Reconstructing Houses: Early Village Social Organization

in Prince Rupert Harbour, British Columbia

by

Anna Katherine Berenice Patton

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy

Anthropology Department

University of Toronto

© Copyright by A. Katherine Patton 2011

ii

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.

iv

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.

vi

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

x

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

1

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 20

th 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

Figure 1-1. Map of the Northwest Coast of

North America (after Coupland et al. 2010).

Prince Rupert Harbour

Skeena River

Nass River

Pacific Ocean

N

0 100 200 300 Kilometres

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 20

th 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).

11

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 20

th 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

15

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 20

th 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).

21

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 19

th 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-

37

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.

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.

Kilometers

0 1 2 3 4 5

Tsimpsean Peninsula

Digby Island

Kaien Island

Tugwell Island

Chatham Sound

N

Venn Passage

Metlakatla Bay

Tsimpsean Peninsula

Tsimpsean Peninsula

Duncan Bay

Dodge Cove

CrippenCove

City o

f Prin

ce R

uper

t

Metlakatla

Mount Hays

Inner Harbour

Outer Harbour

GbTo-77

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).

40

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

41

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

Figure 3-3. Map of the Skeena River watershed showing the location of

landmarks cited in the text.

Lakelse River

KitsumkalumRiver

Morice River

Babine River

Kispiox RiverB

ulkley

Riv

er

Skeena River

Skeena River

Ecstall River

KaienIsland

0 10 20

Kilometres

N

MoriceLake

BabineLake

Inverness Passage

Lakelse LakeDiana

Lake

KitsumkalumLake

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

Temperature

1.3oC (January) -4.3

oC (January)

Highest Daily Mean

Temperature

13.5 oC (August) 16.4

oC (July)

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.

Species

Habitat

Marine Estuarine Fluvial Lacustrine

Deep Water

>400 m

Moderate

200-400 m

Shallow

<200 m

Intertidal

Anadromous

Sockeye salmon

Oncorhynchus nerka

common spring

through fall

(S)

spring through Fall

(S); may be

common in northern

rivers year round.

occasional

Chinook salmon

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

common

common common spring

summer fall (S)

spring

summer fall (S)

Chum salmon

Oncorhynchus keta

common occasional

spring/summer

summer

fall (S)

summer

fall (S)

Coho salmon

Oncorhynchus kisutch

common common common summer

fall (S); young

salmon common

year round

Pink salmon

Oncorhynchus gorbuscha

common summer spring (IM) fall (S)

Steelhead salmon

Oncorhynchus mykiss

common common common

late winter/spring

(S)

and summer

Cutthroat salmon

Oncorhynchus clarki

common common common Feb to March (S) common

Rainbow Trout Salmo

gairdneri

Occasional Common common Autumn Common

Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma

common spring autumn (S) common

Eulachon

Thaleichthys pacificus

common (mid

waters)

March to May (S)

Surf or Silver Smelt

Hypomesus pretiosus

M summer (S)

Capelin

Mallotus villosus

Sept to Oct.

(S)

Longfin Smelt

Spirinchus dilatus

winter Oct to Dec (S)

56

Species

Habitat

Marine Estuarine Fluvial Lacustrine

Deep Water

>400 m

Moderate

200-400 m

Shallow

<200 m

Intertidal

Pacific Lamprey Entosphenus

tridentatus

common M July to October;

spring (S)

Marine

Dogfish

Squalus acanthias

M summer M summer IM Common M

Winter

Sand Sole

Psettichthys melanostictus

common

Rock Sole

Lepidopsetta bilineata

common

(benthic)

winter (S) occasional in

summer

English or Lemon Sole

Parophrys vetulus

common winter (S)

spring IM

Dover Sole

Microstomus pacificus

common

(benthic and

pelagic)

common

(benthic and

pelagic)

Rex Sole

Glyptocephalus zachirus

common March, April (S) IM occasional

Petrale Sole

Eopsetta jordani

winter/spring (S)

(benthic and

pelagic)

spring (benthic

and pelagic)

IM occasional

(benthic)

Butter Sole

Isopsetta isolepis

winter. summer

Flathead Sole Hippoglossoides elassodon

common (pelagic)

IM common

Turbot, or Arrowroot Flounder

Atheresthes stomias

common

(benthic and

pelagic)

Starry Flounder Platichthys

stellatus

common; Feb to

April (S)

occasional occasional

P. halibut

Hippoglossus stenolepis

common

(benthic)

Nov to Jan (S)

(benthic)

March to May

(benthic)

Greenling

Hexagrammos sp.

common

(benthic)

Lingcod

Ophiodon elongatus

occasional December to

March (S)

Winter

occasional

IM spring

Herring

Clupea harengus pallasi

fall summer

(Pelagic)

February-April

(S)

Ratfish common common visitor

57

Species

Habitat

Marine Estuarine Fluvial Lacustrine

Deep Water

>400 m

Moderate

200-400 m

Shallow

<200 m

Intertidal

Hydrolagus colliei

Rockfish

Sebastes sp.

common

(benthic)

common

(benthic)

common

(benthic)

Black Prickleback

Xiphister atropurpureus

common

common

Rock Prickleback

Xiphister mucosus

common common

White-barred Prickleback

Poroclinus rothrocki

common

Sculpins

Cottidae

occasional

(benthic)

common

(benthic)

common

(benthic)

Sablefish

Anoplopoma fimbria

common IM Spring

through Autumn

Albacore

Thunnus alalunga

occasional

summer

(pelagic)

Walleye Pollock

Theragra chalcogramma

common

(bathypelagic)

Pacific Hake Merluccius productus

common (pelagic)

Pacific Cod

Gadus macrocephalus

common

(benthic)

common

(benthic)

occasional

Pacific Sandfish

Trichodon trichodon

common common

Spiny Lumpsucker

Eumicrotremus orbis

common common

Tadpole Snailfish Nectoliparis

pelagicus

common

(benthic and

pelagic)

common (benthic

and pelagic)

Threespine Stickleback

Gasterosteus aculeatus

common common common common

Red Brotula

Brosmophycis marginata

common common

Flathead Clingfish Gobiesox

maeandricus

year-round

Yellow Shiner Cymatogaster

aggregata

winter summer

58

Species

Habitat

Marine Estuarine Fluvial Lacustrine

Deep Water

>400 m

Moderate

200-400 m

Shallow

<200 m

Intertidal

Fluvial-lacustrine

Burbot Lota lota always

Lake Whitefish Coregonus

clupeaformis

always

Rocky Mountain Whitefish

Prosopium williamsoni

always

Peamouth Chub Mylocheilus caurinus

always

Squawfish

Ptychocheilus oregonensis

always

Bullhead Sculpin

Cottus asper

always

Long-nose Dace Rhinichthys

cataractae

always

Chub Minnow

Couesius greeni

always

Long-nose Sucker Catostomus

catostomus

always

Common or White Sucker C.

commersonii

always

Coarse-scaled Sucker

C. macrocheilus

always

Redbelly Dace

Chrosomus eos

always

Kokanee salmon

Oncorhynchus nerka kennerlyi

common common

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.

60

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.

62

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).

64

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).

65

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).

67

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.).

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

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

Denise

Creek

Hays

Creek

Kloyia

River

McNichol

Creek

Shawatlan

River

Silver

Creek

Ecstall

River

Khyex

River

Streams in Prince Rupert Harbour Skeena River

Streams

Esc

ap

em

en

t n

um

bers

SOCKEYE

COHO

PINK

CHUM

CHINOOK

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Denise

Creek

Hays

Creek

Kloiya

Creek

McNichol

Creek

Shawatlan

Creek

Silver

Creek

Ecsatall

River

Khyex

River

Streams in Prince Rupert Harbour Skeena River

Streams

Esc

ap

em

en

t n

um

bers

SOCKEYE

COHO

PINK

CHUM

CHINOOK

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 20

th 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

69

(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.

71

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

72

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

Saxidomus giganteus

Sheltered Sand/gravel beaches and

bars, but also in areas with

extensive tides

Lower third of tidal range and

subtidal

Pacific Littleneck

Clam

Protothaca staminea

Sheltered gravel/mud beaches Half tide, or subtidal

Bay Mussel

Mytilus trossulus

Rocks or gravel, quiet waters Intertidal

California Mussel

Mytilus californianus

Rocks or gravel, open coastline Intertidal

Horse Clam

Tresus capax

Gravel and sand beaches Lower intertidal to subtidal

Scallop

Chlamys hastata

Gravel and shell sand subtidal

Basket Cockle

Clinocardium nuttalli

Sand or mud beaches Deep water and intertidal

Olympia Oyster

Ostrea conchaphila

Mud or gravel flats Intertidal and subtidal

Giant Rock Scallop

Crassadoma gigantea

Rocky bottoms and boulders Intertidal to sub tidal

Pointed Macoma

Macoma inquinata

Sand or mud High Intertidal to subtidal

Bent-Nose Macoma

Macoma nasuta

Sand or mud High Intertidal to subtidal

Pacific Geoduck

Panopea abrupta

Mud, sand and gravel substrates Lower Intertidal to deep

subtidal

Molluscs (gastropods)

Northern Abalone

Haliotis

kamtschatkana

Semi-protected rocky area Lower intertidal

Periwinkles

Littorina sp.

Sheltered rocky areas with eelgrass

and algae

High to low intertidal

Moonsnails

Naticidae

Protected and semi-protected sand Intertidal to subtidal

Frilled Dogwinkle

Nucella lamellosa

Rocks and crevices on exposed

coastlines

Intertidal to shallow subtidal

Striped Dogwinkle

Nucella emarginata

Semi-protected and exposed rocky

beaches

High intertidal

Ribbed Limpet

Lottia digitalis

Exposed rocky shorelines High intertidal

73

Species Shoreline structure Beach habitat

Plate Limpet

Tectura scutum

Rocky foreshores along protected

coastlines

Intertidal and shallow

subtidal

Dire Whelk

Lirabuccinum dirum

Rocky exposed beaches Intertidal

Dentalia

Antalis pretiosum

Coarse shell-gravel substrate Deep subtidal

Black Katy Chiton

Katharina tunicata

Rocky foreshore on exposed

coastlines

Mid-tidal

Giant Pacific Chiton

Cryptochiton stelleri

Rocky foreshores of semi-

protected coastlines

Intertidal to subtidal

Molluscs (Cephalopoda)

Squids

Cephalopoda

Semi-protected rocky areas Low intertidal

Octopus

Octopoda

Inshore Rocky areas (offshore in

winter)

Shallow subtidal or lower

intertidal

Crustaceans

Shrimps

Pandalidae

Mud substrate subtidal

Dungeness Crab

Cancer magister

Sand or mud and eelgrass Subtidal or lower intertidal

Thatched Barnacle

Semibalanus cariosus

Rocky foreshores of semi-

protected and protected coastlines,

wood

High intertidal

Small Acorn Barnacle

Balanus glandula

Rocky foreshores of semi-

protected and protected coastlines

High intertidal

Giant Acorn Barnacle

Balanus nubilus

Favours exposed piles of wood Middle intertidal to subtidal

Goose Barnacle

Pollicipes polymerus

Rocky foreshore along exposed

shorelines

Upper two-thirds of the

intertidal zone

Echinodermata

Sunflower Star

Pycnopodia

helianthoides

Mud, sand, gravel and rock

substrate

Lower intertidal to deep

subtidal

Purple Sea Urchin

Strongylocentrotus

purpuratus

Semi-protected rocky areas and

sandy substrates

Intertidal and subtidal

Green Sea Urchin

Strongylocentrotus

droebachiensis

Protected rocky and sandy

substrates

Intertidal and subtidal

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).

75

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.

76

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

79

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.

Species Habitat

Shelf break/Pelagic Off-shore Coastal Estuarine Interior

Ducks and Geese

Canada Geese

Branta

canadensis sp.

spring

summer

winter

summer spring

summer

Snow goose

Anser caerulescens

summer

Mallard

Anas platyrhynchos

spring

summer

fall

spring

summer

fall

Common Merganser

Mergus merganser

winter summer

winter

spring

summer

Hooded Merganser

Lophodytes cucullatus

spring

winter

spring

winter

Common Teal

Anas crecca

summer

winter

summer

Harlequin Histrionicus histrionicus

spring winter

spring summer

summer

Northern Pintail

Anas acuta

summer

fall

winter

summer

fall

winter

summer

fall

winter

Greater Scaup

Aythya marila

summer

fall

winter

summer

fall

winter

Common Goldeneye

Bucephala clangula

spring

fall

winter

summer

fall

spring

winter

Barrow‟s Goldeneye

Bucephala islandica

winter winter spring

summer

Bufflehead

Bucephala albeola

summer

fall

winter

summer

fall

winter

summer

fall

winter

Long-tailed duck

Clangula hyemalis

winter

Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator

winter

80

Species Habitat

Shelf break/Pelagic Off-shore Coastal Estuarine Interior

White-winged Scoter

Melanitta fusca

summer

winter

summer

winter

Black Scoter Melanitta nigra

summer winter

Surf-Scoter

Melanitta perspicillata

summer

winter

summer

Grebes

Colymbidae

spring

winter

spring

summer

Loons

Gaviidae

winter spring

Trumpeter Swan

Cygnus buccinator

winter winter spring

summer

Marsh Birds

Spotted sandpiper

Actitis macularia

spring summer spring

Sandhill Crane

Grus canadensis

spring summer

Black Turnstones

Arenaria melanocephala

winter winter

Rock Sandpipers

Calidris ptilocnemis

winter winter

Dunlin

Calidris alpine

year-round winter

Gulls, Terns, Skimmers. Skuas

Glaucous-winged Gull

Larus glaucescens

spring

fall

winter

fall

summer

Herring Gull

Larus argentatus

summer spring

fall

winter

fall

winter

Mew Gull

Larus canus

year-round

Pomarine Jaeger

Stercorarius pomarinus

summer

fall

Glaucous Gull

Larus hyperboreus

summer

fall winter

81

Species Habitat

Shelf break/Pelagic Off-shore Coastal Estuarine Interior

Sabine‟s Gull

Xema sabini

summer

fall winter

summer

fall

Tufted Puffin

Fratercula cirrhata

summer

winter

winter spring

summer

Horned Puffin

Fratercula corniculata

year-round

Pigeon Guillemot

Cepphus columba

year-round

Marbled Murrelet

Brachyramphus marmoratus

fall winter spring

Rhinocerous Auklet

Cerorhinca monocerata

spring summer

fall

summer

Cassin‟s Auklet

Ptychoramphus aleuticus

spring

summer

fall

spring

Common Murres

Uria aalge

spring summer

fall

fall

Ancient Murelets

Synthliboramphus antiquus

spring

winter

winter

Albatros

Phoebastria sp.

spring

summer

fall

winter

Fork-tailed Storm Petrel Oceanodroma furcata

summer fall

winter

spring

Leach‟s Storm Petrel

Oceanodroma leucorhoa

summer

fall

winter

spring

Raptors

Ospreys Pandion haliaetus

Year-round Year-round Year-round

Peregrine Falcons

Falco peregrinus

spring

summer

fall

spring

summer

fall

spring

summer

fall

Northern Harrier

Circus cyaneus

spring

summer

fall

spring

summer

fall

spring

summer

fall

82

Species Habitat

Shelf break/Pelagic Off-shore Coastal Estuarine Interior

Sharp-shinned Hawk

Accipiter striatus

year-round year-round year-round

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis

year-round year-round

Red-tailed Hawk

Buteo jamaicensis

spring

summer

fall

spring

summer

fall

Golden Eagle

Aquila chrysaetos

year-round (rare) year-round (rare) year-round (rare)

American Kestral

Falco sparverius

year-round year-round year-round

Merlin

Falco columbarius

year-round year-round

Bald Eagle

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

year-round year-round summer

fall

Pheasants, Grouses

Grouses

Bonasa sp.

year-round year-round year-round

Ptarmigans

Lagopus sp.

year-round

Song birds, woodpeckers

Red-breasted Sapsucker

Sphyrapicus ruber

spring

winter

Steller‟s Jay

Cyanocitta stelleri

year-round year-round

Violet-green Swallow

Tachycineta thalassina

spring

summer

fall

spring

summer

fall

Northern Rough-winged

Swallow

Stelgidopteryx serripennis

spring

summer

fall

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor

spring summer

fall

spring summer

fall

Chestnut-backed Chickadee

Parus rufescens

year-round year-round

83

Species Habitat

Shelf break/Pelagic Off-shore Coastal Estuarine Interior

Varied Thrush

Ixoreus naevius

spring

summer fall

spring

summer fall

Water Pipit

Anthus spinoletta

Summer spring

Cedar Waxwing

Bombycilla cedrorum

spring (rare)

Townsend‟s Warbler

Dendroica townsendi

spring

summer

fall

spring

summer

fall

Common Raven

Corvus corax

year-round year-round

Northwestn Crow

Corvus caurinus

year-round

Northern Fulmar

Fulmarus glacialis

spring

summer

fall

summer

Great Blue Heron

Ardea Herodias

spring

summer

spring

summer

Wood Stork

Mycteria americana

rare rare

Waders

Sanderling Calidris sanderlin

summer fall

Western Sandpiper Calidris

mauri

spring

fall

spring

fall

Short-billed Dowitcher

Limnodromus griseus

spring

fall

spring

fall

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus

spring fall

spring fall

Common Snipe

Gallinago gallinago

spring

summer

fall

Red-necked Phalarope

Phalaropus lobatus

summer

fall

Red Phalarope Phalaropus

fulicaria

summer

fall

summer

fall

84

Species Habitat

Shelf break/Pelagic Off-shore Coastal Estuarine Interior

American Black

Oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani

year-round year-round

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

86

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

Pelagic

Marine Off-shore Marine

Coastal

Terrestrial near

coast

Terrestrial within

Skeena watershed

Riverine Terrestrial alpine

Artiodactyls

Sitka Deer

Odocoileus

hemionus sitkensis

mainly fall

winter

mainly fall

winter

spring

summer

Coast deer

Odocoileus

hemionus

columbianus

year-round year-round

American Wapiti

Cervus canadensis

mainly fall

winter

mainly fall

winter

mainly spring/ summer

Caribou Rangifer tarandus

caribou

year-round year-round

Moose

Alces alces

andersoni

year-round year-round

Mountain Goat

Oreamnos

americanus

mainly fall

winter

mainly fall

winter

mainly spring

summer

Mountain Sheep

Ovis canadensis

Fall

Winter

Fall

Winter

spring

summer

Rodents

Red-backed vole

Clethrionomys sp.

year-round year-round

Marmots

Marmota sp.

year-round year-round year-round

Squirrels

Tamiasciurus sp.

year-round year-round year-round

Northern bog

Lemming

Synaptomys borealis

year-round year-round year-round

Vagrant Shrew

Sorex vagrans

year-round year-round year-round

Beaver

Castor canadensis

year-round year-round

87

Marine

Pelagic

Marine Off-shore Marine

Coastal

Terrestrial near

coast

Terrestrial within

Skeena watershed

Riverine Terrestrial alpine

Carnivors

Black Bear Ursus americanus

year-round year-round

Grizzly Bear

Ursus arctos

horribilis

year-round year-round

Red Fox

Vulpes fulva

abietorum

year-round

Wolves

Canis lupus

year-round year-round

Coyotes

Canis latrans

year-round (rare) year-round (rare)

Cougar

Felis concolor

year-round year-round year-round

Mink

Mustela vison

year-round year-round year-round year-round

Marten

Martes americana

year-round year-round year-round

River otter

Lontra canadensis

year-round year-round year-round year-round

Sea otter Enhydra lutris

year-round

Marine

Harbour Seal

Phoca vitulina

richardii

year-round spring

Northern Sea Lion

Eumetopias jubata

winter (rare) year-round spring

Northern fur-seals Callorhinus ursinus

cynocephalus

mainly spring

fall

juvenile: winter adults: spring fall

summer (there are no

rookeries in Prince

Rupert Harbour

currently).

Killer whales

Orcinus orca

summer

Grey whale

Eschrichtius

robustus

spring

fall

88

Marine

Pelagic

Marine Off-shore Marine

Coastal

Terrestrial near

coast

Terrestrial within

Skeena watershed

Riverine Terrestrial alpine

Harbour porpoise

Phocoena phocoena

year-round

Dall‟s porpoise

Phocoenoides dalli

summer summer

.

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 20

th 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 20

th-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.

97

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

98

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

River

Kitselas Canyon, Skeena

River

Kitsumkalum Kitsumkalum River area Kitsumkalum River area

Kitkatla Coastal islands, such as

Porcher Island, around the

mouth of the Skeena River

Kitkatla

Kitkiata Douglas Channel, Whale

Channel, Wright Sound and

Lewis Pass to Camaano

Sound

Kitiata Inlet

Kitasoo Northwest Millbank Sound Kitasoo Bay

Gitsees Khutzeymateen River, Khyex

River , lower Skeena

Metlakatla Pass (Venn

Passage)

Gitzaxlaal Ecstall River, lower Skeena North Shore of Digby Island

Gitwylgiots Mid Skeena River and

Stephens Island

Tsimpsean Peninsula,

Metlakatla Pass (Venn

Passage)

Ginaxangiik Exchamsiks River North of Dodge Cove, north-

east 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, 19

th and 20

th 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

Skeena River

Nass River

Haida Gwaii

Dundas Islands

Legend* Lucy IslandsD Digby Island

*StephensIsland Prince

Rupert

WorkChannel

Alaska

Kitselas Canyon

GrahamIsland

HecateStrait

D

International boundary

N

O 20 40 60 80 100

Kilometres

British Columbia

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

Kilometres

0 1 2 3 4 5

Tsimpsean Peninsula

Digby Island Kaien Island

Prince Rupert Harbour

Tugwell Island

Chatham Sound

N

Venn Passage

GbTo-77

GcTo-6McNichol Creek

GbTo-31Boardwalk

GbTo-28Phillip‟s Point

GbTo-46Tremayne Bay

GbTo-10Co-op site

Straith Point

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

Kilometres

0 1 2 3 4 5

Tsimpsean Peninsula

Digby Island

Kaien Island

Prince Rupert Harbour

Tugwell Island

Chatham Sound

N

Venn Passage

GbTo-77

GcTo-6

GbTo-31

GbTo-28

GbTo-46

DevastationIsland

CarrIsland

PikeIslandMetlakatla

Bay

Melville Arm

Metlakatla First Nation

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

Radiocarbon Age

BP

Calibrated Radiocarbon

Age Range, 95% confidence

interval (Reimer et al 2009)

Context Sample

Number

1990 +/- 50 150 cal BC-AD cal 125 house A midden

slump TO12055

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).

Normalized

Radiocarbon Age

Calibrated Radiocarbon Age

Range, 95% confidence

interval

Context Sample Number

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.

Normalized

Radiocarbon Age BP

Calibrated Radiocarbon

Age Range, 95% confidence

interval (Reimer et al 2009)

Context Sample

Number

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

Radiocarbon Age

Calibrated Radiocarbon Age

Range, 95% confidence interval

Context Sample Number

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

Figure 6-6. The Dodge Cove area, showing the location of

GbTo-31, Dodge Cove, Elizabeth Point and Dodge Island.

North Coast PrehistoryProject Excavation Units

0 20m

2000, 2003 Excavation Units

House Depression

Dodge Cove

Area B

Area D

Area A/C

shellmidden

shell midden

shell midden

3

6

9Auger location

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.

Shell midden0 500 1000

Metres

N

DodgeCove

Dodge Island

ElizabethPoint

DigbyIsland

KaienIsland

Prince RupertHarbour

GbTo-31 Parizeau Point

GbTo-17

GbTo-30

GbTo-18

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

Radiocarbon Age

BP

Calibrated Radiocarbon Age

Range, 95% confidence interval

(Reimer et al 2009)

Context Sample

Number

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

back shell midden

front shell midden

Prince Rupert Harbour

A

B

C

D

EF

1

5

10

101 5

0 10m

House Depression

Excavation UnitAuger Test Location

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.

Normalized Radiocarbon

Age BP

Calibrated Radiocarbon

Age Range, 95% confidence

interval (Reimer et al 2009)

Context Sample

Number

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).

Normalized

Radiocarbon Age

Calibrated Radiocarbon Age

Range, 95% confidence

interval

Context Sample

Number

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

Figure 6-9. Site map of GcTo-6 (from Coupland et al. 2010)

A B C D E F G H

J

K L M N O P

MelvilleArm Grassy Flats

GravelBeach

Excavation Unit

House Depression

0 10m

Auger Test Location

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

Radiocarbon

Age BP

Calibrated Radiocarbon

Age Range, 95% confidence

interval (Reimer et al 2009)

Context Sample Number

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

1580+/-80 AD 260-640 house D, front

hearth Teledyne 16452

1590+/-80 AD 260-620 house D, back

hearth Teledyne 16451

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

Radiocarbon

Age BP

Calibrated Radiocarbon Age

Range, 95% confidence

interval

Context Sample Number

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

1000 500 BC/AD 501 1001 1000

house A

house D bench

house D hearth

back midden

back midden

house J

house J

house J

house J

back midden

back midden

Area D

Area D

Area D

Area B

Area B

Area B

Area AC

Area AC

house f

house f

back midden

back midden

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

500 BC/AD 501 1001

500 BC/AD 501 1001 1000

500 BC/AD 501

1500 1000 500 BC/AD 501

GcTo-6

GbTo-28

GbTo-31

GbTo-46

GbTo-77

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 20

th 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

Lot 2

Lot 4

Lot 4a

Lot 4 a

Lot 3a/b

Unexcavated

.

Lot 7

0 50 100 cm

50

100 cm

N

Unit 25 Unit 22

Unit 26 Unit 23

Rocks

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

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.

Lot 3c

Lot 6

Lot 2a

Lot 7

Unexcavated

0 50 100 cm

50

100 cm

N

Unit 25 Unit 22

Unit 26 Unit23

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.

*148

*165

*171

*160

*169

*156

*167

*159

Shell midden

Shell midden

Post 1

post 2

post 4

post 5

post 6

post 7

post 8

post 9

post 3

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 20

th-

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

Latin name

Common

name

Back

Midden

% of

identified

house

A

% of

identified

house

D

% of

identified

N. Side

Midden

% of

identified

S. Side

Midden

% of

identified

Total by

taxon

% of

identified

Actinopterygii

Osmeridae

Eulachon,

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%

Cottidae

Sculpins, Irish

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

chalcogramma

Walleye

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.

Eulachon cf Capelin

Smelt

indeterminate Total Smelt

NISP 22 2 25 49

Relative

proportion of

all smelt

44.89% 4.44% 51.02% 100%

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).

Identified

fish

Back Midden

(7 samples)

Auger 11

(2 samples)

South Side Midden

(9 samples)

house D

(2 samples)

North Side

Midden

(3 samples)

house A

(1 sample)

Total GbTo-77

(24 samples)

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.

Identified

fish

Back

Midden Auger 11

South side

midden house D house A

Total

column

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<p-

value<.001 and 36.82; .00001<p-value). This suggests that the preponderance of small fish

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.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Back Midden Auger 11 South side midden

house D house A

Salmon

Herring

Smelt

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

Latin name

Common

name

Back

Midden

% of

identified

house

A

% of

identified

house

D

% of

identified

North

Side

Midden

% of

identified

South

Side

Midden

% of

identified

Total

by

Taxon

% of

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 californianus

Northern sea lion 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 4.29% 3 2.42%

Callorhinus ursinus

cynocephalus

Northern

fur seal 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.43% 1 0.81%

Phoca vitulina

Harbour

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

monax

Red

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

Unidentified 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

Latin name

Common

name

Back

Midden

% of

identified

house

A

% of

identified

house

D

% of

identified

North

Side

Midden

% of

identified

South

Side

Midden

% of

identified

Total

by

Taxon

% of

identified

Anseriformes

Anatinae Ducks 4 75% 5 83.3% 7 46.67% 1 50% 33 66.67% 50 65.79%

Brantae,

Anser Geese 0 0 3 20%

7 18.75% 10 13.16%

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

Accipitridae,

Falconidae

Birds of

Prey 0 0

2 4.17% 2 2.63%

Gaviiformes

Gaviidae Loons 0 1 16.7% 2 2.08% 3 3.95%

Passeriformes

Turdidae

Song

bird 0 0

2 4.17% 2 2.63%

Piciformes

Sphyrapicus

sp.

Wood-

pecker 0 0 1 6.67%

1 1.32%

Total identified per

assemblage 5 6 15 2 48 76

Unidentified Birds 6 3 11 1 40 61

Total birds per

assemblage 11 9 26 3 88 137

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.

Material

Back Midden

7 samples

Auger 11 total

2 samples

South Side Midden

9 samples

house D

2 samples

North Side

Midden

3 samples

house A

1 sample

GbTo-77

24 samples

Mass in

grams D

Mass in

grams D

Mass in

grams D

Mass in

grams D

Mass in

grams D

Mass

in

grams

D Mass in

grams D

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

Remains 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

Faunal

Remains 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

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

Mass

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

247

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).

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Back Midden Auger 11 South Side

Midden

house D North Side

Midden

house A

Den

sity

in

Gra

ms

Site Context

Rock

Shell

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

droebachiensis

Green sea urchin

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

taxon Back Midden South Side Midden house D

Butter Clam 19.79% 20.7% 32.5%

Horse Clam 0.33% 1% 6.77%

Small Mussel 2.54% 0% 0%

California

Mussel

0% 0% 0.7%

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.

Back Midden

Deposit

Total Barnacle

Mass

Thatched barnacle

Mass Relative proportion

of total barnacle

Scuta

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.

Shellfish

taxa

Back Midden

7 samples

Auger 11 Total

2 samples

South Side

Midden

9 samples

house D

2 samples

North Side Midden

3 samples

house A

1 sample

GbTo-77

24 samples

Mass in

grams D

Mass

in

grams

D Mass in

grams D

Mass in

grams D

Mass in

grams D

Mass in

grams D

Mass in

grams D

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

clam 398.22 57 35.22 17.61 329.42 37 19.95 10 26.67 9 5.32 5 814.57 34

Cockles 7.40 1 1.36 0.68 21.63 2 7.52 4 3.60 1 41.51 2

Molluscs (gastropods)

Land

Snails 0.23 0 0.00 0.00 1.15 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 1.38 0

Marine

Snails 37.52 5 15.87 7.94 61.84 7 41.37 21 16.54 6 1.95 2 174.94 7

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

Urchins 53.31 8 0.51 0.26 28.7 3 0.55 0 0.24 0 0.16 0 80.07 3

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

shellfish 3222.47 460 165.31 83 2095.79

233

352.67 176 302.40 101 25.22 25 6163.86 237

253

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Back Midden

Auger 11 South Side Midden

house D North Side Midden

house A

De

nsi

ty

Site Context

Mussels

Clams

Littleneck clams

Marine Snail

Barnacle

254

Figure 8-4. Fragmentation Ratios for each equal volume sample analyzed from GbTo-77, arranged by site context.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

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

Fra

gm

en

tati

on

Ra

tio

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 20

th 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.

Class

GbTo-31 A/C GbTo-31 B/D GbTo-28 GbTo-46 GbTo-77 GcTo-6

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

NISP 11271 100% 58852 100.% 57305 100.% 27682 100% 20529 100.% 48009 100.%

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

Osmeridae Eulachon, capelin,

smelt 2 0.05% 8 0.04% 27 0.10% 15 0.15% 49 0.49% 0 0.00%

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

pallasi Pacific herring 196 4.69% 422 1.34% 1108 4.24% 291 2.90% 545 5.42% 292 4.91%

Zoarcoidei Prickleback,

penpoint gunnel 0 0.00% 1 0.00% 2 0.01% 14 0.14% 6 0.06% 0 0.00%

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

Elasmobranchii Cartilaginous fish (mostly dogfish)

1 0.02% 36 % 14 0.05% 29 0.29% 68 0.68% 9 0.14%

Hydrolagus

colliei Ratfish 0 0.00% 1 0.01% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 51 0.51% 9 0.14%

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

Latin name Common

name NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP %

Artiodactyls

Cervidae Deer, Moose 15 41.67% 327 43.25% 21 50.00% 22 57.89% 42 33.87% 47 58.75%

Oreamnos

americanus

Mountain

Goat 0 0.00% 5 0.66% 0 0.00% 1 2.63% 7 5.65% 0 0.00%

Ovis canadensis Mountain

Sheep 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 2.63% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

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

hudsonicus Mink 3 8.33% 1 0.13% 1 2.38% 0 0.00% 1 0.81% 5 6.25%

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

jubata

Northern Sea

Lion 0 0.00% 7 0.93% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 2.42% 0 0.00%

Callorhinus

ursinus

cynocephalus

Northern Fur

Seal 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.81% 0 0.00%

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

Latin name Common

name NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP %

hudsonicus

Marmota sp. Marmot 0 0.00% 12 1.59% 2 4.76% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Erethizon dorsatum

Porcupines 5 13.89% 12 1.59% 5 11.90% 1 2.63% 0 0.00% 9 11.25%

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

Mammals 2 15 3 1 26 2

Small

Rodents 4 9 8 8 13

Dog and

Canine indet 51 58 142 15 56 0

Unid Hoofed

Mammals 8 59 6 0 0 0

Unid

Carnivore 1 4 0 0 0 0

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

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

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

GbTo-31

A/C

GbTo-77 GbTo-28 GbTo-46 GbTo-31

B/D

GcTo-6

Rela

tiv

e F

req

uen

cy

Sites

land mammals

sea mammals

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

Site # of

samples

Total

volume (litres)

<1.4 mm (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

Site # of

samples total

volume <1.4

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

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-

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

400.00

450.00

GbTo-77 GbTo-28 GbTo-31 GbTo-46

Den

sity

in

gra

ms

Sites

Rock

Shell

Residue

Bone

Charcoal

Flora

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.

Shellfish taxon

GbTo-77 GbTo-28 GbTo-31 GbTo-46

Total

mass

Average

density

Total

mass

Average

density

Total

mass

Average

density

Total

mass

Average

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.

Figure 8-8. Graph of fragmentation ratios from four village sites. Low ratios reflect

more fragmented deposits.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

GbTo-77 GbTo-28 GbTo-31 GbTo-46

Fra

gmen

tati

on

rati

o

Sites

291

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.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

GbTo-77 GbTo-28 GbTo-31 GbTo-46

Cla

mfr

agm

enta

tio

nra

tio

Sites

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 20

th 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

1.

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 20

th 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

1

Side midden between D

and E 0-55cm. humus. No sample taken

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

4

Side midden

between C and D 0-60cm. humus. No sample taken

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

5

Side midden between

house C and D

0-59cm. humus. No sample taken

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

8

House C interior south

wall 0-50cm. humus

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

9

house C interior back

wall 0-75cm. humus. No sample taken

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

10

house c interior north

wall back 0-77cm. humus. No sample taken

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

11

Side midden between

houses B and C. 0-54cm. humus. No sample taken

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

15

Side Midden between

house A and B 0-42cm. humus. No sample taken

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

17

North Periphery, front

area 0-75cm. humus. No sample taken.

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

18

North Periphery, back

area 0-72cm. humus. No sample taken

72cm. mixed shell stopped due to large subsurface obstruction-rock.

19

North Periphery, back

area 0-77cm. humus. No sample taken

77-106cm. mixed shell (barnacle)

106-129cm. dense barnacle layer

129-142cm. mixed shell and schist beach sand at bottom

20

North periphery, back

area 0-46cm humus. No sample taken

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

22

Back Midden between

house D and E 0-49cm humus. No sample taken.

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

24

South periphery, back

area 0-40cm. humus. No sample taken

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

25

South periphery, back

area 0-40cm. humus. No sample taken

40-95cm. mixed shell black soil, small to med particles

95-105cm. mixed shell fine shell particles, schist matrix

105-115cm. mud and schist

26

South periphery, front

area 0-50cm. humus. No sample taken

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

30

Side midden, between

house A and B 0-48cm. humus

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

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

Odocoileus sp. Deer 1

1

16 2 18 2

Cervidae cf deer 11 1

1

8 1 20 2

Oreamnos

americanus Goats

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

hudsonicus Mink

1 0 1

Zalophus

californianus

Northern

sea lion

3

3 0

Callorhinus

ursinus

cynocephalus

Northern

fur seal

1

1 0

Phoca vitulina Harbour

seal 2

14 2 4

10 5 30 7

Felis concolor Cougar

1

1 0

Vulpis fulva

abietorum Red fox

2

2

4 0

Cetacea

Cetacea Whale

7 0 7

Rodentia

Marmota

monax

Red

squirrel

1

1 0

Castor

canadensis Beaver

4

2

6 0

Total identified mammals 15 1 1

24 2 10 1 51 19 101 23

Peromyscus

sp.

deer

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

familiaris dog

26 3

5

1

7

39 3

Unidentified

mammals

large mammal 4

2

10 1 16 1

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

Anatinae

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

merganser 1 1 0

White winged

scoter 1 1 1 1

Common eider 1 1 1 1

Brantae,

Anser

Branta

Canadensis 1 1 0

Branta

Canadensis

hutchensei 1 1 2 0

Branta

Canadensis

minima 0 0

Small goose 1 1 0

Goose indet. 0 0 1 3 2 4 2

Cygnus sp. Swans 0 0 1 1 0

Larus sp.

Small gull 1 1 0

Herring gull 1 2 1 1 2

Medium gull 1 1 0

Mew gull 1 0 1

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.

Latin name Common name

Back Midden house A house D North side midden South side midden

1/4 inch

screen

1/8 inch screen

1/4 inch

screen

1/8 inch screen

1/4 inch

screen

1/8 inch screen

1/4 inch

screen

1/8 inch screen

1/4 inch

screen

1/8 inch screen

Thaleichthys pacificus Eulachon 1 2 3

Osmeridae

Osmerid

indeterminate 3 1

Lepidopsetta bilineata Rock Sole 1

Platichthys sp. Starry type 1 1 1

Pleuronectiformes

Flatfish

indeterminate 3 16 1 1 2 2 37 10

Gadid sp.

Cods

indeterminate 1 0 1 1

Gadus macrocephalus Pacific Cod 1

Hexagrammidae

Greenlings

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

Xiphister sp.

Prickleback

indeterminate 2 2 2

Sebastes sp. Rockfish 4 3 4 8 5

367

Oncorhynchus sp.

Salmon 1349 1410 29 35 450 258 701 336 2769 1675

cf pink 3

cf coho 1 1 2

Hemilepidotus

hemilepidotus Irish lord 2 3 1 1 1 3 6 4

Cottidae

Sculpins

indeterminate 10 6 1 4 2 1 18 11

Myoxocephalus 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.

Adornment

Quartz

Flake

Slate

Point

Bone Points/Awls/

Barbs Adze/Chisels

Antler

Wedge

Misc. Ground

Stone

Misc. Worked

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

Material

Taxa

Unit 1

Lot 4a

cs1

Unit 1

Lot4c

cs3

Unit 1

Lot 4e cs5

Unit 1

Lot 4g

cs7

Unit 1

Lot 4i cs9

Unit 22

Lot 3 cs 2

Unit 22

Lot 4 cs 4 auger 11-1 auger 11-3

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

Shellfish

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

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

Shellfish

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

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

Lot 3a Lot 3b S0W6 84-104 cm

154- 174

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

Shellfish

General Mussel 3.84 6.67 30.05 0.41 11.07 1.32

Cal. Mussel 0 0 0 0 0.2 0

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