(A37841) (A37841)
Gitxaała Use and Occupancy in the area of the proposed
Northern Gateway Pipeline Tanker Routes
Prepared on behalf of Gitxaała Nation
Charles R. Menzies, PhD December 18, 2011 (A37841)
Table of Contents
Gitxaała Use and Occupancy in the area of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline Tanker Routes...... 0 1. Qualifications...... 2 2. Major sources of knowledge with respect to Gitxaała ...... 3 3. The transmission of Gitxaala oral history, culture, language and knowledge ...... 6 3.1 Basis of evidence...... 6 3.2 Oral history and the transmission of narratives ...... 7 4. An overview of the early history of contact between Europeans and the Gitxaała...... 10 5. An Ethnographic Description of Gitxaała...... 11 5.1 Gitxaała Language ...... 11 5.2 Social organization and governance of the Gitxaała...... 11 5.3 Cultural Beliefs...... 15 5.4 Gitxaała seasonal round and overview of resources used...... 21 5.5 Gitxaała – a distinct aboriginal people...... 24 5.6 Territory - Laxyuup Gitxaała – the land and waters of the Gitxaała including major villages and reserves ...... 25 5.7 Laws and customs in relations to land and resource use, tenure, distribution...... 36 5.8 The importance of resource harvesting and territory in the modern Gitxaała identity and way of life ...... 36 6. Gitxaała fisheries and the use of marine resources...... 37 6.1 Overview of Gitxaała Fisheries ...... 37 6.2 Economic Importance and the Trade for Benefit of Fish Products...... 39 6.3 Fisheries –relations with non-human social beings...... 41 6.4 Overview of archaeological fisheries data...... 43 6.5 Gitxaała Herring Fisheries ...... 50 6.6 Gitxaala Seaweed Fisheries ...... 51 6.7 Indigenous salmon fisheries and stone traps...... 52 6.8 Gitxaała Bilhaa (Abalone) Fisheries ...... 63 6.9 Commercial fisheries and Gitxaała today and in the past...... 72 7. Concluding comments...... 79 8. References cited...... 80 8.1Published Sources ...... 80 8.2 Unpublished Sources...... 84 8.3 Government Documents - Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada) and Canadian Legal Survey Records ...... 85 8.4 Government Documents - Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada)...... 87 8.5 Government Documents - Department of Fisheries...... 88 c.v. Charles R. Menzies, Ph.D...... 90 Appendix 1: Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory, August 2009. Appendix 2: Gitxaała Environmental Monitoring Archaeological Survey Lithic Report, 2010.
1
(A37841)
1. Qualifications 1. I, Dr. Charles R. Menzies, am an Associate Professor of Anthropology in the Department of Anthropology at the University of British Columbia. I have been engaged in anthropological research with the Gitxaała since 1998. I am a tenured Associate Professor in Anthropology at the University of British Columbia since 2004 and have been a faculty member since 1996. I was hired at UBC to fill a position focused on the Ethnography of Western Canada. I am an enrolled member of the Tlingit and Haida Tribes of Alaska (NR# 14868E) and a Status Indian under the Canadian Indian Act (Registration no 6720224501; Registry Group: Gitxaała Nation). I have been previously qualified to testify as an expert on the subject of First Nations and Native American Anthropology. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached.
2. I have conducted anthropological research on the north coast of British Columbia since 1988 and with Gitxaała Nation since 1998. My research has been focussed upon the political economic organization of indigenous societies and the subsequent transition to an industrial capitalist economy based upon natural resources extraction. As part of this research I have engaged in projects such as (but not limited to) the following which have examined relations between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in the fishing industry, traditional ecological and local ecological knowledge held by both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people on the north coast (related to fisheries, forestry, and the marine and terrestrial spaces of the north coast), labour conflict and collaboration in the context of the fishing and forestry industries, historical anthropology of north coast aboriginal societies (which includes the study of oral histories and documentary historical sources), and archaeological research into regional resource harvesting and use. This research has been funded by arms-length peer-reviewed granting agencies such as the Wenner Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Natural Resources Canada, Forest Renewal BC, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Research with Gitxaała has involved extended periods of time residing in Lach Klan (Kitkatla) and Prince Rupert, interviews of community members, participation in community meetings and community research workshops, site visits to culturally and historically important Gitxaała places, and archival/library research at various libraries and museums in North America and Western Europe.
3. Throughout this document I refer to the people now living in Lax Kw’alaams and Metlaktala as Coast Tsimshian (a reference to their genesis as a separate people following contact as they regrouped around the Hudson Bay Company trading port and the Christian missionary, William Duncan). Ts’msyen is a term used to refer to those people who identify themselves as living in connection to the Skeena River. The people who are part of the Gitxaała Nation are referred to, unless otherwise noted, as Gitxaała. I will also make occasional reference to Tsimshianic peoples, which is an anthropological designation that includes
2
(A37841)
Nisga’a, Gitksan, Tsimshian and Gitxaała peoples. This anthropological designation has its roots in a linguistic and socio-cultural system of categorization that early 20th century anthropologists used to analyze the various indigenous peoples they encountered. It should also be noted that academic and public writing has often grouped all of the people living from the headwaters of the Skeena and Nass and out along the coast as Tsimshian using linguistic categories as a gloss for social groupings. However, the people themselves use different names to self-identify.
2. Major sources of knowledge with respect to Gitxaała 4. There is a dearth of academic research that specifically addresses Gitxaała as a subject of study separate from other Tsimshianic communities. There are, for example, published academic and archival academic materials that make reference to Gitxaała in the context of the wider Tsimshianic world. There are historical records, such as ships’ logs, government documents and records that make specific reference to Gitxaała. There is a living oral historical tradition in Gitxaała that maintains an active account of the past. While suffering the depredations of colonialism, like other indigenous peoples in the America’s, Gitxaała has maintained continuous habitation and use within their core territories. It should be noted that the anthropological literature is replete with descriptions of Gitxaała as the most conservative of the Tsimshianic groups. William Beynon himself, in 1916, notes that the Gitxaała people: “have not advanced as much as the other people, of other tribes in matters of education and still adhere to ancient ceremonies.” 1 While Beynon was not being complimentary –he was in fact complaining about how this adherence to ancient ceremonies was restricting his ethnographic research- his point highlights the ways in which Gitxaała have endeavoured to retain the old ways in the face of their neighbours’ adaptation to and taking on of Euro-Canadian ways. Gitxaała’s cultural conservatism can also be seen in the census of 1891 in which the names of the people in Metlaktala are nearly 100% English, mostly English in Fort Simpson, while in Gitxaała the names are nearly 100% smalygyax (the indigenous language of Gitxaała). The continued conservatism can be noted in the relatively small number of researches who have successfully been able to work in and with Gitxaała over the 20th century.
5. Most, if not all, of the early and mid 20th century ethnographers of the Tsimshian world either worked directly with William Beynon or from his massive production of field notes, manuscripts, and commentaries. William Beynon worked from 1915 to his death in 1956 as an ethnographer of the Tsimshianic peoples. He first worked as a field assistant for Maurice Barbeau in 1915. His first independent research took place in Lach Klan in the winter of 1916. Beynon continued to work with and for other anthropologists up until his death in the mid 20th century. Maurice Barbeau, Franz Boas, Phillip Drucker, Homer Barnett, Viola Garfield, Amelia Sussman all worked directly with Beynon and based much
1 William Beynon. 1916. Museum of Civilization. Vol.1. B-F-419 Box B29, page 1.
3
(A37841)
(if not all) of their subsequent published Tsimshian work on Beynon’s own research. Beynon acted as key informant (for example, with both Garfield and Sussman) and lead researcher (for example, with Barbeau and Boas). . Thus, the early ethnographic literature is based upon a very contemporary set of observations made by an ethnographer, William Beynon, who was both a member of Tsimshian society and an observer of it.
6. Beynon recorded details of contemporary hunting territories, the oral history that explains ownership of these territories, records of feast and meetings that he directly observed (as well as those that he recorded oral histories of), comments on changes in ow nership patterns and the history of indigenous fishers. This is only a partial list of what Beynon collected information on. It is also of note that Beynon was particularly interested in succession and inheritance of names. He himself used this knowledge to advance and secure his own hereditary rank and made many comments on the range of practices and debates related to the taking on of hereditary names in his fieldnotes.
7. Ethnographers, such as Viola Garfield, relied heavily upon William Beynon’s research collaboration. Beynon provided critical intellectual and interpretive direction to them. Subsequent ethnographers, such as Margaret Anderson (Sequin), John Cove, Marjorie Halpin, Jay Miller, James McDonald, and Christopher Roth have draw extensively upon Beynon’s unpublished notes. Of the late 20th century ethnographers, James McDonald stands out as being one of the first to engage in research with contemporary Tsimshian people whereas most of the others relied almost exclusively upon Beynon’s work to study the Tsimshian.
8. Archaeologists who have ventured into reviews and comments upon oral history have also restricted themselves to consideration of previously published materials that are derivative from Beynon or have drawn from Beynon’s unpublished notes directly. For example, while archaeologists such as Kenneth Ames, Gary Coupland, Richard Inglis, Andrew Martindale, George MacDonald, and Paul Prince have written about or drawn inspiration from oral history they have done so by direct reference to secondary literature or the unpublished notes of Beynon and have not engaged in systematic research on oral history with Tsimshianic peoples. Thus, these archaeologists reproduce what is essentially a vision of the Tsimshianic world inspired and structured by William Beynon’s intellectual work, in particular his 1950’s multi-volume work, Ethnical and Geographical Study of the Tsimshian Nation.
9. In one of the few published works to attempt an evaluation of the extent of Beynon’s corpus, Barbara Winters (a museum curator who completed a master’s thesis on myth and ceremony basing much of her analysis on a limited set of narratives collected by William Beynon) highlighted the ceremonial and mythic aspects of Beynon’s work over the more contemporary or economic. However, Winters’ analysis of Beynon’s fieldnotes was restricted to those:
4
(A37841)
“texts recorded between 1937 and 1959, for Boas. These texts were selected for statistical testing because they represent a total sample of Beynon's work from a known period of time. A complete sample from a known period is not possible for the books sent to Barbeau as Barbeau removed the pages from the books and cut them into sections, each filed by subject. In the Boas collection are 256 narratives collected from 72 informants, as well as eyewitness accounts written from Beynon's personal experience. Beynon used three primary informants from whom he collected more than ten narratives, and a larger number from whom he elicited only one or two narratives. He relied on three informants to provide him with nearly twenty-five per cent of his data. These were Mark Luther (age 77, status not given), Joseph Bradley (age 90, chief), and Ethel Musgrave (elderly, chief). Of the twenty-four informants who provided him with nearly ninety per cent of his data, seven were chiefs, and between seven and eleven were councilors. Eighty-three per cent of his informants were men, and all of his female informants were of high status and/or elderly” (Winters 1984:284). Winter’s analysis thus excludes all of the material that Beynon collected between 1915 and 1939 as well as the hundreds of pages of materials that were collected in collaboration with Viola Garfield, Amelia Sussman, Maurice Barbeu, Phillip Drucker, and Homer Barnett (to name only the most prominent scholars with whom Beynon worker during the period of Winter’s analysis). Winter’s makes very clear the limitations of her analysis of Beynon’s collected materials.
10. While it is correct that a limited number of anthropologists have worked in this region, it would be reasonable to suggest that Garfield’s mentor and doctoral supervisor, Franz Boas, is also a significant authority (See Boas’ early book, Tsimshian Mythology). Garfield’s research collaborator and primary informant, William Beynon, was a critical intellectual influence on Garfield. While little of Beynon’s work has been published, most anthropologists working in this region, as noted above, have relied extensively upon his work. In particular, Beynon’s 1950s multi-volume manuscript, Ethnical and Geographical Study of the Tsimshian Nation, lays out the foundation to what has become an academic orthodoxy amongst Tsimsahin scholars that prioritizes the stories of migration of the people now known as the Coast Tsimshian (though Beynon did not himself use that label prefer instead to use the fifteen separate village or tribal names).
11. In later days, the work of James A. McDonald extends and elaborates upon Garfield and Beynon’s work in a decisive fashion. McDonald, working primarily with Kitsumkalum, has focused upon their involvement in wage labour and the economic relations and basis to traditional Kitsumkalum society and the ways in which these underlying forms have persistent and changed in the contemporary world. Given the critical role that names play in ownership and property, Chris Roth’s book is also of critical mention here as an authority on the subject of ownership and use of resources.
5
(A37841)
12. In collaboration with Caroline F. Butler, Ph.D., I have written the majority of academic work that considers Gitxaała specifically. There are mentions of Gitxaała amongst the Tsimshianic scholars that I have mentioned. But prior to Butler’s and my research only a handful of people have conducted research with Gitxaała. John Dunn, linguist, worked with Gitxaała people starting in the late 1960s. George and Joanne MacDonald (archaeologist and ethnographic curator respectively) visited Lach Klan several times over the course of 1980s and 1990s. Joanne MacDonald conducted a brief project on the Gitxaała stone masks (one of which is held by the Museum of Civilization, Canada and the other in the Louvre, France). Dianne Newell spent five days onboard the Gitxaała fishing vessel the Western Spirit in the early 1990s studying the roe-on-kelp fishery. James McDonald has visited with and interviewed Gitxaała community members over the course of his three decades of northern BC research, though his primary focus has been Kitsumkalum, on the mid-reaches of the Skeena River. More recently students working with Caroline Butler and myself have conducted community research projects in Gitxaała (Menzies and Butler 2011; Menzies 2011)2.
3. The transmission of Gitxaala oral history, culture, language and knowledge 13. In this section of the report I outline the process by which Gitxaała knowledge is transmitted generation to generation and the basis of the evidence that I use to explain the process of knowledge transmission within the Gitxaała Nation.
3.1 Basis of evidence 14. In arriving at my opinion in relation to the transmission of Gitxaała oral history, culture, language, and knowledge, I draw upon two primary sources of evidence: a. My observations in my professional capacity of research anthropologist since 1998 at feasts and meetings, and my observations of community member telling histories and teaching youth and other learners about Gitxaała past and practices and beliefs. b. Documentary sources including: Published peer reviewed sources concerned with Gitxaała and related Tsimshianic groups, fieldnotes of ethnographers such as William Beynon, Maurice Barbeau, Viola Garfield, and Homer Barnet.
15. (a) Since 1998 I have had the opportunity of observing and participating in a wide array of feasts, community meetings, inter-community meetings, and public meetings. During these events Gitxaała people would, in the normal course of their interventions and contributions, make statements about the importance of their history and the ways in which it ought to be relayed. Public statements would reference historical processes and events, would acknowledge those present who held connections to the history, and would either then recount the
2 Charles R. Menzies and Caroline F. Butler, with Solen Roth, Natalie J.K. Baloy, Robin Anderson, Jennifer Wolowic, and Oralia Gómez-Ramírez. “Collaborative Service Learning and Anthropology with Gitxaala Nation.” Collaborative Anthropologies. Vol. 4, 2011. Charles R. Menzies. “Butterflies, Anthropologies, and Ethnographic Field Schools: A Reply to Wallace and Hyatt.” Collaborative Anthropologies. Vol. 4, 2011.
6
(A37841)
particular history or acknowledge that the history heard was consistent with what they had been taught by their own elders.
16. In the course of conducting field research with Gtixaała people in relation to traditional territories and their use I was regularly advised that the appropriate approach involved requesting permission of the named titleholder to the territory in question and that any conversation should include groups of people who held the rights to tell the history. The emphasis was that even in direct communications, such as interviews or conversations, the transmission of history and related information needed to take place in a collective setting with appropriate individuals in place to acknowledge and witness what was being said.
17. In conversations with my community-based mentors I have had the opportunity to discuss and learn about the ways in which knowledge is transmitted. In these settings, which parallel traditional approaches to the transmission of knowledge, I have learned about the processes of learning. This involves the learner listening, not questioning, observing and then doing. Knowledge about history is transmitted in these settings through direct instruction, demonstration, and practice. I have commented upon the various forms of permission and approval involved in conducting respectful research in Gitxaała in my 2004 paper, “Putting words into action: negotiating collaborative research in Gitxaała” (Canadian Journal of Native Education. Vol. 28:1/2, see pages:19-25).
18. (b) Documentary sources also provide evidence from which I have derived my opinion on oral history and its transmission. The early 20th century ethnographer, William Beynon, recorded a great many historical narratives. Throughout his work can be found comments and asides related to the nature of Tsimshianic oral history and the ways it can or should be related. In his 1916 notebooks collected in the village of Lach Klan (the village of Kitkatla), for example, Beynon records how his entire research project was placed on hold until the leading hereditary leader, Joshua Tsibassa, granted approval. Then, mid way through his research, a number of Beynon’s respondents withdrew their participation; they were waiting for further permission to be granted by hereditary leaders to answer Beynon’s additional questions.
3.2 Oral history and the transmission of narratives 19. Oral history, in a Gitxaała sense, is usually referred to as adaawx - lineage histories or 'true tellings.' These narratives relate the origin and central events of a lineage. Adaawx revolve around key figures that are named hereditary leaders whose names are passed down through time. Adaawx reference places, events, people, privileges (crests, songs, stories, etc), and things (tangible and intangible) that form property and rights within Gitaała society. Adaawx also contain references to traditions and laws that govern social behaviour and the relations between humans and between humans and all other social beings (animal, spirit, etc).
7
(A37841)
20. The authority to relate these narratives rests in the idea of malsk – literally, telling. The emphasis here is on the act of relating, the act of telling. The authority to tell arises from an encounter with naxnox (loosely translated as supernatural being or supernatural) whereby certain rights, privileges, and/or property are granted to the named hereditary leader who is the protagonist of the history. Malsk signifies ownership and thus the right to tell certain stories. It provides the authority to named hereditary leaders and, in so doing mirrors the structure of authority and hierarchy that resides amongst the naxnox – which is the ultimate source of authority and power.
21. History and tradition are linked through the idea and concept of łagyigyet. Łagyigyet literally means old people or people of the long ago AND tradition. This is important as it highlights the manner by which tradition is integral to a Gitxaala notion of history. Thus embedded in the telling of history are ideas (values, principles, practices) that instruct people on how to behave in one's contemporary world. Thus ideas related to resource management and sharing (among other things) are directly embedded in the telling and learning of Gitxaała history.
22. The transmission of oral narratives occurs in a range of settings, including, but not limited to: (a) Formal settings such as feasts, (b) Training or instruction of heirs and youth.
23. (a) Transmission of history in formal settings. The feast system is the primary formal setting within which oral narratives are recounted. Marjorie Halpin and Margaret Anderson edited a series of notebooks recorded by William Beynon in 1945 that detail the proceedings of a multi-day traditional Tsimshianic feast (in Gitsegukla, contemporary Gitksan territory along the upper Skeena River). The Spanish skipper, J. Caamano,3 provides one of the earliest European recordings of a feast during his visit to Gitxaała territory in 1792. Both accounts describe similar processes whereby leading hereditary leaders and hosts relate their lineage histories through song and dance and the manner by which these tellings are witnessed by the observing hereditary leaders.
24. The importance of public witnessing of events in this formal setting is high. To stand up and acknowledge a history is to agree with it. This is critical to highlight, as the form of public disagreement is one of silence; a form of disagreement that differs from Euro-American traditions of dissent. Drawing upon work by Margaret Sequin (1984)4, Anderson and Halpin have this to say about silence as an expression of disagreement: “silence indicates that you are in disagreement with what has been said, and on a situation of any importance the speaker will rephrase in order to
3 Henry R. Wagner and W. A. Newcombe (Eds) Captain Haroald Grenfell, R.N. (trans). The Journal of Don Jacinto Caamano. Journal of the British Columbia Historical Society. July and October 1938:189-301). 4 Margaret Sequin (Anderson). 1984. “Lest There Be No Salmon.” In The Tsimshian: Images of the Past, View for the Present, 110-33. Vancouver: UBC Press.
8
(A37841)
elicit an overt expression of agreement. This is precisely the strategy that was followed by ‘older thought’ at Gitsegukla when they disagreed with the plans of the ‘younger thought’ with regard to a modernized style for the pole-raising and concomitant ceremonies. They not only showed their disagreement by their silence, but two of them moved out of the community, which was correctly read by the ‘younger thought’ as a strong and compelling message”(2000:34).5 Non-Indigenous observers often overlook the role of silence as an act of dissent and disagreement. Within the Euro-American cultural tradition silence is seen as passive acceptance or lack of knowledge related to a subject of discussion. However, within Gitxaała and related Tsimshianic groups, silence is an active form of disagreement and is understood as such. This has several serious implications in the context of contemporary research.
25. Research that is not supported by hereditary leaders or community members may not be overtly opposed. Rather, community members who are knowledgeable may simply exempt themselves from the process by their absence (not being home when the researcher knocks, missing prearranged appointments, leaving the community to go fishing, etc). Or, if these same members are approached directly by an individual researcher the community member may politely demur and say they don’t really know much about the subject. This has the unfortunate consequence of the inexperienced (or inept) researcher concluding that there is no objection to their work and that few people know much about the subject of their research.
26. Gitxaała oral accounts of 20th century researchers visiting Gitxaała are replete with stories of visiting researchers who came, visited matriarchs and house leaders, sipped tea and ate cookies and then left with none of the real history. The stories recount instances of people having been asked questions by visiting researchers and either speaking about other subjects, ignoring the questions, or deflecting questions by sayings something like “I don’t really know much about that.” Yet, these same researchers often go home and then write and publish accounts in which they profess expertise even when the knowledge that they sought was in truth withheld from them. From within the Gitxaała frame of reference the researcher reveals their ineptitude (even when external agencies, such as governments or university publishing houses, accept at face value the inept researcher’s findings).
27. (b) Transmission of narratives in the context of training and education. In order for formal transmission of narratives to occur there needs be an opportunity for community members to learn their history. Those who are in line to inherit hereditary names are expected to learn their history as part of the process of taken on their name; but in addition, all members of a house are also expected to learn the general history of their lineage. As this is a ranked society there are aspects of
5 Margaret Anderson and Marjorie Halpin. (Eds.) 2000. Potlatch at Gitsegukla: William Beynon’s 1945 Field Notebooks. Vancouver: UBC Press.
9
(A37841)
history and tradition that is restricted, not only according to house group but also according to one’s rank and position within a house group. The training of those in line to inherit takes place in all manner of contexts including, but not limited to, at home, at work, at play, in the enactment of harvesting and processing of foods and materials, in the learning of dances and songs within the family and (in current times) in local dance and drum groups
4. An overview of the early history of contact between Europeans and the Gitxaała. 28. Europeans first started to arrive in Laxyuup Gitxaała (Kitkatla Territory) in the late 1700’s. The first recorded meetings are with James Colnet in 1787, Jacinto Caamano in 1792, and Charles Bishop in 1795. Gitxaała people greeted these early visitors with hospitality. European ships logs describe the ceremony and festivities that they were met with as they entered Indigenous territories. However, these European visitors did not fully appreciate – or perhaps they consciously rejected- Gitxaała laws and protocols.
29. Near the ancient village of Ks’waan (located at the south eastern tip of Banks Island) for example, James Colnett and his crew were first greeted by Seaxs in what appears to be a traditional greeting during which Colnett was welcomed to Laxyuup Gitxaała and advised as to who where the rightful owners of the anchorage Colnett had secured his vessels in and who owned the fish, timber, wildgame, berries, and other foods and materials that Colnett’s crew was gathering as if it were there to freely take. When Colnett’s crew’s continued to harvest without paying compensation Gitxaała people began to extract compensation as was their right according to Gitxaała protocols. However, Colnett’s response was to further aggravate the situation.
30. Colnett continued to instruct his crew to harvest food, timber and supplies, and to take offensive action when they felt under attack. In one particularly egregious act, a long boat was dispatched to ambush a group of Gitxaała people who were in the act of preparing a meal. Colnett’s crew killed three people (two men and one women) and then kidnapped and sexually assaulted the surviving women of the ambushed group (Galois xxx:nn). Despite (or perhaps, because of) Colnett’s continued aggressions Gitxaała continued to, in Colnett’s words, harass and hinder the visiting European traders as Gitxaała continued to enact their authority and jurisdiction with Laxyuup Gitxaała.
31. Prior to European arrival there is some evidence of European trade goods working their way into Gitxaała possession travelling through traditional regional exchange and trade networks. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this indirect contact resulted in any changes to Gitxaała ways of life. No changes of significance occurred in Gitxaała ways of life until well into the post contact era.
10
(A37841)
5. An Ethnographic Description of Gitxaała. 32. In my opinion Gitxaała was an aboriginal community and people prior to, and at the time of, European contact in 1787. Further, Gitxaała (variant Kitkatla) has continued as a community and a people up to the present day.
5.1 Gitxaała Language 33. Gitxaała people speak Sm’algyax or Coast Tsimshian – one of three extant languages within the larger Tsimsianic language family. The other two Tsimsianic languages are Nisga’a, spoken by the indigenous peoples living along the Nass River, and Gitksanimx̣, spoken by the indigenous peoples who live along the upper Skeena River and tirbutaries.
5.2 Social organization and governance of the Gitxaała6
34. Gitxaała society (which anthropologically has been considered part of the wider grouping of Tsimshianic peoples) is organized in a number of ways: clan affiliation, social class, housegroup membership, and village residence. For the Gitxaała each individual (with the exception, in the past, for slaves) belongs to one of four clans: ganhada (raven), gispuwada (blackfish), lasgeek (eagle), or laxgibu (wolf). Clans do not, however, exercise any specific political authority. That rested with the sm’ooygit and their housegroups (see below). Clan affiliation, reckoned matrilineally, does inform who can marry whom and, consequently, alliances between members of specific house groups.
35. Historically three or four classes can be identified: high-ranking titleholders and other titleholders; freeborn commoners without rights to hereditary names, and; slaves, those born to slaves or captured in war. Members of the title holding classes formed the hereditary leadership of Gitxaała. They are the sm’gyigyet (singular, sm’ooygit, meaning ‘real people’) or chiefs who held specific rights and responsibility with respect to other community members. The origins of a sm’ooygit’s right to governance can be found in the adawx and is often linked to an event in which an ancestor received a gift or privilege from the spirit world, through political conquest, or through an alliance with another community.
36. Titles, or hereditary names, were and are an important aspect of Gitxaała social organization. Hereditary names were and are passed along from one generation to the next through the feast system. Hereditary names are linked to, among other things, histories, crest images, territory, rights, and responsibilities. Not every Gitxaała person has a hereditary name, nor are all Gitxaała people
6 This section on Gitxaała social organization draws upon Menzies (2006)“The Case of the Pine Mushroom Harvest in Northwestern British Columbia,” in Menzies (ed). Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Natural Resource Management Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press; 87-104 (see, pages 89-90), Menzies and Butler (2007) “Returning to Selective Fishing Through Indigenous Knowledge: The Example of K’moda Gitxaała Territory.” American Indian Quarterly Vol 31(3):441-462(see, pages 443-445), and; Marjorie M. Halpin and Margaret Seguin (1990) “Tsimshian Peoples: Southern Tsimshian, Coast Tsimshian, Nishga, and Gitksan,” in Wayne Shuttles (ed) Handbook of North American Indians. Volume 7 Northwest Coast. Washington: Smithsonian Institution; 267-284.
11
(A37841)
eligible to take on a hereditary name. Hereditary names exist through time with different individuals holding or taking on the name. For example, from the time several millennia ago that Sm’ooygit Ts’ibassa (a high ranking Gitxaała hereditary 7 leader) left Temlax’am, through to the Ts’ibassa of the early twentieth century, this name has been inherited and has existed as a social role that has been taken up by a line of successors.
37. Ownership of, access to, and rights of use of resource gathering locations were and largely are governed by multi-generational matrilineages called walp or houses. Notwithstanding the prominence of a paramount sm’ooygit or leader at the village level, the effective source of political power and authority with respect to the territory rests with the house leaders. Membership in a particular house- group is determined matrinileally, by one’s mothers’ position. This social unit is the effective political building block of the Gitxaała and Ts’msyeen villages. Each house owns and has responsibility for its own resource gathering and social use areas. Taken in combination, the house territories, situated around natural ecosystem units such as watersheds, form the backbone of each village’s collective territory.
38. Villages consist of groups of related and allied housegoups who traditionally wintered together in a common site. While there has been some changes following the arrival of Europeans (for example, Lax Kw’alaams consists of the members that were formerly nine separate social groups with resource harvesting territories along the Skeena River) the Gitxaała village of Lach Klan has been continuously inhabited before and after Europeans first arrived in their territories. Within the village there is a paramount sm’ooygit who is the house leader of the most powerful house group, in the dominant clan. While this person has traditionally wielded much power and economic wealth within the village it is important, nonetheless, to point out that his authority resided in the power and prestige of his house group.
39. In Gitxaała society the leading sm’ooygit, like elsewhere amongst the Ts’msyeen world, “can expect constant and liberal economic support from his tribesmen” (Garfield 1939:182. As Halpin and Seguin note in their article in the Handbook of Native American Indians, “The village chief was the chief of the highest-ranking house in the village, and the other houses, in all clans, were ranked under him in descending order” (1990:276). Halpin and Seguin go on to comment that “traditional narratives report that the Southern Tsimshian [which would include Gitxaała] chiefs received tribute in the form of the first sea otter and seal caught by each canoe of sea hunters and other fur animals captured by land animals” (1990: 276).
7 Temlax’am (variant Temlaham; also Prairie Town) is an ancient village in what is today Gitksan territory. In the old times, long before European contact, the people found themselves dispersed from Temlax’am as a result of a series of disasters. Key Gispuwada houses and lineages, which are now Gitxaała, had their origins in Temlax’am.
12
(A37841)
40. According to Gitxaała adawx8 (oral record) the village of Lach Klan9 has been continuously inhabited by the Gitxaała long before the arrival of Europeans on what is now known as the coast of British Columbia.10 Throughout adawx recorded by William Beynon (Canadian Museum of Civilization; Columbia University; American Museum of Natural History) 11 and in contemporary oral accounts12 clear reference is made to the antiquity of the Gitxaała as an aboriginal community prior to the arrival of Europeans.
41. The adawx of the Sky brothers (see note 6) documents a series of atrocities and subsequent movements of one of the lineages of Gitxaała. In this adawx we learn of the trials and travels of Wudinuxs, a house leader of the Gitxaala Ganhada clan. This account took place before a significant flood event:13 “. . . they went down along the coast farther south, until they reached Bank’s Island. Here they lived together as one household. Later they went to another place, until they came to the Kitkatla village at the end of Pitt Island known as Wilhahlgamilra-medik (where the grizzly plays along the shore), and they lived there. While there, the waters began to rise and come into the houses. The people anchored on a rock which the water had not covered. There they stayed for a long time; until the water went away suddenly, and they way they were on a mountain on Bank’s Island, Laxgyiyaks. The people went down to the water’s edge and they again move, and they found some other people at Laxklan, and here they remained until the present day” (Sam Lewis, 1916).
8 Adawx is an oral record of “historical events of collective political, social, and economic significance, such as migration, territorial acquisition, natural disaster, epidemic, war, and significant shifts in political and economic power. . . . adawx are formally acknowledge by the society as a whole and collectively represent the authorized history of the nation” (Marsden 2002:102-103). 9 Lach Klan is the contemporary village of Kitkatla, located on Dolphin Island 10 See, for example: The Origin of the Name He:l, recorded by William Beynon, 1916: “Then these men departed, and Tsibasa returned to his central village at Laxlan[Lach Klan];” The Tlingit Attack the Kitkatla, Nathan Shaw (Gitxaała), recorded by William Beynon, 1952: “. . . the Kitkatla had established a village at Laxklan for their feasts and winter ceremonials;” The Sky Brothers, Sam Lewis (Gitxaała), recorded by William Beynon, 1916: “The people went down to the water’s edge and they again moved, and they found some other people at Laxklan, and here they remained until the present day.” 11 In William Beynon’s unpublished Tsimshian Geographical and Ethnical Material (notebook 6)[New York: American Museum of Natural History] he contextually dates the existence of Lach Klan to the time before Ts’ibasa came down the Skeena River: “When T’sibaesae and his Gispowudada group came down the Skeena from T’amlax’aem they went to where there were already some of the laxsk’ik (Eagle) group in Lax K’laen. . . . This was a gathering place where these people had their elevation feasts and where they held their [?] feasts” (Beynon notebook 6, page 7). 12 Throughout my field research with Gitxaała in various settings ranging from public meetings to general conversations the antiquity of Lach Klan has been clearly and consistently mentioned and discussed. 13 The ‘Flood’ or ‘deluge,’ as so named by many of Beynon’s early respondents, can likely be identified as a major earthquake event that occurred several millennia ago. New archeological evidence indicates a large flood or Tsunami event at some point prior to 2000 years before present. Andrew Martindale’s research team has found silt layers that can be understood as a flood event which –in the absence of direct dating are estimated to be between 3500 and 5000 years before present (Andrew Martindale personal communication November 5, 2007). A similar silt layer has been found in a core sample from Shawatlan Cove, Prince Rupert Harbour, by Morley Eldridge and Alyssa Parker (Fairview Container Terminal Phase II Archaeological Overview Assessment, March 8, 2007). These archeological data corroborate accounts of a significant flood event with the adawx and allow for the conclusion that adawx which reference the flood significantly predates European arrival.
13
(A37841)
42. Evidence for the antiquity of Gitxaała can also be found in the accounts of non- aboriginal merchants and traders who visited Gitxaała territory in the late 1700s. James Colnett, skipper of the British Merchant Ship Prince of Wales14, is acknowledged to be the first European to enter the Gitxaała territory. Colnett and his crew met Seax, a leading member of a Gispuwada house, and Sabaan, a house leader of a Gitxaała Ganhada house, in 1787, at the south end of Banks Island, a portion of the Gitxaala southern territory. Some time after this initial meeting Colnett was invited to a yaawk (feast)15 in the company of the leading Gitxaała chief of the day in accordance with Gitxaała ayaawx (customary law). (Galois 2004; see also, the adawx of Sabaan16).
43. In 1792 the Spanish skipper, Jacinto Caamano, participated in a Gitxaała yaawk (feast). As described by Susan Marsden: “Jacinto Caamano’s vessel, anchored near the south end of Pitt Island, was approached by Homts’iit, a Raven clan chief of the Kitkatla tribe who danced the peace dance for him. He and his people were invited on board. Homts’iit gave Caamano the gift of an otter skin and Caamano served refreshments, after which Homts’iit exchanged names with Caamano, making them allies. Three weeks later Caamano attended a feast at Tuwartz Inlet. Caamano described a series of feasting events in considerable detail, the first of which took place on August 28, when Homts’iit visited the ship to invite Caamano to a feast. Since the main elements in these ceremonial invitations are a peace dance and a naxnox demonstration, the feathers to which Caamano refers were probably eagle down, the symbol of peace, and his various masks probably represented his various naxnox powers” (Marsden 2007:179-180; for a translation of the original journal of Don Jacinto Caamano, see Wagner and Newcombe 1938).
44. In 1795 the American skipper of the ship Ruby, Charles Bishop, describes his meetings with Gitxaała people. Most notable in his descriptions is the repeated references to “Shakes” (Sm’ooygit Seax) the Gitxaala “Huen Smokett (Great Chief )”17. Bishop notes the importance of locating himself within Sm’ooygit Seax’s domains: “As Shake’s dominions are very Extensive and Contain many good Harbours and inlets, the Principle business is to look out for one near the residence of the Chief as in the Situation you are shure of Procuring the Furs of the whole
14 See Galois (2004:2-4) for a brief description of James Colnett’s biography. Colnett was born in Devon, England in 1753. Colnett “spent three and a half years under the tutelage of [James] Cook” (Galois 2004:2). In 1786 Colnett left the Britsh Navy and “signed on with Richard Cadman Etches & Co as captain of the Prince of Wales and commander of a two-vessel commercial venture” (Galois 2004:3). 15 The yaawx or feast (variant potlatch) is a central social institution amongst the Gitxaała. A yaawx is a public event that is linked to, among other things, the passing of hereditary names, recognition of people, declarations of ownership, and formalization of alliances and agreements. 16 Dorothy Brown of the Kitkatla. “Saaban” in Susan Marsden, ed., Suwilaay’msga Na Ga’niiyatgm, Teachings of Our Grandfathers (Prince Rupert: School District 52, 1992). 17 The Journal and Letters of Captain Charles Bishop on the North-West Coast of America, in the Pacific and in New South Wales 1794-1799. Edited by Michael Roe. Cambridge: Cambringe University Press, 1967; see, especially, pages 65 – 72, 90-93.
14
(A37841)
Tribe, and in this respect the Season must be consulted, for they shift their Habitations often, we having fell in with several evacuated villages. In the Spring and Early in the Summer the natives are found near the outside coast for taking halibut and other Ground fish, but when the Salmon go up the Freshes to Spawn they shift to the narrows and falls for Procuring their winters Stock of this delicious food.”18
45. These early visits by Europeans to Gitxaała territory occurred in the context of a preexisting social order. The Gitxaała people were in place and had clear ideas of laws, protocols, ownership, and rights of use. In both Colnett’s and Caamano’s logbooks and the adawx of the Gitxaała can be found descriptions of the Europeans attempting to take things from Gitxaała territory and being rebuffed by the Gitxaała.19
46. Archeological data in the region is sparse –not for lack of sites, but rather for lack of work in the region. To date most archeological work in the Ts’msyeen and Gitxaała world has been conducted in the Prince Rupert Harbour area in the Kitselas Canyon area of the Skeena River, and more recently, on the Dundas Islands. David Archer conducted a field survey of Kitkatla Inlet and area in the early 1990s. Additional episodic work has been done as part of development and logging plans. Most such surveys are cursory in nature and tend to focus on surface features and Culturally Modified Trees (CMTs) as mandated by provincial legislation and regulations. CMT data indicates human presence and resource use dating back several hundred years prior to European arrival. Radiocarbon dates from archeological sites in the region extend back to nearly 10,000 years before present (Martindale 200720).
47. My own recent work (since 2009 – see section 6.4 below for details related to my archaeological research) is the only detailed and systematic archaeological research in Gitxaała territory in over 40 years. It is the first work in 40 years that has involved more than superficial archaeological assessment surveys conducted in advance of logging or other economic development projects in the region.
5.3 Cultural Beliefs 48. The key cultural beliefs of Gitxaała are internally expressed as spiritual or religious beliefs. Anthropologically, these are cultural values that form a conceptual basis of a Gitxaała cultural model of society. This model has its roots
18 Journal and Letter of Captain Bishop, page 72. 19 For Colnett’s journal, see: A Voyage to the North West Side of America: The Journals of James Colnett, 1786- 1789. Edited by Robert Galois. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2004; see, especially, pages 138- 166. For Caamano’s journal see: The Journal of Don Jacinto Caamano. Translated by Captain Harold Grenfell, R.N., edited with an introduction and notes by Hen R. Wagner and W.A. Newcombe. British Columbia Historical Quarterly. July and October 1938; see, especially, pages 269-293. 20 Martindale is the lead research of a multi-year team project examining the archeological record of Dundas Islands. This area figures prominently in Gitxaała and Ts’msyeen adawx. The project web page can be found at: http://www.anth.ubc.ca/Dundas_Island_Project.10687.0.html. The radio carbon dates are listed in Martindale’s 2007 presentation and have also been communicated orally to Menzies.
15
(A37841)
in the Ayaawk and Adaawk, loosely translated as law and history, of the Gitxaała. From this I have identified three central ideas or concepts.
49. This is a schematic treatment of the Gitxaała approach. What I am presenting is drawn from a rich and complex social and cosmological understanding of our world and renders any summary, such as follows, as partial and ultimately incomplete. The following summary draws heavily from my ongoing work in Gitxaała, the fieldnotes of William Beynon (Tsimshian ethnographer who collaborated with Mariaus Barbeau and Franz Boas), and the rather limited secondary sources on the subject (Cove 1987, Halpin 1973, Miller 1997, Sequin 1984).
50. The three key themes or concepts presented below move from the central idea of social relationships, of ‘relative/not relative (WulE’isk) through the principle of interconnections (syt güülm goot –being of one heart) to the idea of continuity (nabelgot -reincarnation). 1. WulE’isk: relatives -- underscores and exemplifies the basis of becoming a true social person and the nature of ‘belonging’ from the perspective of Gitxaała. 2. syt güülm goot (of one heart) the idea of connectivity of all things through being of one heart in the same sense that all members of a house shared a common hearth or fire. By extension social relations exist between all beings –human, animal and spirit (also revealed through the adaawk). The idea of ‘being of one heart’ lays out the principles of social interaction while wulE’isk best describes the notion of ‘belonging.’ 3. nabelgot: reincarnation, hence continuity: by virtue of the sacred histories [adaawk], people, events, and places [are] interlinked through successive reincarnations” (Miller 1997:129).
5.3.1. WulE’isk: All my relations. 51. To follow the conventions of Euro-American anthropology, Gitxaała are a kin- ordered society, one in which all meaningful relations are defined through the idiom of kinship. This posed –and continues to pose- a problem when dealing with Europeans and other K’mksiwah (literally ghost people, more typically a term to refer to outsiders). For the K’mksiwah lack, by definition, a connection to the world of Gitxaała people. Over the millennia social networks developed between Gitxaała and the adjoining Indigenous nations (Haida, Tlingit, Nisga’a, Gitxsan, Haisla, Kitasoo, Kitlope, Heiltsuik) in which clan affiliations and equivalents were established. While there was a brief period during which K’mksiwah attempted to integrate into this system –from about 1830-1900- by and large the colonial and jingoistic ideas of Euro-American racial superiority ultimately undermined these early attempts (see, for example Perry 2001).
52. From a Gitxaała perspective the K’mksiwah, ghost people, were effectively ‘outside of society.’ They were not part of the body of related beings. Neither were they Thlithongit people captured and enslaved. At first Gitxaała people
16
(A37841)
attempted to bring them into the circle of real people –witness the halait, the feast, given by Ts’ibasaa upon meeting the first ghost people. Ts’ibasaa was giving a friendship making halait.21 However, the mercantile capitalist notions of exchange held by the ghost people clashed with Gitxaała people’s behavioural expectations. The European saw the gifts given to them by Gitxaała only as a measure of the ‘natives’ openness to trade and the profit margins that the merchants hoped would follow. Once Gitxaała people had determined that these beings were actual humans the only indigenous category for them was wa’ayn – unhealed people, freemen who, by their own actions and behaviour, are put outside of society, people who had lost their link with the past and their knowledge of good conduct: “a deviant category of people who did not fit elsewhere in Tsimshian society” (Halpin 1973).
53. Initially the European’s disconnections were overcome by locating the few Europeans in Gitxaała through their connections to their own homelands. For the early few who stayed new social networks were created by marriage in which Europeans became part of the Gitxaała social world. However, the gradual increase in the number of K’mksiwah who came to stay (and in the process, forgot who they were and cared even less for the adaawk of Gitxaała and their relatives) turned back the clock in terms of finding a meaningful place for the newcomers. As John Brown, a Tsimshian Elder, said to ethnographer William Beynon in the early half of the 20th century: “a group that could not tell their traditions would be ridiculed with the remark, ‘What is your adaawk?’ And if you could not give it, you were laughed at. ‘What is your grandfather’s name? And where is your crest? How do you know of your past, where have you lived? You have no grandfather. You cannot speak to me, because I have one. You have no ancestral home. You are like a wild animal, you have no abode.’ Nyae and adaawk, grandfather and tradition, are practically the same thing.”
54. K’mksiwah behaviour toward Gitxaała and other Indigenous peoples further complicated the internal process of categorizing them. To be a real person, that is to be a person with authority and respect, one must also act in a particular way. Yet, for most of the history of Euro-American/Gitxaała relations the K’mksiwah have not acted in accord with their declared status (even if, from the K’mksiwah point of view, they have acted in accord with their perceived rights, authority and power).
55. Nonetheless, from the indigenous perspective this paradox –people with proclaimed status and the deportment of a wa’yan creates –or at least underwrites- a cultural boundary or distinction between Gitxaała and K’mksiwah; between civilized and savage. This distinction is inscribed in latter day histories, stories
21 “These particular halaits were characterized by mistrust. At the ritual, a stranger was invited in, seated on a woven cedarbark mat, and entertained by a display of the host’s halait, by feasting, and by bestowing of gifts. Of course, in addition to forging new alliances, the rite was also a warning about the consequences of theft of local resources” (Miller 1997:19; see also, Roth 2008).
17
(A37841)
that readers might recognize if they are familiar with the writings of Vine Deloria Jr. Here is one such Gitxaała example22.
56. Some years ago a group of government biologists came to Gitxaała and asked the people if they could conduct a research project into an important local seafood, the abalone. At first the hereditary leaders said “no.”
57. “This is not right. We can not trust you to do this with respect,” they told the government researchers.
58. But the researchers persisted: “we are different. We understand that in the past people have come here and have not acted appropriately. This time it is different. We have learned how to behave.”
59. The hereditary leaders reconsidered the researchers’ request. But still they said no.
60. The researchers beseeched them: “We will respect your knowledge. We will protect your interests.” They were insistent in the way of the K’mksiwah. They would not be silent.
61. The hereditary leaders again considered the request. This time they decided that they would open their houses to the researchers, they would –out of the kindness of their hearts- share their knowledge of the local abalone beds. But, yet again this trust was misplaced. No sooner had the researchers left then the collected information was made public and a fleet of K’mksiwah fishing boats arrived in Gitxaała territory and proceeded to fish out the local abalone beds.
62. Non-Gitxaała researchers are very likely to recognize this genre of storytelling and may well take issue with it. Just the same, there is in fact an historical and enduring truth to this story (especially if one listens from the perspective of an indigenous person) that transcends the particular details and goes to the heart of the problem. That is, the K’mksiwah consistently violate appropriate behaviours; they act like the unhealed, the wa’yan.
63. Attempts to locate and classify Europeans and their arrival into the world of Gitxaała grapple with this issue. “Who are these beings? Are they Naxnox – spirit beings? Are they human? If they are human how do they fit into our world?” Very much in the way that anthropology emerged as the science of the colonial encounter, there is a parallel Indigenous debate (still as yet unresolved) as to the nature of these newcomers who have come and stayed.
64. In the adaawk (the oral history, sometimes glossed as official history, other times as sacred history) of Gitxaała there is also mention of other wayward groups of
22 This story is told for different effect in Menzies 2004 –in relation to research methods- and in Menzies 2010 – with respect to the depletion of abalone stocks by non-Indigenous fishers.
18
(A37841)
people who traveled from afar. Some stayed and became integrated into Gitxaała society. Others like the Tlingit of 1500 years ago, attempted to conquer Gitxaała (Marsden 2001). As recorded in the adaawk a resolution was eventually found that created a social space within which the ancient travelers were accommodated. The K’mksiwah, despite their numerical superiority, are still coming to terms with their place in the Gitxaała world.
5.3.2 Syt güülm goot: of one heart 65. Syt güülm goot builds upon the idea of relations and belonging. This concept extends the idea of interconnectedness of all things as mediated through social relationships. Drawing from the social relations, wulE’isk, between all social beings (humans, animals, spirits23) the idea of being of one heart creates a basis for modeling and evaluating behaviour. In the course of my research involving natural resource management the concept of ‘being of one heart’ is of particular importance in critiquing the models used by the K’mksiwah and for advancing a specifically Gitxaała approach to natural resource management. Even in the context of the wealth accumulation strategies of the chiefly classes the idea of obligations and responsibilities, not just to other people, but to all social beings, is a key underlying principle.
66. In terms of natural resource management the integrated and community-based nature of Gitxaała resource use structures a balance between community needs and ecosystem health. At the core of this approach is the idea of sty güülm goot and a social view that locates human beings in real relations with all other social beings (for an expanded discussion, see Butler 2004, Menzies and Butler 2007, Menzies 2010). Gitxaała people have been taught by their Smgyigyet to take only what they need, not to overexploit the natural resources.
67. Need-based resource use, harvesting the minimum required for food, trade, and exchange for benefit has allowed Gitxaała people to sustain themselves in their territory for millennia. Community members approach a harvesting activity by first estimating their required amount of that particular resource. Their objective is not to maximize harvest. The idea of this kind of goal-oriented harvesting, rather than ‘stockpiling,’ results in small-scale harvesting, spread over the course of the year. Combined with the seasonal harvesting of specific resources, this results in a comprehensive system of controlled, conservative resource use. Integrated, community-based resource use ensures widespread provisioning without excessive pressure on any particular species.
23 I should point out that I am not comfortable using the English word ‘spirit’ here to refer to this important group of social beings. Other writers in English have used such terms as ‘monsters’ (Halpirn), spirits (Miller), wonders (Halpin, Miller, Cove). Each of these are reasonable translations of the word naxnox, but unfortunately the connotations carried with the various English translations distracts from the internal Gitxaała meaning or label. Both Halpin and Miller go to great length to outline and discuss the various and multiple meanings and how this term is best translated into English. Ultimately, there is not really an adequate English label that can be applied on a one to one basis. Fortunately for our analysis precision with the embedded meaning of the label is not as critical as appreciating that there is a special group of social beings who are able to transform by putting on or taking off their ‘mask’ from animal to human to ‘spirit/monster’ form and that they exist in clearly defined social relationships with animals and humans.
19
(A37841)
68. As one moves from the notion of direct relatives to that of social connections amongst all social beings, the actors of history become those social entities identified as houses, clans, villages, or peoples. Thus, even while it is an individual who takes responsibility for making resource harvesting decisions, (s)he does so in the context of very clear guidelines regarding social responsibilities –not just to humans, but to other social beings, including the fish, as well. Syt güülm goot lays out the basis of social connections, the principles upon which action is based, within and beyond house-groups to include all social beings as relevant actors in the Gitxaała social world.
5.3.3 Nabelgot: continuity through reincarnation 69. The Gitxaała view of the world incorporates a notion of movement and change that is linked to a cyclical understanding of time. This sense of history and time is one that embodies change at the self same moment as it is underscored by a deep sense of continuity. This is best exemplified by the use of hereditary names.
70. Within Gitxaała there is a fairly static set of hereditary names that are tied to social status and rank within the society: “Human descendents circulated through a series of fixed identities, based in a household, whose pedigrees and characteristics were described in hereditary chronicles where these names engaged in specific tasks at specific locations” (Miller 1997:129). Inheritance of a name, however, is not simply determined by birth order, though that does play a role in the process. An individual must be seen as worthy, as capable of carrying a name. Names are often spoken of as being ‘heavy,’ as of having a sense of mass, of weight. They are like masks –though, we should be careful here, a mask within Gitxaała society refers to more than a wooden carving held in front of a face. It is in essence a complete skin, a covering that when placed upon a person turns them into the person or being that is the mask. It is in this sense that a name is like a mask.
71. The character and behaviour of the person taking on a name is important because a hereditary name can be elevated, diminished, or sit unchanged in status even as the name itself persists through time. This conflict or tension between the historical presence and legacy of a name and the present behaviour and actions of the individual name holder lies at the root of a Gitxaała notion of social change and transformation. That is the names, as they are tied to historical actions in the adaawk, provide a context within which a contemporary name holder can act. Even though there is a strong sense that the name holder is in some way the reincarnated previous name holder, it is recognized that they are ‘different’ with each birth. This thus creates the social space for change and transformation. So it is that the Ts’ibasaa who leaves Temlaxhan with his brothers after their village is destroyed and goes down the Skeena River into what is now Gitxaała territory many millennia ago is the same Ts’ibasaa who feasted the first Europeans to arrive in his territories in the 1780s. Each Ts’ibasaa makes their imprint upon society –the first founded a series of important Blackfish housegroups in Gitxaała, the later took on and created a new name He:l in the context of feasting the first
20
(A37841)
Europeans. Through the conceptual framework of reincarnation, the persistence of hereditary names embeds within it a possibility of transformational change. The persistence of hereditary names also underscores a direct sense of continuity with, and connectedness to, the past. In so doing Gitxaała maintains relations with living humans and other social beings and the old people or ancient people who came before.
5.4 Gitxaała seasonal round and overview of resources used. 72. Gitxaała people have for millennia derived their livelihood from harvesting terrestrial and marine resources from within their traditional territory. While there is a general pattern of dispersal to camps (resource harvesting and temporary habitation sites) during the spring, summer, and fall and then a return to a central permanent village during the winter, there is no one universal pattern for all of Gitxaała. The variations between house groups derive from the differences within and between house territories, which form the building block of the greater Gitxaała territory. Thus a house group with territories located to the seaward may well focus upon marine mammals while a house group with territories along the mainland shore might adapt it’s seasonal round to the rhythm of terrestrial game and wildfowl. Some activities would involve all Gitxaała people – fishing for halibut, salmon, picking a range of berries, bark, and harvesting of seaweeds. Other resources were more restricted in terms of who might have rights to harvest. Systems of community exchange and inter regional trade for benefit ensured that all Gitxaała had the resources required for their social reproduction.
73. Anthropologist James McDonald suggests that the Tsimshian (here including the Gitxaała), distributed themselves throughout their territory to harvest resources most of the year, and consolidated into winter villages/towns/tribes (McDonald 1991: 200). He cites Boas’ description of the seasonal cycle of territorial movement based on harvesting key resources, reconstructed from interviews in the first decade of the twentieth century.24
74. Viola Garfield’s work in the 1930s suggests a more constricted pattern of movement (see McDonald 1991: 202). McDonald describes the increasing restriction of Tsimshian (using Kitsumkalum as a case study) harvesting due to foreign appropriation and regulation of resources during the twentieth century. He suggests that post-contact, there was a decreasing ability for title holders and their lineages to enforce rights to territories and resources (ibid.: 201). The colonial state and non-Indigenous enterprises thus infringed upon Ts’msyeen and Gitxaała capacity to use and occupy their territories and thereby contributing to a constriction of indigenous movement.
75. The impact of European trading, settlement, and industrial development in the region considerably altered Gitxaała and Tsimshian settlement and harvesting patterns. In the areas surrounding what is now known as Prince Rupert, changes
24 Franz Boas, Tsimshian Mythology, Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1909-1910 (Washington: Government Printing Offic, 1916), 399.
21
(A37841)
to settlement patterns were immense. The contemporary village of Lax Kw’Alaams is located at a Hudson Bay Company fort site established in 1834. Members of nine tribes whose traditional territories were closer to the Skeena River settled this site subsequent to the establishment of Fort Simpson. The village of Metlakatla, while an older Gitxaała settlement site25, was re-populated in 1862 by Christian converts following the missionary William Duncan. Winter village sites such as Lach Klan, and post-contact villages such as Lax Kw’Alaams have become the focus of contemporary discussions of tribal territories, but traditional, pre-contact territories included sites of occupation and use much further dispersed.
76. Colonial intrusions and restrictions have had impacts on the geographic range of movement and harvesting, and the amount and variety of resources gathered. For instance, the Hudson Bay Company records reveal that for the first time in 1857, some Native peoples living near Fort Simpson remained at the fort to log rather than travel to the Nass for the Oolichan fishery (see Menzies and Butler 2001), suggesting a significant change in the indigenous economy. Contemporary research with Gitxaała community members outlines a similar seasonal round to that documented by Boas, the core of which persisted until the 1960s. Gitxaała people traditionally moved throughout a large expanse of territory, including both the particular walp (house) territories over which they held exclusive ownership, and other areas for which they held various customary rights and forms of ownership.
77. Richard Spencer describes the way in which Gitxaała movement has changed over time: “Hakhoksgm wila daawła wineeyam. [We follow where all our food runs to, our movement is determined by the availability of food, we accompany our foods].26 Not like the way we are now. We follow wherever there is food. We know exactly when the food starts here, we move in from out there to here” [Lach Klan to Prince Rupert area].27
78. Gitxaała Elders remember that during the middle part of the twentieth century, only one old man was left in Lach Klan during the summer months to care-take the houses and gardens; the entire village was empty as people were at their fish camps and the canneries.
79. Camps are distinguished from villages as seasonal specific purpose sites, whereas villages are permanent general-purpose sites with stable structures. There are several types of camps that the Gitxaała used, where they stayed for varying
25 Joshua Tsibese, a leading s’moogyit at the turn of the 19th century, identified Metlakatla as a Gitxaała site in a narrative collected by William Beynon in the early years of the 20th century entitle, The Myth of the Adventures of Gom’asnext. He states: “Years ago many people elived at Metlakatla and it was Nagapt of Gitxala, lived. And this is why the Gitxala lived here.” MSS no. 100. 26 Translation by Doug Brown (Gitxaała member and smalgyax teacher in Prince Rupert) and Ernie Bolton (Gitxaała community member). August 9, 2008. 27 Community meeting at the Highliner Inn, Prince Rupert, June 16, 2008.
22
(A37841)
periods of times. Some examples are: simple camps for an overnight stay; camps used to gather important items on the way to the Nass River oolichan fishing grounds; camps where people would harvest foods and materials in season. Many of these camping spots were used annually for periods from one night to several months.
80. Using the English word ‘camp’ to denote these various types of places used by the Gitxaała runs the risk of diminishing the importance of these places for the Gitxaała. Like village sites, these camp sites were owned by Gitxaała people and contribute to how Gitxaała people understand their ownership of their traditional territory. The more nuanced Smalgyx28 words for different forms of camping reveal the importance of ‘camps’ in the Gitxaała seasonal round, as regularly-used and often long-term sites of residence.29
81. Galdoo – where you camp
82. Wox – stay overnight (not necessarily camping, used in reference to towns, villages)
83. Wil ‘dzox – where we live, reside permanently (plural)
84. Wil dzax dzox – people live there, more than one people, more than one group
85. Nigyoo – where I anchor my boat (singular)
86. Wil ksidzox – looking out the opening of the bay, into the sea
87. N’dzox – place of residence – refers to places people lived while harvesting
88. The range of resources harvested, cultivated, and used is phenomenal. Gitxaała harvests includes, but is not limited to: • Fowl: including, but not limited to geese, ducks, and various seabirds such as scooters, auklets, merlots, etc. • Game: including, but not limited to most terrestrial mammals, such as deer, mountain goats, bear,etc. • Marine Mammals: including, but not limited to: seal, sea lion, whales, sea otters. • Fish: including, but not limited to herring, oolichan, smelt, anchovies, salmon, halibut, and groundfish such as snapper, cod, lingcod, etc. • Marine invertebrates: including, but not limited to bivalves (clams, cockles, mussels), abalone, snails, chitons, urchins, etc. • Plants: a wide range of fruits, such as wild crabapple, salal berries, salmon
28 Smalgyax is the language spoken by Gitxaała. The language is shared with Ts’msyen peoples, but there are important dialect and usage differences between the two First Nations. 29 This list of words was compiled June 16, 2008 in Prince Rupert at a community meeting. Subsequently Dr. Caroline Butler, Mr. Ernie Bolton and Mr. Doug Brown translated and clarified the orthography.
23
(A37841)
berries, frog berries, huckle berries, cranberries, etc; leafy greens such as plantain, salmonberry and fern shots; the inner bark of various trees for food, etc. • Marine plants/ algaes, including but not limited to purple seaweed, sea lettuce, and kelp. • Architectural materials: including, but not limited to large cedar trees were cultivated for house building materials, bark and various plant fibres were sued to manufacture rope, twine, and a range of containers; rocks for fish traps and building foundations; marine shells and gravel for raised building platforms, etc.
5.5 Gitxaała – a distinct aboriginal people. 89. Gitxaała is a distinct aboriginal people. Though ethnographically similar to the peoples of the wider Tsimshianic world (i.e. Ts’msyen, Nisga’a, Gitksan), Gitxaała people have always understood themselves as separate and having lived on the coast long before the arrival of other indigenous peoples. Gitxaała oral histories are clear in their assertion of being the original inhabitants of the coast and, as such other travelers have come later, some stayed and became part of Gitxaała society, while other remained on the margins and outside of the Gitxaała world.
90. Gitxaała oral history emphasizes the primacy of the Gitxaała people on the coast. They differentiate themselves from the peoples that have been known as Ts’msyeen, who they understand to have come to the coast at a later time. While linguists, anthropologists, and colonial governments have put the Gitxaała under the general rubric of Tsimshian, the Gitxaała themselves have emphasized their distinct identity and origins. Their territorial claim throughout the north coast is linked to the nation’s antiquity.
91. We were already occupying these areas and I think that is where we have to be very specific, because all the others just came and Gitxaała was always generous and accommodating people, no matter where within our territory (Matthew Hill).30
92. Gitxaała hereditary leaders and elders often reference their residence on the coast as predating “the Flood”, and indicate particular locations where Gitxaała people anchored their vessels atop mountains. Beynon also documented these adawx during his work with Gitxaała informants in the early twentieth century. Archaeological evidence indicates a flood or Tsunami event prior to 2000 years before present. This archaeological evidence corroborates the adawx of a flood which significantly predated both European arrival and the common understanding of Tsimshian movements to the coast.
30 Community research workshop, North West Community College, January 2008.
24
(A37841)
5.6 Territory - Laxyuup Gitxaała – the land and waters of the Gitxaała including major villages and reserves 93. The terrestrial and marine areas that comprise Laxyuup Gitxaała, the territory of Gitxaała Nation, extends from Ts’bassa’s oolichan fishing territory on the Nass River south to the coastal islands just north of Kitasu Bay. This territory stretches seaward where it adjoins the marine territories of the Haida Nation. To the east, Gitxaała territory extends to the mainland shore of Grenville Channel and abuts against the areas within which the Haisla and Hartley Bay communities now use.
94. Gitxaała use of their traditional territory must be understood as having undergone a significant centralization subsequent to the allocation of reserves by Peter O’Reily in the late 1800s. As Thelma Hill states: “There were so many little villages where the Gitxaała lived before they chose Lach Klan to live.”31
95. The centralization of territories arose in the context of the socio-economic transitions then underway along BC’s north coast. The core territory of Gitxaała, located around Porcher, Banks, Pitt, Campania Islands and the Estevan Group, contained economically important sockeye streams. In the face of the expanding commercial salmon fishery, which was targeting sockeye salmon, Gitxaała leaders (especially Paul Sebassa) recognized that protecting Gitxaała economic interests meant controlling the traditional territories that contained sockeye streams. The same leaders appear to have believed that they would be able to continue harvesting other resources that were not of as important within the new industrial fisheries. This was also a period of time that followed a century of devastating waves of European introduced epidemics that killed as much as 80% or more of the precontact population along the coast of British Columbia. Those who survived and were active in the workings of Gitxaała society recognized that their capacity to survive as a people meant making informed and reasoned choices that balanced their history with the changes they were witnessing in their own lives. Centralizing their focus upon Gitxaała core territories was a key aspect of their social and economic survival strategy.
96. The core Gitxaała village today, Lach Klan, is believed to have been inhabited continuously (seasonally) for over nine millennia as a winter village in Gitxaała territory (see further discussion on key villages below). Even so it has not always the centre of the Gitxaała world in the way that it has become in the post-contact period. Furthermore, Hereditary Leaders and Elders emphasize the difference between Lach Klan as referencing a particular place and Gitxaała having a much broader geographic meaning.
97. Gitxaała territory is not a contiguous geographic area. Gitxaała people had customary rights to, and spent significant periods of time, in places that were outside of the contemporary core territory associated with the village of Lach Klan. Gitxaała oral history and the Northwest Coast ethnographic record include
31 Community meeting at the Highliner Inn, Prince Rupert, June 16, 2008.
25
(A37841)
references to both close and distant sites to which Gitxaała lineages held rights through various forms of social relations and alliances. Mitchell and Donald (2001), discussing oolichan fishing sites on the BC coast, cite McIlwraith (1922- 24: 47, 1948: 359, 360) who documented that Gitxaała people traveled to the Kitlope to produce grease, and the high-ranking Gitxaała leader Tsibasa sometimes remained there for the entire season. The descendants of Ts’ibasa and He:l continue to move from Lach Klan to Haisla territory to participate in the oolichan harvest. The yearly movement of Gitxaała and Ts’msyeen peoples to specific sites on the Nass river for oolichan harvesting and grease-making is also documented (see Mitchell and Donald 2001: 25).
98. Gitxaała traditional territory is broad and non-contiguous, reflecting the pre- contact movements of people for harvesting, trading, and feasting, and later, the post-contact integration of new economic opportunities.
99. It is critical to recognize that territorial boundaries used more recently by twentieth-century colonial governing structures (e.g. Department of Fisheries and Oceans) reflect significant changes in seasonal movements and a process of residential centralization forced upon the Gitxaała by colonial economic and political pressures. Some analysts, for example, have confused the designation of reserves, as a marker of the geographical extent of traditional, precontact aboriginal territories. However, it is probable that a different process is in effect.
100. For example, in the late 1880s and early 1890s Paul Sebassa (Smoygyet Ts’ibassa) was pivotal in establishing reserves for Gitxaała, Hartley Bay (Gitga’ata) and Metlakatla. Sebassa was, in the late 1880s a prominent leader of William Duncan’s Christian community at Metlakatla. Duncan was concerned that settlers were usurping aboriginal fishing rights and convinced Indian Reserve Commissioner O’Reilly to visit the north coast. According to Duncan “Indian fisheries were being taken possession of by whites for cannery purposes, and that if steps were not taken to secure to the Indians their fisheries, they would suffer great injustice” (Inglis 2011:5) O’Reilly agreed to come in person and visited in 1881 and then returned again to “the North Coast in 1882, 1888, 1891, and 1893 to continue the allotment of Indian Reserves” (Inglis 2011:5). In order to understand Sebassa’s role one needs appreciate that as Smoygyet Ts’ibassa he was not only the ranking hereditary leader amongst Gitxaała, but was at that time an unrivalled hereditary leader of the coastal Tsimshianic peoples. Thus, his role in negotiating reserves was not only for Gitxaała, but also for Metlakatla and Gitga’ata.
101. Until O’Reilly was able to meet with Sebassa in person – that meeting occurred at K’moda, Sebass’a traditional fishing site in 1882, only three Gitxaała reserves were established: Lach Klan (IR# 1, Grassy Island, a graveyard IR#2, and Sebassa’s own house territory, K’moda IR #3).
26
(A37841)
“I held a long conference with “She-aks” [Seax] the 2nd Chief, and some of the tribe, the principal Chief “Sebassa” and many of his people being absent, engaged in sea otter hunting. “She-aks” stated that the tribe had held several meetings to consider what land would be necessary for them, and gave me the names of the numerous places they wished for, many of which were on Islands far out at sea, and which could not be visited at that time of year, without the aid of a Steamer, and as it was impracticable for me to engage one for this service, I was reluctantly compelled to abandon the idea of completing the Reserves for this tribe until some future opportunity. The following plots were however, subsequently allotted after the usual conversation with the Indians present.
Dolphin Island, on which the winter village of Kitlathla stands contains about two thousand seven hunter (2700) acres, and is situated in an exposed position on Hecate Channel, between Queen Charlotte Islands, and the mainland. This is a bleak barren tract of country, stocked with scrub timber which is only fit for fuel … The village is very conveniently situated to some of the best halibut and herring fisheries and is within easy reach of the waters most frequented by the fur seal and sea otter. Nowhere on the Coast is game more abundant, deer, bear, and wildfowl being especially numerous. …
No. 2. Grassy Islet lying one mile North of the Village, contains one (1) acres, and is used only as a burial ground.
No. 3. “Kum-o-wa-dah” situated at the No. 3 waterfall at the head of Lowe Inlet, contains one hundred and ninety (190) acres; this is perhaps one of the most valuable Salmon fisheries that I have met with on the Coast.”32
102. When O’Reilly eventually met with Sebassa July 10, 1891 the final reserves (described by O’Reilly as fishing stations were set up. O’Reilly met with Sebassa, Seax, and “over 30 Inds.” at the Lowe Inlet Cannery (Inglis 2011:8). Though O’Reilly does not name the “over 30 Inds.” It is very likely that they were the ranking hereditary leaders and titleholders responsible for the fishing stations that O’Reilly assigned as reserves. The establishment of these reserves is clearly tied to ensuring ongoing and legally guaranteed access to the salmon fishery. This is not a process of establishing the customary boundaries or the fullest extent of the traditional territory of Gitxaała. Furthermore, each of these fishing stations are also sockeye salmon creeks. At this stage of the commercial cannery fishery sockeye was the prime species of harvest. The fishing stations were selected by Gitxaała in order to secure commercially valuable sockeye fishing sites. This was necessary given the commercial and regulatory interest in this species, which led to limitations on access. The other species were important to Gitxaała’s traditional pursuits but at the time there was no need to secure special protection
32 Federal Collection, Minutes of Decision, Correspondence and Sketches, P. O’Reilly, June 1882 to February 1885, File No. 29858 Vol. No. 4 [Reg No. B-64645].
27
(A37841)
given the lack of commercial and regulatory interest in the other species. This further suggests that the establishment of these reserves was focused upon access to the expanding commercial salmon fishery within which Gitxaała people where playing a critical role as labour and as fishermen and not about defining the extent of Gitxaała traditional territories.
5.6.1 The land and waters of the Gitxaała as recorded by William Beynon in 1916 103. In his 1916 notebooks William Beynon describes the hunting territories of Gitxaała as reported to him during his first visit to the village of Lach Klan. He describes the four Gitxaala clans (which he identifies as phratries):
A village situated on the extreme north west end of Dolphin Island, having at present [1916] two hundred and fifty inhabitants. The main industry of these people is fishing and trapping. They have no divisions as to tribes ... they differ from the Port Simpson who are divided into tribes ... the Gitxala people are only divided into phratrays Ganhada, Gispawudwada, Laxskiok, Laxkibo each one having its royal chiefs and houses. But hEl of Gispawudwada royal house is the recognized chief of the Gitxala people who in former years held a position next to the Port Simpson... Tsimyen and were very powerful in war. ... [Gitxaala] still adhere to ancient ceremonies ...
104. In his 1916 Notebooks Beynon also discussed Gitxaala houses:
The Gitxala village was composed of the following houses in order of rank.33 ... Royal Gispawudwada ... house of hEl which is the head of the following subdivisions who all had independent houses. The chief before hEl came to Gitxala was wis’aj gisp who hEl on his arrival from Temlar’am became amalgamated to this house and afterwards became chief and remained so up to the present day but is divided into the following subdivisions
1. Tsiybese 2. Niesno’l 3. Nieswe’xs 4. Gunaxno’tk 5. Txagexs 6 Nieslkuxso’
II Royal house Gisp. of Gitxala seks who is subdivided into the following who each were independent house (The former chief name of this house was dxe’enk) 1. niesgamdxowe 2. ‘awe’sdi 3. waxáit
The royal Ganhada 1. exlewels 2. wi’nemo’lk 3. wak .es (watsta) 4. dopxxen
33 Beynon notes that his “informant” was Joshua Tsibese.
28
(A37841)
These four were of one group of Ganhada chiefs another group 1. ladox 2. hamdxi 3. ados 4. nios’ayaim
The Laxskiok and Laxkibo have no royal houses. [B-F-419.1]
105. In his “Notebook” Beynon then proceeded to record the Lekkogiget class in order of rank. He also provides the names of the house of the “Gitxala”.
106. In the process of his research amongst the Gitxaała, Beynon proceeded to document “all their (Gitxaała) hunting territories before ... most ... informants go away” (1916, B-F-422.10). Beynon identified the individuals who he spoke with as: Joshua Tsiybese; Samuel Lewis; Albert Argyle; and Job Spencer. Beynon includes both a description of the territories (land and water), identification of whom the various locations belonged to. Within the historical record a map accompanies the written description of territories.
107. What follows is Beynon’s record of Albert Argyle’, Samuel Lewis’, Job Spencer’s, and Joshua Tsiybese’s identification of the significant territories of the Gitxaala:
The territory of the royal house of hel Gispawudwada was on Pitt Island and I have marked 1. This was known as ktsim’alagam … and here was gathered the salmon and berries and was also a hunting grounds. It also extended onto the mainland and this was the property of this royal house and all its subdivisions. Hel also had another territory but this was used by all the Gitxala and here in olden times was the village of wisa’ag at the north end of Pitt Island marked 2 and was called wilhatga’amilga medi’k “where the grizzly plays along the shore”. And next to this was the territory of nias’ois gispawadwuda marked 3. This place was known as kta’ol … and here was the hunting grounds of this house and next to this was the territory of the house of ‘nagap’t ganhada marked 4. This place was known as k’tai and here was gathered berries and salmon and on the mainland across from Pitt Island was the property of the royal house of seks known as kmodo (Lowe Inlet) marked 5 and the seks also had another place on Pitt Island known as kne’mujam ba’alx. This was a berry picking ground … marked 6 and next the territory of the seks was the territory belonging to the ganhada house of dxagamfishaitks known as gan’a’ol (Bear pit hap.) marked 7… This was on the end of Kennedy Island marked 8 … [Beynon Notebook, Gitxala, CMC, B-F-422.10] [Emphasis added]
108. They informed Beynon that:
29
(A37841)
… And the property of nagwitogem laxe ganhada had as his territory upon which this house gathered berries and fish in the river and was also the hunting grounds known as sqaskin’is ... This was marked 9. And this was the property of the Laxgibo house of lebeksk and this was known as gaipol ... Marked 10. At the South End of Pitt island was the village of ‘extewels royal ganhada and was known as dxowenxtom galdzep (The village in the Point) marked 11. And adjoining this was the territory known as dxim wilu nek “… Inlet” This is marked 12. And then on Pitt Island nias’ois had two places territories and the second one was known as gal’atgao (wetsta word. Meaning?) marked 13. the Gitxala village of Laxklen (present village) where all the people lived during the winter marked 14. And then the territory of ayaigansk ... marked 15 ...[Beynon Notebook, Gitxala, CMC, B-F-423.1] [Emphasis added]
109. Beynon continues to document the territories of the Gitxaała as recounted in 1916 by Albert Argyle, Samuel Lewis, Job Spencer, and Joshua Tsiybese:
... And on MacCauley Island there is the territory gushawel Gispawudwada and was known as ‘nisek’wat’se “Place where sling shots were made, marked as 16. And on this island was another territory belonging to the Gispawudwada house of watali known as tkulaxlax “around falling” named on account of the steep sides of the island and was the trap set for animals. … marked, 17. And ... part of Porcher Island was the territory of wa’omxk Gispawudwada known as witunaxno’x. This place of supernatural beings marked No. 18. and there the property of nioshalopas Laxskiok ... known as kspinale marked 19 ...[Beynon Notebook, Gitxala, CMC, B-F- 423.1] [Emphasis added]
110. Albert Argyle, Samuel Lewis, Job Spencer, and Joshua Tsiybese continued, noting:
On Banks Island was the property of la’ol ganhada known as gitgiyeks “The people way out to sea”, marked 20. Adjoining this was the property of gaiyemtkwe Gispawudwada known as nego’a’ks (“water splashing against”) on account of the rough water splashing against the steep cliffs and on this account was given this name, marked 21. And then adjoining this was the territory of lutkudzemti laxski’k known as laxsto’ltem dodzep “on Beaver Cliff”. This cliff was a Fort and was made on a high cliff. 22. And on the south end of Banks Island was the territory of the ganhada royal house of ‘wakés and it was known as k’manxata, so called because at the extreme point was a sheltered bay and was always calm. Xata means calm inlet. ... Marked No. 23[Beynon Notebook, Gitxala, CMC, B-F-423.1] [Emphasis added]
30
(A37841)
111. They explained that:
… Campania Island was the territory of nias’oio and niaslo’s and on the S.E. end of the Island was nugun’aks the island itself was known as laxgitgiyeks “on the people of island at sea” 24. [Beynon Notebook, Gitxala, CMC, B-F-423.1] [Emphasis added]
112. Albert Argyle, Samuel Lewis, Job Spencer, and Joshua Tsiybese identified Long Point as one of the territories of the Gitxaala First Nation:
Territories of the Gitxala … Another territory which was used by all the Gitxala people and was a place that they camped at when on their way to the Nass River where in early part of the year they would go and get the oolichan fish and they had camps all they way up. This was one of them and was known as kso’naoks – Long Point (Just south of the cannery known as Claxton), marked 25. [Beynon Notebook, Gitxala, CMC, B-F-423.1] [Emphasis added]
113. The discussion including territories continued (Beynon Notebook, Gitxala, CMC, B-F-423.1):
And at Porcher Island the Ganhada and Gispawudwada people had all to themselves where they would always hunt. The gisp. territory was known as k’pexl marked 26. And the Ganhada peoples territory was known as gaswe’not tibon ... marked 27. And on the Nass River the people also had another place which all used (Gitxala) and here they gathered grease and oolichan. It was known as samq’le’ala (Real old seal) ... Marked 28.
114. Gitxaala narratives (e.g., Myth of Crest of gaiyemtkwe), as recorded by Beynon in 1916 during his research amongst the Gitxaala, refer to Banks Island:
Myth of Crest of gaiyemtkwe: the crest hagwiejem giyeks (The monster a way out to sea). Told by A. Argyle. Feb. 14/16. This house was a house of hunters and they hunted chiefly the sea otter (p’ton) … they went all the time to one place known as laxgiyeks (in sea away out) (a long way out from Bank’s Island) … [Beynon Notebook, Gitxala, CMC, B-F-421.8]
31
(A37841)
I asked informant [A. Argyle, Feb. 14/16] if he could give me any information on the house of ‘extewels royal ganhada. Informant states that they have been extinct a long time but he heard his grandmother state they were of the same group as having at one time lived at gadu´ and were of gidaganitz origin and from these they came on to the Gitxala after the flood. For in the songs of this house they sing of how they were at gadu´ and how they drifted out to sea and found a rock here they anchored and when the waters receded they found they were on Banks Island. … [Beynon Notebook, Gitxala, CMC, B-F-421.9] [Emphasis added]
5.6.2 Gitxaała village sites, reserves, and the establishment of Gitxaala reserves 115. The contemporary village of Lach Klan, on Dolphin Island (IR Reserve #1. Assigned by Commissioner Peter O’Rielly September 21, 1882) is considered by Gitxaała to the longest continually inhabited community on the BC coast. Given the depth and extent of extent shell miden within the current village site this is clearly an ancient site. During a visit in June 2011 our field archaeology research crew34 conducted an auger test and percussion-coring test adjoining the Church Army building in the center of what was the original village site. A recent construction project had provided a fortuitous opportunity to map and collect a detailed column sample from the surface to bedrock, nearly 4m in depth. The reveled soil profile clearly showed uninterrupted human use and occupancy. Information from these samples is currently being processed for analysis. Today Lach Klan is the primary village site of Gitxaała with between 425 and 475 people living there. However, Lach Klan is not the only Gitxaała village site.
116. The oral history recounts far more villages throughout Gitxaała territory that the one primary village that exists today. The ravages of smallpox and other new diseases carried by European visitors left a wake of death and disruption. Whereas other Tsimshianic peoples on the coast found themselves deserting their traditional territories and gathering around the Hudson Bay Company fort in the early 1830s and the new Christian missionary community of Metlakatla in 1862, Gitxaała people focused on maintaining access, use, and control over their core territory from the basis of their longstanding central winter village of Lach Klan.35
117. The villages described in the oral history remain places of importance in social, cultural, and materials sense today. The following describes specific locations that I have visited and/or have been directly told of by community members through the course of my life. This is not an exhaustive list of Gitxaała village sites – it does, however, provide a picture of the extent and number of
34 Joining our crew on this trip were Professor Andrew Martindale, Ph.D. (UBC Associate Professor of Archaeology) and Professor Kishan Supernant, Ph.D. (U.Alberta Assistant Professor of Archaeology). 35 See Jay Miller 19xx, for example, where he discusses the ways in which Klemtu –comprised of at least two very different peoples- came into being around an industrial salmon cannery in the late 1800s.
32
(A37841)
villages that once existed in Gitxaała territory and that remain places of social, cultural, and economic importance today.
118. On the south end of Banks Island, Ks’waan is a large village central in the stories of the encounters with some of the first European visitors (James Colnett and his crew). During the course of my archaeological research we have determined that this large village site consists of three distinct terraces of houses. In addition, preliminary analysis of our faunal samples show extensive harvesting of abalone and seal urchin at this site.
119. Across Principe Channel we find another cluster of villages tucked in behind Wolf Point on the south end of Pitt Island. This place, which has at least five distinct habitation sites, is called Will u sgket. During our archaeological research we identified an intertidal lithic scatter – that is flaked stones used in the construction of tools- that included three bifacial points. The lithics recovered were reviewed at UBC and identified as dataing to about 6000 years before present. The lithics were found in association with one of the five village sites in this cluster.36
120. A bit to the east on Pitt Island, in behind the Cherry Islets is Citeyats (IR #9 established July 10, 1891 by Commissioner Peter O’Reilly) another large village site. Our archaeological research here has identified the surface features of up to 26 house depression including at least five large plank houses along the water front described by Jacinto Caamon in during his 1792 visit.37 Recent C14 (carbon 14) dates provide decisive evidence that Citeyats has been continuously inhabitant for at least 4,000 years before present.38 Our percussion core tests and auger test samples, conducted in a systematic grid pattern, clearly show evidence of continuous human occupation from the surface of the village site to the sterile soil and bedrock an average of 3-4 meters below the surface. The historical evidence of this village can be found in Caamano’s detailed account of his month long stay stormbound off the village and his visit ashore as a guest of honour of Smoygyat Homstits in 1792.
121. I have been told of old villages to the south on Campania Island and within the Estevan Group. These are the sites of 20th century Gitxaała traplines and traditional house territories. Further to the south Gitxaała people have used habitation sites on Moore Islands during their customary harvesting of fish, seals, and other marine resources.
36 See attached draft report by MacKenzie Jessome in appendix. 37 It is interesting to note that of the reserves established by O’Reilly only two were primary village sites – Lach Klan and Citeyats. A third, Klapthon (IR #5 & #5A) was proposed as a new primary village closer to the steamship travel. The other reserves are all fisheries stations, though at least three have midden or remains of midens within the reserve boundaries. The selection of these fishing stations as reserves reflects the active decisions of Gitxaała chiefs to maintain access to critical fisheries as they ensured a future for their community in the face of increased industrial and colonial encroachment. 38 As of December 16, 2011 we have received 8 C14 dates from the University of Arizona NSF Arizona AMS Laboratory.
33
(A37841)
122. Charles Bishop, in the log of his 1795 visit to Gitxaała territory, records meeting with Gitxaała people in Whaler Bay on the west coast of Banks Island: “The first place we came to was the butchery, where lay about 40 dead Seals, newly killed. Ten or 12 more, was on the Fire, Singing the Hair off the Skins. A Women and a man where Stripping the blubber and Skin together, off an other Quantity. Another women was cutting up and Quartering the Flesh. Many Poles spread from tree to tree about 6 feet over the Fire where Covered with Strips of Blubber, and on bushes all round was hung the Flesh. Blood Gutts and filth formed the comfortable foot Path to the Habitation which lay about 10 yards from the butchery. This was no other than some Poles stretched from tree to tree about 7 feet from the Ground and covered with the Rind of the Birch Tree. A large fire right in the middle served as well to warm the inhabitants as to dry their Fish, vast quantities of which where hung to the Poles and spread around the Rocks near the Hutt: This Family consisted of an old man, 3 of middle age and two young ones, and they had Each a Wife seemingly Proportioned to their own ages, which with 4 small Children composed the group.”39
123. Further to the north up this coast our archaeological research has recorded information on three habitation sites in Kxenk’aa’wen (Bonilla Arm). All are sites that have been used from the ancient past through to the contemporary period.
124. To the east of Banks Island in Kts’ml’aa’agn (Curtis Inlet) is the village established by Ts’ibassa when he first established his domains within Gitxaała territory. Our archaeological research has described a small village site and a remnant midden patch of some antiquity. This place remains a significant cultural location up through the contemporary.
125. K’moda (Lowe Inlet, on the mainland shore of Grenville Chanel) is also a significant village and cultural site (more on this location below in the discussion on salmon fishing). Here is located a key fishing site for the royal Gispuwada house of Ts’ibaasa-He:l and an ancient village that figures prominently in Gitxaała adawx.
126. As was mentioned above the reserves that were established were, for the most part, described as fishing stations. Additionally, save for the first three, Gitxaała’s reserves were set in a meeting between Ts’ibassa and Peter O’Reilly at K’moda in 1891.
127. In 1882 Indian Land Commissioner Peter O’Reilly assigned the first three Gitxaała reserves:
39 Roe, Micahel (ed) 1966. The Journal and Letters of Captain Charles Bishop on the North-West Coast of America, in the Pacific and in New South Wales, 1794-1799. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Page 65.
34
(A37841)
“Dolphin Island, on which the winter village of Kitlathla stands contains about two thousand seven hunter (2700) acres, and is situated in an exposed position on Hecate Channel, between Queen Charlotte Islands, and the mainland. This is a bleak barren tract of country, stocked with scrub timber which is only fit for fuel … The village is very conveniently situated to some of the best halibut and herring fisheries and is within easy reach of the waters most frequented by the fur seal and sea otter. Nowhere on the Coast is game more abundant, deer, bear, and wildfowl being especially numerous. …
No. 2. Grassy Islet lying one mile North of the Village, contains one (1) acres, and is used only as a burial ground.
No. 3. “Kum-o-wa-dah” situated at the No. 3 waterfall at the head of Lowe Inlet, contains one hundred and ninety (190) acres; this is perhaps one of the most valuable Salmon fisheries that I have met with on the Coast.”
128. On July 10, 1891, Indian Reserve Commissioner Peter O’Reilly formulated a decision to establish fifteen reserves for the “Kit lath la Indians:”:
No 4 Sand Island ... situated one mile North of Kitlathla village ...
No 5 Klap thlon ... situated one mile northwest of Calvert Point, Grenville Channel ...
No 6 Pa aat ... situated on the eastern shore of Pitt Island ...
No 7 Tsim tack ... situated on Pitt Island, and on the western shore of Union Passage, about two miles South of Grenville Channel. ...
No 8 Too wartz ...on the southern shore of Pitt Island
No 9 Cit e yats ... situated near the southern extremity of Pitt Island, and about two miles North of Steep Point. ...
No 10 Kit la wa oo ... situated on the eastern shore of Banks Island, about 2 1/2 miles south of Gale Point ...
No 11 Kee cha ... situated on the eastern shore of Banks Island, about one mile north of Gale Point.
No 12 Ko or yet ... situate on the eastern shore of Banks Island, about four miles north of Gale Point. ...
35
(A37841)
No 13 Clow el ... situated on the western shore of Pitt Island and the southern shore of Mink-trap Cove.
No 14 She gan ny ... situated on the West coast of Pitt Island at the head of Mink-trap Cove. ...
No 15 Tsim lair en ... situated on the West coast of Pitt Island, and east of Anger Island. ...
No 16 Ke swar ...situated on the western shore of McCauleys Island, about three miles south of Hankin Point. ...
No 17 Key ar ka ... situated on the northeastern shore of Banks Island, about two miles East of end Hill. ...
No 18 Kul ... on the southern shore of Bonilla Island, Hecate Strait.”40
5.7 Laws and customs in relations to land and resource use, tenure, distribution 129. At the core of the Gitxaała system of law and customs with respect to land use and land tenure is the relationship between walp and laxyuup as documented in adwax and malsk (two critical aspects of Gitxaała oral history). The adawx documents the history of ownership over specific territories within Gtixaała’s greater territory. The rights to speak to these matters rests in malsk (see section 3.2 for further details).
130. The authority and jurisdiction over rights of use and exclusivity of use is held by the ranking hereditary leader of a particular walp (house group). At the most basic level only members of the owning walp may use resources from that walp’s territory and only as allowed by the ranking hereditary leader of the walp. Access by other walps and other non-Gitxaała aboriginal groups to a particular walp territory was only permitted by direct request to proprietary walp.
131. Certain categories of people, such as man’s wife and children, may have access during his life to his walp’s territory and resources. However, upon his death his wife and children typically relinquish rights to use and access the husband/father’s territory and must return to their own walp’s laxyuup.
5.8 The importance of resource harvesting and territory in the modern Gitxaała identity and way of life 132. Without territory a smoygyet is nothing. Without the capacity to harvest one does not have the capacity to feast. Without the feast names can not be
40 Federal Collection, Minutes of Decision, Correspondence and Sketches, P. O’Reilly, April 1889 to January 1892, File 29858, Vol. No. 6 [Reg. No. B-64647]
36
(A37841)
passed on. While much has changed since James Colnett first arrived in Gitxaała territory one thing has remained strong – the place of harvesting and territory in the modern Gtixaała identity and way of life.
133. There is an active network of people who harvest a wide range of resources from throughout Gitxaała’s territory. These foods and materials are then circulated and distributed along family networks – food reaches out far beyond the immediate confines of the village of Lach Klan and works its way into Prince Rupert and south to places like the suburbs of the lowermainland.
6. Gitxaała fisheries and the use of marine resources 134. Gitxaała people engaged in a wide range of fisheries practices that pre- date European contact. This section provides detail of Gitxaała fisheries. The information in this section of the report draws upon my research with Gitxaała community elders and community members and from a review of published and unpublished documents.
135. In what follows case studies are used to highlight the importance of fisheries, in the past and present, to Gitxaała people in terms of sustenance, economy, and identity. The section opens with a discussion of the economic importance of these fisheries, a general overview of Gitxaała fisheries, and then an overview of Gitxaała relations with non-human social beings and the importance that this plays in structuring Gitxaała social behaviours around harvest, consumption, and respect. Next follows an archaeological overview based upon my current and ongoing research (funded by the federal granting agency, Social Sciences and Humanities research Council of Canada through a competitive peer reviewed application process). Case studies of specific fisheries are then presented.
6.1 Overview of Gitxaała Fisheries 136. Salmon and herring are two of the most important fish harvested in Gitxaała territory. Salmon have been, and continue to be, harvested in traditional house territories that are owned and managed by ranking hereditary leaders. Salmon harvesting techniques range from gaff and spearing though stone traps and wooden weirs to a range of net and hook and line gear types. More detailed discussions are included below.
137. Herring have been fished for their flesh and for their roe by Gitxaała people prior to, at the time of, and well after contact with Europeans. Our archaeological investigations in Gitxaała territory since 2009 have revealed the presence of herring bones in the majority of sites for which we have collected faunal samples. Our data collection methods are designed to provide a detailed analysis of Gitxaała’s regional harvesting practices within their core territory.
138. My ethnographic research in Gitxaała, since 2001, concerning resource- harvesting practices has documented the importance of herring roe harvesting. As
37
(A37841)
discussed in more detail below, herring roe has been harvested by using various seaweeds and kelp and hemlock branches. Elders and community members also describe the deliberate planting of herring in certain areas by purposefully towing trees covered in spawn from one area to another in order to seed if for future fishing.
139. Halibut have been harvested from before the arrival of Europeans. Early descriptions by Europeans (Sabaan was fishing halibut, for example, when James Colnett came upon him) clearly indicate the harvesting of Halibut as a practice that had existed for some time prior to the arrival of Europeans. Archeological evidence indicates that Halibut and other ground fish such as, but not restricted to, various species of rock cod, grey cod, black cod, lingcod were a persistent component of pre-contact diets.41
140. Museum collections, such as New York’s American Museum of Natural History, Chicago’s Field Museum, and Vancouver’s Museum of Anthropology contain many fine examples of halibut and other ground fish hooks dating from prior to, at, or just after European contact with Gitxaała.
141. Halibut was and is dried in thin pieces starting in and around the month of May. This thin dried fish, woks, is stored for household consumption and also traded with people who either do not fish or do not have access to halibut fishing grounds.
142. Invertebrates including, but not restricted to, abalone, clams, cockles, mussels, snails, chitons, and urchins are harvested throughout the year. Clams and cockles are typically harvested in the winter months at low tide. Some evidence exists of maricultrue in the form of extending the intertidal zone through use of rock terraces and thus creating ‘clam gardens.’42 Site surveys of favoured clam and cockle beds within Gitxaała territory indicate the possibility of direct human activity in shaping the beach zone prior to and immediately after European contact.43
143. Seaweed is an important food harvested in the month of May and sun dried at seaweed camps or in Lach Klan. Nancy Turner and Helen Clifton describe the process of harvesting and drying seaweed as practiced by the southern neighbours of the Gitxaała, the Gitgaa’t (2006). My research with
41 See, Ames (2005:365-82) for a list fish and other faunal remains found in the Prince Rupert Harbour area. Mattson and Coupland (1995) and Shuttles (“Environment,” in Wayne Shuttles (ed) Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7 Northwest Coast. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. 1990:16-29) lists a wide compendium of fish and other fauna that they suggest would have and may continue to be used by indigenous peoples along the northwest coast. 42 See Eldridge (2007:15-16) for a description of what may be a clam garden in the Prince Rupert Harbour. 43 A series of rock walls in Kitkatla Inlet may be more accurately understood as clam gardens or terraces as opposed to stone fish traps. I have had the opportunity to visit other locations within Gitxaała territory that also suggest themselves as better understood as clam terracing rather than stone fish traps.
38
(A37841)
Gitxaała documents a similar process to that described by Turner and Clifton.44 More will be said about seaweed below.
144. Seal is an important food for Gitxaała. For those lineages without access to either the Nass or Kemano runs of oolichan, seal oil was their grease. A favoured old food, hadda oola, is much talked about by contemporary Gitxaała people. Only a few people still make this delicacy of seal intestines stuffed with seal fat and slow boiled. Seal and Sea Lion meat is preserved by drying, smoking, jarring, and freezing. Prior to and at the time of European arrival whales were also harvested for food and oil.
6.2 Economic Importance and the Trade for Benefit of Fish Products 145. The practice of exchange for benefit was, prior to and at the time of European contact, an integral aspect of Gitxaała culture and society. Trade and exchange of a range of key items, such as abalone, were critical to the function of Gitxaała practices such as the yaawk (feast). The exchange of food and other items such as shells amongst Gitxaała either in a yaawk (feast) or through more explicit trading contexts, is trade for economic benefit. It is in these practices that the critical social values of the accumulation of wealth, prestige, and social rank occur and are maintained.
146. Three types of evidence can be drawn upon. They are: • Ethnographic data (including adawx and published reports) • Linguistic data (concerning words and phrases used to identify trade items) • Archeological data (regarding distribution of food products).
147. Amongst the Gitxaała adawx describe the development of trading relations between their neighbouring Ts’msyeen and non-Ts’msyeen neighbours. In the adawx of “The Purchase of the Nahuhulk, for example, James Lewis of Kitkatla describes the trading privileges of Ts’msyeen ad Gitxaała people: “The Gilodza were privileged to trade with the Haida of what is now Prince of Wales Island. The Gitlan traded with the Nass tribes; the Gitwilgoats, with the Haida of what is now the Queen Charlotte Islands; the Gidzaxlahl and Gitsis with the Tlingit, with whom their royal houses were related; the Gixpaxloats, with the Upper Skeena; the Gitando with the Kitselas; and the Kitkatla with the Kitimat and the Bella Bella. Thus all had exclusive trading areas.”
44 In a series of interviews conducted in 2001 through 2004 seaweed was consistently mentioned, along with abalone as culturally important intertidal foods that were being disrupted. Seaweed is felt to be experiencing the adverse impacts of climate changes. The disruption of abalone was seen to be caused by an expansive non-aboriginal commercial harvest and then the subsequent illegal harvest by non-aboriginal dive fishermen. Interviews with Agnes Shaw, Charlotte Brown, and Violet Skog –for example- document the importance of seaweed and also the problems caused by non-aboriginal dive fishermen.
39
(A37841)
148. William Beynon notes of the close relations between Gtixaala and the Haida: “When the Gitxaała went fur seal hunting (fur sealing) they frequently went very close to the Haida coast. And at times the relationship between some of the Gitxaała groups and the Haidas was very friendly and often so, to this day there are some of the Gitxaała names are still being used by the Skidigate Haidas such as niswexs, a chiefly name of the T’sibaasa, Gispawudada group” (notebook 6, page 25)45.
149. These adawx, as have been discussed elsewhere in this report, include the history of alliances and conflicts.46 These accounts also document the various types of goods traded between different First Nations and describe who had rights to trade with whom and under what conditions.
150. Linguistic data (collected by John Dunn, Margaret Anderson, and Bruce Rigsby, among others) can be used to identify the types of vocabulary in the Tsimshianic languages that identify two features: terms for trade and exchange, and terms for varieties of food products. The first set of terms is important in defining the linguistic possibility that trade for economic benefit existed. If terms for trade and exchange exist in a language, then it can be inferred that a people were familiar with and very likely engaged in trade. In Sm’algyax at least four words can be identified that imply some sort of exchange: diik – buy; ‘wa’at – sell; gilam – give; and sagyook – trade. There are also numerous words for specific types of presents, some obligatory and some repayable.47 The Sm’algyax Dictionary lists more than 30 words for various types of exchanges ranging from gift giving to trade and sale.48
151. The second set of terms (describing a variety of food items) is equally important for demonstrating the existence, or at least, the possibility of trade for economic benefit. For example, in Sm’algyax there are a variety of terms that describe types of preserved fish (i.e half smoked, smoked, split and dried, etc), the run of a fish (early, late, etc), as well as distinguishing variations in aesthetic qualities such as colour, texture, and taste. The existence of these terms and concepts clearly indicates the existence of a finely tuned aesthetic appreciation of differences between fish products. Thus, there is not simply one type of salmon available to everyone everywhere. Rather, there are ranges of salmon products, some of which are recognized as being more desirable than others. This distinction in taste and quality extends to all manner of fish products, including
45 William Beynon unpublished Tsimshian Geographical and Ethnical Material. New York: American Museum of Natural History. 46 For example, there are a series of adawx that document the alliances and conflicts involving Ts’bassa and other Ts’msyeen Sm’gyigyet. See, for example: “A Challenge Feast of Tsibasa.” Henry Watt (Nisnawhl, Kitkatla). recorded by William Beynon, 1948-49; “Legaix Cremates Himself,” Matthew Johnson (Laraxnits, Gispaxloats), recorded by William Beynon, 1926; “The Rise of Kitkatla Over the Tsimshian,” (James Lewis (Kaimtkwa, Kitkatla), recorded by William Beynon, 1947. 47 Personal communication, Margaret Anderson October 11, 1997. See also entries under buy, gift, sell, and trade in the Sm’algyax Dictionary, Ts’msyeen Sm’algyax Authority, January 2001. 48 Sm’algyax Dictionary, Ts’msyeen Sm’algyax Authority, January 2001.
40
(A37841)
abalone as food and as ceremonial decoration. This form of ‘product differentiation’ would be important in the establishment of networks of trade in fish products between different communities and households.
152. Data from archeological studies also substantiate the prior contact significance of fishing49. It is important to reiterate that very little work has been done within Gitxaała territory with the exception of work focused on site identification for consultative processes connected to logging and/or other development plans. Some work is currently ongoing in the Prince Rupert Harbour area by consultants and university-based researchers. An earlier project, led by George MacDonald was instrumental in excavating sites along the Skeena River50 and Prince Rupert Harbour.51 The works of R.G. Matson and Gary Coupland52 and Kenneth Ames and Herbert Maschner53 provide detailed overviews of the state of archeological knowledge of the Pacific Northwest. Both books describe trade and exchange (primarily as related to prestige items such as obsidian, but other trade goods such as food products are also discussed).
153. In addition, the reports from the extant archeological excavations and surveys reveals, through faunal analysis the significance of a wide range of marine resources, including abalone prior to contact (Bolton 2007; personal communication February 15, 2007)
6.3 Fisheries –relations with non-human social beings 154. In interviews with community harvesters fishing, as a cultural practice, is framed in terms of relations with non-human social beings and humans. That is, one’s behaviour is regulated through social relations, which are understood as kin- like (see, for example Langdon 2006). This implies and requires a structure of obligation and reciprocity. One learns this first hand through experience on the water and land. But these lessons are also heard and reinforced in the oral histories of Gitxaała people; some of which has been recorded over the course of the last century and a half.
155. John Tait (Gispaxloats, Tsimshian) recounted a sequence of stories of Txemsum (Raven) to William Beyon in 1954. In his narrative, Tait talks about
49 Martindale et al’s ongoing Dundas Island project has demonstrated abalone shell in their core samples (personal communication February 15, 2007; Bolton 2007; Natalie Brewster personal communication November 2, 2007). It is important to note that this archaeological data is not from sites located within the core Gitxaała Territories. However, given the strong parallel in systems of resource harvesting and social organization and the clear social, economic, and cultural interconnections of peoples in the north coast this evidence is a strong indicator that abalone where harvested in this region prior to European contact. These archeological data corroborates the ethnographic data collected by Menzies and Butler through the Forests and Oceans for the Future Project regarding the general patterns of resource harvesting by Gitxaała peoples (see, for example: Menzies and Butler 2007; Butler 2004). 50 See, for example: Coupland (1985) Prehistoric Culture Change at Kitselas Canyon. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia. 51 See, for example: Kenneth M. Ames (2005) The North Coast Prehistory Project Excavations in the Prince Rupert Harbour, British Columbia: the Artifacts. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 52 R.G. Mattson and Gary Coupland (1995) The Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. San Diego: Academic Press. 53 Kenneth Ames and Herbert Maschner (1999) Peoples of the Northwest Coast: Their Archeology and Prehistory. New York: Thames and Hudson Ltd..
41
(A37841)
the time when Txemsum marries the Princess of the Salmon People. Txemsum “had plenty of food. Whenever they were hungry they would roast a salmon and the women [Txemsum’s wife] would carefully gather all the bones and the remnants and burn these and as she done this they heard a happy cry in the waters of the stream. This was the salmon they had just ate now restored again.” As long as Txemsum respected his wife and her relatives he had plenty of food.
156. Unfortunately for Txemsum he grew jealous of his wife and lost his trust in her. His wife “became very angry. ‘I’ll go away back to my own people as I am afraid you will do me injury.’ So she went out of the house and called out as she went out ‘Come my children, come with me.’ She went down into the stream, into the water and disappeared and all of the dried salmon now became alive and all jumped into the water and became live salmon and swam away after the woman, who was the Princess of the Salmon. Txemsum’s supply of salmon was all gone. . . . He was now very hungry with nothing to eat.”
157. Jay Miller (1997) describes the results of people not respecting the gifts of their non-human relations. In his account of the story of Temlaxham, an ancient Tsimshain community of origin, we learn of how the people are punished for forgetting themselves, for disrespecting our own animal relatives: “Everyone did as he or she pleased. Great chiefs would give feasts and kill many slaves. They wasted food. The people had become wicked. One day some children went across the Skeena to play by themselves. One of them went for a drink at a small stream. There he saw many trout. He called to the others, and they began to fish for trout even though they already had plenty of food. They abused the trout. When they caught a fish, they would put urine in its mouth and return it to the water to watch if writhe and die. They laughed and mocked the fish in its agony. The trout had come to spawn that fine spring day, but they died instead. Soon a black fog began and a strong wind blew. Then it began to rain torrents. The trout stream began to rise. The children drowned” (Miler 1997:63- 64).
158. Marc Spencer (Ganhada, Gitxaala), in an interview with William Beynon in 1953 described a similar Gitxaała account of a flood brought about by children disrespecting salmon at a village on Banks Island known as K’na’woow (place of the snares): “The salmon were very plentiful in all these creeks and the people had plenty. It was then that some of the young people, now having all of the salmon they required, began to abuse the salmon by catching them in looped snares which they made from fine roots. When the salmon’s head swan into the loop they would pull it tight and then leave the salmon hanging by the neck half out of water, then the eagles and other preying animals would come and devour the salmon. The older people begged the young people to stop their abuses to the salmon but these would not heed the warnings of the older people and soon other children in the nearby
42
(A37841)
villages began doing the same. Their elders kept warning them ‘you will cause the anger of the chief of the Skies, because you are abusing the valuable salmon, but they would pay no attention to their warnings. Soon the weather began to change and the rain began to come down heavy and soon the rivers began to rise and gradually the waters rose and soon the villages at the creeks became submerged and still the waters rose and soon the small islands became submerged and then the people who up till then had kept moving up into the hills now got everything into their large canoes and the high hills and mountains were now all submerged only here and there were small portions of the hills to which the people were gathering to anchor their canoes and soon these disappeared and the people that were saved began to drift apart. The people knew that this was the revenge of the salmon that caused the flood retaliating after the many abuses.” Thus we see that if the salmon or the trout are treated inappropriately they will leave or extract retribution. If respected they will reward the harvester. History has taught us that catching too much salmon from a particular location will result in either a marked decline or total extirpation of the stock. The same history has also shown that not taking enough seems to have a similar effect. Thus, the oral histories provide guidelines for behaviour that are reinforced through our direct observations of the behaviour of fish.
54 6.4 Overview of archaeological fisheries data 159. Since 2009 I have been engaged in a Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada funded research project involving archaeological research with a team of UBC archaeologists and Gitxaała community members in southern Gitxaała Territory. Our funding was provided through a competitive peer-review process administered by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. This federal government agency is Canada’s premier research granting agency.
160. This section of the report describes the preliminary results of our work on fourteen habitation sites (see figure 1: map of archaeological research sites, Laxyuup Gitxaała Research Project, 2009-2011). The majority of these sites have not previously been recorded in the provincial archaeology registry. Our research objective was to gather various types of data to examine the resource use represented by cultural deposits at the sites. At each habitation site, bucket auger tests were conducted to extract cultural deposits for the purpose of analyzing the fauna represented at each site. This section of the report describes the results of the shellfish analysis conducted from the auger tests.
54 This section of the report is based, in part, upon archaeological materials reviewed and prepared by Naomi Smethurst, UBC graduate student researcher working under my direction. All materials prepared by Ms. Smethurst has been reviewed and verified by me, Charles Menzies, Ph.D. Fish and animal bone identifications were conducted by Rebecca Wigen, Ph.D.
43
(A37841)
Figure 1: Map of archaeological research sites, Laxyuup Gitxaała Research Project, 2009-2011. Prepared by Naomi Smethurst, 2011.
44
(A37841)
6.4.1 Bucket augering and faunal analysis 161. Following methods similar to those outlined by Cannon (2000), bucket auger sampling was the primary technique used for assessing faunal assemblages at each habitation site. Cannon used bucket auger sampling to analyze the relative density of fish bone to distinguish between long term habitation and specific purpose resource harvesting sites, along with determining temporal and inter- village variability. Bucket auger sampling is a fast and efficient method of sampling shell midden sites, which often contain very deep cultural deposits.
162. We employed the bucket augering method for the purpose of identifying the variety and relative abundance of faunal use across Gitxaała territory. From our methodology and analysis we are able to comment on a number of patterns regarding faunal use in Gitxaała territory, including inter-site variability and long term marine use patterns within each site.
163. This research is the first systematic faunal analysis of Gitxaała villages and reference processing location every contacted. While there have been some earlier work (notably Bjorn Simonson’s late 1960s – early 1970s coastal survey and a range of forestry related culturally modified tree surveys), there has been virtually no sustained archaeological research within the southern and central areas of Gitxaała territory (see figure 2: map of recorded shell midden sites; see also figure 3: map of all recorded archaeology sties in Gitxaała territory). As shown on figure 2 there is a noticeable empty space in which there are no recorded village sites. This area roughly corresponds to Gitxaała’s central and southern territories. This absence of recorded midden sites is not because of an absence of Gitxaała use and occupancy. Rather, this empty space is an artifact of the way in which academic and cultural resource management archaeology has been conducted over the past several decades. During our three years of field research we have visited many locations described by Gitxaała hereditary leaders and resource harvesters and have found clear indications of human use and occupancy that are consistent with the oral accounts community members have shared.
164. Figure 3 shows all of the recorded midden sites within the core areas of Gitxaała territory. The blue dots are intertidal stone trap sites, the red dots are all other terrestrial sites. Most of the terrestrial sites are CMT sites, not village sites. As discussed above, very little archaeological research has taken place in Gitxaała territory outside of Archaeological Impact Assessments in advance of various development and forestry projects.
45
(A37841)
Figure 2: Map of recorded midden sites in BC. Prepared by Iain McKechnie, 2011.
46
(A37841)
Figure 3: map of all recorded archaeology sties in Gitxaała territory, 2011. Red dots indicate intertidal stone trap sites. Blue dots represent all recorded terrestrial sites (most of which are CMT sites). Prepared by Naomi Smethurst.
47
(A37841)
165. In our 2010 field season we conducted a series of bucket auger tests at fourteen coastal habitation sites. We conducted an additional series of auger tests at four sites (three new, one previously visited) during our 2011 field trip. This report does not report on the 2011 data as that is still being processed for analysis. I can say, however, that in revisiting the large Calamity Bay village site our extensive augering revealed significant quantities of abalone in the midden. This is an important finsing as it is one of the few documented archaeological sites in BC with significant quantities of abalone.
166. The sites investigated in 2010 ranged from large village sites with deep and continuous cultural deposits over 4.5 metres in depth, to small habitation sites which were likely used as resource processing sites and shorter term habitation sites, with shallow and/or thin cultural deposits. Seven of the fourteen sites were previously recorded, but none have been investigated beyond site mapping (sketch mapping and hip-chain/compass) and observation. Will u sgetk 1 through 5 are all located in a protected bay (Saycuritay Cove) on the southwestern shore of Pitt Island. Citeyats is located within a semi-protected bay along the southeast shore of Pitt Island. Hevenor Inlet, Curtis Inlet, and Mink Trap are located within protected inlets along the west shore of Pitt Island. Clamshell Island and FkTo-11 are situated on small, single site islands within Kitkatla Inlet. Bonilla Arm is located along the northwest shore of Banks island, within Kingkown Inlet (Bonilla Arm). Calamity Bay is situated along the southeast corner of Banks Island. K’moda is located at the head of Lowe Inlet, along the mainland west of Principe channel.
6.4.2 Auger sampling
167. Shell bearing sites, and shell bearing areas within sites, were initially indentified using Oakfield soil probes. At least one bucket-auger test was conducted at each of the fourteen sites. Bucket-auger samples were conducted at a variety of locations at the larger sites, in conjunction with percussion coring, and total station mapping. At these sites, bucket auger tests were conducted in a systematic grid fashion.
6.4.3 Using the bucket auger 168. At each test location a bucket auger, measuring 10 cm wide in diameter, was twisted into the ground until the bucket was full with compacted sediment. All samples which contained any shell or other cultural deposits were kept for analysis. Tests were extended until sterile deposits, or until it was not possible to twist the auger to a further depth due to obstruction of the bit, or sediment fallback into the sample hole. Extensions were added to the bucket auger as needed, such that very deep sediment could easily be removed. The upper and lower depths of the sediment were recorded and samples were bagged for later sorting and analysis. Bagged samples on average represented roughly 15-30 vertical cm of sediment. Stratigraphic descriptions and transitions were recorded
48
(A37841)
6.4.4 Lab analysis procedures 169. Several bucket-auger samples were sieved on site (in the field) through two mm mesh screens. The majority of the samples were initially water-sieved through a 1 mm mesh screen in the Laboratory of Archaeology at the University of British Columbia. Weight and volume of all samples were measured before sieving and weight was measured after the remaining material (largely shell and stones) had been dried.
170. Once the remaining material had been dried, all samples were sorted through >=12mm, 6.3 mm, and 2 mm sieve size, and shellfish, bone, and other material were separated. Shellfish from the bucket-auger samples was then sorted into the most specific taxon possible, with the aid of the Laboratory of Archaeology comparative collection and Light’s Manual: Intertidal Invertebrates of the Central California Coast (Smith and Carlton 1975). Only the 6.3-12.5 mm and the >=12.5 mm sieve size samples were included for weight analysis. The different taxons observed within the 2-6.3 mm were noted but not sorted and weighed.
171. Fish and animal bone were sorted separately and sent to a private lab for analysis where they are currently being sorted into species and genera. A preliminary species list is included below.
172. Shellfish were sorted into species and genera. If this was not possible, shell fragments were sorted into the most specific taxa possible. The shellfish fragments represent fifteen different categories, thirteen of which represent genera and species, or at least the genera. Following Rankin (2010) three general classifications were used for shellfish that were not sorted into genera. Snails, which included such species as Periwinkles were not of the Nucella genera were classified as Undiff. Gastropods. Very few of the shell fragments were identified to this broad category so it can only be said to represent species present in trace amounts, and thus were not a significant component of the cultural matrix. Shells which were completely unidentifiable, due to lack of identifiable features, small fragment size, or shell erosion, were classified into the unidentifiable shell category. The third general category is the order of Veneroida (undiff. Clam). Due to the difficult identification of horse and butter clam fragments (and other clams, including the possibility of geoduck) that are not hinge fragments, this taxon category represents a broad classification of non-hinge clam fragments that are clearly not any of the other species discussed (eg. littleneck, basket cockle). Due to the relatively high relative abundance of butter clam (identified by the hinge fragment and measured by percentage of overall shellfish weight) and lower abundance of horse clam (also identified by the hinge fragment), this category is likely largely butter clam fragments.
49
(A37841)
Table 1 – Shellfish taxa identified in auger samples from Gitxaala Territory, 2010. Mussel (California and Blue) Mytilus californianus and trossulus Undiff. Clam Veneroida55 Butter Clam Saxidomus gigantea Littleneck Clam Protothaca staminea Basket Cockle Clinocardium nuttallii Horse Clam Tresus capax and nuttalli Frilled Dogwinkle Nucella lamellose Channelled Dogwinkle Nucella canaliculata Undiff. Whelk Nucella sp.56 Limpet Acmaea sp. Snail Undiff.Gastropods Urchin Strongylocentrotus sp. Black Katy Chiton Katherina tunicata
Table 2 – Preliminary identification of animal taxa identified in auger samples from Gitxaala Territory, 2010. Anchovy Engraulis mordax Dog Canis familiaris Dogfish Squalus acanthias Flatfish Pleuronectiformes Greenling Hexagrammos sp. Gunnel/PricklebackHerring Stichaeidae/Pholidae Herring Clupea pallasii Irish lord Hemilepidotus sp. Perch Embiotocidae Rockfish Salmon Oncorhynchus sp. Ungulate Odocoileus hemionus
6.5 Gitxaała Herring Fisheries 173. Next to salmon herring is the most abundant fish species identified in our faunal analysis of habitation sites within Gitxaała territory. This is not to be unexpected given the ancient and contemporary importance of herring within the diet, exchange systems, and culture of Gitxaała.
174. Gitxaała people using a number of fishing gears have, traditionally harvested herring, for food and for exchange. Both the fish and the eggs or roe are used. Fishing gear for herring include, but are not limited to: rake-like tools when they schooled during the winter spawning season. stone traps along the
56 This taxon primarly consists of various species of Nucella which for various reasons were difficult to positively ID to a specific species, such as lamellose, canaliculata, or emarginata
50
(A37841)
shoreline, and various types of nets made of natural fibres. In more recent years Gitxaała harvesters have used gillnets and seine nets as participants in the 20th and 21st century commercial fishery.
175. Herring were traditionally eaten fresh and smoked and dried for storage and trade purposes. Techniques of processes are similar to smoking of other fish. In recent years herring are still consumed fresh and sometimes smoked. However, the primary focus of harvesting, consumption, and trade is herring roe.
176. Gitxaała people have traditionally harvested herring roe for consumption and trade. This is a practice that continues to the current time. Herring roe is harvested from natural spawns on a wiry seaweed. Herring roe is also harvested by the deliberate placement of hemlock trees and branches in the water near herring spawning sites. The spawning herring lay their eggs on the hemlock branches which are then removed from the water and dried.
177. Gitxaała people also participate in the modern roe-on-kelp fishery in their traditional territory. Over the decades of this fisheries existence traditional knowledge related to herring behaviour and location has been used in the prosecution of the commercial fishery. Large fronds of kelp are harvested from seaward coastline of Gitxaała territory. The kelp is then strung either in ponds with captured herring in place or in open ponds that are placed in areas in which herring are anticipated.
178. I have heard accounts of herring being deliberately transplanted in the distant past. One account described a long deceased community member collecting herring spawn on a hemlock tree and then towing the tree and spawn into Kitkatla Inlet.
6.6 Gitxaala Seaweed Fisheries 179. Seaweed is and has been a staple food of Gitxaała and other coastal aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. A range of seaweeds and kelp has been and remain to this day harvested from within Gitxaała territory and by Gitxaała people.
180. One of my first memories of foods given to us from my Aunt Nettie (Annette Dell, née Gamble; daughter of Edward Gamble and Ellen Gamble, née Denis) was pickled kelp. There were other foods, like the annual delivery of oolichan, but the pickled kelp stood out. Pickled kelp is perhaps an unusual example, but it is one that arises from a practice of diverse seaweed harvesting.
181. Nearly every public meal and feast that I have attended in Lach Klan has had at least one type of food that involves or is based upon seaweed. The staple contemporary seaweed is of the porphyra genus. This seaweed is harvested in May on the outer exposed rocks on the seaward edge of Gitxaała’s territory.
51
(A37841)
From just outside the village of Lach Klan along the north and west coasts of Porcher Island over across to the west coast of Banks Island and then south toward the Estavan Group one can find harvesting places belonging to various Gitxaała walps.
182. The seaweed is typically dried on the rocks where it is picked, or transported back to Lach Klan or, in earlier years, to one of the other main village sites for drying on special seaweed boards made from cedar planks. Nancy Turner and Helen Clifton describe the process as conducted by Gitga’ata (2006:65-86), a close neighbour to Gitxaała.
183. In my research with Caroline Butler, Ph.D. over the past decade we have interviewed several dozen community matriarchs who have explained in detail the process of harvesting, processing, and preparing for consumption seaweed. Some of research was focused on the specific ecological knowledge of community members (reported on in Butler 2004: “Researching Traditional Ecological Knowledge for Multiple Uses.” Canadian Journal of Native Education. Vol. 1&2:33-48). Other aspects of our research examined issues of climate change (Ignas and Campbell 2009. “Unit 7: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Climate Change.” http:łłwww.ecoknow.ca).
6.7 Indigenous salmon fisheries and stone traps 184. The customary fishing methods of Northwest Coast First Nations comprise a highly varied and refined assemblage of technologies, reflecting millennia of development and innovations. These fishing technologies and gears were designed with the micro-ecological factors such as tides, eddies and other water features, seasonal aspects, and the behaviour of target species in mind. The method and gear used at a particular site was selected according to multiple factors to improve efficiency without destroying fish stocks for future use. These highly specialized technologies allowed for sustained yields of salmon, providing adequate food supplies for many Nations for thousands of years (Newell 1993, Berringer 1982, Stewart 1977).
185. Traditional fishing gears included gaffs, clubs, traps, weirs, trolling hooks, drag seines, gill nets, tidal traps, spears, dip nets, hooks on lines, and fish rakes (McDonald 1991). Each of these gears were associated with particular fishing sites, species and seasons. The following case studies document the interconnection between locally appropriate gear types, indigenous history and knowledge systems related to each fishing site.
186. K’moda is a location that figures prominently within Gtxaała history. It is also the site of one of the first canneries on the north coast. It is a site of ancient conflict between the northern invaders and Gitxaała and their Gitga’ata cousins.
52
(A37841)
187. Kxooyax also figures in the history of early encounters with K’msiwah. Here Captain James Colnett’s crew decided to tear apart a portion of the stone fish trap. But this is also a place where Gitxaała people learned an early lesson about treating salmon with respect and the cost of not doing so. It is also a place where K’msiwah laws came into conflict with Gitxaała laws over the allocation of fishing rights.
188. Kxenk’aa’wen stands out as a place of an amazing complex of stone traps. In fact the place name is a direct reference to the special nature of the local stone fish traps. K’msiwah also encountered Gitxaała people here early in their commercial trading ventures along this coast. More importantly, Kxenk’aa’wen is a place where people live and have lived for millennia harvesting a multitude of resources, not least of which are salmon in the unique traps the place is named after.
6.7.1 Fishing at K’moda: case study57 189. K’moda is a river and lake system at the head of Lowe Inlet within Gitxaała territory. This is the traditional territory of Sm’ooygit He:l. Over the course of the past century and a half this place has been at the centre of significant social transformations. In the late 1880s one the earliest salmon canneries in BC was established here. Drawing upon local Gitga’at and Gtixaała community members the cannery operated for over several decades spanning the late 1800s and early 1900s. Coastal steamers made regular stops in this coastal way stop along the Inside Passage route from Vancouver to Alaska. The Harriman Expedition, notable for the number of Indigenous objects they removed without permission and donated to US Museums, passed through here on its way north to Alaska in 1899. Photographer Edward Curtis took a few pictures of the area while other scientists onboard collected plant samples. The 1881 census taker had previously passed through this site. In his personal journal he records his trials and tribulations in attempting to take census data during his visit to the Gtixaała houses at the mouth of the K’moda.
190. Records of customary use and commercial trade by a Gtixaała Smooygit are inscribed in the Canadian Sessional Papers58. One early reference, dated 189059, notes that “The chief at Lowe’s Inlet, assisted by his sons, caught and sold to two canneries on the Skeena River forty thousand fish, at an average of seven and eight cents each.” Oral accounts describe the close interconnection between the customary use of the area and the development of a local –Gitxaała and Gitga’ata- labour force that caught and processed salmon in the Lowe Inlet cannery. The central role of this customary site is further emphasised in the
57 The section on K’moda is an abridged excerpt from Charles Menzies and Caroline F. Butler. Returning to Selective Fishing through Indigenous Fisheries Knowledge: The Example of K'moda, Gitxaala Territory American Indian Quarterly. Vol. 33(3):441-464. 2007. 58 Sessional Papers are reports and papers that have been tabled in the House of Commons (and sometimes the Senate) and deposited with the Clerk. These papers include annual reports of government departments and boards, the Estimates, the Public Accounts, and the reports of the Royal Commissions. 59 Sessional Papers no.12, vol.10, 1890
53
(A37841)
records of the K’msiwah in that the meetings that established reserves for Gtixaała were held at this location. For generations this site has been the house territory of the leading sm’ooygit from Gtixaała He:l.
191. The late sm’ooygit He:l (Russell Gamble) explained that during the mid- period of the 20th century K’moda was occupied by the chief and house group from late spring through early fall. Resources gathered included, but were not limited to: mountain goats, deer, a range of different berries, bark, clams and cockles, seals and, of course, salmon and other fish. Elders who were young children during the early twentieth century recall the life of the camp site during the leadership of Sm’ooygit Seax/He:l (Edward Gamble), nephew and heir of Tsibassa. Edward Gamble was the named hereditary chief who held this site in the decades prior to his heir, Russell Gamble.
192. Over the course of the twentieth century the fishing patterns at K’moda moved from customary harvesting for consumption and trade (up to about 1880), to a period of intense industrial harvesting co-existing with customary harvesting (1880-1930), to locally controlled drag seining (1930-1967), and finally, to less intensive occasional customary harvest using gillnets (1967 to present). In what follows the key aspects of the customary techniques of fish harvesting will be described. The data we draw upon comes from site visits to K’moda with Sm’ooygit He:l and interviews with Gitxaała elders and community members who actively use and/or used this place for the harvest of fish and other resources.
193. Three key customary fishing techniques have been deployed at K’moda: gaffs, stone tidal traps and drag seines (Menzies and Butler 2007). Up until the late 1800s fishing by gaffs and with the stone trap was the key technique for harvesting salmon. Coincident with the development of the industrial salmon canning fishery Gitxaała fishers switched to drag seining. This innovation accommodated the reduction in labour force caused by the waves of disease and dislocation brought by invasive non-indigenous humans. In what follows only stone trap fishing is discussed.
194. Stone traps can be found throughout the northwest coast region (see, for example: Stewart 1977; Langdon 2006). Traps were typically located near streams and rivers where migrating salmon traveled as they returned to spawn in the fall. Traps consist of a series of stones arranged in a semicircular design. Boulders and stones were stacked upon each other. No mortar was used to hold the stones together; instead, careful selection and placement of the stones was required. In this way the wall of stones would remain upright in rough weather and throughout vigorous tidal action. Stone traps were used by house groups, relying on collaborative labour under the guidance of the house leader.
195. Stone fishing traps use the principle of “tidal drift” to catch fish.. Salmon gather near the mouth of their birth river or stream in preparation to spawn. When the water is deep enough the salmon enter the river system and swim upstream.
54
(A37841)
As the tide comes in the salmon are pushed toward the shore and the waiting trap. When the tide recedes the salmon move downstream, away from the shore. As the fish swim away from the shore with the current they become trapped by the wall of stones. Fishers would position themselves along the wall as the tide dropped and splash the water to keep the fish from swimming out before the water was lower than the wall.
196. The K’moda stone trap is located in a small cove near to, but not in or across, the opening of the creek. Its design, like all stone fishing traps, uses tidal drift to capture fish. Elders report that the numbers of salmon returning to spawn in creeks and streams were so vast that a trap located at the beach, anywhere close to a stream would provide a rich harvest.
197. Trap placement, however, typically takes advantage of the micro movements of local currents- this technology is not simply placed near or in a creek mouth. At K’moda, the trap is located to the north of the creek’s actual mouth. During our observations of tidal patterns we noted that at about three- quarter ebb a back eddy formed which, if fish were around, would have acted as a great broom sweeping the fish into the belly of the trap and then, as the tide receded, the current would drop the fish behind the trap’s wall allowing the fishers to select those fish that were required for processing that day.
6.7.2 Streamscaping at Kxooyax: case study 198. Kxooyax is a stream and lake system located on the southeastern shore of Banks Island. This ancient fishing site is the territory of Gilasgamgan, Lasgeek. It has been a site of significant Gitxaała fisheries prior to, at, and well past the point of initial encounter with Europeans.
199. James Colnett, captain of the vessel Prince of Wales in October 1787, made the first known European record of this trap. Colnett’s crew fished here without permission from the local titleholder. Additionally, his crew dismantled a portion of the trap: “the Wire that was fixed in the Run was to prevent the fish from getting too hastily up as well as down, & some of our people out of pity for the sickly fish above broke part of the wire down by which means the fish had a free passage up & when the run increased nothing to stop them” (Galois 2004:157). Colnett’s continued inability to recognize the existing indigenous regulations and customs related to use of local resources ultimately resulted in conflict between his crew and Gitxaała people. After Colnett’s early account of Kxooyax this place enters the official Euro-Canadian historic record via the assignment of a reserve for Gitxaała and the licensing of fishing rights by the Canadian government.
200. Following a meeting with Gitxaała hereditary leaders at K’moda in July, 1891 Indian Reserve Commissioner Peter O’Reilly agreed to establish Indian Reserve 12, “Ks-or-yet” (variant Kxooyax) for Gitxaała. He described the reserve as comprised of 28 acres and “situated on the eastern shore of Banks Island, about
55
(A37841)
four mile north of Gale Point.”60 F.A. Devereaux surveyed the reserve in May, 1892. Decereaux noted the presence of an “Indian house” within the boundary of the surveyed reserve.61
201. In 1911 the Canadian government assigned the commercial drag seine fishing rights to BC Packers (License No. 18 – Bare Bay62). As with the majority of these drag seine licenses they were normally operated by the indigenous titleholder; those hereditary leaders who would customarily be considered the individual with rights to use and governance over such places. However, the assignment of fishing rights by the non-aboriginal fishing companies were not without problems. In 1890, for example, Sm’ooygit Seax (here written as Chief Shukes) advised a cannery manager operating near his territory to stop fishing. Seax’s enactment of his authority and jurisdiction is recorded in a letter from M.K. Morrison, Fishery Guardian, to Thomas Mowat, Inspector of Fisheries: “I was down to Low’s Inlet and around Banks Island where I found considerable trouble between the Low’s Inlet Canning people and the Indians, the cause I will try and make clear to you. Part of Low’s Inlet is an Indian Reserve (Kitk-a-thla Tribe), the Cannery is not on the Reserve where the fish is caught inside the Reserve line salt water, but close to the [falls?] the same has to be hauled on Indian reserve below high water mark – Chef Shukes forbid the Cannery people to fish, if they did he and his young men would cut their nets … I went to Shukes and he told me as follows: Judge O’Reilly gave this land and water to my people, I do not want any Whitemen to fish here please tell your chief I have fished at Low’s Inlet for 8 years, it is the principal support of myself and people … The Indians on Banks Island told the Captain of the “Murrial” if he put out a seine to fish in their water he would be shot, he did not do it had not men enough.”63
202. The cannery licensing system also interfered within Gitxaała customary practices by preferentially allocating licenses to community members in ways which were not necessarily in accord with traditional practices. Thus, on September 30, 1915 a petition of complaint was submitted to the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs regarding the process of assigning fishing rights at Kxooyax: “There is a salmon creek running on Eastside of Banks Island below Bare Hill called in our language K’Oyaht [variant Kxooyax] and from immemorial our forefathers in our family own it and claim it as their own, and it is from where they generally obtain their living . . . but, some years ago another man of different family butt in and troubling us by taking advantage of us in taking away that salmon creek from us, and we’ve pressed out by him. He has been running that creek since for Lowe Inlet
60 Federal Collection, Minutes of Decision, Correspondence and Sketches, P. O’Reilly, April 1889 to January 1892, File 29858, Vol. No. 6 [Reg. No. B-64647] 61 Field Books – F.A. Devereux. CLRS – FBBC 448, 449, 450, 451. 62 Bare Bay is the common name used to refer tot eh bay into which Kxooyax Creek empties. 63 Indian Affairs, RG 10, Vol. 3828, file 60,926 (Reel C 10145).
56
(A37841)
Cannery . . . and now we want to take it back from him through you by recognizing it to us. It was reserved to our family by or through the late Indian Agent. . . . This man’s name who took that place away from us is Alfred Robinson also of Kitkatla, B.C. He has no right to claim that place and salmon creek other than us. We’ll mention the names of only four of our forefathers herewith who own that place mentioned above from immemorial . . . Milsh, Haqulockgamlahap, Dwilthlagianat and Lthgooshamun… We are their descendants and therefore we have right to run that salmon creek ourselves for that cannery. . . . We want to be allowed to get our own drag seine license for that salmon creek for next season. 64 Echoes of these disagreements reverberate through to the present.
203. The stone trap complex at Kxooyax differs significantly from the K’moda trap. Whereas, the K’moda trap is adjoining the stream mouth, at Kxyooax the trap complex is located in the creek mouth and entrance channel.
204. At least eight individual rock alignment features and three retaining pool features are identifiable along both sides of the creek extending over an area of approximately 430 m in length ranging in elevation from a low of -2.45 m below the current barnacle line to +0.5 m above the barnacle line. The longest border alignment is 81 m in length and is located in the center of the stream in a v-shaped formation that substantially alters the stream flow. Four shorter linear features are present along the lower reaches of the southern stream bank running nearly perpendicular to the stream. These features run parallel to each other but do not match up with similar features on the northern stream bank. A distinct 50 m long arc-shaped boulder alignment follows the stream flow in contrast to the four linear features on the southern shoreline. The alignment located closest to the stream outlet extends all the way across the stream channel. This particular feature is only visible at low-low tide. The lower reaches of Kxooyax Stream have been extensively modified and engineered to facilitate access to the salmon fishery. The complexity and extent of the features represents a significant intergenerational commitment in securing access and managing the use of salmon at this place. The location of a canoe run along the north side of the stream mouth (near the ‘Indian’ house documented by Devereaux) further demonstrates the extent of human use of this area.
205. There is no way Kxooyax can be thought of as a ‘natural’ space; it is totally ‘creekscaped.’ The path of the stream –from the high tide mark to the lowest low tide mark- shows clear evidence of human modification. Deep v- shaped stone structures provide access points for gaffing and dip netting salmon. Holding pools along the sides of the stream in the upper reaches of the tidal area allowed for live storage and selective removal of fish according to processing and
64 Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of BC, Transcripts of Evidence; Questions affecting the Fishing Rights, Interests and Privileges of Indians in British Columbia – Bella Coola Agency Pp. 1-33.
57
(A37841)
consumption needs. This is a human designed space dedicated to the harvesting of salmon.
6.7.3 Kxenk’aa’wen (Place of Fishing Trap): case study 206. Kxenk’aa’wen, also known as Bonilla Arm, is an inlet on the west coast of Banks Island noted for, among other things, its seaweed, seals, fish, and a range of productive salmon streams. This is an ancient place within the Gitxaała world with histories linking contemporary titleholders bask beyond the ken of time. The very name, Kxenk’aa’wen, can be translated as place of special trap. And, indeed this is a place of a special and amazing example of stone fish traps. Along one side of the inlet, stretching for a full kilometre, is a complex of stone traps the like of which is seldom observed along BC’s coast.
207. This is also one of the places the Gitxaała people first met the K’msiwah. Gitxaała people engaged in fishing halibut off of Lax t’xal (Bonilla Island) sighted a strange being floating offshore. “The greatest number [of Gitxaała people] would gather of the west coast of Banks Island, and Bonilla Island (lax t’xal). Here over a large area they would fish for halibut. One day these people set out as usual for their fishing each choosing a locality and all being very close to one another, in case of sudden danger. Then the chief Sabaan and his slave went the furthest out to sea to get more halibut then the rest. All were busy engaged in fishing and suddenly as if coming from nowhere, there appeared a huge being with many wings and no noise, it came so suddenly among the people that they were barely able to pull up their anchors and escape” (Beynon 1955- 1956). Upon investigation Sabaan realized it was a vessel with strange people onboard – not a supernatural being.
208. The academic literature concerning these first encounters distils the various Gitxaała narratives into a singular event in which James Colnett met with Gitxaała at K’swan [Calamity Bay] (discussed above in relation to Kxooyax. See, for example, Galois 2004). However, an alternative understanding (one that is more in keeping with internal Gitxaała perspectives) is that these historical narratives relate a series of encounters between Gitxaała and K’msiwah peoples. Colnett was not alone in travelling through these waters. There were at least a half dozen ships that are known to have been here around the time of Colnett’s voyage. Thus the K’msiwah academics writing about this issue have overlooked the possibility that variations in this story may in fact be evidence of different ‘first encounters’ rather than errors of memory and discursive flourishes on the part of latter-day storytellers.
209. The contemporary titleholders, Inta ‘we walp and Kaymt Kwa’, exercise rights and responsibilities for this unique place that rests upon an ancient history that goes back long before the K’msiwah drifted upon these coasts. Both men grew up in this area. Both continue to this day to live on and from the products of their labour in this place. In this unique place we find a long history of
58
(A37841)
interconnected resource use within which salmon is a critical, but not exclusive, object of harvest.
210. Given the nature of the fish traps, how they are laid out along the shoreline, their shape, and placement in relation to local streams, the target species were likely pink and dog salmon. Unlike sockeye, these two salmon species travel close to shore in dense schools (sockeye tend to run further off the beach). Pink and dog salmon are thus particularly amenable to harvest using large half-moon shaped stone barricades. Sockeye, another prime target species, is more likely harvested on its way up the stream mouth, given its different travelling behaviour. Thus at Kxooyax, which is a sockeye stream, the stone traps are located within the creek. In Kxenk’aa’wen, where pink and dog salmon predominate (though there are significant sockeye runs here as well) the stone traps are located along the shoreline were they would more effectively intercept pink and dog salmon.
211. With the development of the industrial commercial salmon fishery in the late 1800s came changes in the fishing techniques and gear types used (Menzies and Butler 2008). In Kxenk’aa’wen a shift occurred away from the use of stone and wooden traps to cotton drag seines and then, in the mid-20th century, to gillnets operated from small motorized vessels. The operators of the new gear types remained the traditional titleholders.
212. The exact date of the transition from stone traps to drag seines is not clear from either the oral history or the documentary record. It is conceivable that the transition predated K’msiwah arrival, occurred at the moment K’msiwah first arrived (early maritime traders used drag seines in Gitxaała territory to harvest fish for food), or occurred later in the 19th century with the emergence of the industrial commercial fishery. Gitxaała people had the knowledge and the capacity to produce nettle twine nets that could have been used as drag seines prior to the arrival of marine traders using seines. Coast Salish fishers in the Fraser River estuary and surrounding areas used large stationary nets to trap salmon (see, for example: Suttles; Kew 1989). Thus, the leap from to drag seines is not a significant one conceptually for experienced coastal fishermen like the Gitxaała. However, given that the catching capacity of the traps appear to be more than sufficient given the supply of labour available prior to contact, it is also possible that there was no reason to shift technology until the new diseases brought by K’msiwha (small pox, measles, flu) devastated coastal communities one wave of death after another (Boyd 1999; Campbell 2005). What is clear is that the customary laws of access proprietorship governing these fishing sites date well before K’msiwah arrival and have continued into the present.
213. Changes is technique and gear type have implications for labour deployment. Fishing stone traps would require a community effort in which intergenerational labour would be deployed. Harvesting and processing would be coordinated. Shifting to drag seining for the commercial fishery would sever the
59
(A37841)
coordination between harvesting and processing. Aside from that processing related to household consumption and trade, the majority of processing would be shifted out of community control into industrial fish processing plants. Furthermore, the labour requirement would be reduced as the operation of a drag seine requires at most a dozen men. The harvested fish would be immediately loaded onto a tender boat and then transported to the fish processing plant. Household fish processing would likely drop to about 500 to 1000 fish per household given that most production of fish for economic benefit had been redirected to the industrial fish processing plants rather than held and processed within community processing facilities (i.e. local smoke houses).
214. Sigyidm hana’a (matriarchs) Agnes Shaw and Charlotte Brown grew up in Kxenk’aa’wen. In a series of interviews and conversations they described the early 20th century experience of growing up and living within their father’s clan territory. Their father William Lewis and his brother James were members of the Gispuwada (blackfish) house group. As Agnes comments: “When my dad [William Lewis] get some seal, and then he’d call my grandfather [Samuel Wise Lewis] up, his father. And that was Albert Argyle’s house, where my Dad stayed, in Kxenk’aa’wen, and then when he [Albert] died, then my dad moved in into his house” (Agnes Shaw, July 4, 2005). Agnes and Charlotte describe an annual cycle that began in May with seaweed and halibut and finished in the late fall when the last salmon was put up in the big smokehouse located near their homes at Kxenk’aa’wen. A short list of resources harvested includes: abalone, seal, seal lion, halibut, deer, and several species of berries. The people also maintained a garden out on Lax t’xal which was noted for its large white potatoes.
215. Agnes Shaw and Charlotte Brown explained that they would stay out at Banks after finishing up the commercial drag seine fishery to put up their own fish. “There’s a big smokehouse in Bonilla Arm. Four women in that big smokehouse. They divided it into four sections for those four ladies. One [section] for each lady” (Agnes Shaw, March 10, 2005). Charlotte Brown estimated that each women put up about 700 fish each for their households” (Charlotte Brown, December 14, 2001). Her sister Agnes comments “We would dry the fish, my mom and me. Hundreds of fish in the big smokehouse. When they were dry, we put them higher up, to make them really dry. In the winter to eat them, we soak it overnight to get the salt out and then boil it. We did that for halibut too. Seal we would dry it really dry, sea lion too.” (Agnes Shaw February 11, 2002).
216. Charlotte Brown recalled drag seining in the early part of the 20th century: “We were drag seining when Albert Argyle was alive. He was the owner of the river before, Killerwhale Clan. Last time we drag seined when I was small. They went into the salt lake and were fishing inside it. They got the boat in on a strong tide” (Charlotte Brown, December 14, 2001).
60
(A37841)
217. Agnes has this to say on the early drag seining: “I can just remember. It was so good what those guys used to do. And then, when the boat ran along the shore to Gushi’algun, and we’d ride along, we were on there with all the kids. After a while near the rapids (sxr’adzlaasen salt water rapids where the tide creates rapids) these guys would get out and pull their canoes along the shore line (ie, on foot), and then we’d pull the boat along to fish in the inlet by drag-seine. And up by the tree line, that’s where we’d sit, me and the rest of the ladies. And these ladies would get ready with their containers, empty cans, and then they’d spear crabs. I really wonder what that area is like today, whether there’s lots of crabs there now. They’d build a big fire there. At twelve o’clock they’d [the men] come back and we’d all eat down the beach, they (the ladies) would build a fire and boil crabs. It was so good, what those people used to do” (Agnes Shaw, July 4, 2005).
218. The contemporary titleholders continue to live from resources harvested in their Kxenk’aa’wen territories. While they still spend time living in their territory, there are less likely to spend as long as the families did during Agnes and Charlotte’s youth in the early years of the 20th century. Salmon fishing now occurs with the use of gillnets which can be fixed in place or drifting. Whereas the stone traps required several households working together and the drag seines at least a dozen people to operate, gillnets can be fished with one or two people from a small skiff (12-18 feet in length) or a commercial gillnetter (35-40 feet in length). With the use of a small vessel and outboard motor harvesters can selectively access their traditional territory and return home later the same day without having to camp overnight. Nonetheless, harvesters do remain on site for periods of time depending upon the particular resources they are harvesting. Despite changes in time spent in the territory and techniques used for harvesting the customary protocols governing ownership and access still pertain.
6.7.4 Layuup Gitxaała and the cultivation of salmon 219. These examples of customary fishing sties, and their attendant human modified environments, provide a backdrop to my contention that Gitxaała people purposefully managed salmon stocks. At each of these places fishing techniques relied upon similar principles of regulating who could fish, when they could fish, and how much fish would be taken. While the introduction of drag seine gear through Gitxaała territory is more recent than the stone trap or gaff fishing, it does have historical antecedents within Ts’msyeen fishing techniques. Nets of various sorts, including encircling seine type nets, have been used for millennia by Ts’msyeen fishers. The key point in gear selection has been based upon the particular ecological conditions at a site and the social dynamics of the community actively engaged in fishing the site. It should be pointed out that a variety of gears are employed not only across different sites but even at the same site. Thus, fishers vary their harvesting techniques according time of year, local conditions in weather and fish availability, and targeted species.
61
(A37841)
220. K’moda is an intensively productive salmon watershed that, since the regulatory removal of Gitxaała engagement, has seen a marked decline in fish stocks. There are, of course, many factors to take into consideration. Nonetheless, the role of Gitxaała titleholders in the health and wellbeing of salmon resources should not be overlooked. Stories about Edward Gamble relate how he would survey the stream above the tidal falls and direct young members of his household and crew as they cleared and structured the watercourse above the falls. The fishtrap near the mouth of the creek was designed to take advantage of local tidal currents. The fishery at the falls allowed for selective removal of fish (Menzies and Butler 2007).
221. At Kooryet, the intensive modification of the zone of the creek above and below the high tide line reflect an intensive investment of human labour power. This site remains a customary harvesting site (in fact while we were there our crew set a net to harvest several dozen fish for our consumption). Side pools and v-shaped structures point to techniques of fish harvesting that allowed a effective removal of fish from the stream. In interviews with hereditary leaders and active resource harvesters we hear over and over accounts of active management of the fish.
222. Kxenk’aa’wen is notable for the large and expansive set of traps that cover nearly a kilometre of the intertidal zone. As noted above this is a salmon system of multiple pink, chum, and sockeye runs. Each species requires a somewhat different harvesting approach and the evidence in the material remains documents a diversity of harvesting techniques. This area remains a key traditional territory from which the local titleholders harvest a range of marine resources.
223. A critical aspect of these Gitxaała fishing techniques is the ability to avoid, or to release unharmed, non-target species. One of the problems encountered in the contemporary industrial fishery is the mixed stock nature of the coastal salmon fisheries. The fleet encounters a mass of fish that can include several species, spawners from a variety of creeks within the same species, and juveniles. Traditionally, the industrial gears have found it difficult to release non- target species without stress or damage. When it was discovered in 1997 that coho stocks in the Fraser and Skeena river systems had drastically declined, the salmon fleet was required to release coho live at specific times and in particular areas (see Copes 1998). The stress on the fish during harvest required that they had to be individually resuscitated in “revival boxes” of fresh flowing sea water before release. Selectivity, both for species, and for particular spawning runs, continues to be an issue for commercial salmon harvesters. The priority of weak stock management to preserve biodiversity obligates the DFO to manage according to the weakest run of spawners in a system. If harvesters cannot identify and avoid salmon from a particular creek that has been identified as weak, then an entire fishery can be reduced or closed. As harvesting occurs at the mouth of a particular creek, the harvester knows exactly which spawning population is being targeted. As fish are individually harvested at close range, the
62
(A37841)
fisher can target a particular species (Spring salmon rather than coho etc.) or size of fish.
224. Similarly, stone traps are located at or near to the mouths of creeks. As documented above, harvesting was regulated based on the house leaders’ observation of spawner abundance, and a specific ratio of harvest was maintained to prevent overly pressuring one run of fish. The trap functions to corral the fish into a small pond of water, and they are then removed by harvesters. The fishers can select by species and age at this point, and leave the non-target or juvenile fish to escape the trap as the tide increases. The drag seine, being very close in function to the stone trap is selective on the same bases.
225. Gitxaała technologies are also supported in their conservation potential by the social relations, which guide and control their use. Whereas the industrial techniques of fish harvesting have relied upon gillnets, purse seines, and trollers in which the driving force has been catching efficiency, customary Gitxaała fishing techniques have been regulated by community-based used and harvesting principles within a cultural framework that treats salmon as a relative and a social being deserving of respect.
6.8 Gitxaała Bilhaa (Abalone) Fisheries 226. Bilhaa is one of a set of Gitxaała cultural keystone species. Cultural keystone species are species that “play a unique role in shaping and characterizing the identity of the people who rely on them. . . . These are species that become embedded in a people’s cultural traditions and narratives, their ceremonies, dances, songs, and discourse” (Garibaldi and Turner 2004:1). Until the late 20th century Gitxaała people were unhindered in the harvesting of bilhaa within the traditional territory and in accord with longstanding systems of indigenous authority and jurisdiction. However, the rapid expansion of a non-aboriginal commercial dive fishery through the 1970s -1980s brought bilhaa stocks perilously close to extinction. The DFO responded to this non-aboriginal induced crisis by closing the total bilhaa fishery. DFO made no apparent effort to accommodate Indigenous interests.
227. The closure of bilhaa fishing has left a palpable sense a grief amongst Gitxaała people, especially community elders who have grown up with bilhaa as a key item of food and trade. Community members feel embittered that one more time a significant part of their normal lives has been closed to them by the Canadian government. Since the arrival of the first European in our midst Gitxaała people have made clear the extent and nature of our rights, use, and occupancy of our territories. From the yaawk (feasts) held for the 18th century ships skippers James Colnett and Jacinto Caamano through the various visitations of government officials, Gitxaała and our leadership have plainly expressed a longstanding ownership of these territories and the rights to use and profit from
63
(A37841)
them. The exclusion from harvesting bilhaa is for Gitxaała just one more attempt to marginalize and exclude us from our capacity to carry out our normal livelihood practices.
228. When I first began professional research with Gitxaała in 1998 I heard over and over a story that I came to call ‘the abalone story.’ The pervasive and ubiquitous nature of this story led me to write about it in an article published in the Canadian Journal of Native Education in 2004: “At the heart of the account was a government sponsored research project into the health and location of abalone conducted in the recent past. The government re- searchers explained that their project would benefit the local community. This would be accomplished by collecting location and population data that would make the job of protecting the abalone grounds from over harvesting and poaching more effective. After some consideration community members agreed and a number of surveys were completed. Following the departure of the researchers a fleet of commercial dive boats turned up on the abalone grounds that had been described to the researchers. The end result was the complete degradation of the local grounds and ultimately a complete closure of commercial abalone fishing on the coast. The community members who had participated in the study felt betrayed by the process” (Menzies 2004:22).
229. I go on in the article to discuss the story as a cautionary tale for researchers – as that was for whom I was writing the article in the first place. The story is also an account of the real and heartfelt loss and sense of betrayal that the community feels. For generation upon generation community members have harvested seafood in a way that our ancestors have before them. Attempts have been made to accommodate non-Gitxaała in business, in research, and settlement, but it would seem that each instance has left the community worse off than it was before.
230. The ‘abalone story’ reminds us that the impact on Gitxaała people is more than just a loss of a favoured food –it is part of an ongoing colonial entanglement of disruption, resistance, and –also- accommodation. Nonetheless, over the course of the past two centuries the practice of fishing, including for bilhaa, has remained highly significant to Gitxaała. Fishing constitutes a critical component, alongside of the harvest and processing of terrestrial resources, of what it is to be Gitxaała. The products of harvesting from the sea and intertidal zones are used for food, clothing, medicinal, ceremonial and, importantly, trade. The ability to engage in trade and exchange was –and remains- an integral aspect of Gitxaała culture and society.
231. Gitxaała people have continued to engage in fisheries since European arrival up to the present time. While maintaining the continuity of this practice we have also actively adapted new technologies and techniques of harvesting, processing and trading of a variety of sea foods including, but not restricted to:
64
(A37841)
finfish, sea mammals, invertebrates of various types (such as bilhaa, clams, cockles, mussels, barnacles, crabs, chitons, sea cucumbers, sea urchins), seaweed and kelp. Government policy, regulation, and related systematic attempts to displace Gitxaała and other indigenous peoples from their traditional territories have also contributed additional pressures for change.
232. Canadian fisheries policy has developed historically so as to displace and marginalize indigenous fisheries (see, Diane Newall 1993). Elsewhere I have outlined the role that Indigenous peoples played in the development of British Columbia’s resource industries (Menzies and Butler 2001, 2007, 2008; see also Knight 1996). Suffice to say that while critical to the development of the industrial fisheries, aboriginal peoples were systematically marginalized from key areas of these developing industries. As with all human societies, however, change in the organization of production does not in-and-of-itself mean that a society or culture comes to a stop or ceases to exist. Nor does it mean that fisheries cease to be a relevant culturally integral aspect of being Gitxaała. In fact, the various attempts over the last century and one half to remove Gitxaała from fisheries has not been uniform in its application. For the most part those resources that escaped the gaze of outsiders remained generally within and under the control of Gitxaała. Until the mid-1970s bilhaa was one of those resources that remained outside of the regulatory gaze of the Canadian state.
6.8.1 Bilhaa –harvest, processing, and use 233. The Gitxaała approach to bilhaa harvesting is and has been explicitly organized to ensure the continuation of the biological stock. Gitxaała harvesting practices reflect the cultural keystone role of bilhaa as a treasured entity, a social being with whom we share relations, and as an important cultural marker of being a ranked member of Gitxaała society. The effect of this relationship is to place a cultural limitation on the harvesting of bilhaa. Bilhaa have been harvested as far back as any living person can recall and prior to the time of European contact (Butler 2004:33-48). Evidence for the antiquity of bilhaa harvest can be found in references to bilhaa in Ts’msyeen and Gitxaała adawx (oral history), contemporary academic publications (such as, but not restricted to, faunal analysis from north coast archeological sites65), and from contemporary accounts of longstanding practice.
6.8.2 Adawx, Ceremonial Practice, and Use of Bilhaa 234. References to the presence, power, and importance of bilhaa to Ts’msyen and Gitxaała people are recorded in the adawx and are used on ceremonial regalia to denote power and prestige. The cultural importance of bilhaa plays a role in shaping resource-harvesting practices. In combination with the principle of syt güülum goot (being of one heart) the high value placed on bilhaa as a symbol of prestige and rank acts to impose a cultural limitation on harvesting levels. This is so in two ways. Firstly, the use of bilhaa as decoration and adornment is
65 Andrew Martindale personal communication February 15, 2007; Natalie Brewster personal communication November 2, 2007.
65
(A37841)
restricted to a minority of high-ranking community members. Secondly, the cultural importance of bilhaa as a signifier of rank obligates harvesters to treat bilhaa with respect such that unrestrained harvesting was and is a violation of social norms and is subject to community sanction.
235. Throughout Gitxaała and Ts’msyen adawx (oral histories) are accounts of how bilhaa and bilhaa adorned objects become important cultural markets. For example, “Explanation of the Abalone Bow” is an adawx that describes how the Bilhaa Bow became a chief’s crest (Boas 1916:284; 835). In the narrative G-it- na-gun-a’ks bilhaa also feature as an inlay on “a good-sized box” which is one of several gifts exchanged between a naxnox, Na-gun-a’ks and the people of Dzagam-sa’gisk (Boas 1916:285-292). Drawing upon his work up to that point (1916) Boas also notes that “ear-ornaments of abalone shell” are mentioned in the Ts’msyen adawx (1916:398). Viola Garfield also notes that “at any ceremonial large wool ornaments with abalone shell pendants were worn in the ears of the women who sing in the chief’s choir, so that the status of each was clearly indicated to the tribes at large (1939:194).
236. Bilhaa is clearly a marker of high rank and prestige within Ts’msyen and Gitxaała society. Marjorie Halpin documents how crests that were restricted to high ranked individual often had names that would include shining and the individual’s associated regalia might use bilhaa shells to indicate their high status. In a description of a mid-nineteenth century feast Halpin explains, “we would have noted that the men who made the speeches wore the more elaborate headdresses, richly decorated with shining abalone” (1984:16; see also, Halpin 1973)
237. Jay Miller further highlights the cultural importance of the notion and concept of brilliance and luminosity. In his monograph, Tsimshian Culture: A Light Through the Ages, Miller outlines the cultural importance of light, beams of light, and spirit or naxnox powers/beings. According to Miller “the use of abalone, copper, and polished surfaces on chiefly artifacts provides further support for the mediation of light” (1997:39). John Cove ‘s (1987) monograph on Ts’msyeen shamanism and narrative also discusses the cultural concept of brilliance –this time in reference to special rock and water mirrors. Bilhaa shells become incorporated within this cultural complex as a critical material manifestation of cultural history and spiritual practices of the Ts’msyen and Gitxaała peoples.
6.8.3 Contemporary Academic Accounts 238. The archeological and related peer-reviewed publications on the subject of bilhaa are sparse, but illuminating in their discussion of the importance of bilhaa to the Ts’msyen peoples, of which academic accounts typically include the Gitxaała. Seguin and Halpin list bilhaa as one of the shellfish gathered by the Ts’msyen (1990:271). Quoting Halpin (1984) Seguin and Halpin note “special
66
(A37841)
crests that could be made of real animal heads and skins, and included ermine and abalone decoration, were restricted to the chief” (1990:276).
239. Madonna Moss, in a survey of shellfish harvesting66, gender, and status, lists bilhaa as one of several shellfish harvested with a prying stick from the low tide zone (1993:633; see also, Suttles 1990:28). Richard Bolton, working with Andrew Martindale on Dundas Island, identifies, among other shellfish, bilhaa shell as a constituent of shell middens that date to times prior to European arrival (Bolton 2007).
240. Archeologist Michael Blake has found empirical evidence of bilhaa ornaments dating back more than 1400 years before present in a burial mound in the lower Fraser River region (2004:109-111). Blake’s work complements the ethnographic descriptions of Boas and others on the cultural importance and antiquity of bilhaa use amongst the Indigenous peoples of the Northwest Coast region.
241. In a recent archaeological pilot project within Gitxaała territory a fragment of abalone shell was found in a shovel test at an ancient Gitxaała village site in Curtis Inlet.67 This village is of ancient provenance and, according to Gitxaała adawx, is the place where the important hereditary leader, Ts’baasa first established his village within Gitxaała territory. We have also found significant quantities of abalone shell in situ at K;swan (near Calamity Bay, south end of Banks Island). Abalone has been recovered from a 1x1x1m excavation of a house floor. Abalone was also recovered from a soil profile taken from the exposed shoreward midden face. Abalone was also recovered from systematic auger tests conducted throughout the village at K’swan. These are two significant finds as they are the first archaeologically recorded finding of abalone in a shell midden site within the heart of Gitxaała territory. The presence of an abalone shells and shell fragments in the shell midden indicates human use at or before the time of European arrival.
6.8.4 Contemporary Accounts of Longstanding Practice 242. Harvesting methods for bilhaa involved hand picking at low tide or use of a passive trap set at low tide and then harvested at the next low tide. This trap method involved the use of either sealskin or a flat light coloured plank. The trap would be weighted down at the low tide level. As the water covered it bilhaa would gather on the light coloured material. At the next low tide any bilhaa that stayed on the trap would be harvested.
66 This study surveys shell fish harvesting of the northwest coast ethnographic area with particular attention to the Tlingit. 67 The author conducted an archaeological pilot study in the central and southern portions of Gitxaała territory in August 2009. Prior to this survey practically no archaeological research had been conducted in this region. The closest sustained archaeological research in this region has centered on Prince Rupert Harbour where, in the 1960s, George MacDonald began an ambitious program of excavation. The Prince Rupert Harbour research has, in the absence of detailed work elsewhere on the north coast of BC (excepting Martindale’s recent Dundas Island Project), developed into an orthodox vision in which the Harbour is seen as the central area of habitation and economic activity outside of the mouth of the Skeena River.
67
(A37841)
243. The typical manner of picking bilhaa is at the low, low tides. It is ha’wałks (taboo) to pick bilhaa from in the water or under the water beyond what a person could normally reach scrambling along the beach (people call the shoreline ‘beach’ in English, but we are really speaking of fairly rocky, step shorelines) or from a small canoe or skiff moving along the water’s edge. A similar method of harvesting bilhaa is described for the Haida (Jones, Sloan, Defreitas 2004). In both cases the combination of technology and environmental conditions act as a potential ecological limiting factor on harvesting. However, techniques and tools could have been used to over harvest bilhaa. Yet, bilhaa were not over harvested until the development of the non-aboriginal market oriented bilhaa fishing in 1972.
244. Sigidmnaanax (Matriarchs), Agnes Shaw, Charlotte Brown, Violet Skog, and Janet Moody all described in some detail the old ways of harvesting bilhaa, steaming the harvest on the beach in the sand with heated rocks, skunk cabbage leaves, and water, and then drying the cleaned meat in the sun or near a slow fire. Agnes Shaw and Charlotte Brown describe harvesting bilhaa on the west coast of Banks Island. Violet Skog, lamenting the loss of bilhaa, said: “Bilhaa was the first to go. We used to have lots. My mom used to dry them at Banks. Now we can’t find anything. It’s so hard to get the seafood now. Everything is just gone.”
245. Janet Moody also describes harvesting bilhaa on Banks Island. Dried bilhaa were traded with people from up the river for, among other things, moosemeat, oolicahn grease, and soapberries.
246. Like most women of their generation (these women are in their late 70s to 90s today), a great deal of time was spent living and working in the hereditary territories. The annual cycle of food harvesting and preparation involved extensive periods of time at special resource harvest sites for foods such as, but not restricted to, seaweed, halibut, bilhaa, seal, deer, goat, or salmon. Charlotte Brown describes the work of collecting seaweed on Banks Island. While she was at Banks Island as a child and a young women with her family (at her uncle’s and father’s traditional site) she would also be involved in picking bilhaa. “May at Banks - we got seaweed, bilhaa - there was lots of it. They were too big to cook in the stove so we would dig in the sand and put leaves inside. Then we put hot rocks on top with a hole in the top. We’d pour in water and steam them. Then we’d hang them to dry after they were cooked. We used skunk cabbage leaves. After the fishing was done we’d stay and dry fish. Sometimes 700 fish. We’d hang them up and dry them. We got halibut woks [then sliced, dried fish] when we got seaweed. We would move into a small camp with just 2 houses to dry the halibut.”
68
(A37841)
247. Bilhaa were easy to pick –there were so many that you could hear them making noise –their shells hitting together. (Most of the older people that I have spoken with have commented, at one time or another, of the noise that the bilhaa used to make before the K’mskiwah harvesters reduced the local stock. The bilhaa would gather in large clumps and the sound of their shells hitting one another was clearly audible.) Mrs Brown wasn’t able to recall how many bilhaa her family harvested –lots was her comment- enough, at any rate to have bilhaa as a regular food item throughout the winter and to use to trade with peoples from the Skeena, Nass, and Kemano for goods such as soapberries and oolichan grease.
248. Sm’oogyit Matthew Hill explained to me in a conversation that a typical family group might harvest about 500 pounds of bilhaa for the winter. A larger family would harvest more bilhaa. Even more would be harvested if a yaawk (feast) was being prepared for.
249. Sm’oogyit Jeffrey Spencer, in an interview in February 2002 made the following comment about bilhaa harvest and abundance and its importance as part of household food provisioning: “Bilhaa: There was really lots round here. No one bothered you if you catch 100 lbs. Not anymore, they all go to the Chinese. In Vancouver I went to buy some sea cucumbers in Chinatown. I went to buy 7, thinking it would be maybe $50. For a 7 inch live one it was $35. That’s our livelihood taken away from us. So now we just live on bologna and wieners. Bilhaa we used to boil them and then string them. Hang them in the smoke house. When you want to cook it, soak in salt water you get from the ocean. There was no such thing as a deep freeze or run out of power. Cockles and clams we did the same thing. We smoke seal, sea lion. Slice them up and smoke them. Salmon and seafood – that’s how we survived.”
250. Kenneth Innes, a contemporary resource harvester highlights the lessons he has learned about bilhaa harvesting and the problems with the contemporary fishery: “Like with the Bilhaa. The Creator made the water only go down so far. So you can only harvest what you see. The commercial fishery dives for them and wiped them out. The sea urchins and goeducks will be the same. They can get at all of them if they dive.”
251. The late Russell Lewis, who was an active resource harvester, had this to say: RL: my mom was really good at trading. I mean she was well known by the Gitxsans and the Nisga’as in the canneries and more mostly North Pacific. She did a lot of trading there. And she would trade bilhaa, seaweed, a whole bunch of stuff that she preserved here; that’s what she did, what I remember anyways. So, they did a lot of trading with bilhaa.
69
(A37841)
CM: Did you know what she traded for, what did she get in return?
RL: Most of the things that I seen there, was from up there, there was either, if you were going to the Nisga’a, you gotta get their grease or whatever, or the other one was soapberries, I remember soapberries, a lot of that, back then.
252. Bilhaa evokes strong meanings to people, strong feelings and a deep attachment to place for Gitxaała. Methods of harvest continue to be transmitted through a community of practice. Youth are instructed in the principles of syt güülum goot, people visit their traditional harvesting sites, and our histories and songs are retold even in the face of the DFO closure of the bilhaa fishery.
6.8.5 Shutting Down the Fishery 253. The closure of the bilhaa fishery has had a significant impact upon Gtixaała people. Specifically the closure has resulted in a loss of a critical food resource, a loss of a critical trade item, and an increase of surveillance upon aboriginal harvesters.
254. The sense of loss and desire is reflected in Elder and Sm’oogyit Jeffery Spencer’s comments in a November 2001 interview: “Seaweed and bilhaa and…ooh, I want to talk about bilhaa- chew it in my mouth. I never taste that for a long time. [laughter] Pretty hard to get. Don’t allowed to get it. Don’t allowed to get it. I just don’t know why. I just don’t know why.”
255. In a separate interview Janet Moody comments: “It’s…. when the fishery knew that bilhaa is abundant, they opened it, they got license, and like I said, they used divers, they went down and started picking them, and that’s when they disappeared. Like I said, you can just stand there and you can hear them…. Sounds really nice, when they’re walking like that. Today they’re all gone. And to me, it’s not our fault. It’s not our fault, it’s their own work. And we still do have a right to harvest that for our own use, cause we don’t sell it. We eat it ourselves. And it’s them that did harm on it. And now they’re trying to punish us, and telling us not to get bilhaa, and that’s wrong. It’s our tradition, it was given to us. Our heavenly father gave us what kind of food to eat, what kind of medicine that we use with plants, he gave us how to survive, and it’s the fisheries that’s spoiling that, that’s why it’s gone from us.”
256. Speaking to the issue of perceptions of monitoring harassment Russell Lewis says: “That’s what’s really hurting, myself; I can understand the species at risk thing, but you shouldn’t go that far, it’s not very good—just going out there myself now to try and do my harvest, I’m scared; who’s watching
70
(A37841)
me? I went over there to pick, and not even five minutes after I got off there, that boat come around. So I knew how they found us, I knew right away that they got the eye in the sky there. So it’s not too much anybody can do, so [pause] It’s really sad and me when I go out to try and harvest any of my food, I’m wondering, is somebody there watching me? I know I’ve always been boarded, and searched, and that really hurts, when we’re trying to harvest our own, for our traditional use, for our use only. I have a hard time, I have to meet with DFO [Department of Fisheries and Oceans], and [pause] it’s hard for me to put it into words how I feel about them, because I have to work with them. I can understand the frustrations from our community onto me, because I get a lot of questions, “why are they [DFO] tied here”; well, we try to negotiate about that, we were successful in lowering that harassment or whatever you want to call it, the monitoring.”
257. At the same time as Gitxaała community members perceive increased and excessive monitoring on their food harvesting practices they also consider there to be a lack of sufficient attention placed on monitoring commercial dive fishermen and recreational dive fishermen. On many occasions I have heard comments to the effect that enforcement of the large-scale illegal harvesting operations is insufficient and that excess enforcement appears to be applied to Gitxaała community harvesters. During my many visits to Gitxaała I too have observed DFO vessels in the nearby inlet and at the community dock more often during zero tides than at other times. Serendipitously, I had the opportunity to confirm this from DFO enforcement offices in March 2009.
258. While participating in a workshop on the oolichan fishery in Prince Rupert in March 2009 I had a chance to speak with DFO enforcement officials. During one of the breaks in the two-day workshop I outlined my observations to one of the officers. When I suggested that I would need access to the ship’s log to see if my observations were correct the officer said to me: “No need to do that. We always go out on the zero tides because that’s when the local people are picking abalone.” When I asked about enforcement of the dive fleet he said that there isn’t the time or manpower to monitor the underwater fishery. “It’s easy to see someone picking abalone on a zero tide –it’s a lot harder to catch a diver,” he explained. It would seem that community sentiment is correct: DFO is focusing on aboriginal harvesters rather than targeting the commercial and illegal dive fishermen who work without regard to zero tides.
6.8.6 Returning to a Sustainable Fishery 259. Despite DFO surveillance bilhaa continues to be illegally harvested by non-Gitxaała people to the detriment of both Gitxaała and bilhaa. In Gitxaała we have restrained our own harvests within the context of our own authority and jurisdiction. However, that in and of itself is insufficient as long as the illegal non-aboriginal fishery persists. There is a solution with the potential to benefit Gitxaała and bilhaa –returning management control to Gitxaała under our
71
(A37841)
traditional system of harvest and governance. As my colleague Caroline Butler and I have documented elsewhere: “Gitxaala people have been taught by their Elders to take only what they need, not to overexploit the natural resources. ‘Take what you need’ was in fact the standard response in reply to questions about how to use the resources sustainably, and what the Elders taught them about harvesting” (2007:4556). Across the Hecate Straights on Haida Gwaii (Queen Charolotte Islands), the Haida and their non-aboriginal neighbours have been able to establish control over bilhaa in Gwai Haanas (the national park in the southern islands) drawing upon the powers of Parks Canada and Haida authority and jurisdiction over their traditional territory (Jones, Sloan, DeFreitas 2004) by establishing a co-management regime.
260. Drawing upon Gitxaała resource harvesting principles and our associated harvesting practices and techniques a sustainable bilhaa fishery is possible. The Haida co-management model is one path that could be followed. In Gitxaała, however, hereditary leaders and community members prefer to manage under our own authority and jurisdiction. Linking new fishery science knowledge with the Gitxaała house governance and the principle of syt güülum goot a revived and sustainable bilhaa fishery is possible in Laxyuup Gitxaała.
6.9 Commercial fisheries and Gitxaała today and in the past 261. Over the course of the late 19th and 20th century Gitxaała people shifted their commercial fishing operations from trade and exchange for benefit within a longstanding regional indigenous economic system to participation within an emerging industrial extractive fishing industry. In the early period of contact and during the fur trade Gitxaała people licensed traders to harvest fish and also caught and sold fish products to the visiting fur traders. However, it was with the emergence of the salmon canning industry in the late 1800’s that Gitxaała involvement in the industrial extractive fishery began in earnest. From the start the industrial fisheries combined with Gitxaała traditional practices and, especially in terms of the drag seine operations, occurred explicitly on and within traditional Gitxaała fishing locations that were owned by named hereditary leaders. Gitxaała fishers adapted to changes in the regulator and technical structure of the fisheries, yet at each moment of change more and more Gitxaała people have found themselves pushed out of the industrial fishery and restricted in their capacity to make a livelihood off of their own resources. Nonetheless, Gitxaała people maintain an active resource harvesting practice that supplies food internally to community members and externally through a range of commercial practices (some through the licensed industrial fishery, some under the authority and jurisdiction of Gitxaała protocols).
262. During the late nineteenth century Port Essington, at the confluence of the Ecstall and Skeena Rivers, developed as the primary cannery and steamship hub on the Skeena River. Port Essington quickly supplanted the Hudson Bay Company trading post in Fort Simpson (just to the north of present day Prince Rupert) as the economic centre of industrial development on the northern BC
72
(A37841)
coast. The extension of the Grand Truck Railroad to the coast in 1911 created the opportunity to develop Prince Rupert as the commercial capital of the region. Shortly thereafter Prince Rupert gained economic dominance over Port Essington and the aboriginal villages in the region.
263. These spatial transformations in settlement were only one aspect of the changes wrought by industrial expansion on the north coast. Gitxaała and other indigenous peoples provided the bulk of the labour power for the fishing industry on the north coast until the middle decades of the twentieth century. The early development of the fishery was dependent on their participation as local knowledge holders, brokers of labour power, independent producers and wage labourers. The reserve system and fisheries regulations contributed to a structure that at first encouraged Indigenous production for these industries, and then increasingly restricted Indigenous people from participating in them.
264. The northern canning industry was quite literally built upon the traditional fisheries of the Gitxaała. Some canneries, such as the cannery in Lowe Inlet, were located at Gitxaała shore stations and village sites. At other locations the canneries held the commercial fishing permits from the federal government – but most of these permits were actually fished by Gitxaała fishermen in accordance with Gitxaała traditional protocols. During the late nineteenth century, the canneries relied on supplies of fish from both their fleet of gillnetters and from the traditional fish camps of Gitxaała chiefs.
265. Gitxaała fishers had developed an efficient yet sustainable method of harvesting salmon as they returned to their creeks to spawn (discussed above in the section on stone traps). Harvested fish were smoked and dried, and later traded throughout large commercial networks that extended far beyond the immediate networks of housegroup or village.
266. The stone traps were eventually replaced with drag seine nets. A large net was set from a boat and winched in to the beach. The drag seine operations employed extended kin to harvest and process various species of salmon. With the establishment of the canneries, the hereditary chiefs, who organized production, integrated the sale of salmon to the canneries into their established patterns of trade, sale, and community consumption.
267. Gitxaała drag seine operations operated until 1964 when they were officially shut down by the Department of Fisheries for ‘conservation’ reasons. However, long before this point, the ownership of these sites and associated fishing rights had been subtly undermined by industrial interests. The canneries obtained legal land titles to many of the drag seine sites by the early years of the 20th century, even when customary control and ownership was recognized and practiced within the Gitxaała world. It became Department of Fisheries and Oceans policy not to grant seine licenses to Indians, and this persisted until the 1920s (Newell 1993:54). The canneries continued, however, to recognize chiefly
73
(A37841)
authority over these operations, if only to ensure a reliable supply of fish and labour power. A good example of this is a letter of agreement between Gitxaała chief, Paul Sebbassa in the late 1800s allowing a non-aborignal fishing company restricted rights to fish and to establish a cannery within Sebbasa’s territory for a fixed sum of money. These fishing sites were a key site of the integration of the traditional economy with the capitalist economy, and chiefly power with industrial interests. This general pattern can be explored in more detail through the case of Kumodah (reported on above).
268. While many chiefs and their families spent part of the fishing season at their drag seine operations, the majority of village members began to move to the canneries for fishing and processing employment. The canneries used “village bosses” to recruit fishermen and processing workers. Sometimes whole villages moved to one particular cannery.
269. While the canneries used immigrant Chinese and Japanese workers, who were organized under a labour contractor, they also required the local, seasonal, and relatively inexpensive labour of First Nations women (and their children). Muszynski explains that the canneries could make use of “Indian” labour as cheap wage labour because of the traditional subsistence economy’s effective subsidy of their low cannery wages (1996: 89). Children’s labour was also essential to the cannery system. Older children provided child care for infant siblings. Other children assisted their mothers and grandmothers, increasing their income on the piece rate wage. Gitxaała women remember standing on boxes to pass their mothers cans in order to speed up the process. Gitxaała boys stacked the cans and moved boxes for their female kin.
270. The canneries were also a site for the reproduction of the traditional economy. The canneries became the summertime centres of Indigenous commerce. Families brought their surplus food stuffs to the canneries to trade and sell. The industry drew from both coastal and interior villages and thus provided the opportunity to trade for the particular food specialties of each community. Gitxaała women traded dried herring eggs, abalone, clams, cockles, and seaweed for moosemeat and berries with Gitsxan women and for oolichan products with the Nisga’a.
271. The canneries provided a nexus for Indigenous trade and they created new avenues to maintain and develop ancient indigenous networks in the context of the emerging industrial economy. However, industrial development on the north coast also worked to disrupt and inhibit Gitxaała’s economic system. The reserve system and natural resource regulations worked in combination to expropriate Gitxaała land and resources and to transform Gitxaała people into a dependent labour force for the developing industries. Later policy worked to exclude Gitxaała people from the work force and to replace them with ‘white’ workers and resource producers.
74
(A37841)
272. The appropriate of First Nations land began with the creation of the first reserve in Victoria harbour prior to 1852 (see Harris 2002). The reserve system was essentially a tool for opening up land for settlement and development. In British Columbia the reserves are considerably smaller than in other parts of Canada. The creation of many small reserves in British Columbia was intended to encourage industry, thrift and materialism, and to provide cheap seasonal labour to the industrial economy (Harris 2002:65). The reserves averaged 5ha per person compared to allocations of up to 260 ha in the western interior (Newell 1993:56) and tended to be placed on or near customary fishing sites (this is especially the case for coastal reserves).
273. The reserve system appears designed to restrict First Nations’ access to the resources of most of their traditional territories. In addition, First Nations were inhibited from using the resources located on their small reserve holdings. Prior to 1916 the province’s reversionary interest in reserve land (in conflict with the Dominion) stunted early development of Indian resources. Until the McKenna- McBride Commission resolved this dispute, the bands could not sell the timber on reserve because the province continued to claim an interest in it (see Harris 2002:274).
274. Even after the resolution of provincial claims to reserve timber the federal government restricted the sale of timber. There is a DIAND memo from 1916 that suggests the need to restrict the cutting of timber on reserve, in order to protect it. Later, Circular No 030-2 in 1934 proposes to restrict the sale of reserve timber to conserve it for Indian use. However, where reserve timber was needed for non-Native development, it could be readily harvested, with little compensation for the band. MacDonald traces the use of Kitsumkalum timber from IR 1 and IR 3 between 1908 and 1910 for the Canadian Trans-Pacific Railroad (1990: 46). The Kitsumkalum were paid 7% of the required stumpage for harvesting over 2000 trees from their reserves.
275. The multiple, small reserves allocated to First Nations in BC also reflected the assumption of continued access to fisheries for subsistence and livelihood (Newell 1993:56). The reserve commissioner O’Reilly reserved fishing stations in 1881 for every band he encountered, protecting traditional fishing stations and summer village sites (Harris 2002: 202). Knight suggests that over half of the reserves in the province were intended for fisheries (1996: 306). However, the federal department in charge of fisheries was opposed to exclusive Native fishing rights and restricted access to these anticipated resources. The department discouraged the allocation of coastal fishing stations as reserves, and refused to allow for exclusive Native fisheries access. (Harris 2002: 202). Within Gitxaała territory the majority of reserves allocated by O’Reilly were first and foremost fishing or harvesting operations. The only general purpose village sites that were allocated to Gitxaała as reserves were Dolphin Island (the site of Gitxaała’s main village, Lach Klan, IR #1) and Citeyats (IR #9). Klapthlon (IR 5 & 5A) was set up as a possible new main village site closer to the steamship routes running along
75
(A37841)
Grenville Channel. The remaining reserves established are all near productive sockeye salmon (or in the case of Kul, IR 18 on Bonilla Island, a seal harvesting location). It is important to note that there are many other resource harvesting sites that were and remain in use by Gitxaała but those assigned by O’Reilly are predominantly salmon harvesting locations.
276. The most notorious fisheries regulation to limit Gitxaała access to fish within their own territory was the creation of the food fishery under the provisions of the Canadian Fisheries Act. This regulatory structure creates a false distinction between subsistence and commercial fisheries. It has served to inhibit Gitxaała access to their sovereign right to fish for a livelihood in accordance with customary laws for over one hundred years and has hastened their incorporation within the industrial fishery as the primary labour force. In 1888, the Fisheries Act began to differentiate between Indians’ right to fish for the purpose of food (which was exempt from certain regulations) and the right to sale and barter. The underlying assumption of this regulatory structure is that selling fish is not an Indian tradition; this has been used to exclude First Nations harvesters from commercial fisheries.
277. In addition to the legislation of Indian fishing as a subsistence activity, there began increasing restrictions on the access of First Nations to fish. Restrictions on First Nations fisheries on the Skeena began within a year of the establishment of the first cannery on the river (MacDonald 1994: 164); regulation worked to remove fish from the traditional economy in favour of the industrial economy.
278. In addition to these explicit regulations and policies the provincial and federal governments entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in 1912 to create a white-settler dominated fishery.68 Up until that time the large fish companies on the north coast maintained exclusive control over federally issued fishing permits referred as the ‘boat rating system.’ Under the boat rating system each of the established canneries worked out a distribution of fishing effort amongst themselves. The companies then distributed their permits to reliable fishermen in such a way as to control the supply of fish to their canneries. On the north coast this meant that the majority of fishermen remained First Nations, including many Gitxaała fishers who specialized in drag seining and then, in later years, in mobile seiners and gillnetters.
279. By the early years of the 1900s the gold rush period of the fishery had come to an end. Those companies that survived and consolidated during the turbulent early years found themselves in possession of a virtual license to print money. The fact that they in effect controlled harvesting capacity through the boat rating system made it next to impossible for emerging settler businessmen to
68 See, British Columbia Archives, GR 435 (Box 16, file 137). Memorandum of Understanding between the Province of BC and the Federal Government of Canada, dated November 9th, 1912.
76
(A37841)
break into the fishing industry. For the growing white settler electorate69 in the province of BC the boat rating system, that placed the control of fishing permits in the hands of the established fish companies, posed a linked racial and economic problem. The established companies where quite satisfied with their reliance upon First Nations fishers and their women folk. This system served to tie indigenous fishers to the companies and solved the dual problems of maintaining a seasonal labour force and a regular supply of fish.
280. From the perspective of the primarily white male propertied electorate, however, the established canners’ system served to exclude them from the economic opportunities of the fishery. For them the clearest path to partaking of in the riches of the fishery involved breaking the large canneries’ monopoly over fishing opportunities creating a class of independent white fishermen. Thus, the clause in the memorandum of understanding, to whit: “it is eminently desirable to have the fisheries carried on by a suitable class of white fishermen. . . . The Fishery Regulations and the policy of both Departments should have in view hastening the time as much as possible when such will be the case.”
281. The memorandum of understanding goes on to lament that while desirable the creation of a white only fishery “will require some years.” In the interval, the MOU set out the procedures whereby a guaranteed number of independent licenses would be held for “bona fide white fishermen. The agreement further set up the provision that “the reservation [of permits] will be sufficient to cover all applications from bona fide white fishermen.” Explicit and otherwise, the regulations, such as the 1912 MOU, that governed the establishment of fishing and forestry during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, worked to exclude indigenous peoples as full participants in the market economy as owners while relegating them to sources of labour power to be extracted analogously to the natural resources of fish, trees, and minerals.
282. During the middle of the 20th century Gitxaała people were gradually being excluded from the fishing industry. Kew suggests that First Nations participation in the fishing industry as owner-operators peaked around the time of WWII (Kew 1990). It is primarily the participation of northern Native fishermen that kept the numbers up, as on the Fraser, aboriginal fishermen were gradually displaced and replaced after 1900 (see Knight 1996).
283. The increasing capitalization of the fishing fleet put Gitxaała fishers at a disadvantage. Unable to obtain credit based on property (due to the reserve system), Gitxaała fishermen were less able to keep up with the technological advances, right from the shift to motorized boats in the early 20th century. Indigenous fishermen were thus kept closely tied to the canneries for credit and for boats. Increasingly, they were operating cannery-owned vessels. This
69 It is important to make very clear that the electorate in BC throughout the period here described was primarily white, male, and propertied. Thus, the people who could vote were those who had a direct economic stake in shaping the racial complexion of the fishing industry.
77
(A37841)
prevented many from enjoying the advantages offered by independent fishermen’s organizations such as the Prince Rupert Fishermen’s Co-operative (see Menzies 1993, 1996). Furthermore their ability to effectively negotiate fish prices was also restricted. The dependence on the canneries as a source of credit and boats eventually contributed to the decline in Native participation in the fishing industry. As the canneries steadily consolidated and centralized after the 1930s, they offered less and less employment to First Nations. In the north, cannery closures between 1944-1953 left 50% fewer women hired in processing fish (Muszynski 1996:204).
284. In 1968 the Davis Plan, named after the Minister of Fisheries at the time, restructured the commercial fishing industry in BC. License limitation was introduced, which increased the value of salmon licenses, and resulted in heavy capitalization of the fleet. The policy shift also prompted the rapid centralization of salmon processing. Women lost their jobs, men lost their boats, and families lost their source of credit.
285. First Nations fishermen were forced out of the industry at higher rates than non-Indigenous fishermen. Government programs to support First Nations fishermen during the 1970s failed to counteract the losses. Their participation dropped to 29% by the early 1990s (Gislason 1996). Communities like Gitxaała, which had enjoyed 100% employment (although seasonal) until the 1960s, found themselves without jobs for the first time.
286. The fishing industry underwent further restructuring in the late 1990s. License buybacks were initiated to reduce the fleet capacity. First Nations fishermen who had persisted in the industry were vulnerable, and many were forced to sell their licenses due to their debt load. Communities like Gitxaala lost up to 14% of their employment during this latest policy shift.
287. Today a handful of community members hold government of Canada commercial fishing licenses and own or operate their own vessels. The Band also owns some licenses and its own fishing vessel. A number of community members continue to work as crewmembers on fishboats and both men and women work on a seasonal basis in the few fishplants that remain in Prince Rupert. Fishing remains, however, a critical aspect of Gitxaała identity. Many community members retain access to small skiffs and outboards and now use these as their primary basis of operations for fishing within their traditional territories. Proceeds of these fishing and harvesting operations are distributed within the community and are exchanged for benefit within and beyond the community in accord with the authority and jurisdiction of Gitxaała laws and history.
78
(A37841)
7. Concluding comments 288. This report offers an overview of the Gitxaała socio-cultural world – the place, people, institutions, and communities of practice that make Gitxaała a unique people on the north coast of British Columbia. For milleana Gitxaała people and their ancestors have made the islands and waterways of their traditional territory their home. To do so they have developed a unique and culturally important connection to the place and all the lives in, on and over it.
289. Laxyuup Gitxaała -Gitxaała territory- is a wealthy place. It is a world reliant upon the richness of an ecosystem that has grown and developed in relation with the people. But the ecological wealth of this place is tied to the cultural integrity of Gitxaała. Destroy the ecology and the people are themselves also destroyed.
290. Gitxaała people have traversed a tumultuous last century and a half. Diseases and new economies of extraction have exacted a toll upon the people and the place. Gitxaała has, nonetheless, persisted with a rich and vibrant culture.
79
(A37841)
8. References cited.
8.1Published Sources Ames, Kenneth 2005. The North Coast Prehistory Project Excavations in the Prince Rupert Harbour, British Columbia: the Artifacts. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Ames, Kenneth and Herbert Maschner 1999. Peoples of the Northwest Coast: Their Archeology and Prehistory. New York: Thames and Hudson Ltd..
Anderson (Seguin), Margaret and Marjorie Halpin. (Eds.) 2000. Potlatch at Gitsegukla: William Beynon’s 1945 Field Notebooks. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Blake, Michael. 2004. “Fraser Valley Trade and Prestige as Seen from Scowlitz.” In Complex Hunter- Gathers: Evolution and Organization of Prehistoric Communities of the Plateau of Northwestern North America. William C. Prentiss and Ian Kuijt, eds. Pp. 103-112. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Boas, Franz 1909-1910. Tsimshian Mythology, Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1909-1910 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1916).
Boyd, Robert. 1999. The Coming of the Spirit of Pestilence: Introduced Infectious Diseases and Population Decline Among Northwest Coast Indians, 1774-1874. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Butler, Caroline F. and Charles R. Menzies. 2007. Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Indigenous Tourism. In Richard Butler and Tom Hinch (Eds) Tourism and Indigenous Peoples: Issues and Implications. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinermann.
Butler, Caroline F. 2004. Researching Traditional Ecological Knowledge for Multiple Uses. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 28(1-2):33-48.
Cove, John J. and MacDonald George F. (eds). 1987. Tsimshian Narratives. Collected by Marius Barbeau and William Beynon. (Canadian Museum of Civilization Mercury Series, Directorate Paper 3.) Vol. 1. Ottawa: Directorate, Canadian Museum of Civilization.
Cove, John.
80
(A37841)
1987. Shattered Images: Dialogues and Meditations on Tsimshian Narratives. Ottawa, Canada: Carleton University Press.
Curtis, Edward S. 1907-1930. The North American Indian: Being a Series of Volumes Picturing and Describing the Indians of the United States, the Dominion of Canada, and Alaska. Frederick W. Hodge, ed. 20 Vols. Norwood Mass: Plimpton Press (Reprinted: Johnson Reprint, New York, 1970.)
Deloria, Vine, J. 1977. Indians of the Pacific Northwest; from the Coming of the White Man to the Present Day. New York: Doubleday.
Galois, Robert (editor). 2004. A Voyage to the North West Side of America: The Journals of James Colnett, 1786-89. Edited with an Introduction by Robert Galois. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Garfield, Viola E. 1939. “Tsimshian Clan and Society.” University of Washington Publications in Anthropology. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Garibaldi, Ann, and Nancy J. Turner. 2004. “Cultural Keystone Species: Implications for Ecological Conservation and Restoration.” Ecology and Society 9(3):1. Lincoln: Nebraska University Press.
Gislason, Gordon et. al., 1996. Fishing for Answers: Coastal Communities and the bc Salmon Fishery: Final Report. (Victoria: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food, 1996).
Halpin, Marjorie M. and Seguin, Margaret. 1990. “Tsimshian Peoples: Southern Tsimshian, Coast Tsimshian, Nishga, and Gitksan” in Handbook of North American Indians, Vol 7 Northwest Coast (Vol. ed.) Wayne Suttles, (General ed.) William C. Sturtevant. Pp. .267-284. Washington: Smithsonian Institute.
Halpin, Marjorie Myers. 1984. “The Structure of Tsimshian Totemism.” In The Tsimshian and Their Neighbors of the North Pacific Coast, edited by Jay Miller and Carol Eastman. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, Pp. 16-35.
Harris, Douglas C. 2008. Landing Native Fisheries: Indian Reserves and Fishing Rights in British Columbia. Vancouver: University of BC Press.
Jones, Russ, Norm A. Sloan, and Bart DeFreitas.
81
(A37841)
2004 Prospects for Northern Abalone (Haliotis Kamtschatkana) Recovery in Haida Gwaii Through Community Stewardship. In Making Ecosystem Based Management Work: Connecting Managers and Researchers. N. W. P. Munro, P. Dearden, T. B. Herman, K. Beazley, and S. Bondrup-Nielsen, eds. Nova Scotia, Canada: Science and Management of Protected Areas Association. Online conference proceedings: http://tinyurl. com/25cesda.
Kew, Michael. 1989. “Salmon Availability, Technology and Cultural Adaptations on the Fraser River.” In Bryan Hayden (ed). A Complex Culture of the British Columbia Plateau: Traditional Stl’atl’imx Resource Use. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Langdon, Stephen. 2006. “Tidal Pulse Fishing: Selective Traditional Tlingit Salmon Fishing Techniques on the West Coast of the Prince of Wales Archipelago.” In Charles R. Menzies (ed). Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Natural Resource Management. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
MacDonald George F. and Cove John J. (eds.). 1987. Tsimshian Narratives. Collected by Marius Barbeau and William Beynon. (Canadian Museum of Civilization Mercury Series, Directorate Paper 3.) Vol. 2. Ottawa: Directorate, Canadian Museum of Civilization.
Marsden, Susan 2002. "Adawx, Spanaxnox, and the Geopolitics of the Tsimshian." B.C. Studies, vol. 135, pp. 101–135.
Matson, R.G. and Gary Coupland 1995. The Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. San Diego: Academic Press.
McDonald, James A. 1994. "Social change and the creation of underdevelopment: a northwest coast case". American Ethnologist 21:1: 152-175.
McDonald, James A. 1991. The Marginalization of the Tsimshian Cultural Ecology: The Seasonal Cycle,” In Bruce Alden Cox (ed). Native Peoples, Native Lands: Canadian Indians, Inuit and Metis. Ottawa: Carleton University Press, Pp. 109-216.
McDonald, James A. 1990. "Bleeding day and night: the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway across Tsimshian reserve lands". Canadian Journal of Native Studies. vol. 10 No. 1 pp 33–69.
Menzies, Charles R. 2011. “Butterflies, Anthropologies, and Ethnographic Field Schools: A Reply to Wallace and Hyatt.” Collaborative Anthropologies. Vol. 4, 2011.
82
(A37841)
Menzies, Charles R. 2010. Dm sibilhaa’nm da laxyuubm gitxaała: Picking abalone in gitxaała territory. Human Organization. 69(3) 2010.
Menzies, Charles R. 2006. “The Case of the Pine Mushroom Harvest in Northwestern British Columbia,” in Menzies (ed). Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Natural Resource Management Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press; 87-104.
Menzies, Charles R. 2004. Putting Words into Action: Negotiating Collaborative Research in Gitxaala. Canadian Journal of Native Education. Vol. 28(1&2). 2004. Go to journal at www.ecoknow.ca
Menzies, Charles R. and Caroline F. Butler, with Solen Roth, Natalie J.K. Baloy, Robin Anderson, Jennifer Wolowic, and Oralia Gómez-Ramírez. 2011. “Collaborative Service Learning and Anthropology with Gitxaala Nation.” Collaborative Anthropologies. Vol. 4, 2011.
Menzies, Charles R. and Caroline Butler 2007. “Returning to Selective Fishing Through Indigenous Knowledge: The Example of K’moda Gitxaała Territory.” American Indian Quarterly Vol 31(3):441-462.
Miller, Jay. 1997. Tsimshian Culture: A Light Through the Ages. Lincoln, Nebraska: Nebraska University Press.
Moss, Madonna L. 1993. “Shellfish, Gender, and Status on the Northwest Coast: Reconciling Archeological, Ethnographic, and Ethnohistorical Records of the Tlingit.” American Anthropologist 95(3): 631-652.
Newell, Dianne. 1993. Tangled Webs of History: Indians and the Law in Canada’s Pacific Coast Fisheries. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Roe Michael (editor). 1967. “The Journal and Letters of Captain Charles Bishop on the North-West Coast of America, in the Pacific and in New South Wales,” 1794-1799. Edited with an Introduction by Michael Roe. Cambridge: Published for the Hakluyt Society, at the University Press. Roth, Christopher. 2008. Becoming Tsimshian: The Social Life of Names. Seattle and Washington: University of Washington Press.
83
(A37841)
Sequin (Anderson), Margaret. 1984. “Lest There Be No Salmon.” In The Tsimshian: Images of the Past, View for the Present, 110-33. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Stewart, Hillary. 1977. Indian Fishing: Early Methods on the Northwest Coast. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Suttles, Wayne (ed). 1990. “Environment. in Handbook of North American Indians, Vol 7 Northwest Coast (Vol. ed.) Wayne Suttles, (General ed.) William C. Sturtevant. Pp. .16-29. Washington: Smithsonian Institute.
Suttles, Wayne. 1987. Coast Salish Essays. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Wagner, Henry and W.A. Newcombe (eds.). 1938. “The Journal of Don Jacinto Caamano” (1792). Translated by Captain Harold Grenfell, R.N. Edited with an Introduction and Notes by Henry R. Wagner and W.A. Newcombe. Reprinted from the British Historical Quarterly, July and October, 1938. [Also online at http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/pdfs/bchf/bchq_1938_4.pdf]
Winter, Barbara J. 1984. “William Beynon and the Anthropologists.” The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 2(1984): 279-292.
8.2 Unpublished Sources Beynon, William 1916 .Gitxaala Field Notes, Vols. 1-VI. Canadian Centre for Folk Culture Studies, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Ottawa.
1937-1939 William Beynon Papers. Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia University, New York.
1954 Ethnical and Geographic Study of the T’semsiyaén Nation. Division of Anthropology Archives. American Museum of Natural History.
1953-1954 Vol. II, Vol. VI. “Beynon Notebooks.” Canadian Museum of Civilization. (B-F 132), (B-F 134).
Berringer, Patricia. 1982. Northwest Coast Traditional Salmon Fisheries Systems of Resource Utilization. Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia, 1982.
Brown, Dorothy
84
(A37841)
1992. “Saaban” in Susan Marsden and Vonnie Hutchinson, eds., Suwilaay’msga Na Ga’niiyatgm, Teachings of Our Grandfathers (Prince Rupert: School District 52, 1992).
Campbell, Kenneth. 2005. Persistence and Continuity: A History of the Tsimshian Nation. Prince Rupert: Prince Rupert School District, # 52.
Copes, Parcival. 1998. Coping with the Coho Crisis: A Conservation-Minded, Stakeholder-Sensitive, and Community-Oriented Strategy (Victoria: BC Ministry of Fisheries, 1998). (Note – no specific quote, no page no.)
Coupland (1985) Prehistoric Culture Change at Kitselas Canyon. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia.
Eldridge, Morley and Alyssa Parker 2007. Fairview Container Terminal Phase II Archaeological Overview Assessment, March 8, 2007.
Halpin, Marjorie Myers. 1973. “The Tsimshian Crest System: A Study Based on Museum Specimens and the Marius Barbeau and William Beynon Field Notes.” Ph.D. diss., Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia.
8.3 Government Documents70 - Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada) and Canadian Legal Survey Records September 21, 1882 [Federal Collection, Minutes of Decision, Correspondence and Sketches, P. O’Reilly, June 1882 to February 1885, File No. 29858 Vol. No. 4 [Reg No. B-64645]]
November 7, 1882 [Federal Collection, Minutes of Decision, Correspondence and Sketches, P. O’Reilly, June 1882 to February 1885, File No. 29858 Vol. No. 4 [Reg No. B-64645]]
November 21, 1882 [Federal Collection, Minutes of Decision, Correspondence and Sketches, P. O’Reilly, June 1882 to February 1885, File No. 29858 Vol. No. 4 [Reg No. B-64645]]
June 3, 1891 [Federal Collection, Minutes of Decision, Correspondence and Sketches, P. O’Reilly, April 1889 to January 1892, File 29858, Vol. No. 6 [Reg. No. B-64647]]
70 Government documents addressing reserve creation.
85
(A37841)
July 10, 1891 [Federal Collection, Minutes of Decision, Correspondence and Sketches, P. O’Reilly, April 1889 to January 1892, File 29858, Vol. No. 6 [Reg. No. B-64647]]
August 3, 1891 [Federal Collection, Minutes of Decision, Correspondence and Sketches, P. O’Reilly, April 1889 to January 1892, File 29858, Vol. No. 6 [Reg. No. B-64647]]
1891/92 Field Books – F.A. Devereux, Surveyor [CLSR – FBBC 448, 449, 450, 451]
September 6, 1893 [Minutes of Decision, Correspondence and Sketches, Peter O’Reilly, May 1889 to October 1894, File 298586, Vol. No. 7 [Reg. No. B-64648]]
1901 Field Book - E.M. Skinner, Surveyor [CLSR – FBBC 452]
1902 Dominion of Canada - Schedule of Indian Reserves in the Dominion: Supplement to Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs for the Year Ended June 30, 1902.
1913 Dominion of Canada - Schedule of Indian Reserves in the Dominion: Supplement to Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs for Year ended March 31, 1913.
September 4, 1913 [Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of BC, Bella Coola Agency; Transcripts of Evidence] Copy held by INAC
1916 [1916, Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of British Columbia, Victoria: Acme Press, Limited]
1927 Field Book - R.M. Wright, Surveyor [CLSR – FBBC 953]
July 25, 1923 Provincial Order in Council 1923-911 + Confirmations of Reserves Schedule
July 19, 1924 Dominion Order in Council 1924-265 + Confirmations of Reserves Schedule
86
(A37841)
1943 Dominion of Canada - Schedule of Indian Reserves in the Dominion of Canada – Part 2 – Reserves in the Province of British Columbia
8.4 Government Documents71 - Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada) May 7, 1882 [Source - Federal Collection, Correspondence to/from P. O’Reilly, Dr. I.W. Powell, et al May 1881 to February 1884 [Reg. No. B-64652]
1890 [Federal Sessional Papers, Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs for the Year Ended 31st 1889, Volume 12, 1890. Ottawa: Brown Camberlin, Printer to the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty]
August 15, 1890 [Source – Indian Affairs, RG 10, Vol. 3828, file 60,926 (Reel C 10145) – also held at UBC. Poor copy – water stains.]
August 21, 1890 [Source – Indian Affairs, RG 10, Vol. 3828, file 60,926 (Reel C 10145) – also held at UBC. Poor copy – water stains.]
September 4, 1890 [Source – Indian Affairs, RG 10, Vol. 3828, file 60,926 (Reel C 10145) – also held at UBC. Poor copy – water stains.]
September 15, 1890 [Source – Indian Affairs, RG 10, Vol. 3828, file 60,926 (Reel C 10145) – also held at UBC.]
April 7 1905 [Source – Indian Affairs, RG 10, Vol. 1282 – also held at UBC. Very poor copy.]
1912 [Source - British Columbia Archives, GR 435 (Box 16, file 137] Memorandum of Understanding between the Province of BC and the Federal Government of Canada, dated November 9th, 1912 as it relates to fishing restrictions.
71 Government documents addressing fishing.
87
(A37841)
September 4, 1913 [Source - Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of BC, Transcripts of Evidence; Questions affecting the Fishing Rights, Interests and Privileges of Indians in British Columbia – Bella Coola Agency Pp. 1-33; p. 12]
September 10, 1915 [Source - Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of BC, Transcripts of Evidence; Questions affecting the Fishing Rights, Interests and Privileges of Indians in British Columbia – Bella Coola Agency Pp. 1-33; p. 14]
September 30, 1915 [Source - Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of BC, Transcripts of Evidence; Questions affecting the Fishing Rights, Interests and Privileges of Indians in British Columbia – Bella Coola Agency Pp. 1-33; p. 30]
8.5 Government Documents72 - Department of Fisheries June 12, 1911 [Source - Department of Fisheries, File No. 3023, Pt. 3; or Materials on BC (Microfilm AW1R5474) - UBC Reel 59.]
September 15, 1911 [Source - Department of Fisheries, File No. 3023, Pt. 3; or Materials on BC (Microfilm AW1R5474) - UBC Reel 59.]
December 24, 1911 [Source - Department of Fisheries, File No. 3023, Pt. 3; or Materials on BC (Microfilm AW1R5474) - UBC Reel 59.]
1911 Source - Department of Fisheries, File No. 3023, Pt. 3; or Materials on BC (Microfilm AW1R5474) - UBC Reel 59.
1911 Source - Department of Fisheries, File No. 3023, Pt. 3; or Materials on BC (Microfilm AW1R5474) - UBC Reel 59.
January 4, 1912 [Source - Department of Fisheries, File No. 3023, Pt. 3; or Materials on BC (Microfilm AW1R5474) - UBC Reel 59.]
January 23, 1912 [Source - Department of Fisheries, File No. 3023, Pt. 3; or Materials on BC (Microfilm AW1R5474) - UBC Reel 59.]
72 Government documents addressing fishing.
88
(A37841)
February 28, 1912 [Source - Department of Fisheries, File No. 3023, Pt. 3; or Materials on BC (Microfilm AW1R5474) - UBC Reel 59.]
March 21, 1912 [Source - Department of Fisheries, File No. 3023, Pt. 3; or Materials on BC (Microfilm AW1R5474) - UBC Reel 59.]
March 22, 1912 [Source - Department of Fisheries, File No. 3023, Pt. 3; or Materials on BC (Microfilm AW1R5474) - UBC Reel 59.]
April 2, 1912 [Source - Department of Fisheries, File No. 3023, Pt. 3; or Materials on BC (Microfilm AW1R5474) - UBC Reel 59.]
May 29, 1912 [Source - Department of Fisheries, File No. 3023, Pt. 3; or Materials on BC (Microfilm AW1R5474) - UBC Reel 59.]
February 24, 1913 [Source - Department of Fisheries, File No. 3023, Pt. 4; or Materials on BC (Microfilm AW1R5474) - UBC Reel 59.]
March 12, 1913 [Source - Department of Fisheries, File No. 3023, Pt. 4; or Materials on BC (Microfilm AW1R5474) - UBC Reel 59.]
89
(A37841)
c.v. Charles R. Menzies, Ph.D.
Employment: 2006-present. Associate Professor (Anthropology) in the Department of Anthropology, University of British Columbia and Director, The Ethnographic Film Unit at UBC. 2004-2006. Associate Professor (Anthropology) in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia 1998- 2004. Assistant Professor (Anthropology) in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia 1996- 98 Instructor I (Anthropology), in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia.
Agency Appointments: 2008-present. Director of Cultural Resources and Heritage Research. Gitxaała Environmental Monitoring, Gitxaała Nation. http://gitxaala.wordpress.com/ (pro bono position).
University Education: PhD 1998. CUNY Grad. Center, Program in Anthropology. Sub-discipline: socio- cultural anthropology.
M.Phil 1997. CUNY Grad. Center, Program in Anthropology. Sub-discipline: Socio- cultural anthropology.
M.A. 1991. York University (Toronto, Canada), Department of Social Anthropology.
B.A. (Honors) 1988. Simon Fraser University (Vancouver, Canada), Department of Sociology and Anthropology.
Research Contracts: 2011 Gitxaała Nation. Expert Opinion Report on the Traditional Use, Occupancy and Title of the area along the Enbridge Tar-Sands Tanker Route. (Grant-in-aid funding to UBC in lieu of personal payment.) 2010 Gitxaała Nation. Expert Opinion Report on the Traditional Use, Occupancy and Title of the area along the Naikun Transmission Corridor. (Grant-in-aid funding to UBC in lieu of personal payment.) 2009 Department of Justice BC Region | Ministère de la Justice, région de la C.-B. A. Joseph et al v. HMTQ. Rebuttal Report Regarding Value-Added Salmon Products in Joseph, Alfred et al. (Hagwilget Indian Band) v. HMTQ 2008 Gitxaała Nation. Expert Opinion Report on the Traditional Use, Occupancy and Title of the area of Prince Rupert Harbour near to and adjacent to the proposed container port. (Grant-in-aid funding to UBC in lieu of personal payment.) 2007 Gitxaała Nation. R. vs. Nelson and Tolmie. Expert Report on the Gitxaała Practice of Fishing, including abalone. (A37841)
2006 – present. Quileute Tribe, La Push, Washington. 2005 Gitxaała Nation. Review of Treaty Office Activities, 2003-2005. Pro-bono project to review and evaluate the status of Gitxaała Treaty. 2004 Human Rights tribunal of BC. Expert report and testimony on matter related to discrimination against First Nations in the health care sector. 2002-03 Coast Information Team: coordination of north coast component of the Cultural and Social Spatial Analysis. Project involved extensive research into local perceptions of places of importance and mechanisms for recognizing this within land planning processes. 2002 Ministry of Sustainable Development, Province of British Columbia: report concerning the need to incorporate First Nations and non-aboriginal peoples informal economic activities within ongoing Land Resource Management Process on the North Coast, BC. 2000 Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada. Report on the involvement of Aboriginal peoples in the British Columbia fishing industry with a focus upon the mechanisms of legal exclusion. 1999 Nisga’a Tribal Council: briefing paper on the Pine Mushroom Industry within Nisga’a Lands as part of their preparations for the implementation of the Nisga’a Treaty 1998 Nisga’a Tribal Council: briefing paper on the Nisga’a and the Global Forest Sector as part of their implementation of a strategic forest plan. 1997 Ministry of Highways, Province of British Columbia: component report concerning the potential adverse effects of highway construction along the Nass River on Traditional Uses by Tsimshian peoples.
Fellowships and Grants: (Please note: Only dollar amounts for grants over CAN$15,000.00 listed for each entry.) 2010-2013 Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Research Grant. “Laxyuup Gitxaala: Gitxaala territory through an archaeological and anthropological lens.” ($163,000.00).
2007-2009 Forest Science Program: Ministry of Forests and Range. “Sustainable Forestry, Traditional Economies, and Community Well-Being: A Collaborative Project with Gitxaala and Nuxalk Nation.” ($120,00.00)
2006-2009 Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Aboriginal Strategic Grant. “Dmsayt ‘nmoomdm:73 Facing Poverty and Homelessness through Customary Ts’msyeen Practices.” ($210,000.00)
2006-2009 Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Research Grant. “Trans Atlantic Connections, A Study of North Atlantic Fisheries in the Global Economy.” ($147,000.00)
73 Dmsayt ‘nmoomdm is a Ts’msyeen expression that can be translated into English as “We will all help each other.”
91 (A37841)
2004-06 Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation: Natural Resources Canada Research Grant: “Local ecological knowledge as an adaptive response to climate change impacts on the non-commercial food supply on the north coast of British Columbia.” ($96,000.00)
2004 UBC, Humanities and Social Science Research Grant: “Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Adaptations to Climate Change on BC’s North Coast.”
2003-05 UBC, Hampton Research Fund: “Trans Atlantic Connections, A Study of North Atlantic Fisheries in the New Global Economy.” ($25,000.00)
2002-03 UBC, Humanities and Social Science Research Grant: “Flexible Fishing in the Global Economy, A Study of the Re-organization of the French Artisanal Fishing Industry.”
2001-03 Forest Renewal of BC (replaced by Forest Innovation Investment, May 2002): Research Grant, “Forests for the Future, Integrating Traditional Ecological Knowledge with Natural Resource Management.” ($400,000.00)
2000-03 Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada: Standard Research Grant, “An Historical Ethnography of Race and Industry on North Coastal British Columbia.” ($66,000.00)
2000-01 Wenner Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Cooperation and Conflict: Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Resource Workers in the Tsimshian Territories.” ($25,000.00)
2000-01 UBC, Humanities and Social Science Research Grant, “Industry and Race in Northern British Columbia.”
1999-00 Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada: Aid to Occasional Research Conferences and International Congresses, “Perspectives on Race, Gender, and Social Class in Contemporary Anthropological Theory and Research.” ($15,000.00)
1999-00 UBC, Humanities and Social Science Research Grant, “Fishing with the Euro: Implications of the Unitary Currency for Small-Scale Fishers in Brittany.”
1998-99 Faculty of Education: A Gathering of the People. Incubator grant for setting up a First Nations Faculty Research Group of which I am a member.
1998-99 UBC, Humanities and Social Science Research Grant, “Life on the Boats: Life History of John Roberts, Euro-Aboriginal Fishing Skipper.”
92 (A37841)
1997-98 Forest Renewal BC Research Grant, “First Nations Involvement in the Forest Industry in the Tsimshian Territories,” a collaborative research project with the Tsimshian Tribal Council in which I am the principle investigator. ($78,000.00)
1997-98 UBC, Humanities and Social Science Research Grant, “Ethnographies of Violence: Police Reports of Strikes, Meetings, and Demonstrations in the Bigoudennie, France (1900-1939) .”
1996-97 UBC, Humanities and Social Science Research Grant, “Industry and Racial Identity on BC’s North Coast.”
1995-96 Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Doctoral Fellowship. ($20,000.00)
1991-94 Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Doctoral Fellowship, #752-91-3094. ($14,000.00 per year).
Publications, Reviews, Videos, and Papers Presented Books & Special Edited Journal Issues: 2011 Red Flags and Lace Coiffes: Identity and Survival in a Breton Village. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
2006 Editor. Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Natural Resource Management. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
2005. Charles Menzies and Anthony Marcus (Guest Editors), Theme Issue: Marxism and Anthropology. Anthropologica. Vol. 47(1)
2004 Guest Editor: Theme Issue. Forests for the Future: a Successful Example of University/First Nations Collaborative Research Canadian Journal of Native Education Vol. 28(1 & 2).
2003 Kenneth Campbell, Charles R. Menzies, Brent Peacock. BC First Nations Studies. Vancouver: Pacific Educational Press.
Refereed Journal Articles and Book Chapters: Forthcoming. “The Disturbed Environment. The Indigenous Cultivation of Salmon.” In Benedict J. Columbi and James F. Brooks (Eds.) Keystone nations: Indigenous Peoples and Salmon across the North Pacific. Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research.
2011. Charles R. Menzies and Caroline F. Butler. “Collaborative Service Learning and Anthropology with Gitxaała Nation;” with reflections by Solen Roth, Natalie J.K. Baloy, Robin Anderson, Jennifer Wolowic, and Oralia Gómez-Ramírez, and;
93 (A37841)
concluding comments by Nees Ma'Outa (Clifford White). Collaborative Anthropologies. Volume 4:169-242.
2011. “Butterflies, Anthropologies, and Ethnographic Field Schools: A Reply to Wallace and Hyatt.” Collaborative Anthropologies. Volume 4:260-266
2010 “Dm sibilhaa’nm da laxyuubm gitxaała: Picking abalone in Gitxaała territory.” Human Organization, Vol. 69:3, pages 213-220.
2010 “Reflections on Work and Activism in the University of Excellence.” New Proposals: Journal of Marxism and Interdisciplinary Inquiry. Vol. 3(2):40-55.
2008 Charles Menzies and Caroline Butler. “The Indigenous Foundation of the Resource Economy of BC's North Coast.” Labour/Le Travail. 61 (Spring 2008), 131-149.
2007 Caroline Butler and Charles Menzies. “Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Indigenous Tourism.” In R. W. Butler and T. Hinch (Eds). Tourism and Indigenous Peoples. London: Elsevier.
2007 Charles Menzies and Caroline Butler. “Returning to Selective Fishing Through Indigenous Fisheries Knowledge: The Example of K’moda, Gitxaała Territory.” American Indian Quarterly. 31:3.
2006 Charles Menzies and Caroline Butler. “Introduction: Understanding Ecological Knowledge.” In Charles R. Menzies (ed). Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Natural Resource Management. Lincoln, Nebraska: Nebraska University Press.
2006 “Ecological Knowledge, Subsistence, and Livelihood Practices: The Case of the Pine Mushroom Harvest in Northwestern British Columbia.” In Charles R. Menzies (ed). Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Natural Resource Management. Lincoln, Nebraska: Nebraska University Press.
2006 “Afterword: Making Connections to the Future.” In Charles R. Menzies (ed). Integrating Local Level Ecological Knowledge with Natural Resource Management. Lincoln, Nebraska: Nebraska University Press.
2005. Anthony Marcus and Charles Menzies. “Towards a Class Struggle Anthropology.” Anthropologica. Vol. 47(1).
2005. Charles Menzies and Anthony Marcus. “Renewing the Vision: Marxism and Anthropology in the 21st Century.” Anthropologica Vol. 47(1).
2004 “Putting Words into Action: Negotiating Collaborative Research in Gitxaała.” Canadian Journal of Native Education. Vol. 28(1):15-32.
94 (A37841)
2004 Paul Orlowski and Charles R. Menzies. “Educating about Aboriginal Involvement with Forestry: The Tsimshian Experience - Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow.” Canadian Journal of Native Education. Vol. 28(1):66-79.
2004 “First Nations, Inequality, and the Legacy of Colonialism.” Revised and reprinted in James Curtis, Edward Grabb, and Neil Guppy (eds). Social Inequality in Canada (4th Edition). Toronto: Prentice-Hall, pp. 295-303. Republished and revised in new edition.
2003 ‘Fishing, Families, and the Survival of Artisanal Boat-Ownership in the Bigouden Region of France.’ MAST / Martitime Studies Vol. 2(1):71-88.
2002 'Red Flags and Lace Coiffess: Identity, Livelihood, and the Politics of Survival in the Bigoudennie, France'. In Political Economy and the Production of Culture, ed. Belinda Leach and Winnie Lem. Albany: State University of New York.
2001 'The Stories People Tell: Gendered Stories of Social Class in the Bigouden Region, France'. Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Europe. 1(2):10- 15.
2001 'Us and Them: The Prince Rupert Fishermen’s Co-op and Organized Labour, 1931-1989'. Labour/Le Travail. #48:89-108.
2001 “Reflections on research with, for, and among Indigenous Peoples.” Canadian Journal of Native Education. 25(1):19-36.
2001 Charles R. Menzies and Caroline Butler. “Working in the Woods: Tsimshian Resource Workers and the Forest Industry of BC.” American Indian Quarterly. 25:3.
2001 “An Uneasy Custody - Finding the Path to Partnership: a Parent's Perspective.” Our Schools / Our Selves. 11:1(#65) (October, 2001): 25-30
1998 “First Nations, Inequality, and the Legacy of Colonialism” in Neil Guppy et al (eds) Social Inequality in Canada (3rd Edition) Toronto: Prentice-Hall
1997 “Class and Identity on the Margins of Industrial Society: A Breton Illustration,” Anthropologica, Vol. 39:27-38. (Published in July, 1998)
1996 “Indian or White? Racial Identities in the British Columbian Fishery,” in Anthony Marcus (ed.) Anthropology for a Small Planet, St. James, New York: Brandywine Press, pp. 110-123.
1994 “Stories From Home: First Nations, Land Claims, and Euro-Canadians,” American Ethnologist, Vol. 21(4): 776-791.
95 (A37841)
1993 “All That Holds Us Together: Kinship and Resource Pooling in a Fishing Co- operative,” MAST: Maritime Anthropological Studies, 6(1/2):157-179.
1992 “On Permanent Strike: Class and Ideology in a Producers' Co-operative,” Studies in Political Economy, #38:85-108.
1990 “Between the Stateroom and the Fo'c'sle: Everyday Forms of Class Struggle Aboard a Commercial Fishboat” Nexus Vol. 8(1):77-92.
Articles: 2003 “Canada First Nations Families.” In International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family, Second Edition. Ed. James J. Ponzetti, Jr. New York: Macmillian Reference USA. Vol. 1:190-192.
2002 “Work First, Then Eat! Skipper/Crew relations on a French Fishing Boat.” Anthropology of Work Review. Vol. 23(1-2):19-24
2002 “Le Piano à deux queues.” Yemaya (Lettre de L’ICSF sur les Questions de Genres dans le Secteur da la Pêche). No. 9 (Avril 2002):6-8.
2000 “First Nations in BC: A Review Essay.” In The Encyclopedia of British Columbia, ed. D. Francis. Harbour Press. Pp. 233-238.
2000 Caroline Butler and Charles R. Menzies. “Out of the Woods: Tsimshian Women and Forestry Work.” Anthropology of Work Review. Vol. 21(2):12-17.
2000 “Trying to Make a Living: Breton Fishers and Late Twentieth Century Capitalism.” Anthropology of Work Review Vol. 20(2):1-7.
1996 Réflexions sur la pêche au Guilvinec / Reflections on Fishing in Le Guilvinec," Annuaire de Droit Maritime et Océanique, Tome XIV-1996, Nantes, France: Centre de Droit Maritime et Océanique , Faculté de Droit et des Sciences Politiques, Université de Nantes, pp.161-165.
1991 “Obscenities and Fishermen: The (Re)production of Gender in the Process of Production,” Anthropology of Work Review, Vol. 12(2):13-16.
1990 “Working Class Consciousness and Everyday Life Aboard a Commercial Fishing Vessel,” Anthropology of Work Review, Vol. 11(1):2-4,15.
Video Productions: 2011 “A Quiet Blockade.” Directed by Jennifer Rashleigh and Charles Menzies. Written by Jennifer Rashleigh. Producer: Charles Menzies. A Production of the Ethnographic Film Unit at UBC. 15 minute broadcast quality documentary.
96 (A37841)
2011 “Small Nets in a Sea of Change.” Written and Directed by Charles Menzies and Rachel Donkersloot. Producer: Charles Menzies. A Production of the Ethnographic Film Unit at UBC. 30 minute broadcast quality documentary.
2011 “Archaeology in Laxyuup Gitxaala.” Written and Directed by Charles Menzies. Producer: Charles Menzies. A Production of the Ethnographic Film Unit at UBC. 20 minute broadcast quality documentary.
2010 “Histakshitl Ts'awaatskwii / We Come From One Root.” 66 minute video. Directed and written by Denise Nicole Green with Chuuchkamalthnii. Producer Charles Menzies. A production of The Ethnographic Film Unit at UBC.
2009 “Bax Laansk: pulling together. A film about Gitxaała.” 50 min. broadcast quality video. Producer/director/writer Charles Menzies. Co-director/Co-writer Jen Rashleigh.
2008 “Naming the Harbour: a boat trip with Gitxaała hereditary leaders and elders. 20 min. broadcast quality video. Producer/director Charles Menzies. Videographer and editing: Jen Rashleigh.
2008 “Weather the Storm. The fight to stay local in the global fishery.” 35 min. broadcast quality video. Producer/director/writer Charles Menzies. Co- Director/Co-writer: Jen Rashleigh
2005 “Returning to Gitxaała.” 30 min. broadcast quality video. Producer/director: Charles Menzies. Videographer and editing: Jen Rashleigh
2004 “The Struggle to Fish: A history of the Bigouden Fishing Industry.” 30 min. broadcast quality video. Producer/director: Charles Menzies. Videographer and editing: Jen Rashleigh. [French and English versions available.]
2003 “The View from Gitxaała.” 15 min. broadcast quality video. Producer/director: Charles Menzies. Videographer and editing: Jen Rashleigh.
2003 “Oona River: Home Amongst the Wilderness.” 42 min. broadcast quality video. Producer: Charles Menzies. Director: Caroline Butler and Jen Rashleigh. Videographer and editing: Jen Rasleigh.
2003 “Chasing the Fish: Local Ecological Knowledge of North Coast Fishers.” 25 minute broadcast quality video. Producer/director: Charles Menzies. Videographer and editing: Jen Rashleigh..
2002 “Working in the Woods.” 30 min. video. Producer/director: Charles Menzies. Videography: Charles Menzies, Paul Orloswski. Editing: Jen Rashleigh and Morgan Ried.
97 (A37841)
Book Reviews: 2010 Citizen Dockers: Making a New Deal on the Vancouver Waterfront, 1991- 1939. By Andrew Parnaby. Western Historical Quarterly. Vol. 41(1): 89
2001 Haa Aani: Our Land, Tlingit and Haida Land Rights and Use, Walter R. Goldschmidt and Theodore H. Hass, Edited and with an Introduction by Thomas F. Thornton. BC Studies.
1999 The Hegemonic Male: Masculinity in a Portuguese Town, Providence & Oxford: Berghan Books, 1996. H-SAE, H-Net Reviews, June, 1999. URL: http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=1040930847875.
1999 The Indian History of British Columbia: The Impact of the White Man, by Wilson Duff. New edition. And, The First Nations of British Columbia, by Robert J. Muckle. BC Studies Number 121: 130-132.
1998 Risks, Dangers, and Rewards in the Nova Scotia Offshore Fishery Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1995 and Voices From Offshore St. John’s Nfld: ISER Books, by Marion Binkley, Anthropological Vol. 40: 140- 141.
1995 Workers Not Wasters: Masculine Respectability, Consumption and Employment in Central Scotland, by Daniel Wight, in the Bulletin of the Society for the Anthropology of Europe.
1993 Reluctant Pioneers: Constraints and Opportunities in an Icelandic Fishing Community, by Will. C. van den Hoonaard, Culture, Vol. 13(2):102-103 .
1992 Crisis in the World's Fisheries: People, Problems, and Policies, by James R. McGoodwin, American Anthropologist, Vol. 4:3, pp. 733.
1988 To Work and to Weep: Women in Fishing Economies, edited by Jane Nadel- Klien and Dona Lee Davis. Culture, Vol. 8(2):104-105 (published 1989).
Conference Papers and Invited Lectures: 2011. “An Indigenous Framework for Research in Gitxaała Laxyuup.” In session: GITXAAŁA LAXYUUP (KITKATLA NATION): Tracing Gitxaała History and Culture through Archaeology and Anthropology. Organized by Charles Menzies and Caroline Butler. Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Montreal, November 17, 2011.
2011. “When Seals are Fish: Gitxaała Contemporary Seal Fishery.” In session: Indigenous Fisheries of the Contemporary Pacific Northwest. Organized by Charles Menzies. Annual Meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology, Seattle, March 30, 2011.
98 (A37841)
2011. Invited Presentation. “When Seals are Fish: Gitxaała Nation's Seal Fishery.” School of Resource and Environmental Management, SFU, Speakers Series, March 8, 2011.
2011. Invited Presentation. “Connecting Identity with Activism: autobiographical reflections.” Indigenous Praxis and World Majority Peoples Identity Politics. UBC's Centre for Culture, Identity & Education (CCIE) and Centre for Race, Autobiography, Gender and Age Studies, March 3, 2011.
2011. Invited Presentation. “ Identity Matters; Identity Doesn't Matter. ” Panel Presentation at Nuanced Negotiations: A Dialogue on Indigenous Research. First Nations House of Learning. Indigenous Research Group, UBC, February 26, 2011.
2011. Keynote Address. “Traditional Knowledge as the Foundation of Co-operative Management of Fisheries.” Coastal Visions Conference. Island Marine Aquatic Working Group and Tsawout First Nation, January 28, 2011.
2010. Poster. LAXYUUP GITXAALA/KITKATLA TERRITORY: INDIGENOUS APPROPRIATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY ;) AAA Annual Meetings, New Orleans. 11/20/2010.
2010. “Gitxaala Nation, Food Security, and Sovereignty in the Context of Environmental Assessment and Industrial Development.” 12th International Conference of Ethnobiology. Tofino, May 10, 2010.
2009 “Our Grandmothers’ Garden: Participatory Film in Gitxaała.” American Anthropological Association annual meeting, December 2-6, 2009.
2009 Film Screening. Bax Laansk –Pulling together, a contemporary story of Gitxaała Nation. Session: Activism Around the World. American Anthropological Association annual meeting, December 2-6, 2009.
2009 “Indigenous Rights and Common Access Fisheries: Reestablishing Aboriginal Title Fisheries in British Columbia.” MARE: People of The Sea, Amsterdam, July 9-11, 2009.
2009 “What do parents want? BC Teachers Federation conference on education and accountability. November 13-14, 2009.
2009 “In Our Grandmothers’ Garden: Participatory Film in Gitxaała Nation.” CCFI Noted Scholars Lecture Series. Centre for Cross-Faculty Inquiry in Education, Faculty of Education, UBC. November 4, 2009. Details of series and video/audio archive of talk and discussion: http://www.ccfi.educ.ubc.ca/media.php
99 (A37841)
2009 Presentation: “Anthropological perspectives on reconstructing ancient ecologies.” Peter Wall Workshop, “The Sea Ahead.” May 29-31, 2009.
2009 Charles Menzies and Caroline Butler. “Gone Fishing: the Informal Economy of BC’s non-aboriginal North Coast.” Canadian Anthropological Society annual conference, May 13-16, 2009.
2009 Caroline Butler and Charles Menzies. “Naming the harbour: Gitxaała Places through the Space of Colonialism.” Canadian Anthropological Society annual conference, May 13-16, 2009.
2009 Charles Menzies and Caroline Butler. “Naming the Harbour: Gitxaala places through the space of colonialism.” BC Studies Conference: Place and Space in British Columbia. Victoria: April 30 – May 2, 2009.
2009 “Indigenous Research in a Colonial Context.” Opening proceedings for Speech and Audiology Aboriginal Languages focus course. First Nations Longhouse, UBC. April 27, 2009.
2008 “Navigating the Contemporary.” Indigenous Graduate Student Symposium, UBC. March 2009.
2008 Roundtable Discussant: NEGOTIATING INDIGENOUS AGENDAS: PERSPECTIVES ON COLLABORATION WITH/IN AMERICAN INDIAN COMMUNITIES. American Anthropological Association annual meeting, November, 2008.
2008 “Our Grandmothers Garden: documenting Indigenous practice through digital film and new media.” Invited session: Exploring work and workscapes through new media (organized by C. Menzies). Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association. San Francisco. November 20, 2008.
2008 Film Screening: Weather the Storm in RACE, CLASS AND ECONOMY SESSION. American Anthropological Association annual meeting, November, 2008.
2008 “Revealing the Silences in Collaboration.” Session: Engaged Research in Practice: The UBC/Gitxaała Nation Graduate Fieldschool. Annual meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology. Memphis, March 26, 2008.
2007 “Indigeneity, Social Class, and Class Consciousness on the Pacific Northwest.” Invited session: Class and Class Consciousness. Annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association. Washington D.C.. November 28, 2007.
2007 Invited Speaker. “Being of one heart (Syt Guulm Goot): Indigenous lessons for fishing and harvesting in a decolonizing world.” Global Ohio speakers series
100 (A37841)
sponsored by the American Indien Studies Program, Ohio State University. January 7, 2007.
2006 “Within and Against History: Tsimshian Customs, Sovereignty, and Capitalist Relations of Production.” Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association. San Jose. November 16, 2006.
2006 Invited Presentation: “Returning Home: Anthropological Research and Curriculum Development with Gitxaala Nation.” Canada West to East: Teaching History in a Time of Change. Conference organized by the BC Social Studies Teaches Association and the Association for Canadian Studies. Vancouver, BC. October 20, 2006.
2006 Invited Presentation: “Within and Against: Gerald Sider, Anthropology, and Indigenous Peoples.” Part of a Colloquium in Honour of Gerald Sider at The Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York. October 13, 2006.
2006 “Discussant: Ethnographic Approaches to Fisheries Anthropology.” Annual Meetings of the Society for Applied Anthropology, Vancouver, BC. March 21-25, 2006
2005 “Expectation and Desire –Finding hope in a hopeless world.” Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association. Washington, D.C. December 12, 2005.
2005 “NEW PROPOSALS for Anthropologists(AGAIN!): the case for an engaged anthropology at home in the University of ‘Excellence.’” Annual Meeting of the Society for the Anthropology of North America. Merida, Mexico. May 4-9, 2005.
2004 “Relations of Respect: Gitxaała Approaches to Sustainability and Conservation.” First Nations Speakers Series, UBC Longhouse.
2004 “Tsimshian Ayaawk and Adaawk: Indigenous challenges to Euro-American theory and practice.” Biannual Meeting of the European Association for Social Anthropology. Vienna, September 6-9, 2004.
2003 “Relations of Respect: Gitxaala Approaches to Sustainability and Conservation.” Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association. Chicago. November 19, 2003.
2003 “Returning to Selective Fishing Through Indigenous Fisheries Knowledge: The Example of Kumowdah, Tsimshian Territory. MARE Conference. People of the Sea II: Conflicts, Threats, Opportunities. Amsterdam, NL. September 4-6, 2003.
101 (A37841)
2003 ON STRIKE! Student Activism and Anthropology between the Shadows of the 60s and the Dawn of Anti-Globalism. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Anthropology Society, Halifax, Nova Scotia, May, 2003
2003 “‘So Charlie, What Happens With Your Notes After You Die?’ Forest for the Future and the Politics of Negotiating Collaborative Research.” Annual Meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology. Portland, Oregon, March 19, 2003. (Session: Forests for the Future, A Collaborative Research Project Between Kitkatla First Nation and the University of British Columbia. Organized by Charles Menzies and Caroline Butler)
2003 Paul Orlowski and Charles Menzies. “Here’s how WE do it: Tsimshian Involvement in Forestry - Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow.” Annual Meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology. Portland, Oregon, March 19, 2003. (Session: Forests for the Future, A Collaborative Research Project Between Kitkatla First Nation and the University of British Columbia. Organized by Charles Menzies and Caroline Butler)
2003 “Trans-Atlantic Connections: A Study of the North Atlantic Fisheries in the New Global Economy.” Invited Lecture, University of Northern B.C., March 14, 2003.
2002 “Flexibility and Co-operation: Organizational Culture of a Fishing Co-operative.” Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association. New Orleans, November, 2002.
2002 “Transformations in Social Class in the Transition from Chiefly Economies to Industrial Capitalist Resources Industries: An Example from North Coastal British Columbia.” Rural Studies of Canada: Critique and New Directions , University of Guelph, March 21-23, 2002
2002 “Making Sense of Ethnographic Research for Resource Managers and Fisheries Scientists: or, Why a fisherman takes three hours to answer a simple question.” Back to the Future: Methods and Results Symposium , University of British Columbia, February 20-22, 2002.
2001 “The Difference a family Makes” MARE Conference People and the Sea: Maritime research in the social sciences - an agenda for the 21st century. Amsterdam, NL. August 30-September 1, 2001.
2001 “Fishing at Kumowdah, Kitkatla Territory: Returning to Selectivity.” With Caroline F. Butler. Putting Fishers’ Knowledge to Work Conference, UBC. August 27-30, 2002.
2001 “IN STRUGGLE! Globalist Nihilism, Tough Talk, and Real Action.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Anthropology Society, Montreal, Quebec, May 3-6, 2001.
102 (A37841)
2001 “Race, Class, and Industrial Development in Northern BC.” Invited Lecture, Lakehead University, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Feb. 1, 2001.
2000 “Perspective Nationale et Mondiale sur la Peche / Fisheries in a Global and National Perspective.” World Forum of Fish Harvesters Constituent Assembly, Loctudy, France, Oct. 2-6, 2000.
2000 “Reconciling Community Knowledge with Fisheries Science.” Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Applied Anthropology, San Francisco, California, March 21-26, 2000. (Session: Fishing For Success: The Search for Community-Based Solutions to Fisheries Crises, organized by Charles Menzies).
2000 “The nexus of misfortune and conflict: the management of British Columbia’s Coho salmon crisis.” Invited Lecture, Fisheries Centre, UBC, February 11, 2000.
2000 “Fishing with the Euro: Implications for Small-Scale Fishers in Brittany, France.” Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association. San Francisco, Nov. 17, 2000.
1999 “Global Market - Local Struggle: Politics of Survival and Identity in the Breton Fishery.” Paper presented at Manchester '99: Visions and Voices, the 50th Anniversary of Manchester Anthropology, Oct. 27-31, 1999. (Panel: The Anthropology of Politics and the Politics of Anthropology. Panel chair: John Gledhill).
1999 “Social Science, First Nations and the Quest for Knowledge: Is it Simply a Question of Methodology?” Paper presented at Q’epethet ye Mestiyexw: A Gathering of the People. July 23, 1999, First Nations House of Learning, UBC.
1999 “Rising Debts and Empty Nets: Social Reproduction and Ecological Crisis in the Breton Artisanal Fishery.” Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Applied Anthropology, Tucson, Arizona, April 20-25, 1999
1999 “Ethnographies of Violence: Reading Police Reports as Ethnographic Texts.” Paper presented in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology Colloquium Series, March 11, 1999.
1998 “The Greening of First Nations’ Claims: Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal Alliances in the Resource Extraction Periphery.” Invited paper, presented at the In the Way of Development: Indigenous Peoples, Civil Society, and the Environment conference, McMaster University, Nov. 1998.
1998 “Red Flags and Lace Coiffes: Identity, Livelihood, and the Politics of Survival in the Bigoudennie, France.” Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the
103 (A37841)
Canadian Anthropological Society/Societe Canadienne d'Anthropologie, Toronto, May 1998.
1998 Charles R. Menzies, Caroline Butler and Todd J. Tubutis “Tsimshian Forestry Workers in a Changing Industry” Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Canadian Anthropological Society/Societe Canadienne d'Anthropologie, Toronto, May 1998. (Session: Moving from the Margins to the Centre: Redefining Workers and Identity in a Moment of Economic Disorder. Organizers: Anthony Marcus and Charles Menzies).
1998 “Colonialism Talks about Apache Pass: The Narrative Landscape of Race in Tsimshian Territory.” March 7, 1998 at the Perspectives on First Nations Oral Literature Conference, Green College, UBC.
1998 “Red Flags and Lace Coifee’s: History, Anthropology and the Politics of Survival” Green College Speakers Series (History and Memory: Reconsidering the Past), University of British Columbia, February, 1998.
1997 “On the Interactions between Customary Aboriginal and Euro-Canadian Laws, from the Breton Fishery to the Tsimshian Communities on the Northwest Coast” CANADA'S LEGAL HISTORY: PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE at the Faculty of Law, The University of Manitoba, October 1997.
1997 “Class, Identity, and the Politics of Survival: a Breton Illustration.” The Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, November, 1997.
1997 “Commitment and the Practice of Anthropology,” paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Applied Anthropology, Seattle, WA, March 4-9, 1997 (Session: Doing Anthropology in Aboriginal Communities. Organizer: Charles R. Menzies)
1997 “Apache Pass: The Racialization of Space in Prince Rupert, BC,” invited lecture at the University of Northern BC, Prince George, BC, February 6, 1997.
1997 “Euro-Canadian Fishing Law and Social Transformation in North Coast First Nations’ Customary Practice,” invited lecture, The Law and Society Group and Green College, UBC, January 30, 1997
1996 “Does it Really Matter Where You Are? Fisheries Management in Global Perspective,” paper presented at the American Anthropological Association, 95th Annual Meeting, November 20-24, 1996 (Invited Session: Folk Management and Local Knowledge: Policy and Practice in Sustainable Resource Use and Management, #4-004).
104 (A37841)
1996 “The Political Economy of the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy,” invited lecture in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology (UBC), Colloquium Series, October 17, 1996.
1996 “Social Reproduction and Ecological Crisis in the Breton Fishery,” paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Canadian Anthropological Society/Societe Canadienne d'Anthropologie, St. Catherines, Ontario, May 26-28, 1996.
1994 “The Making of a White Man: Social Reproduction and the Production of Racial Identities in the British Columbian Commercial Fishery,” paper presented at theAnnual Conference of the Canadian Anthropological Society/Societe Canadienne d'Anthropologie, Vancouver, B.C., May 5-7, 1994.
1993 “Discipline and Punish: Euro-Canadian Opposition to the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy in British Columbia,” paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Canadian Anthropology Society/Societe canadienne d'anthropologie, Toronto, Ontario, May 6-9, 1993 (Session: Indigenous Peoples and Dominant Institutions)
1992 “Stories From Home: Indians, Land Claims and Euro-Canadians,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Anthropological Association, March 12-14, 1992, (Session: Mis)Conceptions of Identity: Anthropological Approaches to Class, Race and Gender for the '90s. Organizers: Anthony Marcus --CUNY Grad. Center-- and Charles R. Menzies.)
1992 “The ‘Greening’ of the First Nations' Claims Movement and their Struggle for Self-Government,” paper presented at the Annual Spring Meeting of the American Ethnological Society, Memphis, TN, March 26-29, 1992. (Session: Indigenous Resistance in the Americas. Organizer: Charles R. Menzies.)
1992 “Individual Vessel Quotas in the British Columbian Halibut Fishery: A Preliminary Assessment,” paper presented at the Society for Applied Anthropology meeting in Memphis, TN, March 26-29, 1992 (Session: Fisheries: Ecosystems, Resource Conservation, Economic Development, State Intervention)
1991 “Kinship, Enterprise, and Community: All That Holds us Together,” paper presented at the American Anthropological Association meetings in Chicago, November 20, 1991, (Session: Political Economy and Identity)
1991 “Obscenities and Fishermen: The (Re)production of Gender in the Process of Production,” paper presented at the Society for Applied Anthropology meetings in Charleston, S.C., March 14, 1991 (Session 2-0021, Human Aspects of Change in North American Fisheries)
105 (A37841)
1990 “Land Claims Settlements and Non-Indian Fishers: Class, Culture, and Interaction in a British Columbian Fishing Community,” paper presented at the Learned Societies (Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association) meetings in Victoria, B.C., May 26-30, 1990.
1989 “We’re All in This Together: the Paradox of Class in a Producers’ Co-operative.” Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association. Washington, DC. November, 1989.
Professional Memberships: American Anthropological Association American Ethnological Society Canadian Anthropology Society/Societe canadienne d'anthropologie Society for Applied Anthropology.
106 (A37841)
107 (A37841)
Appendix 1
Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory, Pitt and Banks Islands, August 2009
(A37841)
Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory, Pitt and Banks Islands, August 2009
Report Prepared for Dr. Charles Menzies
Submitted to Gitxaała Environmental Monitoring Office Gitxaała First Nation
Submitted December 30, 2009
Prepared by Iain McKechnie PhD Student, Department of Anthropology University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC [email protected]
RESTRICTED CIRCULATION This Report is Confidential (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE VERY CONDENSED SUMMARY...... 4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... 5
CREDITS...... 6
LIST OF FIGURES...... 7
LIST OF TABLES...... 9
INTRODUCTION...... 10 Project Background...... 10 Fieldwork Context...... 10 Previous Archaeological Survey and Research in the Territory...... 10 Paleo Sea Levels and Archaeological Visibility on the Northern BC Coast...... 12 Sea levels in Gitxaala Territory...... 13
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...... 14 Mapping Methods...... 15 Soil Probes...... 16 Percussion Coring...... 16 Bulk Sediment Samples...... 17
RESULTS...... 17 Kitsemenlagen and Tsimarlien Reserves, Curtis Inlet, Western Pitt Island...... 17 KL1 – Tsimlarien #15...... 19 CMT’s in Curtis Inlet...... 22 KL2 Possible Paleo-beach, northern end of Curtis Inlet...... 24 Preliminary Diatom Analysis of Sediments from KL2...... 24 KL3 – Kitsemenlagen Reserve # 19a and 19b – near the outlet of Tsemhara Lake...... 27 KL4 - Fish Drying Strucutre...... 27 Kooryet Reserve #12, Kooryet Rivermouth, eastern Banks Island...... 28 Wil lu sgetk, Saycuritay Cove, southwestern Pitt Island...... 32 FhTj-6 Intertidal Trap...... 32 CMT’s at Saycuritay Cove...... 35 FhTj-4 and FhTj-5 Site Revisits...... 36 Wil lu Sgetk...... 37 Citeyats Reserve 9, Southeast Pitt Island...... 40 Ethnographic Descriptions of Citeyats...... 40 Site Description...... 41 Total Station Mapping...... 43 Percussion Coring at Citeyats...... 43
Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Citeyats Site Boundaries...... 45 Sediment samples...... 47 Citeyats Summary...... 48
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION...... 49
REFERENCES CITED...... 50
APPENDIX 1: TRAVELOGUE...... 53
APPENDIX 2: STRUCTURAL FEATURES AT CITEYATS...... 55
APPENDIX 3: PRELIMINARY DIATOM DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS...... 55
Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
THE VERY CONDENSED SUMMARY This report describes the results of an archaeological survey conducted in southern Gitxaała territory in August 2009. The survey targeted select Gitxaała reserve lands with the aim to describe archaeological heritage sites. Both terrestrial and intertidal areas were surveyed resulting in the discovery of a variety of sites in each of the four localities examined.
The first inspected locality was Curtis Inlet. Here we observed: - A small shell midden site associated with historic-era house platforms. - Culturally modified trees in two locations. - An intertidal shellfish assemblage and marine clay deposit potentially associated with a time of ancient sea level change. - Historic-era structures associated with a fish harvesting camp. - Evidence of recent and contemporary Gitxaała use of the inlet, including salmon drying rack, and crab-trapping fishing debris.
The second inspected locality was Kooryet River. Here we observed: - Elaborate fish trap complex including boulder alignments and holding ponds along the lower reaches of the Kooreyet River. - A canoe run and associated historic era structures near the northern mouth of the river.
The third inspected locality was Wil lu sgetk, Saycuritay Cove. Here we observed: - A previously un-documented shell midden village site containing multiple house depressions and estimated to have a depth of 4 or more meters. - Stone tools found on the surface of the intertidal shoreline. - Multiple CMT’s including one of which was illegally logged. This feature has a minimum date of AD 1829.
The final inspected locality was Citeyats Village. Here we observed: - A major precontact village containing an estimated 29 houses and documented cultural depths of up to 4.41 meters. - A highly weathered but still standing carved housepost or totem positioned at the back center of a defined house platform. - Structural remains such as roof beams and house posts.
Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author gratefully acknowledges the Gitxaała chiefs, council, and administrative staff for the privilege of conducting archaeological research in their traditional territory. Particular thanks to Dr. Charles Menzies for the inspiration to put this project together and his enthusiasm for archaeological methods and perspectives. Thanks also to Vince Davis and Captain Teddy Gamble for providing luxurious and capable transportation onboard the Katrena Leslie I. Thanks also to Teddy and Charles for the many humorous and enriching late-evening discussions. Tremendous thanks to Brendan Gray, Jarek Ignas-Menzies, and Ken Innis for their assistance in the field and fieldlab (aka, the galley table). Particular thanks to Brendan for taking a break from archaeology in the lower mainland to participate in this project. Thanks also to Mike Blake, Andrew Martindale, and Patricia Ormerod and the UBC Laboratory of Archaeology for supporting this research through the use of a total station and percussion coring equipment and coordinating the subsequent laboratory analyses. Thanks also to Jean Pourcelot and Naomi Smethurst for their excellent work on ANTH 406 laboratory projects. Additional thanks to Daryl Fedje, Quentin Mackie, Duncan McLaren, and Nicole Smith for insights into paleo-landforms, regional sea level histories, diatoms, and archaeology in general.
This report is dedicated to my Nicole and Flora.
The Katrena Leslie I anchored in Saycuritay Captain Teddy Gamble and Vince Davis Cove. Photos by Brendan Gray.
5 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
CREDITS Project Director Dr. Charles Menzies Report Author Iain McKechnie Supervising Field Archaeologist Iain McKechnie Boat Transportation and Logistical Support Vince Davis Capt. M. Teddy Gamble Field Photography Brendan Gray Charles Menzies Jarek Ignas-Menzies Fieldwork Support Vince Davis M. Teddy Gamble Ken Innes Charles Menzies Jarek Ignas-Menzies Laboratory of Archaeology Student Support Naomi Smethurst Jean Pourcelot
Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Overview of the Northwest Coast showing the location of the study area...... 11 Figure 2. Map of the study area showing the location of the four study sites...... 11 Figure 3. Diagram of the post-glacial crustal rebound affecting relative sea levels on the Northern BC Coast...... 13 Figure 4. Relative sea level histories for the northern BC coast, southern Gulf Islands and the global eustatic sea level change...... 13 Figure 5. Chain and compass mapping of cultural terrace features at KL1, Curtis Inlet, western Pitt Island...... 15 Figure 6. Iain McKechnie operating the Total station at the Kooryet River...... 16 Figure 7. Charles Menzies holding the reflective prism on a partially submerged boulder alignment...16 Figure 8. Reserve maps showing the general locations of reserve locations on southern Pitt and Banks Islands ...... 18 Figure 9. Marine chart of Curtis Inlet showing the shallow sills and sediment delta at the eastern end of the inlet...... 19 Figure 10. Entrance to Curtis Inlet facing east...... 20 Figure 11. 1893 reserve map showing the boundaries of Tsimlarien #15...... 20 Figure 12. Surface map of KL1 showing the shoreline and associated shell midden deposit...... 20 Figure 13. Ken Innis and Iain McKechnie collecting a bulk sample from the surface of the shell midden deposits at KL1 (ST1)...... 21 Figure 14. A fractured fire altered rock (broken boiling stone) recovered from the surface of the shell midden deposit at KL1...... 21 Figure 15. Replica canoe bailer made from cedar bark...... 22 Figure 16. Rectangular CMT on the trail to Tsemhara Lake...... 23 Figure 17. Rectangular CMT at the northern arm of the head of Curtis Inlet (122b)...... 23 Figure 18. Detail shot of distinctive ‘chop marks’ inside the characteristically ‘kinked’ healing lobe which forms after the bark chopped and removed...... 23 Figure 19. Estuarine delta at the head of the north arm of Curtis Inlet...... 25 Figure 20. Photo looking towards bedrock shoreline taken from beach looking northwards...... 25 Figure 21. Surface of intertidal exposure showing butter clam shell fragments and eroded paired valves in growth position...... 25 Figure 22. A partially exposed example of a deceased butter clam in growth position...... 26 Figure 23. Gravel and boulders near creek mouth sitting atop very fine marine clay exposure...... 26 Figure 24. Marine clay exposure beneath centimeters of alluvial gravel...... 26 Figure 25. Contour map of the delta landform showing the outline of the shell exposure and shovel tests ...... 27 Figure 26. Marine chart showing the general location of the shellfish surface exposure...... 27 Figure 27. Remains of a collapsed wooden structure on the west side of the river draining Tsemhara Lake...... 28 Figure 28. Fish drying structure on Curtis Inlet...... 28 Figure 29. GoogleEarth image of the lower reaches of the Kooryet River draining into Principe Channel...... 29 Figure 30. Canoe run at the northern entrance to Kooryet Bay...... 29 Figure 31. Map of boulder alignments in lower Kooryet River...... 30 Figure 32. View upriver at mid-tide...... 30 Figure 33. View of the lowermost rock alignment feature that cross-cuts the river flow...... 31 Figure 34. Side channel rock alignment in the tidally influenced portion of Kooryet River...... 31 Figure 35. View of pools and side channels facing east and downriver ...... 32
Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Figure 36. Marine chart of Southern Pitt Island including Saycuritay Cove and Citeyats...... 33 Figure 37. Map of Saycuritay Cove and three sites recorded in 1970...... 34 Figure 38. Flaked stone tool found on the intertidal cobble beach near site FhTj-6...... 34 Figure 39. The second flaked stone tools found on the surface of the intertidal at FhTj-6...... 34 Figure 40. Rectangular bark-stipped cedar CMT along the western bank of the stream draining into Saycuritay Cove...... 35 Figure 41. Recently felled cedar CMT in Saycuritay Cove...... 35 Figure 42. Eastern side of site FhTj-5 showing eroded midden in foreground at tideline and area without forest growth in area to left...... 36 Figure 43. Intertidal midden exposure at site FhTj-6...... 36 Figure 44. Stone tool found on beach in front of site FhTj-5. Photos by Brendan Gray...... 36 Figure 45. Panorama photo facing south showing boulder beach and the western entrance to Saycuritay Cove...... 37 Figure 46. Shell midden exposure at the base of a 4m terrace...... 38 Figure 47. Medium-grained flaked lithic debitage found on the surface of the beach at the base of the midden...... 38 Figure 48. Fine-grained flake present on the beach...... 38 Figure 49. Total Station surface map of Wil lu sgket showing landform features and house depression numbers ...... 39 Figure 50. Remains of a highly deteriorated 18 cm diameter house-post, (feature 10)...... 42 Figure 51. Fallen house beam with nurse logs on flat terrace area...... 42 Figure 52. Front of the carved house-post...... 42 Figure 53. Side-view of the carved post looking north...... 42 Figure 54. Total station surface map of Citeyats ...... 43 Figure 55. Total station surface map of Citeyats showing a north-facing perspective...... 44 Figure 56. North-South stratigraphic profile of Citeyats Village showing the distribution of cultural sediments...... 45 Figure 57. East-West cross-section stratigraphic profile of Citeyats showing the distribution of cultural sediments...... 46 Figure 58. Sedimentary profiles from house and non-house features at Citeyats in relation to depths below surface...... 46 Figure 59. Map of Citeyats obtained from the BC remote access to archaeological information...... 47 Figure 60. Wet-screened cultural sediments from C1-2...... 48 Figure 61. Map of Citeyats showing the relative location of the four sediment samples...... 48 Figure 62. Wet-screened cultural sediments from sample C1-4...... 48 Figure 63. Proportions of shellfish by weight recovered from Citeyats village...... 49
Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
List of Tables Table 1. Documented characteristics of the CMT’s recorded in Curtis Inlet...... 22 Table 2. House dimensions at Wilu lu skegt...... 39 Table 3. Location and dimensions of structural remains at Citeyats...... 56
Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
INTRODUCTION This report describes the preliminary results of an archaeological survey conducted in select areas of Pitt Island and Banks Island in Gitxaała Traditional Territory on the north coast of British Columbia (Figure 1). This survey was conducted in August 2009 with the financial and logistical support of the Gitxaała Nation and aimed to document archaeological evidence of ancient Gitxaała traditional use in the vicinity of a provisionally proposed oil tanker route.
Project Background This survey project was coordinated and supervised by Dr. Charles Menzies, the Traditional Ecological Knowledge Research Director for the Gitxaała Nation and Professor of Anthropology at the University of British Columbia. Charles identified areas of specific interest through consultation with Gitxaała elders, band councilors and administrators and consulted further with archaeologist and UBC PhD student Iain McKechnie about field logistics and research methods/strategies. Victoria-based archaeologist Brendan Gray (MA, University of Victoria) also took part in the field research along with Gitxaała archaeologist Ken Innes and Jarek Ignas-Menzies, an undergraduate engineering student at UBC. The project aimed to identify and map specific areas of cultural and archaeological interest for Gitxaała research purposes (Figure 2). A particular aim of the study was to identify evidence of Gitxaała traditional ecological knowledge as represented in pre-contact archaeological heritage sites. Traditional ecological knowledge is physically embodied in archaeological contexts including ancient resource harvesting technologies and physical locations such as village sites. This project was not designed as an “impact assessment” and the results should not be construed as a representative archaeological inventory of this large and complex region. Our survey coverage should be considered partial and incomplete. Rather, specific locations of interest were identified through consultations with Gitxaała elders, administrators, and community members based on their knowledge, experience, and interest in the history of the territory.
Fieldwork Context The fieldwork was conducted between August 12 and 19, 2009, with the use of a 65-foot aluminum seine boat, the Katrena Leslie I, owned by the Gitxaała Nation and operated by Captain Marvin (Teddy) Gamble and Vince Davis. This large vessel served as a spacious mobile base camp and field laboratory, including amenities such as a galley kitchen, showers, and sleeping quarters. Two small aluminum skiffs, transported on the back deck, could be launched for shore excursions and provided versatile transport in shallow near-shore waters. Archaeological investigations (i.e., sample collection, excavation, probing) were limited to federally defined Indian reserve lands. Observations were made of archaeological heritage sites located outside reserve lands but these were descriptive and non-intrusive.
Previous Archaeological Surveys and Research in the Territory While a diverse array of archaeological research has been conducted in BC throughout the 20th century, very little archaeological investigation has been conducted in Gitxaała traditional territory. In contrast, other North Coast areas such as Prince Rupert Harbour and Haida Gwaii have been the focus of considerable archaeological study (e.g., MacDonald 1969; Coupland et al. 2006; Fladmark 1975, Martindale 1999, Fedje and Mathewes 2005). The first documented archaeological research conducted in Gitxaała territory was a 1938 survey conducted by Philip Drucker, an anthropologist working for the Bureau of American Ethnology in
10 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
• Prince Rupert Figure 1. Overview of the Northwest Coast show- ing the location of the study area.
Vancouver •
Figure 2. Map of the study area showing the location of the four study sites described in this report. Map created using an online tool.1
1. http://webmaps.gov.bc.ca/imfx/imf.jsp?site=imapbc
11 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Washington DC (Drucker and Fisher 1943). Drucker obtained funds to collect material for the Smithsonian Museum by purchasing artifacts from coastal First Nation communities and hiring local people to participate in archaeological excavations at a limited number of sites. Drucker’s survey region appears to have been constrained to areas near the coastal steamship route and relied on knowledgeable First Nation informants to identify locations of archaeological sites. Further archaeological research was conducted in 1969 and 1970 by a team from the University of Victoria funded by the Province which documented a variety of shell midden sites, rock art, and fish traps from Milbanke Sound to Southern Pitt Island (Simonsen 1970, 1973). Survey methods were “casual” and involved summer travel by pleasure craft to accessible areas. This project conducted excavations at the Grant’s Anchorage site, located 80 km south of the study area on Price Island. This single site is the only site between Namu and Prince Rupert, a linear distance of about 300 km, which has been excavated and radiocarbon dated. In the past few decades, a number of archaeological resource management projects relating to forestry operations have resulted in a growing inventory of culturally modified tree sites. These provincially protected heritage sites have been recorded in the process of forestry operations (cf. Wilson 1994). Recent studies by Hall and colleagues have documented a large number of CMT sites along both sides of Grenville Channel (Hall and Johansen 2007; Hall and Bonner 2008; Wilson 1994 a, b). To my knowledge, despite the hundreds of CMT features recorded in Gitxaała territory, none of these have been directly dated using stem-rounds or increment bores. A 1985 archaeological survey for rock art (petroglyphs and pictographs) was conducted in the region by independent researcher Daniel Leen (Leen 1985; Leen and Mackie 1985). In addition, Barbara and Gerald Radke, an American couple travelling the coast by kayak, have recorded numerous boulder alignments and fish trap features and submitted this information to the Provincial Archaeology Branch (Provincial Archaeological Site forms). In summary, to the author’s knowledge, only very limited archaeological research has occurred in the region and only one site in southern Gitxaała traditional territory (Grant’s Anchorage) has been investigated beyond descriptive observations (i.e., location and size).
Paleo Sea levels and Archaeological Visibility on the Northern BC Coast Sea levels on the northern British Columbia coast have fluctuatedsignificantly since the last glacial maximum, 18,000 years ago (Josenhans et al. 1997; Warner et al. 1982). The rapid changes in ice volume and glacial loading that occurred at the end of the last ice age (ca. 12,000 years ago) caused a great deal of sea level change both globally due to glacial meltwater (eustatic change) and on a regional level through crustal rebound and/or submergence (isostatic change). Sea level changes since the Pleistocene period have dramatically altered the shape and location of the BC coastline but this change is highly variable and specific to different portions of the coast and critically affects the identification of archaeological sites. Figures 3 and 4 depict the dramatic change in relative sea level over the past 12,000 years on the North Coast. In Haida Gwaii, situated on the outer continental shelf, archaeological sites have been found 53m below present day sea level (Fedje and Josenhans 2000), in the modern intertidal area (Fedje et al. 2001; 2005), and on inland terraces 15m higher above modern sea level dating to between 12,500 and 9,300 years ago (Fedje and Christensen 1999; Fedje et al. 2005). This contrasts sharply with sea level histories for Prince Rupert, where sea level was approximately 50 meters higher at 13,500-14,000 years BP (12,000 14C years BP) rapidly lowering to modern levels by about 8,000 years BP and dropping to less than 3.5 meters below modern during the mid Holocene (Archer 1998; Fedje et al 2005; Eldridge and Parker 2007).
12 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Gitxaał a Study Area
Figure 3. Diagram of the post-glacial crustal rebound affecting relative sea levels on the Northern BC Coast. Figure obtained from Heatherington et al. (2004:1757). Vertical scale is highly exaggerated.
Sea levels in Gitxaała Territory Very little information has been collected on sea level history in Gitxaała territory but the contrasting sea level histories discussed above suggests that the study area may be situated in a region that may have had comparatively little relative sea level change and stable shorelines over the past 12,000 years. A preliminary investigation of paleo-sea level on western Porcher Island was conducted by Daryl Fedje and Duncan McLaren and colleagues in 2001 (Fedje, McLaren, and Wigen 2004). The work involved examining sediment cores obtained from ponds and lakes between 2 and 7 meters above modern high tide near Welcome Harbour and Oval Bay. A sediment core obtained from a lake (CP Lake) at 6.59 meters above high tide did not contain Figure 4. Relative sea level histories for the evidence for marine inundation and yet dated 14 northern BC coast, southern Gulf Islands and the to 13,200-13,700 years BP (11,640 ± 120 C yr global eustatic sea level change. Figure obtained BP) suggesting that the post glacial sea level was from Mackie et al. (n.d.). somewhere below this point throughout the past 13,000 years (Fedje, McLaren, and Wigen 2004:10). A more intensive investigation of relative sea levels was undertaken by Duncan McLaren
13 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
for his PhD research but this research occurred in the Dundas Islands (McLaren 2008). He demonstrated that relative sea levels were higher than at present (~5-15m) throughout the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene periods meaning that shorelines experienced minimal change compared to other areas of the coast such as Haida Gwaii and Kitimat. In the context of a large scale survey of the Dundas region led by Andrew Martindale, this information enabled the identification of archaeological sites dating to the early Holocene and doubled the length of the known archaeological culture history for this region (Martindale et al. 2009). While the study area is approximately 100km south of the closest sea level data point, it is situated at generous distance from the mainland coast. The single core obtained from Porcher Island suggests sea levels may have been significantly lower or may have fluctuated less than 6 meters over the past 13,000 years. If the latter is true, then this area may represent a location with potential for early evidence for human habitation (cf. Fedje, et al. 2004).
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The survey methodology used in this project targeted Gitxaała Reserve lands on southern Pitt and Banks Islands. These reserve lands were accessed by boat from Prince Rupert. Archaeological survey methods were limited to visual inspection of the shorelines and pedestrian inspection of surface features and landforms. Locations deemed suitable for potential archaeological deposits were examined to the best of our ability given the time, tide and weather contraints.
Archaeological site types we specifically sought to identify included:
Habitation sites o shell midden habitation sites and processing sites o house platforms and depressions o standing house remains (e.g., beams, posts)
Aboriginal forest utilization sites o Culturally modified trees o Bark stripped trees o Aboriginally logged stumps o Canoe manufacturing
Pictographs and Petroglyphs
Intertidal Boulder alignments o fish trap rock alignments o wooden weir stakes o excavated pools and channels o potential clam garden rock alignments visible at low tide
Caves and Rockshelters
Intertidal lithic sites (which may represent former habitation sites dating to periods of higher sea
14 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
level) In addition to archaeological sites, we sought to identify geological features and contexts which would give contextual evidence of past landscapes and sea levels:
Evidence of paleoshorelines o exposures of paleo-marine sediments o wave cut-notches o sea level terraces
In areas deemed to have the potential for habitation areas, we conducted limited subsurface probing using 2 cm diameter soil probes which can penetrate sediments up to 1.5 meters thick. In areas where archaeological deposits were observed, we used percussion cores to document the depth and stratigraphic record of sediment. These methods are described in more detail below.
Mapping Methods Mapping of archaeological features was conducted using GPS devices (Garmin 76CSx or 60CSx) and by using a compass (declination set to zero), a clinometer (for measuring angles), and a ‘hip- chain’ (for documenting distances; see Figure 5). GPS coordinates were referenced to the 1983 North American Datum and all observations were in UTM Zone 9. In areas with complex archaeological deposits warranting more detailed documentation, we used a Leica Total Station to map artifact and sample locations as well as the surface topography of archaeological sites and natural landforms (Figure 6 and Figure 7). This professional survey device (owned by the UBC Laboratory of Archaeology) is capable of highly accurate (± millimeters) measurements at distances of hundreds of meters. The total station can be used to efficiently obtain hundreds of elevation points and therefore create highly accurate and detailed three-dimensional surface contour maps. This required traversing the site surface holding a reflective prism while the operator ‘shot’ points from a known benchmark location. Elevation was established in reference to the barnacle line (mean high tide) as well as in relation to the water level recorded at a particular time and date. Orientation was established by sighting to a distinct portion of a landmark or feature recognizable on a 1:50,000 scale map with a GPS. Total station mapping data was downloaded into a spreadsheet format each evening using a laptop and Leica ‘Survey Office’ software. All total station mapping points are assigned a sequential
Figure 5. Chain and compass mapping of cultural terrace features at KL1, Cur- tis Inlet, western Pitt Island.
15 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Figure 6. Iain McKechnie operating the Total station at the Kooryet River. Photo by Brendan Gray.
Figure 7. Charles Menzies holding the reflective prism on a partially sub- merged boulder alignment ~250 meters away from photo on left. Photo by Brendan Gray.
number (‘Point ID’) and different types of data points are assigned a “code” (e.g., at= auger test) and are associated with x, y, and z coordinates. These data were then imported into a mapping program Surfer and/or ARCGIS 9.33 which enabled the creation of a detailed surface contour map. The accuracy of the surface contours are only as good as the spatial coverage in the field—the more points taken for a given area, the higher the degree of accuracy. In reviewing the mapping data each day, we were able to assess our gaps coverage and target our coverage the following days. Elevation data highlight the surface features in great detail and reveal landforms and dimensions of household features. Coordinate data was compiled into worksheets in Excel and then imported into Surfer and ArcMap to create contour maps and images of the surface features and will be submitted to the Gitxaała Environmental Monitoring Office in the Spring of 2010
Soil Probes In an effort to locate buried archaeological sediments, the survey team variously used Oakfield Soil probes to determine the sediment types encountered during terrestrial survey. This handheld probing method involved pushing a 2 cm diameter core into the ground by hand. Two probe lengths were used (90 cm and 1.5 m) and offered a way to expediently visualize the sediments in a variety of locations. This method is generally effective for discovering the presence or absence of shell midden deposits (e.g., abundant shell fragments and greasy black, charcoal-rich silt). However, this method is not suitable for locating deeply buried or non-shell bearing sediments. Probing was used regularly but individual probe locations were not recorded. Rather, probing was used to supplement and confirm surface observations, particularly at the KL1 site in Curtis Inlet.
Percussion Coring In order to determine and document the depth and stratigraphy of the cultural sediments, we conducted percussion coring4 at two habitation sites (Curtis Inlet and the Citeyats village). This method has been successfully used at a number of archaeological research projects on the BC coast (cf. Cannon 2000; Martindale et al 2009). 2 From Golden Software. 3 ESRI, Redlands, California. Using an Environmentalist Soil Probe (ESP) manufactured by Clements Associates Inc., Newton Iowa.
16 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
This coring device is capable of driving a 2.5 cm diameter steel core tube into unconsolidated soils and sediments. As the percussion core is driven downwards, sediments are collected in a clear 90 cm plastic tube that recovers a stratigraphic profile. Depending on the substrate, stratigraphically intact cores can be recovered from depths of up to 10 m. Coring also provides a way to obtain samples for radiocarbon dating. Collectively, this method provides a way to document deeply buried cultural deposits that would otherwise be prohibitively deep for conventional excavation. Naomi Smethurst, a student enrolled in the Anthropolgy 406 laboratory class has compiled site-wide profile transects of the stratigraphy at the Citeyats village site using these coring results. These are briefly summarized in this report.
Bulk Sediment Samples While no conventional excavation was conducted during this project, small samples of cultural sediments were collected from two sites (Citeyats and Curtis Inlet). These sediment samples were collected for preliminary analysis of the shellfish and fish remains. Samples were collected by exposing an approximately 20 x 20 cm area of humic forest soils using a trowel until cultural shell midden matrix was exposed. Approximately 1-2 litres of cultural sediment were collected from these exposures and the humic layer was then replaced. The volume of each sample was measured using water displacement. The sediments were then “wet-screened” through ~1 mm mesh (a pasta colander) and ~6 mm mesh (a deep frying colander). Jean Pourcelot, a student enrolled in the Anthropology 406 laboratory class has compiled a list of shellfish and vertebrate species with the input of Charles Menzies, Andrew Martindale, and Iain McKechnie. His results are briefly summarized in this report.
RESULTS The survey took place over nine days. Four locations were the focus for examination; Curtis Inlet, Kooryet River, Saycuritay Cove, and Citeyats (Figure 1). Localities in Curtis Inlet were examined over two days. Kooryet was examined over the course of an afternoon. A full day was spent in Saycuritay Cove and five full days spent at Citeyats. The following pages describe the archaeological survey observations at each of the four examined locations including brief and preliminary discussions of their environmental setting and historic contexts.
Kitsemenlagen and Tsimarlien Reserves, Curtis Inlet, Western Pitt Island Curtis inlet is a small (<3km) and narrow (10-250 m) protected coastal inlet on western Pitt Island which flows out towards Alpha Passage and Principe Channel. Curtis Inlet is mentioned in Gitxaała oral tradition as a location where the powerful Gitxaała chief Ts’bassa established a village in ancient times (Personal communication from C. Menzies, August 2009). This location is also where one of the first commercial fishing industry contracts was signed between First Nations and colonists in BC, a contract between Gitxaała chief Paul Sebassah and colonial businessman C.S. Windsor in the 19th century (Harris 2008:68-70). This agreement illustrates the historic recognition of aboriginal rites and title by colonists who were granted the “exclusive privilege to fish for salmon” by Gitxaała chiefs (Harris 2008:69-70). There are currently two primary Gitxaała reserve parcels in Curtis Inlet. Tsimarlien #15, located along the south end of the entrance to Curtis Inlet, and Kitsemenlagen #19 situated at either side of the Kitsumalarn River that drains Tsemhara Lake, a productive sockeye lake also containing chum, pink, coho salmon (Rolston and Proctor 2003:20). Several other small streams drain into the inlet.
17 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Figure 8. Reserve maps showing the general locations of re- serve locations on southern Pitt and Banks Islands. Maps obtained from http://clss.nrcan.gc.ca/plan-eng. php?id=FB30403-388%20CLSR%20BC
18 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Two narrow and shallow sills are present in the inlet that constricts water flow (Figure 9). One particularly narrow passage is located appears to dry out at low-low tides. The Katrena Leslie I anchored in Curtis Inlet on the afternoon of August 9, 2009. The crew launched the aluminum skiffs and began to explore the inlet by boat, landing at a variety of locations of potential archaeological interest. Four locations were examined and each contained archaeological sites that were numbered sequentially KL-1 through KL-4.
KL1 - Tsimlarien IR 15 This reserve is situated on the north and westward facing shoreline of a protected cove near the mouth of Curtis Inlet. Anger Island is visible to the north and west but the area is sheltered from view of vessels approaching from Principe Channel. The reserve shoreline consists of a small cove dominated by bedrock (Figure 10). A small stream drains the eastern portion of the cove and contains a small intertidal gravel delta. Inspection of the eastern side of this gravel exposure revealed a small amount of eroded clamshell on the eastern surface of the creek mouth indicating the possible presence of a nearby habitation sites. Further exploration of the area within the forest revealed the presence of at least four rectangular terrace/ platform features indicative of leveling, clearing, and human habitation. Second-growth hemlock and balsam were located along the periphery of the rectangular platforms while younger trees tended to be present in the platforms. The terraces parallelled the modern shoreline at approximately 3-5 m above the current high tide line (barnacle line). A partially-exposed bedrock ridge was present behind the two easternmost terraces, furthest from the creek. A vertical cut in this bedrock ridge appears to be the result of human clearing to create level space. Historic and modern debris was present on the surface of the two western-most terraced platforms, located closest to the small stream. A partially-buried large iron leg-hold trap was located in one of these platforms and appeared to have been potentially capable of trapping bear- sized animals. A small 50 x 80 cm rectangular depression was present nearby the leg-hold trap. Metal pipe fittings and a large number of recently manufactured plastic ‘bait’ containers were also present, many of which had been scattered and chewed by wolves or other carnivorous mammals. Extensive probing with the Oakfield soil probes in these terraces revealed that the underlying sediments consisted of a black charcoal-rich coarse sandy matrix to a depth of at least 1.5m. No shell midden deposit was observed within the terraces but the presence of very black sandy silt and charcoal suggests a substantial human occupation history for these terraces. Additional probing
KL2
KL3 KL1 KL4
Figure 9. Scanned marine chart image of Curtis Inlet showing the shallow sills and sediment delta at the eastern end of the inlet. Approximate locations of sites KL1 - KL4 are shown with arrows.
19 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory above and behind the western platforms revealed a narrow band of shell midden deposit present along a small ridge that paralleled a bend in the stream. A series of percussion cores were obtained from the house terraces and the associated shell midden deposits. Two percussion cores in the shell midden deposit demonstrated that the deposits extended to depths of between 130 and 169 cm below the surface respectively. A third demonstrated that the shell midden deposits abruptly truncated at the top of the ridge. Percussion cores from the terraces were dominated by black charcoal-rich sandy sediments that suggest that shell deposition was not a significant contributing factor to the accumulation of sediments in this part of the site. While these deposits appear to be cultural, this observation has yet to be confirmed by examining the core sediments with a microscope. A single ~1 litre sediment sample was recovered from the upper portion of the shell midden deposits and contained a variety of shellfish and fire-cracked rock (Figures 13 and 14). Jean Pourcelot, an anthropology undergraduate student at UBC with the assistance of Charles Menzies and Iain McKechnie has examined and quantified the shellfish and fishbone assemblage and the results will be incorporated into a future draft of this report. The presence of shell midden deposits in a small and discrete area relative to the larger house platforms (and at slightly different elevation and orientation) suggests that the shell midden deposits may not have accumulated during the period the terraced platforms were occupied but during an earlier period of occupation. Alternatively, it is also possible that shell midden deposition may have
Curtis Inlet
KL1 House Platforms
Outline of shell midden Figure 10. Entrance of Curtis Inlet, facing east. deposit
Stream
Figure 12. Surface map of KL1 showing Figure 11. 1893 reserve map showing the boundar- the shoreline and associated shell mid- ies of Tsimlarien, IR 15. Large arrow points to the den deposit. two rectangles on the north side of the stream likely representing Gitkaał a houses present at the time the reserve was established. These structures appear to correspond with the western-most levelled terraces and platforms, and associated shell midden deposits observed in the field.
20 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Figure 13. Ken Innis and Iain McKechnie collect- ing a bulk sample from the surface of the shell midden deposits at KL1 (ST1). Photo by Charles Menzies.
Figure 14. A fractured fire altered rock (broken boiling stone) recovered from the surface of the shell midden deposit at KL1. Note the discou- loration of the outer portion of the stone. Photo by Charles Menzies.
occurred during the time the terrace platforms were occupied and that shellfish deposition was very specific to this particular area. In comparison with other occupation sites on the northwest coast where shell midden deposits typically dominate the site deposits, this small shell midden deposit may reflect less intensive use of shellfish and specialized occupation which focussed on fish harvesting and processing. The lack of extensive shell deposits and the widespread presence of black charcoal rich sands is consistent with historic era descriptions of the commercial salmon fishery being located in the inlet. Charcoal samples obtained from the base of the cores which will be submitted for radiocarbon dating will provide a way to address these uncertainties. In addition, further investigation of the ethnographic accounts of the occupation of this village and region should provide additional insight into these preliminary archaeological findings. Subsequent to the fieldwork, the author obtained copies of the original 1893 reserve map which clearly shows the location of two rectangular structures in this area west of the creek (Figure 10). This appears to confirm the presence of structures at these terrace locations. Further research into the Gitxaała occupation of this reserve may provide additional insight into who, how and when these structures were occupied.
CMTs in Curtis Inlet A brief exploration of the forest at the head of the north arm of the inlet resulted in the discovery of two culturally modified cedar trees (CMTs), approximately 2.4 km from the inlet mouth. Two
21 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory additional CMTs were recorded near the eastern mouth of river draining Tsemhara Lake. One tree had been subject to two separate stripping events where the bark had been removed in a rectangular cut. This included characteristic “chop-marks” (approximately 3 cm wide) on the upper portion of the rectangular scar indicating how the bark had been cut prior to removal (WP122). The second, slightly larger rectangular bark strip (WP123) is located approximately 20 away and contained a single rectangular scar measuring 60 cm in length (See Table 1). Brief exploration of the slope above the eastern side of the river draining Tsemhara Lake revealed the presence of a single CMT with two rectangular bark strips one on either side. On one the scar facing downslope had additionally been marked with paint to designate a trail used by DFO fisheries monitors (WP126, Table 1). Although a sample of three CMT’s can in no way be considered representative, the presence of three rectangular bark strips and the absence of taper bark strips is notable. Rectangular bark strips have been used as roofing material. Swanton (1905) mentions that thick large rectangular sheets were used as roofing material and were traded between Haida Gwaii and the Nass river. Other researchers have suggested that smaller rectangular bark strips were used for more specialized purposes such as canoe bailers (Stewart 1984:119–120), a replica of which is pictured in Figure 15.
KL2 Possible paleo-beach, northern end of Curtis Inlet Inspection of the exposed intertidal surface sediments along the delta on the north arm of the Curtis Inlet (E442626, N5928856) revealed the presence of dead clams in growth position as well as numerous small shell fragments concentrated in a surface exposure in the upper intertidal (Figures Table 1. Documented characteristics of the CMT’s recorded in Curtis Inlet. CMT Class Diameter Alive Scar Healing Tool Height Scar Length % Scar Number at Breast tree? Width lobe Marks/ of scar Crust? (cm) Slope facing and UTM Height (cm) thick-ness Chop above (bearing) coordinate (cm) (cm) Marks ground L R (cm)
WP122a Yes on Rectangular N5928929 56 Yes 10 12 18 No 60 right 350 15 156 bark-strip E442463 side
WP122b Yes Rectangular UTM Same 56 Yes 8 16 17 Yes 75 on left 400 15 70 bark-strip as above side
WP123 Rectangular N5928934 86 Yes 12 9 17 Yes 92 No 60 10 234 bark-strip E442491
WP126a Rectangular N5928433 75 Yes 33 17 15 Yes 70 No 205 5 254 bark-strip E442825
Figure 15. Replica canoe bailer made from cedar bark. Photo obtained from: http:// saltspringarchives.com/akermanmuseum/ pages/2004022003.htm
22 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Figure 16. (top) Rectangular CMT on the trail to Tsemhara Lake (WP 126 Table 1). Another older rectangular scar (with much thicker healing lobes) is present on the opposite side of this same tree and additionally marked with orange spray paint.
Figure 17 (bottom left). Rectangular CMT at the northern arm of the head of Curtis Inlet (122b). Another similar feature was present on the other side of the same tree.
Figure 18 (bottom right). Detail shot of distinc- tive “chop marks” inside the characteristically “kinked” healing lobe which forms after the bark chopped and removed.
23 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
9 through 11). At least four small actively-flowing streams drained into this sheltered location where a broad, shallow and gently sloping delta has formed and is exposed at low tide (Figure 19). Close inspection of this exposure did not reveal the presence of artifacts, fire cracked rock, or other cultural materials that might be expected for an archaeological deposit. Considering the protected nature of this portion of the inlet and the high freshwater input from multiple creeks and the Kitsemenlaren River, it was unusual to see such a concentration of clam shells in the upper intertidal, just meters away from the current high tide line and at the same elevation (barnacle line). Further inspection the following day at low tide revealed the presence of very fine marine clay beneath a shallow layer of gravel near the mouth of one of the creeks and close to the shell concentration (E442664, N5928849, 65 cm below barnacle line). This unique sediment is commonly related to glacial and post-glacial environmental changes where trapped glacial ice melts. To determine the relative abundance of shellfish in this delta, Ken Innis conducted a series of shovel tests running in a line from the low to high intertidal area (Figure 25). He found four live horse clams in the lower intertidal area but these were located more than 50 meters away from the shell exposure. No other similar concentration of shells was noted in the large delta area. A 2003 study on salmon habitat on western Pitt Island noted that surface salinities in Curtis Inlet were low (4.5%) relative to other protected inlets in the region where surface salinities were around 21-37% (Roslton and Proctor 2003:11). This implies high abundance of freshwater relative to other inlet settings. Thus, the freshwater input from the river, creeks and shallow sill may impact saline circulation. However, under different climatic or sea level conditions, shellfish may have thrived in this delta plain. Similar exposures of shellfish are found in Haida Gwaii and date to 9,500 radiocarbon years ago when sea levels rose rapidly immediately following the last ice age (Fedje and Christensen 1999). If similar paleo-shellfish beds could be found on western Pitt Island, this would provide an anchor point for the sea level history for this portion of the coast. Given that relatively little sea level change has occurred in the Dundas Islands and Porcher Island, the relative difference in sea level could be slight which could potentially explain the presence of these shellfish in growth position. Alternatively, the shellfish beds could be recent and simply anomalous. Daryl Fedje has offered to date a sample of macrobotanical wood and shell from inside one of the paired clamshells and this will demonstrate if this shellfish death assemblage is indeed ancient. A total station map of the surface of the delta including the shovel tests, sediment samples and shell exposures was made showing the small creek draining and the extent of the shellfish exposure (Figure 19).
Preliminary Diatom Analysis of Sediments from KL2 To further investigate the geological origin of the sediments associated with the shellfish in growth position, sediment samples were taken for microscopic analysis and potential radiocarbon dating. Daryl Fedje, an archaeologist with Parks Canada, kindly volunteered to examine five samples and make preliminary observations about their contents. His observations are briefly transcribed in Appendix 3.
KL3 Kitsemenlagen IR 19a and 19b (near the outlet of Tsemhara Lake) Further archaeological observations were made of the area surrounding the river draining Tsemhara Lake, a moderately sized sockeye salmon lake. This reserve location contains undulating terrain with a relatively steep and rocky shoreline. The river outlet has a turbulent flow over large cobbles
24 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Figure 19. Estuarine delta at the head of the north arm of Curtis Inlet. Ken Innes is standing by the drainage channel. Dotted line shows the approximate extent of the shell exposure.
Figure 20. Photo looking towards bedrock shoreline taken from beach looking northwards towards photo shown on left.
Figure 21. Surface of intertidal exposure showing butter clam shell fragments and eroded paired valves in growth position.
25 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Figure 22. A partially exposed ex- ample of a deceased butter Clam in growth position.
Figure 23. Gravel and boulders near creek mouth sitting atop very fine marine clay exposure (note lens cap for scale). UTM Location: E442664, N5928849.
Figure 24. Marine clay expo- sure beneath centimeters of alluvial gravel.
26 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Figure 25. Contour map of the delta land- form showing the outline of the shell expo- sure (crosses) and shovel tests (squares). Elevations are in relation to the present barnacle line. Contours are 10 cm.
KL2
Figure 26. Marine chart showing the general location of the shellfish surface exposure.
and does not appear to be navigable by canoe or boat. An old trail follows the east side of the river up to Tsemhara Lake and was most recently used by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans staff to estimate salmon escapement during 20th century. An artificially-levelled platform, measuring approximately 7 x 10 m was noted on the eastern portion of the shoreline and appears to have been the location of an historic-era cabin (E442714, N5928406). Probing in this terrace location revealed the presence of black charcoal-rich sand and silt to depths of up to 1 m. This deposit was similar to that observed at KL1 and suggests that these are cultural deposits, but further investigation is likely necessary to assign definitive cultural origin for these deposits. On the western side of the river draining Tsemhara Lake, several historic wooden structures were encountered along with crockery, lead battery cores, and glass fragments (E442633, N5928350). These structures are situated in dense undergrowth and immature spruce and cedar and ripe salmonberry bushes. Based on forest growth, these structures appear to have been abandoned more recently than at KL1. One structure in particular appears to be the shape and size of a small cabin or traditional smokehouse (2 x 3 m). Other structures appear to have been small cabins under 4 meters in length. Evidence of historic-era hand logging is ubiquitous in this area with numerous stumps and a few stumps with springboard notches. Time constraints prevented further documentation of these structures.
KL4 - Fish Drying Structure The standing structural remains of a fish drying rack were observed in a tiny south-facing cove off the main channel of Curtis Inlet (E442210, N592870). The drying rack is made from locally obtained immature tree trunks and split cedar planks, strung together with rope. This sheltered location contains a narrow semi-level vegetated platform just above the high tide line. While the potential exists for this structure to be quite old, it likely dates to within the past 30 years, but it may indicate a good location for such activities for a long period. Brief inspection of the landforms near this structure did not encounter any cultural deposits. This structure embodies the continuity of traditional use.
27 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Figure 27. Remains of a collapsed wooden structure Figure 28. Fish drying structure on Curtis Inlet. Photo on the west side of the river draining Tsemhara taken at high tide by Brendan Gray. Lake. The small white objects are lead battery cores. Photo by Brendan Gray.
Kooryet IR 12, Kooryet rivermouth, eastern Banks Island Kooryet River is a productive sockeye salmon river located along the eastern portion of Banks Island (E441950, N5910680). This small river drains two large lakes respectively ~2.5 and 12.5 km from the rivermouth. The river channel drains along a natural fault that slopes along a particularly gentle gradient. The lower reaches of the river forms a narrow channel approximately 800 m long and between 20-40 meters wide that is subject to considerable tidal fluctuation. The river empties into the ocean within a semi-protected bay, partially enclosed by a small island to the northeast (Kooryet Island) and a cluster of rocky islets to the southeast (Figure 29). In addition to sockeye, chum, coho and pink salmon spawn in several channels of this river.5 Dr. Charles Menzies had previously visited this site and photographed the prominent boulder alignments along the lower reaches of the river, some of which stretched across its path. Sometime in the 1950s, Captain Lorne A. Peck had reported the existence of a fish trap at this site to a provincial museum employee, but no other archaeological information has been submitted to the Gitxaała or the Province since this time. Our goal in re-visiting this site was to inspect and map the boulder alignments in order to show their relative location and estimate their approximate size and number. We arrived in Kooryet Bay on the afternoon of August 14 2009 during a moderate low tide (2.1 m) flooding to a high of 4.6 m that evening. Sockeye and pink salmon were present throughout the bay, regularly leaping out of the water. We observed a canoe run at the entrance to the bay (Figure 30). Examining the riverbanks from the vessel with binoculars, we noted that a pack of at least six wolves were foraging or waiting to forage on salmon a considerable distance upstream. Noting the absence of bears, we launched the skiffs and ascended the narrow channel, immediately noticing the presence of multiple rock alignments both paralleling the riverbank and running across the path of the river. The boulder alignments were constructed from readily available riverbed cobbles. Some of the rock alignments altered the stream channels while side channels and pools were present alongside these features. No preserved wooden stakes or wooden weir fragments were observed in association with the rock alignments, despite efforts to identify them. Based on the lack of fine sediment, such features may not have been preserved if indeed they were once present. Bedrock
GeoBC: https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=371&recordSet=ISO1911
28 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory predominated on the southern riverbank, which is also where the river channel is deepest. In comparison, the northern riverbank has a gentler slope until the river channel becomes fully tidal. The crew proceeded to set up the total station on the barnacle line on the north side of the river (E 441485, N 5910704) and map as many features as possible within the constraints of time and a rising tide. Two people operated the total station prisms to efficiently document the size and orientation of the rock alignment features. Cross-sections of individual rock alignments were Figure 29. GoogleEarth image of the lower reaches of the mapped at 5-10 m intervals. A total Kooryet River draining into Principe Channel. of 453 data points were collected. The edges of individuals alignments were mapped as well as the centerline of the alignment at the greatest height. Side channel retaining “pools” were also mapped by taking a variety of points along the periphery of the ponds. A minimum of eight individual rock alignment features and three ‘retaining pool’ features were recorded along both sides of the river extending over an area approximately 430 m in length (Figure 31) and range in elevation from a low of -2.45 m below the current barnacle line to +0.51 m above barnacle line. The longest boulder alignment is 81 m in length and is located in the centre of the stream in a v-shaped formation that substantially alters the stream flow (Figure 32). Four shorter linear features were present along the lower reaches of the southern riverbank running nearly perpendicular to the river (Figure 33). These features run parallel to each other but do not match up with similar features on the northern riverbank. A distinct 50 m long arc-shaped boulder alignment follows the river flow in contrast to the four linear features on the southern shoreline (Figure 34). The alignment located closest to the river outlet extends all the way across the river channel but this particular feature is only visible at low-low tides and was submerged at the time of the fieldwork. A photo of this feature taken by Dr. Menzies at low-low tide is shown in Figure 33. Steven Langdon, an archaeologist who has recorded numerous similar intertidal boulder alignment sites in Tlingit territory in southeast Alaska, distinguishes Canoe run fish weirs from fish traps. Weirs are structures which direct the
Figure 30. Canoe run at the north- Jumping salmon ern entrance to Kooryet Bay (flow- ing from left to right). Photo by Brendan Gray.
29 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Boulder alignments
Figure 31. Map of boulder alignments in lower Kooryet River overlayed on BC TRIM data obtained from the provincial website http://geobc.gov.bc.ca.
Figure 32. View up- river at mid-tide. White arrows point to two parallel rock alignments altering and narrow- ing the river channel. Ken Innis shown in background. Photo by Charles Menzies.
movement of fish to places where people can harvest fish (e.g., with leisters or nets) whereas traps are features which captures fish “by drawing them into a structure from which they are unlikely to escape” (Langdon 2006). Traps are often used in combination with a tunnel-shaped or box- shaped basket trap which can be temporarily placed in or at an outlet of a boulder alignment (Drucker 1955:14; Emmons 1991:106). Using this working definition, the features at Kooryet can be characterized as containing both traps and weirs. The only currently recognizable trap feature is located in the lower intertidal and stretches across the stream mouth. Fish weirs are represented by the numerous boulder alignments and linear channels further upstream which continue to direct fish to places where they could be readily harvested. Additional features of this trap complex are the retaining pools along the side channels which could provide temporary holding pond where harvested salmon could be kept prior to processing and transport (Figure 35). In sum, our field observations suggest that the lower reaches of the river (extending over 430 m in length) has been variously modified and engineered to facilitate access to the salmon fishery. The complexity and extent of the features likely represents intergenerational communal investment in securing access and managing the use of salmon at this location. The additional presence of a canoe run along the north side of the stream mouth (E441950, N5910680) further demonstrates the
30 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Figure 33. View of the lowermost rock alignment feature that cross-cuts the river flow at low-low tides. Photo by Charles Menzies.
Figure 34. Side channel rock align- ment in the tidally influenced por- tion of Kooryet River (view to west facing up river). Note the abundance of barnacles and the size of the cobbles. Photo by Charles Menzies. extent of human use of the area. Subsequent to the field research, the author noted this fish trap complex was visited by the crew of Captain James Colnett in October of 1787. Colnett’s crew caught salmon in the river and ‘destroyed’ a portion of this trap complex after a dispute with a chief in the area (Galois 2004:156– 160, 359). This represents one of the earliest European accounts of the indigenous use of fish traps in British Columbia. The curious discontinuity of linear boulder alignments along the lower portion of the river may possibly be the result of Colnett’s crew attempting to dismantle portions of this elaborate fishing structure but future archival research is needed to help clarify the historical context of this feature and how it was dismantled. Additional fieldwork at low-low tides is necessary to fully document the features present at the site. Wil lu sgetk, Saycuritay Cove, southwestern Pitt Island The crew departed Kooryet and headed across Principe Channel towards a protected cove on the southwestern corner of Pitt Island (currently named Saycuritay Cove). This 30-hectare cove is protected from the high-energy waters in Principe and Otter Channels by a small, currently unnamed island and several rocky islets. The cove is accessible from a shallow narrow approach to
31 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Retaining pools
Figure 35. View of pools and side channels facing east and downriver. This portion of the river is above barnacle line but is still influenced by tidal surges. Photo by Charles Menzies. the west and two deeper wider channels to the south and east. (See Figure 36.) Unlike the other localities examined during this project, this area was not declared a Gitxaała reserve in the late 1800s. However, this location has been subject to previous archaeological survey which documented two shell midden habitation sites as well as a fish trap at the outlet of a small creek (Figure 37). These sites were recorded in 1970 by Bjorn Simonsen and colleagues from the University of Victoria as part of a provincially sponsored archaeological survey project (Simonsen 1970, 1973). Aside from the site boundaries depicted on the original site map and a brief description of the location, no additional information about these sites was obtained. Moreover, as a testament to the lack of archaeological research conducted on this part of the coast over the past 40 years, these three sites still represent 75% of the recorded archaeological sites on southern Pitt Island. Our purpose in re-visiting this locale was to relocate these previously identified sites, evaluate potential impacts, and potentially make additional observations about site potential and significance in this area.
FhTj-6 Intertidal Trap Preliminary inspection of the shoreline during a 4.7 m high tide in the vicinity of the previously recorded fish trap (FhTj-6) did not identify any recognizable trap features at this location. Cobbles and boulders were abundant along the shoreline and a semi-circular area of deep water was present at the outlet of the stream which would be suitable for trap. This landform could be readily modified to create arc-shaped boulder alignments shown in the original site map (Figure 37). We additionally inspected the creek mouth early the following morning during a lower tide (3.0 m) but still did not see any evidence of a trap. The absence of such features is puzzling but is likely a result of either a lack of low tides during the time of our fieldwork or that small-scale log salvagers may have dredged
32 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Citeyats
Saycuritay Cove
Figure 36. Image from a marine chart of Southern Pitt Island including Saycu- ritay Cove and Citeyats. Multicoloured ‘rainbow’ on right is a high resolution image of the sea floor obtained from the Canadian Hydrographic Service. the stream mouth to access timber from the shoreline. This is suggested by the presence of multiple recent stumps and felled trees on the hillside above the creek mouth and modifications to the stream itself (discussed in more detail below). An additional possibility is that federal or provincial fisheries officials may have dismantled this fishing feature to “enhance” habitat sometime during the past 40 years. Regardless of whether the fish trap site remains intact or not, archaeological materials were found in the intertidal area at site FhTj-6. Two stone tools were present on the upper intertidal of the shoreline just west of the creek mouth (Figure 38 and Figure 39). These tools were not collected but examined and photographed in the field. The tools have numerous flake scars removed in two directions and can be characterized as “multi directional cores.” Broadly similar stone tools have been found at a variety of intertidal sites elsewhere on the northern and central coasts (Apland 1977; Mackie and Sumpter 2005). In southern Haida Gwaii, intertidal lithic sites are common and are hypothesized to date to the period when post glacial sea levels rose above modern (transgressed) approximately 10,500 years ago (Fedje et al 2001, 2005). That said, intertidal lithics have also been found at sites elsewhere on the coast that date to a wide variety of time periods. CMT’s at Saycuritay Cove A small recently logged area is present on the south-facing hillside above the outlet of the creek draining into site FhTj-6. At least one of the remaining felled trees was a CMT (discussed further below). The small actively-flowing stream drains a steep rocky gradient which does not appear to be deep enough for salmon to ascend. A curious makeshift dam has been installed across the creek approximately 30 m from its mouth. The dam was approximately 2 m high and 3 m across and
33 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Figure 37. Original site map show- ing the outline of Saycuritay Cove and the location of the three sites recorded in 1970 (map obtained from the BC Archaeology Branch). FhTj-6 is the fishtrap site and sites FhTj-4 and FhTj-5 are shell midden habitation sites.
Figure 38. (a) One of two flaked stone tools Figure 39. The second of two flaked stone found on the intertidal cobble beach near tools found on the surface of the intertidal site FhTj-6. (b) Opposite side of the tool pic- at FhTj-6 (UTM coordinates: N5896732, tured above. Photos by Iain McKechnie. E462332).
34 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
appears to be related in age and purpose to the recently logged area immediately to the east. A distinctive rectangular bark stripped CMT is present along the western bank of the stream approximately 40 m from shore (Figure 40) and several other taper bark stripped CMTs are present in the area immediately above the clear-cut. Due to time constraints and the high number of CMTs observed, dimensions for each archaeological feature were not recorded. The discovery of a felled CMT provided an opportunity to directly date Indigenous forest utilization in this region. This particular taper stripped CMT has distinctively large healing lobes and the scar-crust is visible in the chain-sawed cross-section (Figure 41). A detailed count of the tree-rings by Jarek Ignas-Menzies revealed that the tree is a minimum of 230 yr old (ca. AD 1779) and the bark-stripping event occurred a minimum of 180 yrs ago (ca. AD 1829). The relatively young age of this cedar at the time the bark was removed (50 years) is within the ethnographically preferred size-range (Turner 2004:83-84) and is commonly observed for archaeologically-recorded taper bark stripped trees (Stafford and Maxwell 2006). Since this bark-stripping event predates AD 1856, this designates the site as protected under the Provincial Heritage Conservation Act. The fact that this archaeological site has been logged without an archaeological permit represents a direct violation of the Heritage Conservation Act.
FhTj-4 and FhTj-5 Site Revisits Brief inspection of sites FhTj-4 and FhTj-5 revealed the presence of shell midden exposures of moderate depths (1-3 m) and had landform topography consistent with other coastal shell midden sites. According to the provincial site database, site FhTj-5 measures approximately 100 m in length and 20 m in width and Site FhTj-4 is considerably smaller, measuring approximately 25 x 8 m. In addition to shell deposits, site FhTj-5 contained a number of mid-to-late 20th century structures,
Figure 40. Rectangular bark-stipped cedar CMT along the western bank of the stream draining into Saycuritay Cove. Photo by Brendan Gray.
Figure 41. Recently felled cedar CMT in Saycuri- tay Cove. Top finger points to the initial scar that formed at the base of the healing lobe. Detailed tree-ring counts by Jarek Ignas-Menzies document- ed 190 years of growth from the date this scar was made (ca. AD 1819) and 230 years of tree growth in total (ca. 1774). Photo by Jarek Ignas-Menzies.
35 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory including cabins and outhouses situated at the southern head of this small u-shaped bay. These structures appear to be the deteriorated remains of a temporary fishing camp or homestead and are not mentioned in the original site report. The most readily visible pre-contact archaeological deposits are located along the eastern shore of the bay where shell midden deposits are visible on the beach surface (Figure 42). A couple from New Zealand kayaking the coast from Prince Rupert to Vancouver were temporarily camped at this location but were unaware they were camped on an archaeological site. The moderately eroded shell exposure next to their camp contained barnacle, littleneck, cockle and mussel shell. Historic debris was also present including copper, a square nail, and purple/blue glass. On the other side of this U-shaped bay and outside the currently defined site boundary, a stone tool was found on the surface (Figure 44). This core tool has several flake scars and is slightly water-worn. The tool material appears to be a fine-grained chert. Wil lu sgetk Additional reconnaissance of the shoreline along the western extent of the cove resulted in the discovery of a boulder-strewn beach with a canoe run at its easternmost extent (Figure 45). Inspection of this beach revealed shell midden deposits eroding from beneath a mature hemlock tree (Figure 46). Two small stone tools were found on the surface of the beach (Figure 47 and Figure 48) along with a wide variety of shellfish.
Figure 42. Eastern side of site FhTj-5 showing eroded mid- den in foreground at tideline and area without forest Figure 43. Intertidal midden growth in area to left. exposure at site FhTj-6.
Figure 44. (a) Stone tool found on beach in front of site FhTj-5. (b) Top of the tool. Photos by Brendan Gray.
36 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
This eroding midden deposit is situated at the base of a steeply-sloped banking which rises approximately four meters and promptly levels off on a broad terrace paralleling the shoreline. Another exposure of shell midden is present on the top of this terrace in the root ball of a partially fallen tree indicating that the entire banking consists of midden deposits. These two exposures are situated in front of five house-sized cultural depressions paralleling the shoreline. The five rectangular-shaped depressions measured between 11.6 and 5 meters in length and 10.6 and 4 meters in width (Table 2). A small stream drains the western portion of the site and a nearly vertical granitic bedrock bluff abuts the back of the cultural depressions. A bedrock promontory that is contiguous with the midden landform faces southwest and would serve effectively as a “lookout” location. This distinctive cultural topography strongly suggests that this large landform is likely entirely archaeological. Compared to the moderate size of the two previously documented shell midden sites (FhTj-4 and -5), this particular site appears to have a substantially greater volume of cultural deposits and contains evidence for a minimum of five houses. In addition, there is a direct line-of-sight between this site and the two smaller sites but the two shell midden sites are not inter-visible. The elevated terrace location has a commanding view to the south and west, particularly the pass between Banks Island and the Estevan Group which is one of the most direct routes to southern Haida Gwaii. While it is impossible to definitively conclude without sub-surface investigation, this site can be preliminarily classified as a village measuring approximately 80 x 30 meters. Surface contour mapping was conducted with a total station collecting a total of 565 topographic data-points. The resulting map shows the five structural depressions and the steep beach-front banking as well as the bedrock bluffs behind the site (Figure 49). In interviews with knowledgeable community members, Charles Menzies suggests that this village may be the village of “Wil lu sgekt.” The fact that this extensive archaeological site was not documented during the previous survey of this small cove is surprising but reveals the extent to which “previously surveyed areas” may dramatically under-represent the archaeological record. In this case, the previous researchers were the first to work in this region and had a different set of goals, survey methodology and were working on a very broad scale (Simonsen 1973). While the omission of this site may have also been due to any number of logistical factors (e.g., inclement weather, scheduling constraints, etc), it also
Site FhTj-5 Site FhTj-4 Canoe run
Figure 45. Panorama photo facing south showing boulder beach and the western entrance to Saycuritay Cove. Four meter deep shell midden deposits are located in forested area to left of the image. Locations of Sites FhTj-4 and 5 are also shown. Photos by Brendan Gray.
37 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory reflects the fact that archaeological survey has only begun in this region. Citeyats Reserve 9, Southeast Pitt Island Citeyats is a ~16-hectare Gitxaała reserve on the southeastern end of Pitt Island, just west of the Cherry Islets. The reserve is situated along the banks of the lower reaches of the Citeyats River, which drains a moderately sized lake approximately 5 km upstream (Figure 2). The river empties into a small, protected cove that faces north and is partially protected from large waves generated
Figure 47. Medium-grained flaked lithic debitage found on the surface of the beach at the base of the mid- den exposure shown in the adjacent figure.
Figure 46. Shell midden exposure at the base of a 4 m terrace. Another exposure was present at the top of this slope in a tree throw.
Figure 48. Fine-grained flake present on the beach in front of the banking pictured on left.
38 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Granite bedrock bluffs
HP4 HP5 HP1 HP3
HP2 House outlines (interpolated)
Beach facing Principe Channel
Beach pictured Bedrock in Fig 43 promontory & possible lookout
Figure 49. Total Station surface map of Wil lu sgket showing landform features and house depres- sion numbers. Scale-bar on left is in meters. Elevation contours are in 50 cm increments. Angular distortion on the top left and lower right of map is due to a lack of data-points obtained for this portion of the map.
Table 2. House dimensions at Wilu lu skegt. House num. Width (m) Length (m) Total Area (m2) HP1 10.6 11.6 126 HP2 8.4 9.0 67 HP3 5.0 10.0 55 HP4 4.5 5.0 18 HP5 4.0 9.0 41
39 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
in Squally Channel during southeasterly gales and winter storms. Coho, chum and pink salmon are known to spawn in the river and pink salmon were repeatedly seen schooling in this cove throughout the time of our fieldwork. Dr. Menzies and the project team selected to investigate this location because of the detailed accounts of Gitxaała occupation and interaction with European explorers during the early colonial fur trade (ca. AD 1787-1793). Moreover, no archaeological fieldwork had been conducted at this significant cultural site. The only previous archaeological documentation is a brief description submitted to the provincial museum by Capitan Lorne A. Peck in the 1950s who mentions “this is a promising site with apparently quite a depth of deposit” and notes that “foundations of houses and two house totems” were present at the site in 1934 (FhTj-1 site form). The site was revisited in 1970 by Bjorn Simonsen but no additional descriptive information was provided in the documents available to us. We anchored in the cove, launched the skiffs and approached the broad, sandy beach fronting the shoreline north of the Citeyats rivermouth. Ascending a steep banking on the northern portion of the beach, we immediately noted distinctive terracing and cultural topography. This area contained several small (5-8 m) rectangular and square platforms on a landform sloping towards a small, trickling stream draining onto the beach. Probing revealed extensive shell midden deposits immediately beneath a thin humic forest soil layer. Additional exploration revealed a long, arcing midden ridge that defines the “back” of the site and runs perpendicular towards the river for a distance of over 100 meters. This ridge is consistently higher than all other points in the village and is fronted by numerous “house-sized” cultural depressions as well as highly-undulating cultural topography. To the south, a variety of cultural depressions are present along an elevated terrace-edge that overlooks the lower reaches of the Citeyats River. Several seemingly natural trails provide direct access to the river and several structural depressions appear to be oriented towards this direction. The area closest to shore contains four large, rectangular platforms along a broad andflat terrace that drops sharply 4-5 m towards the beach (Figure 54). These large platforms contain small but discrete linear ridges abutting the ‘back’ of the platforms and also feature highly defined 90- degree corners, most likely representing midden that built up around a house corner. Three of the large platforms contain standing structural remains including three highly deteriorated posts, one recognizable post-hole as well as nine house beams lying on the surface of the site (Figure 51). The structural features are coherently located in relation to the surface topography, that is, the fallen beams run perpendicular to the shoreline and ridge described above and the posts are located near the terrace edge and ridge. Individual features and their UTM locations are given in Appendix 2. . Ethnographic Descriptions of Citeyats Citeyats is one of the first Tsimshian villages to have sustained contact with European traders in the late 18th century. James Colnett was the first European trader to visited the territory but did not make primary observations of this particular village. In contrast, Jacinto Caamaño, captain of the Spanish trading vessel, the Aranzazu, sought to chart the waters around southern Pitt Island throughout August of 1792 during which time his vessel was repeatedly visited by villagers and chiefs from Citeyats (Galois 2004:47). After an incident when a group of Caamaño’s men went ashore to wash their laundry and managed to have both their clothes and boat removed from their possession, Caamaño was unnerved and sought retribution by holding captives and plotting to fire on the village. This desire for revenge was quelled by Jammsit”“ (also known as Hammsit) a Citeyats
GeoBC: https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=43471&recordSet=ISO19115
40 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory chief who in response, repeatedly invited Caamaño to visit the village to attend a feast in his honour (Caamaño 1938:274–293). Caamaño accepted and after several attempts to sail to Citeyats were rebuffed by recurring southeasterly gales, Caamaño anchored in the lee of the Cherry Islets where he finally managed to come ashore at the village on the 28th of August 1792. To honour his high rank, Caamaño was carried ashore up a “pretty steep slope leading … to the village” and carried through a “narrow doorway of the chief’s house, over which was painted a huge mask” to a “prepared seat which was to the right of the entrance” (Caamaño 1938:289). Here he was subject to the ritual purification of eagle down and witnessed dancing and ceremonial performances by Jammsit and Giteyon, a rival chief, elder, and shaman. After leaving the house, Caamaño provides the following detailed description of the village:
I noticed four more houses similar to the one in which we had been entertained. This was about fifty to fifty-five feet in length, and thirty to thirty-five in breadth, with walls and roofs of well fitted planking. In the middle of the roof was a louver or skylight, placed to as to admit plenty of light, and serving also for the exit of smoke from the hearth (on which a fire is kept constantly burning), but at the same time keeping out the rain. It was cleaner than I had expected to find, and at some time must have been much larger, as around and above it stood heavy forked posts with cross timbers. [293]
This account provides excellent context for understanding the archaeological deposits we observed at the site. Caamaño notes five large houses approximately 17 m long and 11 m wide, which are remarkably consistent with our observations of the site topography shown in Figure 54. The “pretty steep banking” is present and the large rectangular platforms contain evidence for standing structural remains including house posts and beams.
Site Description At the back-centre of one of the house platforms in the centre front of the site, stands a broad and thick carved house-post measuring 2.9 m long, 90 cm wide and 25 cm thick (Figure 52). The post is heavily weathered and tilting away from shore and to the north at a 10-degree angle. The remains of deeply carved larger figures are visible along the less weathered edges of the post (Figure 53). Four areas with carved notches are present on the north side of the post at 52-62, 74-92, 106-154, and 200-213 cm from the ground surface and one carved area is present on the south side of the post at 146-167 cm. The post stands in a small circular depression approximately 1.4 x 1 m in diameter and is located in front of the ridge running along the back of the terraced platform. On the southern periphery of the site lies a series of three- or four-levelled platforms that appear to be locations of house features. These features are considerably lower in elevation and are also shallower than those in the middle of the site and may suggest an expansion of the village or a separate form of use such as canoe storage or fish processing areas. The overall site stratigraphy is discussed further below. The overall site area is vegetated with a mature and relatively open forest understory consisting of numerous wild huckleberry (Vaccinum parviflorum), blueberry (Vaccinium alaskaense) as well as large devilsclub (Oplopanax horridus). The berries were abundant at this time and several of the berry patches near the shoreline appeared to have been recently harvested by people as there were subtle trails through the undergrowth towards particularly dense patches. Behind the site is a broad area of open forest rising along a gentle hillslope. An elevated promontory overlooking the mouth of the river is present to the southeast of the main village but was not explored.
41 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Figure 51. Fallen house beam with nurse logs on flat terrace area. Photos by Brendan Gray. Figure 50. Remains of a highly dete- riorated 18 cm diameter house-post, (feature 10). Photo by Brendan Gray.
Figure 52. Front of the carved house-post show- Figure 53. Side-view of the carved post look- ing the highly weathered moss covered face and ing north. Note the depression at the base of carved sections . Photo by Charles Menzies. the post and the remains of the carved sec- tions. Photo by Brendan Gray.
42 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Total Station Mapping Mapping this large and complex village site with the total station required the use of multiple datums and significant brush clearing in order to be able to take total station shots of the surface topography. Over 2900 total station data points were obtained over five days and provide high- resolution perspective of the site topography (Figure 54). House features (e.g. depressions, back- ridges, terraces) appear on the surface map but additional observations were made of the dimensions and orientation of the house features with a compass and meter tape. These estimations are shown in Figure 54.
Percussion Coring at Citeyats To obtain a stratigraphic record of the cultural deposits at Citeyats, a series of 23 percussion cores were collected from throughout the cultural deposits in a rough grid pattern (Figure 54). These individually-numbered cores were collected by Charles Menzies and Ken Innis over five days. The average depth of cultural deposits for the 23 cores is 2.37 vertical meters. The greatest depth recorded, 4.41 m, is located at the height of the backridge (ct11). Shallower depths are present along the periphery of the site (core tests 2-3, 5, and 18-23). Detailed stratigraphic analyses of the cultural and non-cultural sediments was recently conducted by Naomi Smethurst as part of a
Figure 54. Total station surface map of Citeyats showing the distribution of core tests (num- bered triangles) and the interpolated boundaries of structural depressions and house plat- forms (Blue rectangles).
43 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Figure 55. Total station surface map of Citeyats showing a north-facing perspective view of the site topography in relation to the shoreline depicted in blue on the right of the image. Triangles are core test locations and the contour lines represent 1-meter intervals. Map by author. student laboratory project. A selection of her site-wide stratgraphic profiles are shown in Figure 56 and Figure 57. These images provide context for linking stratigraphic sequences across a very broad site area. The fact that multiple contiguous cores show similar depths and stratigraphic constituents indicates that the occupation of Citeyats was extensive, long-term, and occurred in a coherent sequence. One of the striking differences between areas of the site was the extensive deposits of shell in the ridges and the high silt content in the deposits with house-platforms and depressions. This difference is shown in Figure 58.
Citeyats Site Boundaries Currently, the provincial archaeological site database identifies three separate sites at Citeyats, one on a small island opposite the stream mouth recorded by Bjorn Simonsen in 1970 (Site FhTi-4), and the latter two on the south and north sides of the river mouth respectively FhTj-1 and FhTi-1, Figure 59). These latter two sites are in separate ‘Borden Grids’ meaning that the prefix to the site numbers
44 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Figure 56. North-South stratigraphic profile of Citeyats Village showing the distribution of cultural sediments as viewed from the ‘front’ of the site. See Figure 54 for core locations. Profile created by Naomi Smethurst.
is different (FhTj instead of FhTi). A note on the FhTi-1 site form stating that “this site could possibly be the same as FhTi-001” suggests that the sites are one in the same. This can be supported by field observations in which reconnaissance of the shoreline south of the river mouth did not result in the discovery of definitively cultural deposits as depicted on the provincial site form. An additional confusing factor is that the Citeyats Reserve boundaries appear to be inaccurately located, as the shoreline depicted in the reserve boundaries is approximately 80 m south and 60 m west of the shoreline it depicts (Figure 59). This apparent inaccuracy is also present in the Indian Reserve Boundaries information available on a Federal Government website7 but the boundaries appear to be correct in a recently conducted “Biodiversity, Mining and Tourism Area Official Plan” for the Citeyats reserve.8
Sediment samples Four small sediment samples were obtained from separate areas of the Citeyats village deposits. Two samples were recovered from the northern and southern portions of the village close to the modern shoreline and another two were recovered from the top of the prominent ridge at the back of the site which was situated at a comparatively higher elevation and located far from the modern 7 Geobase.ca http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/search.do?produit=alta&language=en http://www.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/nanaimo/central_north_coast/maps/bmta_citeyats.pdf
45 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Figure 57. East-West cross-section stratigraphic profile of Citeyats showing the distri- bution of cultural sediments as viewed from the ‘side’ of the site. See Figure 54 for core locations. Profile created by Naomi Smethurst.
Figure 58. Sedimentary profiles from house and non-house features at Citeyats in relation to depths below surface. Data compilation and image created by Naomi Smethurst.
46 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Figure 59. Map of Citeyats obtained from the BC remote access to archaeological informa- tion (RAAD) website showing the currently documented archaeological site boundaries for sites (FhTj-1 [unnumbered], FhTi-1 and FhTi-4). Green area is meant to depict the Citeyats Reserve boundaries but appears to be offset. shoreline. Sediments were obtained by removing an approximately 20x20 cm area of forest humic soils using a trowel until cultural shell midden matrix was exposed. Approximately 1-2 litres of cultural sediment were collected from these exposures after which time the humic layer was replaced. The volume of each sample was measured for each sample using water displacement and the sediments were “wet-screened” using the approximately 1 mm mesh of a pasta colander and the approximately 6 mm mesh of a deep frying colander. Samples were then placed on trays to dry. Numerous shell specimens and abundant fish remains were observed to be present in these small samples and provide some indication of the consistently practiced activities such as fishing and shellfish gathering which occurred here. In addition, fire cracked rocks were found. These sediment samples were obtained in order to provide a preliminary documentation of the most common midden constituents (shells and bones). Briefly, it is intriguing that most unique of the four examined samples is sample C1-2 that comes from the top of the ridge at the back of the site. Of the four examined samples, this sample contains the lowest frequency of faunal remains, the most highly fragmented mussel shells, considerably higher proportions of barnacle and clam, and the highest frequency of unidentified shell. These observations seems to fit with expectations of an older more degraded assemblage in this part of the site. It is also intriguing and suggestive that there are strong similarities in the relative frequency between samples C1-3 and C1-4 (each from the “periphery” of the village site) and lastly there is a
47 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Figure 60. Wet-screened Figure 61. Map of Citeyats showing the Figure 62. Wet-screened cultural sediments from relative location of the four sediment cultural sediments from C1-2. samples. sample C1-4.
high abundance of fish remains recovered from the sample in the centre of the village.
Citeyats Summary In sum, this large complex site contains the remains of over twenty-nine structural depressions or platforms, features that are consistent with house occupations representing a very large village community. Our observations closely correspond to Caamaño’s descriptions of the village he visited in 1792. However, the numerous other house and midden features and the substantial depth of the deposits suggest a much greater time depth and settlement complexity. It is notable that the large terrace house platforms associated with structural posts and beams appear to be orientated towards the modern shoreline but the numerous smaller house depressions are situated behind these terrace platforms and are oriented differently. These differences may indicate that the house depressions represent an older incarnation of the village. A preliminary examination of cultural sediments and shellfish remains recovered from the site supports this interpretation (Figure 63). Alternatively, these relatively smaller house depressions may also have been used to process or cure large numbers of salmon obtained from the river nearby. Whichever is the case, the depth, extent, and complexity of the archaeological deposits at this village provides a very strong basis for beginning to understand the cultural and historical significance of this ancient community. A major component of future analysis of the project will be to radiocarbon date organic remains recovered from the percussion cores and sediment samples from both Citeyats and Curtis Inlet. While this will incur a considerable expense, dating these samples will likely expand the known human history of the region by thousands of years or more. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The objectives of this project, to investigate archaeological evidence of traditional use in the southern portion of Gitxaała territory, revealed a wide range of archaeological sites and features, demonstrating a diverse and long-term record of human use. In each of the four examined locations, we observed archaeological evidence of human use showing continuity from pre-colonial times
48 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Figure 63. Proportions of shellfish by weight recovered from the multiple areas of the Citeyats village. Note the similar proportions of shellfish between C1-3 and C1-4 and the relative ratio of ¼” to 1/8” shellfish. Data compilation and image created by Jean Pourcelot.
up to the recent past. This stands in contrast to the modern perception of this area as a sparsely populated and ‘remote’ portion of the BC coastline. The fact that the archaeological history of this region is so poorly known is a reflection of the lack of work but it in no way indicates a lack of archaeological ‘potential.’ It is significant that excavation and radiocarbon dating has NOT been conducted in the territory other than Simonsen’s 1968 excavation in Grants Anchorage, 80 km to the south of the study area. In fact, the stretch of coastline between Prince Rupert and Namu, a distance of 300 linear kilometers, may represent one of the largest segments of the BC Coast, if not the western North America coast, which has been subject to such little archaeological investigation. This lack of knowledge may lead some to a misleading impression that the area has a lack of historical and cultural time-depth. In contrast, the diversity of physical evidence for human history observed during our brief and limited survey demonstrates this is certainly not the case. That said, this project likely represents only a small insight into a much larger and complex human past. Future efforts are greatly needed in order to rediscover and expand our contemporary knowledge of the ancient human history represented in this incredible territory. REFERENCES CITED
Apland, Brian Carl 1977 Early Chipped Stone Industries of the Central Coast of British Columbia. MA thesis, Simon Fraser University. Archer, David
49 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
1998 Early Holocene Landscapes on the North Coast of BC. Paper presented at the 31st Annual Meeting of the Canadian Archaeological Association, Victoria, BC. Caamaño, Don Jacinto 1938 The Journalof Don Jacinto Caamaño. In British Columbia Historical Quarterly, edited by H. R. Wagner and W. A. Newcombe. Translated by C. H. Grenfell. Archives of British Columbia, Victoria. Cannon, Aubrey 2000 Settlement and Sea Levels on the Central Coast of British Columbia: Evidence from Shell Midden Cores. American Antiquity 65(1):67–77. Coupland, Gary, Kathlyn M. Stewart, Katherine Patton and Joan Banahan 2006 Archaeological Investigations in the Prince Rupert Area 2002-2004: Permit 2002-208. Final Report on file at the BC Archaeology Branch. Drucker, Philip and Edna Marie Fisher 1943 Archeological Survey on the Northern Northwest Coast. United States. Bureau of American Ethnology. Anthropological Papers 20. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington. Eldridge, Morley and Alyssa Parker 2007 Fairview Container Terminal Phase II Archaeological Overview Assessment. Prepared by Millennia Research for Fairview Container Terminal, Prince Rupert Port Authority. Fallu, Marie-Andree, N. Allaire and Reinhard Pientiz 2000 Freshwater Diatoms from Northern Quebec and Labrador (Canada). Bibliotheca Diatomologica 45. Gebruder Borntraeger, Stuttgart. Fedje, Daryl W., Rebecca J. Wigen, Quentin Mackie, C. Lake and Ian Sumpter 2001 Preliminary Results from Investigations at Kilgii Gwaay: An Early Archaeological Site on Ellen Island, Haida Gwaii, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 25(1&2):98- 120. Fedje, Daryl W. and Tina Christensen 1999 Modeling Paleoshorelines and Locating Early Holocene Coastal Stes in Haida Gwaii. American Antiquity 64:635–652. Fedje, Daryl W., Tina Christensen, Heiner Josenhans, Joanne B. McSporran and Jennifer Harding 2005 Millennial Tides and Shifting Shores: Archaeology on a Dynamic Landscape. In Haida Gwaii: Human History and Environment from the Time of Loon to the Time of the Iron People, edited by D. W. Fedje and R. W. Mathewes, pp. 163-185. UBC Press, Vancouver. Fedje, Daryl W., Heiner Josenhans, John J. Clague, J. Vaughn Barrie, David J. Archer and John R. Southon 2005 Hecate Strait Paleoshorelines. In Haida Gwaii: Human History and Environment from the Time of Loon to the Time of the Iron People, edited by D. W. Fedje and R. W. Mathewes, pp. 21–37. UBC Press, Vancouver. Fedje, Daryl W., Alexander P. Mackie, Rebecca J. Wigen, Quentin Mackie and Cynthia Lake 2005 Kilgii Gwaay: An Early Maritime Site in the South of Haida Gwaii. In Haida Gwaii: Human History and Environment from the Time of Loon to the Time of the Iron People, edited by D. W. Fedje and R. W. Mathewes. vol. 187-203. UBC Press, Vancouver. Fedje, Daryl W., Quentin Mackie, E. James Dixon and Timothy H. Heaton 2004 Late Wisconsin Environments and Archaeological Visibility on the Northern Northwest Coast. In Entering America: Northeast Asia and Beringia before the Last Glacial Maximum, edited by D. B. Madsen, pp. 97-138. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Fedje, Daryl W. and Rolf W. Mathewes (editors) 2005 Haida Gwaii: Human History and Environment from the Time of Loon to the Time of the
50 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Iron People. UBC Press, Vancouver. Fedje, Daryl W., Duncan McLaren and Rebeca J. Wigen 2004 Preliminary Archaeological and Paleoecological Investigations of Late Glacial to Early Holocene Landscapes of Haida Gwaii, Hectate Strait and Environs. Report prepared for BC Archaeology Permit 2001-172 and Haida Nation Permit 2002 (renewed for 2003) for Haida Karst Research. Fladmark, Knut R. 1970 Preliminary Report on the Archaeology of the Queen Charlotte Islands 1969 Field Season. In BC Studies: Archaeology in British Columbia New Discoveries, edited by R. L. Carlson, pp. 18-45. vol. 6-7, Vancouver. Galois, Robert 2004 A Voyage to the North West Side of America: The Journals of James Colnett, 1786–89. UBC Press, Vancouver. Hall, Dave and Fraser Bonner 2008 Archaeological Impact Assessments of Triumph Timber Limited’s Proposed Forestry Developments within the Klewnuggit Inlet Operating Area, FL A16820, North Coast Forest District. Final Permit Report, Permit 2006-070. Arrowstone Archaeological Research report prepared on behalf of Ryan Monsen, Triumph Timber Limited and submitted to the BC Archaeology Branch. Hall, Dave and Peter Johansen 2007 Archaeological Impact Assessments of Triumph Timber Limited’s Proposed Forestry Developments Within the Fraser Reach and Klewnuggit Inlet Operating Areas, Fl A16820, North Coast Forest District: Permit 2005-106. Arrowstone Archaeological Research report prepared on behalf of Ryan Monsen, Triumph Timber Limited and submitted to the BC Archaeology Branch. Harris, Douglas C. 2008 Landing Native Fisheries: Indian Reserves and Fishing Rights in British Columbia, 1849– 1925. UBC Press, Vancouver. Josenhans, Heiner, Daryl Fedje, Reinhard Pienitz and John Southon 1997 Early Humans and Rapidly Changing Holocene Sea Levels in the Queen Charlotte Islands-Hecate Strait, British Columbia, Canada. Science 277(5322):71-74. Leen, Daniel 1985 A Preliminary Inventory of Haisla and Kitkiata Rock Art. Unpublished manuscript on file at Heritage Conservation Branch, Victoria. Leen, Daniel and Quentin Mackie 1985 North Coast Rock Art. The Midden 17(2). MacDonald, George F. 1969 Preliminary Culture Sequence from the Coast Tsimshian Area, B.C. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 3(2):240–254. Mackie, Alexander P. and Ian D. Sumpter 2005 Shoreline Settlement Patterns in Gwaii Haanas during the Early and Late Holocene. In Haida Gwaii: Human History and Environment from the Time of Loon to the Time of the Iron People, edited by D. W. Fedje and R. W. Mathewes, pp. 337-371. UBC Press, Vancouver. Mackie, Quentin, Daryl Fedje, Duncan McLaren, Nicole Smith and Iain McKechnie n.d. Early Environments and Archaeology of Coastal British Columbia. In Harvesting the Sea: current perspectives on hunter-gatherer coastal adaptations, edited by J. A. Haws and N. Bicho. Submitted. Martindale, Andrew, Bryn Letham, Duncan McLaren, David Archer, Meghan Burchell and Bernd R. Schone
51 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
2009 Mapping of Subsurface Shell Midden Components Through Percussion Coring: Examples From the Dundas Islands. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:1565–1575. Martindale, Andrew and Susan Marsden 2003 Defining the Middle Period (3500 BP to 1500 BP) in Tsimshian History through a Comparison of Archaeological and Oral Records. BC Studies 138:13-50. McLaren, Duncan 2008 Sea Level Change and Archaeological Site Locations on the Dundas Island Archipelago of North Coastal British Columbia. PhD Dissertation, University of Victoria. Pientiz, Reinhard, Daryl W. Fedje and Michel Poulin 2003 Marine and Non-Marine Diatoms from the Haida Gwaii Archipelago and Surrounding Coasts, Northeastern Pacific, Canada. Bibliotheca Diatomologica 48. Gebruder Borntraeger, Stuttgart. Rolston, David and Bart Proctor 2003 Salmon and Sea Lice: A Baseline Report of The Incidence of Sea Lice on Juvenile Salmonids on British Columbia’s North Coast. A Report Prepared by the David Suzuki Foundation. Simonsen, Bjorn O. 1970 Archaeological Surveys And Other Activities of the Archaeological Sites Advisory Board, During 1970. Report of the Field Director of the Archaeological Sites Advisory Board, Victoria. 1973 Archaeological Survey and Excavations in the Hecate Strait, Milbanke Sound Area of British Columbia. Mercury Series 13. National Museum of Man, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Ottawa. Stafford, Jim W. and John Maxwell 2006 The Text is in the Trees: Incorporating Indigenous Forest Practices into the Archaeological Landscape of the Northwest Coast. Paper presented at the 39th Annual Canadian Archaeological Association Conference, Toronto, Ontario May 24-27. Stewart, Hilary 1984 Cedar: Tree of Life to the Northwest Coast Indians. 1995 ed. Douglas and McIntyre Ltd., Vancouver. Swanton, John R. 1905 Contributions To The Ethnology Of The Haida. In The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, edited by F. Boas. Memoir of the American Museum of Natural History. vol. V. G. E. Stechiert and Co., New York. Turner, Nancy J. 2004 Plants of Haida Gwaii. Sono Nis Press, Winlaw. Warner, B. G., Rolf W. Mathewes and John J. Clague 1982 Ice-free conditions on the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia, at the height of late Wisconsin glaciation. Science 218:675–677. Wilson, Ian R. 1994a Archaeological Assessment Hevenor Lagoon, Pitt Island: Helicopter Logging Blocks Permit 1993-151. 1994b Archaeological Inventory and Impact Assessment Devon Lake, Pitt Island, Permit 1994- 12. Report prepared for B and I Resources Ltd. and the BC Archaeology Branch. Appendix 1: Travelogue
Aug 11, 2009 Arrive in Rupert
52 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Aug 12, 2009 Warm and Calm in AM breezy and cloudy in PM Travel to Curtis Inlet from Prince Rupert leaving at 5 am Arrive at Curtis Inlet in mid afternoon. Launch skiffs and explore Find and record CMT’s at N end of Curtis Inlet, locate shell exposure at KL2 Examine terrace at sockeye crk, historic era cabins on west side of creek at KL3 Observe fish drying racks at KL4 Go ashore at KL1 and examine exposures and note house platforms
Aug 13, 2009 Beautiful weather Curtis Inlet Begin to probe, core and map at KL1 in am Mid day lowtide mapping at KL2 Conduct hip chain and compass mapping at KL1 Explore vicinity and Ire inlet by skiff in pm
Aug 14, 2009 Curtis Inlet – Korreyet- Saycuritay Cove Cloudy in am Beautiful weather in pm Finish mapping and recording KL1 in am Depart mid-morning for Kooryet Map at Kooreyet in midday on rising tide Arrive at Fleishman Point/Saycuritay Cove in pm Inspect shoreline CMTs and Simonsen recorded midden sites
Aug 15, 2009 Beautiful weather Look at trap on intertidal lithic beach am Locate Wil lu sgetk village behind corner from Kwil doyks (Wolf Point) Map and map and map till 6pm Depart for Citeyats in pm after dinner Explore Citeyats village in pm
Aug 16, 2009 Citeyats, Beautiful weather Explore islands in nearshore in AM, begin to map w totl stn at Citeyats Mapping from STN 1 and 2
Aug 17, 2009 Citeyats Beautiful weather Mapping from STN 2 and 3 Coring grid begins
53 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Aug 18, 2009 Citeyats beautiful in am Mapping and coring SE gale in pm with sudden waves, requiring a move to Swartz Inlet
Aug 19, 2009 Citeyats Map and core all day from STN’s 4 and 5 Explore Swartz Inlet fishtrap in PM
Aug 20, 2009 (Nicole’s B-Day) Citeyats – Lowe Inlet Finish at Citeyats by lunch, head to Lowe Inlet in pm Try to map at Lowe in pm to no avail
Aug 21st, 2009 Lowe Inlet – Prince Rupert Wake up to find black bears, a grizzly and wolves at fish trap site, cannot go ashore so head for Prince Rupert
Appendix 2: Structural Features at Citeyats
54 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Table 3. Location and dimensions of structural remains at Citeyats.
Easting Northing Elevation above Description UTM UTM Barnacle Line (m) house post 1 – 46 cm diameter 5899647.09 466447.73 6.51 house post 2 – 215 cm tall, 51 cm diameter 5899656.25 466459.94 6.21 house post 3 – 18 cm diam, but very deteriorated 5899683.44 466443.56 6.45 post hole – 55 cm diameter 5899668.56 466452.39 6.25 Carved housepost S side 5899625.72 466461.72 5.74 Carved housepost N side 5899625.12 466462.16 5.95 house beam 3 – end, 65 cm diam 5899653.43 466460.69 6.96 house beam 3 – 65 cm diam 5899649.32 466453.46 6.66 house beam 4 – end, 34 cm diam 5899651.00 466459.06 6.59 house beam 4 – end, 34 cm diam 5899645.54 466452.73 6.31 house beam 5 – end, 42 cm diam 5899643.60 466465.17 7.01 house beam 5 – end, 42 cm diam 5899640.50 466457.73 6.32 house beam 7 – end, 42 cm diam 5899635.68 466459.52 6.27 house beam 7 – end, 42 cm diam 5899638.60 466466.01 6.28 house beam 8 – end, 53 cm diam 5899663.53 466457.44 6.75 house beam 8 – end, 53 cm diam 5899657.83 466450.59 6.82 house beam 9 – end, 42 cm diam 5899661.40 466445.99 6.59 house beam 9 – end, 42 cm diam 5899667.71 466450.46 6.68 house beam 1 - end 5899626.70 466465.60 6.51 house beam 1 - midsection 5899627.64 466468.93 6.36 house beam 1- midsection 5899628.74 466472.55 6.47 house beam 1- end 5899629.51 466474.97 6.32 house beam 2- end 5899632.38 466459.18 6.31 house beam 2- end 5899633.98 466463.64 6.39 house beam 2 5899635.96 466469.69 6.34
Appendix 3: Preliminary Diatom Descriptive Analysis Samples were prepared for analysis by wetting a very small amount of sediment (less than 1 cubic centimeter) and placing the slurry on a microscope slide. Slides were then examined using a backlit Nikon microscope at 400x magnification. This magnification provided a way to observe small microfossils such as diatoms and foraminifera. Several diatom photographic reference keys were consulted (Fallu et al. 2000; Pientiz et al. 2003). As this was a preliminary examination, no attempt was made to systematically quantify a sample of 100 individual diatoms as per normal peer-reviewed analyses. The results of the preliminary analyses indicate that a variety of marine and freshwater diatoms were preserved in the sediments examined. Some samples had a curiously homogenous distribution of diatom taxa while others contained hardly any preserved specimens but rather an abundance of fragmented diatoms and sponge spicules indicating high energy deposition.
Sample: MC 1 (Pt Id 80, 20 cm below the surface, 65 cm below barnacle line) Very few complete marine diatoms
55 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841) 2009 Archaeological Research in Southern Gitxaała Territory
Approximately 50% Cyclotella bodanica which are freshwater diatoms and a mix of others: 1 Cyclotella are benthic (not in water column) 1 Nitzschia pinnate-shaped marine diatom 1 Fragilaria pennate -shaped diatom 1 Thalassiosira 1 Cocconeis costata Unusual mix of high and low energy diatoms
Sample: MC2 (Pt Id 81, 53 cm below barnacle line) Coarse silt No identifiable pollen ~100-150 Thalassiosira eccentrica spherical marine diatoms Fairly homogenous distribution of taxa Interesting that no other species noted suggesting a rather inhospitable marine environment. Might expect a diversity of species if sample was recent/modern. Numerous silica shards of lots of sponge spicules indicating poor preservation conditions
Sample: MC 3 (Pt ID 83, 30 cm below surface, 29 cm below barnacle line) Fine clay with a very small proportion of silt Sterile for diatoms and pollen although the sample could be reduced and examined again 1 possible sponge spicule generally sponge spicules preserve better than diatoms as they are made of slightly more silica
Sample: 3 (Pt ID 83, 15 cm below surface, 14 cm below barnacle line) Sandy sediment with numerous tiny shell fragments Fair number of sponge spicules Fern pollen Broken shell fragments - mussel shell? Reminiscent of a sample from Lax K’walaams which contained late pliestocene aged sediments.
Sample MC3 (Pt ID 83, 5 cm below surface, 4 cm below barnacle line) Sediment within paired shell. Sample taken from deep within the paired valves of a deceased butter clam (near inner hinge) Lots of sponge spicules and possible mussel shell (mytilus) fibers Fern and herb pollen No conifer pollen or diatoms
56 Draft Report December 30, 2009 (A37841)
Appendix 2
Gitxaała Nation Environmental Monitoring Archaeological Survey Lithic report, 2010.
(A37841)
Gitxaala Nation Environmental Monitoring Archaeological Survey Lithic Report
Project Director: Dr. Charles R. Menzies
Lithic Analyst completed by student researcher Kenzie Jessome on behalf of the
Gitxaala Environmental Monitoring Survey (GEMS) Research Team
and The University of British Columbia’s Anthropology Department
6303 NW Marine Drive, Vancouver, BC
(A37841)
Table of Contents:
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Methodology
2.1 Processing Lithics from the GEMS
2.2 Creation of Raw Data
3.0 Results
3.1 WS-1
3.2 WS-2
3.3 Summary
4.0 Future Research
5.0 Bibliography
List of Figures:
Figure 1.0 Photo of GEMS researchers and intertidal zone of WS-2 Site (during low tide).
Figure 2.0 Photo displaying range of materials utilized by ancient residents of WS-2 Site; lithics featured in photo were collected within 5m x 5m area.
Figure 3.0 GEMS Lithic No. 57, a bifacially worked projectile point or blade discovered at WS-2 Site.
Figure 4.0 Left photo, GEMS Lithic No. 66, a bifacially worked quartzite point; In the photo on the right, GEMS Lithic No. 65, a bifacially worked basalt point. Both projectiles were collected from WS-2’s intertidal zone
Figure 5.0 Stem and Leaf Plot of WS-2’s lithic weight
Figure 6.0 Stem and Leaf Plot of WS-2’s utilized flake length
f
(A37841)
1.0 INTRODUCTION:
This report presents preliminary stone tool/lithic data from WS-1 and WS-2 Sites. Cultural materials, including the lithic sample upon which report is based, were collected by researchers of the Gitxaala Environmental Monitoring Archaeological Survey (GEMS, hereafter). The lithics were collected during intensive surface survey of intertidal zones and exposed beach. Beach and intertidal zones adjacent to where ancient villages were thought to been located (typically identified through the presence/absence of shell midden) were targeted (Fladmark 1979). Representative samples of lithic technology were collected from both WS-1 and WS-2 Sites. These samples will provide a preliminary understanding of chronology, pre-entanglement economy, stone tool typology, material, technology, and other human activity at the aforementioned archaeological sites (WS-1 and WS-2) (Andrefsky 1994; Drennan 1996; Kooyman 2004). Most lithics collected were also geo-rectified using either a hand held Garmin GPS unit (GEMS lithics 65-66) or using Total Station Transit technology (GEMS lithics 1-64), and sometimes photographed in situ.
The next section (2.0 Methodology) of this report describes the methodologies employed to create the GEMS Lithic Database. All the steps taken to produce both the raw quantitative data (see sub-section 2.1) as well as the GEMS Master Lithic Database (see sub-section 2.2) are described in detail. The next section (3.0 Results) of this report presents the preliminary findings reached through basic statistical manipulation of raw data. This section also includes a brief discussion of the number of lithics; range of raw materials exploited, type of stone tools collected, and concludes by suggesting a potential chronology alluded to by the material analyses (largely based on stone tool typology tradition). The concluding section (4.0 Future Research), suggests some avenues and lose ends to be conducted during future analyses and/or research. Considered in its entirety, the primary goal of this report is to attain a preliminary understanding of the range of human activities occurring at WS-1 and WS-2 Sites. Detailed material studies allows us to extrapolate important socio-economic information (within and between archaeological sites); That being said, however, the results of this report should only be considered in conjunction with other mediums of archaeological data collected simultaneously from the aforementioned sites (i.e. paleo-geological data, faunal [including shellfish], spatial maps, radio-carbon dates, etc.).
r
(A37841)
Figure 1.0 Photo of GEMS researchers and the intertidal zone of WS-2 Site (during low tide).
2.0 METHODOLOGY:
The entire sample collected from the first phase of the GEMS archaeological field research was 114 comprised of only 114 lithics. Compiling the GEMS Lithic Database relied heavily on previous training using primarily Andrefsky [1998] and Kooyman [2002]; however, publications concerning related archaeological stone tool technologies (associated either geographically and/or chronologically) were also reviewed (see Chatters 2010; Hobler 1982: 29-54; Mateson et al. 2003; Mateson 1976: 108-152). In August, regional stone tool specialist and PhD candidate at UBC, Jesse Morin, was asked to provide an objective, sometimes alternate perspective of the lithic analyse and associated classification of lithics. On September 7th 2010 J. Morin and Dr. RG Mateson, and Dr. David Pokotylo, also of UBC’s Anthropology Department, reviewed lithic collection to provide a further objective perspective on the GEMS lithic collection. Discrepancies (and some notable congruencies) between researches are noted in the “Notes” column in the GEMS Lithic Database (see end of report).
The GEMS Lithic Database is not chronologically organized (according to date of collection). Instead a systematic, intuitive model for recording lithics into GEMS Lithic Database was created. Lithics numbers 1-64 in the GEMS Master Lithic Database were randomly surface collected from WS-2 and were assigned this specific number to avoid confusion- each lithic has
c
(A37841) been geo-rectified by UBC’s Total Station technology (collected on June 5th 2010). Simply stated, the GEMS Lithic Database number (assigned during the construction of this report, see database attached to end) and its associated geographical data recorded on the Total Station (at UBC) are the exact same numbers (N=64). Two bi-facially worked stone points (GEMS lithics 65 and 66) were collected prior (June 3rd 2010), but not geo-rectified using Total Station but a handheld Garmin GPS unit instead (see CRM WP 38 and CRM WP 37) (N=2). GEMS Lithics 67-88 were collected from WS-1 Site on June 4th 2010 (N=22). The remainder of the collected lithics from WS-2 were not geo-rectified using Total Station technology, and were numbered in the GEMS Master Database as lithics 89-114 (N=26) (see GEMS Database below). Other materials (historic artefacts, etc.) are tentatively assigned an alphabetic symbol in the GEMS database.
2.1 Processing GEMS Lithics: All lithics collected required a wash in a room temperature tub of water due to the presence of lipids, red and other species of algae, and barnacle colonies. Neither soap nor other cleaning agents were used during the wash. The lithics were lightly scrubbed with a sponge and barnacles as well as other shell fish (typically lipids) were removed manually (using fingernail or, with carful precision to avoid damage, a geological pick, if necessary). The only lithics that were not exposed to the water rinse treatment were the previously identified bifacially worked tools (aka the Old Cordillera Stone Tool Tradition bi- facially worked point). This was done in order to preserve the material evidence on the tools for future trace elemental or micro-use wear analyses.1 Lithics were open air dried in the “Dirty Lab” at the Museum of Anthropology. Once thoroughly dry, the lithics were “bagged and tagged”, meaning assigned a number (or letter) in the GEMS Lithic Database. Labels were placed directly on the lithics in order to ensure archaeological context is preserved. This was done by placing clear nail polish on the surface of the lithic, followed by a layer of Stevenson Acrylic Gesso. Once Gesso dried, labels were placed on space provided. A final coat of nail polish was placed on label to increase the integrity of label as well as to ensure easy removal of label. Labels were placed on thought to be un-diagnostic regions of the lithics (avoided labelling
d 2 3 h 5
v
(A37841) bulbs of percussion, blade edge, striking platforms, etc., and the label was normally placed on cortex of rock fragment, if available). The lithics are currently and temporarily being supervised by the Laboratory of Archaeology (LOA) at the Museum of Anthropology (MOA) at UBC. After the termination of the GEMS project the lithics analyzed, along with other forms of material culture collected, have a pre-arranged repository at the Northern British Columbia Museum in Prince Rupert, BC.
2.2 Creation of Raw Data: The Gitxaala Environmental Monitoring Archaeological Lithic Database was created in a Microsoft Excel database. A brief description of its intended purpose and subsequent design is warranted. All lithics were examined numerous times for diagnostic tool-type features, use-wear, re-touch, post-depositional activity, etc (Andrefsky 1998). Each lithic also had its technological attributes measured (see Andrefsky 1998; Kooyman 2003). Each attribute that was examined for on the lithics was also given a column in the GEMS Master Lithic Database in order to record pertinent data in a manner that can be readily comparable. For example, as all culturally modified lithics were weighed and subjected to technological measurements, the columns ‘length’, ‘width’, ‘thickness’, and ‘weight’ were created. Some columns of data, however, required more than numerical information; for example, if use-wear was identified, appropriate notes taken on what type of use-wear, what it may be indicative of, etc. were placed in the “notes” column. Other forms of data simply required a yes or no; for example, ‘evidence of heat alteration’ and ‘complete or not’, but further explanation was also offered in the notes section of database.
Some lines of data can be useful to record in a quantitative manner in order to render the data easily comprehendible to useful statistical programs such as SPSS. For example, striking platforms and flake termination scars were classified according to Andrefsky (1998) (what type of platform [complex, cortical, flat, or crushed], or what type of termination [feather, hinge, stepped, or outrépassé]. These lines of data can be numerically coded, so that SPSS can look from complex patterns. Raw material type was recorded to the best of this analyst’s ability (based on albeit limited experience with local lithic materials) and could also be coded numerically. Some raw data was recorded in a quantitative manner. The presence of ‘cortex’ (original surface of stone, typically heavily weathered and a different colour than the interior),
n
(A37841) for example, was systematically recorded according to what percentage of the cortical lithic was cortex; In instances where less than 25% of the lithic was ‘cortical’, a numerical value of ‘1’ was assigned, for between 25% and 50% a ‘2’ assigned and so on. This system was also employed for, what I will call herein “barnacle scars”- white organic debris leftover from base of barnacle after stones were washed and processed.
When a diagnostic tool, or fragment thereof, was encountered in the collection a more meticulous method of technological measurements were preformed and depended on what tool was concerned and how much of it was left over to analyze (see Andrefsky 1998 for detailed description of methodology). Other mediums of quantitative and qualitative data collected, when applicable, included: raw material type, material color, type of use-wear, type of re-touch, tool type, post depositional weathering, and any other information that this analyst felt would be useful to future analyses was recorded in the notes column (i.e. exemplary samples that should be examined further using a Scanning Electron Microscope [SEM] or other micro or bio- chemical trace element analysis).
3.0 RESULTS:
All lithics that comprise of the GEMS lithic database were collected on a variety of dates during the first phase of fieldwork, which spanned from June 3th 2010 to June 21th 2010. A total of 114 lithics were collected, washed and quantified. Of the entire collection 76 (67%) of the lithics were identified as either potential stone tools, tool performs, and/or utilized flakes (as tools and fragments of them are often reused). Only two lithics collected were thought not to have evidence of human alteration, it was measured as a lithic but noted in notes section as “probably non-cultural”. Much of the collection is comprised of “informal tools”2, although some show evidence of extensive manufacture and investment of time.
3.1 WS-1 Site:
Twenty-two lithics were collected from WS-1 Site (see GEMS Lithic No.s 67-88). Of the 22 lithics collected from WS-1, only 6 (27%) display evidence of retouch or use-wear. Only one
f efooa4cr l3 1 T5
g
(A37841) multi-directional core was collected and 68% of the lithics showed no evidence of secondary processing (i.e. un-utilized flakes and cortical or angular shatter).
Figure 2.0: Photo displaying range of materials utilized by ancient residents of WS-2 Site; lithics featured in photo were collected within 5m x 5m area. Further inspection is necessary, but this preliminary exploration suggests that WS-1 Site may fit into the regional cultural chronology scheme during a relatively more recent time period than WS-2 Site, discussed below. Concerning raw material sources, results are preliminary at best, but it seems 45% of lithics from WS-1 are quartzite, while 36% of the collection is basalt/andesite, the remaining 19% are chert or unidentified. No definitive evidence for bi-face stone tool technology at WS-1 Site; however, GEMS lithics 67 and 81 are both potentially fragments of bifacially worked tools.
WS-1 Site Calculated Averages (N=22) Weight length width thickness 31.1g 42.6cm 30cm 14.6cm
3.2 WS-2 Site
From WS-2 site lithics were collected on two separate occasions, on June 2nd 2010 surface survey by IM and RH yielded 26 lithics from intertidal zone, then on June 5th 2010, as previously mentioned, collections were conducted by entire GEMS team using Total Station
t
(A37841) mapping technology. Of the eighty lithics collected from WS-2 site, ten are stone tools that have been bifacially modified: see GEMS Lithics 13, 17,22,27,34,42,48,57,61 and 2. There are seven multidirectional core: GEMS Lithics 3, 26,36,44,47,55 and 5. Of these cores 71% of which are quartzite; one basalt and one possible andesite. Fifty one percent of the stone tool collection was comprised of either unidirectional cores and/or utilized flakes (47/80). The other interesting thing noted it that quartzite is used for all tool types, while andesite and basalt seem to be primarily comprised of cores, utilized flakes, and bifacically worked tools. All chert tools were either scrapper, blades or utilized flakes.
Bifacially Worked Stone Tools at WS-2 Site: Nearly all the bifacially worked tools collected during surface survey seem to been created from a large cortical flake; while the small ‘bi-face’ is probably not made from a cortical flake (see Figure 4.0, below).
Figure 3.0 GEMS Lithic No. 57, a bifacially worked projectile point or blade discovered at WS-2 Site
Two of the bi-facial points were made of quartzite and were very different sizes (see GEMS Lithics 57 and 66). One sample (GEMS # 65) is a dark grey/black basalt3 and has extensive evidence of careful and systematic manufacture, possibly distal end of large spearhead. Lithic 48 in the GEMS database is made of andesite/basaltic material and is likely fractured. According to Dr. Jim Chatters (2010, personal communication) of Washington State University this stone tool tradition reflects an intimate and long-standing comprehension of certain “principles of engineering”. Each bi-facially modified stone point is specifically designed to be thick and r h 3 5 h e 5 3 3 5 fodol5
a
(A37841) lenticular in order to account for the specific “bending forces” induced on material during use. Further the intention, systematic serration of the blade edge also reduces stress levels of bending forces. Seven other lithics, with less extensive modification, were also collected from WS-2 and show evidence of having been bifacially worked. The total biface to non ratio is 11:80 for WS-2 Site. Thirteen point eight percent of a randomly collected intertidal lithic scatter suggests to me this site is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old.
Figure 4.0 Left photo, GEMS Lithic No. 66, a bifacially worked quartzite point; In the photo on the right, GEMS Lithic No. 65, a bifacially worked basalt point. Both projectiles were collected from WS-2’s intertidal zone.
It should be noted that due to the fact all lithic materials collected were done so in the intertidal zone of sites, (and not in excavation units with tightly controlled and understood contextual data), interpretations of raw data is limited. Examining these lines of evidence, however, has provided concrete evidence to suggest the lithics collected belong to the “Old Cordillera Stone Tool Tradition” dating to roughly between 6,000 and 10,000 years old (RG Mateson, 2010, personal communication), at WS-2 site.
WS-2 Site Calculated Averages (N=80) weight length width thickness 97.7g 64.2cm 47.3cm 24cm
3.2 Summary
Clearly the samples from WS-1 and WS-2 Sites are reflective of different types of activities as the natures of the collections are quite different. A brief examination of the calculated averages
do
(A37841) of various technological dimensions of the samples indicates that the character of the samples is different; whether or not this difference can be accounted by cultural variation (different activity, different inter-site activity, different chronology) or by collection methods (i.e. insufficient representative sample), remains to be seen. Comparing raw material source choices, we seem to have similar ratios of andesite, basalt, chert, quartzite and others, at both sites; however, a striking difference remains in the bi-facially worked technology between WS-1 and WS-2, the latter having a higher concentration. The sample from WS-2 is 300% more heavy, on average 2.2 cm longer, 1.7 cm wider, and 9.4 mm thicker. Considering these samples were randomly collected, this may be indicative of differences between sites regarding; resources extracted and processed there, site area tested (different activity), chronology, etc. Bottom line is that we need more inter-site comparisons between WS-1 and WS-2.
5.0 FUTURE RESEARCH
Some potential avenues for future research should include experimental statistical analyses of the GEMS Comparing the length, width, and thickness, and size (cm³), among other attributes, of each lithic allows one to test for socio-cultural, technological variation. By dividing the raw data into specific categories, known statistically as “batches”; a batch of measurements, for example, to test for cultural patterns (Drennan 1996:12). All ‘raw’ data was compiled into the GEMS Lithic Database preliminary statistical analyses were conducted in order to gain an understanding of the human activity that occurred during the occupation of the sites WS-1 and WS-2. By creating various groups of lithics (i.e. width of andesite lithics or size of greyish utilized flakes, inter and intra-site comparisons, etc.) we can create batches of numbers to test for patterns. The resulting “batch” of measurements, when placed in a “stem-and-leaf plot”, will visually display if a certain size (or range of sizes) of lithic tools were preferred by ancient inhabitants of the sites in question (Drennan 1996:12). A “Back-to-back stem-and-leaf plot” (see Drennan 1996:10) was created test for variability between sites (see results, below). Because we have excellent geographical/spatial data at WS-2, we can argue for different activities at different areas, even considering the intertidal activity. Hopefully a better understanding of human activity at WS-2 will allow for speculation/comparative perspective of site activity at WS-1 Site.
dd
(A37841)
Figure 7.0 Stem and Leaf Plot of WS-2’s lithic weight
Figure 8.0 Stem and Leaf Plot of WS-2’s utilized flake length
df
(A37841)
Example of experimental stem and leaf plots below (see Figures 1.0 and 2.0). Figure 1.0 plots weights of utilized flakes, blades, and scrappers identified in the GEMS lithic collection. The presence of a single “peak” and liberal distribution of lithic weights suggests nothing really useful. Figure 2.0, on the other hand, displays potentially three peaks (clumping around 50, 62 and 74 cm), when lengths of utilized flakes are placed in a stem-and-leaf plot. Considering Drennan’s (1996: 14) comment that presence of multiple “peaks” in a stem-and-leaf plot, “is always an indication that two or more fundamentally different kinds of things have been thrown together and measured”, we may have evidence to suggest that these batches of flakes were used for different activity at site (need to consider sample size as well). This statistical exploration of data should be done to look for inter and intra site variation in material culture.
Of the most important variables to incorporate into this research is spatial data. We should also create a GEMS Raw Lithic Material Typology in order to be able to readily identify patterns and variation (both temporal and spatial) in raw material exploited by ancient peoples. I began a preliminary typology system, meaning that material type was identified by analyst, employing admittedly limited experience with local geology, into basic categories, such as andesite, quartzite, basalt, chert, chalcedony, etc. Next, the matrix, colour, and inclusions of each lithic was described and groups thereof formed sun-categories. For example if the raw material quartzite is given the term “GEMS lithic typology I”; then different variations of quartzite (i.e. brown/grey minor inclusions versus translucent whitish material of high quality [no inclusions visible to naked eye]) would be given a sub-category typology Ia and Ib. This system was, however, abandoned in recognition of Dr. Jing spectrometer laser machine that can quickly and accurately identify raw material types using empirical data. I hope to gain an understanding of this technology and associated software, if deemed necessary/helpful to future research by project director.
dr
(A37841) (A37841) (A37841) (A37841)
Gitxaala Indian Reserves and Marine Harvesting
Douglas C. Harris, PhD Nathan T. Nemetz Chair in Legal History Associate Dean Graduate Studies & Research, Faculty of Law, UBC
December 20th, 2011
(A37841)
Questions
Janes Freedman Kyle Law Corporation has retained me to provide an opinion on the following questions:
1. What was the relationship, if any, between the Indian reserve creation process in the Province of British Columbia and marine harvesting activities of First Nation communities?
2. What was the relationship, if any, between the reserves established for the Gitxaala (Kitkatla) Nation and the marine harvesting activities of the Gitxaala community.
1
(A37841)
1. Indian Reserves and First Nations’ Marine Harvesting in British Columbia
1. British Columbia has an Indian reserve geography that is unlike that anywhere else in North America. Instead of detaching Native peoples from their traditional territories and placing them on large centralized reserves (a common pattern in the United States) or providing several substantial reserves within traditional territories (as was the pattern in much of Canada), the Dominion and provincial governments undertook a joint process in British Columbia that resulted in many small reserves. They provided Native peoples with points of attachment within their traditional territories, but little more. In the 1920s, when the reserve allotment process came to an end, there were slightly more than 1500 reserves which together amounted to slightly more than one-third of one percent of the land area of the province.1
2. This was an imposed reserve geography. The Dominion and provincial governments established a series of reserve commissions, beginning in 1876 and ending in the 1920s, with a mandate to consult with Native peoples over the parcels of land to be set aside as reserve, but no requirement to secure Native consent. That consent never came. Instead, Native peoples protested, repeatedly, that the reserved land, which amounted to fragments of much larger traditional territories, was too small and its quality too poor to sustain viable economies in their traditional territories.
3. To the extent that Dominion and provincial officials sought to justify the usually small reserves and reserve acres per person in British Columbia, they did so on the grounds that Native peoples on the Pacific coast were primarily fishing peoples who did not need a large land base. Some agricultural and grazing land would be set aside as reserve, most of it marginal and often without sufficient water rights, but there was little enough viable farmland in the province, and immigrants would occupy most of it. Access to the fisheries was the principal basis on which government officials explained the land policy and on which Indian reserve commissioners allotted Indian reserves. Of the slightly more than 1500 reserves allotted, the Indian reserve commissions identified nearly 750 specifically for their importance in the catching and the processing of fish, shellfish, and marine mammals.2 As a result, the Indian reserve geography of British Columbia, particularly on the coast but also along the major river systems, reflects the importance of and the attempt to secure access to the fisheries for First Nations.
2. Gitxaala Reserves and Marine Harvesting
4. The allotment of Gitxaala reserves spans much of the joint Dominion-provincial process in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Indian Reserve Commissioner Peter
1 Cole Harris, Making Native Space: Colonialism, Resistance, and Reserves in British Columbia (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2002), 261. 2 See Douglas C. Harris, Landing Native Fisheries: Indian Reserves and Fishing Rights in British Columbia, 1849-1925 (UBC Press, 2008), including the maps of all the reserves specifically allotted for a fishing purpose on pages 199- 208.
2
(A37841)
O’Reilly allotted the first three reserves in September, 1882. He returned nearly a decade later in July, 1891, to allot fifteen more. The last two reserves were allotted by the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of British Columbia in 1916.3 Brief consultation preceded these allotments, but the Gitxaala never agreed or consented to the reserve allotments, by treaty or otherwise, as satisfactory resolution of their claim to Aboriginal title over their traditional territories.
5. The map of the twenty Gitxaala reserves in Figure 1 reveals the pattern of Indian reserve allotments in coastal British Columbia. Only the Dolphin Island 1 reserve contains a substantial acreage. Otherwise, the Gitxaala reserves, as the vast majority of reserves on the coast, provide small toeholds in a much larger traditional territory.
Figure 1 Gitxaala (Kitkatla) Indian Reserves.
(Source: Derived from the map in D. Harris, Landing Native Fisheries, 205.)
3 Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of British Columbia (Victoria: Acme Press, 1916).
3
(A37841)
6. These small parcels of land were intended primarily to secure Gitxaala access to marine resources, particularly the fisheries. In the Field Minutes (part of the official record creating the reserve) for the Dolphin Island 1 reserve, O’Reilly wrote: “The Village is very conveniently situated to some of the best halibut and herring fisheries, and is within easy reach of the waters most frequented by the fur Seal and sea Otter.”4 In describing Kumowdah 3, O’Reilly wrote: “Except for the fishery, and some good timber, the land is of little value only one small garden has been cultivated, which it would be difficult to enlarge.”5
7. In addition to the written description, O’Reilly also provided a sketch of each reserve. The sketch of Kumowdah 3, reproduced in Figure 2 below, indicated its boundaries and noted some of the principal features of a highly typically coastal reserve. Covering 190 acres, Kumowdah 3 surrounded a fresh water outflow. It included a small village and a cultivated plot, but fishing was the principal activity of the inhabitants and O’Reilly noted one fishing location on the map.
Figure 3 Indian Reserve Commissioner Peter O’Reilly’s sketch of Gitxaala Reserve Kumowdah 3, allotted 21 September 1882.
(Source: D. Harris, Landing Native Fisheries, 99.)
4 Field Minute, 7 November 1882, Federal Collection of Minutes of Decision, Correspondence and Sketches, vol. 10, (Peter O’Reilly *Indian Reserve Commissioner+ June 1882 to February 1885, File No. 29858, Vol. No. 4, [Reg No. B- 64645]), p. 163. 5 Ibid., p. 164.
4
(A37841)
8. For their part, the Gitxaala understood that this and the other reserve allotments secured to them their fisheries. In 1890, when a dispute arose over the presence of cannery boats in Lowe Inlet opposite Kumowdah 3, Chief Shukes told the local Department of Fisheries Guardian: “Judge O’Reilly gave this land and water to my people, I do not want any Whitemen to fish here please tell your chief I have fished at Low’s Inlet for 8 years. It is the principal support of myself and my people.”6 The dispute was resolved when the cannery agreed to purchase fish from Gitxaala fishers.
9. In 1891, O’Reilly returned to the north coast. He allotted fifteen more reserves to the Gitxaala, all but one of which he identified as fishing stations: “The reserves recently allotted are with one exception fishing stations, valuable to the Indians but barren and unsuitable for any other purpose.”7 Here, and in many other places on the coast, fish were the one resource that created the possibility of a viable local economy.
10. The Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of British Columbia allotted the final two Gitxaala reserves, identifying both of them as “fishing stations.” It also indicated that the only two Gitxaala reserves for which O’Reilly had not formally noted the importance of the fisheries—Grassy Inlet 2 and Kul 18—were also important parcels of land for fishing purposes.8
11. In sum, the formal record of the Indian reserve allotment process in British Columbia explicitly connects all twenty Gitxaala reserves with the Gitxaala fisheries. The land set aside as Indian reserve for the Gitxaala was premised on and presumed continuing access to the fisheries and other marine resources. Given the small land base and the nature of the land allotted, there was no possibility of sustaining a local economy without that access.
6 K. Morrison to T. Mowat, 21 August 1890, Department of Indian Affairs, RG 10, vol. 3828, file 60,926 (reel C- 10145), Library & Archives Canada. 7 Field Minute, 3 August 1891, Federal Collection of Minutes of Decision, Correspondence and Sketches, vol. 12, (P. O’Reilly) [Indian Reserve Commissioner], April 1889 to January 1892, File 29858, Vol. 6 [Reg. No. B-64647]), p. 18. 8 For a list of Gitxaala (Kitkatla) reserves and the reserve commission documents identifying their connection to the fisheries, see the table that accompanies D. Harris, Landing Native Fisheries, in Douglas C. Harris, “Indian Reserves Allotted for Fishing Purposes in British Columbia, 1849-1925” (2007), p. 39 (available online at: http://hdl.handle.net/2429/648).
5
(A37841)
Bibliography
Harris, Cole. Making Native Space: Colonialism, Resistance, and Reserves in British Columbia. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2002.
Harris, Douglas C. Landing Native Fisheries: Indian Reserves and Fishing Rights in British Columbia, 1849- 1925. UBC Press, 2008.
--. “Indian Reserves Allotted for Fishing Purposes in British Columbia, 1849-1925.” 2007.
Indian Reserve Commission. Federal Collection of Minutes of Decision, Correspondence and Sketches.
Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of British Columbia. Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of British Columbia. Victoria: Acme Press, 1916.
6
The University of British Columbia (A37841) Curriculum Vitae for Faculty Members
Date: September 22, 2011
1-4. Basic Information
Surname Harris First Name(s) Douglas C. Faculty Faculty of Law Address 1822 East Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z1 E-mail Address [email protected] Present Rank Nathan T. Nemetz Chair in Legal Since July 1, 2010 (Chair) History Associate Dean Graduate Studies & July 1, 2008 (Assoc. Research Dean)
5. Education a) Degrees
Institution Degree Major Dates
Start End
Osgoode Hall, York University Ph.D. Law (Legal History) Sep, 1998 Dec, 2004
University of British Columbia LL.M Law (Legal History) Sep, 1996 Jun, 1998
University of Toronto LL.B. Law Sep, 1990 May, 1993
University of British Columbia B.A. History Sep, 1984 May, 1990
Title, Dissertation and Name of Supervisor: PhD (York, Osgoode Hall) “Land, Fish, and Law: The Legal Geography of Indian Reserves and Native Fisheries in British Columbia, 1850-1927," Dr. Douglas Hay (supervisor) LLM (UBC Law) "The Legal Capture of British Columbia’s Fisheries: A Study of Law and Colonialism,” Dr. W. Wesley Pue (supervisor)
6. Employment Record a) Work prior to coming to UBC
Employer Faculty Position Dates
Start End
York University Osgoode Hall Law School Graduate Teaching Fellow Jan, 2000 Apr, 2000
York University Osgoode Hall Law School Graduate Assistant Sep, 1998 Apr, 2000
Swinton & Company Articled Student/Lawyer Nov, 1994 May, 1995
Downtown Legal Services Student Legal Clinic Worker May, 1992 Aug, 1992 b) At UBC
Employer Faculty Position Dates
Start End UBC Law Associate Dean Graduate Studies & Research Jan 1, 2010 UBC Law Associate Dean Graduate Studies & Research July 1, 2008 Jun 30, 2009 UBC Law Associate Professor July 1, 2007
UBC Law Assistant Professor July 1, 2001 Jun 30, 2007
Curriculum Vitae for Douglas C. Harris -- Page 1
Employer Faculty Position Dates(A37841)
Start End
UBC Law Teaching Assistant Sep 1, 1997 Dec 31, 1997
UBC Law Teaching Assistant Sep 1, 1996 Apr 30, 1997 c) Date of granting of tenure at UBC
June 2007
7. Leaves of Absence Sabbatical Leave July – December 2009 Sabbatical Leave January – June 2008 Parental Leave September – November 2007
8. Teaching & Supervision a) Courses Taught at UBC
Session Course Enrollment Hours Taught
Lecture Seminar Lab Other 2010/11W LAW 130 Property Law 46 3
2009/10W LAW 311 Property Law & Theory 13 3 2008/09W LAW 130 Property Law 45 3
2006/07W LAW 130 Property Law 42 3
2006/07W LAW 311 Property Law & Theory 13 3
2006/07W LAW 396 Fisheries Law 10 3
2005/06W LAW 211 Real Property 26 3
2005/06W LAW 315 Topics in Legal History: Environmental Legal 15 3 History
2005/06W LAW 458 Topics in Real Property: Theories of Property 16 3
2004/05W LAW 211 Real Property 24 3
2004/05W LAW 396 Fisheries Law 7 2
2004/05W LAW 458 Topics in Real Property: Theories of Property 9 3
2003/04W LAW 211 Real Property 78 3
2003/04W LAW 458 Topics in Real Property: Theoretical 11 3 Approaches to Property Law
2002/03W LAW 211 Real Property 28 3
2002/03W LAW 358 Topics in First Nations Law: Law and 12 4 Colonialism
2001/02W LAW 211 Real Property 78 3 b) Directed Research
Session Course Enrollment Hours Taught
Lecture Tutorial Lab Other 2009/10 LAW 501 1 2008/09W LAW 493 1
2006/07W LAW 495 1
2005/06W LAW 493 1
2005/06W LAW 493 3
2004/05W LAW 493 1
Curriculum Vitae for Douglas C. Harris -- Page 2 c) Graduate Students Supervised (A37841)
Student Degree Major Status Institution Role Dates
Start End Jennifer Sankey Ph.D. Law In progress UBC Supervisor Sep, 2011 Kirsty Howey LL.M. Law In Progress UBC Supervisor Sep, 2009
Michael Begg Ph.D. Law In Progress UBC Supervisor Sep, 2007
Timothy Dickson LL.M Law Withdrew UBC Supervisor Sep, 2006 w/d 2009
Michael Begg LL.M Law Completed UBC Supervisor Sep, 2005 Oct, 2007
Steve McGilligan Ph.D. Law ABD UBC Supervisor Sep, 2004 w/d 2011
Kelly Russ LL.M Law Completed UBC Supervisor Sep, 2004 Apr, 2006
Catherine Chow LL.M Law Completed UBC Supervisor Sep, 2002 Oct 2007
Lyn Crompton LL.M Law Completed UBC Supervisor Sep, 2000 Dec, 2006
Karen Gee LL.M Law Completed UBC Supervisor Sep, 1998 Aug, 2004 d) Graduate Students Committee Member
Student Degree Major Status Institution Dates Supervisor
Start End Bianca Shierer LL.M. Law In progress UBC J. Blom Peipei Wang Ph.D. Law In Progress UBC 09/2009 S. Hsu Jessica Place Ph.D. Geography Candidate SFU 09/2009 N. Blomley Andrea Hilland LL.M. Law In Progress UBC 09/2009 D. Johnston Kurt Mundorf Ph.D. Law In Progress UBC 09/2007 K. Mickelson
Christina Cook Ph.D. Resources, Candidate UBC 09/2006 K. Bakker Environment & Sustainability David Millward Ph.D. Law Completed UBC 09/2005 10/2009 G. Christie
Jonathan Ph.D. Geography Candidate UBC 09/2005 11/2011 M. Evenden Peyton
Kirsten Manley- Ph.D. Law Candidate UBC 09/2005 G. Christie Casimir
Richard Ouellet Ph.D. Interdisciplinary Candidate UBC 09/2005 On B. Miller Studies leave
Joanna Reid Ph.D. Geography Candidate UBC 09/2004 10/2010 T. Barnes
John Thistle Ph.D. Geography Completed UBC 09/2004 05/2009 G. Wynn
Emma Norman Ph.D. Geography Completed UBC 09/2003 05/2009 K. Bakker & M. Evenden
Ardith Walkem LL.M Law Completed UBC 09/2001 08/2005 M. Jackson
Brooke Hall LL.M Law Completed UBC 09/2001 08/2002 M. Jackson
Dorothee Ph.D. Resource Completed UBC 09/2000 05/2003 L. Lavkulich Schreiber Management
e) Course Development
Title Organization Where Date First Dates Co-developers First Taught Taught Start End
Fisheries Law UBC Sep, 2004 Jun, 2004 Sep, 2004
Theories of Property UBC Jan, 2004 May, 2003 Jan, 2004
Environmental Legal History UBC Sep, 2005 May, 2005 Sep, 2005
Curriculum Vitae for Douglas C. Harris -- Page 3 9. Scholarly and Professional Activities (A37841) a) Research or equivalent grants (indicate under COMP whether grants were obtained competitively (C) or non-competitively (NC))
Granting Agency Project Title COMP Amount Years Investigators
Start End SSHRC, Partnership Overcoming Barriers to the C 214,000 2011 2013 L. Pinkerton, PI; Development Grant Exercise of Aboriginal D.C. Harris, Rights to Healthy Clam Collaborator Fisheries: Learning through Partnerships Canadian Federation Landing Native Fisheries: C 8,000 2008 2008 D.C. Harris for the Humanities and Indian Reserves and Social Sciences, Aid to Fishing Rights in British Scholarly Publications Columbia, 1849-1925
SSHRC Property, Law, and the C 58,775 2008 2011 D.C. Harris Making of False Creek
UBC Faculty of Law, Property, Law, and the C 5,000 2007 D.C. Harris Class of ‘68 Making of False Creek
UBC Land, Fish, and Law: The C 3,000 2005 2006 D.C. Harris Legal Geography of Indian Reserves and Aboriginal Fisheries
UBC Faculty of Law Aboriginal Fisheries and NC 6,650 2004 2005 D.C. Harris Teaching Materials
UBC Faculty of Law First Nations Documents NC 2,090 2004 2004 D.C. Harris
UBC Faculty of Law Rethinking Property Law NC 3,000 2003 2004 D.C. Harris, K. Mickelson and P. Ramsay
UBC Provincial Fisheries C 2001 2002 D.C. Harris Regulations
Canadian Federation Fish, Law, and Colonialism: C 2000 2001 D.C. Harris for the Humanities and The Legal Capture of Social Sciences, Aid to Salmon in British Columbia Scholarly Publications
Social Sciences and Coasts Under Stress C 5,000,000 2000 2005 R. Omer, D.C. Harris, Humanities Research et. al. Council of Canada (SSHRC)
Osgoode Society for History of Herring Spawn- C 500 1999 1999 D.C. Harris Canadian Legal on-Kelp Fishery Regulation History
Osgoode Society for Lake Babine Barricades C 500 1997 1997 D.C. Harris Canadian Legal Research History b) Research or equivalent contracts (indicate under COMP whether grants were obtained competitively (C) or non-competitively (NC))
Granting Agency Project Title COMP Amount Years Investigators
Start End
The Scow Institute for Aboriginal Rights to NC 5,000 2004 2005 D.C. Harris Communicating Information on Fish in British Aboriginal Issues Columbia c) Presentations
(i) Invited Presentations
Curriculum Vitae for Douglas C. Harris -- Page 4 1. “Aboriginal Rights to Fish in British Columbia,” guest lecture, FISH 520, Fisheries Centre, UBC,(A37841) 12 September 2011. 2. “Herring Spawn Licences, R. v. Gladstone, and Aboriginal Rights to Fish,” The Herring School Workshop, SFU, 1 September 2011. 3. Author meets readers: Nicholas Blomley, Rights of Passage: Sidewalks and the Regulation of Public Flow (New York: Abingdon/Routledge, 2010), UBC Law & Society, 10 March 2011. 4. “Empowered or Too Much Power,” UBC Dialogues, UBC Alumni Association, 13 October 2010. 5. “Aboriginal Fisheries, Indian Reserves and the Public Right to Fish,” PROBUS Club, Chilliwack, BC, 27 May 2010. 6. “Characterizing Aboriginal and Treaty Rights to Fish from Sparrow to Ahousaht,” Western Canada Aboriginal Law Forum, Insight Information, Vancouver, 12 May 2010. 7. “Property and the City: Condominium and Vancouver,” Private Property, Planning, and the Public Interest, Faculty of Law, Windsor, 12 March 2010. 8. “Aboriginal Peoples and their Rights to Canadian Fisheries,” Musqueam 101, Vancouver, 18 November 2009. 9. “Fishing for Principles: Fisheries Laws and Aboriginal Rights on Canada’s Pacific,” Sami Rights in Coastal Landscapes and Seascapes, Faculty of Law and Centre for Sami Studies, University of Tromso, Norway, 22 April 2009. 10. “Contested Fisheries: Aboriginal Rights, Indian Reserves and the Public Right to Fish,” PROBUS Club, Vancouver, 7 April 2009. 11. “Landing Native Fisheries,” UBC, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, Vancouver, 4 February 2009. 12. “Landing Native Fisheries,” University of Toronto, Dept. of Anthropology, Toronto, 19 November 2008. 13. “Landing Native Fisheries,” Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Vancouver, 26 June 2008. 14. “Condominium in the City,” Canadian History and Environment Summer School, Vancouver, 1 June 2008. 15. “Aboriginal Title: From Delgamuukw to Tsilhqot’in Nation,” Western Canada Aboriginal Law Forum, Insight Information, Vancouver, 14 May 2008. 16. “Landing Native Fisheries,” Fraser River Aboriginal Fisheries Secretariat, Chehalis, 9 April 2008. 17. “Property, Law, and the Making of False Creek: Strata Title in the City,” UBC Geography Department Faculty Colloquium, Vancouver, 8 April 2008. 18. “Landing Native Fisheries,” Canadian Bar Association, Aboriginal Law Subsection, Victoria, 5 March 2008. 19. “Douglas Treaty Rights to Fish,” Tsawout First Nation, Saanichton, 26 February 2008. 20. “Treaty Rights to Fish in British Columbia,” Salt Spring Islanders for Justice and Reconciliation, Salt Spring Island, 18 October 2007. 21. “The Nlaka’pamux Meeting at Lytton, 1879, and the Rule of Law,” The Fraser River War Symposium, Pathways to Gold Society, Lytton, 22 September 2007. 22. “A Tale of Two Treaties: Fishing Rights and Moderate Livelihoods from the United States to Canada,” University of Manitoba Faculty of Law, Winnipeg, March 2007. 23. “Landing Aboriginal Fisheries: Properties of Land and Fish in the Construction of an Indian Reserve Geography,” Law & Society Research Cluster Speaker Series, University of Manitoba, Institute for the Humanities, Winnipeg, March 2007. 24. “Aboriginal and Treaty Rights to Fish,” Pacific Salmon Treaty Workshop, Okanagan Nation Alliance, Westbank First Nation, March 2007. 25. “Aboriginal and Treaty Rights to Fish,” Environmental Law and Canada’s First Nations, Pacific Business and Law Institute, Vancouver, March 2007. 26. “Transcending Borders: Pacific Salmon and Interdisciplinary Approaches to Fisheries Conservation and Workshop,” The Bill Lance Centre for the Study of the North American West, Stanford University, Palo Alto, February 2007. 27. “Towards a Legal and Environmental History of False Creek,” Environmental Law Speaker Series, UBC, Vancouver, October 2006. 28. “The Properties of Land and Fish in the Making of Native Space and an Indian Food Fishery,” Settler Colonialism in Canada: A Workshop on the Contribution of R. Cole Harris to the Historical Geography of Canada,” Department of Geography, UBC, Vancouver, June 2006. 29. “Law, Science, and Society,” Fisheries 503: Science and Society in Aquatic Policy, UBC, Vancouver, March 2006.
Curriculum Vitae for Douglas C. Harris -- Page 5 30. “An Introduction to Fisheries Law,” Biology 478 – Earth and Ocean Sciences, UBC, Vancouver,(A37841) February 2006. 31. “Washington State Indian Treaty Rights to Fish – Their Impact and Potential in British Columbia,” Musqueam 101, Vancouver, January 2006. 32. “First Nations, Natural Resources, and the Law in British Columbia,” Geography 317 Physical Environments of BC, UBC, Vancouver, November 2005. 33. “Aboriginal Rights,” Law 340 Indian Lands, Rights, and Governance, Victoria, October 2005. 34. “Frontiers, Fisheries, and the Making of a Colonial Legal Geography in British Columbia,” Geospeakers Lecture Series, Simon Fraser University, Department of Geography, Burnaby, September 2005. 35. “Fish Weirs, Indian Reserves, and Aboriginal Rights to Fish in British Columbia,” Department of Justice Professional Development Workshop, Aboriginal Litigation Group, Duncan, February 2005. 36. “Response to Peter Fitzpatrick’s ‘We know what it is when you do not ask us: The Unchallengeable Nation,’” St. John’s College Challenging Nation Lecture Series, UBC, Vancouver, March 2004. 37. “The Legal Geographies of Aboriginal Fishing Rights in British Columbia,” Nature/History/Society Speaker Series, UBC, Vancouver, January 2004. 38. “Understanding Aboriginal Fishing Rights in Anglo-Canadian Law: An Historical Overview,” Fisheries Policy Dialogue Forum, British Columbia Aboriginal Fisheries Commission, Richmond, December 2003. 39. “How Can Historians Help Find Facts?” National Justice Institute, BCSC and BCCA Education Seminar, Vancouver, March 2003. 40. “Treaties, Reserves, and Fisheries,” Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Vancouver, January 2003. 41. “Aboriginal Fisheries Law II,” Musqueam 101, Vancouver, January 2003. 42. “Aboriginal Fisheries Law I,” Musqueam 101, Vancouver, October 2002. 43. “Aboriginal Fisheries and Anglo-Canadian Law,” Aboriginal Rights to Water, Water Resources, and the Seabed Conference, Pacific Business and Law Institute, Vancouver, February 2002. 44. “Indian Reserves and Aboriginal Fisheries,” Ratcliffe & Company Aboriginal Law Practice Group, North Vancouver, February 2002.
(ii) Other Presentations
1. “A Railway, a City, and the Doctrine of Constructive Taking: Private Property and Public Regulation in Canada,” Planning, Law, and Property Rights Conference, Edmonton, Alberta, 26 May 2011. 2. “Property Law & the City,” Hong Kong University, School of Law, 26 April 2011. 3. “Condominium & the City: The Rise of Property in Vancouver,” American Association of Geographers, Seattle, 13 April 2011. 4. “A Railway, a City, and the Doctrine of Constructive Taking: Public Regulation and the Limits of Private Property,” UBC, Faculty of Law Colloquium, 11 March 2011. 5. “Condominium & the City: The Rise of Property in Vancouver,” Association for Law, Property & Society, Washington D.C., 5 March 2011. 6. “Food Fish, Commercial Fish, and Fish to Support a Moderate Livelihood,” Emerging Scholars Workshop, Saskatoon, 3 May 2010. 7. “Comment on Renisa Mawani’s Colonial Proximities,” Author meet critics, UBC Law & Society, Vancouver, 7 April 2010. 8. “Finding Nemo Dat in the Land Title Act,” Faculty Presentation Day, UBC Law, Vancouver, 29 March 2010. 9. “Property and Sovereignty: An Indian Reserve in a Canadian City,” Association for Law, Property, Law & Society Conference, ALPS, Washington, D.C., 5 March 2010. 10. “A Court Between: Aboriginal & Treaty Rights in the BCCA,” UBC Law Colloquium, Vancouver, 14 January 2010. 11. “Condominium: The Rise of Property in the City,” World Congress of Environmental History, Copenhagen, 6 August 2009. 12. “Property Law Roundtable,” Canadian Association of Law Teachers Annual Meeting, Ottawa, 25 May 2009. 13. “Aboriginal & Treaty Rights in the BC Court of Appeal,” Canadian Law & Society Association Annual Meeting, Ottawa, 24 May 2009. 14. “Condominium: The Rise of Property in the City,” Western Canadian Emerging Scholars, Winnipeg, 7 May 2009.
Curriculum Vitae for Douglas C. Harris -- Page 6 15. “Condominium: The Rise of Property in Vancouver,” BC Studies Conference, Victoria, 1 May(A37841) 2009. 16. “Private and Common Property in the Construction of Indian Reserves and Food Fisheries,” Society for Environmental Law & Economics, Vancouver, 27 March 2009. 17. “Condominium: The Rise of Property in the City,” Speaker Series, Toronto Legal History Group, Toronto, 18 November 2008. 18. “Condominium: The Rise of Property in the City,” Legal Theory Workshop, McGill, 22 October 2008. 19. “Imposing Common Property: Mare Liberum and Public Rights to Fish,” Colonial Commons Conference, UBC, Vancouver, 29 May 2008. 20. “Landscapes of Property in the City,” Jane’s Walk and Think City, Vancouver, 3 May 2008. 21. “Landing Native Fisheries,” Speaker Series, Toronto Legal History Group, Toronto, 26 March 2008. 22. “Land, Property, and Condominium in the City,” Law & History Workshop, Pender Island, 9 February 2008. 23. “Law’s Uniform: Resistance With Authority in Nootka Sound,” West Coast Law & Society Retreat, Hawaii, January 2008. 24. “Property and the Making of Place,” Law & Society Association, Berlin, July 2007. 25. “Property Law Professors Roundtable: ‘Commodification and Commons: The Changing Property Law Agenda,’” Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canadian Association of Law Teachers, Saskatoon, May 2007. 26. “Customary Law,” Law & Society Speaker Series, Faculty of Law, UBC, Vancouver, September 2006. 27. “Borders, Treaties, and Unacknowledged Origins: Fishing Rights in Washington State and Canada,” Legal Intersections, Canadian Law & Society Association, Toronto, June 2006. 28. “Towards a Legal and Environmental History of the Polis,” Expanding the Polis: Law’s Engagement and Location, Canadian Association of Law Teachers, May 2006. 29. “The Legal Geography of Indian Reserves and Food Fisheries in British Columbia: Towards a Legal and Environmental History,” Rivers Run Through Them: Landscapes in Environmental History, American Society for Environmental History, St. Paul, April 2006. 30. “Salmon as Property: Public and Aboriginal Rights,” Law & Society Speaker Series, Faculty of Law, UBC, February 2006. 31. “The Origins and Legacies of Aboriginal Rights to Fish in R. v. Gladstone,” Reconsidering R. v. Gladstone: Aboriginal Rights to Fish Since 1996, Vancouver, October 2005. 32. “Mapping a Colonial Legal Geography of Land and Fish,” Law’s Empire, Canadian Law and Society Association, Harrison Hot Springs, June 2005. 33. “Treaty Rights to Fish in British Columbia and Cross-Border Influences from Washington State,” Pacific Northwest Indian Treaties in National and International Historical Perspective, Seattle, May 2005. 34. “Aboriginal Fisheries in Canadian Courts,” World Fisheries Congress, Vancouver, May 2004. 35. “The Legal Geography of Indian Reserves and Aboriginal Fisheries in 19th Century British Columbia,” Annual Conference, American Society for Environmental History, Victoria, April 2004. 36. “Indigenous Territoriality and Aboriginal Rights to Fish,” Fisheries Centre Speaker Series, UBC, Vancouver, November 2003. 37. “Race, Rights, Reaction: A Roundtable on Aboriginal Fisheries and Recent Court Decisions,” Law & Society Speaker Series, Faculty of Law, UBC, November 2003. 38. “Historians and Courts: R. v. Marshall and Mi’kmaq Treaties on Trial,” Annual Conference, Canadian Law & Society Association, Halifax, June 2003. 39. “Aboriginal Fisheries, Indian Reserves, and Anglo-Canadian Law,” Fisheries Centre, UBC, Vancouver, September 2002. 40. “Indian Reserves, Fisheries Law, and the Spatial Strategies of a Settler Society,” The Reach of Law, Law & Society Association and Canadian Law & Society Association, Vancouver, June 2002. 41. “Law’s Uniform: Resistance With Authority in Nootka Sound,” Postcolonial Legal Studies Conference, Manning Park, June 2002. 42. “The Cowichan Salmon Fisheries,” Book launch, Volume One Bookstore, Duncan, January 2002. 43. “Native Fish Weirs, Local Magistrates, and Law in the Cowichan Valley,” Faculty Seminar Series, Faculty of Law, UBC, Vancouver, September 2001. 44. “Territorial Explorations: Connecting Fish, Law, & Space in B.C.,” Law & Society Speaker Series, Faculty of Law, UBC, Vancouver, September 2001.
Curriculum Vitae for Douglas C. Harris -- Page 7 45. “Fish, First Nations, and the Law of Master and Servant in Nineteenth Century British Columbia,”(A37841) Society Association Annual Meeting, Lake Louise, June 2000. 46. “Imprisonment for Breach of Contract: Master and Servant Law in British Columbia’s Fisheries,” Toronto Legal History Group, Toronto, March 2000. 47. “Fishing Rights: West Coast Developments,” Encounter Canada Conference: Aboriginal and Treaty Rights, York University, Toronto, March 2000. 48. “Constructed Fisheries: Categories of exclusion on the Pacific Coast,” Annual Conference, Canadian Law & Society Association, Sherbrooke, June 1999. 49. “Law and Colonialism, and British Columbia,” Mid-Winter Meeting, Canadian Law & Society Association, Vancouver, January 1999. 50. “The Law Runs Through It: fish weirs, sport fishing, seine nets and lumber mills on the Cowichan River,” Empires/Colonies/Legal Cultures Conference, Australia and New Zealand Law & History Association and the Canadian Law & Society Association, Melbourne, July 1998. 51. “Catching Fish with Law: Colonizing the West Coast Fishery,” Mid-Winter Meeting, Canadian Law & Society Association, Vancouver, January 1998. 52. “Babine Fish Weirs and Canadian Law in Early Twentieth Century British Columbia,” Annual Conference, Canadian Law & Society Association, Saint John’s, July 1997. 53. “Legal Narratives and Fishing Rights: The Babine Fishery Dispute, 1904-1906,” Law & Power in the Margins: Voices Beyond the Centres Graduate Student Conference, Faculty of Law, UBC, Vancouver, May 1997. 54. “Infringing the Aboriginal Right to a Commercial Fishery: An Analysis of R. v. Gladstone,” The Sto:lo – People of the River Conference, Sto:lo Nation, Chilliwack, May 1997.
d) Conferences and Other Events
(i) Administration/Organization
Role Activity Dates Conference or Event Organization Event Dates
Start End Start End Convener Sept April Law Faculty Colloquium UBC Law Sept April 2010 2011 2010 2011 Convener Jan March Faculty Presentation Day UBC Law Mar 29, Mar 29, 2010 2010 2010 2010 Convener Sept April Faculty Presentation Day UBC Law April 6, April 6, 2008 2009 2009 2009 Convener August March Law Faculty Colloquium UBC Law Sept. March 2008 2009 2008 2009 Co-Convener May June The Colonial Commons Wollongong, UBC, and May 29, May 30, 2007 2008 Network in Cdn. History 2008 2008 & Environment
Convener Oct, Oct, Rethinking R. v. Gladstone: UBC Law Oct 12, Oct 14, 2004 2005 Aboriginal Rights to Fish 2005 2005 Since 1996
Convener Oct, Aug, Law and Power in the Faculty of Law, UBC May 9, May 10, 1996 1997 Margins: Voices Beyond the 1997 1997 Centre Graduate Student Conference
Convener Oct, Jul, Law's Colonies: Legal Faculty of Law, UBC May 13, May 14, 1998 1999 Spaces and the Geographies 1999 1999 of Power Graduate Student Conference
Convener Sep, Jun, Law and History Workshop Faculty of Law, UBC May 26, May 29, 2001 2002 2002 2002
Convener Mar, Mar, Rethinking Property Law Faculty of Law, UBC Sep, Mar, 2003 2004 2003 2004
Faculty Supervisor May, Oct, Orientation Week Faculty of Law, UBC Sep, Sep, 2004 2004 2004 2004
Convener Dec, Law Faculty Colloquium Faculty of Law, UBC Jan,
Curriculum Vitae for Douglas C. Harris -- Page 8
Role Activity Dates Conference or Event Organization (A37841)Event Dates
Start End Start End
2004 2005
Faculty Supervisor May, Oct, Orientation Week Faculty of Law, UBC Sep 6, Sep 10, 2005 2005 2005 2005
Faculty Supervisor May, Oct, Orientation Week Faculty of Law, UBC Sep 5, Sep 9, 2006 2006 2006 2006
10. Service to the University a) Memberships on committees
Type Committee Name Role Dates
Start End UBC Associate Dean’s Research Committee Member January 2010 Grad Studies Graduate Council Member January 2010 Grad Studies Curriculum Committee Member January 2010 Grad Studies Academic Policy Committee Member January 2010 Law Strategic Planning Committee Member January 2010 Law Graduate Committee Chair January 2010 Law Research Committee Member January 2010 UBC Associate Dean’s Research Committee Member Sep 2008 June 2009 Grad Studies Graduate Studies Strategic Enrolment Planning Member Sep 2008 June 2009 Grad Studies Academic Policy Committee Member Sep 2008 June 2009 Grad Studies Graduate Council Member Sep 2008 June 2009 Law Research Committee Member Sep, 2008 June 2009 Law Graduate Committee Chair Sep, 2008 June 2009
Law Graduate Committee Member Sep, 2006 Aug, 2007
Law Appointments Member Aug, 2006 Aug, 2007
Law First Nations Law Member Sep, 2005 Aug, 2006
Law Curriculum Committee Member Sep, 2004 Aug, 2006
Law Graduate Member Sep, 2004 Aug, 2005
Law Appointments Member Sep, 2003 Aug, 2004
Law Technology Member Sep, 2003 Aug, 2004
Law Admissions Member Sep, 2002 Aug, 2003
UBC Faculty of Law Dean Search Member Sep, 2002 Aug, 2003
Law Nineteenth Century Studies Member Sep, 2002 Aug, 2003
Law Faculty Advisory Member Sep, 2001 Aug, 2002
Law First Nations Law Member Sep, 2001 Aug, 2002
11. Service to the Community a) Editorships
Position Journal Dates
Start End Editorial Board Arctic Review on Law and Policy 2009
Associate Editor (Case Comments) BC Studies 2008 b) Offices Held
Organization Office Name Dates
Start End
Curriculum Vitae for Douglas C. Harris -- Page 9
Organization Office Name (A37841)Dates
Start End
Canadian Law and Society Association Graduate Student Representative 1998 2000 c) Reviewer/Referee
(i) Journal Reviewing/Refereeing
Journal Press # Reviewed Dates or Refereed Start End Osgoode Hall Law Review 1 Nov 2011 Nov 2011 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 1 Aug 2011 Aug 2011 Alberta Law Review 1 Aug 2011 Aug 2011 BC Studies 2 July 2011 July 2011 Osgoode Hall Law Review 1 July 2011 July 2011 SSHRC Standard Research Grant Review 1 Jan 2011 Jan 2011 Canadian Journal of Law & Society 1 May 2010 May 2010 SSHRC Standard Research Grant Review 1 Feb 2010 Feb 2010 Journal of Historical Geography 1 Dec 2009 Dec 2009 Alberta Law Review 1 July 2009 July 2009 Ottawa Law Review 1 April 2009 April 2009 McGill Law Journal 1 Jan. 2009 Jan. 2009 SSHRC Standard Research Grant Review 1 Jan. 2009 Jan. 2009 Journal of Canadian Studies 1 Nov. 2008 Nov. 2008 Law & Social Inquiry 1 Nov. 2008 Nov. 2008 Ecology & Society 1 Sept. 2008 Sept. 2008 UBC Law Review 1 Sept. 2008 Sept. 2008 Canadian Legal Education Annual Review 1 Jan, 2008 Jan, 2008 Canadian Historical Review 1 Nov, 2007 Nov, 2007
Atlantic Studies 1 Nov, 2006 Nov, 2006
Constitutional Forum 1 Aug, 2006 Aug, 2006
University of British Columbia Law Review 1 Aug, 2006 Aug, 2006
BC Studies 1 Nov, 2004 Nov, 2004
U. Nebraska Press 1 Mar, 2004 Apr, 2004
Journal of Canadian Studies 1 Dec, 2003 Dec, 2003
McGill Law Journal 1 Jul, 2003 Jul, 2003
UBC Law Review 1 Jul, 2003 Jul, 2003
Alberta Law Review 1 May, 2003 May, 2003
Law, Social Justice and Global Development 1 Jan, 2003 Jan, 2003
BC Studies 1 Jan, 2003 Jan, 2003
Constitutional Forum 1 Nov, 2002 Nov, 2002
Ottawa Law Review 1 Jun, 2002 Jun, 2002
UBC Press 2 Apr, 2002 Sep, 2002
Alberta Law Review 1 Apr, 2002 Apr, 2002
BC Studies 1 Jan, 2002 Jan, 2002
UBC Law Review 1 Jan, 2002 Jan, 2002 d) External and University examiner
1. Felix Hohen, “The Emerging Equality Paradigm in Aboriginal Law,” external examiner, LLM thesis, University of Saskatchewan, March 2011.
Curriculum Vitae for Douglas C. Harris -- Page 10 2. Virginia Anne Falk, external examiner, PhD (Law), Macquarie University, Australia, April 2010.(A37841)
3. Guy Charlton, external examiner, PhD (Law), University of Auckland, New Zealand, May 2009.
4. Susan Roy, university examiner, PhD (History), UBC, January 2007.
5. Dawn Mills, university examiner, PhD (Interdisciplinary Studies), UBC, April 2005. e) Consultant
1. Ontario College of Graduate Schools, Graduate Program Review, Carleton University, Department of Law: On site review and written evaluation of proposed PhD in Legal Studies and existing Graduate Diploma in Dispute Resolution, January 31-February 1, 2011.
f) Interviews
(i) Broadcast
Topic Interviewer Program Network First Broadcast Cohen Commission in the Decline Charles Boylan Wake Up with Co- Vancouver Co- July 15, 2011 of the Fraser River Sockeye op op Radio Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Greg Rasmussen CBC National CBC Nov 22, 2007 Columbia, BCSC decision Radio News
Aboriginal Protests in Ontario and Mark Forsythe BC Almanac CBC Radio One Apr 21, 2006 the BC Treaty Process Vancouver
Aboriginal Fishing Rights Joanne Roberts All Points West CBC Radio One Jul 12, 2006 Victoria
Fish, Law, and Colonialism: The Rafe Mair The Rafe Mair CKNW Radio Jun 10, 2002 Legal Capture of Salmon in British Show Columbia
(ii) Textual
Topic Interviewer Forum Publication Date Michigan Spill Hurts Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Gregory Gethard Oil Daily August 25, 2010 Pipeline Project Ottawa, First Nations Spar Over Sockeye Adrian Nieoczym Globe & Mail August 22, 2010 Can There Be a Salmon People Without Wild Kim Petersen The Dominion July 9, 2010 Salmon (http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/3539) Nisga’a Take Leap into Economics of Real Estate Justine Hunter Globe & Mail Nov 19, 2009 B.C. Turns to Courts after Negotiations Fail in Robert Matas Globe & Mail Feb 26, 2009 Landmark Case
Eagle Poaching Case May Face Charter Test James Weldon North Shore News Aug 31, 2005
Court to Rule on Rights of Natives in Land Cases Terri Theodore Globe & Mail Mar 24, 2004 f) Other Service to the Community
1. Junior Girls Soccer Coach, Point Grey Soccer Club, 2010 - present 2. Junior Boys & Girls Field Hockey Coach, Vancouver Hawks Field Hockey Club, 2006 – present 3. University Hill Preschool, Board Member, 2009-2011. 4. Field Hockey Canada, Men’s National Team Committee, Committee Member, 2000 – 2003.
12. Awards and Distinctions a) Awards for Teaching 1. Nominated for Faculty Teaching Award, 2007
Curriculum Vitae for Douglas C. Harris -- Page 11 2. Nominated for Killam Teaching Award, 2006 (A37841) b) Awards for Scholarship 1. Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History, John T. Saywell Prize for Canadian Constitutional Legal History for Landing Native Fisheries: Indian Reserves and Fishing Rights in British Columbia, 1849-1925 (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2009), June 2011. 2. British Columbia Historical Federation, “Honourable Mention” Citation for Landing Native Fisheries: Indian Reserves and Fishing Rights in British Columbia, 1849-1925 (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2008), May 2009. 3. York University, PhD Dissertation Prize for “Land, Fish, and Law: The Legal Geography of Indian Reserves and Native Fisheries in British Columbia, 1850-1927," Dr. Douglas Hay (supervisor), June 2005. 4. British Columbia Historical Federation, “Certificate of Honour” for Fish, Law, and Colonialism: The Legal Capture of Salmon in British Columbia (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001), May 2001. 5. Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History Book Prize, Faculty of Law, UBC, 1997. c) Fellowships and Scholarships 1. Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Study, Early Career Scholar Award, $5000, 2003-04. 2. British Columbia Law Foundation, Graduate Fellowship, $12,000, 2000-01. 3. York University, Academic Excellence Award, $2,000, 1999-2000. 4. York University, Graduate Fellowship of Academic Distinction, $45,000, 1998-99 to 2000-01. 5. British Columbia Law Foundation, Graduate Fellowship, $12,000, 1998-99. 6. British Columbia Heritage Trust, Graduate Scholarship, $2000, 1998. 7. University of British Columbia, Faculty of Law, BC Law Foundation Fellowship, 1996-97.
Curriculum Vitae for Douglas C. Harris -- Page 12 (A37841)
Publications & Other Scholarly Output
Refereed Publications
Books 1. Landing Native Fisheries: Indian Reserves and Fishing Rights in British Columbia, 1849-1925 (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2008) 266 pages. 2. Fish, Law, and Colonialism: The Legal Capture of Salmon in British Columbia (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001) 306 pages.
Journal Articles 1. “Condominium and the City: The Rise of Property in Vancouver” (2011) 36 Law & Social Inquiry 694-726. 2. Douglas Harris and Peter Millerd, “Food Fish, Commercial Fish, and Fish to Support a Moderate Livelihood: Characterizing Aboriginal and Treaty Rights to Canadian Fisheries” (2010) 1 Arctic Review on Law and Policy 82-107. 3. “A Court Between: Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in the British Columbia Court of Appeal” (2009) 162 BC Studies 137-64. 4. "Territoriality, Aboriginal Rights, and the Heiltsuk Spawn-on-Kelp Fishery" (2000) 34 University of British Columbia Law Review 195 - 238. 5. "Webbing the Pacific – Teaching an Intercontinental Legal History Course". Law and History Review. 18.2 (2000): 445 – 456, co-authored with John McLaren, W Wesley Pue, Simon Bronitt and Ian Holloway. 6. "The Nlha7kapmx Meeting at Lytton, 1879, and the Rule of Law" (1995) 108 BC Studies 5 - 25.
Book Chapters 1. “The Boldt Decision in Canada: Aboriginal Treaty Rights to Fish on the Pacific” in Alexandra Harmon, ed., The Power of Promises: Rethinking Indian Treaties in the Pacific Northwest (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2008) 128-153. 2. “A Social-Ecological History of Canada’s Fisheries” in Rosemary Ommer and the Coasts Under Stress Research Project Team, Coasts Under Stress: Restructuring and Social-Ecological Health (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press, 2007). (Credited with 10% of this chapter, particularly pages 42- 48.) 3. "Colonial Territoriality: The Spatial Restructuring of Native Land and Fisheries on the Pacific Coast" in Peter Sinclair & Rosemary Ommer, eds., Power and Restructuring: Shaping Coastal Society and Environment. (St. John's: Institute of Social and Economic Research, 2006) 35-53. 4. "Indian Reserves, Aboriginal Fisheries and the Public Right to Fish in British Columbia, 1876-1882" in John McLaren, A.R. Buck and Nancy E Wright, eds., Despotic Dominion: Property Rights in British Settler Societies (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2005) 266-293.
Case Comments 1. Douglas Harris and Karin Mickelson, “Finding Nemo Dat in the Land Title Act: A Comment on Gill v. Bucholtz” (2012) 45 UBC Law Review (forthcoming).
Unrefereed Publications
Journal Articles 1. "Indefeasible Title in British Columbia: A Comment on the November 2005 Amendments to the Land Title Act". The Advocate. 64.4 (July 2006): 529-537.
Book Chapters 1. “Aboriginal Rights to Fish in British Columbia” in Robert B. Anderson and Robert M. Bone, eds., Natural Resources and Aboriginal Peoples in Canada, 2nd Edition (Concorde, Ontario: Captus Press, 2009). (Originally prepared for the Scow Institute.)
Curriculum Vitae for Douglas C. Harris -- Page 13 2. "Indigenous Territoriality in Canadian Courts". Box of Treasures or Empty Box?: Twenty Years(A37841) of Section 35. Ed. Ardith Wlakem and Halie Bruce. Penticton, B.C.: Theytus Books, 2003. 176–194.
Book Reviews 1. Review of: Nicholas Blomley, Rights of Passage: Sidewalks and the Regulation of Public Flow (2010) in (2011) 20 Social & Legal Studies (forthcoming). 2. Review of: Greg Taylor. The Law of the Land: The Advent of the Torrens System in Canada (2008) in (2010) 43 UBC Law Review 259-267. 3. Review of: Shepard, M.P. and A.W. Argue. The 1985 Pacific Salmon Treaty: Sharing Conservation Burdens and Benefits (2005) in (2006) 18.1 International Journal of Maritime History 447-448. 4. "Historians and Courts, R. v. Marshall and Mi’kmaq Treaties on Trial: A Review Essay". 2003. Review of: William W. Wicken. Mi'kmaq Treaties on Trial: History, Land, and Donald Marshall Junior. 2002. Canadian Journal of Law & Society. 18 (2003): pp. 123-131. 5. Review of: Jo-Anne Fiske and Betty Patrick. Cis Dideen Kat – When Plumes Rise: The Way of the Lake Babine Nation. 2000. BC Studies. 134 (July, 2002): pp. 99-100. 6. Review of: Roy Vogt. Whose Property? The Deepening Conflict between Private Property and Democracy in Canada. 1999. Left History. 8 (2002): pp. 132-134. 7. Review of: Sidney Harring. White Man's Law: Native People in Nineteenth Century Canadian Jurisprudence. 1996. Canadian Historical Review. 81 (2000): pp. 305-307. 8. Review of: Eve Darian-Smith and Peter Fitzpatrick, ed. Laws of the Postcolonial. 1999. Law, Social Justice and Global Development. 1 (2000). 9. Review of: Rolf Knight. Indians at Work: An Informal History of Native Indian Labour in British Columbia, 1858-1930. 1996. Native Studies Review. 11.1 (1997): pp. 147-151. 10. Review of: Carol Wilton, ed. Essays in the History of Canadian Law, Vol. 7: Inside the Law: Canadian Law Firms in Historical Perspective. 1996. Dalhousie Law Journal. 20.1 (1997): pp. 295-307.
Teaching Materials 1. Bruce Ziff, Jeremy de Beer, Douglas C. Harris and Margaret McCallum, A Property Law Reader: Cases, Questions and Commentary, 2nd Edition (Toronto: Carswell, 2008). (Responsible for the material in chapters 1, 2, and 12 of the 12 chapter book.)
Conference Proceedings 1. “Law, State and Indigenous Fisheries: Postcolonial Lessons from 19th Century British Columbia,” in the Conference Proceedings of The Pacific Rim in the 21st Century: The Next Generation, Wellington and Auckland, New Zealand, 26-31 August, 1999. 2. “Legal Narratives and Fishing Rights: The Babine Fishery Dispute, 1904-1906,” in the Conference Papers of Law and Power in the Margins: Voices from Beyond the Centres, Graduate Student Conference, UBC, 9-10 May, 1997.
Commissioned Reports 1. “The Recognition and Regulation of Aboriginal Fraser River Sockeye Salmon Fisheries to 1982,” prepared for the Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River, January 12th, 2011. 2. “Aboriginal Rights to Fish in British Columbia,” prepared for the Scow Institute for Communicating Information on Aboriginal Issues, May 2005, revised and re-published August 2007 (and reprinted as a book chapter in Natural Resources and Aboriginal Peoples in Canada).
Other
Newspaper Articles
1. “‘Race Based' Fishery on the Fraser?” The Tyee. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. (June 2006). http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/06/21/Fishery/.
Curriculum Vitae for Douglas C. Harris -- Page 14 (A37841)
Submitted for Publication Book Chapters 1. “A Railway, a City and the Public Regulation of Private Property: C.P.R. v. The City of Vancouver” (submitted for review in a volume of essays on important Canadian property law cases).
Works in Progress Journal Articles 1. “Sovereignty and Property: An Indian Reserve in a Canadian City”.
Curriculum Vitae for Douglas C. Harris -- Page 15 (A37841)
Captain John Lawrence Bergin 120 Belfair Oaks Blvd Bluffton, SC 29910 843-757-7212 843-368-5151 cell
Re: Proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline Project
1. At the request of Janes Freedman Kyle Law Corporation, I reviewed material related to the above mentioned proposed project as stated in Appendix A in my report. I was asked to opine on the following subject matters: a. What are the navigational hazards, challenges and risks associated with navigating the proposed tankers through the proposed routes in the confined channel area. b. Has the proponent has identified all of the navigational hazards, challenges and risks associated with navigating the proposed tankers through the proposed routes in the confined channel area. c. How adequate are the measures proposed by the proponent to deal with the navigational hazards, challenges and risks associated with navigating the proposed tankers through the proposed routes in the confined channel area. d. Evaluate and comment on the simulation exercises that were performed by the proponent at Force Technology.
General Overview
2. Northern Gateway Pipeline Project Ltd Partnership is proposing to construct a pipeline to carry oil across Canada to a new marine terminal at Kitimat, British Columbia. Once the oil reaches the proposed Kitimat terminal it will be transported by tankers to various destinations. The proposed routes for the tankers’ inbound and outbound transits are through very narrow deep water passages that pose significant challenges for any vessel navigating these routes. These challenges are listed in the following opinions.
1
(A37841)
Opinions
3. The length of the transit increases the risk of pollution from a mishap aboard the vessel.
3.1 It is a long transit, approximately 160 miles for the Northern Route from the pilot boarding area at Triple Island to the proposed terminal at Kitimat. Just due to the length of the transit the risk of pollution from a mishap increases substantially. I don’t know of any other area in the world that involves an escort style transit that has anywhere near this length in miles.
3.2 In making comparisons to other areas of the world where oil terminals exist one has to consider the length of these proposed transits, not just the number of transits. By combining the number of transits with the length of transits, the total time of exposure to risk of an ecological disaster is increased dramatically.
4. The confined channel assessment area is narrow for vessels of the proposed sizes.
4.1 For most of the transit through the confined channel area, the width of the navigational channel is between one and two mile. Northern Gateway Pipeline is proposing to have three classes of tank vessels calling at this proposed terminal: Aframax - 221 meters length, 32 meters width, 11.6 meters draft, 80,000 DWT Suezmax - 274 meters length, 48 meters width, 17 meters draft, 160,000 DWT VLCC - 344 meters length, 70 meters width, 23.1 meters draft, 320,000 DWT
4.2 Given the size of these proposed vessels, the narrowness of the channel presents a serious risk of grounding due to allision with the shore in the case of any equipment malfunction such as steering gear and engine failures. In addition, the tonnage of these vessels and the momentum they can attain would make the task of getting the ship back under control in the event of a failure in such a narrow area a difficult task.
2
(A37841)
5. The narrowness of the confined channel area plus the length of the confined channel area increase the potential for a possible oil spill.
5.1 In addition, most areas in other parts of the world do not have the continuous narrow passages that this Northern Gateway Pipeline project entails. So, in addition to a large number of transits per year, very long times of passages, most of the time if not all of the time of passage is in very confined waters. This makes the risk much greater than other areas.
6. The depth of the water in the confined channel assessment area is very deep and precludes the use of anchors.
6.1 For most of the passage through the confined channel assessment area the depth of the water is somewhere around 600 to 1000 feet and more in depth. While that gives substantial underkeel clearance (UKC) for most of the passage, it makes the use of anchors very difficult if not impossible.
6.2 In the event of bad weather such as high winds or poor visibility, it would be very difficult to find a suitable area to anchor and wait for improving conditions. The water is just too deep to allow enough scope or length of anchor chain to be used to properly anchor the vessel.
6.3 It will not be unusual for tankers to have to wait for improving weather conditions. In Section 3.5 and 3.12, Route Analysis, Approach Characteristics and Navigability Survey, the proponent states that winds in excess of 34 knots occur most frequently in winter. These winter cyclonic storms occur every one to five days and typically last one to two days.1
1 Page 4-2, Northern Gateway Pipelines, Inc. Section 3.5 and 3.12, 3
(A37841)
6.4 In the case of equipment or machinery failure and/or malfunction, dropping one or two anchors with a short scope (length) of chain is a useful means of slowing an out of control vessel. This procedure is known as dredging an anchor or anchors and involves dropping one or two anchors with enough scope of chain, usually 1.5 or 2 times the depth of the water, to allow the anchors to drag along the bottom of the seabed to slow the momentum of the ship while not allowing the anchors to dig in and hold the vessel since that would most likely impart too much stress on the anchors and the anchor chain. The problem with employing this procedure in deep water would be that if the anchors were let go in an emergency in water of this depth, the anchors would attain so much momentum by the time they hit bottom that the brake on the anchor windlass would not be able to stop the paying out of the anchor chain. In that instance the chain would continue to run out in an uncontrolled manner until the end of the chain parted and the anchors were lost.
7. The emergency anchorages and holding areas designated by Northern Gateway in their documents are inadequate.
7.1 The emergency anchorages as listed in the Northern Gateway Pipeline documents are, in my opinion, inadequate and impractical. Due to the depth of the water and the narrowness of the channels, it would be difficult or impossible to anchor a large tanker safely in the confined channel area.
7.2 The standard rule of thumb for anchoring large vessels is that the amount of anchor chain used should be equivalent to 5 times the depth of the water, with 5 times the depth under normal circumstances and up to 7 times the depth in strong winds or currents. This is because there must be enough anchor chain put out so that the pull on the anchor is in a mostly horizontal direction rather than a vertical direction. The horizontal direction is necessary for the flukes, or tips, of the anchor to dig into the seabed and provide holding power.
4
(A37841)
7.3 In the Northern Gateway Pipelines Section 3.5 and 3.12: Route Analysis, Section 10 discusses anchorage possibilities using a depth of water of 100 meters. In this section a rule of thumb is mentioned that states the length of anchor chain should be the depth of the water plus 2 times the depth of the water for the scope of the chain plus 30 meters for a safety margin. In real numbers, supposing a water depth of 100 meters, that would mean the following: 100 meters + 200 meters + 30 meters = 330 meters of anchor chain, or 1082 feet.
7.4 Most large ships have 11 or 12 shots of chain on an anchor, with a shot (or shackle) equivalent to 90 feet. If the anchor has 12 shots of chain attached to it that means the maximum amount of chain attached to that anchor would be 1080 feet, making it impossible to put that much anchor chain into the water since the entire length of the anchor chain is not usable. Some of the chain must remain in the chain locker and lead up through the chain pipe, to the anchor windlass, out the hawsepipe and into the water.
7.5 Thus, even if one accepts the questionable rule of thumb quoted in the Northern Gateway Pipeline report, there will be anchoring problems unless all of the tankers being used to transport oil for this project have significantly more anchor chain. If the tankers have to anchor due to strong winds, the above mentioned rule of thumb would, in my opinion, be totally inadequate due to the significantly stronger forces being exerted on the anchor due to the winds.
7.6 If a tanker did anchor in 100 meters of water with the correct scope of anchor chain in a 5 to 1 ratio of chain to water depth, the radius of the tanker’s swinging circle to allow for the tanker to swing to ebb and flood currents would be very large. As an example, a VLCC of 1128 feet (344meters) in 100 meters of water would need 1640 feet of anchor chain. The tankers’ length over all of 1128 feet plus 1640 feet of anchor chain would result in a swinging radius of 2768 feet or 0.46 nautical miles. The Anger anchorage near the northeast end of Principe Channel is the only area capable of accommodating large anchored tankers with the correct amount of anchor chain laid out.
5
(A37841)
8. The time of transit as related to fatigue issues are not identified as a problem.
8.1 The time of transit for the northern approach will be in the neighborhood of 16 hours, with another two hours to get the ship alongside the dock. That is a total of 18 hours. Obviously one pilot would not be able to navigate the ship for that length of time. I have not seen any indication by the proponent as to how they intend to deal with this major issue. Even if they put two pilots aboard every ship that is still a long and tedious passage which will most likely induce fatigue which, in turn, can lead to navigational errors and poor decision making.
8.2 So far I have discussed fatigue in relation to the pilot or pilots but the next person to consider would be the master of the ship. Even though a pilot is aboard the ship the master of the ship is still in charge. The ship’s master is in overall command. The master has the responsibility to monitor the actions of the pilot and to take corrective action if he feels that the pilot is not making the correct decision or taking the correct action.
8.3 A passage consisting of 18 hours would make it physically and mentally impossible for the master of the ship to be on the bridge and alert for the entire passage.
8.4 Northern Gateway Pipeline also makes the claim that the transits through the confined channel assessment area will be conducted mostly during day light hours. That, in my opinion, is impossible due to the length of the transit. It is especially so during the winter with limited daylight hours in these northern latitudes.
9. Northern Gateway Pipeline states that the tankers being chartered will be modern and have redundancy in critical equipment.
9.1 Northern Gateway Pipeline proposes to charter tankers that are 20 years old or less. A 20 year old tanker is an old ship, and, depending on how well it was maintained, could be a severe liability.
6
(A37841)
9.2 The claim of redundancy of critical shipboard systems is very misleading. All ships have at least two Radar/ARPA units, at least two GPS units, two steering gear systems, two lube oil pumps and other related engine room components. These duplicate systems are common on all ships. But the point that is important to understand is that the tankers that will be chartered by Northern Gateway Pipeline do not have two engines or two rudders as one might infer from the claims of redundancy by Northern Gateway Pipeline. The tankers that are proposed to be chartered by Northern Gateway Pipeline will not have any more redundancy than any other standard tanker or cargo vessel.
10. The escort tugs that are proposed to be assigned to each inbound and outbound tanker will not solve all of the risks associated with this proposed project.
10.1 The current proposal by Northern Gateway Pipeline supposes that there will be 4 or 5 VSP (Voith Schneider Propulsion) escort tug boats capable of producing either 100 or 125 tons of bollard pull, depending on which Northern Gateway Pipeline Project report one reviews. That amount of bollard pull is extremely high and will necessitate new tugs and possibly new design parameters. If the escort tugs will have that amount of bollard pull capability, the winches and lines on the tug boats will have to be upgraded. The deck fittings onboard each chartered tank vessel calling at the Kitimat terminal, such as the bitts to which the tug line will be secured and the fairleads or chocks for the line must be able to withstand the very high bollard pull that these tugs will be capable of exerting.
10.2 I also question whether 4 or 5 VSP escort tugs will be enough to handle the anticipated volume of tanker traffic. According to Northern Gateway Pipeline responses to inquiries, each laden tanker will have a close escort tug from the pilot station at Triple Island to the terminal at Kitimat and, in addition to the close escort tug, each laden tanker will have a tethered escort tug from Browning Entrance to the terminal at Kitimat. I assume that tankers laden with condensate, since they are laden, will receive the same escort services as any other laden tanker.
7
(A37841)
10.3 The tethered escort tug will have a very lengthy transit from Browning Entrance to the terminal at Kitimat. That transit will be approximately 12 or 13 hours, which is a very long time for a tug to be tethered. The tug Captain will have to be maneuvering his tug very precisely over that entire period of time in order to keep his line attached to the tanker without placing strain on the line. It should be a difficult and tedious task to keep station, especially for that period of time. And, due to the extremely long period of time that the tug will be tethered, the risk of a mishap in maneuvering the tug due to fatigue or inattention is greatly increased even if a two watch system is utilized.
10.4 In addition to the laden tankers having a tethered escort tug, the tankers in ballast will have close escort tugs. All of this activity makes me question the ability of 4 or 5 VSP escort tugs to provide the advertised services. In addition, allowances must be made for a tug being out of service for unexpected repairs in addition to routine planned maintenance. Due to their complicated propulsion systems, Voith Schneider Propulsion (VSP) tugs require frequent and very technical maintenance.
10.5 Adding to the question of whether 4 or 5 escort tugs would be sufficient is the proposal put forth by Northern Gateway Pipeline that these escort tugs will be available to provide ocean rescue and emergency towing services for disabled tankers or other vessels operating offshore in the region. This could involve an escort tug being unavailable for days while attempting to assist a disabled distant vessel.
8
(A37841)
10.6 The Escort and Docking Tug System report prepared for Northern Gateway Pipeline attempts to prove that the adequate number of escort tugs can be calculated by evaluating scheduling needs. “Tankers are scheduled weeks in advance for ‘arrival windows’ at the facility, in much the same way that landing slots are assigned at heavily used airports.”2 As anyone who is involved in offshore shipping knows, that is far from the reality of the situation. Ships are subject to delays due to various factors but primarily due to weather. It would not be uncommon for a ship to be delayed, not by hours but by days, especially during the winter months with frequent significant storms. The scheduling of ship arrivals can not be compared with airport landing slots.
11. The simulation exercises that were conducted by Northern Gateway Pipeline at Force Technology in Denmark are not a guarantee that these tankers can safely navigate this lengthy narrow passage.
11.1 Numerous simulation exercises were conducted during a period from 2007 through 2009 at the Force Technology facility in Denmark. While simulation can be an excellent teaching tool it has limitations and, in my opinion, should not be relied upon for a definitive answer as to whether a project as extensive and important as the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project can be considered safe. I base this opinion on the following:
11.2 The veracity of any simulation exercises will be dependent upon the accuracy of the ship models being used in the simulator. The simulations at Force Technology used generic ship models for three classes of vessels: Aframax, Suezmax, and VLCC. Within those three classes of vessels there can be divergent ranges of compatibility based on different horsepower of the vessels’ engines, variations in hull shapes, rudder sizes, superstructure area, etc. With those variations taken into account, the maneuverability of different vessels within the same generic class type can produce different results for the same simulation scenario.
2Page 54, An Escort and Docking Tug System Northern Gateway Project Kitimat, British Columbia, November 18, 2011 9
(A37841)
11.3 The veracity of any simulation exercises will be dependent upon the accuracy of the area being modeled, including the water depth, bottom contours, current fields and current values at various depths. To do this correctly one should employ the services of experts in hydrology. These hydrology experts have the knowledge and ability to accurately model and depict the current throughout the areas of confined waterways such as this project encompasses. The narrowness of areas such as Principe Channel and Douglas Channel along with the relatively high values of the current forces would, in my opinion, call for the accurate depiction of current forces at various depths, turns and bends in the channels.
11.4 The veracity of any simulation exercises will be dependent upon the accuracy of wind forces and how the wind forces impact the ship model in relation to the pivot point of the ship model. Any simulation conducted on a ship handling simulator will only be as accurate as the hydrodynamics of the model of the ship being simulated. While some simulators and some ship models are better than others, they are all subject to some degree of inaccuracy compared to what one would experience on an actual ship and in actual environmental conditions.
11.5 In the simulation conducted at Force Technology there is no indication of time delays used when conducting a simulation exercise that responds to an equipment failure aboard the vessel. In real life there can be a significant delay between actual initial equipment failure, such as loss of steering or loss of propulsion, and the time that someone aboard the ship realizes that steering or propulsion has been lost. The longer the time gap between actual loss and recognition of the loss, the more the ship will gather momentum in the wrong direction. The more the ship gathers momentum in the wrong direction, the harder it will be for the pilot to regain control of the ship and get it back into safe water.
10
(A37841)
11.6 As stated in their paper The Utilization of Escort Tugs in Restricted Waters, acknowledged escort tug boat experts Captain Gregory Brooks and Captain S. Wallace Slough state: In the event of a failure, the vessel’s quick recognition of and reaction to a casualty coupled with the tug’s rapid response is critical in reducing off track error. If the vessel were allowed to swing off course unrestricted, the kinetic energy associated with the vessel’s swing will rapidly overpower the tug’s ability to control it.” 3
11.7 As stated in the BP Oil Shipping Company Lindsey Foss Full-Scale Trials, “Time delays are critically important in determining the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a maneuver or a tug. Maneuvers at higher tanker speeds are significantly more time-delay sensitive than they are at lower speeds.”4
11.8 In studying the simulation exercises conducted at Force Technology for the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project, I did not see any mention of any delay built into the exercises between the initialization of a failure and the commencement of corrective action by the vessel or the tugs.
11.9 In addition, Northern Gateway Pipeline proposes a tug escort speed of 10 to 12 knots, a very high speed for tug escort and, as noted in the Glosten report cited above, time-delays in failure recognition are significantly more important at high speeds.
11.10 Simulation exercises do not necessarily reflect what will happen in the real world. There have been some live tests conducted using actual tank vessels and escort tugs, notably the Arco Juneau/Lindsey Foss tests conducted in 1997. In conducting these tests a one minute time delay was used as the time to recognize a failure/casualty until corrective action was initialized.
3 The Utilization of Escort Tugs in Restricted Waters, Captain Gregory Brooks and Captain S. Wallace Slough 4 BP Oil Shipping Co. Lindsey Foss Full-Scale Trials, The Glosten Associates, Inc. April 1997 11
(A37841)
11.11 While simulation can be an effective teaching and training tool, the results obtained on a simulator for exercises such as the ones conducted at Force Technology may vary from what will happen in an actual situation.
11.12 As stated in their paper The Utilization of Escort Tugs in Restricted Waters, acknowledged escort tug boat experts Captain Gregory Brooks and Captain S. Wallace Slough state: “the prudent mariner should accept all performance claims for escort tugs, at any speed, with some caution until proven as fact through live trials. This series of trials using conventional tugs as well as the latest design in tractor tugs suggest that the actual results obtained during a live trial vary greatly from computer simulated results.”
Summation:
12. In my opinion this proposed project presents a serious threat of a catastrophic oil spill due to the vessel grounding, striking a submerged danger such as a rock or shoal area, or entering into a collision with another vessel.
13. The most likely scenario for a spill would be from a collision with another ship or a grounding due to an allision between a tanker and the shore as a result of equipment or machinery malfunctions. These machinery malfunctions would be a loss of steering control, loss of propulsion, or both. The likelihood of a malfunction is greatly enhanced due to the extremely long and narrow passage that these tankers will have to transit on their way from the pilot boarding area to the proposed terminal at Kitimat.
14. While Northern Gateway Pipeline has proposed measures such as escort tugs to somewhat mitigate the possibility of a vessel’s hull being breached, these measures are not a guarantee of safety. While the escort tug system does provide some degree of reassurance, it does have limitations as mentioned in my opinion section above.
12
(A37841)
15. I believe it is not a question of whether or not there will be an accident and pollution due to an oil spill but rather the question is when will there be an accident. Any tanker is controlled and propelled by machinery and that machinery is operated by humans. Machinery can and will fail and humans can and will make mistakes.
16. My opinions in this matter are based on materials provided to me that are indicated in the attached list, and on my background, education, and experience. My opinions are not only expressed in the summation section, but are also expressed within the body of the report.
Captain John Lawrence Bergin
December 15, 2011
13
(A37841)
Appendix A
Re: Proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline Project: Materials Reviewed by John Lawrence Bergin
The following materials provided by Northern Gateway Pipelines Ltd. Partnership: B3-24_-_Vol_8A_-Gateway Application-Overview and General Information-Marine Transportation (Part 2 of 3)-A1T0H4.pdf B23-20 Appendix A TERMPOL TDR Maneuvering Study of Escorted Tankers Part 2 Main Report (Force Technology) A1Z6K4 .pdf B23-21 Appendix B TERMPOL TDR Maneuvering Study of Escorted Tankers Part 2 Main Report (Force Technology) A1Z6K5. pdf B23-22 Appendix C TERMPOL TDR Maneuvering Study of Escorted Tankers Part 2 Main Report (Force Technology) A1Z6K6 .pdf B23-24 Appendix D1 TERMPOL TDR Maneuvering Study of Escorted Tankers Part 2 Main Report (Force Technology) (Part 2 of 2) A1Z6K8.pdf B23-23 Appendix D1 TERMPOL TDR Maneuvering Study of Escorted Tankers Part 2 Main Report (Force Technology) (Part 1 of 2) A16K7.pdf B23-25 Appendix D2 TERMPOL TDR Maneuvering Study of Escorted Tankers Part 2 Main Report (Force Technology) A1Z6K9.pdf B23-26 Appendix E TERMPOL TDR Maneuvering Study of Escorted Tankers Part 2 Main Report (Force Technology) A1Z6L0.pdf B23-29 Appendix F TERMPOL TDR Naneuvering Study of Escorted Tankers Part 2 Main Report (Force Technology) A1Z6L3.pdf B23-30 Appendix G TERMPOL TDR Maneuvering Study of Escorted Tankers Part 2 Main Report (Force Technology) A1Z6L4.pdf B23-31 Appendix H TERMPOL TDR Maneuvering Study of Escorted Tanker Part 2 Main Report (Force Technology) A1Z6L5.pdf B23-32 Appendix I TERMPOL TDR Maneuvering Study of Escorted Tankers Part 2 Main Report (Force Technology) A1Z6L6.pdf B23-18 TERMPOL TDR Maneuvering Study of Escorted Tankers to and from Kitimat Part 1 Executive Summary (Force Technology) A1Z6K2.pdf B23-19 TERMPOL TDR Maneuvering Study of Escorted Tankers to and from Kitimat Part 2 Main Report (Force Technology) A1Z6K3.pdf B23-34 TERMPOL TDR Marine Shipping Quantitative Risk Analysis A1Z6L8.pdf B23-11 TERMPOL Surveys and Studies Section 3.10 Site Plans and Technical Data A1Z6J5 B23-13 TERMPOL Surveys and Studies Section 3.13 Berth Procedures and Provisions A1Z6J7 B23-15 TERMPOL Surveys and Studies Section 3.15 General Risk Analysis and Intended Methods of Reducing Risk A1Z6J9 B23-3 TERMPOL Surveys and Studies Section 3.2 Origin Destination Marine Traffic Volume Survey A1Z6I7 B23-7 TERMPOL Surveys and Studies Section 3.6 Special Underkeel Clearance Survey A1Z6J1
14
(A37841)
B23-8 TERMPOL Surveys and Studies Section 3.7 Transit Time and Delay Survey A1Z6J2 B23-9 TERMPOL Surveys and Studies Section 3.8 Casualty Data Survey A1Z6J3 B23-6 TERMPOL Surveys and Studies Section 3.5 and 3.12 Route Analysis Approach Characteristics and Navigability Survey A1Z6J0 B17-18 Weather and ocean Conditions TDR Part (1 of 1) A1V8J0.pdf An Escort and Docking Tug System, Northern Gateway Project, Kitimat, British Columbia, by Marine Resources Group and The Glosten Associates, Inc, November 18, 2011 Northern Gateway Responses to Gitxaala IR #1
Reports:
The Utilization of Escort Tugs in Restricted Waters, Captain Gregory Brooks and Captain S. Wallace Slough BP Oil Shipping Co. Lindsey Foss Full-Scale Trials, The Glosten Associates, Inc. April 1997
15
(A37841)
16
(A37841)
JOHN LAWRENCE BERGIN 120 BELFAIR OAKS BLVD. BLUFFTON, SC 29910 843-757-7212 843-757-7735 FAX [email protected]
Experience December 2001 - present Expert Witness Served as expert witness in various maritime related cases for law firms in New York, California, Hawaii, Maryland, Louisiana, Pennsylvania.
2001-present MITAGS - Linthicum Heights, MD Consultant / Instructor United States Coast Guard certified instructor at Maritime Institute of Technology and Graduate Studies in:
Basic, Advanced, and Emergency Ship Handling Bridge Resource Management Risk Resource Management for Pilots
December, 2003 – June, 2004 Matson Navigation Company Oakland, CA Consultant / Instructor Retained by Matson Navigation to review and revise Ship Security Plans for their 14 vessels. Created a Ship Security Officer training course, wrote student text book, and instructed Matson’s senior shipboard personnel and office staff in that course.
1969–2000 SeaLand Services, Inc. Elizabeth, NJ Master of Container Vessels . 1982 – 2000: Master, MV SeaLand Liberator, 50,000DWT, 22 knot diesel container vessel engaged in U.S. West Coast and East Coast to Far East trade. . 1980 – 1982: Master, MV SeaLand Independence, 50,000DWT, 22 knot diesel container vessel engaged in U. S. Gulf and East Coast to North Europe and Mediterranean trade. . 1973-1980: Master, SS SeaLand Finance, 33 knot, 120,000 HP container vessel engaged in trade from U. S. West Coast to the Far East. . 1969-1973: Relief Master on various container vessels throughout the SeaLand fleet.
1964-1969 States Marine Isthmian Lines New York, NY Chief Mate, Second Mate, Third Mate on Cargo Vessels Served aboard various general cargo vessels in the fleet engaged in worldwide trade. (A37841)
1976-1979 U. S. Maritime Administration Kings Point, NY Part-Time Consultant for Computer Assisted Operational Research Facility (CAORF) Consulted and instructed on various projects of the United States Maritime Administration's computerized image visual ship handling simulator at Kings Point, New York during vacation periods. Projects participated in include: Ship handling simulator evaluation; Test subject in collision avoidance research on simulator; Instructor for training runs in and out of Valdez, Alaska for Tanker Masters; Evaluator for proposed LNG terminal in Santa Barbara Channel, CA; Instructor for collision avoidance experiments involving use of radar, radar plus ARPA, and radar plus ARPA with navigational data; Instructor coordinator for detailed experiment requested by US Coast Guard to determine minimum simulator requirements for effective training gain.
Education 1960-1964 U.S. Merchant Marine Academy Kings Point, NY . B. S. Marine Transportation
Continuing Maritime Institute of Technology and GraduateStudies Education Courses taken:
Basic and Intermediate Ship Handling, Radar/ARPA, Basic and Advanced Fire Fighting, Shipboard Medical Care, Heavy Weather Avoidance, Bridge Resource Management, GMDSS, Vessel Personnel Management, Train the Trainer.
December 1969 - Appointed as Master at 27 years of age. Noteworthy Accomplishments September 1973 to August 1980 – At age 31, appointed as Permanent Master of SS Sea-Land Finance, an SL-7 container vessel, the world's largest and fastest container vessels with a length of 946 feet and a speed of 33 knots. (1980 - All SL-7 vessels were purchased by the U.S. Navy)
1981 to 1983 - Evaluated available Automatic Radar Plotting Aids (ARPA). As an acknowledged expert in the use of collision avoidance systems, was requested by Sea-Land to evaluate all available systems prior to the selection of a new system for their fleet.
Memberships International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots Council of American Master Mariners
Personal Married, two children. Interest in golf, flying, reading.