Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The Hummingbird Creek archaeological site : an ancient hunting camp in Alberta’s central Rockies, Canada. Allan, Timothy E. 2018

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2018_may_allan_timothy.pdf [ 2.26MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0365751.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0365751-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0365751-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0365751-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0365751-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0365751-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0365751-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0365751-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0365751.ris

Full Text

The Hummingbird Creek Archaeological Site: An Ancient Hunting Camp in Alberta’s Central Rockies, Canada.   by  Timothy E. Allan   B.A., MacEwan University, 2015  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF   MASTER OF ARTS  The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies   (Anthropology)  The University of British Columbia (Vancouver)   April 2018   © Timothy E. Allan, 2018    ii  Abstract   This thesis focuses on the significance of the Hummingbird Creek site (FaPx-1), a pre-contact archaeological site occupied between ~2,500 to 1,000 years ago, in the Alberta Rocky Mountains. This site yielded approximately 1,400 stone artifacts, including throwing spear (atlatl) projectile points, hide scrapers, expedient knives and production debris. I use geochemical (Portable X-Ray Fluorescence, pXRF) and mineralogical (Raman Spectroscopy) analytical methods on artifacts and source samples. I compared samples from local rock, and material gathered from a nearby procurement area, Pineneedle Creek, with artifacts found at FaPx-1. Carbonate diagenesis, and silica (SiO2) content were key attributes of artifacts, and we successfully associated some artifacts from FaPx-1 with Pineneedle Creek material. I infer that the local rock around FaPx-1 was virtually ignored, perhaps because of very low silica content. Based on expectations made through ethnographic examples of other montane hunter-gatherers, the material culture from FaPx-1 likely represents a specialized hunting camp; intended for staging hunting expeditions to areas known to yield successful hunts. Local Stoney First Nation traditional place names and oral accounts corroborate the interpretations of archaeological data and emphasize the need for Indigenous perspectives in Rocky Mountain archaeology in Alberta. This thesis incorporates material culture and geological analysis with a land-use and traditional knowledge interpretation and emphasizes the need for Indigenous perspectives in archaeological research.      iii Lay Summary   This thesis focuses on the significance of the Hummingbird Creek site (FaPx-1), a pre-contact archaeological site occupied between ~2,500 to 1,000 years ago, in the Alberta Rocky Mountains. This site yielded approximately 1,400 stone artifacts, including throwing spear (atlatl) projectile points, hide scrapers, expedient knives and production debris. Geochemical and mineralogical analytical methods demonstrate that the inhabitants of this site actively ignored local rock to make their tools, and brought in materials from elsewhere. Based on expectations made through ethnographic examples of other montane hunter-gatherers, the material culture from FaPx-1 likely represents a specialized hunting camp, intended for staging expeditions to areas known to yield successful harvests. Local Stoney First Nation traditional place names and oral accounts corroborate the interpretations of archaeological data and emphasize the need for Indigenous perspectives in Rocky Mountain archaeology in Alberta.     iv Preface    This dissertation is original, unpublished, and the result of collaborative work of several parties, led by the author, Timothy E. Allan. Rhy McMillian contributed greatly to the methodology, results, and interpretation of the raw material analysis, outlined in Chapter 3.      v Table of Contents  Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………………….ii Lay Summary …………………………………………………………………………………...iii Preface …………………………………………………………………………………………...iv Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………………………..v List of Tables …………………………………………………………………………………...vii List of Figures …………………………………………………………………………………viii Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………………..ix Dedication ………………………………………………………………………………………..x Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………...1  1. Chapter One: Archaeology of the Rocky Mountains of Alberta……………………..3  2. Chapter Two: The Hummingbird Creek Site (FaPx-1) ………………………………9   2.1 FaPx-1 Discovery and Excavation ……………………………………………………….9 2.2 FaPx-1 Site Stratigraphy and Chronology……………………………………………….10 2.3 Lithic Analysis …………………………………………………………………………..11 2.4 Faunal Analysis…………………………………………………………………………..19  3. Chapter Three: Raw Material Analysis using Portable X-Ray Fluorescence and Raman Spectroscopy …………………………………………………………………..24  3.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………...24 3.2 Regional geology of the central Rockies ………………………………………………..24 3.3 Sampling strategy………………………………………………………………….……..25 3.4 Methods…………………………………………………………………………………..27 3.4.1 Portable X-Ray Fluorescence…………………………………………………..….27 3.4.2 Raman Spectroscopy ………………………………………………………...…….28 3.4.3 Quadratic Calibration of Si and Ca ..………………………………………………29 3.5 Results …………………………………………………………………………………...30 3.5.1 Raman Results ………………………………………………………………….....30 3.5.2 pXRF Results ……………………………………………………………………...31 3.6 Discussion ……………………………………………………………………………….33 3.7 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………35  4. Chapter Four: Stoney Place names and Montane Hunter-Gatherers ……………...37  4.1 Montane Hunter-Gatherers ……………………………………………………………...37   vi 4.2 Stoney place names and oral accounts from the Hummingbird Region ………………...38 4.3 Summary of Interpretation of FaPx-1 …………………………………………………...40  Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………...42  Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………….……...44  Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………50  Appendix A. Raman Results …………..……………………………………………………..….50 Appendix B. pXRF Results …………………..…………………………………………...…….52     vii List of Tables   Table 1. Sites dated between 2,000 – 3,000 C14 BP within the Alberta Rocky Mountains. .……..5  Table 2. Radiocarbon dates from FaPx-1. ……………………………………………….………11  Table 3. Distribution of stone artifacts FaPx-1. …………………………………………………13  Table 4. Raw Materials of all stone artifacts by Level at FaPx-1. ………………………………17  Table 5. Raw materials of tools by level at FaPx-1. …………………………………………….18  Table 6. Breakdown of identified specimens from FaPx-1. …………………………………….20  Table 7. Breakdown of faunal remains from FaPx-1. …………………………………………...20  Table 8. Summary of Raman results, error values are 1SD of the sample population. …………31  Table 9. Summary of pXRF; error values are 1SD of the sample population. SiO2 was calculated from Si ppm (x 2.1393); CaCO3 was calculated from Ca ppm (x 2.5). …………………………32  Table 10. Summary of interpretation of raw material preference represented at FaPx-1 using geochemical and mineralogical data. n= number of artifacts associated with that locality. …….35  Table 11. Stoney place names of landscape features near FaPx-1; information was provided by Barry Wesley, Bighorn Stoney Nation. …………………………………………………………40    viii  List of Figures   Figure 1. Archaeological sites dated 2,000 – 3,000 C14 BP within the Alberta Rocky Mountains.4  Figure 2. Overview of national parks, traditional territory claims, and modern reserve land in the Alberta Rocky Mountains. …………………………………………………………….………….8  Figure 3. Overview of FaPx-1; FaPx-2; and FaPx-3. …………………………………………….9  Figure 4. FaPx-1 stratigraphy. …………………………………………………………………..11  Figure 5. Count and percent of assemblage of complete flakes by cortex amount. …………….14  Figure 6. Count and percent of assemblage of complete flakes by number of dorsal scars. ……15  Figure 7. Projectile points from layer E (1071) and G (653). …………………………………...17  Figure 8. Positively identified elk (Cervus canadensis) distal tibia fragment from level G (2968); arrows pointing to green broken edge. …………………………………………………………..22  Figure 9. Examples of cobbles collected for analysis; a-b) South Ram; c) Pineneedle Creek. …26  Figure 10. Example of South Ram and Pineneedle Creek samples (left), with clipped and peak-fit example (right) fit peaks in red. …………………………………………………………………28  Figure 11. % weight of SiO2 and CaCO3 of South Ram (red), Pineneedle Creek (blue) and FaPx-1 artifacts (grey). ………………………………………………………………………………...32  Figure 12. Rb and Zr boxplots of South Ram (red); Pineneedle (blue); and FaPx-1 artifacts (grey). ……………………………………………………………………………………………33  Figure 13. Scatterplot of FWHM of P2 and Max Height of P1. ………………………………...34  Figure 14. Ratio Variable plot of P2 FWHM / Center vs Zr ppm / SiO2 %wt. …………………34    ix  Acknowledgements   I would like to acknowledge my supervisory committee, David Pokotylo and Andrew Martindale, for their input, support, and patience working with me throughout this project. I would also like to thank Darryl Bereziuk, for introducing me to this project, assisting me with essential fieldwork funding through the Heritage Resources Management Branch, Alberta, Culture and Tourism, running radiocarbon dates, and approving my student research permit. I would like to thank Todd Kristensen, for his unending intellectual support and encouragement, and assistance in the field. I would also like to thank Laura Golebiowski, Aboriginal Heritage; Bill Snow, Barry Wesley, and Seona Abraham, Stoney Nation, for facilitating the visit of Stoney Elders, whom I was able to meet before the excavations in 2017 began. I would like to thank Barry Wesley, Bighorn Chiniki Stoney Administration, specifically for the conversations he and I had throughout 2017 and 2018, and the knowledge he shared with me, and his offer to assist me to better understand the Hummingbird region. Katie Vit, Devon Tremain, Brynn Gillies and Peter Kirchmir were essential in the analysis of artifacts and cataloging. Mauray Toutloff, Museum of Anthropology, and Patricia Ormerod, Laboratory of Archaeology were both essential in providing lab space and use of Museum of Anthropology facilities. I would like to thank Rhy McMillan, Pacific Centre of Isotope and Geochemical Research, for introducing me to the analytical techniques I used in this research and giving his time to assisting me. I would like to thank my graduate cohort friends for the enlightening conversations we had, and the encouragement and support we gave to each other. I would also like to thank my parents for their encouragement and support throughout my entire education.       x Dedication   To A. Love T.     1  Introduction   The Hummingbird Creek Site (FaPx-1) is a precontact archaeological site in the central Rocky Mountains of Alberta, above the confluence of the South Ram River and Hummingbird Creek. My goal in this thesis is to interpret hunter-gatherer mobility with archaeological, geological and ethnographic data from FaPx-1 to interpret the site within the framework of logistical mobility within the Rocky Mountains. The Archaeological Survey of Alberta discovered FaPx-1 in 2009, when initial tests revealed a series of stratified deposits containing artifacts, features, and faunal remains above and below a thick layer of volcanic ash. Subsequent excavations in 2011, 2012 and 2017 (this study) yielded approximately 1,400 lithics (stone tools and debris), hundreds of faunal remains, and hearth features. The occupations of FaPx-1 have been radiocarbon dated between 2,450 and 933 cal BP; two of these occupations are separated by Bridge River Tephra, 2,360 BP (Clague et al. 1995). Lower occupations yielded elk remains with evidence of butchering and processing. Shovel testing on nearby terraces in 2012 revealed two nearby sites (FaPx-2 and FaPx-3). The amount of material culture recovered, and from a stratified context, makes FaPx-1 an excellent case for making inferences about hunter-gatherer activity during the site’s ~1,500-year span of use.  A large proportion of the stone tools and debris (debitage) from FaPx-1 derive from dark grey chert (cryptocrystalline silica), similar to stone available in the nearby riverbed, and material available in a quarry approximately 45 km away (Pineneedle Creek). In this thesis, I use non-destructive methods of mineralogical (Raman Spectroscopy) and geochemical (Portable X-Ray Fluorescence) analysis of stone artifacts and source samples, to infer raw material procurement preferences represented at FaPx-1. The presence of Pineneedle Creek material, indicated via mineralogical and geological data, would indicate that past hunter-gatherers visited the Pineneedle area to collect stone and deposited debris and tools at FaPx-1.  Ethnographic studies can assist in the interpretation of archaeological data; observations of modern hunter-gatherers can provide expectations of material culture, where if similar patterns are found at archaeological sites, archaeologists can postulate the same activities occurred. Ethnographic studies of Mountain Dene in the Northwest Territories of Canada show that raw material sources are one place among many in montane hunter-gatherer mobility (Andrews et al. 2012). Binford (1978) documented small hunting camps used by Nunamiut hunter-gatherers as  2 temporary staging areas for expeditions into areas of known animal activity. Oral tradition of the Stoney Nation, of the Rocky Mountains of Alberta, depicts intentional burning of the sub-alpine upstream of Hummingbird Creek, in order to create grazing area for elk and bison (Barry Wesley personal communication 2017). Expeditions into alpine areas are a significant energy investment to bring back a harvest, making hunting in montane regions especially risky. Binford (1980) discusses the concept of ‘collector’ logistical mobility employed by Nunamiut hunter-gatherers in order to ensure food security. Hunting activities and mobility would need to be carefully planned to capture multiple resources in case one could not be harvested. If archaeological data from FaPx-1 matches ethnographic examples from other regions, combined with local Stoney oral evidence, there are grounds to infer similar mobility patterns existed in the central Rockies of Alberta.  In Chapter 1, I summarize the current evidence of hunter-gather activity in the Rockies and Foothills of Alberta between 2,000 to 3,000 years BP. In Chapter 2, I summarize the excavations and material recovered from FaPx-1. In Chapter 3, I present a new method of geochemical and mineralogical analysis, using Raman Spectroscopy and pXRF, and then summarize the results of my analysis. In Chapter 4, I interpret the FaPx-1 material culture and raw material analysis in relation to ethnohistoric examples of hunter-gatherer mobility, and review my results in relation to Stoney First Nation place names and oral accounts from the Hummingbird region. My goal is to evaluate hunter-gatherer mobility with archaeological and ethnographic data, and to interpret FaPx-1 in terms of logistical mobility in the central Rocky Mountains of Alberta.     3 1. Chapter One: Archaeology of the Rocky Mountains of Alberta.   Archaeological sites within the Rocky Mountains of Alberta have typically been identified by cultural resource management projects resulting from highway, oil and gas, forestry, national and provincial park development. Very few of these projects resulted in intensive investigation of sites through excavation; thus, the understanding of past hunter-gather activity in the region is based on only a handful of sites (Table 1). Most of the mitigative projects have occurred near or along modern transportation routes through the region, as well as near population centers and areas of development. Sites generally cluster along the Crowsnest, Bow, Red Deer, North Saskatchewan, Athabasca and Smokey Rivers.  The Rocky Mountains have been inhabited since the Early Holocene, as demonstrated by the Vermilion Lakes Site, 153R (10,770 + 170 BP) (Fedje et al 1995); the Lake Minnewanka Site, 349R (10,000-10,800 BP) (Landals 2008); and the Crowsnest Pass Site, DjPo-47 (7200 + 230 BP) (Driver 1982). All three sites yielded evidence of a mountain sheep hunting focus. The James Pass Site, EkPu-8 (10,120 + 80 BP) has a very early date but very little formal research has been published since the site’s discovery (Ronaghan 1993). The Rocky Mountains were an attractive landscape to early inhabitants of the Alberta, where these few early sites appear to have who hunted local game in the region.  There are eight sites within the Alberta Rocky Mountains with radiocarbon dates within the interval (2,000 – 3,000 C14 BP) that FaPx-1 was occupied (Figure 1, Table 1). These sites have been reported as large campsites, with a diverse array of stone tools, animal remains, and multiple hearth features. During this interval, side and corner notched projectile points are common in Plains sites, such as Basant and Pelican Lake atlatl points (Peck 2011). DjPo-9, 153R, 162R, EkPu-8, and FaPx-1 yielded these more Plains-like point forms, whereas FfQm-26, FlQs-30; and GaQs-1 yielded projectile points unlike Plains forms, potentially indicating connections to the Interior Plateau (Pickard 1986; Brink 1986). However, it should be noted that both Plains and Plateau projectile points during this time are similar in morphology, so individual variation could bias interpretation (Rousseau 2008; Peck 2011). Obsidian sourced to Anahim Peak, central British Columbia confirms long distance connections to FfQm-26 and FlQs-30 (Pickard 1986; Brink 1986). Kootenai Argillite and coastal clam shell is present at DjPo-9, indicating long distance connections to the Kootenai region and the West Coast  4 respectively (Lifeways of Canada Limited 1976). Diverse faunal assemblages present at the 153R (bison, beaver, goat, and sheep); FlQs-30 (beaver, hare, caribou, muskrat, unidentified large mammal(s) and fish); and GaQs-1 (hare, sheep, beaver, elk and moose) sites could indicate they were used as larger basecamps, where game harvested in the local area was brought. Although the sample of dated sites is small, I would infer that major drainages and upland lakes were ideal locations for major campsites in the Rockies during this time.    Figure 1. Sites Dated between 2,000 to 3,000 C14 years BP within the Alberta Rocky Mountains.    5  Table 1. Dated 2,000 – 3,000 C14 BP sites within the Alberta Rocky Mountains. Site  C14 date (µ + 2SD) Calibrated date (µ) BP* Sample ID Site Type  (as reported)  Setting  Ref.  FlQs-30 2880 + 280 3055 S-1887 Campsite Grande Cache Lake  Brink 1986 FlQs-30 2040 + 700 2230 S-1891 Campsite Grande Cache Lake Brink 1986 FhQl-4 1870 + 50 1800 NO ID Campsite Athabasca River Ball 1986 FhQl-4 1900 + 60 1840 NO ID Campsite Athabasca River Ball 1986 FfQm-26 - 3440a NO ID Campsite Patricia Lake  Pickard 1986 GaQs-1 1940 + 210 1915 GAK – 6140 Campsite Smokey River Brink 1986 EkPu-8 - 2360b NO ID  Campsite Upland Meadow  Ronaghan 1993 153R - 2360c NO ID Campsite Vermilion Lake  Fedje 1986 162R 1920 + 120 1870 S-2760 Campsite Second Vermilion Lake  Fedje 1986 162R 2165 + 115 2160 S-2758 Campsite Second Vermilion Lake Fedje 1986 162R 2520 + 210 2595 S-2757 Campsite Second Vermilion Lake Fedje 1986 162R 2805 + 130 2960 S-2756 Campsite Second Vermilion Lake Fedje 1986 162R 2760 + 96 2900 S-2779 Campsite Second Vermilion Lake Fedje 1986 162R 3100 + 125 3290 S-2775 Campsite Second Vermilion Lake Fedje 1986 DjPo-9 2740 + 130 2880 RL-507 Campsite / Bison Kill Crowsnest River Lifeways of Canada Limited 1976.  a Unconfirmed St Helens Yn tephra date (Mullineaux et al. 1975)  b Unconfirmed Bridge River tephra date (Clague et al. 1995) c Confirmed Bridge River tephra date (Clague et al. 1995)   *Dates calibrated using INTCAL13; Oxcal 4.3 (Bronk 2009)  Between 2,000 to 3,000 BP, large scale communal bison hunting was more prevalent on the Plains, notably with the occupation and intensive use of Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump (DjPk-1), Calderwood Buffalo Jump (DkPj-27), Smyth Site (DjPm-116), and EgPn-362 – all  bison jumps or large kill sites near the edge of the Rockies (Peck 2011). Each of these sites yielded remains of hundreds, if not thousands, of bison, and likely represent late summer communal hunting events (Brink et al. 1987; Peck 2011). Although these sites were also occupied earlier, the Bracken Phase, 2,800-2,100 BP (Peck 2011) is a period of resurgence in large scale bison kill sites where earlier, during the Pelican Lake Phase, 3,600-2,800 BP (Peck 2011), individual kills were more common. In Alberta, bison jumps and large-scale bison-kill  6 sites are present in the southern plains and parkland regions, and have not been found within the Rocky Mountains or Boreal Forest. Peck (2011) notes that this period also marks the first appearance of tipi tie-down stakes and hearth features within the tipis. During this time, large winter campsites first occur in the archaeological record, indicating Plains peoples coming together during this season. Peck (2011: 281) notes that tipi camps of 15 to 18 lodges are present in the southern Plains during this period, but small camps are certainly more common. The archaeological record during this time in the Parkland and Boreal Forest adjacent to the Rockies is very sparse, however, the Joffre Site (FbPj-8) is a noteworthy winter campsite along the Red Deer River 12 km south of Red Deer (Smith and Reeves 1978). In summary, large-scale bison hunting and use of tipis appear to be the most prevalent features of Plains peoples during the 2,000 to 3,000 BP interval. Large aggregations during bison hunts may have drawn peoples from neighboring regions, however, hunting preferences represented at Rocky Mountain sites appear distinct, especially in northern sites (FlQs-30; GaQs-1) where bison was not selected; sites further south (153R; 163R; DjPo-9) may be more influenced by these Plains trends as they are often geographically closer to these large Plains sites.   Across the continental divide, ancient people on the southern and central Canadian Interior Plateau established seasonal pit-house villages along major river valleys during the Shuswap Horizon, 3,500 – 2,400 BP (Rousseau 2008). During this time, small settlements were established along valley floors to allow harvesting of both riverine and terrestrial resources, notably fish (salmon) and medium (deer) to large (elk) sized game (Rousseau 2004). Chatters (1995) notes that “delayed-consumption” was likely more common during this period; where task-specific groups were dispatched from main villages to acquire specific resources. In general, Shuswap Horizon sites appear to have a broad-spectrum approach to subsistence, reliance on local stone sources to make tools, rather than exotic ones (Rousseau 2004). Rousseau (2008) also notes that Shuswap Horizon projectile points occasionally have morphologies reminiscent of Plains forms, such as Oxbow and McKean-Hannah-Duncan atlatl points, although these complexes occurred on the Plains roughly 1,000 years earlier. This may indicate longstanding connections between the Plateau and the Plains. Harris (2012) notes that populations were likely very low between 3,000 – 2,000 BP, relative to the following period where large villages were established, such as at Bell, Keatley Creek and Bridge River. This conclusion maybe biased from  7 the current sample of well-documented sites dating after 2,000 BP, however, it does support the overall trend of small-scale sites between 3,000 and 2,000 BP.    Three Indigenous Nations have claimed parts of the Alberta Rocky Mountains as traditional territory. In the northern Rockies, Simpcx First Nation has claimed traditional territory from the Athabasca Drainage, up to the Snaring River, and north to the Smokey River (Figure 2). The Simpcx Nation was forcefully removed from the Jasper National Forest Reserve during its creation in the late 1800’s and settled approximately 300 km southwest from their traditional home, in the village of Chu Chua (Kurjata and Norwell 2016). The evidence of sourced BC obsidian at northern Rockies sites (FfQm-26 and FlQs-30) indicates hunter-gatherers from central BC could have resided in these areas in precontact times (Pickard 1986; Brink 1986). The Ïyãñé Nakoda (Stoney) have claimed traditional territory along the Eastern Rockies and Foothills in present day Alberta, from the Brazeau River in the north, to Chief Mountain, across the international border in Montana to the south (Nakoda Nation Website 2017). The Nakoda were also evicted from their traditional homeland along the Bow River in the late 1800’s, upon creation of Rocky Mountains Park, which later expanded into Banff National Park (Binnema and Niemi 2006). Central Rockies sites such as 153R and EkPu-8 are reported to have a broad-based subsistence and focus on local lithic resources, suggesting that a mountain-based group may have resided in this area in precontact times, rather than Plains or Plateau peoples using this region seasonally (Ronaghan 1993). The Niitsitapiksi (Blackfoot or Blackfeet) have claimed traditional territory in much of the parkland, and in the southern Plains, and the southern Rockies of Alberta and Montana are along their territory’s western border (MacEwan 1969). The archaeological site DjPo-9 appears to be a large-scale bison kill, similar to more Plains-like sites further east (Lifeways 1976). The presence of this type of site may indicate that more Plains-focused cultural groups penetrated the Rockies in this region during precontact times. Some regions have conflicting claims, as Binnema and Niemi (2006) note that the Bow River area likely has connections to Ktunaxa (Kutenai), Niitsitapiksi, Stoney and Cree since the late 1700s. In summary, the archaeological evidence of hunter-gatherer activity generally fits the claims modern Indigenous groups have made on traditional territory. FaPx-1 is approximately 40km from the Bighorn Chiniki First Nation, the northern tribe of the Nakoda, and 50km from Sunchild and O’Chiese First Nations, which are settlements of Cree peoples who migrated to the  8 area in the 1800s. FaPx-1 resides within territory claimed by Stoney peoples, and has the potential to reveal precontact activity of their ancestors.    Figure 2. Overview of national parks, traditional territory claims, and modern reserve land in the Alberta Rocky Mountains. Nakoda territory source (Nakoda Nation Website 2017); Niisitapiksi territory source (MacEwan 1969); Simpcw territory source (Simpcw Nation Website 2015).      9 2. Chapter Two: The Hummingbird Creek Site (FaPx-1)   2.1 FaPx-1 Discovery and Excavation.  In 2009, the Archaeological Survey of Alberta conducted surveys of the South Ram River valley to test the capabilities of predictive models of high-resolution LiDAR digital elevation models. These surveys identified many sites in this region, based on topography, proximity to water courses and aspect (Figure 3). FaPx-1 was initially noted as having distinctive stratigraphy separating cultural occupations, volcanic ash, as well as a dense amount of stone tools and debitage. The Archaeological Survey of Alberta returned to FaPx-1 in 2011 and 2012, excavated seven, 1 m x 1 m units, and dug shovel tests on the above terraces for more sites. Two additional sites were identified (FaPx-2 and FaPx-3). All three sites have a commanding view of the South Ram valley. The chronological control, with cultural occupations separated by volcanic ash, as well as the amount of material culture recovered, make FaPx-1 an excellent opportunity to explore past hunter-gatherer activity in this part of the Rockies, using archaeological data.     Figure 3. Overview of FaPx-1; FaPx-2 and FaPx-3.   10   In 2017, I returned to FaPx-1 to excavate three additional 1 m x 1 m units under a student research permit (17-131). Before the excavation, I contacted three Indigenous Nations in the region, O’Chiese First Nation, Stoney Nakoda First Nation, Sunchild First Nation to express my interest in conducting this work. These three Nations will be sent the completed thesis, as well as any reports and publications as a result of the excavations at FaPx-1. Immediately before the excavation took place, members of the Stoney First Nation met with us at FaPx-1, where representatives and elders from Big Horn Stoney Nation performed a peace-pipe ceremony, and we discussed our goals for the excavation. After the excavation, I continued discussion of the archaeological research with Barry Wesley, one of the Stoney Nation members who attended the ceremony. He shared his knowledge regarding the Stoney oral history of the area around FaPx-1 with me for my consideration in the site interpretation.  The excavation was assisted by archaeologists from the Archaeological Survey (Todd Kristensen and Darryl Bereziuk) and members of the Red Deer Archaeological Society (Doug Shaw and Jane Shaw). The excavation took place between August 1st and 7th, 2017, and logistical costs were covered by the Heritage Resource Management Branch, Alberta Culture.   2.2 FaPx-1 Site Stratigraphy and Chronology.  Working from the surface down, strata were labelled Layers A through H (Figure 4). A few, scattered lithics were identified in Layers A, B, and C. Layer D yielded the most lithics, with over 700 pieces of debris, expedient tools, and scrapers in a light brown silt matrix. Layer D was a thick, scattered occupation, with dense pockets of debris; in unit 202N 396E, a large stone was surrounded by dense concentrations of flakes. Layer D yielded a date of 935 cal BP (Table 2). Layer E yielded very little debitage, three projectile points, a thumbnail scraper, and expedient tools. Layer E is a very shallow occupation within a dark loam of only a few centimeters thickness, and also yielded small pockets of burned bone. Layer E also resides directly above a thick (~10 – 15 cm) deposit of Bridge River tephra (Layer F), which separates Layers E and G. Layer E yielded two radiocarbon dates of 2,360 cal BP and 2,400 cal BP (Table 2). The tephra deposit is uncharacteristically thick when compared with other sites in the Rocky Mountains and Interior that have deposits of only a few centimeters (Reasoner and Healy 1986). Ash depositing on top of snow on the nearby mountainside may have caused this; after the snow  11 melted the ash was transported downslope and concentrated at the site. Layer G is a cultural deposit within silt beneath this tephra, and yielded a shallow but dense deposit of lithics, faunal remains, and hearth features. Layer G yielded a radiocarbon date of 2,450 cal BP (Table 2). Beneath layer G lies a dense, sterile layer of small polished river cobbles; two small 50 cm x 50 cm probes into this sterile deposit did not yield any material culture.     Figure 4. FaPx-1 Stratigraphy   Table 2. Radiocarbon Dates from FaPx-1  Layer (n of total lithics) AMS age +1SD Material  Calibrated date (µ) BP* Lab No. D (771) 1010 +20 BP Charcoal 935 UCIAMS 101904 E (44) 2,355 +20 BP Charcoal 2360 UCIAMS 101868 2,390 +15 BP Charcoal 2400 UCIAMS 101875 Bridge River Tephraa - Tephra 2,360 UA 1555-13 G (153) 2,425 +15 BP Charcoal 2450 UCIAMS 67158 *Dates calibrated using INTCAL13; Oxcal 4.3 (Bronk 2009) a Clague et al. 1995.   2.3 Lithic Analysis.  The analysis of the stone tools, debris and faunal remains was conducted at the University of British Columbia’s Laboratory of Archaeology. Analysis of the stone debris focused on differentiating diagnostic flakes based on the presence and form of platforms, i.e., the point of the knapper’s detachment force on the piece of stone being worked. Debris with platforms was  12 sorted into three classes: hard hammer flakes, with a wide and thick platform and low platform angle relative to the flake; soft hammer flakes with a narrow platform and a platform ‘lip’, and a steep platform angle relative to the flake; and finally pressure flakes, which have similar characteristics to soft hammer flakes, but are generally less than 1cm in complete flake diameter. Debris without a platform was classified as one of two classes of shatter; unidentifiable pieces of debris were classified as blocky shatter; potential fragments of soft hammer flakes or pressure flakes as flake shatter. This method is loosely based on Hayden and Hutchings (1989) and Pokotylo (1979). The proportions of these flake classes are used to infer technological organization activities of the inhabitants of FaPx-1 during each occupation. Raw material was recorded for each stone artifact recovered at the site; this was done with visual inspection of each artifact, as well as with a low-powered microscope. Stone artifacts were identified as several varieties of chert, siltstone, chalcedony and quartzite. The proportions of raw materials will be discussed further, and the mineralogical and geochemical analysis of raw materials is discussed in the next chapter.  The stone tool debris analysis indicated differences in proportions of diagnostic flakes and shatter between layers D, E and G (see Table 3). First, the proportions of soft hammer flakes change dramatically between layers G and D, where 26.15% of the assemblage of layer G consists of soft hammer flakes, vs. only 9.96% in layer D. The proportions of hard hammer flakes are roughly comparable between all three layers, reaching no more than 4.61% as seen in layer G. Pressure flakes are comparable between layers D and G, 14.94% and 12.3% respectively, however, the majority of debris identified in layers E are pressure flakes (54.28%). The proportions of diagnostic flakes indicate several patterns: First, soft hammer flakes occur more often in layer G than other layers, relative to the rest of the assemblage; Second, although layers E is a small sample (n=35), pressure flakes are most of debris within this layer.     13  Table 3. Distribution of stone artifacts FaPx-1.   layer D % layer E % layer G % Pressure Flakes 126 14.94 19 54.28 16 12.30 Soft Hammer Flakes 84 9.96 6 17.11 34 26.15 Hard Hammer Flakes 31 3.67 1 2.85 6 4.61 Flake Shatter 404 47.92 4 11.42 47 36.15 Blocky Shatter 189 22.41 5 14.28 23 17.69 Total Debris 843 100.00 35 100.00 130 100.00 Projectile Points 0 0.00 3 50.00 2 12.50 Scrapers  1 10.00 2 33.34 3 18.75 Expedient Bifaces 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 6.25 Utilized Flakes 8 80.00 1 16.66 9 56.25 Utilized Core  1 10.00 0 0.00 1 6.25 Total Tools 10 100.00 6 100.00 16 100.00  An analysis of cortex extent, and dorsal scar count on complete flakes was conducted. The premise here is that flakes without cortex and more dorsal scars are more worked, and patterning of these attributes within an assemblage can be used to infer production stages. Cortex was described in 10% bins of total flake cortex cover, determined from visual inspection. The results indicated that in all three layers, 0% cortex was by far the most common, with all three layers ranging between 78 to 82% of the assemblage (Figure 5). Very few counts of flakes having between 10% and 80% cortex extent also occur in all three layers. This result is consistent with the scenario of worked pieces (pieces without cortex) being brought to the site, rather than unworked (pieces with cortex) pieces being prepared at the site. I infer that either cores were prepared elsewhere and brought to the site, and/or worked tools were brought to the site for further modification. The low amounts of debris with 10-30% cortex could represent the initial stages of reducing these transportable pieces into useable tools. The majority of complete flakes in all three layers have between 2 and 4 dorsal scars (Figure 6). All three layers also had similar average dorsal scar counts; layer D (mean 2.20, n=241); layer E (mean 2.84, n=26); and layer G (mean 1.95, n=56). These results are consistent with the interpretation of cortex amount, where already worked pieces were detached and deposited at the site. A small portion of flakes with no dorsal scars are present from each layer, likely indicating that some pieces with cortex cover were worked at the site.    14  Figure 5. Count and percentage of assemblage of complete flakes by cortex amount.     Figure 6. Count and percentage of assemblage of complete flakes by number of dorsal scars.   The clear majority of the 32 tools found at FaPx-1, within layers D, E and G, are small utilized flakes (n=17) as well as scrapers (n=5) or scraper fragments (n=2), projectile points (n=5), one expedient bifaces and two utilized core fragments (Table 3). Three complete scrapers were found in layer G, two with steep (>45o) working edge angles and one with a shallow (<45o) edge angle. Layer E has one thumbnail scraper with a steep working edge. Layer D has a single scraper with two working edges, one on either face, one with a steep edge and one with a shallow edge. None of the 5 complete scrapers show apparent hafting elements. One utilized flake has a retouched platform, preventing accurate flake classification. The utilized flakes are mostly retouched soft hammer flakes (7 of 16) and flake shatter (5 of 16), with a small amount constructed from hard hammer flakes (3 of 16) and blocky shatter (1 of 16). The emphasis on using soft hammer flakes is clear within the occupations as well, where 37.5% in layer D, 100%  15 in layer E, and 42.8% of layer G utilized flakes are derived from soft hammer flakes. The utilized flakes and scrapers are indicative of high mobility, where the utilized flakes are likely detached pieces of already worked material using a soft hammer; and scrapers were not used formally (i.e., without a hafting implement).   The nearly complete projectile point recovered from layer G (FaPx-1:653) is corner notched, triangular, with a straight base; a morphology that resembles Pelican Lake points that occur 3,600-2,800 BP (Peck 2011). The profile of this point is very thin and uniform, a result of the knapper’s workmanship, and the quality of the raw material (Figure 6). The only complete projectile point, found in layer E (FaPx-1:1071), is side notched, triangular, with a straight base. The profile is slightly irregular, with one nearly perfectly flat face, and the other with a slight bulge near the center of the artifact (Figure 7). This indicates that perhaps the knapper experienced some difficulty while working this artifact. Layer E yielded two projectile point bases (FaPx-1: 1791 and 1792); both appear to be also side notched points with straight bases. Base breaks are common as a result of use, rather than breakage during construction. The layer E projectile points resemble those characteristic of the Bracken Phase, occurring between 2,800-2,100 BP (Peck 2011). No other temporally diagnostic artifacts were recovered from FaPx-1.   16  Figure 7. Projectile points from layer E (1071) and G (653).  The distribution of debris by identified raw materials and layer is presented in Table 4. The proportions of raw materials change dramatically after the deposition of Bridge River tephra, between layers E and G. Below the tephra, the layer G assemblage is quite diverse, with moderate proportions of white (18.93%) and grey (33.34%) quartzite, dark grey chert (18.19%), as well as a small amount of white and grey chalcedonies (11.35%). Immediately above the tephra deposit in layer E, there is a predominance of dark grey chert (45.71%) with moderate amounts of red chert (14.28%) and red and grey chalcedony (22.85%). This trend appears to be reinforced in layer D, where dark grey chert makes up 75.59% of the assemblage, dark grey siltstone (9.10%), red chert (3.41%), and red, grey and white chalcedony (1.01%). Although the sample for layer E is very small (n=29), there appears to be a shift in the diversity and type of raw materials, where there is no presence of quartzite or white chalcedony, which made up 63% of layer G’s assemblage.   17 Table 4. Raw Materials of all stone artifacts by Layer at FaPx-1.  Raw Material Layer D (n) % Layer E (n) % Layer G (n) % Dark Grey Chert 664 75.59 16 45.71 24 18.19 Black Chert 2 0.22 3 8.57 0 0.00 Bluish Black Chert 1 0.11 1 2.85 1 0.76 Dark Grey Siltstone 80 9.10 1 3.44 3 2.27 Brown Siltstone 52 5.91 0 0.00 9 6.82 Grey Siltstone 3 0.34 0 0.00 0 0.00 Grey Sandstone 26 2.95 1 2.85 1 0.76 Red Chert 30 3.41 5 14.28 1 0.76 White Quartzite 0 0.00 0 0.00 25 18.93 Grey Quartzite 0 0.00 0 0.00 44 33.34 Red Chalcedony  4 0.45 1 2.85 0 0.00 Grey Chalcedony 4 0.45 7 20.00 2 1.51 White Chalcedony 1 0.11 0 0.00 13 9.84 Ochre 12 1.36 0 0.00 9 6.82 Total 879 100.00 35 100.00 132 100.00      Dark grey chert and dark grey siltstone materials make up at least 80% of the tool assemblage in all three layers. Projectile points are primarily derived from dark grey siltstone (3 of 5), and dark grey chert (2 of 5), where points in both layers E and G are constructed from both of these material types. Scrapers are derived from a variety of materials, the single scraper in layer D is made from grey chalcedony, and the layer E thumbnail scraper is made from pebble chert. Two scrapers from layer G are constructed from quartzite, and one from dark grey chert. Utilized flakes are primarily comprised of dark grey chert (16 of 17), and quartzite (1 of 17).  Other materials, such as chalcedony, pebble chert, and quartzite were selected to make scrapers. Perhaps these materials were more pragmatic for a longer use life, as quartzite is considerably harder, and would likely last longer than chert or siltstone in performing scraping jobs. Although quartzite is also harder to work, it may have been a useful addition to the inhabitants’ toolkit for performing this task.     18  Table 5. Raw Materials of Tools by layer at FaPx-1.   Layer D % Layer E % Layer G % Dark Grey Chert 9 90.00 2 40.00 12 75.00 Dark Grey Siltstone 0 0.00 2 40.00 1 6.25 Quartzite 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 18.75 Grey Chalcedony 1 10.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 pebble chert 0 0.00 1 20.00 0 0.00 Total 10 100.00 5 100.00 16 100.00  In summary, the FaPx-1 lithic assemblage indicates a change in lithic raw material resource preference, reduction sequence (through the distribution of flakes produced from different hammer types), and notching type of projectile points before and after tephra deposition. Prior to the volcanic ash, in layer G, soft hammer flakes were the most common diagnostic flake type; after the volcanic ash, in layer E, pressure flakes become the most common. Given that layer E contained a high number of projectile points, and pressure flakes were the most common flake type, I infer that refurbishing and renewing tools were likely the main activities occurring during this occupation. However, all three layers yielded similar tool types (projectile points, scrapers, utilized flakes) and trends in cortex amount and average dorsal scars are similar. Given these factors, I infer that the inhabitants of FaPx-1 came to this specific location intentionally, with prepared cores which would be worked into situational gear, and pre-worked pieces to be made into formed tools. The tool assemblage supports this, where it was comprised of either highly curated projectile points and scrapers, or expedient flake tools with little curation and evidence of re-use. The projectile points fit Plains-like morphology, however, the radiocarbon date from layer G places that Pelican Lake-like projectile point roughly 300 years younger than Pelican Lake sites recorded by Peck (2011). The Bracken Phase-like points found in layer E (FaPx-1: 1071) occurs contemporaneously with Bracken points that have been found on the Plains (Peck 2011). Although there are dramatic changes before and after the Bridge River tephra, all three layers appear to utilize the same stone resources, although in different proportions, throughout the site’s ~1,500-year occupation.         2.4 Faunal Analysis   Faunal analysis took place in the Laboratory of Archaeology, University of British Columbia. Faunal remains recovered from FaPx-1were initially dry-brushed and catalogued and  19 identified by comparison to reference specimens held in the LOA’s collections. I compared potentially identifiable specimens to large ungulates: bison (Bison bison), elk (Cervus canadensis); and medium ungulates: mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and black tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus). Some specimens were initially compared with references of moose (Alces alces) and bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) at the Royal Alberta Museum prior to the analysis at UBC. Much of the faunal assemblage was highly fragmented, so the focus was to identify specimens that represented broader taxonomies (large vs medium-sized ungulates) that would be likely to be hunted in the region. Some specimens were reconstructed from several pieces in order to make a more definitive identification, which was conducted with water-soluble soft gel glue on specimens that were lightly cleaned with water and a toothbrush. Large ungulates could be moose, elk and bison in the assemblage; and medium ungulates could be deer (mule and whitetail), bighorn sheep, mountain goat, and possibly even caribou. These animals are all likely to have ranges within the area around Hummingbird Creek. There were no specimens resembling small game, fish or birds in the assemblage; many of the specimens in layer G were preserved well, so it is unlikely that differential taphonomy biased the sample in representing these taxa. In my analysis, I identified elk, bison and unidentifiable medium ungulate(s) within the assemblage via comparison to reference collections (Table 6).     20  Table 6. Breakdown of identified specimens from FaPx-1.  layer (total faunal pieces)  Medium Ungulate NISP (MNI) Elements  Large Ungulate NISP (MNI) Elements  bison NISP (MNI) Elements  elk NISP (MNI) Elements  D (339)  1 (1) Rib - - - - - - E  (36)  1 (1) Unknown 1 (1) Tooth 2 (1) Lower Molar - - G (457)  4 (1) Phalanx, Rib 19 (1) Innominate, Metapodial, Rib, Thoracic Vert., Long Bone, Scaphoid  - - 4 (1) Innominate, Lunate, Tibia, Scapula   Layers D and layer G have comparable values of burnt bone; both layer E and D had small amounts of calcined bone, but layer G has much higher amounts of calcined bone (Table 7). The proportions of the green-broken faunal specimens from FaPx-1 could be representative of several things. First, there could be biased preservation of culturally modified bone within the sediment itself, especially since layer G is covered by a thick deposit of tephra that may have caused green broken bone to be preserved better than other layers. Second, more cultural modification of bone occurred in layer G, leaving behind more specimens exhibiting green breaks. Given that layers D and G have comparable total faunal specimens, it is reasonable to assume that preservation is a factor. Only two cut specimens were identifiable to element, one cut long-bone fragment from layer D, and one cut long-bone fragment from layer G.   Table 7. Breakdown faunal remains from FaPx-1.  layer (total specimens) Burnt Calcined Green Break Cut Bones Total Weight (g) D (339) 180 6 2 2 1,948 E (36) 8 5 2 0 80 G (457) 161 61 37 8 2,138  The analysis results indicate that layer D has a large amount of faunal remains present, however this level had the fewest identifiable specimens, and only one medium ungulate present. Unfortunately, nearly all the remains from this layer are very degraded from disintegration and decomposition. Layer E has two Bison molars, one large ungulate tooth fragment, and one  21 medium ungulate bone fragment. Layer G has the most identifiable specimens: 4 specimens of medium ungulate, 19 specimens of large ungulate, and 4 identified elk elements. Although there is no clear evidence of dismemberment or other systematic processing, layer G elements fit with expected remains that would be left behind after disarticulation. No complete or fragmentary humeri, radii, ulna, or femora, representing major areas of meat utility on an animal, are present in layer G. One distal fragment of a tibia was identified with a clear green break (Figure 8). Only one small rib fragment was identified, and no cervical vertebrae or skull fragments were identified. I interpret here that the elements absent from layer G are the most useful meat-bearing portions, as well as the skull, which would likely be used for brain extraction for hide preparation. The total weight of specimens from layer G supports this, where although a small fraction was identifiable, the weight of the remaining unidentifiable specimens is likely from only a few elements (Table 7).   Figure 8. Positively identified elk (Cervus canadensis) distal tibia fragment from layer G (2968); arrows pointing to green broken edge.  22  Only one other site dating between 2,000-3,000 BP, outlined in Chapter One, had elk remains, GaQs-1. The northern campsites discussed in Chapter One, including GaQs-1, had an emphasis on a broad range of taxa harvested, such as deer, bighorn sheep, mountain goat and caribou. This wide variety of taxa could be harvested via logistical forays, designed to increase the breadth of resources available on the landscape. Based on faunal remains, I infer that FaPx-1 was a small-scale hunting camp, used by hunters on such logistical forays. The remains from layer G indicate that a large ungulate (likely elk) was processed at the site, given the many cut and green broken specimens from this layer, and the identifiable elements left there. Given that elk prefer to graze in groups in open meadows (RMEF 2018), it is possible that the animal was taken from the valley below and brought up to the site to be processed. This is consistent with modern documentation of Plateau hunter gatherers in Lillooet, where kill sites are cleaned in order to ensure continued hunting success (Alexander 1992). All three layers have small quantities of unidentifiable medium ungulates, which may represent several species that are endemic to the region; such as deer, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, and caribou. The absence of identifiable bighorn sheep remains is not altogether significant, since it is clear here that the site’s function was to capture large game, a fact made clearer in Chapter Four. The small concentrations of calcined bone could be small fires occurring throughout the occupation of the site, burning discarded food refuse of small pieces of meat brought to the site. This is consistent with behaviors observed by Binford (1978), of Nunamiut hunter-gatherers in northern Alaska, where hunters burned bone refuse from food brought to camps, and during butchery of fresh kills. The dispersed concentrations of calcined bone could indicate hunters coming to FaPx-1, burning refuse after eating food brought with them to the site. The faunal analysis is consistent with a small hunting camp revisited frequently, with periods of processing and discarding of less desirable elements after a successful kill.  The archaeological data points toward the use of FaPx-1 as a hunting camp. Through the presence of debris with little to no cortex present in the assemblage, and the use of relatively few materials to make tools, I infer that the inhabitants of FaPx-1 brought materials and potentially prefabricated tools and prepared cores to the site. These tools would then be modified, or material derived from the cores, could be worked to meet the inhabitants’ situational needs. There is a clear emphasis on dark grey chert and dark grey siltstone for tool construction, since  23 most tools throughout the site’s occupation are constructed from these two materials. The significance of these two materials is further explored in the next chapter. Since three projectile points are likely broken from use, i.e., transverse breaks along notches and a tip break, rather than from construction, I infer it is likely FaPx-1 was also used as a re-tooling or refurbishing station as well. The flakes from layer E support this, where most flakes from this occupation were pressure flakes. The presence of scrapers indicate that hide preparation likely occurred at FaPx-1, and most scrapers displayed intensive use, represented through steep edge angles. However, hide preparation may have been restricted to cleaning, since no scrapers had hafting elements, and no large fleshers were present, which are indicative of intensive hide preparation. Many tools were utilized flakes, likely intended for small cutting jobs like disarticulation. I infer that the identifiable elements present in layer G were discarded after disarticulation and butchery took place, where the higher meat bearing elements were taken away from the site.       24 3. Chapter Three: Raw Material Analysis using Portable X-Ray Fluorescence and Raman Spectroscopy   3.1 Introduction  Identifying the geological source of archaeological materials can reveal detailed information about precontact hunter-gatherer mobility and/or trade. The use of geochemical analytical techniques is becoming increasingly common in archaeological research, especially in obsidian provenancing studies (Shackley 2008). Non-destructive techniques for determining chemical composition of rock, such as portable X-Ray fluorescence (pXRF), have been increasingly employed in artifact sourcing studies. In archaeological sites in Alberta, cherts commonly make up a large portion of lithic assemblages, however, many studies of chert sourcing using geochemistry alone have been unsuccessful (Kendall and Macdonald 2015; ten Bruggencate in press). Raman spectroscopy is a non-destructive method for mineralogical and structural characterization of samples, using the detection of inelastic backscattered light from an incident laser beam. Recently, Raman spectroscopy has been used to associate artifacts with samples of a known geologic provenience, including both carbonaceous rock and obsidian (Bellow-Gurlet 2004; Carter et el. 2012; Bonjean et al. 2015). Raman-shift (cm-1) can be informative of mineral composition, crystal structure, and the degree of structural order in a sample. I infer here that these attributes are representative of local geological conditions and can be used to associate stone tools found at FaPx-1 with geological samples collected in the field.   The objectives of the raw material analysis presented here are to: 1) use non-destructive methods to structurally and geochemically characterize and associate artifacts from FaPx-1, as well as differentiate locally available rock (South Ram) and material from a nearby procurement area (Pineneedle Creek); 2) determine if material from Pineneedle Creek was used to make tools found at FaPx-1; and 3) identify what the proportions of locally available material, Pineneedle Creek material, and unknown / indeterminate material enable us to infer about hunter-gatherer behavior that occurred at FaPx-1. The interpretation of raw material preferences provides information that can aid in understanding hunter-gatherer mobility and landscape use within the central Rockies of Alberta.   3.2 Regional Geology of the Central Rockies.  25    The Lamaride Orogeny created the Central Rockies and Foothills, when a series of large islands sided into the North American tectonic plate by the subduction of the Pacific plate 80-55 million years ago (Bally et al. 1966). The Lamaride Orogeny caused the up-thrust of marine deposits onto the North American plate; as a result, the Rockies and Foothills bedrock is composed of mostly sedimentary rocks from shallow marine environments. These environments were composed of fine silicate mineral silts and reefs, which deposited carbonaceous materials. The central Rockies have deposits from Devonian to Cretaceous age, and sandstones, shales, and limestones from marginal marine, reef, or basal marine environments (Fenton et al. 2013). FaPx-1 lies on Fernie Formation and Kootenay Group shale, siltstone, and limestone from Cretaceous marine deposits. Cobbles collected along the South Ram River adjacent the site could also have been fluvially transported from Devonian, Mississippian, and Pennsylvanian aged limestone, sandstone shale, and dolomite. Pineneedle Creek lies on Blairmore, Alberta and Smokey Group shale, siltstone, and sandstone from Cretaceous marine deposits. The material collected from Pineneedle Creek generally fits the macroscopic description of ‘Nordegg Chert’ that bears its name from Nordegg Member Limestones, which outcrop at several locations across the Rocky Mountains and Eastern Slopes. Many sites have yielded artifacts reportedly constructed out of this material in the Eastern Slopes of Alberta (Meyer 2005). However, despite the similarity in appearance, the cobbles collected from Pineneedle Creek are not associated with an outcrop of Nordegg Member rock. Although fluvial and glacial transport may have caused mixing of cobbles from different deposits at these two locations, the specimens from Pineneedle Creek and South Ram River are from very different geologic groups and are expected to have different mineralogical/structural properties and composition.  3.3 Sampling Strategy.   To capture the geochemical and lithological variability of material available to the inhabitants of FaPx-1, cobbles from the South Ram River were systematically sampled from a 200m stretch of river closest to FaPx-1. Cobbles similar in color to artifacts from FaPx-1 were collected, however the rock along the South Ram was mostly rounded, spherical or quite irregularly shaped (Figure 9a and 9b). A suspected chert procurement area, Pineneedle Creek,  26 where many precontact workshops have been identified (Blaikie-Birkigt et al. 2014) was also sampled. This area is approximately 45km southeast of FaPx-1. A 500m stretch of river within a cluster of reported workshop sites was sampled. The sampled cobbles are secondarily transported, eroding out of bedrock deposits along the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains. Large tabular cobbles, with macroscopic qualities (cryptocrystalline, dark grey to black color) to artifacts from FaPx-1 were selected for at Pineneedle Creek (Figure 9c). It is likely that ancient people collected workable material from these secondary sources, rather than collecting directly from bedrock.    Figure 9. Examples of cobbles collected for analysis; a-b) South Ram; c) Pineneedle Creek.    27  3.4 Methods.   3.4.1 Raman Spectroscopy    Raman Spectroscopy is a practically non-destructive method for characterizing the mineralogy and structural characteristics of specimens. Practically non-destructive methods, such as Raman and pXRF, do not visibly alter samples, however may affect samples’ elemental or structural composition on scale not visible in hand sample or under magnification. A laser is focused on a specimen, a detector collects the backscattered light, and the inelastic light is presented in spectra of Raman shift (cm-1). Raman spectroscopy has been used successfully to associate archaeological materials with geologic sources (Bellow-Gurlet 2004; Carter et el. 2012; Bonjean et al. 2015). This method can rapidly acquire spectra from a single specimen, typically without leaving alterations visible without magnification. However, larger specimens (e.g., with a thickness greater than 5cm) do not fit under the 100x lens objective of laboratory Raman instruments. Raman spectra can be informative of elemental composition through peak location (center maximum), and crystallinity and diagenetic alteration can be inferred through peak shape (full width half maximum); similarities in these variables among samples indicate similar geological origins and/or similar post emplacement alteration (Schito et al. 2017; Bonjean et al. 2015). Samples were tested with a 532nm Horiba Xplora Plus Raman system, operated at the Pacific Center of Isotope and Geochemical Research’s Laser Spot facility at the University of British Columbia. The settings were: 2400/mm grating, 100% filter, 200 µm slit, and 300-500 µm hole. Acquisition time was 1.5s per accumulation, averaging 20 accumulations per analysis. Each artifact and source specimen was sampled 10 times. The instrument was calibrated daily on a SiO2 standard at ~520 cm-1. For source samples, thin sections were made to systematically analyze samples, however, the weathered surface of specimens was also tested. In many cases, the artifact’s surface topography prevented systematic sampling, as the 100x objective lens must be focused on the surface of the specimen for accurate sampling. I tested multiple spots on the surface of each source material or artifact. Spectra were normalized based on the descriptions of Kelloway et al. (2010) methods. Initial mineral identification was made using Crystal Sleuth  28 (Laetsch et al. 2006); Origin Pro 2017 was used for peak identification and fitting. In Origin Pro 2017, the spectra were binned into two groups (1500-1700 cm-1; 1150-1500 cm-1), and a batch peak processing function was used to determine peak center (or the point of maximum intensity) and full width half maximum (FWHM, or the width of the peak at half intensity) (Figure 10).   Figure 10. Example of South Ram, Pineneedle and FaPx-1: 653 artifact’s Raman Shift (a) and identified peaks (b).   3.4.2 Portable X-Ray Fluorescence  Portable X-Ray fluorescence is a common method of geochemical analysis employed by archaeologists to infer mobility and resource preferences in the past (Shackley 2008). After incident X-Rays are directed onto the surface of a sample, electrons within the inner shells of atoms are removed, electrons within outer shells fill their place, and diagnostic energy in the form of characteristic X-Rays are released that correspond directly with the atomic number of the element. A detector measures this energy response, software and calibration programs identify the responses of different elements and produce compositions within a given sample. A  29 limitation of pXRF devices is their difficulty in determining concentrations of lighter elements, such as Si. The sample itself, as well as air between the sample and the detector, can interfere with the detection of all elements, however, since lighter elements give a lower energy response, this interference is more pronounced. Operating the pXRF with an internal vacuum can help mitigate this interference. However, this study submitted reference samples for desktop XRF analysis, to the University of Ottawa’s X-Ray Core Facility, to more accurately calibrate light element responses acquired by the MOA pXRF. I constructed an empirical quadratic calibration of known Si and Ca values, acquired by submitting nine samples for benchtop XRF analysis at the University of Ottawa. I also used two well-characterized obsidian samples (Mt Edziza and Glass Buttes; analyzed with LA-ICP-MS at the Pacific Centre for Isotopic and Geochemical Research, Vancouver) and the Bruker alloy 316SS calibration disk. Concentrations of Si and Ca for South Ram, Pineneedle Creek, and artifacts from FaPx-1 were established using this quadratic calibration.  For the pXRF testing, I used a Bruker Tracer III held and operated at the Museum of Anthropology (MOA), Vancouver. My parameters were 15kv and 30µA current with no filter for acquiring major elements, such as Si and Ca. I also used 40kv and 30 µA current with a 12ml Ti, 12ml Al and 6ml Cu filter for acquiring trace elements, such as Zr and Rb. Each analysis was run for 40 live seconds, 5 consecutive times per sample (for a total of 200 seconds per sample). All analyses were conducted under vacuum. A Mount Edziza (Raspberry Pass) obsidian sample (PCIGR-EDZ-1) was analyzed as a quality control and to assess instrument stability. For trace elements, a Bruker obsidian calibration was used to acquire accurate concentrations in ppm, and, for Si and Ca, I used the in-house empirical calibrations described above.   3.4.3 Quadratic Calibration of Si and Ca   The samples submitted to the University of Ottawa facilitated acceptable quadratic calibrations for both Si and Ca concentrations with R2 values of 0.91656 for Si and 0.94568 for Ca. Unfortunately, we did not acquire concentrations of Si between 50,000 and 250,000 ppm. I should caution the use specifically of the Bruker Tracer III for acquiring accurate concentrations of Si, as it was discovered that there many factors influenced instrument readings. For instance, some source specimens were powdered and placed into sample holders and tested through a thin  30 cellophane membrane; however, I noticed drastic differences between powdered and un-powdered instrument readings of the same sample, thus, these powdered readings were not used. We believe that both the membrane and the air within the powder resulted in drastically low instrument count of powdered samples. In addition, air, either between the sample surface and the nose of the instrument, and/or within the porous nature of some specimens, greatly interferes with Si readings using this instrument. In general, I use major element concentrations of Si and Ca only semi-quantitatively, as well as to inform upon the results of Raman Spectroscopy, discussed later. Despite these complications, the values acquired were considered informative for this study.   3.5 Results.   3.5.1 Raman Results    The results of the Raman analysis are summarized in Table 8 and described in full in Appendix A. The results of the Raman analyses indicate that both South Ram and Pineneedle Creek samples are composed of graphite (P1) / carbonaceous material (P2), with variable occurrences of calcite, aragonite, and silica peaks. Qualitatively, the Raman results indicated that Pineneedle Creek carbonaceous peaks appeared on average more diagenically heated than those of South Ram samples, indicated by the presence of a ‘shoulder’ on peaks located between 1150 to 1500 cm-1. This ‘shoulder’ the result of an additional peak around 1250 cm-1, identified by Schito et al. (2017) as ‘Dl’ (Figure 10). Beyssac et al. (2002) identified peaks within the 1150 – 1500 cm-1 range can be used to calculate thermal maturity of a sample that underwent diagenesis or metamorphism. The published equation is P1/(P1 +P2) area ratio, T[oC] = -445 R2 + 641 (Beyssac et al. 2002), a small peak around 1650 cm-1 necessary for the equation was not found in the samples tested, so I consider the results of the thermal alteration calculations only semi-quantitative. I calculated Pineneedle Creek samples as undergoing low- to intermediate-grade metamorphic conditions between 460-475oC and South Ram samples between 380-500oC. Both South Ram and Pineneedle Creek samples yielded peaks between 1150 to 1500 cm-1 (carbonaceous material) and 1500 to 1700 cm-1 (graphite), so I focused on these two ranges for peak-fitting and description. The metric data was plotted representing the alteration of carbonaceous materials (FWHM P2) against graphite crystal order (Max Height P1) and  31 carbonate crystal composition (Center P2). The results indicated that the alteration of carbonaceous material (P2 FWHM) was the key variable in differentiating South Ram samples from Pineneedle Creek, where the distribution of graphite crystal order and the attributes of carbonaceous material overlap considerably. Some FaPx-1 artifact peak properties also overlap with South Ram and Pineneedle Creek samples.    Table 8. Summary of Raman results, error values are 1SD of the sample population.  Sample (n) P1 Max Height P2 Center (cm-1) P2 Full Width Half Maximum (cm-1) Pineneedle Creek (15) 3.48 + .50 1327.62 + 4.15 187.11 + 6.55 South Ram (14) 2.29 + .83 1339.80 + 9.25 131.51 + 14.71  3.5.2 pXRF Results    The pXRF results are summarized in Table 9 and described in full in Appendix B. The assessment of South Ram and Pineneedle Creek using low range parameters indicated that major elements (Si and Ca) could inform upon the results indicated with Raman spectroscopy, such as the presence and concentration of silica (SiO2) and calcite or aragonite (CaCO3) within the samples. Nearly all South Ram samples had less than 40 wt% SiO2 and greater than 60% CaCO3; Pineneedle Creek samples had greater than 50 wt% SiO2 and between 40-80 wt% CaCO3. Artifacts from FaPx-1 had very high SiO2 content (80-100 wt%) with very little CaCO3 (20-30 wt%) (Figure 11). Some concentrations resulting from the quadratic calibration had SiO2 wt% errors exceeding 100% 2SD, and CaCO3 wt% plus SiO2 wt% that add up greater than 100 wt%. These errors are likely caused from inaccuracy with the sampling of these elements using the Tracer III, the possibility that Si and Ca are present in phases other than SiO2 and CaCO3, and/or high concentrations of other light elements interfering with sampling. In the future, I intend to compile more data for more accurate calibrations for major elements. I also acquired trace element data for Pineneedle Creek samples, South Ram samples, and artifacts with the Tracer III, primarily focusing on mobile elements such as Sr and Rb and immobile elements such as Zr. There was considerable variation of trace elements within each group, and I was unable to find a combination of trace elements that differentiate the sources (Figure 12).     32  Table 9. Summary of pXRF; error values are 1SD of the sample population. SiO2 was calculated from Si ppm (x 2.1393); CaCO3 was calculated from Ca ppm (x 2.5) Sample (n) SiO2 wt% CaCO3 wt% Rb ppm Sr ppm Zr ppm South Ram (n=17) 34.18 + 9.07 79.65 + 8.44 16.69 + 6.39 241.63 + 86.56 34.64 + 16.77 Pineneedle Creek (n=17) 69.40 + 13.73 59.41 + 12.69 17.00 + 4.92 124.96 + 48.46 43.40 + 13.09   Figure 11. SiO2 and CaCO3 concentrations of South Ram (red), Pineneedle Creek (blue) and FaPx-1 artifacts (grey).    33   Figure 12. Rb and Zr boxplots of South Ram (red); Pineneedle (blue); and FaPx-1 artifacts (grey).  3.6 Discussion   While both sources had calcite/aragonite and quartz present, as indicated through Raman, South Ram samples have low values of SiO2, with inconsistently heated and ordered carbonaceous material, consistent with dolomite and limestone from nearby Devonian to Mississippian deposits near FaPx-1 (Fenton et al. 2013). Pineneedle Creek samples have comparably very high values of SiO2, and very consistently ordered carbonaceous material, consistent with Alberta and Smokey Group Cretaceous siltstone deposits at the collection area (Fenton et al. 2013).  Several artifacts from FaPx-1 matched the mineralogical properties of South Ram and Pineneedle Creek samples (Figure 13). Although the trace element results were inconclusive, a ratio-variable of Zr ppm and silica (SiO2) content is considered to be somewhat diagnostic. I combined the productive mineralogical data (P2 FWHM / Center) and the geochemical data (Zr ppm / SiO2 %wt), which encompassed the most diagnostic results of both sets of analyses (Figure 14). This clearly illustrates that several projectile points, cores, bifaces and flake tools from FaPx-1 have geochemical and mineralogical attributes that match those of Pineneedle Creek samples. Two cores, two projectile points (FaPx-1: 1071 and 1800) and three flake tools fall outside the distributions of both sources. I consider these artifacts to have an unknown origin, however, the mineralogical and geochemical components suggest that they are  34 close to either Pineneedle Creek or South Ram and are likely derived from material that is geologically similar to both groups; such as another undiscovered deposit or outcrop within the Rocky Mountains. The immediately available South Ram material was actively ignored to make tools at FaPx-1 in all but one case (FaPx-1: 1071).   Figure 13. Scatterplot of FWHM of P2 vs Center P2.    Figure 14. Ratio Variable plot of P2 FWHM / Center vs Zr ppm / SiO2 %wt   These results provide insight into the lithic resource preferences of the FaPx-1 inhabitants. Although raw material use was different before and after the Bridge River tephra  35 deposit, the analysis results indicate that Pineneedle Creek material was utilized throughout the site’s occupation (Table 10). In addition, two cores from layer D also appear to be constructed from Pineneedle Creek material. In both layer G and E, one projectile point was constructed from another material, in layer E from local South Ram rock, and one from layer G from an indeterminate material. The remainder of the artifacts appear to be made from a similar (i.e., carbonaceous), but unknown material. This indicates that throughout the site’s occupation, outside stone was brought to the site. Although additional sources were not tested, I can plausibly rule out local rock being used frequently. The additional source(s) are undetermined, since it is also carbonate rich like Pineneedle Creek and South Ram samples, it likely was also gathered from somewhere in the Rocky Mountain region. Bedrock geology in the Rocky Mountains is dominated by carbonate rocks (Bally et al. 1996), and it is probable that these unknown signals are derived from them, rather than an exotic unknown material.   Table 10. Summary of interpretation of raw material preference represented at FaPx-1 using geochemical and mineralogical data. n= number of artifacts associated with that locality. Layer  South Ram Pineneedle Creek Unknown  D 0 7 4 E 1 3 0 G 0 9 5 Total 1 19 9   These results have interesting implications on precontact mobility at FaPx-1. The results of pXRF major element composition, and Raman Spectroscopy of mineralogical properties on FaPx-1 indicate that almost entirely non-local materials were found at the site. The preference for non-local materials does not change throughout the site’s occupations. It is apparent however, that the FaPx-1 inhabitants had a preference for non-local, regionally available material from Pineneedle Creek, where procurement areas are located approximately 45 km away from FaPx-1. There is a known relationship between high silica content and desirability for making stone tools (Andrefsky 1998); the FaPx-1 inhabitants were likely aware of the poor working quality of materials immediately available in the Hummingbird area and, as a result, regularly brought in workable material from elsewhere to use.   36  3.7 Conclusion   This study has achieved its goal of characterizing South Ram, Pineneedle, Creek and artifacts from FaPx-1 using non-destructive mineralogical/structural (Raman) and geochemical (pXRF) methods. Improved calibration of light elements (such as Si) is a clear direction for future research if the same pXRF instrument is to be used in the future. The results corroborated with other studies (Kendall and MacDonald 2015; ten Bruggencate et al. in press), indicating trace elements alone are unsuccessful for associating chert artifacts and sources. Multi-proxy mineralogical and geochemical analytical techniques on stone tools have provided informative data indicative of mobility patterns represented at the Hummingbird Creek site (FaPx-1). My analysis indicated that the inhabitants of FaPx-1 used primarily highly siliceous material with diagnostically-altered carbonaceous materials. The sample of local rock around FaPx-1 indicated that all samples from the area have low silica contents. Some FaPx-1 artifacts have mineralogical properties that match those of samples from Pineneedle Creek, located approximately 45km away. I conclude that the FaPx-1 inhabitants were aware of the poor working quality of locally-sourced materials and brought workable material to be made into stone tools.      37 4 Chapter Four: Stoney Place Names and Montane Hunter-Gatherers    4.1 Montane Hunter-Gatherers.   Ethnoarchaeological evidence from montane regions in North America can help the interpretation of hunter-gatherer behaviour from the material culture at FaPx-1. Ethnographic research conducted in Northern Alaska (Binford 1978), Northwest Territories, Canada (Andrews et al. 2012, Hanks and Pokotylo 1989) and central British Columbia (Alexander 1992) documents behavior and cultural practices of montane hunter-gatherers. Logistical hunting is strongly emphasized, and hunting expeditions needed to be carefully planned; the rugged terrain in montane regions requires a significant energy and risk investment for a successful hunt. Binford (1978) documents small camps used by Nunamiut hunters, occupied for very short intervals and located near known areas of productive hunting. Small hunting parties would field-process game, often discarding lesser meat-bearing parts into small fires. In late summer, these camps and hunting areas would be used for harvesting game for meat and hide in preparation for winter (Binford 1978). Hanks and Pokotylo (1989) documented archaeological evidence, in the form of hide smoking pit features, of Dene hide preparation in the Northwest Territories. Montane hunter-gatherers often migrated seasonally, and large groups of families set up villages near areas where resources were plentiful (Andrews et al. 2012). Andrews et al. (2012) document Shuhtagot’ine campsites, special hunting sites, and special resource areas, all connected by a network of foot trails. Shuhtagot’ine oral tradition also indicates that a variety of resources were gathered within the vicinity of larger villages (Andrews et al. 2012). Benedict (1992) identified intricate systems of precontact alpine blinds and game drives in the Colorado Rockies. Lillooet hunters would often use narrow valleys as drives in southern interior British Columbia (Alexander 1992). Hunters would also transport harvested game away from a kill site and clean any blood to ensure animals would not be scared away and that the kill area could be reused (Alexander 1992).  Montane hunter-gatherers exemplify ‘collector’ logistical mobility as described by Binford (1980), who noted that collectors store food for at least part of the year and use logistically organized groups in order to acquire specific food resources. This differs from ‘foragers’ who seasonally move to productive resource patches and acquire resources on an  38 encounter basis (Binford 1980). Collector task-groups use small staging camps where a variety of resources known to be productive could be gathered to bring back to the larger group. Larger group settlement would also move less frequently among collectors (Binford 1980). Logistical forays assist in ensuring food security, where moving larger groups can be both costly and risky in a challenging landscape (Kelly 1992). In a landscape as challenging as the central Rocky Mountains, I hypothesize that Indigenous peoples in the past practiced collector logistical mobility and archaeological data from FaPx-1 could represent this mobility.    The analysis of artifacts, faunal remains, and raw materials from FaPx-1 can offer many insights into hunter-gatherer land use in the Hummingbird region. Given the location of the site on a narrow terrace (~10m wide), and elk preference to graze in open alpine meadows in groups, I infer that the elk represented in layer G was harvested in the valley below. The valley bottom is only approximately 50m from FaPx-1 itself. This is consistent with the observations of Alexander (1992) and Hanks and Pokotylo (1989), where carcasses were quickly taken away from the kill site and processed elsewhere. The identifiable elements from layer G represent the lesser meat-bearing parts consistent with observations of small hunting camps by Binford (1978). Small pockets of calcined bone are consistent with Binford’s (1978) observations of small hunting parties. The placement of FaPx-1 gave the site a commanding view of the South Ram valley, ideal for observing and staging an ambush on game passing through the region. The FaPx-1 tool assemblage is made almost entirely of non-local materials, indicating the inhabitants brought curated tools, and/or workable material in the form of prepared cores to meet their future needs. FaPx-1’s tool assemblage consists of mostly utilized flakes, and lesser numbers of scrapers and projectile points. I suspect these represent activities of small cutting jobs (such as disarticulation, skinning), hide scraping or fleshing, and preparing projectiles before or after a hunt. Binford (1978) notes that late-summer hunting expeditions would be focused both on acquiring meat and hide for the upcoming winter. Perhaps FaPx-1 could represent late-summer hunting, since scrapers were represented, however there were no features associated with hide smoking or post molds consistent with hide processing. I further interpret the findings at FaPx-1 in relation to Stoney place names and oral accounts, as shared by Barry Wesley.    39  4.2 Stoney Place Names and Oral Accounts from the Hummingbird Region.   Stoney place names and oral accounts were provided by Barry Wesley, Bighorn Chiniki Stoney Administration, in the form of informal telephone discussions and a document submitted to the author (Wesley 2018). This knowledge was freely shared for this thesis, to collaboratively assist in the interpretation of the Hummingbird Creek Site (FaPx-1). The intention of using Stoney place names and oral accounts was not to conduct a study, but to represent the Stoney Nation’s intimate connection with their traditional territory in conjunction with our findings from FaPx-1. The oral stories are not retold in full to protect Stoney tradition, hence I refer to them here as ‘accounts’, since the stories themselves are only paraphrased. First, I will summarize the Stoney place names by distance from FaPx-1; then I will paraphrase two Stoney oral accounts relevant to the interpretation of FaPx-1 as a special purpose hunting camp.   Stoney place names are summarized in Table 11. It should be noted that the Kootenay Plains lie approximately 31km to the west, a historically-known settlement area of the Bighorn Chikini Stoney Nation (MacEwan 1969). Onion Lake, Onion Ridge (Peak), Ram Falls and Hummingbird Creek itself, bear the English translation of the traditional Stoney names. Two Stoney place names near FaPx-1 have themes related to hunting and animal migration; Yameyabi makoche mne “Hunting Grounds Lake”, located up in the alpine about 19 km southwest of FaPx-1, and wodeja Chungo mne “Animal Migration Route Lake”, located about 17.3 km southeast of FaPx-1. These are the two closest water features, besides streams and waterfalls, to FaPx-1, and both bear testimony to the area being a successful hunting ground. Stoney oral history documents mineral licks around the Ram Falls area, kiska wapta mini hiparh “Ram Falls”, one of the most active and best places for hunting large game such as moose, elk, caribou and bison (Barry Wesley personal communication 2018). Upstream of Hummingbird Creek is an area that was traditionally burned in order to create grazing for large game, particularly elk and bison; the burn area is Wodeja odabi makoche “Abundant of Animal Area”. I suspect this area is located about 5-10km west of FaPx-1, and the upland along Hummingbird Creek resembles an open alpine meadow ~15km2 in area. This traditional burn area has not been recorded archaeologically. If this burn area was used, animals moving to the improved grazing area would likely have traveled within sight of FaPx-1. Further, Stoney oral accounts depict the downstream area of the Ram  40 River being settled during the late summer, in August or September when the berries ripen (Barry Wesley personal communication 2018). If this area was settled seasonally, and FaPx-1 was occupied to take advantage of productive hunting areas, then the Stoney oral accounts and ‘collector’ logistical mobility model corroborate an interpretation where FaPx-1 represents a camp intended for logistical hunting forays. These place names and oral accounts illustrate the intimate connection the Stoney people have to the Hummingbird and South Ram regions and provide insight into ancient behavior at FaPx-1. At present, no place names from the Hummingbird region conflict with the interpretation that this region was used explicitly for hunting and collecting.   Table 11. Stoney place names of landscape features near FaPx-1; information here was provided by Barry Wesley, Bighorn Stoney Nation.  Current Geographic Name Stoney Name Stoney Name Translation Distance from FaPx-1 (km) Lost Guide Lake Yameyabi makoche mne “Hunting Grounds Lake” 19 Peppers Lake wodeja Chungo mne “Animal Migration Route Lake” 17.3 Onion Lake shija mnun mne “Onion Lake”  16.7 Farley Lake Othnikta mne “Coulee Lake”  23 Ram Falls kiska wapta mini hiparh “Ram Falls”  (sacred area)  8 Hummingbird Falls Ohoongadwa waptan hiparh “Highest Water Falls”  1.3 Mount Mumford yethka thu-ye impah “Stoney Scout Peak” 25.6 Canary Peak Wapamakthe impa “Stoney Warrior Peak”  15.1  4.3 Summary of Interpretation of FaPx-1.   The Stoney place names fit with the archaeological interpretation of FaPx-1 and ethnographic examples of a small hunting camp and hunter-gatherer mobility strategies in montane regions.  41 My archaeological analysis has concluded that: 1) inhabitants of FaPx-1 brought outside lithic materials, in the form of prepared cores and tools, avoiding river rock immediately available to them; 2) the stone tool and debris assemblages represent occupants refurbishing their tools, producing situational gear for immediate use and discarding mostly broken or exhausted hide scrapers and projectile points; 3) the preferred game was elk, bison and an unidentified medium ungulate(s), the latter represented in small amounts throughout the site’s occupation; these animals were also brought in from elsewhere, elk was likely processed at the site; and 4) the site was strategically set overlooking the South Ram valley, where animals and people travelling through the region would likely be ‘funneled’ into this valley, and easily visible from FaPx-1. Stoney place names complement this interpretation: two lakes near FaPx-1 have themes related to hunting, mineral licks near the area are known to have large game frequent them, traditional burning to attract game occurred near FaPx-1, and an area used to set up seasonal-villages lies east of the site (Barry Wesley personal communication 2018). The evidence considered thus-far supports the inference that FaPx-1 represents a small task group hunting camp, where archaeological data fits the expectations of documented montane hunter-gatherer land-use and corroborated by the oral traditions of the Stoney people in this particular area.     42 Conclusion    The initial direction of this study was to demonstrate, through archaeological analysis and oral tradition and land use, that the Hummingbird Creek site (FaPx-1) is representative of hunter-gatherer mobility similar to ethnographic examples in the central Rockies of Alberta. This study has concluded that FaPx-1 likely represents collector logistical mobility (cf. Binford 1980) occurring between 1,000 and 2,500 years before present. Archaeological data from FaPx-1 is reflective of this mobility, in the form of representative stone tools and debris described in Chapter Two, and raw material use and selection described in Chapter Three. Lastly, the interpretation of the site is supplemented by Stoney place names, oral accounts and other ethnographic examples described in Chapter Four. The strength of this research lies in its holistic approach, not only in the breadth of analytical methodologies but also in the use of ethnographic examples and place names of modern Indigenous people. Although not unique to this study, it is uncommon in Alberta for archaeological projects to include traditional place names in conjunction with the analysis of material culture. It should be noted that logistical hunting camps like FaPx-1 are ephemeral by nature, and there is a bias towards the study of archaeological site types that yield more data, such as villages or larger campsites. Chapter One noted that modern development and cultural resource management projects have a research bias, where large campsites have been predominantly studied in the Rocky Mountains of Alberta. However, I would argue that all site types merit investigation, and the understanding of any site is limited without Indigenous knowledge.  The partnership between archaeologists and Indigenous communities is a positive step towards reconciliation (TRC 2015). Recognizing cooperation between archaeologists, museums and Indigenous communities is not exclusive to the TRC and was extensively addressed in the 1990s with the Task Force on Museums and First Peoples (Hill and Nicks 1992) as well as the Canadian Archaeological Association’s (CAA) Statement of Principles for Ethical Conduct Pertaining to Aboriginal Peoples (Nicholson et al. 1996). The CAA’s 1996 statement made three specific points for improving Indigenous involvement in archaeological research; “1) To encourage partnerships with Aboriginal Communities in archaeological research, management and education, based on respect and mutual sharing of knowledge and expertise; 2) To support formal training programs in archaeology for Aboriginal people; 3) To support recruitment of  43 Aboriginal people as professional archaeologists” (Nicholson et al. 1996:35). I must recognize that the ethnographic and oral evidence within the literature was the result of partnerships between Indigenous communities and archaeologists. However, in the Alberta Rocky Mountains, forestry development is increasing in intensity (Weber 2018), potentially leading to impact of archaeological sites and areas of cultural significance, and conflict between developers, government and Indigenous communities. I hope that this work raises awareness of the breadth of hunter-gatherer use of the Rocky Mountain landscape. I also hope it prompts other archaeologists to form partnerships with Indigenous groups to conduct similar mutually-beneficial research to document and protect culturally significant areas from development impacts.  The results of the raw material analysis in Chapter Three highlight the utility of using multi-proxy methods of sourcing chert stone tools to procurement areas in the Rocky Mountains. Our emphasis on using non-destructive methods on culturally sensitive artifacts, to represent both structural/mineralogical and geochemical data was highly productive. If this method is applied artifacts from other archaeological sites, the scope of understanding of hunter-gatherer mobility in precontact times will be greatly expanded. The results of my analysis, although localized to the Hummingbird region, could provide a successful means of connecting samples from procurement areas and artifacts from sites elsewhere in the region, and begin to reconstruct ancient raw material procurement patterns in precontact times. Making inferences about precontact mobility with archaeological data has the potential to affect perception of Indigenous land use in precontact times. Especially in regions under dispute between different Indigenous groups, perceptions of land use can influence policy regarding modern rights and title. The archaeological community has a duty to base conclusions in replicable, reliable data. I have emphasized here that precontact mobility can be represented though the use of analytical tools, archaeological analysis and modern Indigenous perspectives.      44 Bibliography   Andrefsky, William  1998 Lithics. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.   Andrews, Thomas D., MacKay, Glen, Andrew, Leon, Stephenson, Wendy, Barker, Amy, Alix, Claire, and the Shuhtagot’ine elders of Tulita 2012 Alpine ice patches and Shuhtagot’ine land use in the Mackenzie and Selwyne Mountains, Northwest Territories, Canada. Arctic. 65 (suppl. 1): 22-42.  Diana Alexander  1992 A reconstruction of prehistoric land use in the Mid-Fraser River area based on ethnographic data. In A complex culture of the British Columbia plateau: traditional St’atl’imx resource use, edited by Brian Hayden. Pp. 99-176. UBC press. Vancouver.   Ball, Bruce 1986 Site classification and prehistoric settlement systems in the upper Athabasca River valley. In Occasional Paper Series of the Archaeological Survey of Alberta No. 30. Alberta Culture. Pp. 133-160. Edmonton.   Bally, A. W., Gordy, P. L. and G. A. Stewart 1966 Structure, Seismic data and orogenic evolution of the southern Canadian Rocky Mountains. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology. 14 (3): 337-381.   Bellow-Gurlet, Ludovic, Le Bourdonnec, Francois-Xavier, Poupeau, Gerard, and Stephan Dubernet  2004 Raman micro-spectroscopy of western Mediterranean obsidian glass: one step towards provenance studies?. Journal of Raman Spectroscopy. 35: 671-677.   Benedict, James B.  1992 Footprints in the snow: high-altitude cultural ecology of the Colorado front range, U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Research. 24 (1): 1-16.   Beyssac, O., Goffe, B., Chopin C., and J. N. Rouzaud 2002 Raman spectra of carbonaceous material in metasediments: a new geothermometer. Journal of Metamorphic Geology. 20 (9): 859-871.   Blaikie-Birkigt, Kurtis. Hood, Elenore, Jankunis, Vince, and Teresa Wagner.  2014 Final Report, Sundre Forest Products Historical Resources Management Program. Tree Time Services Inc. Submitted to Alberta Culture, Permit No. 13-098. Copies available from the Heritage Resources Management Branch. Edmonton   45 Bonjean, Dominique, Vanbrabant, Yves, Abrams, Gregory, Pirson, Stephane, Burlet, Christian, Di Modica, Kevin, Otte, Marcel, Vander Auwera, Jacqueline, Golitko, Mark, McMillan, Rhy, and Eric Goemaere 2015 A new Cambrian black pigment used during the late Middle Palaeolithic discovered at Scladina Cave (Andenne, Belgium). Journal of Archaeological Science. 55. 253-265.   Binford, Lewis R 1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. New York Academic Press. New York.   1980 Willow smoke and dogs’ tails: hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity. 45 (1): 4-20.   Binnema, Theodore, and Melanie Niemi 2006 ‘Let the line be drawn now’: wilderness, conservation, and the exclusion of aboriginal people from Banff National Park in Canada. Environmental History. 11 (4): 724-750.   Brink, Jack 1986 An introduction to the Archaeology of the Grande Cache region in the north Alberta Rocky Mountains. In Occasional Paper Series of the Archaeological Survey of Alberta No. 30. Alberta Culture. Pp. 161-246. Edmonton.  Brink, Jack, Dawe, Robert, J. and Susan Marshall 1987 Preliminary report on the 1986 field season at Head-Smashed-In Calderwood Buffalo Jumps. In Occasional Paper Series of the Archaeological Survey of Alberta No. 31. Alberta Culture. Pp. 44-78. Edmonton.  Bronk, Ramsey C. 2009 Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon. 51(1): 337-360.  Carter, Elizabeth A., Kelloway, Sarah J., Kononenko, Nina, and Robin Torrence 2012 Raman spectroscopic studies of obsidian. In Analytical Archaeometry: Selected Topics, edited by Howell Edwards and Peter Vandenabeele. The Royal Society of Chemistry. Pp. 323-350. London  Chatters, James C. 1995 Population growth, climatic cooling, and development of collector strategies on the southern plateau, western North America. Journal of World Prehistory. 9 (3): 341-400.   Clague, J. J., Evans, S. G., Rampton, V. N. and G. J. Woodsworth 1995 Improved age estimates for the White River and Bridge River tephras, western Canada. Canadian Journal of Earth Science. 32: 1172-1179.    46 Driver Jonathan C.  1982 Early prehistoric killing of bighorn sheep in the southeastern Canadian Rockies. Plains Anthropologist. 27 (98): 265-271.  Fedje, Daryl 1986 Banff archaeology 1983-1985. In Occasional Paper Series of the Archaeological Survey of Alberta No. 30. Alberta Culture. Pp. 25-62. Edmonton.  Fedje, Darryl W., White, James M, Wilson, Michael C., Nelson, D. Erle, Vogel, John S., and John R. Southon 1995 Vermilion Lakes Site: adaptations and environments in the Canadian Rockies during the latest Pleistocene and early Holocene. American Antiquity. 60 (1): 81-108.  Fenton, M.M., Waters, E.J., Pawley, S.M., Atkinson, N., Utting, D. J., and K. Mckay 2013 Surficial geology of Alberta, 1:1,000,000 scale (GIS data, polygon features). Alberta Geological Survey. http://ags.aer.ca/publications/DIG_2013_0002.html. accessed September 1st, 2017.   Hanks, Christopher C. and David L. Pokotylo 1989 The Mackenzie Basin: an alternative approach to Dene and Metis archaeology. Arctic. 42 (2): 139-147.   Harris, Lucille 2012 Heterarchy and hierarchy in the formation and dissolution of complex hunter-gatherer communities on the northern Plateau of Northwest North America, ca. 2000-300 BP. Phd dissertation. Department of Anthropology. University of Toronto. Toronto.  Hayden, Brian and W. Karl Hutchings 1989 Whither the billet flake. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by Daniel S. Amick and Raymond P. Mauldin. BAR International Series. 528: 235-257.   Higgs, Noni, Davis, Brenda, and Kate Connolly  1976 Archaeological salvage investigations Alberta Highways and Transportation construction projects Hwy 3. West of Coleman and Bellvue/Maple Leaf area. Lifeways of Canada Limited. Submitted to Alberta Culture, Permit No. 75-020. Copies Available from Heritage Resource Management Branch. Edmonton.  Hill, Tom and Trudy Nicks  1992 Task Force Report on Museums and First Peoples: Turning the Page, Forging new partnerships between museums and first peoples. Assembly of First Nations, Canadian Museums Association. Ottawa.   Kelloway, Sarah J., Kononenko, Nina, Torrence, Robin and Elizabeth A. Carter  47 2010 Assessing the viability of portable Raman spectroscopy for determining the geological source of obsidian. Vibrational Spectroscopy. 53 (1): 88-96.   Kelly, Robert L. 1992 Mobility/sedentism: concepts, archaeological measures, and effects. Annual Review of Anthropology. 21: 43-66.   Kendall, Heather, and Brandi Lee MacDonald 2015 Chert artifact-material correlation at Keatley Creek using geochemical techniques. In Toolstone Geography of the Pacific Northwest, edited by Terry L. Ozbun and Ron Adams. Pp. 49-61. Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University. Burnaby.   Kurjata, Andrew, and Jenifer Norwell.  2016 Simpcw First Nation marking the 100th anniversary of forced relocation. Online news article. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/simpcw-first-nation-anniversary-relocation-1.3717141. Accessed February 24th, 2018.   Laetsch, T, and T. R. Downs 2006 Softwear for identification and refinement of cell parameters from powder diffraction data of minerals using the RRUFF Project and American Mineralogist Crystal Structure Databases. Abstracts from the 19th General Meeting of the International Mineralogical Association. Kobe, Japan.   Landals, Alison 2008 The Lake Minnewanka site: patterns in late Pleistocene use of the Alberta Rocky Mountains. Phd Dissertation. Department of Archaeology. University of Calgary. Calgary.   MacEwan, Grant 1969 Tatanga Mani: walking Buffalo of the Stonies. M. G. Hurtig Ltd. Edmonton.   Meyer, Daniel A.  2005 Historic resources impact assessment Sunpine Forest Products Ltd. Sunpine FMA 2003 developments final report. Lifeways of Canada Limited. Submitted to Alberta Culture, Permit No. 03-135. Copies available from Heritage Resources Management Branch. Edmonton.  Mullineaux, Donald R., Hyde, Jack H., and Rubin Meyer  1975 Widespread late glacial and postglacial tephra deposits from Mt St Helens volcano, Washington. Journal of Research of the US Geological Survey. 3 (3): 329-335.   Nicholson, Bev, Pokotylo, David, and Ron Williamson 1996 Canadian Archaeological Association: Statement of Principles for the Ethical Conduct Pertaining to Aboriginal Peoples. Report by the Canadian Archaeological Association, Aboriginal Heritage Committee. Ottawa.  48  Peck, Trevor 2011 Light from ancient campfires: archaeological evidence for native lifeways on the northern plains. Athabasca University Press. Edmonton.   Pokotylo, David Leslie 1978 Lithic technology and settlement patterns in upper Hat Creek Valley, B.C. Phd dissertation. Department of Anthropology. University of British Columbia. Vancouver.  Pickard, Rod 1986 An archaeological assessment of the Patricia Lakes Site Jasper National Park. In Occasional Paper Series of the Archaeological Survey of Alberta No. 30. Alberta Culture. 99-132. Edmonton  Reasoner, Mel A. and Raymond E. Healy 1986 Identification and significance of tephras encountered in a core from Mary Lake, Yoho National Park, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Earth Science. 23: 1991-1999.  Rocky Mountain Nakoda 2017 Origins, http://www.rockymountainnakoda.com/origin. Accessed. February 24th, 2018.   Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 2018 Homepage, https://www.rmef.org. Accessed March 20th, 2018.   Ronaghan, Brian 1993 The James Pass project: early Holocene occupation in the front ranges of the Rocky Mountains. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 1: 85-91.   Rousseau, M. K 2008 Chipped stone bifaces as cultural, behavioral, and temporal indices on the central Canadian plateau. In Projectile point sequences in Northwestern North America, edited by Roy L. Carlson and Philip M. Hobler. Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University. Pp. 221-250. Burnaby.   Shackley M.S. 2008 Archaeological petrology and the archaeometry of lithic materials. Archaeometry. 50 (2): 194-215.   Schito, Andrea, Ramano, Claudia, Corrado, Sveva, Grigo, Domenico, and Brent Poe 2017 Diagenetic thermal evolution of organic matter by Raman spectroscopy. Organic Geochemistry. 106: 57-67.    49 Simpcw Nation  2015 Our Land, http://www.simpcw.com/our-land.htm. Accessed. February 24th, 2018.   Smith, Thayer, and Brian O.K. Reeves 1978 Archaeological investigations, Alberta Gas ethylene water intake area, Red Deer, Joffre, Alberta. Lifeways of Canada. Submitted to Alberta Culture, Permit No. 77-042. Copies available from Heritage Resources Management Branch. Edmonton.  ten Bruggencate, Rachel E., Milne, S. Brooke, Fayek, Mostafa, Park, Robert W., Stenton, Douglas R., and Anne C. Hamilton In Press Characterizing southern Baffin Island chert: a cautionary tale for provenance research. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports.   Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 2015 Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the final report of the truth and reconciliation commission of Canada. http://nctr.ca/reports.php. Library and Archives Canada. Winnipeg.    Weber, Bob 2018 Some Alberta ecosystems shrinking faster than Amazon. Online news article. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/some-alberta-ecosystems-shrinking-faster-than-amazon-1.4523821. Accessed March 6th, 2018.   Wesley, Barry  2018 Stoney places and names of the South Ram River. Manuscript on file, Stoney Tribal Administration, Nordegg, Alberta.     50 Appendices  Appendix A. Raman Results   Sample  Height P1 SD Center P2 SD  FWHM P2 SD FaPx-1: 1793 3.04407 0.973186 1330.502 3.92 199.1281 9.30 FaPx-1: 1800 2.160907 0.888444 1333.889 5.53 192.1494 9.45 FaPx-1:1621 2.641535 1.256629 1330.22 6.44 178.5362 5.10 FaPx-1: 1799 1.427951 0.647673 1340.129 5.74 188.7313 6.89 FaPx-1: 759 1.46797 0.519606 1332.037 3.01 190.9173 9.59 FaPx-1: 1071 1.942488 0.592215 1331.516 1.84 118.816 14.22 FaPx-1: 1092 1.801363 0.772039 1340.169 8.03 168.4399 3.07 FaPx-1: 767 1.841607 0.793381 1336.237 4.96 182.7564 7.80 FaPx-1: 1005 1.492531 0.54844 1336.258 3.98 192.9434 7.32 FaPx-1: 568 2.185284 0.910625 1338.541 3.22 188.1897 7.16 FaPx-1: 1124 1.34928 0.324413 1338.874 1.89 184.069 3.39 FaPx-1: 1791 3.691539 0.911349 1321.338 3.23 180.8495 8.30 FaPx-1: 1792 3.815211 0.920529 1320.086 2.04 179.3513 5.20 FaPx-1: 653c 3.857378 0.407455 1322.146 2.02 186.4525 3.76 FaPx-1: 1042 1.860323 0.598758 1325.236 3.34 205.6231 5.08 FaPx-1: 1045 1.706112 0.484802 1326.329 3.97 203.5149 7.55 FaPx-1: 1177 1.658643 0.743942 1326.495 4.07 209.6208 7.78 FaPx-1: 1585 3.421788 0.650224 1330.279 2.68 156.4598 4.11 FaPx-1: 1602 4.021233 0.28063 1329.194 2.45 172.0204 4.53 FaPx-1: 748 0.293374 0.30611 1164.637 0.37 12.81656 1.06 FaPx-1: 749 1.369037 0.457848 1336.756 3.14 189.8118 9.76 FaPx-1: 429  1.559096 0.289373 1327.306 0.98 195.5801 6.96 FaPx-1: 465 1.761709 0.656671 1328.732 2.35 198.9723 2.32 FaPx-1: 568 2.169278 0.642746 1326.034 1.81 194.7131 9.84 FaPx-1: 578 1.261383 0.193987 1333.299 1.96 199.4188 5.66 FaPx-1: 603 1.514327 0.389355 1333.377 4.65 184.4282 7.97 FaPx-1: 651 1.569285 0.225585 1334.417 2.93 201.2309 6.45 FaPx-1: 652 1.393326 0.584212 1334.587 11.85 190.5776 5.01 FaPx-1: 705 1.291988 0.464368 1328.449 3.44 187.8088 3.25 FaPx-1: 860 2.323595 0.796128 1336.029 4.62 180.9077 6.59 FaPx-1: 1062 1.565072 0.38152 1333.399 4.35 188.8426 7.04 FaPx-1: 1125 1.264204 0.355756 1331.752 4.43 194.8958 8.39 FaPx-1: 1126 1.704253 0.437904 1329.987 2.83 187.1893 9.36 FaPx-1: 1128 1.57449 0.212171 1329.898 1.51 200.1732 8.24 FaPx-1: 1801 2.331123 0.567057 1329.1 1.14 220.5306 3.81 Pineneedle Creek: I0638 3.847083 0.67 1330.309064 3.30 177.2936 6.18 Pineneedle Creek: I0639 3.407179 1.10 1327.877179 5.13 182.128 17.01 Pineneedle Creek: I0641 4.310301 0.27 1324.597558 3.26 176.3197 6.07 Pineneedle Creek: L0298_2 3.512949 1.01 1327.272437 6.74 187.2494 12.05  51 Pineneedle Creek: L0298 3.570696 0.72 1324.965334 2.41 194.5909 5.33 Pineneedle Creek: L0300_2 2.696195 0.80 1336.195 7.71 183.7309 11.14 Pineneedle Creek: L0304 2.725413 0.66 1332.877466 3.37 187.266 6.42 Pineneedle Creek: PNC1 3.346121 0.60 1329.193661 4.60 189.3988 5.64 Pineneedle Creek: PNC2 3.192828 1.17 1326.638748 6.71 198.0709 15.29 Pineneedle Creek: PNC3 3.733074 0.70 1324.916223 4.80 190.5927 4.32 Pineneedle Creek: I0641_p 3.523901 1.10 1328.051912 4.57 175.8916 9.32 Pineneedle Creek: L0301_2 2.75788 0.28 1333.405618 2.38 192.3218 3.31 Pineneedle Creek: L0306_2p 4.065728 0.51 1323.416203 2.64 188.0475 3.97 Pineneedle Creek: L0306 4.2414 0.58 1324.90159 2.88 190.9283 9.24 Pineneedle Creek: L306_2 3.247625 1.17 1319.638968 4.16 192.8153 8.21 South Ram: SRAM 11 2.704191 0.56 1331.474391 3.31 122.0638 22.32 South Ram: SRAM10 2.078376 1.22 1324.001359 48.65 135.3633 34.28 South Ram: SRAM 12 2.669942 1.23 1340.53313 6.55 132.6606 14.12 South Ram: SRAM 13 0.615692 0.29 1342.1778 4.17 130.5095 38.35 South Ram: SRAM1 1.89 0.79 1335.604017 4.24 123.1057 13.47 South Ram: SRAM3 3.003738 0.72 1329.85787 2.54 124.9272 5.92 South Ram: SRAM4 1.393204 0.70 1355.29175 1.28 164.7501 13.44 South Ram: SRAM5 2.235779 0.76 1342.916455 29.04 140.0122 21.63 South Ram: SRAM7 2.48837 0.98 1340.178889 3.20 123.6123 8.78 South Ram: SRAM8 1.233672 0.51 1361.104564 3.38 153.4115 16.26 South Ram: SRAM9 3.501357 0.62 1334.938051 3.29 105.8282 6.02 South Ram: SRAM2_p 2.120005 0.92 1342.808078 38.33 139.0532 79.84 South Ram: SRAM6 2.252167 0.48 1340.92355 1.38 133.5384 13.57 South Ram: SRAM9_p 3.830414 0.59 1335.402144 1.46 112.279 4.17     52 Appendix B. pXRF Results   Major Elements   Sample  CaCO3 %wt 1 SD SiO2 %wt 1 SD FaPx-1:1071 22.0955783 0.02013565 107.3088 0.201016 FaPx-1:1125 24.4672837 0.02110894 81.54989 0.105605 FaPx-1:1801 20.8118817 0.01590822 75.57823 0.148919 FaPx-1:653 0 0 103.7431 0.183307 FaPx-1:759 21.2400447 0.12270992 102.2863 0.59111 FaPx-1:860   84.39635 0.142777 FaPx-1:1792 22.2016128 0.01373127 104.9139 0.12522 FaPx-1:1800   99.98984 0.139819 FaPx-1:1793 24.8421636 0.02369467 97.48633 0.096628 FaPx-1:705 0 0 102.5018 0.604892 FaPx-1:651 0.908417 0.300419 102.1985 0.728051 FaPx-1:652 0 0.243901 107.5917 0.400415 FaPx-1:568 0.03075 0.014496 98.4401 0.621708 FaPx-1:1797 0 0.59788 110.7683 0.399959 FaPx-1:1799 26.5145231 0.03387996 88.48616 0.109219 FaPx-1:429 1.716167 0.464499 102.2682 0.214546 FaPx-1:1128 0.595583 0.465605 99.28627 0.087756 FaPx-1:767 2.004167 14.69944 104.5944 0.854503 Pineneedle Creek: I0638 55.5065735 0.08787459 91.37793 0.124539 Pineneedle Creek: I0639 53.4581264 0.09950978 79.51041 0.102196 Pineneedle Creek: I0641 48.7894381 0.97566764 71.92669 1.261719 Pineneedle Creek: L0298_2 76.2777602 0.16257163 51.18915 0.065752 Pineneedle Creek: L0298 66.0692822 0.10294089 50.88114 0.141433 Pineneedle Creek: L0300_2 75.9498084 0.13343161 66.05166 0.166936 Pineneedle Creek: L0304 71.9231421 0.11214427 57.59039 0.115395 Pineneedle Creek: PNC1 71.6014328 0.08183351 61.472 0.198509 Pineneedle Creek: PNC2 66.3236291 0.11175687 57.68332 0.14305 Pineneedle Creek: PNC3   42.35679 0.082894 Pineneedle Creek: I0641_p 48.0514824 0.07081 71.54996 0.084375 Pineneedle Creek: L0301_2 38.2872456 0.05277507 84.09609 0.176085 Pineneedle Creek: L0306_2p 50.436783 0.08802675 75.46722 0.294237 Pineneedle Creek: L0306 71.9823309 0.08984445 65.04261 0.041356 Pineneedle Creek: L306_2   75.46722 0.294237 South Ram: SRAM 11 78.6731696 0.09429845 34.12968 0.104321 South Ram: SRAM10 61.1834501 0.08990163 68.92727 0.120575 South Ram: SRAM 12 90.25233 24.15194 9.49186 0.303813 South Ram: SRAM 13 81.15858 2.589422 1.9074 0.130076 South Ram: SRAM1 87.7531038 0.14987058 38.59809 0.073077  53 South Ram: SRAM3 83.7967105 3.09404973 29.74407 2.103293 South Ram: SRAM4 79.0121591 0.16627997 30.54295 0.133294 South Ram: SRAM5 79.2791233 0.86764519 35.26605 0.396044 South Ram: SRAM7 73.5744612 0.12377842 39.18006 0.091913 South Ram: SRAM8 88.3235349 0.20019926 24.65585 0.097349 South Ram: SRAM9 89.4044878 1.61135706 26.04545 0.805193 South Ram: SRAM2_p - - 33.86197 0.050648 South Ram: SRAM6 79.2104981 0.12353724 33.69631 0.064071 South Ram: SRAM9_p 87.8473979 0.1321125 33.70703 0.096655  Trace Elements    Sample Rb ppm SD Sr ppm SD Zr ppm SD FaPx-1:1071  36.78497 0.599216 35.68913 0.85245 64.46149 0.386927 FaPx-1:1125  29.74609 0.363921 72.28747 1.473906 65.1327 0.490759 FaPx-1:1801  42.27749 0.203946 82.76602 1.739881 70.61122 0.431899 FaPx-1:653  4.666667 0.471405 77 0.816497 10.33333 0.471405 FaPx-1:759  36.99698 0.884748 106.3662 1.228037 49.22497 0.566948 FaPx-1:860  28.38462 1.27251 77.76036 0.631315 65.09212 0.927585 FaPx-1:1792 15.77772 0.481496 56.66612 0.721762 47.15695 0.308398 FaPx-1:1800 28.12525 0.437728 80.95836 1.391017 45.54222 0.280218 FaPx-1:1793 25.45119 0.644224 201.8598 0.581441 55.14104 0.943282 FaPx-1:705  24 0 30.33333 0.471405 36 0.816497 FaPx-1:651  20.33333 0.471405 86.66667 0.471405 37.33333 1.247219 FaPx-1:652  23.33333 0.471405 42 0.816497 35.66667 0.471405 FaPx-1:568  18.33333 0.942809 88.33333 16.1314 82.33333 1.247219 FaPx-1:1797 16.66667 0.471405 177 1.632993 28.33333 1.247219 FaPx-1:1799 25.54502 0.525281 94.76358 0.621978 67.80077 0.835594 FaPx-1:429  22 0 82 0.816497 37 1.414214 FaPx-1:1128  23.66667 0.471405 99.33333 1.699673 40.66667 0.942809 FaPx-1:767  19.66667 0.471405 99.33333 1.699673 38.66667 2.054805 Pineneedle Creek: I0638 15.55795 0.367736 130.6004 0.589628 44.85155 0.620251 Pineneedle Creek: I0638_2 13.67033 0.203816 73.98801 0.862349 41.16598 0.757217 Pineneedle Creek: I0639 16.37284 0.24924 136.1972 1.667367 44.98621 0.862848 Pineneedle Creek: I0641 3.333333 0.471405 185.6667 3.091206 9.666667 1.247219 Pineneedle Creek: L0298_2 13.33333 0.471405 373 0 18.66667 2.054805 Pineneedle Creek: L0298 26.03697 0.33942 207.7929 1.552225 53.78446 0.974407 Pineneedle Creek: L0300 16.74352 0.575959 312.6807 1.178273 49.33304 1.706127 Pineneedle Creek: L0300_2 17.01416 0.731386 296.7271 1.360858 49.44801 0.546978 Pineneedle Creek: L0301 14.45242 0.512827 75.82052 1.050779 45.40454 0.445062 Pineneedle Creek: L0304 26.01761 0.742979 183.6966 1.44962 53.08751 0.831489 Pineneedle Creek: PNC1 17 0.816497 342.3333 1.247219 20.33333 1.247219 Pineneedle Creek: PNC2 15 0.816497 318.6667 3.091206 17 1.414214  54 South Ram: SRAM 11 16.4447 0.054163 79.42674 1.522115 42.8917 0.830637 South Ram: SRAM10 14.09961 0.559097 30.79518 0.286917 40.02435 0.609871 South Ram: SRAM 12 14.7841 0.486984 92.39278 1.393856 40.88582 0.252917 South Ram: SRAM 13 3.666667 0.471405 207 29.97777 5.333333 1.885618 South Ram: SRAM1 20.29969 0.173965 120.2387 1.046954 53.24766 0.372956 South Ram: SRAM3 21.21777 0.803527 120.7122 1.229527 53.70391 0.599038 South Ram: SRAM4 21.30242 0.969555 119.9732 0.447248 53.63106 1.45005 South Ram: SRAM5 20.87685 0.315038 119.3821 0.644627 53.10803 0.913899 South Ram: SRAM7 19.87646 0.178707 139.5851 1.424776 47.31514 0.565957 South Ram: SRAM8 15.7467 0.242836 138.8859 1.494692 43.06831 0.278684 South Ram: SRAM9 18.73932 2.75245 206.1879 21.88145 44.29379 1.489819 South Ram: SRAM 14 14.49859 0.380537 173.4399 2.781641 42.41022 1.377111  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0365751/manifest

Comment

Related Items