The North Coast Prehistory Project Excavations in Prince Rupert Harbour, British Columbia: The Artifacts 9781841713960, 9781407327716

Table of contents :
CHAPTER2.pdf
Table 2.1a Common marine fish in the Prince Rupert region no
Parophrys vetulus
Wrinkled purple welk
1342 verso.pdf
John and Erica Hedges Ltd
British Archaeological Reports
The North Coast Prehistory Project Excavations in Prince Rupert Harbour, British Columbia: The Artifacts
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Abstract
Preface and Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Environmental Background
Chapter 3: Ethnography and Previous Archaeology
Chapter 4: Methodological and Theoretical Background
Chapter 5: The Sites, Analytical Units, and Chronology
Chapter 6: Material Culture
Chapter 7: Assemblage Structure and Comparisons
Chapter 8: Grave Goods, Caches, Status Markers, Art, and Adornment
Chapter 9: Subsistence
Chapter 10: Site And AU Summaries
Chapter 11: Summary and Conclusions
References Cited
Appendices

Citation preview

BAR  S1342  2005   AMES   PRINCE RUPERT HARBOUR, BRITISH COLUMBIA: ARTIFACTS

The North Coast Prehistory Project Excavations in Prince Rupert Harbour, British Columbia The Artifacts

Kenneth M. Ames

BAR International Series 1342 B A R

2005

The North Coast Prehistory Project Excavations in Prince Rupert Harbour, British Columbia

The North Coast Prehistory Project Excavations in Prince Rupert Harbour, British Columbia The Artifacts

Kenneth M. Ames

BAR International Series 1342 2005

ISBN 9781841713960 paperback ISBN 9781407327716 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841713960 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Abstract The National Museums of Canada’s North Coast Archaeological Project conducted excavations and tests at 10 archaeological sites in Prince Rupert Harbour between 1968 and 1972. Prince Rupert Harbour is located on the northern coast of British Columbia within the traditional territories of the Coast Tsimshian, who, in the 17th -mid 19th centuries at least, maintained their principle towns in the harbour. Archaeologically documented occupation of the harbour spans the last 5500 years or so, with major occupations beginning after ca. 1800 BC based on calibrated radiocarbon dates. The present work describes the more than 9000 artifacts recovered from nine of these sites, including the Boardwalk site (GbTo31) which was the focus of the project’s excavations in the harbour. The other sites include Grassy Bay, Garden Island, Lachane, Kitandach, Baldwin, Lucy Island and K’nu. Of these, Lucy Island is located on an island of that name in Chatham Sound. The rest are in the harbour. All of these sites are large, complex shell middens, and at least Boardwalk, Lachane, Kitandach, K’nu and Garden Island were major villages or towns at some time during their history. The span of occupation is broken into three periods: Prince Rupert 3 (ca. 3500 BC - 1800 BC), Prince Rupert 2 (1800 BC - AD 500), and Prince Rupert 1 (AD 500 -contact). Sample size, particularly the amount of excavated volume that could be assigned to particular time periods, was the central methodological issue facing the artifact analysis. Sample sizes for the earliest period of occupation in the harbour (Prince Rupert 3) are too small for definitive conclusions. Sample sizes for the succeeding two periods, are more than sufficient. Overall, when sample size is controlled, material culture in the harbour was remarkably stable over the past 4000 years, if not longer. Major trends in material culture are limited to some classes of ground stone tools, particularly wood working tools, such as celts and mauls. Subsistence related tools change little in form over that period. The artifactual data are consonant with long-term stability in residential patterns in the harbour, though there is also clear evidence for periods of abandonment, particularly at the beginning of the current era. While subsistence data are limited, faunal remains and artifacts suggest an emphasis on hunting deer and sea mammals, particularly sea otters by 1800 BC. These data also suggest intensive exploitation of banks and other shallow littoral habitats by the harbour’s occupants. In fact, the existence of these habitats may have been part of the harbour’s attraction. Several lines of evidence suggest that logistical patterns of mobility, some requiring large canoes, were established by AD 1 if not several hundred earlier. Boardwalk appears to have been a two row village by ca. 500 BC, and perhaps very much earlier. Finally, artifacts associated with the very large sample of human burials excavated by the project, suggest the existence of social ranking of individuals, household groups, and towns by c. 1000 BC, as well as some degree of occupational specialization.

i

Preface and Acknowledgements I first saw Prince Rupert Harbour in June 1968. I flew in and took the ferry from Digby Island across the harbour to the city, where I waited on a dock for someone from the North Coast Prehistory Project to come and take me across to Digby Island, where the excavation crews were billeted. I had never seen the Northwest Coast before. I didn’t realize it then, but that was a life defining moment. The same spring, as an archaeologically– inexperienced first–year graduate student at the University of New Mexico, I had been trying to get onto a project somewhere (not anywhere – I didn’t want to work in the Southwest). After the University of Oregon turned me down, Bruce Rigsby, a linguist then working with Tsimshian speakers in northern British Columbia, arranged for me to work as a volunteer digger that summer in Prince Rupert Harbour, a place and area I knew virtually nothing about. It was love at first sight. I worked on two sites that summer, Grassy Bay, in the harbour, and Gitaus, far in the interior in Kitselas Canyon, and went home wanting more. That fall, Rigsby piled all the major Northwest Coast ethnographies in my arms and sent me off to read them, along with Wayne Suttles’ recent papers on the potlatch, redistribution, and ecology. I wrote a paper on salmon variation, using fisheries data trying to test Suttles’ ideas about the coast having a variable environment. That effort lead to talks and arguments with Greg Cleveland and Randall Schalk. The next summer (1969), the project director, George MacDonald, made me a crew chief and put me in charge of first Area B and then Area D at the project’s major site, Boardwalk. That fall, back in Albuquerque, I took Lewis Binford’s first hunter-gatherer seminar and wrote another paper, this time on the evolution of social ranking on the Northwest Coast. Lew encouraged me to revise the paper and pursue the ideas, giving me the intellectual framework and skill to do so. His personal encouragement came at a crucial time, and I thank him for it. So the paper also evolved (Ames 1973, Ames 1975), and eventually emerged in 1981 (Ames 1981). My career was set. I wanted to apply that developing model to the Prince Rupert data, but my doctoral committee at Washington State wouldn’t let me, so I settled on bone tools from one of the harbour’s sites (Ames 1976) and continued to think about the questions. In some respects, then, this volume is the dissertation I wanted to do. In 1983, I discussed analyzing the Boardwalk artifacts with MacDonald, who enthusiastically supported the idea, and gave me a small contract to travel to Ottawa from Boise, Idaho, look over the collections and discuss the analysis further with him, Jerry Cybulski and Pat Sutherland, all of whom were working on aspects of the project. I received a second contract from the National Museums of Canada and NSF funding in 1984 to do Boardwalk, and realized I couldn’t understand Boardwalk without looking at all the other sites excavated in the harbour. Pat was analyzing one of them, GbTo 18, but I received additional funding from NSF for the expanded project. This volume is one result of that effort. No archaeology would have happened in the harbour without the consent and support of the Coast Tsimshian people, whose history so fascinates us. I thank them for their ii

willingness to let us study it. The people of the City of Prince Rupert have also assisted the projects described here in many ways, and the work could otherwise not have happened. I could not have done the work without the help of the lab crews at Boise State University and Portland State University who worked hard and diligently to process the artifacts, enter the data on computer load sheets and to do a variety of other essential tasks: The Boise State crew were Joel Boaz, Suzy Pengilly, Doug Royter, Don Sillence, and Jef Olsen. Jef not only worked in the lab, but also operated as project coordinator, helping to keep track of financial records and doing library research. Joel “cleaned” the data set, proofing it and checking for errors once it was loaded onto Boise State’s computer. The Portland State lab crew was Doria Fingerhut (Raetz), Linda Friedenberg, Shirley Jo Barr, and Maureen Newman. These four double checked their own work, as well as that done in Boise. Doria and Maureen also went through and entered all the field notes into a spread sheet. Maureen and Linda double checked all elevations. All four also worked hard checking catalogues against our data base prior to shipping the collections back to the Archaeological Survey of Canada. Linda photographed a sample of the collections, including all the decorated artifacts. Most recently, Sara Davis assisted me with the final revisions and copyediting. This project would not have happened without the long-term support and encouragement of George MacDonald. In 1969, he gave me a crew and encouraged me to think about Northwest Coast archaeology. In 1970, he gave me another crew and my first independent project. Later, he allowed me access to the collections from Garden Island for my dissertation, and finally, he permitted me to analyze the collections from Prince Rupert harbour. My debt to George is enormous, and can only be repaid by giving others the same opportunities. Jerry Cybulski provided me with radiocarbon dates, unpublished materials, and reprints. We discussed mutual problems and possible solutions. Finally, he gave an earlier draft of this monograph a ruthless review that led to its improvement. Pat Sutherland has always been willing to discuss ideas about Prince Rupert and also reviewed the earlier draft, to its benefit. The analysis and the preparation of this monograph have had many financial sponsors. The National Museums of Canada and Archaeological Survey of Canada provided funding for the original North Coast Project field work, the trip to Ottawa in 1983, and a contract to support the initiation of the analysis of the Boardwalk materials. The National Science Foundation funded three years of analysis through two grants and one renewal (BNS 8311299, BNS 8406343). Boise State University gave administrative support the first year, while the Idaho State Archaeologist’s Office provided lab space. At Portland State University, the University and Department of Anthropology, and its then chair, Marc Feldesman, provided administrative support and lab space. Finally, the bulk of the final work on this manuscript were made while I was on sabbatical leave from PSU during the 19951996 academic year and during the summer of 2004. Among the people whose assistance was essential to this project, special mention must be made of Genevieve Eustache, then curator of the Scientific Records Section, Archaeological Survey of Canada, who arranged for and sent me photocopies and iii

microfiches of project records by the ton during the project, and without whose efforts and support this project would have been impossible. I would also to thank Robert Pammett and other members of the Survey’s curatorial staff at the time who assisted me on visits to look at artifacts, and who handled all the details of shipping the collections from Ottawa to Boise, and receiving the collections from Portland. Thank you. Darden Wood, of Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Laboratory, provided important assistance and advice on handling radiocarbon dates. I very much appreciate his assistance. All of the maps and profile schematics are printed here courtesy of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. as are any photographs of sites. Artifact photographs were taken either by Linda Friedenberg or myself. Artifact drawings are by Heidi Anderson or myself. Ron Denman, then Director of the Museum of North British Columbia, helped with arrangements during my 1984 visit to Prince Rupert. Alec ran the boat. There are many individuals with whom I have discussed aspects of the Prince Rupert Harbour research, and whose comments and criticisms have materially improved it, either directly, or indirectly, by teaching me about the Northwest Coast, or artifact analyses. This list cannot be complete, but certainly includes Al McMillan, Roy Carlson, Dave Huelsbeck, Gay Frederick, Jim Haggarty, Bjorn Simonsen, R.G. Matson, Gary Coupland, Knut Fladmark, Madonna Moss, Virginia Butler, Herb Maschner, Randall Schalk, Tom Green, Steve Samuels, Jim Chatters, Ruthanne Knudson, and Tom Roll. My ideas about assemblage size, richness and excavated volume were clarified during many discussions with R. Lee Lyman. Of course, none of these people can be blamed for any of what follows. Kenneth M. Ames Department of Anthropology Portland State University

iv

Table of Contents Abstract Preface and Acknowledgements Table of Contents List of Figures List of Tables Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Environmental Background General Description Climate Biota Geology and Paleoenvironments Chapter 3: Ethnography and previous Archaeology Coast Tsimshian Ethnography Previous and subsequent Archaeology A Summary of Northern Northwest Coast Prehistory Chapter 4: Methodological and Theoretical Background Introduction The North Coast Prehistory Project The Artifact Analysis Project Project Methodology Chapter 5: The Sites Introduction The radiocarbon dates The analytical units and stratigraphy The sites GbTn1 Grassy Bay GbTo18 Dodge Island GbTo 19 Ridley Island GbTo 23 Garden Island GbTo 30 Parizeau Point GbTo 31 Boardwalk GbTo 33 Lachane GbTo 34 Kitandach GbTo 36 Baldwin GbTp 1 Lucy Island GcTo 1 K’nu Features Discussion Chapter 6: Material Culture Introduction Classification Organic materials: bones, antler, teeth, and shell Ground Slate Ground and Pecked Stone Chipped Stone Chapter 7: Assemblage Structure and Comparisons v

i ii v vii ix 1 5 5 7 8 12 16 16 20 22 30 30 30 32 41 49 49 49 51 52 52 57 57 59 62 64 89 95 95 97 99 99 101 113 113 116 116 157 160 169 177

Introduction Bone, antler and teeth Stone Tools General Comparative Comments Variation, and temporal and geographic patterns Chapter 8: Grave Goods, caches, status markers, art, and adornment Introduction Analysis of mortuary practices Artifact descriptions Mortuary patterns Art Items of adornment Chapter 9: Subsistence Introduction δ13 C Studies Faunal remains Artifacts Discussion Chapter 10: Site and Analytical Unit Summaries Grassy Bay Garden Island Parizeau Point Boardwalk Lachane Kitandach Baldwin Lucy Island K’nu Chapter 11: Summary and Conclusions Introduction Settlement history and settlement patterns Thematic issues Methodological issues References Cited Appendix A: Artifact tables: distributions of artifact classes by AU, raw counts and densities Appendix B: Tables of faunal distributions

vi

177 183 195 199 206 208 208 209 209 228 250 257 260 260 260 260 273 280 283 283 284 284 285 290 291 291 291 292 293 293 293 296 306 308 337 365

List of Figures Figure 1.1 Map of the Northern British Columbia Coast Figure 1.2 Distribution of Archaeological sites in Prince Rupert Harbour Figure 3.1 Coast Tsimshian Territory Figure 5.1 Grassy Bay (GbTn1) Figure 5.2 Profile, unit A, Grassy Bay Figure 5.3 Profile, unit B, Grassy Bay Figure 5.4 Dodge Island (GbTo18) Figure 5.5 The Dodge Cove site complex Figure 5.6 Garden Island (GbTo23) Figure 5.7 Profile, unit 2C, Garden Island Figure 5.8 Example of deep midden stratigraphy, Area E, Boardwalk Figure 5.9 Boardwalk (GbTo31), with excavation localities Figure 5.10 Excavation Area D, Boardwalk Figure 5.11 D Line West Wall Profile, Area D Figure 5.12 North Wall Profile, Area D Figure 5.13 Excavation Area B, Boardwalk Figure 5.14 Area A Excavation Units Figure 5.15 Area C Excavation Units Figure 5.16 Profile, Area A, S-20 Line Figure 5.17 Profile, Area C, N - 35 Line, W20 to E 5 Figure 5.18 Profile, Area C, N -35 Line, E5 - E45 Figure 5.19 Excavations through house depressions A and B Figure 5.20 Profile, A trench, East Wall Figure 5.21 Profile B Trench, North Wall Figure 5.22 Lachane (GbTo33) Figure 5.23 Profile, Excavation Area B, North and East Walls, Lachane Figure 5.24 Profile, Excavation Area B, South Wall, Lachane Figure 5.25 Kitandach (GbTo34) Figure 5.26 Baldwin (GbTo36) Figure 5.27 Lucy Island (GbTc1) Figure 5.28 Profile, test area 2, Lucy Island Figure 5.29 Distribution of AUs in time (calibrated dates) against MacDonald and Inglis’ (1981) sequence Figure 5.30 Frequency of all calibrated radiocarbon date intercepts in 100 year bins. Figure 5.31 Relative Frequencies of Burial and Non-Burial Calibrated Radiocarbon Dates Figure 5.32 Two sigma spans for terminal dates on 23 Prince Rupert Harbour middens Figure 5.33. Calibrated Intercepts for site abandonment dates Figure 5.34. Frequencies of calibrated intercepts for the terminal shell dates (Archer 1992) and NCPP non-burial dates. Figure 5.35. Calibrated intercept dates for terminal shell dates (Archer 1992) and burial dates Figure 6.1 Attribute locations for hafted bone piercing tools Figure 6.2 Bevel tip metapodial tool. vii

2 4 17 54 55 56 58 58 60 61 64 67 70 71 73 76 79 79 83 84 85 86 87 88 90 93 94 96 96 98 98 102 107 108 109 109 110 111 115 125

Figure 6.3 Fragment of miniature zoomorphic club with split front legs (Boardwalk). Figure 6.4 Zoomorphic comb (Wolf) (Garden Island) Figure 6.5 Unhafted bone piercing tools, or bone awls Figure 6.6 Unilaterally barbed harpoon heads Figure 6.7 Awls and needles Figure 6.9 Ventral and dorsal views of a hafted bone point Figure 6.10 Ventral, dorsal and lateral views of a socketed bone point Figure 6.11 Stone points Figure 6.12 Abraders Figure 6.13 Zoomorphic type II celt Figure 6.14 Ground stone and shell tools Figure 6.15 Medial labret Figure 8.1 Rolled copper tube containing a wrapped dowel Figure 8.2 Wrapped dowel . Figure 8.3 Dowel with male end. Figure 8.4 The copper bracelets from the “Warrior Cache” Figure 8.5 The raven pendent Figure 8.6 Side a and top b views of drilled amber bead Figure 8.7 Pommel of whale bone club associated with the “Warrior Cache” Figure 8.8 Harpoon pendent from Lachane Figure 8.9 Burial blade. Figure 8.10 Shell Necklace Figure 8.11 Shell Gorget Figure 8.12 Relationship between excavated volume and number of excavated burialswith number of burials with grave goods Figure 8.13. Burials, Area A, Boardwalk. Figure 8.14 Calibrated two sigma age ranges for all dated burials. Figure 8.15 Chipped or flaked labret from Grassy Bay Figure 8.16 Snapped labret from Boardwalk Figure 8.17 The “Warrior Cache” Area A/C Boardwalk Figure 8.18 Sketch of the Warrior Cache Figure 8.19 Zoomorphic miniature club from Boardwalk Figure 8.20. Carved comb with fully developed form lines. Figure 11.1 Calibrated two sigma age spans for terminal dates on ranked and egalitarian villages

viii

136 136 141 146 147 149 150 159 161 162 164 165 211 211 211 214 216 217 222 224 225 227 227 229 230 235 242 242 249 249 252 255 300

List of Tables Table 2.1a Common marine fish in the Prince Rupert region not mentioned in the text Table 2.1b Common freshwater Fish in the Prince Rupert, not mentioned in the text Table 2.2 Common waterfowl in the Prince Rupert region Table 2.3 Common marine invertebrates in the Prince Rupert region Table 5.1 Volumes and ages of AUs Table 5.2 Radiocarbon dates for Grassy Bay (GbTn1) Table 5.3 Radiocarbon dates from Garden Island (GbTo23) Table 5.4 Radiocarbon dates for Parizeau Point (GbTo30), Kitandach (GbTo34) and Baldwin (GbTo36) Table5.5 Radiocarbon dates from Area D Table 5.6 Radiocarbon dates from Area B Table 5.7 Radiocarbon dates from Area A\C Table 5.8 Radiocarbon date for Lachane (GbTo33) Table 5.9 Midden accumulation rates Table 6.1 Paradigmatic classification of harpoon heads Table 6.2 Distribution of harpoon head types by AU Table 6.3 Edge wear on cobble tool types Table 6.4 Paradigmatic classification of cobble tool edge shape and edge wear Table 7.1 Summary table of raw counts and artifact and taxonomic densities for the AUs Table 7.2 Regression Coefficients Table 7.3 Outliers identified in regression analysis; AUs with low/high artifact and/or taxonomic densities Table 7.4 Organic artifact raw materials Table 7.5 Densities of beveled tools, awls and needles Table 7.6 Ratios of bone tool fragments by AU Table 7.7 Item seriation of haft types Table 7.8 Density (N/100 m3) based frequency seriation of haft types Table 7.9 K means cluster results of AUs based on artifact densities Table 7.10 K means cluster results of AUs based on taxonomic densities Table 7.11 Matrix of the results of the cluster analyses Table 8.1 Measurements for copper tubes, the wooden dowels and the copper wrapped bead Table 8.2 Measurements of amber necklaces Table 8.3 Abrader measurements Table 8.4 Ground slate point or dagger measurements Table 8.5 Bone tool measurements Table 8.6 Distribution of burials by site Table 8.7 Distribution of grave goods by site Table 8.8 Burial associations Table 8.9 Results of X2 analysis Table 8.10 Age and sex ratios for burials with grave goods by site Table 8.11 Distribution of grave goods by age and sex ix

10 10 13 13 53 54 63 65 68 68 69 92 106 143 144 174 175 181 182 182 185 189 190 193 194 202 203 206 212 218 220 221 226 232 232 233 239 239 240

Table 8.12 Summary of decorated artifacts Table 8.13 Detailed list of all decorated artifacts Table 8.14 Summary of the distributions of decorated artifacts Table 8.15 Raw counts of items of adornment by AU Table 8.16 Densities of items of adornment by AU Table 9.1 Mammalian NISP by AU in Boardwalk excavation areas B and D Table 9.2 Distribution of Mammalian NISP by period Table 9.3 Densities of subsistence related artifacts by AU Table 9.4 Densities and rankings of subsistence related artifacts by period Table 9.5 Harbour–wide trends among subsistence related artifacts by period Table A.1 Raw counts of hafted bone piercing tools by AU Table A.2 Densities/100m3 of hafted bone piercing tools by AU Table A.3 Raw counts of awls and needles by AU Table A.4 Densities/100m3 of Bone Awls and Needles by AU Table A.5 Raw counts of beveled bone tools by AU Table A.6 Densities/100m3 of beveled bone tools Table A.7 Raw counts of miscellaneous bone tools AU Table A.8 Densities/100m3 of miscellaneous bone tools by AU Table A.9 Raw counts of worked bone fragments by AU Table A.10 Densities/100m3 of bone tool fragments by AU Table A.11 Raw counts of raw material types of cobble and ground stone tools per site Table A.12 Percentages of raw materials types of cobble and ground stone tools per site Table A.13 Raw counts of ground, pecked and chipped stone artifacts by AU Table A.14 Densities/100m3 of ground, pecked and chipped stone tools by AU Table B.1 Fish recovered at GbTo 19 Table B.2 Mammals recovered at GbTo 19 Table B.3 Birds recovered at GbTo 19 (May 1979) Table B.4 Summary of fauna recovered at McNichol Creek Table B.5 Summary of GbTn 1 fauna Table B.6 Element distributions of GbTn 1 mammalian fauna Table B.7 Element distributions of GbTn 1 avian fauna Table B.8 Counts of fish recovered at GbTo 31 Table B.9 Densities of fish recovered at GbTo 31 Table B.10 Counts of terrestrial mammals recovered at GbTo 31 Table B.11 Densities of terrestrial mammals recovered at GbTo 31 Table B.12 Element distributions for terrestrial mammals at GbTo 31 Table B.13 Utilization and modification of animals at GbTo 31 Table B.14 Counts of sea mammals recovered at GbTo 31 Table B.15 Densities of sea mammals recovered at GbTo 31 Table B.16 Counts of birds recovered at GbTo 31 Table B.17 Densities of birds recovered at GbTo 31 Table B.18 Ratios of wing and body elements among birds recovered at GbTo 31 Table B.19 Faunal lists for GbTo 33 and GbTo 10

x

252 253 256 258 259 266 272 276 279 281 338 340 341 343 344 348 350 352 353 355 356 357 358 362 365 366 366 367 367 367 369 369 370 371 372 373 375 376 376 377 379 381 382

Chapter 1: Introduction

Prince Rupert Harbour is certainly among the most spectacular archaeological localities on the Northwest Coast (Fig. 1.1). Its narrow water ways are lined with scores of massive shell middens which stretch, one after the other, along the shores of the harbour and the narrow water passageways leading in and out of the harbour. Even some of the small islands are capped by thick middens. Most of these sites have never been excavated, or even looted. The harbour itself is a beautiful setting in which to work and spend time, despite what can seem like endless days of chill rain or fog. In other words, Prince Rupert is an archetype of a Northwest Coast place. This monograph reports on the artifacts from nine archaeological sites within the harbour. The sites were excavated by the Archaeological Survey of Canada's North Coast Prehistory Project (NCPP) between 1968 and 1974 under the overall direction of Dr. George MacDonald. One other site excavated within the harbour by the project has been reported separately by Sutherland (1978), and her results are discussed here and integrated into the conclusions. An additional site was excavated on the north end of Ridley Island (Fig. 1.2) in the late 1970s by a separate project (May 1978). Those results are also included here in the conclusions. The present volume focuses on the artifacts recovered from the nine sites, though I also discuss the analyzed archaeofaunas recovered from four sites in the harbour area. It is not a “site report” for each site. In a sense, I treat the harbour itself as a site, and describe the nine individual sites as localities within the harbour, rather than reporting on each site separately. There are many good reasons for this tactic, as I shall describe below, in the chapter on methodology. I was first a crew member and subsequently a crew leader in the North Coast project in four summers between 1968 and 1971. I worked on two of these sites during their excavations, Grassy Bay (GbTn 1) in 1968 and Boardwalk (GbTo 31) in 1969. I subsequently analyzed the bone tools from a third – Garden Island (GbTo 23) – for my doctoral dissertation (Ames 1976). In 1970 and 1971 I directed excavations and conducted survey work between Kitselas and Hagwilget on the Skeena and Bulkely Rivers in the interior (Ames 1973a, 1979). In 1984, I approached MacDonald, then chief scientist of the Archaeological Survey of Canada, about analyzing the artifacts from the Prince Rupert excavations to test ideas I had developed about the evolution of social complexity on the Northwest Coast (Ames 1973b, 1976, 1981, 1985). Analysis of the artifacts had been initiated during the mid-1970s, and one site was described (Sutherland 1978) and work begun on Boardwalk but not finished. MacDonald cheerfully acquiesced, with the proviso that I also develop a detailed culture-history for the harbour. I was able to procure funding first from the Archaeological Survey of Canada, and from the National Science Foundation between 1984 and 1987 to study the almost 18,000 artifacts recovered from the nine sites. 1

Figure 1.1 The Northern Coast of British Columbia

.

2

We analyzed only the catalogued artifacts; I did not examine the level bags, since that would have added significantly to the time and expense this study would have taken. As will be described in the Methods chapter, the work reported here is primarily an analyses of the artifacts. Field methods are described to the extent needed for the reader to understand the structure of the artifact data set. The artifact analysis was structured by my interests in social evolution, and my experience with the Garden Island materials. Other Prince Rupert studies, such as Francis Stewart's monograph on the Boardwalk fauna (1977), are summarized and integrated as relevant. I have not attempted to present full versions of their data and conclusions -- the reader is referred to the originals. Chapter 2 provides the necessary environmental background; Chapter 3 contains overviews of the ethnography of the Prince Rupert Harbour region, the history of archaeology in the harbor and of the prehistory of the northern Northwest Coast. Chapter 4 develops the theoretical and methodological frameworks for the work reported here, while Chapter 5 introduces the nine sites. The artifact classification is presented in Chapter 6; Chapter 7 discusses the quantitative techniques used and compares the artifact assemblages along a number of dimensions. Chapters 8 and 9 address specific topics central to the research project. Mortuary patterns in Prince Rupert Harbour have played a central but poorly reported role in hypotheses about and reconstructions of the social history of the Northwest Coast and the evolution of social complexity on the coast. Chapter 8 contains descriptions and analyses of the recovered grave goods and builds an argument for the presence of ranking by c. 900 BC if not earlier in the harbour. Chapter 9 examines the archaeology of subsistence in the harbour drawing on both faunal analyses and artifact assemblages. Chapter 10 summarizes the analytical results for each site. Chapter 11 offers the summary and conclusions.

3

Figure 1.2 Distribution of archaeological sites in Prince Rupert Harbour. Sites discussed in this monograph are circled.

4

Chapter 2: Environmental Background General Description This chapter introduces the reader to those aspects of the Prince Rupert environment, which are important for understanding the archaeology of the harbour. The chapter stresses environments and species of direct economic and social importance to the Coast Tsimshian within whose historic territories the harbour lies. Prince Rupert Harbour is located on the extreme northwest coast of British Columbia -- it is the most westerly seaport in Canada. The region is a complex maze of waterways, islands and peninsulas, all of which range in scale from very large to very small (Fig. 1.1). To describe the region, it is useful to start large, and then focus down to Prince Rupert Harbour. The west coast of British Columbia and Southeast Alaska consists of two north-south tending mountain ranges separated by a partially drowned lowland. The Insular Range of British Columbia and southeast Alaska is the more westerly of the two mountain ranges. Vancouver Island, the Queen Charlotte Islands, and the Alexander Archipelago form the visible portions of the Insular or outer mountains (usage after Fladmark 1975). These outer mountains are generally very rugged, and create a very complex, reticulate coastline, broken by bays of all sizes, islands and fjords. East, or inside, of these outer mountains is the coastal trough, which includes the Hecate and Georgia depressions of the British Columbia coast, and the Puget-Willamette Lowland of Washington and Oregon. The coastal trough in British Columbia and Alaska is characterized by elevations below 122 m. While much of it is drowned, there are many broad, flat areas above sea level, including the eastern side of the Queen Charlotte Islands, and smaller islands in the Prince Rupert region. These islands are low, and surrounded by shallow waters and, at low tide, enormous mud flats. The Coast Range of the British Columbia - Alaska mainland is the second, inner mountain range. In British Columbia, the Coast range begins north of the Fraser River and extends north to the Mt. St Elias range of southern Alaska. The coast range is a very rugged, alpine range having been extensively glaciated. Its ocean frontage is broken in many places by long, narrow fjords, flanked by sheer cliffs. The waters at the foot of these mountains are filled with islands. The mountains generally rise to elevations 2100 to 2700 meters above sea level. Prince Rupert sits at the eastern boundary of the coastal lowland and the Kitimat Range of the Coastal mountains. Behind the harbour is the Tsimpsean Peninsula, which rises above 900 meters in places. The City of Prince Rupert is on Kaien Island, which is small, but rugged, with a high point of 707 meters. On the other hand, Digby Island, across the harbour from Prince Rupert, is a low island, with no elevations reaching 90 meters. In the general Prince Rupert Harbour region, the Queen Charlotte Islands and the southern end of the Alexander Archipelago, including Dall and Prince of Wales Islands represent the insular mountains. These are separated from the Queen Charlotte Islands by the east-west running Dixon Entrance, a relatively deep, open channel with depths commonly in excess of 150 fathoms. In contrast, Hecate Strait and the drowned Hecate Lowlands are quite shallow (Fig 1.1). Prince Rupert is separated from these bodies of water first by The Dundas group, a north-south island chain anchored in the north by Dundas Island and in the south by Porcher Island. These are relatively high islands, and are a drowned outlier of the coast range. This island chain is separated 5

from the mainland of British Columbia by Chatham Sound and from Alaska by the entrance into Portland Inlet. Though the Dundas group is comprised of many small, high islands, it also contains many shallow banks. Chatham Sound is also quite shallow in places, with depths between 20 and 60 fathoms common. Deltaic deposits from the Skeena River have created substantial shallow banks. Prince Rupert Harbour is positioned with excellent access to two of the major riverine fisheries on the Northwest Coast. The harbour is flanked to the south and the north by two of the major rivers on the Pacific Coast of North America, the Skeena and Nass Rivers respectively (Fig. 1.1). The coast ranges of the Northwest (SE Alaska to northern California) are pierced by only ten rivers, the Taku, Stikine, Nass, Skeena, Dean, Bella Coola, Klanaklini, Fraser, Columbia and Klamath. The Columbia and Fraser are the most important of these rivers, with the largest drainage basins. The Nass, Skeena, Stikene, and Klamath are the second rank rivers. The Nass and Skeena supported significant salmon runs, while the Nass also possessed the major spring eulachon run on the northern Northwest Coast (see below). The mouth of the Skeena is at the southern end of Chatham Sound, while the Nass enters Portland Inlet, which in turn opens into the northern end of Chatham sound (Fig. 1.1). The Skeena's estuary is considered here as a part of the local environment of Prince Rupert Harbour, reflecting the ethnographic descriptions of the annual movements of the Coast Tsimshian who resided in the harbour. The harbour (Fig. 1.2) itself can be best described in terms of its waterways. Its two major islands have already been described. Prince Rupert Harbour separates Kaien and Digby islands. The deep water in the harbour arcs along the western side of Kaien Island. Navigational maps show the harbour to be about 18 to 22 fathoms deep. There is almost no shallow water along this side of the island. There is a narrow band of intertidal flats along the southwest flank of the island. Kaien Island is separated from the Tsimpsean Peninsula on the east by a narrow, but rather deep passage that opens into Morse Basin along the southeast side of the island. The northern portion of this passage had several sites along both banks (Figure 1.2), which probably directly reflects the presence of extensive intertidal flats. Two deep basins -- Wainwright and Porpoise -- separate Kaien Island from the Tsimpsean Peninsula to the south. Large flats that would be exposed at high tide separate these basins from each other. The southern flank of the island has bays and more tidal flats. Digby Island is low, as stated above, with numerous tidal flats around its entire circumference. In places, low tides also expose broad rock outcrops. Thus Digby is particularly rich in intertidal habitats. Venn Passage flows along the north side of Digby Island, between it and the Tsimpsean Peninsula. Venn is generally quite shallow, with a maximum depth of 11 fathoms. Like Digby Island, this portion of the Tsimpsean Peninsula possesses extensive intertidal flats and rocks. Venn Passage also contains many islands. Three islands -- Anian, Garden, and Wilgiapshi -- are located where Venn Passage enters the harbour (on Figure 1.2, sites GbTo 3, GbTo 23, and GbTo 2 are recorded on these islands respectively). These islands are part of a large intertidal flat exposed at low tide.

6

Tugwell Island, which separates Metlakatla Bay and the western entrance to Venn Passage from Chatham Sound, is also surrounded by a very broad intertidal zone, which at very low tides connects the Island to the mainland. Prince Rupert Harbour becomes Tuck Inlet above Kaien Island. Tuck Inlet is quite straight walled and deep. There are shallow pockets along its walls, but it is essentially a drowned U-shaped valley with depths between 25 and 30 fathoms. The harbour has strong tides. Mean high tide is 6.1 meters, mean low tide is 1.2 meters; mean high large tide is 7.5 meters, mean large low tide -0.2 meters (Canadian Hydrographic Service 1984). The marine waters of the northern British Columbia Coast are ecologically very productive. This is the result of several interacting factors (Stewart 1977). These factors include: 1) the northern flow of the warm Japanese Current, 2) a northward flowing current of brackish river and sea water between the Japanese current and the land, 3) tidal currents, 4) convection currents moving colder waters up from deeper waters to replace lighter, fresher surface water flowing away from the coast. These currents bring with them minerals such as nitrates and phosphates. Additionally, deltaic deposits from the Skeena River have produced a series of shallow banks near the mouths of the three channels (Telegraph, Marcus, and Inverness), which form the mouth of the river. Inverness passage is the closest to Prince Rupert, and at its mouth, for example, is a complex of banks just west of Lelu Island and south of Ridley Island. These banks, including Horsey, Agnes, and Flora, have substantial stands of eel grass (see below) and are extremely rich marine habitats. Flora Bank is almost completely exposed at low tide, while Horsey is 1 to 3 fathoms below the surface of the sea. In sum, Prince Rupert is located in a region of significant marine, littoral and riverine (see below) productivity, marked by particularly productive microenvironments (or patches), such as Flora Banks, and the tidal flats in Venn Passage. Climate The Prince Rupert Harbour region has a modified Maritime climate (Hoos 1975). It is cool and wet. The direction of the Gulf Stream, and the position of low pressure in the Gulf of Alaska bring frequent storms to the area from early fall through spring. Summers are warmer and drier, though they too can be wet. Maximum precipitation falls in October (35.6 cm), minimum in June (10 cm). Summers can also be foggy. The Queen Charlotte Islands provide little protection from storms. The wet maritime air rises as it reaches the Kitimat range, producing heavy rains. Mean annual temperature in the harbour is 7.7° C; January mean temperature is 1.8°C, July mean 13.5°C. Mean annual precipitation is 241 cm of which 230 cm falls as rain. The harbour receives 113 cm of snow that contains 11 cm. of water. The harbour has 199 frost free days annually (a weather station at the airport, in the interior of Digby Island has a shorter frost-free period of 164 days. The Prince Rupert station is on Charles Point, on Digby Island. Thus distance from water can have a significant effect on microclimates and microenvironments). The frost-free period in the harbour is from April 19 - November 5. The harbour receives precipitation on an average of 227 days a year, and enjoys 1036 hours of sunshine (there are 8760 hours in a year. Assuming an 7

average of 12 hours/day for potential sunshine, there are 4380 hours available for sunlight, so Prince Rupert receives sunlight about 24% of the potential daylight hours.). Biota Cowan and Guiguet (1965) define a number of biotic areas for British Columbia based upon the distribution of mammals in the province. Four of these are important for the ancient inhabitants of Prince Rupert Harbour. Two biotic areas occur in the harbour, and two others appear to have been utilized, at least indirectly. The Coast Forest and Coast Littoral Biotic areas are found in the harbour, while the Pelagic Waters Biotic Zone characterizes offshore waters, and the Alplands Biotic zones land above tree line. Cowan and Guiget split the Alplands into Northern and Southern Alplands, with the Skeena River the boundary. Given ethnographic mobility patterns, the residents of the harbour would have access to uplands on either side of the Skeena. The marine environments can be more precisely defined as the neritic and the pelagic, or Oceanic, zones. A third zone, the benthic (ocean floor), is of little direct relevance here. The neritic zone includes waters from the high tide line to the edge of the continental shelf, and is commonly divided into a littoral zone (or intertidal zone) spanning the area from high to low tide, and the sublittorial zone from the mean low tide line to the edge of the shelf. Neritic waters include some of the most productive habitats available to humans: intertidal flats, tidal marshes, rocky foreshores, and banks. The pelagic zone includes deep waters beyond the continental shelf. All of these are actually quite diverse. Thus both of Cowan and Guiget’s marine biotic areas fall within the neritic zone. Vegetation The terrestrial vegetation of Prince Rupert Harbour is the local variant of the Coastal Forest Biotic Area and is dominated by western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and western red cedar (Thuja plicata) (Hoos 1975). Other trees, which are associated with the coastal forests, include yellow cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), amabilis fir (Abies amabilis), and Douglas fir (Psuedotsuga menziessi). Other common plants include salmon berry (Rubus spectabilis), salal (Gaultheria shallon), and huckleberry (Vaccinum spp.). Salney (Salney and Company 1973) distinguished four terrestrial habitats in the harbour region: 1) the coastal forest on undisturbed ground; 2) Red alder (Alnus rubra) on disturbed soils with good drainage; 3) bogs and muskeg with shrubby red and yellow cedars, junipers (Juniperas ssp.), Labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum), huckleberries, lichens, mosses and mushrooms on deep poorly drained soils; and 4) a transition between the coastal forest and bog. The latter zone is associated with poorly drained soils of moderate depth, and has vegetation that is a mix of coastal forest and bog. Zone 1 is found on the margins of the islands, and on the mainland, where soils are rocky or shallow. The distributions of zones 3 and 4 are dependent on local topography and drainage patterns; zone 2 on land disturbing activities and effects. The point here is simply that the vegetation of the harbour area is not uniformly coast forest; it has a fine-grained, patchy quality. 8

I argue later in this monograph (Chapter 9) that shallow neritic habitats, such as banks, were crucial to the subsistence history of the harbour’s ancient occupants. Such habitats are widely but discontinuously distributed within the harbour and adjacent areas (Fig. 2.3). Eelgrass (Zostera marina) and surf grass (Phyllospadix scouleri) are important members of the flora associated with these microenvironments, such as the banks and shallows produced by Skeena River deltaic deposits, and the shallows in Venn Passage and off adjacent portions of Digby Island and the Tsimpsean Peninsula. These shallows also support stands of kelp. These grasses and kelp are important to neritic ecology in a variety of ways, but significantly here because herring spawn among eelgrass and the grasses shelter young fish (see Steneck et al. 2002 for a thorough discussion of the importance of kelp habitat). These habitats are also attractive to sea otters and other sea mammals. Vegetation of the alpland areas is limited to willows, heaths, and meadow flowers. Fish The location of Prince Rupert Harbour allows ready access to the salmon runs on the Skeena River. The Skeena's salmon runs are second only to those of the Fraser River in British Columbia (Hoos 1975). Sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) are the primary species, but pinks (O. gorbuscha), coho (O. kisutch), chum (O. keta), and chinook (O.tshawytscha), also run up the Skeena and spawn in its tributaries. Of these latter four, pinks are the most common. Sockeye weigh between 1.9 to 3.6 kilograms, may be as long as 83 cm. Pinks are about the same size, while coho are somewhat larger. Chinook are the largest pacific salmon, weighing up to 36 kilograms and measuring as much as 147 cm in length. All five species spawn at some time from late July through October, though the runs of each species may peak at somewhat different times. What is significant here is that the river contained salmon between mid-summer and mid autumn. The Coast Tsimshian salmon fishery was primarily a riverine fishery, and salmon were caught as they ran up stream. Other anadramous fish in the Skeena include steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and four species of smelt. The Skeena is a major steelhead stream (Hoos 1975), the fish spawning between January and July in the river's tributaries. Steelhead can be up to 114 cm. and 16 kilograms. The four species of smelt -- a small, rather oily fish -- include the surf (silver) smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), capelin (Mallotus villosus), and the long fin smelt (Spirichnus dilatus). The surf smelt and capelin spawn during summer and fall respectively on shaded gravel beaches of bays and coves in both marine and estuary environments. Eulachon are a true anadramous fish, spawning in fresh water between mid-March and mid-May. The major eulachon run on the northern Northwest Coast is in the Nass, during the same period. The long-fin is also truly anadramous, spawning in fresh water between October and December in streams not far from the ocean (Clifford, Clemens and Lindsay 1967). Of these, eulachon was the most important in the native diet because of its oil. Halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepsis) and herring (Clupea pallasii) are the major marine fish for understanding native subsistence in the Prince Rupert region. Halibut spawn in waters between 150 and 225 fathoms mainly between the months of November and January (Stewart 1977). Such deep waters occur in Dixon Entrance. Young halibut live in much shallower waters, 9

but as they age and grow, they move into deeper water. Younger fish are available for exploitation over a broader region. Large spawning schools of herring occur periodically in the Prince Rupert harbour, drawn by the eelgrass for spawning (Hoos 1975). The annual movements of herring are not predictable, and fish are sensitive to fluctuations in water salinity. Table 2.1a Common marine fish in the Prince Rupert region not mentioned in the text. Rock sole English sole Dover sole Rex sole Petrale sole Butter sole Turbot (Arrowtooth flounder) Starry flounder Lingcod Pacific cod

Lepidosetta bilineata Parophrys vetulus Microstomus pacificus Glyptocephalus zachirus Eopsetta jordani Isopetta isolepis Atheresthes stomias Platichthys stellatus Ophidon elongates Gadus macrocephalus

Table 2.1b Common freshwater fish in the Prince Rupert not mentioned in the text. Squawfish Bullhead sculpin Stickleback Chub minnow Suckers

Ptychocheilus oregonensis Cottus asper Gasterosteus aculeatus Couesis greeni Catostomus sp.

Sea mammals A range of sea mammals, from small whales to sea otters, swim in the waters of the general region. Whales (Family Cetacea) more commonly use the deeper waters at the neritic and pelagic zone, though killer whales (Orcinas orca), harbour porpoises (Phocoenia phocoenia), and Dall’s porpoises (Phocoenoides dalli) have been sighted in the Skeena estuary (Hoos 1975), and I have seen killer whales in the harbour itself. Northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) are usually found in Dixon Entrance and Hecate Strait but are occasionally observed in more coastal waters (Stewart 1977). Northern sea lions (Eumtopias jubata) occur in the region. By far, the ubiquitous harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) is the most common sea mammal. Sea otters (Enhydra lutris) were once found in the shallow banks and rocky reefs of the Prince Rupert area.

10

Terrestrial mammals A wide variety of terrestrial mammals occurs on the northern British Columbia mainland, and would have been directly or indirectly accessible to inhabitants of Prince Rupert Harbour. Of these, sitka deer (Odocoileous hemionus sitkensis) were probably the most important for subsistence purposes, but mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus americanus) and sheep (Ovis spp.) may have been socially and culturally more significant. Other economically or culturally important terrestrial mammals in the general region include wapiti (Cervus elaphus)1, coast or Columbia black tailed deer (O. h. columbianus), black bear (Ursus americanus), grizzly bear (U. arctos horribilis), mink (Mustela vison), marten (Martes americana), river otter (Lutra canadensis), beaver (Castor canadensis), and porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum). Many of these, such as the beaver and mink, were exploited for their fur, claws, teeth, and bones, as much or more than for their meat and fat. Birds If the region is quite productive in terms of fish and sea mammals, it is not particularly so for birds. The coastal forest does not support a great variety, nor do the region's waters provide substantial feeding and breeding areas for migratory waterfowl, though some do use the banks and shallows described above. However, as will be seen below, birds do occur in the faunal assemblages in significant numbers. Raptors and waterfowl are by far-and-away the most important. Thirty species of waterfowl occur in the Prince Rupert region, though only three regularly breed in the area (Hoos 1975). These are Canada geese (Branta canadensis), mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos), and the common merganser (Mergus merganser). Eleven other species (Table 2.2 regularly use the area during migrations and sometime over-winter locally. The others are episodic visitors. The common sandpiper (Actitis macularia) -- a shorebird -- nests in the Skeena estuary, while the sand hill crane (Grus canadensis) apparently occasionally also nests on the islands at the river's mouth. Loons (Gavia immer, G. arctica, G. stellata) and grebs (Podiceps grisegna, P. auritus), which nest in fresh water habitats, over-winter in marine areas around Prince Rupert and the Skeena's mouth. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is the most common raptor, while ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) and peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) are very occasionally observed along shorelines. Owls occur inland. Passerine birds are present. The most insistently present seem to be the common ravens (Corvus corax). Invertebrates Intertidal zones in the harbour tend to be rocky. Some are stone or boulders; others are shingle beaches. Mud flats, sometimes extensive, do occur though. The most common intertidal invertebrates are edible or blue mussel (Mytilus edulis), barnacles (Balanus spp.), amphipods 1

According to Cowan and Guiget (1965), wapiti do not occur presently in the Prince Rupert Harbour region. However, Hoos (1975) lists wapiti among mammals present in the Skeena River drainage basin.

11

(Orchestria spp.), limpets (Acmaea spp.) periwinkles (Littornia spp.), and hermit crabs (Pagurus sp.) Depending on substrate, other forms (Table 2.3) occur. Discussion While not presenting quantitative estimates of ecological production, it should be clear that the Prince Rupert Harbour area is ecologically rather rich. Part of this richness results from the harbour's proximity to several physiographic boundaries, most notably that between the Hecate Lowland and the Coastal Mountains. The local variants of two major biotic areas, the Coastal Forest and the Coastal Littoral, occur within the harbour, while its inhabitants had access to two others -- the pelagic, and alplands. The close proximity of the Skeena River, with its riverine and estuarine habitats is also a crucial factor in the ecology of the harbour. Ocean currents, upwelling, tidal flux and the mixing of salt and fresh water produced nutrient rich and complex marine and littoral environments. On a finer scale, the environment can be described as very patchy, or fine grained. For example, the shallow banks and tidal flats of the Coast Littoral Zone are not uniformly distributed across the region; they are highly localized in space. Other resources, such as salmon, are localized both in time and space, available only in certain places at certain times. As will be seen, these qualities are central to our understanding of economic evolution in the harbour during the past 5,000 years. Geology and Paleoenvironments Clague (1984) provides the most complete description of the Prince Rupert area's geological history and the following section is based on that publication, unless otherwise noted. While his reconstruction of Late-Pleistocene and Holocene events is most immediately relevant to our purposes here, it should be noted that the bedrock geology of the Prince Rupert area is extremely complex. The Tsimpsean peninsula is comprised of metasedimentary rocks, intermediate to acidic metavolcanic rocks, gneiss, schist, amphibolite and migmatite of protozeroic to Triassic age. The Kitimat Mountains and some adjacent Islands contain Paleozoic to early Tertiary plutonic rocks, while the core of the Kitimat ranges are high-grade metamorphic rocks of the Central Gniess Complex. Deglaciation and sea levels The Fraser glaciation is the last stade of the Wisconsinan glaciation in British Columbia. The Fraser began sometime between 25,000 to 30,000 years ago, although its onset is not well dated in the immediate Prince Rupert area. The Fraser glaciation reached its apogee ca. 16,000 to 15,000 B.P2. (Hetherington et al 2003) with deglaciation well underway after 14,000 B.P. Onset of deglaciation in the Hecate Lowland appears to have been quite rapid. Clague (1984, 47) cites a

All B.P. dates in this work are uncalibrated radiocarbon dates. Dates given as B.C. or A.D. are calibrated. 12 2

radiocarbon date of 12,700±170 (GSC-2290) as a minimum date of deglaciation in the Prince Rupert Harbour, although relatively high areas may have been ice free by 14,000 B.P.. Stations Table 2.2 Common waterfowl in the Prince Rupert region3 Harlequin duck Snow goose Pintail Greater scaup Common goldeneye Barrow’s goldeneye Bufflehead Oldsquaw Red-breasted mergansers White-tailed scooters Surf scooters Pelagic cormorants Pigeon guillemot Marbled murrelet Rhinocerous auklet Common murres

Histrionicus histrionicus Chen caerulescens Anas acuta Aythya marila Bucephela clangula B. islandica B. albeola Clangula hyemalis Mergus serrator Melanitta deglandi M. perspicillata Phalacrocorax pelagicus Cepphus columba Brachyramphus marmoratum Cerorhinca monocerata Uria aalge

Table 2.3 Common marine invertebrates in the Prince Rupert region4 Mytilus californianus California mussel Ostrea lurida Carpenter Native oyster Hinnites multirugosus Purple hinged rock scallop Katharina tunicata Leather chiton Thais lamellosa Wrinkled purple welk Searlesia dira Dire welk Schizothaerus nuttalli Horse clam Clinocardium nuttalli Basket cockle Protothaca staminea Native little neck clam Saxidomus giganteus Butter clam Euryechinus chlorocentrotus Green spined sea urchin Macoma nasuta Bent-nosed clam Macoma inconspicua Inconspicuous macoma

3 4

Based on Hoos 1975 Compiled from site reports, including Ferguson 1975 and May 1979.

13

upstream on the Skeena, such as Terrace, may not have been deglaciated until ca 10,000 to 10,500 years B.P.. As the ice retreated, it was followed by a major and rapid marine transgression. Recent evidence to the south suggests that portions of the continental shelf north of Vancouver Island were dry land ca. 10,500 to 10,000 years ago, sea levels at that time and place standing 95 m. below their present position (Luternauer et al. 1989). Clague has directly established the height of this early marine transgression in the Terrace-Kitimat area at 200 m "higher relative to the land than at present (Clague 1984, 51).” He cites Heusser's (1960) estimate that during this post-glacial transgression, sea levels were 40 to 135 m higher at Prince Rupert than at present. Turunen and Turunen (2003, 228) report a date of 10,180 ± 130 B.P. from a bog on the mainland east of Prince Rupert. The bog is 145 – 180 m ASL. Turunen and Turunen conclude the area was not inundated during the high stand. Clague suggests that sea levels achieved their modern position, relative to the land, in the Prince Rupert region, about 8,000 to 8,500 years ago. This date is supported by a basal date of 8700±210 B.P. (WAT BAN2) from a bog on the east side of Kaien Island (Banner et al. 1983, 941). The date is from the base of the core, and the core site is about 30m ASAL. The date suggests, as these authors put it: “... it is apparent that the Kaien Island site became emergent sometime prior to ... 8700.” This age is particularly significant since archaeological work in Prince Rupert Harbour, and along the Skeena, has produced nothing demonstrably earlier than 5,000 B.P. Clague cites the early reports of the North Coast prehistory project and speculates that no sites pre-dating 5,000 B.P. were not found because they are now submerged, or have been washed away by a mid-Holocene marine fluctuation in sea levels. He suggests that after 8,000 B.P., but prior to 5,000 B.P. sea levels in the Prince Rupert area may have been somewhat lower than at present, and the modern shoreline was established by a minor ocean transgression. Such a minor fluctuation, if it did occur, would have had a potentially significant impact on the Harbour's littoral environments described above. I present evidence below that minor fluctuations in sea level may have occurred in the harbour during the past 5,000 years. I also describe evidence that cultural deposits predating 5,000 year may exist in the harbour and have not recognized as such. Paleoenvironments Heusser (1960, 1985) has reviewed pollen sequences from pollen rich sites along the Pacific coast from northern California through Alaska. Based on his studies, and following general models of Holocene climate for North America, he divides the last 10,000 years or so into three climatic periods. The early Postglacial (ca. 10,000 to 8,000 years ago) was marked by a cool moist climate. Dominant tree species in the Prince Rupert region would include alder, lodge pole pine, Sitka spruce and ferns. This tree association reflects both the climate and the effects of plants recolonizing deglaciated terrain. These species would have originated from a glacial refugia on the Queen Charlotte Islands, or from western Washington State (Warner, Clague and Mathewes 1982, Heusser 1985). The Middle Holocene (ca. 8000 to 3500), or Hypsithermal, is generally thought to have been warmer and/or drier then present. Coastal forest during this period appears to have been 14

dominated by Sitka spruce and Western Hemlock. Heusser cites evidences for reduction in bogs and mires as indicating warmer, drier conditions. After 3500, essentially modern climatic conditions are reflected in the pollen sequences, with western Hemlock becoming the dominant tree in the coastal forests. Sitka Spruce became a secondary associate of western Hemlock, and appears in some of the sequences. Wetter and moister conditions are also reflected in evidence for of muskeg -- expansion of lodge pole, heath and sphagnum. Pollen studies on the southern Northwest Coast indicate that temperatures reached their post-glacial maxima between c. 10,000 B.P. and 8,000 B.P., after which temperatures declined (Heusser, Heusser and Streeter 1980). The lowest prolonged rainfall levels for the Holocene also occurred during this period. The models suggest that onset of warm and dry conditions may have been swift. More or less modern precipitation levels appear to have been established by ca. 6000 years ago, though cooler conditions occurred within the last millennium (the Little Ice Age) and perhaps around 4,000 B.P. Differing lines of evidence suggest somewhat differing timings for the onset of cool, moist conditions at the end of the Hypsithermal. Fluctuations of alpine glaciers are commonly used to time shifting temperature and moisture regimes. Studies of alpine glaciers near Bella Coola suggest glacial expansion during the late Holocene (the Neoglacial) beginning ca. 2,500 B.P. (Desgloges and Ryder 1990); while preliminary work on glacial chronologies in the Stikine-Iskut region of northern British Columbia (and just to the northeast of Prince Rupert) indicate cool/moist conditions over the last 4000 years. These differences may reflect differences in the kinds of data being used, as well as the way in which regional or even global climatic events play-out locally. It is generally the case in western North America that modern climatic conditions have pertained during the last 4,000 years or so, with colder/moister episodes around 2,500 B.P. and after 700 B.P. The last one ended at the beginning of this century. Translating these broad changes in changes in the flora and fauna of Prince Rupert Harbour is presently impossible, though certainly changes must have occurred. Two studies of mire development in the Prince Rupert area (Banner, Pojar and Rouse 1983; Turunen and Turunen 2003) provide the only available direct evidence for paleoenvironmental changes in Prince Rupert Harbour. These studies were primarily on the formation of muskeg mires, rather than reconstructing ancient floras, but much of their data are relevant. The Banner et al. study has only one radiocarbon date, while Turunen and Turunen has 26 dates that span the early and middle Holocene. General climatic trends revealed in these studies match those observed elsewhere on the coast, with a cool, moist Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene climate and the driest period of the sequence between 8,000 and 7,000 BC. Cooler, wetter conditions develop after 6300 B.C. and the modern climate by 2000 BC. (Also see Ames and Maschner 1999 for a synthesis of regional paleoenvironmental sequences).

15

Chapter 3: Ethnography and Previous Archaeology Coast Tsimshian Ethnography Prince Rupert Harbour falls within the territory of the Coast Tsimshian (Fig. 3.1), one of the four divisions of the Tsimshian (Halpin and Seguin 1990). The reader is referred to that article and the cited references for details on Tsimshian ethnography. The Tsimshian, with the Haida, Tlingit, and Haisla, form the northern subarea of the Northwest Coast Culture area (Suttles 1990a). The Tlingit occupy the Alaskan panhandle, the Haida the Queen Charlotte Islands of British Columbia and the southern end of Prince of Wales Island in southeast Alaska, and the Haisla the upper reaches of Douglas Channel and Gardner Canal in British Columbia, centering on the town of Kitimat. The Haisla are cut off from the coast by Tsimshian territory. Halpin and Seguin (1990) recognize four divisions of the Tsimshian: the Coast Tsimshian, Southern Tsimshian, Gitksan, and Nishga. The Coast Tsimshian territory includes the British Columbia–mainland coast from the entrance of Portland Inlet to just below the mouth of the Skeena River. The islands and waters of Chatham Sound, including Dundas and Stephens Islands are part of this territory. MacDonald, Coupland and Archer (1987) also assign part of the northern portions of Porcher Island to the Coast Tsimshian. Coast Tsimshian territory extended 190 km. up the Skeena River to its canyon at Kitselas, including the river's estuary and the basins of its tributaries below Kitselas. The Southern Tsimshian, a linguistic group now apparently virtually extinct, occupied the mainland coast and adjacent islands from the Telegraph Passage entrance to the Skeena estuary south to Milbank Sound. The Nishga occupied the Nass River, while the Gitksan the Skeena River above Kitselas. In the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries, ten groups of Coast Tsimshian maintained their principal towns1 along Venn passage and in the Harbour itself. According to Duff (1964), these groups previously had their main towns along the lower Skeena until they extended their territories to include Prince Rupert late in prehistory. MacDonald (1984) suggests this happened in the first half of the 18th century as part of a wide spread shift of Northwest Coast populations, realigning themselves in a northward direction. On the other hand, Allaire (1984) asserts that one of these groups, the Gitwilgyots, have had a very ancient and strong connection to the harbour. Marsden and Martindale (2003) drawing upon both archaeology and oral traditions argue that this pattern developed between c. 500 B.C. and A.D. 500. They also maintain that some Coast Tsimshian groups occupied the harbour at a much earlier date. We will return to some of these issues in the conclusions. It is clear from the work of the North Coast project that Prince Rupert has been occupied for 5,000 years by peoples of the same evolving cultural tradition. However, the harbour, or portions of it, may have been periodically abandoned.

1

These places are generally termed "village" or winter village. I prefer to call them towns. In English, the word "village" carries the connotation of acephalous organization, or no formal or informal civic organization at all – this is clearly not the case for the Coast Tsimshian. 16

Figure 3.1 Coast Tsimshian territory.

17

MacDonald, Coupland, and Archer (1987) document 24 towns that they state were occupied at c. 1750 by the ten Coast Tsimshian groups. They are able to assign names to 22 of these towns and 20 of the towns to a particular group or tribe. Four groups had more than one town. Nineteen towns were located in and around Venn Passage. Two more were along the east side of Digby Island. Only three were located on Kaien Island, the site of the present city of Prince Rupert. Two of these were placed on the west side directly across from the two east side villages on Digby Island, and the remaining town was located at the entrance to Fern Passage (the narrow waterway separating Kaien Island from the mainland). All but two of these villages (on the west side of Kaien Island) were located with direct access to large intertidal zones. Boyd (1985) estimates the Coast Tsimshian pre-contact population to have been approximately 6,000 people, with a total of 14,500 for all the Tsimshian. MacDonald, Coupland, and Archer (1987) estimate 4,000 for the 24 villages in the harbour in the middle of the eighteenth century and perhaps 10,000 to 12,000 for the Tsimshian as a whole. Boyd (1985) regards his estimate as conservative, basing it on a careful reconstruction of the Tsimshian's disease history (Boyd 1985). MacDonald et al.'s figure is based on estimating a village of population of 200 – 300 people, which actually produces a population of from 4,800 to 7,200, fitting Boyd's estimate quite closely, but higher than their published estimate. The basic social unit among the Coast Tsimshian was the corporate household, the House (wa, lp2), occupying one or more dwellings. The House was a matrilineage. The winter village or, as I prefer, the principle town, was the basic territorial unit, and the occupants of a town constituted a local group like the ten local groups who had their principle towns in Prince Rupert Harbour. The wa, lp owned its own fishing, hunting and gathering localities within the territories of the its local group. The wa, lp also owned privileges and other forms of non-corporeal property, such as crests, songs, and rights to particular displays and regalia. The matrilineal houses were linked together into four named clans (Garfield 1939) or crests (Adams 1973). Wa, lp members resided in substantial structures built of red cedar planks and timbers that were very similar, except in construction details, to the plank houses built everywhere else along the Northwest Coast. Towns could consist of as many as two or three rows of these structures facing out on the water. These houses varied considerably in size, from as small as 54 m2 to as large as 255 m2. Tsimshian society was divided into two fundamental social strata: free and slave. Free people were divided into three classes: smkikét (real people), li`qakikét (other people), wa?á?ayin ('unhealed people'). lú×nkit is a term for slaves. ‘Real People' include the chiefly families that held the largest number of titles and crests, while 'other people' were titleholders, but holding fewer titles than the smkikét. 'Unhealed people' held no titles, but were free. Distinctions among these classes were maintained by marriage within classes, and a rule that children of a marriage could inherit "rank no higher than that of the lower-ranked parent (Halpin and Seguin 1990, 275).” Again, while the details varied, this form of social stratification existed all along the Northwest Coast. 2

Orthography of Coast Tsimshian terms follows that of Halpin and Seguin, 1990.

18

The highest-ranking smkikét male (or sometimes female) in a House was House chief. Among the Coast and Southern Tsimshian, the chief of the highest ranked House in a town was town chief. During the 19th century, some chiefs appear to have been able to establish power over rather large regions by manipulating the fur trade (Garfield 1939, Martindale 1999), but this may have been an entirely post-contact phenomenon. The Coast Tsimshian annual economic round3 of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries covered a great deal of territory. During late fall and winter, local groups were in their principle towns (winter villages), which were concentrated in Prince Rupert Harbour. This time was spent in ritual, ceremonial and social activities, though shellfish collecting as well as land and sea mammal hunting also occurred. It is also likely the time was spent manufacturing and refitting tools of all sorts. In late winter - early spring, the Coast Tsimshian shifted to fishing villages in the lower Nass River to exploit the spring eulachon run, with task groups dispersing to fishing localities. The Nass eulachon fishery was also the site of a major trade fair, for many people came to trade for the eulachon and its highly prized oil (a significant source of fat in a diet comprised heavily of dried fish). After the eulachon run, people returned to the principal town to store the fish and oil. From here, in late spring, they dispersed out to the islands of Chatham Sound, including those that separate the waters of Chatham Sound from Hecate Strait, for deep sea fishing – including halibut and other bottom fish – sea mammal hunting, and sea weed gathering. Herring were also taken from these "seaweed" camps. Shellfish were likely also collected. By mid–summer, people were moving to the villages along the Skeena, and dispersing into salmon fishing camps. They remained along the Skeena until late fall. During this period, they also hunted, collected roots, berries, and shoots. The berries were processed for storage; the other plant material eaten as it was collected. The major activity, though, was salmon fishing and processing the take for winter storage. At the completion of this task, people reconvened in the towns in the harbour for the winter season. Once again, allowing for local variations, this kind of annual cycle is reported to have occurred up and down the Northwest Coast during the nineteenth century, and is inferred for earlier periods.

3

This account is derived primarily from Halpin and Seguin 1991 and MacDonald, Coupland and Archer 1987.

19

Previous and Subsequent Archaeology Previous archaeology This is an extremely brief section since, prior to the NCPP, there was very little previous archaeology. Harlan I. Smith conducted a "hasty" survey – his words – of the coast of British Columbia and southeast Alaska in the summer of 1909. He reported "shell heaps" in several localities in Coast Tsimshian territory, including Venn Passage (Smith 1909). Smith revisited the harbour in 1915, making additional observations, but conducted no tests (Smith 1927, 1930). In the fall of 1938, Philip Drucker (Drucker 1943), assisted by R.K. Beardsley, surveyed and tested a number of sites on the northern and central British Columbia coastline. Drucker located 25 midden sites, tested two, and described several others in varying levels of detail. The two sites he tested are on Anian Island and at Charles Point. Anian Island is one of the three islands in the broad tidal flat off Robertson Point in Pillsbury Bay on the east end of Venn Passage. The site is GbTo-3, and is the Gitsees town site named Laxsganians (MacDonald, Coupland and Archer 1987). Drucker reports the site had once had depressions, which may have been house depressions, but that the landowner had filled them in. Charles Point is on the southeast flank of Digby Island, and on the south side of Casey Point. The site, GbTo-15, was classed by MacDonald and his associates as a camp (see Archer 1984). On the basis of his survey and tests along the entire northern coast, Drucker concluded there was little difference between the archaeological and the ethnographic cultures of the region. No further work was conducted in the harbour until 1954, when, in June of that year, Carl Borden visited the harbour and made a brief reconnaissance. James Baldwin, a high school student who lived in Prince Rupert, apparently gave Borden a tour of some of Drucker’s sites. Borden, Baldwin, and others conducted a brief test of GbTo-10, the Coop site. The site was located on Fairview Point, just within the Prince Rupert city limits. The location is directly east, across the harbour from Parizeau Point on Digby Island. In 1954, the site was a 200 m x 15 m remnant of a once much larger midden. It had been truncated on the east by the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railroad. On the west, it faced the harbour. The western side of the midden was an exposed face or scarp. The locality no longer exists. Calvert (1968) reports the results of Borden and Baldwin's work at the site, and this account is based upon her report. During the two days of Borden's visit, Baldwin excavated a test pit into the western side of the midden, and cleaned a 20-foot section of the scarp. A second, 5' x 5'x 12' (1.5 x 1.5 x 3.7 m) pit was excavated by Baldwin during the fall of 1954 with the assistance of friends and family members. He collected charcoal from the scarp face, "about six inches above the subsoil at a point where the total depth of the deposit was about 131⁄2 feet [4.1 m]... (Calvert 1968, 24, brackets my comments)." This sample produced a date of 3040 ± 110 B.P. (calibrated 2 σ age range of 1520- 996 B.C.) (GAK-1477). This date was significant because it was the first clear indication of the antiquity of the Prince Rupert middens. Calvert (1968) describes the artifacts, features, burials, and faunal materials recovered by Baldwin. These are discussed in the relevant chapters. It is important to note here, however, that she was able to separate the midden into three stratigraphic zones. Zone I is 20

the basal unit, and consists of what she describes as a black soil with charcoal, but no shell (one unit has scattered lenses of decomposed mussels). Zone II is a thick layer, up to 2 meters thick, of "highly compacted dark organic matter, dirt, ash, scattered charcoal and a very small quantity of highly decomposed shell (Calvert 1968, 28)." Zone III is a unit comprised of well-preserved cockle, butter clam, and mussel shells. This unit is itself divided into lower and upper sections by a 3" thick layer of sterile dark soil. Zone III was capped by a topsoil. These zones occur in both of Baldwin's exposures which were some distance apart, perhaps a little under 15 m, since that the width of the site, and the two units were placed on opposing faces. Calvert presents a map of the site showing the relative positions of Baldwin's work but no scale. She concludes that the site was occupied between ca. 1250 B.C. and A.D.1000 , and attempts to find analogs with known (in 1968) archaeological assemblages in Alaska and British Columbia. She also concludes that the differences between the zones, and the dark soil in Zone I suggest periods when the site was abandoned. The issue of periodic abandonment of the harbour is a significant one for understanding the harbour's history, and will be discussed again. No further work was done in the harbour until 1966, and the beginning of the NCPP excavations, which are described separately.

Subsequent archaeology In the fall and winter of 1978, Joyce May, with a party of three, conducted excavations at GbTo-19, on Ridley Island off the south end of Kaien Island, in a locality which was going to be destroyed by the construction of bulk loading facilities. The site was located in a small, unnamed bay on the north side of Ridley Island, at the outlet of the narrow, shallow passage between Porpoise Harbour and the southern entrance to Prince Rupert Harbour. According to May, the eastern headland of this bay is separated from Kaien Island only at high tide. The results of these excavations are described in the appropriate chapters. However, these excavations are extremely important because the deposits were water screened through a fine mesh – 4 mm – and the resulting faunal sample is the bestcontrolled sample collected in Prince Rupert Harbour up to that time. May assigned the bulk of the deposits she sampled to Period 2 of the MacDonald-Inglis cultural chronology (see chapter 4) for Prince Rupert Harbour. Additional salvage work was conducted at Lachane (GbTo 33), one of the major NCPP sites, during a two-week period in June 1987 (Simonsen 1988). The area excavated at that time was thought to be the only intact deposits left, and corresponded to Area E of Inglis' excavations (see Chapter 5, this volume). Six 1m2 units were excavated. One burial and 79 artifacts were recovered. Two charcoal samples were dated, producing uncorrected dates of 2070 ± 80 B.P. and 2010 ± 70 B.P. (Simonsen 1988, 31)4. Simonsen views these dates as 4

These dates produce two sigma calibrated age spans (see Chapter 6) of 208 B.C. - A.D. 67, and 209 B.C. - A.D. 134 calendar years before present.

21

reliably dating the materials he recovered. These excavations are important for the faunal remains they recovered (Chapter 9). After this project was completed, construction of two large fuel storage tanks proceeded, and Lachane no longer exists as an archaeological site. Coupland conducted preliminary excavations at GcTo 6 in the summer of 1990. The site is located on the southern end of the Tsimspsean peninsula, a small bay directly across the harbour from the city of Prince Rupert. The site contains a double row of house depressions. Coupland has tested one, which he dates to ca. A.D. 500 (Coupland, Bissel and King 1991). He returned again to the site in 1998 and has continued work in the harbour ever since. In addition to these excavations, Archer (e.g. 1984) has been conducting a lengthy series of heritage–site evaluation surveys over the last decade and more. These surveys are to be embodied in his dissertation. Archer (1984) and MacKie (1986) conducted surveys of different portions of the lower Skeena River estuary, mapping some 117 sites. Martindale (1999) excavated very Late Pacific – Early Modern sites in the Lower Skeena drainage. Wooley and Haggarty (1989) report on a survey of the Dundas Island group as part of the 1987 Zayas Archaeological Project. They recorded 32 sites, of which 12 had house remains. One of these sites has 35 house depressions. They suggest it represents a permanent, year-round Tlingit settlement in the Dundas Group displaced by Coast Tsimshian, expanding out from the lower Skeena River. A Summary of Northern Northwest Coast Prehistory The Northwest Coast is the northwest corner of a vast region that I have dubbed "Cascadia (Ames 1991b)." Cascadia (McKee 1972) includes Southeast Alaska, all of British Columbia, and the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, as well as western Montana and Northern California. The archaeological known history of this vast region can be conveniently split into three major periods (see Ames and Maschner 1999): Paleo-Indian (or Paleo-Archaic) (>11,000 B.C.), Archaic (11,000 to ca. 4400 B.C.) and Pacific (4400 B.C. to European contact). Paleo-Indian is not known to have occurred on the northern coast. In southern Cascadia (Ames 1991, Fig. 1), it is limited to Clovis. Archaic (ca. 11,000 - 5500 B.P., 11,000 B.C. - 4400 B.C.) Most workers on the coast recognize this period, but give it a variety of names, depending upon their research orientation and research area ("Early Boreal [Borden 1975], "Palaeomarine [Davis 1990]," "Microlade Tradition [Carlson 1979, 1983, 1996b" and "Early Coast Microblade Complex [Fladmark 1982]" and “Early” [Moss 2004]). The very earliest of these sites contain foliate bifaces and other large stone tools. Microliths, including microblades and microblade cores, appear somewhat later. The earliest indisputable site on the northern Coast, indeed anywhere on the coast, is Ground Hog Bay 2, on the southern end of the Chilkat Peninsula, overlooking Icy Strait in southeast Alaska, is the earliest indisputable site on the northern Northwest Coast. The site is located on a marine terrace some 10 to 15 meters above present sea levels. The oldest assemblage, (Ground Hog Bay III) is dated by radiocarbon dates spanning the period between 9000 B.C. and 7800 B.C. Ground 22

Hog Bay III contains few artifacts, including two obsidian biface fragments. Ground Hog Bay II dates between ca. 7500 and 3500 B.C. based on an array of radiocarbon dates. This assemblage contains microblade, microblade cores, blade cores as well as a variety of other stone tools including two additional biface fragments. 49-PET-408, on Prince of Wales Island in SE Alaska, has produced the earliest known human remains on the Northwest Coast. Two bone samples produced dates of 9880±50 B.P. (9393 – 9227 B.C.) and 9730±60 B.P. (9283 – 9110 B.C.) (Dixon 1999: 117 – 119). The site also produced a bone flaker which is dated 10,300±50 B.P. (10436 – 9906 B.C.) (Dixon 1999:180-181). Hidden Falls is on the eastern coast of Baranoff Island, overlooking Chatham Strait. Component I at Hidden Falls was recovered from a buried soil, and is dated to ca. 6000 B.C. The assemblage contains microblades and microblade cores, cobble tools and other, unifacially worked stone tools. It lacks bifaces. Chuck Lake is the third major Archaic Site in southeast Alaska. It too is a microblade site, and dates ca. 6500 B.C. but it is more important because its deposits contain faunal remains. The shells of intertidal mollusca such as Saxidomus giganteus (Smooth Washington clam), Protothaca stamina (Pacific little neck clam and Mytilus edilus (edible, blue or bay mussel) dominate the molluscans present, while both salmonid and non-salmonid fish such as halibut are present in the faunal assemblage. The identifiable mammalian fauna include rabbit, beaver, deer (caribou?), seal lion and seal. Except for the rabbit, these are represented only by teeth, though sea mammal long bone shafts were collected, as were long bone shafts of "medium" and "large" mammals. The major Archaic period sites in northern British Columbia are on the Queen Charlotte Islands. Philip Hobler collected pebble tools from the intertidal zone on the eastern side of Moresby Island, and believes they eroded from sites occupied when the sea was lower then at present around the Queen Charlottes, i.e. before 7000 B.C. Fedje and his coworkers (Fedje and Christensen 1999; Fedje et al.1966a, 1996b) report on a number of sites both in the intertidal zone and on raised beach terraces on the Queen Charlotte Islands, including the Arrow Creek site on the eastern side of Moresby Island in Gwaii Haanas which has two assemblages of artifacts which contain microlithic debris and one microblade core. This material is dated to ca. 8000 B.C. to 7600 B.C. One of these, Arrow Creek I, is 17 m ASL while the other, Arrow Creek 2, is 4 m ASL. They report other sites they regard as early or earlier than these dates including several “paleo-intertidal” sites, of the kind discovered by Hobler. Two of these, Richardson Island and Lyell Bay, produced microblade cores, that Magne (1996) suggests date between ca. 7600 and 5600 B.C. A third intertidal site, Kilgii Gaai, produced bone and lithic tools, including a small, stemmed projectile point, and a range of faunal remains. The site is dated to ca. 8100 B.C. by a large suite of AMS dates (Fedje et al. 2001). Knut Fladmark (Fladmark et al. 1990) has investigated a number of sites on beach lines 10 to 15 meters above their present positions. These sites include Kasta and Lawn Point and date between ca. 6500 B.C. and 3300 B.C. when sea levels in the area began to fall. The sites produced microblades and unifacially flaked tools. No bifaces have been recovered. The tools are associated with small hearths on now buried beaches. 23

There are no recognized Archaic sites on the northern British Columbia mainland. However, there may be some that have not been recognized as such. Several sites in Prince Rupert Harbor have deposits that extend as much as a meter below modern seal levels, suggesting that occupation began when sea levels were below their modern levels, which occurred in this area between ca. 6500 and 3800 B.C. Coupland (1985a, 1996a) reports a small microblade component at the Paul Mason site in Kitselas Canyon. This is the only such component currently reported for the northern British Columbia mainland. Coupland assigns this material to his Bornite Phase, which actually dates to ca. 3800 B.C. to 2900 B.C., falling into the Pacific Period. In addition to the microblades, cobble tools are a major part of the Bornite assemblage at the Paul Mason site in Kitselas Canyon. The major Archaic site on the Central Coast is Namu, located on the British Columbia mainland, on Fitz Hugh Sound at the mouth of the Namu River. The Archaic at Namu is split into Periods 1 (7720 - 4550 B.C.), and 2 (4000 - 3000 B.C.). According to Carlson, most Period 1 artifacts are debris from working cobbles, but some finished tools are present. Microblade technology appears at the site about halfway through the period, or around 6500 B.C. Bone tools are present in Period 2 deposits (as a result of changed preservation conditions). The stone tools present in Period 1 persist through Period 2, including the microblades. The artifact assemblages contain a variety of bone and stone tools, including cobble tools, harpoon heads, harpoon valves, and leaf-shaped bifaces (Carslon 1996a). Period 2 deposits contain "isolated lenses of shellfish" in the lowest levels. They also contain a wide array of fish, mammals and birds. Cannon suggests that the range of fish present is "evidence of a well-developed early fishing technology (Cannon 1991, 34). Salmon dominates the fish assemblage, though herring, dogfish, and rockfish are also present in relatively significant numbers. Deer and harbor seals are the dominant mammals in the assemblage, though porpoises and mustelids are present in important numbers. Matson and Coupland (1995) suggest that microblade technology entered the northern Northwest Coast somewhat later than its initial occupation. Carlson (1996b) observes that microblade technology is not present at first at Namu, but withholds judgement on the matter. Pacific Period (4400 B.C. (5500 B.P.) to contact with Europeans) The period after 4400 B.C. is seen by virtually all workers on the coast as the timeperiod when the historic Northwest Coast cultures of the area evolved (e.g. Matson and Coupland 1995, Carlson 1996b). This period is almost always sub-divided into three subperiods, with the earliest one marked by the appearance or development of subsistence practices, settlement patterns, and material culture approximating the historic cultures in general. This early period usually begins ca. 4400 B.C. to 3800B.C. and ends around 1800 to 1200 B.C. It is sometimes called the Transitional Period (e.g. Davis 1990). The middle period is seen as the time marked by significant social and economic changes – the first development of full to partial sedentism, of storage, of social stratification, of warfare, etc. The last sub-period is usually marked by the full-development of the ethnographic pattern – villages of large plank houses, full development of the art, full development of the class system etc, full development of the ethnographic land-use patterns etc. This sub-period usually begins around A.D. 500 and ends with contact. The Prince Rupert Harbour sequence 24

(e.g. Fladmark et al. 1990) is the key cultural historical sequence for the northern coast. It remains the only large, multi-site sample spanning this period from a single region north of Vancouver Island. Most recent efforts to synthesize the data from southeast Alaska (e.g. Arndt et al.1987) use the Prince Rupert sequence as a framework. Discussions of the record for the Queen Charlotte Islands (e.g. Fladmark 1984) note how that data do not readily fit into the Prince Rupert sequence, and that there are significant differences between the material from the Queen Charlotte Islands and Prince Rupert, particularly before about A.D. 1000. Matson and Coupland divide what I call the Pacific Period into four stages or phases, extending Mitchell’s cultural historical framework for the Gulf of Georgia (Mitchell 1971) to the entire coast. The main difference between their quadrapartite system and the tripartite system used here is that they separate the Middle Period into two periods, based on the Locarno Beach and Marpole phases of the Gulf of Georgia region. Early Pacific (5000 – 3500 B.P. 4400 B.C. - 1800 B.C.). There are only a few sites in the Northern Coast area outside Prince Rupert Harbour with significant Early Pacific components (e.g. Moss 2004). In Southeast Alaska, Hidden Falls, on Baranoff Island in Southeast Alaska is the principal component representing this period. The component dates to between 1500 and 2700 B.C. It is marked by the presence of ground stone tools, including ground slate points, ground stone adzes, and abraders – all common members of Pacific Period assemblages. Hidden Falls component II also has a number of stone beads and six labrets. Labrets were markers of high status during the historic period. The component also contains a ribbed or grooved stone (Lightfoot 1989, fig. 24), indicating the capacity to sculpt stone at this time. Unlike most Pacific Period assemblages, this one almost completely lacks bone tools, having only three unilaterally barbed point tip fragments. Like contemporary assemblages on the Queen Charlotte Island, but unlike contemporary assemblages in Prince Rupert Harbour, lithic flakes are a significant portion of the artifact assemblage (approximately 50% at Hidden Falls). Among the features associated with the component are an "arc of postholes around a shallow depression (Lightfoot 1989, 273)" which are interpreted as representing a structure about 3 x 4 meters in size. Faunal remains are limited, but include deer, dog, whale, birds, salmon, halibut, cod and herring (Moss 1989a). Shellfish were extremely rare in component II and apparently limited to bay mussel and barnacles (Erlandson 1989). Rose's Rockshelter, on Hecata Island (Ackerman Hamilton and Stuckenrath 1985) has cultural deposits dated ca. 2500 B.C. Its midden lenses produced an extensive array of shell of intertidal mollusca, but a much more limited number and array of animals, including salmonid and non-salmonid fish (the latter having the highest NISP in the faunal assemblage), deer, mink, and aquatic birds. The artifact assemblage is even more limited, but still instructive, with a single unilateral-single barb harpoon head with line hole, an abrader and three hammerstones (or small anvils. The illustrated one displays anvil wear, or wear associated with the production of bipolar flakes). Davis (1990) mentions two other sites with 25

limited assemblages, which also may date to this period – Coffman Cove (Clark 1979), and Trader's Island (Stanford and Thibauld 1980) On the Queen Charlotte Islands, Blue Jackets Creek (Severs 1974a, 1974b, Fladmark, Ames and Sutherland 1990) is the principle site for the Pacific Period sequence, and is assigned to the Graham tradition (Fladmark, Ames and Sutherland 1990). The contents of Blue Jackets Creek and other contemporary sites on the Queen Charlotte Islands are generally similar to Pacific period sites on the Alaskan and British Columbia mainland, though there are important differences in detail. Blue Jackets had 14 burials containing 25 individuals, which date between 2250 and 3850 B.C. (Ames 2001) – thus making these among the earliest dated burials on the Northern Coast. Some of the graves had associated artifacts and other cultural debris. Severs (1974) states "[t]hese included bone and antler liester prongs, basalt and jasper flake scrapers; decorative objects such as beads made from shell and teeth; and fish, sea mammal and dog remains (Severs 1974,7)." Though most of the individuals were buried in a flexed position in shallow graves, three were apparently buried in an upright, seated position and covered in red ochre, as were an adult and child who seem to have been buried together. Three individuals had abrasion wear on the buccal surfaces of their premolars and molars – suggesting that they wore labrets in their cheeks. It is presently difficult to know what this evidence of distinctions among the funerary treatment of the dead means. Fladmark has also defined what he calls the "Transitional Complex (Fladmark 1984, Fladmark, Ames and Sutherland 1990)". The Transitional Complex is characterized by bipolar production of flakes from pebble cores, and unifacial retouch of basalt flakes. While Fladmark see the Transitional Complex as a distinctive cultural entity Fladmark 1984), Sutherland sees it as reflecting portions of Graham tradition settlement patterns and technology (Sutherland pers. comm.). I am inclined to agree with Sutherland. The reader will recall the presence of labrets at Hidden Falls. Carlson (1991, 1992) reports elaboration of burial ritual and graves goods in a contemporary set of burials at the Pender Island site. Pender Island is on the Gulf Islands just of the southeast end of Vancouver Island in southern British Columbia. In Kitselas Canyon, Coupland (1985a, 1985b) has defined the Gitaus Phase that spans the period from 2900 to 1900 B.C. Materials assigned to this phase are present at the site of Gitaus in Kitselas Canyon (Allaire 1978) and Hagwilget (Ames 1979), in the Hagwilget canyon of the Bulkely River, a tributary of the Skeena. There are no microblades in these assemblages; cobble and cobble spall tools dominate them. A variety of ground stone forms are present, including abraders, ground stone points and saws. Bifacially flaked, laurel leaf shaped points are present at both sites. Organic materials did not preserve at either site. Middle Pacific (ca. 3500 - ca. 1500 B.P 1800 B.C. – A.D. 500.) Cultural Component III at Hidden Falls is the primary excavated assemblage dating to this period. Davis (1989b) suggests that the materials included in this component span a period between about 1000 B.C. and A.D. 500 with the main occupation between 1000 and 500 B.C. when the site was abandoned. The period between 300 B.C. and A.D. 500 was marked, according to Davis, by ephemeral occupations. Arndt, Sacket and Ketz (1987) 26

suggest the temporal relationships of the actual stratigraphic units placed together to compose Component III require additional clarification. Of the 435 artifacts in the assemblage, all but 51 are flaked or ground stone artifacts of some kind. Among the artifacts are mauls; including a stirrup maul; adze blades (of nephrite); small barbed, fixed bone points; toggling harpoon valves; labrets and sea mammal tooth pendants. The preponderance of stone tools is a marked contrast with the Prince Rupert assemblages described in this report. This is particularly interesting in light of the well preserved faunal assemblage associated with this component. Fish are the dominant faunal class, with salmonids and cod the most important fish, and the most important faunal resource in the recovered assemblage (Moss 1989a). Moss suggests that fish may actually be under-represented in the assemblage. Moss and Erlandson have located a large fish weir at Favorite Bay, on Admiralty Island. The remains of the weir include 677 stakes located between +30 cm and +60 cm tide levels. The weir may have been 80 meters long. Three wood samples produced dendrocalibrated two sigma age ranges of 1690- 1370 B.C. (3015 ± 65 [SI-6993]), 1041- 830 B.C. (2685 ± 40 [PITT-07]), and 383- 148 B.C. (2190 ± 45 [SI-6994])5 (Moss, Erlandson and Stuckenrath 1990). The entire Pacific Period is poorly represented on the Queen Charlotte Islands. The occupation at Blue Jackets Creek may span only the period between 2000 B.C. and A.D. 1. Stone tools dominated the archaeological collections, including both unifacially flaked tools and ground and pecked ones. The paucity of bone and antler tools does not appear to have been a function of poor organic preservation. Among the chipped-stone tools are cobble tools, cortical spall tools and worked flakes. Sutherland (Severs 1974) reports that fragments of adze or celt blanks were found in such abundance that she speculates the Blue Jackets was a site for the specialized production of adze blanks or preforms. Ground slate points and blades were recovered, but were uncommon. The upper portions of the site produced an incised, ground and pecked "club" fragment, a zoomorphic object, a net sinker, and a T-shaped labret. Among the bone and antler tools are pointed bone tools, barbed and unbarbed fixed bone points (terminology used in this report), barbed harpoons and harpoon valves and fishhook shanks. These latter do not occur in Prince Rupert, but were found at Yuquots, on the west coast of Vancouver Island (Dewhirst 1980). Sea mammal tooth pendants were recovered, along with bone combs fragments and decorated caribou metapodials. These were all recovered with the burials described above. The site also contains an extensive set of features, which, in addition to the burials, include hearths, postholes and "the remnants of living floors (Severs 1974: 178)." Blue Jackets produced an important faunal collection containing bones of sea otter, sea lion, seal, whale or porpoise, cervids, bear, raven, eagle, loon, goose, salmon, halibut, flounder, and sculpin. There are presently no actual counts of identified faunal elements, however. The Skeena Phase of Coupland's Kitselas Canyon sequence spans a period from 1900 to 1400 B.C. It is followed by The Paul Mason Phase (1400 to 800 B.C.). On the Skeena 5

Calibrations are based upon Stuiver and Person 1986 using Calib 4.4. Dates within parentheses are uncalibrated, lab numbers are with brackets.

27

phase, bifacial points are present in greater number than before, as do such as abraders and ground stone points. Cobble tools remain the dominant tool class. The Paul Mason phase is marked by the presence of a small village of ten rectangular houses in two rows. Two other houses are present but their age is unknown. The houses were constructed by partially excavating them into the sloping side of a mountain overlooking Kitselas Canyon. The houses are small (Coupland 1985a, 1985b), with a mean area of 62 m2 ± 9 m2. The frequency of chipped stones declines, while the numbers of ground tools increase. Cobble tools remain the dominant tool form. The Paul Mason village is the earliest and best evidence on the Northwest Coast for the development of 1) the rectangular surface structures of the historic period; 2) semi to full sedentism; 3) some form of corporate co-residential group. Coupland (1985a) believes that the villages also indicate increased reliance on stored salmon – I believe he is correct. Simonsen (1973) excavated the Grant Anchorage site, on Porcher Island, in 1969. While the site is a midden, he recovered what may the oldest planks on the northern coast, planks that date to ca. 387 B.C. - A.D. 86 (GaK 2755, 2110±110 [Simonsen 1973, 67]). Late Pacific (1500 B.P. to Contact A.D. 500 – ca. A.D. 1780) The Late Pacific Period is not particularly well represented in Southeastern Alaska or the Queen Charlotte Islands. DeLaguna's work at sites in the Angoon area (de Laguna 1960, 1972; de Laguna et al 1964) in some ways, remain the primary data. Moss and Erlandson (Moss 1989b, Moss, Erlandson and Stuckenrath 1989) have extended de Laguna's work by column sampling a number of sites on Admiralty Island. Their data are particularly relevant to questions on subsistence and will be discussed in the appropriate chapter. However, they do conclude that Angoon Tlingit settlement patterns documented for the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries have basically held, for the past 1600 years. In a second project, Moss and Erlandson dated a number of fortresses in Southeastern Alaska, and demonstrate an marked increase in their construction within the last 800 to 900 years. Maschner (1992) surveyed Tebenkoff Bay on western Kuiu Island in southeast Alaska, locating over 150 sites. In his data set, large villages do not appear until well after A.D. 500. He argues that these are large multi-lineage plank house villages. He also measured house floor areas, showing that very large houses are not present until ca. A.D. 700 to 1200, concluding that this marks the appears of ranking among the Bay’s residents. Acheson (1992) surveyed the southwestern portions of Moresby Island of the Queen Charlotte Islands. He discovered a large number of sites, virtually all postdating A.D. 1 and most at least 500 years younger than that. He concluded that large, multi-lineage villages were not present on the coast until around A.D. 1200. Other sites dating from this period in southeast Alaska include Sarkar Cove, on Prince of Wales Island (Rabich-Campbell 1984), Component I at Ground Hog Bay 2, Russian Cove near Port Houghton and Leask, on Annette Island. Leask appears to date between A.D. 150 and 450 B.C. (Minor, Barner and Greenspan 1986), while the others date to the last millennium or so. Both Fladmark and Sutherland (Fladmark 1984, Fladmark, Ames and Sutherland 1990) feel that not until the last millennium does the archaeology of the Queen Charlotte Islands closely resemble that of the northern British Columbia mainland – in other words, 28

Prince Rupert Harbour. In fact, Fladmark (1984) suggests that an infusion of mainland traits, and preservation of more ancient island traits, underlies the moiety organization of the Haida. In 1981, Cybulski excavated the Greenville Burial site at Greenville, on the Nass River. The site is a shell midden and Cybulski recovered an important faunal assemblage. The site’s primary significance, however, is that it is presently the most recent site on the northern coast with a midden cemetery. Burial practices changed all along the coast around A.D. 500 to 800, and the ancient practice of interring people in shell middens generally ceased. An exception, the Greenville cemetery dates between A.D. 566 and 1290.

29

Chapter 4: Methodological and Theoretical Background Introduction This monograph is the result of two different projects, the North Coast Prehistory Project, and the Prince Rupert Harbour Analysis Project. These two projects had overlapping goals, but also quite dissimilar goals and underlying orientations. This chapter briefly discusses the underlying theoretical orientation of each, and the methods employed by each to achieve their respective goals. The North Coast Prehistory Project. The North Coast prehistory project was an extraordinarily ambitious program of reconnaissance, survey, testing, excavation and ethnohistory begun in 1966 by George MacDonald in his then capacity as West Coast Archaeologist at the Archaeological Survey of Canada. It rapidly became clear that Prince Rupert Harbour was the key to understanding the region's prehistory. MacDonald selected the North Coast "in the belief that there must be sites with sufficient time depth to detail the development of the elaborate and highly integrated cultural pattern known historically (MacDonald and Inglis 1981, 37)." MacDonald and Inglis (1981) and MacDonald and Cybulski (2001) provide excellent summaries of the chronology of the project and its accomplishments. Some of what follows here essentially repeats their discussions. It also draws upon MacDonald (1969), the best published formulation of the project's problem orientation. That paper discusses three topics: 1) issues in the origins of northern Northwest Coast Culture; 2) methodological problems in dealing with the large middens found in Prince Rupert Harbour, and 3) presentation of a preliminary culture sequence for the harbour based upon the first two to three years of the project. The goal of the project was to develop a culture history of the North Coast that would chart the development of historic Northwest Coast culture, particularly that of the Coast Tsimshian and the Haida. While most of the project’s excavations were within Coast Tsimshian territory, “spin-off” projects, including those of Fladmark (1975, 1984; Fladmark et al. 1990), Sutherland (Severs 1973, 1974; Fladmark et al. 1990), Allaire (1978, 1979; Allaire and McDonald 1971), Cybulski (1993), Coupland (1985a) and myself (Ames 1973a, 1979) have carried these goals well beyond the harbour. There have been two threads to the culture history: the creation of a chronological framework, based on radiocarbon dates and material culture change; and a complementary focus on Tsimshian history as reflected in their oral and now written traditions (e.g. MacDonald 1983, 1984; MacDonald and Cove 1987). There has always been a strong emphasis on the integration of the two threads that continues (e.g. Martindale 2001, Martindale and Marsden 2003). The methodological focus of the project, at least in the harbour, was the retrieval of artifacts, since artifacts, and their styles and decorations, could be used to establish that history. The emphasis on artifacts in part reflected common practice in the cultural historical archaeology of the 1950s and 1960s, but it also reflected the difficulties of excavating the massive middens in the harbour, and predictably sampling such things as house floors and other categories of deposit. 30

Field Methods This description is based primarily on my experiences working in the harbour in 1968 and 1969, and my reading of field notes for the nine sites described here. Excavation techniques varied from site to site depending on a range of factors. However, a core set of techniques was commonly applied. Sites were either trenched, or 10' by 10' (3.3 m) units were laid out in a checkerboard pattern. Excavations were usually done is 6" arbitrary levels. Efforts were sometimes made to excavate in natural or cultural strata, but the lensing of the shell middens was generally too complex to permit this. Levels were trowelled, but sometimes shoveled when time was short. If they were trowelled the matrix was not screened after the first season or two. In one attempt to shovel, deposits were shoveled onto plywood sheets, where the materials were sorted. This procedure proved slower than trowelling. Attempts to screen the matrix faltered because the middens were comprised almost completely of whole and crushed shell, making them impossible to screen. Bulk samples were taken at Boardwalk in 1969 – though these may have been used to construct the "The Dig" exhibit in the old National Museum of Man. I am not aware of other bulk sampling efforts. Two-person teams usually excavated units. Vertical control was maintained by establishing a pit datum for each excavation unit, usually the northwest corner, and measuring depths from that elevation. These elevations could subsequently be standardized when a site was mapped and the elevations of the individual pit datums relative to the site datum were known. Levels were numbered going down, with level 1 being the first, or uppermost. Since units had individual datums, the surface topography of the sites uneven, and the skills of excavation teams variable, levels with the same number can have little else in common. Even in contiguous units, there may be little common relationship between level number and depth. Horizontal control was usually maintained by assigning units a unique alphanumeric designation. The site grid was treated as a matrix with numbers running along one axis and letters along the other. Units were cells in the matrix, and would end up being designated A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3 etc. Exact horizontal provenience was also employed, and a unit would be designated by its linear position in the grid, i.e. N 35-45/E20-30. In these cases, the position of the Northwest corner was used to designate the unit. Exact horizontal provenience for artifacts was established by triangulating in from two walls (i.e. E 40", N 02"). Where pits were designated by their cell in a matrix (e.g. unit A3), then subsequently all horizontal measurements had to be standardized (the grid position of unit A3 established (e.g. North 10-20/ West 40-50) and the measurement for the artifact standardized as well (in this example, North 10.02'/West 36.08'). If excavation units were known by their grid position, then such standardization was unnecessary. If exact location was not known, the artifact might be recorded by quadrant (Unit A3, North Quad), establishing the position of the artifact within a 5' x 5' area. In practice, most artifacts were recorded according to pit or quadrant. Objects that were not formed artifacts or obvious manuports (e.g. quartz crystals) were placed in level bags. The vast bulk of such materials were faunal remains. 31

Features were recorded as encountered on feature sheets. Such features might include hearths, concentrations of rocks, dog burials, and complexes of postholes and postmolds. Generally, postholes and postmolds were recorded in the field notes. Feature sheets were most consistently prepared for human burials, which were also recorded on separate burial forms. Journal notes were maintained for excavation units. These generally described each excavation level in terms of the matrix, and the kinds of materials encountered, including features, faunal remains, artifacts etc. Photographs were taken of features and profiles; some profiles were drawn when excavation ended. Artifacts were usually cleaned and catalogued in the field laboratory, and given a preliminary type name, usually the one assigned in the field. Artifacts were also repaired and stabilized. Level bags were also dried, relabeled and the like, since things usually came in wet, bags dissolving and ink running. The Prince Rupert Harbour Artifact Analysis project Theoretical and methodological background Introduction The artifact analysis project was designed to meet two goals. The first was to be an explicit test of a set of models I had developed over a number of years and presented in a variety of venues of the evolution of social complexity on the Northwest Coast (Ames 1973b, 1981, 1985). These models, like their subject, have evolved over time. I review many of these issues elsewhere (Ames 1994, 1995, 1996, 2001, 2003). The following sections present a general overview of the topic itself and the approaches of others to the question, an outline of the model; and the specific methods used in this project to test the model itself. Another major goal of the artifact analysis was to complete the work of the Northwest Coast Prehistory Project, and develop a culture history of the Prince Rupert Harbour region. Complex Hunter-Gatherers, Affluent Foragers and Social Complexity on the Northwest Coast of North America Complexity and Affluence It has become clear within the last 30 years that social complexity is not limited to agriculturalists, but was once commonly found among hunter-gatherers world-wide (e.g. papers in Koyama and Thomas 1981, Price and Brown 1985). The nature of this complexity is not as clear-cut as is that found, say, among Hawaiian chiefdoms or the competing polities of the Maya lowlands during the Classic period, but it is significant for understanding some major developments in cultural evolution. Mosley has argued that the foundations of Andean civilization were laid and even built upon by littoral fisher folk on the coast of Peru (Moseley 1975). More generally, Hayden (1990) and Henry (1989) suggest that domestication itself evolved first among affluent foragers. But the subject remains illusive and controversial. Richardson (1981) disputes Mosely's theory, for example, and Bar-Yosef has argued that 32

Hayden’s model does not fit the available evidence from southwest Asia (Bar-Yosef 1998). Crucial examples may or may not have been complex or affluent. Wright (1985) and Henry (1985, 1989, 1991) have made cases for forms of complexity among the Natufian of the Levant between 12,000 and 10,500 b.p. (The Natufian are the key example for the domestication of plants and animals by affluent foragers.) Olszewski (1991) reviews the same Natufian data and can find little convincing evidence for complexity. Byrd and Monohan (1995) have recently reviewed the Natufian burial record and concluded it does not support the conclusion that the Natufian had social inequality. Bar-Yosef’s views on Natufian complexity have fluctuated (e.g. Bar-Yosef 1998, 2001). Price, despite formulating models for the evolution of complexity among hunter-gatherers (Price 1985) and co-editing a volume on the subject (Price and Brown 1985a, 1985b), could find little evidence for complexity among the Mesolithic peoples of Northwest Europe that he studies (Price 1985). Indeed, he (Price 1996) has recently argued that complex hunter-gatherers (of a certain kind) may actually only exist has a result of direct, or indirect, contact with agriculturalists, and that, even if they did exit, it was only for a brief period of time. Some of this confusion rests in our understanding of hunter-gatherers and part of it in terms, such as "complexity" and "affluent.” Lee and DeVore (1968) gave the classic, working definition of hunter-gatherers: "We make two assumptions about hunters and gatherers: (1) they live in small groups, and (2) they move around a lot (1968, 11)." Sahlins (1972) described them as the "original affluent society" since the needs of high mobility precluded their having large, cumbersome material cultures, and so their affluence had a zen quality: they were affluent because they did not need or want very much. The general view among anthropologists of hunter-gatherer was (and remains) very similar to Stewart's descriptions of band societies (Stewart 1938, Service 1962, but see Kelly 1995). The Northwest Coast has been seen as an odd exception caused by an extraordinarily rich environment. Archaeological and anthropological research since 1968 shows that the category “huntergatherer” is extremely variable and ambiguous. Kelly (1995) gave up trying to establish definitive criteria and included in his study any group that anthropologists called huntergatherers (see Ames 2004 for an extended discussion of this issue). Researchers have attempted to cope with this variation by proposing a number of dichotomies or continua. Woodburn (1979), for example, recognized a continuum between what he termed "immediate return" hunter-gatherers and "delayed return" ones. Binford (1981) devised his famous continuum between collectors and foragers based on mobility strategies. Bettinger and Baumhoff (1982) developed their own variation on that theme, processors, and travelers. Rowley-Conwy (2001) has recently devised a four-fold classification, type 1 being generalized huntergatherers, or what he sarcastically terms the OAS (original affluent society) – Sahlins’ zen hunter-gatherers. His other three types (logistical groups that do not defend territories, logistic groups that do defend territories and sedentary groups that store resources and defend territory) are a continuum of increasing complexity. The dichotomy between "hunter-gatherer" and "farmer" is another source of confusion. A number of societies appear to have existed in the past that were neither, or both, during different periods of their histories. For example, the relative contribution of domesticates to the 33

Woodland diet of Eastern North America and to the Jomon diet of Japan are important research questions in their own right, but part of the interest seems to lie in assigning them to one or the other box. There were also, at least during the Holocene, a number of societies whose subsistence involved exploiting what Yen (1989) calls a "domesticated environment" with techniques that ranged from broad scale burning to transplanting individual plants, and perhaps even multi-crop gardens, but did not rely exclusively on domesticates or create the fields, terraces and other facilities – farms – we associate with agriculture. The terms "complex" and "affluent" also create problems. What do they mean? Social scientists and their intellectual ancestors have spent considerable effort defining complexity over the past few centuries; affluence is vaguer, and more difficult to grasp. In some cases the definitions boil down to "I know it when I see it," and any society with a non-agricultural subsistence base that does not fit the classic definition of hunter-gatherers are called complex or affluent. In some ways, this terminological confusion is good, since we are dealing a phenomenon which remains ill-defined, and is ill defined because, in part, there are no living examples of it and few ethnographically described ones – and most of those were found along the North Pacific. According to Henry (1991) about two-thirds of all ethnographically recorded complex hunter-gatherers are located along the North Pacific, and most of those are probably on the Northwest Coast. "Affluence" has been defined as high population densities (Sasaki 1981, Thomas 1981), and population growth is generally seen as either the prime mover in the evolution of complex hunter-gatherers (e.g. Cohen 1985), or at least an important process (e.g. Price and Brown 1985). The characteristics of complex societies developed by Cohen (1985, see below) represent, in his view, social adaptations to high population densities and consequent scalar stress. The general relationship between population size and social complexity is well known. Researchers have noted population "thresholds" for certain forms of social organization. Kosse (1990) attributes these thresholds, and the increasing degrees of social complexity accompanying each threshold to limits placed on our ability to process information by the capacity of our short-term memories. While this may point us towards an ultimate explanation of social complexity, it cannot explain any particular instance or form of it. Minimally we must explain the large population sizes. In any case, affluence is usually treated as the same as complexity. In considering this issue, Olszewski (1991) makes the important point that all societies are socially complex, since culture itself requires "complex relationships between individuals and between groups of people (kin-based and otherwise) (Olszewski 1991, 324)." Some of the difficulty in recognizing complex hunter-gatherers may lie in differences among societies in how these basic and complex human relationships are realized in their material culture. Complex societies are something else, something beyond this basic attribute of all human life; minimally, they are not egalitarian. Complex hunter-gatherers are usually seen as having other attributes. My most recent list includes: semi to full sedentism; relatively heavy reliance on storage; complex householdbased subsistence systems; exploitation of a wide range of resources, but focusing on relatively few; manipulating the environment to produce a domesticated environment; complex, specialized technologies; high population densities and sometimes large communities; and some degree of social complexity, minimally displaying horizontal segmentation of individuals and 34

groups in the form of part-time specialization and geographic differentiation (e.g. Ames and Maschner 1999), and some degree of vertical differentiation as well (Ames 1991b, 936). I would add to this parts of Woodburn's definition of delayed return forager: individuals can hold rights over several kinds of assets, and in these societies there exist clearly defined jural relationships for transmitting crucial goods and services (Woodburn 1980). Price (1981) defined complexity as "that which is made up of many, elaborately interrelated parts." He saw the following traits as defining complex hunter-gatherers: 1.Technological changes that included increased diversity and specialization, particularly in subsistence related gear, 2. Elaboration of non-technomic artifacts; 3. Larger and more complex (internally and externally differentiated) settlements, with greater variety in size and localities of use, some degree of sedentism; 4. Intensification of production - food production becoming both more diverse and more specialized - a wider diet breadth, but with more specialized technology; 5. Specialized procurement of some resources: e.g. Jomon salt making 6.Larger populations and higher population densities. 7. Emergent social inequality, as well as other organizational changes, which he did not specify. Other researchers (e.g. Hayden 1996) have published similar lists. The early work summarized here emphasized a range of characteristics and qualities that distinguished complex hunter-gatherers from generalized hunter-gatherers. These lists were generally treated as a bundle of more – or – less correlated traits, some causal to others, but usually occurring together. They were, in a sense, polythetic sets in which an ancient group would be classed as complex if they possessed most, but not necessarily all, of them. Some of these traits, including inequality and sedentism, were seen to be shared with agriculturalists. Some, such as logistical mobility, were limited to hunter-gatherers. These lists are easy to draw up; they are much harder to operationalize, and this difficulty is part of the slipperiness of this topic. Many archaeologists have drawn on the ethnographic record of complex hunter-gatherers to assist them to recognize such societies in the past, and in developing methods for studying and explaining their existence (e.g. Henry 1991, Binford 1990, Kelly 1992). I have already noted that most such ethnographic examples are found almost exclusively on the Northwest Coast. This makes Northwest Coast cultural evolution and culture history of more than just parochial interest; understanding it is central to understanding the phenomenon of complex hunter-gatherers globally. Arnold (1996b) argues that these trait lists do not clearly distinguish between causes of complexity (permanent inequality) and traits of complexity. She makes the additional, and important, point that hunter-gatherers, particularly in the past, were extremely variable in their residential, subsistence, technological economic and social organizations, and that these lists conflate this variability. She then argues, following Price and Brown (1985) and Matson (1985) that explanations need to distinguish clearly between necessary preconditions for complexity and the consequences of complexity. She defines conditions as "the environmental and historical circumstances, or context, in which complex organization emerged (Arnold 1996, 95)," and consequences as "the intended or incidental results of increasingly complex organization (Arnold 1996, 95)." Among the latter she includes such things as intensified production, new technologies and specializations, which others (e.g. Price and Brown) have seen as causes. The causes of complexity she defines quite narrowly, and this definition rises from her definition of complexity. For Arnold

35

Complexity, as I use the term here, distinguishes those societies possessing social and labor relationships in which leaders have sustained or on-demand control over nonkin labor and social differentiation is hereditary (Arnold 1996, 78, emphasis her’s). Arnold argues that: The emergence of centralized control over the most important resource in any society, the labor of a broad spectrum of its distantly related or unrelated members, marks a profound transformation in human organization, and thus I do not see a simple continuum from preceding organizational forms in this process (Arnold 2001: 4). Hunter-gatherers that are not “generalized hunter-gatherers” but who lack permanent ranking (i.e. they have those other traits in lists such as Price’s or mine) she terms affluent hunter-gatherers. These are societies with “sequential and situational leadership (Arnold 2001: 3).” To my mind this creates another residual category, generalized hunter-gatherers, complex hunter-gatherers (those with chiefdoms) and everyone else (affluent hunter-gatherers). It leads Arnold (2001) to argue that the large Northwest Coast corporate households are polities – making them fit the definition of chiefdoms. More to the point, I do not think it adequately handles the variability we see, nor does it provide dimensions along which to measure that variability. McGuire (1983) defines complexity in a useful way, which I prefer to Arnold’s. He gives complexity two dimensions: heterogeneity and inequality. Heterogeneity refers to the number of social personae in a society as defined by such social criteria as sex, gender, occupation, age, wealth, ethnicity. Inequality refers to how unequal is access to "material and social resources, such as wealth and power (McGuire 1983, 102)." Heterogeneity can be measured along horizontal and vertical axes. Cohen (1985) provides helpful emendations. Segmentation (in Cohen's terms) refers to how heterogeneous a society is along the horizontal dimension, in which case a society may have few or many categories of social personae, but little significant differences among them in access to resources. Degree of hierarchy refers to the number of social personae ordered along the vertical axis of inequality. Degree of inequality refers to the differences among vertically ordered personae in access to material and social resources. Another dimension of hierarchy is what those resources are. Thus different personae with no perceptible differences in wealth may have pronounced differences in ritual purity or prestige. Cohen points out that scheduling and specialization are attributes of complexity. Scheduling refers to the fact that social statuses have temporal parameters, and specialization to social statuses having different activities. Cohen (1985) notes some other pertinent aspects of complex societies. They stereotype their members, they announce group membership through visual and other cues; they "solidify categories in such a way that various bases of differentiation need not be renegotiated between individuals (Cohen 1985, 110-111).” Forms of ascription are examples. Complex societies also coordinate social segments and groups ("...they assign rights and boundaries in space and time to natural and social resources, they adjust those boundaries ... and they adjudicate disputes 36

between groups (Cohen 1985, 111]."), and they reinforce group membership through a variety of means, including, in Cohen's view, ritual. When approaching Northwest Coast social complexity, most researchers on the coast, myself included, have focused on inequality in the form of social stratification, implicitly following Arnold’s definition (which is also that of Price [1995] and others). One of the issues about Northwest Coast social organization is whether they were ranked or stratified (Donald 1985, Ames 1995). Donald (1985, 1997) argues that they were stratified rather than ranking societies (as defined by Fried 1967) because of the existence of slaves on the Northwest Coast, slaves; who as Donald states "are clearly slaves, if the notion of slavery is at all useful crossculturally (Donald 1985, 242)." He goes on to suggest that Northwest Coast societies were "class-divided" societies: "class is present and important but does not dominate or determine all social relationships (Donald 1985, 242).” He distinguished class-divided societies from incipient class societies, where class structure is rudimentary, and from class societies in which class dominated and determines all social relationships. Donald defines class so: "class is present in a society when significant segments of that society have relatively permanent differential access to resources and/or power. In addition, a class must be capable of reproducing itself biologically. This precludes gender or age categories from being regarded as classes (Donald 1985, 241).” On the Northwest Coast, according to Donald, there were usually three classes –title holders (smkikét [real people] and li`qakikét [other people] among the Coast Tsimshian), commoners (wa?á?ayin ['unhealed people']), and slaves (_ú×nkit). Among the two free classes, kin group affiliation was the source of primary social identity rather than class. Thus, on the Northwest Coast, degree of hierarchy was relatively low, but inequality was relatively strong. Degree of differentiation has not been a significant research problem on the coast (Ames 1991b). Archaeologists have paid far less attention to the issue of horizontal segmentation on the coast, despite the presence of regional interaction spheres, distinct regional idioms in the wellknown Northwest Coast art, the possibility of community and household level specialization in production (e.g. Allaire 1984, Ames 1995), and the coast’s ethnic and linguistic differences. There has been some interest in interaction spheres on the coast, particularly in the north (e.g. MacDonald 1969, Sutherland 2001). Segmentation and integration on the coast is scalar, with vertical and horizontal linkages among households, communities, localities (Ames 1998, Ames and Maschner 1999), ethnolinquistic groups, regions (interaction spheres) and the coast as a whole. These interactions are visible for example in aspects of the art styles and the geographic dimension of status signaling (Ames 1989, Ames and Maschner 1999). It seems clear that permanent inequality on the coast developed with a context of interaction that occurred at a variety of geographic scales and in interaction systems that existed before permanent inequality did. Despite my criticisms of Arnold’s distinctions, she raises two important points. First, she is, to my understanding, arguing that complexity means the presence of a political economy (e.g. Muller 1997, Grier 2002). While it may not ultimately be possible for permanent inequality to exist without a supporting political economy, I think it heuristically useful to keep the two notions separate, which many do not. The distinctions force us to ask how inequality is financed, if indeed it is. Some forms of permanent inequality (for example differential access to spiritual 37

resources) may be quite “cheap”. Her second major point is levels of causation, distinguishing between causes and necessary preconditions. We can also distinguish proximate from ultimate causes (Ames i.p.a.). Complexity on the Northwest Coast Current theories and hypotheses are reviewed elsewhere (Ames 1994 and references therein, Ames 1996b; Ames and Maschner 1999, Carslon 1996a, Matson and Coupland 1995 and references therein). Some aspects of these discussions are raised in what follows. The “evolution of complexity” on the coast is actually several issues, which may or may not be causally linked. 1) The timing of the evolution of social hierarchies. Cybulski (1991), Matson, Coupland (Matson and Coupland 1995) and Archer (2001) have raised the possibility that the Northwest Coast passed through a period in which high status was achieved, and then, around 2500 to 2000 years ago, it became ascribed, which marked the development of what Matson and Coupland call the Developed Northwest Coast Pattern. (According to Arnold’s definition, they were not complex hunter-gathers before that development). In any case, there is a “short chronology” (Ames 1994) that places the development of a pervasive status hierarchy between 1500 and 500 BC if not as late as AD 500 (e.g. Archer 2001). Carlson (e.g. 1995, 1996c) places it much earlier, at least a millenium, if not more so. Part of this may reflect somewhat differing notions of complexity as well as assumptions that all elements of what Matson and Coupland (1995) call “The Developed Northwest Coast Pattern” developed together. 2) The geography of culture change on the coast. Most workers seem to assume that complexity evolved along the coast more-or-less simultaneously. I have. There have been recent thoughts, that it (hierarchy) may have evolved first in the Gulf of Georgia and then spread elsewhere (e.g. Croes 1996, Matson and Coupland 1995). This is probably a sampling issue. 3) The role of the environment and resources. Fladmark (1975) originally argued that Northwest Coast complexity was the result of periodic infusions of massive doses of energy – salmon runs. This remains the purest statement of the role of the environment in these questions. Recently, Hayden, in a number of publications (e.g. 1990, 1992a, 1992b, 1996) has maintained that a rich environment is necessary for the development of social complexity among huntergatherers, that it enables such developments. Others argue that it is environmental stress (see Arnold 1966 for a general review). On the coast, Croes and Hackenberger (1988, Croes 1995) construct their model around the assumption that environmental stresses, ultimately caused by population growth, fueled economic, and, therefore, social change. Maschner, on the other hand, argues forcefully that the environment, and least of environmental productivity, was not a factor in the development of a social hierarchy among the Tlingit (Maschner 1991). However, he is also interested in the effects of the Little Ice Age. The role of salmon in the evolution of Northwest Coast culture has been discussed and dissected ad nauseam (see review in Ames 1994). All researchers agree that salmon were the key resource on the Northwest Coast in the evolution of the coast’s cultures and social complexity for any number of reasons (Cannon 2001). However, debate centers on the extent to which salmon was the prime mover or driver of economic and social change on the coast. There are in essence two views, one of which sees salmon as the prime mover and the other does not. In the latter 38

view, Northwest Coast diets were necessarily broad because while salmon was central, local economies had to be able to cope and adjust to unpredictable short and medium term fluctuations and failures in salmon runs. This was accomplished by exploited a diverse array of food resources. There were also portions of the coast in which salmon were not available in vast or predictable numbers; yet to maintain their populations and to participate at all in regional social and economic networks, people living in those areas had to produce food and other resources. Thus the salmon issue is a scalar issue, with salmon being important regionally, but not necessarily locally or at the household level (Ames 1998). Differences in environmental productivity play central roles in some theories. For Matson (1985), for example, differences in household wealth derive inevitably from differences in patch productivity, households’ own resource patches and are essentially restricted to those patches. For Coupland (1988), differences in status arise from conflict over the control of rich resource patches. 4) The role of population changes: In 1981, I argued that population growth has a key process in the evolution of ranking on the Northwest Coast (Ames 1981). I still think so. Croes and Hackenberger (1988), as noted above, developed a complex simulation model predicting the patterns of economic changes on the Northern Olympic Peninsula based upon Malthusian assumptions about populations and driven by population growth (Croes 1995). In the general literature, there is some interest in the relationships between group size and the degree of hierarchy (Kosse 1990). However, there has not been much thinking about population on the coast over the past several years. This is probably because of critiques showing that relationships among population size, density, distribution and growth and social organization are complex and because, even if the relationships were straight forward, demography is archaeologically very difficult to tackle. It is also because of archaeological fashion. When archaeologists have tried to measure population growth on the coast, they have used numbers of radiocarbon dates through time as a proxy measure of human numbers (e.g. Fladmark 1975, Ames 1991, Maschner 1991), a practice followed more widely in western North America (e.g. Chatters 1995, Ames 2000). In general, these studies show marked population growth after 5000 BP or even later. However, fluctuating sea levels and atmospheric 14C make these curves crude approximations at best. This is not to argue that the technique should be abandoned, but that it needs to be rethought. 5) The role of economic changes - intensification: This is actually another tangle of issues involving many questions beyond the scope of this section. They are reviewed in Ames 1994 and Ames i.p.b. Among these are questions about the timing of increases in subsistence production (intensification) on the coast. These questions include such matters as the role of salmon production (catching it and storing it) vs. other resources; and the timing of the development of a storage based economy (and what, exactly that entailed – technological innovation, changes in labor organization, etc?). 6) The role of sedentism and changing settlement patterns. Sedentism has long been thought central to the development of complexity (e.g. Ames 1981, papers in Price and Brown 1985). Matson (1985) argued that such was not the case, (see Arnold 1996). The relationship between sedentism and social differentiation is now an open question. This also raises the issue 39

about what it is, exactly, that we mean by sedentism (see Ames 1991a, Kelly 1992). Recent work by Acheson (1991), Archer (1996), Coupland (1996b), and Maschner (1992) raise important issues about the timing of shifts to sedentism, varieties of forms of sedentism (Arnold 1996) and household size. In originally formulating the methodology for the project, I argued that increasingly logistical mobility patterns were also a causal factor in increasing social differentiation (Ames 1985, Aikens, et al.1986). The underlying theoretical position has been questioned (e.g. Coupland 1988, Matson and Coupland 1995), but the relationship between mobility patterns, including sedentism, and organizational complexity remains open. More generally, logistical mobility is seen as basic (a necessary precondition or proximal cause) of hunter-gatherer complexity (e.g. Rowley-Conwy 2001, papers in Fitzhugh and Habu 2002). 7). Changes in material culture: Interest in changes in material culture usually focuses on either the history of Northwest Coast art, or on innovations relating to intensification of production. Recently, for example, there has been considerable interest in the relationship between the presence of weirs, and the taking of large numbers of fish (e.g. Moss et al. 1990, Eldridge and Acheson 1992, and Byram and Erlandson 1996). Other examples include questions about changes in filleting tools for increasing the efficiency of processing fish for storage (Flenniken 1981, Matson 1992). Another issue, however, is the overall relationship between the structure of tool kits and patterns of resource intensification, changes in settlement patterns and so on. At present, Lyman (1991) is the only sustained discussion of these issues. 8) Warfare: Cybulski (1979) early on demonstrated the presence of endemic raiding or warfare in the Prince Rupert Harbour, and raised the issue of its role in the history of the harbor. Most workers have recognized that warfare played some role in these matters. Coupland (1989) suggested warfare was important in the development of ranking on the northern coast, but not in the south, although acknowledging that warfare did occur there. In contrast, Maschner (1991, 1992) had forcefully argued that warfare is the central proximal cause of the evolution of permanent social differentiation on the Northwest Coast. He also argues that the timing of crucial changes in the patterns of warfare was the result of technological innovations: the introduction of the bow and arrow around AD 500. 9) Changes in domestic organization. Coupland (1985a, 1988, 1996b) and I (Ames 1985, 1994, 1996a, 1996b; Ames and Maschner 1999) have both stressed the centrality of household organization for understanding the social and economic history of the Northwest Coast. This was reinforced in the 1988 volume on Northwest Coast economies (Isaac 1988, Donald and Mitchell 1988). A number of researchers have emphasized the important role of large, corporate households on the Northwest Coast and that their development was central to social and economic evolution on the coast (e.g. Ames 1985, Coupland 1985, Matson 1983, 1985). I have recently argued that large, corporate households evolved on the coast to accommodate the labor requirements of an emerging storage economy around 1800 to 500 BC and competition among these households was a driving force in subsequent social and economy development on the coast (Ames 2003). 10) Interaction and exchange. MacDonald (1969) first raised the issue of the existence and role of a north coast interaction sphere in the region’s culture history and social evolution. 40

He hypothesized that the strong cultural similarities and social ties among the Coast Tsimshian, Haida and Tlingit, despite their different languages, was the result of their participation in an interaction sphere of long standing. Suttles (1990a) suggested that there were three or four linked interaction spheres along the coast historically. Obsidian sourcing studies show that patterns of regional interaction began very early on the coast and that the interaction spheres identified by Suttles may have existed by c. 4400 B.C. (Ames and Maschner 1999). These interaction spheres were probably important contexts for the development of inequality on the coast; they clearly structured the form and distribution of prestige and status markers (Ames and Maschner 1999). Control over use and access to prestige goods, either as raw materials or finished goods, has long been seen to play a role in the development of elites. 10) Environmental Change. Fladmark (1975) argued that stabilization of sea levels was the ultimate cause of complexity on the Northwest Coast. Post-glacial sea levels more or less achieved their current position c. 5000 BP. Fladmark reasoned that stabilization of sea levels led to expanded salmon runs which in turn produced greater social and economic complexity on the coast. However, there has actually been little interest among Northwest Coast archaeologists to examine in detail the relationships among environmental changes and social/cultural changes. Project Methodology The project, as originally conceived, was shaped by seven correlates or analytical dimensions (Ames 1985) and a set of expectations for the archaeological record. They are presented here because they structured the analyses. They were: 1. Increasing logistical organization and sedentism; 2. Changes in domestic organization; 3. Elaboration of material culture; 4. Changes in burial and mortuary practices, and; 5. Increasing intensification and dependence on storage. In the intervening years, I have added 6. Population growth, and; 7. Circumscription (e.g. Aikens et al. 1986) 1. Logistical organization; Binford's hunter-gatherer typology is difficult to apply directly to prehistoric sites. His archaeological correlates are based upon contrasts between ethnographic foragers and collectors, making it difficult to measure variation within either type. However, this criticism does not mean that Binford's measures are useless. He develops four measures for recognizing either foragers or collectors: assemblage grain, inter-assemblage and intra-assemblage variability in the kinds of tools present, and last, greater numbers and kinds of special purpose sites among collectors than foragers and greater sedentism among collectors. In support of these measures, Binford offers a number of expectations for the archaeological record of collectors: (1) increasing reliance upon logistical strategies producing greater intersite variability; (2) increasing sedentism, coupled with increases in logistical 41

organization producing "coarse" grained artifact assemblages. Increased assemblage grain reduces inter-assemblage variability among residential sites. Assemblage complexity and scale of also increases with sedentism and (3) the presence of a variety of special use sites. Lightfoot (1989) developed quite specific expectations for recognizing logistical mobility patterns (those of collectors) and distinguishing them from residential mobility patterns (foragers) in shell midden sites. He suggests that in the special use sites of collectors that are shell middens; a) a single shellfish species will dominate the assemblage; b) a limited range of tool types will be present, and their density/unit volume will be low; and c) architectural features will be few. In the short term in residential sites of foragers: a) shell fish assemblages will be dominated by more than one species of shell fish; b) a relatively wide array of tool types, reflecting varying domestic, maintenance, and subsistence practices will be present. Artifact density/unit volume will be higher than for special purpose camps. In the long term residential sites of collectors will display: a) a diverse array of shellfish representing collecting episodes across an entire annual cycle will be present; b) a very diverse array of artifacts reflecting many kinds of activities will be present; c) artifact densities will be high; and d) a an equally diverse array of architectural features, including energy intensive ones, will be present. These correlates might be criticized on a number of grounds, but there are serious methodological problems with them. Lyman (1991) clearly demonstrates that the apparent presence or absence of many of these markers is wholly dependent on the excavated volume from a site and the number of artifacts retrieved (see also Thomas 1989). To give a single example from the Oregon Coast, discovery of household features seems to require excavation of at least 100 m3. Evaluation of taxonomic diversity for faunal and artifact assemblages is strongly effected by sample size. Betz (1991) and the papers in Leonard and Jones (1989) provide excellent discussions of these matters, as does Driver (1994) for faunal analyses on the Northwest Coast. This size effect makes it important to establish some kind of regional base line in terms of what constitutes a typical assemblage and what does not. Measuring assemblage diversity in a consistent manner becomes a critical methodological problem as does recognizing and distinguishing among special use sites. This latter problem is somewhat more straightforward than the former. Its solution relies upon determining assemblage contents and the kinds of nonartifactual debris present in the site, the kinds of features present and so on. However, the site sample creates obvious problems; one needs something approaching an adequate sample of the potential site types present to determine reliably changes in site type frequencies. Other problems in distinguishing collector from forager systems (aside from the central one that no system was ever purely one or the other) includes what Thomas (1983) terms the researcher's "monitoring position" – of establishing the vantage point from which one happens to be monitoring the system. Faunal remains have been used to attack this problem, by using Binford's (1978) utility measures, based on butchering patterns. Workers have also examined the structure of technologies. I discuss this below under elaboration of technology. Turning to faunal remains, the general argument in the literature has been that foragers do most of their bulk processing at home – they kill a deer, and haul it back to the residential site, and butcher it there. Evidence of bulk processing will therefore be found at residential sites. While collectors also do some bulk processing at home, many resources undergo extensive 42

processing before being transported back. Ideally, one might expect to find low utility items discarded at special use sites, and only high utility or extensively modified items brought home. Special–use sites can then be distinguished from home bases by the kinds of animal bones present. On the coast, for example, archaeologists commonly assume that the presence of salmon vertebrae and the absence of head parts suggests that the fish were filleted elsewhere and transported to the site to be stored. Lyman (1984) has demonstrated for mammalian bones that the "low utility" bones are also generally the densest and most likely to survive. A site classed as a processing camp on the basis of the presence of low utility bones may actually have merely been subject to differential weathering of bones. Canoes throw these expectations off (Ames 2002). Northwest hunter-gatherers were not pedestrian hunter-gathers. They had boats that could haul a large animal home. Therefore decisions about field butchering an animal may have had more to do with the proximity of the canoe then anything else. Sedentism is difficult to demonstrate. Part of this difficulty is that it is hard to define. Rafferty (1985) requires that some members of the resident population remain in the main settlement throughout the year, others that the settlement be occupied for a generation (Ames 1991a). Ingold (1987) distinguished between behavioral sedentism that reflects actual mobility patterns, and organizational sedentism in which groups are tied to places by property rights. Resource patch ownership on the coast is a form of Ingold's organizational sedentism. Northwest Coast societies were mobile during parts of the year, but in the same pattern yearafter-year. Forms of sedentism can vary (Ames 1991a, Kelly 1992). To control for these problems, I developed six attributes of hunter-gather residential patterns that need to be considered. These include the settlement's annual duration (how long each year it is occupied); the seasonality of occupation (when, during the year it is occupied); the permanence of occupation (how many years it is occupied or reoccupied); its size, its organization, and the investment of time, labor and materials expended on the locality (Ames 1991a). Water transportation can confound simple expectations (Ames 2002). With canoes, entire villages moved, sometimes several times a year, sometimes over great distances. However, they often moved everyone and everything. Large canoes eased the restrictions on material culture and other aspects of live usually associated with mobility. Awkward or heavy gear stored in a wooden box was placed in the boat, not necessarily left behind. In addition, everyone could travel, both to another village site and to special use sites, further calling into question easy distinctions between forager residential bases and collector task camps. 2. Changes in domestic organization; The remains of dwellings and their internal arrangements are the major evidence for changing domestic organization. Changes in the form of houses (round to rectangular (Flannery 1972), semi-subterranean to surface), the size of dwellings (floor area, volume), in their construction and architectural complexity can all be used to track shifts in how the domestic group is organized (see McGuire and Schiffer 1983). These are not direct measures, but they are what are available. Changes in settlement proxemics may also provide clues to changing household organization. A settlement shift in which scattered single houses are replaced by a

43

multi-house village or a town laid out in regular rows suggests an important reordering of society and ways in which households are linked together (Ames and Maschner 1999). Differences in house size and/or contents may also reflect status and power differences among the houses of a settlement. Hayden and Cannon (1982) suggest that one cannot expect to measure status differences using household contents among a limited number of houses. However, it is clear from Ozette (Samuels 1991, Wessen 1982), Meier (Ames et al. 1992, Smith 2004) and Cathlapotle (Smith 2004, Smith 2004) that one or two structures may contain sufficient data to address the issue. 3. Elaboration of material culture; As originally defined, this referred to "increased investment of time or energy into aspects of material culture not associated with subsistence (Ames 1985, 165).” The primary concern here was with evidence for the development of craft specialization, and the appearance of status markers, but it can be expanded to include such things as the appearance of styles which mark ethnicity, or region of origin, or which are associated with the elaboration of civic and religious rituals, even in the absence of vertical hierarchies. Lyman suggests that elaboration of material culture is a consequence of sedentism; it is also, as I discuss below, a consequence of intensification. It is difficult to keep these different dimensions separate. There are also methodological questions relating again to assemblage size. A false impression of an increasingly complex material culture could be created if artifact samples from a region through time are increasingly large (early sites are usually much rarer than later sites, and more deeply buried, so they will be smaller). Assemblage size and controlling for the size effect does not completely address changes in style or shifting distributions of rare and unique items. Comparative analyses drawing upon different areas and times is necessary. The context of the unique items and of particular artifact styles is also critical. Detailed site structure analysis is very important in order to differentiate among classes of site fill, recognize primary dumps, secondary dumps, primary house floors and so on (e.g. Smith 2004). Development of full and part-time craft specialization is an important aspect of material culture elaboration (e.g. Arnold 1992a, Ames 1995). Evidence for development of craft specialization includes what is produced, the techniques and tools required and the raw materials required by the craftsman. The production of status markers for the powerful is generally seen as an important force in causing the development of craft specialists, although religious ceremonialism and regalia are also important consumers of craft items. Elaboration of material culture is usually operationalized in several rather impressionistic ways: diversification of artifact assemblages; increasing investment of time and/ or skill in tools which are very time consuming to make; the presence of art and/or rare objects. While these measures make intuitive sense and work in very general terms – the material culture of ancient Egypt is clearly more elaborate than that of the Magdalenian of southern France, for example – they are difficult to apply over short time periods or in contexts less extreme than the above example. The elaboration of material culture is the same problem as that discussed above: assemblage diversity and size, but made more complex by two issues: rare objects and changes in artifact styles. To some extent, this can be solved by measuring assemblage grain and determining to what extent the size effect is operating. 44

Smith (1987) has demonstrated that the investment of labor (in the form of effort) is the key measure for establishing the relative value of artifacts. This study follows that approach. Elaboration of material culture should appear as: 1. Diversification of artifact classes which are not associated with subsistence. Increasing numbers of harpoons, used to measure intensification of sealing, for example, cannot be used to support elaboration of material culture. 2. Evidence for part-time and full-time craft specialization, either in the final product of the craftsman or in the tools of the craft itself. Art objects are examples of the former; wood working tools for fine, detailed work are examples of the latter. In Prince Rupert Harbour, beaver incisors and delicate mussel shell adzes, both used in detailed carving increase in frequency during the Middle Period. 3. Evidence for increasing use of tools that are time consuming to make such as ground stone. These indicate an increasingly costly material culture in terms of labor. 4. Evidence for increasing utilization of rare or expensive raw materials. This goes beyond the use of exotic items brought in by long distance trade. Utilization of raw materials such as whalebone, and large palmate antler, required for large items such as clubs and which are not readily available locally, also fall into this category. 5. Increasing numbers of rare and unique items. These do not necessarily have to be art objects, but can also be unusual domestic items, decorated procurement and processing tackle and so on. However, these items can be unique simply s a result of being " opportunistic" tools, tools made on the spur of the moment to fill an immediate need. These must be items that again involve considerable labor. This distinction is necessary since many assemblages will contain opportunistic tools which are unique, but whose uniqueness results from the contingencies of the moment, available raw materials, and the skills and needs of the artificer. 4. Mortuary patterns; Burials are a standard source of data about how vertically and horizontally segmented a society is. Twenty years of research and theorizing about burials also shows them to be a difficult source of such evidence. Over 200 burials were retrieved from the sites in Prince Rupert Harbour. Jerome Cybulski of the Archaeological Survey of Canada has analyzed these, but his final analysis is to be published separately. I have examined the grave goods associated with the interments and discuss them below. Smith (1987) has recently demonstrated that the clearest line of evidence for stratification using grave goods involves the relative amount of labor required to produce the good, not whether or not the item has an exotic origin, or exotic raw material. The approach followed here follows that developed in Smith 1987, Wason 1994, Beck 1995, Carr 1995 and particularly Schulting 1995 and is discussed in Chapter 8. 5. Increasing intensification and the development of a storage economy Intensification is the production of more of something measured against some standard (per capita, per time unit, per land unit). On the Northwest Coast, we are primarily interested in the intensification of food production and usually measure it with faunal remains, settlement patterns and the like. I have argued (Ames i..p.b.) changing subsistence practices are only one 45

side of the equation; the other side is increasing labor or efficiency and is measured by, among other things, material culture. There are three possible outcomes of intensification on subsistence (Ames i.p.b.). These expectations are based on evolutionary ecology: Outcomes depend on whether the intensified resource was initially abundant or not, whether it initially ranked low or high in the diet. 1. The intensified resource was initially abundant and dense, but may have originally ranked low. It would have been added to the diet only if overall subsistence efficiency declined, or if there was an increase in the efficiency at which this particular resource was harvested. As it is intensified, it comes to dominate the diet, although diet breadth remains broad. Human populations increase in density, and highly ranked resources, since they are always exploited, are depleted as populations grow. Risk is high (there is a great deal of variation in returns). The cost of failure may increase as populations grow. 2. The intensified resource was always both dense and highly ranked. In this case, the outcome of intensification is a narrow diet breadth (few resources being harvested), dominated by the intensified resource, i.e. a specialized economy. Human population densities are high, and, because of the narrow diet breadth, some formerly high ranked resources are no longer exploited. Risk is high, but not as high as in outcome # 1. This outcome fits general expectations on the coast for salmon intensification. 3. The intensified resource remains a small part of the overall diet; diet breadth is broad, populations remain stable, and there is minimal risk. In this option, the resource has low abundance, and may be either low ranked or high ranked. In other words, it may be a very desirable resource, but because of its low abundance in time or space (or other qualities), its intensification has little overall impact. All things being equal, faunal and floral remains should reflect these changes. Of course, sampling problems sometimes make it impossible to use faunal remains to pursue these issues. That is the situation in this study. While there are faunal materials to report, biases produced by excavation techniques make using the faunal assemblages difficult. Increasing labor investment or labor efficiency may be seen in settlement patterns and in material culture, among other lines of evidence. Increased labor investment/efficiency can either lead to increases in foraging efficiency or raise the rank of a resource in the diet. Among these methods are: 1. Increase in the density of high ranked dietary items, increasing the forager’s encounter rate, through habitat improvement, game population cycles, release from over-exploitation, etc. This could be accomplished through gardens, patch creation and maintenance by burning, coppicing weeding, use of traps and weirs, to concentrate available prey; 2. Reduce search costs perhaps by decreasing energy expenditure in movement. This could be accomplished by using boats, positioning strategies, periodic movement of villages, collapsible houses;

46

3.

Changes in resource distribution (resources become more spatially aggregated) with gardens, creating and maintaining patches burning, transplanting, use of traps, weirs, and exploitation of new patches; and 4. Increase of pursuit and handling efficiencies of items in diet. This can be accomplished in a number of ways, including improving transportation technology (used both in pursuit and transporting harvested resources), improvements in harvesting and storage technology; improved methods of food processing; more effective storage methods (e.g. those that reduce storage lose) or storage facilities that are more effectively constructed; morphological changes to the resource increasing its profitability Artifact assemblages can also be expected to change. Torrence (1983, 1989; Nelson 1991) has developed a model for the direction those changes should take. She suggests that scheduling and time stress are significant factors in the organization and structure of tool assemblages. Scheduling affects assemblage organization in the sense that tool making and maintenance will be "scheduled" around other activities. If subsistence scheduling becomes increasingly complex, tool making may be temporally segregated from when tools are used. Tools in this case may be curated (Binford 1978). If tools must be used regularly over a period of time with no "down-time" for repair, then considerable effort may be required to make them durable. But she is primarily concerned with the effects on assemblage structure. She distinguishes three dimensions of assemblage structure: composition, diversity, and complexity. Composition simply means the kinds of tools that are present; diversity (which means taxonomic richness) is the number of artifact taxa present; and complexity refers to the number of parts/tool, or the number of "components" in the tool kit as a whole. She argues that assemblage richness (her diversity) and tool complexity are negatively correlated with the availability of time to do a job requiring the tools. She further argues that specialized or rich tool kits will evolve when the range of activities in which the tools are used is narrow. The implications of her model are that as intensification proceeds, and scheduling becomes more complex tool kits should become taxonomically richer, and tools should become more complex – i.e., there should be more compound tools. Further, tool kits should become increasingly specialized as they are used in increasingly narrow activities. There should also be an increasing reliance on facilities as the need to capture increasing amounts of food increases, and as scheduling conflicts increase (Torrence 1983, Lyman 1991). Lyman (1991) also thinks there should be shifts in the reliability and maintainability of tool kits. Bleed (1986) suggests that collectors will have reliable technologies and foragers will have maintainable ones. Reliable systems have over–designed components (stronger than they minimally need to be); they are under-stressed (used below capacity); have parallel subsystems and components; good craftsmanship and well fitted parts; generalized repair kit including basic raw materials; maintained and used at different times and maintained and used by specialists. Maintainable systems, in contrast, are generally light and portable, with subsystems having unique and individual functions (no redundancy, if one part fails, the whole thing fails), a specialized repair kit; modular design (broken parts can be readily repaired replacing them); 47

maintainable system can function even when broken; they repaired during use, and they are easily maintained and repaired by the user on the spot. Taking Torrence and Bleed together, we should expect to see more structured (taxonomically rich), specialized, reliable, complex tool kits as intensification proceeds. We should see increasing segregation of tool manufacture and repair and use. We should also see the appearance of a generalized repair kit. 6. Population growth; Measuring population growth archaeologically is fraught with problems (e.g. Hassan 1982). In this study, I use three indirect measures: the number of reported radiocarbon dates in the Northern Northwest Coast (Maschner 1991); rates of initial site occupation in the harbour, and estimates of rates of midden accumulation for some of the sites in the harbour. This latter step is a test of early assertion (e.g. Ames 1981) that rates of midden accumulation increased during the Middle Period, reflecting a dramatic increase in population. 7. Circumscription (Ames 1986); This was not part of the original research design, and it is measured here inductively. Artifact and assemblage analyses The artifact and assemblage analyses are the topic of Chapters Six, Seven, Eight and Nine. The methods used are described where relevant. The basic analysis was a detailed description of all the artifacts available from the nine sites. That is described in Chapter Six.

48

Chapter 5: The Sites, Analytical Units, and Chronology Introduction This chapter introduces and describes each site. A central task in the analysis was organizing the artifacts into assemblages and ordering those assemblages chronologically. To do this, the deposits of each site were separated into Analytical Units (AU). I will first discuss the sample of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon dates The chronological framework is provided by 127 radiocarbon dates from 11 sites, nine of which are part of this study. Dates from all 11 sites are discussed here. Dated materials included charcoal, wood, shell, humus, peat, and human bone. The human bone dates were done as part of Cybulski's study of the burials. The aim of the radiocarbon dating program of the original field project was to develop a series of lower limiting dates for each site. This is quite clear from the comments on the forms and notes. Samples were also selected to provide upper limiting dates on particular deposits, thus bracketing them, and to date particular features, including burials, hearths and pits. In my experience, efforts were made in the field to collect six gram samples. These samples were collected into aluminum foil pouches. An effort was made to gather bounded samples; flecks of charcoal from an entire level were not collected as a single sample, rather charcoal associated with features such as hearths were used. All dates used here are available on line in the Canadian Archaeological Radiocarbon Database, or CARD (http://www.canadianarchaeology.ca/). This data base was developed and is maintained by Richard Morlan of the Archaeological Survey of Canada. These dates are used in this work in three ways: first to provide a general chronological framework for Prince Rupert Harbour; secondly to date specific deposits; and third to calculate rates of midden accumulation for each site, and sometimes localities within particular sites. These rates have a threefold function: 1. Extrapolate dates within a deposit bracketed by 14C dates; 2. Control for variation in midden volume across time as part of the calculations of artifact densities within these sites and; 3. Test statements in the literature about changing rates of midden accumulation during the harbour's history. The methodology for calculating accumulation rates is almost identical to that developed and reported independently by Stein and Deo (2003) except I calculated volumetric accumulation while they calculate linear accumulation. I used calibrated radiocarbon dates with good provenience and calculated the volume of midden accumulated between the dates in individual excavation units. Site-wide accumulation rates were established in two ways: averaging all excavation unit rates, and using basal and terminal dates. As will be seen, these rates often differed. I also calculated harbour-wide rates. I again 49

did these in two ways: first calculating a mean rate using all site rates, and a second mean of site rates discarding the highest and lowest rate. All dates are reported here in both uncorrected and calibrated form. All discussions use the calibrated two-sigma age range. I originally did all the calibrations. However, all the dates (except those from Grassy Bay) were recalibrated by the Beta Analytic radiocarbon dating laboratory (see below for the reason). In its calibrations, Beta Analytic estimated the 13 12 C/ C ratio of all samples at -25%. As part of developing CARD, Morlan normalized (corrected for the 13C/12C ratio) of a number of the Prince Rupert dates (Morlan 2000), which he supplied me. The Beta Analytical normalized dates and Morlan’s normalized dates differ only slightly. The normalized dates reported here are Beta Analytic’s, since their calibrations are used. However, they differ only slightly from mine. I approached Darden Wood, the Director and President of Beta Analytic, for advice and assistance in correcting for the marine reservoir effect in dates on shell and human bone. Dates on marine shell are usually older than their “true” radiocarbon age, and must be corrected by subtracting a correction factor from the date. However, the size of this “error” varies from place to place and must be determined locally. The ∆r is subtracted from the date. On the northern Northwest Coast, ∆r values have ranged from -725 years to -250. Archer (1992, 2001) dated a large suite of shell samples from the surfaces of middens in Prince Rupert Harbour and used a correction of - 650±50, based on a – 725 year value used by Ham (1990) on the Queen Charlotte Islands, a second used by Robinson and Thompson (1981) of 650±50 for Pavlov Harbour, Alaska and a third for a site near Kitkatla B.C. of about - 620 years. Recently Southon and Fedje (2003) recommend a correction of – 600 to 700 years for the Queen Charlotte Islands and adjacent areas, thus supporting Archer’s value. However, Moss (2004, Moss et al. 1990) uses a reservoir correction of -250 years, which is an average of three corrections from various places along the west coast of North America. In the original analyses, I reported corrections using both Archer’s and Moss’ ∆r values, and used those based on Moss’ value. Archer’s values produced dates that seemed far too young given the general patterning of dates and particularly the dated burials. Moss’ value produced calibrated dates that better fit the general sequence, and more closely supported my hypotheses. However, that “fit” depended primarily on the dated burials, which had not been corrected for the marine reservoir effect. However, since all available evidence (e.g. Chisholm et al. 1982, 1983) indicates that about 90% of dietary protein in the ancient Northwest Coast diet was marine in origin, some correction seemed in order However, I had no basis for making it, if, indeed it was necessary. In sum, the issues were these: 1) which ∆r value to use: the one that better fit my data and explanatory preference, or the one that did not; and 2) whether or not to correct the human bone dates, and if so, how? It was at this point I consulted Beta Analytic for help in selecting an appropriate ∆r value and in treating the human bone dates. They calibrated the shell dates using a ∆r of -390 ±25, the value they use for dates from coastal British Columbia. The resulting calibrations are the values I use here. They also recalibrated Archer’s sample (Archer 1992, 2001) using that ∆r value. This has some impact on Archer’s conclusions about the development of inequality in the harbour, issues explored in Chapter 8 and the conclusions. A ∆r value was not applied to the human bone. Wood’s view was that it would be very difficult to establish a correction value and, at most, that value would be about -200 years (Darden Wood, personal communication, 2004). 50

Beta Analytic’s calibrations are done using the CALIB v 4.4.2 radiocarbon calibration program from the University of Washington (Stuiver and Reimer 1986). The marine samples were calibrated with the MARINE98 module and the other samples with the INTCAL 98 module. All the Prince Rupert dates were originally organized into a computer spread sheet by Jerome Cybulski, two versions (1984, 1993) of which he provided me. I also reviewed copies of the original forms and other documentation. The following chapter depends heavily on Cybulski’s efforts. Analytical units and stratigraphy (Table 5.1) The radiocarbon framework is used to describe and interpret the stratigraphy of the nine sites based on the profile drawings and field notes. I examined the original profile drawings in Ottawa in the spring of 1984. However, they were not available to me after that time. Cybulski was using the originals in Ottawa, and reproducing them would have been prohibitively expensive. I did have the artist's renderings of those drawings reproduced in this volume, photographs of the walls and the field notes. Had I had the original drawings, I might have been able to identify features missed in the field. On the other hand, I do not believe the profiles would have strengthened my control over the general sedimentary processes at work in the Harbour. In other words, I do not believe I would have been able to make stratigraphic correlations across the individual sites, to link different site localities. However, I might have been able to separate AUs at sites, particularly Lachane, where I was unable to do so. Shell middens are notoriously complex, and the Prince Rupert ones are no exception. The sites were thought of as dumps, though not only as primary dumps. Secondary and tertiary dumping was recognized as being crucial to midden formation. It was further recognized that house construction was a significant factor in midden formation. The theory was that the broad house platforms were created by excavating midden, dumping it elsewhere, and flattening the resultant surface (e.g. Blukis Onat 1985). Therefore, there were no expectations that we were dealing in any way with primary or pristine deposits. We were anticipating specific kinds of things within the deposits: 1) Structural evidence of plank houses; 2) Structural evidence of earlier pit houses: 3) Other features relating to on-going activities, such as hearths; 4) Burials; 5) Heavy lenses of blue mussel at the bottom of the middens; 6) Data relevant to explaining the nature of the heavy, black, moist high organic content sediments sometimes encountered. We expected plank houses to be recognizable by: a) Floors of beach sand and fine gravel; b) Large prepared hearths; c) Large post holes or postmolds produced by the corner posts supporting the house frame;

51

d) Depressions produced either by the presence of an internal central pit in the house being excavated1 or by lobes of shell which accumulated between the houses’ exterior, standing walls, and preserved the general shape of the structures after they were abandoned. While we found hearths and surface house depressions, we found no unequivocal subsurface evidence of houses, although a case is made for their presence below. Excavating these sites presents classic examples of the problems of what Brown calls "deep site sampling" (Brown 1975). He argues that, despite problems, the best approach to excavating deep sites is using large block excavations. Small-scale probes (single excavation units) have serious limitations, the most fundamental of which is that "excavation of the lowest strata is a direct projection of the strategy applicable to the overlying strata (Brown 1975: 157).” Increasing the number of small units increases the area sampled, but causes a progressive loss of stratigraphic controls as the proliferation of pits makes correlations among them increasingly difficult. Shell middens are particularly subject to this problem since they can lack any stratum that is identifiably present throughout the site. The stratigraphy is here separated or lumped into Analytical Units (AU). These units represent rather thick shell deposits that justifiably can be separated from adjacent deposits. The procedure is best worked out for Boardwalk, which is the best understood of these sites. The designation of each AU is rather cumbersome, but when dealing with these units from nine sites, the lengthy designation reduces confusion. For example, AUs from Boardwalk excavation Area D are 31/D/AU1, 31/D/AU2 and 31/D/AU3. The 31 is the site number, the D refers to the excavation area, and the AUs are numbered in stratigraphic order with AU1 the lowermost, and AU3 the highest. Sites without separate excavation areas lack the middle element in their AU code. GbTo 23, for example, contains 23/AU1 and 23/AU2. During the analysis, we reviewed all field notes and available profiles. These were keyed and entered into a computer database. This permitted us to sort on particular key words, such as hearth, postholes etc. This procedure also highlighted difficulties in the notes, such as where an individual might note that a level contained fewer postholes than in the previous level, but the notes for the previous level might contain no reference to postholes at all. Despite these problems, or perhaps because of them, keying the notes into the database turned out to have been useful, since it ultimately saved us from having to review the notes every time a question came up. The Sites GbTn 1 Grassy Bay (Fig. 5.1, 5.2, 5.3). The site is located on Grassy Bay on the east side of Kaien Island, on Fern Passage. It is the only Fern Passage locality in this site sample. Grassy Bay is a shallow bay with a large inter-tidal flat. The site is 57 x 60 m, with an average depth of 1 m and a volume 2420 cubic meters. The site was excavated during July of 1968 by a crew of five under Bjorn Simonsen's direction. Six 3.048 m2 (10 ft.2) units were excavated, producing a sample of 55.8 cubic 1

Northwest coast plank houses sometimes had a large rectangular central pit around which the house was build. After a structure was abandoned, this pit would weather into a depression on the ground surface.

52

Table 5.1 Volumes and ages of AUs AU GbTo23/AU/Unk GbTo23/AU1 GbTo23/AU2 GbTo30/AU GbTo31/AC/AU1 GbTo31/AC/AU2 GbTo31/AC/AU3 GbTo31/B/AU1 GbTo31/B/AU2 GbTo31/B/AU3 GbTo31/B/AU4 GbTo31/D/AU1 GbTo31/D/AU2 GbTo31/D/AU3 GbTo31/S/AU GbTo31/Misc/AU GbTo33/A/AU GbTo33/B/AU GbTo33/D/AU GbTo33/E/AU GbTo33/H/AU GbTo33/Misc/AU GbTo34/AU GbTo36/AU GbTn1/AU1 GbTn1/AU2 GcTo1

Volume m3

Age

196 101 104 186 177 37 47 46 57 57 74 187 154

1400 B.C. - A.D. 800 A.D. 900 - Historic period? 450 B.C. - A.D. 450 1700 B.C. - A.D. 1 2200 B.C. - 200 B.C. 1000 B.C.(?) - A.D. 100 3000 B.C. - 1500 B.C. 1500 B.C. -A.D. 1 A.D. 1 - A.D. 500 A.D. 500 Historic period? 3500 B.C. - 2000 B.C. 2000 B.C. - A.D. 1200 A.D. 1000 - 1650?

504 144 159 104

2000 B.C. - A.D. 1650? 3400 B.C. - A.D. 1650? 3000 B.C. - A.D. 1650?

208 28 28

3700 B.C. - A.D. 1650? 1500 B.C. - A.D. 500 A.D. 400 – A.D. 1000 A.D. 1000 - 1600

meters, or 2% of the 1983 volume of the site. The site is one of four with an analyzed faunal sample and has been assumed to be a task specific locality. The surface of the site has no indication of structures or any other features. Archer (1984) estimated the site was 80% intact in 1983. The site was still there in 1985, but accessible only through a massive industrial area. Grassy Bay is one of the more easily analyzed and described of these sites: it is small, and its stratigraphic record shows a very clear change in depositional patterns (Figs. 6.28 6.30). The illustrated profiles are from the three blocks excavated together as a trench. During excavation, 1 ft balks were maintained between the three units, and troweled–out after profiling. The east wall of unit B1 and the east wall of unit A1 in the schematics (Fig. 5.2 and 5.3) are those baulks. The midden accumulated on sterile beach gravels. The Grassy 53

Bay midden is divided into two AUs. TN1/AU1 is the lower half of the midden; TN1/AU2 is the upper half. Table 5.2 Radiocarbon dates for Grassy Bay (GbTn1). LAB #

DATE

AU

MATERIAL

S–994

620±55

2

Charcoal

CALIBRATED DATE A.D. 1343

S–995 S–992 S-993

1615±60 1620±55 1700±60

1 1 1

Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal

A.D. 421 A.D. 417 A.D. 349

I σ AGE RANGE A.D. 1342 – 1373 A.D. 393 – 535 A.D. 392 – 473 A.D. 319 – 413

2 σ AGE RANGE A.D. 1286 - 1413 A.D. 323 - 581 A.D. 322 - 563 A.D. 213 - 471

TN1/AU1 Three of the four radiocarbon dates are from the basal level of the midden (Table 5.2). Two dates (S–992, S–993) are from the bottom of unit C1; the other (S–995) is from the base of unit A1. Since the determinations are so close, the three dates were averaged (1649±37), producing a two-sigma age span of A.D. 324 - 472. This provides a lower limiting date for the site. Mussel (Mytilus sp.) is the primary constituent of the deposits in this AU. Figure 5.1 Grassy Bay (GbTn1)

54

Figure 5.3 Profile unit B, Grassy Bay

56

TN2/AU2 The upper half of the Grassy bay midden contained an unusually dense concentration of large superimposed hearths. Such hearth concentrations are frequently taken to indicate the presence of houses in Northwest Coast middens, although there is no surface evidence for the presence of a structure. The artifact assemblage also suggests that this upper zone was residential. One radiocarbon date (S–994) dates this upper zone. It has an age span of A.D. 1286 - 1413 and dates the lower portions of the hearth complex. In addition to the hearths, there is also a shift in the composition of the midden. While AU1 is composed primarily of mussel shells, AU2 contains brown to dark midden (i.e. a much high portion of organic materials, decomposed rock and fines, rather than shell). The upper zone of the midden also contains a relatively thick lens of whole clam shells. The assemblage contains no historic goods so was presumably abandoned before contact. Date S-994 indicates that deposition of AU2 began somewhat earlier than A.D. 1286- 1413. AU1 then spans a period from ca. A.D. 400 to perhaps A.D. 1000, while AU2 begins between that latter time span and A.D. 1286 - 1413 and may end around 1600- 1700 A.D. GbTo 18 Dodge Island (Fig. 5.4, 5.5). Sutherland (1978) reports this site separately. It is therefore not part of the sample discussed in this report. However, it was part of the original set of sites excavated by the NCPP and so is included in this account. The site is located on a small island at the entrance to Dodge Cove, on the east side of Digby Island. It is part of a complex of sites around that cove that also includes GbTo 31, GbTo 30, and GbTo 17. Only GbTo 17 is not part of the site sample reported here. Dodge Cove possesses broad, inter-tidal flats and rocky areas. It was clearly quite an attractive residential locality. The surface of the site had been leveled for construction of a quarantine hospital, now abandoned. Other construction activities and dredging of an adjacent channel may also have affected the site. The site is approximately 165 x 50 m, with an average depth of 4 m, for a volume of 33,000 cubic meters. A crew of eight under the direction of George MacDonald excavated the site in 1967. GbTn 19 Ridley Island The Ridley Island site is located on the northern end of Ridley Island (see chapter 2) overlooking a broad intertidal flat that connects Ridley Island with Kaien Island. The site was extensively disturbed prior to its limited excavation in 1978 (May 1979). Only about 4m3 were excavated. However, it was found to contain some intact midden deposits. Bulk samples were collected and processed, which provides an extremely important faunal sample. May believes the site to have been a village. It is included here since the faunal sample is discussed in Chapter 10.

57

Figure 5.4 Dodge Island (GbTo18)

Figure 5.5 The Dodge Cove site complex

58

Five charcoal samples and one burial (S–2773) have been dated. Of these, four have produced acceptable dates: S–1670 (1795±55, A.D. 120 - 381), S–16668 (1995±60, 161 B.C. - A.D. 136), S–1669 (2040±45, 161 B.C. - A.D. 68), and S–2723 (on the burial) (2795±150, 1395 B.C. – 756). The two unacceptable dates were stratigraphically superior to S–1668 and S–1669, and date 4605±55 (S–1671), and 4890±80 (S–1672). The deposits containing these latter two dates may have been bulldozed over the underlying sediments. The deposits produced a number of artifacts and large faunal assemblages, particularly of fish. GbTo 23 Garden Island (Fig. 5.6, 5.7). Garden Island is the smallest of three islands at the eastern outlet of Venn Passage. Wilgiapshi and Anian are the other two islands. All three have sites on them (GbTo 23, GbTo 38 and GbTo 3 respectively). Drucker (1943) tested GbTo 3 in 1938. These sitebearing islands are part of the single largest tidal flat in the Harbour (see chapter 2). Garden Island is at the center of a complex of bays and shallows and is readily accessible from almost any point in the Harbour. The series of canoe skids on its southwest beach is one of its most distinctive features. The surface of the site has been extensively disturbed by, among other things, a modern cemetery. The sides of the midden have also undergone erosion and wave scarps have formed. One explanation for the scarps is the wash from passing ships, including the Alaska Ferry. Another possible explanation is a sea level rise over the last millennium. In any case, an unknown amount of the site has been lost. The site is approximately 122 x 65 meters, with an average depth of 3 meters, and a total current volume of 23,790 cubic meters. It was excavated in 1966 and 1967 by crews under the direction of George MacDonald. The main excavation units were excavated into the northeast face of the midden, and in some places the midden was faced to gain stratigraphic control. Ten units were excavated to produce a sample of 297 cubic meters, or just over 1% of the site’s volume. Archer (1984) did not examine this site, so does not provide estimates of how much is left. It was still there in 1985. Ames (1976) described the bone tool assemblage from this site. Chronological control is provided by 13 radiocarbon dates. Six of those are on human bone (Table 5.3). Of those, two dates (S–1596 and GSC–2888) are on the same individual (burial 197). Date S–1596 was quite early, and not in line with any of the other dates from the Harbour. GSC–2888 re-dated the individual and produced an acceptable determination. The Garden Island midden built up on a peat and/or gravel surface. The peat is dated by two samples: GaK–1875 (2340 - 1740 B.C.) and GaK–1250 (900 - 300 B.C.). GaK–1875 was from a feature at the base of unit 4A3, while GaK–1250 dates peat at the base of test trench 2. The profile for Unit 2C (Fig. 5.7) gives a reasonably typical stratigraphic section for GbTo 23. The reader should be aware that while the drawing appears to be of a 9.1 m long section, it illustrates, from left to right, the grid west, grid north and grid east walls of unit 2C, not the entire west wall of Test Area 2. The 1967 profiles at Garden Island were all drawn by the same crew member, who put all three (remember that most units were cut in from the scarp along the back of the midden) pit walls on the same sheet of graph paper. The artist who drew the publishable profiles did not understand this, and appears to have thought the profile was for a continuous wall. Hence, what appears to be an undulating surface in the 59

Figure 5.6 Garden Island (GbTo23)

lower half of the profile is actually a cut through the same depositional structure dipping towards grid east. There is a clear boundary in the deposits about 1 m down. All observers noted a buried humus layer present in all units and along portions of the scarp face. The reader will note the symbols for black midden along this boundary on the reader's right side of the profile. This is that buried humus line. The dates above this elevation, above this boundary, cluster closely (GaK–1872 and GaK–1873). It is clear that occupation ceased on the island for a time perhaps around A.D. 700 to 800 if not somewhat earlier; long enough for the humus to form. 23/AU1 is below that boundary, AU2 above.

60

Figure 5.7 Profile for unit 2C, Test Trench 2, Garden Island.

61

The reader will note that in the schematic drawing, the midden deposits are much more complex below the boundary than above. The picture presented of the lower two\thirds of the midden in the schematic for unit 2C is typical for all units at GbTo 23 -- very complex depositional patterns. Part of this complexity is due to the large number of burials in these deposits with the resulting mixing produced by the ancients digging and refilling the graves. However, the dipping structure in the 2C schematic is not unusual. The field notes frequently speak of the shell beds dipping towards the beach, but many of these dipping beds flatten out; some have sharp side boundaries at 45o from the vertical. The reader will have noticed the massive, thick series of superimposed hearths in the east wall. These features extend to the scarp; indicating significant portions of the midden have sloughed off. If I were looking at profiles from deep sites in the Fraser-Thompson Plateau, or the Columbia Plateau in the USA, I would be confident I was seeing a series of inter-bedded pithouses. While I am not asserting there were pithouses at Garden Island, I am convinced, based upon my experience in excavating houses both on the coast and in the interior that these features represent houses, or other standing structures with partially excavated floors, that were subsequently filled in and buried by later activities on the site. In any case, these lower deposits represent a very active depositional environment, combining midden accumulation, and the excavation of graves and these structures. Tidy 14C sequences cannot be expected, nor can clear correlations among units. It should be noted that AU2 does not lack for features. It too contains hearths and features such as postmolds. It lacks the complex bedding topography of AU1 Taking all of the dates from AU1 indicates an age span of ca. 2200 B.C. to A.D. 800. The two dates assignable to AU2 indicate occupation began again around A.D. 1000. The two basal dates suggest that while the island was in use after 2200 B.C. or so, the midden did not actually begin to accumulate to any significant degree until after 1400 B.C. The series of dated burials span a period from ca. 1300 B.C. to A.D. 130. Samples from two individuals who were part of a multiple burial feature very near the base of the midden produced acceptable age spans of 900 B.C. to 760 B.C. (GSC – 2888) and 1380 B.C. to 1030 B.C., with an averaged age span of 1130 B.C- 910 B.C. GbTo 30 Parizeau Point (Fig. 5.8). Parizeau Point is one of the four sites comprising the Dodge Cove site complex on Digby Island. The site is on the northwest side of Parizeau Point overlooking a shallow wet area that connects Parizeau Point with Elizabeth Point to the north. The doctors' residence for the quarantine hospital on Dodge Island was built on this site. (This house served as the main crew residence and lab facilities for the North Coast Prehistory Project in Prince Rupert Harbour.) The wharf for the hospital had also been constructed at Parizeau Point, and the access route from the wharf to the hospital crossed the site. A boardwalk had also been built from the residence across the site to a wharf on the west side of Elizabeth Point. The site is approximately 170 x 80 meters, with an average depth of 4 m, or a volume 54,400 meters. Archer estimated that in 1983 about 80% of it was intact. The site was excavated in 1968 and again in 1972. 62

1970±130

2490±70 2520±100 2620±70 2660±260 2800±50 3660±110 6230±750

GSC–744

S–1429 GaK–1250 GSC–2888 GSC–2886 S–1595 Gak–1875 S–15963

3

2680±70 2480±140 * * 2980±50 * 6420±80

*

NORMALIZED DATE * * * * 1940±70

TT5 TT2 2B 2B TT5 4A3 2B

TT2

2A 2A 2A TT2 4AA1

UNIT

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

2 2 1 1 1

AU

HB (178) Peat HB (197) HB (201) HB (158) Charcoal HB (197)

Charcoal

Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal HB (165)2

MATERIAL

820 B.C. 680 B.C. 800 B.C. 820 B.C. 1210B.C. 2030 B.C. 5370 B.C.

A.D. 40

A.D. 1160 A.D. 1040 A.D. 650 A.D. 400 A.D. 70

CALIBRATED DATE

This date is rejected as too old. See text.

63

1 σ AGE RANGE

900 B.C. – 800 800 B.C. - 400 820 B.C. - 780 1110 B.C. - 410 1290 B.C. – 1120 2200 B.C. – 1890 5480 B.C. – 5320

110 B.C. - A.D. 150

A.D. 1020 -1220 A.D. 1000-1190 A.D. 570-690 A.D. 260-290 10 B.C. – A.D. 130

HB indicates date is on human bone. Number in parenthesis is the burial feature number. Thus this is burial number 165

910±80 950±90 1400±100 1660±80 1750±70

Gak–1872 Gak–1873 Gak–1874 Gak–1251 S–1428

2

DATE

LAB #

Table 5.3 Radiocarbon dates from Garden Island (GbTo23).

240 B.C. - A.D. 350 970 B.C. – 780 900 B.C. – 350 900 B.C. - 760 1440 B.C. - 180 1380 B.C. –1030 2340 B.C. - 1740 5510 B.C. - 5270

A.D. 990 - 1270 A.D. 900-1270 A.D. 430-810 A.D. 220 - 570 80 B.C. – A.D. 230

2 σ AGE RANGE

I do not have a map of the Parizeau Point excavations. There are two dates from Parizeau Point, both on burials (Table 5.4). The earlier has an age range of 772 to 393 B.C. and the younger a range of A.D. 230 to A.D. 600. Figure 5.8 Example of deep midden stratigraphy, Area E, Boardwalk.

GbTo 31 Boardwalk (Fig. 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12, 5.13, 5.14, 5.15, 5.16, 5.17, 5.18, 5.19, 5.20, 5.21). Boardwalk is located on the west side of Elizabeth Point, and is part of the Dodge Cove site complex. The site is named for the boardwalk that linked the doctors' residence on Parizeau Point with the wharf on Dodge Cove. Aside from the construction of the boardwalk along the site's southern perimeter, and an old cabin in Area B, it appears to have been intact at the time of excavation. It was heavily forested in 1968. Archer estimates the size of the site to be 140 x 50 meters, with an average depth of 2 meters, or a total volume of 14,000 cubic meters. The site was the focus of the major excavations by the North Coast project. The site possessed two wide terraces – called “platforms” in the field – as well as lesser flat areas. These were thought to be house platforms, where a row of plank houses would stand. Behind each of these were accumulated deep shell–midden deposits, regarded as dumps behind the houses. These accumulations produced distinct ridges at the back of the platforms and particularly at the back of the site itself. These ridges are present in other Prince Rupert Harbour sites.

64

Table 5.4 Radiocarbon dates for Parizeau Point (GbTo30), Kitandach (GbTo34) and Baldwin (GbTo36). CALIBRAT ED DATE

I σ AGE RANGE

2 σ AGE RANGE

A.D. 410 442 B.C.

A.D. 340 – 530 549 B.C. - 402

A.D. 230 - 600 772 B.C. - 393

AD1360

A.D. 1280 1420 A.D. 60 – 230

A.D. 1220 -1450

NMC #

DATE

NORMALIZED DATE

UNIT

S–2549 S–2548

1460±75 2250±75

1640±75 2435±75

C1 A3

S-925

620±100

*

5

GbTo30 HB (300) HB (302) GbTo34 Charcoal

S-926

1885±70

*

5

Charcoal

A.D. 120

S-1408

4100±140

*

2

Charcoal

2620 B.C.

S-927

4460±120

*

6

Charcoal

3100 B.C.

S-924

4965±95

4960±100

4

3710 B.C.

S-991 S-1599

1525±55 1760±60

1520±60 1940±60

T5 T4

Charcoal GbTo36 Charcoal HB (506)

2880 B.C. – 2470 3360 B.C. 2920 3810 B.C. 3650

A.D. 550 A.D. 70

A.D. 450 – 620 A.D. 10 – 120

S-873

1830±105

1830±100

T5

Charcoal

A.D. 220

A.D. 70 - 330

S-1738

1860±60

2040±60

T10

HB (518)

40 B.C.

S-1283 S-1145 S-871 S-990 S-1598

2135±65 2485±60 2655±65 2740±110 2920±50

2320±60 * 2660±60 * 3100±50

T1 T7 T1 NA T4

HB (507) Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal HB (514)

390 B.C. 680 B.C. 820 B.C. 880 B.C. 1390 B.C.

S-1144

3135±55

*

T6

Humus

1410 B.C.

S-3361

3190±80

T5

HB (512)

1440 B.C.

S-872

3285±110

T7

Charcoal

1530 B.C.

110 B.C. – A.D. 30 410 B.C. – 370 780 B.C. – 420 840 B.C. -800 1000 B.C. - 800 1420 B.C. – 1310 1450 B.C. – 1380 1520 B.C. – 1400 1690 B.C. – 1430

3280±110

MATERIAL

30 B.C. - A.D. 260 2940 B.C. - 2280 3390 B.C. - 2880 3970 B.C. - 3620 A.D. 410 - 650 50 B.C. - A.D. 220 40 B.C. - A.D. 420 190 B.C. – A.D. 80 520 B.C. - 350 800 B.C. - 400 920 B.C. - 780 1190 B.C. - 770 1450 B.C. - 1260 1520 B.C. - 1280 1630 B.C. - 1290 1780 B.C - 1360

These surface characteristics were sampled in six major excavation areas. The back ridge excavations (Areas A and C) produced the majority of the burials. Excavation Areas A and B were thought to sample house platforms. The Area F excavations tested the deposits along the boardwalk. Area E (the sluice) focused on a seepage channel and produced organic debris. The site was excavated by large crews in 1968, 1969, and 1970. Approximately 1032 cubic meters were excavated (Cybulski independently estimated an excavated volume of 1041 cubic meters, which is gratifyingly close to my estimate [Cybulski 1992]). The excavated sample is 7% of the site's volume. The Boardwalk excavation localities will be discussed in order from the chronologically simplest to the most complex. 65

Area D (Fig. 5.10) Area D was excavated during the 1969 field season. I was the field director for this locality; hence it may seem simplest to me because I was there. The major excavation area was a large 135 m2 (1500 ft.2) block located on a large platform -- an area of the midden flattened by its residents to make room for a house row. The hope was that we would expose the remains of one or more dwellings. Test Pit 12 was the first excavated, and the other units represent an expansion of the original unit. The crew was transferred into Area D from Area B, and other localities, as pits were closed out elsewhere. I supervised both Areas D and B until Area B was closed. Altogether, 420 cu m were excavated in Area D. The overall volume excavated is less than would be expected given the large surface area excavated. Of the pits in the central block, only the row of pits along the front of the platform (TP12, C2-G2), and the E row (including TP 11) were excavated down to the underlying sterile clays, producing essentially a "T" shaped trench. The three pits designated BW I, II, and III were also carried down to sterile. The description of the AUs depends upon the deep trench composed of the E row pits and the 2 row pits. 31/D/AU1 Area D is the only part of the site where it was possible to reconstruct the landform as it was at the time of initial occupation. This was done by using the bottom elevations of the four corners of all units carried to the underlying sterile clay. Initial occupation was on a bench or terrace 1 to 2 meters above the fronting beach which was about 3.9 meters below the modern midden surface. At the rear of the excavation area, the bench’s surface was ca. 2 meters below the modern surface. The terrace also sloped downward from east to west. The shape of the reconstructed terrace suggests it was sloping down towards a stream. In any case, the original occupation of this portion of the site appears to have been on a bench above a beach, and perhaps near a stream.

66

Figure 5.9 Boardwalk (GbTo31), with excavation localities

AU1 is the shell midden deposits between the dense, sterile blue-gray clays underlying Area D and the usually clear boundary between AU1 and AU2. This boundary is most obvious along the west wall of the E pits (Fig.5.11). In that profile, a series of fine lenses of black midden are truncated by the lower AU2 boundary. It is impossible to tell how much of AU1 was lost prior to, or, as the result of, the formation of AU2. The lowermost AU1 deposits are a black, compact deposit with crushed blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) and clam shells. As one proceeds towards the rear of the block, the deposits contain more crushed shell. The lower levels of the AU are characterized by the presence of large, decayed rocks, which can be seen in the profiles and which are described in the notes. These stones appear to be in much higher frequencies in this AU than in either AU2 or AU3. In the notes they are described as hearths. Some of these stones rest on the basal clays. These hearths appear to be concentrated in Units BW2, E2, E4, F3, and TP12. The major hearth concentrations in this AU were located on higher ground 6 to 9 meters east of the lowest exposed portion of this bench and 2 to 3 meters above the modern beach, indicating use of the bench overlooking the beach. There are no postholes, postmolds, 67

340±60

750±130

760±130

940±140 1060±130 3625±105

S–1132

GSC–1673

GSC–1722

GSC–1677 GSC–1720 S–750

3620±100

NORMALIZED DATE

E2 E2 E2

E2

E3

E4

UNIT

AU3 AU3 AU2\1

AU3

AU3

AU3

AU

Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal

Charcoal

Charcoal

Charcoal

MATERIAL

A.D. 1040 A.D. 990 1960 B.C.

A.D. 1270

A.D. 1270

A.D. 1590

CALIBRATED DATE

DATE

125±70

1695±75 1870±70

3170±110

3425±205

3450±80

3460±80

4230±220

NMC #

S–471

S–754 S–753

S–748

S–751

S–473

S–472

S–752

3420±200

1700±80

NORMALIZED DATE

G6

I6

I6

I6

I6

I6 G6

G6

UNIT

AU1

AU1

AU1

AU1

AU1

AU3 AU3

AU4

AU

68

Charcoal

Charcoal

Charcoal

Charcoal

Charcoal

Charcoal Charcoal

Charcoal

MATERIAL

2880 B.C.

1750 B.C.

1750 B.C.

1720 B.C.

1430 B.C.

A.D. 370 A.D. 130

Recent

CALIBRATED DATE

Iσ RANGE A.D. 1460 – 1640 A.D. 1180 1310 A.D. 1170 – 1310 A.D. 980 - 1250 A.D. 870 - 1050 2130 B.C. – 1880

1530 B.C. 1360 1960 B.C. 1500 1880 B.C. – 1670 1880 B.C. 1670 3090 B.C. 2550

A.D. 1800 1950 A.D. 240 - 420 A.D. 70 - 230

I SIGMA AGE RANGE

Table 5.6 Radiocarbon dates from Area B (None of the dates from Area B changed with normalizing.

DATE

NMC #

Table 5.5 Radiocarbon dates from Area D (None of the dates from Area D changed with normalizing).

A.D. 1650 – 1960+ A.D. 130 - 540 10 B.C. - A.D. 330 1690 B.C. – 1140 2280 B.C. 1280 1950 B.C. – 1530 1950 B.C. – 1530 3380 B.C. 2210

2 SIGMA AGE RANGE

A.D. 1440 – 1660 A.D. 1020 – 1430 A.D. 1020 1420 A.D. 790 – 1300 A.D. 680 - 1250 2280 B.C. 1720

2σ RANGE

2735±65 2330 ±50 2345 ± 50 2565 ± 60 2575 ± 75 2610 ± 65 1270±190 2175±65 2230±60

2385±105 2190±130 2080 ± 65 2090 ± 60 2325 ± 90 2800 ± 70 3700 ± 65 1635±55 2860±120

S–983 S–1665 S–1664 S–1666 S–1432 S–1285 S–749 S–985 S-987

S–986 GSC–1683 S–1736 S–1734 S–1735 S–1284 S–1131 S–1430 S–1431

∆r is -390±25

1865 ± 50 1905±145

S–1667 S–1733

4

2050±50 2090±140

2310±60

S–984

2800±100 * 2260±60 2280±60 2510±90 2980±70 3700±60 1820±60 3040±120

3140±100 2520±50 2530±50 2750±60 2760±80 2800±60 * 2580±100 2640±90

NORMALIZED DATE 2720±90

DATE

N35/W10 N35/E45 N45/E25 N32/20 N35/E15 E60/S10 N36/E37.5

S10/E70 S0/E60 S20/E80 S0/E60 TP 2 S10/E60 N45/E25 N35/W10 B-Trench

S0/E60 S10/E70

S10/E70

UNIT

C C C C C C C E F

A A A A A A C C C

A A

A

AU

Shell Charcoal HB (365) HB (330) HB (360) HB (378) Charcoal HB (443) HB (450)

Shell HB (326) HB (397) HB (325) HB (410) HB (319) Charcoal Shell Shell

HB (322) HB (334)

Shell

MATERIAL

Table 5.7 Radiocarbon dates from Areas A\C, E and F.

LAB #

69

2400±110

2200±100 2250±90

2760±100

∆R4 ADJUSTED DATE 2330±90

70 B.C. 320 B.C. 370 B.C. 380 B.C. 770 B.C. 1210 B.C. 2090 B.C. A.D. 220 1300 B.C.

510 B.C. 770 B.C. 780 B.C. 900 B.C. 900 B.C. 930 B.C. A.D. 740 A.D. 140 A.D. 90

50 B.C. 100 B.C.

A.D. 10

CALIBRATED DATE

200 B.C.-A.D. 60 390 B.C. – 50 390 B.C. – 350 400 B.C. –360 800 B.C. – 420 1310 B.C. – 1100 2150 B.C. – 2010 A.D. 120 – 250 1420 B.C. – 1110

730 B.C. – 380 790 B.C. – 750 790 B.C. – 760 940 B.C. – 820 1000 B.C. – 820 1010 B.C. – 890 A.D. 620 – 980 A.D. 50 – 260 A.D. 1 – 210

100 B.C. – A.D. 110 110 B.C. – A.D. 10 240 B.C. – A.D. 60

Iσ RANGE 200 B.C. – A.D. 220 190 B.C. – A.D. 60 400 B.C. – A.D. 230 790 B.C. - 320 800 B.C. – 420 800 B.C. - 500 1020 B.C. – 800 1110 B.C. – 800 1100 B.C. – 820 A.D. 410 - 1170 70 B.C. – A.D. 400 110 B.C. – A.D. 320 360 B.C.-A.D. 170 520 B.C. - A.D. 70 410 B.C. - 180 410 B.C. – 190 820 B.C. – 390 1400 B.C. -1000 2280 B.C. - 1920 A.D. 70 – 370 1530 B.C. - 930

2σ RANGE

Figure 5.10 Excavation Area D, Boardwalk

burials or other features described for this AU, indicating that either the initial occupation of the site was rather light, or that the main occupation area was somewhere else The AU is not directly dated by any radiocarbon dates. However, a lower limiting date of 3625±105 B.P. (S–750) on AU2 provides an upper limiting date on AU1 of 2280 – 1720 B.C... Midden accumulation rates based on AU2 and 3 suggest an initial date of AU1 between ca. 4000 and 3000 B.C. This estimated age is compatible with basal radiocarbon dates elsewhere at Boardwalk and other sites in the harbour. This estimate, however, does not take into account the likelihood that some upper portions of AU1 were removed, or eroded, prior to, or, at the time of, initial formation of AU2. 31/D/AU2 This AU is clearly distinguished from the overlying AU3, in that AU3 has continuous, flat midden strata, while AU2 is characterized by very complex patterns of interbedded shell lenses, and lenses of complex shape similar to those in 23/AU/2. The shape of the lenses in the D Wall profile (Fig. 5.12) clearly indicates the AU built out towards the beach, rather than from

70

Figure 5.11 Line D west wall profile, Area D, Boardwalk

71

the beach towards the back. Some of the lenses in the 2 wall profile (e.g. C2-E2) are reminiscent of cut and fill relationships in alluvial sediments. Given that these are midden sediments, these shapes must in some fashion reflect the activities of the human occupants. My hypothetical reconstruction of AU2 is that it occurred in two stages. In the first, the midden was laid down over AU1, and partly or completely filling in the low area on the west side of the bench, creating a generally flat surface. That surface was then truncated by multiple activities which produced the cut and fill like configurations. These activities were concentrated on the eastern side of the bench. I think that these activities were related to house construction. The AU is comprised primarily of shell–rich midden lenses, of a variety of shell textures (ranging from whole to finely crushed). The AU is also rich in features. Features include hearths, postholes, ash, and burials. Burials were recovered in BW2, D2, E2, E3, E4, and G2. AU2 indicates much more intense occupation than does AU1 or AU3. It may be a residential occupation. No firm evidence of houses was exposed, although the hearths and postholes may point towards the presence of structures. While the depositional environment appears to have been quite dynamic, hence indicating intense human activity, that is not direct evidence of the presence of houses. Ham (Ham et al. 1987) has suggested that broad, flat midden lenses are associated with houses, and my own recent excavations at a large Protohistoric village on the Columbia River (Ames, et al 1999) also shows that deposits in front of structures tend to be flat. They also show that rebuilding of structures, particularly if they are at all semi-subterranean can produce extremely complex depositional patterns. 31/D/AU3 AU3 overlies AU2. Midden strata lack the complex shapes and relationships present in AU2. The general configuration of the unit strata (flat) suggest that the original topography was finally filled in during AU2 times and the midden in the Area had taken on its final form. In that case AU3 built up and mantled that shape, but did not change it. However, the midden does contain the great bulk of reported features for the Area. Superimposed hearths occur in E3, E4, and F3. Major concentrations of reported postholes occur in E2 and E4 with lesser numbers in F3. It is likely that these features represent structures. Burials occur in D4, E4, F4, and G2. It is worth noting that the burials occur at the peripheries of the hearth/posthole concentration. Post molds, pits and other features appear in the profiles.

72

Figure 5.12 North wall profile, Area D, Boardwalk.

73

Area D chronology (Table 5.5). Area D has six charcoal dates in good stratigraphic order bracketing AU2. The dates are from the E section of excavation units and date the longest profile through the area. Date S–750 (2280 – 1720 B.C.) was recovered from unit E2 and provides a lower limiting date on AU2 and the upper limiting dates on AU1. Dates GSC–1720 (A.D. 680 - 1250) and GSC–1677 (A.D. 790- 1300) date the upper levels of AU2 in unit E2. The averaged age span of these two dates is A.D. 858- 1224. AU2 then spans an enormous period of time, from as early as ca. 3500 B.C. to ca. 1000 A.D. AU3 is dated by three dates: date S–1132 (A.D. 1440 - 1660) was collected in unit E4 38.1 cm below the modern surface. Sample GSC–1673 (A.D. 1020 - 1430) was recovered from a hearth 78 cm below the surface in E3, and GSC–1722 (A.D. 1020 - 1420) was recovered 1.2 m below the surface in E2. These latter two dates are identical. Their averaged age span is A.D. 1151- 1334. Samples S–589 and S–1132 permit extrapolation of an overall midden–accumulation rate for AU2 and AU3 of .006 m3/year. The cluster of four dates at ca. 1.3 m below datum permits refining of the rate somewhat. The rate for the build up of midden between dates S–589 and GSC–1720 is .003 cu m/year (for AU2). The rate between GSC–1720 and GSC–1673 is .031 cu m/yr. A rate between GSC–1720 and S–1132 is .02 cu m/year (for AU3). From this it would appear that midden accumulation was most rapid during AU3 times. However, that impression must be tempered somewhat by the clear evidence for greater site formation activity in AU2, and the possibility of the removal or loss of portions of AU1 and AU2. Using the maximum and minimum rates of midden accumulation to estimate the age of the bottom of E2, and for AU1, produces estimates of 210 to 1400 years for the shell in AU1 to accumulate. The overall midden accumulation rate produces an estimate of 700 years, or ca. 2700 B.C. Midden accumulation in Area D appears to have been much more rapid during the last millennium than during the previous three millennia the Area was occupied. It is possible that occupation activities removed significant amounts of Area D after 2000 B.C... That will be discussed below. Area B (Fig. 5.13) Area B was excavated during June and early July of 1969, except Unit K6, for which there appear to be no records, and so is not considered further here. I was field director for these excavations except K6. The surface of Area B slopes down towards the beach, though there was a small, relatively flat area where the bulk of the excavations were located. However, even there, the surface slope was present. As the units were excavated, the dip of the midden deposits was increasingly pronounced. Some of the units were abandoned when in the deeper ones; we encountered wet shell midden, and a very moist, gooey, black, high-organic-content matrix which was unworkable with our equipment. The units were left open for a time in the hopes that the black organic deposit would dry, but a period of wet weather filled the pits with rain water and seepage, which did not drain, forcing their abandonment. Beyond the level notes, no profiles were (could be) drawn. 74

Attempts were made to excavate some units, such as 1I, stratigraphically. In 1I, the shell lenses dipped down towards the beach and to the north. This procedure became extremely difficult because of the complex lensing and the increasingly sharp downward and beachward dip of the major shell strata. In 1I, this dip became marked at 1 m. below pit datum, and increasingly stronger at lower elevations. The beds in G10 also had a beachward dip, though not as strong as 1I. I6 terminated on sterile beach sands; the notes do not indicate whether there was a slope or not. Despite the difficulties, I6, H8, G6, G10, and I1 were carried to the sterile substrate. In some cases, only half or a quadrant of the unit was carried all the way down. I6 was about 4 meters deep, while H8 was at least 3.35 meters deep, I1 about 3.4, and G10 3.8 meters deep. G6, in contrast, was only about 2.3 meters deep. The Area B deposits are separated into four AUs on the basis of the radiocarbon dates from I6 and G6, and the matrix descriptions in the field notes. 31/B/AU1 This AU includes the lowest portions of I6, G10, H8, I1, and G6. It is dated by five samples (Table 5.6), S-748, S-751, S-473, S-472, S-752, and is marked by the very steeply dipping beds. The matrix is a black (sometimes compact) material with crushed shell varying from light to moderate amounts. The matrix got wetter/muddier/stickier with depth. The units contained decomposed rock, an occasional hearth, and one burial. The unit dates from 3000 B.C. to 1500 B.C... The strongly dipping beds suggest a very different initial occupation than in Area D. In Area D, the original surface was flat, while here it was a strong slope. It seems reasonable to infer that deposition in Area B began as down-slope dumping from a “residential” area north of our excavations, while the Area D occupation seems to have been more residential in nature, although the Area B deposits also contain hearths. Residential in this context may refer to even quite ephemeral camps. 31/B/AU2 The AU deposits probably span the period from ca. 1500 B.C. and ca. A.D. 1. The AU contained a hearth, a few small postholes, some fire cracked rock (fcr), and a single burial. The matrix is described as a dark compact soil with some shell. In the upper levels the deposits sometimes contains flat gravel lenses. 31/B/AU3 AU3 includes the upper levels of all the units below the elevations where historic goods were recovered. It probably spans the period between ca. A.D. 1 and A.D. 500. It has two dates

75

Figure 5.13 Excavation Area B, Boardwalk.

in its lower half whose averaged two sigma age span is A.D. 126- 383. The unit contains four burials, none of which is dated, but midden burial generally ends in the Harbour by A.D. 500. The unit contains few hearths and postholes. It is a dark midden, with crushed and burned shell, decomposed rocks, charcoal, ash, and flat gravel lenses. These are probably superimposed house floors, and are so treated here. This interpretation is supported by the AU’s extraordinary artifact assemblage, an assemblage with few (if any) reported parallels on the northern Northwest Coast. 31/B/AU4 The AU is the upper .61 m of deposit, and contains historic goods. It also contains a plurality of the hearths and postholes recovered. One set of notes refers to a "drying frame,” though the map is not clear. Burials 522, 523, 520, and 521 are assigned to the AU. None are dated by radiocarbon dates. The locality is reported to have had a cabin on it, and the deposits were clearly very mixed. There is a single radiocarbon date (S–471).

76

Area B Chronology Eight radiocarbon dates were collected from units G6 and I6. These dates, along with those from Area D, are quite crucial to understanding of the depositional dynamics at Boardwalk. There is a single date for AU4 (S–471), which is recent, and therefore cannot be used. However, it actually fits well with the historic material and the reported presence of a cabin. The AU does, however, contain undated burials. The most recent dated midden burials elsewhere in the Harbour date as late as A.D. 600 - 800, but most are several hundred years older. Given the ages of these late burials, and the dates from AU2, A.D. 500 is used here as a lower limiting age for AU4. AU3 is dated by single samples from I6 and G6. The sample from I6 (S–754) was collected near the bottom of that unit’s AU3 deposits, and dates to A.D. 130 - 540. The G6 sample (S–753) was recovered near the middle of its AU3 sediments, and dates to ca. 10 B.C. to A.D. 330. The dates were averaged, producing an averaged date of 1788±51, or A.D. 126- 383, which is taken here to date the early to middle portion of AU3. The G6 simple was 25 cm higher in elevation than the I6 sample. I cannot explain the reversal, but since the dates overlap completely, the question seems moot. There are no dated samples which can be assigned to AU2. Based on the dates from AU3, and AU1 it is given an initial date of 1500 B.C. and a terminal date of ca. A.D. 1. There are five dates for AU1, one from G6 and four from 16. Turning to G6 first, sample S–752 was collected from near the bottom of the unit when the basal deposits were completely exposed. The charcoal appears to have been collected on or just above those sediments. The 2σ date range of 3380 – 2210 B.C. is consistent with other early dates from Boardwalk and elsewhere in the Harbour, and it is therefore taken here to date the beginning of midden deposition in this spot. Taken together, the four lower dates from I6 are difficult to evaluate. They cluster very closely in time. Three (S-473, S–472, and S–571) are virtually identical, and overlap partially to completely with the fourth, S–748. However, the four were recovered from depths ranging from 2.4 m to 3.6 meters below the surface. The upper three dates (S–473, S–748, and S–751) seem to have been associated with a complex of pits originating about 2.3 m below the surface and extending to perhaps 3.2 meters below surface. Turning to the lowermost of these dates (S–472), its associations are unclear. It was collected from the north wall of the unit from a cluster of rocks thought to be a hearth 3.4 meters below the surface, and about 60 cm. above the unit’s final depth. Though it is not clear from the level notes, the sample’s age suggests it too was associated with the storage pit. Averaging these four dates together produces a date of 3396±49, or 1777- 1598 B.C., which, despite the problems with S–472, is taken here to date the upper portions of AU1 since that is where the storage pit complex originated. Again, the base of AU1 is dated to ca. 3000 - 2800 B.C... The overall rate of midden accumulation for unit G6 was .004 m3/year. Splitting the unit at date S–753 (in the middle of AU3), produces a early rate of .003 m3/ year and a later rate of .007 m3/year -- again suggesting more rapid midden build-up in the upper portions of the deposit, as in Locality D. 77

The overall rate for I6 is less easily calculated, but a rate of .004 m3/year using the averaged calibrated age span of the four early dates and their mean depth was developed. Pit G6 was terminated just below the level in which date S–752 was recovered. Pit I6 extended down to almost 160" (4 m) below the surface. Applying the midden accumulation rate of 004 m3/year to the AU1 deposits in that unit produces a beginning age of approximately 6723 B.C... This may seem absurdly early, but I will present arguments in the conclusions of this chapter to suggest that an early date is not completely impossible. However, the basal date of ca. 2800 B.C. from G6 is the more plausible basal date for this unit. Areas A and C (Fig.5.14) Areas A and C are the large excavation locality on Boardwalk's "back ridge,” the high linear ridge of shell midden at the rear of the site so characteristic of many of Prince Rupert Harbour’s residential sites. The locality includes two large excavation blocks, associated units along the ridge, and a trench through a depression just south and below the ridge. The depression is split by a lobe of midden extending into it from the ridge (Fig. 5.15), and marked the location of two houses -- with the midden lob having accumulated between the standing wooden walls of the structures (Fig 5.16). Areas A and C are subdivided into three horizontal AUs, but not vertically. There are three profiles for the back ridge (Figs. 5.17 - 5.19). The top 45 cm to 1 m is composed of a thick layer of humus capping material called "black midden.” Below those was a deposit of whole and/or broken clam shell, which was sometimes mixed with midden, that is to say, fine, dark, highly organic, particulate matter. The profiles show episodes of complex lensing and filling which cannot be extrapolated across the excavations. These profiles, taken with the high numbers of burials along the ridge, provide no solid basis to divide these deposits stratigraphically. The locality is dated by 19 dates, the most radiocarbon dates of any Boardwalk locality, and indeed of any excavation locality in Prince Rupert Harbor (as of 1996). Of these dates, three are on charcoal, 11 are on human bone, and five are on shell. Since the AUs are distributed horizontally and not subdivided stratigraphically, the chronology of each is discussed separately. 31/AC/AU1 (area A) AU1 includes the block of excavation units along the South 20 line and the associated units extending out to South 0 (Fig. 5.15). The locality is dated by two shell dates and seven radiocarbon dates on human bone (Table 5.7). The dated burials fall into two temporal groups. An early group of five have calibrated age ranges spanning the period from 1001 B.C. – 320 B.C... Averaging the five dates produces a two sigma age span of 829- 792 B.C... The two sigma age ranges of the second group (of two) spans the period from 400 B.C. to A.D. 60. The two dates averaged together have a span of 177 B.C. - A.D. 32. These dates clearly indicate two discrete burial episodes. The late dates are on shallow burials; both were less than -0.5 m from the surface, and were encountered in the humus/black midden (Cybulski [personal communication] believes them to be intrusive). These two burials provide an upper limiting date on the surface of the shell in the AU itself of 177 B.C. – A.D. 32. 78

Figure 5.14 Area A excavation units, Boardwalk.

Figure 5.15 Area C excavation units, Boardwalk.

79

The two shell dates are close in age to each of the two burial clusters. Date S–983 has a 2 σ calibrated age span of 790 B.C - 320 B.C., which overlaps, wholly or in part, the two sigma spans of the five oldest dated burials. Date S–984 has a 2σ age span of 200 B.C. – A.D. 220 with an intercept of A. D. 10, and is essentially the same age as the averaged span of the two younger burials. This sample was quite shallow; it was collected only .31 m below the unit's surface while S-983 came from .9 m below the surface. The humus-black midden (see below) in this area is some .3 m thick, just above S–984. Thus it is an upper limiting date on the shell midden in this area of about A.D. 1. The two dates permit calculation of a midden accumulation rate, as they are both from the same pit, E70/S10. The rate is .009 cu m/year. E70/S10 was carried to sterile; it is one of the few units in this area that terminated on sterile deposits. Applying that accumulation rate to the deposits below charcoal date S-749 in unit N45/E25 produces an estimated span of 917 years, or an initial data of approximately 1700 B.C. This estimated date is not far off date S– 1131 from unit E45/N35 in Area C which has an age of 2090 B.C. (2280 B.C. - 120 B.C.). The date was recovered from level 8 in that unit, where the excavators encountered a clay–like stratum which may have been the original surface and so it can be regarded as a lower limiting date. There was no shell, and the deposits were water–logged. The surface of Areas A and C had a layer of humus -- probably forest litter -- capping "black midden.” Both the litter and humus contained fragments of trees. It is possible, even likely, that the humus and black midden are a developed soil, rather than depositional strata. Podzolic soils would be the expected soil type here – though it is difficult to predict the distribution of a particular soil type in a particular locality, especially on a shell midden. Humic podzols “have thick...surface horizons (L, F, H)5 that are underlain by light colored eluviated horizons (Ae) or by eluviated horizons that are stained with infiltrated humic materials or by Bh horizons... The L-H horizons are generally thick or peaty (CDA 1974).” Some field notes observe a thin "grey-black leached organic soil between the sod and shell" which may be the Ae horizon. The Bh would then be in the upper levels of the shell midden. The black midden might then be the H horizon. While I cannot demonstrate absolutely that the black midden is actually an H horizon, it is a strong possibility. Shell date S–984 suggests that shell deposition may have ceased by ca 150 B.C., providing a long time for the formation of a soil. The dates on the two late burials also support that conclusion. The formation of a soil also carries the implication that the back ridge was not actively used after that date, otherwise the organic debris could not have accumulated undisturbed on the midden surface long enough for a soil to form. Cybulski regards the late burials as intrusive, placed in the area after it was abandoned. These considerations support his

5

These are organic layers on a mineral soil’s surface that develop under well to imperfectly drained conditions. In L horizons, the original structure of the organic matter is recognizable; in F they are difficult to discern, while in the H horizon, the organic matter is decomposed. From the notes, the upper layer in Area AC sounds like an L horizon.

80

conclusions, since the shell dates are slightly older than the burials, which were interred in the “black midden.” 31/AC/AU2 (Area C) This locality includes the excavation block and outlying units along the N35 line. It is linked to AU1 by the grid extension between N32\W20 in AU2 and S20\E100 in AU1. It is essentially a continuation of AU1 along the back ridge, and like AU1, was basically a cemetery. There are ten radiocarbon dates from this locality (Table 5.7). Of these, three are on charcoal; four on human bone and three are on shell. These dates are all in good stratigraphic order, but are spread out across the excavation area, therefore, their orderliness may be more apparent than real. Date S–1131 is the oldest charcoal date, with a calibrated age span of 2280 B.C. – 1920 B.C. and is a basal date for unit E45/N35, as well as for Area C and Area A. Sample S–749 was recovered at 26 cm below the surface, and provides an upper limiting date of A.D. 410 - 1170. This date was associated with “light brown leached material,” which may be the Ae horizon, and date the soil. Sample GSC–1683 was associated with a hearth-like feature and may date the surface of the midden. Its two σ age range completely overlaps that of shell date S–984 in Area A. These dates together indicate that shell accumulation ended on this shell ridge by c 200 B.C – A.D. 1, if not before. The seven dated burials fall into the two clusters of dated burials in AU1. Dates S-1284 (1400 B.C. – 1000 B.C.]) and S-1735 (820 B.C. - 390 B.C.) span the age range of the older burial cluster in AU1: 1393 B.C. –481 B.C., while the two younger dates, S–1736 and S–1734, are virtually contemporaneous. Together they span the period from 410 B.C. – 180 B.C. The age range for the younger AU1 burial cluster is 240 B.C. – A.D. 220. Date S–1736 was on bone from burial 365 in unit N45/E25 about 0.2 m below datum (and surface). Date S–749 is on charcoal at or about the same elevation below the surface in the same pit. This latter date was collected originally to date the burials near the surface of Area A\C in 1969. The origin of the charcoal is unknown. It could date charred material that was part of the O horizon or at the top of the black midden, or it could be intrusive, given its shallow depth. The burial dates from both AUs clearly indicate that very shallow interments were made on the ridge between ca. 410 B.C. and A.D. 220. If date S–749 dates the O horizon, that date would be compatible with soil formation on the surface of the shell midden after ca 200 B.C., as suggested above. It would also suggest that much of the black midden and the overlying humus accumulated between 150 B.C. and ca. A.D. 700. It follows from this discussion that burial 365 was placed in or near the surface of the midden not long before its abandonment as a dump, and the two late burials in AU1 date after the abandonment, Burial 330 with its contemporary date (S–1734, 410 B.C. – 190 B.C.) is also part of that last use of the back ridge as a cemetery. 31/AC/AU3 This locality includes the two house depressions south of the back ridge. These were excavated in an "L" shape trench (Fig. 5.19). The North-South aspect of the trench is A trench (Fig. 5.20); the East-West trench is B trench (Fig.5.21). Of the paired depressions, that to the west is house A, the easterly depression house B. There is also a third unexplored depression to 81

the east, which could also be a structure. This material will be described separately under "houses”. At this point, I will discuss its chronology. These deposits are also mantled by the thick humus and black midden formation I have suggested represent a post-150 B.C. soil. Additionally, the midden deposits rest on another, lower "black midden.” This lower black midden is continuous under the house depression and extends under the adjacent back ridge midden. The surface of this lower "black midden" is flat and therefore either represents the surface upon which the deposits associated with the houses developed, or some post-depositional modification of the basal deposits. This lower black midden cannot be associated with the houses, since it extends well beyond the house depressions. It is possible that it represents basal shell midden that has decayed into a black muck by periodic inundation of water (e.g. Stein 1992). The flatness of its upper boundary supports this. The B trench profile clearly shows the cross section of the midden lobe between houses A and B and the suggestion of a second lobe between house B and the depression to the east. There is a single shell date (S–-987), from shell collected 0.15 m below the surface in B trench. The only two places where shell is that shallow are the upper boundaries of the lobes. It was collected from the top of the cultural deposit with the expectation it would date the last occupation of the house. The sample has a calibrated 2σ age range of 110 B.C. - A.D. 320, which is quite close to the other terminal dates for shell deposition is this area. There can be no doubt that abandonment of the structures and of the back ridge were contemporary events and occurred around 150 B.C. to ca. A.D. 200. That does not tell us when the structures were originally built, however. They must clearly be contemporary, however, with the burials behind them. That would suggest that houses could have existed on the platform in front of the back ridge as early as ca 1250 B.C. The A trench profiles (Fig's. 6.21, 6.22) suggest perhaps two episodes of house construction. The lower midden levels are composed of dark brown midden with crushed clam shell with lenses of black midden, suggesting occasional stable surfaces. These deposits are clearly truncated in the profiles, indicating the houses were originally excavated into this portion of the midden. The east wall profile appears to show further episodes of midden accumulation and truncation between the structures. The B trench north wall profile suggests possibly four episodes of lobe accumulation (Fig. 5.21). The south wall profile shows depositional episodes related to the houses particularly clearly. It also makes it quite evident that a house to the east of house B was buried beneath midden accumulation. These structures then were rebuilt several times, and some of the rebuilding episodes probably correspond to the two temporal clusters of burials. Midden accumulation also appears to have buried the depression of a third structure.

82

]

Figure 5.16 Profile, Area A, S20 line, Boardwalk

83

Figure 5.17 Profile, Area C, N - 35 Line, W20 to E5

84

85

Figure 5.18 Profile, Area C, N35 line, E5-E45, Boardwalk

Date S–1131 dates the basal levels of E45/N35, and the black clay like water–logged midden, which is probably the same black midden that is below the house depressions. In any case, it dates the beginnings of midden accumulation on this portion of the back ridge to ca 2000 B.C. Midden appears to have accumulated to a depth of approximately 1.2 meters before the initial house construction. Assuming these deposits accumulated at the same rate as those in E35/N45 (.0009 m. year), then they represent 1300 years of midden accumulation. Given that rate, initial construction of the houses was ca. 700 B.C. This estimate is surprisingly consistent with the age of the earlier clusters of dated burials. It is also consistent with shell dates from GbTo 77, a site with a single house row. Archer (2001) collected two shell samples from its surface that produced dates of 3210±100 (WSU 4391) and 2925±100 (WSU 4392), which calibrate to 2σ sigma age spans (using the ∆r value of -390±25) of 820 – 360 BC (intercept 650 BC) and 480 B.C. – 1 A.D. (intercept 250 B.C.). These are statistically different dates and so were not averaged. However, they clearly indicate the presence of villages with small houses in the harbour by c. 600 B.C. Figure 5.19 Excavations through house depressions A and B, Boardwalk

86

Figure 5.20 Profile A trench, west wall, Area A&C, Boardwalk

87

Figure 5.21 Profile B trench, north wall, Area A&C, Boardwalk

88

The Sluice (Area E) 31/S/AU Locating wet, or water-logged sites, was an ongoing interest of the NCPP. When a waterlogged portion of Boardwalk was discovered, efforts were made in 1969 and 1970 to excavate it using hydraulic excavation techniques. The excavations were not productive in terms of perishable artifacts. Only four were recovered: a wedge, a carving of a seal (?), a digging stick and a shaft (Inglis 1974). However, an extremely interesting assemblage of other artifacts was recovered, including a large number of ground slate blades/points and labrets. A burial, 443, encountered in the sluice area was dated to 1635±55 (S–1430), with a calibrated 2σ age range of A.D.70 - 370 Area E (31/AU/E) This area includes several excavation units scattered along the flank of the midden, paralleling the boardwalk. A burial (450) from test pit 18 was dated to 2860±120 (S–1431) with a calibrated range of 1530 B.C. – 930 B.C., making it the earliest dated burial at Boardwalk. There are no profiles for these units, nor any radiocarbon dates. The artifacts are included in the total tallies, but the area is not otherwise discussed. GbTo 33/GbTo 10 Lachane/Co-op (Fig. 5.22, 5.23, 5.24). These two sites are thought to represent a single large site. They were located on the west side of Kaien Island just inside the southern extent of Prince Rupert's city limits. The immediate area of the sites has been so extensively modified that it is impossible to reconstruct the local environment at the time the site(s) was occupied. They were directly across the harbour from Dodge Cove. GbTo 10 was tested in 1954 (see chapter 3), and GbTo 33 was excavated in 1970, 1973 and then again in 1987 (Simonsen 1988). The sites were large shell middens (they are now both destroyed by construction activities) with house platforms and extensive dumps. Lachane contained an important water-logged deposit (Inglis 1974) in addition to its extensive midden. Lachane was perhaps 120 meters x 30 m in area with a maximum depth of 4 meters (excavations ceased at water-logged deposits at the bottom of the midden). Total volume of the site may have been approximately 14,400 cubic meters. The site was excavated as a "salvage project" in 1970 and 1973. It had been extensively disturbed prior to excavation. I estimate volume excavated to have been approximately 1000 cubic meters (Cybulski [1993] estimates 976). The documentation available to me precluded subdividing Lachane into AUs on a finer scale than excavation area. 33/B/AU Excavation area B was the largest excavation area at Lachane (Fig. 5.22). Schematics are available for the north, east (Fig. 5.23) and south walls (Fig.5.24). The profiles indicate a very dynamic depositional environment for the Area B midden deposits. The extensive burnt shell beds, accumulations of stones, sand lenses, postholes, pits, and truncated lenses indicate 89

Figure 5.22 Lachane (GbTo33)

these deposits were associated with houses. The excavators believed they were excavating a house platform based on the quite flat topography of the area and these deposits. Area B is dated by 15 radiocarbon dates (Table 5.8), of which nine are either on human bone or are associated directly with burials. The remaining six dates fall into three clusters. One cluster includes only the oldest date (S–841), with a calibrated age range of 2340 - 1760 B.C. It is a lower limiting date on the house platform. The second cluster includes three dates (S–1407, S–840, and S-1727) with age spans of 430 - 340 B.C., 220 B.C. - A.D. 30, and A.D. 10 - 410 respectively. The final cluster of three dates has overlapping age spans from A.D. 1040-1450. Regrettably, these dates are not in good stratigraphic order. Dates S–841, S–840, and S–1407 were collected as lower limiting dates on the area B deposits. They span almost 2000 years. S–839, the youngest date of all of the Area B dates, is stratigraphically almost at the same elevation as S–841, the oldest date. The burial dates, with one exception, form a rather regular series spanning the 1000 year period from 770 B.C. to A.D. 130. Further subdivision of Area B into AUs seems completely unwarranted on the basis of this evidence. All that can be concluded is that deposition began perhaps as early as 2400 B.C., and continued until perhaps A.D. 1400. During that lengthy period, Area B was used as a 90

cemetery from ca. 400 B.C. (if not earlier) until A.D. 400. During the latter part of its history, the area also had houses. 33\D\AU In contrast to 33\B\AU, this area has four radiocarbon dates in excellent stratigraphic order. Unfortunately, I have seen no profiles for this area, and so it is not subdivided further into AUs. The four dates form a series of age ranges spanning the period from 3460 B.C. to A.D.40, from 4.4 m to 1.3 m in depth. I do not have information on the exact size of the Area D excavation units, so cannot calculate a volume rate. However, that represents approximately .1 linear cm/year. At that rate, the top of the midden is this area would date to approximately 600 years ago, or the same period as the youngest dates in Area B. However, the bulk of the Area D deposits clearly predate the beginning the current era. 33\E\AU This unit has seven radiocarbon dates, of which three are on burials. The date set contains significant stratigraphic reversals. S–1148 is the lowest stratigraphically, and has an age range of 3370 -2900 B.C., a gratifying overlap with S–843 in Area D. S–842 is the highest non-burial date, and has an age span of 390 – 10 B.C. The three burial dates (S–1729, S–1739, and S–1741) have age spans of 410 - 350 B.C., 910 – 520 B.C. and 1720 – 1410 B.C. respectively. The first two were recovered at basically the same elevation as S–842. Therefore, all that can be said is that the upper half of the Area E deposits post-date 1000 B.C. A linear accumulation rate using only S-1148 provides an age of the surface of the area at 850 years ago, again close to the radiometric age on the upper areas of Area B and the estimate for Area D. Area E was particularly rich in burials (Cybulski 1992), and the excavators felt they were working in a back ridge, similar to Area A/C at Boardwalk. Wet Site (Area C) A major wet-site component was excavated at Lachane in 1973 (Inglis 1974, Croes 1989) as part of the first series of salvage excavations at the site. The upper portion of the deposit was extensively disturbed. Its middle sections were extremely rich in perishable artifacts and plant macrofossils. The basal deposits were primarily plant macrofossils, including adzed logs, which Inglis (1976) felt was slash from the first clearing of that portion of the site. Over 400 perishable artifacts were recovered, covering a wide range of artifact types. These are discussed in this report as relevant, but are planned be reported separately. Four carbon samples were dated (Table 5.8), with a cumulative age range of 810 B.C. - A.D. 440.

91

Table 5.8 Radiocarbon dates for Lachane (GbTo33). NMC #

DATE

BETA 24734 BETA 24733 S-989 S-808 S-806 S-807 S-1146 S-805 S-1433 S-1147 S-843 S-1729 S-842 S-1739 S-1726 S-1741 S-988 S-1148 S-1725 S-1663 S-1731 S-839 S-1406 S-870 S-1727 S-1732 S-1740 S-840 S-1728

2010±70

NOMALIZED DATE *

2070±80

*

3755±120 1630±100 1750±80 1865±85 2090±65 2470±90 3030±80 3565±75 4630±105 2105±50 2170±75 2425±85 2530±45 3100±70 3700±150 4455±80 1310±45 1750±40 1750±45 560±70 715±60 825±65 1815±90 1895±60 2015±95 2095±60 2135±45

3760±120 * * 1860±80 2090±60 * 3220±80 3560±80 4630±100 2300±50 2170±80 2610±80

S-1730 S-1282 S-1407 S-841

2140±50 2210±65 2310±65 3685±105

3280±70 * 4460±80 1310±40 1940±40 1940±45 * 820±60 1820±90 2080±60 2200±100 2100±60 2320±40 2320±50 2400±60 3680±100

UNIT

G1 Area 7 Area 3 D1 Area 3 D2 D1 D1 E1 H1 E2 H3 H2 E1 H1 T III T III T III T III T0 T1 TV TV T III T II Front Face T III T IV T0 T II

AU

MATERIAL

CALIBRATED DATE

I σ RANGE

2 σ RANGE

G

Charcoal

10 B.C.

80 B.C. - A.D. 70

G

Charcoal

60 B.C.

G C C C D C D D D E E E E E E E B B B B B B B B B B B

Charcoal Wood Peat Wood Charcoal Wood HB (496) Charcoal Charcoal HB (455) Charcoal HB (477) Charcoal HB (489) Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal HB (481) HB (468) Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal HB (501) HB (484) Charcoal HB(453)

2170 B.C. A.D. 420 A.D. 260 A.D. 130 100 B.C. 700 B.C. 1500 B.C. 1900 B.C. 3370 B.C. 390 B.C. 200 B.C. 800 B.C. 780 B.C. 1530 B.C. 2090 B.C. 3100 B.C. A.D. 650 A.D. 70 A.D. 70 A.D. 1400 A.D. 1280 A.D. 1230 A.D. 220 80 B.C. 310 B.C. 110 B.C. 390 B.C.

190 B.C. - A.D. 20 2340 B.C. - 2010 A.D. 330 – 540 A.D. 220 – 400 A.D. 70 – 240 190 B.C. – 40 790 B.C. – 410 1540 B.C. – 1410 2010 B.C. – 1760 3520 B.C. - 3340 400 B.C. – 370 370 B.C. – 100 820 B.C. – 780 790 B.C. – 760 1630 B.C. – 1490 2300 B.C. – 1890 3340 B.C. – 3000 A.D. 670 – 720 AD 30 – 100 A.D. 30 – 100 A.D. 1305 -1355 A.D. 1260 -1300 A.D. 1180 - 1270 A.D. 90 – 330 180 B.C. – 30 390 B.C. – 110 B.C. 190 – 40 400 B.C. – 380

190 B.C. - A.D. 130 240 B.C. - A.D. 90 2490 B.C. – 1880 A.D. 220 - 640 A.D. 90 – 440 30 B.C. - A.D. 370 220 B.C. - A.D. 40 810 B.C. – 380 1680 B.C. - 1360 2130 B.C. - 1690 3460 B.C. - 3040 410 B.C. -350 390 B.C. – 10 910 B.C. - 520 800 B.C. - 520 1720 B.C. - 1410 2490 B.C. - 1690 3370 B.C. - 2900 A.D. 650 - 780 30 B.C. – A.D. 130 30 B.C. – A.D. 130 A.D.1290 - 1450 A.D. 1210 - 1320 A.D. 1040 -1290 A.D. 10 - 410 210 B.C. -A.D. 50 410 B.C. – A.D. 10 B.C. 220 – A.D. 30 410 B.C. - 360

B B B B

HB (460) HB (492) Charcoal Charcoal

390 B.C. 410 B.C. 390 B.C. 2040 B.C.

400 B.C. – 380 530 B.C. – 400 400 B.C. - 370 2200 B.C. - 1920

420 B.C. - 360 770 B.C. - 380 430 B.C. - 340 2340 B.C. - 1760

92

.

93

Figure 5.23 Profile, excavation area B, north and west walls, Lachane

Figure 5.24 Profile excavation area B, south wall, Lachane.

94

GbTo 34 Kitandach (Fig. 5.25) GbTo 34 is located in Venn Passage on a point which, although it originates from the north side of the Passage, faces west to Ritchie Island and beyond to the Passage's entrance. To the north it is flanked by extensive inter-tidal flats. GcTo 1 (K'nu) is also to the north, across a narrow bay. These two sites are the only two sites in this sample located in Venn passage. The site may have as many as 12 house depressions on its surface. Two of these depressions were excavated in 1971 by Richard Inglis. There are large canoe skids in the intertidal zone west of the site. The map clearly shows the typical configuration of a Prince Rupert residential midden, with the broad flat front area, backing up to a ridge created by dumping shell. Archer estimates the site to be about 90% intact. The site is 240 x 160 meters with an average depth of 4 meters, and a total volume of 153,600 cubic meters which makes this one of the largest sites in this sample. The excavated sample is approximately 1,655 cubic meters or 1% of the total volume. There are five charcoal dates from Kitandach. Three are quite early and represent basal dates. S–924 has an age span of 3970 B.C. - 3620 B.C., making it one of the earliest sites in the harbor. S–927 and S–1408 are also early, though not as old as S–924 (they have age ranges of 3390 B.C.- 2880 B.C. and 2940 B.C. - 2280 B.C. respectively). S–926 has an age span of 30 B.C. - A.D. 260, and S–925 a span of A.D. 1220 - 1450. From the field notes, there appear to be stratigraphic reversals among these dates. S–926, S–927, and S–1408 are all from the base of the midden, while S–924 may be somewhat higher. Thus, while the site appears to have been utilized throughout the full occupational period of Prince Rupert Harbor, there are no grounds to separate AUs. GbTo 36 Baldwin (Fig. 5.26) GbTo 36 is south of GbTo 33's former location on the west side of Kaien Island. At this location there is rather narrow intertidal zone, but beyond the shallows are some of the Harbour’s deeper waters. In 1983 Archer estimated that 80% of it was intact (though MacDonald and Inglis (1981) indicate the site has been destroyed). I was unable to locate it in 1985. The site map indicates the site to have been 60 x 25 meters. Archer suggests an average depth of 1.5 meters for a total volume of 2250 cubic meters. It was excavated in 1973 in what was essentially a single major block. The excavated volume was approximately 208 cubic meters. Baldwin has seven non-burial dates -- six charcoal dates and one humus date -- with marked stratigraphic reversals. Again, there are no available grounds to separate the deposits into AUs. The age ranges span the period from 1780 B.C. to A.D. 650 which appears to be the period of occupation. The four dated burials fall into the span from 1630 B.C. – A.D. 420...

95

Figure 5.25 Kitandach (GbTo34).

Figure 5.26 Baldwin (GbTo36).

96

GbTp-1 Lucy Island (Fig. 5.27, 5.28) Lucy Island is the largest of the Lucy Islands which are in the middle of Chatham Sound west by south west of Tugwell Island. The site is located on the south bank of the west end of the island. The Lucy Islands contain the most extensive intertidal area in Chatham Sound itself until one gets to the Dundas group to the west. The site has undergone some disturbance from the construction of a boat house, and from activities associated with a helicopter landing pad to the west of the site. It is crossed by a boardwalk linking the helicopter pad with the Lucy Island light house. The site was tested because it was thought to be a specialized shell fish collecting locality. There was a second midden somewhat inland from GbTp-1 which was not tested. This midden must have originated at time of higher sea levels (or the shells were carried inland). The site is perhaps 70 x 40 meters. The deposits range from one to three meters in depth, for a volume of perhaps 4,200 cubic meters. The site was tested in 1968 by a two person party. This site is treated here as two AUs, corresponding to the two excavation areas. No attempt is made is separate out AUs based upon stratigraphic evidence, for reasons which will emerge below. In area 1 (TP1/AU1), the midden was quite shallow, directly mantling bedrock. The area 1 midden was bifurcated by a thin lens of "black midden,” which again probably represents a buried surface, suggesting a period of abandonment of at least this portion of the midden area. In both areas, the midden was capped by a thick humus layer. In Area 2 (AU2), the midden was much deeper. The stratigraphy of the midden is of interest, since it represents perhaps the only example of midden stratigraphy in the sample of sites reported here unaffected by intensive or lengthy residential occupation. The schematic (Fig. 5.28) is not of a single, long wall, but represents the three sides of an excavation unit: the reader is looking straight at the north wall, which is flanked by the west and east walls. Therefore the dipping beds portrayed in the east and west walls are dipping south, towards the reader, and towards the small bay along which the midden developed. The Area 2 deposits cover a sand beach. The sloping deposits and underlying beach raise the possibility that older unsampled midden deposits lay to the north. The schematic suggests that the midden was truncated or eroded by some process three times. The configuration of the lowermost deposit of crushed clam shells suggests that erosion or modification of the early midden occurred. There is also a lens of crushed shell mixed with beach sand overlaying the western side of this deposit (Fig. 6.28). This sand could represent wave deposition of sand over an eroded midden. The sand could also be the result of shell processing (Ham 1990). The stratum does not continue to the west, which may provide weak support for the latter hypothesis. However, the shape of the deposits is strongly suggestive of one or more episodes of erosion. In an alluvial deposit, one could with confidence reconstruct the broad outlines of the processes which produced the shapes of these three boundaries. However, such confidence in a shell midden is unwarranted. Human activity is a clear possibility. The water of Chatham Sound is the only other available agent for these effects.

97

Figure 5.27 Lucy Island (GbTc1)

Figure 5.28 Profile, Test Area 2 Unit 1, Lucy Island (GbTc1)

98

This portion of the midden is capped by a humus layer underlain by black midden. In Area 1, black midden is separated from the humus by a stratum of brown/dark brown midden. The black midden itself caps a stratum of brown midden with crushed shells and barnacles. In the discussion of GbTo 31, I suggested that a similar combination of humus-black midden was a soil formed on the surface of the shell midden. The possibility also exists at Lucy Island, at least for Test Area 2. In any case, it seems quite reasonable at this point to conclude that bayward portions of the midden were eroded by some agent at least twice during the period of use. These erosional episodes may indicate periods when the midden was abandoned. It is also reasonable to conclude that the site was abandoned for good long enough ago for an O and a Bh horizon to form across its surface. The site is dated by two radiocarbon dates, both from Area 2, and both from close to the base of the midden. Presumably, these are the two dates shown at the base of the schematic (Fig. 5.28). Both dates were collected from the lowermost shell deposits. Date S– 996 has a calibrated two sigma age span of 252 B.C. - A.D. 66; date S–997’s span is 799 B.C. - 449 B.C.. While the age spans do not overlap, they were averaged, producing an age span 422-233 B.C. The relationship of these dates to the upper portions of the midden is tenuous, given the possibility of two episodes of midden erosion. Nor can the dates be seen as clearly dating the beginnings of use of the locality as a shell collecting station, given the possibility that older midden could lie to the north. This older midden might be considerably older, given that sea levels in this area have been at or below their current position for at least 8,000 years. GcTo 1 K'nu GcTo 1 is located on Bencke Point north and across a narrow bay from GbTo 34 in Venn Passage. From K'nu, one can look straight west to the mouth of the passage. To the north of the site are extensive intertidal flats. The site has some minor surface disturbance from agriculture; otherwise Archer estimates it is about 90% intact. There are canoe skids in the intertidal zone west of the site. The site is generally triangular in shape, with a broad platform with house depressions in front and a single back ridge that rises over 3 meters in the back. I have no information on the distribution or size of the excavations. Archer estimates the site to be 150 x 25 m; he does not estimate its depth. I have no information from K'nu beyond the artifacts, the artifact catalogue and the field notes. No radiocarbon dates were collected. There is no basis to treat this site other than as a single unit. A proto-historic plank house was excavated here in 1970. It is discussed below in the section on houses. Features At the beginning of this chapter, I outlined several kinds of features that we were hoping to find: 1. Plank houses. One late Late Period plank house was excavated at Kitandach. It was a large structure with a central pit surrounded by an annular bench (MacDonald and Cybulski 2001, Fig. 7). During excavation, it has mapped in detail. The structure seems to have been of typical 99

Coast Tsimshian design, with four large corner posts probably supporting a gable roof. The annular bench was planked and there may have been planking along the lower face of the bench. The floor was earthen. It is not reported further here because, in the original division of labor for preparing reports, it was not part of this project. Two rectangular structures, presumably plank houses, were trenched in Area A/C of Boardwalk (31/AC/AU3) (Houses A and B). These structures were discussed extensively in that section of this report. They were small, 9 x 6 and 9x 5 m. Since they were exposed by a single trench, there is little data on their construction and no hearths were exposed. They were excavated originally into the midden behind them, and then the midden subsequently accumulated around them, a typical pattern on the Northwest Coast. A third structure apparently was buried by this process. These structures probably date between ca. 1000 B.C. and 400 B.C. making them contemporary with the early village at the Paul Mason site in the Kitselas Canyon of the Skeena River (Coupland 1985a, 1985b). These two structures are the same size and shape as the Paul Mason structures There are no house depressions in front of these two, or on the platform in Area D at Boardwalk. The Area A/C house platform was not excavated by the NCPP. Area D contained hearth concentrations, and postholes and postmolds, both in concentrations and singly. No extensive deposits of flat laminae of crushed shell; gravel or sand were present, so there is no clear evidence of floors. We did not find any large postholes indicating the presence of corner posts. The posts exposed by Coupland (1990) at Paul Mason have relatively small diameters. These houses also appear to have had gable roofs supported by one or more posts along the central axis of the house. So the absence of large postholes does not indicate the absence of houses. Both platforms would accommodate a number of the small structures encountered at Paul Mason. If midden were not allowed to accumulate between the structures (such accumulation created the depressions of Houses A and B in area AC), houses depressions would not develop. Stratified lenses and laminae of fine gravel, shell, sand, crushed shell, and ash were encountered in 31/B/AU3, suggesting that these deposits represent superimposed house floors. However, there appear to have been no large hearth complexes. As noted elsewhere, the very richness of these particular deposits suggest they are residential. Similar lenses and laminae associated with hearths were encountered in Tn1/AU2 and 33/B/AU. At none of these localities were there surface depressions – although Lachane, as noted, suffered extensive surface modification. Thus the absence of surface evidence has no implications as to the presence or absence of structures. Elsewhere in the harbour, the flat areas fronting midden ridges often carry house depressions. If the earliest structures at Boardwalk were similar to those at Paul Mason, and were often rebuilt (Ames 1996a, Ames et al. 1992, 1999), the structures would not be clear cut. Further, if the earliest structures were pithouses (see below), they would be extremely difficult to recognize. Evidence for structures similar to those encountered at the Hatzic Rock site (Mason 1994) would be difficult to find and recognize, particularly in 1969 when no such early structures had been excavated to serve as guides. The absence of depressions at Boardwalk and at Grassy Bay also suggests that these sites had quite different occupational histories than those with surface depressions. 100

Boardwalk reached its maximum extent by 2000 B.C. If the platforms were house platforms, as still seems most likely, it was a two row village by ca. 1000 B.C., when burials began in the back ridge. The Area B materials suggest that not all structures were part of house rows. The available space in this area, particularly given the dip of the beds, precludes the presence of probably more than one or two structures. 2. Structural evidence of pit houses. None was observed. Given the known chronology and distribution of the earliest pithouses elsewhere in Cascadia (Ames 1991a, 1991b; Ames and Maschner 1999), it is possible that the earliest houses at Boardwalk were either semi-subterranean structures or only partially subterranean (e.g. Hatzic Rock). However, as noted above, such structures would have been very difficult to recognize. It is possible that some of the complex interbedding in 31/D/AU2 may actually represent deposits accumulating and being cleaned out of house depressions. In 23/AU1, there are similar depositional patterns that I suggested were reminiscent of pit house stratigraphy elsewhere. 3. Hearths, pits, cairns, postholes, etc. were observed in large numbers. As noted in Chapter 4, we constructed a data base of these based on the notes and field forms. However, it proved difficult to consistently establish the vertical and horizontal distributions of features. 4. Burials are described separately (Chapter 8). 5. and 6. Heavy lenses of blue mussel at the bottoms of the middens. In 1968, it had been observed that many middens had deposits primarily of blue mussel at their base. At Boardwalk, and elsewhere in the harbour, most middens ended in a dark organic layer. As discussed above, Stein (1992) has suggested that this layer, present in many coastal middens, was the result of shell midden being inundated at their bases by sea water. In Prince Rupert, many middens were inundated or wet at their base, supporting her interpretation. Black, sticky midden was also present in other parts of Boardwalk, including at the base of the back ridges. This would suggest rising ground water levels, or shifts in drainage over the last 4,000 to 5,000 years. Discussion Chronology The chronological placement of the AUs is presented in Table 5.1 and Figure 5.29. Table 6.1 also provides data on the volume represented by those AUs for which I can assign a finer-grained age than that of the entire site, or for which I have data on the size and extent of the excavations. I have also plotted the AUs against MacDonald and Inglis' three period chronology (Fig. 5.29). All the dates on these graphs are calibrated; they represent calendar years before present, not radiocarbon years.

101

A.D. 1750 1500 1250 1000 750 500 250 A.D. 1 250 B.C. 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750 4000 4250 4500 4750 5000 5250 5500 5750 6000 B.C.

Age

D AU1

D AU2

?

D AU3

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

B AU1

B AU3 ?

B AU4

PRINCE RUPERT 3

PRINCE RUPERT 2

PRINCE RUPERT 1

B AU2

GBTO31 AC AU1

AC AU2

?

AC AU3

102

? ? ? ? ? ?

AU1 ?

AU2

GBTO 23 B AU

D AU

GBTO 33 E AU AU1

AU2

GBTN 1

Figure 5.29 Calibrated chronological placement of dated AUs against the MacDonald and Inglis periods GBTO 30

GBTO 34

GBTO 36 AU 1

AU 2

GBTP 1

At this point it is premature to offer a final periodization. The MacDonald and Inglis system does do a good job of reflecting, in general, the temporal distribution of the AUs. There remains a minor and a major question about the initial dating of two AUs. Taking the minor issue first, at GbTo 23. AU1 is dated here as starting at ca. 1000 B.C. despite an earlier radiocarbon date at the base of the midden. As I discussed in that section, the available evidence suggests that significant midden deposition did not begin until around 3000 years ago. The question marks on the graph leave the question open. Turning to the major question, which is the dating of the base of GbTo 31\B\AU1, unit I6. Using a midden accumulation rate, the base of that unit was dated to 6723 B.C., much earlier than the usually accepted date for initial occupation of the harbor at ca. 3,000 - 3,500 B.C. On the graph, I have taken a conservative line, and indicated the possibility of the early date with question marks. Here, I will evaluate the possibility of its being accurate. 1. Clague (1984) (see chapter 2) has shown that sea levels achieved their current elevation relative with the shore in northern British Columbia by ca. 8,000 to 8,500 B.P. He has also suggested that sea levels may have fallen below that level sometime between 8,000 and 5,000 B.P., when they again achieved their modern position. Thus, on the face of it, there is no geological reason there cannot be deposits older than 5,000 B.P. in the harbor. Indeed, Clague has expressed in print his curiosity as to why earlier materials have not been found. 2. In 1969, units in Area B were abandoned because they extended below the current water table. Units at GbTo 33 also extended as much as a meter below the current water table. According to May (1979), deposits at GbTo 19 also extended below water table. Stein (1992) has suggested that the black, heavy organic layer frequently found at the base of middens on the Northwest Coast -- such Area B at Boardwalk -- may be the result of post-depositional weathering of shell deposits when they are inundated by raised sea levels. The presence of a widespread, black organic layer at the base of some of exposures in Areas A and C at the back of Boardwalk might then also be the result of a raised water table well back from the beach. Sites such as GbTo 10 and GbTo 23 have (or had) wave cut scarps, where portions of midden have been cut away by water action (these scarps could also be from the wakes and back wash of large modern ships, and be the recent effects of Prince Rupert becoming a port). GbTp 1 may have been eroded two or three times in the past (though post 500 B.C.). It is possible then that occupation of GbTo 31, 33, and 19 began when sea levels in the harbor were perhaps as much as a meter lower than they are now. It is also possible that sea levels in the area have fluctuated somewhat since 1000 B.C. 3. The shell deposit encountered by Ackerman et al. (1985) on Hecate Island in southeast Alaska indicates that exploitation of shell occurred as early as 8,000 years ago or more in the region. 4. The midden accumulation rates used in this chapter, which are based upon midden accumulation between bracketing radiocarbon dates, generally produced quite acceptable dates when applied to excavation units immediately adjacent to the one on which they are based. 5. Isolated, deeply buried shell midden deposits occur at least at GbTo 31. In 1969, the edges of GbTo 31 were augured to establish the site's inland boundaries. While I have copies of the augur logs, I do not know specifically where the auger holes were located, beyond that the 103

auger crew worked beyond the back ridge of the site. These logs frequently show shell deposits below as much as a meter of what is described in the logs as humus. In general, they show shell deposits 5 to 9 feet (1.5 to 2.7 m) below the modern surface. One core (B2) encountered broken shell an additional 9 feet (2.7 m) below 7 feet (2.1 m) of "organic muck.” The extent of these shell lenses and their relationship to the main midden are unknown. But they raise the clear possibility of very early, unexcavated occupations in the harbor. I have not proven that the harbour was occupied before 3500 B.C... There is, however, sufficiently suggestive data to show that the question is not settled. The reason that there is no cultural material in the harbor older than 3500 B.C. may simply be that we did not recognized it when we saw it. Finally, I will conclude this section with additional comments about the midden accumulation rates. My original intent was to use them not for chronological purposes but to evaluate whether midden accumulation was indeed most rapid during the Middle Period in the harbour. However, the rates I calculated raise important questions about the depositional processes at work in these sites, particularly with regard to Boardwalk, and Boardwalk's apparent lack of shell. I calculated rates for MacDonald and Inglis' three periods, based on the volumes of the AUs assigned to each period. For these AUs which fell into more than one period, I calculated what percentage of the years spanned by the AU fell into each period, and assigned that percentage of the AU’s volume to the appropriate period. I then divided the total volume of the period by the number of calendar years (in the MacDonald and Inglis sequence) in each period. The midden accumulation rate for the Prince Rupert 3 is .061 cubic meters/year (using the usual dates for the beginning of PR3); Prince Rupert 2 is .408 cubic meters and .405 cubic meters for Prince Rupert 1. This does suggest accelerated midden build up during PR2, but no significant diminution in PR1. Archer (1992, 2001) has shown that many sites in the harbour were abandoned at the end of PR2. This result indicates that when the harbour was reoccupied, the occupation was more-or-less as intense as during PR2. The Prince Rupert middens contain a wide array of constituents, including shell, bone, stones, fine particulate matter, artifacts, etc. However, shell contributes most to their volume. Therefore, these rates are a way to measure the amount of shell entering a site, or a part of a site. The rates do not control for the loss of shell through weathering, or through the removal of midden by human activity. Holding loss of shell constant, the amount of shell entering these sites during Prince Rupert 2 and 3 was about the same. To evaluate this finding in more detail, and to place the results in some context, I did three additional analyses using midden accumulation rates: I calculated: 1) midden accumulation rates for specific time periods for Boardwalk based upon the pit-specific rates used above (Table 5.9); 2) midden accumulation rates for seven of the Harbour’s sites based upon their occupation spans and their dimensions (see chapter 5); and 3) two Harbour-wide rates. In the first of these, I calculated a mean rate for the seven sites used in #2 above, producing the rate of 6.9 m3/year. I calculated a second rate of 4.5 m3/year by removing the two sites with the highest and lowest rates and averaging the resulting five rates. I then applied both rates to the estimated total volumes of all seven sites to see how long, at those rates, it would take them to accumulate. 104

The sites differ markedly in their midden accumulation rates. Put another way, the sites differ markedly among themselves in the amount of shell they contain, when we control for the amount of time available for the midden to accumulate. Grassy Bay, for example, appears to have been used over an 1100 year span. Its accumulation rate then is 0.4 m3/year. However, at either of the two harbour-wide rates, it represents either 61 or 91 years of shell accumulation (Table5.9). By any measure, not much shell entered this site. Kitandach, on the other hand, has an extraordinarily high rate of accumulation, even considering its antiquity. It is also possible that the size estimates for this site are wrong. Looking at GbTo 23 and GbTo 18, the 6.9 accumulation rate actually produces age estimates close to their known age. However, both sites have lost material (Chapter 5), so their given volumes and their site rates are probably somewhat low. GbTo 31 and GbTo 33 have remarkably low accumulation rates, especially in view of the rates for GbTo 18, GbTo 23, and GbTo 34. Two of these three are known residential sites, as are 31 and 33. Thus site function, in general, is not obviously related to how much shell enters a site. GbTo 18, 30, and 31 are immediate neighbors, and share a common environment; therefore, environment, in general, does not explain these differences. However, the inter-site differences must ultimately reflect differential shellfish use since they are the result of different amounts of shellfish entering the site. Or, they are the result of differential weathering of the middens as and after they accumulate. Or, they are the result of the removal of shell from the sites when they were occupied. GbTo 33 was also severely affected by modern construction activities, so its overall rate of 3.5 cubic meters is very probably an underestimate. Boardwalk, however, seems appears to have been intact prior to excavation. In view of all of this, Boardwalk, and perhaps Lachane, seems to be quite "under-shelled.” Boardwalk also provides evidence of intra-site differences in the apparent rates at which shell accumulated. It is clear that midden accumulation in Boardwalk's area D was most rapid during the last millennium (D\AU3) with rates that, when extrapolated to the entire site, are as high as 23 and 15 m3 of midden/year, while the rate for PR2 (D\AU2) is much lower, only 2.3 cubic meters of site fill (Table 5.9). Thus, in Area D of Boardwalk, midden build-up was much more rapid during PR3 than PR2. For pit I6, if its basal age is indeed 5700 B.C., the resulting site-wide rate is 3 m3/annum; if the initial date is 3,500 B.C., then the rate is for the entire site is 10.5 m3/annum These rates can be compared to others in Table 5.9. It is clear that the accumulation rates of 15 m3/annum and 23 m3/annum based on 31\D\AU3 are quite high for the harbour in general, approaching only that for Kitandach. They also produce more volume than GbTo 31 possesses. At 23 m3/annum Boardwalk would have contained approximately 127,000 m3 of fill. The extrapolated rate for the bottom of unit I6 of 10.5 cubic meters is also quite high for the harbour as a whole. If all of Boardwalk had accumulated at that rate, it would have contained some 58,000 m3. In fact, most of the extrapolated Boardwalk rates in Table 5.9, which are based on

105

Table 5.9 Midden accumulation rates Sites Width Length meters meters GbTn1 GbTo18 GbTo23 GbTo30 GbTo31 GbTo33 GbTo34 GbTo36 Sites

7 50 65 80 50 40 160 25 Unit/AU

60 165 122 170 140 120 140 60 Rate

GbTo31

D/AU2-3 D/AU2 D/AU3 D/AU3 I611 I6 E70/S10 AU1

.0006 .003 .031 .02 .004 .014 .009 .025

GbTn1

Depth Volume Site 6.9 4.5 3 6 meter meters Rate Rate Rate7 s 1 420 .4 61 93 4 33000 6.0 4783 7333 3 23790 9.5 3448 5287 4 54400 7884 12089 2 14000 2.5 2029 3111 4 19200 3.5 2738 4267 4 153600 25.6 22261 34133 1.5 2250 .9 326 500 Site Years9 Volume 10 Rate8 4.5 4000 18072 2.3 3000 6900 23 240 5520 15 573 8595 3 5100 15300 10.5 2400 14700 6.8 2200 14960 1.1 1100 1237

particular units, are much higher than the site's overall rate. This strengthens the previous comment that Boardwalk, at least, is “under-shelled.” While these rates are extremely crude, they clearly show that, as with the sites, different parts of Boardwalk accreted (or lost shell) at far different speeds, some quite rapidly, others slowly, if at all. While midden was accumulating in Area D during the latter portions of PR2, and through PR1, there was no midden developing in Area A/C, for example. These differences also may reflect dynamics other than patterns of abandonment. Shell deposition may have occurred in bursts, with periods of high shellfish use and/or dumping separated by periods of low to no shellfish use and/or dumping in particular areas, and the high rates measure deposition during a use period (see Stein and Deo 2003 for extended discussion of these issues). Or the rates may be pointing to quite local differences in the rates at which shell weathers. Another, simpler possibility is changing patterns of shell exploitation through time, or across space. I lack the chronological control across all of these sites to explore this possibility. If space is the key 6

Indicates that number of years at this rate it would take the site’s volume of midden to accumulate. 7 See previous note. 8 The unit is extrapolated to the entire site. 9 Time period on which the rate is based. 10 The overall site volume that would accumulate during the period time at the extrapolated rate 11 Calculated from an initial date of 8700 B.P.

106

dimension, then occupants of even closely adjacent sites had very different patterns of using shell fish. These sites are all in a relatively small area, with easy access by boat to the same environments. These differences are also extremely important in terms of the discussions in the next chapter about the relationships among the taxonomic diversity of artifact assemblages, their size and the volumes of the excavated units from which they are derived (e.g. Lyman 1991). Temporal Patterns A long standing issue in the archaeology of Prince Rupert Harbour is whether the harbour was abandoned in the past, particular between c. A.D. 1 and A.D. 1000. This issue has most recently been addressed by Marsden (2001) and Martindale and Marsden (2003). The reader will recall the discussions in the foregoing of abandonment of portions of Boardwalk and Grassy Bay, for example. The NCPP radiocarbon sample and a second suite of radiocarbon dates from the harbour provide two additional lines of evidence with which to examine this issue. The temporal distribution of NCPP radiocarbon dates does display gaps. However, most if not all of these gaps may be the result of sampling and fluctuations in atmospheric 14C, particularly the gaps before ca. 1500 B.C. where the sample is very small. Additionally, many of the dates in the NCPP sample were collected as lower and upper limiting dates, to establish the total span occupation, not explore patterning within that span. Thus the dates before 2000 B.C. were collected as limiting dates, and the gaps probably reflect sampling. Figure 5.30 Frequency of all calibrated radiocarbon date intercepts in 100 year bins. Frequency of Prince Rupert Radiocarbon Dates 10 9

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Calendar Years Aga

107

0 20 0 40 0 60 0 80 0 10 00 12 00 14 00 16 00

0

-4 00 -3 0 80 -3 0 60 -3 0 40 -3 0 20 -3 0 00 -2 0 80 -2 0 60 -2 0 40 -2 0 20 -2 0 00 -1 0 80 -1 0 60 -1 0 40 -1 0 20 -1 0 00 0 -8 00 -6 00 -4 00 -2 00

Number of Calibrated Dates

8

However the gap between 1200 B.C. and 800 B.C. could indicate a period when the harbour was abandoned as could to the gap between A.D. 800 and A.D. 1000. Evaluating the earlier gap first, it is present in both the sample of burial and non-burial dates (Fig. 5.31). However, the burial sample itself exhibits multiple gaps which could reflect sampling, fluctuations in atmospheric 14C or temporal patterning in mortuary practices. The “reality” of this gap must await further research. The possibility of the second gap reflecting wide-spread abandonment is much stronger. Figure 5.31 Relative frequencies of burial and non-burial calibrated radiocarbon dates in 100 year bins. Solid line is non-burial dates, dashed line is burial dates. The graph does not include Archer’s shell dates. Relative Frequencies of Burial and Non-Burial 14C dates 8 7

Number of Dates

6 5 4 3 2 1

14 00

11 00

80 0

50 0

20 0

-1 00

-4 00

-7 00

-4 00 0 -3 70 0 -3 40 0 -3 10 0 -2 80 0 -2 50 0 -2 20 0 -1 90 0 -1 60 0 -1 30 0 -1 00 0

0

Calendar Years Ago Non-Burial Dates

Burial Dates

Archer (1992) collected two marine shell samples for dating from the surfaces of each of 23 middens in the harbour (Fig. 5.32, 5.33). These dates were discussed above in the context of the appropriate marine reservoir correction. His samples date when these sites were abandoned. Sites were abandoned as early as c. 1800 B.C. Abandonment clearly accelerates after 750 B.C.

108

Figure 5.32 Two sigma spans for shell terminal dates on 23 Prince Rupert Harbour middens (from Archer 1992) Calibrated Two Sigma Age Spans, Shell Terminal Dates, Prince Rupert Harbour 1500 1250 1000 750 500 Calendar Years Ago

250 0 -250

1

-500 -750 -1000 -1250 -1500 -1750 -2000 Radiocarbon Dates

Figure 5.33 Calibrated Intercepts for site abandonment dates in 100 year bins. Site Abandonment Dates, Prince Rupert Harbour 9 8 7

5 4 3 2 1

0 10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 70 0 80 0 90 0 10 00 11 00

0 -2 00 -1 0 90 -1 0 80 -1 0 70 -1 0 60 -1 0 50 -1 0 40 -1 0 30 -1 0 20 -1 0 10 -1 0 00 0 -9 00 -8 00 -7 00 -6 00 -5 00 -4 00 -3 00 -2 00 -1 00

Calibrated Dates

6

Calendar Years Ago in 100 year increments

109

While Archer’s data does little to resolve whether the harbour was abandoned between 1200 B.C. and 800 B.C. it does show a pattern of wide-spread abandonment of sites between A.D. 1 and 600 (Figure 5.34). Figure 5.34 Frequencies of calibrated intercepts for the terminal shell dates (Archer 1992) and NCPP non-burial dates. Radiocarbon Date Frequencies, Prince Rupert Harbour 9 8 7

Number of Dates

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 380 360 340 320 300 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 -80 -60 -40 -20 -

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Calendar Years Ago Radiocarbon Dates

Terminal Shell Dates

Curves based on the NCPP radiocarbon dates and Archer’s shell dates may, at first viewing, seem contradictory. Both peak at A.D. 400, suggesting simultaneous peaks both in site abandonment and in site occupation. One might rather expect to see the peak in terminal site dates correspond to a nadir in dated occupations. However, such a pattern would indicate abandonment of sites when no sites were occupied. The curve here indicates that the pace of site abandonment peaked with a peak in site occupancy, and the rate of abandonment declined as the level of occupation declined. In other words, between A.D. 400 and A.D. 800, there were fewer and fewer occupied sites to abandon; therefore the number of terminal dates declines as the simple consequence of a decline in the number of occupied sites. However, the picture is actually more complicated. For example, Grassy Bay was established at about A.D. 400, so while many sites were abandoned, others were first occupied. The two curves reach nadir between A.D. 800 and 900.

110

The terminal shell dates also have a gap between 1400 B.C. and 800 B.C. mirroring the gap in charcoal dates. However, there are only two shell dates before 1400 B.C., so that gap may be spurious. Finally, it should be noted that the wave of site abandonment after A.D. 1. may also have affected mortuary practices. Midden burial essentially ceases after A.D. 1 when site abandonment was accelerating. This topic will be reexamined in Chapter 8 and the conclusions. Figure 5.35 Calibrated intercept dates for terminal shell dates (Archer 1992) and burial dates plotted in 100 year bins. Terminal Shell Dates and Burial Dates 9 8 7

Number of Dates

6 5 4 3 2 1

0 20 0 40 0 60 0 80 0 10 00 12 00 14 00 16 00

-4 00 0 -3 80 0 -3 60 0 -3 40 0 -3 20 0 -3 00 0 -2 80 0 -2 60 0 -2 40 0 -2 20 0 -2 00 0 -1 80 0 -1 60 0 -1 40 0 -1 20 0 -1 00 0 -8 00 -6 00 -4 00 -2 00

0

Calendar Years Ago Burial Dates

Terminal Shell Dates

Geographic patterns The available site sample contains three major spatial clusters and three outliers. The distribution of the clusters and outliers sample some of the major environmental features of the Harbour. The Dodge Cove cluster of Dodge Island, Boardwalk, and Parizeau Point are located in a sheltered, protected harbour on the west side of Digby Island. These sites have ready access to large intertidal zones which include both rocky areas and broad low tide mud flats, offering a broad array of shellfish. Digby Island is a low island, with muskeg in the interior. All waterways in the Harbour are easily accessible from the cove. This location would also allow easy movement south towards the mouth of the Skeena River. On the other hand, movement to 111

the Nass would require either passing through Venn Passage, or going south and then north around the west side of Digby Island. The second cluster includes Lachane, Co-op and Baldwin which are located on Kaien Island across from Dodge Cove. Kaien Island rises quite precipitously behind the sites to elevations in excess of 300 meters. Extensive railroad and other industrial construction has altered the shape of Kaien Island in this area, but the navigation charts (Canadian Hydrographic Service, 1984), which represent surveys to 1976, indicate that the intertidal zone here was quite narrow. As noted above, however, these sites look out over water more than 20 fathoms deep, a depth that could represent dredging. Like the Dodge Cove cluster, any point in the Harbour would be easily accessible by canoe, and movement south towards the Skeena River would have been easy. The route to the Nass would be the same as for the Dodge Cove sites. K'nu and Kitandach are located in Venn Passage, the narrow, shallow, twisting gut that winds between Digby Island and the Tsimpsean Peninsula. The land immediately behind these sites is low, but then rises up to elevations in excess of 400 meters. These sites are positioned among a complex of rocky and soft-bottom inter-tidal areas; Venn passage is dotted with small islands (most with sites on them). These sites face west, towards Chatham Sound. Two routes to the Skeena are possible from these two sites; east through Venn Passage and then south through the Harbour and past Dodge Cove; or west through Venn Passage and then south along the west coast of Digby Island. Neither route is quite as easy as that available to the other two site clusters. On the other hand, movement to the Nass would be somewhat simpler, people having only to go straight west out of Venn passage and out into Chatham Sound. Garden Island gives us a sample of an insular location in the middle of a vast tidal flat. Garden Island, along with Anian and Wilgiapshi, are also located at the crossroads of the Harbour: any movement east through Venn Passage, or around and about the Harbour itself, will pass by these islands. Any point in the Harbour is accessible from Garden Island by boat. The logical route to the Skeena is south through the Harbour. Movement to the Nass would require sailing out through Venn Passage. Grassy Bay is the only site in the sample that is both in Fern Passage and on the east side of Kaien Island. Ridley Island is the only site in this study at the south end of Kaien Island and close to the mouth of the Skeena, and to Flora Bank, the enormous bank off Lelu Island just to the south of Ridley Island. Lucy Island is located in Chatham Sound, and is probably a shell fish collecting station.

112

Chapter 6: Material Culture Introduction This chapter presents a basic typology of all of the artifacts analyzed for this study. Chapter 7 compares the AU-based artifact assemblages along a number of dimensions. Chapter 8 discusses certain special topics, such as grave goods, and decorated objects. Chapter 9 integrates the relevant artifactual evidence with the available faunal analyses in a discussion of subsistence economy within the harbour. The distributions of artifacts by AUs not presented in tables in the text are presented in the tables in Appendix A. All of the artifacts were analyzed between 1983 and 1987 by myself and many student assistants, first at Boise State University and then at Portland State University. We were able to draw on some previous work. Richard Inglis had initiated studies of the Boardwalk materials in the 1970s, including establishing a basic typology which is partially maintained here. Presence/absence tabulations on all of the collections had been done (e. g. MacDonald and Inglis 1981). Francis Stewart (1977, Stewart and Stewart 1996) examined the bone tools from Boardwalk to identify the species of origin. Patricia Sutherland (1978) had conducted her study of Dodge Island (GbTo18) and I had studied the collection from Garden Island, and analyzed the bone tools as part of my Ph. D. dissertation (Ames 1976). Some specialist studies had also been performed. The artifact analysis was structured to meet several goals, and to fit into several limitations. The limitations included 1) the sheer size of the collections; 2) the time available for study and the expertise of the analysts. The primary goal of the study was to develop data relevant to the issues discussed in chapter 4, and to provide artifact descriptions which were generally useful to other researchers with other interests. MacDonald and Inglis (1981) list a total of 18,206 artifacts recovered from all of the Prince Rupert sites, with 15,956 (87%) from the nine site sample. These were all to be described within 3. 5 years. The original NSF grant was for Boardwalk only, and for one year. The grant was renewed twice for an additional 2. 5 years in order to do all of the then unstudied sites in the harbour. The artifact analysis was structured by the same approach I had used for my dissertation (Ames 1976), though streamlined. I wanted both a standard typology but also a fined grained description of a range of qualitative and quantitative attributes which might not be directly relevant to standard typologies, but which were crucial to this study, and which might be obscured by standard typologies. This all had to be done by undergraduate students or beginning graduate students. For the purposes of description and analysis, artifacts were separated first by raw material and technology – bone, antler and teeth were one basic category, ground slate a second, ground and pecked stone the third, chipped stone the fourth and shell the fifth. In this report, shell artifacts are included with bone, antler, and teeth. Historic artifacts are enumerated but not described, since they were not a focus in the field. Systems of attributes and variables were established for each basic category; students trained in their use, and work begun. Each artifact was described by entering the appropriate qualitative variable for each attribute (e. g. color is an attribute, blue a variable of color) onto a computer load sheet. There are twenty qualitative attributes and five quantitative one for bone tools, for example (Fig. 6. 1) 113

I oversaw and reviewed all work. As the lab assistants progressed through a collection, they would periodically reanalyze materials they had analyzed earlier as a check on their own consistency, and completed materials were periodically shifted among the lab workers and the results checked for consistency among them. The results were then loaded into an IBM PC, using DBASE© software. Subsequently, DBASE© was replaced by PARADOX© and QUATTRO PRO©. Eventually, these were replaced by Microsoft ACCESS© and EXCEL©. Statistical analyses were accomplished using SYSTAT©. All the analyses were done on PC's, however. There were sometimes inconsistencies between the artifact catalogues prepared in the field during particular excavations and the artifacts we had. An artifact number assigned in the catalogue to a "quartzite burin" would be on a harpoon, for example. These inconsistencies were resolved in the favor of what we had described. However, since all provenience data for the artifacts came from the catalogues, any inconsistencies in the artifact descriptions also cast doubt upon all other data in the catalogues. These circumstances were a factor in deciding whether to establish AUs for particular sites. We also did not have all of the artifacts recovered from the sites. This was a particular problem for Boardwalk, where a number of objects had been removed from the collections for display in the "The Dig" exhibit in the old National Museum of Man. The grave goods from Boardwalk and Lachane were retained in Ottawa as part of Cybulski's study of the burials. I traveled to Ottawa in 1985 and examined all of these objects. In other cases the problems were not resolvable. Inevitably, objects had been lost. However, this does not have a significant impact on this study. The classification used below is a mixed one. It is ultimately based on the typology developed by Inglis for categorizing materials from Boardwalk. In many ways, the classification is the standard morphofunctional classification in which functional attributions are based upon ethnographic analogy. In Dunnell’s terms (Dunnell 1971) it is a hierarchical classification, in which the first level is based upon raw material and manufacturing criteria: artifacts made of organic matter (bone, antler, teeth, shell and wood); ground slate, all other ground and pecked stone, and chipped stone. Further distinctions are based upon form, putative function, raw material, and manufacturing criteria. The classification departs in some ways from other artifact classifications used on the Northwest Coast. The bone artifacts are grouped into broad classes, then subdivided into types, and the type further subdivided according to descriptors. Thus the class "piercing tools" contains the type "harpoon" which is subdivided according to the descriptors "valve,” "barb", and "barbless". These can be further subdivided as required. The classes “beveled tools” and “piercing tools” are based upon the transverse cross–section of their tips. The classes are further subdivided by the plan–view of the tip – yielding classes such bone tools with beveled pointed tips (beveled in cross-section, pointed in plan–view). They are then further subdivided by the presence of hafting elements, bases, and so on. Among tools without discernable hafting elements and bases, bone tools are classed according to the degree to which they display evidence of “working” – grinding and abrasion – across the object. “Splinter” tools here refer to bone tools with a worked tip, but

114

Figure 6. 1. Attribute locations for hafted bone piercing tools

no other evidence of working. A “worked” tool minimally had such evidence on the tip and on the body, though the body is not necessarily completely worked, i. e. grinding and abrasion scars do not extend over the entire body of the piece. The classification of ground stone, including ground slate, and ground and pecked tools, follows standard Northwest Coast archaeology morphofunctional classifications quite closely. Chipped stone tools are primarily several varieties of “cobble” tools, and the classification is based upon broad manufacturing criteria: whether the tools were built upon whole cobbles, split cobbles, cobble flakes or spalls rather than on formal grounds. Cobble tools often had more than one worked edge making further formal classification quite arbitrary. For example, one might have a triangular, or beaked–shaped working edge and a second, serrated edge with the same length. There would be no partitative grounds on which to assign one edge shape priority in a taxonomy based on edge form. Paradigmatic classifications (Dunnell 1971) were made of tools (manufactured, worked or utilized edges) based upon tool (edge) shape, and edge wear; in these classifications, there are more tools than artifacts. The terms for all the classes and types approximate the terms applied to these tools in ethnographic collections (e. g. Drucker 1943, Stewart 1981). Some departure is made from these terms where they proved difficult to define and apply consistently. While Drucker (1943) felt that some bone tools were obviously knives, for example, we were unable to consistently class objects as knives across 3. 5 years of analysis and among nine lab assistants 115

at two different universities. In the following descriptions, abbreviations for class, type and descriptor names are given in parentheses. These abbreviations are used in some of the tables and figures that follow. Classification Organic Materials: Bone, Antler, Teeth and Shell The general terminology and landmarks used for describing bone tools is derived from Ames (1976) (Figure 6. 1). Specific terms for attribute variables (i. e. is the transverse cross-section lenticular or plano-convex?) are based on Ames 1976 which derives its definitions from Binford 1963. The proximal end is the end with the haft or base, or without a point; the distal end is the end with a point. If the object possesses an articulatory end (i. e. an ulna awl), then the orientation of the original bone supersedes the artifact's. The ventral surface carries the marrow cavity of the original bone, unless there is none, and then assignment of dorsal and ventral surface is arbitrary. The attributes used here describe the form of the artifact by describing the formal attributes of the tip, body, haft, and base. General attributes also include raw material (antler, sea mammal etc), the object's condition (complete, tip fragment, medial fragment, base fragment etc), the bone from which it was made (ulna, tibia, femur, etc.), the bone's orientation (distal end, shaft, etc), whether the marrow cavity was present or not, the shape of the ventral surface, whether the object was decorated, by what technique and what category of design. We also recorded manufacturing technique (treatment) – is the tool ground, abraded, sawn etc. ? Some of these attributes will be discussed below, and their use explained where necessary. However, it is worth pointing out here that the descriptive classification used below can be bypassed – tools can be classed according to whether they are complete or broken (and how broken), for example, without regard to whether they are harpoons, bipoints or whatever. 1. Adornment (adorn) - items of personal adornment. These are separated into traditional types based upon ethnographic and modern analogues. These types are subdivided usually on the basis of raw material, unless they are decorated, which supersedes raw material. Raw material was used because that is the most common attribute used by archaeologists on the Northwest Coast (e. g. bird bone tubes) for distinguishing among these objects. 1. A. Beads 1. A. 1. Bird bone (brdbn)- (N = 11) tubular beads made of hollow bird bone. Both ends must show polish or grinding1. Bird bone beads are distinguished from tubes by arbitrarily limiting beads to complete objects with lengths no greater than twice their circumference. 1

Insisting on polishing or grinding eliminates long bone sections with sawn ends, which are likely to be the result of sectioning bone. Pieces with sawn ends were treated as detritus.

116

Length (mm) N2 Mean Std. Dev.

3 12 11

Thickness (mm) 3 4 4

Width (mm)

Weight (mm)

3 5 5

3 1 .6

1. A. 2. Canine tooth beads - (N = 3) tubular beads made on a canine tooth. These are usually drilled through the center of the tooth, on its long axis, to form the bead. Length (mm) Smaller3 Larger

18 23

Thickness (mm) 8 14

Width (mm) 9 13

Weight (mm) 2 2

1. A. 3. Decorated tubular bead (decor) - (N = 1) tubular bead with anthropomorphic, geometric or zoomorphic designs, decoration supersedes other attributes. This one had a geometric design. See Chapter 9. Not measured4. 1. A. 4. Terrestrial–mammal bone tubular beads (tmml) - (N = 5) tubular beads made from terrestrial–mammal bone. As with bird bone beads, both ends must display grinding and/or polishing. The lengths are no greater than twice the circumference. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

5 7 8

Thickness (mm) 5 2 2

Width (mm) 5 2 2

Weight (mm) 5 2 1

1. A. 5. Whale bone (whlbn) - (N = 2) tubular beads made from whale bone.

2

In the tables, N is the number of artifacts measured, in the formal description, N is the total number of artifacts in the class, whether measured or not. 3 In the tables, where only two artifacts were measured, the dimensions are given in this manner. Thus in this instance, there are three canine tooth beads, but only two were measurable. 4 Artifacts were not measured for a variety of reasons: they were too fragmentary or delicate; we had not received them with the collections, they were mounted in a display, etc. When artifacts were broken, measurements were not estimated, but taken only when the landmark was present.

117

Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

2 35 56

Thickness (mm) 2 8 11

Width (mm) 2 32 53

Weight (mm) 2 9 21

1. B. Shell disc beads - (N = 26) flat disc beads made from marine shell, probably dentalium. These are associated exclusively with burials and are described in Chapter 8. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

26 10 0

Thickness (mm) 26 10 0

Width (mm) 26 10 0

Weight (mm) 26 10 0

1. C. Shell bracelet - (N = 1) the medial section of a single shell bracelet was recovered in a non–burial context at GbTo34. It is ground on all surfaces and has flat edges. Length (mm) 51

Thickness (mm) 22

Width (mm) 11

Weight (mm) 22

1. D. Shell gorget - (N = 1) crescent shaped, or double winged, pendent with suspension holes at the end of both wings, presumably worn at the neck. Not measured. 1. E. Labrets - medial5 labrets made of bone (labrets can also be distinguished as "T,” hat, button and disc labrets. See separate section on labrets in Chapter 9). These are all “T” labrets. 1. E. 1. Terrestrial–mammal bone labrets - (N =6) “T “ shaped labrets made of terrestrial–mammal bone. These are generally small and are sometimes described as "trainer" labrets. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

5

4 23 23

Thickness (mm) 4 2 1

Width (mm) 4 1 3

Labret terminology based on Keddie (1981) and Stewart (1981).

118

Weight (mm) 4 1 1

1. E. 2. Sea–mammal bone labrets - (N = 1) “T” shaped labret made of sea– mammal bone. These are generally small and are sometimes described as "trainer" labrets. Length (mm) 71

Thickness (mm) 9

Width (mm) 11

Weight (mm) 4

1. F. Pendants - objects made to be worn suspended by a drilled hole, groove, or notches. Most pendants are drilled or girdled teeth. Pendants with a distinct form or shape are described as decorated (see Chapter 9). This class may also include a number of objects MacDonald (1983) terms bracelets, since many of the ones he illustrates are drilled. Broken bracelets probably were frequently reused as bracelets (MacDonald 1983, Fig. 6. 4). 1. F. 1. Bird bone pendants - (N = 2) bird bone long bone sections that have been drilled through at right angles to the long axis to permit suspension. These are sometimes classed as whistles, which they may be. Length (mm) 12

Thickness (mm) 1

Width (mm) 1

Weight (mm) 2

1. F. 2 Canine pendants - (N = 139) canines with girdled roots. Three are bear, one canid, one sea lion, and two more sea mammal of some kind. The rest were unidentified. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

87 28 17

Thickness (mm) 87 7 5

Width (mm) 87 6 5

Weight (mm) 87 4 5

1. F. 3. Claw pendant - (N = 1) claw with drilled proximal end. Too fragmentary to measure. 1. F. 4. Decorated pendants - (N = 35) geometric, zoomorphic or anthropomorphic decoration, supersedes raw material. Most decoration is geometric. Decoration also refers to the form of the pendent as well as to carved or incised motifs (MacDonald 1983, Fig. 6. 3, 6. 4, 6 5) (see Chapter 9). Most too fragmentary to measure.

119

Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

5 29 29

Thickness (mm) 5 4 5

Width (mm) 5 7 8

Weight (mm) 5 4 2

1. F. 5. Bone pendant fragments - (N = 2) girdled or drilled fragments. 1. F. 6 Molar pendant - (N = 1) drilled mammalian molar. Length (mm) 28

Thickness (mm) 11

Width (mm) 8

Weight (mm) 2

1. F. 7. Beaver incisor pendants - (N = 3) beaver incisors with girdled proximal ends. The girdling could also represent shaping for hafting. These are too fragmentary to measure. 1. F. 8. Terrestrial–mammal bone pendants - (N = 44) sections of terrestrial– mammal bone with drilled holes, or girdled for suspension. Many are fragmentary, but are general tabular in shape with flat cross sections. These were distinguished from needle fragments when the piece had a worked end opposite the drilled or girdled end. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

15 19 18

Thickness (mm) 15 5 6

Width (mm) 15 7 9

Weight (mm) 15 2 2

1. F. 9. Sea–mammal bone pendant (sea mammal) - (N = 5) pendants made of sea–mammal bone. These are generally tabular in shape, with flat cross sections. Length (mm) Smaller Larger

42 152

Thickness (mm) 6 7

Width (mm) 7 27

Weight (mm) 2 15

1. F. 10. Tooth pendant - (N = 3) drilled or girdled tooth fragment. These were too fragmentary to measure. 120

1. F. 11. Shell pendant - (N = 8) drilled shell pendants, round to oblong in plan view, concavo-convex in cross-section. All were recovered at GbTo34. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

8 15 1

Thickness (mm) 8 .5 1

Width (mm) 8 13 3

Weight (mm) 8 6 13

1. F. 12. Pendants of unknown material - (N = 10) drilled or girdled fragments too small or delicate to identify the parent material. Not measurable. 1. G. Pin - Objects resembling ethnographic blanket pins; they are long and thin, tubular in cross-section, sometimes with a button or head at one end (MacDonald 1983 Fig. 6. 14).

of the pin.

1. G. 1. Decorated pins - (N = 2) decoration may be on the shaft or the head

Length (mm) 3

measure.

Thickness (mm) 1

Width (mm) 1

Weight (mm) 1

1. G. 2. Plain pins - (N = 13) As above, but no decoration. Too fragile to

Comments: Pins are rare. They were recovered at seven sites, including GbTo18. Where AUs could be established, they generally occur one/AU. They are absent from the GbTo30 and the GbTn1 assemblages, both of which are small, suggesting some sampling bias at work at the assemblage size level. 1. H. Rings - (N = 2) objects resembling finger rings. They are essentially large, flat disc beads with central holes large enough for a finger. (MacDonald 1983, Fig. 6. 7). One is bird bone; the other is of terrestrial–mammal bone. Both were too fragmentary to measure. 1. I. Tubes - Tubes or whistles, their length is more than double their circumference to distinguish them from tubular beads, which they may be in some cases. 1. I. 1. Bird bone tubes - (N = 179) bird bone shafts at least twice as long as they are wide, at least one end worked (polished or ground).

121

Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

55 50 42

Thickness (mm) 55 6 3

Width (mm) 55 7 4

Weight (mm) 55 2 3

1. I. 2. Terrestrial–mammal bone tubes - (N = 12) small terrestrial mammal long bone sections, length at least twice their width, with at least one worked (ground or polished)6 end. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

decorations.

3 19 25

Thickness (mm) 3 3 3

Width (mm) 3 4 5

Weight (mm) 3 3 3

1. I. 3. Decorated bone tubes - (N = 2) bone tubes with incised geometric

Length (mm) Smaller Larger

6 12

Thickness (mm) 1 5

Width (mm) 1 6

Weight (mm) 1 5

Comments: Tubes, whatever their functions may have been, are ubiquitous and common. They are present in all AUs. Their frequency is generally a function of assemblage size, though GbTn1 has a large number of them for its small size. Discussion of adornment artifacts: Pendants of all types constitute just over 50% of these objects, while tubes, which may or may not actually be items of adornment, are an additional 40%. The great majority of these items were made from terrestrial–mammal bones and teeth. They thus were made of readily available raw materials. Exotic raw materials are almost entirely restricted to items found in burial contexts (see Chapter 9), except for the rare shell beads, which may be dentalium. The figures here probably underestimate the true numbers of such beads, since they would be hard to see in shell midden. Holm (1990) suggests some of the brow bands of the Marpole phase of the Gulf of Georgia were produced by specialists. With the possible exceptions of the shell beads, none of these items seems to require specialist skills. All were made with the tools, methods, and 6

See note 1

122

skills which were standard through out much of the harbour’s prehistory. None of this precludes their manufacture by specialists, but neither does it demonstrate that. Artifacts described in Chapter 9, however, clearly imply the presence of specialists, however. Excluding shell artifacts, the highest percentages of these items were recovered at GbTo34 (26%) and GcTo1 (25%). If shell artifacts are included, the percentage of all adornment artifacts recovered for GbTo34 would be even higher, since virtually all shell items of adornment (except those described in Chapter 8) were recovered at that site. The very high numbers of these items at these two sites cannot be explained solely on the basis of assemblage size. Lachane has the largest assemblage overall, with some 5100 artifacts, but only 90 items of adornment, and Boardwalk, which in other respects is the most distinctive of these sites, produced only 80 items of adornment (excluding these recovered in burials). On the other hand, GbTo34 produced approximately 2200 artifacts and 128 of these artifacts. GcTo1 produced only 1500 artifacts or so, but 122 items of adornment. 2. Bevel tip tools - Tools with beveled tips in transverse cross section. No distinction is made in the classification whether the tip is bifacially or unifacially beveled. Beveling, however, had to be the prime characteristic of the form of the tip. This class includes what are usually grouped as wedges, chisels, bone adzes, and the like. They are typed on the basis of the plan–view of their tips, and the types are subdivided by the presence and/or absence of haft and base elements. 2. A. Beveled pointed tip tools (chisel)- tools with beveled tips that come to a point, usually called chisels. 2. A. 1. Hafted beveled pointed tip tools - (N = 31) tools with a haft element, may or may not have a worked base. Hafts are usually parallel or contracting (towards the base) tangs, seldom internal (a hafting bevel on the ventral surface7 to permit the tool to lashed or attached to something else) or sockets. Bases are generally square in plan–view, though can be convex and concave. These would be hafted chisels if the functional attribution is correct. These are the most common beveled tools except for beveled rodent incisors. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

28 22 32

Thickness (mm) 31 2 2

7

Width (mm) 31 3 4

Weight (mm) 31 4 3

The ventral surface carries evidence of the marrow cavity or of having been the interior of the whole bone; the dorsal surface is the other surface. Objects which can not be so oriented are arbitrarily oriented for the purpose of description (Ames 1976).

123

2. A. 2. Fixed beveled pointed tip tools - (N = 18) tools with a worked base, but no haft. The bases are convex. These tools are well made, that is, they display evidence of grinding or abrading on all surfaces. The term "fixed" here parallels use of the term through-out these descriptions, and implies they were affixed to a handle but lack a haft. Some may have been hand held. Length (mm) Smaller Larger

4 58

Thickness (mm) 1 6

Width (mm) 1 9

Weight (mm) 2 2

2. A. 3. Beveled pointed tip ulna tools - (N = 4) beveled point made on the distal end of an ulna. Cervid and sea otter ulnas8 are favored for this purpose. These usually display little or no other modification. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

3 35 45

Thickness (mm) 3 7 9

Width (mm) 3 9 11

Weight (mm) 3 8 5

2. A. 4. Beveled pointed tip metapodial (metapod) tool - (N = 8) (Fig. 6. 2) beveled tip made on a terrestrial mammal (usually deer) metapodial. The points can be on either the proximal or distal end; the metapodials can be either split transversely or longitudinally9, or not split. These tools retain one articulatory end which can be either unmodified or slightly so (flattened, sawn). Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

6 53 38

Thickness (mm) 6 12 12

Width (mm) 6 14 11

Weight (mm) 6 10 4

2. A. 5. Beveled pointed tip metacarpal (metacarp) tool - (N = 1) as above, but tool is built on a cervid metacarpal

8

Stewart 1976

9

Transversely split metapodials were split at either their distal or proximal ends, or after sectioning (removing or articulatory ends) along lateral sides. Longitudinal spit metapodials were split through their groove.

124

Length (mm) 11

Thickness (mm) 2

Width (mm) 3

Weight (mm) 20

2. A. 6. Beveled pointed tools with an anatomical (anat) end - (N = 8) beveled point made on a bone retaining an articulatory end (except ulnas and metapodials). Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

5 19 26

Thickness (mm) 5 3 3

Width (mm) 5 4 5

Weight (mm) 5 3 3

Figure 6. 2 Bevel tip metapodial tool. Drawn half size.

2. A. 7. Beveled pointed worked (wrkd) tools - (N = 20) tools with a beveled point and evidence of tool manufacture on the body as well as on the tip, but there is no base or haft element. It is possible that these are broken tools, having snapped off above the haft. It is also possible they could have been hafted without a prepared haft or base. There is no way to answer these possibilities short of detailed analyses of the ends of the tools, something far beyond the scope of this project. These seem surprisingly rare. 125

Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

9 59 54

Thickness (mm) 9 8 8

Width (mm) 9 12 11

Weight (mm) 9 14 18

2. A. 8. Beveled pointed splinter tools - (N = 1) tool with a beveled point where only the tip is worked. Splinter tools are made on a long bone splinter, and there is no polish, or grinding or abrasion striae anywhere else on the object. The distinction between worked and splinter is always based on the presence of evidence of working (polish, grinding, abrasion, etc. ) on the body element of worked tools. Splinter tools do not have such evidence; it is always restricted to the tip. This object could not be measured. 2. A. 9. Beveled point tip bird bone tools - (N = 4) hollow bird bones worked to produce a unifacial or bifacial bevel at one or both ends. Length (mm) 53

beveled tip.

Thickness (mm) 3

Width (mm) 4

Weight (mm) 1

2. A. 10. Fragment (frag) - (N = 2) an otherwise unclassifiable fragment of a

2. B. Beveled round tip tools - Objects with transversely beveled tips that are rounded in plan–view, usually classified as wedges and bone adze bits. Relative to pointed tip beveled tools; these are far less common in the assemblages. 2. B. 1 Hafted rounded tip beveled tool - (N = 19) objects have hafting elements, and may or may not have worked bases. Hafting elements are usually tangs, never ventral bevels, or sockets. The hafts are predominately parallel hafts, though contracting hafts occur. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

19 13 15

Thickness (mm) 19 2 2

Width (mm) 19 3 5

Weight (mm) 19 13 27

2. B. 2. Fixed rounded tip beveled tool - (N = 3) objects have a worked base, but no haft. Bases are square in plan–view, elliptical to rectangular in cross section. These 126

are what are usually classed as wedges. They are of terrestrial–mammal long bone, sea– mammal bone, and antler. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

3 50 66

Thickness (mm) 5 6 10

Width (mm) 5 9 12

Weight (mm) 5 18 25

2. B. 3. Beveled rounded tip ulna tool - (N = 1) round, beveled tip made on the distal end of a deer ulna. Length (mm) 105

Thickness (mm) 24

Width (mm) 26

Weight (mm) 13

2. B. 4. Beveled rounded tip metapodial tool - (N = 1) round, beveled tip made on a terrestrial mammal metatarsal and retains the proximal articulatory end. Length (mm) 92

Thickness (mm) 24

Width (mm) 19

Weight (mm) 5

2. B. 5. Beveled round tip worked tools - (N = 14) tools with a round, beveled tip and evidence for tool manufacturing on the body as well as the tip, but there is no base or haft element. These are usually terrestrial–mammal bone, sometimes sea mammal, and antler. Interestingly, given the number of these tools, none were measurable. 2. B. 6. Beveled round tip bird bone tools - (N = 1) object made on a avian long bone section, with little or no other modification with one end carrying the tip. The object was not measurable. 2. C. Beveled square tip tools - Objects with beveled tips that are square in plan view, usually classified as small wedges, bone adze bits or celts. In some instances, this could be a misidentification; some of these objects could be beveled haft fragments with square bases. 2. C. 1. Beveled square tip hafted tools - (N = 26) object has a hafting element, may or may not have a worked base. Hafting elements are usually tangs, never

127

ventral bevels, or sockets. The tangs are predominately parallel hafts, though contracting hafts occur. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

17 27 38

Thickness (mm) 17 5 8

Width (mm) 17 8 15

Weight (mm) 17 10 15

2. C. 2. Bevel square tip fixed tool - object has a worked base, but no haft. Bases are square in plan–view, elliptical to rectangular in cross section. 2. C. 2. a. Bone beveled square tip tool - (N = 4) as above, made of terrestrial–mammal bone. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

3 12 2

Thickness (mm) 3 1 0

Width (mm) 3 2 2

Weight (mm) 3 21 10

2. C. 2. b. Shell beveled square tip tool - (N = 9) as above, but made from marine shell. Of the four complete ones, three are trapezoidal in plan–view, one is ovate. These are clearly shell adze bits. Of these, five were recovered at GbTo33, one at GbTn1, and one each at GbTo34 and 36. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

9 37 7

Thickness (mm) 9 8 3

Width (mm) 9 33 6

Weight (mm) 9 8 3

2. C. 2. c. Wooden beveled square tip tool - (N -2) as above, but made of wood. One was recovered at GbTo31 and the other at 33. Presumably, these are wooden adze bits. Length (mm) Smaller Larger

17 17

Thickness (mm) 2 3

128

Width (mm) 3 4

Weight (mm) 49 93

2. C. 3. Beveled square tip ulna tool - (N = 2) square, beveled tip made on the distal end of deer ulnas. Length (mm) Smaller Larger

6 11

Thickness (mm) 1 2

Width (mm) 2 2

Weight (mm) 6 9

2. C. 4. Beveled square tip metatarsal tool - (N = 5) square, beveled tip made on a terrestrial mammal metacarpal or metatarsal. The metapodials may be split transversely or longitudinally. They retain an articulatory end. Two were measurable. Length (mm) Smaller Larger

80 138

Thickness (mm) 20 14

Width (mm) 30 21

Weight (mm) 10 18

2. C. 5. Beveled square tip metacarpal tool - (N = 1) as above, but made on the metacarpal of a terrestrial mammal. Could not be measured. 2. C. 6. Beveled square tip tool with anatomical end - (N = 1) beveled square tip on a terrestrial–mammal bone retaining one articulatory end (excluding ulnae, and metapodials). Only one was measured. Length (mm) 7

Stewart.

Width (mm) 2

Weight (mm) 4

2. C. 7. Beveled square tip made on a bacculum - (N = 2) Identification by F.

Length (mm) Smaller Larger

Thickness (mm) 1

8 17

Thickness (mm) 1 3

Width (mm) 2 4

Weight (mm) 8 111

2. C. 8 Beveled square tip worked tools - (N = 17) tools with a square, beveled tip and evidence for tool manufacturing on the body as well as the tip, but there is no base or haft element. These are usually terrestrial–mammal bone, sometimes sea mammal, and antler. None measured.

129

2. C. 9. Beveled square tip on bird bone - (N = 1) tool made on a avian long bone section, usually with little or no other modification. Not measured. 2. D. Beveled teeth - rodent incisors, canines (of other mammals) and other teeth which have been beveled. These are most commonly beaver incisors, but porcupine incisors were also used. Where species of origin could not be identified, these are termed rodent incisors. F. Steward had identified most of these from GbTo31. One question relevant to these artifacts is whether the beveling was the result of human activity or normal tooth wear. We examined these for clear evidence of grinding or abrasion striae, and did not record teeth for which we were not satisfied. 2. D. 1. Beveled beaver incisors - (N = 122) beaver incisors with beveling on their distal end. Many could not be measured. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

11 37 13

Thickness (mm) 11 6 2

Width (mm) 11 5 2

Weight (mm) 11 2 1

2. D. 2. Beveled rodent incisors - (N = 195) rodent incisors which have been beveled. This class probably includes both beaver and porcupine incisors. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

9 32 18

Thickness (mm) 9 5 3

Width (mm) 9 4 3

Weight (mm) 9 2 1

2. D. 3. Beveled canines - (N = 16) mammalian canines with worked, beveled tips, displaying grinding or abrasion. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

7 14 17

Thickness (mm) 7 4 6

Width (mm) 7 3 3

Weight (mm) 3 5 4

Comments: While many of these teeth were examined both by Francis Stewart and by myself, I still harbour some reservations that all of these incisors functioned as tools, particularly after several years have elapsed since conducting the analysis. The bevels on the 130

tips of these teeth were analogous in shape and work to those on the tips of bone tools, so we were confidant when we recorded them that they were artifacts. However, I would like to examine an equivalent size sample of non–artifactual beaver and porcupine teeth and compare that sample to this one. 2. E. Antler Wedges - (N = 3) These are large, beveled antler tools with worked and battered bases. They have square to ovate bases. Most were too fragmentary or delicate to measure. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

3 67 53

Thickness (mm) 3 9 7

Width (mm) 3 13 13

Weight (mm) 3 18 18

Discussion of beveled bone, antler, and shell artifacts: The distribution of these tools among the nine site samples appears to be closely controlled by assemblage size. A regression analysis of the number of beveled tools against assemblage size (for all AUs) produced an r2 of . 647 with a p of . 707. When a line is fitted to a plot of the number of beveled tools against total assemblage size/AU, the relationship is clearly linear. All assemblages fall within the . 95 confidence limits of such a plot. This all suggests that the function of these tools was quite basic to the local technology. These tools are commonly classed as chisels, wedges, adze bits, or blades (celts), and so were probably parts of the basic–carpentry tool kits. If this functional attribution is correct, then their uniform distribution suggests that basic carpentry and wood work occurred regularly at all of these sites. The vast majority of these tools were made from terrestrial–mammal bone and teeth (74%), while 8% are of antler and 6% of sea–mammal bone. While these percentages are close to the proportions of terrestrial–mammal bone, antler and sea–mammal bone in the bone tool assemblage as a whole, the frequency of terrestrial–mammal bone is somewhat low (74% vs. 80% overall) and the percentage of antler a bit high (8% vs. 6%). Antler and sea– mammal bone absorb shock better than does terrestrial–mammal bone, which, on the other hand, is denser and more rigid. In any case, there was clearly some preference for antler operating for some tools, such as large splitting wedges. About 12% of these tools are made of the metapodials of terrestrial mammals, probably cervids. These are the densest bones in these animal’s bodies and the best available for tools such as chisels and small wedges requiring sharpness, strength and rigidity. These are not, by and large, opportunistic tools. Splinter and ulnar forms are relatively rare. Worked forms are generally worked over much of their surfaces, while hafted and fixed forms are more common. These latter required the making of a hafting element and a worked base, and, by implication, a handle of some kind. Many of these also display

131

reworking, in which the pointed or square tips were reshaped through sharpening or rebeveling. 3. Bipoints - (N = 14) small, slender bone objects with points at either end, with a circular cross-section and biconvex to straight bodies. These are also sometimes called fish gorges. Ethnographically, they armed composite harpoons, were set into herring rakes etc. (Drucker 1943). There are surprisingly few of them. Broken bipoints would be difficult to recognize as such; both ends would be classed as tip fragments. As a result they are probably undercounted. Despite this, their relative rarity is interesting. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

14 18 19

Thickness (mm) 14 2 1

Width (mm) 14 2 2

Weight (mm) 14 2 2

Comments: The vast bulk of these artifacts are made of terrestrial–mammal bone (80%, just about the overall percentage of tools made of terrestrial–mammal bone in the entire assemblage). As the tallies show, bipoints were recovered at only four sites, GbTo23, GbTo31, GbTo34, and GcTo1, and of these, 60% were recovered at GbTo31. Sutherland reports two bipoints from GbTo18 (Dodge Island), part of the Dodge Cove site complex. This intra-harbour distribution may reflect a sampling bias of some kind, or it may be real. It is not an effect of assemblage size. At GbTo31, D/AU/2 produced 25% of all bipoints recovered in the harbour and 42% of those recovered at Boardwalk. Thus, the distribution pattern is strongly affected by this single AU. Bipoints probably armed an array of compound tools, including herring rakes, composite harpoon heads, and fish hooks, among others. Their patchy distribution suggests they were deployed quite locally, and not in equipment used through out the harbour. They seem to have been used almost exclusively in Metlakatla Pass and around Dodge Cove, both areas with extensive shallows. In terms of faunal remains, the high numbers of bipoints at Boardwalk are associated with high numbers of sea otter remains, both reflecting, as I argue in Chapter 9, intensive exploitation of kelp beds in the harbor. The distribution of bipoints can be contrasted with that of harpoon valves, which is far more uniform across the harbor. Raetz (1989) in her study of bone tool assemblages at from the entire coast discovered that bipoints are probably more consistently associated with fixed bone points than with harpoon valves, though the association is not inevitable. Her study included Boardwalk, Garden Island and Grassy Bay. Garden Island has both quite high numbers of bipoints and fixed bone points among the sites in the harbour. It is also located in the midst of a very extensive shallow. 4. Bone Blades or Daggers - (N = 9) large lanceolate objects of antler (1), sea mammal (1)(including whale [2]) and terrestrial–mammal bone (6). Their plan–views resemble the 132

outline of ethnographic daggers or large lance points. Some possess tangs for hafting. They are prismatic in cross section, having flat faces and beveled edges. We have measurements only for one of the whale bone objects Length (mm) 240

Thickness (mm) 10

Width (mm) 20

Weight (mm) 11

Comments: These are well and fully worked, ground, polished, and abraded across all surfaces. They were recovered only at GbTo31, in AC/AU1 (3), AC/AU2 (1), B/AU1 (1), B/AU3 (1), and D/AU1 (1). They are most common, then, in AUs associated with burials, though they occur in other contexts. The utilitarian or technomic function of some of these is open to debate. Terrestrial–mammal bone blades could easily have functioned as points or dagger blades if used for stabbing; antler and sea–mammal bone seem unlikely raw materials for making stabbing implements. Given the time and effort invested in them, the blades very likely had sociotechnic or ideotechnic functions, perhaps for display. 5. Bone/Antler Barkpeeler (Brkplr). (N =9) Sections of bone, commonly ribs, sometimes with handles or grips, used for peeling and shredding cedar bark. They have a flat, bat (baseball or cricket)-like or paddle-like shape. Only one could be measured. Length (mm) 180

Thickness (mm) 10

Width (mm) 20

Weight (mm) 26

6. Bone/Antler Barkshredder (Brkshdr) (Drucker 1938), (N = 4), including two described below) "D" shaped (self handled) object, usually of whale bone, used to beat and separate cedar bark. 6. A. Sea–mammal bone bark shredder- (N = 1) Length (mm) 160

Thickness (mm) 10

Width (mm) 90

Weight (mm) 116

6. B. Decorated bark shredder - (N = 1) object has a geometric design on its blade. Length (mm) 50

Thickness (mm) 10

133

Width (mm) 40

Weight (mm) 4

7. Barksplitters - (N = 2) described as such in Inglis’ analysis, not available for analysis in this study. Both are from Boardwalk. Not measured, but included in the Boardwalk tallies. Comments on barkbeaters bark shredders and barksplitters: Given the importance of bark as a source of fiber, these tools are remarkably rare. They are still rare if their stone equivalents are included. This may reflect these tools being highly curated, therefore unlikely to end up in the deposits; they broke often and were recycled into something else; or bark was not processed at the sites in the harbour, but elsewhere, where the tools would consequently be curated. The first option seems the most likely given that most of these were residential sites where processing could be expected to have occurred. However, bark procurement could have been embedded in other, seasonal activities. These were recovered at three sites: GbTo31, 33, and 36. When present, they tend to be found across a site. At Boardwalk, they were present in five AUs, at Lachane in three. 8. Bone/Antler Clubs. Bone clubs are usually made of whale bone. They have elongate, excurvate blunt blades (see Chapter 9). The pommel usually carries anthropomorphic or zoomorphic design (MacDonald 1983, Fig. 6. 16). 8. A. Whalebone club - (N = 1) described in Chapter 9 Length (mm) 90

Thickness (mm) 10

Width (mm) 10

Weight (mm) 40

8. B. Bone/Antler miniature zoomorphic clubs - (N= 3) (Fig. 6. 3) miniature clubs carved from mammal bone sections in the form of an animal, drilled for suspension at end away from the carved head. The head is raised above the body of the club, with drilled eyes. One has ears laying back along its neck, and backbone, which is indicated. Both have formed forelegs which appear slotted as though to carry a blade. In general form, these are similar to ground stone clubs found on the southern Northwest Coast and California which one or both sets of legs ground to form an adze blade parallel to the body. In these two, the blade would have been at right angles to the body. See Chapter 9 (MacDonald 1983, Fig. 6. 18, 6. 19). One could be measured. Length (mm) 190

Thickness (mm) 10

Width (mm) 40

Weight (mm) 38

8. C. Anthropomorphic club - (N = 1) fully described in Chapter 9, including measurements. 134

Comments: Clubs were recovered only at Garden Island (AU/1) and Boardwalk (AC/AU1 and B/AU3). The miniature clubs were recovered in the latter AU. 9. Combs - The objects are generally rectangular or elliptical. They are usually much narrower than they are long. The lower half of the object contains the teeth. The upper half is either plain or decorated (MacDonald 1983, Fig. 6. 13) (Fig. 6. 4) (see Chapter 9). 9. A. Plain combs - (N = 2) the object is undecorated. Length (mm) Smaller Larger

96 60

Thickness (mm) 6 10

Width (mm) 16 20

Weight (mm) 4 5

9. B. Zoomorphic comb - (N =1) The object is carved in the shape of a wolf. It is discussed in Chapter 9. It was recovered in 23/AU/1. 10. Crescents - small, slender, crescentic bone objects usually bi-pointed. These objects are not commonly described in Northwest Coast site reports, where they may be included with bipoints, or they may be unique to Prince Rupert Harbour. 10. A. Antler crescent - (N =1) not measured. 10. B. Sea–mammal bone crescent - (N = 1) not measured. 10. C. Terrestrial–mammal bone crescents - (N = 8) Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

4 47 17

Thickness (mm) 4 10 0

Width (mm) 4 10 0

Weight (mm) 4 2 1

10. D. Shell crescent - (N = 1) Comments: The function of the crescents is unknown. The bone and antler crescents were recovered only at Garden Island, in both AUs, and at Lachane, in two AUs. The shell crescent was also recovered at Lachane.

135

Figure 6. 3 Fragment of miniature zoomorphic club with split front legs (Boardwalk).

Figure 6. 4. Zoomorphic comb (Wolf) (Garden Island)

136

11. Detritus - worked bone which clearly appeared to be waste material from tool manufacture, may be flaked, sawn, or abraded, and with snapped ends. Detritus can be produced by sectioning bone, in which case the detritus is the discard, or it can be produced as breakage when tools are being fabricated. This is difficult to recognize and there is probably much more detritus in the level bags. 12. Bone and antler flakers - (N = 2) bone or antler tool used in pressure flaking stone tools, based upon modern analogues. The tools have tips which display crushing, and flaking. No measurements could be taken. Both were recovered in 31/B/AU1, which is quite interesting, given that this is one of the earliest AUs in the analyzed sample, with the potential of being considerably older than previously thought. The absence of flakers in other AUs seems unlikely to be due to sample size biases, particularly given the virtual absence of chipped stone in any assemblages from the harbour. These then are distinctive markers of Prince Rupert 3. 13. Gauges - Flat, rectangular pieces of sea mammal (including whale) bone and antler with a biconically drilled hole in the center. 13. A. Sea–mammal bone gauges - (N = 2) Length (mm) Smaller Larger

6 46

Thickness (mm) 1 4

Width (mm) 4 37

Weight (mm)

11

13. B. Terrestrial–mammal bone gauges - (N = 1) Length (mm) 47

Thickness (mm) 1

Width (mm) 16

Weight (mm) 1

13. C. Gauges of unidentified bone - (N = 5) Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

3 12 15

Thickness (mm) 3 2 1

Width (mm) 3 8 12

Weight (mm) 3 1 1

Comments: These were recovered from only three AUs at Lachane and at GbTo36.

137

14. Handles - Bone (terrestrial and sea mammal) and antler objects, usually circular in cross section, rectangular in plan–view, with a slot on one side or an opening in one end as though to hold something. Slots usually are the same size as a beaver incisor. 14. A. Anthropomorphic handle - (N = 1) handle carved on to the base of a deer antler, appears to be a bearded face (or individual with triangular chin) and a top knot (base of the antler). Eyes are incised ovoids that slant upwards and outwards from center of design. The handle, which may be eroded, resembles most closely the anthropomorphic handle recovered at the Glenrose Cannery site, near Vancouver, B. C. (Matson 1976) which dates to ca. 4000 BP. This handle was recovered on the surface. 14. B. Decorated handles - (N = 6) handle with geometric designs (see Chapter 9). Only one was measured. Length (mm) 60

Thickness (mm) 10

Width (mm) 20

Weight (mm) 11

14. C. Plain bone and antler handles - (N = 15). Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

5 46 35

Thickness (mm) 5 6 5

Width (mm) 5 12 9

Weight (mm) 5 15 12

14. D. Sea–mammal bone handle - (N = 1). Length (mm) 60

Thickness (mm) 10

Width (mm) 20

Weight (mm) 8

14. E. Handle fragments - (N =3). Comments: Of these, ten are antler, eleven of terrestrial–mammal bone, only one is of sea– mammal bone, and two of unidentifiable bone. Handles were recovered in all sites, except Grassy Bay, and in 12 AUs. In most sites, there is one handle per AU where handles are present. However, six (25%) were recovered in 31/B/AU/3 alone.

138

15. Horn cores - (N = 9) these are usually of mountain goat, some are cut. They are treated as artifacts since they probably represent raw material. One was recovered at Lachane, which also produced mountain goat bones. 16. Pegs (or plugs) - (N = 5) bone objects resembling short, broad pegs, usually cut or whittled to shape, similar to a large cork that had been trimmed to shape with a knife. These were recovered at Lachane. Only two could be measured. Length (mm) Smaller Larger

40 170

Thickness (mm) 10 30

Width (mm) 10 40

Weight (mm) 1 3

17. Worked Phalanges – (N = 5) mammal phalanges that have been drilled or incised, usually classed as "gaming pieces. ” One is drilled, the rest incised. The marks do not form “decorations. ” They were recovered at Garden Island and Lachane. They could not be measured. 18. Piercing tools - objects with pointed tips in both longitudinal and plan views. The class includes harpoon heads, awls, barbs, points – any piece of “pointy” worked bone. These were classed by the presence or absence of haft and base elements, by whether they are barbed (if appropriate), and by degree of work. These are most numerous artifacts in the assemblages, as is the case in most Northwest Coast bone tool assemblages. 18. A. Bone awls - (Fig. 6. 7) objects with pointed tips without a worked base and/or haft. The class includes what are commonly classed as awls and as knives. We were unable to develop consistent criteria with which to separate those two functional types. Here “bone awl” then simply means worked bone artifacts with tips that are pointed in both longitudinal and plan views. Tip shapes are generally triangular to ovate. 18. A. 1. Worked bone awls- (N = 1121) pointed tip made on a long bone section with evidence of manufacture (abrasion and/or grinding striae) on the tip and elsewhere on the object, but no evidence of a haft or base. These are sometimes classed as in other classifications as splinter awls. The very low number of measured artifacts reflects the difficulty in establishing whether the tools were actually complete, or broken, since by definition they had some working on the body. Therefore, this class could also include tip/body fragments of hafted and fixed bone points, needless or other forms with pointed tips. The measured tools are those which several analysts felt were complete. They represent 6.5% of this class.

139

Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

73 48 40

Thickness (mm) 73 5 5

Width (mm) 72 9 9

Weight (mm) 73 11 48

18. A. 2. Splinter awls - (N = 157) pointed tip made on a long bone fragment with evidence of working at the tip only. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

58 73 29

Thickness (mm) 58 7 4

Width (mm) 58 12 5

Weight (mm) 58 4 3

18. A. 3. Metapodial awls - (N = 76) pointed tip made on a mammalian metatarsal or metacarpal. Metapodial may or may not be split; if it is split, it can be split transversely or longitudinally, but retains an articulatory end. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

43 25 40

Thickness (mm) 43 3 5

Width (mm) 43 5 8

Weight (mm) 43 7 4

18. A. 4. Ulna awls - (N =104) Fig. 6. 7d) pointed tips made on the distal end of the ulna of a mammal. Deer and sea otter ulnas were most commonly used for this purpose. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

45 36 44

Thickness (mm) 45 6 8

140

Width (mm) 45 10 12

Weight (mm) 45 8 4

Figure 6. 5. Unhafted bone piercing tools, or bone awls. These are splinter awls. Drawn half size.

18. A. 5. Anatomical awls - (N = 86) pointed tips made on a mammalian bone shaft or fragment that retains an articulatory end (except metapodials and ulnae). These are essentially splinter awls, except these retain the articulatory end. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

53 43 36

Thickness (mm) 53 6 6

Width (mm) 53 9 7

Weight (mm) 53 5 4

18. A. 5. a. Bacculum awls - (N = 3) pointed tips made on the bacculum or penis bone of a mammal. 18. A. 5. b. Antler tine awl - (N = 1) an antler tine with a pointed tip, tip was cut or “whittled” to shape.

141

18. A. 6. Nipple or shouldered awls - (N = 19) (Fig. 6. 7b) awls with a strong symmetrical (on both sides) shoulder at the juncture of the tip and body. One is decorated with a geometric design (MacDonald 1984 6. 12. a). Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

5 80 18

Thickness (mm) 5 10 0

Width (mm) 5 12 4

Weight (mm) 5 3 1

Comments: Splinter awls, ulna awls, anatomical awls, and, to a slightly lesser extent (in that they display working on the body as well as the tip), worked awls are the major category of “opportunistic tools” in these assemblages. They are the analog to the utilized and worked flakes of assemblages of chipped stone tools. They are ubiquitous as an artifact class, although their numbers and densities vary considerably from AU to AU. As usual, 31/B/AU3 has the largest number and greatest diversity /m3. Their distribution is probably a reflection of general fabricating and processing activities. Since mammals appear to have been hunted and butchered at all of these sites, raw material would have been readily available. The question, however, is to what extent the need to make these tools was anticipated, and built into the planning for tasks, or whether these tools are truly opportunistic in the sense that they represent unplanned activities. If their manufacture was expected, then the appropriate tools would be kept ready, and perhaps appropriate tool bone set aside; e. g. a likely splinter of bone kept against the need for a splinter awl. Some selectivity in tool bone did occur. Ulnae provide an excellent awl blank, and both deer and sea otter ulnas were used for this purpose. Metapodials are dense, strong bones and would be excellent for tasks requiring direct force and a strong tip. Their manufacture can require the making of blanks from the metapodial by sawing and snapping. These then reflect a higher level of curation than do these other tools. It seems likely that metapodials might be selectively curated as raw material for later tool making. Nipple awls, on the other hand, required much more work in their manufacture, and they are relatively rare. The shouldering presumably reflects the needs of some task, perhaps basket making. The geometric design on the one decorated awl is strongly reminiscent of a basketry weave. Their rarity suggests they were curated. 18. B. Harpoon heads (Hrpn) -(Fig. 6. 6) Harpoon heads are typed by whether they are composite, barbed, or barbless. Composite heads are made with two valves which are lashed together. Each valve has a hafting bed at its distal end so that when the two valves are lashed together, they have a socketed base which fits on a shaft. Two types are distinguished

142

in the literature. Type I (Drucker 1938) valves have a socket at both ends. These are armed with bone bipoints, or slender bone points. Type II are armed with a bone, slate or shell blade, and have a slot formed by the two halves to hold the blade, rather than a socket (see Stewart 1981, 137-138). A third type of composite head is “self armed,” where the valves come to a point, and do not require a blade or bipoint. Valves are usually girdled so that they can be tied together, and for the attachment of a retrieval line. Barbed harpoon heads are classed by whether they are unilaterally or bilaterally barbed (barbed on one or on both lateral sides), and how the retrieval line is attached to them: whether they have line holes, line guards, line grooves, line shoulders or notches to hold the retrieving line (line connecting harpoon to harpooner). Line holes are drilled holes placed symmetrically or asymmetrically in the harpoon head’s haft; line guards extend from the haft of the harpoon to keep the line from sliding off – they may be unilateral or bilateral as can be line shoulders and notches. Barbless harpoons are objects with hafting elements for retrieval lines, but no barbs. Most harpoon heads which preserve their retrieval line attachment attributes have line holes or line guards. Line grooves are rare. Of the 56 harpoon heads complete enough to establish the number and position of all the barbs, 44, or 79%, are unilaterally barbed (Fig. 6. 6). Of these, over half have two or more barbs. In the table, disparities between the totals and the rest of the columns indicates the number of fragments. For example, of the 21 artifacts with line guards (Fig. 6. 9c), only 13 were complete enough to count the barbs. Table 6. 1 Paradigmatic classification of harpoon heads Line guards Line grooves One bilateral barb 1 Two or more 2 bilateral barbs One unilateral barb 7 Two or more 3 2 unilateral barbs Totals 21 10

Line holes 7

Totals 3 9

9

19 25

38

The paradigmatic classification of harpoon heads in Table 6.1 produces 12 types of barbed harpoon heads based on the position and number of barbs, and the method of retrieval line attachment. Of those 12 types, only seven are filled. Four additional types can be added to this classification by introducing the hafting type “other” to the three forms of line attachment. “Other” is a residual category that includes harpoon heads where the method of line attachment is not clear. Fifty harpoon heads were complete enough to plot the distribution of the resulting 16 types (Table 6. 2). These 50 were distributed among 11 AUs. AUs not included in the table did not have harpoon heads complete enough to class, or did not have harpoon heads. GbTo34 produced the greatest variety of harpoon heads.

143

The relative rarity of bilaterally barbed harpoons makes it difficult to determine whether their absence in Prince Rupert 1 AUs is the result of sampling, or represents a trend. Harpoons are discussed again in Chapter 9. Table 6. 2 Distribution of harpoon head types by AU. GbTo23 AU AU

Line hole Line guard Line groove Other Line hole Line guard Line groove Other

1

2

1

1 1

GbTo31 B D

AC

D

D

B

GbTo33 D E

AU1 AU2 AU3 AU1 AU2 AU3 AU AU AU One unilateral barb 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

1 1 Two + unilateral barbs 1 1 1

1

2 1 1

1

Line hole Line guard Line groove Other

1

2 One bilateral barb

1

1 1 Two + bilateral barbs

Line hole Line guard Line groove Other

GbTo 34 AU

GbTo GcTo 36 1 AU

AU 1

1 1

1

1 1 1 3

1

1

1 1 2

1

1 1

2

18. B. 1. Barbed harpoon heads - (N = 122) Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

28 45 42

Thickness (mm) 28 4 4

Width (mm) 28 8 9

Weight (mm) 28 10 9

18. B. 2. Barbless harpoon heads - (N = 16) these have all the attributes of harpoon heads, except they have no barbs. They appear to have been made that way. While they are classed here with harpoon heads, because they posses retrieval line attachments, they could be a variety of foreshafts that had retrieval lines.

144

Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

5 92 64

Thickness (mm) 5 10 0

Width (mm) 5 18 8

Weight (mm) 5 8 10

18. B. 3. Barbed harpoon fragments - (N = 13). 18. B. 4. Composite harpoon head valves (all Type I) - (N = 67). See Chapter 9. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

21 14 19

Thickness (mm) 21 2 2

Width (mm) 21 3 4

Weight (mm) 21 4 3

Additional comments of harpoon heads: The function of harpoons clearly required the capacity for harpoon heads to absorb shock (and perhaps float). While the majority of harpoon heads were of terrestrial–mammal bone (N = 141, 65%), 31% (61) were of sea– mammal bone and 4% (9) were of antler. This is a low percentage for terrestrial–mammal bone (87% of all bone and antler tools) and a high percentage of sea–mammal bone (6% among all bone and antler tools) and a slightly high percentage for antler (2.7% overall). The use of sea–mammal bone also may reflect the need to be able to carve complex forms, such as barbs and line guards, which would be easier to do in sea–mammal bone than terrestrial– mammal bone, though clearly the latter serves. There seems to be no particular relationship between raw material and harpoon head type, nor between raw material and site or AU. Where manufacturing steps can be seen, barbed harpoon heads were made by cutting or sawing a blank from the raw material; the barbs and line attachments carved to shape, and the whole piece ground. In one case, a harpoon head broke in manufacture when the blank was too wide, and the artisan was trying to narrow it after carving the barbs by sawing away the excess. The absence of Type II composite harpoon valves (and of self armed ones) is reflected elsewhere among the assemblages by the virtual absence of arming blades for these weapons. There are no complete shell blades (only two fragmentary ones), nor are there obvious ground slate blades for them. The vast bulk of sea mammal remains in these sites are sea otters (Chapter 9) and seals. These were most likely taken in the harbour’s waters. Larger forms were taken far less often. Thus the recovered gear does seem to reflect directly local sea mammal hunting practices.

145

The barbless harpoons, as noted above, may well be foreshafts with retrieval line attachments. With three exceptions, they are all from Lachane. Two of the remaining three were recovered at Boardwalk. These two sites faced each other across the narrowest part of the harbour. Perhaps again they were part of gear adapted to very local conditions in that part of the harbour. Figure 6. 6 Unilaterally barbed harpoon heads. 6. 9a and b are fragments. 6. 9c has a line hole. 6. 9d has a line guard.

18. C. Needles - (N = 55) (Fig. 6. 7c) long objects with points at one end and drilled or incised holes at the other end. One is decorated with a geometric motif (Chapter 8). Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

9 42 36

Thickness (mm) 9 4 3

Width (mm) 9 7 6

Weight (mm) 9 4 3

Comments: The assemblages of GbTo30 and 36 lack needles. They are present in all other sites, including GbTo18 (Sutherland 1978). Where they are present, they are present in virtually all AUs, but are rare. Their numbers in any assemblage, however, is not a function 146

of assemblage size. The single largest concentration of needles is 33/B/AU. In terms of raw materials, 81% are of terrestrial–mammal bone, 8% of sea mammal, and 4% of antler. Another 8% were of material which could not be identified as to raw material. The extra 1% is the result of rounding. The figures for terrestrial mammal is close to the percentage of tools made of terrestrial–mammal bone among all bone and antler tools, while the percentages of sea–mammal bone and antler are a bit high, but probably not meaningfully so.

Figure 6. 7 Awls and needles. 6. 8a Splinter awl; 6. 8b Shouldered or nipple awl with geometric design; 6. 8c Needle fragment on proximal end of deer metapodial; 6. 8d fragment of Ulna awl.

18. D. Bone and antler points - objects with a pointed tip (in both plan–view and longitudinal cross-section), and a worked base and/or hafting element. Type includes what are usually classed as points, barbs etc. Tip shapes are primarily triangular and ovate but variations occur. 18. D. 1. Hafted points - (N = 1253) (Fig. 6. 9) objects with a pointed tip, and a hafting element, may or may not have a worked base. Hafts are parallel, expanding, contracting, and ventral bevels. Type includes barbs and Drucker's fixed bone points.

147

Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

887 24 33

Thickness (mm) 887 2 2

Width (mm) 887 3 4

Weight (mm) 887 3 2

Comments: These are common and ubiquitous. They armed a variety of implements and weapons as fish hook barbs, arrow points, liester barbs, etc. in the procurement technology and so were a basic part of the tool kit. Hafted bone points are almost all of terrestrial– mammal bone (96%). Less than 2% are of sea–mammal bone. This clearly indicates a preference in raw material and conditions of use in which sea–mammal bone and antler were not suitable. These are curated tools, in the sense that they required work. Most are ground or abraded over their entire surface. Generally, they are not just a point and haft built on a splinter though such do exist. 18. D. 2. Fixed points - (N = 130) objects with a pointed tip, and a worked base, but no haft. These are generally worked over the entire piece, reflecting some investment of time and energy. Bases are usually convex in plan–view, elliptical to rectangular in cross section. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

79 20 39

Thickness (mm) 79 2 3

Width (mm) 79 3 4

Weight (mm) 79 3 3

Comments: These are ubiquitous but uncommon. All AUs contain a few, though only five AUs have more than five of these points. These are also the fish hook barbs, arrow points, liester barbs, etc. of the procurement technology. They were all presumably hafted or attached to something, and the absence of a haft may reflect something about their function or about the particular equipment in which they were used was made. They are curated tools, and required some degree of skill and labor. Indeed, these generally had more effort invested in them than hafted points, since they are usually even more completely worked. Almost 93% are of terrestrial–mammal bone, while 5% are of sea–mammal bone, suggesting they were expected to meet stresses similar to those of hafted points. The different percentages for sea–mammal bone tools among fixed points and hafted points may be sampling, since it is so small, or it may reflect slightly different conditions of use.

148

Figure 6. 9 Ventral and dorsal views of a hafted bone point.

18. D. 3. Socketed points - (N = 66) (Fig. 6. 10) objects with a pointed tip and a hafting bed (half a socket) as their hafting element. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

41 41 33

Thickness (mm) 41 3 2

Width (mm) 41 6 5

Weight (mm) 41 4 3

Comments: With a single exception (bird bone), these are made exclusively of terrestrial– mammal bone. This selectivity indicates they were expected to withstand stresses and torque which neither sea–mammal bone nor antler could withstand. Terrestrial–mammal bone is more rigid and stronger than either of these when stresses are parallel to the long axis. These artifacts are rare but are virtually ubiquitous. Most sites and AUs may contain 10 or less, though GcTo1 had 19 (see Chapter 9). Their distribution and frequency is not a function of assemblage size. These are among the most fully worked bone artifacts, with grinding, abrasion, polishing and carving. The tool form itself is complex.

149

Figure 6. 10 Ventral, dorsal and lateral views of a socketed bone point.

18. D. 4. Barbed points - (N = 38) points with barbs, irrespective of hafting and base elements. All are unilaterally barbed with two or more barbs. All have hafting elements, usually tangs. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

2 79 83

Thickness (mm) 2 5 8

Width (mm) 2 15 16

Weight (mm) 2 4 5

Comments: Interestingly, these are exceedingly rare. Their frequency distribution is not a function of assemblage size, but they are absent in small assemblages. One must have at least 1000 artifacts for these tools to be present. Once they are present, however, one cannot predict their numbers from assemblage size. GcTo1 produced ca. 1500 artifact, including two of these, while GbTo36 has 1000 artifacts, and 11 barbed points. Again, I strongly suspect these distributions reflect very local differences in subsistence ecology, and therefore the gear that was deployed, but short of a very detailed catchement analysis, the point is hard to prove. These are well made curated tools. The barbing required effort and skill. The rarity of these tools may also be a reflection of this. 150

18. D. 5. Misc. points - (N = 1) point made on the bacculum of a sea otter. 18. E. Round tip points - objects with all the characteristics of a point or barb, but the tip is rounded; these are probably sometimes classed as punches. They could also be blunt projectiles, or reworked or worn points. 18. E. 1. Hafted round tip points - (N = 15) objects with a round tip, and a hafting element, may or may not have a worked base. Hafts are parallel, expanding, contracting, and ventral bevels. Type includes barbs, Drucker's fixed bone points. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

15 31 35

Thickness (mm) 15 3 4

Width (mm) 15 5 6

Weight (mm) 15 6 6

Comments: These are rare, and unevenly distributed. They were found at Garden Island (N = 10), Boardwalk (1), Lachane (21), Kitandach (3), Baldwin (19) and K’nu (4). While they are restricted to sites that produced more than 1000 artifacts, overall assemblage size is not a factor in how many were recovered in any given site. Where they are present, they are distributed across all AUs, though in quite low numbers. 18. E. 2. Fixed round tip points - (N = 42) objects with a round tip, and a worked base, but no haft. These are worked over the entire piece, reflecting some investment of time and energy. Bases are convex in plan–view, elliptical to rectangular in cross section. Two were measured. Length (mm) Smaller Larger

10 128

Thickness (mm) 2 24

Width (mm) 2 34

Weight (mm) 15 23

18. E. 3. Socketed round tip points - (N = 2) objects with a round point and with a hafting bed (half a socket) as their hafting element.

151

Length (mm) Smaller Larger

43 81

Thickness (mm) 2 5

Width (mm) 8 11

Weight (mm) 2 3

18. E. 4. Barbed round tip points -(N = 1) objects with rounded points and barbs, irrespective of hafting and base elements. The object is unilaterally barbed. It was not measurable. Comments on round tip points: Raw material frequencies are quite different for these artifacts than for the previous ones. Of rounded tip points, 79% are of terrestrial–mammal bone (close to the overall percentage of 81%), 8% are of sea mammal, and 9% of antler. The antler frequency is quite high. These figures suggest that there was some selection for raw materials that could absorb shocks in the making of these tools. They also indicate that this category of tool is not an artifact of the classification methodology. 18. F. Square tip points - as with E. above, but the tip is square in longitudinal cross section, rather than round or pointed, probably usually classed as a punch. 18. F. 1. Hafted square tip points - (N = 16) objects with a square tip, and a hafting element, may or may not have a worked base. Hafts are parallel, expanding, contracting, and ventral bevels. Type includes barbs and Drucker's fixed bone points. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

13 24 27

Thickness (mm) 13 3 3

Width (mm) 13 5 5

Weight (mm) 13 3 1

18. F. 2. Fixed square tip points - (N = 10) objects with a square tip in longitudinal cross section, and a worked base, but no haft. These are generally worked over the entire piece, reflecting some investment of time and energy. Bases are usually convex in plan–view, elliptical to rectangular in cross section. Only two were measurable. Length (mm) Smaller Larger

10 36

Thickness (mm) 1 10

Width (mm) 2 12

Weight (mm) 3 9

18. F. 3. Socketed square tip points - (N = 1) objects with a square point and with a hafting bed (half a socket) as their hafting element. 152

Length (mm) 72

Thickness (mm) 5

Width (mm)

Weight (mm)

11

3

18. G. Unclassifiable pointed tip objects - (N = 20) Comments on all square tip tools: These are extremely rare, and were recovered at only four sites: Garden Island (N = 8), Lachane (3), Kitandach (9), Grassy Bay (1) and K’nu (6). They are present in both Garden Island AUs. Of these, 84% (23) are of terrestrial–mammal bone, 11% (3) are of antler, and 4%(1) sea–mammal bone. These numbers are so small the percentages mean very little. This entire class may be “real,” or it may be an artifact of the analytical methodology. 19. Rods - (N = 70) probably foreshafts for harpoons and lances. These are round to square in cross section, sometimes with beveled ends and quite blunt points; more commonly they are fragmentary. Length (mm) Thickness Width (mm) Weight (mm) (mm) N 10 10 10 10 Mean 60 6 7 12 Std. Dev. 46 4 4 17 Comments: The presence of these artifacts in assemblages may be a function of assemblage size, since they are present in all assemblages, except the two smallest. Their frequency in assemblages also is generally related to overall assemblage size. Garden Island is the only exception to this statement. It has only one of these tools, though that one is whale bone. In any case, these appear to be part of the basic tool kit. The other five whale bone rods were all recovered at GbTo34 (Kitandach). There was clearly strong selection for raw materials. Only 12% of these are of terrestrial–mammal bone, while 70% are of sea–mammal bone (including whale bone) and another 16% are of antler. Clearly the relative flexibility and shock absorbing qualities of sea–mammal bone and antler were important to the function of these tools, as was, perhaps, their buoyancy. Whale bone, and to a lesser extent, antler, was also the only raw material, aside from wood, big enough to permit the production of large foreshafts. Distribution is discussed in Chapter 9. 20. Spatulates - (Fig. 6. 11b and 6. 11d) these are made of long bone sections, and have broad, spatula-like ends. 20. A. Hafted spatulates - (N = 8) spalutate shaped objects with hafts.

153

Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

3 49 70

Thickness (mm) 3 4 5

Width (mm)

Weight (mm)

3 5 6

3 6 6

20. B. Plain spatulates - (N = 4) spatulates worked across most of the object, but with no evidence of a haft. They have worked bases10 and may be self handled. Two were measurable. Length (mm) Smaller Larger

60 80

Thickness (mm) 10 10

Width (mm)

Weight (mm)

10 10

10 50

20. C. Socketed spatulates - (N = 2) spatulate with a socketed haft. Length (mm) 10

Thickness (mm) 1=1

Width (mm) 1

Weight (mm) 6

20. D. Ulna spatulate - (N = 1) ulna tool with a spatulate shaped tip. Not measurable. 20. E. Worked spatulate - (N = 1) spatulate with working on the body and tip, but with no evidence of its having had a haft or base. Not measurable. Comments: Spatulates are quite rare and unevenly distributed. They are restricted to assemblages larger than 2000 artifacts. However, within that group, their frequency is not controlled by assemblage size. In fact, there is almost a negative relationship between assemblage size and the number of spatulates, if Kitandach, and its one spatulate is removed. Garden Island produced eight of these, Boardwalk four, and Lachane four. 21. Spoons - (N =2) (Fig 6. 13) fragments of what appear to be bone or horn spoons. Neither was measurable. They were recovered in 31/D/AU3 and at Baldwin. 22. Tabular Pieces (Tblr) - (N = 21) these are large, flat, rectangular objects, some of which may have been gauges or gauge blanks. Some, of whale bone, were probably quite

154

large, and may have represented whale bone blanks for tool manufacture. Most are now fragmentary. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

3 6 8

Thickness (mm) 3 1 1

Width (mm)

Weight (mm)

3 6 6

3 2 2

Comments: Sixteen are of sea–mammal bone (probably whale), an additional four are of whale bone, and eight are of terrestrial–mammal bone. I suspect some of these, particularly the whale bone ones, were trade items. They were worked into tabular shapes elsewhere and then traded into areas such as this one where whales were not commonly exploited and their bone unavailable. The whale bone tabular pieces were recovered in 23/AU1 (N = 2), 33/D/AU (1) and 34/AU (1). See comments below on worked whale bone fragments. 23 Worked bone fragments - objects too fragmentary to assign to another class. These display evidence of sawing, cutting, grinding, abrading, and/or polish. Some may be butchering debris, bone tool making debris, or broken tools. 23. A. Anatomical part - (N = 63) worked terrestrial–mammal bone section of fragment retaining an articulatory end. 23. B. Ulna - (N = 34) worked ulnae fragments 23. C. Metapodial (N = 56) worked metatarsal and metacarpal fragments. Most appear to be the result of sectioning. 23. D. Bacculum - (N = 4) worked baculum fragments 23. E. Barb - (N = 76) fragments retaining one or more barbs, not assignable to a barbed class (e. g. harpoons heads). 23. F. Base - (N = 71) worked base fragment, with no evidence of haft. 23. G. Haft - (N = 1273) worked fragments of hafts, with or without worked bases. 23. H. Socket - (N = 39) socketed haft fragment, with or without base.

10

Terminologically, these should be called “fixed” spatulates, since they have bases but no hafts. However, the term fixed implies, at least to me, that the tool may have been hafted. Given the likelihood that these were self-handled, calling them fixed spatulates would create confusion.

155

23. I. Tip - (N = 733) triangular to ovate (in plan view) tip fragment 23. J. Body - (N = 2683) worked fragment of body element. 23. K. Decorated - (N = 14) fragments with geometric designs. Many of these are probably bracelet fragments. Comments: Decorated bone fragments were recovered at only four sites: Lachane, Baldwin, Kitandach, and K’nu. 23. L. Drilled - (N = 1) fragment with hole drilled in it. 23. M. Bird bone - (N = 4) worked bird bone fragment or section 23. N. Whale bone - (N = 15) P fragments of worked whale bone. Comments: Whale bone fragments were recovered only at Boardwalk, Lachane, and Kitandach. There are three of the four largest assemblages. Garden Island (23/AU1) produced two whale bone tabular pieces and a whale bone rod. The other two tabular pieces were recovered from sites in this trio. The other whale bone rods were also recovered from sites in this group. On the other hand, whale is not distributed uniformly among these sites. At Boardwalk, for example, whale bone was recovered from AC/AU1 (N = 1), B/AU3 (1), Misc. /AU (1), and S/AU (2). 23. O. Detritus - (N = 237) worked bone fragments with saw marks, snapping, and flaking, suggesting they were either the waste products of bone tool making or butchering debris. 23. P Bone - worked bone fragment that cannot be further identified 23. Q Unk - fragment of what is probably bone or antler. 24. Worked tooth fragments - teeth carrying grinding, and abrasion striae, as well as cut and saw marks. Some of these may be butchering debris. 24. A. Worked canines 24. A. 1. Bear canines (N = 2) identification by F. Stewart 24. A. 2. Sea lion canines (N = 2) identification by F. Stewart 24. A. 3. Sea otter canines (N = 2). identification by F. Stewart 156

24. A. 4. Unidentifiable canines (N = 30) 24. A. 5. Decorated canine (N = 1) tooth has incised lines. 24. B. Worked incisors 24. B. 1. Beaver incisors (N = 35) 24. B. 2. Porcupine incisors (N = 49) 24. B. 3. Rodent incisors (N = 6) 24. C. Other worked teeth (N = 34) Comments: Worked teeth are ubiquitous and common. They are present in all AUs. Their frequency is not completely a function of assemblage size. Boardwalk had the largest number (62) of the artifacts, followed by Lachane with 41. Some of these artifacts may well be butchering debris rather than “worked,” but some may be failed pendants and so on. They were all treated as artifacts since we lacked criteria to distinguish between teeth marked by butchering from those fragments marked by tool manufacturing or use. 25. Worked shell fragments 25. A. Tip fragments (N = 2) these appear to be the tips of shell points. One was recovered at Lachane and the other at Boardwalk. These could have armed Type II composite harpoon heads 25. B. Worked shell fragments - (N =63). fragments of ground and abraded shell. Six have beveled edges, and may be adze bit fragments. Of the total, 27 were recovered at Kitandach, 18 at Boardwalk, one at Baldwin and 17 at Lachane. 27. Worked wood fragments - (N =5) small fragments of shaped wood, three are burnt. Ground Slate Ground slate artifacts were separated into nine types. Aspects of the distribution of these are discussed in Chapter 9. 28 Points - (N = 25) (Fig. 6. 11b) These are ground slate objects with elongate triangular to excurvate lanceolate blades, worked bases and/or hafts. The majority either lack a clear hafting element or have contracting tangs. They are generally prismatic in cross section with flat faces and beveled edges. They could have functioned as lance heads, small dagger blades etc. They were all ground and abraded to shape; all have abrasion striae. 157

Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

25 44 49

Thickness (mm) 25 4 4

Width (mm) 25 9 11

Weight (mm) 25 9 10

Comments: Complete ground slate points are quite rare. They are unevenly distributed among the sites, and are always found in very low densities. They presumably were highly curated given the effort probably required to make them. 29 Point Fragments - (N = 242) haft and base fragments of ground slate points. Blade sections with no hafts are included with complete points because there is no way to know whether the absence of a haft or base reflects breakage, or whether the object was made that way. There are no readily identifiable tip fragments. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

87 31 36

Thickness (mm) 87 3 3

Width (mm) 87 8 9

Weight (mm) 87 7 11

Comments: Ground slate points clearly break often is use, and these pieces were probably all discarded during refitting. Tips were probably lost when the point broke. Unlike ground slate points, point fragments are virtually ubiquitous. 30. Tabular pieces - (N = 5) flat, rectangular sections of slate which may have been preforms or functioned as knives of saws. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

3 117 80

Thickness (mm) 3 12 9

Width (mm) 3 58 24

Comments: These were recovered only at Baldwin and Grassy Bay.

158

Weight (mm) 3 22 34

Figure 6. 11 Stone points. 6. 11a Chipped stone point. 6. 11b Ground stone point

31 Pencils - (N = 36) (Fig. 6.13.e) pencils or rods are lengths of ground slate which have polygonal cross sections, and which have sometimes been ground to a blunt point. They look like a big pencil. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

36 82 40

Thickness (mm) 36 11 3

Width (mm) 36 25 21

Weight (mm) 36 3 4

32. Mirrors - (N = 5) flat, thin, highly polished ground slate objects, sometimes with handles and/or zoomorphic designs (see Chapter 9). One had a zoomorphic/anthropomorphic design. It was a surface find at Boardwalk. These objects are thought to be shaman's mirrors.

159

Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

5 70 26

Thickness (mm) 5 7 2

Width (mm)

Weight (mm)

5 12 4

5 9 6

33. Ground slate labrets - all stone labrets are treated under ground and pecked tools. 34. Knives - (N = 5) ground slate blades with very acute edges. One is ulu shaped. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

4 95 33

Thickness (mm) 4 10 0

Width (mm)

Weight (mm)

4 27 5

4 3 2

35. Worked ground slate - (N = 45) unidentifiable fragments of worked slate. 36. Slate manuports – (N = 1) unworked slate. Ground and Pecked Stone 37. Abraders - (N = 228) (Fig. 6. 12) these are abrasive stones, commonly of sandstone, but other coarse stone is also used. They are generally square to rectangular in plan–view, with abrasion scars on one or more surfaces. These scars can be concentrated in one area, sometimes forming a shallow concavity or groove, or they may be dispersed across the entire surface. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

209 40 50

Thickness (mm) 209 5 6

Width (mm) 209 24 28

Weight (mm) 209 56 108

Comments: These artifacts are ubiquitous and sometimes occur in relatively large numbers. Their frequency does not appear to be a function of assemblage size. When this project was initiated, I had thought that these might represent part of a basic tool kit present in all AUs in more or less equal numbers. This is not the case. Abraders have an uneven distribution.

160

Figure 6.12 Abraders

38 Celts or adze bits - These are made of a variety of stone. They range in size from large to quite small, suggesting a wide array of tasks and perhaps hafting methods. 38. A. Type I celts (CL) - (N = 139) (Fig 6.13 a,b, and d) celts whose polls (hafting area) are parallel to the celt’s cutting edge. Presumably these were hafted into ‘D’ adzes and elbow adzes. Of these, 62 are of basalt, 29 of rhyolite, 19 of nephrite, eight of gneiss, seven of granite, six of slate, five are of andesite, four are of sedimentary rock, three of marble, and one each of conglomerate, and mica schist None of these display girdling. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

87 31 60

Thickness (mm) 87 10 22

Width (mm) 87 9 15

Weight (mm) 87 317 1530

38. B. Type II celts (AZ) - (N = 61) (Fig. 6. 14) celts whose polls are at right angles to the cutting edge. Of these, 40 are nephrite, 10 are basalt, four of mica schist, two each of gneiss and sedimentary rock, and one each of granite, marble, and an unidentified stone.Five of these are girdled at the poll end for hafting.

161

Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

27 68 47

Thickness (mm) 27 24 16

Width (mm)

Weight (mm)

27 37 20

27 351 823

Comments: Type II celts are clearly larger and heavier than Type I celts. Type II celts are made of a wider range of stone. Some at least were clearly hafted into handles so they could be swung. Adzes are common and ubiquitous and were clearly part of a basic tool kit. Figure 6. 13 Zoomorphic type II celt.

39. Barkbeaters (Brkbtr) - (N = 4) stone club-like objects with segmented or corrugated surfaces, perhaps used as barkbeaters. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

3 60 17

Thickness (mm) 3 30 30

Width (mm)

Weight (mm)

3 47 12

3 70 46

Comments: These were recovered in large numbers at GbTo 36 and GcTo 1 40 Barkshredders (Brkshdr) - (N = 3) rectangular to "D" shaped stone object, which may either be hafted to a handle, or "handled" by grinding a slot to form a handle. One edge (either straight or convex) was used to soften and shred cedar bark for fiber.

162

Length (mm) Smaller Larger

180 180

Thickness (mm) 20 30

Width (mm) 100 120

Weight (mm) 57 92

41. Beads -(N = 4) tubular stone beads, generally rectangular in transverse cross-section, biconically drilled. (See Chapter 9 for stone beads associated with burials) Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

4 11 12

Thickness (mm) 4 6 6

Width (mm) 4 7 7

Weight (mm) 4 2 3

42. Bipointed stones - (N =14) stone objects that have been shaped to produce dual coneshaped ends. They are biconvex in plan–view, round to elliptical in transverse cross section. Drucker (1943) believes them to have been a grinding implement. MacDonald (personal communication) suggests they were weapons. (MacDonald 1983, Fig. 6:28). Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

7 62 77

Thickness (mm) 7 21 26

Width (mm) 7 30 37

Weight (mm) 7 116 34

43 Bowls or mortars - (N = 12) stone bowls and bowl fragments, some of which bear zoomorphic designs (see Chapter 9), others having fluted sides (MacDonald 1983, Fig. 6. 31). Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

8 32 54

Thickness (mm) 8 9 11

163

Width (mm) 8 13 16

Weight (mm) 8 51 62

Figure 6. 14 Ground stone and shell tools. 6. 13a Type I celt fragment. 6. 13b, Type I celt, 6. 13c Type I shell celt. 6. 13d, Type I celt, 6. 13e Ground slate pencil, or rod. 6. 13f. Stone peg or labret.

44. "Pigment" bowls or mortars - (n = 6) bowls with pigment stains. These bowls are sometimes just small to medium water worn pebbles with natural concavities that have been expanded to grind pigment. Length (mm) 45

Thickness (mm) 16

Width (mm) 25

Weight (mm) 24

45 Gauges - (N = 9) flat, thin, rectangular stones objects with biconically drilled holes in their centers. They may have functioned as net gauges. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

5 22 24

Thickness (mm) 5 5 6

Width (mm) 5 9 6

Weight (mm) 5 24 18

46. Labrets (see chapter 8). - (N = 11) medial stone labrets, seven are of the “button” or “top hat” variety. One is girdled and looks like a stone peg, but was catalogued as a labret. 164

Two are zoomorphic. (MacDonald 1983, Fig. 6. 8) Three are lip spools. Length measurements were taken along the tooth flange, thickness at right angles to the tooth flange, and width measured the height of the flange. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

10 40 13

Thickness (mm) 10 13 4

Width (mm) 10 29 10

Weight (mm) 6 11 10

Comments: Stone labrets are rare, and, other than as grave goods, are usually found only in assemblages larger that 1000 artifacts. A slate labret was recovered at Grassy Bay, which also produced a bone labret. Their frequency among these assemblages (excluding grave goods), however, does not appear to be a function of overall assemblage size. Labrets were recovered at Boardwalk (D/AU3 [N = 1], and S/AU [3]); Lachane (2), Kitandach (2), Baldwin (1 - zoomorphic) and K’nu (1). None were recovered at Garden Island, (with an assemblage of some 2300 artifacts) or Parizeau Point. Labrets were made of a range of raw materials: basalt (3), slate (3), and one each of quartzite, sedimentary rock, cryptocrystaline stone (an identification I suspect is an error) and one of an unidentified stone. They are discussed again in Chapter 8. Figure 6. 15 Medial labrets. Note labret on the picture’s right lacks part of the tooth flange

165

47 Mauls - columnar tools with one or more battered and/or crushed ends. Sides frequently show wear as well. 47. A. Stirrup maul - (N = 1)“T” shaped maul; the maul’s columnar handle is parallel to the maul’s disc shaped working surface, and is connected to it by a neck. The handle has flanges at either end, either to protect the hand, or to keep it from sliding off. In other examples, these flanges are often battered. 47. B. Hand maul - (N = 4) simple columnar mauls, usually ground and pecked to shape, one end may be larger than the other, but both ends are usually worked and utilized. Sometimes the body of the maul also shows wear, as though it was used as a hammer or an anvil. One is zoomorphic (see Chapter 9). 47. C. Nipple maul - (N = 6) columnar maul with one broad end, which tapers up, usually to a collar or band two thirds to three quarters of the way up, and then tapers to a very small nipple-like end. Often the body and the collar of the mauls show wear and battering, suggesting it was used as a hammer or anvil. n Length (mm) Thickness Width (mm) Weight (mm) (mm) N 6 6 6 6 Mean 64 28 30 259 Std. Dev. 82 30 34 348 47. D. Unidentifiable maul fragments - (N = 4). Comments: Mauls are rare, and unevenly distributed. The single stirrup maul was recovered at Boardwalk, the hand mauls at Lachane (2), Parizeau Point (1), and Boardwalk (1). The nipple mauls were recovered in 31/D/AU2 (1), Lachane (4), and GcTo1 (1). The fragments were recovered from Kitandach (2) and Garden Island (1). Mauls were made of a variety of raw materials with five of basalt, two of andesite, and one each of sedimentary rock, gabrodiorite, tuff, gneiss, quartzite (?), and rhyolite. The very spotty distribution of the mauls and their overall rarity is extremely interesting. They were probably curated, with long use lives. They were not doubt relatively costly to make. and so were re-used as mauls when broken. Percussers (see below) also functioned as mauls, but required less investment in time and effort to make. 48 Netweights - (N = 24) stone objects modified to suspend from, and weigh down a net. Of these, ten had holes drilled through their centers through which a line could be attached to the weight. Three of these ten were also girdled. These were the only girdled netweights. The rest were fragments or were notched.

166

Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

24 67 29

Thickness (mm) 24 22 18

Width (mm) 24 53 22

Weight (mm) 24 44 52

Comments: Netweights were recovered only at Boardwalk (N = 7), Lachane (10), Kitandach (5), and K’nu (4). These are the largest assemblages. Missing from this list is Garden Island, with its large assemblage. At Boardwalk, netweights were recovered in D/AU3 (4), B/AU3 (1), AC/AU2 (1) and the sluice (1). They are found in all AUs at Lachane, though AU/B produced five of the 10 or more recovered there. They were made of a wide variety of stone: nine of basalt, seven of sedimentary rock, two each of slate, phylite, and sandstone, and one each of cryptocrystaline (?) stone, gneiss, conglomerate and shale. These are remarkably rare. 49 Palettes - (N =6) objects with one or more flat to concave surfaces with pigment – usually ochre – stains. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

6 114 18

Thickness (mm) 6 13 3

Width (mm) 6 65 20

Weight (mm) 6 153 119

50. Percussers hammerstones/pestles/mauls - (N = 103) elongate, columnar objects, "pestle" shaped, usually with use wear on a variety of surfaces, in addition to the ends. In most cases, one or both ends show some shaping by pecking and grinding. Ends show heavy battering and crushing. Without doubt, they served multiple purposes as mauls, anvils, hammerstones, pestles, and others. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

75 28 39

Thickness (mm) 75 11 15

Width (mm) 75 19 25

Weight (mm) 75 118 184

Comments: While some of these are basically columnar cobbles with utilized ends, others do show some degree of work and shaping. However, they represent far less investment in time and skill than do mauls. The question that arises is why do we find mauls at all if these tools are readily available? The relatively large number of these tools suggests a) they were in wider use than were shaped or manufactured percussers, such as mauls; and/or b) they were more readily discarded. These artifacts were of a wide variety of raw materials. There were 167

54 of basalt, 11 of gneiss, four of rhyolite, two of granite, and one each of conglomerate, marble and cryptocrystaline stone. 51 Pigment - (N = 17) polyhedral shaped pieces of ochre. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

15 20 13

Thickness (mm) 15 11 7

Width (mm) 15 16 10

Weight (mm) 15 9 7

52. Reworked ground and pecked - (N = 35) ground and pecked tools that have been recycled, usually as a hammer or maul. These are large fragments that display battering and/or crushing on one or more ends. Some may be maul or percusser fragments. All display evidence of initial shaping by grinding and pecking, but the original tool was not identifiable. Some are very large. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

34 24 49

Thickness (mm) 34 7 14

Width (mm) 34 12 19

Weight (mm) 34 353 1707

53. Segmented stones - (N = 6) sometimes called "ribbed" stones (e. g. Stewart 1981) stones incised with longitudinal, latitudinal or cross hatched lines; incisions may be deep or shallow. The objects may have a handle slot. These are sometimes thought to be stone bark beaters. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

3 60 10

Thickness (mm) 3 23 6

Width (mm) 3 43 6

Weight (mm) 3 51

54. Spools - (N = 1) a stone disc, girdled around its outside circumference, and a deeply concave center. It may be an ear spool, or a large, hollow, disc labret. This one had been broken by being struck.

168

Length (mm) 40

Thickness (mm) 10

Width (mm) 10

Weight (mm) 1

55. Stone Clubs - (N = 13) simple, columnar ground and pecked objects, sometimes quite phallic shaped (MacDonald 1983, Fig. 6:27). None are of the elaborate “Hagwilget club” forms found near Hazelton BC, or on the Queen Charlotte Islands (Fladmark et al. 1990). Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

10 64 76

Thickness (mm) 10 18 18

Width (mm) 10 28 29

Weight (mm) 10 178 296

56. Unidentifiable ground and pecked objects - (N = 62). Chipped Stone 57. Bifaces -(N = 11) (Fig. 6. 12b) leaf shaped bifaces, usually with thick, lenticular crosssections. They are commonly made of basalt. Flake scars rarely extend beyond mid line. Scars tend to be deep. The artifacts were worked with billets, and hard hammer techniques. They are ovate in outline with concave bases. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

10 32 41

Thickness (mm) 10 5 5

Width (mm) 10 16 28

Weight (mm) 10 129 349

Comments: These may have been traded in. Similar forms have been recovered in excavations in Kitselas Canyon (Alliare 1976, Coupland 1985) and in Hagwilget Canyon (Ames 1979) in the Skeena River drainage basin. The only other evidence of this kind of technology in these assemblages are the two antler flakers. Of course, the percussers described above could also have been used and these could have been made from cobbles or cobble flakes. See discussion of chipped stone tools. 58. Cobble based tools 58. A. Worked cobble tools - (N =588) cobbles that have been worked by direct, hard hammer percussion on the ends or sides of the cobble to produce a unifacial or bifacial 169

working edge. The cobbles were not split. These sometimes also show wear on their surfaces, probably from use as hammers or anvils. Some are probably cobble cores.

N Mean Std. Dev.

Length (mm) 539 29 41

Thickness (mm) 539 13 18

Width (mm) 539 21 29

Weight (mm) 539 478 391

Edge angleo 539 37 58

58. B. Split cobble tools - (N =152) cobbles that were first split by being struck on an anvil, and the resulting surfaces then used with or without further modification.

N Mean Std. Dev.

Length (mm) 152 29 40

Thickness (mm) 152 14 19

Width (mm) 152 23 30

Weight (mm) 152 572 349

Edge angleo 152 52 34

58. C. Utilized and/or worked cobble spalls - (N =629) disc shaped spalls and flakes with cortex on one surface with utilized and/or worked11 edges.

N Mean Std. Dev.

Length (mm) 629 31 27

Thickness (mm) 629 19 28

Width (mm) 629 14 22

Weight (mm) 629 112 122

Edge angleo 629 31 27

58. D. Cobble flake tools - (N = 281) cobble flakes (with bulbs of percussion, and/or striking platforms, flake scars, etc.) with utilized and/or worked edges.

N Mean Std. Dev.

Length (mm) 245 19 32

Thickness (mm) 245 5 7

Width (mm) 245 13 21

11

Weight (mm) 245 75 110

Edge angleo 245 36 31

Worked in this description means that the edge was prepared by some flaking, or that it shows some evidence of retouch or repair. An utilized edge then displays no such evidence, and was apparently used with no modification.

170

58. E. Utilized surfaces - (N = 17) Cobbles with no evidence of modification, but with utilized surfaces - possible anvils for butchering, bipolar percussion etc. These surfaces may also have been used, instead of edges, for hammering and similar tasks. Most worked cobble tools, and many large ground stone tools, such as mauls and percussers, also have utilized surfaces. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

35 69 58

Thickness (mm) 35 26 23

Width (mm) 35 44 37

Weight (mm) 35 480 447

59. Reworked ground and pecked artifacts - (N = 29) ground and pecked artifacts that have been recycled as chipped stone tools, usually as a worked cobble tool. Length (mm) N Mean Std. Dev.

17 14 25

Thickness (mm) 17 6 13

Width (mm) 17 11 21

Weight (mm) 17 266 265

60. Quartzite artifacts - (N =168) quartzite objects, both worked and unworked, were recovered at four sites: Garden Island (N = 23), Boardwalk (N = 135), Lachane (N = 4), and Kitandach (N = 6). These differences in frequency are difficult to explain. While it may point to a differential distribution of these objects among the different sites, it may also be due to whether crews were instructed to watch for and save them or not. At Boardwalk, close attention was paid to these objects, for example. Of the 168 we examined, 12 showed some signs of having been worked, possibly as bipolar cores. Of these, six display battering and/or crushing at one or both ends, two were unifacially flaked, with flake scars originating at one end, and one was bifacially flaked. These nine then are likely bipolar cores. None were prepared cores. No quartzite flakes or blades (either macro or micro) were present in the collections. 61. Gun flint - (N = 1) a single gun flint was recovered at Garden Island, but its exact provenience is unknown. Discussion of chipped stone tools: Cobble tools are classed here on very basic manufacturing criteria: whether the tool was made on a whole cobble, a split cobble, a cobble spall, a cobble flake or on a recycled ground and pecked artifact. However, these tools could also have been classed on the basis of the shape of their working edges. Edge shape was described for all of these artifacts. Many had more than one worked/utilized edge, some in excess of four. 171

Therefore, there are more cobble “tools” (edges) than there are cobble artifacts. In these cases, we described the two primary (the longest) worked/utilized edges. It was for these reasons that these artifacts are not typed according to edge shape. Ten classes of worked/utilized edge shape were recorded: concave, convex, flat, straight12, serrated (or denticulate), s - shaped (sinuous), triangular (or beaked or rostrate), concavo convex, bec (a bec is a single, triangular projection from a working edge), and irregular. A paradigmatic classification of cobble tools based on worked edge shape and tool classes 58 and 59 above produces a matrix with 60 cells (Table 6. 3), of which 45 are filled. Edge-wear was also recorded. However, no magnification was used. Wear attributes had to be visible with the unaided eye. This simplified the task of training the analysts, prevented interminable disputes, but also means that some evidence of edge-wear was lost. Edge wear descriptions are based on combinations of several attributes: whether the edges displayed flaking or not (flaking caused by use, rather than manufacturing or reworking. In practice, this can be difficult to distinguish and so our edge-wear descriptions also must include retouch as well as use); whether the flaking was unifacial or bifacial, whether the edges displayed crushing, battering, grinding, or polish; whether wear was heavy or light13; whether wear occurred on more than one edge, and in what combinations. This produced 32 categories of edge wear (Tables 6.3 and 6.4). If our edge wear categories reflect how tools were used14, the data suggest that cobble tools tended to be used for rather heavy duty tasks. Unifacial flaking is the most common form of flaked edge wear, while battering and crushing are overall the most common forms of edge-wear. Light edge-wear, of whatever variety, is relatively rare. None of this contradicts what is generally known about cobble tools on the Northwest coast – they are multi–purpose tools, used most often in a variety of heavy duty tasks, which, in Prince Rupert Harbour, at least, seems most often to involve using the tool, irrespective of edge shape, for beating and pounding on something. Edge-angles are quite variable. While the mean edge angles of most cobble tool types are relatively acute, they all tend to have rather wide standard deviations. For example, worked cobble tools have a mean edge angle of 36o, but a standard deviation of 58o. Spall tools have the smallest standard deviation, 27o, and a rather acute mean edge angle of 30o. Cobble flake tools also have rather acute working edges. These differences may indicate that spall and flake tools had different functions than worked and split cobble tools. Spall and flake tools also tend to have more worked edges with light unifacial flaking, and relatively more crushing and grinding, and less battering. It has sometimes been suggested in the literature that spall tools may have functioned as fish knives. I have no experimental data to

12

A “straight” edge conforms to a straight line. In cross section it is triangular. A “flat” edge is also straight in plan view, but it is flat, or vertical, in cross-section. This attribute is appropriate to artifact classes such as “edge battered cobbles. ” 13 Heavy wear was distinguished from light wear on several grounds. For example, heavy flaking was indicated by deep flake scars, multiple hinge fractures, and “chattering;” heavy polish was indicated by polish on the aretes of flakes scars as well as on the actual edge, etc. In many cases, I made the final determination as to whether the wear was heavy or light. The decision often caused debate. 14 In hind sight, I would have used far fewer categories.

172

show what wear to expect on tools such as these that would be caused by using them to clean and fillet a fish15. So, while the data presented here does not refute the fish-knife hypothesis, it does not add direct support to it either. Finally, for all of these tool types, the distribution of edge-angles is unimodal, with a very long tail at the high end (as is clearly indicated by the standard deviations). The point here is that edge angles do not vary bimodally or trimodally. There are not clusters of edge-angles within each type. This also indicates that these are truly multi-purpose tools. Cobble tools are, at one level, the quintessential opportunistic tool. They are quickly make, as quickly modified for a different purpose and discarded. Most residential sites will have discarded cobble tools laying around (along with broken pecked and ground tools). Many of the harbour’s beaches are shingle beaches, so raw material abounds. At another level, however, procurement of appropriate raw materials may or may not have been unplanned. We made no collections of rocks from beaches in the harbour to know whether the raw materials in the cobble tools collections were readily available, or whether the stone was brought in. The most parsimonious thought at the moment is that they used the rocks on the beaches, and in the sites. The Prince Rupert assemblages are remarkable, even for the Northwest Coast, for the virtual absence of chipped stone tools, aside from the cobble tools. They are most similar in this regard to assemblages recovered from sites on the west coast of Vancouver Island, particularly Yuquots (Dewhirst 1980), but others as well (Haggerty 1982, Marshall 1994, McMillan 1996). Grant’s Anchorage, to the south on the British Columbia mainland is similar to the Prince Rupert sites in this regard (Simonsen 1973), as are later sites on the Queen Charlotte Islands (Fladmark et al. 1990). But otherwise, even periods and regions marked by high proportions of bone tools, such as the Straits of Georgia period in the Gulf of Georgia, have much higher numbers of small chipped stone tools. Furthermore, Prince Rupert is distinctive in that small, chipped stone tools, again excluding cobble tools, seem to have played no technological role for the entire known prehistoric period. Why should this be? There are two categories of possible answers. One is “cultural:” the absence of chipped stone tools reflects cultural choices or preferences, a technological “style” one might say (what Sackett [1982] calls isochrestic style), of relatively deep antiquity. The alternative includes “functionalist” answers: one might postulate it reflects some aspect in the environment – the raw materials for small flaked tools are not readily available, for example, that has remained constant over the last half of the Holocene and shaped the evolution of technology in these regions. Or, bone tools may have been functionally superior to stone tools under the conditions of use that pertained in the Prince Rupert Harbour region and along the west coast Vancouver Island. Neither alternatives can be dismissed, but both require rigorous testing before we can settle on one or the other.

15

Flenniken (1981) experimented on filleting salmon using hafted quartzite microblades. No use wear resulted from his experiments on the edges of the microblades. If that result can be extended to these tools, then while they may have been used to fillet fish, they had other uses as well, to produce the edge wear they exhibit.

173

Table 6. 3 Edge wear on cobble tool types. Edge Wear Categories

All edges crushed All edges ground All edges polished All edges battered Light bifacial flaking w\crushing Light bifacial flaking w\grinding Light bifacial flaking w\polish Light bifacial flaking w\battering Heavy bifacial flaking Heavy unifacial flaking w\crushing Heavy unifacial flaking w\grinding Heavy unifacial flaking w\polish Heavy unifacial flaking w\battering Heavy unifacial flaking Light bifacial flaking Light unifacial flaking Two or more edges battered Two or more edges crushed Two or more edges ground Two or more edges polished One edge battered One edge crushed One edge ground One edge polished Light unifacial flaking w\crushing Light unifacial flaking w\grinding Light unifacial flaking w\polish Light unifacial flaking w\battering Heavy bifacial flaking w\grinding Heavy bifacial flaking w\crushing Heavy bifacial flaking w\polish Heavy bifacial flaking w\battering Column totals

Spall

Cobble

Cobble

Reworked

Split

Tool

Flake

Tool

G&P

Cobble

2

1 1

2 1 1 16 8

1

2

1 1 5 18

1 1 1

1

2 10

2 6

1 1 13 6 28 26 9 3 9 51 24 14 12 1 1 5 1 222

1 6 11 1 10 3 1 5 30 16 6 7

3 16 2 1 5 23 5 8 78 14 12 1 100 46 49 3 7

2 1

1 1

1

2 2 2 1 2 5

1

2 40 2 9 7 2

5 3

16 25 8 4 10

7

4 1 6

1

4 122

1 415

1 154

174

Utilized/ wrkd Surface

12 3 1

1

16

26

Row Totals 6 2 2 17 10 1 4 1 12 51 2 2 9 84 13 58 91 54 28 5 144 157 100 28 37 0 3 6 2 19 1 6 955

All edges crushed All edges ground All edges polished All edges battered Light bifacial flaking w\crushing Light bifacial flaking w\grinding Light bifacial flaking w\polish Light bifacial flaking w\battering Heavy bifacial flaking Heavy unifacial flaking w\crushing Heavy unifacial flaking w\grinding Heavy unifacial flaking w\polish Heavy unifacial flaking w\battering Heavy unifacial flaking Light bifacial flaking Light unifacial flaking Two or more edges battered Two or more edges crushed

Edge Wear Categories

1 2 12 3 12 17 3

2 5

1 7 2 5 4 3

1

Convex

7 1 1 1 1 1 8

4

Concave

2 1

2

Flat

1

3

5

4

Irregular

175

3 30 5 17 56 39

5 24 2

9 2

3 1

Straight

12 1 8 2

2 1

1

Serrated

Table 6. 4 Paradigmatic classification of cobble tool edge shape and edge wear

1 1 15 2 10 4 6

5 6

1

1 1 1

2

S-Shaped

3

6 4

1

1

Triangular Concavo- Bec Convex 5 2 1 17 10 1 2 1 16 50 2 2 7 81 13 57 93 56

Total

Two or more edges ground Two or more edges polished One edge battered One edge crushed One edge ground One edge polished Light unifacial flaking w\crushing Light unifacial flaking w\grinding Light unifacial flaking w\polish Light unifacial flaking w\battering Heavy bifacial flaking w\grinding Heavy bifacial flaking w\crushing Heavy bifacial flaking w\polish Heavy bifacial flaking w\battering Total

Edge Wear Categories

39 9 4 5 10 1 3 1

2 149

1 3

69

4

Convex

6 15 4 2 5

Concave

13

3 1 4

Flat

1 19

2 3

Irregular

176

377

1 2 2 13 1

10 5 59 67 2 7 12

Straight

48

4 11 3 1 2

Serrated

Table 6. 4 Cont. Paradigmatic classification of cobble tool edge shape and edge wear

144

1

16 29 20 10 5

7

S-Shaped

6

1

2

85

3

8 22 34

3

1

1

Triangular Concavo- Bec Convex 7 28 5 139 157 71 27 37 1 3 6 6 13 1 3 913

Total

Chapter 7: Assemblage Structure and Comparisons Introduction This chapter provides basic descriptive and comparative data for the artifact assemblages contained within each of the analytical units described in Chapter 5. The discussion is arranged topically and the topics selected are those deemed most central to the goals of the original project and the artifact analysis project. I am not presenting an exhaustive description of the Prince Rupert artifact collections. Most readers, myself included, will find that some topics of particular interest to them are not discussed. The problem of what to include or exclude in this work has been somewhat similar to working up a list of people to invite to a wedding; there is no problem with the first 25, but if one adds the 26th name to the list, one must invite 500 more people. One issue that weaves its way through the discussions in this and the following chapters is variability among these sites. They vary among themselves greatly, although they share many common features in their artifact and feature assemblages. In addition to intersite variation, there is also a great deal of intra-site variation, as a comparative glance at the Boardwalk and Lachane AUs in any of the artifact tabulation tables in this chapter will show. The point here is to call the reader’s attention to that variation and to make them aware that that variation operates on a number of dimensions. Grave goods, items of personal adornment, and decorated objects are discussed separately in Chapter 8. Tools relating to subsistence and the available faunal analyses are presented separately in Chapter 9. Given the importance that these classes of artifact have in various research problems on the coast, separate and more detailed treatment is warranted. Summary comparisons are presented in Chapter 10. The first task addressed in this chapter is to discuss and explain how the data in this and succeeding chapters are presented, particularly how they are quantified. This is the general topic of assemblage structure. After the general discussion of assemblage structure, the contents of the different artifact assemblages are compared. The comparisons are organized according to raw material: bone and antler tools, ground stone, and chipped stone. Assemblage structure. Quantifying, comparing and interpreting these assemblages presents a number of methodological problems. But the central problems relevant to this discussion arise because the assemblages vary so markedly in size. Methodological research (papers in Leonard and Jones 1989) clearly shows a general relationship between an assemblage’s size (the number of objects it contains) and that assemblage's taxonomic richness: the number of taxa (in this case artifact types) that it contains. This relationship is particularly significant when interpreting site function (Thomas 1989), and the distributions of rare artifact types. Thomas points out that in applying Binford's concept of collectors to the archaeological record, large assemblages (with many artifact types) tend to be classed as residential sites, while small assemblages (with few artifact types) are classed as camps or special use sites. Assemblage sizes often directly reflect only excavation scale. Grayson and his associates (Jones, Grayson and Beck 1983) note that rare taxa 177

are more likely to occur in large assemblages because they are large, while only the most common taxa are found in small assemblages. Any comparisons between Tn1/AU1, with its 46 tools in 21 taxa, to 33/B/AU with 2440 tools in 106 taxa are, therefore, problematical unless the effect of assemblage size on assemblage richness can be controlled in some fashion. This issue is particularly pressing when one wants to address trends through time, and early assemblages, as they are in this study, are quite small. One must address why the assemblages are the sizes they are. The effects of excavation scale on the presence and frequency of artifacts and features in addressed in detail in Lyman (1991) and Betz (1991) and need not be reviewed here. Basically, the rule is "the more you dig, the more you are likely to find, the more you find, the more kinds of things you are likely to find.” To control for the effects of assemblage size on taxonomic richness, one most simultaneously control for the effects of excavation scale. Another dimension of assemblage structure is taxonomic evenness, the relative frequencies of different taxa within an assemblage. Two assemblages with the same 10 artifact taxa are equally rich in taxa, but may differ markedly in evenness. For example in one assemblage each taxon contains 10% of all tools, while in another assemblage one taxon holds 91% of all tools and the other 9 taxa 1% each. Two assemblages of the latter kind can also differ in which assemblage contains the 91% of all tools. A variety of measures of evenness have been proposed (Bobrowsky and Ball 1989) and used (e.g. Ames 1988). However, these measures are affected by assemblage size; big assemblages will have more uncommon and rare artifact types, and so will be more uneven than smaller assemblages. In studies in which assemblage sizes are more uniform, this might not present a problem, but it does for this one. The basic archaeological technique for standardizing artifact counts is to calculate percentages. Percentages are distorted when raw counts are much below 100, and the relative percentages of rare taxa are affected by variations in the numbers of artifacts in the most common types. What can appear as an increase in the percentages of some important class of artifacts can often be a consequence of the decline in numbers of a more common type, and no increase at all in the numbers of the rare tool. I attempt to minimize these problems in the following discussions by standardizing the data by converting all counts to N/m3, and N/100 m3, where N is some count or mean. In fact, it is this latter ratio which was used in almost all other calculations and in all discussions. The use of densities to standardize assemblage sizes has precedent within archaeology. For example, Soffer (1985) uses density measures in her analysis of Upper Paleolithic sites in The Ukraine. The use of artifact densities has been criticized. Jerardino (1995), for example, questions their use to calculate intensity of occupation or other activities. In this study, the midden accumulation rates serve that purpose. Artifact densities are used only for interassemblege comparisons. When the density or numbers of artifacts per excavated volume is discussed in what follows, and only one figure is used, that figure will be N/100 m3. The 100/m3 figure is used here because Lyman (1991) determined that 100 m3 be may the minimum volumetric sample necessary in Oregon Coast middens to recover a useful sample of artifacts and features. Prior to the publication of his work, my figures were all N/m3. When I converted some of these it 178

became easier to see the differences among assemblages in the relative numbers of artifacts when using the larger figure. Thus the 100/m3 is also used for ease of presentation and clarity. Not only are artifact counts converted to artifacts/volume, but counts of taxa are as well. In this study, taxonomic richness refers to the number of taxa/volume excavated, in this case per cubic meter and per 100 cubic meters. The mean and standard deviation of artifacts per taxon for each AU were also calculated and converted to the mean and standard deviation/volume. This may seem unusual, but again, it controls for differences in assemblage size. Big assemblages will have higher mean numbers of artifacts in its artifact classes1, and larger standard deviations. In comparing assemblages, the utility of volumetric based figures is clear (Table 7.1). 33/AU/B contains 2440 artifacts falling into 106 taxa, while Tn1/AU2 has 104 artifacts in 32 taxa. When these counts are converted to volumetric densities, 33/B/AU contained 484 tools/ 100 m3 in 21 classes/ 100 m3, while Tn1/AU2 had 371 tools/ 100 m3 in 114 classes/ 100 m3. Tn1/AU2 has the second highest taxonomic densities among all the AUs, after only 31/B/AU3, while 33/AU/B has the fewest, although it has the largest and taxonomically richest artifact assemblage among those in the table when raw counts are used. It is rich because it is big; it is big because a lot of it was excavated. Artifact densities are not effected by excavated volume in the Prince Rupert sample (Table 7.2), while there is a very strong relationship between the number of tools in an assemblage and the volume excavated (R2 = .816 [Table 7.2]), as we would expect. There is a very slight linear relationship (R2 = 375) between taxonomic density and volume, and a modest one (R2 = .553) between the number of taxa in an assemblage and the excavated volume from which it was recovered. Put another way, about 38% of the variation in taxonomic densities can be explained by how much volume was excavated, while 55% of the variation in the number of taxa present can be explained by how much was excavated. There is a slightly stronger relationship (R2 = .59) between taxa present and the number of tools in an assemblage. Of course, since the number of tools is strongly affected by the volume excavated, these two results should be similar. Finally there is no significant relationship between artifact density and taxonomic density (R2 = .222). This means: 1) the number of tools/volume is not affected by volume excavated, while the number of tools/assemblage is; 2) the number of taxa/volume may be weakly affected by volume excavated while the number of taxa/assemblage is moderately affected by either volume excavated or by tools/assemblage; and 3) the relative densities of artifacts and of taxa are not correlated. Grayson's (1984, Jones, Grayson and Beck 1983) recommended technique for controlling for the effects of assemblage size on taxonomic richness is to perform linear regression analyses, 1

The number of taxa is not infinite. At first, when assemblages size increases, the number of new taxa will also increase, but at some point that curve will flatten out, and new taxa will be added more and more slowly, even if assemblage size continues to grow at a steep rate. As new individuals are added, they will increasingly be added to taxa already present, particularly the most common, less often to the rarer taxa. Therefore, overall taxa means will be high, reflecting the numbers in very common taxa, but variance will also be large, because rare taxa will still have few members, and there will be a great many rare taxa.

179

as was done above, and to identify the cases which are outliers, which do not fit the relationship predicted by the regression line. This was done for tools/volume, taxa/volume, taxa/tools, and taxa density/ tool (artifact) density (Table 7.3). 31/B/AU3 is a high outlier in all four analyses; it is the richest and most diverse artifact assemblage among those studied here. In contrast, the three 31/AC/AUs are collectively low outliers in at least one of each of the graphs, except taxa density/tool density, where they are low but fall within the range of "typical" Prince Rupert assemblages. These three AUs include the burial area at Boardwalk, and the two trenched house depressions. (Grave goods are not included in these calculations since I was concerned with the midden contents). The two documented early assemblages, 31/D/AU1, and 31/B/AU1, are also "typical" Rupert assemblages, given their size and the excavated volumes of their respective AUs, except 31/D/AU1, has relatively few taxa for the number of tools present. Assemblages with high ratios of taxonomic densities to tool densities (taxonomically rich assemblages) are 31/B/AU2, 31/B/AU3, and 31/B/AU4; and N1/AU1 and N1/AU2. The reader will recall that GbTn 1 is a small shell midden on Fern Passage. Assemblages with low ratios of taxonomic densities to tool densities are 23/AU1, 33/B/AU, 33/D/AU and 36/AU. The reader should also note the apparent trend in 31/D in taxa to tools; where 31/D/AU1 is a low outlier and the upper two AUs are high outliers (high numbers of taxa/numbers of tools in the assemblage). The MacDonald and Inglis (1981) culture history for Prince Rupert Harbour postulates that the basic cultural historical trend in the harbor is the accretion of new artifact types – that is, that artifact assemblages became taxonomically richer through time. This appears to be the case at Boardwalk, and to a lesser extent at Garden Island. At the latter site, the older assemblage is a low outlier for the ratio of taxonomic to tool densities. However, I have dated that AU to after 1000 B.C.. The appearance of a trend at Boardwalk, particularly in Area B, is due in part to the presence of 31/B/AU3, the richest assemblage, by any measure, among those analyzed here, while the contemporary burial areas at Boardwalk at are among the most artifact–poor AUs in the harbour. Further, the other AUs with high taxa density/tool density ratios are TN1/AU1 and 2, which post-date AD 500. Thus the appearance of a trend in the frequencies of artifact types may reflect changes in site utilization through time, rather than changes in material culture. The contrasts between Boardwalk and Lachane are quite marked and interesting for two sites which are generally contemporary and thought to be functionally equivalent. Lachane is taxa poor, relative to the density of artifacts present. This is surprising in light of the very large and rich assemblage from 33/B/AU. It is possible that the contrast is due in part to my inability to subdivide 33/B/AU stratigraphically. There may be a deposit within that AU equivalent in richness to 31/B/AU3, but which is swamped and therefore obscured by being lumped in with other, much poorer deposits. However, that alone does not explain this difference. As will be seen throughout the following, Lachane and Boardwalk consistently differ in ways which cannot be explained as the result of how the AUs were created. For example, Boardwalk consistently has fewer artifacts/taxon than does Lachane, Garden Island or Parizeau Point. Only GbTn 1

180

544

538.7

67.3

429.7

53.5

8

116

21

799

72

407.7

36.7

11.

348.5

26

13.4

Stone artifacts

Stone artifact taxa Total artifacts

Total taxa

Artifact density Taxa density

Mean art\taxa

Bone artifact density Bone taxa density Bone art/taxa

Stone art density Stn taxa density Stone art\taxon

14

51

Bn tl taxa

108.9

13.9

7.9

59.2

10.7

5.5

8

68

110

54

434

683

Bone artifacts

101

AU2

196

AU1

GBTO23

Volume m3

CLASS

5.1

18.3

93.3

5.8

19.2

110.6

5.4

37.5

203.9

39

212

19

97

20

116

104

AU

GBTO3 0

7.7

8.6

66.1

4

21.5

86

5.1

30.1

153.2

56

283

16

123

40

160

186

AU1

4.6

9

51.8

3.6

20.3

72.9

3.9

29.4

114.7

52

203

16

74

36

129

177

AU2

AREA AC

108. 1 24.3 2 4.4

2.2

35.1

78.4

3.1

186. 5 59.5

22

69

9

40

13

29

37

AU3

3.2

12.7

40.4

2.9

48.9

140.4

2.9

61.7

190.9

29

85

6

19

23

66

47

AU1

3.3

26.1

84.9

2.8

65.2

184.8

3

91.3

269.6

42

124

12

39

30

85

48

AU2

5.1

31.6

161.4

4.9

126.3

614

4.9

157.9

775.4

90

442

18

92

72

350

57

AU3

AREA B

GBTO31

181

3.7

17.5

64.9

2.3

68.4

154.4

2.6

86

219.3

49

125

10

37

39

88

57

AU4

2.4

13.5

32.4

2.7

39.1

106.8

2.6

52.7

139.2

39

103

10

24

29

79

74

AU1

4.5

8

36.4

4

27.8

111.2

4.1

36.8

147.6

67

276

15

66

52

208

187

AU2

AREA D

Table 7.1 Summary table of raw counts and artifact and taxonomic densities for the AUs

4.6

9.7

44.8

3.8

38.3

145.5

4

48.1

190.3

74

293

15

69

59

224

154

AU3

14

5.2

72.4

25.9

15.9

411.7

23

21

484.13

106

2440

26

365

80

2075

504

AREA B AU

8.9

9.7

86.1

10.9

30.6

333.3

10.4

40.3

419.4

58

604

14

124

44

480

144

AREA D AU

GBTO33

5.5

8.2

45.3

7.1

24.5

174.2

6.7

32.7

219.5

52

349

13

72

39

277

159

AREA E AU

7.4

9.1

67.3

14.9

26.4

394.2

13

36.6

461.5

74

960

19

140

55

820

208

AU

GBTO36

1.9

32.1

60.7

2.24

42.9

103.6

2.2

75

164.3

21

46

9

17

12

29

28

AU1

3.3

39.3

128.6

3.2

75

242.9

3.3

114.3

371.4

32

106

11

36

12

68

28

AU2

GBTN1

Independent variable Bone artifacts Volume Volume Volume Artifacts Volume Bone taxa Bone taxa density Volume Bone density Artifact density Volume Volume Volume

Dependent Variable Stone artifacts Stone artifacts Artifacts Bone artifacts Taxa Taxa Stone taxa Stone taxa density Taxa density Stone density Taxa density Bone artifact density Stone artifacts Artifact density

R2 .909 .851 .816 .8 .59 .553 .535 .4.96 .375 .355 .222 .074 .069 .034

Taxa density/ Art density

Taxa/Artifacts

Taxa/Volume

Tools/Volume

L

AU1

H

H

AU2

GbTo23

L

GbTo 30

L

AC/ AU1 L

AC/ AU2

L

L

AC/ AU3

B/ AU1

H

B/ AU2

H

H

H

H

B/ AU3

GbTo31

182

H

B/ AU4

L

D/ AU1

H

H

L

D/ AU2

L

D/ AU3

L

B

Table 7.3 Outliers identified in regression analysis; AUs with low/high artifact and/or taxonomic densities

Table 7.2 Regression Coefficients

L

D

GbTo33 E

L

GbTo 36

H

L

L

AU/ 1

L H

AU/ 2

GbTn1

consistently has as few artifacts/per taxa as Boardwalk. This suggests far greater taxonomic evenness for the Boardwalk and Grassy Bay assemblages Bone, antler and teeth This section discusses a) unhafted bone artifacts with pointed tips (called here awls and needles [if drilled]); b) bone artifacts with beveled tips, both hafted and unhafted; 3) a variety of miscellaneous bone tool types, and 4) bone tool fragments. Hafted pointed tools are treated as part of subsistence gear in Chapter 9. Beads, pendants, labrets, clubs and other items of personally adornment, prestige goods, grave goods etc., are discussed in Chapter 8. General comments Boardwalk displays the greatest variation among these sites in the volumetric density of both bone artifacts and bone artifact taxa, although this variability is due, in part, to 31/B/AU3, which has the highest bone artifact and taxonomic densities of these AUs. 23/AU2 has the second highest artifact densities, while N1/AU2 has the highest taxonomic densities. This pattern of 31/B/AU3 and N1/AU2 having the highest taxonomic densities for a particular set of artifact types is a basic pattern throughout the following discussions, and raises quite interesting questions addressed in Chapter 10. Another, persistent pattern is that 33/B/AU has one the highest artifact densities (and the largest assemblage), but very low – in this case, the lowest – taxonomic densities. The Lachane assemblage, generally, has fewer taxa per cubic meter than does Boardwalk or the other sites. Lachane assemblages also have stronger variation in the number of artifacts per taxa. Means for artifact/taxa are consistently highest or among the highest at Lachane, as are the standard deviations around those means. As will be seen, Boardwalk consistently stands out in a number of ways. Finally, the burial areas at Boardwalk (AC/AU1 and 2) generally have low artifact and taxonomic densities in contrast to other Boardwalk AUs as well as other sites. The two earliest AUs have rather low artifact and taxonomic densities, but not unusually so. Raw Material The great bulk of the artifacts recovered from these sites are of organic matter: bone, antler, and teeth. A very few are of shell or wood. The recovery of shell artifacts in shell midden is a tribute to the sharp eyes and skills of the excavators, unless the artifacts were found in special contexts, such as burials. For that reason, they are not discussed further here (see Chapter 8). Wooden artifacts are, of course, a consequence of special preservation conditions. Wood and other perishables were recovered at Lachane and the Sluice section at Boardwalk (Inglis 1976). These materials are being reported separately. The following discussion focuses on antler, sea mammal bone, terrestrial mammal bone, canines, incisors, and teeth (a residual category of all other classes of teeth). In Chapter 6, we saw that for some classes of tools, there appeared to be preferences operating for different raw materials. Socketed points are made almost exclusively 183

from terrestrial mammal bone, while almost a third of harpoons were made of sea mammal bone or antler. Variation in raw material was examined at the site level by comparing the relative proportion of each site’s’ assemblage made of each raw material class (Table 7.4) and at the AU level by calculating the density/100m3 of each. Both AUs of Garden Island have very high densities2 of terrestrial–mammal bone tools. 23/AU2 also has high densities of antler, bird bone, and canines. Both AUs have moderately high3 densities of sea mammal bone tools. AU2 has moderately high numbers of incisor tools. Parizeau Point has a high percentage of sea mammal bone tools, but that is a consequence of its small sample size. It has a moderate density of sea mammal bone tools. There is considerable variation among the Boardwalk AUs, variation which follows patterns we will see elsewhere. In any case, 31/B/AU3 has high densities of all of these except canines, and that density is moderately high. Lachane also displays considerable variability among its AUs. At neither site is there what we might call a “site-wide” signature that distinguishes it from the others. Baldwin had high densities of terrestrial mammal and moderately high densities of sea–mammal bone artifacts. Grassy Bay, has, in AU2, very high densities of antler tools, bird bone tools (and none in AU1) and canines. AU1 has moderately high densities of incisors. What does this variation mean? It probably reflects the relative proportions of different tool types at the different sites. Garden Island, for example, has high densities of fixed bone points, which are made primarily from terrestrial mammal bone. The variation does not reflect the relative proportions of unmodified raw materials. 31/B/AU3 has very high densities of sea– mammal bone tools. It also has very high densities of sea mammal bones (primarily sea otter). However, 31/B/AU2 also has high densities of sea mammal bones, but only average densities of sea–mammal bone tools. GbTn 1/AU1 has no bird bone tools, but does contain bird bone. There is no reason to assume, of course, that artifacts made of certain raw materials will enter the archaeological record in exactly the same proportions that faunal materials will enter the record at a given site. Thus just because a site has a lot of sea mammal bones, it does not follow that the occupants of the site will make a lot of their tools from sea mammal bones. There is, in fact, good reason to expect that there will not be a direct relationship between the proportions of raw material classes and the proportions of faunal classes. Grassy Bay is instructive. It has a density of 205.36 sea mammal bones/100m3, and 155.37 terrestrial mammal bones/100m3 for a ratio of 1: 0.75. It has 10.71 sea mammal bone tools/100m3, and 253 terrestrial mammal bone tools/100m3, or a ratio of 1:23.6. The ratio of sea–mammal bone tools to terrestrial mammal bone tools in the harbour, as a whole, is 1: 17.5. Grassy Bay has very high densities of hafted points, which are made almost exclusively of terrestrial mammal bone. It is possible that these points were used as part of the sea mammal hunting tackle deployed at this site and entered the site for that reason, not as bones in deer

2

High numbers, when speaking of densities, are higher than one standard deviation above the harbor-wide mean for that taxon. Conversely, low numbers are below one standard deviation below the mean. 3 Well above the mean, but not a standard deviation above. Moderately low is similarly below the mean.

184

Table 7.4 Organic artifact raw materials: AUs Unk 23/AU/Unk 23/AU1 23/AU2 30/AU 31/Unk 31/AC/AU 1 31/AC/AU 2 31/AC/AU 3 31/B/AU1 31/B/AU2 31/B/AU3 31/B/AU4 31/D/AU1 31/D/AU2 31/D/AU3 31/S/AU 31/MISC/A U 33/A/AU 33/B/AU 33/D/AU 33/E/AU 33/G/AU 33/H/AU 33/MISC/A U 34/AU 3 6/AU N1/UNK N1/AU1 N/AU2 O1/AU

Antler

Bird bone

Sea mammals

Terrestrial mammals

Canines

Incisor s

Teeth

Totals

13 6 14 13 2

8 4 11 15 4

25 6 26 13 13

4 1 7 11 2

1 1 14 12 0

1 2 5 5 1

158 196 683 431 115

2

1

11

106 176 606 362 93 2 115

1

8

0

138

1

1

8

91

0

11

2

114

1 3

26

1

28

7 2 1 7 3 3 3

2 3 13 5 2 8 6 3 4

1 4 26 9 3 9 12 11 6

53 61 217 55 58 156 171 168 108

0 2 3 2 1 1 2 0 2

4 5 38 6 5 10 8 7 10

0 1 2 1 0 1 3 1 1

63 76 306 80 70 192 205 193 134

0 60 14 1 0 11 12

1 50 13 0 0 4 12

4 91 13 1 0 9 18

66 1776 404 72 16 236 333

1 32 7 2 0 6 2

2 43 25 1 0 9 10

0 18 3 2 0 0 2

74 2070 479 79 16 275 389

46 8 1 1 7 18

75 14 1 0 5 85

121 37 0 1 2 106

1236 737 21 22 49 907

60 12 0 1 2 36

81 9 0 3 1 71

13 1 0 0 2 31

1632 818 23 28 68 1254

carcasses. Thus the proportions of raw material as artifacts are likely to be a function of the demands placed on the raw material in the technology and the qualities of the raw material, rather than purely a function of the available raw material. Indeed, some tool bone was probably transported into these sites. Garden Island has very high densities of terrestrial–mammal bone tools, although the site is on a very small island in the midst of a large shallow. Thus the tool bone was brought into the site either as raw material or as part of carcasses from somewhere else, certainly not the immediate watery vicinity.

185

Unhafted tools with pointed tips (awls and needles) (Table 7.5, A.3, A.4) The presence of these tools probably reflects a variety of fabricating and processing activities. Awls are present in all sites. 31/B/AU3 has the highest densities of awls. Several AUs have moderate to high densities: 23/AU1, 23/AU2, 33/B/AU, 33/D/AU, 36/AU, and N1/AU2 (densities double between N1/AU1 and AU2. 31/AC/AU3, which includes the trenches across the two house depressions (A and B) at Boardwalk, ranks second, although the artifact density there is very low. 31/B/AU3 ranks third in taxonomic density. Generally, the Boardwalk AUs – except the burial areas – have the highest artifact and taxonomic densities. Very low densities of awls occur at GbTo 30, 31/AC/AU1 (the very lowest), AU2 and AU3, 33/E/AU and N1/AU1. Awls appear to be densest in residential AUs, although they are present everywhere. At Grassy Bay, their density doubles when that site becomes a residential site. 33/B/AU was also a residential area. The numbers of awls seem lowest in those AUs which are clearly not residential in nature, such as GbTo 30 and 31/AC/AU1 and AU2. Needles are absent in five AUs. Assemblage size is not a factor. N1/AU2 has the highest density of needles and is one of the smallest assemblages, while needles are absent at Baldwin, with one of the larger AU assemblages. Needles are also absent in N1/AU1 and 31/B/AU2. However, needles are everywhere rare. There are only three in N1/AU2, so their absence in any given AU may simply be due to the vagaries of site sampling. I assume that the general overall consistency among AUs in the density of these tools reflects their utilitarian role in the area's technology. Variation in taxonomic densities may reflect variation in the range of these activities that were pursued at a given locality, or during a particular period. For example 36/AU has a rather high artifact density, but quite low taxonomic density. Despite the volume excavated at the site, the AU totally lacks rare forms. My interpretation of this is that the basic activities represented by these tools occurred at GbTo 36, but that the range of activities was limited. I interpret the figures for GbTo 30 to suggest that few of these activities occurred at the site. The distribution of rare forms (e.g. decorated needles) is probably a function of volume excavated and sample size when dealing with extremely large and extremely small samples. Variation among the more common forms (e.g. worked and splinter awls) may reflect activity or site formation differences among the AUs. The four Area B AUs at Boardwalk have generally high densities of ulna awls. If two of the three Area D AUs are included, then these six account for all the highest ranking ulna awl AUs. The two oldest AUs also have high ulna–awl densities. While I can imagine a variety of scenarios to explain the apparent preference for, or importance of, ulnas for awls at Boardwalk, I cannot test any of them with this data. In terms of harbour-wide temporal trends, the percentage of awls is highest in PR 1 and then declines sharply in PR 2 and then remains virtually the same in PR 3. The strong decline in the percentage of these tools between PR 1 and PR 2 may in part be a function of the extraordinary increase and diversification of the bone tool assemblage of PR 2 relative to PR 1 (133 tools in the latter, 2355 in the former). Density also declines between PR 1 and 2, and then stabilizes. Thus, there does appear to have been a real decline in awls after PR 1. Their stability through time at the level of the harbour is quite interesting when seen against the background of the variability in their densities from AU to AU. This pattern of stability at one scale and 186

variability at the smaller scale is repeated again and again. In any case, both the percentages and densities suggest that awls played a very consistent role through time in the local material culture. Needles are consistently rare through time. The variations in their percentages and densities in the three periods is likely a function of that rarity, rather than minor fluctuations in their role in the material culture. Beveled bone, tooth and antler tools (Table 7.5, A.5, A.6) This grouping includes tools that are usually classified as chisels and wedges. The distribution and variety of these tools may generally reflect fabricating tasks associated with wood working and carpentry. As usual, 31/B/AU3 has the highest artifact and taxonomic densities. The next highest taxonomic densities are from N1/AU2 and N1/AU1. 33/D/AU has the second highest artifact densities, while N1/AU2 has the third highest artifact densities. High artifact densities also occur at 23/AU1 and AU2, 31/B/AU2, 33/B/AU, 33/D/AU and 36/AU. The lowest artifact densities are at 30/AU, 31/AC/AU3 (although preservation may be an issue here), 31/B/AU1, and 33/E/AU. The percentages of these tools in PR3, PR 2, and PR 1 are rather constant. They decline slightly between PR 3 and PR 2; they are same in PR 1 as PR 2. Their densities increase markedly between PR 3 and PR 2, from 7.3/100m3 to 13/100m3. They then have the same density in PR 1. This stability in densities in PR 2 and 1 echoes the pattern we observed with awls. The decline in percentage simply indicates that the number of beveled tools did not increase as greatly as did the numbers of other taxa, so that beveled tools were relatively less common, although in absolute terms, there were more of them. We also see the same pattern of great stability at the harbour scale through these two periods, yet great variability through both time and space at the AU and individual site scale. The functions relating to beveled bone tools appear to have been constant through those two periods. Although the numbers are small, the increase in beveled tools after PR 1 probably does reflect an increase in their use. Numbers of beveled tools increase through time at GbTo 23, Area B at Boardwalk (until AU4, when the number drops off) and at Grassy Bay. This pattern is probably related to changes in patterns of site occupation rather than to cultural change. Again it appears to reflect a shift to residential use (and then away from that, as in Area B at Boardwalk). GbTo 30 has few of these tools, as it also had few awls and needles, suggesting that the site may not have been used for many fabricating activities. Miscellaneous bone and antler tools (Tables A.7, A.8) The grouping includes seventeen classes of tools which are not easily accommodated with the other broad grouping discussed above and elsewhere in this work. These artifacts, like the others, may generally be related to fabricating activities (with the exceptions of combs and spoons). This grouping is interesting in a number of ways 1) Four sites or AUs have no artifacts in this group (GbTo 30, 31/MISC./AU, 33/C/AU, 33/G/AU). This may reflect excavated volume, since, except for GbTo 30, we do not know the 187

excavated volumes for those other three AUs. However, 104 m3 were excavated at GbTo 30, much higher than a number of AUs where these artifacts are well represented. 2) 36/AU, N1/AU2, 33/B/AU1 and 33/B/AU3 are the highest ranking AUs in artifact density, while 31/B/AU3, 31/B/AU1, N2/AU2 and 23/AU2 are the highest ranking in taxonomic densities. The presence of 31/B/AU1 in this group is quite remarkable. Most of the artifacts in B/AU1 are detritus, but the others include a bone blade, antler flakers, and a hafted spatulate. 3) GbTo 36 again has very high artifact densities, coupled with quite low taxonomic densities, as although a limited array of activities was intensively pursued at the site. Bone, tooth and antler fragments (Table 7.6, A.9, A.10) The distribution of broken tools can provide information about activities and site transformation processes. This analysis was done in two steps: in the first the raw count and densities of differing classes of tool fragment were tabulated (Tables A.9 and A.10), as has been done above. Included in this tabulation were also complete bone tools. Additionally, ratios among several classes of fragment, and between all fragments and complete tools were calculated (Table 7.6). While the patterning among the various AUs in taxonomic densities generally follows patterns in taxonomic densities already observed, those in artifact densities do not. The highest taxonomic densities are in N1/AU1 (unusual), N1/AU2, 31/B/AU3, and 31/B/AU4. We should also include 31/B/AU1 and 2 here as well. However, the highest densities of tool fragments are found in both AUs at GbTo 23, and 33/B/AU. If 31/B/AU3 is ignored, Boardwalk generally has quite low densities for broken tools. The patterning for complete tools is more like that found for taxonomic density. Ratios were calculated for tip, body, and haft fragments, and for complete tools to tool fragments (Table 7.6). This analysis could be done for all AUs, since volumetric density was not controlled. Boardwalk generally has a high ratio of tip fragments to body fragments and tip fragments to haft fragments. Boardwalk also has a generally high ratio of complete to fragmentary artifacts, with some exceptions. The two burial areas are more similar to the rest of the harbour’s sites in this regard, as are 31/B/AU1 and 31/S/AU. 31/S/AU is the sluice area, and may represent materials dumped into the seep. Only N1/AU2 is at all close to the Boardwalk AUs for this ratio. At Boardwalk, tips entered the archaeological record in greater frequencies than body or haft fragments. In the harbour as a whole fragmentary bone, tooth and antler tool fragments are far more common, but at Boardwalk, and in marked contrast, complete tools are more common or almost as common as fragmentary bone artifacts

188

Table 7.5 Densities of beveled tools, awls and needles Sites Beveled tools Awls N Density N Density 23/AU1 27 13.78 105 53.57* 23/AU2 18 17.82* 54 53.47* 30/AU 5 [4.81] 4 [3.85] 31/AC/A 13 6.99 34 18.28 U1 31/AC/A 11 6.21 22 12.43 U2 31/AC/A 2 [5.41] 10 27.03 U3 31/B/AU1 2 [4.26] 21 44.68 31/B/AU2 7 15.22 19 41.30 31/B/AU3 33 57.89** 87 189.13** 31/B/AU4 3 [5.26] 27 47.47 31/D/AU1 8 10.81 27 36.49 31/D/AU2 16 8.56 52 27.81 31/D/AU3 18 11.69 62 40.26 33/B/AU 88 17.46* 336 66.67* 33/D/AU 31 21.53* 80 55.56* 33/E/AU 3 [2.88] 15 [14.42] 33/H/AU 13 8.18 69 43.40 36/AU 34 16.35 131 62.98* N1/AU1 3 1O.71 3 [10.71] N1/AU2 6 21.43* 8 28.57 Mean 13.36 43.9 Std. Dev. 12.90 39.47 4 Mean2 11.47 38.1 Std. Dev.2 5.57 17

Needles N Density 1 .51 2 1.98 1

[.54]

1

2.7

1

2.13

1 2 1 2 3 10 2 2 2

1.75 3.51 1.35 1.07 1.95 1.98 1.39 1.92 1.26

1

3.57** 1.84 .84

4

In calculating Mean2 and Standard Deviation2 in this table the highest and lowest values in the array were removed and the mean and standard deviation recalculated. This had the effect of reducing the variance, and eliminated the effect that 31/B/AU3 had on the calculations.

189

Table 7.6 Ratios of bone tool fragments by AU AU Tip\body Body/haft 23/Unk/AU .08 .48 23/AU1 .09 .61 23/AU2 .17 .65 30/AU .28 .2 31/AC/AU1 1.7 1.3 31/AC/AU2 2.8 .5 31/AC/AU3 31/B/AU1 3.7 1 31/B/AU2 2.8 .5 31/B/AU3 2.3 .85 31/B/AU4 4 1 31/D/AU1 .6 31/D/AU2 .9 .7 31/D/AU3 2.5 .8 31/S/AU .5 .9 31/MISC/AU 1.7 1.8 33/A/AU .1 .5 33/B/AU .2 .7 33/D/AU .2 .5 33/E/AU .2 .6 33/G/AU .1 1 33/H/AU .1 .8 33/MISC/AU .1 .6 34/AU .4 .2 36/AU .3 .4 N1/AU/UNK .2 .7 N1/AU1 1.2 .8 N1/AU2 .4 .3 O1/AU .3 .3

Tip/haft .16 .15 .26 1.42 1.3 5.5 1.5 3.7 5.5 2.73 4

190

1.3 3.1 .6 .9 .2 .2 .4 .1 .2 .2 2 .8 .3 1.5 1.3 .9

Complete/fragments 24.8 27.6 30.1 8.7 38.9 37.9 100 26.3 126.3 126.2 95.2 112.5 80.1 92.5 33.7 91.1 19.6 33.7 32.7 23.4 42.9 36.8 36.3 32.4 40.9 36.3 37.5 65.2 38.8

Formal variation among bone tool types Formal variation among bone and antler tools was examined by looking at changes in haft form and at changes in barbed harpoon head form through space and time. Bone tools have proven very hard to classify using typological techniques developed for either stone or pottery. Most typologies rest either on straight–forward ethnographic analogies, or on approaches borrowed from lithics. For example, Luebbers (1979) attempted to classify bone points from Namu on the basis of their hafting and base form. In my dissertation (Ames 1976), I demonstrated that bases and hafts were the most variable elements on bone tools at GbTo 23. In the current analysis, a paradigmatic classification of 2399 hafted tools based on ten planview attributes5 (excluding None and Irregular) and twelve longitudinal cross-section attributes6 produced a matrix with 120 cells or types, of which 88 were filled. Of these, 31 categories had ten or more artifacts. Of that 31, only 10 classes had 50 or more artifacts in them. An item seriation was done using these ten most common classes using the 12 AUs from Garden Island, Boardwalk and Grassy Bay that have a clear stratigraphic order (Table 7.7). The item seriation has to be interpreted with great care, since the two earliest AUs (31/B/AU1 and D/AU1) also have the smallest assemblages. Assemblage size is clearly a factor; the two Garden Island AUs are the largest, and have all ten haft types. There is considerably more variation at Boardwalk and Grassy Bay. In both sites, as assemblage size increases, diversity increases, as we would expect. However, some of the patterning is intriguing. Both 31/B/AU1 and D/AU1 contain parallel hafts with parallel cross-sections, and this type is by far the most common throughout the harbour and all periods. However, both lack tapered hafts with double and ventral bevels, the second and third most common types respectively. This pattern may simply be sampling error, or it may indicate that these haft types were absent during PR 3, and their presence (even popularity) in PR 2 represents an innovation. The table also shows intra and inter-site variation in the presence and absence of some of these types. While all types are present in relatively large numbers at Boardwalk as a whole, Area B completely lacks parallel hafts with double bevels and tapered hafts with ovate crosssections. Both types are present in Area D and in the burial areas. At the inter-site scale, both Grassy Bay AUs lack the very common parallel hafts with parallel cross-sections. (Similar patterns of variation are discussed in Chapter 9). Again, it is difficult to disentangle the effects of sample size – given that many of these are very small samples – and temporal and geographic patterning.

1) Excurvate, 2) expanding (expanding towards the base), 3) incurvate, 4) internal (manufacturing of the haft did not extend to the edges of the piece), 5) ovate, 6) parallel, 7) plano-convex, 8) stemmed (shouldered), 9) tapered (contracting to the base), and 10) triangular (contracting towards a very narrow or pointed base). 6 1) Ventrally beveled (bevel on surface with marrow cavity), 2) dorsally beveled, 3) double bevel (beveled on both surfaces), 4) parallel, 5) square (square hafts are generally thicker and shorter than parallel hafts), 6) triangular (tapering to a pointed base. Differs from double bevel in that triangular hafts lack a beveling facet, which bevel hafts must posses), 7) hafting bed or socket, 8) ovate, 9) plano-convex, 10) tapering, 11) expanding and 12) incurvate. 5

191

Two frequency seriations, one seriation using density calculations, and the second percentages, were also performed (Table 7.8). The former measures changing numbers of artifacts relative to excavated volume, the latter changing numbers of artifacts relative to assemblage size. The overall trend is that parallel hafts become more common between PR 2 and 3 and tapered hafts decline in Prince Rupert 3. Identification of temporal trends is consistently made difficult by sample size. I was able to establish only two Prince Rupert 3 AUs, both at Boardwalk, both AUs with low artifact and taxonomic densities. Such AUs are present in all three Prince Rupert periods, so these characteristics are not time dependent. It is not possible to establish whether the absence of particular artifact classes in these two AUs is the result of sampling bias or is “real,” in the sense that it reflects the material culture of the time. Having more PR 3 AUs would only partially obviate this problem. Let us say we had six such AUs including two or three from Lachane, Kitandach, K’nu as well as from Boardwalk. If all six were as small as the two from Boardwalk, we would be presented with the same sampling problems at each one, although the likelihood of encountering rare taxa would be higher. The key datum in that case would be their consistently small numbers. A second point that emerges from this consideration is that in spite of the small assemblage sizes of the two earliest assemblages, we do see enormous continuity in the bone tool assemblages. Common tool types are common throughout. Uncommon tool types are uncommon throughout. These 10 haft types are the most common haft types in all sites, and their overall densities do not change between Prince Rupert 2 (41/100 m3) and Prince Rupert 3 (41/100 m3). Densities of three classes remain essentially the same or decline slightly: parallel with double bevels, parallel with dorsal bevels, and parallel with a parallel cross-section. Six types decline sharply in density: parallel with ventral bevels, tapered with double bevels, tapered with dorsal bevels, tapered with ventral bevels, parallel with an ovate cross-section, and expanding with parallel cross-section. One type increases in density: tapered with a tapered cross-section. In the percentage based frequency seriation, the types that maintained relatively stable densities increase markedly in their percentages, in other words all parallel forms, except those with ventral bevels, become relatively more common, while tapered forms, except those with tapered cross-sections, become relatively less common or change very little. Expanding hafts also decline between PR 2 and 1 in both density and percent. However, these trends are quite subtle and probably indicate some relative and perhaps minor shifts in how these artifacts were attached to the tools which they armed. They are visible here only because of the very large sample sizes available and may actually simply be due to the vagaries of sampling. Experimentation can demonstrate whether these shifts do indeed represent a shift in hafting practices, and simulating assemblages (e.g. Kintigh 1984) might demonstrate whether these are artifacts of sampling or whether they are indeed subtle changes in material culture.

192

TN1/AU1 (N = 2) TN1/AU2 (N = 7)

31/D/AU1 (N = 3) 31/D/AU2 (N = 26) 31/D/AU3 (N = 25)

31/B/AU1 (N = 4) 31/B/AU2 (N = 8) 31/B/AU3 (N = 24) 31/B/AU4 (N = 5)

N 23/AU1 (N =140) 23/AU2 ( N = 90)

AUs

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Dorsal Bevel 75 +

Double Bevel 122 +

193

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Tapered Ventral Bevel 181 +

+

+

51 +

Ovate

+

+

+

+

94 +

Tapered

+

+

+

+

+

+

Dorsal Bevel 94 +

+

+

+

+

+

+

Double Bevel 211 +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

342 +

Parallel

+

+

+

+

+

+

Parallel Ventral Bevel 149 +

Table 7.7 Item seriation of haft types.

+

+

+

+

+

+

111 +

Expanding Parallel

PRINCE RUPERT I PRINCE RUPERT II PRINCE RUPERT III

TN1/AU1 (N = 2) TN1/AU2 (N = 7)

3.29 (8.1%) 5.45 (14.1%)

]

1.85 (4.6%) 2.56 (6.6%)

.53 .65

.53 1.30

31/D/AU1 (N = 3) 31/D/AU2 (N =26) 31/D/AU3 (N = 25)

Dorsal Bevel 75 3.06 5.94

3.51 1.75

Double Bevel 122 7.65 14.85

31/B/AU1 (N = 4) 31/B/AU2 (N = 8) 31/B/AU3 (N = 24) 31/B/AU4 (N = 5)

N 23/AU1 (N =140) 23/AU2 (N = 90)

AUs

.83 (14.3%) 3.70 (9.1%) 2.56 (6.6%)

3.57 3.57

1.35 1.07 .65

5.26

Parallel Ventral Bevel 149 6.63 4.95

3.31 (57%) 7.00 (17.2%) 9.94 (25.6%)

2.70 4.28 9.09

4.26 4.35 14.04 1.75

342 8.16 15.84

Parallel

194

7.82 (19.2%) 8.33 (21.5%)

.53 .65

5.26 1.75

Double Bevel 211 17.35 23.76

Table 7.8 Density (N/100 m3) based frequency seriation of haft types.

3.5 (8.6%) 3.21 (8.3%)

3.57

.53

4.35 1.75

Dorsal Bevel 94 6.63 8.91

6.36 (15.7%) 4.17 (10.7%)

3.57

3.21 3.25

4.35 3.51 1.75

Tapered Ventral Bevel 181 10.71 5.94

3.09 (7.6%) 1.28 (3.3%)

1.60

51 6.12 3.96

Ovate

.83 (14.3%) .41 (1.0%) 2.24 (7%)

3.57 7.14

.65

1.75

2.13

94 1.02 1.98

Tapered

.83 (14.3%) 3.7 (9.1%) 1.6 (4.1%)

7.14

1.60

2.13 4.35 8.77

111 4.08 2.97

Expanding Parallel

Stone tools The “Stone tools” class includes ground slate, other ground stone, and chipped stone, which are primarily cobble tools. In general, the artifact and taxonomic densities of stone tools follows those of bone, tooth and antler tools, although stone are usually much less common. Only at GbTo 30 does the density of stone tools approach that of bone, and only in 31/AC/AU3 does it exceed that of bone tools. As among the bone tools, 31/B/AU3 and N1/AU2 have the highest density of artifacts. The two N1 AUs have the highest taxonomic densities; these high densities are unusual for N1/AU1 which usually has much lower artifact and taxonomic densities that does N1/AU2. Raw Material Raw material use is examined here at the site level. An AU by AU comparison produces considerable detail, but little usable information. The question was whether the different sites may have had access to differing sources of raw material for stone tools as a result of having differing site catchements. This question is answerable on the site level. Cobble tools and ground and pecked tools were treated separately to see whether there were differing preferences for chipped vs. ground and pecked stone. At all sites, irrespective of sample size, basalt is the most common stone used. However, among cobble tools harbor-wide 54% are of basalt while only 33% of ground and pecked tools are basalt (Tables A.11, A.12). At all sites, ground stone tools were made from a wider diversity of stone then were chipped stone tools. Comparisons are made somewhat difficult because the assemblages vary considerably in size, so the small assemblages lack many of the rarer stone types. Garden Island has high percentages of andesite, gneiss, quartzite (among the cobbles), and sedimentary rock. Parizeau Point has very high percentages of basalt, but this is a function of small assemblage size. It also has a high percentage of phylite among its ground and pecked tools. Boardwalk is rather average (as it should be since it has the largest assemblages of both cobble and ground stone). It does have a very high number of quartzite pebbles as noted in Chapter 6. It also lacks rhyolite among both the cobble tools and ground and pecked tools. Rhyolite is not common at other sites, but it is ubiquitous. If quartzite is eliminated from the calculations, Boardwalk also has a high percentage of tools made of gneiss, and moderate numbers of tools of sedimentary rock. Lachane also lacks rhyolite. Lachane has very high percentages of sedimentary rock. Baldwin has quite high percentages of nephrite, as would be expected from its high densities of celts. Kitandach has high percentages of granite and rhyolite. K’nu and Grassy Bay also have high percentages of rhyolite. In terms of lithology, the sites do seem form clusters: Garden Island and Boardwalk are linked by high percentages of quartzite, gneiss and quite low percentages of rhyolite. K’nu, Kitandach (both on Metlakatla Pass) share high frequencies of rhyolite, which otherwise is found in small numbers. Grassy Bay also has quite high percentages of rhyolite. Boardwalk, Lachane, and Baldwin share moderate to high numbers of sedimentary rock. Thus K’nu, Kitandach and perhaps Grassy Bay shared access to some areas. Boardwalk is tied to two groupings, one with Garden Island, and another that includes Lachane and Baldwin. These linkages probably reflect the distribution of 195

lithologies in the harbor rather than “differential access” to resources. On the other, the implication here is that patterns of use in the harbor did not iron out differences in the distribution of resources. Propinquity is no guarantee of similarity in raw material use. Boardwalk and Parizeau Point differ in interesting ways, although the very small sample at Parizeau Point must be kept in mind. It has a quite high frequency of rhyolite cobble and ground pecked tools; rhyolite is not present at Boardwalk. Phylite is also present in rather high frequencies at Parizeau Point. Phylite is present in high numbers elsewhere only at Kitandach, and in quite small numbers at Boardwalk. As is noted elsewhere in this monograph, in some ways Boardwalk and Parizeau Point are “mirror images” of each other. In terms of raw materials, Parizeau Point is most similar to Kitandach. Kitandach and Boardwalk have the most diverse array of raw material types for the ground and pecked tools, with 18 and 16 respectively. Baldwin has the least diverse array of raw materials among its cobble tools, especially given its size (N = 80). Generally, however, most sites have about six to eight stone types among its cobble tools, and eight to ten among its ground stone. Artifact types Stone tools are separated in the tables by type (Tables A.13, A.14). Points of interest include: 1) The array of abraders in N1/AU2; 2) The general lack of mauls, celts and adzes at Boardwalk, and the variety of these forms at GbTo 30 (This in light of the contrasting densities of beveled bone tools at these sites); 3) The relative lack of hammers at Boardwalk; 4) The lack of abraders at Lachane, and the relative lack of celts and percussers at that site; 5) The lack of any tool type which is present in every site in the same densities. I had expected to discover one tool type, cobble tools perhaps, which has present in every site and AU in roughly the same density, as part of a basic, ubiquitous tool kit. This I did not find. Abraders Variation in abrader densities is not easy to interpret. N1/AU2 has the highest density of abraders. Interestingly, 31/AC/AU3 has the second highest density, followed by 23/AU/2. 31/B/AU3 has only the fourth highest densities of abraders, followed by 30/AU. Lachane, overall, has extremely low densities of abraders. Several of these are either residential sites, or associated with residential sites. I entered this study with two different hypotheses about abraders: 1) that bone and wood working tasks requiring the use of abraders were performed uniformly across the harbour and so abraders would be present in roughly equal numbers in all sites; or 2) abraders were part of a tool kit used to make opportunistic bone tools, and so would appear in higher numbers in sites with high frequencies of such tools. To test hypothesis 2, the distribution of abraders was regressed against several categories of bone tools. There is no relationship, either positive or negative between the density of abraders and of awls or beveled 196

bone tools. For that matter, there is no relationship between the distribution of beveled bone tools and celts. Of course, for many of these classes of tools, their distributions may be controlled by other factors, such as woodworking, rather than bone working. At a harbour-wide scale, the densities of abraders increase throughout the Pacific Period. The low densities in PR 3 may, again, reflect in part the effects of the small sample. Conversely their percentage of the ground stone tool assemblages of each period declines through time, probably as a result of continuing taxonomic diversification of the ground stone assemblages. Overall, the density of ground stone tools increases through time. In PR 3, it is 1.6 artifacts/100m3 (there are only two ground stone tools in that assemblage); in PR 2 the density increases to 14.9 artifacts/100m3 (N = 164 ground stone PR 2 artifacts), and to 30.1 artifacts/100m3 (N = 111) in PR 1. It seems likely then that the increase in abrader densities after PR 1 also reflects this increase in the role of ground stone tools in the material culture of the harbour. The decline in the percentage of abraders means that their rate of increase was less than the overall growth and diversification of ground stone tools through time in the harbour. Celts (or adze bits) The highest density of celts is at Parizeau Point, followed by 23/AU2 and N1/AU2. 33/B/AU ranks fourth, but has just over half the density of adzes as N1/AU2. 31/B/AU3 and AU4 follow, but with low mean densities. Celt densities are generally low at Boardwalk and variable at Lachane. The presence of these tools in high densities certainly implies heavy woodworking. AUs with very high densities of both beveled bone tools and celts are 23/AU2 and N1/AU2. 31/B/AU3 has extraordinarily high densities of beveled tools, but only mean densities of celts. This seems to suggest that at some sites, such as Garden Island and Grassy Bay, a wide range of woodworking activities occurred, while at others, such Boardwalk, different activities occurred at different places, and even at different sites. Celts increase through time. They are absent on PR 3. In PR 2 they represent 10.4% of the ground stone tools and 11.7% in PR 1. Their densities more than double, however, from 1.6/100m3 to 3.5/100m3 from Prince Rupert 2 to PR 1. They are not common (probably very carefully curated, although Boardwalk’s sluice area has a lot of them), but their increase between PR 2 and 3 as at the same scale as the overall increase in the densities of ground stone tools. Their percentage remains more or less stable because their numbers did not increase appreciably faster than those of other ground stone artifacts. Mauls and percussers: Fully shaped mauls are quite rare, and so are placed here with percussers which are functionally the same. The highest density is at 23/AU2, followed by 31/B/AU4 and 31/AC/AU3. 31/B/AU3 has quite low densities of these tools and they are absent from 31/B/AU1 and AU2. In general, Boardwalk AUs either have percussers or they do not, while at Lachane they are present in varying densities. They are also completely absent from Grassy Bay. They were no doubt used in a variety of tasks ranging from pounding on splitting wedges to bark beating to making meal.

197

Mauls and percussers show the most dramatic increase through time in percentages and densities of these three sets of tools. They are absent in PR 3, have quite low densities in PR 2 (1%) and increase their density by almost five times between PR 2 and PR 1. Their percentages also increase markedly. The increase in density is much stronger than either abraders or celts. Abraders decline in percentage, while celts increase only slightly. Thus, mauls and percussers formed an increasingly important part of the ground stone assemblage through time, increasing much more strongly then celts and were particularly important in PR 1. These trends are in marked contrast to those described for bone tools. We can actually speak here of trends, and do not need to use the term “subtle” to describe them. Worked Cobble tools As usual, worked cobble tools display considerable variation in their spatial distribution. Highest densities occur in 31/AC/AU3 (the two house depressions at Boardwalk) and 33/AU/D, another AU with associated residential features. Other AUs with moderate to high densities of these tools are also thought to be residential areas. In light of that, it should be noted that all three of the Area D AUs at Boardwalk, an area also presumed to be a residential area, have quite low densities for these tools. Their densities increase from Prince Rupert 3 to PR 2 and then increase only slightly. They also increase in percentage of chipped stone tools between PR 3 and PR 2, and then display little change. They were clearly a basic part of the material culture and seem associated with residential areas. Split Cobbles 31/AC/AU3 has the highest densities of split cobbles, by a factor of almost 2 to 1. There is no clear relationship between split cobble densities and features, or with other tools. They are absent in two AUs, and their densities otherwise vary greatly. They appear to have been a basic part of the technology, but not a significant one. They account for almost a third of PR 3 cobble tools, but their percentage declines in PR 2, and then increases slightly between PR 2 and 1. Their densities also decline between PR 3 and 2, but then increase in PR 1. Their decline between PR 3 and 2 corresponds to increases in worked cobble tools and spalls Spalls Spall tools are ubiquitous, but their distribution among all AUs shows no clear patterning. Much of this apparent lack of pattern probably reflects the strong likelihood that spall tools, like other cobble tools, were part of the technological background noise. People needed and used them, but nobody probably paid much attention to them, so they got discarded according to no particular pattern. They do display some clear temporal patterning. They are almost 52% of the PR 3 cobble assemblage, making them the most prominent tool in PR 3 times. They decline in 198

percentage after PR 3 through PR 1. Their densities, on the other hand, remain rather stable through time, fluctuating only slightly. This suggests that their numbers in tool kits remained stable through time, and the decline in their percentages reflects an overall increase in the numbers of cobble tools. This suggests a stable need perhaps for the rather acute edge angles of these tools. Cobble Flakes These tools are relatively uncommon, so that flaking cobbles occurred far less often then spalling them. These flakes are most likely those produced in making worked cobble tools. They present in virtually all AUs but in low numbers. Their highest densities appear to be in AUs associated with residential features, as are those of cobble tools. They increase in density through time and in percentage through time. Their increases are somewhat stronger than those for cobble tools, as would be expected if the flakes from cobble tools were also used for tools. Utilized surfaces These are rare, suggesting that anvils or platforms were equally rare. This is not surprising given the absence of chipped stone tools other than cobble tools. General Comparative Comments First, in order to draw general comparisons among the 19 AUs that form the core of this study, two K-Means cluster analyses were performed. In the first, the nineteen AUs were clustered using the artifact densities in seven broad artifact categories (Table 7.9). In the second, the AUs were clustered based on the taxonomic densities (Table 7.10) in the same seven categories. These categories are those discussed in this chapter, as well as chapter 9 and 10. In both cluster analyses, a five cluster solution was chosen. The results of the K-Means cluster analyses, and an average-linkage cluster analyses based on Euclidean distances provide stable, consistent results for a five cluster solution. The five cluster solution also provided the best balance between having several single member clusters, and having no single member clusters. The comparisons that follow in this section are on purely quantitative grounds: on how many artifacts are present in each AU, and how many artifact taxa are present. Cluster analysis based on artifact class densities This analysis groups AUs based on the numbers of artifacts (as measured by N/100m3) in each of these general classes that are present. Cluster 1 The AUs in this cluster have artifact densities in the seven artifact categories which are generally close to the means for all AUs, but somewhat below the means but within a single 199

standard deviation. The cluster also contains two of the three AUs which lack an entire artifact class. 30/AU has no miscellaneous bone, while 31/B/AU1 has no ground stone. This cluster includes both of the Boardwalk burial area (31/AC/AU1 and 2), both of the early AUs from Boardwalk, and both of the late AUs from Boardwalk (31/B/AU4, 31/D/AU3). In fact, the only manifestly late AU it lacks is 23/AU2. In a sense, these are generic, moderately low density Prince Rupert Harbour assemblages. Several of them – including the 31/AC/AU's – were identified in the field as shell dumps. However, it should be noted that these AUs show a range of whole to fragmentary artifact ratios from quite low (8.7 at 30/AU) to quite high (112.51 in 31/D/AU1). These AUs also have the lowest densities of decorated objects. Three of these AUs would have been separated from this cluster had I used a six or seven cluster solution: 30/AU, 31/B/AU4, and N1/AU1. 1) 30/AU has quite low densities for all artifact classes except ground stone, which has densities well above the sample mean. Cobble densities approach the sample mean. Looking specifically at ground stone, 30/AU has very high densities of abraders and high densities of celts, as well as a wide array of ground stone tools from many taxa. Cobble tools and cobble spall densities are high. Densities of needles and awls are the lowest of any of the AUs; densities of subsistence tools are the second lowest. The inference is that this site was used primarily for heavy duty fabricating activities, perhaps woodworking, and carpentry. Interestingly, the site lacks bark beaters and bark shredders, as well as small woodworking tools. Subsistence activities also do not appear to have been significant. 2) 31/B/AU4 differs less strongly from the rest of the cluster, primarily by having high (for the cluster) densities of needles and awls. Interestingly, this is coupled with somewhat low densities of beveled bone tools and very low densities of miscellaneous bone tools. 3) N1/AU1 also only differs from the main cluster by degrees, having a rather low density of awls and needles, the lowest density of beveled bone tools among these assemblages, and the lowest density of subsistence tools. Cluster 2 This single AU cluster contains 31/B/AU3, and is marked by having the highest to, or close to, the highest densities for virtually all classes of tools. The only categories for which it does not have extraordinarily high artifact densities are miscellaneous bone tools (although that it is a standard deviation above the sample mean), and ground stone (which is also slightly above one standard deviation above the sample mean). Given the usual ways that archaeologists recognize residential sites, 31/B/AU3 may represent an actual residential area, perhaps the interior of a house. The matrix descriptions in the level notes suggest the AU may have been recovered from house floor laminae. The high ratio of complete to fragmentary tools may support this inference. The AU also has the highest densities of decorated objects in the sample, as well as the very high ratio of complete to broken tools – only fractionally lower than 31/B/AU2. The very high densities of needles and awls and subsistence related tools reflects very high densities of unhafted and hafted pointed bone tools in the AU.

200

Cluster 3 This cluster is in a sense the mirror image of Cluster 1. Mean artifact densities for this cluster are generally above the sample mean, but within a single standard deviation of the sample mean. In other words, this cluster has generally higher densities for all tools categories than Cluster 1. Cobble tools are the single exception; the cluster mean for cobble tools is well above the sample mean. Cluster 4 N1/AU2 is the only member of this cluster. It is marked by strong variability among the densities of the artifact categories. It has moderately low densities of awls and needles, moderately high densities of beveled tools, almost sample mean densities for subsistence tools, and very high densities of adornment artifacts, miscellaneous bone and antler tools, cobble tools and ground stone. The specific artifact classes that contribute to these high densities include tubes, antler detritus, cobble tools, cobble spalls, and abraders. The presence of these tools suggests that the assemblage may represent a set of fabricating and processing activities of some kind. Cluster 5 This is another single AU cluster, containing 31/AC/AU3, the assemblage associated with house depressions A and B at Boardwalk. This assemblage is characterized by the absence of items of adornment, by very high densities of cobble tools and ground stone, and moderately low densities of all other classes. The classes that are absent or present in low numbers are all perishable – the high densities imperishable. The reader will recall that the bulk of the deposits in this AU were a wet organic muck, which may be the result of raised ground water levels which may have caused some loss of perishable items such as bone and antler. On the other had, this does not account for the high densities of stone tools. Cluster analysis based on taxonomic densities This analysis groups AUs based on the number of artifact classes or taxa present in each AU. It therefore clusters AUs on the basis of their taxonomic richness. Cluster A This cluster is the taxonomic analog of Cluster 1: taxonomic densities are uniformly below the sample mean, but within a single standard deviation. These are clearly the generic Prince Rupert AUs in terms of taxonomic densities. This is also a very tight cluster, with no outliers. Cluster B This cluster includes only 31/B/AU3. All densities are more than one standard deviation higher than the sample means. This is the taxonomically richest assemblage among those analyzed here. Cluster C 201

This cluster contains three assemblages which have artifact densities uniformly higher than the sample means, with two exceptions, adornment and subsistence tools, both of which exceed a single standard deviation above the sample means. In some ways, it is the mirror image of Cluster A. Table 7.9 K means cluster results of AUs based on artifact densities Cluster AU Awls/ Beveled Adorn- Misc. Subsisneedles Bone ment Bone tence 1 30/AU 3.48 4.95 3.85 0 15.37 1 31/AC/AU 18.28 6.45 2.15 7.53 25.28 1 1 31/AC/AU 12.43 6.21 1.13 3.39 27.56 2 1 31/B/AU1 44.68 4.46 2.13 17.02 25.55 1 31/B/AU4 50.88 5.26 7.02 1.75 38.5 1 31/D/AU1 36.48 10.81 9.46 2.7 22.97 1 31/D/AU2 28.88 14.44 3.74 3.74 42.75 1 31/D/AU3 42.21 11.69 8.44 1.95 48.07 1 33/E/AU 44.65 8.18 6.25 33.77 35.86 1 N1/AU1 10.71 3.57 7.14 3.57 14.28 Cluster Mean 29.27 7.6 5.13 4.45 29.62 2 31/B/AU3 154.39 57.89 40.35 15.79 182.46 3 23/AU1 54.08 13.78 4.08 7.14 60.71 3 23/AU2 55.45 17.82 18.81 6.93 67.32 3 31/B/AU2 41.3 15.22 17.39 6.38 67.28 3 33/B/AU 69.05 17.46 10.52 8.98 91.69 3 33/D/AU 56.94 21.53 6.25 8.33 62.51 3 36/AU 62.98 15.87 12.02 22.12 94.26 Cluster Mean 56.63 16.95 11.51 9.98 73.96 4 N1/AU2 17.86 21.43 21.43 17.86 54.07 5 31/AC/AU 27.03 5.41 0 2.7 27.03 3 Sample Mean 43.7 13.67 9.47 7.43 52.72 Sample Std. Dev 30.6 11.37 8.92 5.88 37.03 Plus 1 Std. Dev. 74.30 25.05 18.39 13.32 89.75 Minus 1 Std. Dev 13.09 2.29 .55 1.55 15.69

202

Cobbles 40.39 44.09

Ground Stone 42.31 12.37

28.23

6.21

36.17 42.11 24.32 16.04 20.13 27.63 32.14 31.12 115.79 25 56.44. 58.7 41.87 67.36 38.94 48.05 71.43 75.68

0 19.3 2.7 10.16 18.18 13.21 28.57 15.3 36.84 25 49.5 10.87 22.22 11.81 13.94 22.22 50 24.32

44.84 22.74 67.58 22.10

20.72 13.75 34.47 6.96

Table 7.10 K means cluster results of AUs based on taxonomic densities. Cluster AU Awls/ Beveled Adorn- Misc Subsisneedles Bone ment Bone tence A 23/AU1 3.57 5.61 4.08 4.08 6.12 A 30/AU 1.92 3.96 3.85 0 5.77 A 31/AC/AU 3.76 3.23 2.15 7.54 4.3 1 A 31/AC/AU 2.26 2.26 1.13 3.39 5.08 2 A 3/B/AU1 10.64 4.26 2.13 8.51 10.64 A 31/B/AU4 10.53 3.51 7.02 1.75 14.04 A 31/D/AU1 6.76 6.76 9.46 2.7 8.11 A 31/D/AU2 4.81 5.88 3.74 2.14 5.88 A 31/D/AU3 5.84 9.09 8.44 1.95 6.49 A 33/B/AU 1.39 3.17 10.52 3.57 3.17 A 33/D/AU 4.17 6.94 6.25 4.17 6.25. A 33/E/AU 3.77 3.77 1.92 3.14 6.29 A 36AU 2.4 7.21 12.02 3.85 5.77 Cluster Mean 4.76 5.05 5.59 3.6 6.76 B 31/B/AU3 12.28 21.05 40.35 15.79 17.54 C 23/AU2 5.94 7.92 18.81 6.93 10.89 C 31/B/AU2 8.7 8.7 17.39 6.38 17.39 C N1/AU2 17.86 14.29 21.43 7.14 10.71 Cluster Mean 10.83 10.3 19.21 6.82 13 D N1/AU1 7.14 3.57 7.14 3.57 7.14 E 31/AC/AU 13.51 5.41 0 2.7 5.41 3 Sample Mean 6.8 6.76 9.65 4.75 8.42 Sample Std. Dev. 4.28 4.26 9.27 3.28 4.93 Plus 1 Std. Dev. 11.08 11.02 18.92 8.03 12.44 Minus 1 Std. Dev. 2.52 2.5 .38 1.47 4.39

203

Cobbles 3.06 5.77 3.76

Ground Stone 5.61 12.5 3.23

3.95

2.82

10.64 8.77 8.11 2.67 3.9 .99 3.47 2.52 3.37 4.69 12.28 5.95 10.87 17.86 11.56 17.86 13.51

8.11 7.02 2.7 3.77 4.55 3.57 4.86 4.4 4.33 5.19 17.54 5.94 8.7 14.29 9.64 14.29 0

7.41 4.93 12.44 4.39

6.81 4.42 11.23 2.39

Cluster D N1/AU1 is the only assemblage in this cluster. It has high densities (exceeding one standard deviation) of cobbles and ground stone, and mean densities of awls and needles. Cluster E This cluster is limited to 31/AC/AU3, which has high taxonomic densities of awls and needles, cobble tools, and ground stone, and mean to below mean densities of the other categories. It lacks items of adornment.Classification of AUs The cluster analyses were used to create a paradigmatic classification of the AUs by using each cluster as an axis of a two dimensional matrix (Table 7.11). The classification has 25 potential classes of which only seven are filled. AU Class 1A These AUs have low artifact and taxonomic densities. Included in this AU Class are: 1. Both burial AUs at Boardwalk; 2. Both temporally early AUs at Boardwalk 3. Both temporally late AUs at Boardwalk (31/B/AU4, 31/D/AU3); 4. All of excavation area D at Boardwalk; 5. GbTo 30; 6. 33/AU/E; Of these assemblages, only 30/AU is at all distinctive in terms of artifact contents. AU Class 1D This class includes one AU, N1/AU1, with its moderately low artifact densities, but high taxonomic densities of cobbles and ground stone tools. AU Class 3A This class includes AUs with moderately high artifact densities, but moderately low taxonomic densities. Two of these AUs are from Lachane, and one is the Baldwin site, which is either closely associated with Lachane, or was part of Lachane. All of the Lachane AUs are marked by low taxonomic densities: the artifact assemblages are not particularly rich, in spite of their great size. AU Class 2B This class includes only 31/B/AU3. As we shall see through the rest of this and following chapters, this is the most extraordinary AU among those described here, and has no equivalent at GbTo 18 (Sutherland 1978) either. AU Class C3 These two AUs have both moderately high artifact densities and taxonomic densities.

204

AU Class C4 This class contains one AU, which has moderately high taxonomic densities, with very high densities of certain artifact classes. AU Class 5E This class is marked by unique combinations of artifact and taxonomic densities. Discussion In looking at the table (Table 7.11) there is a grouping of sites in the lower right hand corner, marked by increasing taxonomic and artifact densities. These AUs, except 31/B/AU2, are all associated, either directly or indirectly, with residential features. There are also AUs associated with residential features among the low density AUs. All of Lachane was essentially a low density site, and it possessed house platforms and massive hearth features, particularly in Area B. There can be little doubt that Lachane was a town or village. I have already raised the possibility that Area B may have contained deposits equivalent to 31/B/AU3 that I was not able to distinguish, although I also should note that at the site level, Boardwalk has higher artifact and taxonomic densities than did Lachane. One possible explanation is that low density dump areas were more extensive at Lachane than at Boardwalk, and they swamp the residential areas in the density calculations. An interesting and important alternative is that some residential areas are aritifactually rich, and some artifactully poor. If this is the case, Area B at Boardwalk was a rich residential area, and Area D a poor one. Boardwalk was a rich town, and Lachane a relatively poor one. This latter implication receives strong support from the burial data (Chapter 9). The other residential AUs stand out clearly; they differ among themselves but are not similar to AUs stratigraphically below or above them. Changes in taxonomic richness and density are quite marked. This distinction is sharpest between the two Grassy Bay AUs. N1/AU2 is markedly richer then is AU1. Both Garden Island AUs have generally high taxonomic and artifact densities, but AU2 almost always was significantly higher densities than does AU1. The contrast between 31/B/AU2 and AU3 is also very sharp, although as with Garden Island, there are clear continuities. These contrasts also provide us with a model with which to at least partially explain the contrasts between PR 1 and PR 2 (see chapter 12). The transition from 31/B/AU3 to B/AU4 is the only clear example of a shift away from a residential occupation. B/AU4 is very different from AU3; there is a precipitous decline in artifact and taxonomic densities In terms of harbour-wide temporal trends, 1A AUs are distributed through the entire occupational span of the harbor. The earliest and latest AUs fall into this category. The richest Prince Rupert 2 AU is 31/B/AU3. The richest and poorest AUs (31/AC/AU1) are in the same site and the same period. I think that Parizeau Point is Prince Rupert 2 in age. Prince Rupert 1 is represented by AUs from three sites, Boardwalk, Garden Island, and Grassy Bay. The Boardwalk AUs may reflect the site’s declining usage. The Garden Island and Grassy Bay AUs represent residential use, and in N1/AU1, a special use site.

205

Table 7.11 Matrix of the results of the cluster analyses. Clusters A

B C

1 30/AU 31/AC/AU1 31/AC/AU2 31/B/AU1 31/B/AU4 31/D/AU1 31/D/AU2 31/D/AU3 33/E/AU

2

3 23/AU1 33/B/AU 33/D/AU 36/AU

4

5

31/B/AU3 23/AU2 31/B/AU2

D E

N1/AU2 31/AC/AU3

Variation and temporal and geographic trends Almost all common artifact types display sometimes strong variation from AU to AU, often within the same site and sometimes within the same excavation area. Boardwalk is an exemplar of artifact variation. This variation is also strong between sites. The contrasts between Boardwalk and Lachane in artifact and taxonomic densities are an important case in point. This variability often fades at larger scales. In calculating means and standard deviations, we often find there may only be one or two outliers at either end of the array. Through time, many tool types are markedly stable in their densities and/or percentages. There are trends, but these are sometimes quite minor. I have two points to draw out from these comments: 1) scale is extremely important in interpreting these materials, variation at one scale may be impossible to interpret, and yet yield clear results at another. Of course, the appropriate scale is dependent on the question. However, the finer the scale, the more crucial becomes the ability to shift to higher scales (expand the areal sample) for comparisons; and 2) none of the trends identified in this chapter or in Chapter 7 indicate to me major technological changes, with a single exception. The only tool type that is present in PR 3 that is absent in subsequent periods are antler flakers. There are two present in PR 3 and none in later AUs, despite the explosion in artifact numbers and in excavated volumes. This absence seems therefore unlikely to be the result of sampling error. There is 121 m3 of deposit in PR 3, 1094 m3 in PR 2 and 368 m3 in PR 1. The most visible trends are otherwise among ground stone tools: 1) the densities of abraders increases markedly between each of the three periods: 2) the densities of celts doubles 206

between PR2 and PR1, 3) mauls and percussers increase almost fivefold in density between PR2 and PR1; and 4) cobble tools vary in density among the three periods. This suggests to me increasing reliance on carpentry and increased use of large timbers, particularly in PR1. However, in general, the technology is remarkably stable particularly between PR2 and PR1. There is little major change between PR2 and PR1, aside from a few rare tool types restricted to one or the other. PR3 lacks a great deal, but aside from the flakers, differs little from later, low density AUs.

207

Chapter 8: Grave Goods, Caches, Status Markers, Art, and Adornment Introduction Differential treatment of the dead, including grave goods, plays an important role in recent efforts to reconstruct the evolution of social stratification on the Northwest Coast. The data from Prince Rupert Harbour are central to this effort. A minimum of 288 individuals was recovered in excavations at ten sites in Prince Rupert Harbour (Cybulski 1992). Of the nine sites considered here, all but K'nu and Kitandach have reported burials. Cybulski (1992) reports 260 individuals from the seven sites in this sample. The three sites with artifact assemblages not considered here, but with burials, are the Co-op site (GbTo10), Dodge Island (GbTo18), and Ridley Island (GbTo19). Some of these individuals were accompanied by grave goods. Cybulski has analyzed the Prince Rupert burials, including such aspects as orientation, type of interment, burial posture etc. He will report all of that in his monograph on the burials. That evidence is therefore not available for this analysis. This precludes a full treatment of the mortuary program. However, in addition to the grave goods, there is a range of contextual and comparative data that will be used. Cybulski (MacDonald and Cybulski 2001) recently summarized his views on which burials had grave goods and that information is integrated into this discussion. What is covered here are the grave goods themselves. Some objects treated as grave goods by the excavators are probably not grave goods. These are also summarized here, and the reasons for disregarding them reviewed. Finally, the material evidence for status differences among individuals or classes of individuals in these sites is examined in so far as just these data permit. This is followed by discussions of decorated artifacts and of objects of personal adornment. The focus in these discussions is the context and conditions of these items. Artifacts that occurred as grave goods were also recovered as part of caches or hoards. At least two of these were encountered during the excavations of the burials in areas A and C at Boardwalk. They may be intrusive into the burials, in that the pits into which the artifacts were placed were excavated in the burial area after inhumation in the area had virtually ceased. In the field, sixty-eight burials were recorded as possibly having grave goods. Based on his analyses of the skeletal materials and the documentation, Cybulski divides those 68 into three groups: a group of 23 with firm associations with grave goods (MacDonald and Cybulski 2001), a second group of 38 that are possibly associated with grave goods, and a third group of eight in which the artifacts probably came from the midden into which the graves were dug (Cybulski, personal communication). In my analysis, based on the artifacts, their distributions in the sites generally, and the documentation, I concluded that there were perhaps 35 of the original 68 in which the association of burial and grave goods seemed reliable. These will be discussed below. The burial artifacts from GbTo 31 and GbTo 33 were retained at the museum. I examined all of them and photographed some at the Archaeological Survey of Canada. 208

Analysis of Mortuary Practices Carr (1995) demonstrates that the content of mortuary practices reflects the intersection of multiple dimensions of cultural life. However, social status and world viewreligion-philosophy are the principle ones. Others include age and gender. Thus, vertical and horizontal social segmentation intersect in mortuary practices. However, Carr’s results support, to a reasonable degree, the role mortuary practices have played in social archaeology since the late 1960s (see excellent review in Schulting 1995) in investigating rank and stratification. Carr’s analysis also shows that overall energy investment in the mortuary ritual is the primary way that status is evidenced, supporting earlier thinking (e.g Tainter 1980). Energy investment, of course, may not be archaeologically visible. In any case, the analysis here follows the approach of several workers, including McGuire (1995) and Schulting (1995) by using differential energy investment in the mortuary ritual as a measure of degree of social inequality. Since this study is limited to grave goods, this analysis is also limited to grave goods. Carr notes that differential quality of grave goods is a better measure of relative status than is quantity, which he concludes is more a function of world view and expectations about the after-life. Quality is also a consequence of energy (labour) investment. Relative energy investment is estimated based on raw material (exotic/local), difficulty of manufacture and artisanship. Given the limited sample, I do not attempt to quantify these estimates or to calculate Grave Lot Values (e.g McGuire 1995) or Gini Indices (McGuire 1995, Schulting 1995). As will be seen this is not necessary. The following discussion is not a complete or full analysis. That will require information of aspects of burial practices that are part of other studies. However, some other aspects of social organization are touched on, sex and age among them. Artifact Descriptions

1

62 . Copper objects 62.A. Copper tubes and dowels (GbTo-31, copper tubes N=82, dowels N=10)(Table 8.1) (Fig 8.1 – 8.3): These artifacts were all recovered at GbTo 31. Catalogue #'s 526 - 530 were associated with a single feature, burial feature 3383, which consists of a single, copper-salt stained skull and jaw. Cybulski (1993) believes burial feature 338 is intrusive, the skull and other materials associated with it representing a trophy skull and cache (see below discussion of caches). The materials were recovered in 31\AC\AU1 in 1968. Catalogue #'s 80, 267, 268, and 269 are associated with burial 521, and 532 with burial 322. Human bone from burial 322 produced a radiocarbon date of 1865 ± 50 (S–1667), or a 2σ age range of 190 B.C. – A.D. 60 MacDonald has interpreted the tubes and dowels as portions of rod armour. 1

Enumeration follows that begun in Chapter 6. N is number examined, not necessarily number excavated. This is a consequence of missing objects, objects on display etc. The difference is noted in the discussion as necessary. 3 This feature appears to be a cache or hoard, rather than a burial. However, it has been given a “burial” number, both in the field and in NMC catalogues. It, and other, similar features, are referred to here as burial # to be consistent with the catalogues. 2

209

The dowels appear to be of western red cedar (Thuja plicata). Most of the dowels taper along their length. The first and second width measurements were taken at both ends. These measurements are averages, since the dowels are circular to elliptical in cross-section, and I took several measurements. The dowels appear to have been originally wrapped in a covering in one of two ways: 1) An inner wrap of what seems to be a gut line, covered by an organic sheet - could be hide or gut was laced over by a second layer of line. These latter lines appear to have been twined around the dowel; or, 2) an inner layer of very small twigs parallel to the long axis of the dowel was laced in place by fine gut line twined around the dowel. The line is clearly a monofilament line. I saw no evidence that the line itself was twined or braided. One of the dowels is smeared with an organic film, or mastic, perhaps to seal the inner wrap. This same dowel (# 269) terminates in a peg-like projection produced by girdling the wood. The ends of most of the dowels have been sawn and snapped, or have a "pinched" or beveled appearance. My inference when I examined them was that the pinched appearance was the result of the ends of the dowels being inserted into the female end of another dowel. The breakage, and sawing and snapping, might then have resulted from attempts to separate dowels. Tubes and dowels are not always recovered together. A dowel was recovered in burial 322, but no tube. Burial 521 produced two tubes and four dowels while six tubes and only four dowels were found with burial feature 338. A question that arises is whether the presence of one of these can be used to infer the original presence of the other? The copper tubes are rolled copper tubes. The following quotation summarizes the relevant results of a metallurgical analysis of these and other copper artifacts from Boardwalk burials: It seems probable, therefore, that the artifacts were made of native copper...If the artifacts were fabricated from native copper... the starting material was probably a chunk of native copper [that] was carefully beaten with a stone, hammer or another suitable implement until it became too hard, then softened by heating and the process repeated until the required product was obtained. In the case of the tubular articles [the copper tubes - Ames' note], this would then be wrapped around a piece of wood of the right dimension...It will be seen that these articles represent a considerable sophistication in the art of fabricating copper.[…] The artisan produced thin sheets of relatively uniform thickness; he knew enough to heat the sheets periodically so they could be further fabricated, and the heating done carefully enough that the thin sheets were not burned (Coutre 1975, 6-8).

210

Figure 8.1 Rolled copper tube containing a wrapped dowel

Figure 8.2 Wrapped dowel

Figure 8.3 Dowel with male end. It has clearly been shaped rather than crimped.

Coutre does not report any evidence to suggest that the copper tubes had been cut apart after they had been formed around the wooden dowels, nor did I observe any indications of that. However, the ends of most of the tubes are eroded, and it would be impossible to tell whether they had been cut or not.

211

Table 8.1 Measurements for copper tubes, the wooden dowels, and the copper wrapped bead. Copper Tubes Catalogue # Burial # Length mm 1st width 2nd width Weight gm mm mm 267 521 56 13.5 13.5 2.7 269 521 60 15 13.5 5.5 525 338 90 14 14 8 526 338 111 16 12 10 527 338 98 14 14 7.8 528 338 109 16 13 7.8 529 338 113 19 13 530 338 49 11 9 1.8 Mean 63.7 11.5 10.2 4.4 Std. Dev. 25.0 2.2 1.5 2.5 Wooden Dowels Catalogue # Burial # Length mm 1st width 2nd width Weight gm mm mm 80 521 64 10 5 6.6 267 521 61 11 6.5 268 521 59 10 5 5.9 269 521 60 15 13.5 5.5 525 338 11 5 2 526 338 60 13.5 10.5 2.1 527 338 62 12 10 2.4 528 338 53 13 10 2.4 529 338 69 13 9.5 532 322 55 10 5 1 Mean 59.9 12 8.3 3.0 Std. Dev. 4.5 1.6 2.9 1.7 Copper Wrapped Bead 533 322 14 16 14 If these objects represent rod armour, then the armour was made of many dowels fitted together to form the rods. It seems likely in that case the copper was formed over the entire rod, rather than over each individual dowel (the tubes tend to be longer than the dowels). Even a single breast plate constructed in this manner would have represented an enormous effort and level of skill. I do not know why the dowels were themselves so carefully warped, but that effort alone would have required a great deal of time and energy. There is no evidence that these were sewn on to, or suspended from, anything, though any such attachments could have decayed or been removed. Jopling (1989), reviewing the archaeological record of copper on the Northwest Coast, comments about these tubes: 212

...these pieces and a similar artifact found by Smith at Lytton resemble objects worn apparently as protective devices by the Haida children described by Colnett ... The configuration of these objects and their use seems similar to the neckpieces on carved figures in front of a Salish house ... They are also somewhat analogous to Kwakiutl "wedding gifts," rectangular pieces of copper partially rolled and attached in clusters to stick batons which were gifts to witnesses at wedding potlatches (Jopling 1989, 106). Her comments about Haida children are based on the following passage from Colnett: Another method of wearing the copper was beating it out thin, fixing it around a piece of wood an inch in diameter and a foot in length fastened around the neck of their children and hung down before them...(Colnett 1787, 136, cited in Jopling, 1989, 48). Given Colnett’s observation of these long tubes being worn by children, it should be noted that all the individuals associated with these tubes were young males, one perhaps as young as 12, another as old as 24. It should also be noted that none of the dowels approached a foot in length. The pendants described by Colnett would have required the careful fitting together of two or three of these dowels. 62.B. Copper bracelets (GbTo: 31 N=2) (Figure 8.4): These were recovered at GbTo-31, and were associated with burial feature 338, the probable cache feature with the single skull. The exterior dimensions of catalogue number 523 are 86 x 75 mm; its interior dimensions are 66 x 56 mm, and it weighs 15.1 grams. The exterior dimensions of catalogue number 524 are 87 x 76 mm; its interior dimensions 62.5 x 59 mm, and it weighs 18.1 grams. The wrist opening of # 523 is 18.5 mm across; of # 524 21 mm. Number 523 is 10 mm thick at its thickest and 1.5 mm wide. Its thinnest dimension is 2.3 mm. The thickest dimension of # 524 is 13 mm, thinning down to 2.3 mm. It also is 1.5 mm wide. The bracelets do not lie flat on the wrist, but are "upright.” Coutre (1975) observes that the bracelets are virtual duplicates. His comments on the bracelets are: The presence of circumferential marks on the surface of the bracelets, similar to those found in corroded wrought iron, suggests that the rough piece of original material was first reduced to some sort of a rod, bent and then flattened with intermittent softening treatments. Such marks would be straight if the bracelets had been chiseled out of a sheet of metal already reduced to the right thickness...The close similarity in shape and 213

dimensions between the two bracelets suggests some primitive form of mass production. (Coutre 1975, 7-8). Note: Two burials, 322 and 390, are reported as having ankle bracelets associated with them. I did not see these. Figure 8.4. The copper bracelets from the “Warrior Cache”

a

b

62.C. Copper sheets (GbTo-31 N=2): These were recovered at GbTo-31. A copper sheet or copper fragments were associated with each of two burials, #'s 322 and 325, the former the burial of a post-adolescent male, perhaps 17 - 22 years of age at death while the latter was an adolescent male 12 to 16 years old at death. Burial 325 has a radiocarbon date (S–1666) of 2565 ± 60 (1020 B.C. – 800 B.C.), with an intercept date of 900 BC. When I examined these sheets, they were too fragmentary to measure or handle. Their metallurgy is distinct from the tubes and bracelets described above. They were annealed in the same manner as the tubes, but then they received additional cold hammering after they were annealed (Coutre 1975). They reflect the same level of workmanship as the other copper objects. 62.D. Copper bead (GbTo-31 N=1)(Table 8.1): This object was recovered at GbTo-31, where it was associated with burial 322. The bead is technologically identical to the copper tube-dowels, and may be a broken one. It is columnar in planview, oval in cross section. The wooden dowel was wrapped in monofilament line, and then covered with an organic material, the copper then rolled over the wood. The wood was drilled through its long axis; the hole is 5 mm in diameter. Associations of copper artifacts: The associations of these artifacts with their respective features are excellent. Copper has not recovered in any other contexts in these sites. Comments: Franklin et al. (1981) provides size data on a large sample of “Native” copper artifacts from the western Arctic and Subarctic regions of North America. In their sample 62% weighed less than 3 gm., 13% between 3 and 5 gm., 12% 5 to 10 gm., 8% 10 to 15 gm., 3% 214

between 15 and 20 gm. The mean weight of the copper tubes from Boardwalk is 3 gm., but the heaviest is 10 gm. Both bracelets weigh more than 15 gm. making them unusually large copper objects for western North America. 63. Ground Stone and Ground Slate 63.A. Labrets (GbTn1 N= 1, GbTo31 N=2, GbTo36 N=1, GbTo23 N = 1, GbTo18 N = 1) (Figures 8.14, 8.15). Both Boardwalk labrets (catalogue #'s 515 and 2179) are medial button labrets. 2179 is elliptical in planview, while 515 is circular. 2179 is polished while dental scratch wear is visible on 515. The tooth plate of 2179 is 38 x 19 mm, and the labret is 8 mm thick. The button is 23 x 25 cm. The piece weighs 5.9 grams. The tooth plate of 515 is 35 x 24 mm; the button is 27 x 24 mm,4 and the piece is 7 mm thick. I did not weigh it. 2179 is associated with burial 525, that of an adult male, 30 to 39 years of age at death. 515 was recovered from burial 370a, which was the scattered skeletal elements of an adult male in his sixties. The Baldwin labret is a zoomorphic medial labret, associated with burial 505, where it was recovered near the mandible of an adult male 35 to 44 years of age at death. The labret's lip plate is 31 x 26 mm, and the labret is 15 mm thick. The body of the labret was a bulbous or spherical base which ends in a rectangular protuberance. MacDonald (1983) interprets it as a bird's head. The Grassy Bay labret is a spool labret. Note: A stone labret from GbTo-23 which was associated with burial 183, is unaccounted for, though it is listed in the artifact catalogue. Burial 183 is that of an adult male in his thirties. A labret was also recovered in burial 166 at Dodge Island. That labret was associated with a male in his twenties at death. Associations: The associations of these six artifacts with their features seems firm. Labrets do occur in other contexts. See below. 63.B. Zoomorphic pendant (raven) (GbTo-31) (Figure 8.5) The pendant was recovered with burial 410, with a radiocarbon date of 2575 ± 125 (S– 1432) or 1100 B.C. – 800, with an intercept date of 900 BC. Burial 410 was that of an adult male. Cybulski estimates his age to have been 60 to 69 years. The pendant is 52 mm long, 25 mm wide, and 9 mm thick. It weights 22.8 grams. The head of the bird is 18 mm long and 9 mm thick. The eyes are large ovals; the beak is convex to subsquare in outline. The line of the beak-head is smooth. The shoulders are small; the wings are indicated by incised lines which generally parallel the outline of the body. The incised lines marking the wings at the shoulders begin below the eyes. The wings meet above the tail, forming a ridge which separates the tail from the rest of the body. The tail expands out from the 4

Given the importance of labrets as evidence for the evolution of social distinctions on the coast, all are included here.

215

body. It has two biconically drilled holes, one at the tail’s base, and the other at its end, giving the tail a slightly forked appearance. The holes were probably for suspending the pendant. On the ventral surface, the throat is clearly indicated by incised lines marking the base of the beak. The ventral surface -- the bird's chest and belly -- is concave, and marked by five semi-circular lines. While the lines may indicate the contour of the animal's body, they could also represent the bird's rib cage. The arcs formed by these lines point down to the tail. There are no legs. Figure 8.5 The raven pendent (courtesy Canadian Museum of Civilization)

a b Associations: The association of this pendent with its feature is firm. The object is unique in these assemblages. 63.C. Amber beads and necklaces (Figure 8.6) 63.C.1.Amber beads. (GbTo-31 N=5) Catalogue # 266 is associated with burial 521; a male aged 20 - 24. The bead is a tubular bead in the sense that it was drilled through its long axis; the hole is uniform and regular, not obviously a biconically drilled hole. The bead is irregularly tear-drop shaped, 19 mm long, 13 mm across its widest point at its base, and 7 mm at its narrowest point. It weighs 1.5 grams Catalogue # 579 is associated with burial 322. The bead is similar to # 266 above. It is 15 mm long, 13 mm wide, 8 mm thick and weighs 1 gm. Catalogue # 381 refers to three beads recovered with burial #325. These beads are round to ovoid in outline. The largest is 8 mm x 6 mm x 2 mm; another is 5 mm x 5 mm x 2 mm. The last one is broken. 63.C.2. Amber necklaces (GbTo-31 N=2) (Table 8.2): Catalogue # 576. The necklace contains 35 amber beads (Table 8.2), and five fragments of perhaps two or more beads. Some of the beads appear corroded as though they had been in contact with something else. The beads were recovered in burial 325, an adolescent male dating 216

1009 – 803 BC. Large beads are tubular beads (drilled through long axis); smaller beads are disc beads. Catalogue # 2268. The necklace was associated with burial # 390, an adult male with an estimated age at death of 22 to 29 years. Again, there are both tubular and disc beads. The largest beads are tubular, and presumably these hung on the front of the necklace. Associations: The associations of the amber artifacts with their respective features are firm. Amber beads are restricted to burials. Four tubular beads of other material were recovered elsewhere in non-burial contexts. The source of the amber is not known. Figure 8.6 Side (a) and top (b) views of drilled amber bead

63.D. Abraders (GbTo-31 N=2)(Table 8.3). The Boardwalk abraders are associated with burial 356, that of a youth (17 - 20 years) of indeterminate gender. The association is not definitive based on the burial form. The presence of a single isolated abrader in the vicinity of a grave cannot be unexpected, given their ubiquitous presence in these sites. Two abraders, as with burial 356, may be thought to strain coincidence. However, my experience is that abraders sometimes occur together, perhaps in caches, so it is possible that the association of burial 356 with two abraders is coincidental. The abraders are complete. They are tabular shaped in planview. One is slate, the other sedimentary rock.

217

Table 8.2 Measurements of amber necklaces Style

Bead #

Tubular Tubular Tubular Tubular Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc

3 5 1 8 29 30 32 31 28 25 24 27 26 39 38 41 40 37 34 33 36 35 23 11 10 13 12 9 4 2 7 6 20 19 22

Catalogue # 576, Burial 325 Condition Xsection Length mm complete broken complete complete complete complete complete complete complete broken complete complete complete broken broken broken broken broken complete complete broken complete complete complete complete broken complete broken complete complete broken complete complete broken complete

oval round round oval triangular round trapezoid round ovoid irreg. round round trapezoid oval oval oval oval oval oval square oval oval oval oval oval oval oval oval round round trapezoid round round irreg.

Thickness mm

8 10 10 7 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 5 4

Width mm 11 9 5 10 5 3 4 3 3 4 4 5 4

4 3

5 3

2 2

5 5 4 8 5 8 6 6 8 8 4

6 7 4 8 5 8 6 6 9 7 4

3 1 2 4 2 3 3 3 5 3 2

5

4

3

218

4 3 5 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2

Table 8.2 cont. Style

Bead #

Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc

21 18 15 14 17

Catalogue # 576, Burial 325 cont. Condition Xsection Length mm Width mm complete oval 4 5 complete oval 4 4 broken complete round 8 8 complete round 6 6

Disc Mean Std. Dev.

16

complete

Style

Bead #

Condition

Tubular Tubular Tubular Tubular Tubular Tubular Tubular Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc Mean Std. Dev

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

complete complete complete complete broken broken broken complete complete complete complete complete complete complete complete complete complete complete complete complete complete complete complete

oval

4 4.2 2.9

6 4.4 3.0

Catalogue # 2268, Burial 390

Thickness mm 2 2 3 3 2 1.9 1.4

Xsection

Length mm

Width mm

Thickness mm

lenticular lenticular lenticular lenticular square trapezoid trapezoid oval trapezoid trapezoid triangular oval lenticular lenticular oval oval lenticular lenticular trapezoid trapezoid oval oval oval

10 16 11 12 10 8 7 5 7 7 7 6 6 6 4 5 5 3 4 4 4 3 15 7.17

11 11 9 10 6 7 5 8 9 8 8 7 6 6 6 4 4 6 7 5 5 4 13 7.17

8 6 8 6 6 6 5 4 4 4 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 8 4.13

219

Weight mm 7 7 4 4 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 0.5 0.5 2.1 1.66

Table 8.3 Abrader measurements. Catalogue Burial # Length mm # GbTo31 356 245 #1722 GbTo31 356 141 #1813 GbTo33 503 #3870

Thickness mm 87

Width mm)

Weight gm

36

109

77

29

62

-

-

-

63.E. Ground Slate Points and Point Fragments (GbTo-31 N = 4, GbTo-33 N=1, GbTo 18 N = 1)(Table 8.4) Two of the Boardwalk ground slate points are associated with a single burial, 409, that of a male 35 to 44. One of the points is a blade fragment, lacking both a tip and base, thought the haft element is still present. The other in the pair is missing its base. Both are rather long, and may be dagger fragments. A third Boardwalk point is associated with burial 320 that of an adult male aged 35 to 44. This is also a blade fragment, lacking both haft and base. It has a tapered, dorsally beveled haft. The fourth point was recovered from burial 339. The individual is female, aged 35 to 44 at death. The point is the most unusual of these artifacts and is virtually unique among the ground slate points recovered in the harbour. It is side notched; the notches are located low on the side; they are narrow and shallow, and are a 90o angle to the longitudinal axis of the point. Burial 463 at Lachane is an adult male in his early twenties. The ground slate point associated with burial 463 is another fragment, lacking a tip, haft, or base. It was not measured. Associations: These objects are probably associated with their respective features, but the documentation for all of them is not definitive. Cybulski regards only the associations of burial 170 as firm (see note). The uniqueness of the form of the side-notched point makes its association with burial 339 quite likely, in my view. Note: A ground slate point or dagger was recovered with burial 170 at Dodge Island. The individual was an adult male aged by Cybulski between 22 and 28. A ground slate mirror was reported associated with burial 516, at Baldwin. The individual was a female in her 20’s. The ground slate mirror was not in any collections examined for this study. Cybulski regards this association as firm.

220

Table 8.4 Ground slate point or dagger measurements Catalogue Burial # Length mm Thickness # mm GbTo31# 409 112 22 1272 GbTo31# 409 103 18 1390 GbTo31# 339 65 24 2282 GbTo31# 320 86 24 514

Width mm)

Weight gm

6

20

8

20

4

12

5

26

64. Bone and antler grave goods 64.A.Clubs (GbTo 31 N=2, GbTo 33 N=1) 64.A.1. Anthropomorphic Club (GbTo-31, Burial feature (cache) 338) (Figure 8.7). The club was made of whale bone. It is 433 mm long, 67 mm wide at its widest, and 24 mm thick at its thickest. It can readily be divided into three parts, pommel, handle, and blade. The pommel is 80 mm long, 64 mm wide, and 18 mm thick. It is an anthropomorphic head surmounted by an animal. The pommel is symmetrical in that the face appears on both sides. The human face is composed of three carved ovoids, two (one on either side of the pommel) form the upper face and are separated by a form line that runs along the front edge of the pommel. These two ovoids are above a single, larger, lower ovoid that wraps around the pommel. This lower ovoid is separated from the two upper ones by a form line (see Duff 1965 for terminology) that is a raised ridge created when the ovoids were carved. The upper ovoids contain the eyes, which are raised ovoids, with hollow centers. The lower ovoid wraps around both sides of the pommel. The mouth is in this lower ovoid, and is itself is a raised ovoid with very broad formlines as lips. This ovoid also wraps around the pommel. The mouth itself is a straight line. The nose is square, and projects from the form line that separates the two upper, eye bearing ovoids. Below the nose (when viewed from the front) is a small ovoid with a drilled hole in the center. This probably represents a nose ring. The bottom of the ring meets the line of the mouth. The ring is superimposed on the ovoid that forms the lips. The humanoid face is surmounted by an animal. The human face and the animal flow into each other. The body of the animal curves around the head as though it were the human's hair. The body of the creature is incised with eight rows of two to four short lines which presumably represent the animal's fur. While no limbs are indicated, it is possible that the formlines that create the three major ovoids of the human face are also the limbs. If this is so, then the front limbs (and paws?) are the formlines that separate the upper eye-bearing ovoids (the nose would be the paws held together), and the hind limbs are represented by the form lines that separate the upper and lower ovoids of the human face. These form lines meet at the human's nose and nose ring. 221

Figure 8.7 Pommel of whale bone club associated with the “Warrior Cache” (drawing by K.M. Ames)

The creature's snout is square, and somewhat larger than the human's nose. It is where the human's brows would be. The mouth is a single incised line; the nostrils are drilled holes. The creature's eyes are above and behind the snout, and are raised, hollow ovoids, like those of the human. The eyes are surmounted by a half, raised ovoid, which probably represents the creature's ears. Half way along the creature's back is a second, larger, raised, half ovoid. This ovoid has incised lines along its edge (10 on one side and 11 on the other -- these do not extend around the piece). This may represent the humanoid's ears. The eye and ear of the creature may also represent one of the humanoid's ears -- in which case the humanoid's humanness may be somewhat ambiguous. The creature ends in an up-turned tail. The handle is 64 mm long, is clearly distinct from the pommel and the blade, though it merges smoothly with the blade. The handle is rectangular. Abrasion striae are still visible on the handle. The blade is excurvate in outline from the handle to its square, blunt tip. It is biconvex or lenticular in both transverse or longitudinal cross-section -- thus its thickest point is about half along the blade. 64.A.2. Killer whale mandible club (GbTo-31 Burial feature (cache) 338). This object was so fragmentary when I examined it that I did not touch it. MacDonald (1983) describes it:

222

It was made of the jaw of a killer whale with the teeth forming the striking edge. In form it was very like a number of wood and stone clubs from the North Coast, [which have] a row of large conical projections along one edge, which mimic the natural form of the killer whale jaw and teeth, though considerably modified in outline. The only decorations on this club were double rows of concentric circles joined by lines on either face of the club (MacDonald 1983, 110). Associations: The associations of all the objects in burial feature 338 are strong. These clubs are unique to this feature, though bone clubs occur in other contexts, including the small clubs recovered in Area B at Boardwalk. 64.A.3. Other bone tools (Table 8.5) In addition to these clubs, I measured 39 bone tools that are reported to have been recovered in general association with burials at Boardwalk, Lachane, Garden Island, and Baldwin. The associations with burials at Lachane must be viewed with great care. These 39 are not the only bone tools that are reported as associated with burials. A small unique harpoon (cat # 1843) was recovered from burial # 476 at Lachane. The harpoon has a single, unilateral barb, a line groove, and two biconically drilled holes in the haft in a large contracting haft (Figure 8.8).. I believe this object was a pendant. Burial 476 at Lachane is that of an adult female aged 40 to 49. Burial 489 (a female 35 – 44 years of age at death) contained a small bone point (cat # 2823) with a prismatic cross section. The point has side notches on both sides about 10 mm above the base. The base is concave, giving the point an "eared" appearance. Like the harpoon, this object is unique. The side notches may have been for suspension of the point as a pendant. These side notches are similar to those on the ground–slate point (dagger) fragment associated with burial 339 at Boardwalk. This bone point was recovered on the individual’s sternum. Burial 489 has a radiocarbon date of 3100 ± 70 (S – 1741), based on human bone. The 2σ age span is 1720 – 1410 B.C. If my inferences are correct, these artifacts represent three instances of women buried with points/daggers/harpoons worn as pendants. No males have such grave goods. The canine pendant associated with Boardwalk burial 371 is the only surviving one of three bear canines recovered from that burial and the only canine pendants recovered in 31/AU/AC. The individual was a child of indeterminate gender. The hafted points listed in the table may be bone dagger blades and are sometimes described as such in the burial forms. They are prismatic in cross section and resemble ground slate blades. Some are longer then the usual hafted point. Burial 466 at Lachane has four plain spatulas, as well a hafted bone point or dagger and a tip fragment. Given the general disturbance at Lachane, these associations must be viewed with caution. However, the co-occurrence of four spatulas, with the two points, strongly suggests they were interred with this individual. Bone points are the most common bone artifacts associated with burials. Upon examination, some of these are tip fragments, others, splinter awls. Among the other artifacts reported are a wedge, an antler handle, a barbed harpoon, beaver teeth, and two ulna knives. The 223

rest of the bone artifacts are worked fragments of one type or another. Thus many of these artifacts belong to artifact classes that are ubiquitous in the deposits and whose presence might be attributable to the excavation of the grave into, and the filling of graves with, sediments which contained these objects. In many cases, these are the only reported grave goods. However, see comments below in the discussion of grave goods. Figure 8.8 Harpoon pendent from Lachane

Associations: Many of the burials with these tools, particularly the worked fragments, are on Cybulski’s list of “possible” associations. I was unable to demonstrate conclusively that these items were not grave goods. If they are grave goods, we must ask why broken artifacts were included in some graves. One answer is that it is possible bone artifacts were broken and spread about by post-depositional processes, included other interments. There is one burial, for example, that appears to have three fragments of a single point or dagger. This may account for a number of the fragments recovered. The points or daggers are all probably grave goods. Ten daggers in the Prince Rupert sample were recovered in non-burial contexts. Burials in which the uniqueness of the objects or the combination of objects leads to me to think the associations are probably firm include burial 466 from Lachane, with its combination of four spatulates (there are seven from non-burial contexts), and a bone point or dagger, and 467, with a dagger, a hammerstone, ochre and a wedge. 65. Chipped and Ground Stone Burial Blade (Figure 8.9) One chipped stone artifact was recovered in association with burials, and it was from burial feature 338, the cache at GbTo 31 with the clubs, copper tubes, bracelets etc. The artifact is a large ovate blade, 200 mm long, 70 mm wide at its widest and 10 mm thick. It has a concave base. It is quite similar in size and shape to chipped stone burial blades found elsewhere in North 224

America from Idaho to the east coast (e.g. Pavesic 1985). It is actually not a chipped stone artifact. Rather, it was ground to its present shape and thickness, then flaked around the edges. These flake scars extend well into the blade’s surface, but extensive flat areas with grinding striae still exist in the center of the blade's surfaces. The flaking is clearly the final "finishing touch," done probably to make the object look flaked and would have strengthened its formal similarity to burial blades elsewhere on the continent. This flaking is particularly interesting, given the absence of chipped stone tools in the Prince Rupert Harbour assemblages. Several burials contain flakes, which is curious given the virtual absence of chipped stone tools. One, Dodge Island 160a, is reported to have contained an obsidian scraper which is absolutely unique. The individual was a male estimated to have been in his twenties. Another interment has a basalt flake (Boardwalk 391). Two have hammerstones (467 and 512) and (525 and 512) two quartz flakes. 66. Cobble Tools Nine cobble tools were reported to be associated with interments at Boardwalk, Lachane, and Baldwin. A cobble flake may be associated with a burial at Lachane, but I have not seen that flake. Two of the objects are not tools, and the associations of four are not clear. Two were associated with burial feature 338 at Boardwalk, which is the cache of clubs, copper, etc. Curiously, with one exception, cobble tools come in pairs. It is this latter circumstance which makes it possible these are grave goods. Figure 8.9 Burial blade. Note mix of grinding and flaking

225

Table 8.5 Bone tool measurements Site 23 23 23 23 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 36 36 36 36 36

5

Burial 165 165 165 183 317 3185 318 318 340 340 349 350 371 376 382 398 399 458 458 458 458 463 466 466 466 466 466 466 466 467 476 476 481 489 515 515 515 515 515

Sex/Age F, 20’s F, 20’s F, 20’s M, 30’s F, 40’s M, 40’S M, 40’S M, 40’S F, Child M, 17-20 I, 7-8 F, 40’s M, 20’s I, Child M, 30’s M, 20’s

M, 20’s F, 40’s

M, 20’s F, 40’s F, 20’s F, 35-44 M, 30’s

Description Wrkd frag Haft frag Beveled tip Socketed frag Haft frag Haft frag Tip frag Body frag Tip frag Tip frag Tip frag Tip frag Canine pendant Haft frag Hafted point Wrkd frag Dagger Hafted Point Body frag Metapodial awl Body frag Tip frag Spatula Spatula Spatula Spatula Body frag Tip frag Hafted point Hafted point Splinter awl Harpoon head Splinter awl Hafted point Tip frag Birdbone tube Body frag Body frag Body frag

Length mm 3 3 4 3 100 43 66 59 79 112 84 34 112 41 151 76 165 225 182 196 202 109 63 56 54 19 62 22 54 79

These three may be fragments of a single artifact

226

Width mm 1 1 2 1 10 16 11 16 19 101 13 9 10 14 16 10 10 23 19 18 21 6 11 16 8 7 9 7 10 14

Thick mm 1 1 2 1 4 4 5 5 6 6 5 8 4 5 4 4 5 5 8 10 9 5 3 4 4 3 9 5 3 5

Weight gm 2 2 3 1 3 1 3 6 5 8 5 2 6 15 11 3 6 30 27 25 40 4 3 3 2 1 2 1 2 4

Figure 8.10 Shell Necklace (strung for storage)

Figure 8.11 Shell Gorget

67. Shell Objects 67.A. Shell disc bead necklaces (GbTo-31, N=2) (Figure 8.10). Both necklaces were strung when I examined them. One (catalogue #531) has 254 dentalium disc beads. It may have been associated with burial #319, but may have also been in an intrusive pit and represent a cache, like burial feature #338. Catalogue #578 has 233 disc beads. It is associated with burial 325, an adolescent male. The beads in both necklaces are well made, ground to shape. They are circular in planview, with flat edges, and biconical holes drilled in the center. I did not unstring them to measure the individual beads, but took measurements from beads along the length of each necklace. The beads in # 531 are ca. 11 mm x 11 mm x 3 mm, while those in 578 are 8 mm x 8 mm x 3 mm. Necklace #531 weighs 84 grams (including the string); #578 weighs 32 grams. 227

67.B.Shell Gorgets (GbTo-31, N=2) (Figure 8.11) One is complete (#1137); the other (#577) is fragmentary. The complete gorget has a crescentic plan view. Both ends are girdled to hold the suspending line. It is 77 mm long, 12 mm wide, and 5 mm thick. It weighs 8 grams. It was associated with burial #350, a male aged 17 – 20. The second gorget, which was associated with burial 325, is in three pieces, one of which is drilled. The largest fragment is wing shaped -- it is flat with curved edges. It may have been girdled. This fragment is 42 mm x 22 mm x 3 mm, and weighs 2.6 grams. 67.C.Unidentifiable fragments GbTo-31:

325.

Fragments of shell, copper, and wood adhering to each other were associated with burial

Associations: The association of shell artifacts with their respective features is excellent. Mortuary Patterns The materials previously described in this chapter are at the heart of the artifact analysis project. If we are going to identify what caused ranking to develop in Prince Rupert Harbour, we need to demonstrate that ranking existed. To anticipate the conclusions, the following discussion will show that there was ranking (sensu Wason 1994) of individuals, corporate residential groups, and residential sites in the harbour by 900 BC, if not 1500 BC. This section develops an analysis of the grave goods to support that conclusion. Wason (1994) is the framework for this discussion. Points he stresses that are relevant are: ♦ The chronology of the burial pattern; ♦ The distributions of grave goods across age and sex categories; ♦ Whether sumptuary or elite goods are present; ♦ The regional distributions of elite goods; and ♦ Their disposal contexts. As is the case throughout this volume, the organization of the data set, as it is relevant to the issues at hand, is discussed first. The Data Set The total sample of excavated burials is rather large, some 288 individuals from 10 sites (Table 8.6). Of these 288, 23 are infants (0 – 2 years), 10 children (2 – 6), 15 juvenile (6 – 12), 12 adolescent (12 – 16) and 228 adult (16+). Of the adults, 145 are male, 78 female, and the sex of 5 unknown (Cybulski 1992, table 14). Despite its overall size, the data set is profoundly affected by sample sizes. The Boardwalk sample is extremely large, the Lachane sample moderately so, and the others quite small (Fig. 8.12). There are strong, linear relationships between the excavated volumes of these sites, the numbers of recovered burials, and the numbers of burials with grave goods. The squared multiple R for Figure 8.1a is .968, and that for 8.1b is .743. Seven linear regression analyses were conducted on the relationships among volume excavated, the total number of burials recovered, the numbers of burials with grave goods, the numbers of group 1 and group 2 burials (see below), and the numbers of males and females with grave goods. The regression coefficients ranged from .743 and .993. In all of these analyses Boardwalk exerted strong 228

leverage (because the sample is so very large) and Lachane was an outlier (for a variety of reasons). In all of these analyses, the four small assemblages occupy the lower part of the graph (e.g. Fig. 8.12) and the regression line split the difference between Lachane and Boardwalk. Figure 8.12 Relationship between excavated volume and number of excavated burials (panel a) and with number of burials with grave goods (panel b). Confidence limit set at .95. 150

25

Boardwalk GRAVEGOODS

20

BURIALS

100

50

200

15 10

Lachane 5

Lachane 0 0

Boardwalk

0 0

400 600 800 1000 1200 VOLUME

a

200

400 600 800 1000 1200 VOLUME

b

When counts were changed to N/m3 the effects of volume excavated were removed. The adjusted multiple R for the relationship between volume excavated and density of burials/100m3 is 0.0, while for the relationship between volume excavated and the density of burials with grave goods/100m3 is .141. When the seven analyses were redone, using density figures, the regression coefficients were all at 0.0, or close to it. The use of density–based figures did not correct for sometimes very small and very large sample sizes, however. At Parizeau Point, for example, only 12 burials were recovered, and none with grave goods. Can we infer that there may have been no elite individuals buried at Parizeau Point, or is this an artifact of sampling? On the other hand, Boardwalk, with an enormous excavated volume, produced a very large sample of burials. Is that large sample entirely the result of the large excavated volume, or did Boardwalk produce so many burials because it actually contains a great many burials. To answer these and similar questions, and to avoid problems associated with small sample sizes, I analyzed these date using a version of chi-square analysis developed by Keith Kintigh for small samples such this one (Kintigh 1984, 1986 – 1998) (Table 8.9). Figure 8.13 provides a general sense of the patterning among the burials and includes burials with boxes and those with grave goods. While the schematic lacks detail, it illustrates the common burial posture (flexed), the way in which burials were usually related spatially (often in clusters within larger clusters), and how they frequently cross-cut (see discussion on cemeteries). Grave Goods This discussion is limited to grave goods – items placed in the grave with the deceased. It does not include such things as burial boxes, cairns, trophy skulls, etc. Nor does it include much information on demography, health diet, etc, that might be relevant to the issue of status. That evidence is part of Cybulski’s analysis of the Prince Rupert human skeletal sample.

229

Figure 8.13. Burials, Area A, Boardwalk.

Grave goods are present with a minority of skeletons (Table 8.6, 8.7, 8.8). Cybulski (1993) lists 260 individuals recovered at seven of the nine sites in my sample, out of a total of 288 individuals (of all ages) from all 10 sites (including five from Ridley Island). According to the field notes, 60 (23%) of the 260 may have had grave goods associated with them. I feel some confidence, based on my reading of the field notes and on the overall distribution of artifacts in these sites, assigning artifacts to 34 burials, or 13% of all burials. Cybulski (MacDonald and Cybulski 2001) regards only 23, or 8%, as having firm associations. I do not discuss trophy skulls here (Gbto-31, burial 375), sea otter teeth (GbTo-31 363, 397, 399, and 416), or ochre stains (GbTo31 412), which had a red stain on the right clavicle) since I did not examine the trophy skulls, the teeth or the clavicle. For example, burial 399 was associated with 200 or more sea otter teeth and 416 was reported in the notes to have been associated with a box lid inset with sea otter teeth. Given the arguments I develop below, it should be noted that these six burials are at Boardwalk. In a couple of the instances I do accept, the associations must be approached with some caution, as will be discussed below. In any case, it seems reasonable to infer that about 10% of these individuals had grave goods associated with them. As will be seen, the sample is clearly structured by space (which site contains the burial), gender and age. I do not have fine–grained age data. Gender data was taken from Cybulski, 1992. He provided the age and sex determinations in Table 8.8. Grave goods are initially grouped into two distinct categories: grave goods made of bone (Group 1), and those made of other materials (Group 2). Five burials include both worked bone and other materials: burial 183 at Garden Island, burials 350, and 399 from Boardwalk, and burials 463 and 467 from Lachane. Copper, labrets, abraders, beads of amber and shell, and cobble tools are associated with graves in Group 2. All but two of these are males; burials 339 and 516 are females. Burial 339 contained the side notched ground slate point while 516 is reported to have contained a ground slate mirror. Fourteen of the 17 interments in this group were excavated at Boardwalk. 230

This second grouping can be further subdivided: 1) graves with some combination of copper, shell, and amber; 2) graves with labrets; 3) the grave with the raven pendent; 4) graves with ground slate; and 5) graves with abraders and cobble tools. As noted above, abraders and cobble tools are commonly paired. Bone tools, including bone points and daggers, also occur in pairs, or with worked bone fragments. I will comment on the worked bone fragments below. Generally, among the bone tools, artifact classes have mutually exclusive distributions, unless there are worked fragments present. Interestingly, what might be thought of as "male" tools are found with both males and females. The harpoon, bone point, and ground slate point that seem likely to have been pendants were associated with females. Adult males were buried with what may be either ground slate points or dagger blades. Both males and females were associated with hafted bone points with prismatic blades, or daggers. The burial of a female with the four "spatulas" encountered at Lachane also contained a dagger and worked bone fragments. Cybulski (personal commication) questions the associations of these items specifically with this burial (466). However the associations seem very unlikely to be coincidental. The copper artifacts recovered from the interments and the so-called warrior cache (burial feature 338) possess a level of workmanship indicating some degree of specialization. The earliest of such evidence are the copper sheets associated with burial 325, and date ca. 1009 BC – 803 BC. The copper tubes/dowels probably required considerable time and effort in their manufacture. If they represent rod armour – which they may not - than even a chest piece would have been quite valuable, particular in light of how much copper such a suit (or even a chest piece) would require. The amber beads would also have been costly in time and effort, as no doubt were the shell necklaces and gorgets. The amber beads are polished, the larger beads drilled through their long axis; the drilled holes are uniform in diameter. The copper, shell, and amber are also very probably exotics. The shell beads also may indicate specialization. Both amber and shell beads were associated with burial 325. One of the caches (burial feature 338) is unique in its combination of copper, chipped stone, bone clubs, cobble tools and a trophy skull. As noted above, the chipped stone blade is strongly reminiscent of burial blades associated with graves across much of North America. The other cache (burial 319c) contained a shell necklace. The dating of burial feature 338 is not clear. MacDonald has dated it to ca. 500 BC (MacDonald 1983) based on its general associations with the burials in area A in Boardwalk. Cybulski argues it is later, around 1800 BP, or ca. AD 200. (Cybulski 1993). If it was intrusive through the soil, then it must post-date ca. 150 BC. This date, in turns, indicates that the copper, at least, were probably heirloom goods for a period of at least 900 years (see further discussion below). The worked bone fragments are a problem. I had anticipated demonstrating that they had been accidentally mixed in with the graves' fill when the graves were originally excavated or by later subsequent excavations of adjacent graves, or when the archaeologists excavated the interments. However, if their presence is the result of mixing, then they should be present in more than three Group 2 burials, and they are not. It is possible that crew members, when excavating Group 2 burials, did not treat worked fragments as grave inclusions. It might have seemed unlikely to them that a grave with an amber necklace would also contain a broken bone point, while the same crew members might be less rigorous in what they would accept as a grave good for Group 1 burials. That objects are broken does not automatically exclude them as 231

Table 8.6 Distribution of burials by site. SITE TOTAL BURIALS (BURIALS/100m3 ) Sites in this sample BALDWIN 226 (10.58) BOARDWALK 120 (11.74) GARDEN ISLAND 29 ( 9.76) GRASSY BAY 1 (3.57) K’NU 0 KITANDACH 0 LACHANE 73 (8.01) LUCY ISLAND 3 PARIZEAU POINT 12 (11.54) TOTAL 260 Other Sites CO-OP DODGE ISLAND RIDLEY ISLAND GRAND TOTAL

BURIALS WITH GRAVE GOODS

PERCENT WITH GRAVE GOODS

4 (1.9) 21 (2.05) 2 (.67) 0 (0.0)

18 18 7

7 (.77)

10

0 (0.0) 34

13

3

15

37

13

3 20 2 285

Table 8.7 Distribution of grave goods by Site. ♦ BALDWIN: LABRET, SLATE MIRROR, BIRD BONE TUBE, COBBLE TOOLS, QUARTZ FLAKES ♦ BOARDWALK: LABRETS, COPPER, SHELL, AMBER, ZOOMORPHIC PENDANT, CANINES, BONE POINTS/DAGGERS, ANKLE BRACELETS, GROUND SLATE POINTS/DAGGERS, BONE POINT PENDANT, OTHER BONE, COBBLE TOOLS, ABRADERS (TROPHY SKULL, SEA OTTER TEETH, OCHRE7). ♦ DODGE ISLAND: LABRET, SLATE POINT/DAGGER, OBSIDIAN FLAKE, WORKED BONE. ♦ GARDEN ISLAND: LABRET, WORKED BONE ♦ LACHANE: AWLS, HARPOON/ PENDANT, SLATE POINT/PENDANT, BONE TOOLS, COBBLE TOOLS

6 7

Total numbers of burials from Cybulski 1992. Not examined in this study.

232

Table 8.8 Burial associations Burial Sex Age Burial Group, Associations Dodge Island (GbTo18) 166 M 20s 2.Labret 170 M 20s 2.Ground slate point 179 I I 1.Worked bone fragment Garden Island (GbTo23) 165 F 20s 1.Worked bone fragment 183 M 30s 2.Labret, worked bone fragment Boardwalk (GbTo31) 317 F 40s 1.Worked bone fragment 318 M 40s 1.Worked bone fragments (could be fragments of a dagger) 320 M 30s 2.Ground slate point fragment 322 M 20s 2.Copper warped beads, wooden dowel, copper sheet, 3 amber beads, ankle bracelet (?) 325 M C 2.Copper sheets, amber beads/necklace, shell gorget, shell, copper wood fragments. 339 F 30s 2.Ground slate point (pendant) 340 M 40s 1.Worked bone 349 I C 1.Worked bone fragment 350 M 17+ 1.Bone point (dagger), worked bone fragment, shell gorget 356 I 17+ 2.2 abraders 370a M 50+ 2.Labret 371 I C 1.3 bear canines and an ankle bracelet (?) 376 F 40s 1.Worked bone fragment 382 M 20s 1.Bone point (dagger) 390 M 20s 2.Amber necklace, ankle bracelet (?) 398 I C 1.Worked bone fragment 399 M 30s 2.Bone dagger, cobble tool, sea otter teeth 409 M 30s 2.Ground slate point fragments 410 M 60s 2.Raven pendant 521 M 20+ 2. 2 copper tubers, 4 dowels, amber bead 525 M 30s 2.Labret, quartz flake Lachane (GbTo33) 458 M 20s 1.Bone awl, bone point, worked bone fragment 463 M 20s 2.Ground slate point, worked bone fragment 466 F 40s 1.Bone dagger, 4 bone spatulates, worked bone fragments 467 M 20s 2.Bone point (dagger), wedge, ochre, hammerstone 476 F 40s 1.Bone awl; harpoon (pendant?) 481 F 20s 1.Bone awl 489 F 40s 1.Bone point (pendant) Baldwin (GbTo36) 505 M 40s 2.Labret 512 M 40s 2.Hammerstone, quartz flake 515 M 30s 1.Bone tube, worked bone fragments 516 F C 2.Slate mirror

233

grave goods. I present evidence below that labrets were deliberately broken, and several of the ground slate points or blades recovered from graves are broken. If even some of these fragments were placed with the deceased at the time of interment, then it is important to know if the objects were already broken or broken at the time of interment. I cannot presently answer that question, but will return to a related question below in the discussion of labrets. In any case, I have no strong grounds to exclude these items. In summary, perhaps 10%of excavated individuals were buried with grave goods. Those with grave goods fall rather cleanly into two groups. Group 1 graves contain a variety of bone tools, including worked bone fragments. Group 2 graves contain artifacts of copper, shell, amber, and ground stone. Group 2 can be further subdivided. Individuals in group 2 are almost exclusively male. In group 1, the sex ratio is more balanced (6 males, 8 females, and 4 indeterminate). Chronology A key issue is the chronology of the burials (Figure 8.14). Dated burials with grave goods span the lengthy period between c. 1630 BC and AD 417. The earliest of these is burial 5128, from Baldwin, which contained a hammerstone and a quartz flake. The second oldest burial, at c. 1530 BC, is Lachane 489. This is the burial of a female with a bone point/pendent. The next younger burials were recovered at Boardwalk, and they are 410 (the elderly male with the raven pendent) and 325 (the boy with the copper, amber and shell objects). The calibrated intercept dates for these two burials are both 900 BC. This pair is important because they demonstrate that both very young and very old individuals were receiving special treatment at this time. The last three burials are 322 from Boardwalk, Lachane 481, and Garden Island 165. The calibrated intercepts for these are A.D. 10, AD 130, and AD 230 respectively. Burial 322 is another interment of a young male with copper and amber, 481 has a bone awl and 165 several worked bone fragments. These data, somewhat sparse though they are, indicate that the burial program described below began as early as 1600 BC and lasted until the beginning of the present era. Crucially, they also indicate that the interments with copper, amber, and shell span a period from at least c. 900 BC to A.D. 1. The dates in the graph fall into four clusters, one earlier that 1100 BC, a second between a 1000 BC and A.D.200 and the third between A.D. 200 and AD 600. This last cluster is contemporary with the peak in both site occupancy in the harbour and site abandonment. The second and last clusters could also be subdivided into three smaller groupings of dates, though the two sigma age ranges suggest fairly continuous interments until about AD 100. Sites with burials in the oldest cluster are Baldwin, Lachane, Boardwalk, and Garden Island. Boardwalk, Lachane, Baldwin, Parizeau Point, and Garden Island are represented in the second cluster, and these same sites are represented in the third cluster. Despite the gaps, the burial patterns seem reasonably consistent throughout this long period, including practices relating to the placing of grave goods with the deceased.

8

Both Cybulski (MacDonald and Cybulski 2001) and I accept 512.

234

Figure 8.14 Calibrated two sigma age ranges for all dated burials. Circled intercepts mark dated burials with grave goods. From oldest to youngest these are Baldwin 512, Lachane 489, Boardwalk 410, Boardwalk 325, Boardwalk 322, Lachane 481, and Garden Island 165. Space (Tables 8.6, 8.7, 8.9). Burial Dates:Calibrated 2-Sigma Age Range and Intercepts 800 600 400 200

Calendar Years Ago

0 -200 -400 -600 -800 -1000 -1200 -1400 -1600 -1800 -2000 Dates

To answer the questions posed above, the absence of burials with grave goods at Parizeau Point should be attributed to sampling, since only one such burial is predicted (Table 8.9) and none were encountered. Garden Island and Grassy Bay also have about as many burials as predicted. Baldwin has twice (4) as many burials with grave goods then predicted (2), but the numbers are small enough that this could be due to sampling. Overall, Baldwin produced almost as many burials as predicted (24:23). However, it seems clear that neither the large number of burials at Boardwalk, nor the high number of burials with grave goods at that site can be attributed to sampling. Twenty-one burials with grave goods were encountered there, but nine is the predicted number. In contrast, Lachane has many fewer burials than predicted. This contrast runs throughout this analysis: Boardwalk usually has much more of something than predicted, while Lachane has much less, with one or two exceptions. In this instance, for example, if Lachane had had the same density of burials as Boardwalk it would have produced some 107 individuals instead of 73. Dodge Point is not part of this analysis, but I expect it would be close to either Garden Island or Lachane in the density of burials. How to account for these differences? 1. Sampling: Perhaps the densities of the burial samples are not really comparable because they were recovered in different contexts, with Boardwalk representing the only definitive 235

cemetery. Most of the burials from Boardwalk are from Areas A and C. Cybulski states that almost 90% of Boardwalk’s burials are from these shell ridges, which were cemetery areas. The density of burials in other areas (e.g. B and D) was quite low. All field workers and Cybulski regarded area E at Lachane as a cemetery area, but one which produced far fewer burials and which had a much lower overall density of burials. If high density of burials alone is indicative of cemetery areas, than Baldwin. Garden Island and Parizeau Point also contain sampled cemeteries, and represent generally comparable contexts. This highlights the relatively low density of burials at Lachane, which is thought to contain a cemetery. This also does not explain the high density of burials with grave goods at Boardwalk. 2. Taphonomy: Boardwalk and Lachane contained large numbers of disturbed elements – bone elements that were no longer articulated and recovered in isolation. Differences in disturbance histories might account for the differences in densities of burials. For example, if Lachane had had much higher levels of post-depositional activity and disturbance of its burials (this activity could be by the site’s inhabitants) than Boardwalk, then it should have much higher densities of disturbed elements, and these elements might account for the low numbers of recovered individuals at that site. Area E at Lachane was a cemetery area, and it was disturbed during World War II. However, the number of disturbed elements from that area is not enough to account for the lower overall density of burials at Lachane. Another possible taphonomic issue is the formation of the sites. In Chapter 5, I raised the issue that Boardwalk particularly, may be “under–shelled.” It is a smaller site than it should be, given rates of midden accumulation in the harbour. If two sites have the same number of burials, but one has half the overall volume, it will have twice the density of burials/m3. This does not account for Lachane, nor does it account for other sites with both high densities of burials, and high midden–accumulation rates. Nor, again, does it account for the very high density of burials with grave goods at Boardwalk. Finally, there is the remote possibility that bone preservation conditions differed among these sites, such that Boardwalk contains an unusual number of burials because preservation conditions were better. This seems very unlikely, given the well–preserved faunal collections from all of these sites. 3. Population differences: Some sites may have had more inhabitants, therefore more people to bury. This begs the question: why did certain sites have higher populations than others. Why would Boardwalk have more people than Lachane, or why would Parizeau Point have more people than Lachane. 4. Special status as funerary sites: Certain sites enjoyed special status as cemeteries, even as they were village sites. This again begs the question, especially for a site such as Parizeau Point, which may not have been a residential site. 5. Special status as an occupation site: Certain sites enjoyed special social or economic status that was reflected in funerary ritual. This also begs the question. To resolve these possibilities, we need to look first at sex and age, and then discuss the distribution of the grave goods themselves. Before that discussion, however, it is important to note that many of these burials were recovered from cemeteries. Cemeteries Before proceeding, it is necessary to establish that cemeteries are present. Goldstein defines a cemetery as “a formal, bounded, disposal area used exclusively by the dead (Goldstein 1981: 61).” Littleton (2002) suggests cemeteries are defined by the number of burials, moderate 236

to high density of burials; boundedness (a visible boundary); exclusivity of use; use over time and cross-cutting and formal patterning. Formal patterning is deliberate positioning and the maintenance of specific mortuary rules, crosscutting to reuse of the locality over sufficiently long periods of time that bodies have decayed and are cut through with new interments. The number of burials, particularly at Boardwalk and Lachane (reflecting excavation strategy) is quite large. It is clear that these sites were used for interments. The issue here is whether the middens contained formal cemeteries. Burials are concentrated in the back ridges, although they also occur in other portions of the sites. These are generally, but certainly not always, the oldest burials. I speculate elsewhere in this monograph that the back ridges were actually burial mounds constructed of shell midden. Be that as it may, the back ridges are visually and topographically distinct and therefore bounded. When excavated, interments are concentrated in them in high densities and in much higher numbers than they occur in other parts of the sites. However, the backridges do contain midden material and they clearly functioned as dumps, although debris densities are very low (Chapter 7). The pattern of mortuary use continued over a long period of time, although perhaps not continuously. Cross-cutting was common. Interment was formalized with consistent rules about posture (flexed), pit size etc. Certain categories of grave goods have long histories of use. While the burial areas are near residential areas (which may also contain graves); they are clearly separate from them. They do not merge gradually into the adjacent living areas. The graves in the burial areas are often in close proximity to one another. Thus, while not fitting all criteria unambiguously, it is safe to conclude that cemeteries are present. These comments basically address Boardwalk, but cemeteries are also present at Lachane, Baldwin and probably Garden Island and Parizeau Point. Sex and Age. There is a clear bias towards males among those with grave goods. Of the 34, 21 (62%) are male, 9 (26%) are female, and 4 (13%) are indeterminate or unknown (Cybulski 1992). In Cybulski’s group of burials with grave goods, 17 (74%) are male, three (13%) are female and two indeterminate. Of the 260 individuals recovered from the sites in my sample, 132 (51%) are adult males, 72 (28%) adult female. Several points emerge from these figures: 1) Females are under-represented in the burial population as a whole (the adult sex ratio among the deceased individuals from these nine sites is 186 males: 100 females); 2) The ratio of female to male graves with grave goods, in general, follows the general demographic profile found in the harbour's burial population; but: 3) The sex ratio among the individuals whose graves contain artifacts in my sample is 233 males: 100 females. Cybulski argues that the sex ratio among adults reflects "population composition and socially selective burial practices then...differential mortality (Cybulski 1992 49).” He suggests that this sex ratio may indicate that a high proportion of the female population was slaves, and therefore their bodies disposed in other places. It is clear that there was differential treatment of males and females (interment/non–interment in the middens and presence/absence of grave goods) and that there was a small group of both males and females (but dominated by males) were buried with grave goods, and a much larger group who were not. 237

The chi-square analysis (Table 8.9) shows some interesting variation in terms of 1) the expected numbers of adult males and females and 2) the numbers of adult males and females with grave goods. A couple of points are crucial here. With one exception (Lachane), the actual number of females with graves goods is usually close to the expected, regardless of the total number (and expected) of adult females. For example, Baldwin has the greatest difference between the numbers of females recovered and the expected. The skeletons of three women were recovered, with an expected of 6, but only one was associated with grave goods, and the expected is .6, or 1 with rounding. The number of males with grave goods varies from the expecteds far more than does the number of females. Thus, variation among these sites in the numbers of individuals with grave goods is variation in the numbers of males, again, with the notable exception of Lachane. Lachane has more females and fewer males with grave goods than predicted. This is one of Lachane’s distinctions. While I have data on the distributions of grave goods among age cohorts for males and females, I do not have age–cohort data for the entire skeletal population, either by site, or for the entire harbour. Table 8.11 shows the distribution of grave goods by age cohort. While grave goods among adult males and females do not actually differ all that much (there are interesting differences, discussed below), the most distinctive grave goods are found associated with males younger than age 20. These grave goods are found only at Boardwalk. Also recall the graves with sea otter teeth, decorated boxes, trophy skulls and so forth are restricted to Boardwalk. Additionally, if we look at the entire sample of individuals with grave goods, we see that ages at death range from late childhood to at least late middle age, if not elderly (Table 8.11). Among the items found with young males are also those found in caches or hoards at Boardwalk. Labrets

Labrets play a significant role in inferences about social status and the evolution of social distinctions on the coast, particularly in the analyses of burials. Physical anthropologists have noted wear facets on the teeth of deceased individuals which were caused by wearing labrets. Labret wear then is evidence of an individual’s practice in life, not of post-mortem ritual. Grave goods are status markers are always problematical since the relationship between what a person is buried with and their status in life may be tenuous; labret wear, however, is evidence that a person wore a labret in life. On the other hand, the social meaning of labret wearing is not necessarily clear. During the historic period on the Northwest Coast, only free women on the northern coast wore labrets, as Moss stresses (Moss 1999), rather than simply high status. Status was indicated by labret size. Wearing a labret is an either/or proposition. One is either a labret wearer (even without the lip plug in place, the hole in the lip is visible) and free, or one is not and a slave. There can be little or no ambiguity (see discussions in Ames 1989, Ames and Maschner 1999). Labrets were worn in the lower lip, and thus were clear for all to see. On the other hand, size is a continuous variable, which is useful in a status system in which individuals are ranked. Labrets can be very much larger, or just slightly larger, admitting considerable ambiguity in interpreting the relative status of the wearer, based on size.

238

Table 8.9 Results of X2 analysis. Sites

Burials with and without Grave Goods E w/o With Grave Without E9 with Grave goods goods Grave goods Grave goods Baldwin 22 4 18 2 19 Boardwalk 120 21 99 9 92 Garden I. 29 2 27 3 27 Grassy B. 1 0 1 .25 3 Lachane 73 7 66 8 82 Parizeau P. 12 0 12 1 10 X2 = 138.02, df = 5. X2 probability =0.0. Significance level = .001 Total Adult Males/Females Total Males Females E for Males E for Females Baldwin 22 16 3 9.8 5.8 Boardwalk 120 63 33 49.1 28.6 Garden I. 29 13 10 13.3 8.3 Grassy B. Not included * * * Lachane 73 37 21 43.7 25.5 Parizeau P. 12 2 4 5 2.9 2 2 X = 59.98, df = 4. X probability =0.0. Significance level = .001 Adult Males with Grave Goods/Adult Females with Grave Goods Total Males with Females with E Males E Females Grave goods Grave goods Baldwin 22 3 1 1.5 .6 Boardwalk 120 14 3 7.2 3.2 Garden I. 29 1 1 2.1 .9 Grassy B. Not included * * * Lachane 73 3 4 6.4 2.8 Parizeau P. 12 0 0 .73 .32 2 2 X = 12.9, df = 4. X probability =0.0. Significance level = .0025 Total

Table 8.10 Age and sex ratios for burials with grave goods by site. ♦ BALDWIN: 1 CHILD (FEMALE): 3 ADULT (MALES) ♦ BOARDWALK: 4 CHILDREN: 2 YOUTHS: 15 ADULTS/. 3 FEMALES: 14 MALES: 3 INDETERMINATE

♦ DODGE ISLAND: 2 ADULT MALES: 1 INDETERMINATE ♦ GARDEN ISLAND: ALL ADULTS. 1FEMALE: 1 MALE ♦ LACHANE: ALL ADULTS, 4 FEMALES: 3 MALES

9

Expecteds were calculated from mean densities. In this instance, the m density of burials with grave goods/m was calculated. The expected was then derived by multiplying this mean by the volume excavated for each site. The density of burials for the entire excavated volume was used for these calculations, rather than trying to estimate density/AU.

239

Table 8.11 Distribution of grave goods by age and sex CHILD (0-10 YOUTH – YOUNG ADULT (10 – 20) YEARS)

ADULT (20 +)

MALES

COPPER, AMBER, SHELL, ANKLE BRACELETS (?) WORKED BONE

LABRET, COPPER, AMBER, SHELL, SLATE POINTS/DAGGERS WORKED BONE ABRADERS, ANKLE BRACELETS

LABRETS, ZOOMORPHIC PENDANT, BONE POINTS/DAGGERS, BONE TUBES, GROUND SLATE POINTS/DAGGERS, COBBLE TOOLS, QUARTZ FLAKES

FEMALES

SLATE MIRROR

AWLS, WORKED BONE

LABRETS, BONE POINTS/DAGGERS, AWLS; SPATULATES, BONE POINT/HARPOON/ SLATE POINT– PENDANTS

Wearing labrets is an ancient practice around the North Pacific rim (Keddie 1979). Dumond and Bland (1995) report one from a site on the Kamchatka peninsula dating to ca. 4000 BC. This date is contemporaneous with the earliest dated evidence of labret wear on the Northwest Coast, an individual with labret wear at Namu, dating 5170±220 (RIDDL-100 [Cybulski 1991]). This date calibrates to 3973 BC, or a two sigma age range of 4455 BC to 3610 BC. Later (yet still early) sites with individuals displaying labret wear include Blue Jackets Creek (ca. 2500 BC), and Pender Island. A labret was recovered at Hidden Falls in Southeast Alaska, dating to ca. 2900 BC - 1120 BC. It is likely then that labret wear was a social practice in Prince Rupert Harbour as early as 2500 BC - 2900 BC if not as early as the harbour’s earliest documented occupation. The youngest labrets in Prince Rupert Harbour are part of the Tn1/AU1 assemblage, which dates between ca. AD 500 and AD 1000. The social significance of labrets is likely to have changed greatly during that enormous stretch of time. In the Prince Rupert skeletal population, both females and males wore them. As usual in Prince Rupert, the sample is heavily skewed towards males. Cybulski (1991, 1993) reports 19 males with labret facets (13% of all adult male skeletons) and only three females (4% of all adult female skeletons) for 22 individuals in all, or 8% of the individuals recovered in Prince Rupert harbour. Of the 19 males, five were reported to have had labrets associated with them, the other 14 did not have labrets. The females did not have associated labrets. Of the five males with labrets (I examined three of these labrets, hence the absence of two labrets in the tables), two had observable wear facets, two lacked mandibles, and one lacked anterior teeth due to post-mortem disturbances or other processes. Eleven additional stone labrets were recovered in non-burial contexts, as were the seven bone labrets. A wooden labret was also recovered from the water240

logged deposits at Lachane. It seems likely that labret–wear facets were caused by habitual wearing of stone labrets, rather than bone or wood. The Prince Rupert sample of burials with labret wear and of labrets is large enough to allow some modest investigations in the patterns of wearing and disposing of labrets. Labrets are quite rare, with very low densities. Labrets (lumping stone and organic ones) are not present in all sites. They are absent from Parizeau Point and Lucy Island. Only one is reported from Garden Island, and it is in association with a burial. There are no non-burial labrets from Garden Island in the collections we examined, which is interesting, given the size of Garden Island’s assemblage. Their frequency and distribution is therefore only partially a function of assemblage size. They are not uniformly distributed within the sites where they are present. Lachane produced five (three stone, two bone), four from B/AU, one of unknown provenience. Four (three stone, one bone) were recovered at Boardwalk, two from the sluice area, one from D/AU2 and one from AU/Misc. Quite interestingly, none were recovered from 31/B/AU3, which usually has one of everything. Three (two stone) were recovered from Kitandach, two (both bone) from K’nu, two (one stone) from Grassy Bay (one from Tn1/AU1, the other’s provenience is unknown), and only one (which is zoomorphic) from Baldwin. Four stone labrets are broken (six, including the two from Dodge Cove) (Figs. 8.15 and 8.16). One of the circular flange (Keddie type 1a), or spool types, appears to have been deliberately broken in half. The spool labret from Grassy Bay seems to have been battered and flaked. A medial labret from Boardwalk had its tooth flange split. Of the 11 stone labrets reported from non-burial contexts (including the two Dodge Cove specimens), then, half are broken. Of the seven bone labrets, only one is broken, and it has lost a small portion of its tip. Labret-breakage occurs through-out the history of labret wear on the northern British Columbia coast. One of the Grassy Bay examples is broken as is at least one of the labrets from the Greenville burial ground on the Nass River (Cybulski 1992). Greenville dates between ca AD 566 and AD 1290. Nine of the female burials at Greenville display labret wear on their teeth, no adult males do. The three labrets recovered at the site were not associated with the burials. All three are stone. Discarded labrets then are found in a full range of deposits, though none are unequivocally associated with residential AUs10. 31/D/AU2 may be residential, and 33/B/AU certainly contains residential features. However, we cannot firmly tie the four labrets from that AU to those features. On the other hand, labrets are absent from 31/B/AU2 and B/AU3, as well as Tn1/AU2. They are also absent from Garden Island.

Coupland (personal communication) has recovered labrets in houses at the McNichol Creek site in the harbour. 241

10

Figure 8.15 Chipped or flaked labret from Grassy Bay

Figure 8.16 Snapped labret from Boardwalk

At Boardwalk, labrets are associated with dumps: the sluice and the miscellaneous AU. Labrets are not part of caches or hoards, at least in Prince Rupert Harbour. There is no labret associated with the so-called warrior cache, for example, nor with the shell necklace cache. Labrets are either grave goods, or appear to be disposed in an array of contexts, without special treatment. About half the time they are broken, clearly deliberately. Labrets associated with burials are unbroken. Individuals buried with labrets were rarely accorded other goods, except for worked bone fragments and a quartz flake. With the exception of the single wooden labret from Lachane, all of the organic labrets are small, and seem to have been discarded or lost without concern for their condition. They are essentially unbroken. 242

In contrast to labrets, copper and amber beads are found only in association with the burials . The only amber bead not in direct association with a burial was recovered in 31/AC/AU1, which is a portion of the burial area, and so the bead could have originally been a burial inclusion. Shell–bead necklaces also are exclusively associated with burials or burial caches. But single beads could easily be missed by excavators; though missing an entire necklace is less likely. At Boardwalk, labrets were not recovered in the burial areas except in burials. What I am calling “bone daggers” are found in burials but only in midden deposits at Boardwalk. They are not found in non-burial contexts at the other sites, such as Lachane, where they were recovered as grave goods. 11

Summary and discussion Wason (1994) provides a thorough discussion of archaeological measures of rank. In establishing ranking, he stresses multiple lines of evidence, which have been developed above. Chronology The burial practices of interest here span 2000 years. People were buried in cemeteries as early as c. 1500 BC. Throughout this lengthy period there was differential access to cemetery burial. Many people must not have been buried either in the residential sites or in the cemetery areas. Grave goods are present in the earliest dated burials, and among the last. Age and sex Grave goods are associated with virtually all ages, from children to the elderly, and with both sexes. Some categories of grave good were found with adults of both sexes. There is a clear bias towards males. One particular age class of males was buried at Boardwalk with what appears to be very valuable heirlooms. Hayden (1996) suggests such a pattern is predictable in what he calls Reciprocator and Entrepreneur communities were grave goods are associated with elite children. It seems likely these were the heirs to very high status positions who died before their time. Grave goods and artifacts The heirloom goods mentioned above appear to have been made by specialists from costly exotics. Other grave goods were made from locally available raw materials. But even these have restricted distributions. Bone daggers, for example, while found in burials at several sites, were recovered in non-burial contexts only at Boardwalk. It is not always clear whether some classes of grave good are actually utilitarian items or not (e.g. the projectile pendants). In any case, there was differential access to these items, both within groups, and harbour-wide. This last comment must be viewed against the sampling issues discussed at the outset. While Boardwalk does have a large sample of excavated burials, and therefore would be expected to have more rare items, the copper, shell and amber objects do not occur

11

Acheson (1992) reports a copper wire from a residential site on the Queen Charlotte Islands, post dating AD 500. Generally on the Northwest Coast, copper, or evidence of copper (such as copper salts), is reported only for burials.

243

in any context in the other sites. Even sites, such as Lachane, that have interments of the right sex and age, and, in Lachane’s case, a relatively large sample of burials, lack these items. Boardwalk has six burials containing objects not found associated with any other burials in my sample. A burial containing sea otter teeth (inset in a box lid?) was recovered at Dodge Island, which is part of the Dodge Cove complex. Using the density of these graves at Boardwalk, expecteds for Grassy Bay, Garden Island, Lachane, Kitandach and Baldwin were calculated. Grassy Bay should have none; Garden Island two, Lachane six and Baldwin one. One could argue strongly that their absence from any one of these sites could be sampling. However, the total expected for all these sites is 18. I did not calculate a chi-square since the numbers are so small, but this is a strong indication that if these items were uniformly present elsewhere in the excavated sample, we should have found at least one in this sample. They appear to be restricted to Dodge Cove, particularly Boardwalk. I note that copper, amber, and shell beads were not encountered at Dodge Island. Regional Patterns It is clear that Boardwalk is distinctive in a number of ways. It has more burials than would be predicted on the basis of excavated volume. A number of crucial artifact types are found only at this site, either in the cemeteries or in the general midden deposits. The only other site which may have been comparable in this sample is Baldwin, and the sample is too small for a definitive answer. Several possible explanations for this distinctiveness were suggested, including sampling, taphonomy, population differences, special status as a funerary site, and special status as a living site. The most likely explanation is the last. Neither sampling nor taphonomy account for the patterns we have seen. Boardwalk is not the largest of these sites, Lachane is larger, for example, so population size is not a simple answer. The cemetery at Boardwalk appears to be associated with houses – thus Boardwalk was a special residential site. The contrasts between Boardwalk and Lachane, and, in some ways, between Lachane and the other sites, are particularly sharp. Lachane has fewer burials than would be predicted on the basis of excavated volume, but more skeletons of females. There are no labrets among the grave goods at Lachane. Ranking in Prince Rupert Harbour, labrets, achievement and ascription. These patterns clearly indicate that ranking existed in the harbour by 900 BC, and probably as early as 1600 BC. While males clearly had more access to high status than females, both males and females had high status. There were clear gradations of rank marked first by differential access to burial in cemeteries, and secondly by the kinds of grave goods and grave fixtures associated with a particular individual. High ranked persons appear to have lived at all residential sites. All sites, except Parizeau Point, contain graves of individuals with rank. Their absence at Parizeau Point may be the result of sampling, but it is tantalizing. Rank at this lower level was marked by differential access to burial in cemeteries, to labrets and to Group 1 and some Group 2 grave goods. Some of these items are found in non-burial contexts, but were sometimes broken prior to disposal. There appears to have been a superordinate elite at Boardwalk, who are represented at that site in a single cemetery. These individuals had access to items made of exotic raw materials by specialists. These items were probably heirlooms controlled by the corporate group. However, such grave goods were restricted to young males, probably the expected heirs to the highest rank, both at Boardwalk and in the harbour. 244

These patterns fit expectations for recruitment to high rank by ascription (Wason 1994). There were more status positions available to males. It is also likely that among the higher ranks, positions could be achieved. These positions were also probably open only to males. Labrets The patterns associated with labrets alone clearly indicate ranking. They were not available for everyone to wear. Access to labrets was limited. Thus “labret-wearer” was a distinctive status. According to Fried (1967, 107), “A rank society is one in which positions of valued status are somehow limited so that not all those of sufficient talent to occupy such statuses actually achieve them.. From this it follows that ranking, narrowly defined, of individuals existed on the Northern Coast by 2500 BC, the date of the burials at Blue Jackets Creek. It is further possible that this form of ranking existed as early as 4000 BC on the coast (and around the North Pacific Rim). The alternative is to argue that access to labrets was limited, but was not valued. The long temporal span and wide-spread role of labrets in marking status on the Northwest Coast militates against such a view. This last point is not to argue that the cultural meaning of labrets has remained constant, most likely it has not, but only to maintain that they probably have always marked a distinct status. In this sense, they are elite goods (Wason 1994). Wason suggests three criteria that can applied to test such a claim: 1) that the items be found in burials, or, in contexts of their manufacture and use, but not in discard areas (Wason 1994, 97); 2) that, alternatively, care was exercised in their disposition (Wason 1994, 101); and/or 3) that the items be unevenly distributed in a region (Wason 1994, 115). Breaking stone labrets would remove them from circulation and make those particular labrets unwearable, thus perhaps maintaining the social value of labrets. Once broken, they could simply be discarded. Counting the Dodge Island labrets, 17 stone labrets were recovered from all contexts. Of these, eleven were effectively out of circulation either as a grave good or through breakage. Two more were recovered from the sluice at Boardwalk, thus also taking them out of circulation. Why were not all of them broken, then? One possible answer is that they were all originally discarded in places where it was thought they would never be recovered. However, I do not have the level of control over their context to test that suggestion. This does not explain the distributional patterns of labrets among the sites: why some sites have them, and others do not. This must reflect sampling to some degree, since labrets are relatively rare. It may also reflect that there were more labret wearers at some sites than others, again pointing towards the existence of a settlement hierarchy. Matson (1989) and Cybulski (1991) have suggested that the presence of labrets in burials indicates achieved status, while the absence of labrets and the presence of labret wear may indicate ascribed status. In the latter case the labret would be an heirloom, and not committed to the ground, while in the former it reflects only the wearer’s status and presumably is not transferable. This is an important hypothesis since it raises the issue of social mobility on the ancient Northwest Coast. If labrets were heirlooms and passed from generation to generation, we might expect them to be relatively rare. As we have seen, they are. We might also expect them to be disposed of in special contexts. As we have seen, some were are broken, effectively removing them from circulation. This suggests their role as heirlooms. This argument is weakened however, by the presence of labrets in midden deposits. 245

The raw material of labrets is also important to this discussion. Archaeologists have long recognized that durable heirlooms must be removed from circulation to maintain their value, while perishable ones in a sense remove themselves from circulation. Stone labrets clearly can last a long time. Constant wearing might eventually wear out a slate or marble labret, though it would probably require an extremely long time. A labret that had been worn for several generations could accumulate a lengthy history and its value increase as a result. Bone or wood labrets, on the other hand, would no doubt have much shorter use lives, given that they were worn in or in immediate proximity to the mouth. On the other hand, organic labrets, of wood or bone, would permit much more complex decorations, including inlays of precious materials, such as copper, than stone. Nineteenth century masks sometimes portray individuals wearing labrets with copper and abalone shell inlays. Organic labrets could have been very precious, given their short use lives. A wooden labret might be worn only on particular and very infrequent occasions. Inlays would have raised its value. It is possible, from this line of reasoning, to speculate that stone labrets, given their durability, were simply “everyday” labrets and the organic ones the special labrets. Alternatively, wooden labrets would be lighter and therefore more comfortable on a daily basis. Labrets were associated with males ranging in age from their early twenties through their sixties, as well as with adult females. Copper, on the other hand, is limited to boys, adolescent males and very young adult males, as discussed above12. The age distribution of labrets might indicate achieved status, since four of five the individuals buried with labrets were older than 30. Labret wearing could also have been a mark of adulthood. The association of copper with very young individuals points to ascription, since boys and adolescents would be quite young to have achieved high status (Wason 1994). The copper does clearly indicate the presence of part-time specialists and the production of status markers by these specialists: usually a marker of systems with permanent hierarchies (Wason 1994) that can control access to raw materials or to production. The exceptional size of the bracelets in the warrior cache suggests they were probably quite spectacular items. Breakage Broken objects are a sub-theme running through much of the previous discussions. I have considered the presence of broken bone tools with the burials. I have also noted the presence of broken slate points, and in the previous section observed that broken labrets are disposed separately from the burials. The copper tube/wooden dowels are components of something, perhaps armour, of which there is no complete specimen. Of course, this brings to mind the 19th century Kwakwaka’wakw practice of breaking up potlatch coppers, and redistributing the pieces, and subsequently reassembling the original. It is impossible to tell whether the scraps of copper sheet in the burials were interred as fragments, or fragmented from post-depositional processes. The available data suggest the possibility that breakage of some objects to be included with the deceased was a part of mortuary ritual. On the other hand, broken labrets were disposed in other portions of the sites. 12

This association appears to be widespread in Cascadia. Schulting (1995) reports that copper items are most often associated with adolescent and young adult males in burials on the Intermontane Plateau of interior British Columbia, and Washington State.

246

The rod armour, or whatever the rods comprised, may have been too valuable an object to commit to the ground, so perhaps the rods and dowels that were recovered served as tokens for the originals. Or, alternatively, the original(s) were sometimes broken up and the pieces treasured, like fragments of the true cross in the Middle Ages, and occasionally interred with their possessor. Slavery and status mobility13 I suggested in Chapter 4 that the existence of slavery was what made Northwest Coast society stratified, or "class-divided" societies. Thus, a fundamental issue is what evidence, if any, is there for the presence of slaves. The available evidence is very indirect. Cybulski has suggested to that skewed distribution of the Prince Rupert burials -- the high frequency of adult males to adult females -- may reflect a situation in which a significant proportion of the adult female population were slaves, and so, upon death, their corpses were disposed of elsewhere. If this is so, it suggests a much higher percentage of slaves during the period from ca. 1000 BC to AD 300 then historically. The burial population in Prince Rupert is short 67 females to have a balanced sex ratio. If these women were all slaves, then 23% of the total population were slaves, and 46% of the women were. Of course, this does not consider male slaves. The 23% is not impossibly high. Mitchell and Donald (1985) present estimates of the slave populations among the Tsimshian, Haida and Tlingit that range from a low of 0 among some Tsimshian, to a high of "fully one-third of the entire population of this region (Niblack, 1890:252, cited in Mitchell and Donald 1985, 21)." Though they feel that estimate may be too high, they cite estimates of 24% for the Taku and Sitka Tlingit villages, and 26% for the Kaigani Haida. I have elsewhere proposed an alternative hypothesis (Ames 2001, Ames and Maschner 1999). The reader will recall that inter-site variability in the numbers of burials and particularly the numbers of burials with grave goods resulted from variation in the number male burials. The numbers of female burials from site to site were usually quite close to the predicted number, based on volume excavation. This suggests the number of women buried in these cemeteries was fairly constant through time. One hypothesis to account for this is that the number of status positions for women were constant through time and most certainly therefore ascribed. The size of the ascribed elite in Prince Rupert Harbour then would be represented by the women and an equal number of men. The excess numbers of men reflect individual men who acquired the rights to midden burial and grave goods during their life times, i.e. achieved status. Thus the skewed sex ratio is not due to female slavery, but male acquisition of status and prestige. Cybulski (1979) describes a number of individuals who appear to have been killed where their skeletons were subsequently excavated. In a later report (Cybulski 1996) describes evidence for the decapitation of three individuals from Lachane (Burials 466, 483 and 481, two females and one male respectively). This deliberate decapitation may indicate the taking of heads. Burial 481 is dated to 30 B.C. – A.D. 130 (Table 5.8). His data clearly warrants his inference that warfare was endemic. Endemic warfare which includes the selective killing of undesirable captives implies keeping desirable ones, which suggests the ethnographic practice of 13

I discuss this issue more fully in Ames 2003.

247

slavery. Donald and Mitchell suggest that capture in raids was the primary source for almost all slaves. It is also possible that some of the individuals who were killed and left on the spot were themselves slaves. Mitchell and Donald (1988) stress the economic importance of slaves as labor, and so it is unlikely that valuable slaves would frequently be killed. However, Cybulski notes that one of the decapitated women was crippled, and would have had little value as a laborer. He reports both males and females among the other killed individuals. Slaves could have been killed as a form of wealth display, or prestige enhancement. Cybulski's data at least indirectly support the hypothesis that slavery was practiced in Prince Rupert Harbour between 1000 BC and 1 AD. Comments on feasting, caches and funerary ritual Carlson (1987, 1991) has suggested that the presence of four zoomorphic-handled spoons at Pender Island in the Gulf of Georgia region indicate an association between feasting and funerary ritual perhaps as early as 4000 years ago or more on the coast. Cybulski (1992) notes the presence of elderberry seeds at Greenville. At Boardwalk, the faunal remains are the only source of evidence available on feasting as part of funeral ritual. The burial areas do not contain an unusual concentration of charred, burned or butchered bones. This of course is not evidence either way. Cybulski (1992) comments on some other aspects of funerary ritual (e.g. dog burials) and the reader is referred to his monograph. However, the presence of possible caches does indicate some dimensions of ritual which has not been addressed in the literature. As discussed above, burial feature 338 (the “Warrior Cache” [Figs. 8.17, 8.18]) and one of the shell necklaces appear to be caches or hoards, rather than associated with particular graves. The matter is not resolvable with the available data, but they do suggest the possibility of continued use of abandoned areas for ritual purposes. Burial feature 338 (and at least two of the burials themselves) may have been buried after the soil -- if it is a soil -- had begun to form on Area A/C at Boardwalk. Cybulski (1996) dates the feature to c. 1800 B.P., or c. A.D. 200. This implies a continuing connection -- and perhaps rights -- to the locality for some time after a group had ceased to occupy it, perhaps as part of the wide-spread pattern of site abandonment is the harbour at this time. Other explanations, of course, are possible, but it does raise interesting lines of inquiry. The possibility that caches were part of funerary or other ritual behavior is also interesting in light of the common discoveries on the coast of spectacular, isolated finds, such as some of the Marpole figurine bowls and the Hagwilget clubs. In addition to the artifacts, Burial feature 338 also contained the skull and jaw of a female. These carried copper salt stains (Cybulski 1993). A distributional analysis of these isolated finds might provide important clues to the cultural landscape of the Middle Pacific period. Finally, additional note should be made of the association of burials in Prince Rupert

248

Figure 8.17 The “Warrior Cache” Area A/C Boardwalk

Figure 8.18 Sketch of the Warrior Cache (Canadian Museum of Civilization: http://www.civilization.ca/aborig/tsimsian/arcwarre.html) Killer Whale Jaw Club

Whalebone Club

Goat Horn Core

Stone Blade

Hammer or “Braining” Stone

Copper Tubes with cedar dowels Copper Bracelets

Harbour with the back ridges of the shell middens. The backs of many Prince Rupert middens are marked by the distinct ridges of shell, rather than simply sloping off into the woods. These ridges may be the results of simply concentrated dumping at the rear of the sites. However, I suggest that they actually are deliberate constructions; that, in fact, these ridges are burial mounds made of shell. Recent work along the lower Fraser River at the Skowlitz site (Blake et 249

al. 1993) has produced clear and rather spectacular evidence for burial mounds and mounds occur elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest (Ames and Maschner 1999). Art MacDonald (1983) has reviewed the chronology and development of the Northwest Coast art style in Prince Rupert Harbour, and it is unnecessary to duplicate his work. My concern in this section is to describe the contexts in which objects bearing art motifs or decoration were recovered. There are 139 motif-bearing objects (e.g. Fig. 8.19) that I can document (Tables 8.12, 8.13). Some items were not among the collections sent from the Museum, including some on display and at least one that has been lost. These items have been included here when they can be directly documented. The tables do not contain the occasional decorated grave good or hoard items (the raven pendent, and the anthropomorphic club) since they are described elsewhere. Thus the total number of decorated items is probably somewhat higher than 139. Decorated items were recovered in all sites, except Lucy Island. The density of these artifacts/ 100 m3 of excavated fill typically ranges between 1 and 5 items\100 m3. Decorated objects are more common in AUs post-dating 3000 BP, but that is not a consistent pattern. The AUs containing the cemetery at Boardwalk have very low densities of decorated items, as do two of the excavation areas at Lachane. Of the two areas at Lachane, Area E had the highest densities of human remains of any of the Lachane excavation areas (Cybulski 1992). Thus three of the five AUs with low volumetric densities of decorated items (1\100m3) are known burial areas. Of the other two, one (31/D/AU1) is clearly early in age. However, the density of decorated objects in the other early AU at Boardwalk (31/B/AU1) falls on the mean calculated without the two outliers. The paucity of decorated items of any kind in the burial areas at Boardwalk makes the discovery of the horn spoons with zoomorphic handles at the Pender Site, on Pender Island in the Gulf of Georgia in southern British Columbia, even more remarkable. It may be that objects with art motifs played different roles in funerary ritual on the northern and southern coasts. The only zoomorphic item found in a burial in Prince Rupert was the raven pendent. The cache that forms burial feature 338 also included the anthropomorphic club. A review of the available literature on the distribution and context of art objects in the Gulf of Georgia region (e.g. Holm 1990) suggests that decorated objects are much more likely to be directly associated with graves in that region than in Prince Rupert Harbour (Ames and Maschner 1999) Decoration is found on a wide range of artifact types (Tables 8.12, 8.13, 8.14), most of them quite utilitarian. Of the 40 artifact types with decorations, only six or seven appear to have clear display functions (pendants, handles, clubs, combs, labrets, beads, pins, and pendants). It might be expected that these items in particular would bear zoomorphic motifs. The decorated fragments may be pendent or bracelet fragments, but they could also be pieces of utilitarian items. Zoomorphic motifs occur on eleven artifact types (Table 8.12), most commonly on carved concretions. With the exceptions of Kitandach, the carved concretions occur at all of the major village sites in my sample. There does not appear to have been one recovered at Dodge Island, however (Sutherland 1978). The high density of materials at GbTn 1 seems quite anomalous 250

given the nature and size of that site. Of the three items actually recovered there, one is a haft fragment with incised lines, and the other two are both ground items, also with simple lines. On the other hand, the collection from 31/B/AU3 is remarkable for its size (relative to volume excavated) and diversity; 10 items distributed among 7 artifact types, or 17 artifact types of decorated items per 100 cubic meters. For comparison, the largest number of decorated tools was recovered from 33/B/AU, where 23 items are distributed across 13 types, or 2.5 types per 100 m3. . For the collection as a whole, the 139 artifacts are classed into 40 types (Table 8.13), or 1.6 decorated artifact types per 100 cubic meters, and 3.4 decorated artifacts per 100 cubic meters14. This figure is deceptive, since it includes the materials from 31/B/AU3. Items with zoomorphic motifs comprise 20% of the sample analyzed. The items on display and not sent are all zoomorphic and include a zoomorphic maul from 23/AU2, a soap stone fish from 31/D/AU3 and a carving described as raven carrying moon in its bill from 31/B/AU4. This last item is apparently missing. I have not included them because I cannot document their existence, since the catalogues are not always consistent. Thus the counts may be a little low. These three artifacts do not affect the distributional patterns of zoomorphic artifacts, except for the one from 31/B/AU4. What is clear is that zoomorphic items are rare, and that recovering them has little to do with the volume of deposit that has been excavated. 31/B/AU3 has the highest density of zoomorphic artifacts, 4 in only 57 cubic meters of fill. There is also no particular relationship between total numbers of decorated items recovered and recovery of zoomorphic forms. If one recovers a lot of decorated objects, the odds are good that some will have zoomorphic motifs. However, the converse is not true -- one can recover only one or two decorated artifacts, and one may be zoomorphic. Four of the zoomorphic motifs are anthropomorphic (Table 8.14). The anthropomorphic handle from Lachane (#2853) is similar, though not as completely carved, as the anthropomorphic handle recovered at Glenrose Cannery, near Vancouver, British Columbia (Matson 1976). That artifact dates between 3000 and 1500 B.C. MacDonald (1983) dates the Lachane handle to ca. 1500 B.C. I cannot evaluate that date. The Lachane handle, like the Glenrose handle, appears to be the face of a bearded man with a top knot. The anthropomorphic pin from Lachane also appears to have a top knot, which also serves as a button at the pin's end. The other anthropomorphic object seems to be a pendent. MacDonald describes it as a shaman's charm. In any case, the face is unusual, having a broad nose with nostrils and clearly rendered lips. The slate mirror handle has the incised figure of a biped, with the gullet indicated. The mirror broke at some point in the past, and the being's head is missing. The mirror was a surface find.

14

There are 86 decorated items from AUs of known volume, totaling 2494 cubic meters. 86 divided by 2494 multiplied by 100 yields 3.4 artifacts/100 m3.

251

Figure 8.19 Zoomorphic miniature club from Boardwalk

Table 8.12 Summary of decorated artifacts Type Count Decorated pendant 25 Body fragment 17 Decorated fragment 9 Haft fragment 9 Concretion 6 Decorated handle 6 Worked awl 6 Barb fragment 5 Harpoon head 5 Decorated tube 5 Decorated pin 3 Gauge 3 Tip fragment 3 Zoomorphic club 3 Zoomorphic comb 3 Abrader 2 Harpoon valve 2 Labret 2 Needle 2 Barbed Point 2 Fixed point 2

Type Hafted point Celt type I Celt type II Anatomical awl Splinter awl Decorated bead Nipple awl Barkshredder Bark beater Geometric club Needle fragment Zoomorphic mirror Maul Other Whalebone fragment Palette Reworked G&P Rod Canine

Count 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total

139

252

Table 8.13 Detailed list of all decorated artifacts Site GbTo23 GbTo23 GbTo23 GbTo23 GbTo23 GbTo23 GbTo23 GbTo23 GbTo23 GbTo23 GbTo23 GbTo23 GbTo23 GbTo23 GbTo23 GbTo30 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo31 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33

Catalogue # 431 2088 1730 850 60 543 546 709 952 1215 410 1160 453 25? 1205 221 1481 2338 1857 1074 X847 X819 309 1358 211 144 1359 X792 213 260 1256 2519 2424 2555 1154 X142 1971 X33 X143 X198 1926 4 1636 2437 2294 1584 2183 3139 3985 1875 2024 4146 2176 2192 999 3929 2793 4104 2839 2783 2784 2073 763 1275 1245 2853 764 2086 2059

AU 23/AU/unk 23/AU/unk 23/AU1 23/AU1 23/AU1 23/AU1 23/AU1 23/AU1 23/AU1 23/AU2 23/AU2 23/AU2 23/AU2 23/AU2 23/AU2 30/AU 31/AC/AU1 31/AC/AU2 31/AC/AU2 31/B/AU1 31/B/AU2 31/B/AU2 31/B/AU3 31/B/AU3 31/B/AU3 31/B/AU3 31/B/AU3 31/B/AU3 31/B/AU3 31/B/AU3 31/B/AU3 31/B/AU4 31/D/AU1 31/D/AU1 31/D/AU1 31/D/AU2 31/D/AU2 31/D/AU2 31/D/AU2 31/D/AU2 31/D/AU2 31/B/AU3 31/D/AU3 31/D/AU3 31/D/AU3 31/D/AU3 31/unk/AU 33/unk/AU 33/A/AU 33/B/AU 33/B/AU 33/B/AU 33/B/AU 33/B/AU 33/B/AU 33/B/AU 33/B/AU 33/B/AU 33/B/AU 33/B/AU 33/B/AU 33/B/AU 33/B/AU 33/B/AU 33/B/AU 33/B/AU 33/B/AU 33/B/AU 33/B/AU

Object/Type Body Fragment Antler Fragment Awl Worked Comb Concretion Haft Frag (Bird Bone) Tip Fragment Needle Bone Pendant Abrader Awl, Nipple Haft Fragment Pendent Pin Pin Body Fragment Pendant Barksplitter Bird Bone Tube Awl, Worked Awl, Worked Pendant Bead Club Club Whalebone, Worked Handle Harpoon, Barbed Pendant Pendant Pendant Tube Concretion Fixed Bone Point Abrader Antler Handle Antler Handle Harpoon, Barbed Harpoon, Barbed Fixed Bone Point Rod Pendant Harpoon Valve Harpoon Valve Needle Pendant Slate Mirror Comb Body Fragment Celt Awl, Worked Concretion Body Fragment Body Fragment Body Fragment Body Fragment Haft Fragment Haft Fragment Haft Fragment Haft Fragment Haft Fragment Tip Fragment Tip Fragment Net Gauge (Stone) Antler Handle Antler Handle Pendant Pin Pendant

253

Technique–Design Type Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Carved Geometric Carved Zoomorphic/Wolf Carved Zoomorphic/Seal Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Zoomorphic Carved Zoomorphic Carved Zoomorphic Carved Geometric Carved Geometric Incised Geometric Carved Geometric Carved Geometric Carved Geometric Carved Geometric Incised Geometric Carved Zoomorphic Carved Zoomorphic Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Carved Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Zoomorphic Incised Geometric Incised Zoomorphic/ Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Carved Geometric Incised Geometric Carved Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Carved Anthropomorphic Incised Geometric Carved Geometric Carved Geometric Incised Geometric Carved Anthropomorphic Carved Zoomorphic Incised Geometric Incised Zoomorphic Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Carved Geometric Carved Geometric Unknown Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Ground Zoomorphic Incised Geometric Incised Anthropomorphic Incised Geometric Carved Zoomorphic Incised Geometric

Table 8.13 Cont. Detailed list of all decorated artifacts Site GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo33 GbTo34 GbTo34 GbTo34 GbTo34 GbTo34 GbTo34 GbTo34 GbTo34 GbTo34 GbTo34 GbTo34 GbTo34 GbTo34 GbTo34 GbTo34 GbTo34 GbTo34 GbTo34 GbTo34 GbTo34 GbTo34 GbTo34 GbTo34 GbTo36 GbTo36 GbTo36 GbTo36 GbTo36 GbTo36 GbTo36 GbTo36 GbTo36 GbTn1 GbTn1 GbTn1 GbTn1 GbTo1 GbTo1 GbTo1 GbTo1 GbTo1 GbTo1 GbTo1 GbTo1 GbTo1 GbTo1 GbTo1 GbTo1 GbTo1 GbTo1 GbTo1 GbTo1 GbTo1 GbTo1 GbTo1 GbTo1 GbTo1 GbTo1

Catalogue # 2545 894 1190 1930 3744 2017 3586 593 345 513 1805 22 1272 309 922 1202 1467 2013 1781 1629 1057 274 1319 1131 1825 771 252 1952 910 673 2410 579 187 138 128 622 919 218 80 324 117 384 138 207 694 1114 1137 983 1115 457 528 626 554 1415 1380 727 190 256 45 84 487 502 886 553 1022 742

AU 33/B/AU 33/B/AU 33/B/AU 33/D/AU 33/D/AU 33/E/AU 33/H/AU 33/misc/AU 34/AU 34/AU 34/AU 34/AU 34/AU 34/AU 34/AU 34/AU 34/AU 34/AU 34/AU 34/AU 34/AU 34/AU 34/AU 34/AU 34/AU 34/AU 34/AU 34/AU 34/AU 34/AU 34/AU 36/AU 36/AU 36/AU 36/AU 36/AU 36/AU 36/AU 36/AU 36/AU N1/AU1 N1/AU2 N1/AU2 N1/AU2 01/AU 01/AU 01/AU 01/AU 01/AU 01/AU 01/AU 01/AU 01/AU 01/AU 01/AU 01/AU 01/AU 01/AU 01/AU 01/AU 01/AU 01/AU 01/AU 01/AU 01/AU 01/AU

Object/Type Barbed Bone Point Hafted Bone Point Hafted Bone Point Concretion Body Fragment Body Fragment Bone Bark Shredder Maul Harpoon Awl, Worked Comb Harpoon Barbed Bone Point Harpoon Canine Tooth Pendant Body Fragment Body Fragment Body Fragment Body Fragment Body Fragment Body Fragment Body Fragment Body Fragment Mandible Fragment Body Fragment Harpoon Labret (Slate) Pendant Pendant/Pin? Pendant Reworked Stone Awl, Anatomical (Radius) Awl, Splinter Club Concretion Barbed Bone Point Body Fragment Harpoon, Barbed Labret Barbed Bone Point Haft Fragment Needle Celt Unknown Palette Awl, Worked Concretion Body Fragment Body Fragment Body Fragment Body Fragment Body Fragment Pendant Pendant Pendant Pendant Pendant Pendant Pendant Pendant Pendant Pendant Canine Tube Tube Tube

254

Technique–Design Type Carved Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Zoomorphic Carved Geometric Incised Geometric Carved Geometric Ground Zoomorphic Drilled Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Zoomorphic Carved Geometric Carved Geometric Carved Geometric Carved Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Ground Zoomorphic Carved Zoomorphic Carved Zoomorphic Incised Geometric Ground Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Carved Zoomorphic Incised Zoomorphic Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Carved Geometric Ground Zoomorphic Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Ground Geometric Ground Geometric Ground Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Concretion/Raven Incised Geometric Carved Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Drilled Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Ground Geometric Carved Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Incised Geometric Carved Zoomorphic (?) Incised Geometric Ground Geometric Incised Geometric

Figure 8.20. Carved comb with fully developed form lines.

Speculations on art and mortuary ritual At this point, I am going to offer a linked series of speculations about the art, and mortuary ritual. Jonaitis (1986) distinguishes between secular and shamanic art among the Northern Tlingit. In her view, the secular art of the 19th century was directly linked related to the crest system, and was public art. The public art followed the traditional stylistic canons of Northwest Coast while shamanic forms were more variable. The Prince Rupert artifacts which obviously possess elements of the classic northern style of Northwest Coast art (Holm 1965) include the three combs (e.g. Figure 8.20), two of the pins, two labrets, three pendants (including the raven pendant), the pommel of the club in burial feature 338, and one of the concretions. The two miniature clubs could also be included in this number. The complete miniature club is drilled as a pendant. These are items that would be visible when worn or handled. The zoomorphic motifs on the heavy tools and the carved handles would have been visible as the tools were used. It is possible that these objects were secular art, related in some way to the social persona of their wearers or users. If this is so, the paucity of zoomorphic art in the burials may be the result of such objects being heirlooms, perhaps as parts of the regalia of particular kin groups. From this point of view, the presence of the raven pendant in burial 410 at Boardwalk is quite remarkable, for the individual has buried with what was, in this view, a significant heirloom. The so-called warrior cache of burial feature 338 may actually represent a cache of heirlooms, perhaps of a regalia, rather than being the actual weapons and armour of a particular warrior. Copper, amber, shell beads, and trophy skulls were also parts of the regalia, then. In this argument, the isolated copper tubes/and dowels are small portions of heirloom regalia, buried perhaps as symbols of the full regalia. The Pender spoons may likewise have been valuable heirlooms, rather then indicating actual feasting. 255

Table 8.14 Summary of the distributions of decorated artifacts. AU Total Count Density Zoomorphic 23/AU/UNK 2 23/AU1 7 4 2 23/AU2 6 6 3 30/AU 1 1 31/AC/AU1 1 .5 31/AC/AU2 2 1 31/AC/AU3 31/B/AU1 1 2 31/B/AU2 2 4 31/B/AU3 10 18 4 31/B/AU4 1 2 31/D/AU1 2 3 1 31/D/AU2 7 4 31/D/AU3 4 3 31/UNK/AU 1 33/A/AU 1 33/B/AU 23 5 6 33/D/AU 2 .7 1 33/E/AU 4 3 1 33/H/AU 1 1 33/MISC/AU 2 2 34/AU 24 3 36/AU 9 4 3 O1/AU 22 2 N1/AU1 1 4 N1/AU2 3 11 Total 139 28 Mean 6 4 3 Std.Dev. 7 4

256

Density 1 3

7 1

1.2 .7 .6

1.4

1.5

Items of Adornment (Tables 8.15, 8.16) Pendants, which may also include broken bracelets, are the most common items of adornment in the deposits. So ubiquitous are they, that their absence is more remarkable than their presence. They are absent from 31/AC/AU3, 31/B/AU1, and 31/D/AU2. They are present in quite low densities in 31/AC/AU1 and AU2. This pattern may simply reflect sampling biases, or it may reflect the origins of these deposits, since all but one (31/AC/AU3) have been thought to be dumps. 31/AC/AU3, the trenches through the two house depressions, has no items of adornment at all. This runs counter to what one might expect of a residential locality; it certainly runs counter to my experience excavating Late Pacific and Early Modern plank houses on the southern Northwest Coast. However, these trenches may not be particularly good samples of the interiors of these structures, since the materials are treated here as a single AU, and the trenches included neighboring midden. Interestingly, low densities of pendants occur in deposits with many burials/cubic meter (31/AC/AU1 and 2, 33/E/AU [Cybulski 1992]). Pendants then were not grave goods; they do not seem to have often become mixed with the deposits in which burials were placed. Tubes are the second most common items, and their distribution may also simply be a matter of sampling bias. However, their highest densities are found in deposits which may be represent residential deposits (Chapter 11). Pendants do not show this pattern (except at 31/B/AU3). The distributions of many objects seem to be a function of assemblage size (31/B/AU3) and/or excavation scale (33/B/AU). High taxonomic densities (above 20/m3) are associated with AUs which may be residential deposits (23/AU2, 33/B/AU2, 31/B/AU3, N1/AU2). If 33/B/AU masks a residential deposit analogous to 31/B/AU3, then its low taxonomic densities are deceptive. This does not account for the general pattern at Lachane, however.

257

Table 8.15 Raw counts of items of adornment by AU AU 23/AU/UNK 23/AU1 23/AU2 30/AU 31/AC/AU1 31/AC/AU2 31/AC/AU3 31/B/AU1 31/B/AU2 31/B/AU3 31/B/AU4 31/D/AU1 31/D/AU2 31/D/AU3 31/S/AU 31/UNK/AU 33/A/AU 33/B/AU 33/D/AU 33/E/AU 33/H/AU 33/MISC/AU 34/AU 36/AU O1/AU N1/AU1 N1/AU2 N1/AU/UNK Total

Beads

Gorget

Labrets

2 1

Pendants 2 7 6 3 2 1

Pins

Rings

1 1

8 1 1 1

1

1 3 7 2 3 6 5 4 3

5 12 2 3

4 1 2 2 1

2 3

7 6 5 1 28 4 4 1 3 68 14 62 1 1 1 249

1

3

2

1 3 1 2

24

1 1 18

7

1

258

1 1

1

1 2 3 2

Tubes

1

16 5

3 51 10 54 5 4 196

Totals 2 8 19 4 4 2 0 2 8 28 4 7 8 13 13 11 1 53 9 7 2 9 132 25 122 2 6 6 122

Table 8.16 Densities of items of adornment by AU AU Beads Gorget Labrets Pendants Pins Rings 23/AU1 3.6 .5 23/AU2 4 5.9 1 30/AU 2.9 31/AC/AU1 .5 1.1 31/AC/AU2 .5 31/AC/AU3 31/B/AU1 .5 31/B/AU2 10.9 31/B/AU3 7 21.1 31/B/AU4 3.5 31/D/AU1 1.4 4.1 31/D/AU2 .6 31/D/AU3 4.6 .7 33/B/AU .6 .2 .6 5.6 .2 .2 33/D/AU 2.8 33/E/AU 1 1 36/AU .5 6.7 N1/AU1 3.6 N1/AU2 3.8 3.6 Mean 2.7 1 1.3 5.1 .6 .2

259

Tubes Taxa 1 7.9 4 1 1.9 .5 1.6 .6 1.1 0 2.3 2.1 6.5 4.4 12.3 5.3 3.5 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.2 1.1 3.3 2 3.2 1.4 3.5 1.4 1.9 4.8 1.1 7.1 17.9 7.1 2.9 2.9

Totals 4.1 18.81 3.8 2.2 1.1 0 2.1 17.4 40.6 7 9.5 3.7 8,4 10.5 6.3 1.9 12 7.1 21.4 9.9

Chapter 9: Subsistence Introduction Issues surrounding the evolution of subsistence economies on the coast have been central to Northwest Coast archaeology for decades, though Suttles' work (Suttles 1961, 1968) elevated their importance. For these reasons, artifacts relating to subsistence are treated separately in this work. There are two available data sets which are relevant to reconstructing the ancient subsistence patterns in Prince Rupert Harbour: the artifacts, and the reported faunal remains from four sites. In addition Chisholm (Chisholm 1986; Chisholm et al. 1982, 1983) analyzed the δ13C values for five human burials from Prince Rupert Harbour. I will briefly summarize Chisholm’s results and then discuss the faunal remains and then the artifacts. My approach to interpreting this material has been guided by the following hypotheses. Prince Rupert Harbour is a small place, and most resource patches within the harbour would be available to most of the harbour’s residents, particularly since they had access to canoes. If all residents of the harbour had access to either the same or equivalent resource patches, then both the fauna present in the sites and the type and frequencies of subsistence related gear should be roughly the same. Differences in fauna and gear would then reflect exploitation of different patches. The fauna present would generally reflect fauna exploited in or near the harbour (with certain, significant exceptions, see below). My view of the form and frequency of varying subsistence tackle is that they directly reflect conditions in the patches exploited and the kinds of resources exploited. δ13C Studies Chisholm and his associates analyzed the δ13C values for 47 human skeletons recovered in archaeological excavations along the British Columbia coast. Five of these were from Prince Rupert Harbour: burials 328 and 331 from Boardwalk, 455 from Lachane and 509 and 515 from Baldwin. Their δ13C values were -14.1, 13.9, 13.0, 13.2, and 12.7 respectively (Chisholm 1986, 143). Chisholm concluded the relative proportions of marine protein in the diets of these individuals was 85%, 88%, 99%, 97% and 100% (each with a margin of error of ±10) respectively. The differences between the two Boardwalk samples and the other three are interesting but difficult to explain. However, given the margin of error, the differences may be statistically meaningless. Only burial 455 from Lachane is directly dated (Table 5.8). It has a two-sigma age span of 410 B.C. – 350 B.C. Jerome Cybulski provided Chisholm with age estimates for the other burials and they date to the Prince Rupert 2 period, between c. 1700 and 3000 B.P (Chisholm 1986:143; Chisholm et al. 1983: 397). Thus, by late Prince Rupert 2, a significant proportion of protein was from marine resources. These resources could, of course, be anything from marine mollusks to whales to salmon. Faunal Remains Faunal remains are reported from GbTo 31 (Stewart 1976), GbTn 1 (Grassy Bay)(Hull 1980, Stewart 1980, Steward and Stewart 1996), GbTo-33/10 (Lachane-Baldwin) 260

(Calvert 1968, Simonsen 1988) and GbTo 19 (May 1979). In addition, Coupland et al. (1993) report the faunal remains from Coupland’s 1990 test excavations at McNichol Creek. Stewart's report on the Boardwalk fauna is the most thorough of the reports, and it is not my intent to do more than summarize some of her data here. Some of these data have also been reviewed in articles. Steward and Stewart (1966) report their analysis of the faunal materials from Boardwalk and Grassy Bay, while I review the Prince Rupert data in the context of the Northern British Columbia Coast and the reader is referred to those papers (Ames 1998). In the field, faunal remains were collected and placed in level bags. Bulk samples were collected in 1969, but I believe they were used in constructing the "The Dig" display at the old National Museum of Man. The reader will recall that deposits were troweled, and the deposits were not consistently screened, because of the difficulties of passing the shell through hardware cloth. Therefore, the samples that Stewart had to work with were severely biased against small bones of any kind. As will be seen in the course of this discussion, this single bias means that the Boardwalk sample must be viewed with considerable caution. However, the data set is still of much interest. Similarly, the faunal materials from Grassy Bay were level bagged. No separate samples were collected, nor were the deposits screened. This sample was analyzed by K. Stewart and K. Hull as part of a class project directed by the late Howard Savage, of the Royal Ontario Museum. B. Simonsen (1988) provides a species list of fauna collected in his excavations at Lachane. Calvert (1968) describes the fauna recovered by Borden in his brief exploration of the Co-op site, which was either probably a part of Lachane, or immediately adjacent to it. The most important faunal collection from the Prince Rupert area prior to 1990 is that made by May (1978) at GbTo 19, because bulk samples were collected, sorted, analyzed, and reported on the basis of excavated volume. This sample gives some control against which the other NCPP samples can be evaluated. For this reason, I will summarize May's data first. GbTo 19 (May 1979). (Tables. B.1, B.2, B.3) May reports faunal material from a 4.2 m3 excavation. She does not provide NISP for birds. She reports 29 taxa of fish, with a total NISP of 14334, or 341,286 NISP/100 m3, an extraordinary figure. Salmon and herring are the dominant fish, based both on NISP and MNI. However, May believes that eulachon are seriously under–represented in the reported assemblage, since they were found only in the bulk samples. She suggests their numbers to be equivalent to those of salmon. Significantly, neither salmon nor eulachon would be available from Ridley Island. The herring might have been taken from shallow banks southwest of the island, or even in the harbour itself, but the eulachon -- given the modern distribution of the species -- would have to have been brought in from the Nass, while the salmon could have been taken either on the Skeena, at its mouth, the Nass, or the small run in McNichol Creek. May does not report body–part frequencies, so one cannot establish whether these fish were butchered on-site, or transported to the site after processing. The sheer numbers of salmon and eulachon, given the need to bring the fish to the site, points ineluctably to 261

storage. The rest of the fish assemblage is quite diverse, but consists mainly of rockfish and bottom fish available within the general area of the harbour. The mammalian faunal assemblage is much more limited, as would be expected, since it derives not from the bulk samples, but from what was collected during the excavations. Deer are the most common mammal, as is the case for all these collections, with sea otters ranking second, again as is the general case in the harbour. Contrasting Boardwalk and Ridley Island in the overall densities of mammalian fauna may indicate the extent to which elements were missed at Boardwalk during excavation. Among the Boardwalk excavation areas, only Area B approaches the Ridley Island faunal densities. The taxonomic densities at Ridley Island are also significantly higher than those at Boardwalk. The ratio of fish NISP to mammalian NISP at Ridley Island is 126:1. This ratio is suspect, since the fish and mammal samples are the results of differing sampling strategies, and the fish sample may be significantly too small because of the under-representation of eulachon. However, it is probably a reasonable ball-park figure with which to explore the sampling biases present in the other samples. The birds fit well with the bird samples from Boardwalk and Grassy Bay. McNichol Creek (Coupland et al. 1993)(Table B.4) The 1990 McNichol Creek excavations were, like those at Ridley Island, quite small in size and extent. McNichol Creek dates to the end of PR 2. One unit was placed within one of the houses, and the other unit sampled deposits outside of the structures. Salmon were the dominant animal (Table B.4), followed by herring; in roughly the same proportions as those between the two forms at Ridley Island. Other fish were very minor constituents of the assemblage. Smelt were not present, though, again, as noted above, May found them only in her bulk samples. Canids and deer were the most common mammals, though mammals were present in quite low numbers (ratio of fish to mammals is 38:1). Curiously, there are no sea mammals. Even in an assemblage this small (mammalian NISP = 126), sea mammals, either seals or sea otters, would be expected, based on faunas recovered at other sites. Additionally, McNichol Creek is no more distant from prime sea otter habitat in the harbour then is Boardwalk.

Grassy Bay (GbTn-1)1 (Hull 1980, K. Stewart 1980) (Tables B.5, B.6, B.7) The Grassy Bay sample is quite small, and taxonomically poor, perhaps reflecting recovery techniques (Table B.5). Only 280 elements were recovered (if Grassy Bay's faunal densities were similar to those at Ridley Island, we might expect some 190,000 elements, of which 188,000 would be fish elements). Despite the size limitations, the collection is of interest because the reports (Hull 1980, K. Stewart 1980) provide bone element frequencies 1

It was not practical to separate the faunal materials into AUs at Grassy Bay. Therefore, they are all reported together. Stewart and Stewart (1996) do separate the fauna out by excavation levels.

262

and NISP counts. Harbour seals, rhinoceros auklets, and deer are the three highest ranking taxa in the collection, followed somewhat distantly by sea otters. The density of harbour seal elements at Grassy Bay is the highest among the faunal collections described here. Steward and Stewart (1996) split the assemblage according to excavation levels. The numbers of sea mammal elements is quite low in AU1, increasing dramatically in the lower and middle portions of AU2 and then falling off somewhat. Two or three levels within the site produced startlingly high densities of auklets (Tables.B.5 and B.6) remains. The seal elements present (Table B.5) indicate that complete carcasses entered the site and were butchered there. The same holds for deer. There is nothing in these data to suggest that bone-bearing portions of carcasses were being transported in from elsewhere. Also of interest is the presence of Mountain goat, though represented only by a single maxilla The three most interesting aspects of the Grassy Bay fauna are: 1) the general absence of fish (this may be an artifact of recovery or of analysis)2; 2) the relative poverty of bird taxa, coupled with 3) the very high NISP for auklets (Table B.7). Having worked as an excavator at Grassy Bay, I cannot remember recovering fish remains, but I cannot remember not recovering fish remains either. Turning to the bird remains, since both Boardwalk and Ridley Island are rich in avian fauna despite the differences in recovery techniques at the two sites, and given the recovery of abundant auklet remains at Grassy Bay, it seems unlikely that the presence of only three bird taxa is due entirely to recovery biases. Presently, the nearest auklet rookery is on a small island in Hecate Strait. These data may indicate the presence of an auklet rookery in the vicinity of Grassy Bay in the past. The auklet remains are primarily wing elements (69%), as is also the case for birds generally at Boardwalk, though not among the Alcids at Boardwalk. The matter of avian element proportions is discussed below in the section on Boardwalk avian materials. The auklet remains are associated with the lower portions of AU2. The increases in sea mammal bones and the auklet remains are associated with a shift in residential patterns at Grassy Bay, to a residential site. Stewart and Stewart (1966) argue that the faunal remains suggest a summer occupation, but they do not preclude occupation at other times of year. Seasonality Stewart and Stewart suggest Grassy Bay represents a summer occupation, based on the very limited avian remains. It is possible the residential character of AU2 represents a house occupied during summer. However, the evidence for seasonality is limited. Boardwalk (GbTo 31) (Tables B.8 - B.18) F. Stewart (1977, Stewart and Stewart 1996) reports the faunal materials from Boardwalk by excavation area, since she was not able to subdivide them stratigraphically. In the 1996 report, she discusses areas B and D together. However, in her analyses she reported the faunal remains, in great detail, level by level. In this chapter, I have organized the Boardwalk remains from Areas B and D by AU (Tables 9.1, 9.2) 2

Stewart and Stewart (1966) report 63 fish bones, but do not identify them.

263

Fish Thirteen taxa of fish were present at Boardwalk, but the taxa have markedly different distributions among the excavation areas (Tables B.8, B9). The differences in distributions among the four excavation areas do not follow expectations based on possible sampling biases. Thus, salmon are the most common fish in AC/AU1. Given their density in that area, one would expect salmon at least to be present in the other three areas, but they are not. It seems unlikely that had salmon bones (vertebrae) been present in any numbers none would be recovered. On the other hand, I doubt that salmon were completely absent, that they were not exploited. From these considerations, I infer that prior to 1800 BC either 1) salmon were exploited but their carcasses were not transported to the harbour (no salmon runs pass through the harbour’s waters), or 2) they played a minor enough role in subsistence that their bones are rare enough to have been missed. Mammals (Tables B.10 - B.15) Boardwalk contains a diverse array of mammals, though taxonomic densities are much lower at Boardwalk than at Ridley Island, and somewhat lower (except B/AU/ALL) then mammalian taxonomic densities at Grassy Bay (17.8). This is another illustration of the relationship among taxonomic richness, assemblage size, and excavation scale. The Boardwalk assemblage is diverse only by virtue of being the largest. The most common mammals are deer, canids, and sea otters (though these latter are apparently frequently represented by only their teeth). The excavation areas at Boardwalk differ among themselves in the densities of taxa present, and in the diversity of taxa present. Area B has the highest densities overall, and the highest taxa densities. It also has much higher densities of sea mammals, particularly of sea otters, than do the other excavation areas. AUs within Areas B and D also vary among themselves in the densities of particular taxa and in taxa densities. Overall, Area B has a much more maritime caste than does Area D (Table 9.1) 1. Canids: Canids have high densities in most AUs at Boardwalk. This, in part, is the result of the use of dogs in ceremonialism. There are at least eight dog burials at Boardwalk, for example. This does not account for the very high densities of canid remains in B/AU1 and D/AU1, which predate the beginning of midden burial in the Prince Rupert Harbour sites (but not elsewhere on the Northwest Coast). Canid densities are at their highest in D/AU2, where they exceed those of deer, usually the most common mammal represented in these deposits. Stewart and Stewart (1966) dismiss the possibility that canids were eaten, since H. Stewart found few butchering marks on canid skeletons, and most of those she found were close to the face, reflecting skinning, in her opinion. However, these high densities suggest the issue needs to be revisited. 2. Deer: Deer are the most common mammals present in most AUs. As noted above they are exceeded in density by canids in D/AU2, and sea otters have virtually the same density as deer in B/AU2. The density (and percentages) of deer NISP increases from B/AU1 through B/AU3, and then declines markedly in B/AU4, as do the densities of virtually all mammals. The density of deer NISP also declines between D/AU1 and D/AU2 and rises significantly in D/AU3. 264

3. Other land mammals. The numbers of mountain goat NISP seems to vary with assemblage size. They are present in all AUs. Bears, beaver (and porcupine), and mustelids are present in all AUs and variation in their numbers also seems to track changes in overall assemblage size (though the relationship is weakest for mustelids). 4. Sea otters. Sea otters are the most common mammal after canids and deer. They are present in very high densities in Area B, and particularly in B/AU1 and AU4. Sea otter densities are also very high in D/AU3. They are otherwise rather low in Area D. 5. Other sea mammals: Whales are absent in both early AUs. However, their presence may be a function of assemblage size, with a threshold of about 500 specimens. The NISP of other forms of sea mammal, including sea lions, fur seals and harbour seals, also vary to a large extent with assemblage size. Exceptions to this may be increases in the diversity and densities of sea mammals between B/AU1 and AU2 and between D/AU2 and AU3. Many of the whale bones are in the form of tabular pieces, which may be blanks for a variety of tools, including harpoons. These tabular pieces may represent trade, since there is no tackle in the artifact collections which appears to be whaling gear. The Tsimshian were not whalers during the last two centuries3. Harbour seals appear to have been the major food source among the sea mammals, with sea lions and fur seals playing lesser roles. Porpoise bones are present in Area B. The walrus element is a tusk, evidently traded in. Stewart provides element and body part data for beaver, porcupines, bears, river otters, cervids, black tail deer and mountain goat (Table B.12). These data indicate that carcasses were brought whole to the site and butchered and disposed there. There are no suggestions of significant field processing, except perhaps for mountain goat, where elements representing the limbs are somewhat more common than those representing the axial skeleton. However, pelvis and rib fragments are present. The general absence of evidence of significant field butchering accords well with data from sites in other portions of the coast (Huelsbeck 1983), Lyman 1991, Saleeby 1983). Regrettably, Steward does not provide body part data for sea mammals.

3

Acheson (1992) discovered evidence for extensive whaling on Moresby Island, of the Queen Charlottes, whose Haida occupants were not thought to whale either. The Queen Charlotte Islands could be a source for the whale bone recovered in Prince Rupert Harbour.

265

266

Table 9.1 Mammalian NISP by AU in Boardwalk excavation areas B and D Fauna B/AU1 B/AU2 B/AU3 B/AU4 NISP Density % NISP Density % NISP Density % NISP Density % Bear 1 2.13 .4 2 4.35 .34 16 28.07 .95 5 8.77 1.12 Beaver/Porc 20 42.55 7.91 58 126.09 9.76 107 187.72 6.37 18 31.58 4.03 Canid 28 59.57 11.07 46 100 7.74 88 154.39 5.24 8 14.04 1.79 Cervid 51 108.51 20.17 137 297.83 23.06 569 998.25 33.89 154 270.18 34.45 Cetacean 0 0 4 8.7 .67 1 1.75 .06 0 0 Dall sheep 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.75 .22 Delphinid 0 0 0 0 4 7.02 .24 0 0 Fur seal 6 12.77 2.37 22 47.83 3.7 34 59.65 2.03 2 3.51 .45 Harbour 10 21.28 3.95 77 167.39 12.96 106 185.96 6.31 29 50.88 6.49 seal Lnd Mammal 3 6.38 1.19 10 21.74 1.68 41 71.93 2.44 5 8.77 1.12 Mtn. goat 1 2.13 .4 5 10.87 .84 10 17.54 .6 6 10.53 1.34 Mustelid 2 6.38 1.19 2 4.35 .34 5 8.77 .3 3 5.26 .67 River otter 1 2.13 .4 4 8.7 .67 8 14.04 .48 2 3.51 .45 Sea lion 0 0 19 41.3 3.2 19 33.33 1.13 2 3.51 .45 Sea mammal 15 32.92 5.93 26 56.52 4.38 85 149.12 5.06 16 28.07 3.58 Sea otter 110 234.04 43.5 168 365.22 28.28 547 959.65 32.58 188 329.82 42.06 Seal 4 8.51 1.58 14 30.43 2.36 39 68.42 2.32 8 14.04 1.79 Shp/goats 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 253 538.3 100 594 1291.3 100 1679 2945.6 100 447 784.21 100 Mean 13 27.66 15 32.61 16 28.07 15 26.32 English terms refer to the lowest taxonomic level at which given element could be identified. Genus and species names equivalents for English names are given in the text.

267

Table 9.1 Cont. Mammalian NISP by AU in Boardwalk excavation areas B and D Fauna D/AU1 D/AU2 D/AU3 NISP Density % NISP Density % NISP Density Bear 0 0 4 2.14 .63 15 9.74 Beaver/Porc. 22 29.73 6.2 31 16.58 4.87 65 42.21 Canid 87 117.57 24.51 222 118.72 34.85 90 58.44 Cervid 110 148.57 30.99 141 75.4 22.14 543 352.6 Cetacean 0 0 2 1.07 .31 1 .65 Dall sheep 0 0 1 .53 .16 3 1.95 Delphinid 1 1.35 .28 1 .53 .16 0 Fur seal 3 4.05 .85 3 1.6 .47 5 3.25 Harbour seal 12 16.22 3.38 25 13.37 3.92 47 30.52 Lnd mammal 82 110.81 23.1 62 33.16 9.73 201 130.52 Mtn. goat 1 1.35 .28 5 2.67 .78 9 5.84 Mustelid 3 4.05 .85 3 1.6 .47 6 3.9 River otter 3 4.05 .85 0 0 3 1.95 Sea lion 0 0 2 1.07 .31 5 3.25 Sea mammal 9 12.16 2.54 56 29.95 8.79 85 55.19 Sea otter 22 29.73 6.2 72 38.5 11.3 294 190.91 Seal 0 0 4 2.14 .63 16 10.39 Shp/goat 0 0 3 1.6 .47 3 1.95 Total 355 497.73 100 637 340.64 100 1391 903.25 Mean 12 16.22 17 9.09 17 11.04 % 1.08 4.67 6.47 39.04 .07 .22 0 .36 3.38 14.45 .65 .43 .22 .36 6.11 21.14 1.15 .22 100

A significant portion of the terrestrial mammal assemblage are fur bearers and/or animals exploited for technological purposes (Table B.13) (e.g. beavers for their teeth, porcupines for their teeth and quills, sea otters for their canines [sea otter ulnas were also popular for ulna based tools]). Among the land mammals is a single moose element and two caribou elements. Prince Rupert is presently not within the range of either animal. None of the other land mammals can be considered exotics, except for the domesticated forms, which are principally from the upper levels of B/AU/ALL, i.e. 31/B/AU4. The moose element is from area D, while the two caribou originate in areas A/C, the back ridge contains the burials. Birds (Tables B.16 - 18)) Boardwalk produced a remarkably diverse bird assemblage which Stewart classed into 89 taxa of varying levels of inclusiveness. Not surprisingly, most of these are some form of water birds, both divers and dabblers. There are several unresolvable issues surrounding these bird remains: a) To what extent do they reflect deliberate as opposed to opportunistic exploitation, or put another way, to what extent was bird acquisition imbedded in other activities? b) Why were birds exploited? What dietary roles, as opposed to social, technological or ritual purposes, were served by hunting/trapping birds? Stewart tabulated the proportion of wing/non–wing elements in the Boardwalk avian assemblage (Table B.18). Wing elements represent approximately 20% of the bones in a bird's skeleton. Only cormorants and jays are close to that proportion at Boardwalk. Overall, wing elements are somewhat more common that none-wing elements (see discussion of Grassy Bay above), but represent more than 66% of all elements for seven general classes (excluding those represented by less than eight elements) suggesting to Stewart that a primary purpose in acquiring birds was to get wings and/or wing feathers. Hollow wing bones could also have been desirable for beads, tubes, whistles, and other items. But this does not explain the lack of body and leg elements. One possible explanation is that after birds were taken, the wings removed, and the bodies discarded at the place the animals were collected. This may explain the relative frequencies of ptarmigan, gull, and eagle elements, for example, but not ducks or geese. Why throw away a goose? It seems more likely that generally, whole birds were returned to the site, wings removed and curated, and the bodies eaten. A significant portion of body elements may simply have disappeared into the soup. I suspect that for birds where wing percentages are less that 60%, the pattern is almost entirely the result of consumption of the bodies and discard of the wings, perhaps after the feathers were removed. Another possibility is that wing bones of birds are more resistant to decay, and therefore preserve differentially. Boardwalk and Grassy Bay appear to have differed in the way in which alcids were handled. The high frequency of wing elements at Grassy Bay may be the result of a) taking auklets, discarding the bodies and returning to Grassy Bay with the wing elements; or b) bringing the entire bird back the site, processing the axial skeletons out of existence, and discarding the wings. In the first possibility, the birds play little dietary role, in the second 268

they play at least some role. However, the primary reasons for taking auklets would be their large beaks, which were traditionally used as tinklers on dance costumes. This discussion is relevant to the issue of the evolution of Northwest Coast subsistence in that it illustrates the problems in determining dietary breadth from these faunal assemblages. Some may argue that a few alcids one way or another makes little difference, given the rich salmon resource. However, the implications for subsistence are markedly different if the residents of Grassy Bay found it necessary to consume auklets in large numbers, or if they could discard unneeded parts of the bird in their quest for wing feathers. Seasonality at Boardwalk Steward (F. Stewart 1975, Stewart and Stewart 1996) concluded that winter was the primary period, with spring and fall secondary periods of occupation. She also felt that some occupation extended through summer. This pattern, in her view, began around 2000 BC and persisted for 4000 years. Lachane/Co-op (GbTo-33/10) (Table B.18) The faunal lists for Lachane and Co-op duplicate those discussed above. However the lists suggest the following important points: 1) Both herring and eulachon are present at Lachane, indicating that their presence at Ridley Island is not a fluke. Simonsen's dates for Area E at Lachane are quite close to May's from Ridley Island. Exploitation of eulachon and herring predate AD 1; 2) Either moose or wapiti are also present, indicating that the isolated moose element at Boardwalk is also not a fluke; 3) Mountain goats are present. Other sites The only other sites in the general region which are germane to this work are the Greenville Burial Ground site on the Lower Nass River (Cybulski 1992),and the Kitselas Canyon sites (Allaire 1979, Coupland 1985). Greenville (Table 4) dates between ca. 1600 and 500 b.p, essentially PR3. While the main purpose of the excavations was to retrieve the burials present in the shell midden, faunal materials were recovered and analyzed. Canids are the dominant mammal, but sea mammals as a group dominate the assemblage. Interestingly, sea otters are a minor constituent. Salmon and smelt (Osmeridae, probably eulachon) are by far the most common fish. The marine assemblage is exactly what one would expect if the site's occupants hunted the sea mammals following the salmon and eulachon runs upriver. Faunal preservation was poor in the Kitselas canyon sites and few bones were recovered (Allaire 1979, Coupland 1985). Coupland's sample from Paul Mason was primarily of charred and calcined bones. The significance of Kitselas to this discussion is the presence of the village at the Paul Mason site, and the strong likelihood it was supported by fishing and storing salmon (Coupland 1985). See Ames (1994) and Ames and Maschner (1999) for further comments. 269

Discussion Deer, harbour seals, canids, and sea otters are the most common mammals in these assemblages. Problems of comparability and methodology make ranking fish impossible, though salmon are the most common overall at Boardwalk, and by astronomical proportions at Ridley Island. It is possible that eulachon are also present in similar proportions at Ridley. Herring are also common in the deposits. Ridley Island contains a very diverse sample of fish, while Boardwalk contains a diverse sample of mammals and birds. These animals are present in the collections for a variety of reasons, including their use a food sources, raw materials, as well as a variety of non-cultural processes which cannot be controlled. The problem discussed above with regards to the wing elements of birds runs through the entire faunal assemblage, not just this one, but of all Northwest Coast fauna. That is, most faunal studies assume that the fauna present represent food procured by the site's residents for their consumption, except for fur-bearers, which are usually seen as supplying pelts and teeth. Huelsbeck (1988) has argued that the Makah hunted whales in part to trade whale by-products. I think most whale elements in the Prince Rupert assemblage were traded in. In any case, the following summary points can be made: 1) Mammals appear to have been brought to these localities whole, and butchered there, with the implication that they were taken locally. Except for mountain goats, there are no suggestions of field processing. 2) Mountain goats and large cervids (either moose or wapiti) were taken at some distance from the harbour, though the cervids may have been traded in, along with the walrus tusk. The presence of the mountain goats indicates logistical trips as early as PR1. 3) There was differential handling of bird wings and bodies, probably reflecting to some degree acquisition of wing feathers. 4) Salmon, herring, and eulachon may have been the dominant fish species. The presence of both salmon and eulachon indicate a) logistical trips to the Nass and the Skeena, and b) transporting probably large numbers of these fish back to the harbour, further implying storage. Large numbers of salmon and eulachon were entering the harbour by ca AD 1.

Harbour-wide trends Prince Rupert 34 The PR 3 archaeofaunas are derived from 31/D/AU1 and 31/B/AU1 and what can be said is limited (Table9.2). The mammalian assemblages are dominated by canids, cervids (probably all coast deer), sea otters, and other large terrestrial mammals -- probably deer elements which could not be identified to the family level. The large number of dog remains raises interesting interpretive problems. Excluding dogs makes cervids the dominant mammal, and has a significant impact on the relative proportions of land mammal: sea mammal elements in Prince Rupert 2 (Table 9.2). The mammalian archaeofauna is dominated by terrestrial mammals; the relationship between marine and terrestrial mammals is more balanced if canids are excluded. Almost the full range of mammals exploited during later periods is present in this first period, including cetaceans and delphinids, though these could have been scavenged rather than hunted 270

in open waters. Fish present in these early deposits are Spiny dogfish, ratfish, and flatfish. Any relatively small boned fish, including herring, will have been missed. A range of shell fish was collected, but bay mussels seem to predominate. It is difficult to assess the relative dietary importance of mussels, since the only available evidence is the volume of the middens themselves and how rapidly they accumulated. Prince Rupert 2 The sample includes 31/B/AU2 and AU3, 31/D/AU2, 31/AC/AU1 and AU2, McNichol Creek and Ridley Island. Sea mammals represent virtually half of the mammals. The increase in sea mammals is in large measure due to a dramatic increase in the number of sea otter elements. The number of other sea mammal elements, particularly harbour seal, also increases. Overall, the total density of mammal bones/excavated volume also increases markedly during this period (except in 31/D/AU2). The decline in canid remains is interesting because it is during this period that these sites were used not only as residences, but as cemeteries as well. The decline occurs despite a major increase in funerary ceremonialism, which sometimes involved canids. Salmon appear in the deposits for the first time, as do eulachon and herring. The appearance of these latter two fish could entirely be the result of recovery techniques. Two PR 2 sites, Ridley Island and McNichol Creek (Coupland et al. 1993), were excavated using techniques appropriate for recovering small fish bones while Boardwalk was not. Simonsen (1988) also recovered eulachon at the Lachane site (GbTo 33). Salmon appear for the first time at Boardwalk, and while that circumstance may reflect sampling, that is far less likely. The presence of salmon and eulachon in the harbor is particularly significant because neither occur in or near the harbour in large numbers (eulachen not at all). Both forms are anadramous, and Prince Rupert is not on any likely major migration route for either. Their presence indicates that either their migration routes were different in the past, or, much more likely, they were acquired elsewhere, processed, and transported to the harbor. I take that as evidence of both logistical movement and for storage. Herring do spawn in the harbor, making use of extensive shallows covered with kelp and eelgrass to deposit their eggs. These are the same environments where sea otters could be taken in large numbers. The presence of flat fish, including halibut and flounder, indicates exploitation of deep water habitats as well. These are available within the harbor and close by. Prince Rupert 1 The sample includes 31/B/AU4, 31/D/AU3, and all of GbTn1. During the early years of this period, old sites, such as Boardwalk and Garden Island, were reoccupied, and new sites, such as Grassy Bay, were occupied for the first time. While the latter two appear to have been residential sites for at least part of this period, it is not clear to what extent Boardwalk was. Further, Boardwalk was abandoned again by the seventeenth century AD. The faunal assemblage from this period is dominated by Boardwalk, and may reflect its non-residential role. Fewer mammalian elements are present in the deposits, and the decline is primarily in the number of sea mammal remains; though sea otters remain the second most common mammal.

4

This summary is a shortened version of Ames 1998.

271

Table 9.2 Distribution of Mammalian NISP by period PR 3 PR 2 NISP Density % NISP Density Bear 3 3.26 .2 20 33.49 Beaver/Proc 55 115.67 3.69 205 381.95 . Canid 723 663.17 48.56 453 593.89 Cervid

299

515.33

20.08

1008

1688.9

Cetacean Dall sheep Delphinid Fur seal Harbour seal Land mammal Mtn. goat Mustelid River otter Sea lion Sea mammal Sea otter

2 0 1 13 28 136

1.13 0 2.99 23.99 60.54 280.34

.13 0 .07 .87 1.88 9.13

7 0 4 58 197 86

11.53 0 7.02 109.02 363.20 112.49

3 6 5 1 57 152

5.68 15.35 11.66 1.69 77.46 311.11

.2 .4 .34 .07 3.83 10.21

23 37 21 46 138 961

32.71 58.59 27.57 80.33 220.16 1461.3

Seal Shp/goat Total Total LM5 Total CLM6

5 0 1489 1230 507

9.07 0 2098.4 1610.5 947.28

.34 0 100 82.6 34

60 0 3324 1853 1400

102.62 0 5284.7 2929.5 2335.7

Total SM7

259

487.9

17.4/ 338

1471

2355.2

% .6 6.17

NISP 26 92

PR 1 Density 38.68 130.86

13.6 3 30.3 2 .21 0 .12 1.74 5.93 2.59

103

138.06

5.04

767

1087.6

37.51

1 4 0 7 155 206

1.28 5.59 0 9.91 252.14 266.04

.05 .2 0 .34 7.58 10.07

16 9 5 8 101 517

23.84 12.94 7.35 11.7 136.86 768.62

.78 .44 .24 .39 4.94 25.28

24 4 2045 1232 1129

34.51 5.63 2931.7 1716.6 1578.6

1.17 .2 100 60 52.2

813

1215

39.7/ 41.7

.69 1.11 .63 1.38 4.15 28.9 1 1.81 0 100 55.7 42.1 2 44/ 51.2

% 1.27 4.5

The frequencies of other marine mammals, except harbour seals, decline sharply, and for the first time, dolphin elements are absent. Among the terrestrial mammals, canids decline significantly. The variety of identified fish at Boardwalk also declines, though that may be an artifact of sample size. Despite the harbour-wide trend, there appears to have been increased utilization of sea mammals at Boardwalk. The major trends through the entire sequences are an overall increase in the density and percentages of deer elements, and a continuing decline in the densities and percentages of canid 5

Includes all land mammals Includes all mammals, but excluding canids. 7 Includes all sea mammals. 8 Under percentages of sea mammals, the first figure is sea mammals as a percent of all land mammals, the second is sea mammals as a percent of all land mammals less canids. 6

272

elements. After PR3, sea otter and harbour seal percentages are relatively stable harbour-wide. Given the sampling issues, caution is in order in interpreting these results. However, they could indicate intensification of terrestrial mammals in PR1. Artifacts Twenty-two classes of artifacts are discussed here. These are classes that, on the basis of analogy with ethnographic descriptions and collections of Northwest tools and archaeological usage in the region, can be considered to have been used in subsistence activities (Tables B.18). In order to investigate both possible geographic patterning among the sites and temporal trends, the AUs for which densities could be established were grouped using two clustering methods, K-means, and average linkage based on euclidean distance using the SYSTAT@ clustering module (Wilkinson 1988). In K-means clustering, the analyst specifies the number of clusters or groups she or he wants, while with averagelinkage cluster analysis, the number of groups is based on the outcome of the analysis. In the K-means study, clustering was done for three to nine groups. The six cluster was selected because a) the K-means six cluster solution was identical to the results of the average-linkage clustering and 2) it produced the best balance between lumping and splitting. The six cluster solution has only two clusters with single members, while the seven, eight and nine cluster solutions each have several clusters with only one or two members. A classification in which each items is a unique class is of little use. Conversely, the six cluster solution produced groups small enough to investigate temporal and spatial patterning. The three, four and five cluster solutions produced clusters that seemed too large. The clusters produced by any cluster analysis are tactical groups, not immutable classes. One test of a cluster analysis is to use other techniques and compare the results. Dissimilar results suggest that the clusters are artifacts of the structure of the data set, while similar results suggest the clusters are robust. The six cluster solution produced robust clusters. The hypotheses were: 1) if geographic position was key to the distribution of artifact types and their frequencies, then the AUs should cluster accordingly; 2) if time was the crucial dimension, they should cluster along the temporal dimension, i.e. sites of similar age should cluster together. Cluster 1 This cluster includes eight AUs, including the two early ones at GbTo-31, and the two AUs associated with the back–ridge burial area at Boardwalk. Temporally, it spans the full sequence. This cluster is characterized by the presence of bipoints, generally high densities of barbed harpoons, the general absence of other harpoon forms, the absence of barbed points and socketed points, and moderate to low densities of fixed and hafted points. Points types that are rare across the harbour (round and square tips) are extremely rare in this cluster. Rods are present in three AUs. Ground slate points are rare, though ground slate point fragments are ubiquitous, occurring in sometimes high densities. Flaked points occur in only one AU, as do net sinkers. This is the largest cluster, and constitutes a generic Prince Rupert subsistence assemblage. 273

With the exception of TN1/AU1, the cluster 1 AUs are from Dodge Cove, including Boardwalk and Parizeau Point. Cluster 2 This is a single AU cluster -- 31/B/AU3. The AU has modest densities of bipoints, the highest densities in the study of barbed harpoons, harpoon valves, fixed bone points, hafted points and miscellaneous points (P/U). Interestingly, given the AU’s general taxonomic richness, it lacks all rare point styles, and it lacks socketed points. It has the highest densities of rods, ground slate point fragments (and no points). It has flaked points, but no net sinkers. Aside from the very high densities, it is distinguished from cluster 1 by the presence of harpoon valves. The extraordinarily high density of hafted points is also worth remarking. Cluster 3 This cluster includes five AUs. As a cluster it is marked by the absence of bipoints, low densities of barbed harpoons, but the ubiquitous presence of harpoon valves9. The cluster also contains barbed points, fixed points, moderately high densities of hafted points with both triangular and round tips, an occasional socketed point, some square tipped points, rods, and a higher ratio of complete slate points to slate point fragments than cluster 1. The cluster represents three sites, including both Garden Island AUs, Grassy Bay (Tn1/AU2) and Lachane (33/B/AU). Cluster 4 This is a three AU cluster, marked by the virtual absence of bipoints, very low densities of harpoons of any type, moderate densities of fixed points and hafted points. One AU contains both barbed and socketed points. The AU generally lacked point types. It has relatively low densities of ground–slate point fragments. One AU contains net weights. The cluster contains AUs from two sites, Lachane and Boardwalk, and two spatially separated AUs at Boardwalk. Cluster 5 This is a two AU cluster. It lacks bipoints, has low densities of barbed harpoons, but contains all other harpoon types. It also has barbed points in rather high densities as well as socketed points, very low densities of fixed points, and high densities of hafted points. It contains a range of rare point types, included hafted points with round tips. It also has rods, ground slate points, and ground slate point fragments. It also contains flaked points and net weights. This cluster includes AUs from two closely adjacent sites on Kaien Island

9

The presence of harpoon valves and the absence of bipoints is interesting, since bone bipoints are commonly thought to be one means or arming valved harpoons.

274

Cluster 6 This is the second single AU cluster --31/B/AU2. This cluster lacks bipoints, has quite low densities of barbed harpoons, but a rather high density of harpoon valves. It has a rather high density of fixed bone points, but a moderate density of hafted points. It has a high density of miscellaneous points but no recognized rare point types. It has both ground slate points, and point fragments, lacks flaked points, but does contain net weights. The following general points can be made: 1) There is not clear-cut geographic cluster, except perhaps for clusters 1 and 5. It is unfortunate that neither of the sites in Venn passage could be included, particularly in light of the high numbers of socketed points at GcTo 1. 2) Only Garden Island has both of its AUs in a single cluster, while neither of Grassy Bay's AUs nor any of Lachane AUs occur together in a cluster; 3) Age is has no discernable effect. The two earliest AUs do occur together, but in the same cluster with two of the younger AUs; 4) 31/B/AU3 is, as usual, the most distinctive among the AUs; 5) Variation within sites among AUs is as strong as variation across the harbor. In an early report on this research (Ames 1986) I argued that the artifactual data suggested that some of the site catchments within the harbor did not overlap. In that paper, and in a subsequent publication (Fladmark, Ames and Sutherland 1990), I suggested that the data might indicate the appearance of ownership of specific resource localities. The data presented here cannot be read in that way. It does not eliminate the possibility, but it certainly cannot be seen as support. The co-occurrence of Garden Island in a single cluster can be explained by the site's unusual setting on a small island. With-in site variation in the densities of harpoon forms, and of infrequent point types, such as barbed and socketed points, could be explained as the result of different households having different catchment areas occupying the same residential site. The differences among the three Lachane AUs could presumably be explained that way, though the 5000 year time span represented by these AUs weakens the argument significantly. Changing patterns of how particular site areas were used is also important, as well as shifting site formation processes. At this time, I hesitate to try and attribute the patterning described above to any specific resources or subsistence techniques. I do strongly suspect that variation in point hafting and tip form represent responses to differences in habitat and/or prey. Shifting

.

275

Table 9.3 Densities of subsistence related artifacts by AU AU 31/B/ 31/B/ 31/D/ 31/D/ 31/AC AU4 AU1 AU1 AU2 / AU1 Cluster 1 1 1 1 1 Bipoint 3.5 5.35 Harpoons barbed 1.75 2.13 4.05 5.98 2.15 barbless 1.35 frags .53 valves 1.75 .53 Points barbed 2.13 .53 3.75 fixed 8.7 4.26 2.7 4.81 10.22 hafted 15.79 12.77 9.46 13.9 .54 socketed 1.75 1.08 unk. 1.75 4.05 2.67 Round Tip Points barbed fixed .53 hafted socketed unk. Square Tip Points fixed hafted socketed Other Other Rods 1.07 .54 Slt points 1.61 Slt pnt 3.51 4.26 1.38 6.95 6.38 frgs Chipped pnt Netsinkers

276

31/AC / AU2 1 2.26

TN1/ AU1

30/ AU

31/B/ AU3

1

1

2 3.51

1.92

15.79

2.15

1.92 12.28 1.13 9.04

3.57 10.71

1.92 2.86

26.32 82.46

2.82 26.07

.96 1.75

2.26 .56 6.78

3.51 7.02 5.77

.56

1.75

Table 9.3 Cont. Densities of subsistence related artifacts by AU AU 33/D/ TN1/ 23/ 23/ 33/E/ 31/AC AU AU2 AU1 AU2 AU AU3 Cluster 3 3 3 3 4 4 Bipoint 1.98 Harpoon barbed 2.78 1.02 3.96 1.89 brbless .53 frags valves 2.08 3.57 .51 .99 Points barbed 1.39 .51 .99 1.25 fixed 1.39 6.12 1.98 1.99 2.7 hafted 43.06 50 38.8 48.5 23.27 24.33 socketed 2.04 1.98 unk. Round barbed fixed hafted 3.47 2.04 2.97 socketed unk. Square fixed .51 .99 hafted .5 2.04 1.98 socketed Other Rods 1.39 .51 1.26 Slt points 1.39 1.02 1.26 Slt pnt 5.56 5.61 .99 3.14 frgs Chipped pnt Netsinkers

277

31/D/ AU3 4 .56

36/ AU 5

33/B/ AU 5

31/B/ AU2 5

3.9

3.37

1.79 1.79 .2 1.79

2.17

.96 2.6

5.94 24.88 2.6

6.25 3.37 59.1

1.98 .99 66.87

4.35

13.04 30.43 6.43

.2 .48 8.17 .48

.2 2.18

.6

1.3 3.25

2.6

1.44 1.92 5.77

2.98 .4 6.94

2.17 6.52

.99

2.17

densities of socketed, barbed, fixed and hafted points, barbed harpoons and harpoon valves are probably telling us something. The ratios of complete to fragmentary ground slate points are also suggestive. I suspect that the broken points were being discarded during refitting, and that the relative rarity of complete points indicates that these items were unlikely to enter the archaeological record, at least in the sites that we have excavated. The question arises, why do we find complete points where we do? Is the presence or absence of whole points simply an artifact of sampling? If so, again why are there none in 31/B/AU3, the richest assemblage in this sample, especially given the high ratio of broken points. Complete points occur in the two burial AUs at Boardwalk, in all three Lachane AUs, at Baldwin, and in AU/1 at Garden Island. The largest number of fragments was recovered from the Sluice area (31/S/AU) of Boardwalk. The general absence of net weights is also interesting. Does it indicate a) that fishing with nets was rarely pursued from these sites and the nets cached where they were used? or b) that nets do not enter the archaeological record (net weights are lost where used, not where stored)? I have recently excavated a late Pacific period (Ames 1991b) plank house in the Portland basin of Oregon (Ames et al. 1992) where net weights are present, but not abundantly so, but local divers tell me that the area's waterways, including the Columbia River, are densely littered with net weights. Harbour-wide temporal trends in subsistence related artifacts Prince Rupert 3 Despite the small sample, the Prince Rupert 3 deposits contain the basic subsistence oriented tool kit present through-out the harbour's prehistory. Notably absent during this first period are bipoints, harpoon valves, chipped stone points, and netsinkers. Chipped stone points and net sinkers are rare enough in later deposits that their absence at this time could be attributed to sampling. The dual absence of bipoints and harpoon valves is suggestive. Barbless harpoons are the only distinctive subsistence related artifact -- if that is what they are -- of this period; they are absent in PR 2 and 1. Given the size of later assemblages, their absence in those assemblages is unlikely to be a consequence of sampling The basic suite of fauna that is present in later deposits is also present in roughly the same proportions, though high densities of canid remains is one distinctive feature of the deposits of this period. Prince Rupert 2 Harpoon valves, bipoints and netweights appear in the deposits for the first time, as do a wide array of bone point/barb forms, and broken harpoons and ground slate points (which suggests repair and refitting of marine mammal hunting gear in the harbor). The density of subsistence related artifacts increases 680%. One class, hafted points (which could have been fish hook barbs, armed liesters etc.), increases by almost 800%. On the other hand, barbless harpoons disappear, and barbed points become relatively less common.

278

Table 9.4 Densities and rankings of subsistence related artifacts by period. Artifacts Bipoints Barbed harpoons Barbless harpoons Harpoon frgs Valves Barbed pts Fixed pts Hafted pts Socketed pts Unclassifiabl e pts Rare pts Rods Slate pts Slate pt frgs Flaked pts Net sinkers Total

Prince Rupert 3 Density Rank 0 8.33 4 1.35 0 0 2.13 10.72 32.45 .54 5.13 0 .54 1.61 11 0 0 73.8

Prince Rupert 2 Density Rank 11.12 8 30.38 5

Prince Rupert 1 Density Rank 6.13 7 9.61 3

8

0

6 3 1 9 5

.53 17.67 7.29 57.49 258.07 4.92 39.99

15 6 10 2 1 12 3

.65 8.91 .99 20.09 149.69 3.73 4.35

13 4 12 2 1 9 8

16 8.79 5.67 38.65 2.75 2.73 502.05

7 9 11 4 13 14

6.44 1.3

6 11

7.75

5

2.6

10

9 7 2

This marked increase in the array of artifact types indicates an expansion in the variety of subsistence gear, its complexity, reliability and labor investment (see Chapter 4). If the change is not due to sampling than it marks a significant intensification of production. If it reflects sampling, then intensification of production occurred at an unknown earlier date. Settlement pattern changes indicate intensified exploitation of very shallow marine environments within the harbor as well as use of more distant marine habitats. Three sites are first intensively occupied during this period. Two are relevant here. Garden Island is a small island located in the most extensive shallows in the harbor. The shallows where it is located contain extensive kelp forests, and would attract herring, sea otters, and other resident marine life. The second site is GbTp-1, the site on Lucy Island in Chatham Sound, the first body of open water west of Prince Rupert. It is surrounded by extensive shallows, but also near waters more than 70 fathoms deep. The site appears to be a shell fish collecting station. The faunal collections from neither site have been analyzed, unfortunately. Prince Rupert 1 The artifact assemblage is a composite of AUs from three sites, but it shows an overall decline in the number but not the diversity of artifact types related to subsistence. The relative rankings (based on density) of artifact types also changes little. The only artifact types to disappear are complete ground slate points and flaked points. This seems the result of sampling. The fauna at Boardwalk suggests some increased harvesting of terrestrial mammals. 279

Settlement patterns remain essentially the same, although with shifts in site functions. Garden Island was re-occupied and was a historic village location. Grassy Bay became a small residential site. As with the artifact assemblages (Chapter Seven), while changes do occur, these changes are variations on a basic theme which was being played in the harbour when the archaeological record opens for us. This is not to say, however, that subtle variations on a theme might not cascade through into dramatic effects in other spheres of life. They may also be so subtle to be invisible at any given time. However, the increasing numbers of heavy duty carpentry tools, including pile drivers, points to greater labour investments and to intensification of some aspects of production. Some or all of these could be related to subsistence and include larger canoes and facilities such as weirs and traps. The increased labor was also invested in larger houses (Archer 2001). Discussion The underlying question addressed by this chapter is that of intensification of production and subsistence change on the Northern Coast, as reflected in the Prince Rupert assemblages. To address those issues, some related topics must first be discussed. Why live in Prince Rupert Harbour: strategic position, and local patchiness: From the standpoint of the ancient subsistence economy of the northern Coast, Prince Rupert Harbour is strategically located between two major resource patches: the Skeena River, with its salmon runs, (and other resources) and the Nass River, with its early spring eulachon runs, as well as salmon and other resources, but salmon and eulachon were certainly primary. As stressed in Chapter 2, the harbour itself is quite patchy, particularly its littoral environments. This no doubt also made it attractive. Finally, the harbour is sheltered, both from storms, and from enemies, who would make themselves known as they entered the narrow water ways giving access into the harbour. However, it is the nature of the harbour’s littoral environments that concern us here. Chapter 2 stressed the importance of shallow water habitats, such as banks, for local productivity and for the subsistence economies of the harbour’s occupants. I believe this role is indicated by the mammalian remains. Simenstad et al. (1978) analyzed near-shore communities in the Aleutian Island chain of Alaska, and found two basic types: those with kelp and those without. The former were highly productive, including relatively large numbers of fish; the latter were characterized by low overall productivity. Sea otters were key to these communities. Where they were present, they reduced the numbers of invertebrates that fed on kelp to the point where kelp could flourish. Where sea otters were absent, there were large invertebrate populations that “overgraze” kelp. Extensive kelp beds evidently produce a detritus-based food web which ultimately supports a wide variety of animals, including harbour seals. Fish, particularly herring (in the harbour, not the Aleutians), shelter and lay eggs in these

280

Table 9.5 Harbour wide trends among subsistence related artifacts by period. Class PR1 PR2 PR3 Density Rank Density Rank Density Rank Bipoints 0 11.12 8 6.13 7 Harpoon hds 8.33 4 30.38 5 9.61 3 Barbless hrpn 1.35 8 0 16 0 Harpoon frg 0 .53 15 .65 13 Harpoon vlvs 0 17.67 6 8.91 4 Barbed points 2.13 5 7.29 10 .99 12 Fixed points 10.72 3 57.49 2 20.09 2 Hafted points 32.45 1 258.07 1 149.69 1 Socketed pts .54 9 4.92 12 3.73 9 Unclass. pts. 5.13 5 39.99 3 4.35 8 Rare pts 0 16 7 6.44 0 Rods .54 9 8.79 9 1.3 11 Slate points 1.61 7 5.67 11 0 Slate pt frags 11 2 38.65 4 7.75 5 Flaked pts 0 2.75 13 0 Net sinkers 0 2.73 14 2.6 10 environments. Sea otters are essentially indicator species for these patches, and, I argue, the high numbers of sea otter remains in most Prince Rupert archaeofaunas indicate not only exploitation of sea otters for their own sake, but exploitation, and even intensification in exploitation, of these rich littoral habitats. My argument is essentially the same as those made by Monks (1987) and Kew (1992). Monks posits that facilities such as fish weirs provided opportunities to exploit and harvest a food web, as opposed to a particular animal. He suggests that the Deep Bay weir was intended not only to catch herring, but to attract carnivores and scavengers that preyed on herring. Kew (1992) proposes that intensification on the Northwest Coast proceeded, at least in part, through exploitation of new habitats, using gear adapted from other purposes. Following these suggestions, I am proposing that intensification of production within the harbour focused on these kelp habitats and that the availability of these habitats made the harbor particularly attractive for residential settlement. Among the many factors that might affect the development of these microenvironments would be sea levels and the availability of Skeena River deltaic materials. Stable sea levels after ca. 3000 BC would allow these environments to develop. Widely fluctuating sea levels would have an adverse effect on them. Accumulation of the Skeena’s deltaic deposits provides the substrate on which the bank communities described in Chapter 2 evolved. The speed at which the banks formed and the communities on them developed would be a function of the river’s bed load and base level, as well as ocean conditions. But such habitats were probably not immediately available when sea levels stabilized. In short then, the harbour’s attractiveness as a locale for long-term residences would rest upon its strategic position viz a vie salmon and eulachon as well as the availability of highly 281

productive local resource patches. The development of villages in the harbour, perhaps as early as ca. 2000 BC, but certainly by 700 BC may have as much to do with these environmental factors as with coast-wide social and economic changes. The faunal record presented above (remembering all the caveats) clearly indicates early intensification of sea otter harvesting, with a concomitant long-term increase in deer exploitation (and decline in canid use?). It is also evident that by ca. 1 AD salmon and eulachon were entering the harbour probably as processed stores. I have suggested elsewhere that intensification of production on the coast must have proceeded on at least two levels, a regional level, and a local level (Ames 1998, Ames and Maschner 1999). I argue that salmon and eulachon were regional resources and sea otters, seals and other sea mammals were local resources. The key aspect of both salmon and eulachon is their storability, and so they formed an important foundation for the region’s storage economy. Intensification at the regional level would be dependent on people’s ability to also increase production of local resources. Their ability to intensify production of regional resources might hinge on the degree to which local resources were sufficient. From these considerations, I propose the following model: • The use of the Prince Rupert harbour for residential sites was dependent on its strategic value. Thus the appearance of villages in the harbour indicates intensification of salmon and eulachon, and the availability of the shallow water habitats rich in local, secondary resources (see Ames 1994). This either occurred ca. 2200 BC, when Boardwalk achieved its maximum size and may have been a village, or by ca. 700 BC. • Intensification of resources within the harbour and its immediate environments was of both individual species but also of patches (or food webs, or communities). Significant intensification (as reflected in the artifacts) appears to have happened at or before the beginning of Prince Rupert 2. This argument can also be extended to account for the period of widespread site abandonment in the harbour ca. 200 AD, when many sites were temporarily or completely empty. It is possible that over exploitation of sea otters would lead to degradation of the kelp beds and loss of their productivity. Reoccupation of the harbour might then be the simple result of the recovery of the sea otter populations and of the kelp beds which they “managed.” I add this to the long list of other possibilities (Archer 2001).

282

Chapter 10: Site And AU Summaries This chapter briefly summarizes the data developed in the previous chapters for each site and AU. Grassy Bay (GbTn 1) In some respects, this is the most interesting and most important of these sites in terms of the information it provides us. TN1/AU1 This AU dates between ca. AD 400 to ca. AD 1000 and is composed primarily of mussel shells. The artifact assemblage is a Class 1D assemblage, having moderately high artifact densities, except for its very low densities of beveled bone and subsistence tools. It has mean1 to slightly below sample mean taxonomic densities of all tools except cobble tools and ground stone, which are well above the sample mean. It has low taxa to volume and taxa to tools ratios, but a high taxa density to tool density ratio. It may represent a special use site of some kind where resource procurement was perhaps secondary to some other kinds of collecting and processing activities. Fauna includes seals, deer, canids, and few birds. The AU begins at the peak of site abandonment as measured by Archer’s suite of shell dates. TN1/AU2 This AU differs markedly from the lower AU. Stratigraphically it contains a complex of interbedded hearths, and a shift from shell midden to a dark or brown midden, high in organic matter and rocks of varying sizes. Sea mammal NISP densities also increase. The AU dates between ca AD 1000 and ca. AD 1600. The base of the hearth complex is dated to AD 1286 – A.D. 1413. It is a Class 4C assemblage, which has very high artifact densities for adornment artifacts, miscellaneous bone and antler tools, cobble tools and ground stone, moderately high densities for beveled tools, and moderately low densities for awls and needles. It also consistently has among the highest taxonomic densities of any of the AUs. This is the AU which is probably associated with all those rhinoceros auklets. Interpreting this AU is made difficult because of its small excavated volume, and the possibility of sampling biases. However the artifactual data and associated features suggest it was a small residential occupation. If so, there are interesting implications which will be discussed in the next chapter.

1

The harbour–wide sample mean.

283

Garden Island (GbTo 23) 23/AU1 The bulk of the deposit is dated here between ca. 1400 BC (if not slightly later) and ca. AD 700- 900. Stratigraphically, this AU was characterized by complex patterns of dipping and truncated shell lenses and strata, quite reminiscent of the stratigraphy in 31/D/AU2. I speculated these patterns may been produced by residential structures. The reader will recall that the AU is capped by a thick organic layer about a meter below the present surface, indicating a period of abandonment. This assemblage is a Class 3A assemblage, with slightly low artifact densities but modestly high taxonomic densities relative to the sample mean. Its artifact densities are consistently below the means for Class 3A, however, except for ground stone, which is close to the mean. Despite being in this class, its taxonomic densities are lower than would be predicted given its artifact densities. 23/AU2 This AU was recovered from midden above the organic layer that capped AU1. It post dates AD 900. The unit is composed of flat midden strata, similar to those of 31/D/AU3, which is contemporary. The unit does contain features such as hearths, post molds etc, again, like 31/D/AU3. Unlike that AU, this AU is a Class 3C assemblage. It has high artifact and taxonomic densities. It also has a high ratio of tools to volume and of taxa to volume. Relative to AU1, there is a marked increased in the artifact densities of adornment artifacts, cobbles and ground stone, and a marked increase in the taxonomic densities of adornment and subsistence related artifacts. The AU is most similar to 31/B/AU2, which was probably recovered from superimposed house floors. The fauna have not been analyzed. The reader will recall that the site had been used historically as a cemetery, and that some portion of its upper deposits had been removed. Therefore, there is significant information about site function which has likely been lost. General comments on GbTo 23 This site occupies a small island with access to one of the largest contiguous, shallow, intertidal zones in the inner-harbour. The beach contains canoe skids. The site was the location of a named Gitsees 18th century village (MacDonald, Coupland and Archer 1987). 23/AU2 may mark that occupation. Parizeau Point (GbTo 30) This site is part of the Dodge Cove complex, and should be considered as a part of Boardwalk. The available radiocarbon dates span the period between ca. 500 BC - AD 700. The dates are on burials, hence the time span. The undated deposits could be older. The assemblage 284

is a 1A assemblage, but is a distinctive one with its very high densities of abraders, celts, cobble tools and cobble spalls. I suggested that the combination of tools may indicate heavy-duty processing and fabricating activities. The site lacks subsistence tools. It seems likely that Parizeau Point was where much of the carpentry and woodworking by Boardwalk's residents occurred. Boardwalk (GbTo 31) Area D 31/D/AU1 The AU was complexly stratified, and contained a series of hearths. It appears to have begun accumulating on a terrace above a beach. Deposits also spilled down the slope onto the ancient beach itself. No firm initial date was established for this AU. Midden accumulation rates indicated first occupation between 4000 and 3000 BC. The terminal date for the AU was placed at 2000 BC. Some upper shell strata may have been lost when accumulation of AU/2 began. The artifact assemblage is a Class 1A assemblage, with moderately low artifact and taxonomic densities. The assemblage has fewer artifact taxa than would be predicted on the basis of the number of artifacts present. The artifact assemblage contents are not remarkable in any way. It is a generic Prince Rupert assemblage. The faunal remains are distinctive primarily in the high density of canid NISP. This AU’s generic quality makes interpreting it a challenge. While it may reflect the basic pattern of how the harbour was used and occupied during this early time period (it fits Lightfoot's predictions [Chapter 4] for an assemblage produced by foragers), it may also simply be a dump or refuse deposit associated with an unsampled residential area. The AU contained hearths, but no other features (postholes etc). It may have been an activity area, but nothing suggests it was a residential area. There is no basis, then, to view this AU as generally representative or not representative of Early Pacific life ways in this portion of the Northwest Coast. 31/D/AU2 This AU was also very complexly stratified, with lenses slopping down towards the beach. The AU appears to have developed in three stages: the first involved removal of some portion of the upper levels of AU1. Midden then accumulated in more or less flat beds. Above those beds, the AU displays complex patterns of interbedding. This AU could have been further subdivided with more detailed control of its deposits. The AU was rich in features, including burials. Among the other features were hearths, ash, and postholes. The AU is dated here to between c. 2000 B.C. and A.D. 1000. The artifact assemblage is also a Class 1A assemblage. It has a low ratio of tools to volume, but a high ratio of taxa to tools -- i.e. it is a bit richer in taxa than would be expected given the assemblage size. In comparison to 31/D/AU1, there is a marked reduction in this AU in the density of adornment artifacts, and marked increases in the densities of subsistence artifacts and ground stone. All 285

changes in artifact densities fall within one standard deviation of the cluster means, and could simply be the result of sampling biases, not social or cultural trends. The increase in the density of subsistence–related artifacts contrasts with a decline (relative to AU/1) in the density of faunal remains. Canids achieve their highest density in this AU. The AU spans the most dramatic changes in Boardwalk's occupation history, and these changes do not appear to have had much effect in this portion of the site. The only two echoes of those changes are the appearance of burials -- without grave goods -- in the deposits, and the dynamism of the depositional environment. I interpreted this dynamism as reflecting ongoing house construction, repair, and rebuilding. 31/D/AU3 This AU is the simplest of these three stratigraphically, though it may have accumulated quite rapidly. The AU is dated between AD 1000 and ca. 1650. It too is a Class 1A assemblage, and has a low tools to volume ratio, but somewhat high taxa to volume, and taxa to artifact ratios. It is taxonomically richer than one would predict given the volume excavated and the number of artifacts in the assemblage. Densities of ground stone and subsistence related tools increases -the only consistent "directional" changes in this AU relative to the ones below it. Densities of faunal remains increase, relative to AU2. The faunal remains suggest a shift towards greater use of sea mammals. Features include superimposed hearths, as well as postmolds and pits. Thus the excavations may have sampled the interior of houses. The AU also contains burials. Comments on Area D Area D was selected for excavation because it was thought to be a "house platform," an area where the midden had been flattened for the construction of houses. The features in AU3 may indicate the presence of structures. The artifactual data on the other hand do not point ineluctably to residential activities, and are not distinctive of anything. The three AUs are members of AU Class 1A -- relatively low artifact and taxonomic densities -- which are "generic" Prince Rupert archaeological assemblages. The terminal date for AU2 is given here at A.D. 1000, based on the calibrated age ranges of the relevant dates. If the harbour were abandoned between A.D. 800 and A.D. 1000, than the terminal date could be earlier. Area B 31/B/AU1 Some of the units terminated in a heavy, wet, black organic deposit, (best described as goo) suggesting that raised sea levels inundated the basal deposits. The midden accumulation rates for the completed units suggest an initial date of 8700 BP. A more conservative initial date of the deposit is 3000 BC. The terminal date for the deposit is 1500 BC. Strata dip steeply towards the beach, containing an occasional hearth and one burial. In general, the deposits are a "dark compact soil" with lenses of shell and scattered shell, and lenses of charcoal and ash. The AU is yet another class 1A AU. It does have a high density of miscellaneous bone (detritus) and 286

no ground stone. It has moderate densities of faunal remains which are dominated by deer and sea mammals. Canids are also quite common, though not to the extent as in 31/D/ AU1. 31/B/AU2 The AU spans the period between 1500 BC and AD 1. It is a Class 3C assemblage, with both high taxonomic and artifact densities. It also has a high taxonomic density/artifact density ratio (more taxa per volume excavated than would be predicted by the density of artifacts). In other words, it is quite diverse. The deposits are a dark or black matrix containing plentiful lenses of hearth ash, rocks, rock slabs, and crushed shell. These are probably house floors. These latter lenses appear to have been small and discontinuous. There were occasional gravel lenses. The AU also contains at least one large pit. Densities of faunal remains increase dramatically, by almost 240%, particularly among canids, deer, beaver and porcupine, sea otters, and all other sea mammals. Faunal taxonomic densities are among the highest of Boardwalk AUs. 31/B/AU3 The AU dates to a short span between AD 1and ca. AD 500. The sediments appear to have been similar to those of AU2, except for the presence of lenses of gravel. The lenses of gravel vary in size. Some are burnt. These lenses suggest multiple, superimposed house floors, since gravel was used ethnographically on the floors of houses. The artifact assemblage stands out from all other assemblages in the harbor in every measure used in this study. Similar assemblages might have been identifiable at 33/AU/B had I been able to separate that excavation area into separate AUs. The number and diversity of artifacts and the condition of the artifacts (completeness/broken ratio) is unparalleled in this study. As of this writing, I recently completed excavations of three Late Pacific-Early Modern plank houses near Portland, Oregon (Ames et al. 1992, Ames et al. 1999). The AU3 assemblage is the only artifact assemblage here comparable in artifact numbers and diversity to those recovered in these structures. On these grounds alone, it seems reasonable to conclude that this assemblage was from a series of super-imposed house floors. AU2 could also contain earlier floors. Faunal remains again increase in density (228%) relative to AU2, although taxonomic densities decline somewhat -- this assemblage is not quite as diverse as we would expect, given its size. Canid densities decline sharply. The assemblage is dominated by deer and sea otters in virtually even numbers. Otherwise, the assemblage seems slightly more land oriented than does that of AU2. 31/B/AU4 This AU post dates AD 500. Sediments appear to have contained far more shell than those in the underlying units, indicating a change in depositional regime. It is a class 1A AU, also suggesting a shift in the use of the area, perhaps similar to that of 31/D/AU3, with which it contemporary. Densities of faunal remains decline (to 26% of the B/AU3 assemblage). It is however, not much less diverse. Sea otters are the dominant mammal. Comments on Area B 287

This excavation area is one of the most significant in this study. It contains both the best candidates for pre-3000 BC sediments in the harbour, and therefore on the northern British Columbia coast and the best candidates for buried excavated house floors among these AU. Areas A and C 31/AC/AU1 and 31/AC/AU2 These two AUs contained the cemetery area on the back ridge at Boardwalk. 31/AC/AU1 and AU2 spans the period from 2000 BC to AD 250 and the last midden burials in this area. Midden deposition may have ended by 200 to 100 BC. If one excludes the burials and their associated grave goods, these two AUs are unremarkable members of AU Class 1A, having rather low numbers of artifacts for the excavated volume of the AUs as well as having relatively few artifact taxa, given the volume and number of artifacts. This suggests two useful points: 1) The AUs probably formed as shell dumps, as was thought in the field; and 2) Most if not all of the group 2 grave goods included with the graves at the time of burial were recovered in association with their appropriate context, and there was little postdepositional shifting of grave goods into adjacent deposits. Most of the group 2 items included as grave goods in these AUs would have stood out dramatically in these assemblages. Group 1 objects would have been less visible, but some, bone blades for example, also would have stood out. There are very few such items (the reader will recall that the grave goods were treated separately explicitly to evaluate the extent to which grave goods and other artifacts had been mixed.). These conclusions are interesting when contrasted with Cybulski's data on the distribution of disturbed human skeletal elements (Cybulski 1992). Area A contained 43 burials and 972 disturbed elements, Area C 42 burials, and 208 distributed elements. The disturbed elements (isolated bone elements not associated with a burial feature) clearly result from earlier interments being disturbed and scattered by subsequent ones. If a significant number of these disturbed burials were accompanied by group 2 grave goods, then these too should be scattered through the deposits. The general absence of Class 2 grave goods scattered through the AC deposits can be explained as the result of: A) Group 2 graves were never disturbed; B) Group 2 graves represent the graves imposed onto and disturbing earlier graves (Group 2 graves therefore being relatively more recent); C) Group 2 objects were retrieved from graves if and when they were disturbed in the preparation of subsequent interments. All three possibilities (there may be others) have interesting implications which cannot be explored for lack of relevant data. Turning to point 1 above, if Areas A and C are indeed shell dumps, then that may suggest that at least some of the other 1A assemblages are also shell dumps. 288

Additionally, formation of these AUs indicates that Boardwalk had achieved its maximum areal extent by ca. 2000 BC. The earliest date on the ridge dates between 2235-1878 BC. The key, unanswerable question is whether this shell deposit began to form as a back ridge, directly behind a row of contemporary structures, or whether all of the structures, like houses A and B were built sometime after the midden had begun to accumulate in this area. Stewart and Stewart (1996) argue, on the basis of seasonality data for the faunal remains, that Boardwalk was a winter village at this time. The topography of the deposits also suggests that Boardwalk was a two-row village at this time. I speculated in Chapter 8 that these backridges were actually shell burial mounds or tumuli, rather than simply dumps with burials. They would have constructed by heaping up shell and other debris, but the dumping would have been intended to create a linear mound at the back of the village rather than simply to dispose of trash. Finally, the faunal remains from this area are important because they represent the only faunal remains from Boardwalk which can be reliably assigned to particular time periods, and, as it happens, these are relatively early time periods. AC/AU2 has lower densities of faunal remains and fewer taxa. It also has extraordinarily high densities of canids. Its faunal densities are actual quite low relative to most other Boardwalk AUs, except D/AU2. Densities for AC/AU1 are also rather low, but not unusually so. It has higher densities of sea otters than of deer. Canids also have relatively high densities. 31/AC/AU3 This assemblage was recovered from the trenches through houses A and B immediately adjacent to the burial areas, and perhaps associated with it. These materials were recovered from shell deposits and a black midden containing rocks. There are no indications of gravels, nor do I know whether the black midden at the base of these trenches was resulted from depositional or post-depositional processes. The heavy, black matrix extends beyond the house depressions and may be the result of a rising water table and saturation of the bottom of the midden. The structures are dated between 700 BC and 100 BC. The assemblage is a unique Class 5E assemblage, marked by very high densities of cobble tools, and correspondingly low to nil densities of all bone tools. It bears, therefore, little resemblance to 31/B/AU/3. A number of hypotheses could account for the differences: 1) changes through time in the kinds of activities occurring within houses (31/AC/AU3 is older than 31/B/AU3); 2) activity differences between the three structures; 3) sampling biases; 4) 31/B/AU3 is not related to a structure. I believe the answer lies with one of the first two options. The reader will recall that the stratigraphy in B trench raised the possibility of a third structure buried beneath the midden east of house B. Beyond that particular midden lobe is another topographic feature which also may represent a house.

289

The Sluice area It is unfortunate that densities could not be calculated for this portion of Boardwalk, since it has a number of quite intriguing characteristics, including the large number of ground slate point bases that came out of it, as did two of the non-burial associated labrets from Boardwalk. If it represents a trash or dump deposit, as was thought during excavation, then it was quite a different kind of dump than were the shell dumps such as area A and C. The nagging, unresolvable question that weaves through all of this is what do these deposits represent? Why do artifacts end up where they do? Radiocarbon dates for the sluice place it to ca. AD 1. Miscellaneous units These were scattered, primarily along the east flank of the site, and were sometimes called area F. Little can be said about them beyond the lists of what they contained. Lachane (GbTo 33) 33/B/AU I was not able to subdivide this excavation area stratigraphically, which is exceedingly unfortunate. Many issues might have been otherwise resolvable. In any case, it appears to span the period from ca. 2000 BC to AD 1650. It was used as a cemetery between 400 BC and AD 350. The available stratigraphic data and the opinions of the excavators indicate that the AU may also have had houses during that period as well. The AU contains massive hearth complexes in its upper levels. The AU assemblage is the largest and richest of any of these, reflecting in large measure its volume. It is a Class 3A assemblage, with moderately high artifact densities, but moderately low taxa densities. It also has a rather low ratio of taxa densities to artifact densities. In other words, though the AU is taxonomically rich, it is not as rich as would be predicted on the basis of assemblage size. I think this may partially, but only partially, reflect my inability to subdivide the AU. The only other AU that truly rivals this one in taxonomic richness is 31/B/AU3, which volumetrically is quite small. My hunch is had I been able to subdivide 33/B/AU I would have identified an AU with taxonomic densities equal to or greater than 31/AU/B3's, but which was surrounded by other AUs with much lower densities. In any case, the range of artifacts in this AU suggests the presence of residential deposits in the AU somewhere, perhaps associated with the hearth complexes. The bottom of this AU was under water, and not excavated. In this way it is similar to 31/B/AU1, and reinforces the suggestion that some of these sites were established before the current sea levels were achieved.

290

33/D/AU The base of the unit dates to ca. 3460 B.C. - 3040 BC, making it among the oldest dry deposits in the harbor. My inability to identify AUs stratigraphically again has markedly limited my ability to realize fully the potential of these materials. The AU is a Class 3A assemblage, and the comments about 33/B/AU may also apply to this one, though I know far less about 33/D. 33/EAU This AU appears to span much of the occupational record of the harbour, with an initial date of ca.3000 BC. The excavators felt it was shell dump. They regarded it as back ridge, and like the back ridges at Boardwalk, 33/H/AU had a high volumetric density -- much higher than Area B -- of human remains (Cybulski 1992). Interestingly, it too is a Class 1A assemblage, along with several other AUs which were identified by their excavators as shell dumps, and with generally low artifact densities, as did 31/AU/AC1 AND 2. This may strengthen the possibility that Class 1A AUs are primarily shell dumps, and indicate something about back–ridge burial areas. Kitandach (GbTo 34) This site spans a period from perhaps as early 4000 BC to the historic period. Regrettably, we were unable to make use of the artifacts from the site beyond listing them. The site possesses surface house depressions. The artifacts hint at interesting dimensions of variability among the harbor's village sites. This is intriguing since it is located in Venn Passage, and would have had a rather different local site catchment area that Boardwalk or Lachane. Baldwin (GbTo 36) This site is associated with, or may be a part of, Lachane. Its occupation spans a period from 1800 BC to AD 650. It is a 3A assemblage, with moderately high artifact densities and moderately low taxonomic densities. While it is similar in that way to 33/D/AU, there is nothing about the assemblage to suggest that it was a residential site. Lucy Island (GbTp 1) This site has received little mention, since it contained only half a dozen artifacts, none of which was analyzed. However, the reader will recall that the site is a shell midden on Lucy Island, out in Chatham Sound. In addition to the artifacts, it also contained some burials. T he excavated midden appears to date at least as early as 800 BC. There may be an earlier midden on the island.

291

K'nu (GcTo 1) I was unable to make use of the data for this site beyond listing its artifacts. The assemblage, like that from Kitandach, hints at fascinating dimensions of assemblage variability between the harbour and Venn Passage. The excavations involved a surface plank house, so it is extremely unfortunate that I was unable to create AUs.

292

Chapter 11: Summary and Conclusions Introduction This chapter re-addresses the issues discussed in Chapter 4 using the data developed in the intervening chapters. Settlement History and Settlement Patterns 7000 BC - 4000 BC Dating the initial occupation of the harbour is much less clear-cut than has been suggested in previous discussions of the Prince Rupert chronology. Evidence examined at the end of Chapter 5 raises the possibility that Prince Rupert Harbour may contain occupations dating between 4000 BC and 7000 BC. This evidence includes the presence of at least three sites (GbTo 31, GbTo 33, and GbTo 19) with deposits extending below current water levels. Deposits at Lachane may extend as much as a meter below water levels. These waterlogged deposits have not been explored. Clague’s data indicate that sea levels on the northern British Columbia coast reached modern levels at ca. 8500 to 8000 BP, and then fell to lower levels before rising back to their present position ca. 5000 BP. Augering at Boardwalk revealed shell lenses deeply buried beneath sterile mineral and organic deposits in places away from the main site area which could also represent early occupations at some distance from and above the present beach. Deeply buried shell midden above and away from the beach at least hints at occupations dating to periods of higher sea levels (pre 8500 BP). Such deposits could be contemporary with the shell midden deposits at Hecata Island in Southeast Alaska. If 31/B/AU1 represents an ancient occupation, then that occupation could not have been particularly intense, given the low densities of artifacts in the assemblage. On the other hand, the assemblage would also indicate basic continuity of many aspects of technology in the area (except ground stone) between this early period and much later periods. Such continuity is also apparent in the early bone tool assemblages from Namu (Carlson 1996a) and other sites. The absence of microblades and microblade cores may be the result of these deposits not having been extensively or thoroughly excavated. The waterlogged levels of 31/B/AU1 were abandoned. Additionally, microblades and microblades cores could easily be missed by crews troweling through heavy wet deposits. 4000 BC - 3000 BC Calibrated basal radiocarbon dates indicate occupations at 33/D/AU, 33/H/AU, and GbTo 34 during this period. Occupation of 31/B/AU1 and 33/B/AU continued. 31/B/AU1 is the only assemblage that we can use to characterize this period. While it fits Lightfoot's predictions for a shell midden assemblage produced by foragers, it is so similar to much later AUs that that conclusion is quite weak. It could as easily represent a dump or activity area associated with an unsampled residential site. However, there is reason to think that this AU and 31/D/AU1 may reflect the earliest occupation of the harbour. It is likely that the earliest occupation of the 293

northern Northwest Coast was by marine foragers (Ames 2003.). Additionally, virtually all sites of this age in southeast Alaska are similar to this AU (Moss 2004). 3000 BC - 2000 BC Utilization of area D at Boardwalk (31/D/AU1) may have begun during this period. By the end of the millennium, deposition had begun in area C of Boardwalk, and Boardwalk had achieved its maximum extent. It is this achievement of maximum extent that leads me to conclude the site may have been a village at this time. Stewart and Stewart (1996) come to the same conclusion based on their seasonality inferences. Garden Island was lightly utilized by the end of this period as well. 31/D/AU1 is the same class of deposit as 31/B/AU1, and so presumably represents the same kind of activities or site formation processes. 2000 BC - 1000 BC This millennia is marked by a shift in depositional patterns in area D at Boardwalk (31/D/AU2) around 1500 BC and the possible presence there of house floors. Depositional patterns at Garden Island suggest it may have been used residentially. In any case, use of the site intensified. GbTo 36 appears to have been occupied first during this period. Midden burial begins in the harbor by the middle of the period. The presence of cemeteries indicates that closed corporate groups – households – existed and further suggests that they had a territorial base. Ranking based on ascription was present by the end of this period, if not by its middle. The densities and diversity of artifacts and faunal remains increase extraordinarily by the end of this period. This suggests a major shift in use of the harbour. 1000 BC - AD 1 This millennium witnessed a number of significant shifts in settlement locations and in settlement and residential patterns: 1) First intensive occupation of Garden Island; 2) Deposition in Area A of Boardwalk; 3) Construction of houses A and B at Boardwalk (Area A/C); 4) Accumulation of house floor deposits in Area B at Boardwalk (31/B/AU2); 5) Continuing use of the back ridge at Boardwalk as a cemetery; 6) Midden burials – cemeteries – at other sites; 7) First recorded use of Lucy Island in Chatham Sound; 8) Abandonment of Area C of Boardwalk (and perhaps houses A and B), by the end of the millennium. A soil likely formed on the surface of the area. AD 1 - AD 500 This half millennia is characterized by: 1) A peak in site occupancy accompanied by 2) Widespread abandonment of many of the harbour’s sites: 3) Final abandonment of the back ridge of Boardwalk by ca. AD 1 as a cemetery area, and the end of the general pattern of midden burials by ca AD 600 (though a few burials postdate this time); 294

500;

4) Shift in use of Boardwalk Area D, possibly after a period of abandonment; 5) Residential occupation of Boardwalk Area B (31/B/AU3) between AD 1 and ca. AD

6) Placement of the Warrior Cache in Area A, Boardwalk, ca AD 200 (Cybulski 1996) 7) Appearance of “ranked villages” marked by significant differences in house sizes in Prince Rupert Harbour, ca AD 200 (Archer 2002) 8) End of occupation at GbTo 36 ca. AD 500; 9) Initial but probably episodic occupation of Grassy Bay at ca. AD 400; 10) Shift in use of area B at Boardwalk (31/B/AU3 to 31/B/AU4) at ca. AD 500. AD 500 - AD 1650 1.) Continuing abandonment of sites, possibly with virtually total abandonment of the harbour c. A.D. 800 – 1000. 2) Reoccupation of Garden Island, possibly as a residential site (may have occurred by AD 900); 3) Shift in use of Grassy Bay, possibly as a residential site (may have occurred as early as AD 900 but certainly by AD 1300); 4) Use of area B at Boardwalk, probably as a dump, or activity area; 5) Shift in deposition of area D at Boardwalk, features and artifacts suggest use as a residential or activity area; 6) Continued use of Lachane. Sometime during these last two time periods, the houses at GbTo 1 and GbTo 34 were probably built. No doubt, the historically documented patterns of occupation began during this period (e.g. MacDonald et al. 1987). This sequence ends with the final abandonment of Boardwalk in the 16th or 17th centuries. Lachane and Grassy Bay may have been abandoned during that period as well. Relating these sites to the historic period is made impossible by the severe damage and loss the upper levels many of them have sustained. At present, the crucial points in time and short time periods for understanding the history of the harbour after 3000 BC are the periods between 2000 - 500 BC, between AD 1 - AD 500, around AD 1000, and finally the 200 years immediately before contact. We will reexamine these times in the final section of this chapter. I will turn next to briefly discussing each of the analytical dimensions outlined in Chapter 4 as being central to the artifact analysis and to understanding the evolution of complexity on the Northwest Coast and those identified by other researchers.

295

Thematic issues: Subsistence, including the intensification of salmon production and expansion of the resource base. The basic resources exploited in the historic period are present in the earliest assemblages, except salmon, whose absence, once again, may be the result of sampling problems. PR3 assemblages are marked by quite high densities and proportions of canids. The role of canids in subsistence in this early period needs to be addressed. Canids decline in overall density and proportion in the archaeofaunas in the next two periods. Deer increase through time. Sea otters and harbour seals increase dramatically between PR3 and PR2 and then remain relatively stable. There were no trends in the subsistence gear that could not be the result of sampling biases. The volumetric sample of pre-1000 BC AUs is quite small. Taken together, the two earliest AUs lack harpoon valves and net weights, but so do a number of other later AUs. There is a dramatic increase in the density and diversity of all subsistence related artifacts in PR2. Densities decline in PR1, but overall diversity does not – there are fewer artifacts but as many kinds. Hafting elements change subtly between PR2 and PR1, but at this point, those shifts are difficult to interpret. I argued in Chapter 9 that intensification of production within the harbour during PR2 times involved intensification of certain habitats, rather than of just certain species. I also suggested that residential occupation of the harbour reflected the need to be strategically positioned for access to both salmon and eulachon. The implication of this argument is that intensification of these fish was a factor in the semi -or fully sedentary occupation of the harbour. Thus, when we see villages in the harbour, it may mean intensification and storage. This could have occurred as early as 2000 BC but certainly by 700 BC. The assemblage from GbTo 19, which pre-dates AD 1, indicates a) the diversity of fish taken generally, and 2) the overall importance of salmon, eulachon and herring, at least at that site. Eulachon were also recovered at Lachane, apparently predating AD 1. The available faunal data, taken together, suggests that before AD 1, salmon, eulachon, herring, deer, and harbor seals played central roles in the harbour's subsistence economy. Two of these resources (as well as others, such as mountain goats) had to be transported in. Use of Lucy Island and Garden Islands after 1000 BC may also be the result of expanded exploitation of intertidal zones and other shallow water habitats, such as banks and kelp beds. Lucy Island presently is surrounded by its own shallow bank, and is midway between Prince Rupert and the very large bank at the westward entrance to Brown Passage, the passage from Hecate Strait into Chatham Sound. This is one of the largest banks in the Dundas group, and lies just north by northwest of Stephens Island. The waters near Lucy Island range between 30 and 119 fathoms in depth. While Lucy Island may have been occupied because of its own littoral resources, the island is also centrally situated with access to a range of shallow and deep-water habitats. Its use indicates logistical movement by task groups using canoes capable of crossing open waters, and presumably of carrying harvested resources. 296

Two geological processes are important to understanding the history of Prince Rupert Harbour: sea level changes and the formation of shallows and banks by Skeena River deltaic deposits. Any minor sea level fluctuations over the past 5,000 years, which might be difficult to see in the record as presently known, would have had a significant impact on the productivity of littoral habitats, particularly within the harbour. Such habitats could have expanded, shrunk, and shifted location if water levels fluctuated by even a meter. Skeena River deltaic deposits are the likely source of many of the large banks described in the preceding paragraph, and discussed in Chapter 2. The formation of these banks in their present locations then would also be a consequence of stabilized sea levels. Their development probably played a crucial role in the evolution of the region's ecology and hence its capacity to support human occupation. An important question then for understanding the timing of major occupation of the harbour would be when did these banks and their associated plant and animal communities evolve to a point where they would be attractive for human use. Erosion or expansion of such banks would also effect local human populations. The shallows in and around Prince Rupert did not support salmon, but did support myriad secondary resources, as well major ones such as herring. The artifact analysis discussed in Chapter 9 indicates reliable, complex gear had developed by the beginning of PR2. Its absence in PR3 deposits may reflect sampling or PR3 subsistence. Storage. The presence of eulachon and salmon at Boardwalk, Lachane and Ridley Island indicate the transportation of these fish to the harbor from the Nass River and the Skeena River (assuming continuity in the modern distribution of these fish). Given the rapidity with which fish rots, it is a reasonable further inference that they were processed to prevent decay before transportation, i.e. they were stored. These fish are present in the deposits between 1000 BC and AD 1. Their absence in earlier sediments may reflect sampling. Cybulski suggests the appearance of box burials in middens dating after 700 BC may indicate the presence of the wooden boxes used for storage on the coast during the historic period. This is one of the more convincing pieces of evidence for the development of what may be storage technology currently available. It further suggests the investment of relatively high levels of skill and effort in the making of storage facilities. Logistical mobility and sedentism. The procurement of salmon, eulachon, and mountain goat very probably reflects logistical movement, as does utilization of Lucy Island in Chatham Sound, and perhaps, the initial use of Garden Island and Grassy Bay. The data suggest that Garden Island may have been utilized lightly until 1000 BC and was used regularly after that. Lucy Island was used by 800 400 BC, if not earlier (the reader will recall midden at that site located some distance from the current shoreline). However, the data developed in Chapter 5 suggest the island may have been used episodically, not continuously, during its period of use. The shifting patterns of use of Garden Island and Grassy Bay also suggest that patterns of movement have not remained constant over the past 3,000 years or so.

297

The expanded use of Garden Island after 1000 BC could reflect a) maturation of the shallow water environments around the island, making them attractive; b) shifts in subsistence involving intensification and heavier exploitation of the surrounding microenvironments; c) population growth forcing residential occupation of marginal residential locals; and/or d) increased levels of warfare making easily defensible locations attractive. There are intriguing hints of changes in residential mobility patterns after AD 1000, with the apparent use of both Garden Island and Grassy Bay as residential localities, coupled with the apparent abandonment of Boardwalk as a residential place. These events followed the widespread abandonment of several residential localities in the harbor after AD 1 (Archer 1992). Shifting settlement patterns are also indicated by the relatively late initial use of Grassy Bay c. A.D. 400. This timing is particularly interesting, since it is roughly contemporary with the last dates at GbTo 36, and other changes. Seasonality studies for Boardwalk, Grassy Bay, and GbTo 19 suggest year-round use, with heaviest occupation at Boardwalk during the winter. Of course, what these studies actually mean is that resources that were exploited year-round were entering the deposits. Such a pattern could also be produced, to some degree, by storage and the transportation of stored foods to these sites where they were consumed only during certain seasons. However, year-round occupation is the most parsimonious explanation. Boardwalk reached its maximum extent by ca. 2100 BC, which is the date that Stewart and Stewart (1996) argue for year-round occupation. I suggested in Chapter 5 that the site might have been a two-row village at that time. I have argued elsewhere (Ames 1991b, Ames and Maschner 1999) that there was a widespread shift to full or semi-sedentism throughout Cascadia at approximately that date. The structures associated with sedentism at this time in Cascadia were usually some form of semi-subterranean house, thought variations did occur (e.g. Hatzic Rock [Mason 1994]). Therefore, it is possible that, if Boardwalk was a village by 2100 BC, the houses were pit dwellings, rather than plank houses. I have also argued, however, that one needs evidence of structures in this region to establish firmly the presence a village (Ames 1981). Therefore, I must admit that while there is, to my mind, a good presumptive case to be made that Boardwalk was indeed a village by that date, the case is not proven. The presence of rectangular structures by ca. 700 to 800 BC does demonstrate that Boardwalk was a village by that date. The dense grouping of burials -- i.e. a cemetery -- in the back ridge at Boardwalk, and in direct physical proximity to house depressions A and B also suggests that these structures were associated with closed corporate households (Hayden and Cannon 1982). These dates are only slightly younger than the dated occupation of the small village at the Paul Mason site (1450 BC to 940 BC). The earliest burial on the back ridge (#378) has a two sigma age span of 1400 BC – 1000 BC, so it overlaps completely with the Paul Mason village. Finally, the appearance of what was presumably a plank house village at Boardwalk corresponds closely in time to the evidence for logistical mobility cited at the beginning of this section. Such patterns may have existed earlier, and our sample simply does not show it. In any case, it seems reasonable to conclude that a pattern of semi to full sedentism existed on the North Coast of British Columbia by ca. 700 BC, if not earlier. This is not say that this is the same 298

pattern documented historically, as there is evidence for changes (e.g. Stewart and Stewart 1996, Archer 1996, 2001). Changes in domestic organization. If Boardwalk was a pit house village ca. 2100 BC, then the shifts that occurred ca. 700 BC would mark a major change in household, and probably village organization. It would also be yet another example the worldwide phenomena of people shifting their residences from circular to rectilinear households (e.g. Flannery 1972). This remains unproven, however. There can be little doubt, however, that closed corporate groups were present in the harbour by ca. 700 BC. Coupland (1985c, 1996b) argues that the uniformly small house sizes at Paul Mason indicate that the inhabitants lacked the class structure of the historic period, during which the houses of high ranking households were usually much larger than those of lesser status (Ames 1996a). Acheson came to similar conclusions, based on his survey of the southern portions of Haida Gwaii (Moresby Island) where he found little or no evidence for large houses, or multirow villages, prior to ca. AD 500. Maschner (1992) similarly maintains for Southeast Alaska that there are no large houses at least until AD 500, if not somewhat later. Archer (Archer 1996, 2001) examined a sample of 11 villages in Prince Rupert Harbour that he has mapped, and whose surfaces he has dated using shell samples (Fig. 11.1). He concludes three are egalitarian villages, based on house size. These three (GbTo 46, 70 and 77) predate ca. AD 500, with one (GbTo77) possibly as old as ca. 500 BC. The eight ranked villages postdate AD 150. Archer suggests, based on his data, that ranking based on ascription appeared in Prince Rupert Harbour at about that date. We leave the issue of ranking based on ascription and achievement for the moment, and deal only with house sizes and the number of house rows. The villages that Acheson (1991) and Maschner (1991, 1992) mapped were single row villages; that is to say they were linear villages (Watanabe 1992) in which the houses, all more or less the same size, were arrayed in a single row. It is worth recalling that, as Carlson points out (Carlson 1989), Paul Mason is a double–row village. Further, there are two large depressions which Coupland did not test (these are above and behind the house rows) and did not include in the sample from which he calculated house sizes; and, finally, the Paul Mason village has the same proxemics as an historic Coast Tsimshian town. The houses in the double row at Paul Mason do vary slightly in size, and in the front row, the larger houses are in the middle of the row. In the back row, they are near the middle, but not in it. A smaller house occupies the middle of the back row. Historically, the larger, high status houses were in the middle of the house rows, and the front row of a village was the higher status row. McNichol Creek, which Coupland tested in 1991, is also a double row village. Archer uses GbTo 70 to illustrate his egalitarian village. It appears to be quite similar to those described by Acheson and Maschner, a single row of houses, all virtually the same size, while GbTo 89 is a double row village (with at least five houses that do no conform to the rows) and the largest houses in the front row. For Acheson and Maschner, this would be a multi-lineage village with ranked households -- the historic pattern.

299

These data, including Archer’s dates and his resulting timing of the appearance of ranked villages in the harbour, clearly do not seem to align with the evidence developed in Chapter 8. This was the primary reason I consulted with Beta Analytic Inc about calibrating shell dates and possible reservoir corrections on human bone dates. Using Beta Analytic’s calibrations does not significantly change the apparent contradiction. I replotted Archer’s dates (Figure 11.1), using the Beta Analytic calibrations (Chapter 5). In that plot, ranked villages appear no later than c. A.D. 1 and perhaps as early as 200 B.C, but certainly not as early as I have suggested that ranking, including of households, developed in Prince Rupert Harbour. The replotting does show that two row villages developed in the harbour prior to the peak in site occupation and in site abandonment; thus it predates whatever dynamic produced those patterns. It also indicates that two-row villages with large house may be much earlier on the British Columbia mainland than either the Queen Charlotte Islands or the islands of southeast Alaska. Figure 11.1 Calibrated two sigma age spans for terminal dates on ranked and egalitarian villages (Archer 2001) in Prince Rupert Harbour using the revised calibrations (Chapter 5). (EV = egalitarian, RV = ranked) Two sigma age spans, egalitarian and ranked villaged 1000 800 600

Calendar Years

400 200 0 RV -200 -400 EV -600 -800 -1000 -6 To Gc 57 obT G 2 -3 To Gb -6 To Gc 2 -3 To Gb 2 -5 To Gc -9 To Gb 8 -7 To Gb 89 obT G 57 obt G -9 To Gb 89 obT G 6 -6 To Gb 2 -5 To Gc 6 -6 To Gb 8 -7 To Gb 0 -7 To Gb 0 -7 To Gb 46 obT G 6 -4 To Gb 7 -7 To Gb 7 -7 To Gb

Sites

The data also indicates differences in house sizes may not have marked household status for at least a millennium after the developing of ranking among individuals and households. Put another, differentials in house size may be evidence for ranking, but absence of such differentials is not evidence for the absence of ranking. However, an analogy with historic patterns cuts two ways and the Paul Mason evidence can be interpreted as reflecting some level of social differentiation, (front row, higher status, back row lower status, center of row, higher status, flank of row, lower status) as readily as it can be read to indicate egalitarian organization. We could easily conclude that kin groups were ranked, though their constituent households were not. 300

Such ranking of kin groups would imply ascription. Only the excavation of more houses, including at Paul Mason, can fully resolve this issue. Burial and mortuary practices. There is clearly differential treatment of the dead along several dimensions: 1) Females are consistently under-represented in the midden burials; 2) Some individuals died violently (decapitated), and their bodies apparently left where they were felled; 3) There are four classes of individuals, based on evidence from funerary practices: 1) those without access to a cemetery, 2) those buried in a cemetery but with no grave goods, 3) those with grave goods which are primarily bone items (Group 1), and as well as other nonexotics (some Group 2), including labrets, and finally 4) those with grave goods that include copper items, amber and shell beads. These latter are found only at Boardwalk, suggesting that there was harbour or regional–wide differential access to these items. This leads to the conclusion that there were at least two levels among the harbour’s elite. If the skewed sex ratio and violent deaths indicate the existence of slavery, then Prince Rupert society was stratified by ca. 1000 BC, if not well before. The amber, shell, and copper with the burials do indicate differential access by males to exotic materials and, in the case of copper items, the products of at least semi-specialized artisans. Distinctive female burials have grave goods made of commonly available materials, such as slate or bone and/or unusual resource procurement tools, such as ground slate points and harpoons. Female graves also contain labrets and bone daggers. During the early nineteenth century, slaves were acquired through trade and warfare. Cybulski's data make it clear that the developments after 1000 BC were accompanied by heightened levels of warfare. Such warfare could have been fueled by competition over resources, resource patches, labor, prestige, power or any combination of some or all of the above. In the nineteenth century, slaves provided a source of labor outside the division of labor and that could be directly controlled by titleholders (Donald 1997). Demand for extra labor could have been fueled by intensification of resource production or by demands of extra social production required by emerging elite (e.g. Bender 1978, Hayden 1990). Elaboration of material culture. Much of the apparent elaboration of material culture previously reported for the harbor reflects sampling, and the quite small volumetric sample of pre-1000 BC AUs. It is impossible to know whether the absence of tools such as adzes and celts in these AUs reflects the technology of the time, or simply our sample. A second factor in the elaboration of material culture is the midden burials. There are a number of classes of material culture that are found only in the burials, and therefore do not occur in the record much before 1000 BC with the appearance of the burials. It is possible to discuss trends between Prince Rupert 2 and 1, and if we assume that the earliest AUs are representative of Prince Rupert 3, then it is possible to at least speculate on changes between PR 3 and PR 2.

301

Prince Rupert 3 PR 3 is marked by high percentages of bone awls, bone wood working tools, abraders, and spauls. Densities are quite low overall. Missing from PR3 assemblages are celts, mauls and percussers, net sinkers, complete ground slate points, bone bipoints, harpoon valves, and bilaterally barbed harpoon heads. Most, if not all of these absences, are probably the result of sampling. Certainly the bone tools are all present at earlier deposits at Namu (Carlson 1996a). Antler flakers are one of the only two artifact classes that are distinctive features of the PR 3 assemblages. Their presence in these early assemblages and their absence in later assemblages cannot be blamed on sampling. This is particularly interesting in light of the virtual absence of chipped stone tools. I may be wrong in the functional attribution of these objects. It is also the case that bipolar cores are present, as are large numbers of quartzite pebbles, at Boardwalk. It may be, as suggested elsewhere in this work, that microflakes may have been missed in the dark, heavy wet sediments. Barbless harpoons are the other class found only in PR3 deposits. They are also present, however, in undated AUs at Lachane. Decorated items, including a carved concretion, perhaps in the form of a salmon, and artifacts with geometric designs are present. Prince Rupert 2 The number and diversity of artifacts explodes in most PR 2 deposits. To some extent at least, this must reflect sampling. It may also reflect a major shift in the use of the harbor to that of a residential base. In any case, the percentage of awls declines, light bone wood working tools increase in density, and there is a major, overall increase in the density of ground stone tools. Complete ground slate points, netsinkers, celts, mauls and percussers, bone bipoints, harpoon valves, and bilaterally barbed harpoon heads are present. There is a decline in the density of split cobbles, though the densities of cobble tools in general remain stable. Tapered hafts are the most common planview for the hafts of hafted bone points. There is a wide diversity of subsistence gear, as reflected in the diversity of bone points and related forms. Objects display many characteristics of the developed northern style of Northwest Coast art, including formlines, and inter-locked, polyvalent motifs. This is especially evident in the limited collection of wooden items from the wet site deposits at Lachane. Prince Rupert 1 The density of ground stone increases, relative to PR2. Specifically, the density of celts doubles and the densities of mauls and percussers increase fivefold, indicating a significant increase in heavy woodworking tools. While the bone tool assemblages change little, there is a decline in the number of hafted bone points with tapered hafts and an increase in parallel hafts. The density of split cobble tools increases, though overall, the density of cobble tools remains essentially the same as in PR1 and PR2. There are no complete ground slate points. Discussion If the tools in 31/B/AU1 and D/AU1 are an accurate reflection of early technology in the harbor, than the major shift after 1000 BC was in the number and diversity of ground stone tools of all kinds. Such tools are more costly in production time, and less easily moved. They are also 302

more durable. The bone tool assemblage shifts to being less opportunists (fewer awls) and more reliable. It is easy to see a mutual connection between an expanded use of ground stone, increased levels of sedentism and heavy woodworking. Overall, however, the artifact assemblage is also marked by a profound continuity. As noted earlier, many of the trends in the bone tools are quite subtle and involve minor changes in haft shapes, for example. The continuity in material culture has struck workers in the harbour since the beginning of the NCPP (MacDonald 1969). Specialization is another aspect of the elaboration of material culture. The copper sheets indicate the existence of semi-specialization in copper fabrication by ca. 900 BC. Artifact distributions at GbTo 30 suggest it may have functioned as an area devoted to heavy woodworking and other fabricating activities. The history of the Northwest Coast art style in the harbour is also relevant here. The evidence outlined in Chapter 9 indicates that the objects with zoomorphic and anthropomorphic motifs were rarely included as grave goods -- the single instance being the raven pendent. Following from Matson's argument about labrets, objects with Northwest Coast motifs may themselves have been heirlooms. Zoomorphic and anthropomorphic motifs are present on objects, which seem quite likely to have visible when worn or used. The pendent is the oldest firmly zoomorphic object in the harbour with a date range of 1000 B.C. – 820 B.C. The zoomorphic (wolf) comb recovered in 23/AU1 post-dates 1000 BC, given the dates assigned to that AU in this work. The two decorated objects clearly predating 1000 BC have geometric designs. Population growth. Maschner (1991) has presented a curve based on radiocarbon dates from the northern northwest coast that suggests significant population growth between 2000 BC and 1000 BC, followed by a period of stabilization. His curve also suggests significant population fluctuations after AD 1, particularly between ca. AD 900 and 1100. The evidence presented in Chapter 5 suggests increased rates of midden accumulation after 1800 BC which in turn may mean population growth. That evidence also suggests little overall difference in midden accumulation between PR2 and PR 1. However, as discussed in that chapter, these results may be deceptive. The discussion of midden accumulation rates concluded that these sites different markedly among themselves in how shell midden accumulated, and in the rates in which midden accumulated. Circumscription. Circumscription is understood as limits on mobility, imposed by one or more of a number of constraints. As originally used (Ames 1981), I intended the kind of tethered mobility (Binford 1983) which characterized the coast in the 19th century. The data summarized above suggests that such mobility patterns developed by ca. 1000 BC and 500 BC. Matson's model of the evolution of Northwest Coast social stratification emphasizes the control and ownership of resources. In an early paper, based on preliminary results, I suggested that differences in subsistence related artifacts among the Prince Rupert sites indicated that different and perhaps distinct site catchment areas were exploited from each site. I thought these 303

differences might indicate the ownership of resource localities within the harbor (Ames 1986, Fladmark, Ames, and Sutherland 1990). However, in the final analysis, this early conclusion remains unsubstantiated, based as it was on the relative percentages of tools, rather than on the density measures used here. However, there are intriguing differences among the sites in the kinds of tools present which I did not pursue because two of the crucial ones -- K'nu and Kitandach -- could not be included in the full study. For example, K'nu has an unusually large number of socketed points. Differences of this kind may point to differing site catchments, or differential access to resources in the harbor. The harbor is small enough, and accessible enough, by canoe, that occupants of any of the harbor's towns would have ready access to any resource patches in the harbour. One could infer that differences in access were the result of socially restricted access. Utilization of localities like Lucy Island, Garden Island and Grassy Bay could be the result of historic patterns of resource ownership, but other explanations for their use can be adduced (see above). Additionally, the absence of sea otters from the 1991 faunal assemblage from McNichol Creek is interesting in light of this issue. If this pattern persists during subsequent work at the site, it may very well indicate the kind of differential access to near-by resources that would result from patch ownership (Ames 1995). Two additional topics, warfare and regional interaction, need to be addressed here. Warfare. Maschner has most forcefully implicated warfare in the evolution of social inequality among hunter-gatherers (Maschner 1991, 1992; Ames and Maschner 1999, Maschner and Reedy-Maschner 1998). He argues that warfare is driven by competition for prestige which is itself a competition for reproductive advantage. He ties the development of permanent inequality on the coast to increased warfare after c. A.D. 500, an increase fueled by the introduction of the bow and arrow (Maschner 1991). The bow and arrow’s introduction does appear to have been accompanied by increasing interpersonal violence in southern California (Lambert 1994) at about this time, accompanied by a shift to missile wounds. Indirect evidence for the introduction of the bow and arrow would include changing tactics from hand to hand combat to increase use of fortifications, which is seen on the northern coast and elsewhere after c. A.D. 500 (Moss and Erlandson 1992), and the appearance of arrow points specifically intended for use against humans. Such points have been shown capable of penetrating all forms of Northwest Coast armour, including slat armour (Lowrey 1999). Lowrey’s study suggests that ground slate points would be somewhat less effective and chipped stone least effective against Northwest Coast armour. Its clear from Cybulski’s analyses of human remains that warfare was endemic was endemic to northern British Columbia for the past 5000 years or so (Cybulski 1994). However, I am unaware of any analyses on the coast showing changing wound patterns. Fortifications do become increasingly common on the northern coast after c. A.D. 500 (Ames and Maschner 1999). Settlement patterns shift in Prince Rupert Harbour as early as 1400 – 1000 B.C. with increased use of Garden Island. Garden Island is small, easily defended and commands the center of Prince Rupert Harbour. The site would have been an excellent refuge. Having said that, I 304

have no evidence that Garden Island functioned as a refuge, but it certainly could have. The bone points Lowrey describes are the hafted pointed bone points of this study. They are ubiquitous in the collections, and the only evidence for change through time is the shifts in common tang shapes between PR2 and PR1. These data do not disprove Maschner’s argument. They do tend to show that warfare was always intense on the northern coast; and that the introduction of the bow and arrow does not appear to have been accompanied by a visible change in the archaeology of technology in Prince Rupert Harbour. Stated another way, hafted bone points functioned well in many contexts. However, the key point here may be that ranking evolved earlier in on the northern Coast than Maschner dates it, based on house sizes. The available evidence shows warfare at the earlier time. Interaction The only definite evidence for long-term trade and interaction generated by this project is the copper and amber grave goods at Boardwalk. It has also been suggested that the few chipped stone artifacts were also acquired through trade (George MacDonald, personal communication), given the lack of any evidence after PR3 for flint knapping. The copper presumably originated in Alaska’s Copper River region of Alaska, a region widely regarded as the most likely source of copper on the pre-contact Northwest Coast (Jopling 1989). The source of the amber is unknown. The copper indicates sustained links to the northwest lasting at least a millennium. The date of c. 900 B.C. from burial 325, which is associated with a copper sheet, provides an upper limiting date on the acquisition of copper. Objects displaying elements of the Northwest Coast art style is can be taken as indirect evidence for extensive interaction (Ames 1989, Ames and Maschner 1999). The earliest such object is the raven pendent associated with burial 410 and also dates to c. 900 B.C. The implication then is that the interaction reflected by both the presence of copper and of the Northwest Coast art idiom was well established by 900 B.C. Discussion. It is clear that certain key aspects of early northern Northwest social organization crystallized in Prince Rupert harbour around 1500 BC – 1000 BC. These aspects include: ranking, corporate groups housed in plank houses, midden cemeteries (as opposed to occasional midden interments), food storage, semi to full sedentism, logistical movement in the form to tethered mobility to and from specific localities sometimes involving considerable distances, and a society marked by groups with differential access to prestige markers (with gender as one dimension of social differentiation). Finally, there is the distinctiveness of Boardwalk itself. Boardwalk is unlike the other sites. Almost all Group 2 burials were encountered at Boardwalk; Boardwalk has more complete tool/fragments than the other sites; more tip fragments and so one. All of this suggests that Boardwalk played a distinctive role within the harbour and region. The issue has been raised as to whether the ranking exhibited during the first millennium BC was ascribed or achieved. I argue in Chapter 8 that membership in the elite was primarily ascribed, but there were status positions open through achievement. Sharp differences of rank can be associated with either ascription or with achievement, as can fuzzy differences (Wason 1994). Labrets appear to have been taken out of circulation, either as grave goods, or through 305

breakage, suggesting they were heirlooms. In any case, access to labrets during this period was restricted, mainly to males. Villages appear to have been both single and two row linear villages, suggesting that in some villages extended household groups or kin groups were also ranked, though individual households may not have been. At the regional level, Boardwalk is distinctive in many ways, including the wealth of burials encountered there, and in the aspects of assemblage structure. This suggests that Boardwalk occupied a special position within the harbour. The foregoing indicates that ranking was pervasive during this period at the level of individuals, villages, and the harbour. Major social and organizational changes appear to have occurred around AD 500. The harbour was being abandoned after AD 1, and perhaps completely so for a brief period between A.D. 800 and A.D. 1000. Midden burial becomes increasingly uncommon on the northern coast after AD 500. The evidence from the Greenville cemetery demonstrates a sharp change in patterns of labret wear (Cybulski 1992). Large houses appear on the Queen Charlotte Islands, Southeast Alaska, and Prince Rupert Harbour in conjunction with widespread evidence of warfare and fortifications (Maschner 1991, Moss and Erlandson 1992). Warfare may have been a cause of the harbour’s abandonment. I suggested in Chapter 9 that depletion of sea otters and subsequent decline in local littoral productivity may also have been a factor. Of course, productivity declines and warfare could be linked. The timing of certain developments intrigues me. The practice of midden burial and special treatment of certain of the dead develops as early as 2200 B.C. on the northern Coast (Blue Jackets Creek) apparently contemporary with similar developments on the southern Coast (Pender Island). Contemporary with midden burial is labret wear and our first examples of Northwest Coast art. Our earliest evidence for plank house villages and storage (as indirect as that might be) post-dates 1500 BC. In my opinion, plank houses are large, inhabited storage boxes, and are themselves evidence for storage but the connection needs to be firmly demonstrated. Plank house villages and towns and storage are accompanied by evidence of warfare. We have evidence by 900 BC for part-time specialization on the northern coast (copper bracelets) and the southern coast (sea mammal hunting, Chatters 1990), though the Pender spoons may have been produced by specialists (Carlson 1995). This is followed by evidence for continuing changes after 1500 B.C. (see below and Ames 1991, 2002, 2003, Ames and Maschner 1999). Thus, the ethnographic pattern did not develop all of a piece, but is the result of continuing historical and evolutionary change. Methodological issues A central methodological problem faced by this project was controlling for widely varying sample sizes including the effects of excavation volume on assemblage content and on the taxonomic richness of assemblages. These issues have risen during the last two decades as general methodological problems facing archaeologists. The solution used here was to convert all raw counts, means, and taxon counts to densities/excavated volume. Because of this, it became possible to compare GbTn 1 to GbTo 33, and to make use of very small assemblages such as the two from GbTn 1. 306

Lyman (1991) argued that 100 cubic meters is the minimum volumetric sample needed to recover a large enough sample of artifacts and features to make reliable inferences. On the Oregon coast, for example, houses have only recognized in excavations exceeding 100 cubic meters. In Prince Rupert Harbour, we have the advantage of enormous volumetric samples, but the disadvantage of little feature and microdebris data. The enormous volumetric samples and artifact samples are the basis for whatever success the present volume has achieved. It is clear that large exposures and volumetric samples are needed to ensure recovery of a wide range of artifacts, or to know whether the presence or absence of such artifacts is not due to the vagaries of sampling. Large excavated volumes need not come at the cost of feature or microdebris data, particularly with modern sampling and electronic recording methods. The strong intra-site and inter-site variability in artifacts, faunal remains pose another methodological problem. Had Boardwalk’s areas B or A/C not been excavated, our vision of north coast prehistory would now be quite different. Further, differential distribution of faunal remains even along the back ridge of Boardwalk shows that subsistence reconstructions and cultural sequences based on limited areal samples of these sites are not reliable. The Prince Rupert Harbour sequence described in Fladmark, Ames and Sutherland (1990), and elsewhere, depends heavily on the Boardwalk sequence, and the Boardwalk sequence depends ultimately on the presence of rich house floor remains in area B, and the presence there of one AU of extraordinary richness. An essential task in future work is sampling larger volumes and more portions of these middens to control for the strong internal variability they display. This recommendation seemingly runs counter to the approach to midden archaeology present in much recent work (e.g. Stein 1992). Stein used an approach based on Harris’ methods of stratigraphic excavation and recording (Harris 1989), which focuses on treating each lens in the midden as a facies, and on the retrieval of an array of midden constituents. Her work is extremely valuable in providing a base line for approaching middens. However, the resulting exposures are far too small in extent and volume to provide large-scale data of the kind required to reconstruct houses, for example, or even to recover an adequate sample of artifacts and features. It sacrifices macro-scale data to recover micro-scale data. The problem is magnified when augers are the sole source of data. We need both. Further methodological research is necessary to resolve this conundrum. Large-scale use of bulk samples and detailed stratigraphic work on control columns may in part provide a working compromise. Nevertheless, the large exposures are essential. Prince Rupert Harbour contains an extraordinary archaeological record. It will take many more years before its complexities are fully understood. If through some extraordinary twist of fate, I found myself there with money, time and a crew, I would excavate the big platform in front of Area A/C at Boardwalk, expose more of houses A and B, and open a large block in the intact portions of Area B. I would also expand the initial excavations at Garden Island and Grassy Bay, to see what they could tell me about the last 1,000 years. Then I would start thinking about those other middens out along Venn Passage.

307

References Cited Acheson, S. R. (1991): In the Wake of the ya'åats' xaatgáay ['Iron People']: A study of Changing Settlement Strategies among the Kunghit Haida. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oxford. Ackerman, R. E. (1968): The archaeology of the Glacier Bay region, southeastern Alaska. Laboratory of Archaeology Report of Investigation, No. 44, Washington State University, Pullman. Ackerman, R. E., T. Hamilton and R. Stuckenrath (1979): Early culture complexes on the northern Northwest Coast. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 3: 195-209. Ackerman, R. E., T. D. Hamilton and R. Stuckenrath (1985): Archaeology of Hecata Island, a survey of 16 timber harvest units in the Tongass National Forest. Center for Northwest Anthropology Project Report No.3, Washington State University, Pullman. Adams, J. (1973):The Gitksan Potlatch, Population Flux, Resource Ownership and Reciprocity. Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada, Toronto. Aikens, C. M., K. M. Ames and D. Sanger (1986): Affluent collectors at the edges of Eurasia and North America: some comparisons and observations on the evolution of society among north-temperate coastal hunter-gatherers. In “Prehistoric hunter-gatherers in Japan; new research methods,” T. Akazawa and C. M. Aikens, eds. Bulletin No. 27, The University Museum, The University of Tokyo. Pp. 3-26. Allaire, L. (1978): Archeologie des Kitselas d'apres le site stratifie de Gitaus (GdTc 2) sur la Riviere Skeena en Colombie Britannique. Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper, Mercury Series No. 72. Hull, Quebec Allaire, L. (1979): The cultural sequence at Gitaus: a case of prehistoric acculturation. In "Skeena River Prehistory," G. F. MacDonald and R. I. Inglis co-eds. National Museums of Canada Mercury Series Paper No. 89. Pp. 18-52. Allaire, L. (1984): A Native Mental Map of Coast Tsimshian Villages. In The Tsimshian: Images of the Past Views of the Present, M. Seguin ed. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Pp. 82-98. Allaire, L. and G. F. MacDonald (1971): Mapping and excavations at the Fortress of the Kitselas Canyon, B.C. Canadian Archaeological Association Bulletin No. 3. Pp.48-55.

Allaire, L., G. F. MacDonald and R. I. Inglis (1979): Gitlaxdzawk - Ethnohistory and Archaeology. In "Skeena River Prehistory," G. F. MacDonald and R. I. Inglis co-eds. National Museums of Canada Mercury Series Paper No. 89.Pp. 53-166. 308

Ames, K. M. (1973a): Recent Archaeological Research in the Middle Skeena Valley, British Columbia. The Midden 5(1): 3 – 9. Ames, K. M (1973b): Steady state maintenance on the Northwest Coast. Paper presented to the 37th Annual Meetings of Society for American Archaeology. San Francisco. Ames, K. M.(1976): The Bone Tool Assemblage from the Garden Island site, Prince Rupert Harbor, British Columbia: An Analysis of Assemblage Variation through Time. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman. Ames, K. M. (1979): Report of excavations at GhSv:2, Hagwilget Canyon, British Columbia. In "Skeena River Prehistory," G. F. MacDonald and R. I. Inglis co-eds. National Museums of Canada Mercury Series Paper No. 89.. Hull, Quebec Pp. 181-218. Ames, K. M. (1981): The evolution of social ranking on the Northwest Coast of North America. American Antiquity, 46(4):789-805. Ames, K. M. (1985): Hierarchies, stress and logistical strategies among hunter - gatherers in Northwestern North America. In Prehistoric hunter gatherers, the emergence of cultural complexity, T. D. Price and J. Brown, eds. Academic Press, Orlando. Pp. 155-180. Ames, K. M. (1988): Prehistoric subsistence economy in Prince Rupert Harbour. Paper presented to the 19th Annual Meetings, the Canadian Archaeological Association. Toronto. Ames, K. M. (1988): Early Holocene forager mobility strategies on the southern Columbia Plateau. In "Early human occupation in Western North America," J.A. Willig, C.M. Aikens and J. Fagan, eds Nevada State Museum Papers Number 21, Carson City, Nevada. Pp. 325 360. Ames, K. M. (1989): Art and Regional Interaction among Affluent Foragers on the North Pacific Rim. In A. Blukis Onat, ed., Development of Hunting-Gathering-Fishing Maritime Societies on the Pacific. Bound Off-Print Conference Proceedings. Pullman: Washington State University Press. Ames, K. M. (1991a): Sedentism, a Temporal Shift or a Transitional Change in HunterGatherer Mobility Strategies. In Between Bands and States: Sedentism, Subsistence and Interaction in Small Scale Societies, Susan Gregg, ed. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. Ames, K. M. (1991b): The archaeology of the longue durée: temporal and spatial scale in the evolution of social complexity on the southern Northwest Coast. Antiquity 65:935-945. 309

Ames, K. M. (1994): The Northwest Coast: Complex Hunter-Gatherers, Ecology, and Social Evolution. Annual Reviews of Anthropology 23:209-229. Ames, K. M. (1995): Chiefly Power and Household Production on the Northwest Coast. In Foundations of Inequality, T.D. Price and G.M. Feinman eds Plenum Press, New York. Pp. 155 - 187. Ames, K. M. (1996): Life in the Big House: Household Labor and Dwelling Size on the Northwest Coast. In “People Who Lived in Big Houses: Archaeological Perspectives on Large Domestic Structures”, G. Coupland and E.B. Banning eds, Monographs in World Prehistory No. 27. Prehistory Press, Madison. Pp. 131 - 150. Ames, K. M. (1998): Economic Prehistory of the north British Columbia Coast. Arctic Anthropology 35(1): 68 – 87 Ames, K. M. (2000): Kennewick Man Cultural Affiliation Report Chapter 2: Review of the Archaeological Data. Electronic document. http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/ames.htm Ames, K.M. (2001): Slaves, chiefs and labour on the northern Northwest Coast. World Archaeology 33(1): 1 – 17. Ames, K.M. (2002): Going by Boat: The Forager-Collector Continuum at Sea. In. Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems. Fitzhugh B. and Habu J. ,eds. Kluwer/Plenum Press, New York. p. 17 – 50 Ames, K.M. (2003): The Northwest Coast. Evolutionary Anthropology 12: 19 – 33 Ames, K.M. (2004a): Supposing Hunter-Gatherer Variability. American Antiquity 69(2): Ames, K.M. (2004b): Tempo and Scale in the Evolution of Social Complexity in Western North America: Four Case Studies. In North American Prehistory, T. Pauketat and D. Loren eds. Blackwell Press, London. Expected publication December 2004 Ames, K.M. (i.p.a.) Intensification of food production among hunter-gatherers on the Northwest Coast, the Columbia Plateau and elsewhere. In The Northwest Coast, Foragers or Farmers? D. Duer and N. Turner, eds. University of Washington Press. Ames, K. M .and H.D.G. Maschner (1999): Peoples of the Northwest Coast: Their Archaeology and Prehistory. Thames and Hudson LT.D.., London. Ames, K. M., D.F. Raetz, S. Hamilton and C. McAfee.(1992): Household Archaeology of a Southern Northwest Coast Plank House. Journal of Field Archaeology 19(3):275-290 Ames, K. M., C. M. Smith, W.L. Cornett, S. C. Hamilton and E. A. Sobel (1999) Archaeological Investigations (1991 – 1996) at 45CL11 (Cathlapotle), Clark County, 310

Washington. A Preliminary Report. “Wapato Valley Archaeological Project Report #7”. Cultural Resources Series Number 13, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland. Anatasio, A. (1972): The Southern Plateau: An Ecological Analysis of Intergroup Relations. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 6(2):109-229. Anderson, P. (1991): Harvesting of Wild Cereals during the Natufian as seen from the Experimental Cultivation and Harvest of Wild Einkorn Wheat and Microwear Analysis of Stone Tools. In “The Natufian Culture in the Levant”, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla. International Monographs in Archaeology, Archaeological Series No.1, Ann Arbor. Pp. 521-557. Archer, D. J. M. (1984): Prince Rupert Harbour Project Heritage Site Evaluation and Impact Assessment. Report on file, National Museum of Man, Hull, Quebec Archer, D. J.M. (1992): Results of the Prince Rupert Radiocarbon Dating Project. Paper on file, British Columbia Heritage Trust, Victoria. Archer, D. J.M. (2001): Village Patterns and the Emergence of Ranked Society in the Prince Rupert Area. In “Perspectives on Northern Northwest Coast Prehistory”, Jerome S. Cybulski, ed. Mercury Series Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 160. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, Quebec Pp 203 – 222. Armstrong, J. E. (1966): Glacial studies, Kitimat-Terrace area. Geological Survey of Canada Paper 66-1: 50. Ottawa, Ont. Arndt, K. L., R. H. Sackett and J. A. Ketz (1987): A Cultural Resource Overview of the Tongass National Forest, Alaska, Part 1: Overview. GDM Inc. Report on file, Tongass National Forest, Juneau, Alaska. Arnold, J. E. (1991): Transformation of a Regional Economy: Sociopolitical Evolution and the Production of Valuables in Southern California. Antiquity 65(6):953-962. Arnold, J. E. (1992): Complex Hunter-Gatherer-Fishers of Prehistoric California: Chiefs, Specialists, and Maritime Adaptations of the Channel Islands. American Antiquity 57(1):6085 Arnold, J E. (1996): The Archaeology of Complex Hunter-Gatherers. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 3(2):77-125. Arnold, J. E.(2001) The Chumash in World and Regional Perspective. In The Origins of a Pacific Coast Chiefdom: The Chumash of the Channel Islands, edited by Jeanne E. Arnold. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Pp. 1 - 20 311

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: 938 - 947. Bar-Yosef, O. (1998): The Natufian Culture in the Levant: threshold to the origins of agriculture. Evolutionary Anthropology 6, 159–177. Bar-Yosef, O. (2001): From Sedentary Foragers to Village Hierarchies: The Emergence of Social Institutions. In The origin of human social institutions. Proceedings of the British Academy Vol. 110., G. Runciman, ed. Pp. 1 – 38. Beck, L.A. (1995, ed.): Regional Approaches to Mortuary Analysis. Plenum Press: New York Bender, B. (1978): Gatherer-hunterer to Farmer: A Social Perspective. World Archaeology, 10:204-222. Bender, B. (1989): The Roots of Inequality. In Domination and resistance, D. Miller, M. Rowlands and C. Tilley, eds. Unwin Hyman, London. Pp 83-92. Betz, V. M. (1991): Sampling, Sample Size, and Artifact Assemblage Size and Richness in Oregon Coast Archaeological Sites. In Prehistory of the Oregon Coast: The Effects of Excavation Strategies and Assemblage Size on Archaeological Inquiry, by R. L. Lyman. Academic Press, Orlando. Pp.50 - 63. Bettinger, R .L., and M. A. Baumhoff, (1982): The Numic Spread: Great Basin Cultures in Competition. American Antiquity 47(3):485 – 503 Binford, L. R. (1963): A proposed attribute list for the description and classification of projectile points. In "Miscellaneous studies in typology and classification", by A. M. White, L. R. Binford, and M. L. Papworth. Anthropological Papers No. 19. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor. Pp. 193-221. Binford, L. R. (1978): Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York. Binford, L. R. (1980): Willow smoke and dogs' tails: Hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4-20. Binford, L. R. (1983): In Pursuit of the Past. Thames and Hudson Ltd, New York. Binford, L. R. (1990) Mobility, housing and environment: a comparative study. Journal of Anthropological Research, 46(2): 119-152.

312

Binford, L. R. and W. J. Chasko (1976): Nunamuit Demographic History: A provocative case. In Demographic Anthropology, Ezra Zubrow ed. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Pp. 63-143. Blake, M., G. Coupland and B. Thom. (1994): Burial Mound Excavations at the Scowlitz site, British Columbia. Manuscript in possession of the author. Bleed, P. (1986): The optimal design of hunting weapons: maintainability or reliability. American Antiquity 51(4):737-747. Blukis Onat, A. (1985): he multifunctional use of shellfish remains: from garbage to community engineering. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 5: 6 - 20. Bobrowsky P. T. and B. F. Ball (1989): The Theory and Mechanics of Ecological Diversity in Archaeology. In Quantifying Diversity, R.D. Leonard and G.T. Jones, ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pp. 4-12. Borden, C. C. (1975): Origins and Development of Early Northwest Coast Culture to about 3000 B.C. National Museum of Man Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 45, Hull, Quebec Borden, C. C.(1979): Peopling and Early Cultures of the Pacific Northwest. Science 203(4384):963-971. Borden, C. C. (1983): Prehistoric art in the lower Fraser region. In Indian Art Traditions of the Northwest Coast, R.L. Carlson, ed. Simon Fraser University Press, Burnaby. Pp Bowman, S. (1990): Radiocarbon dating. Berkeley, University of California Press. Boyd, R. T. (1999): The Coming of the Spirit of Pestilence: Introduced Infectious Diseases and Population Decline Among Northwest Coast Indians, 1774-1874. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Brown, J. A. (1975): Deep Site Excavation Strategy as a Sampling Problem. In Sampling In Archaeology, J.A.. Mueller, ed. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Pp. 155-169. Burley, D. (1980): Marpole: anthropological reconstructions of a prehistoric culture type. Department of Archaeology Publication No. 8. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby. Byram, S. and J. Erlandson (1996): Fishing Technologies at a Coquille River Wet Site: The 1994-94 Osprey Site Project. University of Oregon Department of Anthropology and State Museum of Anthropology Coastal Prehistory Project. Eugene. 313

Byrd, B. F. and C. M. Monahan (1995): Death, Mortuary Ritual and Natufian Social Structure. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14(3): 251-279. Calvert, G. (1968): The Co-op Site, a Prehistoric Midden on the northern Northwest Coast. Unpublished ms., Laboratory of Archaeology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Canadian Hydrographic Service (1984): Approaches to Prince Rupert Harbour. Navigation Chart. Canadian Department of Agriculture (1974): The System of Soil Classification for Canada. Canadian Department of Agriculture Publication 1455. Cannon, A. (1991): The Economic Prehistory of Namu. Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby. Cannon A. (2001): Was Salmon Important in Northwest Coast Prehistory? In People and Wildlife in Northern North America: Essays in Honor of R. Dale Guthrie, S.C. Gerlach and M.S. Murray, eds.. Oxford, BAR International Series. Pp. 181-191. Carl, G. C., W.A. Clemens and C.C. Lindsey (1967): The Fresh-water Fishes of British Columbia. British Columbia Provincial Museum Handbook No. 5. Victoria. Carlson, R. L. (1979): The Early Period on the Central Coast of British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 3:211-228. Carlson, R. L. (1983): Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. In. Indian Art Traditions of the Northwest Coast, R.L. Carlson, ed. Simon Fraser University Press, Burnaby, British Columbia.. Pp.. 13-32 Carlson, R. L. (1987): Cultural and ethnic continuity on the Pacific Coast of British Columbia. Paper presented to the 16th Congress, Pacific Science Association, Seoul, Korea. Carlson, R. L. (1991): The Northwest Coast before A.D. 1600. In Proceedings of the Great Ocean Conferences, Volume One The North Pacific to 1600: 109-137. The Oregon Historical Society, Portland. Carlson R. L.(1992): Paleo-Shamanism on the Northwest Coast. Paper presented to the 45th Annual Northwest Conference, Burnaby B.C. April 15-18, 1992 Carlson, R. L. (1996a): Early Namu. In Early Human Occupation in British Columbia, R.L. Carlson and L. Dalla Bona eds University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Pg. 83 102. 314

Carlson, R. L. (1996b): Introduction to Early Human Occupation in British Columbia. In Early Human Occupation in British Columbia, R.L. Carlson and L. Dalla Bona eds University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Pg. 3 - 10. Carlson, R. L. (1996c): The Later Prehistory of British Columbia. In Early Human Occupation in British Columbia, R.L. Carlson and L Dalla Bona eds University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Pg. 215 –227. Carniero , R. L. (1970): A Theory of the Origin of the State. Science 169:733-738. Carr, C. (1995): Mortuary Practices: Their Social, Philosophical-Religious, Circumstantial and Physical Determinants. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2(2): 105 – 200. Chatters, J. C. (1989): The antiquity of economic differentiation within households in the Puget Sound region, Northwest Coast. In Households and Communities, S. MacEachern, D.J.W Archer and R.D. Garvin eds. Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary. Pp. 168-178. Chatters, J. C. (1995): Population Growth, Climatic Cooling, and the Development of Collector Strategies on the Southern Plateau, Western North America. Journal of World Prehistory 9(3):341 - 400. Chisholm, B.S. (1986) Reconstruction of prehistoric diet in British Columbia using stablecarbon isotopic analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia. Chisholm, B. S., D. E. Nelson, and H. P. Schwarcz. (1982): Stable Carbon Isotope Ratios as a Measure of Marine vs. Terrestrial Protein in Ancient Diets. Science 216:1131-1132. Chisholm, B. S., D. E. Nelson, and H. P. Schwarcz. (1983): Marine and Terrestrial Protein in Prehistoric Diets on the British Columbia Coast. Current Anthropology 24:396-398. Clague, J. J. (1984): Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology, Smithers-Terrace-Prince Rupert Area, British Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir 413, Geological Survey of Canada, Hull, Quebec Clark, G. (1987): Archaeological testing of the Coffman Cove site, southeastern Alaska. Paper presented to the 32nd Annual Northwest Anthropological Conference, Eugene. Cleland, C. E.(1976): The Focal-Diffuse Model: an Evolutionary Perspective on the Cultural Adaptations of the eastern United States. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 1(1):59-76.

315

Cohen, M. N. (1985): Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Meaning of Complexity. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity, T.D. Price and J.A. Brown eds Academic Press, Orlando. Pp. 99-122. Colnett, J. (1786-88): The Journal Aboard the Prince of Wales. London, Public Records Office: ADM 155/146 (ms.) (citation in Joplin 1989). Coupland, G. (1985a): Prehistoric Culture Change at Kitselas Canyon. Unpublished Ph.D., Dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Coupland, G. (1985b) Restricted access, resource control and the evolution of status inequality among hunter-gatherers. In Status, Structure and Stratification: Current Archaeological Reconstructions, M Thompson, MT Garcia and FJ. Kense eds, Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary. Pp. 245-252. Coupland, G. (1985c): Household variability and status differentiation at Kitselas Canyon. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 9(1):39-56 Coupland, G. (1988a): Prehistoric Economic and Social Change in the Tsimshian Area. Research in Economic Anthropology, supplement 3: 211-245. Coupland, G. (1988b) Prehistoric Culture Change at Kitselas Canyon. Archaeological Survey of Canada Mercury Series Paper No. 138. Hull, Quebec Coupland, G. (1989): Warfare and social complexity on the Northwest Coast. In Cultures in Conflict: Current Archaeological Perspectives, D. Tkaczuk and B. Vivian eds. Archaeological Association, University of Calgary. Pp 205 – 214. Coupland, G. (1996a): The Early Prehistoric Occupation of Kitselas Canyon. In Early Human Occupation in British Columbia, R.L. Carlson and L Dalla Bona eds. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Pg. 159 - 166 Coupland, G. (1996b): 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”, G. Coupland and EB Banning eds. Monographs in World Prehistory No. 27. Prehistory Press, Madison. Pp. 121-130. Coupland, 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. Coutre, A. (1975); Indian Copper Artifacts from Prince Rupert. Physical Metallurgical Laboratories Report MRP/PMRL-75-3(IR) Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy technology, Energy and Mines Resources Canada. Unpublished manuscript (Ms.1079), 316

Information Management Services (Archaeological Records), Canadian Museum of Civilization. Hull, Quebec. Cowan, I. M and C. J. Guiguet (1965): The Mammals of British Columbia. British Columbia Provincial Museum Handbook No. 11. Victoria. Croes, D.R., (1989): Prehistoric Ethnicity on the Northwest Coast of North America: an Evaluation of Style in Basketry and Lithics. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8:101 – 30. Croes, D. R. (1995): The Hoko River Archaeological Site Complex: The Wet/Dry Site (45CA213), 3,000 -1,700 B.P. Washington State University Press, Pullman. Croes, D. R. and S. Hackenberger (1988): Hoko River archaeological complex: modeling prehistoric Northwest Coast economic evolution. Research in Economic Anthropology, supplement 3: 19-86. Cybulksi, J. S. (1975): Skeletal variation in British Columbia coastal populations: a descriptive and comparative assessment of cranial morphology. National Museum of Canada Mercury series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 30, Hull, Quebec Cybulski, J. S. (1979): Conventional and Unconventional Burial Positions at Prince Rupert Harbour, British Columbia. Unpublished manuscript (Ms.1486), Information Management Services (Archaeological Records), Canadian Museum of Civilization. Hull, Quebec. Cybulski, J. S. (1991): Observations on Dental Labret Wear at Crescent Beach, Pender Canal, and other Northwest Coast Prehistoric Sites. Appendix to: 1989 and 1990 Crescent Beach Excavations, Final Report: The Origins of the Northwest Coast Ethnographic Patterns: The Place of the Locarno Beach Phase, by R.G .Matson, H. Pratt and L. Rankin. Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Victoria. Cybulski, J. S. (1992): A Greenville Burial Ground: Human Remains in British Columbia Coast Prehistory. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mercury Series Paper No. 146. Hull, Quebec Cybulski, J.S. (1993): Notes on the Cache in Area A of the Boardwalk Site (GbTo 31). Unpublished manuscript, Information Management Services (Archaeological Records), Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, Ont. Cybulski, J. S. (1994): Culture Change, Demographic History, and Health and Disease on the Northwest Coast. In In the Wake of Contact: Biological Responses to Conquest. R.G. Miller and C.S. Larsen, eds. Wiley-Liss, New York. Pp. 75-85.

317

Cybulksi, J.S. (1996): Context of Human Remains from the Lachane Site, GbTo 33 (Including Evidence for Decapitation). Unpublished manuscript (Ms. 3973), Information Management Services (Archaeological Records), Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, Ontario. Davis, S. D. (1989b): Cultural Component I. In “The Hidden Falls Site, Baranoff Island, Alaska,” S.D. Davis ed. Aurora: Alaska Anthropological Association Monograph Series, Anchorage, Alaska. Pp. 159 - 198. Davis, S. D. (ed.) (1989a): The Hidden Falls Site, Baranoff Island, Alaska. Aurora: Alaska Anthropological Association Monograph Series. Anchorage, Alaska. Davis, S.D., (1990): Prehistory of Southeast Alaska. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, The Northwest Coast. W. Suttles, ed. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Pp. 197 –202. de Laguna, F. (1960): The Story of a Tlingit Community: A Problem in the Relationship between Archaeological, Ethnological, and Historical Methods. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 172. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. de Laguna, F. (1972): Under Mount St. Elias: The History and Culture of the Yakutat Tlingit. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology Vol. 7 (in three parts). U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. de Laguna, F., F. A. Riddell, D. F. McGeein, K. S. Lane, J. A Freed, and C. Osborne (1964): Archaeology of the Yakutat Bay Area, Alaska. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 192. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Desgloges J.R. and J.M. Ryder (1990): Neoglacial History of the Coast Mountains near Bella Coola, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 27(2):281-290. Dewhirst, J. (1980): The indigenous archaeology of Yuquot, a Nootkan outside village. "The Yuquot project, Volume I," History and Archaeology No. 39, Parks, Canada, Ottawa, Ont. Donald, L. (1983): Was Nuu-chah-nulth-aht (Nootka) society based on slave labor? In “The Development of Political Organization in Native North America,” E. Tooker ed. Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society. Pp. 108-119. Donald, L. (1985): On the Possibility of Social Class in Societies Based on Extractive Subsistence. In Status, structure and stratification current archaeological reconstructions. M. Thompson, M. T Garcia and F. J. Kense eds. Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary. Pp.. 237-243.

318

Donald, L. (1997): Aboriginal Slavery on the Northwest Coast of North America. University of California Press, Berkeley. Donald, L. and D. H. Mitchell (1975): Some correlates of local group rank among the Southern Kwakiutl. Ethnology 14(3):325-346. Driver, J.C. (1993): Zooarchaeology in British Columbia. BC Studies 99:77–104. Drucker, P. (1943): Archaeological survey on the northern Northwest Coast. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 133: 17-132. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC. Duff, W. (1964): The Indian History of British Columbia:Vol. I; The Impact of the White Man. Anthropology in British Columbia Memoirs 5. Victoria, B.C. Dumond, D.E. and R.L. Bland. (1995): Holocene Prehistory in the Northernmost North Pacific. Journal of World Archaeology 9(4): 401–445. Dunnell, R.C. (1971): Systematics in prehistory. Free Press, New York. Eldridge, M. and S. Acheson (1992): The Antiquity of Fish Weirs on the Southern Coast: A Response to Moss, Erlandson and Stuckenrath. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 16: 112116. Erlandson, J. M. (1989): Faunal Analysis of Invertebrate Assemblage. In “The Hidden Falls Site, Baranoff Island, Alaska”, edited by S.D. Davis. Aurora: Alaska Anthropological Association Monograph Series. Anchorage, Alaska. Pp. 131 - 158. Fedje, D. W, and T. Christensen (1999): Modelling [sic] Paleoshorelines and Locating Early Holocene Coastal Sites in Haida Gwaii. American Antiquity 64(4): 635 -653. Fedje, D.; W; A. R. Mason and J. B. McSporran (1996a): Early Holocene Archaeology and Paleoecology at the Arrow Creek site in Gwaii Haanas. Arctic Anthropology: Fedje, D.; A.P. Mackie; J.B. McSporran; and B. Wilson (1996b): Early Period Archaeology in Gwaii Haanas: Results of the 1993 Field Program. In Early Human Occupation in British Columbia, R.L. Carlson and L. Dalla Bona eds. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Pg.133 – 150 Fitzhugh, B. and J. Habu (2002 eds). Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems. Fitzhugh B. and Habu J ,eds. Kluwer/Plenum Press, New York. Fladmark, K. R. (1975): A Paleoecological Model for Northwest Coast prehistory. Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper, Mercury Series, No. 43. Hull, Quebec 319

Fladmark, K. R. (1982): An Introduction to the Prehistory of British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 3:131-144. Fladmark, K.R. (1984): The Native Culture History of the Queen Charlotte Islands. Paper presented to the International Symposium on the Queen Charlotte Islands, University of British Columbia. Fladmark, K. R. (1988): British Columbia Prehistory. Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museums of Canada, Hull, Quebec Fladmark, K. R., K. M. Ames and P. D. Sutherland. (1990): Prehistory of the North Coast of British Columbia. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7, Northwest Coast, W Suttles ed. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Pp. 229-239. Fladmark, K.R., D.E. Nelson, T.A. Brown, J.S. Vogel & J.R. Southen. (1987): AMS Dating of Two Wooden Artifacts from the Northwest Coast. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 11:112. Flannery, K. V. (1972): The Origins of the Village as a Settlement Type in Mesoamerica and the Near East: A Comparative Study. In Man, Settlement and Urbanism, P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham and G. W. Dimbleby eds. Schenkman Publishing Company, Cambridge, Mass. Pp. 23-54. 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. Franklin, U.M., E. Badone, R. Gotthardt and B. Yarga. (1981): An Examination of Prehistoric Copper Technology and Copper Sources in western Arctic and Subarctic North America. National Museum of Man Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No.101. Hull, Quebec Fried, M. (1967): The Evolution of Political Society. Random House, New York. Gamble, C. (1986): The Paleolithic Settlement of Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Garfield, V. (1939): Tsimshian Clan and Society. University of Washington Publications in Anthropology 7(3):169-340.

320

Goldstein L. (1981): One dimensional archaeology and two dimensional people: spatial organization and mortuary analysis. In The Archaeology of Death, R. Chapman, I. Kinnes and K. Randsborg eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pp 53 – 70. Gottsfeld, A. S., R. W. Mathewes and Lelsie M. J. Gottsfeld (1991): Holocene Debris Flows and Environmental History, Hazelton Area, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 28(10):1583-1593. Grayson, D. K. (1984): Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas. Academic Press, Orlando. Grier, C. (2001): The Social Economy of a Prehistoric Northwest Coast Plank House. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Arizona State University. Haggerty, J. C. (1982): The Archaeology of Hesquiat Harbour: The Archaeological Utility of an Ethnologically defined Social Unit. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman. Hajda, Y. (1984): Regional Social Organization in the Greater Lower Columbia, 1792-1830. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle. Halpin, M. and M. Seguin (1990): Tsimshian Peoples: Southern Tsimshian, Coast Tsimshian, Nisga, and Gitksan. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7, Northwest Coast, W Suttles ed. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Pp. 267-284. Ham, L. C. (1990): The Cohoe Creek site: A Late Moresby Tradition Shell Midden. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 14: 199-221 Ham, L. C., A. Yip, L. Kullar and D. Cannon (1986): A Charles Culture Fishing Village. Report on file, Heritage Conservation Branch, Victoria, British Columbia. Harlan, J.R. (1967): A Wild Wheat Harvest in Turkey. Archaeology,20:197-201. Harris, E.C. (1989): Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy, 2nd ed. Academic Press, London. Hassan, F. (1982): Demographic archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Hayden, B. (1981): Research and Development in the Stone Age: Technological Transitions among Hunter-Gatherers. Current Anthropology 22:519-548. Hayden, B. (1990): Nimrods, Piscators, Pluckers, and Planters: the Emergence of Food production, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9(1):31-69. 321

Hayden, B. (1992a): Conclusions: Ecology and Complex Hunter-Gatherers, In A Complex Culture of the British Columbia Plateau: Traditional Stl'átl'imx Resource Use, B Hayden, ed. University British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Pp. 525-63 Hayden B, ed. (1992b): A Complex Culture of the British Columbia Plateau: Traditional Stl'átl'imx Resource Use. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver Hayden, B. (1996): Pathways to Power: Principles for creating socioeconomic inequalities. In Foundations of Social Inequality, T.D. Price and G.M. Feinman eds. Plenum Press, New York. Pp 15–85 Hayden, B., and A. Cannon (1982): The corporate group as an archaeological unit. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1(1):132-158. Hetherington, R, J. V. Barrie, R. G. B. Reid, R. Macleod, D. J. Smith, T. S. James, and R. Jung. (2003): Late Pleistocene coastal paleogeorgraphy of the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia, Canada and its implications for terrestrial biogeography and early postglacial human occupation. Canadian Journal of Earth Science 40: 1755 – 1766 Hebda, R. and R. Mathewes (1984): Postglacial history of cedar and evolution of Northwest Coast native cultures. Paper presented to the 35th annual Northwest Anthropological Conference, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby. Henry, D. O. (1985): Preagricultural Sedentism: The Natufian Example. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity, T.D. Price, and J.A. Brown eds. Academic Press, Orlando. Pp. 365-384. Henry, D. O. (1989): From Foraging to Agriculture, the Levant at the End of the Ice Age. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Henry, D. O. (1991): Foraging, Sedentism, and Adaptive Vigor in the Natufian: Rethinking the Linkages. In Perspectives on the Past, Theoretical Biases in Mediterranean HunterGatherer Research. G.A. Clark, ed. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Pp. 353370. Hester, J., and S. Nelson (eds.) (1978): Studies in Bella Bella Prehistory. Department of Archaeology Publication, No. 5, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby. Heusser, C. J. (1960): Late-Pleistocene Environments of North Pacific North America. American Geographical Society Monographs No. 35. Heusser, C. J. (1985): Quaternary Pollen Records from the Pacific Northwest Coast: Aleutians to the Oregon-California Boundary. In Pollen Records of Late-Quaternary North 322

American Sediments, V. M. Bryant and R.G. Holloway, eds. Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists Foundation, Dallas. Pp.. 141-165. Heusser C.J., L.E. Heusser, and S.S. Streeter. (1980): Quaternary temperatures and precipitation for the North-west Coast of North America. Nature 286:702-4 Hitchcock, R. K. (1982): Patterns of sedentism among the Basarwa of eastern Botswana. In Politics and history in Band Societies, E. Leacock and R. B. Lee, eds. University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge. Pp. 223-266. Holm, B. (1965): Northwest Coast Indian Art: An Analysis of Form. Monograph No. 1, Thomas Burke Memorial Museum, University of Washington Press, Seattle. Holm, M. (1990): Prehistoric Northwest Coast Art: A Stylistic Analysis of the Archaeological Record. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Hoos, L. M. (1975): The Skeena River Estuary: Status of Environmental Knowledge to 1975. Environment Canada Special Estuary Series No. 3. Ottawa, Ont. Huelsbeck, D. R. (1983): Mammals and Fish in the Subsistence Economy of Ozette. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman. Huelsbeck, D. R. (1988): The Surplus Economy of the Northwest Coast. Research in Economic Anthropology, supplement 3, 149-177. Hull, K. (1980): Faunal Report for Grassy Bay Site, British Columbia. Unpublished manuscript (Ms.83-2271), Information Management Services (Archaeological Records), Canadian Museum of Civilization. Hull, Quebec. Inglis, R. (1972) Archaeological Project in the Prince Rupert Harbour, 1972. Canadian Archaeological Association Bulletin No. 4: 101-105. Inglis, R. (1974): Archaeological Impact Study: Bulk Loading Facility Environmental Assessment, North Coast, B.C. Manuscript #1121, archives, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Hull, Quebec Inglis, R. (1973): Contract Salvage 1973; A Preliminary Report on the Salvage Excavations of Two Shell Middens in the Prince Rupert Harbour, B.C. (GbTo-33/36). Canadian Archaeological Association Bulletin No. 5: 140-144.. Inglis, R. (1976): 'Wet' Site Distribution--The Northern Case GbTo 33 - The Lachane Site. In The Excavation of Water-Saturated Archaeological Sites (Wet Sites) on the Northwest Coast 323

of North America, D. R. Croes ed. National Museums of Canada Archaeological Survey of Canada Mercury Series Paper No. 50. Hull, Quebec. Ingold, T. (1987): The Appropriation of Nature. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City. Isaac, B.L. (ed). (1988): Prehistoric Economies of the Pacific Northwest Coast, Research in Economic Anthropology supplement 3, pp. 1-16. Jerardino, A. (1995): The Problem with Density Values in Archaeological Analysis: A Case Study from Tortoise Case, Western Cape, South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin 50: 21 – 27. Jonaitis, A. (1986): Art of the Northern Tlingit. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Jones, G. T., D. K. Grayson and C. Beck (1983): Artifact class richness and sample size in archaeological surface assemblages. In "Lulu linear punctated: essays in honor of G. Irving Quimby", edited by R. C. Dunnell and D.K. Grayson. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan Anthropological papers 72. Pp. 55-73. Jopling, C. F. (1989): The Coppers of the Northwest Coast Indians: Their Origin, Development and Possible Antecedents. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 79, Part 1, Pp. 1 -164. Kaiser, T. and B. Voytek (1983): Sedentism and Economic Change in the Balkan Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2(4):323-353. Keddie, G. R. (1981): The Use and Distribution of Labrets on the North Pacific Rim. Syesis 14:60-80. Keeley, Lawrence H. (1988): Hunter-Gatherer Economic Complexity and "Population Pressure": A Cross-Cultural Analysis. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7(4):373-411. Kelly, R. L. (1992): Mobility/Sedentism: Concepts, Archaeological measures, and Effects. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21: 43-66. Kelly, R.L., (1995): The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC. Kew M., (1992): Salmon availability, technology, and cultural adaptation in the Fraser River watershed. In A complex culture of the British Columbia Plateau: traditional Stl'átl'imx resource use, B Hayden ed. Vancouver: University British Columbia Press. Pp 525 –563 Kintigh, K. W. (1984): Measuring Archaeological Diversity by Comparison with Simulated Assemblages. American Antiquity 49(1): 44 – 54 324

Kintigh, K. W. (1986 – 1998). Tools for Quantitative Archaeology. Computer software, © Keith Kintigh. Kosse, K. (1990): Group Size and Societal Complexity: Thresholds in the Long-Term Memory. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9(3): 275-303. Koyama, S. and D. H. Thomas (eds.) (1981): Affluent Foragers, Pacific Coasts East and West. National Museum of Ethnology Senri Ethnological Series No. 9. Osaka. Lambert, P. M. (1994): War and Peace on the Western Front: A Study of Violent Conflict and Its Correlates in Prehistoric Hunter-gatherer Societies of Coastal Southern California. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara. Lee, R. B. and I. DeVore (1968): Man the Hunter. Aldine, Chicago. Lee, R. D. and G. T. Jones (eds.) (1989): Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lightfoot, R. R. (1989): Cultural Component II. In The Hidden Falls Site, Baranoff Island, Alaska, edited by SD Davis. Aurora: Alaska Anthropological Association Monograph Series. Anchorage, Alaska. Pp. 199 - 268. Littleton, J. (2002): Mortuary behavior on the Hay Plain: do cemeteries exist? Archaeology of Oceania 37: 105 –122. Lowrey, N. S. (1999): An Ethnoarchaeological Inquiry into the Functional Relationships Between Projectile Point and Armor Technologies on the Northwest Coast. North American Archaeologist 20 (1): 47 – 73. Lyman, R. L. (1985): Bone frequencies: Differential Transport, in situ destruction and the MGUI. Journal of Archaeological Science 95(2):390-397. Lyman, R. L. (1991): Prehistory of the Oregon Coast: The Effects of Excavation Strategies and Assemblage Size on Archaeological Inquiry. Academic Press, Orlando. Luternauer, J. L., J. J. Clague, K. W. Conway, J. V. Barrie, B. Blaise, and R. W. Mathewes (1989): Late Pleistocene terrestrial deposits on the continental shelf of western Canada: Evidence for rapid sea –level change at the end of the last glaciation. Geology 17: 357 –360. MacDonald, G. F. (1969): Preliminary culture sequence from the Coast Tsimshian area, British Columbia. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 3(2): 240-254. 325

MacDonald, G. F. (1983): Prehistoric art of the northern Northwest Coast. In Indian art traditions of the Northwest Coast. R.L. Carlson ed. Simon Fraser University Press, Burnaby. Pp. 99-120. MacDonald, G. (1984): The Epic of Nekt: the Archaeology of Metaphor. In The Tsimshian: Images of the Past Views of the Present, M. Seguin ed. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Pp.65 - 81. MacDonald, G. F. and J. J. Cove (eds.) (1987): Tsimshian Narratives (in two volumes). Canadian Museum of Civilization, Mercury Series Directorate Paper No. 3. Hull, Quebec. MacDonald, G. F. and R. I. Inglis (1981): An overview of the North Coast prehistory project (1966-1980). BC Studies 48: 37-63. MacDonald, G. F., G. Coupland and D. Archer (1987): The Coast Tsimshian, ca 1750. In Historical Atlas of Canada, Volume I, From the Beginning to 1800, R. C. Harris and G.J. Mathews eds. University of Toronto press, Toronto. Mackie, A. P. (1986): Aboriginal site distributions along the Lower Skeena River within Coast Tsimshian Territory. Paper present to the Canadian Archaeological Association Meetings, Toronto. McMillan, A. D. (1996): Since Kwatyat Lived on Earth: An Examination of Nuu-Chah-Nulth Culture History. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia McMillan, A.D. (1999) Since the Time of the Transformers: The Ancient Heritage of the Nuu-Chah-Nulth, Ditidaht, and Makah. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. MacMillan, A. D. & D.E. Nelson (1989): Visual punning and the whale’s tail: AMS dating of a Marpole-age art object. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 13:212-218. Magne, M. P.R. (1996): Comparative analysis of Microblade Cores from Haida Gwaii. In Early Human Occupation in British Columbia, R.L. Carlson and L. Dalla Bona eds. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.. Pg. 151- 158 Marsden S. (2001): Defending the Mouth of the Skeena: Perspectives on Tshimshian Tlinglit Relations. In “Perspectives on Northern Northwest Coast Prehistory” J. Cybulski ed. Mercury Series Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 160. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, Quebec. Pp.61 – 107.

326

Marshall, Y. (1993): A Political History of the Nuu-chah-nulth People: A Case Study of the Mowachaht and Muchalaht Tribes. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby. Martindale, A.C. (1999): The River of Mist: Culture Change in the Tsimshian Past. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Toronto. Martindale, A.C. and S. Marsden (2003): Defining the Middle Period (3500 BP to 1500 BP) in Tsimshian History through a Comparison of Archaeological and Oral Records. BC Studies Summer: 13 – 50. Maschner, H. D.G. (1991): The Emergence of Cultural Complexity on the northern Northwest Coast, Antiquity 65(6): 924-934. Maschner, H. D.G. (1992): The Origins of Hunter-Gatherer Sedentism and Political Complexity: A Case Study from the Northern Northwest Coast. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Santa Barbara. Maschner, H.D.G. and K. Reedy-Maschner (1998): Raid, Retreat, Defend (Repeat): The Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Warfare on the North Pacific Rim. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17: 19 – 51. Mason, A. R. (1994): The Hatzic Rock Site: A Charles Phase Settlement. Unpublished MA Thesis, The University of British Columbia. Vancouver. Matson, R. G. (1976) The Glenrose Cannery Site. Canadian National Museum, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper, Mercury Series No. 52, Hull, Quebec 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” R. J. Nash, ed. Department of Archaeology Publication No. 11, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby. Pp. 124-148. Matson, R. G.. (1985): The relationship between sedentism and status inequalities among hunter-gatherers. In Status, Structure and Stratification: Current Archaeological Reconstructions, M. Thompson, M.T Garcia and F.J. Kense eds Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary. Pp. 245-252. Matson, R.G. (1989): The Locarno Beach Phase and the Origins of the Northwest Coast Ethnographic Pattern. In Development of Hunting –Gathering –Fishing Maritime Societies on the Pacific. Bound Off-Print Conference Proceedings. Pullman: Washington State University Press. 327

Matson R. G. (1992). The Evolution of Northwest Coast Subsistence. In “Long-Term Subsistence Change in Prehistoric North America”, ed. D.E. Croes, R.A. Hawkins, B.L. Isaac.. Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 6. Pp. 367-430 Matson, R. G. and G. Coupland (1995): The Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. Academic Press, Orlando. Matson R. G., H Pratt and L Rankin (1991): 1989 and 1990 Crescent Beach Excavations, Final Report: The Origins of the Northwest Coast Ethnographic Pattern: the Place of the Locarno beach Phase. Report on File, Archaeology Branch, Victoria. May, J. (1979): Archaeological Investigations at GbTn:19, Ridley Island, a Shell Midden in the Prince Rupert Area. Manuscript no. 1530, archives, Archaeological Survey of Canada. Hull, Quebec. McGuire, R. H. (1983): Breaking down cultural complexity: inequality and heterogeneity. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 6:91-142. McGuire, R.H. (1992): Death, Society, and Ideology in a Hohokam Community. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. McGuire, R., and M. B. Schiffer (1983): A Theory of Architectural Design. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2(3):277-303 McKee, B. (1972): Cascadia The Geologic Evolution of the Pacific Northwest. McGrawHill Book Co., New York. Minor, R., D. C. Barner and R. L. Greenspan (1986): The Leask Site: A Late prehistoric Campsite on Annette Island, Southeast Alaska. Heritage Research Associates Report No. 50, Heritage Research Associates, Eugene. Mitchell, D., (1971): Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia Area, A Natural Region and its Culture Types, Syesis 4, supplement 1. Victoria, BC. Mitchell, D. (1984): Predatory Warfare, Social Status and the north Pacific Slave Trade. Ethnology 23(1):39-48. Mitchell, D. (1985): A Demographic Profile of Northwest Coast Slavery. In Status, Structure and Stratification: Current Archaeological Reconstructions, M. Thompson, M.T. Garcia and F.J. Kense eds. Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary. Pp.. 227236. Mitchell, D. and L. Donald (1985): Some Economic Aspects of Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian Slavery. Research in Economic Anthropology 7:19-35. 328

Mitchell, D. and L. Donald (1988): Archaeology and the Study of Northwest Coast Economies. “Prehistoric Economies of the Northwest Coast”, Research in Economic Anthropology, supplement No. 3: 293-351. Monks, G.G. (1987): Prey as Bait: the Deep Bay Example. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 11: 119 –42 Morlan, R. 1999 Canadian Archaeological Radiocarbon Data Base. Electronic source. http://www.canadianarchaeology.ca/ Moseley, Michael (1975): The Maritime Foundations of Andean Civilization. Cummings, Menlo Park. Moss, M. L. (1989a): Analysis of the Vertebrate Assemblage. In The Hidden Falls Site, Baranoff Island, Alaska, S.D. Davis ed. Aurora: Alaska Anthropological Association Monograph Series, Pp.. 93 - 130. Moss, M. L. (1989b): Archaeology and Cultural Ecology of the Prehistoric Angoon Tlingit. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara. Moss, M. L. (1993). Shellfish, Gender and Status on the Northwest Coast: Reconciling Archeological, Ethnographic, and Ethnohistoric Records of the Tlingit. American Anthropologist. 95:631-52. Moss, M. L., (1999): George Catlin Among the Nayas: Understanding the Practice of Labret Wearing on the Northwest Coast. Ethnohistory 46(1): 31 – 65. Moss, M.L. (2004) Archaeological Investigations of Cape Addington Rockshelter: Human Occupation of the Rugged Seacoast on the Outer Prince of Wales Archipelago, Alaska. University of Oregon Anthropological Paper No. 63, Eugene, Or. Moss M. L, and Erlandson J. M. (1992): Forts, Refuge Rocks, and Defensive Sites: The Antiquity of Warfare along the North Pacific Coast of North America. Arctic Anthropology. 29:73-90 Moss, M. L., J. Erlandson, and R. Stuckenrath. (1990): Wood Stake Fish Weirs and Salmon Fishing on the Northwest Coast: Evidence from Southeast Alaska, Canadian Journal of Archaeology 14:143-158. Muller, J. (1997): Mississippian Political Economy. Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology. Plenum, New York. 329

Nelson, M. C. (1991): The Study of Technological Organization. In Archaeological Method and Theory. Pp. 57-100. Netting R. McC. (1990): Links and Boundaries: Reconsidering the Alpine Village as Ecosystem. In The Ecosystem Approach in Anthropology, E. F. Moran ed. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Pp. 229-246. Niblack, A. P. (1970): Coast Indians of Southern Alaska and Northern British Columbia. Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York. Originally published 1888, Report of the National Museum, Washington, D.C. Oberg, K. (1973): The Social Economy of the Tlingit Indians. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Olszewski, D. I. (1991): Social Complexity in the Natufian? Assessing the Relationship of Ideas and Data. In Perspectives on the Past, Theoretical Biases in Mediterranean HunterGatherer Research. GA Clark ed. University of Pennsylvania press, Philadelphia. Pp. 322340. Pavesic, M. G. (1985): Cache Blades and Turkey Tails: Piecing Together the Western Idaho Archaic Burial Complex. In Stone Tool Analysis: Essays in Honor of Don E. Crabtree, M.G. Plew, J.C. Woods and M.G. Pavesic eds. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Pp. 55 - 90 Pearson, G.W. and M. Stuiver (1986): High precision calibration of the radiocarbon time scale, 500-2500 BC. Radiocarbon 28:839-862. Plog, S. and M. Hegmon (1993): The Sample Size-Richness Relation: the Relevance of Research Questions, Sampling Strategies, and Behavioral Variation. American Antiquity 58(3): 489-486. Price, T. D. (1985): Affluent Foragers of Mesolithic Scandinavia. In Prehistoric HunterGatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity, T.D. Price and J.A. Brown eds Academic Press, Orlando. Pp. 341-364. Price, T. D. (1996): Social Inequality at the Origins of Agriculture. In Foundations of Social Inequality, T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman, eds. Plenum Publishing Co., New York. Pp. 129 – 146. Price, T. D. and J. A. Brown. (1985a): Aspects of Hunter-Gatherer Complexity. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity, T.D. Price and J.A. Brown eds. Academic Press, Orlando. Pp. 3-20. 330

Price, T. D. and J. A. Brown (eds.) (1985b): Prehistoric hunter-gatherers: the emergence of cultural complexity. Academic Press, Orlando. Rabich-Campbell, C. (1984): Results of Test Excavations at Sarkar Cove, Southern Southeastern Alaska. Paper presented to the 11th Annual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association, Fairbanks. Raetz, D. L. F. (1989): Bone tool assemblages as an aid to shell mound site typologies on the Northwest coast. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Portland State University. Rafferty, J. E. (1985): The archaeological record of sedentariness: recognition, development and implications. In Advances in archaeological method and theory, Volume 8. Pp. 113-156. Raymond, J. Scott (1981): The Maritime Foundations of Civilization: A Reconsideration of the Evidence. American Antiquity 46(4): 806-821. Richardson, Allan (1981): The Control of Productive Resources on the Northwest Coast of North America. In Resource Managers: North American and Australian Hunter-Gatherers, N Williams and ES Hunn eds. AAAS Selected Symposium No. 67. Robinson, S. W. and G. Thompson (1981): Radiocarbon Corrections for Marine Shell Dates with Application to Southern Pacific Northwest Coast Prehistory. Syesis 14:45-57. Rowley-Conwy, P. (2001): Time, Change and the Archaeology of Hunter-Gatherers: How Original is the "Original Affluent Society"? In Hunter-Gatherers: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. C. Panter-Brick, R.H. Layton, and P. Rowley-Conwy, eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pp. 39 -72 Sahlins, M. (1972): Stone Age Economics. Aldine, Chicago. Sackett, J. R. (1982): Approaches to Style in Lithic Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1(1): 59 - 112 Saleeby, B. (1983): Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Portland Basin on the Lower Columbia River: Ethnohistoric, Archaeological and Biogeographic Perspectives. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene. . Salney F.F. and Company LT.D.. (1973): Preliminary Environmental Effect Assessment: Superport Development, Prince Rupert Region. Department of Environment Report, Victoria. Samuels, S. R. (1983): Spatial patterns and cultural processes in three Northwest Coast longhouse floor middens from Ozette. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman. 331

Samuels, S. R. (ed.) (1991) House Structure and Floor Midden, Ozette Archaeological Project Research Reports, Volume I. Washington State University Reports of Investigation 63. National Park Service Northwest Regional Office. Washington State University, Pullman. Sasaki, K. (1981): Keynote Address. In “Affluent Foragers,” S. Koyama and D.H. Thomas, eds. Senri Ethnological Studies No. 9, National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka. Pp.13-18. Schalk, R. F. (1977): The Structure of an Anadramous Fish Resource. In For Theory Building in Archaeology, L. R. Binford, ed. Academic Press, Orlando. Pp. 207-249. Schalk, R. F. (1981): Land use and organizational complexity among foragers of northwestern North America. In "Affluent foragers: Pacific coasts East and West," S. Koyama and D.H. Thomas eds. Senri Ethnological Studies No. 9, National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka. Pp. 53-76. Schulting, R. J. (1995): Mortuary Variability and Status Differentiation on the ColumbiaFraser Plateau. Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby. Service, E. R. (1962): Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspective. 2nd ed., 1971. Random House, New York. Severs, P. (1973): A View of Island Prehistory: Archaeological Investigations at Blue Jackets Creek 1972-73. The Charlottes, A Journal of the Queen Charlotte Islands 3: 2-12. Severs, P. (1974): Recent Archaeological Research at Blue Jackets Creek, F1Ua 4, The Queen Charlotte Islands. The Midden 6(2): 22-24. Sillen A. and J. A. Lee- Thorpe (1991): Dietary Change in the Late Natufian. In “The Natufian Culture in the Levant,” O Bar-Yosef and FR Valla eds International Monographs in Archaeology, Archaeological Series No.1, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Pp. 399-411. Simenstad, C. A., J. A. Estes and K. W. Kenyon. (1978): Aleuts, Sea Otters and Alternate Stable–State Communities. Science 200: 403 – 411. Simonsen, B. O. (1973): Archaeological Investigations in the Hecate Strait-Milbank Sound Area of British Columbia. National Museum of Man, Archaeological Survey of Canada Papers Mercury Series No. 13, Hull, Quebec Simonsen, B. O. (1988): Final Report on Archaeological Salvage Excavations and Construction Monitoring at the Lachane Site (GbTo-33) Prince Rupert, B.C. The Bastion Group Heritage Consultants, Victoria. 332

Smith, M. E. (1987): Household Possessions and Wealth in Agrarian States: Implications for Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6: 297-335 Smith, H. I. (1909): Archaeological remains on the coast of northern British Columbia and southern Alaska. American Anthropologist 11(1): 595-600. Smith, H. I. (1927): Kitchen middens of the Pacific Coast of Canada. National Museum of Canada Bulletin 56: 42-6. Ottawa Smith, H. I. (1930): A List of Archaeological Sites near Prince Rupert, British Columbia. Unpublished manuscript, Information Management Services (Archaeological Records), Canadian Museum of Civilization. Hull, Quebec. Soffer, O. (1985): The Upper Paleolithic of the Central Russian Plain. Academic Press, Orlando. Soffer, O. (1989): Storage, Sedentism and the Eurasian Paleolithic Record. Antiquity 64:719732. Southon, J. and D. Fedje (2003): A Post-Glacial Record of 14C Reservoir Ages for the British Columbia Coast. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 23(1): 95 – 111. Stanford, M. and T. Thibault (1980): Archaeological Investigation at Traders Island (49 SIT 120) and Catherine Island, Alaska. Ms. on file, Chatham Area Office, USDA Forest Service, Sitka, Alaska. Stein, J. K. (1992): The Analysis of Shell Middens. In Deciphering a Shell Midden, J.K. Stein, ed. Academic Press, Orlando. Pp.1-24. Stein, J.K. and J.N. Reo (2003): Big Sites – Short Time: Accumulation Rates in Archaeological Sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 30: 297 – 316. 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(4): 436 – 459. Stewart, H. (1981): Artifacts of the Northwest Coast Indians. Hancock House Publishers, North Vancouver. Stewart, F. L. (1977): Vertebrate faunal remains from the Boardwalk site (GbTo 31) of northern British Columbia. Unpublished manuscript (Ms.1263), Information Management Services (Archaeological Records), Canadian Museum of Civilization. Hull, Quebec.

333

Stewart F. L. and K. Stewart (1996): The Boardwalk and Grassy Bay Sites: Patterns of Seasonality and Subsistence on the Northern Northwest Coast, B.C. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 20: 39-60 Stewart, Julian H. (1938): Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Socio-Political Groups. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 120. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Stewart, K. (1980): The Grassy Bay (GbTn-1), British Columbia, Faunal Report. Unpublished manuscript (Ms.1747), Information Management Services (Archaeological Records), Canadian Museum of Civilization. Hull, Quebec. Stuiver, M. and P. J. Reimer (1986): A computer Program for Radiocarbon Age Calibration. Radiocarbon 28:1022-1030 Stuiver, M. and Gordon W. Pearson (1986): High Precision Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950-500 BC. Radiocarbon 28(2B):805-838 Sutherland, P. C. (1978): Dodge Island, a Prehistoric Coast Tsimshian Settlement Site in Prince Rupert Harbour, B.C. Unpublished manuscript (Ms.1343), Information Management Services (Archaeological Records), Canadian Museum of Civilization. Hull, Quebec. Suttles, W. (1962): Variation in Habitat and Culture on the Northwest Coast. Proceedings of the 34th International Congress of Americanists, Vienna. Pp.522-536. Suttles, W. (1968): Coping with Abundance: Subsistence on the Northwest Coast. In Man the Hunter, R.B. Lee. and I. DeVore eds Aldine, Chicago. Suttles, W. (1990a): Introduction. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7, Northwest Coast, W. Suttles ed. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Pp. 1 – 15 Suttles, W. (ed.) (1990b): Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7, Northwest Coast. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Testart, A. (1982): The Significance of Food Storage among hunter-gatherers: residence patterns, population densities, and social inequities. Current Anthropology 23:523-537 Thomas, D. H. (1981): Complexity among Great Basin Shoshoneans: The World's Least Affluent Hunter-Gatherers? In “Affluent Foragers”, S. Koyama and D. H. Thomas eds. Senri Ethnological Studies No. 9, National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka. Pp.19-52. Thomas, D. H. (1983): The Archaeology of Monitor Valley 1. Epistemology. Anthropology Papers of the American Museum of Natural History Volume 58: Part 1. New York.

334

Thomas, D. H. (1989): Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Geography. In Quantifying Diversity, RD Leonard and GT Jones eds Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pp. 85-91. Torrence, Robin (1983): Time budgeting in prehistory. In Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory, G Bailey ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pp. 11-22. Torrence, Robin (1989): Retooling: towards a behavioral theory of stone tools. In Time, Energy and Stone Tools, R Torrence ed. University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge. Pp. 5766. Trigger, Bruce (1989): A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Turunen, C. and Turunen J. (2003): Development history and carbon accumulation of a slope bog in oceanic British Columbia, Canada. The Holocene 13(2): 225 – 238. Warner, B.G., J.J. Clague and R.W. Mathewes (1982): Ice-free Conditions on the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia, at the height of late Wisconsin glaciation. Science 218:675-677. Wason, P. K. (1994): The Archaeology of Rank. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Watanabe, H. (1992): The Northern Pacific Maritime Culture Zone: A Viewpoint on HunterGatherer Mobility and Sedentism . In Pacific Northeast Asia in Prehistory, C.M. Aikens and S.N. Rhee, eds. Washington State University Press, Pullman. Pp 105–112. Wessen, G. (1982): Shell Middens as Cultural Deposits: a Case Study from Ozette. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman. Wilk, R. R. and W. L. Rathje (1982): Household Archaeology. American Behavioral Scientist (25)6:631- 640. Wilkinson, L. (1988): SYSTAT: The System for Statistics. SYSTAT, Inc., Evanston. Winterhalder, B. (1990): Open field, common pot: harvests variability and risk avoidance in agricultural and foraging societies. In Risk and Uncertainty in Tribal and Peasant Economies, E. Cashden ed. Westview Press, Co. Pp. 67-87. Winterhalder, B. and C. Goland (1992) Food Sharing to Field Scattering: Risk and the Origins of Agriculture. Paper presented to the Annual Society for American Archaeology Meetings, Pittsburgh, PA. April, 1992.

335

Wobst, H. M. (1974): Boundary Conditions for Paleolithic Social Systems: A Simulation Approach. American Antiquity 31(1):147-179 Wobst, H. M. (1976): Locational Relationships in Paleolithic Society. Journal of Human Evolution 5(1):49-58. Woodburn, J. (1980): Hunter-Gatherers Today and Reconstructing the Past. In Soviet and Western Anthropology, E Gellner ed, Columbia University Press, New York. Pp. 94-118. Wright, G. A. (1985): Social Differentiation in the Early Natufian. In Social Archaeology, C.L. Redman et al. eds. Academic Press, New York. Pp. 201-204. Yen, D.E. (1989): The Domestication of the Environment. In Foraging and Farming, the Evolution of Plant Exploitation, D. R. Harris and G. C. Hillman, eds. Unwin Hyman, London. Pp. 55-78.

336

Appendix A: Artifact Tables

337

3

7

4

7

102 14.6 25.3

TOTAL MEAN STD. DEV.

1

1 2

1 4

28 7 8.1

4

3

2 21 2

UNK

6 2 1

3

1

2 3

AU

GBTO30

33 8.3 6.6

4

7 19 1 6

AC/AU1

22 7.3 6.2

3

4

2 16

AC/AU2

10 5 4

2

1 9

AC/AU3

9 3 2.2

3

1 2 6

B/AU1

21 7 4.6

3

6 13 2

B/AU2

73 18.25 17.34

1 4

15 47 10

15 5 3.3

3

5 9 1

B/AU4

GBTO 31 B/AU3

9 4.5 2.5

2

2 7

D/AU1

338

Unknown pointed tip piercing tools occur only at Boardwalk, and so must represent an inconsistency in data recording.

60 8.6 16.5

1 2 49 7

1 12 76 4

AU/2

5 20

GBTO23

AU

AU/1

UNK

POINTED TIP Barbed Fixed Hafted Socketed Unknown1 SQUARE TIP Barbed Fixed Hafted Socketed Unknown ROUND TIP Barbed Fixed Hafted Socketed Unknown TAXA

CLASS

Table A.1 Raw counts of hafted bone piercing tools by AU.

38 7.6 9.7

5

1

1

1 9 26

D/AU2

48 16 15.9

3

1

9 38

D/AU3

49 12.3 13.3

1 4

6

7 35

S/AU

40 13.3 14

3

2

5 33

MISC

2

2 25 13 10.6

10

A/AU

7 102 15 27.3

1 11

3

10 5 337 9

B/AU

7 65 9 17.6

5

2 2 62

D/AU

1

3 37 1

4 28 7 9.3

GBTO33 E/AU G/AU

3 6 2 1.0

4

H/AU

4 33 8 7.6

4

78 3

1

MISC

3 22 7 7.6

3

4 4 1

6 10 120 2

34 AU

2 10 5 5.7

17 1

13 7 123 6

36 AU

3 9 3 2.6

3 21 7 5.6

1 3

AU/1

4 73 18 20.0

1

14

339

1 2 2

GBTN1 AU/2 UNK

Unknown pointed tip piercing tools occur only at Boardwalk, and so must represent an inconsistency in data recording.

POINTED TIP Barbed Fixed Hafted Socketed Unknown2 SQUARE TIP Barbed Fixed Hafted Socketed Unknown ROUND TIP Barbed Fixed Hafted Socketed Unknown TAXA TOTAL MEAN STD. DEV.

CLASS

Table A.1 cont. Raw counts of hafted bone piercing tools by AU.

3 15 5 4.0

3 1

3 3

2 4 60 16

GCTO1 AU

2 9 5 3.5

0 10 16 1 0 0 1 42 15 1 2 5 38 8 10.9

38 130 1273 66 20

TOTAL

3

1 2 48.5 2

1 2

3

6.9 59.4 8.5 16.4

.5 2

2

3.6 52 7.4 12.9

AU2

.5 6.2 38.8 2

AU1

GBTO23

2.9 5.8 1.9 .8

1

1.9 2.9

AU

GBTO3 0

2.2 17.7 4.4 3.6

3.8 10.2 .5 3.23

AU1

1.7 12.4 4.1 3.5

2.3

1.1 9

5.4 27 13.5 10.8

2.7 24.3

AREA AC AU2 AU3

6.4 19.2 6.4 4.6

2.1 4.3 12.8

AU1

6.6 45.7 15.2 9.4

13 28.3 4.4

1.8 7 128 32 30.4

26.3 82.5 17.5

AREA B AU2 AU3

GBTO31

5.3 26.3 8.8 5.7

8.8 15.9 1.8

AU4

2.7 12.2 6.1 3.4

2.7 9.5

AU1

2.8 20.3 4.1 5

.5

.5

.5 4.8 13.9

1.9 31.2 10.4 10.3

.7

5.9 24.9

AREA D AU2 AU3

1.59 74.8 9.4 21.8

.2 .2 2.2

.5

2 1 66.8 1.8

AREA B AU

2.8 49.3 12.3 17.8

3.5

1.4 1.4 43.1 .6

AREA D AU

GBTO33

340

Unknown pointed tip piercing tools occur only at Boardwalk, and so must represent an inconsistency in data recording.

POINTED TIP Barbed Fixed Hafted Socketed Unknown3 Square tip Barbed Fixed Hafted Socketed Unknown Round tip Barbed Fixed Hafted Socketed Unknown TAXA TOTAL MEAN STD. DEV.

CLASS

Table A.2 Densities/100m3 of hafted bone piercing tools by AU.

2.5 26.4 6.6 9.6

.6

1.9 23.4 .6

AREA E AU

2.9 80.3 13.4 20.6

8.2 .5

6.25 3.4 59.1 2.9

AU

GBTO36

7.1 14.3 7.1 3.6

3.6 10.7

AU1

7.1 53.6 26.8 23.2

3.6

50

AU2

GBTN1

Worked Unknown NEEDLES Decorated Drilled Fragment Plain Sea mammal Unknown TAXA TOTAL MEAN STD. DEV.

AWLS Anatomical Baculum Birdbone Metapodial Nipple Shell Splinter Sea mammal Tine Ulna

CLASS

4 12

9

6 56 9 13

2

1

7 106 15 28

38

84

3

4

7

1

2 8

1 5

1

2

GBTO23 AU/2

1

AU/1

1

UNK AU

4 23

1

17

4

1

UNK

2 4

1

3

GBTO30 AU

7 34 5 9

1

27 1

1

2

1

AC/AU1

Table A.3 Raw counts of awls and needles by AU.

4 22 4 4

13

2

2

4

1

AC/AU2

5 10 2 2

1

5 1

2

1

341

AC/AU3

5 21 4 5

1

14

3

2 1

B/AU1

4 19 5 4

11 2

3

3

B/AU2

7 88 13 19

2

59 5

8

5

4

6

6 29 5 5

1 1

15

7

3

2

GBTO 31 B/AU3 B/AU4

1 5 27 5 6

16

6

2

2

D/AU1

1 9 54 6 10

1

34

7

3 1 1 5

1

D/AU2

1 9 65 7 12

1 1

40

13

3

3 2

1

D/AU3

14

4

1

5 1

1

S/AU

1

1

2

7

5

1

2

2

MISC

AWLS Anatomical Baculum Birdbone Metapodial Nipple Shell Sea mammal Splinter Tine Ulna Worked Unknown NEEDLES Decorated Drilled Fragment Plain Sea mammal Unknown TAXA TOTAL MEAN STD. DEV.

CLASS

4

4 65

14

15 298

12

7 348 50 97

2

1

2 3

6 82 14 23

2

6

5

D/AU

1

B/AU

13 1

A/AU

5 17

2

11

1

2

1

GBTO33 E/AU

2 7

6

1

G/AU

Table A.3 cont. Raw counts of awls and needles by AU.

6 71 12 23

1 1

4 53

1

1

H/AU

5 56

1

48

3

3

1

MISC

342

9 139 20

2

11 73

27

2 2

20 1

34 AU

5 131 26 36

1 94

26

4

6

36 AU

2 3

1

2

3

AU/1

5 9 2 1

1

1

2

3

GBTN1 AU/2

2 3

2

1

1

MISC

8 177

10 1

3 64

77

17

17

GCTO1 AU

1 45 4 1 0 4 4.9 1616 11.3 17.5

86 3 2 76 19 1 38 157 1 104 1121 9

TOTAL

AWLS Anatomical Baculum Birdbone Metapodial Nipple Shell Sea mammal Splinter Tine Ulna Worked Unknown NEEDLES Decorated Drilled Fragment Plain Sea mammal Unknown TAXA TOTAL MEAN STD. DEV.

CLASS

2

2 8

4

37.5

2

5.9 55.5 9 13

2 2.6

3.6

1.5 42.9

.5

3.6 54.1 7.7 147

AU2

1

AU1

GBTO23

2 3.9

1

2.8

AU

GBTO3 0

3.8 18.3 2.6 4.9

.5

.5 24.5 .5

.5

1.1

.5

AU1

2.28 12.4 2.49 2.49

7.34

1.13

2.26

.56

13.5 27.3 5.4 4.2

2.7

13.5 2.7

5.4

2.7

AREA AC AU2 AU3

10.5 44.6 8.9 10.5

2.1

6.4 29.8

4.5 2.1

AU1

8.7 41.3 10.3 7.9

6.5 23.9 4.4

6.5

12.3 154.4 20 33.1

1.8

14 103.5 8.8

8.8

7

10.5

AREA B AU2 AU3

GBTO31

Table A.4 Densities/100m3 of Bone Awls and Needles by AU.

343

10.5 50.9 8.48 8.74

1.75 1.75

12.2 26.3

5.26

3.51

AU4

1.4 6.8 36.5 7.3 7.5

8.1 21.5

2.7

2.7

AU1

.5 4.8 28.9 3.2 5.4

.5

3.8 18.2

2.7

1.8 .5 .5

.5

.7 6 42.2 4.9 7.9

.7 .7

5.4 26

2

2 1.3

.65

AREA D AU2 AU3

1.4 59.1 9.9 19.3

2.4

3 57.1

2.7

1

2.6 .2

AREA B AU

4.2 56.9 9.5 16

1.4

2.8 45.2

2.8

4.2

.6

AREA D AU

GBTO33

3.8 44.7 7.4 14.4

.6 .6

2.5 39.5

.5

.5

AREA E AU

2.4 53 12.8 15.9

..5 45.2

1.3

1.9

2.9

AU

GBTO36

7.1 10.7

3.6

7.1

AU1

17.9 32.1 6.4 2.6

3.6

3.6

7.1

7.1

10.7

AU2

GBTN1

CLASS FRAGMENTS Metapod frag. Tip frag. POINTED TIPS Anatomical Birdbone Fixed Hafted Metapodial Plain Splinter Ulna Unknown Worked ROUND TIPS Anatomical Birdbone Fixed Hafted Metapodial Ulna Worked SQUARE TIPS Anatomical Baculum Sea otter Fixed Hafted Metapodial Ulna Worked

2

1

1

1

1

1

GBTO23 AU/2

4

1

1

1

AU/1

UNK

2

GBTO30 AU 1 1

1

1

3

4

AC/AU2

AC/AU1

Table A.5 Raw counts of beveled bone tools by AU.

1

344

AC/AU3

B/AU1 1

2

B/AU2 2

2

1

2

5

GBTO 31 B/AU3 B/AU4

1

1

D/AU1

1 1

1

1

2

2

D/AU2

1 1 1

1

1 1

1 1

1 3

D/AU3

1

2 1

4 1

S/AU

1

1

1 1

1 1

MISC

10 27 2.7 3.4

1 12 3

AU/1

6 18 3.0 2.9

5 8 2

GBTO23 AU/2

UNK

4 5 1.3 0.5

1

GBTO30 AU

2 4 11 2.8 1.7

5

AC/AU1

4 7 1.8 1.5

1

1

AC/AU2

1 1 1.0

AC/AU3

2 2 1.0 0.0

1

B/AU1

1 6 10 1.7 0.5

1

2 2

B/AU2

3 8 30 4.3 3.8

4

1

10 9

2 3 1.5 0.7

2 1

GBTO 31 B/AU3 B/AU4

1 5 8 1.6 0.9

2 3

D/AU1

9 17 1.9 2.0

1

7 1

D/AU2

12 18 1.5 1.0

2

4

D/AU 3

9 15 1.7 1.1

1

1

3 1

S/AU

2 8 15 1.9 2.1

7

MISC

5

345

One of these is of whale bone Taxa presented in this table are condensed. Fewer taxa are listed in the table than there are in the full classification. Taxa figures given are for the full classification.

4

TEETH Canines Incisors Misc. WEDGES Antler Hafted Metapodial Plain Misc. TAXA5 TOTAL MEAN STD. DEV.

CLASS

Table A5 cont. Raw counts of beveled bone tools by AU.

CLASS FRAGMENTS Metapodial frag. Tip frag. POINTED TIPS Anatomical Birdbone Fixed Hafted Metapodial Plain Splinter Ulna Unknown Worked ROUND TIPS Anatomical Birdbone Fixed Hafted Metapodial Ulna Worked SQUARE TIPS Anatomical Baculum Sea otter Fixed Hafted Metapodial Ulna Worked

1

1

A/AU

1 1 1

4

3

1

7

2

3

6

1

5

2

8 2

2

1

1

1

D/AU

B/AU

1 1

1

GBTO33 E/AU

1

G/AU

Table A.5 cont. Raw counts of beveled bone tools by AU. H/AU

346

1

1 1

1

1 1

MISC

5

5 1

6

2 2

7

1

2 1 3 1

3

34 AU

1 4 3 19 1 1 14

1

2

1

1 1 1

2

2 1

1

2

1

1 2

2

1 2 1 4 26 6 4 17

5 20

1 4 2

TOTAL

8 4 18 31 8 1 1 4 2 20

GCTO1 AU

3

MISC

5

GBTN1 AU/2 4

AU/1

36 AU 1 2

4 5

1

2

A/AU

16 88 10.3 21.2

2

3 30 11

B/AU

1 10 31 5.6 9.9

1 19

D/AU

1 6 13 3.7 4.9

1

1 8

GBTO33 E/AU

0

G/AU

3 3 1.5 1

1 1

H/AU

7 18 4.5 5.8

10

MISC

2 22 131 11.4 30

1

2 81 5

34 AU

21 43 3.9 8.9

1

1 9

36 AU

3 1 3

3

AU/1

5 7 2.4 2.1

1 2 15 111 13.9 33.2

1

1 3

GCTO1 AU 1 89

MISC

1

GBTN1 AU/2

3 10 3 1 15 7.0 630 2.4 3.5

16 317 39

TOTAL

347

Taxa presented in this table are condensed. Fewer taxa are listed in the table than there are in the full classification. Taxa figures given are for the full classification.

6

TEETH Canines Incisors Misc. WEDGES Antler Hafted Metapodial Plain Misc. TAXA6 TOTAL MEAN STD. DEV.

CLASS

Table A.5 cont. Raw counts of beveled bone tools AU.

Metap frag. Tip frag. POINTED TIPS Anatomical Birdbone Fixed Hafted Metapodial Plain Splinter Ulna Unknown Worked ROUND TIPS Anatomical Birdbone Fixed Hafted Metapodial Ulna Worked SQUARE TIPS Anatomical Baculum Sea otter Fixed Hafted Metapodial Ulna Worked

CLASS

1

1

1

.5

.5

1

AU2

2

.5

.5

.5

AU1

GBTO23

1

2

1 1

AU

GBTO30

.5

1.6

2.3

.6

2.7

AREA AC AU1 AU2 AU 3

Table A.6 Densities/100m3 of beveled bone tools.

AU1

4.4 3.5

1.8

4

9

GBTO31 AREA B AU2 AU3

348

AU4

1.4

1.4

AU1

1

.5

2

.5

.5

.5

AREA D AU2

.7 .7 .7

.7

.7 .7

.7 .7

.7 2

AU3

.8

1.4

.4

.6

1.2

.2

1

.4

1.6 .4

.2

.2

AREA B AU

.7 .7

.7

2.1

.7

1.4

.7

GBTO33 AREA D AU

.6

.6

AREA E AU

.5

.5 .5

1

.5 1.9 1

2.4

.5 1

AU

GBTO36

AU1

7

7

AU2

GBTN1

5 5 5

8

17.8 2.2 1.6

5.6

13.8 1.3 1

AU2

.5 3.1 4.6

AU1

GBTO23

5 1.2 .4

4

1

AU

GBTO3 0

6.5 1.1 .8

.5 .5 3.2

4.1

AU1

6.2 1.6 1

2.3

.5

3

5.4 2.7

5.4

3

AREA AC AU2 AU3

4.3 2.3

2.1 4.3

2.1

AU1

15.2 3.8 1

8.7

2.2

8.7

57.9 4.8 5

3.57 21.1

1.8 1.8

29.82 3.5

AREA B AU2 AU3

GBTO31

5.3 2.6 .9

3.5

5.2

AU4

10.8 2.2 1.1

1.6 6.8

6.8

AU1

14.4 1.3 1

5.9

.5 6.4 1.6

AREA D AU2

11.7 .8 .5

9.1

1.3

2.6

AU3

17.5 1.1 1.4

3.2

.4

.6 6 .6

AREA B AU

21.5 2.2 3.7

.7 6.9

,7 13.2

AREA D AU

GBTO33

3.8 1.4 1.6

.6 8.2

.6

.6

AREA E AU

18.8 1.1 .8

7.2

.5

.5 4.5

AU

GBTO36

3.6 3.6

3.6

3.6

AU1

21.4 5.4 1.8

14.3

3.6

3.6

AU2

GBTN1

8

349

One of these wedges is whale bone. Taxa presented in this table are condensed. Fewer taxa are listed in the table than there are in the full classification. Taxa figures given are for the full classification.

7

TEETH Canines Incisors Misc. WEDGES Antler Hafted Metapodial Plain Misc. TAXA8 DENSITY DENSITY MEAN STD. DEV.

CLASS

Table A.6 cont. Densities/100m3 of beveled bone tools.

4 3 12 4 3

1 7

UNK AU

1 10 16 1.6 1.1

1 6 7 2 1.9

1

1

1

1

1

1 2

GBTO23 AU/2

1 2

1

1 1 3 4

AU/1

6 7 1.2 0.4

1

1

2

1

1

1

UNK

GBTO30 AU

1

1 2

6

1 1

8 16 2 1.9

AC/AU1 3 1

4

4

1

4 10 2.5 1.7

AC/AU2 1

1

1 1 1

AC/AU3

5 9 1.8 1.3

1

1

4 2

B/AU1 1

3 4 1.3 0.6

1

1

2

B/AU2

6 9 1.5 0.9

1

1

2

1 3

1

1 1 1

GBTO 31 B/AU3 B/AU4 1

1

2 2 1 0

D/AU1 1

5 9 1.8 0.96

2

2

3

1 1

D/AU2

4 5 1.25 0

1 1

2

1

D/AU3

4 9 2.3 2.5

1

1

6

S/AU 1

1

1

1

MISC

350

Taxa presented in this table are condensed. Fewer taxa are listed in the table than there are in the full classification. Taxa figures given are for the full classification.

9

Bone blades Barkpeeler Barkshredder Barksplitter Club, whlbone Club, zoom. Combs Crescents Detritus Flaker, antler Gauge Handles, decr Handles, plain Handles, frag. Horn cores Pegs Phalanges, wrkd Rods Spatulates, hafted Spatulates, plain Spatulates, socket Spatulates, misc. Spoons Tabular pieces TAXA9 TOTAL MEAN STD. DEV.

CLASS

Table A.7 Raw counts of miscellaneous bone tools AU.

10

A/AU

1 10 10

6 15 60 4 5.9

1 1 3 15 1 1

3 1

1 1 23

1 1 1

B/AU

5 11 2.2 2.5

2

1

1 6

1

D/AU

4 6 1.5 1

1

1

3

1

GBTO33 E/AU G/AU

3 6 2 1.4

2

1

3

H/AU

MISC 1

1 1 1

3 11 107 9.7 25.7

7 51 7.3 15.8

1

5

1

2

1 3 2 1 9 1

1

40

1

36 AU

1

2 83

1

34 AU

1 1 1

1

AU/1

5

1 5 5

GBTN1 AU/2

1

MISC

1 1 1

1

19

2 1

6

1

30

1

GCTO1 AU

9 9 4 2 1 3 3 10 244 2 8 6 15 0 9 5 5 65 8 4 2 1 2 21 4.4 438 2.8 3.5

TOTAL

351

Taxa presented in this table are condensed. Fewer taxa are listed in the table than there are in the full classification. Taxa figures given are for the full classification.

10

Bone blades Barkpeeler Barkshredder Barksplitter Club, whalebone Club, zoomorphic Combs Crescents Detritus Flaker, antler Gauge Handles, decor. Handles, plain Handles, frag. Horn cores Pegs Phalanges, wrkd Rods Spatulates, hafted Spatulates, plain Spatulates, socket Spatulates, misc. Spoons Tabular pieces TAXA10 TOTAL MEAN STD. DEV.

CLASS

Table A.7 cont. Raw counts of miscellaneous bone tools by AU.

.51 4.06 9.15 0.83 0.52

.99 6.93 5.97 1.2 0.5

.99

.51

.51

.99

1 2

AU2

.51 .51 1.02

.99

.51 .51 1.53 2.04

AU1

GBTO23

0

AU

GBTO30

.54 4.8 8.02 1.15 1.00

1.1

.5

3.2

.54

AU1 1.6 .54

1.69 5.36 1.34 0.92

2

2.26

.54

2.7 2.7 2.7

2.7

AREA AC AU2 AU3 .56

8.51 15.93 3.98 3.31

1

8.5 4.3

AU1 2.13

2.17 6.38 8.64 2.16 0.02

2.13

2.17

2.17

2.13 15.79 17.05 2.84 1.74

2.13 6.4

2.13

2.13 2.13

AREA B AU2 AU3

GBTO31

1.75 1.75 1.75

AU4 1.75

2.7 2.7 1.35 0

1.35

AU1 1.35

2,14 4.75 0.95 0.44

1

1.07

1.6

.54 .54

.65 .65 2.95 2.95 0.74 0.18

1

.65

AREA D AU2 AU3

1.19 3.57 16.26 1.16 2.24

.2

.2 .2 .6 7.7 .2

,6 .2

.2 .2 4.77

.2 .2 .2

AREA B AU

.69 4.17 9.32 1.55 1.97

1

.69

.69 5.56

.69

AREA D AU

GBTO33

3.14 4.78 0.96 0.55

1

.63

.63

1.89

.63

AREA E AU

3.85 23.27 4.65 8.20

2.6

.48

.48

19.23

.48

AU

GBTO3 6

3.57 3.57 3.57

3.57

AU1

7.14 17.9 17.9

17.9

AU2

GBTN1

352

Taxa presented in this table are condensed. Fewer taxa are listed in the table than there are in the full classification. Taxa figures given are for the full classification.

11

Bone blades Barkpeeler Barkshredder Barksplitter Club, whlbn Club, zoom Combs Crescents Detritus Flaker, antler Gauge Handle, décor Handle, plain Handle, frag. Horn cores Pegs Phlnges wrkd Rods Spatulates, hafted Spatulates, plain Spatulates, socket Spatulates, misc. Spoons Tabular pieces TAXA11 TOTAL MEAN STD. DEV.

CLASS

Table A.8 Densities/100m3 of miscellaneous bone tools by AU

COMPLETE TOOLS

Anatomical Barbed Base Baculum Body Worked Bone Bird Bone Decorated Drilled Haft Metapodial Socketed Tip Ulna Unknown Whalebone TAXA TOTAL MEAN STD. DEV.

CLASS

51.6

UNK AU

114

8 413 52 78

77

10 256 26 44

1 22 2

86

136 11

21 5

133 1 1

GBTO23 AU/2 5 2 3

224

AU/1 4 2 10

32

8 129

6 2

37 2

77

UNK 3 1 1

8

6 92 15 21

1 12 1

12

12

1

GBTO30 AU

21

6 54 9 6

1 17

13

10

AC/AU1 1

17

8 1 3 1 10 45 5 5

16

10 3

AC/AU2 1 1 1

Table A.9 Raw counts of worked bone fragments by AU.

5

2

3

2

353

AC/AU3

5

5 19 4 4

11

3

3 1

B/AU1

24

5 19 4 4

11

2

4 1

1

B/AU2

82

30 1 2 1 9 65 7 9

11

13 2

20

9 21 2 2

1

1 8

2

2 1 2

GBTO 31 B/AU3 B/AU4 2 1 2 3

18

5 16 3 2

4 1 2

7

D/AU1 2

38

7 47 7 6

14 1

11 1

15 2

3

D/AU2

47

8 51 6 8

25 2 2

8 1

10 2

D/AU3 1

29

41

1 7 45

15

16 1

1 21 1 13 1 2 2 10 86

9 1

2

MISC

24 6

15

S/AU

COMPLETE TOOLS

Anatomical Barbed Base Baculum Body Worked Bone Bird Bone Decorated Drilled Haft Metapodial Socketed Tip Ulna Unknown Whalebone TAXA TOTAL MEAN STD. DEV.

CLASS

10

3

15

33

A/AU

5 8 1.8 1.3

367

22 365 16.6 24.5

376 9 11 84 5

4

B/AU 13 14 2 1 578

82

12 143 12.0 22.9

69 4 3 24

145

5 1

D/AU

11

16 1 1 2

27

9 69 7.7 9.7

GBTO33 E/AU

3

3 6 2.3 1.5

3 1

3

G/AU

Table A.9 cont. Raw counts of bone tool fragments by AU.

46

303

7 2

3 10 45 5 5 73

94 14 6 192 7

3

546

34 AU 13 44 9

64 3 1 15

1

2 108

MISC 4

354

5 25 5.0 4.3

9

46 2

59

1

H/AU 2

165

5 19 4 4

92 2 5 69 3

1

219

36 AU 2 4 5

6

15

5

1 6

5 19 4 4

4

9 65 7 9

14

GBTN1 AU/2

4

5

AU/1

4

9 21 2 2

1

4

6

MISC

250

5 16 3 2

110 3 7 103 2

1 5

GCTO1 AU 10 2 11 1 387

1913

63 76 71 4 2683 20 4 14 1 1273 56 39 733 34 12 15 7 47 7 6

TOTAL

COMPLETE TOOLS

Anatomical Barbed Base Baculum Body Worked Bone Bird Bone Decorated Drilled Haft Metapodial Socketed Tip Ulna Unknown Whalebone TAXA TOTAL MEAN STD. DEV.

CLASS

58.2

4.1 210.7 26.3 39.5

76.2

10 253.5 25.4 43.2

1 16.4 1

1 21.8 2

10.7 2.6

11.5

85.2

69.4 5.6

7.7

6 88.5 14.7 20.1

57.7

131.7 1 1

114.3

1

AU

5 2 3

AU2

GBTO3 0

2 1 5.1

AU1

GBTO23

11.3

3.2 29 4.8 3.2

.5 9.14

7

5.4 6.5

.5

AU1

9.6

4.5 .6 1.7 .6 5.7 25.42 2.5 2.8

9

5.7 1.7

.6 .6 .6

13.5

5.4 13.5

8.1

5.4

AREA AC AU2 AU3

10.6

10.6 40.4 8.1 7.9

23.4 2.1

6.4

6.4 2.1

AU1

52.2

10.9 41.3 8.3 8.2

23.9

4.4

8.7 2.2

2.2

143.9

52.6 1.75 3.5 1.8 15.8 114 12.7 16

19.3

22.8 5.3

3.5

3.5

AREA B AU2 AU3

GBTO31

Table A.10 Densities/100m3 of bone tool fragments by AU.

355

35.1

115.8 36.8 4 4

1.8

1.8 14

3.5

3.5 1.8 3.5

1.8 5.3

AU4

24.3

6.8 21.6 4.3 2.9

5.4 1.4 2.7

9.5

20.3

3.7 25.1 3.4 3.1

7.5 .5

5.9 .5

8 1.1

1.6

30.1

8 33.1 4.1 5

16.2 1.3 1.3

5.2 .7

6.5 1.3

AREA D AU AU3 2 2.7 .7

AU1

72.8

2.2 215.8 19.6 36.3

72.7 1.8 2.2 16.8 1

.8

2.6 2.8 .4 .2 114.7

AREA B AU

56.9

4.9 174.3 24.9 34.6

47.9 2.8 2.1 16.8

100.7

3.5 .7

AREA D AU

GBTO33

28.9

4.4 78.6 11.2 14

5.7

29.9 1.3

37.1

.6

1.3

AREA E AU

79.3

5.3 193.8 17.6 31.3

44,2 1 2.4 33.2 1.4

.5

105.3

1 2 2.4

AU

GBTO36

21.4

14.3 57.1 14.3 6.7

3.6 21.4

14.3

17.9

AU1

53.4

10.7 82.1 27.4 16.1

17.9

14.3

50

AU2

GBTN1

10 172

2

21

29

2

98 2

100

1 1

1

8 12 11 7 12

1 39

4

1 1

30

45 2 1

1 3 1 4 1 38

1 8

1

1

15

GbTo30 Cbbls G&P 1 2

GbTo31 Cbbls G&P 4 5 4 358 67 5 3 3 1 7 3 1 7 42 3 11 26 16 39 20 95 32 2 3 154 5 4 1 2 4 1 59 48 762 273 166 558

9

4

86 243

GbTo33 Cbbls G&P 3 2 4 6 297 90 2 3 3 1 1 2 12 6 4 1 10 2 15 55 16 1

4 155

21

7

2 13 1 1 1 12 3 5 26 1 4 6 154

9 1 1 4 12 2 7

GbTo34 Cbbls G&P 2 7 1 1 103 52

6 89

1

8

65

1 3 30

2

7 2

2 7

6

GbTo36 Cbbls G&P

30

3 1

1

24 2

24

2

4

3

2 2 1

8

GbTn1 Cbbls G&P 1

2 29

7

1

2

1

16

3 2 88

16

5

8 5 5 7

3

34

GcTo1 Cbbls G&P Cbbls 19 10 991 9 4 8 4 79 12 21 3 180 1 0 186 0 38 12 0 248 1825

Totals G&P 11 11 317 10 15 4 10 31 69 69 65 62 4 32 8 11 51 16 15 148 950

356

Ai = Andesite, Ar = Argelite, Bs = Basalt, Cg = Conglomerate, Ch =ochre, Cs = Cryptocrystaline, Ff = Tuff =, Gt = Granite, Lt = Slate, Mt = Misca schist, Ni = nephrite, Ns = Gneiss, Ol = Olivine, PI = Phylite ,Qr = Quartzite, Rm =marble, Ry = Rhyolite, Sh = Shale, Sn = Sandstone, Sy = Sedimentary.

Key

Ai Ar Bs Cg Ch Cs Ff Gt Lt Mt Ni Ns Ol Pl Qr Rm Ry Sh Sn Sy Total

GbTo23 Cbbls G&P 8

Table A.11 Raw counts of raw material types of cobble and ground stone tools per site.

6 100

1

12

17

1

57 1

100

1 1

3

8 12 11 7 12

3 100

10

3 3

77

45 2 1

3 8 3 11 3 100

21

3

3

3

39

GbTo30 Cbbls G&P 3 5

8 100

20

1214

6 1 2

1

18 100

1

1 2 1

1 3 1 10 14 7 12 1

GbTo31 Cbbls G&P 1 1 1 4712 25 1 1

30 100

2

1

10

2

36 100

1 2 2 4 6 7

GbTo33 Cbbls G&P 1 1 2 1 53 37 1

3 100

14

5

1 8 1 1

8 2 3 17 1 3 4 100

1

6 1 1 3 8 1 5

GbTo34 Cbbls G&P 1 5 1 66 34

8 100

10

81

3 10 100

3 3

23 7

7 23

20

GbTo36 Cbbls G&P

100

10 3

3

80

100

8

17

13

8 8 4

33

GbTn1 Cbbls G&P 3

7 100

24

3

7

3

55

3 2 100

18

9 6 6 8

3

39

GcTo1 Cbbls G&P Cbbls 1 1 54 013 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 2 1 0 14 100

Totals G&P 1 1 33 1 2 0 1 3 7 7 7 7 0 0 3 1 1 5 1 2 16 100

13

357

If quartzite is excluded this figure is 59%. Zeros in the Totals columns are the result of rounding and represent very small raw counts. 14 If quartzite is excluded this figure is 16%.

12

Ai = Andesite, Ar = Argelite, Bs = Basalt, Cg = Conglomerate, Ch =ochre, Cs = Cryptocrystaline, Ff = Tuff =, Gt = Granite, Lt = Slate, Mt = Misca schist, Ni = nephrite, Ns = Gneiss, Ol = Olivine, PI = Phylite ,Qr = Quartzite, Rm =marble, Ry = Rhyolite, Sh = Shale, Sn = Sandstone, Sy = Sedimentary.

Key

Ai Ar Bs Cg Ch Cs Ff Gt Lt Mt Ni Ns Ol Ph Pl Qr Rm Ry Sh Sn Sy Total

GbTo23 Cbbls G&P 5

Table A.12 Percentages of raw materials types of cobble and ground stone tools per site.

Abraders Barkbeater Barkshredder Beads Bipoints Bowls Celts, Type I Celts, type II Chipped stone Club Cobble, flake Cobble, spall Cobble, split Cobble, worked Core Grnd Slate knife Grnd slate point Grnd Slt pt frg Labret Maul Mirror

CLASS

20 18

6

109 199

134

2 1

1 1

8 9 2

11

2

19

AU/1

33

UNK AU

1

1 1

2

1

7

18 6

2 25 14

10

1 2

2

1

5

UNK

1 2 6

16

GBTO23 AU/2

1

6

1

17

2 7 18

1 9 3

13

GBTO30 AU

10

3

20

6 39

3

1

12

AC/AU1

12

1

2

11

2 25

1

1

2

AC/AU2

1

15

2 8

1

7

358

AC/AU3

2

2

7

B/AU 1

Table A.13 Raw counts of ground, pecked and chipped stone artifacts by AU.

3

1

6

3 11

1

B/AU 2 2

4

18

1 1 1 2 5 13

2

8

4 7

2

GBTO 31 B/AU3 B/AU 4 8 1

1

4

1 8

1

D/AU1

13 1 1

6

4 10

1

9

D/AU2

5

8

1 8

1

1

8

D/AU3

50 2

14

7 20

1 1 8

21 4 2

S/AU

2

35

14

3 11

2 4 3

1

9

MISC

1

15 112 7.5 7.1

3

15 690 46 65.8

1

6

2

17 127 7.5 6.9

6

14

3 1

8

9

9

143

GBTO23 AU/2 12

AU/1 13

UNK AU 32

16 74 4.6 4.8

1

2

2

12

2

UNK 9

1

1

1

9

16 97 6.1 5.8

GBTO30 AU

14 139 9.9 10.6

2

3

2

18

AC/AU1 4

1

1

1 10

15 86 5.7 6.8

AC/AU2 7

1

4

9 47 5.2 4.7

AC/AU3

1

7

6 21 3.5 2.7

B/AU1

11 45 4.1 3.6

1

1 10

B/AU2

17 96 5.6 7.9

2

1

1

1 1

30

10 41 4.1 2.2

4

5

GBTO 31 B/AU3 B/AU4 4 4

9 33 3.7 3.2

2

8

D/AU1 1

16

359

12 74 6.2 5.2

2

16

D/AU2 2

Includes a variety of quite rare taxa. Includes a variety of unclassifiable objects. 17 Taxa count includes all taxa generated by the analysis, including those lumped here as Miscellaneous, and Other.

15

Misc.15 Net gauge Netweight Other16 Palette Percusser Pigment Pigment bowl Reworked cobble Reworked G&P Segmented stone Tabular Utilized surfaces TAXA17 TOTAL MEAN STD. DEV.

CLASS

Table A.13 cont. Raw counts of ground, pecked and chipped stone artifacts by AU.

14 75 5.4 5.0

1

1

1

4 17

D/AU3 13

18 177 9.8 12.9

1

1

5

1 28

S/AU 5

1

2

2

27

16 127 7.9 9.9

MISC 5

Abraders Barkbeater Barkshredder Beads Bipoints Bowls Celts, Type I Celts, type II Chipped stone Club Cobble, flake Cobble, spall Cobble, split Cobble, worked Core Grnd Slate knife Grnd slate point Grnd Slt pnt frg Labret Maul Mirror

CLASS

80 2 8

79

2 36 2 1

4

1

4 30

5 2 5 15 3 1 42 87 1

2

B/AU 1

A/AU 1

D/AU 1

2 5

32

1 1 11

GBTO33 E/AU

2

4

G/AU 1

3

8

11

2

H/AU

360

2

1 12

15

2 23

2 1

3

MISC

Table A.13 cont. Raw counts of ground, pecked and chipped stone artifacts by AU.

3 6 2 4 4

1 60 1 1 2

2

34 AU 24

4 12 1

47

2 22

1

8

3

36 AU 12

1

2

2 4

AU/1 2

1

8

1 2 8

1 1

GBTN1 AU/2 8

1

1

MISC

1

2 4

14

35 2 1 2 4 7

GCTO1 AU 12

228 4 3 4 14 12 139 61 11 13 281 629 152 588 1 5 25 242 11 15 5

TOTAL

5 9 1.8 1.3

24 388 16.2 23.6

7

23 4 5

2

1

B/AU 28 3 5 10

A/AU

13 159 12.2 21.9

7

6

D/AU 2 1

4

11 73 6.6 9.0

GBTO33 E/AU 9 4 1

3 7 2.3 1.5

G/AU

1

H/AU

6 31 5.2 3.9

14 88 6.3 6.6

7

11

4 3

MISC 2

1

2

34 AU 2 1 5 16 2 6 9

21 152 7.2 13.4

2 3 16 151 9.4 12.1

1 1

3

20

36 AU

9 20 2.2 1.2

4

AU/1 1

2

5

11 39 3.5 3.1

GBTN1 AU/2

19

361

Includes a variety of quite rare taxa. Includes a variety of unclassifiable objects. 20 Taxa count includes all taxa generated by the analysis, including those lumped here as Miscellaneous, and Other.

18

Misc.18 Net gauge Netweight Other19 Palette Percusser Pigment Pigment bowl Reworked cobble Reworked G&P Segmented stone Tabular Utilized surfaces TAXA20 TOTAL MEAN STD. DEV.

CLASS

Table A.13 cont. Raw counts of ground, pecked and chipped stone artifacts by AU.

2 2 1 0.0

MISC

20 124 6.2 8.6

1

4 21 4 5 2

GCTO1 AU 1

155 9 24 449 6 103 17 6 29 35 6 5 17 12.8 3304 97.2 164.9

TOTAL

21

9.9 13.9

24.8

1 3.1 9.2

10.2

6.6

1

1

12

1

2 5.9

.5 .5 .5

.5

AU2 16

AU1 9.7

GBTO23

1

1

16.4

1.8 6.7 17.3

1 8.7 3

AU 12.6

GBTO 30

Includes a variety of quite rare taxa.

Abraders Barkbeater Barkshredder Beads Bipoints Bowls Celts, Type I Celts, type II Chipped stone Club Cobble, flake Cobble, spall Cobble, split Cobble, worked Core Grnd Slate knife Grnd slate point Labret Maul Mirror Misc.21

CLASS

2.1

1.6

1.1

10.8

1.6 3.2 21

1.6

.5

AU1 6.5

4

.7

6.2

1.1 14.1

.6

2.7

40.5

2.7 5.4 21.6

2,7

AREA AC AU2 AU3 1.2 18.9

4.3

14.9

AU1

2.2

13

6.5 23.9

2.2

7

31.6

1.8 1.8 1.8 3.5 6.8 22.8

AREA B AU2 AU3 4.4 14

GBTO31

362

7

14.4

7 12.3

3.5

AU4 1.8

1.4

5.4

1.4 10.8

AU1 1.4

Table A.14 Densities/100m3 of ground, pecked and chipped stone tools by AU.

.2 4.6

.5 1

.4

15.7

1 .4 1 3 .6 .2 8.3 17.3

.4 8.6

5.2

.7 5.2

.7

.7

AREA B AU .2

.5

3.2

2.1 5.4

.5

AREA D AU2 AU3 4.8 5.2

1.4

1.4

41.7

2.8 20.8

.7

1.4

AREA D AU .7

GBTO33

5.7

1.3

20.1

.6 .8 6.9

1.3

AREA E AU

.5

22.6

.5 .5 1 10.1

3

1.4

AU 6.8

GBTO3 6

3.6

3.8

7.1

7.1 14.3

AU1 7.1

28.6

10.7 28.6

3.6 3.6

AU2 28.5

GBTN1

22

26.9 91.4 3.3 4.1

12.2 59.2 2.5 2.9

15.8 109 6.8 6.5

1

5.8

.5

1

5.6 2.6

1

2

13

1.5 .5

7

AU

GBTO3 0

.5

7

AU2

2

AU1

GBTO23

9.7 66.1 3.7 4.1

1.6

1.7

5.4

8

AU1

9.6 41.8 2.5 3.5

.6

6.8 .6

.6 8.6

29.7 108 9.8 11.4

2.7

5.4

8.1

AREA AC AU2 AU3

Includes a variety of unclassifiable objects.

Net gauge Netweight Other22 Palette Percusser Pigment Pigment bowl Point fragment Reworked cobble Reworked G&P Segmented stone Tabular Utilized surfaces TAXA TOTAL MEAN STD. DEV.

CLASS

12.8 40.4 6.7 4.5

4.3 2.1

15

AU1

26.1 84.8 7.1 6.6

2.2

6.5

2.2 21.7

36.1 161 8.1 11.3

3.6

1.8

7 1.8

1.8 1.8

50.8

AREA B AU2 AU3

GBTO31

363

15.8 64.9 7.2 3.8

3.5

7

8.8

AU4

12.4 32.4 3.6 3

2.7

1.4

8.1

AU1

Table A.14 Densities/100m3 of ground, pecked and chipped stone tools by AU.

9.1 36.4 2.1 1.9

1.1

7

8.5

12.3 44.8 2.4 1.9

.7

1.3

3.3 .7

2.6 11.1

AREA D AU2 AU3

6.6 72.4 2.2 4.1

1.4

4.5 .8 1 7

AREA B AU .6 1 2

9.7 86.1 6.2 11.1

5.6

4.9

4.1

AREA D AU .7

GBTO33

8.2 45.3 3.5 5.2

3.1

.6 2.5

AREA E AU 2.5

11.1 67.3 2.9 4.8

1 1.4

.5 5.6 .5

1.4

9.7

AU

GBTO36

28.6 57.1 7.1 3.6

14.3

AU1

53.6 129 8.6 8.2

3.6

3.6

17.9

AU2

GBTN1

Appendix B: Fauna Tables1

Common names, scientific names, taxonomic levels and numbers are as given in the original sources. 1

364

Table B.1 Fish recovered at GbTo 19 (May 1979) Common Name Salmon Spiny dogfish Ratfish Skates Walleye pollocke Pacific cod Greenling Pacific Sandab Pacific Herring Surfperches Sculpins Pacific Staghorn Sculpin Great Sculpin Red Irish Lord Right Eye Flounder Rock Sole Pacific Halibut English Sole Petrale Sole Flathead Sole Starry Flounder Butter Sole Slender Sole Rockfishes Red Snapper Bocaccio Scorpion fish Eulachon Sablefish Total Mean Taxa

Scientific Name Oncorhynchus sp. Squalus suckleyi Hydrolagus colliei Rajidae Theragra chalcogramma Gadus macrocephalus Hexagammus sp. Citharicthys sordidus Clupera harengus Emboticidae Cottidae Leptocottus armatus Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus Hemilepidottus hemilepidottus Pleurinectidae Lepidopsetta bilineata Hippoglossus stenolepsis Parophrys vetulus Eopsetta jordani Hippoglossoides elassodon Platicthys stellatus Isopsetta isolepsis Lyposetta exilus Sebastes spp. Sebastes rubberimus Sebastes paucispinis Scorpaenidae Thaleichthys pacificus Anoploma fimbria

NISP/ 100M3 313380.9 4023.8 95.2 166.7

MNI

MNI/M3

13162 169 4 7

NISP/ M3 3133.8 40.3 .9 1.7

184 10 3 3

43.8 2.4 .7 .7

MNI/ 100/M3 4381 238.1 71.4 71.4

7 37 133

1.7 8.8 31.7

166.7 880.9 3166.7

2 4 6

.5 1 1.5

47.6 95.2 142.9

7

1.7

166.6.

3

8.6

71.4

577 4 61

137.4 .9 14.5

13738.1 95.2 1452.3

36 2 4

.5 .5 1

857.1 47.6 95.2

13

3.1

309.5

2

.5

47.6

4

.9

95.2

2

.5

47.6

4

.9

95.2

2

.5

47.6

64 16

15.2 3.8

1523.8 380.9

4 4

1 1

95.2 95.2

18 2 1

4.3 .5 .2

428.6 47.6 23.8

4 1 1

1 .2 .2

95.2 23.8 23.8

1

.2

23.8

1

.2

23.8

2 1 1 11 4 3 18 2 1 14334

.5 .2 .2 2.6 .9 .7 4.3 .5 .2 3420.7 117.7 6.9

47.6 23.8 23.8 261.9 95.2 71.4 428.6 47.6 23.8 341285.2 11768.5 690.5

1 1 1 2 2 1 15 2 1 304

.2 .2 .2 .5 .5 .2 3.6 .5 .2 72.4 2.5

23.8 23.8 23.8 47.6 47.6 23.8 357.1 46.6 23.8 7236.6 249.6

NISP

29

365

Table B.2 Mammals recovered at GbTo 19 (May 1979). Common Name Beaver Mink Mouse River otter Deer Dog N. fur seal Sea lion Harbour seal Sea otter Total Mean Taxa

Scientific Name Castor canadensis Mustela vison Cricitedae Lutra canadensis Odocoileus hemionus Canis sp. Callorhinus ursinus Eumetopias jubata Phoca vitulina Enhydra lutris

NISP 2 12 2 1 68 9 1 3 5 9 114 11.4 10

NISP/ M3 .5 3.3 .5 .2 16.2 2.1 .2 .7 1.2 2.1 27.1 2.7 2.4

NISP/ 100M3 47.6 333.3 47.6 23.8 1619.1 214.3 23.8 71.4 119.1 214.3 2714.3 271.4 238.1

MNI

MNI/M3

2 2 2 1 7 3 1 1 2 4 25

.5 .5 .5 .2 1.7 .7 .2 .2 .5 1 5.95

Table B.3 Birds recovered at GbTo 19 (May 1979). Common Name Pelagic cormorant Scoter Golden eye Oldsquaw Surface–feeding ducks Mergansers Common loon Great blue heron Bald eagle Taxa Taxa/m3 Taxa 100/m3

Scientific Name Phalacrocorax pelagicus Melanitta sp. Bucephela sp. Clangula hyemalis Anatinae Merginae Gavia immer Ardiea herodias Halieetus leococephalus 9 2.14 214.3

366

MNI/ 100/M3 47.6 47.6 47.6 23.8 166.7 71.4 23.8 23.8 47.6 95.2 595.2

Table B.4 Summary of fauna recovered at McNichol Creek (Coupland, Bissel and King 1993) FISH Salmon Pacific herring Rock sole Spiny Dogfish Sculin Ratfish English sole Total MAMMALS Canidae Coast deer Beaver/ Porcupine Mustelids Human Rodent Vole Red squirrel Total

House NISP 1455 223 6 1 1 1 1687

1 1 8 1 3095

Total NISP 4487 275 6 2 2 9 1 4782

House NISP/100M3 6326.1 969.6 26.1 4.4 4.4 4.4 0 7334.8

Midden NISP/100M3 13182.6 226.1 0.00 4.4 4.4 34.8 4.4 13456.5

Total NISP/100M3 19508.7 1195.7 26.1 8.7 8.7 39.2 4.4 20791.3

33 31

10 16

43 47

143.5 134.8

43.5 69.6

8 5 5 1 1

4 1 8 1 1 1 42

12 6 13 2 2 1 126

34.8 21.7 21.7 4.4 4.4 0.00 365.2

17.4 4.4 34.8 4.4 4.4 4.4 182.6

187 204.6 52.2

84

Midden NISP 3032 52

Table B.5 Summary of GbTn 1 Fauna (Hull 1980, K. Stewart 1980). Common Name Beaver Porcupine Deer Dog Bear Mountain goat Bovid Harbour seal Sea otter Sea lion Auklet Common loon Canada goose Total Mean Taxa

Scientific Name Castor canadensis Erithizon dorsatum Odocoileus sp. Canus sp. Ursus sp. Oreamnus americanus Bovidae Phoca vitulina Enhydra lutris Eumetopias jubata Cerorhinca monocerata Gavia immer Branta canadensis

NISP 1 8 65 5 6 1 1 79 35 1 75 2 1 280 21.5 13

367

NISP/m3 .02 .14 1.2 .1 .1 .02 .02 1.41 .6 .02 1.3 .04 .02 5 .4 .2

NISP/100 m3 1.8 14.3 116.1 8.9 10.7 1.8 1.8 141.1 62.5 1.8 133.9 3.6 1.8 500 38.5 23.2

26.1 56.5 8.7 8.7 4.4 547.8

Table B.6 Element distributions of GbTn 1 mammalian fauna (Hull 1980, K. Stewart 1980) Element Cranium Maxilla Mandible Incisor Canine Premolar Molar Atlas Axis Cervical vertebra Thoraxic vertebra Lumbar vertebra Caudal vertebra Pelvis Sacrum Rib Sternum Scapula Humerus Radius Ulna Carpals Metacarpal Femur Patella Tibia Tarsal Astragalus Calcaneum Metatarsal Phalanges Metapodial Epiphyseal frag. Total Density/ 100m3

Seal 9 2 2

Sea otter

Sea lion

1

Deer

Canid

Bear

5

1

1

Porcu pine

Beav er

Mtn goat

1

1

1

Bovi d

9 5 8 0 1 2 0 1 0

1

1 4

1

20

3

1

5

1

1

1 1

1

6

6

2 1 1

10

3

4

5 3

4

3 2 1 3 8

8 1

1

3 79 141. 1

1 35 62.5

1 1.8

8 3 5 1 4 3 4 2 5 6 1 65 116.1

Total

1

6

1

25 7

1 1 1 1 1

1 1

4 1

4

5 8.9

368

6 10.7

8 14.3

1 1.79

1 1.79

1 1.79

1 2 0 13 0 1 19 6 6 9 3 16 1 8 5 5 2 16 20 1 4 202 360. 7

Table B.7. Element distributions of GbTn 1 avian fauna(Hull 1980, K. Stewart 1980) Element Cranium Vertebrae Pelvis Rib Sternum Scapula Clavicle Humerus Radius Ulna Carpometacarpus Femur Tibiotarsus Tarsometatarsus Phalanges Carcoid Total Density/100m3

Rhinoceros auklet

Loon

18 2 26 4 3 11

Canada goose

Total

1

18 3 26 4 3 12 0 1 11 78 139.3

1

1

11 75 133.93

2 3.6

1 1.8

Table B.8 Counts of fish recovered at GbTo 31(F. Stewart 1977) Common name

Scientific name

Spiny dogfish Ratfish Salmon Pacific cod Rockfish Copper rockfish Greenling

Squalus acanthias

Cabezon

Scorpaenichthys marmoratus Pleuronectiformes Atheresthes stomias Lepidosetta bilineata Hippoglossus stenolepsis Platichthys stellatus

1 1

Flatfish Arrowtoot h flounder Rock sole Pacific halibut Starry flounder Fish Total

Number of Specimen by Area A

Hydrolagus collieie Oncorhynchus sp. Gadus macrocephalus Sabastes sp. Sabastes caurinus

2 38 3 1 1

C

2 1 1 2

1

D 1

Misc. 2

3

1 9

1

1

A

B 2

C

D

Totals

Misc. 12 6 51 4 5 1

1

1

1

3

4

4

4 1

Hexagrammos sp.

Osteochthyes

B 7

Number of Artifacts by Area

307 359

4

3

4

19 1

6

1 7

1

1

368 397

1 6

369

90 98

3 20

2 4

2 2

773 886

Table B.9 Densities of fish recovered at GbTo 31(F. Stewart 1977) Common name Spiny dogfish Ratfish Salmon Pacific cod Rockfish Copper rockfish Greenling Cabezon Flatfish Arrowtooth flounder Rock sole Pacific halibut Starry flounder Fish Total Taxa density

AC/AU1 1.1 20.4 1.6 .5 .5 .5 2.2

Fish NISP/100m3 by Area AC/AU2 B/AU/ALL 3.4 .6 1 .5 .5 1

2.3

.5 .5 165.01 193 5.4

2.8 5.7 1.7

370

.5 1.5 1.9 .5 2.9 .5 177.8 191.8 5.8

D/AU/ALL .2 .7 .2

.7

21.7 1.2

Table B.10 Counts of terrestrial mammals recovered at GbTo 31 (F. Stewart 1977) Common Name

Scientific Name

Marmots Woodchuck Hoary marmot Small rodent Deer mouse

Marmota sp M. monax M. caligata Rondentia Peromyscus maniculatus Clethrionomys gapperi Ondatra zibethica Rattus norvegicus Castor canadensis Erithizon dorsatum Castor/Erithizon Carnivora Canis sp. C. latrans C. lupus C. familiaris Vulpes sp. V. fulva. Ursus sp. Ursus americanus Ursus arctos h. Procyon lotor Mustelidae Martes americana M. pennenti Mustela vison Gulo gulo Mephitis mephitis Lutra canadensis Artiodactyla Sus scrofa Bos taurus Ovis aries Cervidae Odocoileus hemionus O. h. hemionus O. h. sitkensis Alces alces Rangifer tarandus Bovidae Oreamnus americanus Ovis dalli Equis caballus Mammalia

Redback vole Muskrat Norway rat Beaver Porcupine Beaver/porcupine Carnivore Canid Coyote Wolf Dog Fox Red fox Bear Black bear Grizzly bear Raccoon Weasels Marten Fisher Mink Wolverine Striped skunk River otter Ungulates Pig Cow Domestic sheep Deer Blacktail deer Mule deer Sitka deer Moose Caribou Sheep/goats Mountain goat Dall sheep Horse Land mammal Total NISP Total Taxa

AC/AU1 2

AC/ AU2 1

1

B/AU/ ALL 1 6 1 2

D/AU/ ALL 1

Misc. AUs 4 1

1 2 3 135 101 4 1 184

41 23 3

35 13

195

490

1 71

118

23 1

2

2

17 2 1 3

9

6

1 9

2 1

1 88 134 1

43 90 1 3

1

1

8

1

35 626 19

51 852 15

371

10 1 1 22 15 1 1 3 209 736 6 66 2 32 1 1 129 1730 36

Total 1 13 2 3 1 1

1 93 58 13 434

3 50 30 89 1

16

17

1 4 19

5

1 1 14 1 1 1 1 7 71

1

1 131 632 70 1

5

6 2

71 265 2 17

5 16 5

16

796 2394 27

53 639 20

5 4 354 225 7 14 1392 1 1 245 1 1 30 21 6 4 1 29 1 12 2 3 46 89 1 2 4 542 1857 9 157 1 2 7 73 6 1 1064 6241 46

Table B.11 Densities of terrestrial mammals recovered at GbTo 31 (F. Stewart 1977) Common Name Marmots Woodchuck Hoary marmot Small rodent Deer mouse Redback vole Muskrat Norway rat Beaver Porcupine Beaver/porcupine Carnivore Canid Coyote Wolf Dog Fox Red fox Bear Black bear Grizzly bear Raccoon Weasels Marten Fisher Mink Wolverine Striped skunk River otter Ungulates Pig Cow Domestic sheep Deer Blacktail deer Mule deer Sitka deer Moose Caribou Sheep/goats Mountain goat Dall sheep Horse Land mammal Total NISP Total Taxa

Scientific Name Marmota sp M. monax M. caligata Rondentia Peromyscus maniculatus Clethrionomys gapperi Ondatra zibethica Rattus norvegicus Castor canadensis Erithizon dorsatum Castor/Erithizon Carnivora Canis sp. C. latrans C. lupus C. familiaris Vulpes sp. V. fulva. Ursus sp. Ursus americanus Ursus arctos h. Procyon lotor Mustelidae Martes americana M. pennenti Mustela vison Gulo gulo Mephitis mephitis Lutra canadensis Artiodactyla Sus scrofa Bos taurus Ovis aries Cervidae Odocoileus hemionus O. h. hemionus O. h. sitkensis Alces alces Rangifer tarandus Bovidae Oreamnus americanus Ovis dalli Equis caballus Mammalia

AC/AU1

AC/AU2

1.1

.6

.5

.5 1 1.5 65.2 48.8 1.9 .5 88.9

22 12.4 3

19.8 7.3

104.8

276.8

.5 38.2

66.7

11.1 .5

1.1

1.1

8.2 1 .5 1.5

4.8

.5 4.8

2.9

1.1 .6

.5 47.3 72

372

B/AU/ALL .5 2.9 .5 .2

.5

24.3 50.9 .6 1.7

.5

.6

4.3

.6

18.8 336.6 10.22

28.8 481.4 8.5

4.8 .5 .5 10.6 7.3 .5 .5 1.5 101 355.7 2.9 31.9 1 15.7 .5 .5 62.3 835.8 17.4

D/AU/ALL .2

1 22.4 14 3.1 104.6 3.9 .2 1 4.6 .2 .2 3.4 .2 .2 .2 .2 1.7 17.1 .2 31.6 152.3 16.9 .2 1.2 3.9 1.2 191.8 576.7 6.5

2

1 1

8

10 1 1 2

60

1

1

2

14

1 2 1 3

3 1

2 4

3 3 5

Ya

117

1

3

3 4 2

39 2 2 2 2

8 23 26

Beaver Adu

66

3

251

15 2 5 2

1 29

1 1 4

11 11 4 9

46 11 3 6 9

25 29 42

Total

7 2 1 4

4 3 1 1 4

14 3 9

Aged

45

2

1

17

7 2 3

6 7

Im

0

Ya

75

1 1

8

1 12 7 3

1

7 1

2 10 21

72

3

21

1 18 4 13

3 1

1 1

1 3 2

Porcupine Adu Aged

192

2 4 2

46

2 37 13 19

4 1

14 9

3 13 23

Total

373

Key: Im = Immature individuals, YA = Young adults, Adu = Adult, Aged = Aged.

Horn cores/ Antlers Cranium Mandible Incisor Canine Cheek teeth Vertebrae Clavicle Pelvis Rib Sternum Baculum? Scapula Humerus Radius Ulna Carpal Metacarpal Femur Patella Tibia Fibula Tarsal Metatarsal Phalanges Metapodial Total

Im

1 1 6

1

1

1 1

Im

1

1

Ya

14

1

23

4

3 1

5 1 44

4 1

1

1

2

5 1 3

2

3

3

1

3

6 3 3

1 3

1

3

2 2 2

1 1

Total

1

1

1

3

2

Ursidae Adu Aged

Table B.12 Element distributions for terrestrial mammals at GbTo 31 (F. Stewart 1977)

3

2

1

Im

0

Ya

29

1 4

3 1 1

1

8

5 4 1

24

3 1

1

1 2 2

1

8

2 2

River Otter Adu Aged

56

4 5

1

1 6 3 3

2

8 8

7 7 1

Total

24

1

3

1

3

1

12

8

1 1

2

2

1

13 15 17 11 5 16 1 13 1 12 9 21 18 472

13 10 17 11 5 15 9 1 12 9 20 18 440

6 139 6

6 52

6 39 4 139 6

23 10

Total 74

18 10

Cervidae Adu Aged 74

4

0

Ya

4

16

24 13 19 17 275

1

2 2

1

1

9 6 2 34 1 20 10 17 5 362

17 32 20 10

22 2

62 14

30 59

56 32 49 50 37 44 49 9 43 3 120 55 215 52 1276

71 65 7

11 96

58 92

Black tail deer Ya Adu Aged 5 41

10

5 18

12 9 11 17

7 5 1

12 76

6 13

Im

85 75 82 77 37 56 74 11 91 4 164 78 251 74 1949

101 72 8

85 191

94 164

Total 46

374

Key: Im = Immature individuals, YA = Young adults, Adu = Adult, Aged = Aged.

Horn cores/ Antlers Cranium Mandible Incisor Canine Cheek teeth Vertebrae Clavicle Pelvis Rib Sternum Bacculum? Scapula Humerus Radius Ulna Carpal Metacarpal Femur Patella Tibia Fibula Tarsal Metatarsal Phalanges Metapodial Total

Im

4

1

1

2

Im

1

1

21

1

1 1 1 2

2 2 1 1

1

3

4

2 5 1 4 1 57

1 3 1 3 31

5

5 1 2 6 2 3

4 2

3

1 4

Total 5

4

4 1

5 1

1 2

1

Mountain Goat Ya Adu Aged 1 4

Table B.12 Element distributions for terrestrial mammals at GbTo 31 (F. Stewart 1977)

154 226 77 6 165 274 3 121 228 14 1 117 148 121 130 40 70 157 18 120 15 195 98 281 93 3020

Grand Total 149

Table B.13 Utilization and modification of animals at GbTo 31 (F. Stewart 1977) Common name Whale Porpoise Sea otter Northern sea lion Sea lion sp. Northern fur seal Walrus Harbour seal Seal sp. Sea mammal Total Whale Porpoise Sea otter Northern sea lion Sea lion sp. Northern fur seal Walrus Harbour seal Seal sp. Sea mammal Total Whale Porpoise Sea otter Northern sea lion Sea lion sp. Northern fur seal Walrus Harbour seal Seal sp. Sea mammal Total Whale Porpoise Sea otter Northern sea lion Sea lion sp. Northern fur seal Walrus Harbour seal Seal sp. Sea mammal Total Whale Porpoise Sea otter Northern sea lion Sea lion sp. Northern fur seal Walrus Harbour seal Seal sp. Sea mammal Total

ARTIFACTS OR POSSIBLE ARTIFACTS AC/AU1 AC/AU2 B/AU/ALL D/AU/ALL 2 2 1 2 1 25 12 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 11 14 32 45 19 16 66 62 BUTCHERING 1 45 3

1

48

MISC/AU 4

21 25

TOTAL 4 1 44 4 2 1 1 3 5 123 188

1

1 1 99 5 0 3 0 28 7 3 147

5 1

3

1

17 7 1 77 BURNING

11 3 62

5

6

7

0 0 16 0 1 0 0 1 6 0 24

5

1

1

1

5

1

11 PATHOLOGIES 1

7

9

5

2

2

2

2

0 0 14 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 18

2 1

2 13 CHEWING 4

8

4 4

2 14

375

0 0 12 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 18

Table B.14 Counts of sea mammals recovered at GbTo 31 (F. Stewart 1977) Common name

Scientific name

Whale Porpoise Sea otter Northern sea lion Sea lion sp.

Cetacea Delphinidae Enhydra lutris Eumetopias jubata E.j./Zalophus californianus Callorhinus ursinus Odobemus rosmarus Phoca vitulina Phocidae.

Northern fur seal Walrus Harbour seal Seal sp. Sea mammal Total

AC/ AU1 2

AC/ AU2 2

237

20

4

3

1

B/AU/ ALL 1 7 1099

D/AU/ ALL 10

MISC/ AU 1

TOTALS

448

175

16 7 1979

39

10

11

67

9

1

2

13

1

4

15

19 1

8

47

9 7 27 288

6 1 33 69

232 93 168 1663

133 17 225 863

34 20 57 308

1 414 137 510 3191

Table B.15 Densities of sea mammals recovered at GbTo 31 (F. Stewart 1977) Common name Whale Porpoise Sea otter Northern sea lion Sea lion sp. Northern fur seal Walrus Harbour seal Seal sp. Sea mammal Total

Scientific name Cetacea Delphinidae Enhydra lutris Eumetopias jubata E.j./Zalophus californianus Callorhinus ursinus Odobemus rosmarus Phoca vitulina Phocidae.

AC/AU1 1.1

AC/AU2 1.1

D/AU/ALL 2.4

11.3

B/AU/ALL .5 3.4 530.9

127.4 2.2

1.7

18.8

2.4

4.4

.2

.5

107.9

.5

2.3

7.3

4.6

4.8 3.8 14.5 154.8

3.4 .6 18.6 39

112.1 44.9 81.2 8.3.4

.2 32.1 3.9 54.2 208

376

Table B.16 Counts of birds recovered at GbTo 31 (F. Stewart 1977) Common name

Scientific name

Loons Common loon Yellow–billed Common/y–b Arctic Red–throated Arctic/r–d Loon sp. Grebes Red–necked Horned Western

Gavidae Gavia immer G. adamsii immer/adamsii G.arctica G. stellata arctica/stellata Gavia sp. Popicidedae Podiceps grisegena P. auritus Aechomorphus occidentalis

Grebe sp. Albatrosses Alabatross Cormorants Double–crested Pelagic Double/Pelagic Brandt’s/Pelagic Cormorant sp. Herons Great blue Swans, geese, ducks Swans Trumpeter swan Geese Canada goose Brant’s goose White front/Snow Goose sp. Surface feeding ducks Mallard Pintail Mallard/pintail Green–wing teal American widgeon Shoveler Duck sp. Diving duck Canvas back Greater scaup Lesser scaup Scaup sp. Duck Common goldeneye Barrow’s goldeneye Oldsquaw Common eider White–winged scoter Surf scoter White–winged/surf Common scoter

Diomedidae Diomedia sp. Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrocorax auritas P. pelagicus auritas/pelagicus P. pencillatus/pelagicus P. sp. Ardeidae Ardea herodias Anatidae Cygninae Olor buccinator Anserinae Branta canadensis B. bernicla Anser albifrons/Chen caerulescans

AU/AC1 2 1 3 2 1 1 1

AU/AC2 2 2 4 1 6 1

AU/B/ ALL

AU/D/ ALL

8 2 15 4 3

1

6 3 1

3 2 2 2 7

AU/MISC . 4 2 7 1

1

1

4 2 3

1 1

1 1 2 2 6

1

1

1

1

1 1

5

1 5 1

6

1 1 2 6

3

2 6

17 5 30 8 10 3 20

1 1

1 1 1 1 4

TOTAL

16 1 2

10

18

5

8 1 1

47 1 1

1

2

10

1

14

4 1

6 4

4 1

6 4 1 1 1

23 11 1 2 1 2 1

1 4 2

2 26 10 7 8 6 2 5 2

Anatinae Anas platyrhynchos A. acuta A.p./A.a. A. carolinensis Marecea americana Spatulata clypeata Anas sp. Aythinae Aythyae valisineria A. marila A. affinis A. sp. A. sp. Bucephela clangula B. islandica Clangula hyemalis Somateria mollissimai Malenitta deglandi M. perspicillata deglandi/perspicillat a Oidemia negra

3 1

1 1 1 4 2 3 3 3 1 2

1 1 8 2 1 1 1

4 2 1

6 2 3 4 2 4 2

1

6

11

10

4

2

2

7

5

1

4

3

377

33 0 16 8

Table B.16 cont. Counts of birds recovered at GbTo 31 (F. Stewart 1977) Common name

Scientific name

Mergansers Common merganser Red–breasted Duck

Merginae Mergus merganser M. serrator Anatidae/Anatinae/ Merginae Accipiteridae Buteo jamaicensis Haliaeetus leucocephalus Haliaeetus/Aquila

Kites, Hawks, Eagles Red–tailed hawk Bald eagle Eagle s. Grouse and ptarmigan Spruce grouse Ruffled grouse Willow/white–tailed ptarmigan Rock ptarmigan Ptarmigan sp. Woodcocks, sandpipers Wimbrel Gulls & terns Glaucus gull Glaucus–winged gull Herring gull Mew gull Gull sp Auks, Murres, Puffins Common murre Thick–billed Pigeon guillemot Marbled murrelet Rhinoceros auklet Tufted puffin Murre sp. Alcid sp. Kingfishers Belted kingfisher Perching birds, etc. Jays, crows, ravens Stellar’s jay Common raven Northwestern crow Thrushes, solitaires, etc. American robin Bird sp. Taxa Total

AU/AC1

AU/AC2 1

Numenius phaeopus Laridae Larus hyperoboreus L. glaucescens L. argentus L. canus Larus sp. Alcidae Uria aalge U. lomvia Cephus columba Brachyramphus marmoratus Cerorhinus monocerata Lunda cirrhata Uria sp. Alcidae sp. Alcedinidae Megaceryle alcyon Passeriformes Corvidae Cyanocitta stelleri Corvus corax C. caurinus Turididae

AU/D/ ALL

AU/MISC .

TOTAL

1

1

2 3

15

3

23

1 4

1

24

30

11

1 70

2

1

6

3

13

25

1

3

2

Canachites canadensis Bonasa umbellus Lagopus lagopus/L. leucurus L.mutus Lagopus sp. Scolopacidae

AU/B/ ALL

1

1

4 1 1 2

1

1

1

1 2

2 2

2

2

1

1

1

1 3

8 7

1 4

14

2

7 5 8 2 3

15 23 3 21

6

1 4 1

7 4 1

1

2

3

2

8 1 6

2 3

4 1 1

3

1

1

9

10

23 2

1 5 1

23 103

24 112

37 346

29 235

Turdus migratorius Aves

378

1

1 56 3

1 29 197

1 89 993

Table B.17 Densities of birds recovered at GbTo 31 (F. Stewart 1977 Common name Loons Common loon Yellow–billed Common/y–b Arctic Red–throated Arctic/r–d Loon sp. Grebes Red–necked Horned Western Grebe sp. Albatrosses Alabatross Cormorants Double–crested Pelagic Double/Pelagic Brandt’s/Pelagic Cormorant sp. Herons Great blue Swans, geese, ducks Swans Trumpeter swan Geese Canada goose Brant’s goose White front/Snow Goose sp. Surface feeding ducks Mallard Pintail Mallard/pintail Green–wing teal American widgeon Shoveler Duck sp. Diving duck Canvas back Greater scaup Lesser scaup Scaup sp. Duck Common goldeneye Barrow’s goldeneye Oldsquaw Common eider White–winged scoter Surf scoter White–winged/surf Common scoter

Scientific name Gavidae Gavia immer G. adamsii immer/adamsii G.arctica G. stellata arctica/stellata Gavia sp. Popicidedae Podiceps grisegena P. auritus Aechomorphus occidentalis Diomedidae Diomedia sp. Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrocorax auritas P. pelagicus auritas/pelagicus P. pencillatus/pelagicus P. sp. Ardeidae Ardea herodias Anatidae Cygninae Olor buccinator Anserinae Branta canadensis B. bernicla Anser albifrons/Chen caerulescans

AU/AC1

AU/AC2

AU/B/ALL

AU/D/ALL

1.1 .5 1.6 1.1

1.1

3.9 1 7.3 1.9 1.5

.2

.5 .5 .5

1.1 2.3 .6 3.4 .6 .6

.5 .6 2.8 .5

.6

2.9 1.5

.7 .5 .5 .5 1.7

.5

.2 .2

.5 .5 .5 1.9

.2 .2

.5 .5

.2

2.4 .5

1.5

5.6

8.7

1.2

.6

1

2.4

2.3 .6

2.9 1.9 .5 .5

.1 .2

1.1 3.2

Anatinae Anas platyrhynchos A. acuta A.p./A.a. A. carolinensis Marecea americana Spatulata clypeata Anas sp. Aythinae Aythyae valisineria A. marila A. affinis A. sp. A. sp. Bucephela clangula B. islandica Clangula hyemalis Somateria mollissimai Malenitta deglandi M. perspicillata deglandi/perspicillata Oidemia negra

1.6 .5

.5 .5 2.2 1.1 1.6 1.6 1.6 .5 1.1 1.6

379

.5 .5 4.5 1.1 .6 .6 .6

1.9 1 .5

1.6 .5 .7 1 .5

3.4

5.3

1 2 2.4

1.1

1 .5

1.7 1

Table B.17 cont. Densities of birds recovered at GbTo 31 (F. Stewart 1977) Common name Mergansers Common merganser Red–breasted Duck Kites, Hawks, Eagles Red–tailed hawk Bald eagle Eagle s. Grouse and ptarmigan Spruce grouse Ruffled grouse Willow/white–tailed ptarmigan Rock ptarmigan Ptarmigan sp. Woodcocks, sandpipers Wimbrel Gulls & terns Glaucus gull Glaucus–winged gull Herring gull Mew gull Gull sp Auks, Murres, Puffins Common murre Thick–billed Pigeon guillemot Marbled murrelet Rhinoceros auklet Tufted puffin Murre sp. Alcid sp. Kingfishers Belted kingfisher Perching birds, etc. Jays, crows, ravens Stellar’s jay Common raven Northwestern crow Thrushes, solitaires, etc. American robin Bird sp. Taxa Total

Scientific name Merginae Mergus merganser M. serrator Anatidae/Anatinae/Merginae Accipiteridae Buteo jamaicensis Haliaeetus leucocephalus Haliaeetus/Aquila

AU/AC1

AU/AC2 .5

Numenius phaeopus Laridae Larus hyperoboreus L. glaucescens L. argentus L. canus Larus sp. Alcidae Uria aalge U. lomvia Cephus columba Brachyramphus marmoratus Cerorhinus monocerata Lunda cirrhata Uria sp. Alcidae sp. Alcedinidae Megaceryle alcyon Passeriformes Corvidae Cyanocitta stelleri Corvus corax C. caurinus Turididae Turdus migratorius Aves

AU/D/ALL

.5

.6

2 1.5

3.6

.5 2.2 1.1

.6 .6

11.6 2.9

7.2 .7

1 .5

Canachites canadensis Bonasa umbellus Lagopus lagopus/L. leucurus L.mutus Lagopus sp. Scolopacidae

AU/B/ALL

.5

.6 .6 1.1 1.1

2.2 .5 .5 1.1

.6 .6 1.7

.5 3.7 3.4

.2 .2 1

6.8

.5

2.9 .5 1 .5 .5

1.5

1 .5 .2

.5

4.8

5.7

11.1 1

.2 1.2 .2

16.1 11.8 55.4

13.6 13 63.3

61.8 17.4 167.2

17.6 6.8 56.6

380

Table B.18 Ratios of wing and body elements among birds recovered at GbTo 31 (F. Stewart 1977) Common name Wimbrel Hawk Swan Stellar’s jay Kingfisher Merganser Grouse & ptarmigan Gull Eagle Duck Albatross Grebe Raven Surface–feeding ducks Loons Geese Diving ducks Great blue heron Bird Alcids Northwestern jay Cormorants Robin Total

NISP 1 1 3 1 1 3

N 1 1 3 1 1 3

Wing elements % 100 100 100 100 100 100

8 63 85 25 3 12 53

7 49 63 18 2 8 33

87.5 77.9 74.1 72 66.7 66.7 62.3

1 14 22 7 1 4 20

12.5 22.2 25.9 28 33.3 33.3 37.7

42 86 58 134 16 38 31 3 16 1 684

24 46 31 71 8 19 14 1 5

57.1 53.5 53.5 53 50 50 45.2 33.3 31.3

409

59.8

18 40 26 63 8 19 17 2 11 1 276

42.9 46.5 46.6 47 50 50 54.8 66.7 68.8 100 40.4

66666

381

N

Non–wing elements %

Table B.19 Faunal lists for GbTo 33 and GbTo 10 (Calvert 1969, Simonsen 1988) Common Name Fish Dogfish Skate Pacific herring Salmon Eulachon Cod Greenling Lingcod Sculpin Flatfish Mammals Hoary marmot Beaver Mouse Porcupine Dog Raccoon Mink River otter Sea otter Harbour seal Sea lion Whale Deer Large cervid Mountain goat Birds Ducks Scoters Gulls Bird

Scientific Name Squalus acanthias Raja sp. Clupea harengus Oncorhynchus sp. Thaleichthys pacificus Gadidae Hexagrammos sp. Ophodon elongatus Cottidae Pleuronectiformes

Gbto–33 + + + + + + + + + + +

Marmota caligata Castor canadensis Cricetidae Erithizon dorsatum Canis familiaris Procyon lotor Mustela vison Lutra canadensis Enydra lutris Phoca vitulina Eumtopias jubata Cetacea Odocoileus hemionus Alces alces/Cervus elaphus (?) Oreamnus americanus

+ + + + + + + +

Anatidae Melanitta sp. Larus sp. Aves

+ + +

382

+ + +

GbTo–10

+

+ + + + + + + + + + +

+