THE TSIMSHIAN HOMELAND: AN ANCIENT CULTURAL LANDSCAPE By KEN DOWNS Integrated Studies Project submitted to Dr. Leslie Main Johnson in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts – Integrated Studies Athabasca, Alberta February, 2006 The Tsimshian Homeland: An Ancient Cultural Landscape Questioning the “Pristine Myth” in Northwestern British Columbia What are the needs of all these plants? This is the critical question for us. Rest, protection, appreciation and respect are a few of the values we need to give these generous fellow passengers through time. K”ii7lljuus (Barbara Wilson 2004:216) Ksan (Skeena River) downstream from Kitsumkalum looking toward Terrace Master of Integrated Studies Final Project – Athabasca University Submitted to Dr. Leslie Main Johnson – February 25, 2006 – Ken Downs Table of Contents Introduction……………………………………………………….... … 4 Tsimshian Landscape ………………………………………………… 6 Tsimshian Archaeology………………………………......................... 12 Tsimshian: “Complex Hunter-Gatherers”? ............................................ 15 Investigations of Tsimshian Agriculture – Field Research …………….. 17 Results of Fieldwork (2003-2005) ……………………………………… 19 Kalum Canyon Sites …………………………………………………….. 36 Adawx: Oral Histories of the Canyon …………………………………… 45 Canyon Tsimshian Plant Resources and Management ………………….. 48 Significant Plants at Kalum Canyon …………………………………….. 50 Kalum Canyon Agro-Ecosystems ………………………………………… 66 Conclusions ……………………………………………………………….. 69 Further Research …………………………………………………………… 74 Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………… 77 References Cited ……………………………………………………………. 80 Appendix 1 – Adaawgm Kitsumkalum ……………………………………… 88 Appendix 2 – Story of Part Summer & The Chief Who Married the Sawbill Duck 91 Appendix 3 – The Origins of Black Huckleberries ……………………………… 93 Appendix 4 – Aerial Photo of Kalum Canyon …………………………………… 94 List of Photos 1 Allastair Lake – Gitnadoix Provincial Park ……………….. 10 2 Melville/Dundas Islands area………………………………. 10 3 Campsite and bench Moffat Islands ……………………….. 20 4 Riceroot (Fritillaria camschatcensis) ……………………… 21 5 Chocolate lily (Fritillaria lanceolata) ……………………… 21 6 Village site location Melville Island ……………………….. 22 7 Brian and BC Parks jetboat – Gitnadoix Prov. Park ……….. 25 8 Kitselas Canyon …………………………………………….. 27 9 Chief Guam House Post …………………………………….. 31 10 Katsumkalum site ………………………………………….. 34 11 Cooley’s hedge nettle (Stachys coolyae) ………………….. 34 12 Kalum Canyon forest ……………………………………… 36 13 Dr. Leslie Main Johnson – Kalum Canyon Crabapple Orchard ……. 39 14 Mouth of Kalum Canyon at Robin Town …………………………… 39 15 Crabapple/Hazelnut complex in Robin Town ……………………….. 40 16 Ancient trail along Kalum Canyon…………………………………… 41 17 & 18 Culturally Modified Red Cedar Trees – Meadow Site …………. 42 19 Dr. James McDonald & Brenda Guernsey – Meadow Site …………… 44 20 Pacific crabapple (Malus fusca)……………………………………….. 51 21 Hazelnuts ……………………………………………………………… 56 22 Riceroot …………………………………………………………………. 60 Introduction Increasing documentation of the Traditional Environmental Knowledge of First Peoples in British Columbia (Compton 1993; Deur 2002, 2005; Deur & Turner 2005; Gottesfeld 1994, 1995; McDonald 2003, 2005; Peacock & Turner 2000; Trusler 1995; Turner, Ignace & Ignace 2000; Turner 2004, 2005; Turner & Peacock 2005) is breaking down stereotypical perceptions of First Peoples as “hunter-gatherers” who were fortunate to occupy environments in which food resources were plentiful. This perception has recently begun to be questioned, notably by William Denevan (1992) who termed the mis-perception - “the pristine myth.” Ethnobotanists, ethnographers, and archaeobotanists are documenting the complexities of plant resource utilization and management strategies that are also adding knowledge as to the complexities Northwest Coast societies. Pre-contact societies on the northwest coast of North America are often considered anomalous to standard definitions of “hunter-gatherers” due to their highly developed social and economic organizations, highly developed art forms, and sedentary nature. Recent anthropologists have begun to re- consider and reflect these anomalies by redefining these cultures as “complex hunter- gatherers” (Ames 1994, 2005; Arnold 1995). It will be argued here, given the presentation of additional evidence as to the complexity of First Nations plant resource stewardship, specifically among the Tsimshian, that this new label, continuing Darwinian traditions, does not do justice to nor provide any additional reason to consider, Traditional Knowledge in the a new egalitarian light suggested by the highly regarded Eugene Hunn. Hunn (1999: 25) writes in a chapter titled The Value of Subsistence for the Future of the World; “No longer can we take refuge behind the myth of the superiority of Western Civilization as the source of all science.” He goes on to describe the importance of documenting and learning from the Traditional Knowledge of indigenous peoples the world over, knowledge that enabled them to adapt to diverse local environments. Hunn muses that this maybe the key to the future sustained subsistence of the human species. The writer has come to similar conclusions about Tsimshian plant resource stewardship as those expressed by Kat Anderson regarding her own studies of the “indigenous resource management” of diverse California First Peoples (2005:xvii); These parallels indicated to me that our human forebears everywhere did not just passively gather food and basketry materials but actively tended the plant and animal kingdoms on which they relied. There was no clear-cut distinction between hunter-gatherers – the category into which most California Indians had been tossed – and the more “advanced” agricultural peoples of the ancient world. Moreover, California Indians had likely completed the initial steps in the long process of domesticating wild species, something that ancient peoples in other lands had always been given sole credit for. It is hoped that this work will add to an increasing respect for the Traditional Knowledge of indigenous peoples, specifically Tsimshian people, knowledge that is the result of living in close relationship with the land for millennia. Once again, similar to Anderson’s work (2005:2), it is hoped this paper will change assumptions about Tsimshian people and; “…recast them as active agents of environmental change and stewardship, shattering the hunter-gatherer stereotype long perpetuated in the anthropological and historical literature ….” This paper utilizing a multi-disciplinary approach, provides evidence that Tsimshian people, particularly the Kitsumkalum tribe, one of two tribes known as “interior” Tsimshian or “Canyon” Tsimshian, managed plant resources and altered the composition and structure of plant communities within and adjacent to their village sites and upon the landscape at a more general scale (i.e. burning to enhance berry resources). This work draws on archaeological, ethnographic, and anthropological research. The author’s background in forest ecology, geography, and current interest in ethnobotany is also utilized to illuminate the complexities of pre-contact Tsimshian society, in particular the generally ignored or passed-by Kalum Canyon village site occupied by the Kitsumkalum people for thousands of years. Hunn in defining Traditional Environmental Knowledge (1999:24) writes; “Knowledge common to one community is specific to its environment.” This paper provides context for the study of plant utilization by giving consideration to the broad diversity of landscapes within Tsimshian territories. It examines and speculates as to how the different Tsimshian tribes may have adapted to those environments and the differing plant resources available. The paper provides context for the discussion by first describing Tsimshian traditional territories. Following that description a summary of the archaeological literature will be presented to give potential time frames to Tsimshian peoples’ living on the lands in northwestern British Columbia. Archaeologists’ current thinking about changes or adaptations of the people/land will be presented and critiqued in a following section discussing Western perspectives of cultural development and the classification of First Nations of northwestern British Columbia as “hunter-gatherers.” The main body of the paper will present the results of three years of field research investigating and providing evidence for Tsimshian agriculture. Persisting unusual and unexpected plant communities, made up of culturally important plants, in the vicinity of village sites, individual house sites, and resource use sites throughout Tsimshian territory, but particularly at the sites of the Canyon Tsimshian are documented. The cultural importance of plants is examined through comparative ethnobotanical literature of neighboring First Nations and comparing documented oral traditions, particularly those of the Kitsumkalum people being compiled and documented by Dr. James McDonald (2005, 2003, 2000, n.d.). A final argument is made that mis-perceptions as to the complexities of pre- contact Tsimshian society continue to persist, with current thinking labeling Tsimshian society as one of “complex hunter-gather.” Drawing from increasing evidence of agricultural activities of First Nations peoples along the west and northwestern coasts of North America the paper hopefully adds to calls for a re-consideration of any kind of labeling and assumptions of cultural development of First Nations