HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997Spiral bound book, 196 pages, prepared for the Seaton Interim Planning Team, July 1994.
Volume 1
Seaton Cultural Heritage
Resources Assessment
Summary Report
-This report should be read in conjunction
with:
Volume II: Technical Appendix
Volume III: Confidential Appendix
SEATON INTERIM PLANNING TEAM MINISTRY OF HOUSING
PROJECT COORDINATOR
Greg Tokarz
STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Chris Anderson Louise Beram Barry Crowe Annette Payne Catherine
Rose Susan Santedicola Greg Tokarz Anna Willson
Ministry of Housing
Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation
Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation
Management Board Secretariat
Ministry of Housing
Planning Department, Town of Pickering
Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation
Ministry of Housing
Pickering LACAC
CONSULTING TEAM:
PRIME CONSULTANTS
NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE RESOURCES
Hough Stansbury Woodland Naylor Dance Limited
ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
D.R. Poulton and Associates
BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCES
Andre Scheinman Heritage Consultants
WHITEVALE WORKSHOPS
Hough Stansbury Woodland Naylor Dance Limited
Carolyn Woodland
Maria Kaars Sijpesteijn
Sheila Fleming
Lesley Bodimead
Dana Poulton
Andre Scheinman
Jim Stansbury Maria Kaars Sijpesteijn
We thank the following individuals for participating in the WHITEVALE WORKSHOPS:
from Ajax: from Brooklin: from Brougham: from Pickering:
from Whitevale:
Dave Marlow
Gwen Mobray
Mike Puterbough
Nunzio Di Lecce
Carolyn Johnson
Robin MacKenzie
Doug Willson
Bill Cowls
Barbara Gardiner
Charles Neville
Julia Schembri
Gordon Willson
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Summary Report
Volume I Table of Contents
PAGE
INTRODUCTION_____________________________________
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Study Goals and Objectives 1
1.3 Summary of the Resource 2
1.3.1 Archaeology 2
1.3.2 Built Heritage 2
1.3.3 Natural and Cultural Heritage Landscape 3
1.4 Method and Approaches 4
1.4.1 Archaeology 4
1.4.2 Built Heritage 5
1.4.3 Natural and Cultural Heritage Landscape 6
1.4.4 Integrated Evaluation Framework 8
1.5 Public Consultation Process 9
1.5.1 Objective 9
1.5.2 Participants 9
1.5.3 Methodology 10
1.5.4 Results 10
INVENTORY ________________________________________
2. Archaeological Resources 17
2.1 Past Archaeological Investigations 17
2.1.1 The Miller Site 17
2.1.2 Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area Study 18
2.1.3 North Pickering Project 19
2.1.4 New Toronto International Airport Survey 20
2.1.5 Urban Stage One Archaeological Survey 21
2.1.6 Urban Stage One Archaeological Excavations 23
2.1.7 Taunton Road Archaeological Assessment 24
2.1.8 Highway 407 Archaeological Assessment 26
2.1.9 Brock West Landfill Borrow Area 27
2.1.10 Interim Waste Authority Assessment 29
2.2 Cultural Synthesis 31
2.2.1 Palaeo-Indian Period 32
2.2.2 Archaic Period 33
2.2.3 Woodland Period 34
2.2.4 Indeterminate Prehistoric 36
2.3 Archaeological Inventory 37
Page - i
3. Built Heritage Resources 43 3.1
Overview of Settlement History (Euro-Canadian) 43
3.1.1 Built-Form 52
4. Natural and Cultural Heritage Resources 67
4.1 Natural Heritage Landscapes 67
4.1.1 Earth Sciences Features 67
4.1.2 Life Sciences Features 69
4.1.3 Aquatic Resources 72
4.1.4 Natural Heritage Landscape Units 74
4.2 Cultural Heritage Landscapes 83
4.2.1 Prehistoric Period 83
4.2.2 Historic Period 84
4.2.3 Early European Settlement - Frontier Phase 84
4.2.4 Later European Settlement - Backwoods Phase 85
4.2.5 Industrial Heritage 87
4.2.6 Early 1900s 88
4.2.7 Post War Development 88
4.2.8 Expropriation and Government Stewardship 88
4.2.9 Current Development Proposals 89
4.2.10 Visual Framework 89
4.2.11 Cultural Heritage Landscape Units 91
EVALUATION___________________________________________
5. Archaeological Resources 103
5.1 Evaluation Framework 103
5.1.1 Site Significance Criteria 103
5.1.2 Levels of Significance 105
5.2 Evaluation of the Resource 106
5.2.1 Sites of Demonstrable or Potential Significance 107
5.2.2 Sites of Limited or Negligible Significance 108
5.2.3 Discussion 109
5.3 Evaluation of Archaeological Potential 109
5.3.1 Criteria 110
5.3.2 Land Use Variables 112
5.3.3 Archaeological Variables 114
5.3.4 Results 117
5.3.5 Evaluation of Inherent Archaeological Potential 122
5.3.6 Evaluation of Applied Archaeological Potential 123
5.3.7 Discussion 124
5.4 Sensitivity and Constraints Issues 126
Page - ii Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
6. Built Heritage Resources 129
6.1 Evaluation Framework 129
6.1.1 Architecture 129
6.1.2 History 130
6.1.3 Environment 130
6.1.4 Integrity 131
6.1.5 Feasibility for Use 131
6.2 Evaluation Summary 132
6.3 Sensitivity and Constraints 134
7. Natural and Cultural Heritage Landscape Resources 137
7.1 Natural Heritage 137
7.1.1 Natural Heritage Landscape Evaluation Framework 137
7.1.2 Evaluation of Natural Heritage Landscape Units 138
7.1.3 Sensitivity and Constraints of Natural Heritage Resources 142
7.2 Cultural Heritage 143
7.2.1 Cultural Heritage Landscape Evaluation Framework 143
7.2.2 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Landscape Units 146
7.2.3 Sensitivity and Constraints of Cultural Heritage Resources 154
8. Evaluation of Natural and Cultural Heritage 157
8.1 Integrated Framework 157
8.2 Evaluation of Natural and Cultural Heritage 157
RECOMMENDATIONS_____________________________________
9. Guidelines and Planning Recommendations 159
9.1 Introduction 159
9.1.1 Overview 159
9.1.2 Goals and Principles for Cultural Heritage Within Seaton 159
9.2 Integrated Management Strategies 160
9.2.1 Protecting and Enhancing the Past 160
9.2.2 Building On the Past 161
9.2.3 Heritage and the Evolving Community 163
9.2.4 Strategies and Guidelines for Cultural Resources 163
9.3 A Comprehensive, Integrated Perspective 186
REFERENCES_______________________________________________
10. References Cited 191
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page - iii
Figures_____________________________________________
Figure 1.1 Tree-lined streets and lanes
Figure 1.2 Natural Valley Landscape
Figure 1.3 Pioneer Cemeteries
Figure 1.4 The Whitevale Pond, an old mill pond and dam
Figure 3.1 1877 Map of Pickering Township from County Lane
Figure 3.2 Asher Willson House c. 1835
Figure 3.3 Barns at Willson House
Figure 3.4 Whitevale
Figure 3.5 Brougham - Brocks Highway 7
Figure 3.6 Historic Map -1895 from the Parish of St. Francis de Sales
Figure 3.7 Historic Map - c. 1917
Figure 3.8 Crystal Springs Acres
Figure 3.9 Flushboarded Exterior, Whitevale
Figure 3.10 Cornerstones at Stonecroft, Hawkins Woodruff
Figure 3.11 Dichromatic brick with accenting string course, quoins and arches
Figure 3.12 Detail of design motifs. Note "pinwheel"
Figure 3.13 Major House, Centre Gable Window
Figure 3.14 Main door into D. Willson "parlour"
Figure 3.15 Enclosed main stair, D. Willson House
Figure 3.16 Major House main stair, Newel
Figure 3.17 Window reveal, Major House
Figure 3.18 Detail of Base, Major House
Figure 3.19 Fireplace at Stonecroft
Figure 3.20 Kitchen, Major House
Figure 3.21 Kayes raised English bank barn with milk house
Figure 3.22 Raymond barn
Figure 3.23 Barns at #38. Noteprivvy.
Figure 3.24 Major barn framing
Figure 3.25 Kayes' chicken house
Figure 3.26 Kayes' fence and gate
Figure 3.27 Tree-lined drive
Figure 3.28 Split rail fence with hedgerow
Figure 3.29 Picket fence, drive and windbreak
Figure 4.1 West Duffins Creek, Open Valley north of Highway 7
Figure 4.2 West Duffins Creek, dense riparian vegetation
Figure 4.3 West Duffins Creek, Whitevale Pond
Figure 4.4 West Duffins Creek, dam at Whitevale Pond
Figure 4.5 West Duffins Creek, erosional cuts at Clarke's Hollow
with Whitevale golf course in the background
Figure 4.6 West Duffins Creek, gravel bars and riffles
Figure 4.7 Ganatsekiagon Creek
Figure 4.8 Tributary Creek Valley
Figure 4.9 Gently undulating landscape
Page - iv Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Figures - cont'd
Figure 4.10 Rolling topography
Figure 4.11 Level to gently undulating landscape
Figure 4.12 Regenerating quarry east of Country Lane
Figure 4.13 View towards Brock West landfill
Figure 4.14 Entrance to Seaton Trail
Figure 4.15 Feed mill in Whitevale
Figure 4.16 Whitevale
Figure 4.17 Pastoral Rural Landscape
Figure 4.18 Open Rural Landscape along Highway 7
Figure 4.19 Partially Open Rural Landscape
Figure 4.20 Cleared Landscape
Figure 4.21 Seaton Trail near Whitevale
Figure 4.22 Whitevale Golf club
Figure 4.23 Regenerating quarry north of Whitevale
Figure 4.24 Hydro corridor
Figure 4.25 View of single rail track south of the surplus refrigeration site
Figure 4.26 Rural residential/commercial strip along Brock Road
Figure 4.27 Surplus refrigeration site
Figure 4.28 Brock West landfill
Figure 6.1 Tool house soffit with "carved" rafter ends
Figure 6.2 Relationships between house and gambrel barns on Highway 7
Figure 6.3 Major barn in ruins. Note tusk tenons exposed.
Figure 7.1 West Duffins Creek
Figure 7.2 Tablelands with creek valley in background
Figure 7.3 Tree-lined gravel road
Figure 7.4 Split rail fencing
Figure 7.5 Farm along Whitevale Road
Figure 7.6 Farm along Highway 7
Figure 7.7 Neglect results in deterioration of
the typical farm landscape with its barns
Figure 7.8 Road widening would alter the character of this road
Figure 9.1 Whitevale
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page - v
Tables
Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 2.5 Table 2.6 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3
Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6 Table 8.1
Table 8.2 Table 8.3
Maps
Cultural Chronology of South-Central Ontario
Summary Data on Registered Archaeological Sites
Summary Data on Unregistered Archaeological Sites
Registered Archaeological Sites: Provenience Data
Registered Archaeological Sites: Land Tenure
Unregistered Archaeological Sites: Land Tenure
Cultural Chronology for South-Central Ontario
Registered Archaeological Sites: Select Environmental Data
Registered Archaeological Sites: Evaluation of Significance
Registered Archaeological Sites: Summary of Evaluation
Summary of Inherent Archaeological Site Potential
Summary of Applied Archaeological Site Potential
Seaton Cultural Heritage Evaluation Framework: Registered
Archaeological Sites
Seaton Cultural Heritage Evaluation Framework: Architectural
Heritage Resources
Seaton Cultural Heritage Evaluation Framework: Natural and
Cultural Heritage Landscapes
Map 1.1 Provincial and Federal Land Assemblies
Map 3.1 Built Heritage Features
Map 4.1 Physiography
Map 4.2 Soils
Map 4.3 Vegetation
Map 4.4 ESAs and Hood/Fill Lines
Map 4.5 Natural Heritage Landscape Units
Map 4.6 Early European Settlement
Map 4.7 Late 19th Century
Map 4.8 Early 1900s
Map 4.9 Post-War Development
Map 4.10 Current Development Proposals
Map 4.11 Visual Framework
Map 4.12 Cultural Heritage Landscape Units
Map 5.1 Evaluation of Registered Archaeological Resources
Map 6.1 Evaluation of Built Heritage Resources
Map 7.1 Evaluation of Natural Heritage Landscapes
Map 7.2 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Landscapes
Map 8.1 Integrated Evaluation
Page - vi
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Appendices
Volume II Technical Appendix
Data Sheets on Architectural Resources
Data Sheets on Architectural Resources Evaluation
Data Sheets on Natural and Cultural Heritage Landscape Evaluation
Volume III Confidential Appendix
Data Sheets on Archaeological Resources
Figure 2.1 The Miller site: Plan of Village (facsimile of map by Kenyon 1968:12)
Figure 2.2 The Park site: 1972 Investigations (facsimile of excerpts from Hazzard
n.d.)
Figure 2.3 The New Toronto International Airport Property: 1976-1978 Survey
Coverage (facsimile of Plan from Poulton 1980)
Figure 2.4 The Delancey site: 1978 Investigations (facsimile of map by Spittal 1978:15)
Figure 2.5 The Delancey site: 1980 Excavations (facsimile of map by Ambrose (1981:15)
Figure 2.6 The Bolitho site: 1978 Investigations (facsimile of map by Spittal 1978:20)
Figure 2.7 The Bolitho site: 1980 Excavations (facsimile of map by Ambrose 1981:32)
Figure 2.8 The Winnifred site: 1978 Investigations (facsimile of map by Spittal 1978:24)
Figure 2.9 The Winnifred site: 1980 Excavations (facsimile of map by Ambrose 1981:73)
Figure 2.10 The Ginger site: 1978 Investigations (facsimile of map by Spittal 1978:38)
Figure 2.11 The Bowden site: 1978 Investigations (facsimile of map by Spittal 1978:62)
Figure 2.12 The Mawson site: 1978 Investigations (facsimile of map by Spittal 1978:65)
Figure 2.13 The Mawson site: 1991 Investigations (facsimile of map by ASI 1991)
Figure 2.14 The Mawson site: Comparative Plans of 1978 and 1991 Investigations
Figure 2.15 The Willems site: 1978 Investigations (facsimile of map by Spittal 1978:67)
Map 1 Map 2 Map 3
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page - vii
INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The study area forms part of the North Pickering land assembly. These lands were
expropriated by the provincial government in 1972-73, in conjunction with the Government of
Canada's acquisition of an adjacent site to be developed as a new airport- The provincial
lands were to be developed as a new community of 175,000 to 225,000 people. Since the
initial planning studies in the early 1970s, a number of planning initiatives have been
undertaken for the Seaton area. In the 1980s, new plans were developed to accommodate a
new community. These plans were abandoned with a change in government. Subsequently,
the Rouge Valley Park was created on March 26,1990. The provincial lands between the
Rouge Valley Park and West Duffins Creek have been designated as an agricultural
preserve. (Map 1.1) Planning efforts for a new community have been restricted to the
provincial lands west of West Duffins Creek. The latest planning efforts were started in 1991
and include a comprehensive review of the resources in the Seaton area. This review
includes the Seaton Cultural Heritage Study.
The site covers 3600 hectares, includes the Village of Whitevale, and is bordered by the
communities of Brougham and Green River. The majority of the lands included in the Seaton
area are located in the Township of Pickering west of West Duffins Creek between
Highway 7 and Concession Line 3. The site extends eastward to Side Line 16 up to and
including Lot 17 north of the Trans Northern Oil Pipeline and Lot 16 south of the Trans
Northern Oil Pipeline. The site also includes a small area north of Highway 7 between North
Road and West Duffins Creek. The hydro electric corridor forms the southern boundary of
the site.
1.2 Study Goals and Objectives
The purpose of the inventory phase of the study was to compile a comprehensive data base
of the existing archaeological, architectural, and natural and cultural heritage landscape
features and resources in the Seaton area. Locations and boundaries of the resources and
features were identified and mapped as part of this initial phase of work. A thorough
understanding of the archaeological and architectural resources and existing landscape
patterns and character will assist in planning new development in a way which is compatible
with existing landscape structure and past and present use of the land.
The identification of archaeological resources, built structures, and specific landscapes of
natural and cultural heritage importance provided opportunities for understanding the long
-term natural and cultural evolution of the site. These also provide the context for
understanding historic events and cultural landscape development.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 1
The purpose of the second phase of the study was to compile an evaluation of the existing
archaeological, architectural, and natural and cultural heritage landscape features and
resources in the Seaton area, and to assess the relative sensitivity of these resources to
change. The evaluation comprised separate assessments of the archaeological, architectural,
natural and cultural heritage features, and resources. However, to further assist in the
planning of the Seaton Community, a combined evaluation of the different resources will
assist in determining interrelationships between the resources and landscape patterns.
The evaluation of archaeological resources, built structures, and specific landscapes of
natural and cultural heritage importance provided opportunities for understanding how
specific resources have contributed to or have resulted from historic events and cultural
landscape development. The evaluation and the relative sensitivity of the heritage resources
provided direction for the third phase of the study, the development of goals, objectives, and
guidelines.
1.3 Summary of the Resource
1.3.1 Archaeology
Archaeological resources form an important part of the cultural heritage of the Seaton
property. From a planning perspective, however, these resources present some unique
challenges and opportunities. One reason for this is that many or most of these
archaeological sites date from a time and from a culture quite remote from the experience
and value systems of the people who now inhabit this land. Another and even more
important matter is that unlike the cultural landscape and the standing heritage that give the
area so much of its character, archaeological sites are essentially invisible. This factor
creates special problems for the preparation, evaluation, and application of any inventory.
The archaeological sites documented by the present study have been divided into two
basic categories; registered and unregistered sites. Each of these categories must be
given due consideration for planning purposes, although the quantity and quality of available
data is inevitably greater for the registered sites, many of which are of patent importance as
archaeological resources and as planning concerns.
1.3.2 Built Heritage
The area now known as Seaton is characterized by its predominantly 19th and early 20th
century building stock. Generally a region of relatively small farmsteads, there are farm
residences representing a wide range of periods (particulary from ca.1840 and after),
styles, and materials though a regional vernacular can be clearly discerned. For the most
part the farmsteads retain at least some of their barns and associated outbuildings though
often in deteriorating condition. There are, however, a few excellent examples of fully intact
farmsteads.
Page - 2
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Proposed New Toronto International Airport Property
Seaton Community Lands
Remaining Provincial Lands
Provincial and Federal Land Assemblies
The hamlets of Green River, Brougham, and Whitevale at the perimeter of the Study Area,
retain much of this turn of the century ambience, largely due to the survival of earlier building
stock and the coherent relationship which generally remains between structures, structures/
yards, and their relationship to the associated roads. Each of these 'urban' nodes has its own
distinct character.
This picture of surviving 'integrity' is seriously fragmented to the south (especially the south-
east) of the study area, Le., at Taunton Road, Brock Road, and along Third Line. A number
of structures key to the past life of the community have been lost, e.g., Train Station and
School House, as have some 19th century residences to the expansion of metropolitan
infrastructure. Along Brock Road, south of Taunton Road, much subdivision has taken place
but some individual former farm residences of significance do survive.
1.3.3 Natural and Cultural Heritage Landscape
The Seaton area is a landscape rich in natural and cultural heritage. The natural history of
the landscape is evident in the distinct valley systems and changes in topography associated
with the Lake Iroquois Shoreline. The relatively flat topography of the Highway 7 corridor
versus the rolling topography along Whitevale Road set the framework for the landscape
character of the site. Not only did the differences in topography associated with soil types
create distinct character, but soil type also influenced European settlement, agricultural
practices, abandonment of marginal lands, and quarrying operations. Thus, the cultural
heritage of the landscape is closely tied to the natural heritage.
The cultural landscape reflects a rich pattern of relatively small farms, many with intact
farmsteads (farmhouse and barns). Even though many of the barns are deteriorating, the
farm complexes still create a strong landscape pattern. A relatively intact fabric of smaller
fields, hedgerows, a few surviving tree-lined roads and lanes, and the smaller scale of the
rural roads with unimproved roadsides reflect historic landscape patterns from the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
The integrity of the cultural landscape is seriously fragmented to the south of Taunton Road.
The fabric of the landscape (field patterns, hedgerows, tree-lined roads) and the scale of the
19th century rural landscape have been lost to the expansion of the urban infrastructure.
Rural residential and commercial properties, utility corridors, and the widening of the rural
roads further dilute the historic landscape patterns in the southern part of the site. While
some individual former farm residences in these areas do survive, the associated landscape
patterns have been compromised as agricultural pursuits have been abandoned and more
'contemporary development' occurred.
Experience and scenic amenity remains high for many of the significant landscapes in the
Seaton area. Most of the negative impacts affecting experience and scenic amenity result
from the same elements which contribute to low integrity: the dump, the Hydro
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 3
corridors, and the rural residential/commercial strip along Brock Road. Thus, the evaluation of
experience and scenic amenity is largely consistent with the integrity of the natural and cultural
heritage landscape units. In addition to reinforcing integrity, the panoramic views are important
landscape features relating primarily to the natural heritage of the site. Serial vision and
panoramic views both point to the relative sensitivity of the resource to contextual impacts.
Public input has assisted in the identification of landscapes of high social value. In addition
to those landscapes of high historic significance, the community placed high social value to
those landscapes with significant natural features, and those representative of historic land
use patterns such as farming. The concept of small communities and their historic
relationship to farming was deemed to be important, as well as farming in and of itself.
1.4 Method and Approaches
1.4.1 Archaeology
The archaeological background study entailed a thorough examination of documentary and
other potential sources of information. An initial starting point for the background study was
to review the "Archaeological Sites Listing" for the Seaton Lands, prepared by C.J.
Andersen of the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation (MCTR) in April 1990. This
source was reviewed and checked against other data on file at the Ministry. Following
additional research, two sites were eventually added to complete the inventory of registered
sites in the Seaton property: the Miller site (AlGs-1); and the Ashbridge site (AlGs-143).
The single most important collective source of information for the background study was the
Archaeological Sites Data Base of the MCTR- This Ministry houses the computer data base
of all registered archaeological sites in the province, as well as original site record forms for
all registered sites. Other data on file at the Ministry include published and unpublished
agency and licence reports on archaeological research and resource assessments. In
addition, the Ministry also houses files on the archaeological survey and excavations
conducted within Urban Stage One of the Seaton property in 1978 and 1980, conducted on
behalf of the Ministry of Housing.
Documentary research included the review of reports on all past archaeological investigations
in and around the Seaton property. Among the most important of these were reports on past
archaeological surveys and resource management projects.1 Also of importance were
reports on past excavations.2
1 Archaeological Services Inc. 1989,1991; Konrad 1971,1972a-d, 1973a-c, Konrad and
Ross 1973a-c, 1974; Hazzard n.d.; M.M. Dillon 1993; Museum of Indian Archaeology n.d.,
1990; Poulton 1977a-b, 1979a-b, 1980; Poulton and Finlayson 1978; Ross et. al. 1973;
Spittal n.d., 1978
2 Ambrose 1980a, 1980b, 1980c, 1981; Kenyon 1959,1960,1967,1968
Page - 4
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Documentary background research was supplemented to a significant extent by interviews with
knowledgeable informants and agencies, including archaeologists who had been active within
the area in the past Indeed, the inventory study benefited from interviews with every living
archaeologist who had ever carried out survey or excavation within the Seaton property.
In addition to documentary research and interviews with knowledgeable informants, local
residents were canvassed for further information. The quest for additional information was
greatly facilitated by the Green River Office of the Management Board Secretariat, which
assisted in the mailing of a questionnaire to all 155 tenants of the Seaton lands.
Owing to the pressures of the schedule and to the limitations of the budget, detailed field
checks of known or potential archaeological sites were not possible. However, the
information gathered during the course of the inventory phase of work did permit a critical
appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of the available archaeological data base. These
data, in turn, provided a firm foundation for the reconstruction of the prehistoric cultural
synthesis for the property (see Section 2.2).
1.4.2 Built Heritage
The data collection aspect of the study combined field work, documentary research, and
interviews with informants. This methodology will be reviewed briefly here, and discussed in
more detail contextually in Chapter 3.
Following a review of background material including the Architectural Evaluation of the North
Pickering Project,3 Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD) Study, Michelle
Greenwald's historic analysis of the area, RDHP Conservation Report, Ontario County
Historic Atlas, local histories, etc., field work was undertaken. This involved a field survey of
the study area visiting and photographing each property as indicated on current base maps
and compared to the 1877 Township Atlas Map. Typically the property was viewed from the
road or the drive, noted, and photographed.
A number of the properties were surveyed in more detail based on their obvious importance
and the wishes of the occupant and/or owner. This allowed closer examination of important
aspects such as the barns and associated outbuildings, yards, and interiors. Interviews with
these occupants yielded important information both on the specific property being visited
and on the surrounding area generally. In some cases the owner/occupant initiated this
process. To cite one example, Doug Willson (#15: southwest corner of Whitevale Road and
Mulberry Lane) provided his extensive research on his own property, land title research on
neighbouring properties, and brought to the Consultant's attention the exact location of two
'hidden' burying grounds and the abandoned Tool House, a significant early residence.
Yost Report, 1974
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 5
After 'first hand' -viewing of the resource, documentary sources were checked at the Special
Collections section of the Pickering Library and at the Ontario Archives including the
available historic maps of the area, Pickering Township Papers, the Pugh Papers, Glen
Papers (preliminary viewing), and Tax Assessment Rolls for 1851 (earliest available), 1861,
and 1881.
Based on the above, inventory data sheets for each pre-1940 structure were prepared and
each structure identified on a map (see Built Heritage Map 1). Each structure was given a
simple numerical designation for reference between text, data sheet, and map. The data
sheets attempt to present an historical/architectural summary of the structures on the
property, and to highlight potentially significant aspects such as:
• the uniqueness or prototypical nature of the architectural form and/or construction
methodology;
• the age of the structure(s);
• the association of the building with an important historical event or person/family (whether
of local, regional or broader importance);
• the existing condition and historical integrity of the site including:
- the relationship between structures;
- the relationship between structures and yards, lanes, and roadway.
• the existence of ruins and/or vestiges which may be of historical importance and have
archaeological potential.
The data sheets (appended under separate cover) while serving to document all structures
within the area, also provided the basis for the historical significance evaluation of those
structures formally undertaken in the second of this study. Equally important, the first hand
consideration of each structure created the primary source information base to 'read' and
characterize the evolving patterns of settlement, architectural styles, construction methods,
house, barn and farmyard design, etc, to be found within the area. While on one hand these
correspond in many ways to typical scenarios found throughout southern Ontario, viewed in
detail distinctly regional aspects emerge. This level of understanding is crucial both to
evaluating the individual structures in their proper context and indeed to any thoughtful future
built-form design within the area. This study begins this process and provides the
groundwork and basis for the continued analysis of the Seaton microcosm.
1.4.3 Natural and Cultural Heritage Landscape
As part of the review of background information, a number of technical reports and maps
were consulted to evaluate the evolution of the natural and cultural landscape. Seaton: A
Strategy for Environmentally Responsible Planning provided useful background information
on the expropriation of the lands and the North Pickering Land Assembly.
Page - 6
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
For the natural heritage component of the study, the inventory reports written by Geomatics
International, Beak and Aquafour as part of the 1989 study for the Seaton lands, as well as the
Rouge, Duffins, Highland and Petticoat Creek Conservation Report (1956) were consulted.
Extensive coordination with the on-going ecological study of Seaton4 for the Ministry of
Housing, particularly mapping developed by AGRA, supplemented the written documentation.
Information derived from these sources was updated and checked through comparison with up
to date air photography and site visits. As part of this review process a number of
inconsistencies were found in the mapping which have been modified for the purposes of this
study.
For the cultural heritage component, the Rouge, Duffins, Highland and Petticoat Creek
Conservation Report (1956) and the Historical Complexities of Pickering, Markham,
Scarborough, and Uxbridge (1973) provided a useful historical background and context for
the Seaton area and the adjoining Townships. The van Nostrand report, Seaton: The Form
of its History, provided a socio-economic history of the Seaton area focussing in depth on
subdivision of the land and other influences on the landscape character and features.
Historic maps were consulted at the Special Collections section of the Pickering Library,
including the Historical Atlas of 1877.
An extensive visual inventory of the resources was carried out during November 1993. A
photographic record of the different landscape types and features was made. The natural
landscape features which were documented included creek valleys, springs, topography,
and woodlots. The cultural landscape patterns in Seaton are comprised of the individual
farms, barn yards, fields, fencerows, hedgerows, tree-lined roads and laneways, quarries,
historic structures, woodlots, orchards, fences, and stone piles. These resources were
analyzed and related to the different historic periods. The input from the Whitevale
workshops was useful in determining those features of the landscape which are important to
the community.
The different periods throughout history have each had distinct effects on the landscape. The
evolution of the landscape was tracked throughout the historic periods and visible remains
of these influences on the landscape were mapped. The overall landscape patterns which
emerged, form the basis for determining landscape units, from both a natural heritage and a
cultural heritage point of view. Areas which have similar features were included in each of
the landscape units.
The evaluation framework for the natural and cultural heritage landscape resources is based
on the methodology developed by the US National Park Service as described in the National
Register Bulletin 30 - Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes.
The National Park Service methodology has focused on cultural landscapes and does not
address natural heritage landscape resources. This evaluation framework has been adapted
to address both cultural and natural heritage landscape resources.
4 AGRA, 1994, Seaton Lands as a Natural Ecosystem
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Pace - 7
The primary objectives in the evaluation of the landscape has been to clarify significance, to
identify integrity, to assess experience and scenic amenity, and to discuss social value where
appropriate. A form summarizing these aspects of significance, integrity, experience, and
scenic amenity, and social value was used to evaluate each landscape unit. (See Appendix
Volume II for the completed evaluations of each of the natural and cultural heritage units.)
The landscape evaluation is based on the broader categories of cultural and natural heritage
landscape units. The finer distinctions between different properties results when the
landscape evaluation is combined with the archaeological and architectural evaluations.
1.4.4 Integrated Evaluation Framework
The integrated evaluation framework for the natural and cultural heritage resources is based
on the methodology developed by the US National Park Service as described in the
National Register Bulletin 30 - Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic
Landscapes. The National Park Service has integrated archaeological, architectural, and
landscape features and resources into a single evaluation framework.
In this approach, archaeological and architectural features are both seen as part of the
landscape. Assessment of the rural historic landscape integrates these features within the
context of the landscape setting. Significance relates to a number of criteria, such as
associations with historic events or significant persons, significant physical qualities of the
architectural or landscape features, or illustrative historic or prehistoric landscapes. As
described in the detailed evaluations, other aspects of significance are the particular area
of significance and the period(s) of significance.
The integrity, as described in the detailed evaluations, relates to the condition of the overall
natural or cultural heritage feature or resource and its ability to convey significance of that
resource.
A third factor in evaluating the heritage landscape is the sensitivity of the resource.
Determinants of sensitivity for archaeological resources relates to type, age, and size of the
resource, and potential for mitigation of impacts. For built and landscape heritage features,
sensitivity relates to the type of resource (i.e., the area of significance and the need for
contextual and internal integrity to convey that significance), the condition of the resource,
and views from and to the resource.
The integration of the evaluation of the heritage resources has assisted in the identification
of logical boundaries for the natural and cultural heritage areas.
Page - 8
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
1.5 Public Consultation Process
1.5.1 Objective
Public participation is often treated as a passive response to the ideas and
recommendations prepared by third parties. In this study, we pursued the direct, active
participation of local residents in helping to define, assess, and apply local values. Such
participation was especially critical in the cultural landscape portion of the study. The
archaeological and built heritage components had a much greater information base already
in place, requiring verification and re-assessment. The landscape resource had not been
studied previously to the same extent, and by its very nature did not lend itself to a review of
artifacts and buildings. Defining broader values of a spatial nature required a distinct
approach.
Our approach reflected our belief that a community should define for itself what landscape
values it wishes to protect and enhance, and that a consultant should facilitate and expand
upon the identification of such values. The opinions and efforts of local residents, therefore,
form a significant part of the conclusions and recommendations presented. Their
contributions reflect direct participation in all three stages of the study: inventory, analysis,
and guideline preparation. We made a commitment to listen and to give the participants the
opportunity to see how we had incorporated their work within our own assessments.
In summary, local residents are considered to be working partners in the study and not
recipients of its findings.
1.5.2 Participants
We set a limit of 10-15 participants for the workshops, in order to foster an informal but
productive atmosphere. Larger numbers would have, in our opinion, produced only
incrementally greater knowledge, while appreciably limiting the ability of each participant to
have a full opportunity to present and explain their own insights. Within this target range, we
sought a broad cross-section of interests. Our criteria included:
• long time residence in the Seaton lands;
• interest in protecting cultural values and community planning;
• willingness to spend time in and between workshops, on a voluntary basis;
• ability to work with others in a small group environment.
The selection process was a joint effort. Steering Committee members provided a long list
of potential candidates. Ministry of Housing staff coordinated the search and extended
letters of invitation. We contacted candidates and encouraged them to assist
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page - 9
in the study. No one who wished to participate was refused, however some candidates
declined because of workloads.
There was some skepticism about whether the volunteer effort would produce any tangible
benefit to the community. There was also disenchantment and bitterness over the past
expropriation of lands and the current identification of four potential landfill sites within the
study area. However, a very good group of twelve knowledgeable volunteers, having a healthy
blend of enthusiasm and concern, came forward to participate. They included long time
farmers, an artist/photographer, an architect, members of local planning committees, a
museum volunteer, an assistant to a local MPP, and a transportation planner.
1.5.3 Methodology
Workshops, coupled with photographic "homework" assignments allowed us to work directly
with the community in identifying and assessing cultural landscape values, and extending that
knowledge into community planning guidelines. Two of the three workshops were held on
Saturdays at the Whitevale Community Centre. The first workshop was a half-day orientation
session, to familiarize participants with the goal of the study, and the contribution they could
make. The Whitevale Community Centre provided a suitable environment and a particularly
relevant location for discussing cultural landscapes. The second workshop lasted six or
more hours, including working lunches. It is anticipated that the third workshop to be held in
January 1994 will be similar in length. As facilitators, we tried to foster a cooperative,
productive environment for each participant. Wall notes and illustrations provided a visual
record of the discussions so that each participant could relax and concentrate on the
discussion and exchange of ideas.
1.5.4 Results
Workshop #1 was held on October 23, 1993. The study's purpose, team responsible for
developing conclusions and recommendations, and schedule were reviewed. The group
began to define "heritage" in general terms, and to discuss the blend of public and
consultant evaluations needed.
Each participant was given a Kodak Panorama 35 mm disposable camera, capable of
taking fifteen colour print photographs. The panorama format was chosen to take advantage
of 4" x 10" printing, without having to pan. We asked the participants to take two weeks to
think about and photograph what each regarded as important cultural landscape values in
the study area. The fifteen photo limit was a deliberate constraint, intended to focus each
participant on representative landscape values. Rather than taking ten photos of different
tree-lined roads, for example, the participants were asked to take one, and then think about
other categories and representative
Page -10
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
examples. The limitation also enabled the group to come back in future workshops with a
manageable number of photos to discuss.
The workshop concluded with a discussion of what the participants regarded as their criteria
for success. These consisted of the following.
Objectives/Ingredients for Success
Heritage protection is a high priority in future planning.
To make heritage values a key ingredient in assessing the feasibility of future development.
Preserve rural character.
Maintain small community's rights to exist.
No imposition of dumps by other jurisdictions on Seaton.
Arrest incremental erosion of heritage values. Bring information up to date.
Protect agriculture as a federal/provincial/local resource.
Heritage 'feeds' and 'influences' development itself - enhances rather than just being
'museum pieces'.
Take advantage of special opportunity to do something right.
Educate public and politicians about heritage values (display photos, open houses, tours,
schools).
Demonstrate that people can make a difference.
Workshop #2 was held on November 20, 1993. The cameras had been collected and photos
developed, in advance. Each participant was given time to review their own photos, keying
them to a base map. They were asked to prepare a list of the categories of cultural
landscape values of importance to them.
Breakout sessions enabled each group to compare and discuss their categories and
findings. These were reported back, with selected photos illustrating each category of
importance. The following photographs illustrate some of these examples.
Figure 1.1 Tree-lined streets and lanes
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page-11
Figure 1.2 Natural Valley Landscape
Figure 1.3 Pioneer Cemeteries
Figure 1.4 The Whitevale Pond, an old mill pond and dam
Following a lunch break, the group discussed whether there were any categories Following
in the group's photography or any that could be discarded. The following categories
emerged as a consensus of what the participants believe are the important cultural
landscapes to be protected in the planning and development of Seaton.
Cultural Landscape Values
Springs and Wetlands Ponds and Dam (mills) Ponds and Dam (beaver) Pioneer
Cemeteries Maple Bush(es) Tree-lined Roads Rural Roadscapes
- narrow, winding, "lane like" Passive Recreation
- trails - Seaton, Mill Pond
- abandoned railroads Farming Types (patterns)
- cattle
- crops
- old orchards Aquifer - Well Sources Watercourses, Creeks Ravines
Non-Agricultural Rural Life
- harmonious
- fits landscape Wildlife Corridors Long Vistas/High Points Planted Woodlots Natural
Woodlots
Broad Contours and Landforms
- forested ridges
- rolling hills, etc. Lake Iroquois Shore Historic Sites/Structures
- school house
- old road trace
- abandoned rail station
Hedgerows - Scenic, Historically Meaningful
Functions
Whitevale Village, Green River, etc.
The participants were given an opportunity to rank the agreed upon categories, to see if any
clear priorities for protection would emerge. They discussed this and were unanimous that
while cultural landscape does lend itself to distinct value categories, it does not lend itself to
a ranking process. The group believed that the categories were part of interconnected
landscape patterns, and that protecting Seaton's broad landscape character was more
important than a collection of its features.
The third workshop was planned as an opportunity for the participants to review the work of
the consultants, and to contribute their own advice on how cultural landscapes could be
protected. Like the previous workshops, it was held at the Whitevale Community Centre on
January 29, 1994. Ministry of Housing staff were not able to attend.
Our presentation of the work focused on a series of maps which we prepared, providing an
inventory of the work of the team. The maps consisted of:
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page -13
Built Heritage Natural Heritage Cultural Heritage
built heritage physiography early European settlement
soils late 19th century
ESAs and flooding early 1900s
vegetation post-war development
natural heritage units visual framework
perceived threats to integrity cultural heritage units
The previous work of the participants in Workshops 1 and 2 was incorporated into the inventory
and the work was well received. There was considerable interest in the other two components
of the study, archaeological and built heritage, and the participants appreciated being
apprised of the total picture. Some patterns had emerged, but it was clear that there were
many cultural resources important to local people throughout the Seaton lands. In planning a
large new community, there will be no easy way to avoid impacts on the cultural heritage
resources.
In fact, some of the identified resources have already been directly affected by new provincial
initiatives. Map 4.10, Current Development Proposals, produced very strong reactions. The
decisions taken by agencies not participating in the Seaton studies, such as the proposal for
Highway 407 and a major landfill site, were simply too massive for the participants to believe
that their cultural heritage could be protected. These new projects dominated the maps. For
many, the positive efforts made by the volunteers, consultants, and Ministry of Housing staff
throughout the study were greatly undermined by the long-term effects of the land use
decisions already made by the Province. The participants questioned the realism of carrying
on as volunteers trying to influence one particular Ministry in its planning of a new community
in Seaton, when previous decisions by others put local values at such risk.
The general skepticism simply would not go away, despite the efforts of some volunteers to
point out that there was still much to lose and that giving up now would not be a good idea,
no matter how angry everyone felt about the proposed provincial highway and landfill.
Notwithstanding this skepticism, there was worthwhile discussion on the question of how to
protect the cultural values remaining throughout the Seaton lands. In particular, the reality of
needing some economic stimulation to revitalize local facilities and activities, like Whitevale's
shops and library, was juxtaposed with the desire to keep things small and rural in scale.
"How can we get the degree of residential population we need to make local enterprise
viable without crossing the threshold where we will be swallowed up by it?" was a key
question. If new housing was pushed away from any proximity with the more historic hamlets,
would people spend their money and lobby for a local library to reopen? If allowed to come
close, would the attractive rural character be maintained?
Page - 14
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assess
The consultants endeavored to prompt discussion by sketching out some alternatives for
weaving rural landscape elements into new housing development. "It doesn't have to be
masses of Scarborough-style subdivisions coming over the horizon", the consultants clarified.
"It can, for example, embrace hedgerows, woodlots, and farm fields as distinctive patterns and
determinants for new residential community design." There was some support for such new
forms, but little in the way of hope that anything beyond the mediocre would emerge. "The
provincial track record is not very good in these things" was the comment that seemed to sum
up people's expectations from the announced design competition. There was also considerable
concern over the timing of the call for expressions of interest from design teams, their eventual
submission of more detailed designs, and the completion of the cultural heritage study. The
question being "how can our work and that of the consultants be of value to these teams if they
are already at work"?
Those volunteers associated with the Community Advisory Committee assured the other
participants that the work would be available to the design competition teams, and that they
were being judged on both their excellence and their sensitivity to local rural values.
As in the second workshop, the participants concluded that they should not attempt to set
priorities for areas or types of cultural resource protection. They continued to feel that future
community designers need to work with local people in dealing with the complete set of
resource values. "Giving them a list of our priorities allows for some things to be devalued,
and we don't want to do that."
The workshop participants discussed the issues and expressed concerns as summarized in
the following lists. Comments from the workshop participants helped to organize the
categories for analysis that were of value to the community, to evaluate the resource, and to
form strategies.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 15
Concerns
Can new development help small villages like Whitevale and Brougham to survive without
losing local characteristics and values?
Housing additions would increase size of community, but not necessarily its viability. People
might still shop else¬where, etc., but it could establish greater community 'spirit'
Don't allow village to become a cute trendy 'in' place.
New development near villages must be small scale - capable of being assimilated.
Government owned blocks of land have been liabilities, not assets. This must be reversed.
Government initiatives as beneficial demonstrations -wisdom and sensibility - not vacuums
into which to stuff dumps, etc.
Physical land capability and traditions of farming must not be sacrificed.
Respect patterns and historic supports of farming (hedgerows, mills, etc.)
Issues
Growth vs. stability.
Open space has value.
Concept that land $ values drive development.
'Balance' + 'Harmony'.
Seaton should not be another Ajax or Whitby style of suburban development ('coming over
the hill') into rural landscape
Is a Community at Seaton needed? Is 90,000 population 'Vision' Sound?
Goals
Natural cultural features are the 'positive' spaces that should drive where and how
development can occur as the 'negative' space.
Development capacity not a technological one (virtually unlimited). It is a response to a new
set of values.
Use technology wisely (e.g., small scale treatment schemes, etc.)
Local values identified in this study must be primary means of shaping future development.
Report must convey passionate 'speaking from heart' message. Not dry technical thing.
Page -16
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
INVENTORY
Figure 3.1
1877 Map of Pickering Township from Country Atlas
Sectional Cultural Heritage Resource Commission
3. BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCES
Please note that the numbers referred to in the text are the identification (Id.) numbers
derived from the data sheets.
3.1 Overview of Settlement History (Euro-Canadian)
While Pickering Township was surveyed at the same time as adjacent areas (c.1800) and,
as elsewhere, land grants were given to United Empire Loyalists and British Officers/Soldiers,
settlement in Pickering moved at a much slower pace than either Scarborough or Markham.
This was due to the fact that exceptionally large tracts of land had been granted to a few
individuals and that most of the grantees did not themselves settle on the land but rather held
it in absentia for speculative purposes or sold it to other speculators. Absentee landlords
such as Major Smith, Major Aeneas Shaw, and Chief Justice Elmsley and their heirs
released little of their large holdings until the 1830s48 when substantial profits could be
made. Thus "more of the first settlers in Pickering took reserved lots on lease and actually
settled on them than was usual."49 At a Town Meeting of Whitby and Pickering householders
held in 1803, of the ten individuals from Pickering most were leasing lots.50
Though there was some scattered settlement in the south before 1830, in a reversal of the
usual pattern, permanent settlement actually occurred more quickly in the north. Indeed,
Concession DC had a number of permanent settlers as early as 1808, including Alem Marr,
Abraham Stouffer, Issac Wismer, Christian Saefert, and Joshua Wixon.51
Within the Seaton lands, as currently defined, there were isolated pockets of early
settlement and a number of these first settlers and their families continued to play a
significant role in the area thoughout the 19th century. In Concession VI this would include
James W. Sharrard (Lot 21) and Thomas Matthews, U.E.L. (Lot 17-18) while in Concession
V Thomas Hubbard (Lot 19), and John Major U.E.L.(originally Lot 18), were settled prior to
1820.52 In Concession IV James Lamoreaux was on Lot 23 by 1810.53
From Assesment Returns made by the clerk of the Home District to the Legislative Assembly
it is known that by 1825 Pickering Township had:
• 7 two storey houses of frame, brick, or stone (with a total of 20 hearths between them);
• 9 houses of dressed log;
• 8 frame dwellings of less than two storeys.
48 Greenwald 1973. p.62.
49 RDHP Conservation Report 1956.
50 Greenwald,1973
51 Ibid.
52 Ibid.
53 Historical Atlas of Waterloo County,1877
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 43
Pickering Sash & Manuf
L& H David, A. Berger
L& H David, A. Berger
R.A. & A. Spittel
Dominion Mushrrom Co.
Estate of R.R. McLaughlin
D. Wilson
V.B. Hestler
M. & F. Vivian
M. & F. Vivian
R. Kerr
R. Kerr
Aztenca Corp. Ltd.
Aztenca Corp. Ltd.
V.B. Hestler
A. A. Palk
J. C. Bowden
Exact Location Unknown
Song Bird Golf Course Ltd.
J.O. Carter
S. Consentino
A. M. Palk
early burying grounds such as the Hastings and Lamoreaux cemeteries. The inventory of
historic archaeological remains such as these will require intensive and site-specific field
investigations in the years to come.
It must be emphasized that the current archaeological inventory is as much a product of past
research biases as anything, and cannot be considered to reflect the true nature of the
collective archaeological resource - either quantitatively or qualitatively. For the long Native
occupation, this problem has resulted in an unduly high proportion of larger Iroquoian sites
pertaining to the brief Late Woodland period: a particular research interest for generations of
archaeologists. However, the research biases are most clearly shown by the total absence of
Euro-Canadian sites in the registered inventory.
It is a simple fact that Euro-Canadian archaeological sites were not recorded as a matter of
course by researchers until the 1980s. Certainly the historic component of the present study
amply suggests that Seaton has a wealth of important historic archaeological remains. Some
of these will be present in areas where no standing structures remains today, such as
Thompson's Hotel. Others will consist of the below ground remains of the earliest residences,
particularly log shanties or cabins which were later abandoned as the first generation of
pioneers became more settled and affluent, and constructed homes of stone, frame or brick
nearby. Still other Euro-Canadian archaeological resources will consist of miscellaneous
subsurface features associated with standing or non-standing domestic structures, such as the
remains of wells, middens, privies and smoke houses. In addition, the area also contains a
number of industrial sites, including grist and saw mills, as well as
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page-39
Altogether, the registered site inventory is dominated by Woodland period sites (N=10),
especially sites of the Iroquoian peoples (N=8). These Iroquoian sites date to the Late
Woodland sub-period, ca. 800-1550 A.D., and most particularly to the eastern branch of the
Early Ontario Iroquoian Stage known as the Pickering Culture (ca. 800 -1300 A.D.). The
Iroquoian sites within the study area form part of an evolutionary sequence in the Rouge-
Duffins Creek drainages systems which eventually gave rise, ca. 1400 A.D., to the prehistoric
Huron.
The only other temporal categories represented in the registered site inventory are sites of the
Archaic period and Indeterminate Prehistoric sites. There are six Indeterminate Prehistoric
sites in the registered archaeological inventory, making this the second most common group in
the inventory. The Archaic period (ca. 7800-900 B.C.) is represented by four sites. Three of
these can be dated more closely, and have been attributed to the Laurentian Tradition of the
Middle Archaic period, ca. 3500-2500 B.C., and represent the oldest known sites yet identified
within the Seaton property.
There are 23 unregistered sites in the current inventory. Seven of these consist of confirmed
occurrences represented by artifacts in institutional collections (Table 2.3). Six of these are
prehistoric find spots; the seventh consists of a late 19th century refuse deposit The remaining
16 unregistered sites probably include some spurious reports, as well as real sites which
could be confirmed by detailed field work.
Page - 38
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Pickering Culture villages, the Delancey, Winnifred, and Bolitho sites, and most likely
represented a Pickering Culture burial.
--
2.3 Archaeological Inventory
As described in Section 1.3.1, the archaeological sites documented by the present study have
been divided into two basic categories: registered and unregistered sites. Registered sites
represent sites which have been registered under the Borden system, the national system of
archaeological site registry. These sites tend to be more substantial, but do include some
isolated find spots in addition to larger camps, villages, and a burial component. Unregistered
sites tend to consist of unconfirmed leads, although they also include some confirmed but less
substantial occurrences such as isolated finds. Pertinent site locations are illustrated in Map 2
of the Confidential Appendix.
There are 20 registered archaeological sites represented in the current inventory of the Seaton
property. These 20 sites all pertain to the prehistoric native occupation of Ontario. To date, no
Euro-Canadian archaeological sites have been registered within the property. The registered
sites cover a very restricted range of the almost 11,000 years of human occupation of the
province.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page-37
The Late Woodland subsumes what was undoubtedly the most populous and probably the first
year-round occupation of the Seaton area prior to the beginning of the European settlement.
Fully eight registered Late Woodland components are known.
Five of the eight sites are attributed to the Pickering Culture of the Early Ontario Iroquois stage,
ca. 800-1300 A.D. These consist of the Miller site (AlGs-1), the Delancey site (AlGs-101), the
Bolitho site (AlGs-102), the Winnifred site (AIGs- 103), and the Ginger site (AlGs-104). Miller
and Ginger represent villages. The remaining three sites may also constitute villages,
however an indeterminate portion of each has been destroyed by gravel pitting. In
consequence, Delancey, Bolitho, and Winnifred have simply been categorized as villages or
camps.
Information on the remaining three Iroquoian sites is insufficient to place the components
within a temporal framework. In consequence, all three can only be classed as indeterminate
Iroquoian. These consist of the Simmons site (AlGs-5), the Deckers Hill site (AlGs-14), and
the Park site (AlGt-28). All are considered to represent villages. Deckers Hill (now destroyed)
was situated below the Lake Iroquois shoreline, in a location typical of Early Iroquoian sites
in the area, and probably represented a Pickering Culture component The Simmons and
Park sites are situated above the Lake Iroquois, in locations more typical of later Iroquoian
sites, and most likely represent Middleport substage or prehistoric Huron components.
Indeterminate Woodland
This temporal category is used as a catch-all for sites which have produced native ceramics
but which cannot be dated more closely within the Woodland period. Two registered
components are classed as Indeterminate Woodland on the basis of reports of prehistoric
ceramics. These are the Mawson site (AlGs-107) and the Ashbridge site (AlGs-143). Both
sites are of unknown type.
The Mawson site (now destroyed) was situated just above the Lake Iroquois shoreline, but
may have related to Early Iroquoian activities in the area, as there are several Pickering
Culture sites in relative proximity. The nearby Ashbridge site is located below the Lake
Iroquois shoreline, and occupies a location typical of Early Iroquoian village sites in the area.
Further testing is planned for this site in 1994, and may succeed in confirming this
component as a Pickering Culture habitation site.
2.2.4 Indeterminate Prehistoric
This temporal category is used as a catch-all for sites which cannot be dated within the long
sequence of prehistory. Six registered sites within the Seaton property have been assigned
to this category. Three of these have been classed as components of unknown type: the
Kerr site (AlGs-35); the Camp Pidaca site (AlGs-106); and the Ramage site (AlGs-108). Of
the remainder, one consists of a camp: the Willems site (AlGs-109). Another consists of a
find spot the Stone Saltbox site (AlGs-21). The last consists of a multiple burial: the Brock
Road site (AlGs-19). The Brock Road site was situated between three Early Iroquoian
Page - 36
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
The full sequence of Southern Division Huron development involves three main stages
termed Early, Middle, and Late Ontario Iroquoian. In south-central Ontario the Early stage
comprises the peoples of the Pickering Branch or Culture (ca. 800 - 1250 A.D.). The Middle
stage subsumes the Uren sub-stage (ca. 1250 - 1300 A.D.) and the Middleport sub-stage
(ca.1300 - 1400 A.D.). The Late stage subsumes the prehistoric, proto-historic, and historic
Huron (or Huron-Petun) (ca. 1400 -1550,1550 -1600, and 1600 -1650 A.D., respectively).
Following the Pickering Culture, a gradual shift of the various Iroquoian populations
northward from the shore of Lake Ontario culminated in the settlement of the Petun around
Blue Mountain and the merging of the Southern Division Huron with the Northern
Division Huron in the area between Lake Simcoe and Georgian Bay. In consequence of this
northward movement, Iroquoian sites in the vicinity of Metro to some degree vary in age
with distance from Lake Ontario. Pickering Branch sites tend to occur nearer the lake in the
lower reaches of drainages such as Duffins Creek; Middle Ontario Iroquoian and
prehistoric Huron-Petun sites tend to occupy the middle-to-upper reaches of the major
drainages, and proto-historic Huron-Petun sites are confined to the upper reaches of the
drainages and to the watershed of the Oak Ridges Moraine. In southwestern Ontario, the
evolution of the Neutral confederacy of tribes is characterized by a similar geographic shift,
eastward, resulting in the concentration of the historic Neutral in the Hamilton area.
The three great Iroquoian tribal confederacies of Ontario, the Huron, Petun, and Neutral, all
met the same sad fate in the early-to-mid 17th century: first devastated by a series of
plagues accidentally introduced by the Europeans; and finally dispersed and driven from
their homelands by raids from the Iroquois of New York State in 1649 -1651 A.D.
Although the Late Woodland subsumes many changes in settlement and subsistence
patterns, it is broadly characterized by an increasing sedentarism. This was both
necessitated and made possible by an increasing reliance on the cultivation of corn, beans,
and squash. In consequence, Late Woodland sites tend to be at once larger and more
densely distributed than those of earlier time periods.
Just as the introduction of ceramics marks the beginning of the Woodland Period, so the
Late Woodland is marked by the appearance of semi-permanent villages. These Iroquoian
villages were often surrounded by a defensive palisade and were occupied year-round for
some 12-20 years whereupon the settlement would move. Villages may cover from one to
several acres in size and included numerous dwellings known as longhouses. In addition to
villages, smaller, more temporary habitations such as agricultural cabin sites and fishing and
hunting camps may occur. The typical burial pattern consists of individual graves within a
village and a temporary cemetery outside the village. Upon abandonment, the people of one
or more villages would exhume the remains for reburial nearby in a large communal burial pit
or ossuary, an occasion which was accompanied by a ceremony known as the "Feast of the
Dead".
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 35
2.2.3 Woodland Period (900 B.C. -1650 A.D.)
The Woodland Period spans a series of important changes in culture and adaptation. This
period is most commonly divided into three sub-periods: Early, Middle, and Late.
Early Woodland (ca. 900 - 400 B.C.)
The Woodland Period is marked by the introduction into Ontario of pottery, the earliest of
which dates to the Early Woodland sub-period. Beyond this there appear to have been no
substantial changes in the hunting, fishing and gathering settlement and subsistence patterns
followed during the Late Archaic period. Burial cemeteries, however, suggest an increased
social or territorial identity with a particular resource area such as a drainage system.
Mortuary ceremonialism is characteristic of the Early Woodland and, as expressed by the
inclusion of elaborate grave goods in burials, represents the fluorescence of a pattern
recorded for the slightly earlier Glacial Kame Culture of the terminal Archaic. No Early
Woodland sites have been reported within the Seaton property to date.
Middle Woodland (ca. 400 B.C. - 800 A.D.).
The Middle Woodland sub-period reflects, at least initially, a continuation of the settlement
and subsistence patterns and mortuary ceremonialism previously described. As represented
by the Point Peninsula Culture (400 B.C. - 400 A.D.), large fishing stations located at major
rapids to exploit spring-spawning fish are particularly in evidence. By about 500 A.D., Middle
Woodland populations centred on large drainages with extensive floodplains began
experimenting with incipient corn agriculture. Throughout much of southern Ontario this late
Middle Woodland time is represented by the Princess Point Culture (ca. 400 - 800 A.D.). By
700 A.D. corn had begun to assume a significant role in settlement and subsistence, and
major habitation sites were shifting away from the larger rivers onto higher ground adjacent
to minor tributaries. No Middle Woodland sites have been reported within the Seaton
property.
Late Woodland (ca. 800 -1650 A.D.)
The Late (or Terminal) Woodland sub-period spans the most dynamic series of changes in
the entire 11,000 year prehistory of the Province. This sub-period covers the immediate
origins and subsequent development of the various Iroquoian-speaking historic tribal
confederacies in southern Ontario, the Huron, Petun, and Neutral, down to the time of the
first direct contact with Europeans in the 17th century.
The study area forms part of the developmental heartland of the Southern Division Huron,
often termed Huron-Petun (as the Petun are believed to have evolved from part of the larger
Huron population at a relatively late date). Iroquoian sites are present in all of the major
drainages of the Toronto area, and it is assumed that a number of discrete,
contemporaneous developmental sequences corresponding to individual population groups
are represented.
Page - 34
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
None of the archaeological investigations carried out to date within the Seaton property have
reported evidence of Palaeo-Indian occupations. However, rare occurrences have been
documented within a radius of 5-10 kilometres. Pertinent finds include two Early Palaeo-Indian
fluted point sites in Markham Geographic Township (AlGu-10 and II),46 and an isolated Late
Palaeo-Indian Hi-Lo projectile point from the NTIA property in Concession VIE of Pickering
Geographic Township (AlGt-125).47
Survey coverage in the drainage basin of western Lake Ontario is now sufficiently adequate
to suggest that the paucity of Palaeo-Indian sites in this area is real, and that this part of
south-central Ontario did not support a permanent or substantial residential population during
this period. This is in contrast to the area between Rice Lake and Lake Ontario, and most
particularly to the Lake Simcoe Lowlands where Palaeo-Indian sites are not uncommon.
However, it may be anticipated that more extensive survey in the Duffins Creek drainage
basin would confirm at least some additional Palaeo-Indian sites.
2.2.2 Archaic Period (7800 - 900 B.C.)
The Archaic period has been divided into three sub-periods: the Early Archaic (ca. 7800 -
6000 B.C.), the Middle Archaic (ca. 6000 - 2000 B.C.), and the Late Archaic (ca. 2000 - 900
B.C.). This period was characterized by gradually warming temperatures and by the
northward migration of modern flora and fauna which were established throughout their
current range ca. 4000 B.C.
In general, Archaic settlement and subsistence patterns are characterized by small camps
and scattered finds related to a seasonal round of hunting, fishing, and gathering of wild plant
foods. A significant development in settlement at the very end of the Late Archaic is the use
of communal cemeteries by peoples of the Glacial Kame Culture. These cemeteries, which
occur ca. 1000 B.C., typically feature rich mortuary ceremonialism.
The Archaic period is represented by four registered sites in the Seaton property. These
comprise three camps and one isolated find spot Three of the four sites are attributed to the
Middle Archaic, more specifically to the Laurentian Archaic Tradition (ca. 3500-2500 B.C.)
Two of these consist of camp sites: the Sime site (AlGs-22); and the Salgo site (AlGs-27).
The third component consists of a find spot the Vaxvick site (AlGs-20).
One other site has been attributed to the Archaic, but cannot be assigned to a specific sub-
period or cultural complex. This is the Bowden site (AlGs-105), an indeterminate Archaic
camp site.
46 Mayer, Pihl, Poulton and Associates 1986 47 Poulton 1979b, 1980
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 33
Table 2.1 Cultural Chronology for Southcentral Ontario
PERIOD/GROUP TIME RANGE COMMENT
PALAEO-INDIAN
Fluted Point 9500 - 8500 B.C. Big game hunters
Hi-Lo 8500 - 7500 B.C. Small nomadic groups
ARCHAIC
Early 8000 - 6000 B.C. Nomadic hunters and gatherers
Laurentian 3500 - 2500 B.C. Transition to territorial settlements
Lamoka 2500 -1700 B.C. Polished/ground stone tools
Broadpoint 1800 -1400 B.C.
Crawford Knoll 1500 - 500 B.C.
Glacial Kame ca. 1000 B.C. Burial ceremonialism
WOODLAND
Meadowood 1000-400 B.C. Introduction of pottery
Red Ochre 1000 - 500 B.C.
Point Peninsula 400 B.C.-A.D. 500 Long distance trade networks
Princess Point A.D. 500 - 800 Incipient horticulture
Pickering A.D. 800 - 1300 Transition to village life and agriculture
Uren A.D. 1300 -1350 Large village sites
Middleport A.D. 1300 -1400 Widespread stylistic horizon
Huron A.D. 1400 -1650 Tribal differentiation and warfare
HISTORIC
Early Odawa, Ojibwa, A.D. 1700 -1875 Social displacement
Euro-Canadian A.D. 1800 - present European settlement
22.1 Palaeo-Indian Period (9500-7800 B.C)
The first known human occupation of the province took place ca. 9500 B.C following the
retreat of the Wisconsin glacier. During this period the environment in southern Ontario was
characterized by a cool climate and generally low lake levels. The vegetation, in transition
from spruce to pine dominated forests, would have resembled the modern sub-arctic The
tundra-like fauna probably included woodland caribou.
Palaeo-Indian sites in the Great Lakes region are presumed to relate to a focal adaptation
based primarily upon the communal hunting of seasonally migrating herds of woodland
caribou. In general, favourite Palaeo-Indian site locations include areas adjacent to glacial
spillways and kettle lakes, often near present-day swamps on loam soils proximal to muck
soils representing the margins of relic pro-glacial lakes.
The most diagnostic Palaeo-Indian artifacts consist of various types of Early Palaeo-Indian
fluted projectile points (ca. 9500 - 8500 B.C.) and of projectile points of the Late Palaeo
-Indian Hi-Lo type (ca. 8500 - 8000 B.C). Various types of lanceolate projectile points are
typical of later groups, the so-called Piano peoples (ca. 8000 - 5000 B.C.), usually
described as Late Palaeo-Indian.
Page - 32
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
The landowner or tenant interviews were conducted by the Social discipline of the IWA
study. These interviews generated eight possible leads on unregistered archaeological sites
within the Seaton property. These leads were not investigated by the IWA archaeological
personnel during the course of Step 6. For purposes of confidentiality, the actual names
and addresses of the informants were not available to the present study. However, the
Seaton study attempted to investigate these leads wherever possible
Two of the eight leads were investigated and eliminated by the present study: a report of
ground stone tools from Lot 28, Concession IV; and a report of historic ceramics from Lot 26
Concession IV. Attempts to investigate the remaining six leads were unsuccessful, as the
person or persons responsible for the information could not be identified or contacted to
confirm the basis for the assertions. Accordingly, these six leads have been carried forward
by the Seaton study as possible unregistered archaeological sites. They consist of the
following: reports of "arrowheads" from Lot 27, Concession HI (site III-27) and Lot 21,
Concession IV (site IV-21a); a report of "an arrowhead" in Lot 21, Concession IV (site
IV-21c); a report of a "burial mound" in Lot 22, concession IV (site IV-22a); a report that a
"previous owner found material" in lot 21, concession TV (site IV-21b); and a report of
"native material held by the R.O.M.", in Lot 23, Concession V (site V-23).
One other archaeological study conducted within the Seaton property relates directly to the
IWA archaeological assessment This is a peer review of the Step 5 IWA study of candidate
site EE10. The review was conducted by Maribeth Murray on behalf of six local residents. It was carried out in the winter of 1993, prior to the Step 6 IWA field work, and consisted of
an independent evaluation of known archaeological sites and site potential in proximity to
candidate site EE10. A report on that evaluation was prepared by Murray in 1993, but is not presently available for examination.
2.2 Cultural Synthesis
The Duffins Creek drainage system has been the focus of almost a century of professional and amateur archaeological investigations. The results demonstrate that this area has had a
rich and varied past, with a human occupation spanning much of the last 11,000 years.
This section of the report comprises a chronological review of the archaeological resources
of the study area. In the interest of context, brief summaries are included for each period on
the major environmental changes, and on the characteristics of settlement and subsistence patterns for relevant periods and cultures as inferred from research elsewhere in
south-central and southwestern Ontario. For reference purposes, a cultural chronology is
presented in Table 2.l.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page - 31
The southernmost of the three candidate sites within the Seaton property is EE11. This
candidate site is situated in Lots 21-25, Concession III, and covers a surface area of 119
hectares. It is located immediately north of the Brock West landfill site, and includes the
extensive borrow pit for the Brock West landfill.
The Step 5 background research documented that one archaeological site had previously
been recorded within the limits of candidate site EE11. This was the Mawson site (AlGs-107),
which was situated in the area impacted by the Brock West borrow pit The Step 6 survey of
1993 effected an archaeological survey by screened test pitting of a total of 22 hectares of
EE11. During the course of this work, one previously registered site was examined on the
periphery of the candidate site: the Ginger site (AlGs-104). The survey of EE11 also resulted
in the discovery of archaeological remains north of the Ginger site. These remains have
been registered as AlGs-143, which the Step 6 study reports as a Native camp site.
The present Seaton study indicates that remains registered as AlGs-143 equate with
previous finds discovered by Spittal during the 1978 Urban Stage One survey. Together, the
work to date suggests that this site represents an indeterminate Woodland component and
that it extends some distance east from the limits of the IWA survey.
The present Seaton study also indicates that two additional unregistered components are
situated on or near candidate site EE11. One is herein designated III-22a, and consists of
an isolated projectile point It was recorded by the 1978 Urban Stage One survey, and lies
within the northern part of the EE11.44 The Step 6 survey coverage included this part of the
candidate site, but no additional evidence of a site at this location was found. The other
unregistered occurrence is less well documented. It is herein designated III-22b, and
consists of a report of an archaeological site on the eastern fringe of EE11.45 This location
lay outside the limits of the Step 6 IWA survey.
EE11 was selected by the Step 6 study as the preferred landfill site for Durham Region.
Accordingly, mis property is slated for additional and more detailed archaeological
investigations during Step 7, including the completion of survey coverage of lands of extant
archaeological potential, and the implementation of Stage 3 testing on known archaeological
sites.
The foregoing discussion details the most important aspects of the archaeological
investigations carried out by the IWA study within Seaton to date. It should also be noted,
however, that the Step 6 study carried out additional limited investigations. These included
partial survey coverage of an alternative waste haul route, and landowner or tenant interviews
within the primary and secondary impact zones and along alternative haul routes. The survey
coverage by the Archaeology discipline was confined to part of the unopened road allowance
of Side Line 24 (Figure 1). Nothing was found.
44 Spittal 1978:68, Figure 18
45 Chris Anderson, pers. comm. November 23,1990
Page - 30
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
2.1.10 Interim Waste Authority Assessment (1993)
The most recent archaeological investigations carried out within the Seaton property pertain to
an ongoing project, the Interim Waste Authority (IWA) Durham Region landfill site search. The
Seaton property contains three of the five candidate sites on the short list of possible sites
subject to partial archaeological survey in Step 6 of the IWA study, sites EE4, EE10, and EE11.
A fourth site, Tl, is situated less than 1 kilometer west of the Seaton property, in Lots 33-35,
Concession IV. Tl corresponds to the former interim landfill site designated P1, which was
subject to an intensive archaeological assessment by Dana Poulton of MPP in 1989-199043
(see Highway 407, above).
The archaeological component of the IWA study in Durham is being carried out by the firm of
M.M. Dillon Limited, under the direction of Bruce Stewart This study has effected partial
archaeological survey coverage of all three candidate landfill sites within the Seaton
boundary, in addition to limited survey coverage of a potential haulage route. Landowner
interviews conducted by the Social discipline have also generated some information of
possible archaeological resources outside the alternative landfill boundaries.
The northernmost of the three candidate sites within the Seaton property is EE4. This
candidate site is located in Lots 26-29, Concession V, and covers a surface area of 115
hectares. Background research conducted as part of Steps 5 and 6 of the IWA study
determined that no previously recorded archaeological sites were present within this
candidate site. The Step 6 survey of 1993 effected an archaeological survey by surface
examination of a total of 27 hectares: no archaeological sites were discovered.
The second of the three candidate sites within the Seaton property, EE10, is intermediary to
the other two. EE10 is situated in Lots 23-26, Concession IV, and covers a surface area of
103 hectares. Background research conducted as part of Steps 5 and 6 of the IWA study
determined that two previously recorded archaeological sites were present within EE10: the
Vaxvick site (AlGs-20); and the Bowden site (AIGs-105). The Step 6 survey of 1993 effected
an archaeological survey by surface examination and screened test pitting of a total surface
area of 27 hectares.
The present Seaton study indicates that EE10 also contains two other previously recorded
occurrences of dubious importance. Both are unregistered sites documented by the 1978
Urban Stage One study. One of these is the site herein designated IV-25, which consists of
an isolated prehistoric sherd and an isolated projectile point located south of the Bowden
site. The other is the site herein designated IV-24. This represents an isolated find of
unspecified nature marked on the large scale map in the Urban Stage One archive.
The Step 6 survey coverage examined the lands containing the Bowden site, but no
evidence of the site was found. The Step 6 survey coverage did not extend into lands
containing the Vaxvick site or the two unregistered sites identified above.
43 MPA 1990
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page - 29
found in this initial examination. Survey personnel then supervised the second phase of the field
assessment, topsoil stripping, to determine the presence or absence of subsurface remains.
Nothing pertinent was uncovered. The conclusions of the 1991 Brock West assessment were
summarized as follows:
"During the course of the investigation of the area identified as the Mawson site (AlGs-107), no
significant archaeological material was recovered. This was likely due to the problems inherent
in transferring a site from a 1:50,000 scale topographic map to a ground location. Indeed,
due to the problems of scale, the map location has a 90% chance of being within 25 metres
of the correct location (MacDonald 1990). This is true only if the site has been precisely
located on the 1:50,000 scale map. A slight deviation due to re-transcription could place the
site within 100 metres or more of the correct location. It is therefore likely that the actual site
location was in die area already severely impacted by the borrow pit. It is possible, however,
that the site or a portion of the site remains intact in the undisturbed lands to the west, which
would have to be assessed prior to any land disturbance."41
As an addendum to the above, it should be noted that the Seaton study determined that the
area investigated by the 1991 assessment was indeed peripheral to the actual location of
the Mawson site. For comparative purposes, a portion of the Mawson site map by Spittal is
presented in Figure 214 in the Confidential Appendix, together with the limits of the 1991
investigations. The original site map prepared by Spittal at a scale of roughly 1:2480 clearly
illustrates both the location and the limits of the site (Figure 212 in the Confidential Appendix).
A detailed examination of this map shows that the site measured about 60 metres east-west
by 40 metres north-south, or something over 2000 square metres in surface area, and that it
was centred north-east of the barn.
The above data demonstrate that the actual site covered a surface area more than twice the
size of the buffer zone reserved for the 1991 archaeological investigations. Moreover, this
buffer zone only overlapped the southwestern third of the site as defined by Spittal. In short,
the majority of the site lay outside the protective buffer zone, and had been destroyed by the
expansion of the borrow pit operation prior to the archaeological assessment.
dearly, it is unfortunate that the archaeological assessment had not preceded the expansion
of the borrow pit It is also unfortunate that Metro Works had not made use of better records
in defining just what area needed protection. However, it should be noted that only further and
more extensive field work could confirm that all of this site has indeed been destroyed.
The possibility that some part of the Mawson site may yet remain is suggested by information
presented by Spittal,42 who notes "limits of the site were not exactly determined, but it is
presumed that the site extends to the north and is under pasture". This suggestion
recommends the need for a detailed archaeological examination of the lands immediately
north of the fenceline mapped by Spittal as the provisional northern boundary of the Mawson
site (Figure 2.12 in the Confidential Appendix).
« ASI: 1991
42 1978:64
Page-28 Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
to possible burials associated with a nearby prehistoric Huron village, the Fred Beare site
(AlGt-30), both of which have been the object of similar expressions of concern by the
Ontario Metis and Aboriginal Association.35 These two sites are both situated west of the
Seaton property. Subject to any further information to the contrary, therefore, it is assumed
that the report of native burials near Whitevale is not relevant to the present study.
2.1.9 Brock West Landfill Borrow Area (1991)
In 1991, ASI was contracted by the Metropolitan Toronto Works Department to carry out an
archaeological assessment of the part of the Brock West Landfill borrow area. The origin for
this assessment was that the Ministry of Culture and Communications, now Culture, Tourism
and Recreation, had noted that a registered archaeological site was located in the proposed
expansion area of the Brock West Landfill borrow pit This was the Mawson site (AlGs-107),
an indeterminate Woodland site of unknown type which had been discovered during the
Urban Stage Area One survey of 1978.36 The presence of a known archaeological site, and
the potential for impacts to that site, recommended the need for a thorough Stage 3
archaeological assessment
The Ministry provided the Metro Works Department with a copy of the 1:50,000 scale NTS
topographic map segment showing the site location, and required an archaeological
assessment of the Mawson site. Using that map, the Metro Works personnel then reportedly
defined a protective buffer zone measuring approximately 26 metres by 36 metres, or just
under 1,000 square metres.37 Topsoil removal for the borrow pit operation then proceeded
around this buffer zone. For reference purposes, a facsimile of the plan of the area of the
1991 investigations is reproduced here as Figure 2.13 in the Confidential Appendix. The
subject property for the ASI assessment was necessarily confined to the roughly 1,000
square metre area defined by Metro Works, as this area had effectively already been
pedestaled by topsoil removal of the adjacent lands.38
The background research component of the ASI assessment included an examination of
information in the data base of the MCTR.39 In addition, ASI personnel also contacted
David Spittal, the individual who had discovered and registered the site in 1978.40
The field component of the assessment was carried out in two sequential phases. The
property in question had been ploughed prior to the assessment, and the initial phase
involved a survey by surface examination of the 26 by 36 metre buffer zone presumed to
contain the site. This survey was conducted at 5 metre intervals. The limits of the area so-
examined are illustrated in Figure 2 of the assessment report, a facsimile of which is
reproduced here (Figure 2.13 in the Confidential Appendix). No evidence of the site was
___________________
35 MIA 1990:3
36 Spittal 1978
37 ASI 1991; Figure 2
38 Marty Cooper, pers. comm. January 20,1994
39 ASI 1991
40 D. Spittal, pers. comm. January 17,1994
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page - 27
2.1.8 Highway 407 Archaeological Assessment (1989-1990)
A preliminary archaeological assessment of the future Highway 407 alignment in proximity to
the Seaton property was initiated in 1989, and continued into early 1990. This work was carried
out by the Museum of Indian Archaeology, now the London Museum of Archaeology, on
behalf of Fenco Engineers Inc, and formed part of a general environmental assessment of a
segment of the future Highway 407 corridor. The corridor under study extended from Highway
48 in the Town of Markham eastward to the Whitby-Oshawa townline.
The 1989-1990 assessment consisted of Stage 1 background research to identify known
and potential archaeological resources within and near the proposed alignment. This
assessment is the subject of an initial report?1 and an addendum.32 The principal source
accessed during the course of the assessment consisted of the Archaeological Sites Data
Base of the MCTR. In addition, the assessment examined a number of reports on past
research and resource assessment projects,33 and examined documentation on the 1976-
1978 archaeological survey of the New Toronto International Airport property.
For purposes of context, the Highway 407 Stage 1 assessment gathered data on a broad
study corridor bounded by Fifth Concession Road to the south and by Seventh Concession
Road to the north. As such, the southern half of the Highway 407 study corridor through this
part of the Town of Pickering transects the Seaton property.
The text and 1:10,000 scale mapping of the report identified all four of the registered
archaeological sites present within the Highway 407 study corridor through the Seaton
property (Le., that portion of the Seaton property in the Fifth Concession): AlGs-5; AlGs-21;
AlGs-22; and AlGs-27. In addition, the assessment erroneously placed a fifth site within the
Highway 407 study corridor, the Anthony site (AlGt-5), which the report located in Lot 33,
Concession V, just west of the Seaton property boundary. The Anthony site was the subject
of detailed background research carried out as part of the 1989-1990 archaeological
assessment of the proposed P-l Landfill Site by the firm of Mayer, Poulton and Associates
Incorporated (MPP). As summarized in the report on the P-l assessment, available data put
the Anthony site in Lot 34, Concession IV. In other words, this site is situated outside the
study area limits for both the Highway 407 corridor and the Seaton property.
The addendum to the Highway 407 report documents one other possible site in proximity to
the Seaton study area.34 This is an unconfirmed report of "native burial grounds near
Whitevale". This concern was raised in an inquiry from letter from the Aboriginal Peoples
Alliance of Sharbot Lake. No additional information on this alleged site is available. However,
it seems likely that it relates to the aforementioned Anthony site (AlGt-5) and/or
si MIAn-d.
32 MIA 1990
33 Konrad 1973; Konrad and Ross 1974; Mayer Pihl Poulton and Associates 1986
M MIA 1990:3
Page - 26 Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
The study corridor for the Taunton Road assessment transects the south-central portion of the
Seaton property on an east-west axis. It extended from the Duffins Creek crossing on the
west, through parts of Concessions El and IV, to terminate at Church Street just east of the
Seaton study area.
The background research component of the ASI assessment consisted of an examination of
the Archaeological Sites Data Base of the MCTR, and of several reports on past
archaeological surveys and excavations,25 as well as pertinent historical documentation.
The main focus of this research was documentary evidence, in particular on registered
archaeological sites and on possible 19th century archaeological sites.
The background research conducted by ASI documented three registered archaeological
sites within a 300 metre wide study corridor in the Seaton property: an indeterminate
prehistoric multiple burial site (AlGs-19); and two Early Iroquoian village sites (AlGs-102 and
AlGs-103). The present study determined that there are six additional sites within the
Taunton study corridor which were omitted from the ASI inventory. All are unregistered.
These consist of the following: HI-27 (report of arrowheads) (IWA: EE-11); DI-22a (isolated
projectile point);26 IH-22b (report of prehistoric pottery);27 IV-19b (report of prehistoric
pottery);28 IV-21c (IWA EE-11) (report of single arrowhead); and IV-21d29 (isolated chert
debitage).
The field component of the ASI assessment of the Taunton Road alignment was concentrated
within corridor segments determined to be of moderate to high archaeological potential.
Pertinent survey limits are illustrated in Map 1 in the Confidential Appendix, although it should
be noted that the limits depicted merely encompass general areas of potential, and that not
all lands within these limits were necessarily surveyed. For example, actual survey coverage
in the segment across the Duffins Creek Valley was limited to tablelands on either side of the
valley. The valley slopes and floodplain were not considered to have potential and were
accordingly omitted from detailed survey coverage. Similarly, survey coverage also omitted
the Ganatsekiagon Creek and Urfe Creek valleys. For a more detailed discussion of the
actual survey limits covered by this study, the reader is referred to the report on the
assessment30
The field component of the Taunton Road assessment identified one archaeological site: a
late 19th century refuse deposit in Lot 20, Concession IV. This site was not considered to
be of sufficient significance to warrant avoidance or archaeological excavation. For purposes
of the present study, this site has been enumerated as IV-20.
25 Ambrose 1981; Konrad and Ross 1973a, 1973b, 1974; MPP1984; Ridley 1958;
Spittal 1978
26 Spittal 1978:68
27 Chris Anderson, pers. comm.
28 Ibid
29 Spittal 1978:68
30 ASI 1989:5-8
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page - 25
The 1980 investigations of the Delancey site effected the excavation of a total surface area of
40 square metres in several discontinuous units, and included testing in an undisturbed midden
deposit. A facsimile of the plan of excavations is reproduced here as Figure 2.5 in the
Confidential Appendix. These excavations resulted in the recovery of 6,586 artifacts.
The investigations of the Bolifho site effected the excavation of a total surface area of 80
square metres in several discontinuous units. The excavations uncovered a quantity of
subsurface features and post moulds pertaining to a longhouse structure, and also identified a
midden and a possible palisade. A facsimile of the plan of excavations is reproduced here
as Figure 2.7 in the Confidential Appendix. These excavations resulted in the recovery of
approximately 40,000 artifacts.
The investigations of the Winnifred site involved the excavation of a total surface area of 46
square metres in a diffuse pattern. A facsimile of the plan of excavations is reproduced here
as Figure 2.9 in the Confidential Appendix. These excavations identified the presence of
subsurface remains in the form of 25 features and activity areas, including twelve pits, two
hearths, and eight post moulds. In all, 416 artifacts were recovered.
The investigations of the Willems site involved the excavation of a total surface area of 10
square metres. A facsimile of the plan of excavations is reproduced here as Figure Z15 in
the Confidential Appendix. These excavations did not uncover any evidence of subsurface
remains and the only cultural material recovered consisted of three chert flakes.
As summarized above, the original intent of the 1980 project was to effect total salvage
excavations of the Delancey and Bolitho sites. As it evolved, the excavations at these two
sites demonstrated more extensive and valuable deposits than anticipated. In recognition of
that fact, the final report on the project presented several positive recommendations. With
respect to the Delancey site, these included a recommendation for preservation and
continued monitoring of the midden, with additional salvage excavations, if and as necessary,
based on future development plans. With respect to the Bolitho site, the report recommended
long-term preservation, and remedial work to prevent any new or continued impacts to the
site. The final report on the 1980 excavations similarly recommended preservation of the
Winnifred site.
2.1.7 Taunton Road Archaeological Assessment (1989)
In 1989, the firm of Archaeological Services Inc (ASI) conducted an archaeological resource
assessment of the proposed Taunton Road - Steeles Avenue connection.24 This
assessment was carried out for Totten Sims Hubicki Associates, and formed part of a
larger Environmental Study Report, in fulfilment of the Environmental Assessment Act The
Taunton Road archaeological assessment involved both background research and field
assessment to identify known and potential archaeological resources subject to possible
impact from the proposed alignment.
ASI 1989
Page - 24 Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
site.19 Other evidence on previously registered sites was negative. Accordingly, a survey of
agricultural lands supposedly containing the Kerr site (AlGs-35) failed to find any evidence of
that site. Finally, a visual examination of topography demonstrated that two other previously
registered sites had been destroyed by gravel extraction: the Brock Road site (AlGs-19);
and the Deckers Hill site (AlGs-14).
The 1978 survey of Urban Stage One still holds a special place in the short history of
archaeological investigations in the area. Not only did this study represent the first intensive
survey within the subject property, but it also resulted in a significant increase in the inventory
of known Pickering Culture sites in Ontario. For purposes of resource management, the
positive results of the 1978 survey are further notable in that they demonstrated the fact that
previous archaeological research in the area had been relatively superficial, and detailed
survey could be rewarded by the discovery of hitherto unknown and important archaeological
resources.
2.1.6 Urban Stage One Archaeological Excavations (1980)
The 1978 survey of the Urban Stage One lands and vicinity was followed in 1980 by a related
project. This project, like the preceding survey, was carried out on behalf of the Ministry of
Housing, by staff of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation. It consisted of salvage and test
excavations on select sites discovered by the 1978 survey. The 1980 excavations were
carried out under the direction of Mary Ambrose. These excavations are the subject of two
interim excavations reports,20 a summary report,21 and a final report22
Four sites were examined by the 1980 excavations. Three of these consist of an Early
Iroquoian village of the Pickering Culture: the Delancey site (AlGs-101); the Bolitho site
(AlGs-102); and the Winnifred site (AlGs-103). The fourth site failed to yield diagnostic
remains: this is the Willems site (AlGs-109). Ambrose categorized the Willems site as a
possible Archaic component, although the present study has redassified this site as an
indeterminate prehistoric habitation.
The strategy for the 1980 excavations varied according to the site involved. As summarized
by Ambrose,23 both the Bolitho site and the Delancey site were originally scheduled for
complete salvage excavations. The Winnifred site was slated for preservation, and was
accordingly singled out for test excavation. Finally, limited test excavations were also
scheduled for the Willems site. For reference purposes, site plans prepared by Ambrose to
document the 1980 excavations are reproduced in the present report (Figures 2.5,2.7,1.9,
and 2.10 in the Confidential Appendix).
19 Spittal n.d.
20 Ambrose 1980a; 1980b
21 Ambrose 1980c
22 Ambrose 1981
23 Ibid
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page - 23
pitting in the survey of the Urban Stage One lands.18 As was the common practice of the day,
this technique relied on a visual examination of excavated soils, rather than screening. The
extent of reliance on test pitting rather than surface examination and the lack of screening of
test pits, have implications for the reliability of the 1978 survey. Specifically, these factors would
tend to bias the archaeological site sample toward larger, especially Late Woodland, sites.
Within the Seaton property, the 1978 Urban Stage One survey discovered and registered a
total of nine archaeological sites (Figures 24 to 2.12 inclusive and Figure 2.15 in the
Confidential Appendix). These included four Early Iroquoian components: the Delancey site
(AlGs-101); the Bolitho site (AlGs-102); the Winnifred site (AlGs-103); and the Ginger site
(AlGs-104). Of the remainder, one site consisted of an indeterminate Woodland site of
unknown type: the Mawson site (AlGs-107). Another consisted of an Archaic camp: the
Bowden site (AlGs-105). Two others consisted of indeterminate prehistoric camps or find
spots: the Camp Pidaca site (AlGs-106); and the Ramage site (AlGs-108). Investigations at
these sites were generally restricted, with the qualified exception of the Ginger site where the
assessment was extended to include the excavation of 12 one-metre test squares.
The 1978 survey also recorded a number of unregistered archaeological sites. Seven of
these were isolated finds, occurrences which were not considered to be sufficiently
substantial to warrant registering. The present study has designated these as follows,
according to the lot and concession from which they derive: IH-21 (ground stone
woodworking tool); ni-22a (projectile point); IV-19a (celt fragment); IV-21d (chert flake); IV-
22b (native pottery sherd); IV-25 (native pottery sherd, projectile point); and IV-26 (chert
flake).
The 1978 survey also discovered archaeological remains at a location which was not
registered by that project: the edge of the tableland north of the Ginger site (AlGs-104) in the
central part of Lot 22, Concession HI. The locations of these finds is indicated on an
unpublished map compiled by the 1978 survey. Additional archaeological remains at this
location were confirmed by an independent discovery 15 years later, during the Step 6
archaeological survey of IWA landfill site EE11: this site was registered by the IWA study
as AlGs-143.
The records of the 1978 project also contain a residue of other information pertaining to
unregistered sites or site leads. One of these consists of an "x" on the aforementioned map,
in Concession IV, Lot 24, for which no other information is available. A further three such
leads consist of information from an informant, Dr. Pat Kerr, on possible sites in Lots 21 and
22, Concession IV, which field work failed to confirm.
In addition to documenting new discoveries, the 1978 project also investigated previously
identified sites in the area. One consequence of considerable interest was the fact that the
Urban Stage One personnel located undisturbed and unexcavated deposits on the Miller
18 David Spittal, pers. comm. January 17,1993
Page - 22 Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
in Lots 31-34, Concession VI. In consequence, part of the airport survey coverage in this area
extended into the present Seaton study property a distance of approximately 60 metres. This
overlap did not effect any significant degree of survey coverage for the Seaton property.
However, the extensive and detailed survey coverage of the NTIA property does provide an
excellent basis for assessing the prehistoric archaeological potential of the present study
area.
2.1.5 Urban Stage One Archaeological Survey (1978)
The first truly intensive archaeological survey ever conducted in the Seaton property was
carried out in 1978. This project consisted of a detailed archaeological survey of the Urban
Stage One area of the North Pickering Development Corporation property. The survey was
undertaken on behalf of the Ministry of Housing, and was conducted by staff of the Ministry of
Culture and Recreation, under the direction of David Spittal.
Available documentation is on file at the MCTR and consists of two reports; an interim letter
report16 and a final report,17 as well as miscellaneous files. One other useful document
pertaining to this study is an unpublished map at a scale of 1 inch = 400 feet This map
shows the locations of most of the registered sites and unregistered find spots discovered
by the study. For reference purposes, site plans from the 1978 survey are reproduced in the
Confidential Appendix (Figures 2.4,2.6,2.8,2.10,2.11,2.12, and 2.15).
The 1978 survey spanned the period July 1 to September 15. The objective of this project
was to identify native archaeological resources as part of the planning process for future
development in the area. As such, this survey represented the next logical step in the
archaeological study initiated by the North Pickering archaeological survey of 1973. The
primary focus of the 1978 project was the 2,200 acre area designated Urban Stage One, the
approximate limits of which are illustrated in Map 1 of the Confidential Appendix, m addition,
the survey also extended outside the Stage One boundaries to some degree. All of the lands
concerned fall within the limits of the present Seaton study area.
The exact limits of Urban Stage One and the actual extent of lands examined by the 1978
study, are somewhat problematic as the text and mapping of the report are inconsistent in
those regards. However, it is evident that the 1978 study covered much of the east-central
portion of the present Seaton property, including all or parts of Lots 16-25 inclusive,
Concession DI, as well as the lands north of the C.P.R. right-of-way in Lots 19-24,
Concession HI.
The formal documentation on the 1978 study does not present any quantified information on
the survey coverage and techniques. However, cultivated lands were reportedly in the
minority during the 1978 survey season, as much of the property was fallow or untenanted. In
consequence, the project necessarily had to resort extensively to the technique of test
16 Spittal n.d.
17 Spittal 1978
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page - 21
matter of course. Unfortunately, this photographic record, along with virtually all of other archival
materials from the North Pickering study, has not survived.
The final report on the North Pickering study presented tabulated site data comparable to the
earlier Metro study.13 This report identified positive recommendations for three sites in the
Seaton study area: the Park site (AlGt-28) and the Sime site (AlGs-22), both of which were
identified as sites requiring further investigation; and the Salgo site (AlGs-27), identified as
suitable for prehistoric reconstruction and interpretation.
Z1.4 New Toronto International Airport Survey (1976-1978)
Another large scale archaeological project carried out during the 1970s consisted of the
survey of the area selected in 1972 by uie Federal government as the site of the proposed
New Toronto International (or Pickering) Airport (NTIA). This property covers 18,500 acres
(7480 ha.) of Pickering, Uxbridge, and Markham Townships, including 5200 acres (2105 ha.)
in the Town of Markham. The southern boundary of the NTIA property generally corresponds
to the northern boundary of the Seaton property in Pickering Township.
The survey of the airport property was carried out on behalf of Transport Canada over the
course of four seasons between 1976 and 1978 as a series of separate contracts between
the Archaeological Survey of Canada (National Museum of Man) and the Museum of Indian
Archaeology. The first season of the work (1976) was conducted with John Dawkins as field
director and William Finlayson as director. The following three seasons were conducted with
Dana Poulton as both director and field director, and included the continuation and
conclusion of the survey (spring and fall 1977, and spring 1978) and a three month period of
test excavations on Iroquoian village sites (summer 1978).
The NTIA project was quite possibly the lengthiest and most intensive archaeological survey
ever conducted in Ontario, involving eight months of survey over three years with an average
crew of five to six. Working at survey intervals of 1-15 and 15-30 feet, the project effected a
field-by-field coverage of 13,407 acres (5280 ha.) (Figure 2.3 in the Confidential Appendix).
This project maintained detailed documentation on all lands examined, and ultimately
conducted a thorough analysis and reporting of all sites and artifacts discovered. The NTIA
project is described in a number of preliminary reports and overviews14 and a final report. 15
The NTIA survey of 1976-1978 resulted in the discovery of 126 sites in all. None of these is
located within the Seaton study area, as the NTIA and North Pickering properties were
mutually exclusive. Nevertheless, the property boundary for the NTIA study did overlap the
current Seaton boundary marginally along one segment north and east of Green River,
13 Konrad and Ross 1974: Appendices I-II
14 Dawkins 1976,1977; Poulton 1977a, 1977b, 1979a, 1980; Poulton and Finlayson 1978
15 Poulton 1979b
Page - 20 Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Project lands.9 Two of the four sites within the present Seaton boundaries were singled out as
important the Park site; and the Simmons site.10 The other two, Miller and Deckers Hill,
were considered to be unimportant.
2.1.3 North Pickering Project (1973-1974)
The Metro study was followed directly by a second major resource management project an
archaeological study of the 25,000 acre North Pickering Community Development lands.
The North Pickering property subsumed the present Seaton study area, and extended west
into the northeastern part of Scarborough and the southwestern part of Markham.11
The North Pickering study was directed by Victor Konrad, with William Ross as field director.
Initially, this study divided the entire area into discrete survey sections and each was covered
on a systematic basis, interviewing residents wherever possible. The survey personnel soon
recognized, however, that many long term residents were moving out of the area following
expropriation, and that with them a potentially vast store of possible information was rapidly
diminishing. In consequence, the strict adherence to the system of block-by-block survey was
soon abandoned, to allow for more flexibility in following up on site leads generated by
interviews with local residents. Separate interim reports were prepared on sites in different
municipalities spanned by the North Pickering property, including one report on sites in
Pickering, which covers the present study area.12
Within the Seaton property, the 1973 North Pickering survey documented a total of nine
registered sites. Four of these consisted of the sites previously registered and documented
by the Metro study: the Miller site (AlGs-1, documented as AlGs-1 in the North Pickering
study); the Simmons site; the Deckers Hill site; and the Park site. The remaining five sites
were newly registered in 1974 by the Norm Pickering study. These consist of the Brock
Road site (AlGs-19); the Vaxvick site (AlGs-20); the Stone Saltbox site (AlGs-21); the Sime
site (AlGs-22); and the Salgo site (AlGs-27). An additional site was later registered in 1975
by Bill Ross, as a follow-up to the North Pickering study. This is the Kerr site (AlGs-35). The
registration of the Kerr site postdated the production of the North Pickering study reports.
Accordingly, there is no original formal documentation on this site, excepting that contained
in the site registration form.
It is an indication of the relative emphasis of the North Pickering survey in the Seaton area
than none of the site investigations carried out on any of the above sites generated artifact
collections. Rather, all consist of the documentation of previous discoveries by others. These
include the accidental discovery of a multiple human burial, investigated by the Ontario
Provincial Police (AlGs-19); and discoveries of artifacts by former owners and/or current
tenants (AlGs-20, 21, 22, and 27). Private artifact collections were recorded as a
9 Konrad 1973c:105-107
w Ibid: 133
11 Konrad and Ross 1973a, 1973b71974
12 Konrad and Ross 1973b
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page -19
incomplete due to the presence of the ruins of a house and barn, which had effectively impacted
much of the northern third of the site. Altogether, the excavations recovered 9,258 artifacts in
addition to 1,150 pounds of body sherds.
2.1.2 Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area Study (1971-1973)
The first major archaeological resource management study ever conducted in the Toronto
area was an archaeological survey, inventory, and synthesis of the Metropolitan Toronto
Planning Area. This study spanned the years 1971-1973, and was carried out under the
direction of Victor Konrad of York University.6
The Metro study was initially confined to Metropolitan Toronto, but in 1972 it expanded to
cover contiguous municipalities and ultimately encompassed all of what is now termed the
Greater Toronto Area. The study employed intensive background research followed by a
limited survey of high potential lands. Site documentation included ground and aerial
photography, the use of transit, the creation of plane table maps, and the plotting of sites on
topographic and planning maps. Private artifact collections were also photographed.
The timing of the Metro study coincided with the introduction of the Borden system, the
national system of archaeological site registry, with the result that this one study registered
no fewer than 191 archaeological sites in Toronto and vicinity. This data base quickly
became the foundation for all future archaeological resource management studies in the
Metropolitan Toronto area.
Within the Seaton property, limited work was carried out by the Metro study in 1971, and
included background documentation on the Simmons site (AlGs-5). More intensive work,
including archaeological field work, followed in the summer of 1972. These efforts resulted in
the registration of four sites. One of these was the previously known Miller site (AlGs-1)
(documented as AlGs-9 in the Metro study inventory). The other three represented newly
discovered or documented sites: the Simmons site (AlGs-5); the Deckers Mil site (AlGs-14);
and the Park site (AlGt-28). Artifacts were recovered from three of the sites: Miller, Deckers
Hill, and Park. The material from the Deckers HOI site consisted of "unanalyzable sherds",
which were discarded; the material from the Miller and Park sites formed part of the Metro
study accession by the Archaeological Survey of Canada. Figure 2.2 in the Confidential
Appendix illustrates a facsimile of a sketch map and documentation compiled by the Metro
study on one of the sites within the Seaton property: the Park site.
The final report on the Metro study presented tabulated data on site type, age, cultural
affiliation, condition, etc./ as well as a relative scale of site importance, threat, and suitability
for preservation or testing.8 The Metro report also included a section devoted to a review
and evaluation of the archaeological resources of the North Pickering Community
« Konrad 1971,1972a, 1972b, 1972c, 1972d, 1973a, 1973b, 1973c; Ross et. al 1973;
Hazzard nd
7 Konrad 1973c: Appendix II
8 Ibid: Appendix m
Page -18 Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
2. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
2.1 Past Archaeological Investigations
The record of archaeological investigations within the Seaton property spans a period of 35
years. Over the course of time, almost a dozen archaeological projects have been carried out
within the limits of the property.
In the interests of site confidentiality, detailed locational information for the known
archaeological sites are confined to a confidential appendix. Pertinent data include site data
sheets and mapping. The physical parameters of the various archaeological studies carried
out within the subject property are illustrated in Map 1 in the Confidential Appendix, together
with locations of relevant archaeological sites. Facsimiles of pertinent site plans and other
maps illustrating past research and discoveries are illustrated in a series of figures in the
Confidential Appendix. A brief summary of each of the past archaeological projects is
presented below.
2.1.1 The Miller Site (1958-1961)
The history of documented archaeological investigations within the Seaton property begins
with the Miller site. This site occupies an important place in the history of Ontario archaeology
and in the evolution of Ontario Iroquoian studies.
The Miller site was discovered by accident in the spring of 1958, when a resident of the area
was walking his dog and found a human skull in a test hole excavated by the Miller Paving
Company. Following a preliminary investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police, the find
was examined in March of that year by Walter Kenyon of the Royal Ontario Museum. Kenyon
determined that the find actually consisted of a multiple prehistoric burial. A cursory
examination of title vicinity was followed by a more extensive examination in September
1958, which succeeded in discovering a prehistoric midden deposit indicative of a larger
village site. Test excavations and exploration of the site were suspended over the winter and
resumed in 1959. The excavations continued in 1960, and concluded in 1961. The Miller
site eventually formed the basis for Kenyon's Ph.D dissertation on what he termed the
Pickering Culture: the eastern branch of the two Early Iroquoian cultures of the Ontario
Iroquoian Tradition.5
The 1958-1%1 excavations determined that the Miller site consisted of a palisaded village
with a minimum of six longhouse structures and seven individual burial pits (Figure 2.1 in the
Confidential Appendix). The village covered an area of approximately 1.05 acres. Kenyon's
work effected the excavation of a total surface area of 47,675 square feet (4,514 square
metres), including just over 75% of palisaded village, as well as a 1,600 square foot area
adjoining the palisade to the east. Excavation of the interior portion of the village was
5 Wright 1966
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page - 17
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Study
Built Hertitage Features
Illustration: Map of Expropriated Lands in Pickering with Legend
Given that the population at this time was placed at about 760, it has been postulated that there
must have been approximately 125 round log structures in Pickering at that time.
By 1842 Nathaniel Hastings (1828), Asher Willson (c.1820), William Sleigh (1825), John Tool,
Hawkins Woodruff, Howell, Aaron Albright (c.1830), Hugh Pugh (1842), and others had settled
on the land and it was finally taking on the appearance of a settled landscape rather than merely
a few isolated clearings in the wilderness. Within the Township as a whole population had
jumped to 3752 by 1842, reflecting in part that land held so long out of circulation was finally
becoming available.
Despite the presence of extensive Mennonite settlement in Markham and Scarborough
Pickering was largely settled by people of British descent. Typically, the size of farms actually
being worked in Pickering were initially smaller than average for this period in most of Ontario.
This is due to the unusual nature of early land tenure, where property was held for speculation
for so long and then sold off in the most lucrative manner possible, as well as to the limited
financial capabilities of the purchasers. Half or quarter lots seem to have been the norm until
later in the century.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 45
Figure 3.3 Barns at Asher Willson House
Perhaps the relatively large number of Mackenzie supporters from Rckering Township (and
Seaton in particular) is partly explained by the frustration felt over the land dealings of those
Family Compact affiliated speculators. As well, the yeoman of the area, being generally small
landholders, did not see their interests being served by a government so influenced by the
wealthy few. Among the rebels men were the Matthews boys (sons of Thomas Matthews),
William Bentley, George Yeomans, Samuel Brillingers, Andrew Hubbard (Lot 19, Concession
V), John Pride Phillips (Lot 22, Concession V), Patrick Simpson, George Spencer, John and
Johnathan Stephens, Simpson and Samuel Bentley, William Barclay, Thomas Sharrard, and
Asher Willson. Sharrard and Willson were both members of the Christian Church at Brougham
.54 Peter Matthews was hanged for treason for his part as a leader in the proceedings. The
feelings engendered in Pickering by the 1837 Rebellion smouldered long after the actual
events occassionally affecting relationships between neighbours.
Figure 3.4 Whitevale
54 Greenwald, Historical Complexities.
Page - 46
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Settlement within the Seaton area seems to have first focused around what is now Brock Road,
i.e. Lots 18 and 19, and its junction with Concession lines V and VI which was even then the
major north-south artery of the young Township. The stage coach route eventually came up
Brock Road and west along Concession VI.55 It was due to its position as a transportation
crossroads that Brougham began to become a local commercial centre. By 1877 Brougham
had three hotels to service the travelling public (Figure 3.5).
Figure 3.5
Brougham: Brock Road
Highway 7 intersection
likewise Thompson's Hotel established c.1830 at the northeast corner of the crossroads
between Fifth Line and Brock Road became a key place of meeting first for the Town
officials and later, in the days leading up to the Mackenzie Rebellion, the politically
discontented. The hotel has survived in local lore in the naming of the area as Thompson's
Corners.
Green River too became a node of settlement due to the coach route and to the presence of
mills established early on Duffins Creek. The creek impeded east-west travel past Green
River and indeed may generally be seen as establishing the eastern cultural boundary of the
region.
John Major U.E.L., originally settled on Lot 18, Concession V and was named area
assessor in 1803. By the 1820s he had moved west settling on Lot 26, Concession V (#11)
and Lot 29, Concession IV (# 76 assessed to Henry Major in 1851) and shortly thereafter
established a sawmill on Lot 32 Concession V on the banks of West Duffins Creek. This mill
became the focus for a community which came to be known as Majorville and later Whitevale.
A detailed account of the development of Whitevale is provided in the Whitevale Heritage
Conservation District Study Background Report56 and need not be reprised here. Suffice it
to say that following the purchase of the Major Mill by Ira White and the construction a
55 RDHP Valley Conservation Report, 1956
56 Unterman McPhail Cuming Shearer, 1989
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page - 47
decade later of a flour mill by his son T.P. White, the location became attractive to settlement
and over the next ten years became a bustling community. It was the base for a wide range of
industries, tradesmen, artisans, and shopkeepers serving the Village itself but also the
surrounding area. However, with the destruction by fire of the planing, woolen, and grist mills
over the last quarter of the 19th century Whitevale's growth was curtailed.
By mid-century the children of the pioneer settlers such as Willson, Hastings, Major, and Pugh
were seeking land in the area and moving into the remaining undeveloped lots or, in a number
of cases, a second house was placed on the original property to accomodate them. This
sometimes involved the actual severing of lots for the children. By 1861 the population had
doubled and the Seaton area could be considered to be settled.
In general, lots to the north of the Concession roads were settled earlier than those to the
south - it being more desirable (see Built Heritage Resource Map) for the house front to be
both road and south facing particularly as elevation dropped off to the south. However, this
was balanced against other important considerations such as the quality of the land itself
and the proximity of water. As Sidelines were opened houses would be built toward the
middle of the Lot. Some chose to orientate their dwelling to the Sideline and others
maintained a southfacing front. A more vivid picture of the typical Seaton area settlement
scenario might best be provided by following the movements of one the area's early settling
families - the Willsons.57
Asher Willson came to Pickering Township from Elizabethtown (Brockville) around 1815
with his wife Susannah Stotts, along with his friend Amos Griswold who had married
Susannah's sister Eleanor. The Stotts' were the daughters of Casper Stotts U.E.L. and on
this basis petitioned for land in Pickering. Their petitions for land grants do not appear to
have been successful. However between 1828 and 1831 Griswold purchased three
adjacent properties (Lot 22-24) on the north side of Fifth line (now Whitevale Road) from the
absentee landowner, Elizabeth Hill.
The Willsons had, in 1824, helped form the Christian Church at Brougham and in 1828
Asher was named moderator of the Church. Throughout this period the Willson's must have
leased land, for the first indication of ownership is not until 1832 when they bought the south
half of Lot 22, Concession V from the Griswolds. The purchase may have included the
Griswold's first house, probably log, and some cleared land. Around 1835 Asher had
constructed a stone dwelling in the local fieldstone (#6) probably utilizing itinerant masons
originally brought over to undertake construction for the military, e.g., Rideau Canal.
The three bay, 1-1/2 storey form of the building was typical of the area but the catslide
roofline to the rear is extremely unusual and may indicate the enclosing of a slightly later
kitchen expansion. The regularly coursed stonework of the front is of high quality.
57 Information largely derived from D. Willson research
Page - 48
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
In 1843 Casper Willson, Asher's oldest son, purchased Lot 21 Concession IV and moved there
with his wife Elizabeth. Elizabeth was the grandaughter of area pioneer Thomas Hubbard. As
was typical their first house was of log, built by the spring on the property but by 1851 they had
constructed a frame dwelling at the present location. At that time the census shows they were
farming 50 acres on their property and 50 rented acres on Lot 20. They had 3 cows, 3 horses,
12 sheep, 3 pigs, and produced 500 pounds of butter and 100 pounds of cheese. There were
3 acres of peas, 12 of oats, 1/2 of corn, 1 of potatoes (which yielded 50 bushels), and some
acres in turnips. Eighty pounds of wool and 20 tons of hay were produced.
In 1861 Casper constructed the current brick house (#15) incorporating dichromatic brickwork
and the Gothic Revival derived centre gable which had become popular. (The brick was
possibly veneered over the sheathing of the original frame house.) For this work Casper
borrowed £250 from Asher. like his father, Casper was very involved in the community. He was
elected Deacon of the Christian Church in 1842. Elizabeth was a Sunday school teacher and
owned one of the first Bell organs in the community.
Casper also purchased property in Lot 20, Concession IV. His son Edward seems to have
built the frame house on that property (#14). The Casper Willson farm continued in family
ownership until expropriation. The current occupant of the Casper Willson house, Douglas
Willson, is a descendant. He was recently able to repurchase the house and a small lot.
Returning to Casper's father Asher, he purchased Lot 21, Concession V from King's College
in 1848 and is assessed there in a frame house in 1851 (#5). living with him at that time was
his son Joseph and Joseph's family, married daughter Margaret and her family, daughter
Susannah, and Hannah Major who was working for the family at the time. Asher's property
eventually came into Joseph's hands and Joseph also purchased Lot 22, Concession IV
across the road.
Thus we have the picture of a family populating and domesticating the area within two
generations, expanding the farming units through family ties within a generally close knit
community of other families involved in the same process (Figure 3.6,3.7).
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 49
Figure 3.6
Historic Map - 1895 from the Parish of St. Francis de Sales
Figure 3.7
Historic Map - c. 1917
3.1.1 Built-Form
Materials
Although now virtually expunged from the visible landscape the log house was the predominant
residential structure in the Pickering area prior to 1860 (Figure 3.8). The log house was the
typical first house throughout Ontario and due to the lateness and uneveness of settlement
within the study area it is not surprising that it still represented the majority of the residential
building stock at mid-century. It is quite possible that some buildings which now appear to be
frame by virtue of being dad in siding, are actually log structures which have been covered over
to provide weather protection and/or a presumed aesthetic update.
Heavy timber frame dwellings were certainly constructed from the earliest period as permanent
dwellings in the Seaton area and are still represented on site by the Hubbard (#2) and Howell
Houses (#54) respectively, but it was no doubt the number of competing local saw mills
producing lighter sawn members and the introduction of balloon framing techniques which
increased the popularity of the wood frame house after 1860. This material is certainly the most
prevalent among extant structures of pre-1920 origin. The earlier frame structures were typically
clapboarded with cornerboards, but later in the century the narrow matched boarding
(flushboard)and shiplapped sidings were common. It is the narrow flushboarding which is
most regionally distinct (Figure 3.9).
Page - 52
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Figure 3.9
However, even while new neighbours might be building their first dwelling in log the few long
established, relatively prosperous settlers were having their second houses undertaken in
stone c.1840. Lamoreaux, Major, Hastings, Woodruff, Willson, and Tool all built utilizing the
largely hard granite/ gneiss fieldstone of the area with varying degrees of sophistication though
generally with a squared and coursed facade and voussoired window and door openings. The
Lamoreaux House (#29) appears to be the earliest, perhaps 1825. The Tool House (#17), a
protoypical cottage ornee, was always meant to be finished in a roughcast stucco and so the
masonry is rough rubble with openings lintelled in wood hacked to key the roughcast. Hawkins
Woodruff also built in the picturesque cottage ornee mode (#64) but fully intended the
stonework to be visible. Indeed Hawkins may have undertaken the masonry himself as his
initials NHW are incised into the cornerstones (Figure 3.10). At the house of Nathaniel
Hastings (#8), built closer to mid-century, red brick is used to accent the voussoirs of the flat
arches. In general, local lore has it that the stone houses of this period were executed by
Scottish masons who had become itinerant tradesmen following the completion of the Rideau
Canal. This was certainly a typical scenario in Eastern Ontario. The highest concentration of
stone structures is on Whitevale Road.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 53
Figure 3.10
Cornerstones at
Stonecroft
Hawkins Woodruff
Brick was not a significant building material in the area until after 1860 but seems to have
suddenly become extremely popular. This phenomenon is reflected both in the historical
Census Records (19 in 1851 cf. 72 in 1861) and in dating the extant brick houses within the
study area. This seems due to a number of factors:
• brick could not initially be obtained economically from local sources but became much more
accessible around that time both locally, e.g. Hubbard brickyard, and as transportation
improved from the Toronto area;
• brick, especially patterned brick, became extremely fashionable in that period associated
with Gothic Revival treatments, thus creating a real demand for the material;
• the technique of brick veneering had come into practice making a 'brick' house much less
expensive and allowing concentration on exuberant decoration (Figure 3.11).
Page - 54
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Within Seaton the brickwork of the 1860s is typically dichromatic utilizing the contrast
between red and buff brick to "pick out' quoins, arches, and stringcourses. On a number of
structures the stringcourse is made to appear as a cross or cusped design, and on two
structures an intricate dichromatic pinwheel design has been created in the gable (Figure
3.12). Brick remained popular from that time on and the 'cube' (foursquare) farmhouses from
c.1890 are all red brick, dichromy not being an aspect of that style.
Figure 3.12
Detail of design motif s.
Note "pinwheel"
Table 3.1: Pickering Tradional Building Materials
Log Frame Stone Brick
1851 536 423 40 19
1861________374________747________83_________72______
Table 3.2: Materials of Seaton Extant Heritage Building Stock
Log Frame Stone Brick
1993 1* 39 8 17
* Aside from the portion of the remaining log dwelling at Crystal Springs Acres (#65) there
are only reports of concealed log dwellings but as yet are unconfirmed
_________________________________________
Form
Regardless of the chosen material, there is a typical dwelling form which was
overwhelmingly utilized in the study area until well near the end of the century. This was a
three bay symmetrical design (frontier Palladian), Le., windows flanking a central door, 1-1/2
storeys in height with a medium pitched gable roof and end chimneys at the gable peaks
orientated with the front facing the road, and a kitchen "tail1 extending out from the
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
page _ 55
rear creating an 'L' or 'T' plan. The most common addition to this scenario particularly after
mid-century was a front gable, often of steeper "Gothic1 pitch and adorned with scrolled or
fretted bargeboard. As well verandahs were often included across the front and/or alongside
the 'tail'.
Many extant structures of this type appear to have a "high forehead', Le., where the height of
the second storey knee wall attempts to accomodate living space and the exterior of this
blank walling was meant to be covered by the verandah roof. The "tail", usually housing the
kitchen and/or summer kitchen is often 1-1/2 storey in height though 1 storey is also common.
Typically there are at least two exterior doors. The first being the formal front door, the
second a side door leading to the driveway from the kitchen or summer kitchen.
There are only two examples of the typical Palladian (Georgian) five bay design in the study
area, Major House and Hastings House, most owners being of relatively modest means.
These two houses also feature rectangular transoms and sidelights at the main door and at
the Major House a somewhat gofhicized version of a Palladian window in the centre gable
(Figure 3.13).
Figure 3.13
Major House
Centre Gable Window
There is, of course, a full range of other forms represented, including full 2 storey and 2-1/2
storey asymmetrical Queen Anne homes, four-square style buildings, and a number of multi-
gabled Gothic VL' plan structures, but each of these types alone only account for a small
percentage of the building stock.
Windows, as currently found, are largely two lights over two lights but in the case of pre-1860
structures these are generally a second generation having replaced the original small pane
(six over six) lights, e.g., Lamoreaux. However, the multi-pane windows do remain on many
buildings including the Major and Howell Houses. Segmentally arched windows are quite
common in the study area while pointed arch windows are typically restricted to within centre
gables. A bar tracery muntin design, somewhat simplified from that at the
Page - 56
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Major House, is found on a number of properties including the Howell House. Two structures,
both of early origin, the Henry Major House (#76) and the John Phillips House, have large
broadly arched windows which appear to have been added later.
Interior
The typical modest three bay house described above generally precludes a centre hall. Entry is
directly into the parlour/sitting room (Figure 3.14) with the dining room adjacent and in some
cases a room behind one or both of these main rooms (pantry, library, small bedroom) to fill
out the first storey of the main section. The second storey is reached by an enclosed stair to
save space, often incorporating winders but, in the examples checked, quite generous in width
and size of tread (Figure 3.15). The kitchen and/or summer kitchen is placed, where possible,
in the vtail' which becomes the domestic service hub and has its own entrance at the side of
the house adjacent to the drive. The bedrooms are located on the second floor.
Figure 3.14 Figure 3.15
Main door into Enclosed main stair
D. Willson "parlour" D. Willson House
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 57
Figure 3.16
Major House
main stair newel
At one early stone example checked (#61), central entry led to a tiny box hall with the stair
directly ahead reached via an elliptical arch and the main rooms at either hand, each also
reached by an elliptical arch treated in an Adamesque manner. As indicated above very few
structures in the study area have the space to allow for a grand centre hall with open stair but
the Major House is a good example of this proto-type.
In general interior detailing within the sample checked is largely Greek Revival in sensibility. In
the main rooms plastered walls; high baseboards of composite elliptical mouldings but
restrained in profile; windows in splayed reveals extending to the floor with a wood panelled
treatment below the window itself (the Major House features three panels below each window
Figure 3.17,3.18); doors within the houses are typically four panel but main doors are more
usually six panel or two elongated panels in the Greek revival mode. Generally the houses were
heated with stoves due partly to their age and to the space efficiency stove heating allowed.
However the earliest and/or the grandest, such as at #61, Stonecroft (#64), and the Major
house (#11), retain fireplaces as an essential interior feature. The cooking fireplace survived
much later and examples can be found both in these and some other structures in the area
(Figure 3.19). Kitchens were typically wood wainscotted to dado height and plastered above
(Figure 3.20).
Page - 58
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Figure 3.17
Window Reveal
Major House
3.18
Detail of base
Major House
Figure 3.19 Figure 3.20
Fireplace at Stonecroft Kitchen, Major House
Ancillary Structures
Examples remain of attached summer kitchens which incorporate woodshed and sometimes
specialized food preparation areas within the Ntail', e.g., Major House. A small number of
farmsteads, e.g., Kayes (#26), have surviving privies set to the rear of the domestic yard,
directly behind the house.
Barns
The earliest barns in the area were English barns of three bays (including wagon runway) with
gable roofs, wagon doors on the longitudinal side, and threshing doors opposite. These were
sufficient when wheat was the main crop being harvested with unthreshed grain being stored in
one side bay, eventually threshed in the central bay and the threshed grain and straw stored in
the other side bay. Despite the renovations undergone by many barns to accomodate livestock
and feed later in the century a number of these unmodified early English Barns survive
particularly along Whitevale Road. Within the early period of barn building in the area the
Swiss/German Bank Barn is also represented, not surprising given the strong Mennonite
presence to the west
Page - 60
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Toward mid-century when the wheat economy was superceded by mixed commercial
agriculture based on livestock (especially dairying), many of the English barns in the area were
modified to accomodate the stabling of livestock at the ground storey with the granary above, a
traditional feature of the German Bank Barn. The original barn was literally 'raised' while the
new ground storey stabling was constructed below, often in stone (Figure 3.21, 3.22).
Occasionally a second barn was built of this type/maintaining the original as well. The threshing
floor of a raised English barn was reached by a ramp as in the German Bank Barn. Many of
this type remain within the study area particularly along Whitevale Road.
Figure 3.21 Kayes raised English bank barn with milk house
Figure 3.22 Raymond Barn
The gambrel barn is also well represented within the study area, particularly along Highway 7,
and indicates renovation and/or construction in the last quarter of the 19th century. Their
construction went hand in hand with the development of lumber-truss construction (rather than
heavy timber frame) but earlier timber frame barns were also modified in this manner. The
advantage of the gambrel form was that it increased loft
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 61
capacity for hay storage which was important as average farm size and number of livestock
increased. The gambrel form was often used widely for straw sheds which were a common
addition to the barn around the turn of the century and this function is also found in Seaton
(Figure 3.23).
Figure 3.23 Barns at #38 Note priwy
There are fine examples of heavy timber frame joinery among the surviving barns including the
Major Bank Barn (Figure 3.24) and the Tool Barn. The latter is found deep within the lot as if to
be convenient to the field rather than the house.
Figure 3.24 Major barn framing
Though most of the silos remaining in the area are of concrete there are examples of late 19th
century wood silos. A wood shingled hipped silo roof with dormer from the turn of the century is
present and one silo with a pattern picked out in its masonry.
The Kaye's property (#26) remains a good example of an intact barnyard with a full complement
of associated outbuildings including carriage house, chicken house and milk house, nestled
into the ramp of the barn, and the yard fenced with a post and rail fence (Figure 3.21,3.25,3.26).
Figure 3.25
Kayes' chicken house
Figure 3.26
Kayes' fence and gate
Drive and Yard
Typically the farm houses within the study area are located relatively close to the road with a
drive that runs up the side of the house past the rear domestic yard to the barnyard, which
may or may not be gated. The barns are generally not far distant from the house though
some early examples indicate an alternate tendency to locate in the heart of the
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 63
fields. The drive is often lined with mature trees endowing the property with a sense of grace
(Figure 3.27). There are, however, a number of farms located far up their drive in seeming
sedusion. In these cases the tree-lined drive takes on added importance and doubles as well
as a windbreak.
Figure 3.27 Tree-lined drive
A wide variety of fencing types remain within the study area though the largest percentage is
now wire with steel picket. However, the venerable stump fence can still be seen, as can a
variety of split rail types including vthe horse and rider'; split rail and boulder; log post and
sawn rail; front yard picket fence; and low walls of fieldstone boulders (Figure 3.28, 3.29).
Figure 3.28
Split rail fence with hedgerow
Figure 3.29
Picket Fence, drive, and
windbreak
4. NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE RESOURCES
The landscape of Seaton has evolved over time as a result of the natural and cultural history.
The cumulative changes on the land have formed the landscape which we see today. In this
section, the layers of natural and cultural heritage are traced throughout the history of Seaton.
The effect of these historic periods on the landscape is documented.
The natural heritage features which have been considered are the earth sciences (geology,
physiography, soils, topography), the life sciences (vegetation, fauna), and aquatic resources
(fisheries, stream hydrology). Glaciation, climate, and other factors formed the land and have
given rise to the components which make up the natural environment. Subsequent
anthropogenic impacts have resulted in some landscapes that reflect the natural conditions
closely and others which have been greatly disturbed. For example, the natural creek valleys reflect the hydrology, fisheries, and native vegetation more closely than the swales through agricultural fields or the Brock West Landfill.
Unlike the natural heritage landscapes which included a review of the different types of
resources, the cultural heritage was reviewed in terms of different historic periods and their
effect on the landscape. This succession of historic periods has influenced the appearance
of the landscape. The effect of some periods is more dominant in some areas than others in
terms of landscapes that are visible today. For example, the southern part of the site reflects
the post-war period more strongly, whereas the Whitevale corridor reflects the settlement
history.
4.1 Natural Heritage Landscape
4.1.1 Earth Sciences Features
The Seaton area consists of approximately 3600 hectares of tablelands and riverine valleys.
The area contains a section of the West Duffins Creek, the upper portions of the
Ganatsekiagon Creek and Urfe Creek, including some of the headwaters for these latter
two creeks, and a short 200 metre stretch of Brougham Creek. The West Duffins Creek has
its headwaters in the Oak Ridges Moraine. All four creeks drain to the Duffins Creek and
southward into Lake Ontario. The creeks and valleylands account for approximately 20% of
the landbase, with low-relief tableland occupying the remainder.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page - 67
Bedrock Geology
The bedrock of the Seaton area is of sedimentary origin, and consists of shales of the Upper
Ordovician Whitby Formation. These strata are part of a succession of sediments that dip
toward the southwest. The strata overlie Precambrian Shield bedrock which slopes upward
from southwest to northeast and eventually becomes exposed 170 km northeast of Seaton.
"Outcrops of the Whitby Formation are found on the valley floor of the Ganatsekiagon Creek
near Deckers Hill and further east in the Duffins Creek Valley".58
Physiography
The Seaton area forms part of a much larger landscape whose land features were formed
during glaciation 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.59 During this glacial period, two lobes of ice
occupied this part of southern Ontario. One lobe had its centre in the present Lake Ontario
basin, while the other lay north of the Oak Ridges. Accumulation of materials between the
two lobes gave rise to the Oak Ridges, an interlobate moraine.
South of the Oak Ridges Moraine, glacial action resulted in a till plain of relatively small relief
60 The till plain was further modified or covered by water-laid deposits as the glaciers
receded.61 In Ontario County the rolling till plain is deeply dissected due to the steep grade
change from the Oak Ridges Moraine to the sand plain south of the site. The steeper grades
are prone to erosion, evident in the significant erosion sites along West Duffins Creek.
As the Ontario lobe retreated, the melt waters from the glacier gave rise to Lake Iroquois with associated shore cliffs and beach formations. Offshore deposits resulted in the formation of a sandy plain and a deep clay plain in the bottom of the lake.62 The overburden of the site consists of the South Slope till plain, which slopes southward from the Oak Ridges Moraine to the Glacial Lake Iroquois shoreline. The till is comprised mainly of bouldery loam and clay. In places fluting or grooving indicates that the direction of the ice movement was from the southeast.
The Seaton site straddles the Lake Iroquois shoreline. The site consists of an approximately 7000 acre parcel of land east of West Duffins Creek from Highway 7 to Concession line 3 extending eastward to just beyond Brock Road. The northern part of the site consists of the till plain which extends far beyond the site boundaries. The rolling till plain is deeply dissected by the West Duffins, Ganatsekiagon, and Urfe creeks and has a hilly appearance. High points along the ridges have panoramic views of the surrounding landscape and of Lake Ontario.
58 Geomatics International et al. 1989, Geology and Groundwater Studies, p32.
59 RDHP Conservation Report, 1956 so Ibid.
Ibid. Ibid.
Page - 68
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Study
Physiography
Along the southern boundary of the site, extensive sand deposits and boulder courses
indicate the Lake Iroquois shoreline which extends from the Scarborough Bluffs to south of
the Greenwood area.63 Regenerating quarries located northwest of Deckers Hill indicate
the presence of well sorted and stratified sands and gravels contained in the beach deposits.
South of the site, the sand plain quickly changes to a deep day plain, deposits from Lake
Iroquois. (See Map 4.1 - Physiography.)
Soil Types
The following information regarding soil types is based on the soil survey report for the
southern half of Ontario County.64 The soil types closely reflect the physiography of the site.
In the southern part of the site, the beach and gravel deposits of Lake Iroquois have given
rise to the Brighton soils. These gravelly sandy loams and sandy loams with a stony phase
are level to gently undulating with very few stones. These soils consist of calcareous sands
with good drainage.
To the north of these are the till soils of the Milliken and the Woburn series. The Woburn
series soils are located for the most part immediately north of the sandy deposits of the Lake
Iroquois shoreline. The soils are predominantly rolling and slightly stony loams. Sandy loams
are found in the northeast corner of the site. These Woburn soils consist of calcareous brown
loam till with good drainage.
In the northern part of the site along Highway 7, the Milliken soils are prevalent with one
pocket of Milliken soil in among the Woburn soils located further to the south. The Milliken
soils are gently undulating, slightly stony loams. Similar to the Woburn series soils, the
Milliken soils consist of calcareous brown loam till, but the Milliken soils have imperfect
drainage whereas the Woburn soils have good drainage. The entire site is bisected by
recent alluvial deposits in the bottomlands created by the meandering courses of the
Ganatsekiagon Creek, Urfe Creek, and West Duffins Creek. (See Map 4.2 - Soils.)
4.1.2 Life Sciences Features
Historic Vegetation
Historically, settlers in North America saw the extensive climax forests as an obstacle to
cultivation. Throughout North America one of greatest challenges for early settlers was to
clear the land for agriculture. Similarly, in Southern Ontario early settlers focused on clearing
the land and good descriptions of the existing forests dating from that period are rare.65
« RDHP Conservation Report, 1956
64 Report No 23
«* RDHP Conservation Report, 1956
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 69
Early records focused on pine and oak resources for the British Navy and forest tree species
as an indication of soil type. David Gibson66 for example lists indicator species for different
soil types. Maple, basswood, beech, and white pine stands indicated what was considered
to be first rate land. Land with mostly pine or hemlock often had very sandy soils, which were
deemed less desirable. Indicator species for areas prone to seasonal flooding were black
ash, basswood, and hickory. Low swampy areas consisted primarily of white cedars.67
Based on a survey of Concession V in Pickering, the predominant forest species consisted
of maple (sugar maple), elm, beech, and oak (red oak). Other sources indicate that the forests
in Pickering Township included a large proportion of pine (white pine) scattered throughout
the deciduous forest. Many of these pines were 8 to 12 feet in circumference (2.5 to 4 feet in
diameter) and 140 to 170 feet high. Small amounts of walnut, butternut, and hickory were
harvested up to the 1880s. These species would have been subdominant species in the
maple beech forests.68
Other sources confirm that the predominant species in the upland areas consisted of hard
maple, elm, beech, and basswood, with scattered pines. Valleylands included ash swales,
cedar swamps, and tamarack stands. Valley slopes often included a high proportion of
hemlock.69
While the historical sources do not give us a complete inventory of the existing forests, the
information available does give us an impression of a forest consisting of large majestic
trees of substantial diameter rising 140 to 170 feet high. Filtered light at the forest floor with
a diverse flora and fauna would have been associated with these forests.
Existing Vegetation
The cultivation of the land and extensive forestry operations throughout the 19th century have
left their mark on the landscape. The primeval forest cover in the area has disappeared.70
Forested areas are in various stages of regrowth. In spite of the obvious differences in size,
age, and woodlot structure, the vegetation types reflect the species listed in historical
records. After a low of 3.9% in the 1890s, the forest cover has regenerated over the past
century and wooded areas now cover approximately 15% of the Seaton area.71
66 Markham, 1827.
67 Ontario Historical Society as quoted in RDHP Conservation Report, 1956
68 RDHP Conservation Report, 1956 « Ibid
70 van Nostrand, 1993
71 Geomatics International et al., 1991, p.13
Page - 70
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Study
Soils
Woodlands
The Seaton area lies within the Deciduous Forest Region. The vegetation found in Seaton is
typical for this region. Upland tree associations typically include sugar maple, beech, ash,
ironwood, white pine, and hemlock, whereas lowland areas are dominated by cedar. The
area contains extensive cedar and cedar hemlock woodlots. The cedar woodlots, located
predominantly in the bottomlands along the main creeks, is the most prevalent forest cover
type in the study area. Typically the cedar stands are located in the poorly drained areas of
the floodplains, bottomlands, and seepage slopes of the West Duffins Creek and
Ganatsekiagon Creek and along the lower reaches of the Urfe Creek.
The study area also contains a significant component of mixed evergreen woodlots and a
few pine stands. The mixed evergreen woodlots contain cedars, hemlock, and pine with, if
present, a minor deciduous component. The evergreen species are considered to be co-
dominant. These woodlots are located on lands with varied topography and drainage
patterns resulting in a complex pattern of tree associations. The high diversity of species
and associations has generally resulted in diverse wildlife habitats.72
A number of mixed deciduous woodlots exist in the study area, but several of these have b
een significantly impacted by land development in the last twenty years, including the Brock
West Landfill. In this category a number of smaller beech stands, beech hemlock stands,
and ash stands are also included, although technically these are not a mixture of co-
dominant deciduous species. The rolling topography and range of moisture conditions has
given rise to a rich matrix of different tree associations and habitats.
Numerous woodlots contain sugar maple associations, but only six small woodlots are
characteristic of the maple beech climax association typical of Southern Ontario. The maple
woodlots consist of isolated smaller stands in the northern half of the site with, according to
the inventory reports, limited habitat value.73 In association with other types of woodlots, the
maple woodlots contribute to the overall habitat diversity of the complex. (See Map 4.3 -
Vegetation.)
Wetlands
Only one wetland, the Whitevale Marsh, has been evaluated in the Seaton area. Originally it
was the Whitevale Pond, which was associated with one of the mills in Whitevale. It is a
riverine marsh comprising 4.5 ha in the West Duffins Creek valley, between Green River and
Whitevale and has been designated as a Class 4 wetland.74 The marsh vegetation is
comprised almost entirely of Reed Canary-grass with cattails along the fringes of open
water.75 In quarry bottoms and along the tributary creek
72 Geomatics International et al., 1991, Resources, p. 21
73 Ibid, p. 20
74 MTRCA, 1985
75 Geomatics International et al., 1989 p. 12
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 71
channels, other minor wetlands have given rise to the development of wetland vegetation.
Fauna
Although some information is available on the fauna of the area, most of the available
information is of a general nature or rates the habitat potential of different areas. Exact
locations were not included in the background information. It was noted that a variety of
mammals and birds use the woodlots and surrounding areas for food and shelter. Deer,
rabbits, racoons, squirrels, and a large variety of birds frequent the Seaton area. Beavers
are present in the creeks. Some large mammals, such as wolves and bears, which roamed
the area in the past, have disappeared. Coyotes have returned in more recent years.76
With most of the significant woodlots associated with the valley systems of the creeks, it is
not imperative for this study to evaluate the fauna in more detail. It should be noted, however,
that some bird species live exclusively in the extensive system of hedgerows and windbreaks.
These hedgerows, in association with the agricultural fields, also provide a network of
corridors which allows smaller animals to move from one area to another. While specific
habitats have not been mapped for the natural heritage component of the study, the
hedgerows have been mapped as part of the cultural heritage component. Visually the
hedgerows are a cultural feature, even though they also serve a natural heritage function.
77
4.1.3 Aquatic Resources
Hydrology
The headwater portion of the West Duffins Creek lies in the Oakridges Morraine. The creek
enters the site with a well defined valley and meandering stream course. Along the Lake
Iroquois Shoreline and associated beach deposits, the valley becomes deeply incised with
steep erosional faces. Runs and riffles predominate with occasional pools.
Several tributaries to West Duffins Creek and the headwaters of the Ganatsekiagon, Urfe,
and Brougham creeks originate in the northern part of the study area, around or just north of
Highway 7. In the northern portion of the site, these tributaries, lacking baseflow, sometimes
appear to be no more than a swale through an agricultural field. High flows occur during
spring runoff and after storms. The stream gradient for these intermittent tributaries tends to
be relatively flat.
As these tributaries flow towards the Lake Iroquois Shoreline, the topography becomes more
rolling and the gradient of the tributaries increases significantly. Due to groundwater
discharge and a change in soil types, the intermittent swales of the
76 Chris Anderson, 1994, personal communication
77 Geomatics International et al., 1989, p.45
Page - 72
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Study
Vegetation
Legend
Seaton Cultural Heritage
Resources Study
ESA's and
Flood/ Fill Lines
agricultural areas start to form shallow, incised valleys with year round base flow. In contrast
to the agricultural areas, these valleys are densely vegetated.78
The groundwater discharge and the relatively intact riparian canopy of many of these valleys
contribute to the coldwater fish habitat, characteristic of these streams. Typically the streams
exhibit pool/riffle/run type of stream morphology with gravel and rock substrate in fast flowing
sections and sandy silt and organic matter in the pools. (See Map 4.4 - ESA's and Flood
and Fill Lines.)
Fisheries Resources
West Duffins Creek
In West Duffins Creek, runs and riffles predominate with occasional pools. The substrate is
predominantly gravel, rock, and boulder with some sand and clay in slow flowing areas.
Large gravel rock bars are exposed at low flow. Large boulders in riffle/run areas and fallen
cedars from the eroding slopes contribute to instream cover and provide fish habitat.79 The
Whitevale Pond with its large marsh and open water provides warm water habitat for
largemouth and smallmouth bass, minnows, white sucker, brown bullhead, darters,
pumkinseed, and rock bass.80 The pond also acts as an upstream barrier for migratory
salmonids.81
The aquatic habitat conditions of West Duffins Creek are degraded and contribute to low
species diversity. The riparian vegetation along the Creek consists primarily of grasses and
shrubs, providing little shade. The lack of shade and the warmer water from the Whitevale
Pond contribute to higher summer water temperatures. Only more tolerant coldwater
species reside in the Creek, including adult and juvenile rainbow-trout.82 While migratory
runs of Chinook and Coho salmon are important for recreational and sport fishing there is no
evidence of reproduction of these species.83 The larger unnamed tributary to West Duffins
Creek forms a shallow incised valley with dense intact riparian canopy.84 The numerous
pools and springs create pockets of coldwater habitat containing brook trout.85
Ganatsekiagon Creek
Ganatsekiagon is the highest quality and the most sensitive fish habitat in the Seaton area.
Excellent natural habitat conditions provide reproductive, juvenile, and adult habitat for a
number of coldwater fish species, including brook and rainbow trout. The Creek ranges in
width from 3-7 metres with abundant riffles and many shaded pools. The stable and well
vegetated stream banks comprise primarily white cedar. Instream
78 Geomatics International et al., 1989, Fisheries Resources, p. 2.1
79 Ibid, p. 2.2
80 Ibid, p. 3.6
81 Ibid, p. 2.2
82 Ibid, p. 2.2
83 Ibid, p. 3.5
84 Ibid, p. 2.3
85 Ibid, p. 3.2
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 73
cover consisting of fallen trees, logs/branches, and log jams, and the rock and gravel
substrate of the creek provide good fish habitat. While Ganatsekiagon Creek meanders
through a former aggregate extraction area, the streamside vegetation and canopy are still
intact and the activity has not had detrimental effects on habitat.86 The impact of the recent
widening of Taunton Road and culvert construction on fish habitat remains to be determined.
Urfe Creek
Urfe Creek has sustained moderate habitat degradation due to the impacts of agricultural
practices, industrial activities, and infrastructure development, such as the flow constriction
due to the collapsed culvert under the CP rail spur line and the recent widening of Brock
Road and Taunton Road. The collapsed culvert and the impoundment area associated with
the Greenwood Mushroom Farm act as barriers to fish movement. Urfe Creek primarily
consists of riffles and runs and lacks abundant pools. Fewer springs, low baseflow, ponds,
and a reduced stream canopy result in higher summer temperatures. High peak flows have
caused substantial channel widening and scouring of the banks.87 Only the more tolerant
coldwater fish, such as rainbow trout, reside in Urfe Creek.88
Spring Creek/Brougham Creek
The importance of Spring Creek and Brougham Creek is primarily as tributaries to the
coldwater fisheries habitat downstream. Significant brook trout habitat are located
downstream of the site with some juvenile brook trout in the upper reaches. Only a small
population of juvenile rainbow trout resides downstream in Brougham Creek.89
4.1.4 Natural Heritage Landscape Units
The natural heritage landscape units were derived from the synthesis of mapping information
on key natural assets and features of the area. The landscape units are defined on the basis
of the distinguishing characteristics of physiography, vegetation, water, and soils. There are
six natural heritage landscape units. (See Map 4.5 - Natural Heritage Landscape Units.)
Natural Creek Valleys
West Duffins Creek Valley
The primary creek valley in the Seaton area is the valley associated with West Duffins Creek.
This valley forms the western boundary of the site and extends from north of Green River to
where West Duffins Creek joins Duffins Creek south of the site
86 Geomatics International et al., 1989, Fisheries Resources, p. 2.3-2.4
87 Ibid., p. 2.4-2.5
88 Ibid, p. 2.5, 3.4
89 Ibid, p. 2.5-2.6,3.
Page - 74
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Season Culural Heritage Resource Study
Natural Heritage Landscape Units
boundaries. The valley has three distinct sections: open valley, wooded valley, and wide bottom
land valley.
From the northern boundary of the Seaton site to just south of Green River, the valley contrasts
with the flat topography of the agricultural land surrounding it. Yet the valley and the agricultural
land are strongly linked. The valley is approximately 200 metres wide in this section and has
distinct banks showing signs of erosion on the steeper sections where the meanders of the
stream undercut the slope. The Creek winds through the valley bottom, but south of Highway 7
the Creek has a straight section through an open wet meadow, where emergent vegetation
blends with the Creek banks. Large sections along the top of the bank lack woody vegetation
and eroding banks and the crown of trees in the bottomlands are clearly visible from the
agricultural fields. Vegetation in the bottomlands consists primarily of large open meadow
areas with occasional open stands of deciduous trees. North of the site boundary the valley
becomes densely wooded primarily with cedars.
Figure 4.1 West Duffins Creek Open valley north of Highway 7
South of where the Seaton Trail enters the valley, dense cedar stands cover the valley slopes.
In contrast to the open valley, the bottomlands in this section are fairly well drained in most
areas. The stream bank is distinct and pools and riffle sequences are evident. Along the
bottom lands open stands of deciduous trees and cedar stands grace the meandering West
Duffins Creek. The valley floor is substantial, but the dense vegetation contributes to a
feeling of enclosure and a sense of separation from the surrounding agricultural area. Even
though the valley slopes are densely wooded, immediately adjacent to the Creek the
riparian vegetation is more open and consists of grasses and forbs with groups of
deciduous trees and cedars.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 75
Figure 4.2 West Duffins Creek dense riparian vegetation
Just north of Whitevale, the Whitevale Pond forms a 4.5 ha riverine marsh and has been
designated as a Class 4 wetland.90 It is the only major wetland in Seaton. Originally the
Whitevale Pond was associated with one of the mills in Whitevale. While it is a manmade
feature, it has become part of the natural environment. While the dam acts as an upstream
barrier for migratory salmonids, the pond with its large marsh and open water provides warm
water habitat for minnows, white sucker, brown bullhead, darters, pumkinseed and rock bass.
The marsh vegetation is comprised almost entirely of Reed Canary-grass with cattails along
the fringes of open water.
Figure 4.3
West Duffins Creek
Whitevale Pond
90 MTRCA, 1985
Page - 76
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Figure 4.4
West Duffins Creek
dam at Whitevale Pond
The wooded valley extends to the south of Whitevale. Deciduous stands and fairly open woods
in the bottomlands are alternated with denser cedar stands giving a varied appearance. Slopes
remain more gentle with occasional steep sections. Where the meanders undercut the steeper
valley slopes, significant erosion sites extend up to the top of the valley and new slumps cause
entire trees to fall into the Creek.
North of Clarke's Hollow, the valley becomes deeper and more incised with much steeper
slopes. The valley also becomes wider with a substantial valley floor, where the Creek creates
wide meanders. Slopes are densely wooded, predominantly with cedars. Spectacular
erosional cuts such as the ones near Clarke's Hollow become more frequent. In this section of
the valley the stream banks are well defined and at times more than a metre high. In some of
these areas, the Creek meanders undercut the bank resulting in stream bank erosion. Large
numbers of fallen cedars occur at these erosion sites and fall into the Creek providing fish
habitat. The riparian vegetation adjacent to the Creek is often open and consists primarily of
grasses and shrubs with groups of deciduous trees and cedars. Extensive gravel bars and
riffles are evident in the Creek.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 77
Figure 4.5
West Duffins Creek
erosional cuts at Clarke's
Hollow with Whitevale
golf course in the
background
Figure 4.6
West Duffins Creek
gravel bars and riffles
While the aquatic habitat conditions of West Duffins Creek are degraded, more tolerant
coldwater species reside in the Creek including adult and juvenile rainbow trout. Migratory runs
of chinook and coho salmon are important for fishing, but there is no evidence of reproduction
of these species. Pockets of coldwater habitat containing brook trout can be found in the
larger tributary to West Duffins Creek.
Ganatsekiagon Creek and Urfe Creek Valleys
Two minor natural creek valleys are associated with Ganatsekiagon Creek and Urfe Creek.
The Ganatsekiagon Creek ranges in width from 3-7 metres with abundant riffles and many
shaded pools. The stable and well vegetated stream banks comprise primarily white cedar.
Instream cover consisting of fallen trees, logs/branches, and log jams and the rock and
gravel substrate of the creek provide good fish habitat. While Ganatsekiagon Creek
meanders through a former aggregate extraction area, the streamside vegetation and
canopy are still intact.
Page - 78
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Figure 4.7 Ganatsekiagon Creek
Urfe Creek primarily consists of riffles and runs and lacks abundant pools. High peak flows
have caused substantial channel widening and scouring of the banks. Only the more tolerant
coldwater fish, such as rainbow trout, reside in Urfe Creek.
Tributary Creek Valleys
The tributary creek valleys are associated with intermittent streams which drain the surrounding
lands during storm events and spring run off. The tributary creek valleys start out as swales in
the landscape and often do not appear to be more than a swale through an agricultural field. In
these areas the stream gradient tends to be relatively flat and vegetation is characteristic of
moist, poorly drained soils. Downstream, as the topography becomes more rolling and the
gradient of the stream increases, they start to form more defined valleys. In contrast to the
agricultural areas, these valleys are densely vegetated.
Figure 4.8
Tributary Creek Valley
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
pa~e \ 79
Tablelands
The tablelands are the glacial till plain and form a separate landscape unit. However, due to the
differences in the landscape character of the tablelands, three categories can be distinguished:
the gently undulating landscape, the rolling topography, and the level to gently undulating
landscape. These differences in topographical features and drainage coincide with the
different soil types, the Milliken loams, the Woburn loams, and the Brighton and Tecumseth
sandy loams. In spite of the removal of the natural maple beech forests, the climax
association for this part of Ontario, the tablelands have an inherent natural heritage which
creates a specific landscape character.
Gently Undulating Landscape
The gently undulating landscape is a pastoral landscape with a diversity in scales. The
generally broader landscape alternates with smaller scale and more intimate landscapes.
This landscape type is associated with many of the tributaries to the three main creeks in the
Seaton area. The landscape character is reflected in the characteristics of the tributaries,
the low gradient.
Figure 4.9
Gently undulating
landscape
Rolling Topography
The rolling topography of the Woburn loams has resulted in a smaller scale landscape. The
steeper topography and the rolling nature of the hills creates a small scale and intimate
landscape throughout these areas. The sense of enclosure is particularly strong in the lower
areas. From higher ground, the landscape is broad.
Page - 80
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Figure 4.10 Rolling topography
Level to Gently Undulating Landscape
The level to gently undulating landscape is a broader landscape. The area is fairly level with
very gradual changes in topography. Slopes are long with a low gradient. Smaller undulations
are absent.
Figure 4.11 Level to gently undulating landscape
Regenerating Landscapes
Historically, a number of quarries have operated in the Seaton area and immediately adjacent
to the site. While the quarries are distinctly manmade, they reflect both cultural and natural
heritage. As the quarries have been abandoned, the landscape has regenerated to include
ponds, minor wetlands associated with these ponds, and a range of vegetation communities,
predominantly herbaceous in character.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 81
The regenerated quarry near Whitevale consists predominantly of grasses and forbes creating
an open meadow, which complements the West Duffins Creek Valley. The quarry east of
Country Lane and south of Highway 7 is adjacent to a woodlot and is associated with one of the
Ganatsekiagon tributary valleys. Extensive quarrying operations adjacent to Ganatsekiagon
Creek just north of Taunton Road are also regenerating. The close association of the
regenerating quarries with natural environments and the scale of the quarrying operations in
relation to the surrounding landscape features has allowed the regenerated quarries to
integrate more readily with the surrounding landscape.
Figure 4.12
Regenerating quarry east
of Country Lane
Disturbed Landscapes
The Brock West Landfill forms a disturbed landscape. The landfill was constructed on the
location of a former large quarry. The mound created by the landfill operations is an anomaly
in the landscape, due to its height in relation to other landforms in the area and due to its
sheer mass. It is visible from many parts of the site. While not visible from the valley floor, the
operations of the landfill impact the southern most section of the West Duffins Creek Valley.
Other disturbed landscapes include the borrow pit associated with the Brock West Landfill,
the surplus refrigeration site, and the Elirpa Construction site (asphalt recycling plant and
yard). The borrow pit for the Brock West Landfill is extensive and deep. Entire soil strata
have been removed and the natural topography and drainage patterns have been altered
significantly.
The surplus refrigeration site and the Elirpa Construction site are sites where considerable
pollution has occured and, as a result, will require substantial soil disturbance as part of the
decommissioning of these sites.
Page - 82 Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Figure 4.13
View towards Brock West
landfill
4.2 Cultural Heritage Landscapes
4.2.1 Prehistoric Period
The earliest inhabitants of this part of Ontario left few traces on the land. They were hunter-
gatherers who did not plant crops and had few permanent village or camp sites.
The Iroquoian peoples who occupied this area for several hundred years prior to the arrival of
the first European traders were agricultural. They planted crops and lived in fairly permanent
villages.91 Villages included longhouses or round huts; burial grounds were often associated
with these peoples. Although no visible landscape features remain at this time, pine
plantations and abandoned village sites would probably have been evident at the time of
European settlement.
The importance of water as drinking water, for cooking, washing, and transportation made
locations along a navigable river or a lake particularly attractive. Interior areas appear to
have fewer recorded archaeological finds. The Rouge River formed part of an important
portage to the Holland River and ultimately to Georgian Bay. Several Indian village sites
have been confirmed along the Rouge River.
Duffins Creek did not lead to an important portage. Fewer finds have been made along
Duffins Creek and its tributaries, although the lack of detailed study of the area may have
contributed to the limited number of archaeological finds relating to Indian occupation of the
land. An Indian village site was excavated along the Ganatsekiagon Creek within Seaton.
Thus pre-historic Indians occupied the land in the study area, but no visible evidence in the
landscape remains. (For detailed information regarding the archaeological resources of the
Seaton lands, refer to Section 2.)
91 RDHP Conservation Report, 1956, History, p.l
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 83
4.2.2 Historic Period (up to 1792)
The historic period of Upper Canada started with Champlain's first trip down the Trent River
System in 1615.92 During the latter part of the 17th century, the Huron and their allies were
driven out and the Seneca took up residence in the lands along the north shore of Lake Ontario.
At the turn of the century, the Mississauga occupied the area after the Seneca returned to
New York. European influence was limited to a few traders and occasional forts along the
Lake Ontario shoreline.
Starting with the Toronto Purchase in 1785, European settlement of the area became
imminent and associated with it the dramatic change of the landscape. In 1788, the
Mississaugas signed a second treaty ceding a wide strip along the north shore of Lake
Ontario from Trent to the western boundary of Scarborough Township. This purchase was
eventually extended northward. In 1791, Augustus Jones started the survey of the Toronto
area. In 1793, Governor John Grave Simcoe founded The Town of York. The first settlers
established themselves in the Toronto area in November 1794. No settlement occurred in
the Seaton area in this period.
4.2.3 Early European Settlement - Frontier Phase (1792-1825)
Settlement was synonymous with clearing the land in these early years. As part of the
process of obtaining a grant, settlement duties were usually required. In 1798, settlement
duties included the construction of a house, the creation of a clearing, and a family in at least
temporary residence. "For a period after January 1820, this obligation included the cutting
of all trees on a strip 165 feet deep across the entire front of each lot".93 In spite of the
complicated process of obtaining location tickets (a license to occupy and improve a
particular piece of land), certificates of settlement duty, and confirmation and patenting of
the grant, it is difficult to establish the exact dates for settlement of particular pieces of land.
In Pickering Township, most of the southern portion of the Township was granted to
absentee landowners. Along the shoreline, the grants were in large blocks as part of military
grants to Major John Smith (in 1792) Commandant at Fort Niagara, his son, Lieutenant
David William Smith, and Major Aeneas Shaw of the Queen's Rangers. A large grant to
Chief Justice Elmsley and smaller grants to other inhabitants of York accounted for most of
the remaining unreserved lots south of Ninth Concession. As a result a large number of
settlers leased and settled on reserved lots and settlement occurred initially further to the
north than normal.94 Absentee landowners gradually sold lots to the settlers in the early part
of the 19th century.
92 RDHP Conservation Report, 1956
93 Ibid. ^ Ibid.
Page - 84
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
"When a new area was opened up for settlement, the best land was naturally taken first and the
rough and swampy areas were avoided. Land was cleared first along the fronts of the farms
and the woodland cut farther and farther back toward the end of the farm which lay farthest from
the road".95 Typically, only a third to half of the farm was cleared along the frontage of the
concession road. A checkered pattern developed along roads with clearings in the forest and
clusters of a few farm houses on the better soils alternating with stretches of forest or poor land.
This early phase of settlement was a frontier phase. Improvement was slow. Typically, initial
settlement resulted in a small clearings full of stumps which contained a little log house
overshadowed by the surrounding large trees. Subsistence farming was the rule on small
fields of three acres or less. Fields of ten to twelve acres allowed for a variety of crops. A
surplus of agricultural products provided some needed cash to purchase pots and pans,
crockery, cloth, or tools in the stores.96 Prior to the School Act of 1816 education was the
burden of parents.97
The war of 1812 hastened development of the area. Many unsurveyed roads existed before
1812, primarily settlers' roads. These were often more like winding trails through the forest.
98 Major roads were more like wind fall strips. The road from Duffins Creek to Newmarket
(Brock Road) probably opened in 1808 or 1809 and was improved as a Government road
under the Act of 1810. A road from Markham to Brock Road is shown in 1813. It probably
ran along Fifth Concession Line in 1817 and continued eastwards toward the Whitby area.
The early settlement pattern in the Seaton area is still evident in the Lots and Concessions,
the road patterns, and many of the early structures. (See Map 4.6 - Early European
Settlement.)
4.2.4 Later European Settlement - Backwoods Phase (1825-1850s)
Most of the surrounding area was no longer on the frontier of settlement by 1817, but
settlement in Pickering Township was slower due to the large number of absentee
landowners. Large tracts of uncleared land still gave the appearance of primitive wilderness.
During this period the population increased rapidly. A large number of settlers arrived in the
Pickering area between 1825 and 1840. Some of the wealthier new arrivals were able to
purchase cleared lands. By 1845, a large part of the clergy reserves were sold and some of
the earlier settlers who had leased lands were able to secure title to their land. The resale of
the original land grants led to smaller farms and noticeable patterns of subdivision.
95 RDHP Conservation Report, 1956
96 Ibid
97 Ibid
98 Ibid
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Paee - 85
Sharp contrasts existed between new settlers with rough cabins in tiny clearings and those who
were established on well cleared farms with dressed log or frame houses. A few wealthy
settlers even constructed brick or stone houses. Typically, farm dwellings consisted of a 1-1/2
storey farmhouse by 1850. Orchards and some gardens started appearing on the better
established farms. Gradually picket fences started enclosing the homesteads replacing the
cedar rail fences. Agricultural production increased beyond the subsistence level to meet the
needs of the city market. Wheat was grown as a cash crop. The newfound affluence gave rise
to an increase in stores and taverns.
During the Backwoods Phase, road allowances were cleared and main roads no longer
seemed like trails through the forest. Sawmills, stores, and small industries became nuclei for
the development of small villages. In the 1820s, John Major built a sawmill on West Duffins
Creek, just north of Concession Line V. The presence of abundant water power was important
for early industry. As part of his plans for the saw mill he also registered plans for the village
Majorville (now called Whitevale). The village remained very small throughout this period.
Other villages in and around the study area dating from this period include Green River and
Brougham. Green River started as a mill site on West Duffins Creek, just north of Whitevale.
Brougham was a crossroads village. Originally a post office opened at Howell's Hollow in
1836. The post office was later moved to Bentley's corners where William Bentley had built
the first store. Brougham grew to include a patent medicine factory, a lumber company, a
wooden-ware factory, a planing mill, and a carriage and wagon shop. Nevertheless the
stores and hotels were the primary generators of activity.
Small commercial businesses and trades established themselves in the villages and led to
their development. Churches and schools further enhanced village life. The School Acts of
1841 and 1846 formalized education and led to the establishment of schools throughout the
area. The school in Whitevale dates from this era and in 1842 a school was built in Green
River.
In the 1850s, a transition started occurring from the backwoods phase of settlement to a
more mechanized and industrialized society. The changes that were starting would alter the
look of the land. Transportation improvements included the extension of the railway to
Pickering in 1856 and plank or macadam roads in 1860-61. Initially, the growing of wheat
as a cash crop led to the establishment of large wheat fields. However, the abrupt drop in
the price of wheat in 1857 may have contributed to a gradual trend to mixed fanning with
more cattle and to further clearing of the land to increase the land base. The introduction of
better fanning techniques from Europe (manure, lime,and gypsum) and new farm implements
(ploughs, cultivators, reapers, and mowers in the 1850s) changed agriculture and thereby
the face of the land. (See Map 4.7 - Late 19th Century.)
Page - 86
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Study
Early European Settlement
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Study
Late 19th Century
Legend
4.2.5 Industrial Heritage (1860s-1890s)
The appearance of the rural areas was changing as well. Good size orchards were planted. In
the 1860s, grain growing was "at its height, but loss of fertility lowered production. Since wheat
was the primary cash crop, the lower wheat prices resulted in the clearing and cultivating of
marginal lands. Wetlands were drained and cut over lands not suitable for crops became
permanent pasture. Clear cutting of woodlots became prevalent in order to increase the
acreage of cultivated land. The planting of shade trees and windbreaks had hardly begun, but
mixed farming, a balance between crop lands and pasture, became more prevalent as did the
subdivision of farm land. The subdivision of farm land into smaller fields resulted from a
demand for products requiring intensive cultivation and a change in farming practices. (See
Map 4.7 - Late 19th Century.) Crop rotation contributed to the trend of smaller fields. The
decline in prosperity and the increased use of machinery in the 1870s and 1880s reduced
the need for labour. This led to the decline of rural population, and after 1890 to the decline
of village population.
Whitevale mills and factories established in the 1860s were short-lived. Many of the factories
were destroyed by fire prior to 1874 and most were never rebuilt. Trueman White built his
grist mill in 1850 and later a cooper shop, planing mills (1866), and a sash and door factory,
and in 1867 a woolen factory. After the fires, a flour mill was installed within the walls of the
woolen factory. Later, it became the location for the feed mill in Whitevale.
Several small industries developed in Green River during this period. The saw mill in Green
River dates from 1857. A wooden-ware factory moved from Brougham in 1870. A grist mill
and a blacksmith shop were built in 1870. The chapel built in 1847 several lots east of Green
River (outside the study boundary) was moved to its present location in 1888. The cemetery
remains at the original location.
During this period, the most significant impact of settlement on the landscape was the rapid
deforestation. While the initial aim of clearing forest lands was to create agricultural land, the
initial subsistence agriculture rapidly expanded to include the growing of agricultural crops
for commercial distribution. In the early 1850s approximately 55% of land was cleared in
Pickering Township. With 45% forest cover, there still were significant forested tracts that
were more or less continuous along the rear of the lots. By the 1860s, two thirds of the land
had been cleared.
Production for most forest products peaked in 1880 or 1890. Clear cutting and the market
for smaller second growth timber led to a rapid depletion of forest resources. By the early
1890s, the forest cover had been reduced to a mere 8.4%. Twenty years later the forest
cover was at an all time low of 3.9%. Marginal lands had been stripped
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 87
of vegetation. Wooded areas in Pickering gradually increased to 7.3% according to the
census in 1951 or 9.7% according to a survey carried out in 1954."
4.2.6 Early 1900s
With the advent of the car and driving through the country for pleasure, road improvements
were imperative. In 1917 the Highways Act was passed and in 1922, Highway 7 was
constructed linking Locust Hill, Green River, and Brougham. The improved accessibility of
the area to Torontonians led to the development of rural-resort settlements. These were
turned into low income housing during the depression. Most of these developments, except
for Clarke's Hollow, no longer exist.
The increased demand for granular materials for road construction resulted in an increase in
gravel pits and more rapid excavation. Smaller pits from the 19th century must have been
more rapidly depleted.
Changing agricultural practices including the greater mechanization of farming led to a
consolidation of farmland into larger farms and fields. Forest lands increased and marginal
lands appear to have been abandoned and allowed to regenerate. During this time period a
substantial increase in wooded areas occurred from the low of 3.9% in 1911. (See Map 4.8
- Early 1900s.)
4.2.7 Post War Development
The post war development was a period of more rapid change in the landscape. Rural
residential subdivisions and individual houses proliferated. Some farms were converted to
serve as industrial and commercial properties, i.e., the Greenwood Mushroom Farm. Large
scale gravel pits replaced more modest developments of earlier years. In particular large
excavations occurred to the east of the study area. The earliest indications of strip
development are visible along Brock Road in the Third Concession and closer to Brougham.
During this period recreational landscapes both private and public became evident. The new
Metropolitan Toronto Conservation Authority designated 8 km of West Duffins Creek as the
Whitevale corridor ESA. Nearby the Greenwood Conservation Area was designated and
two privately owned golf courses were located in the area. (See Map 4.9 - Post-War
Development.)
4.2.8 Expropriation and Government Stewardship
The expropriation of the North Pickering Land Assembly in essence froze the assets of this
area. The ongoing land development and changes were halted while waiting for a proposed
larger scale development. In spite of the stagnation of ongoing small changes some large
land development occurred. The Brock West Landfill was located in an existing gravel pit
between the West Duffins Creek and the Ganatsekiagon Creek. With
99 RDHP Conservation Report, 1956
Page - 88
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Seaton Cultural Heritage
Resources Study
Early 1900's
Legend
Seaton Cultural Heritage
Resources Study
Post -War Development
Legend
the land already in public ownership, public works yards were located here. A hydro corridor
was installed along the southern boundary of the site and road widening is proceeding. Taunton
Road has been widened to a 4 to 5 lane road with new bridges and culverts across the different
creeks. The new alignment of Taunton Road has required the construction of a bridge across
West Duffins Creek through the ESA. The recreational landscape has also continued to evolve
with the establishment of the Seaton Trail along the West Duffins Creek.
The agricultural lands have both been preserved and have in some instances or in some
respects declined. Some of the original landowners have moved away from their properties
and these lands have been leased. While some tenants have continued in the agricultural
tradition, others have not and the land has been allowed to lie fallow, barns decline and
fences have fallen into disrepair. On the other hand restriction on field enlargement and on
the removal of vegetation has preserved a fine network of hedgerows and fencerows.
Several of the Side Lines still have a granular surface and have not been widened preserving
the tree lined roads from an older time period.
4.2.9 Current Development Proposals
Several proposals are currently under consideration or proceeding towards implementation
which will be located within or pass through the Seaton project boundaries. As land use
patterns change often the landscape character is altered threatening the sense of identity or
sense of "place". In addition to any anticipated proposals for community development on the
site, the proposed Highway 407 and the road widening of Taunton Road and Brock Road
will significantly alter the landscape. These can be considered as threats to the integrity of
the cultural and natural landscape resources. While other types of development proposals or
the lack of maintenance may affect the integrity of the natural and cultural resources within
Seaton, the current proposals take up large blocks of land or create corridors where the
existing landscape patterns will be altered. The challenge will be to preserve those features
in the landscape which are essential to the sense of place, while allowing the landscape to
evolve to meet current needs. (See Map 4.10 - Current Development Proposals.)
4.2.10 Visual Framework
We have analyzed the site in terms of its scenic qualities and character and have classified
the visual analysis based on three categories, which we think is representative of visual
assets of the site. These will be an important component in evaluating the sensitivity of the
historic resources to the intrusion of new development. The major views and viewsheds
within the Seaton area were reviewed. While views are the extent to which one can see from
a specific vantage point, viewsheds are the sequential views from a road (or pedestrian
route) and imply a movement of the observer from one vantage point to another. (See Map 4.1
1 - Visual Framework.)
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 89
It should be noted that views and viewsheds will vary with the seasons. Views that are
transparent in the winter may be far more enclosed in the summer, due to deciduous
vegetation leafing out. The field work of the visual assets of the Seaton area was completed
during the fall and winter seasons. As a result, the size of the viewsheds will be a function of the
transparent nature of the winter vegetation.
The visual framework here presented is an overview of the visual assets or viewsheds of
sensitive heritage landscapes and not a complete assessment of all the visual assets of the
Seaton area. In the absence of specific development proposals, a full visual assessment
could be carried out to determine design guidelines. Once specific development proposals
are put forth, the proposals could be evaluated in terms of the overall landscape setting. An
evaluation of foreground, middleground, and background of specific views should be a guide
to assess impacts and, where required, explore mitigation potentials. Detailed cross-
sections, or elevation diagrams will be useful in assessing specific proposals.
High Points and Panoramic Views
From the Seaton lands a number of panoramic views exist. The predominant views are of
the Town of Pickering and Lake Ontario beyond. Many of the views are associated with the
rolling topography of the Woburn soils. A series of panoramic views toward Lake Ontario
extend diagonally across the site and may have been associated with the glacial Lake
Iroquois shoreline.
Other panoramic views are associated with high points in the landscape. Some of these
views also include Lake Ontario, whereas other views face east or west. From Decker's Hill
unobstructed views extend to Lake Ontario and open up to view the urban sprawl along the
shoreline. Along Taunton Road there are long views towards Duffins Creek to the east, and
from the area east of Brougham there are panoramic views of the Duffins Creek valley and
the farmland beyond.
Long views across the West Duffins Creek valley to the farmland beyond exist from the
higher ground of the adjacent farmland and roads. Spectacular views of the West Duffins
Creek valley itself are located from vantage points along the steep erosional cuts in the
Clarke's Hollow/Whitevale Golf Course area.
Viewsheds and Visual Corridors
Within the Seaton area there is a complex pattern of viewsheds. Viewsheds relate inherently
to a vantage point. Both topography and existing vegetation limit views and create a sense
of enclosure and separation from adjacent lands. For the purposes of this study the
viewsheds are mapped in relation to vantage points along the road network. In the Seaton
area the viewsheds range in size reflecting differences in topography, proximity to creeks
with the associated vegetation, woodlots, and hedgerows.
Page - 90
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Seaton Cultural Heritage
Resources Study
Current Development
Proposals
Seaton Cultural Heritage
Resources Study
Visual Framework
Legend
The sequence of individual viewsheds along the roads combine to give the appearance of view
corridors. Along Concession line 3, the view corridor is defined by the landfill and the
surrounding development. The limited views are dominated by suburban housing development,
the landfill, and a hydro corridor, except for a valley landscape associated with the
Ganatsekiagon Creek near Brock Road.
To the north of Taunton Road, the viewsheds are small scale with sections blocked off by
woodlots, dense vegetation, or the lowering of the road in relation to the surrounding landscape.
To the south a similar pattern exists near the West Duffins Creek valley; however, further east
the views are undifferentiated with open views to the landfill. Toward Brock Road, there is
more enclosure and smaller viewsheds north and south of the road, but the view to the east
remains very open.
Along the Whitevale Road corridor a sequence of small viewsheds create the sense of a
smaller scale and more intimate landscape to the north. A similar small scale landscape
pattern to the south is complemented in many places with longer views across the vegetation.
The north and south viewsheds are complemented by the experience of the topography of
the road itself. The steep topography and frequent grade changes of the road contribute to
the sense of a smaller scale landscape as the views in eastward and westward direction are
also interrupted and an entirely new view of the landscape emerges as one crosses another
high point.
The Highway 7 corridor is characterized by a series of larger viewsheds. The larger
viewsheds reflect the nearly level topography and more open character of the farms.
The north south roads in the study area create an interesting view corridor which is different
depending on the direction in which one travels. Travelling to the south, the view corridor
comprises a series of viewsheds involving total enclosure in the low points with spectacular
panoramic views from the high points. Travelling in the opposite direction, the view corridor
appears to be more enclosed. Brock Road, Side Line 24, and Side Line 26 are examples
of this type of landscape. The grade changes in the roads heighten the experience of total
enclosure and alternating views. However, as one approaches the southern part of the site,
the utility towers and the landfill dominate the view and form intrusive elements in the
foreground.
4.2.11 Cultural Heritage Landscape Units
These units were derived from the synthesis of the historical periods and their effect on the
landscape. The layers of history have created a unique and diverse landscape fabric evident
in the remaining historical landscape features of the land. There are twelve cultural heritage
landscape units. (See Map 4.12 -Cultural Heritage Landscape Units.)
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 91
Natural Valley Landscape
The natural valley landscape forms part of the natural heritage of the area, but also provides a
framework within which the cultural landscape developed. The valleys and associated woodlots
form a backdrop to the adjacent farms and villages. They serve to define viewsheds and act as
natural boundaries. Within the valley systems and associated woodlands, important cultural
heritage features are found. The mill pond and dam along the West Duffins Creek near
Whitevale and the pioneer grave sites along Urfe Creek near Whitevale Road are examples.
These natural valleys, particularly West Duffins Creek valley with the Seaton Trail, are used
for recreational purposes, such as hiking, bird watching, and fishing. In this way, these natural
valleys serve as a passive recreational landscape.
Figure 4.14 Entrance to Seaton Trail
Villages
The villages of Whitevale and Brougham and the hamlet of Green River are included in this
landscape type. The landscape character of each of the villages is distinctly different. Even
though Brougham is technically outside the study area, the village is an integral part of the
larger community within the Seaton area and for these reasons has been included in the
assessment and the evaluation.
Brougham was a typical cross-roads village and has developed around the four corners of
the intersection of Brock Road and Highway 7. The development of Whitevale and Green
River centred around their mills and consequently around the West Duffins Creek.
Whitevale, in particular, is a good example of a 19th century village. The approaches through
agricultural areas contribute to the integrity of the village. As a small village in a rural area,
the feed mill illustrates an important aspect of the 19th century village life and from an
historic point of view gives vitality to the village.
Page - 92
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Seaton Cultural Heritage
Resources Study
Cultural Heritage
Landscape Units
Legend
Figure 4.15
Feed mill in Whitevale
The character of the Whitevale Road, the vegetation, and the houses influence the landscape
character of the village. The width of the Whitevale Road, the lack of curbs, sidewalks, and light
standards are important aspects of the character and scale of the road. The small side streets
are typical of those in a turn-of-the-century village.
The open space and green areas inbetween the buildings contribute to the overall character of
Whitevale. Large mature trees create a light canopy throughout the village. The vegetation
within the village reflects its rural setting. Large shrubs, primarily deciduous, contribute to a
neat, yet rather loose and informal character. The openness of the village landscape creates a
visual continuity, where views are uninterupted by high fences, screens, incongruous structures,
or elements.
The relationship of the houses to the road and the relationship of the houses to each other are
significant determinants of the village landscape. The scale of the structures, the construction
materials and techniques (painted wood frame construction), the setback of the buildings from
the road, the spaces between the buildings, and the width of the road are all important
elements contributing to the landscape character of Whitevale. The character of the buildings
and the quality of the open space creates a unique relationship of voids and masses, which
creates a distinct landscape character and conveys the feeling of a 19th century village.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 93
Figure 4.16 Whitevale
Pastoral Rural Landscape
The pastoral rural landscape is a landscape with small fields and intact hedgerows. The rolling
topography and good drainage characteristic of these soils has no doubt contributed to the
preservation of the smaller fields and hedgerows, in that the steeper, well drained slopes would
have been unsuitable for row cropping.
The farmsteads are generally small and well laid out. Many farmsteads include barns, but some
of the barns have fallen into disrepair or disappeared completely. Split cedar and rail fencing is
in most instances absent or in poor repair. A loosely stacked low pile along the edge of the
field (on Side line 28) is an example of where stones and boulders removed from the fields
were not used for the construction of a foundation or house. The stone pile is completely
overgrown by a hedgerow.
Figure 4.17 Pastoral Rural Landscape
Page - 94
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Along the side lines and laneways, rows of sugar maples and remnants of rows are still in
existence, but many of the trees are declining in health. Hedgerows are growing up in among
the remnants of rows of sugar maples and in some places have replaced them entirely with
only stumps remaining.
Open Rural Landscape
Along Highway 7, the open, large scale farms create a distinct pattern of half lots creating
almost square farms. Little topographic relief further emphasizes the openness of the
landscape. Farm houses and barn yards are often clustered along the highway. The farm
fields are larger and many are currently used for livestock operations. Hedgerows are
present between farms, but few exist as separations between individual fields. Many of the
farm houses and yards are treed, which is especially noticeable in the absence of abundant
vegetation. At the rear of the farms, approximately at the half lot point, deciduous woodlots
appear to be maple dominated.
Figure 4.18
Open Rural Landscape
along Highway 7
Partially Open Rural Landscape
The partially open rural landscape is found in the western half of the site and along the
northeastern boundary. This landscape type is very similar to the rural pastoral landscape.
The farmsteads tended to be smaller often with two farm houses per lot, although larger
farms are interspersed throughout this landscape type. Many of the fields tend to be long
and narrow with intact hedgerows and tree-lined laneways in a north south direction. Across
the fields there are fewer hedgerows than is typical for the pastoral rural landscape.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 95
Figure 4.19
Partially Open Rural
Landscape
Towards Whitevale, large tracts of farmland, south of Whitevale Road, no longer appear
cultivated. Due to the rolling character of the land, the typical distribution of hedgerows and
laneways, and a few remaining farm houses, it is appropriate to include these lands in this
category.
Cleared Landscape
The lands north of the Brock West Landfill have been cleared of orchards, hedgerows, and
lines of trees along laneways up to Taunton Road. The cultural patterns of the landscape have
been virtually removed. A remaining small stand of white pine appears to be a forlorn reminder
of an earlier landscape pattern and cultural heritage. The open landscape with its uninterrupted
views is dominated by the close proximity of the landfill.
Figure 4.20 Cleared Landscape
Page - 96
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Abandoned Lands
Behind the strip development along Brock Road between Concession line 3 and Taunton
Road, the land appears to lack continuity. While these lands generally are highly disturbed,
some former landscape patterns are still evident. Some of the lands are regenerating and
have substantial, but young vegetation. The resulting landscape has no recognizable land use
and lacks clear and consistent landscape patterns
Recreational Landscape
The recreational landscape unit comprises the Seaton Trail along the West Duffins Creek
valley and the two golf courses in the area. A few smaller recreational landscapes such as
parks within villages, the gun club on Country Lane, and the war games area south of the
landfill are classified as part of the adjacent lands.
The Seaton Trail is the primary passive recreational landscape in the Seaton area. The trail
meanders on both sides of the West Duffins Creek through the creek valley and along the
top of bank and extends from Green River to the landfill. The total length of the trail is
approximately 9.7 km. Extreme changes in topography and vegetation and the opportunity
to experience the Creek close by and from afar allow a varied experience of the natural
valley landscape.
Figure 4.21 Seaton Trail near Whitevale
The two golf courses consist of a manicured landscape, primarily lawns with clumps of trees.
While the Seaton Golf Club is not distinctly different than the surrounding landscape, the
manicured appearance of the Whitevale Golf Club contrasts both the surrounding agricultural
landscape and the West Duffins Creek valley. The lack of vegetation along the top of bank
of the valley exposes the distinctly linear patterns of the golf course layout from a lookout
area of the Seaton Trail.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 97
Figure 4.22 Whitevale Golf dub
Regenerating Landscape
The primary regenerating landscapes are the former quarries, which have developed into
varied landscapes with wetlands, large meadow areas, and occasional pioneer woody
vegetation. All the former quarries are closely associated with creek valleys or tributaries and
are becoming an extension of the natural landscape, even though it is obvious that these have
been disturbed landscapes in the past and are the result of human intervention.
Figure 4.23
Regenerating quarry
north of Whitevale
Utility/Infrastructure Landscape
The southern part of the site is dominated by the utility/infrastructure landscape. The array of
hydro lines, railroad, and regional roads bisect this part of the site. Particularly, the major hydro
corridor along the south part of the site, with four high voltage hydro lines abreast, is a dominant
feature in the landscape. The utilities and other infrastructure projects have created a strong
linear landscape, which bisects other
Page - 98
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
landscape patterns. Especially, the wide hydro corridors and regional roads cause the natural
landscape, such as woodlots and valley systems, to be discontinuous. Cultural patterns such
as hedgerows are interrupted and tree-lines removed in road widening projects. In the southern
part of the site, the utilities and other infrastructure projects have contributed to the decline of
historic landscape patterns.
Figure 4.24 Hydro corridor
The railroad is not very obtrusive in the landscape, except where it crosses the West Duffins
Creek valley. The single rail track creates a small scale corridor. It can, however, pose a
hazard for wildlife. In this location, a high bridge has been constructed with substantial footings
within the valley floor and intrudes on the natural valley landscape.
Figure 4.25
View of single rail track south of the surplus refrigeration site
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 99
Rural Residential /Commercial Landscape
Throughout the site some rural residential development has taken place. Generally, it has taken
the form of scattered residences near the existing villages. However, along Brock Road just
north of Concession Line 3 extensive subdivision has occurred. A significant number of
residences are located here in contiguous lots and a number of these have become
commercial properties. The former farms are now used as a fruit and vegetables stand and
a cemetery; others have become residential properties. In among this strip development,
the Seaton Golf Course is located. The historic landscape patterns of distinct farms and
farm fields is no longer obvious.
Figure 4.26
Rural residential/
commercial strip along
Brock Road
Industrial Landscape
Seaton includes a series of industrial properties. They are widely scattered and occur only
as small pockets in the overall landscape fabric. Several industrial properties occur along
the Brock Road strip south of Taunton Road; these contribute to the appearance of a strip
development rather than purely a rural residential area. The topsoil stockpile located
between Brock Road and Ganatsekiagon Creek, just north of Concession Line 3, is a visual
reminder of the landfill located directly behind it. The municipal Works Department has a
storage yard along the Ganatsekiagon Creek, but it is located on Dersan Street and not
directly on Brock Road.
The visual impact of the Greenwood Mushroom Farm on Brock Road is low, since it is
closely linked to the adjacent agricultural land use.
A surplus refrigeration site on Taunton Road is well screened; however, the scattered
obsolete refrigeration equipment on the site is visually unappealing and may pose a
contamination problem. The buildings from the street give a somewhat derelict appearance.
The Elirpa Construction site (asphalt recycling plant and yard) is located along Brock Road
north of Taunton Road. While the property is visually screened from the road, the lands has
been severely impacted by the asphalt recycling process. Both
Page -100
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
of these industrial sites have been classified as disturbed sites from a natural heritage point of
view, since these sites will require extensive remedial measures as part of decommissioning.
(For information on the decommissioning requirements for both the surplus refrigeration site
and the Elirpa Construction site see the Ecosystem Report by AGRA.)
Figure 4.27
Surplus refrigeration site
Similarly, the Brock West Landfill constitutes a disturbed, yet industrial, landscape. The sheer
size and height of the landmass make it stand out from the surrounding landscape and it will be
difficult to integrate this form into the existing natural and earlier cultural patterns of the land.
Figure 4.28 Brock West landfill
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page. 101
EVALUATION
5. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
5.1 Evaluation Framework
As summarized in the inventory phase of this project, research carried out for the Seaton study
has identified two basic categories in the archaeological inventory of the property: registered
sites, represented by 20 definite archaeological components; and unregistered sites,
represented by 23 definite or possible archaeological components.
Each of these categories must be given due consideration for planning purposes. However,
the quality of the available information on the unregistered sites is generally insufficient for a
confident determination of their nature and significance at this time. In contrast, the available
data on the registered sites tends to be better, both qualitatively and quantitatively.
Consequently, the present evaluation has focused on the 20 known registered
archaeological sites within the Seaton property.
5.1.1 Site Significance Criteria
Legislation does not provide a definition of what constitutes a significant archaeological site.
In practice, this is a judgment usually made on a case-by-case basis by the staff of the MCTR,
or by professional archaeologists subject to review by MCTR staff. Where appropriate,
assessments of site significance are also made in consultation with interested parties such
as developers, landowners, municipal officials, Native band councils, etc.
Despite the lack of a legal definition, certain specific and general interrelated factors
invariably apply in determining archaeological site significance. The detailed background
research carried out during the inventory phase of the study provided a first-rate
understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of past research, and of the strengths and
weaknesses in the data available for each site. Subject to any detailed field work to follow
the present study, these data help to ensure a fair assessment of the known archaeological
inventory. The present study has relied upon a number fundamental characteristics to help
determine archaeological site significance.
Age and Cultural Affiliation
Known archaeological sites in proximity to the study area span some 11,000 years in age
and subsume a broad range of cultures and temporal periods and sub-periods. No one
culture is more significant than another, but different periods and cultures are characterized
by different site types and settlement, subsistence and burial practices, all of which have
implications for site significance. In addition, some cultures are less well known than others,
owing to the rarity of sites and/or to a lack of detailed past investigation.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page -103
Age per se is not a factor in site significance, except in one sense: the determination of which
historic Euro-Canadian sites are sufficiently old to be regarded as archaeological resources
worthy of documenting. This concern does not apply to the present archaeological inventory,
which consists exclusively of prehistoric sites.
Class and Type
The archaeological components of the study area comprise three different classes of site:
15 habitations (71%); two burials (10%); and four indeterminate (19%). Individual sites in the
study area have further been assigned to one of thirteen different types: sites which consist
of or include human burials (two sites); and non-burial sites including definite or possible
villages (eight sites), camps (four sites), findspots (three sites), and indeterminate
components (four sites).
The presence of human burials of any type automatically renders a site significant, as all
burials are subject to consideration under the Cemeteries Act (RSO 1992) which provides
for due respect in the treatment of human remains. The sensitivity of burials, both Native and
European, is further recognized by the Provincial Government as a serious concern. In part,
the significance attached to burial sites should by extension also apply to Iroquoian village
sites, given the inevitability of individual graves within each village and the possibility of an
associated cemetery or ossuary in the vicinity.
Beyond the question of burials, site type is of relevance as a determinant of a number of
other factors relevant to site significance, notably site size and richness. For example,
isolated prehistoric findspots consisting of one or a few artifacts are normally considered
insignificant, whereas large Native village sites are invariably considered significant
Size and Richness
Sites in the study area range in size from a single find spot to villages of up to 0.5 hectares
or more. A small Archaic period camp may be of equal intrinsic significance to a large
Iroquoian village. However, the level of planning concern generally bears a direct relationship
to the size of a site, inasmuch as site size will effect the cost and/or feasibility of
archaeological mitigation through avoidance or excavation.
With respect to the relative abundance in artifacts, intrinsic significance depends upon the
presence of sufficient material remains to permit the archaeological interpretation of such
factors as age, cultural affiliation, and temporal, cultural, and geographic inter¬relationships.
Again, however, the sheer quantity of artifacts will be a factor in the relative cost of mitigative
excavations.
Condition
The ideal archaeological site is, excepting the processes of natural decay, essentially as
abandoned by its inhabitants. Such a pristine site preserves evidence of activity areas,
refuse disposal patterns, social interactions, etc. Any human or natural agency which
disturbs or destroys cultural deposits, therefore, has a negative impact on site significance.
Page -104
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Within the study area, most or all agencies having a negative impact on sites are human. These
range from agricultural disturbance to aggregate resource extraction, road and railway
construction, and commercial and industrial developments. Perhaps the most common
agency affecting site condition is agricultural disturbance. It should be noted, however, that
most sites known to and investigated by archaeologists in southern Ontario have been
plough-disturbed, and that much can be learned from ploughed sites despite their disturbed
nature. Artifacts may be recovered from the ploughzone. In addition, on Iroquoian sites
subsurface settlement patterns (the remains of longhouses, etc.) usually survive in the
subsoil.
Context
This term refers to the role of a site in a larger cultural or geographic context. Accordingly, a
site may be considered significant as an excellent or representative example of a given site
type or culture, or as one of the best examples of its type or culture in a given area.
At the simplest level, site context equates with the relative rarity of sites of a given type or
culture. In the case of historically documented sites (primarily Euro-Canadian), the role
played by a site in the settlement or history of the area is also a consideration. Furthermore,
the significance of an historic site is further enhanced by the quality and quantity of historical
documentation which is available, and by any associations with historically prominent
personages.
5.1.2 Levels of Significance
Four separate significance ratings have been identified in the evaluation of the 20 registered
archaeological sites in the inventory: high; indeterminate or unknown; low; and negligible.
These ratings are primarily based on a consideration of intrinsic site significance, combined
with an evaluation of site condition. The quality and quantity of available archaeological data
are variable. Accordingly, where necessary, ratings have been adjusted to accommodate
different levels of confidence in the base information.
High
This is the highest rating assigned to archaeological sites in the evaluation. Sites were
accorded this rating on the basis of one or more characteristics, including relative size and
quantity of cultural material, potential for settlement patterns, potential for associated human
remains, and degree of representativeness.
Indeterminate
This is the second highest rating employed by the evaluation. The use of this rating reflects
the fact past archaeological investigations did not always document sufficient information for
an informed assessment, and that more detailed field investigations are needed to establish
site significance. Accordingly, this rating has been applied to sites of potential rather than
demonstrable significance. It is anticipated that detailed investigations would
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page -105
result in a revised range of finite significance classifications for these sites, including low,
medium, and high.
Low
This is the second lowest rating employed by the evaluation. It applies to sites which have
sufficient data for an informed assessment, and which are considered to be of low
significance.
Negligible
This is the lowest rating employed by the evaluation. It is determined solely by the
characteristic of condition, and applies to sites which have been destroyed, regardless of
their original significance.
5.2 Evaluation of the Resource
As summarized in Section 5.1.2, four separate significance ratings were identified in the
evaluation of the 20 registered archaeological sites in the inventory: high; indeterminate;
low; and negligible. For practical purposes, these four significance ratings may further be
divided into two basic groups.
The first group consists of sites of demonstrable or potential significance. It comprises
individual sites ranked as being of high significance or indeterminate significance,
respectively. The second group consists of sites of limited or negligible archaeological
significance. It comprises individual sites ranked as being of low or negligible significance,
respectively.
For reference purposes, a cultural chronology of region is presented in Table 5.1. Select
environmental data on the sites are presented in Table 5.2. An evaluation of the significance
of the individual archaeological sites is presented in Table 5.3. Finally, summary data on the
evaluation are presented in Table 5.4. Generalized locations for the registered sites,
together with their levels of significance, are illustrated in Map 5.1.
Page -106
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Evolution of Registered Archaeological Resources
Registered Archaeological Site Significance
Table 5.1 ____________________Cultural Chronology for South-Central Ontario______________
PERIOD GROUP TIME RANGE COMMENT
PALAEO-INDIAN
Fluted Point 9500-8500 B.C Big game hunters
Hi-Lo 8500 - 7500 B.C. small nomadic groups
ARCHAIC
Early ---- 8000 - 6000 B.C. Nomadic hunters and gatherers
Middle Laurentian 6000 - 2000 B.C. Transition to territorial settlements
Late Lamoka 2500 -1700 B.C. Polished/ground stone tools
Broadpoint 1800 -1400 B.C.
Crawford Knoll 1500 - 500 B.C.
Glacial Kame ca. 1000 B.C. Burial ceremonialism
WOODLAND
Early Meadowood 1000-400 B.C. Introduction of pottery
RedOchre 1000-500B.C.
Middle Point Peninsula 400 B.C.-A.D. 500 Long distance trade networks
Princess Point A.D. 500-800 Incipient horticulture
Late Pickering A.D. 800-1300 Transition to village life and agriculture
Uren A.D. 1300 -1350 Large village sites
Middleport A.D. 1300 -1400 Widespread stylistic horizon
Huron A.D. 1400 -1650 Tribal differentiation and warfare
HISTORIC
Early Odawa, Ojibwa, A.D. 1700 -1875 Social displacement
Mississauga Late__________Euro-Canadian________A.D. 1800 - present European
settlement_________________
5.2.1 Sites of Demonstrable or Potential Significance
The registered site inventory is dominated by sites of demonstrable or potential significance.
This group comprises 15 sites, or 75% of the total inventory. The majority of these sites are
considered to be of demonstrable importance, and have been accorded a high evaluation
rating. This applies to 9 sites, or 45% of the total.
Seven of the 9 sites ranked as high consist of Iroquoian village or habitation sites: the Miller
site (AlGs-1); the Simmons site (AlGs-5); the Delancey site (AlGs-101); the Bolitho site
(AlGs-102); the Winnifred site (AlGs-103); the Ginger site (AlGs-104); and the Park site
(AlGt-28). These sites are considered to be significant by virtue of a number of factors,
including their relatively large size, comparative richness, the potential for settlement
patterns, and the potential for associated human remains.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page -107
The remaining two sites ranked as high consist of Archaic camps: the Sime site (AlGs-22); and
the Salgo site (AlGs-27). They are considered to be significant by virtue of their potential to add
to our knowledge of the poorly understood Archaic period in the prehistory of the region.
A smaller proportion of sites in this group are considered to be of potential rather than
demonstrable importance, and have been classed as being of indeterminate significance. This
applies to 6 sites, or 30% of the total inventory. Three of these are indeterminate prehistoric
find spots or sites of unknown type: the Kerr site (AlGs-35); the Camp Pidaca site (AlGs-106);
and the Ramage site (AlGs-108). A fourth is an indeterminate Archaic camp: the Bowden site
(AlGs-105). The last two sites are indeterminate Woodland period sites of unknown type: the
Mawson site (ALGs-107); and the Ashbridge site (AlGs-143). These two sites are oriented to
the Lake Iroquois shoreline, and most likely to relate to the Early Iroquoian occupation of the
area, a possibility which indicates some potential for associated burials.
As a addendum to the inventory of sites of demonstrable significance, some further comments
are in order on the subject of the seven Iroquoian sites. As stated above, Iroquoian sites are
generally considered to be significant by virtue of a variety of factors, including relatively large
size, comparative richness, the potential for settlement patterns, and the potential for
associated human burials. The level of significance for any given site depends in part on the
condition of the site, but it must be emphasized that significant archaeological deposits may
survive even on a site that has been largely destroyed. This applies to varying degrees to the
Iroquoian sites in question.
To the best of our knowledge, impacts to the Simmons, Winnifred, and Park sites have
largely been limited to agricultural disturbance. The other four sites have been subject to
impacts or affected by a wider variety of agencies, including sand and gravel extraction
(Delancey and Bolitho), railway construction (Ginger), and archaeological excavation (Miller).
While these impacts have inevitably reduced the area of any given site that remains to be of
concern to the evaluation, the portions that remain do have a potential to contain significant
and even undisturbed cultural deposits.
5.2.2 Sites of Limited or Negligible Significance
A minority of the registered site inventory consists of sites of limited or negligible significance.
This group comprises 5 sites, or 25% of the total inventory. Three of the sites in this group
are considered to be of limited importance, and have been accorded a low evaluation rating:
these represent 15% of the total site inventory. One is a Middle Archaic find spot the Vaxvick
site (AlGs-20). The second is an indeterminate prehistoric find spot the Salt Box site (AlGs-
21). The third is an indeterminate prehistoric camp: the Willems site (AlGs-109). All three
consist of sites which axe considered to have been adequately assessed by past
investigations, and found to be of no appreciable significance.
Page -108
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
The remaining two sites in this group have been destroyed by sand and gravel extraction, and
are considered to be of negligible significance owing to their condition. They comprise 10% of
the total archaeological inventory. One of the sites, Deckers Hill (AlGs-14), represented an
indeterminate Iroquoian village; the other, the Brock Road site (AlGs-19), consisted of a
multiple burial.
5.2.3 Discussion
Under normal circumstances, an evaluation of this kind could be expected to identify a full
range of site significance ratings, from indeterminate to negligible, low, moderate, high and
very high. For a variety of reasons, the present evaluation has identified a more restricted
range of significance levels.
One reason is that the present inventory is relatively small. In consequence, a full range of
potential site significance ratings is less likely to be represented, just as it is unlikely we
could expect a full range of sites of different time periods, cultures, or types.
A second reason is that the level of investigations on archaeological sites in the study area
has been variable and, in many cases, superficial. This has resulted in the fact mat no less
than 30% of the sites have been categorized as being of indeterminate significance.
Another and even more important reason is the archaeological inventory is biased toward
the Iroquoian occupation of the Late Woodland period. This bias is largely responsible for
the fact that no less than 45% of the sites in the inventory are ranked as being of high
significance. The seven Iroquoian sites which form the majority of the sites of high
significance constitute fully 35% of the entire archaeological inventory in Seaton. The
relative quantity of these sites is partly due to past research interests, and partly to the fact
that Iroquoian sites are simply larger and more obvious, and tend to be more easily
discovered, whether by accident or by design.
5.3 Evaluation of Archaeological Potential
Archaeological planning concerns are most easily evaluated on the basis of known,
registered sites. Unfortunately, an assessment of known sites, however confident, does not
help to identify potential archaeological concerns in lands which have not yet been surveyed
and/or for which no information is available.
In a effort to evaluate determinants of prehistoric settlement within the Seaton area, the study
conducted a detailed review of land use in order to determine select variables affecting
archaeological potential. Data for a number of environmental variables were then determined
for each of the 20 known registered sites in the archaeological inventory. The archaeological
data base was then reviewed in order to identify any possible cross-correlations between
environment and prehistoric settlement Finally, a site potential
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page -109
model was generated in an attempt to identify relative zones of potential for as-yet
undiscovered archaeological remains.
5.3.1 Criteria
The sample of known archaeological sites within the Seaton property is generally too small
to permit meaningful analysis, although certain variables do indicate an enhanced potential
for certain kinds of sites. A case in point is the orientation of Early Iroquoian sites to features
associated with the Lake Iroquois shoreline. For general purposes, however, site potential
modelling requires criteria that have more general applications.
Within recent years, two separate archaeological studies have formulated and applied site
potential models to the Greater Toronto Area: the 1986-1989 archaeological master plan of
the Town (now City) of Vaughan; and the 1987-1990 archaeological master plan carried out
for the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA).100 Each of these
studies has relied upon distance to water as the prime determinant of archaeological site
potential.
The Vaughan archaeological master plan initially reviewed all available registered site data
for the Greater Toronto Area and vicinity, and extrapolated data on 487 individual sites. A
critical review of the sites was then undertaken, using various published and unpublished
sources, including the project archives from Victor Konrad's 1971-1973 Metro study, and
data compiled in the course of the 1976-1978 New Toronto International Airport survey101
and archaeological master plan studies for the municipalities of Markham, Scarborough,
and Vaughan.102 This resulted in a slightly reduced data base of 444 sites, including 429
Native sites and 15 Euro-Canadian sites.
Distance to water for the Vaughan archaeological master plan was measured at a scale of
1:25,000, using National Topographic Service base mapping. The study determined that a
distance increment of 200 metres from any type of water source represented the best
interval for defining lands of positive archaeological potential. The lands covered by the
application of this interval included 82% of all archaeological sites.103
The MTRCA archaeological master plan initially examined data for 669 archaeological sites
registered within a broad study area encompassing the watershed area within the mandate
of the Authority.104 Following an independent evaluation, the sample was reduced to a data
base of 143 archaeological sites which were considered to have adequate information
controls.
uo Burger 1990
101 Poultonl979
102 Mayer, Pihl Poulton 1986,1989; Mayer Poulton and Associates 1989
103 MPA1989
104 Burger 1990
Page -110
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Distance to water for the MTRCA master plan was measured at a combination of mapping
scales, including 1:25,000 Canada-Ontario Flood Reduction Program Risk Maps and 1:2,000
scale MTRCA Flood Plain and Fill Regulation Line Mapping. The mean distance to water for
the MTRCA sample was 128 metres. The increment selected as the defining characteristic of
high potential lands was 253 metres. This represented the second standard deviation, and
defined a zone containing 96% of the sites.105
The principle advantage of the distance to water variable is that it applies equally to sites of all
different time periods and cultures. Accordingly, the present study has followed the Vaughan
and MTRCA studies in employing distance to water as the main criterion in determining
varying zones of potential for prehistoric settlement These zones have been modified, where
necessary, by a consideration of more recent land use and landscape modifications.
There are two key factors in the potential success of the exercise: the distance to water
increment considered to be significant in defining the zone of potential; and the quality of
mapping used to measure distance to water. In the present case, a preliminary task was to
high-light all drainage systems depicted on the 1:10,000 scale composite Ontario Base
Map of the Seaton property. The base map was then compared to other mapping sources,
including earlier 1:25,000 scale National Topographic Service maps for the area. This
resulted in the extension or addition of a small number of minor tributary streams, particularly
but not exclusively in areas affected by aggregate resource extraction.
In the application of the model, a 200 metre distance from water was selected as the critical
determinant of archaeological potential. Available data do not allow a precise comparison of
the implications of this choice relative to the MTRCA model. However, comparisons with the
Vaughan model suggest that the use of this interval should result in a relatively conservative
definition of moderate-to-high potential zones, considering the more detailed scale of the
Seaton base mapping.
In preface to the application of the model, it should be cautioned that the model is intended
only to predict areas of relative archaeological potential, not actual site locations. In other
words, within an area of any size the potential locations for a prehistoric camp may be
infinite, but the actual number of prehistoric camps will be finite. One other limitation which
derives from the choice of criteria is that proximity to water is not a determining factor in
location for all types of site. Specific exceptions include burial sites, sacred sites, most kinds
of resource extraction sites (such as chert quarries), and find spots,106 as well as kill sites
or butchering sites. As a result, the distance to water criterion simply cannot be relied upon
to help predict zones that will necessarily contain certain types of site, including burials which
are inevitably considered to be significant
105 Burger 1990 ™ Pihl 198634
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page - 111
5.3.2 Land Use Variables
Past and present land use may have a radical effect upon archaeological resources. For
practical purposes, this has two implications. Firstly, the current inventory of known
archaeological sites may have been biased by the nature, extent, and location of landscape
modifications (e.g., sand and gravel extraction concentrated along the Lake Iroquois
shoreline). And secondly, the extant potential for as-yet undiscovered archaeological sites
may similarly be biased by landscape modifications. In order to ensure that these factors
were given due consideration, great care was taken to identify the nature and limits of past
landscape modification. Naturally, these efforts also involved an attempt to reconstruct the
pre-impact topography and drainage, where necessary.
The archaeological study benefited from consultation with the land use study carried out as
part of the cultural landscape evaluation, but also used additional or original sources in an
attempt to confirm and refine the information on past and present land use. One principle
source consisted of recent 1:10,000 and 1:20,000 scale stereoscopic aerial photographs.
107 This was supplemented by early topographic maps (1909, 1933), and the later (1974)
1:25,000 scale National Topographic Service maps which illustrate the study area on the
eve of expropriation (information current to 1969-1970).
For descriptive purposes, the present study identified four basic land use groups relevant to
the archaeological evaluation. The cumulative surface area for each land use group was
determined by measurement using a planimeter. The total of the units also served to
measure the total surface area of the Seaton property: 3,495 hectares, or 8,632 acres.
Pertinent data showing zones of archaeological potential are illustrated in Map 1.3 in the
Confidential Appendix. Descriptions of the basic units are presented below.
Undeveloped Lands
This category is used as a catch-all to include any and all lands which have not been subject
to intensive or extensive modifications. Most notably, it includes valleylands and other natural
areas as well as agricultural lands.
Altogether, the lands included in this category cover a total surface area of approximately 2,
341 hectares, or 5,780 acres. This represents 67% of the total surface area of the Seaton
study area. Undeveloped lands are distributed throughout the study area, most particularly in
the northern two-thirds of the Seaton property, where aggregate resource extraction and
commercial and industrial developments have been less extensive.
As a rule, lands in this category have a higher potential for extant archaeological remains,
owing to the fact that any inherent potential has not been degraded by past impacts to the
landscape.
107 May 1993
Page -112
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Golf Courses
This category includes three properties in Concessions III and IV: two golf courses and a
driving range. Altogether, these lands cover a total surface area of approximately 71
hectares, or 175 acres, representing some 2.0% of the total surface area of the Seaton study
area.
Extant archaeological potential within the three units included in this category varies
according to the degree of landscape modification. Certain areas have undergone little or
no significant disturbance, and retain a potential for both surface and subsurface
archaeological remains; other areas, most notably some fairways, have been extensively
landscaped, but may retain a potential for deeply buried subsurface remains, including
human burials.
Pits and Quarries
This category groups all lands formerly involved in aggregate resource extraction. They
include the following: abandoned sand and gravel pits; regenerating landscapes consisting
of former sand or gravel pits; the Brock West Landfill; and the associated Brock West
Landfill borrow pit.
Altogether, these lands cover a total surface area of about 203 hectares, or 500 acres,
representing 5.8% of the total surface area of the Seaton study area. Ten separate units are
included in this category. All but two are associated with the Lake Iroquois shoreline in the
southeastern third of the study area: the exceptions are located in Concession V.
As a rule, lands in this category are considered to have a negligible archaeological potential,
owing to the deep and extensive nature of past impacts to the landscape. However, it must
be cautioned that many of the former sand and gravel pits are situated in areas of high
inherent potential for archaeological sites, and that sites or portions thereof may still survive
immediately adjacent to former pits. The study area offers several practical examples of this,
including definite or probable Early Iroquoian village sites such as Miller (AlGs-1), Delancey
(AlGs-101), Bolitho (AlGs-102), and Winnifred (AlGs-103).
Industrial/Commercial Lands
This category groups all lands involved in a range of industrial and commercial uses. They
include eight different properties or units as follows: a public works yard; a construction
business; an asphalt recycling plant; a refrigerator recycling plant; a mushroom factory; a
cemetery; a fruit stand; and an extensive topsoil pile. The asphalt recycling plant occupies a
former gravel pit.
Altogether, the lands involved in this category cover a total surface area of approximately 47
hectares, or 117 acres, representing 1.4% of the total surface area of the Seaton study area.
The eight units involved are concentrated in the southeastern portion of the study area, most
particularly in the lands flanking Brock Road.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page -113
5.3.3 Archaeological Variables
The variables observed were selected to document site age and cultural affiliation (period, sub-
period, culture), site type, and key locational attributes (major and minor drainage system,
distance to water, soil type, elevation, and distance to the Lake Iroquois shoreline).
Only six of the 20 the sites in the sample have had any archaeological excavations
whatsoever, and several of the sites had been wholly or partly destroyed before any
meaningful professional investigations could take place. Concurrently, several other sites
have as yet been subject to only superficial archaeological investigations. As a result of all
these factors, information on site type and other variables is often difficult to assess.
The variables of culture, period, sub-period, and site type identified in this study are as
determined by the original researcher. The variable of site size was not used in this study,
as this variable could not be consistently observed. Indeed, reliable estimates of original
site size were not available, with the exception of the Miller site (1.05 acres). Other more
detailed site size estimates are limited to remnants of once larger sites of indeterminate
size which had been impacted by aggregate resources extraction.
Drainage systems pertinent to each site have been identified using the 1:10,000 scale maps.
All of the streams named form part of the greater Duffins Creek drainage system. Within this
system, major drainages have been identified as the largest named stream course nearest
to the site (e.g., West Duffins Creek, Ganatsekiagon Creek, Urfe Creek, East Duffins Creek).
Where one of these four major stream systems does not constitute the nearest water source
to the site, a related minor tributary is identified.
All distance to water measurements were measured as the minimum straight line distance
between the site and the nearest water source on the base map. Soil classifications were
based on the Soil Survey of Ontario County.108
Elevations of archaeological sites are expressed in feet above sea level, as the majority of
sites were registered before metric values became the standard. Most elevations were
derived from the original researcher, and date from the period when 1:25,000 scale contour
mapping was the best available. For present purposes, given elevations for archaeological
sites were checked against the most detailed contour mapping available for any given area
(1:10,000 scale or 1:4,800 scale). Elevations were amended where the differences between
the given elevation and the observed elevation were appreciable.
The mapping of the Lake Iroquois shoreline for the Seaton property presented something of
a challenge to the present study, as none of the previous planning studies had attempted to
map the shoreline in detail. Detailed mapping of the Iroquois shoreline at a scale of 1:31,
680 is available for the Scarborough area, as part of a relatively recent study of the
108 Ontario 1956
Page -114
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Pleistocene geology of that area.109 Unfortunately, that study does not extend as far east as
the Seaton lands. The best source available on the Iroquois shoreline in the Seaton property is
research conducted in the 1930s by A. P. Coleman, which includes mapping of the shoreline
at a scale of 1:316,800"° and l:63£60.lu Research by Coleman, and by Chapman and Putnam
in 1984, indicates that the Iroquois shoreline follows an elevation of 472 feet above sea level in
the area just east of Metropolitan Toronto.
For purposes of the present study, the various sources cited above permitted a reasonably
accurate reconstruction of the Iroquois shoreline at a scale of 1:10,000 through the Seaton
property. The principle difficulty was in tracing the shoreline through areas where extensive
aggregate resource extraction had eradicated the original landscape contours, most notably in
the area of Lots 20-24, Concession El, and Lots 19-23, Concession IV. The shoreline through
these areas was determined by reference to two sources: the mapping by Coleman in 1933,
which predated aggregate resource extraction in these lands; and more detailed 1:4,800
scale contour mapping developed for the North Pickering Development Corporation in the
1970s.
Measurements of the distance of sites to the Iroquois shoreline were determined as the
minimum straight line distance between the site and the shoreline on the base map. Distances
to the Iroquois shoreline were measured in metres, and are expressed as positive values for
those sites above the shoreline, and as negative values for those sites below the shoreline
(Table 5.2).
Karrow 1967
Coleman 1936
Coleman 1933
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page -115
Table 5.2 - Registered Archaeological Sites; Select Environmental Data
Borden # Period Sub-Period Culture Site Type Drainage Dist Soil Elev Dist to
to Casl) Iroquois _____________________ Water Shore
Major Minor
AlGs-1 Woodland Late Woodland Early__________Village_______Ganat. Cr. -__________250 Brsl 410 -1400
AlGs-5 Woodland Ind. Woodland Ind. Iroquoian Village_______Urfe Cr. tributary 100 Wol 650 +1750
AlGs-14 Woodland Late Woodland Ind. Iroquoian Village_______W. Duffin tributary 50 Brsl 440 -1000
AlGs-19 Unknown Unknown_______Ind.___________Burial________Ganat. Cr. tributary 60______Brsl 440 -100
AlGs-20 Archaic Middle Archaic Laurentian Findspot Ganat. Cr. tributary 270 Wol 660 +2050
AlGs-21 Unknown Unknown_______Ind.___________Findspot Ganat. Cr. tributary 100 Wol 600 +1200
AlGs-22 Archaic Middle Archaic Laurentian Camp________W. Duffin tributary 100 Wol 650 +2200
AlGs-27 Archaic Middle Archaic Laurentian Camp________E. Duffin Brougham 60______Wol 610 +650
AlGs-35 Unknown Unknown_______Ind.___________Unknown Urfe Cr. tributary _50______Wol 510 +350
AlGs-101 Woodland Late Woodland Early__________Camp/Villa Ganat. Cr. -__________20 Wol 475 -30
AlGs-102 Woodland Late Woodland Early__________Camp/Villa Ganat. Cr. -__________80 Brsl 460 -250
AlGs-103 Woodland Late Woodland Early__________Camp/Villa Ganat. Cr. tributary 40______Brsl 490 +20
AlGs-104 Woodland Late Woodland Early__________Village_______Ganat. Cr. tributary 20 Brsl 430 -350
AlGs-105 Archaic Ind. Archaic Ind. Archaic Camp________Ganat. Cr. -___________301______Ml 615 +1650
AlGs-106 Unknown Unknown_______Ind___________Unknown W. Duffin tributary _20______Brsl 390 -950
AlGs-107 Woodland Unknown_______Unknown______Unknown W. Duffin tributary 170 Brsl 535 +270
AlGs-108 Unknown Unknown_______Ind.___________Findspot W. Duffin -__________400 Brsl 390 -1450
AlGs-109 Unknown Unknown_______Ind___________Camp________Ganat. Cr. tributary 50 Wol 545 +650
AlGs-143 Woodland Unknown_______Unknown______Unknown Ganat. Cr. tributary 20______Brsl 435 -200
AlGt-28 I Woodland I Late Woodland I Ind. Iroquoian I Village I W. Duffin I-_________I 100 I Wol I 600 I +4000
Ganat. = Ganatsekiagon Creek; Brsl = Brighton sandy loam; Wol = Woburn loam; Ml - Milliken loam
Page -116 Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
5.3.4 Results
Details on the cultural and environmental variables observed for each registered site are
summarized in Table 5.Z A summary of the observed correlations for each temporal group of
sites represented in the inventory is presented below.
Archaic Period (7,800-900 B.C.)
The Archaic period is represented by four registered sites in the Seaton property. These
comprise three camps and one isolated find spot.
Three of the four sites are attributed to the Middle Archaic, more specifically to the
Laurentian Archaic Tradition (ca. 3500-2500 B.C.). Two of these consist of camp sites: the
Sime site (AlGs-22); and the Salgo site (AlGs-27). The third component consists of a find
spot, the Vaxvick site (AlGs-20).
One other site has been attributed to the Archaic, but cannot be assigned to a specific sub-
period or cultural complex. This is the Bowden site (AlGs-105), an indeterminate Archaic
camp site.
The sample of Archaic sites is too small to permit meaningful analysis. However, it may be
observed that the known Archaic sites are oriented to most of the main drainages, including
Ganatsekiagon Creek (main branch and tributary), West Duffins Creek (tributary), and East
Duffins Creek (the Brougham Creek tributary).
Other variables reflect the fact that the known sites are all situated above the Iroquois
shoreline, at higher elevations where heavier soils dominate. Thus, the elevation above sea
level for the Archaic sites has a range and mean of 610-660 feet and 633 feet (195 metres),
respectively; soils are dominated by Woburn Loam (N=3), followed by Milliken loam (N=l).
The distance above the Iroquois shore has a range and mean of 650-2,050 metres and
1,650 metres respectively. Research outside the limits of the Seaton property demonstrates
that these characteristics cannot be considered to be reliable, as survey has documented
notable concentrations of Archaic components below the Iroquois shoreline, within 1-2
kilometres of the Seaton property as well as in the lower Duffins Creek estuary.
The Late Woodland (800-1650 A.D.)
The Late Woodland subsumes what was undoubtedly the most populous and probably the
first year-round occupation of the Seaton area prior to the beginning of the European
settlement. Fully eight registered Late Woodland components are known.
Five of the eight sites are attributed to the Pickering Culture of the Early Ontario Iroquois
stage, ca. 800-1300 A.D. These consist of the Miller site (AlGs-1), the Delancey site (AlGs-
101), the Bolitho site (AlGs-102), the Winnifred site (AIGs- 103), and the Ginger site (AlGs-
104). Miller and Ginger represent villages. The remaining three sites may also constitute
villages, however an indeterminate portion of each has been destroyed by gravel
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page -117
pitting. In consequence, Delancey, Bolitho, and Winnifred have simply been categorized as
villages or camps.
Information on the remaining three Iroquoian sites is insufficient to place the components within
a temporal framework. In consequence, all three can only be classed as indeterminate
Iroquoian. These consist of the Simmons site (AlGs-5), the Deckers Hill site (AlGs-14), and the
Park site (AlGt-28). All are considered to represent villages.
The sample of five Early Iroquoian sites offers some useful data. All of these sites are oriented
to Ganatsekiagon Creek: three of the sites are oriented to the main branch, while the remaining
two are oriented to tributaries thereof. As a rule, Early Iroquoian sites in the Toronto area are
virtually confined to the Iroquois sand plain, most notably along the relict shoreline of
proglacial Lake Iroquois in the Town of Pickering112, and the present sample supports that
pattern. Thus, all five Early Iroquoian sites are on or below the Iroquois shore. Four of the
sites are situated below the shoreline, at distances ranging from 30-1,400 metres (average
508 metres); the remaining site is located only 30 metres above the shoreline. The elevation
for the Early Iroquoian sites has a range and mean of 610-660 feet and 453 feet (139 metres)
respectively.
Soils reflect the concentration of Early Iroquoian sites on the Iroquois Plain; four of the five
sites are on Brighton sandy loam; the fifth is on Woburn loam. The distance to water
technically ranges from 20-250 metres as measured from the base map. However, four of
the five have distances ranging from only 20-80 metres, and the exception (Miller) is actually
only 15 metres from a spring. This spring is not depicted on the base mapping, which shows
the closest water source as Ganatsekiagon Creek, 250 metres distant.
One of the three indeterminate Iroquoian sites resembles the Early Iroquoian pattern closely:
the Deckers Hill site. It is situated 50 metres from a tributary of West Duffins Creek, at an
elevation of 440 feet, on Brighton sandy loam soils. The location places this site below the
Iroquois shoreline, 1,000 metres distant, all of which suggests that the Deckers Hill site is
Early Iroquoian in date (ca. 800-1300 A.D.).
The remaining two indeterminate Iroquoian sites differ considerably from the above. One of
these, the Simmons site is located on a broad ridge approximately 100 metres from a
tributary of Urfe Creek, at an elevation of 650 feet. It is situated 1,750 metres north of the
Iroquois shoreline, on Woburn loam soils. These characteristics are most consistent with
locational data for the only two known Middle Iroquoian sites in the Duffins Creek drainage:
the Pearse village and ossuary (AlGs-29), and the Hoar village, both of which are located in
the next concession north113. The similarities suggest that the Simmons site may represent
a Middle Iroquoian village dating to the period 1300-1400 A.D.
112 Konrad 1973: Poulton 1987 "3 Poulton 1979
Page -118
Seaton Cultural Heritage Study - Natural and Cultural Heritage Resources
The Park site is located on a plateau roughly 100 metres from West Duffins Creek, at an
elevation of 600 feet, 4,000 metres north of the Iroquois shoreline. The soils are Woburn
loam. These characteristics all conform with the pattern documented for Late Iroquoian sites
in the middle and upper reaches of the Duffins and Rouge drainage basins114, and indicate
that the Park site probably represents a prehistoric Huron village dating to the period 1400-
1500 A.D.
Indeterminate Woodland
This temporal category is used as a catch-all for sites which have produced native ceramics
but which cannot be dated more closely within the Woodland period (900 B.C. to 1650 A.D.).
Two registered components are classed as indeterminate Woodland on the basis of reports
of prehistoric ceramics. These are the Mawson site (AlGs-107) and the Ashbridge site
(AlGs-143). Both sites are of unknown type.
A number of factors suggest that the Mawson site may be an Early Iroquoian component.
One is that there is an Early Iroquoian occupation documented for the adjacent segment of
the shoreline: at the Ginger site. Another is that an extensive zone of light-textured soils
extends above the Iroquois shoreline in this area. These soils may well have been used by
the Early Iroquoian horticulturalists, regardless of the fact that the area lay above the Iroquois
shoreline.
The nearby Ashbridge site is situated 20 metres from a tributary of Ganatsekiagon Creek,
at an elevation of 435 feet, on Brighton sandy loam soils. It lies 200 metres below the
Iroquois shoreline. The location of the Ashbridge site is similar to that of Early Iroquoian
village sites in the area, including the Ginger site, situated less than 100 metres to the south
across a gully. Altogether, these factors suggest that the Ashbridge site also represents a
Pickering Culture component.
Indeterminate Prehistoric
The inventory of registered archaeological sites includes six indeterminate prehistoric
components. Pertinent data are summarized below.
Three of these sites are situated above the Iroquois shoreline: the Stone Saltbox site (AlGs-
21), an indeterminate prehistoric find spot; the Kerr site (AlGs-35), a component of unknown
type; and the Willems site (AlGs-109), an indeterminate prehistoric camp. The distance of
these sites from the Iroquois shoreline ranges from 350 to 1,200 metres, with an average of
733 metres. In the absence of any additional information, nothing meaningful can be
observed for these sites.
The other three indeterminate prehistoric sites are situated below the Iroquois shoreline.
One is the Brock Road site (AlGs-19), a multiple burial. The other two are components of
unknown type: the Camp Pidaca site (AlGs-106); and the Ramage site (AlGs-108). Nothing
"« Ibid
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page -119
can be inferred regarding the latter two sites, but the data does offers grounds for speculation
concerning the third.
The Brock Road site is situated roughly 60 metres from a tributary of Ganatsekiagon Creek, at
an elevation of 440 feet, on Brighton sandy loam soils. The location places this site below the
Iroquois shoreline, 100 metres distant. Concurrently, the Brock Road burial is situated between
three Early Iroquoian Pickering Culture village or habitation sites: Delancey, Winnifred, and
Bolitho. These factors strongly suggest that the Brock Road site probably represented a
Pickering Culture ossuary pertaining to the Early Iroquoian occupation ca. 800-1300 A.D.
Summary
The environmental variables observed for the 20 archaeological sites in the Seaton inventory
may be summarized as follows. The known sites are distributed throughout the study area, and
occur on all of the major drainage systems, including West Duffins Creek and its tributaries,
Ganatsekiagon Creek, and Urfe Creek, as well as Brougham Creek, a tributary of East Duffins
Creek. The majority of the sites (N=14) are most closely situated to minor tributaries; the
balance of the sites CN=6) are located on major or named creeks. Distance to water for the
20 sites ranges from 20 metres to 400 metres, with a mean of 99.5 metres. The majority of
sites are associated with Brighton sandy loam soils (N=10), followed by Woburn loam (N=9)
and Milliken loam (N=l). The elevations above sea level range from 390 to 660 feet, and with
an average of 517.
Almost half of the sites are located below the Iroquois shoreline (N=9), with the balance
located above the shoreline QM=11). Approximately one third of the surface area of the
Seaton property is located below the Lake Iroquois shoreline. In consequence, some 45%
of the known sites are contained within roughly 30% of the land surface. This may suggest a
somewhat higher archaeological potential for the Iroquois Plain, but more likely just reflects
a survey bias toward the portion of the property transected by the shoreline, an area which
happens to contain two major subjects of past archaeological study, the Urban Stage One
Area and Candidate Landfill Site EE11.
Page -120
Seaton Cultural Heritage Study - Natural and Cultural Heritage Resources
Table 5.3 Registered Archaeological Sites: Evaluation of Significance
Borden # Period Culture Site Site Type Size Richness Condition Level of
Class* Significance
AlGs-1 Woodlan Early__________A, B Village_______Large TBA partly intact? High_______
AlGs-5 Woodlan Ind. Iroquoian A Village_______Large_____Rich______ploughed______High________
AlGs-14 Woodlan Ind. Iroquoian A Village______ Unknow - destroyed None
AlGs-19 Unknown Ind. B Burial Unknow - destroyed None
AlGs-20 Archaic Laurentian______A________Findspot______-_________-_________ploughed_____Low________
AlGs-21 Unknown Ind.___________A________Findspot______-_________-_________ploughed______Low________
AlGs-22 Archaic Laurentian A________Camp________Small TBA TBA__________High_______
AlGs-27 Archaic Laurentian______A________Camp________Small TBA______ploughed______High_______
AlGs-35 Unknown Ind.___________A________Unknown TBA______TBA______ploughed Unknown
AlGs-101 Woodlan Early__________A________Camp/Villa Large Rich______partly intact High________
AlGs-102 Woodlan Early__________A________Camp/Villa Large Rich partly intact High_______
AlGs-103 Woodlan Early__________A________Camp/Villa Large Rich______partly intact High________
AlGs-104 Woodlan Early__________A________Village_______Large_____Rich______partly intact High________
AlGs-105 Archaic Ind. Archaic _A________Camp________Small_____TBA______ploughed______Unknown
AlGs-106 Unknown Ind.___________TBA Unknown TBA TBA undisturbed Unknown
AlGs-107 Woodlan Unknown______TBA______Unknown Medium _-_________destroyed ? Unknown
AlGs-108 Unknown Ind.___________A________Findspot______-_________-_________undisturbed Unknown
AlGs-109 Unknown Ind.___________A________Camp________Small_____Poor______ploughed______Low________
AlGs-143 Woodlan Unknown TBA Unknown Large TBA ploughed Unknown
AlGt-28 I Woodlan I Ind. Iroquoian I A I Village I Large I Rich I plouehed I High
* A = Habitation; B = Burial Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page -121
Table 5.4 Registered Archaeological Sites: Summary of Evaluation
Evaluation Categoiy Significance Category N %
Sites of Demonstrable or High 9 45
Potential Significance Indeterminate 6 30
subtotal 15 _____________ 75
Sites of Limited or Negligible Low 3 15
Significance None 2 10
subtotal 5 25 Total - _20__________________100_______
5.3.5 Evaluation of Inherent Archaeological Potential
For purposes of the present study, two distinct types of archaeological potential have been
defined: inherent and applied potential. Inherent potential is determined solely on the basis of
environmental factors, and pertains to the intrinsic potential of any given area to contain
archaeological remains. Inherent potential differs from applied potential in that it does not
take into consideration any landscape modifications (such as aggregate resource extraction)
which may have negatively impacted the potential of an area to contain archaeological
remains.
The results of the application of the archaeological site potential model are illustrated in Map
1.3 in the Confidential Appendix. Data on the inherent archaeological potential inferred for
the subject property are summarized in Table 5.5. As indicated in the table, two separate
zones of potential were defined on the basis of the distance to water criterion: moderate-to-
high potential lands; and low potential lands. The cumulative surface areas for each zone of
potential were measured by planimeter.
Basic information on the extent of the two zones of inherent potential are detailed in the
column entitled "Pre-Development Surface Area". As indicated, moderate-to-high potential
lands are represented by a combined surface area of 2,575 hectares, or 6,359 acres. This
represents 74% of the subject property. Low potential lands are represented by a total
surface area of 920 hectares, or 2,272 acres. This represents 26% of the subject property.
A more detailed breakdown for each zone of potential is presented in the column entitled
"Current Land Use". This includes information on the extent of each different inherent
potential zone which has been subject to various impacts. As indicated, the majority of lands
of moderate-to-high inherent archaeological potential within Seaton have to date escaped
serious landscape modification: these total 2,387 hectares in extent The exceptions total
approximately 187 hectares in extent, and consist of former pits and quarries (150 hectares)
and miscellaneous industrial and commercial developments (39 hectares): these
Page -122
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
developments have impacted approximately 7% of the lands of moderate to high inherent
archaeological potential within the property. Coinridentally, serious landscaping impacts
have also affected 7% of the total surface area of low inherent archaeological potential (63
hectares).
Table 5.5 Summary of Inherent Archaeological Site Potential
Inferred Current Land Use Pre-Development Surface Area Current Land Area
Potential _____________________ "_________________________
Ha % Ha %
Moderate to Undeveloped Lands 2574.6 73.7 2341.1 67.0
High Golf-Courses - - 462 13
subtotal________________2574.6_______________ 73.7 2387.3 683
Pits/Quarries - - 1495 43
Industrial/Commercial - - 37.8 1.1
subtotal - - 1873 5.4
Total 2574.6________________ 73.7 2574.6 73.7
Low Undeveloped Lands 920.0 26.3 832.1 23.8
Golf-Courses _-____________________ - 245 0.7
subtotal________________920£________________ 26.3 856.6 243
Pits/Quarries - - 53.8 15
Industrial/Commercial - - 9.6 0.3
subtotal - - 63.4 1J8
Total 920.0 263 920.0 263
Grand Total 3494.6_______________ 100.0 3494.6 100.0
5.3.6 Evaluation of Applied Archaeological Potential
As stated above, applied site potential zones take into consideration landscape
modifications which may have negatively impacted the inherent potential of an area to
contain archaeological remains. Accordingly, three different zones were distinguished. The
first consists of moderate-to-high potential lands: these represent lands which are within 200
metres of a water source and which have undergone little or no significant landscape
modifications. The second consists of low potential lands: these represent lands which are
more than 200 metres from a water source and which have undergone little or no significant
landscape modifications. The third consists of lands of negligible potential: these represent
lands which have undergone significant landscape modifications, regardless of their
distance to water.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page -123
Respective surface areas were measured by planimeter for each of the three zones of
applied archaeological potential. The applied archaeological potential zones are illustrated
in the attached map of the Seaton property. Pertinent data are summarized in Table 5.6.
___________Table 5.6 Summary of Applied Archaeological Site Potential____________
Inferred Potential Category Surface Area
Ha %
Moderate to High Undeveloped Lands 2341.1 67.0
Golf Courses 462 13
subtotal 23873_______________ 683
Low Undeveloped Lands 832.7 23.8
Golf Courses 245 0.7
subtotal 856.6 243
Negligible Pits/Quarries 2033 5.8
Industrial/Commercial 47.4 1.4
subtotal 250.7_________________72__________________
Total________________________________________3494.6_______________Mfl__
As indicated in Table 5.6, lands of moderate-to-high archaeological potential cover a total
surface area of 2,387 hectares. Altogether, these lands cover 68% of the Seaton property.
Virtually all of the moderate-to-high potential lands have undergone little or no appreciable
impacts apart from agricultural disturbance. The most notable exception consists of 46
hectares of moderate-to-high potential lands in golf courses, which have undergone varying
degrees of landscape modification.
Lands of low archaeological potential cover a total surface area of 857 hectares. Altogether,
these lands cover 25% of the Seaton property.
Lands of negligible archaeological potential include any areas former sand and gravel pits
as well as a range of industrial and commercial operations. Altogether, the lands of
negligible potential cover a combined surface area of 251 hectares. This figure represents
7% of the total surface area of the Seaton property.
5.3.7 Discussion
One test of the efficacy of the site potential model is to examine the extent to which it
succeeds in capturing known sites in the inventory, especially sites of demonstrable or
potential significance. In the present case, 17 of the 20 registered archaeological sites
within the Seaton property fall within lands of moderate-to-high inherent potential as defined
by
Page -124
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
the criterion. This sum represents 85% of the inventory, and includes a full range of sites of
different periods, cultures, and types.
Judged strictly on the basis of numbers, the site potential model is a success in that 85% of the
known archaeological sites fall within the 74% of the surface area which is identified as having
a moderate-to-high archaeological potential. The apparent value of the model is supported by
the fact that two of the three sites located in lands of low archaeological potential are of at best
indeterminate significance: the Vaxvick site (AlGs-20), a Middle Archaic find spot; and the
Ramage site (AlGs-108), an indeterminate prehistoric find spot. Unfortunately, the third
exception is one of the most important sites within the Seaton property: the' Miller site (AlGs-
1). This Early Iroquoian village is the type site for the Pickering Culture. Miller consisted of
palisaded settlement, 0.4 hectares in extent, with a minimum of six longhouses. The village
also featured seven discrete graves containing a total of 28 individuals. These were
distributed both within and beyond the palisade limits.
As an argument against the efficacy of the present site potential model, the Miller site is a
somewhat equivocal case. The reason is that a closer examine of environmental data
demonstrates that the Miller site actually is located within a zone of moderate-to-high
potential. More specifically, it is situated immediately adjacent to a shallow ravine that forms
a relict stream course. Most importantly, the ravine contains an active spring, situated just
15 metres outside the limits of the palisade.115
Granting that the ravine itself may be considered a possible water source, and that the
spring represents a definite water source, the problem is that neither is evident at the
Ontario Base Mapping scale of 1:10,000. In short, the model as currently applied is
dependent upon the limitations of the mapping, and cannot be relied upon to consistently
identify all lands of moderate-to-high archaeological potential, especially considering that the
water table has changed in the past few centuries. Inevitably to mis, and to limitations of the
mapping, a wide range of water sources will be omitted, especially springs, relict streams,
and small ponds. These considerations underscore the limitations of site potential modelling
as a desk-top exercise, and also serve to emphasize the need for a field-based evaluation
of archaeological potential.
The example of the Miller site suggests that some of the limitations of archaeological site
potential modelling may be overcome by using more property-specific information, where
available, and by supplementing the background data by a field-check of individual
properties. In summary, the site potential model has some validity at the level of the present
study, but a more rigorous approach would have to be applied at a later stage in the planning
process, in order to ensure that individual properties had been adequately assessed.
The extent to which the limitations of site potential modelling may be overcome by simply
having better data is another matter altogether. In an effort to determine whether the
Kenyon 1968:4, Figure 3
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page -125
model itself had inherent flaws, the present study conducted a brief test of the model by-
applying it to select archaeological sites within a 1.5 kilometer buffer zone around the Seaton
property. This buffer zone contains fully 11 major Iroquoian sites, the kind of site most
commonly considered to represent a significant development constraint The 11 sites range in
age from Early Iroquoian to Late Iroquoian, and include nine villages and three ossuaries or
mass burials, one of the latter located within a village.
All but two of the Iroquoian sites in the buffer zone are situated within 200 metres of a water
source as measured at 1:10,000 scale, and would fall within a moderate-to-high potential
zone using the present criterion. However, the two exceptions include three separate
components. The Middle Iroquoian Pearse village and ossuary (AlGs-29)116 is located in
Concession VI, Lot 22, and is situated fully 300 metres from the nearest water source
(personal observation). The Garland ossuary (AlGs-13)117 is located in Concession III, Lot
32, and is situated 250 metres from the nearest water source as measured at 1:10,000
scale. In consequence, these three important components have no discernible water source
whatsoever within 200 metres. As such, all would fall within a zone of low archaeological
potential as defined by any site potential model currently in use.
The above data illustrate the limitations of the present archaeological site potential model. In
summary, the site potential model has some value in predicting zones in which the majority
of archaeological sites will be found, and which will contain the majority of significant
archaeological resources and planning concerns. However, the model cannot be relied
upon to predict zones containing all significant important archaeological resources. The fact
that important exceptions occur appears to derive not merely from the limitations of
environmental data, but also from the sometimes unpredictable nature of human behaviour.
The corollary is that any attempt to apply the model at a practical level runs the risk of
missing some of the very sites that are of greatest concern to archaeological resource
management
5.4 Sensitivity and Constraint Issues
Archaeological sites represent a fragile and non-renewable cultural resource. Within
southern Ontario, these sites tend to be limited to the upper metre or so of the soil, and as a
result they are extremely sensitive to physical impacts. Archaeological resources include
both Native and Euro-Canadian remains, and potentially cover a very broad range of sites,
from human burials to habitations, industrial components, and so on.
In a variety of legislation enacted since the early 1970s, the Government of Ontario has
recognized the need to protect and conserve significant archaeological remains as an
important part of the collective cultural heritage of the Province. In the case of burials sites,
legislation also requires due process and consultation with the appropriate agencies,
including aboriginal bands.
Poulton 1979
Webb 1969
Page -126
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Seaton Cultural Heritage
Resources Study
Evaluation of
Built Heritage Resources
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Study
Evaluation of Natural Resources Landscape
The extent to which archaeological sites have survived within the Seaton property has
depended on a variety of factors, most particularly the past land use of the area. Historically,
this area has been characterized by a predominantly rural and agricultural land use, with limited
potential for significant impacts to archaeological resources. An early and minor exception was
the construction of the Canadian Northern Ontario Railroad (now CPR) alignment in 1910-1911,
which destroyed part of one known site: the Ginger site (AlGs-104).
Aggregate resource extraction has had a far more significant impact on the archaeological
resources of the Seaton property, especially in the two decades following World War II. The
present study indicates that sand and gravel pits affected a total area of some 200 hectares,
or almost 6% of the Seaton lands. This probably destroyed a number of undocumented
archaeological sites, and certainly impacted no fewer than four sites, or 20% of the known
inventory. Ironically, these four do not include the Miller site, where support from the Miller
Paving Company facilitated an important archaeological excavation in the years 1958-1961.
Since expropriation in the early 1970s, large-scale aggregate resource extraction has ceased,
and the continued survival of archaeological resources within the Seaton property have
benefited by a process of benign neglect. Development pressures in the lands surrounding
Seaton have continued to mount, however, and include a variety of recent, ongoing, or
proposed developments or impacts within the subject property. Among these are the recent
Taunton Road extension, the Brock West borrow pit, the proposed widening of Brock Road,
the proposed Highway 407, and the proposed EE11 Landfill Site.
These known impacts are in addition to whatever other residential, recreational, commercial,
or industrial developments the future may hold for the Seaton property. In consequence,
circumstances now require a more pro-active approach to the management of the fragile
archaeological resources of the Seaton lands.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page -127
6. BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCES
6.1 Evaluation Framework
In the first phase of this study all the pre-1940 properties which comprise the built heritage of
the study area were visited and documented. As well, background research was undertaken
on the individual properties and the general settlement history of the area. This information
regarding the structures, their builders, and owners, important as it is as raw data,provides a
mosaic of the study area and the context then for considering the individual properties within
it. As we delve into it, the past of the area increases in complexity and interconnectedness,
like a good novel. But for the Mackenzie Rebellion of 1837, it is generally not a story of grand
themes but rather of relatively slow settlement through successive generations on this creek
endowed, rolling landscape. The sons and daughters of Thomas Hubbard, Nathaniel
Hastings, Asher Willson, John Major, Ira White, Hugh Pugh, and others married, moved from
the pioneer farmstead on to yet undeveloped lots and settled there. Mills, schools, and
churches were built Villages and cemeteries laid out. Farms enlarged and improved. The
buildings they lived and worked in largely remain and take on significance, within this area,
as a testament to the tale.
At this stage, the individual properties are evaluated in terms of their historic and/or
architectural significance as determined through the data sheets and rated according to
accepted criteria described below. The methodology for so doing is based, as requested in
the Terms of Reference, on The Evaluation of Historic Buildings,118 modified to suit the
nature of the study area. The five categories proposed by Kalman, i.e., Architecture, History,
Environment, Integrity, and Usability (here called Feasibility for use) are utilized but a number
of the subheadings have been changed or deleted as required for relevancy. Thus the
subcategory "Architect' has been deleted from the Architecture section as virtually all the
buildings surveyed are vernacular in nature. A further example is the inclusion of an
"Outbuildings' subcategory within the Integrity section as the extent of the survival of
outbuildings forms an important aspect of the intactness of most of these properties. For
those not familiar with the "Kalman system' the "definition' of each criterion is provided
below.
6.1.1 Architecture
• Style: Notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular architetural style, type, or
convention.
• Construction: Notable, rare, unique, or early example of the use of a particular material or
method of construction.
• Age: Comparatively old in the context of its region.
118 Kalman, Parks Canada, 1979
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page -129
• Design: Displays unique and/or high degree of skill and artistic merit in the composition
and craftsmanship of the overall form and/or specific details (Figure 6.1).
Figure 6.1
Tool house soffit with "carved" rafter ends
6.1.2 History
• Person: Associated with the life or activities of a person who has made a significant
contribution to and/or impact on the community, province, or nation.
• Event Associated with an event that has made a significant contribution to and/or impact
on the community, province, or nation.
• Context Associated with, and effectively illustrative of, broad patterns of cultural, social,
political, military, economic, or industrial history.
6.1.3 Environment
• Continuity: Contributes to the continuity or character of the area.
• Setting: Setting or landscaping which contributes to the character of the area.
• Landmark: Prominent or conspicuous structure that has acquired for the community a
special visual or sentimental value which transcends its function.
Page -130
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
6.1.4 Integrity
• Site: Occupies its original site.
• Alterations: Has suffered little alteration and retains most of its original materials and
design features.
• Condition: Building is in good structural condition.
• Outbuildings: Retains significant outbuildings, e.gv barn, straw shed, chicken house,
forge or forge barn, smokehouse, privy.
6.1.5 Feasibility for Use
• Compatibility: Present use is compatible with the current land use or zoning.
• Adaptability: Potentially adaptable to compatible re-use without harm to the features
which contribute to its significance.
• Cost Preservation, restoration, maintenance, and/or interpretation cost appears to be
reasonable.
Each property is evaluated under the five major categories on the basis of their scoring
under the relevant subcategories. Each subcategory has been assigned numerical grading
corresponding to Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair/Poor. Once again the weighting of the
grading system has been modified to reflect the reality of the study area. Often in these
types of evaluations the Architecture Category is weighted much more heavily than other
aspects. Here it seemed that Environment and Integrity should be on close to equal footing
with Architecture within the rating system. Given, however, that many of the area's properties
satisfy those criteria the Architecture and History categories still tend to determine final
grading.
The sub-totals are tabulated to provide an overall numerical score for the property which is
then translated into a letter grade based on the following:
95 -100 points = Class A: Very significant
85-94 = Class B: Significant
70-84 = Class C: Relatively high contextual value
50-69 = Class D: Some contextual value
Below 50 = Class E: Little or no contextual value
Note that the relatively high numerical score required to gain Class A rating is a necessary
outcome of the marking system utilized. One could characterize the system as allowing for
the different ways in which a structure can be considered valuable but still recognizing that
some hard distinction regarding significance has to be made for planning purposes.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page -131
6.2 Evaluation Summary
The evaluation forms for each property are included in the Appendix with the data sheet for
that property. They are intended to be read together as, of course, the evaluation is derived
from the information/description summarized on the data sheet However, a general summary
of the results are presented below.
Of the 70 properties evaluated there are 17 Class A, 21 Class B, 18 Class C, 11 Class D,
and 3 Class E properties. It should be noted that the structures within the Hamlet of
Whitevale itself were not evaluated separately as Whitevale is now deservedly regarded as
a Heritage District and its properties are viewed as all contributing to the special character
of that place. The results of the evaluation are indicated on the map following which again
utilizes the Id. # derived from the data sheets.
Whitevale Road
From the mapping, the concentration of highly significant structures along Whitevale Road is
very evident. This is not surprising given the concentration of properties that combine locally
important persons, relatively early construction dates, and architectural significance. We
have:
• the Hubbard House (#2), an early timber frame of which few remain and associated with
one of the earliest settlers, patriarch of one of the most important famines - Thomas Hubbard
U.E.L. Owned in this century by Andrew Glen, like Hubbard a political progressive, who
hosted at the Hubbard House the meeting with J.S. Woodworth which led to the founding of
the CCF.;
• the Asher Willson House (#6), a unique early stone structure (cat-slide roof) built by early
settler and important local personage Asher Willson, a Mackenzie rebel and founder of
Christian Church of Brougham;
• the Nathaniel Hastings House (#8), one of the few five bay Georgian structures in the
area with brick voussoirs over the windows in the stone facade. Key area family;
• the Aaron Albright House (#10), an early dichromatic brick structure in English bond with
gothic window in the centre gable. Albright was an early settler though did not own the
property until mid-century. Some alteration to main entrance;
• the John Major House (#11), perhaps the most important building in the area, five bay
stone structure with centre gable, intact interior, kitchen tail, summer kitchen with
smokehouse and barn associated with very early settler and founder of Whitevale;
• the Casper Willson House (#15), fine example of cl860 dichromatic brick with centre
gable associated with Casper Willson, first son of Asher;
• the John Tool House (#17), though abandoned is the only area example of a stucco on
stone cottage ornee sited picturesquely and associated with early settler John Tool. The fine
Tool barn remains as well;
Page -132
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
• Pennybank' (#66), the house of Hugh Pugh and his decendants up until expropriation,
combines an early stone and later dichromatic brick addition with pinwheel motif in the gable.
Barns remain;
• the "Old School' (#73), a fine example of Greek Revival architecture utilized at a modest
institutional scale and associated with key area school throughout the 19th century;
• the Henry Major House (#76), an early frame structure retaining multi-pane windows
associated with Major family. Carriage House remains.
There are also some fine buildings which were graded just below the "A' standing such as
the James White House.
Highway 7
While only #38, an architecturally interesting (from the vernacular perspective), extremely
intact, farm complex with privy, barns, and milkhouse was classed as an VA', the extent of
good 19th century architecture along this roadway should be recognized. Generally the
buildings are post I860, in brick or frame, with monumental gambrel barns from late in the
century. It is less scenic and presents a more recent agricultural landscape and associations
man Whitevale Road but none-the-less has its own integrity (Figure 6.2).
Figure 6.2
Relationships between
house and gambrel barns
on Highway 7
Brock Road
Though somewhat obscured by recent infill and infrastructure changes, the evaluation
clearly shows significant vestiges of the early building stock of this settlement road
particularly:
• Stonecroft (#64), an early stone cottage ornee with significant early additions, beautifully
sited. The first owner's initials are incised into the cornerstone;
• #61 (now Snowcrafts), an early stone structure with Adamesque detailing orientated to
the south rather than to the road;
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page -133
#60, an intnctfarm complex associated with the Hubbard favuly.
As well, though much altered the only omfirmed secam of remaining exposed log
etruameio the area con be found at k , Crystal Springs Acres, beautifully steel amidst the
Springs.
Taunton Road
Two ltighly valued snuchres xemainm101e north sde of Mesad Thesearc
• the Lamoreaux Houee(#D)perhapstheeahl istonedwellingintbeareaandbuiltby
own of Seaton§ eexliest and mmt colourful settlers;
die ICayes/Ia1 W' House (#26), a frame farmhouse m a fully intact fors mmpla still
Rved th by a descendant of the original owner.
An early 20th century structure with cobbled porch pias poseualy associated wind Robert
Reetor remains on the south side of the newly widened roadway.
Sideline l6
The key rar uining property is the Howell House (OM) early timber fame dwelling, the
first postuffice Ear Brougham, smce'cally located in what has tumeto be known as HoweVs
boRow.
63 Sensitivity and Constraints
Vhtually all of the above properties evaluated can be conadered to be somewhat
threatened. Since expropriation many, have been uMemuiaained and the los of
significant architectural features, details, and outbuildings has been the result An
important barn on the John Major property was last last winter (Agure 63), and the
incidence of los of three structures is inaeasng enponentiaLLy.
Fgure63
Majoe b of
Note tusk [enonsexpa. osed i
Page 131 Sevbn CWNnl Hvitage Nemurcn A¢mnen[
Proposed developments, notably Highway 407 and the Taunton Road landfill site, are serious
threats to significant components of the built heritage resource. The former (if the current
preferred route is selected) would have implications on Howell House and Howell's Hollow
generally while the latter would impinge seriously on the Kayes1 property, remarkable for its
intactness and the Lamoreaux House, perhaps the oldest stone house in the study area.
The widening of Brock Road eats away at the front yard and buffer of Stonecroft Robin
Mackenzie, former owner and still occupant, reported that many mature trees which screen the
property from the roadway were originally slated to be cut down as part of the most recent work
until finally it was shown that such substantial cutting was unnecessary. As it was many trees
were lost Commercial development along Brock Road could also subsume two key historic
properties (#61, #62). The buildings along Highway 7 are likewise vulnerable to unmanaged
change, again in relation to Highway 407.
It needs to be acknowledged that the vingredients' that make up the special character and
coherence of Whitevale Road exist in fragile balance. To maintain this balance in the face of
future challenges will require sensitivity and restraint
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page -135
Page-136
7. NATURAL AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPE RESOURCES
7.1 Natural Heritage
7.1.1 Natural Heritage Landscape Evaluation Framework
The six natural heritage landscape types form the basis of the natural heritage landscape
evaluation. Each unit was evaluated on the basis of significance, integrity, experience and
scenic amenity, and social value. The latter was described only where appropriate. The
rating system was based on a high, medium, and low ranking system for each attribute.
While each individual unit was assessed individually, the units will be described in type
categories. Evaluation forms for each unit can be found in the Appendix.
Significance
Significance of the natural heritage landscape units is assessed on the basis of inherent
qualities, such as physiography, soils, hydrology, broad ecological functions, perceived
sensitivity, and visual significance. While it is difficult to separate significance from integrity
when assessing natural heritage landscapes, an attempt has been made to classify the
different units on the basis of significance. For information pertaining to the ecological
significance of the Seaton area, please refer to the ecological study carried out by AGRA
and background reports by Geomatics International and Beak Limited.
Three aspects of significance were considered, including criteria defining significance,
areas of significance, and period(s) of significance. The criteria defining significance
include landscapes representating significant physical qualities and landscapes illustrative
of prehistory. Natural heritage examples of some of these categories in Seaton include
landscapes with significant physical qualities (the creek valleys) and landscapes illustrative
of, for example, glaciation (glacial deposits associated with the rehabilitating quarries).
Integrity
To determine overall integrity of the landscape resource, several aspects of integrity were
considered. As part of the evaluation of the integrity of the natural heritage resources,
composition, setting, sense of place, natural associations, and physical aspects, such as
the quality of vegetation, fisheries, and wildlife were considered. Changes to and impacts
on the natural environment, as well as threats to integrity, were reviewed to determine the
overall integrity of the unit.
The qualities of the landscape which were assessed to determine integrity range from broad
contextual aspects of integrity to very specific physical details of internal integrity and the
less tangible aspects of character and historic association. Contextual integrity is evaluated
through location including geographical factors (climate, soils,
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 137
etc.), the composition of natural and cultural elements (relationship of the natural landscape
to surrounding cultural elements), and setting or the physical environment (lakes, rivers, etc.)-
The details which convey internal integrity include materials (natural heritage: vegetation,
fisheries, wildlife) and workmanship (the appropriateness of materials and design of
structures and walkways). Feeling, or sense of place, and natural heritage association
comprise the less tangible evaluations of integrity.
The assessment of the overall integrity of the natural and cultural heritage features and
resources reflects the condition of the landscape unit and its ability to convey significance.
Both significance and integrity are rated in a very high, high, medium, low, and very low
ranking system.
Experience and scenic amenity
Experience and scenic amenity were assessed in terms of visual intrusion of undesirable
elements, views (good and bad), panoramic views, diversity of natural features. While visual
qualities of the landscape have generally been emphasized, smell and sound are important
aspects of the experience, particularly of natural environments. These aspects have been
included in this evaluation.
Social value
Social value was based primarily on a combination of perceived social value for the greater
community, such as the West Duffins Creek Valley and the Seaton Trail, and comments
expressed by the participants during the three natural and cultural heritage workshops which
were part of this study. While the participants did not rate the individual units, the importance
of certain elements to the local community became apparent during the course of the
workshops. However, the final rating cannot be taken as a reflection of the position of the
workshop participants as other valuations were included.
7.1.2 Evaluation of Natural Heritage Landscape Units
Natural Creek Valleys
The creek valleys serve important hydrological functions, are sensitive ecosystems, and are
strong visual elements in the landscape. The three creek valleys, reflecting natural processes,
are therefore identified as having very high significance.
The often densely vegetated banks of the creeks are intact. Steep erosional cuts, particularly
along the West Duffins Creek reflect soil conditions and the effect of natural stream
meanders. In more open areas, vegetation is regenerating. These valleys serve as wildlife
corridors and the creeks as fish habitat. The effect of the realignment and widening of
Taunton Road has not yet been assessed. Both the bridge across West Duffins Creek valley
and the culvert for Ganatsekiagon Creek constitute significant impacts. West Duffins Creek
and Ganatsekiagon Creek are particularly unaffected by influences affecting adjacent lands
and have very high integrity. Urfe
Page -138
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Seaton Cultural Heritage
Resources Study
Evaluation of
Cultural Heritage
Landscape
Creek has been negatively impacted both from a fisheries and water quality point of view, but
also the natural creek valley and stream alignment has been impacted. Despite the impacts,
parts of Urfe Creek still reflects high integrity.
The diversity of landscape features, the strong sense of place, the views within the valleys, as
well as the views of the valleys from the surrounding tablelands, contribute to a high quality
experience and scenic amenity for all three creeks. The smell and sounds of the landfill impact
the experience along the lower reaches of the West Duffins Creek and Ganatsekiagon Creek;
however, the existing valley bank vegetation screens the visual impact of the landfill, at least
from the valley floor, but not from the surrounding tablelands.
The significant ecological functions of the creek valleys, their role as wildlife corridor and
habitats, and their scenic and recreational value results in a high rating for social value.
Figure 7.1
West Duffins Creek
Tributary Creek Valleys The tributary creeks are closely associated with the creek valleys
from both a functional, sensitivity, and a visual point of view. Due to these factors, the tributary
creek valleys are classified as highly significant landscapes. The natural drainage patterns
reflect soil conditions and topography, form an integral part of the natural drainage system of
the creeks, and are part of natural heritage of the site formed since gladation.
For the purposes of the evaluation, two types of tributary creek valleys are distinguished,
those with woody vegetation cover and those with primarily herbaceous vegetation. The
vegetated valleys have a strong sense of place and connection to natural systems and
contribute to wildlife habitat. Impacts from adjacent agricultural fields and potential impacts
from new construction and development result in a high
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 139
integrity. The valleys with predominantly herbaceous vegetation often have altered stream
courses to fit agricultural field patterns and ill defined valleys. Integrity in these latter valleys is
medium.
Experience and scenic amenity for the vegetated valleys is high, due to a strong sense of place
and strong visual connection to the creek valleys. The valleys with herbaceous vegetation are
visually integrated and part of the larger landscape and the sense of place is not as strong. As
a result, the experience and scenic amenity for these valleys is the same as for the surrounding
agricultural land, i.e., medium. Social value of the tributary creeks is fairly high, due- to their role
in drainage and their impact on water quality downstream.
Tablelands
The evaluation for the three different categories of tablelands, the gently undulating
landscape, the rolling topography and the level to gently undulating landscape, are similar.
While the different soil types coincide with different drainage patterns, these units are
moderate in significance. Each of the units contributes to subsurface or surfidal drainage
patterns and has a distinctive landscape character and varying views.
Integrity of the tablelands is influenced by physical setting, the landscape character inherent
in the topography, the Lake Iroquois Shoreline, and the occasional second growth woodlands
and regenerating areas. Natural landscape patterns combine with cultural landscape
patterns, which makes the evaluation of these lands difficult The removal of the natural
vegetation and the cultural impacts on the land are significant. The integrity in terms of soils
and drainage patterns is high, but in terms of vegetation and habitat, integrity is low. The
overall integrity is considered medium.
Figure 7.2
Tablelands with creek valley in background
Page -140
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
The experience and scenic amenity of these lands differs slightly between units. The rolling
topography associated with the Woburn series of soils provides a diverse landscape. The
sense of enclosure with small intimate views, alternating with panoramic views associated with
the Lake Iroquois Shoreline contribute to a high rating for experience and scenic amenity.
The landscape character of the gently undulating landscape associated with the Milliken
series of soils forms a broader landscape with the longer views contributing to a high rating
for experience and scenic amenity. The level to gently undulating landscape includes longer
views to Duffins Creek Valley and has an interesting relationship to the creek valleys. The
rating for this unit is high.
Regenerating Landscapes
The three regenerating quarry sites are closely associated with creek valleys or tributary
valleys and reflect both cultural and natural heritage. Depending on which point of view is
taken, natural heritage or cultural heritage, the evaluation for these areas differs slightly.
The natural heritage inherent in the glacial deposits and their hydrological function contribute
to a high significance of these areas. Integrity of these quarries is influenced by the setting
along the creek valleys and tributary valleys, the natural regeneration of the vegetation and
the creation of habitat for wildlife. The close proximity to significant natural features allows
these elements to be visually integrated with their setting.
Experience and scenic amenity for these sites is high. The integration of natural and cultural
influences has resulted in striking landscapes with a strong sense of place, but from a natural
heritage point of view impacted in significant ways. The scale of these quarries and visual
diversity is high with interesting views to the creek valleys and across the quarries themselves.
Disturbed Landscapes
The natural heritage significance of the four disturbed landscapes in the Seaton area relates
to their inherent qualities. The Brock West Landfill and the borrow pit reflect existing
disturbed conditions. The asphalt and the refrigeration recycling sites are contaminated and
also reflect future impacts, since decommissioning these sites will likely involve extensive
soil remediation and potential soil removal.
The Brock West Landfill and the asphalt recycling site, both located on previously quarried
sites, had a high potential for inherent significance. Based on hydrological function and low
or very low integrity these sites have become liabilities. The borrow pit and the refrigeration
recycling site are located on tablelands and have medium significance. For the borrow pit,
integrity is very low and integrity will be low for the refrigeration recycling site once the site
has been decommissioned.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
page.141
The experience and scenic amenity of these sites is low. In addition to the poor views of
these sites, the sound and smells of the landfill negatively affect the experience and scenic
amenity of the surrounding lands. Whereas the services which are associated with these
sites may be beneficial to society, the social value of these elements are low for the
community they reside in.
7.1.3 Sensitivity and Constraints of Natural Heritage Resources
The sensitivity and constraints for natural heritage resources relates to those factors that
affect integrity and experience and scenic amenity. The evaluation for integrity includes
threats and changes which are listed in the evaluation sheets. Those threats and changes
which have not yet occurred remain potential impacts affecting the integrity, experience, and
scenic amenity of the resources. Several levels of threats exist: large scale threats, small
scale initiatives, and management issues.
Development associated with large scale threats may flatten the topography and thereby
alter drainage, remove vegetation, reduce habitat and visual continuity. The impact of small
scale initiatives is through incremental change and increased pressures on the resource.
Landowner and stewardship issues relates to ownership, the original landowners versus
tenants, and associated changes in attitude toward the land.
• Large scale developments:
Highway 407; road widening; landfill sites; utility and infrastructure projects; new development;
new roadways
• Small scale initiatives:
new buildings; management of the land; vandalism; pressures arising from increased public
use
• Landowner/ stewardship issues:
lack of maintenance; lack of long term commitment; change values regarding the setting
The various landscape units differ in their sensitivity and constraints. Associated with the
natural valley landscape are high constraints. These areas are not only sensitive to large
scale development and changes affecting this unit directly, but are also sensitive to impacts
affecting the surrounding landscape units. Changes to the natural integrity of the tablelands
will affect the tributary creeks and the main creeks. Development along the top of banks will
in turn affect the stability of these banks and the experience and scenic amenity of the natural
valley landscape.
While the tablelands are generally less affected by impacts to the surrounding landscape
units, they are sensitive nonetheless. Due to the interrelationship of the natural and cultural
heritage landscape features, impacts affecting the natural heritage
Page -142
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
of these lands also affects the cultural heritage. The natural heritage is an integral part of the
setting of the cultural heritage features. This includes not only the creek valleys, but also the
topography, drainage, and pattern of tributary creeks.
7.2 Cultural Heritage
7.2.1 Cultural Heritage Landscape Evaluation Framework
The twelve cultural heritage landscape types form the basis of the cultural heritage landscape
evaluation. Each unit was evaluated on the basis of significance, integrity, experience and
scenic amenity, and social value. The latter was described only where appropriate. While each
individual unit was assessed individually, the units will be described in type categories.
Evaluation forms for each unit can be found in the Appendix.
Significance
Significance of the cultural heritage landscape units is assessed on the basis of inherent
historical qualities. Three aspects of significance were considered, including criteria defining
significance, areas of significance, and period(s) of significance. The criteria defining
significance include landscapes associated with historic events, properties associated with
the lives of significant persons, landscapes representing significant physical qualities,
landscapes illustrative of prehistory or history, and other criteria such as pioneer cemeteries. Thus, landscapes associated with historic events, such as the 1837 Rebellion, or important settlers became important determinants in assessing the significance of landscape units.
The areas of significance considered include community development and planning,
landscape architecture, architecture, archaeology, settlement, ethnic heritage, agriculture,
conservation, transportation, recreation, mining, and others. Not all these potential areas of
significance were found in the study area. Where appropriate, one or more periods of
significance were identified.
The cultural heritage landscape units are based on broad landscape patterns. These broad
patterns provide the setting for the archaeological and architecturally significant features. In
the integrated evaluation of the natural and cultural heritage features, finer differentiation of
significance will result.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page-143
Figure 73 Tree lined gravel road
Integrity
Assessment of integrity for the natural and cultural heritage features varies with what is
significant and the period of significance. To determine overall integrity of the landscape
resource, several aspects of integrity were considered. Qualities of the landscape which
convey significance were assessed as well as changes to the historic landscape. How to
assess integrity varies for different features. The elements which contribute to integrity for
settlement patterns will be different than those for mining.
The qualities of the cultural landscape which were assessed to determine integrity were similar
to those assessed for the natural landscape. Contextual integrity is evaluated through location,
the composition (spatial organization, form, etc.), and setting of the resource. The details which
convey internal integrity include materials (buildings, roads, fences, structures) and
workmanship (skills and historic ways of doing things). Feeling, the sense of past time and
place (in essence the cumulative effect of setting, composition, materials, and workmanship),
and historic association (the direct link between property and important events or persons)
comprise the less tangible evaluations of integrity.
Page -144
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Figure 7.4 Split rail fencing
The quality of historic landscape patterns, such as lots and concessions, farm patterns, barns
and barnyards, the character of the roads and relationship to the landscape, setting, hedgerow
patterns, street trees and laneways, and fencing, was considered. Changes and threats to
integrity were reviewed to determine the overall integrity of the unit.
Vegetation is an important component of the cultural landscape, but vegetation is dynamic and
continually changing. Whereas it is not possible to maintain vegetation without change, the
vegetation present must be appropriate to the historical period of the resource. Thus, both
overgrowth of vegetation and the loss of vegetation can be detrimental to integrity. Also,
natural regeneration may enhance the natural heritage features but may be detrimental to the
integrity of cultural features. The replanting of vegetation, such as street trees, fencerows, and
shelter belts, does not diminish integrity; however, the arrangement and species selection
must reflect the historic associations.
The assessment of the overall integrity of the cultural heritage features and resources reflects
the condition of the landscape unit and its ability to convey significance. Both significance
and integrity are rated in a very high, high, medium, low, and very low ranking system.
Experience and Scenic Amenity
Experience and scenic amenity were assessed in terms of visual intrusion of undesirable
elements, views (good and bad), panoramic views, and diversity of cultural features. While
visual qualities of the landscape have generally been emphasized, smell and sound are
important aspects of the experience. These aspects have been included in this evaluation,
where appropriate. Sense of place and diversity of scenic landscape features and patterns
enhance the experience of the individual. Views of scenic individual features and panoramic
views of the larger landscape are
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
page _ 145
important elements of pleasant landscapes. Sequences of views (sometimes referred to as
serial vision) along transportation corridors or pedestrian routes provide an important
perspective on the larger landscape patterns, both natural and cultural. Experience and
scenic amenity is rated on a high, medium, and low ranking system.
Social Value
Social value was based primarily on a combination of perceived experiential value for the
greater community, such as the Whitevale community with its intact 19th century character
and historic houses, and comments expressed by the participants during the three natural
and cultural heritage workshops which were part of this study. The participants did not rate
the individual units; nevertheless, the importance of certain elements to the local community
became apparent during the course of the workshops. The final rating cannot be taken as a
reflection of the position of the workshop participants as other valuations were included.
Whereas some elements may not rate as highly in scenic value as others or have somewhat
less integrity, perception of social value is strong for the community. Social value is rated on
a high, medium, and low ranking system.
7.2.2 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Landscape Units
Natural Valley Landscape
For a discussion regarding the natural valley landscape see Section 7.1.2 Natural
Heritage Landscapes.
Villages
Since the landscape character of each of the three villages is distinctly different, each of the
villages will be described separately.
Whitevale
Whitevale origins reflect the mill site founded by John Major. The two significant periods for
Whitevale relate to the original plan in the 1820s as "Majorville," and its actual development
during the 1850s to 1870s as Whitevale. Both periods have a very high historical
significance.
The rectilinear pattern of the small scale streets reflect both the registered plan and the
character of a small 19th century village. The wood frame construction of the houses, the
character of the unimproved Whitevale Road (width, lighting, sidewalks), the mature tree
canopy, and street trees all contribute to the 19th century character of Whitevale. The
location, the composition of natural and cultural elements, and the materials and
workmanship create an overall sense of past time and place and reinforce the link between
the village and its history. Potential threats of road improvements and impacts from new
construction has not yet occurred. The overall integrity is high reflecting both very high
contextual and internal integrity of the components.
Page - 146
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Seaton Cultural Heritage
Resources Study
Integrated Evaluation
of Natural and
Cultural Heritage
Due to the setting along the banks of the West Duffins Creek and the quality of the resource of
its surroundings, the experience and scenic amenity is rated as high. The social value in
terms of settlement history and the strong sense of community is high.
Brougham
Brougham developed as a crossroads village and is highly significant as a reflection of
settlement history. The rectilinear pattern and the clustered development of important
buildings around the Highway 7 and Brock Road intersection reflects its origins as a
crossroads village. The predominantly brick construction and the architecture enhance the
19th century character of the village. Impacts on integrity are related to the major roads that
bisect the village. The potential for further widening of Brock Road and Highway 7 will impact
integrity. New buildings are primarily around the perimeter and leave the core of the village
intact. Overall integrity is medium.
A strong sense of place exists in spite of the widened two-lane roads. The arrangement of
the landmark structures and other buildings provide a medium rating for experience and
scenic amenity. Social value is high relating to both settlement and the sense of community
that exists.
Green River
The development of Green River as a mill village relates to its location on West Duffins
Creek and Highway 7. The relationship to the creek is intact and the store communicates
the sense of past time. As a result of the wider nature of Highway 7, the loss of street trees,
the construction of newer buildings, including the Green River school, the already spread out
hamlet lacks a clear sense of entry. Within the village there was a large agricultural
component, but these agricultural lands have now been largely abandoned. The overall
integrity is medium.
The community as a whole is dispersed in nature and does not provide a strong sense of
place. Views are good of the West Duffins Creek, but there is little sense of serial vision.
The rating for experience and scenic amenity is medium. The social value is medium.
Pastoral Rural Landscape
The pastoral rural landscape is associated with the early settlers of Pickering Township.
Hastings, Willson, and Hubbard were important figures during the early decades of
European settlement. Some of these early settlers played a role in the Rebellion of 1837.
Two early pioneer cemeteries further enhance the very high significance of this area.
Landscape patterns reflect the 1792 Survey and the early subdivision of the farms as part of
the settlement characteristic of this area. The farm houses and barns reinforce the sense of
place inherent in the landscape and provide a sense of past time. The gravel side lines and
the relatively narrow unimproved rural Concession Road enhance the sense of past time.
While only remnants of the street trees remain and some of the buildings and structures
have deteriorated or disappeared, some of the smaller scale
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page - 147
elements such as fencing and stone piles remain. The pioneer cemeteries are in poor
condition. The landscape reflects its 19th century origins and its significance, therefore the
rating for integrity is very high.
Figure 7.5
Farm along Whitevale Road
The diversity in the topography and vegetation creates small scale intimate landscapes with
enclosed views to the north and large panoramic views to the south. This diversity enhances
the experience of this historic area. The rating for experience and scenic amenity is high.
Based on the intact and significant historic resource and the continued farming, the social
value can be considered high.
Open Rural Landscape
The significance of the open rural landscape relates to early European settlement.
Significance is high.
The open farmland with a distinct pattern of almost square farms bounded by the mid block
woodlots reflects early settlement patterns and the historic clearing of the land grants. The
active farms with their regular pattern of farmhouses, barns, and barnyards along Highway 7
creates a distinctly rural ambiance. The relatively large field size, the loss of street trees, and,
while still two lanes, the wide nature of Highway 7 contribute to a more modern appearance
and detract from the integrity of these lands. Integrity is considered to be medium.
Page - 148
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Figure 7.6
Farm along Highway 7
The serial vision along Highway 7 emphasizes the pattern of farms and barns and while fairly
uniform contributes to the overall experience of the landscape. The nice views to West Duffins
Creek valley and open long views of the landscape contribute to a medium rating for
experience and scenic amenity. Social value due to the active farming was considered to be
high.
Partially Open Rural Landscape
Several distinct areas are considered to be part of the partially open rural landscape. As each
area differs in significance, integrity, and experience and scenic amenity, these areas are
discussed separately.
Whitevale Corridor
The partially open rural landscape along the Whitevale corridor has very high significance.
This landscape is associated with the early settlers of Pickering Township. Major, the
founder of Majorville (later called Whitevale), Willson, Lamoreaux, and others contributed to
the early history of this area and Pickering Township. The early school is another important
element enhancing the significance of this landscape.
The overall integrity is similar to that of the rural pastoral landscape and is considered to be
high. The farmsteads tended to be smaller, often with two farm houses per lot, although
larger farms are interspersed throughout this landscape unit. Many of the fields tend to be
long and narrow with fewer hedgerows than is typical for the pastoral rural landscape. The
hedgerows and tree-lined laneways are in good condition. The scale and condition of the
Whitevale Road contributes to the rural historic character of this unit. The mid block woodlots
illustrate the traditional pattern in clearing the land from the road to the back of the lot.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
The diversity of the landscape and the presence of many small scale elements and views
alternating with broader views in more open areas provides a rich experience as backdrop
to Whitevale. Panoramic views from high points along Whitevale Road to the south and
towards West Duffins Creek contribute to a high rating for experience and scenic amenity.
The high social value of this area is based on the historic properties and the importance of
this area as an entrance to Whitevale.
Brock Road from Taunton Road to Brougham
The association of these properties with the 1837 Rebellion and significant settlers
contributes to a high rating for significance.
The properties reflect the 1792 survey and field subdivision which occurred as part of
settlement. The fencerows are largely intact and remnant tree lines occur along Side Line 16
enhancing the sense of past time. The realignment of Brock Road at Thompson's Corners,
the loss of field subdivision and fencerows on the mushroom farm property, the wider
character of Brock Road (2 lanes and in front of Stonecroft 4 lanes), and the loss of street
trees reduce the sense of integrity along the Brock Road corridor. Integrity is high within
most of the properties and away from the Brock Road corridor. Overall integrity is medium.
The diversity of land form, vegetation, and panoramic views to the Duffins Creek valley and
Green River result in a high rating for experience and scenic amenity. The contributions to
the setting of Brougham and as an actively farmed area results in high social value.
Highway 7 west of Brougham
The significance of this area, which is medium, relates primarily to settlement history. The
1792 survey is apparent in the farm patterns; field subdivision and fencerows are in good
condition, however, the feeling of past time results largely from the abandonment of land
rather than the sense of an historic rural area. Some the lands have been converted to other
uses including a tree nursery, a gun dub, and rural residential development. Some of the
barns are clearly deteriorating. The integrity for settlement is low to moderate, but it still
serves as an entrance zone to Brougham and includes a rich pattern of tributary creek
valleys and regenerating areas. Overall integrity is rated as medium.
The natural features of this area create a scenic setting for some of the remnant farm
structures. Nice views to the vegetated tributary creek valleys and to the abandoned quarry
provide medium scenic quality.
Brock Road north of the Hydro corridor
The significance of this area is medium, due to its location along Brock Road. No
outstanding historical features were identified. Significance relates to settlement. The
integrity of the area is low to moderate. Due to the relationship of these lands to Urfe Creek,
the overall rating is medium. While the 1792 survey is barely perceptible, the
Page -150
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
field subdivision is intact. The sense of past time is impinged upon by the Hydro corridor and
new cemetery. The character of Brock Road, the loss of street trees, the loss of farm
structures, and adjacent commercial and industrial development have changed the
landscape setting for this area.
The medium rating for experience and scenic amenity of this area relates to the panoramic
views from Decker's Hill and the nice views of the landscape unit from Rossland Road.
Cleared Landscape
The significance of the lands to the north of the landfill, including the borrowpit up to Taunton
Road, relates to early European settlement and to resort development in the early 1900s.
Both of these areas of significance contribute to a high rating. South of the landfill the lands
relate to settlement history and have a medium rating.
Other than the site's relationship to the West Duffins Creek and Ganatsekiagon Creek
valleys, few positive aspects of integrity remain. The many changes to the landscape include
the widening of Taunton Road, the removal of orchards, hedgerows, and lines of trees along
laneways, the borrow pit, and the destruction of farm buildings. The cultural patterns of the
landscape have been virtually removed. To the north, integrity for both settlement and resort
development is very low. For the area to the south of the landfill, integrity is very low as well.
The dose proximity of the landfill dominates the landscape and the views both to the south
and the north. South of the landfill, the Hydro corridor and the residential subdivision further
detract from the views of the landscape. Landscape patterns that create diversity and
interesting views has been removed and the resultant experience and scenic amenity is low.
Social value of these lands is low.
Abandoned Lands
The significance of these lands relates to the settlement history of this area. Significance is
medium. Settlement patterns are no longer evident and few historic structures remain. The
abandonment of agricultural land use, the lack of clear and consistent landscape patterns,
the widening of transportation routes, and many intrusions into the landscape (landfill, Hydro
corridor) contribute to the deterioration of the landscape setting of the important farmsteads
and result in low integrity of these lands.
Some smaller scale landscapes are surrounded with dense vegetation, which screens out
unpleasant views and creates pockets with nice views. Nevertheless, the many disturbing
elements within the landscape detract from the experience and scenic amenity and
contributes to a low rating.
Recreational Landscape
The recreational landscape unit comprises the Seaton Trail along the West Duffins
Creek valley and the two golf courses in the area. The Seaton Trail is part of the natural
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page -151
valley landscape associated with West Duffins Creek and is not re-evaluated as part of this
unit.
The cultural heritage of the two golf courses in the Seaton area relates to early European
settlement history and to recreation. The Whitevale Golf Club is located to the rear of the lot,
which was not readily accessible as it was bounded by the meanders of West Duffins Creek.
Its significance was therefore fairly low from a settlement point of view and also low from a
recreational point of view. The Seaton Golf Course is located in the middle of a lot and
unlikely to be significant from a settlement point of view. Its significance is considered to be
low.
The landscapes of both golf courses have been highly altered to accommodate fairways and
greens. The historic patterns of field division are no longer readily discernible at the Seaton
Golf Course. Vegetation has been altered significantly, fencerows have been lost, and Club
a woodlot was cleared at the Whitevale Golf . New and sometimes exotic species have
been planted. Integrity from a settlement point of view is low.
The views from the Whitevale Golf Club to the West Duffins Creek valley are spectacular.
The high banks of the valley provide the vantage point for panoramic views of the
meandering creek in the valley. Experience and scenic amenity is high. The Seaton Golf
Course has views of the vegetation associated with the Urfe Creek valley. This golf course
is part of the surrounding residential commercial strip development along Brock Road. The
experience and scenic amenity of this landscape is medium. Social value of these
recreational landscapes is high.
Regenerating Landscape
From a cultural heritage point of view, the regenerating former quarries rate slightly differently
than from a natural heritage point of view. The ratings for significance and integrity are
reversed. The mining contributes to a medium significance. The generally small scale
excavations and the regenerating vegetation create a unique sense of place and provides a
sense of times past. Field patterns integrate the quarries into the overall landscape patterns.
The rating for integrity is high.
The regenerating areas as an extension of the natural valley landscape has great views of
both the natural creek valleys and the regenerating quarry itself. The quarry landscape
provides a highly diverse landscape with a strong sense of place. The rating for scenic
amenity is high. Social value relates to potential for recreation and as wildlife habitat.
Utility /Infrastructure Landscape
The scale of modern utilities and infrastructure has changed the relationship to the land.
Formerly the relatively narrow rural roads were an element within the landscape, the modern
Hydro corridors and widened roads, such as Taunton Road divide the landscape. Therefore
they are considered as a separate landscape type. The cultural heritage significance of
these landscapes is low. In those areas, where historic
Page -152
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
roadways have been altered or where new roadways or utilities have been introduced, the
integrity is very low. These elements are often intrusive in the landscape and the scenic
amenity is low. Nevertheless, new roadways open up the landscape and provide good views.
The rating for experience and scenic amenity of the utility and infrastructure landscape is low.
The single track railroad is an historic mode of transportation with medium significance to the
area. The track and small open shed railroad station provide a sense of past time and sense
of place. The proximity of the landfill and the refrigeration recycling site detract from the
experience of the railroad and create poor serial vision. The rating for integrity is medium
and for experience and scenic amenity low.
Rural Residential/Commercial Landscape
The medium significance of the Rural residential/commercial strip along Brock Road stems
from the early European settlement, the importance of Brock Road as a historic rural road to
Newmarket and early settlement of the lots. While the historic landscape patterns of distinct
farms and farm fields is no longer obvious, several of the old farmhouses and barns remain.
Fieldstone construction was used for several of the houses. Changes to the landscape and
threats to integrity are numerous. The new construction, the widening of Brock Road, the
Hydro corridor, and changes to the vegetation contribute to a low rating for integrity.
The quality of many of the elements in this area creates a cluttered landscape. Poor serial
vision and negatively impacted views contribute to a low rating for experience and scenic
amenity.
The rural residential landscape along Forbrock is a linear residential development with
medium significance. The location along a side road to Brock Road creates the sense of a
cluster development. The narrow road and the setting along Urfe Creek create a strong
sense of place. While the new alignment of Taunton Road and the widening of Brock Road
to 4 lanes are potential threats to the integrity of this community, the integrity is high. The
relatively dense mature vegetation and views to Urfe Creek contribute to a medium rating
for experience and scenic value. Social value relates to the sense of community for the
inhabitants.
Industrial Landscape
Several of the industrial landscapes are considered to be so highly disturbed that these
were discussed in Section 7.1.2 Natural Heritage. Nevertheless, these landscapes rate
slightly differently form a cultural heritage point of view. Whereas the significance of these
lands from a natural heritage point of view related to their inherent physical qualities, the
significance for cultural heritage is medium for these lands. The former quarrying operations
at the landfill site and the asphalt recycling site and the context of the refrigeration equipment
site contribute to this rating. The public works yard along the Ganatsekiagon Creek valley
has a low significance.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page -153
These landscapes are highly disturbed and constitute negative elements in the larger
landscape. Consistent with the descriptions for natural heritage, the ratings for integrity,
experience and scenic amenity, and social value remain low and very low for these
landscapes.
7.2.3 Sensitivity and Constraints of Cultural Heritage Resources
Similar to the sensitivity and constraints for natural heritage resources, the sensitivity and
constraints for cultural heritage resources relates to those factors that affect integrity and
experience and scenic amenity. Several levels of threats exist: large scale threats, small
scale initiatives, and management issues.
Figure 7.7
Neglect results in deterioration of the typical farm landscape with its barns
Development associated with large scale initiatives affect the resource directly through loss of
the resources or the alteration of setting and context, reducing visual continuity. The impact
of small scale initiatives is through incremental change and increased pressures on the
resource affecting the landscape patterns that create setting, context, and visual continuity.
Landowner and stewardship issues relates to ownership, the original landowners versus
tenants, and associated changes in attitude toward the landscape and its heritage structures.
These threats and changes are the same for cultural and natural heritage resources.
Due to the ravages of time, negative impacts for cultural landscape features also include
deterioration, abandonment, relocation of historic buildings/structures, or changes to historic
buildings, which alter the character of the landscape. The construction of new buildings and
structures and replacement structures (bridges, dams, etc.) further impact the historic context,
integrity, and character of the resource. Similarly, the loss of boundary demarcations and
small-scale features, such as fences, walls, ponds, etc., reduce integrity.
Page -154
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
• Large scale developments include:
Highway 407; road widening; landfill sites; utility and infrastructure projects; new
development; new roadways
• Small scale initiatives include:
new buildings; management of the land; vandalism; pressures arising from increased public
use
• Landowner/stewardship issues:
lack of maintenance; lack of long term commitment; change values regarding the setting
Many similarities exist regarding the sensitivity and constraints for the various cultural
heritage features. While the cultural landscape resources are generally not recognized as a
constraint to development, these resources, if they are to be preserved, are very sensitive.
Figure 7.8
Road widening would
alter the character of this
road
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page -155
Page -156
8. EVALUATION OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE
8.1 Integrated Framework
Summary sheets abridge the information relating to the significance, integrity, and sensitivity of
the principal archaeological, architectural, and natural and cultural heritage landscape
resources. Significance is described as far as criteria, area, period of significance, and any
pertinent details. Significance and integrity are combined into a very high, high, or medium
rating. Areas with low or very low significance or integrity are not included in this evaluation.
Sensitivity relates primarily to potential impact of development and will influence guidelines
and recommendations.
The architectural resources are integrated with the cultural heritage landscape units to
create a finer distinction of highly important heritage landscapes. The heritage resources
have been integrated to form distinct landscape zones with very high, high, or medium
significance and integrity. These resources have been identified as separate features within
the landscape.
8.2 Evaluation of Natural and Cultural Heritage
The principal natural heritage features consist of the creek valleys, the tributary creeks and
the regenerating quarries. The combined significance and integrity rating for the natural
creek valleys is very high; sensitivity is high as well. The tributary creeks, which can be
considered as highly sensitive landscapes, also have a high combined rating for
significance and integrity.
Some overlap of natural and cultural features exists. The regenerating quarries have a high
combined rating both from a natural heritage and a cultural heritage perspective. In spite of
previous impacts on these quarries, sensitivity of these landscapes remains high. Some
cultural features are associated with natural landscapes. Farm houses and barnyards
constructed along tributary creeks and the pioneer cemeteries adjacent to the Urfe Creek
are examples of this integration.
The cultural heritage features consists of two layers of information, the largely invisible
archaeological resources and the visible landscape resources and architectural features.
The combination of architectural and cultural heritage landscape resources have given rise
to distinct zones of very high significance. These zones relate to settlement and include
significant architectural features within a landscape which has high integrity.
The most significant of these landscapes occurs along Whitevale Road from Brock Road to
Whitevale, including the village of Whitevale. A second area of very high significance and
integrity occurs along Taunton Road and includes the Lamoreaux farm with field stone farm
house and the Kay farm with an intact barnyard. The adjacent
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page -157
lands have a high rating and provide the backdrop to the Lamoreaux and Kay farms. Along
Highway 7, the architectural features are of high significance and integrity with a high rating for
the landscape as well. Toward Green River, the architectural significance is primarily medium
and contributes to a medium combined significance and integrity. Along Brock Road pockets
exists of very high significance/integrity and others have high or medium combined ratings for
significance and integrity.
In contrast to the architectural features, the archaeological and cultural heritage landscape
resources do not reinforce the historical significance and integrity of one another. The cultural
landscape we see today has been the result of European settlement rather than prehistoric
influence. Natural landscapes may provide a stronger connection to the prehistoric
archaeological sites. Highly significant areas for archaeological resources include habitation
and burial sites from different prehistoric periods. Many of these sites coincide with natural
landscape features, such as the West Duffins Creek and Ganatsekiagon Creek and tributaries.
Other archaeological resources are located in areas which are significant for early European
settlement patterns and historic farm buildings.
In addition to the architectural resources, sites relating to pioneers and European settlement
enhances our understanding of settlement history and closely relates to architectural features
and cultural heritage landscapes. Former sites of log cabins, barns, and pioneer cemeteries
depend on the larger landscape patterns and architectural resources for context. Examples
include the pioneer cemeteries adjacent to Urfe Creek.
Page - 158
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Seaton Cultural Heritage Evaluation Framework: Registered Archaeological Sites
Table 8.1
Key Location Criteria of Details Areas of Periods of
Integrity Potential Significance Integrity Overall Number
Significance Significance Significance Threats
Bating Rating Rating
AIGs-1 HI-20 Archaeological Type site of habitation Early
Largely Aggregate High Moderate High the Pickering
and burial Iroquoian excavated; resource culture
partly intact extraction AIGS-5 V-20 "
- Habitation; Indeterminate Agricultural Highway 407 possible
Iroquoian disturbance burial AIGS-14 111-22 "
- Habitation; Indeterminate Destroyed - "
Nil None possible Iroquoian burial AIGS-19 IV-22 "
- Burial - Destroyed -
" AIGS-20 IV-26 " - - Middle
Agricultural - Low Moderate Low Archaic
disturbance AIGS-21 V-22 " - - -
Agricultural - ««.;.•« disturbance AIGS-22 V-30
" Habitation Middle T.B.A.
Residential High T.B.A. High Archaic
severance AIGS-27 V-18 • - "
as above Agricultural Highway 407 "
Moderate disturbance AIGS-35 IV-21 " -
- Agricultural - T.B.A.
" T.B.A. disturbance AIGS- IV-22 "
Habitation; Early Gravel - High
* High 101 possible
Iroquoian pitting; partly burial intact AIGS- IV-21
" " « a :
u « « 102 AIGS- IV-22 "
" " Agricultural - « 103
disturbance AIGS- 111-22 "
. " Railway Landfill site 104
construction;
EE-11 partly intact AIGS- IV-25 " Habitation
Indeterminate Agricultural - T.B.A. " T.B.A. 105
Archaic
disturbance AIGS- 11-22 " -
- Undisturbed Ontario " Good 106
Hydro AIGS- 111-24 " -
Destroyed Landfill site Moderate T.B.A. 107
EE-11 AIGS- 11-22 " -
Undisturbed Ontario T.B.A. Good 108
Hydro AIGS- IV-22 "
Agricultural - Low Moderate Low 109
excavation AIGS- 111-22 " Habitation
Indeterminate Agricultural Landfill site T.B.A " T.B.A 143
woodland
disturbance EE-11 AGIs-28 V-33 "
Habitation; Indeterminate " Highway 407 High "
High possible Iroquoian burials
Key Location Criteria of Details Areas of Periods of
Integrity Potential Significance Integrity Overall Number
Significance Significance Significance
Threats Rating Rating Rating
Int. #2 Lot 19 Early structure. Thomas Settlement 1806-1984;
House Brock Road High Medium High Con V Significant
Hubbard, politics. 1920-1935 reclad. widening adjacent to
indiv. early settler c. Vernac. Small barn 407 Urfe
Crk Significant 1806. Active architecture remains
High events. Mackenzie sympathizer -1837 Rebellion. Hubbard supplied timber to
Fort York. 1932 Andrew Glen hosted conference of socialists which led to the forming of the
CCF #6 Lot 22 Con Early, unique Asher Settlement 1835-1850
Alterations 407 High High High V structure.
Willson, early Vernac. to house High N./Whitev
Significant settler; architecture relatively ale Road indiv.
founder of minor. Christian
Barn, church. carriage
Mackenzie shed, sheds sympathizer.
in place. Early stone structure in 'saltbox' form #8 Lot 24
Architecture One of only 3 Architecture 1850 Minor "
" Con. V Indiv. five-bay
alterations N/Whiteva frontier
to house, le Road Palladian
'English' buildings in barn still in area.
Fine place, stonework with 'unusual' brick arches.
Nathaniel Hastings -early settler -1828. #10 Lot 25 Con * English
bond " c. 1850s Front " "
Medium V. brickwork.
entrance Whitevale Transition
changed.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Evaluation Framework: Architectural Heritage Resources
Table 8.2
Whitevale Rd/Sidelin e24 Transition between Palladian & Gothic, e.g., centre
gable. Fine, early dichromatic brickwork. Gothic window with 'tracery'. changed.
#11 Lot 26 Con V. N/Whiteva leRd. Individual Event Architecture John Major, early
settler; early mill-owner; founder of Whitevale. Early 5-bay stone structure gothicized Palladian
window. Settlement Architecture c. 1820- c. 1850 House little changed. Ancillary
structures with barns in place but a number of recent losses. u High u
#15 Lot 21 Con IV S.W. Corner Whitevale/ Mulberry Lane Indiv. Architecture Oldest son
of Asher. Fine example of dichromatic brick with centre gable (possibly over earlier frame).
Architecture c. 1851 House well-maintained by Willson descendant Medium
a u a
#17 Lot 23. Con IV Architecture Early fine, though derelict, example of cottage ornee.
Stucco on stone. Sited to dramatic views. u c. 1840 House, derelict and
deterioratin g. Early barn remains on site. High u Medium a
#26 Lot 24 Con IV N/Taunton Rd. Quality of farm ensemble (include, house).
Connection to Hubbard family Fully Complement of domestic yard/barn yard structures
Vern. Arch, settlement 1865-1900 Intact farm complex . Continuous ownership by
one family. Land-fill site. Extremely high u High a
#29 Lot 23, Con IV
N/Taunton Indiv. Event Early structure James Lamoreaux -fought in Settlement
Vern. Arch. Early 1800s House, relatively unchanged. Landfill site. Extremely
u u It
Rd. American Rev. War of 1812; early settler c.1810. Against rebels in 1837.
Possibly earliest stone house in area Barn remains high
#38 Lot 24 Con
rv
N/Taunton Rd. Quality of farm ensemble (include, house). Connection to Hubbard
family Fully Complement of domestic yard/barn yard structures Vern. Arch, settlement
1865-1900 In tact farm complex. Highway 7 widening. High Medium U u
#54 Lot 16,
ConV E/Sideline 16 Indiv. Event. Early structure H.Howell -early settler; first post office in
area; early timber-frame building Settlement c.1830 Front entrance changed
407; Maintenanc eHigh High a u
#60 Lot 19, ConV W/Brock Architecture Indiv. Fine example of typ. mid-19th
century 'L' farm house and late 19th century farm complex. Assoc. with Hubbard family
Vernac Arch. c.1860 Intact farm complex Brock Rd. widening. High a u
u
#61 Lot 19 Con III W/Brock Rd. Architecture Early stonehouse u c. 1835
House little changed. Gambrel barn remains on site. U u u
#69 Lot 18, Con IV E/Brock Rd. Indiv. Event Architecture
___r --___I Hawkins Woodruff-early settler; built this stone cottage ornee; early textile
Tactory'. Elizabeth Mackenzie -first herb nuy*~ *n___i Settlement architecture gardens
art c. 1935-50
i: C. 1940 1970 Exterior close to original condition. Barn remains in place.
f,~- — Brock Rd. widening. High (i u
________________________________________Ontario._________________________________________
#66 " Lot 26, Arch. Building Vern. ~" 1840-1870 Relatively "Medium
Con IV. manifests architecture unchanged.
S.W. evolution over
corner mid-19th
Whitevale century, i.e.
& Sideline fieldstone
26 dichromatic
brick. Pinwheel mastiff in
________________________________________brick gable._________________________________
#73 Lot 28, Event Arch. Early school Community mid 19th Exterior and
Con V for Whitevale Architecture century landscape
N/Whiteva area. Fine mostly
le Rd. example of intact.
Greek revival 'school'
________________________________________architecture_______________________________
#76 Lot 29, IndivArch. Henry Major- Settlement c.1840 Intact but
Con IV son of John Architecture later porch.
S/Whiteval Major. Only Small barn
e Rd. 5-bay early remains on
structure in site. ___________ __________ study area.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Evaluation Framework: Natural and Cultural Heritage Landscapes
Table 8.3
Key Number Location Criteria of Significance Details Areas of Significance Periods of Significance Integrity Sensitivity Significance Rating Integrity Rating Overall Rating
NH-1 Natural Feature West Duffins Creek Valley Natural Heritage glaciation topography, creek, vegetation, fisheries High Very High Very High Very High
NH-2 Natural Feature Ganatsekia-gon Creek Valley Natural Heritage glaciation topography, creek, vegetation, fisheries High Very High Very High Very High
NH-3 Natural Feature Urfe Creek Valley Natural Heritage glaciation topography, creek, vegetation, fisheries High Very High High Very High
NH-4 Natural Feature Vegetated Tributary Creek Valley Natural Heritage topography, drainage, vegetation High High High High
NH-5 Natural Feature Tributary Creek Valley Natural Heritage topography, drainage High High Medium High
NH-6A contains Representative Landscape east of Brock Road; north of Taunton Road Natural Heritage glaciation, Lake Iroquois Shoreline topography Moderate Medium High High
NH-6B Natural Feature Woodlot north of Taunton Road Natural Heritage Second Growth Forest vegetation Medium Medium High High
NH-7 Representative Landscape Regenerating Quarries Natural Heritage, Mining regenerating vegetation Medium High Medium High
CH-1 Representative Landscape -Mill village Whitevale Village, Settlement 1820s-1870s 19th c. character intact High, Highway 407 Very High Very High Very High
CH-2 Representative Landscape -Crossroads village Brougham Village, Settlement 1830s-1870s 19th c. character High, Highway 407 High High High
CH-3 Representative Landscape -Mill village Green River Village, Settlement 1840s-1870s dispersed character Medium, Highway 407 Medium Medium Medium
CH-4 Active farmz, Settlement History Open Rural Landscape Settlement 1830s-1870s pattern of farms and barns High, Highway 407 High Medium High
CH-5 Settlement History, Individual Settlers (Major) Partially Open Rural Landscape -
Whitevale Corridor Settlement 1820s-1870s landscape patterns High Very High High Very High
CH-6 Settlement History, Individual Settlers, Pioneer Cemetery Pastoral Rural Landscape -Whitevale Corridor Settlement 1820s-1870s landscape patterns, pioneer cemeteries High Very High Very High Very High
CH-8 Settlement History, Individual Settlers, Representative Natural Landscape Partially Open Rural Landscape -Stonecroft Settlement 1820s-1870s landscape patterns, natural feature High High Medium High
CH-15 Representative Landscape Regenerating Quarries Natural Heritage, Mining glaciation, turn of the century, early 20th c. regenerating landscape High, Highway 407 Medium High High
CH-18 Community Planning and Development Forbrock Rural residential setting High, Road widenings Medium High Medium
RECOMMENDATIONS
9. GUIDELINES AND PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 Introduction
9.1.1 Overview
The purpose of this report section is to synthesize the research and detailed evaluations
conducted in the previous inventory and evaluation phases of work, and develop a series of
strategies and recommendations for cultural heritage preservation, and its protection and
enhancement in the Seaton community. These strategies include archaeological resources,
built structures, and natural and cultural landscapes of importance that have been identified
in the earlier documents of study. All of these resources have been assessed in terms of
their relative heritage significance and integrity, and have been assessed for their sensitivity
to alteration and change.
It is in view of these latter aspects of the cultural assessment that this report concentrates.
Each cultural subject area of study has developed specific strategies and recommendations
for dealing with the cultural resources within the existing land base. Many of these strategies
have been closely linked to the knowledge and opinions of the community members who
participated in our heritage workshops and in subsequent Advisory Committee discussions.
Drawing on this work, a new agenda has been set for heritage planning within this unique
community development scenario.
Although the team's work has been formulated on an understanding that all heritage sites
have some intrinsic, individual characteristics worthy of special planning care, there exists
an important perspective in this study that a broader view to heritage planning be brought to
the planning exercise for a new community. The perspective looks at the heritage landscape
as a whole. This view is shared by current residents and many public workshop participants.
The recommended strategies included in this chapter attempt to bring these two levels of
planning into consideration - whether Seaton stays as it is today or if it builds its population
base and community infrastructure to levels far beyond the current levels.
9.1.2 Goals and Principles for Cultural Heritage Within Seaton
In formulating strategies for the cultural heritage assets of the Seaton lands, several goals
and principles have guided the work progress.
Goal
To identify, protect, and maintain the cultural heritage features of the Seaton
community, and to establish an integrated interpretive and management approach to
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page 159
Residents have been extremely direct in workshops and discussions stating that change is
inevitable for this community, particularly when they are under some development pressures
from areas surrounding them and when some of the local hamlets are economically suffering
from lack of essential services to support the small population base. However, management of
this change and evolution is a primary concern. If culture is a way of life, and the patterns of how
many "ways of life" have imprinted their differences on the land, then residents believe that the
greatest challenge of the new Seaton community is to integrate the concepts of rural and urban
living into a landscape that has remained predominately rural in nature for many years.
The interrelationships of people and the natural environment (inclusive of archaeological,
historic, and contemporary occupations), and the influences on each other should be well
understood before wholesale development change occurs. Two key themes have been
repeatedly noted in local discussions - that the agricultural "ways" of life and land use should
remain in the near urban situation, and that the extensive natural heritage resources of the
lands be managed for biological function, sustainability, and health. Careful consideration of
the appropriate land uses and methods of executing development change which
complement cultural assets must take place in order to respect these fundamentally
important attitudes of the local and broader community of Seaton.
9.2.2 Building On the Past
This study has placed significant emphasis on the methodology and recommendations to
integrate the understanding and retention of archaeology, built structures, and natural and
cultural landscape resources within Seaton. Although this has not been the traditional
approach to evaluating community heritage resources, it is an approach which is strongly
supported by the Province and the community. The focus on integrated resource protection
and enhancement creates a greater challenge on all potential design and planning efforts.
Traditional standards of site planning and design will need to be altered in order to establish
appropriate methods of implementation of development which relies to a much lesser level
on traditional "mitigation" methods of heritage rehabilitation. The incremental depletion and
deterioration of heritage resources (which is a common scenario in rural and near-urban
Ontario) cannot be sanctioned in this community if a "new form of demonstration community"
is to be truly successful in the long run.
Planning, design, and programming initiatives should focus on the building of a "living"
heritage lifestyle and perspective for this community. As one resident was quoted saying,
"the village of Whitevale should be a living village not a dead one like Unionville".
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page 161
9.2.3 Heritage and the Evolving Community
There are many current examples of a committed, active attitude towards preserving the
heritage of one's community that already exists in Seaton. Residents of Whitevale have
worked diligently to study and establish a proposed heritage district for their immediate village
settlement. Other fine examples exist in the personal care and high quality maintenance
efforts that exist on some of the properties in the area; the preparation of public education
materials for the Whitevale community and Seaton Trail; the establishment of the local
Pickering Museum; and local cooperative planting and nursery projects that are presently
being undertaken by local residents.
The building of a sense of community often starts with common objectives and interests to
build better quality environments within which to live. Efforts can be small and incremental to
achieve larger results. This attitude of common interest in maintaining a "living" sense of
history for Seaton and its residents, and enhancing the natural ecological assets of the area
are essential directions for building community commitment, and are fundamental to
establishing potential stewardship roles for existing and new residents to the area. These
new stewardship roles and an increasing need to tap cooperative volunteerism in the areas
of cultural heritage research and management will foster an ongoing recognition of the
importance of all efforts to manage the resources.
The community will also need to be involved on an ongoing basis, or as input is required, in
order for planners to solicit the cultural heritage values of a particular area of Seaton or time
period. This dialogue, conducted on all important matters of cultural heritage, needs to
reflect the evolving community, its needs and traditions, and its changing heritage landscape.
This effort should be made regarding certain archaeological resources, built heritage
structures of significance, and aspects of the broader cultural and natural landscape
resources of Seaton.
9.2.4 Strategies and Guidelines for Cultural Resources
Archaeology
Strategies for Archaeological Resources
A full inventory and assessment of all archaeological resources within the Seaton property
would require a multi-year project with a significant level of funding. Given the realities of
budget and scheduling, the archaeological component of this cultural heritage study sought
to achieve less ambitious but still useful objectives.
The most basic of these are a detailed inventory of known sites documented by past
archaeological investigations, a preliminary evaluation of their significance, and the
identification of general areas of relative potential for as-yet undiscovered archaeological
remains. These efforts serve to identify the nature and quality of known and potential
archaeological resources, concerns which form the grist for the last and arguably most
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page 163
Guidelines for Protection and Enhancement
The long term management of the collective archaeological resource of the Seaton property
presents both a challenge and an opportunity. There are a wide range of possible measures
that may be applied in the interests of the preservation and enhancement of the
archaeological sites of the area, but appropriate guidelines are a fundamental prerequisite
to success of the exercise.
The following guidelines are by no means exhaustive, but represent an effort to identify
various means to ensure the continued study and survival of this fragile resource. For ease
of reference, the guidelines are detailed in a series of basic categories.
Preservation
• Significant archaeological resources must be preserved wherever and whenever possible.
The corollary is that salvage excavations do not always constitute an acceptable
alternative to preservation. The extent to which future generations will judge our efforts
a success will largely depend on the degree to which these truths are honoured in
practice, through the preservation and wise management of the collective archaeological
resource.
• The continued use and/or development of the Seaton Trail may offer opportunities for
the preservation of significant archaeological resources, by integrating sites within the
existing trail system, or by linking sites to an expanded trail network. The creation of
passive park lands and of agricultural preserves may similarly be used to ensure the
preservation of significant archaeological sites.
• In the interests of the continued survival of archaeological sites, it is recommend that as a
rule the use of plaques or other means to identify specific site locations should be
avoided.
• Due to the potential for erosion and possible vandalism, the public should generally be
channelled away from known Native archaeological sites. For the same reason,
information on the locations of significant archaeological sites should not be part of the
public record.
• Natural regeneration of vegetation on archaeological sites is an acceptable method of
protection, and in many instances will be the preferred long term protection strategy.
Preservation by this means may include the use of hostile plantings (e.g., raspberry, wild
roses, blackberries, gooseberries, etc.). However, any vegetation which involves new
planting should only be undertaken under archaeological supervision, as part of a
site-specific program of archaeological resource management.
• Additional options for the preservation of significant archaeological sites may include
the negotiation of heritage easements to protect sensitive archaeological sites.
Public Education
• Within living memory, the Seaton Trail served a very functional purpose far different
than its modern recreational use: as a hunting trail. This suggests that the origins of the
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page 165
already served in similar capacities, as knowledgeable lay persons working on a volunteer
basis on behalf of the Ontario Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation.
• Another option for greater community involvement in archaeological matters would be
to expand the existing mandate of the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory
Committee (LACAC) to include archaeological concerns. This approach has been taken
with great success in several municipalities in southern Ontario (including the Town of
Richmond Hill and the City of Vaughan), and could be applied in Pickering as a means
to address archaeological concerns specific to both the Town and the Seaton community.
Resource Management
• Existing and potential development threats must be identified on an ongoing basis, and
appropriate action must be taken to ensure that archaeological concerns are addressed
and satisfied in a timely fashion.
• Archaeological assessments must only be carried out by a licenced archaeological
consultant, and assessments should be undertaken in the case of every development or
undertaking which involves a threat of ground disturbance.
• All archaeological assessments should minimally conform to the standards and practices
set out in the Archaeological Assessment Technical Guidelines formulated by the MCTR
(1993).
• Wherever appropriate, planning with respect to archaeological resources should
rninimally conform with the Manual of Guidelines prepared for the Management Board
Secretariat, Government of Ontario (April 1994). Similarly, the evaluation process for
archaeological sites should conform with that set out in A Cultural Heritage Inventory
for the Management Board Secretariat Phase 1: Cultural Heritage Process (April 1994).
• Archaeological assessments should be conducted as early as possible in the planning
process, and well in advance of any ground disturbance. This is vital to ensuring there is
adequate lead time to deal with any contingencies which may arise, contingencies
including but not limited to test excavation, complete or partial salvage excavation, and
total or partial preservation through avoidance. The timely scheduling of archaeological
assessments is vital if planners and other interested parties are to reserve as full a range
of options for archaeological mitigation as possible.
• It must be recognized that there is at present no reliable inventory of known or potential
historic archaeological resources for the Seaton property, and that this creates special
problems for the management of these resources. Future efforts must be aimed at
addressing this problem: in the interim, those involved in planning and heritage
resource management must proceed cautiously. The task of creating such an inventory
is complicated by the fact that it would require extensive field work to confirm known
and suspected sites. Moreover, certain below ground archaeological resources
intergrade with above ground standing heritage resources - as in the case of abandoned
or ruined buildings or building complexes and derelict 19th century cemeteries. Indeed,
some of the examples of future research issues for Built Heritage identified elsewhere in
this report (Section 2.4.2) represent nothing more or less than built heritage resources that
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page 167
Future Research
The Seaton area has benefited from a long history of archaeological investigations spanning
almost 40 years. Despite this, many known archaeological sites have never been subject to
detailed assessment. In consequence, there is a pressing need for the detailed assessment of
select archaeological sites in the current inventory, in order to better determine type, age,
culture, condition, limits, and significance, and to assess the most appropriate long term
options. This assessment could most effectively be carried out as part of a coherent program
involving a Stage 3 assessment of the 15 registered sites identified in the inventory as being
of demonstrable or potential significance.
Future planning with respect to archaeological resources will involve not only the local
community of Seaton, but also the Town of Pickering, as well as more senior levels of
government. Inevitably, the evolution of the planning framework within the Town of Pickering
has implications for the nature of future archaeological resource management within the
municipality.
The major land holdings assembled by the Province for the North Pickering Development
Community and by the Federal government for the proposed airport in the early 1970s have
had an enormous impact on municipal planning over the past two decades. Altogether,
these lands cover almost half of the entire Town of Pickering (See Map 1.1). Senior levels of
government will continue to play a vital role in the planning and management of
archaeological resources within the Town - partly through the application of provincial
legislation by the Province of Ontario, and partly through the continued study and
management of the former New Toronto International Airport property by the Federal
government. However, the provincial land assembly is in the process of devolution, while
plans are under study to sell off as much as a third of the Federal lands.
For over 20 years, development within the provincial and federal land assemblies has been
effectively frozen. In the meantime, a series of archaeological resource management studies
have been carried out, with the result that over 260 archaeological sites have been
discovered and registered. To date, these archaeological resources have been preserved
largely by a process of benign neglect, and the long term security of some of the sites will be
ensured by their inclusion within Rouge Park. But as planning studies evolve, and as lands
continue to revert to the private sector, an increasing number of these sites will be exposed
to the threat of impacts from development In consequence, the continued survival of these
fragile resources, and their proper management, will require a more proactive approach to
planning issues by all concerned.
One inevitable result of the changing nature of land tenure within Seaton and proximity is that
the Town will take a greater role in planning matters throughout the municipality, including
matters relating to the disposition of archaeological resources. Viewed in that wider context,
the present study is taking place as part of a much larger process, and the municipality may
wish to consider the advisability of a broader archaeological resource management study
involving the Town of Pickering as a whole. Options could range from
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment
Page 169
It is recommended that in the planning of Seaton, the Heritage Conservation District (HCD)
stains of Whitevale be recognized and that all such planning ensure the continuance of the
hamlet as a a specific, separate, viable entity. Any provincially owned property within the HCD
should be willingly subject to the HCD Guidelines as a minimum for preservation.
While opportunities may exist to slightly increase the population base of the village itself to the
original intent of the Shier plan (1870) along the hitherto unopened road allowances, the design
of structures to fulfill this initiative would have to be carefully designed to integrate with
existing architecture and should be subject to review by the village HCD Committee.
Whitevale Road
In recommending the boundaries for the Whitevale HCD, the Consultants included the lands
adjacent to Whitevale Road extending from the eastern limits of the actual hamlet easterly to
Sideline 26 as 'scenic context' and as 'an important approach and entrance to the community'.
The presence of Whitevale School, Whitevale Cemetery, and the home of Whitevale founder
John Major on this stretch of road also provided a compelling rationale for inclusion.119
In 1974 the NPAE considered it 'of the greatest importance that the existing character of the
Fifth Concession Road itself be maintained'.120 The results of the evaluation conducted as
Phase II of this study again confirms the concentration of highly significant properties along
Whitevale Road. Nine of the 21 properties evaluated were rated Class XA' and 7 were
considered Class VB'. Indeed the number and distribution of regionally outstanding
structures betwen Whitevale and Brock Road (including Major, Hastings, Pugh, Willson,
Hubbard, Tool) make it reasonable to argue for the preservation of that full stretch of road as
a heritage corridor. Though particular structures, even within the VA' group, could be
considered especially precious, e.g., Major house, it is the combination of quality, variety,
historical associations, relationship between the buildings and between buildings and
landscape which makes conservation of the full corridor so important The meaning inherent
in this full concession road settlement landscape is exponentially more compelling than that
of preserving isolated heritage islands. Extending the earlier point, the corridor also supports
and enhances the Whitevale HCD combining to create the critical land mass necessary in
providing a true sense of the traditional landscape within a still potentially vital environment.
Already the character of the other roadways in the area have been altered. Along the
Whitevale Road portion of Concession IV, though changes have taken place, they have not,
as yet, substantially denigrated the character of the roadway and the relationship of the
heritage buildings to it With further dramatic transportation changes in the area planned, this
heritage corridor will be all the more important
119 Unterman, McPhail, Cuming 1989, p.6-2.
120 Architectural Evaluation of the North Pickering Project, 1974, p.7
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page 171
Both these buildings also sit amid particularly picturesque settings and both are subject to
serious development pressures. Stonecroft has already been affected by the Taunton/Brock
Road widening and realignment, and the Howell House is very dose to the proposed
preferred route for Highway 407, as well as seriously being in need of maintenance.
Brock Road
Along with Stonecroft three other structures within the study area section of Brock Road,
significant in themselves, also serve to underscore the prime importance of Brock Road in
opening the area to settlement These are #61, a very early stone house with Adamesque
interior detailing (owned by Ontario Hydro); Crystal Springs Acres (#65) which is the only
house surveyed to retain some exposed original logwork; and #60, a very intact (though
requiring maintenance) farm complex associated with the Hubbard family.
As well the relationship between #65, originally owned by Casper Stotts a Mackenzie
supporter in the Rebellion of 1837, and #2, "kitty corner1 across Brock Road built by the
equally ardent rebel Thomas Hubbard, is important to retain. The proximity of both these
residences to the former Thompson Hotel, legendary hotbed of Mackenzie radicalism, is
instructive and evokes those troubled times. Interpretive signage at each of these properties,
and a plaque at the site of the Thompson Hotel, would assist in presenting this important
story.
Crystal Springs Acres is, as well the location of many artesian springs feeding a series of
ponds.
Brock Road from Highway 401 to Taunton Road is already an area of mixed development. It
is reasonable to assume the possibility of further development along Brock Road up to
Brougham will intensify. It will be essential mat design guidelines be put in place so that the
properties discussed above as well as Stonecroft (and others) be preserved in a
sympathetic context. This means that the density, scale, form of infill construction, and nature
of advertising will have to be carefully regulated for compatibility and mat the historic
properties retain sufficient "breathing space1.
How much is Enough?
The determination of the extent of property to preserve in association with historic farm
structures is difficult to assess. Of course, in general, the more the better, and it is clear that
site context is essential to meaningful conservation. A range of criteria to be considered are
expressed below as a series of questions.
• Is the property a working farm?
• To what is the prime significance for preservation attached, i.e., the house, the bam
and outbuildings, the landscape, the lifestyle, the story?
• Is the property part of a larger heritage entity such as the Whitevale Road corridor?
• Is there a potential need for buffering the property?
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page 173
All the options presented above acknowledge that the best means of ensuring the protection of
a heritage structure is to have it occupied and fulfilling some use.
Option 1, in this economic climate, would generally apply to only a small number of structures
which, by their extreme importance and/or sensitivity, would warrant being under the direct
control of the Province. Associated uses would be as a museum or as government or
government agency offices. While an area can only support so many community museums it
does seem that the particular history of Seaton, including expropriation, deserves a facility
for interpretation and display and would be an important touchstone for the new community
in coming to an understanding of the area.
In Option 2 the property is leased but as a condition of the lease the tenant must maintain the
structure to specified standards and otherwise preserve the heritage character of the
building. The intent is to find a tenant who clearly appreciates the building's character and
would not find the stipulations onerous. It is well known that a sense of ownership engenders
caring on the part of an occupant, therefore long term leases should be considered (perhaps
20 years) and be renewable. It would seem reasonable that the first opportunity for leasing
on this basis would be extended to long-time occupants especially where they are also pre-
expropriation owners.
Option 3 divests the Province of the responsibility and control of ownership but allows for
continued protection of the heritage building through the use of a heritage easement The
heritage easement has been utilized by the Province in this manner in association with its
capital grants programs for almost twenty years. Sale would bring the history of the
Province's involvement in the area full circle. As in Option 2 it would seem reasonable and
just that long time occupants and/or pre-expropriation owners (or their families) have the first
opportunity for purchase.
It is important to recognize that most of the heritage structures are farming related and it is
strongly recommended that, where possible, the continuance and/or resuming of farming be
promoted. With the restoration of farm use, not only the structure, but the lifeway of the area
(and therefore the meaning of the structure) is resucitated. Where this is not possible the
common practice of renting adjacent fields to local farmers should be encouraged.
It should be noted that there are a few other owners of heritage property in the area including
the residents of Whitevale, D. Willson (#15), and Ontario Hydro (#61) and agreements for
ongoing preservation will have to be worked out with them. It seems likely that the goals of
preservation will be shared by these other owners.
Mooing Structures
The dismantling and reassembly of an historic building is not considered an alternative to in
situ preservation except where the only other outcome is demolition. Much of a structure's
heritage importance derives from the site, the particular setting to which it has become
integrated.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page 175
back vines) and meticulously documented. The Tool bam, still standing, deserves similar
consideration.
Existing traditional fencing, gate treatments, and gateposts should be preserved and where
possible restored. Remnants of these features should be retained as landscape features and
as models for replication. Certain properties, e.g., Kayes, also still retain good examples of
such elements.
Ruins and remnants also provide signposts to potential historical archaeological sites. So
too do the documented locations of past important structures such as the Thompson Hotel.
Design
As described in the inventory of built resources, the area is one of compact villages and
modest farmsteads. Houses are typically 1-1/2 storey and three bay wide. Materials cover a
broad range with specific regional aspects such as dichromatic brickwork with cusped
stringcourse and pinwheel motif at the centre gable; stonework of predominantly granite and
gneiss fieldstone; and a narrow, vertical, flushboard finish on frame houses particularly
around Whitevale.
Though mimicry is not an acceptable architectural answer and urban Seaton will certainly
not be rural Seaton, the designers of the Seaton built-form would do well to immerse
themselves in the ethos of the area, internalize it and from that perhaps be able to fit the v
New Town' meaningfully into the existing landscape. This means adjusting the overall
footprint to what the land and existing values will truly bear; working at a scale which is
appropriate and with materials which harmonize with those used traditionally in the area. It
will be necessary to avoid sprawl by firmly setting the limit of the Town while blending the
buildings and landscape of the Town edge to unobtrusively give way to the old rural
landscape.
Cultural Landscapes
The study of the heritage landscapes of Seaton included a complex investigation of the long
term natural and cultural evolution of the community site, and the various "layers" of cultural
changes that have modified its character. Since we all know that these lands will continue to
evolve for future generations, it is one of the challenges of this work to reject a heritage
assessment framework that promotes a static place, but rather accept one that helps set the
parameters for a diverse series of places within Seaton that sets the stage for meaningful
heritage appreciation and legibility.
A large portion of the site retains the marks of early settlement processes - small hamlets,
farmstead dusters settled into the gently rolling topography, small fields for crops and grazing,
and meandering hedgerows that connect to many remaining woodlot backdrops in the back
field areas. These patterns are all intercepted by the intrusion of the deep valley walls.
These patterns tell the tale of community economic shifts, changes with mechanized farming,
and fluctuating efforts of land maintenance
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page 177
• The creek tributary landscapes of the area are associated with the three main creek
systems. These corridors must be protected from the impacts of new construction
and any potential out-of-date adjacent farming techniques. These meandering
corridors not only connect into the main waterways and contribute to local wildlife
habitat, but form an important spinal landscape that interweaves the rolling
topography of Seaton and forms an important part of the rolling visual landscape
character along Whitevale Road and the south side of Highway 7.
• The tablelands of Seaton are variable in terms of their relative rating for heritage
significance (refer to Maps 7.1 and 7.2). The diverse patterns of open field, remnant
woodlots, and regenerating areas create a rich mixture of landscapes. A series of
enclosed intimate landscapes with areas of open vistas, particularly along the
Iroquois Shoreline dominate this area and change with the differences in soil type.
Where appropriate, portions of these lands must be preserved and managed for the
long term viability of the natural processes of the site, and in many cases could
provide valuable linkage and restoration of natural areas. (Refer to Seaton Lands as
a Natural Ecosystem, HBT AGRA Limited, April 1994, for further site specific
details of recommended habitat linkages, and key areas of restoration.)
• Potential areas of development should fit comfortably within the heritage fabric of
the landscape and take into consideration the strategic placement of any new
structures to minimize ecological impacts. The natural areas potentially could
provide valuable green linkages, buffers, and greenways to enhance new
development if carefully planned.
• Regenerating landscapes, such as the existing abandoned quarry sites, could be left
to regenerate and evolve into richer landscapes and habitats associated with nearby
creek environments. Alternatively, these landscapes provide historically disturbed
sites located near creekways which could offer optional potential land use
opportunities. (Hydrological concerns need to be investigated.)
• Every attempt should be made to protect and enhance the quality of landscapes
which are directly influenced by land use activities such as the landfill and asphalt
recycling site. Any new proposals for land uses such as these require considerable
attention in terms of determining the landscape impacts and the appropriate
approach to development within the areas of influence.
• In any new areas of settlement or lands where agricultural practices are anticipated
to continue, there is a need to establish that good construction practices, land use
design, and management strategies are required which ensure no direct degradation
to the natural systems. State-of-the-art technologies should be used to complement
methods of dealing with stormwater management, habitat creation, riparian
restoration, etc., to maintain cultural landscape integrity and open space amenities.
• All design and management opportunities should be tailored to achieve net benefits
for the natural systems and inherent habitats.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page 179
lend themselves to the evolving history of the Brougham commerce, settlement, and families.
This busy crossroads community with its landmark cluster of heritage buildings is quite
sensitive to continued intrusion of roadway widening, high speed traffic lanes, and the loss of
streetscape and front lot landscape character. Special study of this community at the detailed
level should be executed to review the impacts of contemplated development and traffic
corridor proposals as a whole on the community. Minimal landscape mitigation improvements
are insufficient to alleviate the magnitude of such major changes.
• Three key types of pastoral rural landscapes exist through the Seaton area. The first area
consists of a diversity of small scale intimate landscapes with enclosed views and rolling
topography and a diversity of vegetation and tributary drainage corridors. The other two
landscapes tend to be comprised of more open farmland with the distinct pattern of almost
square farms bounded by mid block woodlots as a backdrop. Several corridors within the
community have distinct characteristics representative of these farmland types, that are
worthy of special protection or management of the intrinsic features of the landscape. (Refer
to Map 4.12)
Whitevale Corridor
The overall integrity of this rural landscape corridor and the relative significance of the
building complexes within it are extremely high (discussed earlier under Built Resources).
Many of the farmsteads are tucked into the farmland enclaves, with long narrow fields and
hedgerows and tree-lined laneways that have remained in excellent condition. The scale and
condition of the actual roadway through the Whitevale landscape retains the rural
characteristics and provides vantage points along the route with high point views to the
south and West Duffins Creek.
Maintaining the high quality experience of this most special heritage landscape corridor
within Seaton is a key challenge for planning for a new community. The rolling landscape
character of this corridor is specifically defined by a distinct viewshed that is determined by
the high ridges of land that run parallel to Highway 7 and Taunton Road, situated mid
concession. Development intrusion on these viewshed boundaries will begin to alter the
sensitive landscape fabric that exists intact at the present time. Other alterations that occur
from development such as drainage alteration of natural swales and tributaries, topographic
alterations for road construction, and tree clearing will all have cumulative impacts on a
corridor of this nature. It is the opinion of the authors that these type of alterations must be
kept to a minimum, if not restricted, in view of the sensitivity and significance of this special
rural heritage corridor. All site development proposals which affect this corridor must
undertake a clear physical planning assessment of their ultimate impacts on the special
features noted for this area. Traditional site "mitigation techniques" to cosmetically patch
negative alterations to the landscape as a whole will not be an acceptable resolution of
heritage values.
The diversity of landfonn, vegetation, and views throughout this area will need some ongoing
management to ensure protection of vegetation cover, habitat areas, natural swales, farm
drains and patterns, as well as restoration of degraded or
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page 181
Highway 7 Corridor (west of Brougham)
The heritage significance of this primarily rural landscape corridor relates to its settlement
history. However, the integrity of many sites along the corridor have either deteriorated, or
changes in land uses have eroded some of the active farming character of the area.
This corridor should be more carefully reviewed in terms of the proposed Highway 407
traffic development. Impacts need to be addressed at many levels of planning related to the
scale of the proposed highway, its effect on topography and lost frontage for many of these
heritage properties, the impact of interchange proposals on related roadways and their
ultimate capacity to accept roadway alterations, etc. The impact of this proposal on the
adjacent roadway and entrances to Green River and Brougham require preparation of
options which include retention of the natural and cultural heritage landscape functions and
character. Minimizing the impacts of any major development proposal and maintaining a
scale of development/roadway connections that are suitable for Seaton would require
extensive alternative scheme investigation.
• The cleared and abandoned landscapes that are identified in the evaluation
typology are primarily lands associated with the landfill site and Hydro corridor
that have lost their agricultural land use, lack identifiable landscape patterns of
heritage origin, and are impacted with many intrusions and transportation routes.
These lands can be considered for development as larger parcels, but their dose proximity
to the existing and proposed landfill site and Hydro corridor seriously presents a situation
that may not be ideal for residential or industrial development. However, these lands may
lend themselves to other land uses oriented to landscape restoration or productive
agriculture and nursery/reforestation enterprises. These lands may offer long term
opportunities when landfill operations are completed and adjacent lands can be rehabilitated,
particularly if they are connected to the West Duffins and Ganatsekiagon Creek. Lands
associated with the Iroquois shoreline may also be restored to achieve its natural heritage
integrity.
• Recreational landscapes in Seaton are limited to the Seaton Trail located in the West
Duffins Creek valley system and the two existing golf courses - Whitevale and
Seaton. The trail which is a spectacular hiking route, traversing many diverse
landscapes in the West Duffins, is an excellent route to experience the changing
landscapes of the site and appreciate these landscapes from exciting panoramic
vantage points along the way. Opportunities exist to expand this system into other
connected tributaries and potential greenways within a new community plan.
Additional opportunities exist to use this route and related linkages for natural and
cultural heritage education inclusive of archaeological and built heritage themes.
The two golf courses are different in character - the Whitevale site being more dramatic in its
landscape setting and exciting viewing areas, while the Seaton course is associated with
the more rolling valley system of the Urfe Creek. Although the provision of recreational
spaces within the new community is an important amenity
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page 183
not generic approaches that are seen repeatedly throughout the province. The range of
options for this important component of the cultural heritage plan ranges from low cost
grassroots organizations arranging educational programs and interpretive trail outings, to
the creation of a school initiative using one of the heritage structures for family and school
group heritage programs. Other examples may include permanent or temporary public art
displays, exhibits, and installations with heritage educational themes, local theatrical
programs for young and old to enjoy and learn, video education series for school and library
use, etc. Many creative ideas can be generated from this enthusiastic community.
• Expansion of the existing trail system into other creek corridors and landscapes
allows opportunities to educate others on the diversity of natural and cultural
heritage assets in the broader community.
• The community should be supported in establishing a series of "living" events in the
local community which bring new residents and visitors into the heart of the
community to learn about lifestyles, traditions, and capabilities of the residents.
Examples include heritage building bicycle tour, church /seasonal food festivals,
guided heritage walks, artistic events for heritage landscape documentation, etc.
These type of occurrences need not be one of a kind events but may take on more of
a local, integrated daily or weekly tradition to them, such as weekly farm produce
markets, pick-your-own weekend gatherings, special plant sales, etc.
Community Involvement
• Local and outside interest groups should be encouraged to participate in assisting
the community members achieve their cultural and natural heritage goals. Some
examples include trail building with clubs, field naturalist's demonstration projects,
group planting, and reforestation projects. A focused program for interest group
and volunteer efforts needs to be established with target initiatives to achieve the
most effective results.
• Retaining much of the integrity of the cultural and natural landscape heritage
features within the landscape of individual properties will require efforts that are
made on a regular basis by landowners/proprietors. Maintaining this sort of
arrangement could be difficult at times requiring a significant amount of outreach.
If private ownership is returned as a fundamental shift in the future method of
managing lands in Seaton, then important programs of land stewardship of all
resources will be essential.
• Research and information exchange programs could be set up with academic
institutions and agencies to assist the community in approaching site management
with the best technologies and insight. For instance, academic institutions could
conduct research in areas of best agricultural management practices, biological
inventories, stream restoration works, etc. In return, the community obtains
information and important technical advice to assist in making difficult land
management and development decisions. Although this work may start out
reviewing the current status of Seaton lands, over time it will be invaluable
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page 185
heritage features and the compact layering of resources which need a comprehensive
evaluation at detailed site level before more detailed planning is done. Once a wholistic vision
is established for the new community and its heritage fabric, detailed site investigations will
need to be executed for integrated methods of addressing built heritage, archaeology and
heritage landscape components on a land parcel basis. It is recommended that in setting
these land development parcels the landscape typology of units and corridor/settlement areas
be used to define logical study parcels. The guidelines of this document will assist in forming
more site specific recommendations related to site planning parcels of a inter-related heritage
character.
This report has already discussed the need to promote interest group and broader community
group participation in planning and ongoing implementation of cultural heritage strategies,
however it will be essential that interest groups and agencies see their role as changing to
address heritage issues in the broader context of integrated resource management. How
organizations like historical associations, LACAC, etc., choose to address this challenge and
change in scope may vary, but the fundamental approach needs active change and
strengthening to serve this community and many others like it. The areas of archaeology and
heritage landscape preservation and management are areas that have been sadly
neglected in planning rural and new urban communities in Ontario.
Whether Seaton is managed ultimately under current provincial and municipal authorities or
under some other arrangement does not change the need to have specialized advisory
personnel in place to assist community groups take on a more comprehensive mandate for
cultural heritage resource planning. This expertise will be of particular value in view of
upcoming proposal reviews of highway corridors, and landfill sites which require highly
skilled expertise to assess the realistic impacts and resolutions of these complex
development issues.
More ambitious and creative compensation strategies need to be developed to address
any potential future loss of valuable heritage resources in Seaton and other communities in
our province. "Mitigating" the remnants of a primarily lost resource such as a heritage farm
complex, or important heritage corridor is not enough in the view of the authors of this study.
If we look to the examples that other countries are offering there are some important
movements beginning to be made in looking at compensation and the creation of net
benefits to communities when resources are lost or seriously degraded. In the ecological
field, many initiatives are beginning to look to stringent simple means to stop this sort of
depletion of the resources without "harnessing" and "blocking" all forms of development. For
example, currently in the United States if a developer destroys a wetland in his development
proposal he must compensate with the creation of two other wetland sites. Not an easy
choice, but one that will stop some forms of development in certain scenarios but instigate
creative, new opportunities and investment in others.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page 187
context. Since much of the area is comprised of roads, utility corridors, and abandoned
fields of regenerating vegetation, opportunities exist to create, over the long term, a green
landscape feature of significant visual importance in the area, with an integrated Seaton
Trail system connecting the east-west community.
• Design concepts should consider the integration of roadways and road upgrading
proposals within the broader heritage landscape to accommodate changing
population transportation needs. The corridors that have been identified in this
report that are of important heritage value could benefit from special protection
and/or design attention in the schemes to maintain their rural topographic profile
and setting. Other roadways, that have been altered over time, require design
consideration in terms of establishing a new landscape/urban design strategy.
Roads such as Brock Road fall into this category where they have sectors that still
maintain a strong historic rural setting, while other sectors have lost any sense of
continuity or place.
Post-Design Competition
Following the design competition stage of this planning process for the Seaton community,
there will be a stage of planning and development transition where much detailed review and
fine-tuning of the schemes will be required. There may be many alternatives or variables
within the longer term vision which must be considered before final on-site approvals and
construction. Several tasks need to be conducted following the competition which affect the
success of retaining cultural heritage assets in Seaton from an early stage including the
following.
• The concepts need to be assessed in terms of how well they address cultural
heritage objectives and guidelines at a more detailed level. It is recommended that
the new community concept be assessed as a series of integrated landscape units
with development parcels determined within these units. This approach is
discussed earlier in tiiis chapter. Within these parcels, detailed site investigations
should be conducted for visual and viewshed analysis, heritage vegetation concepts
and management, and detailed surveys of archaeological assets and built heritage
features.
• A logical sequence of planning for the community needs to be determined that
allows for proper cultural heritage site assessments, design integration, and the
timely/orderly approval and execution of development initiatives. Rushed "last
minute" heritage assessments (as part of traditional site plan approvals) should be
avoided if this work is to form an important part of the" up-front" site planning and
design exercise.
• The major development proposals that are already in the planning stages for Seaton
need to be assessed as soon as possible after the design competition. These
proposals include the Highway 407 corridor, the new landfill site proposal, and
other potential road widening. The site specific assessments need to determine, at a
detailed level, how to minimize impacts of development on the broader cultural
landscape of Seaton and how to capture opportunities for improvements and
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment Page 189
REFERENCES CITED
10. REFERENCES CITED
Ambrose, Mary T. 1980a. Preliminary Field Report of the Delancey Site, AlGs-101. Interim
Report. On file, Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation.
1980b. Preliminary Field Report of the Bolitho Site, AlGs-102. Interim Report. On
file, Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation.
1980c. North Pickering Development Corporation Urban Stage One Archaeological
Excavations Summary and Recommendations, Prepared for the Ministry of Housing.
November 1980. On file, Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation.
1981. North Pickering Development Corporation Urban Stage one Archaeological
Excavations, 1980. Prepared for the Ministry of Housing. On file, Ministry of Culture, Tourism
and Recreation.
Archaeological Services Inc. 1989. An Archaeological Resource Assessment of the
Taunton Road - Steeles Avenue Connection, Town of Pickering, RM. of Durham, Ontario.
Prepared for Totten, Sims, Hubicki & Associates. On file, Ministry of Culture, Tourism &
Recreation.
1991. An Archaeological Assessment of the Brock West Landfill Borrow Area, Town
of Pickering, RM. of Durham, Ontario. Prepared for the Metropolitan Toronto Works
Department, Toronto.
Burgar, Robert W. C. 1990. An Archaeological Master Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority. The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority,
Downsview, Ontario.
Clarke, Arthur J. n.d. Archaeological Notes. Miscellaneous undated notes in the A.J. Clark
papers, on file at the Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Man, Ottawa.
Coleman, A. P. 1933. The Pleistocene of the Toronto Region (Including the Toronto
Interglacial Formation). Forty-First Annual Report of the Ontario Department of Mines, Vol.
XLI, Part VH, 1932.
.....1937. Lake Iroquois. Forty-Fifth Annual Report of the Ontario Department of Mines, Vol.
XLV, Part VH, 1936.
Cumming, D. J. 1985. Advisory Notes on Heritage Conservation and Municipal Planning.
Ontario Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, Heritage Branch, Architecture and
Planning Unit.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Study - Natural and Cultural Heritage Resources Page -191
Dawkins, John. November 1976. Untitled Report on the 1976 New Toronto International
Airport Survey. On file, Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Man, Ottawa.
February 1977. The 1976 Survey of the New Toronto International Airport: A
Preliminary Report. On file, Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Man,
Ottawa.
Donaldson, William S. 1962. Archaeological Research in the Rouge. Ontario Archaeology
Publication No.6, Series A, No. 5:15-21.
1965. Iroquoian Development in the Rouge Watershed, Ontario - Part 1: The Elliot
Site. Ontario Archaeology, Series B, No. 3:18-38.
Geomatics International Inc., Beak Consultants Limited, Aquafour Engineering Limited. 1991.
Seaton Lands: Environmental Hazard Studies, Terrestrial and Wetland Resources. For the
Ontario Ministry of Housing and The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority.
1991. Seaton Lands: Environmental Hazard Studies, Geology and Groundwater
Studies. For the Ontario Ministry of Housing and The Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority.
1991. Seaton Lands: Environmental Hazard Studies, Fisheries Resources. For the
Ontario Ministry of Housing and The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority.
Greenwald, Michelle. 1973. The Historical Complexities of Pickering, Markham,
Scarborough and Uxbridge. Ontario Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs: North Pickering
Community Development Project.
Hazzard, Richard. n.d. Untitled Report Concerning 1972 Field Work Conducted for The
Archaeological Resources of the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area Project. On file, D.R.
Poulton & Associates Inc.
Hunter, Andrew F. n.d. Archaeological Sites of Ontario County. In The A.F. Hunter Papers.
On file, Royal Ontario Museum, Department of Ethnology.
Karrow, P. F. 1967. Pleistocene Geology of the Scarborough Area. Geological Report 46.
Ontario Department of Mines.
Kenyon. 1959. A Late Woodland Site Near Pickering. In New Pages of Prehistory, 1958.
Ontario History. Vol. LI, No.l, Toronto, 58-59.
1960. The Miller Site -1959. In New Pages of Prehistory, 1958. Ontario History.
Vol. Lll, No.l, Toronto.
1967. The Miller Site. Dissertation, University of Toronto.
Page 192 Seaton Cultural Heritage Study - Natural and Cultural Heritage Resources
1968. The Miller Site. Royal Ontario Museum, Art and Archaeology, Occasional
Paper 14.
Konrad, Victor A. 1971. The Archaeological Resources of the Metropolitan Toronto Inventory
and Prospect. Manuscript on file, York University, Department of Geography, Toronto.
1972a. The Archaeological Resources of the Metropolitan Toronto: Inventory and
Prospect. Paper presented at a meeting of the Ontario Archaeological Society, January 28,
1972. On file, Mayer, Pihl, Poulton & Associates Inc., London, Ontario.
1972b. Preserving the Toronto Archaeological Resources, Preliminary Report.
On file, Mayer, Pihl, Poulton & Associates Inc., London, Ontario.
1972c. Preserving the Toronto Archaeological Resources. Preliminary Report. On
file, Mayer, Pihl, Poulton & Associates Inc., London, Ontario.
1972d. Preserving the Toronto Archaeological Resources, Preliminary Report. On
file, Mayer, Pihl, Poulton & Associates Inc., London, Ontario.
1973a. Preserving the Toronto Archaeological Resources. Interim Report, 1972
Project, Archaeological Survey of the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area. January 1973.
On file, Mayer, Pihl, Poulton & Associates Inc., London, Ontario.
1973b The Archaeological Resources of the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area:
Inventory and Prospect - A Resume. January 1973. On file, Mayer, Pihl, Poulton &
Associates Inc., London, Ontario.
1973c The Archaeological Resources of the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area:
Inventory and Prospect. York University, Department of Geography Discussion Paper 10.
Konrad, Victor A. and William A. Ross. 1973a. Archaeological Survey and Testing in the
North Pickering Community, Report #1: Markham and Scarborough. Submitted to the North
Pickering Community Development Project, Ministry of Treasury, Economics and
Intergovernmental Affairs. On file, Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, Toronto.
1973b. Archaeological Survey and Testing in the North Pickering Community,
Report #2: Pickering. July 1973. Submitted to the North Pickering Community Development
Project, Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. On file, Ministry of
Culture, Tourism and Recreation, Toronto.
1973c. An Archaeological Survey for the North Pickering Project. Final Report.
Submitted to the North Pickering Community Development Project, Ministry of Treasury,
Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. On file, Ministry of Culture, Tourism and
Recreation, Toronto.
1974. An Archaeological Survey for the North Pickering Project. Ministry of
Natural Resources, Historic Sites Branch, Research Report 4, Part I.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Study - Natural and Cultural Heritage Resources Page -193
Mayer, Pihl, Poulton and Associates Incorporated. 1985. A Review of Archaeological
Resources for Ontario Hydro's Southwest Study: Supply to London, Ontario and Brantford
Area. Prepared for Ontario Hydro.
1986. Phase I of an Archaeological Masterplan for the Town of Markham (Volumes
I- EQ). Prepared for the Town of Markham. Report on file, Town of Markham.
1989. The Archaeological Facility Master Plan Study of the Northeast Study Area.
Prepared for the City of Scarborough. Report on file, City of Scarborough.
Mayer, Poulton and Associates Incorporated. 1990 Report on a Heritage Resource
Assessment of the Proposed P-l Landfill Site, Durham Regional Municipality, Ontario.
Prepared for M. M. Dillon.
1991. Report on an Archaeological Resource Assessment of the Proposed
Cherrywood TS to Leaside TS 230kV Replacement Line. Prepared for Ontario Hydro. On
file, Ontario Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, Toronto.
M.M. Dillon. 1993. Interim Waste Authority, Durham Landfill Site Search. EA Document IV.
Volume 3, Step 6, Appendix B: Archaeology.
Museum of Indian Archaeology. n.d. Highway 407 Route Planning/Environmental
Assessment Study: Highway 48 to Whitby/Oshawa Boundary: Archaeological Background
Study. Prepared for Fenco Engineers Inc. On file, Ministry of Culture, Tourism and
Recreation, Toronto.
1990. Addendum to Highway 407 Route Planning/Environmental Assessment
Study: Highway 48 to Whitby/Oshawa Boundary: Archaeological Background Study.
Prepared for Fenco Engineers Inc. On file, Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation,
Toronto.
National Register Bulletin. n.d. No. 30. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural
Historic Landscapes. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency
Resources Division.
Ontario Agricultural College. 1956. Preliminary Soils of the County of Ontario. Ontario Soil
Survey Report #23. Ontario Agricultural College, Guelph, Ontario and Agriculture Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Ontario Department of Planning and Development, Conservation Branch. 1956. RDHP
Conservation Report.
Peters, John. 1986. Transmission line Planning and Archaeological Resources: A Model of
Archaeological Potential for Southwestern Ontario. Archaeological Consulting in Ontario:
Papers of the London, Ontario Conference 1985. Occasional Papers of the London, Ontario
Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, Inc No. 2.
Page 194 Seaton Cultural Heritage Study - Natural and Cultural Heritage Resources
Pihl, Robert. 1986. Site Potential Modelling in Archaeological Consulting. Archaeological
Consulting in Ontario: Papers of the London, Ontario Conference 1985. Occasional Papers
of the London, Ontario Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, Inc. No. 2.
Poulton, Dana R. 1977a. A Preliminary Report of the Spring Season of the New Toronto
International Airport Survey. On file, Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of
Man, Ottawa.
1977b. A Preliminary Report on the Fall Season of the New Toronto International
Airport Survey. On file, Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Man, Ottawa.
1979a. A Preliminary Report on the 1978 Archaeological Survey of the New Toronto
International Airport. Part II of "A Preliminary Report of Investigations at the New Toronto
International Airport", by W.D. Finlayson and D.R. Poulton. April 1979. On file,
Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Man, Ottawa.
1979b. Prehistory of the New Toronto International Airport Property: the 1976-1978
Surveys. Manuscript on file at the Museum of Indian Archaeology, London, Ontario.
1980. The 1976-1978 Survey of the New Toronto International Airport Property.
Museum of Indian Archaeology, Newsletter Vol. 2, No. 1, January 1980.
1987. An Overview of the Middle Ontario Iroquois Stage in the Toronto Area. Paper
Presented to the Ontario Archaeological Society, Toronto Chapter Symposium "Trowelling
Toronto: Archaeology of the Toronto Area." March 28,1987.
Poulton, Dana R. and William D. Finlayson. April 1978. A Preliminary Report on the 1976-
1977 Archaeological Surveys of the New Toronto International Airport. On file,
Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Man, Ottawa.
Reid, C.S. 1975. The Boys Site and the Early Ontario Iroquois Tradition. Archaeological
Survey of Canada. National Museum of Man Mercury Series, Paper No. 42. Ottawa.
Richardson, A.H. and A.S.L. and Barnes, eds. 1956. Rouge Dufferin Highland Petticoat
Conservation Report, Toronto. Reid, C.S. n.d. The Sewell Site (AlGt-9). Report in
Preparation.
Ridley, Frank. 1958. The Boys and Barrie Sites. The Ontario Archaeological Society.
Publication No. 4, Toronto.
Ross, W.A. and A.C.B. Roberts and E.M. Salter. 1973. Archaeological Survey and Testing
in the North Pickering Community, Report #3: September 1973. Submitted to the North
Pickering Community Development Project, Ministry of
Seaton Cultural Heritage Study - Natural and Cultural Heritage Resources Page -195
Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. On file, Ministry of Culture, Tourism
and Recreation, Toronto.
Spittal, David, n.d. Untitled Letter Report of October 18,1978 to Mr. W. Wilson, North Pickering
Development Corporation. On file, Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation.
1978. North Pickering Urban Stage One Archaeological Survey. Prepared for The
Ministry of Housing. On file, Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, Toronto.
Webb, J. 1969. The Garland Ossuary. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Toronto.
Page 196 Seaton Cultural Heritage Study - Natural and Cultural Heritage Resources