UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An archaeological perspective on alpine/sub-alpine land use in the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountains,.. Vanags, Anthony 2001

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
ubc_2001-0129.pdf [ 7.4MB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0058386.json
JSON-LD: 1.0058386+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0058386.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0058386+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0058386+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0058386+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0058386 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0058386.txt
Citation
1.0058386.ris

Full Text

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON ALPINE/SUB-ALPINE LAND USE IN THE CLEAR RANGE AND PAVILION MOUNTAINS, SOUTH-CENTRAL BRITISH COLUMBIA by ANTHONY VANAGS B.A., The University of British Columbia A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Anthropology & Sociology) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December 2000 © Anthony E. N. Vanags, 2000 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) Abstract This study uses two independent surveys of the Alpine/Sub-alpine environmental zones of the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain to explore the nature of the archaeological record in the higher elevations of the Southern Interior Plateau of British Columbia. The archaeological site information is derived from the original site records as well as a lithic analysis of associated assemblages. The archaeological material is examined in relation to ethnographic subsistence and settlement patterns, archaeological pattering in Upland Valleys (Upper Hat Creek Valley), and to other investigated Alpine/Sub-alpine areas such as the Cornwall Hills and Potato Mountain. Neither the Ethnographic nor Upland Valley Models provided a perfect fit for the archaeological information, but these two models did provide the foundation upon which the archaeological site classes could be derived. The results were clear in that the Alpine/Sub-alpine zones were an important part of the seasonal round for both hunting and plant food gathering/processing activities and were not just an extension of the Upland Valley zones. The diagnostic artifacts recovered from the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain suggest that this area, and more specifically the Alpine/Sub-alpine environmental zones, have been used for hunting purposes for approximately 7000 years, though most of the dates are concentrated between 3500 and 200 BP. There are fewer dates for plant gathering and processing activities, but the radiocarbon dates suggest that plant processing started approximately 2000 BP. The majority of the archaeological sites for both the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain are situated within the Montane Parkland environmental zone. Even so, the Alpine/Sub-alpine zones in the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain were used differently. The Clear Range was used for both hunting and plant gathering/processing activities, while Pavilion Mountain and the Cornwall Hills were used primarily for hunting activities. Only on Potato Mountain were the majority of sites related to plant gathering/processing activities. it Table of Contents Abstract ii Table of Contents iiList of Tab les v List of Figures v Acknowledgements vi Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Chapter 2 Model Summaries 4 2.1 Ethnographic Model and Archaeological Expectations 4 2.2 Upland Valley Model and Archaeological Expectations 8 Chapter 3 Archaeological Data 10 3.1 Data Collection Methodologies 13.2 Range and Nature of the Data3.3 Tools 1 3.4 Debitage 12 3.5 Lithic Raw Material 14 3.6 Culture History , 16 Chapter 4 Archaeological Analysis 9 4.1 Comparison with the Ethnographic and Upland Valley Models 19 4.1.1 Evaluation of the Ethnographic Model 20 4.1.2 Evaluation of the Upland Valley Model 6 4.1.3 New Site Classes 28 4.2 Intra-regional Comparison and Feature Analysis 33 4.2.1 Feature Analysis 37 Chapter 5 Regional and Inter-regional Comparisons 41 5.1 Cornwall Hills Summit 45.2 Potato Mountain (Chilcotin) 3 5.3 Mouth of the Chilcotin and Keatley Creek 44 Chapter 6 Summary and Conclusion 46 6.1 Summary6.2 Conclusion 8 References Sited 50 Appendix I Resources Sought by the Interior Salish 6Appendix II Ethnohistoric Settlement Summary and Archaeological Implications 62 Appendix III Upland Valley Model 66 Appendix IV Site Summary Information 7 Appendix V Assemblage Summary by Site 80 Appendix VI Pit Summary Information 2 iii List of Tables Table 1 Environmental zones 2 Table 2 Ethnographic Alpine/Sub-alpine Site Classes and their Attibutes 7 Table 3 Generic Archaeological Site Classes and their Attributes 8 Table 4 Reduction Stage Definition. 13 Table 5 Debris Type by Reduction Stage 4 Table 6 Lithic Raw Material 15 Table 7 Time Periods of the British Columbia's Southern Interior Plateau 16 Table 8 Site Dates 7 Table 9 Ethnographic Site Classes and their Corresponding Archaeological Sites 21 Table 10 Archaeological Site Classes and their Associated Sites 29-30 Table 11 Listing of the Sites by Class and Region 34 Table 12 Alpine/Sub-alpine Assemblage Summary Information. 34 Table 13 Alpine/Sub-alpine Assemblage Summary Information without Locus sites 35 Table 14 Tool Expediency Ratio Index 36 Table 15 Alpine/Sub-alpine Processing Pit Summary Information 37 Table 16 Rim Crest Summary Information 39 Table 17 Processing Pit Summary Statistics 44 iv List of Figures Figure 1 Map of British Columbia's Southern Interior Plateau 53 Figure 2 Map of the Environmental Units 54 Figure 3 Contour and Environmental Zone Map of Moore Peak and Chipuin Mountain 55 Figure 4 Contour and Environmental Zone Map of Cairn Peak and Blustry Mountain 56 Figure 5 Contour and Environmental Zone Map of Pavilion Mountain 57 Figure 6 Picture of the Diagnostic Tools 58 Figure 7 Boxplot of the Rim Crest Sizes for Clear Range & Pavilion Mountain 59 Figure 8 Boxplot of the Rim Crest Sizes for Upper Hat Creek and Clear Range/Pavilion Mountain 59 v Acknowledgements I would like to express my appreciation to a number of individuals who have contributed to the completion of this study. Professor David Pokotylo, as graduate advisor, and Professor R.G. Matson, as interim advisor and graduate committee member, provided an excellent study environment as well as encouragement, advice, and assistance throughout the process. Thanks also to Professor Michael Blake, Professor Richard Pearson, Li Min, Martin Bale, Patricia Omerod, and all UBC archaeology people for your encouragement support and friendship. Professor Brian Hayden and Diana Alexander also provided information and materials crucial to the completion of the thesis. Gillian Dickenschied provided her expertise as an editor, and Robyn Levy volunteered to catalogue the lithic assemblages. Thanks also to the McCalisters, residents of Hat Creek Valley, for the cooperation and hospitality on our field trip. This thesis would not have been possible without the support and the wonderful gift of time provided by my parents, Ruth and Indulis Vanags, and my parents-in-law, Sylvia and Wayne Horricks, who took care of Lauren while I was at the university. Finally, I wish to acknowledge my wife and daughter, Gayle and Lauren Vanags, for the sacrifices they have made and for providing encouragement, support, and the incentive to get this written. It is to Gayle and Lauren that I dedicate this thesis. vi Chapter 1: Introduction Archaeologists have been working in the Southern Interior Plateau of British Columbia for over one hundred years. During this time there have been several major shifts in research focus, though most of the work has been done since the 1960's when archaeologists developed regional sequences through investigations of large winter pithouse villages in the major river valleys. With the 1970's came a concern for subsistence and settlement patterns and a renewed interested in the early ethnographies (Teit 1900, 1909; Smith 1900), as researchers wanted to determine the antiquity of the archaeological patterns. The focus of archaeological research also shifted from salmon-bearing streams to other environments, including upland areas. Early ethnographers had noted that upland regions were important sources of faunal and floral resources, and recent work in Upper Hat Creek Valley (Pokotylo 1978; Pokotylo and Froese 1983), Pavilion Mountain (Alexander 1989), and Komkanetkwa, a traditional root gathering ground near Kamloops B.C. (Peacock 1998), provided archaeological and ethnoarchaeological information to verify and complement the ethnographies. These three locations provided important information on root processing, an important but secondary resource to salmon. In the 1980's, archaeological (Alexander and Matson 1987; Hayden 1992; Matson and Alexander 1990; Pokotylo and Froese 1983; Rousseau et al 1987, 1989, 1991) and ethnoarchaeological projects (Alexander 1989, 1992, 2000; Alexander et al 1985) were undertaken to add Alpine and Sub-alpine areas to our understanding of past use of the regional landscape. Other Alpine/Sub-alpine areas along the Northwest Coast have recently been investigated (Reimer 2000), but a comparison between Coastal Mountain and Interior Plateau Alpine/Sub-alpine information goes beyond the scope of this thesis. This study is based on two independent archaeological surveys of Alpine/Sub-alpine environments: the Clear Range (Pokotylo 1986) and Pavilion Mountain (Alexander 1989). Both are adjacent to Upper Hat Creek Valley in the mid-Fraser region of British Columbia's interior plateau (Figure 1). The floor of Upper Hat Creek Valley ranges from 840m to 1200m with its slopes extending into Intermediate, Sub-alpine and Alpine environmental zones. To date, most of the archaeological reports have focused on the valley floor and lower slopes. It is the goal of this thesis to explore the nature of the archaeological record in the higher elevations of this region. Definitions of the above environmental zones are presented in Table 1 and Figure 2. Pokotylo's (1986:1-7) surveys of the Clear Range, the divide between the Fraser and Thompson River watersheds, focused on the headwaters of Anderson Creek (Figure 3) and Cinquefoil - Pocock Creeks (Figure 4) respectively. Alexander (1989:110-116) conducted a further survey of the Clear Range that examined Cairn, Blustery, Moore, Chipuin, and Cole Mountains. Pavilion Mountain in the Marble Range located north of Upper 1 Hat Creek Valley (Figure 5) was also included in the survey. The analysis of these two surveys is the focus of this paper. Although neither project has been fully reported, an examination of the existing information shows that they are comparable both environmentally and in the assemblages recovered. Compatible (but not identical) survey and collection strategies were used, resulting in a dataset that provides a good initial understanding of the nature of the archaeological record in the Alpine/Sub-alpine zones of this region of British Columbia's Southern Interior Plateau. Table 1: Environmental zones (Alexander 1992:49-86) Environmental Zones Sub-zones Elevation (meters) Environmental Description Alpine Alpine Tundra 1980-2150 Alpine meadows, Krummholz trees Sub-alpine Montane Parkland 1525 -2135 Parkland meadow; Krummholz trees; Open forest: Sub-alpine fir, Engelmann spruce, lodgepole pine, and whitebark pine. This area includes all open meadows within 200 m of the tree line and forested areas within 50 m of the tree line. Montane Forests 610-1980 Closed forest: Sub-alpine fir, Engelmann spruce, lodgepole pine, whitebark pine, Douglas-fir, aspen, white pine, cottonwood, Rocky Mt. Maple. Intermediate Intermediate Grasslands 915-1370 Grassland meadows surrounded by Douglas-fir forest. Intermediate Lakes 610- 1070 Grassland meadows and Douglas fir forest at edge of lakes and streams. This thesis is a case study to determine the nature of the archaeological record, and subsistence and settlement patterns in the Alpine/Sub-alpine environmental zones of the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain. Archaeological materials are examined in relation to ethnographic subsistence and settlement patterns, archaeological pattering in upland valleys (Upper Hat Creek Valley), and to other investigated Alpine/Sub-alpine areas such as the Cornwall Hills that form the eastern divide between Upper Hat Creek Valley and the Thompson Plateau, and Potato Mountain, located approximately 160 km to the northeast in the Chilcotin Ranges (Figure 1). Specifically, this thesis: la) documents ethnographic subsistence and settlement patterns specific to Alpine/Sub-alpine zones to determine what subsistence resources and land use activities are distinct to this environment, lb) examines how these resources compare to the resource base in other environmental zones used by aboriginal peoples, lc) determines whether there is a unique subsistence and settlement pattern for this zone or if it is simply an extension of the Intermediate Grassland environmental zone, and Id) using an ethnographically based model, develops archaeological expectations for the classes of sites that may be present in the Alpine/Sub-alpine zones, 2) compares the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain archaeological material to the ethnographic model, 3) compares the Clear Range/Pavilion Mountain material to Upper Hat Creek Valley to determine if there are any ethnographic and/or archaeological differences between this area and the higher elevations, and 4) examines other areas (Cornwall Hills, Potato Mountain) to determine if the pattern can be expanded and to make some general statements about utilization of Alpine/Sub-alpine environments in British Columbia's interior plateau. 3 Chapter 2: Models of Traditional Use of the Alpine/Sub-alpine Environments Ethnographic Model and Archaeological Expectations: The ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological research conducted on the Southern Interior Plateau was used to develop a model of land and resource use for the Alpine/Sub-alpine environments. As noted by Alexander (1992:99), the early accounts of Teit, Dawson and Smith do not describe the practices of individual bands, but rather give general accounts for larger groups, such as Lillooet, Shuswap and Thompson. These three groups are all Interior Salish peoples (based on linguistic groupings) and will be identified as such throughout the rest of the thesis. In this section, I summarize the ethnographic information concerning Interior Salish use of Alpine/Sub-alpine environments. This includes an examination of the resources available within these environmental zones, the development of a model of Alpine/Sub-alpine subsistence and settlement patterns, and the derivation of archaeological expectations from the model. Interior Salish people occupying the Southern Interior Plateau relied heavily on salmon, deer and root crops. Salmon, caught in the large riverine valleys, provided a major source of protein and calories, but this resource was not always predictable (Alexander 1992:104). Other major subsistence resources (including deer, roots and berries) are dispersed through the environmental zones surrounding these valleys and were collected to supplement the diet. The Alpine and Sub-alpine environmental zones provided many of these important supplementary faunal and floral resources and they were available at different times than in the lower elevation environmental zones. Appendix 1 lists the floral and faunal resources sought by the Interior Salish. The Alpine/Sub-alpine areas also provided an abundance of floral subsistence and medicinal resources (Teit 1900:514-515, 1909:231-233; Turner et al: 1990:34-40; Peacock 1998:143). Peacock (1998:6, 36) suggests that Interior Salish groups modified the environment to increase the productivity of culturally important plant resources. Groups dug roots, collected berries and nuts/seeds, as well as plant shoots, leaves and stems. These floral resources were so important that Peacock (1998:328) proposed that Interior Salish peoples were not just plant gatherers, but rather plant food producers who modified the environment to produce more food resources than would occur naturally. Environmental modification can take the form of selective harvesting, weeding and tilling, and landscape burning. A variety of animals were hunted in the Alpine/Sub-alpine environments. Animals such as deer, bear, hare and marmots, were sought for both food and skins, while other animals such as cougar, wolves, wolverine and 4 weasels were sought primarily for their skins. However, deer was probably the most important faunal resource sought in Alpine/Sub-alpine environments. The Interior Salish people followed a yearly cycle of subsistence resource procurement, moving from area to area in task groups of varying size and duration, gathering resources, as they became available. It was during times of abundance - late spring, summer and early fall - that people were highly mobile; collecting, processing and storing resources for winter. During this period, they moved from winter pithouse villages further into the surrounding territory. These mobile hunter and gatherers have been characterized as "logistically organized collectors" (Binford 1980: 10; Pokotylo and Froese 1983:128), as they would split into smaller groups to gather resources (Alexander 1992:100) and make short trips into the upland and Alpine/Sub-alpine regions. A listing of mid and upper elevation ethnographic site classes for the Southern Interior Plateau, based primarily on Alexander (1992), and supplemented by Teit (1900, 1909), Dawson (1891; Cole and Lockner 1989) and Smith (1900), are summarized in Appendix 2. For each ethnographic site class, descriptions of the season and duration of use, site activities, tools, equipment and features, task group composition and site location are provided. However, not all of the features or artifacts listed for each site class are present (for example, lone hunters may or may not light a fire when they make a kill). The "Archaeological Expectation" columns in Appendix 2 present the archaeological implications of the ethnographic subsistence/settlement activities, listing the features and assemblages that would preserve in the archaeological record. While the ethnographies provide general information on the site classes, where and when resources were sought, and activities performed, they are vague in respect to particular types of tools used. Therefore, archaeological implications were inferred from the ethnographic material. For example, the ethnographies state that butchering equipment may be found at the site, but neither a definition of these tools, nor the specific activities undertaken at the site (e.g. tool maintenance, fabrication) are provided. Teit (1900:184-185) provides several diagrams of some stone tools (a hafted knife and scraper) but he does not discuss these objects in any detail. Also, most of the evidence of site activity disappears over time. Only features and lithic artifacts tend to survive as organic material decomposes. In comparing the site classes present in the Alpine/Sub-alpine Ethnographic Model with the Intermediate Grassland Ethnographic Model (both in Appendix 2), it is apparent that the two environmental zones were used differently. Hunting sites, gathering sites, and Base Camps are common in both areas, though some classes of hunting sites (Deer Fences, Winter Deer Hunts and Butchering sites) are specific to the Alpine/Sub-alpine zone. 5 Lookouts, Hunting Blinds and Burials are also distinct Alpine/Sub-alpine site classes, while Transit Camps are only found in the Intermediate Grasslands. Thirteen ethnographic Alpine/Sub-alpine site classes are distinguished by their artifact assemblages, associated features (or lack thereof) and/or environmental locations (Table 2). Lookouts are readily identifiable by their location, even though they have many of the same archaeological assemblage and features as the other classes of hunting sites. They have optimal overviews, situated on a high point with an excellent view of the surrounding area. Hunting Blinds are also distinguished by their location. These loosely piled rock features were often used as part of two kinds of deer drives. The first included building a hunting blind on rocky promontories above a gulch. Ungulates were chased up these gulches and would be killed by the waiting hunters(s), or if they turned around, they would be killed by the drivers (Teit 1900:247). The ungulate would be taken away from the gulch, and processed at a site nearby so that the smell of blood would not scare away other animals chased up the gulch at a future date. The second drive method focused on mountains with small, round, and open peaks. The hunters encircled the peak, closed in and drove the animals towards the summit where they were trapped and killed (Teit 1909:521). The various classes of hunting sites are more difficult to differentiate, as they either have similar archaeological features and assemblages or most of the features and/or assemblages are no longer present. Some site classes may be distinguished if certain attributes are present. For example, if a kill/butchering site is found near a salt lick, rocky promontory or water hole, it is most likely to be a Ungulate Hunting/Butchering Site. If remnants of woodworking tools are present near a shallow pit situated along game trails, it is most likely a Deer Fence site. Deer Net-Snare and Winter Deer Kill Sites are impossible to archaeologically distinguish from the other kill and butchering sites, while the only really distinguishable small game kill sites will be those found near marmot colonies. If an apparent kill / butchering site cannot be identified as a specific site class, it is labeled in the generic form. Base Camps are probably one of the most visible site classes, as these are areas of much activity where groups camped, cooked, processed meat, hides, roots, and berries, as well as where they tended to fabricate and fix their tools. • These sites are expected to have a wide variety of features and assemblages. Gathering sites may be extremely difficult to locate, as gathering activities leave very few, if any, archaeological traces. The only items that may remain are a few lithic tools (such as stone knives used to maintain digging sticks) that were too broken to be fixed. However, if tools are found in an area of abundant 6 Table 2: Ethnographic Alpine/Sub-alpine site classes and their Attributes: Site class Lithic Artifacts Features Environmental Location Projectile points Butchering Tools (bifaces, unifaces, utilized flakes) Woodworking tools (adze. Axes) Knives (retouched / utilized flakes) Cooking tools (boiling stones) Hammer stones and anvils Tanning tools (scrapers) Primary stage debris Secondary stage debris Tertiary stage debris Fire Cracked Rock Hearths Shallow pits Processing pits Refuse midden Post holes Hunting Blinds 1 Cairns Alpine environmental zone Sub-alpine environmental zone Abundant floral resources Dry, flat land Close to water Sheltered / Edge of forest Game trails Optimum overview Salt licks Rocky promontories Valleys between mtns. Lookouts X \ X X X m \ til Hunting Blinds \ X X \ X Ungulate Kill / Butchering sites X \ \ \ X X X X X X X Deer Fences X X X X X X iting s Deer Nets and Snares X X X X Winter Deer Hunts \ X Small Game Kill Sites X X X X X X Butchering Sites X \ X \ X Generic Hunting Sites X X X X X X X X X \ Base Camps X X X X \ X \ \ \ X \ \ X X X \ X \ \ Gathering Sites X X X X Processing Sites X X X X X. Burials X 3T ~\" floral resources, then this will most likely be a gathering site. Processing sites have no associated artifacts, but consist solely of processing pits and should be located next to areas of important food resources. Finally, Burials may also be located in Alpine/Sub-alpine environmental zones. Most people were buried in river valleys near the winter villages, but if someone died and it was too far to carry them back, they were interred in a rock cairn. As it was difficult to determine the particular classes of hunting sites present in the archaeological record, Table 3 (Generic ethnographic site classes) details the seven sites classes with explicit archaeological signatures, including Lookouts, Hunting Blinds, Hunting Sites, Base Camps, Gathering Sites and Burials, while condensing all of the site class with similar archaeological signatures into a single category called "Generic Hunting Sites". The archaeological information from the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain were compared to these site classes to 7 determine how close a fit exists between the Ethnographic Model and the archaeological samples. Efforts were made to identify the specific ethnographic hunting sites, but with limited success. Table 3: Generic Archaeological Site classes and their Attributes Based on the Ethnographic Record: Site classes Lithic Artifacts Features Environmental Location Projectile Points Butchering Tools (bifaces, unifaces, utilized flakes) Woodworking Tools (adze. Axes) Knives (retouched / utilized flakes) Cooking Tools (boiling stones) Hammer Stones and anvils Tanning Tools (scrapers) Early Stage Debris Middle Stage Debris Late Stage Debris Fire Cracked Rock Hearths Shallow Pits Processing Pits Refuse Middens Post Holes Hunting Blinds 1 Cairns Alpine environmental zone Sub-alpine environmental zone Abundant Floral Resources Dry, Flat Land Close to Water Sheltered / Edge of Forest Game Trails Optimum Overview Rocky Promontories Lookouts X X X X X X X Hunting Blinds X X X X Generic Hunting Sites X X X X X X X X X X Base Camps X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Gathering Sites X X X X Processing Sites X X X X X X Burials X X X Upland Valley Model: After the comparison between the Alpine/Sub-alpine archaeological material and the archaeological expectations derived from the ethnographic material, a second comparison was conducted using a model derived from Pokotylo's (1978) work in Upper Hat Creek Valley. The site classes, associated artifact assemblages, features and site sizes from the Upland Valley Model were compared to the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain Alpine/Sub-alpine archaeological material to determine if the Upland Valley pattern extends up into the Alpine/Sub-alpine environmental zones or if the high elevation pattern is distinct. Pokotylo's (1978:318) 1976 survey of Upper Hat Creek Valley revealed a total of 85 sites that were grouped into five site classes. These site classes have different archaeological signatures and are located in a different environmental zone. Appendix 3 lists the five site classes, the site class mean size and size range, associated features, tool and debitage assemblages and their environmental locations. While Hunting site 1 and 2 8 contain similar tool assemblages and environmental locales, and can be readily distinguished by their debitage. Hunting site 1 contains the debris from the full range of reduction steps including initial core reduction, bifacial thinning and late stage tool completion and possible tool maintenance, while Hunting Site 2 contains only late stage debitage. Hunting site 3 is completely different in that it composed predominantly of microblades. Finally, the two gathering / processing sites are distinguished by their lithic assemblages. Gathering/Processing site 1 has a large number of tools and a full range of debitage, while Gathering/Processing site 2 has a very low frequency and diversity of tools derived from the application of an expedient technology. The two models take different approaches to determine site classes. The Ethnographic Model looks at the activities recorded to have taken place during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, while the Upland Valley Model is derived from archaeological information from Upper Hat Creek Valley. Together they provide a foundation for understanding the archaeological sites located in the Alpine/Sub-alpine environmental zones. It is important to note that while ethnographers started working in this area in the late 19th century, they were documenting a traditional lifeway undergoing change from European contact. However, this semi-sedentary lifestyle based around winter housepit villages, started ca. 4000 BP, and until proven otherwise, the working assumption made here is that the ethnographic details can provide a testable basis for archaeological investigations back at least this far. 9 Chapter 3: Archaeological Data This chapter will investigate the Alpine/Sub-alpine subsistence and settlement patterns through a review of the data collection methods and the range and nature of the archaeological material collected. It also details the debitage analysis, the classes of raw materials used, and finally the culture history of the area. Data Collection Methodologies: Pokotylo and Alexander used two different but compatible data collection methods. Pokotylo's (1986:2-4) survey consisted of a systematic survey along the banks of an unnamed tributary of Anderson Creek, from its headwaters to its junction with Anderson Creek. The survey was along a linear transect approximately 2.9 km long, and 50-200 meters wide, depending on the degree of slope and extent of the stream bed (Pokotylo 1986:2). Limited reconnaissance was also carried out along the ridges and in the Alpine meadows of Chipuin Mountain. The 1985 survey consisted of a brief reconnaissance of Cinquefoil Creek-Pocock Creek drainage. All archaeological sites located in the two surveys were mapped, though only the 1982 sites were surface collected (using a 2 meter grid system), and shovel tested at regular intervals in the collection grid (Pokotylo 1986:4). Alexander's (1989:3) approach was well suited to her goals of studying the traditional lands claimed by the Pavilion and Fountain Bands. Alexander attempted to find archaeological evidence of the traditional Interior Salish subsistence and settlement patterns through ethnoarchaeology. This involved conducting interviews with elders from the Pavilion and Fountain Bands on the traditional use of their environment and visiting traditional sites with local informants. Alexander visited traditional sites on Pavilion Mountain, Mount Cole, Chipuin Mountain, Moore Peak, Cairn Peak, Blustry Mountain, and the headwaters of Sallus Creek. Alexander's focus on known sites is understandable given that her study area encompasses approximately 475 square kilometers. Pokotylo's systematic survey was an intensive study of the classes of sites found in that immediate area, while Alexander's study focused on a larger area and dealt only with known areas tied to known activities. While two different methodologies were used to locate sites in the study region, they work together to provide a picture of the classes of sites found in the Alpine/Sub-alpine environmental zones. This picture can be deemed to be quite accurate as most of the ethnographic site classes can be accounted for, but the picture is not 100% complete and there is some variation in the context and nature of the site classes between the ethnographic literature and the archaeological record. Range and Nature of the Archaeological Data: 10 The archaeological data, including artifact, feature and environmental information, were collected from 52 sites: 37 from the Clear Range and 15 from Pavilion Mountain. The information base was compiled from the Archaeological Site Inventory Forms and a lithic analysis conducted by the author under the supervision of David Pokotylo. Categories of sites include lithic scatter sites, feature sites and lithic scatter/feature sites. The total artifact sample consists of 376 stone tools, 4422 pieces of lithic debitage, three pieces of broken ungulate bone, and 82 historic artifacts (61 pieces of a tin can, one shell casing and two glass fragments). Appendix 4 lists the general site information while Appendix 5 summarizes the lithic assemblage information. A reconnaissance survey of both Chipuin Mountain/Anderson Creek headwaters and the Eagle Lake locality was undertaken during the Fall of 2000 to familiarize the author with the archaeological context of the two localities. Tools The tool classes are based on manufacturing technique, morphology and use, using previous classifications developed for this region (Pokotylo 1978; Magne 1983, 1985). The tools can be divided into two groups; expedient and formed tools. Two edge angle groups (greater than and less than 45°) were identified among the utilized and retouched tools, and angle measurements were taken approximately 2 millimeters from the edge (Odell 1979:339-340). Steep angles are ideal for chopping and scraping activities, and therefore are considered to be woodworking and/or tanning tools, while acute angled tools have sharp cutting edges. None of the steep retouched flakes appear to be backed knives. Most of the tools were created using expedient technologies. This includes 171 acute utilized, 23 steep utilized, and 42 acute retouched, 50 steep retouched and 25 bifacially retouched flakes, the definitions of which are taken from Andrefski (1998:77-80). Within these categories, only those tools with a minimum of 3 macroscopically visible flake scars and that contained the same visible weathering as the rest of the artifacts were identified as tools. This was necessary as many sites were located along cattle trails, and many lithic artifacts contained fresh scars. If there was any doubt, the artifacts were labeled as debris; therefore, it is likely that the aforementioned tools are underrepresented. In the formed tool category, a total of 17 complete biface and 21 biface fragments, three unifaces, nine projectile points and ten point fragments, three gravers, one spoke shave, and one piece esquillee were identified. Definitions were used from Andrefski (1998: XXI - XXVI) for the biface, and uniface, Richards and Rousseau 11 (1987:25-45) and Stryd and Rousseau (1996:187-192) for the projectile points, Sanger (1967:190) for the gravers, Trainer (1996:3) for the spoke shave, and Magne (1985:168) for the piece esquillee. One of the bifaces (shown in figure 4) is a pentagonal biface. These five-sided tools are widest at the shoulders with the lateral edges tapering to a straight base (Sanger 1967:166). The twelve projectile points and point fragments are shown in Figure 6. 'A' is a large lanceolate projectile point similar to those found in the Dutch Lake Locality (Stryd and Rousseau 1996:192 [Figure 14: u]). 'B' is a corner-notched projectile point with a concave basal margin similar to those found at the Lehman site (Stryd and Rousseau 1996:192 [Figure 14: j1]). Both 'A' and 'B' may date to the Early Nesikep period (Stryd and Rousseau 1996:188, 192). 'C and 'D' have rounded shoulders, a slightly expanding stem and concave basal margin, and, along with a projectile point fragment with a markedly concave base 'E', are similar to the Shuswap Horizon projectile points from the Lower Nicola-Spences Bridge locality (Richards and Rousseau 1987:26[Type 8]). 'F', 'G' and 'H', are bilaterally barbed, basal-notched projectile points and point fragment, and T, a bilaterally barbed, corner-notched projectile point, are similar to the Plateau Horizon projectile points from the Lillooet locality (Richards and Rousseau 1987:35 [Figure 19:f, c, d]). 'J' is a triangulate point, and along with the tiny corner-notched point fragment 'K', and the tiny side-notched projectile point 'L', are all similar to projectile points from the Lillooet locality dating to the Kamloops Horizon (Richards and Rousseau 1987:44 [Figure 22: e1, a-h ). Debitage: The result of the debitage analysis was an assemblage consisting of 1713 platform remnant bearing flakes (PRB's), 229 bifacial thinning flakes (BTF's), 2076 pieces of flake shatter, 398 items of block shatter and six cores. Of the PRB's and BTF's a total of 736 complete flakes and 1204 broken ones were identified. The debitage was examined to determine the reduction stages present at each site using a method similar to that of Magne and Pokotylo (1981) and Magne (1983,1985). This method divides debris into three stages (early - core reduction and blank production, middle - blank reduction, and late - tool completion and maintenance), through the use of three key attributes: weight, presence/absence of cortex, and dorsal scar count. As stone tool production is a reduction process, it is usually assumed that early stage debris is relatively heavier, contains more cortex, and has a low dorsal scar count. Middle stage complete flakes, which include bifacial thinning flakes, are lighter, have little or no cortex, and up to four flake scars. Late stage complete flakes are small, lack cortex, and should have three or more dorsal scars. Table 4 identifies the patterning used to identify each reduction stage. The analysis quickly revealed 12 the limitations of this model as approximately 30% of the flakes did not easily fit into any of the three defined reduction categories. Even with its limitations, this model provides a simple and relatively accurate method of determining the reduction stages present at each site. The reduction stage analysis was conducted in two parts. All complete flakes (i.e., those with striking platforms and intact margins) were examined first, followed by an examination of weights for the broken flakes (broken flakes have a platform but incomplete margin), flake and block shatter. Using the three variables (weight, dorsal scar count, and cortex), complete flakes were examined to determine what attribute combinations were present. Complete flakes were first divided by weight into three categories. Each weight category was further divided into five flake scar categories (one through four scars and five or more scars). The third and final division listed the presence or absence of surface and/or platform cortex resulting in a total of 30 attribute combination categories. Table 4: Reduction Stage Definition Early (initial core reduction and blank formation) Middle (blank reduction, bifacial thinning) Late (completion of formed tools, and tool maintenance) Complete Flakes Weight > 10gr. 2-10 gr. <2gr. Dorsal Scar Count 0-3 0-4 >3 (definitely if >5) Presence of Cores Presence of BTF's Presence of BTF's Broken Flakes Weight > 10 gr.* 2-10 gr.** < 2 gr.** Flake Shatter Weight > 10 gr.* 2-10 gr.** < 2 gr.** Block Shatter Weight > 10 gr.* 2-10 gr.** <2 gr.** Cortex present May be present Absent * may be under represented ** may be over represented Most of the complete flakes fell into the categories listed in Table 4 and were easily identified (based on the three attributes), but some did not. The anomalous ones were reexamined and put into the most logical reduction category using the following method. First, it was apparent that a number of lightweight flakes have cortex. Under the original definitions this is not possible, therefore, they were labeled as middle reduction stage flakes. There were also approximately 250 lightweight complete flakes with less than three dorsal scars as required in the late stage definition, but as these flakes are too small (< 2 grams) to possess a large number of scars, they were all assigned to a late reduction stage. Forty-five middleweight flakes contain five or more dorsal scars. 13 Eighteen of these also have cortex, indicating that they were most likely derived from middle reduction stages. Since these cortex bearing flakes show that it was possible for middle stage debris to contain a large number of scars, the other middle weight flakes with five or more scars but lacking cortex (n= 28) were kept in the middle reduction stage category. One heavy weight flake did not fit with the original definition as it also had five flake scars, but due to its large size (> 10 grams), it was assigned to the early stage reduction stage category. A tabulation of the debris is listed in Table 5. Table 5: Debris type by reduction stage Reduction Stage Complete Flake Broken Flake Flake Shatter Block Shatter No. % No. % No. % No. % late 549 74.2 934 77.1 1757 84.6 284 71.4 middle 184 24.9 271 22.4 307 14.8 111 27.9 early 7 .9 6 .5 12 .6 3 .8 Total 740 100.0 1211 100.0 2076 100.0 398 100.0 The second part of the debitage analysis used the weight and cortex attributes to infer the reduction stages of broken flakes, flake shatter and block shatter. As broken flakes are by definition incomplete, dorsal scar counts were not used. The same weight categories were used here as for the complete flakes, recognizing that in Table 5, early reduction may be under-represented, while middle and late reduction may be over-represented. Table 5 indicates a consistency between the four debris categories. The percentages do not differ much between complete and broken flakes, and flake and block shatter. What Table 5 does show is that the majority of the debris, irrespective of debris type, is derived from late stage reduction activities. In all four debris categories, late stage debris consists of over 70% of that recovered. The rest of the debris mainly consists of middle stage debitage (between 14 and 28%) while early stage debris consists of less than 1% of the debris recovered. The similarity in the percentages of debris classes in each reduction category allows for the pooling of the broken flake, flake shatter and block shatter categories to determine the number of pieces in each reduction stage present at each site. This information will be used to support the complete flake section of the analysis. It is important to note that due to the low numbers of artifacts recovered from many of the sites, in many cases little more can be done than to mention the presence of the reduction categories at a site. Further statistical investigations into differences between reduction stages present in different site classes were not carried out for this reason. The presence of a core at a site is also indicative of early stage reduction activities taking place. Only one core, the disc shaped core from EdRk 43 showed signs of the systematic removal of flakes. The remaining cores were blocky by nature. 14 Lithic Raw Material The predominant lithic raw material present in 34 out of the 35 sites consist of a dark (gray to black), vitreous, igneous stone traditionally labeled as basalt. Chert is the second largest category but this material largely comes from a single site (EfRk 50). If we disregard this site, basaltic material makes up close to 90% of the lithic raw material, and most of this is of a vitreous nature. Table 6 lists the classes of raw materials recovered, the number of pieces, and their percentage of the total. Table 6: Lithic Raw Material Raw Material Frequency Percent Vitreous basalt 3086 64.3 Coarse basalt 453 9.4 Chert 1247 26* Chalcedony 10 0.2 Andesite 2 0.1 Total 4798 100 * 99% of this chert is from EfRk 50 It has been suggested that the dark, vitreous, igneous stone found in the Interior Plateau of British Columbia is not actually basalt but rather trachydacite, with a minority of the material falling into the dacite and rhyolite geological categories (Bakewell and Irving 1994:30,33, Bakewell 2000:267). Chemical analysis on lithic material recovered from Upper Hat Creek Valley revealed that the material has a silica content higher than is possible for basalt (Bakewell and Irving 1994: 33). Also, flow banding and microscopic crystals are present and this does not occur in basalt, but rather is representative of these other materials. The 10% of material listed as coarse basalt would fall into the dacite or rhyolite categories. While recognizing the validity of the aforementioned studies and that basalt may not be the technical geological term of this material, it is the traditional term used for this material in this area, therefore, I will continue to use the term "basalt" for the sack of clarity. Magne and Pokotylo (1981:35) stated that basalt occurs as nodules in the glacial till and streambeds, and good source locations are relatively close to the study area. Large cobbles of this material may be obtained from either Cache Creek (<35km away), while medium sized cobbles are located at Medicine Creek in Upper Hat Creek Valley. The geological source of the latter cobble location is most likely the Trachyte Hills to the east of Upper Hat Creek Valley (Bakewell and Irvine 1994:33, Bakewell 2000:271). While chert is the second most common stone type used, it constitutes a minor percentage of the material at all sites except EfRk 50. The chert material from EfRk 50 contains a gradation of several colors (white, yellow, brown, black and pink) and textures (granular to glassy) on the same fragment. The wide array of color and 15 textural combinations can be attributed to differences in thermal alterations, hydration effects and weathering (Bakewell 2000:273). Several macroscopic analyses of the Keatley Creek chert (Hayden, Bakewell and Gargett 1996:346-348, Bakewell 2000:284) suggest that the so-called chert used by the Interior Salish is in fact five different types of stone including jasperoid, pisolite, tuff, chalcedony and quartzite. A quick comparison of a sample of the Pavilion Mountain chert with that from Keatley Creek suggests that much of the Pavilion Mountain material may in fact be pisolite though microscopic analyses should be done to verify this determination. Possible sources for this material include Glen Fraser, Hat Creek, Maiden Creek and Medicine Creek. Rousseau et al (1989:10) discovered yellowish chert similar to that found in Hat Creek on Cornwall Hills Summit. Again for the ease of referencing, "chert" will be used to refer to any of this type of material. Culture History: The culture history of the Southern Interior Plateau of British Columbia (Richards and Rousseau 1987, Pokotylo and Mitchell 1998, and Stryd and Rousseau 1996) is based primarily on time-sensitive projectile points and other distinctive artifacts, and the culture history is constantly refined as new information is published. The chronology listed in Table 7 are derived from the latest synthesis by Hayden (2000). Dates for the study sites were established using two techniques - radiocarbon dating and cross dating. Inorganic material does not preserve well in either the Alpine or Sub-alpine environmental zones due to the acidic soil and harsh environment, therefore, usable radiocarbon dates could only be derived from the roasting pits. Table 7: Time Periods of the British Columbia's Southern Interior Plateau. (Hayden 2000: 20-26) Period Sub-periods Time frame Early Prehistoric Period 11 000 B.P-7000 BP. Middle Prehistoric Period Early Nesikep 7000 - 6000 B.P Lehman Phase 6000-4500 BP Lochnore Phase 5500/5000-3500 B.P Late Prehistoric Period or (Plateau Pithouse Tradition) Shuswap Horizon 3500-2400 BP Plateau Horizon 2400-1200 BP Kamloops Horizon 1200-200 BP Historic Period 200-50 BP The six radiocarbon dates (Table 8) derived from five sites suggest that processing pits were used in Alpine/Sub-alpine environmental zones during both the Plateau and Kamloops Horizons and into the Historic Period. These were the only absolute dates available and the rest of the sites were dated using time-sensitive artifacts such as projectile points, point fragments, and other distinguishing tools (e.g. pentagonal bifaces) found at the site. 16 Table 8: Site dates and dating technique Location Site Artifact Class Relative Date Period Clear Range EdRk 43 Tiny, side-notched projectile point 1200-200 Kamloops Clear Range EdRk 50 Pentagonal biface 1200-200 Kamloops Clear Range EeRk 46 Triangulate projectile point 1200-200 Kamloops Clear Range EeRk 52 Bilaterally barbed, corner-notched projectile, point 2400-1200 Plateau Clear Range EeRk 59 Bilaterally barbed, basal-notched projectile point 2400-1200 Plateau Clear Range EeRk 59 Projectile point frag, with a markedly concave base 3500-2400 Shuswap Pavilion EfRk37 Rounded shoulders, expanding stem, and concave basal margin projectile point 1200-200 Shuswap Pavilion EfRk37 Rounded shoulders, expanding stem, and concave basal margin projectile point 1200-200 Shuswap Pavilion EfRk38 Tiny corner-notched projectile point 1200-200 Kamloops Pavilion EfRk55 Lanceolate projectile point 7000-6000 E. Nesikep Pavilion EfRk56 Bilaterally barbed, basal-notched projectile point 2400-1200 Plateau Pavilion EfRk 60 Bilaterally barbed, basal-notched projectile point 2400-1200 Plateau Pavilion EfRk 64 Corner-notched, concave basal margin projectile point 7000-6000 E. Nesikep Location Site Sample Number Radiocarbon Date Period / Horizon Clear Range EeRk 38 SFU381/Beta 49089 Modern Modern Clear Range EeRk 39 Beta 49090 350+/- 90 BP Kamloops Clear Range EeRk 42 SFU278 1940+/- 100 BP Plateau Clear Range EeRk 43 SFU381 2000+/- 160 BP Plateau Clear Range EeRk 53, pit 1 SFU 280 790 +/- 70 BP Kamloops Clear Range EeRk 53, pit 2 SFU 365 700+/- 100 BP Kamloops Location Site Modern feature / Artifact Date Period Clear Range EdRk 37 Campfire Modern Clear Range EdRk 39 Canadian coins 1974, 1976, 1979, 1984 Modern Clear Range EdRk 40 Campfire Modern Pavilion EfRk 38 Glass Modern Pavilion EfRk 40 Campfire Modern Pavilion EfRk 46 Bottle Modern The projectile point site locations, descriptions, and most likely relative date and associate time period are shown in Table 8 and pictures of the artifacts are found in Figure 6. The projectile points classes recovered suggest that this area has been in use for the last 7000 years, though 85% (no. 11/13) of the diagnostic artifacts are from the Late Period. Six sites (EdRk 37, 39 and 40, EfRk 38,40, and 46) contain historical components. Alexander (field notes) originally suggested that EfRk 38 consisted of a historic hunting camp overlaying a Kamloops Horizon site. The top component is disturbed and the soil contains both a Kamloops point and historical material. The lower component is most likely of a similar age though no diagnostic artifacts were found in these layers. Due to 17 disturbance, it is difficult to determine if the lithic assemblage and the modern component are contemporaneous or not. A seventh site, EfRk 60, may also have a historical component, containing a stone box made from a flat slab of limestone with 3 sides and a top, which Alexander thought might be modern. It is possible that this large (approximately 1764 m2) site may have been reoccupied as it also contained a projectile point similar in style to those associated with the Plateau Horizon. Several sites (EdRk 37, 39, 42, and EfRk 40, 46) have historic components. Recovered artifacts include a coffee pot, frying pan, broken axe handle, holder for 7mm bullets, jars and cans that were located in close proximity to EdRk 37, while EdRk 42 and EfRk 40 contained evidence of historic campfires, and a bottle was found on the surface at EfRk 46. The burial at EdRk 39 may also be modern as 1974 and 1979 dimes, 1976 and 1984 quarters, matches, a tin can and brown glass were located in conjunction with the burial cairn. However, a leaf shaped biface was also present, suggesting an older date. It is a documented practice that Aboriginal people often leave gifts at Burials, and the material observed may be the result of this practice. In conclusion, the majority of the tools and debitage from the 52 sites suggest that the Interior Salish primarily used expedient technologies made of basalt in the Alpine/Sub-alpine environmental zones. These zones have been a part of the subsistence and settlement patterns from as early as 7000 BP, and have remained in use ever since. The archaeological assemblage suggests that hunting was the major activity in the Clear Range until the Plateau Horizon (ca. 2400 BP) when plant processing started to take place. At Pavilion Mountain, hunting remained the main activity in the Alpine/Sub-alpine environments, and both areas have continued to be used since contact by hunters and more recently, by cattle ranchers. 18 Chapter 4: Archaeological Analysis Restated, the goal of this thesis is to examine the nature of the archaeological record in the Alpine/Sub-alpine environmental zones of British Columbia's Southern Interior Plateau and what it can reveal regarding Interior Salish subsistence and settlement patterns for this area. This was done by examining three questions: 1) what is the fit of the archaeological sites discovered in the Alpine/Sub-alpine of the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain to the Ethnographic and Upland Valley Models? 2) are the same site classes found in both Pavilion Mountain and the Clear Range? and 3) even if similar site classes are present, are there differences in artifact assemblages and site/ feature sizes, and are these indicative of differences in how the areas were used? This involves examining the archaeological material recovered from the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain, and using this information to determine the classes of sites found in Alpine/Sub-alpine environmental zones. Part 1: Comparison with the Ethnographic and Upland Valley Models There are a total of 78 sites presently recorded in the study area, 59 in the Clear Range (including 15 locus sites), and 19 Pavilion Mountain sites. All but two of the sites represent surface collections as Alexander excavated two sites (EfRk 38 and 50), both on Pavilion Mt, though the EfRk 50 excavation consisted of a single 1 x lm unit. EfRk 38 has two distinct components. The surface of EfRk 38 was disturbed as the site is situated along a cattle trail, and layer 1 is shallow and disturbed. Also, the greatest concentration of artifacts was located in an area that had no artifacts in the lower stratum. Layer 2 is still intact and it is stratigraphically distinct from the above material. For the purposes of this analysis, the surface and layer 1 material will be grouped into one component, with layer 2 representing an earlier, separate component. The second excavated site, EfRk 50, consists of two layers (surface and one excavation layer). A lm x lm excavation unit was placed over the lithic scatter situated along a cattle trail. Over 2000 items, mainly debris, were recovered from both the surface collection and the excavation. The vast majority (99%) of the assemblage of both layers consists of heat-treated chert. The small size of the lithic scatter, the limited depth of the deposit, the similarity of the material recovered both from the surface and layer 1, and the fact that the area showed signs of disturbance by cattle suggest that the lithic scatter is the result of a single depositional episode, therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, it will be considered one component. 19 Appendix 4 lists all of the sites for which I have any information, along with their summary data (region, site size, elevation, environmental zone, feature types and numbers, and tool and debris numbers). However, not all of the sites listed can be used in this analysis. Most of the sites from Bald Mountain (EdRk 30-34, 37, 39, 42-44 and 47), two Chipuin Mountain sites (EeRk 17 and 57), two Cole Mountain sites (EfRk 62 and 63) and several from Pavilion Mountain (EfRk 40, 43, 47, 58, 59 and 64) contain artifacts left in-situ during the survey. These sites cannot be used in the lithic and site class analyses. This leaves a total of 43 sites, 30 from the Clear Range and 13 from Pavilion Mountain for the study. The site class comparison started by listing all of the information for each site including artifact, feature and environmental information. This information was then compared to the site classes from both the Ethnographic and Upland Valley Models. Evaluation of the Ethnographic Model The Ethnographic Model provides a good template for many of the archaeological sites from both the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain, as 41 of the 43 sites could be placed within its framework. This model describes both what is necessary to clearly identify the site, as well as the artifacts/features that may be present or absent. The site class requirements, as well as the archaeological sites that fit within each category, are listed in Table 9. In examining the archaeological expectations for the different site classes, it became apparent that two tool classes (steep utilized and steep retouched flakes) may represent either woodworking or tanning activities. The presence of these tools at a site will be noted, but their specific function will not be indicated. Also, while the ethnographic record indicates that hearths should be associated with many site classes, only historic hearths consisting of rings of rocks were visible. These were usually associated with other historic artifacts, and to date, no pre-contact hearths have been located. The comparisons between the archaeological material and the Ethnographic Model indicate that Burials, Generic Hunting Sites, Hunting Blinds, Base Camps and Processing Sites are present within the Alpine/Sub-alpine zones. Among the sites classes representing hunting related activities (Ungulate Kill/Butchering Sites, Deer Fences, Deer Nets and Snares, Winter Deer Hunts, Small Game Kill Sites, and Butchering Sites), it was not possible to distinguish between many of the site classes. Therefore, it was necessary to place most of the hunting sites into the Generic Hunting Site class. In regards to small game kill sites, Alexander (1992:52) noted the 20 ?LU azjs ens O LO CN CO o CN CO tO CO O CO LO CN CN CO 1320 CO r- CO 12221 <. z Ol 01 0 CN CN Ol 1600 LO 1764 CM CN Ol O O CM 2200l CD h-m T CO CN LO CN O O CO CM CM O O CM r-LO O 2464 2700 2125 O CO to CO CM N- CO CN CO CD O CO 0U01SJH X X 0 "SUJLU M/q sA9||ey\ X X X X X X liwiuns 0} esoio X X X X X x X re X X X sauojuoujojd X re M81AJ8A0 wnwudo X X X X X X X SIIBJJ atueg N n N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Ist IS9J0110 e6p3 A X X X X X A X X X JS9J0J U|Lj)|M eeje uod'o X X X X X X X x X X X X X X x X M0pB9[ft| X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X J9JBM Ol 9SO|0 X X X A X X X X X X X X A X X X X X X X X pUB| }B|1 'AJO A X sej |BJO|j luepunqv X X X X X X A X X X X X X 9U|d|B-qns CO ra X X X X X X X X X X X X x X X X X X X re < X X X X X X X X X X re X X X X X X X X 9U|d|v (0 X «J ra X X X re SUJjBQ < CN spui/g BuijurtH ro CN i!d eupBQ A ra CO l!d 6u(iSBoy A CO <- CM to re CO CN S)ld MO||BL(S CS X X SML1B9H n A suqap aoBjs 9jB"i A 32 CO CO CO 5? CO CO 22 CN CO # CO Ol CM CO N. CO CO o r» CD CO in CO CM CO 32 CO CO 3? Ol CD 32 LO 10 to m 32 CO 32 m CO n 0 0 ra 52 CD h~ Ol CD 32 f-tD CO 32 Ol CO to T to suqap aBejs 9|pp!iA] A 22 32 r-CN 32 Ol CO p- CN 32 o CM K 32 CD CM 3S LO 3? CO CD 32 O CO to CO CO CO CO 3? N-LO 32 o> LO re 0 CM CO CO CO ss CM 32 0 32 0 0 52 in 32 CN suqap 96BJS X|JE3 A CO CO 32 CO 22 • < • 2 ? 3? CM 52 52 CD re 32 2 32 J9)ieqs $ s9>(B|j uajjojg CO r-CN CN CM CM •A CO CO Ul u> CO CM o CO CO ** cn CD cn CM CM CO O Ol r- CM CO ro O LO CM u> CO m 0 00 00 ro r-ai suqap SBBJS 9}E-| cb CO 22 o o CN CO o LO o o h-CO CO o o CO CO 3? Ol CD Lf) 5? 0 O h-32 32 LO •V 32 m r» 32 m 01 CO 22 CD O O 32 CM in suqap a6ejs 9|pp|lAj TJ-s§ 00 b LO o LO CO CO Ol CM 3? m CM 3? Ol CM Ol CO 3? CO 10 32 CO CM 0 0 ^9 0 O 32 0 0 32 22 CO CO CO •^r suqap 96BJS A\JBJ o in 5? CO CO 32 LO CN S9>|B|J 919|dLUO0 00 CM CN CM CM CM CO n €0 Ol CM CM •5 00 u> h- r- «* CM CM N-CM CM CO CM aBBjfqap |B}01 o to CO CO CM !>- lO CO CO h- CO CD CM Ol CO CO CM CD to 0 O 01 in CO o> CO ro re LO CM u> CM CO O O CD CO IJ09] }U9|P9dX9 % 22 o in N-CO in CO O O CO 5? CO r- n r-3? CO n Ol n Ol CD Ol -? CD Ol h 0 ~3 O CO CO 3? 0 0 32 3 32 O 0 35 0 in 3? 0 to Ol 32 0 0 32 CD CO 22 JI h -t 32 0 0 0 CD S|OOJ paujjoi % 5? O m gs CO CO 32 o m r> CO 32 31 32 CN 32 in CM i— LO 3? m o 32 32 32 h 22 0 CO 22 0 Ol CD 3f CM 0 0 5? 0 to 52 O T S|00( 6u!HJOMpoo/\A CM S9A|U>1 A CN CO CO LO CO co CO o CO CO CN CN CD CN CO m - r— re N. Ol CM - CO pagonojgj pus pazjiijn d99}s CM CO CO CO CD CO CN re CN CO CM S|001 6uu9qo}ng A CM CO CM CO re CM to CM sjujod 9|!P9f0Jd CQ CN CM CN - Xi re CO CM (3) c '« v> 0) 0 0 CL •S 3 CQ 01 CO Cd TJ 111 » •2 to Dl .C 1 ,u Q) C <1> O T cd CD LU ID Cd CD LU CO Q: LU cd o LU CO cd CD LU Ol "sT ±c cd CD LU o m J£ Cd CD LU LO Cd CD LU CO Lti CO CO CO JJ o CO CO ii 0 m J£ Lu CM m J£ X. JJ CO LO jj LO JJ LO LO LU m jj 0 CD ^£ X. jj CD JJ « Ol a: CO CO cd TJ UJ 0 cd TJ LU ^£ Od XJ LU a E re 0 CD V> ra CQ CO CO ^£ cd x> LU CO CO bd CD LU CM cd CD LU CO ct CD UJ CM m cd CD LU CO m ct 0 LU CO m Cd CD LU Ol iO Cd CD UJ O to J£ Cd ai LU Ol CO X. •x. JJ CO cd -a LU CO Cd "D UJ CO CO o-i CD LU CO cd CD LU CO CO •1 CD UJ Ol ro CU ai LU 0 T br CD UJ ^: Cd CD UJ presence of large colonies of yellow-bellied marmots living along the Sub-alpine roads on Pavilion Mountain, but there is as of yet no information on how far this may go back into antiquity. As the archaeological signature would be similar to the other hunting classes, and there is no preservation of faunal material that can positively identify the sites, the Pavilion Mountain hunting sites were placed in the Generic Hunting Site class. The first ethnographic site class present in the Alpine/Sub-alpine environmental zone is Burials. Ethnographically, Burials may be found in either Alpine or Sub-alpine zone, but to date only one burial has been recorded. One of Alexander's informants identified a rock cairn at EdRk 39 as a burial. Beside the cairn were a leaf-shaped basalt biface, a 1979 and 1974 dime, a 1984 and 1976 quarter, matches, a can and brown glass, all left in-situ. This is consistent with other known Burials where items are left by passers-by as a sign of respect. Not withstanding the basalt biface, the type of offerings present and the fact that an informant identified the feature suggest this burial is most likely historic. The second cairn, while not identified as a burial, was of similar size and shape (both cairns consist of a roughly circular pile of rocks approximately lm long and 20 cm high). This suggests a similar function, but this needs to be confirmed archaeologically before it can be labeled as a burial. According to the Ethnographic Model, a number of types of hunts took place in the Alpine and Sub-alpine environmental zones. Most of these hunting types have similar archaeological assemblages, therefore the majority of the hunting sites fall within the Generic Hunting Site category, though certain cases like Lookouts may be differentiated by their environmental location (Table 9). These lithic scatter sites contain assemblages related to hunting activities represented by the presence of a combination of lithic tools such as projectile points, butchering tools, lithic knives, and a range of lithic reduction debitage. A total of 18 sites fall into the Generic Hunting Site category including EeRk 44-51, and EfRk 37, 38, 50, 52 - 55, 57, 60 and 61. All are technically situated in the Sub-alpine zone, though EfRk 37, 55, and 57 are situated at the edge of the forest on Alpine tundra close to mountain summits. The rest are either situated in open areas within the Sub-alpine forest or within the forest itself. The Generic Hunting Sites have a range of tools present. Only three sites (EeRk 47 and EfRk 37, 55) contain projectile points. EeRk 44, 47, 51 and EfRk 37 have formed bifaces. While formed tools were not located at all of the sites, the one common tool present is flake knives (utilized and marginally retouched flakes). The debitage associated with these sites consists primarily of middle and late stage debitage. Substantial numbers (>10) of complete flakes were located at six of the sites (EeRk 44, 46, EfRk 37, 50, 54 and 55). At four sites, more than two-thirds of the complete flakes fall into the late stage category, and the predominance of late stage debris 22 continues in the broken flakes and shatter categories where late stage debris consists of at least 80% of the material. At EfRk 54 and 55, middle stage debris is slightly more prominent in the complete flake category with 59% and 55% respectively. The broken flake and shatter debris also show little variation in the amounts of middle and late stage debris with a 9% and 12% variation respectively between the two classes. At the other Generic Hunting Sites (EeRk 45, 47-50, EfRk 37, 52, 53, 57, 60 and 61) complete flakes are present in very low numbers. Most of these sites have only two or three complete flakes, and at all of these sites, except EeRk 48, only middle and late stage debris is present. EeRk 48 has one early and one middle stage complete flake. All of these sites have more broken flakes and shatter. Early stage debris is present at 10 of the sites but on average it consists of less than 5% of the assemblage. Late stage debris is the most abundant category, consisting of more than 50% of the assemblage at all but two sites. Only at EfRk 60 and 61 does middle stage debris make up more than 50% of the total. In general, the Generic Hunting Site assemblages consist primarily of expediently made tools, late stage debris and have low numbers of complete flakes, suggesting that limited tool fabrication and maintenance were conducted at the sites. A couple of sites do have higher percentages of early and middle stage debris suggesting that more tool substantive tool fabrication and maintenance occurred. The Generic Hunting Sites range in size from 8 m2 to 1600m2 (mean = 453 m2, median = 184 m2). The three largest sites are EfRk 57 - 1600 m2, EeRk 47 - 530 m2, and EeRk 59 - 720 m2. EfRk 57 consists of a small lithic scatter (approximately 36 m2) with two outlying artifacts, one approximately 20m distant and the other 50m away. EeRk 59 is recorded as a large site, but it is concentrated around a central activity area consisting of a non-roasting pit and three artifacts. EeRk 47 consists of a small number of artifacts spread over a large area. The tool assemblages, range of environmental location, the lack of processing pits or abundant floral material suggest that these sites pertain to hunting activities, although it is not possible to identify to exactly which class they belong. One readily identifiable class of hunting site is Hunting Blinds (either piled rocks or shallow pits), that may be located in either the Alpine or Sub-alpine environments and are situated either on rocky promontories overlooking gulches or close to the summit. Four Hunting Blinds, two at EdRk 38 and one each at EdRk 40 and 41, were recorded. Two distinct shapes of rock blinds are present. The first form consists of a stacked ring of rocks, and one of the blinds at EdRk 38 and the blind at EdRk 41 are of this type. The second form, located at EdRk 38 and EdRk 40, consists of a semi-circular stack of rocks. 23 All four blinds are located in the Clear Range. They are found in the Alpine meadows in close proximity to gulches and consist of piled rocks. Three pieces of shatter were collected from EdRk 38, while a basalt biface was collected from EdRk 41. One flake was left in-situ at EdRk 41 as well. This suggests that as indicated in the ethnographic record, hunters did work on their tool kits at the hunting blind sites, but until some substantial archaeological excavations are done at hunting blind sites, little more can be said archaeologically. The Hunting Blind sites vary in size (Table 9), but these differences are easily explained. EdRk 40 (at 4m2) consists solely of a hunting blind, while the area estimate at EdRk 38 (at 49m2) encompasses both blinds. EdRk 41 is larger (at 200m2), though the site also includes a single projectile point type approximately 20m from the hunting blind. Whether the feature and the artifact are contemporaneous has yet to be determined. The next Alpine/Sub-alpine site class present is Base Camps. Ethnographically, Base Camps are "temporary residential camps used by families or task groups" (Alexander 1992:171). According to Alexander (1992: 119-123) these camps represent a range of activities and tend to be within the Sub-alpine environment, situated in sheltered areas of the forest, on dry flat land and close to water. These camps commonly had mat-lodge dwellings, as well as features such as drying racks and roasting pits. Without wide area excavation of the sites, remnants of the dwellings and racks would not be visible. The identified Base Camps in the study area consist of lithic scatters as well as roasting and/or cache pits. Size, as well as the presence of fire-cracked rock, charcoal and/or burnt soil was used to identify roasting pits. Smaller pits with no evidence of fire were labeled as cache pits. Ten sites fall into this category, nine from the Clear Range (EdRk 36, EeRk 35,42, 43, 52, 53 and 58-60), and one from Pavilion Mountain (EfRk 39). The assemblages associated with the Base Camps are varied. Only three sites (EeRk 52, 53 and 59) have projectile points, while eight of the 10 sites (all but EeRk 43 and 60) contain either formed bifaces or unifaces. Five sites (EeRk 35,42, 43, 52, and 53) contain steep utilized and retouched flakes, suggesting either woodworking and/or tanning activities. Flake knives are also present at most of the sites. The classes of tools present suggest that hunting activities (preparation and/or butchering) were important activities at EeRk 35, 42, 52, 53 and EfRk 39, while EdRk 36, EeRk 43, 58 and 60 contain too few tools to make positive conclusions. Debitage is present at eight of the 10 sites (all but EdRk 36 and EeRk 60). Complete flakes are present at six sites (EeRk 35, 43, 52, 53, 59 and EfRk 39), but only at EeRk 52, 53 and EfRk 39 are they present in substantial (>10) numbers. Late stage debitage is the largest category present making up more than two-thirds of the debris at EeRk 52 and 53, while at EfRk 39 late and middle stage debris are within 4% of each other. At the other three sites (EeRk 35, 43 and 59) 24 with complete flakes, early stage debris is present at only one site (EeRk 35). Late stage complete flakes are present at this site as well as at EeRk 59, and these two sites also show a predominance (> 67%) of late stage debris among broken flakes and shatter. The only site with a middle stage complete flake is EeRk 43. The broken flake and shatter category suggests that late stage debris is the prevalent type (> 67%) in all of the assemblages except at EeRk 59, where middle stage debris has the largest presence at 54%, but a count of only 13. By definition, all of the sites contain at least one roasting pit, though EdRk 36, EeRk 53 and EfRk 39 have multiple roasting pits, and EfRk 39 has the only cache pit. The sites range in size from 105m2 to 2464m2, with a mean of 786m2 and a median of 475m2. EdRk 36 and EfRk 39 are both considerably larger than the other sites in this category. EdRk 36, at 2200m2 is spread out along the streambed, with gaps between the pits of up to 50m. As the pits have not all been dated, it is impossible to say whether or not they were used concurrently or are from different use episodes. EfRk 39 is larger at 2464m2, but the pits at this site are divided by Pavilion stream. The roasting pits on both sides of the stream are spaced approximately 20m apart. All of the Base Camps are situated in Sub-alpine settings, and are located close to areas with abundant floral food resources. EdRk 36, EeRk 43, and 58 are located in open areas within the forest and near water, ideal locations to locate processing sites. The area along the Anderson Creek tributary tends to be heavily forested with minimal level ground. EdRk 36 is an ideal location as it is situated in an open but protected area within the forest, on a dry flat bench right above the stream. EeRk 58 is in a less favorable position being approximately 100m from a stream, but is located on a small open ridge, breaking up a steep slope. EeRk 43 is also approximately 100 m from the closest water. These three sites also contain only one or two tools, and a couple pieces of debitage. The people probably used the closest protected flat land to the streams for processing sites. Of special note are EeRk 52 and 53. These two sites have the largest assemblages and many of the tools representing hunting activities. These two sites are situated are in a prime location both for hunting and root processing activities. They are both located within several hundred meters of a gulch, known ethnographically as an important deer drive area (Tyhurst 1992: 359,374). The two sites are also close to the south face of Chipuin Mountain, which has an abundance of balsamroot. The fact that the two sites are relatively protected in the saddle between Chipuin Mountain and Moore Peak, and close to Gibbs Creek make them prime locations for Base Camps. The final ethnographic site class present is Processing sites. By definition, these Sub-alpine sites contain cache and/or roasting pits, and tend to be located on dry flat land, close to water and situated near the edge of the forest, but they have no associated lithics. Eight sites (EdRk 45, 46, and EeRk 36-41), all from the Clear Range, fit 25 into this category. All of the sites are close to water and are within the forest environment, but two distinct groups emerge in examining the numbers of cultural depressions at the sites. The two Bald Mountain sites EdRk 45 and 46 contain 63% of the pits (12 of 19), with five at the first and seven at the second. The majority of the Moore Peak/Chipuin Mountain sites have a single cultural depression. Only EeRk 38 has two. The differences between the two mountains suggest that more plant resources may have been available on Bald mountain, where as along Anderson Creek (between Chipuin and Moore Peaks) we can see how the sites are located along the drainage. This is supported ethnographically as Alexander (1992:107) noted that her informants stated that the Blustry Mountain/Cairn Peak locality seems to have a greater abundance of floral resources than the Chipuin Mountain/Moore Peak locality. In both cases Interior Salish people may have moved up the mountain from one area to another as resources became available. Overall, the Ethnographic Model provides a good template for interpreting most of the archaeological sites found in the Alpine/Sub-alpine regions. Alexander (1992:101) states that ethnographically the Alpine/Sub-alpine zone was used primarily for hunting deer and collecting food plants, therefore, it is not surprising that sites inferred as representing these activities were located there. However, the different ethnographic hunting site classes can not be distinguished archaeologically. While the Ethnographic Model provides the initial site classification, the archaeological expectations had to be. inferred from the types of activities recorded as having taken place. It is the Upland Valley Model, based more on technological information, that provided clues on how to interpret differences in archaeological assemblages. Evaluation of Upland Valley Model: Pokotylo (1978: 325-326) identifies between three different classes of hunting sites in his Upland Valley Model (Appendix 3), all distinguished by lithic artifacts and debris. Hunting Site 1 consist of a variety of tools including projectile points, bifaces, and marginal retouched flakes, as well as debris represented by the full range of reduction steps with no specific step predominating. Hunting Site 2 has tool assemblages similar to the first category, but the debitage has a restricted range of reduction steps centered on tertiary stage reduction. Both of these site classes tend to be situated in areas with optimum overviews. Similar tool classes are found in both the aforementioned Upland Valley site classes and the Generic Hunting Site category from the Ethnographic Model, but there are several differences. Hunting Sites 1 and 2 tend to consist of formed tools (projectile points, bifaces, and unifaces) with marginal retouched flakes being the only expedient tools present, while the Generic Hunting 26 Sites have few formed tools and consist primarily of expedient tools (utilized, retouched, and bifacial retouched flakes). Among the debris classes present, the Generic Hunting Sites are more similar to Hunting Sites 2. Both tend to consist primarily of late stage debris. There are slight difference in site size between Hunting Site 1 and 2 and Generic Hunting Sites. Hunting site 1 and 2 has a mean size of 278m2 (Pokotylo 1978:326) and a median of 288 m2, while Generic Hunting Sites have a mean site size of 453 m2 and median of 148m2. While the mean Generic Hunting Site size is larger, it is skewed by some very large sites (EfRk 55 at 1600m2 and EeRk 50 with 1320m2), both with artifact counts less than 100). The median seems to be the more accurate measurement, therefore Generic Hunting Sites are slightly smaller than Hunting Sites 1 and 2. The big difference between these site classes is in their environmental locations. The Upland Valley Model hunting sites tend to have optimum overviews. Only four of the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain sites are situated in open meadows, locations with good views of the surrounding area. The rest of the sites are situated throughout the forest/parkland environment. Finally, no sites were attributed to the Hunting Site Class 3 (identified by the presence of microblades) were located in the Alpine/Sub-alpine regions of the Clear Range or Pavilion Mountain. There are two possible explanations for the lack of microblades in Alpine/Sub-alpine areas. The first is limited data, as the recorded sites were located through surveys and had limited excavation, therefore microblades are present but they just have not been found yet. The second alternative is that Alpine/Sub-alpine zones were not used during the Early Nesikep which is often defined by the presence of these artifacts (Pokotylo 1978:103). In the Upland Valley Model, Pokotylo (1978:326-327) distinguishes between two classes of gathering/processing sites depending on site size and associated assemblages. The first is the Gathering/Processing Site 1, which contain a full range of formed tools, the full range of reduction steps, and have an average site size of 1260m2. Gathering/Processing Site 2 have low frequency and diversity of expediently made tools, limited debris, and an average site size of 84m2. Alpine/Sub-alpine Base Camp sites seem to fall in the middle, between the Gathering/Processing Site 1 and Gathering/Processing Site 2. The low frequency of tools (max 13) at these Base Camps, suggest they might be Gathering/Processing Site 2, but the fact that debitage is present at all but one site (EeRk 60) suggests they are Gathering/Processing Site 1, as Gathering/Processing Site 2 have no debitage. In regards to the tool types present, the Base Camps again fall between the Upland Valley Model Gathering/Processing Site class 1 and 2. Gathering/Processing Site 1 tend to have a high frequency and variety of 27 tools, but most of the tool classes present are formed tools, while Gathering/Processing Site 2 have a low frequency and diversity of expediently made tools. The Base Camps have some formed tools but consist primarily of expedient tools. The average site size of the Base Camps (mean = 786m2, median = 475m2) shows that they are smaller than the Gathering/Processing Site 1, yet bigger than Gathering/Processing Site 2. Overall, the sites listed as Base Camps are more similar to the Gathering/Processing Site 1. The third and final Upland Valley Model gathering/processing site class is Processing Site 3 (Pokotylo 1978:327-328). This is the only site class that is consistent between both the Ethnographic and Upland Valley Models, and the archaeological sites. These sites have no associated artifacts but consist only of processing pits. As with the processing pits found in Base Camps, the Alpine/Sub-alpine pits are slightly smaller than those found in the Intermediate Grasslands (refer to the feature analysis section). New Site Classes: The Ethnographic and Upland Valley Models use different approaches to look at archaeological data from the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain, and neither are a perfect fit. Many ethnographic hunting site classes are not visible archaeologically, and of the site classes that are visible, the Ethnographic Model does not provide a method of dealing with assemblage variations within a class. The Upland Valley Model also has several site classes that do not fit the Alpine/Sub-alpine archaeological data, but it does provide a method to look at these aforementioned variations. This section will deal both with the variations apparent within both Burials and Generic Hunting Sites, providing some new site classes, as well as dealing with the sites that do not fit into the site classes provided by either model. A summary of all the archaeological site classes, their identifying characteristics and all the sites that fall into each class is shown in Table 10. Burials are the first ethnographic site class to be discussed. Only one official Burial (EdRk 39) was recorded in the study area, but two other Rock Cairns (EdRk 39 and EeRk 56) were also recorded during the surveys. The second EdRk 39 Rock Cairn is of similar size and shape to the Burial, but it lacked associated artifacts. Without further archaeological research, it can not be assumed to have the same function. A third rock cairn is noted near EeRk 56, though no other information is available regarding this feature. As the function of the Rock Cairns have not been identified and cannot be assumed, these features can not be labeled as Burials, but rather should be labeled as Rock Cairns. 28 2W 8Z|S 9)|S CM CD 10 1 17641 CM h-CM S 1 5301 176 CO 10091 1 s 1 3i2i 1 13201 I 12221 1 s 8 ? 8 OUOJSJH X X 0 _Q x spoo6 9ABJQ < X SUJLU M/q SA*9||B/\ X X X JjUJUJnS 0} 9S0|0 X X X x X X s9iJO)uoLuojd A">jooy X ro M9JAJ9A0 LUnLU^dO < X X X X X X X s\yej} 9LUE0 N N N IM N N si N jsajo; 10 96pg JS9J01 UI B9JB U9d0 X x x X X X X X Mopee^ to x X x X x X X x x x X J9JBM OJ 9S0|0 X X X puei ieu 'Ajrj saj |BJO]I luepunqv 9uid|B-qns co X euidiv CO X CD co ro X x X SUJjBQ < *~ < spui/g ButfunH < CM l!d gqoBQ BujisBoy slid Moneys suqap 96B}S &\e~\ ! s ( 1 * 1 1 1 1 1 < 1 s 1 1 1 1 1 | 100% I suqep 86ejs 9|pp!lA| 1 t 1 1 1 g ! s 1 * 1 1 s suqsp 96BIS A|jsg 1 to if CO £ S J9HBMS "8 S9>jB|J U9>|0Ja s s a s R ! 3 s CO suqep eBeis 9}B"| 1 § g 1 1 l 1 s 1 1 suqap s6eis aippiiAl 1 \ 100% I 1 1 1 1 * < 1 suqgp 96BJS A"|JB3 1 1 S9>ie|j 9}9|daioo CM CM CM CM CO CO CM CM 5 J • 96Bl|q9p |BJ01 § Ol I 3 s s s 8 R ! s 1 ? CO ipa; luaipadxa % 100% | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 CD S CD 1 S|00} P9WJ01. % 1 1 1 1 * 1 £ $ ,s|ooi BUIHJOMPOOM CO CN , S9AjU>j - ? (O CO CO CO UO CO CM CD s a pgipnopj pue pazmin daa;s CO CO CM < ,s|ooi 6uu9U,o;ng • CO (0 CM ro T— CM CO SJUjOd 9|!109[OJd ro CM ro CM CM I 1 CD CO 1 CD m ! 1 Burials \ 1 Lookouts s 1 IS 1 S 1 £ 1 i 1 1 ! 5 1 i 3 I I I ! ? 1 I S 1 * 1 s 1 a 1 s 1 1 I 8 1 I 1 1 a 1 g j I I GO i3 I Locus 10 I I l I CD 1 1 I co 1 NJ Locus 1 I i I ! 1 I CO CO I CO 03 I ! 8 I £ I I a I 1 8 1 § 1 s 1 a 1 a I s I & I 1 g 1 8 Basecamp NJ CO ai Projectile points - NJ NJ 0) Butchering Tools * - NJ —* NJ 0) Steep utilized and retouched M - 01 Knives * Woodworking tools* 1 1 IS I 3 1 % formed tools 1 i 1 1 IS 1 % expedient tech ro CJ > I » s 2 fl) Total debitage IS ii Complete Flakes Early stage debris 1 1 1 Middle stage debris s 1 1 1 8 Late stage debris NJ NJ co g 8 CO B s Broken Flakes & Shatter 1 S fl) Early stage debris i 1 1 c 1 fl) Middle stage debris 1 1 i 1 I 1 1 a 1 fl) Late stage debris tr Hearths x X Shallow pits NJ > NJ - CO CT Roasting Pit CO 01 Cache Pit Hunting Blinds Cairns X fi} Alpine X X X X > Sub-alpine cr X X X x X X Abundant floral res. x Dry, flat land X X x x X x X X X X X X X X X X X tr Close to water X x X Meadow X X X Within forest X x x X X Open area in forest X x X X X X X X X cr Edge of forest N N N N N N Game trails Optimum overview Rock Shelter Rocky promontories X X Close to Summit X X X Valleys b/w mtns. X > Rock Shelter Historic g a s a s s 1 21251 1 27001 K I 105 § 1  224l § 1  252l 2 9 1 22001 Site size Within the Generic Hunting Site category, the first subgroup becomes apparent with an examination of the environmental information. The two other subgroups (Generic Hunting 1 and Generic Hunting 2) are revealed through an examination of the assemblages. Four Generic Hunting Sites (EfRk 54, 57, 60 and 61) form a pattern slightly different from the others and may actually be Lookouts. The Ethnographic Model describes Lookouts as being located in Alpine environments and containing optimum overviews of the surrounding area. These ethnographic Lookouts are similar to the Upland Valley Model's Hunting Site Class 2. All four of the sites located on Pavilion Mountain are above 1980m, and have optimum views overlooking steep slopes. As they are within 200m of the tree line they technically fall within the Sub-alpine Montane Forest zone and therefore fail to meet the Ethnographic Model's definition of Lookouts. Instead of stipulating they must be in the Alpine zone, the archaeological data suggests that Lookouts are situated in open areas and have optimum overviews and may be located in any environmental zone, or at least from Upland Valleys (Pokotylo 1978:325) through to the Alpine. The assemblages from three of the sites (EfRk 54, 60 and 61) are the only sites within the original Generic Hunting Site category that have larger proportions of middle stage debris than late stage debris. Generic Hunting I sites (EeRk 44, 47, 48, 51 and EfRk 37 and 55) contain projectile points, butchering tools and knives. Generic Hunting 2 sites, consisting of EeRk 45, 46, 49, 50, and EfRk 38, 50, 52 and 53, also have these tools, however their assemblages also include steep angle utilized and/or retouched flakes suggestive of woodworking and/or tanning activities. Generic Hunting 2 sites represent a larger range of activities than Generic Hunting 1 sites. This is supported by an examination of the average number of tools present at Generic Hunting 2 sites. These sites have an average of 19.5 tools (min = 3, max = 40, median = 16.5) where as Generic Hunting 1 sites have an average of 4.4 tools (min = 2, max = 8, median = 5). Seven of the eight Generic Hunting 2 sites contain formed tools including projectile points, bifaces and unifaces, but the majority of the tools (both acute and steep-angle utilized and retouched flakes) are derived from the application of an expedient technology. On average, flake tools make up 84% of the Generic Hunting 2 site tool assemblages. These sites also have a limited numbers of early stage debitage (=< 6%). Middle stage debitage is slightly more abundant (between 12 and 30%), but the majority of the debris is from late stage reduction. In comparison, flake tools make up on average 65% of the Generic Hunting 2 sites, and if the debitage is present in more than several pieces, it also consists predominantly of late stage debris. 31 Most of the sites from both classes have low densities of artifacts, as the artifacts are spread over wide areas, but much of this may be due to post deposition forces like slope wash or trampling by cattle. The limited number of tools in the Generic Hunting 1 sites suggest that they were used for limited activities. They may be single activity sites, like the ungulate kill sites or butchering sites, but without any faunal material the exact use is impossible to determine. The wider range of tools associated with the Generic Hunting 2 sites, suggest that these sites were used for a variety of activities besides butchering, such as cooking and tool manufacture and maintenance. Eighteen of the study sites do not fit into either the Ethnographic or Upland Valley Models with any reliability and fit into two new site classes not identified in the Ethnographic Model. EfRk 46 is a Rock Shelter, while the other 17 are Locus sites (Locus 1-15, EeRk 56 and EfRk 56). These sites have very low numbers of artifacts, which make assignments difficult. The Rock Shelter was identified by one of Alexander's informants as a place where hunters went to escape from sudden storms. The site has a small lithic assemblage (11 pieces of debris left in-situ), indicating that it was probably in use prior to the historic period. The informant also stated that there used to be a stone blind close by at the edge of the bluff where one or two hunters would hide and shoot the deer that other hunters drove up the Creek valley. The majority of the sites that do not fit into either model are what Pokotylo (1978:131) labeled as "locus" sites, sites that contain a maximum of six artifacts within a four meter area (though normally are they are limited to one or two artifacts), and have no associated features. With so few artifacts it is impossible to readily identify the site class. Logic dictates that loci containing projectile points and/or butchering tools (such as bifaces, biface fragments, unifaces, and retouched and utilized flakes) would be related to hunting sites, while those containing woodworking tools (i.e. steep retouched flakes) may be gathering sites, especially if they are located near abundant floral resources. Unfortunately, due to a lack of detailed information recorded for these sites, no conclusions may be formulated. Using the Ethnographic and Upland Valley Models as a foundation, it is possible to identify 10 archaeological site classes present in the Alpine/Sub-alpine regions of the Southern Interior Plateau of British Columbia. On the basis of artifact assemblage, features and environmental information the site classes include Rock Cairns and Burials, Lookouts, Generic Hunting 1 and Generic Hunting 2 sites, Hunting Blinds, Base Camps, Processing sites, Rock Shelters and Locus sites. 32 Part 2 - Intra-regional comparison andfeature analysis In the previous section, the archaeological site classes for Alpine "and Sub-alpine regions of the Southern Interior Plateau were identified and tested using a limited number of sites. These were the sites for which all feature and environmental information were recorded, and lithics were collected. This section will place all of the recorded study area sites into the archaeological site classes, followed by an examination of the similarities and/or differences in activities undertaken in the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain. For this analysis, all recorded sites will be used and the site information for all known archaeological sites in the study area is listed in Appendix 4. In total, 59 Clear Range and 19 Pavilion Mountain sites will be used for the intra-regional comparison. The difference in the number of sites by region is most likely due to the amount of geographical area covered by each survey. For example, the Clear Range encompasses Cairn Peak and Blustry Mountain, Moore Peak and Chipuin Mountain, as well as Mount Cole, whereas the Pavilion Mountain area deals strictly with Pavilion Mountain itself. Table 11 lists how all of the sites fit into the archaeological site classes and the sites were placed into three general categories: hunting, processing and other. It is assumed that where lithic material were left in situ, and if there were no associated features, that the sites were associated with hunting activities. As specific lithic assemblage information is not available for these sites, they could not be assigned to either the Generic Hunting I or 2 site classes, rather they were placed in an overarching category of Generic Hunting Activities. The Rock Shelter was added to the Hunting category as Alexander's informant stated that hunters used this shelter to escape from foul weather. If the flakes were in association with roasting pits, the sites were placed in the Base Camp site class. Finally, sites that can be related to neither hunting nor processing activities (Rock Cairns, Burials and Locus sites) are treated as a third (Other) category. Some immediate differences between the two regions are visible. For example, Hunting Blinds, Processing sites, Rock cairns and Burials are only found in the Clear Range, while Pavilion Mountain has the only recorded Lookouts and Rock Shelter. As shown in Table 11, hunting activities took place in both the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain but while hunting was the main activity on Pavilion Mountain (74% of the sites), it is one of several activities that took place in the Clear Range. In the Clear Range, 27% of the sites are related to hunting activities, while 42% are associated with plant processing. The remaining 18% of the Clear Range sites are Rock Cairns, Burials or Locus sites, sites that could not be associated with either hunting or processing activities. In contrast, only two processing sites (8%) were recorded on Pavilion Mountain. This clearly indicates a difference in 33 focus for the two areas. The Clear Range was used for both hunting and plant food gathering while Pavilion Mountain was used primarily a hunting locale, with plant food gathering present as a minor activity. This is confirmed by the processing pit feature analysis of the following section. Table 11: Listing of Sites by Class and Region Archaeological Site Classes Clear Range Pavilion Mountain Number of sites Lookouts EfRk 54, 57, 60 ,61,64 5 Generic hunting 1 EeRk 44, 47, 48, 51 EfRk 37, 55, 6 Generic hunting 2 EeRk 17, 45,46, 49, 50 EfRk 38, ,50, 52, 53 9 Generic hunting EdRk 31, 34, 42, 43 EfRk 43,47, 59 7 activities Hunting Blinds EdRk 38, 40 and 41 3 Rock Shelters EfRk 46 1 Hunting Site Totals 16 (27%) 15 (79%) 31 (40%) Base Camps EdRk 32, 33, 36, 37,44, 47 EeRk 35, 42, 43, 52, 53, 57 - 60 EfRk 39,40 17 Processing Sites EdRk 35, 45, 46 EeRk 36-41 9 Processing site Totals 25 (42%) 2 (11%) 27 (35%) Rock Cairns ++ EdRk 39 *,++ 2 and Burials* EeRk 56 ++ Locus sites Locus 1-15 EdRk 30 EfRk 56, 58 18 Other Site class Totals 18 (31%) 2 (10%) 21 (25%) Grand Total 59 (100%) 19 (100%) 78 (100%) An examination of the lithic scatter sizes between the two regions is revealing. Table 12 summarizes the lithic assemblage numbers from both the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain and while the Clear Range has a higher number of sites with associated assemblages, Pavilion Mountain has more artifacts per site. The Mann-Whitney U statistic (U=164.5, p=0.01) @ a= 0.05 suggests that there is a significant difference in the number of artifacts per site between the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain. Pavilion Mountain sites tend to have larger numbers of associated artifacts. Table 12: Alpine/Sub-alpine Assemblage Summary Information Area No. of Sites Mean Median Minimum Maximum IQR Clear Range 37 24.24 3 1 146 34.5 Pavilion Mt. 16 248.75 49 4 1435 154.5 If the comparison is done without the Locus sites (those with fewer than five artifacts) the results are not so clear. As shown in Table 13, there still appears to be differences between the two areas, but they are not as 34 pronounced. The Mann-Whitney U statistic (U=55, p=0.057) @ a=0.05 suggests that the assemblage size difference between the two regions is non-significant at this level of probability. Table 13: Alpine/Sub-alpine Assemblage Summary Information without Locus sites Area No. of Sites Mean Median Minimum Maximum IQR Clear Range 16 53.88 42.5 5 146 68.75 Pavilion Mt. 12 331.08 93 14 1435 534.75 The difference between the two analyses is likely the result of the different survey techniques undertaken in each area. Pokotylo (1986) systematically surveyed the Anderson Creek headwaters and recorded all of the observable archaeological sites (including Locus sites), while Alexander (1989) went with an informant to known Pavilion Mountain locations, so as a result many small sites might have been missed. The current information suggests that overall Pavilion Mountain sites have larger assemblages, but if a systematic survey was to be done on Pavilion Mountain, many small lithic scatter / Locus sites may be found. In regards to the different technologies used in the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain, there appears to be no difference as both areas tend to have very few formed tools. Rather, they predominantly reflect tools derived from the application of expedient technology, mainly utilized and retouched flakes as shown in the Tool Expediency Ratio Index (Table 14). This index provides a measure of relative reliance on expedient and/or formed tools. The index is determined by dividing the total number of expedient tools by the total tool count for the site. A site containing all expedient tools will have an index of "1", while sites lacking expedient tools will have a reading of "0", indicating the presence of only formed tools. The Tool Expediency Ratio Index consists of all of the sites with collected assemblages that contain more than five tools and documents which tool class predominates at each site. Out of the 19 sites, only three Clear Range sites (EeRk 46, 47 and 52) do not have a majority of expedient tools. Four sites (EeRk 42, EfRk 50, 52 and 61) have only expedient tools. An examination of Table 14 suggests that while the assemblages from both the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain consist primarily of expedient tools, the Clear Range sites have fewer expedient tools than Pavilion Mountain, with an average of 0.69 and 0.88 respectively. The Mann-Whitney U statistic (U=21, p=0.048) @ a= 0.05 suggests that the difference is non-significant as the results are too close to call. The above test is important as it indicates that expedient tools are the most prevalent tool classes found in the Alpine/Sub-alpine environments in both the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain. There are several specific tool types that are unique, or found mainly in either the Clear Range or Pavilion Mountain. For example, the only piece esquillee was located at the EdRk 17 (Stryd 1974) in the Clear Range, while EfRk 54 has the only graver. 35 Among the formed tool categories, projectile points and point fragments are common to both the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain, but the Clear Range has the only unifaces and the majority (86%, no. 18/21) of the bifaces/biface fragments. Expedient technologies may predominate in both regions, but there are differences in some of the tools categories present in each area, and these differences may be tied to the different activities that occurred in each area. A further difference is evident in the percentage of PRB's and BTF's in each region. Pavilion Mountain sites tend to have a high number of PRB's and few BTF's while the Clear Range sites numbers are much closer. This may also be tied to the different activities that occurred in each area. Table 14: Tool Expediency Ratio Index Site Ratio Site Ratio EeRk 35 0.8 EfRk37 0.57 EeRk 42 1 EfRk 38 0.96 Range EeRk 46 0.5 EfRk 39 0.7 Range EeRk 47 0.38 c _o EfRk 50 1 Range EeRk 49 0.91 Pavil EfRk 52 1 EeRk 50 0.56 Pavil EfRk 53 0.96 O EeRk 52 0.5 EfRk 54 0.85 EeRk 53 0.93 EfRk 55 0.83 EeRk 59 0.6 EfRk 60 0.88 EfRk 61 1 Average 0.69 Average 0.88 In regards to the sizes of the archaeological sites (Table 10) within the different site classes, there appears to be a wide range of sizes throughout the site classes. Many factors, including such post-depositional occurrences as slope wash, trampling, and frost heaves, can affect artifact distribution. These processes can move artifacts around and away from a site. Most, if not all of the large sites have single artifacts or pits between 20 and 50 meters from the main site location. Due to their close proximity, these artifacts and pits were recorded as being a part of the same site. In general, the majority of the artifacts are restricted to a small location. The pivotal question is what constitutes a "site", and how far apart do artifacts and features need to be before they get their own site designation. This is not an argument that I will address in this paper and due to the fact that post-depositional activities can alter site size, I do not think that site size differences are a valid measure of differences between the two regions. This section examined the site and tool classes present in both the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain. The archaeological data indicate that the Clear Range was used for both hunting and plant food gathering while Pavilion Mountain was primarily a hunting location. The Clear Range has the only Rock Cairns, Burials, Hunting Blinds and Processing sites, while Pavilion Mountain has the only known Rock Shelter. In regards to the tools found in both regions, both areas have a predominance of expedient tools. The question remains, are there 36 differences in the processing pits both between the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain, and between Alpine/Sub-alpine and Upland Valley environmental zones? Feature Analysis Archaeological features are key in determining site class especially when cairns, hunting blinds and cultural depressions are present. Cultural depressions are the most abundant features in the study area and they are important as they provide tangible evidence of prehistoric root processing activities (Pokotylo and Froese 1983:151). This section will examine the size of the cultural depression rim crests between the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain and the size differences between Alpine/Sub-alpine (both the Clear Range and Pavilion) and Upland Valleys (Upper Hat Creek Valley) zones, as well as looking for evidence of reuse in the Alpine/Sub-alpine cultural depressions. With cultural depressions, size, as well as content, provide important additional information concerning site use. The rim crest diameter of the processing pits will be examined, for the size of the processing pits relate to the amount of roots processed and/or the extent of reuse. Depth was also recorded for all of the pits, but no statistical differences in the current pit depth between any of the areas were observed. The majority of the pits had depths of between 10 and 40 cm. Cultural depressions are classified as roasting pits if fire-cracked rock, charcoal and/or burned soil are associated with the feature. Cache pits are smaller and do not contain the evidence of the use of fire. The focus of this section will be to see if there are size differences between the two regions, and then between the different elevations. For the comparisons, I will use all of the recorded sites with cultural depressions including the sites from Bald Mountain. The pit information is summarized in Appendix 6. Both the ethnographic record and the number of archaeological sites indicative of plant food gathering and processing, indicate that the Clear Range was a more important plant food gathering location than Pavilion Mountain. This is confirmed in an examination of pit sizes between the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain, as shown in Table 15 and Figure 7 which summarizes the rim crest dimensions for the two areas. An initial inspection of the data indicates that there is a difference in average diameter of more than one meter between the two regions. This difference was confirmed by the Mann Whitney U-statistic (U=85, p=0.004) @ a= 0.05, that indicates a significant difference between the average ranked sums of the rim crest diameter between the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain. Table 15: Alpine/Sub-alpine Processing Pit Summary Information 37 Area No. of features Mean Median Minimum Maximum IQR Clear Range 56 3.75m 4m 1.5 m 6.35 m 1.08 m Pavilion Mt. 8 2.37m 2.30m 1.3 m 4.2 m 1.13 m The differences between the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain are most likely due to the relative importance and abundance of plant food resources in their respective environments. Ethnographically, the Clear Range is known as both a hunting and plant food gathering location. This is confirmed by the archaeological data. Pavilion seems to be primarily a hunting location, though it contains at least one prime plant food gathering location. EfRk 39 contains six of the eight Pavilion Mountain roasting pits, but their contemporaneity is unknown. An examination of Figures 3, 4 and 5 reveals that Pavilion Mountain actually has no Alpine zone, rather it consists solely of Montane Parkland and Forest zones. This lack of Alpine environment may also result in lower numbers of plant foods being present. While all of the processing pits in both the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain are located in the Montane Parkland, those in the Clear Range are adjacent to the Alpine tundra, areas of abundant plant food resources. Taken together, the low number of plant food processing sites, and their small size indicate that plant food processing was a minor activity in the Alpine/Sub-alpine environments of Pavilion Mountain. Differences are evident between the two Alpine/Sub-alpine locations, and how does the Alpine/Sub-alpine environment compare to the Upland Valleys as represented by the processing pits from Upper Hat Creek Valley? Pokotylo and Froese (1983:141) noted two major differences between the earth ovens found in the Upper Hat Creek Valley and those reported in the ethnographic record: larger pit sizes and evidence of reuse. The larger size of the Upper Hat Creek Valley cultural depressions suggest that larger amounts of subsistence resources were processed in the archaeological features (Pokotylo and Froese 1983:141). In this section I will determine if these two trends continue into the Alpine/Sub-alpine environment and if there are differences between the Upland Valleys and Alpine/Sub-alpine environmental zones. Pokotylo and Froese's (1983:138-139) original examination of the processing pits from Upper Hat Creek Valley also included the Anderson Creek headwater material. Now that we have more information from the Alpine/Sub-alpine zones, one can reexamine the Upper Hat Creek Valley material in relation to the Alpine/Sub-alpine material to see if there is a difference. The Upper Hat Creek Valley information is taken from Pokotylo and Froese (1983:138-139) while the Clear Range/Pavilion Mountain information was taken directly from the survey information. A total of 68 cultural depressions were recorded from Upper Hat Creek Valley and 64 in the Alpine/Sub-alpine regions. These pits are from 36 Upper Hat Creek Valley sites, and 27 Alpine/Sub-alpine sites. 38 Three other cultural depression sites were recorded in Upper Hat Creek Valley but these are interpreted as house pits and therefore were not included in the analysis (Pokotylo and Froese 1983:133). There is a difference in average rim crest diameter between Upland Valleys and the Alpine/Sub-alpine environmental zones (see Table 16, Figure 8) of more than half a meter. The Mann-Whitney U-statistic (U-statistic = 1432.5, p = 0.001) @ a = 0.01 supports this initial observation indicating that there is a significant difference between the average ranked sums from the two regions. Table 16: Rim Crest Summary Information Area # of features Mean Median Minimum Maximum IQR Upper Hat Creek Valley 68 4.35 m 4.48 m 1.65 m 6.95 m 1.86 m Clear Range and Pavilion Mt. 64 3.57 m 3.55 m 1.30 m 6.35 m 1.20 m These statistics show that there are important size differences between the cultural depressions located in Upper Hat Creek Valley and the Alpine/Sub-alpine regions of the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain. Overall, the Clear Range/Pavilion pits are smaller, suggesting that the trends noted by Pokotylo and Froese (1983) do not continue into the higher elevations. A number of Upper Hat Creek Valley processing pits also have superimposed rock-lined basins that may indicate reuse (Pokotylo and Froese 1983:141). While no proper archaeological excavation were done in the Alpine/Sub-alpine processing pits, several sites (EeRk 38, 39,42, 43 and 53) had shovel tests done for dating purposes and went to the base of the deposit. No superimposed rock-lined basins were encountered in the shovel tests but the depths of the deposits at EeRk 38, 39, 42 and 43 (at 37cm, 70cm, 60cm, and 45cm respectively) suggest that they may have been reused. These depths are deeper than single component Upper Hat Creek Valley sites (Pokotylo personal communication). Also, EdRk 43's roasting pit consists of three interior basins within the single larger pit. The multiple internal basins also suggest reuse of the site. Summary: This section has focused on a comparison of the Alpine and Sub-alpine archaeological sites from the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain with both the Ethnographic and Upland Valley Models. Neither is a perfect fit but by using them as a guideline it is possible to distinguish archeological site classes that are found in the study region. The site classes include Rock Cairns and Burials, Lookouts, Generic Hunting 1 and Generic Hunting 2 sites, 39 Hunting Blinds, Base Camps, Processing sites, Rock Shelters and Locus sites, and they are identified by their artifact assemblage, features and environmental information. The Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain seem to have been used for different purposes, as demonstrated by numbers and classes of sites present in each area. Hunting was the primary activity undertaken on Pavilion Mountain while both hunting and plant gathering/processing took place in the Clear Range. Differences are also apparent in their assemblages. Tool assemblages in both regions are derived primarily from the use of expedient techniques, suggesting that lithic resources were easy to obtain and there was little need to conserve lithic raw material. However, when formed tools were present, bifaces and unifaces are most common in the Clear Range. The feature analysis also confirmed the difference between the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain as well as demonstrating that the Alpine/Sub-alpine environments were used differently from the Upland Valleys. 40 Chapter 5: Regional and Inter-regional Comparisons This section expands the study area to incorporate other Alpine/Sub-alpine environments of British Columbia's Interior Plateau. It will include an examination of Cornwall Hills and several areas in the Chilcotin using the data that have been published for these two regions. Cornwall Hills Summit The Cornwall Hills form the eastern divide between Upper Hat Creek Valley and the Thompson Plateau. Rousseau et al ( 1987, 1989, and 1991) undertook archaeological investigations in this area in 1987 and 1988. A total of 11 sites (EeRi 25 to 35) were recorded within the Alpine meadows, encompassing an area of approximately 0.8 km2. As the Cornwall Hills summit archaeological assemblages were unavailable for analysis, I relied on information derived from three field reports (Rousseau et al 1987, 1989, and 1991), and this is summarized in Appendix 4. As I was not able to examine the assemblages, I was not able to distinguish between the different types of Generic Hunting Sites. The ethnographic, archaeological and environmental information suggest that the Alpine/Sub-alpine regions of the Cornwall Hills were an important destination for plant gathering of nodding onion and mountain potato, and ungulate (deer) hunting (Rousseau et al 1987:37, 1991:153). To date, no processing pits have been located in the Alpine regions of Cornwall Hills, but they are present in Oregon Jack Creek Valley (Rousseau et al 1989: 18), a valley similar environmentally to Upper Hat Creek Valley. As with Pavilion Mountain, the main activity appears to be hunting. Site classes present are Lookouts, Generic Hunting Sites, Locus sites, and EeRi 34 may be a Quarry site, a site class not present in the other Alpine/Sub-alpine ecozones. Five Lookouts (EeRi 25-27, 29 and 33) are present on the summit. These lithic scatter sites are located either on prominent knolls or ridges overlooking grassy slopes or at the top of gullies. EeRi 27, while labeled as a single site, probably represents at least three episodes of occupation as it has three distinct artifact locales (Rousseau et al 1987: 19). EeRi 29 has a multi-notched Kamloops projectile point dating to 400-200 BP (Rousseau et al 1987:33), while EeRi 33 has five basal fragments of Kamloops side-notched projectile points. The Generic Hunting Sites (EeRi 28, 30-32) consist of small lithic scatters (9-18 pieces) situated on gentle sloping Alpine meadow. EeRi 30 has a microblade core. The Locus sites include EeRi 35 and isolated finds 1 - 3. EeRi 35 consists of three chert flakes similar to the cores found at EeRi 34. Locus 1 (isolated find 1) is a broken corner or 41 basally-notched vitreous basalt projectile point with incurvate lateral blades, dating most likely to the Plateau Horizon (Rousseau et al 1987:33). Locus 2 (isolated find 2) is the medial section of a lanceolate, vitreous basalt biface, date unknown. Locus 3 (isolated find 3) is the proximal half of a lanceolate, slightly shouldered, concave based and basally thinned, basalt projectile point dating most likely to between 11 000 and 7000 BP (Rousseau et al 1987:33). Finally, EeRi 34 may be a Quarry (Alexander 1997:105), as it consists of a lithic scatter of six large blocky chert cores and some block shatter and broken flakes. Rousseau also suggests that due to the poor quality of the material, and the debitage primarily reflecting early reduction, the stone was probably quarried close by. This type of material was observed to be eroding out of the road bank, suggesting this may be one of the local chert sources. The chert is of a highly mottled white/yellow/orange/brown similar to that found in Upper Hat Creek Valley (Rousseau et all 989:10, 84). Whereas the Clear Range was both an important plant food gathering and hunting location, and Pavilion Mountain was primarily a hunting locale, the Cornwall Hills evidence points strictly to hunting activities. No processing pits were recorded, though nodding onion and mountain potato are present. If they were collected, the plants must have been transported back down to Oregon Jack Creek for processing. There are no radiocarbon dates for any of the Cornwall Hills summit sites, but styles of projectile points recovered suggest that the area has been used from the Early Prehistoric Period (11 000 - 7000 BP) into the Historic period (200 BP to present). EeRi 25, 29 and 33 have Kamloops Horizon (1200 - 200 BP) projectile points, Locus 1 has a Plateau horizon projectile point fragment, EeRi 30 has a microblade core dating to the Early Nesikep (7000-6000 BP), and an Early Prehistoric Period (11 000-7000 BP) projectile point was recovered from Locus 3. While the range of dates from the Cornwall Hills summit sites extend further into antiquity than do the Clear Range and Pavilion sites (earliest dates are Early Nesikep - 7000 to 3500 BP), the projectile point styles from all three of these locales suggest dates within the Plateau and Kamloops Horizons. While the ethnographic and environmental evidence suggests that food gathering may have occurred on the Cornwall Hills summit, to date no archeological evidence has been recovered to support this assumption. All of the recorded sites fall into the hunting site classes, and it seems that hunting activities have been taking place in these parts for at least 7000 years. The following statement made by Alexander is appropriate for Cornwall Hills as well as Potato Mountain. "Although frequently used, the Alpine zone probably contains only small, scattered traditional use sites. The most common sites would probably have been plant procurement sites and small kill, and possibly butchering 42 sites. It is unlikely that any large hearths, roasting ovens, food caches, shelters, or drying racks were built in the Alpine."(Alexander 1997:101). Potato Mountain In 1984 and 1985, archaeological surveys were undertaken on Potato Mountain and at Eagle Lake under the direction of R.G. Matson. This area is situated in the Chilcotin Range, the western periphery of British Columbia's Central Interior Plateau and approximately 160-km west north west of Upper Hat Creek Valley. The goal of the Potato Mountain project was to survey sites in the high altitude environments of Potato Mountain. A large numbers of sites with roasting and cache pits were found in the Montane Parkland environment (Alexander and Matson 1987:35, Matson and Alexander 1990:3-4) and Magne did locate some Hunting Blinds in the mountains above Taseko Lake (Matson and Alexander 1990:4). Lithic scatters were found in association with roasting pits, but no independent lithic scatters were located. The lack of lithic scatter sites may be the small amount of area sampled in a scarcely used area, or the result of environmental conditions that made the lithic scatters invisible to the surveyors (Matson and Alexander 1990:3). Plant food processing was an important activity in the Potato mountain area, and as in the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain, the processing pits are located in the Montane Parkland environmental zone. High numbers of sites with cultural depressions were located. Approximately 35 sites with more than 330 pit features were recorded, and according to Alexander and Matson (1987:42) an estimated 400 sites with approximately 770 roasting pits and 2400 cache pits should be present. The numbers of cultural depression per site varies dramatically, from two (EjSb 26) to at least 342 (EjSb 12). As part of this latter site fell outside of the survey quadrate, not all of the depressions were recorded. These numbers are much larger than those recorded for either Upper Hat Creek Valley or the Clear Range/Pavilion Mountain. Excavation of some of the Potato Mountain processing pits indicates substantial reuse (Matson and Alexander 1990:4), and the Mountain Fan site (EjSb 39) is lined at the bottom with a rock pavement (Alexander and Matson 1987:90). As with the Upper Hat Creek Valley roasting pits, this lining suggests reuse. With the large numbers of sites, evidence of reuse, and the low number of lithics, root processing was probably the major activity in the Potato mountain area. The Chilcotin roasting pits are close to the same size as those from Pavilion Mountain (see table 17). There is only one-third of a meter difference in their average sizes and the Mann Whitney U-statistic (U=17, p=4.14) @ a= 0.05 indicates no significant difference between the average ranked sums of the rim crest diameter 43 between Pavilion Mountain and those from the Chilcotin. Alexander et al (1985:100) found that the mean diameter of roasting pits at Potato Mountian are smaller than those found in Upper Hat Creek Valley, and they are also smaller than those in the Alpine/Sub-alpine environments of the Clear Range. The reason they suggests for these differences is both the amount and type of roots being processed. Balsamroot was the dominant root being processed at the Upper Hat Creek Valley sites. The root is both bigger and tougher than the mountain potatoes processed at Potato Mountain, thus requiring larger processing pits. One patch of balsamroot was located on Potato Mountain, beside which were the only large pits recorded on the mountain (Matson and Alexander 1990:5). Balsamroot was also processed in large numbers at Eagle Lake, and here too the processing pits are larger than at Potato Mountain (Matson and Alexander 1990:6-7). Table 17: Processing Pit Summary Statistics Area No. of features Mean Median Minimum Maximum IQR Clear Range 56 3.75m 4m 1.5m 6.35 m 1.08 m Pavilion Mt. 8 2.37m 2.30m 1.3 m 4.2 m 1.13 m Potato Mt. 330 2.14 m 2 m 1.85 m 2.75 m 0.41 m The radiocarbon dates (Alexander and Matson 1987:106-107, Matson and Alexander 1990:5)indicate that the roasting pits were in use at least during the last 2000 years. This, the large number of sites and features and the evidence of reuse at Potato Mountain, suggest that a substantial number of people used the area at one time, and in general, the smaller size of the Chilcotin pits is a result of the types of root crops being processed. While no hunting sites were located in the Alpine ecozone of Potato Mountain, it is known ethnographically that the area was used for hunting, especially black tailed deer and marmots (Alexander et al 1985:65). The lack of archaeological evidence of hunting activities is most likely the result of environmental rather cultural factors. The lithic scatters that were found were located near Middle Mountain, an area with more ground exposure and greater overview, than any others (Matson and Alexander 1990:4). Mouth of the Chilcotin River and Keatley Creek Heat-treated chert has been found by both Matson et al (1981) at the mouth of the Chilcotin River, and Hayden (2000) at Keatley Creek located on the western side of the Clear Range. This is important as EfRk 50 (the anomalous chert site) assemblage consists of 99% heat-treated chert. With the discovery of EfRk 50 there is now evidence of heat-treated chert in throughout the interior plateau: the Chilcotin, Marble Range (Pavilion Mountain), Upper Hat Creek and the Clear Range. 44 A judgmental sample (pieces displaying all of the variations of colors and textures) of the chert from EfRk 50 was compared to chert from the mouth of the Chilcotin and they are very similar. They have the same color variations and textures, and it is difficult to tell them apart. The only difference is that some of the Chilcotin chert is slightly lighter in color, and this is most likely due to weathering. The Pavilion chert was compared to samples from Keatley Creek and Upper Hat Creek Valley, and though some of the pieces were similar, they did not match nearly as well as those from the Chilcotin. Matson et. al. (1981:75) came up with a new site class to fit the chert from the mouth of the Chilcotin River. This site class has no cultural depressions, an abundance of chert debitage, and is located in open areas (hill tops or open slopes). EfRk 50 fits this description almost perfectly, but as the Keatley Creek material was found in a pit house, it is not possible at this time to specify exactly with which site classes this material is associated. Matson et al (1981:152) also suggest that chert is used more frequently for projectile points predating the Kamloops Horizon. This was also observed by Sanger (1970:117) who found that chert decreases while fine grained basalt increases in popularity through time in the Lochnore Nesikep locality. Associated dates with the chert debitage sites seem to predate the Plateau Pithouse Tradition (>4000 BP) and this suggests that EfRk 50 may also be more than 4000 years old. The fact that heat-treated chert is present at Keatley Creek, Upper Hat Creek Valley, Pavilion Mountain and the mouth of the Chilcotin River, shows that this technical knowledge was known throughout the Clear Range, Pavilion Mountain and the Chilcotin Range, and probably the rest of the Southern Interior Plateau as well. It may be more common before the start of the Kamloops Horizon, but the practice continued into the historic period. 45 Chapter 6: Summary and Conclusion Summary: Archaeologists have been working in the Southern Interior Plateau of British Columbia for more than a century, but until around 20 years ago, little work was done in the Alpine and Sub-alpine areas. The two independent surveys by Pokotylo and Alexander have provided a good data set that can be used to explore the nature of the subsistence and settlement patterns in these high elevation zones. It has been known that the Alpine and Sub-alpine zones were used primarily for two purposes, hunting, and plant food gathering/processing, and the archaeological site classes found in these locales reflect these two activities. The Ethnographic and Upland Valley Models provided the foundation for the derivation of archaeological site classes found in the Alpine/Sub-alpine environmental zones. Neither model was a perfect fit, but when considered together the following archaeological site classes were derived: Rock Cairns and Burials, Lookouts, Generic Hunting Sites (including Generic Hunting 1 and Generic Hunting 2 sites), Hunting Blinds, Base Camps, Processing sites, Rock Shelters and Locus sites. Three Rock Cairns were recorded in the Alpine zone, and one was identified as a Burial. These two site classes are similar, but a rock cairn should only be labeled as a burial if there is adequate ethnographic or archaeological evidence to do so. Therefore, two site classes were created to differentiate the known from the unknown. Approximately half of the ethnographic site classes could not be identified archaeologically. Most of the hunting related activities have similar archaeological assemblages, and can only be differentiated by their environmental locations. This worked in identifying Lookouts, but most of the other hunting sites fell into the Generic Hunting Site category. No ethnographic Lookout sites were positively identified in either the Clear Range or Pavilion Mountain, but Pavilion Mountain does have four sites that might possibly be Lookouts. These Lookouts are also almost identical to Pokotylo's Upper Hat Creek Valley Hunting Site 2 class. This, as well as the fact that they are all technically in the Sub-alpine zone, suggests a new definition of for this site class. Lookouts are lithic scatter sites with optimum overviews of the surrounding area and may be found throughout all environmental zones. Pokotylo based the Upland Valley Model site classes on lithic artifact assemblage variations. This led to a detailed examination of the generic hunting class sites, and two subgroups were apparent. Generic Hunting Sites 1 have low numbers of artifacts, and do not have steep edged expedient tools, while this is the defining characteristic 46 of Generic Hunting Site 2. The Generic Hunting Site 2 assemblages are larger than those of Generic Hunting Site 1 and reflect a larger range of activities taking place at the site. For comparisons between the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain, all sites were used, including those with lithics left in-situ, and those sites that could not be placed in either category were left under the main heading of Generic Hunting Site. Hunting Blinds were located in the Clear Range, and were found in open areas above gulches. One or two hunters would hide behind the blinds and kill deer that were being herded up the hill/gulch by another group of hunters. Lithic assemblages may be associated with the blinds, but as most were left in-situ, a detailed analysis of artifact site classes present with the blinds could not be done. However, the Hunting Blinds themselves are the identifying characteristic for this site class. Base Camps, sites representing a range of activities, are also found in the Alpine/Sub-alpine environment. They consist of both lithics and processing pits. These sites were the bases for hunting and/or floral processing activities. They are located in the Sub-alpine zone, tend to be in areas of abundant floral material and close to water, but may be found in a variety of locations throughout Sub-alpine forest environs. The majority of these sites are found in the Clear Range and only two were located on Pavilion Mountain. It has been suggested that root-processing activities did not take place in the root fields, but rather at nearby Base Camps (Pokotylo and Froese 1983:129, Teit 1900:235-236, Turner et al. 1990:19-29). Numerous Base Camp sites are associated with roasting pits, but a number of sites in both the Alpine/Sub-alpine and the Upland Valleys consist solely of processing pits. No visible lithics were found, but this could change if excavations were conducted in and around these sites. A single Rock Shelter location was found on Pavilion Mountain. This shelter was used by hunters to escape from bad weather while hunting in the Alpine/Sub-alpine zones. It was identified by one of Alexander's informants, but the presence of a few pieces of lithic debris, suggests that it was used in pre-contact times as well. Locus sites, the final category, make up about a third of all the sites. These sites consist of less than 5 artifacts and appear throughout the area. These limited activity sites are most likely related to hunting activities, and this is obviously the case when projectile points or other butchering tools (bifaces or unifaces) are present. If only debitage or expedient tools are present, identification is more difficult unless the site is situated near abundant plant food sources. Then the site may actually be a gathering site. It is necessary to use both the artifacts and the environmental location to try and ascertain the site activities, but it is much more difficult with the limited number of artifacts and environmental information (Locus 1 -15). 47 The diagnostic artifacts recovered from the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain suggest that this area, and more specifically the Alpine/Sub-alpine environmental zones, have been used for hunting purposes since the start of the Middle Period (7000 BP), but most of the dates are for the Late Period (3500-200 BP) or Plateau Pithouse Tradition. There are fewer dates for plant gathering and processing activities, but the radiocarbon dates indicate that large scale plant processing had begun by 2000 BP. An examination of the site classes found in both the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain suggest that the Clear Range was an important area for both hunting and plant food gathering. Pavilion Mountain was primarily used for hunting, with a very limited amount of food gathering. While the ethnographic information suggest that plant food gathering and hunting should have occurred both on the Cornwall Hills summit and Potato Mountain, on Cornwall Hills there is only archaeological evidence for the hunting activities, while Potato Mountain was used primarily for plant food gathering and processing. Further regional differences were identified in the feature analysis. Upper Hat Creek Valley had larger pits than both the Alpine/Sub-alpine zones of the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain, and Potato Mountain. As similar root crops were processed in the Clear Range and Upper Hat Creek Valley, the differences in size are most likely due to the amount of material being processed. Size differences were also present between the pits in the Clear Range and those on Pavilion Mountain and Eagle Lake, and between the Clear Range/Pavilion Mountain and Potato Mountain. The small size of the Potato Mountain pits is probably the result of floral material processed. Conclusion: This study investigated Alpine/Sub-alpine subsistence and settlement patterns in the Southern Interior Plateau of British Columbia. It sought to compare the archaeological information derived from two surveys to both ethnographically and archaeologically derived models to determine the classes of sites found in the Alpine/Sub-alpine zones and to determine if there is any variation in how these zones were used in different regions. To this end, the study can be considered successful. It demonstrated that using the Ethnographic Model as a foundation, and using methods similar to those in the Upland Valley model to distinguish between site classes, there are some clear archaeological site classes found in the Alpine/Sub-alpine environmental zones and these classes are not just an extension of the pattern in upland valleys. Differences were also noted in how the Interior Salish used the Alpine/Sub-alpine zones in different areas. The Clear Range was used for both hunting and plant gathering/processing activities, while Pavilion Mountain and the Cornwall Hills were used primarily for hunting 48 activities. Only on Potato Mountain were the majority of sites related to plant gathering/processing activities. The majority of all of the sites were actually situated in the Montane Parkland, and not in the actual Alpine zone. There are a number of implications of this study for future research. First, it demonstrates that the Alpine/Sub-alpine environmental zones were an important part of the seasonal round, and that the resources from all of the environmental zones were used as part of the subsistence strategies. It has also demonstrated the importance of environmental data in helping to determine the site class as several classes of sites may have similar assemblages but may occur in different environmental settings. Finally, it has demonstrated the importance of using several survey techniques. Without the systematic survey of an area, many small and hard to see sites may be missed, but when used in conjunction with the ethnographic literature and local informants, there is the potential for the whole gamut of archaeological sites to be accounted for. Many of the Ethnographic Model site classes were recorded through the later method. There are many possibilities and needs for further research into the above topics. First this would include the investigation of the rock cairns to determine if they are in fact Burials. Second, the excavation of some of the Clear Range processing pits could answer several questions regarding reuse. It should be determined whether any of the Alpine/Sub-alpine sites have rock linings like those found in Upper Hat Creek, and by getting dates from sites with multiple pits it would be possible to determine whether they were manufactured at the same time or whether they are the result of several occupations. Third; an investigation of the hunting blind and rock shelter sites should determine the nature of the associated assemblages, and what the hunters did at these sites. Fourth, standards and methodologies for dealing with small (less than five artifacts) sites and sites with low artifact densities should be developed. Finally, the results of this analysis should be compared to other areas in the Interior Plateau that are similar both culturally and environmentally. 49 References Cited Alexander, Diana 1989 Ethnoarchaeology of the Fountain and Pavilion Indian Bands, Southwestern British Columbia. Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Victoria. 1992 A Reconstruction of Prehistoric Land Use in the Mid-Fraser River Area Based on Ethnographic Data: Chapters 2 and 3. In A Complex Culture of the BC Plateau: Traditional Stl'alt'imx Resource Use, edited by Brian Hayden. UBC Press: Vancouver. 1997 A Cultural Heritage Overview of the Caribou Forest Region. Report prepared for the Caribou Forest Region, Ministry of Forests, Williams Lake, B.C. 2000 Pithouses on the Interior Plateau of British Columbia: Ethnographic Evidence and Interpretation of the Keatley Creek Site. In The Ancient Past of Keatley Creek, Vol. 2: Socioeconomic Interpretation, edited by Brian Hayden. Simon Fraser University Archaeology Press: Burnaby. (In press) Alexander, Diana and R.G. Matson 1987 Report on the Potato Mountain Archaeological Project (1985). Report prepared for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Heritage Conservation Branch of B.C. (Permit No. 1985-11), and the Nemiah Valley Indian Band Council. Alexander, Diana, Robert Tyhust, R.G. Matson and Linda Burnard 1985 A Preliminary Ethnoarchaeological Investigation of the Potato mountain Range and the Eagle Lake Area. Report prepared for the Heritage Conservation Branch of B.C. (Permit No. 1984-14), the Canadian Ethnic Studies Program, and the Nemiah Valley Indian Band Council. Andrefsky, William Jr. 1998 Lithics: Macroscopic approaches to analysis. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Bakewell, E. F. 2000 Classification and Distribution of Debitage at the Keatley Creek Pithouse site. In The Ancient Past of Keatley Creek, Vol. 1: Taphonomy, edited by Brian Hayden. Simon Fraser University Archaeology Press: Burnaby. Pp. 267 - 298 Bakewell, E. F., A. J. Irving 1994 Volcanic Lithic Classification in the Pacific Northwest: Petrographic and GeochemicaJ Analyses of Northwest Chipped Stone Artifacts. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes, 28(1): 29-37. Binford, L.R. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs Tails: Hunter-gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 15 (1): 4-20 Cole, Douglas and Bradley Lockner (editors) 1989 The Journals of George M. Dawson: British Columbia, 1875-1878. Vol. 1. UBC Press: Vancouver. Dawson, George M. 1891 Notes on the Shuswap People of British Columbia. Royal Society of Canada, Transactions Section 9 (2): 3-44. Hayden, Brian (editor) 1992 A Complex Culture of the British Columbia Plateau: Traditional Stl'atl'imx Resource Use. UBC Press: Vancouver. 2000 Dating Deposits at Keatley Creek. In The Ancient Past of Keatley Creek, Vol. 1: Taphonomy, edited by Brian Hayden. Simon Fraser University Archaeology Press: Burnaby. Pp. 35 - 40. 50 Hayden, B., E. Bakewell and R. Gargett 1996 The World's Longest-lived Corporate Group: Lithic Analysis Reveals Prehistoric Social Organization Near Lillooet, British Columbia. American Antiquity, 61(2): 341-356. Hayden, B., N. Franco and J. Spafford 1996 Evaluating Lithic Strategies and Design Criteria. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by George H. Odell. Plenum Press: New York. Pp. 9 -45. 2000 Keatley Creek Lithic Strategies and Design. In The Ancient Past of Keatley Creek, Vol. 1: Taphonomy, Edited by Brian Hayden. Simon Fraser University Archaeology Press: Burnaby. Pp. 185-212 Magne, Martin 1983 Lithics and Livelihood: Stone Tool Technologies of Central and Southern Interior B. C. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. 1985 Lithics and Livelihood: Stone Tool Technologies of Central and Southern Interior B.C. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper (133). National Museums of Canada: Ottawa. Magne, Martin and David Pokotylo 1981 A Pilot Study in Bifacial Lithic Reduction Sequences. Lithic Technology 10 (2-3): 34-47. Matson and Alexander 1990 Potato Mountain: The Archaeology of Alpine Root Procurement. Unpublished paper presented at the Canadian Archaeology Association conference, Whitehorse. Matson, R.G, L.C. Ham and D.E. Bunyan 1981 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns at the Mouth of the Chilcotin River, B.C. Laboratory of Archaeology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Odell, G. 1979 A New and Improved System for the Retrieval of Functional Information form Microscopic Observations of Chipped Stone Tools. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by Brian Hayden. Academic Press: New York. Pp. 329-344. Nelson, Margaret 1991 The Study of Technological Organization. In Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 3, edited by M. Schiffer. University of Arizona Press: Tucson. Pp. 57-100. Peacock, Sandra Leslie 1998 Putting Down Roots: The emergence of wild plant food production on the Canadian Plateau. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Victoria, Victoria. Pokotylo, David 1978 Lithic Technology and Settlement Patterns in Upper Hat Creek Valley, B.C. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. 1986 Archaeological Reconnaissance in the Clear Range Mountains, south central British Columbia. Unpublished proposal submitted to B.C. Studies. 1991 Drum Lake Archaeological Project Lithic Artifact Catalogue Coding Format, Version 2. Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia: Vancouver. 1994 Archaeological Investigations at Vihtr'iitshik (MiTi-1), Lower Mackenzie Valley, 1992. In ACA Cahier (2), pp. 171-191. Pokotylo, David L. and Patricia D. Froese 1983 Archaeological evidence for prehistoric root gathering on the Southern Interior Plateau of British Columbia: A case study from the Upper Hat Creek Valley. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 7:127-157. 51 Pokotylo, David and Mitchell 1998 Prehistory of the Northern Plateau. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 12. Smithsonian Institution: Washington. Pp. 81-102 Reimer, Rudy 2000 Extreme Archaeology: The Results of Investigations at High Elevations in the Northwest. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby. Richards, Thomas H. and Michael K. Rousseau 1987 Late Prehistoric Cultural Horizons on the Canadian Plateau. Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Publication No. (16). Rousseau, Mike K., John Breffit, Glen Guthrie and Geordie Howe 1989 The 1988 Results of Archaeological Investigations in Upper Oregon Jack Creek Valley and on Cornwall Hills near Ashcroft, B.C. Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Victoria. Rousseau, Mike K., Rob H. Gargett and Pierre Friele 1987 Cornwall Hills Summit Heritage Project: Site Inventory and Test Excavation Results. Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Victoria. Rousseau, M., R. Muir, D. Alexander, J. Breffitt, S. Woods, K. Berry, and T. Van Gaalen 1991 Results of the 1989 Archaeological Investigations Conducted in the Oregon Jack Creek Locality, Thompson River Region, south central British Columbia. Report on file, British Columbia Heritage Trust and the Archaeology Branch. Sanger, D. 1967 The Archaeology of the Lochnore-Nesikep Locality, British Columbia: Final Report. Unpublished Ph. D dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington. 1970 The Archaeology of the Lochnore-Nesikep Locality, British Columbia. Syesis, (3), Supplement 1, Victoria. Smith, Harlan 1900 Archaeology of the Thompson River Region, British Columbia. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, Jesup North Pacific Expedition, 2(1): 401-442. Stahle, David W. and James E. Dunn 1982 An analysis and application of the size distribution of waste flakes from the manufacture of bifacial stone tools. World archaeology, 14: 84-97. Stryd, Arnoud 1974 The Divide Site (EeRk 17): A Report to the Indian Fountain Band. Microfiche, Laboratory of Archaeology, UBC. Stryd, Arnoud R. and Michael K. Rousseau 1996 The Early Prehistory of the Mid Fraser - Thompson River Area. Early Human Occupation in British Columbia. Edited by Roy L. Carlson and Luke Dalla Bona. UBC Press. Pg. 177-200 Teit, J. 1900 The Thompson Indians of British Columbia. In Memoir of the American Museum of Natural History, Jesup North Pacific Expedition, 1(4): 163-392. New York. 1909 The Shuswap. In Memoir of the American Museum of Natural History, Jesup North Pacific Expedition, 2(7): 447-789. New York. Turner, Nancy, Lawrence C. Thompson, M. Terry Thompson and Annie Z. York 1990 Thompson Ethnobotony: Knowledge and usage of plants by the Thompson Indians of British Columbia. Royal British Columbia Museum. Memoir No. 3. 52 Figure 2: Environmental Units in the Southern Interior Plateau of British Columbia (Alexander 1992) Figure 3: Contour, Environmental Zone and Site Map of the Moore Peak and Chipuin Mountain Locality Note: For environmental zone legend see Figure 2 Legend: Contour Lines (every 500ft) Dirt Road Creeks • Site location ( all sites are within Borden area EeRk) 55 Figure 4: Contour, Environmental Zone and Site Map of the Cairn Peak and Blustry Mountain Locality Fountain C?-" F V Note: For environmental zone legend see figure 2 Contour Lines (every 500ft) Dirt Road Creeks • Site location ( all sites are within Borden area EdRk) 56 Figure 5: Contour, Environmental Unit and Site Map of the Pavilion Mountain Locality Note: For environmental zone legend see Figure 2. Legend: Contour Lines (every 500ft) Dirt Road Creeks • Site location ( all sites are within Borden area EfRk) 57 A B D a"-!. H K M N O Figure 6. Selected artifacts from the Alpine/Sub-alpine environmental zones of the Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain. Item (A) lanceolate projectile point (EfRk 55); (B) corner-notched, concave basal margin projectile point (EfRk 64); (C,D) rounded shoulders, expanding stem, concave basal margin projectile point (EfRk 37); (E) markedly concave projectile point base (EeRk 59); (F - H) bilaterally barbed, basal-notch projectile point (EfRk 56, 59, 60); (I) bilaterally barbed, corner-notch projectile point (EeRk 52); (J) Triangulate projectile point (EeRk 46); (K) tiny, corner-notch projectile point (EfRk 38); (L) tiny, side-notch projectile point; (M-O) graver (EeRk 42, EfRk 54, 53); (P) Disc shaped core (edRk 43); (Q) pentagonal biface (EeRk 50). 58 I Figure 7: Rim crest diameter box plot of Clear Range and Pavilion Mountain: CO O Clear Range Figure 8: Boxplot of the Rim Crest Diameter of Upper Hat Creek vs. Clear Range/Pavilion Mountain upland valley aipine/subalpine zone 59 Appendix 1: Resources sought by the Interior Salish Floral Resources: (Alexander 1992: 55-58, Teit 1900: 232-233, Teit 1909: 514-515, Turner et all 1990: 33-40) Floral Resources Environmental Location Common Name Latin Name Plant Use Alpine Tundra Montane Parkland Intermediate Grasslands Food Resource Non-food Res. Alpine Tundra Meadows Forest Margin Forrest high elev. Water-courses meadows Aspen Populustremuloides X X XX Baneberry Actaea arguta or eburnea X XX XX X Balsamroot Balsamorrhiza sagittate X X X X XX Bear berry / kinnikinnick Arctostaphylas uva-ursi X X X X X X Bitter cherry Prunus emarginata X X Black huckleberry Vaccinium membranaceum X X X Black tree lichen Bryoria fremontii X XX XX Blackcap Rubus leucodermis X X X X Blueberry (oval leaved) Vaccinium myrtillus X X XX Common horsetail Equisetum arvense X X X X X X Common juniper Juniperus communis X X X X Cottonwood Populus tremuloides or Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa X X Cow-parsnip / rhubarb Heracleum lanatum X X X XX X Currant / black twinberry Lonicera involucrata X X XX Devil's club Oplopanax horridus X X Dwarf blueberry Vaccinium caespitosum X X XX X Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii X XX X Engelmann spruce Picea engelmannii X X XX False box Paxistima myrsinites X X XX False Solomon's-seal Smilacina racemosa X X X X Fireweed Epilobium angustifolium X X X XX X Indian celery Lomatium nudicaule X X X X Indian hellebore Veratrum viride X X X XX X Labrador tea Ledum groenlandicum X XX Logdepole pine Pinus conlorta X X Nodding onion Allium cernuum X X X XX X Oregon-grape Mahonia nervosa X X Pacific anemone Anemone multifida X X X X X X Pacific willow Salix lasiandra X X Paper birch Belula papyrifera X X Pinegrass Calamagrostis rubescens X X X X XX X X Red-osier dogwood Cornus sericea X X Rocky Mtn. juniper Juniperus scopulorum X X X Rocky Mtn. maple Acer glabrum var. Dippel X X X Saskatoon Amelanchier alnifolia X X Sitka alder Alnus crispa var. Pursh X X X Sitka willow Salix sitchensis X X Soapberry Shepherdia canaderisis X X XX X Spring beauty Claytonia lanceolata X X XX X Stinging-nettle Urtica dioica X X Strawberry Fragaria californica X X Sub alpine fir Abies lasiocarpa X X XX Swamp gooseberry Ribes lacustra X X X Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus X X XX X Tiger lily Lilium columbianum X X X XX Waxberry Symphoricarpos albus X X Whitebark pine Pinus albicaulis X XX X Whitestemmed gooseberry Ribes inerme X X X X Wild rose Rosa gymnocarpa X X X X Wild strawberry Fragaria virginiana X X X X Wild trailing raspberry Rubus pedatus X X XX X Yellow avalanche lily • Erythronium grandiflorum minor X X X Yarrow Achillea millefolium X X X X X X X = plants of high and moderate significance for the environmental zone XX= environment in which it is most abundant 60 Faunal Resources: (Alexander 1989:195-196, Teit 1900: 230, 1909:513) Food and Skins Primarily for skins Deer 1 Porcupine Cougar i Fisher Bighorn sheep Kul squirrel Lynx | Long-tailed weasel Mountain goat \ i-H hern flying squirrel Bobcat 1 • Short-tailed weasel Moose I Ground hog Wolf Elk : Grouse Coyote Black bear ! Ducks Red fox Grizzly bear ( m-i Wolverine i Snowshoe hare i Cranes Marten Yellow-bellied marmot ; Robins Mink | Beaver Musk rat j 61 Appendix 2: Alpine/Subalpine Ethnohistoric Settlement Summary and Archaeological Implications Notes Deer were the most common animal sought, though bear and other ungulates were also hunted in these environmental zones. -butchering tools: bifaces, unifaces and utilized flakes, probably found away from site as not to scare away other animals NO butchering debris expected as butchering was probably done away from the capture location as not to scare away other animals with the smell of blood. Archaeological Implications Archaeological Facilities/Features -hearths may be present -shallow pits may be dug near salt licks -shallow pit to hold • the snare -loosely stacked pile of rocks either semi-circular or circular Archaeological Implications Archaeological Assemblages -projectile points -butchering tools: bifaces, unifaces, utilized flakes -manufacturing and maintenance debris -woodworking tools: adz, axe, chisel heads -projectile points -projectile points -tool maintenance debris Ethnographic Summary Tools/Equipment/ Features -bow and arrow or atlatl and dart -shallow pits dug near salt licks -butchering tools -small hearths, traditionally did not used rocks to outline fire. -deer fence, pit and snare -hunting and butchering tools -woodworking tools -bow and arrow or atlatl and darts -hunting blind -hunting gear debris Ethnographic Summary Task Group Composition -lone hunter -small hunting groups -unknown -normally two to four men, though up to ten -if not enough men, women and children helped out Ethnographic Summary Site Activities -animal killed -butchering activities -may cook and eat a portion of the kill -pit dug in gap, snare placed inside -kill the snared animal -a hunter hides behind hunting blind or in a natural depression and kills the animal as it goes by escaping form the drive, -or, deer encircled by a group and herded towards the top of a mountain or middle of a open meadow Ethnographic Summary Location -animals killed where ever encountered, from river valleys to the alpine, -in the alpine/subalpine, most common near salt licks, water holes, and rocky promontories -alpine and subalpine -built in little valleys or defiles between mountains -built along trails leading down mountains to winter habitats -top of gulches -on top of mountains with small round tops -open grasslands Ethnographic Summary a) Season of use b) Duration A)could be hunted at anytime -most hunting occurred mid-May to mid-July and mid-August to early-September -hunters could stay until early November -hunters would head out in late winter if resources were low b)sometimes stayed overnight at kill site a) sometimes used in summer -mostly used in hunting season (see above) b) fences repaired and reused by owner a)can be used in any season -most hunting occurred in the hunting seasons (see ungulate kill / butchering site) Ethnographic Summary Site Class Ungulate Kill/ Butcherin gSite Deer Fences Deer Drives / Hunting Blinds 62 Appendix 2 continued Notes May leave very little archaeological evidence as butchering probably done away from the capture location as not to scare away other animals with the smell of the blood May be difficult to locate as the snow would disperse any traces left behind -marmot sites likely revisited yearly therefore should have a higher concentration of debris -hearths may be present as hunters may cook part of the kill -most meat processed at base camps Archaeological Implications Archaeological Facilities/Features -hearths may be present -hearths may be present Archaeological Implications Archaeological Assemblages -projectile points -projectile points -projectile points -tool maintenance debris -projectile points -butchering tools: bifaces, unifaces, and utilized flakes -butchering tools: bifaces, unifaces, utilized flakes -maintenance debris -scrapers: steep retouched and utilized flakes -projectile points Ethnographic Summary Tools/Equipment/ Features -corral made out of nets or sticks, blocking gaps between trees and shrubs -bow and arrow or atlatl and darts -bow and arrow or atlatl and darts -snow shoes -hearths -hunting and butchering tools -snares -bow and arrows or atlatl and darts -butchering tools -tool maintenance -associate hunting blinds and deer fences -high densities of debris -hearths Ethnographic Summary Task Group Composition -men shoot the deer -men, women and children drive deer along game trails into nets -men -several men -unknown -men Ethnographic Summary Site Activities -deer driven into nets along game trails -snares laid on game trails -animal killed while entangled in net or snare -hunters chase animal into deep snow to be killed -run down by men and dogs -hunters watched for game -animals snared or shot, and butchered -butchering animals -may only entail preliminary butchering for ease in transportation -hunters may cook part of the kill Ethnographic Summary Location -subalpine -over game trails -in mountains, and other areas of deep snow -high points overlooking trails and open slopes -alpine and subalpine, with snares along the game trails -deer and other animals killed where ever they were found therefore the sites may be found in all of the environmental zones Ethnographic Summary a) Season of use b) Duration a) most hunting occurred in hunting seasons(see ungulate kill / butchering sites) b) used in early morning when deer can not see their way out a)winter a) hunting season (see ungulate kill / butchering site) b) may wait for extended periods a)August and September is prime marmot season a) may occur anytime during the year -most common during hunting season(see ungulate kill/butcheing site) b) single or multiple occupancy Ethnographic Summary Site Class Deer Drive - Nets and Snares Winter Deer Hunts Lookouts Small Game Kill Sites Butchering Sites 63 Appendix 2 continued ; TD ' 3 o » o c a * x^ c *—' TD /—- u JJ o 1> cd S :p c= 3 cd : b c/i -g ~ .2 o > CJ 2 c c 2 > * cc x= c c X) > cj cd fits e C ~ o cS w « P 3 3 o. «8 ° 2 5 2 > a ? o. cj a Ol S 2 » U E e 3 g 3 2 3 O J5 U > fl a! S TD S S oo cj a •; i ed tn I 0) O - n M « O T) 60 m O O « CO w !> fl ao -o .5 <5 rz: w o c E « • u _fl ^ 3 i_ -3 ^ en cn g 3 J3 g g • I g gas .5 2 cd -S? E CD o - 15* . to T3 C .2 £ 1 S -g -g TD n • e5 O ^ +i J3 >_ •S IS 3 53 ^ CJ w x: CJ CJ > 3 3 3 60 1 .S . o 6P S Z. O C3" V) H to 60 n. oo CJ TD — 3 "cd 1 O 3 S X> +- tn cd g 3 « £p.fl .3 »o5 t P> 8 ra o «3 > B i 2 O •*= fl £ cs "O -C u. cn C cn fl TD XI -TD J5 p . O .3 S ^. J " w i-T J2 J2 P CJ U TD a S .2 3 S £ O « C fl i X) w ca x: ca o •9 I > o a o O o * °-M 5 es O JS 2 Kg "73 cn _ j— f i § S 1 .3 S b, o 3 S o. S 3 PS E cd cd - «. - - 00 ^ £ o o C i> cd ? ^ OT cd cn o o o T3 -fl cn fl S s 3 O ±3 w C T) *. 5 60 , n .3 *~ S -~ CJ r-i C c p .5 <2 * .2 <S O tj)'t X « CJ cd 3 3 ca 3 e g a 3h ca cj x: = " JJ c 'saSaj«23Hs3 Si X! o a -a ca cj i - t a. c XI TD I C/l ? h8 s ni C cn cu fl O O DO cd o 13.3 = 8 2 5. 3 2 .S •=-g 3 ca 3 ca cj •S 3 .1 § a. S2 3 2 o g fl OJ CJ ^ TD S E CJ CJ 3 3 g fl EZ S S is 5 c o V < 00 U O on 64 Intermediate Grassland Ethnohistoric Settlement Summary and Archaeological Implications: ! "a i § 3 S -s -8 -3- a * § fn " R 5J ?1 IS I- s .a •£ ^ g a. s j » 8 8 I cu ^3 'oft 8 S | •£ | 8 B | s u g T u Is co =3 •n I § I § 1 fell O 13 , &42 8 S "§ 2 o o « §1 » 5S »• « 2» < < "S -a •a s 1 -a. s 11 it * 3 6oft .3 S 5 ^ 13 S bo II cu © -3 iS 8 C3 ^ •i IK O 5i .t* S i-r 2 ^ er | 5 a> -i£ f~ o t .t> •2 13. 00 I 111 i w ex • Si on s a 'I E o ^ > O o 2 co J3 co > C ^ - CJ > 2 .£ JB A »" cd 00 g O ca g ! • 'a J s ^ 4< -S " S3 a. oo cu 00 o E eg .StS 2 ~ •a JJ c w 5 - I £3 00 CJ 3 a •« JS ca g E 1* , <JT> „ I E I £ ? ? 00 ? CU CJ 00 60 00 •S oo E cn 1 a '5 2 o o S o J I ^ °-C 3 c « ts S « § S n ca ^ "S "5 t; 0 00 ecu -c -a E S 60 X • ,j a « 3 S CO — ^ „ ._ „ 53 2 „ ^ b D.rS '5 cS 08 g "> M * ^ M 00 C 60 60 o ~- Q. ca (N eg m g 60 " 00 j 1 tj 5 e e a LJ §• i st § 1 ~ co £2 o g co E S 9 E S S> S 73 E - - o. S g E — H_ — 0£ 0 {2 60 eg 'u 00 w D ca CJ CJ CJ 4= S =3 1 r* ca c 2 S S -a •7 on f is a CO ^ on J3 00 a o cj ca 4- 13 ra cj c So J c "> ra *• •O £ T3 cd -,3 « -a . CO on if 2 •Sit 111 n: ^ cj ra 3 -S •a 3 " S <C a. ra r cj 3 E ^> • ca ii: co •o -a = — 1~< tN a co & E -»8« D CQ E .= O cu '5 65 Appendix 3 Upper Hat Creek Valley Archaeological Site Classes: Site Class Site Size Features Tool Assemblage Debitage Assemblage Environment Hunting site 1: Mean site size = 278 m2 Range=56 - 476 m2 N/A -Common presence of proj. point tips, biface fragments and ends, and marginal retouch flakes. -Lack of complete proj. points, formed unifaces, bifacial retouch flakes and bipolar implements -Full range of reduction steps and no specific step predominating Optimal overviews Hunting site 2: Mean site size = 278 m2 Range=56 - 476 m2 N/A -Common presence of proj. point tips, biface fragments and ends, and marginal retouch flakes. -Lack of complete proj. points, formed unifaces, bifacial retouch flakes and bipolar implements -restricted range of reduction steps centered on tertiary stage reduction Optimal overviews Hunting site 3: unknown N/A -microblades and minimal numbers of other artifact types -Either wide ranging or primary reduction manufacturing No interpretable patterning with environmental variables Gathering / Processing site 1: Minimum site size = 1260 m2 Earth ovens -high frequency and variety of tools including: proj. points, point fragments, biface fragments and ends, microblades, steep and acute angled marginal unifacial retouch flakes. -full range of reduction steps but with an emphasis on the tertiary stage. -full range of reduction steps and no specific step predominating Gathering / Processing site 2: Mean site size = 84 m2 Earth ovens -low frequency and diversity of expediently made tools N/A Processing site 3 Unknown Earth ovens No associated lithics N/A -The Upper Hat Creek Valley Archaeological Site Class Model derived from Pokotylo (1978) 66 Appendix 4: Site Summary Information Site (Borden #) Site Size Elevation Envir. Zone, Vegetation Physical Location Artifacts, Collection Type Features Notes EdRk 30 (Bald Mt.) 1 x 1 m m -Subalpine -Alpine grasses, Engelmann spruce -Headwater of Cinquefoil Creek. -Along cattle trail -4m from creek 1 basalt flake (left in-situ) EdRk31 (Bald Mt.) 8x4m 1951m -Subalpine -Alpine grasses, Engelmann spruce -Gently sloping terrain just NE of Cinquefoil headwaters -Along disturbed cattle trail -2m from Cinquefoil Cr. 1 comer-notched proj. point (left in-situ) 6 basalt flakes (in-situ) EdRk 30 and 31 are within several meters of each other. Uses same map. EdRk 32 (Bald Mt.) 21 x 12 m 1951m -Subalpine -Alpine grasses, isolated Engelmann spruce -Situated on crest of a low knoll and level portion of adjacent slope, open area -Adjacent to heavily forested ridge. -5m from Pocock Creek 14 basalt flakes (left in-situ) 1-roasting pit, based on size and presence of burned soil and FCR. EdRk 33 (Bald Mt.) 50 x 25 m 1981m -Subalpine -Alpine grasses, isolated strands of Engelmann spruce and Subalpine fir, Spring beauty -Situated on a level bench above confluence of two headwater tributaries of Pocock Creek -Bench surrounded on 3 sides by treed area, overlooks grassy slopes with scattered trees -10m from creek Discontinuous surface scatter 1 basalt biface preform (left in-situ) 26 basalt debitage (left in-situ) 2 roasting pits, based on presence of burnt soil and FCR. -adjacent to: 4 cultural depressions, lack of evidence for burning and their irregular shapes Site bigger than first noted by Pokotylo Spring beauty growing at site suggests that they may have been a food cooked in roasting pits (Alexander) EdRk 34 (Bald Mt.) 7 x 3 m 1981m -Subalpine -Sparse growth of alpine grasses -Situated on the SE margin of a low ridge 50m from headwater of Cinquefoil Creek -At base of Cairn peak -50m from creek 13 basalt debitage (left in-situ) Same map used as for EdRk 30 and 31. EdRk 35 (Bald Mt.) 5 x 5 m 1981m -Subalpine -Grasses, Alpine fir -At headwater of Cinquefoil Creek (southern fork) -On a small bench above spring -30m north of Cinquefoil Cr. - 1 cultural depression excavated into slope EdRk 36 (Bald Mt.) 110 x 20 m 1830m -Subalpine -Grasses, Alpine fir -Site at edge of Cinquefoil Creek -On flat clearing on north side of creek 1 point base (collected) 2 retouched flakes (collected) 6 flakes 30% collection - 3 roasting pits, based on size and location 67 Appendix 4 cont. Site Site Size Elevation Envir. Zone, Physical Artifacts, Features Notes (Borden #) Vegetation Location Collection Type EdRk 37 180x70 1814m -Subalpine -The only large, 2 basalt flakes, left -4 roasting Historic camp (Bald m -Grasses, open flat on in-situ pits, based on with coffee pot, Mt.) Alpine fir north side of creek -15m west of Cinquefoil Creek size -2 cache pits, based on size frying pan, broken axe handle, holder for 7mm bullets, jars, cans EdRk 38 7 x 7 m 2286m -Alpine -Site situated on 3 flakes from 2 hunting (Bald -Grasses, top of Blustery trowel test blinds, loosely Mt.) lichen Mt., northeAstern edge -Good, open view of surrounding area (optimum overview) 100% collected stacked rocks approx. 40 cm high -1 circular -1 half-circle EdRk39 25 x 10 m 2271m -Alpine -on bedrock 1 leaf-shaped 2 stone cairns, Burial identified (Bald -Grasses, -site on lowest basalt biface (left both roughly by local Mt.) lichens point of a ridge which divides the Cinquefoil and Pocock drainage's beside trail in-situ) circular pile of rocks lm across and 20 cm high. 1 burial 1 cairn informant, left in-situ 1979 dime, 1984 quarter, 1976 quarter, 1974 dime, matches, can, brown glass EdRk 40 2 x 2 m 2286m -Alpine -Near top of 1-hunting (Bald -Grasses, Blustery Mt. blind, semi Mt.) lichens -Site at top of small hill overlooking Cinquefoil Creek, southwest comer of mountain. -Overlooking steep slope (optimal overview) circle of loosely piled rocks. EdRk 41 10 x 20 m 2313m -Alpine -At highest 1 basalt biface 1-hunting Informant (Bald -Grasses, point of (collected) 20m blind, circle of thought might be Mt.) lichens Blustery Mt., at top of small hill overlooking Pocock Creek to the southeast -Overlooking steep slope (optimal overview) from blind. 1 basalt flake (left in-situ) loosely stacked rocks. a burial, but shape and location suggest a hunting blind. EdRk 42 40 x 20 m 2073m -Subalpine -Headwater of 12 flakes (11 Large rock- Historic (Bald -Whitebark Cinquefoil basalt, 1 chert), ringed campfire. Mt.) pine, grasses, Dandelion, Fireweed Creek -On south face of Cairn Peak at northern end of ridge which separates Pocock and Cinquefoil Creek drainage. -150m to water -LS in open area beside treed area left in-situ campfire Approx. 20 people during the 1986 study used the site as a camp. 68 Appendix 4 cont. Site Site Size Elevation Envir. Zone, Physical Artifacts, Features Notes (Borden #) Vegetation Location Collection Type EdRk 43 45 x 30 m 1920m -Subalpine -Headwater of 1 projectile point Lithics scattered (Bald -Alpine fir, Cinquefoil (collected) over entire bench Mt.) grasses, Dandelion Creek -On a flat bench on north side of creek -Cinquefoil Creek borders site Kamloops H. (1200-200 BP) 1 biface fragment (collected) 1 disc-shaped core (collected) 12 basalt flakes (in-situ) area. EdRk 44 90 x 60 m 1783m -Subalpine -Headwaters of 5 basalt flakes (in- 3 roasting pits, Other side of trail (Bald -Whitebark Cinquefoil situ) based on FCR is open grassland Mt.) pine, Alpine fir, grasses, Dandelion Creek -Beside trail, Just up-slope of Cinquefoil Creek -Pits above trail on treed slope present and Willow swamp EdRk 45 180 x 15 1585m -Subalpine -Half of site at 3 cultural Modern campsite (Bald m -Alpine fir, edge of large depressions, to north of Mt.) Lodgepole pine, grasses, Willow, Dandelion, Aspen open meadow on north side of creek. -Other half above trail, downstream of meadow. -10m west of Creek located in treed area (either roasting or cache pits) meadow EdRk 46 85 x 25 m 1402m -Subalpine -northeast of 3 cache pits, In two groups, (Bald -Alpine fir, confluence of based on size a) 2 large,2 Mt.) Aspen, Willow, Lodgepole pine, grasses, Kinnikinnick the two forks of Cinquefoil Creek, - 7m east of creek and location. 4 large roasting pits / small housepits. small b) 2 large, 1 small EdRk 47 30 x 20 m 1951m -Subalpine -Headwaters of Lithic scatter, not 1 roasting pit, (Bald -Alpine fir, Pocock Creek counted and left in- based on size Mt.) grasses (northern fork) -On ridge deeply incised on both sides by branches of the creek -15m south of creek situ EeRk 35 32 x 18 m 1608m -Subalpine -In Upper Hat 1-roasting pit, (Moore/ -Douglas fir, Creek Valley 100% surface based on Chipuin Engelmann along the North collection using 2 x charcoal and Mt.) spruce, Subalpine fir, Juniper, Current, Wild rose, Onion, Wild strawberry, Arnica, Fleabane, Indian paintbrush, Yarrow, Dandelion, Twin flower, Chickweed, Clover, Elephant head, bank of Anderson Creek tributary -30m from Anderson Creek -trail runs through site -is sole access route to Chipuin limestone deposits -area sheltered 2m grid units FCR. 69 Appendix 4 cont. Site Site Size Elevation Envir. Zone, Physical Artifacts, Features Notes (Borden Vegetation Location Collection Type #) EeRk 36 8x 10m 1615m -Subalpine -In Upper Hat 1 roasting pit, (Moore/ -Engelmann Creek Valley based on Chipuin spruce, along the North carbonaceous Mt.) Douglas fir, bank of soil and FCR Wild Anderson strawberry, Creek Horsetails, -15m from Fireweed, Anderson Wintergreen, Creek Mountain -Trail runs Forget-me- through it, not, Elephant located within head, the open spruce Yarrow, Old / fir forest man's beard, Black tree lichen EeRk 37 6 x 6 m 1638m -Subalpine -In Upper Hat 1 roasting pit, (Moore/ -Engelmann Creek Valley based on Chipuin spruce, along the North carbonaceous Mt.) Subalpine bank of soil and FCR fir, Jack Anderson . pine, Creek Bunchberry, -Beside trail Elephant -13m from head, Wild Anderson strawberry, Creek Lupine, -within the Yarrow, spruce/ fir Columbine, forest Twin flower, Old man's beard, Black tree lichen EeRk 38 12 x 6 m 1654m -Subalpine -In Upper Hat 2 roasting pit, (Moore/ -Engelmann Creek Valley based on Chipuin spruce, along the North carbonaceous Mt.) Douglas fir, bank of soil and FCR Soapberry, Anderson Dwarf Creek huckleberry, -3 m from Current, Anderson Onion, Wild Creek strawberry, -beside trail Lupine, -within the Elephant spruce / fir head, Bunch forest berry, Winter green,Old man's beard, Black tree lichen, Soapberry, EeRk 39 5 x 5m 1692m -Subalpine -In Upper Hat 1 roasting pit, (Moore/ -Douglas fir, Creek Valley based on Chipuin Cottonwood, along the North carbonaceous Mt.) Soapberry, bank of soil and FCR Wild rose, Anderson Onion, Wild Creek strawberry, -70m from Indian Anderson Cr. paintbrush, -A single Arnica, cultural Fleabane, depression built Dandelion, into steep slope. Columbine, -Within the spruce/ fir forest 70 Appendix 4 cont. Site Site Size Elevation Envir. Zone, Physical Artifacts, Features Notes (Borden Vegetation Location Collection Type #) EeRk 40 9x7m 1722m -Subalpine -In Upper Hat 1 Roasting pit, (Moore/ -Engelmann Creek Valley based on Chipuin spruce, along the North carbonaceous Mt.) Douglas fir, Trembling Aspen, Juniper, Wild rose, Soapberry, Wild lily, Onion, Wild strawberry, Arnica, Yarrow, Dandelion, Sedum, Twin flower. bank of Anderson Creek -23m from Anderson Creek -situated just of trail just before it emerges onto the open grasslands soil and FCR EeRk 41 5 x 6 m 1734m -Subalpine -In Upper Hat 1 roasting pit, (Moore/ -Engelmann Creek Valley based on Chipuin spruce, along the north carbonaceous Mt.) Subalpine fir, Trembling Aspen, Willow, Onion, Wild strawberry, Yarrow, Sticky geranium, Lousewart, Clover, Buttercup, Meadow rue, Cow parsnip, Twin flower, Fleabane, Northern bedstraw, White catchfly, Old man's beard bank of Anderson Creek -14m from Anderson Cr. -14m from trail and just inside the treeline soil and FCR EeRk 42 22 x 17 m 1753m -Subalpine -In Upper Hat 1 roasting pit, (Moore/ (forest/grassl Creek Valley 100% surface based on, size, Chipuin and along the north collection using 2 x charcoal and Mt.) boundary -Engelmann spruce, Subalpine fir, Trembling Aspen, Northern black cottonwood, Willow, Strawberry, Soapberry, Ribes, Onion, Clover, Oyster plant, Antennaria rosea, Arnica, Fleabane, Yarrow, bank of Anderson Creek. -Cattle trails run through site -36m from Anderson Cr. -Located at the toe of line of trees 2m grid. FCR 71 Appendix 4 cont. Site Site Size Elevation Envir. Zone, Physical Artifacts, Features Notes (Borden Vegetation Location Collection Type #) EeRk 43 14x 18m 1580m -Subalpine -Situated on 1 cultural (Moore/ -Engelmann north side of 100% surface depression Chipuin spruce, Anderson collection with 3 interior Mt.) Trembling Creek basins. Aspen, -100m from Contain burnt Dwarf creek soil, huckleberry, -site is situated carbonized Crowberry, on and below remains and Northern cattle trail as it FCR. black leads across Cottonwood, steep slope Labrador tea, -situated in Soapberry, grassland Skunk environment cabbage, between to Spring forested areas beauty, Indian paintbrush, Yarrow, EeRk 44 6x 18m 1640m -Subalpine -Located on (Moore/ -Engelmann north side of 100% surface Chipuin spruce, Anderson collection Mt.) Douglas fir, Creek Rocky -Site along trail, mountain that ascends rhododendro through open n, Laurel, spruce / fir Labrador forest. tea, -Situated on a Thimbleberr small rise y, Arnica, Yarrow, EeRk 45 4 x 8 m 1640m -Subalpine -located on the 16 Artifacts - lithic (Moore/ -Engelmann north side of scatter Chipuin spruce, Anderson Controlled surface Mt.) Western Creek collection, using 2 x hemlock, -more than 2m grid. Douglas fir, 100m from the Grouseberry, creek Dwarf -site along huckleberry, cattle trail Crowberry, ascending Wild through open strawberry, spruce / fir Stonecrop, forest Indian -site is situated paintbrush, in open saddle Yarrow, Old along cattle trail man's beard, Black tree lichen EeRk 46 14 x 26 m 1800m -Subalpine -Located on the 39 artifacts, lithic (Moore/ -Engelmann north side of scatter. Chipuin spruce, Jack Anderson Controlled surface Mt.) pine, Creek collection using 2 x Yarrow, -more than 2m grid. Columbine, 100m from the Clover, creek Buttercup -site in an open area along cattle trail ascending through open spruce / fir forest 72 Appendix 4 cont. Site Site Size Elevation Envir. Zone, Physical Artifacts, Features Notes (Borden Vegetation Location Collection Type #) EeRk 47 10x53 m 1800m -Subalpine -Located on the 32 artifacts - lithic (Moore/ -Engelmann north side of scatter Chipuin spruce, Jack Anderson Controlled surface Mt.) pine, Creek collection using 2 x Teaberry, -More than 2m grid Yarrow, 100m from Dandelion, creek Lupine, -Site in an open Columbine, area along Clover cattle trail ascending through open forest. EeRk 48 2 x 6 m 1850m -Subalpine -Located on the 20 artifacts - lithic (Moore/ -Engelmann north side of scatter Chipuin spruce, Jack Anderson Controlled surface Mt.) pine, Creek. collection using 2 x Teaberry, -More than 2m grid. Yarrow, 100m from Subalpine creek daisy, -Situated along Columbine, cattle trail in Lupine, forest Saxifrage EeRk 49 12 x 26 m 1850m -Subalpine -Located on the 46 artifacts - lithic (Moore/ -Engelmann north side of scatter Chipuin spruce, Jack Anderson Controlled surface Mt.) pine, creek. collection using 2 x Teaberry, -More than 2m grid. Yarrow, 100m from Subalpine creek. daisy, -Situated along Columbine, cattle trail in Lupine forest. EeRk 50 22 x 60 m 1865m -Subalpine -Located on the 95 artifacts - lithic (Moore/ -Englemann north side of scatter Chipuin spruce, Jack Anderson controlled surface Mr.) pine, Creek. collection using 2 x Teaberry, -More than 2m grid. Yarrow, 100m from Lupine, creek. Buttercup, -Situated along Subalpine cattle trail in daisy, forest. Saxifrage, Columbine EeRk 51 4 x 44m 1880m -Subalpine -Located on the 22 artifacts - lithic Lithic scatter (Moore/ -Engelmann north side of scatter exposed by cattle Chipuin spruce, Jack Anderson Controlled surface trail and slope Mt.) pine, Creek. collection using 2 x wash. Ponderosa -More than 2m grid. pine, 100m from Teaberry, Anderson Yarrow, Creek, though a Dandelion, small tributary Subalpine creek runs daisy, through the site. Columbine, -Situated in an Clover, open area along Saxifrage, cattle trail Lupine, ascending Buttercup through the spruce / fir I forest. 73 Appendix 4 cont. Site Site Size Elevation Envir. Zone, Physical Artifacts, Features Notes (Borden #) Vegetation Location Collection Type EeRk 52 20 x 40m 1940m -Subalpine -Located on the 146 artifacts 1-roasting pit, Lithic material (Moore/ -Engelmann north side of Controlled surface based on size surrounds the Chipuin spruce, Anderson and test excavation. and presence cultural Mt.) Black mountain huckleberry, Dwarf huckleberry, Scrub birch, Labrador tea, Falie azalea, Gooseberry, Wild strawberry, Spring beauty, Yarrow, Creek. -More than 100m from Anderson Creek -Site is situated in an open area north of spruce / fir forest along cattle trail. of burnt soil, carbonized material and FCR. depression on three sides. Cow trampled. EeRk 53 14 x 16m 1970m -Subalpine -Located on 114 artifacts 2 roasting pits, Lithic scatter (Moore/ -Engelmann slope north of Controlled surface based on size situated to the Chipuin spruce, Jack Anderson collection using 2 x and presence east of cultural Mt.) pine, Grouseberry, Balsam root, Onion, Yarrow, Trembling Aspen, Wild strawberry, Indian paintbrush, Larkspur, Death camas, Lupine, Creek. -More than 100m from Anderson Creek -Trail runs through cultural depression #1. -Site is situated in saddle on divide. 2m grid. of burnt soil, carbonized material and FCR. depressions. EeRk 56 N/A 2225 m -Alpine - 50 m below -1 biface fragment (Moore/ Tundra; summit, 100 m -judgmental Chipuin -Lichen, north of cairn at collection Mt.) grasses summit EeRk 57 70 x 110 1828 m -Subalpine -on elevated -2 flakes -6 Roasting Informant: site (Moore/ m -Lodgepole land between -left in-situ pits, based on was used as a Chipuin pine, fork in Gibbs presence of traditional camp Mt.) Subalpine fir; Lupine, Creek -2m from creek FCR and charcoal; while hunting deer. Fireweed, -scattered trees -1 Cache pit Meadow rue, Strawberry, Blueberry, Columbine EeRk 58 14 x 10 m 1981 m -Subalpine -Near -2 flakes -1 Roasting (Moore/ Predominant headwater of -100% collection pit, based on Chipuin ly grasses Gibbs creek, presence FCR Mt.) with some Wildflowers, though some Lodgepole pine and Subalpine fir between Moore and Chipuin -Along trail which follows open southern ridge -100m from creek EeRk 59 12 x 60 m 1828m -Subalpine -near headwater points - 1 cultural (Moore/ -Subalpine of Gibbs creek, -Shuswap H. (3500- depression Chipuin fir, grasses, between Moore 2400 BP) Mt.) Dandelion, Buttercup, Forget-me-not, Lupine and Chipuin -In fringe of trees between Gibbs creek and alpine meadow -40m north of Gibbs Creek | -Plateau H. (2400-1200 BP) 20 flakes 100% collection 74 Appendix 4 cont. Site Site Size Elevation Envir. Zone, Physical Artifacts, Features Notes (Borden #) Vegetation Location Collection Type EeRk 60 21 x 5 m 1844m -Subalpine -near 1 basalt flake - 1 cultural (Moore/ -Subalpine headwaters of 100% collection depression Chipuin fir, grasses Gibbs Creek, (either a Mt.) and Wildflowers between Moore and Chipuin -in fringe of trees between Gibbs Creek and alpine meadow -60m north of Gibbs Creek roasting or cache pit) EfRk 37 2x4 m 2073m -Subalpine -Close to 2 basalt points First record (Pavilion Kinnikinnick summit of 31 flakes 1986, Alexander Mt.) , Dwarf Willow, Pavilion Mt. -At the NW end Shuswap H. (3500-2400 BP) returned 1987 -lithic grasses, of open flat, 100% collected scatter Strawberry, Yarrow and Lodgepole pine above the white limestone outcropping -600m west of Pavilion Creek using 1 x lm grids 2 50 x 50cm excavation grids EfRk 38 47 x 26 m 1859m -Subalpine -Located beside 2 points Excavation: top (Pavilion -Grasses, a small creek in layer a historic Mt.) Fireweed, Lupine, Spring beauty, Meadow rue, Larkspur, Tiger lily, Willow, Subalpine fir, Lodgepole pine an open valley, approx. 2.9-km east of summit. -Along trail -Beside secondary branch of creek. 100% surface collection 2 - lm x 50cm units 5 - 1 x lm units excavated hunting camp, overlaying Kamloops phase (1200-200 BP) First record 1986, Alexander returned 1987 EfRk 39 44x56 1844m -Subalpine -Located beside 128 artifacts 6 roasting pits, First record (Pavilion -Grasses, a small creek in 100% surface based on size 1986, Alexander Mt.) Lupine, Spring beauty, Meadow rue, Subalpine fir, Lodgepole pine an open valley, approx. 2.9 km east of summit -Along trail -Beside secondary branch of creek collection 1 - 20 x 20cm test excavation 1 - 20 x 40cm test excavation and presence of charcoal and FCR 1 cache pit returned 1987 EfRk 40 105x35 1880m -Subalpine -Located beside 20 black chert 1 cultural -Historic (Pavilion m -Grasses, a small creek in flakes (left in-situ) depression, campsite Mt.) Fireweed, Lupine, fir, pine an open valley, approx. 2.9 km east of summit -Along trail -Beside secondary branch of creek probably a cache pit based on size and lack of any evidence of burning -Informant: identified as traditional campsite, used in summer while hunting and gathering plant foods. EfRk 43 10x5m 1828m -Subalpine -Located beside 10 black chert (Pavilion -Grasses, a small creek in flakes (left in-situ) Mt.) Lupine, Subalpine fir, Lodgepole pine an open valley, approx. 2.9 km east of summit -Along trail -Beside secondary branch of creek -Steep forested slope to either side of valley 75 Appendix 4 cont. Site Site Size Elevation Envir. Physical Artifacts, Features Notes (Borden Zone, Location Collection Type #) Vegetation EfRk 46 5 x 5 m 2012m -Subalpine -bottom of white 1 utilized flake - informant: (Pavilion -Grasses, limestone rock 3 bone fragments temporary Mt.) Yarrow, Surround in face on SE side of large (large mammal) Test excavation (50 campsite used in windy and wet - g site: limestone x 50cm.) weather, by 1 - 3 rockshelt White bark outcrop. men while deer er pine, Kinnikinnic k, Soapberry, grasses, Indian paintbrush. -Small open bench is located immediately in front of rock shelter. -Good view south and east into Pavilion Creek valley -Close to summit hunting, usually in fall. - used to be a stone hunting blind approx. 100m from site. - First record 1986, Alexander returned 1987 EfRk 47 5 x 5 m 2012m -Subalpine -On top of knoll 10 basalt flakes (left - informant: used (Pavilion -Grasses, with large in-situ) to be a stone Mt.) Kinnikinnic k, White exposure of white limestone (1 flake collected) blind at the edge of the bluff, near -lithic bark pine, on the western judgmental sample site. Blind used scatter and southeAstern faces. -Close to summit -350m from nearest water by one or two hunters to shoot deer being driven up the valley. - First record 1986, Alexander returned 1987 EfRk 50 1 x 1 m 1920m -Subalpine -On a trail in a Ca. 1150 chert (Pavilion -Lodgepole small open valley flakes Mt.) pine, Engelmann spruce, Subalpine fir, Willow, grasses, Meadow rue, Spring beauty, Larkspur at the headwaters of Pavilion Creek and approx. 3 km from summit. -Forest to either side of valley Excavated 1 x lm unit over surface collection. EfRk 52 9x 11m 2088m -Subalpine -On an open flat 124 artifacts (Pavilion -Grasses, at the end of a 100% surface Mt.) Lupine, sedum, Fireweed, Whitebark pine, Subalpine fir, Willow, Juniper rocky promontory, 400m SE of summit collection using 1 x 1 m grid over entire site EfRk 53 12 x 10m 2088m -Subalpine -250 m. east of 173 artifacts (Pavilion -Grasses, summit 100% surface Mt.) Lupine, sedum, Willow, Juniper, White bark pine, Subalpine fir, -on an open flat below summit at junction of poorly defined road -dirt road goes right over site collection using 1 x lm grid over site EfRk 54 12 x 16m 2088m -Subalpine -50m from 61 artifacts (Pavilion -Grasses, summit 100% surface Mt.) lichens, Subalpine fir, Lodgepole pine -on an open slope below summit -overlooking steep slope to NE. collection using 1 x lm grid over site 76 Appendix 4 cont. Site (Borden #) Site Size Elevation Envir. Zone, Vegetation Physical Location Artifacts, Collection Type Features Notes EfRk 55 (Pavilion Mt.) 32 x 50m 2073m -Subalpine -Willow, Kinnikinnick, Lousewort, White dryas, Yarrow, grasses, lichen, Englemann spruce, Lodgepole pine, Subalpine fir. -50m NW of summit -on an open slope with scattered trees to the NW of summit 1 point (Kamloops P. 1200-200 BP) 56 artifacts 100% surface collection using 1 x lm grid over site EfRk 56 (Pavilion Mt.) N/A ' 2057m -Subalpine -Subalpine fir, Lodgepole pine, Willow, Lupine, grasses. -ca230m NW summit -on a flat, at treeline, near barrow pit. 1 point (Plateau H. 2400-1200 BP) EfRk 57 (Pavilion Mt.) 3 x 5m 2027m -Subalpine -White dryas, grasses, Aster, Kinnikinnick -ca 500m NW of summit -on a small bench with a lot of white limestone exposed -open area overlooking steep slope 15 artifacts 100% surface collection EfRk 58 (Pavilion Mt.) 1 x lm 1890 -Subalpine -Grasses, mosses, Lupine, sedum, Columbine, Aster, Lodgepole pine, Subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce -site on a flagged trail in a narrow, dry gully -near the summit of Pavilion Mt. 4 basalt flakes (in-situ?) EfRk 59 (Pavilion Mt.) 2 x 2m 1722m -Subalpine -Subalpine fir, cow-parsnip, Columbine, Fireweed, mosses -site on a flagged trail beside a small branch of Pavilion Creek -near summit of Pavilion Mt. 7 basalt flakes (in-situ?) Exposure made by deadfall. EfRk 60 (Pavilion Mt.) 42 x 42m 1981m -Subalpine -Lodgepole pine, grasses, sedum, Kinnikinnick, Juniper -ca 1.2 km east of summit -at the edge of steep drop faced with black columnar basalt 34 artifacts 1 point (Plateau H. 2400-1200 BP) 100% surface survey using 1 x lm grid over site Stone box (made from flat slab of limestone with 3 sides and a top -possibly modern. EfRk 61 (Pavilion Mt.) 16 x 17m 1996m -Subalpine -Grasses, Indian paintbrush, Lodgepole pine, Kinnikinnick, Soapberry, Willow -ca 1.1 km east of summit -on a small rocky knoll with a view NE towards Minch Creek, near a large limestone outcropping overlooking Pavilion Creek -overlooking steep slope 42 artifacts 100% surface survey using 1 x lm grid over site 77 Appendix 4 cont. Site (Borden #) Site Size Elevation Envir. Zone, Vegetation Physical Location Artifacts, Collection Type Features Notes EfRk 62 (Mt. Cole) N/A 1692m -Subalpine -Subalpine fir, Lodgepole pine, grasses, Spring beauty, Wildflowers -West side of intermittent pond, in open grass meadow on summit -Meadow at edge of forest. - informant: used as short-term camp (1 night to 1 week) for deer hunting and plant gathering, and on route to catch Wild horses at "White Lake" (Alexander) EfRk 63 (Mt. Cole) N/A 1600m -Subalpine -Subalpine fir, Lodgepole pine, grasses, Spring beauty, Strawberry, Tiger lily, Wildflowers -Situated in open meadow on summit. -At the edge of the forested creek valley -Near spring feeding Tiffin Creek 1 basalt core (left in-situ?) - informant: site was used as a camp during short deer hunting and plants gathering trips. EfRk 64 (Pavilion Mt.) 15 x9m 2073m -Subalpine -Grasses, Kinnikinnick, Willow, Subalpine fir -ca 350 m east of summit -on a small rocky knoll at the eastern end of a poorly defined road. 1 point (Lochnore Phase 5500-3500 BP.) lithic scatter (in-situ) EeRi 25 (Cornwal 1 Hills) 16m" 1920m -Alpine meadow, 1 point (Kamloops Horizon) 4 pressure flakes Optimum overview (Lookout) EeRk 26 (Cornwal 1 Hills) 96m' 1980m Alpine meadow, Optimum overview 13 Early reduction flakes, Optimum overview (Lookout) EeRk 27 (Cornwal 1 Hills) 600m' 2040m Alpine meadow, optimum overview Cluster A: 2 flakes Cluster B: 27 flakes Cluster C: 2 flakes Optimum overview (Lookout) EeRk 28 (Cornwal 1 Hills) 9m2 1975m Alpine meadow 1 uniface, 7 flakes, 1 lanceolate biface (75m down slope) Generic Hunting Site EeRk 29 (Cornwal 1 Hills) 24m2 1960m Alpine meadow 1 Kamloops p.p., 1 Utilized flake, 1 uniface, 1 bipolar core, 8 flakes Optimum overview (Lookout) EeRk 30 (Cornwal 1 Hills) 100m2 1980m Alpine, beside pond 2 flakes, 15 pressure flakes 1 basalt core, 3 retouched flakes, 1 possible microblade core Generic Hunting site EeRi 31 (Cornwal 1 Hills) 25m2 1980m Alpine meadow 6 flakes, Generic Hunting site 78 Appendix 4 cont. Site (Borden #) Site Size Elevation Envir. Zone, Vegetation Physical Location Artifacts, Collection Type Features Notes EeRi 32 (Cornwal 1 Hills) 16mz 1985m Gently sloping alpine meadow 1 uniface, 1 biface tip 9 flakes Generic Hunting site EeRi 33 (Cornwal 1 Hills) 25mz 1950m Alpine meadow, optimum overview Kamloops p.p., Biface, Uniface >100 small flakes Optimum overview (Lookout) EeRi 34 (Cornwal 1 Hills) 432m" 1875m Alpine meadow 6 nodules / cores Quarry? EeRi 35 (Cornwal 1 Hills) 150mz 1920m Alpine 3 chert flakes, Locus site 79 Appendix 5: Assemblage summary by site. Core PRB flake Thinning flake Flake shatter Block shatter Acute utilized flake Steep utilized Flake Acute retouched flake Steep retouched flake Bifacially retouched flake Formed biface Biface fragment Uniface Point Point fragment Graver Piece esquille Spoke shaver Total Clear Range EdRk36 1 1 2 EdRk38 2 1 3 EdRk41 1 1 EdRk43 1 1 1 3 EeRk 17 4 11 22 9 12 6 4 3 1 1 1 74 EeRk 35 11 4 26 13 1 1 1 1 1 59 EeRk 42 8 1 22 21 5 1 2 2 1 63 EeRk 43 3 1 1 5 EeRk 44 22 28 46 8 1 1 106 EeRk 45 3 1 9 1 1 1 16 EeRk 46 6 10 14 3 2 1 1 1 1 39 EeRk 47 8 2 11 3 3 2 2 1 32 EeRk 48 4 9 4 3 20 EeRk 49 6 3 21 5 4 2 1 2 1 1 46 EeRk 50 1 15 46 16 2 3 3 1 5 2 94 EeRk 51 1 3 4 8 2 3 1 22 EeRk 52 26 35 67 4 2 3 2 1 3 1 2 146 EeRk 53 17 15 65 3 7 1 3 2 1 114 EeRk56 1 1 EeRk58 1 1 2 EeRk59 8 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 21 EeRk60 1 1 Locus 1 1 1 Locus 2 1 1 Locus 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 Locus 4 1 1 Locus 5 1 1 Locus 6 1 1 Locus 7 1 1 Locus 8 1 1 2 Locus 9 1 2 3 LocuslO 2 2 Locusl1 1 1 Locus12 1 1 Locusl3 1 1 Locus14 2 2 Locusl5 1 1 1 1 4 Summary 3 150 117 381 88 46 6 22 18 19 13 18 3 4 7 1 1 0 897 % 0.5 16.5 13 42.5 10 5 0.5 2.5 2 2 1.5 2 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 100 80 Appendix 5 cont. Core PRB flake Thinning flake Flake shatter Block shatter Acute utilized flake Steep utilized Flake Acute retouched flake Steep retouched flake Bifacially retouched flake Formed biface Biface fragment Uniface Point Point fragment Graver Piece esquille Spoke shaver Total Pavilion Mt. EfRk37 9 11 6 3 1 1 2 33 EfRk38 603 46 664 76 24 2 6 6 2 1435 EfRk38b 298 28 256 30 17 1 4 3 1 1 704 EfRk39 36 12 56 14 5 1 1 3 128 EfRk46 1 4 EfRk47 1 1 EfRk50 1 519 16 479 116 19 1 3 7 1 1169 EfRk52 16 2 69 14 15 3 1 3 1 124 EfRk53 2 22 4 85 36 10 5 2 5 1 172 EfRk54 22 3 21 3 7 2 1 1 1 1 62 EfRk55 17 28 6 5 1 58 EfRk56 1 1 EfRk57 6 5 2 1 14 EfRk60 2 1 4 2 12 2 2 5 1 2 1 34 EfRk61 12 17 5 7 1 1 43 EfRk64 1 1 Summary 3 1563 112 1695 310 125 17 20 32 6 4 3 0 5 3 2 0 1 3901 % 0 40 3 43.5 8 3.5 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Totals 6 1713 229 2076 398 171 23 42 50 25 17 21 3 9 10 3 1 1 4798 % 0 35.5 5 43.5 8.5 3.5 0.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 81 Appendix 6: Pit Summary information Site Feature # Rim Diameter Depth Location Site Feature # Rim Diameter Depth Zone EeRj 1 6 3.85 0.4 Upper Hat Creek EeRj 202 1 4.65 0.4 Upper Hat Creek EeRj 1 8 5.95 0.36 Upper Hat Creek EeRj 202 2 5.55 0.27 Upper Hat Creek EeRj 1 9 5.4 0.08 Upper Hat Creek EeRj 202 3 3.9 0.33 Upper Hat Creek EeRj 1 15 4.15 0.22 Upper Hat Creek EeRj 203 1 4.6 0.46 Upper Hat Creek EeRj 1 16 4.95 0.25 Upper Hat Creek EeRj 203 2 6.4 1.3 Upper Hat Creek EeRj 1 17 6.65 0.37 Upper Hat Creek EdRj 2 1 4.7 0.45 Upper Hat Creek EeRj 1 18 3.1 0.12 Upper Hat Creek EdRj 2 2 4.6 0.22 Upper Hat Creek EeRj 1 19 6.3 0.23 Upper Hat Creek EdRj 3 1 3.9 0.35 Upper Hat Creek EeRj 1 20 4.8 0.25 . Upper Hat Creek EdRj 3 2 3.15 0.62 Upper Hat Creek EeRj 1 22 4.25 0.89 Upper Hat Creek EeRk 35 1 3.35 0.24 Clear Range EeRj 33 1 2.9 0.07 Upper Hat Creek EeRk 36 1 4.6 0.14 Clear Range EeRj 33 2 5.3 0.09 Upper Hat Creek EeRk 37 1 3.4 0.36 Clear Range EeRj 33 3 3.65 0.07 Upper Hat Creek EeRk 38 1 3.5 0.28 Clear Range EeRj 46 1 5.2 0.36 Upper Hat Creek EeRk 38 2 2.8 0.23 Clear Range EeRj 55 12 6.95 0.73 Upper Hat Creek EeRk 39 1 2.3 0.17 Clear Range EeRj 55 20 3.6 0.09 Upper Hat Creek EeRk 40 1 6.25 0.38 Clear Range EeRj 56 9 4.35 0.51 Upper Hat Creek EeRk 41 1 4.1 0.32 Clear Range EeRj 56 10 5.15 0.4 Upper Hat Creek EeRk 42 1 6.15 0.33 Clear Range EeRj 56 11 5.45 0.46 Upper Hat Creek EeRk 43 1 6.35 0.34 Clear Range EeRj 57 21 3.5 0.2 Upper Hat Creek EeRk 52 1 3.5 0.35 Clear Range EeRj 58 1 5.45 0.34 Upper Hat Creek EeRk 53 1 3.35 0.95 Clear Range EeRj 58 3 2 0.08 Upper Hat Creek EeRk 53 2 2.65 0.11 Clear Range EeRj 58 4 6.15 0.49 Upper Hat Creek EeRk 57 1 5.1 0.32 Clear Range EeRj 58 15 2.2 0.21 Upper Hat Creek EeRk 57 2 3.7 0.3 Clear Range EeRj 58 16 2.7 0.19 Upper Hat Creek EeRk 57 3 3.6 0.16 Clear Range EeRj 58 19 2.55 0.07 Upper Hat Creek EeRk 57 4 5.2 0.25 Clear Range EeRj 58 22 5.75 0.35 Upper Hat Creek EeRk 57 5 4.3 0.34 Clear Range EeRj 70 1 4.75 0.24 Upper Hat Creek EeRk 57 6 2.8 0.23 Clear Range EeRj 71 1 5.55 0.29 Upper Hat Creek EeRk 57 7 3.5 Clear Range EeRj 78 1 5.55 0.29 Upper Hat Creek EeRk 58 1 4.8 0.35 Clear Range EeRj 82 1 6.5 0.12 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 35 1 3 Clear Range EeRj 83 1 4.75 0.2 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 36 1 4 Clear Range EeRj 84 1 4 0.22 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 36 2 4 Clear Range EeRj 85 1 6 0.26 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 36 3 3 Clear Range EeRj 86 1 3.55 0.25 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 37 1 4 Clear Range EeRj 95 1 3.65 0.18 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 37 2 1.5 Clear Range EeRj 101 1 3.6 0.2 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 37 3 4 Clear Range EeRj 105 1 1.65 0.13 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 37 4 4 Clear Range EeRj 109 1 . 5.5 0.17 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 37 5 2 Clear Range EeRj 159 1 5.1 0.52 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 37 6 3 Clear Range EeRj 159 2 5.1 0.5 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 44 1 4 Clear Range EeRj 159 3 4.35 0.52 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 44 2 4 Clear Range EeRj 159 4 3.35 0.36 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 44 3 5 Clear Range EeRj 159 5 2.15 0.12 Upper Hat Creek EdRk45 1 4 Clear Range EeRj 159 6 5.25 0.5 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 45 2 4 Clear Range EeRj 163 1 3.35 0.09 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 45 3 4 Clear Range EeRj 164 1 2.75 0.12 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 45 4 3 Clear Range EeRj 172 1 3.65 0.35 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 45 5 1.5 Clear Range EeRj 177 1 4.6 1.25 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 46 1 2 Clear Range EeRj 178 1 4.2 0.24 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 46 2 2 Clear Range EeRj 189 1 3.65 0.3 Upper Hat Creek EdRk46 3 2 Clear Range EeRj 189 2 3 0.21 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 46 4 5 Clear Range EeRj 191 1 4.65 0.36 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 46 5 5 Clear Range EeRj 191 2 2.05 0.34 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 46 6 6 Clear Range EeRj 197 1 3.6 0.11 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 46 7 6 Clear Range EeRj 198 1 4.8 0.19 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 47 1 4 Clear Range EeRj 201 1 3.2 0.28 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 32 1 4 Clear Range EeRj 201 2 2.8 0.19 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 33 1 3 Clear Range EeRj 201 3 5.4 0.29 Upper Hat Creek EdRk 33 2 |4 Clear Range 82 Appendix 6 cont. Site Feature # Rim Diameter Depth Location Site Feature # Rim Diameter Depth Location EdRk 33 3 3 Clear Range EfRk 39 6 4.2 0.5 Pavilion Mountain EdRk 33 4 4 Clear Range EfRk 39 7 1.5 0.2 Pavilion Mountain EdRk 33 5 2 Clear Range EfRk 40 1 1.3 0.1 Pavilion Mountain EdRk 33 6 4 Clear Range EjSb 12 1 2 0.07 Potato Mountain EfRk 39 1 2.4 0.2 Pavilion Mountain EjSb 26 1 2 0.2 Potato Mountain EfRk 39 2 2.1 0.15 Pavilion Mountain EjSb 33 1 2.75 0.17 Potato Mountain EfRk 39 3 2.9 0.4 Pavilion Mountain EjSb 39 5 1.85 0.27 Potato Mountain EfRk 39 4 2.3 0.3 Pavilion Mountain EjSb 12 3 2 0.23 Potato Mountain EfRk 39 5 2.3 0.2 Pavilion Mountain EjSb 12 2 2.25 0.15 Potato Mountain 83 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
Canada 45 1
United States 18 0
China 12 33
United Kingdom 2 1
Germany 2 17
Poland 1 0
Egypt 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 46 18
Beijing 9 0
Ashburn 7 0
Mountain View 4 0
New Dayton 2 0
Victoria 2 0
San Francisco 2 0
Shenzhen 2 33
Toronto 2 0
Guangzhou 1 0
Matawan 1 0
Newport 1 0
Anaheim 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0058386/manifest

Comment

Related Items