit: Note: the following is summarized from the Ontario Heritage Act (Ontario 1990) and the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism website (MCM 2020), and the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MCM 2011). I have added material from the standards and guidelines documents from the Mississauga of the Credit First Nation (MNCFN 2018), and the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON 2011). Controls Archaeological Licensing Section 48 States that a license from the MCM is required by anyone who: - carries out archaeological fieldwork - alter or remove artifacts or other physical evidence of past human use or activity from a known archaeological site - drive or operate within 500 m of a marine archaeological site that is prescribed by regulation (including using any submersible vehicle, or any survey device, e.g., side ` scan sonar) There are three types of licences available in Ontario for terrestrial archaeology (marine archaeology requires a different licence): Professional Licence: - allows Licensee to conduct all aspects of fieldwork: survey, excavation, monitoring, assessment - Can recover artifacts, act as a consultant archaeologist, supervise fieldwork, act as field director, conduct fieldwork Applied Research Licence: - allows Licensee to conduct survey, monitor and assess archaeological sites for Stages 1-3. - Can recover artifacts, and act as a field director Avocational Licence: - intended for people who want to do archaeology out of personal interest - allows licensee to do survey and monitor archaeological sites - can recover artifacts Cannot: excavate or assess site, act as field director, or as a consultant archaeologist Each project begins with the submission of a Project Information Form, commonly referred to as a PIF, which tells the Ministry what project you want to do and where you are going to do it. - each PIF is tied to a professional License - each PIF requires the license holder submit a project report that meets the Ministry’s guidelines as set out in the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTC 2011) - The reports provide background information on - the development project - archaeological context for the study area - physiographic context (water sources, topography, spoils) - previous archaeological work in the area - what fieldwork was done - results of the fieldwork - recommendations - failure to submit a report means you cannot submit new PIFs. - In addition to their report, the archaeologist must submit and Archaeological Site Record Form for each site they find or provide an Archaeological Site Update Form for sites that had been previously recorded. 2. Review License Reports One of the Archaeology Program Unit’s roles is the technical review of all license reports submitted by archaeologists to ensure all reports meet the standards set out in the S&G, and the terms of the license. If a submitted report does not meet the standards, the license holder receives a letter outlining the problems, these are often omissions in the content of the report but can include requests for further fieldwork. - Licensees are then given a period of time in which to make all necessary revisions and resubmit their report Reports that pass the technical review are accepted into the Ontario Register of Archaeological Reports - The Licensee receives a letter stating the Ministry has accepted the report - This letter indicates to the approval authority that a developer has addressed the archaeological concerns for the project area, with the focus being either additional archaeological work will be required, or there is no further archaeological concerns and the project can go ahead - What was addressed differs at each stage: - Stage 1: was there archaeological potential on the property or not, if yes proceed to Stage 2, is not there are no further archaeological concerns - Stage 2: were archaeological sites identified, if yes is further assessment required or not, if yes proceed to Stage 3, if not there are no further archaeological concerns - Stage 3: site specific assessment to determine if identified sites have further Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI), if yes proceed to Stage 4, if not there are no further archaeological concerns - Stage 4: Mitigation of development impacts, generally excavate site resulting is no further archaeological concerns, but if the entire site is not excavated can result in partial clearance 3. Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports Section 65.1 of the OHA establishes that the Minister will establish a register of all archaeological reports produced under licenses issued by the Ministry. - information on site location can be kept confidential - the registry is available to the public - licensed archaeologists can access reports from the Ministry’s online PastPortal system More than 20,000 reports in the register 4. Ontario Archaeological Sites Database (OASD) Ontario Archaeological Sites Database, the database Record of all known archaeological sites in the province. (~30,000) It is compiled based on the Archaeological Site Record Forms that are submitted as part of the license requirements. The database collects information on: - site location - site type - Cultural affiliation - Researcher and date of visit - artifacts collected - where notes, photos and artifacts are stored Licensed archaeologists can access the OASD through the ministries Past Portal Search for information on previous archaeological work within and in proximity to their study area. S&G requires license reports to list all previously recorded archaeological sites within 1 km of their study area, and to discuss all previous projects and archaeological sites within 50 m of their study area. Archaeology Programs Unit also support and advice to approval authorities, municipalities, and archaeologists. B. The Four Stage Approach to CRM in Ontario 1) Background study and Property Inspection 2) Property assessment 3) Site-specific assessment 4) Development of Mitigation Impacts
 Not every site or project will necessarily go through all four stages before development may be given the permission to proceed The lands, or property that is being assessed prior to any type of development is generally referred to as the Study Area, Project Area or the Subject Property. Requirements for each stage are all detailed in the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists Some Indigenous communities, including the Mississauga of the Credit First Nation and the Saugeen Ojibway Nation have created their own standards and guidelines to strengthen the process. Stage 1: Background Study and Optional Property Inspection The following is based on the S&G (MCM 2011) pages 13-23. The purpose of the Stage 1 assessment is to: 1. determine if the study area has the potential to contain archaeological sites. This determination is made on the review of: - the physiography of the project area, including water sources (lakes, rivers, creeks, springs), topography, soils (including their drainage characteristics) - current condition of the study area, existing structures, previous disturbance - historical context, including Indigenous and non-Indigenous - previous archaeological assessment/research 2. Make recommendations based on the potential assessment on whether additional archaeological assessment is required, or not 3. Provide strategies for the Stage 2 assessment if it will be required Site locations are often correlated with certain environmental features, access to water, favourable topographic locations, such as raised landforms, and well drained soils. Useful sources for this information comes from: Chapman and Putnam’s (1973) The Physiography of Southern Ontario, Soil Survey of Ontario Canadian National Topographic Series maps Land use history of a study area can be tracked through a wide variety of sources Archaeological research and CRM provides information on pre-contact Indigenous land use. Indigenous communities may also provide information on land use within their territories. SON provides a list of documents that pertain specifically to their territory for archaeologists to consult Canadian census Local history available through museums and archives and published books and a variety of different types of historic maps. Municipalities have Archaeological Management Plans. S&G does not require archaeologists to consult with Indigenous communities for Stage 1 assessments MCFN and the SON strongly state that engagement must begin at the earliest stages of a project. MCFN wants to be a partner in the background study for all archaeological assessments. sites exist along with "places of sacred or spiritual importance, traditional use, or that are referenced in oral histories” (2018:24), and as such some of the features the S&G consider to be indicators of archaeological potential cannot be addressed without community input. In Ontario some of the most useful historic maps are the Ontario County Atlases (Canadian County Atlas Digital Project 2013): made between 1874-1881, 32 atlases produced for Ontario had township and town maps historical Text resident’s names written on their property sold by subscription, prominent residents could pay extra for a biographical sketch, portrait, sketch of their residence or business card inclusion SON (2011:6, 15-29) provides a list of documents that pertain specifically to their territory for archaeologists to consult during their background study. In-person property inspection - optional: confirming the presence of features with potential, identify additional features with archaeological potential not visible on mapping identify features that will affect Stage 2 assessment strategies (e.g., low wet ground, steep slopes, previous disturbance, forested areas). If the Stage 1 assessment determines that the study area does not contain any lands with archaeological potential report recommend that there are no further archaeological concerns. If lands have the potential to contain archaeological sites report will recommend Stage 2 property survey prior to any development activities Stage 2: Property Assessment The following is based on the S&G (MCM 2011) pages 27-41. The purpose of the Stage 2 assessment is to: 1. Identify all archaeological sites within the study area. 2. Determine if the identified sites require further assessment 3. Provide strategies for the Stage 3 assessment if it will be required Survey a crew of archaeologists goes to the study area and conducts a survey of the entire property. Areas that do not have archaeological potential, permanently wet ground, slopes greater than 20 degrees , previously impacted - photo documented. MCFN require that input be sought from FLRs on lands considered to have low potential. Lands deemed to have high potential assessed with two primary field methods: Pedestrian Survey Test-Pit Survey The nature of the property will determine if one of these methods is used, or if both are necessary. Pedestrian Survey is conducted in ploughed fields by archaeologist systematically walking across the fields. The S&G (Mcm 2011) sets specific rules for conducting pedestrian survey. - Fields must be recently ploughed, and allowed to weather prior to the survey taking place. Weathering refers to a heavy rainfall, or several light rains, that wash the dirt of artifacts brought to the surface by the plough. - The field must have 80% ground visibility (i.e., there cannot be excessive crop or weed growth obscuring the ground surface) - Survey transects must be spaced at a maximum of 5 m (i.e., crew members walking line a breast, must not be more than 5 m apart. - once an artifact is found the crew reduces their spacing to 1 m and covers the area within at least 20 m of the initial find to see if the artifact is isolated, or part of a larger scatter. - A sample of artifacts is collected for analysis to help identify cultural affiliation and time period - the location of all archaeological materials is mapped SON standards and guidelines require: all bedrock exposures be examined; agricultural fields be ploughed, weathered and assessed twice; precise locations for all artifacts found must be recorded SON monitors be present for test pitting Test Pit Survey excavation small test holes systematically across a property conducted in lands that have never been, or cannot be subject to ploughing. include woodlots (forested areas), pastureland, and abandoned agricultural fields that have grown over. The S&G (MTC 2011) sets specific rules for conducting test pit survey: - in areas with high archaeological potential (within 300 m of feature with archaeological potential) test pits are to be spaced at 5 m intervals - areas beyond 300 m from a feature with archaeological potential can be test- pitted at a 10 m interval - each test pit must be at least 30 cm in diameter, and must be excavated into the first 5 cm of sub-soil - all dirt from the test pit must be put through 6 mm mesh screen - all artifacts recovered from a test pit are collected, and bagged together clearly identifying the test pit they came from - generally, all test pits must be backfilled, as an open hole presents a hazard to people and livestock. When archaeological materials are found in a test pit, you need to determine if there have been enough positive test pits in the area on your 5 m grid to allow an assessment if the site needs to go to Stage 3. If there are not enough positive test pits to allow a proper determination is a Stage 3 assessment is necessary, then additional test pits must be excavated. The S&G (MCM 2011), offer two options for additional testing. Option A. Intensify test pitting by excavating eight additional test pits around the positive test pit (2.5 m interval), and place a 1 m2 evaluation unit over the positive test pit Option B. Excavate at least 3, 1 m2 evaluation units within 5 m of the positive test pit. If archaeological materials found during Stage 2 survey meet the criteria for Cultural Heritage Value of Interest, then a Stage 3 assessment will be required. Criteria differ by time period and location: Indigenous sites - Pedestrian Survey - at least 1 diagnostic artifact and at least two other non-diagnostic artifacts within a 10m x 10m area - for areas located north and east of the Niagara Escarpment at least 5 non- diagnostic artifacts - for areas west of the Niagara Escarpment at least 10 non-diagnostic artifacts Pre- Indigenous sites - Test Pit Survey - at least 1 diagnostic artifact - at least 5 non-diagnostic artifacts Indigenous - single artifacts of special interest Indigenous ceramics, exotic cherts, Paleo-period of early archaic diagnostic artifacts Settler sites at least 20 artifacts pre-dating 1900 20th Century sites with documentary information that archaeological features have CHVI Human remains If sites meet any of the above criteria, then the archaeologists recommends that a Stage 3 site-specific assessment. If a site does not meet the above criteria for CHVI then the assessment can be considered complete. - MCFN and SON both point out that mobile populations may not leave large, artifact dense sites, and that small sites in aggregate retain importance for understanding land use on a broad scale. MCFN direct that archaeologists use their professional judgement to recommend Stage 3 assessment for small sites. SON requires that all sites be subject to Stage 3 site specific assessment. Stage 3: Site- Specific Assessment The following is based on the S&G (MTC 2011) pages 45-63. The purpose of the Stage 3 assessment is to: Define the size of an archaeological site and the nature of the artifacts Collect an appropriate sample of artifacts from the site Assess the CHVI Make recommendations on the need for conservation or mitigation Recommend strategies for conservation, or Stage 4 mitigation A Stage 3 site- specific assessment is conducted to collect additional information on a site to determine if Stage 4 is warranted and includes both additional historical and land use research and fieldwork. As with the Stage 2, the methods used in a Stage 3 assessment vary slightly depending on the site and its location, and generally consists of Controlled Surface Pick-up and the 1 m2 Test Unit Excavation. Controlled Surface Pick-up (CSP): sites located within ploughed agricultural fields are subject to controlled surface pick-up to collect a larger sample of artifacts and help define the nature and size of the site. Field conditions must be the same as required for Stage 2 pedestrian survey. Generally, the crew walks the site area flagging all artifacts on the ground surface and mapping their location. Mapping is usually done with a total station or similar mapping instrument. Any spatial associations are noted, such as clusters of a specific artifact type that may indicate the former location of a structure or an activity area. Test Unit Excavation: following the CSP, and on unploughed sites a grid of 1 m2 units is excavated across the site, the standard grid size is 5 m. These units will provide data on the subsurface deposits and provide a representative sample of artifacts from across the site. All units are hand excavated following stratigraphic layers into at least 5 cm of subsoil, with the removed soil screened with 6 mm mesh. Once the test units on the 5 m grid are complete, additional units equal to 20% of the total grid units are excavated in areas of interest within the site. The MCFN (2018:30) requires excavation of units until two sterile test units are completed to identify the boundary of a site. Any cultural features found in test units are not to be excavated, that is left for Stage 4. The S&G (MTC 2011) provides options beyond this standard approach for different site types, site sizes and deeply buried sites. The results of the Stage 3 assessment are used to determine if the site meets the criteria for CHVI and requires Stage 4 mitigation. Some site types automatically require Stage 4, for pre-contact Indigenous sites these include: sacred sites, site containing burials, sites that are rare or unique, Paleo-period sites, large dense lithic scatters, and Woodland Period sites. MCFN (2018:31) explicitly states that only the MCFN can determine which sites are sacred. Post-contact sites that automatically go to Stage 4 include sites that pre-date 1830, and 19th or 20th century sites where CHVI is clearly indicated by background research or archaeological features indicate CHVI. The S&G (MCM 2011) includes instructions on assessing CHVI on other types of sites. We will talk more about assessing site significance next week. Archaeologists are required to consult with Indigenous communities when assessing the CHVI for sites at this stage of the process. MCFN (2018:31) requires that consultant archaeologists work with DOCA in creating Stage 4 mitigation strategies. The assessment of CHVI for sites during the Stage 3 process is used to make recommendations for the next steps. The S&G (MTC 2011:62) stated that avoidance and protection are always the preferred option and identifies three approaches that can be used to ensure sites are not damaged. Developers can be encouraged to redesign their project (e.g., changing building and road locations) so archaeological sites are avoided altogether. Remove the site area from the area proposed for development so that it is no longer a concern for the project. Finally, projects can be designed to incorporate the site without any damage taking place, such as making the site location green space. If avoidance and protection are not possible and Stage 4 mitigation is recommended, Indigenous communities must be consulted regarding appropriate mitigation strategies. Stage 4: Mitigation of Development Impacts The following is based on the S&G (MTC 2011) pages 67-89. The purpose of the Stage 4 assessment is to deal with development impacts to archaeological sites that have CHVI that requires mitigation. As outlined above in the Stage 3 recommendations there are two options, Avoidance and Protect and Excavation. Avoidance and Protection: Avoidance of an archaeological site prevents damage from development impacts, through the use of temporary barriers and identifying the site area on all development plans as a no-go area. Protection plans must include the entire sites area, plus a protective buffer (buffer size varies with site type). MCFN (2018:34) requires larger buffers, and consideration of the surrounding landforms in site context when determining how much land should be protected. Once a site has been avoided its long-term protection needs to be ensured, and this is generally done through legal and administrative planning tools, such as restrictive covenants placed on the land title, and transfer of the land to a government body. MCFN (2018:34) states that DOCA must be included in the development of long-term protection strategies, and that any measures taken to protect sites should not prevent MCFN from carrying out cultural activities at the site. SON (2011:10-11) states that site and artifact protection and conservation is their highest importance, and they may require avoidance and protections the only mitigation approach appropriate for a site. All mitigation procedures are required to be negotiated with SON. Excavation: Excavation of an archaeological site in advance of development is intended to document all aspects of a site including its context, all cultural features, and artifacts, so this information can be preserved for future research. As you would imaging the guidelines for conducting Stage 4 excavations are detailed and vary depending on the site type. The excavation of units follows the same rules as Stage 3, done by hand, following stratigraphic layers into at least 5 cm of subsoil. MCFN (2018:35) requires all excavation be conducted by hand. Generally, excavation is done with 1 m2 units starting around the Stage 3 units with the highest artifact yields and works out from these contiguously until artifacts are no longer recovered or drop below ministry set thresholds (generally this limit is 10 artifacts per unit but varies by site type). The MCFN (2018:37) requires 100% artifact recovery on undisturbed sites. In certain situations, the S&G (MCM 2011) allows topsoil to be stripped from a site by heavy equipment, referred to as Mechanical Topsoil Removal. This method is generally used on sites in agricultural fields that have been repeatedly ploughed over a long time period. The underlying premise is that artifacts in the plough zone are no longer in primary context, and more information can be saved by removing the topsoil and focusing on the intact features that extend into the subsoil. The S&G (MTC 2011) stipulates additional conditions for the use of mechanical stripping, including its use only on sites that have a single layer below the plough zone, the sites must be large, and there must be the potential for sub-surface features. The S&G (MCM 2011) notes that this method must be used with caution, as it can potentially destroy evidence of site formation processes, and it leaves artifacts from the plough zone behind. As Jordan Jamieson (2020) talked about when he met with us just after reading week, the Mississauga of the Credit First Nation Field Liaison Representatives do not like this practice, and the MCFN (2018:30, 35) discourages the practice. In the event that mechanical topsoil stripping takes place at a site, the MCFN (2018:36) prefers that all back dirt is screened so that no artifacts are left behind. Once excavation is complete the site is considered to have been removed, and to no longer exist. At this point there are no further archaeological concerns for the development. References Canadian County Atlas Digital Project 2013 McGill University, http://digital.library.mcgill.ca/countyatlas/default.htm, accessed 09 August 2013. Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam 1973 The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Ontario Research Foundation, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, ON. LaForme, Adam and Jordan Jamieson 2020 Presentation to ANT380 class, 27 February 2020). Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation 2018 Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology. Department of Consultation and Accommodation, Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, Hagersville, ON. Ministry of Heritage, Tourism, Sport and Culture Industries 2020 Archaeology. http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/archaeology/archaeology.shtml, accessed 19 March 2020. Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, ON. Ontario 1990 Ontario Heritage Act. R.S.O. 1990, Chapter 0.18, Last Amended 2019, c. 9, Sched. 11. Saugeen Ojibway Nation 2011 Conducting Archaeology within the Traditional Territory of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation: Process and Standards for Approval Authorities, Development Proponents and Consulting Archaeologists. Environment Office, Saugeen Ojibway Nation, Wiarton, ON. Turnbull, Christopher 1976 Of Backdirt and Bureaucracy: The Role of Government in Canadian Archaeology. In New Perspectives in Canadian Archaeology. Proceedings of a Symposium Sponsored by the Royal Society of Canada, ed, by A.G. McKay. Royal Society of Canada and Royal Ontario Museum and the National Museum of Man.