UBC Faculty Research and Publications

Athapaskans and Migrations : The Archaeology of Eagle Lake, British Columbia Matson, R. G. (Richard Ghia), 1944-; Magne, Martin Paul Robert, 1954- May 31, 2003

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
52383-Matson_RG_et_al_Athapaskans_migrations.pdf [ 51.89MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 52383-1.0363461.json
JSON-LD: 52383-1.0363461-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52383-1.0363461-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52383-1.0363461-rdf.json
Turtle: 52383-1.0363461-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52383-1.0363461-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52383-1.0363461-source.json
Full Text
52383-1.0363461-fulltext.txt
Citation
52383-1.0363461.ris

Full Text

Athapaskans and Migrations: The Archaeology of Eagle Lake, British Columbia R.G. MATSON University of British Columbia MARTIN P.R. MAGNE Parks Canada, Calgary May,2003 This document represents the first complete draft of Athapaskan Migrations: The Archaeology of EagleLake, British Columbia, published by University of Arizona Press in 2007. The Press required asubstantial reduction in the size of the MS and about 30% of the text and about 50% of the figureswere removed. Some of the principal arguments were abbreviated and fuller discussion can be foundin this document. Other space reductions were in part mitigated by removing six sections and hostingthem as on-line appendices at the University of British Columbia Library cIRcle and these can be seen at: http://hdl.handle.net/2429/39217This 2003 MS was the basis of Matson’s testimony as an expert witness in the Roger William v BritishColumbia case and cited numerous times in Judge Vickers’ decision (Tsilhqot’in Nation v BritishColumbia, 2007 BCSC 1700) granting the Tsilhqot’in land title for the rst time in Canada, which wasupheld in a 8 to 0 decision by the Canadian Supreme Court in 2014 (Tsilhqot’in Nation v BritishColumbia, 2014 SCC44). The required reductions to the length of the manuscript meant that anydiscussion of the court case was not possible in the published version, although we made certainchanges as a result of our participation in the case. Magne’s participation is essentiallyunacknowledged in the court proceedings because his position as a Federal civil servant meant thathis formal involvement could only have been on the Government’s side, for which he declined toappear. Matson therefore spoke largely for Magne and himself in his testimony.R. G. Matsonrgmatson@shaw.caMartin Magnemagnem@rogers.comNovember, 2017ABSTRACT This report presents archaeological research undertaken in the region of Eagle Lake in the west-central Interior Plateau of British Columbia. The central problem is the archaeological recognition and dating of Athapaskan material culture, to shed light on the arrival of the Chilcotin to the region. This report describes the research problem and research methods, and also presents several analyses of ethnographic, lithic, faunal, wood, environmental and general archaeological cultural data. Major field investigations were undertaken in 1979 and 1983, although subsidiary ones took place in later years. In the dry lodgepole pine and grassland region around Eagle Lake and the upper Chilko River, randomly drawn 400 m X 400 m quadrats were used to locate and record archaeological sites and their environs in 1979 and 1983. This study addresses several aspects of both qua drat and site data in a statistical fashion and seeks patterns apparent in grassland and forested areas. Archaeological investigations in 1983 focused on one shallow rectangular lodge site (Bear Lake site or EkSa 36) with an associated complex of cultural features, and on two circular housepit sites, the Boyd (EkSa 32) and Shields (EkSa 13) sites. In 1979 one housepit and four lithic scatter areas were excavated. A considerable amount of project time in 1983 was devoted to ethnoarchaeological study of contemporary Chilcotin subsistence and settlement. The project has resulted in several methodological advances in ethnic group identification, settlement pattern analysis, lithic technological analysis, and dendrochronology. May 18, 2003-2 The research indicates that Chilcotin occupation of the Eagle Lake region included winter habitations as early as AD 1650. This prehistoric occupation period is termed the Eagle Lake Phase. The historic period is relatively late in this region, starting at about 1810. The term Lulua Phase is used to identify the historic Athapaskan occupation. Plateau Pithouse Tradition occupation of the region prior to the Athapaskan entry continues to about AD 1500. Analyses of projectile point and lithic assemblage variability in terms of ethnic origins are very successful in sorting Athapaskan from Plateau Pithouse Tradition (PPT) components, and provide support for previous research in the Mouth of the Chilcotin and Anahim Lake regions. Dendrochronological research was successful in building a 600 year living tree chronology for the region, and was able to show that the historic period winter lodge at the Bear Lake site had been built in AD 1877, as had an ancillary facility. Unfortunately no suitable samples were obtained to dendro-date the prehistoric component at this site, but three radiocarbon assays date this occupation relatively securely. The results of this research are put into the context of larger scale Athapaskan movements to the Pacific Coast and U.S. Southwest over the last 1200 years. May 18, 2003-3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project has been supported by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the B.C. Heritage Trust, and the Hampton Research Committee (UBC). A great many people have been directly and indirectly involved and we shall attempt to properly acknowledge their contributions here. We owe a great deal to the persistence of our field crews. The 1979 field crew included Bill Armstrong, Bob Buchko, Mike Cook, Carrie Cooper, Terry Seidel, Janet Snell, James Tirrul-Jones, and Michael Quinn. Deanna Ludowicz was crew and lab supervisor that season. In 1983 it consisted of: Susan Cronkite, crew and field lab supervisor, and members of the UBC archaeological field school: Heather Black, Roxanne Hill, Heather Macleod, Tom Pulchny, Brad Smart, Wendy Unfreed, and Rudy Van den Broek. Also assisting during the 1983 season were Daphne Begg, Chris Hogarth, Quentin Mackie, Carli Nixon, and Robert Tyhurst. In 1984 Magne was assisted at Taseko Lakes bv Diana Alexander, Quentin Mackie, Brad Smart, and Robert ., Tyhurst. Also playing important roles during the two main Eagle Lake project seasons were Julian and Gordon Matson, who did their share of hauling water and firewood, never let bad weather dampen their enthusiasm for Spiderman, and who at early ages clearly explained the differences between numbers and variables. In 1985 Christophe Descantes, Gregory Mumford, Sheila Rowles, Philip Walker, and Dick Woo participated on the field school on Potato Mountain, where Matson was ably assisted by Diana Alexander. Tracy Barker filled the difficult position of cook, and we were resupplied by May 18, 2003-4 Mike King of Whitesaddle Air Services, and by Kevin, Alex, and Gerry Bracewell of the Bracewell Ranch. Susan Matson is due the utmost thanks for undertaking the unforgiving job of camp cook for the 1979 and 1983 seasons, for her editorial assistance and for her numerous illustrations. Other illustrations and photographs were prepared by the late Moira Irvine in  her usual efficient manner. Elli Carrie searched for and found a otolith in  the Bear L ake site materials, and Dorothy Godfrey-Smith provided source area analyses of obsidian samples. Artifacts from the Anahim Lake region were lent to us courtesy of the National Museum of Man in Ottawa, and those from ElRn 3 and FaRn 3 were courtesy of the British Columbia Provincial Museum. Many thanks to Anne Morrison and Tom Loy, respectively. Knut Fladmark allowed us to analyze projectile points from Punchaw Lake, David Pokotylo let us analyze some from Upper Hat Creek, as well as assisting us in other ways, and Arnoud Stryd lent collections from Lillooet. The assistance of our two Chilcotin workers was invaluable; Diane Lulua and Gilbert Solomon contributed greatly to the research through their diligence and knowledge of the local area. Several Chilcotin people assisted us in many ways; we are grateful to Henry Lulua, Nora Lulua, Edmond Lulua, Peter Lulua, Scotty Lulua, Doris Lulua, Kasimir Lulua, Mabel Solomon, and Henry Solomon for their tolerance of our presence and for their provision of much information. Many thanks to Marvin Baptiste, Adam Williams and Benny Williams, past chiefs of the Nemaiah Valley Indian Band (now known as the "Xeni Gwet'in First Nations"), for supporting this research. George Colgate, then band manager of Nemaiah, was helpful during his tenure. Many thanks May 18, 2003-5 to Alan Haig-Brown for smoothing some paths for us. Several local folks helped us out, exchanged information, and provided companionship, especially, the late Doug Boyd, and the late Scotty Shields who generously shared their knowledge of the Chilcotin, and Ted and Cindy Abbott. Also due thanks are David Aberle, the late CE. Borden, Paul Donahue, Knut Fladmark, Michael Kew, Arnaud Stryd, and the late Roscoe Wilmeth for their advice, encouragement, and related journeys into Plateau prehistory. Braxton Alfred and Neil Guppy provided some remedies for computer gremlins. Magne would also like to thank Orysia Luchak for allowing him occasional time to devote to the Eagle Lake Project, Michael Klassen and Darro Stinson for including him in the 2000 work at EjSa 11, and particularly Judy Trumble and Liam Woodroffe for their patience. All artifacts recovered from the Eagle Lake region are curated at the Laboratory of Archaeology, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Coiumbia, Vancouver. May 18, 2003-6 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LIST OF T ABLES LIST OF FIGURES I INTRODUCTION (R.G. Matson) --------------------------------------------------9 Problem Project History Natural Environment of the Eagle Lake Region (Martin Magne and Deanna L ud owicz )------------------------18II SETTLEMENT PA TTERNS---------------------------------------------------------26 Plateau Pithouse Tradition Mouth of the Chilcotin PPT Settlement Patterns Chil co tin Tradition----- --------------------------------------------------------40 Ethnoarchaeological Investigations in the Chilcotin Region (Linda Burnard-Hogarth) ---------------------------------55 Notes on Cambium-Stripped Lodgepole Pine (Martin Magne )----------------------------------------------81 Chilcotin Settlement Patterns ---------------------------------------86 Distinctive A thapaskan Artifacts--------------------------90 The Parallel Direct Historic Approach (R. G. Matson)------------------------------------------------ 94 III REGIONAL SURVEYS Quadrat Survey------------------------------------------------------------------105 Research Design Chilko River Survey Design--------------------------------------------------122 Quadrat Survey Results Mouth of the Chilcotin------------------------------------------------125 Eagle Lake Quadrat Survey-----------------------------------------135 Taseko Lakes Quadrat Survey--------------------------------------166 Chilko River Survey --------------------------------------------------170 Potato Mountain Survey---------------------------------------------186 Summary--------------------------------------------------------------------------196 DESCRIPTIVE ARCHAEOLOGY IV Archaeological Site Excavations in the Eagle Lake Region --------------203 R.G. Matson and Martin Magne The Bear Lake Si te---------------------------------------------------------------204 Excavations at Plateau Pithouse Tradition Sites; May 18, 2003-7 The Boyd and Shields Sites--------------------------------------------221 V ARTIFACTS, DATING, AND FAUN AL REMAINS Artifact Descriptions (Patricia Ormerod )-----------------------------------227 Radiocarbon and Dendrochronological Dating---------------------------278 Obsidian Source Analysis -----------------------------------------------------302 Faunal Analysis (Linda Roberts and Martin Magne) -------------------304 VI ETHNIC IDENTIFICATION OF MATERIAL CULTURE Martin Magne and R.G. Matson----------------------------335 Projectile Point Analyses ----------------------------------------------------336 Lithic Assemblage Analysis ------------------------------------------------361 Summary of Ethnicity Analyses--------------------------------------------382 VII ATHAP ASKAN MIGRATIONS; The view from Eagle Lake------------------------------------385VIII CON CL U SI ON S --------------------------------------------------------------------442REFERENCES CITED---------------------------------------------------------------------454 APPENDIX I: TREE-RING DATING OF SAMPLES FROM EAGLE LAKE Marion Parker APPENDIX II: ANALYSIS OF FLOTATION SAMPLES FROM EAGLE LAKE Elizabeth Radomski APPENDIX III: FIELD RECORDING FORMS AND SELECTED DAT A T  ABLES FOR EAGLE LAKE AND T ASEKO Cultural Form Physiographic Form Botanical Form Table 1 (MOC IX) MOC Cultural Data from Quadrats. Table 2 (MOC XXIII) MOC Cultural Data from Excavations. Table 3 (84-5a,5b) Eagle Lake Botanical and Physiographic codes. Table 4 (84-6) Eagle Lake and Taseko Quadrat Environmental Data. Table 5 (84-7) Eagle Lake and Taseko Site Environmental Data. Table 6 (84-8) Eagle Lake and Taseko Site Cultural Data. May 18, 2003-8 Chapter I 1-1 (84-1)I-2 (New)1-3 (84-2)1-4 (New)1-5 (New)1-6 (New)1-7 (New)1-8 (New)Chapter II II-1 (New)II-2 (84-12)II-3 (84-3)Il-4 (New)II-5 (84-4)II-6 (84-5)II-7 (84-6)II-8 (84-7)Il-9 (84-8)II-10 (84-9)II-11 (84-10)II-12 (84-11)II-13 (84-13)Chapter III Location of Eagle Lake and other regions cited .................. 10 View of Niut and Potato Ranges from Eagle Lake ............. 19 The 1979 and 1983 Eagle Lake Sampling Frame ................. 19 Cariboo-Aspen-Lodgepole Pine-Douglas Fir ...................... 21 Subalpine Englemann Spruce-Subalpine Fir, Taseko ..... .. 22 Alpine Zone "Parkland", Potato Mountain .......................... 23 Chilko River, near Lingfield Ck. ........................................... 26 West End of Eagle Lake from Potato Mountain .................. 26 Teit' s rendition of the Plateau Pithouse ................................. 30 Aboriginal Groups of Interior British Columbia ................. .42 Puntzi Lake Chilcotin Lodge (1951 ) ...................................... .44 Chilcotin Territory (1850) and Reserve Locations ............... 51 Chilcotin Drying Racks near Henry's Crossing .................... 62 Chilcotin Hide Stretching Frame ............................................. 66 Chilcotin Sweat Lodge frame ................................................... 68 Chilcotin Smudge Pit. ................................................................ 70 Drying Rack and Hearth near Henry's Crossing .......... ,. ..... .72 Cambium-Stripped Lodgepole Pine, 1983 .............................. 82 Close-up of Cut Marks on Cambium-stripped Tree ............ 82 Histogram of Orientation of Stripped areas ........................... 83 Parallel Direct Historic Approach ............................................ 98 III-1 (84-17) Eagle Lake Quadrats Surveyed in 1979 and 1983 .................. 113 III-2 (MOC-5) Mouth of Chilcotin Sampling Scheme .................................... 114 1II-3 (A&M-3) Potato Mountain Survey Environs and Eagle Lake ............. 115 III-4 (A&M-6) Potato Mountains Sampling Scheme ...................................... 115 111-5 (New) Taseko Lake Survey Areas ......................................................... 118 111-6 (New) Location of Taseko Lake Quadrats ........................................... 119 III-7 (New) Taseko Lake Quadrat Sketch Maps ......................................... 119 III-8 (MOC-8) MOC Grassland Quadrats 1-6 ................................................ 126 III-9 (MOC-9) MOC Grassland Quadrats 7-12 ............................................... 126 III-10 (MOC-6) MOC Grassland Locations on aerial Photograph ............... .126 111-11 (MOC-10) MOC Forested Quadrat sketch maps .................................. 126 III-12 (MOC-7) MOC Forested Quadrats locations on aerial Photograph .. 127111-13 (MOC-12) Multidimensional Scaling of MOC Quadrats ..................... 128 IIl-14 (MOC-34) Contour Map of EkRo 48 ....................................................... 132 III-15 (MOC-35) EkRo 48 Excavation Floor Plan ............................................. 132 III-16 (MOC-37) Contour Map of EkRo 18 ....................................................... 133 1II-17 (MOC-66) MOC observed Settlement Pattern ....................................... 134 May 21, 2003 IIl-18 (New) Eagle Lake Quadrat Sketch Maps ............................................ .137+ (a-t) IIl-19 (84-17) Location of Eagle Lake Quadrats ............................................... 137 IIl-20 (new) Box-and-Dot plot comparisons of Forest and Grassland ......... .139 IIl-21 (84-18) Sites per Eagle Lake Quadrats ..................................................... 142 111-22 (79-5-1) Pit Features per Quadrat by Distance from River ................... 143 IIl-23 (79-5-2) Pit Features per Quadrat by distance from Lake ..................... 143 IIl-24 (84-19) Multidimensional Scaling of Quadrats by Environment.. ....... 159 111-25 (84-20) MOS of Quadrat Sites by Environment.. ................................... .161 III-26 (84-21) MOS of Sites by Cultural Attributes ........................................... 163 111-27 (79-4-3) Map of EkSa 5, the Canoe Crossing site ................................... 176 111-28 (79-4-4) Location of ElRw 9, the Quiggly Holes site .............................. 178 111-29 (79-4-5) Map of ElRw 9, Quiggly Holes ................................................... 178 IIl-30 (79-4-6) Location of CR 64, 73, and 92, (EkSa 34, 35, and 33) ................ 179 111-31 (A&M 19) Map of CR 92 (EkSa 33), the Brittany Creek site .................. 179 111-32 (79-4-9) Map of CR 64 (EkSa 34) ............................................................... 181 111-33 (A&M 27) Map of CR 73 (EkSa 35) ............................................................ 182 111-34 (A&M-21) Map of Fish Trap Lake Site (EkSb 27; 84-27) ....................... .183 111-35 (A&M 14) Potato Mountain Lithic Scatters .......................................... ... 187 111-36 (A&M 25) Tested sites on Potato Mountain ........................................ .... 188 III-37 (A&M 15) North End of Potato Mountain .......................................... ..... 188 lII-38 (A&M 23) The Mountain Fan Site, P8-3 (EjSb 39) .................................... 189 IIl-39 (A&M 24) The Mountain Pond Site, P8-1 (EjSb 54) ................................. 190 111-40 (A&M 22) The Middle Mountain Site (EjSb 52) ....................................... 192 111-41 (A&M 20) Potato Mountain Artifacts ........................................................ 192 111-42 (A&M 26) Profile of roasting pit at P2-9 (EjSb 33) ................................... 194 III-43 (M&A 8) Roasting Pit Diameters, Probabilistic surveys ........................ 198 Ill-44 (M&A 7) Cache Pit Diameters, Probabilistic Surveys ............................. 199 Chapter IV Figure Heading Pai;e IV-1 (84-22) Bear Lake Site (EkSa 36) ................................................................. 205 IV-2 (84-23)Bear Lake Site, Features A, H, and B ............................................. 205 IV-3 (84-24)Lithic Scatter, Bear Lake Site .......................................................... 207 IV-4 (84-25)Feature A, Bear Lake Site ................................................................ 207 IV-5 (84-26)Plan View of Feature D ................................................................... 208 IV-6 (84-27)Profile of Feature D .......................................................................... 208 IV-7 (84-28)Excavation of Feature H ................................................................. 208 IV-8 (84-29)Trench Through Feature B, Facing North ..................................... 209 IV-9 (84-30)Two Post Holes, Facing East.. ......................................................... 209 IV-10 (84-31)Profile of Feature G Hearth ............................................................. 209 IV-11 (84-32)Feature J, Cache Pit, Facing North ................................................. 210 IV-12 (84-33)West Side of Feature B. .................................................................... 210 IV-13 (84-34)Plan of Feature B Excavations ......................................................... 212 IV-14 (84-35)North-South Feature B Profile ........................................................ 212 IV-15 (84-36)East-West Feature B Profile ............................................................. 212 May 21, 2003 IV-16 (84-37)North Wall Profile Feature J Cachepit.. ........................................ 212 IV-17 (84-18)Oistribution of Lithics and Historic Artifacts .............................. 213 IV-18 (new) Boundaries of Feature B and Feature I Lodges ........................... 215 IV-19 (84-44)Contour Map of Boyd Site (EkSa 32) ............................................ 222 IV-20 (84-45)Profile of Unit 1, Boyd Site ............................................................. 222 IV-21 (84-39)Contour Map of Shields Site (EkSa 13) ......................................... 224 IV-22 (84-40)Profile of Units 9 & 10, Housepit !, Shields Site .......................... 224 IV-23 (84-41)Excavations of Housepit 5, Shields Site ........................................ 224 IV-24 (84-42)West Wall Profile of Unit 3, Shields Site ....................................... 225 IV-25 (84-43)West Wall Profile of Unit 6, Shields Site ....................................... 225 Chapter V V-1 (84-81)Bone Artifacts ..................................................................................... 268 V-2 (84-82) Relationship between Radiocarbon and Calendric years ........... 278 V-3 (New) Bear Lake Prehistoric Radiocarbon Dates ...................................... 281 V-4 (New) Averaged Radiocarbon Date, by Radiocarbon andCalendric Years ...................................................................... 282 V-5 (New) Distribution of Eagle Lake and Potato Mountain dates ............... 295 V-6 (New) Alternative Eagle Lake Regional Sequences .................................. 300 V-7 (84-86)Bear Lake Otolith ................................................................................ 312 V-8 (84-87)Adams River Sockeye Otolith ........................................................... 312 V-9 (New) Comparison of Historic and Prehistoric Bear Lake Fauna ........... 319 Chapter VI Vl-1 (84-88)Eagle Lake Side-Notched Points ...................................................... 337 Vl-2 (84-1) Locations of B.C. sites and Projectile Point Sources ...................... 337 VI-3 (84-89) MOC Kamloops Points ..................................................................... 338 VI-4 (84-90) Chinlac Side-Notched Points ........................................................... 338 VI-5 (84-91) Potlatch Site Points ............................................................................ 338 VI-6 (84-92) Projectile Point Attributes ................................................................ 343 VI-7 (new) MOS of Projectile Points .................................................................... 353 Vl-8 (new) MOS of Projectile Points, Photographs ........................................... 354 VI-9 (new) MDS of Sites, First 2 Dimensions ..................................................... 366 Vl-10 (new) MOS of Sites, First 3 Dimensions ..................................................... 367 Vl-11 (new) 25 Assemblages by Middle Stage & Shatter Debitage .................. 377 VI-12 (new) "House" Proportions of Debitage ..................................................... 378 Vl-13 (new) Tool and Debitage Patterns, Houses ............................................... 378 Vl-14 (new) Artifact Profiles of 5 Eagle Lake Components ............................... 380 Chapter VII Athapaskan Migrations; The view from Eagle Lake. VII-1 (New) Distribution of Athapaskan speakers ............................................. 387 VII-2 Mooney's and Ac ko mok ki's Maps ............................................................ 401 VII-3 Northern Athapaskan Archaeological Sites ............................................... 405 VII-4 Kavik Points from Klo-kut, Atigun, and Dixthada Sites ......................... .405 VII-5 Kavik Points from Chinlac, Ulgatcho, and Potlatch sites .................... " ... 407 VII-6 "Athapaskan" Side-Notched Points (from Chinlac) ................................. .410 May 21, 2003 VII-7 (27-6) Changes in Anasazi occupation in PIII an PIV periods ............... .424 VII-8 (27-7) Rocky Mountain route for Athapaskans ........................................ .425 VII-9 White River Ash Fall area (circa A.D. 800) ................................................ .432 VII-10 Athapaskan migration routes ...................................................................... .438 Chapter VIII Conclusions VIII-1 The Bear Lake site Eagle Lake Component.. ................................ .446 VIII-2 The Boyd Site P.P.T. Component.. ................................................. .447 VIII-3 The Shields Site P.P.T. Component.. .............................................. .447 VIIl-4 The CR 73 Pithouse Component.. ................................................... .449 VIII-5 Summary of Ethnicity and Parallel Sequences ............................. .450 Table Chapter I (None) Chapter II Heading 11-1 Chilcotin Drying Racks (After Table 5.1, Burnard 1987) ...................... 63 11-2 Hearth Characteristics (after Table 5.2, Burnard 1987) ......................... 71 11-3. Contents of a typical abandoned salmon fishing camp ......................... 75 Chapter III 111-1 (MOC III) MOC Grassland Quadrat Summary ...................................... 125 111-2 (MOC II) MOC Quadrat Environments ................................................... 125 III-3 (MOC IV) MOC Forested Quadrat Summary ......................................... 126 III-4 (MOC XI) Final MOC Synthetic site Classes ........................................... 129 III-5 (84-2+) Eagle Lake Quad rat Features ....................................................... 136-7 III-6 (84-3) Eagle Lake Quadrat Mann-Whitney U tests ................................ 139 Ill-7 (84-4) Eagle Lake Quadrat Interquartile Ranges .................................... 140 III-8 (84-8) Eagle Lake Quadrat site Summaries ............................................. 145-6 III-9 (79-4-2) Upper Hat Creek Quadrat Summary ......................................... 146 111-10 (79-4-3) Eagle Lake Open Quadrats; Compare with Hat Creek ........ 146 III-11 (79-4-4) Mouth of Chilcotin Summary ............................................ ........ 149 111-12 (79-4-5) Eagle Lake Open Quadrats near Chilko River ........................ .149 111-13 (MM84-1) Taseko Lake Quadrat and Quadrat site surnmaries ............ 167 111-14 (79-4-6) Chilko River Survey Summary ................................................... 172 111-15 (79-4-8) CR 92, EkSa 33 and Quadrat 19-1 Summaries .......................... 181 III-16 (A&M-1) Potato Mountain Quad rat Summary ...................................... .186 Chapter IV (None) Chapter V V-1 Field Assigned Site Numbers and Borden Designations .................... 229 V-2 Side-Notched Points: Metric Data .......................................................... 231 V-3 Single-side Notched Points: Metric Data ...................................... ......... 232 V-4 Large Side-notched Points: Metric Data ................................................ 233 V-5 Multi-notched Points: Metric Data ................................................ ......... 234 V-6 Kavik Points: Metric Data ....................................................................... 235 V-7 Corner-notched Points: Metric Data ...................................................... 236 V-8 Stemmed Points: Metric Data .................................................................. 237 V-9 Miscellaneous Points: Metric Data ......................................................... 238 V-10 Large Formed Bifaces (tci-tho-like): Metric Oata ......................... ......... 240 V-11 Complete Small Formed Bifaces All Forms: Metric Data ................... 241 V-12 Continuous Scrapers: Metric Data ......................................................... 245 V-13 End Scrapers: Metric Data ........................................................................ 246 V-14 Large Bifacially Retouched Flakes: Metric Data ......................... .......... 247 V-15 Small Bifacially Retouched Flakes: Metric Oata ................................... 248 May 21, 2003 V-16 Utilized Flakes: Metric Data ........................................................... H • • • • • • •  249 V-17 Mutliple-edged Unifaces: Metric Data ................................................... 251 V-18 Sinuous, Multiple-edged Unifaces: Metric Data by Site ..................... 252 V-19 Gravers: Metric Data ................................................................................. 253 V-20 Alternating Perforators: Metric Data ...................................................... 254 V-21 Non-Alternating Perforators: Metric Data ............................................. 255 V-22 Pieces Esquillees: Metric Data .................................................................. 258 V-23 Bipolar Wedges: Metric Data ................................................................... 259 V-24 Bipolar Cores and Fragrnents ................................................................... 260 V -25 Cortex Spall Tools ...................................................................................... 261 V-26 Core Tools .................................................................................................... 262 V-27 Hammerstones: Metric Data ..................................................................... 263 V-28 Cobble Tools ................................................................................................ 264 V-29 Large Flake Tools: Metric Data ................................................................. 266 V-30 Microblades: Metric Data ........................................................................... 267 V-31 Bone Points: Metric Data ............................................................................ 269 V-32 Harpoon points and Fragments: Metric Data ......................................... 270 V -33 Waisted Stones: Metric Data ...................................................................... 272 V-34 Adze Flakes: Metric Data ........................................................................... 273 V-35 Polished Pebbles: Metric Data ................................................................... 273 V-36 (84-10) Radiocarbon Dates, Major Excavations ...................................... 280 V-37 (84-11) Dendrochronological Dates .......................................................... 289 V-38 (84-13) Radiocarbon Dates, other Eagle Lake Sites ................................. 292 V-39 (A&M 13) Potato Mountain Radiocarbon Dates ..................................... 292 V-40 (MOC+) Mouth of Chilcotin, Taseko Lates Radiocarbon Dates .......... 297 V-41 Bear Lake, Shields, and Boyd Site Fauna ................................................. 307 V-42 Bear Lake Fauna ........................................................................................... 310 V-43 Shields Site Fauna ........................................................................................ 322 V-44 Boyd Site Fauna ............................................................................................ 328 Chapter VI Vl-1 Projectile Point Attributes .......................................................................... 341-2 VI-2 Projectile Point Attribute Definitions ....................................................... 344 VI-3 Stepwise MDA, Regional Homogeniety .................................................. 349 VI-4 Stepwise MDA, Ethnic Homogeniety ...................................................... 350 VI-5 Direct MDA, Regional Homogeniety ....................................................... 351 VI-6 Direct MDA, Ethnic Homogenierty .......................................................... 352 VI-7 Summary of Projectile Point Results ........................................................ 357 VI-8 Assemblage Data, 13 Components ........................................................... 364 VI-9 MDA Site Analysis ...................................................................................... 368-9 Vl-10 MDA Site Analysis, using percentages .................................................... 369-70 VI-11 Debitage Data ............................................................................................... 372 VI-12 MDA, Debitage Analysis ............................................................................ 376-7 Vl-13 Artifact Tabulations of 5 Eagle Lake components .................................. 379 May 21, 2003 Chapter VII (None) Chapter VHI (None) May 21, 2003 Plate l Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate 4 Plate 5 Plate 6 Plate 7 Plate 8 Plate 9 Plate 10 Plate 11 Plate 12 Plate 13 Plate 14 Plate 15 Plate 16 Plate 17 Plate 18 Plate 19 Plate 20 Plate 21 Plate 22 Plate 23 Plate 24 Artifact Plates (All in Chapter V) Title � Side-notched and Multi-notched Points .............................................. 232 Kavik, Corner-notched, Stemmed and Miscellaneous Points ............ .235 Point Fragments ................................................................................... 238 Large Formed Bifaces (LFBl) .............................................................. 239 Large Formed Biface Fragments and Small Oval Formed Bifaces .... 242 Small Formed Bifaces (SFBl) ............................................................. 242 Formed Scrapers (FOSC) .................................................................... 244 Large Bifacially Retouched Flakes (BIREl) ....................................... 247 Small Bifacially Retouched Flakes (BIREs) ...................................... 248 Unifacially Retouched Flakes ............................................................ 249 Utilized Flakes (UTIL) ..................................................................... 250 Multiple-edged Unifaces (MUUT) .................................................... 25 I Sinuous, Multiple-edged Unifaces (SINU) ....................................... 252 Gravers, Alternating Perforators, Non-alternating Peii·orators ........ 253 Piece Esquillee (PEEQ) .................................................................. 256 Bipolar Wedges and Cores .............................................................. 258 Cortex Spall Tools (SPTO) .............................................................. 261 Hammerstones and Cobble Tools ................................................... 262 Large Flake Tools (LFLT) ............................................................... 265 Microblade and Ground Stone Assemblages .................................. 266 Incised and Decorated Bone (INCB) ............................................... 267 Bone Fish Spear Points (Leister Prongs) (BPNT) ........................... 269 Bone and Antler: Harpoon Points, Awls, and Beamers ................... 270 Historic Artifact Assemblage (HIST) .............................................. 274 Chapter I INIRODUCTION R.G. Matson The Problem This report is primarily a synthesis of archaeological field research undertaken at Big Eagle or Choelquoit Lake, British Columbia mainly during 1979 and 1983. It provides a discussion of the basic research problem, the methodology used, descriptions of sites and artifacts, and analyses of environmental and cultural variables, as well as the resulting cultural history. The objective of the Eagle Lake Archaeological Project is the archaeological identification and description of the Athapaskan migration into the Eagle Lake or Choelquoit Lake area (Figure I-1). As an aside, the current official name "Choelquoit" is an anglicized version of the Chilcotin word for eagle. In the past this lake was generally known as Eagle Lake (Lane 1953:36), particularly among the Chilcotin. Apparently when map makers were faced with two lakes locally called "Eagle" they used an anglicized version of the Chilcotin word for eagle for one and called the other "Eagle'' (25 km -15 miles- northwest of Choelquoit lake). Choelquoit is also locally called "Big Eagle Lake" to discriminate it from the "other" Eagle lake. However, it is Choelquoit lake that is known as Eagle Lake in history. Locally famous figures such as "Eagle Lake Henry" lived at Choelquoit Lake. So we continued to call it the appropriate anthropological English name, "Eagle Lake." FIGURE May 18, 2003-9 Vancouver ISl!ll'ld J_-1O !:------80 km '------ "50 miles British Columbia Figure 1-1. Location of Eagle Lake, Mouth of the Chilcotin, and other regions cited in text. The archaeological investigation of prehistoric migrations is an undertaking basic to the field and is related to interests in the study of culture change. When significant change through time is apparent in artifact assemblages, the common means of explanation of such change is by reference to external events such as environmental variation or migration of new cultures. There has been much dissatisfaction with such explanations in the past, since they were often ad hoc or offered for lack of other evidence (Adams 1968). As a result, explanations that refer to internal cultural events or processes became more commonplace beginning in the 1960s (Adams et al. 1978). Migration, however, is still considered to have been a major reason for change in the archaeological record, though our methods for recognizing it are in considerable need of improvement. As such, in recent years there has been greater acknowledgement of both of the importance of migration as a mechanism of cultural change in the past and in the critical need to be able to recognize prehistoric migration ( Anthony 1990, 1997; Burmeister 2000; Cameron 1995; Matson and Magne 2001; Towner 1996). At the time the Eagle Lake investigation was proposed (Matson 1978) migration was definitely not a major interest for most North American archaeologists. Yet migrations did occur, although a clear methodology for determining them did not exist, with the exception of the "site unit intrusion" (Thompson 1958; Trigger 1968). Even in 1986 Rouse does not clearly provide any clear methodology, except for that of a general hypothesis-testing nature in his book-length treatment about three iikely migrations May 18, 2003-10 (Rouse 1986). Archaeology was thus in a bind, having rejected previous inferences of migration on methodological grounds, but yet recognizing the importance of migration to understand the past, at least in certain clear cases. The migration of Athapaskan speaking ancestors of the Navajo and Apache people from Canada around 1000 years ago is one such well known migratory "event" (Gunnerson 1969, 1979; Towner 1996). At around that point in time people with very distinct language and ethnic background started a movement that spanned almost half of a continent. The precise nature of the migration is still obscure, (Wilcox 1981, 1988; Magne 2001; Towner 1996) and we do not know whether it consisted of a single large wave, several smaller ones, whether groups split off along the way, or in what ways it influenced the groups through which the Athapaskans moved, although we later give our evaluation of the most likely process and route. The Chilcotin (who currently prefer the spelling "Tsi'lhqot'in") are the southernmost Athapaskans in Canada, located in the south-central Interior Plateau of British Columbia (Farrand 1900; Teit 1909; Lane 1953, 1981). At one time another Athapaskan group, the Nicola, inhabited an area to the south of the Chilcotin, but they were extinct by 1850. The ethnographic record and contemporary informants indicate that Chilcotin are relatively recent inhabitants of their territory (Teit: 1909b; Lane 1953,1981; Tyhurst 1984). Thus there is reason to believe that any knowledge gained about their arrival in the region would benefit the issue of the more extensive migration further south as well as the question of investigating and determining migrations in general. A specific procedure, denoted the "Parallel Direct Historic Approach" (Matson 1982, 1991) (described beiow) was developed to approach the migration problem. May 18, 2003-11 Other archaeologists were also interested in the same question, and two in particular, Wilmeth (1978) and Donahue (1977) reported on their investigations further to the north and northwest. In summary, the basic problem was the identification of migrations in the archaeological record and the specific question of identifying when the Chilcotin arrived in the Eagle Lake area. Project History The history of the project is somewhat bizarre, really first appearing as a spark in the campground of the Museum of Northern Arizona in Flagstaff, during the summer of 1971 when Bill Lipe introduced me to David Aberle. I was informed that the University of British Columbia was looking for an archaeologist and that Prof. Aberle hoped that whoever was hired would do some Athapaskan archaeology. I eventually was hired by UBC in 1972 and I considered that one of my obligations was to investigate Athapaskan prehistory. My first field project in the interior of British Columbia was at the Mouth of the Chilcotin River, (Figure I-1) where I tested out settlement pattern methodology developed in the Great Basin (Thomas 1969; Matson 1971) and U.S. Southwest (Lipe and Matson 1971; Matson and Lipe 1975). The Mouth of the Chilcotin was clearly part of the Plateau Pithouse Tradition (Richards and Rousseau 1987), being part of the Alkali Lake band (currently ''Esketmc First Nation") territory, or what Teit (1909a) referred to as the Canyon Shuswap. I carried out the field work there in 1974 (Harn 1975; Matson et al. 1984) where I surveyed 18 400m by 400 m quadrats and carried out some minor excavations. This area had been previously been the subject of an interesting, but uncompleted, project funded by the Opportunities for May 18, 2003-12 Youth program, directed by Paul Sneed, Grant Keddie and G. Jones (Keddie 1972). If the Chilcotin (people) had replaced the previous Plateau Pithouse Tradition inhabitants in the Chilcotin (geographical area), the Mouth of the Chikotin (MOC) artifactual and settlement pattern material could serve as a model for the expected "pre­Athapaskan" occupation. An investigation within Chilcotin territory with similar environmental constraints was next required to compare with the MOC. The two most important factors, were the presence of salmon, the most important resource for the Plateau Pithouse Tradition, and a relatively open understory, so that settlement pattern investigations would be similar to those (and relatively inexpensive) at the MOC. The salmon resources in the Chilcotin are concentrated along the Chilcotin River, up to the branch with the Chilko River, when the Chilko River up to Chilko Lake carries the majority of the salmon. So, in 1978 I looked for similar environments to the Mouth of the Chilcotin along the Chilcotin and Chilko Rivers upstream from Alexis Creek, which was the traditional eastern boundary of Chilcotin Indian territory. I was guided by a complete set of provincial site records and two short publications (Mitchell 1970a, 1970b), all that existed on Chilcotin archaeology, outside of Wilmeth' s (1969, 1971) Anahim Lake's investigations. In this tour, the Eagle Lake area, adjacent to the Chilko River, with several previous known Plateau Pithouse Tradition pithouse village sites, and a number of relatively open areas, was the obvious choice. I then wrote a grant proposal to the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Matson 1978) to support this research. Three separate research goals were proposed. First, a regional sampling project to discover the range of sites and to compare with the MOC. Second, excavation of sites May 18, 2003-13 that on the basis of surface investigations appeared to be Athapaskan and others that appeared to be  Plateau Pithouse Tradition. The second part was to be carried out in future seasons, with separate proposals to be funded. The third goal was to survey a long segment of the Chilko River, mainly to find good candidates for sites to fill out the e arlier portions of the Plateau Culture History, and to complete the settlement pattern a pproach. It was clear, even at that time, that large sites were concentrated along the rivers. Although we located, mapped, and documented over 100 sites along the Chilko River, including testing a number of them, not a single one exhibited the sought for stratification and culture history attributes, so that portion of the investigations was curtailed, although several of the sites did have relevance to our main goals. It is surprising that twenty years after this investigation, we have still have serious problems understanding the time period before the Plateau Pithouse Tradition (PPT) ( Stryd and Rousseau 1996). After the 1979 field season I applied for funding for 1980, and was informed contrary to what I had been told in 1978, that I should have applied for a multi-year project and did not receive the requested funding. I re-applied in 1982, after making available a relatively complete report (Matson et al. 1980) on the 1979 research which served as one of the bases for Magne and Matson (1984) and the current monograph. This proposal was funded and completed the basic Eagle Lake field research. The regional sampling techniques that were used to locate sites consumed the greater part of the 1979 season and about one-fifth of the 1983 season. The objective of the regional sampling program is to be able to sketch the regional settlement pattern of the area, which may or may not vary with respect to ethnic affinities of the participants. May 18, 2003-14 Excavation of selected sites was a minor part of the 1979 season (Matson et al. 1980), but was the major focus of the 1983 season when three sites and a total of 76 1m X Im units were excavated. It was in excavations that we expected to obtain the major evidence of material culture differences between ethnic groups, as well as firm evidence of the nature and timing of the Chilcotin migration into the Eagle Lake area. In the random sampling process, about 8% of the Eagle Lake area was intensively searched, using quadrats measuring 400 m on a side. These were located by an unbiased method in 1979, and in 1983 a new stratum of grassland area was added to the procedure. In addition, Magne initiated research in the Gunn and Yohetta Valleys of the Taseko Lakes region in 1983 funded by the B.C. Heritage Trust, using complementary data collection techniques. Only regional sampling (and limited testing) was undertaken here with the intent of providing baseline data for future studies. The results of this somewhat separate study are described in Magne (1984, 1985b), and the data gathered during the Taseko Lakes project are summarized and used in some of the analyses that follow. As reviewed above, in 1979, considerable effort was also expended in surveying both sides of the Chilko River in an (unsuccessful) attempt to find stratified, non­housepit sites for regional culture history work. Some additional collection and excavation on selected riverside sites took place in 1983 and 1985. Although we believed we had a good sample of the lower elevation parts of the Eagle Lake area by 1983, we became aware of the importance of higher elevations through local contacts and ethnographic work, along with the opportunity to carry out ethnoarchaeological investigations beyond that which was carried out in 1983 (Burnard M ay 18, 2003-15 1987). The latter were funded by a grant from the Ethnic Studies program of the Canadian government to Matson and largely carried out in the field by Diana Alexander and Robert Tyhurst (Alexander, Tyhurst, and Matson 1985) in 1984 and concentrated on the alpine areas of Potato Mountain, immediately to the south of Eagle lake (Figure 1-1). This investigation provided the basis for another SSHRC grant which supported minor additional work in the Eagle Lake area, and fairly substantial investigations, focussed on regional sampling of Potato Mountain (Alexander and Matson 1987, Matson and Alexander 1990). Funding by the Hampton Committee (UBC) to Matson supported further analysis, dating and manuscript preparation in 2000 and 2001, although the planned fieldwork turned out to be limited to a field reconnaissance. This report also provides background information on the local environment, summaries of earlier and present day Chilcotin ethnography and discussion of regional prehistory. The analytic sections present results of quadrat and s ite environmental and cultural variables analyses, aimed at providing a firm idea of the kinds of sites that occur in the region and their environmental associations, to allow a general description of regional prehistoric settlement patterns. A major part of the report describes the excavation program, descriptive results of the excavations, and analyses aimed at showing the distinctiveness of Chilcotin Athapaskan material culture in relation to the cultural units association with Plateau Pithouse Traditions such as Plateau and Kamloops Horizon (Richards and Rousseau 1987). In these analyses, comparative data from the Mouth of the Chilcotin (Matson, Harn and Bunyan 1984), Anahim Lake (Wilmeth 1978), and Chinlac (Borden 1952) are used extensively both for general May 18, 2003-16 assemblage comparisons and also for more restricted projectile point style comparisons. May 18, 2003-17 Natural Environment of the Eagle Lake Region Martin Magne, Deanna Ludowicz and R.G. Matson The Eagle Lake area was selected for this study of Chilcotin migration because of its environmental similarity to that of the ethnographic Western Shuswap to the east where the M outh of Chilcotin Settlement Project had been carried out (Matson et al. 1984). In particular the extensive open grasslands, and proximity of a major river with a large salmon run in the Eagle Lake region, are similar to the region at the mouth of the Chilcotin River that had been studied by Matson, Ham and Bunyan in 197 4 (Matson et al. 1984). This environmental control is a necessary feature of the parallel direct historic approach as discussed below. Choelquoit Lake, known locally as Big Eagle Lake or Eagle Lake, is located approximately 290 km north-northwest of Vancouver and 120 km southeast of Anahim Lake along the western periphery of the central Interior Plateau (Figure I-1). The lake is 9 km long, lying approximately west-east, and is 2 km wide from north to south. Eagle Lake at one time drained east into Goosenob Lake, and from there northeasterly into the Chilko River. The Chilko River itself is located about 3 km east of the east end of Eagle Lake. The elevation of Eagle Lake is 1189 m (3805 ft) with the Potato Mountain Range rising to 2206 m (7236 ft) from the southwest shore. The peaks of the Niut Range and Razorback Mountain at 2700 m (8856 ft) are prominent features of the horizon when viewed from the east end of the lake (Figure I-2). FIGURE May 18, 2003-18 0 t ...  0 IWIL[ :r-.3 Figure �- The Eagle Lake survey universe and sampling frame. Figure I-2. View of Niut Range (right hand side) and Potato Mountain (left) from Northeast side of Eagle Lake (Quadrat 22) The boundaries of the quadrat surveys were the Chilko River on the east and the Potato Range timberline at approximately the 1525 m (5000 ft) contour on the south. The western boundary followed the western shore of Eagle Lake cutting south of Duck.foot Lake. The lack of a natural boundary in the north resulted in the drawing of an arbitrary line along the 1310 m (4300 ft) contour level. The survey universe totals about 83.5 square kilometers in area (Figure I-3). FIGURE Figure I-3. The 1979 and 1983 Eagle Lake Sampling Frame. The study area is located in the southwest portion of the Fraser Plateau of the Interior Plateau (Holland 1964: 69). Flat and gently dipping late Miocene or Pliocene olivine basalt flows underlie most of this area. Little Tertiary erosion occurred here, leaving the plateau relatively undissected and unincised, with no highlands separating the plateau from the coast mountains on the west (Holland 1964: 75). Maximum ice coverage during the Pleistocene is considered to have reached elevations of 2440 m (8000 ft) but the chronology of glacial events for the plateau is problematic (Tipper 1971: 62 - 63). Stages of two or more deglaciations are evident from the complex patterning of land formations resulting from retreating ice. A northward movement is inferred from the moraines deposited by a tongue of ice which flowed May 18, 2003-19 from Tatlayoko Lake valley, while to the south, evidence for a southwestward flow of ice from the Chilko Lake valley to the Homathko River valley is present. Cirque-like basins were formed either during the Fraser or earlier glaciations, and are present in the low hills north of Eagle Lake. The Kleena-Kleene River, Chilko Lake and Tsuniah Lake valleys served as direct over-flow meltwater channels for the retreating ice, which formed small drumlins which Tipper (1971: 61) refers to as "indistinct glacial grooves" and esker complexes. Standing on the high ground at the west end of the lake and looking east, the very streamlined, "tear-drop" shape of the hill separating Eagle and Fishtrap lakes is very apparent, and indicates an east-west movement of ice. Glacial drift covers most of the plateau and Holland (1964: 70) suggests that less than five percent of the bedrock is exposed. Presently, a grey luvisol, which develops on parent material derived from basaltic rock under coniferous forest, covers most of the area (Farley 1979: 37). With respect to stone materials available to prehistoric inhabitants for chipped stone technological purposes, no major source of basalt, obsidian or cherts are known to occur within the Eagle Lake region. During the course of surveys, scattered cobbles of vitreous basalt were observed. Most of these were small, on the order of 0.1 to 0.5 kilograms in weight, although larger pieces of workable lithic material were occasionally found. Obsidian was in high probability obtained from the Obsidian Creek source area northwest of Anahim Lake. The material was probably traded over the 140 km distance to Eagle Lake. The climate at Eagle Lake is generally cold and dry, lying on the leeward side of the Coast Range, and is subject to a slight rain-shadow effect. A total of 30 to 60 cm of May 18, 2003-20 rain and snow are deposited annually. Temperatures drop to below -15 degrees Celsius in January and rarely reach 15 degrees Celsius in July, although brief spells of temperatures as high as 25 to 30 degrees Celsius usually occur each year in our experience. Fewer than sixty days of the year are certain to be frost-free (Farley 1979: 45 -47).Krajina (1973) identifies three biogeoclimatic zones in the vicinity of Eagle Lake: L Cariboo Aspen - Lodgepole Pine - Douglas Fir; 2. Subalpine Engelmann Spruce -Subalpine Fir; and 3. Alpine Tundra. The first zone is found along a narrow strip, not much wider that 3 km, following the shores of Eagle Lake, Chilko Lake, and the Chilko River (Figure I-2,4). This zone covers a greater expanse of land at the north end of the Chilko River and along the Chilcotin River to the Fraser River, and is most typical of the Chilcotin Plateau. Most of the quadrats that were surveyed in the Eagle Lake region were located in this zone and numerous edible plants have been identified. FIGURE Figure I-4. Cariboo-Aspen-Lodgepole Pine -Douglas Fir zone. Potato Mountain in the Background. (Figure I-2 and 1-4 taken from the same place in Quadrat 22.) Fruit-bearing shrubs include saskatoon berry (Amelanchier alnifolia), juniper CTuniperus sp.), gooseberry (Ribes sp.), soapberry (Shepherdia canadensis), wild rose (Rosa sp.), wild strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), and kinnikinnik (Arcostaphylos uva­ursi). Hog fennel (Lomatium macrocarpum), onion (Allium cernum), yarrow (Archillea milletolium), balsam root (Balsamorhiza sagittata) and prickly pear cactus (Opuntia fragilis) are edible herb and root plants which grow in grasslands along sunny, exposed May 18, 2003-21 slopes which are common on the north and east shores of Eagle Lake. The availability of these plant resources is one of the environmental characteristics which the Eagle Lake area shares with areas to the east and south. Eldridge and Eldridge (1980: 20) note that the Dean River Valley, located about 140 km northwest of Eagle Lake, generally lacks root and berry crops. A rapid rise in elevation from the first zone results in a slightly cooler and more moist climate, characteristic of the Subalpine Engelmann Spruce - Subalpine Fir biogeoclimatic zone (Figure 1-5). This is the zone within which the Taseko Lakes region is contained. Spruce, alder, and willow swamps are much more common in this area. The lower reaches of the Potato Mountains to the southwest of Eagle Lake are also in this zone. Food plants to be found here include spring beauty (Claytonia lanceolata), which is a wild root much like a small potato that can be harvested in the late spring from the mid elevations of the Potato Mountains, the Nemiah Valley and Yohetta Valley and in the Alpine Zone in late July. The mid-elevation zone also contains blueberry (Vaccinium sp.) The white bark pine (Pinus albicaulis), the nuts of which are edible, is found at the upper edge of the forested zone. FIGURE Figure 1-5. Subalpine Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir zone. Taseko Lakes region, Tuzcha Lake. The Alpine is the biogeoclimatic zone above the treeline of the Potato Range, the Taseko Lakes valleys and the other mountains in the general region. In many local areas within the Alpine Tundra zone, active glaciers are present and readily accessible. This May 18, 2003-22 zone was intensively investigated on Potato Mountain (Figure I-6) in 1984 and 1985 (Alexander et al. 1985, Alexander and Matson 1987) where it was divided into "Parkland" where some scattered trees -- alpine firs and whitebark pine -- still existed and 11Alpine Tundra" where any trees present were in stunted, Krumholz form. FIGURE Figure I-6. Alpine Zone, "Parkland", Middle Mountain area of Potato Mountain. The alpine tundra (Annas and Coupe 1979) usually occurs at elevations above 8825 m (6000 ft), although northeast facing slopes would sometimes have this zone as low as 1700 m (5600 ft). It is distinguished by the lack of true trees, with the only tree species occurring being the alpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) which took the flattened krummholz form when it did occur. The shrubs varied greatly, from much bare rock exposed with only lichens present, to lush alpine meadows with a wide variety of herbaceous flora. The culturally important mountain potato is found throughout the study area on Potato Mountain where soil and moisture permit, particularly below melting snowbanks. Snowbanks are present year around in protected areas, as indicated by the snow which was present throughout 1985, one of the hotter and drier summers by all accounts. Animals present today include deer, grizzly bear, black bear, marmot, and mountain goat. Bighorn sheep were found in the past, and the discovery of mountain caribou antlers on nearby Mount Nemaia (Alexander et al. 1985:29) indicates that these too may have been present in the past. Wapiti remains were also May 18, 2003-23 recovered at Eagle Lake in excavation contexts dating to the last 1000 years, which indicates the presence of this species in the general area and possibly seasonally in the alpine zone. Wolf was observed as well. Ptarmigan is quite common in some parts of the alpine zone and is the only important aboriginal bird resource found away from lakes. There are a number of lakes present in the Potato Mountain survey of the alpine zone, from Gillian and Dunlop on the west, to numerous small unnamed ones in the east. A variety of migratory waterfowl were found in some of these, often with young. Evidence of forest fires was apparent in many of the quadrats surveyed around Eagle Lake. Burned areas appeared to be rapidly replenished with mixed forest of trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta). Preliminary inspection of several tree cores that were collected suggests that a major burn occurred between 60 and 90 years ago, however cores from all of the burn areas were not obtained. The dendrochronological work described below may eventually provide more definite evidence about this widespread environmental process. The mammal, bird and fish populations are believed to not be as plentiful as they had once been. The area is presently being grazed by cattle, putting pressure on the amount of food available for wild species, and local inhabitants blame an influx of white hunters for depletion of game populations. Moose (Akes alces) have recently moved into the central Interior Plateau (Farley 1979: 53). Elk or wapiti (Cervus elephus), on the other hand, are not present today but were present in the past. This is based on testimony from local inhabitants as well as the occurrence of elk remains in our excavated sites dating to pre-Chilcotin times (see faunal analyses below). Native ungulates include mountain sheep (Ovis canadensis), May 18, 2003-24 m ountain goat (Oreamnos americanus), caribou (Rangifer tarandus), and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Deer is reported to be the most plentiful ungulate in British Columbia, though populations are declining (Farley 1979: 53). Carnivores currently present include grizzly (Ursus arctos ) and black (Ursus americanus) bears, wolf (Canis lupus), coyote (Canis latrans), lynx (Lynx lynx), wolverine (Gulo gulo), mink (Mustelavison), marten (Martes americana), fisher (Martes pennanti), and weasel (Mustela frenata). Other small mammals observed in the field include snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), marmot (Marmota monax), squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), flying squirrel (Claucomys sabrinus), beaver (Castor canadensis), and small brown bat (Myotis lucifus). Land capability maps suggest moderate to severe limitations for waterfowl around Eagle Lake (Canada Land Inventory 1970), although a large gaggle of Canada geese (Branta canadensis) frequented the south shore of the lake for several weeks in the summers of 1979 and 1983. Various other bird species have been identified, including bald eagle (Haliaeetus lencophelus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), loon (Gavia immer), spruce (Canachites canadensis), and ruffed (Bonasa umbellus ), grouse, yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius), common tern (Sterna hirundo), sandpiper (Erolia sp.), raven (Corvus corax), robin (Thordus migratorius), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), and rufous hummingbird ( Selasphorous rufus). Various fish species are available throughout the year. Rainbow trout [formerly Salmo gairdneri, now most likely Oncorhynchus mykiss (Smith and Steady 1989)] and suckers (Catostomus sp.) spawn in running fresh water that enters lakes in early spring and the adults can be caught in the lakes throughout the summer. Late summer sees May 18, 2003-25 the beginning of the annual sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) run up the Chilko River (Figure I-7). This run is most plentiful for two consecutive years out of a four year cycle of abundance. Some fewer Chinook or spring salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) also spawn in the Chilko River. Kokanee, which are land-locked sockeye salmon, are present in Eagle Lake and spawn in the small creek draining Fishtrap Lake at the western end of Eagle Lake (Figure I-8). The Chilko River also contains Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) and mountain whitefish (Propsopium williamsoni). These fish can also be caught through lake ice during the winter season and mountain whitefish are present in Eagle Lake FIGURE Figure I-7. Chilko River, facing north, 2 km north of Lingfield Creek. The Eagle Lake region offers a wide variety of plant, mammal, bird and fish species throughout the year. The animals available vary widely in the ease with which they can be procured as the result of vertical and lateral zonations, and also because of marked seasonality. Chilcotin adaptations to this landscape are the subject of the following section. FIGURE Figure I-8. West end of Eagle Lake from the north end of Potato Mountain. Fish Trap Lake is seen immediately to the left of the west end of Eagle Lake. May 18, 2003-26 Chapter 1I SETTLEMENT PA TIERNS: ETHNOGRAPHIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL Introduction Given that the basic goal of our investigations was to identify the timing of the Athapaskan movement into the Eagle Lake area, what are the expected characteristics of the Athapaskans as compared to the previous inhabitants? In this section we summarize the relevant ethnographic characteristics of the Chilcotin and the presumed previous inhabitants -- the Plateau Pithouse Tradition--and review the settlement p attern archaeology of each. We begin with a very brief summary of the ethnographic description of the Plateau Pithouse Tradition, and a more extensive summary of the relevant archaeology, focussing on the settlement pattern research at the Mouth of the Chikotin (Matson et al. 1984), as this material is far better known than B.C. Athapaskan settlement archaeology. We then turn to a more extensive review of the Chilcotin ethnography, followed by a short review of our ethnoarchaeological investigations, and finishing with our archaeological expectations for Chilcotin settlement patterns. Plateau Pithouse Tradition The Plateau Pithouse Tradition has become the favored term of archaeologists following Rousseau and Richards (1985) and Richards and Rousseau (1987), to refer to the ethnographic Plateau Culture area (Walker, 1998, Handbook of North American ��=,L...!.�-�i..t:u..2-..Aut.::.::e=.!a:a�.) and its immediate antecedents. For the Canadian portion of the Plateau area, Richards and Rousseau (1987) describe three broad culture units, named Shuswap, Plateau, and Kamloops, of which the last is the archaeological May 18, 2003-27 equivalent of the ethnographic people. The Shuswap culture is now dated to more than 3000 but less than 4000 radiocarbon years ago (Stryd and Rousseau 1996), the Plateau 2400 to 1200, and the Kamloops 1200 B.P. to A.D. 1800. The ethnographic Plateau Culture area includes a number of different groups but is best known in B.C. through the ethnographies of Teit on the Thompson (1900), Shuswap (1909) and the Lillooet (1906). All of these groups speak Salish languages, but other language families are spoken elsewhere on the Plateau. A sketch of the principal parts of the Plateau Culture as described mainly by Teit follows. The most important economic feature of Plateau culture is reliance on salmon. As far back as Wissler (1917) the Plateau was seen as part of the Salmon area, which he divided into what today are called the Northwest Culture and Plateau culture areas. Although not all parts of the Plateau have access to significant amounts of salmon, those that did are the places with higher population densities and, where present in numbers, salmon were the most important resource. Along the Fraser River, Sneed (1971) showed that population sizes are highly correlated with a relatively crude measure of salmon abundance. Kew (1992) offers a comprehensive discussion of the abundance, distribution and aboriginal use of salmon in the Fraser River system, including the different technologies involved that supports such a conclusion. Although the main stream of the Fraser has several runs of salmon, away from the lower reaches, the most important are the Sockeye and Chinook runs in late summer and early fall. Salmon fishing camps were positioned to obtain and process the salmon at these times. A wide variety of procedures were used to catch salmon, but two most common techniques were the dip net where waters were murky, such as on May 18, 2003-28 the main stream of the Fraser, and harpooning or spearing, now called "gaffing" in clear waters. The latter technique was also carried out at night with torches. In clear waters, the salmon would see, and thus avoid, the dip net. Both of these main techniques were most efficiently carried out adjacent to constrictions and rapids along the rivers. The netting and gaffing were carried out by males, but the all important processing and drying was usually done by women. Drying racks are still seen today, although most fish today are put fresh into freezers. Fishing camps, then, could be extensive settlements, involving a large number of people and lasting for many weeks, although since fishing occurred at low water, remains might be regularly washed away. The winter pithouse village was usually moved to next and was generally located not too far away. These settlements would be usually located in fairly low elevations, apparently to be closer to the location of salmon and for milder winter weather. They would also be positioned close to supplies of wood which often meant being located away from the main rivers, as many lower elevation parts of the Fraser and Thompson river valleys are grassland and do not have quality timber for construction purposes. These settlements were usually also located adjacent to good water sources which was an especially important factor on the Fraser, as that murky water was avoided for drinking purposes. This winter basecamp usually defined the local band which had a modest 25-50 size, and typically was exclusively occupied from November to February, although the camp would used as a base for longer than that. The structure that gives the archaeological name to this tradition, the pithouse, was a relatively robust structure, as idealized in Teit (1900) for the Thompson Indians. It would consist of a pit, 5 to 10 meters in diameter, excavated 40-80 cm deep, and with May 18, 2003-29 Pithouse ideally a four post frame with hip rafters (Figure 11-1). These rafters were covered with smaller pieces of wood and, finally, a layer of earth over the top. A smoke hole was left in the center and a notched log for a ladder was used for the entrance, also through the smoke hole. This structure was very energetically efficient (MacDonald 2001), but likely very smoky and dirty, and people were glad to leave them when better weather came along. Recent experience in building replicas indicates that they need constant upkeep and do not last too long without rotting, etc. It is the group of large depressions that existed after the pithouses had decayed that make this settlement type so visible to the archaeologist and made them the focus of archaeology in the 1960s and 70s, although the constant re-excavations of the houses during re-use leads to difficulties in archaeological interpretation (Wilmeth 1977). F IGURE Figure II-L Teit' s (1909a) Rendition of the Pithouse. The processed salmon were typically stored in cache pits, pits from 70 to 300 cm in diameter and up to more than a meter deep. These could be located in pithouse villages, but were often in hidden localities, and are sometimes found in large numbers particularly close to riverside fishing sites. Resources other than fish were also stored in cachepits; roots were the most important. Most root crops were obtained in the spring with the seasonal availability reflecting elevation, with a given root being available later in higher elevations, and higher elevation root species being available as the snow melted. The two most May 18, 2003-30 important root crops in the northwestern part of the Plateau culture area were balsam root sunflower (Balsamorhiza sagittata) and spring beauty or mountain potato (Claytonia lanceolata). The balsam roots were obtained early in the spring and were most abundant in middle elevation grassy environments (1000-1500 m) while mountain potatoes are most abundant in alpine meadows after the snow melts in late July and August. Marmots, which were important for their fur, were also concentrated in alpine areas. The root crops were typically roasted in pits, near where they were obtained. In some cases, rich root areas were locus of large multi-band camps, with Botanie Valley, near the junction of the Fraser and Thompson, being perhaps the best known. Longer established camps away from the winter village might have "mat lodge" structures. These are usually rectangular in nature, and there is some evidence that with the horse these became more common and partially replaced the winter pithouse (Alexander 1992), particularly on the United States portions of the Plateau. Richards and Rousseau (1987:43) report that rectilinear structures show little evidence of extensive roof insulation indicating the use of mat structures rather than the classic pithouse structure illustrated by Teit (1900, 1909a). They further state that these structures are present only in the Kamloops culture. The actual ethnographic evidence about root crops is quite limited, but archaeological investigations (Pokotylo 1978; Pokotylo and Froese 1983: Peacock 1998: Alexander and Matson 1987; Matson and Alexander 1990; V anags 2000) have clarified the importance of this procurement system in Canada and many of the details. We will see that this is an important activity in the Eagle Lake area. Fish besides salmon were also important on the Plateau, but given the variability May 18, 2003-31 in these resources it is difficult to generalize. Spring salmon runs of Chinook, where they existed, were important. Spawning of rainbow trout, and minnow family, soon after the ice came off the lakes, were almost always heavily exploited where available. Fishing other times of the year could also be important. Even sturgeon, on the Fraser River, were exploited. Hunting deer, elk, and mountain sheep were also important activities, but not compared to the fish runs. Hunting large mammals was particularly important after the salmon runs and before the onset of winter. Bow hunting was probably the most important technique, although traps, fences and other methods were also used. Hunting might well occur along side of root collecting. Other animals, including waterfowl, were also obtained and could be seasonally important. Although roots were the most important plants for foods, a very wide variety of other plants (and other roots) were exploited (furner 1978). Perhaps the most important were saskatoon, service or June berries (Amelanchier alnifolia) and buffalo­or soap-berry (Shepherdia canadensis), with both of these becoming available in the summer. To summarize the ethnographic settlement pattern, the major sites would be the fall salmon fishing camps, the winter pithouse village, with other large camps possible at fish spawning locations and rich root gathering grounds. A variety of smaller hunting and collecting locations would also be expected. In addition to these settlements, cache pit sites and root-roasting pits would be archaeologically visible. Teit (1900, 1909a) represents the Interior Salish as relatively egalitarian in nature, with very little political complexity or inherited social status. This particular question May 18, 2003-32 was a focus of Ray1 s (1939) investigation who also found the Plateau was relatively egalitarian. Recently claims of greater complexity on the Plateau have been made (Hayden 1997, Schulting 1995; Hayden and Schulting 1997). There is one clear possibility of greater complexity on the Canadian Plateau, the Lillooet phenomenon, which is a time (circa 900-1500 BP) of very large villages of very large pithouses, best known around Lillooet but apparently also extending up the Fraser into the Chilcotin/Chilko river system. However with the exception of the Lillooet Phenomenon, there appears to be a distinct difference in degree of social complexity between the interior and the coast (Matson and Coupland 1995). If one claims 11complexity11 for the Plateau as a whole -- and they are more "complex" than many ethnographic hunters and gathers, the Great Basin Shoshone, for example--what does one consider the Northwest Coast? Relatively speaking, then, in this area, the Plateau Pithouse Tradition, with the possible exception of the Lillooet phenomenon, should not be considered complex. How does the current archaeological information about the Plateau Pithouse Tradition correspond to the ethnographic sketch above? Most of the features that are easily recognized through archaeology are confirmed for the Plateau and Kamloops cultures (Richards and Rousseau 1987). The remnants of winter pithouse villages, sometimes called housepit sites, have been long recognized, and are concentrated along salmon streams. It is unclear if the superstructure described by Teit (1900) is valid for the pre-Kamloops cultures, but certainly pithouses of some sort were used in the Plateau and Shuswap cultures. The occurrence of these structures in groups is most evident along the Fraser River, while more isolated, or more strung out sites are seen May 18, 2003-33 along the Thompson, perhaps the result of potable water being present all along the Thompson, or less concentrated fishing locations along the Thompson. Similarly, cache pit sites have long been recognized (Sanger 1970:17) although they have not been a focus of much attention. Most excavation has focussed on pithouse sites. Although not well described in the ethnographic literature, the mid­elevation root procurement system is well known, thanks to the investigations of Pokotylo (1978; Pokotylo and Froese 1983; Vanags 2000) in Upper Hat Creek valley and subsequent research by Stryd (1995) and Peacock (1998). Investigations at Botanie Valley by Baker (1975) and Rousseau et al. (1991) have confirmed and expanded our understanding of the use of that area (as does the research reported for the Eagle Lake region). The archaeological recognition and understanding of root-roasting pits was almost non-existent in 1975 and they are now well-known. Fishing sites, often used today, have also been recognized by archaeologists, although the archaeological evidence, outside of location, is often not sufficient to confirm that function. The ethnographic or historic use, though, leaves little doubt as to their function in many cases. Alpine root procurement is not as well-known, but is well described for Potato Mountain (Alexander and Matson 1986) and for alpine areas near Hat Creek (Alexander 1992; Rousseau et al. 1991; V anags 2000). These investigations support the ethnographic descriptions in general, and add details in some areas. Beyond these site types, the assignment of other functions to other sites is of a lesser level of specificity, and confidence. Judgements such as "limited activity site'' with a possible "hunting'' function is often the only viable interpretation, based on what May 18, 2003-34 is usually a limited set of chipped stone debitage and tools. Which, of the wide range of activities that the ethnographic accounts give us, is actually represented -- or even some other activity-- cannot be determined at this time. In sum, for the Plateau and Kamloops cultures, the most intensive and most archaeologically visible activities recorded by Teit are well-recognized, and in good agreement. Going beyond salmon fishing location, winter pithouse village, cache pit, mid-elevation or alpine root-roasting, though, is not yet a standard part of archaeology. Magne (1985a), however, was able to show that those assemblages associated with housepits and cachepits can be distinguished. The earliest part of the Plateau Pithouse Tradition, the Shuswap culture (3300-2400 B.P.), at this time does not show the presence of root-roasting, indicating, at the very least, that it was less intensive at this time. Furthermore, there are indications that the use of cachepits was different at this time, as they are usually not present in pithouse sites of this age, and may not be present at all. Richards and Rousseau (1987) present an argument that the covering of the Shuswap pithouse was lighter than indicated by ethnographic descriptions and therefore that the superstructure described by Teit (1900) was absent. In sum, the major features of the ethnographic pattern are present in the Plateau and Kamloops cultures, but there appear to be some significant differences in the earlier Shuswap culture. Mouth of Chilcotin The above presentation is very general. What about specific locations that are relevant to the Eagle Lake area? Detailed settlement pattern information was one of the May 18, 2003-35 goals of the research carried out at Mouth of the Chilcotin (MOC) in 197 4 (Matson et al. 1984) which will be delineated after the methodology and field procedures common to the MOC, Eagle Lake, Potato Mountain, and Taseko Projects are described. Even though the MOC project was very modest and carried out a long time ago, it appears still to be the most detailed settlement pattern analysis of the Plateau Pithouse Tradition. What follows is a general summary, without the details in that later report, but much more specific than the ethnographic-based sketch above. The MOC survey was in the Canyon Shuswap territory, one of the most densely populated Shuswap areas. A total of nine pithouse villages were located in the MOC sample survey. All of these had cachepits located either adjacent to the pithouses or nearby, and all consisted of multiple housepits in close proximity, defined as within 100 m. (The sites were mapped, collected, and recorded using a gap of 50 m to indicate a separate site, so 12 separate ''archaeological" sites make up these nine.) As will be described in more detail later, the lower elevations at MOC are grassland covered from the Fraser River up to about 2500 ft elevation, where a dense, Douglas Fir forest replaces it. Eight of the nine pithouse villages were located close to the ecotone of the grassland and the Douglas fir forest, some out in the grassland, and some in the edge of the trees. As there were patches of wood along the Fraser, we interpreted this location as indicating not only the need for wood for firewood and structural timbers but also the dislike of drinking Fraser River water. The ninth pithouse site was located adjacent to the Fraser, in a location with trees. There was also a stream channel adjacent, which was certainly dry in the summer. Some of the pithouse sites were located near clear sources of water, but we had to search for sources of waters for others, and in some May 18, 2003-36 cases, they were small and meager. As this project (and other visits) occurred in the summer, the actual case in November-February may not have been so bleak--and the stream channel located adjacent to the pithouse village adjacent to the Fraser may have been running then. So the wood and water and avoidance of the Fraser River water appear to be generally confirmed for the MOC pithouse villages. Cache pit sites were found in a number of situations at the MOC, including in hidden areas, close to pithouse villages. Six, having from 3 to 8 cachepits each, were located along the steep ravines that ran between the top of the grassland to the banks of the Fraser River. These would be in hidden locations and half way between the Fraser and the pithouse locations, a good place to store salmon. In three cases, cache pit sites were located adjacent to the Fraser River where they had from 3 to 23 cachepits. Small numbers of them were located in grassland-forest ecotone areas usually slightly higher than the pithouses, where other resources could have been cached. Twelve of these "ecotone cachepits" were located and six of these consisted of a single cachepit and two of 2 cachepits. The two largest (7 and 8 cachepits) were located within 200 m of housepit sites. It is clear that the cachepits are concentrated in areas convenient for storing salmon, with smaller numbers located elsewhere. In the survey sample, a single riverside quadrat had evidence of riverside fishing, which was recorded as two separate sites. Other fishing sites were definitely present in that area, some of which were still in use by Shuswap (Secwepemc) people in 1974. The above sites constitute the vast majority of the sites discovered at the MOC. The other significant category were the four "chert debitage" sites interpreted as Pre-May 18, 2003-37 Plateau Pithouse Tradition. These are named after a distinct chert, which Vanags (2000) also records at a site on Pavilion Mountain. In addition three other sites were located that could not be forced into any of the above categories. What is missing from the MOC is any evidence of a root procurement system. Only six quadrats were surveyed in elevations above the grassland environment, and only one contained Balsamroot sunflower. No root-roasting pits were located there. Pokotylo' s (1978) work indicates that root roasting pits would be expected in the mid elevation open areas with Balsamroot sunflower present, such as at Eagle Lake. In alpine areas, Alexander's (1992), Pokotylo and Froese' s (1983) and Vanags' (2000) investigations show that roasting pits would be expected near areas with abundant mountain potato. Pokotylo' s (1978) investigations show that within the broader zones roasting pits tend to be near wood and sources of water. These associations make sense in terms of the amount of wood needed to roast roots, compared to the weight of roots, and the use of water to keep the roots from drying out while pit-roasting--or for general camp use. PPT Settlement Pattern Using the MOC results as the expected PPT pattern for Eagle Lake, we predict six kinds of sites for the Plateau Pithouse Tradition in the Eagle Lake Area. First, remains of winter villages of pithouses, consisting of a number of housepits, usually placed dose together, associated with cachepits. These sites are expected to be located relatively near good salmon sources, which in the Eagle Lake case is the Chilko River, and to be immediately adjacent to or in wooded areas with close access to potable May 18, 2003-38 water. In this area, the Chilko River is considered to be potable. Second, riverside fishing sites, adjacent to good fishing locations are also expected. Cachepit sites, with substantial numbers of pits, are expected close to riverside fishing sites (three), and in intermediary areas (four) between fishing sites and pithouse sites, if the latter are located at a substantial distance from the fishing sites. Fifth, smaller numbers of cachepits should be located in areas away from the river, sometimes within a few hundred meters of housepit sites, and other times not near any housepits but not in the area between the river and the housepit sites. This last class of cache pits sites may be used for general storage by nearby winter villages, but in hidden locations, or for storage of resources other than salmon. Finally, root roasting pit sites would be expected in areas near where Balsamroot sunflower was present, and probably close to wood and water. These should approximate those found by Pokotylo (1978; Pokotylo and Froese 1983) in Upper Hat Creek Valley. At the time of the surveys around Eagle Lake in 1979, and 1983, the use of the alpine area was unknown everywhere. In 1983 a little work was done adjacent to the alpine zone in Hat Creek by Pokotylo (Vanags 2000) so prior to our work in 1984 and 1985 on the top of the Potato Mountains, the archaeological use of this zone in Plateau Pithouse Tradition in Canada was unknown. The ethnographic accounts are unclear on what would be expected in terms of archaeological remains (Alexander 1992:101). Only some generalized campsites are suggested by Teit (1900, 1909a). May 18, 2003-39 Chikotin Tradition: Ethnography and Settlement Patterns Introduction The following summary is both more detailed and particular than the previous Plateau Pithouse Tradition summary. The information on the Chilcotin is much more limited and less well-known, so that a more detailed summary is in order. Moreover, it is the Chilcotin entrance into this area that is being investigated, so the particulars relevant to the Eagle Lake environment are emphasized. There are only a limited number of sources for the Chilcotin, and all have various drawbacks for our purposes. The best source, Lane (1953,1981), has the drawbacks that the fieldwork occurred only in 1948-1951, after many post-contact changes, and that it was oriented towards a number of comparisons with neighboring groups, rather than the traditional descriptive ethnography so highly valued by archaeologists. Perhaps the second best source is Teit (1909b) which was based on only two weeks of concentrated work and who came to some conclusions supported by no other recent investigation. Other useful sources include Farrand (1898, 1900, 1910) who concentrated on oral narratives, Morice (1890, 1895, 1906-1910) whose accounts focus on the Carrier and only occasionally refer to the Chilcotin, and Ray (1939,1942) who used only a single informant whom he regarded as not very reliable. Tyhurst (1984; Magne and Tyhurst 1984) carried out dissertation research on the Chilcotin 1975-1983 and has also summarized earlier ethnographic research, but little of his research is directly relevant to the pre-contact situation as it was focussed on recent economic changes. Mav 18, 2003-40 ., Ethnographic Sketch The word "Chilcotin" (Tsi'lhqot'in) comes from a rendition of the Chilcotin term for "people of the Chilko River", which for the Chikotin meant the combination of the Chilcotin and the Chilko rivers (Lane 1981:442). Their traditional territory at contact time (Figure II-2) extended from the upper Dean River north of Anahim Lake, southeast to the southern end of Chilco Lake, and to Coyote Rock, just east of Alexis Creek. This territory is about 28,000 square kilometers (11,000 square miles) and Lane (1981) estimates precontact population as between 1000 and 1500 giving between 19 and 28 square kilometers per person. Access to the all-important salmon resources are along the Chilko-Chilcotin along the eastern edge of their precontact territory, and at the border with the Bella Coola at their northwest portion; the Chilcotin population was probably concentrated accordingly. Lane (1953,1981) and Teit (1909b) agree that the Chilcotin had their most intensive and peaceful interactions with the Bella Coola and Canyon Shuswap (MOC). It was between the two that they acted as middlemen, trading interior items collected by the Canyon Shuswap, as well as material they collected, for coastal items provided by the Bella Coola. This trade was an important source of dried salmon for the Chilcotin, given their limited access to this resource Oorgenson 1980:125; Teit 1909b). Chilcotin relationships with their other main neighbors, the Southern Carrier, to the north (Gibson 1998; Lane 1953:66-7 4) and Lillooet, to the southeast (Lane 1953:81-86) were less regular and included a number of episodes of conflict (Gibson 1998:70; Teit 1909b ). In contrast their relationships with Bella Coola and Canyon Shuswap were generally peaceful and included substantial amounts of intermarriage. May 18, 2003-41 FIGURE Figure II-2. Historic Aboriginal Groups of Interior British Columbia The main subsistence activities of the Chilcotin were hunting and fishing. According to Lane (1981) few animals were not eaten and the most important game were elk, deer, caribou, mountain goats, and sheep. Black bear, marmots, hares, beaver, muskrats, and porcupines were also procured. Important birds were ducks, geese, ptarmigan, and grouse. Most hunting was carried out by individuals by stalking and ambushing. Traps, snares and deadfalls as well as group hunting were also used. Compared to the Plateau Pithouse Tradition, the Chilcotin relied more extensively on large mammal hunting, in line with their reduced access to salmon and root crops. Teit (1909b:782) adds otter, muskrat, and marten to the list provided above and remarks that women snared rabbits and muskrats. Fishing was also very important, although not limited as much to salmon as in the PPT. Salmon was the most important fish, with sockeye being preeminent, followed by Chinook and land-locked kokanee. Trout, whitefish and suckers were also noteworthy. Certainly the early spring spawning of the lake trout and suckers (minnows) in streams running into lakes was very important as that occurred at a time when few other resources were available and when stored foods were usually exhausted. Further, winter lake fishing, as with many Northern Athapaskans, was very important, with the mountain whitefish being particularly valued in this regard. Lane (1953:43), in fact, indicates that lake fishing was the most important subsistence activity, May 18, 2003-42 followed by river salmon fishing and hunting. Tyhurst (1984), however, thinks that salmon fishing was the most important pre-contact subsistence activity. Both kokanee and whitefish spawn in the fall at streams running into lakes. According to both Teit (1909b) and Lane (1953, 1981) traps were used extensively to obtain spawning fish. Other fish such as dolly varden and sea-run steelhead contributed substantially. Both dip nets and harpooning (now usually called "gaffing") were used for salmon, depending on the turbidity of the water. In general the techniques used for salmon were the same as those used elsewhere on the plateau (Kew 1992). Other types of nets were also used for fish, although the use of gillnets in precontact times was questioned by some of Lane's (1981 :405) informants. Fish spears or  leisters were also used. In comparison with the PPT, the importance of winter fishing and fish other than salmon were greater. Vegetable resources included both berries and roots. Teit (1909b:780) indicates that the roots were obtained and processed as among the Shuswap, although he indicates that they were of lesser importance. Mountain potato (Claytonia lanceolata), hog fennel, wild onion (Allium cernum), Columbian lily and fern-root are the ones he specifically mentions. (Lane (1953,1981) apparently did not identify roots, only mountain potato is specifically indicated.) Tyhurst (1984) adds avalanche lily, balsamroot sunflower, tiger lily, silverweed cinquefoit and biscuit root to this list. Teit (1909b:780) indicates that principal berries are the saskatoon (Amerlanchier alnifloria) and soap-berries (Sherperdia canadensis) and Teit (1909b) and Magne and Tyhurst (1984) add, among others, raspberries, blueberries, strawberries, and kinnikinnik (Arctostaphylos urvi-ursi) berries. Lane (1981:406) indicates that roots were important May 181 2003-43 11-3 Puntzi Lake 951 in the early spring. The use of roots and berries thus appears to be very similar to that of the PPT as suggested by Teit (1909b:780). Another important resource in the early spring was the cambium layer of trees. When the sap began running the cambium layer becomes sweet and one can peel the bark from a tree and scrap it with a caribou antler scraper (Teit 1909b:781). Lodgepole pine, so ubiquitous in the Chilc·.tin, was the preferred tree. It is likely that this was most important in the resou,· ·arce early springtime. As indicated above, 1� ,f the tools used by the Chilcotin differed little from those used elsewhere on the ] ,:au. Decorative style, though, was distinctive, as shown by Teit (1909b) for the baskets. These, although made using similar materials in a similar fashion as the interior Salish, are easily distinguished as the Chilcotin usually divided their basketry decorations into four zones, something not carried out by the Salish. For house structures in the winter, the Chilcotin used two, a small pithouse, said to be identical to and a recent adoption from the Shuswap (Lane 1953:146,160, 1981:403; Teit 1909b:775; Ray 1939:133), and an above ground 11rectangular lodge" (Figure II-3). This latter is the Chikotin among Northern Athapa�, (1953:144-146). FIGURE n of the above ground rectangular structure common rhe best description of the iodge is from Lane Figure II-3. Puntzi Lake Lodge. Photo courtesy of Robert Lane. May 18, 2003-44 "It was rectangular. The size varied. Most of the estimates centered around twenty feet long by fifteen feet wide. The floor was leveled, but not excavated. There was usually one end-post at each end of the house, eight to twelve feet tall and eight to twelve inches in diameter. These were slightly grooved on top, and supported the ridge-pole. Several poles leaned against this ridge-pole, forming a gable shaped frame. There were at least two of these poles on each side. Bark, poles, or split logs which were usually but not always peeled, were laid horizontally upon this frame, covering both sides almost but not quite up to the top. Thus there was an opening several feet wide the length of the house just under the ridge-pole. The ends were enclosed by closely spaced vertical bark slabs, poles, or split logs. These were supported upon the end frame poles, and their horizontal cover. Only the end-posts were set into the ground. None of the posts were lashed or mortised. At one end, some of the vertical pieces were left off to make the door. This opening was covered with a skin. The house was covered with a layer of grass, sod, or bark to chink the holes." Lane (1953:45-46) also describes variants of this and mentions that sometimes a small tree is topped to provide one of the end-posts as appears to be the case in Figure II-2. Teit (1909b:775-776) provides a less detailed description, but adds that the floors oflodges were usually strewn with fir or balsam branches. Thus, one of the two types of winter houses is very distinct from the PPT pithouse, although the remains might not look that different from those of a mat lodge. A less robust form of the above structure was also used in other seasons, where a Mav 18, 2003-45 ., '1,ark" house might use a rope as a ridge pole. This was basically a lighter and less weather tight version of the above. In the summer, brush shelters were usually erected, but as Lane (1953:46) notes " ... in both summer and the winter, people often camped in the open with no shelter." The Chilcotin were divided into four to six loose groups referred to by Lane (1981:407) as "bands". These groups did not regularly meet face-to-face, but did consist of families that did interact over time and were interrelated. The winter settlement consisted of a camp of a very small group of families, with no more than two or three families at any single location. This is a much smaller group than the PPT winter pithouse village, and it also was less permanent, as discussed below. Larger assemblages occurred in three different settings. First, in the spring, the fish spawning settings could be times of larger aggregations. Second, in July and August, members from a number of bands gathered in a single very large camp in alpine areas for mountain potato harvesting and marmot hunting. The Potato Mountains, immediately south of Eagle Lake, was the best known of these settings. Finally, good salmon fishing locations often attracted large groups from a variety of areas. The last two kinds of aggregations still occurred as recently as the late 1940s and the large fishing camp still occurs on a reduced basis at Henry's Crossing and at Si wash Canyon, both along the Chilko River. During much of the year, though, a single nuclear family was the basic economic and social unit, although usually part of a camp of several families (Lane 1981:406). This contrasts with the PPT where a larger, more cohesive "band", i.e., winter village group, appears to be much more important. In general, the Chilcotin have a more May 18, 2003-46 flexible and mobile way of life than found in the PPT. Earlier we mentioned that Teit (1909b:786) came to some conclusions that have not been supported by any other later investigators. This is his statement: '' . .it appears certain that the tribe was organized in manner similar to that of the Coast tribes. They seem to have had three classes, --nobles, common people, and slaves." He does preface this statement with "From the assertion of the Shuswap, and from what little information I managed to gather from the Chilcotin themselves ... " Teit (1909b:786) also reports the presence of clans. Lane (1953:51, 186-188, 1981) explicitly rejects both features, as does Ray (1939:39) at least of being a pre-contact phenomena, as does Tyhurst (1984). Lane (1953:186-193) has quite a long discussion about this matter and we think it can be safely dismissed. Many of the differences between the PPT and the Chilcotin can be understood by examining Athapaskans living further to the north, generally in areas without reliable salmon runs and root crops. In such situations, winter base camps are smaller and less permanent than seen among the PPT, and tend to be focussed around lakes where whitefish could be obtained in the fall and in the summer. In such a setting, a lower population density is present and large mammals have a greater importance than in the PPT. Most Athapaskan groups to the north have some sort of rectangular winter habitation, ranging from relatively impermanent structures such as seen among the Chilcotin, such as the Tsetsaut (Duff 1981 ), to larger versions of the same basic layout (Stuart Lake Carrier), to the much more permanent rectangular structures of the Koyukuk in Alaska (Mcfadyen Clark 1996). In many respects the Chilcotin in adaptation, settlement pattern, and material culture appear to be transitional between May 18, 2003-47 the Athapaskan pattern of further north and the PPT. Chilcotin of the Eagle Lake Region The Eagle Lake region is near the southern limit of Chilcotin territory in 1850 (see maps in Teit (1906, 1909a). It lies on the division between two different environments, the rolling Chilcotin plateau and the back side of the coast range, an area of deep trenches filled with large, long lakes (Tatlayoko, Chilko, Tsuniah, Taseko Lakes) separated by mountains, some with extensive alpine areas. The lakes act as both barriers and transportation corridors, and the rivers, mainly as barriers. One of the interesting traits of the Chilcotin was bridge-buiiding (Lane 1953) to make crossing these rivers easy. Thus this area had access to the three most important pre-contact resources, the salmon on the Chilko River, lake fishing, and alpine areas ( on Potato Mountain.) As indicated earlier, at contact, the population appeared to be concentrated in the Anahim Lake area and along the upper Chilcotin and Chilko Rivers, the two areas within Chilcotin territory that had access to significant amount of salmon. The Eagle Lake area is at the upper end of the Chilko Lake area with access to lakes and the Potato Mountain alpine meadows. The occupied Indian reserves closest to the region are at Nemaiah Valley (current name Xeni Gwet'in First Nations) some 35 km southeast (but two to three hours by road), and the Alexis Creek Reserve at Redstone Flats, about 70 km northeast. Two families in 1979 and 1983 lived within 15 km of Eagle Lake, and raised cattle and crops throughout the area. This region is remote even though it is within 300 km by air from the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. The nearest community of any size, Williams May 18, 2003-48 Lake, though, was 4 to 5 hours by gravel road in 1980. This remoteness has contributed to the endurance of the traditional Chilcotin life-style. Haig-Brown (1983) has noted that the Chilcotin are exceptional in that 90% of the populace retains the language, versus the average of some 5% language retention for other British Columbian Indian groups. Post Contact History Tyhurst (1984) conducted research concentrating on the post-contact history of the Chilcotin. What follows is largely based on his account, with some additional material from Lane (1953) and Wilmeth (1978). The first Euro-Canadian contact with the Chilcotin was via the fur trade in the early 19th century (Simon Fraser, 1808), though some European trade goods had already reached the Chilcotin from the coast before that time. Fort Alexandria established in 1821 on the east bank of the Fraser River, north of Williams Lake and moved to the west bank in 1836 (Gibson 1998:68-79) was the main fur trade contact with the Chilcotin. It was probably near here that on July 26, 1808 that Fraser encountered " .... a large assembly of Athnahs (Shuswap) and Chilkoetins. The latter are from the Westward and came on purpose to have a sight of us, having never seen any white people before" (Fraser 1966 [1808):124). The Shuswap and Carrier living at Fort Alexandria were attacked at least once by the Chilcotin (Gibson 1998:70,209,222-225; Lane 1953:72). The Chilcotin were first visited during 1822 and 1825 and a subsidiary outpost, Fort Chilcotin, located near the junction of the Chilko and Chilcotin rivers, was sporadically occupied in the period ] 829-1844. This post never produced profitable returns leading to its abandonment in 1844 (Anonymous n.d.). Connolly who May 18, 2003-49 visited the Chilcotin in 1825 and 1829, found the Chilcotin and Carrier at Fort Alexander in serious dispute, perhaps because the Carrier were obtaining arms via the fur trade. Whatever the reasons, overall Chilcotin participation in the early 19th century fur trade was minimal. It may be that it also conflicted with their established role as middlemen between the Canyon Shuswap and the Bella Coola. The Chilcotin were very heavily impacted by the smallpox epidemics of 1863 and 1864. The Canyon Shuswap were devastated by the disease and the Shuswap largely abandoned the west side of the Fraser (Figure II-4). This resulted in the Chilcotin moving down the Chilcotin River to occupy the mouth with the Fraser. Thus the Toosey Indian Reserve was granted to a group of Chilcotin at Riske Creek in what had been Canyon Shuswap territory, as well as at the Anaham Reserve at Alexis Creek, which was previously an unoccupied zone between the Chilcotin and Shuswap territories. The less sedentary and more highly mobile Chilcotin were not as heavily affected by the smallpox as their neighbors, but this epidemic did help set off the Chilcotin War in 1864. The war began by an attack by Chilcotin on Alfred Waddington' s men in the belief that the Homathko Canyon road builders had deliberately spread smallpox (Hewlett 1973). Waddington was building a road up the Homathco River as an alternative route to the Caribou gold fields which were discovered in 1858. So the Caribou Gold Rush could also be seen as a factor in the Chilcotin War. For some three months the Chilcotin War raged, including one episode at Eagle Lake where Donald McLean, a member of a volunteer party from the Cariboo, was killed. In the end, some six Chilcotin were bound over for trial and five were hanged. May 18, 2003-50 50 { 50 Smallpox was apparently devastating to the Chilcotin at Anahim Lake (Wilmeth 1978:8) and after the war that area was essentially abandoned. The name "Anaham, Anahim, anaxeim" was used by a series of 19th century leaders (Wilmeth 1978:5,6) and the present reserve of that name near Alexis Creek is probably named after one of them, and likely consists of Chilcotin who had previous lived near Anahim Lake. The Anahim Lake area was then soon occupied by Ulkatcho Carrier, and a reserve was established for them there in 1916 (Wilmeth 1978:11). The group probably located furthest east prior to the smallpox epidemic was named after Alexis Creek (Figure II-4) and was moved west to Redstone. The combination of the abandonment of the Anahim Lake region and the movement downstream meant a major post-1860 movement toward the east by the Chilcotin to their present distribution. F IGURE Figure 11-4. Chilcotin Territory and Reserve Locations Crown land began to be granted to individuals starting in 1860 with a number of "Certificates of Improvement" granted for the Chilcotin territory beginning in 1870 (f yhurst 1984). These were first located in the Riske Creek and Alexis Creek areas, and then moved further west. With these grants ranching began throughout the Chilcotin plateau, and within 50 years had become the major social and economic force in the area. In 1887 three reserves were granted to the Chilcotin, the present day Anaham, Toosey, and Stone Reserves, and in 1909, the Alexis Creek (Redstone) and Nernaiah May 18, 2003-51 Reserves (now Xeni Gwet'in First Nations). As the non-Chilcotin ranching economy developed, the Chilcotin began to shift from the traditional economy, and the identity of many Chilcotin became that of cowboys. In this area, one can not graze cattle through the winter, so a source of natural hay that could be cut and stored to feed the stock was critical. Thus, many of the iand grants included natural wet areas that produced hay commonly called ilhay meadows" and haying became an important activity. The livelihood of well-known Chilcotin such as Eagle Lake Henry was based on access to hay. In Eagle Lake Henry's case, the lowering of Eagle Lake water level during the 1940s made the western portion a large swampy area and gave him the ability to produce a large amount of hay and relative wealth (Per. Com. Scotty Shields, 1983). In contrast to the participation of male Chilcotin in the ranching economy, both Anglo and Indian, the participation of Chilcotin women in wage work has been minimal (Magne and Tyhurst 1984). A reflection of historically unequal participation by men and women in wage labor may be seen in the fact that whereas almost no Chilcotin men are unilingual, in the 1970s and 80s there were a number of older Chilcotin women who spoke only Chilcotin, or no more than a few words of English. Contact-era division of labor was based on women processing goods such as fish, meat, and skins, and, for the most part, upon men obtaining these things. Women obtained and processed plant foods and fibres, including the gathering and weaving of spruce roots and bark for baskets. There appears to have always been a great deal of overlap in knowledge between men and women in traditional Chilcotin society. Knowledge of the ways of doing things was widely shared, though men might know May 18, 2003-52 more about salmon weir construction, for example, while women knew more about processes such as hide preparation. The remoteness of the area as weli as the lack of female involvement with wage labor has facilitated the retention of traditional life-style. One example is that of hide­working technology as equipment in Nemiah Valley observed in 1983 included hidc­scrapers, hide-smoking pits, hide-smoking frames and hide-stretching frames. Two of the hide-scrapers bear retouched stone spalls with considerable edge-rounding from use. The following chapter by Burnard-Hogarth describes other aspects of traditional technoiogy observed in her ethnoarchaeological research. The Chilcotin people of the 1980s were ranchers, or would wish to be, but were kept from entering ranching or from expanding their ranching activities by a chronic and serious shortage of pasture and arable land. Chilcotin men have worked, and continue to work, as wage laborers on ranches in the area. There was,- however, relatively little participation in the modern industrial economy of the area, which for the most part, is the forest industry. In the past many Chilcotin men acted as drivers for freight wagons, or owned their own teams which they hired out. The coming of roads within the past 45 years, and the widespread ownership of trucks and automobiles has decreased this role to one of relative unimportance. Ethnographic approaches to the Problem of the Origin of the Chilcotin Very early it was recognize d that a core aspect of understanding the Chilcotin was their origin and separation from other Athapaskan or Dene speakers. This was recognized even by Morice, writing about the full range of Athapaskan speakers: May 18, 2003-53 "An ethnologic problem which is not yet, and will perhaps never be solved, is the question, How did it come to pass that large portions of the Dene nation detached themselves from the main stock and migrated south? When did this exodus occur? What was the route followed by the adventurous bands? ... Two facts only seem pretty safely established, namely: The separation of the southern from the northern tribes happened centuries ago; and, moreover, the national movement resulting in the d ivision of the nation into two different camps was from north to south" (Morice 1893: 12). Almost all ethnographic descriptions of the Chilcotin since then have added statements about this issue (Farrand 1898; Teit 1909b: Lane 1953,1981; Tyhurst 1984). All appear to be in agreement that the Chilcotin are relatively recent newcomers in their current location. Also, there appears to be agreement that they share many features with the Carrier and probably separated from them relatively recently. In particular, the Ulkatcho Carrier appear to be very similar, and are dose neighbors (Tyhurst 1984:158-166). If one accepts glottochronology /lexicostatistics (which we discuss later in this volume), Carrier and Chipewyan diverged between 628 and 864 years ago (Hoijer 1956; Hymes 1957), and this diversion likely occurred in or near northern British Columbia. According to Davis (1975: 624), lexicostatistics indicate that the Chilcotin split from the Carrier 601 years ago, and 889 years ago with the Navajo, and a similar date for divergence with Chipewyan. Tyhurst (1984:348-354) shows that the relationship between Ulkatcho and Chilcotin kin terms is closer than that obtained by J. M. Kew for between Southern Carrier and Chilcotin, indicating that the Carrier divergence estimate Mav 18, 2003-54 .I is probably a maximum estimate, overestimating the separation date between the Ulkatcho Carrier and the Chilcotin. Thus 500 to 800 years ago the Chilcotin began to diverge from other Northern Athapaskans. This event probably occurred in northern British Columbia. Dyen and Aberie's (1974) study of Proto-Athapaskan kinship through iexicai reconstruction sheds some light on Ulkatcho relationships to Lower Carrier, but none o n  Chilcotin because of the lack of data. Their study makes clear that Ulkatcho kinshipterm innovations are a more recent development than those found in the Bulkley River Carrier (197 4: 348). They also hypothesized that the Ulkatcho terminology and social organization changed because they occupied a region with poor salmon availability, were less sedentary, and thus eventually lost the matrilocality and matrilineality of Proto-Athapaskan (Dyen and Aberle 1974: 413-414). If the Ulkatcho and Chilcotin were until relatively recently one group, as indicated by Tyhurst' s analysis, this likely applies to the Chilcotin as well. All in all, we can be reasonably certain that the Chikotin are recent migrants to south-central B.C. (Lane 1953, 1981; Teit 1909b; Farrand 1898). In sum, Chilcotin life-styles of the present can be seen as a Northern Athapaskan adaptation to the more arid environment of the south-central Plateau, with good access to salmon along the Chilcotin and Chilko rivers. As with many northwestern Athapaskan peoples, seasonal resource use involves considerable distances and fairly reliable resources, but focuses to an unusual extent on the reliable, annual salmon migrations. May 18, 2003-55 Ethnoarchaeological Investigations in the Chilcotin Linda Burnard-Hogarth During the months of July and August of 1983, ethnoarchaeological investigations were carried out in the Chilcotin region of British Columbia. The research, funded by a grant from the B.C. Heritage Tru