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 (DgRl- 17), 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  i  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.”  ii 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.      iii   Table of Contents   0HINTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 154H  1HOBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................ 155H3 2HRESEARCH PLAN AND METHODS ................................................................................ 156H3 3HMapping ....................................................................................................................... 157H4 4HReview of the Mapping Work .................................................................................... 158H4 5HGeoreferencing the Sites ............................................................................................. 159H  6HTopographic Survey of the Sites ................................................................................. 160H  7HMapping ...................................................................................................................... 161H8 8HAdditional Sites Mapped in the Fraser Valley Project (2004-05) .............................. 162H8 9HTest Excavations: Soil Probes, Auger Tests, and Shovel Tests............................... 163H9 10HRadiocarbon Sampling and Dating ......................................................................... 164H10 11HRESULTS - SETTLEMENT AND HOUSEPIT FEATURE MAPPING AND TESTING ................................................................................................................................................. 165H 2 12H‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1) ............................................................................... 166H12 13HMapping Methods .................................................................................................... 167H12 14HSummary Description .............................................................................................. 168H12 15HQithyil Island (DhRl-15)........................................................................................... 169H18 16HMapping Methods .................................................................................................... 170H18 17HSummary Description .............................................................................................. 171H18 18HSqwa:la (DgRl-6) ....................................................................................................... 172H24 19HMapping Methods .................................................................................................... 173H24 20HSummary Description .............................................................................................. 174H24 21HTh’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) .................................................................................................. 175H29 22HMapping Methods .................................................................................................... 176H29 23HSummary Description .............................................................................................. 177H30 24HEyxel (DiRi-48) .......................................................................................................... 178H38 25HMapping Methods .................................................................................................... 179H38 26HSummary Description .............................................................................................. 180H38 27HSxwóxwiymelh (DiRj-1) - a.k.a. ‘Katz’ ................................................................... 181H44 28HMapping Methods .................................................................................................... 182H44 29HSummary Description .............................................................................................. 183H45 30HShxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) ........................................................................................ 184H53 31HMapping Methods .................................................................................................... 185H53 32HSite Summary ........................................................................................................... 186H53 33HXelhálh (DjRi-14) ...................................................................................................... 187H61 34HMapping Methods .................................................................................................... 188H61 35HSummary Description................................................................................................ 189H62 36HSUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 190H76 37HREFERENCES CITED......................................................................................................... 191H77 38HAPPENDIX I - MAPPING DATA: Feature, Test, and Radiocarbon Sample Proveniences ................................................................................................................................................. 192H79 39H‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1):.............................................................................. 193H79 40HJMS (DhRl-T1) - Feature Center Points ................................................................ 194H79 41HJMS (DhRl-T1) - Test & Carbon Sample Locations .............................................. 195H79  iv 42HQithyil Island (DhRl-15): ......................................................................................... 196H80 43HQithyil (DhRl-15) - Feature Center Points ............................................................. 197H80 44HQithyil (DhRl-15) - Test & Carbon Sample Locations ........................................... 198H80 45HQithyil (DhRl-15) - Mapping Station Locations ..................................................... 199H80 46HSqwa:la (DhRl-6): ..................................................................................................... 200H81 47HSqwa:la (DhRl-6) - Feature Center Points ............................................................. 201H81 48HSqwa:la (DhRl-6)  - Test & Carbon Sample Locations .......................................... 202H81 49HSqwa:la (DhRl-6) - Mapping Station Locations ..................................................... 203H81 50HTh’ewá:lí (DgRl-17): ................................................................................................. 204H82 51HTh’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) - Feature Center Points......................................................... 205H82 52HTh’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) - Test Locations ..................................................................... 206H82 53HTh’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) - Radiocarbon Samples Locations ........................................ 207H84 54HTh’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) - Mapping Station Locations................................................. 208H84 55HEyxel (DiRi-48):......................................................................................................... 209H85 56HEyxel (DiRi-48) - Feature Center Points ................................................................ 210H85 57HEyxel (DiRi-48) - Test Locations ............................................................................. 211H85 58HEyxel (DiRi-48) - Radiocarbon Samples Locations................................................ 212H85 59HSxwóxwiymelh (DiRj-1): .......................................................................................... 213H86 60HSxwóxwiymelh ‘South’ (DiRj-1) - Feature Center Points...................................... 214H86 61HSxwóxwiymelh ‘North’ (DiRj-1) - Feature, Test & Carbon Samples Locations... 215H86 62HSxwóxwiymelh ‘South’ (DiRj-1) - Mapping Station Locations ............................. 216H86 63HShxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30):....................................................................................... 217H87 64HShxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) - Feature Center Points ............................................... 218H87 65HShxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) - Test & Carbon Sample Locations ............................. 219H87 66HXelhálh (DjRi-14):..................................................................................................... 220H91 67HXelhálh (DjRi-14) - Feature Center Points............................................................. 221H91 68HXelhálh (DjRi-14) - Test & Carbon Sample Locations .......................................... 222H91 69HXelhálh (DjRi-14) - Mapping Station Locations .................................................... 223H94 70HAPPENDIX II – ARTIFACT CATALOGUE (DhRl-T1; DgRl-17; DiRj-30; DjRi-14) .. 224H96 71HAPPENDIX III - RADIOCARBON SAMPLE DATA & ANALYSIS RESULTS........... 225H104 72HAPPENDIX IV - TEST UNIT PROFILES  - W/ RADIOCARBON SAMPLE LOCATI0NS & RESULTS ................................................................................................... 226H119 73H‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1) - Test Unit Profiles............................................ 227H120 74HDhRl-T1-F5-ST1 ..................................................................................................... 228H120 75HQithyil Island (DhRl-15) - Test Unit Profiles ....................................................... 229H121 76HDhRl-15-F3-SP1 .................................................................................................... 230H121 77HDhRl-15-F5-SP4 .................................................................................................... 231H123 78HDhRl-15-F2-SP5 .................................................................................................... 232H124 79HDhRl-15-F6 - Plankhouse feature riverbank exposure - profile.......................... 233H125 80HTh’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) - Test Unit Profiles .............................................................................. 234H126 81HDgRl-17-F10-AT1 .................................................................................................. 235H126 82HDgRl-17-F8-AT2 .................................................................................................... 236H127 83HDgRl-17-F12-AT3 .................................................................................................. 237H128 84HDgRl-17-F2-AT4 .................................................................................................... 238H129 85HDgRl-17-F20-AT5 .................................................................................................. 239H130 86HDgRl-17-F17-ST1................................................................................................... 240H131 87HDgRl-17-ST2........................................................................................................... 241H132 88HDgRl-17-F25 - Earthen Burial Mound Roadcut Exposure ................................. 242H133   v 89HEyxel (DiRi-48) - Test Unit Profiles....................................................................... 243H134 90HDiRi-48-F3-AT1 ..................................................................................................... 244H134 91HDiRi-48-F2-SP1 ..................................................................................................... 245H136 92HDiRi-48-F4-SP2 ..................................................................................................... 246H137 93HShxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) - Test Unit Profiles..................................................... 247H138 94HDiRj-30-F6-AT1/SP4 ............................................................................................. 248H138 95HDiRj-30-F9-AT-2.................................................................................................... 249H139 96HDiRj-30-F12-ST2 ................................................................................................... 250H141 97HDiRj-30-F18-ST4 ................................................................................................... 251H143 98HDiRj-30-F14-SP1 ................................................................................................... 252H144 99HDiRj-30-SP2 (F9 exterior) ..................................................................................... 253H145 100HDiRj-30-SP3 (b/w F9 & F7)................................................................................... 254H146 101HDiRj-30-SP5 (b/w F6 & F18)................................................................................. 255H147 102HXelhálh (DjRi-14) - Test Unit Profiles................................................................... 256H148 103HDjRi-14-F25-AT1 ................................................................................................... 257H148 104HDjRi-14-F23-AT2 ................................................................................................... 258H149 105HDjRi-14-F508-AT3 ................................................................................................. 259H150 106HDjRi-14-F32-ST1 ................................................................................................... 260H151 107HDjRi-14-F28-ST2 ................................................................................................... 261H152 108HDjRi-14-F19-ST3 ................................................................................................... 262H153 109HDjRi-14-F17-ST4 ................................................................................................... 263H154 110HDjRi-14-F15-ST5 ................................................................................................... 264H155 111HDjRi-14-F13-ST6 ................................................................................................... 265H156 112HDjRi-14-F2-ST7 ..................................................................................................... 266H157 113HDjRi-14-F509-ST8 ................................................................................................. 267H158 114HDjRi-14-F1-ST9 ..................................................................................................... 268H159 115HDjRi-14-F27-SP1 & SP2........................................................................................ 269H160 116HDjRi-14-F26-SP5 ................................................................................................... 270H161 117HDjRi-14-SP6 & SP7 (b/w F508 & F509)............................................................... 271H162 118HDjRi-14-F1001-SP1 ............................................................................................... 272H163 119HAPPENDIX V - PALEOBOTANICAL ANALYSIS (DiRj-30-F13).................................. 273H164 120HAPPENDIX VI - EXCAVATION & SAMPLE FORMS.................................................... 274H165 121HSoil Probe (SP) / Auger Test (AT) / Shovel Test (ST) Record................................ 275H165 122HNotes - Continuation Sheet...................................................................................... 276H166 123HSoil Probe (SP) / Auger Test (AT) / Shovel Test (ST) -- Profile Sheet .................. 277H167 124HAPPENDIX VII - SITE ‘POST’ MAPS WITH SURVEYED SURFACE POINTS ........ 278H169 125H‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1) - Post Map ........................................................... 279H169 126HQithyil Island (DhRl-15) - Post Map ....................................................................... 280H170 127HSqwa:la (DgRl-6) - Post Map................................................................................... 281H171 128HTh’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) - Post Map .............................................................................. 282H172 129HEyxel (DiRi-48) - Post Map ..................................................................................... 283H173 130HSxwóxwiymelh ‘South’ (DiRj-1) - Post Map........................................................... 284H174 131HSxwóxwiymelh ‘North’ (DiRj-1) - Post Map........................................................... 285H175 132HShxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) - Post Map .................................................................... 286H176 133HXelhálh (DjRi-14) - Post Map.................................................................................. 287H177      vi   List of Figures  134HFigure 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............................................................................................... 288H  135HFigure 2a. ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1) contour map (10 cm) with features, mapping station, and test locations. ......................................................................... 289H15 136HFigure 2b. Detail - ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1) contour/shaded relief map (5 cm contours) with housepit features. ............................................................................. 290H16 137HFigure 2c. ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1) surface map with housepit features........ 291H17 138HFigure 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)......................................................................................... 292H21 139HFigure 3b. Detail - Qithyil Island (DhRl-15) contour/shaded relief map (5 cm contours) with housepit features. ............................................................................. 293H22 Figure 3c. Qithyil Island (DhRl-15) surface map with housepit features (F1-5)    and apparent plankhouse platform (F6). ................................................................... 294H23 Figure 4a. Sqwa:la (DhRl-6) contour map (10 cm) with mapping station and   feature locations. ....................................................................................................... 295H26 140HFigure 4b. Detail - Sqwa:la (DhRl-6) contour/shaded relief map (5 cm contours). ... 296H27 141HFigure 4c. Sqwa:la (DhRl-6) surface map with housepit features. ............................. 297H28 Figure 5a. Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) contour  map (10 cm contours) with tests, mapping stations, and feature locations. ................................................................................. 298H33 142HFigure 5b. East Detail - Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) contour/shaded relief map (5 cm contours) with features............................................................................................. 299H34 143HFigure 5c. West Detail - Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) contour/shaded relief map (5 cm contours) with features............................................................................................. 300H35 144HFigure 5d. Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) surface map with features (note: southeast bank of Sweltzer Creek not shown). ..................................................................................... 301H36 145HFigure 5e.  Surface map of DgRl-17-F25 - earthen mound feature - showing the approximate mound shape, outline, and cairn exposure. ......................................... 302H37 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 146HFigure 6d. Detail - Eyxel (DiRi 48) surface map with housepit features. .................. 303H43 Figure 7a. Sxwóxwiymelh ‘South’ contour map (10 cm contours) with features    and mapping station locations.................................................................................. 304H49 Figure 7b. Sxwóxwiymelh ‘North’ contour map (10 cm contours) with features...... 305H50 147HFigure 7c. Sxwóxwiymelh ‘South’ surface map with housepit features. ................... 306H51 Figure 7d.  Composite surface image of Sxwóxwiymelh (DiRj-1) ‘South’ and ‘North’ with radiocarbon results................................................................................. 307H52 Figure 10a. Xelhálh (DjRi-14) contour map (10 cm contours) with features............. 66 148HFigure 10b. Xelhálh (DjRi-14) - ‘Main Settlement Area’ contour map (10 cm contours) with tests, mapping stations, and feature locations.................................. 308H67  vii 149HFigure 10c. Xelhálh -‘East Terraces and Rock Walls’ Detail - contour map (10 cm contours) with tests, mapping stations, and feature locations.................................. 309H68 Figure 10d. Xelhálh Detail -‘Main Settlement - Eastern Detail’ - shaded    relief/contour map..................................................................................................... 310H69 Figure 10e. Xelhálh Detail -‘Main Settlement - Central Detail’ - shaded    relief/contour map..................................................................................................... 311H70 150HFigure 10f. Xelhálh Detail -‘Main Settlement - Western Detail’ - shaded relief/contour map.................................................................................................... 312H71 151HFigure 10g. Xelhálh (DjRi-14) surface map with features. ........................................ 313H72 Figure 11. Sanded ‘cookie’ sample from Douglas fir stump used for the dendrochronological dating of F508........................................................................ 73 152HFigure 12. Radiocarbon date results - arranged chronologically. ............................... 314H74 153HFigure 13. Radiocarbon date results - arranged chronologically by settlement.......... 315H75  1 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.    2  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.   3 OBJECTIVES  The primary goal of this project is to investigate housepit settlements within the ‘Up- River’ 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 multi- disciplinary ‘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   4 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  5 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 (DgRl- 17) 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’ (DhRl- T1)-- 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  6 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  7 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  8 (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  9 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  10 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-17- F3-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  11 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-F8- ST2-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.    12 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 post- processed 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  13 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 well- pronounced 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-to- corner 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  14 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.  15   Figure 2a. ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1) contour map (10 cm) with features, mapping station, and test locations. 16   Figure 2b. Detail - ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1) contour/shaded relief map (5 cm contours) with housepit features. 17    Figure 2c. ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1) surface map with housepit features.    18 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 post- processing.   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 post- processing.   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  19 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.  20 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.   21   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).   22   Figure 3b. Detail - Qithyil Island (DhRl-15) contour/shaded relief map (5 cm contours) with housepit features.  23   Figure 3c. Qithyil Island (DhRl-15) surface map with housepit features (F1-5) and apparent plankhouse platform (F6).  24 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 sub- circular 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  25 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.    26   Figure 4a. Sqwa:la (DhRl-6) contour map (10 cm) with mapping station and feature locations. 27        Figure 4b. Detail - Sqwa:la (DhRl-6) contour/shaded relief map (5 cm contours). 28   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).  29 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  30 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 post- processed 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  31 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); F33- F37 (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 land- altering 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.    32 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 side- walls 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.   33     Figure 5a. Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) contour  map (10 cm contours) with tests, mapping stations, and feature locations.  34        Figure 5b. East Detail - Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) contour/shaded relief map (5 cm contours) with features.     35        Figure 5c. West Detail - Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) contour/shaded relief map (5 cm contours) with features 36    Figure 5d. Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) surface map with features (note: southeast bank of Sweltzer Creek not shown). 37    Figure 5e.  Surface map of DgRl-17-F25 - earthen mound feature - showing the approximate mound shape, outline, and cairn exposure. 38 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 post- processing 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 (DiRi- 15), 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  39 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.       40    Figure 6a. Eyxel (DiRi 48) contour map (10 cm) with features, mapping station, and test locations. 41  Figure 6b. Detail - Eyxel (DiRi 48) contour map (5 cm) - with housepit features, mapping station, and test locations. 42    Figure 6c. Eyxel (DiRi 48) surface map with housepit features. 43    Figure 6d. Detail - Eyxel (DiRi 48) surface map with housepit features.    44  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  45 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 STN10? STN11? STN12? 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  46 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  47 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 2350- 2160 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 disturbance- related features.    48  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”).  49  Figure 7a. Sxwóxwiymelh ‘South’ contour map (10 cm contours) with features and mapping station locations.  50  Figure 7b. Sxwóxwiymelh ‘North’ contour map (10 cm contours) with features.  51    Figure 7c. Sxwóxwiymelh ‘South’ surface map with housepit features.  52     Figure 7d.  Composite surface image of Sxwóxwiymelh (DiRj-1) ‘South’ and ‘North’ with radiocarbon results  - per Lenert and Lepofsky (2005, 2006). 53 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  54 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  55 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  56 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.    57   Figure 9a. Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) contour map (10 cm) with mapping stations, tests, and feature locations. 58   Figure 9b. Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) - Southern Section Detail - contour/shaded relief map (5 cm contours). 59   Figure 9c. Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) - Northern Section Detail - contour/shaded relief map (5 cm contours). 60   Figure 9d. Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) surface map with housepit features.  61 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  62 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  63 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  64 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 rock- lined 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 post- housepit 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.    65 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.   66  Figure 10a. Xelhálh (DjRi-14) contour map (10 cm contours) with features. 67  Figure 10b. Xelhálh (DjRi-14) - ‘Main Settlement Area’ contour map (10 cm contours) with tests, mapping stations, and feature locations. 68      Figure 10c. Xelhálh -‘East Terraces and Rock Walls’ Detail - contour map (10 cm contours) with tests, mapping stations, and feature locations. 69       Figure 10d. Xelhálh Detail -‘Main Settlement - Eastern Detail’ - shaded relief/contour map (5 cm contours) with features.  70      Figure 10e. Xelhálh Detail -‘Main Settlement - Central Detail’ - shaded relief/contour map (5 cm contours) with features.   71    Figure 10f. Xelhálh Detail -‘Main Settlement - Western Detail’ - shaded relief/contour map (5 cm contours) with features.    72   Figure 10g. Xelhálh (DjRi-14) surface map with features.  73    Figure 11. Sanded ‘cookie’ sample from Douglas fir stump used for the dendrochronological dating of F508.    74 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).    DiRj-30-F09-3 DiRj-30-F12-6 DiRj-30-F12-4 DiRj-30-F18-4 DiRj-30-F04-1 DiRj-30-F13-5 DgRl-17-F02-4 DgRl-17-F08-4 DhRl-15-F06-3 DiRi-48-F02-5 DhRl-15-F04-1 DhRl-T1-F05-1 DjRi-14-F13-3 DjRi-14-F23-2 DjRI-14-F28-2 DiRi-48-F01-6 Feature Designation 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Radiocarbon Age Max. Age - Cal BP Min. Age - Cal BP  Figure 12. Radiocarbon date results - arranged chronologically.  75   DiRj-30-F09-3 DiRj-30-F12-6 DiRj-30-F12-4 DiRj-30-F18-4 DiRj-30-F04-1 DiRj-30-F13-5 DgRl-17-F02-4 DgRl-17-F08-4 DhRl-15-F06-3 DhRl-15-F04-1 DiRi-48-F02-5 DiRi-48-F01-6 DhRl-T1-F05-1 DjRi-14-F13-3 DjRi-14-F23-2 DjRI-14-F28-2 Feature Designation 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Radiocarbon Age Max. Age - Cal BP Min. Age - Cal BP  Figure 13. Radiocarbon date results - arranged chronologically by settlement.  76 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.      77 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.    78   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.     79  APPENDIX I - MAPPING DATA: Feature, Test, and Radiocarbon Sample Proveniences   ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1):   JMS (DhRl-T1) - Feature Center Points  Label Easting Northing Elev F1 579416.897 5459815.651 9.840 F2 579428.303 5459816.896 9.910 F3 579436.805 5459821.250 9.900 F4 579440.538 5459828.716 9.810 F5 579428.717 5459770.652 9.980 F6 579446.759 5459816.481 9.830 F7 579458.994 5459826.020 9.640 F8 579448.625 5459822.287 10.580 F14 579449.869 5459844.683 9.910 F15 579469.984 5459846.135 9.620 F16 579473.095 5459829.338 9.670 F18 579481.182 5459833.693 9.680 F36 579533.440 5459825.813 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    80 Qithyil Island (DhRl-15):   Qithyil (DhRl-15) - Feature Center Points  Feature CorrectedE CorrectedN CorrectedEl F1 576490.78 5453705.13 8.91 F2 576492.74 5453692.47 9.36 F3 576494.99 5453663.75 9.04 F4 576502.64 5453626.67 8.61 F5 576500.54 5453638.46 10.07 F6 576535.00 543630.00 9.47   Qithyil (DhRl-15) - Test & Carbon Sample Locations  Feature Test CS# CorrectedE CorrectedN CorrectedEl F3 SP1  -- 576494.99 5453663.75 9.036 F3 SP3 -- 576494.67 5453663.19 8.951 F4 SP2 CS1 576502.64 5453626.67 8.61 F5 SP4 CS1 576500.54 5453638.46 10.069 F2 SP5 CS1 576492.74 5453692.47 9.36 F1 SP6 CS1 576490.78 5453705.13 8.91 F6 -- CS3 576541.68 5453608.23 8.892 F6 -- CS2 576541.53 5453608.15 8.960 F6 -- CS1 576541.59 5453608.12 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 Description CorrectedE CorrectedN CorrectedEl STN1 same as Base but adjusted coordinates as determined from TS@STN2 576491.80 5453668.02 10.687 STN2 rebar on west rim of F1 576485.81 5453701.28 11.07 STN3 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       81 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 Easting Northing Elevation Description STN100 578075.000 5448647.000 11.000 bottom of C curve finish in centre of sewer cap on Brentwood Dr, at curve by pillared driveway STN101 578200.000 5448480.000 10.618 center of water cap. East side of Brentwood Dr. junction with Quarry Rd.approx. 3m south of hydro box STN103 578002.490 5448577.430 10.898 wooden hubsouth east end of site; bearing is 226.1105 from Stn 100; southeast of CD2 STN105 577984.148 5448629.501 10.803 wooden hub 3m north of north east boundary of cemetary STN122 577999.997 5448592.002 10.928 cement pillar bearing of 80.3216dms from Stn103; 15.206m from Stn103; 1m nw of large tree STN126 577939.999 5448591.989 11.187 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        82 Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17):   Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) - Feature Center Points  Label Easting Northing Elevation F8 575602.100 5437639.785 44.25 F10 575597.250 5437634.510 44.06 F12 575593.506 5437627.958 44.52 F23 575585.083 5437621.747 44.88 F13 575599.122 5437615.791 44.27 F24 575606.013 5437617.918 43.86 F11 575606.099 5437624.895 43.6 F22 575645.238 5437667.012 46.61 F21 575651.959 5437672.543 46.87 F14 575660.043 5437680.626 46.94 F6 575667.615 5437685.986 47.6 F7 575681.059 5437703.854 48.78 F15 575689.822 5437714.405 48.84 F16 575667.700 5437702.323 51.04 F1 575660.128 5437695.090 50.61 F2 575652.045 5437689.560 50.37 F3 575644.982 5437684.880 49.48 F19 575643.196 5437677.052 49.06 F18 575635.963 5437671.352 48.73 F17 575621.839 5437678.669 49.74 F4 575630.943 5437711.937 48.72 F5 575641.579 5437723.339 48.16   Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) - Test Locations  Type Location Feature CorrectedE CorrectedN CorrectedElev AT2 SurfDatum F8 575601.642 5437639.785 44.232 AT2 Surf F8 575601.635 5437639.756 44.244 AT2 Surf F8 575601.459 5437639.775 44.240 AT2 Surf F8 575601.427 5437639.559 44.242 AT2 Surf F8 575601.630 5437639.502 44.241 AT2 BaseDatum F8 575601.585 5437639.717 43.780 AT2 Base F8 575601.488 5437639.745 43.787 AT2 Base F8 575601.473 5437639.678 43.801 AT2 Base F8 575601.568 5437639.662 43.806 AT3 SurfDatum F12 575593.545 5437627.840 44.610 AT3 Surf F12 575593.375 5437627.867 44.612 AT3 Surf F12 575593.361 5437627.671 44.636 AT3 Surf F12 575593.553 5437627.657 44.620 AT3 BaseDatum F12 575593.510 5437627.820 44.375 AT3 Base F12 575593.421 5437627.842 44.345  83 Type Location Feature CorrectedE CorrectedN CorrectedElev AT3 Base F12 575593.409 5437627.742 44.365 AT3 Base F12 575593.497 5437627.710 44.396 ST1 SurfDatum  575596.552 5437641.587 45.733 ST1 Surf  575596.354 5437641.673 45.717 ST1 Surf  575596.224 5437641.417 45.740 ST1 Surf  575596.484 5437641.333 45.714 CS1 ST1  575596.413 5437641.474 45.269 CS3 ST1  575596.460 5437641.465 45.214 ST1 BaseCentre  575596.394 5437641.481 45.152 ST1 Base  575596.408 5437641.547 45.144 ST1 BaseDatum  575596.468 5437641.436 45.152 ST1 Base  575596.325 5437641.431 45.287 ST1 Base  575596.285 5437641.510 45.206 AT2 Base2Datum  575601.504 5437639.703 43.727 AT2 Base2  575601.580 5437639.679 43.720 AT2 Base2  575601.527 5437639.659 43.737 AT2 Base2  575601.490 5437639.703 43.730 AT1 SurfDatum F10 575597.393 5437634.311 44.107 AT1 BaseDatum F10 575597.365 5437634.210 43.875 AT1 Surf F10 575597.461 5437634.216 44.151 AT1 Surf F10 575597.474 5437634.076 44.131 AT1 Surf F10 575597.380 5437634.217 44.139 AT1 Base F10 575597.514 5437634.102 43.914 AT1 Base F10 575597.429 5437634.156 43.882 AT1 Base F10 575597.542 5437634.189 43.904 AT5 Surf F20 575650.274 5437699.311 51.839 AT5 Surf F20 575650.102 5437699.504 51.851 AT5 SurfDatum F20 575649.984 5437699.285 51.855 AT5 Surf F20 575650.171 5437699.179 51.837 CS1 AT5 F20 575650.044 5437699.353 51.565 CS2 AT5 F20 575650.044 5437699.272 51.696 CS3 AT5 F20 575650.059 5437699.268 51.638 AT5 Base F20 575650.172 5437699.323 51.502 AT5 Base F20 575650.088 5437699.410 51.545 AT5 BaseDatum F20 575650.039 5437699.321 51.531 AT5 Base F20 575650.135 5437699.232 51.556 AT4 Surf F2 575651.610 5437690.746 50.391 AT4 Surf F2 575651.766 5437690.590 50.381 AT4 Surf F2 575651.696 5437690.357 50.345 AT4 Surf F2 575651.502 5437690.402 50.365 CS1 AT4 F2 575651.638 5437690.524 50.051 AT4 BaseDatum F2 575651.592 5437690.609 49.796 AT4 Base F2 575651.644 5437690.504 49.816 AT4 Base F2 575651.549 5437690.530 49.832 AT4 Base F2 575651.658 5437690.598 49.817 ST2 Surf F2 575649.549 5437687.848 50.504 ST2 Surf F2 575649.313 5437687.686 50.478 ST2 Base F2 575649.457 5437687.788 49.898 ST2 Base F2 575649.430 5437687.721 49.913  84 Type Location Feature CorrectedE CorrectedN CorrectedElev ST2 Base F2 575649.506 5437687.668 49.911 ST2 Base F2 575649.551 5437687.729 49.908 ST2 SurfCALC F2 575649.379 5437687.848 50.483 ST2 SurfCALC F2 575649.480 5437687.738 50.483   Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) - Radiocarbon Samples Locations Corrected Elev Type Location Feature Label CorrectedE CorrectedN 45.269 CS1 ST1  CS1 575596.413 5437641.474 45.214 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 Description STN1(2002/4) 575644.000 5437695.000 46.700 DATUM1 from 2002(STN1,also used in 2004); yellow tent peg (+5cm) STN2(2004) 575607.000 5437716.000 41.680 Blue Bennett Disk on n-w side of north road STN3(2004) 575652.420 5437681.668 45.912 DATUM2 from 2002(STN2, also used in 2004) STN4(2004) 575673.414 5437709.885 47.899 wooden hub with nail n-e of 3 mounds on e end of upper terrace STN5(2004) 575686.771 5437700.338 45.114 wooden hub with nail s-e end of terrace between F7 & F15 (among rocks) STN6(2004) 575624.064 5437674.842 44.901 spike at s-w corner of western plankhouse platform STN7(2004) 575636.191 5437710.619 44.217 spike on n-w lower terrace 2m s from climbing path on terrace edge STN3(2002) 575676.539 5437710.387 47.796 at northeast end of site east of burial mound 05 (not found in 2004) STN4(2002) 575628.873 5437677.957 45.224 on northwest rim of mound 10 on edge of plankhouse floor(not found in 2004) STN5(2002) 575609.139 5437683.561 44.605 east of mound 14 and mound 15 (not found in 2004) STN6(2002) 575594.683 5437651.233 41.37 W. of STN5(2002) on W. edge of road cut E. of lower site (not looked for in 2004) STN7(2002) 575580.359 5437626.848 40.639 north of test shovel pit 08 and west of mound 16 (not looked for in 2004) SNT8(2005)* 575603.030 5437647.141 23.593 Spike on west side of path between upper and lower sites, east of F8 STN9(2005)* 575590.887 5437622.358 23.176 Spike between F12 and F23 on south rims BASE* 575663.097 5437632.641 19.179 Spike on south side of gravel road south of site 140`38'; D-56.4m from Stn6(2004) BS* 575720.760 5737732.766 17.866 Spike in the N. edge of road on river side at 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.   85 Eyxel (DiRi-48):  Eyxel (DiRi-48) - Feature Center Points Label Easting Northing Elevation F4 612925.5771 5470148.3581 41.27 F1 612914.0442 5470146.5071 42.14 F2 612909.7727 5470153.3414 43 F3 612906.0708 5470142.378 41.93 F5 612899.2365 5470136.6828 41.93 F6 612899.2365 5470136.6828 42.57  Eyxel (DiRi-48) - Test Locations Type Location Feature CorrectedE CorrectedN Corrected Elev AT1 SurfDatum F3 612899.108 5470136.618 42.109 AT1 Surf F3 612899.140 5470136.349 42.136 AT1 Surf F3 612899.051 5470136.468 42.128 AT1 Surf F3 612899.210 5470136.482 42.141 AT1 BaseDatum F3 612899.130 5470136.558 41.457 AT1 Base F3 612899.179 5470136.457 41.395 AT1 Base F3 612899.105 5470136.498 41.409 AT1 Base F3 612899.185 5470136.498 41.420 CS1 AT1 F3 612899.106 5470136.561 41.697 CS2 AT1 F3 612901.096 5470134.070 42.744 CS3 SP1 F2 612906.493 5470142.376 42.529 CS4 SP1 F2 612906.501 5470142.375 42.508 SP1 Surf F2 612906.534 5470142.380 42.955 CS5 SP1 F2 612906.502 5470142.370 42.484 CS6 AT2 F1 612914.220 5470146.645 41.950 AT2 SurfDatum F1 612914.226 5470146.612 42.160 AT2 Surf F1 612914.088 5470146.617 42.162 AT2 Surf F1 612914.081 5470146.793 42.184 AT2 Surf F1 612914.236 5470146.778 42.185 SP2 Surf F4 612925.603 5470148.991 41.305 SP2 Base+ F4 612925.663 5470148.914 41.100 AT2 Base F1 612913.972 5470146.318 41.160 SP3 Surf F5 612900.986 5470147.740 41.965 SP3 Base+ F5 612900.986 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   86 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 Easting Northing Elev. Description STN1 607984.000 5470185.000 29.194 wooden hub 4m e. of path parallel with s. boundary of 1st PH w. of path in row 1 STN2 607986.001 5470177.996 28.853 concrete pillar 6m e. of path 1 m ne of tree cluster STN3 607949.999 5470178.001 29.703 concrete pillar 30m w. of path; 3m ne of w. PH in row 2 STN4 608010.647 5470195.193 29.130 wooden hub w. of s. boundary of PH#1(F1) STN5 608028.761 5470205.350 29.274 wooden hub 2m s. of s. boundary of PH#3(F3) STN6 607957.503 5470147.534 29.102 wooden hub 1.5m w of sw corner of square pit on terrace river edge; w. of path STN7 608029.010 5470174.247 28.263 wooden hub 2m s. of s. boundary of e. PH on terrace river edge; e. of path STN11 607975.197 5470212.160 30.97 Spike 4m N of RR; 1.5m W of trail into ‘Katz’ site STN12 608086.799 5470292.642 31.549 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 STN15 608267.572 5470398.196 30.023 Spike 120cm from W side of Barb's road at beginning of ROW; flagged on alder 10m SW STN16 608215.806 5470387.656 28.482 Spike on S rim of HP9; N of path to upper terrace; flagged overhead STN17 608200.899 5470394.106 29.695 Spike in middle of path between HP9 and 10 just W of NW rim of HP9; flagged on N side of path 205cm NE STN18 608174.183 5470391.862 29.978 Spike on NW rim of HP10; S side of path to HP11 beside log; flagged overhead 179cm N STN19 608150.323 5470402.858 29.033 Spike on NW side of HP11; 250cm E of oak; flagged overhead 77cmSE STN20 608191.547 5470335.595 32.01 Spike between HP 13 & 14 on rise in path; flagged overhead 185cm NE of popular cluster STN21 608167.991 5470329.767 31.445 Spike between HP12 &15 on rise; 270cm SW of large maple; flagged 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  87    Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30):   Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) - Feature Center Points  Label Easting Northing Elevation F1 601475.4 5465641 30.49 F2 601482 5465648 29.23 F3 601486 5465663 28.71 F4 601488.2 5465671 28.88 F5 601490.2 5465679 28.57 F6 601495.2 5465694 28.44 F7 601498.6 5465702 28.69 F8 601496.2 5465708 30.4 F9 601505.4 5465718 28.14 F10 601510.1 5465731 29.12 F11 601508.9 5465739 30.5 F12 601523.9 5465749 29.68 F13 601519.4 5465761 28.97 F14 601526.7 5465768 29.27 F15 601530.3 5465778 28.52 F16 601530.8 5465790 28.86 F17 601494.2 5465665 29.72 F18 601490.9 5465687 29.35 F19 601493.9 5465716 29.03 F20 601506.4 5465728 30.94 F21 601514.7 5465737 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  88 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  89 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 AT1 601495.011 5465693.024 27.96 SP5 Surf  601493.248 5465689.079 29.953    90     Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) - Mapping Station Locations  Stn ID Corrected Easting Corrected Northing Corrected Elevation Description STN1 601572.000 5465746.000 30.188 Wooden hub on the pipeline, 255m south of STN2 at 216.5211.6 dms; east of site STN2 601725.000 5465950.000 30.189 Wooden hub on the pipeline 2m north of witness post GPS 61, WC 204114.7, 6.3 M U/S, MAG 42 STN3 601527.583 5465783.961 29.347 Wooden hub 59m west of STN1 at 311.1521dms, edge of slough west of CD16 southeast of large tree STN4 601528.609 5465788.053 29.984 Wooden hub at north end of site among burial mounds, 4.219m from STN3 at 75.5527 dms STN5 601542.385 5465780.400 30.391 Wooden hub SE of STN3 just south of the three tree cluster on the E side of the site; E of CD16 and CD15 STN6 601514.719 5465756.631 30.478 Wooden hub southwest side CD13 STN7 601501.206 5465714.420 30.068 Wooden hub between CD8 and CD9 on rise in path south of CD9 STN8 601494.418 5465688.373 30.191 Wooden hub at south side of CD6 STN9 601480.567 5465658.100 29.873 Wooden hub between CD2 and CD3 on west side on edge of slough drop Corrections based on CN Railway data.   91 Xelhálh (DjRi-14):  Xelhálh (DjRi-14) - Feature Center Points  Label Easting  (615___) Northing (5490___) Elev F1 057.95908 720.294 65.1 F2 055.01508 731.7428 65.45 F3 069.84404 724.0013 67.99 F4 072.56996 729.9983 68.09 F5 068.53558 737.9579 68.89 F6 075.07781 723.7832 67.96 F7 075.95006 730.1073 68.58 F8 074.64166 736.2134 68.27 F9 096.99411 729.5621 69.5 F10 107.1345 733.5965 68.84 F11 104.4086 737.7398 68.8 F12 110.4055 717.0229 68.4 F13 119.6736 721.3844 68.04 F14 136.0291 710.8079 68.67 F15 134.9388 727.0543 68.1 F16 144.3159 746.1356 72.72 F17 151.0761 716.3687 68.06 F18 152.7117 724.8736 69.91 F19 159.2538 740.9019 71.85 F20 171.3569 747.9893 73.19 F21 168.0858 768.4881 73.42 F22 166.1231 771.214 73.02 F23 175.8273 769.0333 72.52 F24 167.6496 779.7188 73 F25 184.3322 761.4008 71.96 F26 194.3635 785.4977 71.32 F27 190.5472 797.4918 70.72 F28 178.7713 806.6508 70.11 F29 191.6376 805.2333 70.75 F30 192.1828 810.5761 71.45 F31 206.6846 756.4941 72.1 F32 223.5852 780.046 71.8   Xelhálh (DjRi-14) - Test & Carbon Sample Locations  Type Location Feature CorrectedE CorrectedN CorrectedElev SP1 Surf F27 615190.860 5490797.740 70.778 SP2 Surf F27 615190.974 5490797.776 70.766 CS1 SP1 F27 615190.875 5490797.757 70.469 SP1 Base F27 615190.888 5490797.784 70.221 SP2 Base F27 615190.954 5490797.758 70.195 ST2 SurfDatum F28 615178.302 5490806.059 70.145 ST2 Surf F28 615178.518 5490805.939 70.142 ST2 Surf F28 615178.608 5490806.116 70.156  92 Type Location Feature CorrectedE CorrectedN CorrectedElev ST2 Surf F28 615178.339 5490806.218 70.153 ST2 BaseDatum F28 615178.373 5490806.033 69.602 ST2 Base F28 615178.463 5490805.991 69.604 ST2 Base F28 615178.537 5490806.096 69.591 ST2 Base F28 615178.438 5490806.162 69.62 CS1 ST2 F28 615178.430 5490806.209 69.973 CS2 ST2 F28 615178.374 5490806.036 69.808 AT1 SurfDatum F25 615183.841 5490761.068 72.049 AT1 Surf F25 615184.048 5490761.043 72.043 AT1 Surf F25 615184.083 5490761.234 72.052 AT1 Surf F25 615183.848 5490761.294 72.072 AT1 BaseDatum F25 615183.918 5490761.098 71.545 AT1 Base F25 615184.016 5490761.108 71.548 AT1 Base F25 615183.996 5490761.220 71.593 AT1 Base F25 615183.903 5490761.209 71.533 CS1 AT1 F25 615183.878 5490761.101 71.849 CS2 AT1 F25 615183.868 5490761.117 71.76 AT2 SurfDatum F23 615175.737 5490769.498 72.545 AT2 Surf F23 615175.609 5490769.379 72.553 AT2 Surf F23 615175.757 5490769.221 72.545 AT2 Surf F23 615175.905 5490769.325 72.535 SP4 Surf F26 615194.413 5490785.870 71.311 SP4 Base F26 615194.349 5490785.831 70.903 SP5 Surf F26 615194.198 5490785.922 71.313 SP5 Base F26 615194.164 5490785.916 70.859 CS1 SP5 F26 615194.179 5490785.865 71.091 CS2 SP5 F26 615194.160 5490785.873 70.975 AT2 Base F23 615175.754 5490769.430 71.931 AT2 Base F23 615175.687 5490769.368 71.922 AT2 Base F23 615175.732 5490769.325 71.913 AT2 Base F23 615175.799 5490769.360 71.925 CS1 AT2 F23 615175.823 5490769.310 72.286 CS2 AT2 F23 615175.702 5490769.311 72.179 CS1 ST1 F32 615222.835 5490779.614 71.694 ST1 SurfDatum F32 615222.758 5490779.549 71.859 ST1 Surf F32 615222.917 5490779.702 71.838 ST1 Surf F32 615223.065 5490779.559 71.857 ST1 Surf F32 615222.900 5490779.411 71.865 ST1 BaseDatum F32 615222.798 5490779.542 71.182 ST1 Base F32 615222.907 5490779.681 71.224 ST1 Base F32 615223.022 5490779.576 71.208 ST1 Base F32 615222.920 5490779.450 71.199 ST3 SurfDatum F19 615160.466 5490741.868 72.044 ST3 Surf F19 615160.570 5490741.659 72.066 ST3 Surf F19 615160.322 5490741.585 72.044 ST3 Surf F19 615160.261 5490741.752 72.036 ST3 BaseDatum F19 615160.481 5490741.750 71.609 ST3 Base F19 615160.507 5490741.663 71.623 ST3 Base F19 615160.425 5490741.622 71.597 ST3 Base F19 615160.368 5490741.694 71.605  93 Type Location Feature CorrectedE CorrectedN CorrectedElev ST4 SurfDatum F17 615151.400 5490716.478 68.093 ST4 Surf F17 615151.240 5490716.545 68.052 ST4 Surf F17 615151.230 5490716.338 68.072 ST4 Surf F17 615151.436 5490716.372 68.073 ST4 BaseDatum F17 615151.344 5490716.537 67.71 ST4 Base F17 615151.293 5490716.485 67.741 ST4 Base F17 615151.285 5490716.416 67.699 ST4 Base F17 615151.394 5490716.392 67.697 CS1 ST5 F15 615134.538 5490726.314 67.92 CS1 ST6 F13 615120.107 5490721.799 67.9 ST6 SurfDatum F13 615120.074 5490721.708 68.048 ST6 Surf F13 615120.107 5490722.037 68.09 ST6 Surf F13 615120.328 5490722.003 68.049 ST6 Surf F13 615120.289 5490721.706 68.032 CS1 ST4 F17 615151.238 5490716.392 67.939 ST5 SurfDatum F15 615134.427 5490726.394 68.113 ST5 Surf F15 615134.646 5490726.417 68.081 ST5 Surf F15 615134.676 5490726.208 68.09 ST5 Surf F15 615134.453 5490726.176 68.12 ST5 BaseDatum F15 615134.500 5490726.344 67.746 ST5 Base F15 615134.559 5490726.343 67.748 ST5 Base F15 615134.593 5490726.225 67.744 ST5 Base F15 615134.503 5490726.214 67.753 CS2 ST5 F15 615134.446 5490726.295 67.944 CS3 ST5 F15 615134.460 5490726.239 67.915 ST6 BaseDatum F13 615120.129 5490721.730 67.782 ST6 Base F13 615120.194 5490721.975 67.814 ST6 Base F13 615120.291 5490721.950 67.823 ST6 Base F13 615120.268 5490721.724 67.82 CS2 ST6 F13 615120.281 5490721.768 67.88 CS3 ST6 F13 615120.116 5490721.739 67.812 ST7 SurfDatum F2 615055.117 5490731.687 65.488 ST7 Surf F2 615055.124 5490731.404 65.473 ST7 Surf F2 615054.894 5490731.385 65.47 ST7 Surf F2 615054.855 5490731.645 65.49 ST7 BaseDatum F2 615055.097 5490731.616 65.189 ST7 Base F2 615055.090 5490731.454 65.27 ST7 Base F2 615054.936 5490731.470 65.214 ST7 Base F2 615054.911 5490731.625 65.206 STUMP CENTRE  615351.699 5490796.136 77.78 STUMP RIM  615351.579 5490796.557 77.833 STUMP RIM  615351.841 5490795.773 77.742 STUMP RIM  615352.086 5490796.254 77.778 STUMP RIM  615351.291 5490795.904 77.816 ST8 SurfDatum F509 615338.197 5490805.979 78.688 ST8 Surf F509 615338.217 5490805.795 78.677 ST8 Surf F509 615338.051 5490805.708 78.702 ST8 Surf F509 615337.940 5490805.928 78.716 ST8 BaseDatum F509 615338.069 5490805.904 78.255 ST8 Base F509 615338.177 5490805.828 78.325  94 Type Location Feature CorrectedE CorrectedN CorrectedElev ST8 Base F509 615338.055 5490805.790 78.279 ST8 Base F509 615338.021 5490805.804 78.287 AT3 SurfDatum F508 615350.493 5490801.472 76.727 AT3 Surf F508 615350.585 5490801.582 76.722 AT3 Surf F508 615350.707 5490801.441 76.713 AT3 Surf F508 615350.594 5490801.341 76.723 AT3 BaseDatum F508 615350.526 5490801.431 76.277 AT3 Base F508 615350.555 5490801.522 76.325 AT3 Base F508 615350.630 5490801.452 76.375 AT3 Base F508 615350.547 5490801.373 76.323 SP6 Surf  615343.033 5490804.727 76.924 SP7 Surf  615344.469 5490803.745 76.7 ST9 SurfDatum F1 615058.111 5490720.844 65.112 ST9 Surf F1 615058.221 5490720.645 65.091 ST9 Surf F1 615058.002 5490720.546 65.104 ST9 Surf F1 615057.901 5490720.727 65.1 ST9 BaseDAtum F1 615058.052 5490720.750 64.809 ST9 Base F1 615058.061 5490720.614 64.8 ST9 Base F1 615058.008 5490720.562 64.804 ST9 Base F1 615058.027 5490720.681 64.81 CS1 ST9 F1 615058.074 5490720.761 64.964   Xelhálh (DjRi-14) - Mapping Station Locations  STN ID Easting Northing Elevation Description STN1 615065.623 5490666.426 61.636 stone-283.82m e. of tunnel; 3m n. of n. rr track- marked with an x STN2 614782.000 5490677.000 64.000 h-transfer program from this height on tunnel at benchmark at 30.480m STN3 615065.623 5490663.426 62.000 centre of tracks283.82m e. of tunnel BS 615065.533 5490664.131 62.169 reflector on side of n. rr track 283m e. of tunnel; bearing 182.1444; 2.296m from STN1 STN4 615066.592 5490719.583 68.495 hub with nail (+6.5cm); 3m e of cp by first w. ph s. of STN4; 1.27m n-e of birch STN5 615121.775 5490730.987 70.217 hub with nail; centre of first terrace; 9cm e of + on tree route; n. of large ph with looter hole inside north rim STN6 615151.928 5490732.396 73.600 hub with nail (+8cm); w. side of ph; 1.16m n. of fir on w. edge of top terrace STN7 615177.813 5490756.865 73.768 hub with nail 2.33m s. of stump in ph n of STN7 - station beside 7102-7487 collected; w. of cemetery edge temp 615159.431 5490740.178 73.721 for stn7 - removed TEMP8 615152.485 5490769.486 73.170 hub with nail n. side of top terrace 1.47m n. of + on fallen log; 9m s. of cedar tree on terrace edge TEMP9 615115.653 5490743.839 70.283 hub with nail n. side of terrace 2.17m n. of large fir; n-e of ph with looter hole inside n rim TEMPA 615079.286 5490729.045 69.188 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  95 STN ID Easting Northing Elevation Description STNB 615167.279 5490722.245 72.910 spike s. cliffside s-e of STN6; 2.23m s-w of large fir STNC 615156.798 5490669.660 60.948 spike - 10m n. of railway; 1 m w. of small fir; s. of ph on s. edge of terrace s. of STN5 STND 615178.029 5490802.555 70.620 n-e cliffside - spike 1m e. of fir tree; n-e edge of ph STNE 615221.918 5490719.706 73.046 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  STNF 615201.347 5490788.263 71.547 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 metal spike with blue and pink flagging; 30cm s. of end of raised log on beach; bearing 313.06185dms from STND STNH 615042.166 5490721.419 64.370 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 STNI 615271.698 5490779.830 87.251 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 STNJ 615287.700 5490782.902 89.337 **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 STNK  615239.928 5490779.744 73.604 Spike at foot of bluff SE of F32; NE of Cemetery E of path up bluff 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 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  96 APPENDIX II – ARTIFACT CATALOGUE (DhRl-T1; DgRl-17; DiRj-30; DjRi-14)                                               97 Site Cat. # Feat. # Test # Depth (cmBS) Artifact Type Material Dimensions (L x W x Th) Remarks 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 20 8 AT2 27-33 flake / spall metasediment 4.3 x 5.7 x 0.5 possibly utilized edge DgRl-17 21 8 AT2 0-33 biface, point, triangular eared / stemmed chert, gray- brown 2.2 x 1.5 x 0.3 late period point / arrowhead; from sidewall expansion debris DgRl-17 22 8 AT2 0-33 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 25 4 AT4 26-36 flake fragment dacite 1.3 x 1.2 x 0.1   DgRl-17 26 10 AT1 0-10 biface, triangular basalt 4.9 x 2.6 x 0.5 prob. knife; prox/lateral grinding = hafted; cortex on base 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 29 12 AT3 0-19 glass, clear, fragments glass, clear Th = 0.3 N=3 DgRl-17 30 12 AT3 19-28 glass, clear, fragment; tin can fragments glass, clear; tin glass Th = 0.3   DhRl-T1 1 5 ST1 10-20 debitage dacite 0.5 x 0.3 x 0.3 shatter fragment  98 Site Cat. # Feat. # Test # Depth (cmBS) Artifact Type Material Dimensions (L x W x Th) Remarks DiRj-30 8 6 AT1 0-19 flake; flake fragment basalt (flake); dacite max = 2.2 x 1.9 x 0.3 N=2 DiRj-30 9 6 AT1 19-28 flake fragment basalt 1.8 x 1.1 x 0.1   DiRj-30 10 6 AT1 40-50 flake; debitage basalt (flake); dacite (debitage) 5.2 x 4.7 x 1.1 (flake) N=3; 1 flake, 2 debitage 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 (micro- flake) N=6; 2 flakes, 4 debitage DiRj-30 12 6 AT1 n/a debitage basalt (micro) N=2; from wall clean-up debris DiRj-30 13 6 AT1 n/a flake fragment basalt 1.6 x 0.6 x 0.1 from wall collapse debris DiRj-30 14 9 AT2 0-25 flake fragment dacite 5.0 x 2.9 x 1.5 split flake; from wall clean-up debris DiRj-30 15 9 AT2 20-30 flake fragment basalt 2.1 x 3.6 x 0.5 medial frag. DiRj-30 16 9 AT2 22-24 stake (possible) wood 24.4 x 4.5 (conical; tapering to pointed end) 3-D prov.; removed from NW. wall profile; apparent cut at proximal end 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  99 Site Cat. # Feat. # Test # Depth (cmBS) Artifact Type Material Dimensions (L x W x Th) Remarks 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 poss. scraper; uncetain depth (prob. wall clean-up debris) DiRj-30 21 9 AT2 n/a flake; flake fragments basalt (x2); dacite (x1) max = 2.1 x 1.7 x 0.3 N=3; 1 flake, 2 flake frags; uncertain depth (prob. wall clean-up debris) DiRj-30 22 12 ST2 0-10 debitage basalt (x4); metasediment (x3) avg. = > 1 cm N=7 debitage 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 2- 3 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  100 Site Cat. # Feat. # Test # Depth (cmBS) Artifact Type Material Dimensions (L x W x Th) Remarks 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) N=3; 2 flakes b/w 3-4 cm, 1 flake b/w 1-2 cm DiRj-30 32 13 ST1 0-10 flake fragments basalt max = 1.6 x 1.5 x 0.2 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 37 13 ST1 40-50 flake (split) dacite 4.4 x 2.2 x 0.8   DiRj-30 38 18 ST4 15-20 debitage basalt; dacite; metasediment (see remarks) N=8; 1 frag. b/w 2-3 cm; 7 frags. < 1 cm DiRj-30 39 18 ST4 19 core (bi-polar / piece esquillier) dacite 3.4 x 3.0 x 0.6 from NW corner; 'Artifact 1' in notes  101 Site Cat. # Feat. # Test # Depth (cmBS) Artifact Type Material Dimensions (L x W x Th) Remarks DiRj-30 40 18 ST4 19 debitage (core shatter) dacite 4.2 x 3.1 x 1.1 from NW corner; 'Artifact 2' in notes DiRj-30 41 18 ST4 20-24 flake; debitage basalt 3.1 x 2.9 x 0.5 (flake) N=2; 1 flake, 1 debitage DiRj-30 42 18 ST4 24-34 debitage misc. (see remarks) N=2, micro (< 1 cm) DiRj-30 43 18 ST4 34-44 flake fragments / debitage basalt; dacite; chalcedony (x1); quartz (x1) (see remarks) N=21; 4 flake frags b/w 1-2 cm, 17 micro-debitage < 1 cm (including 1 quartz, 1 chalcedony) 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 3 1 ST9 7 flake dacite 0.9 x 1.2 x 0.2 apparent pressure flake DjRi-14 4 1 ST9 7-9.5 melted/vitrified glass glass n/a   DjRi-14 5 1 ST9 10 bone fragment (calcined) bone n/a   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  102 Site Cat. # Feat. # Test # Depth (cmBS) Artifact Type Material Dimensions (L x W x Th) Remarks DjRi-14 7 1 ST9 10-13.5 ceramic, fragments (plate/bowl?) ceramic (unclassified) n/a 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 DjRi-14 8 1 ST9 15 flake fragments misc. (see remarks) N=2; b/w 1-2 cm DjRi-14 9 1 ST9 15 square nail, distal fragments metal n/a N=2; 1 bent DjRi-14 10 1 ST9 20-32 bone fragments (calcined) bone n/a fragmentary; 2 very small pieces (< 0.5 cm) DjRi-14 11 1 ST9 20-32 debitage (micro) slate (?) < 0.5 cm N=2; micro-debitage DjRi-14 12 2 ST7 0-6.5 debitage misc. < 1.5 cm   DjRi-14 13 13 ST6 0-10 debitage dacite n/a long (4.2 cm) narrow (0.3 cm) shatter fragment DjRi-14 14 13 ST6 10-20 edge & end-battered / abraded pebble fragment granitic 10 (min.) x 5.2 x 3.2 edge & end battered; apparent abraded worn & slightly polished surface DjRi-14 15 13 ST6 10-20 core basalt 4.6 x 8.2 x 3.2 likely exhausted core DjRi-14 16 15 ST5 ? debitage basalt 2.8 x 1.8 x 0.8 shatter; unknown depth DjRi-14 17 17 ST4 18 hammerstone basalt 13.3 x 3.4 x 1.5 heavily battered/fractured end; pebble 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 19 32 ST1 7-17 debitage basalt < 1.5 cm N=2 DjRi-14 20 32 ST1 27-37 uniface, spall quartzite   5.3 x 8.5 x 1.4   DjRi-14 21 32 ST1 28-31 core, split pebble basalt / dacite 6.8 x 5.3 x 2.4    103 Site Cat. # Feat. # Test # Depth (cmBS) Artifact Type Material Dimensions (L x W x Th) Remarks 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 2- 3 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) 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) * Dacite = fined grained mafic igneous (basalt-like material); Basalt = med-coarse grained mafic igneous.  104 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. Radio- carb. Age (BP) Cal AD (2 sigma 95% prob.) Cal BP (2 sigma 95% prob.) Notes Beta- 210181 DhRl-T1- F5-SP1- CS-1 John Mack Slough 14 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone  300+/- 40 290+/- 40 1480- 1660 AD 470-290 BP Single occupation; shallow housepit floor - well defined stratum; high water table  DhRl-15- F1-SP6- CS-1 Qithyil Island 17- 18 Housepit  House Living Surface House Floor Zone      Single occupation; thin housepit floor - well define stratum; high water table  DhRl-15- F2-SP5- CS-1 Qithyil Island 25 Housepit  House Occupation Zone House Occupation Zone     Single occupation; apparent occupation 'zone' - not well defined stratum; high water table  DhRl-15- F2-SP5- CS-2 Qithyil Island 77 Housepit Probably non-cultural n/a     probable natural origin - embedded in basal sands Beta- 217440 DhRl-15- F4-SP2- CS-1 Qithyil Island 27- 28 Housepit  House Living Surface House Floor Zone  460+/- 40 450+/- 40 1410- 1480 AD 540-470 BP Single occupation; thin housepit floor - well defined stratum; high water table  DhRl-15- F5-SP4- CS-1 Qithyil Island 39.5- 46.5 Housepit  House Occupation Zone House Occupation Zone     Single occupation; apparent occupation 'zone' - 'broad' stratum; shallow - 'in-filled' depression; high water table  105 DhRl-15- F6-CS-1 Qithyil Island 58 Plank- house  House Living Surface   House Floor  Zone III (terminal)     Erosional exposure; stratified deposit; upper house floor layer - thin & well-defined stratum  DhRl-15- F6-CS-2 Qithyil Island 68 Plank- house  House Living Surface House Floor Zone II (intermediate)     Erosional exposure; stratified deposit; upper house floor layer - thin & well-defined stratum Beta- 217441 DhRl-15- F6-CS-3 Qithyil Island 78 Plank- house  House Living Surface House Floor Zone I (initial) 720+/- 40 720+/- 40 1250- 1300 AD 700-640 BP Erosional exposure; stratified deposit; upper house floor layer - thin & well-defined stratum  DgRl-17- F8-AT2- CS-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-17- F8-AT2- CS-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-17- F8-AT2- CS-3 Th'ewa:li 40 Housepit Midden House Occupation Midden; Internal     Colume sample; unstratified midden matrix; base of house midden deposits (?) Beta- 210180 DgRl-17- F8-AT2- CS-4 Th'ewa:li 48 Housepit Midden House Occupation Midden; Internal; Basal 1070+/- 40 1060+/- 40 890-1020 AD 1060- 930 BP Colume sample; unstratified midden matrix; base of cultural deposits  106  DgRl-17- F25-CS-1 Th'ewa:li n/a Burial Mound Construc- tion Fill / Charcoal Lens Burial Mound      Assoc. w/ mound base; see Burial Mound Profile  DgRl-17- F25-CS-2 Th'ewa:li n/a Burial Mound Construc- tion Fill Burial Mound      From lens above CS1; see Burial Mound Profile  DgRl-17- F20-AT5- CS-1 Th'ewa:li 10 Platform Midden Platform Midden; upper     Colume sample; unstratified midden matrix; Plankhouse area?  DgRl-17- F20-AT5- CS-2 Th'ewa:li 20 Platform Midden Platform Midden; middle     Colume sample; unstratified midden matrix; Plankhouse area?  DgRl-17- F20-AT5- CS-3 Th'ewa:li 28 Platform Midden Platform Midden; basal     Colume sample; unstratified midden matrix; Plankhouse area?  DgRl-17- ST1-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-17- ST1-CS-2 Th'ewa:li 46- 51 n/a Midden external to F8 External  Midden     ST1 located on outside edge of F8; no feature number assigned; Layer @ 49-54 cmBS  DgRl-17- ST1-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  107  DgRl-17- ST1-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-17- ST2-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-17- ST2-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-17- ST2-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-17- F2-AT4- CS-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-17- F2-AT4- CS-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-17- F2-AT4- CS-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?)  108 Beta- 210179 DgRl-17- F2-AT4- CS-4 Th'ewa:li 60 Housepit Midden House Occupation Midden; Internal 1170+/- 40 1160+/- 40 770-980 AD 1180-970 BP Colume sample; unstratified midden matrix ; associated with basal cultural deposits  DiRi-48- F3-AT1- CS-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-48- F3-AT1- CS-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-48- F2-SP1- CS-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-48- F2-SP1- CS-4 Eyxel 46- 47 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) Beta- 210178 DiRi-48- F2-SP1- CS-5 Eyxel 52 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone I (initial) 510+/- 40 510+/- 40 1400- 1450 AD 550-500 BP NOTE:  DiRi-48 carbon samples numbered per site v. per Test / Feature (6 samples taken from site) Beta- 210177 DiRi-48- F1-AT2- CS-6 Eyxel 21.5 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone 110+/- 40 150+/- 40 1670- 1780 / 1800- 1950 AD 280-170 / 150-0 BP NOTE:  DiRi-48 carbon samples numbered per site v. per Test / Feature (6 samples taken from site)  109  DjRi-14- F1-ST9- CS-1 Xelhalh 13- 15 Housepit House Living Surface House Floor Zone     Early Contact Period - based on associated artifacts;  DO NOT PROCESS C14 Sample  DjRi-14- F28-ST2- CS-1 Xelhalh 16- 17 Housepit Roof-Fall? / House Living Surface House Floor Zone II / Roof Fall Zone? (terminal)      Beta- 210176 DjRi-14- F28-ST2- CS-2 Xelhalh 30- 31.5 Housepit House Living Surface House Floor Zone I (initial) 270+/- 40 270+/- 40 1510- 1600 / 1620- 1670 / 1780- 1800 AD 440-350 / 330- 280 / 170-150 BP   DjRi-14- F25-AT1- CS-1 Xelhalh 19 Housepit  House Living Surface House Floor Zone II  (terminal)       DjRi-14- F25-AT1- CS-2 Xelhalh 35- 36 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone I (initial)       DjRi-14- F23-AT2- CS-1 Xelhalh 21- 22 Housepit  Roof Fall Zone / House Midden House Midden (terminal)      Beta- 210175 DjRi-14- F23-AT2- CS-2 Xelhalh 38 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone I (initial) 250+/- 40 250+/- 40 1520- 1580 / 1630- 1680 / 1770- 1800 / 1940- 1950 AD 430-380 / 320- 270 / 180-150 / 10-0 BP   110  DjRi-14- F27-SP1- CS-1 Xelhalh 30.5- 31.5 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone I        DjRi-14- F26-SP5- CS-1 Xelhalh 21.5- 22.5 Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone II  (terminal)       DjRi-14- F26-SP5- CS-2 Xelhalh 33- 33.7 Housepit  Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone I (initial)       DjRi-14- F32-ST1- CS-1 Xelhalh 14 Housepit / Platform ? ?     CS is probably from a pre- housepit/platform occupation midden  DjRi-14- F17-ST4- CS-1 Xelhalh 12- 13.5 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone I        DjRi-14- F15-ST5- CS-2 Xelhalh 15- 16 Housepit Herath / Roof-Fall? / House Living Surface House Floor Zone II / Roof Fall Zone? (terminal)     2 cm-wide slanting lense  DjRi-14- F15-ST5- CS-3 Xelhalh 18.5- 21 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone I  (mid)     1 cm-wide slanting lense  DjRi-14- F15-ST5- CS-1 Xelhalh 19.5- 20 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone I (mid)     Sample taken from charcoal concentration on unit floor (plan); coincident with CS-3  111  DjRi-14- F13-ST6- CS-1 Xelhalh 13.5 Housepit Herath / Roof-Fall? / House Living Surface House Floor Zone III / Roof Fall Zone? (terminal)       DjRi-14- F13-ST6- CS-2 Xelhalh 16 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone II (intermediate)      Beta- 210174 DjRi-14- F13-ST6- CS-3 Xelhalh 23- 24 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone I (initial) 260+/- 40 270+/- 40 1520- 1590 / 1620- 1670  / 1770- 1800 / 1940- 1950 AD 430-360 / 330- 280 / 180-150 / 10-0 BP   DiRj-30- F9-AT2- CS-4 Shxw'ow'hamel 33 Housepit House Midden / Roof Fall ? House  Occupation/Roof Fall Zone? (terminal)     Sloping deposit  DiRj-30- F9-AT2- CS-1 Shxw'ow'hamel 47.2 Housepit House Midden House Occupation Zone (terminal occupation)       DiRj-30- F9-AT2- CS-2 Shxw'ow'hamel 54.2 Housepit House Midden House Floor Zone (intermediate)      Beta- 210169 DiRj-30- F9-AT2- CS-3 Shxw'ow'hamel 59.1 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone I (initial) 2200+/- 40 2160+/- 40 380-160 BC 2330- 2120 BP   112 Beta- 210172 DiRj-30- F18-ST4- CS-5 Shxw'ow'hamel 17- 18 Housepit  Disturbed modern sediments   Disturbed sediments capping house deposits modern modern modern modern Possible roof - terminal floor transition (floor capped by roof) = disturbed material per C14 results (!!)  DiRj-30- F18-ST4- CS-1 Shxw'ow'hamel 23- 25 Housepit House Floor  House Floor Zone  III (terminal)     terminal floor - roof fall zone; top of floor / capping of floor  DiRj-30- F18-ST4- CS-2 Shxw'ow'hamel 29- 31 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone II (intermediate)       DiRj-30- F18-ST4- CS-3 Shxw'ow'hamel 35.5- 38.5 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone I (initial - upper)     Upper portion of initial floor zone / hearth - same layer as CS-4 Beta- 210173 DiRj-30- F18-ST4- CS-4 Shxw'ow'hamel 38- 40 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone I (initial - lower) 2040+/- 40 2050+/- 40 160-50 AD 2120- 1900 BP Lower portion of initial floor zone / hearth - same layer as CS-3  DiRj-30- F6-SP4- CS-1 Shxw'ow'hamel 60- 61 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone II (terminal)       DiRj-30- F6-SP4- CS-2 Shxw'ow'hamel 67- 68 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone II (intermediate)       DiRj-30- F6-SP4- CS-3 Shxw'ow'hamel 70- 71 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone I (initial)       113  DiRj-30- F6-AT1- CS-1 Shxw'ow'hamel 46 Housepit  Roof Fall Zone    Roof Fall Zone III (terminal)       DiRj-30- F14-SP1- CS-1 Shxw'ow'hamel 42- 44 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone II (terminal)       DiRj-30- F14-SP1- CS-2 Shxw'ow'hamel 57- 59 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone I (initial)       DiRj-30- F14-SP1- CS-3 Shxw'ow'hamel 70 Housepit Initial occupation / possible pre- houespit occupation Initial occupation / possible pre- housepit occupation (?)      Associated with possible pre-housepit deposit  DiRj-30- SP3-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-30- SP2-CS-1 Shxw'ow'hamel 32- 33 Bench? Bench' area  outside F9 Midden outside F9 / Bench Surface ?      Beta- 210170 DiRj-30- F4-ST3- CS-1 Shxw'ow'hamel 33- 34 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface   House Floor Zone II (terminal) 2020+/- 40 1980+/- 40 110 BC - 70 AD 2060- 1880 BP   DiRj-30- F4-ST3- CS-2 Shxw'ow'hamel 38- 39 Housepit  Roof Fall Zone  House Floor Zone I (initial)       DiRj-30- F13-ST1- CS-1 Shxw'ow'hamel 24.5 Housepit Post- housepit midden (?) Post-housepit midden (?)       114  DiRj-30- F13-ST1- CS-2 Shxw'ow'hamel 33- 39 Housepit  Roof Fall Zone    Roof Fall Zone  (terminal)       DiRj-30- F13-ST1- CS-3 Shxw'ow'hamel 52- 53 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone II (terminal - upper)       DiRj-30- F13-ST1- CS-4 Shxw'ow'hamel 53- 54 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone II (terminal)      Beta- 210171 DiRj-30- F13-ST1- CS-5 Shxw'ow'hamel 57- 58 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone I (initial) 1490+/- 40 1520+/- 40 460-480 / 520-650 AD 1480- 1470 / 1430- 1300 BP   DiRj-30- F12-ST2- CS-1 Shxw'ow'hamel 20- 22 Housepit  Roof Fall Zone    Roof Fall Zone III (terminal)     Associated with ash pocket at upper margin of Roof Fall zone  DiRj-30- F12-ST2- CS-2 Shxw'ow'hamel 29- 30 Housepit  Roof Fall Zone    Roof Fall Zone III (terminal)     Associated with silty ash layer - Roof Fall zone; underlying ash pocket; same stratum as  DjRi-30- F12-ST2-CS-3  DiRj-30- F12-ST2- CS-3 Shxw'ow'hamel 26- 28 Housepit  Roof Fall Zone    Roof Fall Zone III (terminal)     Associated with silty ash layer - Roof Fall zone; same stratum as  DjRi-30- F12-ST2-CS-2 Beta- 217438 DiRj-30- F12-ST2- CS-4 Shxw'ow'hamel 44- 45 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone III (terminal ) 2050+/- 40 2050+/- 40 170 BC - 40 AD 2120- 1900 BP   115  DiRj-30- F12-ST2- CS-5 Shxw'ow'hamel 48- 49 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone II (intermediate)      Beta- 217439 DiRj-30- F12-ST2- CS-6 Shxw'ow'hamel 53- 54 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone I (initial) 2110+/- 40 2110+/- 40 340-320 BC / 210- 40 BC 2290- 2270 BP/ 2160- 1990 BP               WOOD SPECIES (WS)_ ID            DgRl-17- F25-WS-1 Th'ewa:li n/a Burial Mound Construction Fill / Charcoal Lens Burial Mound      Assoc. w/ CS2; see Burial Mound Profile  DgRl-17- ST1-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-14- F28-ST2- WS-1 Xelhalh 16- 17 Housepit Roof-Fall? / House Living Surface House Floor Zone II / Roof Fall Zone? (terminal)     Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-14- F28-ST2-CS-1  116  DjRi-14- F28-ST2- WS-2 Xelhalh 30- 31.5 Housepit House Living Surface House Floor Zone I (initial); added to F28-CS- 2 due to small sample size     Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-14- F28-ST2-CS-2  DjRi-14- F25-AT1- WS-1 Xelhalh 32 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone I (initial)     Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-14- F25-AT1-CS-2  DjRi-14- F23-AT2- WS-1 Xelhalh 38 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone I (initial)     Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-14- F23-AT2-CS-2  DjRi-14- F27-SP1- WS-1 Xelhalh 30.5- 31.5 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone I      Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-14- F27-SP1-CS-1  DjRi-14- F17-ST4- WS-1 Xelhalh 12- 13.5 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone I      Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-14- F17-ST4-CS-1  DjRi-14- F15-ST5- WS-2 Xelhalh 15- 16 Housepit Hearth / Roof-Fall? / House Living Surface House Floor Zone III / Roof Fall Zone? (terminal)     Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-14- F15-ST5-CS-2  DjRi-14- F15-ST5- WS-3 Xelhalh 18.5- 21 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone II (intermediate)     Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-14- F15-ST5-CS-3  DjRi-14- F15-ST5- WS-1 Xelhalh 19.5- 20 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone I (initial)     Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-14- F15-ST5-CS-1  117  DjRi-14- F13-ST6- WS-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-14- F13-ST6-CS-1  DjRi-14- F13-ST6- WS-2 Xelhalh 16 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone II (intermediate)     Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-14- F13-ST6-CS-2  DiRj-30- F13-WS-1 Shxw'ow'hamel 52 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone II (terminal - upper)     Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-30- F13-ST1-CS-3  DiRj-30- F12-WS-1 Shxw'ow'hamel 44- 45 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone III (terminal )     Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-30- F12-ST2-CS-4  DiRj-30- F12-WS-2 Shxw'ow'hamel 53- 54 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone I (initial)     Wood Species ID sample associated with DjRi-30- F12-ST2-CS-6              SOIL  (SS)  &  BOT.  ID           DiRj-30- F12-ST2- SS-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  118  DiRj-30- F13-ST1- SS-1 Shxw'ow'hamel 52- 54 Housepit Hearth / House Living Surface House Floor Zone II (terminal); good size sample                                   119 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  120 ‘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.       121 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. 122 DhRl-15-F4-SP2      123 DhRl-15-F5-SP4      124 DhRl-15-F2-SP5     125 DhRl-15-F6 - Plankhouse feature riverbank exposure - profile          126 Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) - Test Unit Profiles  DgRl-17-F10-AT1     127 DgRl-17-F8-AT2      128 DgRl-17-F12-AT3     129 DgRl-17-F2-AT4     130 DgRl-17-F20-AT5            131 DgRl-17-F17-ST1           132 DgRl-17-ST2            133 DgRl-17-F25 - Earthen Burial Mound Roadcut Exposure     134  Eyxel (DiRi-48) - Test Unit Profiles  DiRi-48-F3-AT1   135 DiRi-48-F1-AT2       136 DiRi-48-F2-SP1      137 DiRi-48-F4-SP2  (no picture currently available)  Depth Below Surface (cm)     Description   0-13 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    138 Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) - Test Unit Profiles  DiRj-30-F6-AT1/SP4     139 DiRj-30-F9-AT-2   140 DiRj-30-F13-ST1      141 DiRj-30-F12-ST2   142 DiRj-30-F4-ST3     143 DiRj-30-F18-ST4    144 DiRj-30-F14-SP1     145 DiRj-30-SP2 (F9 exterior)     146 DiRj-30-SP3 (b/w F9 & F7)    147 DiRj-30-SP5 (b/w F6 & F18)    148 Xelhálh (DjRi-14) - Test Unit Profiles  DjRi-14-F25-AT1    149 DjRi-14-F23-AT2    150 DjRi-14-F508-AT3    151 DjRi-14-F32-ST1    152 DjRi-14-F28-ST2    153 DjRi-14-F19-ST3     154  DjRi-14-F17-ST4    155 DjRi-14-F15-ST5     156 DjRi-14-F13-ST6     157 DjRi-14-F2-ST7     158 DjRi-14-F509-ST8      159  DjRi-14-F1-ST9    160  DjRi-14-F27-SP1 & SP2    161  DjRi-14-F26-SP5      162 DjRi-14-SP6 & SP7 (b/w F508 & F509)     163 DjRi-14-F1001-SP1      164 APPENDIX V - PALEOBOTANICAL ANALYSIS (DiRj-30-F13)  Provenience    Date: Nov. 16, 2005   Sorted by: ne House:   Unit:    Layer:   Exact Provenience: F13  52-55cm BS  ash/charcoal lens       Feat. No.:    Feat. Description:       Flot Sample No. 1  Volume (l): 2.5    Subsample No:    Volume (l):                   Charcoal Total (g) 24.18 Seeds N Needles N Species     Total 11 Total 13   4.0+2.0(g)       Abies     1.0+.425(g)   Amelanchier   Chamaecyparus     catch (g)   Arctostaphylos   Picea 1       Berberis   Pinus     Conifers N Brassica   Psuedotsuga 3   Abies   Carex   Taxus     Chamaecyparus   Chenopodium 2 T. plicata     Picea   C. canadensis   Tsuga 1   Pinus   C. stonolonifera   Unidable 8   Psuedotsuga   Corylus   Cone Parts N   Taxus   Crataegus   Abies     T. plicata   Fragaria   Chamaecyparus     Tsuga   Gaultheria   Picea     Unided   "Grass"   Pinus     _____________   Juncus   Psuedotsuga     Decidious N M. dilatatum   Taxus     Acer   Oemleria   T. plicata     Alnus   Phacelia   Tsuga ____ _   Amelanchier   Prunus   "Root" N   Betula   Rhamnus   _____________     Cornus nuttallii   Ribes   _____________     Gaultheria   R. gymnocarpa   _____________     Oemleria   R. nutkana   _____________     Physocarpus   Rubus   _____________     Populus   Sambucus 2 _____________     Prunus   Scirpus 1 _____________     Rosa   Smilacina   _____________     Rubus   Symphoricarpos         Quercus   Trifolium   Other     Rhamnus   Vaccinium   unid.plt rmn(N) 5   Sambucus   Viburnum   unided tissue (g) 1.33   Salix   Solanum 1 conifer bud (N) 1   Sorbus sitchensis   Unknown 1 decid bud (N)     Symphoricarpos   ____________   decid leaf (N)     Vaccinium   ____________   modern (g) 0.02   Unided   Unided A 4 cone parts (N) 2   _____________   Unided B   _____________     _____________   Unided C   _____________     _____________   ____________ _____ _____________ ____ _  165  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)    Munsell    Matrix Description (color, texture, composition, compaction..// cultural?)    Artifacts/FCR / Samples                     Summary Notes: Conclusions (use ‘Notes - Continuation Sheet’ if necessary):     Sample Types/IDs:  Photo Record (frame designations):    166  Page___of____  Notes - Continuation Sheet        Site No.:__________   Test Designation:_________  Feature No.:_________ Date:__________  Excavators:_____________________________________________  Notes:    167 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)  168 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):     169  APPENDIX VII - SITE ‘POST’ MAPS WITH SURVEYED SURFACE POINTS  ‘John Mack Slough’ (DhRl-T1) - Post Map     170 Qithyil Island (DhRl-15) - Post Map     171 Sqwa:la (DgRl-6) - Post Map       172  Th’ewá:lí (DgRl-17) - Post Map    173  Eyxel (DiRi-48) - Post Map      174 Sxwóxwiymelh ‘South’ (DiRj-1) - Post Map       175 Sxwóxwiymelh ‘North’ (DiRj-1) - Post Map    176 Shxw’ow’hamel (DiRj-30) - Post Map   177 Xelhálh (DjRi-14) - Post Map     

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 14 1
Canada 12 0
Japan 5 0
China 4 1
Slovak Republic 1 0
Russia 1 0
City Views Downloads
Ashburn 7 0
Tokyo 5 0
Burnaby 4 0
Beijing 4 0
Unknown 3 39
Abbotsford 2 0
Vancouver 2 0
Victoria 2 0
Sunnyvale 2 0
Mountain View 2 0
Wilmington 1 0
Ottawa 1 0
Atlanta 1 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