Reconstructing Houses: Early Village Social Organization in Prince Rupert Harbour, British Columbia

Home , Alexander Archipelago, Chatham Sound, Cypress Provincial Park, Haida people, Kaien Island, Khutzeymateen Inlet

Reconstructing Houses: Early Village Social Organization

in Prince Rupert Harbour, British Columbia

Anna Katherine Berenice Patton

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy

Anthropology Department

University of Toronto

Reconstructing Houses: Early Village Social Organization in

Prince Rupert Harbour, British Columbia

A. Katherine Patton

Doctor of Philosophy

Anthropology Department

University of Toronto

2011 Abstract

In this dissertation, I investigate the nature of social relations on the northern Northwest

Coast during the Late Middle Period (500 BC to AD 500) through the rubric of House Societies as defined by Levi-Strauss (1982). In House Societies, corporate groups hold estates and wealth that are transmitted from one generation to the next. Houses were, and still are, the fundamental organizing principle in Tsimshian society. In the 19th century, Houses were central to systems of property ownership and social ranking. The antiquity of this institution however, is not clear.

In this study, I ask whether Houses existed in the past in the Prince Rupert area and if so, what implications they might have had on social and economic relations. To investigate this question,

I excavated two house depressions at GbTo-77, a small village site in Prince Rupert Harbour and considered whether evidence existed for long-term investment in place, the transmission of dwellings across multiple generations, and for owned estates or resource locations.

The results suggested that one house depression (house D) showed some evidence for house reconstruction and maintenance, but over a relatively short period of time, particularly in comparison to other locations across the Northwest Coast. A second house depression, iii however, may have been used intermittently, or for an even shorter period of time than house D; no evidence was found for continuity between occupations or long-term investment in architecture. Faunal remains from both house depressions were very small and could not be reliably used to infer differences in owned resource locations. As such, the results of this study indicate that the house depressions at GbTo-77 likely do not represent Houses. These results are significant because archaeologists have often assumed that the house depressions forming organized, rowed villages, such as GbTo-77, are the remnants of Houses or incipient Houses.

I explored also how architectural, stratigraphic and faunal evidence at GbTo-77 compared with these data at four other village sites in Prince Rupert Harbour. Few other house depressions were excavated sufficiently in order to adequately compare architecture remains between villages. The comparison of faunal remains between village sites in Prince Rupert

Harbour, however, showed that there may have been important differences between villages in terms of economic systems, particularly in terms of salmon abundance, when compared with other fish taxa. The most significant differences in abundance were observed within column, bulk and auger samples (equal volume samples), indicating the importance of using small mesh screens (<2.8 mm) in faunal analyses. These data suggest that villages may have exerted control over important resource locations. The extent to which this control, or ownership, might reflect differences between houses, rather than villages, is not entirely clear for the Late Middle Period villages. I also observed significant differences in terms of shellfish composition at each village site. Variability in local resources may relate primarily to the precise location of these villages within the harbour, but may also have implications for our understanding of pre-contact land tenure practices in Prince Rupert Harbour.

Acknowledgments

I am indebted to many people and organizations whose assistance was vital to the successful completion of this work. First and foremost, I am grateful to my supervisor, Dr. Gary

Coupland, for his guidance, support and encouragement through each stage of this project. I am also grateful for his patience and his understanding of my need to balance graduate school with family life. I am enormously appreciative of the time and efforts of my other core committee members. Dr. Max Friesen and Dr. Ted Banning provided sound insights into drafts of my dissertation which have improved it immensely. I would also like to thank Dr. Heather Miller for asking keen and insightful questions on this work at my defense. I am very thankful to my external appraiser, Dr. Madonna Moss who provided extensive and thoughtful critiques of this work. I know that this is a much better work on account of her appraisal.

The field and lab component of this work were assisted by an able and intelligent crew that included Steven Denis of Lax‟kwalaams First Nation and Barbara Petzelt, Economic

Development Officer, Metlakatla First Nation, students from the University of Toronto (in particular, David Bilton, Mark Peck, Mike White, Laura Burke, Mike O‟Roark, Danielle

Desmarais and Marina LaSalle) and students from Northwest Community College (NWCC). I am particularly grateful to David Archer, NWCC, for helping to coordinate student volunteers from NWCC, and for overseeing the house A excavation; I benefitted greatly from his extensive knowledge of Prince Rupert archaeology. Dr. Kathlyn helped me with the analysis of faunal remains, in particular the fish remains; her skills were enormously helpful to my analysis. Dr.

Trevor Orchard also allowed me to use his fish and shellfish collection in my analysis and Dr.

Mark Peck (Royal Ontario Museum) granted me access to the ROM‟s avian collection to assist with my analysis. Jennifer Melanson and Jonathan Sharp created a beautiful map of house D. v

I benefitted from a rich graduate student life at the University of Toronto, but am particularly grateful to Joan Banahan, Terry Clarke and Trevor Orchard and for their support and assistance in the field and in the lab. Joan, Terry and Trevor were always up for stimulating discussions about Northwest Coast archaeology; these have helped me to form the ideas that I present in this dissertation.

A very special thanks to family and friends who encouraged me to see this project to completion. I am particularly indebted to the Mothers of Cabbagetown for helping with child care and providing good companionship. I am eternally grateful for my loving and supportive husband, David Simms, for his persistent confidence in my abilities, and for never asked me when I would be done. I owe a particular and very special thanks to three children, Barbara,

Maeve and Fiona. I know that it has sometimes been difficult to have a mother who “always has to work.” But, we had fun in the field in beautiful British Columbia; I hope you may remember some of that time in Dodge Cove looking at the mountains and collecting shells along the beaches.

I would like to thank the communities of Lax Kw‟alaams and Metlakatla for granting me permission to pursue this project. Funding for the field component of the project was graciously provided by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (through Dr, Coupland); the University of Toronto, the

Government of Ontario and the Andre Bekerman Memorial Graduate Scholarship also provided important funding during the course of my studies.

This dissertation is dedicated to my daughters, Barbara, Maeve, and Fiona Simms,

and in memory of my mother, Barbara Patton. vii

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Introduction ...... 1 Social Inequality in Ancient Prince Rupert Harbour ...... 3 The Tsimshian ...... 6 Research Objectives: when is a house just a house? ...... 8 Organization of Dissertation ...... 11 Implications for Results ...... 12

Chapter 2. Theoretical Perspectives ...... 14 Pronounced Social Inequality on the Northwest Coast...... 16 Houses and Households...... 19 Ideas about the House on the Northwest Coast...... 24 Use of the House Concept in this Study...... 27 The Architecture of Houses...... 28 The Economies of Houses ...... 31 Archaeological Correlates of Houses ...... 34 Conclusions...... 35

Chapter 3: The Environment...... 36 The Structure of the North Coast Environment ...... 38 Physiography and Topography ...... 40 Hydrology ...... 42 Climate ...... 47 Vegetation ...... 48 Plant Resource Locations ...... 49 Fauna ...... 50 Fish ...... 54 Pacific Salmon...... 62 Harvesting Salmon ...... 67 Invertebrates ...... 70 Birds ...... 78 Mammals ...... 85 Summary ...... 91

Chapter 4. Recent Tsimshian History...... 93 Territory ...... 95 Social Organization ...... 98 Phratries and Clans ...... 98 The Village or Ts!ap ...... 99 Wa’lp and Wilnaat’aal ...... 103 Class, Rank and Gender ...... 108 The Tsimshian Economy ...... 110 The Seasonal Round ...... 110 Shellfishing ...... 113 Hunter-Gatherers, Mangers or Cultivators? ...... 114 Summary ...... 115 viii

Chapter 5: The Ancient History of the Prince Rupert Area: previous archaeological research and oral records...... 118 The Harbour ...... 120 North Coast Prehistory Project (NCPP) ...... 122 Prince Rupert Harbour Radiocarbon Dating Project ...... 123 McNichol Creek Site Excavations and the North Coast Housing Project(NCHP) ...... 123 Dundas Islands Archaeological Project ...... 124 Kitselas Canyon and the Lower Skeena ...... 125 Assembling the Past; archaeology, culture history and the adawx ...... 127 Culture History of Prince Rupert Harbour and Adjacent Areas ...... 128 Period III ...... 130 Period II ...... 132 Period I ...... 134 The Adawx ...... 137 Summary ...... 140

Part 2: Results and Interpretation Chapter 6. The Study Sites...... 141 GbTo-77 ...... 142 Chronology ...... 151 GbTo-46 ...... 153 Chronology ...... 156 GbTo-31 ...... 157 Chronology ...... 162 GbTo-28 ...... 163 Chronology ...... 165 GcTo-6 ...... 166 Chronology ...... 170 Summary ...... 171

Chapter 7: The Houses...... 175 Northwest Coast Architecture ...... 178 Tsimshian Houses ...... 184 Problems Associated with the Interpretation of Architectural Data ...... 189 The Houses at GbTo-77 ...... 192 House A: Stratigraphy and Architectural Features ...... 195 House D ...... 204 Stratigraphy ...... 205 Architectural Features ...... 206 Hearths ...... 212 Floors ...... 215 Understanding the History of house D ...... 221

Chapter 8: The Faunal Data ...... 225 GbTo-77; the vertebrate faunal assemblage ...... 228 Screening and Sampling Methods ...... 228 Vertebrate Quantification Practices ...... 230 ix

Fish ...... 232 Mammals and Birds ...... 238 GbTo-77; The Shellfish ...... 243 Sampling and Screening Protocols for Shellfish ...... 245 Fragmentation ...... 251 Implications for Seasonality, Mobility and Labour Organization at GbTo-77 ...... 255 The Inter-Village Analysis; GbTo-77 in comparisons with other harbour village sites ..... 266 Diversity ...... 273 Equal Volume Samples ...... 277 The Shellfish ...... 284 Fragmentation ...... 289 Summary ...... 291

Chapter 9. Synthesis, Discussion and Conclusion ...... 292 Interpretation of the inter-house depression results ...... 294 Architecture ...... 294 Fauna ...... 300 Inter-house comparisons at other sites ...... 303 Interpretation of inter-site comparisons ...... 304 Land tenure, labour and the Late Middle Period ...... 315 When houses are indeed Houses ...... 318 Conclusions ...... 321

References Cited ...... 324

Appendices ...... 358 Appendix A. Auger samples ...... 358 Appendix B. Faunal Data ...... 362 Appendix C. The Artifacts ...... 369 Appendix D. The Shellfish ...... 381

List of Figures Figure 1-1. Map of the Northwest Coast of North America showing locations of Prince Rupert harbour, the Nass River and Skeen River ...... 2 Figure 3-1. Map of Prince Rupert Harbour showing landmarks cited in the text...... 38 Figure 3-2. Map of northern British Columbia and southern Alaska showing the locations of physiographic landforms and major rivers mentioned in the text ...... 41 Figure 3-3. Map of the Skeena River watershed ...... 43 Figure 3-4. Beach front at GbTo-77, high tide, summer 2003 ...... 45 Figure 3-5. Beach front at GbTo-77, low tide, summer 2004 ...... 46 Figure 3-6. North coast salmon migration routes in 2004 ...... 65 Figure 3-7. Map of Prince Rupert Habour showing the location of salmon streams...... 66 Figure 3-8. Maximum salmon escapements (1934-2008) for streams within Prince Rupert Harbour in comparison to two Skeena River tributaries ...... 67 Figure 3-9. Average salmon escapements (1934-2008) for streams within Prince Rupert Harbour in comparison to two Skeena River tributaries ...... 67 Figure 3-10. Small acorn barnacles, bay mussels and whelks at Dodge Cove, Digby Island ...... 75 Figure 4-1. Map of Traditional Tsimshian territory, showing the four closely related groups that compose them ...... 119 Figure 5-1. Map of the Northern Northwest Coast of British Columbia ...... 119 Figure 5-2. The Prince Rupert Harbour area showing the location of sites discussed in the text ...... 121 Figure 5-3. The Skeena River region showing the location of the Paul Mason site and Psacelay ...... 126 Figure 6-1. Prince Rupert Harbour showing the location of GbTo-77, GbTo-28, GbTo-46, GbTo-31 and GcTo-6 as well as key geographical locations mentioned in the text ...... 142 Figure 6-2. Map showing the location of GbTo-77 in relation to the other registered archaeological sites in the bay ...... 143 Figure 6-3. Map of GbTo-77 showing the location of house depressions, auger samples and the back midden unit ...... 146 Figure 6-4. North and west wall profile of Unit 1, the back midden at GbTo-77 ...... 149 Figure 6-5. Map of GbTo-46, the Tremayne Bay site...... 154 Figure 6-6. The Dodge Cove area, showing the location of GbTo-31, Dodge Cove, Elizabeth Point and Dodge Island ...... 159 Figure 6-7. Map of GbTo-31 showing the locations of NCPP excavations, Coupland‟s excavations in 2000 and 2003 ...... 159 Figure 6-8. Site map of GbTo-28 ...... 165 Figure 6-9. Site map of GcTo-6 ...... 167 Figure 6-10. Probability distributions (95% confidence interval) of calibrated radiocarbon dates from charcoal samples for all village sites ...... 173 Figure 7-1. Coast Salish house showing the sewing and tying wall construction technique...... 179 Figure 7-2. Photograph of Tsimshian house front ...... 179 Figure 7-3. Diagram of shed roof house roofing and wall structure ...... 183 Figure 7-4. Diagram of Tsimshian house back showing mortised planking ...... 184 Figure 7-5. Tsimshian Type 1 house showing roofing structure independent from walls ...... 187 Figure 7-6. Photograph of GbTo-77, House D excavations, showing extent of forest cover. .... 191 Figure 7-7. Map of GbTo-77 showing units excavated ...... 193 xi

Figure 7-8. Profile of east wall of house A...... 196 Figure 7-9. Profile of the west wall of house A ...... 198 Figure 7-10. Profile of the north wall house A ...... 199 Figure 7-11. Plan view of house A, showing extent of lot 4 ...... 203 Figure 7-12. Plan view of house A showing extent of lot 6 ...... 204 Figure 7-13. Floor plan of house D, showing the location of post features, hearths and the approximate location of the house wall ...... 207 Figure 7-14. Medium-sized posts associated with cluster 1, house D...... 209 Figure 7-15. Cluster 2 wall posts ...... 209 Figure 7-16. Floor plan of the Shingle Point house, Gulf of Georgia ...... 211 Figure 7-17. North-south cross-section of house D...... 213 Figure 7-18. Profile of the back of house D...... 217 Figure 7-19. Profile of house D in cross-section...... 219 Figure 7-20. House D bench midden...... 222 Figure 8-1. Graph showing densities of major fish taxa in relation to < 1.4 mm fine fraction identified in equal volume samples arranged by site context ...... 238 Figure 8-2. Average density of materials identified within equal volume samples ...... 247 Figure 8-3. Average density of five most frequently occurring shellfish taxa identified within equal volume samples at GbTo-77, arranged by site context ...... 253 Figure 8-4. Fragmentation Ratios for each equal volume sample analyzed from GbTo-77, arranged by site context ...... 254 Figure 8-5. Graph illustrating the relative frequency of sea mammal to land mammal remains for all site components ...... 273 Figure 8-6. Bar gar showing the average density of materials within column, bulk, and auger (GbTo-77 only) samples taken from GbTo-77, GbTo-28, GbTo-31 and GcTo-6 ...... 285 Figure 8-7. Scatterplot showing sites in relation to PCA component 1 and component 2...... 288 Figure 8-8. Graph of fragmentation ratios from four village sites...... 290 Figure 8-9. Clam fragmentation ratios from four village sites referenced within this study...... 291

xii

List of Tables Table 3-1. Summary of major climatic information for the coastal area and the interior ...... 48 Table 3-2. List of fish taxa common to the Prince Rupert Harbour and the Skeena River ...... 55 Table 3-3. List of common shellfish taxa for the northern Northwest Coast ...... 72 Table 3-4. List of bird species common to traditional Tsimshian territory ...... 79 Table 3-5. List of common mammal species inhabiting traditional Tsimshian territory ...... 86 Table 4-1. Location of Coast and Southern Tsimshian tribes‟ summer and winter villages as documented in late 19th century ethnographic sources and oral records ...... 102 Table 6-1. Radiocarbon dates and calibrated age ranges from charcoal samples for GbTo-77 .. 151 Table 6-2. Radiocarbon dates for shell-based samples for GbTo-77 ...... 151 Table 6-3. Radiocarbon dates and calibrated age ranges from charcoal samples for GbTo-46 .. 157 Table 6-4. Radiocarbon dates for shell-based samples for GbTo-46 ...... 157 Table 6-5. Radiocarbon dates and calibrated age ranges from charcoal samples for GbTo-31 .. 163 Table 6-6. Radiocarbon dates and calibrated age ranges from charcoal samples for GbTo-28 .. 166 Table 6-7. Radiocarbon dates for shell-based samples for GbTo-28 ...... 166 Table 6-8. Radiocarbon dates and calibrated age ranges from charcoal samples for GcTo-6 .... 170 Table 6-9. Radiocarbon dates for shell-based samples for GcTo-6 ...... 171 Table 8-1. NISP and relative proportions of fish taxa identified in excavated faunal samples at GbTo-77 ...... 233 Table 8-2. NISP and relative proportions of smelt positively identified to species ...... 235 Table 8-3. NISP (N), relative frequency and density (D) of major fish taxa identified in equal volume samples ...... 236 Table 8-4. Density of major fish taxa collected from all screens in equal volume samples calculated in relation to fine fraction (<1.4 mm)...... 237 Table 8-5. NISP and relative frequencies of mammal elements identified in the GbTo-77 excavated sample, organized by site location ...... 241 Table 8-6. showing NISP and relative frequencies of avian fauna identified in the GbTo-77 excavated sample by site context ...... 244 Table 8-7. Total mass and average density (D; grams per litre) of material in equal volume samples by site context...... 246 Table 8-8. List of shellfish taxa identified within equal volume samples ...... 248 Table 8-9. Relative proportions of clam that could be identified to species ...... 249 Table 8-10. Mass of total barnacle remains and thatched barnacle remains from GbTo-77 back midden equal volume samples...... 250 Table 8-11. Total mass and average density (D) per litre of each shellfish taxa identified within equal volume samples by site context...... 252 Table 8-12. NISP and relative frequencies of fauna by class for all sites...... 268 Table 8-13. List of major species of fish identified at the five study sites in excavated and equal volume samples...... 269 Table 8-14. List of mammalian taxa identified within excavated samples ...... 270 Table 8-15. List of avian taxa identified within excavated samples...... 272 Table 8-16. Simpson‟s Diversity Index Reciprocal for all sites ...... 275 Table 8-17. Richness for all sites ...... 276 Table 8-18. NISP and relative proportions of major fish taxa from column and auger samples within and around house depressions ...... 279 Table 8-19. NISP and relative proportions of major fish taxa from column and auger samples from back midden contexts ...... 279 xiii

Table 8-20. NISP and density of major fish taxa identified within equal volume samples...... 281 Table 8-21. NISP and density of major fish taxa identified within equal volume samples associated with house depressions...... 281 Table 8-22. Chi-square value produced from the Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA...... 283 Table 8-23. Results of the multiple comparison Z-value test...... 284 Table 8-24. Mass and average density of major shellfish taxa in equal volume samples...... 287

Chapter 1. Introduction

Prince Rupert Harbour, British Columbia, has been an area of keen archaeological interest for over a century. As such, it is one of the most intensively investigated regions on the northern

Northwest Coast of North America. Over the past hundred years, archaeologists have conducted expansive excavations centred on the large, deep, complex shell midden sites that line the harbour‟s shorelines. Curiosity about the pre-contact history of the area had been ignited by the wealth of ethnographic material collected during the 19th and early 20th centuries on the Tsimshian, whose homeland includes coastal and interior regions from south of the

Skeena River north to the Nass River (Figure 1-1). The Tsimshian, along with most other

Northwest Coast groups, were thought to exhibit traits such as pronounced and inherited social inequality, large complex households, semi-sedentism and storage that had traditionally been associated with agriculturalists (Arnold 1996; Burch and Ellana 1994; Price and Brown 1985).

As a result, many researchers classify Northwest Coast groups as complex hunter-gatherers, thereby distinguishing them from some more conventional ideas about the foraging way of life.

Understanding how social complexity developed among hunter-gatherer-fishers became the focus of many archaeological research projects in Prince Rupert, as well as in other areas of the

Northwest Coast (e.g., Ames 2005a; Coupland et al.2000, 2003, 2006; MacDonald and Inglis

1981).

The ideas that define social complexity have come under some scrutiny in recent years.

The “origins” of many of the traits that define complex hunter-gatherers, such as semi- 2

Pacific Ocean

Prince Rupert Harbour Nass River Skeena River

0 100 200 300 Kilometres

Figure 1-1. Map of the Northwest Coast of North America (after Coupland et al. 2010).

3 sedentism and storage, may be considerably older on the Northwest Coast than we have imagined and in some locations may have occurred long before pronounced social inequality

(Cannon and Yang 2006; Daly 2005:30). Some have also questioned whether Northwest Coast groups are best described as hunter-gatherers, given the evidence for small-scale cultivation and gardening elicited from re-readings of ethnographic sources and the study of traditional knowledge (Deur and Turner 2005a; McDonald 2005; Williams and Hunn 1982). Nonetheless, the long-term interest in the question of how pronounced social inequality developed here and elsewhere on the Northwest Coast is still unresolved among archaeologists. In particular, there is no consensus regarding when, why and how social change took place (Ames 1991; Ames and

Maschner 1999; Archer 2001; Coupland 1988a; Hayden 1992; Matson and Coupland 1995;

Moss and Erlandson 1995).

With this work, I will contribute to the debate on the nature of ancient social and economic organization in the Prince Rupert area through the rubric of House Societies (Ames

2006; Gillespie 2000a, 2000b; Lévi-Strauss 1982; Marshall 2006). Houses were, and still are, the fundamental organizing principle in Tsimshian society (Roth 2008). In the 19th century,

Houses were central to systems of property ownership and social ranking. The antiquity of this institution, however, is not clear. In this study, I address the question of whether Houses existed in the past in the Prince Rupert area and, if so, what implications they might have had for social and economic relations.

Social Inequality in Ancient Prince Rupert Harbour

Archaeologists have been unable to solve many of the fundamental questions related to social change in the Prince Rupert area or elsewhere on the Northwest Coast because researchers do not agree on which data sets best represent evidence for pronounced social inequality. 4

Moreover, we have not yet resolved what particular bodies of data reveal about social relations.

For example, Archer (1992, 2001) hypothesizes that the small, uniformly sized house features at some village sites, such as GbTo-77 (the focus of this dissertation) reflect egalitarian social organization. Following Archer‟s (2001; see also Coupland 1988a) model, sites such as the Paul

Mason site on the Skeena River or GbTo-77 reflect egalitarian social organization because the house depressions that compose the sites are relatively similar in size. Ames (2005a:299-300), however, suggests that villages consisting of multiple rows of house depressions represent non- egalitarian social relations. For Ames, then, the settlement pattern at GbTo-77 (consisting of a single row of houses) reflects egalitarian social relations, but the Paul Mason site (a two-row village) does not.

Ames and Archer‟s arguments are well reasoned and draw upon additional lines of evidence, such as mortuary practices and oral records, to support their claims; in the end, however, they are contradictory. The ambiguity surrounding the relationship between settlement and social relations is in many ways not surprising. Inequality is not to be found in a predictable, comprehensive trait list, but rather can be expressed within multiple social contexts.

Thus, archaeologists need to study a full range of potential interactions in order to gauge social organization and the historical development of pronounced and hereditary inequality (Pauketat

2007; Pauketat and Alt 2005; Sassaman 2004). Material goods, for example, including subsistence resources, may foster socially inequitable relations within what otherwise appear to be non-stratified societies (Cobb 1993; Feinman and Neitzel 1984; Grier 2001; Johnson and

Earle 2000; Paynter 1989). In order to explore the nature of social organization in archaeological contexts, we need to consider the relations between people with respect to food, living arrangements, burial, architecture and other objects. GbTo-77, a small village site located 5 in Prince Rupert Harbour, provides a unique opportunity to investigate social relations at what are presumed to be egalitarian sites through faunal and architectural remains.

Some of the earliest musings on the development of social inequality on the Northwest

Coast emphasized ecological factors such as the structure of important resources, in particular salmon (Drucker and Heizer 1967; Fladmark 1975; Matson 1992; Schalk 1977; Suttles 1987a,

1987b). Recent thinking, however, has emphasized conflict over the location of these resources and the ambitions of individuals in managerial roles (Ames 1996; Ames and Maschner 1999;

Coupland 1988b, 1996; Hayden 1996). At the core of all these arguments, however, is salmon.

Over the last two decades, archaeologists have become aware of the enormous diversity that exists among regions with respect to salmon procurement (Monks 1987; Orchard and Clark

2005), but recent research has shown that salmon appears to have been more important in Prince

Rupert Harbour than anywhere else on the coast (Coupland et al. 2010). As early as 3000 BP, sedentary groups on the Skeena River practiced resource intensification, surplus production and large-scale salmon storage at the Paul Mason site (Coupland 1985, 1988b, 1996; Matson and

Coupland 1995:183-186). Coupland and Matson contended that this evidence demonstrates that intensive salmon harvesting was well within the capabilities of small egalitarian households. As discussed above, the house depressions at this site seem to represent small, uniformly sized dwellings and these have been interpreted by some to represent egalitarian households. This evidence, in conjunction with a paucity of prestige goods, suggested to Coupland (1985, 1988a,

1996) that corporate groups, rather than hereditary elites, controlled surplus production.

Extrapolating from this site to the Prince Rupert area, however, is problematic for two reasons. First, as mentioned, there exists some disagreement regarding the nature of social relations represented by the organization of houses at the Paul Mason site (Ames 2005a:299-

300; Ames and Maschner 1999:258; Coupland 1988a; Moss 2004: 187-188). Because of poor 6 faunal preservation at this site, the evidence for large-scale salmon processing and storage is inferred from an increase in the proportion of slate knives and the presence of plank house remains (Coupland 1988a, 1996; Matson and Coupland 1995:187). Plank houses had profound consequences for the social and economic organization of households on the Northwest Coast, because their construction reflects long-term, multi-generational investment in particular locations within the landscape (Ames 1991, 1996, 2006; Marshall 2000, 2006). There exists, however, considerable variability in the number of generations represented in the remains of plank houses. Some house depressions seem to represent many hundreds of years of continuous occupation, while others appear to have been inhabited for a few decades (Ames 1996, 2006).

Second, while salmon production for storage may be well within the capabilities of people living year-round along a very productive salmon river, it does not necessarily follow that groups living most of the year on the coast were organized in the same way.

The Tsimshian

Intensive salmon harvesting and storage were well within the capacity of people living at the larger stratified villages of the contact and post-contact periods. Nineteenth and twentieth- century Tsimshians travelled between the harbour and the Nass and Skeena Rivers on a seasonal basis (Boas 1916:399; Garfield 1966:13-14; Miller 1997:21-2). Although Tsimshians were most sedentary during the winter, when most groups lived within the harbour in large villages, the Skeena River was perhaps the most important component of their seasonal round. In fact, the word Tsimshian is derived from ts’m, meaning “inside of a thing” and Ksyaan meaning the

“Skeena River”; the most literal translation of the name Tsimshian is “inside of the Skeena

River” (Boas 1916:43; Roth 2008:21). During the 19th and 20th centuries, Tsimshian tribes, or local groups, were organized into winter villages in and around Metlakatla Pass, but each tribe 7 also owned carefully defined territories on the Skeena watershed (Allaire 1993; Coupland et al.

2001; Garfield 1966; Miller 1997:15). The tribe, or village, was an important affiliation for

Tsimshians, but one‟s essential identity was with the House (Garfield 1966:22-23; Miller

1997:45; Roth 2008:162). The House, or wa’lp (wüwalp pl.), as it is called in Sm’álgyax (the

Tsimshian language), is synonymous with the functioning feast group, but it is also the physical dwelling, the people living within it, the summer and winter resource territories owned by this group, its crests, songs, dances and wealth (Garfield 1966:22-23; Halpin and Seguin 1990;

Miller 1997:45-55; Neylan 2002:169; Seguin 1993:111-115). For the Tsimshian, the wa’lp is a container that holds inherited names and titles, rights to property and wealth, as well as its existing members. The names that are contained within each House connect its members to very particular locations on the ground:

Names link members of a Tsimshian lineage to the past and to the territory on which that past unfolded. A Tsimshian name holder shares his or her name with a succession of matrilineally related predecessors stretching back to the ancient historical events that describe the origins of the name, of the [H]ouse lineage, and of the lineage‟s rights to territories and resources (Roth 2008:30).

In this way, names are deeds or sovereign titles to owned resource territories that are codified in crest poles and painted house fronts (Cove 1987; Roth 2008).

The histories of Houses are recorded in the adawx, Tsimshian oral narratives; they tell of the exotic origins of some Houses and their integration with pre-existing Tsimshian peoples through marriage and warfare (Allaire 1993:89; Dunn 1993:100-102; Marsden 2000). Winter villages were composed of these Houses, but Houses could move between villages over the course of time; through these migrations House estates remained intact, because the wa’lp formed the fundamental territory-owning unit (Allaire 1993:89; Cove 1987). While they might draw support from related Houses, or groups of related houses (the wilnaat’aał,) “…when necessary they stand in the feast hall alone and sovereign against the world” (Roth 2008:204). 8

But what is the antiquity of this kind of economic, social and political organization?

How can we tell if the wa’lp existed in the past and if they were indeed “sovereign”? What constitutes evidence for ownership, or territorial strategies, in archaeological contexts? Do plank houses always reflect sedentism and property ownership, as Ames and Maschner

(1999:250) suggest? Working within the rubric of Lévi-Strauss‟ House Societies, Ames (2006) and Marshall (2000; 2006) have explored the concept of the House in archaeological contexts on the Northwest Coast through settlement and mortuary data. This research has been successful in demonstrating how groups became tied to specific locations on the landscape and perhaps the transmission of these places from one generation to the next. What is missing from these works, however, is a discussion based on archaeological evidence that supports the idea that important resource locations were owned beyond the immediate vicinity of an inhabited winter village.

With respect to Prince Rupert Harbour, how do we know that house depressions at coastal sites represent Houses with territories in the interior? While some have inferred that important resource locations were owned and that conflict over these territories formed the basis of emerging multi-family households and social inequality here (e.g., Coupland 1996:122), no study has explicitly demonstrated how ownership of these locations might have operated.

Research Objectives: when is a house just a house?

Central to this research is the question of whether the house depressions we excavate represent

Houses. In other words, what is the antiquity of the Tsimshian wa’lp? Ames (2006) suggests that surface house depressions in shell midden sites dating as early as 3000 BP are the remains of domestic dwellings, but also of Houses. Marshall (2006) argues that evidence for substantial rectangular structures by approximately 5500 BP may reflect the development of incipient

Houses, but true Houses in the Lévi-Straussian sense only developed within the last 2000 years. 9

Ames (2006) and Marshall (2006) see a link between archaeological house depressions and sedentism. Because their arguments are framed within Lévi-Strauss‟s concept of the House, they imply that there is an association between house depressions and property.

The relationship between houses constructed in the past and the surface depressions that are visible today, however, may be more complicated than we assume. We cannot be sure that all depressions represent domestic structures, let alone Houses. A variety of taphonomic factors may create or obscure surface depressions. Mackie and Williamson (2003), for example, showed recently that surface depressions at 19th-century villages on southwest Vancouver Island did not always correspond to the remnants of dwellings. Some surface depressions contained architectural features associated with more than one structure, while other houses produced no visible surface depressions. Mackie and Wiliamson‟s work serves as a reminder that what we see on the surface of many shell midden sites may not be directly analogous to the structures that were built there in the past. Surface house depressions also relate to specific moments in the life history of archaeological sites; most likely, these represent some of the last events that occurred at these sites. Many surface house depressions are sitting on top of older deposits that may be associated with earlier domestic structures obscured by later building activity.

If we are able to confidently identify depressions representing the remnants of domestic dwellings, how do we know whether they are also the remnants of Houses? Control of property is the most consistent principle that distinguishes Houses from simple domestic dwellings.

Lévi-Straussian Houses are “…long-lived property-owning social units…” (Gillespie 2000b:7-

8). In archaeological contexts, therefore, Houses should produce evidence for long-term continuity in occupation of specific places on the landscape, including the domestic dwelling itself. For these reasons, I use architectural and stratigraphic data from GbTo-77 to explore whether house depressions at this site demonstrate evidence for repeated rebuilding and 10 extensive repair over long periods of time. On its own, such evidence, if it exists, does not necessarily reflect intentional transmission of the physical structure from one generation to the next. There are practical factors that may account for continued reuse of buildings. Evidence for ownership of estates is central to the concept of the House and, as such, we need to know if the inhabitants of the houses represented by these depressions owned important resource locations beyond the immediate vicinity of villages. In this dissertation, I explore also whether control of regional as opposed to locally available resources (sensu Ames 2005a:280-282) could reflect House-based land tenure strategies. If these ownership strategies were based around the

House, what do they reveal about relations between Houses in light of the fact that House

Societies tend to promote hereditary social inequality (Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995a; Gillespie

2000a)?

In my research, I draw upon original data from my excavations at GbTo-77 and data from Coupland‟s excavations at four other village sites in Prince Rupert Harbour (Coupland et al. 2006; 2010). Using the chronology developed by Ames and Maschner (1999), three sites I use in this study date to the latter half of the Middle Pacific Period (or Middle Period), one from the transitional period between the Late Middle Period and the Early Late Pacific Period (or

Late Period), and one from the Late Period as defined by Ames and Maschner (1999; see also

Ames 2005a:24-29). In this chronological sequence, the Middle Period dates from approximately 3500 to 1500 BP and corresponds with MacDonald and Inglis‟s (1981) Period II for Prince Rupert Harbour. The Late Period dates from 1500 BP to the contact period and is coterminous with Period I (MacDonald and Inglis 1981).

Organization of dissertation

This dissertation consists of nine chapters organized in two parts. Part one provides background information that is needed in order to understand the significance of this research. Chapter 2 presents the theoretical framework in which I have situated my work. It includes a discussion on the balance between historical and ecological approaches to the past, as well as my understanding of what House Societies are and how I apply the concept in my research. As discussed in chapter 2, the relationship between households and Houses is complicated. The

House is equivalent to the household or house-group in many respects but, following Gillespie

(2000c:33-34), I favour the view that Houses, with owned estates, are likely to foster and be fostered by non-egalitarian social relations. Throughout this work, I refer to the physical structure, or dwelling, by these names or the term house. House depressions refer to the archaeological remnants of these dwellings.

Because resource structure is essential to any discussion of ownership or territoriality, chapter 3 describes the harbour and its adjacent regions in terms of landscape, hydrology, vegetation, and fauna. In chapter 4, I review what is known about the Tsimshian from ethnographic, historic and oral records. The problems and pitfalls associated with using ethnographic data to interpret the past are well known (Deur and Turner 2005b; Ford 1989;

Losey and Yang 2007; Moss 1993, 2004; Schrire 1984). Ethnographies recount societies that have responded and adapted to contact with Europeans and may be vastly different from pre- contact groups. Archaeological work into the late pre-contact period has already shown that many aspects of Tsimshian society were indeed altered by the fur trade and the introduction of diseases. In other respects, however, there is evidence for continuity (Martindale 1999; Prince

1998). Archaeology is perhaps best suited to address the nature of pre-contact groups and by extension the history of these groups. Chapter 5 outlines our current understanding of the pre- 12 contact period in Prince Rupert and along the lower Skeena River through archaeological and oral historical records.

The second part of this work presents the results of my research. I begin chapter 6 with a summary of settlement data and radiocarbon dates associated with each of the sites in this study. I also present the stratigraphy of an excavated back midden unit at GbTo-77. In chapter

7, I provide the stratigraphic and architectural evidence from the excavated house depressions at

GbTo-77. I discuss the evidence for investment in house construction and maintenance, and whether this constitutes evidence for transmission of physical dwellings from one generation to the next. I discuss also the architectural evidence from GbTo-77 and what this reveals about the people who built structures at this site more than 2000 years ago.

Chapter 8 focuses on the results of the faunal analysis from material excavated at GbTo-

77 and four other sites that Coupland excavated in the harbour. In this section, I consider how faunal remains might reflect evidence for ownership of important resource locations, a central tenet of House Societies. A synthesis of all data, my interpretations of it and my conclusions are presented in Chapter 9. Appendix A contains a list of the auger samples that were collected at GbTo-77. Appendix B includes a list of vertebrate fauna collected and identified from the

GbTo-77 excavations. Appendix C consists of a list of the artifacts found and a brief discussion of them. Appendix D provides a breakdown of each column, bulk, and auger sample collected and analyzed from GbTo-77.

Implications for Results

The results of my dissertation contribute to our understanding of the rich and complex archaeological history of Prince Rupert Harbour in three important ways. First, my results suggest that the house depressions at GbTo-77 do not seem to reflect House-based organization. 13

The stratigraphic and architectural evidence from excavated house depressions showed no conclusive evidence for long–term occupation, reconstruction or rebuilding. Furthermore, sampling problems with faunal remains from both excavated house depressions precluded meaningful comparisons between houses in terms of economic relations. Second, architectural data from this site shows that houses may have been constructed differently in the past than they were during the 19th and 20th centuries. This evidence is tentative, but provides the groundwork for a discussion on the relationship between architecture, mobility and social relations. Third, faunal remains from GbTo-77 and four other village sites in the harbour indicate that the people inhabiting these villages adopted slightly different economic strategies. Most vertebrate faunal remains collected during excavation using ¼ inch and 1/8 inch mesh screens revealed few differences among sites. Differences were observed, however, in terms of shellfish composition and the abundance of small fish recovered from column, bulk and auger samples. Variability in local resources may relate primarily to the precise location of these villages within the harbour, but may also have implications for our understanding of pre-contact land tenure practices in the harbour.

Chapter 2. Theoretical Perspectives

The overarching theoretical framework for this study is influenced by the writings of archaeologists working within both historical and ecological paradigms. Cross-cultural regularities in economy, mobility and social organization may exist among disparate groups, but the mechanisms behind both change and the reproduction of social norms are largely contextual

(Childe 1951:14). This context is not strictly historical or ecological, but a combination of both.

The environment forms very real constraints to human actions and to the kinds of decisions that people make (Rowley-Conwy 2001; Trigger 1991). The patchy structure of local resources in

Prince Rupert Harbour, for instance, influenced the kinds of settlement and economic systems that people living in the area could reasonably adopt (Ames 2005a:280-281). To paraphrase

Ingold (2000:20) the environment is not external to humanity or to history. Human actions shape local environments, the consequences of which may resonate over the course of time. On the northern Northwest Coast, the village sites that form the basis of this study are prime examples of how human activity modifies landscapes. Muskeg, or mire, forms a significant component of the northern coastal landscape (Turunan and Turunan 2003). Martindale et al.

(2009:1574) have suggested recently that shell middens were constructed to create dry, well drained locations (see chapter 3). Initial settlement then, created ideal conditions for the return of people to very specific locations over thousands of years. This makes the environment

“fundamentally historical” (Ingold 2000:20).

High-level ideas about the nature of culture change, such as these, are understood or interpreted in archaeological contexts through middle-level, or middle-range, theories (Binford

1977, 1978; Schiffer 1972, 1976). Middle-level theories seek to illustrate the relationship between material remains and the behaviours that created them. These “generalizations” may be broad and cross-cultural (as noted above), specific to societies that share similar modes of production, or to historically-related cultures (Trigger 1989:21-24). Such generalizations are necessary because archaeological patterning, in and of itself, does not illuminate culturally- specific meanings of things. This kind of meaning can only be gleaned using other, non- archaeological sources of data:

Such information may be provided by historical documents, oral traditions, ethnology and historical linguistics. Finding ways to use these non-archaeological data to understand the cultural meaning of historically related archaeological evidence is to the archaeological study of cultural traditions what the use of ethnoarchaeological data is for the development of middle-range theory. While this interdisciplinary approach began to be developed in the 1950s (Murdoch 1959; McCall 1964; Trigger 1968), it was rejected by processual archaeology because of its cultural-historical affinities and has only begun to move forward again in recent years (Jennings 1979; Ki-Zerbo 1981; Tardits 1981). The rigorous development of the direct historical approach is perhaps the most challenging and potentially important task confronting archaeologists today (Trigger 1991:561-562).

There is a long tradition of using these kinds of non-archaeological lines of data on the

Northwest Coast (MacDonald 1993; MacDonald and Inglis 1981; Martindale and Marsden

2003; McMillan 2000; Moss 1993, 1996). Ethnographies in particular are frequently used both to construct hypotheses about the past and to aid in interpreting archaeological data (Cannon

2002; Ford 1989; Mitchell 1981,1983; Moss and Erlandson 1995; Orchard 2007). Scholars increasingly recognize, however, that ethnographies describe ways of life dramatically altered by contact with Europeans and the integration of indigenous economies into capitalist economic systems (e.g., Martindale 1999; Prince 1998). Many archaeologists also overlook precisely how much variability existed in almost all aspects of ethnographically documented Northwest Coast societies (Cannon 2002; Martindale 1999; Mitchell 1981; 1983). Mitchell (1981), for example, demonstrates how Kitkatla seasonal migrations, as recorded in historic documents, differed 16 fundamentally from the generalized patterns that Boas (1916) records, and from which many archaeologists construct their understanding of contact-period settlement and mobility.

Kitkatlas and other Southern Tsimshian groups did not travel to and from the Skeena River, but rather held multiple summer resource locations along smaller rivers and streams on the mainland and coastal islands. These smaller groups could spread themselves over a wide area, exploiting multiple resources simultaneously. In fact, there is considerable variability among all

Tsimshian groups regarding the nature of mobility and, by extension, sedentism. Some

Tsimshian groups moved as many as 16 times over the course of the annual round; five to six moves a year was considered typical, but, some groups did not move at all (Ames and Maschner

1999:120-121).

Certainly, these kinds of information cannot be taken as a direct analogy to explain archaeological patterning in the past. I draw upon ethnographic documentation and Tsimshian oral narratives, however, to hypothesise about the role of the House in the ancient past in the

Prince Rupert area. I draw also upon Lévi-Strauss‟ (1982) concept of House Societies. Houses not only occurred historically on the northern Northwest Coast, but they also occur in conjunction with owned resource territories, a land tenure strategy that is often adopted under the kinds of ecological conditions present in the Prince Rupert area. Looking at the past through the lens of House Societies has also proved a meaningful way of exploring changes in social relations because groups that are organized around Houses tend to foster non-egalitarian social relations.

Pronounced Social Inequality on the Northwest Coast

Archaeologists more commonly address the development of pronounced social inequality on the

Northwest Coast through the idea of complex hunter-gatherers. The reasons for and 17 mechanisms behind the emergence of social and economic complexity have formed one of the central archaeological research questions in this region for more than a quarter-century.

Anthropologists have long recognized that indigenous Northwest Coast groups exhibited many traits that were absent or muted in other hunter-gatherer societies (Boas 1928; Drucker 1965;

Kroeber 1963). For Boas, the complex social organization of Northwest Coast groups was significant because it directly challenged the prevailing evolutionary paradigm (Deur and Turner

2005b). It was not until the 1980s, however, that archaeologists and anthropologists began to wrestle with the idea of complex hunter-gatherers as a type of human social organization.

Archaeologists typically define these “complex” groups as relying on a hunting-gathering- fishing subsistence base, but also exhibiting traits that at the time had been associated exclusively with agriculturalists, including a high degree of sedentism, resource intensification, economic specialization, food storage, and, most importantly, pronounced social inequality

(Arnold 1996; Hayden 1990, 1996; Price and Brown 1985).

There has been significant disagreement in the hunter-gatherer literature regarding which combination of traits is essential to defining complex hunter-gatherers: which are causes of social complexity and which are outcomes? Price and Brown (1985) contend that complexity is an attempt to categorize groups of hunter-gatherers on the basis on these interrelated parts but, for Arnold (1996), complexity is related specifically to the ability of elites to control the labour of non-kin; this is in effect pronounced, or ascribed, social inequality. What these writers share is an overriding sense that complex hunter-gatherers are most important to archaeology because of what they reveal about the evolution of human society, i.e., that the association between social relations and economy is not a straightforward one. Research within the complex hunter- gatherer framework has done much to augment our understanding of the variability that exists within hunting and gathering societies. This variability exists not only within the spectrum of 18 mobility and sedentism (e.g., Binford 1980) but also within social organization (Fitzhugh and

Habu 2002; Price and Brown 1985; Woodburn 1980, 1982).

A common criticism of the complex hunter-gatherer model is that it promotes a view of the past whereby changes in social and economic organization are inherently progressive. In these neo-evolutionary approaches, complexity is a threshold; once it is reached groups cannot shift “back” to “simpler” ways of being (e.g., Hayden 1990, 1996). But some societies are known to have abandoned agriculture or horticulture in favour of hunting and gathering and others relied on cultigens from time to time (Ingold 2000; Schrire 1984). Moreover, many key traits of social complexity are found among very early human societies and among primates, including some degree of social inequality beyond age and sex, and territoriality (Rowley-

Conwy 2001; Sassaman 2004; Wason 1994:41). The kinds of egalitarian societies from which archaeologists have tended to draw assumptions about the past are often those who have responded to contact with, or integration into, outside hierarchical groups (Boehm 1993; Kelly

1995:27-29; Trigger 1989:335-336). Social organization is likely far more variable and complex than can be understood by the binary categories of egalitarian and non-egalitarian

(Cobb 1993; Paynter 1989).

The relationship between social complexity and a hunting-and-gathering economy is further complicated by recent indications that many Northwest Coast groups practiced some form of cultivation. Reinterpretations of Northwest Coast ethnographic and ethnohistorical material suggests that many groups, including the Tsimshian, relied to some degree on cultivated plants during the 19th and 20th centuries (Deur and Turner 2005a). There is also considerable evidence for the active management of important resources, including berries, rhizomes, shellfish and even salmon from a number of locations across the coast (Deur and

Turner 2005b; Haggan et al. 2006; McDonald 2005; Williams 2006). As a result, many contend 19 that Northwest Coast groups have more in common with cultivators than hunter-gatherers (Deur and Turner 2005a; Williams 2006). If this is so, the details of how Northwest Coast groups made a living may still confound models of socio-cultural evolution, not because they exhibit some of the traits associated with agriculturalists, but because they suggest that a highly- structured categorization of human societies is problematic (Ingold 2000; Kelly 1995; Williams and Hunn 1982).

Houses and Households

Marshall (2006) has recently opted to look at Northwest Coast groups within the rubric of

House Societies precisely because this approach allows us to talk about society and economy outside of the hunter-gatherer/agriculturalist framework. Lévi-Strauss (1982) developed the idea that certain groups of people are organized around “Houses” as opposed to kinship in an attempt to understand societies that trace descent through both the maternal and paternal lines.

In these cognatic systems, individuals may be members of multiple social and kin-based groups at the same time. This means that there is considerable flexibility in terms of where, and with whom, people live. Lévi-Strauss defined the House in this context as,

a corporate body holding an estate made up of both material and non-material wealth, which perpetuates itself through the transmission of its name, its goods and its titles down a real and imaginary line, considered legitimate as long as this continuity can express itself in the language of kinship or of affinity and, most often, both (Lévi-Strauss 1982:174).

Post-contact period Northwest Coast groups, feudal Japan and medieval European societies tended to organize themselves around Houses, a physical structure or dwelling that contained people, or its members, but more importantly wealth, titles and property. These material, and often non-material, goods were handed down from one generation to the next through blood lines or through fictive kin and adoption. Strict rules of kinship were less important in House Societies than the continuity of the House in name and the perpetuation of 20 its estate. For contact and post-contact-period Tsimshians, the perpetuation of Houses and their estates was of greatest concern to titled elites. Low status, non-titled House members

(commoners), however, also had an interest in maintaining successful Houses because they received food and protection in exchange for their labour (Garfield 1966:29; Miller 1997:51).

The emphasis on continuity of House estates is probably the most important aspect of House

Societies:

House property is the focus of common interest for the inhabitants, and this property, whether material or nonmaterial, provides the motivation for people to insure that the [H]ouse endures through generations (Sandstrom 2000:56).

In this way, the physical structure of the domestic house is seen as a container for its members, its goods, its titles and wealth. It ties groups to domestic dwellings and, more important, to specific locations on the landscape (Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995b:45-46;

Marshall 2000, 2006; Sandstrom 2000:56).

House Societies can trace their ancestry to specific individuals, mythical or real, who founded the original House in a specific location. Houses may have changed location, but members retain the shared memory of that origin (Lévi-Strauss 1982:164-165; Marshall

2006:37). The emphasis on continuity, as well as the ownership and transmission of resources, lands and wealth from one generation to another resonate through all of these writings on House

Societies (Gillespie 2000a; Sandstom 2000). Although some anthropologists have applied the concept to groups that do not exhibit many of the hallmarks of hereditary social inequality (e.g.,

Waterson 1995), the territorial strategies built around Houses are likely to foster socially inequitable relations between the groups that inhabit them. This is because competition between

Houses is what most defines this kind of social organization:

All [H]ouses are not the same. No two [H]ouses will incorporate exactly the same estate; each will have its own names, heirlooms, ritual privileges, and material property that serve to differentiate [H]ouses and form a basis for ranking them (Gillsepie 2000b:9).

Lévi-Strauss viewed House Societies within an evolutionary paradigm; these social groups “have not yet overstepped the “old ties of blood”” (Lévi-Strauss 1982:186-187) but rely on kin terminology to express themselves and maintain the House estate (see also Carsten and

Hugh-Jones 1995b:10; Gillespie 2000a; Lévi-Strauss 1987). This aspect of Lévi-Strauss‟ writings has been dismissed by many scholars in conjunction with other neo-evolutionary ideas of progressive change (Gillespie 2000c:51; Waterson 1995:65-66). Rather, House Societies

“encompass groups unified around domestic-cultural themes embodied in architecture, descent and alliance. In these and other contexts, group solidarity may accompany supra-settlement exchanges of things or people” (Pauketat 2000:19). Although many scholars have adapted the concept of House Societies to address specific events in regional histories (Gillespie 2000a;

Marshall 2000, 2006; Waterson 1995), there is a recurrent theme concerning the role that

Houses may play in political and economic transformations. This means that looking at the development of Houses requires consideration of how individuals may attempt to consolidate power as well as the responses of others to these actions (Coupland et al. 2009; Gillespie

2000c:51-52; Waterson 1995). The House is also concerned, however, with the day-to-day interactions of its members (Bourdieu 1977; Carsten and High-Jones 1995b:45; Joyce and

Hendon 2000:143). In this way, an examination of the past through House Societies requires a multi-scalar approach. The social relationships that bind individuals to Houses extend well beyond the parameters of the built environment or the domestic dwellings.

Another way to consider House membership is within the context of affiliation. House membership brings access to property, wealth and history, mythic or real. People can have multiple affiliations, but usually feel most strongly about one or two of these. These are “salient identities” (Schortman 1989:54). In House Societies, the strongest affiliation, or salient identity, is to the House. This appears to be the case whether the House is genuinely composed of a 22 lineage or kin-based group, or whether relations are affinal or fictive. As a result, some scholars look at Houses as communities (Canuto 2002:22; Canuto and Yaeger 2000; Kolb and Snead

1997; Pauketat 2000). This is especially true if one considers that domestic activities may not inherently be related to specific households, and that many activities might be ascribed to house- clusters (Pauketat 2000:32).

Theory concerning House Societies shares many common themes with other household approaches but, for Marshall (2006), the main difference between models that emphasize the

House and the “household” is that, in House Societies, economics follows from place, rather than being the locus of all social change. I see these components as being more integrated than does Marshall. It is not simply the transmission of the House structure that is important, it is the transmission of its properties and wealth that by definition is embedded within economic systems. There are, however, some legitimate criticisms of household theory that are relevant here. In particular, household theory rests on the premise that households adapt in very concrete and observable ways to the world around them. Because the domestic group is understood to be the foundation of economic organization in non-industrial societies (Sahlins 1972:41-148), changes to the economy and society are presumed to occur first in households (Coupland 1988b;

Wilk 1997; Wilk and Rathje 1982). Critics contend that viewing the household in this way has contributed to a “building-block” understanding of culture change (Pauketat 2000). Change occurs first in the household (represented by the house), then the community (represented by the site), then at a regional scale (represented by a grouping of sites defined by the study area). We know, however, that household activity occurs well beyond the confines of the domestic house and that social relations can exist on multiple scales; there are neighbourhoods that define community on-the-ground, but also organization and family ties that cut across spatially defined units of analysis that are based on proximity. These associations might be represented 23 archaeologically by shared raw materials, evidence for trade networks and exchange relationships. The impetus for change might occur along anyone of these scales (Pauketat 2001;

Sassaman 2004).

Scholars working with the concept of the House, by contrast, tend to encourage an integrated multi-scalar and multi-component approach (Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995b:20).

The architecture of the domestic structure itself, the interaction between House members and between members of different Houses, particularly those that form communities, are all crucial to understanding social relations in the past (Ames 2006; Carsten and High-Jones 1995a;

Gillespie 2000a; Marshall 2000; 2006). This kind of thinking resonates with recent writing by

Pauketat (2001) and Sassaman (2004), both of whom advocate the use of historical approaches to understanding social change. Pauketat (2001) emphasizes three points that he contends are critical to augmenting what we know about the past. First is the documentation of variability through time and space, even in the simple and mundane elements of culture-making, such as post moulds. Second, this approach encourages consideration of multiple histories at multiple scales of analysis. This multi-scale and temporal approach is critical because social inequality, or complexity, might be apparent at one level, but not at another (Pauketat and Alt 2005;

Sassaman 2004). Third, this approach involves tacking between multiple lines of evidence, including those often ignored by archaeologists. A post mould, therefore, can reveal aspects of technology, mobility and seasonality just as faunal remains and settlement patterns can (Cobb

1993; Pauketat and Alt 2005; Paynter 1989). Under the right circumstances one or all of these data sets may allow us to glimpse elements of past social relations, particularly if patterning in architecture or faunal remains cannot be entirely explained by local environmental conditions or the introduction of new technologies. Social relations may also change with circumstances. 24

Elites may choose to display wealth and prestige through burials or dwellings, but not necessarily both (Wason 1994).

Ideas about the House on the Northwest Coast

Although Lévi-Strauss developed the idea of House Societies in an attempt to understand the

Kwakwaka‟wakw numaym, he proposed also that this model could apply to all Northwest Coast groups. In fact, Houses, as defined by Lévi-Strauss share many characteristics with the

Tsimshian wa’lp. Wa’lp is a term referring to the physical structure of the House (its dwelling), its names, titles, inhabitants, owned resource territories, crests, songs, and dances as well as its economic power and wealth (Garfield 1966:22-23; Miller 1997:45-55; Neylan 2002:169; Seguin

1993:122-113). The Tsimshian adawx (oral narratives) contain stories of the origins of many

Houses outside of the Tsimshian homeland and their migration through, and integration into,

Tsimshian society (Dunn 1993; Marsden 2000). Wüwalp were ranked within villages and their members included those of various social ranks, including commoners and slaves (see chapter

4).

Anthropologists and archaeologists working in this area have become interested in understanding the origins and development of House Societies on the Northwest Coast because so many indigenous groups in the region seem to illustrate Lévi-Strauss‟s concept of the House so well. In the early 1980s, anthropologists working with Tsimshians understood the importance of the House as an organizing principle (e.g., Cove 1987; Seguin 1993:111-112) and it has continued as a major focus of study (e.g., Roth 2008). Although Mitchell (1983) recognized the similarities between Tsimshian social organization and the medieval European

Houses some 25 years ago, archaeological interest in the idea of the House has only begun within the past decade. Ames (2006) and Marshall (2000, 2006) were foremost among 25 archaeologists to use the idea of House Societies as a theoretical construct in their work. Their writings emphasize the importance of place through examination of house depressions and village layout. At the time of Tsimshian contact with Europeans, Northwest Coast societies consisted of a core group of ancient Houses. Many more Houses, however, had failed to perpetuate themselves over the course of the preceding millennia. Ames (1996, 2006) argues that successful Houses were those that were able to maintain a membership large enough to generate a surplus of important resources. This surplus could provide for its members through the winter, account for unanticipated risks in terms of resource procurement, and be converted into wealth and prestige. Houses perpetuate themselves, therefore, by undertaking strategies that maintain their estate and continue to bring in new members over multiple generations.

Relying on kin relations and producing children only account for some of the membership;

Northwest Coast Houses could also entice commoners, enslave individuals from other groups, and bring in new members through adoption (Cove 1987; Roth 2002).

For Ames, House Societies coincide with the emergence of pronounced social inequality expressed in the linear arrangement of plank houses in villages. These buildings acted as storage for surplus and wealth, as housing for members (Ames 1996) and as markers of status and rank to outsiders (Blanton 1994; Coupland 2006). The physical remains of some dwellings may reveal repeated building and maintenance episodes that span hundreds, if not thousands of years, while other occupations may have been short-lived, so as to leave virtually no record

(Ames 2006). Ames contends that evidence for long-term and uninterrupted occupation of very specific locations on the landscape suggests not only that the people inhabiting these dwellings were propertied, but that social relations within and among them are in some dimension hierarchical. Houses therefore, and the rights, titles, privileges and wealth they contained, may have been part of Northwest Coast social organization for some time. Such interpretations may 26 be partially influenced by the role that Houses have played since the contact period on the

Northwest Coast. As discussed above, the wealth and property of Houses is symbolized within the architecture of the domestic dwelling and inheritance is represented by the transmission of the physical structure from one generation to the next. Archaeologically however, it is conceivable that evidence for rebuilding and repair could reflect other, more practical processes.

Existing house depressions, for example, are likely desirable places to build new dwellings.

Shell middens provided cleared and well drained locations to construct new dwellings. Standing house posts could have been incorporated into new dwellings, so long as they were mechanically sound. On its own, then, evidence of extensive repair and rebuilding is insufficient to prove the existence of Houses.

Yet the context in which these particular house depressions are found is pertinent to how we interpret them. This includes the historic context (i.e., the role of the wa’lp that is documented for the last few centuries in the Prince Rupert area) and evidence that may corroborate the existence of Houses in the past. For Marshall (2000, 2006:34), the idea of the

House is especially relevant to the Northwest Coast because it describes a way of life specific to this part of the world and draws upon indigenous ideas of society as opposed to templates constructed by outsiders. Marshall merges the tenets of the House with Wilson‟s (1988) idea of human self-domestication to argue that there is a long history on the Northwest Coast of emphasis on place. Through settlements and cemeteries, people established ties to specific places as early as 8000 years ago (Marshall 2006:40-41). Individuals became tied to specific locations on the landscape because of the way in which they have altered the environment through building activity. Implicit within this discussion are the ideas of ownership and the transmission of property from one generation to the next, a concept more fully developed by

Ames (2006) in relation to Middle Period house depressions and cemeteries from across the 27

Northwest Coast. Even if groups are not fully sedentary, they return to specific, owned structures that they inhabit and that are symbolic of a broader range of territories and wealth.

This is fundamentally different from groups that may congregate in a single location on a seasonal basis, but where the arrangement of households on the landscape may differ from year to year, or where the rights to particular structures are not passed from one generation to the next. The means by which people make a living however, is likely integrated with other aspects of important places. While there may be significant social and ceremonial reasons for groups to come together, people are unlikely to become tied to specific places without some reference to fundamental needs such as subsistence (Ames 2006:19; Sandstrom 2000). Embedded within subsistence or economic strategies are people‟s ideas about land and resources, as well as who has the right to use them.

Use of the House Concept in this Study

The idea of the House seems to explain many aspects of pre- and post-contact Northwest Coast settlement. The emphasis on the reconstruction and rebuilding of dwellings over a long period of time denotes the importance of that place and perhaps its ownership. This, however, only demonstrates ownership of the locations where people are living. The Tsimshian wa’lp of the post-contact period owned several important resource locations throughout the coastal and interior regions. It is not clear how Ames‟s and Marshall‟s evidence for Houses demonstrates the ownership of resource locations beyond the domestic structure. Although Marshall considers the role of neighbours in settlement formation, Ames‟s work does not explicitly explore how groups of houses, or villages, form economic and social relations. I seek to address these points through this study, by incorporating the idea of the House in two complementary ways. First, I examine architectural evidence to explore House continuity and stability at GbTo- 28

77 (Ames 2006; Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995a; Marshall 2000, 2006). This requires an exploration of how domestic structures were built, as well as the nature of settlement and mobility. Second, I explore the way in which Houses perpetuate themselves, and this necessitates an understanding of how, to paraphrase Sandstrom (2000) and Ames (2006),

Houses “made a living”. We need to know the nature of the economic strategies that underlie

Houses and what they might reveal about land tenure systems in the past.

The Architecture of Houses

Understanding the architecture of domestic dwellings allows us also to explore the degree to which domestic structures were owned and transmitted from one generation to the next. This is likely to be reflected in evidence for some degree of sedentism and relatively permanent dwellings. Sedentary groups spend most of the year living in a single location and return annually over longer periods of time (such as a generation). This is in contrast to more mobile groups that come together as a community at times and at other times dissolve. Mobility then can be expressed along a number of interrelated dimensions, including seasonal movement of residential base, movement of individuals around and between residences, seasonality and the permanence of facilities such as houses or fishing weirs. The decision to remain in a location or move depends on the cost of moving (including the nature of the landscape to cover and the nature of housing), the distance to the next location, and the extent to which food storage is practiced (Blair 2004:117; Kelly 1995). It is not surprising, therefore, that there is a strong connection between mobility and architecture. Groups that are highly mobile tend to build expedient structures. Initial investment costs are low, and as structures are built and taken apart relatively frequently, long-term maintenance is much less of a concern. Highly sedentary 29 groups, by contrast, will invest more in the original construction process because such structures require less maintenance, particularly in the short-term (McGuire and Schiffer 1985).

Semi-sedentary groups spend a season or two in one location year after year, but may be highly mobile the remainder of the year; in other words they incorporate both aspects of the foraging/collecting continuum (Binford 1980). Yesner (1987) considers semi-sedentary settlement to be linked to coastal subsistence, because coastal hunter-gatherers tend to locate themselves so as to take advantage of many resources and use logistically organized groups to accomplish this. But most important to this discussion is the idea that sedentary groups are more likely to own and control specific locations on the landscape; these can be inherited and rules about ownership are reflected in social organization (Ames 2006; Ames and Maschner

1999:25; Bar-Yosef 2002; Marshall 2006). Sedentism however, is not the only indication of ownership, nor does it always reflect territorial practices (Rowley-Conwy 2001:44-45).

House Societies are also premised on the notion that decisions of the House group are ultimately made to maintain the estate beyond the lifespan of any of its inhabitants (Gillespie

2000b:12-13) and this is reflected in evidence for maintenance and rebuilding of the physical dwelling (Ames 2006; Marshall 2006:42-43). As a result, architecture and other elements of the physical structure have become key components of investigations into the House archaeologically. Architectural studies are often grounded in the notion that there is a strong relationship between the ordering of domestic space and the organizing of social relations.

There are, for example, universal tendencies for greater segmentation of space, and the construction of monumental architecture, to relate to increasing social hierarchy and complexity

(Hillier and Hansen 1980; Kent 1991; Rapoport 1969; Trigger 1990). Embedded within the house structure, however, are also the conscious and unconscious notions that people have regarding cultural tradition (Bourdieu 1977; Hodder 1990; Kolb and Snead 1997:613; Lawrence 30

1990; Pauketat and Alt 2005). People learn to build houses from their forbearers and from the process of living within pre-existing ones.

The dwellings we excavate archaeologically, however, do not always represent the kind of house the builder or inhabitant had in mind. Domestic houses are works in progress. They can be lived in without being finished, abandoned before completion, or altered to serve another purpose. There is no final outcome to architecture because inhabitants rework their dwellings on daily, seasonal and generational bases. These processual aspects of house construction, maintenance, reconstruction, abandonment and decay (Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995b) require us to consider the dwelling through time, an idea which has been explored for some time in archaeology (e.g., Banning and Byrd 1987; McCartney 1979). In this way, examinations into why people build the houses they do is inherently historical:

…[B]uildings of all kinds are handed down as a legacy from one generation to the next in most sedentary societies; they illustrate the permanence and elasticity of the spatial organization of societies, being one vehicle for the embodiment of social ideas. Yet if there is a spatial and social order, however, it interacts with personal attitudes and social irregularities, is an agent of both stability and change. In architecture, the relationship between building form, its use, its meaning, and time is a transactional process between physical and affective factors. Given this fundamental principle, the following theorem is crucial for research on domestic space: “the relationship between habitat and resident is dynamic or changeable, and it includes factors which may remain unresolved over a relatively long period of time” (Lawrence 1990:78, emphasis original).

In addition to ideas of continuity and stability, architecture, like any form of material culture, can be manipulated to conceal or highlight political or social changes that are occurring within (Marshall 2000). Ames (2005a:299-300) for example, has argued that there is evidence for social inequality in the Prince Rupert area burials long before it is expressed in architecture.

The problem with this assessment is that burials can also be manipulated to express deliberate and often deceptive ideas about social organization (Cannon 2005; Parker Pearson 1982; Trigger 31

1989:348). In fact, patterning in burials may reveal more about mortuary custom and fashion than directly representing social organization (Burchell 2006).

The Economies of Houses

Houses work not only to maintain and transmit their domestic structures, but also their estates which may contain specific locations on the landscape well beyond their immediate environs.

Ownership such as this is likely to occur under specific ecological conditions and in conjunction with specialization of key resources. This means that, in order to know how Houses operated, we need to understand the economic systems that supported them (Ames 2005a:19; Carsten and

Hugh-Jones 1995b:19; Sandstrom 2000). If important resource locations were owned, we would expect to see some indication of variability within specialized economic strategies adopted by Houses. In the Prince Rupert area, this would include evidence for specialization of important resources, such as salmon. Specialized economies are so defined because they reflect the intensified exploitation of very few resources and a decrease in the number of secondary taxa (Ames and Maschner 1999:128; Betts and Friesen 2004; Schalk 1977:228-229). These strategies tend to be adopted where resources are spatially and temporally concentrated because the cost of defence is less than the benefits of maintaining access to this resource (Dyson-

Hudson and Smith 1978). Under these conditions, groups are likely to specialize on a few key resources and to develop systems of ownership that exclude non-members from access to them.

Betts (2005) has shown, for example, that Neoeskimo groups in the Mackenzie Delta region developed a number of distinct focal economies in response to burgeoning populations and that

19th-century territorial and social divisions among Mackenzie Inuit were rooted in these much earlier ownership strategies. Eerkens (2004) sees a slightly different approach to ownership among Great Basin groups. He argues that sudden and significant increase in the density of 32 seeds around 600 years ago is evidence for ownership of piñon trees in the area. These conditions appear to have fostered inequality in access to piñon seeds among households that may ultimately have contributed to social and economic inequality in the region. Both studies emphasize the role of competition for and the intensification of resources in the development of ownership, but ownership of two different kinds of areas on the landscape (see also Casimir and

Rao 1992 and Kelly 1995). Betts (2005) is examining the origins of territories, which Ingold

(1986:156-157) defines as parts of the landscape bounded by well-defined perimeters. Eerkens

(2004), on the other hand, considers household land tenure strategies. Land tenure refers to resource locations, or sites, and paths in hunting and gathering societies, and surface plots among agriculturalists (Ingold 1986:156-157). It demarcates very specific places on the landscape to which groups or individuals maintain the right to exclude others (Barnard

1992:146). Land tenure, then, is an apt term for what most Tsimshian ethnographers and scholars refer to as House territories (McDonald 2005).

On the Northwest Coast, scholars have been long interested in understanding the development of intensified salmon production, which, in areas such as Prince Rupert, has been shown to be a component of specialized salmon-focused economies (Coupland 1988a, 1988b;

Coupland et al 2010; Matson 1992; Matson and Coupland 1996). Storage is a central component of this kind of economic system. While storage is not unique to groups that adopt specialized economies, there is a strong tendency for highly specialized groups to practice storage of important resources on a large scale (Schalk 1977:228-229). Storage generally refers to foods and other goods that are processed for consumption at another time of year. Delayed- return systems, it is argued, create surpluses that foster or are fostered by social inequalities

(e.g., Hayden 1996; Testart 1982). Examples from the Northwest Coast suggest that storage- based economies may occur without pronounced social inequality, such as the Paul Mason site 33 and areas of southern Alaska (Coupland 1988a; Fitzhugh 2002). This may be explained by the fact that real differences exist between storage for the needs of the producers, such as resources to live through the winter months, and groups producing beyond their needs (Ames 1985:158-

159; Gould 1985:429-430; Woodburn 1980). Social inequality may only develop once groups produce beyond their short-term and long-term needs. Distinguishing storage for long-term needs from production for the purposes of wealth accumulation may prove difficult based on archaeological remains. Moreover, evidence for increased labour may not relate to the intensification of production but may relate to risk-management. The introduction of weirs or specific fishing technology may reflect a desire to get through a risky time, rather than to increase production. Thus evidence for specialization, intensification and storage does not correlate directly with social inequality in and of itself, but it can if other factors, in particular evidence for territorial strategies, are present.

The role of social inequality and competition with regards to key resources that are in some way owned is central to the development of Houses in the Lévi-Straussian sense of the term. This inequality is not only manifest in differential access to important resources, but also in the concomitant viability of Houses. Big Houses, as discussed by Coupland and Banning

(1996a), are able to achieve things that smaller Houses cannot because they can draw on large labour pools. Individual House leaders may choose strategies that increase House membership, for labour but also for prestige. In fact, one of the primary reasons many scholars consider large households to have emerged is in order to undertake multiple tasks at once. This is what Wilk and Rathje (1982) define as “task simultaneity.” This is important in areas where multiple resources become available at the same time of year, or where important resources are abundant for short periods of time. Large Houses may also have an easier time recruiting new members because they appear more successful (Coupland and Banning 1996a:2-3). 34

Archaeological Correlates of Houses

This dissertation rests on the premise that I can identify Houses archaeologically, and that they are distinguishable from simple physical structures, or domestic dwellings, which hold no property or rights to estates. As I have alluded to above, evidence for the continued repair and reoccupation of house depressions over hundreds, if not thousands of years may indicate the existence of Houses. Within the archaeological record at Prince Rupert, Houses should show little deviation from the original floor plan and evidence for the reuse of existing architectural features, repair, and continuous occupation over very long periods of time that represent multiple generations. There should be no evidence for long-term abandonment of the house depression. House depressions that do not represent Houses would likely show evidence for short-lived occupations and may contain evidence for alternative uses of the abandoned house depression. As property-owning entities, Houses should also reveal evidence for land-tenure strategies. As I have discussed above, such strategies may be represented by variability within economic systems, and this would be most apparent within faunal remains. If resources are held in common, we can expect little variability between house depressions in terms of faunal remains. If house depressions represent Houses that own specific locations on the landscape, particularly beyond the immediate vicinity of the dwelling, then there may be considerable variability in terms of the kinds of resources each group is able to acquire.

These factors are particularly compelling in conjunction with evidence for inequality, both in terms of house construction and size, as well as access to important resources. In other words, evidence for Houses is strongest where house depressions vary considerably in size and stature, where some house depressions appear to reflect long-term occupations, while others 35 suggest very short-term occupations. Houses should also produce evidence for considerable disparity among households in terms of resources that people are able to acquire.

Conclusions

The purpose of this study is to try and understand social organization in the past in the Prince

Rupert area in a way that considers the multifaceted nature of social relations. I use the rubric of House Societies because it is historically pertinent to the Tsimshian and other Northwest

Coast groups, and because it has proven to be a useful way of understanding both the day-to-day interactions of House members, and the nature of social, economic and political transformations.

Weaving through the idea of the House are Pauketat and Sassaman‟s thoughts on the importance of understanding the past in a multifaceted way and across multiple planes. To get at these ideas, I propose to answer four questions: 1) What was the nature of social relations in small villages such as GbTo-77 in light of multiple lines of evidence, including frequently overlooked data? 2) Are the house depressions we excavate at this and other sites in the harbour representative of Houses, as Ames and Marshall suggest? 3) If so, what can they reveal about the nature of ownership and territoriality, as well as resource production, mobility and settlement in the past? And 4) what relations existed between Houses within and between villages?

Chapter 3. The Environment.

The idea that aspects of the local environment contribute to the structure of Northwest Coast economies, settlement and social relations has been a focus of archaeological research in the region for decades (e.g., Matson 1992; Monks 1987; Schalk 1977; Suttles 1987a,1987b).

Although the Northwest Coast is considered an extremely productive region, there is tremendous variability in both plant and animal species, often within relatively short distances, and availability of these resources can be highly localized in time and space. Contact-period groups owned specific locations on the coast as well as along inland rivers and streams, and thereby controlled access to culturally important resources.

Many anthropologists have observed that so called “hunter-gatherers” manage resources and often rely on cultivated or domesticated plants and animals (Bird-David 1992; Deur and

Turner 2005a; Haggan et al. 2006; Ingold 2000; Williams and Hunn 1982). Recent work exploring indigenous cultivation practices through the 18th and 19th centuries also suggests that

Northwest Coast groups managed wild resources and altered environments in ways that resemble the practices of horticulturalists (Deur and Turner 2005a; Ingold 2000). There is significant evidence to suggest that Northwest Coast groups cultivated tobacco and cinqefoil

(Deur and Turner 2005b; McDonald 2005), used controlled burns of forests to boost berry growth and entice deer (Deur and Turner 2005b; Haggan et al. 2006; Suttles 1987b), and practiced shellfish cultivation (Ellis and Wilson 1981; Williams 2006). Scholars espousing this perspective see indigenous groups as “ecological factors” in creating environments, an idea that has percolated through the fields of ecology and botany for some time (Day 1953; Gomez-

Pampa and Kaus 1992). This approach also challenges our perceptions of what hunter-gatherers do and what they might have done in the past.

In this chapter, I present what is known about the environment people would have been living in 2000- 2500 years ago in the coastal and interior zones (sensu Martindale 1999) in and around Prince Rupert. The province of British Columbia defines “environment” on broad geographical relationships, macroclimatic processes and landforms (Banner et al. 1993:6) and uses the term synonymously with “ecoregion” and “biogeoclimatic zone” or “ecosystem.” I begin this section with the physiography, hydrology and climate of the Prince Rupert and

Skeena region of the north coast, all of which contribute to the kinds of plants and animals that inhabit this area today. I discuss also pre-contact-period ecological changes that may have occurred in this region, with particular emphasis on the late Holocene.

Archaeologists working on the Northwest Coast have tended to emphasize faunal resources and, indeed, a significant portion of this work is dedicated to examining the choices that the inhabitants of GbTo-77 made with respect to fauna. More recently, archaeologists have begun to examine floral remains within archaeological deposits (e.g., Lepofsky and Lyons 2003;

Ruggles 2007). The timing of plant harvests as well as their locations within the local environment would also have played a key role in mobility, settlement and subsistence practices, perhaps in concert with the exploitation of other resources. Moreover, as Blair

(2004:137) points out, raw material sources can also be reflected in the choices people make about settlement, mobility and subsistence. On the Northwest Coast, these raw materials are not only lithic, but also organic, such as bone and, perhaps most importantly, wood. The resources that are harvested, as well as how and when they are exploited, have profound influences on other aspects of society, such as where people live, what kinds of structures they build, how they travel, and what kinds of raw materials are available for tool-making. 38

The Structure of the North Coast Environment

GbTo-77 is situated within traditional Tsimshian territory, which includes the coastal mainland and islands in and around the city of Prince Rupert, as well as the Coast Mountains and the

Skeena and Nass River drainage systems. Digby Island is one of a group of islands that, together with the Tsimpsean Peninsula, define the inner harbour (Figure 3-1). I define the outer harbour as the west coast of Digby Island and the northern Tsimpsean peninsula, as well as the outer coastal islands.

Tsimpsean Peninsula N Duncan Bay Metlakatla

Tugwell Venn Passage Island Metlakatla Bay GbTo-77 Inner Harbour Tsimpsean Peninsula Crippen Outer Cove Harbour Digby Island City of Prince Rupert

Dodge Cove Mount Hays

Kaien Island

Chatham Sound

0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers Tsimpsean Peninsula Figure 3-1. Map of Prince Rupert Harbour showing landmarks cited in the text.

Norwegian fishermen and their families established two small communities, Dodge

Cove and Crippen Cove, on Digby Island in the early 20th century. The city of Prince Rupert is located on Kaien Island and Metlakatla First Nation on the Tsimpsean Peninsula north of Venn

Passage. 39

The inhabitants of GbTo-77 lived within an environment that was similar in most respects to that which is currently found within the traditional Tsimshian homeland. Botanical remains from cores taken from Hayes Mountain on Kaien Island and Diana Lake on the southern Tsimpsean Peninsula near the mouth of the Skeena show that sea levels stabilized in this area between 8400 and 7700 BP (Banner et al. 1983:939). Initial soil deposits in this area were alluvial and early forests were composed of shore pine, alder and ferns (Banner et al.

1983:942). Durable parent materials, combined with glacial run-off and a cool wet climate contributed to the paludification (development of mires and bogs) of these forests.

According to Hebda (2007), the shift to modern ecological conditions on the Northwest

Coast occurred between 7000 and 4000 years ago. These conditions fostered forests of pine- western hemlock-cypress bog woodland in the Prince Rupert/Skeena region (Banner et al. 1983;

Turunen and Turunen 2003:234). Western redcedars and pacific silver firs were important components of these forests, particularly on the north coast (Hebda 2007; Hebda and Mathewes

1984). In the Prince Rupert/Skeena region, modern oceanic climate and forest, dominated by cypress-pine-hemlock-heath-mire, was well established by 2000 cal BP (Turunen and Turunen

2003). While the modern forest was established relatively late, western redcedar, a key resource for Northwest Coast groups in the harbour area, as well as the conditions for productive shellfish communities and anadromous salmon runs appear to have been in place by the early Holocene

(Hebda and Mathewes 1985; Moss et al. 2007). In fact, recent archaeological work in the region confirms that shellfish were harvested in large quantities as early as 7000 to 8000 years ago (Banahan 2005; Martindale et al. 2009; McLaren 2008).

Physiography and Topography

The Prince Rupert area of British Columbia is situated within the western system of the

Canadian Cordillera. This system is made up of three physiographic regions: the Insular

Mountains, the Hecate Depression (or lowland) and the Coast Mountains. The Insular

Mountains are found on Haida Gwaii and include the St. Elias Mountains composing the

Alexander Archipelago in Southern Alaska (Figure 3-2). The Hecate Depression is part of the

Coastal Trough, a largely submerged landscape of basaltic lava and sedimentary rock with some granitic inclusions. The exposed terrain in the Depression consists of low-lying, rocky, coastal islands (including Digby and Kaien islands) and muskeg; summit elevations are below 600 masl

(Banner et al. 1993:4.1-4.2; Clague 1989; Hoos 1975:9; Klinka and Chourmouzis 2001:4; Ryder

1978:12-14).

The interior in and around the lower Skeena River is dominated by the Coast Mountains.

These mountains are composed of intrusive igneous rock (mainly granite with some gneiss and schist) that is relatively resistant to weathering (Ryder 1978:12-14). Groundwater resulting from heavy and constant rainfalls that characterize the region‟s climate tends to pool and is not easily drained. As a result, much of the north coast landscape (51% to 79%) is mire (Turunan and Turunan 2003). The peaks range in elevation between 2500 and 4000 masl and exhibit a northwest-southeast linear structure, carved out by glacial and fluvial action. During the last glacial advance, low-lying troughs were cut across these mountains by moving ice and these now form the major river systems on the north coast. The Coast Mountains are made up of two distinct ranges, the Kitimat and the Boundary ranges. The Kitimat Range is characterized by rounded tops or dome shapes that formed when these peaks were overridden by the Cordilleran

Ice Sheet. These are found south of the Nass River and some contain remnant glaciers. By

Figure 3-2. Map of northern British Columbia and southern Alaska showing the locations of physiographic landforms and major rivers mentioned in the text. This map also illustrates the locations of the cities of Prince Rupert and Terrace.

42 contrast, the Boundary Range has a serrated appearance and runs from the Nass River northward

(Banner et al. 1993:4.1-4.2; Ryder 1978:26-27).

Hydrology

Few streams and creeks in the vicinity of Prince Rupert drain into the harbour and even fewer are large enough to sustain anadromous fish runs (Canada Dept. of Energy, Mines and

Resources 1980; David Peacock pers. comm..). The largest drainage systems in the area are the

Skeena River to the south and the Nass River to the north.

Both the Skeena and Nass rivers originate in the Nass Basin, a low-lying area composed of hundreds of lakes in northwestern British Columbia. These lakes drain into the Nass and

Skeena rivers, as well as through their tributaries (Banner et al. 1993). The Skeena is the largest watershed on the northern coast and drains an area of 54,400 km2 (Natural Resources Canada

2009). Its waters travel approximately 580 km south and then west through the Coast

Mountains to the sea. A number of major rivers drain into the upper and middle section of the

Skeena, including the Babine and Bulkley rivers (Figure 3-3). The lower Skeena is also fed by a number of smaller tributaries originating in the high altitudes of the Coast Mountains, although

Lakelse Lake and Diana Lake also drain into the Skeena via smaller tributaries.

The waters of the Skeena estuary are especially turbid, particularly during the spring freshet and heavy autumn rains (Hoos 1975:53-54). The river picks up fine particles and silt that are held in suspension throughout its course until they are deposited in banks or shoals along the lower river and channels connecting the estuary to the sea. The Skeena estuary is large; Hoos (1975:1-4) sees the limits of the estuary area as over 30 km across and extending almost 8 km seaward, but there is no delta per se. Most of the fresh water leaving the Skeena flows north and enters Chatham Sound through a series of channels. Three-quarters of Skeena 43

Skeena River N

Kispiox River

Babine River

Bulkley River

Kitsumkalum Babine River Lake Kitsumkalum Lake

Kaien Island Inverness Lakelse Passage River Skeena River Lakelse Diana Lake Morice Lake River

Ecstall River Morice Lake 0 10 20 Kilometres

Figure 3-3. Map of the Skeena River watershed showing the location of landmarks cited in the text. 44 waters enters Chatham Sound through southern channels; only one-quarter of this freshwater heads north through Inverness Passage. Some of this water encircles Kaien Island, but does not move to the north or western coasts of Digby Island, because waters originating from the Nass prevent Skeena waters from moving north of Tugwell Island (Hoos 1975: 5, 31, 42-43).

South of the Skeena Estuary, the coastline is similar in structure and physiography to the northern area. There are many more rivers and streams that drain directly into the Pacific and many of these watercourses have anadromous fish runs. Mitchell (1983) and Coupland et al.

(2001) have suggested that this physiography may explain why contact period Tsimshian living south of the Skeena owned fishing locations that were dispersed across several smaller watercourses, while Coast Tsimshian groups tended to own specific locations on the Skeena watershed.

The shorelines in Prince Rupert Harbour and in the vicinity of the Skeena estuary are highly indented (Hoos 1975). Consequently, much of the coastline in these areas is well- protected or semi-protected from direct oceanic conditions. Well-protected coastlines in the

Prince Rupert area include bays and coves of the inner harbour, the eastern shorelines of near- shore coastal islands, and estuaries (sensu Ricketts et al. 1985). Semi-protected shorelines include the western shores of Digby Island and other outer harbour islands, as well as the coastal regions of the northern Tsimpsean Peninsula. Western shorelines of Dundas Island and

Stephens Island are more exposed to oceanic conditions than harbour coastlines. Different types of fauna, particularly shellfish, may flourish in these environments than in the harbour area.

The waters in and around Digby Island are relatively shallow, particularly on the northern, southern and western shores. Digby Island shorelines are composed of sand, gravel and pebble beaches, mudflats, eel grass and kelp forests, interspersed with large rocky outcrops

(Canada Dept. of Energy, Mines and Resources 1980; Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2010). 45

GbTo-77, for example, is situated on a small, shallow, unnamed bay that is bracketed by large schist, rhyolite and phyllite bedrock outcrops (Crawford et al. 2000). The shoreline here consists of at least three wide, sand and gravel beaches interspersed with smaller rocky outcrops

(Figure 3-4 and 3-5). Consistent with much of this landscape, the slope of the beach and intertidal zone is shallow. At lowest normal tide1 the water lines in almost 200 m from the beach ridge. For the next 250 m, the waters are between 1 and 5 m deep. Ocean depths continue to grade gently into Metlakatla Bay, itself a relatively shallow body of water (generally less than 30 m deep). Shorelines on the northern side of Metlakatla Pass, on Tugwell Island and to the north in Duncan Bay are very similar to those on these outer shores of Digby Island (see

Figure 3-1). Although there are a number of small shallow coves on the eastern coast of Digby

Island, including Dodge Cove, overall, the sea floor drops very quickly from the waterline to depths of over 40 m below sea level. The western shoreline terrain of Kaien Island is similar creating a narrow and deep channel between these two islands that is in effect Prince Rupert

Harbour (Canadian Hydrographic Services 1998).

Figure 3-4. Beach front at GbTo-77, high tide, summer 2003.

1 The lowest normal tide is the average of the lowest low waters (Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, 2010) 46

Figure 3-5. Beach front at GbTo-77, low tide, summer 2004.

The tides in the Prince Rupert area are semi-diurnal and have large tidal ranges that contribute to strong currents and “vigorous mixing” (Hoos 1975:xxi). Mean high tide is 6.1 m and mean low tide is 1.2 m above lowest normal tide (Canadian Hydrographic Services 1998). In some areas, the fluctuation between high and low tides appears even more pronounced due to the highly indented nature of the coastlines, which creates “a funnelling effect on incoming water” (Hoos

1975:56). This physiography has created a highly productive environment for many marine species of flora and fauna, including a variety of shellfish, many of which could be easily harvested during very low tides. The physical structure of the coastlines in the Prince Rupert harbour area also influences wave action. The many islands and shoals that compose this coastal landscape break wave swells, making waters choppy, but impeding the development of large waves that break against the shore as is common on open coastlines (Hoos 1975:58).

Waters are deeper in Chatham Sound, where they reach over 100 m in parts (Canadian

Hydrographic Services 1998). West and north of Stephens Island and the Tree Nob Group of 47

Islands, ocean depths reach over 200 m in Brown‟s Passage and Hecate Strait. The deepest waters in the area are in Dixon Entrance, where ocean depths range between 200 and 400 m.

West of Haida Gwaii is the edge of the continental shelf, where water depths rapidly drop to over 2000 m (Statistics Canada 1947).

Climate

The North Coast climate is influenced by the region‟s proximity to the ocean and its topography.

In the winter, storms develop offshore over the North Pacific Ocean and move toward the Gulf of Alaska where they weaken and die. Storm fronts frequently break away from these storm centers and move across the coastline where they are blocked by the Coast Mountains and drop their precipitation. As a result, the rainfall on the coast and the west-facing slopes of the Coast

Mountains is the highest in Canada (Ryder 1989). As winters are mild along the coast, only

4.5% of this precipitation falls as snow (Banner et al. 1983:939). Annual potential evaporation is generally low; it is highest in July and almost nil from October to February. The heavy rainfall combined with low evaporation rates contributes to the creation and maintenance of the mires, or muskeg, that compose so much of the landscape in this area (Meidinger and Pojar

1991:97). Because the strong west winds weaken in summer, the intensity of Pacific storms and coastal rainfall is greatly diminished in the warmer months (Schaefer 1978:3-5). The wet climate and terrain are important elements of the north coast landscape because they may help to explain why people living here built their houses on top of carefully constructed shell middens

(Martindale et al. 2009).

By contrast, temperatures recorded at Terrace in the interior, near Kitselas Canyon, are very different than those at Prince Rupert (Table 3-1). The difference between mean summer and winter temperatures is more pronounced; precipitation rates are two-thirds to one-half those 48 on the coast, and much more falls as snow (between 20% and 70 %). In the interior, the deep winter snowpack is slow to melt, which means that the vegetative season is short (Banner et al.

1983). This vegetation and climate of the interior may have contributed to the decision by contact and post-contact period groups to spend winters in the harbour (Martindale 1999:49).

Table 3-1. Summary of major climatic information for the coastal area (Prince Rupert) and the interior (Terrace). Sensu Martindale 1999; Environment Canada 2010. Location Prince Rupert Terrace Lowest Daily Mean 1.3oC (January) -4.3 oC (January) Temperature Highest Daily Mean 13.5 oC (August) 16.4 oC (July) Temperature Highest Mean Precipitation 304.4 mm (November) 191.6 mm (December) Lowest Mean Precipitation 114.3 mm (July) 51.3 mm (June) Mean Annual Precipitation 2468.5 mm 1322.4 mm Snowfall 40.9 cm 110.5 cm

Vegetation

Traditional Tsimshian territory encompasses two biogeoclimatic zones. The harbour, and by extension GbTo-77, is situated in the Coastal Western Hemlock zone. This biogeoclimatic zone extends along almost the entire coastal area of British Columbia, including most of the Coast

Mountains from 0 to 300 m asl in the north, and stretches into the interior along major river valleys, such as the Skeena. Forest cover in this area is dominated by western hemlock (Tsuga heterphylla), though western redcedar (Thuja plicata) is also common in the Prince Rupert area.

Other common species in this biogeoclimatic zone are amabilis, or pacific silver-fir (Abies amabilis), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), yellow cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis) and red alder (Alnus rubra). Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera)is common on large rivers with extensive floodplains, such as the Skeena. Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) is also widespread in the north and is found in a wide variety of habitats (Meidinger and Pojar 1991:96-97). 49

The higher altitudes of the interior section of Tsimshian territory fall mainly within the

Mountain Hemlock Zone. This biogeoclimatic ecosystem is found in higher altitudes of the

Coast Mountains, between 400 and 1000 masl. The dominant tree cover is the mountain hemlock, with some amabilis fir and yellow cedar. Forests are confined to lower elevations and are interspersed with wide areas of parkland (Meidinger and Pojar 1991:113-114).

Plant Resource Locations

Other than looking at the remains of wooden house-building material, there is no formal analysis of botanical remains included in this study. However, a number of important plant species were used by contact period Tsimshian groups for consumption and trade, as well as housing, medicines, clothing, utensils, and furnishings (McDonald 2005; Smith 1997). As with many other resources in the area, important plant species are often available at certain times of year in specific locales (Turner et al. 2005). Tsimshian groups harvested at least twenty-two kinds of berries, including red elderberries (Sambucus racemosa), high-bush cranberries

(Viburnum edule), soapberries (Shepherdia canadensis), salmon berries (Rubus spectabilis), seaside strawberries (Fragaria chiloensis), and raspberries (Rubus spp.). Although berries and fruit-bearing plants grow in the interior and coastal forests (Garfield 1966:13; Turunen and

Turunen 2003), contact period Tsimshian groups tended to harvest these resources from owned lands within the Skeena watershed in conjunction with salmon fishing (McDonald 2005, Miller

1997:22). Contact-period groups managed berry patches with periodic burning in order to encourage more productive growth (McDonald 2005:247; Turner and Peacock 2005:127).

Seaweeds, bracken fern (Pteridium aquiliunum) and rice-root (Fritillaria lanceolata) grow well within the coastal region. According to McDonald (2005:249-250) post-contact- period Tsimshians tended and gathered rice-root and ferns through the spring and summer. 50

Tsimshians harvested seaweeds, particularly kelp, in May (Miller 1997:21). It is not clear which kind of kelp was harvested, but bull kelp (Nareoceptis luetkeana) and giant kelp

(Macrocystis pyrifera) are common species found in the harbour today. The inner layers of hemlocks, spruces and pines were stripped and eaten (McDonald 2005). Redcedars were stripped of bark and roots while standing to provide raw materials for baskets, clothing and mats

(McDonald 2005; Miller 1997:21). Redcedars were also used in house and canoe construction

(Boas 1916:397; Garfield 1996:10). While roots and bark might be taken from both the interior and coastal locations, material for house and canoe construction likely originated near the village, or from areas accessible from the water.

The climatic history for this region indicates that many of these plants, particularly western redcedar, berries, fruit trees and seaweeds, have been components of the Prince

Rupert/Skeena River ecosystem for thousands of years (Banner et al. 1983; Turunen and

Turunen 1980). Thus, many of the same kinds of plants could have been harvested by pre- contact groups living in this region.

Fauna

The importance of stored salmon in pre-contact indigenous Northwest Coast economies has become a central issue and leading research question in the archaeology of the region (Ames and Maschner 1999:251-153; Cannon 2001; Coupland et al 2001; 2003; Croes and

Hackenberger 1988; Huelsbeck 1988; Matson 1992; Schalk 1977). While some scholars have looked for coast-wide consistencies regarding the origins of the stored salmon economy, there has been increasing recognition that significant variability exists among regions in terms of when and how salmon became a focal part of the pre-contact economy (Cannon 2001; McMillan et al. 2008; Orchard 2007). Salmon may have been particularly important in northern regions 51 where carbohydrate sources are rare. Other protein sources, such as shellfish, flatfish and deer contain insufficient fats during the winter to counter the problems associated with eating large amounts of protein (Cannon 2001:181). Salmon, however, are not the only resource that can fulfill this important dietary role. Other sources of oil, such as sea mammals, herring and eulachon, would have been important components of pre-contact diets across the coast.

Eulachon oil was not only used as a preservative and condiment for other foods, it was an important trade item with interior and northern groups, as well as the Haida (Boas 1889:35;

Garfield 1966:13; Mitchell and Donald 2001:21-23).

How resources are situated within the landscape, as well as their availability, would have been important considerations for people living in this environment and at the village sites discussed in this study. Existing settlement data indicates that villages were dispersed in coastal areas prior to 2000 BP and that each village was situated within its own catchment zone

(Martindale 1999:74). The people living within these coastal villages concentrated on seasonally available local resources. For the most part, it is unclear whether these villages were occupied year-round. Stewart and Stewart (2001) have argued that there is some evidence for year-round use of the Boardwalk site and perhaps Ridley Island. Sites excavated by Coupland

(1999, Coupland et al. 2001, 2003, 2006), by contrast, suggest that even around 2000 years ago, the coastal villages were largely winter occupations. After 2000 BP, and perhaps as late as 1500

BP, people built villages close together, likely for protection, along Venn Passage. These

Tsimshian groups may have included people with inland ancestry and rights to interior resource locales (Martindale and Marsden 2003).

If villages prior to about 2000 BP were relatively permanent, and well spaced throughout the harbour, then their faunal assemblages should reflect local resources. Local resources are those that are found within the harbour, but many, particularly shellfish, may be found in very 52 specific locations within and around particular village sites. This means that there may be differences between village faunal assemblages that reflect differences in locally available resources (sensu Ames 2005a:280-282; 2006:27). By contrast, regional resources are those located outside the harbour; access to these resources would have required seasonal movement by part or all of the households represented in the coastal villages. Whether all coastal groups had access to important regional resources likely had profound implications for social dynamics within and among households. To address these problems, I have categorized the kinds of animal resources that are currently found within the area based on their preferred habitat. From this perspective, we can examine what kinds of faunal resources are immediately available (i.e. within 1-2 km), and what are within a day‟s return trip (5-10 km) and beyond (sensu Ames

2002). This exercise is important to this research because the economic strategies adopted by those living in coastal villages incorporated both local and regional resources (Ames 2005a:280-

282; 2006:27).

While some resources such as shellfish (found along beach fronts) or cedar trees (found in the forests behind the village) could be accessed on foot, successful exploitation of most of these resources would require canoes. Boat travel is a critical aspect of mobility in this case.

Ames (2002) calculates that people could travel by canoe at approximately 4.5 km per hour. At this speed, most of the harbour, including the Skeena estuary and outer islands, could be reached within a day‟s paddle. The inhabitants of each village within the inner harbour potentially could have a “foraging radius” (or distance that could be travelled and returned in a single day) of as much as 30 km. Beyond this, travel for the purposes of obtaining resources would likely involve the use of camps (Ames 2002:35). Ames suggests that the fundamental difference between pedestrian and aquatic hunter-gatherers is that boats allow for more bulk processing at residential sites. Weather, water conditions and most importantly the objectives of the people 53 who are traveling could alter this model in substantial ways. We might expect, for example, that fish caught in Hecate Strait (well within a day‟s return trip) could be brought back to the village whole. The Lucy Islands, however, are also well within a day‟s return trip from Digby Island; whether people camped here or retuned to the village would depend on the weather, the tides, the composition of the crew, but particularly whether shellfish were collected and processed on site.

In the remainder of this chapter, I present the kinds of fauna that are common today within the inner and outer harbour, as well as at the Skeena and Nass watersheds. I generated these lists from two types of sources. I used general, coast-wide sources on animal behaviour and life histories such as Hart (1988), Quayle (1960) and Ricketts et al. (1985) to determine the kinds of taxa common to northern forests and waters. I also used regionally-specific sources, such as Hoos (1975) and Henderson and Graham (1998) where applicable to provide details specific to Skeena River salmon migrations and life histories.

Although wetlands and modern forests have continued to expand within the past 4000 years, the basic ecological structure of Prince Rupert Harbour and the adjacent area appear to have been in place for thousands of years (Hebda 2007; Turunen and Turunen 2003). In fact, the structure of the most important resources, including anadromous fish and shellfish, was well-established by the time GbTo-77 and the other study sites were inhabited (Hebda and

Fredericks 1990; Moss et al. 2007). Short-term natural phenomena and human behaviours, however, can have a significant impact upon local habitats. For example, kelp forests and eelgrasses may flourish or become depleted due to changes in the fishing and hunting of the animal species inhabiting these environments, blooms in sea urchin populations, changes in ocean temperatures and salinity or storms (Steneck et al. 2002:439-440). Shellfish beds can be over-harvested (Jerardino 1997; Kaustuv, et al.2003; Quitmyer and Jones 2000; see Claassen 54

1997 for alternative views) or enhanced by human alterations to the natural substrate (Williams

2006). Species, such as sea otters and northern fur seals, were extirpated from many regions of the north coast due to increasing human predation (Gifford-Gonzalez et al. 2005; Newsome et al. 2007; Orchard 2007). Changes in microhabitats such as these had profound influences on local shellfish, fish and sea mammal populations.

The shellfish list is dominated by taxa that inhabit northern waters in protected and semi- protected environments. I have also included significant shellfish taxa that inhabit open, or exposed, coastlines, because these invertebrates might grow well on more exposed coasts such as the western coasts of Dundas Island and Stephens Island, and would have been accessible to people living in the harbour. I emphasize fish and shellfish because these taxa dominate the assemblage from GbTo-77 and the other harbour sites.

Fish

The relationship between fish and their environment, and among fish species, is rarely straightforward. Many species can occupy multiple environments and not just on a seasonal basis. All species, however, have specific tolerances to attributes of their environment such as salinity, water temperature and oxygen levels (Hart 1988:6). Thus an understanding of the kinds of environments fish species prefer and where they are frequently found, can give insight into where and how the tasks associated with fishing were incorporated into other aspects of people‟s lives, such as mobility, settlement, trade and social relations. Table 3-2 presents the common fish species that are found within what is now Tsimshian territory. This area includes four 55

Table 3-2. List of fish taxa common to the Prince Rupert Harbour and the Skeena River. This list contains fish habitats based on seasonality and life stages, including spawning (S), immature (IM), and mature (M). Sources: Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2009a, 2010; Haegele and Schweigert 1985; Hart 1988; Henderson and Graham 1998; Hoos 1975; Spaete and Wehrly 2006. Habitat Marine Estuarine Fluvial Lacustrine Species Deep Water Moderate Shallow Intertidal >400 m 200-400 m <200 m Anadromous Sockeye salmon common spring spring through Fall occasional Oncorhynchus nerka through fall (S); may be (S) common in northern rivers year round. Chinook salmon common common spring spring Oncorhynchus tshawytscha common summer summer fall (S) fall (S) Chum salmon common occasional summer summer Oncorhynchus keta spring/summer fall (S) fall (S) Coho salmon common common common summer Oncorhynchus kisutch fall (S); young salmon common year round Pink salmon common summer spring (IM) fall (S) Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Steelhead salmon common common common Oncorhynchus mykiss late winter/spring (S) and summer Cutthroat salmon common common common Feb to March (S) common Oncorhynchus clarki Rainbow Trout Salmo Occasional Common common Autumn Common gairdneri Dolly Varden common spring autumn (S) common Salvelinus malma Eulachon common (mid March to May (S) Thaleichthys pacificus waters) Surf or Silver Smelt M summer (S) Hypomesus pretiosus Capelin Sept to Oct. Mallotus villosus (S) Longfin Smelt winter Oct to Dec (S) Spirinchus dilatus 56

Habitat Marine Estuarine Fluvial Lacustrine Species Deep Water Moderate Shallow Intertidal >400 m 200-400 m <200 m Pacific Lamprey Entosphenus common M July to October; tridentatus spring (S) Marine Dogfish M summer M summer IM Common M Squalus acanthias Winter Sand Sole common Psettichthys melanostictus Rock Sole common winter (S) occasional in Lepidopsetta bilineata (benthic) summer English or Lemon Sole common winter (S) spring IM Parophrys vetulus Dover Sole common common Microstomus pacificus (benthic and (benthic and pelagic) pelagic) Rex Sole common March, April (S) IM occasional Glyptocephalus zachirus Petrale Sole winter/spring (S) spring (benthic IM occasional Eopsetta jordani (benthic and and pelagic) (benthic) pelagic) Butter Sole winter. summer Isopsetta isolepis Flathead Sole Hippoglossoides common IM common elassodon (pelagic) Turbot, or Arrowroot Flounder common Atheresthes stomias (benthic and pelagic) Starry Flounder Platichthys common; Feb to occasional occasional stellatus April (S) P. halibut common Nov to Jan (S) March to May Hippoglossus stenolepis (benthic) (benthic) (benthic) Greenling common Hexagrammos sp. (benthic) Lingcod occasional December to Winter IM spring Ophiodon elongatus March (S) occasional Herring fall summer February-April Clupea harengus pallasi (Pelagic) (S) Ratfish common common visitor 57

Habitat Marine Estuarine Fluvial Lacustrine Species Deep Water Moderate Shallow Intertidal >400 m 200-400 m <200 m Hydrolagus colliei Rockfish common common common Sebastes sp. (benthic) (benthic) (benthic) Black Prickleback common common Xiphister atropurpureus Rock Prickleback common common Xiphister mucosus White-barred Prickleback common Poroclinus rothrocki Sculpins occasional common common Cottidae (benthic) (benthic) (benthic) Sablefish common IM Spring Anoplopoma fimbria through Autumn Albacore occasional Thunnus alalunga summer (pelagic) Walleye Pollock common Theragra chalcogramma (bathypelagic) Pacific Hake common Merluccius productus (pelagic) Pacific Cod common common occasional Gadus macrocephalus (benthic) (benthic) Pacific Sandfish common common Trichodon trichodon Spiny Lumpsucker common common Eumicrotremus orbis Tadpole Snailfish Nectoliparis common common (benthic pelagicus (benthic and and pelagic) pelagic) Threespine Stickleback common common common common Gasterosteus aculeatus Red Brotula common common Brosmophycis marginata Flathead Clingfish Gobiesox year-round maeandricus Yellow Shiner Cymatogaster winter summer aggregata 58

Habitat Marine Estuarine Fluvial Lacustrine Species Deep Water Moderate Shallow Intertidal >400 m 200-400 m <200 m Fluvial-lacustrine Burbot Lota lota always Lake Whitefish Coregonus always clupeaformis Rocky Mountain Whitefish always Prosopium williamsoni Peamouth Chub Mylocheilus always caurinus Squawfish always Ptychocheilus oregonensis Bullhead Sculpin always Cottus asper Long-nose Dace Rhinichthys always cataractae Chub Minnow always Couesius greeni Long-nose Sucker Catostomus always catostomus Common or White Sucker C. always commersonii Coarse-scaled Sucker always C. macrocheilus Redbelly Dace always Chrosomus eos Kokanee salmon common common Oncorhynchus nerka kennerlyi

59 broad aquatic habitats: marine, estuarine, fluvial and lacustrine. The fish species listed here are commonly found in the kinds of marine and freshwater habitats that are present within the

Prince Rupert/Skeena region today. I have divided marine habitats into four subcategories.

Deep water is defined as greater than 400 m and refers to areas off the continental shelf west of

Haida Gwaii and parts of Dixon Entrance. Travel from Digby Island to these areas to fish or hunt sea mammals or birds would take more than one day.

Moderate depths are between approximately 200 and 400 m. This comprises the Hecate

Strait and other areas of a similar depth, and includes areas within a day‟s travel by boat. Island groups such as the Dundas and Lucy islands, as well as Stephens Island are also within a day‟s paddle of the inner harbour. Shallow waters are defined as less than 200 m, which includes larger bays, such as Metlakatla Bay, in and around Prince Rupert. The intertidal zone includes all shorelines that are subject to tidal actions. Intertidal and shallow water environments would have been immediately available to inhabitants of GbTo-77, assuming good weather.

Estuarine habitats refer to the Skeena and Nass estuaries. The lower reaches of the Skeena and its estuary are accessible within less than 10 hours through relatively sheltered waters. Fishing trips could be fairly informal based on this criterion alone, but the time spent in these areas would vary depending on the resources sought. Fluvial habitats relate to any river, stream or creek, but the Skeena and Nass are the main rivers. Lacustrine habitats pertain largely to inland lakes. Major ones within the Tsimshian territory or off the Skeena River include Lakelse Lake,

Diana Lake and Woodworth Lake. While some of the lakes on Kaien Island or the mainland could be reached within a day, they might also require overland travel. People living on Digby

Island could travel most of the way to the lakes that feed the Skeena tributaries by boat, but these are considerably farther away from the harbour than those on the adjacent mainland.

There are a variety of fish species within the immediate vicinity of GbTo-77 (i.e. the intertidal zone and shallow waters of Metlakatla Bay). The vast majority of these fish are common to these environments, meaning that they could be found in either inter-tidal or shallow waters throughout most of the year. Species that are specifically available in the winter in the intertidal area and in shallow waters are longfin smelt, starry flounder, dogfish, rock sole and lingcod (Hart 1988:46, 147, 468, 622, 632). Those specific to these habitats in spring are certain varieties of sole and herring (Haegele and Schweigert 1985, Hart 1988:96, 608, 629-630).

Summer fish are butter soles, herring and shiners (Hart 1988:305, 620; Haegele and Schweigert

1985). Surf smelt are available year-round and congregate at the mouth of the Skeena River

(Hart 1988:305). Capelin and surf smelts spawn on shallow beaches like the shoreline in and around GbTo-77 during the fall, while eulachon spawn mostly at the Nass, though there is a small Skeena run as well (Hoos 1975:86-87). Contact period groups took advantage of this and harvested eulachon using rakes when they came close to shore in large numbers to spawn

(Stewart 1977:76-77).

Herring were often fished in much the same way as eulachon by many pre-contact period

Indigenous groups (Stewart 1977). According to Miller, contact and post-contact period

Tsimshian harvested herring spawn in the early spring (Miller 1997:21). Garfield (1966:13) noted that Tsimshian also fished herring, though it is not clear when during the year herring fishing took place. The numbers of Pacific herring that head inshore to spawn in shallow, coastal waters each year are highly variable. According to Hoos (1975) herring spawn out of the influence of fresh water. Haegele and Schweigert (1985) however, contend that herring spawn are not greatly affected by fluctuations in salinity and temperature. On the north coast, peak spawning occurs in late March early April in sheltered inlets and bays. Herring stocks will return to the same general area each year to spawn, but are flexible in terms of where precisely

61 spawning will take place. Spawning will occur wherever appropriate substrates can be found.

Herring could have been fished in large numbers during spawning as noted by Drucker

(1963:3). Bailey (1952), however, indicates that herring have used most of their oil reserves by the time they spawn, suggesting that herring might have been activily sought at other times of the year. Herring migrate inshore in the late winter and congregate in deep bays and inshore channels prior to spawning. Young herring also school in inshore waters through the summer before moving to deeper waters in the fall (Hart 1988:97-98). In other words, contact-period

Tsimshians, as well as their pre-contact counterparts, could have fished for herring at a number of times throughout the year.

Many fish species that spend part of the year in Hecate Strait and other moderate depths

(200-400 m) frequent shallow waters at other times of the year. Only varieties of sole, halibut and shiners are found specifically at these depths in winter, though as shown above, these could be harvested closer to shore at other times of the year (Hart 1988:96, 608, 615). Other soles and sablefish would be available in moderate depths such as Hecate Strait during spring (Hart

1988:456,610-611). Dogfish are specific to these waters in summer, though as shown above, they swim closer to shore during the winter (Hart 1988:42). Some fish common to the very deepest waters migrate north/south, as well as from off-shore to near-shore waters. Petrale

Soles frequent Hecate Strait (moderate waters) and Dixon Entrance (deep waters) in the winter and spring, but migrate south to Esteban Deep off of central Vancouver Island to spawn (Hart

1988:608). Albacores are also highly migratory between southern and northern off-shore waters, but are common off the coast throughout British Columbia in the summer months, as are dogfish (Hart 1988:46,376-378). No species listed are specific to the estuary, but many are found only in fresh water. These fish would have to be caught in lakes, many of which would be over a day‟s paddle from GbTo-77.

Pacific salmon

Salmon are probably the most versatile fish that live in this area, and are a key ecological species in the regional ecosystem. Once salmon spawn and die, the nutrients from their carcasses are absorbed into the soils along river banks for almost a kilometre, encouraging tree growth and ultimately fostering wildlife (Haggan et al. 2006). Seven species of salmon migrate from offshore waters to spawn in northern watercourses: sockeyes, cohos, pinks, chums and chinooks (or springs) cutthroats and steelheads (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2008, 2009a; Hart

1988:108-130; Hoos 1975). All species of salmon have significant runs on the Skeena River. It is second only to the Fraser in terms of salmon escapement in British Columbia, but the most productive traditional fishing areas within the Skeena drainage are within the tributaries (Hoos

1975:79-80).

On the north coast, most Skeena-run, and to a lesser extent at the Nass-run, sockeye spawn in the late summer and fall (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2008; Hoos 1975:80).

Sockeyes generally travel very far from the coast before late summer spawning. The Babine

River (see Figure 3-3) is the most productive sockeye salmon river in the Skeena drainage

(Henderson and Graham 1998; Hoos 1975:80). Sockeye salmon are generally abundant once every four years. In some locations, such as the Fraser River in southern British Columbia, this leads to “cyclic dominance” (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2008, 2009a; Hart 1988:121;

Henderson and Graham 1998). Upon emergence from gravels in natal streams, some young sockeyes go to sea immediately (Hart 1988:120), but many, particularly those in northern river systems such as the Skeena, spend between one and three years in freshwater nurseries before heading to the ocean (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2008; Hart 1988:120; Hoos 1975:80).

Chinooks enter spawning rivers through the spring, summer and fall, but tend to spawn immediately above the tidal limit (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2008; Hart 1988:125). There

63 are two main chinook populations that have very different life histories and spawning seasons.

Small coastal river stocks generally return to natal streams in the fall. These fall-run chinook stocks tend to head to sea within a few days or months after fry emergence and remain in coastal waters (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2009a). Spring chinook populations, however, usually spawn at major river systems, such as the Skeena, in the spring. Spring stocks spend a full year in freshwater before heading well off-shore (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2009a). Chinook salmon return to natal streams on the Skeena River every four to five years (Hoos 1975:81)

Like chinooks, chum salmon spawn in tributaries of the lower Skeena, as well as in the lower reaches of most coastal streams and rivers in the summer and fall (Fisheries and Oceans

Canada 2009a). According to Hoos (1975:82-83), chum salmon spawn in the Skeena mainstem, but also in the Ecstall, Kispiox, Lakelse, and Kitsumkalum rivers. Chum salmon leave freshwater immediately upon fry emergence (Henderson and Graham 1996:14; Fisheries and

Oceans Canada 2009a). Young chum salmon are known to spend late spring and summer in

Inverness Passage, just north of the Skeena River (Hoos 1975:82-83), before moving well off- shore. Chums spend two to six years in off-shore waters before returning to their natal streams

(Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2009a).

On the Skeena, coho salmon migrate “some distance inland” (Henderson and Graham

1998:14-15) to spawn in smaller tributaries, usually in the late summer/early fall. Coho runs have been documented on the Babine River, but the main coho channels are lower in the Skeena drainage and include the Lakelse River and Morice River (Hoos 1975:81-82). Coho salmon that spawn in northern rivers such as the Skeena spend as much as two to three years in freshwater before migrating to the sea. Young coho salmon have been found in Inverness Passage and

Chatham Sound (Hoos 1975), and like fall chinook stocks, tend to remain in coastal waters

(Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2009a).

Pink salmon are the most prolific salmon in British Columbia. They are relatively evenly distributed throughout the Skeena drainage but, are most abundant in the Lakelse River and its tributaries (Hoos 1975:80-81). Pink salmon are also very common in small coastal streams, rivers and creeks (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2009a). Pink salmon enter natal streams in the early fall and generally spawn within or just above the salt water mark (Hart

1988:109; Hoos 1975: 80-81). These salmon are divided into two populations based on a two- year cycle. In many rivers, pinks are abundant every year, while in other rivers they appear only every second year (Hart 1988:109-110; Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2009a). Both odd and even-year pink salmon runs are very large on the Skeena River (Hoos 1975:80-81). These salmon spend a few days to several months in estuaries prior to moving to the open ocean in large schools (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2009a). In the Prince Rupert area, young pinks have been found in waters along the mainland and western Chatham Sound islands (Hoos 1975:

80-81).

According to Hoos (1975:83-84), the Skeena is the most important steelhead river in the province of British Columbia. Steelheads prefer to spawn in river mainstems, where oxygen levels are high and temperatures are cool. Steelheads consist of both winter and summer populations. Winter steelheads enter spawning streams between November and May. Summer steelheads migrate to spawning streams between April and October. Spawning, however, occurs for both groups between January and May. Upon fry emergence, steelhead salmon prefer coastal waters (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2009a). Cutthroat salmon are found in most coastal rivers and streams. Cutthroats spawn for the first time at three or four years of age in the mid to late winter. Upon fry emergence, cutthroats spend as much as a year in estuaries before moving to sea. Like steelheads, these salmon prefer coastal waters and rarely travel further than a few kilometres into the ocean (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2009a; Hart 1988:128).

This review of salmon life histories illustrates that certain varieties of salmon are common in coastal waters throughout the year. Moreover, salmon spawning occurs in all four seasons and in a variety of locations. Current salmon migration routes for the Prince Rupert area show that off-shore salmon move inshore through waters around the Dundas Islands and other larger coastal islands within the Skeena Estuary (Figure 3-6). These salmon do not appear to travel through Prince Rupert Harbour itself, but move into the Skeena River or Work Channel directly from Chatham Sound (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2010).

Figure 3-6. North coast salmon migration routes in 2004. Source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2010).

There are also smaller salmon populations, particularly of pinks, that must enter the harbour in order to spawn in smaller harbour streams. According to Fisheries and Oceans

Canada unpublished data for 1934 to 2008 (David Peacock pers.comm.), pink, sockeye,

66 chinook, coho and chum salmon spawn in eleven streams, creeks, and rivers within Prince

Rupert Harbour (Figure 3-7). Escapement figures (David Peacock, pers. comm.) for six of these watercourses indicate that pink salmon are generally the most abundant salmon species in Prince

Rupert Harbour streams (Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-9). The harbour salmon runs of all species tend to be small and inconsistent, particularly in comparison with the kinds of salmon runs that take place on the Skeena River and its tributaries (David Peacock, pers. comm).

Figure 3-7. Map of Prince Rupert Habour showing the location of salmon streams. Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2010).

250000

200000 150000 SOCKEYE 100000 COHO 50000 PINK Escapement numbers Escapement 0 CHUM Denise Hays Kloyia McNichol Shawatlan Silver Ecstall Khyex CHINOOK Creek Creek River Creek River Creek River River

Streams in Prince Rupert Harbour Skeena River Streams

Figure 3-8. Maximum salmon escapements (1934-2008) for streams within Prince Rupert Harbour in comparison to two Skeena River tributaries. Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Prince Rupert office (David Peacock, pers. comm.).

25000

20000

15000 SOCKEYE 10000 COHO PINK 5000 Escapement numbers Escapement CHUM 0 CHINOOK Denise Hays Kloiya McNichol Shawatlan Silver Ecsatall Khyex Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek River River

Streams in Prince Rupert Harbour Skeena River Streams

Figure 3-9. Average salmon escapements (1934-2008) for streams within Prince Rupert Harbour in comparison to two Skeena River tributaries. Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Prince Rupert office (David Peacock, pers. comm.).

Harvesting salmon

According to Haggan et al. (2006:7) indigenous fisheries across the Northwest Coast emphasized chum salmon because it is a less oily fish and therefore easier to dry. Tsimshian ethnographers, however, present disparate views on which species of salmon Tsimshians

68 prefered. Boas (1916:404) writes that chinook salmon were the most important for storage, but that Tsimshians also harvested pinks in larger numbers. Garfield (1966:13), however, contends that Tsimshians concentrated on cohos and sockeyes. She also notes that pinks were stored in significant numbers for the winter. Boas and Garfield, however, recorded people‟s recollections of traditional fishing practices in two distinct moments in recent Tsimshian history (the late 19th century and early 20th century). No doubt Tsimshians engaged in a variety of fishing practices that emphasized the salmon species that were readily available. Pinks, for example, are the most abundant of the pacific salmon and, with a lifespan of just two years, have the most prolific runs on the Skeena. It is not surprising that Tsimshian groups harvested these fish in great numbers.

Coho, sockeye and chum stocks are much smaller. These fish also have longer lifespans than pinks, ranging from three to seven years, although larger river systems, such as the Skeena, may have multiple stocks of each species that spawn at different intervals (Fisheries and Oceans

Canada 2009a, 2010; Hoos 1975).

The timing and location of salmon runs were important considerations for Tsimshian groups of the 19th and 20th centuries and influenced when groups travelled from the coast to the interior for salmon and other interior resources. If salmon behaviours were similar in the past

(the recent historic past as well as during the pre-contact period), however, these salmons could have been fished from a variety of locations throughout the year, including harbour streams and coastal waters. During the 19th century, Tsimshians caught salmon in large numbers for storage in rivers and streams using weirs and traps (Boas 1916:400). Weirs acted as barricades, limiting fish dispersal so that they could be fished from the river using spears and dip nets (see also

Menzies and Butler 2007:449; Nolan 1977:131,140-141). Traps could be used independently or in conjunction with weirs at river channels. Weirs were also constructed, across narrow channels on the coast to catch anadromous fish and seals (Boas 1916:400). According to Boas

(1916:158-160; 397-398), Tsimshians also used long, wide nets in salmon fishing. Although

Boas is not clear when and where salmon net-fishing took place, there are hints in the story of

The Spider and the Widow‟s Daughter (Boas 1916:158-160) that salmon net-fishing occurred in the late winter/early spring in coastal waters.

Knowledge of the pre-contact fishery in Prince Rupert Harbour is not well understood.

Few weirs or traps have been identified in the harbour or the Skeena. The best described weirs in this region come from the upper Skeena region. Prince (2005) recorded as series of fish weirs on the Kitwancool River in Gitksan territory that range in date from 770 +/-40 BP into the historic period. By contrast, as of 1998, wooden fish weirs at six sites in southeast Alaska produced dates of at least 3000 years old (Moss and Erlandson 1998:182-183). The Alaskan data in conjunction with fish weir data from Vancouver Island (Caldwell 2008) show that weir technology was not a recent development on the Northwest Coast. A single stone fish trap is located at the mouth of McNichol Creek. This is in marked contrast to the stone traps located at the lower reaches of small coastal rivers south of the Skeena estuary and in Portland Inlet to the north (Lovisek 2007:11; Simonsen 1973). Stone traps are extremely difficult to date, because they rarely contain organic components (Moss and Erlandson 1998:181). The proximity of the

McNichol Creek stone trap to the pre-contact-period village site GcTo-6 (McNichol Creek) suggests that fish traps may have been used in the harbour by pre-contact groups.

A very different suite of tools would have been needed if people actively pursued salmon fishing in coastal environments. Netsinkers have been found at some Middle Period sites

(MacDonald 1969:252) but not all (Coupland et al. 2000). Hooks and barbs, however, are common at sites that are much earlier (Fladmark et al. 1990:233; MacDonald and Inglis

1981:46; Matson and Coupland 1995:191) and suggest line and spear fishing may predate net- fishing in this area. It is difficult to demonstrate that these tools were used to harvest salmon,

70 and not other marine fish. Salmon fishing in open waters is certainly possible, but may not be as predictable or fruitful as riverine fishing. Salmon in open water habitats are more dispersed than in riverine environments and theoretically would be more difficult to fish in large numbers. As such, we might expect low proportions of salmon remains in archaeological contexts if salmon were caught exclusively with barbs and hooks in open waters. Village sites in the harbour that date between 2000 and 1500 BP, however, are overwhelmingly dominated by salmon remains

(Coupland et al. 2010), suggesting that inhabitants were storing salmon they had likely harvested in vast quantities, probably at the Skeena River watershed. The extent to which salmon may also have been fished from coastal streams and rivers in Prince Rupert Harbour is unclear. While salmon could have been fished from these watercourses, the nearly complete absence of stone traps and weirs in the harbour suggests that people living in Prince Rupert

Harbour focused on salmon fishing elsewhere. Industrial and urban development in the area, however, may have obscured evidence for weirs and traps in the harbour.

Invertebrates

Although most beach fronts in the harbour area are gravel bracketed by large schist outcrops in the upper tidal zone, many have sand or mud bottoms in the lower zones, meaning that there are a variety of shellfish habitats fronting many village sites, including GbTo-77. Even so, specific locations in the harbour are known to be highly productive for shellfish. The Lucy Islands is one such location (Banahan 2007, pers. comm.). In the Broughton Island areas and parts of

Alaska, clam gardens were constructed to intensify clam bed productivity. Gardens have not been identified in the Prince Rupert area, but Williams (2006) suggests that rock walls along the low tide mark might represent the remains of clam gardens.

Table 3-3 lists the common invertebrate species that are found within the northern coastal region today. Based on coast-wide habitat information, most of these species would be common in the semi-protected and protected waters of Prince Rupert Harbour and its environs.

Taxa that favour open coastlines are unlikely to grow in the inner harbour, or even on the western shore of Digby Island, but might be found along the adjacent, more exposed shorelines of Dundas Island and Stephens Islands. Each species of shellfish will thrive in specific habitats that are determined primarily by wave action, substrate type and tidal currents (Ricketts et al.

1985). California mussels, for example, grow well on the exposed rocky shorelines of Haida

Gwaii, while the sandy substrate of North Beach on Graham Island supports numerous clam species today (Ricketts et al. 1985:218-220; Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2010). Butter clams, littlenecks, horse clams and bay mussels are all well suited to the protected and semi-protected waters of Prince Rupert Harbour (Harbo 1997; Quayle 1960; Ricketts et al. 1985: 273-274; 281-

282, 376-379, William 2006:34). Mya and Macoma clam species are found in sandy substrate as well as dense mud, but prefer the higher ends of the intertidal zone (Moss 1989:109-111).

Horse clams also favour sand and gravel substrates and the lower intertidal zones; they may also be subtidal (Quayle 1960; Ricketts et al. 1985:376-377). Littlenecks favour gravel or mud substrates and grow well in the lower half tidal or subtidal zones (Quayle 1960; Ricketts et al.

1985:281-282). Bay mussels, by contrast, can grow on rocky outcrops in protected waters or on gravel substrates high in the intertidal zone (Quayle 1960; Ricketts et al 1985: 273-274).

Microhabitats, influenced by levels of salinity, temperature and oxygen may significantly alter the distribution of shellfish coastlines (Claassen 1998:127-131). The presence of small, freshwater streams, for example, can significantly alter salinity levels and consequently influence the kinds of shellfish that may be present along shorelines (Moss and

Erlandson 2010). Bay mussels in particular thrive in low-salinity waters influenced by

Table 3-3. List of common shellfish taxa for the northern Northwest Coast. This table shows the shoreline structure and beach habitat for each taxa. Sources: Community Mapping Network 2009.; Cowles 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2005d, 2006; Fournier and Dewhirst 1980; Harbo 1997; Quayle 1960; Ricketts et al. 1985; Strathmann 1987; Thomas 1999; Yagoda 2004 Species Shoreline structure Beach habitat Molluscs (bivalves) Butter clam Sheltered Sand/gravel beaches and Lower third of tidal range and Saxidomus giganteus bars, but also in areas with subtidal extensive tides Pacific Littleneck Sheltered gravel/mud beaches Half tide, or subtidal Clam Protothaca staminea Bay Mussel Rocks or gravel, quiet waters Intertidal Mytilus trossulus California Mussel Rocks or gravel, open coastline Intertidal Mytilus californianus Horse Clam Gravel and sand beaches Lower intertidal to subtidal Tresus capax Scallop Gravel and shell sand subtidal Chlamys hastata Basket Cockle Sand or mud beaches Deep water and intertidal Clinocardium nuttalli Olympia Oyster Mud or gravel flats Intertidal and subtidal Ostrea conchaphila Giant Rock Scallop Rocky bottoms and boulders Intertidal to sub tidal Crassadoma gigantea Pointed Macoma Sand or mud High Intertidal to subtidal Macoma inquinata Bent-Nose Macoma Sand or mud High Intertidal to subtidal Macoma nasuta Pacific Geoduck Mud, sand and gravel substrates Lower Intertidal to deep Panopea abrupta subtidal Molluscs (gastropods) Northern Abalone Semi-protected rocky area Lower intertidal Haliotis kamtschatkana Periwinkles Sheltered rocky areas with eelgrass High to low intertidal Littorina sp. and algae Moonsnails Protected and semi-protected sand Intertidal to subtidal Naticidae Frilled Dogwinkle Rocks and crevices on exposed Intertidal to shallow subtidal Nucella lamellosa coastlines Striped Dogwinkle Semi-protected and exposed rocky High intertidal Nucella emarginata beaches Ribbed Limpet Exposed rocky shorelines High intertidal Lottia digitalis

Species Shoreline structure Beach habitat Plate Limpet Rocky foreshores along protected Intertidal and shallow Tectura scutum coastlines subtidal Dire Whelk Rocky exposed beaches Intertidal Lirabuccinum dirum Dentalia Coarse shell-gravel substrate Deep subtidal Antalis pretiosum Black Katy Chiton Rocky foreshore on exposed Mid-tidal Katharina tunicata coastlines Giant Pacific Chiton Rocky foreshores of semi- Intertidal to subtidal Cryptochiton stelleri protected coastlines Molluscs (Cephalopoda) Squids Semi-protected rocky areas Low intertidal Cephalopoda Octopus Inshore Rocky areas (offshore in Shallow subtidal or lower Octopoda winter) intertidal Crustaceans Shrimps Mud substrate subtidal Pandalidae Dungeness Crab Sand or mud and eelgrass Subtidal or lower intertidal Cancer magister Thatched Barnacle Rocky foreshores of semi- High intertidal Semibalanus cariosus protected and protected coastlines, wood Small Acorn Barnacle Rocky foreshores of semi- High intertidal Balanus glandula protected and protected coastlines Giant Acorn Barnacle Favours exposed piles of wood Middle intertidal to subtidal Balanus nubilus Goose Barnacle Rocky foreshore along exposed Upper two-thirds of the Pollicipes polymerus shorelines intertidal zone Echinodermata Sunflower Star Mud, sand, gravel and rock Lower intertidal to deep Pycnopodia substrate subtidal helianthoides Purple Sea Urchin Semi-protected rocky areas and Intertidal and subtidal Strongylocentrotus sandy substrates purpuratus Green Sea Urchin Protected rocky and sandy Intertidal and subtidal Strongylocentrotus substrates droebachiensis

74 freshwater (Ham 1976; Moss and Erlandson 2010:3360). Barnacles, however, tend to favour waters with higher salinity. There are two types of barnacles on the Northwest Coast; acorn

(sessile) and goose (pedunculate). Sessile barnacles attach directly to the substrate. Pedunculate barnacles are stemmed and sometimes attach to floating objects (Cornwall 2010).

Many archaeologists have overlooked the role that barnacles may have played in pre- contact indigenous economies, perhaps influenced by ethnographers who ignored these shellfish or dismissed them as starvation food (see Huber and Sommer 2003 and Moss and Erlandson

2010). A variety of barnacle species have been identified (and the results published) within a handful of archaeological shellfish assemblages. The most commonly identified species are the small acorn barnacle, the thatched acorn barnacle, giant barnacles and goose barnacles

(Cameron et al. 2008; Fournier and Dewhirst 1980; Huber and Sommer 2003; Moss and

Erlandson 2010; Orchard 2007:270-279). Thatched and small acorn barnacles thrive in protected and semi-protected coastlines, such as the waters of Prince Rupert Harbour (Ricketts et al. 1985: 24-25; 223-225, 270-272). Small acorn barnacles, for example, are common in

Dodge Cove today, occurring with bay mussels and whelks (Figure 3-10). Thatched barnacles prefer moderate oceanic conditions; they can grow in quiet waters, but in microhabitats that allow them to maximize their exposure to strong tidal currents and wave action. They also flourish in semi-protected waters, but in these conditions, thatched barnacles are concentrated in microhabitats that protect them from excessive oceanic conditions (Moss and Erlandson 2010:7;

Ricketts et al. 1985:270-271).

Figure 3-10. Small acorn barnacles, bay mussels and whelks at Dodge Cove, Digby Island.

Butter clams, however, are more versatile than thatched barnacles and mussels in this respect because they can tolerate a wide range in temperature and salinity. These bivalves favour sand or gravel substrates and occur in the lower third of the tidal range, but are also found in sand and gravel bars formed by currents (Quayle 1960; Quayle and Bourne 1972:27;

Ricketts et al. 1985:378-379). Mussels grow in dense patches and can be easily removed en masse from rock or gravel substrate (Moss 1989:109). Because their growth rate increases if they are not closely spaced, Moss (1989:111) contends that some mussel patches may have been semi-cultivated, as has been documented for California mussel on Haida Gwaii and along the

California coast (Ellis and Wilson 1981; McMillan et al. 2008; Whitaker 2008). Chitons flourish in a variety of habitats, but tend to prefer rocky, exposed or semi-protected shorelines.

The Black Katy is most common along British Columbia‟s coasts (Ricketts et al. 1985:242).

They attach firmly to rocks in the low intertidal zone, but can be pried off with a sharp, flat tool.

Red, green and purple sea urchins are generally found in lower intertidal or subtidal waters.

Green sea urchins are the most common sea urchin on the Northwest Coast, favouring protected waters (Ricketts et al. 1985:286). Purple and red sea urchins thrive in semi-protected and open coastlines (Ricketts et al. 1985:98-100, 238). Little is written about 19th century Tsimshian use of sea urchin, but according to Boas (1921:496) Kwakwaka‟wakw groups harvested sea urchins at low spring tides for their gonads. According to Ellis and Swan (1981:84) elder Manhousat men preferred to eat sea urchin gonads when they are milky, but it is not clear when this takes place.

Theoretically, most invertebrate species could be collected year-round from intertidal and shallow waters. The kinds of tasks involved in shellfishing likely have more in common with harvesting plants than hunting other fauna (Claassen 1998:177-178). Although season of availability would likely have been less of a concern with shellfish than with other resources, most species are better (fatter, tastier) during specific times of the year. The timing and extent of the tides, as well as the presence or absence of “red tide” would likely have been important considerations for shellfishers. Red tide is the common name for a highly toxic organism

(Gonyaulax) that inhabits most ocean regions. Under the proper conditions, blooms can occur making local shellfish poisonous. Some Northwest Coast groups, such as the Coast Salish removed clam siphons and gills where the poison is stored prior to consumption to mitigate the effects of paralytic shellfish poisoning (psp) (Batdorf 1990:53). Careful monitoring of water conditions, however, could also be an effective means of avoiding psp. According to Ellis and

Swan (1981:84) red tide may appear on the west Coast of Vancouver Island in early July through August, but does not affect the same location each year. It rarely remains in an area for

77 more than one month and in some years red tide does not appear at all. The timing of red tide may differ slightly in northern waters; it can occur at anytime of year, however, and can change rapidly (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2009b).

According to Halpin and Seguin (1990:271), Tsimshians gathered shellfish in the winter during the contact and post-contact period, with a few exceptions. Closer examination of ethnographic sources and ecological data however, shows that people may have harvested shellfish throughout the year, including the spring and summer. Neighbouring Tlingits favour butter clams from November through the winter, when butter clams are firm and fat (Ellis and

Wilson 1981:xi; Moss 1989:109), although Quayle (1960:11-12) and Suttles (1987b:34) state that butter clams are best in spring and summer respectively. Daylight low tides also occur in the spring and summer on the Northwest Coast, which would make butter clams and littlenecks easier to harvest in warmer months than in the fall and winter (Moss and Erlandson 2010:3359;

Quayle and Bourne 1972:8). Abalone was often gathered at very low tides in the summer

(Garfield 1966:15) and according to Harbo (1995:152), horse clams were also harvested during the summer months for immediate consumption, and also for storage and trade. Cockles favour coarse sand beaches and eel grass flats (Quayle 1960:62-63), of which there are plenty in the immediate vicinity of GbTo-77. While I could find no reference to Tsimshian practices with regards to the harvesting of these shellfish, Tlingits began collecting cockles in late August

(Moss 1989:109). Indigenous groups across the Northwest Coast ate chitons, including the very large gumboot chiton (Harbo 1997; Ricketts et al. 1985:103) and they may be eaten year round

(Moss 1989:112).

There is little written about the preference for barnacles in northern areas. Garfield

(1966:13) lists barnacles as a minor resource during the 19th century for people living at Port

Simpson. There are a number of more detailed descriptions of barnacle harvesting from other

78 parts of the Northwest Coast. Nuu-chah-nulth people considered barnacles as delicacies and harvested thatched and acorn barnacles during the summer (Ellis and Swan 1981:25-26;

Fournier and Dewhirst 1980:95). Manhousat groups also harvested goose barnacles in the winter (Ellis and Swan 1981:34). Boas (1921:499-505) provides a detailed description of

Kwakwaka‟wakw women harvesting barnacles (species unknown) and preparing them for feasts. Kwakwaka‟wakw women gathered barnacle encrusted rocks by canoe and transported them to an adjacent beach, unloaded the rocks with the barnacles still attached and prepared them for consumption. A large pit was excavated and the barnacle rocks placed inside, where they were roasted or steamed. Once they were cooked, a woman removed the barnacles (still in their shells) from the rocks and deposited them in baskets in order to transport them home for feasting. At the village, the woman‟s husband laid mats out in front of guests and then poured basket after basket of steamed or roasted barnacles before them. Guests extracted barnacle meat from the shells using long cedar sticks or cracked shells open using two small cobbles. After the meal, the host gathered the empty barnacle shells into the mats and disposed of them outside the house.

Birds

Table 3-4 lists the common bird taxa that currently live in the coastal regions of Prince Rupert, the adjacent mainland, and in northern off-shore waters. I define five habitats in which birds can be found. The Shelf break/Pelagic category refers to waters at, and seaward of, the continental shelf. Off-shore denotes waters between the continental shelf and coastal areas (e.g.

Hecate Strait). Coastal habitats are near-shore, while estuarine environments are specific to the mouths and lower reaches of rivers. Interior habitats include streams and rivers, riverbanks, freshwater bogs, lakes and valleys, as well as alpine environments. Many waterfowl use coastal

Table 3-4. List of bird species common to traditional Tsimshian territory; their habitats and seasonality. Sources: Dewey and Potter 2002; Godfrey 1986; Gott 2001; Hejna 2002; Hitztaler 2001; Hoos 1975; Limas 2001; McCollough 2001; Morgan et al. 1991; Pajerski 2005. Habitat Species Shelf break/Pelagic Off-shore Coastal Estuarine Interior Ducks and Geese Canada Geese spring summer spring Branta summer summer canadensis sp. winter Snow goose summer Anser caerulescens Mallard spring spring Anas platyrhynchos summer summer fall fall Common Merganser winter summer spring Mergus merganser winter summer Hooded Merganser spring spring Lophodytes cucullatus winter winter Common Teal summer summer Anas crecca winter Harlequin spring spring summer Histrionicus histrionicus winter summer Northern Pintail summer summer summer Anas acuta fall fall fall winter winter winter Greater Scaup summer summer Aythya marila fall fall winter winter Common Goldeneye spring summer spring Bucephala clangula fall fall winter winter Barrow‟s Goldeneye winter winter spring Bucephala islandica summer Bufflehead summer summer summer Bucephala albeola fall fall fall winter winter winter Long-tailed duck winter Clangula hyemalis Red-breasted merganser winter Mergus serrator

Habitat Species Shelf break/Pelagic Off-shore Coastal Estuarine Interior White-winged Scoter summer summer Melanitta fusca winter winter Black Scoter summer Melanitta nigra winter Surf-Scoter summer summer Melanitta perspicillata winter Grebes spring spring Colymbidae winter summer Loons winter spring Gaviidae Trumpeter Swan winter winter spring Cygnus buccinator summer Marsh Birds Spotted sandpiper spring summer spring Actitis macularia Sandhill Crane spring summer Grus canadensis Black Turnstones winter winter Arenaria melanocephala Rock Sandpipers winter winter Calidris ptilocnemis Dunlin year-round winter Calidris alpine Gulls, Terns, Skimmers. Skuas Glaucous-winged Gull spring fall summer Larus glaucescens fall winter

Herring Gull summer spring fall Larus argentatus fall winter winter Mew Gull year-round Larus canus Pomarine Jaeger summer Stercorarius pomarinus fall Glaucous Gull summer Larus hyperboreus fall winter

Habitat Species Shelf break/Pelagic Off-shore Coastal Estuarine Interior Sabine‟s Gull summer summer Xema sabini fall fall winter Tufted Puffin summer winter spring Fratercula cirrhata winter summer Horned Puffin year-round Fratercula corniculata Pigeon Guillemot year-round Cepphus columba Marbled Murrelet fall winter spring Brachyramphus marmoratus Rhinocerous Auklet spring summer summer Cerorhinca monocerata fall Cassin‟s Auklet spring spring Ptychoramphus aleuticus summer fall Common Murres spring summer fall Uria aalge fall Ancient Murelets spring winter Synthliboramphus antiquus winter Albatros spring fall Phoebastria sp. summer winter Fork-tailed Storm Petrel summer spring Oceanodroma furcata fall winter Leach‟s Storm Petrel summer spring Oceanodroma leucorhoa fall winter Raptors Ospreys Year-round Year-round Year-round Pandion haliaetus Peregrine Falcons spring spring spring Falco peregrinus summer summer summer fall fall fall Northern Harrier spring spring spring Circus cyaneus summer summer summer fall fall fall

Habitat Species Shelf break/Pelagic Off-shore Coastal Estuarine Interior Sharp-shinned Hawk year-round year-round year-round Accipiter striatus Northern Goshawk year-round year-round Accipiter gentilis Red-tailed Hawk spring spring Buteo jamaicensis summer summer fall fall Golden Eagle year-round (rare) year-round (rare) year-round (rare) Aquila chrysaetos American Kestral year-round year-round year-round Falco sparverius Merlin year-round year-round Falco columbarius Bald Eagle year-round year-round summer Haliaeetus leucocephalus fall Pheasants, Grouses Grouses year-round year-round year-round Bonasa sp. Ptarmigans year-round Lagopus sp. Song birds, woodpeckers Red-breasted Sapsucker spring Sphyrapicus ruber winter Steller‟s Jay year-round year-round Cyanocitta stelleri Violet-green Swallow spring spring Tachycineta thalassina summer summer fall fall Northern Rough-winged spring Swallow summer Stelgidopteryx serripennis fall Tree Swallow spring spring Tachycineta bicolor summer summer fall fall Chestnut-backed Chickadee year-round year-round Parus rufescens

Habitat Species Shelf break/Pelagic Off-shore Coastal Estuarine Interior Varied Thrush spring spring Ixoreus naevius summer summer fall fall Water Pipit Summer spring Anthus spinoletta Cedar Waxwing spring (rare) Bombycilla cedrorum Townsend‟s Warbler spring spring Dendroica townsendi summer summer fall fall Common Raven year-round year-round Corvus corax Northwestn Crow year-round Corvus caurinus Northern Fulmar spring summer Fulmarus glacialis summer fall Great Blue Heron spring spring Ardea Herodias summer summer Wood Stork rare rare Mycteria americana Waders Sanderling summer Calidris sanderlin fall

Western Sandpiper Calidris spring spring mauri fall fall Short-billed Dowitcher spring spring Limnodromus griseus fall fall Long-billed Dowitcher spring spring Limnodromus scolopaceus fall fall Common Snipe spring Gallinago gallinago summer fall Red-necked Phalarope summer Phalaropus lobatus fall Red Phalarope Phalaropus summer summer fulicaria fall fall

Habitat Species Shelf break/Pelagic Off-shore Coastal Estuarine Interior American Black year-round year-round Oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani

85 muskeg, lower estuary, and fresh water marshes for breeding, and can be found in the harbour during the winter months. Swans are found in the interior lakes in the summer, but occur in coastal areas during the winter months. Others, such as harlequin ducks, mergansers, loons, grebes and geese, are coastal in winter but spend their springs and summers either at the Skeena or smaller rivers (Godfrey 1986; Hoos 1975).

Gulls nest on the Skeena delta or on coastal islands (Hoos 1975:119), but spend most of the time traveling between pelagic, offshore, and coastal environments. Gulls also follow fishing boats well into coastal waters and are frequent visitors to the inner harbour throughout the year. Most raptors inhabit coastal, estuarine and interior regions year-round, though some migrate to more southerly regions during the winter. Ospreys and peregrine falcons are rare in estuaries, but the western hemlock/western redcedar forests in the area offer abundant roosting and nesting sites for bald eagles. The bald eagle will also migrate from the interior to the coast once waters freeze in the interior. Eagles have been observed feeding on spawning herring and eulachon in the Skeena region (Hoos 1975:120-121). Rhinoceros auklets nest on the Lucy

Islands during the spring and are found in Hecate Strait spring through fall, but overwinter off the California or Oregon coasts (Bertram et al. 1991:843).

Mammals

Table 3-5 lists the mammals common to Tsimshian territory. The vast majority of these mammals inhabit coastal and near-coastal areas during the winter months. I have defined seven habitats that would be relevant for these animals. Pelagic environments refer to waters off the continental shelf (e.g., west of Haida Gwaii); marine off-shore habitats refer to waters between the shelf break and coasts (e.g., Hecate Strait); marine coastal refers to waters in and around the mainland and islands; terrestrial near-coast habitats includes coastal islands and the shoreline

Table 3-5. List of common mammal species inhabiting traditional Tsimshian territory showing habitat and seasonality. This includes species that are presently extinct or rare in the area. Sources: Anderson 2002; Banfield 1974; Fitch et al. 1999; Gozdzik 2001; Hoos 1975; Shefferly and Joly 2000; Steinway 2003. Marine Marine Off-shore Marine Terrestrial near Terrestrial within Riverine Terrestrial alpine Pelagic Coastal coast Skeena watershed Artiodactyls Sitka Deer mainly fall mainly fall spring Odocoileus winter winter summer hemionus sitkensis Coast deer year-round year-round Odocoileus hemionus columbianus American Wapiti mainly fall mainly fall mainly spring/ summer Cervus canadensis winter winter Caribou year-round year-round Rangifer tarandus caribou Moose year-round year-round Alces alces andersoni Mountain Goat mainly fall mainly fall mainly spring Oreamnos winter winter summer americanus Mountain Sheep Fall Fall spring Ovis canadensis Winter Winter summer Rodents Red-backed vole year-round year-round Clethrionomys sp. Marmots year-round year-round year-round Marmota sp. Squirrels year-round year-round year-round Tamiasciurus sp. Northern bog year-round year-round year-round Lemming Synaptomys borealis Vagrant Shrew year-round year-round year-round Sorex vagrans Beaver year-round year-round Castor canadensis

Marine Marine Off-shore Marine Terrestrial near Terrestrial within Riverine Terrestrial alpine Pelagic Coastal coast Skeena watershed Carnivors Black Bear year-round year-round Ursus americanus Grizzly Bear year-round year-round Ursus arctos horribilis Red Fox year-round Vulpes fulva abietorum Wolves year-round year-round Canis lupus Coyotes year-round (rare) year-round (rare) Canis latrans Cougar year-round year-round year-round Felis concolor Mink year-round year-round year-round year-round Mustela vison Marten year-round year-round year-round Martes americana River otter year-round year-round year-round year-round Lontra canadensis Sea otter year-round Enhydra lutris Marine Harbour Seal year-round spring Phoca vitulina richardii Northern Sea Lion winter (rare) year-round spring Eumetopias jubata Northern fur-seals mainly juvenile: winter adults: spring summer Callorhinus ursinus spring fall (there are no cynocephalus fall rookeries in Prince Rupert Harbour currently). Killer whales summer Orcinus orca Grey whale spring Eschrichtius fall robustus

Marine Marine Off-shore Marine Terrestrial near Terrestrial within Riverine Terrestrial alpine Pelagic Coastal coast Skeena watershed Harbour porpoise year-round Phocoena phocoena Dall‟s porpoise summer summer Phocoenoides dalli .

around Skeena estuary; environments within the Skeena watershed include the valleys in and around rivers and streams, as well as the surrounding terrain (Terrestrial within Skeena

Watershed and Riverine in Table 3-6); and alpine environments are specific to higher elevations within Coast Mountains.

Black-tailed deer, black bear, grizzly bear and gray wolf are the most common large land mammals on the north coast and live within the Prince Rupert/Skeena region year round

(Banner et al. 1991:105). Sitka deer are found on Digby Island today (Hoos 1975:123). In the

1930s and 1940s caribou and wapiti were also common in the Skeena interior (Hoos 1975:123).

Mountain goats and sheep are also common in the Skeena Region. Both animals favour exposed bedrock habitats in the interior, particularly those with southern exposure. Mountain goats, in particular, often descend to forested cliffs near sea level in winter (Banner et al.

1991:105; Fitch et al 1999; Godzik 2001). Marine mammals are also common the harbour.

Harbour seals live within coastal waters year round, but “haul out” for breeding in the spring or fall, or for defence (Bigg 1981). In the Skeena region, harbour seals breed in late summer/ early fall (Hoos 1975:125). Harbour seals are also known to follow migrating eulachon up the Nass and Skeena Rivers, and have been found as far inland as Lakelse Lake and Terrace. Northern sea lions also follow spawning eulachon into the Skeena estuary, but generally remain further off-shore (Hoos 1975:125).

Ethnographers of the 19th and 20th centuries noted that Tsimshians hunted all of these mammals in both coastal and interior locations. Contact period Tsimshian used selective burning to improve berry habitat and by extension the habitat of animals that frequent open areas and feed on berries, such as deer (McDonald 2005; Miller 1997:21). According to Suttles, contact period Northwest Coast groups favoured hunting bucks during the spring and does in the fall (Suttles 1987b:34). Bears were also best hunted during the fall and least desirable during

90 the spring (Suttles 1987b:34). According to Boas (1916:141,404), mountain goats and sheep were hunted in the mountains during the winter. Boas (1916:403) records that sea mammals were hunted from boats using harpoons and that sea lions in particular, were also killed on shorelines.

The only species listed that might require travel beyond the coastal region are some species of whale, northern fur seals and coyotes. Whales would be difficult to hunt because they are large animals that are dangerous to hunt in small boats and tend to migrate through deep waters such as Hecate Strait or off the continental shelf. Some whales, particularly killer whales, sometimes travel through coastal waters, often very close to shore. Tsimshians made use of stranded whales, but there is no record of whale hunts (Boas 1916:404). Nuu-chah-nulth and Makah are the best known whale hunters on the Northwest Coast (Drucker 1951), but Losey and Yang (2007) contend that other groups may have hunted whales opportunistically during the pre-contact period.

The current distribution of some mammals changed dramatically during the late pre- contact/contact period. Sea otters were common through the Pacific coast during the early contact period, but pressure from the fur trade brought these animals to near extinction throughout the Coast (Orchard 2007). Northern fur seals may also have been more readily available in the pre-contact period. Current fur seal populations do not have breeding areas outside of California and Pribilof Island, Alaska. Adult female fur seals migrate through Hecate

Strait during the spring and fall and pups follow their parents south through this area during the winter. The frequency of northern fur seal bones at sites that pre-date 1000 BP, including the

Boardwalk site (GbTo-31) and GbTo-77, suggests that there may have been rookeries in the area at the time (Gifford-Gonzales et al. 2005; Stewart and Stewart 2001). Although these animals are difficult to hunt at sea, these remains could alternatively indicate that people were

91 hunting sea mammals in open waters, travelling beyond the current Tsimshian territorial boundaries, and/or trading with other northern groups for fur seals.

Summary

Knowing when and where specific taxa were available to people living within Prince Rupert

Harbour in the past is key to understanding how households might have been organized to acquire the resources represented by faunal remains in archaeological assemblages. The structure of local and regional resources is important because it influences mobility, settlement and land tenure strategies, all of which are essential to exploring the idea of the House in the archaeological record. Many resources would have been locally available in the harbour from the late fall through the early spring. These include virtually all shellfish, most sea mammals, and many species of fish and birds. Theoretically, all of these species could have been sought by households or task groups from the village base. We know, however, that camp sites were used throughout the Holocene in the harbour (Banahan 2005), although as yet we do not understand how these were incorporated into the economic strategies adopted by people inhabiting harbour villages. Other resources, such as salmon and eulachon, are regional resources that would have required travel beyond the harbour at very specific times of year.

This picture of the environment that would have been encountered by the inhabitants of

GbTo-77 is far from complete, but it provides, nonetheless, the groundwork upon which we can compare faunal remains from house depressions at this site. My primary interest in making such a comparison is to test the model I presented in chapter 2. If the house depressions at GbTo-77 are the remnants of Houses, then their faunal assemblages should exhibit evidence for specialization of key resources, particularly of resources that are relatively easily controlled, such as shellfish and anadromous fish. I pay particular attention to salmon, herring, eulachon

92 and shellfish remains (including barnacle, clam and mussel) in my interpretation of household and village faunal assemblages precisely because hunter-gatherers often adopt land tenure strategies with respect to these kinds of resources. They are also the most abundant species at

GbTo-77 and the other sites presented in this study.

Chapter 4. Recent Tsimshian History

There is a long tradition of drawing upon the rich ethnographic descriptions of Northwest Coast groups to aid in interpreting the archaeological data of Prince Rupert Harbour area (Ames

2005a; Ames and Maschner 1999; Cybulski 1992; Matson and Coupland 1995; McDonald and

Cybulski 2001). Archaeologists‟ use of ethnographic material as interpretive aids relates in some sense to the idea that an observed relationship between behaviour and material culture at one time (i.e. the ethnographic period) can help to explain the behaviour behind patterning in archaeological contexts (Binford 1975, 1977; Trigger 1989:391-395). Many archaeologists have questioned the relationship between material culture and behaviour (e.g., Hodder 1982), but this is most problematic in broad, cross-cultural comparisons. By contrast:

[t]he most important regularities are ones that relate to specific historical traditions and archaeological data pertaining to these traditions appear to be interpreted most effectively with some variant of the direct historical approach (Trigger 1989:395).

In this context, ethnographic documents can be useful devices for creating hypotheses about the archaeological record in culturally specific contexts (Roper 1997; Trigger 1989:391-395).

There are, however, certain qualifications that must be addressed in order to use this material judiciously and not simply as a template for direct analogy in the reading of archaeological material.

The wealth of information about 19th century life recorded in ethnographic documents for the Northwest Coast in general, and the Tsimshian in particular, is impressive and contrasts sharply with the poor preservation of many organic materials (in particular wood and basketry) at many archaeological sites along the coast. By the 19th century, however, indigenous groups

94 had become full participants in the world economy through the fur trade and had incorporated

European elements into their society (Coupland et al. 2001; Martindale 1999, 2003; Norton

1985; Prince 1998). Although changes brought about during the contact period were profound, fundamental aspects of Tsimshian social and economic organization are undoubtedly rooted in earlier times (Archer 2001; Coupland et al. 2003; Martindale and Marsden 2003).

Archaeology is well-suited to address the questions surrounding the temporal depth of many aspects of Tsimshian culture. Marshall (2006) and Ames (2006) for example, contend that emphasis on the House as the basic unit of social and economic organization has very ancient origins on the coast. Considerable evidence suggests, however, that the ethnographic pattern of large summer villages on the Skeena River developed in response to contact with

Europeans and Tsimshian integration into the fur trade (Martindale 1999:197-198). Prior to the contact period, small groups, often represented by pairs of house depressions, established themselves on the Skeena‟s tributaries (Martindale 1999:181-186).

Use of ethnographic records can also create a normative view of culture within a specific period of time, leading to the generalized descriptions of life that pervade the ethnographic literature (See Ames and Maschner 1999:41; Losey and Yang 2007; Martindale 1999:93-95;

Moss 1993 for further discussion). This is potentially problematic, especially if we want to look for and ask questions related to specific events in the ancient past (e.g. Pauketat 2007; Roper

2007). Moreover,“[t]he danger is that by relying on “average” or “typical” conditions, we may be basing our ideas on cultures or circumstances that either never existed, or which are not really relevant to what we want to understand” (Ames and Maschner 1999:41). Careful study of ethnographies and historical documents illustrates how differently groups and individuals acted within the structure of “Tsimshian Society” (e.g. Martindale 1999; Mitchell 1981). This variability is the result of how individuals and groups responded to historically specific

95 circumstances. Not all Tsimshian groups traveled between the coast and the Skeena, not all villages were arranged according to the same principles, and not all people built their houses in the same way.

Ethnographic and historic period documents are also flawed and incomplete. They record the experiences of particular members of any given society, in the Tsimshian case, emphasizing high ranking men (for further discussion, see Deur and Turner 2005a; Norton

1985). These experiences are also filtered through the observer‟s theoretical or ideological preconceptions. This is clearly demonstrated in the ethnographies written by Boas and his students which consistently ignored information about plant and shellfish management strategies in order to contradict the prevailing evolutionary paradigm (Deur and Turner 2005b; Moss

1993).

What follows is a brief summary of 19th-and 20th-century Tsimshian society, as well as a discussion of what is known about the ancient past through oral records. This is far from a complete history and I emphasize in particular those aspects pertinent to my thesis, such as

Tsimshian social organization, in particular the House, or wa’lp, settlement and seasonality.

Territory

The homeland of the Tsimshian people consists of the region in and around the Skeena and Nass river systems (Figure 4-1). It is bounded to the north by Tlingit and Athapascan groups, to the east by Carriers, to the south by Haislas and Haihais and the west by the Haida (Seguin 1993).

Interactions between these groups, and migrations across the entire northern area, are recorded in Tsimshian oral records (specifically, the adawx) and in written historical accounts (Marsden

2000; Martindale and Marsden 2003). The Tsimshian consist of four closely related linguistic

96 groups; Nisga‟a traditional territory is centred around the Nass River, Gitksan, on the upper

Skeena above Kitselas Canyon; the Coast Tsimshian [also called the Northern (Coupland et al.

Figure 4-1. Map of traditional Tsimshian territory, showing the four closely related groups that compose the Tsimshian, as well as neighbouring indigenous groups. Shown also are the locations of contemporary Tsimshian communities.

2001:226) or Metlakatla (Garfield 1966) Tsimshian] on the lower Skeena, adjacent coastal islands and mainland area, and the Southern Tsimshian south of the Skeena on coastal islands and mainland. The Tsimshian have rarely acted as a political or economic unit, though the

Coast Tsimshian in particular sometimes forged alliances at their winter villages (Seguin

1993:x). Coast Tsimshian and Southern Tsimshian speak slightly different dialects of

Sm’algyak (the Tsimshian language), but are culturally very similar (Garfield 1966:5-6; Halpin and Seguin 1990; Miller 1997:16-21; Roth 2008:16-18; Seguin 1993). More pronounced differences are apparent between Coastal groups and the Nisga‟a and Gitksan. Nisga‟a and

Gitksan speak very closely related dialects of Sm’algyak and can easily understand “Tsimshian proper” (Dorsey 1897). Sm’algyak speakers however, have difficulty understanding Nisga‟a and Gitksan dialects. Ethnographies concerning these groups are most frequently cited by archaeologists working within Prince Rupert Harbour and the surrounding area. Following

Martindale (1999) and others, I use the term “Tsimshian” to refer mostly to the Coastal and

Southern Tsimshian tribes and “Nisga‟a” and “Gitksan” to refer specifically to those groups.

Each village (or tribe) was an independent territorial, economic, and political body, but

Tsimshian society is best understood from the perspective of the House, the groupings of which form the real “nations” of this region (Roth 2008:162). Prior to the establishment of Canadian property laws in the late 19th/early 20th centuries (McDonald 1983:9), House ownership provided Tsimshians with exclusive rights to exploit specific and geographically defined regions. House properties were listed at an installation potlatch of a new House chief who had the authority to designate certain areas as exclusive and to pass them on as private property to successors. These were theoretically inalienable, although House groups could take property from others by force and could claim locations that others had simply failed to use (Garfield

1966:14; Mitchell and Donald 2001). These titles to property and wealth were linked to specific names contained within particular Houses. The history of how territories were acquired was recorded within the adawx and codified within painted house fronts and crest poles. These claims were validated at potlatches, where House-specific histories were recounted as a way of securing control of these locations (Marsden 2000; Roth 2008).

Social Organization

Tsimshian social organization was complex, multifaceted and embedded within all aspects of traditional Tsimshian settlement, subsistence and ownership. Our conception of Tsimshian society is complicated by a rather fluid use of terms by scholars in the field to describe these social relationships. Tsimshians identified with six interconnected social relationships: families, lineages (Houses, or wa’lp), House groups, (macro-matrilineages, or wilnaat’aał), villages

(local groups, tribes, or ts!ap), clans (crests or pte’x) and phratries (Garfield 1966; Miller 1997;

Roth 2008; Seguin 1993).

Phratries and Clans

The Phratry was and remains the broadest, and in many ways least well-defined, affiliation of every Tsimshian person. Two Tsimshian phratries were composed of “friend” clans (Seguin

1993:x). Members of the same phratry might provide mutual protection for or share with each other, but historically, there were few social or political obligations between members of the same phratry (McDonald 1983:7). Tsimshian phratries were integrated into the wider north coast system of social organization and are consistent with the Haida and Tlingit moieties

(Miller 1997:54-55). Like the Houses that ultimately composed them, members of each phratry could trace their descent partly from within Tsimshian territory and partly from migrations of

99 outside groups, mostly Tlingits and Haidas (Garfield 1966:20). Although some scholars use the term phratry and clan almost interchangeably (Miller 1997; Seguin 1993), Garfield highlights an important distinction:

Phratries had no important function other than the regulation of spouse selection. These were essentially loose federations of clans, which were the named subdivisions of phratries. Each clan included people who shared legends, a history of common ancestors, and many crests, properties and privileges. The members of some clans within a phratry had little in common with other clans of the same phratry except for the fact that they could not intermarry. (Garfield 1966:20; emphasis mine).

The clans, or crests, that composed each phratry were the Laxkipú (wolf), Laxskí’k (eagle),

Kispuwutwáta (untranslatable but represented by the blackfish crest or fireweed among the

Gitksan) and Qanháta (untranslatable but represented by the raven crest or frog among the

Nisga‟a) (Boas 1916:480; Garfield 1966:19-20; Halpin and Seguin 1990:274). Unlike other northern groups, the Tsimshian ranked these crests, some of which were specific to royalty

(Miller 1997:54-55).

The Village or Ts!ap

The post-contact period village was not organized by clan; people from all four crests lived within the same community (Allaire 1993:82-83). Older villages had been divided into sides so that members of opposing crests, or phratries, were situated at opposite ends of the village

(Miller 1997:54-55). In the contact and post-contact period, Tsimshians constructed linear villages along narrow beaches or river banks, though additional rows could be added if space permitted (Boas 1916:394-395). The Tsimshian selected locations that were well-drained and relatively flat. Easy access by canoe was also a factor (Garfield 1966:10).

The Tsimshian village is often considered interchangeable with the notion of “tribe”

(Boas 1916) or “local group” (Coupland et al. 2001; Martindale 1999:112). Although

100

Tsimshian tribes took their names from the location of their summer resource territories, it is the structure of the winter village that most closely relates to the “tribes” or “local groups” documented by Boas (1916), Barbeau (1917), Dorsey (1897) and others. The tribes were, and are today, relatively autonomous. The Kitselas and Kitsumkalum speak Sm’algyak, but consider themselves to be culturally closer to the Gitksan. Neither tribe currently considers themselves a part of the Tsimshian nation (Martindale 1999:100-103).

The Southern Tsimshian consisted of three villages, each with a winter and summer village located on the coastal mainland and islands south of the Skeena River. These tribes in particular formed strong relations with non-Tsimshian groups to the south. The Kitasoo and

Kitkatla in particular, reportedly formed alliances with Heiltsuk (Boas 1916; Dorsey 1897;

Marsden 2000:23). The Gitksan and two Coast Tsimshian tribes (the Kitselas and

Kitsumkalum) have summer and winter territories along the Skeena and its tributaries at or above Kitselas Canyon.

Upon the arrival of the first European maritime traders in the late 18th century, the ten tribes of the Coast Tsimshian lived in closely clustered winter villages along Metlakatla Pass

(Coupand et al. 2001; Garfield 1966; Miller 1997). Lands were held in common at winter villages and along the lower Nass River (Boas 1916:399-401), but each tribe also held critical summer village locations along the lower Skeena River and these, as discussed below, were ultimately owned by Houses. Villages, as the on-the-ground representation of the local group or tribe, could be relatively short-lived; the Houses that composed them could change and consequently, village organization was very flexible. This stood in contrast to more stable elements of Tsimshian society, in particular the lineage, or House. Old villages were periodically abandoned and new ones established (Allaire 1993), but it is not clear from the information at hand how this might have affected tribal affiliations, or the distribution of House-

101 owned properties within tribal territories. As Allaire (1993:83) wrote, “This situation of instability must have also conflicted with the economic importance of territorial integrity”.

Table 4-1 lists the names and locations of the tribes speaking “Tsimshian proper” documented in the late 19th century (Dorsey 1897). Tsimshian settlement and subsistence practices changed dramatically through the course of the 19th century. The establishment of

Hudson‟s Bay posts, missions, and canneries, and the rapid decline in population due to the introduction of European diseases, changed Tsimshians‟ livelihoods and altered social relations.

Many Houses moved from the Metlakatla Pass villages to the trading post at Fort Simpson in

1831, and later to Port Simpson (Lax Kw‟alaams) at the mouth of the Nass River. A large migration occurred again when some Houses moved from Lax Kw‟alaams to a utopian Christian community at Metlakatla under the direction of William Duncan. He later moved with many

Metlakatlans to southern Alaska. Some of these people returned to Old Metlakatla in later years, but the descendants of many still live in New Metlakatla, Alaska. Currently, the Coast and Southern Tsimshian population is centered at Lax Kw‟alaams, Metlakatla, Kitkatla,

Kitsumkalum, Kitselas, Klemtu and Hartley Bay, along with Port Essington and the city of

Prince Rupert (Coupland et al. 2001; Inglis et al. 1990; Roth 2008:20-21).

The winter village was an important forum of social interaction for Tsimshian groups.

Villages were organized according to the ranking of the Houses, or wa’lp within them. Among the Tsimshian, as with many other northern groups, the highest-ranking Houses were situated in the centre of the front row of houses (Vastokas 1966:102). At Kitselas, however, each phratry occupied a separate row with the chief‟s house at one end and houses situated in descending order from there (Martindale 1999:122), not unlike the organization of many 19th-century Haida villages (Blackman 1990:241).

Although Houses were autonomous, the head of the highest-ranked House acted as a

102

Table 4-1. Location of Coast and Southern Tsimshian tribes‟ summer and winter villages as documented in late 19th century ethnographic sources and oral records. Sources: Campbell 1993:4; Coupland et al. 2001; Dorsey 1897; Halpin and Seguin 1990:267; MacDonald et al.1987; Marsden 2000; Martindale 1999:103; McDonald 1983; Miller 1997:xvii. Tribe Name Summer Village Location Winter Village Location Kitselas Kitselas Canyon, Skeena Kitselas Canyon, Skeena River River Kitsumkalum Kitsumkalum River area Kitsumkalum River area Kitkatla Coastal islands, such as Kitkatla Porcher Island, around the mouth of the Skeena River Kitkiata Douglas Channel, Whale Kitiata Inlet Channel, Wright Sound and Lewis Pass to Camaano Sound Kitasoo Northwest Millbank Sound Kitasoo Bay Gitsees Khutzeymateen River, Khyex Metlakatla Pass (Venn River , lower Skeena Passage) Gitzaxlaal Ecstall River, lower Skeena North Shore of Digby Island Gitwylgiots Mid Skeena River and Tsimpsean Peninsula, Stephens Island Metlakatla Pass (Venn Passage) Ginaxangiik Exchamsiks River North of Dodge Cove, northeast shore of Digby Island Gitando Mid Skeena River South shore Tsimpsean Peninsula Gitlan Zimacord River Shkgeaum Bay, northeast shore Digby Island Gispaxlo‟ats Zimacord River Robson Point, Metlakatla Pass (Venn Passage) Gilutsau Mid Skeena River Dundas Point, Digby Island Gitandoiks Gitandoiks River Dundas Point, Digby Island

village leader or chief. These chiefs received tribute from everyone in the village and their families were enormously privileged (Garfield 1966:33). Village chiefs were also ranked, but there is no indication that this was accompanied by regional political authority until the post- contact period, when multi-village chiefs developed (Allaire 1993:92; Martindale 2001:127,

2003).

103

Wa’lp and Wilnaat’aał

Among the Tsimshian there is no anonymous public sphere, no radically individuated domestic sphere, no domain of important traditional knowledge or action that is not rooted in the unitary perspective of one house lineage and that does not project its power and identity outward to other lineage estates in the society. But these rights are rooted not in individuals, legal personae (Mauss 1985), but in lineage collectivities. One might call Tsimshian society lineage-centric. Any significant social action is carried out under the aegis of some house lineage, and any social knowledge of real consequences has to be articulated and understood as the property and exclusive business of some lineage estate (Roth 2008:162).

As this excerpt indicates, the House, or wa’lp is the most important social relationship for the Tsimshian. As discussed in Chapter 1, the wa’lp is a complex idea that incorporates both corporeal and cosmological things and relations. The term wa’lp is synonymous in Sm’algyak for the physical dwelling and its comprising household (Halpin and Seguin 1990) and in fact, domestic structures are symbolic of all other facets of the wa’lp (Seguin 1993). These Houses are thought of as containers, or boxes, that hold names and properties, crests, songs and dances, as well as their members and their wealth (Garfield 1966:22-23; Miller 1997:45-55; Neylan

2002:169; Seguin 1993). Seguin (1993:112) wrote that “[t]he image of the matrilineage is that of a house, which is a container motif, like the box which contains preserved food, wealth, or both.” The metaphor of the box also extends to all aspects of the wa’lp. Ranked titles are the true members of the wa’lp and “contained” the individuals that held them at any given time

(Neylan 2002:169; Seguin 1993). Resource territories were contained within the wa’lp and these also contained the resources needed to sustain household members and to produce wealth

(Allaire 1993; Coupland et al. 2001; McDonald 2005:242-243; Miller 1997:52; Seguin 1993).

House lands are also thought of as storage boxes, to be opened up “just like a trunk” (McDonald

2005:243). The concept of the container as a symbol for the House is specific to North coast groups and in particular the Tsimshian (Seguin 1993). The idea of the House as container is

104 absent among southern groups (Boas 1889:20), such as the Coast Salish, and intriguingly these groups stored food and goods in house lofts, not boxes.

The histories of Houses are documented in the adawx. These oral records tell of the origins of Houses among the Tlingit and Athapascan groups and their integration into preexisting Tsimshian peoples through marriage and warfare (Dunn 1993; Marsden 2000). The adawx are discussed further in chapter 5.

Wa’lp membership consisted of names, which were taken, or put on by the people inhabiting them (Roth 2008). Those of noble descent, title holders or Real Persons (Sm’oigyet), held high-ranking names that they acquired through matrilineal inheritance. Sm’oigyet regulated interactions between groups of people, but also between the human and non-human world. The

Tsimshian considered the worlds of non-human animals, the sky and underwater as Houses much like their own and sm’oigyet in full regalia could access these worlds during ceremonies

(Miller 1997:52-53).

The core of the household included the name-holder (usually male) and his wife and children, widowed or divorced sisters and their children, unmarried brothers, and nephews among others (Miller 1997:50-55). Wa’lp members could and often did occupy more than one dwelling, sometimes within different villages (Garfield 1939:174). Garfield (1939:174) contends, however, that this was a recent development and that earlier Houses generally contained all their members. Houses fluctuated greatly in size and productivity. Houses that were too large could split in two. If membership was too low to support an individual wa’lp, the

House could adopt members from related houses (Roth 2008:77-78). Lineage members all participated in the construction of their house and as such, all could live there if they so chose

(Miller 1997: 50-52).

105

Each Tsimshian person was born a member of their mother‟s House (Garfield 1966:23), but opportunities existed for individuals to move between houses, or to benefit from the wealth and estates of more than one House. Adoption between House-groups was not uncommon

(Boas 1916:500; Roth 2008; Seguin 1993:114) and at marriage, women lived with their husbands, in a dwelling belonging to his House (Garfield 1966:23). A woman maintained the right to use resources belonging to her House (Fiske 1991:514-515), but gathered most of what she needed for her family from her husband‟s lands (Garfield 1966:17). She could, however, contribute to her own House, particularly in preparation for feasting (Fiske 1991:515; Garfield

1966:17). Boys resided in dwellings owned by their father‟s Houses until adolescence, at which point they often moved to the house and House of their maternal uncle. According to Garfield

(1966:17), boys and men could continue to use the estates of their father‟s House while he was alive. At a father‟s death, his sons could continue to use these lands with permission from the head of the father‟s House. Much like their mothers, girls lived in and worked primarily for the

Houses of which they were not members (i.e their father‟s and husband‟s Houses). However, girls had rights to their own House‟s property and in that sense maintained a level of economic independence (Fiske 1991).

These attributes of Tsimshian social organization indicate that residence and access to owned resource territories could be flexible, at least for high-ranking Houses. Tsimshians used cross-cousin marriage, however, to keep property and wealth within a very few high-ranking

Houses (Anderson and Blumhagen 1994:90; Dunn 1984:54). As Garfield (1996:23) wrote,

“[c]ousin marriage bound the two lineages in ties of affection, consolidated hereditary property and extended the privileges of use of resources.” As commoners did not hold titles, they would not have been considered part of the wa’lp in the way that elites were. They did, however,

106 benefit from being a part of high-status Houses, in terms of having access to both sufficient provisions and protection (Miller 1997:51; Seguin 1993:xiii).

The physical structure of the house, or its architecture, is discussed in detail in chapter 7.

Briefly, post-contact Tsimshian houses were square, post-and-beam constructions. On steep banks, houses might be supported at the front by a foundation of cedar trees (Boas 1916:48;

Vastokas 1966:83-85). Most houses had a large central hearth, but some also had smaller family hearths in the corners of the central floor area (Boas 1889:35). Wide benches ran along the inside walls of the house. The house interior was divided according to the rank of its inhabitants. Families lived in carefully allocated places on wide benches along the inside of the house walls or in small rooms. The individual families within each House were allocated space according to rank. Status within the House was graded from back to front and centre to sides.

Boas (1916:395) writes that slaves and lower-class people slept near the door. Commoners had spaces along the sides of the house and important families were located at the back behind the central fire. This gave elites access to a special room behind a screen where the wa’lp heirlooms and art were kept (Garfield 1966:11; Halpin and Seguin 1990; Miller 1997:45-47).

Children sometime slept on platforms or shelves, under the roof. Cedar mats were sometimes used to divide these family spaces. Storage was in boxes on benches, under benches or on shelves suspended from the rafters (Boas 1889:35, 1916:48, 395; Halpin and Seguin 1990;

Miller 1997:47). Some houses had an excavated central floor area that created the effect of a series of benches. A house constructed by a Kitasoo chief is reputed to have had ten levels along the sides (Miller 1997:45-46). This provided additional warmth in winter, but could also shelter the large numbers of people needed to maintain and perhaps augment the wealth and prestige of the wa’lp.

107

According to Miller (1997:52-53), Tsimshian dwellings were simultaneously a microcosm of the universe, representative of the body and the embodiment of the ancestral matriclan; the central hearth and its flame represented human intellect, but also the sun, providing heat to inhabitants the way the sun warms the universe. The four support posts were conceptualized as limbs, the ridge pole as the backbone, rafters as ribs and the walls as skin.

House fronts were decorated and thought of as the face of the house, while secret passageways at the rear were the intestines. These distinctly corporeal symbols are perhaps idealized; the only known drawing of a Tsimshian roofing structure (Boas 1916:47) does not show a central ridge pole, though Emmons (1916) describes a central ridge pole in a Kitselas house.

According to Roth (2008:36, 86-87, 179) the wilnaat’aał is an important, but complex set of relationships between Houses that cross-cuts larger forms of organization, such as the village. Wilnaat’aał are important components of contemporary Tsimshian society, but seem to have a deep history that extends into the past, though how far into the past is not known.

Wilnaat’aał are networks of related Houses; these groups have a shared ancestry and often hold some very old narratives concerning their collective origins. Although ties between Houses within wilnaat’aał may be distant kin, members are unlikely to have much direct contact with each other, and in fact may be unknown to each other. Currently, a single wilnaat’aał may live together within the same tribe, or individual Houses may be spread throughout a number of tribes. The relationships between Houses within wilnaat’aał are an important means by which declining Houses are able to bring new members in through adoption. This ensures that new members are already privy to the historical knowledge pertaining to the adoptive House.

108

Class, Rank and Gender

According to Miller (1997:17), Tsimshian society in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries was organized by class (slaves, commoners, nobility and royalty), and this circumscribed all interpersonal relations. Royalty developed late in the 19th century after the winter villages at

Metlakatla were abandoned and communities were established near trading posts and missions

(Miller 1997:17). Traditionally, Sm’oigyet, or Real People, were the principal owners of wealth.

Women were central to how title and resources were inherited because successors were chosen from eldest sisters‟ sons. Sons of younger sisters and daughters generally did not inherit high- ranking names and wealth, which meant that wealth and title were concentrated in the hands of the wa’lp leaders and their heirs. This “class” manipulated property and valuable resources, directed food production and other work, and controlled major distribution of goods. Garfield noted (1966:26-28) that the head of the highest-ranking House (generally male) acted as a tribal chief and received tribute from all tribal members. Tribal chiefs and the members of his household were especially privileged. There is some indication that this kind of political power was a relatively recent development in this area of the Northwest Coast that occurred in conjunction with the fur trade (Martindale 1999; 2006).

Those who did not hold ranked names associated with territories could join one of several Houses to which they were related in various ways. Commoners, or the poor, are described as “those without origin” (Garfield 1966:29) and they ranked just above slaves.

Houses needed their labour in order to manage their territories effectively and, in particular, to process sufficient stores of food for the winter. The relationship was mutually beneficial as commoners received protection, food and shelter in return (Seguin 1993: xiii).

Many elite Tsimshian during the early contact-period were also slave owners. They could buy slaves or acquired them by raiding neighbouring groups or even other Tsimshian towns.

109

People lost all social affiliations once enslaved. Enslaved men fished, loaded and unloaded canoes, and built canoes and houses, while women slaves prepared fish and other foods

(Garfield 1966:29). There has been some disagreement on this last point. Some have argued that slaves were of no economic value, but were held only for prestige (Drucker 1939). Garfield

(1966:30), however, contends that:

[p]oints of view such as these can be accounted for only because of the absence of adequate field descriptions of the role and status of slaves and the ethnographers‟ disregard of the productive work of slaves. Slaves worked with family members and not at tasks exclusively reserved for them and what they produced was pooled as part of the families‟ stores of goods….The economic role of slave labour must have been very important, apart from the undoubted prestige accruing to their owners. Ten to twenty slaves are reported as belonging to each of the nine tribal chiefs of Port Simpson in the middle nineteenth century. Each of approximately fifty Port Simpson lineage heads is also reported to have owned from two to as many as ten slaves. These slaves certainly did much more than earn their subsistence or give prestige to their owners.

Labour, whether voluntary or not, was essential to the production of stored surpluses, particularly surplus that extended beyond seasonal needs. Women‟s roles as holders of the lineage and processors of game into stored resources were important elements in defining their status. Women‟s labour was a primary means by which wealth was achieved. While a few people (mostly men) might be required to fish, large numbers of women were needed to process the catch into storable goods (Ames 2001; Donald 1997:134). Ames (2001) and Donald (1997) have argued that the task of converting salmon in particular into stored resources was a driving force behind slavery and warfare in this area. While female kin could be persuaded to provide labour for their lineage, people from neighbouring groups and sometimes even other Tsimshian villages were also enslaved to perform food processing and other activities. Slaves of either gender could perform men‟s or women‟s work, but the Tsimshian specifically favoured women as slaves (Donald 1997:135). Put another way, women‟s labour was central to the maintenance of surplus and prestige, and was controlled in this way through slavery and the class system.

110

While some anthropologists have argued that overall social inequality has a direct impact on the status of women within a society (Kent 1991), class seems to have been as important an identity as gender among Tsimshian. It was not unusual for high-status women to hold positions of power and the wealth accumulated through slavery benefited them in the same way as their male counterparts. High-status women were not restricted from the public sphere (they occasionally steered war canoes, traded and met with European ships (Fiske 1991: 513-514;

Galois 2004:46). Accordingly, inequality between elite women and men seems to have been less severe than between elite women and slave women, as the lives of slave women were very carefully controlled.

The Tsimshian Economy

The Seasonal Round

As discussed earlier, the Tsimshian structured their economic activities around their House- owned resource territories, with particular emphasis on winter villages along Venn Passage in the harbour and summer villages in the Skeena watershed. The kind of settlement and subsistence pattern that incorporated these important locations also included smaller hunting, fishing and collecting locations that were again owned by Houses and held in trust by House leaders.

Feasting and other ceremonies tended to occur during the winter, when few economic activities could take place. Some hunting was undertaken, but mostly people spent time in their permanent villages, living off stores of salmon, berries and other plant foods caught or collected in summer and fall, as well as shellfish, some dried from summer harvests and some collected and eaten fresh. When stores were exhausted, starvation was apparently not uncommon (Boas

1916:399). Resources collected from beach fronts in the vicinity of the winter village, mitigated

111 hunger (Halpin and Seguin 1990:271; Miller 1997:23). Salmon could be fished using traps and weirs along the coast to catch fish and seals (Boas 1916:399-401).

In late winter/early spring, Nisga‟a and Coast Tsimshian tribes moved to beach fronts on the lower reaches of the Nass River for the eulachon fishery. It is not clear whether tribal (or village) leaders orchestrated the move from the harbour to the Nass or whether Houses made the decision to move to the eulachon grounds independently. There is also contradictory evidence regarding the nature of land ownership at the Nass. Miller (1997:21) indicates that the beaches at the Nass were owned in common by all Tsimshians. Mitchell and Donald (2001:30) however, wrote that many Houses owned specific locations on the Nass beach front. Haida and

Tlingits came to the Nass to trade with Tsimshians and Nisga‟as for eulachon oil, but some

“extra-territorial” groups also managed to gain access to fishing rights at the Nass (Mitchell and

Donald 2001:31). Some access was garnered through marriage and other alliances between owning Tsimahians and outsiders. In other instances, Tsimshians tolerated a degree of incursion from outsiders simply because the cost of excluding them, through violence and warfare, was too high at a time when large numbers of people were needed to fish and harvest eulachon

(Mitchell and Donald 2001: 31). Moreover, it would have been difficult for those with rights to actively exclude those without because eulachon, unlike salmon, spawn across a wide beach front and would have proved difficult to “fence in” (Mitchell and Donald 2001: 31).

Men generally caught eulachon in the same way as herring, by using rakes. Women processed the eulachon catch by drying some, but most were boiled in large quantities and rendered into grease. This grease was one of the Tsimshians‟ most valued resources and was used to preserve foods and as a condiment. Halibut dipped in eulachon oil, for example, was an important winter food. The oil was stored in the winter village for later consumption or for

112 trade with inland Tsimshian tribes or Haidas and Tlingits (Boas 1889:35, 1916:44; Garfield

1966:15; Miller 1997:21; Mitchell 1981).

After eulachon fishing, people returned to the Metlakatla villages. Late Spring was spent storing and drying seaweed collected from owned locations. Seaweed may have provided the largest amount of plant food, other than perhaps berries, for Coast Tsimshians and was, along with shellfish, an important barter item for women (Garfield 1966:13; McDonald

2005:252; Miller 1997:21). Herring also spawn in the spring in the shallow coastal waters throughout the harbour; both fish and roe were collected (Miller 1997:21).

By the late spring, the salmon begin their runs through the Skeena watershed. At this time, people moved to summer villages along the Skeena River (Miller 1997:21-22).

Martindale (1999) has shown that large summer villages along the Skeena likely developed in response to the fur trade. Interestingly, many ethnographers present a very different interior settlement pattern, one that may reflect the pre-contact use of this area (Boas 1916:399-401;

Garfield 1966:15-16; Halpin and Seguin 1990:270-271). These authors write that tribal groups split into House-owned fishing camps for the salmon fishing season, suggesting that

“traditional” (i.e. pre-contact period) summer settlement patterns were not organized by villages, but by Houses. In this scenario, each wa’lp headed to their summer resource territories to fish, but also to pick berries and collect other important plants and bark. For the Coast Tsimshian, these locations were on the tributaries that drained into the Skeena River. Houses owned multiple salmon fishing stations in order to diffuse risk of salmon failure in any given year, and to acquire access to seven species of salmon (Halpin and Seguin 1990:270-271; Prince 2005).

Southern Tsimshian summer resource territories have large salmon escapements dispersed through many smaller coastal rivers and streams (Coupland et al. 2001).

113

Tsimshian used weirs, basket traps and dip nets to fish salmon (Boas 1916:399-400).

Later in the season, harpoons were used. The combination of weirs, nets and harpoons was very effective in narrow channels, Skeena tributaries and canyons (Boas 1889:20; Drucker 1965:114;

Nolan 1977:135-138). Some men concentrated on offshore fishing in the summer months, and although seals and sea lions could be taken at any point in the year, sea mammal hunting usually occurred in the summer months (Halpin and Seguin 1990:271; Miller 1997:22-23). Mountain goat and other land mammal hunting also occurred during the summer and fall.

Shellfishing

Although much has been written on the importance of salmon in the pre-contact Prince Rupert area (Ames 2005a; Coupland et al. 2003; Matson and Coupland 1995) shellfish have received very little attention until recently (e.g., Burchell and Cannon 2006; Cannon et al. 2008; Cannon and Burchell 2009). This is despite the fact that shellfish compose a substantial proportion of the matrix of midden sites in the harbour area. Part of this oversight stems from the perception that shellfishing was a marginal activity during the ethnographic period, undertaken mostly by women, young men, children or slaves (Boas 1916:190: MacDonald 1969:242; see also Moss

1993).

However, like salmon, clams were collected in large numbers and prepared for winter use. Tsimshian groups made frequent use of shellfish, primarily clams and cockles, for local consumption in the winter, and trade during the summer (Garfield 1966:13; Halpin and Seguin

1990). Gitksan, Upper Nass Nisga‟a, and probably the Canyon Tsimshian acquired shellfish through trade with coastal groups as they did not have access to coastal resource locales.

Lightweight strings of shellfish were easily transported to interior groups up river for exchange here and in other areas of the coast (Norton 1985:89-90, 110, 130).

114

It is critical to remember that these observations about Tsimshian society were made 150 to 200 years after first European contact, and may have little to inform on pre-contact uses of shellfish. The introduction of European goods through the fur trade had a profound influence on the Tsimshian economy and diet. Some of the earliest Europeans to encounter Northwest Coast groups recorded a variety of resources, including shellfish, many of which are not noted in later ethnographic works (Norton 1985:25). By the late 19th century, when some of the earliest ethnographies were written, many indigenous groups had shifted emphasis to large scale hunting and fishing and replaced many traditional foods, including shellfish, with European goods

(Norton 1085:84; 154). This, combined with ethnographers‟ interests in predominantly male tasks, has formed our conception that shellfishing contributed little to Tsimshian economy in the pre-contact period (Moss 1993).

Hunter-Gatherers, Managers or Cultivators?

Like other Northwest Coast groups, the Tsimshian are frequently cited as classic examples of complex hunter-gatherers (see Chapter 2 for further discussion). Some have argued that the patchy nature of resources, in particular salmon, along the Northwest Coast is key to understanding human adaptation in the area (Schalk 1977; Suttles 1987a, 1987b). Much like agricultural economies, these resources were “harvested” from very specific, owned locations on the landscape at specific times of year (Gottesfeld 1994:447; Suttles 1987a; Vastokas

1966:91). Few researchers, however, specifically address the increasing evidence suggesting that many groups managed the habitats of important plants through burning, pruning and transplantation. Evidence for plant resource cultivation is in keeping with well-documented shellfish management strategies. Shellfish harvests were restricted on specific beaches; those with good clam beds were cleared of rocks and sticks in order to increase the shellfish

115 population at particular owned locations (Deur and Turner 2005b:19-22). Deur and Turner

(2005b) argue that cultivation constitutes a broad spectrum of “plant enhancement strategies” that involve the manipulation of plants and their environments in order to augment production.

References to indigenous tobacco and potato cultivation in the early contact period are controversial (McDonald 2005). House owned gardens at winter and summer villages are documented in ethnographies about the Tsimshian and in early historical documents concerning the Haida and Tlingit, but it is unclear whether horticulture was practiced in this way prior to

European contact (McDonald 2005; Moss 2005).

Summary

Since the arrival of European traders, missionaries and ethnographers on the north coast, the

House, or wa’lp has been the fundamental organizing principle upon which political, economic and social action took place. The wa’lp was also the principle by which status and prestige were

(and are) orchestrated. The success of even the most powerful Houses was rooted in their ability to maintain and augment their own membership and perhaps the membership of related

Houses (Halpin and Seguin 1990:274; Roth 2008). Commoners could shift households with each season (Miller 1997:51) but might be enticed to stay and contribute to specific Houses, which required their labour to successfully manage House territories (Seguin 1994:xiii). These

Houses could also acquire slaves through warfare and trade at a scale that less prosperous

Houses could not (Garfield 1966:30). Each House validated its ownership through potlatches, where names are passed from one generation to the next, along with the wealth and property deeded by the name (Cove 1987; Roth 2008). While in theory these rights are inalienable, in the post-contact period, territory could move from one House to another; moreover, individuals can gain access to new territories through strategic use of social mechanisms such as marriage,

116 adoption, slavery, warfare, and trade (Coupland et al. 2001; Cove 1987; Marsden 2000; Roth

2008). Tsimshian society is, at its core, a grouping of Houses.

The community, however, is another important element to Tsimshian social and economic relations. The synthesis of mostly ethnographic materials presented here is rather foggy on the relationships between Houses and larger groups of Houses; they may cross-cut villages, as in the case of wilnaat’aał, or they may be linked by geographic proximity as in the case of the village. Archaeological research, such as the study presented here, can help shed light on these problems by addressing the antiquity of the House and by investigating the relationship between House and village in the past.

This review of recent Tsimshian history is pertinent to my thesis because I use the

Tsimshian wa’lp as a basis for examining what kinds of data constitute evidence for Houses in archaeological contexts. As discussed in chapter 2, Houses should produce evidence for frequent and consistent repair, as well as evidence for continued reconstruction over multiple generations. This evidence is most likely to be found in architectural and stratigraphic data.

Houses are also most likely to exist in situations where households compete with each other for members, as exemplified by the contact and early post-contact period Tsimshians. In other words, Houses foster and are fostered by inequitable social and economic relations.

Consequently, archaeological evidence for Houses should include evidence for significant differences between house depressions in terms of resources and investment in architecture that could reflect social inequality. Tsimshian kinship and residency allowed some individuals to move between Houses and to benefit from the estates of more than one House over the course of a person‟s lifetime. Yet, each person contributed most of his or her labour to the House in which he or she resided. As a result, the remnants of Houses in the archaeological record, both

117 from the perspective of Lévi-Strauss‟s model and the historically specific Tsimshian wa’lp, should reflect the efforts of those who resided together at any given time.

118

Chapter 5: The ancient history of the Prince Rupert area: previous archaeological

research and oral records

As noted at the beginning of this dissertation, Prince Rupert Harbour has long been a focus of intensive and significant archaeological research on the north coast. Many projects, including some of the earliest, emphasized the large scale excavation of village sites (Coupland et al.

2003; Drucker 1943; MacDonald and Inglis 1981), but there has been increasing interest in non- village sites (Banahan 2005) and in regional or landscape approaches to the past (Archer 2001;

Burchell and Brewster 2008). Although there are some recent and notable exceptions (Burchell and Brewster 2008; McLaren 2008), two main goals permeate much of this body of work; 1) understanding the origins of ethnographically documented social and economic organization, and 2) understanding whether events recorded in the adawx (oral records) correspond to archaeological evidence (Archer 2001; Martindale 2006a; Martindale and Marsden 2003).

The scope of archaeological research that has occurred in this area is impressive. In many respects, however, the conventional culture-historical framework that has been used to define the pre-contact period in the harbour is less nuanced than in other parts of the North

Coast, such as the Kitselas Canyon area and Haida Gwaii (Figure 5-1). There is a deep history of inter-group contact through trade, warfare, marriage and seasonal migrations between the

Prince Rupert area and these other regions of the North Coast, particularly the Lower Skeena drainage. Thus, both local and regional historical perspectives are imperative to our understanding of events that occurred in Prince Rupert in the past. This section provides the history of archaeological research in Prince Rupert Harbour and the Lower Skeena River area.

119

Alaska

Graham Island Dundas Islands Nass River

Stephens * Work Haida Island D Prince Channel Rupert Gwaii Kitselas Canyon

Skeena River Hecate Strait

British Columbia N

Legend * Lucy Islands D Digby Island International boundary O 20 40 60 80 100 Kilometres

Figure 5-1. The northern Northwest Coast of British Columbia, showing key locations discussed in chapter 5 (after Blackman 1990:241 and Halpin and Seguin 1990:268).

120

Following that, the conventional culture-historical sequence for Prince Rupert is presented in light of new archaeological data and compared with other North Coast regions.

Prince Rupert Harbour

Harlan Smith (1909) undertook the first archaeological survey of North Coast “shell heaps” in the late 19th century. Smith concentrated on the area in and around Metlakatla Pass, recording midden sites on both Digby Island and the mainland (Figure 5-2). Many of these sites were occupied by contemporary Tsimshians who had used the well-drained shell-bearing deposits to construct potato garden plots and as foundations for their houses. As a result, Smith had difficulty discerning ancient materials from modern contexts. Smith assumed, for example, that cultural material collected from the beaches fronting the sites was recently fashioned (Smith

1909:598). This contributed to the idea that indigenous occupation of Prince Rupert Harbour had begun relatively recently and that little had changed in the intervening years. When Smith expanded this survey in 1929 to include excavation at midden sites at the mouth of the Skeena and on Graham Island, Haida Gwaii, he appears to have been more concerned with dating these sites and open to the prospect that some may be “centuries older, preceding perhaps even the

Christian era.” (Smith 1929:46). Regardless of the antiquity of these sites, Smith believed there was little to indicate significant change through their duration of use, or for that matter across the Northern area;

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the culture represented in the ancient middens should seem to be similar, on the whole, to that of the Indians found in this region at the time of its discovery (Smith 1929:44).

Over the following decade, Drucker (1943) surveyed and test excavated some of the winter villages within and around Metlakatla Pass that had been inhabited in the late pre- contact/early contact period. Questions regarding the age of these sites were also problematic

121

N Tsimpsean Peninsula

GcTo-6 McNichol Creek Tugwell Venn Passage Island Prince Rupert Harbour GbTo-77 Straith Point GbTo-31 Digby Island Boardwalk Kaien Island GbTo-10 Co-op site

GbTo-28 Phillip‟s Point Chatham Sound

GbTo-46 0 1 2 3 4 5 Tremayne Bay Kilometres Figure 5-2. The Prince Rupert Harbour area, showing the locations of key sites discussed within the text. for Drucker. He identified these sites largely from historic documents and deciduous forest cover, and as such believed them to be fairly recent occupations. Like Smith, Drucker observed little difference between archaeological and ethnographic cultures. This idea would permeate the culture history of the area for the next half century (Ames and Maschner 1999:95;

MacDonald 1969; MacDonald and Inglis 1981:52).

No further archaeological work was undertaken in the harbour until 1954. Charles

Borden, with the assistance of James Baldwin, tested GbTo-10, also known as the Co-op site

(Ames 2005a:20). This excavation was significant because it produced dates over 3000 years old, thereby demonstrating unequivocally the antiquity of indigenous occupation of the harbour.

Borden and Baldwin also saw evidence for abandonment in the site‟s stratigraphy.

122

Understanding the reasons behind abandonment at this site and throughout the area would become a significant focus of archaeological research in the harbour in the years to come.

North Coast Prehistory Project (NCPP)

The North Coast Prehistory Project (1966-1980) was the largest archaeological research project undertaken in the harbour to date. The primary goal of the project was to investigate through a study of archaeological remains how the ethnographically documented cultures on the North

Coast came into being (Ames 2005a; MacDonald and Cybulski 2001; MacDonald and Inglis

1981:37). This was an all-encompassing programme with a geographical scope far beyond the harbour; significant 19th century Haida villages were mapped and documented, and pre-contact sites were excavated on Haida Gwaii. The mainland components included ethnohistorical research and the excavation of 11 sites within Prince Rupert Harbour, in addition to survey and excavation in Kitselas Canyon. The programme emphasis however, was on the area in and around Prince Rupert. Research questions particular to the harbour included whether, as oral records suggest, human remains could produce evidence for intrusive populations and how social ranking might have influenced pre-contact settlement and architecture (MacDonald and

Cybulski 2001:4-5).

The wealth of data uncovered from these excavations was largely unpublished until

Ames‟s 2005 monograph. Like many excavations of the time on the Northwest Coast (Lyman

1991:92-93), the methods employed on the NCPP favoured artifact collection and indeed this forms the bulk of Ames‟ recently published analysis. Faunal material was unsystematically collected and architectural features poorly documented. As a result, there are significant limitations to the kinds of interpretations, particularly in the realm of subsistence, which can be gleaned from this work. Moreover, these results are not easily accessible because they are

123 largely written up in unpublished reports held at the Archaeological Survey of Canada in Ottawa

(see Stewart and Stewart 2001 for an exception).

Prince Rupert Harbour Radiocarbon Dating Project

In the early 1980s, David Archer, a veteran of the NCPP and now at Northwest Community

College in Prince Rupert, carried out an extensive survey and mapping project of the harbour.

The objective of this research was to expand the harbour‟s site inventory and to map village organization through detailed study and measurement of surface features. Archer (1992, 2001) identified 71 new sites and took auger samples from each in order to acquire shell samples for dating. He concluded that early villages, dating prior to 1900 BP (such as GbTo-77) were generally composed of small, relatively homogenous and sometimes loosely organized house depressions. Later villages, post-1900 BP, tended to be bigger, but most importantly, they consisted of heterogeneous house depressions, some of which were very large. This change in village layout represents for Archer a shift from relatively egalitarian social organization to ranked villages and corresponds to the evidence for increasing warfare that culminated in the area around this time (Archer 2001). Raiding and conflicts with Tlingits encouraged the inhabitants of small egalitarian villages to abandon these settlements and to congregate in larger villages for protection. The kinds of relationships that developed within these settlements encouraged social inequities and facilitated the development of social ranking (Archer 2001).

McNichol Creek Site Excavations and the North Coast Housing Project (NCHP)

The research that I present in this dissertation was undertaken as a component of the North

Coast Housing Project (NCHP). This research programme developed out of Coupland‟s work at

GcTo-6 (the McNichol Creek site) and focused on the large scale excavation of four ofther

124 village sites in the harbour: GbTo-46 (Tremayne Bay), GbTo-28 (Phillip‟s Point); GbTo-31 (the

Boardwalk Site) and GbTo-77 (refer to figure 5-2). Both the McNichol Creek project and the

NCHP sought to address, through an analysis of household remains, questions relating to production and social organization. The results of this work have shown that semi-sedentary villages based on a salmon storage economy were well underway by 2200 BP and that large- scale salmon storage precedes evidence for social ranking. Of the village sites in this study, evidence for social ranking occurs only at later components at GbTo-31 and GcTo-6 (Coupland

2006; Coupland et al. 2003, 2006). House O, the largest house depression at GcTo-6, contained a large central hearth, most likely for feasting, a partially clay-lined floor and sea mammal remains. These attributes were found only in house O and suggested to Coupland that this had been a chief‟s (or lineage head‟s) house. In other words, McNichol Creek was a ranked village by approximately 1600 BP (Coupland 2006; Coupland et al. 2003).

Another component of the NCHP is focused on what are presumed to be non-village sites, or small sites within the harbour. These sites (smaller than 1000 square meters) lack house features and are thought to be the remains of base camps and resource extraction sites. Small sites have been largely ignored by researchers in the area, but are critical to our understanding of subsistence and mobility strategies, particularly with regards to shellfish (Banahan 2007).

Dundas Islands Archaeological Project

Andrew Martindale and David Archer have recently completed extensive survey and excavation of sites in the Dundas Islands, an archipelago to the north of the harbour and across Chatham

Sound from the mouth of the Nass River. This area is the location of significant events recorded in the adawx. Archer (2008) has carefully mapped large village sites and argues that there are two very different kinds of settlements. Drawing on events recorded in the adawx, he interprets

125 this as evidence for two distinct ethnic groups (Tlingit and Tsimshian) living in the Dundas

Islands 2000 years ago. A second component of the project has focused on assessing the formation and antiquity of shell middens and village sites in this area (Martindale et al. 2009).

Preliminary results suggest that shellfish were harvested and the shells used to create habitable landscapes for at least 6900 years, and that people began building villages composed of rectangular post and beam houses as early as 3800 years ago (Martindale et al. 2009; Ruggles

2007).

Kitselas Canyon and the Lower Skeena

Like Prince Rupert Harbour, the first archaeological research in the interior was also undertaken by Harlan Smith. In the 1920s, Smith documented through drawings and photographs a number of villages along the Skeena River, many with standing architecture. In 1928, Barbeau and

Beynon surveyed the Kitselas Canyon area and documented the ancient villages of the Gitksan

(Allaire 1979:61; MacDonald and Inglis 1979:9-11). Allaire followed up on some of this research in the 1970s as a component of the NCPP (Allaire 1979; MacDonald and Inglis 1979).

Allaire (1979) excavated portions of the Gituas site, one of the four villages that had been occupied by the Kitselas tribe. Oral traditions record the founding of this village site after

Tlingit migrants had been absorbed into this Tsimshian group. The artifact assemblages resulting from this excavation provided the framework for the initial Skeena culture-historical sequence and suggested to Allaire that the site was used alternately by coastal and interior groups.

In the 1980s, Gary Coupland surveyed sites in the Kitselas Canyon area, but focused his research on the Paul Mason site (Figure 5-3). The results of this work are significant for two reasons; 1) they refine the Canyon‟s culture history into a five-unit sequence; and 2) they

126

Figure 5-3. The Skeena River region showing the location of the Paul Mason site and Psacelay (after Coupland 1988a).

contributed to our understanding of how social organization relates to production. From patterning in house depressions at the Paul Mason site, Coupland concluded that small corporate groups were orchestrating salmon harvesting, processing and storage in the Canyon area almost

3000 years ago, well before evidence for pronounced social inequality (Coupland 1985, 1988a,

1988b).

The Lower Skeena area below the Canyon is perhaps the least well known area within

Tsimshian territory. This area is, however, particularly relevant to our understanding of the region‟s culture history because the Lower Skeena drainage system encompasses many traditional Tsimshian summer resource locations. Consulting projects associated with Canadian

127

National Railway and Natural Gas developments had identified through survey a number of archaeological sites in the area, but little archaeological research had been carried out in the

Lower Skeena prior to Martindale‟s (1999) survey of the Exchamsiks and Gitnadoiks rivers in the late 1990s. Martindale observed changes in settlement and use of this part of the interior over 2500 years. Between 2500 BP and 500 BP, sites were small and consisted of one or two house depressions. After 500 BP, houses were still small in number, but much larger in size.

When winter villages were abandoned in favour of the large aggregate settlements at fur trading posts in the early contact period, Tsimshians shifted their summer locations from the tributaries to the Skeena itself. These summer “towns” were large and similar in design to the traditional winter village (Boas 1916). Although food resources were still important, surplus and wealth were now measured in European goods. Interior settlements, therefore, shifted from the tributaries to the Skeena, the major trade route between the coast and the interior (Martindale

1999).

Assembling the Past; archaeology, culture history and the adawx

Archaeologists working in the Prince Rupert area either work without direct reference to culture histories (Burchell and Brewster 2008; Coupland et al. 2003) or use the periodization compiled by MacDonald and Inglis (1981). This culture historical sequence was constructed largely from artifact typologies and was intended as a preliminary attempt to organize the harbour‟s sites and resulting artifact assemblages chronologically. Despite the abundance of research and CRM projects that have been undertaken in the harbour in the intervening years, the framework has never been properly amended. As a result, the culture historical entities that define this area encompass broad scales of time and convey a certain level of uniformity or cultural stasis within periods. To get around this problem, researchers further divide some or all of these entities of

128 time into smaller units (Ames 2005a:293-295; Martindale and Marsden 2003), but there has been no consensus as to where lines should be drawn.

The years of archaeological research in the harbour and adjacent areas have greatly expanded our understanding of this and other areas on the North Coast. There is, however, plenty of contention surrounding major archaeological questions such as when the shift from egalitarian to ranked villages occurred, or when the pattern of Coastal winter villages and summer villages on the Skeena watershed came into being. Part of this stems from our dependence upon these incomplete and out-dated culture histories, but there are also discrepancies in dating methods, including marine correction values (Ames 2005a; Archer

2001).

Culture History of Prince Rupert Harbour and Adjacent Areas

The culture historical sequence for Prince Rupert Harbour consists of three time periods, Period

I (1500 BP to 250 BP), II (3500 BP to 1500 BP) and III (5000 BP to 3500 BP). When

MacDonald and Inglis first developed this sequence, no sites dated earlier than 5000 BP had been found in or around the harbour. Although the early to mid Holocene (11 000 B.P. to 5500

BP) is poorly represented on the northern mainland, or indeed in the islands forming Prince

Rupert Harbour, recent archaeological research in the outer harbour and adjacent areas has begun to overturn our conceptions about the region‟s culture history in general and this early period in particular. Banahan‟s (2007; Coupland et al. 2006) recent work on the Lucy Islands and Martindale and Archer‟s in the Dundas Islands show the outer harbour was in use more than

7000 years ago. Although no artifacts were uncovered, these sites date well within the Archaic period (approximately 9000 to 5000 BP), and show that shellfish formed a significant component of the economy well before shorelines stabilized (Ames and Maschner 1999:88).

129

There are also plenty of sites in the harbour that extend below water mark indicating that there may be earlier components that date to a period when shorelines were lower than today (Ames

2005a:22-24).

The earliest archaeological sites on the Northern Coast are Ground Hog Bay 2, On-Your-

Knees Cave and Hidden Falls in Southeast Alaska (Ackerman 1974, 1992; Davis 1989; Moss

1998:92). These sites are dated 9500 and 9000 BP respectively and there are considerable differences between their lithic assemblages. Assemblages from Ground Hog Bay 2 contain bifaces and flakes, while the earliest Hidden Falls components contain microblade cores and no bifaces. In Haida Gwaii, Fedje and Christensen (1999) surveyed inter-tidal zones and raised beaches and identified a number of sites that date 9400 to 5000 years ago. Occupations dating prior to 8900 BP are termed the “Kinggi Complex” and lithic assemblages from these sites consist mostly of pebble tools and “Levallois-like” flakes. Assemblages from sites later than

8000 BP consist almost exclusively of microblades and belong to the Moresby Tradition, such as Arrow Creek 1, the Kasta site, Lawn Point, Cohoe Creek and Stathdang Kwun. These last two sites have shell midden components (Fedje and Christensen 1999).

Microblades were also found in the earliest components of the Paul Mason at Kitselas

Canyon on the mainland. Termed the Bornite phase (5050+/-140 BP) these deposits consisted of obsidian microblades and were likely used for fish processing and some woodworking.

Coupland (1988a:230) suggests that the obsidian found within these assemblages indicate trade with groups further in the interior. There is little to suggest how the canyon area might have been integrated with the harbour, but very few sites have been excavated in the harbour that date to this period.

130

Period III

Prince Rupert Harbour Period III (5000-3500 BP) coincides with what is currently the earliest evidence for occupation in the inner harbour. The Lachane and Boardwalk sites are the best known sites with components dating to this period. Period III artifact assemblages include chipped stone, pebble tools, bone and antler tools. These artifacts, combined with faunal assemblages that exhibit a paucity of fish remains, had been interpreted as evidence of an economy focused on land mammals, supplemented with fishing. Site components dating to this time were largely investigated as a component of the NCPP, and as such, faunal material was not systematically collected. Stewart et al. (2003; see also Stewart et al. 2009) demonstrated that later components of the Boardwalk site had been adversely affected by screening practices that likely biased faunal remains against smaller vertebrates like fish in favour of larger terrestrial mammals. Undoubtedly, screening practices influenced early component assemblages as well. Moreover, preliminary results from the Dundas Islands project have also shown that sites dated to Period III contain fish remains (Burchell and Brewster 2008).

The architectural features (mostly small posts) and small slab-lined hearths found in these early components convey little regarding the nature of settlement in Period III at these sites. Shell midden deposits that date within Prince Rupert III are shallow; this has been interpreted as evidence for a relatively high level of residential mobility (Martindale 1999:73;

Matson and Coupland 1995:126). However, Ames (2006) and Marshall (2006) have recently posited that the presence of cemeteries in these shell middens likely reflects a certain degree of territoriality (see also Rowley-Conwy 2001). Recent work in the Dundas Islands produced evidence for rectangular surface house depressions as early as 3800 BP (Ruggles 2007).

Coincidentally, this corresponds to the date of an early house feature at the Hidden Falls Site

(Ames and Maschner 1999:56; Davis 1989).

131

The lithics from this period in the harbour consist of cobble and flaked tools. Bone tools are decidedly more complex; there are bilaterally barbed bone harpoons with line holes and unilaterally barbed harpoons. Geometric decorative motifs are found on utilitarian objects from this time, and there are also California mussel adze-blades and points, bone wedges/chisels, canine tooth pendants, beaver incisors, bird bone tubes and beads, bone awls and points

(MacDonald and Inglis 1981).

The culture history for Kitselas Canyon is known in greater detail than other parts of the north coast during this period. The time frame associated with Period III is broken down into two phases in the Canyon, the Gitaus phase (4300 to 3600 BP) and the Skeena Phase (3600 to

3200 BP) (Allaire 1979; Coupland 1988; Matson and Coupland 1995:129). Gitaus phase deposits were uncovered at the Gitaus and Hagwilget sites and consisted of chipped stone, mostly cobbles and cortex spall tools. Allaire (1979) saw this as evidence for coastal groups from the harbour exploiting the area on a seasonal basis, probably for fish, as early as 4000 years ago. A change in the lithic assemblage at the Gitaus site around 3200 BP (Skeena phase), showed a decrease in ground stone, an increase in formed bifaces, and the introduction of lanceolate points. These tools suggested an increasing emphasis on land mammal hunting, though acute angle flakes (thought to be associated with fish butchery) and birch bark rolls

(interpreted as torches for fishing at night) suggested that fishing was still an important component of this economy (Coupland 1988a:232-234). Allaire (1979:46) sees this change as evidence for interior groups settling in the Canyon, because the lithics appear similar to contemporary assemblages from the Hagwilget site located further east. Coupland (1988a:235) however, sees similarities between lithics from coastal sites and Skeena phase assemblages and argues that harbour groups were still using the Canyon, perhaps on a seasonal basis.

132

Prince Rupert Period III corresponds closely with Ames and Maschner‟s (1999) Early

Pacific Period, represented in Southeast Alaska by component II at Hidden Falls Site (Moss

1998:100). One of the hallmarks of the Pacific Period is the introduction of groundstone, in particular adzes and abraders that would have been conducive to heavy woodworking (Ames

2005a:25). These ground and flaked stones are found in Prince Rupert III components as well as at the Hidden Falls site (Davis 1989). On Haida Gwaii, sites dating to this period and with this kind of lithic technology are considered part of the Early Graham Tradition. The Blue

Jackets Creek site is one such example, containing bipolar flakes, pebble cores and basalt flakes

(Ames 2005a:26; Fladmark et al. 1990).

Period II

Period II, dating 3500-1500 BP, can be subdivided into and early and late phase (Martindale and

Marsden 2003). The early phase is characterized by rapid shell accumulation in midden sites, which as MacDonald and Inglis (1981) contend, likely reflect growing village occupations, larger house construction and population increases. Villages at this time are still relatively small and dispersed, but surrounded by smaller resource procurement and camp sites (Martindale

1999:74). Each village group, therefore lived within its own coastal catchment zone.

Period II tool kits in general show continuity with Period III. Late in Period II (circa

2000 BP), new classes of woodworking tools, such as stone adzes, chisels and bark shredders, were introduced, along with evidence for increasing inter-personal violence (Fladmark et al.

1990:234). Heavy woodworking tools are generally seen as evidence for large-scale woodworking activity such as the construction of plank houses (Drucker 1943:57). This kind of technological change may have had a fundamental influence on the nature of building projects in the harbour over the last 2000 years.

133

Faunal remains from sites dated to this period tend to consist of large quantities of salmon bones (Matson and Coupland 1995:191). Fish weirs dating 2000 to 3000 years ago in southeast Alaska (Moss et al. 1990; Moss and Erlandson 1998) and tidal stone fish traps south of the Skeena (Simonsen 1973) suggest that large scale salmon fishing was well underway in this period both north and south of the Skeena River and in parts of southeast Alaska. Evidence for large-scale salmon fishing supports the idea that the seasonal round between the harbour and the Skeena can be dated to this period (Fladmark et al. 1990:233). Salmon are easily harvested in large numbers as they travel upriver prior to spawning. To prevent spoilage of salmon caught in abundance, the flesh must be processed through drying or smoking and stored (Matson and

Coupland 1995). Evidence for drying racks has been identified at a number of sites and in conjunction with regular post-and beam houses, kerfed boxes and large quantities of ground stone likely reflect the procurement, processing and storage of large quantities of salmon

(Coupland 1988b:220; MacDonald and Inglis 1981). Recent work in the Dundas area has shown, however, that rectangular houses predate this period by a few hundred years; the importance of salmon at these sites is unclear (Ruggles 2007).

The lithic assemblages of this time period are very similar to Period III. New woodworking tools, such as new types of ground stone and shell knives, are introduced late in this period. People began creating objects with zoomorphic themes as well as new items of personal adornment (MacDonald and Inglis 1981). A new unilateral barbed harpoon was made that includes a multiple notched unilateral line-guard, and exotic raw materials such as amber, copper and dentalia, are often found in burials (Ames 2005a:301; Coupland 1988b:220). These have been used to support the idea that social ranking developed early in the harbour, perhaps by 3000 BP (Ames 2005a:294, 301), although amber has been found in a variety of non-burial contexts across the northern region (see chapter 8).

134

Chronologies are more detailed in the Kitselas Canyon area, where this time period crosscuts three phases; the end of the Skeena phase (3600 to 3200 BP), the Paul Mason phase

(3200 to 2700 BP) and the Kleanza Complex (2700 to 1500 BP). Settlement and subsistence patterns change dramatically at the beginning of the Paul Mason phase, which is defined largely from deposits at the Paul Mason site. Lithic assemblages from Paul Mason phase deposits at this site are composed of increasing proportions of ground stone, thought to be associated with fish processing, at the expense of chipped stone tools. The small, rectangular, surface house depressions at this site are associated with the Paul Mason phase, and this suggests to Coupland that households were organized as co-residential corporate groups living here on a year-round basis (Coupland 1988a:230-242). The Kleanza phase differs from the Paul Mason phase only in the introduction of new artifacts related to fishing (such as net sinkers similar to those found in later Period II assemblages from the harbour) and personal adornment. Thus far, components associated with the Kleanza Phase have been found only at the Gitaus site (Allaire 1979;

Coupland 1988a:239-241; Matson and Coupland 1995:236).

On the North coast, Middle Pacific period (3500 to 1500 BP) sites include Component

III at the Hidden Falls site. The lithics associated with this time period at the Hidden Falls site consist of undiagnositic flakes and specialized ground stone, including abraders, planing adzes, knives, chisels and mauls (Davis 1989; Moss 1998:100-101). In contrast to Middle period sites in Prince Rupert Harbour, there are few bone tools here or on Haida Gwaii (Fladmark et al.

1990:237).

Period I

Period I dates from 1500 BP to contact, and is represented in the inner harbour by components at the Baldwin site (GbTo-36) Kitandach (GbTo-34), K‟nu (GcTo-1), Lachane (GbTo-33),

135

Pariseau Point (GbTo-30), Garden Island (GbTo-23), the Boardwalk site, and Lucy Islands

(Ames 2005a; Banahan 2007; Martindale and Marsden 2003). New woodworking tools conducive to very heavy woodworking, such as large, grooved splitting adzes, hafted mauls, shell knives, and carving and cutting tools were found in components dating to Period I

(Fladmark et al. 1990:235); these tool types may relate to the increasingly large houses that were constructed during this time. Inter-personal violence also appears to be escalating as indicated by evidence for bow and arrows (MacDonald and Inglis 1981).

There is a clear shift in settlement patterns around 1500 BP. Once dispersed villages were abandoned as groups clustered together along Metlakatla Pass (Venn Passage).

Concentrations of large numbers of people within a relatively small geographical area likely had implications for economic pursuits. In particular, the inhabitants of the Metlakatla Pass area may have had to travel farther to acquire basic coastal resources, such as shellfish. This may reflect changes in ownership of resource locations as well as the development of land tenure practices at non-village locations on the landscape (Martindale 1999:75). For Martindale and

Marsden (2003), this period is marked by the reoccupation of the harbour by allied coastal and interior groups and the start of the traditional Tsimshian seasonal round.

One of the most significant sites dating to this period in the region is the Greenville

Burial Ground (Cybulski 1992), located on the lower Nass River. Faunal remains from this site indicate that anadromous fish formed a significant component of the economy. The site is most revealing about mortuary ritual from this period. The dead were buried in a flexed position, in boxes that may have been originally used as food containers (Cybulski 1992). The relatively low number of women in these and other burial sites has been interpreted as possible evidence for slavery (Cybulski 1992; Donald 1997). This argument hinges on the fact that many women were buried differently from men and other women in society. Burchell (2004), however,

136 argued recently that differences in burial custom may not relate directly to class, but may reflect variability in mortuary fashion.

From Drucker‟s initial impressions of midden sites in Prince Rupert Harbour, there has been a tendency to view the Late Pacific period as much like the historically documented cultures (Ames and Maschner 1999; MacDonald and Inglis 1981; Matson and Coupland 1995).

Not only is our understanding of this period less complete than we would often like to believe, this kind of perception of the past glosses over regionally and chronologically distinct and significant events that occurred along the North Coast. Orchard (2007), for example, recently surveyed and tested a series of sites in southern Haida Gwaii that date within the Late period, or

Late Graham Tradition. He demonstrates that there is evidence for significant change through the Late Period. Between 1200 and 800 BP, economies shift emphasis from rockfish (the Xyuu daw phase) to salmon (Qayjuu phase). This means that the emphasis on salmon, which is purported to be a critical resource for the development of pronounced social inequality on the

Northwest Coast, occurs significantly later here than it does on the northern mainland. Acheson

(1991) argues that large multi-lineage villages were not present until around AD 1200 in Haida

Gwaii, much later than other parts of the coast and on the mainland (Ames 2005a; Archer 2001).

For Maschner (1992), in southeast Alaska, large, multi-lineage villages do not occur until after

AD 500 and very large houses are not present until AD 700 to 1200. From this, he interprets social ranking as a relatively late development compared with our conventional interpretation of the late pre-contact period in Prince Rupert. Interestingly, Eldridge and McKechnie (2008) have recently argued that many of the Prince Rupert dates have been incorrectly adjusted for the marine reservoir effect and that evidence for social ranking in both burials and settlement data, occurs later than expected. In chapter 6, I use Eldridge and McKechnie‟s Delta-R value to correct for the marine reservoir effect in Archer‟s (2001) shell-based dates.

137

The Adawx

As discussed in chapter 4, archaeologists working on the Northwest Coast have made frequent use of ethnographic and ethnohistorical documentation as the basis for their interpretation of archaeological data, despite the problems that have been identified with the information they contain (Cannon 2002; Martindale 1999; Norton 1985). Specific uses of oral records are much less common, even though ethnographies are themselves largely constructed from oral narratives (Martindale and Marsden 2003).

Interest in how Tsimshian oral narratives, in particular the adawx, correspond to archaeological data, however, has been a recurrent theme throughout the course of archaeological research in Prince Rupert. One of the central tenets of the NCPP was to establish whether physical remains would demonstrate evidence for intrusive populations, as recorded in the adawx. George MacDonald (1993) referenced the Epic of Nekt to help interpret proto- and early historic period events at the Kitwanga Hill Fort. The adawx are featured also in Archer‟s

(2001) interpretation of changes in settlement and village organization in the harbour 1500 to

2000 years ago.

Marsden (2000) has written extensively on the relationship between oral narrative and archaeological data, particularly within the last 2000 years. In 2003, Andrew Martindale and

Susan Marsden published an article on the relationship between archaeological data and the events recorded in the adawx. They contend that events recorded in these narratives correspond best to archaeological data at the regional level and in particular to the Middle Period (3500 to

1500 BP). According to Martindale (2006a), the annual rounds recorded ethnographically occurred at different times in the past, shifting in response to migrations and incursions by outsiders. The adawx record that the earliest coastal groups in the area maintained territory at

138 the Nass River because of the importance of the eulachon fishery. Some Houses and tribes expanded their territory to the mouth of the Skeena through negotiations with supernatural beings and marriage alliances (Marsden 2002). This opened up travel between the coast and the

Skeena estuary (up to the tidal limit). Coastal groups were generally resistant to incursions from migrants into the area and remained distinct from interior groups for millennia (Marsden 2002;

Martindale 2006). Houses that brought wealth and status, however, were welcomed and absorbed into preexisting coastal groups (Marsden 2002).

Some time later, Tlingit groups originating on the Stikine River moved into the Tsimshian homeland, building villages and seasonal camps throughout southeast Alaska, the Dundas

Islands, Tuck Inlet, Stephens Island, Work Channel and perhaps even along Metlakatla Pass

(Marsden 2000:22). What were at first friendly interactions between Tsimshian and Tlingit soured and became violent. In response, Tsimshian groups at the mouths of Skeena and Nass rivers were forced to retreat up the Skeena, while Tsimshian living on the southern coast moved to fortified sites on nearby Islands. The Skeena Tsimshian in particular formed alliances with neighbouring tribes in the interior and attacked Tlingit settlements in the harbour and mouth of the Skeena in order to reclaim these areas.

The adawx are of particular interest here because of what they reveal about the history of

Tsimshian Houses. Each House owns its own adawx or historical narrative “which explains the significant relationships that legitimize its (the House‟s) place in the social and geographical landscape” (Martindale and Marsden 2003:16). This includes explanations concerning the founding of Houses, the integration of new members through marriage, the movement of individuals between Houses due to conflict and raiding, and inter- and intra-house fighting over access to hunting and fishing territories (Marsden 2002:43).

When these integrated Tsimshian groups returned to the harbour and reclaimed the area,

139

Tsimshian society changed profoundly (Marsden 2002:33). According to the adawx, the pattern of seasonal migration between the harbour and interior only begins at this time, which

Martindale and Marsden (2003) believe corresponds to the evidence for a relatively abrupt reoccupation of the harbour about 1500 BP. The Tsimshian, now shared extended kin relations with the Tlingit, Nisga‟a and Gitksan (Marsden 2000:50-51). This means that Tsimshians had ties to Tlingit, Nisga‟a and Gitksan Houses and that Tsimshian Houses now consisted of individuals whose origins were within these other groups. This resulted in a network of related groups spread through the region, which both encouraged closer economic and social ties within

Tsimshian tribes and between the Tsimshian and other northern groups (Marsden 2000:45-51).

This coincides with an important concept that generations of archaeologists working in the area have grappled with, that the Northern indigenous groups are particularly closely related culturally and genetically. Drucker (1955) referred to the north coast area as the “northern province” and MacDonald (1969) called this the “north coast interaction sphere” or co-tradition.

In MacDonald‟s view, marriage and raiding between groups facilitated cultural convergences.

The kinds of ranked systems witnessed historically developed out of the need for elites to control prestige items that could not be found locally and this desire for trade goods stimulated inter-tribal contacts (MacDonald 1969:244-245). The idea that this kind of interaction sphere provides the foundation for social ranking as been criticized (Sutherland 2001) and comparisons of physical remains (admittedly few) do not seem to suggest a close biological relationship between northern groups (Cybulski 2001). The notion that close cultural relations existed between the three major Northern groups however, still exists (e.g. Clark 2008).

140

Summary

Although extensive work has been undertaken in Prince Rupert Harbour, our knowledge of past events in this area is still in many respects uncertain. This lack of clarity stems partly from our dependence on outdated culture histories that gloss over hundreds of years of historical change.

The connection between the coast and interior is particularly important, though our understanding of the regional movement of people and ideas is hampered by the relative paucity of data from the Skeena and the Nass river areas.

This review of previous archaeological work in the Prince Rupert/Skeena region raises a number of interesting and unresolved questions that pertain to my dissertation. One of the most significant asks whether it is possible to differentiate between ancestral Tlingit and ancestral

Tsimshian Houses from surface house depressions. Archer‟s (2008) recent survey of the

Dundas Islands area revealed at least two distinct settlement plans that he argues may reflect occupations of this area by different ethnic groups. This kind of settlement variability, however, has not been observed within the inner or outer harbour area where my own study is focused.

Moreover, the Lévi-Straussian House represents a “type” of social organization that includes a variety of contemporary and historical groups, including the contact and post-contact-period

Tsimshian; these groups share key characteristics in social and economic organization that I outlined in chapter 2. In archaeological contexts, Houses should produce evidence for repeated rebuilding and repair of the domestic structure over multiple generations and should provide evidence for owned resource territories. These patterns may be investigated regardless of the ethnic affiliation of those who constructed the dwellings we excavate.

141

Part 2: Results and Interpretation

Chapter 6. Site Descriptions

In this chapter, I provide descriptions of the environment within the immediate vicinity of the study sites, GbTo-77, GbTo-46, GbTo-31, GcTo-6 and GbTo-28 (Figure 6-1). The physical and biological structure surrounding archaeological sites is key to understanding patterning within faunal assemblages. This information, therefore, allows me to explore where individual households at GbTo-77 acquired the resources represented within the sites‟ faunal samples, particularly with respect to invertebrate remains.

In this chapter, I also present a synopsis of archaeological work undertaken by other archaeologists at each of the study sites and a summary of their findings, including site chronology. These details have been presented elsewhere (Ames 2005a; Archer 2001;

Coupland et al. 2000, 2003, 2006), but a review is important because current arguments that concern social relations hinge on the timing of changes in settlement patterns (Ames 2005a;

Archer 2001; Marshall 2006). Descriptions for GbTo-77 also include the methods and results of auger testing at this site, as well as excavation methods and stratigraphic interpretation of a back midden unit.

The dates presented below are from charcoal (Coupland et al. 2000, 2006, 2010) and shell samples (Archer 1992; 2001). I calibrated all charcoal samples with OxCal 4.1.

Correcting and calibrating shell dates was much more complex. Archer (2001) corrected shell dates for the marine reservoir effect by subtracting the Delta-R value of 650 +/- 50 (Southon et al. 1990:202) from his uncalibrated dates. As discussed in chapter 5, Eldridge and McKenchnie

(2008) argue the regional Delta-R correction value for the marine reservoir effect in the Prince

Rupert Harbour area should be 400 +/-70 for marine samples with uncalibrated dates prior to

142

Metlakatla Tsimpsean Peninsula First Nation Carr Island GcTo-6 Tugwell Venn Passage Island Melville Pike Arm Metlakatla Island Bay Prince Rupert Devastation Harbour Island GbTo-77

Digby Island GbTo-31 Kaien Island

GbTo-28 Chatham Sound

0 1 2 3 4 5 GbTo-46 Kilometres Figure 6-1. Prince Rupert Harbour showing the location of GbTo-77, GbTo-28, GbTo-46, GbTo-31 and GcTo-6 as well as key geographical locations mentioned in the text (after Archer 2001).

2500 BP and 455+/- 60 for marine samples with uncalibrated dates between 2500 and 1500 BP.

As such, I corrected and calibrated shell-based dates following Eldridge and McKechnie (2008) using CALIB 6.0. I present all calendar dates below at the 95% confidence interval.

GbTo-77

GbTo-77 is located in a small, shallow unnamed bay (Figure 6-2) on the northwest shore of

Digby Island. Heading west out of Prince Rupert Harbour via Venn Passage, this bay is located approximately 3 km southwest of Metlakatla village. Devastation, Carr and Pike islands in

Metlakatla Bay protect the shoreline in front of GbTo-77 from extreme oceanic conditions; each of these islands contains important archaeological sites that date 2000-3000 years ago (Banahan pers. comm.; Martindale and Marsden 2003). Two rock reefs 200 m to 300 m seaward of the

143

Figure 6-2. Map showing the location of GbTo-77 in relation to the other registered archaeological sites in the bay (after Canada Dept. of Energy, Mines and Resources (Canada) 1980).

high-tide mark further protect this bay from powerful wave shock.

The bay in front of GbTo-77 is subject to impressive high and low tides that vary as much as 4 m. At low tide, the bay drains to reveal sandy and muddy pocket beaches bracketed by expansive schist bedrock outcrops; a rock ledge also bounds the seaward edge of the intertidal zone. Eel grasses and seaweeds cover the intertidal zone in front of the site; thatched barnacles, limpets, and occasionally bay mussels adhere to the bedrock outcrops that bracket the beach in front of GbTo-77. Seals are frequently observed offshore, and occasionally dolphins and

144 whales. Wolves and deer have been spotted on the shore in front of the site. Common bird sightings include ravens, eagles, ducks and geese. Two other recorded archaeological sites are situated within this bay; GbTo-78 is a large village site, consisting of over 30 house depressions and is located approximately 200 m south of GbTo-77. In addition, a smaller midden site

(GbTo-79) is located even further to the southwest (Coupland et al. 2006). Each of the three sites faces a beach that is bracketed by large bedrock outcrops.

The upper beach, or beach ridge, directly in front of GbTo-77 is approximately 15 m wide

(measured from the base of the embankment to the high tide mark) and is largely composed of schist gravel with small quartz inclusions and large particle sand. The embankment rises steeply approximately 1 m in elevation from the beach to the forest. The site itself is 10 m east of the forest edge, and just 1 m higher in elevation.

GbTo-77 is a small shell midden village site measuring some 3000 m2 in area. It consists of six house depressions and is rimmed on the back and sides by a relatively small, shallow midden (Figure 6-3). Five of the house depressions (houses B through F) are arranged in a single row; they are relatively homogenous in size, ranging from 3 m x 4 m to 4 m x 6 m, as measured from the mid-slope of the house depressions (sensu Archer 2001; Coupland 1985,

1988a). A sixth house depression (house A) is oriented perpendicular to the main row and, from surface measurements, is approximately 2 m x 3 m. The back midden (as measured from the back of the main row of house depressions to the far midden edge) ranges between 6 m and 6.5 m in width but broadens to almost 10 m behind house A. The eastern edge of the back midden drops 1.5 m sharply to the forest floor. The northern edge of the midden also slopes steeply to the forest floor; the southern midden edge, however, tapers to an end beside a small gully that drains onto the upper beachfront south of GbTo-77. The forest cover in the vicinity of the site consists of cedars, hemlocks and pine trees, which made accurate measurements of some surface

145 house depressions difficult. House depressions B, C, and D were well defined on the surface, but, house depressions D and E were obscured by large tree falls. House depression A was relatively clear of large obstructions, but, the feature itself was less pronounced (shallower) than those in the main row.

GbTo-77 is one of the more remote sites in Prince Rupert Harbour (see Figure 6-1).

Access to this site is available only by boat, even from communities such as Dodge Cove and

Crippen Cove, which are located on the eastern shore of Digby Island. The closest community is Metlakatla First Nation across Metlakatla Bay at the opening of Venn Passage. From the city of Prince Rupert, one must travel across the harbour and through Venn Passage, a distance of approximately 10 km. Lands cleared for the Prince Rupert Airport runway, however, are located less than 1 km to the southeast of GbTo-77 where elevations above sea level are higher.

Lands to the northeast and east of the site are part of Tsimpsean Indian Reserve 2 held at

Metlakatla First Nation.

Prior to my own work at GbTo-77, David Archer of the Northwest Community College in Prince Rupert mapped and tested a small portion of the back midden in 1988, as a component of the Prince Rupert Harbour Radiocarbon Dating Project. He also collected shell samples from the top of the back midden in two locations in order to acquire terminal dates for this site

(Archer 1992; 2001). I first visited the site in June 2002. I mapped GbTo-77 by hand and, in

2004, with the assistance of Dr. Michael Blake (University of British Columbia), using a total station. In the summer of 2002, I also collected a series of auger samples from a number of site contexts using a 7 cm diameter hand-held auger (Figure 6-3). These auger tests allowed me to test the depth and composition of the site in a variety of locations (sensu Coupand et al. 1999;

Stewart et al. 2003). These samples also provided me with midden, faunal, and sediments samples to compare with excavated data. A total of 30 auger tests were taken from GbTo-77,

146

Figure 6-3. Map of GbTo-77 showing the location of house depressions, auger samples and the back midden unit. Elevations are in masl.

although two were discontinued due to subsurface obstructions in the humic layer; I excavated

12 auger tests from across the back midden, four from the area in front of the houses, one along the eastern edge of house A, one along the northern edge of house B and one each between house depressions B through D. I also took two auger tests from house depressions B through D and one test each from house depressions E and F. I aimed to collect one-litre samples of material samples every 20 cm; differences in deposit compaction and composition made

147 consistency difficult. As such, samples ranged from every 10 to 40 cm. Nine samples were sorted and informally examined in the field, but the components of these samples have not been quantified and, as such, are not presented or considered in this dissertation. I have analyzed an additional four samples in the lab to date and the results of this work are presented in chapter 8.

The auger tests helped me identify shell midden in three contexts, behind house depressions (back midden), between house depressions (side midden) and in front of house depressions (front midden). Samples with no visible shell, mostly taken from the centre of house depressions, occasionally produced very small quantities of shell during analysis, particularly those samples positioned slightly toward house depression edges. Auger samples taken from house depressions C, D, E, and F were all very similar in composition; underneath the humus, 75 cm to 95 cm below the surface, I encountered a greasy black silt with loose schist gravel. Beneath this deposit (between 100 cm and 130 cm below the ground surface) was a layer of dense compact schist gravel, often in association with ground water. Samples from house depression B were different from the other house depressions; auger tests here encountered deposits of sand and clay between 40 and 70 cm below the ground surface, but the same compact, schist gravel layer was encountered beneath this.

Auger tests taken across back and side middens were very different in composition from the house depression samples. Along the back midden, shell deposits were encountered between 20 cm and 50 cm below the surface and continued as deep as 175 cm to 225 cm below ground surface. In side middens, as well as at the northern and southern edges of the site, shell deposits were encountered between 40 cm and 80 cm below ground surface. These samples contained mixed invertebrate taxa within a dark brown to black sandy-loam. Occasionally pockets of mussel, thatched barnacle and green sea urchin could be identified within the samples.

148

Side middens, however, were very different stratigraphically from back middens. Side middens were relatively homogeneous in appearance and consisted of broken clam shell dispersed in a grey-black sandy-loam. However, layers composed almost entirely of crushed mussel were encountered toward the bottom of shell deposits between houses C, D and E. Shell deposits were generally shallower across side middens and at the northern and southern edges of the site, bottoming out between 140 and 185 cm below ground surface. At the southern end of the midden, the water table was encountered between 130 and 160 cm in depth below the ground surface. The presence of groundwater at these depths in this section of the site is not surprising given its proximity to the small gully south of the site.

Following the augering and mapping of the site, I excavated a 1 m x 1 m test unit, designated unit 1 (Figure 6-4) in the back midden behind house depression C. While my dissertation research focused on house depressions, the back midden excavation unit provided faunal samples from the back midden area to compare with auger samples and materials collected from house depression excavations in 2003 and 2004. Each deposit or stratigraphic layer was given a separate lot number. I made general observations about the composition of each lot during my field work; because I took column and bulk samples of each lot identified during excavation, I was able to refine my descriptions of lot composition in the lab (see chapter

7, chapter 8 and appendix C). Column samples that were not analyzed for shellfish composition were examined in order to gain information about sediment composition.

The basic stratigraphic sequence for unit 1 was as follows: Lot 1, humus, formed after the abandonment of the site and ranged in thickness between 5 and 40 cm below the surface, and ranged in colour from dark red/brown to black. As is common to call humus, lot 1 was also rich in organic materials in various states of decomposition. Beneath this was a thin, grey zone of

149

Figure 6-4. North and west wall profile of Unit 1, the back midden at GbTo-77.

150

leached mineral which had percolated through the humus. Lot 3 was a greasy, black silt with a high organic component. This lot was found across the entire surface of the back midden unit and in almost every auger test sample. It is also similar in description to the “black midden” noted by Ames (2005:80). Coupland (Coupland et al. 2000; 2006) also describes a greasy black layer below the humus at GcTo-6, GbTo-28 and GbTo-46. Lot 4 refers to the unit 1 shell deposits; for this unit only, I excavated shell deposits by trowel in 10 cm intervals. I subdivided lot 4 into discrete shell dumping events in the profiles. The upper metre of the back midden consists of discrete dumps of shell. Each of these deposits was well-defined and tended to be dominated by one or a few shellfish species. Lot 4a, for example, consists of thatched barnacle, green sea urchin and small mussels (bay or small California mussels). Other back midden deposits appeared to represent toss zones (Binford 1978, 1983; Schiffer 1972). These deposits, such as lot 4d and lot 4i were more horizontal in orientation and consisted of gravel and diffuse and highly fragmented mussel, green sea urchin and sometimes clam. It is difficult to determine from a single one-meter square unit what these deposits represent, but I suspect they may relate to house cleaning or rebuilding episodes (see chapter 7).

All matrix excavated from this unit was screened for artifacts and faunal remains. I followed the same screening protocol as Coupland (Coupland et al. 2006); 75% of all material was dry-screened through one-quarter inch mesh and 25% of the material was wet-screened through one-eighth inch mesh. These deposits were mostly composed of whole, broken or highly fragmented shell, vertebrate fauna and sediments. Artifacts were also found within the lot 4 deposits (see appendix C). The details of specific lot 4 deposits are noted in the legend for figure 6-4. The unit 1 lots produced many vertebrate faunal remains, including a nearly complete dog skeleton (see chapter 8).

151

Chronology

I collected charcoal samples for radiocarbon dating from three different site contexts at GbTo-

77: from the back midden, from house depressions and from side middens. Excavation of the

side middens and house depressions are discussed in chapter 7. Five charcoal samples were

assayed at the Isotrace laboratory at the University of Toronto and these are summarized in

Table 6-1. Two charcoal samples relate specifically to back midden depositional events and

these produced dates with age ranges of 390-120 cal BC and 360-1 cal BC (TO11032,

TO11033). There is considerable overlap at the 95% confidence interval for the back midden

dates (one sample was taken from the top of the midden and one from the middle of the

midden); this may indicate that this section of the back midden accumulated rapidly. I corrected

and calibrated Archer‟s (2001) shell-based dates using Eldridge and McKechnie‟s (2008) Delta-

R values for the Prince Rupert area (Table 6-2); these age ranges may reflect an earlier use of

the back midden.

Table 6-1. Radiocarbon dates and calibrated age ranges from charcoal samples for GbTo-77. Normalized Calibrated Radiocarbon Sample Radiocarbon Age Age Range, 95% confidence Context Number BP interval (Reimer et al 2009) house A midden 1990 +/- 50 150 cal BC-AD cal 125 TO12055 slump 2120 +/- 50 360-1 cal BC Back Midden TO11033 2210 +/- 50 390-120 cal BC Back Midden TO11032 2250 +/- 50 400-200 cal BC house D TO12054 3040 +/- 60 1430-1120 cal BC house D hearth TO12056

Table 6-2. Radiocarbon dates for shell-based samples for GbTo-77. Samples were corrected for the marine reservoir effect using a Delta-R value of 455 +/-60 for dates lab dates between 2500 and 1500 BP and 400 +/- 70 for lab dates prior to 2500 BP (Eldridge and McKechnie 2008). Calibrated Radiocarbon Age Normalized Range, 95% confidence Context Sample Number Radiocarbon Age interval 3210 +/-110 900-260 cal BC Back Midden WSU-4391 2925 +/-110 600 cal BC-AD cal 90 Back Midden WSU-4392

152

Most of the dates from GbTo-77 produced calibrated age ranges that overlap with the back midden dates. Each date, however, may represent chronologically distinct events in the site‟s history. The house depressions are not well dated and this is a considerable obstacle to understanding the full nature of the events that produced these features. Two dates were acquired from samples recovered from house D, one from a hearth feature (Hearth 1, see chapter

7) and one from bench midden deposits toward the front of the house depression. The hearth sample (TO12056) was taken from a large piece of charcoal and is the only date from this site that does not conform to the 390-125 cal BC age range. The date from the hearth feature is between 1430-1120 cal BC (TO12056). This is much earlier than the rest of the dates for this site, including the shell-based dates, and likely reflects a hiatus between tree cutting and wood burning events (Dean 1978). The other radiocarbon date associated with this house was taken from a deposit I interpret as “bench midden.” Bench middens are deposits of finely crushed shell found along the inside house walls (see chapter 7). These deposits represent material that accumulated under a bench structure while the house was in use and likely represent house cleaning activities. The charcoal sample taken from the house D bench midden produced a radiocarbon date of 400-200 cal BC (TO12054), placing the occupation of this house well in the age range of other early houses in the harbour area (see below).

Few adequate carbon samples found in the house A deposits were sufficient for dating.

This relates partly to the processes surrounding the construction, use and abandonment of the structure that created this house depression (see chapter 7). In particular, the house depression is capped by shell midden material that slumped across the floor area; it is from this “midden slump” that a carbon sample was taken, producing a date of 150 cal BC- AD cal 125

(TO12055). Because the deposit from which this date came was slumped over the living floor

153 deposit, it suggests that house A fell into disuse prior to the 150 cal BC- AD cal 125 age range.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine how much time elapsed between when the charcoal was deposited in the back midden and when this section of the midden slumped across the house

A depression.

GbTo-46

GbTo-46, or the Tremayne Bay site, is located at the southern tip of Digby Island on a narrow isthmus between two shallow bays, one on the harbour side (unnamed) and the other (Tremayne

Bay) on Chatham Sound (Figure 6-5). At high tide, the isthmus is approximately 75 m wide.

The eastern shoreline of the isthmus is well protected from open ocean conditions by Kaien

Island. The eastern shore at GbTo-46 consists of rocky outcrops and a pebble/sandy, pocket beach above the intertidal zone. At low tide, this bay drains to expose wide mud flats.

Although Tremayne Bay is located on the Chatham Sound coast, it is also relatively well protected from wave action by two small islands. This bay also drains at low tide to expose sandy flats but, Fraser Point, at the southern end of Tremayne Bay is composed of rock outcrops

(Canada Dept. of Energy, Mines and Resources 1980).

GbTo-46 is located between 2 and 5 m above the high tide line. The site consists of a large shell midden and surface house depressions arranged on an upper and lower terrace.

GbTo-46 has been mapped on two separate occasions and each survey recorded a different number of surface house depressions. Archer identified 20 house depressions in 1988 during his survey of village sites in the harbour. In 2000, Coupland (Coupland et al. 2006; 2010) identified 24 house depressions; his map is presented in Figure 6-5.

The layout of houses at GbTo-46 is unusual in comparison with other village sites in the harbour. There are two points of entry by water for this site and so village orientation may not

154

Figure 6-5. Map of GbTo-46, the Tremayne Bay site (from Coupland et al. 2010).

have been as clearly defined as at other sites from a similar period. The nine upper terrace house depressions at this site are arranged in a single row and rimmed by a deep shell midden.

Working west to east, the first six houses face Tremayne Bay, while the eastern three houses face the isthmus and look over the southern terrace. The lower terrace is 1 m to 1.5 m lower in

155 elevation than the upper terrace. Fifteen house depressions are loosely arranged on the lower terrace, singly, or in groups of two and three. Ten house depressions appear to be oriented with their long sides parallel to the beach and match those on the upper terrace in cardinal direction.

The structures that created these depressions may have been built with their long sides facing the shore rather than to their short ends, so that both bays were visible, at least peripherally from the house entrance. The remaining four lower terrace houses are arranged with their short axis to the shoreline. The shape of these surface depressions suggests that the structures that were built here, and that created these depressions, may have faced Prince Rupert Harbour. This difference in house depression configuration could reflect a separate occupation at this site. The fact that these remain as surface depressions and were not filled in by later inhabitants suggests they were inhabited while the rest of the entire lower terrace was in use. As Mackie and

Williamson (2003) point out, however, the relationship between surface depressions and the structures that created them are less than strait forward; multiple structures may produce a single depression and some structures may produce no depression at all. Moreover, we cannot be certain that all surface depressions represent domestic structures.

In addition to mapping GbTo-46, David Archer excavated a shallow 1 m x 1 m unit in the back midden in the 1980s in order to retrieve shell for dating the site. In 1999, Coupland

(Coupland et al. 2000) took six auger tests using a 7 cm diameter hand-held soil auger; four auger tests were located across the back midden on the upper terrace and two were located on the slope between the upper and lower terraces (Coupland et al. 2006:4). In 2000, Coupland

(Coupland et al. 2006:4) excavated a 2 m x 1 m unit in the upper terrace back midden. During excavation, the field crew encountered human remains and, as a result, closed the northern end of this excavation. The remainder of the unit was excavated to 1.4 m below the surface and extended through dense, concentrated shell deposits indicative of refuse midden. Coupland

156

(Coupland et al. 2006:4-5) continued excavations at this site in 2002, concentrating on house J on the lower terrace. An additional three auger tests were taken from the north/south midline of the house depression. Coupland (Coupland et al. 2006:5-7) then excavated three areas in and around the house J depression and identified four depositional zones, two natural and two cultural. Zone A, humus layer, and zone D, beach sand represent natural deposits at the top and bottom of the stratigraphic sequence; zone B consisted of greasy black organic sediment, containing fragments of charcoal and ash, as well as decomposing and fragmented rock. This deposit formed an interface with zone D within the central area of the house depression and with zone C (described below) along the midden slope. Zone C may be the same kind of sediment that I observed underneath the humus in the back midden at GbTo-77. Zone C consisted of stratigraphically layered deposits of mixed shell and dark brown/black sediment. At the north and west end of the house J depression, zone C deposits included a thin layer of ash and charcoal flecks, which Coupland (Coupland et al. 2006:8) interprets as bench midden. The house and back midden excavations, as well as the auger test, produced vertebrate and invertebrate faunal remains that I use in this study to compare with the GbTo-77 faunal samples

(see chapter 8).

Chronology

Most radiocarbon dates from both the upper and lower terraces overlap at the 95% confidence interval and fall between 40 cal BC and 340 cal AD (Table 6-3). Charcoal samples from the back midden produced dates with age ranges of AD cal 30-340 (TO10898) and 40 cal BC-AD cal 240 (TO10899) (Coupland et al. 2000). Two dates, both associated with house depression J are earlier; the first is associated with the latest occupation of house J and has an age range of

360-50 cal BC. The oldest date associated with this site comes from a lower house floor layer

157

and falls between 810 and 520 cal BC. Coupland (Coupland et al. 2006:16) contends that this

charcoal sample was very large, likely included “heart wood,” and reflects a hiatus between tree

cutting and wood burning events (Dean 1978). Archer‟s shell-based dates from the back

midden (corrected using Eldridge and McKenchnie‟s [2008] Delta-R value) at GbTo-46 have an

age range of 40 cal BC-AD cal 530 and 130 cal BC-AD cal 440 (Table 6-4). Based on

Coupland‟s dates (Coupland et al. 2006), I suggest that the most intensively occupied period for

this site was sometime between 360 cal BC and AD cal 340.

Table 6-3. Radiocarbon dates and calibrated age ranges from charcoal samples for GbTo-46. Calibrated Radiocarbon Normalized Sample Age Range, 95% confidence Context Radiocarbon Age BP Number interval (Reimer et al 2009) 1810 +/- 50 AD cal 80-340 house J TO11029 1840 +/- 60 AD cal 30-340 Back Midden TO10898 1890 +/- 50 AD cal 10-240 house J TO11030 1910 +/- 50 1 cal BC-AD cal 240 Back Midden TO10899 2150 +/- 50 360-50 cal BC house J TO11028 2550 +/- 50 810-520 cal BC house J sub floor TO11031

Table 6-4. Radiocarbon dates for shell-based samples for GbTo-46. Samples were corrected for the marine reservoir effect using a Delta-R value of 455 +/-60 for dates lab dates between 2500 and 1500 BP and 400 +/- 70 for lab dates prior to 2500 BP (Eldridge and McKechnie 2008). Normalized Calibrated Radiocarbon Age Context Sample Number Radiocarbon Age Range, 95% confidence interval 2530+/-95 40 cal BC-AD cal 530 Back Midden WSU-4379 2590+/-95 130 cal BC-AD cal 440 Back Midden WSU-4380

GbTo-31

GbTo-31, the Boardwalk site, is located on the southeast shore of a prominent peninsula called

Elizabeth Point, at the mouth of Dodge Cove on the eastern shore of Digby Island (Canada

Dept. of Energy, Mines and Resources 1980). At low tide, Dodge Cove drains to expose

expansive sand and mud flats. The exposed intertidal zone may have been even greater during

the pre-contact period, because a channel between Dodge Island and Elizabeth Point was

158 dredged within the last century in order to facilitate travel by boat in and out of the cove at low tides (Ames 2005a:58). The beach ridge above the intertidal zone, directly in front of the site is composed of sand and gravel; heading inland, the embankment rises sharply 3.5 m in elevation from the beach to the top of the forested front midden area of the site.

GbTo-31 is a very large site, more than 1 ha in area, and is part of the Dodge Cove complex of sites. This includes Parizeau Point, Dodge Island, and Dodge Cove (Figure 6-6).

The extensive archaeological work at this site indicates that it was inhabited for at least 5000 years. Many archaeologists have argued that the site held a prominent position in the area during the pre-contact period (Ames 2005a; Coupland 2004). The site has been disturbed, first by construction of a boardwalk and then by the large-scale excavations that the National

Museum undertook in the late 1960s and early 1970s as a component of the NCPP. There is also a broad foot-path that runs through the middle of the site. In the middle of the last century, a large house was constructed on the back midden of the Parizeau Point site in order to house the doctor who worked at the quarantine hospital on Dodge Island. At one time, a bridge crossed the mouth of the cove from Elizabeth Point to Dodge Island to facilitate travel to and from the hospital.

George McDonald, director of the North Coast Prehistory Project, oversaw the excavation of over 1000 cubic metres of this site between 1968 and 1970 (Ames 2005:65).

These excavations focused on six distinct locations within the site. Area B, E, D and F extend in an arc along the southern shoreline of Elizabeth Point above the beach ridge. The NCPP excavated most intensively, however, in Areas A, B, C, and D (Figure 6-7). Area E (not shown)

159

Prince Rupert N Harbour Dodge Island

GbTo-18 Elizabeth Dodge Point Cove GbTo-30 GbTo-31 Parizeau GbTo-17 Point Digby Island

Kaien Island

Shell midden 0 500 1000

Metres

Figure 6-6. The Dodge Cove area, showing the location of GbTo-31, Dodge Cove, Elizabeth Point and Dodge Island.

House Depression 2000, 2003 Excavation Units North Coast Prehistory Project Excavation Units Auger location 9 0 20m shell midden Area A/C

shell midden Area D Area B 6 shell midden

Dodge Cove

Figure 6-7. Map of GbTo-31 showing the locations of NCPP excavations, Coupland’s excavations in 2000 and 2003 and auger-test locations (after Coupland et al. 2010). Contour lines are in masl.

160 consisted primarily of a seepage channel; the National Museum excavated in this location as a component of the NCPP in the 1970s and unearthed well preserved organic artifacts.

The earliest deposits from the NCPP excavations in Areas B and D are sloped, suggesting that the front area of the site was refuse midden. Later deposits, however, contain lenses of flat gravel or crushed shell that may represent living floors. The stratigraphy associated with the living floors in Areas B and D is unique for the harbour; Ames (2005a72; 298) argued that wall profiles reveal “pithouse” construction. There is no concrete evidence for pithouses elsewhere in the harbour, but Ames (2005a:62) suggested that the Garden Island stratigraphy may also represent pithouse building. In conjunction with the fact that so few house depressions were identified at this site and the carefully terraced front area, the possible evidence for pithouse construction may suggest quite a different occupational history here than at the other village sites in this study. However, Ames (2005a) is not entirely clear on how profiles at GbTo-31 or

Garden Island reveal evidence for pithouses as opposed to filled- in, above-ground dwellings.

Pithouses common to other areas of the Northwest Coast and the interior are generally circular in shape (Lepofsky et al. 2009). There is no indication from the profiles in Ames (2005a:61-73) of the overall shape of the dwelling. The idea that pithouses might have been constructed in

Prince Rupert Harbour prior to above ground structures is certainly intriguing, but requires further evidence to be substantiated. According to Ames (2005a:65) the upper deposits of Areas

B and D appeared terraced for house platforms, though some mortuary activity took place in these areas as well (Ames 2005a:76-77).

Further inland and approximately 3.5 m higher in elevation are Areas A and C. These areas include the back midden ridge and are the deepest areas of the site. The NCPP excavated

Areas A and C in two large blocks. The results of these excavations revealed that the back midden was used as a cemetery for at least 2000 years (Ames 2005a:288). In fact, Ames

161

(2005a:289) argues that back middens such as this one were specifically designed and shaped as burial mounds, and not just shell refuse. Shallow burials and evidence for soil accumulation on top of midden deposits indicate that the back midden of the site fell into disuse for a time about

2200 years ago (Ames 2005:81).

Area C excavations also included trench excavations through two surface house depressions at the southwest edge of the back midden ridge (Ames et al. 2005a:82). These houses were built into existing midden and Ames (1995, 2005a:78) argues that they produced evidence for rebuilding on at least one occasion. He suggested also that each building episode may correspond with the burial clusters in the midden behind the surface depressions. The houses themselves are undated, but estimates derived from midden accumulation rates and basal midden dates suggest these houses may be as much as 2700 years old. There is some indication that other houses of a similar size may have been constructed in this area, but the activities of later inhabitants have obliterated any evidence of them (Ames 2005a:78-88).

In 2000, Coupland (Coupland et al. 2000; 2006:18) excavated a 2 m x 2 m unit in area C.

This excavation extended through two cultural deposits to a depth of 1.7 m below the surface.

The upper deposits were composed of concentrated shell that Coupland (Coupland et al.

2006:18) interprets as refuse midden. The lower deposits in Area C consisted of fine layering associated with occupation floors, or buried house floors. Coupland (Coupland et al. 2006:18-

19) also excavated a 3 m x 2.5 m section of Area D in 2000, which was completed in 2003. A 2 m x 2 m portion of the original unit was excavated to a depth of 1.75 m below the surface, through three depositional zones. The upper deposit, zone A, consisted of humus. Zone B consisted predominantly of layers of dark brown sediment and crushed shell. Coupland

(Coupland et al. 2006:19) also identified three large hearths or ash deposits in stratigraphic sequence, which he argued reflect three successive house floors. Zone C was characterized by a

162 series of sloped deposits of crushed shell and black sediment that may represent secondary refuse deposit.

Coupland (Coupland et al. 2006:20) also excavated a 2 m x 2 m unit in Area B in 2003.

This unit was excavated to a depth of 1.5 m below ground surface; one quadrant of this unit extended deeper to 2.6 m below ground surface. In total, Coupland (Coupland et al. 2006:20) identified five depositional layers below the humus. Zone B, represented back dirt accumulation from the NCPP excavations decades earlier. Zone C, however, consisted of multiple layers of concentrated shell and black sediment, likely representing refuse midden.

Zone D was characterized by grey-brown gravel and sediment; despite the absence of shell, faunal remains were uncovered in high densities from this deposit. Zone E consisted of a thin layer of “greasy black soil” and a lack of shell and Zone F consisted of grey-brown sediment and gravel as well as broken and crushed shell (mostly barnacle) (Coupland et al. 2006:20).

The results of the NCPP and Coupland‟s excavations (Coupland et al. 2006) suggested that residential and refuse sections at GbTo-31 shifted over the course of thousands of years.

Ames (2005a) argued that the back midden had been the focus of mortuary activity for thousands of years. Coupland (Coupland et al. 2006), moreover, interpreted lower stratigraphic deposits in Areas A and C as living floors and upper deposits as refuse midden. In Areas B and

D, both scholars contended that lower deposits represented refuse midden, while upper deposits, included hearth features and scattered post moulds and likely represented living floors.

Chronology

It is well known that GbTo-31 was in use for thousands of years, yet the areas recently excavated by Coupland date to narrower time frames (Table 6-5). Although the NCPP dated their excavations in Area C between 2000 cal BC and AD cal 250, Coupland‟s dates for this

163 section of the site produced age ranges of 370-60 cal BC and 380-60 cal BC (TO101895,

TO10893). New dates reported in Coupland et al. (2006, 2010) for Areas B and D overlap at 2 standard deviations between AD cal 830 and 1250 (TO12057, TO10894, TO12058, TO10892,

TO12059). One of Coupland‟s dates from Area B produced an earlier date range of AD cal

130-410. These calibrated dates suggest that most of the deposits and faunal remains excavated by Coupland were deposited somewhere between 370 and 60 cal BC in Area C and between 830 and 1250 cal BC for area B and D.

Table 6-5. Radiocarbon dates and calibrated age ranges from charcoal samples for GbTo-31. Normalized Calibrated Radiocarbon Age Sample Radiocarbon Age Range, 95% confidence interval Context Number BP (Reimer et al 2009) 890 +/- 60 AD cal 1030-1250 Area D TO12057 900 +/- 50 AD cal 1020-1220 Area D TO10894 980 +/-60 AD cal 900-1210 Area B TO12058 1050 +/- 60 AD cal 830-1155 Area D TO10892 1050 +/- 60 AD cal 830-1155 Area B TO12059 1750 +/- 60 AD cal 130-410 Area B TO12060 2160 +/- 50 370-60 cal BC Area C TO10895 2170 +/- 60 380-60 cal BC Area C TO10893

GbTo-28

GbTo-28, or the Phillip‟s Point site, is also located in a wide shallow bay on the eastern shore of

Digby Island, just south of the Boardwalk site. It is directly west of Phillip‟s Point, from which the site takes its name. At low tide the bay drains, exposing a vast sand-and-mud intertidal zone

(Canada Dept. of Energy, Mines and Resources 1980). The beach ridge above the intertidal zone is composed mostly of gravel; heading inland, the terrain rises steeply 4.5 m in elevation to the site. The site was originally mapped as a component of the NCPP; this map showed two sections of GbTo-28 divided by a small stream. The eastern section consisted of thirteen house depressions arranged loosely in two rows. The first row of six houses was constructed on a

164 lower terrace in a relatively straight line. The remaining seven houses were arranged less uniformly; two groups of three house depressions composed the back row and a single house depression was identified between the first and second row. The western section of the site was composed of four house depressions (Coupland et al. 2006:28). Archer re-surveyed GbTo-28 in the early 1980s; his map showed 13 house depressions arranged more or less in two rows in the eastern section. The front section of the first row of house depressions here was difficult to identify and appeared to have been heavily eroded. Archer also excavated a small portion of the back midden in the east area of the site in order to collect shell for dating.

Coupland (Coupland et al. 2006:28) began work at the site in 1989. He identified only six house depressions at GbTo-28 in the eastern section of the site (Figure 6-8). No house depressions were observed in the western section. Coupland (Coupland et al. 2000; 2006:28) tested the site using a soil probe and took four cores to assess the depth and composition of the subsurface deposits. In 1999, Coupland (Coupland et al. 2000; 2006:28) took seven auger tests from across the back midden using a 7 cm diameter auger. In 2000, Coupland (Coupland et al.

2000) excavated a 2 m x 1 m excavation unit in the back midden, and in 2004 he excavated three units in the house F depression. At the front and back of this house depression, excavations extended through two cultural zones. Zone B consisted of the same greasy black sediment that has been noted in other sites in the harbour. A series of shell-based deposits were observed beneath zone B. The upper deposits of zone C were composed of concentrated shell; lower zone C deposits were thin and many contained crushed clam shell that Coupland

(Coupland et al. 2006:29) interprets as floor or bench deposits. Excavation through the middle of house F produced a different stratigraphic sequence. Beneath the humus and black sediment deposit, Coupland (Coupland et al. 2006:30) found three small discrete mounds of crushed shell.

These deposits were only partially excavated, but Coupland speculated that they could represent

165

Prince Rupert Harbour

A front shell midden B C

back shell midden D F E 10

5 1 Excavation Unit Auger Test Location House Depression

0 10m Figure 6-8. Site map of GbTo-28 (after Coupland et al. 2010).

overturned baskets of shell left on the house floor when it was abandoned.

Chronology

Coupland‟s back midden excavations produced dates with age ranges of 380-60 cal BC and 390-

60 cal BC (TO10896, TO12062) (Table 6-6). The calibrated dates associated with house F are broader in range; the oldest date, 1020-800 cal BC, comes from shell below house F; it may date an earlier occupation of house F or another occupation altogether. A shell lens within house F and a burnt house post produced dates that fall at the 95% confidence interval between 410 and

166

Table 6-6. Radiocarbon dates and calibrated age ranges from charcoal samples for GbTo-28. Calibrated Radiocarbon Normalized Radiocarbon Sample Age Range, 95% confidence Context Age BP Number interval (Reimer et al 2009) 1370 +/- 60 AD cal 560-775 house F TO12061 2170 +/- 50 380-60 cal BC Back Midden TO10897 2180 +/- 60 390-60 cal BC Back Midden TO10896 2260 +/- 60 410-170 cal BC house F TO12062 2740 +/- 60 1020-800 cal BC house F sub floor TO12063

170 cal BC (TO12062) and between AD cal 520 and 810 (TO12061) respectively. The large

gap in time between the age ranges associated with house F could reflect multiple, but

continuous, occupations of the same house or, that this house was abandoned and reoccupied on

multiple occasions. The back midden shell dates provided by Archer (Coupland et al. 2006) and

corrected using the Delta-R values provided by Eldridge and McKechnie (2008) are also

separated by a few hundred years (Table 6-7); these age ranges overlap with Coupland‟s

charcoal-based dates. The three dates with age ranges that cluster closely suggest at a minimum

that the site was inhabited at least intermittently at some point between 410 and 60 cal BC. The

earlier and later charcoal dates could reflect a broader, continuous occupation, or two additional

occupational events.

Table 6-7. Radiocarbon dates for shell-based samples for GbTo-28. Samples were corrected for the marine reservoir effect using a Delta-R of 455 +/-60 for dates lab dates between 2500 and 1500 BP and 400 +/- 70 for lab dates prior to 2500 BP (Eldridge and McKechnie 2008). Calibrated Radiocarbon Age Normalized Sample Range, 95% confidence Context Radiocarbon Age Number interval 2600+/- 95 140cal BC-AD cal 430 Back Midden unavailable 1900+/-105 AD cal 700-1200 Back Midden unavailable

GcTo-6

McNichol Creek is located toward the mouth of a narrow channel called Melville Arm on the

Tsimpsean Peninsula (Figure 6-9). Melville Arm drains a marshy area, less than 1 km to the

167

A B C D E F G H J P K L M N O

Gravel Beach

Melville Arm Grassy Flats Excavation Unit Auger Test Location House Depression

0 10m

Figure 6-9. Site map of GcTo-6 (from Coupland et al. 2010)

168 northeast of GcTo-6, into Prince Rupert Harbour. At low tide, Melville Arm drains almost completely exposing a vast, muddy intertidal zone (Canada Dept. of Energy, Mines and

Resources 1980). There are two distinct beach fronts at GcTo-6. The western beach area consists largely of gravel; wide grassy flats form the eastern beach area. The creek for which the site received its name (McNichol Creek) is located 25 m east of the site itself. As noted in chapter 3, McNichol Creek receives a small run of pink salmon each year (David Peacock, pers. comm). The terrain rises sharply from the beach area to the front of the site, which is approximately 5 masl. The site consists of a crescent-shaped shell ridge across the back and sides of the site that is upwards of 3 m deep in places, and fifteen house depressions, fourteen of which are arranged in two rows (Coupland et al. 2003:152). The fifteenth depression (house J) is located between the two main rows of house depressions. House depression K is the only house depressions oriented with its short axis toward the beach.

Diffuse sheet midden deposits are found in front of the first row of house depressions.

Coupland (Coupland et al. 2000, 2003) excavated large areas of the site, including sections of five house depressions (houses D, E, K, N and O), as well sections of the back and front midden. The results of these excavations are summarized in Coupland et al. 1999; 2000 and

2003. Excavations in house depressions revealed sequences of house floors and bench midden deposits, characterized by “compact, greasy, gravely black soil” (Coupland et al. 2000:23). The front and back midden area produced markedly different stratigraphy. The back midden was composed of large deposits of concentrated shell. Many deposits were over 1 m in thickness and extended over a large area of the back midden. Other than human remains, no features were identified in the back midden at GcTo-6. Coupland (Coupland et al. 2003:156) contended, therefore, that as was the case for many village sites within the harbour, the back midden at this site was primarily used for refuse disposal and mortuary activities. The front midden

169 stratigraphy was much more complex than what was observed in the back midden. Shell deposits in this area were variable in composition; many contained concentrated shell, while others contained diffuse shell within black soil. Some deposits contained predominantly burnt shell, while no burning was evident in other shell deposits. Soil layers and features, such as post moulds, ash lenses, and hearth spills cut through these shell deposits. A single human burial was also encountered within the front midden area (Coupland et al. 2003:156). This evidence suggests to Coupland (Coupland et al. 2003:156) that a variety of activities took place to produce the front midden.

Coupland (Coupland et al. 2003) identified significant differences between house depressions in terms of architecture, faunal remains and artifacts, all of which suggested that these features represented ranked households. In contrast to the other excavated house features, house O, located in the front row, produced evidence of a central hearth and clay floor, which

Coupland (Coupland et al. 2003, 2009) regarded as evidence for communal feasting sponsored by elites. The argument for the presence of elites and non-egalitarian social relations is enhanced by the fact that all sea mammal remains recovered from at this site were found at house O; this suggested to Coupland (Coupland et al. 2003) that sea mammal hunting was a prestige activity limited to elites, just as it had been during the contact period in this area

(Drucker 1955). The three other houses that were excavated at this site contained multiple hearths, few items of prestige and no sea mammal remains. This not only indicates that social inequality pervaded social relations between Houses, but that the owners of house O had significant influence over the ceremonial activities that were concentrated within this elite- owned structure. In other words, house O was the economic, social and ceremonial hub of the entire village.

170

Chronology

The age ranges from seventeen radiocarbon dates show the site may have been inhabited as early as 900 cal BC and as late as AD cal 1200 (Table 6-8). The very earliest dates, however, came from deposits below house floors and it was unclear whether these deposits were older living floors that may be associated with earlier structures, or whether these represented different uses of the site. The village itself is thought to date between about AD cal 1 and 600

(Coupland et al. 2003, 2010). The age ranges for most dates for GcTo-6 fall after 1 cal AD and there is considerable overlap in age ranges between AD cal 1 and 600. There are also five dates that produce 2-sigma age ranges that extend well beyond AD cal 600; these date events that occurred somewhere between AD cal 260 and 1290. The age ranges produced by the calibration of Archer‟s shell-based corrected dates (corrected for the marine reservoir effect following

Eldridge and McKechnie [2008]) are similar to many of the charcoal-based dates (Table 6-9).

Table 6-8. Radiocarbon dates and calibrated age ranges from charcoal samples for GcTo-6. Normalized Calibrated Radiocarbon Radiocarbon Age Range, 95% confidence Context Sample Number Age BP interval (Reimer et al 2009) 810+/-60 AD1045-1290 house O fill Isotrace 7021 930+/-80 AD 980-1260 house E, hearth Isotrace 7019 1060+/-50 AD 870-1150 house O, hearth Isotrace 7022 1350+/-70 AD 560-865 house E, hearth Isotrace 7018 1510+/-60 AD 430-650 Front Midden Isotrace 7025 1570+/-80 AD 630-640 house O, hearth Teledyne 18687 house D, front 1580+/-80 AD 260-640 Teledyne 16452 hearth house D, back 1590+/-80 AD 260-620 Teledyne 16451 hearth 1660+/-50 AD 260-535 house O, hearth Isotrace 7024 1670+/-70 AD 215-555 house O, floor Isotrace 7023 1720+/-60 AD 130-430 Back Midden Isotrace 6418 2070+/-60 350 BC-AD 60 Back Midden Isotace 6419 2220+/-60 400-155 BC house E Isotrace 7020 2560+/-60 830-420 BC house D Isotrace 2352 2590+/-90 910-415 BC house N Teledyne 18689

171

Table 6-9. Radiocarbon dates for shell-based samples for GcTo-6. Samples were corrected for the marine reservoir effect using a Delta-R value of 455 +/-60 for dates lab dates between 2500 and 1500 BP and 400 +/- 70 for lab dates prior to 2500 BP (Eldridge and McKechnie 2008). Normalized Calibrated Radiocarbon Age Radiocarbon Range, 95% confidence Context Sample Number Age BP interval 2310+/-70 AD cal 330-720 Back Midden WSU-4399 2140+/-90 AD cal 480-950 Back Midden WSU-4400

Summary

Although the focus of my research is on house depressions as archaeological correlates for households and perhaps Houses, important information can be gleaned about how groups were organized in the past from inter-site comparisons. In this chapter, I have presented the settlement, stratigraphic and chronological data for the five village sites in this study. GbTo-77,

GbTo-46, GbTo-31, GcTo-6 and GbTo-28 share a number of characteristics with respect to these data sets. Surface house depressions, for example, have been identified at all five sites.

Each site was mapped more than once, and it is worth noting that a different number of house depressions was recorded on each mapping occasion at GbTo-31, GbTo-28 and GbTo-46.

Coupland (Coupland et al. 2006:27) suggests that many of the house depressions at GbTo-28 may have been lost to erosion. According to Ames (2005a) and Coupland (Coupland et al.

2006) the two house depressions at GbTo-31 in Area C were clearly visible in the late

1960s/early 1970s when the NCPP was working at this site. Recent disturbances at this site, including excavation of these features by the NCPP may have obliterated any evidence for these features.

It is also possible that the number of house depressions recognized on the ground and mapped is dependent upon the observer. Shallow surface depressions may be difficult to distinguish from other features of the forest floor, such as tree falls and throws. Nonetheless,

172

GbTo-31 appears to be considerably different from the other four village sites in terms of surface features. Ames (2005a) and Coupland (Coupland et al. 2006) have argued that some stratigraphy at this site is indicative of buried living floors, particularly in the upper layers of

Area D and the lower layers of Area C. This suggests that residential activities and refuse disposal areas shifted location through time. Coupland (Coupland et al. 2006) suggests that activities associated with the continued occupation of this site into the late pre-contact period may have obliterated evidence for house depressions and he (Coupland pers. comm. 2009) contends that very large houses may have been constructed in Areas B and D within the last

1500 years. Ames, however, argued that the stratigraphy in areas B and D was not only indicative of buried house floors, but of pithouses. It is not clear from the profiles in Ames

(2005a) how these deposits differ from evidence for buried house floors. The lack of surface house depressions may be an indication of the depth of occupation at this site, but it could also reflect different ways of building that did not require shell midden material between houses. As

I discuss in chapter 7, there is some indication that shell was used for architectural purposes at some sites (Blukis-Onat 1985; Stein 2000).

All sites in this study are also characterized by distinct back midden ridges. Ames

(2005a:237, 289) suggests that back middens are “topographically distinct” from other areas of the site, particularly house depressions and terraces; the back middens at these sites are higher in elevation than other areas of the site. Back midden edges are also very steeply sloped. Their shape and form suggests to Ames that back middens are burial mounds as well as refuse disposal areas. The heaping of debris created “a linear mound at the back of the village” (Ames

2005a:289). Ames does not discuss how groups might have organized mound-building activity such as this, but it implies that shell midden structure may reflect supra-household or community-level organization.

173

The age ranges (Figure 6-10) produced by the calibrated radiocarbon dates from each

GbTo-77 house A house D bench house D hearth back midden back midden 1500 1000 500 BC/AD 501 GbTo-46 house J house J house J house J back midden back midden 500 BC/AD 501 GbTo-31 Area D Area D Area D Area B Area B Area B Area AC Area AC

500 BC/AD 501 1001 1000 GbTo-28 house f house f back midden back midden 500 BC/AD 501 1001 GcTo-6 House N house O fill house O hearth house O hearth house O hearth house O floor house E hearth house E hearth house E hearth house E house D front hearth house D back hearth house D front midden back midden back midden

1000 500 BC/AD 501 1001 1000

Figure 6-10. Probability distributions (95% confidence interval) of calibrated radiocarbon dates from charcoal samples for all village sites.

174 site indicate that some villages may have been occupied at the same time. There is considerable overlap in the age ranges produced by Coupland‟s charcoal-based dates from GbTo-77, GbTo-

28, GbTo-46 and Areas A/C at GbTo-31; this could indicate that the period of habitation, or use of these sites, or site components, overlapped between 400 cal BC and AD cal 200. Dates for

GbTo-77 and GbTo-28 cluster particularly well and suggest these sites were occupied somewhere between approximately 400 cal BC and 100 cal AD. GbTo-46 may have been in use slightly later. It is not possible to determine whether these sites, or site components, were in use at precisely the same time, but, I suggest that they were inhabited at some point during the same 600 year period; these sites and site components all date within the Late Middle Period. In particular, house D at GbTo-77, house F at GbTo-28 and house J at GbTo-46 all produced dates that overlap with each other within 2 standard deviations; this suggests that these structures could have been inhabited within approximately 100 years of each other between 400 to 275 cal

BC. Both house J and house F produced earlier and later age ranges. Current data make it difficult to understand the relationship between sub-floor dates and house occupation dates.

Moreover, GbTo-28 has a much later date associated with a burnt house post that could indicate a later occupation of the site, or it may reflect continuous occupation. As discussed, it is not clear from the data at hand how these two occupation events were related.

The age ranges produced by charcoal based dates from GbTo-31 Areas B and D (B/D) are between AD cal 800 and 1200 and, thus, date well within the Late Period (Ames and Maschner

1999). The samples for these dates were taken from deposits interpreted as house floors

(Coupland et al. 2006). Although there are some very early dates at GcTo-6, the main period of occupation at this site is at the very end of the Late Middle period, and extends into the Early

Late period as defined by Ames and Maschner (1999; see also Martindale and Marsden 2003).

175

Chapter 7: The Houses

Plank houses are one of the defining characteristics of 19th-century Northwest Coast societies.

At the time of European contact, explorers, and later ethnographers documented these impressive structures through text, drawings and photographs. We know that in specific areas of the Northwest Coast, people have been building plank houses for millennia (e.g. Coupland

1988a, 1999; Coupland et al. 2009; Grier 2001, 2006; Johnstone 2003; Lepofsky et al. 2000,

2009; Marshall 2000, 2006; Schaepe 2003), but the origin of this architectural form is not clear.

Studies of early pre-contact indigenous architecture, mainly from the south coast, have attempted to show how houses do or do not conform to expectations drawn from these ethnographic accounts (e.g., Ames et al. 1991; Johnstone 2003; Lepofsky et al. 2007, 2009;

Matson 2003; Schaepe 2003; Stein 2000). By contrast, discussions of pre-and post-contact architecture on the north coast have been limited. Archaeological investigations in and around houses on the north coast have tended to focus on house floors rather than the superstructure

(Archer 2001; Coupland et al. 2003, 2009). This is because excavating a small fraction of a village site is a long and arduous process and few excavated houses have produced sufficient architectural data to say much about house construction.

Understanding house construction, however, has the potential to contribute to discourse on social and economic organization. Architecture, in anthropological circles, emphasizes how social relations are expressed within built forms (Hillier and Hanson 1984; Lawrence and Low

1990; McGuire and Schiffer 1983). Data that provide insight into how houses were built are important, therefore, because understanding the social meaning of houses requires insight into

176 what Johnson (1993:30) calls “the activity of building and using houses”. Northwest Coast scholars have long contended that aspects of kinship, hierarchy and mobility are reflected in domestic architecture, in particular the winter houses (Marshall 2000; Samuels 1991; Suttles

1991:219-220; Vastokas 1966:104-105). The specifics of Coast Salish long houses, for instance, seem to represent a very flexible kinship structure and loosely defined hierarchy

(Suttles 1991). By contrast, north coast houses are thought to reflect well-defined kin groups and deeply entrenched social inequalities (Suttles 1991; Vastokas 1966: 104-105).

Examining Northwest Coast architecture from the perspective of House Societies breaks apart broad generalizations about building types and their meanings for a number of reasons.

First, households in House Societies are composed of members who may or may not be related to each other through direct lines of kinship. Distant or non-kin may be adopted, enticed or forced from one House to another. Members work to maintain and perpetuate the House as an entity, but the individuals that compose them may change through time. In other words, membership in specific Houses can be fluid. This suggests a nuanced relationship between kinship and architecture, one that may be more complex than the idea that matrilineal descent systems foster well-defined, permanent houses.

Second, if social change, or at least variability within a given region, is to be reflected in the built environment, then subtle distinctions in how houses were constructed may illuminate genuine differences in social relations among Houses. Such differences in construction may include the interior division of space, or the means of construction, which can reflect the costs, effort and skill involved in building domestic structures (Ames 1996; Ames and Maschner

1999:152, 250; McGuire and Schiffer 1983; Trieu Gahr 2006). In House Societies such as contact period Northwest Coast groups, the act of building a dwelling produced the physical structure, but also solidified House group identity (Lepofsky et al. 2009; Trieu Gahr 2006:58).

177

Third, Houses, as land-owning social units, built and maintained dwellings over multiple generations. Longevity in occupation has been demonstrated at a number of Northwest Coast and interior sites; many researchers (Grier 2006; Hayden 1996; Lepofsky et al. 2009) have explored the relationship between long-term, multi-generational occupation of specific dwellings and land tenure. Hayden et al. (1996), for example, argued that specific houses were maintained and reconstructed for almost 1000 years in the Fraser Plateau. He has suggested that this reflects ownership of specific locations on the landscape and the transmission of property over tens of generations. Other researchers (e.g., Grier 2006 and Lepofsky et al. 2009) demonstrated evidence for multi-generational use of specific dwellings over considerably shorter periods of time (200 to 400 years). Whether or not the house depressions at GbTo-77 represent Houses, research into the longevity of these dwellings should provide a foundation for a discussion of land tenure systems in the past.

In this chapter, I argue that construction methods across the Northwest Coast are more varied than models derived from ethnographic materials allow. Although the data are limited, I examine how houses might have been constructed 2000 to 2500 years ago in the Prince Rupert

Harbour area and try to understand what construction techniques might reveal about the people who built and inhabited these dwellings. Specifically, I consider these ideas in the context of the two excavated house depressions at GbTo-77. If social, economic and political relations are embedded within the north coast architecture of the past 200 years, then what can earlier and potentially different building styles reveal about social organization during the latter half of the

Middle Period (2500-1500 BP) in this area? Most important for this study, however, is the question of whether the physical remains of dwellings represent Houses and all that this concept entails, particularly as it relates to transmission of property, including the physical structure, from one generation to the next.

178

Northwest Coast Architecture

In broadest terms, two kinds of houses were constructed on the Northwest Coast. Coast Salish and Makah groups constructed large rectangular houses with shed-roofs and slung walls (see below). In most other areas of the Coast, and on the north coast in particular, people constructed square or rectangular gable-roofed dwellings with fitted or mortised wall planks. The difference between the two basic house types is frequently viewed as a reflection of two kinds of social organization, a bilateral system that provided choice in terms of residence, because individuals can be members of more than one kin group at the same time, and a more rigid matrilineal system (Marshall 2000; Samuels 1991; Suttles 1991:219-220; Vastokas 1966:104-105). This position is exemplified by Suttles (1991) who argued that Coast Salish shed-roof houses served a different social, economic and ceremonial purpose than north coast houses; contact period

Coast Salish groups constructed large and rectangular houses that could be taken apart and changed in size with relative ease in response to the fluctuations in population that can occur in bilateral kinship systems (Figure 7-1). House fronts were undecorated; instead, inhabitants decorated interior house posts emphasizing individual family groups in a decidedly non- hierarchical fashion (Suttles 1991:220). Northern groups, however, constructed square or rectangular houses with tightly mortised walls and often with excavated interiors (Figure 7-2).

It has been argued that these houses were built for a specific group of relatives, as defined by a matrilineal descent system (Suttles 1991). Northern houses, particularly their house fronts, could be elaborately decorated in order to advertise the status of the household that inhabited it

(Vastokas 1966:75).

179

Figure 7-1. Coast Salish house showing the sewing and tying wall construction technique. Late 19th or early 20th century photograph (Provincial Archives of British Columbia, Victoria).

Figure 7-2. Photograph of Tsimshian house front. Fort Simpson, 1875. (Smithsonian, Department of Anthropology).

180

Scholars such as Drucker (1965:26) and Suttles (1990:6-7) established a more detailed typology consisting of at least five house forms. In their typologies, northern groups constructed nearly square houses with a low-pitch gabled roof; walls, consisting of tightly mortised planking, were incorporated into the house frame. Wakashan groups built long, rectangular houses with low-pitch gabled roofs. In these houses, the walls were independent of the house frame. Coast Salish groups, on the other hand, built shed-roof houses, but with siding and dimensions like Wakashan groups. Groups inhabiting the southern extremes of the area, such as the Chinook-Oregon Coast groups, constructed semi-subterranean gabled roof dwellings, while Lower Klamath constructed semi-subterranean, three-pitch gabled roof houses.

Despite this variability, Drucker postulated a single, shared, but as yet unknown, origin for all

Northwest Coast plank houses types. He wrote that

[s]ufficient archaeological research has not yet been done to define the historical relationships of the [house] variants, nor to indicate which is the closest to the original ancestral pattern. However, deviation from a single form is suggested by a number of distinctive features shared by two or more subtypes. These include round-to-oval doorway, double-ridgepole, carved posts and roof timbers, walls separate from (not supporting) the roof, gabled roofs, a central pit, and multifamily occupancy and therefore large size, in addition to the basic outline and material. On the basis of the overlapping distributions of these features it seems reasonable to assume that the variants of the rectangular plank house represent local modifications of a single ancestral plan (Drucker 1965:25).

Significant problems exist, however, with the source material from which these typologies are drawn. Ethnographic accounts are often based on observations of a few houses and many very early accounts are thought to have been incorrect. Some of the first Europeans to describe Northwest Coast houses sometimes mistook gabled roofs for shed-roofed structures

(Stein 2000:60). By the time Boas and other ethnographers began to document and photograph indigenous structures in some detail, many houses had become influenced by European designs and materials (Blackman 1981:xiv, 27-28; Marshall 2000; Miller 1997:48; Stein 2000:64-65).

181

Post-contact period houses are unlikely to provide an exact analogy for what we should expect to find in pre-contact archaeological contexts. The very earliest written accounts of Northwest

Coast house construction revealed that indigenous groups built houses using iron tools acquired through extensive and far-reaching trade networks (Blackman 1976:391; Nabokov and Easton

1989:231). Theoretically, contact and post-contact period groups using metal tools could have constructed the same kinds of houses more quickly or with fewer people than their pre-contact counterparts. Many scholars, however, contend that metal tools allowed for a profound shift in the kinds of houses that were built on the Northwest Coast (MacDonald 2002:16; Nabokov and

Easton 1989:231). Throughout the region, metal tools allowed groups to construct larger and more elaborate dwellings, with sleeping compartments, planked floors and eventually windows and hinged doors (Blackman 1976:402-404).

Research into contact period architecture also suggests that there can be substantial variability in housing styles within sites and even within contact period houses (Mackie and

Williamson 2003). Mackie and Williamson‟s examination of Barkley Sound village sites, on the west coast of Vancouver Island, illustrates precisely how generalized models derived from ethnographic sources have failed to recognize the range of building styles adopted in the late

19th and early 20th centuries. Mackie and Williamson (2003) showed that gabled and shed- roofed houses occurred within the same villages and, in one example within the same house; their work serves as a cautionary tale for archaeologists hoping to elicit roofing styles from archaeological features, as Mackie and Williamson could ascertain little difference between the two roofing systems based on standing posts. If ethnographic models of house design gloss over the range of architectural styles common to specific areas within a relatively recent period in time, we should consider that houses may have been constructed in a variety of ways in the distant past as well.

182

Methods of wall construction are also more variable than what is reflected in conventional architectural typologies. Horizontal wall planks, supported by withe2 between two poles (or the sewing and tying technique), is often considered specific to Coast Salish and

Makah groups (Figure 7-3). These “slung” walls were independent of the roofing structure and were easily dismantled, so that wall planks could be used in several constructions in seasonally occupied sites or to accommodate families moving from one group of relatives to another

(Marshall 2000:75; Suttles 1991:216).

Mortised planking was more commonly used throughout the Northwest Coast. Among northern groups, planks were secured horizontally or vertically into mortised posts, head boards, or sills (Figure 7-4), but many central and north coast groups sometimes constructed slung walls. Wakashan, Nuxalk and Tlingit groups are known to have used the sewing and tying technique to construct walls on occasion (MacDonald 1984: plate 8; Vastokas 1966:23, 49-53) and some Kwakwaka‟wakw houses employed mortised planking for the front walls, but sewing and tying on the side walls (Boas 1909:340-341; Drucker 1955:69; 1965:145; Vastokas

1966:45). Moreover, a memory drawing by Tsimshian artist and carver Fred Alexcee (n.d.) on file at the Glenbow Museum Archives shows small temporary structures built partially using the sewing and tying technique. This suggests that the method was known to the Tsimshian during the mid-19th century and used in some constructions, in this case, smokehouses.

2 A withe is a strong but flexible twig or shoot used in binding.

183

Figure 7-3. Diagram of a shed roof house showing roofing structure (view a) and the house in cross section (view b). Diagram also shows the placement of cross-beams (C), uprights, or house posts (U), rafters (R), poles (P) and cedar branch ropes (L) (After Boas, from Vastokas 1966).

184

Figure 7-4. Diagram of a Tsimshian house back showing mortised planking (from Boas).

Tsimshian Houses

From an architectural perspective, contact period Tsimshian houses are not well documented and as such are less well understood than houses from other areas of the coast (Martindale

1999:124; Vastokas 1966:39-41). Like other northern groups, Tsimshian houses were generally square or rectangular, with a gabled roof and mortised plank walls. Interior earthen floors were sometimes excavated and generally not planked (Boas 1916:48; Drucker 1965:119; Vastokas

1966:40). Platforms of planks and timbers for sleeping, sitting and storage were located to each side of the house floor and some houses had a rear partition. Nineteenth-century Tsimshian houses are estimated to have been 100-120 m2 and housed 11-25 people (Ames 1996:140;

Coupland 1996:124). Other estimates put typical Tsimshian houses at approximately 250 m2 with populations of over 30 inhabitants (Trieu Gahr 2006:68). The most detailed descriptions are of winter houses but summer houses, smoke houses, and storage houses were similarly constructed, only rougher (Garfield 1966:9-11).

Nineteenth-century Tsimshian houses contained a number of attributes that emphasize

185 the House over smaller family units. First, tightly mortised walls contributed to the perception that these houses were not easily dismantled, nor responsive to substantial changes in membership size (Suttles 1991:219-220). Second, most houses were built with central hearths, as opposed to multiple family hearths (Coupland et al. 2009). Even in this context, membership in these Houses was not necessarily permanent. Some individuals and their families, namely commoners, could move between households with relative ease. Women moved residence at marriage and at widowhood, and often children (particularly boys) moved to the house of their mother‟s brother (Halpin and Seguin 1990:277; Miller 1997:50-52).

Adoption and slavery were other ways Tsimshians augmented household size and moved people between Houses (Ames 1996; Roth 2008).

Tsimshian groups also moved seasonally between their winter villages in Prince Rupert

Harbour, the Nass River in the spring and the Skeena River in the summer. Summer villages consisted of standing structures or house frames that were walled during the fishing season

(Miller 1997:21-22). Mortised walls are theoretically more difficult to dismantle from the frame. Suttles (1991:219-220), for example, contended that in the northern and very southern parts of the coast, where mortised, or fitted, planks were used, walls were less easily dismantled and that, among northern groups, planks fitted directly into the house frame were likely left in place. Mitchell (1981) and Miller (1997:21-22) provided some evidence to suggest that winter houses sometimes remained walled and even occupied during the spring and summer. Eulachon oil was often stored in winter houses after the spring fishery and before the move to the summer villages (Mitchell 1981; Halpin and Seguin 1990:269); this could suggest that these houses were walled throughout the spring and summer. Moreover, ethnohistoric records documenting the

Kitkatla seasonal rounds show that only some of the House groups participated in the major seasonal moves between Prince Rupert Harbour, the Nass River and the Skeena River. Others

186 remained in the winter village, or participated in hunting and fishing taking place elsewhere

(Mitchell 1981). Miller (1997:21-22) also noted that summer villages consisted of standing structures or house frames that were walled during the fishing season. This suggests that in some cases, Tsimshian Houses maintained multiple and consistently walled dwellings, one in the harbour and the other at summer fishing locations.

Tsimshian winter dwellings are generally categorized into three types based largely on descriptions by Boas (1896:852-853, 1916:46-48) and Emmons (1916). Boas documents two house types. In Type 1 houses (Figure 7-5), the roof support system consisted of four large posts situated midway between the central line of the house and the side walls. Primary roof beams rested on top of these. At the roof edges two smaller eave beams were supported by four smaller corner posts and roof planks rested on these beams. Walls were constructed independent of the frame and consist of carefully mortised planks. The front and rear walls were composed of very wide planks oriented horizontally. These were grooved and thinner planks fit into them. A short plank formed the lintel above the door and on top of this rested a thinner vertical plank. Side walls were generally constructed of horizontal or vertical mortised planks.

The Type 2 house allows some integration of roof and walls by eliminating the smaller group of posts; the roof planks then rest on a square beam supported by larger corner posts that are also mortised to hold wall planks. The third roofing style, apparently unique to the Kitselas area, was recorded by Emmons (1916). A heavy tree- trunk ridge pole was supported by the hollowed out heads of two upright posts at the front and back of the house. This ridge pole gave the pitch to the roof, while the lower ends of the roof planks rested on the walls.

Archaeological evidence from the early contact period on the north coast, in particular the Tsimshian area, is scant, but what there is appears to reflect what is documented

187

Figure 7-5. Tsimshian Type 1 house showing roofing structure independent from walls. Roof structure includes main roof beams (B) resting on uprights (U), rafters (R), eave beams (V) resting on corner house posts (C) (from Boas 1916:47).

ethnographically. Martindale (1999:286-296; 2006), for example, argued that the patterning of post moulds and standing posts at Psacelay, a late pre-contact/early contact period site, indicated that these houses incorporated many traditional Tsimshian design elements. The architectural evidence at Psacelay suggested that four large posts midway between the side walls and central line of the house supported the roof; this is very similar to the type 1 or type 2 house described by Boas. Although Psacelay house walls were less well preserved, Martindale (1999:292) reconstructed house 2 at Psacelay with an integrated roofing structure and walls, following the

Tsimshian type 2 model. The Houses at Gitlaxdzawk in Kitselas, dated to the late 19th century, seem to conform to the patterns of house posts and roof supports described in Emmons

(MacDonald 1981). The 18th-and 19th-century sites of K‟nu and Kitandach in Prince Rupert

Harbour both exhibited evidence for large cedar posts and planking (Inglis 1973). Details about

188 wall construction techniques are often obscured even in very recent archaeological contexts such as these. There is, however, evidence for the use of wall sills from the houses at the proto- historic period Kitwanga hillfort, in the Skeena interior, that could conform to mortised planking

(MacDonald 1993:70).

Architectural evidence concerning Middle Period plank houses is considerably less detailed. The Paul Mason site in Kitselas Canyon produced some architectural evidence in the form of post moulds. These houses are significantly smaller than their recent counterparts and were probably inhabited by groups of 12-13 individuals, or two families (Coupland 1996:124).

Two houses were excavated, each containing two hearths, one in the middle and the other to the front of the house. Coupland (1988a:137-141) identified post moulds along the mid-line of both houses that likely supported a central ridge pole; this suggests possible long-term continuity in roof design in the Kitselas area. Two paired external wall posts were recorded on the edges of the house floor, but not in sufficient number to determine how the walls were constructed.

Ames and Maschner (1999:262) have suggested, however, that the paired posts “…could indicate at least one replacement of the wall post, or the use of multiple parallel posts in the wall, a form of construction quite unlike anything historically.” This point is pertinent to my interpretation of architectural features at GbTo-77, as described below.

There is even less documented about Middle Period plank houses in Prince Rupert

Harbour. The earliest such houses come from GbTo-31, the Boardwalk site; these features were partially excavated by the NCPP in the late 1960s/early 1970s, but no descriptions of architectural features have been published. The shape of the depressions alone hints at the nature of the houses. Coupland (Coupland et al. 2002, 2003, 2006) excavated plank houses that date within the last 2500 years at GcTo-6, GbTo-46 and GbTo-28. House K at GcTo-6 may have had a central house post suggesting roof design similar to what is described for the Kitselas

189 area (Coupland et al. 2002:24). Most posts at GcTo-6 however, were identified as bench posts.

As such, there is little that can be gleaned from this material about the construction of plank houses in the harbour during this time.

Problems Associated with the Interpretation of Architectural Data

Part of the difficulty in reconstructing what these early houses looked like is that interpretation is hampered by a variety of processes that contribute to the destruction of architectural remains, including the behaviours and actions of later inhabitants (see Smith 2006; Stein 2000:64-65).

All along the Northwest Coast, people tended to build newer houses on top of older ones. When houses were constructed at coastal shell middens, inhabitants deposited refuse outside the house walls which, upon abandonment, slumped across the periphery of the house floor. When people returned, the area was landscaped and houses constructed directly on top of the previous ones.

If houses were abandoned for longer stretches of time, other villagers might choose to use the house depression for refuse disposal (Schiffer 1983). These factors can make the process of distinguishing house floor deposits from refuse deposits difficult; yet differentiating these two very different deposits is essential to understanding architecture, as well as how people lived within houses.

Evidence from many places across the Northwest Coast shows that over the last 2000 to

3000 years, houses were frequently built and then rebuilt in precisely the same location. At

Ozette, house 2 had been built directly on top of house 5 (Samuels 1991) and, at Yuquot, on

Vancouver Island, a series of superimposed hearths suggests that for at least 400 years people were deliberately constructing not only houses, but interior features precisely on top of pre- existing ones (Marshall 2006:43). Grier (2006) estimates that house 2 at Dionisio Point in the southern Gulf Islands was continuously inhabited and transmitted between generations for at

190 least 200 years. At the Palmrose site on the Oregon coast houses were built and rebuilt over the course of 1000 years (Ames 1996). The Meier house appears to have been inhabited and continually maintained for over 400 years; three major repairs over the lifespan of the house generated only minor deviations from the original plan (Ames 1996:141; Ames et al. 1992;

Marshall 2006; Samuels 1991). At GbTo-77, there is evidence to suggest that the construction of later incarnations of these houses began with digging out and levelling of some older house features (see below).

The process by which houses were constructed, used and repaired is also obscured by the nature of the sites themselves. Ames et al. (1992:276) have shown the problems inherent in understanding the relationships between architectural features and the matrix surrounding them, and this is particularly troublesome in shell midden sites. Moreover, middens, frequently used to isolate house depressions archaeologically, do not always conform to the location of standing architectural features. Mackie and Williamson‟s (2003) study showed that some houses had no midden built up to the front and back. Without standing posts, this area would have appeared as a gap in the line of houses. In other cases, two houses were standing within one depression.

The impact of tree growth, fall, and decay on archaeological sites is not well understood, although natural taphonomic processes such as these have significant implications for the interpretation of site formation and stratigraphy. In both house depressions at GbTo-77, excavation was partially hampered by the very large cedar trees currently growing along the edges of the house depressions (Figure 7-6). It is not uncommon, however, to see seedlings growing from rotting house posts and standing poles in post-contact village sites (see

MacDonald 2002). High concentrations of roots may occur in layers of decomposing wood, layers of decomposing litter, old root channels, in soil layers retaining a lot of water, or above hardpan or bedrock. Red cedars will become deeply rooted where soils allow, but in the shallow

191 organic forest floor soils (and presumably those associated with shell middens), these trees will spread most of their roots obliquely within the top 50 cm or so below the ground surface and find support mainly by interlacing their roots with those of other trees (Els 1974; Stewart

1984:22). During excavation of this site, I noted that most roots followed the top of the shell midden, but occasionally penetrated the top few levels of midden deposits in a lateral fashion.

In a few striking examples, large roots ran straight down through house floor peripheries. It is possible that, in these cases, the roots are following older roots and, perhaps originally, posts.

Figure 7-6. Photograph of GbTo-77, house D excavations showing extent of forest cover.

192

The Houses at GbTo-77

I excavated two house depressions at GbTo-77 in order to document important information about architecture (Figure 7-7). Large areas were exposed so that entire sections of these house depressions could be excavated simultaneously and to ensure that every effort was made to identify and record architectural features. House D is located in the middle of the main row of house depressions and was relatively clear of large tree fall and living trees; this made it an ideal candidate for excavation. House A was not constructed in the same configuration as the other houses on site. It is oriented perpendicular to the main row of houses and is smaller than the others. As such, it seemed likely to provide the greatest contrast with house D.

The excavation of both features included the side middens between these houses and adjacent depressions, as well as the house depression floors. The house A excavation proceeded in two stages. For stage 1, I excavated a 2 m x 2 m unit toward the northern end of the depression. The northwest corner of this unit was 17 m north and 24 m west of the site datum. I subdivided this unit into 1 m x 1 m quadrants (labelled 22, 23, 25 and 26 in Figure 7-7) in order to improve the provenience of excavated faunal remains. I recorded three dimensional provenience for artifacts found in situ. Features and stratigraphy were mapped in plan-view during excavation and in profiles. Excavation ceased prior to sterile subsoil in units 23 and 26 because two fragments of human bone were uncovered within midden materials. These remains were immediately identified by David Archer (NWCC) and me as the proximal end of a human tibia and patella. We suspected that these bones were pushed from the back midden into the house floor area by root activity, because these remains were found within old root channels that had penetrated the top few centimetres of the midden from the east. We contacted Barbara

193

Figure 7-7. Map of GbTo-77 showing units excavated. Unit numbers are shown within each unit. Contour lines are in masl.

Petzelt at the Metlakatla First Nation Economic Development Office on this matter. Upon her advice, we left the human remains where they were found and ceased excavation in this area of the house. For stage 2 of the house A excavation, I excavated a 1 m x 2 m unit south of the stage 1 excavation. This unit was also subdivided into 1 m x 1 m units for recording purposes

(units 27 and 24 in Figure 7-7).

194

House D was excavated through the summer of 2003 and 2004 in four stages and followed the same recording protocol outlined for house A. For stage 1, I excavated two 2 m x

2 m units at the back, or eastern end, of the house depression. As with house A, these units were subdivided into 1 m x 1 m quadrants. Only 7 of these were excavated (units 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 in

Figure 7-7). For stage 2 of the house D excavation, I opened a 1 m x 3 m unit, running north- south, across the front of house D (encompassing units 13, 14 and 15 on Figure 7-7). For stage

3, 1 m x 1 m units were opened off of the stage 1 and stage 2 excavated area (units 6, 10, 11, 12,

16, 17, 20 and 21). Stage 4 focused on the excavation of units 18 and 19 (Figure 7-7). These were the only units that were not excavated to sterile in house D, due to time constraints. My architectural analysis focuses on house D because architectural features were more abundant and more clearly defined here than in house A. Of the 33 post features identified at GbTo-77, only one is associated with house A while 32 can be attributed to the house D depression.

Deciphering evidence for the rebuilding of houses from evidence for house repair was an important consideration in my analysis. I define a construction episode as a complete, or near complete, rebuilding. This process would include digging out and levelling off of house floors and perhaps evidence for slight adjustments to the wall alignments. Repair, by contrast, might include the placement of new house posts adjacent to existing ones or new bench posts. The line between these processes may be somewhat blurred if houses were partially dismantled on a seasonal basis; seasonal reoccupation of a house may require some repair, but also some cleaning and levelling of house floors. In other words, cuts into the midden slump could reflect seasonal refurbishing of the existing structure or a new construction episode.

195

House A: Stratigraphy and Architectural Features

House A is located at the northern end of the midden, almost perpendicular in orientation to the main row of houses. It is the smallest of the six surface house depressions at this site and measures approximately 3 m x 4 m from approximately half way up the midden slope. The stratigraphy in this house depression is complex and suggests that many different kinds of activities took place in this area, and that it was not consistently used as a dwelling.

The basic stratigraphic sequence for house A can be summarized into four zones. Zone

1 refers to lot 1, the forest litter, humic topsoil and a grey leached mineral deposit immediately underneath it. This deposit ranged from 30 cm to 50 cm in thickness. Zone 2 consisted of a black silt deposit with gravel inclusions that is immediately underneath the humus. On top of shell deposits, this zone is relatively thin, often less than 10 cm in thickness. Zone 2 also included an architectural feature located along the east wall of the house A depression and lot 2a

(discussed below). Zone 3 consisted of all shell-bearing deposits; these were located underneath lot 2 and generally represented refuse midden. Two deposits within this zone were significantly different from the refuse midden deposits and these are discussed below. Zone 4 is located below the shell-bearing deposits; it consists of two gravel deposits (lot 8 and lot 9) with low densities of shell and sediment.

As mentioned above, architectural interpretations of house A are limited because we were only able to complete excavation in four 1m x 1m units due to the discovery of isolated and scattered human remains in the middle section of the depression. The only conclusive architectural feature associated with this house depression was a single squared post uncovered along the east wall during the excavation (Figure 7-8). As such, little can be said about how this structure was built beyond that it may have been of post-and-beam construction. It should be noted, however, that posts are not always associated with dwellings, or even buildings. During

196

Lot Composition 1 Humus and forest litter 2 Dark brown/black schist gravel and sand with a high organic component 2c Black silt with a high organic component, some schist gravel 3 Broken barnacle and fine particle sand. Some fire cracked rock (FCR) and broken clam 3c Grey/black sand and whole and broken clam, mussel, green sea urchin and broken barnacle 4 Grey/black loamy sand with some broken and crushed shell (mostly barnacle, but also broken clam) 6 Black silt with some broken shell and schist gravel 8 Grey/black loamy sand and schist gravel. Some charcoal flecks 9 Orange schist gravel and sand Figure 7-8. Profile of east wall of house A. Lot 2c is a post mould and represents the only conclusive architectural feature associated with this house depression.

197 the post-contact period, posts were erected for a variety of purposes. Photographs of 19th century Tsimshian villages, for example, show fish-drying racks and frames that could produce post moulds in archaeological contexts (Halpin and Seguin 1990:270; Miller 1997:22).

I identified a levelled occupational floor (lot 8) at the back of the house that is particularly well-defined within the west and north wall profile (Figure 7-9; 7-10). This deposit consists of gravel and coarse sand, much like the sterile substrate (lot 9), but also included scattered vertebrate and invertebrate remains, as well as a single artifact, that were likely pushed into the gravel substrate through trampling. I identified no hearth within this house depression and in fact, there was a distinct lack of charcoal staining within the house A living floor deposit.

There is, of course, the possibility that a hearth or hearths might be found beneath unexcavated shell midden deposits within the central area of house A.

The southern, or front, end of the house depression appears to have been quite different.

Shell accumulation occurred only at the peripheries of the depression. A small straight-sided lobe of shell was uncovered along the west wall on top of the lot 8 (lot 3d in Figure 7-9). This may have been formed as shell collapsed between square house posts or through bench supports.

Coupland (Coupland et al. 2006:30) has observed similar features in the centre of one house floor at GbTo-28 and has suggested they may be shell-filled baskets left on the floor when the house was abandoned. The deposits in house A are composed of mixed and broken shell in black sandy-loam and in this way look like refuse midden. A relatively pronounced dip in elevation toward the middle of the depression here suggests also that less care was taken in preparing the floor toward the house front, or that in fact, this area lies outside the house altogether.

The most perplexing feature associated with house A is the wide and straight break in the midden along the north wall and a similar feature along the west wall (labelled lot 2a and lot

198

Lot Composition 1 Humus and forest litter 2 Dark brown/black schist gravel and sand with a high organic component 3b Mostly whole and broken clam, mussel, green sea urchin and barnacle in grey/black sand. Some FCR 3d Grey/black sand with whole and broken clam, mussel, green sea urchin and broken barnacle. Some FCR 7 Reddish brown loam with small and medium sized roots 8 Grey/black loamy sand and schist gravel. Some charcoal flecks 9 Orange schist gravel and sand Figure 7-9. Profile of the west wall of house A.

199

Lot Composition 1 Humus and forest litter 2 Dark brown/black schist gravel and sand with a high organic component 2a Black silt with a high organic component. Heavy schist gravel inclusions toward the bottom 2b Black silt with a high organic component, some schist gravel 3 Broken barnacle and fine particle sand. Some fire cracked rock (FCR) and broken clam 4 Grey/black loamy sand with some broken and crushed shell (mostly barnacle, but also broken clam) 3b Mostly whole and broken clam, mussel, green sea urchin and barnacle in grey/black sand. Some FCR 3c Grey/black sand and whole and broken clam, mussel, green sea urchin and broken barnacle 8 Grey/black loamy sand and schist gravel. Some charcoal flecks 9 Orange schist gravel and sand Figure 7-10. Profile of the north wall house A.

200

7 respectively) (Figure 7-9 and Figure 7-10). Lot 2a is composed of black silt with a high organic content. The first 40 cm of this lot was very greasy and contained few inclusions. Lot

2a narrowed into a straight-sided oval-shaped feature, extending 15 cm into the natural substrate. The lower levels of this deposit contain schist gravel inclusions in addition to black silt. The feature‟s shape and location along the back wall might indicate that it is architectural in nature. Favourable comparisons could be made with the wall plank features Ames (Ames et al. 1992, 1999) has identified in south coast houses. Ames identified large plank moulds 10 to

20 cm deep and 30 to 100 cm wide. The wall trenches constructed to support the base of the wall planks were up to 30 cm deep. These features were filled in and re-excavated many times; frequently, rock, artifacts flora and fauna were found as a part of the fill used to support both planks and posts (Ames et al. 1992:280-281).

The stratigraphy for the north wall of house A, however, suggests that Lot 2a may have been excavated through midden material deposited on top of the house floors and thereby represents a post-abandonment process, perhaps a pit. In this regard, it shares common elements with feature 1 at GbTo-46. The GbTo-46 pit feature was excavated into the north wall of House

J and probably served as a burial at some point, as a few scattered human remains were found near its surface (Coupland et al. 2006:7-8). This is unusual for the area because most midden burials, such as those excavated at Greenville (Cybulski 1992) and GbTo-31 (Ames 2005a:78-

89) were generally shell-filled. The GbTo-46 feature also has a distinctive bell-shape which is lacking from the house A feature, though strait-sided pits are not unknown on the Northwest

Coast. Ames et al. (1992) describe a series of large pit features that form a cellar at the Meier site. These pits, upwards of 2 m deep and straight-sided, were uncovered along the corridor between the benches and the hearth complex. At Cathlapotle, some pits were found underneath benches, against the side walls and, in one case, underneath the wall trench (Ames et al.

201

1999:52). The human remains found in the house A depression are likely not associated with the feature, because they were uncovered within an old root channel that penetrated the midden surface emanating from the eastern edge of the house depression.

I excavated small portions of lots 2a and 7 and my interpretation of these features is based largely on their profiles. Consequently, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about what these features represent. Lot 2a and lot 7 intersect all lots along the north and west walls, including lot 8, the original living floor deposit. A few fish bones were found in lot 2a, in addition to an artifact toward the bottom of the feature and one at the interface with the shell midden deposits closer to the surface. This might suggest that lot 2a is a pit, although the combined data and location of the feature suggests it could also be the remains of wall planks, excavated into the subsoil and filled in with gravel and refuse. The presence of gravel is equally ambiguous; gravel could have been used as fill in both pits and to secure wall planks. Lot 7, however, has a heavy humic component suggesting that it consists of masses of rotting tree roots. This is further supported by the composition of Lot 5, which seems to originate within lot

7 and extends out across the surface of lot 6. Lot 5 is composed of red/brown silt and also may be decaying root masses that originated from a larger root system that permeates lot 7.

Unfortunately, I cannot be certain if lot 7 was originally a feature associated with this house depression that later fostered tree growth, or whether this feature was a root system to begin with.

From these data, it is difficult to conclude for certain that house A was, in fact, a house.

The original living floor, lot 8, was prepared toward the back of the depression, but not at the front. This deposit is not significantly different in terms of matrix from the natural substrate and this suggests that cultural material identified within lot 8 may have been pushed into the existing substrate through trampling. Alternatively, lot 8 may represent the repeated action of

202 inhabitants bringing gravel from the beach in to line their living or working space, perhaps as it became too dirty or muddy. A cut in the midden slump observed in the west profile of the house depression suggests the floor area was cleared of shell, perhaps after a period of disuse. The front area of the structure may have incorporated the natural topography as there is no evidence to suggest that lot 8 was levelled at the front of the depression. Refuse midden accumulated across the surface of lot 8 toward the back of the depression, but not at the front; shell deposits in units 24 and 27 were patchy at best. Given that auger testing in front of the main row of house depressions indicated that midden in this area was also patchey, the data from units 24 and 27 suggest that this area may have been outside the structure. This would render the house

A depression less than 3 m in length. More importantly, it suggests that the house A structure may have been very small. The small depression, combined with the lack of a clearly defined bench area and midden, hearths or charcoal stained floor deposits suggested to me that this structure may not have been used as a domestic dwelling. The presence of sporadic broken shell within the floor deposits is in marked contrast to the house D floors discussed below; it may indicate that broken shell was not viewed as an impediment to the kinds of activities that took place within this structure and as such, may result from activities not generally undertaken inside domestic dwellings. In fact, this structure might have served as additional work or storage space. Alternatively, house A may represent a domestic house that was in use for a very short period of time. A short-lived dwelling might not produce the kinds of well developed or defined floor deposits that I observed in house D (see below). To reiterate, I cannot rule out the existence of a hearth in the central area of house A, and as such, I cannot conclude that house A was not a domestic dwelling.

Lot 4 differs slightly from other refuse midden deposits (Figure 7-11). Lot 4 consists of a black sandy loam, but with significant quantities of broken shell (approximately 25%),

203

Unit 25 Unit 22 0 50 100 cm

Lot 2 N .

Lot 4 Lot 7

Lot 3a/b Lot 4a

Lot 4 a

50 Rocks

Unexcavated

Unit 26 Unit 23 100 cm Lot Composition 1 Humus, forest litter and leachate 2a Black silt with a high organic component. Heavy schist gravel inclusions toward the bottom 3a Broken barnacle and fine particle sand. Some fire cracked rock (FCR) and broken clam 3b Mostly whole and broken clam, mussel, green sea urchin and barnacle in grey/black sand. Some FCR 4 Grey/black loamy sand with some broken and crushed shell (mostly barnacle, but also broken clam) 4a Two small deposits of green sea urchin 6 Black silt with some broken shell and schist gravel Figure 7-11. Plan view of house A, showing lots 2, 3, 4 and 4a opening.

including a high proportion of barnacle (approximately 47% of all shell in this sample- see

Appendix D). As discussed in chapter 8, barnacle is well represented in most other back midden deposits. As such, I consider lot 4 a refuse midden deposit. Lot 6, however, differs considerably from other refuse midden deposits (Figure 7-12). Lot 6 is composed of black silt and large quantities of schist gravel (57% of all materials), with a high organic component, some vertebrate fauna and very little broken shell (2.6%). It covers most of the back area of the house depression, but is absent in the front units. It is not clear what this deposit represents, but it is interesting that it is confined to the area above the living floor (lot 8) and not in unit 24 or

27, which may in fact lie outside the original house. Lot 6 could represent additional living floors associated with house A as a dwelling or perhaps additional work space associated with an alternate structure in this location.

204

0 50 100 cm Unit 25 Unit 22

Lot 2a Lot 3c N

Lot 7 Lot 6

Unexcavated

Unit 26 Unit23 100 cm

Lot Composition 2a Black silt with a high organic component. Heavy schist gravel inclusions toward the bottom 3c Grey/black sand and whole and broken clam, mussel, green sea urchin and broken barnacle 6 Black silt with some broken shell and schist gravel 7 Reddish brown loam with small and medium sized roots 7-12. Plan view of house A showing lot 2a, 3c, 6 (opening) and 7.

House D

House D, the centre house depression within the main row of five houses, was excavated in considerable detail. It measures approximately 6 m x 4 m (again as measured from approximately half way up the side midden slope), with its short axis facing the shore. 11.2 m3 of this house depression was excavated, including a large area across the back, and central area of the house depression. Excavation focussed on the south side of the house depression in order to acquire as much architectural information as possible from contiguous units, and the central area of the house floor; I was able to excavate only a very small section of the northwest area.

From this, I generated extensive plan views and long profiles that transect the house depression in a number of locations. These provide significant insight into how this house was constructed, used, reused and ultimately abandoned.

205

Stratigraphy

The stratigraphy for house D shows a very different kind of occupation and use than house A.

Because of the larger scope of this excavation, I designated lots (deposits) by units, rather than the whole house. I summarize the house D stratigraphy here into zones: humus, black silt with a high organic component and gravel, and shell-bearing deposits.

Zone 1. Forest litter, humus: As in house A, humus covered the surface of the house depression, ranging in thickness from 40 cm to 80 cm.

Zone 2. Black silt with a high organic component and gravel. This layer of black, greasy silt was found immediately beneath lot 1. This deposit appears to share many characteristics with a “greasy black soil” (Coupland et al. 2006:10) or a “black midden” (Ames 2005a:80) observed at other sites in the harbour. At the peripheries of the house depression, this layer is thin (less than 5 cm) and is immediately on top of shell deposits. In some locations the black silt was very thick and, during excavation, these areas soon emerged as architectural features or the house floor area. Architectural features, however, were of loose compaction and contained few gravel inclusions; by contrast, house floors were compact and contained large quantities of schist gravel. Floor deposits were also identified by charcoal staining and ash scatters.

Zone 3. Shell midden: The most commonly occurring shell deposits within the house D excavations emanate from the side middens. These are mostly homogenous deposits of shell, gravel and sand or sandy-loam sediments at the house floor peripheries. Most of this represents material that was deposited between the houses while they were occupied and later slumped across the house floor edge when the houses were abandoned. Toward the front, a separate deposit of finely crushed shell, ash, and charcoal was uncovered toward the bottom of the inside wall. I interpret these deposits as bench-midden material following Coupland et al. (2006:8).

206

Stein (1992) cautions that, because settling occurs in middens over time, differences in midden deposits that relate to particle size could result from natural taphonomic processes. However, the lower deposits inside the house walls are very different from the lower deposits located outside the house walls. Exterior house deposits consist of discrete and easily identifiable shell deposits that are composed largely of a single species or two; in other words, they look much like back-midden deposits. This suggests that side middens, like back middens, were formed by a series of shell dumps. The upper deposits become mixed as inhabitants dig out and replace posts or wall planks. Further mixing of deposits likely occurred when the house was abandoned and the midden material slumped across the house floor, only to be excavated out as the entire house was rebuilt at another time.

Architectural features

Thirty-two of the post moulds identified during excavation may be associated with house D

(Figure 7-13). I identified post features by their sediment composition, colour and compaction; posts are composed of loose black organic silt with occasional gravel inclusions. Nonetheless, these features were most easily detected in shell midden deposits. Post moulds varied in size, depth, shape and location within the house depression. I categorize these posts into three sizes, small (10-15 cm diameter), medium (20-30 cm diameter) and large (>35 cm) (Martindale

1999:227-231). The patterning of these features indicates that post moulds of different sizes likely served different functions.

The smallest posts are found within the house-floor and midden-slump deposits. Eight round post moulds, measuring between 10 and 15 cm in diameter were organized in a loose configuration at the edge of the house floor, less than a metre from where the walls were likely constructed (see below). These posts were probably wooden stakes; they were shallow, often no

207

Figure 7-13. Floor plan of house D, showing the location of post features, hearths and the approximate location of the house wall (created by Jennifer Melanson and Jonathan Sharpe).

208 more than 10 to 15 cm in depth. I interpret these as bench posts because of their position in relation to the house walls, their narrow size and short length. A bench supported by these posts would have been less than a metre wide. All eight post moulds bottomed out between 100 and

110 cm below the surface, suggesting they relate to the same occupation. A single, small post mould was also identified in the vicinity of hearth 1 in unit 2. Martindale (1999:230) documented posts alongside hearths at Psacelay, set vertically into the ground, as is the case here.

I identified seventeen medium sized post moulds within the south side midden in units

17, 18 and 21. These post features are loosely arranged in two or three rows, following the orientation of the south side midden berm. They are irregularly shaped, deep, post moulds.

These features began directly underneath the humic layer and were initially visible as two much larger irregularly shaped features consisting of loose black silt. Further excavation revealed, however, that these two features actually consisted of two groups of posts (cluster 1 and cluster

2), approximately 20 to 30 cm in diameter, extending between 80 and 100 cm below the surface.

I identified at least seven medium-sized posts in cluster 1; four of these can be easily observed in Figure 7-14. Cluster 2 posts were not as easy to discern from each other as were the cluster 1 posts. I used the bottom elevations for the cluster 2 posts to identify nine separate medium- sized posts (Figure 7-15). An additional medium-sized post (the sixteenth) may be related to cluster 2, but it is separated from this group by almost 1 m. The cluster 1 posts may relate to an initial house D wall, while the cluster 2 posts may relate to a second wall, and could reflect a second construction episode for House D.

This configuration of posts might be similar to what Ames and Maschner (1999:262) have gleaned from the Paul Mason site floor plans. The architectural evidence from the Paul

Mason site is extremely limited, but Ames and Maschner suggest that a single pair of small

209

Figure 7-14. Medium-sized posts associated with cluster 1, house D.

post 5 Shell midden post 4 *169

*171 post 6

*167 post 3

*160 *159 *156 post 9 post 7 post 2 *165 post 8

Shell midden *148 Post 1

Figure 7-15. Cluster 2 wall posts showing variability in depth below site datum that was used to identify individual house posts.

210 posts at the edge of a house floor may indicate that these houses were constructed very differently from the Tsimshian houses that are documented for the 19th century. Although Ames and Maschner do not elaborate on what this ancient architectural form might have looked like, the Paul Mason house posts have something in common with the features I present for house D and I suggest that these posts may be consistent with the sewing and tying technique. Post- contact period houses constructed using this method did not generally position posts close together, but neither were they built within shell middens or shell ridges. Moreover, photographs and plans of houses that use this kind of wall construction reflect a single moment in the life cycle of the structure. As such, archaeological evidence for slung walls likely represents the cumulative effect of frequent rebuilding and repair episodes. Matson (2003) documented the results of these processes at the Shingle Point site on Valdez Island in the Gulf of Georgia.

As Figure 7-16 illustrates, the processes of repairing and rebuilding slung walls over time produce clusters and sometimes short rows of small posts along house edges. The shell ridges between houses at GbTo-77 could have served as a useful building material (Blukis Onat

1985; Stein 2000), but also helped to keep posts in place. Walls could be repaired by positioning new posts next to old and rotting ones. This might produce the clustering of posts evident along the south wall. Two groups of posts arranged in short rows may represent multiple and complete reconstructions of house D, and suggests that the position of the house wall may have shifted slightly during a reconstruction episode. Alternatively, the more southerly wall may have been part of the north wall of house E. If my interpretation of these medium sized posts is correct, then house walls may have been constructed differently in the past than what has been broadly observed in the contact and post-contact period (e.g., Boas

211

Figure 7-16. Floor plan of the Shingle Point house, Gulf of Georgia. Small posts within oval on the right are interpreted by Matson as evidence for the sewing and tying technique (from Matson 2003).

1916; MacDonald 1993; Martindale 1999). The sewing and tying methods may have been known to 19th -century Tsimshian groups, but this method has not been documented at large semi-permanent winter dwellings. This may have been an oversight on the part of 19th-and 20th- century ethnographers, or it may indicate that architectural styles changed through time in this region.

Large posts were located well outside the house floor area. The size and location of all large posts suggests they could have supported eave beams. Three large posts were identified along the south wall. One post appeared slightly squared in shape and is particularly large, measuring 45cm x 45cm and extending a metre in depth from directly underneath of the humic layer. This suggests that it was likely left in place when the house was abandoned. Three large

212 posts were also identified within the north side midden, in between house depressions C and D.

These posts were only partially excavated, but judging from their profiles, these posts measured approximately 40 cm in diameter. The posts within the north side midden are not as well- defined as those within the south side midden (or the south wall posts) and there is currently an extensive root system running through one north post feature. The location of the north wall posts in relation to the house C and house D depressions suggests that the two northerly posts, in unit 18, could have been associated with house C and the most southerly post, in unit 19, may have been part of the house D construction.

Hearths

Two hearths were encountered toward the centre and back of house D. Hearth 1 and hearth 2 were only partially excavated so the full dimensions of these features are unknown. Both hearths consisted of a lower layer of charcoal and an upper layer of ash, indicating hot burning fires (Martindale 1999:231-238). Hearth 1 is the larger of the two hearths and appears to have been in use for a longer period of time (Figure 7-17). Hearth 1 has a characteristic basin-shape and is defined at its base by two small boulders. It measures approximately 30 cm in depth and is at least 50 cm wide. A small deposit of charcoal (lot 7) in unit 12, however, may in fact be the western extent of this feature, in which case, hearth 1 would measure over 1 m across. As noted in chapter 6, a charcoal sample from hearth 1 produced a calibrated age range of 1430-

1120 cal BC (3040 +/- 60 BP; T12056). This is significantly earlier than calibrated age ranges from the rest of the site and likely represents a hiatus between wood cutting and wood burning events.

Hearth 2 appeared to be slightly smaller, although very little of this feature was excavated. It measures 20 cm in depth and is approximately 50 cm in across. This hearth

213

Figure 7-17. North-south cross-section of house D showing floor deposits (unit 20, lot 3 and unit 13, lot 3) as well as hearth 1 and 2 discussed in text.

214

Legend for Figure 7-17 Unit Lot Description of stratigraphic deposit Unit 20 Lot 1 Humus Lot 2 Black silt with a high organic component and schist gravel inclusions

Lot 3 Charcoal stained schist gravel. Lot 7 Grey/brown sand and schist gravel Unit 13 Lot 1 Humus Lot 2 Black silt with a high organic component and schist gravel inclusions Lot 3 Charcoal stained schist gravel Lot 7 Ash deposit Lot 7a Charcoal deposit Lot 8 Grey/brown sand and schist gravel Unit 12 Lot 1 Humus Lot 2 Black silt with a high organic component and schist gravel inclusions Lot 3 Large flagstones and boulders Lot 4 Large flagstones and boulders Lot 5 Deposit of dispersed charcoal and gravel Lot 6 Large boulder Lot 7 Charcoal stained schist gravel (possible edge of hearth 1) Lot 9 Grey/brown sand and schist gravel Lot 10 Brown sand and schist gravel Lot 12 Orange schist gravel and sand Unit 7 Lot 1 Humus Lot 3 Black silt with a high organic component and schist gravel inclusions Lot 4 Schist gravel in mottled brown/black sediment Lot 5 Small deposit of finely crushed shell Lot 7 Large boulder Lot 22 Small deposit of ash and finely crushed shell Lot 24 Black silt and gravel Lot 25 Ash and charcoal (hearth) Lot 26 Large boulder

215 feature lacks a distinctive basin-shape, but is composed of two distinct layers, one of charcoal and one of ash. I also noted black silt and gravel (i.e., floor deposits) above this hearth at approximately 150 cm below site datum. Hearth 1, however, still appears to have been in use when floor deposits covered hearth 2, suggesting that hearth 2 fell into disuse prior to hearth 1. A large area of cobble and boulder- sized stones were found between the two hearths in three continuous layers. The lowest levels of these stones and boulders correspond stratigraphically with the bottom of the two hearths. While they do not form a neat rock lining or box for the hearths, they may have been part of a paved area between the two hearths. Some of the top rocks could have been used within the house and are perhaps related to cooking. Alternatively, some may have been used as roof rocks (rocks used to hold roof planks in place), which fell into the house floor once the house was abandoned.

Floors

House floors were perhaps the most difficult architectural feature to identify within house D. This is a common problem in Northwest Coast household archaeology. Grier (2006) noted that individual house floor deposits were extremely difficult to isolate at Dionisio Point; he viewed house floor deposits as

“the cumulative results of multiple processes rather than a series of discrete living floors” (Grier

2006:103). This describes well the kind of floor deposits that I observed in house D. As I noted for house A and the back midden, I encountered a layer of black silt and gravel immediately below the humic layer. In side midden contexts, the black silt layer was very thin, but in house floors, this deposit was as much as 40 cm thick and contained significant quantities of gravel. The gravel component increased in abundance through the central house floor area and it was often difficult to distinguish floor deposits from sub-floor sterile gravels. Sterile gravels were often, though not always, lighter in colour (grey/black) than the floor deposits. The floor area was particularly well-defined

216 toward the centre of the house depression within the vicinity of the hearths (see Figure 7-17); at 150-

155 cm below site datum, I encountered a 10 cm thick deposit of charcoal stained schist gravel (lot 3, units 20 and 13) in front of the hearths. Small pockets of ash and crushed shell ranging in size from 10 to 30 cm in diameter were found within this charcoal stained floor area, but otherwise, the house D floor area was generally shell-free. A number of factors suggest that there may have been earlier and later house floors that have been obscured by natural and cultural processes. Toward the back of the house, black silt and gravel continued below the Hearth 1, suggesting earlier house floors may have been partially obscured by later activities. Moreover, a clear cut into the gravel subsoil of about 15 cm in depth (Figure 7-18) is a full 35 cm below the hearth area described above and could reflect efforts of inhabitants to level the subsoil prior to house construction. There is no indication of a buried humic layer, indicating that the first thing the people who built house D would have done is remove the forest floor material.

The north-south cross-section of house D revealed that side midden shell deposits were immediately adjacent to, and even underneath, black silt and gravel deposits at the edge of the house floor. Sections of side midden, therefore, have an almost step-like character, particularly evident in

Figure 7-19. This might indicate that house floors were replenished with gravels periodically, perhaps when the house was reoccupied seasonally or reconstructed. Small pockets of shell, measuring 10 to

15 cm across and 2 to 3 cm in depth were found within the house floor deposits at the edge of the house floor. These may represent refuse material dropped at the peripheries of the living area. As the floor was periodically replenished, perhaps seasonally, small fragments of bench or slumped refuse midden appear to have been buried in the floor deposits. Inhabitants may also have periodically removed floor deposits during cleaning.

217

Figure 7-18. Profile of the back of house D (units 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) east wall. Lot 36 is subsoil. The cut into lot 36, subsoil, could relate to the original house floor preparation.

218

Legend for Figure 7-18 Unit Lot Description of stratigraphic deposit Unit 2 Lot 1 Humus Lot 4 Black silt with a high organic component and schist gravel inclusion Lot 21 Grey/black fine particle sand with broken, mixed shell Unit 3 Lot 1 Humus Lot 4 Black silt with a high organic component and schist gravel inclusion Lot 11 Grey/black fine particle sand with broken, mixed shell Unit 4 Lot 1 Humus Lot 4 Black silt with a high organic component and schist gravel inclusion Lot 28 Dense red silt and schist gravel Lot 36 Orange stained gravel and sand Unit 5 Lot 1 Humus Lot 3 Large boulder Lot 4 Black silt with a high organic component and schist gravel inclusion Lot 5 Grey/black sandy-loam with broken, mixed shell; loose compaction Lot 31 Black silt; wet and compact Lot 36 Orange stained schist gravel and sand Unit 6 Lot 1 Humus Lot 2 Black silt with a high organic component and schist gravel inclusion Lot 2a Large boulder Lot3 Grey fine particle sand and whole clam shell; loose compaction Lot 4 Grey/black sandy-loam with broken, mixed shell; loose compaction

219

Figure 7-19. Profile of house D in cross-section. Units 18 and 19 show the cross-section of the north wall area. Units 13 through 17 show a cross-section of the mid-floor area through to the southern wall area.

220

Legend for Figure 7-19 Unit Lot Description of stratigraphic deposit Units 18, 19 Lot 1 Humus Lot 2 Black silt with a high organic component and schist gravel inclusions Lot 3 Grey/black fine particle sand with broken, mixed shell Lot 4 Dispersed fragmented shell in grey/black sand. Lot 7 Thin, crushed shell, mostly mussel. Unit 13 Lot 1 Humus Lot 3 Black silt with a high organic component and schist gravel inclusions Lot 8 Grey/brown sand and schist gravel Unit 14 Lot 1 Humus Lot 3 Black silt with a high organic component and schist gravel inclusions Lot 8 Grey/brown sand and schist gravel Unit 15 Lot 1 Humus Lot 3 Black silt with a high organic component and schist gravel inclusions Lot 4 Grey/black sandy loam with broken clam shell Lot 6 Black silt with a high organic component and schist gravel inclusions Lot 7 Grey/brown sand and schist gravel Lot 9 Orange sand and gravel Unit 16 Lot 1 Humus Lot 2 Black silt with a high organic component and schist gravel inclusions Lot 5 Grey/black sandy loam with broken clam shell Lot 21 Black silt with a high organic component and schist gravel inclusions Lot 23 Grey/brown sand and schist gravel Unit 17 Lot 1 Humus Lot 2 Black silt with a high organic component and schist gravel inclusions Lot 3 Grey/black sandy loam with broken clam shell Lot 7 Grey/black sand with broken clam shell, crushed mussel shell and gravel Lot 13 Ash and charcoal deposit Lot 14 Grey/brown sand and schist gravel Lot 15 Orange sand and gravel

221

I was able to identify bench midden deposits only toward the house front; I interpret lots

3a and 3b in unit 21 as bench midden (Figure 7-20). In the front area of the southern wall, I identified bench midden beneath side midden deposits. Bench middens consisted of finely crushed shell, ash and charcoal. These deposits provided me with the only reliable date and faunal material from house D. The single radiocarbon date from this deposit places this occupation of house D somewhere between 400 and 190 cal. BC (2250 +/-50 BP).

The consistent deposition of shell material between houses may also have served an architectural purpose. Stein (2000:65-72) posits that the use of shell in and around house features may also have helped to insulate dwellings, particularly if the walls were not carefully mortised. Posts were also secured within these deposits and Blukis Onat (1985) has argued that shell deposits may have been used to support benches. If so, this could have profound influences on our interpretations of bench-midden deposits, because it suggests that there may be considerable mixing of bench middens with architectural shell deposits. At GbTo-77, however, deposits of ash and finely crushed shell were clearly visible toward the front of house

D and I defined them as such.

Understanding the history of house D

Conclusions regarding house D are more robust than those for house A and are useful to the ongoing discussion of early architecture in this area. The house was initially constructed on top of sterile gravel deposits and not into pre-existing midden. The accumulation of floor deposits that include some gravel suggest that house floors may have been frequently replenished, perhaps in conjunction with seasonal reuse of this house. Alternatively, house floors may have been periodically dug out and cleared of debris.

222

Lot Description of stratigraphic deposit 1 Humus 2 Black silt with a high organic component and schist gravel inclusions 3 Grey/black fine particle sand with broken, broken barnacle, marine snail and clam shell; loose compaction 3a Black sandy loam with small fragments of barnacle, clam, marine snail and mussel shell and schist gravel 3b Black sandy loam with small fragments of barnacle, clam and mussel shell and schist gravel 5 Grey/brown sand and schist gravel Figure 7-20. House D bench midden (lot 3a and 3b) underneath collapsed side midden (lot 3) from the front area of the south wall.

223

House D may have been reconstructed in a substantial way at least once, after what appears to have been a relatively short period of abandonment. The available evidence cannot shed light on the length of each occupation, nor the period of time between the abandonment of one house and the reconstruction of another on the same spot. Unlike house A, the location of house D was never treated as a place to dump shell and other refuse by other village inhabitants.

This distinct lack of shell in the central area of the house suggests that the time between house occupations is quite short. Small deposits of shell mixed within floor deposits at the periphery of the floor area may reflect side-midden deposits falling in over the floor edges during floor cleaning, wall repair, or short-term dismantling associated with seasonal moves.

We can, however, glean some further insight into the length of occupation of house D through the wall and house posts. Medium-sized wall posts appear to have been replaced periodically, but these are likely to have rotted fairly quickly given their circumference. The single, large square house post could have been in use for almost a half-century, according to

Trieu Gahr (2006). A slightly smaller and circular post located immediately adjacent to the square post could represent a replacement house post, or at the very least an additional support post that was added after the house had been in use for some time, perhaps approaching or surpassing 50 years. The evidence for a slight shift in the orientation of the south wall posts may also reflect a rebuilding of this house, as opposed to seasonal repair. If the inhabitants of house D needed to replace walls composed of narrow posts every 20 to 25 years (Trieu Gahr

2006: Table 7), then this structure was inhabited for a period of time representing a generation or two.

While two hearths suggest that house D could have been originally inhabited by two small families or an extended family, hearth 1 appears to have been in use for a longer period of time. Coupland et al. (2009) recently argued that single, central hearths may reflect the tensions

224 that exist within transegalitarian societies between communalism and hierarchy. Elites may choose to encourage communal feasting around central hearths so as to present themselves as benevolent and generous, and to foster support for their House. A prime example of this arrangement is house O at GcTo-6, where a single large hearth, upwards of 3m in length and over a metre across, was uncovered within the central area of the house depression in association with a marine clay-lined floor (Coupland et al. 2003:161-162). This seems to me quite a different scenario than the one presented by house D at GbTo-77; Hearth 1 is not particularly large, nor is there evidence that it shifted from the back area of the house toward the middle, as might be expected from the house O example. Although it is possible that two families began to use the same hearth at the back of the house, under the auspices of emerging elites, it seems just as likely that household membership was in decline. Additional hearths might however, be located in areas of the house that were not excavated.

The architectural features reveal little about how the house was roofed. The series of medium posts along the south wall, however, suggested that the house walls may have been constructed using the sewing and tying technique. What this might reveal about the inhabitants of house D is discussed in chapter 9.

225

Chapter 8: The Faunal Data

In the preceding chapter, I argued that the architectural and stratigraphic evidence from GbTo-

77 revealed that the dwelling represented by house D was maintained and, may have been reconstructed on at least one occasion, over a period of time that likely represents decades, if not more than one generation. An emphasis on place (sensu Ames 2006 and Marshall 2000, 2006) such as this suggests that dwellings and their locations might have been owned and that mechanisms were in place to ensure the transfer of some houses from one generation to another.

The house D stratigraphic and architectural data, however, appear to reflect a far shorter period of continuous occupation than has often been observed elsewhere on the Northwest Coast ( e.g.,

Ames 1996; Grier 2001, 2006; Lepofsky et al. 2009). In and of itself, therefore, the house D evidence does not prove that the house depressions at GbTo-77 represent Houses, or that the wa’lp was guiding the way individuals and groups organized as early as 2500 years ago. People might choose to use existing house depressions for constructing houses for a variety of practical reasons. Chief among these would be the presence of pre-existing architectural features, particularly if the span of time between one occupation and another by an unrelated group, is short.

In this chapter, I examine whether there are indications in the faunal remains that house depressions at GbTo-77 represent Houses as defined by Lévi-Strauss (1982). Of particular interest is the degree to which patterning in the faunal remains can be used to infer the existence of owned resource locations or estates, a fundamental characteristic of House Societies. If the house depressions we excavate are indeed Houses, we should expect to find evidence for land

226 tenure strategies within their archaeological remains. Betts (2005) has recently argued that diversity within economic systems and intensification are often key facets of territoriality.

Territoriality in this sense is a strategy that is generally adopted by groups of people inhabiting a larger region. If, however, the basic social and economic group is the House, then we could expect the same kind of variability to occur at this small scale. In this case, it is not so much territoriality as land tenure. Land tenure, or ownership implies that exclusive control of resources and of specific locations on the landscape is more likely to develop where important resources are abundant, yet spatially and seasonally circumscribed (Dyson-Hudson and Smith

1978). This is indeed the situation on the north coast, and Prince Rupert Harbour is no exception (Gottesfeld 1994; Turner et al. 2005:167-169). Do we have evidence for intensification and diversity in the economic strategies adopted by people living within the harbour 2500 to 1000 years ago? If so, how might it demonstrate ownership?

Central to this dissertation is the problem of how small households, whether they are

Houses or not, made a living. This pragmatic question brings together concepts of human/environment interaction, as well as intra and inter-household relations (Ames 2006;

Marshall 2000; Sandstrom 2000). Unfortunately, the kinds of artifacts that survive and were uncovered during excavation at GbTo-77 and other sites reveal little specific information about hunting, gathering and fishing. The artifact assemblage from GbTo-77 consists mostly of awls, which are ideal for basket-and net-making, but shed only indirect light on how resources might have been captured and harvested. This means that our ideas about how specific resources were harvested and processed must be drawn from faunal remains, knowledge of the local ecology and hypotheses drawn from ethnographic descriptions and ethnoarchaeological observations

(Colley 1990).

Faunal data provide one of the most important vehicles for understanding the economic

227 decisions that were made by the inhabitants of specific dwellings. Because I wish to explore whether or not the house depressions at GbTo-77 represent Houses, I consider the question of whether, and to what extent, resource locations were owned during the latter half of the Middle

Period, when GbTo-77 and most of the other sites in this study were inhabited. If resource locations were owned, how can we demonstrate this archaeologically?

These questions draw the discussion toward the on-going debate about the nature of social organization in Prince Rupert Harbour during the Middle Period (Ames 2005a; Ames and

Maschner 1999; Archer 2001). As discussed in Chapter 1, studies of social organization in

Prince Rupert Harbour have tended to focus on settlement layout and house size. Two models concerning social organization emerge from this body of work. The spatial organization of the houses in relation to each other is central to the first model (Ames 2005a). Ames contends that single-row villages, likely kin-based, reflect egalitarian social relations. Villages with multiple rows, by contrast, represent more than one kin group, the organization of which facilitates, but does not require, social ranking. In this latter arrangement, each kin group occupies a single row, a pattern observed among a number of northern groups in the 19th century (Vastokas

1966:100-101). The second model is built around the idea that the distribution of house depression sizes is related to social relations. Villages with relatively equal-sized house depressions represent egalitarian social organization, while those exhibiting considerable variability in house depression size reflect social ranking (Archer 2001; Coupland 1988a). From either assessment, GbTo-77 is an egalitarian village composed of small households.

The character of, and reasons behind, the shift from egalitarian to ranked villages is not fully understood. Archer (2001) and Martindale and Marsden (2003) contend that the shift was rapid, the consequence of historical circumstances. Ames (2006) and Coupland (1996) have tended to view the shift as integrated with changing household economy, specifically the

228 intensive production of salmon. Investigations of faunal remains at larger sites, such as GcTo-6, reveal evidence for considerable inter-house variability in terms of resources, although salmon is ubiquitous (Coupland et al. 2003). Much is not understood about the extent to which salmon intensification played a role in burgeoning social inequality in the harbour (Ames 2006; Archer

2001; Coupland 1996), nor is there agreement on how to recognise it archaeologically (Ames

2005:244; Ames and Maschner 1999:161-163; Archer 2001; Coupland 2006:93; Coupland et al.

2010). Coupland (1988a), for instance, interprets the Paul Mason site as an egalitarian village from the site‟s relatively equally sized house depressions. Faunal preservation is very poor at this site, but 96.7% of the faunal remains were identified as fish; only seven specimens were positively identified as salmon (Coupland 1988:381-382). The site‟s location at Kitselas

Canyon on the Skeena River, in conjunction with the faunal material and evidence for year- round occupation, suggested to Coupland (1988) that inhabitants fished and processed salmon for storage as early as 3000 BP. While this might indicate that large-scale salmon fishing and storage was well within the capacities of small households, as Coupland (1996) contends, it is not clear how the Paul Mason site is directly comparable to small households in Prince Rupert

Harbour. As a result, there is no real understanding of the kinds of economic strategies that underlie what are presumed to be egalitarian villages in the harbour, nor has there been much consideration of the way in which social inequalities may have permeated relations among settlements. Inequalities may not have occurred in all facets of life simultaneously, and thus any discussion of social organization must consider the complexities that may have existed across multiple scales of interaction.

GbTo-77; the vertebrate faunal assemblage

Sampling and Screening Methods

229

A total of 20,420 vertebrate faunal specimens were collected from GbTo-773. In the field, I screened 75% of the excavated material through one-quarter inch mesh (6.35 mm) and 25% through one-eighth inch mesh (3.18 mm). I refer to the faunal material collected in this manner as the excavated sample. I identified additional vertebrate fauna within the column, auger and bulk samples that I sorted and analyzed, with the help of volunteers, in the lab. In this study, column, bulk and auger samples were sorted using 6.3 mm, 2.8 mm and 1.4 mm nested screens.

Following Ham (1976:43) and Pacific Identification, I sorted material from every second sample in a column. I selected bulk and auger samples from locations that I had missed, or underrepresented, during excavation. As time allowed, I added additional samples from specific columns; as a result, I was able to analyze most of the samples in the unit 5 column. I identified all vertebrate material in the 6.3 mm and 2.8 mm screens and 25% of vertebrate faunal remains in the 1.4 mm screen, following Coupland‟s screening protocol (Coupland pers. comm.). I refer to the faunal material collected from column, bulk and auger samples as the equal volume samples. The equal volume samples provide a unique opportunity to examine material caught in small screens (1.4mm) that is generally underrepresented in the larger mesh (May 1979;

McKechnie 2005; Moss 2007). The faunal remains collected during excavation, together with the faunal specimens collected from column, bulk and auger samples in the lab, produced a total site assemblage that provides a sample of the breadth of animal taxa that the inhabitants of

GbTo-77 hunted, collected and fished. Many Northwest Coast scholars have noted the importance of examining both kinds of faunal assemblages for this very reason (e.g.,

McKechnie 2005; Moss 2007; Stewart et al. 2003). Sample elements of equal volume samples also provided a standardized way of comparing the densities of major fauna from specific

3 Please note that the faunal assemblage presented here differs slightly from Coupland et al. 2010. I present two additional site contexts in this chapter, the north side midden (excavated sample) and auger 11 (equal volume sample).

230 locations within the site.

Vertebrate Quantification Practices

Most of the faunal material was identified using the zooarchaeological collection at the

University of Toronto. I also made preliminary identifications of fish remains using an archaeological collection compiled by Dr. Trevor Orchard. These identifications were confirmed with the assistance of Dr. Kathlyn Stewart using the collection at the National

Museum in Ottawa. Dr. Mark Peck granted me access to the Ornithology collection at the

Royal Ontario Museum in order to identify avian faunal material in my sample. I also made frequent use of written sources, such as Yee Cannon (1987), Hart (1973), Godfrey (1986) and

Banfield (1974).

I sorted specimens initially into class; for those identifiable beyond class, I recorded the family, genus and, where possible, species. I also noted element name, portion represented, sex, side, size and evidence for cut and burn marks. The avian specimens in this sample were particularly difficult to identify beyond family. While it proved difficult to identify many fish remains, particularly salmon, beyond genus, some elements, such as the basipterygium, were tentatively identified to species (see Appendix B). I made little distinction among vertebrae, though I identified where possible the ultimate and penultimate vertebrae, as well as atlas and axis in fish.

Much has been written concerning methods used to assess the taxonomic abundance represented in vertebrate faunal samples (Banning 2000:93-115; Grayson 1984; Reitz and Wing

1999:191-238). On the Northwest Coast, many faunal analysts use NISP, or Number of

Identifiable Specimens, which is simply the count of specimens within each taxonomic category. The method is relatively reliable for inter-site comparisons where species

231 composition is expected to be similar and where sites are likely subject to similar taphonomic processes (Banning 2000:95). NISP is, therefore, a good method for use in comparing data from village sites in Prince Rupert Harbour; in this case from village sites on Digby Island. Its outcomes depend, however, on a myriad of factors, including the number of bones within the body of a given living animal, the hunting, butchery and disposal practices that created the archaeological deposit, excavation and recovery strategies of researchers, and fragmentation

(Banning 2000:94-96). To correct for these problems, many faunal analysts use derived measures such as Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI). MNI reduces the sample to the minimum number of individuals per taxon that are represented by the assemblage. Some researchers argue that derived methods such as MNI are necessary to convert raw data into culturally-meaningful units, but the method is equally prone to problems of preservation, fragmentation and sample size. MNI also tends to overestimate the importance of rare animals and is particularly sensitive to how faunal material is aggregated (Banning 2000:101-102;

Grayson 1978; Reitz and Wing 1999:194-195).

Although excavations focused on two house depressions, a total of six separate contexts were identified. The back midden consists of faunal material from unit 1, the midden material along the east wall of house A, and material from the northeast corner of house D. Two side middens were sampled; between houses C and D (the north side midden) and between houses D and E (the south side midden). The side middens represent material that was deposited between houses and cannot be specifically linked to the occupation of any particular house. A fundamental problem that emerged with the inter-house depression comparison of faunal remains is rooted in the fact that few deposits could be linked to specific houses depressions or occupations. No hearth or bench midden was identified in house A, though a small sample of faunal material was collected from the house A floor. Vertebrate faunal remains likely were

232 preserved here because of the small shell fragments in the floor deposits. The house D floors, however, contained virtually no shell and, consequently, almost no vertebrate faunal material was collected from the floor deposits in this house. Instead, the house D faunal remains was collected mainly from hearths and bench middens. This means that the faunal samples from house A and house D may reveal as much about disposal patterns and levels of preservation as they do about resource procurement strategies that could be linked to specific house depressions.

A final area, between house B and house C, is represented by two auger samples (A11-1 and

A11-3).

Approximately half of the faunal material in the excavated sample was unidentifiable beyond mammal, bird or fish. Of that which could be identified beyond class, over 95% are fish, 3.7% mammals and less than 1% bird.

Fish

The fish remains from GbTo-77 are overwhelmingly dominated by salmon species. This is true also when the excavated sample is divided into five samples based on location within the site

(Table 8-1). Herring, the second most commonly occurring taxon, were found in much lower proportions across the site. Numerous other species are represented in the site assemblage, such as smelt (mostly eulachon, but also capelin and indeterminate smelts), dogfish and greenlings, but in very small proportions.

There are, however, a number of problems associated with an analysis that relies on relative frequencies, and these are well documented (Banning 2000; Begler and Keatinge 1979;

Claassen 1998; Grayson 1984). Because the relative abundance of one taxon depends on the abundance of all others, a difference in the proportion of herring, for example, between samples may not reflect a difference in the actual quantity of herring. This is particularly troublesome in

233

Table 8-1. NISP and relative proportions of fish taxa identified in excavated faunal samples at GbTo-77, arranged by site context. Specimens were collected for all samples during excavation using one-quarter inch and one-eighth inch screens. Taxon Samples Common Back % of house % of house % of N. Side % of S. Side % of Total by % of Latin name name Midden identified A identified D identified Midden identified Midden identified taxon identified Actinopterygii Eulachon, Osmeridae capelin, smelts 3 0.10% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.09% 6 0.12% 10 0.10% Pleuronectiformes Flatfish 21 0.71% 1 1.27% 2 0.25% 5 0.44% 47 0.94% 76 0.77% Gadid sp. Cods 0 0.00% 1 1.27% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 0.06% 4 0.04%

Hexagrammos sp. Greenlings 11 0.37% 3 3.80% 9 1.12% 5 0.44% 47 0.94% 75 0.75% Clupea harengus pallasi Pacific herring 102 3.40% 9 11.39% 63 7.87% 55 4.89% 286 5.79% 515 5.18% Ophiodon elongatus Lingcod 1 0.03% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 0.36% 4 0.08% 9 0.09% Xiphister sp. Prickleback 2 0.07% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 0.18% 2 0.04% 6 0.06% Sebastes sp. Rockfish 7 0.24% 0 0.00% 4 0.50% 0 0.00% 13 0.26% 24 0.24% Oncorhynchus sp. Salmons 2759 93.72% 64 82.28% 709 88.51% 1037 92.26% 4450 89.16% 9019 90.79% Sculpins, Irish Cottidae lord 21 0.71% 0 0.00% 7 0.87% 8 0.71% 39 0.78% 75 0.75% Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus Pacific halibut 1 0.03% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.01% Theragra Walleye chalcogramma pollock 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.02% 1 0.01% Chondrichthyes Hydrolagus colliei Ratfish 7 0.24% 0 0.00% 5 0.62% 5 0.44% 34 0.68% 51 0.51% Squalus acanthias Dogfish 9 0.31% 0 0.00% 2 0.25% 2 0.18% 55 1.10% 68 0.68% Total identified fish 2944 100% 79 100% 801 100% 1124 100 4990 100% 9934 100% Unidentified fish 2628 47.16% 61 43.57% 834 51.01% 868 43.57% 4687 47.82% 9083 47.75% Total fish 5572 140 1635 1992 9677 19017

234 examples such as this one, where salmon dominate all samples, making fluctuations in other taxa seem almost negligible (Banning 2000:99-100). For this reason, I also used the equal volume samples to compare faunal material between site contexts based on density (NISP/litre of matrix). As discussed earlier, I took one-litre units of site matrix from a number of locations across the site, either as column, auger or bulk samples. I took four column samples from the house D area (units 5, 6, 17 and 21). Due to time constraints, I sorted and identified the faunal material from four of these columns. I identified most of the samples within these four columns as belonging to the south side midden. In other words, most of the faunal material within these four columns accumulated between houses while they were inhabited and slumped across the house floor edges upon their abandonment. I identified two samples only that belonged to house

D specifically (unit 21 lot 3a and 3b). These deposits were noted as possible bench midden during excavation; they contain noticeable quantities of ash and crushed shell. I took a single column of samples from the back midden (unit 1) and from house A (unit 22). Most of the samples from the unit 22 column were identified as back midden deposit as opposed to house deposits. These deposits consisted of whole shell or large fragments of shell and little schist gravel. As such, samples from lot 3 and lot 4 in unit 22 were grouped with other back midden samples from unit 1. I also sampled smaller shell deposits in bulk that did not articulate with unit walls during excavation; I include two in this analysis. In addition, I took a number of auger samples from across the site. Time prevented me from examining the vast majority of these, although I present two samples from Auger 5 and two from Auger 11 here. I present a complete listing of all materials identified within each sample by mass in Appendix D.

The density of fish is very high in the equal volume samples (15.12 NISP per litre of matrix) compared with mammals and birds (.29 and .06 NISP per litre of matrix, respectively).

Column sampling, as a method, tends to under-represent mammalian taxa and this may

235 contribute to the paucity of mammal remains within these samples. Salmon, smelt (or osmerids), and herring were the only fish identified to family or lower within the equal volume samples. I identified specific species of smelt with the help of Dr. Kathlyn Stewart at the

National Museum in Ottawa. Between the equal volume samples and the excavated samples, I identified 45 smelt (or osmerids). A subsample of 25 smelt was analyzed with a microscope.

Twenty-two (88%) were positively identified as eulachon and two specimens were identified as cf capelin (8%). The twenty-fifth specimen was identified as “smelt indeterminate”. This suggests that the vast majority of the smelt remains from GbTo-77 are probably eulachon. At a minimum, of the total 49 smelt, almost 45% are eulachon (Table 8-2).

Table 8-2. NISP and relative proportions of smelt positively identified to species. Smelt Eulachon cf Capelin Total Smelt indeterminate NISP 22 2 25 49 Relative proportion of 44.89% 4.44% 51.02% 100% all smelt

Table 8-3 presents the NISP, relative proportions and average density of these major fish taxa identified within equal volume samples by site context. While herring composed a mere

5% of the site assemblage and smelt were virtually non-existent, these species are well represented in the equal volume samples. Salmon still dominate, but compose just over 40% of the identified fish. Herring compose approximately 23% and smelt compose almost 34% of the identified fish remains in equal volume samples. Smelt are well represented in house D (65%) and to a lesser extent in the south side midden (37%). Herring is also well represented in house

A and house D, but also in the back midden and side midden. These samples, however, are very small and this likely influences some of the patterning in relative proportions.

236

Table 8-3. NISP (N), relative frequency and density (D) of major fish taxa identified in equal volume samples, organized by site location. Each sample is 1 litre in volume. Specimens were collected during sample analysis in the lab using nested screens (6.3 mm, 2.8 mm and 1.4 mm). North Side Back Midden Auger 11 South Side Midden house D Midden house A Total GbTo-77 (7 samples) (2 samples) (9 samples) (2 samples) (3 samples) (1 sample) (24 samples) Identified fish N % D N % D N % D N % D N % D N % D N % D Salmon 18 62.1% 2.57 7 87.5% 3.5 20 37.7% 2.22 1 4.4% 0.5 0 0 0 1 33% 1 47 40.5% 1.96 Herring 7 24.1% 1.00 1 12.5% 0.5 13 24.5% 1.44 7 30.4% 3.5 0 0 0 2 67% 2 30 23.3% 1.13 Smelt 4 13.8% 0.57 0 0 0 20 37.5% 2.22 15 65.2% 8 0 0 0 0 0% 0 39 33.6% 1.63 Total 29 100% 4.14 8 100% 4 53 100% 5.56 23 100% 12 0 0 0 3 100% 4 116 100% 4.71

237

Following Cannon (2000, 2001), I also calculated densities in relation to the <1.4 mm fine fraction (Table 8-4). These density figures may be more accurate reflections of overall densities because this method controls for variability in coarse shell between samples. The fine fraction itself, however, may also vary from location to location depending on the level of shell crushing. Moreover, there is no way to control for inconsistencies among sites in terms of sediment accumulation, which might be expected in greater quantities within the house depression than in the back midden.

Table 8-4. Density of major fish taxa collected from all screens in equal volume samples, calculated in relation to fine fraction (<1.4 mm). This table excludes the north side midden context because no vertebrate faunal remains were recovered from the column and auger samples taken in this area of the site. Total Identified Back South side column fish Midden Auger 11 midden house D house A sample fish Salmon 17.48 14 10.96 2.67 11.11 12.6 Herring 6.8 2 7.12 18.67 22.22 8.04 Smelt 3.88 0 10.96 40.00 0.00 10.46 Total 29.59 16 27.40 61.33 33.33 31.1

Both measures of density showed that the composition of fish taxa in the equal volume samples is strikingly different from the picture presented in the site assemblage. Density in comparison to the fine fraction is very high, and may be over representing all fish. In terms of density, smelt are almost as abundant as salmon and better represented than herring. Both relative proportions and density values indicate that, while salmon were critical, herring, and particularly smelt, were far more important at GbTo-77 than would have been determined from the site assemblage alone.

The density of the three major fish taxa also exhibits significant variability across the site. The highest density of fish remains in relation to the fine fraction was found in the house D deposits, followed by house A and the back midden. Although samples are small, the density of

238 salmon is greater in external midden deposits than in house deposits. By contrast, herring and smelt are generally more abundant in house deposits (Figure 8-1). I used chi-square to test the association between site context and fish taxa using density figures derived from the litre matrix and from the 1.4mm fine fraction. I combined house deposits and exterior middens because the house A NISP was too small to be examined independently (Shennan 1997:104-118). The results show that an association exists between fish taxa and site context (8.14; .01

45 40 35 30 25 Salmon 20 Herring 15 10 Smelt 5 0 Back Midden Auger 11 South side house D house A midden

Figure 8-1. Graph showing densities of major fish taxa in relation to < 1.4 mm fine fraction identified in equal volume samples arranged by site context.

elements in houses is not a product of sampling but, rather, may reflect genuine disposal patterns. Small fish bones would have been more easily lost inside the house than larger salmon bones. Herring and eulachon bones would also be much harder to remove from the house during cleaning because of their small size.

Mammals and Birds

Mammalian remains were generally more difficult to identify beyond class and, as a result, relatively small proportions of mammal bones were considered identifiable. The site‟s assemblage is dominated by canid remains and none of these was positively identified as wolf.

239

It is likely, however, that domestic dog was not part of the food economy for three reasons.

First, Northwest Coast ethnographies consistently show that, all across the region, people kept domestic dogs for hunting, as pack animals and, in some instances, for their fur (de Laguna

1990a:190, 1990b:208-209; Renker and Gunther 1990:427; Suttles 1990:460-461). Although dogs were occasionally consumed as a part of the dog-eater ceremonies, dogs were not generally eaten (Arima and Dewhurst 1990; de Laguna 1990a, 1990b Hamori-Torok 1990; Mitchell 1990;

Suttles 1990). Second, 65% of canid remains come from a single context in the back midden, and likely represent a dog burial. Dog burials have been found in a number of midden contexts across the Northwest Coast (e.g., Cannon et al. 1999; Severs 1974:198). In the Rupert area dog burials have been found at GbTo-28 (Coupland et al. 2006) and at the Greenville Burial Ground site at the Nass River (Cybulski 1992). The remains of multiple dogs were also found at GbTo-

31. Seventy-seven percent of the dog remains at GbTo-31 were found within area A/C, the back midden, where human burials were also common (Cybulski 1992:64-65). According to

Cybulski (1992:65) at least some of the dog remains represented intentional interments and one was directly associated with human remains. Two of the three dog burials at Greenville were also found in association with human remains, and in one example, the dog remains appeared cradled within the upper arm and chest of an adolescent male (Cybulski 1992: 63). These data suggest to Cybulski (1992) that dogs were given special treatment in death, likely because these dogs were owned by village inhabitants. Many of the Greenville dog remains, however, also exhibited evidence for butchery (Balkwill and Cybulski 1992:82-83) and this may suggest that dogs were also sometimes eaten, or their remains used for raw materials. Alternatively,

Cybulski (1992:66-67) speculated that the presence of dogs in burials exhibiting cut marks might reflect ritual consumption of dogs, not unlike the Dog Eaters ceremony practiced by post- contact period Tsimshians (Garfield 1939:305-312,1966:45-46). Initiation into the Dog Eaters

240 society was not inherited, but was open to any individual with access to enough wealth (through

House affiliation) to undertake the initiation ceremony. The presence of dog remains with human burials, such as has been observed at GbTo-31 and the Greenville Burial Ground, therefore, might reflect the wealth and high status of the household to which that person belonged. It is conceivable, however, that many individuals or households owned dogs in ways that have little to do with wealth. These dogs may have played important economic roles, in hunting, for fur, or other raw materials, but may not reflect wealth. Regardless, domestic dogs were probably viewed very differently from wild taxa.

Third, only one of the 55 dog elements identified showed possible evidence of cut marks. As such, I recorded NISPs for canids, along with small rodents, below the main list of taxa (Table 8-5) and excluded them from the analysis (sensu Orchard 2007:235).

Four unidentified mammal bones were noted within the back midden and south side midden equal volume samples (See Appendix B).

In the revised mammalian assemblage, 124 specimens were identified beyond class.

Cervids (most of which are deer) and harbour seals dominate the excavated sample. Other taxa are represented in much smaller quantities and these include mountain goat, beaver, bear, whale, mink, fox, red squirrel and cougar. These animals may have been hunted for food and also raw materials, such as skins, hides, furs, bone and antler. Approximately 54% of the identifiable mammal bones are sea mammal that, in addition to those sea mammals listed above, include sea lion, fur seal and sea otter. I observed considerable variability in mammalian remains when the assemblage was divided into sub-samples based on site context. Most significantly, sea mammals were prevalent in and around house D, but poorly represented in the back midden and house A. The very small sample of mammals from house A means that much of this variability likely results from sampling. Given the single context (the house floor) from which faunal

241

Table 8-5. NISP and relative frequencies of mammal elements identified in the GbTo-77 excavated sample, organized by site location.

Mammalian taxon Samples GbTo-77 Totals North South Total Common Back % of house % of house % of Side % of Side % of by % of Latin name name Midden identified A identified D identified Midden identified Midden identified Taxon identified Artiodactyls Cervids Deer 13 81.25% 1 100.00% 1 3.85% 0 0.00% 27 38.57% 42 33.87% Oreamnos americanus Goats 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 7.69% 2 18.18% 3 4.29% 7 5.65% Carnivora Ursus sp. Bear 1 6.25% 0 0.00% 1 3.85% 0 0.00% 1 1.43% 3 2.42% Enhydra lutris Sea otter 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 27.27% 8 11.43% 11 8.87% Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Mink 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.43% 1 0.81% Zalophus Northern californianus sea lion 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 4.29% 3 2.42% Callorhinus ursinus Northern cynocephalus fur seal 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.43% 1 0.81% Harbour Phoca vitulina seal 2 12.50% 0 0.00% 16 61.54% 4 36.36% 15 21.43% 37 29.84%

Felis concolor Cougar 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.43% 1 0.81% Vulpis fulva abietorum Red fox 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 7.69% 0 0.00% 2 2.86% 4 3.23% Cetacea Cetacea Whale 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 7 10.00% 7 5.65% Rodentia Marmota Red monax squirrel 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.43% 1 0.81% Castor canadensis Beaver 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 15.38% 2 18.18% 0 0.00% 6 4.84%

242

Total identified mammals 16 1 26 11 70 124 Small rodent 1 1 1 2 8 13 Unidentif ied sea mammal 1 0 5 11 9 26

Canis sp. Dog/wolf 37 0 5 2 12 56

Unidentified mammals 83 12 99 31 313 538 Total mammals 138 14 136 57 412 757

243

material was collected from house A, statistical tests measuring whether the variability between contexts is greater than the variability within contexts cannot be used in this instance.

The avian assemblage is very small, totalling 137 elements, 77 of which could be identified beyond class (Table 8-6). Of these, the most frequently occurring bird elements are ducks (including mallards, mergansers, scoters and eiders) and geese (predominately Canada geese). I was unable to identify most duck elements beyond family and only 9 specimens to species (see Appendix B). The assemblage also includes gulls, loons, birds of prey (mostly eagles) and song birds, as well as a single swan and woodpecker element. No avian remains were identified in Auger 11; two unidentified avian remains were noted within back midden and house A column sample faunal remains (see Appendix B).

GbTo-77; The Shellfish

In addition to providing a means of comparing vertebrate faunal densities within and across sites, equal volume samples were a useful way of looking at the shellfish taxa that compose the midden, as well as variability in the level of shell fragmentation. Banahan and Patton (2008) showed that the primary factor influencing shellfish composition at a sample of 11 sites in the harbour, including village and camp sites, is the immediate environment, in particular the presence of sandy or rocky foreshores. I expected, therefore, that the shellfish assemblage at this and other village sites would probably represent shellfish collected from shorelines in the immediate area. This is not uncommon in Northwest Coast shell midden sites. Many archaeologists have noted the association between shoreline habitat and the taxa that compose shellfish assemblages (Ham 1976; Moss 2004; Orchard 2007). Moss and Erlandson (2010),

244

Table 8-6 showing NISP and relative frequencies of avian fauna identified in the GbTo-77 excavated sample by site context. Avian taxon Samples GbTo-77 Totals North South Total Common Back % of house % of house % of % of % of % of Side Side by name Midden identified A identified D identified identified identified identified Latin name Midden Midden Taxon Anseriformes Anatinae Ducks 4 75% 5 83.3% 7 46.67% 1 50% 33 66.67% 50 65.79% Brantae, Geese 0 0 3 20% 7 18.75% 10 13.16% Anser Cygnus sp. Swans 0 0 1 6.67% 0 1 1.32% Charadriiformes Larus sp. Gulls 1 25% 0 3 20% 1 50% 2 4.17% 7 9.21% Falconiformes Birds of Accipitridae, 0 0 2 4.17% 2 2.63% Falconidae Prey Gaviiformes Gaviidae Loons 0 1 16.7% 2 2.08% 3 3.95% Passeriformes Song 0 0 2 4.17% 2 2.63% Turdidae bird Piciformes Sphyrapicus Wood- 0 0 1 6.67% 1 1.32% sp. pecker Total identified per 5 6 15 2 48 76 assemblage Unidentified Birds 6 3 11 1 40 61 Total birds per 11 9 26 3 88 137 assemblage

245 however, note that early components at the Kit‟n‟kaboodle Cave in southeast Alaska were dominated by thatched barnacles, although these shellfish were unsuited to local shoreline habitats. Moss and Erlandson (2010) demonstrated that the waters in the immediate vicinity of

Kit‟n‟kaboodle Cave were influenced by freshwater run-off, making the shoreline inhospitable for thatched barnacles. Their results suggest that groups living at this site would have had to travel 4-5 km away to harvest these barnacles. In Moss and Erlandson‟s example, boats provided people with the means to bring resources from camps to villages for processing (sensu

Ames 2002). This seems to be quite different from the scenario presented by the GbTo-77 shellfish data. As shellfish remains have been found at a variety of sites, including those presumed to be camp sites (Banahan and Patton 2008), groups likely harvested shellfish at other locations. Shellfish harvested at camp sites, however, may have been processed where they were harvested.

Sampling and Screening Protocols for Shellfish

As discussed above, equal volume samples were sorted using nested screens. Following the vertebrate sampling strategy, I identified all material within the 6.3 mm and 2.8 mm screens and quantified them by weight. I began sorting 25% of the invertebrate material in the 1.4 mm screen, but changed my sample size to 10% due to time constraints (note that I continued to sample 25% of the 1.4 mm screens for vertebrate specimens). I accounted for the discrepancy between these two sampling strategies by multiplying the mass of my 10% subsamples by 2.5.

Table 8-7 presents the total and average masses of the materials identified within each site context. The equal volume samples consist mainly of rock (schist gravel) and shell, though there is some variability in the density of these materials from place to place across the site

(Figure 8-2). All other materials are relatively poorly represented in equal volume samples; the

246

Table 8-7: Total mass and average density (D; grams per litre) of material in equal volume samples by site context. Back midden samples are taken from unit 1 and the top two samples from Unit 22. South side midden samples include the unit 5 column, a bulk sample from unit 6 and the top sample from unit 21. House D samples are unit 21, lot 3a and 3b. There is only one House A sample (Lot 8). Total Mass excludes residue (fine fraction) and unanalyzed portions of the 1.4 mm screens. North Side Back Midden Auger 11 total South Side Midden house D house A GbTo-77 Midden 7 samples 2 samples 9 samples 2 samples 1 sample 24 samples 3 samples Material Mass Mass in Mass in Mass in Mass in Mass in Mass in D D D D D in D D grams grams grams grams grams grams grams Rock 992.93 141.85 889.42 444.71 3179.08 353.23 862.59 422.45 624.84 208.28 544.46 544.46 7093.32 295.55 Charcoal 22.8 3.26 0.01 0.01 12.34 1.37 3.83 1.77 2.83 0.94 .49 .49 42.3 1.76 Floral 1.09 0.16 12.83 6.42 4.04 0.45 0.28 0.075 2.80 0.93 0.09 0.09 21.13 0.88 Remains Faunal 2.08 0.3 0.17 0.09 4.83 0.54 1.71 0.72 0.19 0.06 0.71 0.71 9.69 0.40 Remains

Shell 3222.47 460.35 165.31 82.66 2095.79 232.87 352.67 176.3 302.40 100.80 25.22 25.22 6163.86 237.33

Total material 4241.37 605.91 1067.7 533.87 5296.08 588.54 1221.1 610.53 933.05 311.02 570.96 570.96 11923.36 472.06 Mass

247

600

500

400

300 Rock

Density in Grams in Density 200 Shell

100

0 Back Midden Auger 11 South Side house D North Side house A Midden Midden Site Context

Figure 8-2. Average density of materials identified within column, bulk and auger samples. density of bone is low across the site, but slightly higher in house deposits than in exterior midden deposits. This pattern is reinforced when vertebrate fauna are quantified by NISP. The two major materials that compose the equal volume samples (shell and rock) differ between site contexts. The back midden contains the highest density of shell remains and the lowest of rock.

The house deposits, by contrast, contain much higher densities of rock in comparison with shell.

Eighteen shellfish taxa were identified within equal volume samples and these are presented in Table 8-8. In order to compare proportions and densities of taxa across the site, I reduced this list to a series of 10 non-overlapping taxa. This also facilitated a comparison of shellfish taxa between sites. Gastropods were poorly represented at this site. Where they were identified, gastropods were highly fragmented and difficult to identify to species. For these reasons, all gastropods were combined into four broad categories (land snails, marine snails, chitons and limpets).

248

Table 8-8. List of shellfish taxa identified within equal volume samples. Common name Latin name Category for analysis Bay mussel Mytilus trossulus Mussel cf California mussel Mytilus californianus Mussel Butter clam Saxidomus gianteus Clam Horse clam Tresus capax Clam cf Pointed macoma Macoma nasuta Clam Littleneck clam Protothaca staminea Littleneck clam Basket cockle Clinocardium nuttalli Cockle Dire whelk Lirabuccinum dirum Marine snail Channelled dogwinkle Nucella canaliculata Marine snail Striped dogwinkle Nucella emarginata Marine snail Sitka periwinkle Littorina sitkana Marine snail Lyre Whelk Buccinum plectrum Marine snail Ribbed limpet Lottia digitalis Limpet Plate limpet Tectura scutum Limpet cf Black Katy chiton Katharina tunicata Chiton Small barnacle Balanus glandula or Barnacle Thatched acorn barnacle Semibalanus cariosus Barnacle Green sea urchin Strongylocentrotus Green sea urchin droebachiensis

Butter clams and horse clams are difficult to distinguish from each other without the hinge. Although some deposits contained whole clam shells, most consisted of broken and fragmented specimens that could not be identified to species. As such, I combined butter clam and horse clam together with clam specimens unidentifiable to class into a broad clam category.

This category also includes a single fragment of cf pointed macoma. I distinguished between butter clam and horse clam where possible in three contexts, the back midden, house D and the south side midden. Butter clams composed between 20% and 32% of the total identified clams; horse clams composed between 0.33% and 6.77 of the total identified clam (Table 8-9).

249

Table 8-9. Relative proportions of clam that could be identified to species. Invertebrate Back Midden South Side Midden house D taxon Butter Clam 19.79% 20.7% 32.5%

0.33% 1% 6.77% Horse Clam 2.54% 0% 0% Small Mussel California 0% 0% 0.7% Mussel

Many mussel remains were highly fragmented. The semi-protected nature of the GbTo-

77 shoreline is not ideal California mussel habitat; given the pattern observed within the harbour

(Banahan and Patton 2008), I did not expect to find California mussel in great abundance. Bay mussels, by contrast favour sheltered waters, such as protected bays and inlets. The shoreline at

GbTo-77 may, in fact, be too exposed for favourable bay mussel conditions. While there are subtle differences in shape and texture between California mussels and bay mussels (Cowles

2005b), small California mussels are very difficult to distinguish from bay mussels (Moss and

Erlandson 2010:3362), particularly in contexts such as this one where remains are highly fragmented. I identified small mussels from whole or partial valves in back midden contexts.

Most mussel deposits, however, consisted of very finely crushed fragments. I identified one fragment of mussel that may belong to California mussel in the house D deposit (less than .01% of all mussel identified). Three California mussel chisels or adzes were also recovered at GbTo-

77 (Appendix C). As California mussel thrives along exposed coastlines, the raw material for these artifacts must have come from quite a distance from protected and semi-protected shorelines of the inner harbour, such as the western Dundas Islands or Stephens Island. If mussel species could be distinguished with certainty in shellfish samples, then we could

250

consider whether the California mussels used to create these chisels were brought into the site

primarily as food or as raw material.

Barnacles, however, were the most abundant (by mass) shellfish taxa in the equal volume

samples. Barnacles were best represented, and most easily distinguished to species, in back

midden contexts. Although I observed occasional body plates belonging to a small barnacle

species, the most abundant and most readily identifiable barnacle species were thatched barnacles.

I distinguished thatched barnacles from indeterminate barnacles based on opercular and body

plates, using photographs, drawings and descriptions in Huber and Sommer 2003, Moss and

Erlandson (2010), and Pilsbry (1916). I identified all scuta as thatched barnacles (Table 8-10) and

these represent a minimum of 120 individuals. Many barnacle body plates were very large; some

complete body plates were between 5 and 6 cm in length, suggesting that they belonged to a large

barnacle species. I observed characteristic thatching on 23% of broken and complete body plates

in the GbTo-77 equal volume samples. A lack of thatching does not necessarily indicate a

different species of barnacle (Klinkenberg 2010); thatching is less common on the body plates of

thatched barnacles growing in crowded conditions (Cowles 2006; Moss and Erlandson

2010:3366). As all identified scuta were thatched barnacle, it seems likely that many of the

undiagnostic barnacle body plates may also represent thatched barnacles.

Table 8-10. Mass of total barnacle remains and thatched barnacle remains from GbTo-77 back midden equal volume samples. Thatched barnacle Back Midden Total Barnacle Mass Relative proportion Scuta Deposit Mass of total barnacle Unit 1, 4a 203.51 39.52 19.41% 8 left/7 right Unit 1, 4c 328.57 92.14 28.04% 12 left/14 right Unit 1, 4e 521.42 149.4 28.65% 31 left/39 right Unit 1, 4g 451 110.10 24.41% 37 left/44 right Unit 22, lot 3 331.96 45.55 13.72% 11 left/10 right Unit 22, lot 4 90.84 6.54 7.20% 6 left/6 right Total 1927.3 443.25 23% 105 left/120 right

251

I present in Table 8-11 total and average shellfish masses by site context for the reduced shellfish categories. Overall, barnacles are the most frequently occurring shellfish taxon at this site, followed by clams (horse clams and/or butter clams), littleneck clams, mussels (bay mussel and California mussel), and marine snails. All other invertebrate taxa occur in very small quantities. Clam and barnacle densities varied considerably by site context. Barnacles in particular show the widest variability (Figure 8-3); they are very dense in back midden deposits, having a greater mass than clam. Barnacles are considerably less dense in and around houses.

Mussel species are relatively low in terms of density and are concentrated in specific back midden deposits and in the north side midden between houses C and D. Marine snails are most abundant in terms of density in house D deposits.

Fragmentation

To further examine formation processes at GbTo-77 and to assess intensity of use, I examined the fragmentation of shell deposits following Ford (1992) and Claassen (1998:114-115; see also

Burchell and Brewster 2008). Claassen discussed fragmentation in terms of one-half inch and one-quarter inch screens; I employed the same calculation, but with 6.3 mm and 2.8 mm screens. Fragmentation ratios were calculated for each equal volume sample by dividing the weight of shell caught in the 6.3 mm screens by the weight of shell material within 2.8 mm screens. Deposits with low ratios reflect deposits that are highly fragmented, while deposits consisting of coarse shell will produce higher ratio.

252

Table 8-11. Total mass and average density (D) per litre of each shellfish taxa identified within equal volume samples by site context. Context is derived as discussed in table 8-6. South Side Back Midden Auger 11 Total house D North Side Midden house A GbTo-77 Midden 7 samples 2 samples 2 samples 3 samples 1 sample 24 samples Shellfish 9 samples taxa Mass Mass in Mass in Mass in Mass in Mass in Mass in D in D D D D D D grams grams grams grams grams grams grams Molluscs (bivalves) Mussels 303.48 43 1.05 0.53 33.17 4 13.86 7 41.55 14 1.68 2 389.62 16 Clams 434.93 62 40.86 20.43 989.27 110 201.51 101 96.00 32 9.25 9 1771.03 74 Littleneck 398.22 57 35.22 17.61 329.42 37 19.95 10 26.67 9 5.32 5 814.57 34 clam Cockles 7.40 1 1.36 0.68 21.63 2 7.52 4 3.60 1 41.51 2 Molluscs (gastropods) Land 0.23 0 0.00 0.00 1.15 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 1.38 0 Snails Marine 37.52 5 15.87 7.94 61.84 7 41.37 21 16.54 6 1.95 2 174.94 7 Snails Chitons 6.10 1 0.02 0.01 6.52 1 0.56 0 0.46 0.15 13.64 1 Limpets 2.16 0 0.09 0.05 2.08 0 0.03 0 0.00 0.00 4.34 0 Crustaceans

Barnacles 1932.43 276 65.59 32.80 466.06 52 33.74 17 73.37 14 1.93 2 2571.09 107 Echinodermata Sea 53.31 8 0.51 0.26 28.7 3 0.55 0 0.24 0 0.16 0 80.07 3 Urchins

Unid shell 46.71 7 4.74 2.37 155.96 17 33.50 17 27.31 9 4.89 5 265.83 11

Total 3222.47 460 165.31 83 2095.79 233 352.67 176 302.40 101 25.22 25 6163.86 237 shellfish

253

300

250

200

Mussels 150

Clams Density Littleneck clams 100 Marine Snail Barnacle 50

0 Back Auger 11 South Side house D North Side house A Midden Midden Midden Site Context

Figure 8-3. Average density of five most frequently occurring shellfish taxa identified within equal volume samples at GbTo-77, arranged by site context.

To some extent, fragmentation will vary in accordance with shellfish taxa. Bay mussel and sea urchin, for example, break into very small pieces relatively easily (Claassen 1989:56-

58). Deposits composed mainly of these species are likely to exhibit lower fragmentation ratios than deposits composed predominantly of clams and barnacles, and as such may reflect taxonomic composition of the sample as much as intensity of use. Figure 8-4 illustrates the variability in fragmentation rates across the site. Deposits in and around house D tend to be highly fragmented, while back midden deposits consist of less fragmented and whole shell pieces. Some variability in fragmentation rates exists also within columns. The bottom of the back midden (sample 1,9), for example, is much more fragmented than the top deposits. Stein

(1992; see also Ford 1992) has argued that fine particles can settle over time. In this case, however, the stratigraphic variability in terms of fragmentation may reflect other taphonomic

254

4 Fragmentation Ratio Fragmentation

0 1,1 1,3 1,5 1,7 1,9 22,2 22,4 5,5,1 5,5,2 5,5,3 5,5,5 5,5,7 5,5,8 6,1 17,1 17,3a 17,3b 18,1 A5-1 A5-3 A11,1A11,3 22,6

Back Midden South Side Midden house D North Side Midden Auger 11 house A Site Context

Figure 8-4. Fragmentation Ratios for each equal volume sample analyzed from GbTo-77, arranged by site context.

255

processes. The bottom deposit of the south side midden (sample 6,1) is much less fragmented than the deposits above it, and compares favourably with most back-midden fragmentation ratios. This deposit consists of a discrete deposit of clam, barnacle and urchin; its location below and adjacent to a sizable house post probably protected it from the mixing that appears to have formed the deposits above during house repair and rebuilding episodes. Sample 5,5,1 is not very fragmented and represents one of the last depositions prior to the site‟s abandonment.

This deposit would not have been subjected to the same mixing and trampling as most side midden deposits. Overall, however, the fragmentation ratios show that areas in and around houses were much more heavily used than the back midden area.

Implications for Seasonality, Mobility and Labour Organization at GbTo-77

The vast majority of species identified within the GbTo-77 assemblage are locally available throughout the winter and to a lesser extent in the fall and spring. To reiterate, local resources are those that are available within the immediate vicinity of the site or within a day‟s paddle; this accounts for most of the coast between the Nass River and Skeena River. In terms of fish and other marine taxa, local resources could have been harvested in deep water, moderate water, shallow water and intertidal habitats. As noted in chapter 3, a number of salmon species, particularly steelheads, cutthroats, as well as some cohos and chinooks, could have been fished in coastal waters throughout the year. Although fall-run chinooks favour small coastal streams throughout the Northwest Coast, pink salmon are the most abundant salmon species in the small coastal streams of Prince Rupert Harbour (David Peacock, pers. comm). As such, the inhabitants of GbTo-77 and other harbour villages could have harvested a number of salmon species in local coastal waters and rivers, instead of, or in addition to, the Skeena River.

256

Secondary fish taxa occur in small proportions ranging from 1-2% of the total site assemblage but, are absent from the equal volume samples. Many of these fish could have been harvested in moderate waters in winter, but frequent shallower waters at other times of the year.

On the other hand, dogfish are closest to shore during the winter. Lingcod, greenlings, ratfish, pricklebacks and sculpins also frequent moderate, shallow and even inter-tidal waters through the winter months (although some are available year-round). These are distributed across all areas except the house A floor deposits. Once again, small sample size strongly influences the distribution of fish taxa across the site and I would expect further excavation of house A to produce more secondary taxa.

Sea mammals, land mammals and shellfish could also have been harvested within close proximity of the site throughout the year, including through the winter. Beavers, bears and deer all frequent the adjacent mainland throughout the year but could also be found on Digby Island

(there is currently a population of deer on Digby Island). Mountain goats frequent high altitudes during the summer, but move to lower elevations, including areas immediately adjacent to the coast during the winter. Harbour seals and sea otters, the two most frequently occurring sea mammals, are common in coastal waters year-round. Harbour seals and Northern sea lions also haul out in rookeries during the spring. However, northern fur seals, of which there is a single specimen at GbTo-77, favour coastal waters in the spring and fall, and haul out on shore in the summer. Interestingly, there are no Northern fur seal rookeries in the harbour today (Gifford-

Gonzalez et al. 2005). Juveniles, however, travel from Alaska southward during the winter through the off-shore areas. The one fur seal element is from an immature animal, suggesting either that it came from coastal waters in the spring or fall, that there was a rookery in the harbour at one time and the animal was hunted in the summer, or that it came from an individual that washed ashore, as they do periodically today. Many whale species are also coastal in the

257 summer, and off-shore in the spring and fall. Fragments from what appear to be a single element are insufficient to indicate hunting. Rather, like their contact period counterparts, villagers probably scavenged beached whales or whale bone.

For the most part, sea mammals could be hunted by small groups. Boas (1916:403) records groups of four or five hunting sea mammals from boats and on land using barbed bone and stone points, as well as traps and nets. Ames and Maschner (1999) argued, however, that most sea mammals could have been effectively harvested by one or two people. If people are more likely to dispose of refuse adjacent to their own houses, particularly if the refuse does not interfere with other household activities (Hayden and Cannon 1982), the concentration of sea mammal remains in and around house D might indicate that sea mammal hunting was indeed orchestrated by small, independently operating households and that not all households focused on sea mammal hunting to the same degree. However, sampling is likely contributing to much of this variability, particularly because of the paucity of faunal remains from house A. More house depressions would need to be excavated at this site in order to determine whether genuine patterns that reflect differences in behavior or economic strategies existed. Understanding variability in faunal remains between house depressions might be clearer where deposits could be more convincingly associated with specific house depressions.

Although shellfish could theoretically be harvested throughout the year, there are advantages to both summer and winter harvesting. During the summer, the lowest tides occur during the day. Shellfish that inhabit the lower intertidal zones, such as butter clams and littleneck clams, could be sought more easily, and perhaps in greater abundance during the summer as opposed to the winter. Both butter clams and littleneck clams are well represented at GbTo-77. Horse clams, cockles and sea urchins are also species that favour lower intertidal zones, but are less well represented at this site. On the other hand, Gonyaulax, the algae that

258 cause paralytic shellfish poisoning, occurs during the summer. As I noted in chapter 3, however, the timing and location of algae blooms changes from year-to-year and generally last no more than a month. Thus, even if Gonyaulax occurred annually, the inhabitants of GbTo-77 and other villages could still have harvested shellfish, including butter clams and littleneck clams during parts of the summer.

Shellfish were also likely gathered by small groups or individuals from the beach area in front of the village site. The back midden was constructed by clearly demarcated deposits of coarse shell, interspersed with relatively horizontal deposits of gravel and finely crushed shell.

The deposits of coarse shell may represent discrete basket loads of shell and the crushed shell and gravel may have been deposited during major house rebuilding or cleaning episodes. There is little evidence for mixing and the generally high fragmentation ratios suggest that the area was not heavily used other than for the disposal of refuse and probably burial in some locations.

Barnacle occurs in very high densities in the back midden compared with the rest of the site, while clams are more evenly distributed across the site. I used the t-test (Shennan 1997:83-92) to assess whether the concentration of barnacles in the back midden as opposed to deposits in and around houses is significant and the results indicate that they are (t=3.38; p-value < 0.05).

This patterning may reflect some aspect of the way in which site inhabitants collected, processed and disposed of barnacles that differed from clams. Adults and children, working alone or in small groups, could harvest clams throughout the period of village occupation (Moss

1993; Norton 1985:128-129). If collecting was a casual activity, baskets of clams could be brought into the house for processing or for fresh consumption. Whole and broken shell could be easily removed from the house floor, but smaller fragments of clam became part of the house floor and bench deposits. These fragments eventually became mixed into side midden deposits during house cleaning and rebuilding. The back midden shell deposits, however, could

259 represent larger-scale processing activities. The lack of rock in coarse shell back midden deposits, in conjunction with the lack of barnacle in and around the house, suggests that barnacles were processed in such a way that the gravel composing house floors did not mix with barnacle refuse. There are a number of possible explanations for this patterning. Theoretically, barnacles could be collected at any time of year, but a pattern that shows highly localized deposition without the rock associated with house floors could indicate that barnacles were harvested en masse in warmer months and processed outside. Although far from the north coast, Fournier and Dewhirst (1980) report that barnacles were summer treats on Vancouver

Island. Alternatively, the paucity of barnacles from house-floor deposits might occur if house inhabitants were more mindful of how they disposed of barnacles. Ethnoarchaeological studies have shown that people commonly remove dangerous debris from high-traffic areas; the large, sharp fragments of barnacle shell might have been considered more of a hindrance than clam shells and thus disposed of with greater care (Hayden and Cannon 1982; Smith 2006). The

Kwakwaka‟wakw barnacle feast, discussed in chapter 3, illustrates how this kind of disposal may have occurred (Boas 1921:499-505). The host served roasted or steamed barnacles to guests on mats; these mats were later used to gather broken barnacle shells and dispose of them outside the house.

Birds can be among the most sensitive indicators of seasonality (Reitz and Wing 2008).

Most ducks represented here are common in the coastal waters in and around Prince Rupert in the winter, spring and summer. Canada geese are common also in coastal waters spring through winter. Swans and loons frequent the area in winter, while gulls (mostly mew and herring gulls) are present in coastal regions in winter, as well as other times of the year.

The discussion thus far has focused on resources that are available in the immediate vicinity of GbTo-77 or within a day‟s paddle of the site (sensu Ames 2002). Although some

260 shellfish, and perhaps herring, could have been processed for later consumption, most local resources probably represent foods that were consumed relatively quickly after harvest. Small household groups could collect or capture these resources in the absence of larger-scale organization on behalf of single or multiple households. Again, except for shellfish and herring, these resources occur in relatively small quantities at this site. As the comparison of vertebrate faunal density among contexts illustrates, the most abundant vertebrate taxa at GbTo-77 are salmon, herring and smelt. Herring are available locally, but most salmon species (and in particular, the most abundant species) and eulachon can be most easily acquired in large numbers outside the harbour and at very specific times of year. Salmon, herring and eulachon are highly localized and most abundant during spawning and this would provide ample opportunity for groups to harvest these fish in large numbers (Hart 1988:108-125; Nolan

1977:289-290, 296-298; Schalk 1977) and process them for storage and later consumption.

Contact period Tsimshian used rakes made with bone teeth, and sometimes nets, to capture herring, which were fished by small groups of two or three family members from the shoreline or from boats (Boas 1916:400; Nolan 1977:318). A single small bone barb was found at GbTo-77 that looks very similar to the kinds used by 19th-century Northwest Coast groups to harvest herring. This method was extremely productive for both herring and eulachon fishing

(Drucker 1965:116). For example, Arthur Birch describes as many as 600 smelts taken in one hour by this method in Victoria (in Stewart 1977:76). Other animals, such as seals, eagles and sea lions attracted by the large number of herring, could be hunted at this time (Stewart 1977:

76, 97).

Extra household labour might have been needed for processing herring, although it is not clear from the data at hand precisely how herring were processed at GbTo-77. In the 19th century, herring were eaten fresh, dried for storage and sometimes, like eulachon, rendered into

261 oil or grease (Boas 1916:44-45). As discussed below, the organization of labour required for rendering fish oil may have been very different and more complex than what is required for drying. Herring, in particular, lose much of their oil by the time they spawn (Bailey 1952).

While this might facilitate drying, it also suggests that groups might have fished herring at other times of year. Although inshore spawning lasts only a few days, herring congregate in adjacent shallow waters for a longer period of time, almost six weeks (Nolan 1977:318). Young herring also school in inshore waters throughout the summer (Haegele and Schweigert 1985; Hart

1988:97-98).

Eulachon and salmon are the only specifically regional resources identified in the GbTo-

77 faunal assemblage (although some salmon would have been locally available in the harbour).

Task groups or whole households would have had to move from their village locations outside of the harbour to harvest these fish in large numbers. Eulachon spawn in very specific locations along the Northwest Coast. One of the largest runs occurs at the Nass River in late February or early March. These fish congregate for a longer stretch of time in shallow waters and thus could have been easily harvested for a good portion of the spring. For this reason, Nolan (1977:323-

325) suggests that eulachon could have been harvested by smaller task groups as easily as entire households. During the 19th and 20th centuries, however, the move to the Nass River from the winter villages at Metlakatla was orchestrated by the village chief, and large households traveled en masse to their eulachon fishing grounds (Garfield 1966:16). Small groups in canoes could easily capture eulachon, like herring, with rakes or bag nets over the course of many weeks

(Nolan 1977; Stewart 1997). The organization of labour around processing eulachon is less well established than salmon. Boas (1916:44-45) records that women and children strung eulachon for drying and storage, but that Tsimshians concentrated their efforts on rendering eulachon oil, an important and highly prized commodity. The process of rendering oil from eulachon was

262 long, and potentially labour-intensive. The first stage in the process was to allow the fish to rot for 10 days to three weeks depending on the weather. After this, ripened fish were placed in boxes of boiling water and the resulting oil skimmed off the top. This long and arduous process is recorded in Boas (1916:44-45) and is worth repeating in full:

I found each house had a pit near it, about three feet deep and six or eight inches square, filled with the little fish. I found some Indians making boxes to put the grease in, others cutting firewood, and others (women and children) stringing the fish and hanging them up to dry in the sun; while others, and they are the greater number, were making fish grease. The process is as follows: Make a large fire, plant four or five heaps of stones as big as your hand in it; while these are heating fill a few baskets with rather stale fish, and get a tub of water into the house. When the stones are red-hot bring a deep box, about 18 inches square…. near the fire, and put about half a gallon of the fish into it and as much fresh water, then three or four hot stones, using wooden tongs. Repeat the doses again, then stir the whole up…Proceed in this way until the box is nearly full, then let the whole cool, and commence skimming of the grease. While this is cooking, prepare another boxful in the same way. In doing the third, use, instead of fresh water, the liquid from the box. On coming to the refuse of the boiled fish in the box, which is still pretty warm, let it be put into a rough willowbasket; then let an old woman, for the purpose of squeezing the liquid from it, lay it on a wooden grate sufficiently elevated to let a wooden box stand under; then let her lay her naked chest on it and press it with all her weight…

It is unclear how many people might have been required for rendering eulachon oil.

Stewart (1977:151-152), drawing upon two early photographs of eulachon oil processing, illustrates groups of two to four, mainly women, boiling fish and skimming oil. This process might not result in large numbers of eulachon vertebrae being transported back to the winter village site; bones might be destroyed during processing or sink along with sediment to the bottom of baskets. If this were so, I would expect eulachon vertebrae to be found at the Nass sites and not in the harbour village middens. The fact that eulachon vertebrae are found almost exclusively in and around houses could suggest that eulachon and other smelts were likely strung and dried rather than rendered into oil and that strings of eulachon were stored within the house. The small vertebrae from these fish, as well as herring, might fall between bench slabs.

263

Moreover, because these fish are so small, smelt remains may be overlooked or ignored during house cleaning (Hayden and Cannon 1982; Schiffer 1983). Orchard (2007:268) observed a similar distinction between interior house deposits and exterior middens in terms of fish taxa

(including herring) at some Haida Gwaii sites. I tested the correlation between smelt NISP and overall sample size; the results show that, although smelt remains were concentrated in the area in and around house D, the lack of smelt in house A and in the north side midden appears to be a product of small sample size (Sr= .8804; p-value .0206). None of this resolves the question as to whether eulachon fishing was organized by the household or the village, but the restricted distribution of smelt remains within and near house depressions may indicate that these fish could have been processed by small households on their own, or in conjunction with neighbours.

The other major regional resource found at GbTo-77 is salmon, the most abundant in terms of proportion and density of any taxa at this site. This suggests that salmon harvesting would have had considerable influence on many other aspects of household life. Ames and

Maschner (1999:119) contend that there is no good evidence for an open-water salmon fishery on the north coast. According to Boas (1916) and Halpin and Seguin (1990:269), however,

Tsimshians used multiple technologies to exploit salmon in a variety of settings, including trawling in open waters. Trawling would have required nets, lines and stone weights. If these practices existed during the pre-contact period, net-sinkers might be fairly common at coastal archaeological sites. MacDonald (1969:252) contends that net weights are found in Middle

Period artifact assemblages, but none were uncovered at McNichol Creek (Coupland et al.

2000), GbTo-46, GbTo-28 (Coupland et al. 2006) or GbTo-77 (Appendix B). Moreover, the wet-site components at the Lachane and Boardwalk (GbTo-31) sites produced baskets in the hundreds (Croes 1997; MacDonald and Inglis 1976) but, no evidence for netting or hooks

(Inglis 1976:164). This is in marked contrast to wet sites in other areas of the Northwest Coast

264 that produced netting, hooks and stone weights; this suggests that net fishing may not have been common in the harbour during the pre-contact period (Nolan 1977:131-132).

Salmon could also have been fished using leister spears or harpoons particularly in concert with traps and weirs (Stewart 1977:65-77), and it is certainly possible to use projectiles in shallow but open waters as well. There are 18 bone points, awls or punches in the GbTo-77 assemblage and many of these could have formed parts of spears, harpoons, or barbs; these were likely used in sea mammal hunting as well as fishing. The major salmon migration routes bypass Prince Rupert Harbour itself and most salmon head well off-shore after leaving their natal rivers and remain there until spawning (see chapter 3). Without nets, people living at

GbTo-77 would have had to harvest salmon much like other locally available fish that inhabit coastal waters, such as dogfish, greenlings, rockfish and ratfish.

Where, then, was the overwhelming abundance of salmon found at GbTo-77 harvested?

Salmon runs in local harbour streams are small and inconsistent, particularly in comparison with the adjacent Skeena watershed (see chapter 3 for salmon escapement figures); harbour streams are also often limited to a species or two of salmon, whereas all seven species of salmon have significant runs on the Skeena. Historical sources indicate that, on average, each person consumed approximately 250 kg of salmon per year (Campbell and Butler 2010; Haggan et al.

2006:6-7). There is approximately 3 to 4 kg of edible flesh on a single, large salmon (Meengs and Lacky 2005) and as such, each person would have to consume between 50 and 80 salmon per year. It is likely that these numbers were even higher during the pre-contact period, prior to the introduction of European foodstuffs. However, this amount would also vary considerably from person to person and was likely much lower for small children. Even among adults, there would have been room for considerable variability. Newell (1993), for example writes that people on boat brigades during the fur trade consumed as much as 4 kg of salmon per day. At

265 this rate, a single person could consume 250 kg within 2 months. Using the 250 kg per person as a benchmark, how many salmon would the inhabitants of GbTo-77 consume on an annual basis? In chapter 7, I estimated that houses at GbTo-77 would probably have housed 11-15 individuals. If we assume that this consisted of two families or one extended family, it is likely that a minimum of four adults lived within each house. Excluding house A, this suggests that at a minimum there would have been approximately 20 adults living at GbTo-77. This population would have consumed between 1200 and 1680 salmon per year. This is a little less per person than Martindale‟s (2006b:146) estimate of 2737 to 5475 salmon for a household of 30. If we assume that children consume half the quantity of salmon as adults (and this would be a very low estimate given the quantities that older children and adolescents might consume) the inhabitants of GbTo-77 could have harvested between 3297 and 4614 salmon each year. If the salmon represented by the faunal remains at GbTo-77 were fished primarily from local streams, the inhabitants of this site would have needed to harvest salmon from other sources in years when local salmon numbers were low.

The Skeena River salmon populations, however, are, and were, enormous. For this reason, 19th-century Coast Tsimshian groups moved to villages on the Skeena River in the summer and fall to fish salmon. Houses owned specific fishing locations and constructed weirs and traps that were used to capture salmon in conjunction with baskets and nets. Rock traps and weirs identified on the north coast date as early as 3000 BP (Moss and Erlandson 1998; Moss et al. 1990; Simonsen 1973:31-32,78), indicating that this method of harvesting salmon and other fish is potentially very old. Prince (2005) documents wooden fish weirs, some containing baskets traps, dating to the Late Period, along the Kitwanga River, located above Kitselas

Canyon and the Skeena River. However, little other work on weirs and traps has been undertaken in Prince Rupert Harbour and the Skeena watershed. As such, we do not know how

266 old weir fishing is in the Tsimshian area.

There is, in fact, little evidence to indicate that salmon procurement and preservation techniques changed much at all in this area, even with the introduction of larger and presumably more productive households (Coupland 1996). Schalk (1981) and Suttles (1987a) have both shown that a few individuals can harvest salmon relatively easily in large numbers during spawning, but that a large labour pool is needed to process these fish before they spoil.

Ethnographic descriptions of processing on the north coast are limited but, in general, the flesh was scored and hung to dry in smoke houses. Archaeological faunal remains reveal little about how fish were processed in the past. The faunal evidence from GbTo-77, in conjunction with modern escapement data suggest that salmon were likely harvested in very large numbers at fishing camps and probably stored at villages for winter consumption. If similar processing methods were in use 2500 to 2000 years ago, how much salmon could small households effectively process? How critical were salmon for these households, particularly in a relatively productive region such as the harbour? The importance of salmon at this site, as well as possible explanations of when and where they were harvested, are more easily discussed below in the context of other villages sites in the harbour.

The Inter-Village Analysis: GbTo-77 in comparison with other harbour village sites

In this section, I compare the GbTo-77 fauna presented above with assemblages from recent excavations at GbTo-31 (the Boardwalk site), GbTo-28 (Phillip‟s Point), GbTo-46 (Tremayne

Bay), and GcTo-6 (McNichol Creek). The NISP for GbTo-31, GbTo-28 and GbTo-46 were provided by Kathlyn Stewart of the Museum of Nature in Ottawa. The NISP for GcTo-6 was compiled from a number of published and unpublished sources (Coupland 1999, Coupland et al.

2003, 2006). GbTo-31 is a large, complex site consisting of multiple components. I present

267 here faunal remains from area A/C, the back midden area dating approximately 380-45 cal BC, and area B/D, the front, terraced area of the site. Most dates in area B/D cluster between AD cal

880 and 1260; both Areas B and D appear to have had similar depositional histories and have produced evidence for multiple superimposed house floors, although no definitive house depressions were identified (Ames 2005a:72; Coupland et al. 2006). For these reasons, I have combined the faunal remains from these areas. I refer also to the GcTo-6 (McNichol Creek) vertebrate assemblages but, the invertebrate faunal data from this site were not available. GcTo-

6 was in use for a long time, just over 2500 years, but the dates associated with the village occupation cluster between AD cal 200 and 1200.

The five village sites produced a total of 223,648 vertebrate faunal elements (identifiable to class) from a variety of bird, fish and mammals (Table 8-12). In order to facilitate inter-site comparisons, I condensed the taxa in all assemblages into a series of non-overlapping categories

(see Betts and Friesen 2004 and Grayson and Delpech 2002). This produced a total of 46 taxonomic categories that I use for the comparative analysis and these are listed in Tables 8-13,

8-14 and 8-15. As with the GbTo-77 analysis, I did not include domestic dog and small rodent

NISPs in the inter-site analysis; instead, I provide the NISP for these and other very broad classes of taxa separately (these are excluded from the inter-site analysis).

By class, all sites are dominated by fish, specifically salmon, with herring placing a distant second (Table 8-13). The mammal and bird assemblages, however, show considerable variability across sites (Table 8-14 and 8-15). Small mammals, many of which are fur-bearing, are more common at GbTo-28, GcTo-6 and GbTo-31 than at GbTo-77 and GbTo-46; cervids, most of which are deer, are also well represented at these sites. GbTo-77 and GbTo-31contain relatively high proportions of sea mammals, which is in marked contrast to the very low proportions of sea mammals at GbTo-28 and GbTo-46 and GcTo-6 (Figure 8-5). GbTo-77 also

268

Table 8-12. NISP and relative frequencies of fauna by class for all sites. Counts include elements that could not be identified beyond class.

GbTo-31 A/C GbTo-31 B/D GbTo-28 GbTo-46 GbTo-77 GcTo-6

Class NISP %NISP NISP %NISP NISP %NISP NISP %NISP NISP %NISP NISP %NISP

Total mammals 388 3.44% 4278 7.27% 530 0.92% 242 0.87% 762 3.71% 9981 20.75%

Total fish 10823 96.03% 54470 92.55% 56733 99.00% 27427 99.08% 19628 95.61% 37962 78.93%

Total birds 60 0.53% 104 0.18% 42 0.07% 13 0.05% 139 0.68% 156 0.32% Total 11271 100% 58852 100.% 57305 100.% 27682 100% 20529 100.% 48009 100.% NISP

269

Table 8-13. List of major species of fish taxa identified at study sites found in excavated and equal volume faunal samples. Fauna from all sites except GcTo-6 were generated from the assemblages cited in Coupland et al. (2006) and Stewart et al (2003). GcTo-6 NISPs were generated from Coupland et al (1993, 1999) and Stewart et al (2003). Taxon GbTo-31 A/C GbTo-31 B/D GbTo-28 GbTo-46 GbTo-77 GcTo-6

Latin name common name NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % Actinopterygii Eulachon, capelin, Osmeridae 2 0.05% 8 0.04% 27 0.10% 15 0.15% 49 0.49% 0 0.00% smelt Pleuronectiformes Flatfish 96 2.38% 228 1.01% 211 0.81% 21 0.21% 76 0.76% 51 0.81% Gadid sp. Cods 35 0.87% 3 0.01% 9 0.03% 2 0.02% 4 0.04% 1 0.02% Anoplopma fimbria sablefish 0 0.00% 1 0.01% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Hexagrammidae Greenlings 5 0.12% 5 0.02% 10 0.04% 17 0.17% 84 0.84% 4 0.06% Clupea harengus Pacific herring 196 4.69% 422 1.34% 1108 4.24% 291 2.90% 545 5.42% 292 4.91% pallasi Prickleback, Zoarcoidei 0 0.00% 1 0.00% 2 0.01% 14 0.14% 6 0.06% 0 0.00% penpoint gunnel Sebastes sp. Rockfish 1 0.02% 24 0.10% 7 0.03% 6 0.06% 24 0.24% 0 0.00% Oncorhynchus sp. Salmon 3777 91.11% 19135 96.98% 24685 94.51% 9644 95.99% 9066 90.23% 5910 93.56% Cottidae Sculpins, Irish lord 28 0.69% 63 0.32% 46 0.18% 7 0.07% 75 0.75% 23 0.03% Embiotocidae surfperch 1 0.02% 1 0.01% 0 0.00% 1 0.01% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Chondrichthyes Cartilaginous fish Elasmobranchii 1 0.02% 36 % 14 0.05% 29 0.29% 68 0.68% 9 0.14% (mostly dogfish) Hydrolagus Ratfish 0 0.00% 1 0.01% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 51 0.51% 9 0.14% colliei Total identified fish 4142 100% 19928 100% 26119 100% 10047 100% 10048 100% 6317 100%

270

Table 8-14. List of mammalian taxa identified within excavated and equal volume faunal samples from GbTo-77, GbTo-28, GbTo- 46, GbTo-31 (A/C and B/D) and GcTo-6. Fauna from all sites except GcTo-6 were generated from the assemblages cited in Coupland et al. (2006, 2010). GcTo-6 NISPs were generated from Coupland et al. 2003 and 1999). Taxon GbTo-31 A/C GbTo-31 B/D GbTo-28 GbTo-46 GbTo-77 GcTo-6 Common Latin name NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % name Artiodactyls Cervidae Deer, Moose 15 41.67% 327 43.25% 21 50.00% 22 57.89% 42 33.87% 47 58.75% Oreamnos Mountain 0 0.00% 5 0.66% 0 0.00% 1 2.63% 7 5.65% 0 0.00% americanus Goat Mountain Ovis canadensis 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 2.63% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Sheep Carnivora Ursus sp. Bear 0 0.00% 1 0.13% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 2.42% 0 0.00% Lontra canadensis River Otter 0 0.00% 4 0.53% 1 2.38% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.25% Enhydra lutris Sea Otter 1 2.78% 284 37.57% 0 0.00% 1 2.63% 11 8.87% 7 8.75% Tamiasciurus Mink 3 8.33% 1 0.13% 1 2.38% 0 0.00% 1 0.81% 5 6.25% hudsonicus Martes americana Marten 0 0.00% 1 0.13% 1 2.38% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Martes pennanti Fisher 0 0.00% 3 0.40% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.25% Eumetopias Northern Sea 0 0.00% 7 0.93% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 2.42% 0 0.00% jubata Lion Callorhinus Northern Fur ursinus 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.81% 0 0.00% Seal cynocephalus Phoca vitulina Harbour Seal 7 19.44% 76 10.05% 5 11.90% 8 21.05% 37 29.84% 0 0.00% Felis concolor Cougar/Linx 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.81% 1 1.25% Vulpus vulpus Red Fox 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 3.23% 0 0.00% Canis lupus Wolf 1 2.78% 0.00% 1 2.38% 2 5.26% 0 0.00% 1 1.25% Cetacea Cetacea Whale 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 7 5.65% 0 0.00% Rodentia Tamiasciurus Red Squirrel 0 0.00% 5 0.66% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.81% 1 1.25%

271

Taxon GbTo-31 A/C GbTo-31 B/D GbTo-28 GbTo-46 GbTo-77 GcTo-6 Common Latin name NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % name hudsonicus Marmota sp. Marmot 0 0.00% 12 1.59% 2 4.76% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Erethizon Porcupines 5 13.89% 12 1.59% 5 11.90% 1 2.63% 0 0.00% 9 11.25% dorsatum Castor canadensis Beaver 4 11.11% 18 2.38% 5 11.90% 2 5.26% 6 4.84% 7 8.75%

Total identified mammals 36 100% 756 100% 42 100% 38 100% 124 100% 80 100% Unid Sea 2 15 3 1 26 2 Mammals Small 4 9 8 8 13 Rodents Dog and 51 58 142 15 56 0 Canine indet Unid Hoofed 8 59 6 0 0 0 Mammals Unid 1 4 0 0 0 0 Carnivore

272

Table 8-15. List of avian taxa identified within excavated and equal volume faunal samples from GbTo-77, GbTo-28, GbTo-46, GbTo- 31 (A/C and B/D) and GcTo-6. Fauna from all sites except GcTo-6 were generated from the assemblages cited in Coupland et al. (2006, 2010). GcTo-6 NISPs were generated from Coupland et al. 2003 and 1999). Avian taxon GbTo-31 A/C GbTo-31 B/D GbTo-28 GbTo-46 GbTo-77 GcTo-6 Latin name Common name NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % Anseriforms Anatinae Ducks 9 26.47% 23 76.67% 3 10% 0 0.00% 50 65.79% 2 8.70% Brantae, Anser Geese 1 2.94% 8 26.67% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 10 13.16% 1 4.35% Cygnus sp. Swans 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.32% 0 0.00% Charadriiformes Larus sp. Gulls 2 5.88% 7 23.33% 3 10% 2 40% 7 9.21% 5 21.74% Alcidae Alcids 1 2.94% 2 6.67% 0 0.00% 1 20% 0 0.00% 12 52.17% Falconiforms Accipitridae, Falconidae Birds of Prey 0 0.00% 1 3.33% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 2.63% 0 0.00% Galliformes Lagopus sp. Ptarmigan 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 4.35% Gaviiformes Gaviidae Loons 5 14.71% 6 20.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 3.95% 0 0.00% Passeriformes Turdidae Song bird 2 5.88% 2 6.67% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 2.63% 0 0.00% Passeriformes Perching birds 3 8.82% 2 6.67% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Corvidae Crow/Raven 7 20.59% 4 13.33% 1 3.33% 2 40% 0 0.00% 2 8.70% Pelecaniformes Phalacrocoracidae Cormorant 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 6.67% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Piciformes Sphyrapicus sp. Woodpecker 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.32% 0 0.00% Podicipediformes Podicipedidae Grebe 4 11.76% 3 10.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Total identified birds 34 100% 58 100% 9 100% 5 100% 76 100% 23 100%

273

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% land mammals

30% sea mammals Relative Frequency Relative 20% 10% 0% GbTo-31 GbTo-77 GbTo-28 GbTo-46 GbTo-31 GcTo-6 A/C B/D Sites

Figure 8-5. Graph illustrating the relative frequency of sea mammal to land mammal remains for all site components.

contains a handful of elements of larger terrestrial mammals, such as goats, bears and cougars, but the lowest proportion of cervids of any site in this study (33.87% of identified mammals).

GbTo-77 and GbTo-31 contain large proportions of ducks, geese and gulls, but alcids are found only at GcTo-6 and GbTo-31. Alcids, in particular, are good seasonal indicators because they spend most of the year well off-shore and nest on near-shore islands for a brief period of time in the summer (Stewart and Stewart 2001:186).

Diversity

One of the basic means of exploring the degree of variability within economic strategies is to examine the extent to which faunal assemblages reflect specialized or generalized adaptations

(Ames and Maschner 1999:127-128; Reitz and Wing 2008). Although intensification has conventionally been considered the outcome of specialization, it is increasingly understood that

274 both specialization and diversification play a role in the process of intensification (Betts and

Friesen 2004; Morrison 1994). This is relevant to the Northwest Coast, and to the pre-contact period in the harbour in particular, because many archaeologists have argued that salmon intensification was an integral component of social change within the region. Defining intensification has seen considerable debate in anthropological circles (Bender 1978; Boserup

1966; Matson 1983; Morrison 1994), but the most useful construct of intensification for the purposes of this study is drawn from Betts and Friesen (2004). They see intensification as the process by which more resources per capita are extracted from a given unit of land or labour.

Evidence for intensification and variation as well as diversity within the economic strategies adopted by groups living in close proximity has been linked to land tenure, territoriality, ethnicity and complexity (Ames 1985:158-159, 2005b; Bender 1978, 1981; Betts 2005;

Morrison 1994).

Richness and the Simpson‟s Index are useful ways to identify specialized or generalized economic strategies (Betts and Friesen 2004; Grayson and Delpech 2002; Reitz and Wing

1999). As discussed in chapter 2, both strategies can play a role in the intensification process

(Morrison 1994). Richness is the number of taxa in a given assemblage (Betts and Friesen

2004; Reitz and Wing 1999:102-106). The Simpson‟s Index accounts for the number of taxa in a sample, but also factors in the distribution of individual specimens across taxa (Grayson

1984:158-167; Moss 1989). Although this index is generally considered to have greater accuracy than other diversity indices, such as the Shannon index, Simpson‟s Index is heavily dependent on the most abundant species within the sample (Banning 2000; 110-112; Ringrose

1993). In the reciprocal of the Simpson‟s Index, the higher the value the more evenly distributed the individuals are across species. The lower the value of the Simpson Index reciprocal, the more an assemblage is dominated by a single taxon. Zooarchaeologists

275 commonly use assemblages with a minimum of 20 to 30 specimens in diversity analyses (e.g.,

Betts and Friesen 2004; Grayson et al. 2001; Grayson and Delpech 2002) because diversity measures are prone to the effects of sample size; as sample size increases, new species are likely to be added. To mitigate the effects of sampling, I calculated richness and Simpson‟s Diversity

Index Reciprocals only from those assemblages with a minimum of 20 specimens.

The Simpson‟s Diversity Index Reciprocal for all sites in this study are relatively low, ranging from 1.09 to 1.26, and this can be explained by the overwhelming proportion of salmon remains at all sites (See Table 8-16 and Table 8-17 for this section of the analysis). However, there is a very real difference in the number of taxa that compose the assemblages. GbTo-31

B/D and GbTo-77 have the greatest taxonomic richness (37 and 32 taxa respectively), followed by GbTo-31 A/C (26), GcTo-6 (24) GbTo-28 (24) and GbTo-46 (22).

Table 8-16. Spearman‟s Diversity Index Reciprocal for all sites. Sites are arranged approximately in chronological order. Dates from GbTo-31 A/C, GbTo-77, GbTo-28 and GbTo-46 fall mostly within the Late Middle Period. Dates from GcTo-6 and GbTo- 31 B/D fall mostly within the Transitional/Late Period.

Sites Fish Mammals Birds All identified fauna GbTo-31 A/C 1.20 3.98 6.08 1.24 GbTo-77 1.22 4.49 2.25 1.26 GbTo-28 1.12 3.37 n/a 1.12 GbTo-46 1.08 2.58 n/a 1.09 GcTo-6 1.14 2.65 2.96 1.17 GbTo-31 B/D 0.96 2.94 4.70 1.17

276

Table 8-17. Richness for all site components. Sites are arranged approximately in chronological order.

Sites Fish Mammals Birds All identified fauna

GbTo-31 A/C 10 7 9 26 GbTo-77 11 13 8 32 GbTo-28 11 9 n/a 24 GbTo-46 11 8 n/a 22 GcTo-6 8 10 6 24 GbTo-31 B/D 13 14 10 37

To test for the effects of sample size I compared assemblage NISP to the number of taxa per site and the diversity indices using Spearman‟s Rho (sensu Betts and Friesen 2004; Grayson

1984:158-167; Moss 1989). No significant correlation exists between NISP and the Simpson‟s

Reciprocal Index (Sr=-.2899; p-value .5773), or NISP and richness (Sr=.2029; p-value .6997), suggesting that the differences observed in the number of taxa present, as well as the way in which they are distributed, is not related to sample size.

I also explored differences in diversity of specific classes of taxa among sites.

Differences in species richness are more variable within mammalian and avian taxa than within fish. Fish assemblages are relatively homogenous in terms of diversity, with Simpson‟s

Diversity Index Reciprocal measures ranging from 0.96 to 1.22, and this is likely explained by the overwhelming proportion of salmon remains at all sites. Although differences among sites are small in this regard, GbTo-31 (area B/D) has more fish taxa than other sites and GbTo-77 is slightly more diverse. The Simpson‟s Diversity Reciprocal shows no significant correlations with total fish NISP (Sr =-.4286, p-value .3965), but the moderately strong correlation between

NISP and richness (Sr=.7590, p-value=.080), though not significant at the .05 level, suggests that sampling may still influence this measure of diversity.

The most significant variability exists within the mammals. I applied richness and

277 diversity measures to the reduced mammalian sample, which excludes canine indeterminate and small rodents. The richness of the mammalian assemblages is strongly correlated with sample size (1.000; p-value .0000), but the Simpson‟s Reciprocal of each assemblage does not correlate with overall mammal NISP (.0857; p-value .8717). GbTo-46 and GcTo-6 have the least diverse mammalian assemblages and this likely reflects the fact that over half of the assemblage consists of cervids. GbTo-31 B/D also does not appear particularly diverse. GbTo-77 is the richest mammalian assemblage and it also has the highest proportion of sea mammals of any of the sites, followed closely by GbTo-31 B/D. The three remaining sites and the A/C component at

GbTo-31 have relatively low proportions of sea mammals, ranging from almost 11% to just over

25%.

Only GbTo-31 (A/C and B/D), GbTo-77 and GcTo-6 have large enough avian samples to be analyzed by diversity measures. Both diversity indices show a general trend toward decreasing diversity over time with regards to birds, although GbTo-31 B/D does contain a relatively large number of avian taxa in comparison with the other sites. Moreover, GbTo-31

(A/C) is far more diverse than GbTo-77. This may be partly due to the focus on ducks at GbTo-

77. The relatively poor representation of avian remains at GbTo-28 and GbTo-46 is interesting; the faunal assemblage at both sites is larger than that from GbTo-77, but excavations produced very few bird remains.

Equal Volume Samples

Although the overall faunal assemblages (specimens collected in the field during excavation and those collected from column, bulk and auger samples in the lab) showed an overwhelming emphasis on salmon at all sites, the equal volume samples alone highlighted significant variability in the abundance of salmon remains at these villages. As noted above, significant

278 variability also exists within sites, in particular between deposits located in and around house depressions and those that compose the back midden. I sampled a number of contexts at GbTo-

77 using column, bulk and auger sampling methods. The sampling protocols employed at

GbTo-31, GbTo-46 and GbTo-28 were slightly different. Coupland (Coupland et al. 2000;

Stewart et al. 2003) took column and bulk samples from in and around house depressions at

GbTo-28 and GbTo-46 and auger samples from the back midden area at these sites. At GbTo-

31, he focussed column and bulk sampling in area B/D and sampled the back midden using an auger. Moreover, there is no column sample data available for GcTo-6; auger samples were however excavated across the back midden at this site and three samples are present here (from

Stewart et al. 2003). Other than the four auger samples from GbTo-77, column, bulk and auger samples provide data from two distinct site contexts; auger samples provide the only small screen data for back-midden contexts at sites other than GbTo-77, and column and bulk samples provide small screen faunal data from the area in and around house depressions.

Stewart et al. (2003), however, employed different field and lab methods which render their auger samples comparable to column samples from all sites in terms of relative proportions only. Stewart‟s auger samples represent 20 cm of deposit (extracted with a 7 cm diameter auger) rather than a full litre, and were wet screened prior to analysis (Stewart et al. 2003). In the analysis of my equal volume samples, I identified vertebrate fauna in just 25% of the material caught in the 1.4 mm screen, while Stewart identified and quantified all vertebrate fauna in the 1.4 mm screen. Stewart notes that no vertebrate fauna was recovered from the 6.4 mm screens in her auger samples.

The combined data illustrate well the kind of variability that exists within middens

(Stewart et al.2003). In particular, it illuminates the differences between house and back- midden deposits in terms of fish abundance (Table 8-18 and 8-19). Back middens generally

279

Table 8-18. NISP and relative proportions of major fish from combined column and auger samples taken in and around house depressions. Auger and column samples were collected in the same way at each site. This table compares the combined NISPs for the 2.8mm and 1.4 mm screens only. Houses GbTo-77 GbTo-31 (B/D) GbTo-28 GbTo-46 NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % Salmon 27 31.8% 135 95.74% 95 76% 61 70.67% Herring 23 27.1% 3 2.12% 21 16.8% 11 10.67% Smelt 35 41.2% 3 2.12% 9 7.2% 14 18.67% Total 85 100.00% 141 100.00% 125 100.00% 75 100.00%

Table 8-19. NISP and relative proportions of major fish taxa identified in combined column and auger samples taken from back midden contexts. This table compares the combined NISPs for the 2.8mm and 1.4 mm screens only. These column and auger samples were taken from back midden deposits at each site. Back Midden GbTo-77 GbTo-31 (A/C) GbTo-28 GbTo-46 GcTo-6 NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % Salmon 16 59.25% 112 92.51% 200 87.7% 174 94.50% 31 88.89% Herring 7 25.93% 9 7.51% 28 12.3% 15 5.50% 1 11.11% Smelt 4 14.82% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Total 27 100% 121 100% 228 100% 189 100% 32 100%

contain a greater proportion of salmon than house deposits. As most back-midden samples were taken with a bucket auger, the considerable crushing and compaction that occurs during the augering process may have contributed to the low NISP for small fish, such as herring and smelt and the relatively high rates of salmon. Salmon vertebrae are relatively hardy and easily recognizable even in fractured form, while the vertebrae of smaller fish are more likely to be destroyed in the process. It is also possible, however, that there are more salmon in back- midden deposits and smaller fish in and around house depressions because of the way different fish were processed, consumed and their remains discarded. GbTo-31, however, is an exception with respect to the distribution of small fish remains; at this site, salmon proportions are lower in area B/D than in the back midden. As discussed in chapter 6, both Coupland et al. (2000) and

Ames (2005a) interpret layer upon layer of living floors in the area B/D stratigraphy, although

280

there are no formal house depressions in this section of the site. The sample size from the back midden at GbTo-31 is very small (as it is at GcTo-6) and this may account for some of the discrepancy between this site and the others. Alternatively, it may reflect processes that differ from those at other village sites in Prince Rupert Harbour. For example, the living floors observed in area B/D may reflect a different kind of occupation than at sites with surface house depressions.

Looking specifically at my data (in other words, excluding Stewart‟s auger samples), the density of salmon remains varies substantially among sites. Table 8-20 lists the density of salmon, herring and smelt, the three major fish taxa identified within equal volume samples at

GbTo-77, GbTo-28, GbTo-46, and GbTo-31 (B/D only). As with the intra-site comparison at

GbTo-77, I present density in terms of NISP per litre of matrix and NISP in relation to the <1.4 mm fine fraction (sensu Cannon 2000). At most sites, salmon occurs in much higher densities than herring or smelt, but at GbTo-77, the range in the density of fish taxa is much smaller. In fact, GbTo-77 is the only site of the four where the combined density of herring and smelt is greater than salmon. This is in marked contrast to the pattern exhibited at GbTo-31, GbTo-28 and GbTo-46 where the combined herring and smelt are less than half as dense as salmon.

What is most interesting about these results in terms of GbTo-77 is that they illustrate the relative paucity of salmon at this site in comparison with other villages. This is particularly true in light of the strong representation of smelt and herring at GbTo-77. The equal volume samples presented thus far, however, represent more than one context at GbTo-77 and house depression contexts only at the remaining sites. In order to mitigate the effects that site context may have on the results, I present in Table 8-21 the results of equal volume samples from house areas (house depressions and adjacent middens) only. In this comparison, the range in salmon

281

Table 8-20. NISP and density of all major fish taxa identified within all equal volume samples (excluding Stewart et al. 2003). These include back midden and house contexts. NISPs were generated using specimens caught in 6.3 mm, 2.8 mm and 1.4 mm screens. Density is calculated by NISP/litre of matrix and in relation to the fine fraction. NISP Density per litre of matrix Density <1.4mm Total # of volume <1.4 mm Site samples (litres) (litres) Smelt Herring Salmon Smelt Herring Salmon Smelt Herring Salmon

GbTo-77 24 24 4.73 39 30 47 1.63 1.25 1.96 9.94 6.34 8.25

GbTo-31 B/D 18 18 7.68 3 3 135 0.17 0.17 7.5 0.39 0.39 17.59

GbTo-28 6 6 1.83 9 21 95 1.5 3.5 15.83 4.93 11.51 52.05

GbTo-46 10 10 3.78 14 11 61 1.4 1.1 6.1 3.71 2.9 16.16

Table 8-21. NISP and density of major fish taxa identified within equal volume samples associated with house features only. NISPs were generated from 6.3 mm, 28 mm, and 1.4 mm nested screens

NISP Density per litre of matrix Density <1.4mm # of total <1.4 Site samples volume mm Smelt Herring Salmon Smelt Herring Salmon Smelt Herring Salmon GbTo-77 17 17 3.88 35 24 29 2.06 1.41 1.71 9.23 6.19 7.65 GbTo-31 B/D 18 18 7.68 3 3 135 0.17 0.17 7.5 0.39 0.39 17.59 GbTo-28 6 6 1.83 9 21 95 1.5 3.5 15.83 4.93 11.51 52.05 GbTo-46 10 10 3.78 14 11 61 1.4 1.1 6.1 3.71 2.9 16.16

282 density is still very broad; it is still lowest at GbTo-77, moderate at GbTo-46 and GbTo-31

(B/D) and very high at GbTo-28. The range of densities in smelts and herring is much smaller, but in house contexts smelt out-number salmon only at GbTo-77. GbTo-31 stands out in this case, however, as containing a very low density of smelts in both methods of calculating density. The variability in the density of herring is somewhat broader than smelts but nowhere near as wide a range as for salmon.

I used the Kruskal-Wallis One-way ANOVA on ranks (Hintze 2004) to test whether the observed pattern with respect to deposits from in and around houses, is likely representative of genuine differences among sites rather than variability within middens. I tested the variability in all three fish densities in two ways. I first tested the salmon, herring and smelt densities that represent NISP/litre of matrix and then with densities calculated in relation to the <1.4mm fine fraction. The first test showed that the variability in fish densities between sites was statistically significant at the .05 level (Table 8-22). The second group of tests, however, showed that the variability among deposits in terms of salmon densities was strong, but not significant at the .05 level. I also used the Kruskal-Wallis Multiple Comparison Z-value test in order to examine where the variability actually lies. Because this test is only useful where significant variability has been demonstrated at the .05 level (Hintze 2004), I applied it to the density values calculated in relation to the litre of matrix only. These results (Table 8-23) show that for salmon, the

GbTo-77 assemblage is significantly different from all others. For herring and smelts, significant differences exist between GbTo-31 and the other sites in this study. The implications of these results are discussed in chapter 9.

283

Table 8-22: Chi-square values produced from the Kruskal-Wallis One-way ANOVA test. Density A was calculated in relation to one litre matrix. Density B was calculated in relation to the 1.4mm fine fraction. Salmon Herring Smelt

Density A Density B Density A Density B Density A Density B Chi-sqaure 11.49 4.9 12.32 13.08 10.29 12.97 P-value 0.009 0.177 0.006 0.004 0.016 0.005

284

Table 8-23. Results of the Kruskal-Wallis Multiple Comparison Z-value test. The density values used are in relation to the litre matrix. Results are significant if they are greater than 1.96. These values are highlighted in grey.

Salmon GbTo-28 GbTo-31 GbTo-46 GbTo-77 GbTo-28 0 0.263 0.1181 2.2778 GbTo-31 0.263 0 0.1591 2.871 GbTo-46 0.1181 0.1591 0 2.561 GbTo-77 2.2778 2.871 2.561 0 Herring GbTo-28 GbTo-31 GbTo-46 GbTo-77 GbTo-28 0 3.238 1.2938 1.8157 GbTo-31 3.238 0 2.1762 1.964 GbTo-46 1.2938 2.1762 0 0.487 GbTo-77 1.8157 1.964 0.487 0 Smelt GbTo-28 GbTo-31 GbTo-46 GbTo-77 GbTo-28 0 1.723 0.2419 0.2176 GbTo-31 1.7723 0 2.4435 2.7955 GbTo-46 0.2414 2.24435 0 0.0535 GbTo-77 0.2176 2.7955 0.053 0

The Shellfish

The inter-site analysis of shellfish fauna was drawn from column samples at GbTo-46, GbTo-28 and GbTo-31 and from column, auger and bulk samples from GbTo-77. The auger samples taken at the other village sites have not yet been analyzed for their shellfish data and thus are not considered in this analysis.

GbTo-77 has considerably higher density of rock, particularly in relation to residue

(sediments and finely crushed shell) and shell, than the other village sites (Figure 8-6). This indicates that site formation processed at this site differed slightly from the others. The excavated portions of GbTo-31, GbTo-28 and GbTo-46 indicated that houses had been constructed on top of pre-existing shell deposits. It is not surprising, therefore, that deposits from house depressions at these sites contained little gravel. At GbTo-77, house D, and perhaps

285

450.00 400.00 350.00

300.00 Rock 250.00 Shell 200.00 Residue

150.00 Bone Density in grams in Density 100.00 Charcoal 50.00 Flora 0.00 GbTo-77 GbTo-28 GbTo-31 GbTo-46 Sites

Figure 8-6. Bar gar showing the average density of materials within column, bulk, and auger (GbTo-77 only) samples taken from GbTo-77. GbTo-28, GbTo-31 and GcTo-6. depressions B, C, E and F had been built on top of schist gravel and likely before most shell- bearing deposits began accumulating. This may indicate that the house depressions I observed at GbTo-77 represent the first, and perhaps only, houses constructed at this site. GbTo-31 has the highest density of residue and bone, but also has the lowest density of shell. This may relate to the fact that so much of the shell from GbTo-31 is mussel, particularly small mussel; this taxon is friable and easily crushed, thus slipping through the 1.4 mm screen and may explain the high residue density at this site as well. GbTo-28 has the highest density of shell of any site in this study. As only six one-litre column and bulk samples were analyzed from GbTo-28, the difference may reflect sampling.

I grouped shellfish types into non-overlapping categories following the methods used for the GbTo-77 inter-house depression analysis. Clams are ubiquitous, perhaps because butter clams, in particular, are extremely versatile (Quayle 1960; Quayle and Bourne 1972:27). Each shellfish assemblage also consists of different, site-specific shellfish taxa. The list of major 31 invertebrate taxa identified in column samples for GbTo-77, GbTo-46, GbTo-28 and GbTo-

286

(B/D) is presented in Table 8-24. The largest contrast is between GbTo-77, which contains the most barnacle of any site, and GbTo-31. The density of mussel is similar at GbTo-31, GbTo-28 and GbTo-46, and much higher than it is at GbTo-77. The GbTo-31 assemblage differs from the others, however, because of the relative paucity of all other shellfish taxa at this site.

Moreover, GbTo-77 is unique in that it contains virtually no cockle, but relatively high frequencies of marine snail.

I used Principal Components Analysis (PCA) to explore further the variability among sites in terms of shellfish remains (Hintze 2004). PCA is an exploratory technique that summarizes multiple variables as a small number of dimensions or factors. Similarities and differences in samples may be interpreted based on the relative positioning of points on a scatterplot (Shennan 1997:265-303). According to Shennan, PCA is particularly good for continuous data, such as the shellfish mass, that I employ here.

The analysis was run using the average density for each shellfish taxon, except land snail, at each site. I removed land snail from the analysis because these are likely intrusive.

These results produced three factors accounting for a total of 100% of the variance. I refer to the first two in this analysis (Figure 8-7). Component 1 accounts for 43% of the variation within the original nine variables. GbTo-77 plots on the left of the graph and points representing GbTo-46, GbTo-28 and GbTo-31 plot on the right of the graph. GbTo-77 is situated on the rocky, outer shore of Digby Island, along semi-protected shoreline. The shellfish assemblage from this site is dominated by taxa that favour rocky environments and in particular barnacles. Limpets, chitons and marine snails are well represented at GbTo-77 in comparison to the other sites.

287

Table 8-24. Mass and average density of major shellfish taxa identified from equal volume samples at four village study sites. GbTo-77 GbTo-28 GbTo-31 GbTo-46 Shellfish taxon Total Average Total Average Total Average Total Average mass density mass density mass density mass density Molluscs (bivalves) Mussels 361.72 15.73 273.92 45.65 708.66 39.37 465.88 46.59 Clams 1578.72 68.64 712.70 118.78 824.98 45.83 813.28 81.33 Littleneck clam 751.27 32.66 367.53 61.26 268.20 14.90 484.50 48.45 Cockle 40.62 1.77 253.02 42.17 62.24 3.46 127.78 12.78 Molluscs (gastropods) Land Snails 1.30 0.06 2.59 0.43 2.71 0.15 33.84 3.38 Marine Snails 162.79 7.08 14.99 2.50 28.91 1.61 34.61 3.46 Chitons 13.06 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.03 Limpets 4.28 0.19 0.48 0.08 0.00 0.00 2.11 0.21 Crustaceans Barnacles 2419.44 105.19 583.30 97.22 131.26 7.29 547.41 54.74 Echinodermata Sea Urchin 66.66 2.90 6.23 1.04 4.00 0.22 119.99 12.00 Unidentified shell 231.88 10.08 123.40 20.57 263.77 14.65 214.47 21.45 Total weight 5631.74 244.86 2338.16 389.69 2294.73 127.49 2844.18 284.42

288

Figure 8-7. Scatterplot showing sites in relation to PCA component 1 and component 2.

Specific species of limpets and chitons favour different levels of exposure to wave action. The black katy chiton and the ribbed limpet for example, favour exposed coastlines

(Cowles 2005c. Plate limpets, however, favour rocky shores that are protected from strong wave action (Cowles 2005d). Barnacles, most of which are likely thatched barnacles, prefer protected and semi-protected shorelines; even in protected areas, thatched barnacles favour locations where tidal currents are strong. Thatched barnacles also prefer high salinity waters.

GbTo-77 is located along a semi-protected coastline, out of the influence of freshwater, an ideal

289 habitat for thatched barnacles. GbTo-28 and GbTo-31 are located on relatively quiet and sheltered bays along the eastern shore of Digby Island and emphasize taxa that favour this kind of habitat, such as small mussels, clams, cockles and littlenecks. GbTo-46 has access to both an inner and outer coast beach, but because of islands in Tremayne Bay, both shorelines are relatively protected. Moreover, both shorelines at GbTo-46 consist of sandy substrates and the invertebrate samples from GbTo-46 contain a higher density of species that favour such locations. Green sea urchin is particularly well represented at this site; these shellfish, in particular, favour protected coastlines (Ricketts et al. 1985:286). This suggests that Component

1 is influenced by site location.

Component 2 accounts for 38% of the variation within the original nine variables.

Along this axis, GbTo-31 is the most distinct. The factor loadings suggest that this component is influenced by the abundance of specific shellfish types in the assemblages, specifically barnacle, clam and littleneck. Site assemblages that contain relatively high densities of these taxa cluster together along the bottom of the graph. GbTo-31 plots on its own at the top of the graph because it contains very low densities of every invertebrate taxa except mussel. GbTo-31 is particularly well protected from direct oceanic conditions and wave shock because it faces into Dodge Cove, making it ideal for bay mussels (Cowles 2005a; Ricketts et al 1985:98-

100,238). This may account for the abundance of small mussels and the exclusion of other shellfish taxa at this site.

Fragmentation

I calculated total fragmentation ratios for all sites, using the same formula that I used to calculate the GbTo-77 fragmentation ratios. These calculations allowed me to assess differences in the intensity of site use (Figure 8-8). All sites contain deposits ranging from

290 highly fragmented to fairly coarse shell. Shell deposits at GbTo-31 are significantly more fragmented than those at the three other village sites. The fragmentation at GbTo-31, however, is exaggerated because of the abundance of mussel, which fragments easily, and the lack of other, more robust species. I also calculated fragmentation ratios for clam only using the same formula described above. The results of the clam fragmentation ratios show less dramatic variation between sites, but the graph in Figure 8-9 still shows that GbTo- 31 contains the most fragmented shell deposits of all sites. The extent of shell crushing and the relative paucity of clam species at GbTo-31 likely contribute to the perception that GbTo-31 is “undershelled”

(Ames 2005). However, it also suggests that GbTo-31 was very intensively used. This could mean that larger groups of people used this site more frequently than the other sites in this study.

3.5

2.5

1.5

Fragmentation ratio Fragmentation 1

0.5

0 GbTo-77 GbTo-28 GbTo-31 GbTo-46 Sites

Figure 8-8. Graph of fragmentation ratios from four village sites. Low ratios reflect more fragmented deposits.

291

10 ratio 8

4 fragmentation

2 Clam 0 GbTo-77 GbTo-28 GbTo-31 GbTo-46 Sites

Figure 8-9. Clam fragmentation ratios from four village sites referenced within this study.

Summary

In this chapter I have presented the results of the intra-site faunal analysis at GbTo-77 and the inter-site analysis for the five study sites. My interpretations of inter-house variability in faunal remains are limited due to problems associated with small sample sizes. I noted and discussed, however, interesting patterning in the distribution of small fish taxa and invertebrates between back midden and house depression contexts. The inter-site comparison showed that although there are broad similarities in terms of economy, there are subtle differences between them in terms of vertebrate and invertebrate faunal remains. What this might mean in terms of the central questions in this dissertation is discussed in the next chapter.

292

Chapter 9. Synthesis, Discussion and Conclusion

In this chapter, I draw together the evidence presented in preceding sections of my dissertation to address the question of whether the house depressions described in this work are the remains of Houses in the Lévi-Straussian sense. Was the wa’lp, the core of contemporary Tsimshian society (Cove 1987; Roth 2008), the central organizing principle at GbTo-77? Is there evidence for Houses at contemporaneous or more recent sites in Prince Rupert Harbour? If these house depressions are indeed the remains of Houses, what kinds of social relations existed within and between villages? If they are not, can we establish how groups were, in fact, organized in the past?

I proposed in chapter 2 that there are two lines of evidence required to establish the existence of Houses in the archaeological record. First, Houses should provide evidence for continuity in occupation and the transfer of specific locations (i.e., the house itself) across multiple generations. This is best reflected in the continued maintenance and long-term rebuilding of domestic structures. Second, as Houses are by definition groups that own property, we should see evidence for land tenure, that is, ownership of important local and regional resource locations. Faunal data are the most effective means of exploring this aspect of the model. In particular, we should see evidence for variation within economic systems, as well as the intensive exploitation of resources that are abundant and predictable (Betts 2005; Dyson-

Hudson and Smith 1978; Kelly 1995:189-193; Schalk 1981). These complementary lines of evidence should ultimately reflect the ownership and inheritance of property (the domestic structure itself and important resource locations) over the course of multiple generations.

As discussed in chapter 2, I favour a definition of House Societies that considers the role

Houses play in fostering and maintaining social hierarchies. Houses are generally ranked in

293 relation to each other, both within and across communities, and may co-exist with “dwellings,” or non-property-owning household groups (Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995b; Gillespie 2000a;

Lea 1995). In addition to the primary lines of evidence I present above, Houses should occur in conjunction with evidence for pronounced social inequality between households. Social inequality may be apparent on two levels. First, Houses own specific parcels of property that differ from each other in terms of productivity; this may foster inequality between property- owning units. Second, if Houses co-exist with dwellings, Houses may hold higher social ranking or prestige than non-propertied groups.

My interpretation, therefore, begins with a comparison of architectural and faunal data from houses A and D at GbTo-77. Whether or not these house depressions are Houses, I consider why these particular households might have constructed their houses within the same community. I explore also what village-level faunal, stratigraphic, and architectural data might reveal about the households that comprise them and consider what kinds of social and economic relationships may have existed between villages in this area. The village was the basic community on the Northwest Coast during the contact and post-contact period (Ames 2006:27).

There were, however, other important relationships between groups of related Houses that could extend beyond villages (Roth 2008). Villages, or winter towns, were the physical correlate of the Tsimshian tribes, or local groups (see chapter 4). Tsimshian villages were less stable than

Houses and, to quote Miller (1997:19), “functioned in terms of their constituent ranked

[H]ouses.” There are, however, important social, political and economic reasons for households to live in close proximity to others. First, although land tenure was ultimately structured by

Houses, house-based lands were sometimes located within broader tribal-owned territories.

Second, according to Trieu Gahr (2006) Northwest Coast groups could rely on neighbours to assist with tasks such as house building and maintenance. Third, winter village life was an

294 important time for feasts and ceremonies (Garfield 1966; Miller 1997:23). And, fourth, villages were where Houses could best express their rank in relation to others (Ames 2006; Garfield

1966; Miller 1997:19; Vastokas 1966:102).

Interpretation of the Inter-House Depression Results

Architecture

The architectural data from GbTo-77 produced inconclusive evidence for Houses at this site. In house A, I interpreted lot 8 as a living floor, but the structure lacks many of the hallmarks of domestic dwellings (e.g., Coupland et al. 2000, 2003) such as evidence for a hearth, charcoal- stained floor deposits, a bench area and resulting midden, and evidence for a levelled floor toward the front. Moreover, thick deposits of refuse midden were found on top of the original floor and show the area was also used for refuse disposal. Lot 6, on top of refuse midden, may represent a later, but, short-term occupational surface. This suggests that a considerable amount of time may have elapsed between the initial construction phase and the later occupational deposit; it also suggests the builders of house A maintained no sense of entitlement to the structure and its location over this time. Architectural features associated with this house depression were equally scarce; lot 2a along the north wall of the house A depression may relate to wall construction, but might also be a post-occupational pit. Lot 2c along the east wall is the only definite post associated with the house A depression.

There are a number of ways to interpret this: house A may never have been finished, it may have been used intermittently for short periods of time, or it may have served another purpose such as additional storage or processing space. No artifacts or faunal data indicate that house A was a special-purpose structure (see chapter 8). It is important to remember, however, that a 2 m x 1 m area of the house floor was not excavated in house A and it is possible that

295 pertinent information concerning the life history and use of this structure might be revealed through further excavation. Very few sites in the Prince Rupert area have produced structures that might have been used for non-domestic purposes. There is some very limited evidence to suggest that ceremonial, or at least non-domestic, structures were constructed at two very early sites, one in the Dundas Islands and the other at the Paul Mason site (Ames and Maschner

1999:238; Ruggles 2007), but these were constructed well behind the main village. At sites such as GcTo-6, where multiple house depressions were excavated, all structures appear to have served as dwellings (Coupland et al. 2003). In other words, there is currently no evidence from other sites to indicate that the depressions composing the village grid (even those oriented away from the beach front) were anything other than domestic dwellings.

If indeed house A was constructed as a domestic dwelling, its small size, ephemeral construction, paucity of clearly defined house floors, and evidence for periodic abandonment all suggest that this house depression was not a House or wa’lp. There is no evidence for long-term use and reuse of the structure, nor is there evidence for an investment in place that could reflect continuity of ownership and transmission from one generation to the next.

The evidence from house D is more ambiguous. The evidence for repeated repair and at least one reconstruction of house D reflects, at a minimum, reoccupation on a seasonal basis.

Evidence for more than one house floor and post replacements however, suggests that this house may have been in use for a significant period of time, likely decades and may in fact represent more than one generation. In particular, there is evidence to suggest that the south walls may have shifted slightly to the north during a second construction episode. This house feature however, is not dated well enough to elucidate the length of its use. There is some indication that the size of the household inhabiting house D may have changed over time, but no evidence for long-term abandonment of the dwelling throughout the course of its use. This suggests

296 greater stability than house A, but does not provide conclusive evidence for multi-generational transfer of the structure itself. House D therefore, could represent the kind of short-lived House that Ames (2006:26) envisions. For Ames, the history of the Northwest Coast includes an understanding of the lifecycle of households, or Houses. Some Houses persisted for long periods of time, perhaps hundreds, if not thousands, of years (Ames 1996; Grier 2006; Lepofsky et al. 2009). These Houses were successful at maintaining membership through recruitment of new members through adoption, slavery, and reproduction. Other Houses were in existence for only a few generations prior to becoming extinct or absorbed by others; these Houses may be visible archaeologically as short-lived dwellings. His model leaves room for entirely unsuccessful Houses, which he hypothesizes might leave no trace in the archaeological record.

While the stratigraphy and architecture from house D may represent more than one generation, these data do not reveal evidence for the long-term, multi-generational use that is necessary for even short-lived Houses. The evidence from house A shows that structures, even very short- lived ones, can, under the right circumstances, leave fairly robust archaeological signatures. In other words, house depressions, in and of themselves, are not necessarily indications of Houses.

The evidence from house D, however, does raise a number of interesting questions about the extent to which ethnographically derived models of house design may be applied to the ancient past, and the relationship between architecture and certain aspects of social organization.

Some of the architectural features associated with house D appear to suggest that this dwelling may have been walled using the sewing and tying technique (also called “slung” walls), where horizontal wall planks are suspended between pairs of posts. This is different from what is recorded ethnographically and has not been documented archaeologically elsewhere in Prince

Rupert Harbour, although there is some, rather slim, indication that this technique may have been used at the Paul Mason site.

297

The sewing and tying method was used during the post-contact period in all areas across the Northwest Coast. As discussed in chapter 7, Coast Salish and Nuu-chah-nulth groups constructed exterior house walls in this way because the planks are easily removed (Marshall

2000; Suttles 1991; Vastokas 1966:22, 58, 62). Coast Salish houses were much larger than those on the north coast and generally emphasized individuals and their families over the extended kin group represented by the House. In this context, easily movable walls are part of a suite of architectural features that reflect flexible rules of residence and kinship, as well as mobility of individual family groups. Tlingit groups also used this method, on occasion, to construct temporary interior screens and Tsimshian groups may have used this method in small temporary structures at fish camps. In these instances, easy dismantling of walls seems related less to social organization than it did to the fact that these were temporary features. Mortised walls could be and were often dismantled on a seasonal basis as well, but Suttles (1991:219-

220) argues that this process would have been decidedly more difficult. Northern groups might take some house planks with them on their seasonal moves “…but probably not those fitted into the frame of the winter house” (Suttles 1991:219).

It is difficult to say what this kind of evidence for slung walls might reveal about the inhabitants of house D at GbTo-77 and about the history of dwellings in Prince Rupert Harbour.

Easy dismantling of house walls might be important among small households with limited access to labour and building materials (Ames and Maschner 1999:152). Tsimshian houses had potentially two to three times the number of inhabitants of house D (Ames 1996:139; Trieu

Gahr 2006:68). Moreover, house building could take anywhere from a few days to years depending on the number of people that could be called upon to assist in the construction process (Trieu Gahr: 65-66). The large houses with mortised walls that define the Tsimshian architecture of the 19th and 20th centuries were costly and labour intensive to construct (Niblack

298

1970:306), even with metal tools. Hundreds of hours of labour were required to build these structures and House members worked together to accumulate the wealth necessary to both acquire raw materials, reward labourers and to potlatch in honour of the occasion. For example, ethnographic records concerning the neighbouring Tlingit indicate that it could take the efforts of 30 people an entire winter to acquire the planks sufficient for building very large dwellings

(Olson 1967). Among contact and post-contact Tsimshians, the construction of large houses was a direct reflection of the owner‟s wealth and status. To quote Drucker (1965:120),

The winter houses were the Tsimshians‟ principal homes, which the people worked most of the year to fill with food and valuables so they might spend the winter in feasts and festivities. These houses were symbols of the people‟s wealth. Only a prosperous family group was considered capable of building such a structure, and in a sense this was true. Primitive methods of logging and lumbering required numerous man-days of labour in the preparation of timbers and planking; consequently surpluses of food had to be prepared to maintain the labour force while they performed this work. In addition, both foods and treasure had to be accumulated to “pay” other groups to perform certain tasks (carving, painting, and setting up the house), and for the festivities deemed necessary on completion of the structure.

Help from neighbours was essential to the construction of these dwellings because the labour demands of large houses would have been beyond the capabilities of their members. Big

Houses not only had more members to assist with house building, but those that were constructed in large villages may have been able to rely on more neighbours for construction and maintenance simply by virtue of their proximity to greater numbers of people (Trieu Gahr

2006:67). As such, the role of the community is pertinent to understanding house construction

(Trieu Gahr 2006).

If access to labour is key to the construction of large dwellings, or Houses, those able to call upon large labour pools may also have been able to construct completed houses in multiple locations. Swan (1964:6) reports that among the Nuu-chah-nulth, only those who did not have sufficient lumber dismantled their dwellings on a seasonal basis. Those who could afford it,

299 kept complete structures at both summer and winter villages. Among the Tsimshian, Miller

(1997:21-22) notes that “each house owned fishing sites occupied by standing structures or by house frames walled over during the fishing season” (emphasis mine). The point of this is to illustrate the importance of access to labour and building supplies in house construction. It also suggests that mortised walls may indeed reflect a reluctance to dismantle house walls easily.

Small households in small villages such as GbTo-77 may have built their houses with easily movable walls because they lacked the labour, and by extension building materials, required to construct complete dwellings at multiple sites. The households, or Houses, that developed later in the Prince Rupert Harbour area may have been able to mobilize the labour required not only for constructing big houses (see Ames 1996; Blackman 1972; Coupland 1996;

Trieu Gahr 2006) but also to build houses at multiple locations. Mortised walls could also provide greater insulation from the northern winter climate (Vastokas 1966:82,85) so that, in this environment, mortised walls are part of well-built houses. It is worth noting that, to the best of my knowledge, 19th-century Tsimshian houses are not illustrated with shell ridges between structures. While it is true that shellfishing declined in importance over the course of the post- contact period (Moss 1993; Norton 1985:84), shellfish remains may not have been required for insulating houses constructed with tightly fitted planks. Stein (2000:65-72) has made the same observation of contact and post-contact period Coast Salish houses.

Part of the problem of interpreting the significance of architectural features in the past is that the pool of data is so small for this region. Structure types might relate to social ranking, the skill of individual builders, building function, season of occupation or individual preference.

If mortised and slung walls existed at the same time in the past, then we might be able to discuss with greater assurance how architectural styles could reflect social rank. Social ranking might be most readily expressed at winter villages, as it was during the contact period (Ames 2006;

300

Garfield 1966; Miller 1997:19; Vastokas 1966:102). Although Lévi-Strauss did not discuss the role of architecture in Houses, many scholars have since noted that among contemporary House

Societies, social rank is expressed through a variety of architectural features, including dwelling size, internal differentiation of space, elaboration of the external façade, and a strong sense of permanence in building (Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995a; Hugh-Jones 1995; Lea 1995). In many ways, these researchers are drawing upon some of the more prominent ideas about status and the built environment (Blanton 1994; Cunningham 1964; Hillier and Hanson 1984; Hodder

1990). As Carsten and Hugh-Jones (1995b:37) contend, large, well-built, elaborately decorated domestic structures “are all vividly permanent constructions, quintessential [H]ouses which dominate and transform the landscape and stand in contrast to the more ephemeral structures in which ordinary people live out their lives.” In other words, Houses (propertied groups) may coexist with dwellings (non-propertied groups). If excavations at other house depressions in the harbour produced good evidence for long-term occupation and transmission, as well as elaboration and complexity of design, perhaps including mortised walls, we might be able to infer that the house D evidence reflects low social ranking, or the buildings of ordinary people.

If, however, further excavation of house depressions reveals evidence only for slung walls, then it is possible that sewing and tying predates mortised walls in this area. The fact that there may be evidence for this kind of wall construction at the Paul Mason site in the interior might give credence to this line of reasoning, but more examples would be necessary before we could establish the chronology of house construction for this area.

Fauna

At first glance, there are broad similarities in the faunal remains from house D and house A at

GbTo-77. At the very minimum, both houses harvested the same kinds of local and regional

301 resources. This alone has provided tangible evidence to suggest that small households exploited regions beyond their local catchment more than 2000 years ago. Most of the taxa represented within the house A and house D assemblages are available within the harbour and most local resources, including most shellfish, sea mammals, marine fish and deer, could have been harvested within the immediate vicinity of the site. With respect to shellfish, barnacle species

(including thatched barnacles) were the most abundant taxa represented at the site, followed by unidentified clams (mostly butter clams) and littleneck clams. All three shellfish taxa could have been harvested along the shorelines in front of GbTo-77. A handful of shell fragments may represent shellfish taxa that tend to favour more exposed shorelines, such as California mussel, ribbed limpets and black katy chitons. I also uncovered three California mussel chisels

(two from the south side midden and one from the back midden deposits adjacent to house A) from GbTo-77. Limpets and chitons might appear in more diverse ecological conditions than expected from the biological literature. Alternatively, the presence of shellfish species that favour exposed coastlines, including the California mussel chisels, suggests that the inhabitants of GbTo-77 travelled on occasion well beyond the harbour, perhaps for a variety of reasons, such as resource procurement, trade, social gatherings or warfare. This is not surprising, given the strong evidence for travel to the Nass River and Skeena River. The closest exposed coastlines to GbTo-77 are likely the western coast of Dundas Island and Stephens Island. These

“imported” goods may also have come to the harbour area through trade. Further evidence for trade, or travel, beyond the Prince Rupert area is a single bead made of an unknown material, found within house D (Appendix C); it is very similar in appearance to “amber” beads found in burial contexts at GcTo-31 (Ames 2005) and in Haida Gwaii (Orchard 2006:527). Even small households, therefore, participated to some degree in wider trade networks.

The vertebrate faunal remains reveal that the most abundant vertebrate taxa at GbTo-77

302 in terms of density are salmon and smelt. This is true not only for the site as a whole, but also for both house depression assemblages. Salmons are available in small streams in the harbour, but would have been available in much greater numbers at the Skeena watershed (see below).

Smelts, almost half of which are eulachon, can only be fished in large quantities on the north coast at the Nass River. These factors indicate that people living at GbTo-77 could have harvested many local resources from the village site itself, but that in order to procure the most important vertebrate species (salmon and eulachon) in abundance, groups would have had to leave the harbour and set up residence at the Nass and at Skeena tributaries on an annual basis.

Such moves likely involved the entire household. I estimated in chapter 7 that these house depressions likely represent small households of 11-15 people. If these are composed of two small families and some additional adult relatives, then most, or all, household members may have been required to harvest and process salmon and eulachon in abundance.

As my model is premised on the notion that Houses should exhibit some evidence for ownership of specific locations and their resources, the potential variability between house depression assemblages is of primary interest here. The most notable differences between house

A and house D were in the proportion of sea mammal remains that were largely confined to the deposits in and around house D, and in the density of smelt that was also greater in house D.

Any interpretation of this data however, is hampered by significant problems with sampling. As noted in chapter 8, the single house A sample came from lot 8, the living floor, while the house

D samples came from multiple in-house contexts. As such, it is not possible to assess whether the observed differences between the two house assemblages provide genuine insight into household organization, or whether they reflect sampling.

In sum, the faunal and architectural data from GbTo-77 provide no conclusive evidence for the existence of Houses at this site. The house D stratigraphic and architectural data are

303 intriguing, but fall short of demonstrating that this house depression in fact represents a House, even a short-lived one. Most important, it lacks the evidence for long-term (i.e. multi- generational) continuity in its occupation, repair and rebuilding. Similarly, the faunal data does not show statistically meaningful differences in the assemblages that would demonstrate exploitation of different resource patches.

I observed, however, interesting patterning in the distribution of small fish and barnacles at GbTo-77 that may reveal how households processed, consumed and disposed of specific taxa.

Small fish (specifically herring and smelt) occurred more frequently in and around house depressions than in back middens. As I discussed in chapter 8, this may reflect processing and storage practices or simply the fact that small fish bones are more easily lost within houses than larger bones. Similar practices may be reflected in the distribution of shellfish types. Barnacles are well represented in back midden contexts, but are relatively infrequent in deposits from in and around house depressions. This suggests that greater care was taken in the disposal of barnacle shells than other shellfish. Back midden deposits dominated by barnacle species also tend to contain relatively little gravel, perhaps reflecting the use of mats or baskets during the processing, consumption and disposal of barnacles.

Inter-House Comparisons at Other Sites

House depressions were excavated at three of the four other sites in this study. Unfortunately, only a single depression was excavated at GbTo-46 and GbTo-28 and as such, an inter-house depression comparison is not possible at either of these sites. The stratigraphic and radiocarbon evidence for house F at GbTo-28 might reflect the transfer of the house itself across multiple generations but, only in conjunction with other lines of evidence, including inter-household variability in economic systems. GcTo-6, however, provides the most thorough evidence for

304

Houses of any site in this study. Multiple house depressions were excavated at this site, some of which appear to have been inhabited for hundreds of years; dates for house O, for example, are as early as AD cal 215-555 and as late as AD cal 1045-1290 (95% confidence interval).

Moreover, there appears to be no stratigraphic evidence for a hiatus in occupation throughout this time period. Although salmon dominates the assemblages that were excavated from all house depressions at GcTo-6, sea mammals were found only in deposits in and around house O.

As noted in chapter 6, house O is also the largest house depression at this site and produced substantial evidence that this structure served as an elite residence. Most notably, this house is the largest within the village and it is the only feature to produce evidence for differential use of the interior space. In this case, the concentration of sea mammal remains could suggest that the inhabitants of house O owned these resources and controlled access to them (Coupland et al.

2003). This is precisely the kind of evidence, architectural, settlement and faunal, that we would expect to find associated with the remains of Houses.

Interpretation of Inter-Site Comparisons

Groups inhabiting the study sites may have practiced some form of ownership over local and regional resources at the village or site level. Equating sites with meaningful social units has been justifiably critiqued (Blair 2004; Canuto and Yaeger 2000). Yet, there are a number of characteristics of at least four of the five village sites in this study that suggest the arrangement of house depressions we understand as a village likely reflect genuine social relations in the past. House depressions are often organized in rows or clusters that suggest house inhabitants considered their relationship to others. Moreover, from the surface, most house depressions reflect dwellings that were abandoned close to the same time because none of them appear to have been filled in with refuse. This point should be taken with caution, as the house A

305 stratigraphy suggests that evidence for refuse can be found during excavation. Even at GbTo-77 however, augers taken within the main row of house depressions suggest that these dwellings remained clear of refuse throughout the use of the site. The midden itself indicates that some degree of village level organization of labour and settlement must have permeated social relations at all sites. Like most shell midden sites in the harbour and elsewhere on the

Northwest Coast, the edges of these middens are steeply sloped and well formed. Shell middens were also cemeteries that likely contain the remains of those who lived in the village (Ames

2005). GbTo-31 is unique however, because there are no surface house depressions in the terraced front area (B/D), despite stratigraphic evidence for house floors below the surface.

There are other indicators that this site is different from other villages in this study.

The results of the inter-village comparison of faunal assemblages suggests that the ancient inhabitants of Prince Rupert Harbour adopted at least two, and possibly three, economic strategies that are visible at the level of the village. These strategies can be characterized by more or less evidence for salmon specialization and the apparently concomitant shifts in the approach to local resources. The first, represented by GbTo-77, is a relatively diverse economy that emphasizes three major fish taxa, salmon, smelt, and herring. There is also a relatively high proportion of sea mammals and broad spectrum of local resources represented in this site‟s assemblage. The second economic strategy is represented by GbTo-46, GbTo-28, GbTo-31

(B/D and A/C) and GcTo-6. These sites show more emphasis on salmon, because the density of salmon at these sites is much higher than at GbTo-77, particularly in relation to other fish.

These sites are generally less diverse in terms of mammals, other fish and birds, although GbTo-

31 A/C is almost as diverse in terms of mammals as GbTo-77 and the most diverse in terms of birds.

306

Sites exhibiting evidence for more intensive salmon specialization can be further divided based on period of occupation; radiocarbon dates from GbTo-28, GbTo-46 and GbTo-31 A/C suggest that these sites may be contemporaneous with GbTo-77 and were inhabited at some point between approximately 400 cal BC and AD cal 200. Dates from GbTo-46 suggest that this site (in particular house J) may have been inhabited within the same period as those listed above. GbTo-46, however, also produced dates with age ranges as late as AD cal 400, suggesting that this site may have been inhabited after the main occupations at GbTo-77, GbTo-

28 and GbTo-31 A/C. As discussed, GbTo-28 also produced later dates, but the faunal material presented here is from contexts that probably date somewhere between 400 cal BC and AD cal

GcTo-6 has dates that overlap with the GbTo-77, GbTo-28, GbTo-46 and GbTo-31 A/C but, most dates fall later than AD cal 200 (at the 95% confidence interval). Four of these dates are well within the Late Period and an additional eight could date to the Late Middle/Early Late

Period transition. In other words, the most intensive period of occupation at GcTo-6 likely post- dates the early group of sites exhibiting specialized salmon economies. GbTo-31 B/D also has one early date, but most of the dates fall well within the Late Period. In sum, the faunal samples that appear to represent a more salmon-focussed economy fall into two loosely-defined chronological groups. Group one consists of sites with dates that mostly fall prior to AD cal

200 and includes GbTo-28, GbTo-46, and GbTo-31 A/C. These sites were probably inhabited within the same 600 year period as GbTo-77. I refer to this group as the Late Middle Period sites. Dates associated with group two fall mostly after AD cal 200 and consist of GbTo-31 B/D and GcTo-6. Although GcTo-6 in particular has dates in the Late Middle Period, I refer to this group as the Transitional/Late Period sites because most of the dates from these sites are either well within the Late Period, or may fall within the Early Late Period at the 2-sigma age range.

307

These later components differ slightly from GbTo-28, GbTo-46 and GbTo-31 A/C because they are taxonomically richer in terms of mammals and birds and because they contain specific bird taxa that may indicate some degree of summer occupation (Stewart and Stewart 2001:186). If salmon were fished largely from the Skeena watershed over the course of the spring, summer and fall, then the presence of summer bird remains in these faunal assemblages suggests either that groups travelled to and from the harbour frequently over the course of the year, or that some people remained at harbour sites while others carried out other tasks (specifically salmon fishing) elsewhere.

In other words, these house groups needed to undertake more than one domestic task at the same time. Managing multiple tasks in this way, or “task simultaneity” (Wilk and Rathje

1982:621), is considered to be a significant motivator behind the development of big houses

(Coupland and Banning 1996a:2) and Northwest Coast Houses are no exception (Ames 1996,

2006; Ames and Maschner 1999). Not only are larger Houses able to take advantage of

“diverse or scattered economic opportunities” (Wilk and Rathje 1982), they are also able to more effectively maintain control of important resource locations and to engage in broader networks that extend beyond the harbour. These data alone cannot prove that the organization of these tasks was at the household and not the community level. Yet, in conjunction with the evidence at GcTo-6 for household-based resource harvesting, perhaps reflecting ownership of resources, evidence for task simultaneity may support the argument that the house depressions at this site were, in fact, Houses.

The faunal data from all village sites is ambiguous with regards to site seasonality. The abundance of salmon at all sites has been interpreted as evidence for stored salmon and winter occupation. Yet, many salmon species are available within the harbour throughout the year, particularly cutthroats, steelheads and fall-run chinooks. While I do not contend that all salmon

308 remains at these villages represent locally harvested salmon, some could have been harvested locally and consumed fresh. The enormous abundance of salmon at the Skeena River, however, was undoubtedly considered and used by groups in the harbour (see below). Shellfish are also abundant at all village sites. While shellfish could be harvested throughout the year, people likely considered the risks of paralytic shellfish poisoning (psp) as well as the benefits of daylight low tides, both of which occur during the summer months. It is worth reiterating, however, that Gonyyaulax, the algae that causes psp does not necessarily occur in the same location each year. Moreover, we cannot be sure that Gonyyaulax was as prevalent in the past as it is today (see Cannon 1998), or that pre-contact groups did not process shellfish to mitigate the effects of psp, as some groups did during the contact period (Batdorf 1990:53).

What the faunal remains do suggest is that people living in the harbour during the Late

Middle Period may have practiced some form of control over local and regional resources at the village level. Ownership and exclusive control of specific locations on the landscape is a strategy that is often, although not always, adopted by hunter-gatherers under conditions where resources are abundant and predictable, such as anadromous fish (Dyson-Hudson and Smith

1978; Kim 2006; Schalk 1977; Thom 2005:30). Many resources available in the harbour are also abundant and predictable; this is particularly true with regards to most shellfish and herring.

As noted by a number of Tsimshian scholars (Beynon and Barbeau 1953 [in Marsden

2002:140]; Martindale 1999:49, 67; Nolan 1977:317), the harbour was coveted as a place to live, especially during winter months, because of its mild climate and abundant local resources, including kelp forests and productive shellfish beds. Kelp forests that provide an ideal habitat for herring are also important ecological niches for many kinds of sea mammals, in particular sea otters (Ames 2005a:280-281; Ames and Maschner 1999). Moreover, the intertidal zones in front of many village sites within the harbour appear to have been cleared, a factor that suggests

309 to MacDonald (2006:23) that important shellfish-gathering locations were owned in the distant past, just as they were through the contact and post-contact period (Drucker 1965:49-50). The beaches in the vicinity of GbTo-77 (directly within the bay) are broad and clear of obstructions, but have not been investigated with the question of “cleared beaches” in mind.

Differences in proportions of sea mammals to land mammals, as well as among shellfish taxa, suggest that inhabitants of each village site in the study were extracting local resources primarily from the area in and around where they lived. Despite how close villages such as

GbTo-46 and GbTo-28 are in relation to each other, the shellfish assemblages from these sites are quite different from each other, which may indicate a highly localized foraging radius in terms of the invertebrate resources represented within each site. GbTo-77 is dominated by barnacle species (mostly thatched barnacles), which grow well on the rocky foreshore in front of the site, while GbTo-28, GbTo-46 and GbTo-31 are dominated by shellfish taxa that favour sand or gravel substrates. The presence of semi-permanent villages likely dissuaded outsiders from using resources in another village‟s territory. In other words, travel and access to specific locations might have been restricted to some degree by the presence of neighbouring villages.

As discussed in chapter 8, I assume that the local fauna represented in these site assemblages results from activities undertaken from the residential base. This is because there is some indication that the predominant shellfish types represented in shell midden sites in

Prince Rupert Harbour were likely processed where they were collected (Banahan and Patton

2008). Moreover, Case (1999) has shown that most deer elements are represented in the GcTo-

6 faunal assemblage, suggesting that whole deer carcasses were brought back to the village, rather than being processed at camp sites. As such, my understanding of village faunal assemblages is that they are palimpsests, each representing generations of activities that may have occurred within the immediate vicinity of the village, enmeshed with those that represent

310 the exploitation of specific regional resources. It is clear, however, that we need to understand the role of smaller sites, such as camps, in order to fully grasp the economic strategies adopted by people living in the harbour at this time.

The second possible indication of ownership is in regards to resources that would have been available outside the harbour. The variability in salmon remains, particularly in comparison with other fish, suggests that productive salmon-fishing locations were not equally distributed among coastal village estates. Salmon is less abundant at GbTo-77 than at the other village sites in this study in terms of density and relative proportions. Moreover, the total

GbTo-77 assemblage reflects a more generalized economic strategy than the other Late Middle

Period sites. These differences in conjunction with an emphasis on resources such as salmon that are abundant and predictable, seasonally and spatially restricted, may indicate that groups held specific areas as owned territories, and that access to these locations was not open to all

(Betts 2005; Donald and Mitchell 1975; Dyson-Hudson and Smith 1978; Kelly 1995:189-193;

Kim 2002; Schalk 1981; Smith 1991). This is similar to Eerken‟s (2004) understanding of changing ownership practices in the Great Basin of western North America. In this case, all household remains produced high densities of piñion seeds, but he interprets a marked increase in some households, in conjunction with increasing densities of pot shards, as evidence for a rapid development of household ownership of particular piñion trees. Similarly, all villages in this study specialized in salmon production to a degree, but some focussed on salmon at the expense of other resources.

I argued in chapter 8 that some of the salmon represented within the GbTo-77 assemblage could have been harvested from a number of smaller salmon streams within the harbour, or from coastal waters throughout the year. Indigenous groups, such as the Tsimshian, fished salmon from multiple streams and rivers to ensure that specific salmon streams were not

311 over fished (Haggan et al. 2006; Menzies and Butler 2007; Prince 2005:70). The aboriginal salmon fishery all over the Northwest Coast was likely as large as the modern commercial fishery (Campbell and Butler 2010; Haggan et al. 2006; Meeges and Lacky 2005; Menzies and

Butler 2007), but it is not clear how large the salmon fishery was thousands of years ago. The archaeological record provides little evidence for substantial changes in salmon-fishing techniques over the course of millennia. Admittedly, nets and lines preserve poorly in most archaeological contexts. Netsinkers, while seemingly absent from most sites in this study, might also be lost during use. Unfortunately, these are precisely the kinds of data that might reflect alternatives to weir fishing. It is difficult to judge the size of the pre-contact salmon fishery in the Prince Rupert area, but, recent work by Coupland et al. (2010) demonstrates that salmon specialization was more pronounced in Prince Rupert Harbour than anywhere else on the Northwest Coast between 400 cal BC and AD cal 1000.

Over 90% of all fish remains, in the excavated samples from all five sites, is salmon.

This indicates that salmon was an important resource as early as 2400 years ago (Coupland et al.

2010). If pre-contact groups managed productive salmon fishing locations similar to contact period groups, the inhabitants of the villages in this study may have harvested salmons at a number of locations, including at local harbour streams and at the Skeena watershed. Assuming a minimum of 11-15 people per house (many house depressions likely represent larger households at these sites), the inhabitants of GbTo-46 and GbTo-28 would have consumed annually between 9000 and 12000 and between 5800 and 8100 salmon respectively; the inhabitants of all three Late Middle Period villages could have consumed as much as 18000 and

25000 salmon on an annual basis. Moreover, there are at least 18 other village sites in the harbour that were inhabited at some point between 400 cal BC-AD cal 200 (Archer 1992: Figure

1). While we cannot say that these villages were inhabited at precisely the same time, they

312 appear to represent an increase in the number of village sites founded within the harbour.

Martindale and Marsden (2003) contend that this reflects an increase in population after 2500 years ago. If this was the case, increasing populations might foster ownership of particular resource locations, including locations of the Skeena watershed. If the people who lived at these sites were anything like their ethnographic counterparts, management of salmon resources was a key component to maintaining a successful economy, which included harvesting salmon from a variety of locations (Haggan et al. 2006; Menzies and Bulter 2007; Prince 2005:70).

To reiterate, the faunal remains from the five village sites I present in this study suggest that people may have adopted different economic strategies rooted in village affiliation and that these strategies may indicate that groups exercised some degree of control over locally available resources and salmon. Ranges in the density of smelt across the same five villages, however, suggest that people had very different ideas about access to this resource. This is not uncommon, as hunter-gatherers, even those who control access to some resources, can adopt a communal or common lands approach to others (Dyson-Hudson and Smith 1978; Eerkens 1999;

Kim 2006; Smith 1991:246). The variability in the density of smelt is much less variable across all sites than salmon; what is most interesting however is that the densities of smelt at GbTo-77,

GbTo-28 and GbTo-46 are very similar, despite exhibiting significant differences in the abundance of salmon remains. As I have established, most of these smelt remains are likely eulachon and this suggests that members of all three Late Middle Period villages traveled to the

Nass River for the capture of these important fish. Eulachon spawn in only a handful of specific locations up and down the Northwest Coast, and the Nass River is one of the most important locations. The fact that eulachon gather in incredible numbers at the mouth of the Nass River for up to 6 weeks prior to spawning, in conjunction with methods of capture from boats using rakes and nets may have provided all groups with sufficient access (Mitchell and Donald 2001).

313

In other words, no one location on the Nass was more productive than any other. As a result, control of owned locations was simply not necessary.

The density of smelt at the Transitional/Late Period sites is considerably different from the Late Middle Period sites. GcTo-6 produced no smelt at all and the density of these remains at GbTo-31 B/D is very low. A numbers of factors might account for the contrast between Late

Middle Period and Transitional/Late Period sites in terms of this resource. First, sampling may be contributing to the lack of smelt at GcTo-6. As discussed, smelt, which were absent in excavated samples, are much better represented in equal volume samples that are screened and sorted using fine mesh and this likely explains the lack of these small fish from the excavated assemblages. Second, smelt are also more abundant in and around houses than in back middens.

As all three auger samples from GcTo-6 were taken from the back midden, the lack of smelt in this context is not surprising. As discussed in chapter 8, smelt and herring remains may be more easily lost within house floor and bench midden deposits; because their bones are small, herring and smelt are also less likely to be removed with larger refuse. House floor and bench midden deposits are more likely to become mixed with side middens during house repair and rebuilding episodes, which would explain the prevalence of these small fish in side midden contexts as well as house deposits. The paucity of smelt and herring in the GcTo-6 back midden auger samples may simply reflect differences in disposal practices between houses and back middens.

This site was, however, excavated at an enormous scale. As such, the lack of any smelts at

GcTo-6 is surprising, given that smelt remains were found in small numbers at all other sites in this study.

The paucity of smelt and herring in the equal volume samples from GbTo-31 B/D is less easily understood. In terms of relative proportion, herring is the second most common taxa in the excavated faunal samples from both Area A/C and B/D, but smelt is poorly represented in

314 both contexts and in both excavated and equal volume samples. The topography and stratigraphy of area B/D, in addition to its highly fragmented shell deposits, suggest heavy use associated with living areas; based on the distribution of small fish at GbTo-77, GbTo-28 and

GbTo-46, we might expect that herring and smelt should be better represented in Area B/D.

GbTo-31, however, is very different from the other village sites in this study. There are no surface house depressions in Area B/D, and this suggests that settlement at this site may have been very different from other villages in terms of frequency, intensity and size.

If we are to understand the lack of smelt in the Transitional/Late Period sites, these factors must be kept in mind. However, the low density of smelt could also indicate that changes occurred with respect to how the inhabitants of coastal villages used the Nass River area. In particular, it might suggest that people living in Prince Rupert Harbour had little or no direct access to this region and subsequently to eulachon. Martindale and Marsden (2003; see also Marsden 2000) have identified the period between 2000 and 1500 BP as one of heightened warfare that, according to the adawx, include a period when Tsimshian groups in the harbour lost control of the Nass River. In fact, even after the Tsimshian reestablished themselves in the harbour, they had yet to reassert themselves at the Nass (Marsden 2000:30). The dates for these sites are slightly later, but may reflect the same kind of process. Marsden (2000:33) admits that

“[t]he successful defense of the mouth of the Skeena and the Nass rivers by the Tsimshian began a period of readjustment in which the nature of Tsimshain society underwent dramatic change. Although often summarized in a sentence of two, the process almost certainly took place over decades, if not centuries.”

An alternative interpretation is that the paucity of smelt (and in particular eulachon) in

Transitional/Late Period sites reflects a shift in how these fish were processed for storage. In the 19th and 20th centuries, all Tsimshian had access to the eulachon fishing grounds at the Nass

315

River. The presence of smelt remains at all sites, even in very small numbers, suggests that groups living in the harbour likely traveled to the Nass River each spring, just as the Coast

Tsimshian did in the 19th and early 20th centuries. This annual migration could have been orchestrated by the household or by the village as a whole. The abundance of smelt and herring vertebrae in and around houses at Late Middle Period sites in contrast to the back midden suggests that fish may have been strung and dried, and then stored inside the house (see chapter

8). The fact that later dated sites contain very low densities of smelt, and to a lesser degree herring, could mean that groups were rendering eulachon, and perhaps herring, for their oil by this point in time, rather than stringing or drying them. If this process was undertaken at the

Nass in the case of eulachon, and away from the main living area for herring, then the vertebrae of these fish would likely not be found in and around house depressions or in the back midden.

MacDonald (2006:27-28) argues that oil rendering required a large body of labour, which might have been available within larger households. The lack of smelt remains at GbTo-31 and GcTo-

6 therefore, may be yet another indication that household organization was more complex at these later, larger sites.

Land Tenure, Labour and the Late Middle Period

In sum, the results of this work show that people living at the Late Middle Period sites described in this study may have owned locations in the immediate vicinity of their villages, as well as at the Skeena watershed, and that access to these owned estates was determined by community, or village, affiliation. The patchy yet, abundant, and predictable resources in the harbour and in the interior produced precisely the kinds of environmental conditions that foster systems of land tenure. Competition between groups also thrives if resources are in demand and populations sufficiently high (Kelly 1995:192). On the Northwest Coast, salmon was a desirable

316 commodity, because of their high fat content, particularly where good carbohydrate sources are few and far between (Cannon 1995:56; Speth and Spielmann 1983); they are also large fish that are relatively easily harvested and processed for storage. Stored goods may provide for a group through a period of privation, but also may be converted into wealth that allows groups to acquire other, scarcer goods and to promote prestige through feasting (Hayden 1994; Roth

2008). Distinguishing between these two kinds of stored goods in the archaeological record is very difficult (Gould 1985) and it is unclear from the data presented here how much salmon would have been needed to provide for people through the winter and how much could have been saved and used for other purposes. Evidence for increasing population within the harbour at this time (Ames 2005a:303; Martindale and Marsden 2003), however, may have ignited competition for good salmon-fishing locations.

Land tenure may not have been practiced to the same degree with reference to smelt and herring among Late Middle Period sites. As Eerkens (1999) notes, it is not unusual for hunter- gatherers that practice individual ownership over some resources to adopt a common lands approach to others. For example, although contact period Tsimshian Houses and local groups were entrenched in systems of private ownership of harbour and interior resources, all

Tsimshian were permitted to harvest eulachon at the Nass River in the late winter/early spring.

Scholars have speculated that eulachon spawn across such a broad area of the Nass estuary in such abundance that there was little benefit to exerting control over these resources among

Tsimshian groups (Mitchell and Donald 2001).

In some respects, these results imply that ownership strategies were remarkably stable over thousands of years in this region. As early as 400 cal BC, harbour groups travelled seasonally to the Nass River and the Skeena River, just as they did in the contact-and post- contact periods. The essential difference between the recent and ancient past however, is the

317 scale at which people may have adopted land-tenure strategies with respect to salmon and local resources. Although Tsimshian local groups, or villages, owned stretches of beach front, as well as tracts of land centred on Skeena tributaries, specific, well-bounded locations on the landscape were owned by the Houses that comprised them. Patterning that could be interpreted as evidence for ownership at the household level is missing from the three Late Middle Period sites in this study. As I have noted, however, the argument against Houses in the archaeological record of the Late Middle Period sites is largely drawn from negative evidence.

Given the preponderance of other good fat sources such as sea mammals, herring and smelt at GbTo-77, particularly in comparison with the other study sites, it is possible that the inhabitants of GbTo-77 did not need to fish salmon in the same quantities as those living at other villages. Many archaeologists working on the Northwest Coast however, have argued that labour is key to the effective harvesting and processing of salmon (Ames 1996, 2005a;

Coupland 1996; Hayden 1994; Kim and Grier 2006). For Coupland (1996:126), “[c]ontrol of productive fishing locations and the labour necessary to produce, process and store resources was within the capacity of small, egalitarian, multi-family households at about 3000-2500 BP”

(emphasis mine). It is unclear from the fauna recovered from the Paul Mason site precisely how the abundance observed demonstrates intensive salmon production (Butler and Campbell

2004:329) but, the location of the site on the Skeena River was likely central to the idea that those living at the Paul Mason site participated in a stored salmon economy. While this may be true for interior groups that lived year-round on the Skeena River (Matson 1992), the evidence from this study suggests that this may not have been the case among all small households in the harbour. It is possible therefore, that the disparity in terms of salmon at GbTo-77, in relation to the other sites, could reflect essential differences in the composition, quantity and productivity of owned locations. It may also reveal the limits of small households, or groups of households,

318 in terms of labour. There are fewer house depressions at GbTo-77 than at all other sites in this study, other than GbTo-31. Although there are only two remaining house depressions at GbTo-

31, there is strong stratigraphic evidence for living floors, and perhaps very large houses at this site, but these deposits date to the Transitional/Late Period. None of the Late Middle Period sites exhibit significant variability in house depression sizes but, the house depressions at GbTo-

77 are generally smaller than those at GbTo-28 and GbTo-46. Larger groups of households, such as at GbTo-28 and GbTo-46, may have been more successful at producing large quantities of salmon, but may also have more easily acquired and protected owned territories.

When houses are Indeed Houses

The inter-site analysis produced data that I interpret as evidence for the ownership of local and regional resources by village-groups during the Late Middle Period. As discussed, there is some indication in the architectural remains and stratigraphy from house D at GbTo-77 for multiple occupations and the transmission of the dwelling from one generation to the next. The house D deposits, however, represent a much shorter period of time than has been exhibited at other sites along the Northwest Coast (Ames 1996; Grier 2001, 2006; Lepofsky et al. 2009). There is some intriguing, but very limited evidence from house F at GbTo-28 for longevity in habitation and transmission. Both the GbTo-77 and GbTo-28 data, however, are equivocal and, in and of themselves, are insufficient to prove the existence of Houses at these sites. Only GcTo-6 produced patterning in architectural, settlement and faunal data which suggest that Houses may have structured social and economic relations at this village (see Coupland et al. 2003). Given the dates that relate specifically to the house depressions at GcTo-6, Houses could have developed here toward the end of the Late Middle Period and, may have continued to exist well into the Late Period.

319

The argument for Houses at GcTo-6 would be strengthened with evidence for variability between households in terms of salmon production. Evidence for this kind of disparity between households may indicate that households, or in this case, Houses, owned specific salmon-fishing locations. In particular, it would suggest that significant differences existed between Houses in terms of key resources that undoubtedly influenced social relations between households.

Settlement data from the lower Skeena watershed hint that salmon fishing may indeed have been household-based. Martindale (1999) and Archer (1984, 1986) identified small scattered sites, containing one or two small house depressions, that are either circular or rectangular in shape. They suggest that these different architectural forms may represent the use of this area, probably on a seasonal basis, by two distinct groups, one from farther up the Skeena and one from the coast. The few dates associated with this site type indicate that these locations were inhabited during the Late Period. According to Prince (2005), weirs on the Kitwanga River on the Skeena watershed also date to the Late Period. In conjunction with other evidence for

House-based ownership of local marine resources and social ranking at GcTo-6, this site type may indicate that salmon-fishing locations were owned by House groups centred in the harbour.

In order to establish that these small, dispersed interior settlements represent the fishing activities of coastal groups, we need to know more about them, including the antiquity of weirs and house depressions. If some coastal groups travelled to the Skeena River to procure salmon in vast numbers from owned fishing locations, it should be reflected in the presence of fish weirs, but also in the kinds of weirs that were constructed during this time. Evidence for long- term use and maintenance of specific weirs and associated house depressions might reflect owned salmon fishing locations. A variety of weir types have been identified in archaeological contexts across the Northwest Coast and these seem to reflect differences in fishing-related labour organization. Favourite Bay fish weir in southeast Alaska, for example, consisted of a

320 large complex series of wooden stakes that may have been in use for almost 1000 years (Moss and Erlandson 1998). According to Moss and Erlandson (1998:193), this kind of structure may represent the efforts of corporate groups. Yet, many weirs identified in other locations on the southern Northwest Coast, specifically on the Oregon coast, could have been built and maintained by a few individuals. This weir type might not reflect household ownership; given the relative simplicity of these small weirs, they may not reflect ownership at any scale.

My understanding of when and where Houses came into being in the harbour corresponds well with Archer‟s (1996, 2001) interpretation of shifts in settlement patterns here.

According to Archer (2001), villages with relatively homogenous house depression sizes reflect egalitarian social relations. Villages with significant variation in house depression size reflect social ranking based on households, and this development occurred after AD 100. Neither

GbTo-77 nor GbTo-46 produced conclusive evidence for Houses, which we would expect if these sites are in fact the remains of egalitarian villages. There is considerable variability in terms of house depression sizes at GcTo-6, and this site also produced the most convincing evidence for Houses.

The Tsimshian adawx may also validate the existence of Houses in the past, as well as the idea that they were central to social, political and economic relations in this region. The adawx records the migrations of Houses throughout the region and their acquisition of House- owned territories through negotiations with supernatural beings, marriage alliances, and assimilation (Martindale and Marsden 2003:22). Pre-existing coastal groups were generally resistant to incursions from migrants into the area and thus remained distinct from interior groups for some time (Marsden 2002; Martindale 2006). Although coastal groups were wary of outsiders, migrants who brought wealth and status to coastal groups were welcomed (Marsden

2002:108; Martindale and Marsden 2003). According to the oral histories, the mechanisms by

321 which groups acquired important resource locations were House-based, not village based.

Scholars contend that these House-based migrations occurred throughout the latter half of the

Middle Period, most likely between 1500 and 2000 years ago (Marsden 2000; Martindale and

Marsden 2003; Martindale 2006).

Conclusions

My primary objective in this dissertation was to address the question of whether the house depressions I excavated at GbTo-77 represent the remains of Houses, or, put another way, what is the antiquity of the Tsimshian wa’lp. I considered also what the presence or absence of

Houses might reveal about social relations in the past. The results suggest that Houses may have organized social, political, and economic relations during the Transitional/Late Period, but perhaps not during the Late Middle Period. The faunal data provided inconclusive evidence for owned resource territories, as all differences observed between house depressions in terms of the faunal assemblage were due to sampling. The stratigraphic and architectural data from

GbTo-77 suggests that house A may have been an incomplete, or very short-lived, dwelling; alternatively, it may not have been a domestic house at all. House D produced evidence for habitation over a generation or two, but lacks definitive evidence for long-term multi- generational use that has been observed elsewhere on the Northwest Coast (e.g., Grier 2006;

Lepofski et al. 2009). Although these data do not rule out the possibility that Houses operated prior to 2000 years ago in Prince Rupert Harbour, they suggest that all house depressions are not

Houses, as is the case at GbTo-77.

Groups of households, or villages, however, may have influenced the way in which resources were allocated, and perhaps the way lands were owned, during the Late Middle

Period. GbTo-77 produced the greatest proportion of sea mammals of any site in this study; it

322 was also the most diverse in terms of mammals and contained the lowest proportion of salmon in excavated samples of any site. I argued that these factors, in conjunction with the low density of salmon in the equal volume samples, indicate that a slightly different economic strategy was adopted by the inhabitants of GbTo-77. I suggested that this variability within economic systems may indicate that groups of households, or villages, owned specific salmon fishing locations during the Late Middle Period that differed in terms of productivity. I argued also that variability in shellfish taxa, reflecting a highly localized foraging radius, may indicate that shellfish beds within the vicinity of village sites were also owned. Moreover, sub-sampling, using small screens showed that smelts and herring were more abundant at GbTo-77 than demonstrated in the excavated sample. I observed differences in the abundance of smelts between sites that may reflect differences in sampling, processing, storage, or resource access.

These results also highlight the importance of sub-sampling midden deposits using small screens (<2.8 mm); this has been noted by a number of Northwest Coast scholars (Moss 2007;

McKechnie 2005; Stewart et al. 2003).

Although GbTo-77 could rely on other important resources, such as sea mammals and smelt, lower densities of salmon at this site might reflect broader socio-economic relations that existed between villages. As Cannon describes for contact period Kwakwaka‟wakw:

Failure to possess a salmon stream did not preclude local groups from making a living, but it did contribute to perceptions of social and economic disparity among groups. Valued marine resources were not equally distributed and local populations were not free to develop mobility strategies that would allow them equal access to unevenly dispersed resources (Cannon 1995:51).

This passage captures what I believe may have been the social and economic milieu during the

Late Middle Period. Local groups, or villages, may have owned important resource locations but, there appears to have been some disparity between villages, particularly with regards to salmon. If, as Cannon contends, differences in owned marine resources influenced social

323 networks, then inequality may have been present between communities before it was present within them. There are, however, significant gaps in data from the Late Middle Period sites that may be masking the presence of Houses during this time. Further research that emphasizes inter-household comparisons might reveal that Houses are older and more prevalent than they appear to be from this study, at least during the Late Middle Period.

In this study I sought also to know whether Houses, if they existed, were independent, or

“sovereign.” The evidence from GbTo-77 is inconclusive due to the very small faunal samples that I was able to recover from specific house depressions, but, some of the faunal evidence from GcTo-6 suggests that house depressions at this site may, indeed, represent Houses. Why, then, did these particular households choose to spend a portion of the year living side-by-side?

If Houses developed within communities that practiced land tenure, there may be some inextricable link between households and communities with regards to property that begs further exploration.

324

References Cited

Abbott, Donald 1981 The World is as Sharp as a Knife: An Anthology in Honour of Wilson Duff. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria.

Acheson, Steven R. 1991 In the Wake of the ya’áats’ xaatgáay: A Study of Changing Settlement Strategies among the Kunghit Haida. BAR International Series 711, Oxford.

Ackerman, Robert 1974 Post-Pleistocene Cultural Adaptations on the Northern Northwest Coast. In Proceedings of the International Conference on the Prehistory and Paleoecology of the Western Arctic and Subacrtic, pp. 1-20. Univeristy of Calgary Archaeological Association, Calgary. 1992 Earliest Stone Industries on the North Pacific Coast of North America. Arctic Anthropology 29(2):18-27.

Adams, John W. 1973 The Gitksan Potlatch: Population Flux, Resource Ownership and Reciprocity, Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada, Toronto.

Alexcee, Frederick n.d. Memory Drawing of Nass River Spring Fishing Camps. On file in the Glenbow Museum Archives.

Allaire, Louis 1979 The Cultural Sequence at Gitaus: A Case of Prehistoric Acculturation. In Skeena River Prehistory, edited by George F. MacDonald and Richard I. Inglis, pp. 18-52. National Museum of Canada, Ottawa. 1993 A Native Mental Map of Coast Tsimshian Villages. In The Tsimshian:Images of The Past; Views for the Present, edited by Margaret Seguin, pp. 82-98. UBC Press, Vancouver.

Ames, Kenneth M. 1985 Hierarchies, Stress and Logistical Strategies among Hunter-Gatherers in Northwestern North America. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, The Emergence of Cultural Complexity, edited by T. D. Price and J. Brown, pp. 155-180. Academic Press, Orlando. 1991 The Archaeology of the Long Duree: Temporal and Spatial Scale in the Evolution of Social Complexity on the Southern Northwest Coast. Antiquity 65:935-945. 1996 Life in the Big House: Household Labour and Dwelling Size on the Northwest Coast. In People who Lived in Big Houses: Archaeological Perspectives on Large Domestic Structures, edited by Gary G. Coupland and E. B. Banning, pp. 131-150. Prehistory Press, Madison. 2001 Slaves, Chiefs and Labour on the Northern Northwest Coast. World Archaeology 33(1): 1-17.

325

2002 Going by Boat: The Forager-Collector Continuum at Sea. In Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems, edited by Ben Fitzhugh and Junko Habu, pp. 17-50. Kluwer/Plenum Press, New York. 2005a The North Coast Prehistory Project Excavations in Prince Rupert Harbour, British Columbia: The artifacts. BAR Series 1342, Oxford. 2005b Intensification of Food Production on the Northwest Coast and Elsewhere. In Keeping it Living: Traditions of Plant Use and Cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America, edited by Douglas Deur and Nancy J. Turner, pp. 67-100. UBC Press, Vancouver. 2006 Thinking about Household Archaeology on the Northwest Coast. In Household Archaeology on the Northwest Coast, edited by Elizabth A. Sobel, D. A. T. Gahr and Kenneth M. Ames, pp. 16-36. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Ames, Kenneth M., Doria F. Raetz, Stephen Hamilton, and Christine McAfee 1992 Household Archaeology of a Southern Northwest Coast Plank House. Journal of Field Archaeology 19(3):275-290.

Ames, Kenneth M., Cameron M. Smith, William L. Cornett, Elizabeth A. Sobel, Stephen C. Hamilton, John Wolf, and Doria Raetz 1999 Archaeological Investigations at 45CL1, Cathlapotle (1991 – 1996), Ridgefield Wildlife Refuge, Clark County, Washington: A Preliminary Report. US Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Cultural Resource Series Number 1.

Ames, Kenneth M. and Herbert D. G. Maschner 1999 Peoples of the Northwest Coast: Their Archaeology and Prehistory. Thames & Hudson, London.

Anderson, Margaret S. and Tammy A. Blumhagen 1994 Memories and Moments: Conversations and Re-collections. BC Studeis 104:85-102.

Anderson, R. 2002 Castor canadensis (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Castor_canadensis.html [accessed June 27, 2008].

Archer, David R. W. 1992 Results of the Prince Rupert Harbour Radiocarbon Dating Project. Unpublished manuscript ed. Resource Information Centre, heritage Conservation Branch, Government of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C. 2001 Village Patterns and the Emergence of Ranked Society in the Prince Rupert Area. In Perspectives on Northern Northwest Coast Prehistory, edited by J. Cybulski, pp. 203-222. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau, Quebec. 2008 The Development of a New Approach in the Investigation of Intact Village Sites on the North Coast of British Columbia. Paper presented at the Society for Anerican Archaeology annual conference, Vancouver.

Armia, Eugene, and John Dewhirst

326

1990 Nootkans of Vancouver Island. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 391-411. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Arnold, Jeanne E. 1996 The Archaeology of Complex Hunter-Gatherers. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 3(2):77-125.

Bailey, B. E. 1952 Marine Oils with Particular Reference to those of Canada. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 59, Fisheries Resource Board of Canada, Ottawa.

Balkwill, Darlene and Jerome S. Cybulski 1992 Faunal Remains. In A Greenville Burial Ground: Human Remains and Mortuary Elements in British Columbia Coast Prehistory. Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mercury Series Paper No. 146, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau.

Banahan, Joan 2005 Small Site Archaeology on the Northern Northwest Coast. Paper Presented at the Canadian Archaeological Association annual conference in Nanaimo, British Columbia. 2007 Prehistoric Shellfishing in Prince Rupert Harbour, Northern British Columbia. Paper presented at the Canadian Archaeological Association conference in St. John‟s, Newfoundland.

Banahan, Joan, and A. K. Patton 2008 Pre-contact Shellfishing in Prince Rupert Harbour, B.C. Paper presented at the Society for American Archaeology annual conference in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Banfield, A. W. F. 1974 The Mammals of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, Buffalo.

Banner, A., Sybille Haeussler, Will MacKenzie, Jim Pojar, Sandra Thompson, and Rick Trowbridge 1993 A Field Guide to Site Identification and Interpretation for the Prince Rupert Forest Region. Province of British Columbia, Victoria.

Banner, A., J. Polgar, and G. E. Rouse 1983 Postglacial Paleoecology and Successional Relationships of a Bog Woodland near Prince Rupert, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 13(5):938-947.

Banning, Edward B. 2000 The Archaeologist's Laboratory: The Analysis of Archaeological Data. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

Banning, Edward B. and Brian F. Byrd 1987 Houses and the Changing Residential Unit: Domestic Architecture at PPNB „Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53:309-325.

327

Barbeau, Marius 1917 Growth and Federation in the Tsimshian Phratries. In Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Americanists, pp. 402-408. Washington.

Barnard, Alan 1992 Social and Spatial Boundary Maintenance among Southern African Hunter-Gatherers. In Mobility and Territoriality: Social and Spatial Boundaries among Foragers and Peripatetics, edited by Michael J. Casimir and Aparna Rao, pp.91-134. Berg, New York.

Bar-Yosef, Ofer 2002 Natufian: A Complex Society of Foragers. In Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems, edited by Ben Fitzhugh and Junko Habu, pp. 91-152. Klewer Academic, New York.

Batdorf, Carol 1990 Northwest Native Harvest. Hancock House, Blaine.

Begler, Elsie B. and Richard W. Keatinge 1979 Theoretical Goals and Methodological Realities: Problems in the Reconstruction of Prehistoric Subsistence Economies. World Archaeology 2(2):208-226.

Bender, Barbara 1978 Gatherer-Hunter to Farmer: A Social Perspective. World Archaeology 10(2, Archaeology and Religion):204-222. 1981 Gatherer-Hunter Intensification. In Economic Archaeology: Towards an Integration of Ecological and Social Approaches, edited by Alison Sheridan and Geoff N. Bailey, pp. 149-157.

Bertram. D.F., G.W. Kaiser and R.C. Ydenberg 1991 Pattern in the Provisioning and Growth of Nestling Rhinoceros Auklets. The Auk 108:842-852.

Betts, Matthew W. 2005 Seven Focal Economies for Six Focal Places: The Development of Economic Diversity in the Western Canadian Arctic. Arctic Anthropology 42(1):47-87.

Betts, Matthew W., and T. M. Friesen 2004 Quantifying Hunter-Gatherer Intensification: A Zooarchaeological Case Study from Arctic Canada. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23(4):357-384.

Bigg, M. A. 1981 Harbour seal - Phoca vitulina and P. largha. In Handbook of marine mammals, edited by Richard J. Harrison and Sam H. Ridgway, pp. 1-27. Academic Press, Toronto.

Binford, Lewis 1977 General Introduction. In For Theory Building in Archaeology, edited by Lewis R. Binford, pp. 1-10. Academic Press, New York.

328

1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behavior and Site Structure: Learning from an Eskimo Hunting Stand. American Antiquity 43(3):330-361. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4-20. 1983 In Pursuit of the Past. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Bird-David, Nurit 1992 Beyond the “Original Affluent Society”: A Culturalist Reformation. Current Anthropology, 33(1):25-47.

Blackman, Margaret B. 1972 Nei:wons, the "Monster" House of Chief Wi:ha: An Exercise in Ethnohistorical, Archaeological and Ethnological Reasoning. Syesis 5:211-225. 1976 Creativity in Acculturation: Art, Architecture and Ceremony from the Northwest Coast. Ethnohistory 23(4):387-412. 1981 Windows on the Past: The Photographic Ethnohistory of the Northern and Kaigani Haida, Mercury Series Vol. 74, National Museums of Canada, Ottawa. 1990 Haida: Traditional Culture. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, Northwest Coast, pp. 240-260. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Blair, Susan E. 2004 Ancient Wolastoq'kew Landscapes: Settlement and Technology in the Lower Saint John River Valley, Canada. Unpublished dissertation, University of Toronto [UMI, Ann Arbor].

Blanton, Richard E. 1994 Houses and Households: A Comparative Study. Plenum Press, New York.

Blukis-Onat, A.R 1985 The Multi-functional Use of Shellfish Remains: From Garbage to Community Engineering. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 19:201-207.

Boas, Franz 1889 Fifth Report on the Northwestern Tribes of Canada. In Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, The British Association for the Advancement of Science, London. 1909 The Kwakiutl of Vancouver Island. E.J. Brill, Leiden. 1916 Tsimshian Mythology. Government Printing Office, Smithsonian Institution, Washington. 1921 Ethnology of the Kwakiutl. Bureau of American Ethnology Annual Report 35, Parts I and II. Government Printing Office, Washington. 1928 Bella Bella Texts. Columbia University Press, New York.

Boehm, Christopher 1993 Egalitarian Behavior and Reverse Dominance Hierarchy. Current Anthropology 34(3):227-254.

Boserup, Esther.

329

1965 The Conditions of Agricultural Growth:The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago.

Bourdieu, Pierre 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Burch, Ernest and Linda J. Ellanna (eds.) 1994 Key Issues in Hunter-Gatherer Research. Berg, Oxford.

Burchell, Meghan 2004 Gender and Status Representation in Northwest Coast Burials. Unpublished MA Thesis, McMaster University, Hamilton. 2006 Gender, Grave Goods and Status in British Columbia Burials. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 30(2):251-272.

Burchell, Meghan and Natalie Brewster 2008 Faunal Indicators of Site Occupation and Marine Resource Use at the Dundas Island Group, British Columbia. Poster presented at the Society for American Archaeology annual conference in Vancouver.

Burchell, Meghan and Aubrey Cannon 2006 Shellfish analysis from the Dundas Islands Group. Paper presented at the 39th annual meeting of the Canadian Archaeology Association, Toronto.

Butler, Virginia L. and Sarah K. Campbell 2004 Resource Intensification and Resource Depression in the Pacific Northwest of North America: A Zooarchaeological Review. Journal of World Prehistory 18(4):327-405.

Casimir, Michael and Aparnu Rao 1992 Mobility and Territoriality: Social and Spatial Boundaries among Foragers, Fishers, Pastoralists, and Peripatetics. St. Martin's Press, New York.

Caldwell, Megan 2008 A View From the Shore: Interpreting Fish Trap Use in Comox Harbour Through Zooarchaeological Analysis of Fish Remains from the Q‟umu?xs Village Site (DkSf-19), Comox Harbour, British Columbia. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.

Cameron, Krystal, Meghan Burchell and Trevor Orchard 2008 Coveted Clams and Back-Up Barnacles? Species Identification of Shellfish from the Dundas Islands Group, British Columbia

Campbell, Ken 1993 Hartley Bay, B.C.: A History. In The Tsimshian:Images of the Past; Views for the Present, edited by Margaret Seguin, pp. ix. UBC Press, Vancouver

Campbell, Sarah K., and Virginia L. Butler

330

2010 Archaeological Evidence for Resilience of Pacific Northwest Salmon Populations and the Socioecological System over the last ~7,500 years Ecology and Society 15(1): 17 [online]

Canada, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources 1980 Prince Rupert, Coast Lands District 5, British Columbia. [map] edition 3, 1:50 000, sheet 103J/8, Centre for mapping, Ottawa

Canadian Hydrographic Services 1998 Approaches to Prince Rupert Harbour, 1:40 000, Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa.

Cannon, Aubrey 1995 The Ratfish and Marine Resource Deficiencies on the Northwest Coast. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 19:49-60. 2000 Settlement and Sea-Levels on the Central Coast of British Columbia: Evidence from Shell Midden Cores. American Antiquity 65(1):67-77. 2001 Was Salmon Important in Northwest Coast Prehistory. In People and Wildlife in Northern North America: Essays in Honour of R. Dale Guthrie, edited by S. C. Gerlach and Maribeth S. Murray, pp. 178-187. Archaeopress, Oxford. 2002 Sacred Power and Seasonal Settlement on the Central Northwest Coast. In Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems, edited by Ben Fitzhugh and Junko Habu, pp. 311-338. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. 2005 Gender and Agency in Mortuary Fashion. In Interacting with the Dead: Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology in the New Millennium, edited by G. F. M. Rakita, J. E. Buikstra, L. A. Beck and S. R. WIlliams, pp. 41-65. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Cannon, Aubrey and Meghan Burchell 2009 Clam Growth-Stage Profiles as a Measure of Harvest Intensity and Resource Management on the Central Coast of British Columbia. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(4):1050- 1060.

Cannon, Aubrey and Meghan Burchell and Rhonda Bathurst 2008 Trends and Strategies in Shellfish Gathering on the Pacific Northwest Coast of North America. In Early Human Impact on Megamolluscs, edited by A. R. C. Antczak, pp. 7-22. BAR International Series, Oxford.

Cannon, Aubrey, and D. Y. Yang 2006 Early Storage and Sedentism on the Pacific Northwest Coast: Ancient DNA Analysis of Salmon Remains from Namu, British Columbia. American Antiquity 71(1):123-140.

Cannon, Debbie Y. 1987 Marine Fish Osteology:A Manual for Archaeologists. Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.

Canuto, Marcello A. 2002 A Tale of Two Communities: Social and Political Transformations in the Hinterlands of the Maya Polity of Copan. Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

331

Canuto, M. and Jason Yaeger 2000 The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective. Routledge, New York.

Carsten, Janet, and Stephen Hugh-Jones (editors) 1995a About the House: Lévi-Strauss and Beyond. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Carsten, Janet, and Stephen Hugh-Jones 1995b Introduction. In About the House: Lévi-Strauss and Beyond, edited by Janet Carsten and Stephen Hugh-Jones, pp. 1-46. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Case, Rebecca 1999 After Fish: Site Formation Processes and Deer use at McNichol Creek (GcTo-6). Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto.

Casimir, Michael J. and Aparna Rao 1992 Mobility and Territoriality: Social and Spatial Boundaries among Foragers, Fishers, Pastoralists, and Peripatetics. Berg, New York.

Childe, V. Gordon 1951 Social Evolution. Watts, London.

Claassen, Cheryl 1998 Shells. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Clague, John J. 1989 Quaternary Geology of the Canadian Cordillera, Introduction. In Quaternary Geology of Canada and Greenland, edited by R. J. Fulton, pp. 19-22. Minister of Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa.

Clark, Terrence 2008 Integrative Archaeology: A New Method for Complex Data. Paper presented at the Canadian Archaeological Association annual conference in Peterborough.

Cobb, Charles R. 1993 Archaeological Approaches to the Political Economy of Nonstratified Societies. In Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 5., edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 43-100. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Colley, Sarah M. 1990 The Analysis and Interpretation of Archaeological Fish Remains. Archaeological Method and Theory 2:207-253.

Community Mapping Network 2009 Fish Information Summary System (FISS).

Cornwall, Ira

332

2010 The Barnacles of British Columbia. In E-Fauna BC: Electronic Atlas of the Fauna of British Columbia [www.efauna.bc.ca], edited by Brian Klinkenberg, Lab for Advanced Spatial Analysis, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. [October 15th, 2010].

Coupland, Gary 1985 Household Variability and Status Differentiation at Kitselas Canyon. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 9:39-56. 1988a Prehistoric Cultural Change at Kitselas Canyon. Archaeological Survey of Canada Mercury Series Paper No 138, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau. 1988b Prehistoric Economic and Social Change in the Tsimshian Area. In Research in Economic Anthropology, edited by Barry L. Isaac. pp. 211-244. JAI Press, Greenwich. 1996 The Evolution of Multi-Family Households on the Northwest Coast of North America. In People who Lived in Big Houses: Archaeological Perspectives on Large Domestic Structures, edited by Gary G. Coupland and E. B. Banning, pp. 121-130. Prehistory Press, Madison. 1999 Permit Report 1996-104: Archaeological Investigations at the McNichol Creek Site (GcTo-6) in 1996 and 1997. Submitted to Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, Archaeology Branch, Province of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C. 2004 Resource Ownership, Political Control: Evidence from the Boardwalk Site on the Northern Northwest Coast. Paper presented at the annual Canadian Archaeology Association meeting in Winnipeg. 2006 A Chief's House Speaks: Communicating Power on the Northern Northwest Coast. In Household Archaeology on the Northwest Coast, edited by Elizabeth Sobel, D. A. T. Gahr and Kenneth M. Ames, pp. 80-96. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Coupland, Gary G., and E. B. Banning 1996a Introduction: The Archaeology of Big Houses. In People who Lived in Big Houses: Archaeological Perspectives on Large Domestic Structures, edited by Gary G. Coupland and E. B. Banning, pp. 1-9. Prehistory Press, Madison. 1996b People who Lived in Big Houses: Archaeological Perspectives on Large Domestic Structures, edited by Gary G. Coupland and E. B. Banning, pp. 1-9. Prehistory Press, Madison.

Coupland, Gary G., Terrence Clark and Amanda Palmer 2009 Hierarchy, Communalism, and the Spatial Order of Northwest Coast Plank Houses. American Antiquity (74)1:77-106.

Coupland, Gary G., C. Bissel, and S. King 1993 Prehistoric Subsistence and Seasonality at Prince Rupert Harbour: Evidence from the McNichol Creek Site. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 17:59-73.

Coupland, Gary G., Roger H. Colton, and Rebecca Case 2003 Preliminary analysis of socioeconomic organization at the McNichol Creek Site, British Columbia. In Emerging from the Mist: Studies in Northwest Coast Culture History, edited by Gary G. Coupland, R. G. Matson and Quentin Mackie, pp. 152-169. UBC Press, Vancouver.

333

Coupland, Gary G., Andrew R.C. Martindale and Susan Marsden 2001 “Does Reseource Abundance Explain Local Group Rank among the Coast Tsimshian?” In Perspectives in Northern Northwest Coast Prehistory, edited by J. Cybulksi, Mercury Series Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 160, pp.221-248. National Museum of Canada, Ottawa.

Coupland, Gary, Kathlyn Stewart, and T. J. Hall 2000 Archaeological Investigations in the Prince Rupert Area in 1999 and 2000: The Differentiated Regional Economy at Prehistoric Prince Rupert. Archaeology Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Development, Victoria.

Coupland, Gary, Kathlyn Stewart, and A. Katherine Patton 2010 Do You Never Get Tired of Salmon? Evidence for Extreme Salmon Specialization at Prince Rupert Harbour, British Columbia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29(2):189-207.

Coupland, Gary, Kathlyn Stewart, A. Katherine Patton, and Joan Banahan 2006 Archaeological Investigations in the Prince Rupert Area, 2002-2004: permit 202-208, final report. Archaeology Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Development, Victoria.

Cove, John J. 1987 Shattered Images: Dialogues and Meditations on Tsimshian Narratives. Carleton University Press, Ottawa.

Cowles, David 2005a Mytilus trossulus http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/biology/rosario/inverts/Mollusca/Bival via/Mytiloida/Mytilidae/Mytilus_trossulus.html [accessed October 12th, 2010]. 2005b Mytilus Californianus http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/biology/rosario/inverts/Mollusca/Bival via/Mytiloida/Mytilidae/Mytilus_californianus.html [accessed October 12th, 2010]. 2005c Lottia digitalis http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/biology/rosario/inverts/Mollusca/Gast ropoda/Prosobranchia/Order_Patellogastropoda/Family_Lottiidae/Lottia_digitalis.html [accessed October 12th, 2010]. 2005d Tectura Scutum http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/biology/rosario/inverts/Mollusca/Gastr opoda/Prosobranchia/Order_Patellogastropoda/Family_Lottiidae/Tectura_scutum.html [accessed October 10th, 2010]. 2006 Semibalanus cariosus http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/biology/rosario/inverts/Arthropoda/Crustace a/Maxillopoda/Cirripedia/Semibalanus_cariosus.html [accessed October 10th, 2010].

Crawford, M.L., Crawford, W.A., and Gehrels, G.E. 2000 Terrain Assembly and Structural Relationships in the Eastern Prince Rupert Quadrangle, British Columbia. In Tectonics of the Coast Mountains, Southeastern Alaska and British

334

Columbia, edited by H.H. Stowell, H.H. and W.C. McClelland, pp. 1-21. Geological Society of America, Boulder. . Croes, Dale R. 1997 The North-Central Cultural Dichotomy on the Northwest Coast of North America: Its Evolution as Suggested by Wet Site Basketry and Wooden Fish-hooks. Antiquity 7:594- 615. Croes, Dale R., and S. Hackenberger 1988 Hoko River Archaeological Complex: Modeling Prehistoric Northwest Coast Economic Evolution. In Research in Economic Anthropology supplement 3, edited by Barry L. Isaac. pp.19-86. JAI Press Inc., Greenwich

Cybulski, Jerome S. 1992 A Greenville Burial Ground: Human Remains and Mortuary Elements in British Columbia Coast Prehistory. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau. 2001 Perspectives on Northern Northwest Coast Prehistory. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau.

Daly, Richard H. 2005 Our Box was Full: An Ethnography for the Delgamuukw Plaintiffs. UBC Press, Vancouver.

Davis, Stanley 1989 The Hidden Falls Site, Baranof Island, Alaska. Aurora, Alaska Anthropological Association Monograph Series V, Anchorage.

Day, Gordon M. 1953 The Indian as an Ecological Factor in the Northeastern Forest. Ecology 34(2):329-346.

Dean, Jeffrey S. 1978 Independent Dating in Archaeological Analysis. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 1:223-255.

Deur, Douglas, and Nancy J. Turner (editors) 2005a Keeping it Living: traditions of plant use and cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America. UBC Press, Vancouver.

Deur, Douglas, and Nancy J. Turner 2005b Introduction: reassessing indigenous resource management, reassessing the history of an idea. In Keeping it Living: traditions of plant use and cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America, edited by Douglas Deur and Nancy J. Turner, pp. 3-36. UBC Press, Vancouver.

Dewey, T. and M. Potter. 2002 Falco peregrinus (On-line), Animal Diversity Web, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Falco_peregrinus.html [accessed July 09, 2008].

335

Donald, Leland 1997 Aboriginal Slavery on the Northwest Coast of North America. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Donald, Leland, and Donald Mitchell 1975 Some Correlates of Local Group Rank among the Southern Kwakiutl. Ethnology 14:325- 346.

Dorsey, George A. 1897 The Geography of the Tsimshian Indians. The American Antiquarian 19:276-282.

Drucker, Philip 1939 Rank, Wealth and Kinship in Northwest Coast Society. American Anthropologist 41:56- 65. 1943 Archaeological Survey on the Northern Northwest Coast. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington. 1951 The Northern and Central Nootkan Tribes. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington 1955 Indians of the Northwest Coast. McGraw Hill Book Company Inc., New York. 1965 Cultures of the North Pacific Coast. Harper and Row, New York. 1983 Ecology and Political Organization on the Northwest Coast of America. In The Development of Political Organization in Native North America:1979 Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society, edited by Elisabeth Tooker, pp. 86-96. The American Ethnological Society, Washington.

Drucker, Phillip, and Robert F. Heitzer 1967 To Make My Name Good: A Reexamination of the Southern Kwakiutl Potlatch. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Dunn, John A. 1984 Tsimshian Grandchildren: Redistributive Mechanisms in Personal Property Inheritance. In The Tsimshian and their Neighbours of the North Pacific Coast, edited by Jay Miller and Carol M. Eastman. 1993 International Matri-moieties: The North Maritime Province of the North Pacific Coast. In The Tsimshian:Images of the Past;Views for the Present, edited by Margaret Seguin, pp. 99-109. UBC Press, Vancouver.

Dyson-Hudson, Rada, and Eric A. Smith 1978 Human Territoriality: An Ecological Reassessment. American Anthropologist 80(1):21-41.

Eerkens, Jelmer W. 1999 Common Pool Resources, Buffer Zones, and Jointly Owned Territories: hunter-gatherer land and resource tenure in Fort Irwin, southeastern California. Human Ecology 27(2):297-318. 2004 Privatization, Small-Seed Intensification, and the Origins of Pottery in the Western Great Basin. American Antiquity 69(4):653-670.

Eldridge, Morley and Iain McKechnie

336

2008 (Re)calibrating regional chronologies on the North Coast: Data from Prince Rupert Harbour. Paper presented at the Society for American Archaeology annual conference, Vancouver.

Ellis, David W and Luke Swan 1981 Teaching of the Tides: Uses of Marine Invertebrates by the Manhousat People. Theytus Books, Nanaimo.

Ellis, David W. and Solomon Wilson 1981 The Knowledge and Usage of Marine Invertebrates by the Skidegate Haida People of the Queen Charlotte Islands. Monograph Series, No. 1, The Queen Charlotte Islands Museum Society, Skidegate.

Ellis, E. 1999 Martes americana (On-line), Animal Diversity Web University of Michiag Museum of Zoology http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Martes_americana.html [accessed June 27, 2008] .

Els, S. 1974 Root System Morphology of the Western Hemlock, Western Red Cedar, and Douglas Fir. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 4:28-38.

Emmons, George T. 1916 The Whale House of the Chilkat. Vol. XIX, part 1, American Museum of Natural History, New York.

Environment Canada 2010 Canadian Climate Normals. http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html. Accessed January 15th 2010.

Fedje, Daryl W. and Tina Christensen 1999 Modeling Paleoshorelines and Locating Early Holocene Coastal Sites in Haida Gwaii. American Antiquity 64(4):635-652.

Feinman, Gary, and Jill Neitzel 1984 Too Many Types: An Overview of Sedentary Pre-state Societies in the Americas. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 7:39-102.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2008 Pacific Salmon. http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/species-especes/salmon- saumon/index-eng.htm [accessed October 12th, 2010]. 2009a Underwater World. Pacific Salmon: Habits and History of Salmon. http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/science/publications/uww-msm/articles/pacificsalmon-saumonpacifique- eng.htm [accessed September 22nd, 2010]. 2009b What you Should Know about Shellfish Contamination. http://www.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/points/contamination-

337

eng.htm#PARALYTIC_SHELLFISH_POISON_%28PSP_or_Red_Tide%29 [accessed November 10th, 2010] 2010 Mapster v 2.2. Retrieved from http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/gis-sig/maps-cartes-eng.htm. [accessed January 9th 2009].

Fiske, Jo-Anne 1991 Colonization and the Decline of Women's Status: the Tsimshian Case. Feminist Studies 17(3):509-335.

Fitch, J., B. Guilliams, W. Mowbray, A. Patton, S. Gloss, K. Francis and E. Ellis. 1999 Oreamnos americanus (On-line), Animal Diversity Web University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Oreamnos_americanus. html. [accessed July 23, 2010]

Fitzhugh, Ben 2002 Residential and Logistical Strategies in the Evolution of Complex Hunter-Gatherers on the Kodiak Archepelago. In Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems, edited by Ben Fitzhugh and Junko Habu, pp. 257- 306. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

Fitzhugh, Ben, and Junko Habu 2002 Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

Fladmark, Knut R. 1975 A Palaeoecological Model for Northwest Coast Prehistory. Mercury Series Paper 43. Archaeological Survey of Canada, Gatineau.

Fladmark, Knut R., Kenneth M. Ames, and Patricia D. Sutherland 1990 Prehistory of the North Coast of British Columbia. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 229-239. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Flenniken, J.J. 1981 Replicative Systems Analysis: A Model Applied to the Vein Quartz Artifacts from the Hoko River Site. Washington State University, Laboratory of Anthropology Reports No. 59, Pullman

Ford, Pamela 1989 Archaeological and Ethnographic Correlates of Seasonality: Problems and Solutions on the Northwest Coast. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 13:133-150. 1992 Interpreting the Grain Size Distributions of Archaeological Shell. In Deciphering a Shell Midden, edited by Julie K. Stein, pp. 283-326. Academic Press, New York.

Fournier, Judith A. and John Dewhirst

338

1980 Zooarchaeological Analysis of Barnacle Remains from Yuquot, British Columbia. In The Yuquot Project, Volume 2, edited by William Folan and John Dewhirst, pp. 59-102. National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Environment Canada, Gatineau.

Galois, Robert M. 2004 A Voyage to the Northwest Side of America: The Journals of James Colnett. UBC Press, Vancouver.

Garfield, Viola E. 1939 Tsimshian Clan and Society. University of Washington Publications in Anthropology 7(3), Seattle. 1966 The Tsimshian Indians and their Arts. Douglas & McIntyre, Vancouver. 1984 The Tsimshian and their Neighbors of the North Pacific Coast. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Gifford-Gonzalez, D., S. D. Newsome, P. L. Koch, T. P. Guilderson, J. J. Snodgrass, and R. K. Burton 2005 Archaeofaunal Insights on Pinniped-Human Interactions in the Northeastern Pacific. In The Exploitation and Cultural Importance of Sea Mammals. edited by G. G. Monks, pp. 19-38. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Gillespie, Susan D. 2000a Rethinking Ancient Maya Social Organization: Replacing "Lineage" with "House". American Anthropologist 102(3):467-484. 2000b Beyond Kinship: an introduction. In Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies, edited by Rosemary Joyce and Susan D. Gillespie, pp. 1-21. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. 2000c Lévi-Strauss: Maison and Société à Maisons. In Beyond Kinship:Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies, edited by Rosemary Joyce and Susan D. Gillespie, pp. 22-52. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Godfrey, W. E. 1986 The birds of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa.

Gott, C. 2001 Gallinago gallinago (On-line), Animal Diversity Web, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Gallinago_gallinago.ht ml. [accessed July 09, 2008].

Gozdzik, A. 2001 Ovis dalli (On-line), Animal Diversity Web, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Ovis_dalli.html. [accessed July 23, 2010].

Gómez-Pompa, Arturo, and Andrea Kaus 1992 Taming the Wilderness Myth. BioScience 42(4):271-279.

339

Gottesfeld, L. M. 1994 Conservation, Territory and Traditional Beliefs: An Analysis of Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en Subsistence, Northwest British Columbia, Canada. Human Ecology 22(4):443-465.

Gould, Richard 1985 Now Let's Invent Agriculture. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, edited by T. D. Price and J. Brown, pp. 427-435. Academic Press, San Diego.

Grayson, Donald K. 1978 Minimum Numbers and Sample Size in Vertebrate Faunal Analysis. American Antiquity 43(1):53-65. 1984 Quantitative zooarchaeology : topics in the analysis of archaeological faunas. Academic Press, Orlando.

Grayson, Donald K. and Françoise Delpech 2002 Specialized Early Upper Palaeolithic Hunters in Southwestern France? Journal of Archaeological Science 29(12):1439-1449.

Grayson, Donald K., Françoise Delpech, Jean-Philippe Rigaud, and Jan F. Simek 2001 Explaining the Development of Dietary Dominance by a Single Ungulate Taxon at Grotte XVI, Dordogne, France. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:115-125.

Grier, Colin 2001 The Social Economy of a Prehistoric Plank House. Unpublished dissertation, Arizona State University. 2006 Temporality in Northwest Coast Households. In Household Archaeology on the Northwest Coast, edited by Elizabeth A. Sobel, D. Ann Trieu Gahr and Kenneth M. Ames. Pp. 97-119 International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 16, Ann Arbor.

Grier, Colin, Jangsuk Kim, and Junzo Uchiyama 2006 Beyond Affluent Foragers: Rethinking Hunter-Gatherer Complexity. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Haegele, C.W. and J.F. Schweigert 1985 Distribution and Characteristics of Herring Spawning Grounds and Description of Spawning Behavior. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42 (Suppl. I): 39-55.

Haggan, Nigel, Nancy Turner, Jennifer Carpenter, James T. Jones, Quentin Mackie, and Charles Menzies 2006 12,000+ Years of Change: Linking Traditional and Modern Ecosystem Science in the Pacific Northwest. Working Paper 2006-02, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Halpin, Marjorie and Margaret Seguin 1990 Tsimshian Peoples:Southern Tsimshian, Coast Tsimshian, Nisga, and Gitksan. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 267-284. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

340

Ham, Leonard 1976 Analysis of Shell Samples from Glenrose. In Prehistoric Adaptations at the Glenrose Cannery Site (DgRr-6), Fraser Delta, BC, edited by R.G. Matson, pp 42-78. Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mercury Series Paper 52, National Museums of Canada, Gatineau.

Hamori-Torok 1990 Haisla. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 306-311. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Harbo, Rick M. 1997 Shells and Shellfish of the Pacific Northwest: A Field Guide. Harbour Publishing, Madeira Park.

Hart, John L. 1988 Pacific Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa.

Hayden, Brian (editor) 1992 A Complex Culture of the British Columbia Plateau : Traditional Stl'âatl'imx Resource Use. UBC Press, Vancouver.

Hayden, Brian 1990 Nimrods, Piscators, Pluckers and Planters: The Emergence of Food Production. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9(1):31-69. 1994 Competition, Labour, and Complex Hunter-Gatherers. In Key Issues in Hunter-Gatherer Research, edited by Ernest S. Burch and Linda J. Ellanna, pp.223-239. Berg, Oxford. 1996 Pathways to Power: Principles for Creating Socioeconomic Inequalities. In Foundations of Social Inequality, edited by T. D. Price and Gary Feinman, pp. 15-85. Plenum Press, New York.

Hayden, Brian, and Aubrey Cannon 1982 The Corporate Group as an Archaeological Unit. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:132-158.

Hebda, R. 2007 Biodiversity: Geological History in British Columbia. [online] Biodiversity BC Technical Subcommittee [accessed October 15th, 2010].

Hebda, R.ichard and S.Gay Fredericks 1990 History of Marine Resources of the Northeast Pacific Since the Last Glaciation. Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, Series I 1:319-342.

Hebda, Richard and Rolf W. Mathewes 1984 Holocene History of Cedar and Native Indian Cultures of the North American Pacific Coast. Science 225:711-713.

Hejna, M.

341

2002. Lagopus muta (On-line), Animal Diversity Web, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Lagopus_muta.html. [accessed July 09, 2008].

Henderson, M.A. and C.C. Graham 1998 History and Status of Pacific Salmon in British Columbia. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Bulleitn No. 1:13-22.

Hillier, Bill, and Julienne Hanson 1984 The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Hintze, J. 2004 NCSS. Kaysville, Utah.

Hitztaler, S. 2001 Lagopus leucura (On-line), Animal Diversity Web, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Lagopus_leucura.html [accessed July 09, 2008].

Hodder, Ian 1982 Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, New York 1990 The Domestication of Europe: Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies. Blackwell, Cambridge.

Hoos, Lindsay M. 1975 The Skeena River Estuary, Status of Environmental Knowledge to 1975: Report of the Estuary Working Group, Department of the Environment, Regional Board, Pacific Region. Environment Canada, Ottawa.

Huber, Keturah and Jade Sommer 2003 Barnacles: Fed up with being Unappreciated. Journal of Northwest Anthropology 37(2):207-226.

Huelsbeck, David R. 1988 The surplus Economy of the Central Northwest Coast. In Research in Economic Anthropology, supplement 3, edited by Barry L. Isaac. pp. 149-178. JAI Press, Greenwich.

Inglis, Richard 1973 Archaeological Project in the Prince Rupert Harbour, 1972. In Archaeological Survey of Canada Annual Review, 1972, edited by George F. MacDonald. pp. 101-105. National Museums of Canada, Gatineau. 1976 Wet Site Distributions-- the northern case GbTo-33-- the Lachane Site. In The Excavation of Water-Saturated Archaeological Sites (Wet Sites) on the Northwest Coast of North America, edited by Dale R. Croes, pp. 158-185. National Museums of Canada, Gatineau.

Inglis, Gordon, Douglas R. Hudson, Barbara K. Rigsby and Bruce Rigsby

342

1990 Tsimshian of British Columbia since 1900. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 285-293. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Ingold, Tim 1986 The Appropriation of Nature. Manchester University Press, Manchester. 2000 The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Rutledge, London.

Jerardino, A. 1997 Changes in Shellfish Species Composition and Mean Shell Size from a Late-Holocene Record of the West Coast of Southern Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 24 (11): 1031-1044

Johnson, Allen W. and Timothy Earle 2000 The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State. 2nd ed. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Johnson, Matthew 1993 Housing Culture: Traditional Architecture in an English Landscape. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Johnstone, David P. 2003 Early Architecture from the Southern Georgia Strait Region. In Archaeology of Coastal British Columbia: Essays in Honour of Professor Philip M. Hobler, edited by Roy L. Carlson, pp. 109-112. Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.

Joyce, Rosemary A., and Susan D. Gillespie (editors) 2000 Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies. Univeristy of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Kelly, Robert L. 1995 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Kent, Susan 1991 Partitioning Space: Cross-cultural Factors Influencing Domestic Spatial Segmentation. Environment and Behavior 23:438-473.

Kim, Jangsuk 2006 Resource Patch Sharing among Foragers: Lack of Territoriality or Strategic Choice? In Beyond Affluent Foragers: Rethinking Hunter-Gatherer Complexity, edited by Colin Grier, Jangsuk Kim and Junzo Uchiyama, pp. 168-191. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Klinka, K. and C. Chourmouzis 2000 The Mountain Hemlock. Zone of British Columbia. Forest Sciences Department. University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

343

Kolb, Michael J., and James E. Snead 1997 It's a Small World after All: Comparative Analyses of Community Organization in Archaeology. American Antiquity 62(4):609-628.

Kroeber, A. L. 1963 Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Vintage Books, New York. de Laguna, Frederica 1990a Eyak. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 189-196. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. 1990b Tlingit. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 203-228. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Lawrence, D. L., and S. M. Low 1990 The Built Environment and Spatial Form. Annual Review of Anthropology 19:453-505.

Lawrence, R. J. 1990 Public Collective and Private Space: A Study of Urban Housing in Switzerland. In Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study, edited by Susan Kent, pp. 73-91. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Lea, Vanessa 1995 The Houses of the Mebengokre (Kayapo) of Central Brazil-A New Door to their Social Organization. In About the House: Lévi-Strauss and Beyond, edited by Janet Carsten and Stephen Hugh-Jones, pp. 206-225. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Lepofsky, Dana, Michael Blake, D. Brown, S. Morrison, N. Oakes, and N. Lyons. 2000 The archaeology of the Scowlitz site, Southwestern British Columbia. Journal of Field Archaeology 27(4): 391–416.

Lepofsky, Dana and Natasha Lyons 2003 Modeling Ancient Plant Use on the Northwest Coast: Towards an Understanding of Mobility and Sedentism. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:1357-1371.

Lepofsky, Dana, Teresa Trost, and Jesse Morin 2007 Coast Salish Interaction: A View from the Inlets. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 31:190-223.

Lepofsky, Dana, David Schaepe, A. Graesch, M. Lenert, P. Ormerod, K. Carlson, J. Arnold, M. Blake, P. Moore and J. Clague 2009 Exploring Stó:lo-Coast Salish Interaction and Identity in Ancient Houses and Settlements in the Fraser Valley, British Columbia. American Antiquity 74:595-626.

Lévi-Strauss, Claude 1982 The Way of the Masks. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 1987 Anthropology and Myth: Lectures 1951-1982. Blackwell, Oxford.

Limas, B.

344

2001 Circus cyaneus (On-line), Animal Diversity Web, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Circus_cyaneus.html. . [accessed July 09, 2008].

Losey, Robert J., and Dongya Y. Yang 2007 Opportunistic Whale Hunting on the Southern Northwest Coast: Ancient DNA, Artifact, and Ethnographic Evidence. American Antiquity 72(4):657-676.

Lovisek, Joan 2007 The Lax Kw’alaams Indian Band and Others v. The Attorney General of Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia. Prepared for James M. Mackenzie Department of Justice British Columbia Regional Office Vancouver, British Columbia [accessed on line October 25th 2010].

Loy, T. and G.R. Powell 1977 Archaeological Data Recording Guide. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Heritage Record Series No. 3, Victoria.

Lyman, R. L. 1991 Prehistory of the Oregon Coast: The Effects of Excavation Strategies and Assemblage Size on Archaeological Inquiry. Academic Press, San Diego.

MacDonald, George F. 1969 Preliminary Culture Sequence from the Coast Tsimshian Area, British Columbia. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 3(2):240-254. 1984 Painted Houses and Woven Blankets: Symbols of Wealth in Tsimshian Art and Myth. In. The Tsimshian and their Neighbours of the North Pacific Coast, edited by Jay Miller and Carol M Eastman. pp.109-136. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 1993 The Epic of Nekt. In The Tsimshian: Images of the Past; Views for the Present, edited by Margaret Seguin, pp. 65-81. UBC Press, Vancouver. 2002 Haida Monumental Art: Villages of the Queen Charlotte Islands. UBC Press, Vancouver.

MacDonald, George F., and Richard I. Inglis (editors) 1976 The Dig: An Archaeological Reconstruction of a West Coast Village. Archaeological Survey of Canada, Museum of Civilization, Gatineau. 1979 Skeena River Prehistory. National Museum of Canada, Ottawa. 1981 An Overview of the North Coast Prehistory Project (1966-1980). BC Studies 48:37-63.

MacDonald, George F. and Jerome S. Cybulski 2001 The Prince Rupert Harbour Project. In Perspectives on Northern Northwest Coast Prehistory, edited by Jerome S. Cybulski. pp. 1-24. Archaeological Survey of Canada, Canadian Museum of Civilization. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau.

MacDonald, George F., Gary Coupland and David Archer 1987 The Coast Tsimshian, ca. 1750. Historical Atlas of Canada: From the Beginning to 1800.

Mackie, Alexander P., and Laurie Williamson

345

2003 Nuu-chah-nulth Houses: Structural Remains and Cultural Depressions on Southwest Vancouver Island. In Emerging from the Mist: Studies in Northwest Coast Culture History, edited by Gary G. Coupland, R. G. Matson and Quentin Mackie, pp. 105-151. UBC Press, Vancouver.

Marsden, Susan 2000 Defending the Mouth of the Skeena: Perspectives on Tsimshian Tlingit Relations. Tin Ear Press, Prince Rupert. 2002 Adawx, Spanaxnox and the Geopolitics of the Tsimshian. BC Studies 135:101-144.

Marshall, Yvonne 2000 Transformations of Nuu-chah-nulth Houses. In Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies, edited by Rosemary A. Joyce and Susan D. Gillespie, pp. 73-102. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. 2006 Houses and Domestication on the Northwest Coast. In Household Archaeology on the Northwest Coast, edited by Elizabeth Sobel, D. A. T. Gahr and Kenneth M. Ames, pp. 37- 56. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Martindale, Andrew R. C. 1999 The River of Mist: Cultural Change in the Tsimshian Past. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto [UMI, Ann Arbor]. 2003 A Hunter-Gatherer Paramount Chiefdom: Tsimshian Developments through the Contact Period. In Emerging from the Mist: Studies in Northwest Coast Culture History, edited by Gary G. Coupland, R. G. Matson and Quentin Mackie, pp. 12-50. UBC Press, Vancouver. 2006a Methodological Issues in the Use of Tsimshian Oral Traditions (Adawx) in Archaeology. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 30(2):158-192. 2006b Tsimshian Houses and Households through the Contact Period. In Household Archaeology on the Northwest Coast, edited by Elizabeth Sobel, D. A. Trieu Gahr and Kenneth M. Ames, pp. 140-158. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Martindale, Andrew, Bryn Letham, Duncan McLaren, David Archer, Meghan Burchell, and Bernd R. Schöne 2009 Mapping of Subsurface Shell Midden Components through Percussion Coring: Examples from the Dundas Islands. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(7):1565-1575.

Martindale, Andrew R. C. 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.

Matson, R. G. 1983 Intensification and the Development of Cultural Complexity: The Northwest versus the Northeast coast. In The Evolution of Maritime Cultures on the Northeast and Northwest Coasts of America, edited by R. Nash, pp. 124-148. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby. 1992 The Evolution of Northwest Coast Subsistence. In Long-Term Subsistence Change in Prehistoric North America, Vol. Supplement 6, edited by Dale R. Croes, R. A. Hawkins and Barry L. Isaac, pp. 367-430. JAI Press, Greenwich.

346

2003 The Coast Salish House: Lessons from Shingle Point, Valdes Island, British Columbia. In Emerging from the Mist: Studies in Northwest Coast Culture History, edited by Gary G. Coupland, R. G. Matson and Quentin Mackie, pp. 76-104. UBC Press, Vancouver.

Matson, R. G. and Gary Coupland 1995 The prehistory of the Northwest Coast. Academic Press, San Diego.

Matson, R. G., G. Coupland, and Q. Mackie 2003 Emerging from the Mist: Studies in Northwest Coast Culture History. UBC Press, Vancouver.

May, J. 1979 Archaeological Investigations at GbTn-19, Ridley Island, a Shell Midden in the Prince Rupert Area. Manuscript no. 1530, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Gatineau.

McCartney, Allen P. 1979 A Processual Consideration of Thule Whale Bone Houses. In Thule Eskimo Culture: An Anthropological Retrospective, edited by Allen P. McCartney, pp. 301-323. Archaeological Survey of Canada Mercury Series Paper 88, Gatineau.

McCollough, K. 2001. Falco sparverius (On-line), Animal Diversity Web, Universsity of Michigan Museum of Zoology. http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Falco_sparverius.html. [accessed July 09, 2008].

McDonald, James 1983 An Historic Event in the Political Economy of the Tsimshian: Information on the Ownership of the Zimacord District. British Columbia: A Place for Aboriginal Peoples, a special issue of BC Studies (No.57), edited by Paul Tennant, pp 24-37. 2005 Cultivating in the Northwest: Early Accounts of Tsimshian Horticulture. In Keeping it Living: Traditions of Plant Use and Cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America, edited by Douglas Deur and Nancy J. Turner, pp. 240-273. UBC Press, Vancouver.

McGuire, Randall, and Michael B. Schiffer 1983 A Theory of Architectural Design. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2(3):277-303.

McKechnie, Iain 2005 Column Sampling and the Archaeology of Small Fish at Ts‟ishaa. In Ts‟ishaa: Archaeology and Ethnography of a Nuu-chah-nulth Origin Site in Barkley Sound, edited by A.D. McMillan and D.E. St. Claire. pp. 206-223. Archaeology Press, Burnaby.

McLaren, Duncan 2008 Sea Level Change and Archaeological Site Locations on the Dundas Island Archipelago of North Coast British Columbia. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Victoria, Victoria.

McMillan, Alan D.

347

2000 Since the Time of the Transformers. UBC Press, Vancouver.

McMillan, Alan D., Iain McKechnie, Denis E. St. Claire, and S. G. Frederick 2008 Exploring Variability in the Maritime Resource Use on the Northwest Coast: a case study from Barkley Sound, Western Vancouver Island. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 32(2):214-238.

Meengs, Chad C. and Robert T. Lackey 2005 Estimating the Size of Historical Oregon Salmon Runs. Reviews in Fisheries Science 13(1):51-66.

Meidinger, Del, and Jim Pojar 1991 Ecosystems of British Columbia. Special Report Series 6, Province of British Columbia, Victoria.

Menzies, Charles, and Caroline F. Butler 2007 Returning to Selective Fishing through Indigenous Fisheries Knowledge: The Example of K'moda, Gitxaala Territory. American Indian Quarterly 31(3):441-464.

Miller, Jay 1997 Tsimshian Culture: A Light through the Ages. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Mitchell, Donald 1981 Sebassa'a Men. In The World is as Sharp as a Knife: An Anthology in Honour of Wilson Duff, edited by Donald K. Abbott, pp. 79-88. Bristish Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria. 1983 Seasonal Settlements, Village Aggregations and Political Autonomy on the Central Northwest Coast. In The Development of Political Organization in Native North America: 1979 Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society, edited by Elisabeth Tooker, pp. 97-107. The American Ethnological Society, Washington. 1990 Prehistory of the Coasts of Southern British Columbia and Northern Washington. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 340-358. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Mitchell, Donald and Leland Donald 2001 Sharing Resources on the North Pacific Coast of North America: The Case of the Eulachon Fishery. Anthropologica 43(1):19-35.

Monks, Gregory G. 1987 Prey as Bait: the Deep Bay Example. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 11:119-142.

Morgan, K. H., K. Vermeer and R.W. McKelvey 1991 Atlas of pelagic birds of western Canada. Canadian Wildlife Service, Delta.

Morrison, K. 1994 The Intensification of Production: Archaeological Approaches. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1(2):111-159.

348

Moss, Madonna L. 1989 Archaeology and Cultural Ecology of the Prehistoric Angoon Tlingit. Ph.D. University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara [UMI, Ann Arbor]. 1993 Shellfish, Gender and Status on the Northwest Coast: Reconciling Archaeological, Ethnographic and Ethnohistorical Records of the Tlingit. American Anthropologist 95(3):631-652. 1996 Gender, Social Inequality, and Cultural Complexity: Northwest Coast women in prehistory. In Debating Complexity: proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, edited by D. A. Meyer, P. C. Dawson and D. T. Hanna, pp. pp. 81-88. University of Calgary, Calgary. 1998 Northern Northwest Coast Regional Overview. In: North Pacific and Bering Sea Maritime Societies: the Archaeology of Prehistoric and Early Historic Coastal Peoples. Arctic Anthropology 35(1):88-111. 2004 The Status of Archaeology and Archaeological Practice in Southeast Alaska in Relation to the Larger Northwest Coast. Arctic Anthropology 41(2):177-196. 2005 Tlingit Horticulture: an Indigenous or Introduced Development? In: Keeping it Living: Traditions of Plant Use and Cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America, edited by Douglas Deur and Nancy J. Turner, pp. 274-295. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 2007 The Killisnoo Picnicground Midden (49-SIT-124) Revisited: Assessing Archaeological Recovery of Vertebrate Faunal Remains from Northwest Coast Shell Middens. Journal of Northwest Anthropology 41(1):1-17.

Moss, Madonna L., and Jon M. Erlandson 1995 Reflections on North American Pacific Coast Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 9(1):1-45. 1998 A Comparative Chronology of Northwest Coast Fishing Features. In Hidden Dimensions: The Cultural Significance of Wetland Archaeology, edited by Kathryn Bernick, pp. 180- 198. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. 2010 Diversity in North Pacific Shellfish Assemblages: the Barnacles of Kit‟n‟Kaboodle Cave, Alaska. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:3359-3369.

Moss, Madonna, Jon Erlandson M., and R. Stuckenrath 1990 Wood Stake Fish Weirs and Salmon Fishing on the Northwest Coast: Evidence from southern Alaska. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 14:143-158.

Moss, Madonna L. Dorothy M. Peteet and Cathy Whitlock 2007 Mid-Holocene Culture and Climate on the Northwest Coast of North America. In Climate Change and Cultural Dynamics: A Global Perspective on Mid-Holocene Transitions, edited by David G Anderson, Kirk A. Maasch and Daniel H. Sandweiss, pp. 491-521. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Nabokov, Peter and Robert Easton 1989 Native American Architecture. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Natural Resources Canada. 2009 Rivers. Atlas of Canada, Retrieved from http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/auth/english/learningresources/biblio_atlases/index.html

349

Newell, Diane 1993 Tangled Webs of History: Indians and the Law in Canada’s Pacific Coast Fisheries. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Newsome, S.D., Etnier, M.A., Gifford-Gonzalez, D., Phillips, D.L., van Tuinen, M., Hadly, E.A., Costa, D.P., Kennett, D.J., Guilderson, T.P., Koch, P.L. 2007 The shifting baseline of northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) ecology in the northeast Pacific Ocean. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(23): 9709-9714

Neylan, Susan 2003 The Heavens are Changing: Nineteenth-Century Protestant Missions and Tsimshian Christianity. McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal.

Niblack, A. P. 1970 Coast Indians of Southern Alaska and Northern British Columbia. Johnson Reprint Company, New York.

Nolan, Richard W. 1977 The Utilization of Fish Resources by the Coast Tsimshian: Predicting Optimal Patterns of Exploitation. Unpublished MA thesis, Trent University, Peterbourgh.

Norton, Helen 1985 Women and Resources of the Northwest Coast: Documentation from the 18th and Early 19th Centuries. Ph.D. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Olson, R. 1967 Social Structure and Social Life of the Tlingit in Alaska. University of California Anthropological records, No. 26, University of California, Berkeley.

Orchard, Trevor J. 2007 From Otters to Urchins: Continuity and Change in Haida Economy during the Late Holocene and Maritime Fur Trade Periods. Ph.D. University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.

Orchard, Trevor J., and Terrance Clark 2005 Multidimensional Scaling of Northwest Coast Faunal Assemblages: A Case Study from Southern Haida Gwaii. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 29:88-112.

Pajerski, L. 2005 Accipiter gentilis (On-line), Animal Diversity Web, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Accipiter_gentilis.html [accessed July 09, 2008].

Parker Pearson, Mike

350

1982 Mortuary Practices, Society and Ideology: An Ethnoarchaeological Study. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 99-113. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Pauketat, Timothy R. 2000 Politicization and Community in the Pre-Columbian Mississippi Valley. In The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, edited by Marcello A. Canuto and Jason Yaeger, pp. 16-43. Routledge, London. 2001 Practice and History in Archaeology: An Emerging Paradigm. Anthropological Theory 1(1):73-98. 2007 Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions. Altamira Press, Lanham, MD.

Pauketat, Timothy R., and Susan M. Alt 2005 Agency in a Postmold? Physicality and the Archaeology of Culture-Making. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12(3):213-237.

Paynter, Robert 1989 The Archaeology of Equality and Inequality. Annual Review in Anthropology 18:369-399.

Pilsbry, Henry A. 1916 The Sessile barnacles (Cirripedia) Contained in the Collections of the U.S. National Museum; Including a Monograph of the American Species. Smithsonian Institution, Bulletin 93, Washington.

Price, T. D., and A. Brown (editors) 1985 Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity. Academic Press, Orlando.

Prince, Paul 1998 Settlement, Trade and Social Ranking at Kitwanga, British Columbia. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation McMaster University, Hamilton. 2005 Fish Weirs, Salmon Productivity, and Village Settlement in an Upper Skeena River Tributary, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 29(1):68-87.

Quayle, D. B. 1960 Intertidal Bivalves of British Columbia. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, B.C.

Quayle, D.B. and N. Bourne 1972 Clam Fisheries of British Columbia. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa.

Quitmyer, I.R. and D.S.Jones 2000 The over-exploitation of hard clams (Mercenaria spp.) from five archaeological sites in the southeastern United States. The Florida Anthropologist 53(2-3): 160-168.

Rapoport, Amos 1969 House Form and Culture. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

351

Reimer PJ, Baillie MGL, Bard E, Bayliss A, Beck JW, Blackwell PG, Bronk Ramsey C, Buck CE, Burr GS, Edwards RL, Friedrich M, Grootes PM, Guilderson TP, Hajdas I, Heaton TJ, Hogg AG, Hughen KA, Kaiser KF, Kromer B, McCormac FG, Manning SW, Reimer RW, Richards DA, Southon JR, Talamo S, Turney CSM, van der Plicht J, Weyhenmeyer CE. 2009. IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51(4):1111–50.

Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Elizabeth S. Wing 1999 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Renker, Ann M and Erna Gunther 1990 Makah. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 422-430. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Ricketts, Edward F., Jack Calvin and Joel W. Hedgepeth 1985 Between Pacific Tides. Fifth edition, Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Ringrose, T.J. 1993 Diversity Indices and Archaeology. In Computing the Past: Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, CAA92, edited by J. Andersen, T. Madsen and I Scollar. pp. 279-285. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus.

Roper, Donna C. 2007 The effect of the Direct Historical Approach on the Development of Theory in Plains Archaeology: A Comment on Mitchell's Analysis of the MBP Legacy. American Antiquity 72(4):785-788.

Roth, Christopher F. 2002 Goods, Names and Selves: Rethinking the Tsimshian Potlatch. American Ethnologist 29(1):123-150. 2008 Becoming Tsimshian: The Social Life of Names. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Rowley-Conwy, Peter 2001 Time, Change and the Archaeology of Hunter-Gatherers: How Original is the "Original Affluent Society"? In Hunter-Gatherers: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, edited by C. Painter-Brick, R. H. Layton and Peter Rowley-Conwy, pp. 39-72. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ruggles, Angela 2007 Home is Where the Hearth is? Evidence for an Early Non-Domestic Structure on the Dundas Islands of North Coastal British Columbia. Unpublished MA thesis, Univeristy of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Ryder, June M. 1978 Geology, Landforms and Surficial Materials. In The Soil Landscapes of British Columbia, edited by K. W. G. Valentine, P. N. Sprout, T. E. Baker and L. M. Lavkulich, pp. 11-34. Ministry of the Environment, Victoria.

352

1989 Quaternary Geology of the Canadian Cordillera, Climate. In Quaternary Geology of Canada and Greenland, edited by R. J. Fulton, pp. 26-31. Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa.

Sahlins, Marshall D. 1972 Stone Age Economics. Aldine-Atherton, Chicago.

Samuels, S. R. 1991 Patterns in Ozette Floor Middens: Reflections of Social Units. In Ozette Archaeological Project Research Reports, Volume I, House Structure and Floor Midden, edited by S. R. Samuels, pp. 175-270. Wasington State University, Department of Anthropology Reports of Investigations 63, Pullman.

Sandstrom, Alan R. 2000 Toponymic Groups and House Organization: The Nahuas of Northern Veracruz, Mexico. In Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies, pp. 53-72. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Sassaman, Kenneth E. 2004 Complex Hunter–Gatherers in Evolution and History; A North American Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Research 12(3):227-280.

Schaefer, D. G. 1978 Climate. In The Soil Landscapes of British Columbia, edited by K. W. G. Valentine, P. N. Sprout, T. E. Baker and L. M. Lavkulich, pp. 3-10. Ministry of the Environment, Victoria.

Schaepe, David 2003 Validating the Maurer House. In Archaeology of Coastal British Columbia: Essays in Honour of Professor Philip M. Hobler, edited by Roy L. Carlson, pp. 113-152. Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.

Schalk, R. F. 1977 The Structure of an Anadromous Fish Resource. In For Theory Building in Archaeology, edited by Lewis R. Binford, pp. 207-249. Academic Press, Orlando. 1981 Land Use and Organizational Complexity among Foragers of Northwestern North America. In Affluent Foragers: Pacific Coasts East and West, edited by Shuzo Koyama and David Hurst Thomas, pp. 53-76. National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka.

Schiffer, Michael B. 1972 Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. American Antiquity 37(2):156-165. 1976 Behavioral Archeology. Academic Press, New York. 1983 Toward the Identification of Formation Processes. American Antiquity 48(4):675-706.

Schlimme, K. 2003 Neovison vison (On-line), Animal Diversity Web, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Neovison_vison.html. [accessed June 27, 2008].

353

Schortman, Edward M. 1989 Interregional Interaction in Prehistory: The Need for a New Perspective. American Antiquity 54(1):52-65.

Schrire, Carmel 1984 Past and Present in Hunter Gatherer Studies. Academic Press, Orlando, Fla.

Seguin, Margaret 1984 Lest There Be No Salmon: Symbols in Traditional Tsimshian Potlatch. In The Tsimshian, Images of the Past; Views from the Present, edited by Margaret Seguin, pp. 110-136. UBC Press, Vancouver. 1993 Introduction. In The Tsimshian: Images of the Past; Views for the Present, edited by Margaret Seguin, pp. ix. UBC Press, Vancouver.

Shefferly, N. and K. Joly. 2000 Rangifer tarandus (On-line), Animal Diversity Web, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Rangifer_tarandus.html [accessed June 27, 2008].

Shennan, Stephen 1997 Quantifying Archaeology. Academic Press, San Diego, Calif.

Simonsen, Bjorn O. 1973 Archaeological Investigations in the Hecate Strait-Milbanke Sound Area of British Columbia. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.

Smith, Cameron M. 2006 Formation Processes of a Lower Columbia River Plankhouse Site. In Household Archaeology on the Northwest Coast, edited by Elizabeth Sobel, D. A. T. Gahr and Kenneth M. Ames, pp. 233-269. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Smith, Eric Alden 1991 Risk and Uncertainty in the Original "Affluent Society": Evolutionary Ecology of Resource-Sharing and Land Tenure. In Hunters and Gatherers: History, Evolution and Social Change, edited by T. Ingold and D. Riches. pp. 222-51, Berg, Oxford.

Smith, Harlan I. 1909 Archeological Remains on the Coast of Northern British Columbia and Southern Alaska. American Anthropologist 11(4):595-600. 1929 Kitchen-Middens of the Pacific Coast of Canada. National Museum of Canada Annual Report for 1927, Bulletin 56:42-46. 1997 Ethnobotany of the Gitksan Indians of British Columbia. Mercury Series Paper/ Canadian Ethnology Services no. 132. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Ottawa.

Spaete, L. and K. Wehrly.

354

2006. Oncorhynchus clarkii (On-line), Animal Diversity Web, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Oncorhynchus_clarkii.h tml [accessed October 06, 2010].

Speth, J.D. and K.A. Speilman 1983 Energy Source, Protein Metabolism, and Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence Strategies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2:1-31.

Southon, J. R., D. E. Nelson, and J. S. Vogel 1990 A Record of Past Ocean-Atmosphere Radiocarbon Differences from the Northeast Pacific. Paleoceanography 5:197-206.

Statistics Canada 1947 Canada Year Book, 1947; The Official Statistical Annual of the Resources, History, Institutions, and Social and Economic Conditions of the Dominion. Minister of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa.

Stein, Julie K. 1992 Deciphering a Shell Midden. Academic Press, San Diego. 2000 Exploring Coast Salish Prehistory: The Archaeology of San Juan Island. University of Washington Press/Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture, Seattle.

Stein, Julie K., Jennie N. Deo, and Laura S. Phillips 2003 Big Sites;Short Time: Accumulation Rates in Archaeological Sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 30(3):297-316.

Steinway, M. 2003 Phoca vitulina (On-line), Animal Diversity Web, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Phoca_vitulina.html. [accessed June 27, 2008]

Steneck, R.S., M.H. Graham, B.J. Bourque, D. Corbett, J.M. Erlandson, J.A. Estes and M.J. Tegner 2002 Kelp Forest Ecosystems: Biodiversity, Stability, Resilience and Future. Environmental Conservation 29: 436-549.

Stewart, Hilary 1977 Indian Fishing: Early Methods on the Northwest Coast. Douglas & McIntyre, Vancouver. 1984 Cedar. Douglas and McIntyre, Vancouver. 1996 Stone, Bone, Antler & Shell.Douglas & McIntyre, Vancouver.

Stewart, Kathlyn, Gary Coupland, and Donna Naughton 2003 Effects of Screen Size on Fish Element Recovery in Northern Northwest Coast Middens. In Transitions in Zooarchaeology, edited by Kathlyn Stewart and Frances Stewart, pp. 53- 63. Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa.

355

Stewart, Kathlyn, and Frances Stewart 2001 Prehistoric Subsistence and Seasonality at Prince Rupert Harbour: History and Synthesis of Zooarchaeological Research. In Perspectives on Northern Northwest Coast Prehistory, edited by Jerome Cybulski, pp. 173-202. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau.

Stewart, Kathlyn, Frances Stewart and Gary Coupland 2009 Boardwalk, Northern Northwest Coast, Canada: A New Face to an Old Site. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 33(2):205-33

Strathmann, M.F. 1987 Reproduction and Development of Marine Invertebrates of the North Pacific Coast. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Sutherland, Patricia 2001 Revisiting an Old Concept: The North Coast Interaction Sphere. In Perspectives on Northern Northwest Coast Prehistory, edited by Jerome Cybulski, pp. 49-60. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau.

Suttles, Wayne 1987a Affinal Ties, Subsistence and Prestige Among the Coast Salish. In Coast Salish Essays, pp.16-25. Talonbooks, Vancouver. 1987b Coping with Abundance: Subsistence on the Northwest Coast. In Coast Salish Essays, pp.45-66. Talonbooks, Vancouver. 1990 Central Coast Salish. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 453-475. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. 1991 The Shed-Roof House. In A Time of Gathering, edited by Robin K. Wright, pp. 73-87. University of Washington Press,

Swadesh, M. 1948 Motivations in Nootka Warfare. Southwestern Jounral of Anthropology 4:73-88.

Swan, James G. 1964 The Indians of Cape Flattery, at the Entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Washington Territory. Shorey Book Store, Seattle.

Testart, Alain 1982 The Significance of Food Storage Among Hunter-Gatherers: Residence Patterns, Population Densities, and Social Inequalities. Current Anthropology 23(5):523-537.

Thom, Brian D. 2005 Coast Salish Sense of Place: Dwelling, Meaning, Power, Property and Territory in the Coast Salish World. Unpublished dissertation, McGill University.

Thomas, J. 1999 Haliotis kamtschatkana (On-line), Animal Diversity Web University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Haliotis_kamtschatkana .html. [accessed July 09, 2008].

356

Trieu Gahr, D. 2006 Architects to Ancestors: The Life Cycle of Plankhouses. In Household Archaeology on the Northwest Coast, edited by Elizabeth Sobel, D. A. T. Gahr and Kenneth M. Ames, pp. 57- 79. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Trigger, Bruce G. 1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1990 Monumental Architecture: A Thermodynamic Explanation of Symbolic Behaviour. World Archaeology 22(2):119-132. 1991 Distinguished Lecture in Archeology: Constraint and Freedom - A New Synthesis for Archeological Explanation. American Anthropologist 93(3):551-569.

Turner, Nancy J. and Sandra Peacock 2005 Solving the Perennial Paradox: Ethnobotanical Evidence for Plant Resource Management on the Northwest Coast. In Keeping it Living: Traditions of Plant Use and Cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America, edited by Douglas Deur and Nancy J. Turner, pp. 101-150. UBC Press, Vancouver.

Turner, Nancy J., Robin Smith, and James T. Jones 2005 "A Fine Line Between Two Nations": Ownership Patterns for Plant Resource Management on the Northwest Coast. In Keeping it Living: Traditions of Plant Use and Cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America, edited by Douglas Deur and Nancy J. Turner, pp. 151-180. UBC Press, Vancouver.

Turunen, Carrie, and Jukka Turunen 2003 Development History and Carbon Accumulation of a Slope Bog in Oceanic British Columbia, Canada. The Holocene 13(2):225-238.

Vastokas, Joan M. 1966 Architecture of the Northwest Coast Indians of America. Unpublished dissertation, Columbia University.

Wason, Paul K. 1994 The Archaeology of Rank. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Waterson, Roxana 1995 Houses and Hierarchies in Island Southeast Asia. In About the House: Lévi-Strauss and Beyond, edited by Janet Carsten and Stephen Hugh-Jones, pp. 47-68. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Wessen, Gary C. 1988 The Use of Shellfish Resources on the Northwest Coast: The View from Ozette. In Prehistoric Economies of the Pacific Northwest Coast, edited by Barry L. Isaac, pp. 179- 210. JAI Press Inc., Greenwich.

Whitaker, A. R.

357

2008 Incipient Aquaculture in Prehistoric California?: Long-term Productivity and Sustainability vs. Immediate Returns for the Harvest of Marine Invertebrates. Journal of Archaeological Science 35(4):1114-1123.

Wilk, Richard 1997 Household Ecology: Economic Change and Domestic Life Among the Kekchi Maya of Belize. Northern Illinois University Press, De Kalb.

Wilk, Richard R. and W. L. Rathje 1982 Household Archaeology. American Behavioral Scientist 6:617-639.

Williams, Judith 2006 Clam Gardens: Aboriginal Mariculture on Canada's West Coast. New Star Books, Vancouver.

Williams, Nancy M., and Eugene S. Hunn (editors) 1982 Resource Managers: North American and Australian Hunter-Gatherers. Westview Press for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Boulder.

Wilson, P.J. 1988 The Domestication of the Human Species. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Woodburn, James 1980 Hunter-Gatherers Today and Reconstructing the Past. In Soviet and Western Anthropology, edited by E. Gellner, pp. 94-118. Columbia University Press, New York. 1982 Egalitarian Societies. Man 17(3):431-451.

Yagoda, S. 2004 Pycnopodia helianthoides (On-line), Animal Diversity Web, University of Michiagn Museum of Zoology, http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Pycnopodia_helianthoid es.html. [accessed July 09, 2008].

Yee Cannon, Debbie 1987 Marine Fish Osteology: A Manual for Archaeologists. Archaeology Press, Burnaby.

Yesner, David R. 1987 Life in the Garden of Eden: Causes and Consequences of the Adoption of Marine Diets by Human Societies. In Food and Evolution, edited by Marvin Harris and E. Ross, pp. 285- 310. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.

358

Appendix A. Auger Samples

Table A-1. Location and depth of augers taken at GbTo-77. Auger # Location Stratigraphy Side midden between D 0-55cm. humus. No sample taken 1 and E 55-85cm. sand 85-143cm. mixed shell 85-143cm. brown mud 175cm. orange/brown schist and mud" water table (like beach) 2 House floor house D 0-65cm. humus and black organic soil 96-109cm. black organic with schist 109-146cm. mud and schist. Water table (beach material). Some shell in lab 146-168cm. mud and schist 3 House floor house D 0-83cm. humus. No sample taken 83-101cm. black organic soil with schist 101-110cm. black organic soil with schist 110-115cm. black organic soil with schist. Stopped due to large subsurface rock. Some shell in lab Side midden 0-60cm. humus. No sample taken 4 between C and D 60-105cm. mixed shell 139-147cm. small quantities of mixed shell 147-152cm. small quantities of fragmented mixed shell 152 to 160cm. small quantities of fragmented mixed shell 164cm. schist gravel Side midden between 0-59cm. humus. No sample taken 5 house C and D 59-84cm. mixed shell black soil, medium grain shell 84-100cm. mixed shell 100-109cm. mixed shell 109-122cm. black soil, small particles of mixed shell 122-139cm. mixed shell 139-154cm. mixed shell 154-165cm. dense mussel layer 165-174cm. dense mussel layer 174-200cm. mud and schist 6 Back midden house C 0-20cm. humus 20-100cm. dense and compact mixed shell with pockets of urchin 100-111cm. mixed shell in black soil 111-129cm. grey soil, finely crushed mixed shell 129-145cm. grey soil, finely crushed mixed shell 145-165cm. dense barnacle layer 165-189cm. mixed shell in black soil and brown sand 189-194cm. mixed shell in black soil; water table 194-205cm. mud and schist

359

Auger # Location Stratigraphy

7 Back midden, house C 0-20cm. humus. No sample taken 20-65cm. mixed shell (some mussel) 65-83cm. mixed shell with lots of urchin 83-100cm. mixed shell in black soil 100-109cm. mixed shell in grey soil, very large pieces 109-134cm. mixed shell (some barnacle) in black soil 134-155cm. mixed shell (some whole shell, some barnacle) in black soil 155-159cm. dense mixed shell in black soil, some very large pieces of shell 159-168cm. mixed shell black soil, med to large fragments 168-179cm. mixed shell (some mussel) black soil, med to large pieces of shell

179-200cm. mixed shell med to large pieces of shell and then smaller part 200cm. mud and schist mud and schist, very wet House C interior south 0-50cm. humus 8 wall 50-75cm. dense shell layer mixed shell 75-105cm. black organic soil very little shell identified during analysis 105-130cm. black organic soil with schist 130-155cm. mud and schist; water table 155-175cm. mud and schist house C interior back 0-75cm. humus. No sample taken 9 wall 75-113cm. black organic soil with schist soil has green tint toward bottom of this sample 113-146cm. black organic soil with schist greenish with red 146-181cm. mud and schist; water table house c interior north 0-77cm. humus. No sample taken 10 wall back 77-100cm. mixed shell small quantities 100-114cm. black organic soil with schist 114-123cm. schist gravel 123-132cm. schist gravel (earthy solid) dark grey/black Side midden between 0-54cm. humus. No sample taken 11 houses B and C. 54-80cm. Mussel and other shell 80-119cm. mixed shell/schist (some mussel) 119-137cm. mixed shell 137-165cm. mixed shell thinning out 165cm. schist gravel 12 0-52cm. humus. No sample taken 52-100cm. mixed shell 100-117cm. mixed shell thinning out ? 132-140cm. no visible shell 13 House floor 0-45cm. humus. No sample 45-77cm. sand (grey) no visible shell 77-95cm. no visible shell

360

Auger # Location Stratigraphy 14 0-70cm. humus. No sample taken. 70-105cm. mixed shell 105-130cm. mixed shell less shell more schist 130-150cm. schist gravel Side Midden between 0-42cm. humus. No sample taken 15 house A and B 42-57cm. black organic soil matrix mixed shell 57-100cm. mixed shell black organic soild matrix 100-108cm. mixed shell (mussel and clam visible), some large pieces in black soil 108-123cm. many small particles, but still some large mixed shell 123-145cm. mixed shell grey matrix and schist 145-155cm. grey earthy matrix, some shell may be from sides schist gravel 16 North Periphery 0-40cm. humus. No sample taken 40-100cm. mixed shell black soil matrix. Small to med particles 100-128cm. mixed shell black soil matrix 128-145cm. mixed shell black soil. Small to med particles 145cm. schist gravel grey soil. Through midden a few cm above North Periphery, front 0-75cm. humus. No sample taken. 17 area 75-121cm. mixed shell black soil matrix. Small to med particles 121-164cm. mixed shell black soil matrix. Some schist, dense shell 164-182cm. mixed shell earthy brown with schist, less shell 182-200cm. schist gravel grey soil North Periphery, back 0-72cm. humus. No sample taken 18 area 72cm. mixed shell stopped due to large subsurface obstruction-rock. North Periphery, back 0-77cm. humus. No sample taken 19 area 77-106cm. mixed shell (barnacle) 106-129cm. dense barnacle layer 129-142cm. mixed shell and schist beach sand at bottom North periphery, back 0-46cm humus. No sample taken 20 area 46-100cm. mixed shell (some mussel) black soil matrix 100-131cm. mixed shell black soil, large shell particles 131-140cm. mixed shell black soil, large and small particles 140-148cm. mixed shell last 5cm grey schist 21 Back midden, house B 0-44cm. humus. No sample taken. 44-100cm. mixed shell mixed with dark soil 100-133cm. mixed shell grey soil, lots of shell in 133-176cm. mixed shell (some mussel) grey soil 176-205cm. mixed shell (some mussel and urchin) grey soil 205-221cm. mixed shell grey soil 221-236cm. schist gravel densely packed schist

361

Auger # Location Stratigraphy Back Midden between 0-49cm humus. No sample taken. 22 house D and E 49-100cm. mixed shell black soil, small to med particles 100-137cm. mixed shell black soil, larger shell particles 137-172cm. mixed shell grey soil 172-185cm. schist gravel 23 Back Midden, house F 0-60cm. humus. No sample taken, off midden 60-80cm. schist gravel grey soil, sandy, like beach 80-100cm. mud and schist brown, large particle sand, water table South periphery, back 0-40cm. humus. No sample taken 24 area 40-60cm. humus and sand 60-90cm. mixed shell black soil, fine particle shell, wet 90-100cm. schist gravel grey soil 100-130cm. large particle sand, water table, sm bits of shell schist gravel South periphery, back 0-40cm. humus. No sample taken 25 area 40-95cm. mixed shell black soil, small to med particles 95-105cm. mixed shell fine shell particles, schist matrix 105-115cm. mud and schist South periphery, front 0-50cm. humus. No sample taken 26 area 50-90cm. mixed shell black soil, fine to med shell particles 90-105cm. mixed shell black soil, fine to med shell particles 105-113cm. schist gravel 113-140cm. mixed shell black soil 140-150cm. schist gravel 150-162cm. mud and schist water table 27 Front area, house D 0-75cm. humus. No sample taken 75-105cm. mixed shell black soil, some schist 75-114cm. black organic soil, some very few shell particles shell 114-124cm. schist gravel 28 Front area, house C Humus schist gravel 29 Front area, house B 0-42cm. humus 42-65cm. No samples taken, stopped due to subsurface obstruction. schist gravel Side midden, between 0-48cm. humus 30 house A and B 48-65cm. mixed shell black soil, small particles 65-100cm. black soil, small particles, hit rock at 100 cm mixed shell

362

Appendix B Table B-1. NISP for the GbTo-77 mammal remains in excavated faunal sample arranged by site context and screen size. Back midden house A house D North Side Midden South side midden Total by taxon Common Latin name name 1/4 inch 1/8 inch 1/4 inch 1/8 inch 1/4 inch 1/8 inch 1/4 inch 1/8 inch 1/4 inch 1/8 inch 1/4 inch 1/8 inch Odocoileus sp. Deer 1 1 16 2 18 2 Cervidae cf deer 11 1 1 8 1 20 2 Oreamnos Goats americanus 2 1 1 1 2 4 3 Carnivora Ursus sp. Bear 1 1 1 3 0 Enhydra lutris Sea otter 3 7 1 10 1 Tamiasciurus Mink hudsonicus 1 0 1 Zalophus Northern californianus sea lion 3 3 0 Callorhinus Northern ursinus fur seal cynocephalus 1 1 0 Harbour Phoca vitulina seal 2 14 2 4 10 5 30 7 Felis concolor Cougar 1 1 0 Vulpis fulva Red fox abietorum 2 2 4 0 Cetacea Cetacea Whale 7 0 7 Rodentia Marmota Red monax squirrel 1 1 0 Castor Beaver canadensis 4 2 6 0 Total identified mammals 15 1 1 24 2 10 1 51 19 101 23 Peromyscus deer sp. mouse 5 0 5 Small

rodent 1 1 1 2 3 3 5 Unidentified sea mammal 1 5 7 4 4 5 17 9 Canis sp. cf dog 8 0 1 2 3 10 4 Canis lupus dog familiaris 26 3 5 1 7 39 3 large mammal 4 2 10 1 16 1 Unidentified mammals med to large mammal 1 1 8 1 5 3 2 9 12

363

medium mammal 10 7 10 7 antler/sea mammal 5 5 0 other unid mamals 46 31 4 62 36 14 10 190 85 316 162 total unid mammals 51 32 4 8 62 37 21 10 218 95 356 182 Total mammals 102 36 6 8 97 39 39 18 282 130 526 231

364

Table B-2. NISP for the GbTo-77 bird remains in excavated faunal sample arranged by site context and screen size.

Back midden house A house D North side midden South Side Midden Total by Taxon

Latin name Common name 1/4 inch 1/8 inch 1/4 inch 1/8 inch 1/4 inch 1/8 inch 1/4 inch 1/8 inch 1/4 inch 1/8 inch 1/4 inch 1/8 inch

Medium duck 1 5 2 5 3 Duck indet. 4 3 3 7 3 Small duck 1 2 3 0 Large duck 2 1 2 1 1 1 9 1 15 3 Common merganser 1 1 1 2 1 5 1

cf Hooded Anatinae merganser 1 1 0 White winged scoter 1 1 1 1

Common eider 1 1 1 1 Branta Canadensis 1 1 0 Branta Canadensis hutchensei 1 1 2 0 Branta Canadensis minima 0 0

Small goose 1 1 0 Brantae, Anser Goose indet. 0 0 1 3 2 4 2

Cygnus sp. Swans 0 0 1 1 0 Small gull 1 1 0

Herring gull 1 2 1 1 2

Medium gull 1 1 0 Mew gull 1 0 1

Larus sp. Gulls indet. 0 0 cf Eagle 1 1 0

365

Accipitridae, Falconidae Birds of Prey 0 0 0 1 1 0 Gaviidae Loons 0 1 0 2 2 1 Turdidae Song bird 0 0 0 2 2 0 Sphyrapicus sp. Woodpecker 0 0 1 1 0 Total identified per assemblage 3 2 3 3 13 2 2 0 37 11 56 18

Large bird 2 1 2 1

Medium bird 1 1 1 1

Small bird 2 1 1 2 1 5 1

Unidentified Birds 2 2 2 1 9 1 24 8 37 12

Total birds per assemblage 7 4 5 4 23 3 3 0 66 22 104 33

366

Table B-3. NISP for the GbTo-77 fish remains in excavated faunal sample arranged by site context and screen size. Back Midden house A house D North side midden South side midden 1/4 inch 1/8 inch 1/4 inch 1/8 inch 1/4 inch 1/8 inch 1/4 inch 1/8 inch 1/4 inch 1/8 inch Latin name Common name screen screen screen screen screen screen screen screen screen screen

Thaleichthys pacificus Eulachon 1 2 3 Osmerid Osmeridae indeterminate 3 1

Lepidopsetta bilineata Rock Sole 1

Platichthys sp. Starry type 1 1 1 Flatfish Pleuronectiformes indeterminate 3 16 1 1 2 2 37 10 Cods Gadid sp. indeterminate 1 0 1 1

Gadus macrocephalus Pacific Cod 1 Greenlings Hexagrammidae indeterminate 3 7 3 4 2 3 22 23

Hexagrammos decgrammus kelp greenling 1 2 1 2 1 1

Clupea harengus pallasi Pacific herring 5 97 9 16 47 5 50 43 243

Ophiodon elongatus Lingcod 1 1 3 3 1 Prickleback Xiphister sp. indeterminate 2 2 2 Sebastes sp. Rockfish 4 3 4 8 5

367

Salmon 1349 1410 29 35 450 258 701 336 2769 1675 cf pink 3 Oncorhynchus sp. cf coho 1 1 2 Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus Irish lord 2 3 1 1 1 3 6 4 Sculpins indeterminate 10 6 1 4 2 1 18 11 Myoxocephalus Cottidae sp. 1 Hippoglossus stenolepis Pacific halibut 1

Theragra chalcogramma Walleye pollock 1

Hydrolagus colliei Ratfish 2 5 5 4 1 20 14

Squalus acanthias Dogfish 3 6 2 2 28 27 Total identified fish 1383 1561 30 48 484 317 722 402 2964 2023 Unidentified fish 304 2322 35 26 383 451 283 585 1707 2980 Salmon/trout/char 1 1 2 1 Large non-salmon fish 1 1 Total fish 1688 3884 65 74 867 768 1005 987 4674 5005

368

Table C-4. NISP for the GbTo-77 equal volume samples (column, bulk and auger samples) arranged by site context and screen size. Back Midden house A house D South Side Midden Auger 11 6.3 mm 2.8 mm 1.4 mm 2.8 mm 1.4mm 1.4 mm 2.8 mm 6.3 mm 1.4 mm 2.8 mm 6.3 mm 1.4 mm 2.8 mm Salmon 2 1 15 0 1 0 0 1 13 6 1 2 5 Herring 0 2 5 0 2 4 3 0 9 1 0 1 0 Smelt 0 1 3 0 0 13 2 0 18 2 0 0 0 Large non-salmon fish 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Unidentified fish 33 24 2 2 10 54 40 1 71 21 3 4 4 Unidentified bird 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unidentified mammal 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

369

Appendix C: The Artifacts

Eighty-five artifacts were uncovered during the excavations at GbTo-77. A summary of these artifacts is presented in table c-1 (following Ames 2005). Most artifacts were fashioned from mammal bone, though slate, shell, bird and fish bone are also represented. Artifacts were uncovered from all excavated contexts and recovery rates proved to be very different in each context. As the vast majority of artifacts uncovered were formed from mammal bone, it is not surprising that house depressions, which lack high concentrations of shell, produced so few artifacts. I used Ames (2005a), Loy and Powell (1977) and Stewart (1977, 1996) to identify and categorize the GbTo-77 artifacts.

Piercing tools consist of awls, points and chisels. Flakes are not common in this region, but a number of small quartzite flakes were uncovered and may have been used for cutting particularly with regards to fish processing (Ames 2005:171; Flenniken 1981). Adornment artifacts consist of bone pendants and shell and stone beads. Most miscellaneous ground stone and bone are likely part of larger points or awls. I discuss each category below.

Items of Adornment

This is a relatively diverse category of artifacts that includes slate and shell beads, a possible amber bead, as well as grooved mammal teeth. There is also a possible shell pendant; the drilled hole whoever, may also result from Moonsnail drilling. Slate beads are well made and common in other sites throughout the harbour. The shell beads may be fashioned from dentalium as they are very similar to the denatlium beads pictures in Ames (2005: Figure 8.10).

370

Table c-1 Summary table of artifacts recovered from GbTo-77 by class. Bone Misc. Misc. Quartz Slate Points/Awls/ Antler Ground Worked Adornment Flake Point Barbs Adze/Chisels Wedge Stone Bone Other Total

South Side Midden 5 3 5 11 4 1 1 9 0 39 North Side Midden 2 1 0 2 1 1 0 3 0 10 Back Midden 3 0 2 5 2 0 0 8 1 21 house A 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 house D 2 2 2 2 0 0 1 2 2 13 Total 12 7 9 20 7 2 2 23 3 85

At other harbour sites, shell beads are generally quite restricted in terms of their context. In

Ames‟ (2005) harbour-wide analysis of materials excavated by the National Museum in the late

1960s and early 1970s, dentalium beads were only recovered in burial contexts at Boardwalk.

There is no evidence to suggest that we encountered a human burial in the back midden at

GbTo-77 and the beads were not found in the same stratigraphic context as the dog remains.

Moreover, dentalium beads were found in other contexts within this site. It is likely then that these beads were lost while worn, either within the house and later deposited in the midden with other household refuse, or during activities that took place on the back midden. A bead of an unknown material (possibly amber) was found toward the front of the house on the surface of the house floor (Figure C-1). I am aware of only a few other instances on the northern coast where beads of a similar material have been found, namely in burial contexts at the nearby

Boardwalk site (Ames 2005; MacDonald and Cybulski 2001:11-12) and at village sites in Haida

Gwaii (Trevor Orchard, personal communication 2004). A photograph of an “amber” bead in

Ames (2005:217) is nearly identical to the GbTo-77 bead, as are the beads from Haida Gwaii.

According to the Canadian Museum of Civilization (CMC 2006), amber beads from the

371

Figure C-1. Stone bead of unknown material (possibly amber).

Boardwalk site may have come from an amber quarry north of Prince George, British Columbia.

I cannot be certain of the raw material used for this bead. Bead of this nature are, however, very rare in the harbour, it is possible the source of this bead is quite a distance away in the plateau, the same as those from Boardwalk. I also uncovered two slate beads from the south side midden between houses D and E (Figure C-2). Both beads have squared, or flat, sides and are very similar to those pictures in Ames (2005). A pendant made from a long, thin, curved piece of mammal or bird bone, was found within the south side midden (Figure C-3). The distal end of the pendant is broken. Ames (2005:119) notes that pendants, perhaps such as this one, may have been made from broken bracelets.

372

Figure C-2. Slate Bead (Scale: 1 square= 1cm).

Figure C-3. Bone pendant (Scale: 1 square= 1cm).

Piercing tools

These include items made from slate and bone, though slate and bone points may have served very different functions. Slate points are trapezoidal or triangular in cross section, many have beveled edges. Other distinguishing characteristics include general shape of the midsection; this is often hard to determine because many points are broken. According to Ames (2005:158),

373 complete points are relatively rare in harbour sites. Of those that I was able to determine an overall shape, one point is side-notched and two are lanceolate in shape (e.g., Figure C-5, C-6).

Many of the broken points are incomplete in terms of grinding which suggests that they may have broken during manufacture. According to Ames (2005:157), ground stone points such as these were used as lance heads or daggers. The lanceolate points closely resemble the daggers in Fladmark et al (1990:233).

Figure C-5. Side-notched slate point (Scale: 1 square= 1cm).

Figure C-6. Slate lanceolate-shaped point (Scale: 1 square= 1cm).

374

There are 18 bone points in this assemblage; while these would be useful as projectiles in hunting and fishing, they could also be used as punches, in constructing other tools and basketmaking and hide working. These points are variable in terms of shape. Most point tips are squared (7), but some are also round(3), triangular (2), trapezoidal (2), flat (1) and ovate (1).

Only three points are complete. Square tipped points are rare in the harbour village sites and have been found at Boardwalk, Lachane, Kitandach, Grassey Bay and K‟nu. They are made mostly of terrestrial mammal bone; it is uncertain, but they are consistent with descriptions of fishing lances and barbs, salmon harpoons or awls (Ames 2005; Loy and Powell 1977, Stewart

1977:97-98, 110, 1996), but also as punches (Ames 2005:153. A thin, likely stemmed, point with a slight torque could have been hafted or a self-arming or channeling harpoon valve (Loy and Powell 1977). Possible functions for other bone points include an awl and a barb or halibut hook. There is also a possible composite toggling harpoon for salmon (Stewart 1977: 97-98;

110).

Round tip points are relatively rare in the harbour, but they do occur at Boardwalk,

Lachane, Kitandach , Baldwin and K‟nu- usually made from terrestrial mammal bone which is very effective in absorbing shock. Artifacts 15, 16 and 17 (Figure C-7) form a large complete point that may have served as a fixed point for salmon or halibut fishing (Ames 2005:151).

Round tip points may also have been used as blunt projectiles points or punches. They may also be used as or reworked worn points. Triangular tip points may be awls; Stewart (1977:96,111) and Ames (2005:124-125) show that awls are often made from metapodials. One possible barbed point may reflect the sea otter hunting practices that are apparent in the faunal assemblage (Stewart 1996:106).

375

Figure C-7. Round tipped bone point (Scale: 1 square= 1cm).

A small bipoint (Figure C-8) may have served as a fish gorge, a component of a composite harpoon, or herring rake (Stewart 106; Ames 2005:132). According to Ames

(2005:132) bipoints occur irregularly throughout the harbour, suggesting a highly localized use.

They occur almost exclusively in sites around extensive shallow waters, such as Metlakatla Pass and Dodge Cove. This is consistent also with the area surrounding GbTo-77. Ames (2005) has argued that the high number of bipoints at the Boardwalk site in conjunction with the high number of sea otter shows that inhabitants at this site exploited the kelp beds in front of the site for a wide variety of fauna. GbTo-77 produced a relatively high number of sea otter remains, in addition to herring, perhaps indicating a similar subsistence strategy was employed at this site.

At least one point, and perhaps a point tip, is comparable to Stewart‟s drawings fish hooks, used in trolling for salmon or jigging for deep water fish such as halibut. Most of the miscellaneous ground bone was likely awls.

376

Figure C-8. Bone bipoint (Scale: 1 square= 1cm).

In addition, two beaver incisors with bevelled edges were found within house d. The use-wear that is visible on these incisors however, could have occurred while the animals were alive, not their use as artifacts (Ames 2005:130-131). At the very least however, these incisors may have been saved for intended use as chisels.

A ground ratfish spine may have been used as an incising tool. This piece was found within berm midden slump toward the front of House D. Also a ground bird ulna- chisel or fine woodworking tool or incising.

Chisels

Three California mussel chisels were uncovered at GbTo-77 (Figure C-9 and C-10); one from the midden adjacent to house A and the other two from the south side midden between houses D and E. All three exhibit evidence for grinding; two of the three have bevelled edges and one

(e.g., Figure C-9) exhibits notched that might indicate binding or hafting (Stewart 1996).

377

Figure C-9. California mussel chisel (Scale: 1 square= 1cm).

Figure C-10. Ground California mussel.

Antler Wedges

Ground or worked antler may be wedges, or a part of the woodworking kit. See also Stewart

(1977:86). These are often fragmentary, which these are. Basic to local carpentry kit (Ames

2005). A large piece of badly decayed, but worked antler may have served as an antler wedge

(Ames 2005:126-127; Stewart 1996:88-89).

378

Ground Stone Fragments

Two fragments of ground stone, probably slate, were found within House D. These are probably parts of broken points or blanks for beads.

Chipped Stone

Three possible quartzite flakes were found in House D. Most are clear quartz (e.g., Figure C-

11), but one is made from a piece of unknown material, possibly banded agate (Figure C-12).

These are unusual because lithic assemblages after 4000 B.P. from the northern coast are dominated by ground stone material (Matson and Coupland 1995:125). The harbour sites produce very few chipped stone tools, which makes them similar to the west coast of Vancouver

Island and late period sites in Haida Gwaii (Fladmark et al 1990). Ames (2005:173) however, discusses quartzite flakes found at a number of sites within the harbour. Flenniken (1981) argued that quartzite microblades found at the Hoko River Shelter could be hafted and used to fillet salmon. The quartz pieces from GbTo-77 are rough flakes, not fine blades, and will require further study before I am able to confirm that they are artifacts, and not a natural fractioning of beach quartz pebbles.

379

Figure C-11. Possible quartz flake.

Figure C-12. Possible flake (unknown material).

380

Miscellaneous

Two large stone objects were found immediately adjacent to hearth. Although they could be natural, their proximity to the hearth and fact that they look very different from other natural stone materials found within the house floor, suggests they may have been put in the house floor intentionally. It is difficult to determine whether they have been modified, but one could be a boiling stone and the other possibly a tool used to strip bark. While striae are visible on the latter, no grinding marks were observed.

The clay object is the most peculiar of the artifacts found and it is possible that it is not an artifact at all (Figure C-13). One face of the object is rough, while the other is smooth and may have an imprint of another object on it, perhaps wood, creating straight lines a row of small punctures. I have not yet determined the function of this object, but the imprint suggests it may have adhered to wood.

Figure C-13. Clay object.

381

Appendix D. Shellfish Table D-1. Mass of all material and shellfish taxa within each column, bulk and auger samples taken from the Back Midden and Auger 11. Back Midden Auger 11 Unit 1 Unit 1 Unit 1 Unit 1 Unit 1 Unit 22 Unit 22 Lot 4a Lot4c Lot 4g auger 11-1 auger 11-3 Lot 4e cs5 Lot 4i cs9 Lot 3 cs 2 Lot 4 cs 4 Material Taxa cs1 cs3 cs7 Rock 168.275 97.99 94.195 66.81 131.055 61.7 357.72 302.51 586.91 Charcoal 4 1.32 1.42 0.63 8.055 7 0.34 0 0.01 Flora 0.24 0.735 0 0 0 0.06 0.04 9.49 3.34 Bone 0.35 0.15 0.71 0.415 0.3 0 0.11 0.09 0.08 Residue 137.61 93 61.98 90.18 276.84 48.67 154.34 208.61 18.66 Remainder (>1.40mm only 271.975 151.775 100.775 160.45 504.7 45 120.81 123.76 519.54 General Mussel 59.34 28.07 3.9 2.405 186.445 10.64 4.11 0.25 0.8 Cal. Mussel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Blue Mussel 7.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shellfish Barnacle 203.515 328.565 521.42 451 4.74 331.96 90.84 28.87 36.72 Land Snail 0.04 0 0.08 0.025 0.065 0.01 0.01 0 0

Marine Snail 10.32 9.345 0.55 6.415 2.27 0.14 8.48 4.17 11.7 Chiton 0.83 0.025 0 3.45 1.21 0 0.58 0.02 0 Cockle 2.4 0.22 0 2.66 0 2.02 0.1 0.23 1.13 General Clam 14.785 104.55 95.875 62.055 15.32 16.36 38.39 18.6 22.26

Butter Clam 62.91 0 0 18 2.54 0 2.6 0 0

Littleneck 46.615 126.33 45.955 124.98 7.05 15.68 31.61 21.13 14.09 Sea Urchin 18.865 8.22 8.125 11.05 0.155 3.33 2.72 0.02 0.49 Limpet 0.615 0.13 1.1 0.09 0.21 0.01 0 0.01 0.08

Horse Clam 0 1.45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unid 10.57 2.365 3.2 11.985 3.39 0.68 13.06 1.4 3.34 Total Mass 1020.955 954.24 834.735 848.725 638.885 429.5 346.84 719.16 1219.15

382

Table D-2. Mass of all material and shellfish taxa within each column, bulk and auger sample taken from the South Side Midden. South Side Midden

Unit 5 Unit 5 Unit 5 Unit 5 Unit 5 Unit 5 Unit 5 Unit 6 Unit 17

Lot 5a Lot 5 cs 2 Lot 5 cs3 Lot 5 cs 4 Lot 5 cs5 Lot 5 cs7 Lot 5 cs 8 Lot 21 Lot 3 lv 1 Material Taxa Rock 281.73 495.89 448.16 479.14 367.33 341.62 294.24 64.23 386.34 Charcoal 2.07 1.63 2.54 1.15 0.37 0.5 0.83 0.3 2.59 Flora 0.23 0.13 1.18 0.09 0.21 1.04 0.86 0.19 0.02

Bone 0.03 0.86 0.35 0.19 0.44 0.14 0.44 1.6 0.6 Residue 119.97 185 199.77 164.12 174.07 188.37 190.68 242.51 192.45 Remainder (>1.40mm only 57.84 234.66 110.95 94.84 82.05 83.79 81.39 71.29 119.06 General Mussel 8.03 3.08 0 0.66 2.12 1.43 2.25 13.81 0.47 Cal. Mussel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Blue Mussel 0 0 0.55 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barnacle 192.41 54.61 55.65 26.99 30.39 39.51 38.42 3.16 24.17 Shellfish Land Snail 0.34 0.41 0.01 0 0.02 0.37 0 0 0

Marine Snail 6.14 6.84 5.41 2.99 8.15 4.15 4.94 3.91 19.16

Chiton 1.37 0.2 0.38 0.75 0.26 1.03 2.19 0.34 Cockle 1.94 1.75 0.79 0.7 2.1 0 0.17 13.17 1.01

General Clam 69.31 80.36 48.25 66.51 109.53 79.98 70.79 211.57 38

Butter Clam 137.24 2.15 30.06 0 3.81 0 0 24.12 7.36 Littleneck 35.59 52.44 31.44 35.09 62.05 36.1 24.97 21.04 30.55

Sea Urchin 4.68 0.11 0.43 0.3 1.85 1.37 0.3 17.05 0.43

Limpet 2.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0 Horse Clam 7.92 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.63 0.3

Unid 19.86 13.23 20.25 24.55 7.46 15.6 17.67 18.28 16.3 Total Mass 948.75 1133.35 955.79 897.7 852.7 794.23 728.98 710.08 839.15

383

Table D-3. Mass of all material and shellfish taxa within the house d, North Side Midden and house A column, bulk and auger samples. house D North Side Midden house A Unit 21 Unit 21 Lot 10 Auger 5-1 Auger 5-3 N16W21 154- 174 Lot 3a Lot 3b S0W6 84-104 cm cm lot 8 Material Taxa

Rock 309.5 535.39 250.51 266.71 183.01 519.53 Charcoal 1.64 1.9 2.71 0.07 0.4 Flora 0.15 0.06 0.36 0.16 0.07 Bone 0.66 0.78 0.06 2.05 0.27 0.69 Residue 127.08 211.38 273.37 238.64 307.42 203.78 Remainder (>1.40mm only 58.44 149.31 163.33 152.82 131.38 158.2 General Mussel 3.84 6.67 30.05 0.41 11.07 1.32 Cal. Mussel 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 Shellfish Blue Mussel 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barnacle 22.74 10.22 31.2 36.49 5.68 1.82 Land Snail 0 0 0 0 0 0

Marine Snail 27.99 13.38 10.43 1.49 4.62 1.95 Chiton 0.56 0 0 0.36 0.1 0 Cockle 7.22 0.3 0 3.24 0.36 0 General Clam 64.51 57.61 20.51 40.38 34.33 9.19 Butter Clam 57.83 7.66 0.78 0 0 0 Littleneck 12.89 7.01 7.71 16.71 2.25 5.29

Sea Urchin 0.26 0 0.06 0.16 0.02 0.07

Limpet 0 0.01 0 0 0 0

Horse Clam 13.64 0 0 0 0 0

Unid 18.05 12.87 9.14 8.15 10.02 4.41 Total Mass 727 1014.49 799.92 767.97 690.96 906.72