Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The Charles culture of the Gulf of Georgia : a re-evaluation of the culture and its three sub-phases Pratt, Heather Lynn 1992-12-31

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_1992_fall_pratt_heather_l.pdf [ 22.72MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0058402.json
JSON-LD: 1.0058402+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0058402.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0058402+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0058402+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0058402+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0058402 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0058402.txt
Citation
1.0058402.ris

Full Text

THE C H A R L E S C U L T U R E O F T H E G U L F O F GEORGIA: A R E - E V A L U A T I O N O F T H E C U L T U R E AND I T S THREE S U B - P H A S E S by HEATHER L. PRATT B.A., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1987  A T H E S I S S U B M I T T E D IN P A R T I A L  F U L F I L M E N T OF  THE R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE F A C U L T Y O F G R A D U A T E S T U D I E S ( D e p a r t m e n t of A n t h r o p o l o g y  a n d Sociology,  U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia)  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g to^the^ y e q u i r e d , « S ^ c J a r c h \  THE U N I V E R S I T Y  OF B R I T I S H  COLUMBIA  F a l l of 1992  © H e a t h e r P r a t t , 1992  In  presenting this  degree at the  thesis  in  University of  partial  fulfilment  of  of  department  this thesis for or  by  his  or  requirements  British Columbia, I agree that the  freely available for reference and study. I further copying  the  representatives,  an advanced  Library shall make  it  agree that permission for extensive  scholarly purposes may be her  for  it  is  granted  by the  understood  that  head of copying  my 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 T h i s t h e s i s i n v e s t i g a t e s a p a r t i c u l a r c u l t u r a l p e r i o d (the C h a r l e s C u l t u r e ) e x i s t i n g from a p p r o x i m a t e l y 5500 to 3300 y e a r s ago o n t h e Coast.  Northwest  T h e C h a r l e s C u l t u r e c o n s i s t s of t h r e e l o c a l p h a s e s k n o w n a s E s i l a o , S t .  Mungo and Mayne.  Three research questions are proposed i n this s t u d y .  The  f i r s t q u e s t i o n deals w i t h t h e S t . M u n g o p h a s e a n d f o c u s e s o n t h e d e g r e e of c u l t u r a l v a r i a b i l i t y manifest w i t h i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s u b - p h a s e .  Two  sites  k n o w n to c o n t a i n S t . M u n g o c o m p o n e n t s (Glenrose C a n n e r y a n d S t . M u n g o C a n n e r y ) a r e c o m p a r e d to a t h i r d c o m p o n e n t o r i g i n a l l y p r o p o s e d to be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e M a y n e p h a s e .  T h e h y p o t h e s i s s t a t e s t h a t t h e d e g r e e of  v a r i a b i l i t y b e t w e e n t h e t h r e e c o m p o n e n t s w i l l be minimal i f a l l t h r e e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e S t . M u n g o p h a s e .  This hypothesis is tested u s i n g both  a r t i f a c t u a l and n o n - a r t i f a c t u a l data from the three sites a n d components.  are  respective  Of t h e t h r e e r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s p r o p o s e d , t h i s one i s a n s w e r e d  the most s u c c e s s f u l l y .  There is little v a r i a t i o n present amongst the  three  c o m p o n e n t s i n t e r m s of b o t h a r t i f a c t u a l a n d n o n - a r t i f a c t u a l d a t a . U n e x p e c t e d l y , i t was also d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t w h i l e the C h a r l e s c o m p o n e n t s Glenrose a n d St. Mungo are often d i s c u s s e d interchangeably, there differences  in their artifact  from  are  assemblages.  T h e s e c o n d r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s follows from t h e f i r s t a n d p o n d e r s  the  d e g r e e of v a r i a b i l i t y p r e s e n t b e t w e e n t h e C h a r l e s a n d L o c a r n o B e a c h c o m p o n e n t s at t h e C r e s c e n t B e a c h s i t e .  A comparison between these  p h a s e s f r o m t h e same site h a d not b e e n p r e v i o u s l y p o s s i b l e .  The  two  hypothesis  s t a t e s t h a t i f t h e two p h a s e s d e m o n s t r a t e c o n t i n u i t y w i t h e a c h o t h e r , t h i s i s e v i d e n c e of a g r a d u a l i n s i t u e v o l u t i o n of t h e N o r t h w e s t Coast e t h n o g r a p h i c p a t t e r n p r e s e n t at c o n t a c t .  T h i s q u e s t i o n i s not a n s w e r e d as s u c c e s s f u l l y as  the f i r s t due to t h e h i g h d e g r e e of s i m i l a r i t y p r e s e n t b e t w e e n t h e two assemblages.  Several explanations for this are presented.  The L o c a r n o  a r t i f a c t assemblage  from C r e s c e n t B e a c h i s a l s o c o m p a r e d to t h e  a r t i f a c t assemblage  from the L o c a r n o B e a c h s i t e , w i t h d i f f e r e n c e s  two components  presented  and discussed.  artifact Beach  typesite between  T h i s was done i n o r d e r  the  to  d e t e r m i n e the f e a s i b i l i t y of d e f i n i n g t h e middle component at C r e s c e n t B e a c h as L o c a r n o B e a c h i n n a t u r e . be p a r t i a l l y r e f l e c t i v e at the two  The a r t i f a c t u a l d i f f e r e n c e s  present are a r g u e d  of s i t e f u n c t i o n a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l d i f f e r e n c e s  to  present  sites.  The f i n a l r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n s t h e C h a r l e s C u l t u r e a n d the f e a s i b i l i t y of i t s e x i s t e n c e o v e r s u c h a l o n g time p e r i o d a n d p h y s i c a l a r e a . This hypothesis states that there is sufficient c u l t u r a l similarity p r e s e n t  to  c o n t i n u e u s a g e of the t e r m C h a r l e s C u l t u r e .  as  Charles or tentative  S e v e r a l components  C h a r l e s c o m p o n e n t s a r e examined.  defined  The data is  t o g e t h e r to p r e s e n t a s y n o p s i s of w h a t i s k n o w n to date c o n c e r n i n g Charles Culture.  gathered the  A s w i t h the f i r s t r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n , t h i s q u e s t i o n f o c u s e s  on  the d e g r e e of v a r i a b i l i t y p r e s e n t b e t w e e n t h e t h r e e s u b - p h a s e s of t h e C h a r l e s Culture (rather  t h a n j u s t one)  u s i n g both artifactual and non-artifactual data.  T h e r e i s some d i f f i c u l t y e n c o u n t e r e d of p u b l i s h e d d a t a .  d u r i n g t h i s f i n a l a n a l y s i s d u e to t h e l a c k  F o r example, l i t t l e i s p u b l i s h e d c o n c e r n i n g t h e E s i l a o  p h a s e , y e t i t i s a n i n t e g r a l p a r t of t h e C h a r l e s C u l t u r e . t h i r d research question is answered  Nevertheless,  somewhat a f f i r m a t i v e l y .  this  T h i s s e c t i o n of  my t h e s i s i n c l u d e s f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g the p l a c i n g of t h e  Charles  component at C r e s c e n t B e a c h i n t o the St. M u n g o p h a s e as w e l l as t h e s t a t u s of the Mayne  phase.  The r e s u l t s of t h e s t u d y i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e t h r e e r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s a n d t h e i r r e s u l t i n g h y p o t h e s e s c a n be a n s w e r e d i n t h e a f f i r m a t i v e w i t h v a r y i n g d e g r e e s of  success.  Recommendations f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i n c l u d e t h e n e e d f o r  better  p u b l i s h e d d a t a c o n c e r n i n g t h e e a r l y time p e r i o d s o n t h e N o r t h w e s t C o a s t . i s also recommended  t h a t f u t u r e a n a l y s i s of t h e C h a r l e s C u l t u r e i n c o r p o r a t e  n o n - a r t i f a c t u a l d a t a s u c h as d e b i t a g e a n d f a u n a l r e m a i n s because t h e s e of i n f o r m a t i o n a r e i m p o r t a n t w h e n d o i n g a c c u r a t e c o m p a r i s o n s of assemblages.  It  Finally, it is also suggested  t h a t N o r t h w e s t Coast  w o r k t o g e t h e r to c r e a t e more c o m p a r a b l e a r c h a e o l o g i c a l d a t a .  types  artifact archaeologists  B e f o r e one c a n  make f i r m c o n c l u s i o n s a b o u t t h e g e n e r a l r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s p e r t i n e n t to t h e p r e h i s t o r y of t h e N o r t h w e s t C o a s t , N o r t h w e s t C o a s t a r c h a e o l o g i s t s m u s t s t a r t at the b e g i n n i n g a n d c r e a t e i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e  data sets.  T A B L E OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT  ii  L I S T OF T A B L E S  xvi  L I S T OF F I G U R E S  xviii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  xx  CHAPTER 1.  2.  INTRODUCTION  1  Northwest Coast P r e h i s t o r i c Research  1  Research Questions Defined  7  R E S E A R C H Q U E S T I O N ONE: The R e l a t i o n s h i p B e t w e e n T h r e e C h a r l e s Components a n d T h e i r A r t i f a c t Assemblages  12  The St. Mungo a n d Mayne Phases  13  The St. Mungo Phase  13  S i t e Names a n d L o c a t i o n s  13  Ethnographic Culture Area  14  Chronology  16  A r t i f a c t Assemblage  17  Unshaped Chipped Stone  18  U n s h a p e d C h i p p e d S t o n e F l a k e Tools  18  S h a p e d C h i p p e d S t o n e Tools  18  G r o u n d Stone Implements  19  Bone a n d A n t l e r A r t i f a c t s  20  SheH Objects  21  D i s c u s s i o n of S t . M u n g o A r t i f a c t A s s e m b l a g e Raw M a t e r i a l s  . . . .  22 22  V  F a u n a l Remains  22  Features  23  St. Mungo Phase Conclusions  24  The M a y n e P h a s e  25  S i t e Names a n d L o c a t i o n s  25  Ethnographic Culture Area  26  Chronology  26  A r t i f a c t Assemblage  32  U n s h a p e d C h i p p e d S t o n e Tools ( i n c l u d i n g F l a k e Tools)  32  S h a p e d C h i p p e d S t o n e Tools  33  G r o u n d Stone Implements  34  Bone a n d A n t l e r Implements  34  D i s c u s s i o n of M a y n e P h a s e A r t i f a c t A s s e m b l a g e  . .  35  Raw M a t e r i a l s  37  F a u n a l Remains  37  Features Mayne Phase Conclusions Site Descriptions The Glenrose C a n n e r y Site  >  38 40 43 43  Site Location  43  Ethnographic Culture Area  44  Excavation Procedures  44  Chronology  46  F a u n a l Remains  46  Features  48  Glenrose N o n - a r t i f a c t u a l Data Conclusions vi  49  The S t . M u n g o C a n n e r y S i t e  50  Site Location  50  Ethnographic Culture Area  53  Excavation Procedures  53  Chronology  56  F a u n a l Remains  57  Features  60  S t . M u n g o N o n - a r t i f a c t u a l Data C o n c l u s i o n s  63  The C r e s c e n t Beach Site  64  Site Location  64  Ethnographic Culture Area  65  Excavation Procedures  66  Chronology  70  F a u n a l Remains  71  Features  76  C r e s c e n t B e a c h N o n - a r t i f a c t u a l Data C o n c l u s i o n s  78  N o n - a r t i f a c t u a l Data C o n c l u s i o n s f o r G l e n r o s e , S t . M u n g o and Crescent Beach Artifact Classification  80 82  Variables and A r t i f a c t Coding Format  82  Artifact Classification and Analysis  85  Lithic Artifacts  (chipped  stone)  93  G r o u n d S t o n e Implements  113  P e c k e d a n d G r o u n d Stone Implements  118  Bone Tools  119  A n t l e r Implements  131  Shell Artifacts  135 vii  Artifact Analysis: Conclusions  137  Unique Artifact Types  139  Shared Artifact Types  142  Unique and Shared Artifact Types: Conclusions  144  Raw M a t e r i a l C o m p a r i s o n  145  General Conclusions 3.  151  R E S E A R C H Q U E S T I O N TWO: T h e R e l a t i o n s h i p B e t w e e n t h e C h a r l e s C u l t u r e a n d the Locarno Beach Period at Crescent Beach 154 Component One a n d Two F r o m C r e s c e n t B e a c h  155  Site Location  155  Chronology  156  F a u n a l Remains  157  Features  159  N o n - a r t i f a c t u a l Data C o n c l u s i o n s  161  Artifact Classification  163  Typology Organization  163  L i t h i c A r t i f a c t s (chipped stone)  167  G r o u n d S t o n e Implements  181  P e c k e d a n d G r o u n d S t o n e Implements  185  Bone Tools  185  Antler Objects  191  Shell Artifacts  193  Artifaict A n a l y s i s : C o n c l u s i o n s  194  Unique Artifact Types  196  Corresponding Artifact Types  198  Unique and Similar Artifact Types: Raw M a t e r i a l T y p e s  Conclusions  200 204  viii  T h e C r e s c e n t B e a c h Component Two A r t i f a c t  Assemblage  C o m p a r e d With t h e L o c a r n o B e a c h T y p e s i t e Locarno Beach Introduced  211  Ethnographic Culture Area  212  Excavation Procedures  212  Chronology  213  F a u n a l Remains  213  A r t i f a c t Assemblage  215  U n s h a p e d C h i p p e d S t o n e Implements  219  U n s h a p e d C h i p p e d Stone F l a k e T o o l s  219  Shaped Chipped Stone Artifacts  220  G r o u n d S t o n e Implements  220  Bone a n d A n t l e r Tools  221  Shell Artifacts C o n c l u s i o n s of C o m p a r i s o n of C r e s c e n t B e a c h C o m p o n e n t a n d Locarno Beach Artifact Assemblages General Conclusions 4.  211  223 Two 223 224  R E S E A R C H Q U E S T I O N T H R E E : A C l o s e r E x a m i n a t i o n of The Charles C u l t u r e  226  The E a y e m P h a s e  228  Esilao  228 Site Location  228  Ethnographic Culture Area  228  Chronology  229  Maurer  229  Site Location  229  Ethnographic Culture Area  230  Chronology  230 ix  Esilao a n d Maurer A r t i f a c t  Assemblage  Comparison  231  U n s h a p e d C h i p p e d Stone  231  U n s h a p e d C h i p p e d Stone Flake Tools  232  S h a p