UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Inscribed on the landscape : stories of stone traps and fishing in Laxyuup Gitxaała Smethurst, Naomi H. 2014

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

Item Metadata


24-ubc_2014_spring_smethurst_naomi.pdf [ 2.19MB ]
JSON: 24-1.0167319.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0167319-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0167319-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0167319-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0167319-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0167319-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0167319-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

  i  INSCRIBED ON THE LANDSCAPE: STORIES OF STONE TRAPS AND FISHING IN LAXYUUP GITXAAŁA  by   Naomi H. Smethurst  B.A., University of Maine, 2004   A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF   MASTER OF ARTS   in   THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES   (Anthropology)    THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  (Vancouver)    Spring 2014   ©Naomi H. Smethurst, 2014     ii  Abstract  This thesis examines the nature of an indigenous fishery on the northwest coast of British Columbia, within Gitxaała Nation`s territory.  To investigate fishing practices,  I analyze faunal assemblages from 16 habitation sites, map and describe two intertidal stone traps, and relate the results of which to Gitxaała traditional ecological knowledge. I first outline the social organization of fishing in Gitxaała territory and discuss Gitxaała ontology and the connection between family and place. I then discuss the technology and function behind the two intertidal stone traps. I examine archaeological patterning of fish abundances at the habitation sites through various quantitative methods, focusing on three sites associated with the intertidal stone traps. I then argue that Gitxaała traditional ecological knowledge is paramount in understanding and interpreting the archaeological record. The results of the study reveal a complex portrait of fishing within Gitxaała Territory. Faunal analysis data is contradictory to expectations of a connection between fish abundances and site size and typology. Faunal analysis also indicates that differences in mass harvest technologies such as intertidal stone traps reflects differences in use and target species. Gitxaała scholarship on fishing, use, and occupancy acts as an interpretive guide to the archaeological record in that it provides explanations to an otherwise complex data set. The results suggest that fishing practices are not prescribed simply by resource availability. Rather, fishing practices reflect complex cultural processes and decisions of Gitxaała leaders who maintained obligations of a reciprocal relationship between the human and animal world, fish production, and management of important ecosystems.           iii  Preface  This thesis is original, unpublished, independent work by the author, Naomi H. Smethurst, with the exception of faunal identifications, completed by Rebecca J. Wigen (2012).                                            iv  Table of Contents  Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... ii Preface ......................................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. v List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... vi Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... vii Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Previous Archaeological Research in Gitxaała Territory ............................................................................... 5 Direction of Research .................................................................................................................................... 8 Research on Intertidal Traps on the Northwest Coast ............................................................................... 10 Gitxaała, Fishing Ontology, History and Knowledge ................................................................................... 11 Maps and Names .................................................................................................................................... 13 Stone Trap Technology ............................................................................................................................... 16 Field Sampling Methods.............................................................................................................................. 21 The Connection Between Faunal Assemblages and Intertidal Stone Traps ........................................... 21 Faunal Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 24 Faunal Results ......................................................................................................................................... 24 Fishing Patterns ....................................................................................................................................... 28 Sample Size Considerations .................................................................................................................... 29 Taxonomic Richness ............................................................................................................................ 30 Salmon Cranial vs Vertebrae Elements ................................................................................................... 32 Gitxaała Sites with Over 500 Identified Fish Elements ........................................................................... 34 Faunal Results of Habitation Sites Associated with Traps ...................................................................... 35 Sga wina’a ........................................................................................................................................... 35 William Lewis’ Fish Camp .................................................................................................................... 37 K’moda ................................................................................................................................................ 38 Faunal Analysis Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 39 TEK and the Archaeological Record ............................................................................................................ 40 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 43 Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................. 45 Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 51 Appendix A: Bucket Auger Methods ....................................................................................................... 52 Appendix B: Laboratory Methods ........................................................................................................... 53 Appendix C: Faunal Quantification Methodology ................................................................................... 54 Appendix D: Additional Tables and Figures ............................................................................................ 55      v  List of Tables Table 1: Faunal quantifications across Gitxaała habitation sites ................................................................ 25 Table 2: Salmon, herring, and greenling abundances across six sites ........................................................ 35 Table 3: 14C dates from Sga wina’a ........................................................................................................... 36 Table 4: 14C dates from William Lewis’ Fish Camp ................................................................................. 37 Table 5: 14C dates from K’moda ................................................................................................................ 38                                                                                                                                                                                                                               vi  List of Figures Figure 1: Study area within Gitxaała Territory showing select habitation and trap sites ............................. 6 Figure 2: K’moda (Kumowdah) Trap. ........................................................................................................ 17 Figure 3: South shore of Lowe Inlet, located 100 m south of the K’moda trap site. .................................. 18 Figure 4: Kxenk’aa’wen ............................................................................................................................. 20                                 vii  Acknowledgements  This thesis would not have been possible without the help and encouragement of many people and organizations to whom I am very grateful. First, I would like to thank Gitxaała Nation for providing the opportunity and support to conduct archaeological research within their traditional territory. I am particularly grateful to my research supervisor and Gitxaała member Dr. Charles Menzies for his generosity throughout this project. From providing research opportunities, arranging for all field and laboratory logistics, financial support, reading thesis and related projects’ drafts, to many discussions about fishing, archaeological practices and indigenous perspectives, Dr. Menzies has been enormously helpful. Dr. Menzies’ enthusiasm for northwest coast archaeology is contagious and is a fundamental reason why this thesis exists. I am also indebted to my committee member Dr. Andrew Martindale, for providing advice throughout my research and for providing me with thorough and extremely helpful critiques of drafts of this thesis. I am also very grateful to Dr. Bruce Miller, Dr. Mike Blake, and Dr. David Pokotylo for their advice throughout my academic development. I would also like to thank the UBC Laboratory of Archaeology for providing a space for processing samples. A further thank you is due to Becky Wigen, who identified all faunal samples. GIS support and advice was very kindly provided by Angelina Leblanc and Wendy Rolston. Gitxaała crew members Marvin (Teddy) Gamble, Ken Innes, Roberta Barker, Russell Gamble, Phillip Gamble, Edward Gladstone, and Greg McKay were instrumental in the development of this research project and in shaping the way I came to understand fishing in Gitxaała, and I wish to thank them for their generosity in sharing their knowledge. I am also indebted to the many other crew members who contributed their skills and knowledge to this project, including Dr. Iain McKechnie, Dr. Kisha Supernant, Kenzie Jessome, Jon Irons, Tristan Menzies, and Jarek Ignas-Menzies. Additional thanks is due to fellow UBC graduate students for the many, many study sessions, stimulating conversations, and the huge amount of support throughout our program, particularly Lauren Rodman, Jory Stariwat, Daria Boltokova, Diana Moreiras, and Morgan Moffitt. A special thank you to Lauren Rodman for partnering in a research assistantship and sharing the often lonely and muddy task of wet screening and sorting the numerous soil samples collected, for listening to a lot of podcasts with me while working, and for critiquing thesis drafts.   viii  Thanks also to Golder Associates Ltd. and Kleanza Consulting Ltd. who both afforded a great deal of flexibility to accommodate school, and to all of my BC archy friends and colleagues for their advice, ideas and support. I would also like to thank my family and friends for their continuing support, and my wonderful hockey teams the Vancouver Heat, Ice-O-Topes, and Terrace Blizzards for great hockey games, fun filled tournaments, and for being a fun, welcoming, and all round super crowd.            1  Introduction  Prince Rupert harbour has often been viewed as the key social and economic centre on British Columbia`s north coast (Martindale and Menzies 2010). However, this orthodox vision has emerged in the absence of sustained research on other areas of the north coast (with the exception of the Dundas Islands [Brewster and Martindale 2011]). Significant gaps exist in archaeological research of economies, subsistence, and cultural processes in other areas of the Tsimshian world, most notably in Gitxaała`s core territory.  Anthropological and archaeological studies on the northwest coast (NWC), and specifically in Tsimshian Territories, are heavily steeped in theoretical notions of the connection between intensification of production (most notably salmon), and the rise of social “complexity” (eg. Ames 2005; Matson and Coupland 1995). NWC groups are often characterized as complex hunter-gatherers reflecting both their reliance on natural resources for subsistence and the hierarchical socio-political systems characterizing the culture-area. The term “complex hunter-gatherer” is based on theoretical underpinnings of the evolution of cultural complexity and is amusing to many coastal peoples, particularly Gitxaała. Gitxaała community members do not reflect upon their history as a series of cultural phases, nor do they characterise it as a trajectory of increasing complexity from an earlier culture through intensification of economic production. This classification has further been critiqued by Martindale (1999, 2009), and Martindale and Letham (2011) who argue that it is associated with a certain ethnocentrism of archaeology’s reigning culture. Many researchers believe a re-evaluation of the term complexity (Oliver 2007) and hunter-gatherer (Lepofsky and Lertzman 2008; Moss and Cannon 2011) is necessary for the NWC culture-area, as groups maintain a detailed system of knowledge, ownership, stewardship, and management of subsistence resources to ensure ongoing productive harvests (Brown 2005, 2006; Langdon 2006; McHalsie 2007; Menzies 2006, 2010, 2011; Menzies and Butler 2007; Turner and Berkes 2006; White 2006). Moss and Cannon (2011) note that NWC peoples should more appropriately be called food producers rather than hunter-gatherers, as NWC fishing practices are akin to agricultural practices in that they are a form of food production requiring storage facilities and management strategies (Suttles 1968).  Fishing is traditionally regarded as the most important food gathering system that allowed for development of the defining traits of NWC cultures, such as hierarchical socio-political 2  organization and large, permanent villages. Fladmark (1975) argued that stabilization of sea levels and salmon runs occurred approximately 5000 years ago, and that this event was the major ecological factor fostering the development of culturally complex hierarchical societies. Martindale et al (2009) have shown that this assumption is centered on a sampling bias, however, where research focused on sites which post-dated the 5000 BP stabilization of sea levels, and excluded sites on relic and drowned shorelines. Martindale and Letham (2011), McLaren (2008), and McLaren et al (2011) identified patterns of earlier marine intensive economies on the Dundas Island Archipelago. The date of the development of marine economies on the NWC has also been challenged by Cannon (1998), who found that salmon fishing at the central coast site of Namu predated the hypothesized salmon stabilization and onset of cultural complexity of 5000 years BP.  The overwhelming importance placed upon tying salmon production to complexity, in what Monks (1987) has described as “salmonopia affliction”, has been heavily critiqued in the last two decades. For example, recent research notes that herring played an equal or more important role in subsistence in certain areas of the coast (Caldwell 2008, 2011; McKechnie 2005, 2012). Moreover, researchers also observe that in many cases, a diverse number of resources were harvested and depended upon as primary subsistence resources, such as shellfish and sea mammals, and that a wide variety of subsistence patterns existed (Burchell et al 2013; Hallmand et al 2013; McKechnie and Wigen 2011; McMillan et al 2008; Monks 1987, 2006; and Moss and Erlandson 2010). The notion of a uniform model of the development of cultural complexity on the NWC based on a delayed return economy of salmon is thus more complicated than previously thought.  In addition to a growing understanding of the complexity of NWC economies, Oliver (2007) contends that positioning landscape archaeological features (such as stone traps) as simply indexes of economic production offers little contribution in our understanding of the social meaning of living, working in, and experiencing the variety of activities comprising NWC cultures. Martindale and Letham (2011) further argue that using fish traps as indicators of economic intensification reflects western capitalist values rather than cultural choices of indigenous peoples with a perhaps very different socio-economic system. The goal of the current research is to challenge such evolutionary models by attempting to understand the meaning of stone traps and fishing through values intrinsic to Gitxaała. 3  The construction of intertidal rock fish traps represented management of an important resource on the NWC (Langdon 2006). Intertidal stone trap and weir structures were a central technology in the procurement of salmon and herring en masse (eg. Eldridge and Acheson 1992; Caldwell 2008, 2011). Within Gitxaała Nation’s Territory, there are dozens of such structures ranging from small linear arrangements to a massive kilometre long complex. Archaeological (Coupland et al 2010) and ethnographic literature (Boas 1916; Suttles 1987) cite salmon as one of— if not the— most important subsistence1 resource for NWC peoples. Despite the proclivity of intertidal stone traps on the NWC, and within Gitxaała Territory, the use and function of stone traps remains poorly understood (see Langdon 1977, 2006; White 2006, 2011 for notable exceptions). More data is needed to analyze the relative importance, selectiveness, associated settlement patterns, and potential management strategies reflected in these features.  Given the above described debate over the role of fishing in NWC economies and social landscapes, ethnocentric notions of cultural complexity, and the gap in literature on fishing practices within Gitxaała Territory, several objectives are pursued with this study. The first is to understand broad scale fishing practices within Gitxaała Territory and compare faunal patterns at a number of different habitation sites, including special purpose camps, large winter villages and small seasonal villages. This study also seeks to understand specific fishing practices at two important intertidal stone trap sites, and to discern the nature of use of these facilities. The third objective is to use Gitxaała traditional knowledge as a guide to inform archaeological techniques and to interpret results of faunal analysis and the history of fish trap locations. Over the course of three years, field crews collected matrix samples from 16 habitation using a bucket auger, and mapped two intertidal stone traps important to Gitxaała. Matrix samples were then sieved and sorted at the Laboratory of Archaeology at the University of British Columbia. Fauna was identified by Becky Wigen at Pacific Identifications Ltd (Wigen 2012). Several different quantitative methods are used to compare faunal data across bucket auger samples. Taxonomic richness, relative abundance (%NISP), %ubiquity, and density (NISP/L) are used to assess the impacts of sample size, and provide several lines of evidence of                                                           1 A term often used inappropriately to describe food production in NWC economies. Subsistence implies a minimal level of food production separate from economies of trade and wealth. However, food production on the NWC was often large scale, highly regulated and organized, and directly related to differential wealth, power, and far reaching trade networks.    4  faunal patterning. Gitxaała scholarship on fishing, use, and occupancy of territory was provided in an informal fashion during field research, through previously collected transcripts, and through previous publications highlighting Gitxaała knowledge. This study yields important results in understanding the connection of fishing to broader cultural processes. The results of the faunal analyses are contrary to expectations of fishing patterns on the NWC. Other research on the NWC has shown that large villages more or less contain the highest abundances of fish (eg. Cannon 2000). However, fish abundances do not necessarily correlate with habitation site size or typology in Gitxaała territory. A wide range of species occur within and between different sites, and even between sites that ostensibly share a similar function. What`s more, the faunal data from habitation sites associated with stone fish traps indicate that certain traps were used to target one specific species while others performed a more multifunctional purpose. The data outlines a story of complexity between resources and people and speaks to an intricate pattern of fishing and occupancy in Gitxaała Territory. Gitxaała scholarship surrounding history, fishing and resource use (as demonstrated in the concept of syt guulm goot [being of one heart]), and of detailed ecological knowledge serves as the best explanation for faunal patterning and use of stone fish traps.                  5  Previous Archaeological Research in Gitxaała Territory   Gitxaała Nation’s traditional territory incorporates a large area of the NWC. Gitxaała claims territory from Prince Rupert Harbour south to the southern extent of the Estevan Islands, and includes the mainland east of the Grenville channel and the two large islands of Pitt and Banks Island. The main Gitxaała village today is Lach Klan, located on Dolphin Island. Gitxaała shares similar cultural features with the wider Tsimshian communities, but view themselves as a distinct people. Gitxaała are traditionally classified as Southern Tsimshian (Halpin and Seguin 1990). However, Menzies (nd:29 )has critiqued the unproblematic adoption of the Southern/Coastal division in NWC anthropological research, which “has profound real-time consequences for the indigenous peoples on the north coast”, arguing that the term Southern Tsimshian has morphed from a linguistic marker to a socio-political label with a highly politicized meaning. In contrast to other areas of the NWC, little archaeological research has been conducted within Gitxaała’s core territory2 (Figure 1), with the exception of a survey conducted in 1938 by anthropologist Philip Drucker (Drucker and Fisher 1943), and further excavations at Grants Anchorage in 1969 and 1970 (Simonsen 1970, 1973). Within the last two decades, most of the archaeological research within Gitxaała’s core territory consists of cultural resource management (CRM) projects, which are usually limited in scope.                                                                        2 Gitxaała claims a greater traditional territory than the study area, but research for the current project included areas of non-overlapping territory only. 6                        Aside from academic and resource management archaeological projects, “hobby” archaeologists have identified a large number of archaeological sites within Gitxaała Territory. During the last two decades an American couple, Barbara and Gerald Radke, have recorded numerous intertidal rock alignment sites and submitted detailed site forms and maps to the BC Archaeology Branch.  The Radke’s efforts have contributed substantially to the high number of recorded intertidal stone straps within Gitxaała’s Territory. There are a total of 120 previously recorded stone trap sites within the study area, many of which were recorded by the Radke’s. During the course of the current research, 50 previously recorded stone trap sites were revisited. Of these, only 35 were determined to be cultural rock alignments as opposed to natural Figure 1: Study area within Gitxaała Territory showing select habitation and trap sites 7  formations. The identification of intertidal stone traps can be difficult due to varying tide levels, and can be somewhat ambiguous even at low tide.  During 2009-2013, archaeological investigations were conducted at a number of sites within Laxyuup Gitxaała as part of a collaborative project between Gitxaała and UBC, led by Charles Menzies. This was the broader project within which the current study is situated. A major research objective of the project was to investigate ancient diet and construct a related resource utilization profile of Gitxaała and their ancestors. At each habitation site, cultural matrices were recovered using a bucket auger for the purpose of analyzing fauna represented at each site. A number of column samples and limited 1m x 1m excavation units were also conducted, and habitation and trap sites were mapped using either hip chain and compass or a Total Data Station (TDS).                   8  Direction of Research    The direction of the current study was significantly influenced by Gitxaała crew members during the course of the 2010 and 2011 field seasons. Irons (2012) conducted an analysis of the collaborative nature of fieldwork and noted that Gitxaała crew members heavily shaped the direction of the project though stories and experience. Gitxaała crew members Roberta Barker and Ken Innes, often “spoke of the experience of ‘being there’, of seeing sites, confirming the oral histories they had been told” (Irons 2012: 22). Irons (2012:23) suggests that the “ foundation of the Laxyuup Gitxaała project ultimately centres on the re-encounter and personal experience of the places and sites within the traditional territory”. The experiences of storytelling around the galley table of our field research vessel (the Katrina Leslie II and the Northern Monarch) dominated archaeological direction. The galley table was a focal point for nearly all organizational activities and reflections upon the current study’s goals, methods, and results. Story-telling dominated discussions, and fishing narratives dominated story-telling (Irons 2012). Several crew members are commercial fishermen and all Gitxaała crew members are experienced fishers and resource gatherers. The experience of each crew member offered a unique perspective of Gitxaała culture and history, where, in both historical and modern contexts, fishing is a dominant characteristic and perhaps the paramount feature of Gitxaała identity. Irons (2012:ii ) suggests the dominant role of fishing narratives was a critical aspect of archaeological work, noting that  “that the way in which anecdotal fishing narratives permeate the research experience affords collaborative archaeology a character which is supplemented and enhanced rather than compromised or restricted”. In this context, archaeology and fishing narratives were interwoven to such a degree that “the difficulty in determining the start and end of archaeological planning or the fishing discussion was insurmountable” (Irons 2012:25).  In initial field investigations into stone traps, I asked various Gitxaała crew members, what they wished to research with stone traps. There are no ethnographic accounts of the use of stone traps in Gitxaała territory. Nor did Gitxaała community members recall stories of previous generations using this technology. The complete transition to drag seine technology occurred comparatively early in Gitxaała territory. By the 1880’s, drag seine nets were the primary method of catching salmon (Menzies and Butler 2007). I received thoughtful answers to my 9  question, such as seeking to understand how many fish the traps caught, and if it was always salmon that was targeted. However, conversations about the use of stone traps soon shifted from the traps themselves to stories of historical and modern era fishing at trap locations, and the importance of continued access to harvesting activities. Discussions of activities at fish trap sites were entwined with stories of family. For instance, the crew’s dialog about the trap of K’moda almost invariably revolved around the use of the area as a drag seine camp and cannery, hereditary leader the late Russell Gamble, and his predecessor Edward Gamble. Crew members often reminisced about their experiences of each place in connection to important Gitxaała figures, such as Edward and Russell Gamble. Rather than archaeological methods answering new questions, it appeared that Gitxaała community members believed archaeological techniques and methods, such as faunal analysis, served to prove and corroborate what they already knew, such as the lengthy connection between family and fish camps. It soon became clear that understanding stone trap technology in Laxyuup Gitxaała would centre on the fishing stories exchanged around the galley table. The direction of my research thus shifted in focus and scope. Rather than investigating pointed questions about trap form and function, I chose to instead focus on Gitxaała knowledge as a means to explore intertidal stone traps and faunal data, and to create a “fishing narrative”. Gitxaała crew members were connected to fish camps and archaeological sites in two aspects. Traps sites were often the place of their family’s historic drag seine camps and modern day resource harvesting locations. Important house leaders who directed fishing activities at camps, such as Edward and Russell Gamble, were their immediate family members. Secondly, resource harvesting is still very much a central part of crew members’ lives. As Irons (2012) notes, Gitxaała crew members often seemed to be only able to talk about fishing. As such, conducting strictly “archaeological” work in the ‘fishing obsessed’ culture aboard the boat was impossible. Archaeological discussions about fishing camps, such as K’moda, often ended in planning sessions for where gillnets should be set up, and when would be a good time to check fish nets and crab traps. Archaeological work itself was often supplemented by welcomed excursions to set and check fish nets and crab traps, collect shellfish, and to jig for halibut. Gitxaała crew members were not merely visiting interesting historical places within their territory. They were engaging with their very real and immediate history and modern day resource harvesting activities. 10  Research on Intertidal Traps on the Northwest Coast  Previous archaeological research on intertidal traps on the NWC largely focuses on wet site and organic components of tidal traps (Betts 1998; Byram 1998, 2002; Stevenson 1998), and wood stake trap features (Caldwell 2008, 2011, Eldridge and Acheson 1992; Moss and Erlandson 1998; Munsell 1976). While intertidal stone traps have not been overlooked in archaeological literature (see Langdon 2006; Monks 1987; Pomeroy 1976; White 2006, 2011), the majority of research on both wood and stone trap and weir features have often explored limited research questions such as target species, trap construction date, or the degree of fishing intensification afforded by such technological innovations. Three projects on intertidal traps on the NWC are particularly influential upon the current study. Caldwell (2008, 2011) and Monks (1987) explore trap use through the analysis of faunal assemblages of adjacent habitation sites. Caldwell provides convincing evidence that herring was the target species of the Comox Harbour wood stake trap complex. Her research also demonstrates that construction phases of the trap complex coincide with a marked increase in herring, thereby indicating that trap construction is a measure of fishing intensification. Monks (1987) demonstrates that an intertidal stone trap in Deep Bay targeted a multitude of species by creating a predatory food chain involving several species, in what he termed a “prey as bait” system. The third study, by White (2006, 2011) uses an internalist3 Heiltsuk perspective to examine stone trap technology and provides a fascinating example of the continuum in traditional knowledge regarding fishing stations and harvesting practices. In addition to these archaeological investigations, Menzies and Butler (2007) and Menzies (2011) highlight the importance of trap technology as the material evidence of sophisticated Gitxaała fisheries management and ecological knowledge. Gitxaała traditional knowledge is thus positioned as the driving factor in the direction of the current study and in the explanation of archaeological phenomena.                                                               3 A term proposed by Yellowhorn 2002. 11  Gitxaała, Fishing Ontology, History and Knowledge    Fishing is one of a variety of important subsistence activities to Gitxaała. As with other Tsimshian groups, fishing is traditionally directed by hereditary leaders who head walps (matrilineal house groups). Resource harvesting is organized according to walps, and house leaders direct production through control of kin organized labour.  The selective nature of Gitxaała fishing is evident in three aspects of Gitxaała fishing culture: in the selective nature of the trap technology, in the reciprocal human-fish relationship of Gitxaała fishing ontology (following Losey 2010), and in the traditional structure of political authority regulating fishing access. Managing the reciprocal relations between humans and non-humans is a sentiment expressed across the northwest coast with respect to selective fishing methods (see for example White 2006, 2011 and Jones 2002). The notion of syt guulm goot (being of one heart) is key in understanding the nature of stone trap use and fishing. This attitude of sharing is a critical principle in Gitxaała culture. Gitxaała community member Larry Bolton, who harvested a variety of resources in his Gispuwada (Blackfish) house territory of K’nax’aon (Bonilla inlet), explained that he only collects as much food as he can share with his family and community4. Gitxaała resource harvesting is “premised upon a community-based conception of resource use in which people and nonhumans share important reciprocal relationships of trust, respect, and when things go wrong, retribution” (Menzies and Butler 2007: 442-443).   Fishing is a highly regulated activity that is directed by walps. As Menzies and Butler (2007: 444) explain, “political authority rests with a sm’oogyit and the house group” and “ownership of, access to, and rights of use of resource gatherings locations is governed by multigenerational matrilineages called walps, or houses”. Chiefly and house authority on fishing locations created a managed resource. Moss and Cannon (2011:2) note that “perhaps the most significant aspect of (NWC groups) economic systems was the way they managed harvests through systems of territorial ownership and control, restraining uncontrolled resource use through social relations”.   Menzies and Butler (2007) outline the various steps hereditary chiefs took to ensure healthy harvests at the drag seine camp at K’moda. Even during commercial production of fish                                                           4 Unpublished transcript, 2010, collected as part of the ongoing Forests and Oceans for the Future Research Project, led by Charles Menzies. 12  during the late 1800’s, when Gitxaała fishers harvested large numbers of fish for sale to the Lowe Inlet cannery, fishing operations were directed by Sm’oogyit5 Tsibassa. During more recent times, this social organization of fishing, where the hereditary chief directed operations through his house group continued, as “the late Sm’oogyit H’el (Russell Gamble) explained that during the mid-period of the twentieth century, K’moda was occupied by the chief and house-group from late spring through early fall” (Menzies and Butler 2007:450). Sm’oogyits would consult community members, assess the amount of fish needed, the health of the stream and salmon spawning population, and decide how and when fishing would commence. Beyond directing fishing activity, Sm’oogyits would also guide stream clean-ups, including clearing all debris impeding salmon traveling upstream.  Intertidal stone traps are a selective fishing technology which operate by tidal action. When the tide is high, the stone walls are covered, allowing fish schooling around the mouth of the stream to swim over the enclosure. As the tide recedes, fish are trapped behind the stones. In his work on intertidal traps in Alaska, Langdon (2006) adds that people would often encircle traps and throw stones to keep fish within enclosures. Though Gitxaala’s transition to drag seining occurred relatively early compared to other First Nation’s, elders on other areas of the coast remember using stone traps. A descriptive recollection of how the traps were used comes from Clayton Mack, a “knowledgeable informant and well known hunting guide’ of the Bella Coola Region (White 2006:25). Of one particular trap, Mack said “old people make it with rocks, build up a big stone fence about three or four feet high at low tide, at high tide, fish go in there and people close off the opening, when the tide go out and the fish are trapped, when they get enough fish, open up the trap, let the fish out” (Tommasen 1994:27-28, in White 2006: 26). Mack emphasised the importance of dissembling traps when not in use, so as to not trap fish unnecessarily.   Gitxaała oral history (adaawk) and Northwest Coast people’s cosmology are rife with warnings about the necessity of treating fish with respect, especially salmon. Salmon are regarded as sentient beings who can enact retribution when proper treatment is not carried out. Recently, researchers such as Paul Nadasdy (2006) have stressed the importance of accepting                                                           5 Sm'álgyax word meaning “real people”; hereditary titleholders and community leaders (Menzies and Butler 2007:444)  13  coastal peoples’ cosmology not just as mythological stories but as a series of factual events and relationships explaining both cultural practices and the world within which coastal peoples live. White (2006) noted that that First Nations people often lacked opportunity and means to present their own perspectives on the past under their own terms (Trigger 2003:65; in White 2011:3), and thus approached stone traps from an internalist Heiltsuk perspective. Losey (2010) emphasized that understanding the reciprocal relationship between human and fish was paramount in understanding stone trap. To Losey, a major aspect to understanding fishing structures on the NWC is the notion of “fish and fishing structures (as) animate and part of the social world within which humans and fish were engaged” (2010:17). Losey reiterates that the human-fish relationship was reciprocal and that fish could easily retaliate on humans who did not conform to proper cultural protocols. As such, a key aspect in maintaining this delicate balance involved dismantling stone fishing structures and traps when not in use so as not to offend the fish. The concept of animism, where non-human beings have intellectual, emotional, and spiritual qualities, is a central concept in understanding the material remains of fish traps. Gitxaała traditional ecological knowledge is expressed in the political authority over fishing activities, the need to manage the reciprocal relationship with fish, and the selective nature of stone trap technology. Maps and Names  The issue of place names is essential to understand Gitxaała use and occupancy. To Gitxaała, naming important historical places in their territory as “archaeological sites” fails to capture the meaning of each location and is a form of classification Gitxaała community members find somewhat amusing. In BC, sites are classified by the Borden designation system. Though this naming and classification system is a necessary form of organization for BC archaeologists and government, it has little meaning to Gitxaała. For example, Kxenk’aa’wen  (a large intertidal trap site) is a Sm'álgyax word that translates to “Place of the Special Fish Trap”. In Gitxaała Territory, landscapes and places, including archaeological sites, are already named. Each name has important meanings and nuanced histories. In Wisdom sits in places, Basso (1996) discussed the importance of names in his research with the western Apache. As Basso argued, Anglo-American depictions of places and history:   14  …strike many Apache people as distant and unfamiliar. Unspoken and unanimated, it lies silent and inert on the printed English page; it is history without voices to thrust it into the present. Removed from the contexts of daily social life…it also seems unconnected to daily affairs and concerns; it is history without discernible applications. Detached from the local Apache landscape, it has few spatial anchors, and when places are identified, as often they are not, their names are not their own, it is history loosely situated, geographically adrift…. it thus becomes remote, intangible, divorced in suspect ways from the forces of human agency (1996:33-34).  The way that Gitxaała community members such as Ken Innes (whose grandfather was William Lewis), and M. (Teddy) Gamble (whose father was Sm’oogyit Russell Gamble) discuss the various ‘archaeological sites’ described in this research program is revealing. Ken Innes and Teddy Gamble describe the landscape and places in it as a series of lived experiences. There is a fluidity to their knowledge of an area. To Teddy and Ken, places like William Lewis` Fish Camp and K’moda invoke memories, names, family connections, disputes, and layered stories. Because of this, I use the place names described to me by Gitxaała crew members, rather than the Borden classification system in referring to archaeological sites. As with names, maps can also fail to capture the meaning of places to Gitxaała. Throughout field research, our team mapped several fish trap and habitation sites. However, as with certain Kumskiwa6 names, maps lacked a certain agency that Gitxaała have had with the landscape and resources for generations.  Important places, such as fish camps and village locations, are not referred to as ‘archaeological sites’ within the daily vernacular of Gitxaała community members. Yet, in archaeological research, these places, which hold deep meaning, memories, and lived experiences, are divided into different site ‘types’ and mapped from a passive perspective. The locations of sites are known to Gitxaała, and a visual representation of a site which is removed from the phenomenology of experience does little to convey the meaning of each place.  Traps are highly visible symbolic markers of resource ownership and political authority. They are indicators of territoriality and ownership for Tsimshian house groups, similar to rock art, feasts, slave ownership and the other symbols of power. As well as being a sign of ownership, traps also represent a degree of economic investment. As Monks (1987: 129) notes, “once completed, the trap was an immobile artifact which could be maintained relatively easily,                                                           6 A Sm'álgyax term for newcomer, usually in reference to Euro-Canadian people.  15  which represented a significant investment to a number of people, which could help support those people through its capacity to produce resources, and which would encourage numbers of people to use it for resource exploitation on a continuing basis”.  In his research on burial cairns on Vancouver Island, archaeologist Darcy Matthews noted that the building of stone cairn monuments concerned production of power (both within social groups and between the living and dead), and discourses of knowledge (control of certain cultural practices). As corporate property, the burial stones and practices surrounding construction represent stories on landscapes, anchoring ancestral power to place (Mathews 2012). Likewise, intertidal stone traps along Gitxaała’s coast are symbols of an ancestral connection to place. Gitxaała intertidal stone traps represent stories on the landscape and ownership of territory and resources. Given this, how does the process of mapping sites contribute to telling these stories and demonstrating ownership? The maps of each trap site presented in this research represent only a small aspect of Gitxaała agency and use. The stone trap maps in particular present a representation of the physical scale of each site. They display the degree of landscape alteration involved in stone trap sites, particularly with Kxenk’aa’wen.  Furthermore, though maps of Gitxaała ‘taskscapes’ do not fully capture the meaning of places, they are a reproducible vehicle for displaying local knowledge, investment in a place, occupation and ownership. The traps stand as symbols of continuing cultural protocol, and resistance to on-going colonial attempts of dispossession and non-recognition of Gitxaała’s rights and title to territory and resources. In some respects, simply documenting the degree of Gitxaała’s alternation of “natural wilderness” and the intensity of use of territory can serve to provide further evidence of Gitxaała’s rights and title. Though Gitxaała know their history and rights to territory and ownership of resources, this does not mean that governmental bodies with a history of colonial policies of disenfranchisement towards First Nations recognize these claims.  Menzies and Butler (2007) have described the various processes colonial governments and industrial fishing agents have taken to systematically disqualify and separate Gitxaała people from their fishing rights and practices. Maps documenting the location of sites and extensive use and modification of landscape perhaps do serve a purpose in that they provide a result which governing bodies recognize as legitimate. They provide empirical evidence of occupancy and material evidence of ownership of resources.  16  Stone Trap Technology  Intertidal stone traps are a common site type within Gitxaała Territory.  A total of 120 previously recorded stone trap sites are located within and immediately adjacent to the Laxyuup Gitxaała project area. All of the 35 traps identified during the course of field research are located either within or adjacent to salmon spawning creek mouths. The vast scale of creek-scaping and trap construction implies the importance of resource harvesting stations to Gitxaała. The trap locations and historical and current fishing activities surrounding trap sites suggest salmon is the primary target species. Boulders used for trap construction appeared to be gathered locally. Generally, the areas behind the trap walls are cleared of all rocks. The majority of the traps incorporate existing bedrock into trap placement.  Two prominent Gitxaała trap sites are the focus of the current study. The first trap site, K’moda, is located within Lowe Inlet and is adjacent to a salmon spawning creek. This trap consists of a large “C” shaped alignment of boulders directly in front of a habitation site (Figure 2) and associated boulder alignments on the south shore of the inlet (Figure 3). Located at the head of the inlet, K’moda was a centre of seine fishing and cannery activities in the 1800’s, and continues to be an important fishing station in the 20th and 21st century (Menzies and Butler 2007).  The “C” shaped structure of the K’moda trap is comprised of locally gathered small boulders, ranging from 10-40 cm diameter. Several larger boulders are also incorporated into the structure of the trap. The trap is rather low lying, and is approximately 50 cm high, likely a result of degradation from waves and environmental factors. A 1.5 m wide section of the trap was knocked down by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in the 1960’s, in a misguided effort to assist salmon spawning.  Several linear rock structures were observed across the inlet from the prominent “C” shaped trap (see Figure 3). These traps were much less distinct, and often consisted of a singular row of small boulders, and the function of such traps remains somewhat unclear.      17                                            View southwest of Trap Figure 2: K’moda (Kumowdah) Trap. Created by Wendy Rolston, 2013. 18                                           The second trap complex, Kxenk’aa’wen, consists of a kilometre long trap complex along the north shore of Bonilla Arm, on the northwest coast of Banks Island. Kxenk’aa’wen is a Sm'álgyax word that translates to “Place of Special Fish Trap”.  The trap is comprised of 11 View west of Trap 2A Figure 3: South shore of Lowe Inlet, located 100 m south of the K’moda trap site. Created by Wendy Rolston, 2013. 19  distinct linear stone structures, ranging from ~25 m in length (Trap 10 for example), to 150 m (Trap 1 and Trap 7), and from ~20 cm to 1.2 m in height. Figure 4 displays the arrangement of the 11 different trap structures across the intertidal zone. A salmon spawning creek is north of Trap 1. A 3D map of Trap 7 is displayed within Figure 4 to demonstrate how the natural slope of the shore was incorporated into trap construction. Boulders used for trap construction were gathered locally, and the beach is strewn with rocks and boulders of a similar material. However, the areas behind trap walls are cleared of all rocks. The majority of the rock alignments incorporate existing bedrock into trap placement.  Intertidal rock walls on the NWC were not only constructed for the purpose of trapping fish. Williams (2006) outlines her struggle to convince archaeological professionals that many rock walls in the Broughton Archipelago were built for mariculture purposes as clam gardens and not as fish traps (and attributes this struggle to the bias of viewing salmon as the main subsistence resource of coastal peoples). White (2006: 122-124) also describes a clam garden rock wall formation in Heiltsuk Territory. Both White and Williams illustrate that clam garden rock walls tend to have a distinct wall alignment on the shore-side only, and have a broad low build sloping towards the water’s edge. My own inexperience differentiating between the two site types made the classification of Kxenk’aa’wen as a fish trap somewhat tenuous, but I base my argument on the following features: the name itself of the “Place of the Special Fish Trap”, the distinct linear arrangement of the rock walls, the placement of the rock walls adjacent to a salmon spawning creek and in an area where both herring and salmon would likely school, and the fact that Gitxaala crew members described the site as a fish trap. Williams (2006) notes that fish traps and clam gardens were likely not mutually exclusive and that the sandy terraces created by removing rocks also created good clam habitats. White (2006), however, contends that different traps tend to be species specific and did not target different fish species, clams, and seals. Detailed TDS mapping of the two trap sites included plotting the traps and topography in relation to low and high tide, which allowed for a clearer understanding of the relative functional window of each trap. Within the intertidal zone, the Kxenk’aa’wen trap alignments are all located between 0.5 and 3.5 m above the relative low tide of August 2011. Within this range, different traps were operational at different elevations. For instance, Trap 7 was constructed at an 20  elevation of 2.5 to 3.5 m above low tide, while Trap 4 and Trap 8 were built at only 0.5 to 1.5 m elevation. This may infer that different areas of the trap were functional at different tide levels. It could also mean that the complex possibly targeted different fish with different schooling behaviour.                                                                                                        View northeast of Trap 1 Figure 4: Kxenk’aa’wen Created by Wendy Rolston, 2013 21  Field Sampling Methods  The goal of the bucket auger sampling program was to gain an initial understanding of fishing assemblages from a variety of midden sites, with a focus on three habitation sites associated with the K’moda and Kxenk’aa’wen stone trap sites. A multi-site bucket auger sampling program was first used by Cannon (2000) and later Brewster and Martindale (2011). Cannon found the bucket augering method a useful tool for assessing fisheries at various midden sites on the central coast. Both Cannon’s and Brewster and Martindale’s primary mode of quantification and comparison between different site’s assemblages was fish density (number of identifiable bones per litre of cultural matrix). Brewster and Martindale (2011:257) describe density “as a way to assess regional and temporal variability in the intensity of salmon fishing”). Cannon (2000) acknowledges that differential preservation of bone in different contexts, most notably correlated with shell deposition (which is itself susceptible to differential preservation), creates a sort of taphonomic ambiguity in the comparison of all sites. Assessing potential taphonomic differences that may affect bone preservation is outside the scope of this study yet would add clarity to interpretations. One homogenizing factor affecting bone preservation is the fact that all bone came from shell midden contexts, and researchers note that fish bone, though susceptible to differential chemical breakdown, preserves well in midden contexts (Butler and Chatters 1994; Cannon 2000), though Stein (1992) argues that chemical breakdown is accelerated in bottom midden layers. Following similar methods outlined by Cannon (2000), bucket auger sampling was the primary technique used in order to assess faunal assemblages, stratigraphy, and collect datable samples at each habitation site.  Traditional excavations being both time consuming and expensive on the NWC, bucket augering can easily provide representative and quantitative samples of deep shell midden matrices. Specific bucket augering methods are outlined in Appendix A, and laboratory methods are outlined in Appendix B. The Connection Between Faunal Assemblages and Intertidal Stone Traps   Several researchers have used faunal assemblages of habitation sites to comment on and interpret fish trap use on the NWC, most notably Caldwell (2008, 2011) and Monks (1987). In both cases, the fishing complex in question was immediately adjacent to the habitation site. In 22  the case of the Comox harbour trap, Caldwell (2008) was also able to correlate C14 derived dates of the wood stakes of the fishing complex and the associated zooarchaeological data. Though Monks did not correlate exact dates with the Deep Bay stone trap site and associated village, he created a rough timeline of trap use in its relation to the village on the basis of relative sea levels where both the village and the trap would have been used.  Though several C14 derived dates of habitation sites from Gitxaała Territory have been obtained to provide a rough parameter of the possible temporal use of traps, the stone structures themselves are un-dateable by conventional means. 3D mapping, time-lapse photography, and lengthy observation of Gitxaała intertidal traps reveals they were likely functional at present day sea levels. Though there have been dramatic changes in sea levels on other parts of the coast (eg. Haida Gwaii), the north coast mainland area east of Hecate strait sits close to a “hinge area” of vertical shoreline regression to the east and transgression to the west (McLaren et al 2011). Recent research on sea level fluctuations on the nearby Dundas Island Archipelago, Kitimat, and Prince Rupert Harbour, points towards a dramatic regression of shorelines between approximately 12,000 and 8000 years B.P., and a stabilization of modern day sea levels by ~5000 years ago (McLaren et al 2011), which our own research corroborates, suggesting this is a terminus post quem.   The connection of certain traps to habitation sites within Gitxaała Territory is an assumption that requires some explanation. Do the fish remains at each habitation site represent the fish caught at the trap in question? Were fish butchered in the intertidal zone, dried at specific locations, and then transported to village sites? In the case of the K’moda fish trap, there is strong evidence (ethnohistoric and Gitxaała traditional knowledge) that the fish represented in the archaeological assemblage of the habitation site are associated with trap use. In addition, the habitation sites in question are immediately adjacent to, or in close proximity to traps, indicating fishing activities at the traps are likely represented in the faunal assemblage of the habitation site.   The connection of the Kxenk’aa’wen fish trap to the habitation sites of Sga wina’a, William Lewis Fish Camp, and the Smokehouse site should be viewed with some caution. Several days of survey, preliminary subsurface testing, and information provided by knowledgeable Gitxaała members did not reveal any habitation or processing site immediately adjacent to the Kxenk’aa’wen trap. Gitxaała crew member Ken Innes, who provided direction in 23  locating both the trap itself and nearby habitation sites, and whose family owns resource locations and continues to harvest a multitude of resources in the area, knows of a possible single house located in the vicinity of the trap.  Over the course of several days, both boat and pedestrian surveys failed to locate this house with any certainty. A historical era fish smoking camp (the Smokehouse site, which also includes a pre-contact component) was located across from the trap on the south shore of K’nax’aon, approximately one km south of the Kxenk’aa’wen trap, a distance easily traversed by canoe. Gitxaała crew members believe this to likely be the smokehouse discussed in Angus Shaw’s relocations of seine fishing at K’nax’aon7. Though the pre-contact component of the Smokehouse site may be connected to trap use, Angus Shaw’s recollections of fishing activities in K’nax’aon and the smokehouse activities focus on seine fishing and provides some evidence that the majority of salmon fishing in the early 20th century was focused further up the inlet, past the tidal flats to the east of the trap location. Nevertheless, the Smokehouse site`s proximity to Kxankàa`wen and it`s high salmon abundance within the faunal assemblage indicates salmon as a main target species harvested within K’nax’aon inlet.  Apart from the Smokehouse site, Sga wina’a and William Lewis’ Fish Camp are the closest habitation sites to Kxenk’aa’wen. Both sites are within five km of the trap, an easily covered distance by canoe. Fishing at Kxenka’aa’wen could have plausibly been a daily activity, with the habitation sites of Sga wina’a and William Lewis’ Fish Camp as bases.  Analysis of the faunal assemblages of both sites show evidence of intensive fisheries.                                                                      7 Unpublished transcripts, 2002 and 2005, collected as part of the ongoing Forests and Oceans for the Future Research Project, led by Charles Menzies.  24  Faunal Analysis  Moss (2012:6) lists six different scales of faunal analysis: 1) An individual component in a site; 2) diachronic trends across components at a single site; 3) contemporary components across a region conceivably used by a “local” social group: 4) tends across time among sites used by generations of local groups; 5) components across a region occupied by multiple culturally related social groups; 6) trends across time of generations of multiple local groups.  Determining the scope and scale of the faunal analysis needed in order to assess the research objective was a difficult task. Because of the lack of previous research  in Gitxaała Territory, a comprehensive analysis of the entire regional pattern of fishing in Gitxaała Territory is needed. I provide a preliminary overview of the results of a regional bucket auger sampling program and focus on understanding fishing activities around two prominent stone traps in Gitxaała Territory. Focusing on Kxenk’aa’wen and K’moda provides the opportunity to discuss faunal analysis in the context of fishing stations and recorded traditional ecological knowledge.  Both Cannon (2000) and Brewster and Martindale (2011) focused their assessment of understanding archaeological expressions of fishing at two different site types, those of seasonal camps and long-term winter habitation sites. This was a preliminary goal of faunal analysis at Gitxaała sites and a discussion of the dominant fish types and intensity of fishing present at the 16 Gitxaała sites sampled is provided.  Faunal quantification methodology can be found in Appendix C. Faunal Results   The complete list of the Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) for all samples examined from the 16 sites investigated during the 2010 and 2011 field seasons is presented in Appendix D Table 1. A total of 31,586 faunal elements were identified. Table 1, below, compares the %NSP of the three main faunal categories at each habitation site, along with the density, %NISP, and ubiquity of the two overall most abundant fish; salmon and herring. It also displays the percentage of salmon cranial bones and total taxonomic richness for fish at each site.    25  Table 1: Faunal quantifications across Gitxaała habitation sites Site Calibrated age range (years BP) (2 sigma)a Site Area (m²) House platforms/ depressions present %NSPb Density (NISP/L) %NISP %Ubiquity % Cranial (Salmon) Total Taxo-nomic Richnessc Typology Fish Marine Mammal Terr. Mammal Fish Salmon Herring Salmon Herring Salmon Herring Ks’waan n/a 10420 Y 99.70 0.17 0.13 99.92 8.45 5.12 33.24 27.06 87.04 64.81 6.19 13* Large Village Seti yeets n/a 7270 Y 98.89 0.09 1.02 24.17 7.38 1.72 71.36 9.47 86.49 45.95 2.52 7* Large Village Lach Klan 1418-1689 16050 Y 98.88 0.70 0.42 18.66 7.49 0.40 95.12 2.93 81.82 18.18 0 4 Large Village K’moda 1821-1970 1100 Y 99.38 0.39 0.22 129.26 35.19 .37 76.59 0.8 100 13.33 18.30 6* Small Village Sga wina’a  2489-2757 1710 Y 99.22 0.45 0.34 118.74 8.43 22.19 23.61 62.14 82.93 78.05 3.17 16* Small Village William Lewis’ Fish Camp 1742-2000 900 Y 99.28 0 0.72 65.74 5.92 18.61 21.64 68.06 95.65 73.91 1.61 12* Small Village Smoke-house 1301-1175 600 Y 99.42 0.19 0.39 56.09 12.18 0.11 94.07 0.85 80 10 6.31 6 Special Purpose Site Kna gaguum  n/a 12920 Y 100.00 0 0 3.15 .59 0.07 80.00 10.00 28.57 7.14 0.00 2 Special Purpose Site Ktsm lagan  n/a 1620 Y 99.40 0 0.60 45.13 8.09 13.72 33.52 56.82 87.50 75.00 6.78 4 Small Village Lax kwil da’a  n/a 11110 Y 99.38 0.16 0.47 10.19 2.43 1.69 54.64 37.86 62.32 42.03 1.96 8* Special Purpose Site Ktaay  n/a 940 Y 98.25 0 1.75 22.36 7.19 0 94.74 0 90.91 0 4.17 3 Small Village Will u sgetk-1 n/a 2440 Y 99.67 0.10 0.24 84.80 10.93 3.05 51.43 14.34 51.43 25.93 1.08 9* Small Village Will u sgetk-2 n/a 2440 Y 97.98 0.40 1.62 18.97 0.78 0.86 15.15 16.67 35.71 50.00 0.00 8 Small Village Will u sgetk-3 n/a 430 Y 100.00 0 0 32.68 8.55 1.10 75.00 9.62 100.00 25.00 0.00 5 Special Purpose Site Will u sgetk-4 n/a 240 Y 100.00 0 0 27.47 5.86 0.00 80.00 0 100.00 0 0.00 4 Special Purpose Site Will u sgetk-5 n/a 1900 Y 100.00 0 0 7.69 1.10 0.00 100.00 0 100.00 0 0.00 1 Special Purpose Site  a Date of the oldest 14C sample collected (calibrated). All samples are from charcoal within auger sub samples.  26  b Quantification excludes bird and domestic dog, both of which are present infrequently and in very low numbers. All unidentifiable fragments attributed to either fish, marine or terrestrial mammal are included. c Represents the total number of different fish species. Though dependent on sample size it does hold some value for identifying fishing practices. See the “Taxonomic Richness” section on page 31 for a full discussion of this quantification. * Taxonomic richness can be considered to be accurate for these sites, due the presence of either a high number of identified specimens (approximately 400 or greater) or a very large sample size.      27  Table 1 demonstrates that the process of classifying different sites to site taxonomies is anything but straightforward. Ks’waan, Seti yeets, and Lach Klan are large village sites with many house depressions, platforms, several terraces, and deep shell middens. Though all sites seem to show a heavy reliance on fish over other vertebrae species, there is a wide difference in fish density between Ks’waan (99.92 NISP/L), Seti yeets (24.17 NISP/L), and Lach Klan (18.66 NISP/L). Other factors, such as shellfish use are not presented here (but do demonstrate marked differences in the nature of use at each site). The fish data alone shows that very different signatures of fishing practices are present at three otherwise similar large villages. There is also a wide variance in taxonomic richness between large village sites. Ks’waan shows a far greater diversity in fish use. K’moda, Sga wina’a and William Lewis’ Fish camp are small village sites. These sites are likely fishing stations due to the high abundance of fish in faunal assemblages. All have high fish densities, but K’moda has a very high abundance of salmon, where-as Sga wina’a and William Lewis’ Fish Camp show an emphasis on herring. The other small village sites of Ktsm lagan, Ktaay, Will u sgetk-1 and Will u sgetk-2 indicate an equally diverse fishing pattern between sites.  The nature of the use of special purpose sites remains somewhat unclear. Lax kwil da’a is a habitation site for guests to Gitxaała (described below). The Smokehouse site is the remains of a large 20th century smokehouse and has a small midden component. Kna gaguum and Will u sgetk-3 are small islands with no freshwater sources and patchy midden components. Apart from the Smokehouse site, the faunal patterns at special purpose sites seem to reflect a limited use of fish and occasional occupation. The presence of a high abundance of herring does not necessarily indicate spring occupation, as herring was commonly stored for winter consumption. Likewise, the presence of salmon alone gives little indication of seasonality. The ratio of salmon cranial to vertebrae fragments can indicate summer/fall harvesting or winter occupation (see page 33 for a full discussion of this comparison). Gitxaała use of each area was not prescribed merely by available resources but was far more complex, incorporating a multitude of cultural processes and individual decisions. Classifying sites into taxonomies is vulnerable to ethnocentric notions of resource use and cultural values. Furthermore, archaeological techniques often miss critical 28  meanings of each place to Gitxaała. For example, the site of Lax Kwil da’a is a very large habitation site with multiple house depressions and cleared platforms. The large size of the site and multiple living spaces indicates it is a large winter village. However, faunal analysis indicates that fish were harvested or consumed in very low abundances here, an anomaly for a large village. Lax kwil da’a is a small island with no fresh water sources, and is situated approximately two kilometers from and in view of Gitxaała’s main village, Lach Klan. Gitxaała scholarship is paramount in understanding the character of Lax kwil da’a. Raven (Ganhada) member Ken Innes explained that Gitxaała housed guests on this island. Ken described that during important winter ceremonies, Gitxaała could “keep an eye” on guests due to their proximity to Lach Klan, and keep them both well stocked and at a safe distance from the main village.  Because of the knowledge shared by Ken Innes, Lax kwil da’a is classified as a special purpose site. Fishing Patterns  Overall, fish constitute nearly 87% of all bone collected from Gitxaała sites. Of the 27,470 total fish elements, 20,017 were classified as unidentifiable fish. The four most abundant taxa by %NISP are: salmon (44.49 %), herring (30.69%), greenling (12.75%), and rockfish (4.43%) (Appendix D Table 2). The remaining taxa consist of less than 8% of identified specimens combined. Unlike other areas of the coast, there exists a wide variety of fishing patterns both between and within large villages and small village sites. On the central coast, Cannon (2000) found a high density of either salmon or herring at large village sites and a relatively low density of fish at smaller sites. Within Gitxaała, the small site of K’moda, has a higher abundance of salmon than every other habitation site. The data is contrary to expectations that large villages would have the highest abundances of fish. Kmoda has by far the highest salmon density (35.19 NISP/L), while other sites, such as Kna gaguum, Lax kwil da’a, Will u sgetk-1 and Will u sgetk-5 contain very minimal amounts of salmon (and also of fish in general). Conversely, Sga wina’a, William Lewis’ Fish Camp, and Ktsm lagan have the three highest herring densities. The comparisons of fish density reveal some indications of site function. In Cannon’s (2000) regional testing program on the central coast, he found a correlation between small site size and low density of fish and thus argued such sites were specific purpose campsites. Cannon 29  (2000:724) found “the densities of herring and salmon bone seem to distinguish clearly between longer-term habitation and specific-purpose campsites”. The Gitxaała fish data does not necessarily indicate a correlation between site size and fish density, though there does exist a number of special purpose camp sites with low fish densities. However, the sites with the highest densities of fish are not the largest sites. K’moda indicates an intensive salmon fishery. The cranial/vertebrae comparison indicates a late summer occupation at the very least, with the site at least partially abandoned by the spring, due to the absence of a herring bone. Conversely, the large village of Seti yeets, with historical evidence of fall and winter occupation (Galois 2004), has a relatively low density of salmon, perhaps indicating a reliance on other food sources.  The sites with the highest density of salmon; K’moda, the Smokehouse site, and Will u sgetk-1, are not large village sites (as Seti yeets and Ks’waan are). They are likely specific purpose fishing stations. Likewise, the sites with the highest density of herring; Sga wina’a, William Lewis’ Fish Camp and Ktsm lagan, are not especially large sites, and indicate spring occupancy (though they also have a relatively moderate/high salmon density, so also indicate late summer fall habitation as well). The two very large village sites of Ks’waan and Seti yeets have moderate densities of salmon, though Ks’waan also illustrates a reliance on herring. Several sites contain very low densities of fish. Samples from Kna gaguum, Lach Klan, Lax kwil da’a, Will u sgetk-2 and Will u sgetk-5 all contain less than 20 total fish specimens per litre. While this may indicate that fishing was a rather minor activity at certain sites, or differences in taphonomic conditions, it almost certainly is due to inadequate sample sizes in some cases. Measuring fish density with a limited numbers of auger samples may not be an accurate tool to determine fishing patterns and distinguish site types. Assuming that the above five sites share similar occupation histories based on fish density would lead to erroneous conclusions. For example, the current maine Gitxaała village of  Lach Klan, is an important large winter village. Only one auger test was conducted at Lach Klan however, and fauna from this sample are likely not representative of fishing activities.  Sample Size Considerations With the above results, it is necessary to consider the relationship between sample size and, fish abundances. Archaeologists have long recognized that there are in fact two sets of relationships that must be examined when analysing a set of data: the relationship between the 30  retrieved samples to the total volume of cultural material within a site (eg. Grayson 1984) and the relationship of the archaeological material to the entire suite of cultural processes that may lead to such a deposition (eg. Binford 1981). In the following section the first relationship is evaluated. Taxonomic Richness  Though Brewster and Martindale (2011) contend that small scale auger sampling of midden sites does not lend itself to an assessment of taxonomic richness, the relationship between taxonomic richness and sample size at Gitxaała sites is nonetheless examined, with only fish identified to genus level used for this quantification. Assessing the taxonomic richness of fish at each habitation offers a sense of both the diversity of fish targeted and the relationship between sample size and faunal patterns.The following 27 possible fish taxa are used for the assessment of taxonomic richness: Salmon, herring, greenling, rockfish, red irish lord, sablefish, halibut, dogfish shark, perch, sardine, steelhead trout, arrowtooth flounder, sculpin, anchovy, eulachon, sandlance, lingcod, hake, starry flounder, skate, ratfish, cabezon, high cockscomb, gunnel/prickleback, pollock/pacific cod, rock sole sp, and tomcod.  The effect of sample size on taxonomic richness is assessed using cumulative frequency curves, in which a specific sample set can be said to be large enough when additional samples do not significantly increase taxonomic richness. Any additional samples beyond this maximum or near maximum of taxa are redundant and the sample size is considered sufficient to capture the richness of taxonomic diversity within a specific sample set (see for example McKechnie 2005, 2012; Lyman and Ames 2007; Monks 2000). Two measures of sample size are analyzed for Gitxaała sites: the cumulative number of identified specimens (Appendix D Figure 1) and the cumulative number of auger test sub-samples (Appendix D Figure 2). Appendix D Figure 1 includes all 16 of the Gitxaała sites where auger samples were obtained. The cumulative frequency graph shows that none of the sample sizes are large enough to reach a redundancy in taxonomic richness. To reach the full extent of taxonomic richness within each site, a more intensive sampling program is needed. In his assessment of taxonomic diversity of fish within the Nuu-chah-nuth site of Ts’ishaa, McKechnie (2005:37) found that taxonomic richness can increase even with several thousand identified fish specimens, as the cumulative frequency curve for fish taxa versus the number of identified specimens only began to plateau after approximately 31  2000 specimens and revealed dramatic increases in new taxa for the first 1000 cumulatively added specimens. Acknowledging the limitations of a comparatively small sample sizes, Appendix D Figure 1 does display a relative slow down after an initial rapid increase in fish taxa for some sites. After 400 cumulative identified specimens, a much less dramatic increase in new taxa can be seen with Ks’waan, Sga wina’a, and K’moda. Appendix D Figure 2 includes the only four habitation sites where over 30 bucket auger subsamples containing vertebrae fauna were collected. The cumulative frequency curves in this graph also show that sample sizes are inadequate for assessing taxonomic richness at each site, although Seti yeets, Sga wina’a, and Lax kwil da’a all show a relative decrease in the rate of addition of new taxa after approximately 20 bucket auger sub samples. The evaluation of the relationship between taxonomic richness and sample size reveals that though full taxonomic richness cannot be completely assessed with our sample sizes (i.e. redundancy in the addition of new taxa has not been reached), some meaningful comparisons in taxonomic richness between sites can be made. Appendix D Figure 1 demonstrates that, given a certain sample size, taxonomic richness varies between different sites. For example, given 400 identified fish specimens, K’moda samples contain just over five fish taxa. Given the same amount of identified specimens in the three sites of William Lewis’ Fish Camp, Sga wina’a, and Ks’waan, a much higher degree of taxonomic richness of 9 to 10 fish taxa has been reached. A similar pattern of differences can be identified with the cumulative frequency graph of Appendix D Figure 2. With a sample size of 40 bucket auger sub samples, Lax kwil da’a has a much lower degree of taxonomic richness (with only 6 taxa identified) than that of Ks’waan (~12 taxa) and Sga wina’a (~16 taxa). Though the full taxonomic richness cannot be entirely assessed with the relatively low sample sizes, cumulative frequency curves can point towards some conclusions concerning taxonomic richness. A wider range of different taxa were identified within Sga wina’a, William Lewis’ Fish Camp, and Ks’waan, indicating a wider range of fish species. Conversely, a narrower range of fish taxa were identified within K’moda and Lax kwil da’a, indicating seasonal occupation. As a broader range of fish taxa were identified within Sga wina’a, William Lewis’ Fish Camp, and Ks’waan, it may indicate occupation spanning several seasons as well as 32  the use of stored supplies, though few taxa generally consist of the bulk of identified elements (salmon and herring at Sga wina’a and William Lewis’ Fish Camp, and salmon, herring and greenling at Ks’waan).  One conclusion from the above discussion is that bucket auger sampling programs should be sufficient enough to reach some redundancy in taxonomic richness. That is, more than one auger sample is needed. At Gitxaała sites, that minimum number of bucket auger sub samples at any of the sites needed to reach this redundancy is 15, each containing approximately 1 L of cultural matrices (the number of bucket auger locations varies depending on the depth of deposits). This is a bare minimum however and assumes a high density of fish bone within the matrix.  Sample Representativeness   One method of determining the representativeness of the overall sample size from Gitxaała sites is to compare the rank ordering of species using different methods of quantification, such as %NISP and %ubiquity (McKechnie 2012). Appendix D Figure 3 compares the rank order of % NISP to %ubiquity of all Gitxaała assemblages combined. The rank orders between the two different measures of abundance are very similar, indicating that taxonomic composition is broadly representative. Salmon ranks first in both %NISP and %ubiquity, herring ranks second, greenling ranks third, while rockfish ranks forth. On the comparison of rank order of %NISP and %ubiquity, McKechnie (2012:162) posits:   “It is interpretively significant that the relative abundance of fish specimens so closely corresponds to the rank-order sequence of ubiquity. This demonstrates that the most abundant taxa (%NISP) also occur very regularly in the deposit as a whole….The overall similarity between these two measures provide a level of confidence that the taxonomic composition of the total assemblage is broadly representative and that the numerically dominant species are also likely to be the most abundant in small portions of the assemblage”.  Salmon Cranial vs Vertebrae Elements    In an effort to further identify the nature of salmon production and consumption within Laxyuup Gitxaała, the percentages of salmon vertebrae to cranial fragments within each site is compared. Vertebrae elements included all elements of the vertebrae column. Cranial elements 33  included the democranium, branchial arch, suspensorium, hyoid arch, and neurocranium. Other body parts, such as the pectoral girdle, pelvic girdle, fin elements, and tail assemblage were excluded from this comparison.  Higher ratios of cranial to vertebrae elements likely represent locations of fish production and processing (Matson and Coupland 1995), whereas lower ratios of cranial to vertebrae indicate stored salmon resources (indicating winter village sites). Some potential problems arise with this line of reasoning. The first is that it assumes that there would be an archaeological signature of fish processing stations. This may not be the case as fish could have been processed in any number of ways. For instance, if fish were processed in the intertidal zone the vast majority of cranial elements would thus not be present in archaeological matrices (Brewster and Martindale 2011). The second problem with this line of reasoning is that taphonomic processes and differential bone density between cranial and vertebrae elements may cause under-representation of salmon cranial elements (eg. Butler and Chatters 1994, Smith et al 2011).  The third problem relates to the problem of normative thinking regarding cultural practices of fish butchering. Were salmon heads and/or vertebrae removed prior to drying and storing salmon in precontact times? Today, Gitxaała fish processers remove the head and smoke the salmon with the vertebrae left in. Once the fish is smoked, the vertebrae are removed. Though new preservation methods, such as canning, jarring, and freezing have been introduced to Gitxaała since contact, there is no evidence to suggest that smoking methods have changed.   A total of 92.05% of the 3272 salmon elements identified at 16 sites are vertebrae, and 6.21% of all salmon elements are cranial. The distribution of cranial and vertebrae fragments across each site is displayed in Appendix D:Table 4. Note that the values from Clamshell Island, Will u sgetk-2, Will u sgetk-3, Will u sgetk-4, and Will u sgetk-5 were derived from less than 50 identified salmon elements and are likely not indicative of patterns of salmon processing. Vertebrae fragments represent more than 90% of identified salmon elements at all of the sites except K’moda (79.21%) and the Smokehouse site (82.88%). Cranial elements represent less than 7% of all salmon elements at all sites except K’moda (18.30%).   The relatively high percentage of cranial elements recovered from K’moda suggests this was a major processing site for salmon and that salmon were eaten fresh, both pointing to summer and early fall occupation. The high salmon cranial count suggests that this ethnographic 34  pattern of salmon procurement was established well before the contact era. As K’moda remained one of the most important salmon fishing and summer camps for the Gispuwada house group throughout the 19th and 20th century, this suggests a continuum in traditional use and knowledge surrounding salmon fishing at this location. The various stone trap alignments at K’moda undoubtedly targeted salmon, and fish were likely processed within smokehouses at the habitation site. Likewise, the Smokehouse site, located across the bay from the Kxenk’aa’wen trap, likely served as a focal point of processing for salmon both before contact and into the 20th century. Interestingly, the vertebrae to cranial comparisons suggest that the sites of Sga wina’a and William Lewis’ Fish Camp may not have been salmon processing locations, but rather, a place where stored salmon were consumed.  Gitxaała Sites with Over 500 Identified Fish Elements  More than 500 fish elements were identified to taxa within K’moda, Seti yeets, Will u sgetk-1, William Lewis’ Fish Camp, Sga wina’a and K’saan. This is not to say that other sites did not necessarily contain high levels of fish. In most sites with less than 500 identified fish elements however, sample sizes were very low.  In some cases, such as Raven Island, a high number of samples were collected in relation to other sites. Fish counts however, remain low. The six sites listed above likely have higher numbers of identified fish elements due to intense fisheries and a larger sample size. Table 2 displays three different measures of abundance across the six sites and rank orders each measure. Importantly, rank orders of each quantification of specific fish generally correlate with each other across sites, indicating a relatively representative sample.  From the comparison of %NISP, %ubiquity and NISP/L of the three overall most abundant species (salmon, herring, and greenling), a number of tentative conclusions of fish use at each site can be made. Firstly, salmon was likely most intensely and almost exclusively harvested at K’moda, and also Seti yeets to a lesser degree8. Secondly, the data at the habitation sites of Will u sgetk-1 and K’saan  represent a more generalized picture of fish use, with salmon, herring and greenling all being a focus.  Thirdly, though salmon is present is nearly all samples,                                                           8 Seti yeets may be an anomaly in this regard. Categorizing the focus of fisheries at Seti yeets as salmon intensive may be somewhat misleading, as the majority of the salmon elements were recovered from only one of the four auger tests, and may not be representative of the site as a whole.  35  herring is the major focus of fisheries at William Lewis’ Fish Camp and Sga wina’a, with much higher abundances than other sites.    Table 2: Salmon, herring, and greenling abundances across six sites Site Salmon Herring Greenling % NISP %Ubiquity NISP/L % NISP %Ubiquity NISP/L % NISP %Ubiquity NISP/L K’moda 76.59 (1)a 100 (1) 35.19 (1) 0.8 (6) 13.33 (6) 0.37 (6) 0.48 (6) 20.00 (6) 0.22 (6) Citeyats 71.36 (2) 86.49 (4) 7.38 (5) 9.47 (5) 45.95 (4) 1.72 (5) 5.30 (5) 27.03 (5) 0.74 (5) WS-1 51.43 (3) 66.67 (6) 10.93 (2) 14.34 (4) 25.93 (5) 3.05 (4) 9.56 (2) 51.85 (3) 2.03 (3) WLFC 21.64 (6) 95.65 (2) 5.92 (6) 68.06 (1) 73.91 (2) 18.61 (2) 6.11 (4) 52.17 (2) 1.67 (4) Sga wina’a 23.61 (5) 82.93 (5) 8.43 (4) 62.14 (2) 78.05 (1) 22.19 (1) 7.8 (3) 48.78 (4) 2.81 (2) Ks’waan 33.24 (4) 87.04 (3) 8.45 (3) 27.06 (3) 64.81 (3) 5.12 (3) 27.74 (1) 75.93 (1) 6.64 (1) aIndicates the comparative rank of species between sites Faunal Results of Habitation Sites Associated with Traps  The following section presents a closer look at the results of faunal analysis for three sites in close proximity to two prominent trap sites. Sga wina’a and William Lewis’ Fish Camp are located ~5 km south of the large trap of K’wxen’ka’wen, and the K’moda habitation site is located immediately adjacent to the stone trap site. The results are discussed in terms of taxonomic composition, which includes a comparison of %ubiquity and %NISP of certain species within each site.  Sga wina’a    Located 3.6 km southwest of Kxenk’aa’wen, on Laxhs Kawinoo Island, Sga wina’a is a medium sized (1710 m²) habitation site with midden matrices extending ~2 m in depth below surface (Appendix D Figure 4). Sga wina’a’s high density and abundance of herring indicate it likely was a base camp for an intense spring fishery. The moderate size, presence of several house platforms and depressions, and high salmon abundances indicate it was also occupied throughout other seasons, though more research is necessary to determine whether it was a summer camp or a small winter village (or possibly both). Occupancy of the site continued through the contact and historic era, as the remains of an iron stove and ceramics, and other 36  historic debris are located along the beach front. Two chipped glass tools (fashioned from the base of bottles) were collected from the beach, indicating an appropriation of European materials and the transformative nature of Gitxaała material culture. The beach front has been extensively landscaped to create several boulder-free canoe runs. Charcoal samples were collected from the earliest cultural deposits in five auger tests for 14C dating (Table 3). The results indicate that the earliest occupation was ~2,500 cal. BP. Though stratigraphic analysis is limited with bucket auger sampling, there is no evidence of paleosols (which would indicate site abandonment), and cultural matrices are continuous from the basal sand layers through to humic layers, indicating continuous occupation of the site for approximately 2500 years.  Table 3: 14C dates from Sga wina’a Sample ID Depth below surface (cm) Sample elevation (m abl) Material Delta 13C 14C years BP 14C years SD Calibrated age-range (years BP) (2 sigma) Lab Number Lower Upper AT 3F 171-190 8.3 charcoal -22.5 2448 29 2360 2702 AA99950 AT 5G 169-177 7.3 charcoal -25.5 2227 50 2130 2345 AA99951 AT 6E 167-174 5.3 charcoal -26.2 1513 48 1316 1523 AA99952 AT 9E 133-163 8.7 charcoal -27.1 2550 47 2489 2757 AA99953 AT 11E 141-165 2.6 charcoal -23.3 1975 29 1873 1992 AA99954   The bulk of fishing activity at Sga wina’a focused on a limited number of species. Salmon and herring make up 68.59% of all identified fish taxa. A total of 5 taxa (salmon, herring, greenling, rockfish, and halibut) make up 95.68 % of all identified taxa. The remaining 4.32 % is comprised of 12 other taxa. The ranked order for each species’ %Ubiquity and %NISP for all fish data from Sga wina’a is presented in Appendix D Figure 5. The relative percentage of each species is more or less equal to the %ubiquity in rank. That is, the higher the relative proportion of each species, the more they were consistently identified throughout samples. The comparison of the ranked order of each species shows that salmon and herring dominate the relative proportion of all fish caught.  They were also the two species most consistently represented at the site. Herring has the highest number of overall elements, yet is ranked 2nd in ubiquity. This likely reflects the relatively short herring season in comparison to the longer salmon season.   37  William Lewis’ Fish Camp  William Lewis’ Fish Camp is a small (900 m²) habitation site located upon Lax kn dip w and Island, 1 km west of Sga wina, and 4.2 km southwest of Kxenk’aa’wen. Similar to Sga wina in many respects, William Lewis’ Fish Camp contains cultural matrices extending 2 m below surface and several cleared house surfaces are visible. Occupation of this site continued well into the 20th century, as Ken Innes recalled going to the fish camp with his mother Lilly (William Lewis’ daughter) during the summers when he a child.  The site served as a base camp for spring and summer fisheries in and near K’nax’aon. Five C14 dates were obtained from bucket auger samples (Table 4). The results indicate that occupation was as early as ~2000 cal. BP. Like Sga wina’a, the site’s stratigraphy suggests continuous use of the site since initial occupation.  Table 4: 14C dates from William Lewis’ Fish Camp Sample ID Depth below surface (cm) Sample elevation (m abl) Material Delta 13C 14C years BP 14C years SD Calibrated age-range (years BP) (2 sigma) Lab Number Lower Upper AT 1G 167-192 7.3 charcoal -26.8 1946 46 1742 2000 AA99955 AT 3F 158-196 5.4 charcoal -24 831 28 690 788 AA99956 AT 4E 185-208 8.1 charcoal -22.4 1803 31 1625 1821 AA99957 AT 6E 132-178 10.7 charcoal -23.4 1311 28 1182 1294 AA99958 AT 9G 143-154  7.6 charcoal -23.8 1804 46 1611 1865 AA99959  William Lewis’ Fish Camp is very similar to Sga wina’a in taxonomic composition. Salmon and herring comprise 73.76 % of all identified specimens, and the four taxa of salmon, herring, greenling, and halibut comprise 92.08% of all identified taxa. The rank order of the %ubiquity and relative abundance for all identified fish species at William Lewis’ Fish Camp is presented in Appendix D Figure 6. As with Sga wina’a, herring and salmon dominate the relative proportion of all fish and were also the two species most consistently identified. Like Sga wina’a, herring is ranked first in relative abundance yet is second in %ubiquity.  This may indicate that though herring was more intensely harvested during certain times (spring), salmon was the more consistently harvested fish (summer).   38  K’moda  K’moda is a historic drag seine camp with a precontact component. Cultural matrices extend to ~160 cm below surface. A major centre of commercial production of sockeye for Gitxaała in the 1800’s and early 1900’s, it is a place with a strong family connection to Gitxaała crew members. A large “C” shaped stone trap is situated in front of the habitation site, and a series of smaller, less distinct stone traps are located across the inlet. Faunal analysis from K’moda indicates an intensive salmon fishery with a high density of salmon bone. The high ratio of cranial to vertebrae elements also indicate salmon are being processed on site.  Three dates were obtained from K’moda (Table 5). Two are from charcoal located within the lowest available cultural sediment from bucket auger samples. The third is from charcoal obtained from the lowest depth of an evaluative unit conducted on site. The results indicate that occupation was as early as 1970 cal. B.P. This date indicates that fishing activities between K’moda, Sga wina’a, William Lewis’ Fish Camp, and are contemporaneous.   Table 5: 14C dates from K’moda Sample ID Depth below surface (cm) Sample elevation (m abl) Material Delta 13C 14C years BP 14C years SD Calibrated age-range (years BP) (2 sigma) Lab Number Lower Upper AT 1D 8 98-117 charcoal -24.1 1222 29 1065 1258 AA99962 AT 4E 6.6 137-160 charcoal -24.7 1940 31 1821 1970 AA99963 EU 1 Level 9 7 96 charcoal -25.6 1571 39 1381 1547 AA99964  Salmon, and to a lesser extent anchovy, dominate the fish assemblage at K’moda, together comprising 98.08 % of all identified fish elements. Comparing the relative abundance to the ubiquity of fish species (Appendix D Figure 7) illustrates that salmon is ranked first in both, and at least one salmon element is present in every collected auger sub sample, indicating salmon harvesting as a consistent activity at the site. 39  Faunal Analysis Conclusions A number of conclusions can be made from the above faunal analysis. First, three species constitute the majority of fishing in Gitxaała Territory; salmon, herring, and greenling. Second, diverse patterns of fishing exist between similar site types. The faunal data is contradictory to expectations of a correlation between high fishing abundances and large winter villages. The highest fishing abundances clearly occur at smaller village sites which acted as fish camps, such as K’moda, Sga wina’a, and William Lewis’ Fish Camp. The K’moda habitation site contained the highest salmon abundance of all Gitxaała habitation sites, and Sga wina’a and William Lewis’ Fish Camp contained the highest herring abundance. These fish camp sites, in addition to the smokehouse site, are associated with significant stone traps. The target species of the K’moda trap was salmon, while Kxenk’aa’wen likely targeted both herring and salmon. Salmon cranial vs vertebrae counts indicate that K’moda and the Smokehouse site were major fish processing stations. Cranial counts from Sga wina’a and William Lewis’ Fish Camp were comparatively low, suggesting salmon was processed elsewhere. Lastly, some degree of interpretive caution is warranted for sites where few samples were collected, such as Lach Klan. Future regional bucket auger sampling programs should ensure that sample sizes are sufficient to ensure redundancy in taxonomic richness (either with cumulative number of identified specimens, or with cumulative number of auger sub samples).              40  TEK and the Archaeological Record   “Everything they did in those days, we are still doing”   -Larry Bolton 2010   In the late 1800’s, Indian Agents met with Gispuwada Chief T’bassa, Eagle Chief Shakes, and a number of other Gitxaała Chiefs to determine Indian Reserve locations. T’bassa negotiated for a series of important salmon fishing stations to be designated Gitxaała reservations, indicating both the importance of fishing to Gitxaała, and T’bassa’s business savvy in the time of a booming salmon cannery industry. These fishing stations remained tremendously important places throughout the 20th century and are key locations in the social memory and current resource use patterns of Gitxaała. Though many aspects of material culture have changed over the course of the last two decades, Tsimshian chiefs often see no separation between themselves and their ancestors (Martindale 2009). Gitxaała crew members who participated in the archaeological research for the current study expressed the same sentiment. Traditional ecological knowledge is not a static knowledge of past cultural practices or past occupancy.  Rather, traditional ecological knowledge reflects ongoing use and occupancy of resources and territory. Though different technologies are used, principles of fishing remained the same. Descriptions of early and mid-twentieth century fishing contain insightful information concerning what types of resources were being harvested and where, the nature of land and waterway use, and reflect a deep connection to place. Important fishing stations of the 20th century nearly always contain evidence of pre-contact and contact-era use (including habitation and well as stone traps) , which indicates a continuity in use and harvesting between  pre-contact and post-contact eras.  Many researchers have stressed the importance of traditional knowledge in managing and harvesting resources on the Northwest Coast (eg. Turner and Clifton 2006; Menzies 2006, 2010, 2011, Langdon 2006; Linkous-Brown 2005, 2006). Menzies and Butler’s (2007) description of the historic use of K’moda emphasized that the same fishing principles were being used during drag seining as Gitxaała fishers have used for millennia prior to industrialization. The narratives of 19th and 20th century fishing activities at the K’moda  contribute to an interpretation of the results of the faunal analysis at this habitation site. The above analysis indicates that salmon constituted a major proportion of all faunal remains at K’moda and thus were likely a major food source caught using stone trap technology for several millennia. Moreover, the high ratio of 41  salmon cranial to vertebrae fragments provide further evidence that K’moda functioned as a major salmon processing location prior to the historic era switch to seine net fishing.  “There were a lot of people living in Knax’aon, I’ll never forget it.” Agnus Shaw 2005  In the same way that Gitxaała knowledge of harvesting activities at K’moda informs the archaeological record of the habitation and trap site, so too does Gitxaała’s knowledge of harvesting activities at K’nax’aon. The importance of K’nax’aon comes across though Gtixaala members discussions of lineage, family history, and their own discussion of time spent in the inlet. A wide variety of resources were and continue to be harvested at K’nax’aon in a seasonal round described by Gitxaała community members. Salmon fishing on seine boats dominates the discussion of harvesting activities, though a wide array of resources were and continue to be harvested from spring to fall in the inlet. Larry Bolton described how he used to fish for salmon in the summer and fall in the inlet. Charlotte Aggie Brown, daughter of William Lewis, described many summer seasons harvesting resources and fishing in the inlet. William Lewis’ grandson, and crew member Ken Innes, remembered going to William Lewis’ Fish Camp with is mother, Lilly Lewis and identified the location of the site during fieldwork.  Charlotte Aggie Brown described working on her family’s seine boats, fishing coho, sockeye, and dog salmon, and also harvesting herring eggs. Brown said that during the mid-20th century, there was a lot of seine fishing on the west coast of Banks Island and at K’nax’aon. Gitxaała community members Rennie Lewis and Keith Lewis described salmon fishing and harvesting herring roe in the inlet also. Angus Shaw also discussed the intensive salmon processing activities she was involved in during the late summer and fall. She described the vast amount of salmon women would process in a smokehouse (the Smokehouse site) on Banks Island in K’nax’aon inlet:  Nobody can do it anymore. There’s a big smokehouse in Bonilla Arm. When the fishing is over and all those people really settled in at Bonilla Arm. I can’t remember how many crew we had. There were four women in that big smokehouse. In that big smokehouse, they divide it in four sections, for those four ladies. One for each lady. When they were hanging their fish, I can’t remember how many fish in one section, for each woman. That big house in Bonilla Arm. They make it really dry….9                                                           9 Unpublished transcript 2005, collected as part of the ongoing Forests and Oceans for the Future Research Project, led by Charles Menzies.  42  Beyond salmon and herring roe, a host of resources were and continue to be regularly harvested in K’nax’aon. Gitxaała interviewees described an entire seasonal round in the inlet, starting with seaweed during May and ending with smoking salmon in the fall, and included shellfish harvesting and halibut fishing. They described moving around to different areas in the inlet according to the resource being harvested.  Gitxaała community member’s descriptions of activities informs the faunal results of Sga wina’a and William Lewis Fish Camp and fishing activities at the large trap site of Kxenk’aa’wen.                      43  Conclusion  Researchers have argued that NWC peoples’ settlement and cultural patterns are a result of resource extraction economies based largely on ecological factors (eg. Matson and Coupland 1995). However, the above research displays complex patterns of fishing and settlement and is contrary to other models of resource use on the coast in that small sites show a much wider array of fishing patterns than do large villages. One explanation for the diverse fishing patterns is that NWC peoples’, and specifically Gitxaała’s food production, settlement and cultural patterns are not simply a result of capitalizing on ecological factors. The complexity in the faunal data indicates a continuum in cultural processes, and also point towards a model of resource management on the coast. Fishing in the past was likely exactly how contemporary Gitxaała members describe it to be; a series of complex interactions between the animal and human world, involving multiple levels of decision making regarding all aspects of production, including labour, target species, fish quantities needed, fishing methods, and resource management. Faunal data indicates that the Gitxaała fish production and settlement patterns likely were far more nuanced that simply targeting the most readily available, easily harvested resource. Detailed ecological knowledge was required to understand fish migration patterns and to avoid over harvesting.  This study makes several contributions towards understanding the nature of fishing on an important, yet previously largely ignored area on the northwest coast.  First, the current study demonstrates that fish was the most important food category of all vertebrates. Fish dominate faunal assemblage, and constitute nearly 87% of all identifiable bone collected from Gitxaała habitation sites.  This study also demonstrates that though a total of 27 different fish taxa were harvested in Gitxaała territory, salmon and herring are by far the two most important species. Salmon constitutes 45% of all identifiable fish and herring makes up 31%. The faunal data also reveal a complicated relationship between site size and perceived function and fishing activities. A correlation between habitation site size and fish density doesn’t necessarily exist within Gitxaała territory. Sites with the highest fish densities tend to be small villages as opposed to large village sites. The results of faunal analysis of habitation sites associated with intertidal stone traps indicate both opportunistic harvesting as part of a seasonal round targeting available resources, 44  and species-specific production. K’moda is situated at a major salmon spawning creek and lake system, and was occupied during the summer and early fall salmon harvesting months. The trap features and faunal data at K’moda point to an intense system of salmon production, held in balance by the Sm’oogyit’s decisions incorporating notions of syt guulm goot and human-animal reciprocal relations. The target species of Kxenk’aa’wen is somewhat less clear. Faunal data from nearby habitation sites indicate that though salmon was a major fishery, herring was the main species targeted. The results from bucket auger samples from the Smokehouse site, Sga wina’a and William Lewis’ Fish camp, show that it is possible that salmon was targeted at the trap, processed nearby (at the Smokehouse site), and then transported to Sga wina’a and William Lewis’ Fish Camp. The high herring abundances indicate that this instead may have been the target species of Kxenk’aa’wen. Gitxaała crew member Ken Innes, predicted that the highest abundances of herring would be found at Sga wina’a and William Lewis’ Fish Camp, as K’nax’aon Inlet is a major herring migratory route. Fishing would commence at spring, with the herring spawning season, and would finish whenever enough fish were caught. This included salmon, which would be fished throughout the summer and early fall. As Kxenk’aa’wen is located adjacent to a salmon spawning creek, nearby sites have high abundances of herring and salmon, and Gitxaała fished both herring and salmon in the inlet throughout the 20th century, the most plausible explanation is that multiple species were targeted with this trap, including both herring and salmon, in a ‘prey as bait” scenario (outlined by Monks 1987).  The incorporation of Gitxaała scholarship and TEK into this study has proved to be invaluable. Faunal data sets are not often straightforward and Gitxaała knowledge both helped explain faunal patterns, and direct research questions. The epistemological advantage of Gitxaała crew members’ life histories, social knowledge, and memory was evident throughout fieldwork. Moreover, understanding fishing practices through values intrinsic to Gitxaała helps guide archaeological approaches away from ethnocentric theoretical approaches of cultural complexity, towards an archaeology far more valuable to Gitxaała; an archaeology that corroborates oral history, resource ownership, and occupancy of territory.     45  Works Cited  Ames, Kenneth    2005   Intensification of Food Production on the Northwest Coast and Elsewhere. In Keeping it       Living: Traditions of Plant Use and Cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America,         edited by Douglas Duer and Nancy J. Turner, pp. 67-100. University if British Columbia       Press, Vancouver.  Basso, Keith H.    1996   Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language Among the Western Apache.         University of New Mexico Press. USA. Betts, R. C.    1998   The Montana Creek Fish Trap I: Archaeological Investigations in Southeast Alaska. In          Hidden Dimensions: The Cultural Significance of Wetland Archaeology, edited by K.        Bernick, pp. 239-251. UBC Press, Vancouver. Binford, Lewis    1981   Behavioral Archaeology and the Pompeii Premise. Journal of Anthropological        Research 37(3):195-208. Boas, Franz    1916   Tsimshian Mythology: In Thirty-First Annual Report of the Bureau of American        Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Instituion, 1909-1910, edited by F.W. Hodge        and Franz Boas, pp. 29-1037. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Brewster, Natalie and Andrew Martindale    2011   An Archaeological History of Holocene Fish Use in the Dundas Island Group, British       Columbia. In Archaeology of North Pacific Fisheries, edited by Madonna L. Moss and        Aubrey Cannon, pp. 247-264. University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks.  Brown, Kimberly Linkous    2005   To Fish for Themselves: A Study of Accommodation and Resistance in the Sto:lo        Fishery. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.    2006   As it was in the Past: A Return to the Use of Live Capture Technology in the Aboriginal        Riverine Fishery. In Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Natural Resource Management,        edited by Charles Menzies, pp. 47-64. University of Nebraska Press, U.S.A. Burchell, Meghan, Nadine Hallmand, Andrew Martindale, Aubrey Cannon and Bernd    Schöne. 2013   Seasonality and Intensity of Shellfish Harvesting on the North Coast of British     Columbia.” Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 8:152-169. Butler, Virginia L. and James C. Chatters    1994   The Role of Bone Density in Structuring Prehistoric Salmon Bone Assemblages.         Journal of Archaeological Science 21: 413-424. Byram, Scott.    1998   Fishing Weirs in Oregon Coast Estuaries. In Hidden Dimensions: The Cultural          Significance of Wetland Archaeology, edited by K. Bernick, pp. 199-219. UBC Press,           Vancouver.    2002   Brush Fences and Basket Traps: The Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Tidewater Weir         Fishing on the Oregon Coast. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Oregon. Eugene.  Caldwell, Megan    2008   A View from the Shore: Interpreting Fish Trap Use in Comox Harbour Through   46        Zooarchaeological Analysis of Fish Remains from the Q’umu?xs Village Site (DkSf-19),        Comox Harbour, British Columbia. Unpublished MA thesis. Department of Anthropology,        University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.    2011   Fish Traps and Shell Middens at Comox Harbour, British Columbia, In         Archaeology of North Pacific Fisheries, edited by Madonna L. Moss and Aubrey Cannon,       pp. 235-245. University of Alaska Press: Fairbanks. Cannon, Aubrey     1998   Contingency and Agency in the Growth of Northwest Coast Maritime Economies.         Arctic Anthropology 35:1, 57-67.    2000   Assessing Variability in Northwest Coast Salmon and Herring Fisheries: Bucket-Auger         Sampling of Shell Midden Sites on the Central Coast of British Columbia. Journal of        Archaeological Science 27: 725-737. Coupland, Gary, Kathlyn Stewart and  Katherine Patton    2010   Do you never get tired of salmon? Evidence for extreme salmon specialization at Prince         Rupert harbour, British Columbia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29: 189-207. Drucker, Philip and Edna Marie Fisher    1943   Archaeological Survey on the Northern Northwest Coast. Bureau of American        Ethnology. Anthropological Papers 20. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,        United States. Eldridge, M., and S. Acheson    1992   The Antiquity of Fish Weirs on the Southern Coast: A Response to Moss, Erlandson,       and Stuckenrath. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 16: 112-116. Fladmark, Knut R.    1975   A Paleoecological Model for Northwest Coast Prehistory. National Museum of Man        Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 43, National Museums of Canada,          Ottawa. Forests and Oceans for the Future Research Project. Unpublished transcripts, 2002 and 2005, on     file with Gitxaała Environmental Monitoring Office. Galois, Robert (Editor)    2004   A Voyage to the North West Side of America: The Journals of James Colnett, 1786-       1789. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.  Grayson, D.K.    1984   Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas.        Academic Press, Orlando. Hallmand, Nadine, Meghan Burchell, Natalie Brewster, Andrew Martindale, and Bernd R. Schöne    2013   Holocene climate and seasonality of shell collection at the Dundas Islands Group,        northern British Columbia, Canada - A bivalve sclerochronological approach. Paleo 3.        373:163-72.  Halpin M. and M. Seguin     1990  Tsimshian Peoples: Southern Tsimshian, Coast Tsimshian, Nishga, and Gitksan.       Handbook of North American Indians, edited by W. Suttles, Volume 7, Northwest Coast, pp.       267-284. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC. Irons, Jonathan William    2012   Ethnographic Perspectives on Laxyuup Gitxaała. Unpublished MA Thesis. Faculty of        Graduate Studies (Anthropology), University of British Columbia, Vancouver. 47  Jones, James Thomas    2002   “We looked after all the salmon streams”: Traditional Heiltsuk Cultural Stewardship of         Salmon and Salmon Streams: A Preliminary Assessment. Unpublished MA Thesis, School        of Environmental Studies. University of Victoria, British Columbia. Langdon, Steve J.    2006   Tidal Pulse Fishing: Selective Traditional Tlingit Salmon Fishing Techniques on the        West Coast of the Prince of Wales Archipelago. In Traditional Ecological Knowledge and        Natural Resource Management, edited by Charles Menzies, pp. 21-46. University of        Nebraska Press, U.S.A.    1977   Technology, Ecology, and Economy: Fishing Systems in Southeast Alaska. PhD        Dissertation, Stanford University. Lepofsky, Dana and Ken Lertzman    2008   Documenting Ancient Plant Management in the Northwest of North America. Botany         86(2):129-145. Losey, Robert     2010   Animism as a means of exploring archaeological fishing structures on Willapa Bay,         Washington, USA. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 20, pp. 17-32. Lyman, R. Lee and Kenneth M. Ames.    2007   On the use of species-area curves to detect the effects of sample size. Journal of        Archaeological Science 34: 1985-1990. Martindale, Andrew    1999   The River of Mist: Cultural Change in the Tsimshian Past. Unpublished PhD        dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Ontario.       2009   Entanglement and Tinkering: Structural History in the Archaeology of the Northern        Tsimshian, in Journal of Social Archaeology.Vol 9: 59-92. Martindale, Andrew and Bryn Letham    2011   Causalities and Models within the Archaeological Construction of Political Order on the        Northwest Coast of North America. In The Archaeology of Politics: the Materiality of        Political Practice and Action in the Past, edited by P.G. Johansen and A.M.        Bauer,  pp. 323-353. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press. Martindale, Andrew, Bryn Letham, Duncan McLaren, David Archer, Meghan Burchell, Bernd R.  Schone    2009   Mapping of Subsurface Shell Midden Components through Percussion Coring:        Examples from the Dundas Islands.” Journal of Archaeological Science. 36:1565-1575. Martindale, Andrew and Charles Menzies.     2010   Application for Permit (Application file # 11200-30/10A0170): Archaeological        Investigations in Gitxaala First Nation Traditional Territory. Document on file        with the B.C. Archaeology Branch, Victoria, BC. Mathews, Darcy.     2012   Ritual Written in Stone; Materiality in Late Period Coast Salish Funerary Practice.         Paper presented during UBC Archaeology Day. March 10, 2012, Vancouver, British        Columbia. Matson, R.G. and Gary Coupland    1995   The Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. Academic Press, Toronto. McHalsie, Albert (Sonny) (Naxaxalhts’i)     2007   We Have to Take Care of Everything that Belongs to Us. In Be of Good Mind: Essays  48        on the Coast Salish, edited by Bruce Granville Miller. pp. 82-130. UBC Press, Vancouver. McKechnie, Iain    2005   Five Thousand Years of Fishing at a Shell Midden in the Broken Group Islands, Barkley        Sound, British Columbia. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Archaeology, Simon        Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.    2012   Zooarchaeological Analysis of the Indigenous Fishery at the Huu7ii Big House and         Back Terrace, Huu-ay-aht Terriotry, Southwestern Vancouver Island. In Huu7ii: Household        Archaeology at a Nuu-chah-nulth Village Site in Barkley Sound. edited by Alan McMillan         and Denis St. Claire, pp. 154-186. McKechnie, Iain and Rebecca J. Wigen    2011   Toward a Historical Ecology of Pinniped and Sea Otter Hunting Traditions on the Coast        of Southern British Columbia. In Human Impacts on Seals, Sea Lions, and Sea Otters:        Integrating Archaeology and Ecology in the Northeast Pacific, edited by Todd J. Braje and        Torben C. Rick, pp. 129-166. McLaren, Duncan    2008   Seal Level Change and Archaeological Site Locations on the Dundas Island        Archipelago of North Coastal British Columbia. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,        Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia. McLaren, Duncan, Andrew Martindale, Daryl Fedje, and Quentin Mackie    2011   Relict Shorelines and Shell Middens of the Dundas Island Archipelago. Canadian      Journal of Archaeology 35: 86-116 McMillan, Alan D., Iain McKechnie, Denis E. St. Claire, and S. Gay Frederick.     2008   Exploring Variability in Maritime Resource Use on the Northwest Coast: A Case Study       from Barkley Sound, Western Vancouver Island. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 32: 214-       238. Menzies, Charles    n.d.   Git lax m’oon – People of the Saltwater: An ethnography of an ancient Indigenous        people. Manuscript on file with author.     2006   Ecological Knowledge, Subsistence, and Livelihood Practices: The Case of the Pine        Mushroom Harvest in Northwestern British Columbia. In Traditional Ecological Knowledge        and Natural Resource Management, edited by Charles Menzies, pp. 87-104. University of        Nebraska Press, U.S.A.    2010   Dm sibilhaa’nm da laxyuubm Gitxaała: Picking Abalone in Gitxaała Territory. Human        Organization 69(3): 213-220.    2011   The disturbed environment: The indigenous cultivation of salmon. In Keystone nations:        Indigenous Peoples and Salmon across the North Pacific, edited by Benedict J. Colombi and        James F. Brooks, pp. 161-182. Santa Fe School for Advanced Research.  Menzies, Charles and Caroline F. Butler     2007   Returning to Selective Fishing through Indigenous Fisheries Knowledge: The Example        of K’moda, Gitxaała Territory. American Indian Quarterly 33(3): 441-464.   Monks, Gregory    1987   Prey as Bait: the Deep Bay Example. Canadian Journal of Archaeology Vol. 11: 119-       142.    2000   How much is enough? An approach to Sampling Icthyofaunas. Ontario Archaeology.        No. 69: 65-75.    2006   The Fauna from Ma’acoah (DfSi-5), Vancouver Island, British Columbia: An 49        Interpretive Summary. Journal of Archaeology 30: 272-301. Moss, Madonna L.    2012  Understanding Variability in Northwest Coast Faunal Assemblages: Beyond Economic       Intensification and Cultural Complexity. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 7:1 (1-       22). Moss, Madonna L. and Aubrey Cannon    2011   Introduction, in Archaeology of North Pacific Fisheries, edited by Madonna L. Moss       and Aubrey Cannon, pp. 1-29. University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks. Moss, Madonna L. and Jon M. Erlandson    1998   A Comparative Chronology of Northwest Coast Fishing Features. In Hidden         Dimensions: The Cultural Significance of Wetland Archaeology, edited by K. Bernick, pp.          180-198. UBC Press, Vancouver.    2010   Diversity in North Pacific Shellfish Assemblages: the Barnacles of Kit’n’Kaboodle        Cave, Alaska. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 3359-3369. Munsell, David A.     1976   The Wapato Creek fish weir site 45P147, Tacoma, Washington, In The Excavation of        Water-Saturated Archaeological Sites (Wet Sites) on the Northwest Coast of North America        (National Museum of Man Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 50),        edited by D.R. Croes, pp. 45-57. National Museum of Canada, Ottawa.   Nadasdy, Paul.    2006  The Gift in the Animal. Lecture presented during the Anthropology/Sociology       Colloquium Series. March 2, 2006. Vancouver, British Columbia.   Oliver, Jeff    2007   Beyond the Water’s Edge: Towards a Social Archaeology of Landscape on the        Northwest Coast. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 31(1): 1-27. Pomeroy, John Anthony    1976   Stone Fish Traps of the Bella Bella Region, in Current Research Reports, edited by Roy       Carlson, pp 165-73. Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby. Simonsen, Bjorn O.    1970   Archaeological Surveys and Other Activities of the Archaeological Sites Advisory        Board, During 1970. Report of the Field Director of the Archaeological Sites Advisory        Board, Victoria.    1973   Archaeological Survey and Excavations in the Hecate Strait, Milbanke Sound Area of        British Columbia. Mercury Series 13. National Museum of Man, Archaeological Survey of        Canada, Ottawa. Smith, Ross E., Virginia Butler, Shelia Orwoll, and Catherine Wilson-Skogen     2011 Chapter 4: Pacific Cod and Salmon Structural Bone Density, in Archaeology of North        Pacific Fisheries, edited by Madonna L. Moss and Aubrey Cannon, pp. 45-56, University        of Alaska Press, Fairbanks. Suttles, Wayne    1968   Coping with Abundance: Subsistence on the Northwest Coast. In Man the Hunter.         edited by Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore. Pp 55-68. Chicago: Aldine.    1987   Coast Salish Essays. University of Washington Press. Seattle. Stein, J.K.     1992   The Analysis of Shell Middens. In Deciphering a Shell Midden.  Edited by Stein, J.K.,        pp. 1-24. Academic Press, San Diego.  50  Stevenson, A.    1998   Wet-site contributions to developmental models of Fraser River Prehistory, in Hidden        Dimensions, the Cultural Significance of Wetland Archaeology, edited by K. Bernick, pp.        220-233. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Turner, Nancy J. and Fikret Berkes     2006   Coming to Understanding: Developing Conservation through Incremental Learning in        the Pacific Northwest. Human Ecology 34:495-513. Turner, Nancy J., and Helen Clifton     2006   The Forest and the Seaweed: Gitga'at Seaweed, Traditional Ecological Knowledge, and        Community Survival, in Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Natural Resource        Management, edited by Charles R. Menzies, pp. 66-86. University of Nebraska Press,        Lincoln. Wigen, Rebecca J.    2012   Vertebrae Fauna from Central Coast Augers. Manuscript on file with author. White, Elroy    2006   Heiltsuk Stone Fish Traps: Products of my Ancestors’ Labour. Unpublished M.A. thesis,       Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.    2011   Heiltsuk Stone Fish Traps on the Central Coast of British Columbia, in Archaeology of        North Pacific Fisheries, edited by Madonna L. Moss and Aubrey Cannon, pp. 75-90.       University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks. Williams, Judith    2006   Clam Gardens: Aboriginal Mariculture on Canada’s West Coast. New Star Books Ltd.:        Vancouver. Yellowhorn, Eldon    2002  Awakening Internalist Archaeology in the Aboriginal World. PhD Dissertation,        Department of Anthropology, McGill University, Montreal.             51  Appendices                                                52  Appendix A: Bucket Auger Methods  At each test location, the bucket auger (measuring 10 cm wide in diameter) was twisted approximately 15-25 cm into the ground until the bucket was full with compacted sediment (Figure 1). All sediments containing any shell or other visible cultural deposits were retained for processing and analysis.  Bucket auger samples were conducted until sterile deposits were reached at each location, or until it became impossible to twist the auger to a further depth due to obstruction or sediment instability. Extensions were added to the bucket auger as needed, such that very deep sediment could be sampled. The upper and lower depths of each auger ‘level’, representing roughly 15-30 vertical cm, were recorded and bagged for later sorting and analysis. Stratigraphic descriptions and transitions were recorded in field notebooks.           Figure 1: Photo of bucket auger sub sample. Photo by Jon Irons, 2011.      53  Appendix B: Laboratory Methods   Several bucket-auger samples were sieved in the field through two mm mesh screens. However, the majority of the samples were initially water-sieved through a 1 mm mesh screen in the Laboratory of Archaeology at the University of British Columbia. Weight and volume of all samples were measured before sieving and weight was measured after the remaining material (largely shell, bone, and stones) had been dried. Once the remaining material had been dried, all samples were sorted through  >12mm, 6.3 mm, and 2 mm geological sieves, and all bone fragments were separated from fractions and identified by Pacific Identifications (Wigen 2012).                               54  Appendix C: Faunal Quantification Methodology  Four measures of quantification were used for faunal data: %NSP (Number of Specimens), %NISP (Number of Identified Specimens), %ubiquity, and NISP/L. These measures are meant to complement each other in quantifying data to form a portrait of fishing activities. %NSP and %NISP are closed arrays (Grayson 1984:19), and only speak to relative intensity of fishing of each species in comparison to each other, rather than absolute measures of fishing intensity.  NISP/L measures the absolute abundance of specimens within matrices, but can range dramatically depending on clast size of inclusions, most notably large shells. In the current data set, certain samples’ wet volumes were measured, while other samples volume was only measured once matrices were dried. Other samples were screened on site with no volume of matrix recorded at all.  Measured wet volumes ranged from .25 L to 1.5 L with the vast majority of samples measuring either .75 L or 1 L. In an effort to create a data set where fish density was measurable, I averaged all the wet volumes to arrive at an average auger sample volume of 911.32 ml. All densities of fish bone for all the auger samples are based off of this average volume. Though imperfect, the comparison of these values to the values based on the calculation of densities based solely on samples where wet volume was measured showed there is little difference between these two volume calculations.  The densities of fish within each site were similar to each other with the averaged and actual volume (with the actual volume sometimes being a much smaller sample size. The advantage of using the averaged volume densities is that it enables a much larger sample size to be used, and enables the calculation of  fish densities at some sites where the sample volume had not been recorded (most notably, K’moda).           55  Appendix D: Additional Tables and Figures     Figure 1: Number of new taxa per number of cumulative identified specimens. Note that only samples obtained using bucket augers are included.       Figure 2: Number of new taxa per number of cumulative bucket auger sub samples  Ks’waan Seti yeets Lach Klan K’moda Sga wina’a William Lewis’ Fish Camp Smokehouse Kna gaguum Ktsm lagan Lax kwil da’a Ktaay Will u sgetk-1 Will u sgetk-2 Will u sgetk-3 Will u sgetk-4 Will u sgetk-5 Ks’waan Seti yeets Sga wina’a Lax kwil da’a 56    Figure 3: Comparison of %Ubiquity to %NISP of all assemblages combined   57     Figure 4: Sga wina’a     58    Figure 5: Sga wina’a %NISP vs %Ubiquity    2.44 (7) 2.44 (7) 2.44 (7) 2.44 (7) 2.44 (7) 2.44 (7) 2.44 (7) 2.44 (7) 4.88 (6) 4.88 (6) 4.88 (6) 2.44 (7) 26.83 (5) 34.15 (4) 48.78 (3) 82.93 (1) 78.05 (2) 0.08 (9) 0.08 (9) 0.08 (9) 0.08 (9) 0.08 (9) 0.08 (9) 0.08 (9) 0.08 (9) 0.15 (8) 0.15 (8) 0.23 (7) 0.3 (6) 2.25 (5) 2.63 (4) 7.88 (3) 23.63 (2) 62.19 (1) 0 20 40 60 80 100Pollock/Pacific codCabezonRatfishSkateSandlanceEulachonAnchovySardinePerch sp.Red Irish LordGunnel/  PricklebackSculpin spRockfishHalibutGreenling sp.SalmonHerring% NISP% Ubiquity59    Figure 6: William Lewis’ Fish Camp %NISP and %Ubiquity      Figure 7: K’moda %NISP and %Ubiquity  60    Table 1: Total faunal counts from 16 habitation sites within Laxyuup Gitxaała  Ks’waan Seti yeets Lach Klan K’moda Sga wina’a William Lewis’ Fish Camp Smokehouse Kna gaguum Ktsm lagan Lax kwil da’a Ktaay Will u sgetk - 1 Will u sgetk - 2 Will u sgetk - 3 Will u sgetk - 4 Will u sgetk - 5 Total Fish                  Salmon 828 633 195 481 315 124 111 8 59 153 72 269 10 39 16 3 3316 Herring 674 84 6 5 829 390 1 1 100 106 0 75 11 5 0 0 2287 Greenling sp 691 47 1 3 104 35 0 0 1 5 0 50 11 2 0 0 950 Rockfish sp 104 30 0 1 30 3 1 0 16 7 0 111 26 0 1 0 330 Red Irish lord 34 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 43 Sablefish 15 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 55 Halibut 59 0 1 0 35 7 3 0 0 0 3 1 5 5 2 0 121 Dogfish shark 4 21 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 1 4 1 0 0 0 36 Perch sp. 1 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Tidepool sculpin 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Flatfish sp 2 3 0 1 1 0 2 5 0 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 21 Pollock/Pacific cod 8 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 18 Sardine 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Steelhead trout 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Arrowtooth flounder 28 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 Tomcod 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Sculpin sp 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 Anchovy 1 0 0 134 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 Eulachon 15 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Sandlance 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Staghorn sculpin 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Lingcod 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Pollock 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Skate 4 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Ratfish 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 Great sculpin 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Shiner perch 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Cabezon 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 High 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 61   Ks’waan Seti yeets Lach Klan K’moda Sga wina’a William Lewis’ Fish Camp Smokehouse Kna gaguum Ktsm lagan Lax kwil da’a Ktaay Will u sgetk - 1 Will u sgetk - 2 Will u sgetk - 3 Will u sgetk - 4 Will u sgetk - 5 Total Cockscomb Gunnel/Prickleback 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 Pacific Cod 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Gadid (NH) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Penpoint gunnel 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Painted Greenling 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Prickleback sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 Rock sole sp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Unidentifiable Fish 9174 2310 500 1139 3102 805 391 28 153 360 145 1564 176 97 55 18 20017 Total Fish 11665 3197 705 1767 4436 1378 511 43 329 641 224 2087 242 149 75 21 27470 Marine Mammals                  Undet.sea mammal 10  4 6 2  1          23 Pinnipedia, med 1 1   1            3 Fur Seal 4    5     1  1     11 Sea lion/fur seal 1                1 Harbour seal  2  1 4            7 Northern Sea lion 1    1            2 Pacific white-sided dolphin 1           1     2 Sea otter 2  1  7        1    11 Total Marine Mammals 20 3 5 7 20 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 40 Terrestrial Mammals                  Undet. Land mammal 1 11 3 3 2            20 Ungulate sp. 2 1        1  1     5 Ungulate     2 1       1    4 62   Ks’waan Seti yeets Lach Klan K’moda Sga wina’a William Lewis’ Fish Camp Smokehouse Kna gaguum Ktsm lagan Lax kwil da’a Ktaay Will u sgetk - 1 Will u sgetk - 2 Will u sgetk - 3 Will u sgetk - 4 Will u sgetk - 5 Total (med) Mule Deer 3 2   1 2   1 1   2    12 Marten  1               1 Undet.land mammal (lg) 9 18   10 7 1  1 1 4 3 1    55 Mt. goat            1     1 Rodent (vsm)    1             1 Beaver       1          1 Total Terrestrial Mammals 15 33 3 4 15 10 2 0 2 3 4 5 4 0 0 0 100 Mammals                  Undet. Mammal 1886 248 81 99 812 196 47 9 8 56 153 177 36 5 16 55 3884 Undet.mammal (sm)  1               1 Undet.mammal (med) 1  1  5   1    3 1    12 Carnivora sp. (med)            1     1 Total Undet. Mammal 1887 249 82 99 817 196 47 10 8 56 153 181 37 5 16 55 3898 Domestic Mammals                  Dog 10            1    11 Total Domestic Mammal 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 Bird                  Unidentified bird 4 1 1 1 7 1   1 1  2   6  25 Double-crested cormorant 1                1 White-winged scoter 2                2 Duck (med)  1               1 Cormorant sp.   1              1 63   Ks’waan Seti yeets Lach Klan K’moda Sga wina’a William Lewis’ Fish Camp Smokehouse Kna gaguum Ktsm lagan Lax kwil da’a Ktaay Will u sgetk - 1 Will u sgetk - 2 Will u sgetk - 3 Will u sgetk - 4 Will u sgetk - 5 Total Rhinoceros auklet               1  1 Large song bird (jay)     1     1       2 Total Bird 7 2 2 1 8 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 7 0 33 Amphibian                 0 Frog/Toad      1      1     2 Total Amphibian 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Other                 0 Small mammal\bird  25 1   1    4  1     32 Total Other 0 25 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 32                   Grand Total 13604 3509 798 1878 5296 1587 561 53 340 707 381 2279 285 154 98 76 31586  Table 2: %NISP values for all identified fish  Ks’waan Seti yeets Lach Klan K’moda Sga wina’a William Lewis’ Fish Camp Smokehouse Kna gaguum Ktsm lagan Lax kwil da’a Ktaay Will u sgetk - 1 Will u sgetk - 2 Will u sgetk - 3 Will u sgetk - 4 Will u sgetk - 5 Total Salmon 33.24 71.36 95.12 76.59 23.61 21.64 92.50 53.33 33.52 54.45 91.14 51.43 15.15 75.00 80.00 100.00 44.49 Herring 27.06 9.47 2.93 0.80 62.14 68.06 0.83 6.67 56.82 37.72 0.00 14.34 16.67 9.62 0.00 0.00 30.69 Greenling sp 27.74 5.30 0.49 0.48 7.80 6.11 0.00 0.00 0.57 1.78 0.00 9.56 16.67 3.85 0.00 0.00 12.75 Rockfish sp 4.18 3.38 0.00 0.16 2.25 0.52 0.83 0.00 9.09 2.49 0.00 21.22 39.39 0.00 5.00 0.00 4.43 Red Irish lord 1.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.92 0.00 0.00 0.58 Sablefish 0.60 3.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.96 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 Halibut 2.37 0.00 0.49 0.00 2.62 1.22 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.80 0.19 7.58 9.62 10.00 0.00 1.62 64   Ks’waan Seti yeets Lach Klan K’moda Sga wina’a William Lewis’ Fish Camp Smokehouse Kna gaguum Ktsm lagan Lax kwil da’a Ktaay Will u sgetk - 1 Will u sgetk - 2 Will u sgetk - 3 Will u sgetk - 4 Will u sgetk - 5 Total Dogfish shark 0.16 2.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.07 1.27 0.76 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 Perch sp. 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.07 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 Tidepool sculpin 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 Flatfish sp 0.08 0.34 0.00 0.16 0.07 0.00 1.67 33.33 0.00 0.36 3.80 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 Pollock/Pacific cod 0.32 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 Sardine 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 Steelhead trout 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 Arrowtooth flounder 1.12 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 Tomcod 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 Sculpin sp 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 Anchovy 0.04 0.00 0.00 21.34 0.07 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.84 Eulachon 0.60 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.07 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 Sandlance 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 Staghorn sculpin 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 Lingcod 0.04 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 Pollock 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 Skate 0.16 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 Ratfish 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.08 Great sculpin 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 Shiner perch 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 Cabezon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 High Cockscomb 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Gunnel/Prickleback 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 Pacific Cod 0.04 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 Gadid (NH) 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Penpoint gunnel 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Painted 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.01 65   Ks’waan Seti yeets Lach Klan K’moda Sga wina’a William Lewis’ Fish Camp Smokehouse Kna gaguum Ktsm lagan Lax kwil da’a Ktaay Will u sgetk - 1 Will u sgetk - 2 Will u sgetk - 3 Will u sgetk - 4 Will u sgetk - 5 Total Greenling 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 Prickleback sp. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 Rock sole sp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01  Table 3: Density of Fish (including unidentified specimens) across all sites. Matrix volume and density measurements are based off averaged volumes. Site Site Area (m²) No. of bucket auger locations No. of auger sub samples Matrix volume (L) Density (NISP/L) Fish Salmon Herring Ks’waan 10420 6 54 49 99.92 8.45 5.12 Seti yeets 7270 4 37 34 24.17 7.38 1.72 Lach Klan 16050 1 11 10 18.66 7.49 0.40 K’moda 1100 5 15 14 129.26 35.19 .37 Sga wina’a 1710 10 41 37 118.74 8.43 22.19 William Lewis’ Fish Camp 900 5 23 21 65.74 5.92 18.61 Smokehouse 600 6 10 9 56.09 12.18 0.11 Kna gaguum 12920 4 15 14 3.15 .59 0.07 Ktsm lagan 1620 3 8 7 45.13 8.09 13.72 Lax kwil da’a 11110 6 69 63 10.19 2.43 1.69 Ktaay 940 2 11 10 22.36 7.19 0 Will u sgetk-1 2440 3 27 25 84.80 10.93 3.05 Will u sgetk-2 2440 3 14 13 18.97 0.78 0.86 Will u sgetk-3 430 3 5 5 32.68 8.55 1.10 Will u sgetk-4 240 2 3 3 27.47 5.86 0.00 Will u sgetk-5 1900 1 3 3 7.69 1.10 0.00   Table 4: Salmon Vertebrae vs Cranial elements Site Salmon Salmon Vertebrae Salmon Cranial Salmon Vertebrae % Salmon Cranial % Ks’waan 824 744 51 90.29% 6.19% Seti yeets 634 590 16 93.06% 2.52% Lach Klan 196 180 0 91.84% 0 K’moda 481 381 88 79.21% 18.30% Sga wina’a 315 292 10 92.70% 3.17% William Lewis’ Fish Camp 124 119 2 95.97% 1.61% Smokehouse 111 92 7 82.88% 6.31% Kna gaguum 8 8 0 100% 0.00% Ktsm lagan 59 54 4 91.53% 6.78% 66  Site Salmon Salmon Vertebrae Salmon Cranial Salmon Vertebrae % Salmon Cranial % Lax kwil da’a 153 148 3 96.73% 1.96% Ktaay 72 67 3 93.06% 4.17% Will u sgetk-1 277 269 3 97.11% 1.08% Will u sgetk-2 10 10 0 100.00% 0.00% Will u sgetk-3 39 39 0 100.00% 0.00% Will u sgetk-4 16 16 0 100.00% 0.00% Will u sgetk-5 3 3 0 100.00% 0.00%       Total 3272 3012 187 92.05% 6.21%   


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items