UBC Faculty Research and Publications

Mapping and Testing Precontact Stó:lō Settlements in the Fraser Canyon and Fraser Valley (2004-2005) Schaepe, David; Blake, Michael; Formosa, Susan; Lepofsky, Dana 2006

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
Schaepe Blake Formosa & Lepofsky - Fraser Valley Housepit Archaeology Report 2006.pdf [ 49.98MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0075440.json
JSON-LD: 1.0075440+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0075440.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0075440+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0075440+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0075440+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0075440 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0075440.txt
Citation
1.0075440.ris

Full Text

MAPPING AND TESTING PRECONTACT STÓ:LŌ SETTLEMENTS IN THE FRASER CANYON AND FRASER VALLEY (2004-2005): Xelhálh (DjRi-14), Eyxel (DiRi-48), Shxw’ow’hamel (DjRi-30), Qithyil Island (DhRl-15), Sqwa:la (DgRl-6), Th’ewá:lí (DgRl17), Sxwóxwiymelh South (DiRj-1), and ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1)  Submitted by: David Schaepe Department of Anthropology, University of British Columbia / Stó:lō Research and Resource Management Centre Michael Blake Department of Anthropology University of British Columbia Susan Formosa Mapping Technician / Research Assistant Fraser Valley Project Dana Lepofsky Department of Archaeology Simon Fraser University  Permits / Report Distribution: Stó:lō Tribal Council / Stó:lō Nation Stó:lō Heritage Investigation Permit no. 2004-28 Chehalis First Nation Chehalis Heritage Investigation Permit no. 2005-01 Archaeology and Registration Services Branch Heritage Conservation Act s. 14 Permit no. 2005-175 December 2006  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We have a long list of people to recognize and thank for supporting, participating in, and assisting us with this project - leading to its fun and successful completion. All of those listed below are part of the extensive team associated with this project, helping achieve a better understanding of the precontact history of the Stó:lō. To all these people we are deeply grateful for the parts they played in this project, without whom it would not have been possible. Stó:lō Chiefs, Council members, and Community members, and administrative staff who provided approvals to carry out this project include: Chawathil First Nation - Chief Ron John and Councilors and Band Office Staff: Peter John, Tim Peters, Ruth Peters, Monica Florence; also Barb and Larry Pete for hosting work at Sxwóxwiymelh which is situated on their CP lands; Shxw’ow’hamel First Nation = Darren Jones, Roger Andrews, Melanie Andrews, Dean Jones, Felix Jones, Darren’s cousin Sean, and members of the Siya:m Council between 2004-2005 for providing access and encouragement to investigate the settlements at both Xelhálh and Shxw’ow’hamel; Soowahlie First Nation = Chief Larry Commodore and Grand Chief Doug Kelly and their respective Councils, including - in particular - Councilor Nelson Kahama. Dan Bisaillon and his massive chainsaw helped us with the site clearing; Scowlitz First Nation = Chief John Pennier; also Allen Williams, and particularly Betty Charlie and Cliff Hall for their parental support and cheerful assistance in the field and boating to Qithyil Island. Skwah First Nation = the late Chief Roy Mussel for allowing us to access and map Sqwa:la; Chehalis First Nation = Chief Alex Paul, James Leon, and Gordon Mohs - in particular, for inviting to us to link with his project and permit our work at John Mack Slough; Seabird Island First Nation = Elder Archie Charlie, June Harris, and Dwayne McNeil helped with logistics and access to their lands during the initial stages of our mapping at Seabird Site #14…even though we did not include this map in our final study. Stó:lō Nation = Joe Hall, President; and Stó:lō Tribal Council = Clarence Pennier, President. Expert boatsmen who provided logistical support for our fieldwork and field trips include Albert ‘Sonny’ McHalsie, Tim Peters Sr., Vince Malloway, Willy Charlie, and Clifford Hall. Chawathil First Nation hosted us graciously at their Telte-Yet Campground in Hope. Their fabulous Campground Hosts include Viola John, Sharon Blakeborough, Tanya Alex, Patrick Inyallie, and Robert Guiterrez. To Stó:lō Hihiyeqwals Gerald George, Francis Phillips, and their assistants and all those who helped out in the kitchen as cooks and otherwise helped in preparations for our Burnings - including Yvette John, Ida John, Nikki LaRock, Norma Gabriel, Tia Halstad, and Tracey Joe (please excuse us if we’ve not been able to list all of those people who helped out in this regard, whose efforts we greatly appreciate!) - we say an enormous “thank you.”  i  We thank Jim Pike of the Provincial Archaeology Branch for administering to the permit for our work at DiRi-48. Field assistance was provided by Albert ‘Sonny’ McHalsie, Riley Lewis, Larry Commodore, Dennis Leon, and Ian Franck of the Stó:lō Nation Treaty and Research Department/Research and Resource Management Centre; Darren Jones (Shxw’ow’hamel First Nation); Denise Douglas (Cheam First Nation); and the students of the SFU 2004 Archaeology Field School, and the UBC and SFU 2005 Field Schools 2005 = (from UBC) Kisha Supernant (very special thanks!), Nick Waber, Marnie Recker, Chris Marchant, Kate Jessup, Patricia Ormerod, and Adrian Sanders; (from SFU) Sonja Aagesen, Hannah Baker, Cinnebar Bertelsen, Melissa Blain, Debbie Castagner, Sandie Dielissen, Mathew Fladmark, Steve Hamm, Marina La Salle, Shana Morin, Amanda Palmer, Sarah Prien, John Sheppard, Chris Springer, Christine Wright, Corylee Zanatta, and Morgan Ritchie. Also, from two doctoral students from UCLA, Anthony Graesch and Mike Lenert, provided continuous advice and assistance; 2004 = Meagan Cameron, Brendon Gray, Jarin Hutchinson, Jennifer Jones, Heather Livingstone, Jessica Ruskin, Craig Rust, and Sarah Swayze (from SFU) -- including all the administrative support staff at UBC and SFU who helped out with these fieldschools. We also acknowledge the generous support and consultation provided to this project by the faculty and staff of the Department of Geomatics at BCIT. In particular, Bob Harrower and David Martens warrant huge thanks for making available their time, expertise and expensive, high tech equipment to the Project. They provided us with A Leica 705RTotal Station was provided during the 2004 field season and three Leica 1200 GPS units and two Leica 705RTotal Stations during the 2005 field season. These supplemented the Leica 705R and Garmin GPS unit provided by the Lab of Archaeology, at UBC and the Garmin 76S provided by Stó:lō Nation. Jerry Maedel, Faculty of Forestry at UBC, has been a wonderful guide for us during the various stages of trying to master ArcGis. He has helped us in every way possible and we hope to get him out to the field during our next mapping project. We are grateful for the help provided by folks at CN Rail—especially for assisting with the georeferencing of our map data at Xelhálh and Shxw’ow’hamel.  ii  Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................ 3 RESEARCH PLAN AND METHODS ................................................................................ 3 0H  154H  1H  15H  2H  156H  Mapping ....................................................................................................................... 4 Review of the Mapping Work .................................................................................... 4 Georeferencing the Sites ............................................................................................. 5 Topographic Survey of the Sites ................................................................................. 6 Mapping ...................................................................................................................... 8 Additional Sites Mapped in the Fraser Valley Project (2004-05) .............................. 8 Test Excavations: Soil Probes, Auger Tests, and Shovel Tests............................... 9 Radiocarbon Sampling and Dating ......................................................................... 10 3H  157H  4H  158H  5H  159H  6H  160H  7H  16H  8H  162H  9H  163H  10H  164H  RESULTS - SETTLEMENT AND HOUSEPIT FEATURE MAPPING AND TESTING ................................................................................................................................................. 12 1H  165H  ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1) ............................................................................... 12 Mapping Methods .................................................................................................... 12 Summary Description .............................................................................................. 12 Qithyil Island (DhRl-15)........................................................................................... 18 Mapping Methods .................................................................................................... 18 Summary Description .............................................................................................. 18 Sqwa:la (DgRl-6)....................................................................................................... 24 Mapping Methods .................................................................................................... 24 Summary Description .............................................................................................. 24 Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) .................................................................................................. 29 Mapping Methods .................................................................................................... 29 Summary Description .............................................................................................. 30 Eyxel (DiRi-48) .......................................................................................................... 38 Mapping Methods .................................................................................................... 38 Summary Description .............................................................................................. 38 Sxwóxwiymelh (DiRj-1) - a.k.a. ‘Katz’ ................................................................... 44 Mapping Methods .................................................................................................... 44 Summary Description .............................................................................................. 45 Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) ........................................................................................ 53 Mapping Methods .................................................................................................... 53 Site Summary ........................................................................................................... 53 Xelhálh (DjRi-14) ...................................................................................................... 61 Mapping Methods .................................................................................................... 61 Summary Description................................................................................................ 62 12H  16H  13H  167H  14H  168H  15H  169H  16H  170H  17H  17H  18H  172H  19H  173H  20H  174H  21H  175H  2H  176H  23H  17H  24H  178H  25H  179H  26H  180H  27H  18H  28H  182H  29H  183H  30H  184H  31H  185H  32H  186H  3H  187H  34H  18H  35H  189H  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 76 REFERENCES CITED ......................................................................................................... 77 APPENDIX I - MAPPING DATA: Feature, Test, and Radiocarbon Sample Proveniences ................................................................................................................................................. 79 36H  190H  37H  19H  38H  192H  ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1):.............................................................................. 79 JMS (DhRl-T1) - Feature Center Points ................................................................ 79 JMS (DhRl-T1) - Test & Carbon Sample Locations .............................................. 79 39H  193H  40H  194H  41H  195H  iii  Qithyil Island (DhRl-15): ......................................................................................... 80 Qithyil (DhRl-15) - Feature Center Points ............................................................. 80 Qithyil (DhRl-15) - Test & Carbon Sample Locations ........................................... 80 Qithyil (DhRl-15) - Mapping Station Locations ..................................................... 80 Sqwa:la (DhRl-6): ..................................................................................................... 81 Sqwa:la (DhRl-6) - Feature Center Points ............................................................. 81 Sqwa:la (DhRl-6) - Test & Carbon Sample Locations .......................................... 81 Sqwa:la (DhRl-6) - Mapping Station Locations ..................................................... 81 Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17):................................................................................................. 82 Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) - Feature Center Points......................................................... 82 Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) - Test Locations ..................................................................... 82 Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) - Radiocarbon Samples Locations ........................................ 84 Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) - Mapping Station Locations................................................. 84 Eyxel (DiRi-48):......................................................................................................... 85 Eyxel (DiRi-48) - Feature Center Points ................................................................ 85 Eyxel (DiRi-48) - Test Locations ............................................................................. 85 Eyxel (DiRi-48) - Radiocarbon Samples Locations................................................ 85 Sxwóxwiymelh (DiRj-1): .......................................................................................... 86 Sxwóxwiymelh ‘South’ (DiRj-1) - Feature Center Points...................................... 86 Sxwóxwiymelh ‘North’ (DiRj-1) - Feature, Test & Carbon Samples Locations... 86 Sxwóxwiymelh ‘South’ (DiRj-1) - Mapping Station Locations ............................. 86 Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30):....................................................................................... 87 Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) - Feature Center Points ............................................... 87 Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) - Test & Carbon Sample Locations............................. 87 Xelhálh (DjRi-14):..................................................................................................... 91 Xelhálh (DjRi-14) - Feature Center Points............................................................. 91 Xelhálh (DjRi-14) - Test & Carbon Sample Locations .......................................... 91 Xelhálh (DjRi-14) - Mapping Station Locations .................................................... 94 42H  196H  43H  197H  4H  198H  45H  19H  46H  20H  47H  201H  48H  20H  49H  203H  50H  204H  51H  205H  52H  206H  53H  207H  54H  208H  5H  209H  56H  210H  57H  21H  58H  21H  59H  213H  60H  214H  61H  215H  62H  216H  63H  217H  64H  218H  65H  219H  6H  20H  67H  21H  68H  2H  69H  23H  APPENDIX II – ARTIFACT CATALOGUE (DhRl-T1; DgRl-17; DiRj-30; DjRi-14) .. 96 APPENDIX III - RADIOCARBON SAMPLE DATA & ANALYSIS RESULTS........... 104 APPENDIX IV - TEST UNIT PROFILES - W/ RADIOCARBON SAMPLE LOCATI0NS & RESULTS ................................................................................................... 119 70H  24H  71H  25H  72H  26H  ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1) - Test Unit Profiles............................................ 120 DhRl-T1-F5-ST1 ..................................................................................................... 120 Qithyil Island (DhRl-15) - Test Unit Profiles ....................................................... 121 DhRl-15-F3-SP1 .................................................................................................... 121 DhRl-15-F5-SP4 .................................................................................................... 123 DhRl-15-F2-SP5 .................................................................................................... 124 DhRl-15-F6 - Plankhouse feature riverbank exposure - profile.......................... 125 73H  27H  74H  28H  75H  29H  76H  230H  7H  231H  78H  23H  79H  23H  Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) - Test Unit Profiles .............................................................................. 126 80H  234H  DgRl-17-F10-AT1 .................................................................................................. 126 DgRl-17-F8-AT2 .................................................................................................... 127 DgRl-17-F12-AT3 .................................................................................................. 128 DgRl-17-F2-AT4 .................................................................................................... 129 DgRl-17-F20-AT5 .................................................................................................. 130 DgRl-17-F17-ST1................................................................................................... 131 DgRl-17-ST2........................................................................................................... 132 DgRl-17-F25 - Earthen Burial Mound Roadcut Exposure ................................. 133 81H  235H  82H  236H  83H  237H  84H  238H  85H  239H  86H  240H  87H  241H  8H  24H  iv  Eyxel (DiRi-48) - Test Unit Profiles....................................................................... 134 DiRi-48-F3-AT1 ..................................................................................................... 134 DiRi-48-F2-SP1 ..................................................................................................... 136 DiRi-48-F4-SP2 ..................................................................................................... 137 Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) - Test Unit Profiles..................................................... 138 DiRj-30-F6-AT1/SP4 ............................................................................................. 138 DiRj-30-F9-AT-2.................................................................................................... 139 DiRj-30-F12-ST2 ................................................................................................... 141 DiRj-30-F18-ST4 ................................................................................................... 143 DiRj-30-F14-SP1 ................................................................................................... 144 DiRj-30-SP2 (F9 exterior) ..................................................................................... 145 DiRj-30-SP3 (b/w F9 & F7)................................................................................... 146 DiRj-30-SP5 (b/w F6 & F18)................................................................................. 147 Xelhálh (DjRi-14) - Test Unit Profiles................................................................... 148 DjRi-14-F25-AT1 ................................................................................................... 148 DjRi-14-F23-AT2 ................................................................................................... 149 DjRi-14-F508-AT3 ................................................................................................. 150 DjRi-14-F32-ST1 ................................................................................................... 151 DjRi-14-F28-ST2 ................................................................................................... 152 DjRi-14-F19-ST3 ................................................................................................... 153 DjRi-14-F17-ST4 ................................................................................................... 154 DjRi-14-F15-ST5 ................................................................................................... 155 DjRi-14-F13-ST6 ................................................................................................... 156 DjRi-14-F2-ST7 ..................................................................................................... 157 DjRi-14-F509-ST8 ................................................................................................. 158 DjRi-14-F1-ST9 ..................................................................................................... 159 DjRi-14-F27-SP1 & SP2........................................................................................ 160 DjRi-14-F26-SP5 ................................................................................................... 161 DjRi-14-SP6 & SP7 (b/w F508 & F509)............................................................... 162 DjRi-14-F1001-SP1 ............................................................................................... 163 89H  243H  90H  24H  91H  245H  92H  246H  93H  247H  94H  248H  95H  249H  96H  250H  97H  251H  98H  25H  9H  253H  10H  254H  10H  25H  102H  256H  103H  257H  104H  258H  105H  259H  106H  260H  107H  261H  108H  26H  109H  263H  10H  264H  1H  265H  12H  26H  13H  267H  14H  268H  15H  269H  16H  270H  17H  271H  18H  27H  APPENDIX V - PALEOBOTANICAL ANALYSIS (DiRj-30-F13).................................. 164 APPENDIX VI - EXCAVATION & SAMPLE FORMS.................................................... 165 19H  273H  120H  274H  Soil Probe (SP) / Auger Test (AT) / Shovel Test (ST) Record................................ 165 Notes - Continuation Sheet...................................................................................... 166 Soil Probe (SP) / Auger Test (AT) / Shovel Test (ST) -- Profile Sheet .................. 167 12H  275H  12H  276H  123H  27H  APPENDIX VII - SITE ‘POST’ MAPS WITH SURVEYED SURFACE POINTS ........ 169 124H  278H  ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1) - Post Map ........................................................... 169 Qithyil Island (DhRl-15) - Post Map....................................................................... 170 Sqwa:la (DgRl-6) - Post Map................................................................................... 171 Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) - Post Map.............................................................................. 172 Eyxel (DiRi-48) - Post Map ..................................................................................... 173 Sxwóxwiymelh ‘South’ (DiRj-1) - Post Map........................................................... 174 Sxwóxwiymelh ‘North’ (DiRj-1) - Post Map........................................................... 175 Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) - Post Map .................................................................... 176 Xelhálh (DjRi-14) - Post Map.................................................................................. 177 125H  279H  126H  280H  127H  281H  128H  28H  129H  283H  130H  284H  13H  285H  132H  286H  13H  287H  v  List of Figures Figure 1. Map of the lower Fraser River Watershed - showing the locations of all housepit settlements investigated by the Fraser Valley Project, including those described in this report............................................................................................... 2 Figure 2a. ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1) contour map (10 cm) with features, mapping station, and test locations. ......................................................................... 15 Figure 2b. Detail - ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1) contour/shaded relief map (5 cm contours) with housepit features. ............................................................................. 16 Figure 2c. ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1) surface map with housepit features........ 17 Figure 3a. Qithyil Island (DhRl-15) contour map (10 cm) with mapping stations, tests, and feature locations -- including housepit features (F1-5) and an apparent plankhouse platform (F6)......................................................................................... 21 Figure 3b. Detail - Qithyil Island (DhRl-15) contour/shaded relief map (5 cm contours) with housepit features. ............................................................................. 22 Figure 3c. Qithyil Island (DhRl-15) surface map with housepit features (F1-5) and apparent plankhouse platform (F6). ................................................................... 23 Figure 4a. Sqwa:la (DhRl-6) contour map (10 cm) with mapping station and feature locations. ....................................................................................................... 26 Figure 4b. Detail - Sqwa:la (DhRl-6) contour/shaded relief map (5 cm contours). ... 27 Figure 4c. Sqwa:la (DhRl-6) surface map with housepit features. ............................. 28 Figure 5a. Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) contour map (10 cm contours) with tests, mapping stations, and feature locations. ................................................................................. 33 Figure 5b. East Detail - Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) contour/shaded relief map (5 cm contours) with features............................................................................................. 34 Figure 5c. West Detail - Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) contour/shaded relief map (5 cm contours) with features............................................................................................. 35 Figure 5d. Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) surface map with features (note: southeast bank of Sweltzer Creek not shown). ..................................................................................... 36 Figure 5e. Surface map of DgRl-17-F25 - earthen mound feature - showing the approximate mound shape, outline, and cairn exposure. ......................................... 37 Figure 6a. Eyxel (DiRi 48) contour map (10 cm) with features, mapping station, and test locations....................................................................................................... 40 Figure 6b. Detail - Eyxel (DiRi 48) contour map (5 cm) - with housepit features, mapping station, and test locations .......................................................................... 41 Figure 6c. Eyxel (DiRi 48) surface map with housepit features................................ 42 Figure 6d. Detail - Eyxel (DiRi 48) surface map with housepit features. .................. 43 Figure 7a. Sxwóxwiymelh ‘South’ contour map (10 cm contours) with features and mapping station locations.................................................................................. 49 Figure 7b. Sxwóxwiymelh ‘North’ contour map (10 cm contours) with features...... 50 Figure 7c. Sxwóxwiymelh ‘South’ surface map with housepit features. ................... 51 Figure 7d. Composite surface image of Sxwóxwiymelh (DiRj-1) ‘South’ and ‘North’ with radiocarbon results................................................................................. 52 Figure 10a. Xelhálh (DjRi-14) contour map (10 cm contours) with features............. 66 Figure 10b. Xelhálh (DjRi-14) - ‘Main Settlement Area’ contour map (10 cm contours) with tests, mapping stations, and feature locations.................................. 67 134H  28H  135H  289H  136H  290H  137H  291H  138H  29H  139H  293H  294H  295H  140H  296H  14H  297H  298H  142H  29H  143H  30H  14H  301H  145H  302H  146H  30H  304H  305H  147H  306H  307H  148H  308H  vi  Figure 10c. Xelhálh -‘East Terraces and Rock Walls’ Detail - contour map (10 cm contours) with tests, mapping stations, and feature locations.................................. 68 Figure 10d. Xelhálh Detail -‘Main Settlement - Eastern Detail’ - shaded relief/contour map..................................................................................................... 69 Figure 10e. Xelhálh Detail -‘Main Settlement - Central Detail’ - shaded relief/contour map..................................................................................................... 70 Figure 10f. Xelhálh Detail -‘Main Settlement - Western Detail’ - shaded relief/contour map.................................................................................................... 71 Figure 10g. Xelhálh (DjRi-14) surface map with features. ........................................ 72 Figure 11. Sanded ‘cookie’ sample from Douglas fir stump used for the dendrochronological dating of F508........................................................................ 73 Figure 12. Radiocarbon date results - arranged chronologically. ............................... 74 Figure 13. Radiocarbon date results - arranged chronologically by settlement.......... 75 149H  309H  310H  31H  150H  312H  15H  31H  152H  314H  153H  315H  vii  INTRODUCTION The ‘Stó:lō Pithouse Settlement Mapping and Testing Project’ is an archaeological research project, one of several major segments of the multi-year, multi-disciplinary ‘Fraser Valley Project’ previously reported on by Lepofsky, Schaepe, Blake, and Arnold (2003). The objectives of this study, as presented below, derive from the overarching research agenda of the ‘Fraser Valley Project’ (see Lepofsky et al 2003). Funding for this project was provided through SSHRC grants 410-2003-1525 and 752-2003-2318. This report presents the results of the two seasons of fieldwork (2004 and 2005) carried out for the ‘Stó:lō Housepit Settlement Mapping and Testing Project.’ Eight archaeological sites were included in this study -- Eyxel (DiRi-48), ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1), Qithyil Island (DhRl-15; also known as the Scowlitz Site), Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30), Sqwa:la (DhRl-6),Sxwóxwiymelh ‘South’ (DiRj-1; formerly known as the ‘Katz’ site), Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17), and Xelhálh (DjRi-14) (see Figure 1). The sites included in this study are located within Stó:lō Traditional Territory and are associated with the bands of the Stó:lō Tribal Council and Stó:lō Nation, Skwah First Nation, and Chehalis First Nation. Of the eight sites included in this project, seven are located on First Nations ‘Indian Reserves’ including the Chawathil First Nation, Shxw’ow’hamel First Nation, Scowlitz First Nation, Soowahlie First Nation (each of which is associated with the Stó:lō Tribal Council), Skwah First Nation, and Chehalis First Nation. One site - DiRi-48 (Eyxel) - is located on provincial Crown Land near the town of Hope. This project was carried out under the terms and conditions of the following permits: Stó:lō Heritage Investigation Permit #2004-28 (applicable to all sites), Chehalis Heritage Investigation Permit #2005-01 (applicable to ‘John Mack Slough’), and provincial H.C.A. Heritage Investigation Permit #2004-175 (applicable to DiRi-48). Permissions were sought and received from individual Band Councils for those communities associated with the Stó:lō Tribal Council, as well as from Skwah - under the auspices of the Stó:lō Heritage Investigation Permit. The Stó:lō and provincial permits for this project were acquired and held by David Schaepe. Work carried out at ‘John Mack Slough’ on the Chehalis Reserve was carried out as an extension of the research directed by Gordon Mohs and carried out by Adrian Sanders and Morgan Ritchie. Fieldwork for this project was carried out mainly between May of 2004 and August of 2005, with a single day of fieldwork in March 2006 focusing on testing and supplementary mapping of Qithiyl (DhRl-15) during low-water season. A large number of people from the numerous Stó:lō communities, and the U.B.C. and S.F.U. Archaeological Fieldschools of 2004-05 (see Acknowledgements) participated in this fieldwork and contributed to the success of this project and to the mapping and testing results presented below. All collected and catalogued artifacts are housed in the Stó:lō Nation Material Culture Repository. In respect of Stó:lō cultural protocols established for this project, red ochre (‘temelh’) was worn by all field crew while working on-site, and a ‘burning’ ceremony was conducted at the end of each season of the project. Summaries of methods and results for the sites we investigated are presented below. Copies of this report were distributed to the Stó:lō Tribal Council (including Chawathil, Scowlitz Shxw’ow’hamel, and Soowahlie First Nations), the Stó:lō Nation, the Skwah First Nation, the Chehalis First Nation, the Stó:lō Nation Archives, and the provincial Archaeology Branch - in compliance with all permitting requirements.  1  Figure 1. Map of the lower Fraser River Watershed - showing the locations of all housepit settlements investigated by the Fraser Valley Project, including those described in this report.  2  OBJECTIVES The primary goal of this project is to investigate housepit settlements within the ‘UpRiver’ portion of the Mainland Gulf of Georgia Region from Hatzic Lake to Five Mile Creek in the lower Fraser Canyon. This work will form the core of David Schaepe’s Ph.D. dissertation research in the Department of Anthropology, University of British Columbia. One of the basic research questions we are addressing is the spatial and temporal provenience of housepits within the region. Prior to our research, data were not available by which a chronology of housepit features and settlement patterns could be soundly established within the study region. Compounding this data-gap was the relatively ‘vague’ detail of mapping that existed for most known housepit sites – most existing maps generally lacked the precision necessary to extract valid and reliable information describing housepit features (e.g., dimensions, shape, depth, and total area), and also lacked precise real-world spatial provenience beyond the level of the ‘site.’ Very few housepits in the region had been tested and there were only a handful of radiocarbon dates establishing the ages of these settlements and their associated features, severely limiting our ability to sort them chronologically. The specific objectives of this project - focusing on the sites and housepit features selected for this study - aim to contribute new data by: (1) accurately and reliably mapping each site, including all housepits and other visible features; (2) accurately and reliably plot all sites and their features using UTM coordinates; and (3) collect and process radiocarbon samples from selected housepit features at each site in order to estimate their history of occupation. As mentioned above, this project is one part of the SSHRC-funded multi-year and multidisciplinary ‘Fraser Valley Project’ headed by Dana Lepofsky. Michael Blake, David Schaepe, and Sue Formosa formed the core mapping and testing research team, with S. Formosa acting as the primary mapping technician. As described in Lepofsky et al (2003), the broad aim of the Fraser Valley Project is the study of Stó:lō social interaction and group identity in the Fraser Valley. A significant focus of this project, particular to Schaepe’s Ph.D. research, is the archaeological investigation of precontact Stó:lō houses and settlements. Research in this area will contribute to a better understanding of village-level organization and changes that occurred in Stó:lō social and economic organization in the late precontact and early European-colonial period. This project coordinates with Stó:lō Nation’s and Stó:lo Tribal Council’s plans for developing cultural awareness programs and managing Stó:lo heritage on an on-going basis. Data gained in meeting the objectives of the ‘Stó:lō Housepit Settlement Mapping and Testing Project’ will augment similar data previously collected from select housepit settlements in the initial phase of the larger project carried out in 2002. These data will provide a foundation supporting numerous aspects of household and settlement studies. RESEARCH PLAN AND METHODS The research plan for this project is aimed at addressing questions and data-gaps of ‘space and time’ - as noted above - with regard to the eight housepit settlements selected for inclusion in this study. The selection of sites included in this study was based on a number of factors. One main factor in selection for study was whether or not a site still had pithouses visible on the ground surface. Many previously recorded sites in the region have been destroyed by development activities and are no longer available for mapping and detailed study. Another factor was regional coverage—we wanted to have a sample of sites from all parts of the study region. Most of the well-preserved pithouse village sites in the region are located on designated  3  Indian Reserves, and so fall within the jurisdiction of individual First Nations, many of whom are members of either Stó:lō Nation or Stó:lō Tribal Council, but also including Chehalis First Nation and Skwah First Nation as independent communities. The sites included in this study represent some of the most intact housepit settlements remaining in the mainland Gulf of Georgia Region (Schaepe 2004, 2005). Results from Schaepe’s preliminary analysis of housepit settlements in the region by Schaepe (ibid.) - classified by size, integrity, and location - helped guide to the selection of sites included in this project. The research plan applied to this project consisted of three basic methodological elements: (1) mapping; (2) evaluative testing; and (3) radiocarbon sampling / dating. These three basic elements of the research plan serve to locate each site and associated housepit feature in space; define the form of each housepit feature at each site; explore the stratigraphic profile / occupational history of selected housepit features; and, potentially, provide an absolute age estimate of each occupation. A guiding principle of our research was to maximize information gathering while minimizing site disturbance, including minimizing the collection of artifacts and other types of samples that require additional laboratory analysis and/or curation. A ‘burning’ ceremony was conducted at the end of the project as a means of reconciling our work with the communities living and ancestral - attached to these sites, per Stó:lō cultural protocol. Summaries of methods and results for the six sites we investigated are presented below. Mapping The first part of this research plan is aimed at addressing question of ‘space’ and entailed (1) clearing brush, (2) using a high precision GPS unit (Leica 1200 GPS; 1200 GPS rover) to establish datum points and mapping stations at each site, in three dimensional space (using UTM Nad 83 coordinates), and (3) using a Leica Total Station (703R or 705R) to establish the 3D provenience of mapping station, ties into existing datum points, reference points, geodetic markers, and to collect topographic data that could be processed and projected as digital maps (surface maps, topographic maps, shaded contour maps, etc.) using Surfer 8.0, and ArcGis. Maps of each site are included in the following section of the report. Feature numbers were newly assigned or otherwise carried forward from existing maps, as required. A centre point for each feature was established. The highly accurate and detailed site and feature maps produced using this method will permit the subsequent analysis of housepit feature form and settlement arrangements (beyond the scope of this report). All mapping data relevant to re-establishing site proveniences and mapping stations are presented in Appendix I - Mapping Data. Detailed descriptions of the mapping methods applied in this study are provided below. Review of the Mapping Work Achieving our goal of collecting detailed and comparable map data from settlements and housepit features within at numerous sites throughout the Fraser Valley and lower Fraser Canyon. required collecting precisely georeferenced surface data. A significant challenge that we faced in determining the georeferenced position for these sites was that few were located close to geodetic markers. Much of the initial portion of the 2004 season was occupied with developing a reliable, replicable set of methods for determining true ground coordinates for the site locations with the use of a Garmin GPS Map 60cs handheld GPS unit. This provided an approximate UTM location (often with a +/- 2-3 m horizontal accuracy and +/- 5 m elevation accuracy). Once a site was located ‘on the ground’, a topographic survey was completed of the 4  site with the use of a Leica 705R Total Station and prism. The methods for collecting the topographic data were refined over the 2004 season. Five sites -- Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17), Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30), Sxwóxwiymelh (DiRj-1), Sqwa:la (DhRl-6), and Xelhálh (DjRi-14) -- were georeferenced and mapped, at least partially. Subsequent to the 2004 field season, the survey data for DiRj-1 and DiRj-30 were corrected using known coordinates and benchmarks provided by CP Rail and CN Rail respectively. In 2005, with the exception of Sqwa:la, all of the sites surveyed in 2004 were revisited for further survey work and for stratigraphic sampling and carbon collection. The location of all test units and carbon samples was recorded using a Leica 705RTotal Station. Th’ewá:lí (DgRl17) was georeferenced again using the high precision GPS. CN Rail and CP Rail provided information for two known ground points adjacent to their respective tracks for triangulation to a station on Xelhálh (DjRi-14) to georeference the site. The data for Sqwa:la remains uncorrected. Three sites -- Eyxel (DiRi-48), Qithyil Island (DhRl-15), and ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRlT1)-- were added to the project in 2005. We also mapped a northern extension for the Sxwóxwiymelh (DiRj-1) site. The topographic survey and stratigraphic testing of these sites were completed simultaneously. A Leica 1200 high precision GPS unit was used to georeference these sites. The post-processing of the DiRi-48 GPS data was completed by David Martens, Instructor in the Department of Geomatics, British Columbia Institute of Technology. The topographic surveys for these new sites were collected in the same manner as for the sites in 2004. Georeferencing the Sites All of the sites were without known survey points and only three sites had benchmarks in reasonable proximity. The georeferencing began with a GPS determination of an approximate ground location (+/- 2-3 m) and elevation (+/-5 m). This approximate ground coordinate was assigned to the first station on or near a site. In order to establish orientation, a backsight was located as far away as possible within a relatively clear area (e.g. the backsight for Sxwóxwiymelh (DiRj-1) (the Katz site) was set up across the Fraser River – approximately 1.2 km away). A site was walked and features were labeled as an initial process for mapping. A position for a first survey station was selected on or near a site based on proximity to site features or a good range of visibility on the site. Rebar embedded in a concrete pillar was used at the Sxwóxwiymelh (DiRj-1) Katz, and Sqwa:la (DhRl-6) sites to define a baseline with a known orientation for the sites. Subsequently, it was found that the locations of some of the sites made the use of rebar in concrete an impractical choice (e.g., transporting these in a Zodiac up the Fraser River). Wooden hubs and plastic tent pegs were used for marking stations on the remainder of the 2004 sites. A visit back to the Xelhálh in November 2004 revealed that the wooden hubs would not weather well. From that point, metal stakes or rebar were used to mark stations on sites. In 2004, the Garmin GPSmap 60cs unit was set up on each station to collect satellite data averaging 100 readings and providing coordinates with +/- 2 m horizontal precision. In 2005, a High Precision Leica GPS 1200 base was set up on each site and provided an autonomous position coordinate to 3 decimal place (mm) accuracy at the beginning of the data collection. Data collection was set for UTM Zone10 Nad83 In both years, elevations were set on the GPS units at approximate asl values and corrected later. Benchmarks were in relatively close proximity to the site (within 1 km) for Sqwa:la, Xelhálh, and Soowahlie. The handheld GPS was set at the benchmark and the elevation  5  change from the benchmark to the site station was used to calculate the approximate elevation for the site. Once the first station had horizontal and vertical coordinates, the GPS unit was used to establish a backsight to set an orientation for the total station. In 2004, the handheld GPS was taken to a location that was visible from the first station, off the site, and as far as possible (up to 2 km) away in order to increase the precision of the orientation setting for the total station. The Leica 705R Total Station was set up on the first station and assigned the coordinates for the station. The person at the backsight location, held a prism which was sighted by the person on the Total Station. The backsight bearing was calculated using the GPS coordinates for the backsight. The handheld GPS data could not be corrected. Alternative sources for site location had to be used to obtain true ground coordinates for these sites. In 2005, a GPS Rover was used to determine the coordinates for the backsight. The Rover was set up on a point that was clearly visible from the GPS Base station. Data were collected at the rover for 3 minutes once the error in precision was below 30 mm. A 3D coordinate was output for the backsight location. This coordinate was used to calculate the bearing from the base/first station to the backsight for orienting the total station once it was set up on the first station. Exceptions to this Process Handheld GPS readings can be significantly distorted by signal reflection in locations surrounded by tall mountains, buildings, and in some cases, forest cover. Several of the sites we studied were near steep mountains or cliffs, and occasionally were also heavily forested. The Xelhálh site is a case in point. It is located in the Fraser Canyon and closely surrounded by mountains on all sides. GPS readings were significantly off—and usually placed the site in the middle of the Fraser River. In this case we found an existing benchmark at the east end of a railway tunnel near the western edge of the site. This benchmark was used as the backsight for a survey station set up on the site we arbitrarily assigned it a bearing of 270°. This allowed us to proceed with the mapping until we could correct the coordinates using data provided by CN Rail. The tall trees and the high bluff immediately to the west of the Scowlitz Island site resulted in poor base readings on the site. As a result, the Rovers could not obtain reliable data. To create a backsight, the base station was moved to an alternate location on the island and a second autonomous point was obtained. The detailed topographic survey was completed by setting the total station up on one of the base stations and using the other base station as a backsight. A check shot on the backsight had the same bearing but different coordinates and distance than the original base station autonomous reading for that point. The backsight station was assigned the coordinates obtained by the total station. This station was subsequently used as a station setup for half of the topographic survey for the site. On a subsequent day, a third base station point was established and data was collected from this point for 3 hours. This data will eventually be post-processed in order to make the correction, but this has not yet been carried out. Topographic Survey of the Sites Once the total station was set up on each site and its precise 3D coordinates and orientation (set to a known backsight) entered, mapping could begin. Data was captured at regular intervals across the site by sighting on a rod-mounted prism held by a person walking across the site surface. Subsequent stations were set by traverse from the first station. Ideally, the traverse was closed when the survey was completed. Post-processing of the data was 6  necessary on all of the sites to obtain true ground coordinates at the centimeter level of accuracy. Mapping station locations were set to maximize data collection while minimizing the number of stations required. In most cases, new areas of the site became apparent only as vegetation was cleared; therefore, it was not realistic to strive for a closed traverse before beginning the topographic survey. It was not initially apparent just how many measurements needed to be collected in order to produce highly detailed and precise topographic and feature maps of each site. However, after mapping one housepit site we soon developed a strategy for effectively and efficiently collecting and recording data to produce the sorts of maps we were after. The first site we surveyed in 2004 t was Sqwa:la. It is a small site with only three housepits and two cache pit depressions. Prior to mapping the site we had to clear the brush and other vegetation from the surface in order to expose the features and provide clear sight lines for the total station. Once this was completed for all of the pithouses, the prism person walked the surface, placing the rod on the ground at approximately 50 cm intervals. It required a day our three person crew to set up the base stations, clear the vegetation, and collect the data for the three large housepits. The data were downloaded at the end of the day and processed using Surfer 8.0. The details in the shapes and relationships of the features to one another were very apparent both in the contour map and the surface map. Based on this initial map, we decided that the full site should be mapped to provide perspective for the features, including the nature of the landform on which the pithouses were located. The area of the site immediately surrounding all of the features as well as an adjacent modern cemetery and slough channel edge were surveyed at 1-2 meter intervals. The resulting maps provided accurate data for measurement of the features and revealed that, contrary to our expectations based on earlier sketch maps of the site, the housepit depressions were rectangular and not circular in shape. We thought that the results of the Sqwa:la map, in particular the perceived rectangular shapes of the housepits, may have resulted from our data collection method—that is, walking the surface of the features in a regular and rectangular grid pattern. In order to counteract this possibility, the next three sites (Sxwóxwiymelh, Shxw’ow’hamel, and Xelhálh) were “walked” (mapped) in a variety of ways to ensure that the rod holders were not selecting points for data collection based on preconceived notions of the shapes of the features. Through trial and error, our mapping methodology was refined in order that we just enough data to make accurate surface models for the sites, while at the same time, avoiding over-sampling and potentially collecting more data points than necessary to create the surface model. The full surface of a site was walked either in a grid with regular capture intervals between measurements, or in radiating lines extending out from the total station. Housepit depressions were sampled more intensively, with data collections points spaced every 30-50 cm depending on the degree of vertical rise between points. Smaller cultural depressions, such as cache pits were sampled at 20cm intervals. Mounds were sampled around the perimeter then points were collected at approximately 30cm intervals with an additional point or two at the top of the mound. Portions of the site with no visible surface features were sampled at approximately 1-2 m intervals. Any structures – stone walls, cairns – were surveyed as standing structures separate from the topographic survey. Each time the total station needed to be moved; a new station location was sighted and entered in the total station job as a fixed point. The instrument was moved to the new location and the previous station was used as the backsight to orient the instrument in space at the new location. At the conclusion of the data collection, the traverse was closed by returning from the last station through the other stations to the first station and ensuring that the resultant coordinates for the first station were within 2 cm of the assigned coordinates for that station on all three dimensions. Data collected in 2004 were coded using the following classes: topo 7  (topography), stn (station), hp (house pit), cd (cultural depression), b (burial). Data collected in 2005 were assigned a database code for feature types and numbers. Although raw data were collected with millimeter-level accuracy, only station points were assigned mm level precision. All topographic data were rounded to centimeter-level of precision. ‘Post’ maps showing the locations and distribution of surface points collected at each site are included in Appendix VII. Exceptions to this Process In the case of Xelhálh, a second closed traverse was carried from the first closed traverse when another section of the site was identified. This second traverse was closed to the first at STN7. The topographic survey within the second traverse at Xelhálh was done in a unique way. The cliffs surrounding the terraces in this part of the site required the use of the reflectorless mode on the total station. Data were captured by moving the laser across the cliff surfaces from top to bottom in a grid. Top and base points were collected every 2-3 m or where significant changes occurred. One section with overhanging walls created a significant challenge when developing a surface map for the site. Subsequent work on this site should collect “fault line” data for such overhangs to ensure they can be adequately depicted using the available mapping software. Mapping The raw total station data were downloaded through Leica Survey Office and the raw Leica 1200GPS data were downloaded through Leica Geo Office. The Garmin GPSmap 60cs data were downloaded through the Garmin Survey program. Post-processing of the GPS data was completed through Leica Geo Office using the Chilliwack, Kelowna, and Vancouver Island base stations to triangulate the Project’s GPS base stations and correct the data collected by the rover units. The raw data collected by total station using the base station’s autonomous position coordinates was corrected with a simple linear transformation. The difference in northing, easting and elevation between the associated base station’s autonomous position and the base station’s true ground position was calculated. These values (positive or negative) were added to the raw data coordinates to obtain the corrected coordinates. For sites where known ground points were used for the post-processing, the ArcMap Spatial Analyst Transform program was used. The type of transformation was determined by the number of known points that could be matched to the site survey stations. Most often, this was an affine transformation. Surfer 8.0 was used to grid the corrected, cleaned data to make surface and contour maps. A universal krig was used for the gridding method. On sites with significant or sudden elevation change, break line, and fault line data were added to fine tune the kriging. For all sites, the UTM coordinate data needed to be truncated as Surfer could not make a surface using doubles (a number that has more than 7 digits). All map coordinates were truncated to 3-4 integers (depending on whether a 1,000 UTM grid line occurred within the site) and 3 decimal places. Additional Sites Mapped in the Fraser Valley Project (2004-05) Two other sites mapped as part of the Stó:lō Pithouse Settlement Mapping and Testing Project -- Welqámex (DiRi-15) and Ts’qó:ls (DiRi-1) -- were surveyed by Anthony Graesch on local grid systems during previous seasons. These sites were georeferenced during the 2005 season and the topographic data from these sites was included in the project data set. As well, topographic data from the Hiqelem site were available to us in partnership with a project directed  8  by Gordon Mohs for Chehalis First Nation and carried out by Adrian Sanders and Morgan Ritchie (see Lepofsky 2006). Sites that were mapped and tested as part of the Fraser Valley Project, but beyond the scope of this report, are: i) Welqámex (DiRi-15) - detailed site work is available from Anthony Graesch (Graesch 2003, 2006). ii) Ts’qó:ls (DiRi-1) - detailed site work is available from Jean Arnold (Arnold and Schaepe 2004; Arnold 2006) iii) Hiqelem - detailed site work is available from Dana Lepofsky (Lepofsky 2005). iv) Katz (DiRj-1 - north and south) – 2005 Simon Fraser University fieldschool directed by Dana Lepofsky and Michael Lenert (Lepofsky and Lenert 2005, 2006). v) McCallum Site (DhRk-2) – 2004 Simon Fraser University fieldschool directed by Dana Lepofsky (Lepofsky et al 2005). In total, detailed topographic data was obtained from 12 sites within the study region between 2004-2005 (see Figure 1), eight of which are accounted for in this report: ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1), Sqwa:la (DhRl-6), Qithyil Island (DhRl-15), Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17), Eyxel (DiRi-48), Sxwóxwiymelh ‘South’/Katz (DiRj-1), Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30), and Xelhálh (DjRi-14). Test Excavations: Soil Probes, Auger Tests, and Shovel Tests The second goal of our research was to determine the age and occupational history of select housepit features within each site. This phase involves preliminary “Evaluative Testing” (Apland and Kenny 1998:12-13) to assess the depth, extent and integrity of housepit deposits. Our testing strategy involved one or more of the following methods: (1) probing with a 2 cm diameter Oakfield soil probe; (2) augering with a 13 cm diameter bucket auger; (3) digging square or rectangular shovel tests (STs) generally measuring 20-25 cm per side; and (4) cleaning fortuitously exposed profiles to expose visible stratigraphy (e.g., DhRl-15 Feature 6 ‘Plankhouse Feature’ profile; DgRl-17 ‘Mound Feature’ profile). Where possible, we always used the least obtrusive in order to recover the target data. In some cases, we began our testing with a probe but then found it to be insufficient or ineffective (e.g., blocked by a root or large stone). We then moved to augering or shovel testing. All such test excavations terminated at the C horizon which was culturally sterile – with the exception of a few features, including Feature 13 at Xelhálh, where we encountered apparent floor features and decided to stop excavating to minimize unnecessary impacts. Where possible, we placed tests within the central floor area (generally within a 1 m radius circle) of each feature. This consistency in test placement permits some degree of comparison of pattering of housepit features, particularly hearth location, across the sampled housepits. Our testing method proved effective at exposing carbon-rich hearth deposits associated with floors in many housepits. This allowed us to collect radiocarbon samples that were reliably associated with floors, and in some cases we were able to recover samples from a superimposed sequence of floors in the same house (e.g., DiRj-30-F18-ST4). The Oakfield Probes allowed us to collect 25 cm-deep core increments. Each 25 cm core increment was removed, described, and photographed before continuing down through the deposits. This continued until we reach the C Horizon. The Oakfield probe provides an exposed ‘window’ on one side of the coring tube, allowing effective examination, stratigraphic description, and identification and collection of radiocarbon samples from core sample while still contained in the probe. Depths of the core were established for each probe, as it progressed downward, allowing for an accurate accounting of sediment compaction that tended to occur within the core, itself, as a result of pushing the probe into the ground. Photographs and 9  stratigraphic drawings included the ‘corrected’ depths for each core, based on direct measurements inside the test unit. Auger and shovel test excavations were carried out stratigraphically when possible. They were excavated in arbitrary 10 cm levels within strata exceeding 10 cm in thickness. This strategy was more effective for the shovel tests than for the bucket auger tests, because they afforded a better view of the unit’s side walls and base during excavations. Auger tests were usually excavated in 15 cm increments, the length of the auger bore. This precluded examination of layers or Stratigraphic contact zones within the 15 cm span of the auger. All excavation units were precisely plotted and provided ‘real-world’ three-dimensional provenience (UTM / mASL) from established stations on the site using the Leica Total Station, as noted above. Each test type was differentiated by a code and assigned a unique number which was also recorded on the total station. Shovel tests had the four surface corners surveyed beginning with the test datum. The same sequence was repeated at the base. Auger tests had four surface points taken around the perimeter beginning with a point above the best profile for the test. The same sequence was repeated at the base. Soil probes had a surface point taken. Most of the time, the diameter of the hole created by the soil probe was too small for the prism rod so no reliable basal readings could be taken. The depth of the probe was measured by tape and calculated by subtracting from the surface elevation reading. Information on the excavations was maintained on excavation and sample forms created for this project (see attached Appendix VI - Excavation Forms). All units were given ‘numbered’ designations (e.g., ST-1) on a site-by-site basis (e.g., DgRl-17-F8-ST-1; DgRl-17F3-ST-2; DgRl-17-F20-ST-3), progressively increasing by test type throughout the testing program at each site (as opposed to a feature-specific numbering system). Excavation unit locations are provided in the data tables presented in Appendix I - Mapping Data. Elevations were established for the surface and base of each unit; including each corner of the shovel tests. All matrix was screened through a 6 mm (1/8”) mesh size in order to recover all archaeological material. These collections were recorded according to site number, test unit designation, level/stratigraphic layer, and/or depth below ground surface. Artifacts discovered in situ were recorded three dimensionally using the total station. Paleobotanical samples were collected when possible, but these collections were limited by the small size of the test excavation units. Paleobotanical analyses were carried out on the soil sample collected from DiRj-30-F12 (see Appendix V - Soil Sample / Botanical Analysis). Profiles from at least one wall per unit were drawn and photographed. A hand-held digital camera was used to take photographs of each excavation unit (overview location) and exposed profiles, including detail profile shots from within each unit (taken by reaching down into and photographing the ‘inside’ of the unit, progressively from the top to bottom, and, when necessary, specific parts of the profile). Plan views were drawn and photographed where features were noted in the base of any excavation unit. Profiles of all the 47 test excavations (17 shovel tests, 12 auger tests, 18 soil probes) carried out for this project are included in Appendix IV. A photo record was maintained for all photographs taken on site. All artifacts recovered from our excavations were collected, catalogued, and described (see Appendix II - Artifact Catalogue), and are currently housed at the Stó:lō Material Culture Repository, except for the one lithic artifact recovered from John Mack Slough (DhRl-T1) which was returned to the Chehalis First Nation for curation. Radiocarbon Sampling and Dating Carbon samples were collected from all strata where charcoal could be observed in the coring probes or in the side walls. All radiocarbon samples were identified and marked in-situ 10  using a metal nail with a labeled tag. Carbon samples thus marked in shovel or auger tests were precisely plotted using the total station. Carbon sample provenience measurements were truncated to cm precision. The radiocarbon samples were given field identifications based on Site Number, Feature Number, Test Number, and Carbon Sample number - progressively per test unit (as opposed to per feature or site) - for example, DgRl-17-F8-ST2-CS-1, DgRl-17-F8ST2-CS2; DgRl-17-F3-ST8-CS1, DgRl-17-F3-ST8-CS2. Eyxel was the only exception to this otherwise standard process, where radiocarbon samples (of which six were taken) were numbered sequentially across the site. Samples were photographed in situ prior to collection. They were then removed using a metal spoon and stored in a tin-foil ‘envelope’ placed within a sealed plastic bag - each of which was labeled with the field sample number, date, and provenience. Beta Analytic analyzed the samples using AMS rather than conventional dating because the samples were generally very small. The project sample numbers, Beta sample numbers, and processing results are presented in Appendix III - Radiocarbon Sample Data and Processing Results. All radiocarbon sample locations and results are included in the test excavation profiles in Appendix IV. All unprocessed radiocarbon samples were packaged for storage at the Stó:lō Material Culture Repository.  11  RESULTS - SETTLEMENT AND HOUSEPIT FEATURE MAPPING AND TESTING Results from the mapping and testing of the eight Stó:lō settlements included in this project are presented below. Information on each site is presented individually in sections divided into mapping methods and maps (surface and contour maps) and a summary description accounting for the number of housepit features identified at each site, as well as testing (profile figures) and radiocarbon dating results. Housepit feature dimensions presented below are, while relatively accurate, preliminary in nature and will be supplemented with more precise and extensive measurements from the analysis of these data being carried out by Schaepe (forthcoming dissertation). Settlements are presented alphabetically by their Borden number. ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1) Mapping Methods A survey was conducted at the John Mack Slough (JMS) on the Chehalis Reserve. The true ground coordinates were determined with the use of a Leica 1200 GPS unit at the base station. Four stations were established using a Leica 1200 GPS Rover – STNs 1, 2, 3, and 4. A topographic survey of the river terrace was also completed using the Rover. All stations were marked by galvanized 12” nails. A Leica 705R total station was set up on STN 1 using its GPS coordinates. A check was made to the Base Station and to STN 2. The total station coordinates for these two stations were used for control settings in completing a topographic survey of the site. Three additional stations were set by total station to complete the site mapping – STNs 5, 6, and 7. A closed traverse was completed from the Base Station through STN6. STN7 was set as a side shot from the Base Station. Sighting back to the Base Station confirmed the location of STN7. The site features included house depressions, cultural depressions, burial mounds, slough channels, river and slough banks. Points were collected at .5 to 1m intervals within the house depressions and cultural depressions. The burial mounds were surveyed at their perimeter and across the top at 30cm intervals. The surrounding site areas were surveyed at 2m intervals. The majority of the features were surveyed from STN1. STN6 was used for point collection of the main site east of F8. F5 was surveyed from STN5 and F36 was surveyed from STN7. A cursory survey was repeated on the river terrace and carried out in more detail between the river terrace and F36. Approximately 4,480 surface points were collected. All GPS data was postprocessed to 2 cm accuracy horizontally and 5 cm vertically. The total station data was transformed to the corrected GPS data by linear transformation. Site surface and contour maps were completed in 2005 showing the features, test units, stations and topography of the site (see Figures 2a-c). Summary Description The ‘John Mack Slough’ pithouse village site (DhRl-T1) is located on the Chehalis Indian Reserve, on the west bank of the Harrison River 9 km upstream from its confluence with the Fraser River, and 8 km downstream from the entrance to Harrison Lake. The site is situated in an area that is currently used by the Chehalis community as a boat launch, fishing site, and occasionally as camping and picnic ground. Twelve housepit features are located at this newly documented site, as described below. Two shovel tests were excavated at this site (F2, F5) resulting in the collection of one radiocarbon sample that dated to 470-290 cal BP (F5). This 12  date directly represents the age of the single floor layer associated with F5 and is also suggested to relatively represent the age of the other housepit features at this settlement - which appear to share a similar profile and manner of construction (i.e., shallow house floor dug into gravel substrate). Dimensions of the housepit features - generally squarish to rectilinear in shape with pronounced rims - range from about 8 m to 11.5 m in length/width. Site features are described in more detail below. The landform on which the site sits is part of a huge alluvial fan formed by the Chehalis River where it enters the Harrison River. It is cross-cut by many remnant river channels that form sloughs alongside the Harrison, providing flat land that is dry for most of the year but subject to flooding from the spring through the late summer. John Mack Slough forms the northern edge of the site and the Harrison River marks the eastern site boundary. There are 12 well-preserved housepits visible on the surface and several small earthen mounds that may be mortuary features (though none have yet been tested). Ten of the housepits are tightly clustered in two rows. One row, roughly parallel to the Harrison River, and set back from it by about 80 m contains eight housepits (F1 to F4, F6, F7, F16, and F18). Behind it is another “row” of two housepits, closer to the edge of the slough channel (F14 and F15). Two other housepits are outliers. One of them, F5, is the southernmost housepit at the site and is separated from the others by about 40 m. The other (F36) is on the eastern tip of the site near where John Mack Slough joins the Harrison. It is about 50 m east of the large row of housepits. All but two of the housepits are predominantly square-shaped, have pronounced rims, and flat floors. During times of high water, the floors become flooded as water seeps up through the gravely alluvium, sometime entirely filling many of the housepits with water. Feature F5 is one of the two largest housepits at the site. It is squarish, measuring about 11 m by 10 m and is 1.1 m deep. As with all the housepits on the site, it was dug below the sandy surface into the hard packed gravel beneath, and that gravel can be seen on the floor of the structure. There is very little cultural material (tools, midden debris, fire-cracked rock) visible on the surface of the structure or immediately surrounding it, so it may not have been occupied for very long. In this respect it, and the other housepits at the site, are similar to those described at Qithyil Island. Feature F36 is also a large well-defined housepit. It measures 10 m by 9 m and is 1 m deep. Like F5, this housepit is square in outline with clearly defined corners. Both it and F5 are aligned with the Harrison River. Features F1 to F4 consist of a string of four housepits touching rim to rim. Although they are not in a straight line, they all align to the Harrison River. F1 and F2 are both wellpronounced square-shaped structures and touch corner-to-corner. F1 measures approximately 8 m by 9 m while F2 measures 7 m by 8 m and both are just over 1 m deep. F3 touches corner-tocorner with F2 and is slightly more rounded somewhat smaller than the previous two. It measures 7 m by 7 m and is also 1 m deep. F4 shares a rim with F3 and perhaps there was a passageway between the two pithouses when they were occupied. Otherwise it may be that F4 was built after F3 and it slightly overlaps it. F4 is the most rounded of this sequence of four structures, but still, it is relatively square on its west side while being rounded on its east side. It measures 10 m by 9 m, and 1.2 m deep making it the largest of this small cluster. F6 is the shallowest structure at the site and less clearly defined than all the others. It is 7 m by 8 m and only about 0.6 m deep. Its northeast and southwest sides are open suggesting it may have had side entrances or is just severely eroded. In either case, it is quite dissimilar from the other housepits on the site. It could have been a different function or from a different time period. F7, beside F6, is in contrast the largest and best defined structure at the site. It too is square and aligned with the Harrison River. It measures about 11.6 m by 10 m with clear corners 13  and a large flat central floor surface. It is 1 m deep, but it almost appears to have been formed more by building up a rectangular doughnut-shaped rim rather than digging a deep housepit. The rim of F7, even more so than the surrounding housepits, stands above the surrounding ground surface, in some places by as much as 0.6 to 0.7 m. This gives the impression that people may have tried to create housepits without digging too deeply into the ground. This makes sense if they were trying to avoid the relatively high water table in this spot—and in fact, may have been a necessity given the possibility of late fall or early spring flooding. Next to F7 sit F16 and F18, two structures that share a rim. Both are square with the same alignment as F6 and F7. F18, however, was not completely mapped due to the thick vegetation. Although the map of it in Figure 2b shows an undefined NE side, in reality it has a well-formed steep side wall like the rest of the housepits. Future mapping should provide the missing elevations. F16 Measures 8 m by 8 m and is 1 m deep. F18 is also 8 m by 8 m and 1 m deep. F14 and F15 sit on a slightly raised ridge separated from the previously described structures by a shallow remnant slough channel. F14 is 8 m by 9 m and 1 m deep. F15, located 15 m farther to the east and next to John Mack Slough channel, is about 9 m by 9 m and also 1 m deep. It is somewhat more rounded than F14, but the detailed contour map shows clear corners and the same alignment as the other structures at the site. We also plotted approximately 16 possible burial mounds and cairns. Some of these are clear and pronounced mound structures (e.g., F19, F20, F23, F24, F32, and F31), while others are much smaller and not nearly as clearly defined (e.g., F21, F22, F12, F13, F9, and others). Without further testing, it will not be possible to determine if these are all mortuary mounds or other features. Some could be tree throws or some other natural phenomenon. Their association with a residential site such as the John Mack Slough site is common throughout our study region and this association increases the likelihood that they are in fact, cultural features as well.  14  Figure 2a. ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1) contour map (10 cm) with features, mapping station, and test locations.  15  Figure 2b. Detail - ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1) contour/shaded relief map (5 cm contours) with housepit features.  16  Figure 2c. ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1) surface map with housepit features.  17  Qithyil Island (DhRl-15) Mapping Methods A survey of the site topography and cultural features was completed during the 2005 field season, supplemented with data collected during a single day of testing in March 2006 (during low water, permitting access to the otherwise water-filled housepits and inspection of the eroded riverfront). A high precision GPS unit, a Leica 1200 GPS, was used to bring in true ground coordinates for the site. Base52 was set up on STN1 on the north rim of F3. The coordinates were obtained by using an autonomous position for the base. Despite quite an open site, no rover data could be collected. The GPS unit ran on Base52 for 45 minutes to collect data for postprocessing. To create a back sight for survey orientation, the GPS unit was moved to STN2 set on the west rim of F1. The coordinates were again called by autonomous position. Again, the rover could not collect data. The GPS unit ran on Base53 for 30 minutes to collect data for postprocessing. A Leica 705R Total Station was then set up on STN2. The orientation was set to STN1 by using the bearing for Base53-Base52. A mounted prism was used to obtain coordinates for STN1 for the site survey. The north end of the island was mapped by taking points at 2m intervals between features and at .3-.5m intervals within features. House depressions were the cultural features captured in the survey. Survey pins and land erosion monitoring pins set in 1992 were also surveyed in. The island perimeter points and the feature perimeter points were also collected using a Garmin Xtreme hand held GPS unit. After consultation with mapping expert Dave Martens (BCIT), another attempt was made to collect ground data through GPS. Base2 was set from STN1. A third GPS unit setup (Base54) was placed on Base2. Again, the coordinates were called with an autonomous position and data was collected at the base for 3 hours. No rover data collection was attempted. All stations were set using 1m lengths of rebar as markers. All stations were flagged. Approximately 3,080 surface points were collected at the site. Information on the pre-processed data for the stations is available in the 2005 field notes. After the 2005 field season, the GPS data was post-processed by Dave Martens, Department of Geomatics, BCIT. In 2006, these data were tied into and corrected based on coordinates established from a station set up on the dike opposite the site (east bank of the Harrison River) for and from which we were able to establish high precision UTM locations and reference points. Site surface and contour maps of the pre-processed data were completed in 2005 showing the features, stations and topography of the site (see Figures 3a-c). Summary Description The Qithyil Island settlement site (DhRl-15) is located on a small island near the confluence of the Harrison and Fraser rivers. DhRl-15 is a pithouse village site consisting of four housepit depressions (F1-3, 4) and two other shallow depressions (F5; unnumbered) that may also have been house features or some other form of cultural feature. The housepits are arranged in a linear fashion. In addition, there is a long flat area (F6) that appears to have been a living surface likely associated with a plankhouse. The housepit features at this site represent square and circular shapes and all have well defined rims. The dimensions of these houses range from 11 to 13 m in width/diameter. Six soil probes were dug at this site, from which eight radiocarbon samples were recovered; one of which (F4) was dated to 540-470 cal BP. Of three radiocarbon samples extracted from the exposed profile associated with F6, a date of 700-640 cal  18  BP was derived from what appears to be the earliest floor layer associated with this feature. Details of this site are provided below. During the spring when the river level is at its peak, the island is no more than 200 m long and 50 m wide. In the winter when water levels are at their lowest, the narrow channel separating the island from the adjacent shore is dry and it is possible to walk across the gap. The island consists mainly of fine sands and gravels that are continually eroding away, exposing buried features in the profile and washing out hundreds of artifacts, fire-cracked rock, and other cultural remains along the island’s east-facing shore. Over the past 15 years we have heard reports that the island was much longer and may have held many more housepit depressions. However, 19th century Reserve boundary surveyors’ maps and notes of the island and the earliest airphotos that we have been able to find (from the 1940s) show essentially the same shape and length as the present island. Sketch maps of the island’s cultural features were made in the 1980s and in 1992 a surveying fieldschool class from Fraser Valley College made a more accurate map of the site in conjunction with the first UBC archaeology fieldschool at the Qithyil Site (Scowlitz Site). In 2005 we returned to map the surface features and topography in order to produce a more detailed record of the features so that they could be studied and compared with the other housepit villages that we had mapped in 2004 and 2005. Like several other pithouse villages along the Harrison River (e.g., John Mack Slough), the housepits on Qithyil Island flood during the high water season. The housepits fill with water, in some cases up to a meter in depth. This may reflect a significant change in the water table levels since the time that the houses were occupied perhaps related environmental changes of the Little Ice Age. Alternatively, though perhaps less likely, it may be that if the houses were only occupied during the winter season when water levels are at their lowest, the ground surface inside the houses dried out sufficiently to make them habitable. In any case, it is likely that the increased humidity meant that any structural support posts would get wet and decay very rapidly—so these structures may not have been occupied very long—perhaps just a few seasons. Judging by the relative lack of artifacts visible on the surfaces in and around the housepits, and the singular ‘discrete’ or otherwise indistinct house floor layers in these housepits, this last interpretation seems reasonable. Like the John Mack Slough settlement, the occupation of the housepits at this settlement appears to be of fairly discrete and ‘limited’ length of time. The four main features visible on the surface are housepits (F1 to F4). Soil probes were placed in each of them and radiocarbon samples recovered. Starting at the north end of the site F1is a somewhat irregular square-shaped depression. Its eastern side is indented, possible from post-abandonment erosion. F1 is about 12 m by 12 m and 2.2 m deep. It has very steep sides and a relatively flat floor in the bottom. F2 sits immediately south of F1. In fact, the southern rim of F1 appears to “push” into F2, suggesting that F2 had been built first and possibly abandoned before F1 was built. F2 is about 10 m by 11 m and approximately 1.5 m deep. Its north-south dimension of 10 m is probably a function of the encroachment of F1’s rim towards the south and we suspect that the original N-S dimension of the housepit was also 11 m. Its square shape is somewhat more clearly defined that F1 and shows a N-S orientation that, although similar to F1, is tilted even more towards the west. F3 sits in the middle of the island, 20 m south of F2. It has a very round shape, particularly on its east side, and is the only one of the four structures that is round. It is about 12 m in diameter and has an approximate depth of 1.9 m. F4 sits at the south end of the island, 25 m south of F3. F4 has a pronounced square shape with well defined corners. Its dimensions are about 12 m (N-S) by 12 m (E-W) and is approximately 1.5 m deep. Its orientation is almost exactly N-S. 19  F5 consists of a shallow square-shaped depression just to the north of F4. It is well defined by a 0.7 m high ridge along its west side and a slight, 0.3 m depression in the centre. F5 measures approximately 8 m by 8 m. A soil probe was placed in the centre of this feature. Farther to the north, occupying the area between F5 and F3 is another shallow depression. This rectangular feature is probably part of the natural ridge that forms the western edge of the site running between F2 and F4 and bounding a long depression or shallow trough that flanks it to the west. We think that the construction of housepit F3 artificially creates the impression that this is a rectangular feature, but at present, we do not think it was intentionally made. F6 is an approximately 65-70 m long flat area on the western side of the island. Erosion along the river bank has exposed a series of burned floors, hearth features, and midden debris that are visible along almost the entire length of the feature. It is possible that these floors were part of a long plankhouse structure or were formed by a series of season camps along the river’s edge, perhaps for fishing. Support for the interpretation of these deposits as associated with a series of superimposed plankhouse floors is supported by the linear and discrete (1-2 cm think) nature of the cultural strata, with at least three stratified floor layers within an approximate 20 cm think deposit, extending in an apparent unbroken fashion for the full 65-70 m extent of the ‘flat’ exposed in the river bank. There are patches of burned-orange matrix with a high density of calcined fish bone visible in the profile and associated with concentrations of fire-cracked rock. A dense scatter of artifacts (ground slate knife fragments, debitage, FCR; also, clay pipe fragments) covers the beach adjacent to the exposed profile and ‘flat’ - eroded and deposited during seasonal high-water. These deposits are similar to deposits we excavated at DhRl-16, just downriver (Lepofsky et al 2000). We do not yet know how wide this deposit is (i.e., extending westward, away from the river), although judging from the remnant landform and ‘flat’ surface defined in our surface and topographic maps, F6 may have up to a 15 m wide section remaining intact beyond the rivers edge. A series of radiocarbon samples (F6CS3; 2; 1) were taken from an exposed profile (see figure in Appendix IV). The date recovered from this series, as noted above, indicates that F6 preceded the housepits on Qithyil Island. The contact-era artifacts noted from the eroded beach deposit indicate the occupation of the island into early contact-era times -likely associated with the occupation of F6, continuing after the use of the housepits had ended due to flooding issues.  20  Figure 3a. Qithyil Island (DhRl-15) contour map (10 cm) with mapping stations, tests, and feature locations -- including housepit features (F1-5) and an apparent plankhouse platform (F6).  21  Figure 3b. Detail - Qithyil Island (DhRl-15) contour/shaded relief map (5 cm contours) with housepit features.  22  Figure 3c. Qithyil Island (DhRl-15) surface map with housepit features (F1-5) and apparent plankhouse platform (F6).  23  Sqwa:la (DgRl-6) Mapping Methods A site survey was conducted at DhRl-16 in 2004. The first station (STN100) was set on a the ‘C’ in the center of a sewer cap on Brentwood Dr. just east of the north end of the site at the curve by a pillared driveway. A backsight (STN101) was set on the center of a water cap on the east side of Brentwood Dr. at the junction with Quarry Rd, 3m south of a hydro box. A local surveyor provided the UTM coordinates for STN101. A Garmin Xtreme hand held GPS was used to bring in approximate UTM coordinates for STN100. The GPS unit’s elevation was set at a benchmark .5km away. The Garmin Xtreme has an accuracy of +/- 5m for ground coordinates, +/- 10m accuracy for elevation, and provides coordinates at the meter level of precision. A Leica 705R Total Station was set up on STN100. STN101 provided an orientation for the survey at a bearing of 143°11’06” and 208.6m from STN100. The Total Station and a mounted prism were used to carry coordinates and elevations onto the site from STN100 to STN103. The elevation was an assumed value of 11mAMSL at STN100 based on the GPS elevation reading at STN101. The subsequent stations (STN1-3,105,122,126) were set as side shots from STN103 and confirmed by setup on each of them back to STN103 and one alternate STN. STN103 and STN105 were set with wooden hubs. STN122 and STN126 were set with rebar in a concrete base. These two stations defined north-south baseline for the site. Details on the locations for each hub are in the 2004 Survey field notes. A detailed topographic survey was accomplished by collecting ground elevations at 2m intervals between features and at .5m intervals immediately around and within features across the complete site. Approximately 1,300 surface points were collected. House depressions, cultural depressions, and a modern cemetery boundary were the cultural features captured with this survey. The slough edge adjacent to the west side of the site was also surveyed. As of December 2005, the data collected has not been corrected to true ground coordinates and all values remain approximations for location and elevation. The dampness at the site will limit the life of the hubs. If further work is anticipated for this site, then STN103 and STN105 should be reset using either rebar or galvanized nails. Site surface and contour maps were completed in 2005 showing the features, stations, and topography of the site (see Figures 4a-c). Summary Description The Sqwa:la settlement site (DhRl-6) is located on Skwah First Nation’s Skwahla I.R. No. 2 on the southern bank of Hope Slough just west of Mt. Shannon on the north side of Chilliwack. The Skwahla Reserve lands are bounded by Menzies Street, Portage Avenue, and Brentwood Drive. Sqwa:la is a small housepit settlement with three housepit circular to subcircular features ranging in size from 10-12 m in largest dimension arranged in a linear fashion. The site is reported in Duff (1952:37) and was first recorded by W.A. Kenyon in 1953. In 1986 and 1987 it was visited by Gordon Mohs and Albert ‘Sonny’ McHalsie who drew a sketch map of the site and numbered all the main surface features. The village consists of three large housepit depressions (F2, F3, and F4), and two smaller cultural depressions (F5 and F6) which may have been cache pits. F1, which we plotted but did not examine in detail, is a recent cemetery marked with a fence which has fallen into disrepair. The site dimensions, that is the area with visible surface features including the cemetery, covers an area of about 50 m by 60 m. Like Mohs and McHalsie, we think the occupation extends beyond the area of the cultural depressions and we noted large concentrations of fire-cracked rock and black, charcoal-rich soil 24  in many spots 25 m or more removed from the main features. Kenyon indicates that a plankhouse was associated with this settlement which remains a distinct, though unverified, possibility. Subtle topographic structure representing a flat ‘bench’ to the north of the pithouses immediately bordering Hope Slough may represent an above ground house feature, although this suggestions remains to be evaluated. Another possibility is that the cemetery area was established within the perimeter of a plankhouse floor following the terminal occupation of the site and the demise of the house feature itself. The three housepit features at the site sit atop a landform raised slightly above the bank of Hope Sough, a side channel of the Fraser River and a main branch of the extensive slough system running through the Central Fraser Valley. The site is accessible by boat from the Fraser River and numerous other slough channels by way of Hope Slough. No subsurface testing has yet been carried out at the site as permission to do so was not provided by the Skwah First Nation Chief and Council. We are currently unable to date the features or describe the nature of the floor deposits in the housepits. However, we did note that near STN126, for example, there was a thick deposit of fire-cracked rock and cultural deposits. Other spots on the site where trees had toppled over and where soil was exposed also showed similar evidence of cultural occupation. It is likely that this site is part of an extensive occupation along the high ground flanking Hope Slough between Mount Shannon and Little Mountain School. The presence clearly defined housepit features in association with an early contact-era cemetery (c. 19th century) as located on a reserve established in the 1800s strongly implies that this settlement was occupied into the late pre-contact/early post-contact period (c. 18-19th century). The density of cultural material and extent of anthropogenic soils at the site suggest that, like Th’ewá:lí, this settlement was subject to intensive and possibly long-term occupation within the last millennium. Testing is required to provide more conclusive evidence describing the occupation of this site. All of the housepits at the site are essentially round in outline, but F2, located at the east end of the row of housepits has some indications that it may once have been square. It is aligned on the low ridge in such a way that the back side of the depression (that is, the side farthest away from the slough) is parallel to the edge of the ridge. Its dimensions are 11 m (parallel to the ridge) by 10 m (perpendicular to the ridge) and approximately 2 m deep. Its walls are still steep but some erosion has taken place in recent years where a bike trail runs through the structure. F3 is located 4 m to the west of F2 and sits in the middle of the low ridge. It is very well preserved and has a clearly pronounced rim all round the edge of the house. This structure is almost perfectly round (almost identical to F3 at Qithyil Island). It is 10 m in diameter and approx. 1.6 m deep. The side walls slope smoothly down from the rim to the floor. F4 sits just off the north edge of the low ridge on which the other two housepits are located. It is rounded, but much like F2, its back edge (away from the slough) is also parallel to the ridge which it abuts. This alignment of the back edge allows one to perceive a slight squaring of the “corners” and gives the impression that it was not intended to be as circular as F3. Its dimension are 9 m (parallel to the ridge) by 8 m (perpendicular to the ridge) and about 1 m deep. F5 and F6 are two small cultural depressions, possibly cache pits, located on the rim of F2. F5 is the most clearly defined at 3 m in diameter and 0.45 m deep. Its south facing rim is not as pronounced and opens up to the edge of the low ridge. F6 sits on the NW edge of F2 and is not as well defined, partly because a bike trail ran through it, destroying part of the rim. It may have been 3 m in diameter and about 0.3 m deep before it was disturbed.  25  Figure 4a. Sqwa:la (DhRl-6) contour map (10 cm) with mapping station and feature locations.  26  Figure 4b. Detail - Sqwa:la (DhRl-6) contour/shaded relief map (5 cm contours).  27  Figure 4c. Sqwa:la (DhRl-6) surface map with housepit features (note: the blue in F2 and F3 is a factor of surface elevation coloration and does not represent water).  28  Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) Mapping Methods Site surveys were conducted at DgRl-17 in 2002, 2004 and 2005. At the conclusion of the 2005 field season, all 2002 and 2004 data were corrected to the 2005 ground referenced data. In 2002, a local coordinate system was used. Datums 1-7 were set across the site. All datums were set using a yellow tent peg which was 3cm above ground level. A cursory topographic survey was completed as well as detailed surveying for house depressions, burial mounds, the site road, test locations and some cultural depressions. The top terrace and the lowest terrace, beside the modern cemetery, were surveyed. The 2004 survey focused on collected a detailed topographic survey of the upper and middle terraces north of the site road. Only two of the 2002 survey markers were located in 2004. The survey was begun without any information on the Datum numbering for the 2002 survey. Therefore, the survey was begun with STN1 (subsequently determined to be Datum 1 from 2002). A Garmin Xtreme hand held GPS was used to bring in approximate UTM coordinates for STN1 and STN2, a marker set on the west edge of the gravel road adjacent to the west side of the site. The GPS unit’s elevation was set at a benchmark .5km away on the west side of Vedder Crossing Bridge crossing the Chilliwack River. The Garmin Xtreme has an accuracy of +/- 5m for ground coordinates, +/- 10m accuracy for elevation, and provides coordinates at the meter level of precision. A Leica 705R Total Station was set up on STN1. STN2 provided the orientation for the site survey. STN3 was set on the other 2002 yellow survey peg (subsequently determined to be Datum2 from 2002). STN3 was sighted from STN1 as were STN4, STN6, and STN7. All of these stations were confirmed by sighting back to STN1 and at least one other station. STN5 was set from STN4. STN4 and STN5 were set as wooden hubs. All other 2004 stations were set using 12” galvanized nails. All stations were flagged. The dampness at the site will limit the life of the hubs. If further work is anticipated for this site, then STN4and STN5 should be reset using either rebar or galvanized nails. Details on the locations for each hub are in the 2002, 2004 and 2005 Survey field notes and in the DgRl17Soow2002_05CorrSTN.xls file. A detailed topographic survey was accomplished by collecting ground elevations at 2m intervals between features and at .3-.5m intervals immediately around and within features across the complete site. House depressions, cultural depressions, and burial mounds, were captured with this survey. The road surrounding the site and the drop off to Sweltzer Creek were also surveyed. A linear transformation was used to align the 2002 data with the 2004 data as only two common points, STN1/Datum1 and STN3/Datum2, were available for tying the two sets of data together. The ground coordinates and elevations were still only approximations of true ground coordinates and elevations for the site. Contour and surface maps were generated in 2004 to take into the field for further surveying and testing of the site. Further mapping and testing was completed during the 2005 field season. A high precision GPS unit, a Leica 1200 GPS, was used in the 2005 field season to bring in true ground coordinates for the site. Base 57 was set up on the east side of the site on the east side of the road above Sweltzer Creek. The location of the Base was called using an autonomous position. A rover GPS was used to set a backsight Rov2176 point based on the Base 57 location. The base station was run for 3 hours to enable post-processing of the data to obtain the true ground coordinates and elevation at that location. The rover was used to collect points on the east bank of the site and along the road which runs east of the site. A Leica 705R Total Station was then set up on Base 57. Rov2176 provided the orientation for the survey. Checks were made from Base 57 onto stations set in 2004 - STN1, STN6, and STN5. New UTM coordinates were 29  obtained for these stations. During the 2005 season, all surveying from the stations used the 2005 UTM coordinates. Two new stations were set in 2005 on the lowest terrace – STN8 and STN9. These were set from STN6. Both were marked by 12” galvanized nails. The topographic mapping was completed from STN1, STN6, STN8 and STN9 to fill in areas which did not have enough data collected in the previous seasons. Test units and carbon sample were surveyed on the upper terrace and in the lowest terrace, beside the modern cemetery. Burial features, including a burial mound (F25) and a number of burial cairns (e.g., F 33-35), were mapped on the east side of the lowest terrace. In all, between 2002 and 2005, about 6,600 surface points were collected. After the 2005 field season, the GPS data was postprocessed by Dave Martens, Department of Geomatics, BCIT. All of the 2005 data was then corrected by linear transformation based on the corrected UTM coordinates and elevation for the Base 57 station. An affine transformation was then used to align the 2002-04 data to the 2005 data. All site data are now in true ground coordinates and AMSL elevations. Site surface and contour maps were completed in 2005 showing the features, test units, stations and topography of the site (see Figures 5a-d). A surface map of F25 is shown in Figure 5e. Summary Description The Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) settlement is located on Soowahlie I.R. 14 of the Soowahlie First Nation. The site is situated on a bedrock outcrop creating a small hill and upland on the north bank of Sweltzer Creek, amidst the surrounding lowland near the confluence of the Sweltzer Creek and Chilliwack River. The site is located 0.75 km from the actual confluence of these two rivers, just upstream from where the Chilliwack River flows into the Fraser River Valley. The hill on which the settlement is situated is backed by the foothills of Vedder Mountain, separated by what used to be a well defined ‘chasm’ or creek bed of sorts that no longer exists. Sweltzer Creek borders the front side of the settlement. A flat and well developed terrace extends southwestward, upstream, from the site. Modern quarry activity immediately behind the site has significantly altered the surrounding landscape, while avoiding the site itself. A modern cemetery borders the site the southwest. The modern Reserve access road runs along and cuts through a portion of the front side of the hill/site - notably ‘bisecting’ F25, an earthen burial mound feature. A quarry ‘haul road’ - built in the late 1980s - connects the access road to the quarry through the southern portion of the site, likely having disturbed some of the site features. The site was initially reported by Duff (1948, 1952), subject to non-scientific excavation of at least two housepit features (F10, F12) in the late 1960s or early 1970s (Wells), and recorded by Schibli (1971). As a preliminary part of the Fraser Valley Project, the site was mapped and tested in 2002 (Lepofsky et al 2002). Mapping and testing in 2004 and 2005, conducted as part of the current project, incorporated and augmented data collected in 2002, including creating a more comprehensive map, providing radiocarbon ages, and expanding the extent of features identified at Th’ewá:lí. The feature numbers presented here were reassigned since 2002. This settlement is comprised of at least 17 housepit features, arranged in a linear, parallel and closely related double row, along the south-eastern (front) edge of the outcrop on which the settlement was constructed - overlooking and at least 10 m to 15 m above Sweltzer Creek. These housepits are relatively consistent in their size and shape - rectilinear depressions ranging from about 8 m to 11 m on a side. Slightly smaller housepits are represented by F15, F7, F16, and F3 measure about 6 m to 9 m on a side. The elevation of the outcrop itself ranges from about 42 mAsl at its base on the river terrace, to about 52 mAsl at its top. Two level ‘platform’ areas (F17, F20) - thought to be possible plankhouse platforms and floor areas - are located on top of the outcrop, stepping 30  upward in two distinct levels toward the NE. F20 measures about 34 m x 16 m; F17 measures about 17 m x 17 m. No clear floor strata were identified in the tests of these areas, characterized otherwise by the buildup of uniform cultural deposits. Two rows of housepits parallel the alignment of these platforms, stepping downward toward the river terrace, the southern portion of which meets up with the level ground of the river terrace. An apparent gap between the higher and lower portions of the double-rowed settlement may be due to the disturbance of the ‘haul road’ or may represent an actual separation in the settlement lay-out. Numerous other features were identified during our clearing and mapping of the site, including: F25 (earthen burial mound - partly exposed in the road cut); F33, F34, F35 (rock cairns; probable burials in the northern ‘floor’ area of F20); F26, F27, F28, F29, F30, and F46 (a cluster of small mounds and cairns located in and around the ‘floor’ area of F17); F33F37 (a cluster of cairns north of F20); F38 and F39 (rock cairns located on the NE bank of hill/outcrop); F42, F44, F45 (a cluster of small mounds/cairns associated with depression features F18 and F19); F4 (small depression); F41 (small anthropomorphic bench features); F4 (possible mound), and F21 and F22 (anthropomorphic bench feature and house platform). Testing of F21 and F22 in 2002 revealed a continuous 1 m+ build up of construction debris (angular rocks; FCR) indicating the landform’s anthropogenic nature. A significant portion of the surficial topography of the outcrop on which the site is located appears to be, likewise, shaped by anthropogenic ‘landscaping’ and settlement preparation and development. F9, F23, and F47 represent possible housepit features badly disturbed by recent landaltering activities. Numerous features at this site remain undocumented, including a number of small pits (20-30 cm diameter) located throughout the surface of F20. Three recent bark-stripped western redcedars are located near F4. The features identified at Th’ewá:lí indicate multiple uses, including as a settlement and cemetery functions, throughout its history. A total of seven test excavations (2 shovel tests; 5 auger tests) were dug at Th’ewá:lí, in 2005. As a result of these tests, 20 radiocarbon samples were collected, two of which were processed. Radiocarbon analysis provided ages of 1060-930 cal BP (F10) and 1180-970 cal BP (F1) associated with the basal housepit deposits of both features. Test profiles consistently revealed a thick (40-60 cm), generally unstratified accumulation of black, organic, anthropogenic soil - like the ‘mat’ of charcoal- and FCR-rich soil covering the majority of settlement area; the result of intensive, long-term occupation. FCR concentrations were found to vary, vertically, within each of the excavations - providing a rough indication of possible floor zones and means of differentiating this otherwise very uniform deposit. Clear contact and unconformities between house and the natural (C horizon) sediments into which these housepits were excavated were readily apparent. Both dates derive from the basal housepit occupation deposits immediately overlying C horizon deposits - estimating the age of the initial construction and occupation of those housepits. The Th’ewá:lí settlement appears to have been continuously occupied over the last 1,000 years, right through to the early contact period when the Soowahlie residents were moved into European-style houses as part of the Federal Indian Reserve creation program. Metal objects and other debris from contemporary activities were observed across the site surface and in the upper layers of a number of the tests. The shapes and arrangement of the housepit features at Th’ewá:lí are intriguing -generally rectilinear in shape and immediately abutting one another as linear ‘row houses,’ both side-to-side and front-to-back between the back and front rows of depressions. When envisioning the superstructure(s) of these features, one gets the impression of a ‘pueblo’-type, multi-tiered arrangement of houses where the base of the upper row links up with the roof-levels of the lower row. Three tiers of largely continuous row-houses may have existed at Th’ewá:lí, given the possibility of plankhouses situated as the top-most tier.  31  As at Shxw’ow’hamel, and to some degree at Sxwóxwiymelh, these housepit features lack rims and are surrounded, rather, by relatively flat surfaces. Th’ewá:lí is distinct, however, in that housepits in the main body of the settlement (excluding the cluster around F12-F8) are excavated into the hillside, with steep escarpments forming their back-walls, and share sidewalls between adjacent housepits. The clear impression gained from these structures - as rows of largely conjoined features - is that they are highly interconnected. The housepits here are interconnected to such an extent that they may represent segments of a larger, encompassing structure within which the depressions are differentiated as ‘chambers’ - as opposed to individual houses. The ‘triad’ formed by F12-F10-F8 demonstrates this pattern of interconnected construction most clearly forming, possibly, a single structure with three internal chambers (e.g., family or living quarters) set on the same axis and surrounded by a relatively flat bench. Similar ‘triads’ or extended arrangements exist at Shxw’ow’hamel and Hiqelem (not reported here). This ‘triad’ arrangement may represent a pattern not previously recognized in the archaeological investigation of houses in the region - plankhouse-like structures with recessed floors and living quarters. As suggested for the arrangement at Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30), this pattern represents a possible hybrid form of house structure incorporating components of both plankhouses and pithouses as they are currently perceived -- as distinct forms of houses -- in the archaeological consciousness of the region. Indications of such structures can be found in the ethnographic literature and oral history of the Stó:lō (e.g., interviews with Bob Joe; Marian Smith fieldnotes) examination of which is beyond the scope of this report. Further investigation is required to examine this suggestion.  32  Figure 5a. Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) contour map (10 cm contours) with tests, mapping stations, and feature locations.  33  Figure 5b. East Detail - Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) contour/shaded relief map (5 cm contours) with features.  34  Figure 5c. West Detail - Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) contour/shaded relief map (5 cm contours) with features  35  Figure 5d. Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) surface map with features (note: southeast bank of Sweltzer Creek not shown).  36  Figure 5e. Surface map of DgRl-17-F25 - earthen mound feature - showing the approximate mound shape, outline, and cairn exposure.  37  Eyxel (DiRi-48) Mapping Methods A survey of the site topography, features and test units was completed during the 2005 field season. A high precision Leica 1200 GPS unit was used to estimate ground coordinates for the survey stations that we set up near the site. Base 51 was set up on top of the cleared bluff north of the CN rail line west of CN Mile 40.43. The station was an etched “X” on a rock protruding from the bluff surface. The location of the Base was provisionally determined using the uncorrected GPS readings (as discussed below, these readings and all the subsequent mapping measurements were post-processed (i.e., corrected) using data from known base stations in the Fraser Valley and beyond). A rover GPS was used to set a backsight point (Rov211) based on the Base 51 location. The base station was run for 1.5 hours to enable postprocessing of the data in order to calculate true ground coordinates and elevation at that location. The rover was also used to collect points on the east bank of the Fraser River just below the site. Due to the forest canopy, no other GPS data could be collected on this site. A Leica 705R Total Station was then set up on Base 51 as STN1. The Rov211 point provided the orientation for the survey. The coordinates and elevation at Base 51 were carried into the site from STN1 to STN2. An additional two stations (STN3 and STN4) were set on the site using STN2. All stations except for Base 51/STN1 were marked by 12 inch galvanized nails and flagged. Details on the locations for each station are in the 2005 Survey field notes. The site, located on two natural river terraces, was mapped by taking measurements at 2 m intervals outside of features and at .3-.5 m intervals within features. Cultural features included house depressions, a burial mound, and smaller (sub-house sized) depressions. The river edge, rail line, and slope between the site features and the river were also mapped. Test units and carbon sample locations were surveyed. Approximately 1,100 surface points were collected. After the 2005 field season, the GPS data were post-processed by Dave Martens, Department of Geomatics, BCIT. All of the 2005 data were then corrected by linear transformation based on the corrected UTM coordinates and elevation for the Base 51 station. The archived site data are now in true ground coordinates and AMSL elevations. Site surface and contour maps were completed in 2005 showing the features, test units, stations and topography of the site (see Figures 6a-d). Summary Description Eyxel (DiRi-48) consists of four visible house depressions (F1-4) tucked onto a small terrace that sits between 8 and 10 m above the Fraser River’s high water level. The terrace is crescent shaped and backed by a longer linear terrace about 2.5 m farther upslope. This upper terrace may also have been used in the past but it is badly disturbed from the construction and maintenance of the CN Railway line and no evidence of occupation is visible. Eyxel overlooks an excellent fishing spot (related to the late Bobby Peters of Chawathil First Nation) where the river is forced past a bedrock outcrop that causes ideal eddies and back-currents for migrating salmon. It is also directly east of Greenwood Island on which sits the site of Welqámex (DiRi15), easily accessible by boat from Exyel across this main navigable waterway of the Fraser River. Both Welqámex and Ts’qó:ls (DiRi-1) (upriver) are visible from the river’s edge at Exyel. These housepit features are generally rectilinear in shape, though somewhat indistinct or partly obscured (F3, F4). They are arranged in a slightly curvilinear fashion along the edge of the terrace. Their dimensions range from 6-9 m in length/width. Five tests (3 soil probes; 2 38  auger tests) were excavated at this site, from which six radiocarbon samples were recovered. Two samples were processed resulting in radiocarbon dates of 280-170 cal BP (F1) and 550-500 cal BP (F2). More detailed descriptions are provided below. The house depressions (Features 1 to 4) are aligned side-by-side and touching rim-to-rim along the lower terrace. Feature 3 marks the downriver end of the site and abuts a precipitous drop down to the river’s edge. The side of the depression facing the river is open and not bounded by a clear rim—it may never have had one or the rim may have eroded away. It is approximately 8 m in diameter. Feature 2 is somewhat smaller, only about 6 m in diameter and, although its down slope side is also open, has a slight dip in the central floor area. Feature 1, like Feature 3 is also about 8 m in diameter, but unlike the other housepits at the site, it has a clearly defined rim, particularly on the down slope side. Feature 1 is about 1 m deep and although eroded and rounded has a somewhat rectangular outline. Feature 4 marks the upriver end of the site and, like Features 2 and 3, is missing a well defined down slope rim. The river-facing side of the depression appears to be eroding and loose deposits are visible on the slope leading down to the water’s edge. Its diameter is approximately 7 m, but this is difficult to estimate because of the gradual slope of the rim and erosion inside the housepit. All of the house features share a well-defined back side (upslope side) delineated by the upper terrace. One imagines that when occupied, the roofs of the houses merged into the back slope and people may have had to gain access through entrances facing the river. In addition to the housepit features we also mapped four additional features – all of which are located on the front (river-facing) edge of the main terrace just below Features 1 and 2. Features 5 and 6 are small terraces that appear to form level surfaces cut into the slope. They may be cultural, but we are not certain, and noted them because of their proximity to the more pronounced house pit features already discussed and because there are two mound features on them. The two terrace features are between 4 m and 8 m long and about 4 m wide. Our soil probe (SP3) into Feature 5 revealed only about 25 cm of soil buildup on top of rocky deposits and there were no indications of floors or burning. Feature 7, a small mound no more than 30 cm high and about 1.5 m in diameter, sits between the two terraces and helps define their extents. Feature 8 is a 20 cm high stone circle alignment, 1.3 m in diameter.  39  Figure 6a. Eyxel (DiRi 48) contour map (10 cm) with features, mapping station, and test locations.  40  Figure 6b. Detail - Eyxel (DiRi 48) contour map (5 cm) - with housepit features, mapping station, and test locations.  41  Figure 6c. Eyxel (DiRi 48) surface map with housepit features.  42  Figure 6d. Detail - Eyxel (DiRi 48) surface map with housepit features.  43  Sxwóxwiymelh (DiRj-1) - a.k.a. ‘Katz’ Mapping Methods A site survey was conducted on the south portion of Sxwóxwiymelh (DiRj-1) in 2004. A detailed survey of cultural depressions and test units was completed on the south portion in the 2005 field season. A detailed topographic survey was also completed for the north portion of the site during the 2005 field season. The intervening highway, highway pullout, and pipeline right of way and Canadian Pacific Rail Line were also surveyed. Summer 2004 A Garmin Xtreme hand held GPS was used to bring in approximate UTM coordinates to the site on the first station (STN1). This station was set 5m east of the site trail southwest of F6 and marked by a wooden hub. Using the Garmin Xtreme, a temporary back sight was established on the same easting approximately 260 m across the Fraser River. A Leica 705R Total Station was set up on STN1 and oriented by the back sight at a bearing of 36°52’12” and 255 m from STN1. The Total Station and a mounted prism were used to carry coordinates and elevations through the site from STN1. The elevation was an assumed value of 100mAMSL at STN1. STN2 was set from STN1. STN3 was set from STN2 to create an east-west baseline for the site. Both baseline stations were marked by rebar mounted in concrete pillars. STN4 and STN6 were set from STN2. STN5 was set from STN4. STN7 was set from STN6. All of these stations were marked with wooden hubs. With the exception of STN5 and STN7, stations were confirmed with readings to two other stations. Details on the locations for each hub are in the 2004 Survey field notes. A detailed topographic survey was accomplished by collecting ground elevations at 2m intervals between features and at .5m intervals immediately around and within features across the complete site. House depressions and cultural depressions were the cultural features captured with this survey. The dry slough channels running through the site and the river bank on the south side of the site were also surveyed. A single test unit was mapped in F10 (see Lenert and Lepofsky 2005). Approximately 2,460 surface points were collected. Subsequent to the field season, Canadian Pacific Rail provided coordinates and elevation for a geodetic marker along the track at Katz landing just west of the site. The approximate UTMs for the site survey were transformed using the georeferenced coordinates from the CP point. The correction was minor: approximately (+) 2 m easting and (+).5 m northing. Elevations were adjusted by calculating the elevation difference between the CP points and the site survey points taken on the tracks. Summer 2005 In the 2005 field season, testing was completed on the south portion of the site. Topographic mapping and testing was also completed on the north portion of the site. The coordinates were carried from STN2 on the south portion of the site to the north portion of the site by a traverse. South Portion A Topcon 718 Total Station was used to set out test units within and on the rims of house depressions. Two different Leica 703R Total Stations were used sequentially for the detailed testing survey of the test units, topographic survey of cultural depressions, and the proveniencing 44  of carbon samples and artifacts. STN8 and STN9 were set from STN2, established in 2004. Both of these stations were marked by wooden hubs. The majority of the survey was completed from STN8. STN4 and STN7 were gone in 2005 and STN5 was decaying. The dampness at the site will limit the life of the hubs. If further work is anticipated for this site, then the stations should be reset using either rebar or galvanized nails. STN4 was replaced with STN10 (originally numbered STN8 in 2005 Sxwóxwiymelh North Site field notes). It was marked with a 12” galvanized nail. All stations were re-flagged in 2005. Details on the stations are available in the 2004 and 2005 total station field notes. Site surface and contour maps were completed in 2005 showing the features, stations, and topography of the south portion of the site (see Figures 7a-d). North Portion A traverse was completed from STN2 on the south portion of the site to STN10Æ STN11Æ STN12Æ STN13 to bring the coordinates into the north portion of the site. STN14 – STN21 were set as needed to move through the site for the topographic survey. All stations were set with 12”galvanized nails. Subsequent to the field season, the stations were renumbered to be continuous with the stations assigned to the south portion of the site. STN10 became STN11 onward to STN21 becoming STN22. The traverse into and through the north portion of the site was not closed due to time constraints. If further work is to be done on the site, then the traverse should be closed at the beginning of that work. Details on the stations are available in the 2005 Sxwóxwiymelh North field notes. Summary Description Description of the features identified mapping of both southern and northern portions of Sxwóxwiymelh are provided below. A total of between 29-30 housepit features were recorded between both portions of the site, now divided and partly impacted by Highway 7 and the CPR railway. Housepits range in size between 6-12 m in longest dimension with the exception of three questionable features (F26-F28) which are significantly larger (18-20 m). Four radiocarbon dates processed from this site establish two distinct occupations ranging between 2700-2100 cal BP (F6, F9, F10, F15) and 490-290 cal BP (F20) (per Lenert and Lepofsky 2005). More detailed descriptions of the features and dates from this site are provided below. Details on the test units at Sxwóxwiymelh are described by Mike Lenert and Dana Lepofsky (2005, 2006) (Stó:lō Heritage Investigation Permit #2005-05). Sxwóxwiymelh ‘South’ (DiRj-1) / (Katz) - Description This site is located on a terrace on the north side of the Fraser River 5 km downstream from (west of) the town of Hope. It is on Chawathil I.R. No. 4, and is bisected by Highway 7 and the Canadian Pacific Railway. The portion of the site that sits between the CPR line and the Fraser River (Sxwóxwiymelh ‘South’) is essentially unchanged from its condition in the early 1970s. Earlier topographic and feature maps of the Katz Site, now renamed Sxwóxwiymelh (“lots of people died all at once”) for it’s Halq’eméylem place name (McHalsie 2001:150), were made in the late 1940s-50s by Wilson Duff, and in the early 1970s by Charles Borden, Moira Irvine, and Gordon Hanson. It worked well as a guide to the locations of the housepits and a general description of the terrace on which the site lies, but it did not reveal much detail about the shapes, sizes, and orientations of individual features. We wanted to remap the site in order to 45  collect comparable data to allow inter-site comparisons with the other known pithouse villages in the region and so began a mapping effort in 2004. Excavations carried out in 1970 and 1971 were reported by Gordon Hanson (1973) in his M.A. thesis. Excavations carried out in 2005 were part of the Fraser Valley Project, and are reported by Lenert and Lepofsky (2005, 2006). The 2004 and 2005 maps allow us to describe in detail the layout of the site and the characteristics of the various features recorded. The most prominent set of features is a straight line of housepits stretching along the river terrace for 110 m. These housepits are set back approximately 20 m to 25 m from the edge of the river bank and run parallel to the river. The line of housepits is actually at least two rows of houses, the first row of which consists of 10 relatively well preserved depressions (F1 to F10). The second row sits just behind the first (away from the river). Only the westernmost four of these housepits (F11 to F14) are still partly visible. Since this second row of houses was covered over by railway construction fill we do not know the total number of housepits that extend to the east nor condition of these buried houses, although they may be well preserved beneath the fill. We will describe the housepit features starting with F3 marking the eastern end of the site. F3 is, like the second row houses F11 to F14, partly buried by railway construction fill. This means we cannot estimate its dimensions however it was, minimally, 8 m in width and 0.7 m deep. Sitting in front of F3 is a 2 m high mound of earth, 7 m in diameter at the base. It appears to be recently constructed, possibly by the railway for maintenance activities. F2 is a small depression located only 3 m west of F3. It has an irregular shape—perhaps because of disturbance from the railway. It measures approximately 6 m by 7 m and is 0.6 m deep. Next to this is F1, perhaps the largest remaining housepit at the site. F1 has a somewhat square outline with its axes aligned to the orientation of the river. It is approximately 10 m on a side, but there is a large indentation on its backside (away from the river) that may be from recent erosion. It is also one of the deepest structures—approx. 1.6 m deep on the front side (and much deeper on the backside where the slope climbs up towards the rail embankment). Housepits F4, and F6 to F10 are all approximately the same size and, except for F6, all appear to be square in outline with rounded corners. As with F1, the orientation of their axes is aligned with the river. F6 is more rounded in shape than the others. All of these structures are approximately 7 m to 8 m on a side (diameter in the case of F6). They all range between 0.8 m and 1 m deep (measuring from the river side) and somewhat deeper on the upslope side (towards the railway). None of them has pronounced rims, suggesting a very different construction style than the housepits described at sites such as Qithyil Island, Sqwa:la, and John Mack Slough, for example. Based on excavation data from both Hanson’s work and the recent work by Lenert, it appears that all of these structures are likely to have been in-filled with water-borne sediments sometime after their abandonment. This must have made the depressions both smaller and shallower. F5 is the smallest depression in the front row of structures. Due to its small size, the function of structure remains questionable. It may be too small to have been a house, however it’s placement and arrangement with the other housepits at this settlement support the possibility of F5 being a house feature, albeit the smallest one. Like the other features, it is “squarish” in outline and measures about 6 m on a side. The feature is only about 0.3 m to 0.4 m deep, much shallower than all the larger depressions in the front row. It may have been a storage pit or some other type of structure that has yet to be defined. Even though Feature F11 to F14 are partially covered by railway construction fill, it is possible to say something about their sizes, if not their shapes. As with the front row housepits, they are all closely spaced—no more than 5 m apart. None of them are likely to have been more  46  than 8 m across. Their shallowness, ca. 0.6 m deep, is likely a result of erosion and infilling from the railway embankment. Finally, there are several other features on the site which we will briefly mention but which were not assigned feature numbers. There are several large cultural depressions near the river’s edge, directly opposite F8 and F9 (one is aligned with F8 and F14 and the other is aligned with F9 and F13). The first (aligned with F8) is approximately 0.7 m deep and 5 m in diameter. Other similar depressions have been noted on the site during mapping and it is possible that these are storage pits. However, because there has been so much recent disturbance associated with the railway, we are not certain of their function and they would need to be excavated to determine their likely construction history and purpose. The second (aligned with F9) is rectangular, and opens toward the river bank where its south rim is entirely missing. It is 10 m long and 5 m wide. It may be a partially eroded housepit. Lenert and Lepofsky (2005) recovered three dates from this part of site including 23502160 cal BP (F10), and 2320-2050 cal BP (F9), and 2690-2340 cal BP (F6); Hanson (1973) earlier recovered a single date of about 2700-2350 cal BP (F1). These last two older dates overlap with one of two dates recovered from Sxwóxwiymelh ‘North’— see below. Sxwóxwiymelh ‘North’ - Description This northern extension of the site is located 50 m north of the Highway 7 right of way and about 100 m to 200 m east of Sxwóxwiymelh ‘South.’ It appears to be a continuation of the same settlement, following a ridge that was cut through by both the CPR railway and Highway 7. This part of the site has two main sections: the lower section with clearly marked, rather small, housepit depressions (F15 to F23, F29 and F30) and the upper section with very large cultural depressions (F26, F27, and F28). The zone between these two sections of the site was very badly disturbed by excavation of a gas pipeline and it is hard to tell how much of the large depressions in the upper section might be the result of this activity. Features F15, F16, and F19a and b, are large depressions that compare with those already described for the southern part of the site. They seem to be aligned facing the river and are “squarish”—that is, they have rounded corners and are clearly not circular pithouses with rims in the classic sense. These structures are about 10 m on a side and appear to be dug into the slope. All are fairly shallow: approximately 0.3 to 0.5 m in depth. Features F17, F18 and F20 to F23 are smaller structures, only about 6 m on a side. They are similar to the smaller housepits at Sxwóxwiymelh ‘South’, but even smaller and shallower— usually no more that 0.5 m deep. Features F26 to F28 are irregularly shaped and larger than any other structures at the site. F26 for example, is rectangular, measuring 20 m by 18 m, with its southernmost corner pushed in (perhaps by construction activity in that part of the site). It is up to 1 m deep and has a fairly flat floor. F27 is also rectangular and measures 11 m by 12 m and is approximately 1 m deep. F28 is up to 20 m on a side with an interior depression that is about 10 m across. None of these three large pits have been tested and we do not know if they are the remains of ancient houses or part of the construction activity in the right of way for the gas pipeline. As possible cultural features, it may be that the three large depressions north of the pipeline right-of-way may be partially constructed, incomplete housepit ‘developments’ associated with the late precontact occupation of the settlement, never actually occupied themselves. More investigation is required regarding the nature of F26-F28 as archaeological or otherwise modern disturbancerelated features.  47  We have two dates for this part of the site (Lenert and Lepofsky 2005). One ranges from 2730-2360 cal BP (F15), similar to two dates from the southern part of the site (F1, F6). The other, recovered from F, is in the 490 to 290 cal BP range - making it the youngest date so far recovered from the site and supportive of the Stó:lō oral history describing a more recent occupation of this settlement terminated by the smallpox epidemic of the late 18th century (“lots of peopled died all at once”).  48  Figure 7a. Sxwóxwiymelh ‘South’ contour map (10 cm contours) with features and mapping station locations.  49  Figure 7b. Sxwóxwiymelh ‘North’ contour map (10 cm contours) with features.  50  Figure 7c. Sxwóxwiymelh ‘South’ surface map with housepit features.  51  Figure 7d. Composite surface image of Sxwóxwiymelh (DiRj-1) ‘South’ and ‘North’ with radiocarbon results - per Lenert and Lepofsky (2005, 2006).  52  Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) Mapping Methods Site survey was conducted at Dirj-30 in 2004 and 2005. In 2004, the first station (STN1) was set on the pipeline right of way just east of the north end of the site. A backsite (STN2) was set on a pipeline marker 2m north of witness post GPS 61, WC 204114.7, 6.3 M U/S, MAG 42. A Garmin Xtreme hand held GPS was used to bring in approximate UTM coordinates for STN1 and STN2. A Leica 705R Total Station was set up on STN1. STN2 provided an orientation for the survey at a bearing of 36°52’12” and 255m from STN1. The Total Station and a mounted prism were used to carry coordinates and elevations onto the site from STN1. The elevation was an assumed value of 100mAMSL at STN1. The subsequent stations (STN3-9) were set within a traverse as the survey moved through the site from the north to the south. With the exception of STN8, all stations were verified from two other stations. All stations were set using a wooden hub. The hub for STN9 was split during setting and the station point was centered on the remaining hub. Details on the locations for each hub are in the 2004 Survey field notes. A detailed topographic survey was accomplished by collecting ground elevations at 2m intervals between features and at .5m intervals immediately around and within features across the complete site. House depressions, cultural depressions, and burial mounds were the cultural features captured with this survey. The dry slough channel adjacent to the west side of the site was also surveyed. Approximately 3,475 surface points were collected between 2004 and 2005. Subsequent to the field season, Canadian National Rail provided aerial photographs and contour maps of the area. The approximate UTMs for the site survey were transformed using georectified coordinates from the CN data on the witness post GPS61. The correction was minor: (+) 2m easting and (+).5m northing. Elevations were corrected based on the witness post elevation in the CN data. In the 2005 field season, testing was completed on the site. A Leica 705R was used for the detailed survey. The stations set in 2004 were used for collecting locations and elevations for the work in test units and for carbon samples. The coordinates and elevation for STN8 were corrected and are shown in the raw data as STN8A. Surface elevations for the soil probes were valid. Any elevations collected at the base of a soil probe were omitted as the prism rod could not be fully extended into the probe hole. The dampness at the site will limit the life of the hubs. If further work is anticipated for this site, then the stations should be reset using either rebar or galvanized nails. Site surface and contour maps were completed in 2005 showing the features, test units, stations and topography of site (see Figures 9a-d). Site Summary The archaeological settlement of Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) is located on the Shxw’ow’hamel Reserve in the Upper Fraser Valley about 13 km southwest of the town of Hope. The site is situated along the banks of two slough channels which drain the mountains backing the site and which form a confluence leading to the Fraser River. The banks of these channels form the front edge of the settlement. As reproduced from our earlier report of work conducted in 2002, “site DiRj-30 was first recorded by Wilson Duff (1949:6-7), who excavated portions of two of the pithouses at the site (F4 and F16). In 1988, the site was revisited by Mohs and McHalsie who created a detailed site plan depicting the reported pithouses According to Stó:lō oral history, a village with an unknown name was established in the Hunter Creek vicinity in the early post-smallpox period (Keith Carlson, pers. comm., 2002). This village was established in relation to the resettlement of people from a village or villages in the Agassiz area 53  following the smallpox epidemic of 1782 (ibid.). In addition, in 1962, Stó:lō elder Mrs. August Jim told Oliver Wells (1987:62) that she was born in a pithouse located on the valley bottom between the Fraser River and the mountain backing the lowland landbase at Shxw’ow’hamel in 1871. Mohs (1988 site form) suggests that site DiRj-30 may be this village.” As a preliminary part of the Fraser Valley project, the site was revisited, re-mapped, and preliminary testing was carried out in 2002 (Lepofsky, Schaepe, Blake, and Arnold 2002). The map produced that season is reproduced here for comparison sake with the results of the current project (Figure 8). Testing results from that season were inconclusive in determining the age of this settlement and its relationship with the noted oral history, although we found no evidence to suggest this was indeed the post-1782 site. Results from the current project further serve to remove this settlement from consideration as the late-period site in question. Our work in 2004 and 2005 resulted in the production of an entirely new map utilizing our current methods, showing a clear linear arrangement of housepit features and providing significantly more detailed representations of those features and the surrounding landscape. This comparison points to the significant differences in the outcomes resulting from our two applied mapping methods, affecting the accurate description of house features and settlements.  Figure 8. DiRj-30 Site Area Map (per Lepofsky, Schaepe, Blake, and Arnold 2002) comparative map. The settlement of Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) is comprised of 17 housepit features -possibly 18 (F17 is questionable) -- and numerous mound features (e.g., F1; F19) located both within and around the houses recorded at this site. In contrast to our previous map, the housepits in the village are clearly linear in arrangement, not curvilinear, forming a single row of closely arranged housepits oriented NNE-SSW along the banks of two merging slough channels. A segment of the settlement at the north end appears slightly ‘clustered’ and out of alignment with 54  the housepits to the south - the significance of which will be discussed more below. A large cluster of medium sized mounds is located at the northern end of the settlement, beyond F16. The vast majority of mounds remain unidentified with specific feature numbers; a factor of our focus on the housepits. A total of 11 tests (4 shovel tests; 2 auger tests; 5 soil probes) were excavated in 2005. A total of 31 carbon samples and one soil sample (F12) was collected from these tests. Of these carbon samples, seven were analyzed (with one result thrown out as disturbed; F18) resulting in the following dates for F4, F9, F12, F13, and F18, as arranged chronologically from youngest to oldest: F13 dates to 1480-1470 / 1430-1300 cal BP (initial occupation); F4 dates to 2060-1880 cal BP (terminal occupation); F18 dates to 2120-1900 cal BP (initial occupation); F12 dates to 2120-1900 cal BP (terminal occupation) and 2290-2270 / 2160-1990 cal BP (initial occupation); and F9 dates to 2330-2120 cal BP (initial occupation). These dates overlap with the occupation of a portion of Sxwóxwiymelh (DiRj-1), establishing this site - like Sxwóxwiymelh - as one of earliest large scale settlements in the Region. These dates indicate that the majority of this settlement was occupied at the same time -between 2200-1900 BP -- with the exception of a slightly later (i.e., post 1500 BP) occupation associate with F13, and possibly some of the housepits grouped together at the northern end of the settlement. F13, interestingly, is one of the two largest housepit features (F13; F15) both of which are located in this northern grouping, which is somewhat out of alignment with the row of the features situated south of F13. This apparent ‘break’ in the temporal, dimensional, and spatial arrangement of houses at Shxw’ow’hamel suggests that the grouping of features F13, F14, F15, and F16 may be associated as later occupation of the settlement. The housepit features included in the row containing F12, F11, F21, F10, F9, F8, F7, F6, F18, F5, F4, F3, and F2 are generally similar in size and shape. These features are generally rectangular in form and lack rims. They are generally deep (1 m or more), have small remnant floor areas, and are slightly conical in appearance - likely as a result of side-wall slumping or other possible taphonomic factors affecting their current appearance. They generally range in size from 7 m to 9 m on a side. Though apparently not part of the row, F16 and F14 fall within this range of descriptions. Notable exceptions to this range of dimensions include F21, F8, F7, F18, and F2 which are smaller (5 m to 7 m on a side). F18 is both smaller in size and shallower (0.6 m deep) than the other features. Excavation revealed, however, a well-developed series of house floor layers confirming the feature as a housepit. In comparison, F13 and F15 are larger, between 9 m and 11 m on a side with F13 appearing less completely rectangular. These too, lack notable rims. Oddly, F15 opens to the adjacent slough channel via a gap in its western wall. This feature of F15 remains unexplained, except perhaps by the possibility that it opens to and connects with an adjacent housepit now largely eroded and blended into the slough channel embankment. Flooding is a factor apparent in the taphonomy of the site as indicated by the accumulation of clayey silts infilling some of the excavated pithouses (e.g., F12; F6). F17 is an irregular depression about 5 m in diameter, and its designation as a house feature remains questionable. In terms of arrangement, the extensive row of pithouse features Shxw’ow’hamel and Th’ewá:lí share some similar and intriguing traits (see the Th’ewá:lí summary description). At Shxw’ow’hamel the features in these ‘row house’ arrangements are generally rectilinear in shape, set very close together, and separated often by only a low shared berm, many of which are saddle-shaped and semi-open to their adjoining house (i.e., immediately abutting one another). Like at Th’ewá:lí, and to some degree at Sxwóxwiymelh, these housepit features lack rims and instead are surrounded by relatively flat surfaces. Again, one gets the impression from their arrangement that these structures many have formed a row of largely ‘conjoined’ houses and is that they were highly interconnected. Shxw’ow’hamel seems have row-groups or row-subsets of 55  between three or more conjoined housepits (e.g., F3-F5 or F3-F6; F7-F9; F10-F11). These housepits are interconnected to such an extent that they may represent segments of a larger, encompassing structure within which the depressions are differentiated as ‘chambers’ - as opposed to individual houses. These row-groupings, like the ‘triad’ formed by F12-F10-F8 at Th’ewá:lí, demonstrate a possible pattern of interconnected construction forming a possible single structure with internal chambers (e.g., family or living quarters), set on the same axis, surrounded by a relatively flat bench, and potentially covered by a single superstructure. As mentioned for Th’ewá:lí, this ‘conjoined row-house’ or ‘triad’ arrangement may represent a pattern not previously recognized in the archaeological investigation of houses in the region -i.e., plankhouse-like structures with recessed floors and segmented living quarters (as discussed in more detail in the Th’ewá:lí settlement description). Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) hold a great deal more potential to investigate early Stó:lō houses, households, and settlements.  56  Figure 9a. Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) contour map (10 cm) with mapping stations, tests, and feature locations.  57  Figure 9b. Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) - Southern Section Detail - contour/shaded relief map (5 cm contours).  58  Figure 9c. Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) - Northern Section Detail - contour/shaded relief map (5 cm contours). 59  Figure 9d. Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) surface map with housepit features.  60  Xelhálh (DjRi-14) Mapping Methods Two site surveys were conducted at DjRi-14 in 2004 and an additional site survey and testing survey were completed in 2005. Summer 2004 The first station (STN1) was set by etching an “X” on a rock 3m north of the CN Rail Line east of the site. A backsight (STN2) was set 2m above a benchmark at east end of the CN tunnel just west of the site and a estimated distance of 322m from STN1. A Garmin Xtreme hand held GPS was used to bring in approximate UTM coordinates for STN1 and STN2. The 1:50,000 underlay map in the Garmin Xtreme indicated that the surrounding mountains were causing multipathing for the GPS readings. As both readings were equally displaced into the Fraser River, it was felt that the bearing between the two points would still be correct despite the displacement. This bearing was used to provide orientation for the survey from STN1. The elevation was on the benchmark. A Leica 705R Total Station was set up on STN1. The bearing to STN2 was set at 272˚08’03”. The reflectorless mode was used to transfer the elevation from the benchmark to STN1. The Total Station and a mounted prism were used to carry coordinates and elevations onto the site from STN1. A secondary backsight, BS, was set on the north rail of the tracks using reflector tape. STN4 was sighted from STN1. Initially stations were set as we moved forward surveying across the site. By the time STN6 had been set, it was apparent that the site was much larger and more complex than initially anticipated. It was clear that several traverses would be required to adequately survey the site. Therefore, a closed traverse was run from STN4 through STN6, TEMP8, TEMP9, and TEMPA. The closure was +5mmN, +10mmE, -5mmElev. STN6 was used to set STN7, STNB, and STNC as side shots. The survey from STN7 was collected on another Leica 705R from BCIT. STN7 was used to set STND, STNE, and STNF as side shots. A closed traverse was subsequently completed from STN6 to STNB, STNE, STN7, STNF and STND to ensure there was no rotation in these data collected on a second instrument. The closure was +5mmN, -4mmE, 4mmElev. STN4, STN5, STN6, STN7, TEMP8, TEMP9 and TEMPA were all set with wooden hubs. STNB, STNC, STND, STNE, and STNF were all set with 12” galvanized nails. A detailed topographic site survey was completed for the middle two terraces of the site – from F1 to F32 - by collecting ground elevations at 2m intervals between features and at .5m intervals immediately around and within features across the complete site. House depressions, cultural depressions, burial mounds and cultural terraces were the cultural features captured with this survey. The bluffs, rail line and terrace banks were also surveyed. Subsequent to the field season, Canadian National Rail provided aerial photographs and contour maps of the area. The approximate UTMs for the site survey were given a linear transformed using the coordinates and elevation on the tunnel benchmark. The correction was -30.574mN, +5.623mE, and +31.52mElev. Canadian Pacific Rail was also able to provide a geodetic marker on a culvert just south of its line. November 2004 An additional two days of surveying was completed, with the Leica 795R Total Station, to complete the detailed topographic surveying on the main terraces as well as setting a station 61  on the beach (STNG) and a station for sighting to the CP line (STNH) to the known geodetic marker. STNF was used for the majority of the mapping. STND was used to collect the topography of the terrace bank down to the beach on the north side of the side. STNG was set at the east end of the beach. STN4 was then used to set STNH west of F1 and 2 on a lower terrace. From STNH, the lowest three terraces were mapped as well as the road way which had been created for access to the modern cemetery. STN7 was used to set STNI up on the west end of the bluff passage on the east end of the site. A questionable STNJ was set from STNI just at dark. STNG was set with a 12” galvanized nail. STNH and STNI were set with yellow tent pegs. STNJ was set with a tree branch as a temporary marker until confirmation of the coordinates in the 2005 field season. Summer 2005 An additional week of surveying was used to obtain the detailed topography of the site’s upper terraces and rock walls and for surveying the test units and carbon samples collected in this field season. Two Leica 705R Total Stations were used during this round of surveying. One collected the testing locations. The other collected the topography and upper terrace features. The stations set in 2004 were used for collecting locations and elevations for the work in test units and for carbon samples. Surface elevations for the soil probes were valid. Any elevations collected at the base of a soil probe were omitted as the prism rod could not be fully extended into the probe hole. The topographic survey was started from STN7. STNI was no longer visible at this time of year, therefore the traverse up the bluffs and over to the highest terraces was reset completely. STNK was sighted from STN7 and marked with a 12” galvanized nail at the base of bluffs. A closed traverse was run from STN7 through STNP and back again. STNI was reset from STNK. STNJ was reset and etched into a rock surrounded by boulders in the bluff passageway. The closure on the traverse was 3.5cmN, 1cmE, and 2mmElev. STNL, STNM, STNN, and STNP were all set with 12” galvanized nails. STNO was set with a 1m of rebar. Information on the stations is available in the 2004 and 2005 field notes. The dampness at the site will limit the life of the hubs. If further work is anticipated for this site, then the stations which have hubs should be reset using either rebar or galvanized nails. A combination of prism and reflectorless modes was used to collect the topography of the upper terraces, rock walls and surrounding bluffs. The 16 terraces and 14 rock walls were all considered to be cultural features. A large Douglas fir stump (sampled for dendrochronological testing) and 5 test units were also mapped. STNH was used to sight to the CP point. This information was used to make the final correction in rotation and coordinates for all data collected during the 2004 and 2005 surveys, amounting to approximately 10,660 surface points. Site surface and contour maps were completed in 2005 showing the features, test units, stations and topography of the site (see Figures 10a-g). Summary Description The Xelhálh (‘Injured People’) settlement site (DjRi-14) is situated on Xelhálh I.R. 3 of the Shxw’ow’hamel First Nation, located at the entrance to the lower Fraser River Canyon about 1.6 km east of the town of Yale, opposite (south of) Lady Franklin Rock. Xelhálh may be the village referred to as the ‘Village of the Bad Rock’ by Simon Fraser on his journey through the area in 1808 (Lamb 1960). The Stó:lō traditionally recognize this portion of the territory as renown for its exceptional abundance of salmon and the environmental conditions that support its wind-drying for storage. This settlement is one of the largest and most complex in the Gulf of 62  Georgia Region. Like Th’ewá:lí, Xelhálh is a ‘hill-top’ settlement, but it is both larger and fortified. The settlement covers an area of 300 m x 150 m on a prominent bedrock outcrop and relict gravel bar and terrace that rises between 30 m (terrace-top) and 60 m (bluff-top) above the Fraser River. This landform is separated from the talus slope and steep rocky bluffs surrounding it by a relict river channel, on which the CN Railway tracks now run. The back side of the terrace is about 10-15 m above the level of the railroad tracks. The main portion of the settlement area had been sketch-mapped during previous surveys and consists of the housepit features situated on an extensive terrace immediately downriver from Lady Franklin Rock, overlooking Xelhálh Bay. A large bedrock bluff rises up from the east-central part of this terrace, separating the main pithouse settlement area from a series of residential terraces and dry stone walls on top of the bedrock bluff. A slight gap in this bluff provides for passageway between these two distinct portions of the settlement. The bluff-tops themselves are riddled with ‘passageways’ between bedrock walls and flat terraces. The largest portion of the terrace and wall complex is located on the north side of the bluff, overlooking Lady Franklin Rock. A smaller, yet extensive, portion of the terrace complex lies on the south side of the ‘passageway’ overlooking the CN train tracks. Our map of the terrace and wall complex remains incomplete, because the terrain’s steepness and irregularity poses considerable technical challenges to mapping. In particular, our team was challenged by the overall extent of this settlement area, as well as the vertical relief between the housepit section of the site and the terrace and wall section of the site. Our mapping focused on the housepit and other significant features (including numerous earthen platform features, rock walls, rock-lined platforms, and apparent plankhouse depressions) comprising the Xelhálh settlement. Complete mapping and documentation of this site will require significant work beyond that completed as part of this study in 2004 and 2005. Largely missing from our mapping are the numerous platform features situated on the face of the bluff overlooking Xelhálh Bay and Lady Franklin Rock, the late 19th-early 20th century cemetery (DjRi-80) and the surrounding area (in which there are numerous mounds and smaller depressions) at the southeastern extent of the main settlement area, abutting the southern portion of the bluff. At least two unique ‘rock-lined’ housepit features are located on the lower, upriver slopes of the bluff overlooking the bay on the northwestern side of the overall landform (upriver side), with at least three other similar features located in the lowland area immediately north of the overall Xelhálh landform (possibly part of DjRi-22)(Kidd 1968). One of these puzzling features was included in our testing program and is depicted with the photograph of the profile for Soil Probe #1 / F1001. The complex of rock wall features (free standing, rock-lined terraces, boulder alignments, and rock-filled platforms) at this site is discussed by Schaepe (2006) but remains to be fully documented and mapped. Also, the remains of the recently abandoned salmon dry-rack camp site and dry-rack of Stó:lō community member Sweetie Malloway (from Chilliwack) have not been recorded. Much remains to be done. The work done through this project provides comprehensive mapping of the house and platform features associated with this ‘main’ body of the settlement, and dating of the origins of the settlement itself -- significant information not before available; a solid foundation for future work. Keenslyside and Kidd provided the first archaeological record of site in 1963, creating a sketch map of the housepits and some of the other notable depression features comprising the main settlement area of the site, west of the bluff. The site was re-mapped in 1974 by the Hope Archaeology Project, and again revisited by Mohs and Arcas Consulting Archaeologists (Mitchell and Mackie) in 1986 and 1987 as part of the CN Twin Tracking Project, each providing site form updates and improving on the site map. No excavation of the site occurred  63  prior to the current project. A relatively recent pit in one housepit (F10) indicates that some looting of the site appears to have occurred in the last 50 years. Our work consisted of mapping the following features at Xelhálh: 14 housepit features (F1, F2, F10, F12, F13, F14, F15, F17, F19, F23, F25, F26, F27, and F28); one distinct plankhouse depression (F32; with foundation ‘sill’ rocks in the corners); at least three apparent plankhouse / structural platforms (F30 and two unnumbered features - one area backed by a large NE-SW oriented berm immediately northwest of F25 and F 19, and including pit features F21, F22, and F23; the other area immediately SW relative to the other - stepped down slightly and immediately N of F15; both along the front side of the settlement overlooking the bay); at least three anthropogenic terraces at the extreme west end of the terrace, west of F1 and F2, stepping down toward the bay); numerous rock lined platforms/terraces (F500-F514 -- an excellent example of which is F509 as shown in the photograph accompanying Shovel Test#8 and Soil Probes 6 and 7; all of which are located in the ‘East Area’ of the site, on the east side of the bluff complex); rock walls (as serve to ‘face’ F501 east of the ‘pass’ through the bluff; approximately 3 m high x 10 m across and comprised of numerous coarse of angular boulders); various pit features (F9, F11, F16, F21, F22, and F24), including two pit alignments (ca. 1 m diameter) just of east of F1 and F2 and set at a strategic location regarding accessing the settlement - which may represent palisade post-holes (F3-5, F6-8); mound features (F31); a rocklined cairn (F14; constructed of a series of rounded boulders in a roughly square configuration surrounding a small mound of mostly earthen matrix, built on top of the rim of housepit F10); and a well defined pathway, presumably of post-contact (though Aboriginal) origin, providing access to the cemetery from the western end of the site, coming from the bay. In addition, we identified a number of rock- or boulder-lined housepit features as noted above, including F1001. The arrangement of housepit features in the western portion of this settlement is not readily discernable as a regular pattern, except that the housepits ‘back’ and ‘flank’ the area where we suspect there were plankhouses (i.e., behind and to the side of plankhouses that occupied the central portion of the main settlement). The topography of the site is naturally raised throughout that area containing F19, F25, and F23, as well as the plankhouse feature adjacent to this area. The eastern portion of the main settlement area is slightly recessed at the base of the bluff. These topographic differences are thought to be natural, whereas the stepped terraces at the west end of the main settlement area are clearly anthropomorphic. All the largest of the housepit features (F10, F13, F15, and F25) and a few others (F12, F14, F17, F19, F23) occupy the rear-central portion of the settlement. F12 and F14 represent disturbed housepit features in this part of the settlement. F15 is partly impacted on its north side as a result of the pathway built through the area, leading to the cemetery - apparently posthousepit construction. We surmised that the rock-lined cairn on the rim of F10 likely represents the burial of an individual associated with that pithouse after it was abandoned. Other possible cairns were located on the rims and inside F13 and F15, as well as F19, located at the edge of this grouping. The housepits in this ‘central’ grouping are generally rectilinear in shape, have rims, and range in size from 12 m to 14 m on a side (F10, F13, F15, and F25) -- some of the largest housepit features in the Region -- and otherwise between 9 m to 11 m in size (F17, F19, F23). At the extreme eastern edge of the main settlement area are a group of housepits including F26, F27, and F28, somewhat curvilinear (F26, F27) to rectilinear (F28) in shape, generally with some form of rim, and ranging in size from 9 m to 11 m. Two housepits (F1 and F2) are clearly isolated from the others at this western extreme of the settlement -- as is notable and will be discussed further below. F2 is indistinct in shape and small (8 m x 8 m) while F1 is more rectilinear and a bit larger (10 m x 10 m). The depths of the housepits were generally around 1.5 m with the larger housepits having depths closer to 2 m.  64  F1001, a rock- or boulder-lined housepit feature identified along the upriver, lowland portion of the site (as noted on the associated profile image) was a clearly rectangular depression recessed about 0.3 to 0.4 m into the ground, measuring 7.3 m x 3.5 m, lined with large boulders and surrounded by a wide (2 m to 3 m) bench. The other rock -lined housepit features identified at the site had similar descriptions. A total of 18 tests (9 shovel tests, 3 auger tests, 5 soil probes) were excavated at Xelhálh, investigating 10 housepit features, one plankhouse depression, two rock-lined platforms, and one rock-lined housepit. These resulted in the collection of 18 carbon samples, three of which were processed. Radiocarbon dates were established for F13 (430-360 / 330-280 / 180-150 cal BP), F23 (430-380 / 320-270 / 180-150 cal BP), and F28 (440-350 / 330-280 / 170-150 cal BP). In addition, a dendrochronological date of approximately 1780-1790 AD was established from tree ring counts of a large Douglas fir tree-stump directly associated with F508 (rock-lined platform), as shown in the photograph accompanying the profile of that feature. Reserve records indicate that this tree was logged as part of activities carried out around 1971 (this is confirmed by a small 32 ringed tree growing out of the stump). The dendrochronological age established for this stump cross-section was established with this date as a termination of tree growth. The wedge taken from the stump is pictured in Figure 11 records 168 clear annual rings. If we estimate that at least 10 years elapsed between the tree’s first growth as a seedling and its ring accumulation at 1 m above the ground, the tree’s germination date must be approximately 1793. It may not have begun to grow until several years after the abandonment of the structure. All of the dates established for this settlement indicate that Xelhálh was developed largely at the same time - during the late precontact period - and also ceased to function as a settlement largely all at once, likely due to the effects of the small-pox epidemic of 1782 AD. Continued use of Xelhálh as a settlement and cemetery into the early post-contact period of the 19th century (with the cemetery used up until the early 1920s - Sonny McHalsie, pers. com., 2005) is supported by the findings of contact-era goods (square metal nails; ceramics). Thus, F2, and likely F1 as well, is clearly separated from the rest of the settlement both spatially and temporally. This western portion of the settlement - located beyond the potential remnants of a protective palisade - represents a later re-occupation of the site following its decimation and collapse from the effects of small-pox near the turn of the 18th century. Xelhálh, at its zenith during the late precontact period, was certainly one of the most important settlements and centers of interaction among the Stó:lō and represents a level and complexity of settlement development not recognized elsewhere in the Region.  65  Figure 10a. Xelhálh (DjRi-14) contour map (10 cm contours) with features.  66  Figure 10b. Xelhálh (DjRi-14) - ‘Main Settlement Area’ contour map (10 cm contours) with tests, mapping stations, and feature locations.  67  Figure 10c. Xelhálh -‘East Terraces and Rock Walls’ Detail - contour map (10 cm contours) with tests, mapping stations, and feature locations.  68  Figure 10d. Xelhálh Detail -‘Main Settlement - Eastern Detail’ - shaded relief/contour map (5 cm contours) with features.  69  Figure 10e. Xelhálh Detail -‘Main Settlement - Central Detail’ - shaded relief/contour map (5 cm contours) with features.  70  Figure 10f. Xelhálh Detail -‘Main Settlement - Western Detail’ - shaded relief/contour map (5 cm contours) with features.  71  Figure 10g. Xelhálh (DjRi-14) surface map with features.  72  Figure 11. Sanded ‘cookie’ sample from Douglas fir stump used for the dendrochronological dating of F508.  73  RADIOCARBON DATING RESULTS A total of 17 radiocarbon samples were processed from the total batch of samples (n=84) collected during this project. The following number of samples were processed for each of the following six sites, excluding DiRj-1 (see Lenert and Lepofsky 2005, 2006): John Mack Slough (DhRl-T1) = 1; Qithyil Island (DhRl-15) = 2; Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) = 2; Eyxel (DiRi-48) = 2; Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) = 7; and Xelhálh (DjRi-14) = 3. The dates recovered from these site range between approximately 2400 - 150 cal BP, supporting the development of an understanding of over two millennia of housepit construction and community development by the Stó:lō within their territory. None of these sites had any prior radiocarbon data. Results of these analyses are presented as calibrated radiocarbon dates (cal BP) at 1 sigma with a 95% level of probability within each of the site descriptions, presented above, and in spreadsheet in Appendix III. The results of our radiocarbon dating efforts serve to significantly enhance the overall number of radiocarbon dates collected from archaeological sites within the Region, and particularly so for pithouse features and settlements - of which only about six such settlements had related radiocarbon data prior to this study (per Schaepe 2004) , thus doubling the prior sample. The locations of all collected and processed samples, with associated radiocarbon ages, are included in each of the excavation profiles in Appendix IV. These results are consolidated and presented in Figures 12 and 13, below (noting that one date from DiRj-30-F18 was rejected as disturbed and therefore not included in the chart). Radiocarbon Age  2500  Max. Age - Cal BP Min. Age - Cal BP  2000  1500  1000  500  0  6 1F0 8- 8-2 i-4 2 iR -F 2 D 4 I-1 23 jR -F 3 D -14 13i jR -F -1 D 4 5 i-1 F0 jR - -1 D l-T1 04 F hR - 5 D l-15 02hR -F -3 D -48 06 i F iR - -4 D l-15 08 F hR - -4 D l-17 02 F gR - 5 D l-17 13gR -F 1 D 0 j-3 04 iR - F 4 D -30 18j iR - F 4 D -30 12j iR -F 6 D -30 12j iR -F 3 D 0 9j-3 0 iR -F D -30 j iR  D  Feature Designation  Figure 12. Radiocarbon date results - arranged chronologically. 74  Radiocarbon Age  Max. Age - Cal BP Min. Age - Cal BP  2500  2000  1500  1000  500  0  2 8F2 4- -2 I-1 23 jR -F 3 D -14 13i jR -F -1 D -14 05 i F jR - 6 D l-T1 01hR -F 5 D -48 02i iR -F -1 D -48 04 i F iR - -3 D l-15 06 F hR - -4 D l-15 08 F hR - -4 D l-17 02 F gR - 5 D l-17 13gR -F 1 D -30 04j iR - F 4 D -30 18j iR - F 4 D -30 12j iR -F 6 D -30 12j iR -F 3 D -30 09j iR -F D -30 j iR D  Feature Designation  Figure 13. Radiocarbon date results - arranged chronologically by settlement.  75  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION This report presents the result of two years of fieldwork carried out under the title of the ‘Stó:lō Pithouse Settlement Mapping and Testing Project,’ an archaeological research project representing one of several major segments of the multi-year, multi-disciplinary ‘Fraser Valley Project.’ We consider our study to be highly successful in achieving our primary objectives aiming to contribute new data on Stó:lō housepit features and settlements in the mainland Gulf of Georgia Region by: (1) accurately and reliably mapping selected housepit settlement sites, including all housepits and other visible features; (2) plotting all settlement sites and their features using reliable and accurate UTM coordinates; and (3) collecting and processing radiocarbon samples from selected housepit features at each site in order to estimate their history of occupation. The methods we used proved effective at collecting our targeted data, those integral to the accurate definition of housepit features in terms of morphology, chronology, and arrangement within settlements. While effective at extracting targeted archaeological data (e.g., stratigraphic profiles and carbon samples), our methods also significantly minimized site disturbance. In all, we excavated 47 tests (17 ST, 12 AT, 18 SP); recovered 84 carbon samples from numerous house floor deposits; processed 17 radiocarbon samples (ranging in age from ca. 2300 cal BP to 150 cal BP); mapped 8 settlements; documented at least 73 housepit features, at least 6 plankhouse features, and three rock -lined housepit features; as well as numerous rock-lined platforms and other forms of earthen terrace features - as described in the preceding settlement descriptions. The mapping results of the Fraser Valley Project, including all 11 documented settlements, represent 10% of the 115 known housepit settlements currently documented in the Region (as of 2006). Our project alone -- documenting eight of these settlements -- accounts for an estimated 7% sample of housepit settlements, and an estimated 12% sample of all recorded housepits in the region (estimated to number about 600). As mentioned above, the radiocarbon results from our project effectively doubled the number of dated housepit settlements in the region, as of 2005. Our collection of currently unprocessed radiocarbon samples provides significant opportunity to further refine our understanding of housepit settlement organization through the potential processing of additional samples. The results of our study are descriptive in nature, with addition analysis and follow-up discussion to be presented in Schaepe’s forthcoming Ph.D. dissertation (Department of Anthropology, UBC ). Overall, this large-scale project achieved results serving to significantly advance and contribute to the study of housepits and settlements in the Stó:lō Territory and mainland Gulf of Georgia Region; not only in the data we collected but methodologically in terms of our mapping and testing strategies, and socially in terms of our collaborative process and highly integrated approach working with and incorporating FN communities into this project - without whose encouragement, support, and participation this project would not have been possible.  76  REFERENCES CITED Arnold, Jeanne 2006 Excavation of Housepits at Ts’qó:ls Village (DiRi-1), Hope, B.C. Permit report on file at the Stó:lō Nation Archives Arnold, Jeanne and David Schaepe 2004 Excavations at Captain Charlie’s Pithouse, Ts’qó:ls Village (Diri-1), Hope, B.C. Permit report on file at the Stó:lō Nation Archives Duff, Wilson 1949 Archaeological survey of the Hope-Chilliwack Area. 1952 The Upper Stalo Indians of the Fraser Valley, British Columbia. Anthropology in British Columbia Series, Memoir no.1. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria. Graesch, Anthony P. 2003 Overview of 2003 Archaeological Investigations at Welqámex (DiRi 15), Greenwood Island. Permit report on file at the Stó:lō Nation Archives. 2006 Archaeological and Ethnoarchaeological Investigations of Households and Perspectives on a Coast Salish Historic Village in British Columbia. Unpublished PhD. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Anthropology. Kenyon, Walter 1953 An archaeological survey of the Lower Fraser from Chilliwack to the Gulf of Georgia. B.A. graduating essay for University of British Columbia. Kidd, Robert S. 1968 Archaeological survey in the Lower Fraser Fiver Valley, British Columbia, 1963. In National Museum of Canada Bulletin, 224. Contributions to Anthropology VII: Archaeology, pp. 32-67. Ottawa. Lepofsky, Dana 2006 Mapping and Testing Hiqelem Village, Chehalis IR, Harrison River. Permit report on file at the Chehalis First Nation Band Office. Lepofsky, D., Blake, M., Brown, D., Morrison, S., Oakes, N., & Lyons, N. 2002 The archaeology of the Scowlitz site, Southwestern British Columbia. Journal of Field Archaeology 27(4):391-416. Lepofsky, D., D. Schaepe, M. Blake, and J. Arnold 2003 The Fraser Valley Archaeology Project 2002: Pilot Investigations at DgRl-17, DgRm-1, DhRk-2, DhRk-6, DiRi-1, and DiRj-30. Permit report on file at the Stó:lō Nation Archives and B.C. Archaeology Branch. Lepofsky, D., M. Lenert, and S. Formosa 2005 Excavations at the McCallum Site (DhRk-2). Permit report on file at the Stó:lō Nation Archives and B.C. Archaeology Branch.  77  Lenert, Michael and Dana Lepofsky 2005 Excavations and Mapping at Sxwóxwiymelh (DiRj-1) North and South - Summer 2005. Permit report on file at the Stó:lō Nation Archives 2006 Sxwóxwiymelh: Excavations in Summer 2005. Midden 38(3):11-15 McHalsie, Albert ‘Sonny’ 2001 Halq’eméylem Place Names in Stó:lō Territory. In A Stó:lō Coast Salish Historical Atlas, Pp. 134-153. Edited by Keith Carlson et al. Douglas and McIntyre, Stó:lō Heritage Trust, Univ. of Washington Press, Vancouver. Schaepe, David 2001 Village Arrangements and Settlement Patterns. In A Stó:lō Coast Salish Historical Atlas, Pp. 36-37. Edited by Keith Carlson et al Douglas and McIntyre, Stó:lō Heritage Trust, Univ. of Washington Press, Vancouver. 2004 Inter-site Relations among Pithouse Settlements in the Mainland Gulf of Georgia: A Preliminary Study applying Exploratory Data Analysis of Variable Structures and Confirmatory Testing of Preliminary Hypotheses. Paper for Arch545b - Quantitative Analysis in Archaeology, University of British Columbia. Paper in possession of the author. 2005 Inter-site Spatial Relations and Prospects for Interaction among Precontact Pithouse Settlements and in the Mainland Gulf of Georgia Region: A Preliminary Study applying Exploratory Data Analysis within a Framework of Communication and Transportation Corridors. Unpublished paper in possession of the author and on file at the Stó:lō Nation Archives. 2006 Rock Fortifications: Archaeological Insights into Precontact Warfare and Sociopolitical Organization among the Stó:lō of the Lower Fraser River Canyon, B.C. American Antiquity 4(71):671-705.  78  APPENDIX I - MAPPING DATA: Feature, Test, and Radiocarbon Sample Proveniences ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1):  JMS (DhRl-T1) - Feature Center Points Label F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F14 F15 F16 F18 F36  Easting 579416.897 579428.303 579436.805 579440.538 579428.717 579446.759 579458.994 579448.625 579449.869 579469.984 579473.095 579481.182 579533.440  Northing 5459815.651 5459816.896 5459821.250 5459828.716 5459770.652 5459816.481 5459826.020 5459822.287 5459844.683 5459846.135 5459829.338 5459833.693 5459825.813  Elev 9.840 9.910 9.900 9.810 9.980 9.830 9.640 10.580 9.910 9.620 9.670 9.680 9.540  JMS (DhRl-T1) - Test & Carbon Sample Locations Type  Location  Feature  CorrectedE  CorrectedN  CorrectedElev  ST2  SurfDatum  F2  579428.389  5459816.007  9.952  ST2  Surf  F2  579428.443  5459816.178  9.960  ST2  Surf  F2  579428.247  5459816.267  9.959  ST2  Surf  F2  579428.184  5459816.098  9.964  ST1  SurfDatum  F5  579429.071  5459769.792  10.069  ST1  Surf  F5  579428.861  5459769.700  10.076  ST1  Surf  F5  579428.787  5459769.878  10.047  ST1  Surf  F5  579428.977  5459769.980  10.052  ST1  BaseDatum  F5  579429.044  5459769.796  9.889  ST1  Base  F5  579428.869  5459769.734  9.838  ST1  Base  F5  579428.828  5459769.852  9.884  ST1  Base  F5  579428.945  5459769.917  9.896  CS1  ST1  F5  579428.873  5459769.903  9.926  79  Qithyil Island (DhRl-15):  Qithyil (DhRl-15) - Feature Center Points Feature F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6  CorrectedE 576490.78 576492.74 576494.99 576502.64 576500.54 576535.00  CorrectedN 5453705.13 5453692.47 5453663.75 5453626.67 5453638.46 543630.00  CorrectedEl 8.91 9.36 9.04 8.61 10.07 9.47  Qithyil (DhRl-15) - Test & Carbon Sample Locations Feature F3 F3 F4 F5 F2 F1 F6 F6 F6  Test SP1 SP3 SP2 SP4 SP5 SP6 ----  CS# --CS1 CS1 CS1 CS1 CS3 CS2 CS1  CorrectedE 576494.99 576494.67 576502.64 576500.54 576492.74 576490.78 576541.68 576541.53 576541.59  CorrectedN 5453663.75 5453663.19 5453626.67 5453638.46 5453692.47 5453705.13 5453608.23 5453608.15 5453608.12  CorrectedEl 9.036 8.951 8.61 10.069 9.36 8.91 8.892 8.960 8.041  Note: - all carbon samples collected from the above soil probes at Qithyil Island have the same E/N as the SP locations; see profiles for depths.  Qithyil (DhRl-15) - Mapping Station Locations Type  CorrectedE  CorrectedN  CorrectedEl  576491.80 576485.81  5453668.02 5453701.28  10.687 11.07  STN3  Description same as Base but adjusted coordinates as determined from TS@STN2 rebar on west rim of F1 same as Base2 but coordinates determined from TS@STN1  576500.17  5453633.99  10.60  Base2  rebar on north rim of F4  576499.49  5453658.39  10.669  STN1 STN2  80  Sqwa:la (DhRl-6): Sqwa:la (DhRl-6) - Feature Center Points Label  Easting  Northing  Elevation  F2  577986.39  5448596.344  9.34  F3  577971.425  5448591.496  9.48  F4  577950.559  5448592.761  9.97  F5  577983.017  5448590.653  10.68  F6  577979.645  5448597.187  10.8  Note: data not corrected.  Sqwa:la (DhRl-6) - Test & Carbon Sample Locations N/A - no testing conducted; no samples collected.  Sqwa:la (DhRl-6) - Mapping Station Locations Type STN100  Easting 578075.000  Northing 5448647.000  Elevation 11.000  STN101  578200.000  5448480.000  10.618  STN103  578002.490  5448577.430  10.898  STN105  577984.148  5448629.501  10.803  STN122  577999.997  5448592.002  10.928  STN126  577939.999  5448591.989  11.187  Description bottom of C curve finish in centre of sewer cap on Brentwood Dr, at curve by pillared driveway center of water cap. East side of Brentwood Dr. junction with Quarry Rd.approx. 3m south of hydro box wooden hubsouth east end of site; bearing is 226.1105 from Stn 100; southeast of CD2 wooden hub 3m north of north east boundary of cemetary cement pillar bearing of 80.3216dms from Stn103; 15.206m from Stn103; 1m nw of large tree cement pillar w. of w. boundary of CD4  Local coordinates based on GPS and coords provided by surveyor center of water cap E. side of Brentwood Dr. junction with Quarry Rd. 3m south of hydro box  81  Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17):  Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) - Feature Center Points Label F8 F10 F12 F23 F13 F24 F11 F22 F21 F14 F6 F7 F15 F16 F1 F2 F3 F19 F18 F17 F4 F5  Easting 575602.100 575597.250 575593.506 575585.083 575599.122 575606.013 575606.099 575645.238 575651.959 575660.043 575667.615 575681.059 575689.822 575667.700 575660.128 575652.045 575644.982 575643.196 575635.963 575621.839 575630.943 575641.579  Northing 5437639.785 5437634.510 5437627.958 5437621.747 5437615.791 5437617.918 5437624.895 5437667.012 5437672.543 5437680.626 5437685.986 5437703.854 5437714.405 5437702.323 5437695.090 5437689.560 5437684.880 5437677.052 5437671.352 5437678.669 5437711.937 5437723.339  Elevation 44.25 44.06 44.52 44.88 44.27 43.86 43.6 46.61 46.87 46.94 47.6 48.78 48.84 51.04 50.61 50.37 49.48 49.06 48.73 49.74 48.72 48.16  Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) - Test Locations Type AT2 AT2 AT2 AT2 AT2 AT2 AT2 AT2 AT2 AT3 AT3 AT3 AT3 AT3 AT3  Location SurfDatum Surf Surf Surf Surf BaseDatum Base Base Base SurfDatum Surf Surf Surf BaseDatum Base  Feature F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 F12 F12 F12 F12 F12 F12  CorrectedE 575601.642 575601.635 575601.459 575601.427 575601.630 575601.585 575601.488 575601.473 575601.568 575593.545 575593.375 575593.361 575593.553 575593.510 575593.421  82  CorrectedN 5437639.785 5437639.756 5437639.775 5437639.559 5437639.502 5437639.717 5437639.745 5437639.678 5437639.662 5437627.840 5437627.867 5437627.671 5437627.657 5437627.820 5437627.842  CorrectedElev 44.232 44.244 44.240 44.242 44.241 43.780 43.787 43.801 43.806 44.610 44.612 44.636 44.620 44.375 44.345  Type AT3 AT3 ST1 ST1 ST1 ST1 CS1 CS3 ST1 ST1 ST1 ST1 ST1 AT2 AT2 AT2 AT2 AT1 AT1 AT1 AT1 AT1 AT1 AT1 AT1 AT5 AT5 AT5 AT5 CS1 CS2 CS3 AT5 AT5 AT5 AT5 AT4 AT4 AT4 AT4 CS1 AT4 AT4 AT4 AT4 ST2 ST2 ST2 ST2  Location Base Base SurfDatum Surf Surf Surf ST1 ST1 BaseCentre Base BaseDatum Base Base Base2Datum Base2 Base2 Base2 SurfDatum BaseDatum Surf Surf Surf Base Base Base Surf Surf SurfDatum Surf AT5 AT5 AT5 Base Base BaseDatum Base Surf Surf Surf Surf AT4 BaseDatum Base Base Base Surf Surf Base Base  Feature F12 F12  F10 F10 F10 F10 F10 F10 F10 F10 F20 F20 F20 F20 F20 F20 F20 F20 F20 F20 F20 F2 F2 F2 F2 F2 F2 F2 F2 F2 F2 F2 F2 F2  CorrectedE 575593.409 575593.497 575596.552 575596.354 575596.224 575596.484 575596.413 575596.460 575596.394 575596.408 575596.468 575596.325 575596.285 575601.504 575601.580 575601.527 575601.490 575597.393 575597.365 575597.461 575597.474 575597.380 575597.514 575597.429 575597.542 575650.274 575650.102 575649.984 575650.171 575650.044 575650.044 575650.059 575650.172 575650.088 575650.039 575650.135 575651.610 575651.766 575651.696 575651.502 575651.638 575651.592 575651.644 575651.549 575651.658 575649.549 575649.313 575649.457 575649.430  83  CorrectedN CorrectedElev 5437627.742 44.365 5437627.710 44.396 5437641.587 45.733 5437641.673 45.717 5437641.417 45.740 5437641.333 45.714 5437641.474 45.269 5437641.465 45.214 5437641.481 45.152 5437641.547 45.144 5437641.436 45.152 5437641.431 45.287 5437641.510 45.206 5437639.703 43.727 5437639.679 43.720 5437639.659 43.737 5437639.703 43.730 5437634.311 44.107 5437634.210 43.875 5437634.216 44.151 5437634.076 44.131 5437634.217 44.139 5437634.102 43.914 5437634.156 43.882 5437634.189 43.904 5437699.311 51.839 5437699.504 51.851 5437699.285 51.855 5437699.179 51.837 5437699.353 51.565 5437699.272 51.696 5437699.268 51.638 5437699.323 51.502 5437699.410 51.545 5437699.321 51.531 5437699.232 51.556 5437690.746 50.391 5437690.590 50.381 5437690.357 50.345 5437690.402 50.365 5437690.524 50.051 5437690.609 49.796 5437690.504 49.816 5437690.530 49.832 5437690.598 49.817 5437687.848 50.504 5437687.686 50.478 5437687.788 49.898 5437687.721 49.913  Type ST2 ST2 ST2 ST2  Location Base Base SurfCALC SurfCALC  Feature F2 F2 F2 F2  CorrectedE 575649.506 575649.551 575649.379 575649.480  CorrectedN CorrectedElev 5437687.668 49.911 5437687.729 49.908 5437687.848 50.483 5437687.738 50.483  Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) - Radiocarbon Samples Locations Corrected Elev  Type  Location  45.269  CS1  45.214  Feature  Label  CorrectedE  CorrectedN  ST1  CS1  575596.413  5437641.474  CS3  ST1  CS3  575596.460  5437641.465  51.565  CS1  AT5  F20  CS1  575650.044  5437699.353  51.696  CS2  AT5  F20  CS2  575650.044  5437699.272  51.638  CS3  AT5  F20  CS3  575650.059  5437699.268  50.051  CS1  AT4  F2  CS1  575651.638  5437690.524  Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) - Mapping Station Locations Stn Number  Easting  Northing  Elevation  STN1(2002/4)  575644.000  5437695.000  46.700  STN2(2004)  575607.000  5437716.000  41.680  STN3(2004)  575652.420  5437681.668  45.912  STN4(2004)  575673.414  5437709.885  47.899  STN5(2004)  575686.771  5437700.338  45.114  STN6(2004)  575624.064  5437674.842  44.901  STN7(2004)  575636.191  5437710.619  44.217  STN3(2002)  575676.539  5437710.387  47.796  STN4(2002)  575628.873  5437677.957  45.224  STN5(2002)  575609.139  5437683.561  44.605  STN6(2002)  575594.683  5437651.233  41.37  STN7(2002)  575580.359  5437626.848  40.639  SNT8(2005)*  575603.030  5437647.141  23.593  STN9(2005)*  575590.887  5437622.358  23.176  Description DATUM1 from 2002(STN1,also used in 2004); yellow tent peg (+5cm) Blue Bennett Disk on n-w side of north road DATUM2 from 2002(STN2, also used in 2004) wooden hub with nail n-e of 3 mounds on e end of upper terrace wooden hub with nail s-e end of terrace between F7 & F15 (among rocks) spike at s-w corner of western plankhouse platform spike on n-w lower terrace 2m s from climbing path on terrace edge at northeast end of site east of burial mound 05 (not found in 2004) on northwest rim of mound 10 on edge of plankhouse floor(not found in 2004) east of mound 14 and mound 15 (not found in 2004) W. of STN5(2002) on W. edge of road cut E. of lower site (not looked for in 2004) north of test shovel pit 08 and west of mound 16 (not looked for in 2004) Spike on west side of path between upper and lower sites, east of F8  Spike between F12 and F23 on south rims Spike on south side of gravel road south of BASE* 575663.097 5437632.641 19.179 site 140`38'; D-56.4m from Stn6(2004) Spike in the N. edge of road on river side at BS* 575720.760 5737732.766 17.866 the NE end of site below STN5(2004) The 2004 stations were derived from hand held GPS on Datum1 from 2002 and on STN2 from 2004. The 2002 data was transformed to the 2004 data. The 2004 stations were assigned before the 2002 data was seen which is why there are duplicate station numbers. * =data not post-processed.  84  Eyxel (DiRi-48): Eyxel (DiRi-48) - Feature Center Points Label F4 F1 F2 F3 F5 F6  Easting 612925.5771 612914.0442 612909.7727 612906.0708 612899.2365 612899.2365  Northing 5470148.3581 5470146.5071 5470153.3414 5470142.378 5470136.6828 5470136.6828  Elevation 41.27 42.14 43 41.93 41.93 42.57  Eyxel (DiRi-48) - Test Locations Type AT1 AT1 AT1 AT1 AT1 AT1 AT1 AT1 CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 SP1 CS5 CS6 AT2 AT2 AT2 AT2 SP2 SP2 AT2 SP3 SP3  Location Feature SurfDatum F3 Surf F3 Surf F3 Surf F3 BaseDatum F3 Base F3 Base F3 Base F3 AT1 F3 AT1 F3 SP1 F2 SP1 F2 Surf F2 SP1 F2 AT2 F1 SurfDatum F1 Surf F1 Surf F1 Surf F1 Surf F4 Base+ F4 Base F1 Surf F5 Base+ F5  CorrectedE 612899.108 612899.140 612899.051 612899.210 612899.130 612899.179 612899.105 612899.185 612899.106 612901.096 612906.493 612906.501 612906.534 612906.502 612914.220 612914.226 612914.088 612914.081 612914.236 612925.603 612925.663 612913.972 612900.986 612900.986  CorrectedN Corrected Elev 5470136.618 42.109 5470136.349 42.136 5470136.468 42.128 5470136.482 42.141 5470136.558 41.457 5470136.457 41.395 5470136.498 41.409 5470136.498 41.420 5470136.561 41.697 5470134.070 42.744 5470142.376 42.529 5470142.375 42.508 5470142.380 42.955 5470142.370 42.484 5470146.645 41.950 5470146.612 42.160 5470146.617 42.162 5470146.793 42.184 5470146.778 42.185 5470148.991 41.305 5470148.914 41.100 5470146.318 41.160 5470147.740 41.965 5470147.740 41.685  Eyxel (DiRi-48) - Radiocarbon Samples Locations Type  Location  Feature  Label  CorrectedE  CorrectedN  Corrected Elev  CS1  AT1  F3  CS1  612899.106  5470136.561  41.697  CS2  AT1  F3  CS2  612901.096  5470134.070  42.744  CS3  SP1  F2  CS3  612906.493  5470142.376  42.529  CS4  SP1  F2  CS4  612906.501  5470142.375  42.508  CS5  SP1  F2  SC5  612906.502  5470142.370  42.484  CS6  AT2  F1  CS6  612914.220  5470146.645  85  Sxwóxwiymelh (DiRj-1): Sxwóxwiymelh ‘South’ (DiRj-1) - Feature Center Points Label  Easting  Northing  Elev  F1  608015.342  5470201.612  27.440  F2  608023.654  5470208.946  28.620  F3  608032.292  5470213.347  28.780  F4  608004.748  5470198.841  28.050  F5  607994.969  5470191.833  29.220  F6  607987.472  5470188.899  28.190  F7  607976.878  5470184.988  28.160  F8  607965.958  5470180.261  28.270  F9  607956.994  5470173.905  28.100  F10  607941.348  5470166.244  28.170  F11  607938.577  5470176.675  30.050  F12  607945.423  5470178.957  29.070  F13  607955.039  5470184.336  29.110  F14  607964.166  5470190.855  29.280  Sxwóxwiymelh ‘North’ (DiRj-1) - Feature, Test & Carbon Samples Locations (see Lenert and Lepofsky n.d.) Sxwóxwiymelh (DiRj-1) - Mapping Station Locations Stn STN1  Easting 607984.000  Northing 5470185.000  Elev. 29.194  STN2 STN3 STN4 STN5 STN6  607986.001 607949.999 608010.647 608028.761 607957.503  5470177.996 5470178.001 5470195.193 5470205.350 5470147.534  28.853 29.703 29.130 29.274 29.102  STN7 STN11 STN12  608029.010 607975.197 608086.799  5470174.247 5470212.160 5470292.642  28.263 30.97 31.549  Description wooden hub 4m e. of path parallel with s. boundary of 1st PH w. of path in row 1 concrete pillar 6m e. of path 1 m ne of tree cluster concrete pillar 30m w. of path; 3m ne of w. PH in row 2 wooden hub w. of s. boundary of PH#1(F1) wooden hub 2m s. of s. boundary of PH#3(F3) wooden hub 1.5m w of sw corner of square pit on terrace river edge; w. of path wooden hub 2m s. of s. boundary of e. PH on terrace river edge; e. of path Spike 4m N of RR; 1.5m W of trail into ‘Katz’ site  Spike on N side of truck pullout bearing 234.1209 from Stn10; bearing 83.3350 from Stn12 STN13 608263.193 5470312.54 32.514 Spike on S side of truck pullout directly across from Barb's driveway STN14 608247.745 5470357.086 31.682 Spike on N side of HP1&2; staked with flagging 127cm N Spike 120cm from W side of Barb's road at beginning of ROW; flagged on STN15 608267.572 5470398.196 30.023 alder 10m SW STN16 608215.806 5470387.656 28.482 Spike on S rim of HP9; N of path to upper terrace; flagged overhead Spike in middle of path between HP9 and 10 just W of NW rim of HP9; STN17 608200.899 5470394.106 29.695 flagged on N side of path 205cm NE Spike on NW rim of HP10; S side of path to HP11 beside log; flagged STN18 608174.183 5470391.862 29.978 overhead 179cm N STN19 608150.323 5470402.858 29.033 Spike on NW side of HP11; 250cm E of oak; flagged overhead 77cmSE Spike between HP 13 & 14 on rise in path; flagged overhead 185cm NE of STN20 608191.547 5470335.595 32.01 popular cluster Spike between HP12 &15 on rise; 270cm SW of large maple; flagged STN21 608167.991 5470329.767 31.445 overhead STN22 608205.794 5470352.419 31.642 Spike W of HP8; S side of B1; flagged 270cm W on maple tree Local coordinate system by GPS; Elev. adjustment approximate from Katz Landing 103 feet at elevation of the rail way tie = 31.394m  86  Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30):  Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) - Feature Center Points Label F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20 F21  Easting 601475.4 601482 601486 601488.2 601490.2 601495.2 601498.6 601496.2 601505.4 601510.1 601508.9 601523.9 601519.4 601526.7 601530.3 601530.8 601494.2 601490.9 601493.9 601506.4 601514.7  Northing 5465641 5465648 5465663 5465671 5465679 5465694 5465702 5465708 5465718 5465731 5465739 5465749 5465761 5465768 5465778 5465790 5465665 5465687 5465716 5465728 5465737  Elevation 30.49 29.23 28.71 28.88 28.57 28.44 28.69 30.4 28.14 29.12 30.5 29.68 28.97 29.27 28.52 28.86 29.72 29.35 29.03 30.94 29.64  Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) - Test & Carbon Sample Locations Type  Location  Feature  CorrectedE  CorrectedN  CorrectedElev  CS1  ST1  F13  601519.349  5465759.635  28.736  ST1  SurfDatum  F13  601519.443  5465759.691  28.985  ST1  Surf  F13  601519.371  5465759.494  28.984  ST1  Surf  F13  601519.157  5465759.572  29.002  ST1  Surf  F13  601519.209  5465759.788  28.993  CS2  ST2  F12  601523.407  5465748.928  29.441  CS2  ST1  F13  601519.198  5465759.595  28.6  CS1  SP1  F14  601526.578  5465768.075  28.93  CS2  SP1  F14  601526.593  5465768.078  28.774  CS3  SP1  F14  601526.589  5465768.094  28.637  SP1  Base  F14  601526.602  5465768.093  28.587  87  Type  Location  Feature  CorrectedE  CorrectedN  CorrectedElev  SP1  Surf  F14  601526.693  5465768.105  29.352  CS3  ST1  F13  601519.342  5465759.653  28.474  ART  ST2  F12  601523.319  5465748.832  29.362  ST1  BaseDatum  F13  601519.416  5465759.665  28.337  ST1  Base  F13  601519.366  5465759.608  28.326  ST1  Base  F13  601519.241  5465759.614  28.346  ST1  Base  F13  601519.286  5465759.683  28.349  CS4  ST1  F13  601519.256  5465759.732  28.462  CS5  ST1  F13  601519.257  5465759.734  28.44  CS1  ST2  F12  601523.472  5465748.917  29.515  CS3  ST2  F12  601523.541  5465748.682  29.448  CS4  ST2  F12  601523.448  5465748.931  29.3  CS5  ST2  F12  601523.466  5465748.907  29.244  CS6  ST2  F12  601523.45  5465748.919  29.197  ST2  SurfDatum  F12  601523.42  5465749.021  29.717  ST2  Surf  F12  601523.648  5465748.741  29.708  ST2  Surf  F12  601523.447  5465748.566  29.702  ST2  Surf  F12  601523.2  5465748.839  29.706  ST2  BaseDatum  F12  601523.395  5465748.948  29.053  ST2  Base  F12  601523.549  5465748.77  29.033  ST2  Base  F12  601523.443  5465748.65  29.04  ST2  Base  F12  601523.302  5465748.864  29.054  CS1  AT1  F6  601494.938  5465692.934  28.079  AT1  SurfDatum  F6  601495.215  5465693.082  28.529  AT1  Surf  F6  601495.12  5465692.861  28.503  AT1  Surf  F6  601494.862  5465692.91  28.536  AT1  Surf  F6  601494.892  5465693.18  28.521  ST3  SurfDatum  F4  601488.343  5465669.859  28.828  ST3  Surf  F4  601488.255  5465669.725  28.857  ST3  Surf  F4  601488.208  5465669.752  28.9  ST3  Surf  F4  601488.209  5465669.912  28.914  ST3  BaseDatum  F4  601488.291  5465669.794  28.326  ST3  Base  F4  601488.263  5465669.698  28.317  ST3  Base  F4  601488.166  5465669.688  28.356  ST3  Base  F4  601488.22  5465669.871  28.334  ST4  SurfDatum  F18  601491.368  5465685.819  29.41  ST4  Surf  F18  601491.296  5465685.635  29.422  ST4  BaseDatum  F18  601491.336  5465685.817  28.857  ST3  Surf  F4  601488.214  5465669.835  28.92  ST3  Base  F4  601488.213  5465669.789  28.325  88  Type  Location  Feature  CorrectedE  CorrectedN  CorrectedElev  CS1  ST3  F4  601488.297  5465669.827  28.582  CS2  ST3  F4  601488.262  5465669.874  28.534  ST4  SurfDatum  F18  601491.4  5465685.862  29.402  ST4  Surf  F18  601491.269  5465685.62  29.404  ST4  Surf  F18  601491.082  5465685.718  29.385  ST4  Surf  F18  601491.187  5465685.928  29.395  ST4  BaseDatum  F18  601491.346  5465685.838  28.856  ST4  Base  F18  601491.282  5465685.691  28.864  ST4  Base  F18  601491.145  5465685.758  28.851  ST4  Base  F18  601491.227  5465685.88  28.869  CS1  ST4  F18  601491.285  5465685.672  29.178  CS2  ST4  F18  601491.281  5465685.689  29.104  CS3  ST4  F18  601491.294  5465685.704  29.042  CS4  ST4  F18  601491.342  5465685.786  29.004  AT2  SurfDatum  F9  601504.42  5465717.598  28.797  AT2  Surf  F9  601504.615  5465717.428  28.78  AT2  Surf  F9  601504.534  5465717.343  28.785  AT2  Surf  F9  601504.417  5465717.459  28.794  ART 1  AT2  F9  601504.441  5465717.543  28.573  ART 1  AT2  F9  601504.395  5465717.45  28.578  CS5  ST4  F18  601491.336  5465685.708  29.252  AT1  Surf  F6  601494.918  5465693.169  28.517  AT1  BaseDatum  F6  601494.928  5465693.077  28.672  AT1  Base  F6  601495.163  5465693.046  28.815  AT1  Base  F6  601495.083  5465692.944  28.678  AT1  Base  F6  601494.932  5465692.944  28.686  CS1  AT2  F9  601504.474  5465717.448  28.325  CS2  AT2  F9  601504.462  5465717.545  28.255  CS3  AT2  F9  601504.482  5465717.52  28.201  CS4  AT2  F9  601504.432  5465717.533  28.467  AT2  BaseDatum  F9  601504.485  5465717.612  28.161  AT2  Base  F9  601504.555  5465717.548  28.165  AT2  Base  F9  601504.46  5465717.48  28.15  AT2  Base  F9  601504.409  5465717.525  28.135  SP2  Surf  601500.845  5465718.595  30.082  SP3  Surf  601502.761  5465712.793  29.684  SP4  Surf  601495.011  5465693.024  27.96  SP5  Surf  601493.248  5465689.079  29.953  AT1  89  Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) - Mapping Station Locations Stn ID STN1  Corrected Easting 601572.000  Corrected Northing 5465746.000  Corrected Elevation 30.188  STN2  601725.000  5465950.000  30.189  STN3  601527.583  5465783.961  29.347  STN4  601528.609  5465788.053  29.984  STN5  601542.385  5465780.400  30.391  STN6  601514.719  5465756.631  30.478  STN7  601501.206  5465714.420  30.068  STN8  601494.418  5465688.373  30.191  STN9  601480.567  5465658.100  29.873  Corrections based on CN Railway data.  90  Description Wooden hub on the pipeline, 255m south of STN2 at 216.5211.6 dms; east of site Wooden hub on the pipeline 2m north of witness post GPS 61, WC 204114.7, 6.3 M U/S, MAG 42 Wooden hub 59m west of STN1 at 311.1521dms, edge of slough west of CD16 southeast of large tree Wooden hub at north end of site among burial mounds, 4.219m from STN3 at 75.5527 dms Wooden hub SE of STN3 just south of the three tree cluster on the E side of the site; E of CD16 and CD15 Wooden hub southwest side CD13 Wooden hub between CD8 and CD9 on rise in path south of CD9 Wooden hub at south side of CD6 Wooden hub between CD2 and CD3 on west side on edge of slough drop  Xelhálh (DjRi-14): Xelhálh (DjRi-14) - Feature Center Points Label F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20 F21 F22 F23 F24 F25 F26 F27 F28 F29 F30 F31 F32  Easting (615___) 057.95908 055.01508 069.84404 072.56996 068.53558 075.07781 075.95006 074.64166 096.99411 107.1345 104.4086 110.4055 119.6736 136.0291 134.9388 144.3159 151.0761 152.7117 159.2538 171.3569 168.0858 166.1231 175.8273 167.6496 184.3322 194.3635 190.5472 178.7713 191.6376 192.1828 206.6846 223.5852  Northing (5490___) 720.294 731.7428 724.0013 729.9983 737.9579 723.7832 730.1073 736.2134 729.5621 733.5965 737.7398 717.0229 721.3844 710.8079 727.0543 746.1356 716.3687 724.8736 740.9019 747.9893 768.4881 771.214 769.0333 779.7188 761.4008 785.4977 797.4918 806.6508 805.2333 810.5761 756.4941 780.046  Elev 65.1 65.45 67.99 68.09 68.89 67.96 68.58 68.27 69.5 68.84 68.8 68.4 68.04 68.67 68.1 72.72 68.06 69.91 71.85 73.19 73.42 73.02 72.52 73 71.96 71.32 70.72 70.11 70.75 71.45 72.1 71.8  Xelhálh (DjRi-14) - Test & Carbon Sample Locations Type SP1 SP2 CS1 SP1 SP2 ST2 ST2 ST2  Location Surf Surf SP1 Base Base SurfDatum Surf Surf  Feature F27 F27 F27 F27 F27 F28 F28 F28  CorrectedE 615190.860 615190.974 615190.875 615190.888 615190.954 615178.302 615178.518 615178.608  91  CorrectedN 5490797.740 5490797.776 5490797.757 5490797.784 5490797.758 5490806.059 5490805.939 5490806.116  CorrectedElev 70.778 70.766 70.469 70.221 70.195 70.145 70.142 70.156  Type ST2 ST2 ST2 ST2 ST2 CS1 CS2 AT1 AT1 AT1 AT1 AT1 AT1 AT1 AT1 CS1 CS2 AT2 AT2 AT2 AT2 SP4 SP4 SP5 SP5 CS1 CS2 AT2 AT2 AT2 AT2 CS1 CS2 CS1 ST1 ST1 ST1 ST1 ST1 ST1 ST1 ST1 ST3 ST3 ST3 ST3 ST3 ST3 ST3 ST3  Location Feature Surf F28 BaseDatum F28 Base F28 Base F28 Base F28 ST2 F28 ST2 F28 SurfDatum F25 Surf F25 Surf F25 Surf F25 BaseDatum F25 Base F25 Base F25 Base F25 AT1 F25 AT1 F25 SurfDatum F23 Surf F23 Surf F23 Surf F23 Surf F26 Base F26 Surf F26 Base F26 SP5 F26 SP5 F26 Base F23 Base F23 Base F23 Base F23 AT2 F23 AT2 F23 ST1 F32 SurfDatum F32 Surf F32 Surf F32 Surf F32 BaseDatum F32 Base F32 Base F32 Base F32 SurfDatum F19 Surf F19 Surf F19 Surf F19 BaseDatum F19 Base F19 Base F19 Base F19  CorrectedE 615178.339 615178.373 615178.463 615178.537 615178.438 615178.430 615178.374 615183.841 615184.048 615184.083 615183.848 615183.918 615184.016 615183.996 615183.903 615183.878 615183.868 615175.737 615175.609 615175.757 615175.905 615194.413 615194.349 615194.198 615194.164 615194.179 615194.160 615175.754 615175.687 615175.732 615175.799 615175.823 615175.702 615222.835 615222.758 615222.917 615223.065 615222.900 615222.798 615222.907 615223.022 615222.920 615160.466 615160.570 615160.322 615160.261 615160.481 615160.507 615160.425 615160.368  92  CorrectedN CorrectedElev 5490806.218 70.153 5490806.033 69.602 5490805.991 69.604 5490806.096 69.591 5490806.162 69.62 5490806.209 69.973 5490806.036 69.808 5490761.068 72.049 5490761.043 72.043 5490761.234 72.052 5490761.294 72.072 5490761.098 71.545 5490761.108 71.548 5490761.220 71.593 5490761.209 71.533 5490761.101 71.849 5490761.117 71.76 5490769.498 72.545 5490769.379 72.553 5490769.221 72.545 5490769.325 72.535 5490785.870 71.311 5490785.831 70.903 5490785.922 71.313 5490785.916 70.859 5490785.865 71.091 5490785.873 70.975 5490769.430 71.931 5490769.368 71.922 5490769.325 71.913 5490769.360 71.925 5490769.310 72.286 5490769.311 72.179 5490779.614 71.694 5490779.549 71.859 5490779.702 71.838 5490779.559 71.857 5490779.411 71.865 5490779.542 71.182 5490779.681 71.224 5490779.576 71.208 5490779.450 71.199 5490741.868 72.044 5490741.659 72.066 5490741.585 72.044 5490741.752 72.036 5490741.750 71.609 5490741.663 71.623 5490741.622 71.597 5490741.694 71.605  Type ST4 ST4 ST4 ST4 ST4 ST4 ST4 ST4 CS1 CS1 ST6 ST6 ST6 ST6 CS1 ST5 ST5 ST5 ST5 ST5 ST5 ST5 ST5 CS2 CS3 ST6 ST6 ST6 ST6 CS2 CS3 ST7 ST7 ST7 ST7 ST7 ST7 ST7 ST7 STUMP STUMP STUMP STUMP STUMP ST8 ST8 ST8 ST8 ST8 ST8  Location Feature SurfDatum F17 Surf F17 Surf F17 Surf F17 BaseDatum F17 Base F17 Base F17 Base F17 ST5 F15 ST6 F13 SurfDatum F13 Surf F13 Surf F13 Surf F13 ST4 F17 SurfDatum F15 Surf F15 Surf F15 Surf F15 BaseDatum F15 Base F15 Base F15 Base F15 ST5 F15 ST5 F15 BaseDatum F13 Base F13 Base F13 Base F13 ST6 F13 ST6 F13 SurfDatum F2 Surf F2 Surf F2 Surf F2 BaseDatum F2 Base F2 Base F2 Base F2 CENTRE RIM RIM RIM RIM SurfDatum F509 Surf F509 Surf F509 Surf F509 BaseDatum F509 Base F509  CorrectedE 615151.400 615151.240 615151.230 615151.436 615151.344 615151.293 615151.285 615151.394 615134.538 615120.107 615120.074 615120.107 615120.328 615120.289 615151.238 615134.427 615134.646 615134.676 615134.453 615134.500 615134.559 615134.593 615134.503 615134.446 615134.460 615120.129 615120.194 615120.291 615120.268 615120.281 615120.116 615055.117 615055.124 615054.894 615054.855 615055.097 615055.090 615054.936 615054.911 615351.699 615351.579 615351.841 615352.086 615351.291 615338.197 615338.217 615338.051 615337.940 615338.069 615338.177  93  CorrectedN CorrectedElev 5490716.478 68.093 5490716.545 68.052 5490716.338 68.072 5490716.372 68.073 5490716.537 67.71 5490716.485 67.741 5490716.416 67.699 5490716.392 67.697 5490726.314 67.92 5490721.799 67.9 5490721.708 68.048 5490722.037 68.09 5490722.003 68.049 5490721.706 68.032 5490716.392 67.939 5490726.394 68.113 5490726.417 68.081 5490726.208 68.09 5490726.176 68.12 5490726.344 67.746 5490726.343 67.748 5490726.225 67.744 5490726.214 67.753 5490726.295 67.944 5490726.239 67.915 5490721.730 67.782 5490721.975 67.814 5490721.950 67.823 5490721.724 67.82 5490721.768 67.88 5490721.739 67.812 5490731.687 65.488 5490731.404 65.473 5490731.385 65.47 5490731.645 65.49 5490731.616 65.189 5490731.454 65.27 5490731.470 65.214 5490731.625 65.206 5490796.136 77.78 5490796.557 77.833 5490795.773 77.742 5490796.254 77.778 5490795.904 77.816 5490805.979 78.688 5490805.795 78.677 5490805.708 78.702 5490805.928 78.716 5490805.904 78.255 5490805.828 78.325  Type ST8 ST8 AT3 AT3 AT3 AT3 AT3 AT3 AT3 AT3 SP6 SP7 ST9 ST9 ST9 ST9 ST9 ST9 ST9 ST9 CS1  Location Feature Base F509 Base F509 SurfDatum F508 Surf F508 Surf F508 Surf F508 BaseDatum F508 Base F508 Base F508 Base F508 Surf Surf SurfDatum F1 Surf F1 Surf F1 Surf F1 BaseDAtum F1 Base F1 Base F1 Base F1 ST9 F1  CorrectedE 615338.055 615338.021 615350.493 615350.585 615350.707 615350.594 615350.526 615350.555 615350.630 615350.547 615343.033 615344.469 615058.111 615058.221 615058.002 615057.901 615058.052 615058.061 615058.008 615058.027 615058.074  CorrectedN CorrectedElev 5490805.790 78.279 5490805.804 78.287 5490801.472 76.727 5490801.582 76.722 5490801.441 76.713 5490801.341 76.723 5490801.431 76.277 5490801.522 76.325 5490801.452 76.375 5490801.373 76.323 5490804.727 76.924 5490803.745 76.7 5490720.844 65.112 5490720.645 65.091 5490720.546 65.104 5490720.727 65.1 5490720.750 64.809 5490720.614 64.8 5490720.562 64.804 5490720.681 64.81 5490720.761 64.964  Xelhálh (DjRi-14) - Mapping Station Locations STN ID STN1  Easting 615065.623  Northing 5490666.426  Elevation 61.636  STN2  614782.000  5490677.000  64.000  STN3 BS  615065.623 615065.533  5490663.426 5490664.131  62.000 62.169  STN4  615066.592  5490719.583  68.495  STN5  615121.775  5490730.987  70.217  STN6  615151.928  5490732.396  73.600  STN7  615177.813  5490756.865  73.768  temp  615159.431  5490740.178  73.721  TEMP8  615152.485  5490769.486  73.170  TEMP9  615115.653  5490743.839  70.283  TEMPA  615079.286  5490729.045  69.188  Description stone-283.82m e. of tunnel; 3m n. of n. rr trackmarked with an x h-transfer program from this height on tunnel at benchmark at 30.480m centre of tracks283.82m e. of tunnel reflector on side of n. rr track 283m e. of tunnel; bearing 182.1444; 2.296m from STN1 hub with nail (+6.5cm); 3m e of cp by first w. ph s. of STN4; 1.27m n-e of birch hub with nail; centre of first terrace; 9cm e of + on tree route; n. of large ph with looter hole inside north rim hub with nail (+8cm); w. side of ph; 1.16m n. of fir on w. edge of top terrace hub with nail 2.33m s. of stump in ph n of STN7 - station beside 7102-7487 collected; w. of cemetery edge for stn7 - removed hub with nail n. side of top terrace 1.47m n. of + on fallen log; 9m s. of cedar tree on terrace edge hub with nail n. side of terrace 2.17m n. of large fir; n-e of ph with looter hole inside n rim hub with nail n. side of terrace e. of plankhouse pits; 10m s. of 3 cedars on terrace edge; 1.96m e of east most cp cntr  94  STN ID  Easting  Northing  Elevation  Description  STNB  615167.279  5490722.245  72.910  STNC  615156.798  5490669.660  60.948  STND  615178.029  5490802.555  70.620  STNE  615221.918  5490719.706  73.046  615201.347  5490788.263  71.547  spike s. cliffside s-e of STN6; 2.23m s-w of large fir spike - 10m n. of railway; 1 m w. of small fir; s. of ph on s. edge of terrace s. of STN5 n-e cliffside - spike 1m e. of fir tree; n-e edge of ph s. of cemetery - spike s-e cliffside e. of STNB; 1.57m e. of birch; 1.22m w. of cedar; s. of ph and cemetery spike; n-w side of 2nd terrace; 5m w. of boulder marked with +; e of ph; 10m w. of plankhouse  STNG  615139.027  5490839.059  42.023  STNH  615042.166  5490721.419  64.370  STNI  615271.698  5490779.830  87.251  STNJ  615287.700  5490782.902  89.337  STNK  615239.928  5490779.744  73.604  STNL  615301.499  5490797.445  88.034  Spike on edge of F500 terrace 4m from steps down bluff side; on rock outcrop  STNM  615316.428  5490798.654  82.156  Spike in path down bluff, N and below tree fall, S of base of F502 and W of F503 terrace  STNN  615336.796  5490787.981  76.303  Spike beside young cedar next to bluff base, S of F504 base; W of F508 terrace  STNO  615349.772  5490801.994  76.732  Rebar on E side of F508 terrace between two young cedar trees;2m NE of large cedar stump  STNP  615360.943  5490811.803  72.015  Spike at S end of F514 terrace, S of tree centered in terrace  STNF  metal spike with blue and pink flagging; 30cm s. of end of raised log on beach; bearing 313.06185dms from STND yellow, plastic peg with blue and pink flagging at edge of middle terrace below PH#1;1.5m nw of tree beside path;274.1735dms from STN4 yellow, plastic peg with blue and pink flagging n. of path parallel to first boulder outcrop above n. boundary of historic cemetery; 76.15176dms from STN7 **iffy - needs a recheck next time out; tree stack just e. of entrance to n. upper cliff terrace beside large rock n. of cliff steps by tall wall;79.0758dms from STNI Spike at foot of bluff SE of F32; NE of Cemetery E of path up bluff  These are adjusted and rotated data based on CN data for tunnel. To be confirmed when CP point shot in 2005 (614767,5491171) 36" culvert approximately 20m w side of tunnel north of Yale  95  APPENDIX II – ARTIFACT CATALOGUE (DhRl-T1; DgRl-17; DiRj-30; DjRi-14)  96  Remarks  Site  Cat. #  Feat. #  Test #  Depth (cmBS)  Artifact Type  Material  Dimensions (L x W x Th)  DgRl-17  18  8  AT2  0-15  bottle glass, green, fragment  glass  5.7 x 4.2 x 0.2  DgRl-17  19  8  AT2  0-15  flake fragment  chert, red (jasper)  2.5 x 1.7 x 0.15  DgRl-17 DgRl-17  20 21  8 8  AT2 AT2  27-33 0-33  metasediment chert, graybrown  4.3 x 5.7 x 0.5 2.2 x 1.5 x 0.3  DgRl-17  22  8  AT2  0-33  flake / spall biface, point, triangular eared / stemmed bottle glass, green, fragment  glass  4.2 x 1.8 x 0.2  DgRl-17  23  8  AT2  0-33  faunal, humerus/ulna (?), distal fragment, artiodactyl  bone  7.6 x 2.2 x 1.6  DgRl-17  24  8  AT2  0-33  faunal, carpal/tarsal (?), artiodactyl  bone  3.1 x 2.0 x 1.4  DgRl-17 DgRl-17  25 26  4 10  AT4 AT1  26-36 0-10  flake fragment biface, triangular  dacite basalt  1.3 x 1.2 x 0.1 4.9 x 2.6 x 0.5  DgRl-17  27  10  AT1  0-15  flake fragments  basalt; metasediment  max. 3.7 x 2.5 x 0.2  N=2; basalt, & metasediment  DgRl-17  28  12  AT3  0-19  flake fragments  basalt  max. 2.8 x 2.4 x 0.3  N=2  DgRl-17 DgRl-17  29 30  12 12  AT3 AT3  0-19 19-28  glass, clear, fragments glass, clear, fragment; tin can fragments  glass, clear glass, clear; tin  Th = 0.3 glass Th = 0.3  N=3  DhRl-T1  1  5  ST1  10-20  debitage  dacite  0.5 x 0.3 x 0.3  shatter fragment  97  possibly utilized edge late period point / arrowhead; from sidewall expansion debris  prob. knife; prox/lateral grinding = hafted; cortex on base  Remarks  Site  Cat. #  Feat. #  Test #  Depth (cmBS)  Artifact Type  Material  Dimensions (L x W x Th)  DiRj-30  8  6  AT1  0-19  flake; flake fragment  basalt (flake); dacite  max = 2.2 x 1.9 x 0.3  DiRj-30 DiRj-30  9 10  6 6  AT1 AT1  19-28 40-50  flake fragment flake; debitage  basalt basalt (flake); dacite (debitage)  1.8 x 1.1 x 0.1 5.2 x 4.7 x 1.1 (flake)  DiRj-30  11  6  AT1  50-60  flakes; debitage  basalt (flake); chalcedony (micro-flake); nephrite, slate, basalt (debitage)  2.5 x 3.2 x 1.1 (flake); 0.7 x 0.6 x 0.1 (microflake)  N=6; 2 flakes, 4 debitage  DiRj-30 DiRj-30 DiRj-30 DiRj-30 DiRj-30  12 13 14 15 16  6 6 9 9 9  AT1 AT1 AT2 AT2 AT2  n/a n/a  basalt basalt dacite basalt wood  (micro) 1.6 x 0.6 x 0.1 5.0 x 2.9 x 1.5 2.1 x 3.6 x 0.5 24.4 x 4.5 (conical; tapering to pointed end)  N=2; from wall clean-up debris  22-24  debitage flake fragment flake fragment flake fragment stake (possible)  DiRj-30  17  9  AT2  30-40  flake fragments  basalt (x2); dacite (x1)  max = 3.2 x 1.9 x 0.4  N=3  DiRj-30  18  9  AT2  47-55  flake fragments; debitage  basalt (x5); dacite (x1); granitic (x1)  max = 3.1 x 1.7 x 0.6  N=7  0-25 20-30  98  N=2  N=3; 1 flake, 2 debitage  from wall collapse debris split flake; from wall clean-up debris medial frag. 3-D prov.; removed from NW. wall profile; apparent cut at proximal end  Remarks  Site  Cat. #  Feat. #  Test #  Depth (cmBS)  Artifact Type  Material  Dimensions (L x W x Th)  DiRj-30  19  9  AT2  55-65  flake fragments; debitage  basalt  max (flake frags) = 3.1 x 2.8 x 0.6  N=15; 3 flake frags, 12 debitage (small frags)  DiRj-30  20  9  AT2  40-65  flake fragments; debitage  basalt (x4); metasediment (x1)  max (flake frags) = 3.2 x 2.1 x 0.4  N=5; 3 flake frags, 2 debitage (micro); from wall clean-up debris  DiRj-30  21  9  AT2  n/a  utilized flake  dacite  4.1 x 4.3 x 1.3  DiRj-30  21  9  AT2  n/a  flake; flake fragments  basalt (x2); dacite (x1)  max = 2.1 x 1.7 x 0.3  DiRj-30  22  12  ST2  0-10  debitage  basalt (x4); metasediment (x3)  avg. = > 1 cm  DiRj-30  23  12  ST2  10-20  flake; debitage  basalt (flake); misc. debitage  5.8 x 1.7 x 1.9 (flake); deb. = < 1 cm  N=5; 1 flake, 4 debitage  DiRj-30  24  12  ST2  20-30  flake; flake fragment  metasediment (flake); basalt (flake frag)  3.7 x 4.9 x 0.7 (flake)  N=2; 1 flake, 1 flake frag  DiRj-30  25  12  ST2  30-40  flake fragments; debitage  slate; basalt; metasediment  (see remarks)  N=25; 5 frags > 3 cm, 2 frags b/w 23 cm, 3 frags b/w 1-2 cm, 15 frags < 1 cm  DiRj-30  26  12  ST2  35  ground slate knife fragment  slate  3.0 x 4.8 x 0.2  corner fragment; bevelled edge; recovered from profile  DiRj-30  27  12  ST2  40-50  flake fragments; debitage  basalt; metasediment; misc.  (see remarks)  N=12; 3 flakes > 3 cm, 1 flake/2 frags b/w 2-3 cm, 2 frags b/w 1-2 cm, 4 frags < 1 cm  99  poss. scraper; uncetain depth (prob. wall clean-up debris) N=3; 1 flake, 2 flake frags; uncertain depth (prob. wall clean-up debris) N=7 debitage  Remarks  Site  Cat. #  Feat. #  Test #  Depth (cmBS)  Artifact Type  Material  Dimensions (L x W x Th)  DiRj-30  28  12  ST2  40-50  ground slate knife fragment  slate  3.9 x 3.6 x 0.2  DiRj-30  29  12  ST2  50-60  flakes; debitage  basalt; dacite; metasediment  (see remarks)  N=8; 2 flakes (basalt, metasediment) b/w 1-2 cm; 1 debitage b/w 3-4 cm, 5 debitage < 1.5 cm  DiRj-30  30  12  ST2  60-70  flake fragments; debitage  basalt; dacite  (see remarks)  N=6; 2 flake frags b/w 1-2 cm, 4 debitage < 1 cm  DiRj-30  31  12  ST2  0-30  flakes  basalt; dacite  (see remarks)  DiRj-30  32  13  ST1  0-10  flake fragments  basalt  max = 1.6 x 1.5 x 0.2  N=3; 2 flakes b/w 3-4 cm, 1 flake b/w 1-2 cm N=2  DiRj-30  33  13  ST1  0-10  uniface fragment  misc. granitic (coarse)  9.8 x 4.3 x 0.5  poss. knife fragment (expedient); both lateral edges worked, opposite faces; broken distal end  DiRj-30  34  13  ST1  10-24  flakes; debitage  basalt; dacite; metasediment  (see remarks)  N=6; 2 flakes (basalt) b/w 3-4 cm, 1 flake (metased.) b/w 2-3 cm, 3 debitage (dacite, basalt) < 1.5 cm  DiRj-30  35  13  ST1  24-30  flake; debitage  basalt; metasediment  flake = 2.7 x 2.5 x 0.7 (see remarks)  N=4; 1 flake (basalt), 3 debitage < 2 cm  DiRj-30  36  13  ST1  30-40  flake; debitage  basalt; dacite  flake = 4.6 x 4.2 x 1.5  N=2; 1 flake (basalt), 1 debitage (dacite)  DiRj-30 DiRj-30  37 38  13 18  ST1 ST4  40-50  flake (split) debitage  dacite basalt; dacite; metasediment  4.4 x 2.2 x 0.8 (see remarks)  DiRj-30  39  18  ST4  19  core (bi-polar / piece esquillier)  dacite  3.4 x 3.0 x 0.6  15-20  100  N=8; 1 frag. b/w 2-3 cm; 7 frags. < 1 cm from NW corner; 'Artifact 1' in notes  Site  Cat. #  Feat. #  Test #  Depth (cmBS)  Artifact Type  Material  Dimensions (L x W x Th)  Remarks  DiRj-30 DiRj-30  40 41  18 18  ST4 ST4  19  debitage (core shatter) flake; debitage  dacite basalt  4.2 x 3.1 x 1.1 3.1 x 2.9 x 0.5 (flake)  from NW corner; 'Artifact 2' in notes  DiRj-30 DiRj-30  42 43  18 18  ST4 ST4  24-34  misc. basalt; dacite; chalcedony (x1); quartz (x1)  (see remarks) (see remarks)  N=2, micro (< 1 cm)  34-44  debitage flake fragments / debitage  DiRj-30  44  18  ST4  44-54  flake; debitage  basalt  4.9 x 3.8 x 1.0 (flake)  N=2; 1 flake, 1 micro-debitage  DjRi-14  1  1  ST9  1-3.5  bone fragments (calcined)  bone  n/a  fragmentary; numerous small pieces  DjRi-14  2  1  ST9  3.5-7  bone fragments (calcined)  bone  n/a  fragmentary; 5 small pieces  DjRi-14 DjRi-14 DjRi-14  3 4 5  1 1 1  ST9 ST9 ST9  7  dacite glass bone  0.9 x 1.2 x 0.2 n/a n/a  apparent pressure flake  7-9.5  flake melted/vitrified glass bone fragment (calcined)  DjRi-14  6  1  ST9  10-13.5  square nail, proximal fragment  metal  4.5 cm = min length; head = 0.9 x 0.8 cm width)  broken tip; bent  20-24  10  101  N=2; 1 flake, 1 debitage  N=21; 4 flake frags b/w 1-2 cm, 17 micro-debitage < 1 cm (including 1 quartz, 1 chalcedony)  Remarks  Site  Cat. #  Feat. #  Test #  Depth (cmBS)  Artifact Type  Material  Dimensions (L x W x Th)  DjRi-14  7  1  ST9  10-13.5  ceramic, fragments (plate/bowl?)  ceramic (unclassified)  n/a  DjRi-14 DjRi-14  8 9  1 1  ST9 ST9  15  flake fragments square nail, distal fragments  misc. metal  (see remarks) n/a  DjRi-14  10  1  ST9  20-32  bone fragments (calcined)  bone  n/a  DjRi-14 DjRi-14 DjRi-14  11 12 13  1 2 13  ST9 ST7 ST6  20-32  debitage (micro) debitage debitage  slate (?) misc. dacite  < 0.5 cm < 1.5 cm n/a  DjRi-14  14  13  ST6  10-20  edge & end-battered / abraded pebble fragment  granitic  10 (min.) x 5.2 x 3.2  DjRi-14 DjRi-14 DjRi-14  15 16 17  13 15 17  ST6 ST5 ST4  10-20  core debitage hammerstone  basalt basalt basalt  4.6 x 8.2 x 3.2 2.8 x 1.8 x 0.8 13.3 x 3.4 x 1.5  likely exhausted core  DjRi-14  18  17  ST4  18-29  possible utilized pebble  quartzite (?)  15.0 x 8.0 x 3.4  possible slight edge-battering  DjRi-14 DjRi-14 DjRi-14  19 20 21  32 32 32  ST1 ST1 ST1  7-17  debitage uniface, spall core, split pebble  basalt quartzite basalt / dacite  < 1.5 cm 5.3 x 8.5 x 1.4 6.8 x 5.3 x 2.4  N=2  15  0-6.5 0-10  ? 18  27-37 28-31  102  N=8 fragments; 2 'rim' sherds, 2 w/obvious glaze one of which has blue and white linear design elements; apparent 'white' wear / porcelain; requires historic analysis & classification N=2; b/w 1-2 cm N=2; 1 bent fragmentary; 2 very small pieces (< 0.5 cm) N=2; micro-debitage long (4.2 cm) narrow (0.3 cm) shatter fragment edge & end battered; apparent abraded worn & slightly polished surface  shatter; unknown depth heavily battered/fractured end; pebble  Remarks  Site  Cat. #  Feat. #  Test #  Depth (cmBS)  Artifact Type  Material  Dimensions (L x W x Th)  DjRi-14  22  32  ST1  27-37  flakes; debitage  basalt (?)  (see remarks)  N=7; 2 flakes b/w 3-4 cm, 1 flake b/w 2-3 cm, 1 flake (pressure) < 1 cm; 2 debitage/flake frags. b/w 2-4 cm, 1 debitage < 1cm  DjRi-14  23  32  ST1  37-47  flakes; debitage  basalt  (see remarks)  N=20; 2 flakes b/w 3-4 cm, 1 flake b/w 2-3 cm, 2 flakes b/w 1-2 cm, 3 flakes < 1 cm, 2 debitage b/w 2-3 cm, 5 debitage b/w 1-2 cm, 5 debitage < 1 cm  DjRi-14  24  32  ST1  47-57  flakes; debitage  basalt; misc. (x1)  (see remarks)  N=7; 1 flake b/w 3-4 cm (misc.), 2 flakes b/w 2-3 cm, 2 debitage b/w 23 cm, 1 debitage b/w 1-2 cm, 1 debitage < 1 cm  DjRi-14  25  32  ST1  47-57  core fragment  basalt / dacite (?)  5.1 x 3.1 x 1.5  DjRi-14  26  32  ST1  57-67  flakes; debitage  basalt / dacite  (see remarks)  * Dacite = fined grained mafic igneous (basalt-like material); Basalt = med-coarse grained mafic igneous.  103  N=9; 1 flake (6.9 x 5.6 x 2.3), 2 flakes b/w 3-4 cm, 2 flakes b/w 2-3 cm, 2 flakes < 1.5 cm, 1 debitage b/w 1-2 cm, 1 debitage (spline)  APPENDIX III - RADIOCARBON SAMPLE DATA & ANALYSIS RESULTS  Beta Sample No.  Field Collection Sample No.  Site Name  DBS (cm)  Feature Type  Sample Context  Association  Conv BP  Meas. Radiocarb. Age (BP)  Cal AD (2 sigma 95% prob.)  Cal BP (2 sigma 95% prob.)  Notes  Beta210181  DhRl-T1F5-SP1CS-1  John Mack Slough  14  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone  300+/40  290+/40  14801660 AD  470-290 BP  Single occupation; shallow housepit floor - well defined stratum; high water table  DhRl-15F1-SP6CS-1  Qithyil Island  1718  Housepit  House Living Surface  House Floor Zone  Single occupation; thin housepit floor - well define stratum; high water table  DhRl-15F2-SP5CS-1  Qithyil Island  25  Housepit  House Occupation Zone  House Occupation Zone  Single occupation; apparent occupation 'zone' - not well defined stratum; high water table  DhRl-15F2-SP5CS-2  Qithyil Island  77  Housepit  Probably non-cultural  n/a  probable natural origin embedded in basal sands  DhRl-15F4-SP2CS-1  Qithyil Island  2728  Housepit  House Living Surface  House Floor Zone  DhRl-15F5-SP4CS-1  Qithyil Island  39.546.5  Housepit  House Occupation Zone  House Occupation Zone  Beta217440  104  460+/40  450+/40  14101480 AD  540-470 BP  Single occupation; thin housepit floor - well defined stratum; high water table Single occupation; apparent occupation 'zone' - 'broad' stratum; shallow 'in-filled' depression; high water table  Beta217441  Beta210180  DhRl-15F6-CS-1  Qithyil Island  58  Plankhouse  House Living Surface  House Floor Zone III (terminal)  Erosional exposure; stratified deposit; upper house floor layer - thin & well-defined stratum  DhRl-15F6-CS-2  Qithyil Island  68  Plankhouse  House Living Surface  House Floor Zone II (intermediate)  Erosional exposure; stratified deposit; upper house floor layer - thin & well-defined stratum  DhRl-15F6-CS-3  Qithyil Island  78  Plankhouse  House Living Surface  House Floor Zone I (initial)  DgRl-17F8-AT2CS-1  Th'ewa:li  20  Housepit  Midden  House Occupation Midden; Internal  Colume sample; unstratified midden matrix; mid-upper house midden deposit; Late Period point associated w/ 0-30 cmBS  DgRl-17F8-AT2CS-2  Th'ewa:li  30  Housepit  Midden  House Occupation Midden; Internal  Colume sample; unstratified midden matrix; mid-lower house middden deposits; Late Period point (as as above) associated w/ 0-30 cmBS  DgRl-17F8-AT2CS-3  Th'ewa:li  40  Housepit  Midden  House Occupation Midden; Internal  Colume sample; unstratified midden matrix; base of house midden deposits (?)  DgRl-17F8-AT2CS-4  Th'ewa:li  48  Housepit  Midden  House Occupation Midden; Internal; Basal  105  720+/40  1070+/40  720+/40  1060+/40  12501300 AD  890-1020 AD  700-640 BP  1060930 BP  Erosional exposure; stratified deposit; upper house floor layer - thin & well-defined stratum  Colume sample; unstratified midden matrix; base of cultural deposits  DgRl-17F25-CS-1  Th'ewa:li  n/a  Burial Mound  Construction Fill / Charcoal Lens  Burial Mound  Assoc. w/ mound base; see Burial Mound Profile  DgRl-17F25-CS-2  Th'ewa:li  n/a  Burial Mound  Construction Fill  Burial Mound  From lens above CS1; see Burial Mound Profile  DgRl-17F20-AT5CS-1  Th'ewa:li  10  Platform  Midden  Platform Midden; upper  Colume sample; unstratified midden matrix; Plankhouse area?  DgRl-17F20-AT5CS-2  Th'ewa:li  20  Platform  Midden  Platform Midden; middle  Colume sample; unstratified midden matrix; Plankhouse area?  DgRl-17F20-AT5CS-3  Th'ewa:li  28  Platform  Midden  Platform Midden; basal  Colume sample; unstratified midden matrix; Plankhouse area?  DgRl-17ST1-CS-1  Th'ewa:li  46  n/a  Midden external to F8  External Midden  ST1 located on outside edge of F8; no feature number assigned; Layer @ 49-54 cmBS  DgRl-17ST1-CS-2  Th'ewa:li  4651  n/a  Midden external to F8  External Midden  ST1 located on outside edge of F8; no feature number assigned; Layer @ 49-54 cmBS  DgRl-17ST1-CS-3  Th'ewa:li  48  n/a  Midden external to F8  External Midden  Best sample from ST1; ST1 located on outside edge of F8; no feature number assigned; Layer @ 49-54 cmBS  106  DgRl-17ST1-CS-4  Th'ewa:li  50  n/a  Midden external to F8  External Midden  ST1 located on outside edge of F8; no feature number assigned; Layer @ 49-54 cmBS  DgRl-17ST2-CS-1  Th'ewa:li  20  n/a  Midden b/w F2 & F3  External Midden  ST2 located on 'bench' separating F2 and F3; Column sample; unstratified midden matrix  DgRl-17ST2-CS-1  Th'ewa:li  40  n/a  Midden b/w F2 & F3  External Midden  ST2 located on 'bench' separating F2 and F3; Column sample; unstratified midden matrix  DgRl-17ST2-CS-1  Th'ewa:li  60  n/a  Midden b/w F2 & F3  External Midden  ST2 located on 'bench' separating F2 and F3; Column sample; unstratified midden matrix  DgRl-17F2-AT4CS-1  Th'ewa:li  36  Housepit  Midden  House Occupation Midden; Internal  unstratified midden matrix; located at base of dense FCR-filled matrix (house midden?)  DgRl-17F2-AT4CS-2  Th'ewa:li  19  Housepit  Midden  House Occupation Midden; Internal  Colume sample; unstratified midden matrix ; located at top of dense FCR-filled matrix (house midden?)  DgRl-17F2-AT4CS-3  Th'ewa:li  36  Housepit  Midden  House Occupation Midden; Internal  Colume sample; unstratified midden matrix ; located at base of dense FCR-filled matrix (house midden?)  107  DgRl-17F2-AT4CS-4  Th'ewa:li  60  Housepit  Midden  House Occupation Midden; Internal  DiRi-48F3-AT1CS-2  Eyxel  23  Housepit  Roof-Fall? / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone II / Roof Fall Zone? (terminal)  NOTE: DiRi-48 carbon samples numbered per site v. per Test / Feature (6 samples taken from site)  DiRi-48F3-AT1CS-1  Eyxel  45  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone (initial)  NOTE: DiRi-48 carbon samples numbered per site v. per Test / Feature (6 samples taken from site)  DiRi-48F2-SP1CS-3  Eyxel  44  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone II (terminal)  NOTE: DiRi-48 carbon samples numbered per site v. per Test / Feature (6 samples taken from site)  DiRi-48F2-SP1CS-4  Eyxel  4647  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone II  NOTE: DiRi-48 carbon samples numbered per site v. per Test / Feature (6 samples taken from site)  Beta210178  DiRi-48F2-SP1CS-5  Eyxel  52  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone I (initial)  510+/40  510+/40  14001450 AD  550-500 BP  NOTE: DiRi-48 carbon samples numbered per site v. per Test / Feature (6 samples taken from site)  Beta210177  DiRi-48F1-AT2CS-6  Eyxel  21.5  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone  110+/40  150+/40  16701780 / 18001950 AD  280-170 / 150-0 BP  NOTE: DiRi-48 carbon samples numbered per site v. per Test / Feature (6 samples taken from site)  Beta210179  108  1170+/40  1160+/40  770-980 AD  1180-970 BP  Colume sample; unstratified midden matrix ; associated with basal cultural deposits  Beta210176  Beta210175  DjRi-14F1-ST9CS-1  Xelhalh  1315  Housepit  House Living Surface  House Floor Zone  DjRi-14F28-ST2CS-1  Xelhalh  1617  Housepit  Roof-Fall? / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone II / Roof Fall Zone? (terminal)  DjRi-14F28-ST2CS-2  Xelhalh  3031.5  Housepit  House Living Surface  House Floor Zone I (initial)  DjRi-14F25-AT1CS-1  Xelhalh  19  Housepit  House Living Surface  House Floor Zone II (terminal)  DjRi-14F25-AT1CS-2  Xelhalh  3536  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone I (initial)  DjRi-14F23-AT2CS-1  Xelhalh  2122  Housepit  Roof Fall Zone / House Midden  House Midden (terminal)  DjRi-14F23-AT2CS-2  Xelhalh  38  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone I (initial)  109  Early Contact Period based on associated artifacts; DO NOT PROCESS C14 Sample  270+/40  270+/40  15101600 / 16201670 / 17801800 AD  440-350 / 330280 / 170-150 BP  250+/40  250+/40  15201580 / 16301680 / 17701800 / 19401950 AD  430-380 / 320270 / 180-150 / 10-0 BP  DjRi-14F27-SP1CS-1  Xelhalh  30.531.5  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone I  DjRi-14F26-SP5CS-1  Xelhalh  21.522.5  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone II (terminal)  DjRi-14F26-SP5CS-2  Xelhalh  3333.7  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone I (initial)  DjRi-14F32-ST1CS-1  Xelhalh  14  Housepit / Platform  ?  ?  DjRi-14F17-ST4CS-1  Xelhalh  1213.5  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone I  DjRi-14F15-ST5CS-2  Xelhalh  1516  Housepit  Herath / Roof-Fall? / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone II / Roof Fall Zone? (terminal)  2 cm-wide slanting lense  DjRi-14F15-ST5CS-3  Xelhalh  18.521  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone I (mid)  1 cm-wide slanting lense  DjRi-14F15-ST5CS-1  Xelhalh  19.520  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone I (mid)  Sample taken from charcoal concentration on unit floor (plan); coincident with CS-3  110  CS is probably from a prehousepit/platform occupation midden  Beta210174  Beta210169  DjRi-14F13-ST6CS-1  Xelhalh  13.5  Housepit  Herath / Roof-Fall? / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone III / Roof Fall Zone? (terminal)  DjRi-14F13-ST6CS-2  Xelhalh  16  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone II (intermediate)  DjRi-14F13-ST6CS-3  Xelhalh  2324  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone I (initial)  DiRj-30F9-AT2CS-4  Shxw'ow'hamel  33  Housepit  House Midden / Roof Fall ?  House Occupation/Roof Fall Zone? (terminal)  DiRj-30F9-AT2CS-1  Shxw'ow'hamel  47.2  Housepit  House Midden  House Occupation Zone (terminal occupation)  DiRj-30F9-AT2CS-2  Shxw'ow'hamel  54.2  Housepit  House Midden  House Floor Zone (intermediate)  DiRj-30F9-AT2CS-3  Shxw'ow'hamel  59.1  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone I (initial)  111  260+/40  270+/40  15201590 / 16201670 / 17701800 / 19401950 AD  430-360 / 330280 / 180-150 / 10-0 BP Sloping deposit  2200+/40  2160+/40  380-160 BC  23302120 BP  Beta210172  Beta210173  DiRj-30F18-ST4CS-5  Shxw'ow'hamel  1718  Housepit  Disturbed modern sediments  DiRj-30F18-ST4CS-1  Shxw'ow'hamel  2325  Housepit  House Floor  House Floor Zone III (terminal)  DiRj-30F18-ST4CS-2  Shxw'ow'hamel  2931  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone II (intermediate)  DiRj-30F18-ST4CS-3  Shxw'ow'hamel  35.538.5  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone I (initial upper)  DiRj-30F18-ST4CS-4  Shxw'ow'hamel  3840  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone I (initial lower)  DiRj-30F6-SP4CS-1  Shxw'ow'hamel  6061  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone II (terminal)  DiRj-30F6-SP4CS-2  Shxw'ow'hamel  6768  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone II (intermediate)  DiRj-30F6-SP4CS-3  Shxw'ow'hamel  7071  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone I (initial)  Disturbed sediments capping house deposits  112  modern  modern  modern  modern  Possible roof - terminal floor transition (floor capped by roof) = disturbed material per C14 results (!!) terminal floor - roof fall zone; top of floor / capping of floor  Upper portion of initial floor zone / hearth - same layer as CS-4  2040+/40  2050+/40  160-50 AD  21201900 BP  Lower portion of initial floor zone / hearth - same layer as CS-3  Beta210170  DiRj-30F6-AT1CS-1  Shxw'ow'hamel  46  Housepit  Roof Fall Zone  Roof Fall Zone III (terminal)  DiRj-30F14-SP1CS-1  Shxw'ow'hamel  4244  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone II (terminal)  DiRj-30F14-SP1CS-2  Shxw'ow'hamel  5759  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone I (initial)  DiRj-30F14-SP1CS-3  Shxw'ow'hamel  70  Housepit  Initial occupation / possible prehouespit occupation  Initial occupation / possible prehousepit occupation (?)  Associated with possible pre-housepit deposit  DiRj-30SP3-CS-1  Shxw'ow'hamel  30  n/a  Bench' area b/w F7 and F9  Midden b/w F7 and F9  Sample taken from probe of 'bench' area between F9 and F7  DiRj-30SP2-CS-1  Shxw'ow'hamel  3233  Bench?  Bench' area outside F9  Midden outside F9 / Bench Surface ?  DiRj-30F4-ST3CS-1  Shxw'ow'hamel  3334  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone II (terminal)  DiRj-30F4-ST3CS-2 DiRj-30F13-ST1CS-1  Shxw'ow'hamel  3839  Housepit  Roof Fall Zone  House Floor Zone I (initial)  Shxw'ow'hamel  24.5  Housepit  Posthousepit midden (?)  Post-housepit midden (?)  113  2020+/40  1980+/40  110 BC 70 AD  20601880 BP  Beta210171  Beta217438  DiRj-30F13-ST1CS-2  Shxw'ow'hamel  3339  Housepit  Roof Fall Zone  Roof Fall Zone (terminal)  DiRj-30F13-ST1CS-3  Shxw'ow'hamel  5253  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone II (terminal - upper)  DiRj-30F13-ST1CS-4  Shxw'ow'hamel  5354  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone II (terminal)  DiRj-30F13-ST1CS-5  Shxw'ow'hamel  5758  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone I (initial)  DiRj-30F12-ST2CS-1  Shxw'ow'hamel  2022  Housepit  Roof Fall Zone  Roof Fall Zone III (terminal)  Associated with ash pocket at upper margin of Roof Fall zone  DiRj-30F12-ST2CS-2  Shxw'ow'hamel  2930  Housepit  Roof Fall Zone  Roof Fall Zone III (terminal)  Associated with silty ash layer - Roof Fall zone; underlying ash pocket; same stratum as DjRi-30F12-ST2-CS-3  DiRj-30F12-ST2CS-3  Shxw'ow'hamel  2628  Housepit  Roof Fall Zone  Roof Fall Zone III (terminal)  Associated with silty ash layer - Roof Fall zone; same stratum as DjRi-30F12-ST2-CS-2  DiRj-30F12-ST2CS-4  Shxw'ow'hamel  4445  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone III (terminal )  114  1490+/40  2050+/40  1520+/40  2050+/40  460-480 / 520-650 AD  170 BC 40 AD  14801470 / 14301300 BP  21201900 BP  Beta217439  DiRj-30F12-ST2CS-5  Shxw'ow'hamel  4849  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone II (intermediate)  DiRj-30F12-ST2CS-6  Shxw'ow'hamel  5354  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone I (initial)  DgRl-17F25-WS-1  Th'ewa:li  n/a  Burial Mound  Construction Fill / Charcoal Lens  Burial Mound  Assoc. w/ CS2; see Burial Mound Profile  DgRl-17ST1-WS-1  Th'ewa:li  54  n/a  Midden external to F8  External Midden  ST1 located on outside edge of F8; no feature number assigned; Layer @ 49-54 cmBS  DjRi-14F28-ST2WS-1  Xelhalh  1617  Housepit  Roof-Fall? / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone II / Roof Fall Zone? (terminal)  Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-14F28-ST2-CS-1  2110+/40  2110+/40  340-320 BC / 21040 BC  22902270 BP/ 21601990 BP  WOOD SPECIES (WS)_ ID  115  DjRi-14F28-ST2WS-2  Xelhalh  3031.5  Housepit  House Living Surface  House Floor Zone I (initial); added to F28-CS2 due to small sample size  Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-14F28-ST2-CS-2  DjRi-14F25-AT1WS-1  Xelhalh  32  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone I (initial)  Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-14F25-AT1-CS-2  DjRi-14F23-AT2WS-1  Xelhalh  38  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone I (initial)  Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-14F23-AT2-CS-2  DjRi-14F27-SP1WS-1  Xelhalh  30.531.5  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone I  Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-14F27-SP1-CS-1  DjRi-14F17-ST4WS-1  Xelhalh  1213.5  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone I  Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-14F17-ST4-CS-1  DjRi-14F15-ST5WS-2  Xelhalh  1516  Housepit  Hearth / Roof-Fall? / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone III / Roof Fall Zone? (terminal)  Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-14F15-ST5-CS-2  DjRi-14F15-ST5WS-3  Xelhalh  18.521  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone II (intermediate)  Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-14F15-ST5-CS-3  DjRi-14F15-ST5WS-1  Xelhalh  19.520  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone I (initial)  Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-14F15-ST5-CS-1  116  DjRi-14F13-ST6WS-1  Xelhalh  13.5  Housepit  Hearth / Roof-Fall? / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone III / Roof Fall Zone? (terminal)  Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-14F13-ST6-CS-1  DjRi-14F13-ST6WS-2  Xelhalh  16  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone II (intermediate)  Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-14F13-ST6-CS-2  DiRj-30F13-WS-1  Shxw'ow'hamel  52  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone II (terminal - upper)  Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-30F13-ST1-CS-3  DiRj-30F12-WS-1  Shxw'ow'hamel  4445  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone III (terminal )  Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-30F12-ST2-CS-4  DiRj-30F12-WS-2  Shxw'ow'hamel  5354  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone I (initial)  Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-30F12-ST2-CS-6  SOIL (SS)  & BOT. ID  DiRj-30F12-ST2SS-1  Shxw'ow'hamel  30  Housepit  Roof Fall Zone  Roof Fall Zone III (terminal); small sample  Soil Sample associated with silty ash layer - Roof Fall zone; underlying ash pocket; same stratum as DjRi-30-F12-ST2-CS-2 and C3  117  DiRj-30F13-ST1SS-1  Shxw'ow'hamel  5254  Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface  House Floor Zone II (terminal); good size sample  118  APPENDIX IV - TEST UNIT PROFILES - W/ RADIOCARBON SAMPLE LOCATI0NS & RESULTS -  DhRl-T1 - ‘John Mack Slough’ - DhRl-15 - Qithyil Island - DgRl-17 - Th’ewá:lí - DiRi-48 - Eyxel - DiRj-30 - Shxw’ow’hamel - DiRj-14 - Xelhálh  119  ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1) - Test Unit Profiles DhRl-T1-F5-ST1  Note: DhRl-T2-F2-ST2 Profile and Basal Substrate measurements for all housepit features High ground water levels at the site limited excavation to F5 and F2, with visible water in-filling the remaining features. Excavations were attempted but significantly hampered within F2 with profile visibility blocked by the water table beyond 5-8 cmBS. The visible portion of the test unit, and sediments noted below that point, correspond to the description of ST1 (above). Notably, the depth of the very hard compact gravel substrate was confirmed at about 15 cmBS by probing (using a fine metal skewer) F2. Similar probing of the other housepit features at John Mack Slough revealed very similar depths of the gravel substrate (at housepit center) ranging between 15-17 cmBS. The common depth of the basal gravel substrate throughout all the housepit features at this site strongly suggests their common age, as being built at roughly the same time and with only shallow cultural deposits and limited house floor strata. A ‘common age’ equivalent to the radiocarbon age established for F5 -- Cal BP 470-290 -- is suggested for all the housepit features at this site.  120  Qithyil Island (DhRl-15) - Test Unit Profiles DhRl-15-F3-SP1  Note: DhRl-15-F1-SP3 - essentially the same as described above; w/possible Floor Zone at the transition b/w the loam and sand layers; not well defined.  121  DhRl-15-F4-SP2  122  DhRl-15-F5-SP4  123  DhRl-15-F2-SP5  124  DhRl-15-F6 - Plankhouse feature riverbank exposure - profile  125  Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) - Test Unit Profiles DgRl-17-F10-AT1  126  DgRl-17-F8-AT2  127  DgRl-17-F12-AT3  128  DgRl-17-F2-AT4  129  DgRl-17-F20-AT5  130  DgRl-17-F17-ST1  131  DgRl-17-ST2  132  DgRl-17-F25 - Earthen Burial Mound Roadcut Exposure  133  Eyxel (DiRi-48) - Test Unit Profiles DiRi-48-F3-AT1  134  DiRi-48-F1-AT2  135  DiRi-48-F2-SP1  136  DiRi-48-F4-SP2 (no picture currently available) Depth Below Surface (cm) 0-13  Description very dark brown, humic layer, sandy silt w/loose compaction, w/rootlets; no cultural apparent material  13-22  brown sandy silt, medium loose compaction, few inclusions, some rootlets; no cultural apparent material  22-34  orangey-brown sandy silt, medium loose compaction; no apparent cultural material  34-47  orangey-tan silty sand, medium loose compaction, few inclusions; no apparent cultural material  47-50  orangey-tan silty sand w/charcoal flecks, medium loose compaction; apparent cultural debris (sparse charcoal) - possible occupation zone  50-72  orangey-tan silty sand w/root mottling, medium loose compaction; no apparent cultural material  137  Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) - Test Unit Profiles DiRj-30-F6-AT1/SP4  138  DiRj-30-F9-AT-2  139  DiRj-30-F13-ST1  140  DiRj-30-F12-ST2  141  DiRj-30-F4-ST3  142  DiRj-30-F18-ST4  143  DiRj-30-F14-SP1  144  DiRj-30-SP2 (F9 exterior)  145  DiRj-30-SP3 (b/w F9 & F7)  146  DiRj-30-SP5 (b/w F6 & F18)  147  Xelhálh (DjRi-14) - Test Unit Profiles DjRi-14-F25-AT1  148  DjRi-14-F23-AT2  149  DjRi-14-F508-AT3  150  DjRi-14-F32-ST1  151  DjRi-14-F28-ST2  152  DjRi-14-F19-ST3  153  DjRi-14-F17-ST4  154  DjRi-14-F15-ST5  155  DjRi-14-F13-ST6  156  DjRi-14-F2-ST7  157  DjRi-14-F509-ST8  158  DjRi-14-F1-ST9  159  DjRi-14-F27-SP1 & SP2  160  DjRi-14-F26-SP5  161  DjRi-14-SP6 & SP7 (b/w F508 & F509)  162  DjRi-14-F1001-SP1  163  APPENDIX V - PALEOBOTANICAL ANALYSIS (DiRj-30-F13) Date: Nov. 16, 2005 House: Unit: Exact Provenience: F13 52-55cm BS ash/charcoal lens Feat. No.: Feat. Description: Flot Sample No. 1 Volume (l): Subsample No: Volume (l):  Sorted by: ne Layer:  Provenience  Charcoal  Total (g)  24.18  Seeds Total  Species 4.0+2.0(g) 1.0+.425(g) catch (g) Conifers Abies Chamaecyparus Picea Pinus Psuedotsuga Taxus T. plicata Tsuga Unided _____________ Decidious Acer Alnus Amelanchier Betula Cornus nuttallii Gaultheria Oemleria Physocarpus Populus Prunus Rosa Rubus Quercus Rhamnus Sambucus Salix Sorbus sitchensis Symphoricarpos Vaccinium Unided _____________  N  N  Amelanchier Arctostaphylos Berberis Brassica Carex Chenopodium C. canadensis C. stonolonifera Corylus Crataegus Fragaria Gaultheria "Grass" Juncus M. dilatatum Oemleria  2.5  N 11  2  Needles Total Abies Chamaecyparus Picea Pinus Psuedotsuga Taxus T. plicata Tsuga Unidable Cone Parts Abies Chamaecyparus Picea Pinus Psuedotsuga Taxus T. plicata  N 13  1 3  1 8 N  ____ Tsuga _ N "Root" _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ 2 _____________ 1 _____________ _____________  _____________  Phacelia Prunus Rhamnus Ribes R. gymnocarpa R. nutkana Rubus Sambucus Scirpus Smilacina Symphoricarpos Trifolium Vaccinium Viburnum Solanum Unknown ____________ ____________ Unided A Unided B Unided C  _____________  ____ ____________ _____ _____________ _  164  Other unid.plt rmn(N) 5 unided tissue (g) 1.33 1 conifer bud (N) 1 1 decid bud (N) decid leaf (N) modern (g) 0.02 4 cone parts (N) 2 _____________  _____________  APPENDIX VI - EXCAVATION & SAMPLE FORMS  Soil Probe (SP) / Auger Test (AT) / Shovel Test (ST) Record Page___of____  Site No.:__________ Test Designation:_________ Feature No.:_________ Date:__________ Excavators:_____________________________________________ Provenience (Local Grid □ UTM □): UTM Datum: NAD 83 □ Other_____ Surface: N Base: N E E El. (mAsl) El. (mAsl) Auger / Probe Dimensions: Bore Diameter_____ (cm) Bore Depth_____ (cm) Test Dimensions (m): ________ Test Shape: round / square Screening: N / Y _______% Mesh Size_____(in) Natural □ Arbitrary □ _____ cm level Samples Collected: C14 □ Soil □ Other ___________ Attached Forms: Profile □ C14 Sample □ Other______________________ Placement / Rational: Test / Level Descriptions: (observations, interpretations, disturbance, associations, artifacts, features, samples) Depth (cmBS) Samples  Munsell Matrix Description (color, texture, composition, compaction..// cultural?) Artifacts/FCR /  Summary Notes: Conclusions (use ‘Notes - Continuation Sheet’ if necessary):  Sample Types/IDs: Photo Record (frame designations):  165  Page___of____  Notes - Continuation Sheet Site No.:__________ Test Designation:_________ Feature No.:_________ Date:__________ Excavators:_____________________________________________ Notes:  166  Soil Probe (SP) / Auger Test (AT) / Shovel Test (ST) -- Profile Sheet Site No.:__________ Test Designation:_________ Feature No.:_________ Date:__________ Excavators:_____________________________________________ Provenience: Local Grid □ UTM □ UTM Datum: NAD 83 □ Other_____ Surface: N Base: N E E El. (mAsl) El. (mAsl) Profile: ( ____ wall)  (imprint graph paper here)  167  Radiocarbon Sample Record Site No.:__________ Test Designation:_______ C14 Sample No.:_______________ Feature No.:________ Feature Type:________________________________________ Complete Sample Designation:_____________________________________________ Date:__________ Excavators:_________________________________________________________ ____ Sample Provenience (Local Grid □ UTM □): UTM Datum: NAD 83 □ Other_____ N E El. (mAsl) Description:  Sample Type / Quantity: (wood, shell, bone, charcoal, carbon-rich soil…)  Matrix: (Munsell, color, texture, composition, etc.)  Stratigraphy: (facies, associations)  Collection Rational - Context / Feature Association: (what does this sample date?) Collection Methods / Packaging: Disturbances / Contamination (?):  Photo Record (frame designations):  168  APPENDIX VII - SITE ‘POST’ MAPS WITH SURVEYED SURFACE POINTS ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1) - Post Map  169  Qithyil Island (DhRl-15) - Post Map  170  Sqwa:la (DgRl-6) - Post Map  171  Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) - Post Map  172  Eyxel (DiRi-48) - Post Map  173  Sxwóxwiymelh ‘South’ (DiRj-1) - Post Map  174  Sxwóxwiymelh ‘North’ (DiRj-1) - Post Map  175  Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) - Post Map  176  Xelhálh (DjRi-14) - Post Map  177  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 23 1
Canada 22 0
Germany 20 41
China 6 1
Japan 5 0
Bulgaria 3 0
Russia 2 0
Poland 1 0
Slovak Republic 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 25 42
Ashburn 12 0
Tokyo 5 0
Burnaby 5 0
Vancouver 4 0
Beijing 4 0
Victoria 4 0
Mountain View 4 0
Sofia 3 0
Ottawa 2 0
Surrey 2 0
Shenzhen 2 1
Abbotsford 2 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.41328.1-0075440/manifest

Comment

Related Items