President's Message
May/June 2007
(as published in Arch Notes New Series 12(3))
You would be surprised about the number and variety of email that are sent to the OAS office, some of which are deflected my way. Some of these simply make you shake your head and wonder who is on first, and where is second anyway. While fishing around for a reasonable topic to discuss in this page I started to see some common elements between a number of these threads which I thought I would share with you all.
The Ambassador Bridge spans the Détroit River between Détroit, Michigan and Ontario's own motor-city, Windsor. It is privately owned by Mr. Matty Moroun of Detroit. Acccording to an April 28, 2007 Globe and Mail article, since 1979, Mr. Moroun has been acquiring lands at either end of the bridge in order to construct a twin in response to increased international commerce. Smart man. Some of the hurdles in his way? Well, the actual decision to twin the Ambassador Bridge has not been taken, let alone invitations to build one. And, oh yes, a lot of old houses had grown up at the foot of the existing bridge. Let's remind ourselves of exactly where the Ambassador Bridge lands are on the Canadian side of the river; very near Assumption Church and the Huron Line. This is near the heart of la Pointe-de-Montréal, the old French settlement from New France days. In fact, an ancestor of mine, François Gaudet dit Marentette, sold land on which the Huron Mission (precursor of the Assumption Church) was relocated. Apparently, the City of Windsor's master plan indicates that the lands along the shores of the Detroit River are mostly all high potential and have several known sites, including burials, to show you why the odds of encountering archaeological remains are so high. Here's the twist. Mr. Moroun, in a natural expectation of offering a sound project, has applied for and received permission from the City of Windsor to demolish those old buildings where he would construct the new bridge. For demolition, no archaeological assessments are required in spite of high potential or proximity to known sites. A representative from the Ministry of Culture recognized that this is a 'loophole'. Happily, an archaeological consultant has been hired to monitor the demolition which everyone knows involves disturbance of the upper soil layers. But it took some sustained lobbying by the Windsor Chapter of the OAS to have this happen. While it is better to see monitoring, what is required is a proper assessment. Of course, bridge construction will require an assessment, so why not undertake it now rather than watch for signs of destruction? So far, the signs are encouraging.
Let's go to Toronto and the redevelopment of properties now located along its former waterfront. For some time, various new constructions have impinged upon surviving bits and pieces of Toronto's former waterfront with docks and wharfs occasionally being discovered. Sometimes someone notices. Sometimes they don't. Last year, an accidental discovery resulted in a sawn-off piece of a wharf being offered to Fort York. I can just imagine the conservation issues surrounding that. I would in fact be quite keen to see how it has faired to date. Recently, an individual who manages landfill transportation from Toronto to a site near Ottawa related how the fill being removed from construction sites in the old part of Toronto are just loaded with old bottles and various bits and pieces of archaeological heritage. Apparently this soil was ìcontaminatedî. As such, I can only imagine that expeditious removal is the order of the day. But how much of our collective heritage can we write off in the name safety concerns? Should we not be looking to determine safe ways of documenting the resource before carting it off?
Other examples of recent developments that appear to lack what we might consider proper regard for known or potential archaeological resources have recently been pointed out in Sault Ste-Marie and Ottawa. Even in my own hometown of Vankleek Hill, while a heritage building restoration resulted in an archaeological assessment (to their credit), the follow up monitoring was dispensed with for no apparent good reason. While not ill-intentioned, the result, nonetheless was a box of objects being presented to the excavator after the fact. Without any doubt, there are similar stories playing out across the province throughout the year.
But there is also good news from the Queen City. As I was finishing up this note, Michael Gregg of Preserve Archaeological Site of Toronto (P.A.S.T.) wrote to inform me that the Toronto city proposal had decided to purchase the property which contains the Archie Little II site. That is great news. However, it's hard to find out much about the site itself as the reports had not been released by the property owners. Yet, the OAS and its members were asked to speak out in favour of the acquisition. In principle, it sounds great to be protecting the site for interpretation to the public. But it is disturbing that information pertaining to a public resource cannot be easily accessed, especially when public funds will be expended to buy the land.
But the best news of all is the call for proposals by the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation to develop an archaeological conservation management strategy. This couldn't come soon enough. Of course, that is only the first step, but it can only be hoped that this will lead to concrete efforts to safeguard and preserve information relating to the early days of Ontario's capital.
A common thread running through all of this, and there is more that could be brought up from the various parts of Ontario, is that while we have newly revised legislation and the Ministry of Culture has restructured itself, ostensibly to provide better and more efficient service, there are still many significant areas where nothing is being done (just think about the horrible state of collections management in Ontario). There are ìloopholesî where not only Mac trucks are driving through, but they are hauling away our archaeological heritage at the same time. How extensive is the network of ìloopholesî? Good question. It might be a very good thing to actually try to find out how well informed Ontario's municipalities are about their responsibilities for protecting archaeological heritage when planning developments within their jurisdictions. When clear violations to the Heritage Act take place, perhaps we should be more vocal in writing letters to the Ministry if not the Minister. And if the spirit of the Heritage Act is violated, perhaps we need to be much more creative about finding ways to have it respected.
With the beginning of summer, a new round of professionally executed archaeological destruction will take place. Luckily reports will result from this work, but we may not be able to very easily benefit from the information contained in them. As construction activities go into heated overdrive, the inevitable silent destruction of unknown archaeological heritage will continue. Let's at least hope that we did what was reasonable to minimize such instances.
Have a good, safe and productive summer. Find lots. Learn lots.
Jean-Luc Pilon