Mohawk Workers Update RE: Tutela Heights

1858 Tremaine Map of the County of Brant

Complete projectile point manufactured from Onondaga chert
Transitional Late Woodland Levanna point
Length, 29 mm; width, 25 mm; and thickness, 4 mm
From P-93 (Cat.#L2)

On September 25, 2012 the M.I.B. informed the Mohawk Workers that during the first two stages of Walton’s archaeological survey, at least three historical sites, one historic industrial site, one possible historic Aboriginal site, two historic “findspots”, 59 pre-contact sites and 85 pre-contact findspots were documented and reported to Brant County. The study, dated August 2010, appears to have been prepared by Archaeological Services Inc. and was not submitted to the County of Brant until February 3, 2011 as Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment.

Walton Plans for Tutela Heights Development – Historic Sites in Orange – Pre-contact Sites in Green Circles

Stage 3 Archaeological Assessment, dated April 2011, also  appearing to be prepared by Archaeological Services Inc., was submitted to the County of Brant on May 10, 2011.

Also on September 25, 2012, the Minister of Tourism and Culture’s office was notified of what appear to be glaring violations of the Ministry’s applicable Standards and Guidelines for Consulting Archaeologists (2009).  Copies of this objection and disclosure notice were also forwarded to federal  officials within the Department of Canadian Heritage.   Ontario’s Coroner’s Office and the Cemetery Registrar were also notified.

A Draft Technical Bulletin for Consultant Archaeologists in Ontario was released in 2010 by Ontario’s Ministry of Tourism and Culture.  It was intended to help the licensed consultant archaeologist engage Native communities in archaeology “as effectively as possible”. It summarizes the direction on Aboriginal engagement set out in the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists and provides information and resources to assist consultant archaeologists in successfully following the standards and guidelines. “

At the end of Stage 3, when formulating a strategy to mitigate the impacts on the following types of Aboriginal archaeological sites through avoidance and protection or excavation [Sections 3.4 and 3.5]:

a. rare Aboriginal archaeological sites;
b. sites identified as sacred or known to contain human remains;
c. woodland Aboriginal sites;
d. aboriginal archaeological sites where topsoil stripping is contemplated;
e. undisturbed Aboriginal sites;
f. sites previously identified as of interest to an Aboriginal community.

When you have engaged Aboriginal communities as part of an archaeological project, you must provide a description of the engagement and a copy of any documentation arising from the process to the Ministry of Tourism and Culture. Submit this information as part of the supplementary documentation included in the Project Report Package. [Section 7.6.2]

1.2 Guidelines
Engaging Aboriginal communities at the following additional stages constitutes wise practice, which you are encouraged to follow. You should engage Aboriginal communities:

1. In Stage 1, when conducting the Background Study, in order to identify information sources in local Aboriginal communities (e.g., for information on traditional use areas, sacred sites, and other sites) when available and relevant to the property). [Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists Section 1.1]

2. In Stage 1, when evaluating archaeological potential and making recommendations to exempt areas meeting the criteria for low archaeological potential from further assessment, in order to ensure there are no unaddressed Aboriginal cultural heritage interests. [Section 1.4]

3. In Stage 2, when assessing a property and determining archaeological sites that require Stage 3 fieldwork, in order to determine interest (general and site-specific) in the Aboriginal archaeological sites and ensure that there are no unaddressed Aboriginal archaeological interests connected with the land surveyed or sites identified. [Section 2.2]

4. In Stage 3, when making recommendations regarding the excavation or preservation of Aboriginal archaeological sites of cultural heritage value or interest (other than those identified in the standards), in order to review the recommendations with the relevant, interested Aboriginal communities. [Section 3.5]

If human remains are uncovered at any stage in the fieldwork process you must cease fieldwork and report the discovery to the police or coroner. This is a mandatory requirement of the Cemeteries Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C.4 (the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.33, [when proclaimed in force]).

2.2 Identifying communities with a potential interest in the project.
Often, more than one community will have an interest in your archaeological project and a historical connection to the area affected by it. Consider the following factors when trying to identify Aboriginal communities with an interest in your project:

 Is the geographical location of the project close to Aboriginal communities or within the traditional territory of a present-day Aboriginal community?

 Has more than one Aboriginal culture inhabited the area over time? For example, in southern Ontario, both Iroquoian and Algonkian-speaking peoples have occupied land over the centuries. There are several tribes or nations within these broad groupings. Some live in communities in the region today (Chippewa, Mississauga, Six Nations) and some do not (Huron).

 Does the project site fall within established or asserted treaty areas?

 What cultural affiliation has been inferred for the archaeological site or sites in the project area through archaeological fieldwork and analysis?

Where the cultural affiliation of the project area or archaeological sites within the project area is uncertain, approach Aboriginal communities with potential interest with as much information as possible and seek their input to inform your professional interpretation.

3.3 Incorporating Input from the Aboriginal community
As noted in Part 1 of this bulletin, when recommending avoidance and protection or excavation for certain types of archaeological sites, you must engage Aboriginal communities in the development of a strategy to mitigate impacts to the site.

The standards and guidelines make it clear that avoidance and protection is the preferred option for archaeological sites with cultural heritage value or interest. This option preserves the sites intact [See Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists, Section 4.1].

It is good practice to discuss mitigation options with the Aboriginal community early in the archaeological project, ensure that the options are clearly understood, and document the community’s preference. You must consider the input of the Aboriginal community at the point when you make mitigation recommendations. However, because proponents have the greatest flexibility at the start of a development project, it is a good idea to make the community’s preference known to your client as early as possible.

Where your recommendations do not reflect the community’s preference, you should communicate this to your client as early as possible as well.

3.5 Reporting on Aboriginal engagement to the Ministry of Tourism and Culture
When archaeological fieldwork has included engagement with Aboriginal communities, you must include documentation of the engagement process in the project report package [see Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists, Section 7.6.2]. The documentation must describe and give reasons for the following:

 who was engaged;

 engagement procedures (e.g., communication protocol, data sharing agreements between you and the community);

 dates and Stages when engagement took place;

 strategies to incorporate community input into the fieldwork (e.g., community report review, Aboriginal monitor); and

 process for reporting results to the community (e.g., oral presentations, plain language documents).

Archaeological project reports submitted to the Ministry of Tourism and Culture are publicly accessible through the Ontario Public Register of Archaeology Reports.

When Aboriginal communities have been engaged in the fieldwork process, do not include any information the Aboriginal community identifies as private or sensitive (e.g., information related to burials, secret or sacred places, personal information) in the report that will be filed in the publicly accessible report register. [Section 7.3.1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists] Such sensitive information should be provided separately, in either the cover letter or as supplementary documentation, so that it will not be entered in the register.

Please note, however, that private or sensitive information contained in any supplementary documentation to the ministry would be subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), which provides the public a legal right of access to most governmentheld information. Although private or sensitive information is protected through the provisions of this legislation, it is important that you work with the Aboriginal community to determine what information is suitable for sharing with the ministry.

Cemeteries Act (Revised)

68.  No person shall disturb or order the disturbance of a burial site or artifacts associated with the human remains except,

(a) on instruction by the coroner; or

(b) pursuant to a site disposition agreement. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 68.

Unmarked burial sites

69.  Any person discovering or having knowledge of a burial site shall immediately notify the police or coroner. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 69.

Investigation

70.  (1)  The Registrar may order the owner of land on which a burial site is discovered to cause an investigation to be made to determine the origin of the site. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 70 (1).

Idem

(2)  Section 68 does not apply to a person investigating the nature or origin of the site who is disturbing the site in the course of the investigation. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 70 (2).

Idem

(3)  A person conducting an investigation shall do so with the minimum disturbance to the site that is reasonable in the circumstances. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 70 (3).

Idem

(4)  If the Registrar is of the opinion that an investigation under subsection (1) would impose an undue financial burden on the land owner, the Registrar shall undertake the investigation. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 70 (4).

Declaration

71.  (1)  As soon as the origin of a burial site is determined, the Registrar shall declare the site to be,

(a) an unapproved aboriginal peoples cemetery;

(b) an unapproved cemetery; or

(c) an irregular burial site. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 71 (1).

Interpretation

(2)  An irregular burial site is a burial site that was not set aside with the apparent intention of interring therein human remains. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 71 (2).

Idem

(3)  An unapproved cemetery is land set aside with the apparent intention of interring therein, in accordance with cultural affinities, human remains and containing remains identified as those of persons who were not one of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 71 (3).

Idem

(4)  An unapproved aboriginal peoples cemetery is land set aside with the apparent intention of interring therein, in accordance with cultural affinities, human remains and containing remains identified as those of persons who were one of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 71 (4).

Definition

(5)  For the purposes of this section and section 72,

“unapproved” means not approved in accordance with this Act or a predecessor of this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 71 (5).

Site disposition agreement

72.  (1)  The Registrar, on declaring a burial site to be an unapproved aboriginal peoples cemetery or an unapproved cemetery, shall serve notice of the declaration on such persons or class of persons as are prescribed. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 72 (1).

Idem

(2)  All persons served with notice under subsection (1) shall enter into negotiations with a view of entering into a site disposition agreement. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 72 (2).

Idem

(3)  If a site disposition agreement is not made within the prescribed time, the Registrar shall refer the matter to arbitration. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 72 (3).

Idem

(4)  Despite subsection (3), the Registrar, if of the opinion that an agreement may be reached, may defer referring the matter to arbitration so long as there appears to be a reasonable prospect of an agreement being reached. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 72 (4).

Offence

79.  (1)  A person is guilty of an offence if the person,

(a) furnishes false, misleading or incomplete information in an application under this Act or in a statement or return required to be furnished under this Act or the regulations;

(b) fails to comply with an order made under this Act; or

(c) contravenes any provision of this Act or the regulations. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 79 (1).

Idem

(2)  Every director or officer of a corporation who concurs in an offence under this Act is guilty of an offence. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 79 (2).

Idem

(3)  An individual who is convicted of an offence under this Act is liable to a fine of not more than $20,000 and, on a subsequent conviction, to a fine of not more than $20,000 and to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 79 (3).

Idem

(4)  A corporation that is convicted of an offence under this Act is liable to a fine of not more than $40,000. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 79 (4).

Limitation

(5)  Subject to subsection (6), no proceeding under this section shall be commenced more than two years after the offence was committed. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 79 (5).

Idem

(6)  No proceeding under clause (1) (a) or subsection 35 (2) or 36 (3) or section 68 shall be commenced more than one year after the facts upon which the proceeding is based first came to the knowledge of the Registrar. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 79 (6).

Restitution

(7)  If a person is convicted of an offence under this Act, the court making the conviction may, in addition to any other penalty, order the person convicted to make compensation or restitution in relation thereto. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 79 (7).

________________________________________________

Walton’s stage 1&2 report states that:

Site AgHb-413 represents a significant component of the Late Iroquoian and contact period history of Brantford. If this site cannot be avoided in the development plan, it must be subject to a comprehensive Stage 3 assessment.

Sites P1 (AgHb-418), P5 (AgHb-421), P9 (AgHb-423), P18 (AgHb-424), P20 (AgHb-426), P23 (AgHb-427), P26 (AgHb-428), P27 (AgHb-429), P28 (AgHb-430), P32 (AgHb-432), P39 (AgHb-434), P40 (AgHb-435), P41 (AgHb-436), P42 (AgHb-437), P58 (AgHb-440), P65 (AgHb-442), P67 (AgHb-443), P68 (AgHb-444), P81 (AgHb-445), P83 (AgHb-446), P93 (AgHb-449), P108 (AgHb-459), P117 (AgHb-461), P136 (AgHb-468), P147 (AgHb-472), and P148 (AgHb-473) all represented significant archaeological resources of potential high heritage value. If these sites cannot be avoided in the development plan, they must be subject to comprehensive Stage 3 assessment.

The following sites are situated within significant areas to be protected and will not be subjected to further (Stage 3) investigation: 

Pre-contact Protected Areas – Not to be Developed (Note: Most Protected Sites Appear Outside Planned Lots & Roads

The following sites are situated within areas to be protected and will not be subject to Stage 3 investigation: P4 (AgHb-420), P95 (AgHb-451), P97 (AgHb-452), P98 (AgHb-453), P100 (AgHb-454), P101 (AgHb-455), P103 (AgHb-456), P105 (AgHb-458), P116 (AgHb-460), P120 (AgHb-462), P121, P127 (AgHb-465), P132 (AgHb-467), P138 (AgHb-470), P139 (AgHb-471) and Euro-Canadian site AgHb-414.

STAGE 1&2 PROJECT PERSONNEL

Project Director: Debbie Steiss, MA – Partner & Senior Archaeologist (P049)

Project Manager: Beverly Garner, Hons. BA – Assistant Manager

Field Director: Mr. Robert Wojtowicz, BSc – Staff Archaeologist (R291)

Field Archaeologists:
Ms. Maya Basdeo
Ms. Devon Brusey
Mr. Jenna Down
Ms. Jillian Fraser
Ms. Johanna Kelly
Mr. Adrian Morrison
Ms. Anatoly Venovcev

Project Historian:
Mr. Brian Narhi

Report Preparation:
Ms. Andrea Carnevale, Hons. BSc – Staff Archaeologist (R314)

Artifact Processing:
Ms. Carol Bella
Mr. Shawn Bayes, BA
Ms. Elaine Cheng, BA – Staff Archaeologist (R318)

Artifact Analysis:
Ms. Andrea Carnevale
Ms. Alexis Dunlop, MSc – Laboratory Manager
Ms. Deborah Steiss

Artifact Photography:
Ms. Andrea Carnevale

Graphics:
Ms. Sarina Finlay, Hons. BA – GIS/CAD technician
Ms. Andrea Carnevale

Report Compilation and Editing:
Ms. Andrea Carnevale
Ms. Beverly Garner

This assessment was conducted under the project direction of  Debbie Steiss, under professional archaeological license P049 (MTC CIF P049-512-2010) issued to Steiss in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O. 1990 and 2005). The field assessment was conducted under the direction of Robert Wojtowicz. Beverly Garner was the project manager. Permission to access the subject lands was granted by Walton Development and Management of Toronto in April, 2010 in lieu of authorization from the Mohawks or their designate.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Evidence of Documented Finds

Tutela Heights was inhabited for thousands of years – since at least the Late Paleo-Indian period (10,400-9,500 BP)

Walton’s Stage 3 Site-Specific Archaeological Assessment
(Obtained & Edited by the Mohawk Investigations Bureau)

The Tutelo land in question was incorporated into the Stewart and Ruggles Tract, which was unlawfully “patented” by the Crown in 1835. The Tutela Heights site is located on land “purchased” by Richard Brooks and unlawfully transferred. It belongs under the Mohawks’ Haldimand,  territory and was reclaimed on September 19, 2012 by the Mohawk Workers pursuant to August 30 Lawful Notices of Intent / Cease & Desist and September 15  Notices & Summons issued and delivered to Walton Executives Child, Plastaris & Doherty.

Tutelo History

“The lands along the Grand River containing the study area originally formed part of the territory occupied by the Tutelo people – a small group of Siouan natives who dispersed throughout the Northeastern United States and Eastern Canada. The tribe is said to have settled originally the areas of West Virginia, Kentucky, and North Carolina, and is currently located mainly in central Pennsylvania in the Shamokin coal region. They were gradually forced off of their ancestral lands and by 1753 they had migrated northwards into New York State where they were adopted as part of the Cayuga tribe. A small band of the Tutelos came into Upper Canada as Loyalists with the Mohawks and their allies.

A census of the natives along the Grand River showed that there were 55 “Upper Tootalies” and 19 “Lower Tootalies” settled here in 1785. An “Indian Census” from 1810 showed 53 Upper and 29 Lower “Tootelies.” In 1811, the numbers increased to 64 Upper and 41 Lower Tutelos. In June 1813, it is known that 16 “Tutaleys” were present at the Battle of Beaverdams, although Captain Kerr only noted four Tutelos at Beaverdams in his official return. A map of Brantford, compiled by the Reverend Robert Lugger in February 1828, showed the “Upper Cayugas” settled here at a place called “Tatulis Heights.” It is reported that the Tutelos were “nearly exterminated in an epidemic of Asiatic cholera in 1832.” By 1843, the “Upper Cayuga village” was described as “now deserted” and the total population of Tutelos was a mere 40 “included in the Upper Cayuga return.” The Tutelo longhouse or council house is said to have once stood “opposite the later site of the Bell Homestead and a few yards to the southwest,” and that a Tutelo burial ground was located “in a sand knoll a few hundred yards southeast of the homestead”

Digging at Tutela Heights

During the Stage 3 archaeological excavation 2,702 artifacts were discovered and removed from the Tutela Heights site over the 11 days between November 4, 2010 and November 18, 2010 by a Walton Contractor. 546 artifacts were taken from a single 100 m by 90 m area where as many as 136 artifacts were taken from within a single square metre unit.

Tutela Heights Artifact Discoveries

Artifacts included early ceramics such as creamware and pearlware, and later ceramics including ironstone. Fragments of wood and bone were also taken.  Eight hand-wrought nails that pre-date the 1830s, 40 machine cut nails that date to between 1830 and 1900, four wire nails that post-date the 1900s were also taken.

“Furnishings taken consisted of one drawer handle, one figurine, 12 lamp chimney fragments, one light bulb base, and three pieces of table lamp glass. Lamp chimney fragments became common on EuroCanadian sites in the later years of the nineteenth century as the dropping price of kerosene made glass lamps more affordable than candles.

Ceramics are useful tools for dating archaeological sites because of the historical progression of types in industrial-era ceramic production. Much of the innovation that took place in the late eighteenth century English ceramic industry resulted from the competition with the imported porcelain market from continental Europe and China. Thus in the 1740s, the English potters began experimenting with two new types of ceramics: a refined cream-coloured earthenware and a white saltglazed stoneware. White salt-glazed stoneware, produced by casting salt into the kiln at peak temperature, was a standard product between 1740 and 1760. The lightweight cream-coloured earthenware was produced as early as 1740 by Enoch Booth but was perfected by Josiah Wedgwood in 1762 and quickly became attractive and popular as a status ware. As the name might suggest, creamware is creamy in colour due to the lead glaze applied to the vessels. The creamware glaze lightened in colour during the early nineteenth century.

Creamware was originally imported into Ontario alongside white salt-glazed stoneware but by 1800 creamware was the consumer favourite. While creamware continued to be imported until the 1830s, its popularity declined significantly in favour of pearlware.”

In total, there are 456 faunal (organic) artifacts taken. These included three bird bones, 286 mammal bones, 21 shells, and 146 ‘unidentified’ bones.

103 artifacts in the personal class were taken. These include one brass brooch, three brass buttons, one single-holed thermally altered bone backing for a metal button, one iron button, one dress hook, and 96 smoking pipe fragments. The brass brooch has an imperial insignia of the crown with thistle, rose and shamrock and a “V” prominently in the centre, possibly representing Queen Victoria who ruled 1837 to 1901 and provides a nice terminus post quem for the site. One of the pipe stem fragments has partial impressed lettering of “WHITE” and “_LASGOW” suggesting that this is a White/Glasgow pipe that was produced between 1805 and 1955.

Tutela Heights Settler’s Artifacts

From http://waltonriverbend.com

Paleo-Indians (Paleoindians) or Paleoamericans is a classification term given to the first peoples who entered, and subsequently inhabited, the American continents during the final glacial episodes of the late Pleistocene period. The prefix “paleo” comes from the Greek adjective palaios (παλαιός) meaning “old.” The term Paleo-Indians applies specifically to the lithic period in the Western Hemisphere and is distinct from the term Paleolithic.[1]

Evidence suggests big-game hunters crossed the Bering Strait from Asia (Eurasia) into North America over a land and ice bridge (Beringia), that existed between 45,000 BCE–12,000 BCE (47,000 – 14,000 years ago).[2] Small isolated groups of hunter-gatherers migrated alongside herds of large herbivores far intoAlaska. From 16,500 BCE – 13,500 BCE (18,500 – 15,500 years ago), ice-free corridors developed along the Pacific coast and valleys of North America.[3] This allowed animals, followed by humans, to migrate south into the interior. The people went on foot or used primitive boats along the coastline. The precise dates and routes of the peopling of the New World are subject to ongoing debate.[4]

Stone tools, particularly projectile points and scrapers, are the primary evidence of the earliest human activity in the Americas. Crafted lithic flaked tools are used by archaeologists and anthropologists to classify cultural periods.[5] Scientific evidence links indigenous Americans to Asian peoples, specifically eastern Siberian populations. Indigenous peoples of the Americas have been linked to North Asian populations by linguistic factors, the distribution of blood types, and in genetic composition as reflected by molecular data, such as DNA.[6] Between 8000 BCE – 7000 BCE (10,000 – 9,000 years ago) the climate stabilized, leading to a rise in population and lithic technology advances, resulting in a more sedentary lifestyle.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment