an archaeological narrative of york's cultural … · 2015. 3. 28. · cultural landscape,...

VACCARELLI AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL NARRATIVE ... 81

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL NARRATIVE OF YORK'SCULTURAL LANDSCAPE, 1793-1998

Vito Vaccarelli

Fort York, located in downtown Toronto,served as a British military garrison from 1793to 1870. Over the last 12 years archaeologicalfieldwork conducted in advance of proposedrestorations recovered substantial amounts ofarchaeological and stratigraphic informationfrom virtually all areas of the fort grounds. Bymapping the elevations of six major strati-graphic phases and using this data to interpo-late two and three-dimensional surfaces,insights were discovered into both the physicaland social elements that influenced the waythe landscape was used and modified overtime. These new insights go well beyond whatwas previously known about the landscapethrough the maps and drawings of the RoyalEngineers. Furthermore, this research illus-trates the capability historical archaeology hasin not only documenting these landscapedevelopments, but also correcting historicalmisconceptions of the cultural landscape asdepicted by documentary sources and explor-ing the socio-cultural dimensions reflected inlandscape use and modification.

'That Historic Crap" sometimes seemsto exist in an archaeological borderzone, where every nineteenth centurysite was apparently occupied by aRodney Dangerfield, because theydon't get no respect ... Yet it seems tome this negative attitude represents along out of date viewpoint, onesmacking of antiquarianism, wheresomehow the oldest and the mostprimitive are what really are of rele-vance [Kenyon 1986:41].

There are many things Ian Kenyon will beremembered for when it comes to his contribu-tion to Ontario archaeology. If there is onething that impressed me during the brief timethat I knew him it would have to be his strongconviction in the value Eurocanadian historicalarchaeology can have in contributing to thehistory of the Province. Right from my very first

exposure to historical archaeology I alwaysbelieved this to be true. However, after talkingto Ian and reading his many works he not onlyreinforced this belief in me, but also strength-ened my need to constantly legitimise myarchaeological interests as research worthy ofpursuit.

When Kidd (1969:39) wrote that "Canada is avery young country ... and Canadians arelearning that mere antiquity is not always whatis most important" there was a sense of opti-mism in the future of Canadian historicalarchaeology. The same sentiment is repeatedin Nadon's review of Canadian historical ar-chaeology (1976:81-88). However, since thattime historical archaeology, and particularlyEurocanadian historical archaeology, has notbeen able to make a significant and lastingfoothold in Ontario universities. This sentimentwas recognised in Ian Kenyon's 1986 review ofhistorical archaeology and the consultingindustry.

Although the state of historical archaeologyin the American universities is relatively heal-thy, the situation in Canada, particularly inOntario, is significantly different. Eurocanadianhistorical archaeology in Ontario universities iscurrently limited to a fringe academic pursuitamong a few individuals with historicaltendencies. This is primarily due to the earlyinfluence classical and 'prehistoric' or pre-contact archaeology have had on thedevelopment of archaeology as a discipline. Inmore recent years this is compounded by thefinancial inability of most anthropologydepartments to permanently develop and staffhistorical archaeology programs beyondoccasional cours-

es and summer field schools (i.e., University ofToronto, Trent University, Wilfrid Laurier Uni-versity and McMaster University). This lack ofprogress not only deviates from the situation inthe United States, but it clearly contrasts withthe significant amount of historical archaeol-ogy currently being carried out in the provinceby all levels of government and the archaeo-logical consulting industry.

82 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY No. 64, 1997

Figure 1. Location of Historic Fort York within Toronto's Urban Landscape

To be blunt, historical archaeologyhas a reputation of something of abastard discipline, accepted less thancomfortably by the anthropologists,historians, classicists, and othersamong whom it traces its occasionallyuneasy parentage... Must we simplytest the accuracy of historicaldocuments, or can we add to themsignificantly? Can we shed light onculture as well as trivia? [Cole 1980:169].

The reluctance by some academics to acceptEuro-Canadian historical archaeology isentrenched in the belief that the researchcannot contribute to the understanding of pastcultures beyond providing supplementary'trivia' for existing documentary sources andstanding architecture. In part this impressionof historical archaeology exists because in thepast, and to some degree even today, thesewere the approaches and goals employed bymany historical archaeologists in Ontario andthe continent.

North American historical archaeology hascome a long way since the theoretical andmethodological debates of the 1960s and 1970sover the discipline's definition and goals(Schuyler 1978). Although these debates con-tinue to dominate the more recent theoreticalliterature (Deetz 1998; Lightfoot 1995; Little1994; Noble 1996), the current and well estab-lished direction is to move away from the strictsupplementation and testing of documentaryand architectural detail (Dollar 1978; Harring-ton 1952, 1978; Hume 1968), toward the illumi-nation of both short and long term cultureprocess and human behaviour (Beaudry 1988;Lightfoot 1995; Little 1992).

Realistically all historical archaeologicalresearch will include some level ofsupplementation and testing since this is thenature of the data available for historic sites.That is, if we consider documentary data asjust another line of evidence for exploring thepast, then why would we not want to analysedocumentary data using these 'testing ' meth-ods? Comparing results from various forms ofdata is a fundamental part of all archaeologi-

Figure 2. Sketch of the Winter Camp for the Queen's Rangers on the Fort York Site. Drawn by John GravesSimcoe, 1793. Note the Scale and Landscape Features are Distorted. The Lake is at the Top andNorth is at the Bottom. (QYR, Simcoe Map, 1793)

Figure 3. Plan of Fort York After the War of 1812, on the Original 1793 Simcoe Site. Plan Signed by Lt.-Col.Gustavus Nicolls at Quebec on June 24, 1816 (NAC, NMC-23139)


cal research where multiple lines of evidenceare available to the researcher. However, datacollected on historical sites also needs to beapproached in such a way that historicallyunknown culture processes can be explored,ultimately documenting the undocumented(Vaccarelli 1996:8-13). It is from this sentimentand perspective that the research at HistoricFort York was undertaken and presented here.The all encompassing goal is not only to illus-trate the contributions historical archaeologycan make in testing and supplementing docu-mentary sources, but also to provide insightsinto cultural processes of landscape use andmodification during the more recent past.

Cultural landscape is a broad term thatencompasses the many elements culturallyimposed on the environment. The environment,both affected by human action, and unaffectedor in its natural state, make up the "landscape"which James Deetz defines as the "total terres-trial context in which archaeological study ispursued" (1990:2). He goes on to define thecultural landscape as the "part of the terrainwhich is modified according to a set of culturalplans" (1990:2). These modifications can in-clude terrestrial changes such as landfill, orarchitectural changes such as houses, fencesand earthen ramparts.

By constructing past landscapes througharchaeology, we can better visualise andunderstand how the environment influencedwhere people settled and survived. Landscapesalso illustrate how, over time, people willmodify the environment to meet their par-ticular needs. Landscapes can also become "amedium of communication that symbolicallyexpress status and other social roles" to thosewho create and interact within the culturalenvironment (Rotman and Nassaney 1997:42).This can take the form of social display, classsegregation and distinction.

The interaction of humans and their builtenvironment through space and time is afundamental aspect of the history of Fort York.Thus the fort serves as an excellent example ofhuman interaction and integration with thelandscape. The objective of the study, then, isto construct Fort York's cultural landscapethrough available archaeological and docu-mentary data to better understand not only itsuse and modification over time, but also thecultural processes reflected in its 205-yeardevelopment. Since an analysis of all aspects

of the cultural landscape at Fort York is be-yond the scope of this paper, I will focus on theterrestrial landscape (i.e., ground surfaces)and selected features of the built environment.

FORT YORK HISTORICALBACKGROUND, 1793-1998

Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoefounded Fort York in 1793 as a military garri-son. Simcoe thought the site was an excellentlocation for a military garrison since this cornerof the lakefront provided an easily defendablelocation. It was the highest ground and pro-tected on two sides by water, namely LakeOntario and Garrison Creek. It also was somedistance from the American border thus freefrom a surprise land assault. This point of landalso commanded an excellent view of the straitthat led into a sheltered harbour on which thetown of York (now Toronto) was to develop(Figure 1). With only one entrance, the harbourcould be easily defended against a navalattack. These landscape features also wouldhave made the area an ideal location forearlier First Nations occupation, however, todate no significant remains have been identi-fied.

Simcoe's original garrison, which consistedof several crude log structures, was located onthe west side of Garrison Creek (see Figure 2).By the time of the Battle of York took placebetween British and American forces on April27, 1813, there were structures on both sides ofthe creek as well as in the creek bed. Immedi-ately following this battle the fort was rebuilt onits present location and so remained (Figure 3).Many of the 1813 to 1816 structures no longerexist, however seven of the eight extant struc-tures date to this construction period (Benn1993:69-70).

During the post War of 1812 years andespecially during the peaceful 1820s, the fort'sdefences and buildings generally were al-lowedto deteriorate (Benn 1993:80). After theunsuccessful 1837 Rebellion, and in anticipa-tion of future trouble, the British began a newconstruction period at the fort in part to accom-modate a larger garrison sent from England.This period was characterised by the construc-tion of new barracks, repairs to the earthen



ramparts and a resurfacing of the fort (Benn1993:93-107).

In 1841, a New Fort" was constructed onwhat are now the grounds of the CanadianNational Exhibition. From this time up to theearly 1860s, most military activity occurred atthis new location even though the old groundswere still maintained. Following the Trent Affairof 1861 there was a renewed interest in the oldfort location especially since the New Fort'sability to defend the harbour was limited. Thereturn of military activity to the old fort siteincluded a rearmament and repairs to thefortifications and existing buildings. This workcontinued until the British formally turned thefort over to the Canadian military in 1870 (Benn1993:107-120).

From 1870 to 1909 the fort served as storeground and living quarters for a small militaryforce. The fort was sold to the City of Toronto in1909, however it was still in use by the militaryinto the early 1930s (Benn 1993:119-139). It wasalso during this period that the industrialexpansion of the city began to encroach ontothe lands around and inside the fort's bound-aries. During the economic depression of the1930s a "make work project" was initiated bythe city which involved a major restoration ofthe fort's walls, bastions and buildings. Oncethis work was completed the fort was openedas a museum.

From the 1950s through to the 1980s morerestorations were conducted, the most signifi-cant of which began in 1987 (Spittal 1991:1-3;Webb 1992:1, 1994b). These restorations wereundertaken by the city and Heritage Toronto(formerly the Toronto Historical Board) in orderto stabilise the many significant architecturalfeatures on the site. These activities in turnwould ensure the fort's preservation within therapidly changing landscape of downtownToronto.

Starting in 1970, the terrestrial landscape atFort York was also being altered throughcontrolled archaeological excavations andmonitored construction excavations spurred bythe 1980s and 1990s restoration activities. Theearliest controlled excavations were sponsoredby the Royal Ontario Museum to investigatethe guardhouse once located just south of theeast gate (Waters, McNicall and Newlands1975, Newlands 1979). In 1976, Clause Breede(1977) and the University of Toronto performedresistivity testing and small trench excavations

to locate the cookhouse and splinter proofsoldiers' barracks once located along thesouth wall of the fort (See Figure 4, for testtrenches TT 1 to TT4). Although the University ofToronto would return in 1988 to conduct anarchaeological field school, the majority of thecontrolled excavations were conducted byHeritage Toronto. These excavations started in1987 and are still in progress today (Brown1988, Spittal 1996b, 1998a, 1998c; Webb 1989,1991, 1992, 1993, 1994a, 1994b, 1996).

Over the last 11 years the controlled excava-tions and monitored construction activity havesampled a significant and representative areaof Fort York. Although this only comprises lessthan 10% of the fort's surface area it is still asignificant amount of the entire terrestriallandscape. The controlled excavations wereorganised into 40 Operations each designatedaccording to various architectural features andhistorical use areas. The locations of theseOperations are identified on Figure 4 as 1FY1to 1FY40; excavation units or Sub-operationsare shown but not labelled. By the summer of1998 these excavations uncovered 280,508domestic and military artifacts dating primarilyto the eighteenth, nineteenth and early twenti-eth century (David Spittal, personal communi-cation 1998). This collection represents one ofthe largest domestic and military collections tobe recovered from any Eurocanadian site inthe province.

THE LANDSCAPE OF HISTORICFORT YORK (1793-1998)

Fort York, like many historic sites in largeurban centres, has deep and complex stratig-raphy. These profiles represent many shortstratigraphic events including ash and cinderdeposits, construction rubble and small landfilling events, as well as long term loam accu-mulations. To document all the features andlayers that occur at localised areas of the fort— each being a unique event to the develop-ment of the fort's landscape — would be analmost impossible task since archaeologicalinformation of all these isolated events simplydoes not exist. However, in virtually all profilesthere can be defined six stratigraphic phases,composed of several features and layers,occurring consistently in the same strati-graphic relationship (a stratigraphic "phase"

Figure 4. Location of Controlled Excavations for 1976, 1987-1998


will be defined as the grouping of several unitsof strata and interfaces, following Harris1989:113-119, 158). This consistent stratigraphyacross the site provides an opportunity toexamine in detail the changing landscape atthe fort over time.

These stratigraphic phases were isolated onthe basis of stratigraphic position, generalcomposition, associated material culture anddocumentary evidence. For example, Phase 3was a loamy deposit usually greyish brown incolour. In most profiles it was subdivided intothree to four layers, each differentiated ac-cording to colour differences, texture and typeof inclusions. In some areas these layers mayhave been further separated by thin layers ofash, cinder, or brick fragment deposits. Sincethe layers had the same general compositionand somehow contributed to the total accumu-lation, they were analysed as a single strati-graphic phase (FY3). In other words, it was notthe individual features or layers that wereimportant for analysis, but the accumulation ofthese features and layers into an inferredtemporal phase.

Date ranges for each of these phases werealso determined by the above criteria, how-ever, these ranges are not assumed to bechronologically fixed but fluid. In other words,in some cases the starting and ending daterange for certain phases changes depending onthe location within the fort. For example,documentary sources suggest that the Phase 2yellow clay fill may have been deposited insome areas as early as 1886 and in otherareas in 1916 or 1934. For a description of therelative position, composition and date rangesof each of the six phases see Table 1. Anexample of how these six landscape phaseswere applied to groups of layers is provided inFigure 5.

All elevations recorded were taken at thefinal occurrence of each of the six phases.Therefore, the elevation "point" represents thelast surface for that stratigraphic phase beforeit was covered by the next. If in some areas thephase did not exist the data for that locationwas not entered. In a case where the phasewas extremely thin or blended with another, anelevation was entered because its strati-graphic relationship was known from thesurrounding area. This occurred most oftenwith the gravel landscaping (Phase 4), whichwas barely recognisable in a certain profiles.

Regardless of whether an elevation pointwas assigned according to its known strati-graphic relationship, or if no point was enteredat all for any given location, the computerprogram used, Surfer 6.01, would interpolatethe surface for that area based on the sur-rounding data points. Thus, a stratigraphicrelationship was theoretically created wheredata was unavailable.

Field profiles drawings and reports for areasexcavated in 1975, and from 1987 to 1998,constituted a primary source of stratigraphicdata (Breede 1977; Brown 1988; Spittal 1996b,1998c; Webb 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994a,1996). This data was recovered by controlledexcavations and therefore allowed for precisemeasurements of the elevations for the sixstratigraphic phases used in this analysis (SeeFigure 4 for a summary of the excavationlocations).

A second source of stratigraphic data wasderived from hundreds of pages of field notestaken during monitoring of storm drain, watermain and other construction trenches and theirbranch lines that criss-crossed the fort (Spittal1991, 1992, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c, 1994a, 1994b,1996a, 1996c, 1997, 1998a, 1998b). Thesetrenches exposed complete stratigraphicprofiles allowing the archaeologists to recordstratigraphic information. There were severalconstraints involved in the recovery of strati-graphic data ranging from unfavourable andunpredictable weather, to reckless backhoeoperators (Spittal 1991:10-12). These con-straints had a bearing on which data wasacceptable for this analysis and which was tobe excluded. Details as to how the data wasrecorded and scrutinised for this research isreviewed in Vaccarelli (1993).

Data Recording Methods

All stratigraphic phase elevations werebased on a fixed, metres above sea level(A.S.L.) datum. For controlled excavations, theelevation data were taken directly off theprofile drawings of various sub-operations,while the recovery of elevation data from themonitoring notes proved more of a challenge.On the original monitoring field notes, theelevation for each stratum was measured, incentimetres, according to its approximatedepth below the sod surface at the time. Sincemost trench excavation took place in 1988 and


Figure 5. East Stratigraphic Profile from Storm Sewer Trench Excavation Monitoring (Operation 3FY10A,Seven Metres South of Southeast Corner of Brick Magazine, Spittal 1992:35)

Table 1. Name, Number of Elevation Points, Description and Date Ranges for Each Stratigraphic Phase.

NAME. NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION DATE RANGES

ELEVATIONPOINTS

Start End

FYI 160 Greyish brown to dark brown loam with sod 1934 1986/1998FY2 165 Yellow to Yellow brown clay fill 1890 1934FY3 130 Dark brown to greyish brown loam 1860/1870 1891)/19 34

FY4 I63 Fine to coarse gravel 1837/1840 1860/1870

FY5 167 brown to dark brown loam_Light

1793 1837/E840

FY6 283 Yellow to dark yellow brown clay subsoil Geologic 1793*_

* Date does not take into account the presence of the French in the 1750s or any earlier FirstNations groups as there is no data available to determine their impact on the landscape.

1989, the closest surface elevations were thoserecorded by a 1986 survey of the fort. This map,prepared by Holding and Jones Inc. Ontario LandSurveyors, recorded the entire surface elevation ofthe fort at 10 to 15 metre intervals

and plotted this data on a 1:300 scale map(Holding and Jones 1986). Using these 1986elevations, it was possible to determine theapproximate elevation for each of the five below-surface phases by subtracting the depth



below surface measurement from the approxi-mate surface elevation for that area. Thisgenerated an approximate A.S.L. figure foreach stratigraphic phase.

All the elevation points accumulated foreach stratigraphic phase were assigned an Xand Y co-ordinate on a grid laid out over the1986, 1:300 Holding and Jones topographicmap. The Z figure was the elevation measure-ment for that X, Y co-ordinate and was enteredin the database as an elevation A.S.L. These X-Y-Z triplets for each phase were entered into asingle file to be processed through Surfer 6.01,in order to construct two and three dimen-sional representations of the fort's six land-scape phases. In the end there were 6 datafiles representing the six stratigraphic phases,each composed of between 130 to 283 X-Y-Ztriplets (See Table 1).

Interpolation Methods

The problem with software designed tomanipulate spatially referenced data is thatsometimes the point interpolation methods(i.e., data collected at a point designated by anx - y coordinate) are not appropriate for thenature of the data. This was illustrated byKenneth Kvamme's study of different interpola-tion methods used by GIS software to con-struct three-dimensional surface representa-tions (Kvamme 1990:116-17). His analysis ledhim to conclude that more research was need-ed in these interpolation methods since therewere significant differences in the surfacesgenerated by each. He questioned the degreeto which a particular analysis outcome is dueto real pattern in the archaeological data or tothe computer methods used to produce thedata in GIS context" (Kvamme 1990:123). Thiscan be problematic since archaeologists tendto accept this new computer generated data as"truths" and rarely question its validity(Aronoff 1991:285; Kvamme 1990:123). Kvammesuggests the importance of investigating thedifferent effects computational procedureshave on the nature of the spatial data usedand the actual surface representations createdby them.

There are several interpolation methods thatcan be used to create surface trends fromelevation data, but as already mentioned eachwill produce sometimes radically differentsurfaces according to the interpolation param-

eters (i.e., search method, search radius andnumber of nearest points) and the accuracyand nature of the data used (Hodgson E989:130143-150; Lan 1983:129-149). Surfer 6.01, thesoftware used for this study, allows for six pointinterpolation methods for the generation ofsurface trends. The three most commonly usedare: Inverse Distance - where the data pointsare "weighted" so that the influence of onepoint on another decreases with distance fromthe point being estimated. The greater theweighting power, the faster the decline ininfluence and the less effect points further outwill have on the interpolation. Kriging - whichuses a set algorithm based on a regionalvariable theory to interpolate the surface.

Finally, Minimum Curve - which will calculateinitial grid values based on the data providedso that any grid cell with a data point within itwill have a fixed value during the calculationfor that area. Then an equation is repeatedlyapplied in order to smooth the surface (GoldenSoftware E994:5/14-5/19).

Although Kriging and Minimum Curve meth-ods produce the most accurate results forevenly distributed data, they are not as accu-rate on sparse and clustered data as is theInverse Distance method (Golden Software1989: (3)26-32; Hodder and Orton 1976:163-E64;Hodgson 1989:132-135). Therefore, it wasexpected, and subsequently proven throughtesting, that the Inverse Distance methodwould be the most suitable method for thearchaeological data used in this study(Vaccarelli 1993).

Since Surfer 6.01 was designed to illustrateelevation differences of several metres, thethree dimensional surfaces generated had tobe adjusted to accommodate the Fort Yorkdata, since data points in some areas onlyranged a few centimetres rather than a fewmetres. Once interpolated these centimetresappeared more significant than they probablyever were in the past. In order to see a morerealistic representation of these differences inelevation it was necessary to reduce the "Zscale factor" (specifying a vertical exaggera-tion) of the three dimensional printouts. Thesurface exaggeration was reduced to 1 cm =1.02432 map units.

Since there was limited historical and ar-chaeological data for known landscape fea-tures such as the road that bisected the fort,the dry moat surrounding the powder maga-


zines, and the ramparts, these areas were notincluded in the analysis, nor were they repre-sented on the surface constructions. This wasalso true for the many structures that wereconstructed and demolished over the years.These exclusions were done, however, with thefull acknowledgement that these features wereintegral elements of the historical landscape,but unfortunately could not be representedaccurately with the data available.

LANDSCAPE SUMMARY

Phase 6 (FY6) [Geologic - 1793]

Phase 6 consists of extremely hard packedclay subsoil. In almost all areas of the fort theclay is yellow to yellow-brown in colour, how-ever in some localised areas the clay is dark tolight grey. These colour changes were probablya result of colours leeching down from theloamy strata above (Spittal 1991:54). Thisphase, (or layer) is easily identifiable and hasbeen recorded in virtually all the excavationsand monitored trenches. Along with a fewcentimetres of loamy soil Phase 6 representsthe probable terrain relief before the Britishbuilt the first garrison in 1793.

Phase 5 (FY5) [1793-1837/1840]

Stratigraphic Phase 5, is primarily a brownto dark brown loamy soil that lies above thesubsoil and below the gravel phase (FY4). Thisphase appears in most parts of the fort as asingle "buried horizon" positioned directly oversubsoil (Spittal E991:33, 45-53 60; Webb 1992:125). In other areas the phase exists in thesame stratigraphic position but has a slightlydifferent appearance, either with rubble inclu-sions and evidence of burning or with gravelinclusions (Webb 1991:99; Spittal 1991:42). Insome areas of the fort this ' buried horizon'simply did not exist, however, the various formsthe phase did take such redeposited mottledclay, or mottled loamy layers were usually inthe same relative position (Spittal 1991:40,Webb 1991:11,14, 4E, 62, 63 105, 128) - that is,below the gravel phase and above the subsoil.In these areas, Phase 5 is considered to be theaccumulation of strata ending with the appear-ance of the gravel phase. Recovered artifactsfrom Phase 5 date to the last quarter of theeighteenth century to the first quarter of the

nineteenth century. Thus Phase 5 representsthe surface accumulations of the fort from thefirst British occupation in 1793 to the deposit ofthe gravel layer which in some areas may haveoccurred as early as 1837.

This date range is proposed with the ac-knowledgement that before the British arrivedthe French as well as several First Nationswere in the area and probably using this partof the landscape. However, their archaeologicalpresence and impact on the site's landscape isnon-existent or minimal in comparison to thosethat occurred with the arrival of the British in1793.

Phase 4 (FY4) (1837/1840-1860/70]

This gravel phase is an extremely thin singlelayer of gravel in some areas, while a thick,multiple layer of varying coarseness in others.Phase 4 appears in virtually the same strati-graphic position across the site - that is abovethe light brown to dark brown loamy Phase 5and below a second dark brown to grey loamyPhase 3. The thickest and most frequent occur-rence of the gravel is found in the paradeground area between the Stone Magazine andBlock House #2, as well as north of the southwall and east of the East Magazine. In someareas the gravel phase consists simply of acoarse type (Spittal 1991:60; Webb 1991:72, 76-77, 105, 120), while in other areas this coarsegravel overlies several finer grades of gravel(Webb 1991:25, 72-73, 96). The gravel phasealso occurs in a mixed clay or mottled clay withan extremely hard packed surface (a possiblemacadamised surface) (Spittal 1991:61; Webb1991:40, 52, 105).

Where questions of disturbance can beeliminated, artifacts recovered from Phase 4offer a temporal range from the late 1830s andearly 1840s to the 1870s (Webb 1991:40, 57, 91,94, 96, 76-77, E27). This agrees with theinformation recovered from stone box drainsthat often appear underneath the first layer ofcoarse gravel, since the date ranges forartifacts recovered from these drains are thesame as the gravel layers themselves - early1840s to the 1860s (Spittal 1991:57 70-71 7591; Webb 1991:63, 93 108).

There are at least three documentary refer-ences regarding levelling and gravelling of thefort. The first is a circa 1839 reference to"levelling...and gravelling surrounding [the


artillery stables] surface" (NAC RG 8, Series C,Vol 447:258-261). A circa 1841 report describesthe availability of "shingle and gravel" for themaking roads and parade grounds (TRL,Baldwin Room, Miscellaneous Fort York docu-ments, Reports). The third reference dates toMarch 14, 1848. In this document there isreference to the demolition of the splinter roofbarracks located along the south wall of thefort and the levelling of the area with a bed ofgravel "... to correspond to the parade" (NACWar Office Papers, WO55/882, s. 253ff). Thisgravelling event is confirmed by archaeologicalexcavations along the south wall (Breede1977) and is illustrated in Figure 5.

These documentary sources further illustratethat the gravel layers at certain areas of thefort most likely existed as early as 1839 andwere probably continuously repaired or addedto in order to maintain a level surface up untilthe 1860s. These documented dates are com-patible with the archaeological evidencealthough the archaeological evidence consis-tently falls within the 1850s and 1860s range.This is most evident in the artifacts recoveredfrom the stone box drains associated with thegravel phase. These drains were either con-structed in the 1860s, or earlier drains werere-excavated, repaired or cleaned out and thenrecovered with gravel. It is also important toconsider the fact that since the drains areopen systems, artifacts could enter and passthrough them at any time following their initialconstruction (Webb, personal communication,1994).

The late dates for the gravel layer can alsobe explained by the changing use of the fortfrom the 1840s to the 1860s. In the late 1830s,the fort had undergone a major restoration thatvery likely included some gravelling of thelandscape. This surface was probably inten-sively used up until 1841 when military activitywas moved to the "New Fort." For the next 20years the fort was maintained but not inten-sively used until the British military returned tothe old site to rearm it as their primary militaryestablishment. This took place in the early1860s. It was during this construction periodthat intensive use of the surface occurred, thusthe probability of artifact deposition wouldhave been much higher during this time. This

historical scenario also might explain why thedate range for the gravel phase appears tocluster around the extreme limits of the time

frame.

Phase 3 (FY3) [1860/1870-1890/1934]

Photographs taken in the last quarter of the1800s and the early 1900s show that most of thefort had become overgrown with plant lifeindicating the transition to a loamy soil accu-mulation and the end of the fort's gravel sur-face (TRL, Baldwin Room, TEE616, TEE616,T11635). As such, Phase 3 is primarily a greyishbrown to dark grey loamy soil that stratigraphi-cally appears above Phase 4 and underlies thePhase 2 yellow clay fill, and represents thenatural accumulation of soil that began asearly as the 1870s when the gravel surface wasno longer maintained, and ended with the firstclay fill landscaping event that may haveoccurred in some areas as early as the lastquarter of the nineteenth century. This loamyphase does not appear in all areas of the fort,however when it does appear the artifactsrecovered date to the last quarter of the nine-teenth century (Spittal 1991:60; Webb 1989:109-179; Webb 1991:72, 76, 90, 94, 101, 105-6,149). The phase also appears directly beneaththe clay banquette and rampart fill constructedin 1934 (Spittal 1991:33). Therefore it isconceivable that this phase in some areas ofthe fort existed right up until the 1930s whenmore clay fill was brought into the fort orredeposited during its restoration.

Phase 2 (FY2) (1890-1934]

Phase 2 consists of this clay landfill, al-though there are a few areas where this phasedoes not appear (Spittal 1991:40). Nonetheless,it has been recorded in virtually every area ofthe fort, with the thickest deposit occurring inthe central area of the fort (Spittal 1991:42, 56,60; Webb 1991:34,42, 52, 72, 90, 105, Webb1992:149). Archaeological evidence suggests adepositional date for this phase to have beenas early as the last quarter of the nineteenthcentury and into the first quarter of the twenti-eth century (Webb 1988:136; Webb 1991:56,98,106; Webb 1992:149). However, it should bemade clear that this clay landfill was probablynot a single depositional event, but ratherdeposited similarly to the gravel of Phase 4 -that is it probably existed earlier in some areasof the fort and later in others. This has beenillustrated by the variety of date ranges the

archaeological and documentary data pro-vide.For example, stratigraphic informationrecorded during the monitoring of the trenchthat cut through the road between Blockhouse#2 and the Blue Barracks clearly illustrates theclay fill that underlies a thick brick rubble roadsurface (Spittal 1991:64, 86). This brick surfacemay be the same road seen in a 1909 photo-graph of the fort (TRL, Baldwin Room, T11620).Furthermore, an 1886 document describes alist of work conducted at the fort includingsubstantial levelling and filling of the grounds(RCMI, Militia Reports, 1886).

It is also possible that much of this clayphase was a result of the construction of acirca 1916 streetcar track that cut into a signifi-cant portion of the north rampart (TRL, BaldwinRoom, T110604). This excavation likely pro-duced excess clay that may have been depos-ited in low lying areas of the fort (CatherineWebb, personal communication). Other areasof clay fill may represent land filling episodesthat occurred during the restoration period in1934 as illustrated by the clay fill found in theramparts and banquette (firing step) overlay-ing a loamy deposit (Spittal 1991:33).

At the moment all that can be substantiated

is that Phase 2 represents the top surface of

probably several clay land filling events. The

accumulation of these major land filling events

ended around 1934.

Phase 1 (FYI) (1934-1986/1998)

Above the clay landfill there almost alwaysoccurs a brown and grey brown loamy soil.Since it is highly disturbed in many areas dueto its proximity to the sod surface, its composi-tion is variable across the fort. However, itsstratigraphic position above Phase 2 andbelow the present sod surface is unquestion-able. Phase 1 therefore represents the loamytopsoil accumulation that has occurred be-tween 1934 and 1986. For this paper the 1986surface data was used to represent the currentsurface. However, it is important to note thatrelandscaping and various restoration activi-ties from 1988 to 1998 have made dramaticchanges to parts of the terrestrial landscape.The impact of these significant changes on theforts current landscape have not yet beenrecorded.

DOCUMENTING ANDINTERPRETING LANDSCAPE

USE AND CHANGE

By using each of these stratigraphic phasesof the fort as units of landscape development,inferences on the dynamics of landscapechange and its relationship to Fort York can bebetter understood. This is especially the casesince such inferences are not available fromgraphic or other documentary sources, sincethese present a more static record of the pastlandscape, and can be problematic since theyare often misleading or inaccurate representa-tions of past reality.

The most appropriate point to begin discuss-ing landscape use and change over time atFort York is with the earliest phase of the fort,Phase 6 (1793). From the two-dimensional andthree-dimensional maps of this phase theirregularity of the terrestrial landscape whenthe fort was founded is clearly visible (Figures6). Although this result is partially a product ofthe higher number and distribution of elevationpoints for this surface in comparison to othersurfaces, much of the landscape variety isprobably due to the natural state of the land-scape when the fort was first founded. Thesesurface irregularities, although not major,appear in most areas of the fort where dataexisted and clearly contrast with some of themore uniform stratigraphic phases that were tofollow.

Other features worth noting are the east-west low ridge and the series of shallow swalesthat run parallel to this low ridge. The largestand deepest were recorded just northeast ofBlockhouse #2 and south of the Blue Barracks(refer to Figure 4 for the location of structuresreferred to here). These shallow swales proba-bly extend southeast toward the significantdrop-off recorded next to Blockhouse # 1. Thismay be a natural bank extending down to thelake or an excavation into the bank designedto provide easier access to the lakeshore.

When comparing the Phase 5 surface (Fig-ure 7) with Phase 6 it is apparent that althoughthere is a general rise in elevation and asmoother appearance in some areas, thesurface irregularities still exist especially alongthe bottom of the low ridge and the large swaleat the centre of the fort. In the historical record,


VACCARELLI AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL NARRATIVE .. . 95

the years 1793-1816, (primarily 1813-15), wereyears when most of the structures and ram-parts were constructed. Due to the pressure tofortify the area as soon as possible, progressfirst occurred with the more important ele-ments of the built environment such as theearthen ramparts and the structures. Theseconstruction activities would have helped raisethe elevation of certain areas while at thesame time smooth over others by filling inlower lying land with excess soil.

After the main construction period of 1813-15and especially during the peaceful 1820s, theFort's defences and buildings generally wereallowed to deteriorate. In 1826, the garrisonwas described as a "Very ruinous old fort",most of its buildings were out of repair" and allthe hastily constructed wood buildings wereal-most uninhabitable (Firth 1962:18; NAC,RG8, Series C, vol. 580 pp. 70-79, 124-125,132-134; NAC, W055/887, s, 160ff.). Onewould not expect much deliberate change tothe terrestrial landscape during a period wheneven the defensive earthen embankments werenot maintained. The results of the Phase 5landscape reconstruction support this.

After the unsuccessful 1837 rebellions a newconstruction period characterized by theerecting of new barracks, repairing the earth-en ramparts and resurfacing the fort began. Byexamining the Phase 4 surface, the levelling ofthe fort and the raising of the surface elevationby these construction activities can be seen intwo locations (Figure 8), one of these being thearea between the North Soldiers Barracks andthe Officers Quarters. This area is directlysoutheast of the former location of the 1838Rebellion Barracks constructed in the North-west Bastion and demolished in 1934. Con-structed in 1838, this massive blockhousewould have required significant excavating tobuild its stone foundation. It appears that someof this soil and construction debris was likelydeposited in and around the structure and tothe south and then surfaced with a bed ofgravel.

During and soon after this constructionperiod resurfacing took place in the form oflaying gravel and forming a macadamizedsurface. The gravel addition to the landscape,although not complete in all areas of the fort,would have produced a more uniform surfaceand thus a more orderly appearance. The mostsignificant leveling can be seen between

the Stone Powder Magazine and Blockhouse#2. This area, once the location of structurespredating the War of 1812, was later used asthe parade ground. The gravel leveled mostsurface anomalies south of the shallow swalebetween the two structures and the lake.

These landscape modifications do not ap-pear in any of the documentary sources. How-ever, the reconstructed surface shows signifi-cant changes to the landscape between theOfficer's Quarters and the North SoldiersBarracks, and most of the central paradeground surface. These changes reduced theprominence of the low ridge in front of theOfficers quarters and at the same time thesefilling events increased the prominence of theshallow swale by raising the ground levelaround it.

Phase 3 (Figure 9) represents the period thatbegan as early as the 1870s. This is also theperiod when industrial expansion was slowlyencroaching on the lands around and insidethe fort's boundaries. During this period the fortgenerally remained in a state of disrepair, asthe discipline of the British military was nolonger imposed on the changing landscape ofthe fort; thus the surface was continuously anddramatically altered. This was especially trueafter the early 1900s.

Phase 2 (Figure 10) represents the moreextensive and rapid modification to the terres-trial landscape. During this period clay fill wasbrought into the fort in order to level the site.These landscape additions altered areas thathad been historically noticeable such as theremnants of the shallow swale and the lowridge. During the last major land filling event in1934 one of the main goals was to return thesite to its 1815 appearance based primarily onthe 1816 Nicoll's plan (Figure 3). This meantreconstructing some buildings that no longerexisted while demolishing others. Clay fill wasalso used to build the ramparts and fill in anyirregular areas of the surface. This levelingand raising of the ground level is clearly visiblein the central part of the fort. This is especiallytrue in the Northwest Bastion where the 1838Rebellion Barracks were demolished in 1934and the area re-landscaped with fill. Otherareas to the west of Blockhouse #2 do notappear to have been modified with muchlandscaping. The final surface of the site,Phase 1, for the most part mimics the finalleveling out of the fort in the 1930s (see Figure

11). Further alterations to the landscape sincethat time produced a uniform surface of sod.

CORRECTING DOCUMENTARYINACCURACIES ANDMISCONCEPTIONS

It has been repeatedly demonstrated thatthe critical evaluation of military documentsmust be a fundamental component of thatdocumentary research and analysis (Babits1988; Seasholes 1988; Scott 1991). By compar-ing Fort York 's documentary record regardingterrestrial landscape with the results of thisstudy new interpretations regarding landscapeuse and the fort's development, as well ascorrecting and redefining the documentarypicture of the fort, are now possible.

For example, the most significant observa-tion from the Phase 6 map is the clearly de-fined, gradual rise in elevation towards thenortheastern end of the fort (Figure 6). The risein elevation ranges from 70 centimetres to justover 1.5 metres along the east-west axis of thelow ridge. Considering that over the north wallis a steep descent to the Garrison Creek floodplain this area of the landscape would havebeen the highest point within the triangularstrip of land the fort was situated on beforedescent (see Figure 3 for the "triangular"nature of the fort area and the location of thecreek bed.).

This new data more clearly depicts theoriginal terrain the fort was founded on, andthat this terrain was fairly unaltered up untilthe initial construction period in 1813-15. Thisfeature within the fort walls was not repre-sented in any graphic documentary sourcescreated by the British engineers at the time,primarily due to the purpose for which thoseearly documents were produced. The 1816Nicoll's plan of the fort, for example, has al-ways been valuable in determining the locationof buildings and earthen ramparts as it isconsidered the most accurately drawn plan ofthe fort from the early period (Figure 3). How-ever, the plan is limited because it only showsthe topography outside of the forts walls andnot the features of the terrestrial landscapewithin the walls. This is also true for the 1823Durnford map (Figure 12). Features such asthe low ridge and the broad swale used as amidden were not depicted on the map simply

because the Nicoll's plan, similar to othergraphic documentary sources, were designedto illustrate the defensive feature as one ap-proached the fort and the location of the moreimportant structures within its walls. Terrestrialfeatures within the walls were not of interest tothe compilers of the maps since they had novalue in depicting the defensive capabilitiesthat the maps were intended to show.

The same is true for the 1854 W.J. Renwickplan (Figure 13). When comparing this crosssection of the fort with the same area illus-trated on the Phase 4 topographic plan (Figure8), the former depicts a far more uniform sur-face than was actually the case. If the 1854plan was designed to depict terrestrial realityit should at least illustrate the midden depres-sion and quick rise in elevation towards thenorth end of the fort. However, these featuresare not illustrated on the cross section. Insteadthe Royal Engineers drew a very uniform sur-face that rose gradually toward the north. Inthis case, the 1854 cross section was drawn atthe same time when there were several reportsdealing with the conditions and future use ofthe old fort grounds (NAC, W055, 887, s. 171ff;W055/887, s. 154ff; RG8, vol. 1635, pp. 1, 5b, 7b,9a). Therefore, it appears that the cross sectionwas created to depict the proposed works tobe conducted primarily on the ramparts sincethe drawing appears to be more concernedwith distances between structures and theramparts as well as possible firing lines (NACW055, 887, s. 177ff; NMC 0023145). The planwas not designed to depict the surface in itsrealistic form but in an idealistic form, thus itsuse should be restricted according to its de-fined purpose.

Yet another example of historical inaccura-cies and the misinterpretations documents caninduce can be illustrated by comparing the1823 Durnford drawings of the Stone Magazinewith the archaeologically derived landscapeconstructions. Similar to his treatment of theOfficers' Quarters, Durnford provides a reviewof the state of the Stone Magazine and also aplan of the structure (Figure 14). The purposeof a powder magazine was to store largequantities of powder, in a dry cool environ-ment, while at the same time protect thatpowder from accidental firing, sabotage andenemy fire (Benn 1991:6). In order to accom-plish their purpose these magazines werecarefully constructed with heavy walls and a


Figure 12. Plan of Fort York by Lt. Col. Elias W. Durnford, 1823 (NAC, NMC H4/450)

bombproof roof. The entire structure may besurrounded by a palisade, and partially con-structed below ground level for extra protec-tion. An elaborate ventilation system wasincorporated into the building in order to keepthe powder dry (Benn 1991:7, 11).

The 1823 depiction of the Stone Magazine atFort York illustrates some of these defensivefeatures. However, when these drawings arecompared to archaeological data new questionsare raised regarding their accuracy. Forexample, a drawing of the Stone Magazine 'seastern profile, based on available archaeo-logical and historical information, clearly illus-trates the relationship of the adjacent groundlevel to the structure (Figure 15). Instead of halfof the vertical wall being below ground, asillustrated in the 1823 profile by the low sittingmagazine and the half visible ventilation slits(Figure 14), the new data shows that the struc-ture was sitting much higher on the landscape,with the entire ventilation slits showing and atleast three quarters of the building aboveground level.

This new information not only directs one tocritically evaluate the purpose and accuracy ofDurnford's 1823 drawing but it also forces a re-evaluation of the defensive capabilities of thedry moat. Since so much of the structure washigh above ground level right from its initialconstruction it was probably not the depth


below grade ofthe structurethat providedthe bestdefence, but thestructure 'sarchitecturalstrength as wellas the height ofthep a l i s a d e .There was noarchaeologicalevidence that anearth-enembankm e n tw a s used tosup-p l e m e nt defences of

the magazine byraising the

ground level,however evidence of at least two temporallyseparate palisades were recorded during the1991 excavations. These palisades were docu-mented in one 1878 and one 1885 photographof the Stone Magazine (CTA, Fort York Photo-graphs, 1878; TRL, Baldwin Room, T11597).Thus by considering this new data and re-evaluating documentary source a more sub-stantiated interpretation can be achievedregarding the various defensive features of theStone Magazine and their capacity to functionin the protection of the powder.

INTERPRETING SOCIO-CULTURAL BEHAVIOUR

The fact that these archaeologically derivedlandscape features do not appear on anyhistoric maps does not mean they were irrele-vant. On the contrary, they played a significantrole in the choices made in organising the fortinternally. This is best illustrated by once againexamining the Lt. Col. Durnford report of 1823.The purpose of this report was to outline thestate of the structures at the fort and recordnecessary repairs. Durnford provides plan andprofile drawings of all the main structuresassociated with the fort (NAC, RG 8 Series II,and Vols. 80-81). By comparing Durnford 'selevation and section of the Officers Barracks

(Figure 16), with thearchaeological data(Figure 17) the limi-tations of the docu-ment in terms of un-derstanding thestructures real posi-tion and elevationaccording to the ter-restrial landscape iseasily seen.

The reconstructeddrawing based on theinterpolation of thesurface in that areashows that theOfficers' Quartersfoundations wereclearly visible at eitherend of the structure.Furthermore, therewas a drop of over halfa metre from thesouthwest corner tothe south-east cornerof the building. Notonly does this newdata clearly illustratethe problems in relyingon Durnford's drawingfor realism, but it alsoprovides in-sights intothe planing and initialconstruction of thebuilding not recordedin d o c u m e n t a r ysources.

For example, theOfficers' Quarterswas one of the fewstructures designedwith a basementkitchen (Figure 16).In order to constructa kitchen of that sizethe British Engineershad to plan for theexcavation and re-moval of much soil,(in this case hardpacked clay subsoil).This would require


many more hours of labour and extra wagesfor the harder work involved. The British military had very strict regulations regarding thepayment of their workers according to thenature and amount of work completed. Thiswas clearly illustrated in an 1852 "Analysis ofSchedule Prices" document that was created toreplace and update earlier regulationsregarding the payment of workers for differenttypes of labour and skills (NAC W055/886[71 s.f.300-455, reel B-2834). Therefore, in order tominimise costs of the construction of the Offi-cers' Quarters it would be important to mini-mise the amount of work involved.

The subsoil construction around the Officers'Quarters shows that in the area where thekitchen was located there is a significant dropin elevation ranging from 40 to 80 centimetres

(Figure 6). This would mean that theexcavation of the kitchen basementwould have required significantly lesstime and money since the amount ofsoil to be removed was decreasedanywhere from 43 to 86 cubic metres.The subsoil surface in this area illus-trates that the British engineers usedthe natural features of the terrain inorder to take advantage of as much ofthe natural height of the landscape,while at the same time orient thebuilding in a manner that wouldminimise the amount of resourcesneeded to excavate and build thebasement kitchen.

The archaeologically derived land-scape not only helps us understandthe planning process involved in theinitial layout of buildings within thefort walls, but it also gives us insightsinto the social values placed on land-scapes. These social values helped todetermine the way landscapes wereorganised and modified by the Britishmilitary hierarchy during the earlylayout of the fort.

For example Phase 6 depicts ashallow depression close to the centreof the fort roughly between the BlueBarracks and Blockhouse #2. This"swale" was first recorded in the 1988-1989 monitoring work, however, theapproximate dimensions of thefeature were unknown (Spittal1991:44-5, 86). According to the sub-soil re-construction of Phase 6, thedepression would have been 20 to 30metres in diameter and approximatelyhalf a meter to a meter deep. The

northern boundary of the feature risesdramatically towards the Blue Barracks. Sincethe depression was the lowest point in thearea it probably allowed for the accumulationof stagnant water, thus, for obvious reasonsthe area was not a desirable spot to build on. Itwas probably for this reason that thedepression was used as a midden area by theearly nineteenth century occupants of the fortas was illustrated archaeologically (Spittal1991:44-5).

The Phase 6 map showing the low east-westridge (Figure 6) also provides insights intounderstanding why the British engineers lo-cated certain buildings on specific areas of the

Figure 14. Plan, Elevation and Section of the Stone Magazine by Lt.Col. Elias W. Durnford, 1823 (NAC, NMC-5361)


Figure 15. Stone Magazine Surface Elevations Based on Archaeological Data (circa 1793-1840)

landscape. First of all the low ridge had thebest view of the Garrison Creek flood plain aswell as a slightly better view of the fort groundsand the lake. Since this land was the highestpoint within the fort walls, it was farthest fromthe water table and much better drained (tothe north and southeast). The historic drainagesystem of the fort, which has been well docu-mented archaeologically, further illustratesthat the water was drained from the northwest,towards the lake to the southeast (Spittal1991:57, 70-71, 75, 91; Webb 1991:63, 91 93 108).

Together, the higher elevation and superiordrainage qualities of this area of the landscapewould have increased not only its utilitarianvalue but also its social value in comparison tothe low-lying areas closest to the lake. Thesocial value of this part of the landscape wasillustrated in the way the hierarchicalstructure and operation of the British militarywas manifested in the landscape.

There are several early plans of the fort thatshow the orientation and location of the fort 'sbuilt environment (Figures 2, and 12). Thesemaps locate the Officers' Quarters, the Com-mandants' Quarters, and Engineers' Officealong the top of this higher terrain and clearlyaligned with the east west direction of the lowridge. While at the same time the dwellings ofthe lower ranks were placed in the lower areascloser to the lake. The planing and the even-tual use and modification of the landscapebetween 1813 and 1816, when the fort wasbeing reconstructed, clearly reflects this hier-archy and the need to reinforce establishedsocial positions. This was accomplished by notonly making use of this socially desirablenatural feature, but also by using this feature todraw a symbolic distinction between the officerranks and the lower ranks. In other words itwas not haphazard decision making thatreserved this higher ground for the construc-


titittt

tTRsocB

the Northwest Bastion. Once thelocation of the Engineers Quartersthis part of the landscape was oneof the few locations within the fortgrounds that that could accommo-date such a large structure. Thus,by 1837 the strategic pressure torearm the fort overruled the previ-ous organization and use of thelandscape; strategic necessity nowsuperceded the need to projectsocial hierarchies.

Eventually these constructionactivities and landscape modifica-tions along with others occurring aslate as the 1930s would continu-ously alter the landscape to thepoint where terrestrial symbols ofsocial rank were almost completelyremoved. Archaeological evidence,however, allows us view these land-scape features and speculate on hecultural behaviours that aremanifested in the terrestrial envi-ronment.

CONCLUSION

When looking at the constructed;cultural landscape of Fort York onecan see the natural features thatmotivated and affected the treat-ment and use of the terrestrial land-scape. By evaluating these featuresnew insights can be reached in theinterpretation of the forts' develop-ment over time. Furthermore, thenew data also illustrates theinaccuracies and misconceptionsinherent in the graphic docu-mentary sources available for the

F

VE ... 105

igure 16. Plan, Elevation and Section of the Officers' Quarters by

VACCARELLI AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL NARRATI

ion of the living quarters for the highest rank-ng members of the British military. By placinghese structures on the high ground and build-ng the lower ranking quarters on lower areashe landscape was culturally manipulated byhe upper ranks to reinforce the social struc-ure within the British Military.

In time historical events would dictate howhe landscape would be perceived and used.he massive refortifications following the 1837ebellions started a trend that would blur theocial distinctions the terrestrial landscapence symbolized. This was illustrated in theonstruction of the imposing 1838 Rebellionarracks just west of the Officers Quarters in

fort. These misconceptions are dueto the nature of the documentary sourcesand the purpose for which they were created.Relying simply on these documentary sourcesfor landscape depictions can be problematicsince they were not designed to illustrateaspects of the internal landscape, which as itwas shown played a significant role in theutilitarian and sociocultural organisation ofthe fort during the early years.

If one considers how these landscape fea-tures would appear in conjunction with randomdeposits of ash, cinder and construction rub-ble, the midden areas, and the pools of stag-

Lt. Col. Elias W. Durnford, 1823 (NAC, NMC-5353)

Figure 17. Officers' Quarters Surface Elevations Based on Archaeological Data (Subsoil, circa 1793 to1820s)

nant water, the landscape as perceivedthrough documentary sources does not servepast reality justice, and is only a mere image ofwhat the Royal Engineers thought were theimportant features of an ideal, orderly land-scape. It is ironic that in the 1930s when the fortwas restored to its 1816 appearance this idealperception of order and uniformity was mim-icked through the reconstruction of the fort withthe use of straight stone walls where erodingearthen ramparts once stood, and clay landfilllevelling areas that in the past were far moreirregular. Yet the archaeological data, and thesurfaces generated from that data, narrate alandscape history that was not as uniform andidyllic as the nineteenth century engineersrecorded or the museum administrators of the1930s reconstructed. All six stratigraphic phas-es when viewed together depict how moredynamic the landscape was in reality.

Acknowledgements. The Fort York Archaeol-ogy Project and the analysis of the data recov-ered has been made possible by the continuedcommitment of Heritage Toronto to thepreservation of Ontario 's archaeologicalheritage. In particular I wish to thank thearchaeology staff

at Historic Fort York, especially CatherineWebb and David Spittal who were responsiblefor directing the collection and analysis ofalmost all the archaeological data used for thisresearch. David Spittal in particular was kindenough to dig up and send me the most cur-rent landscape data and other bits of informa-tion recovered during more recent excava-tions. Not only did Cathy and David instigatemy initial interest in this landscape project,they also provided valuable comments andinsights on the first extremely rough 1993report. The same can be said for Dr. SusanJamieson, Trent University, who in reading thefirst report, allowed for the strengthening ofsome of the methodology and interpretationspresented. I would also like to thank Carl Benn,Curator of Fort York, for the use of the archivaldatabase and other documentary sources heldin the Fort York library. The Royal CanadianGeographic Society also deserves an acknowl-edgement for their initial financial assistance,in the absence of which much of this researchcould not have been possible. A final thank youis due to Neal Ferris and the two anonymousreviewers who in a very short period of timemanaged to edit what started out as a rough



and rushed late submission to this volume.Finnaly, the usual disclaimer applies; anyerrors and obtuseness in the data and inter-pretations presented are the sole responsibilityof the writer.

REFERENCES CITED

Aronoff, S.

1991 Geographic Information Systems: AManagement Perspective. WDL Publi-cations, Ottawa.

Babits, L. E.1988 Military Records and Historical Ar-

chaeology. In Documentary Archae-ology in the New World, edited by M.C. Beaudry, pp. 119-125. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Beaudry, M. C. (editor)

1998 Documentary Archaeology in the NewWorld. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Benn, C.

1993 Historic Fort York, 1793-1993. NaturalHeritage / Natural History Inc. To-ronto.

1991 Bombproof Powder Magazines of theWar of 1812 Period in Upper Canada.

Arms Collecting 29(1):3-13.Breede, C.

1977 Fort York Resistivity and ArchaeologyProject Report. Manuscript on file,Heritage Toronto, Historic Fort York,Toronto.

Brown, D.A.

1988 Fort York Archaeology Programme1987-1988. Excavation and Prelimi-nary Analysis Report: 1. The Officers'

Brick Barracks; 2. Testing for Govern-ment House: 3. Testing for an 1814Barracks in the Southwest Bastion.License report of file, Ministry of Citi-zenship, Culture & Recreation, To-ronto.

CTA (City of Toronto Archives, Toronto)Fort York Photographs, Photo of StoneMagazine Looking North, AnonymousPhotographer, circa 1878.

Cole, J. R.1980 An Anthropologist Looks at Historical

Archaeology. Proceedings of the Con-ference on Northeastern Archaeology,edited by J. A. Moore, pp.E67-171.Research Report Number 19, Depart-ment of Anthropology, University ofMassachusetts, Amherst.

Deetz, J. F.1990 Prologue: Landscape as Cultural

Statements. In Earth Patterns, Essaysin Landscape Archaeology, edited byW. Kelso and R. Most, pp.1-6. Univer-sity Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.

1998 Discussion: Archaeologist as Story-

tellers. Historical Archaeology,32(1):94-96.

Dollar, C. D.1978 Some Thoughts on Theory and Method

in Historical Archaeology. In His-torical Archaeology: A Guide to Sub-stantive and Theoretical Contribu-tions, edited by R. L. Schuyler, pp.216-222. Baywood Publishing,Farmingdale, New York.

Firth, E.G.

1962 The Town of York 1793-1815. ACollection of Documents of EarlyToronto. The Champlain Society,Toronto.

Golden Software

1991 Surfer, Reference Manual, 4.0. Gold-enSoftware. Golden, Colorado.

1994 Surfer (ver. 6.01) For Windows User'sGuide, Contouring and 3D SurfaceMapping. Golden Software, Golden,Colorado.

Harrington, J.C.1978 Archaeology as an Auxiliary Science to

American History. In HistoricalArchaeology: A Guide to Substantive

and Theoretical Contributions, editedby R. L. Schuyler, pp. 3-7 BaywoodPublishing, Farmingdale, New York.

Harris, E.

1989 Principles of Archaeological Stratig-raphy. Academic Press. Toronto. Hodder,I., and C. Orton

1976 Spatial Analysis in Archaeology.Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge.

Hodgson, M.E.1989 Searching Methods for Rapid Grid

Interpolation. Professional Geogra-pher 41:143-150.


Holding and Jones Inc.1986 Plan of Topography of Old Fort York

Being Part of the Garrison Commonsand Part of Parcel No. 4 , RegisteredPlan 1101 (City) City of Toronto, Mu-nicipality of Metropolitan Toronto.Holding and Jones Ltd.

Hume, I. N.

1968 Historical Archaeology. Alfred Knopf,New York.

Kenyon, I.1986 'That Historic Crap!" Historic Archae-

ology Resource Management. In

Archaeological Consulting in OntarioPapers of the London Conference 1985edited by W. A. Fox, pp. 41-50.Occasional Publications of the Lon-don Chapter, Number 2, Ontario Ar-chaeological Society Inc., London.

Kidd, K. E.

1969 Historic Site Archaeology in Canada.Anthropology Papers, National Mu-seum of Canada, Number 22.

Kvamme, K. L.1990 GIS Algorithms And Their Effects On

Regional Archaeological Analysis. In

Interpreting Space: GIS and Archae-ology, edited by K. M. Allen, S. W.Green, and E. B. W. Zubrow, pp.112-133, Taylor and Francis, London.

Lan, N.S.N.1983 Spatial Interpolation Methods A Re-

view. The American Cartographer10:129-149.

Lightfoot, K. G.1995 Culture Contact Studies: Redefining

the Relationship Between Prehistoric

and Historical Archaeology. AmericanAntiquity 60(2): 199-217.

Little, B. J.1994 People with History: An Update on

Historical Archaeology in the United

States. In Journal of ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory, 1(1): 5-40 editedby M. B. Schiffer, Academic Press, NewYork.

NAC (National Archives of Canada, Ottawa)R.G. 8, British Military Documents,Report on List of Works Performedcirca 1839, Series C, Vol 447, pp. 258-261.

RG. 8, British Military Documents,Miscellaneous Inspection Reportsand Correspondence, 1826-1829,Series C, Vol 580, pp. 70-79, 124-125,132-134.RG 8, British Military Documents,Report on the State of the Fortifica-tions, compiled by Lt.-Col. Elias. W.Durnford 1823, Series II, and Vols. 80-81.RG8, British Military Documents, In-spectional Report on the State of theFortifications, 1854, Vol. 1635, pp. 1,5b, 7b, 9a.

War Office Papers, March 14, 1848

Report, Royal Engineers, Kingston,

WO55/882, s. 253ff.War Office Papers, Sir JamesCarmichael Smyth's Report on De-fence of Fort c. 1826 WO55/887, s,160ff.War Office Papers, MiscellaneousReports and Correspondence, c.1854-1856 W055, 887, s. 154ff, s. 171ff.War Office Papers, MiscellaneousReports and Correspondence, c.1852, W055/886[7J s. f.300-455, reel B-2834.National Map Library of Canada, Planof Fort York signed by Lt.-Col.Gustavus Nicolls, June 24, 1816. Cata-logue Number NMC-23139.National Map Library of Canada, Planof Fort York by Lt.-Col. Elias W.Durnford, 1823. Catalogue NumberH4/450.National Map Library of Canada, Planand Section of Fort York in 1854 byW.J. Renwick. Catalogue numberNMC 00231145.National Map Library of Canada,Plan, Elevation and Section of theStone Magazine by Lt.-Col. Elias. W.Durnford, 1823. Catalogue NumberNMC-5361.National Map Library of Canada,Plan, Elevation and Section of theOfficers' Quarters by Lt.-Col. Elias. W.Durnford, 1823. Catalogue NumberNMC-5353.

Nadon, P.1976 L'Archeologue Historic au Canada.

Symposium on New Perspectives inCanadian Archaeology, 22-23 Octo-ber 1976, edited by A. G. McKaypp.81-88. The Royal Society of Can-ada, Ottawa.

Newlands, D.L.1979 Archaeological Investigations at Fort

York, Toronto. Archaeological News-letter (Royal Ontario Museum) NewSeries, No. 164. The Royal OntarioMuseum, Toronto.

Noble, V.E.1996 Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow: A

Plea for Change in the Practice of

Historical Archaeology. HistoricalArchaeology 30(2):74-84.

QYR (Queen's York Rangers, Toronto)

Fort York Armouries Archives, Fort

York Maps, Sketch by John Graves

Simcoe, 1793.

RCMI (Royal Canadian Military Institute,

Toronto).

Archives, Militia Reports, circa 1886.

Rotman, D. L., and M. S. Nassaney1997 Class, Gender, and the Built Environ-

ment: Deriving Social Relations FromCultural Landscapes in Southwestern

Michigan. Historical Archaeology31(2):42-62.

Schuyler, R. L. (editor)

1978 Historical Archaeology: A Guide toSubstantive and Theoretical Contri-butions. Baywood Publishing,Farmingdale, New York.

Scott, S. D., P.K. Scott, J. W.F. Smith and J.

MacLeoy.1991 Reorientation of Historical Maps of

Old Fort Niagara Using Computer-

Assisted Cartography. Journal ofField Archaeology 18(3): 319-343.

Seasholes, Nancy S.1988 On the Use of Historical Maps. In

Documentary Archaeology in the NewWorld, edited by M. C. Beaudry,pp.92-118. Cambridge UniversityPress. Cambridge.

Spittal, D. A.

1991 Fort York Archaeology Programme,Report on Sewer Construction Moni-toring, Phase I - 1989, Trunk StormSewer and Water Main Construction.2 Vols. License report on file, Ministryof Citizenship, Culture and Recre-ation, Toronto.

1992 Fort York Archaeology Programme,Report on Sewer Construction Moni-toring, Phase II - 1990 Catch Basinand Branch Line Construction. Li-cense report on file, Ministry of Citi-zenship, Culture and Recreation,Toronto.

1993a Fort YorkArchaeologyProject, Report

on Drainage Construction Monitoring,Phase III- 199OLandscaping. Licensereport on file, Ministry of Citizenship,Culture and Recreation, Toronto.

1993b Fort YorkArchaeologyProject, Reporton Construction Monitoring, SouthSoldiers' Barracks, Building Restora-tion and Perimeter Drain Construction1990-1991. License report on file, Min-istry of Citizenship, Culture and Rec-reation, Toronto.

1993c Fort York Archaeology Project, Reporton Construction Monitoring, Electricaland Mechanical Services, Construc-tion of hydro Vault 1991. License re-port on file, Ministry of Citizenship,Culture and Recreation, Toronto.

1994a Fort York Archaeology Project, Reporton Construction Monitoring, BrickOfficers' Quarters, Building Restora-tion and Installation of Drains 1992-1993. License report on file, Ministryof Citizenship, Culture and Recre-ation, Toronto.

1994b Fort York Archaeology Project, Reporton Construction Monitoring, Restora-tion of the East Magazine 1994. Li-cense report on file, Ministry of Citi-zenship, Culture and Recreation,Toronto.

1996a Fort York Archaeology Project, Reporton Construction Monitoring. Restora-tion of Blockhouse No. 2. Perimeter

Drain, Air Conditioning Vault Con-struction 1995. License report on file,Ministry of Citizenship, Culture andRecreation, Toronto.


1996b Fort York Archaeology Project, Exca-vation and Preliminary Analysis of the1813/1814 Blockhouse No. 2. AtHistoric Fort York. License report onfile, Ministry of Citizenship, Cultureand Recreation, Toronto.

1996c Fort York Archaeology Project 1996 -Report on Construction Monitoring.Restoration of Blockhouse No. 1. Li-cense report on file, Ministry of Citi-zenship, Culture and Recreation,Toronto.

1997 Fort York Archaeology Project 1997 -Report on Construction Monitoring.Installation of New Natural Gas PipeLines. License report on file, Ministryof Citizenship, Culture and Recre-ation, Toronto.

1998a Fort York Archaeology Project, 1997 -Report on Construction Monitoring.

Excavation and Preliminary Analysisof the 1814 North Soldiers' Barracks atHistoric Fort York. License report onfile, Ministry of Citizenship, Cultureand Recreation, Toronto.

1998b Fort York Archaeology Project, 1997 -Report on Construction Monitoring.Restoration of the 1814 North Soldiers'Barracks. License report on file, Min-istry of Citizenship, Culture and Rec-reation, Toronto.

1998c Fort York Archaeology Project, 1998 -Excavation and Preliminary Analysisof the 1814-138 Blue Barracks. Lic-ense report on file, Ministry of Citizen-ship, Culture and Recreation, To-ronto.

TRL (Toronto Reference Library, Toronto)Special Collections Centre, BaldwinRoom, Miscellaneous Documents onFort York, 1841 Report.Special Collections Centre, BaldwinRoom, Photograph Collection, Anony-mous Photographer, c. 1900 photolooking north towards Stone Maga-zine and Officer's Quarters. CatalogueNumber T11615.Special Collections Centre, BaldwinRoom, Photograph Collection, Anony-mous Photographer, c. 1900 photolooking northeast towards Blue Bar-racks and Blockhouse #2. CatalogueNumber T11616.

Special Collections Centre, BaldwinRoom, Photograph Collection, Anony-mous Photographer, c. 1885 photolooking north towards Officers' Quar-ters. Catalogue Number T11597.Special Collections Centre, BaldwinRoom, Photograph Collection, Anony-mous Photographer, late 19thcentury photo looking east towardsBlock-house # 1. Catalogue NumberT11635. Special Collections Centre,Baldwin Room, PhotographCollection, Anonymous Photographer,c. 1909 photo looking west towardsOfficers' Quarters and 1838Barracks. Catalogue Number T11635.Special Collections Centre, BaldwinRoom, Photograph Collection, Anony-mous Photographer, c. 1916 photolooking southwest towards north wall.Catalogue Number T110604.

Vaccarelli, V.

1996 Prosperity, Adversity and the Appear-ance of Worth; Socio-Economic Statusand the Macdonells of Pointe FortuneOntario, 1813-1881. Unpublished M.A.thesis, Department of Anthropology,Trent University, Peterborough, On-tario.

1993 Constructing and Interpreting FortYork's Cultural Landscape, 1793-1993.Manuscript on file at Historic FortYork, Heritage Toronto, Toronto.

Watters, G. E., G.G. McNicoll, and D. L. New-lands1979 The Search for the Fort York Guard-

house. Archaeological Newsletter(Royal Ontario Museum) New Series,No. 118. The Royal Ontario Museum,Toronto.

Webb, C.

1989 Fort York Archaeology Project 1988,Excavation and Preliminary AnalysisReport. 3 Vols. License report on file,Ministry of Citizenship, Culture andRecreation, Toronto.

1991 Fort York Archaeology Programme1989, Excavation and PreliminaryAnalysis Report. 3 Vols. License re-port on file, Ministry of Citizenship,Culture and Recreation, Toronto.


1992 Fort York Archaeology Project 1990,Excavation and Preliminary AnalysisReport. 3 Vols. License report on file,Ministry of Citizenship, Culture andRecreation, Toronto.

1993 Fort York Archaeology Project 1991-2,Excavation and Preliminary AnalysisReport. 3 Vols. License report on file,Ministry of Citizenship, Culture andRecreation, Toronto.

1994a Excavation and Preliminary Analysisof the 1813/1814 Blockhouse No. 1and 2. And the 1826 Kitchen Additionof the Officers' Quarters - Historic FortYork. License report on file, Ministryof Citizenship, Culture and Recre-ation, Toronto.

1994b The Fort York Archaeological Project1987 - 1994 Excavation, Mitigation,and Research: A Summary Review ofthe Archaeological Resources at His-toric Fort York, Toronto. Manuscripton file, Heritage Toronto, Historic FortYork, Toronto.

1996 The Fort York Archaeology Programme.Excavation and Preliminary Analysisof the interior and Exterior of the 1813Blockhouse No. 1 at Historic Fort York,Toronto. License report on file,Ministry of Citizenship, Culture andRecreation, Toronto.

Vito Vaccarelli33 Kingsborough Crescent, Weston, Ontario M9R 2T8

V A C C A R E L L I A N A R C H A E O L O G I C A L N A R R A T I V E . . . 1 1 1

L