Boundary Forest District Archaeological Overview Assessment IAOA) Was Initiated at the Request of the Ministry of Forests in Late February, 1997
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Boundary Forest District Archaeological Overview Assessment Phase 3 Report (1997) l=lt~~ PFIlf &i%-Lh h/I) k- K k-k? 70 n r3uw Prepared for: Boundary Forest District Box 2650,136 Sagamore Avenue, Grand Forks, BC VOH 1 HO Contract File: 12015-30 / PL97DBO-03 Prepared by: Martin J. Handly (MA, BCAPCA) Robert J. Lackowicz (MA) Kutenai West Herita e Consultin Ltd. 653 Hendry Street,f. rail, BC, Vlw 314 Kutenai West Heritage Consulting Ltd. is solely responsible for any errors and/or omissions in this report. This report has been prepared and presented without prejudice to issues of aboriginal rights or title and does not attempt to define or limit title and/or rights of any aboriginal community within the study area. BFD-AOA Phase 3 Final Report (1997) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Kutenai West Heritage Consulting Ltd. (KWHC) would like to thank the Boundary Forest District for re- taining us to conduct this study. Ms. Trina lnnes managed the project on behalf of the Boundary Forest Dis- trict, and provided us with maps, information, and additional aid. Mr. Frank Wilmer acted as aboriginal liai- son for the study with local aboriginal communities. Mr. David Pritchard of Timberland Consultants Ltd. (Nelson, BC) was responsible for translating the criteria we developed into the GIS-based (PAMAP) archaeo- logical site potential maps, while Ms. Valerie Johnson managed the project on behalf of Timberland Consult- ants. We thank them for their efforts, suggestions, and attention to detail. This archaeological overview as- sessment study was conducted under Ministry of Forests contract file 12015-30 / PL97DBO-03. Martin Handly and Robert Lackowicz oversaw this project, and co-authored the sections on archaeol- ogy, past and present environment, and complementary datasets, as well as acting as report editors. As the Boundary Forest District overlaps with adjacent regions with respect to background data for palaeoenviron- merit and archaeological constructs, portions of those discussions are drawn from previous research by KWHC for these areas (i.e., Handly et al. 1996; Lackowicz et al. 1996), as well as from the earlier report for this study (Handly and Lackowicz 1997). Ms. Kellie Seguin contributed the historical research section of this report as well as conducting the air-photo interpretation (i.e., orthographic) analysis and discussion. Field-testing of the preliminary archaeological potential maps was conducted by Martin Handly, Tracy Johnson, Adam Christian (Spallumcheen Indian Band), Steven Isaac (Okanagan Indian Band), Roxanne Lin- dley (Westbank First Nation), and Robert Watt (Sinixt-Arrow Lakes First Nation). Sincere thanks are ex- tended to Adam, Robert, Roxanne, Steve and Tracy for their good humour and hard work through hot weather and dusty roads. HERITAQE RESOURCE CENTRE MINISTRY OF SMALL BUSINESS TOURISM AND CULTURE 101 - 800 JOHNSON STREET BOX 9021, STN PROV t3OVT VICTORIA, SC VBW 9W3 Kutenai West Heritage Consulting Ltd. BFD-AOA Phase3 Final Report(1997) TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements I Table of Contents ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1 .l Objectives and Methods 1 2.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND, BFD 4 2.1 Previous Archaeological Investigations in EFD 4 2.2 Analysis of Previous Archaeological Studies, BFD 10 2.3 Known Archaeological Site Types, BFD 14 2.4 Known Archaeological Site Types, Kettle Valley, Washington State 15 2.5 Regional Archaeological Constructs and Past Environments, BFD 16 2.5.1 Postglacial Environment, Geomorphology, and Fluted Points (ca. 13,000 - 10,500 BP) 17 2.5.2 Xerothermic Environment and the Early Period Ica. 10,500 to 7,000 BP) 19 2.5.3 Mesothermic Environment and the Middle Period (7,000 to 4,500/3,500 BP) 20 2.5.4 Modern Environment and the Late Period 14,500/3,500 to 200 BP) 21 2.6 Previous Attempts at Archaeological Risk Indices - BFD 24 3.0 ETHNOCRAPHY 27 3.1 Aboriginal Community Consultation 27 3.2 Ethnographic Patterns of Adaptation 27 3.3 Local Historical Ethnographic Accounts 29 3.4 Inferred Archaeological Site Locations, BFD 32 4.0 PROFESSIONAL CONSULTATION 38 5.0 INFORMATION GAP ANALYSIS (ICA) SUMMARY 39 5.1 Objectives 39 5.2 Summary of Limitations, BFD 39 5.2.1 Archaeology 39 5.2.2 Past and Present Environment 39 5.2.3 Ethnographic and Historic Data 39 6.0 PREDICTIVE MODEL CRITERIA, BFD-AOA 40 6.1 Background 40 6.2 High Potential Criteria 41 6.2.1 Known Archaeological Sites 41 6.2.2 Named River and Lake Margins 41 6.2.3 Claciofluvial and/or Glaciolacustrine Deposits 42 6.2.4 Subalpine/Alpine Parkland, Meadow, and Marsh Margins 42 6.2.5 Old Growth Forests 43 6.2.6 Historic Trails (i.e., Non-Recreational) 43 6.3 Medium Potential Criteria 43 6.3.1 Continuous Streams 43 6.3.2 Non-Alpine Meadows, Marshes, and Unnamed Lakes 44 6.3.3 Bedrock Geology 44 6.3.4 Vertical Bedrock Exposures 44 6.3.5 Talus Slopes 45 6.3.6 Passes/Saddles 45 6.4 Predictor Variables Not Adopted in Study 45 6.5 Evaluation of Field-Testing in Comparison to Predictive Model 45 6.6 Recommendations for BFD-AOA Archaeological Potential Maps 48 7.0 REFERENCES CITED 49 8.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS 58 ii Kutenai West Heritage Consulting Ltd. BFD-AOA Phase 3 Final Repoti (1997) LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Archaeological Coverage within the BFD, ICA Analysis 11 Table 2.2: ICA Consukation and Background Research - Previous Archaeology 12 Table 2.3: IGA Methodology and Results - Previous Archaeology 13 Table 2.4: Known Archaeological Site Types, BFD 14 Table 2.5: Known Site Type Distribution by Landform, BFD 14 Table 2.6: Recorded Archaeological Sites by Latitude, BFD 14 Table 2.7: Biogeoclimatic Zonation, Intensive Archaeological Survey Area, and Archaeological Site ~ 15 Table 2.8: Elevation Range and Intensive Archaeological Survey Area, RFD 15 Table 2.9: Known Site Types, Kettle Valley Drainage, Washington State 16 Table 2.10: Known Site Type Distribution by Landform, Kettle Valley Drainage, Washington State 16 Table 2.11: Biogeoclimatic Zone Characteristics 22 Table 2.10: Archaeological Potential Definitions, Bussey (1993:3,6) 2s Table 2.11: Archaeological Potential Definitions, Choquette (1993b:35403 26 Table 2.12: Archaeological Potential Definitions, Handly and Zibauer (1996133 26 Table 3.1: Inferred Physiographic Zonation, BFD (see Alexander 1992a, 1992b, Tyhurst 1992) 33 Table 3.2: Ethnographic Activities and Inferred Archaeological Sites, Grasslands, BFD 34 Table 3.3: Ethnographic Activities and inferred Archaeological Sites, Lakes, BFD 34 Table 3.4: Ethnographic Activities and Inferred Archaeological Sites, River Valley and Terraces, BFD- 35 Table 3.5: Ethnographic Activities and Inferred Archaeological Sites, Montane Forests, BFD 35 Table 3.5: Ethnographic Activities and Inferred Archaeological Sites, Montane Forests, BFD (cont’d) -36 Table 3.6: Ethnographic Activities and Inferred Archaeological Sites, Montane Parkland, BFD 36 Table 3.7: Ethnographic Activities and Inferred Archaeological Sites, Alpine Tundra, BFD 37 Table 4.1: Sampjk Questionnaire 38 Table 6.1: Glaciofluvial and Claciolacustrine Soil Expressions, BFD 42 I Table 6.2: Bedrock Geology, BFD 44 I LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Location of BFD Study Area, Southeastern BC (Scale 1:650,000) 2 Figure 3.1 Availability and Location of Selected Plants 30 I Figure 6.1: Location of Evaluated Mapsheets, BFD Study Area, Southeastern BC (Scale 1:650,000) 47 I I I I I I I iii I Kutenai West Heritage Consulting Ltd. BFD-AOA Phase 3 Final Repott (1997) Boundary forest District - Archaeological Overview Assessment Phase 3 Report (1997) 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Boundary Forest District (BFD) encompasses the Kettle and Granby River drainages. It is surrounded by the Pentiction Forest District to the west, the Vernon Forest District to the north, and the Arrow Forest District to the east. Larger towns located within the BFD include Greenwood and Grand Forks, with smaller communities including Christina Lake, Midway, Rock Creek, and Westbridge. Two provincial parks, Granby in the northeast and Gladstone in the east, are also located within the boundaries of the district. The Boundary Forest District archaeological overview assessment IAOA) was initiated at the request of the Ministry of Forests in late February, 1997. The primary goal of the study was to create a predictive model that delineated areas of archaeological site potential within the BFD on 1:20,000 scale digitized and paper maps (Figure 1.1). These maps could then be overlaid on Small Business Forest Enterprise Program and licensee forest development plan maps, so as to determine those areas that might require an archaeo- logical impact assessment study (AIA). Kutenai West Heritage Consulting Ltd. (KWHC) conducted back- ground research on the existing archaeological, environmental, historic, and ethnographic databases. In conjunction with Timberland Consultants Ltd., this background research was used to formulate predictor variables that were translated into the geographical information system (GIS) program PAMAP, and used to create l:ZO,OOO and 1 :125,000 scale digitized and paper archaeological potential maps for the BFD. 1 .l Objectives and Methods For Phase l/2 of this study, KWHC performed a critical review of all available archaeological inventory, overview, and impact assessment studies previously conducted within the BFD. A search of the Archaeology Branch database was made for all heritage consulting manuscripts relating to the study area within their li- brary. Past and present environmental conditions were researched using the libraries at Simon Fraser Uni- versity (Burnaby), Okanagan College University (Kelowna), and Selkirk College (Castlegar). Due to the lim- ited extent of systematic archaeological investigations within the BFD, information was also gathered from the Kettle River drainage area in northern Washington. This data was obtained during visits to the State Ar- chaeology office in Olympia, Central Washington University in Ellensburg, and Eastern Washington Uni- versity in Cheney.