With Evidence from a Sts'ailes (Chehalis) Village on the Harrison River, British Columbia

The Archaeology of Camas Production and Exchange on the Northwest Coast: With Evidence from a Sts'ailes (Chehalis) Village on the Harrison River, British Columbia

Authors: Lyons, Natasha, and Ritchie, Morgan Source: Journal of Ethnobiology, 37(2) : 346-367 Published By: Society of Ethnobiology URL: https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-37.2.346

BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Complete website, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/terms-of-use.

Usage of BioOne Complete content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non - commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF CAMAS PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE ON THE NORTHWEST COAST: WITH EVIDENCE FROM A STS’AILES (CHEHALIS) VILLAGE ON THE HARRISON RIVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA

Natasha Lyons1,2* and Morgan Ritchie3

Edible root resources were widely cultivated and consumed by First Peoples throughout North America from the early to mid-Holocene to historic times. In recent decades, archaeobotanists, ethnobotanists, archaeologists, and traditional knowledge-holders have explored and clarified many aspects of root food ecology, production, and exchange. This paper focuses on camas, considered a cultural keystone species across much of western North America because of its high cultural value and influence in defining the cultural identities and land use of resident communities. While historic camas use by First Peoples has been widely documented throughout the Pacific Northwest, the archaeology of camas is little known at coastal sites. This paper presents evidence for a concentration of camas bulbs (Camassia spp.) found in an earth oven complex within an ancient Sts’ailes (Chehalis) village in the Upper Fraser Valley of southwestern British Columbia, Canada. We contextualize this find by exploring the abundant ethnobotanical and ethnohistoric camas literature in order to create a picture of the production and exchange of camas amongst coastal communities of the Northwest Coast. We analyze direct and indirect sources of archaeological data for coastal camas production, which helps us to evaluate questions raised by the presence of this resource 150 km outside of its historical growing range.

Keywords: Camas, Northwest Coast, Coast Salish, earth oven, geophyte

Introduction

Geophytes are underground plant storage organs that were widely cultivated and consumed as ‘‘root foods’’ by First Peoples throughout North America from the early to mid-Holocene to historic times (Cheatham 1988; Gill 2014; Hoffmann et al. 2016; Thoms 2009; Turner 2014). In recent decades, archaeobotanists, ethnobotanists, archaeologists, and traditional knowledge-holders have explored and clarified many aspects of root food ecology, production, and exchange. Together, we have learned that Indigenous management techniques often mimicked natural disturbance patterns, making them difficult to discern in archaeological contexts (Anderson 1997; Lepofsky and Lertzman 2008); deter- mined that pit-cooking renders the complex carbohydrate inulin—present in camas (Camassia spp.), balsamroot (Balsamhoriza sagittata), and nodding onion (Allium spp.)—edible; discovered that First Peoples developed a range of pitcooking features and techniques to suit the properties of specific taxa (Black and

1Ursus Heritage Consulting, 11500 Coldstream Creek Road, Coldstream, BC, Canada, V1B 1E3. 2Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University. 3Aboriginal Rights and Title Department, Sts’ailes. *Corresponding author ([email protected])

Thoms 2014; Peacock 2008; Wandsnider 1997); unpacked evidence for seasonality and intensity of harvesting practices through archaeobotanical data and proxy measures (Gill 2014; Kramer 2000; Lepofsky and Peacock 2004; Peacock 1998); and explored social, economic, and gendered aspects of geophyte production (Kramer 2000; Nicolaides 2010; Thoms 1989, 2009; Turner 2014). There is much more to learn as we continue to discover and produce geophyte data and to expand and refine our theoretical perspectives on their cultural uses and archaeological correlates. This paper focuses on camas, considered a cultural keystone species (Garibaldi and Turner 2004; see also Cuerrier et al. 2015) across much of western North America because of its high cultural value and influence in defining the cultural identities, social economies, and land use patterns of resident First Nations. In the Pacific Northwest, the desirability of this resource was so great that it was called the ‘‘queen root of this clime,’’ among other superlatives (De Smet 1847:196). While camas use developed over nearly 6000 years (Cheatham 1988), historic First Nations gardeners are known to have actively extended the range of this resource through transplanting (Thoms 1989:198–199; Turner and Kuhnlein 1983:211). Yet despite ample historical and ethnobotanical documentation of camas cultivation, production, and exchange (e.g., Suttles 1951a; Turner and Kuhnlein 1983; see review in Beckwith 2004), and a plethora of archaeological research on geophytes across the Interior Plateaus of British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and beyond (Carney 2016; Cheatham 1988; Kramer 2000; Lepofsky 2002, 2004; Lepofsky and Lyons 2013; Lepofsky and Peacock 2004; Nicolaides 2010; Peacock 1998, 2002, 2008; Prouty et al. 2004; Stenholm 1985, 2000; Thoms 1989, 2008), archaeological evidence of pre-contact camas use is vastly underrepresented on the Northwest Coast, largely obscured by crops, livestock, and development brought by European settlers (Suttles 1951b, 1955, 2005; and see Thoms 1989:143–145). This paper considers how a massive concentration of camas bulbs came to befoundinanearthoven1 complex within an ancestral Sts’ailes (Chehalis)2 village in the Upper Fraser Valley of southwestern British Columbia. This find prompted us to look more broadly at coastal patterns of camas production and exchange among ancient Northwest Coast communities in order help us understand how these bulbs came to be processed 150 km outside their modern and historical range. We consider the evidence for raw camas being exchanged with the Sts’ailes from more distant growing regions versus the alternative that camas stocks were cultivated by Fraser Valley Indigenous communities. We tie this evidence to the pre-contact past by analyzing direct and indirect evidence for camas production on the Northwest Coast (cf. Lepofsky and Peacock 2004), presenting the archaeological context in which this concentration of camas bulbs was found and evaluating questions raised by its presence there. In this research, we bring together the rich ethnobotanical, ethnohistoric, and ethnographic records with ecological and archaeological knowledge to create a more complete picture of camas use by ancient Northwest Coast communities.

Camas Habitat and Distribution

Camas is a bulbous perennial with beautiful, showy blue, violet, or white flowers (Gould 1942). It grows in mesic to vernally moist meadows and grasslands, from low-lying to mountainous regions (Klinkenberg 2017). Four species of camas and a variety of sub-species are common across the southern Pacific Northwest (and beyond), with blue or common camas (Camassia quamash) and great camas (C. leichtlinii) having the broadest distributions (Figure 1). The bulbs of blue and common camas were historically cultivated as a ‘‘root crop’’ by Coast and Straits Salish communities on southern Vancouver Island, Gulf Islands, San Juan Islands, and Puget Sound, while other varieties were cultivated by Interior Salish on the Columbia Plateau and South Coast communities in Washington, Oregon, and Northern California within their respective ranges (Thoms 1989:193–204; Turner and Kuhnlein 1983:200). In British Columbia, contemporary blue camas and great camas distributions are locally frequent on southeastern Vancouver Island and the nearby Gulf Islands, often associated with Garry oak (Quercus garryana) meadows and rocky outcrops (Douglas et al. 1999). Blue camas also grows in a small pocket of southeastern British Columbia in the upper Columbia drainage (Klinkenberg 2017). Pollen records suggest that the Garry oak ecosystems of Vancouver Island and the surrounding area once extended to the Fraser Delta region during a drier period of the early Holocene, but their current distributions have been stable for the past 6000 years (Pellatt et al. 2001). Botanist John Macoun identified an isolated population of blue and great camas near Chilliwack in 1901 (Gould 1942:732; Scoggan 1978:495) and voucher specimens of both species have also been collected on the British Columbia mainland near Vancouver (Klinkenberg 2017; Figure 1), in areas where camas does not grow today.

Camas Production by Communities of the Paciﬁc Northwest

In this section, we focus on the production of camas by Coast and Straits Salish, making reference to Interior Salish and other communities who also actively managed and exchanged root resources3. We define production as the complete sequence of handling the resource from its care in cultivation to processing and storage. Cultivation strategies include clearing, aerating, burning, and selective harvesting (Turner and Peacock 2005). Camas grounds were closely managed by Coast and Interior Salish women. Many coastal plots were owned by social elites, particularly those within close walking or paddling distance to villages (Beckwith 2004:191–193; Suttles 1951a:54, 60, 2005). The plots were marked in the meadows and grassy bluffs where camas flourishes, cleared of stones, weeds, and brush, and later burned over to maintain the prairie (Lepofsky and Lertzman 2008:136; Norton 1979; Turner 1999; Weiser and Lepofsky 2009). When the flowers had died off, but the seed capsules were still visible (in late spring to summer), the bulbs were

Figure 1. Distribution of common camas species in the Paciﬁc Northwest. Camas distributions are derived from the electronic databases Global Biodiversity Information Facility for general distributions and E-Flora BC (Klinkenberg 2017) for the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. Historically recorded specimens of C. quamash and C. leichtlinii were manually inserted for Chilliwack Prairie.

harvested by lifting sections of sod and removing the larger bulbs (Turner 2014:200–201; Turner and Kuhnlein 1983:211). The annual harvest of a well-maintained camas plot by an Island Salish family is calculated at approximately 10,000 bulbs or approximately 225 kg (Deur and Turner 2005:14). For some Interior Salish groups, Thoms (1989:174–175) estimates an even higher annual yield of 1000 kg/family. A portion of this harvest would have been gifted to extended family and shared through exchange networks. Camas was avidly sought-after through these connections because of

its desirability as a tasty, concentrated, and storable carbohydrate source and its status as a feast food (Turner and Loewen 1998). Cooking camas takes several days to break down the inulin and yields a sweet, soft bulb (Peacock 2008; Turner and Kuhnlein 1983:214; Wandsnider 1997). Bulbs were placed in an earth oven lined with hot rocks that served as a cooking element, covered with layers of vegetation and sand, and steamed by periodically adding water through a vent. According to Suttles’ (1951a:61) WAS´ ANE´ C´ (Saanich) sources, Straits Salish dug an oven large enough to accommodate the quantity of bulbs to be cooked; an average size was 4 feet (1.3 m) across by 2 feet (0.6 m) deep. Processed bulbs were dried and stored either whole, smashed into loaves, or made into ﬂour (Ray 1938:121; Suttles 1951a:62). Both raw and cooked bulbs could be stored in cattail bags for storage or trade (Suttles 1951a:61). All species of camas grow easily from both seeds and bulbs and have good cultivation and transplant potential (Turner and Kuhnlein 1983:202, 205). Examples of successful transplants include those by the Tillamook of Oregon, Nuu’cha’nulth groups at Hesquiat and Ahousat, and the Nooksack and Nuwaha of Washington State (Beckwith 2004:75–76; Deur 1999; Suttles 1951a:60). This wide usage is reﬂected in the limited linguistic variation within Coast Salish dialects, where all terms for camas are synonymous with vegetable food (Galloway 2009:181). Camas was referred to by Hu`lqum` ´ınu` m` speakers on Vancouver Island as spe.nxw,andby Halqem` eylem´ speakers of the Fraser Valley as spa´:lxw, spe.lxw, and other variants (Beckwith 2004:63; Suttles 1951b).

Acquisition and Production of Root Foods by Fraser Valley Communities

Historically, Indigenous communities of the Fraser Valley accessed camas from exchange routes to the east, west, and south. There is no doubt that the bulk of historic camas stocks in southwestern British Columbia were grown by Island Salish communities, such as the Cowichan, Sooke, and Songhees, and that the Fraser River was the main artery for delivery to up-river communities such as the Sts’ailes and Sto:l´ o¯ 4 (Duff 1952:73; Stern 1934:43; Turner and Loewen 1998; Washbrook 1995:79–80). In 1828, a Fort Langley trader made note of a great number of Cowichan families headed to their summer fishing grounds on the Fraser River with their ‘‘canoes loaded with Kamas’’ (MacLachlan 1998:90). Fraser Valley communities also accessed camas via inland trade routes. One of these routes was between the Chilliwack and Nooksack of Washington (Smith 1950:336–337), who were known, along with the Nuwaha of inland Washington State, to have cultivated prairies of wild carrots (Perideridia gairdneri) and tiger lilies (Lilium columbianum) alongside camas (Suttles 2005:185; also see Lepofsky et al. 2003). Galloway’s (2009:140, 377) sources infer a camas trade with groups farther inland, presumably the down-the-line route charted by Turner and colleagues (1990:121) from peoples of north central Washington to the Okanagan to the Nlaka’pamux, who in turn brought the resource to the annual salmon fishery on the Fraser River. Ethnographic sources confirm that camas was both

pit-cooked and stored in its raw form by up-river Halqem` eylem´ people (Gunther 1973:24; Washbrook 1995:14). Fraser Valley communities were intimately familiar with root tending, harvesting, and processing. Many types of root resources were cultivated in the ﬂat bottomlands of the Fraser Valley, such as the Agassiz and Chilliwack Prairies. Species of wild onion (Allium spp.), chocolate lily (Fritillaria lanceolata), and wild carrots were pit-cooked by these communities, and tiger lilies, wapato (Sagittaria latifolia), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), and sword fern (Polystichum munitum) rhizomes were roasted in ashes (Washbrook 1995:11–15). Roots were harvested with hardwood digging sticks called ska´lax (Washbrook 1995:11). The open meadows suited to growing lilies and related species were maintained through Aboriginal burning and other management practices (e.g., Lepofsky et al. 2003; Storm 2004). In addition to the historic population of blue and great camas in Chilliwack (Gould 1942:732; Scoggan 1978:495), ethnographic and ecological sources infer that camas could have been cultivated and/or processed along the Fraser River. Gunther’s (1973:24) sources observed local First Nations processing camas in ‘‘oven mounds’’ throughout the ‘‘Fraser River country.’’ Victor has suggested that camas may have been transplanted to the Fraser Valley alongside Garry oaks to mimic these ecosystems (Carrielynn Victor, personal communication, 2016). An isolated Garry oak population near Yale, in the Fraser Canyon, has been interpreted as anthropogenic in origin (Lepofsky and Lertzman 2008:136; cf. Ritland et al. 2005), though no camas was recorded in vicinity.

Archaeobotanical and Archaeological Evidence of Coastal Camas Production

Despite the abundance of documented root roasting sites and associated literature on the Interior Plateaus of British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and beyond (e.g., Carney 2016; Cheatham 1988; Kramer 2000; Lepofsky 2002, 2004; Lepofsky and Lyons 2013; Lepofsky and Peacock 2004; Nicolaides 2010; Peacock 1998, 2002, 2008; Prouty et al. 2004; Stenholm 1985, 2000; Thoms 1989, 2008, 2009), both direct and indirect archaeological evidence of coastal camas processing seems vastly under-representative of the original scale of historic production. Direct evidence—referring to the archaeobotanical remains of bulbs and other botanical parts (Lepofsky and Peacock 2004)—comes from seven archaeological sites in Washington State and two sites in British Columbia (Figure 2; Supplementary Table 1). Camas recovered from sites in coastal Washington State include eight bulbs in a pre-contact camp on the Chehalis River (Punke et al. 2009), a single bulb at the Bell Creek Fan site on the Olympic Peninsula (Morgan 1999), and many dozen bulbs (n . 40) in a dense cluster of rock ovens at the Chinook town of Cathlapotle (Ames et al. 1999; Stenholm 1996). On Whidbey Island, Washington, bulbs were found in processing features at the Ferry House (n ¼ 14; Weiser 2006) and 45-IS-91 (n ¼ 9; Boersema and Wolverton 2012) sites. An unspeciﬁed number of bulbs and/or tissues identiﬁed as camas came from the Oven Site on Lacamas Creek (Woodward

Figure 2. Northwest Coast sites with evidence of camas processing.

1997) and the Duwamish village site in Seattle (Stenholm 1987; URS 1987). In British Columbia, a single bulb was recovered from the base of a pit or hearth feature at a small-scale camp on eastern Vancouver Island (Baptiste and Wollstonecroft 1997), as well as over 50 whole bulbs and over a thousand fragments from the DhRl 78 village, reported here. No camas sites have been identiﬁed in coastal Oregon, despite being within range of four camas species5. All sites but DhRl 78 are located within historically documented growing areas of camas. Indirect evidence of coastal camas production—referring to the features, artifacts, and other accoutrements used in its harvesting, processing, storage, and consumption (Lepofsky and Peacock 2004)—is limited to ten sites from

Washington State and three from British Columbia (Figure 2; Supplementary Table 1). Approximately one-quarter of these sites are large residential occupations, including Cathlapotle, English Camp, and DhRl 78. Other sites are seasonal camps and/or camas processing sites (n ¼ 10). The overall number of features at each site is difﬁcult to determine based on the small size and shallow nature of the ovens (mean diameter is 1.25 m) and the tendency for them to be re-dug, overlapping, and interspersed with ash and refuse lenses (Table 1). At Cathlapotle, rock ovens are ‘‘ubiquitous’’ and were likely used for en masse processing of camas, wapato, and other plant foods (Ames et al. 1999; Stenholm 1996). At 45-SJ-70 on John Island, part of the San Juan Islands of Washington, four clusters totaling 20 features were documented (Jolivette and Taylor 2010) and many more were anecdotally reported throughout the San Juans and other islands off the coast of Washington State (see Boersema and Wolverton 2012; Wessen 1986). Grier has excavated similar oven-like features along the coastlines of several Gulf Islands of British Columbia, typically found beside or near villages (Colin Grier, personal communication, 2016). He suggests that camas processing features may also be found in the interior meadows of these islands, where little survey has been done. The only documented artifactual evidence of coastal camas harvesting is a digging stick handle carved with a bird head found in the midden at English Camp in the San Juan Islands of Washington, in proximity to a probable camas processing feature (Stein 2000:81).

Camas in an Ancient Sts’ailes Village

Through the mid- to late-Holocene, Halqem` eylem-speaking´ communities in the Fraser Valley built villages where they resided nearly year-round in large plank houses and semi-subterranean pithouses (Ritchie et al. 2016). Larger villages were centers of society, ritual, commerce, harvesting, and processing activities (Blake 2004; Lepofsky and Lyons 2003; Lepofsky et al. 2009; Lyons 2017; Schaepe 2009). Historically, village households managed local resources, accumulated wealth, and maintained close alliances through marriage and exchange with groups across large distances (Carlson 1996; Duff 1952; Hill-Tout 1904). DhRl 78 is an ancestral Sts’ailes village situated on the Harrison River at the eastern extent of Coast Salish territory, not far from the Interior Plateau of British Columbia (Figure 3). The village—which may have been called Shxwpop´ elem,´ after the adjacent slough—was occupied from at least 1200 cal yrs BP until contact with Euro-Canadians. Like historical Sts’ailes, ancient villagers would have actively paddled the sloughs and traversed the well-established trail systems of the region to harvest in various ecosystems, including rich wetland and edge species, dense coniferous forests, and high elevation parklands, but lacking the open prairies suitable for camas (cf. Lepofsky et al. 2005a). This site is located some 150 km, along conventional waterways, from the closest substantive camas populations on southeastern Vancouver Island and adjacent Gulf Islands

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 23 Apr 2020 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Simon Fraser University Terms ofUse: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Simon Fraser University Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 23 Apr 2020 354 Table 1. Archaeological and Archaeobotanical Correlates of Coastal Camas Production.

Archaeological components Archaeological correlates References

Site type(s) and Coastal camas processing grounds are usually located near camas prairies and Beckwith 2004:191–193; Thoms 2008 requirements sometimes near permanent villages. They are open air working areas that are dirty and messy and may have compact working surfaces Sites require ready supplies of suitable firewood and other fuels, rocks, Beckwith 2004:192; Weiser and vegetation, and fresh water. Lepofsky 2009 Feature type(s) and Processing sites are usually composed of multiple, loosely circular ovens that distributions are sometimes re-dug, overlapping, and interspersed with ash and refuse lenses.

Spent hot rocks (FCR) may be scattered outside features and throughout the Boersema and Wolverton 2012, 2014 RITCHIE and LYONS site in huge volumes. It is generally difficult to identify coastal earth ovens based on surface Millennia 1997; Weiser 2006 morphology, or to distinguish them from outdoor hearths due to the overlap in size and shape. Oven dimensions Coastal earth ovens tend to be small and shallow, ranging ~0.6–1.25 m in Suttles 1951a; Supplementary Table 1 diameter and ~0.6 m in depth, similar to ethnographic estimates. Oven components Heating elements are usually 1–2 courses thick, composed of cobbles and Ames et al. 1999; Millennia 2000 sometimes rock slabs. They are often burned, cracked, and oxidized. Heating elements usually line the basin of the feature and can also travel up the sides of the oven. Rims of coastal earth ovens are generally undeveloped. Matrices A charcoal lens is often found above the heating element, but can also be below, depending on re-use; it can be rich in organics (see sampling below) Sediment layers within the oven are black and sooty. Matrices usually show Thoms 2008 intensive burning and oxidation. Internal sediments are sometimes capped by insulating layers of sand, midden, Stein 2000

etc. 2 No. 37, Vol. The internal sediments of earth ovens used to cook fauna are greasy, but root Morgan 1999 processing sediments are not described this way. Matrices of ovens may be disturbed, reworked, and interspersed with ash Millennia 2000 dumps and refuse lenses. Terms ofUse: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Simon Fraser University Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 23 Apr 2020 2017

Table 1. Continued.

Archaeological components Archaeobotanical correlates and sample selection References

Bulbs Camas bulbs are rare in ovens (and other contexts), but may be caught in the vegetal layers, at the perimeter/sidewall of the feature where the heat is less intense, or in the charcoal layer above the heating element, and possibly the rim, if one is evident Other foods Other root foods (e.g., wild onion [Allium spp.], silverweed [Potentilla anserina]), Suttles 1951a; Washbrook 1995; Weiser berries (e.g., Saskatoon [Amelanchier alnifolia]), clams, deer or other game may 2006 ETHNOBIOLOGY OF JOURNAL be processed with camas to combine flavors Vegetative layers Vegetative layers do not commonly preserve. Internal sediments of ovens Nicolaides 2010 contain few remains associated with these layers, such as seeds Greens of blackberry (Rubus ursinus), salal (Gaultheria shallon), bracken and Turner and Kuhnlein 1983 sword ferns (Pteridium aquilinum, Polystichum munitum) are often used in vegetative layers of camas ovens Fuel(s) Ovens often contain high densities and large chunks of charcoal from fuel Carney 2016 woods. They may show radial cracking from being dried before burning. Different fuels may be chosen to create particular cooking conditions, such as Weiser 2006 greater volatility, longer or shorter burn rates, and greater or lesser heat output. Needles, twigs, and cones have greater combustibility and can create a smothering atmosphere. Archaeobotanical If possible and contexts are defined, sample all layers of the oven in 1–2 liter sampling increments: the black sooty central matrix where vegetal layers would have been laid; the charcoal layer above or below the element; and at least one the sidewall/fringes where the heat of the fire is less, traveling up to the rim, if one is evident. Radiocarbon Many ovens were used repeatedly for many generations and re-worked with Jolivette and Taylor 2010; Sandra sampling annual use. The most reliable dates are derived from the upper and lower Peacock, personal communication, layers of the rims, if present, as they often align most closely with span of 2017; Weiser and Lepofsky 2009 use. If rims are lacking, sample base and sides of oven. If possible, select short-lived species such as deciduous taxa, conifer twigs, or bulbs for dating. 355 356 LYONS and RITCHIE Vol. 37, No. 2

Figure 3. DhRl 78 (Shxwpop´ elem´ ) village and earth oven complex on the Harrison River, Upper Fraser Valley, British Columbia.

(Figure 1). During the salmon ﬁshery, Sts’ailes met Island Salish relations—such as the Cowichan, with whom they shared centuries-old relationships through intermarriage (Boas 1894:H-1)—and avidly gifted and exchanged raw and ﬁnished plant, animal, and lithic goods and resources from their respective regions. Camas was a particularly popular item (Turner and Loewen 1998). Historical Sts’ailes were also paid tribute by hunters, harvesters, and visitors traveling through their territory (Hill-Tout 1904; Ritchie 2010).

Archaeological Analysis Archaeological investigations were undertaken at DhRl 78 in 2015–16 to locate, map, and test archaeological features as part of a larger project to enhance salmon spawning habitat (Ritchie and Ritchie 2016). Along the river’s edge are the remains of several plank houses that collectively measure 120 meters in length. A cluster of seven pithouses are situated behind the plank houses, with four additional pithouses found singly, away from the main cluster (average diameter 8.5 m). The village is built on a thick base of fire-cracked rock (FCR, representing spent cooking rocks) midden, which served to raise these houses as much as one meter above the natural floodplain, allowing for year-round occupation and greater prominence and visibility. An outlying area of the village, on the west bank of the slough, features an earth oven complex consisting of four cultural depressions surrounded by large quantities of fire-cracked rock (Figure 3). These depressions are interpreted as earth oven features based on their stratigraphy, lack of artifacts, and floral and faunal contents. We excavated a 9.0 m by 0.5 m trench across the largest of these features (CD 1 [8.0 m diameter x 0.70 m deep]), allowing us to see an earth oven within (4.0 m diameter x 0.55 m deep; Figure 4). The oven was dug into a flat ground surface, suggesting that refuse from its repeated use resulted in the build- up around the perimeter. Excavation through upper silt and fire-cracked rock layers revealed large in situ cooking rocks extending across the oven, on top of a thick layer of charcoal. It was within the fuel layer underneath the cooking rocks (dating 520–450 cal yrs BP) that we recovered a large concentration of camas bulbs and fragments. Three other processing features surround CD 1, including CD 2 (5.4 3 4.9 m), CD 3 (4.3 3 3.6 m), and CD 4 (5.5 m diameter; Figure 3). Basal layers of thick charcoal and FCR in each of these features contained micro-fauna and all but CD 2 yielded modest camas remains. CD 2 shows evidence of multiple cooking events, while CD 3 contains a single layer of charcoal and FCR. The stratigraphy of CD 4 indicates it was used first as an earth oven and later for another purpose, possibly a temporary habitation. Combined, data from these ovens show ongoing use of this area between 2100 and 200 cal yrs BP, corresponding with occupation of the DhRl 78 village, and meaning that camas was potentially processed throughout the site’s 2000 year duration.

Archaeobotanical Analysis A variety of contexts from the DhRl 78 village were sampled for archaeobotanical remains, including hearths and charcoal lenses from a plank- house, two pithouses, and the four earth ovens. Forty-six liters of sediment from

Figure 4. Stratigraphic cross-section of camas processing oven CD 1.

23 samples at DhRl 78 were analyzed using standard palaeoethnobotanical procedures (Pearsall 2000), yielding 20 plant taxa from 14 families. Six food plants include red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), raspberry genus (Rubus spp.), gooseberry genus (Ribes spp.), Saskatoon (Amelanchier alnifolia), beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), and camas. The archaeobotanical assemblage suggests a number of plant use activities were occurring at this residential site, with the majority of plants being harvested within the surrounding slough system. Saskatoon was either being harvested from drier sites farther upstream or sought through interior exchange networks. Camas is also a non-local species that would have taken effort to acquire. Twenty-two liters of sediment from 11 samples were analyzed from feature CD 1, representing 100% of excavated material under the hot rocks. We found almost nothing but camas parts, fuelwood, and what appear to be matting layers in this feature. We tallied 53 complete bulbs, 362 partial bulbs, 1120 scales (i.e., ‘‘skins’’), and 42 shoots. The primary fuels are cottonwood (Populus spp.) and red cedar (Thuja plicata). Both horsetails (Equisetum spp.) and very small branchwood (2–3 mm diameter) are ubiquitous in the samples and may have been used as part of the matting between layers of bulbs. Whole bulbs are 1–2 cm in diameter, while some bulb fragments are nearly 4 cm in diameter (Figure 5). Having excavated about 10% of CD 1, and noting a relatively even distribution of remains, we estimate that there are likely several hundred intact bulbs and many thousands of camas fragments in the entire feature. Given the size of the feature, the quantity of camas that could be cooked in one session may be equivalent to or greater than the 500–700 kg cooked in mounded ovens in central Washington and Idaho (Thoms 1989:174–175). The bulbs are identiﬁed as camas based on their shape, size, and morphological features, including the pattern of scaling on the bulbs (Thoms 1989:133; Turner and Kuhnlein 1983:200). It is possible that both blue and great camas are represented in the assemblage. Traditionally, larger bulbs—in the range of 3–6 cm for C. quamash—were selected for harvest and the smaller ones left to grow (Turner and Kuhnlein 1983:211). Most of the whole bulbs from DhRl 78 are charred into tiny hard masses, comparable in size and description to those recovered archaeobotanically from other coastal sites (Baptiste and Wollstone- croft 1997:133; Stenholm 1996; Weiser 2006:75). These bulbs may have inadvertently been harvested small and processed, but we suspect that

Figure 5. Small camas bulbs from oven feature CD 1.

taphonomy is the greater culprit: Stenholm (1996) notes that as much as 40% of a bulb’s mass is lost in the steaming process and an additional 25% via charring. Larger bulbs from DhRl 78 are all fragmented, comprised of broken, twisted layers of scales with sections of caramelized tissue spouting many ﬁne steam vents. We posit that some of these larger bulbs may be rotten discards. While spent hot rocks were regularly cleaned out from the processing features, the charred cooking detritus was not. Three ovens clustering around CD 1 present a different scenario. Fourteen liters from seven samples were analyzed from these features, including two each from CD 2 and CD 3, and three from CD 4. CD 2 contains single Saskatoon and red elderberry seeds, hazelnut shell (n ¼ 3), and a greater abundance of (heavily abraded) raspberry genus (n ¼ 60.5; likely thimbleberry and/or salmonberry) seeds that were potentially being processed or added as ﬂavoring along with Rubus charcoal. CDs 3 and 4 contain moderate numbers of camas fragments (together n ¼ 15 partial bulbs, 38 scales, and 1 shoot), hazelnut shell (together n ¼ 3), and a single red elderberry seed in CD 4. Compared to the singular focus on camas in CD 1, these processing features have slightly greater diversity of edible foods, in addition to micro-fauna.

Discussion

The Source of Camas in an Ancient Sts’ailes Village The intriguing ﬁnd of camas bulbs in an ancestral Sts’ailes village on the Harrison River, in the upper Fraser Valley of British Columbia, raises questions about ancient production and exchange of this keystone resource. At the outset of this paper, we considered whether the source of the bulbs found at DhRl 78 was

via local production or exchange. In this discussion, we bring together ecological, ethnohistoric, archaeological, and genetic evidence to evaluate this question raised by the presence of camas well outside its modern and historical distributions. Within their rich mosaic of socioeconomic relations, we have established that DhRl 78 villagers could have obtained camas through myriad ways and means. Camas was historically exchanged with Fraser Valley communities from three directions—traded down-the-line from Kalispel and other communities of the Columbia drainage through Okanagan and Nlaka’pamux intermediaries; overland from the Skagit Valley and beyond; and upriver from southeastern Vancouver Island. Based on historical documentation, the vast majority of camas arrived via this latter route during the annual salmon fishery. The concentration of camas bulbs at DhRl 78 suggests that residents knew how to prepare camas and routinely acquired it in raw form in large quantities (cf. Gunther 1973:24). We posit that at least some of the camas found at DhRl 78 may have also come from the Fraser Valley. The isolated population of blue and great camas found near Chilliwack in 1901 (Gould 1942:732; Scoggan 1978:495), for instance, is within easy paddling distance (ca. 10 km) of the Upper Harrison River and would have been historically accessible to Sts’ailes people. While contemporary distributions of camas species show that DhRl 78 is some 150 km from the closest substantive populations on southeastern Vancouver Island and adjacent Gulf Islands (Figure 1), palaeoecological records indicate that Garry oak woodlands colonized the Fraser Delta in the early Holocene (Pellatt et al. 2001). Camas pollen, however, has not been identified as far upstream as the mid-Fraser Valley, 100 km away. Nevertheless, it is possible that the historical voucher specimens from Chilliwack might either be glacial refugia or remnant populations of anthropogenically transplanted camas (cf. Turner and Kuhnlein 1983:211). In either case, the DhRl 78 camas would be locally sourced. The presence of this historical population of camas in the central Fraser Valley confirms that, at certain times and places, camas could be cultivated by local communities, who had both opportunity and knowledge. Such camas populations may have required consistent management and likely fared better at certain periods than others, depending on prevailing climatic conditions. Lepofsky and colleagues (2005b:279) have proposed that Fraser Valley prairies expanded and offered better habitat for camas during a relatively warm period 2500–1500 cal yrs BP. It is during this time that we first see evidence for camas at DhRl 78. A recent genetic study of blue camas on the Northwest Coast has also contributed to the question of natural versus anthropogenic transport. The DNA analysis, conducted on specimens from modern populations on Vancouver Island and the Puget Sound (but not the British Columbia mainland), found that even with ample ethnohistoric evidence for anthropogenic movement of camas across the region, the ‘‘genetic structure of C. quamash does not show any detectable signatures of transport by indigenous peoples and is better understood as the result of natural dispersal processes’’ (Tomimatsu et al. 2009:3918). One drawback of this study is that the spatial extent of its sampling population is likely greatly reduced from pre-contact populations as a result of the impacts of development,

agriculture, livestock, and industrial processes (Beckwith 2004:59–62; Suttles 1951a:59, 1951b). Despite best efforts, the authors may not have been able to sample from a transplanted population, due to the combined absence of continued First Nations management and the failure of such populations to survive post-contact impacts (cf. Storm 2004; Turner 2014:252–253).

Research Directions

Whatever its original source(s), camas recovered from the DhRl 78 village demonstrates production of this keystone resource in the Upper Fraser Valley close to 2000 years before European contact and infers the exchange of a wide scope of related practices, ideas, and knowledge between ancient communities. Moving forward, more genetic work with larger sampling populations—from modern, historic, and archaeobotanical sources—is necessary to test the transplant hypothesis, including samples from the British Columbia mainland and Fraser Valley. From an archaeological perspective, the data and expectations developed here will aid in the recognition, documentation, and analysis of camas-bearing ovens (Table 1; Supplementary Table 1), which are the only contexts that directly and unequivocally demonstrate human production of ancient camas. Future inquiries may compare the well-documented earth oven complexes on the Interior Plateau(s) with the emerging coastal data, their respective distributions across the landscape, and proximity to villages; investigate patterns of construction and re-use, choice and preference of fuels and matting, and the relative diversity of floral and faunal taxa processed; and consider what these findings tell us about site formation, ancient cultural and ecological practices, and the general and specific relationships between ancestral Indigenous communities and edible plant resources. From an ethnoecological perspective, investigators will continue to refine models for detecting and assessing anthropogenic range extension that resulted from the production, exchange, and transplant of keystone species by ancient peoples and the knowledge these processes entailed. These different lines of inquiry are of deep interest to many contemporary communities of practice, but, most particularly, to Indigenous descent communities who are actively researching and re-creating ancient practices of land tenure, resource management and ownership, healing and identity, interregional alliances, gender roles, ceremonial foods, and traditional cooking techniques (e.g., Matthew 2016; Schaepe et al. 2017; Turner 2014).

Notes

1 Following Thoms (2008:445), we use the term ‘‘earth oven’’ to describe features used for cooking and processing geophytes that use hot rock cookery, including a stone heating element and a closed pit or mound.

2 The Sts’ailes are a contemporary First Nations community of the Upper Fraser River Valley, socially afﬁliated with adjacent Sto:l´ o¯ groups on the Fraser River, and part of the Coast Salish peoples of the Northwest Coast. They are known in historical literature as Chehalis, but are not to be confused with another Coast Salish community, also known as Chehalis, who reside along the Chehalis River in western Washington State.

3 Members of several language communities are represented in this paper. Central Coast Salish peoples speak three dialects, two of which are referred to in text, Halqem` eylem´ and Hu`lqum` ´ınu` m` (Suttles 1990). Halqem` eylem-speaking´ communities mentioned include the Sts’ailes, Chilliwack (Tselxweyeqw), Sto:l´ o¯ of the Fraser Valley, and the Nooksack of northwestern Washington. The primary Hu`lqum` ´ınu` m-speaking` community mentioned is the Cowichan of southeastern Vancouver Island. The Northern Straits Salish speak a series of dialects and include the Songhees, Saanich, Sooke, and Clallam of Vancouver Island, the Semiahmoo of Boundary Bay, and the Lummi and Samish of coastal Washington State (Suttles 1951a, 2005). Straits and Coast Salish communities of Vancouver Island are sometimes referred to here as Island Salish. The Interior Salish language family is spread over a vast segment of the Interior Plateaus of British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and beyond. The primary groups discussed here are the Kalispel and Nuwaha (Upper Skagit) of the Columbia Plateau of Washington State (also referred to as the Southern Plateau) and the Nlaka’pamux and Okanagan of the Northern or Canadian Plateau (Kinkade et al. 1998). Chinook communities reside from the mouth of the Columbia up to the Dalles and speak a Wakashan dialect derived from upriver (Ray 1938:38). Their neighbors, including the Washington Chehalis, are Salish speakers.

4 Ray (1938:100) suggested that the opposite pattern held on the Columbia River drainage, where camas was largely produced ‘‘upstream’’ and traded to communities at the mouth of the river.

5 The lack of identiﬁed camas processing sites in coastal Oregon likely relates to lack of direct investigation in combination with post-depositional disturbance as opposed to lack of sites (Ann Trieu Gahr, personal communication, 2016; Guy Tasa, personal communication, 2016).

Acknowledgments

We graciously thank many people for their varied insights and contributions to this project: Nancy Turner, Dana Lepofsky, Chelsey Armstrong, Harriet Kuhnlein, Carrielynn Victor, Dave Schaepe, Tia Halstad, Molly Carney, Jade d’Alpoim Guedes, Ken Ames, Colin Grier, Julie Stein, Amanda Taylor, Stephanie Jolivette, Stephenie Kramer, Joyce Lecompte- Mastenbrook, Jim Chatters, Guy Tasa, Ann Trieu Gahr, Laura Phillips, Brian Klinkenberg, Linda Jennings, John Welch, Kisha Supernant, and the late great Wayne Suttles. A very special thanks to Bill Angelbeck and Ian Cameron for their help tracking down site forms and grey literature. We thank Sts’ailes leadership and Elders for their support and encouragement and community members for their help mapping and excavating DhRl 78: Burt Charlie, Michael Peters, Patrick Point, and Freddy Paul Jr. We thank Jerram Ritchie, Walter Homewood, Adrian Myers, and Nick Waber for assistance mapping and excavating at DhRl-78 and Jerram Ritchie, Allison Hunt, Susan Matson, Louise Williams, Chelsey Armstrong, and Alex McAlvay for their help with data and ﬁgures. We sincerely thank Alston Thoms and two additional reviewers for their careful commentary on the original manuscript and Sandy Peacock for her input into the ﬁnal interpretations.

References Cited

Ames, K., C. Smith, W. Cornett, E. Sobel, S. Food in California. Journal of Ethnobiology Hamilton, J. Wolf, and D. Raetz. 1999. Archae- 17:149–169. ological Investigations at 45CL1 Cathlapotle Baptiste, G., and M. Wollstonecroft. 1997. Plant (1991-1996), Ridgeﬁeld National Wildlife Ref- Remains. In Vancouver Island Highway uge Clark County, Washington: A Preliminary Project, Victoria Approaches Archaeological Report. Report on ﬁle with U.S. Fish and Data Recovery DcRu-92, Volume I, pp. 129– Wildlife Service, Portland. 139. Report prepared by Millennia Research Anderson, M. K. 1997. From Tillage to Table: The for British Columbia Ministry of Transporta- Indigenous Cultivation of Geophytes for tion and Highways, Victoria, BC.

Beckwith, B. 2004. ‘‘The Queen Root of This De Smet, P-J. 1847. De Smet’s Oregon Missions and Clime’’: Ethnoecological Investigations of Travels Over the Rocky Mountains, 1845-1846. Blue Camas (Camassia leichtlinii (Baker) Wats., Travels in America, Volume 102. Applewood C. quamash (Pursh) Greene; Liliaceae) and its Books, Carlisle, MA. Landscapes on Southern Vancouver Island, Deur, D. 1999. Salmon, Sedentism, and Cultiva- British Columbia. Unpublished Doctoral Dis- tion: Towards an Environmental Prehistory of sertation, Department of Biology, University the Northwest Coast. In Northwest Lands, of Victoria, Victoria, BC. Northwest Peoples: An Environmental History Black, S. L., and A. V. Thoms. 2014. Hunter- Anthology, edited by D. Goble and P. Hirt, pp. Gatherer Earth Ovens in the Archaeological 119–144. University of Washington Press, Record: Fundamental Concepts. American Seattle, WA. Antiquity 79:203–226. Deur, D., and N. Turner, eds. 2005. Keeping it Blake, M. 2004. Fraser Valley Trade and Prestige Living: Traditions of Plant Use and Cultivation as Seen from Scowlitz. In Complex Hunter- on the Northwest Coast of North America. Gatherers: Evolution and Organization of Prehis- University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. toric Communities on the Plateau of Northwest- Douglas, G. W., D. V. Meidinger, and J. Pojar, ern North America, edited by W. Prentiss and I. eds. 1999. Illustrated Flora of British Columbia. Kuijt, pp. 103–112. The University of Utah Volume 3: Dicotyledons (Diapensiaceae Through Press, Salt Lake City. Onagraceae). B.C. Ministry of Environment, Boas, F. 1894. Indian Tribes of the Lower Fraser Lands & Parks and B.C. Ministry of Forests, River. In Ninth Report – 1894 On the North- Victoria, BC. Western Tribes of Canada, edited by E. B. Duff, W. 1952. The Upper Stalo Indians of the Fraser Valley, British Columbia. Anthropology Taylor, G. H. Bloxam, G. M. Dawson, R. G. in British Columbia, Memoirs No. 1. British Haliburton, and H. Hale, pp. 1–11. The Columbia Provincial Museum Department of British Association for the Advancement of Education, Victoria, BC. Science, London, UK. Galloway, B. 2009. Dictionary of Upriver Halko- Boersema, J., and M. Wolverton. 2012. Construc- melem, vol. 1. University of California Press, tion Monitoring and Data Recovery of a Berkeley, CA. Camas Oven on the Seavecki-Rao Property, Garibaldi, A., and N. Turner. 2004. Cultural Oak Harbor, Washington. Cascadia Archae- Keystone Species: Implications for Ecolog- ology Report on ﬁle with DAHP, Olympia, ical Conservation and Restoration. Ecology WA. and Society 9:1. [online] URL: http://www. Boersema, J., and M. Wolverton. 2014. Archae- ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art1/. ological Monitoring at 45IS91 for Bunkhouse Accessed on June 15, 2016. Construction at 4749 Surfcrest Drive, Oak Gill, K. 2014. Seasons of Change: Using Seasonal Harbor, Island County, Washington. Cascadia Morphological Changes in Brodiea Corms to Archaeology for Island County Planning and Determine Season of Harvest from Archae- Community Development Department and obotanical Remains. American Antiquity Yonkman Construction, Oak Harbor, WA. 79:638–654. Carlson, K. 1996. Sto:l´ o¯ Exchange Dynamics. Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). Native Studies Review 11:5–48. GBIF Backbone Taxonomy for Camassia [web Carney, M. 2016. Paleoethnobotanical and Geo- page]. URL: GBIF.org. Accessed January 23, archaeological Analyses at the Flying Goose 2017. Site, 45PO435. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Gould, F. M. 1942. A Systematic Treatment of the Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Genus Camassia Lindl. American Midland Cheatham, R. D. 1988. Late Archaic Settlement Naturalist 28:712–742. Pattern in the Long Tom Sub-Basin, Upper Gunther, E. 1973. Ethnobotany of Western Wash- Willamette Valley, Oregon. University of ington: The Knowledge and Use of Indigenous Oregon Anthropological Papers 39, Universi- Plants by Native Americans. University of ty of Oregon, Eugene, OR. Washington Press, Seattle, WA. Cuerrier, A., N. J. Turner, T. C. Gomes, A. Hill-Tout, C. 1904. Ethnological Report of the Garibaldi, and A. Downing. 2015. Cultural StsEelis and Sk.aulits Tribes of the Halkome- Keystone Places: Conservation and Restora- lem Division of the Salish of British Colum- tion in Cultural Landscapes. Journal of Ethno- bia. Journal of the Royal Anthropological biology 35:427–448. Institute XXXIV:311–376.

Hoffmann, T., N. Lyons, D. Miller, A. Diaz, A. on the Northwest Coast, edited by D. Deur and Homan, S. Huddlestan, and R. Leon. 2016. N. J. Turner, pp. 218–239. University of Engineered Feature used to Enhance Garden- Washington Press, Seattle, WA. ing at a 3800-Year-Old Site on the Pacific Lepofsky, D., K. Lertzman, D. Hallett, and R. Northwest Coast. Science Advances Mathewes. 2005b. Climate Change and Cul- 2:e1601282. [online] URL: http://advances. ture Change on the Southern Coast of British sciencemag.org/content/2/12/e1601282. Ac- Columbia 2400-1200 Cal. B.P.: An Hypothesis. cessed on December 22, 2016. American Antiquity 70:267–293. Jolivette, S., and A. Taylor. 2010. Contact Period Lepofsky, D., and K. Lertzman. 2008. Docu- Earth Ovens in the San Juan Islands, Wash- menting Ancient Plant Management in the ington. The Midden 42:14–18. Northwest of North America. Botany 86:129– King, S. 1991. Camas Field Site (45-CL-410), 145. State of Washington Archaeological Site Lepofsky, D., and N. Lyons. 2003. Modeling Inventory Form. On file at the Washington Ancient Plant Use on the Northwest Coast: State Office of Archaeology and Historic Towards an Understanding of Mobility and Preservation, Olympia, WA. Sedentism. Journal of Archaeological Science Kinkade, D., W. Elmendorf, B. Rigsby, and H. 30:1357–1371. Aoki. 1998. Languages. In Handbook of North Lepofsky, D., and N. Lyons. 2013. The Secret American Indians, vol. 12, Plateau, edited by D. Past Life of Plants: Palaeoethnobotany in E. Walker, pp. 49–72. Smithsonian Institution, British Columbia. BC Studies 179:39–83. Washington, D.C. Lepofsky, D., and S. Peacock. 2004. A Question Klinkenberg, B., ed. 2017. E-Flora BC: Electronic of Intensity: Exploring the Role of Plant Atlas of the Flora of British Columbia [eflora. Foods in Northern Plateau Prehistory. In bc.ca]. Lab for Advanced Spatial Analysis, Complex Hunter-Gatherers Evolution and Orga- Department of Geography, University of nization of Prehistoric Communities on the British Columbia, Vancouver. Accessed Janu- Plateau of Northwestern North America, edited ary 24, 2017. by W. Prentiss and I. Kuijt, pp. 115–139. The Kramer, S. 2000. Camas Bulbs, the Kalapuya, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT. and Gender: Exploring Evidence of Plant Lepofsky, D., D. Schaepe, A. Graesch, M. Lenert, Food Intensification in the Willamette Valley P. Ormerod, K. Carlson, J. Arnold, M. Blake, of Oregon. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, P. Moore, and J. Clague. 2009. Exploring University of Oregon, Eugene, OR. Sto:l´ o-Coast¯ Salish Interaction and Identity in Lepofsky, D. 2002. Plants and Pithouses: Archae- Ancient Houses and Settlements in the Fraser obotany and Site Formation Processes at the Valley, British Columbia. American Antiquity Keatley Creek Village Site. In Hunter-Gatherer 74:595–626. Archaeobotany Perspectives from the Northern Lyons, N. 2017. Plant Production Practices Temperate Zone, edited by L. Mason and J. among Ancient First Nations of the Lower Hather, pp. 62–73. Antony Rowe Limited, Fraser River Region. In Archaeology of the Chippenham, Wiltshire. LowerFraserRiverRegion,editedbyM. Lepofsky, D. 2004. The Northwest. In People and Rousseau and R. Carlson. Archaeology Press, Plants in Ancient North America, edited by P. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, in Minnis, pp. 367–464. Smithsonian Institution press. Press, Washington, D.C. MacLachlan, M., ed. 1998. The Fort Langley Lepofsky, D., E. Heyerdahl, K. Lertzman, D. Journals, 1827-30. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. Schaepe, and B. Mierendorf. 2003. Climate, Matthew, W. 2016. The Relationship between Humans, and Fire in the History of Chitten- Plants and People: An Ethnobotanical Study den Meadow. Conservation Ecology 7:5. [on- in Partnership with the Muckleshoot Tribe. line] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol7/ Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Department of iss3/art5. Accessed on September 21, 2016. Anthropology, University of Idaho, ID. Lepofsky,D.,D.Hallett,K.Lertzman,R. Millennia Research. 1997. Vancouver Island Mathewes, A. McHalsie, and K. Washbrook. Highway Project, Victoria Approaches Ar- 2005a. Documenting Precontact Plant Man- chaeological Data Recovery DcRu-92, vol. 1. agement on the Northwest Coast: An Exam- Report prepared for Ministry of Transporta- ple of Prescribed Burning in the Central and tion and Highways, Victoria, BC. Upper Fraser Valley, British Columbia. In Millennia Research. 2000. Eagles Nest Estate Keeping it Living: Indigenous Plant Management Archaeological Data Recovery DcRt-71. Re-

port prepared by Millennia Research Ltd. for and Damage Assessment at Site 45LE611, K. Ujimoto, International Technology Integra- Centralia Washington. Archaeological Inves- tion Inc., and Songhees First Nation, Victoria, tigations Northwest Inc, Portland, OR. BC. Ray, V. 1938. Lower Chinook Ethnographic Notes. Morgan, V., ed. 1999. The SR-101 Sequim Bypass University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Archaeological Project: Mid to Late Holocene Ritchie, M. 2010. From Watershed to House: The Occupations on the Northern Olympic Pen- Cultural Landscapes of the Sts’ailes People. insula, Clallam County, Washington, vol. 1. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Eastern Washington University Reports in Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Bur- Archaeology and History 100-108, Archaeo- naby, BC. logical and Historical Services, Cheney, WA. Ritchie, M., D. Lepofsky, S. Formosa, M. Porcic, Nicolaides, M. 2010. The Proof is in the Pits: A and K. Edinborough. 2016. Beyond Culture Paleoethnobotanical Analysis of Earth Ovens History: Coast Salish Settlement Patterning from the White Rock Springs Site (EeRj 226), and Demography in the Fraser Valley, B.C. an Ancient Root Processing Locale on the Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 43:140– Canadian Plateau. Unpublished Master’s 154. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Univer- Ritchie, M., and J. Ritchie. 2016. Jimmy Charlie sity of British Columbia-Okanagan, Kelowna, Slough Habitat Enhancement Archaeological BC. Assessment. On ﬁle with Sts’ailes First Norton,H.1979.TheAssociationbetween Nation, Agassiz, BC. Anthropogenic Prairies and Important Food Ritland, K., L. D. Meagher, D. G. W. Edwards, Y. Plants in Western Washington. Northwest A. El-Kassaby. 2005. Isozyme Variation and Anthropological Research Notes 13:175–200. the Conservation Genetics of Garry Oak. Peacock, S. 1998. Putting Down Roots: The Canadian Journal of Botany 83:1478–1487. Emergence of Wild Plant Food Production Schaepe, D. 2009. Pre-Colonial Sto:l´ o-Coast¯ Salish on the Canadian Plateau. Unpublished Doc- Community Organization: An Archaeological toral Dissertation, University of Victoria, Study. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Victoria, BC. Department of Anthropology, University of Peacock, S. 2002. Evidence for Prehistoric Root British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Resource Processing on the Canadian Pla- Schaepe, D., B. Angelbeck, D. Snook, and J. R. teau. In Hunter-Gatherer Archaeobotany, edited Welch. 2017. Archaeology as Therapy: Con- by L. Mason and J. Hather, pp. 44–61. Antony necting Belongings, Knowledge, Time, Place Rowe Limited, Chippenham, Wiltshire. and Well-being. Current Anthropology,in Peacock, S. 2008. From Complex to Simple: press. Available from dave.schaepe@ Balsamroot, Inulin, and the Chemistry of stolonation.bc.ca. Traditional Interior Salish Pitcooking Tech- Scoggan, H. J. 1978. The Flora of Canada, Part 2 - nology. Botany 86:116–128. Pteridophyta, Gymnospennae, Monocotyledoneae. Pearsall, D. 2000. Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of National Museum of Natural Sciences Publi- Procedures,2nd edition. Academic Press, Lon- cations in Botany No. 72. National Museums don. of Canada, Ottawa, ON. Pellatt, M., R. Hebda, and R. Mathewes. 2001. Smith, M. 1950. The Nooksack, the Chilliwack, High Resolution Holocene Vegetation and and the Middle Fraser. Paciﬁc Northwest Climate from Core 1034B, ODP Leg 169S, Quarterly 41:330–341. Saanich Inlet, Canada. Marine Geology Stein, J. 2000. Exploring Coast Salish Prehistory: 174:211–222. Archaeology of San Juan Island. University of Prouty, G. L, B. L. O’Neill, and T. J. Connolly. Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 2004. Aboriginal Plant Use at Chalker and Stenholm, N. 1985. Botanical Assemblage. In Long Tom Sites. In A Holocene Geoarchaeolog- Summary of Results, Chief Joseph Dam Cultural ical Record for the Upper Willamette Valley, Resources Project, Washington, edited by S. Oregon: The Long Tom and Chalker Sites, edited Campbell, pp. 421–453. University of Wash- by B. L. O’Neill, T. J. Connolly, and D. E. ington, Seattle, WA. Freidel, pp. 211–220. University of Oregon Stenholm, N. 1987. Botanical Analysis. In The Anthropological Papers 61, University of Duwamish No. 1 Site. 1986 Data Recovery, Oregon, Eugene, OR. pp. 13.1–13.31. Report prepared for the Punke, M., A. Foutch, A. Blaser, J. Fagan, and J. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. URS Reese. 2009. Archaeological Investigations and BOAS, Seattle, WA.

Stenholm, N. 1996. Botanical Analysis of Floral ica. Journal of Archaeological Science 31:213– Samples. In Archaeological Investigations 232. (1991-1995) at 45CL1 (Cathlapotle): Clark Tomimatsu, H., S. R. Kephart, and M. Vellend. Country Washington: A Preliminary Report, 2009. Phylogeography of Camassia quamash in byK.Ames,W.L.Cornett,andS.C. Western North America: Postglacial Coloni- Hamilton, Appendix B. Wapato Archaeology zation and Transport by Indigenous Peoples. Project Report 6. Department of Anthropolo- Molecular Ecology 18:3918–3928. gy, Portland State University, Portland, OR. Turner, N. 1999. ‘‘Time to Burn’’: Traditional Use Stenholm, N. 2000. Botanical Analysis for the of Fire to Enhance Resource Production by Calispell Valley Archaeological Project. In The Aboriginal Peoples in British Columbia. In Calispell Valley Archaeological Project Final Indians, Fire and the Land in the Pacific Report: 4. Artifact Analysis,editedbyW. Northwest, edited by R. Boyd, pp. 185–218. Andrefsky, G. Burtchard, K. Presler, S. Sam- Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. uels, P. Sanders, and A. Thoms, pp. 14.1– Turner, N. 2014. Ancient Pathways, Ancestral 14.66. Center for Northwest Anthropology, Knowledge: Ethnobotany and Ecological Wisdom Washington State University, Pullman, WA. of Indigenous Peoples of Northwestern North Stern, B. 1934. The Lummi Indians of Northwest America, vol. 1. McGill-Queen’s University Washington. Columbia University Press, New Press, Montreal, QC and Kingston, ON. York, NY. Turner, N., and H. Kuhnlein. 1983. Camas Storm, L. 2004. Prairie Fires & Earth Mounds: (Camassia spp.) and riceroot (Fritillaria spp.): The Ethnoecology of Upper Chehalis Prairies. Two Liliaceous ‘‘Root’’ Foods of the North- Douglasia 28:6–9. west Coast Indians. Ecology of Food and Suttles, W. 1951a. Economic Life of the Coast Nutrition 13:199–219. Salish of Haro and Rosario Straits. Unpub- Turner, N., and D. Loewen. 1998. The Original lished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of ‘‘Free Trade’’: Exchange of Botanical Products Anthropology, University of Washington, and Associated Plant Knowledge in North- Seattle, WA. western North America. Anthropologica Suttles, W. 1951b. The Early Diffusion of the XL:49–70. Potato among the Coast Salish. Southwestern Turner, N., and S. Peacock. 2005. Solving the Journal of Anthropology 7:272–288. Perennial Paradox: Ethnobotanical Evidence Suttles, W. 1955. Katzie Ethnographic Notes. for Plant Resource Management on the North- Anthropology in British Columbia. Memoir 2. west Coast. In Keeping it Living: Traditions of British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victo- Plant Use and Cultivation on the Northwest Coast ria, BC. of North America,editedbyD.DeurandN. Suttles, W. 1990. Central Coast Salish. In Turner, pp. 101–150. University of Washington Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. Press and UBC Press, Seattle and Vancouver. 453–475. Handbook of North American Indi- Turner, N., L. Thompson, T. Thompson, and A. ans, vol. 7, edited by W. C. Sturtevant. York. 1990. Thompson Ethnobotany: Knowledge Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. and Use of Plants by the Thompson Indians of Suttles, W. 2005. Coast Salish Resource Manage- British Columbia. Memoir No. 3. Royal British ment: Incipient Agriculture? In Keeping it Columbia Museum, Victoria, BC. Living: Indigenous Plant Management on the URS. 1987. The Duwamish No. 1 Site. 1986 Data Northwest Coast, edited by D. Deur and N. J. Recovery. Report prepared for the Munici- Turner, pp. 181–193. University of Washing- pality of Metropolitan Seattle. URS and ton Press, Seattle, WA. BOAS, Seattle, WA. Thoms, A. 1989. The Northern Roots of Hunter- Wandsnider, L. 1997. The Roasted and the Boiled: Gatherer Intensification: Camas and the Pacific Food Composition and Heat Treatment with Northwest. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Special Emphasis on Pit-hearth Cooking. Jour- Washington State University, Seattle, WA. nal of Anthropological Archaeology 16:1–48. Thoms, A. 2008. The Fire Stones Carry: Ethno- Washbrook, K. 1995. An Introduction to the graphic Records and Archaeological Expec- Ethnobotany of the Sto:l´ o¯ People in the Area tations for Hot-rock Cookery in Western between New Westminster and Chilliwack North America. Journal of Anthropological on the Fraser River. Unpublished Report, Archaeology 27:443–460. Sto:l´ o¯ Nation Archives, Chilliwack, BC. Thoms, A. 2009. Rocks of Ages: Propagation of Weiser, A. 2006. Exploring 10,000 Years of Hot-Rock Cookery in Western North Amer- Human History on Ebey’s Prairie, Whidbey

Island, Washington. Unpublished Master’s Wessen, G. 1986. Site Report for 45-SJ-69, Johns Thesis, Department of Archaeology, Simon Island, San Juan Islands. Report on ﬁle at the Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA. Weiser, A., and D. Lepofsky. 2009. Ancient Land Woodward, J. 1997. The Oven Site and Terrace Use and Management of Ebey’s Prairie, Site at Oven Meadows Project. Prepared by Whidbey Island, Washington. Journal of Eth- Woodward and Associates for Vanport Man- nobiology 29:161–166. ufacturing Co., Camas, WA.

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 23 Apr 2020 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Simon Fraser University