UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The toolstone formerly known as green andesite : a geochemical characterization of fine-grained lithic… Thomas, Karen Rose 2019

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2020_may_thomas_karen_rose.pdf [ 6.59MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0387146.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0387146-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0387146-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0387146-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0387146-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0387146-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0387146-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0387146-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0387146.ris

Full Text

The Toolstone Formerly Known as Green Andesite: A Geochemical Characterization of Fine-Grained Lithic Materials from the Burrard Inlet Area, Vancouver, B.C. Canada  by  Karen Rose Thomas  B.A. (Hons), Simon Fraser University, 2017   A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Anthropology)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)  December 2019  © Karen Rose Thomas, 2019  ii  The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, a thesis/dissertation entitled:  The Toolstone Formerly Known as Green Andesite: A Geochemical Characterization of Fine Grained Lithic Materials from the Burrard Inlet Area, Vancouver, B.C. Canada   submitted by Karen Rose Thomas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts in Anthropology  Examining Committee: Susan Rowley Supervisor  Bruce Granville Miller Supervisory Committee Member  Andrew Martindale External Examiner   iii  Abstract  Archaeologists often attempt to identify rock type in the field and laboratory based on generalized visual characteristics. This approach has a great potential to produce incorrect categorizations that would detrimentally impact sourcing studies. This thesis research explores a green toolstone found in the archaeological assemblages of the Burrard Inlet region and surrounding area of North Vancouver, on the southern coast of British Columbia. Previously, this toolstone was called green andesite based solely on visual identification, and the designation has been reproduced in the literature and a handful of circular citations. The goal of this research was to use several geochemical methods, including wavelength dispersive X-ray fluorescence (WD-XRF) and portable energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence (ED-XRF), to answer the question “Is the toolstone known as green andesite actually andesite?” The secondary goal of this project was to compare the toolstone data to publicly available geologic data from the nearby Indian River watershed to see if any locations could be eliminated as geological origins for the toolstone.  The general conclusions of this research are that, based on major element concentrations, the material known as green andesite is not actually andesitic. However, if this research looked at trace element concentrations alone, green andesite dykes of the Indian River Valley could not be excluded. Taking time to establish rock type with standard geological and geochemical techniques before attempting to eliminate potential source affinities using only trace elements is an important step often overlooked in archaeological sourcing studies. The material formerly known as green andesite has been incorrectly labeled, and archaeological reports, collections, and catalogues have been reproducing this miscategorization. Through this research, I identified a possible rock type for the toolstone known as green andesite and using the provenience hypothesis (Wilson and Pollard 2001) I identified several geological contexts within the Indian River watershed that cannot be excluded as possible places of origin.  iv  Lay Summary  The goal of this research was to use several geological and geochemical methods to determine if the archaeological toolstone found in the Burrard Inlet region that researchers call green andesite is actually andesite. The secondary goal was to determine if this material comes from the green andesite dykes in the Indian River watershed from where the name originated. Based on major, minor and trace element composition, the toolstone is not andesitic, and it does not come from the green andesite dykes as previously assumed. This study highlights the reproduction of an incorrect label throughout scholarly literature and archaeological discourse. It showcases the need to verify rock type using appropriate techniques before undertaking sourcing studies. v  Preface This thesis is original, unpublished and the collaborative effort of multiple parties, led by the author, Karen Rose Thomas. Rhy McMillan was instrumental to the development of the research design and methods, and he contributed greatly to data interpretation and thesis edits. vi  Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................... iv Preface .............................................................................................................................................v Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. viii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... ix Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................x Dedication ..................................................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1: Introductions: To My Work, To Me, To My Ancestors .........................................1 1.1 Guiding Principles of this Thesis Research .................................................................... 5 Chapter 2: The Coast Salish Continuum .....................................................................................7 2.1 Ethnography .................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Present day Tsleil-Waututh People, Surface Collection and Stewardship ..................... 8 Chapter 3: The Mystery Material ..............................................................................................10 3.1 Existing Studies, Origin of the Label “Green Andesite” .............................................. 10 3.2 Description of the Material ........................................................................................... 13 Chapter 4: Research Context and Methods of Analysis ...........................................................17 4.1 Sampled Sites, Their Repositories and Community Assemblages ............................... 17 4.1.1 Whey-ah-Wichen, Cates Park DhRr-8 .................................................................. 17 4.1.2 Say-umiton, Strathcona Park (Cove Cliff) DhRr-18 ............................................. 19 4.1.3 Sleil-Waututh, DhRr-15 and DhRr-20, IR #3 Sites .............................................. 20 4.1.4 Lorelei Thomas Surface Collections ..................................................................... 20 4.1.5 Tsleil-Waututh Nation, Steve Carter Surface Collections .................................... 21 4.1.6 Deer Lake, DhRr-38, Louis Claude Hill Surface Collections .............................. 21 4.1.7 Chevron DhRr-230................................................................................................ 22 4.1.8 Collections Outside the Burrard Inlet Locality ..................................................... 22 4.2 Data Collection and Analysis Methods......................................................................... 23 4.2.1 Elemental Concentrations by Portable X-Ray Fluorescence (Non-Destructive) .. 23 4.2.2 Elemental Concentrations by Benchtop X-Ray Fluorescence (Destructive) ........ 24 vii  Chapter 5: Results and Discussion .............................................................................................26 5.1 Major, Minor and Trace Element Concentrations ........................................................ 26 5.1.1 Rock Type Classification ...................................................................................... 31 5.2 Implications for Object Provenance.............................................................................. 35 5.3 Challenges ..................................................................................................................... 41 Chapter 6: Conclusion .................................................................................................................43 6.1 Larger Implications for Archaeology and Future research directions .......................... 45 References .....................................................................................................................................47 Appendices ....................................................................................................................................52 Appendix A Study Objects ....................................................................................................... 52 Appendix B WD-XRF Results from ME-XRF Analysis (ALS Global Geochemical) ............ 60 Appendix C IRW Samples from Reddy (1989) ........................................................................ 61 Appendix D The Outlier, Krt-14 ............................................................................................... 62  viii  List of Tables Table 5.1. Major element oxide concentrations in weight percent of samples from IR#3 sites that underwent WD-XRF analysis. The number of reported digits represents the uncertainty for each measurement. ................................................................................................................................ 26 Table 5.2. Major, minor and trace elemental concentration data from study objects collected with pXRF. Concentrations are averages among triplicate analyses and reported uncertainties are external. Concentrations with a ‘<’ prefix are below the limit of detection and thus do not have associated uncertainties. Uncertainties calculated among multiple identical concentrations are also denoted with a ‘<’ prefix. ...................................................................................................... 27 Table 5.3 Major element oxides from Reddy (1989) samples used in this comparison. The number of reported digits represents the uncertainty for each measurement. .............................. 29 Table 5.4 Major, minor and trace elemental concentration data from Reddy (1989) for samples used in this analysis. 1Si = (SiO2/2.139), 2K = (K20/1.205), 3Ca = (CaO/1.399).......................... 30 Table 5.5 Summary of Volcanic Units Identified by Reddy and Samples Included in this Study........................................................................................................................................................ 32  ix  List of Figures Figure 1.1 Map showing the extent of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation Consultation Boundary in southwestern British Columbia. Map credit: Inlailawatash 2019. .................................................. 4 Figure 3.1 Object Krt-2, prior to submission for thin section preparation and WD-XRF analysis........................................................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 3.2 Thin section sample of Krt-2: a. Cross polarized light and b. Plane polarized light (Scale: Slide is 27x46 mm). .......................................................................................................... 15 Figure 3.3 Thin section details: a. cluster of plagioclase and quartz crystals b. Plagioclase crystal........................................................................................................................................................ 16 Figure 4.1 Map of Archaeological Sites Associated with Study Objects Investigated in this Thesis Research. Map Credit: Inlailawatash 2019. ....................................................................... 18 Figure 5.1 Total Alkali Silica Diagram for study objects that underwent WD-XRF analysis. .... 32 Figure 5.2 SiO2 (wt%) for all study objects, by associated Site, with external (i.e., among multiple analyses) uncertainty (2SD). ........................................................................................... 33 Figure 5.3 Total Alkali Silica Diagram for study objects that underwent WD-XRF analysis, plotted with Reddy’s (1989) IRW samples. Dark blue markers indicate study objects analyzed for this thesis research and other colours indicate data from Reddy (1989). ................................ 34 Figure 5.4 SiO2 (wt%) versus Ca (wt%) concentrations of study objects and geological samples from IRW. ..................................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 5.5 SiO2 (wt%) versus K (wt%) concentrations of study objects and geological samples from IRW. ..................................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 5.6 a. Trace element ratios of Zr/Rb versus Nb/Y of study objects and geological samples from the IRW. b. Trace element ratios of study objects and those geological samples which have not been excluded on the basis of major and minor elements. ..................................................... 38 Figure 5.7 a. Zr versus Rb of study objects and geological samples from the IRW. B. Zr versus Rb of study objects and those geological samples which have not been excluded on the basis of major and minor elements.. ........................................................................................................... 39 Figure 5.8 a. Nb versus Y of study objects and geological samples from the IRW b. Nb versus Y of study objects and those geological samples which have not been excluded on the basis of major and minor elements. ............................................................................................................ 40   x  Acknowledgements  I am grateful to the support and sponsorship of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, including the Treaty, Lands and Resources Department. Their willingness to see me succeed has propelled me forward. The entire community has supported my road to this moment and I love being claimed by you. I thank my family, and especially my husband – who followed me across the city into the great UBC unknown. My assorted parental units, who were never too concerned about what I chose to do, as long as I was happy, made this journey possible. I am indebted to my cousin Mitch for her wisdom, tough love, and guidance when I struggle to articulate the Xwélmexw feelings. I thank fabulous friends (notably Janna, Emily, Laura), for being fiercely intelligent women with whom I found a formidable alliance and plenty of healthy competition. Maintaining our friendship is worthy and I am grateful for you. My UBC cohort was also lovely, cheering on my adventures in parenthood and welcoming my offspring in our classes.  I am indebted to my supervisor, Dr. Susan Rowley, for knowing what I need and when I need it, often before I even knew myself. I appreciate Dr. Bruce Granville Miller, my committee member, for his incredible breadth of knowledge, and for the wisdom he has earned in his work for and with many communities. Sanya Pleshakov and team at Burnaby Village Museum also deserve recognition for facilitating my relationship with their archaeological collection. I appreciate the petrographic expertise of Dr. Jamie Cutts (UBC EOAS), for assistance interpreting the petrography. Finally, I thank UBC’s Indigenous/Science Research Cluster for introducing me to possibly the greatest geology mentor that I could have sought, Rhy McMillan. And finally, I thank Rhy for his energy and passion, for his patience when my “aha!” moments were slow to arrive, and for his commitment to improving the way that archaeologists use geology: the data are “rock solid”. xi  Dedication This is dedicated to the Ancestors. For holding me up. For standing behind me. For your resistance and resilience.  To Fox Alder Thomas Stenner and Phaedra Jane Mae Thomas, Tomorrow’s Ancestors. May you grow to understand more than I did. I hope you will feel comfortable in these academic institutions because you belong here too, if it is where you want to be. May you look back on these times and remember that I didn’t quit, even when it was hard.  For Eileen, everyone’s archaeology auntie. I miss your laughter.  1  Chapter 1: Introductions: To My Work, To Me, To My Ancestors In this thesis research, I examine a type of toolstone that features heavily in archaeological assemblages located in the Burrard Inlet area of North Vancouver, British Columbia. More broadly speaking, Burrard Inlet is within the Gulf of Georgia region on the Northwest Coast of Canada (see Figure 1.1). In particular, I explore the nature of this toolstone that is relatively undiscussed in archaeological literature. It was classified as green andesite based on visual characteristics in the early 2000s, and it has also been referred to as Anvil Island andesite (Lepofsky and Karpiak 2001).   Using several geochemical and spectroscopic methods, I characterize the toolstone and compare the concentrations of major, minor, and trace elements to known geological contexts in the neighbouring Indian River watershed. I will use Indian River watershed to broadly describe the Indian Arm, Indian River Valley, and areas of adjacent Stawamus River Valley, as they share a ridge line in common. I selected the archaeological objects included in the study based on visual assessment, given my familiarity with the material known as green andesite. My goal was to determine if the material known as “green andesite” as identified visually is actually andesite. Through the course of this research, I identified a possible rock type for this toolstone and identified several geological contexts within the Indian River watershed that cannot be excluded as possible places of origin within the theoretical framework of the Provenance Hypothesis (Wilson and Pollard, 2001). The Provenance Hypothesis postulates that “provenancing proceeds by systematic elimination of possible sources rather than by positive attribution” (Wilson and Pollard 2001:510). This framework suggests that it is impossible to identify with certainty the exact source of a material, that one can only exclude possible sources. In this vein, it is much more relevant to exclude potential sources through systematic elimination until only one remains 2  that cannot be rejected. To do this, Wilson and Pollard (2001:510) suggest that simpler bivariate plots coupled with some geologic understanding are more valuable than complex multivariate statistical analysis to determine similarity and difference between samples.  As an Indigenous archaeologist practicing archaeology within the asserted and unceded territories of Tsleil-Waututh Nation, where I am from, I consider myself a steward of our cultural heritage resources. Like other Indigenous archaeologists (see Lippert 2006:437), I have a genetic relationship to the creators of archaeological materials from the region that few other archaeologists can claim. While working in the territory, the acknowledgement and use of traditional place names is important because they provide a link between people and the landscape (Basso 1996; Bierwert 1999; McHalsie 2001). Throughout this text, I utilize place names for archaeological sites where possible, also offering the common name and Borden number (used to identify registered archaeological sites) when available.  My name is Karen Rose Thomas and I come from Tsleil-Waututh Nation, one of many that make up the Coast Salish language family and cultural region. While I do acknowledge my lineages to other nations that my Ancestors have come from, I identify as Tsleil-Waututh both as the community and Nation I was raised in, and also because they claim me. My mother is Lorelei Maureen Thomas. My maternal grandparents were Margaret Thomas (née Charles) of Semiahmoo and Charles Thomas of Tsleil-Waututh. Margaret’s parents were Maimie Charles (née Wilcox, of Stó:lō Nation) and Bernard Charles of Semiahmoo. Charles’ parents were Hazel Thomas (née Nahanee) of Squamish Nation and Frank Thomas from Tsleil-Waututh.  All of these Nations are a part of the central Coast Salish culture area, as defined by anthropologists and archaeologists, but the Indigenous worldview of many nations in this area sees ourselves as Xwélmexw. Several definitions of Xwélmexw exist; my favorite definition 3  interprets the méxw syllable as “to do with like the dirt,” emphasizing the connection to the dirt, read literally as people of the land (McHalsie 2007). I come from a long line of Xwélmexw people. My positionality highlights the connection between past, present and future Xwélmexw generations. I see archaeology as a tool to facilitate this connection. The purpose of asserting my family lineage is to situate myself within my community, and also within the greater Coast Salish continuum.   4   Figure 1.1 Map showing the extent of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation Consultation Boundary in southwestern British Columbia. Map credit: Inlailawatash 2019.  5  1.1 Guiding Principles of this Thesis Research Several guiding principles motivate my work. These include: 1) Archaeology as a site of knowledge production inevitably produces an accumulation of things. Once excavated, they are (sometimes) analyzed, then cleaned and sent to their repositories to be stored for perpetuity. The lack of space for an increasing volume of things was acknowledged in archaeology as early as the 1970s (Ford 1977). Known as the “curatorial crisis,” it remains unresolved today, nearly 40 years later. This crisis is especially problematic because these are Indigenous ancestral objects and their spirits are locked in the silence of institutions. These objects deserve to be listened to and spoken with (Morin, P. 2014). I strive to use previously excavated assemblages and facilitate relationships between descent communities and their cultural heritage.  2) We are all unfairly affected by colonial compartmentalization (Christie-Peters 2017; Morin, P. 2014). I see this in many facets of my own life, and I seek to soften borders between such things. In response to this principle, I seek to insert my voice into this thesis, as an affront to generations of authoritative third person archaeological reports.  3) The academy needs more disrupters. Following the above point, I see a need to challenge the discourses that have until recently been unquestioned throughout the history of archaeology and anthropology in Indigenous North America. This is a unifying principle of the research questions I ask. Whether small or large disruptions, they chip away at the settler-colonial monopoly within anthropological conversations.  6  4) Incorporating theories of decolonizing and Indigenous research methodologies (Smith 2012, Kovach 2009, others), I seek to ask and answer community-based questions, as an Indigenous researcher conducting Indigenous research. 5) Tsleil-Waututh traditional law asserts that we are stewards of the land and water. I see this stewardship as an inherited obligation—one that fully includes cultural heritage, and I believe that archaeological objects and data offer a direct connection to the Ancestors. Centering Tsleil-Waututh knowledge of and relationships to the past through this work is one of the unifying goals.  It seems natural and fitting to me to conduct research within the Coast Salish continuum, focused within what is considered to be the core territory of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation on the shores of Burrard Inlet. Having previously undertaken research with community collectors and their assemblages of surface finds (Thomas 2016), as well as having followed my mother around the beach since I was a very small child, I know much about the range of materials and artifact types that can be found in our Inlet. The significant abundance of this toolstone referred to as green andesite in the literature is obvious. That discussions regarding appropriate identification of its material type and geologic origin are missing in the region are problematic.  While the implications for the reproduction of an incorrect title for this toolstone material seem minimal, I must emphasise why I believe it is problematic. I think it speaks to a larger problem whereby settler-colonial archaeology is willing to accept its own conclusions and narratives without substantial proof. While Indigenous epistemology in archaeology is heavily scrutinized and much energy is expended to challenge Indigenous knowledge systems and their ties to the land (i.e. McGhee 2008), perceivably small things like this toolstone label are accepted and reproduced without challenge. I am here to challenge. 7  Chapter 2: The Coast Salish Continuum  Some Xwélmexw people find the concept of ‘Coast Salish’ problematic, because it is an anthropological concept, a culture group ‘bucket’ that our people were dumped into. We do not always consider ourselves to be Coast Salish. I use the term because I study anthropology and this is a term that anthropologists use to describe Xwélmexw people, culture and lifeways. When I conceptualize Coast Salish lands, cultures, and territories, I do not think of a rigid shape with sharp borders and edges. I imagine it as a continuum.  2.1 Ethnography  The Coast Salish continuum is vast and complex; it is modeled by some to be groups of autonomous heterarchies relating to each other (Bierwart 1999:18,203; Barnett 1955:241; Angelbeck and Grier 2012; Angelbeck and McLay 2011). These relationships are created and reinforced via intermarriage, kinship, language, trade, commerce, ceremonies, and stories (Barnett 1955; Suttles 1958, 1960, 1990; Kennedy and Bouchard 1987; Angelbeck and McLay 2011). I see my own Xwélmexw lineage as evidence of this. Archaeologists and anthropologists find it convenient to conceptualize the continuum as an “interaction sphere” (i.e., Lepofsky, Trost and Morin 2007). I like the idea of a continuum, because it could be a colonial conceptualization of a Xwélmexw idea. For this reason, I embrace it in my thoughts and work. The Coast Salish continuum spans from past, to present, and into the future. It is non-linear. It is alive and vibrant today.  Does this idea of decentralized societies of egalitarian heterarchies contradict the current and present idea of distinct local Nations and their territories? Or does this idea re-enforce it? Many individual ethnic divisions of Coast Salish peoples, both ancestral and present day, 8  associate themselves with watersheds or specific river systems (Collins 1980; Carlson 2010, Morin et al. 2018, Ritchie 2010). Even with these watershed affiliations, the various groups of Coast Salish peoples exist together, honour family relationships and recognize ambilateral descent systems. As ethnographer Hill-Tout said of Coast Salish peoples: “Their cousinships are endless and even perplexing to themselves” (1978:33). An expression of continuity, still today families hold rights to economic resources that are inherited or acquired through marriage and the access to resources required for subsistence is gained through kinship relationships.  Tsleil-Waututh Nation asserts the Burrard Inlet, Indian Arm, Port Moody Arm and Indian River watershed amongst our core territory, and we claim and honour a special relationship with the Inlet and the Indian River watershed. Archaeologically and ethnographically, there are multiple lines of evidence used to support this assertion of a distinct ancestral Tsleil-Waututh ethnicity in Burrard Inlet (Lepofsky et al. 2007; Morin 2014, 2015). One of several attributes that Morin notes when asserting a distinct population occupied Burrard Inlet and Indian Arm is the presence of a high frequency of “green andesite” artifacts at Burrard Inlet sites (2016:177).  2.2 Present day Tsleil-Waututh People, Surface Collection and Stewardship  “Tsleil-Waututh Nation has a sacred, legal obligation to protect, defend, and steward the water, land, air, and resources in their territory. Tsleil-Waututh Nation’s stewardship obligation includes the responsibility to maintain or restore conditions that provide the environmental, cultural, spiritual, and economic foundation for the community to thrive.” (Tsleil-Waututh Nation 2009). The broad area that Tsleil-Waututh considers within our realm of stewardship obligation based on traditional use and occupancy can be seen above in Figure 1.1.  9   The Tsleil-Waututh population was decimated by contact and colonial policy. However, we work hard to establish and maintain our presence on the land. Co-management is one example of Tsleil-Waututh exercising our stewardship obligations. Within our territory we maintain agreements with municipal and provincial governments to co-manage parklands that exist on the land where ancient villages once stood. The co-management of parks allows for Tsleil-Waututh influence over development and planning. In this way, our ideas influence policy, process and procedures allowing for a level of control over parcels of our territory that would not otherwise be possible. Say Nuth Khaw Yum Provincial Park, located in the Indian River watershed and Whey-ah-Wichen (Cates Park), on the north shore of Burrard Inlet both include archaeological sites that establish use and occupation by ancestral Tsleil-Waututh. These parks are significant to this project because my research suggests that the geological context for this toolstone is likely in the Indian River watershed, possibly within Say Nuth Khaw Yum itself, and because this material features in the assemblage at Whey-ah-Wichen.  In my undergraduate honours thesis (Thomas 2016), I made the argument that, in the case of Tsleil-Waututh and Burrard Inlet, descent community surface collection behaviours are an example of stewardship. I highlighted archaeology’s prioritization of data associated with systematically excavated artifacts over real human interactions with and relationships to objects. In archaeological circles, surface collecting behaviours are seen as problematic, lumped in with nefarious looting behaviors (Thomas 2016; Hart and Chilton 2014:319). Community surface collectors are never compared to the avocational archaeologist. Some archaeologists have more recently begun to address it (ie. Schaepe et al. 2017), but historically there has been no space in academic conversations for the idea of Indigenous descent communities connecting with their Ancestors through objects.10  Chapter 3: The Mystery Material Archaeologists regularly make a visual assessment and identification of stone type in the field and laboratory based on generalized characteristics of common toolstone types. This type of assessment can be efficient when the assessor is experienced and knowledgeable about toolstone materials specific to an area. However, visual assessment can produce incorrect categorizations, especially when a material is never verified by geochemical analysis, as many rock type categories (e.g., andesite) are based on chemical and mineralogical, not visual, characteristics. It must be noted that there possibly exists a certain amount of heterogeneity, both within material type (i.e. objects of a visually similar material type may be geochemically variable) and also within geological source (i.e. geochemically similar materials from the same place may look different). This makes most visual assessments risky.   3.1 Existing Studies, Origin of the Label “Green Andesite” The toolstone I have chosen to focus on is one such example. At some point in archaeological discourses of Burrard Inlet and Indian Arm, this raw material was labelled “green andesite,” likely based on a description of green andesite dykes in a 30-year-old geology MSc thesis (Reddy 1989). The designation has been reproduced in the region’s literature and in archaeological databases over and over again, and yet the material itself remains largely ignored. Reddy’s 1989 MSc thesis in geology provides a broad overview of the geology of the Indian River area in Southwestern British Columbia. Reddy’s work focusses on the eastern portion of the Britannia - Indian River pendant within the Coast Plutonic Complex, which he describes as a metamorphosed assemblage of marine pyroclastics, flows and sedimentary units (1989). His work looks at the major and trace element compositions, structure, geochronology 11  and mineralization of the seven north to northwest trending strips of the eastern side of the Britannia Indian River pendant (1989:48). Reddy collected 31 samples and 10 duplicates to classify them geochemically, explore alterations and compare the volcanic suite to established trends. The thesis defined the green andesite dykes which influenced the label of green andesite for this material found in the archaeological deposits of the Burrard Inlet area.  This toolstone was mentioned most recently in a paper (Toffolo et al. 2019) on a 1300-year-old Coast Salish rock shelter. During an overview of the Indian River watershed, where this rock shelter (DjRr-4) is situated, they discuss “a green andesite that occurs at archaeological sites in Burrard Inlet” (p.648) and mention cobbles of a similar material seen in the gravel bars of the Indian River. This is where I first learned of the connection to Reddy’s 1989 MSc thesis, as they cite his description of basalt and andesite dykes which crisscross the Indian River Valley. They also note that the location of these dykes is not recorded (2019:648); however, Reddy’s thesis (1989:121) does include the latitude and longitude for at least one of these andesite dykes.   Before this, Morin (2016) conducted a Burrard Inlet projectile point pilot study and observed trends in variability, including concentrations of a toolstone he identified as “green andesite” in several of the Burrard Inlet sites. He also noted that there was an east to west trend across the Inlet in both toolstone materials and formed tool type. Given the small-scale nature of a pilot study, it would be useful to expand the scope of this study to include more assemblages.  In his PhD dissertation, Reimer (2012) explored the lithic resources and landscapes of Skwxwú7mesh Úxwumixw (Squamish Nation) territories. Utilizing portable X-ray Fluorescence (pXRF) analysis, Reimer compared archaeological assemblages to known toolstone quarries and interpreted the results with his knowledge of Skwxwú7mesh Úxwumixw worldview. One of the lithic quarries he characterized was Lhaxwm (Anvil Island) which is the source of the toolstone 12  known as Lhaxwm Smant (Anvil Island andesite) (Reimer 2012:85). While Reimer included objects from Say-umiton (n=3) and Tsleil-Waututh Indian Reserve #3 (IR#3)(n=3) in his dissertation work, he does not investigate concentrations of major (e.g., Si) and minor (e.g., K, Na) elements useful for identifying material (rock) type (e.g., andesite, dacite, rhyolite). In addition, it is unclear whether the material type of the objects thought to be made of Lhaxwm Smant found at Say-umiton and IR#3 sites were geochemically verified or only visually assessed. Finally, the lack of Si concentrations in Reimer’s results prevent me from incorporating the data in my own research.  The toolstone at Say-umiton which Reimer calls Lhaxwm Smant, other researchers have called green andesite (see Lepofsky et al. 2007, and the summary below). Because of the inability of researchers to identify material (rock) type visually in cryptocrystalline fine-grained materials (especially from a weathered surface), this method of analysis involving visual assessment and investigations of trace element concentrations is problematic, as my results below will support.  Lepofsky and others (2007) compare three sites in the Inlet locality: Whey-ah-Wichen (Cates Park), Say-umiton (Strathcona Park) and Tum-tu-mey-Whueton (Belcarra Park). They note that the Say-umiton assemblage is heavily dominated by a green andesite material similar in appearance to the “green ‘Anvil island’ type” (Lepofsky et al. 2007:209). Based on the predominance of local lithic and faunal resources observed in this study, Lepofsky and others (2007:215) concluded that the people who occupied the Inlet locality in the past comprised a smaller regional social network nested within and linked to the broader Coast-Salish socio-economic networks. This conclusion speaks to the idea that the ancestral Tsleil-Waututh peoples 13  maintained their own smaller social network nested within and linked to the rest of the Coast Salish continuum.   Lepofsky and Karpiak (2001) documented the results of SFU’s 2000 Field School at Say-umiton and their archaeological investigations at IR #3. Initially, they made reference to a green andesite found throughout the course of their research. Part way through the report, they named the green andesite material as “Anvil Island andesite” (2001:54), even though this has never been geochemically or petrographically confirmed. They noted that the green andesite/Anvil Island Andesite material is common at IR #3 sites and Say-umiton, as well as the sites in the surrounding locality.  I contacted Doug Reddy whose 1989 geology thesis is where the green andesite label originated. I wanted to let him know that archaeologists in the region were using his thesis and ask for his thoughts about this material type. He replied very promptly and enthusiastically to my request for information, suggesting I look to the major and minor trace element data in his thesis. When I sent photos of the toolstone, his reply was “I would not have called those specimens “andesite”. Too much silica,” (Reddy personal communication, 2019). Thanks to our correspondence, I had some leads to explore when I undertook the analysis searching for a geological origin for this green toolstone.  3.2 Description of the Material The toolstone material of interest is currently underrepresented in the literature. The toolstone varies in colour from a vibrant green to a subdued brown and there are many distinctive white crystals, called phenocrysts, in some specimens. The texture is waxy, not unlike a chert, and there is occasional banding or patina (Figure 3.1).  14   Figure 3.1 Object Krt-2, prior to submission for thin section preparation and WD-XRF analysis. (Scale is 1 mm2 for fine grid and 1cm2 for coarse grid).  To begin analysis, study object Krt-1 from Whey-ah-Wichen, was selected for exploratory Raman spectroscopic investigations (see McMillan et al., 2019 for method and instrumental set-up). This showed that the small white phenocrysts in Krt-1 are a plagioclase/oligoclase and that the green groundmass material produces both quartz and carbonaceous material spectra. No mineral grains or any other indicators of rock type were visible with 100x magnification.  A thin section of study object Krt-2 was analyzed with a cross-polarizing microscope and the results showed layering of mineral grains with various degrees of maturity and sorting, as well as possible fiamme structures (glass shards) and imbrication textures. These characteristics suggest that it is most likely of pyroclastic or sedimentary origin, and the presence of fiamme structures and imbrication textures are indicative of an ash-flow tuff (Ross and Smith 1961). 15  Figure 3.2 shows an overview of the thin section of object Krt-2, first in cross polarized light (a), and next in plane polarized light (b). Further analysis of the thin section under high magnification confirmed the presence of plagioclase and quartz crystals as identified by Raman spectroscopy (Figure 3.3). a.  b.  Figure 3.2 Thin section sample of Krt-2: a. Cross polarized light and b. Plane polarized light (Scale: Slide is 27x46 mm). 16   a.  b.  Figure 3.3 Thin section details: a. cluster of plagioclase and quartz crystals b. Plagioclase crystal. 17  Chapter 4: Research Context and Methods of Analysis Here, I will detail my research context. Because this material is mostly overlooked in the literature of the greater Gulf of Georgia region, it seemed that its usage and distribution was isolated to the eastern Burrard Inlet area. However, research into collections shows that there are materials from other locations that visually appear to be a similar stone type. Several of these pieces were included in the study. After I briefly describe the sampled collections and existing studies, I will outline my object selection criteria and methods of analysis.  4.1  Sampled Sites, Their Repositories and Community Assemblages Most of the sites chosen for inclusion in this study are located in Burrard Inlet. This is because of Tsleil-Waututh ties to the lands and waters and my own familiarity with the materials of the Inlet. Prior to undertaking this research project, this toolstone was observed to be heavily favoured by ancient inhabitants of the Burrard Inlet locality—enough to permit distinguishing these assemblages from those located elsewhere in the Gulf of Georgia and Lower Fraser River locales (Morin 2015:117). The sites where study objects were found can be seen in Figure 4.1.  4.1.1 Whey-ah-Wichen, Cates Park DhRr-8 Tsleil-Waututh oral history recounts that Whey-ah-Wichen was a village with a fortified palisade and had been the location of several battles. Whey-ah-Wichen is strategic for its sightlines, Chief Dan George has said that Whey-ah-Wichen means “looks both ways” (BC Archaeological Site Inventory Form for DhRr-8, 1972). Indeed, there is a small peninsula that faces the wind in both directions, where one could conceivably look east up the Inlet and also west towards Second Narrows.  18   Figure 4.1 Map of Archaeological Sites Associated with Study Objects Investigated in this Thesis Research. Map Credit: Inlailawatash 2019. 19   The Whey-ah-Wichen site underwent archaeological investigation by Arthur Charlton in 1972. Charlton (1974:7) used auger tests to assess the depth of archaeological deposits that ranged from 10 to 60 cm. He concluded that DhRr-8 was a temporary resource processing camp because of the shallowness of the deposits and lack of obvious house features (Charlton 1974:9). However, DhRr-8 is argued by Morin (2015:205) to better fit the category of a village, based on the fact that there are deeper stratified deposits and an obvious house floor 40 m east of Charlton’s excavations. Similar to the IR#3 sites discussed below, DhRr-8 is also subject to tidal erosion in some areas and as a result there are occasionally outwashed archaeological materials. In 2014, the District of North Vancouver undertook shoreline remediation at Whey-ah-Wichen to slow the erosional effect of the winds and tides (Morin 2013; Shepard 2014).  4.1.2 Say-umiton, Strathcona Park (Cove Cliff) DhRr-18 The Say-umiton site is located in a small park nestled in a residential neighborhood of Deep Cove. Tsleil-Waututh knowledge documents the name Say-umiton to mean “the place of good water” (Lepofsky et al. 2007:196). The site was first documented in 1972 by archaeologists Don Abbot and Stephen Carter, although some undocumented excavations are known to have taken place in the 1960s (Lepofsky and Karpiak 2001:18).   In 2001 the Say-umiton site was excavated by a Simon Fraser University (SFU) Archaeological Field School taught by Professor Dana Lepofsky, as part of a community archaeology project undertaken in partnership with the Tsleil-Waututh Nation. In the course of their project, they conducted an intensive intertidal survey and collection of archaeological materials. Morin’s study of the Say-umiton materials concluded that the flaked stone assemblage consisted of 47.5% green andesite objects, both formed tools and debitage (2015:116). 20  4.1.3 Sleil-Waututh, DhRr-15 and DhRr-20, IR #3 Sites Two documented sites, DhRr-15 and DhRr-20, are adjacent to each other on the Tsleil-Waututh Nation Indian Reserve (IR #3), known in contemporary times as Sleil-Waututh village, named after the people who live there (Morin 2015:199). Throughout this thesis, I will refer to them collectively as the IR #3 sites. While these sites have never undergone systematic archaeological excavation, they have been explored through auger testing (Ritchie 2014) and surface collection. Morin notes that as a result of foreshore erosion, “thousands of artifacts and fire-cracked rock blanket the intertidal areas” (2015:198).  Lithics have been observed on the shore between these sites, and Morin (2015) has argued that they be considered as one large site, however the heaviest concentrations of archaeological materials were found in close proximity to the sites themselves (Lepofsky and Karpiak 2001:72). These are the outwash scatters that are collected and stewarded by community members of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation. Community members’ surface collections are where I first encountered and observed the toolstone referred to as green andesite.  4.1.4 Lorelei Thomas Surface Collections Lorelei Thomas is my mother. She has been exploring the Inlet and collecting ancestral objects from the shores for as long as I can remember. She was featured in my undergraduate research (Thomas 2016), where I explored community collecting behaviours through interviews and conversations and concluded that surface collection was an act of stewardship. In recent discussion, she mentioned that it had been many years since she had found anything off reserve, but it does not stop her from looking. She curates her collections in many different ways, 21  including some portable storage containers that allow her to travel and share the objects and their connections to our Ancestors with other community members and anyone interested.  While most community collectors focus on whole, complete objects, Lorelei collects all the materials she finds. She has an extensive collection of debitage—the waste products of stone tool manufacture. Because her searching and collecting activities are generally limited to the IR #3 sites, all of her small or large pieces of debitage are curated together with broken tools and placed into various buckets at her home, on her deck or in her yard. In her collection, I identified more than 200 objects made of the green material including debitage, broken pieces and complete tools. She allowed me to use this collection to explore the variation in this toolstone.  4.1.5 Tsleil-Waututh Nation, Steve Carter Surface Collections The Treaty, Lands and Resources department at Tsleil-Waututh Nation has a small collection of archaeological objects donated by avocational archaeologist, surface collector and friend of the late Chief Leonard George, Stephen Carter. This collection is composed of many stone tools, meticulously documented, from sites in the Burrard Inlet and Indian Arm locality. From the Carter collection, I included 9 projectile points, 2 of which were heavily patinated. These objects all originated from the Say-umiton site. I did not observe any objects made of the green toolstone material from other sites within the Carter Collection.  4.1.6 Deer Lake, DhRr-38, Louis Claude Hill Surface Collections In conversation with a colleague, I learned that the Burnaby Village Museum has one or more objects made of a similar material. Burnaby Village Museum’s archaeological collection consists of surface collected artifacts donated by the descendants of Louis Claude Hill. One of 22  Burnaby’s earliest settlers, Hill, participated in the British land grab of the 1890s (Braches 2016:61). Hill’s parcel of unceded territory was located at Douglas Road and Sperling Avenue, and included what is now the present day home of the Burnaby Village Museum. In 1894, Hill discovered archaeological deposits on his strawberry farm and recovered many artifacts. In 2002, his descendants donated his collection to the Burnaby Village Museum (www.HeritageBurnaby.ca). I identified one piece which was visually similar to the green toolstone (BV002.57.13) to include in this research.  4.1.7 Chevron DhRr-230 This site is located on the South Shore of Burrard Inlet, in front of the Chevron Refinery, almost exactly across from the previous Tsleil-Waututh village and present day Tsleil-Waututh reserve at IR #3. It is a small lithic scatter, which indicates that it was likely a short term camp for resource harvesting for the ancient inhabitants of the area (Morin 2015:240). Not much else about this site is known. Based on visual similarities, one object from the University of British Columbia’s Laboratory of Archaeology (LOA) collection was included in the study (DhRr-230:4).  4.1.8 Collections Outside the Burrard Inlet Locality Online assemblages found in the Reciprocal Research Network (www.rrncommunity.org) revealed several objects that looked similar to the toolstone called green andesite. One problem encountered when exploring online assemblages was the inconsistency in material identification labels. For example, within the LOA catalogue, objects of interest were labeled as green chert, green andesite, Anvil Island andesite and even unknown. 23   It was surprising to discover objects looking similar to the green andesite within assemblages from outside the Burrard Inlet locality. I had planned to focus on the eastern Burrard Inlet area. However, the idea that the material had a larger distribution on the landscape of the region was too interesting to ignore. Because of the small number of objects from these other sites (n=7), they are only briefly listed here: Locarno Beach DhRt-6, c̓əsnaʔəm / Marpole DhRs-1, Stselax / Musqueam East DhRt-2 and Musqueam North East DhRt-4. More details on all study objects can be found in Appendix A.  4.2 Data Collection and Analysis Methods In total, fifty-one objects were analyzed for elemental concentrations using X-Ray fluorescence spectroscopy. They were selected based primarily on visual criteria as both the colour and texture of the material are very distinctive. Of the analyzed objects, forty-one were surface collected and ten were systematically excavated. X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy is a non-destructive method of analysis commonly used for rocks, minerals and sediments. It works under the premise of scattering and absorption, whereby when struck by the primary x-rays, some are absorbed and some secondary x-rays are scattered in a characteristic way, which can be interpreted to determine the types of atoms present (Pollard and Heron 2008). The XRF analysis methods used in this analysis are described in more detail below, and the findings are discussed in the next chapter.  4.2.1 Elemental Concentrations by Portable X-Ray Fluorescence (Non-Destructive) Elemental concentrations were collected with an Olympus Vanta C-Series Portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF). The instrument was rented from REFLEX Instrument North America 24  Limited. Analyses were carried out using the ‘GeoChem-extra’ mode with factory settings and “Fundamental Parameters” calibration. No user factors were applied to the results. ‘GeoChem-extra’ mode varies the current and voltage of the 4-W X-ray tube (with a Rh anode) in combination with two built-in beam filters to improve the fluorescence of both lighter and heavier elements within a single analytical run. Spectra were collected from each object for 60 seconds per analysis (30 seconds on each beam). Objects were each analyzed three times to ensure reproducibility and to evaluate intra-sample heterogeneity. Instrument drift was monitored for potential correction by bracketing samples with the NIST 2711a Montana Road Dust reference material (Mackey et al. 2010). No drift was observed during any analytical sessions and the major, minor, and trace element compositions of NIST 2711a were consistently within 15% of expected concentrations.  4.2.2 Elemental Concentrations by Benchtop X-Ray Fluorescence (Destructive) With her explicit permission, three pieces of unmodified debitage from the surface collection belonging to Lorelei Thomas were selected from the first 20 samples of IR #3 surface collected debitage for destructive analysis. Based on their silicon concentrations (as determined with pXRF), one from each of the lowest, middle and highest range of silicon concentrations were chosen. These three objects were identified for destructive WD-XRF, and one of these three was selected for the creation of a thin-section (described in section 3.2, above). They were subsampled at the Pacific Centre for Isotopic and Geochemical Research (PCIGR) and only fresh rock chips without weathered surfaces or surface contamination/discolouration were selected for analysis. 25  After this initial preparation, these three samples were submitted to ALS Global Geochemical Laboratory on June 19th 2019 for ME-XRF26 routine, a destructive method of whole rock analysis. Samples were crushed and pulverized using the CRU-32 and PUL-31 sample preparation packages. Following fusion of each sample into a disk, WD-XRF is used to determine the major rock-forming elements, including Al2O3, Fe203, Na2O, SrO, BaO, K20, P2O5, TiO2, CaO, MgO SO3, LOI, Cr2O3, MnO and SiO2. The concentration data from this analysis can be found in Appendix B.  This additional method of analysis offered an opportunity to cross-check major element results from the Olympus pXRF. Based on these results, no post-hoc calibration or adjustment of parameters from default settings for pXRF was deemed necessary (as observed in Frahm 2017). The WD-XRF analysis also provided quantified concentrations of light elements that were not measured by pXRF (specifically NaO), allowing for the plotting of the material on total alkali silica (TAS) diagrams, which are commonly used by geochemists and geologists to identify rock type. In contrast to the pXRF analysis which provides elemental concentrations from a specific location on the sample, the WD-XRF analysis method provides an aggregated suite of elemental concentration values. 26  Chapter 5: Results and Discussion In this section I summarize the data from pXRF and WD-XRF analyses in conjunction with the data from Reddy’s (1989) published work in the Indian River watershed. Reddy’s major, minor and trace element data was obtained with benchtop WD-XRF analyses undertaken at what was then UBC’s Department of Geological Sciences (now called PCIGR). I begin by presenting the data, providing an analysis of the data within the theoretical framework of the provenance hypothesis (Wilson and Pollard, 2001), and conclude with a discussion of the implications of the results.  5.1 Major, Minor and Trace Element Concentrations Table 5.1 presents the data obtained from the three samples that underwent WD-XRF analysis. Most important to my analysis, because of the role they play in determination of igneous rock type (Le Bas et al. 1992), are the SiO2 and the NaO2 and K2O (alkali elements) concentrations of the objects. For these three objects, the SiO2 ranges from 67.56 to 76.45 wt%, the Na2O ranges from 2.76 to 5.27 wt%, while the K2O ranges from 0.8 to 5.25 wt%.  Table 5.1. Major element oxide concentrations in weight percent of samples from IR#3 sites that underwent WD-XRF analysis. The number of reported digits represents the uncertainty for each measurement. Sample ID K2O  (wt%) Na2O (wt%) SiO2 (wt%) Krt-2 5.06 2.76 75.24 Krt-3 0.8 5.27 67.56 Krt-9 5.25 2.85 76.45   27  Table 5.2. Major, minor and trace elemental concentration data from study objects collected with pXRF. Concentrations are averages among triplicate analyses and reported uncertainties are external. Concentrations with a ‘<’ prefix are below the limit of detection and thus do not have associated uncertainties. Uncertainties calculated among multiple identical concentrations are also denoted with a ‘<’ prefix.  Sample ID SiO2 (wt%) SiO2 Error 1 SD (wt%)  Si (wt%) Si Error 1 SD (wt%)  K (wt%) K Error 1 SD (wt%)  Ca (wt%) Ca Error 1 SD (wt%)  Rb (ppm) Rb Error 1 SD (ppm)  Y (ppm) Y Error 1 SD (ppm)  Zr (ppm) Zr Error 1 SD (ppm)  Nb (ppm) Nb Error 1 SD (ppm)  krt-1 80 5 37 5 4.3 0.1 <0.01 - 55 1 13 1 67 1 9 3 krt-2 71 4 33 4 2.9 0.4 <0.01 - 61 2 29 4 61 3 8 1 krt-3 67.2 0.6 31.4 0.6 0.50 0.01 1.32 0.01 11 1 16 1 124 2 7 1 krt-4 68.0 0.5 31.8 0.5 1.24 0.02 2.10 0.02 40 1 18 1 121 1 7 1 krt-5 75 1 35 1 1 0 0.93 0.01 22 <1 36 1 128 1 6 1 krt-6 66.6 0.2 31.1 0.2 4.00 0.05 <0.02 - 48 1 16 2 74 2 11 1 krt-7 77.1 0.6 36.1 0.6 4.01 0.04 <0.01 0.01 86 2 18 1 107 2 7 1 krt-8 77.0 0.3 36.0 0.3 2.61 0.02 1 0 51 1 9 2 98 2 6 1 krt-9 80.6 0.6 37.7 0.6 4.12 0.03 0.01 0.01 48 1 12 1 63 1 8 1 krt-10 78.5 0.4 36.7 0.4 5.35 0.02 <0.01 - 57 1 16 1 91 2 7 1 krt-11 74.5 0.6 34.8 0.6 5.05 0.05 <0.01 - 58 1 28 1 62 2 11 1 krt-12 67.2 0.7 31.4 0.7 3.26 0.04 0.57 0.01 75 1 11 <1 76 1 8 1 krt-13 81 2 38 2 4.63 0.08 <0.01 - 52 <1 15 1 67 1 8 2 krt-14 58 1 27.3 0.7 4.27 0.08 0.1 <0.01 53 2 10 1 68 3 7 1 krt-15 85.0 0.3 39.7 0.3 2.52 0.01 <0.01 - 33 1 13 2 65 2 11 1 krt-16 76 1 35 1 2.47 0.03 0.82 0.01 59 2 42 2 150 2 <1 - krt-17 77.6 0.4 36.3 0.4 <0.01 - 0.48 0.01 2 2 34 1 263 3 11 1 krt-18 68.8 0.8 32.2 0.8 2 0 <0.01 - 29 1 17 1 143 2 9 1 krt-19 76.0 0.9 35.5 0.9 5.02 0.07 <0.01 - 54 1 28 1 66 1 14 <1 krt-20 77.1 1.0 36 1 4.25 0.03 <0.01 - 52 1 15 1 62 1 8 1 krt-21 76.0 0.1 35.5 0.1 4.47 0.04 <0.01 - 51 1 25 1 85 2 10 1 krt-22 82.1 0.4 38.4 0.4 4.51 0.05 <0.01 - 49 1 12 1 70 2 7 1 krt-23 80.2 0.9 37.5 0.9 4.25 0.08 <0.01 - 51 1 35 2 72 1 17 1 krt-24 84.0 0.6 39.3 0.6 4.36 0.01 <0.01 - 55 1 16 1 67 2 7 1 krt-25 72.0 0.6 33.7 0.6 5.61 0.02 <0.01 - 61 2 11 1 84 1 12 2 krt-26 75.7 0.4 35.4 0.4 4.35 0.06 0.2 <0.01 53 1 12 1 70 1 9 1 krt-27 72.2 0.8 33.8 0.8 4.95 0.05 0.1 <0.01 61 1 23 1 74 1 11 1 krt-28 99 1 46 1 2.08 0.05 0.94 0.01 51 2 35 1 153 2 <2 - krt-29 77.5 0.5 36.3 0.5 2.45 0.04 <0.01 - 48 1 13 <1 115 1 7 2 krt-30 80.9 0.8 37.8 0.8 <0.01 - <0.01 - <1 - 16 1 131 2 6 1 krt-31 72.6 0.5 33.9 0.5 3.53 0.02 0.04 <0.01 42 1 15 1 68 1 12 2 krt-32 79.2 0.7 37.0 0.7 4.55 0.04 0.12 <0.01 55 1 17 <1 75 1 10 1 krt-33 67.8 0.3 31.7 0.3 4.69 0.01 0.41 0.01 56 2 16 <1 71 0 11 1 krt-34 80.0 0.4 37.4 0.4 4.28 0.01 <0.01 - 55 2 12 1 69 0 6 1 krt-35 69.9 0.8 32.7 0.8 3.3 0.06 4.01 0.03 53 1 11 <1 67 1 6 3 krt-36 65.7 0.9 30.7 0.9 5.78 0.07 0.3 <0.01 67 3 34 1 69 2 12 1 krt-37 82.9 0.5 38.7 0.5 3.17 0.01 0.01 0.01 44 1 11 1 69 1 7 2 krt-38 73.6 0.1 34.4 0.1 4.16 0.03 0.26 0.01 53 2 22 1 72 1 12 1 krt-39 81.2 0.4 38.0 0.4 1.87 0.03 0.14 0.01 27 1 19 1 132 1 12 2 krt-44 74.9 0.8 35.0 0.8 3.23 0.06 0.47 0.01 65 1 31 2 75 2 10 2 krt-45 73.3 1.0 34 1 3.71 0.04 0.43 <0.01 48 1 14 1 69 2 16 2 krt-46 71 6 33 6 4.7 0.3 <0.01 - 57 3 11 1 65 3 6 2 krt-47 85.5 0.3 40.0 0.3 4.17 0.01 <0.01 - 51 1 10 1 72 1 9 2 krt-48 81 2 38 2 2.2 0.1 0.74 0.09 43 2 27 1 149 7 9 1 krt-49 79.4 0.5 37.1 0.5 3.54 0.06 0.75 0.01 75 1 14 1 84 1 5 1 krt-50 76.5 0.3 35.8 0.3 2.72 0.04 0.55 0.04 57 1 18 1 84 1 8 1 krt-51 77 6 36 6 5.9 0.3 0.16 0.08 111 1 12 1 94 6 5 <1 krt-52 78 5 36 5 3.7 0.4 0.06 0.01 57 1 14 2 67 1 13 2 krt-53 67.8 0.4 31.7 0.4 1.65 0.01 1.38 0.03 35 <1 28 1 130 2 10 1 krt-55 86.6 0.5 40.5 0.5 2.61 0.02 0.08 <0.01 25 <1 9 1 102 2 2 3  28   Table 5.2 shows the major, minor and trace elemental concentration data from all study objects that is utilized for these analyses. The SiO2 concentrations range from 58 to 99 wt%. The Si concentrations range from 27.3 to 46 wt%. The K concentrations range from <0.01 to 5.9 wt%. The Ca concentrations range from <0.01 to 4.01 wt%. For trace elements, the Rb concentrations range from <1 to 111 ppm, the Y concentrations range from 9 to 42 ppm, the Zr concentrations range from 61 to 153 ppm, and the Nb concentrations range from <2 to 17 ppm.  Table 5.3 presents the publicly available major element oxides for the samples from Reddy (1989). K20 concentrations range from 0.55 to 7.57 wt%, Na2O concentrations range from 0.44 to 5.84 wt% and SiO2 concentrations range from 49.52 to 78.75 wt%. Table 5.4 presents the major, minor and trace element data from Reddy (1989). Si, K and Ca concentrations were calculated from oxides using appropriate conversion factors. Si concentrations range from 23.15 to 36.82 wt%. K concentrations range from 0.46 to 6.28 wt%. Ca concentrations range from 0.29 to 8.46 wt%. Rb concentrations range from 1 to 150 ppm, Y concentrations range from 14 to 32ppm, Zr concentrations range from 68 to 339 ppm and Nb concentrations range from 6 to 30 ppm.    29  Table 5.3 Major element oxides from Reddy (1989) samples used in this comparison. The number of reported digits represents the uncertainty for each measurement. SAMPLE K2O (wt%) Na2O (wt%) SiO2 (wt%) 86IRD-50 4.8 2.5 75.97 87IRD-166 7.57 1.15 75.76 87IRD-169 2.68 4.64 69.33 87IRD-145 0.99 2.8 54.39 87IRD-145d 1.01 2.82 54.91 87IRD-161 2.16 3.46 64.41 87IRD-75 1.3 3.22 53.4 87IRD-63 1.68 5.56 67.53 86IRD-53a 2.29 2.32 51.63 86IRD-53b 2.3 2.4 51.33 86IRD-161 7.23 0.44 75.02 86IRD-122 5.22 0.92 78.91 86IRD-189 2.86 4.36 71.93 86IRD-193a 1.05 3.07 59.8 86IRD-193b 1.06 3.09 59.69 86IRD-187 0.73 4.1 52.97 86IRD-121 3.69 3.5 74.25 86IRD-121d 3.79 3.61 75.5 87IRD-151a 3 5.41 53.21 87IRD-151b 3.08 5.63 55.04 87IRD-179 0.81 2.83 51.38 87IRD-185 1.75 3.81 52.75 87IRD-97 0.55 5.84 76.73 87IRD-60 0.82 3.16 52.03 87IRD-88 1.11 2.51 50.77 87IRD-64a 1.08 3.19 56.14 87IRD-64b 1.09 3.22 56.17 87IRD-133 0.94 4.05 52.59 87IRD-192 0.93 3.38 56.9 87IRD-192d 0.92 3.51 56.95 87IRD-72 0.67 3.05 52.55 87IRD-72d 0.66 3.18 52.67 87IRD-76 2.87 3.58 51.76 87IRD-79 1.03 1.39 49.52    30  Table 5.4 Major, minor and trace elemental concentration data from Reddy (1989) for samples used in this analysis. 1Si = (SiO2/2.139), 2K = (K20/1.205), 3Ca = (CaO/1.399)  Sample ID Si (wt%) 1 K (wt%) 2  Ca (wt%) 3  Rb (ppm) Y (ppm) Zr (ppm) Nb (ppm) 86IRD-50 35.52 3.98 0.48 68 17 68 8 87IRD-166 35.42 6.28 0.30 86 14 77 9 87IRD-169 32.41 2.22 0.66 36 18 120 8 87IRD-145 25.43 0.82 5.90 10 20 88 8 87IRD-145d 25.67 0.84 5.95 10 19 87 7 87IRD-161 30.11 1.79 3.62 32 21 188 22 87IRD-75 24.96 1.08 6.16 18 24 130 14 87IRD-63 31.57 1.39 1.13 24 31 349 30 86IRD-53a 24.14 1.90 6.08 40 28 101 7 86IRD-53b 24.00 1.91 6.12 39 28 100 7 86IRD-161 35.41 6.00 0.34 150 24 89 10 86IRD-122 36.82 4.33 0.29 112 19 79 10 86IRD-189 34.05 2.37 0.94 11 28 95 7 86IRD-193a 27.92 0.87 5.21 13 24 152 11 86IRD-193b 27.91 0.88 5.22 14 26 157 12 86IRD-187 24.76 0.61 4.35 11 28 95 7 86IRD-121 35.34 3.06 0.64 66 18 77 10 86IRD-121d 35.30 3.15 0.66 66 18 76 10 87IRD-151a 25.82 2.49 2.39 61 20 88 7 87IRD-151b 25.73 2.56 2.46 62 21 88 6 87IRD-179 24.02 0.67 6.65 13 32 116 8 87IRD-185 24.66 1.45 5.65 24 31 145 12 87IRD-97 35.87 0.46 0.69 7 28 195 11 87IRD-60 24.32 0.68 6.84 10 26 95 7 87IRD-88 23.74 0.92 7.11 19 28 96 7 87IRD-133 24.59 0.78 5.05 14 32 120 8 87IRD-64a 26.25 0.90 6.13 19 25 107 6 87IRD-64b 26.26 0.90 6.06 1 25 106 6 87IRD-192 26.60 0.77 5.70 11 30 135 7 87IRD-192d 26.62 0.76 5.61 11 30 133 8 87IRD-72 24.57 0.56 6.66 13 26 109 8 87IRD-72d 24.62 0.55 6.69 13 26 107 8 87IRD-76 24.20 2.38 4.55 40 27 108 7 87IRD-79 23.15 0.85 8.46 14 27 114 8    31  5.1.1 Rock Type Classification First, I created a total alkali silica (TAS) diagram, commonly used by geologists to aid in the classification of rock type. TAS diagrams rely on using the weight percentage (wt%) of SiO2 as a parameter to determine the ultra-basic (ultra-mafic), basic (mafic), intermediate and acidic (felsic) types of igneous rocks and have been used by geologists for over a hundred years (Le Bas et al. 1992). The International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) Subcommission on the Systematics of Igneous Rocks established the accepted SiO2 bounding values at 45, 52, 57 and 63 wt% SiO2 (see Le Bas et al. 1992). While Reddy didn’t use a TAS diagram for his rock type classifications, he did use a FeOtotal/MgO versus SiO2 diagram (1989:92), which still relies heavily on the SiO2 wt% boundaries between types of igneous rocks. Generally, the TAS diagram is unsuitable for archaeological contexts because the Na concentrations of a geological material are best obtained through destructive methods of testing, such as the WD-XRF analysis, which is typically impossible to undertake on archaeological objects. However, with permission, I was able to select three unmodified flakes for destructive testing that appeared to be ‘green andesite’ and for which Si concentrations were measured non-destructively with pXRF. The flakes originated from the personal surface collection of Lorelei Thomas. I intended to capture the range of Si concentrations as measured by pXRF, so I selected flakes from the low, middle and high ranges of Si. The TAS diagram showcasing these objects is Figure 5.1. 32   Figure 5.1 Total Alkali Silica Diagram for study objects that underwent WD-XRF analysis. As previously mentioned, a destructive method of testing such as WD-XRF analysis is required to obtain the Na concentrations necessary to calculate the total alkaline elemental concentrations (the sum of oxides of Na and K). I then assessed if it would be possible to use the acidic TAS diagram categories (e.g., basaltic to rhyolitic) to loosely categorize the original magma compositions (mafic to felsic) of all the samples analyzed non-destructively with pXRF by plotting the silica weight percentages. This can be seen in Figure 5.2. Table 5.5 Summary of Volcanic Units Identified by Reddy and Samples Included in this Study. Volcanic and Intrusive Units Identified By Reddy (1989) Number of Samples Included in this Study Quartz Feldspar Rhyolite Intrusives 3 Dykes Late Intrusives 7 Lower Goat Mountain Formation Indian River Valley 2 Middle Goat Mountain Formation Indian River Valley  10 Middle Goat Mountain Formation Stawamus River Valley  12 33   Figure 5.2 SiO2 (wt%) for all study objects, by associated Site, with external (i.e., among multiple analyses) uncertainty (2SD).   Next, I incorporated the major elemental information from geological outcrop samples analyzed by Reddy (1989) from the Indian River and the Stawamus River Valleys. In total, Reddy (1989) analyzed 31 samples and 10 duplicates for major, minor and trace elements. His methods of analysis included the crushing, pulverizing and fusion of geological samples into pellets, which were then analyzed with WD-XRF analysis, which makes this data useable for comparison. Of those 41 samples, I used the 26 fine-grained samples and 8 duplicates to compare with the study objects (see Table 5.5 and Appendix D for more information). To begin, I plotted a second TAS diagram (Figure 5.3) to investigate if there were any rock types similar to the study objects that I have identified to be the toolstone known as ‘green andesite.   34   Figure 5.3 Total Alkali Silica Diagram for study objects that underwent WD-XRF analysis, plotted with Reddy’s (1989) IRW samples. Dark blue markers indicate study objects analyzed for this thesis research and other colours indicate data from Reddy (1989).   As Figure 5.1 shows, none of the three samples that underwent WD-XRF analysis can be classified as andesitic. Further, as Figure 5.2 shows, even without the alkali elemental concentrations, all but one of the study objects fall outside of the andesitic category. This apparent outlier (Krt-14) is discussed more extensively below. Figure 5.3 shows that there is some overlap between those three study objects that underwent WD-XRF analysis with the rhyolitic samples Reddy identified in his work (1989:89).  The study objects cluster closely with rhyolites from the Lower and Middle Goat Mountain Formations and from the rhyodacitic intrusive units which Reddy describes as “quartz feldspar porphyritic rhyodacite intrusives” (1989:70). Note here that the andesite dykes that had 35  previously been attributed as the source of the toolstone called green andesite (Toffolo et Al. 2019; Lepofsky, Trost and Morin 2007; Morin 2015) belong to Unit D “Late Stage Intrusive Dykes” (Reddy 1989:71), and all of these andesite dyke samples fall within the basaltic andesite category of the TAS diagram and outside of the study object cluster.  5.2 Implications for Object Provenance Again, since it is possible that the origin of this material known as green andesite is within the Indian River watershed, and since it seems that Reddy’s (1989) thesis is the inspiration for the green andesite label, it is only appropriate that I use the element concentration data available in his thesis to exclude possible geological source affiliations for my study objects. Both Figures 5.4 and 5.5 show that the study objects overlap with the rhyolites, the quartz feldspar porphyritic rhyodacite intrusives and the dacite dyke samples (Reddy 1989). Based on major and minor element compositions, the basalt, andesite, basalt dyke and andesite dyke samples can be excluded as similar material types. This, in conjunction with the WD-XRF results plotted in the TAS diagrams (Figures 5.1 and 5.3), allow me to confidently conclude that the study objects exhibit a range of silica concentrations and are not andesitic with the possible exception of sample Krt-14. They are typically rhyolitic and dacitic. Andesite, dacite, and rhyolite refer to specific extrusive igneous rock types identifiable by the presence of interlocking crystals and other textural characteristics. Without petrographic analysis to determine if the analyzed materials are igneous in origin (i.e., they show interlocking crystals), we cannot use these terms in any capacity except as modifiers (e.g., andesitic, dacitic, and rhyolitic). 36   Figure 5.4 SiO2 (wt%) versus Ca (wt%) concentrations of study objects and geological samples from IRW.   Figure 5.5 SiO2 (wt%) versus K (wt%) concentrations of study objects and geological samples from IRW. 37   As Figure 5.6a shows, the trace element ratios for nearly all study objects overlap with all of Reddy’s (1989) samples from the Indian River watershed. Based on these trace element ratios, the basalt, andesite, basalt dyke and andesite dyke samples from Reddy (1989) are clustered tightly with the study objects, although they are not the same rock type as the study objects. Similarly, Figure 5.7a shows that based on these trace elements, the basalt, andesite, basalt dyke and andesite dyke samples are again clustered tightly with the study objects, when they were excluded in previous figures based on their being completely dissimilar rock types. Both Figures 5.6b and 5.7b show less overlap between the study objects and the dacitic dyke geological samples, even though they are composed of a similar rock type. Thus, without the identification of rock type using major and minor elements and/or petrography prior to the comparison of the trace element composition of artifacts and possible source materials, the study objects would have been incorrectly sourced to geologic units that are compositionally dissimilar. With the use of only one, solitary proxy (trace elements), this erroneous association would unfortunately have been undetectable (‘the sourcing myth’; Luedtke, 1992). Finally, in Figure 5.8a there again appears to be a lot of overlap in the compositions of the study objects and all geological samples from Reddy (1989). However, I have established that the basalts, andesites, and the basalt and andesite dykes must be excluded as potential sources for this material. 38  a.  b.  Figure 5.6 a. Trace element ratios of Zr/Rb versus Nb/Y of study objects and geological samples from the IRW. b. Trace element ratios of study objects and those geological samples which have not been excluded on the basis of major and minor elements. 39  a.  b.  Figure 5.7 a. Zr versus Rb of study objects and geological samples from the IRW. B. Zr versus Rb of study objects and those geological samples which have not been excluded on the basis of major and minor elements..   40  a.  b.  Figure 5.8 a. Nb versus Y of study objects and geological samples from the IRW b. Nb versus Y of study objects and those geological samples which have not been excluded on the basis of major and minor elements.   41  Based on the major and minor elemental concentrations, I can exclude the basalt, andesite, as well as the basalt and andesite dyke geological samples because they are different rock types. In addition, I can confidently exclude the dacitic dykes as a potential source because they are compositionally different from the study objects based on trace elements. Without excluding these sources based on composition, we would not be able to confidently exclude them based on trace elements alone.  Therefore, all Indian River watershed sources except the Lower and Middle Goat Mountain Formation rhyolites and the quartz feldspar porphyritic rhyodacite intrusives can be consistently excluded as potential source affinities for all analyzed study objects.  5.3 Challenges None of the analyzed samples can be classified as andesitic with the exception of one outlier. Study object Krt-14 is a projectile blank or preform which, like all others analyzed in this study, visually appears to be made of the material known as ‘green andesite’. The initial pXRF analysis reading of the SiO2 concentration for this object was 58.39 wt%. It was not selected to undergo destructive WD-XRF analysis, because, as a projectile blank or preform, it doesn’t meet the criteria of an unmodified flake. Visual inspection reveals that it is compositionally heterogeneous, as there appears to be a contact of two material types in the middle. It is possible that this internal structure was an imperfection in the material that caused the projectile blank to be discarded and remain unfinished. This internal plane is likely representative of different lithologies with different SiO2 concentrations.  I had the opportunity to resample this object on both faces. These additional analyses showed that the two faces of the preform indeed have different chemical compositions. The 42  initial face tested (side A) had 54.23 SiO2 wt% while the opposite face (side B) had 73.0 SiO2 wt% (see Appendix E for photos of both sides, and resampling data). Ultimately, even though side A of this object plots in the andesitic range, it still cannot be considered andesite without petrographic analysis of textural relationships. Additionally, due to the surface morphology of the artifact and the challenges with measuring accurate Si concentrations with pXRF in atmosphere (most of which have been overcome with the Olympus Vanta series analyzers), the Si concentrations of the three samples analyzed with WD-XRF are consistently within 5% of the concentrations measured with pXRF in the same specimens (Appendix C), this lower silica concentration may be an instrumental artifact. If so, the concentration measured by pXRF is most likely an underestimation of Si, as interference with light elements would most likely decrease, not increase, Si concentrations. This suggests that if the Si concentrations are inaccurate for any of the analyses we conducted, they are likely lower than the actual ‘true’ value. This further supports that the objects referred to as ‘green andesite’ are at minimum dacitic in composition on average, with the potential of being even more felsic.   It is important to understand the rationale for the inclusion of multiple graphs representing the trace element concentrations and ratios. Without having identified the rock type of the study objects using major and minor elemental chemistry, it would appear as though there was overlap amongst all categories of rock type and the study objects (see Figures 5.7a, 5.8a and 5.9a for examples). Without the major and minor elemental data, it would appear as though the study objects could in fact be from the andesite dykes which Reddy (1989) documented in the Indian River Watershed. Utilizing major and minor elemental data to define rock types ensures that we are not comparing apples to oranges, figuratively speaking. 43  Chapter 6: Conclusion I set out to explore a toolstone known as green andesite in the archaeological literature that features heavily in assemblages from Burrard Inlet. I had one main question: is it actually andesite? I determined that no, it is not andesite. Observed sedimentary petrographic textures suggest that it is not an extrusive igneous rock, and although it may be andesitic in some rare cases, it is more likely to be dacitic or rhyolitic. I can confidently conclude that the toolstone formerly known as green andesite is likely a volcanic sedimentary rock (perhaps a cherty tuff), with a typically dacitic to rhyolitic composition. Until a geological source for the material is found, I cannot definitively call it anything else. The next question I hoped to answer was: can known sources from within the Indian River watershed be excluded for this material? I determined that no, not all of them can be excluded as potential sources for the green toolstone.  Archaeologists assess rock type in the field and lab based on generalized characteristics. This sometimes results in the reproduction of an incorrect label throughout scholarly literature and archaeological discourse. In the past, this toolstone was called green andesite, and the designation has been reproduced in the literature and a handful of circular citations. Tofflo et al. (2019), Morin (2016), Reimer (2011), Lepofsky et al. (2007), Lepofsky and Karpiak (2001) all discuss this green andesite material, and several even speculate that it looks visually similar to the Anvil Island andesite documented by Reimer (2011). Reddy (1989) is likely the origin of this green andesite label, as in his thesis, he describes andesite and dacite dykes that crisscross the Indian River valley. While Reddy (1989) is likely the inspiration for the label, archaeologists are the source of the error in naming this toolstone.  Based on coverage in the archaeological literature, I assumed that this material was localized to Burrard Inlet, but my research indicates that it has a much more extensive spatial 44  distribution. Fifty-one objects were included in the study, and from these, three pieces of unmodified debitage from IR #3 were submitted for destructive analysis. The major, minor, trace element and ratio data for these study objects spans a range of concentrations. None of the objects submitted for WD-XRF are andesitic. Based on silica content alone, all but one study object fall outside the andesitic range. The study objects are thus not from the andesite dykes that are the origin of the label green andesite. The basalts, andesites, and the basalt and andesite dykes from Reddy (1989) must be excluded as potential sources for this material due to their compositional dissimilarity.  All Indian River watershed sources except the Lower and Middle Goat Mountain Formation rhyolites and the quartz feldspar porphyritic rhyodacite intrusives can be consistently excluded as potential sources for all analyzed study objects, based on trace element concentrations. The outlier Krt-14 that falls into the andesitic range is compositionally heterogeneous. It is possible that based on the method of analysis the silica concentration is underestimated, and it may actually be dacitic. Had rock type not been established before trace element analysis, it would appear as though the study objects were geochemically similar to all rock types from the Indian River watershed, including the andesite dykes. Establishing rock type first, and then exploring multivariate and multiproxy approaches to toolstone sourcing studies and to the provenance hypothesis (McMillan et al. 2019) is the best defence against falling prey to the ‘sourcing myth’ (Ludtke 1992). Based on the major, minor and trace element concentrations, in conjunction with the Raman spectroscopy results and the petrographic findings, I have shown that the toolstone formerly known as green andesite is likely a volcanic sedimentary rock with a typically dacitic to rhyolitic composition.  45  6.1 Larger Implications for Archaeology and Future research directions One problem I encountered while searching for objects to include in my study was an inconsistent material type classification between sites, regions, repositories, archaeologists and even the laboratory technicians entering data into repository catalogues. I hope that this research can be an important first step towards starting discussions and revisiting classifications throughout the region. At the very least, I hope that it inspires us as archaeologists to pause before reproducing unverified conclusions.  There are several directions future research could take. At the time of writing, I have made a connection with a geologist currently doing work in the Indian River watershed. When he learned that I was studying a green toolstone that could be called a “cherty tuff”, he gave me a bag of samples and a location to find the source. I intend to submit some of these geological samples to ALS for the ME-XRF26 analysis so I can compare the major, minor and trace element chemistry. If and when a geological source can be found, I would like to explore the material’s tool making qualities with experimental archaeology. Next, while time is a dimension I excluded from this study, it might be an interesting factor to include in later work. After exploring repositories and catalogues to correct the miscategorization issues, it would be useful to use temporal data associated with systematically excavated artifact assemblages to explore spatial and temporal trends.  Finally, and perhaps most excitingly, a preliminary exploration of the artifact catalogues from around the lower mainland suggest that this material, or objects that appear to be made of the same material, are not isolated to the Burrard Inlet locality. As my research shows with the inclusion of sites outside the Burrard Inlet area, the distribution of this toolstone goes much further than previously thought. It is also possible that multiple geological contexts for materials 46  like this toolstone could be found across the landscape. A collaborative investigation with neighbouring Nations in the Coast Salish continuum would be a valuable next step. Together we could geochemically explore previously excavated assemblages and geological contexts within our territories and across the landscape to unravel the petrogenesis of this toolstone formerly known as green andesite.  47  References Angelbeck, Bill and Colin Grier  2012 Anarchism and the Archaeology of Anarchic Societies: Resistance to     Centralization in the Coast Salish Region of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Current    Anthropology. 53(5):547–587.  Angelbeck, Bill and Eric McLay   2011 The Battle at Maple Bay: The Dynamics of Coast Salish Political      Organization Through Oral Histories. Ethnohistory. 58(3):359-392.  Barnett, H.G.  1955 The Coast Salish of British Columbia. University of Oregon Monographs.     Studies in Anthropology, no. 4. reprinted 1975 by Greenwood Press,     Westport, Connecticut.  Basso, K.  1996 Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language Among the Western     Apache. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press.  Bierwart, Crisca  1999 Brushed by Cedar, Living by the River: Coast Salish Figures of Power.     University of Arizona Press, Tucson.   Braches, Fred  2016 Letters from Mahonia Ranch. Whonnock Notes. No.23. Occasional Papers    of the Whonnock Community Association. Whonnock.   Carlson, Keith Thor  2010  The Power of Place, The Problem of Time: Aboriginal Identity and     Historical Consciousness in the Cauldron of Colonialism. University of     Toronto Press, Toronto.  Christie-Peters, Quill  2017 Anishinaabe art-making as falling in love: Reflections on Artistic Programming    for Urban Indigenous Youth. Unpublished Masters Thesis. School of Human and    Social Development, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia.  Charlton, Arthur S.   1974 Archaeological Investigations at the Cates Park Site (DhRr-8). Report on file    with the Archaeology Branch, Victoria, BC.  Collins, June M.   1980 The Valley of the Spirits: The Upper Skagit Indians of Western      Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 48   Frahm, E.  2017 First Hands-on Tests of an Olympus Vanta Portable XRF Analyzer to   Source Armenian Obsidian Artifacts. The International Association for Obsidian    Studies Bulletin. 58:8–23.  Ford, Richard I. 1977 Systematic Research Collections in Anthropology: an Irreplaceable National Resource. Harvard University. Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology. Cambridge, Mass.   Gill, James B.  1981 Orogenic Andesites and Plate Tectonics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.  Hart, Siobhan M. and Elizabeth S. Chilton  2015 Digging and Destruction: Artifact Collecting as Meaningful Social Practice.    International Journal of Heritage Studies. 21(4):318-335.  Hill-Tout, C.  1978 The Salish People, Volume III: The Mainland Halkomelem, edited by R. Maud.    Talonbooks, Vancouver.  Kennedy, D. and R. Bouchard  1987 Indian History of the Deer Lake and Burnaby Lake Area. In Heritage Resource    Studies at Deer Lake Park Burnaby, BC authored by I. R. Wilson. Appendix 2,    pp. 28-48, I.R. Wilson Consultants Ltd. Report on file Archaeology Branch,    Victoria.  HCA permit 1987-41.  Kovach, Margaret  2009 Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations and Contexts.     University of Toronto Press, Toronto.  Le Bas,  M.J., W. Le Maitre and A. R. Woolley  1992 The Construction of Total Alkali-Silica Chemical Classification of Volcanic    Rocks. Mineralogy and Petrology. 46:1-22.  Lepofsky, Dana, and Monica Karpiak  2001 Report on the "Community Archaeology Project". Excavations at the Strathcona    Park Site (DhRr-18) and Survey of Tsleil-Waututh Reserve (IR NO.3). Permit    2000-0147. Archaeology Branch.  Lepofsky, Dana, Theresa Trost and Jesse Morin  2007 Coast Salish Interaction: A View from the Inlet. Canadian Journal of     Archaeology. 31(2): 190-223  49  Lippert, Dorothy   2006 Building a Bridge to Cross a Thousand Years. American Indian Quarterly.    30(3/4):431-440.  Luedtke, Barbara E.  1992 An Archaeologist’s Guide to Chert and Flint. Institute of Archaeology,     University of California, Los Angeles.  McGhee, Robert  2008 Aboriginalism and the Problems of Indigenous Archaeology. American Antiquity.    73(4): 579-597.  McHalsie, A.S.  2007 We Have to Take Care of Everything That Belongs to Us. In Be of Good Mind:    Essays on the Cast Salish. Bruce Granville Miller, Ed. Pp.82-130. University of    British Columbia Press, Vancouver.   2001 Halq’emeylem Place Names in Stolo Territory. In A Stolo Coast Salish Historical    Atlas, edited by K. T. Carlson, pp. 134 – 153. Douglas & McIntyre, Vancouver.  McMillan, Rhy, Marghaleray Amini, Dominique Weis  2019 Splitting Obsidian: Assessing a Multiproxy Approach for Sourcing Obsidian    Artifacts in British Columbia. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 28:1-   10.  Morin, Jesse  2016 Burrard Inlet Projectile Point Study. Report on file at Tsleil-Waututh Nation    Treaty, Lands and Resources Department, North Vancouver.   2015 Tsleil-Waututh Nation’s History, Culture and Aboriginal Interests in Eastern    Burrard Inlet (Redacted Version). Prepared for Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP.    Report on file at Tsleil-Waututh Nation Treaty, Lands and Resources Department,   North Vancouver.   2014 The Burrard Inlet Radiocarbon Dating Project: Documenting Pre-Contact    Tsleil-Waututh Settlement Patterns. Report on file at Tsleil-Waututh Nation    Treaty, Lands and Resources Department, North Vancouver.     2013 Whey-ah-wichen/Cates Park Midden Erosion: The Impact of High Winter Tides to   Cultural Heritage at DhRr-8 (The Cates Park Site). Unpublished final permit    report on file with the Archaeology Branch, Victoria, BC.  Morin, Jesse, Dana Lepofsky, Morgan Ritchie, Marko Porčić and Kevan Edinborough 50   2018 Assessing Continuity in the ancestral territory of the Tsleil-Waututh-Coast Salish,   Southwest British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology,    51:77-87.  Morin, Peter  2014 My Life as a Museum, or, Performing Indigenous Epistemologies. Embodied    Politics in Visual Autobiography. Sarah Brophy and Janice  Hladki, Editors.    University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Pp. 137-152  Pollard, A. Mark and Carl Heron  2008 Archaeological Chemistry Second Edition. RSC Publishing, Cambridge, UK.  Reimer, Rudy/Yumks  2012 The Mountains and Rocks Are Forever: Lithics and Landscapes of      SKWXWU7MESH UXWUMIXW. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Department of    Anthropology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.  Ritchie, Patrick Morgan  2014 Report of Archaeological Testing at Sleil-Waututh Village (DhRr-20 and 15).    Report on file at Tsleil-Waututh Nation, Treaty, Lands and Resources     Department, North Vancouver.   2010 From Watershed to House: The Cultural Landscapes of the Sts’ailes People.    Unpublished Masters Thesis. Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser     University, Burnaby, British Columbia.  Reddy, Douglas Gerald  1989 Geology of the Indian River Area, Southwestern British Columbia.  Unpublished    MSc Thesis. Department of Geology, University of British Columbia.  Ross, C.S. and R.L. Smith  1961 Ash-Flow Tuffs: Their origin, geologic relations, and identification. United States   Geological Survey Professional Paper 366.  Schaepe, David M., Bill Angelbeck, David Snook and John R. Welch  2017 Archaeology as Therapy: Connecting Belongings, Knowledge, Time, Place and    Well-Being. Current Anthropology. 54(4):502-533.  Shepherd, Jeremy  2014 Cates Park’s Sandy Beachfront Restored. North Shore News. September 17:A13.    North Vancouver.  Smith, Linda Tuhiwai  2012 Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books,    London. 51   Suttles, Wayne  1958 Private Knowledge, Morality, and Social Classes Among the Coast Salish.    American Anthropologist. 60(3): 497-507.   1960 Affinal Ties, Subsistence, and Prestige Among the Coast Salish. American    Anthropologist. 62: 296-305   1990 Central Coast Salish. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7,   Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 453-475. Smithsonian Institute,    Washington DC.   Thomas, Karen Rose  2016 Decentering Notions of Archaeological Context in Favour of an Indigenous    Materiality: An Exploration of Meaning in the Collection Behaviors of one    Descent Community. Unpublished Honours Thesis. Department of Archaeology.    Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.  Toffolo, Michael B., Morgan Ritchie, Ian Sellers, Jesse Morin, Natasha Lyons, Megan Caldwell, Rosa M. Albert, Bryn Letham and Francesco Berna  2019 Combustion Features from Short-Lived Intermittent Occupation at a 1300-year-   old Coast Salish Rock Shelter, British Columbia: The Microstratigraphic Data.    Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 23:646-661.  Tsleil-Waututh Nation  2009 Tsleil-Waututh Nation Stewardship Policy. Report on file with Tsleil-Waututh    Nation Treaty, Lands and Resources Department. North Vancouver, BC  Wilson L. and A. Mark Pollard  2001 The Provenance Hypothesis In The Handbook of Archaeological Sciences. D.R.    Brothward and A.M. Pollard eds. John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey.52  Appendices Appendix A  Study Objects  Table A.1 Elemental concentration data collected by pXRF for study objects analyzed in this thesis research used to create the averaged values reported in tables in text. All reported uncertainties are internal (instrumental). Study Identifier Repository Identifier Repository / Collector Site Name Borden Number Si (ppm) Si Error 1 SD (ppm) K (ppm) K Error 1 SD (ppm) Ca (ppm) Ca Error 1 SD (ppm)  Rb (ppm) Rb Error 1 SD (ppm)  Y (ppm) Y Error 1 SD (ppm)  Zr (ppm) Zr Error 1 SD (ppm)  Nb (ppm) Nb Error 1 SD (ppm)  Krt-1 n/a LMT Whey-ah-Wichen / Cates Park DhRr-8 387062 701 43951 106 0 90 55 1 13 1 68 1 5 1 Krt-1 n/a LMT Whey-ah-Wichen / Cates Park DhRr-8 365731 732 43162 112 0 103 56 1 12 1 66 1 11 1 Krt-1 n/a LMT Whey-ah-Wichen / Cates Park DhRr-8 365356 727 42736 111 0 102 54 1 13 1 66 1 11 1 Krt-2 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 342960 772 26437 87 0 120 64 1 33 1 57 1 7 1 Krt-2 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 326969 789 29482 98 0 129 60 1 26 1 63 1 9 1 Krt-2 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 327382 788 29434 97 0 128 60 1 27 1 62 1 8 1 Krt-3 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 312927 994 5050 50 13275 63 12 1 17 1 123 2 6 1 Krt-3 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 313993 993 4916 49 13200 63 12 1 16 1 126 2 8 1 Krt-3 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 315514 995 4949 50 13076 63 10 1 15 1 123 2 6 1 Krt-4 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 316316 1092 12360 75 20813 90 41 1 17 1 121 2 8 1 Krt-4 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 318693 1098 12467 76 21117 91 39 1 19 1 122 2 8 1 Krt-4 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 318224 1093 12262 75 20932 90 41 1 19 1 120 2 6 1 Krt-5 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 349967 1136 11029 70 9242 57 22 1 36 1 128 2 7 1 Krt-5 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 352100 1142 11042 70 9336 57 22 1 36 1 128 2 6 1 53  Study Identifier Repository Identifier Repository / Collector Site Name Borden Number Si (ppm) Si Error 1 SD (ppm) K (ppm) K Error 1 SD (ppm) Ca (ppm) Ca Error 1 SD (ppm)  Rb (ppm) Rb Error 1 SD (ppm)  Y (ppm) Y Error 1 SD (ppm)  Zr (ppm) Zr Error 1 SD (ppm)  Nb (ppm) Nb Error 1 SD (ppm)  Krt-5 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 355020 1146 11057 70 9403 57 22 1 37 1 129 2 5 1 Krt-6 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 311047 1176 40161 173 0 202 49 1 18 1 75 2 10 1 Krt-6 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 311862 1175 40127 173 0 201 48 1 16 1 75 2 12 1 Krt-6 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 311068 1169 39751 171 0 201 47 1 14 1 72 2 11 1 Krt-7 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 359129 1112 39989 151 145 45 85 1 18 1 107 2 6 1 Krt-7 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 360337 1111 39924 150 0 161 86 1 17 1 105 2 7 1 Krt-7 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 362098 1115 40268 151 0 160 88 1 18 1 108 2 7 1 Krt-8 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 359913 1036 26176 105 9512 59 50 1 10 1 100 2 7 1 Krt-8 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 359133 1031 26013 104 9455 58 52 1 9 1 99 1 6 1 Krt-8 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 360708 1032 26042 104 9466 58 51 1 7 1 96 1 5 1 Krt-9 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 375919 1027 41133 139 152 43 47 1 13 1 63 1 7 1 Krt-9 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 376531 1026 41074 139 0 142 49 1 12 1 63 1 9 1 Krt-9 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 378542 1027 41314 139 0 141 49 1 11 1 62 1 9 1 Krt-10 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 366123 981 53460 165 0 142 56 1 17 1 93 1 7 1 Krt-10 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 368066 983 53598 165 0 142 57 1 15 1 90 1 7 1 Krt-10 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 366978 979 53584 165 0 141 58 1 16 1 91 1 6 1 Krt-11 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 347867 1055 50805 175 0 156 59 1 27 1 64 1 12 1 Krt-11 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 347125 1052 50458 174 0 155 58 1 29 1 63 1 12 1 Krt-11 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 349820 1054 50363 173 0 155 57 1 27 1 60 1 10 1 Krt-12 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 312507 1040 32560 131 5704 51 75 1 11 1 76 1 7 1 Krt-12 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 314162 1041 32367 130 5733 52 75 1 11 1 77 1 9 1 54  Study Identifier Repository Identifier Repository / Collector Site Name Borden Number Si (ppm) Si Error 1 SD (ppm) K (ppm) K Error 1 SD (ppm) Ca (ppm) Ca Error 1 SD (ppm)  Rb (ppm) Rb Error 1 SD (ppm)  Y (ppm) Y Error 1 SD (ppm)  Zr (ppm) Zr Error 1 SD (ppm)  Nb (ppm) Nb Error 1 SD (ppm)  Krt-12 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 315846 1046 32752 132 5805 52 76 1 11 1 75 1 9 1 Krt-13 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 375096 1025 46018 152 0 135 52 1 14 1 67 1 6 1 Krt-13 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 375470 1029 46237 153 0 136 52 1 14 1 68 1 10 1 Krt-13 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 383998 1021 46792 151 0 130 52 1 16 1 67 1 9 1 Krt-14 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 271411 1020 42579 172 860 44 55 1 10 1 68 1 7 1 Krt-14 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 273024 1021 42396 171 887 44 51 1 10 1 65 1 7 1 Krt-14 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 274456 1026 43203 174 933 46 54 1 11 1 71 1 8 1 Krt-15 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 397894 1007 25231 95 0 119 33 1 12 1 67 1 11 1 Krt-15 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 396415 1003 25123 95 0 119 33 1 15 1 64 1 11 1 Krt-15 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 397259 1003 25124 95 0 119 34 1 13 1 65 1 12 1 Krt-16 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 350727 992 24538 97 7991 52 58 1 40 1 148 2 0 2 Krt-16 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 355434 1002 24844 98 8191 53 61 1 42 1 151 2 0 2 Krt-16 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 356419 1002 24829 98 8271 54 59 1 43 1 150 2 0 2 Krt-17 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 362013 1083 0 124 4888 42 3 1 35 1 264 2 10 1 Krt-17 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 362422 1079 0 124 4682 41 0 1 33 1 260 2 12 1 Krt-17 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 363732 1081 0 123 4711 42 3 1 33 1 265 2 11 1 Krt-18 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 319452 1005 15612 80 0 160 29 1 16 1 142 2 8 1 Krt-18 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 322985 1011 15651 80 0 159 29 1 17 1 145 2 8 1 Krt-18 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 321966 1008 15610 80 0 159 30 1 17 1 143 2 10 1 Krt-19 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 352671 1057 49816 171 0 150 55 1 28 1 67 1 14 1 Krt-19 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 356335 1064 50500 173 0 150 54 1 27 1 66 1 14 1 55  Study Identifier Repository Identifier Repository / Collector Site Name Borden Number Si (ppm) Si Error 1 SD (ppm) K (ppm) K Error 1 SD (ppm) Ca (ppm) Ca Error 1 SD (ppm)  Rb (ppm) Rb Error 1 SD (ppm)  Y (ppm) Y Error 1 SD (ppm)  Zr (ppm) Zr Error 1 SD (ppm)  Nb (ppm) Nb Error 1 SD (ppm)  Krt-19 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 356434 1061 50174 172 0 149 53 1 28 1 66 1 14 1 Krt-20 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 357860 1039 42381 148 0 146 53 1 14 1 61 1 7 1 Krt-20 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 361350 1045 42676 149 0 146 52 1 15 1 63 1 9 1 Krt-20 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 362042 1043 42527 148 0 145 51 1 16 1 63 1 8 1 Krt-21 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 355219 1023 44855 151 0 133 52 1 24 1 86 1 11 1 Krt-21 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 355319 1019 44705 150 0 132 50 1 24 1 86 1 9 1 Krt-21 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 354994 1018 44476 150 0 132 50 1 26 1 83 1 11 1 Krt-22 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 383214 1038 45373 149 0 125 49 1 12 1 69 1 6 1 Krt-22 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 383477 1034 44855 147 0 124 48 1 12 1 69 1 8 1 Krt-22 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 384732 1036 45160 148 0 123 49 1 13 1 72 1 7 1 Krt-23 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 374411 1053 42555 146 0 133 51 1 35 1 72 1 16 1 Krt-23 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 373444 1051 42127 144 0 133 52 1 33 1 73 1 16 1 Krt-23 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 377393 1059 42932 147 0 133 51 1 37 1 72 1 18 1 Krt-24 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 391020 992 43606 136 0 111 56 1 17 1 67 1 6 1 Krt-24 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 393432 991 43616 136 0 110 55 1 15 1 65 1 8 1 Krt-24 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 393722 992 43711 136 0 110 54 1 16 1 68 1 7 1 Krt-25 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 334986 1091 55915 198 0 150 62 1 11 1 84 2 13 1 Krt-25 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 337387 1093 56079 198 0 149 59 1 10 1 84 2 10 1 Krt-25 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 337660 1094 56156 199 0 149 61 1 11 1 85 2 12 1 Krt-26 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 353616 1034 43782 150 1465 42 53 1 12 1 71 1 9 1 Krt-26 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 354943 1033 43422 149 1492 42 54 1 11 1 69 1 10 1 56  Study Identifier Repository Identifier Repository / Collector Site Name Borden Number Si (ppm) Si Error 1 SD (ppm) K (ppm) K Error 1 SD (ppm) Ca (ppm) Ca Error 1 SD (ppm)  Rb (ppm) Rb Error 1 SD (ppm)  Y (ppm) Y Error 1 SD (ppm)  Zr (ppm) Zr Error 1 SD (ppm)  Nb (ppm) Nb Error 1 SD (ppm)  Krt-26 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 353392 1028 43230 148 1474 42 52 1 13 1 69 1 8 1 Krt-27 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 335845 1053 49228 173 641 43 61 1 23 1 73 1 10 1 Krt-27 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 337656 1055 49538 173 589 42 62 1 22 1 74 1 11 1 Krt-27 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 339368 1057 49754 174 589 43 60 1 24 1 75 1 11 1 Krt-28 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 457519 1104 20548 89 9278 55 51 1 36 1 151 2 0 2 Krt-28 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 461940 1108 20926 90 9436 56 49 1 34 1 155 2 0 2 Krt-28 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 462138 1108 20953 90 9384 56 52 1 36 1 154 2 0 2 Krt-29 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 361358 1026 24363 98 0 124 48 1 13 1 115 1 6 1 Krt-29 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 362391 1028 24735 100 0 124 48 1 13 1 114 1 9 1 Krt-29 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 363665 1026 24499 99 0 124 47 1 13 1 115 1 7 1 Krt-30 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 376829 1044 0 115 0 124 0 1 16 1 130 1 7 1 Krt-30 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 377825 1043 0 115 0 123 0 1 16 1 130 1 5 1 Krt-30 n/a LMT Sleil-Waututh / IR 3 DhRr-15/20 380542 1048 0 114 0 123 0 1 17 1 133 1 6 1 Krt-31 DhRr18-1 TWN Say-umiton / Strathcona DhRr-18 338281 1045 35151 132 420 38 43 1 15 1 69 1 13 1 Krt-31 DhRr18-1 TWN Say-umiton / Strathcona DhRr-18 339286 1045 35295 132 386 37 42 1 14 1 67 1 10 1 Krt-31 DhRr18-1 TWN Say-umiton / Strathcona DhRr-18 340654 1049 35388 133 374 38 42 1 16 1 67 1 12 1 Krt-32 DhRr18-3 TWN Say-umiton / Strathcona DhRr-18 368915 1029 45393 151 1238 42 55 1 17 1 75 1 9 1 Krt-32 DhRr18-3 TWN Say-umiton / Strathcona DhRr-18 369777 1030 45435 151 1230 41 56 1 17 1 76 1 11 1 Krt-32 DhRr18-3 TWN Say-umiton / Strathcona DhRr-18 371940 1034 45750 151 1233 42 55 1 17 1 75 1 9 1 Krt-33 DhRr18-4 TWN Say-umiton / Strathcona DhRr-18 316060 992 46856 163 4058 45 55 1 16 1 71 1 12 1 Krt-33 DhRr18-4 TWN Say-umiton / Strathcona DhRr-18 317449 994 46906 163 4029 45 56 1 16 1 71 1 11 1 57  Study Identifier Repository Identifier Repository / Collector Site Name Borden Number Si (ppm) Si Error 1 SD (ppm) K (ppm) K Error 1 SD (ppm) Ca (ppm) Ca Error 1 SD (ppm)  Rb (ppm) Rb Error 1 SD (ppm)  Y (ppm) Y Error 1 SD (ppm)  Zr (ppm) Zr Error 1 SD (ppm)  Nb (ppm) Nb Error 1 SD (ppm)  Krt-33 DhRr18-4 TWN Say-umiton / Strathcona DhRr-18 317067 991 46801 162 4176 46 58 1 16 1 71 1 10 1 Krt-34 DhRr18-5 TWN Say-umiton / Strathcona DhRr-18 372806 1033 42872 143 0 127 55 1 11 1 69 1 6 1 Krt-34 DhRr18-5 TWN Say-umiton / Strathcona DhRr-18 374432 1032 42779 143 0 127 56 1 12 1 69 1 7 1 Krt-34 DhRr18-5 TWN Say-umiton / Strathcona DhRr-18 374090 1031 42732 143 0 127 53 1 13 1 69 1 6 1 Krt-35 DhRr18-6 TWN Say-umiton / Strathcona DhRr-18 324919 1002 32711 123 39777 131 52 1 11 1 66 1 6 1 Krt-35 DhRr18-6 TWN Say-umiton / Strathcona DhRr-18 326198 1005 33083 124 40094 132 54 1 11 1 66 1 4 1 Krt-35 DhRr18-6 TWN Say-umiton / Strathcona DhRr-18 328594 1008 33259 124 40455 133 54 1 11 1 68 1 9 1 Krt-36 DhRr18-8 TWN Say-umiton / Strathcona DhRr-18 304649 1020 57453 202 2703 47 64 1 33 1 71 1 11 1 Krt-36 DhRr18-8 TWN Say-umiton / Strathcona DhRr-18 307284 1025 57937 204 2660 47 70 1 34 1 67 1 13 1 Krt-36 DhRr18-8 TWN Say-umiton / Strathcona DhRr-18 308758 1025 58135 204 2706 47 67 1 34 1 69 1 13 1 Krt-37 DhRr18-18 TWN Say-umiton / Strathcona DhRr-18 386600 1098 31698 121 198 39 44 1 11 1 68 1 9 1 Krt-37 DhRr18-18 TWN Say-umiton / Strathcona DhRr-18 387016 1200 31622 144 0 174 44 1 12 1 69 1 6 1 Krt-37 DhRr18-18 TWN Say-umiton / Strathcona DhRr-18 388728 1096 31635 120 162 38 45 1 11 1 70 1 6 1 Krt-38 DhRr-8-452 TWN Whey-ah-Wichen / Cates Park DhRr-8 344066 1035 41617 147 2613 43 54 1 23 1 73 1 12 1 Krt-38 DhRr-8-452 TWN Whey-ah-Wichen / Cates Park DhRr-8 344647 1036 41677 147 2715 43 54 1 21 1 71 1 12 1 Krt-38 DhRr-8-452 TWN Whey-ah-Wichen / Cates Park DhRr-8 344173 1034 41405 146 2493 42 51 1 21 1 72 1 11 1 Krt-39 DhRr-8-515 TWN Whey-ah-Wichen / Cates Park DhRr-8 379893 1054 18845 84 1415 36 27 1 20 1 132 2 13 1 Krt-39 DhRr-8-515 TWN Whey-ah-Wichen / Cates Park DhRr-8 378721 1048 18577 83 1481 36 26 1 19 1 132 2 13 1 58  Study Identifier Repository Identifier Repository / Collector Site Name Borden Number Si (ppm) Si Error 1 SD (ppm) K (ppm) K Error 1 SD (ppm) Ca (ppm) Ca Error 1 SD (ppm)  Rb (ppm) Rb Error 1 SD (ppm)  Y (ppm) Y Error 1 SD (ppm)  Zr (ppm) Zr Error 1 SD (ppm)  Nb (ppm) Nb Error 1 SD (ppm)  Krt-39 DhRr-8-515 TWN Whey-ah-Wichen / Cates Park DhRr-8 380414 1052 18804 84 1381 36 27 1 19 1 133 2 10 1 Krt-44 BV002.57.13 BVM Deer Lake DhRr-28 351712 1049 32536 123 4695 46 65 1 33 1 77 1 10 1 Krt-44 BV002.57.13 BVM Deer Lake DhRr-28 348227 1039 31987 121 4596 45 65 1 29 1 75 1 8 1 Krt-44 BV002.57.13 BVM Deer Lake DhRr-28 350875 1046 32384 122 4670 46 66 1 30 1 73 1 12 1 Krt-45 DhRt-6:6065 LOA Locarno Beach DhRt-6 340243 1134 36825 148 4304 49 49 1 13 1 66 1 17 1 Krt-45 DhRt-6:6065 LOA Locarno Beach DhRt-6 344802 1147 37232 150 4319 50 48 1 15 1 70 2 14 1 Krt-45 DhRt-6:6065 LOA Locarno Beach DhRt-6 342393 1138 37093 149 4243 49 47 1 15 1 70 2 16 1 Krt-46 DhRr-8a:25 LOA Whey-ah-Wichen / Cates Park DhRr-8 348100 1027 49394 166 0 132 60 1 12 1 69 1 8 1 Krt-46 DhRr-8a:25 LOA Whey-ah-Wichen / Cates Park DhRr-8 322285 1054 46495 170 0 149 54 1 10 1 63 1 7 1 Krt-46 DhRr-8a:25 LOA Whey-ah-Wichen / Cates Park DhRr-8 322785 1055 46354 170 0 149 56 1 12 1 63 1 4 1 Krt-47 DhRr-8a:27 LOA Whey-ah-Wichen / Cates Park DhRr-8 398963 1029 41647 136 0 115 52 1 10 1 71 1 8 1 Krt-47 DhRr-8a:27 LOA Whey-ah-Wichen / Cates Park DhRr-8 399478 1031 41607 136 0 115 51 1 10 1 72 1 9 1 Krt-47 DhRr-8a:27 LOA Whey-ah-Wichen / Cates Park DhRr-8 400463 1032 41698 136 0 115 50 1 9 1 72 1 11 1 Krt-48 Ma:7406 LOA c̓əsnaʔəm / Marpole DhRs-1 372310 1016 21351 88 8070 49 45 1 28 1 153 2 10 1 Krt-48 Ma:7406 LOA c̓əsnaʔəm / Marpole DhRs-1 379137 1021 20886 87 7727 49 42 1 27 1 154 2 8 1 Krt-48 Ma:7406 LOA c̓əsnaʔəm / Marpole DhRs-1 383538 1049 22124 92 6286 47 41 1 26 1 141 2 10 1 Krt-49 Ma:3561 LOA c̓əsnaʔəm / Marpole DhRs-1 369823 1072 35165 129 7596 53 76 1 13 1 84 1 5 1 Krt-49 Ma:3561 LOA c̓əsnaʔəm / Marpole DhRs-1 370964 1072 35360 130 7380 52 74 1 14 1 85 1 5 1 Krt-49 Ma:3561 LOA c̓əsnaʔəm / Marpole DhRs-1 372197 1074 35712 131 7404 52 75 1 15 1 84 1 4 1 59  Study Identifier Repository Identifier Repository / Collector Site Name Borden Number Si (ppm) Si Error 1 SD (ppm) K (ppm) K Error 1 SD (ppm) Ca (ppm) Ca Error 1 SD (ppm)  Rb (ppm) Rb Error 1 SD (ppm)  Y (ppm) Y Error 1 SD (ppm)  Zr (ppm) Zr Error 1 SD (ppm)  Nb (ppm) Nb Error 1 SD (ppm)  Krt-50 MuE:3488 LOA Stselax / Musqueam East DhRt-2 358568 1076 27400 111 5926 48 58 1 19 1 84 1 8 1 Krt-50 MuE:3488 LOA Stselax / Musqueam East DhRt-2 357256 1056 26979 108 5286 45 56 1 17 1 83 1 8 1 Krt-50 MuE:3488 LOA Stselax / Musqueam East DhRt-2 357590 1055 27096 108 5177 45 56 1 18 1 84 1 9 1 Krt-51 Ma:8577 LOA c̓əsnaʔəm / Marpole DhRs-1 343735 1059 57065 193 2545 48 110 1 12 1 88 1 5 1 Krt-51 Ma:8577 LOA c̓əsnaʔəm / Marpole DhRs-1 365631 1075 59983 197 1218 47 112 1 13 1 99 2 5 1 Krt-51 Ma:8577 LOA c̓əsnaʔəm / Marpole DhRs-1 367429 1073 59279 194 1180 47 110 1 11 1 94 2 5 1 Krt-52 MuNe:1007 LOA Musqueam North East DhRt-4 374200 1095 37762 138 580 40 58 1 12 1 68 1 11 1 Krt-52 MuNe:1007 LOA Musqueam North East DhRt-4 362939 1111 38637 145 408 41 56 1 15 1 67 1 14 1 Krt-52 MuNe:1007 LOA Musqueam North East DhRt-4 352399 1118 35156 138 694 40 58 1 16 1 67 1 13 1 Krt-53 DhRt-6:5954 LOA Locarno Beach DhRt-6 315863 1001 16577 80 14144 64 35 1 28 1 131 2 10 1 Krt-53 DhRt-6:5954 LOA Locarno Beach DhRt-6 317137 1000 16539 80 13818 63 35 1 29 1 131 2 9 1 Krt-53 DhRt-6:5954 LOA Locarno Beach DhRt-6 317490 1001 16459 80 13576 63 35 1 27 1 127 2 10 1 Krt-55 DhRr-230:4 LOA Chevron DhRr-230 405237 1085 26141 102 802 37 25 1 9 1 103 2 5 1 Krt-55 DhRr-230:4 LOA Chevron DhRr-230 406046 1084 26161 102 737 36 25 1 10 1 102 2 0 2 Krt-55 DhRr-230:4 LOA Chevron DhRr-230 403619 1077 25993 101 721 36 25 1 9 1 100 2 0 2     60  Appendix B   WD-XRF Results from ME-XRF Analysis (ALS Global Geochemical)  Table B.1 Complete table of all oxides from WD-XRF analysis Sample Al2O3 (wt%) BaO (wt%) CaO (wt%) Cr2O3 (wt%) Fe2O3 (wt%) K2O (wt%) MgO (wt%) MnO (wt%) Na2O (wt%) P2O5 (wt%) SO3 (wt%) SiO2 (wt%) SrO (wt%) TiO2 (wt%) Total (wt%) Krt-2 12.69 0.27 0.49 <0.01 2.79 5.06 0.35 0.04 2.76 0.02 0.01 75.24 0.02 0.07 99.86 Krt-3 16.44 0.06 2.2 <0.01 3.2 0.8 2.09 0.1 5.27 0.21 <0.01 67.56 0.06 0.33 99.34 Krt-9 12.25 0.31 0.31 <0.01 1.54 5.25 0.24 0.03 2.85 0.02 <0.01 76.45 0.02 0.06 99.25  Table B.1 WD-XRF and pXRF SiO2 concentrations. Sample SiO2 (wt%) Krt-2 75.24 Krt-2 pXRF 71.11 Krt-3 67.56 Krt-3 pXRF 67.20 Krt-9 76.45 Krt-9 pXRF 80.64    61  Appendix C   IRW Samples from Reddy (1989) Table C.1 Data from Reddy (1989), selected fine-grained samples and duplicates. Sample # Type Ba (ppm) Cr (ppm) Nb (ppm) Ni (ppm) Rb (ppm) Sr (ppm) V (ppm) Y (ppm) Zr (ppm) Si (wt%) K (wt%) Ca (wt%) 86IRD-50 Rhyodacite Intrusive 2343 0 8 2 68 110 19 17 68 35.51 3.98 0.48 87IRD-166 Rhyodacite Intrusive 3286 1 9 0 86 117 36 14 77 35.41 6.28 0.30 87IRD-169 Rhyodacite Intrusive 862 3 8 3 36 125 55 18 120 32.41 2.22 0.66 87IRD-145 Andesitic Dyke 418 94 8 5 10 607 205 20 88 25.42 0.82 5.90 87IRD-161 Dacitic Dyke 877 6 22 6 32 607 65 21 188 30.11 1.79 3.62 87IRD-75 Andesitic Dyke 330 34 14 40 18 552 207 24 130 24.96 1.08 6.16 87IRD-145d Andesitic Dyke 405 140 7 70 10 615 206 19 87 25.67 0.84 5.95 87IRD-63 Dacitic Dyke 489 3 30 9 24 440 12 31 349 31.57 1.39 1.13 86IRD-53a Basaltic Dyke 942 68 7 56 40 502 268 28 101 24.13 1.90 6.08 86IRD-53b Basaltic Dyke 969 69 7 56 39 499 262 28 100 23.99 1.91 6.12 86IRD-161 Rhyolite 1797 1 10 5 150 63 20 24 89 35.41 6.00 0.34 86IRD-122 Rhyolite 846 3 10 2 112 47 9 19 79 36.81 4.33 0.29 86IRD-189 Rhyolite 252 146 7 79 11 397 206 28 95 34.04 2.37 0.94 86IRD-193a Andesite 255 4 11 7 13 366 106 24 152 27.92 0.87 5.21 86IRD-121 Rhyolite 1323 1 10 1 66 143 16 18 77 35.34 3.06 0.64 87IRD-151a Andesite 1150 6 7 13 61 267 219 20 88 25.82 2.49 2.39 87IRD-97 Rhyolite 140 7 11 7 7 85 13 28 195 35.87 0.46 0.69 87IRD-64a Andesite 165 111 6 61 19 429 178 25 107 26.24 0.90 6.13 87IRD-192 Andesite 509 76 7 49 11 690 210 30 135 26.60 0.77 5.70 86IRD-187 Basalt 252 146 7 79 11 397 206 28 95 24.76 0.61 4.35 86IRD-193b Andesite 259 4 12 7 14 379 102 26 157 27.90 0.88 5.22 86IRD-121d Rhyolite 1328 146 10 0 66 141 13 18 76 35.29 3.15 0.66 87IRD-151b Andesite 1116 7 6 15 62 270 226 21 88 25.73 2.56 2.46 87IRD-179 Basalt 321 172 8 95 13 511 220 32 116 24.02 0.67 6.65 87IRD-185 Basalt 627 66 12 35 24 541 231 31 145 24.66 1.45 5.65 87IRD-60 Basalt 422 105 7 64 10 550 215 26 95 24.32 0.68 6.84 87IRD-88 Basalt 216 119 7 70 19 557 235 28 96 23.73 0.92 7.11 87IRD-64b Andesite 153 111 6 58 1 423 183 25 106 26.26 0.90 6.06 87IRD-133 Basalt 309 162 8 81 14 462 228 32 120 24.58 0.78 5.05 87IRD-72 Basalt 216 136 8 67 13 527 224 26 109 24.56 0.56 6.66 87IRD-72d Basalt 199 181 8 65 13 518 224 26 107 24.62 0.55 6.69 87IRD-76 Basalt 670 137 7 74 40 340 222 27 108 24.19 2.38 4.55 87IRD-79 Basalt 246 211 8 97 14 530 268 27 114 23.15 0.85 8.46 87IRD-192d Andesite 508 136 8 47 11 687 214 30 133 26.62 0.76 5.61 62  Appendix D  The Outlier, Krt-14   Figure D.1 Study object Krt-14, both faces.    63  Table D.1 Study Object Krt-14 elemental concentration data collected by pXRF for multiple analyses on both faces. All reported uncertainties are internal (instrumental). Study Identifier Si (ppm) Si Error 1 SD (ppm) K (ppm) K Error 1 SD (ppm) Ca (ppm) Ca Error 1 SD (ppm)  Rb (ppm) Rb Error 1 SD (ppm)  Y (ppm) Y Error 1 SD (ppm)  Zr (ppm) Zr Error 1 SD (ppm)  Nb (ppm) Nb Error 1 SD (ppm)  Krt-14a 343496 981 28548 106 2167 37 50 1 27 1 64 1 10 1 Krt-14a 339817 990 34995 125 857 37 51 1 32 1 66 1 16 1 Krt-14a 341506 975 28483 106 2198 37 49 1 28 1 66 1 9 1 Krt-14a 338369 986 34663 123 833 36 50 1 32 1 66 1 13 1 Krt-14a 343114 978 28457 106 2168 37 48 1 29 1 67 1 9 1 Krt-14b 246575 1061 35984 166 1453 42 56 1 10 1 70 2 11 1 Krt-14b 255778 993 35624 150 1744 41 51 1 10 1 68 1 7 1 Krt-14b 249713 1075 36066 167 1460 43 54 1 13 1 71 2 12 1 Krt-14b 257893 1005 36163 153 1770 41 51 1 9 1 70 1 6 1 Krt-14b 257766 1004 36344 154 1777 40 51 1 11 1 72 1 6 1   

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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0387146/manifest

Comment

Related Items