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 1992

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
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
Citation
1.0058402.ris

Full Text

THE CHARLES C U L T U R E OF THE G U L F OF GEORGIA: A R E - E V A L U A T I O N OF T H E C U L T U R E AND ITS THREE S U B - P H A S E S b y HEATHER L. PRATT B.A., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1987 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL F U L F I L M E N T OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE F A C U L T Y OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of An th ropo l o g y and Socio logy, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia) We accept t h i s thes i s as con forming to^the^ yequ i r ed , «S^cJarch\ THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA F a l l of 1992 ©Heather P ra t t , 1992 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 Th is thes i s inves t i ga tes a p a r t i c u l a r c u l t u r a l pe r i od (the Cha r l e s Cu l ture ) ex i s t ing from approx imate ly 5500 to 3300 years ago on the Nor thwes t Coast. The Char l es Cu l tu r e cons i s t s of three loca l phases known as Es i lao , St . Mungo and Mayne. Three r e s ea r ch quest ions are proposed i n th i s s t u d y . The f i r s t ques t i on deals w i th the St . Mungo phase a n d focuses on the degree 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 sub -phase . Two s i tes known to conta in St . Mungo components (Glenrose Canne ry a n d St . Mungo Cannery ) are compared to a t h i r d component o r i g i na l l y p roposed to be r ep resen ta t i v e of the Mayne phase. The hypo thes i s states tha t the degree of v a r i a b i l i t y between the three components w i l l be minimal i f a l l t h r ee are r ep resen ta t i v e of the St. Mungo phase. Th i s hypo thes i s i s t es ted u s i n g bo th a r t i f a c tua l and non -a r t i f a c tua l data from the three s i tes and r e spec t i v e components. Of the three r e s e a r c h ques t ions p roposed , t h i s one i s answe r ed the most success fu l l y . There i s l i t t l e v a r i a t i on presen t amongst the th ree components i n terms of both a r t i f a c tua l and non -a r t i f a c tua l data. Unexpec ted ly , i t was also demonstrated that whi le the Char l e s components from Glenrose a n d St . Mungo are o f ten d i s cuss ed in t e r changeab l y , there a re d i f f e rences i n t h e i r a r t i f a c t assemblages. The second r e s ea r ch ques t ions fol lows from the f i r s t and ponde r s the degree of v a r i a b i l i t y p r esen t between the Char l es and Locarno Beach components at the Crescen t Beach s i te . A compar ison between these two phases from the same site had not been p r e v i o u s l y poss ib le . The hypo thes i s states tha t i f the two phases demonstrate c on t i nu i t y w i th each o ther , th i s i s ev idence of a g r a d u a l i n s i t u evo lu t i on of the Northwest Coast e thnog raph i c pa t t e rn p r esen t at contact . Th i s ques t i on is not answered as succe s s fu l l y as the f i r s t due to the h i gh degree of s im i l a r i t y p r esen t between the two a r t i f a c t assemblages. S eve ra l explanat ions for t h i s are presented . The Locarno Beach a r t i f ac t assemblage from Crescen t Beach i s a lso compared to the t ype s i t e a r t i f ac t assemblage from the Locarno Beach s i te , w i th d i f f erences between the two components p resen ted and d i s c u s s e d . Th i s was done i n o r d e r to determine the f eas ib i l i t y of de f in ing the middle component at C rescen t Beach as Locarno Beach i n na ture . The a r t i f a c t u a l d i f f erences p r esen t are a r g u e d to be p a r t i a l l y re f l ec t i ve of s i te f unc t i on a n d env i ronmenta l d i f f e rences p r e s e n t at the two s i tes . The f ina l r e s ea r ch ques t i on c once rns the Char l es Cu l tu r e a n d the f eas ib i l i t y of i t s ex istence o ve r s u c h a l ong time per iod a n d p h y s i c a l a rea . Th i s hypo thes i s states that there i s su f f i c i en t c u l t u r a l s im i l a r i t y p r e s en t to cont inue usage of the term Char l e s C u l t u r e . S eve ra l components de f ined as Char l es o r t enta t i ve Char l es components are examined. The data i s ga the red together to p r esen t a s ynops i s of what i s known to date c o n c e r n i n g the Char l es Cu l tu r e . As w i th the f i r s t r e s ea r ch ques t i on , th i s ques t i on focuses on the degree of v a r i a b i l i t y p r e sen t between the th ree s u b - p h a s e s of the Char l e s Cu l tu r e ( ra ther t han j u s t one) u s i n g both a r t i f a c tua l and n o n - a r t i f a c t u a l data . There i s some d i f f i cu l t y encounte red d u r i n g th i s f i na l ana l y s i s due to the l ack of p u b l i s h e d data. Fo r example, l i t t l e i s p u b l i s h e d c once rn ing the Es i lao phase, yet i t i s an i n t e g r a l pa r t of the Char l e s C u l t u r e . Neve r the l ess , t h i s t h i r d r e s ea r ch quest ion is answered somewhat a f f i rmat ive ly . Th i s sec t ion of my thes i s inc ludes f u r t h e r in fo rmat ion c o n c e r n i n g the p l a c ing of the Char l es component at Crescen t Beach in to the St. Mungo phase as wel l as the s ta tus of the Mayne phase. The r e s u l t s of the s t u d y ind ica te that the three r e s ea r ch ques t ions a n d the i r r e s u l t i n g hypotheses can be answered i n the a f f i rmat ive w i th v a r y i n g degrees of success . Recommendations for f u r t h e r r e s ea r ch inc lude the need for bet ter p u b l i s h e d data c o n c e r n i n g the ea r l y time per iods on the Northwest Coast . I t is also recommended tha t f u t u r e ana l y s i s of the Char les Cu l tu r e i nco rpo ra t e non -a r t i f a c tua l da ta s u c h as debi tage and fauna l remains because these t y p e s of in format ion are impor tant when do ing accura te comparisons of a r t i f a c t assemblages. F i n a l l y , i t i s a lso sugges t ed that Nor thwest Coast a rchaeo log i s t s work toge ther to create more comparable archaeo log ica l data. Before one c a n make f i rm conc lus i ons about the gene ra l r e s ea r ch quest ions pe r t inen t to the p r e h i s t o r y of the Nor thwest Coast , Nor thwest Coast archaeo log is ts must s t a r t at the b e g inn ing and create in t e rchangeab le data sets. T A B L E OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT i i L IST OF T A B L E S x v i L IST OF F IGURES x v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xx CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Nor thwest Coast P r e h i s t o r i c Research 1 Research Quest ions Def ined 7 2. RESEARCH QUESTION ONE: The Re la t i onsh ip Between Three Char l e s Components and The i r A r t i f a c t Assemblages 12 The St . Mungo and Mayne Phases 13 The St . Mungo Phase 13 Site Names a n d Locat ions 13 E t h n o g r a p h i c C u l t u r e A r e a 14 Chrono logy 16 A r t i f a c t Assemblage 17 Unshaped Ch ipped Stone 18 Unshaped Ch ipped Stone F lake Tools 18 Shaped Ch ipped Stone Tools 18 Ground Stone Implements 19 Bone and An t l e r A r t i f a c t s 20 SheH Objects 21 D i scuss i on of St . Mungo A r t i f a c t Assemblage . . . . 22 Raw Mater ia ls 22 V F a u n a l Remains 22 Fea tures 23 St . Mungo Phase Conc lus i ons 24 The Mayne Phase 25 Si te Names and Locat ions 25 E t h n o g r a p h i c C u l t u r e A r e a 26 Chrono logy 26 A r t i f a c t Assemblage 32 Unshaped C h i p p e d Stone Tools ( i n c lud ing F lake Tools) 32 Shaped C h i p p e d Stone 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 cuss i on of Mayne Phase A r t i f a c t Assemblage . . 35 Raw Mater ia ls 37 F a u n a l Remains 37 Fea tures > 38 Mayne Phase Conc lus ions 40 Si te Desc r ip t i ons 43 The Glenrose C a n n e r y S i te 43 Si te Locat ion 43 E t h n o g r a p h i c C u l t u r e A r e a 44 Excava t i on P r o c edure s 44 Chrono logy 46 F a u n a l Remains 46 Fea tures 48 Glenrose Non -a r t i f a c tua l Data Conc lus i ons 49 v i The St . Mungo C a n n e r y Si te 50 Si te Locat ion 50 E t h n o g r a p h i c C u l t u r e A r e a 53 Excava t i on P rocedures 53 Chrono logy 56 F a u n a l Remains 57 Fea tures 60 St . Mungo Non-a r t i f a c tua l Data Conc lus i ons 63 The Crescen t Beach Si te 64 Si te Locat ion 64 E t h n o g r a p h i c C u l t u r e A r ea 65 Excava t i on P rocedures 66 Chrono logy 70 F a u n a l Remains 71 Fea tures 76 Crescen t Beach Non-a r t i f a c tua l Data Conc lus i ons 78 Non-a r t i f a c tua l Data Conc lus ions for Glenrose , St . Mungo and Crescen t Beach 80 A r t i f a c t C lass i f i ca t i on 82 Var iab les and A r t i f a c t Cod ing Format 82 A r t i f a c t C lass i f i ca t i on and A n a l y s i s 85 L i t h i c A r t i f a c t s ( ch ipped stone) 93 Ground Stone Implements 113 Pecked a n d Ground Stone Implements 118 Bone Tools 119 An t l e r Implements 131 She l l A r t i f a c t s 135 v i i Ar t i f a c t A n a l y s i s : Conc lus ions 137 Un i que A r t i f a c t Types 139 Shared A r t i f a c t Types 142 Un ique a n d Sha r ed A r t i f a c t Types : Conc lus ions 144 Raw Mate r ia l Compar ison 145 Genera l Conc lus ions 151 3. RESEARCH QUESTION TWO: The Re la t i onsh ip Between the Char l e s C u l t u r e a n d the Loca rno Beach Pe r i od at Crescen t Beach 154 Component One a n d Two From Crescen t Beach 155 S i te Locat ion 155 Chrono logy 156 F a u n a l Remains 157 Fea tures 159 Non -a r t i f a c tua l Data Conc lus i ons 161 A r t i f a c t C lass i f i ca t i on 163 Typo logy Organ i za t i on 163 L i t h i c A r t i f a c t s ( ch ipped stone) 167 G r o u n d Stone Implements 181 Pecked and G r o u n d Stone Implements 185 Bone Tools 185 A n t l e r Objects 191 S h e l l A r t i f a c t s 193 Art i faict A n a l y s i s : Conc lus ions 194 Un ique A r t i f a c t Types 196 C o r r e s p o n d i n g A r t i f a c t Types 198 Un i que a n d S imi lar A r t i f a c t Types : Conc lus ions 200 Raw Mater ia l Types 204 v i i i The Crescen t Beach Component Two A r t i f a c t Assemblage Compared With the Locarno Beach Types i t e 211 Locarno Beach In t r oduced 211 E t h n o g r a p h i c C u l t u r e A r e a 212 Excava t i on P r o c edure s 212 Chrono logy 213 F a u n a l Remains 213 A r t i f a c t Assemblage 215 Unshaped Ch ipped Stone Implements 219 Unshaped C h i p p e d Stone F lake Tools 219 Shaped Ch ipped Stone A r t i f a c t s 220 G r o u n d Stone Implements 220 Bone and A n t l e r Tools 221 She l l A r t i f a c t s 223 Conc lus ions of Compar ison of Crescen t Beach Component Two a n d Locarno Beach A r t i f a c t Assemblages 223 Genera l Conc lus ions 224 4. RESEARCH QUESTION THREE: A C loser Examinat ion of The Char l e s C u l t u r e 226 The Eayem Phase 228 Es i lao 228 S i te Locat ion 228 E t h n o g r a p h i c C u l t u r e A r e a 228 Chrono logy 229 M a u r e r 229 S i te Locat ion 229 E t h n o g r a p h i c C u l t u r e A r ea 230 Chrono logy 230 ix Esi lao a n d Maure r A r t i f a c t Assemblage Compar ison 231 U n s h a p e d C h i p p e d Stone 231 Unshaped C h i p p e d Stone F lake Tools 232 Shaped C h i p p e d Stone Tools 232 G r o u n d Stone Implements 233 Bone a n d A n t l e r Implements 236 A r t i f a c t Compar ison: Conc lus ions 237 Raw Mater ia ls 238 Fauna l Remains 238 Fea tures 239 Conc lus ions C o n c e r n i n g the Eayem Phase 240 Con t r o v e r s i a l Char l e s C u l t u r e Components 241 Mar pole 241 Si te Locat ion 241 E t h n o g r a p h i c C u l t u r e A r e a 242 Excava t i on P rocedures 242 Chrono logy 242 A r t i f a c t Assemblage 243 Unshaped C h i p p e d Stone Implements 244 Shaped C h i p p e d Stone A r t i f a c t s 244 G r o u n d Stone Objects 245 Bone a n d A n t l e r A r t i f a c t s 245 Fauna l Remains and Fea tures . 246 Conc lus ions 246 B l i s s L a n d i n g 249 X Site Loca t i on 249 E t h n o g r a p h i c C u l t u r e A r e a 249 Excava t i on P r o c edure s . 249 Chrono logy 250 A r t i f a c t Assemblage 250 U n s h a p e d Ch ipped Stone Implements 250 Shaped C h i p p e d Stone Tools 250 G r o u n d Stone 250 Bone and A n t l e r Objec ts 251 F a u n a l Remains 252 Fea tu res 252 Conc lus ions • 253 P i t t R i v e r 254 Si te Loca t i on 254 E t h n o g r a p h i c C u l t u r e A r e a 254 Excava t i on P r o c edure s 255 Chrono logy 255 A r t i f a c t Assemblage 256 U n s h a p e d Ch ipped Stone Objects 256 U n s h a p e d C h i p p e d Stone F lake Tools 256 Shaped Ch ipped Stone Tools 257 G r o u n d Stone Implements 257 Bone/Ant l e r/She l l Objects 258 Raw Mater ia ls 259 Fauna l Remains 259 Fea tures 259 Conc lus ions 260 Pender Cana l 260 Site Loca t i on 260 E thnog raph i e C u l t u r e A r e a 260 Excava t i on P rocedures 261 Chrono logy 261 A r t i f a c t Assemblage 262 Fea tures 262 Conc lus ions 263 B i r c h Bay and Semiahmoo Sp i t 263 S i te Locat ions 263 E t h n o g r a p h i c C u l t u r e A r e a 264 Excava t i on P rocedures 264 Chrono logy 265 A r t i f a c t Assemblage 265 Fea tures 266 Conc lus ions 266 Denman I s land 266 Site Locat ion 266 E t h n o g r a p h i c C u l t u r e A r e a 266 Excavat ion P rocedures 266 Chrono logy 267 A r t i f a c t Assemblage 267 Unshaped Ch ipped Stone A r t i f a c t s 267 Shaped Ch ipped Stone Implements 268 G r o u n d Stone Tools 268 Raw Mater ia ls 269 F a u n a l Remsiins 269 Fea tures 270 Conc lus i ons • 270 Tsawwassen 271 Si te Loca t i on 271 E t h n o g r a p h i c C u l t u r e A r e a 272 Excava t i on P r o c edure s 272 A r t i f a c t Assemblage 273 Fea tures • 273 Conc lus i ons 275 Duke Po in t 276 Si te Loca t i on 276 E t h n o g r a p h i c C u l t u r e A r e a 276 Excava t i on P r o c edure s 276 Chrono logy 277 A r t i f a c t Assemblage 277 Ch ipped Stone (Unshaped a n d Shaped) 278 G r o u n d Stone 278 Bone and A n t l e r A r t i f a c t s 278 F a u n a l Remains 279 Conc lus ions 279 Deep Bay 280 Si te Loca t i on 280 Ethnog raph i e C u l t u r e A r e a 280 Excava t i on P r o c edure s 280 Chrono logy 281 A r t i f a c t Assemblage 281 F a u n a l Remains 283 Fea tures 283 Conc lus i ons 284 D i s cuss i on • 285 The Char l e s C u l t u r e 286 Locat ion 287 E t h n o g r a p h i c A f f i l i a t i on 287 Excava t i on P rocedures 288 Chrono logy 288 A r t i f a c t Assemblage 289 Cores and B ipo la r Implements 290 Unshaped C h i p p e d Stone Implements 290 Unshaped C h i p p e d Stone F lake Tools 290 Shaped Ch ipped Stone Tools 290 G r o u n d Stone Implements 291 Bone a n d A n t l e r Implements 292 She l l Implements 292 Raw Mater ia ls 292 F a u n a l Remains 292 Fea tures 293 Conc lus ions 294 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 303 6. REFERENCES CITED 312 APPENDICES 325 APPENDIX A A r t i f a c t Cod ing Format 325 APPENDIX B A r t i f a c t C lass i f i ca t i on f o r the Char l e s Components From Glenrose , St . Mungo a n d Crescen t Beach 335 APPENDIX C A r t i f a c t C lass i f i ca t i on f o r Components One and Two From Crescen t Beach 431 L I S T OF T A B L E S CHAPTER TWO 2.1 Glenrose and St . Mungo Char l e s Component Radio Ca rbon Dates Summar ized 16 2.2 Raw Mate r ia l Types Termino logy 84 2.3 A r t i f a c t s From Glenrose , St . Mungo and Crescen t Beach Char l e s C u l t u r e Components 90 2.4 Raw Mate r ia l Types for Cores From Glenrose , St . Mungo a n d Crescen t Beach 94 2.5 Raw Mater ia l Types f o r U t i l i z ed F lakes From Glenrose , St . Mungo a n d C r escen t Beach 100 2.6 Raw Mater ia l Types f o r S t e ep -Ang l ed Retouched F lakes From Glenrose , St . Mungo and Crescen t Be£K:h 102 2.7 Un i que A r t i f a c t Types at Glenrose , St . Mungo and Crescen t Beach . 140 2.8 A r t i f a c t T ypes p r e s e n t at a l l Three S i tes 143 2.9 Raw Mate r ia l Types 146 CHAPTER THREE 3.1 Radio Ca rbon Dates Summar ized From the Loca rno Beach a n d Char l es Components at C r e s c en t Beach 156 3.2 A r t i f a c t Tabu la t i on f o r Components One and Two at Crescen t Beach 164 3.3 Raw Mater ia l Types of Cores i n Component One and Two From Crescen t Beach 168 3.4 Raw Mate r ia l Types for U t i l i z ed F l akes i n Component One a n d Two From Crescen t Beach 174 3.5 Un ique Art i fs ic t Types F rom Crescen t B ^ c h Components One and Two 197 3.6 A r t i f a c t Types P r e s en t i n Bo th Components One and Two at Crescen t Beach 199 3.7 Raw Mater ia l Types at C rescen t Beach 205 3.8 Locarno Beach A r t i f a c t s From Component Two at Crescen t Beach and Loca rno Beach 216 CHAPTER FOUR 4.1 Char l e s Components Radio C a r b o n Dates Summeurized 288 4.2 Char l e s and Locarno Beach A r t i f a c t F r equenc i e s 295 L IST OF F IGURES CHAPTER TWO 2.1 Map of St . Mungo Components 15 2.2 Map of Mayne Components 27 2.3 Glenrose a n d Locat ion of Excava t i on U n i t s 45 2.4 Eco log ica l Communit ies Ava i lab le to G lenrose , St . Mungo and Crescen t Beax^h 52 2.5 St . Mungo and Locat ion of Excava t i on U n i t s 55 2.6 Crescen t Beach a n d Locat ion of Excava t i on Un i t s 68 2.7 Bar G r a p h of Raw Mater ia l P r opo r t i ons for G lenrose , St . Mungo and Crescen t Beach 148 CHAPTER THREE 3.1 B a r G r a p h of Raw Mate r ia l Types Found at C r e s c en t Beach i n Components One and Two 207 CHAPTER FOUR 4.1 C l u s t e r Diagram 298 4.2 M u l t i Dimensional S ca l i ng 301 APPENDIX B B . l Ch ipped Stone A r t i f a c t s - Glenrose 363 B.2 Ch ipped Stone Bi faces - St . Mungo 364 B.3 G round Stone Objects - Glenrose 375 B.4 G r o u n d Stone Objects - St . Mungo 376 B.5 A b r a s i v e Stones - C r e s c en t Beach 377 B.6 S p l i n t e r Awls - G lenrose 412 B.7 S p l i t R ib Aw ls - C rescen t Beach 413 B.8 Formed Bone Awls - Glenrose 414 B.9 Bone Ch ise l s With Un i l a t e r a l l y Tapered Ends - St. Mungo 415 B.IO Bone A r t i f a c t s - St. Mungo 416 B . l l Bone A r t i f a c t s - Glenrose 417 B. 12 Bone A r t i f a c t s - St . Mungo 418 APPENDIX C C. l Shaped Ch ipped and Ground Stone Implements - Component One a n d Two, C rescen t Beach 442 C.2 Bone Ch ise l s With Un i l a t e r a l l y Tapered Ends - Component One a n d Two, Crescen t Beach 457 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS F i r s t l y I would l ike to t h a n k the members of my a d v i s o r y committee, Prof . RG Matson, cha i rman . Pro f . Dav id Poko ty lo a n d Pro f . Michae l Kew. A l l have generous l y c o n t r i b u t e d t h e i r time and knowledge to my r e s e a r c h work . Mike Kew k i n d l e d my i n t e r e s t i n the Coast Sa l i sh people, espec ia l l y the Halkomelem speakers who res ide i n the Vancouver area. He a lso t augh t me that i t i s poss ib le to in t e r tw ine archaeo log ica l a n d an thropo log i ca l data . Dav id Poko ty l o was my f i r s t archaeo logy i n s t r u c t o r and h i s enthus iasm for h is p ro f ess i on was imposs ib le not to ca t ch . He t augh t me most of what I know about l i t h i c ana l y s i s and quant i t a t i v e t e chn iques as they a p p l y to archaeo log ica l data. He w i l l i ngness to work w i t h me on s o l v i n g the many problems that p r esen t ed themselves t h r o u g h o u t my r e s e a r c h p ro j e c t i s g ra t e fu l l y acknowledged as are h is ed i t o r i a l sugges t i ons t h r o u g h o u t the w r i t i n g process . RG Matson, cha i rman, has encouraged and gu ided my i n t e r e s t i n Nor thwest Coast p r e h i s t o r y s ince I was a n unde r g radua t e . His w i l l i ngness to share h is knowledge and h i s en thus iasm for my ideas lead to t h i s r e s e a r c h pro j ec t wh i ch , w i thout h is s u p p o r t a n d f u n d i n g , would have been imposs ib le to complete. He also gave me a ph i l o sophy tha t I w i l l a lways follow a n d tha t i s i f y ou do not ask ques t i ons , you w i l l not get answers . I a lso apprec ia t e the fact that he let me work w i th him on the C r e s c en t Beach p ro j e c t f rom w h i c h a great deal of data for my thes i s came. I would l ike to thank the two f i e ld schools and the pa id c r ew who worked on the Crescen t Beach pro jec t . I also thank Pro f . R i c h a r d Pearson for the g rea t deal of in format ion I l ea rned from him whi le be ing h i s Teach ing Ass i s t an t for the 1990 UBC F i e l d School . Spec i a l t h a n k s a lso goes to T u r i K i n g who was my lab a s s i s t an t for s e ve ra l months and who he lped me f i r s t develop and organ i ze my a r t i f a c t t ypo logy . Ka t ina Owen also he lped me a great deal i n the lab t h r o u g h o u t the ana l ys i s p rocess . I wou ld also l i k e to acknowledge the he lp I r e c e i v ed whi le i n the lab from Kim Wooten and Gran t Beatt ie . B r i a n Thom a n d L i s a R a n k i n w i l l i n g l y sha r ed the in format ion they had d i s cove r ed whi le w o r k i n g on t h e i r own r e s ea r ch pro j ec t s re la ted to the Crescen t Beach data. B r i a n also drew the f i gu r e s i n Chap t e r F o u r a n d I thank him fo r h i s d r aw ing s k i l l s . L y n n Maranda of the Vancouve r Museum and B a r b a r a Winters of the Simon F r a s e r Archaeo logy Museum al lowed me free access to a r t i f ac t s from the St. Mungo and Crescen t Beach s i tes . Without t h e i r he lp I cou ld not have attempted th i s ana l y s i s . To a l l of my f r i e n d s who have g i v en me emotional s u p p o r t , in t e l l e c tua l i n s p i r a t i o n a n d encouragement , I t hank you . I espec ia l l y want to t h a n k Joyce J o h n s o n for her he lp w i t h my pho t og raphy needs , A n n S tevenson fo r a lways be ing a r o u n d to look at my mys te r i ous bone a r t i f a c t s , a n d most of a l l I w i sh to thank two of my best budd i e s L i s a R a n k i n and P a u l P r i n c e who were a lways there a n d w i l l i ng to spend many l ong n i gh t s a n d weekends w i th me w o r k i n g t h r o u g h the mounds of data bo th L i s a and I had to get t h r o u g h , L i s a and Pau l a lways cheered me u p a n d cha l l enged my ideas c o n c e r n i n g my thes i s . My family a lso deserves t h a n k s for p r o v i d i n g me w i t h love and s u p p o r t t h r o u g h o u t my u n d e r g r a d u a t e and g raduate career . A l t h o u g h they d i d not a lways u n d e r s t a n d what my r e s ea r ch i n vo l v ed , they a lways encouraged me. F i n a l l y I t hank my h u s b a n d , Mat t i Ni i t . Without h i s suppo r t , sugges t i ons and encouragement my love of archaeo logy would not have come th i s far . CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The major focus of t h i s thes i s i s an examinat ion of three a r t i f a c t assemblages dated to the p r eh i s t o r i c pe r i od of approx imate ly 4500 to 3300 yea rs ago, and excavated from the fo l lowing s i t es : Glenrose Canne r y (DgRr 6), St . Mungo C a n n e r y (DgRr 2), and Crescen t Beach (DgRr 1). The main purpose of t h i s thes i s i s to s t u d y these three a r t i f a c t assemblages i n o r d e r to compare and con t ras t the t ypes of a r t i f a c t s , t h e i r p r opo r t i ons , raw mater ia l t ypes a n d techno logy so as to p r o v i d e in format ion c once rn ing the Char l e s c u l t u r e . Th i s goal i s a t ta ined by t e s t ing three d i f f e ren t hypotheses . Th i s i n t r o d u c t o r y chap t e r out l ines the f ramework f o r my thes i s . It p r esen t s the three major r e s e a r c h problems used i n t h i s s t u d y a long w i t h p r o v i d i n g the genera l context of Nor thwest Coast archaeo log ica l r e s e a r c h from wh i ch these three problems were deve loped. NORTHWEST COAST PREHISTORIC RESEARCH On the most genera l l e ve l of a rchaeo log ica l r e s e a r c h quest ions the one of g reates t i n t e r es t to Nor thwest Coast archaeo log is ts c once rns the exp lanat ion of the sh i f t from ega l i t a r i an to non-ega l i t a r i an soc iety . I n many p a r t s of the wor ld when a c u l t u r e whose method of p r o c u r i n g subs i s t ence changed because of the adopt ion of domest icat ion, the c u l t u r e also exhibii^ed a dramat ic change from ega l i t a r i an to non-ega l i t a r i an soc ia l o rgan i za t i on . Once a s tab le , r e l i ab le and p l en t i f u l subs i s t ence base was c rea ted , the c u l t u r e q u i c k l y moved t owards a s eden ta ry l i f es ty le f o cus ing a r o u n d the newly obta ined foodstu f f a n d a more r a t h e r t han ach i eved . U s u a l l y the procurement change came about because of the domest icat ion of p lan ts a n d animals . U n l i k e many areas of the wor ld where non - ega l i t a r i an societ ies evo l ved , Nor thwest Coast societ ies d i d not r e l y on domest icat ion for the i r s tab le , re l iab le and p l en t i f u l subs i s t ence base. Ins tead of becoming a g r i c u l t u r i s t s , p r e h i s t o r i c Nor thwest Coast societ ies deve loped into complex h u n t e r - g a t h e r e r s . The archaeo log ica l r e c o r d sugges t s that among the p r e h i s t o r i c C e n t r a l Coast Sa l i sh who r e s i d ed i n the C e n t r a l Nor thwest Coast C u l t u r a l A r e a (as de f ined b y Sut t l es 1990), there i s a sh i f t away from ega l i t a r i an h u n t e r - g a t h e r e r s to non -ega l i t a r i an complex h u n t e r - ga the re r s some three thousand y ea r s ago d u r i n g the pe r i od immediately fo l lowing the one tha t is the sub j e c t of t h i s thes i s . To u n d e r s t a n d how s u c h a change from ega l i t a r i an to non-ega l i t a r i an soc ie ty cou ld take place, i t i s impor tant to f i r s t examine the p r e h i s t o r i c c u l t u r e p r e sen t immediately p r i o r to s u c h a sh i f t i n o r d e r to a s ce r t a in what processes i n the soc ie ty and/or the env i ronment cou ld be r espons ib l e . Before Nor thwest Coast archaeo log is ts can develop and tes t complex models of p r o c e s sua l change , they must be fami l iar w i th the archaeo log ica l r e c o r d from the appropr i a t e time per i ods . On the Nor thwest Coast, in format ion c once rn ing ea r l y p r e h i s t o r y i s o f ten scant and u n p u b l i s h e d , there fore making r e s ea r ch of p e r t i n en t ques t ions d i f f i cu l t . I hope tha t t h i s thes i s can con t r i bu t e in format ion on ea r l y Nor thwest Coast soc ie ty to f i l l i n some of the gaps now presen t i n o u r knowledge. The evo lu t i on of the Nor thwest Coast e thnog raph i c pa t t e rn has long in t e r es t ed archaeo log is ts and an thropo log i s t s . It i s from the e thnograph i c pa t t e rn that we have d i s cove red the un iqueness of the Nor thwest Coast abo r i g i na l people. A t the time of European contact , the Coast Sa l i sh e thnograph ie p a t t e r n i n the Gul f of Georg ia A r e a was we l l e s tab l i shed and cons i s t ed of a we l l - s t r a t i f i ed soc ie ty based on a h u n t e r - g a t h e r e r subs i s t ence base (Sut t les 1987, 1990). Documents p r e sen t from the ea r l y contact per iod and twent i e th c e n t u r y e thnograph i es g ive us most of ou r in format ion about Nor thwest Coast soc iety . A l t h o u g h documents desc r ibe the c u l t u r e s p resen t , the w r i t t e n w o r d does not exp la in how or w h y the Nor thwest Coast e thnog raph i c p a t t e r n evo l ved . Some archaeo log is ts (see for example Bo rden 1975) contend tha t migrat ions of new people a n d c u l t u r a l ideas i n the ea r l y p r eh i s t o r i c pe r i od have been impor tant i n the format ion of the e thnog raph i c pa t t e rn of the Gul f of Georg ia r eg ion . M ig ra t i on theor ies have also been r e cen t l y deve loped to exp la in d i f f erences f ound t h r o u g h time at s i tes located to the n o r t h of the a r ea d i s cuss ed i n th i s thes i s . M i t che l l (1988:279-285) sugges t s a p r e h i s t o r i c migra t i on from the n o r t h sometime near the end of the Obs id ian c u l t u r e t ype (the en t i r e pe r i od encompasses 5000 to 2500 BP) . The time pe r i od of the Obs id ian c u l t u r e t ype is r o u g h l y contemporaneous to the Char l e s and Locarno Beach c u l t u r e t ype s (4500 to 2200 BP) . The Queen Char lo t t e S t r a i t c u l t u r e t ype fol lows the Obs id ian c u l t u r e t ype u n t i l the time of contact . He sugges t s tha t the Obs id ian c u l t u r e t ype r ep r esen t s a " S a l i s h a n " p a t t e r n of r e source use whi le the Queen Char lo t t e S t r a i t c u l t u r e t ype r ep r e s en t s a "Wakashan " pa t t e rn of r e source use. Th i s impl ies a p r eh i s t o r i c migra t ion of "Wakashan " speakers down the coast at a time contemporaneous to the Char l es and Locarno Beach phase. Would th i s migrat ion be re f l ec ted i n the a r t i f a c t assemblages? M ig ra t i on theor i es , s u c h as those proposed by B o r d e n , los t p o p u l a r i t y on the Nor thwest Coast because archaeo log is ts now faced w i th s i gn i f i c an t di f ferences i n a r t i f a c t assemblages between two or more s i tes o f ten a t t r i bu t e the d i f f e rences to s i te func t i on r a t h e r than to c u l t u r a l migrat ion . Th i s is a l esson l ea rned from C u l t u r a l Eco logy wh i ch , w i t h i t s focus on the env i ronment , lead archaeo log is ts away f rom the a r t i f a c t assemblage towards the s e t t ing i n wh i ch the a r t i f a c t s and the p r e h i s t o r i c people who made them operated . There are except ions to t h i s genera l p a t t e r n of movement away from migra t ion theor ies (see p r e v i o u s pa rag raph ) . Ano the r except ion to th i s t r e n d i s B u r l e y and Beatt ie (Bur l ey 1980:73-74) who sugges t the r e i s some ev idence of a c u l t u r a l migra t ion t h r o u g h the F r a s e r Canyon towards the F r a s e r Delta d u r i n g the Loca rno -Mar pole phase t r a n s i t i o n . Th i s hypo thes i s i s based on in format ion wh i ch , at the time, po in ted to the ear l i es t g r o u n d stone k n i v e s e vo l v ing i n the Canyon a long w i th the development of w ind d r y i n g and s t o r i n g of s u r p l u s salmon (Bur l ey 1980:74). Th i s thes i s a rgues tha t the ear l i e s t g r o u n d stone kn i v e s (which come from the Eayem phase i n the F r a s e r Canyon) are i n t r u s i v e a n d be long to the y ounge r Ba ldw in phase component. Second ly , s torage techno logy was p r e s en t d u r i n g the Char l es c u l t u r e and there fore , s torage was explo i ted much ea r l i e r i n Nor thwest Coast p r e h i s t o r y t h a n p r e v i o u s l y thought . A long w i th those archaeo log is ts who hypo thes i ze tha t migrat ion was an important aspect of p r e h i s t o r i c C e n t r a l Coast S a l i s h p r e h i s t o r y , some contend that the evo lut ion of the Nor thwest Coast e thnog raph i c p a t t e r n s lowly took place i n the Gul f of Georg ia r eg i on o ve r s e ve ra l t housand years (see for example Matson 1976). Recent ly , Su t t l e s (1987) and K inkade (1989) have a r gued that l i n g u i s t i c ev idence re f l ec ts a scenar io where Sa l i shan languages o r i g ina t ed on the Nor thwest Coast and both they a n d t h e i r speake rs migrated to the i n t e r i o r r a t h e r t han the r e v e r s e scenar io o r i g i n a l l y p roposed b y anthropo log i s t s s u c h as F r a n z Boas (1905) a n d Char l es Bo rden (1975). To p r o p e r l y add r ess the ques t i on of i n s i t u evo lut ion of the e thnog raph i c p a t t e r n of Nor thwest Coast c u l t u r e s i n the Gul f of Georg ia r eg i on , one must examine the ea r l y c u l t u r a l pe r i ods to a s ce r t a in whe ther the r e i s ev idence of dramat ic c u l t u r a l change a t t r i bu tab l e to a migrat ion of new c u l t u r a l ideas o r people (for example the "Wakashan " from the n o r t h e r n areas of the Nor thwes t Coast) . I f the re were s u c h ev idence , the e thnog raph i c pa t t e rn of the C e n t r a l Coast Sa l i sh c ou ld not be c ons ide r ed to have deve loped as an i n s i t u Gul f of Georg ia phenomena. Ins tead , the e thnog raph i c pa t t e rn cou ld be seen as be ing in f luenced b y c u l t u r a l t r a i t s moving in to the a rea a n d p roceed ing to change tha t wh i ch was o r i g i n a l l y p resent . Fu r the rmore , to v e r i f y i n s i t u e vo lu t i on , one must p r o v e that a n y major d i f f e rences i n the a r t i f a c t assemblages r e s u l t f rom c h a n g i n g s i te func t i on o r env i ronmenta l d i f f e rences . To explore th i s ques t i on of i n s i tu evo lu t i on of the Centred Coast S a l i s h e thnog raph i c p a t t e r n , one must f i r s t examine a r t i f a c t assemblages from s i tes known to have s imi lar s i te func t i ons d u r i n g the des i r ed time pe r i od . Ho ld ing site func t i on and time pe r i od cons tant al lows one to examine the a r t i f a c t s a n d d i s cove r what, i f any , s i gn i f i can t d i f f e rences remain tha t are expla inable b y o ther sources of c u l t u r e change . The ear l i e s t p r e h i s t o r i c pe r i od on the Nor thwest Coast i s de f ined b y Ca r l s on (1990:62) as the Pebble Tool T rad i t i on . Matson (1976) ca l l s t h i s pe r i od the Old C o r d i l l e r a n Pa t t e rn , whi le F ladmark (1986:27) terms th i s ear l i es t pe r i od the L i t h i c Stage. M i t che l l (1971:59) also uses the term " l i t h i c " i n h i s term for the ear l i es t pe r i od on the Nor thwest Coast ( L i th i c C u l t u r e Type) . In the Gul f of Georg ia r e g i on the ear l i e s t pe r i od of p r e h i s t o r y i s most commonly known as the Old C o r d i l l e r a n per iod (Borden 1975), a l though as one can see there a re many d i f f e ren t terms used to def ine th i s c u l t u r a l stage. Few s i tes i n the Gul f of Georg ia r eg i on conta in ea r l y components. The best p u b l i s h e d ev idence for the ea r l y pe r i od comes from the Glenrose Canne r y site (Matson 1976) and from the Bear Cove s i te i n N o r t h e r n B r i t i s h Columbia (Car lson 1979). Th i s pe r i od ends sometime between 5000 and 4400 years ago. A f t e r the Old Co rd i l l e r an pe r i od there i s a p ro l i f e ra t i on of s i t es , bu t a pauc i t y of p u b l i s h e d data u n t i l one reaches the Marpole c u l t u r e t ype , wh i ch has been examined b y Dav id B u r l e y (1979, 1980). Bo rden (1975:96) de f ined a r eg i ona l phase tha t he ca l led the Char l e s phase for the p a r t of t h i s pos t -O ld C o r d i l l e r a n time pe r i od r a n g i n g f rom 5500 to 3000 years ago. B o r d e n (1975:97) named the phase i n honour of And r ew Char l es from Musqueam who d i s cove r ed and conduc t ed test excavat ions at the St . Mungo Canne ry site (a s i te i n c l u d e d i n la ter d i s cuss i on ) . Char l es donated h is p r e l i m i n a r y work ( f ie ld notes and ar t i fac ts ) to the Labo ra t o r y of Archaeo logy , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia , p rompt ing f u r t h e r inves t i ga t i ons at St . Mungo a n d the Glenrose C a n n e r y site (another s i te to be d i s cussed i n t h i s thes i s ) . The Char l es phase , as o r i g i n a l l y de f ined by Bo rden , encompasses the r eg i on f rom Esi lao v i l l age (near Yale) to the Gul f I s lands . Three spec i f i c phases have been def ined w i t h i n t h i s " phase " . In the F r a s e r Canyon , there i s the Eayem phase (Borden 1975:72). In the F r a s e r Delta, l ies the best known phase ca l led St . Mungo (Matson 1976:283), whi le on the Gul f I s l ands , the Mayne phase has been de f ined (Car lson 1970). In these subreg i ons there are d i f f e rences i n the time frsune r ep resen t ed by the Char l es phase as we l l as i n the artifgict assemblages. The term 'Char les phase ' was o r i g i n a l l y used by B o r d e n i n d e s c r i b i n g a r eg i ona l c u l t u r e compr ised of the St . Mungo, Mayne and Eayem loca l phases . There has been debate over the app rop r i a t eness of the term ' phase ' i n Northwest Coast p r e h i s t o r i c l i t e r a tu r e s ince Bo rden ' s f i r s t use of the express i on 'Char l es phase ' . Abbo t t (1972) d i s cusses the shor tcomings of the t e rm phase as does B u r l e y (1980:11-18). Bo rden def ined a l l of the phases compr i s ing the F r a s e r Del ta sequence a c c o r d i n g to the c lass i c archaeo log ica l text , Method and Theo ry i n Amer i can Archaeo logy (Willey and P h i l l i p s 1958). A c c o r d i n g to Wil ley and P h i l l i p s (1958) a ' phase ' cannot conta in 'phases ' . There fore , the term ' c u l t u r e ' w i l l be used to d i f f e rent ia te between the r eg i ona l Char l es c u l t u r e a n d loca l Eayem, St . Mungo a n d Mayne phases , a n idea o r i g i n a l l y p roposed b y B u r l e y (1980:15). Ano the r appropr i a t e term fo r the r eg i ona l Char l es c u l t u r e would be the 'Char l es Cu l tu r e Type ' , a t e rm f i r s t used by M i t che l l (1971:56-57) a n d s t i l l u s ed b y archaeo log is ts (Ham 1984:38). RESEARCH QUESTIONS DEFINED One spec i f i c r e s e a r c h ques t i on i n th i s thes i s is the degree of v a r i a b i l i t y i n the S t . Mungo phase near the mouth of the F r a s e r r i v e r . The Glenrose Canne ry , St. Mungo Canne ry , and Crescen t Beach s i tes may a l l c on ta in St. Mungo components a n d have the best ava i lab le p u b l i s h e d in format ion to add r e s s quest ions c o n c e r n i n g the degree of c u l t u r e v a r i a b i l i t y memifest i n the mainland Char l es c u l t u r e . The St . Mungo phase at the St . Mungo a n d Glenrose s i tes shows c o n t i n u i t y i n techno logy and f auna l remains w i t h the p r e c ed ing Old C o r d i l l e r a n component (Boehm 1973, Matson 1976). However, a detai led in te r -assemblage ana l ys i s of the St . Mungo phase i t se l f has not been done. The a r t i f a c t ana lyses from Glenrose and St . Mungo show s imi lar s i te func t i ons , and the c loseness of the s i tes to each o ther ( less than 1000 metres) also sugges t s minimal env i ronmenta l d i f f e rences . There i s agreement tha t the St . Mungo components from Glenrose and St . Mungo are v e r y s imi lar , bu t how do they compare to the Char l es c u l t u r e component p r e sen t at Crescen t Beach? If these three mainland s i tes are examples of c o n t i n u i n g i n s i t u evo lu t i on of the e thnog raph i c Nor thwest Coast pa t t e rn , they w i l l have a h i g h degree of i n t e r - assemblage s im i l a r i t y . R i c h a r d P e r c y (1974) be l i eved tha t the ear l i e s t component at the Crescen t Beach s i te i n Delta was a mani festat ion of the Mayne phase . Roy Car l son f i r s t de f ined th i s phase from h i s excavat ion at the Helen Po int s i te on Mayne I s l and wh i ch l ies i n the Gul f I s lands (Car l son 1970). The Mayne phase has r e cen t l y been de f ined as da t ing from 5000 to 4000 B P (Car lson 1985, 1986). The phase shares many cha rac t e r i s t i c s w i th the St . Mungo phase , b u t i t s ea r l i e r dates sugges t tha t maybe St . Mungo and the fo l lowing Loca rno Beach a n d Marpole phases , evo l ved from the Mayne phase and the Gul f I s l ands . C rescen t Beach does not l ie i n the Gul f I s l ands and i f a f f i l ia ted w i t h the Mayne phase , i t i s one of few Main land Char l es c u l t u r e s i tes g i v en s u c h an a f f i l i a t ion . D u r i n g P e r c y ' s work at Crescen t Beach, the St . Mungo phase h a d not been formal ly de f ined, bu t in format ion p e r t a i n i n g to i t was ava i lab le (Ca lver t 1970, Boehm 1973). P e r c y , however , d i d not use th i s in format ion for compar ison purposes . G i ven the debate between the Mayne and St . Mungo phases , i t i s impor tant to d i s cove r whether Crescen t Beach 's Mayne component i s s imi lar to or d i f f e rent from the St. Mungo components at Glenrose and St . Mungo. Research Quest ion Number One i s : What is the degree of c u l t u r e v a r i a b i l i t y manifest i n the three Char l es c u l t u r e a r t i f a c t assemblages from the Glenrose Cannery , St . Mungo Canne ry , and Crescen t Beach s i tes? F o r t h i s r e s e a r c h ques t ion , the b i gges t assumpt ion i s that time a n d s i te func t i on are constant . If there are problems i n do ing th i s in te r -assemblage compar i son , i t wi l l be due to d i f f e r en t i a t ing what process i s r e spons ib l e f o r any v a r i a b i l i t y p resent . Few s i tes on the main land conta in bo th a Char l e s a n d Locarno Beach component and the r e l a t i onsh ip between the two phases i s not we l l known. A t Crescen t Beach the r e i s ev idence f o r con t inuous occupat i on from the Char l e s c u l t u r e to the Marpole phase , making th i s s i te the per f ec t place to look f o r answers c once rn ing i n s i t u evo lu t i on of the e thnog raph i c Cen t ra l Coast S a l i s h pa t t e rn . A compar ison of the Char l e s a n d Locarno Beach components at Crescen t Beach cou ld ind ica te whe ther i n s i t u c u l t u r a l evo lu t i on has t aken place i n the F r a s e r Del ta f rom the Old C o r d i l l e r a n phase onward . If i t i s demonstrated tha t C rescen t Beach 's Char l es component i s most s imi lar to Mayne phase assemblages from the Gul f I s l ands , how does th i s Gu l f I s land in f luenced phase compare to Ma in land Locarno Beach? Do the d i f f e rences between the two components sugges t ev idence for a c u l t u r a l i n f l ux j u s t p r i o r to 3300 yea rs ago? From th i s c u l t u r a l i n f lux d id the C e n t r a l Coast S a l i s h e thnog raph i c p a t t e r n evolve? Research Quest ion Two a s k s , What i s the exact r e l a t i onsh ip between the Char l es and Locarno Beach phases at Crescen t Beach? Th i s r e s e a r c h ques t i on must be handled ca r e fu l l y , as i t w i l l eas i l y grow out of my con t r o l w i th the many poss ib le permutat ions a n d compar isons . I hope to co l lect f u r t h e r in format ion to e i the r conf i rm or negate the g ene ra l r e s e a r c h ques t ion ; Was the E thnog raph i c C e n t r a l Coast Sa l i sh Pa t t e rn an i n s i t u e vo lu t i on s lowly t a k i n g place w i t h l i t t le ev idence of m ig ra t ing c u l t u r a l g r o u p s descend ing in to the F r a s e r Delta, i n t e r r u p t i n g o r d i s p e r s i n g the c u l t u r e s a l r eady p r esen t d u r i n g the Char l es c u l t u r e ? Since B o r d e n f i r s t p roposed the Char l e s c u l t u r e as a r eg iona l phase , there have been ques t ions about the appropr i a t eness of s u c h an un i t . I w i l l examine the Char l e s c u l t u r e on the r eg i ona l l e ve l and d i s cuss whe ther a t r u l y r eg i ona l c u l t u r e i s manifest at t h i s time pe r i od . Research Quest ion Three a s k s , What i s the p l a u s i b i l i t y of the Char l e s c u l t u r e ex i s t ing on the r eg i ona l leve l? My i n t e r e s t i n th i s topic stems from a n ear l i e r genera l s t u d y of the Char l es c u l t u r e (P ra t t 1988). Th i s ques t i on cou ld lead to i t s own thes i s , so I w i l l concentra te on p r e s e n t i n g a conc ise summation of the r eg i ona l Char l e s c u l t u r e and a s s e s s ing whe ther a phase encompass ing s u c h a la rge time pe r i od and so many d i f f e rent env i ronments r ea l l y i s a feasible c u l t u r a l marker . The r e s t of t h i s thes i s i s o r gan i z ed i n the fo l lowing manner. Chapte r Two p r e sen t s the ana l y s i s us ed to examine r e s e a r c h ques t i on one a n d i t s r e s u l t i n g hypo thes i s . There is a d i s cuss i on of the de f in i t i on of the St . Mungo a n d Mayne phases , po in t ing ou t d i f f erences and s imi lar i t i es between the two. Second ly , there i s an i n t r o d u c t i o n to the three s i tes used for t h i s ana l y s i s to determine the func t i ona l s im i l a r i t y of these s i tes so tha t apparen t changes i n the a r t i f a c t assemblages are a t t r i bu tab l e to a c u l t u r a l r a t h e r t han a func t i ona l or env i ronmenta l d i f ference . T h i r d l y , the a r t i f a c t c lass i f i ca t i on i s d e s c r i b ed . The a r t i f a c t c l ass i f i ca t i on i n th i s thes i s addresses quest ions about i n t e r - assemblage v a r i a b i l i t y , the essence of the f i r s t r e s ea r ch ques t ion . Chap te r Three focuses on r e s e a r c h ques t i on two and i t s r e s u l t i n g hypo thes i s . The chap t e r f i r s t examines the two ear l i es t components from the Crescen t Beach s i te to i l luminate the s im i l a r i t y o r d i s s im i l a r i t y of s i te func t i on d u r i n g the two c u l t u r a l phases . Once th i s exerc ise is completed, the r e l a t i onsh ip of the Char l es c u l t u r e and Locarno Beach phase is c l a r i f i ed u s i n g the a r t i f a c t c l ass i f i ca t i on a n d the ana l y t i c a l t e chn iques deve loped i n Chap t e r Two. A b r i e f compar ison of the a r t i f a c t s from Crescen t Beach component two w i t h those from the Locarno Beach s i te i s a lso u n d e r t a k e n to examine s imi lar i t i es between Crescen t Beach 's Loca rno Beach a r t i f a c t assemblage and the o r i g i n a l t ypes i t e . Th i s determines whether Crescen t Beach 's Loca rno Beach a r t i f a c t assemblage i s r ep resen ta t i v e of the Loca rno Beewjh C u l t u r e Type . Chap te r F o u r p r esen t s r e s ea r ch ques t i on three a n d i t ' s r e s u l t i n g hypo thes i s . Th i s chap t e r i n t r oduces the Eayem phase wh i ch a long w i t h the St . Mungo and Mayne phases compr ise the Char l e s c u l t u r e . The second sect ion of Chapte r F o u r i n t r oduces severed s i tes though t to have Char l e s components. These a r t i f a c t assemblages are d i s c us s e d and compared to known Char l e s components. The f insil sec t ion of Chap t e r F o u r uses the da ta ga thered i n t h i s thes i s and some simple s t a t i s t i c a l t e chn iques to d i s c u s s the f eas ib i l i t y of the r eg i ona l Char l e s c u l t u r e . Chap te r F i v e evaluates the r e s e a r c h hypotheses a n d p r o v i d e s poss ib le a l t e rna t i ve exp lanat ions . Recommendations for f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h conc lude the chapte r . CHAPTER TWO RESEARCH QUESTION ONE: The Relationship Between Three Charles Components and Their Artifact Assembla is Research Quest ion Number One examines the degree of c u l t u r a l v a r i a b i l i t y manifest i n the th r ee a r t i f a c t assemblages be long ing to the Char l e s c u l t u r e from the C r e s c en t Beach , Glenrose Canne r y and St . Mungo s i tes . From th i s r e s e a r c h ques t i on I deve loped the fo l lowing hypotheses that deal w i th interassemblage v a r i a b i l i t y : N u l l Hypo thes i s Number One: The degree of v a r i a b i l i t y between the two p r e v i o u s l y de f ined St . Mungo phase a r t i f a c t assemblages from Glenrose and St . Mungo and the Mayne phase assemblage from Crescen t Beach w i l l be minimal, imp l y ing that the three a r t i f a c t assemblages a re from a s imi lar c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n . A l t e rna te Hypo thes i s Number One: The Crescen t Beach Mayne component i s d i f f e ren t from the o ther two components and be longs to another c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n o r i g i n a t i n g from the Gul f I s l ands . To answer t h i s hypo thes i s , the f i r s t sec t ion of t h i s chap te r desc r ibes the St . Mungo and Mayne phases , d i s c u s s i n g pe r t i n en t s imi lar i t i es a n d d i f f e rences c l a r i f y i n g the r e l a t i onsh ip between the two c u l t u r a l phases . Th i s d esc r i p t i on focuses on d i f f e rences i n a r t i f a c t assemblages. To s t andard i z e the q u a n t i t y of da ta r e q u i r e d for t h i s thes i s , I have o rgan i z ed my d i s cuss i on of each s i te in to the fo l lowing sec t ions : S i te Name, S i te Locat ion (sometimes these two sub - s e c t i ons are merged in to one sect ion) . E t h n o g r a p h i c C u l t u r e A rea , Chrono logy , A r t i f a c t Assemblage, Raw Mater ia l , Fauna l Remains and Fea tures . Each ca tegory was chosen for i t s importance i n p r o v i d i n g in format ion pe r t i n en t to my r e s ea r ch ques t ions . Second ly , the fo l lowing three s i tes used i n the thes i s w i l l be i n t r o d u c e d : Glenrose (DgRr 6), St . Mungo (DgRr 2) and Crescen t Beach (DgRr 1). Th i s d i s cuss i on focuses on de te rmin ing the s im i l a r i t y of these s i tes i n te rms of s i te func t i on , based on a l l n on -a r t i f a c tua l data compi led. The f i na l sec t ion of t h i s chap t e r i n t r oduces the a r t i f a c t c l ass i f i ca t i on and uses th i s c l ass i f i ca t i on to compare and con t ras t the three Char l e s c u l t u r e a r t i f a c t assemblages from Glenrose , St . Mungo a n d Crescen t Beach. THE ST. MUNGO AND MAYNE PHASES In th i s d i s c u s s i o n of the St . Mungo and Mayne phases , on l y s i t es w i th r e l i ab l y dated components are i n c l u d e d i n the ana l y s i s . Chapte r F o u r p r esen t s more c o n t r o v e r s i a l Char l e s c u l t u r e components. Chap te r F o u r also d i s cusses components though t to be long i n the Char l es c u l t u r e b u t have not yet been formal ly p laced in to the St . Mungo, Mayne o r Eayem phases . The St. Mungo Phase Site Names and Locations The St . Mungo phase i s named af ter the St . Mungo C a n n e r y Si te (DgRr 2) where the phase was f i r s t d i s cove red i n 1968 i n excavat ions d i r e c t ed by Gay Ca l v e r t (1970), who desc r i b ed the excavated mater ia l i n her M.A. thes i s (Boehm 1973). A t the time, no nea rby components were dated to the same age as the E a r l y component from St . Mungo (Boehm named the o ldest component at the s i te , the E a r l y component) . There fore , Boehm d i d not place the E a r l y component into a c u l t u r a l pe r i od . In the s p r i n g of 1969 a small sa lvage pro jec t , u n d e r the d i r e c t i on of R ick P e r c y (1972), was u n d e r t a k e n at the Glenrose Canne ry Si te (DgRr 6). There were 199 a r t i f a c t s r ecove red from t h i s excavat ion and some were s imi lar to the a r t i f a c t s from the St . Mungo E a r l y component (Pe rcy 1972:164-174). Major excavat ions at Glenrose o c c u r r e d i n 1972 and 1973, w i t h the main excavat ion r epo r t ed b y R.G. Matson (1976). Based on the c a r b o n dates, a r t i f a c t assemblage and f auna l remains, Matson proposed tha t bo th Component Two at Glenrose and the E a r l y component from St, Mungo be longed i n the same c u l t u r a l phase (Matson 1976:283). He ca l l ed th i s new phase St . Mungo a f ter the s i te where i t was f i r s t d i s cove red . The two s i tes are approx imate ly 1000 meters apa r t on the s ou th bank of the main arm of the F r a s e r R i v e r (See F i g u r e 2.1). St . Mungo and Glenrose are the two best known s i tes f o r the St . Mungo phase . E t h n o g r a p h i c C u l t u r e A r e a E t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y , the two s i tes f a l l i n the t e r r i t o r y of the Ma in land Halkomelem speak ing g r oups who l i v e d a long the F r a s e r R i v e r and were as a g roup ca l l ed the Stalo (Duff 1952). Sut t l es (1987:47) has p laced s e v e ra l of the Coast Sa l i sh g r o u p s toge ther in to one g r oup ca l l ed the C e n t r a l Coast Sa l i sh . The Glenrose C a n n e r y a n d St . Mungo s i te are located i n the t r ad i t i ona l t e r r i t o r y of the Kwant l en s u b - g r o u p of the Halkomelem speak ing Sta lo . APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY OF STRAITS AND HALKOMELEM SPEAKERS AT CONTACT 1 DgRr 6 Glenrose 3280-4240 B.P. 2 DgRr 2 St Mungo 3970-4310 B.P. F i g u r e 2,1 Map of St . Mungo Components (Based on Ham 1982: F i g u r e 2 -24 ) Chronology Not a l l r ad i o ca rbon dates have been ca l i b ra t ed . To minimize con fus ion , a l l dates quoted i n th i s thes i s are unca l i b r a t ed . Table 2.1 St. Mungo and Glenrose Charles Component Radiocarbon Dates Summarized Uncorrected Dates (Before Present) Glenrose 3280±105 (GaK 4863) 3570±95 (Gak 4867) Rejected Date 4185±105 (S 788) 42401110 (GaK 4648) S t . Mungo U n i t A:3000±60 (WSU 2736) Rejected Date 4050±50 (WSU 2779) 4120150 (WSU 2780) 4190160 (WSU 2781) 4330185 (WSU 2782) Rejected Date 4170170 (WSU 6147B) U n i t 6:4185190 (WSU 2816) 4260175 (WSU 2814) 4290185 (WSU 2813) 43751105 (WSU 2815) Rejected Date U n i t C:3340165 (WSU 2842) 3370190 (WSU 2812) 3380170 (WSU 2840) 3410175 (WSU 2841) 3420170 (WSU 2843) 3455160 (WSU 2811) U n i t D:4480190 (WSU 2857) U n i t E:4440180 (WSU 2858) Rejected Date As Table 2.1 ind i ca t es , the maximum time frame co v e r ed b y the St . Mungo phase is 4570 to 3175 BP , based on C14 dates f rom Glenrose (Matson 1976:16-19) and St . Mungo (Ham 1984:114). The b e g i n n i n g date of St . Mungo i s c l earer than i ts t e rminat ion date. If more St . Mungo phase components are d i scove r ed , there may be movement towards a b e g inn ing date of 4600 o r 4500 BP , bu t the c u r r e n t dates sugges t a s t a r t i n g date of 4400 BP. The terminat ion date l ies somewhere between 3300 and 3100 BP . At St . Mungo, the St. Mungo phase and the fo l lowing Locarno Beach phase may both be p resen t i n excavat ion u n i t C and i t is d i f f i cu l t to t e l l f rom the dates where St . Mungo ends and Locarno Beach beg ins . The dates from Un i t C are not as o ld as the o ther dates from the s i te ( they range from 3340 to 3455 BP) . There are dates from bo th Montague Harbour (Mi tche l l 1971) and Crescen t Beach (Matson et a l . 1991) of about 3300 BP for the b e g inn ing of the succeed ing Locarno Beach phase. Based on the lateness of these dates and the a r t i f a c tua l da ta (which show s imi lar i t i es w i t h both the St. Mungo and Locarno Beach phases ) I dec ided not to i nc lude U n i t C w i th my ana l ys i s of the St . Mungo phase. I t h i n k U n i t C i s more r ep resen ta t i v e of the Locarno Beach phase then i t i s of the St . Mungo phase. There fore , I omitted data from U n i t C. A t Glenrose , 3280±105 BP (Gak 4863) i s the latest date for the St . Mungo component. There is a h ia tus i n si te occupat i on at Glenrose a f ter the St . Mungo component a n d before the fo l lowing Marpole component. A r t i f a c t Assemblage The a r t i f a c t assemblages p r esen t from Glenrose a n d St . Mungo are s imi lar on both a genera l and spec i f i c l eve l . Ch ipped stone tools dominate the a r t i f a c t assemblages of bo th s i tes . Core and f lake tools are common t h r o u g h o u t the phase . Fo r the fo l lowing d i s cuss i on of a r t i f a c t assemblages, the data is d i v i d e d in to genera l categor ies dev i sed from my a r t i f a c t t ypo logy , w i th each ca tegory t rea ted as a subsec t i on of the a r t i f a c t assemblage. Unshaped C h i p p e d Stone Unshaped ch i pped stone implements s u c h as hammerstones a n d pebble tools are not as common as i n ea r l i e r time pe r i ods but t h e y are p resen t . Unshaped C h i p p e d Stone F l ake Tools Unshaped c h i p p e d stone f lake tools are p r o b a b l y the l a r ges t a n d most common genera l ca tegory of ch i pped stone tools. A r t i f a c t s c ompr i s ing th i s ca tegory inc lude : u t i l i z ed f l akes , steep and na r r ow -ang l ed r e touched f lakes , as wel l as b i fac ia l l y r e touched f lakes . There is no ev idence of a b ipo la r q u a r t z micro l i th i c i n d u s t r y at e i ther Glenrose o r St. Mungo, nor i s there ev idence of a p r e p a r e d blade core techno logy . The dominance of unshaped ch i pped stone tools (both core and f lake t ypes ) sugges t s a t echno logy of exped ien t l y p r o d u c e d tools. Shaped C h i p p e d Stone Tools Shaped Ch ipped Stone Tools con ta ins the categor ies I have ca l l ed formed uni faces and bi faces. Formed steep (edge angle g rea te r t h a n 45 degrees) a n d na r r ow-ang l ed (edge angle less than 45 degrees) uni faces are not as common as the i r unshaped c oun t e rpa r t s . Na r row-ang l ed formed uni faces a re p resen t at both s i tes . They are made from a good qua l i t y v i t r e ous basa l t w i th a l l f lake marg ins e xh ib i t i ng ca r e fu l and con t inuous r e t ouch . Th i s a r t i f a c t t ype may be a s t y l i s t i c marker for the St . Mungo phase . Shaped bi faces, un l i k e shaped un i faces , are much more common than b i fac ia l l y r e touched f lakes. There are two genera l categor ies of shaped bi faces p resen t i n the St. Mungo phase , l ea f - shaped and c o n t r a c t i n g stem. Lea f - shaped bi faces are a s t y l e f i r s t used i n o l d e r components , a n d c o n t i n u i n g to be wel l r ep resen ted i n the St. Mungo phase. Con t rac t i ng stem bi faces (both w i th and w i thout deve loped shou lders ) are a s ty l e i n t r o d u c e d d u r i n g the St. Mungo phase a n d almost as common as l ea f - shaped bi faces. Ground Stone Implements Ch ipped and g r o u n d stone implements are not common d u r i n g the St . Mungo phase and ne i the r are g r o u n d stone implements. Th i s i s a lso a re f l ec t ion of the dominance of an expedient c h i p p e d stone tool t echno logy as i t is assumed tha t g r o u n d stone ob jec ts take more time and care to create . G round stone techno logy i s f i r s t d i s cove red i n the St. Mungo phase , bu t g r o u n d stone tools do not become common u n t i l the Locarno Beach phase. A b r a s i v e stones, r e q u i r e d for the manufacture of g r o u n d stone implements, are p r e sen t t h r o u g h o u t the St . Mungo phase i n low numbers , w i t h both shaped and unshaped s t y l e s are present . The i r presence does not necessa r i l y ind ica te a g r o u n d stone technology . Patenaude (1985) notes that ab rade r s cou ld be used for the mak ing of bone and an t l e r tools. There are no g r o u n d stone po in ts p r e s en t at S t . Mungo , whi le Glenrose has two nea r l y complete l ea f - shaped g r o u n d stone po in ts . G r o u n d stone k n i v e s are not common. There i s the po s s i b i l i t y of t h e i r presence at both s i tes , bu t the ev idence i s not conc lus i ve . A t Glenrose (Matson 1976) th ree g r o u n d stone k n i v e s t en ta t i v e l y p laced i n the St . Mungo component are p r o b a b l y i n t r u s i v e from the Marpole component (Matson 1976:286). A t St . Mungo there are no complete g r o u n d stone k n i v e s (Ham et aL 1986). G round stone d i sc beads are p resen t , bu t are not common. One s t y l i s t i c marke r for the St . Mungo phase is a g r oup of ob jec ts made from a metamorphosed sed imentary r ock . These objects are t h i n , show no ev idence of g r i n d i n g , bu t are shaped . There i s a lways an element of decorat ion p r esen t u s u a l l y on the ou te r marg in . Bo th s i tes have these ob jects . Pecked and g r o u n d stone implements are r a r e . Bone and A n t l e r A r t i f a c t s Organ ic p r e s e r v a t i o n was good at St. Mungo and Glenrose. I n genera l , the bone and an t l e r i n d u s t r i e s show a number of d i f f e ren t a r t i f a c t t ype s p resen t , bu t i n compar ison to the bone and an t l e r a r t i f a c t t ypes p r e s en t i n Locarno Beach components , St . Mungo phase bone and an t l e r a r t i f a c t s do not d i sp lay as much v a r i e t y nor as much f i n i s h i n g . Exped i en t l y made bone a n d an t l e r tools, s u c h as s p l i n t e r awls and ant l e r wedges, dominate the St . Mungo phase. A subca t ego ry of s p l i n t e r awls ex is ts i n the two components. A t both Glenrose and St . Mungo many s p l i n t e r awls are made from b i r d bone. Locarno Beach phase b i r d bone awls are d i f f e rent , for they are made from complete b i r d bone, whi le b i r d bone s p l i n t e r awls at Glenrose a n d St . Mungo u t i l i z e small s p l i n t e r s of b i r d bone. Ne i ther n o n - u t i l i t a r i a n goods nor pe r sona l decorat ion are common. A d i s t i nc t i v e bone pendant s t y l e f ound at both s i tes i s f la t , t h i n a n d r e c t a n g u l a r i n shape. Other n o n - u t i l i t a r i a n goods p resen t i nc lude b i r d bone tubes , a comb and o ther s ty l es of pendants . A n i n t e r e s t i n g ob jec t ca l l ed a G r u b i s f ound at both Glenrose and St . Mungo. The ent i re sur face of these small b ipo in t ed bone ob jects is i n c i s ed w i th para l l e l grooves. They resemble insec t cocoons and were o r i g i na l l y de f ined b y Bo rden (1975). G r u b s are another s t y l i s t i c marker of the St . Mungo phase for they d i sappear before the b e g inn ing of the Locarno Beach phase. Ind ica t ions of woodwork ing inc lude an abundance of bone ch i s e l s , wedges and ant l e r wedges. Bone ch i se l s are common and come i n a v a r i e t y of s izes . Ba rbed f ixed po in ts of bone or an t l e r are not common. A complete example of a b a r b e d harpoon i s not p r e s en t at Glenrose o r St . Mungo . Both un i l a t e ra l l y and b i l a t e ra l l y ba rbed f ixed po ints are f ound , bu t i n a l l categor ies on l y one a r t i f a c t i s p r esen t except f o r two un i l a t e r a l l y b a r b e d f ixed po ints from St . Mungo. P e rhaps the absence of ev idence for spec ia l i zed f i s h i n g procurement re f l ec ts the pe r i shab l e na ture of the f i s h i n g t e chn iques used d u r i n g St . Mungo times. In compar ison to the p a u c i t y of shaped bone/ant ler tools used for f i s h i n g , there i s a re la t i ve abundance of shaped c h i p p e d stone bi faces that cou ld be used for h u n t i n g . If one looked at the a r t i f a c t assemblages w i thout examining the f auna l remains , the a r t i f a c t s wou ld o v e r - emphasize the importance of l and mammals. The o rgan i c na ture of spec ia l i zed f i s h i n g implements biases the a r t i f a c t assemblage aga ins t the p r e s e r va t i on of spec ia l i zed f i s h i n g tools. Shell Objects She l l a r t i f a c t s are the least common a r t i f a c t s f ound d u r i n g the St . Mungo phase. The most common a r t i f a c t t ype i s miscel laneous g r o u n d she l l f ragments . Matson (1976) r epo r t ed one she l l adze blade from the St . Mungo component at G lenrose , however , when I r e - a n a l y z e d the component I d id not i n t e r p r e t the a r t i f a c t as a she l l adze blade. S h e l l adze b lades are not common; there are two from St. Mungo and (if one accepts Matson 's o r i g i n a l ana lys is ) one from Glenrose . She l l beads are p r e s en t at Glenrose on l y i n assoc iat ion w i th a b u r i a l . Discussion of St. Mungo Artifact Assemblage There i s a d i v e r s i t y of a r t i f a c t t ypes and postu la ted c u l t u r a l ac t i v i t i e s p r e sen t d u r i n g the St . Mungo phase. Exped ient ch i pped stone tools dominate a l l o the r a r t i f a c t t ypes present . S t y l i s t i c marke r s p resen t for the St . Mungo phase i n c lude : na r r ow -ang l ed formed uni faces , decorated g r o u n d stone, f lat and r e c t angu l a r shaped bone pendants and g r u b s . As more and more St . Mungo and Locarno Beach components are excavated and p u b l i s h e d , some t r a i t s o r i g i n a l l y t hough t to be ind i ca t i v e of one spec i f i c phase may be i nd i ca t i v e of e i the r o r bo th . There i s a lways an assoc iated danger of r e l y i n g too heav i l y on a r t i f a c t t ypes to he lp def ine d i s t i n c t i v e c u l t u r a l g r oups . C u l t u r a l p rocesses s u c h as procurement s t ra teg i es , t r ade and seasonal r o u n d , a long w i th n a t u r a l p rocesses s u c h as env i ronment and r esource a va i l ab i l i t y , a l l in f luence the archaeo log ica l r e c o r d . It i s the job of the archaeo log is t to asce r ta in the s i gn i f i cance of one p a r t i c u l a r a r t i f a c t t ype and i t s p resence o r absence from a n a r t i f a c t assemblage. Raw Materials Basa l t of v a r y i n g qua l i t y i s the dominant ch ipped stone raw mater ia l . Mammal bone i s the most common o rgan i c raw mater ia l t ype , a l though St . Mungo has a la rge p r opo r t i on of b i r d bone as wel l . Faunal Remains F a u n a l remains from the two components sugges t that a v a r i e t y of spec ies were exp lo i ted . E v e n at t h i s ea r l y time pe r i od i n Nor thwest Coast p r e h i s t o r y , r e sources from the sea form an important p a r t of the subs i s t ence remains. A compar ison of f auna l remains from the s i tes must proceed w i th caut ion a n d awareness of the d i f f e rent s i te a c t i v i t i e s that may have o c c u r r e d . Many f i s h r esources were explo i ted i n c l u d i n g : f l a t f i sh ( s t a r r y f l ounder ) , h e r r i n g , eu lachon, s tu r g eon , peamouth, s u c k e r , c h u b and salmon. Sea mammals were t aken when ava i lab le as the remains of seal are p r e s en t at bo th Glenrose and St . Mungo. The abundance of M y t i l u s at Glenrose and St . Mungo ind ica tes a focus on ob ta in ing and exp lo i t ing she l l f i sh due to i t s r e l i a b i l i t y as a food resource . Deer was the most impor tant l and mammal explo i ted at t h i s time, whi le wap i t i and beaver are also f a i r l y common. Fea tu res Ham's o r i g i n a l St. Mungo r e p o r t i nd i ca t ed the presence of house f loors i n the St . Mungo component. Fo r reasons tha t w i l l be d i s c us s e d i n the St. Mungo site d e s c r i p t i on , there i s no conc lus i v e ev idence of permanent house remains from the St . Mungo phase. There are ind i ca t i ons f rom bo th Glenrose and St . Mungo that l i v i n g f loors are p r e sen t and many d i f f e ren t ac t i v i t i e s took place. Postmolds r ecove red are too smal l to be assoc ia ted w i t h la rge scale p l ankhouses , sugge s t i ng the u t i l i z a t i on of l ess permanent dwe l l ings . Hear th features are not a lways wel l de f ined , nor i s the re any p a r t i c u l a r dominant s ty l e , b u t they are the most common feature . There is an u n u s u a l f eature p r e sen t at St . Mungo ca l l ed a c l a y - l i n e d p i t . There i s no ev idence i n the p i t of b u r n i n g no r are any o ther mater ia ls assoc iated w i th i t . I ts f unc t i on is not known , but i t may be s imi lar to o ther features f ound at P i t t R i v e r (Patenaude 1985). Complete bu r i a l s are p r e sen t from Glenrose , and in te rment va r i e s (see the Glenrose site d e sc r i p t i on for f u r t h e r e laborat ion ) . Few g rave goods are p resen t w i th no ev idence of c r a n i a l deformation o r l ab re t wear on any of the ske le tons s u g g e s t i n g tha t s ta tus d i f f e rent ia t i on is not ye t apparen t , at least t h r o u g h t r ad i t i ona l e thnog raph i c methods of s ta tus d i f f e rent ia t i on . St. Mungo Phase Conclusions Th i s somewhat genera l d e s c r i p t i on of the St. Mungo phase i s based on in format ion from two s i tes w i t h components da t ing to the same time pe r i od . The data ga thered so far ind ica te the existence of the St . Mungo phase from approx imate ly 4500 o r 4400 BP u n t i l i t s demise sometime a f te r 3300 BP (give o r take a h u n d r e d years ) . Th i s phase las ts for j u s t ove r one thousand years , ye t on l y these two s i tes con ta in t r oub l e free components. C l ea r l y , work must be focus on ob ta in ing in format ion about the ear l i e r p r e h i s t o r i c pe r i ods on the Nor thwest Coast. Exped ient ch i pped stone tools dominate the a r t i f a c t assemblage. G round stone t echno logy i s f i r s t i n t r o d u c e d d u r i n g t h i s time p e r i od , bu t g r o u n d stone a r t i f ac t s are few. Bone and an t l e r a r t i f a c t s are common when p r e s e r v a t i o n al lows, bu t once aga in , exped ient tools dominate. S t y l i s t i c markers for St. Mungo inc lude : n a r r o w - a n g l e d formed uni faces , c on t r a c t i n g stem bi faces (with o r w i thout shou lde r s ) , decorated g r o u n d stone, r e c t angu l a r bone pendants and g r u b s . Other a r t i f a c t t ype s that cou ld be s t y l i s t i c marke r s i nc lude ; she l l beads a n d she l l adze b lades . F a u n a l remains show an exp lo i ta t ion of a v a r i e t y of r e sources i n c l u d i n g large l and mammals (deer and e lk ) , f i s h ( f lounder and salmon the most important ) and she l l f i sh (Myt i lus b y f a r the most impor tant ) . As of yet , r e source spec ia l i za t ion i s absent , bu t a l r eady d u r i n g t h i s e a r l y Nor thwest Coast time pe r i od , r e sources from the sea form an impor tant p a r t of the diet w i th th i s importance i n c r e a s i n g t h r o u g h time. Chisho lm (1986) shows that maritime r esources are a major p a r t of p r e h i s t o r i c Nor thwest Coast d iet from the Char l es c u l t u r e onwards . Fea tures are dominated b y hea r ths w i th no t r e n d i n s ty l e . Postmolds are f ound bu t t h e i r s ize ind i ca tes no ev idence of people o c c u p y i n g l a rge p l ankhouses at t h i s time. C l a y - l i n e d f ea tures from St . Mungo may be i n d i r e c t ev idence of p lant p r o c e s s ing (Patenaude 1985). B u r i a l s from th i s time pe r i od do not ind ica te s ta tus d i f f e rent ia t ion . Interment s ty l e does not go beyond a pre fe rence for i n - g r o u n d b u r i a l and f l ex ing of most b u r i a l s . The Mayne Phase S i t e Names a n d Locat ions The Mayne phase is named for the basa l component of the Helen Po int S i te (DfRu 8) located on Ac t i v e Pass at the n o r t h end of Mayne I s l and i n the s ou the rn pa r t of the S t r a i t of Georg ia . Roy Ca r l s on (1970, 1975) d i r e c t ed excavat ions at Helen Po int i n 1968, where he f i r s t d i s cove r ed and de f ined the Mayne phase. A t the time, no o ther nea rby components on the Gul f I s lands were dated to the same age as the ea r l y component at Helen Po int (also known as Helen Po int I). Sa lvage excavat ions u n d e r t a k e n by R ick P e r c y i n the S p r i n g of 1972 (Percy 1974) at the Crescen t Beach Site (DgRr 1) uncove r ed three d i f f e rent components. A l t h o u g h P e r c y cons ide red h is ear l i es t component a member of the Mayne phase, he d id th i s before the St . Mungo phase was formal ly proposed (Matson 1976). Fo r th i s d i s cuss i on of the Mayne phase , in format ion from P e r c y ' s o r i g i n a l excavat ion is i n c l u d e d , bu t the a f f i l i a t ion of the ear l i es t Crescen t Beach component is the focus of the f i r s t r e s e a r c h ques t i on i n th i s thes i s , and is open for d i s cuss i on . F i g u r e 2.2 demonstrates the pos i t i on of the on ly s i te w i th a r ad i o ca rbon dated Mayne phase component. Ethnographic Culture Area E t h n o g r a p h i c a l l y , Helen Po int fa l ls i n the t r ad i t i ona l t e r r i t o r y of the Saan ich people, a s u b - g r o u p i n the S t r a i t s Sa l i sh language g roup . The Crescen t Beach site i s on the c u r r e n t b o u n d a r y between the Halkomelem speak ing N ickomek l and the S t r a i t s s p e a k i n g Semiahmoo. Bo th s i tes are g rouped into the Cen t r a l Coast Sa l i sh c u l t u r e a r ea de f ined by Sut t l es (1990). Chronology The best p u b l i s h e d in format ion c o n c e r n i n g th i s phase comes from Helen Po int and Crescen t Beach. Bo th s i tes have dated ev idence for the Mayne phase as wel l as s u b s t a n t i a l a r t i f a c t assemblages. The smal l s ize of the poss ib le Mayne component f rom Pender Cana l does not al low for i t s i n c lus i on i n th i s d i s cuss i on of the Mayne phase, bu t i t w i l l be ana l y zed i n Chapte r Four . The maximum time frame for the Mayne phase is 5650 to 3850 BP , based on C14 dates from Helen Po in t (Car lson 1975:2) a n d Crescen t Beach (Percy 1974:267). Th i s is a l a r g e r time span than tha t for the St . Mungo components. It is based on f ou r dates ( three from Helen Po in t and one from Crescen t Beach). Car l son (1970:115) o r i g i n a l l y de f ined the Mayne phase as ex i s t ing from 5000 to 3000 BP . The most recent d e s c r i p t i on o f Mayne phase chrono logy comes from the Pender Cana l p r e l im inary r e p o r t s (Car l son 1985, 1986). In these r epo r t s , the time pe r i od of 5000 BP to 4000 BP is de f ined as the Mayne F i g u r e 2.2 Map of Mayne Components (Based on Ham 1982: F i g u r e 2 -24 ) phase (Car lson 1985:60) whi le the time pe r i od of 4000 BP to 2500 BP i s def ined as the Locarno Beach phase (Car lson 1985:60). There i s no explanat ion of why the time span o r i g i n a l l y de f ined for the Mayne phase i s now d i v i d e d into two separate phases w i th p a r t of the o r i g i n a l time pe r i od now merged w i t h the Locarno Beach phase. I sugges t the fo l lowing poss ib le exp lanat ion for the change i n time span covered b y the Mayne phase. D u r i n g the pe r i od a f ter the Helen Po in t excavat ion , there was minimal p u b l i s h e d ev idence of p r e - L o c a r n o Beach phase components. M i t che l l ' s (1968, 1971), Archaeo logy of the Gul f of Georg ia A r ea . A Na tu ra l Region and i t s C u l t u r a l Types amalgamated the c u r r e n t in format ion (at that time) c once rn ing the c u l t u r e t ype s p r esen t on the Nor thwes t Coast t h r o u g h o u t p r e h i s t o r y , w i t h a focus on the Locarno Beach C u l t u r e Type . His desc r i p t i on of the Locarno Beach C u l t u r e Type s tates , " C a r l s o n ' s Mayne phase can also be i n c l u d e d i n the c u l t u r e t ype (Locarno Beach) as d e s c r i b e d he r e " (Mi tche l l 1971:57). He states tha t the ear l i es t component from Helen Po int i s r ep resen ta t i v e of the Locarno Beach C u l t u r e Type (Mi tche l l 1971:65). M i t che l l can be i n t e r p r e t e d as ag ree ing w i th Ca r l s on tha t the time pe r i od f rom 5000 to 2500 BP was assoc iated w i t h one c u l t u r a l phase , bu t M i t che l l ca l l ed t h i s phase Locarno Beach r a t h e r t han Mayne. Based on the in format ion ava i lab le from Helen Po in t at tha t t ime, there was l i t t l e d i f f e rent ia t ion between the ear l i es t Helen Po int component a r t i f a c t assemblage and a r t i f a c t assemblages f rom Gul f I s l and Locarno Beach components such as the component from the Montague H a r b o u r s i te (where Mi t che l l had excavated) . One exp lanat ion for the s im i l a r i t y of a r t i f a c t assemblages i s the poss i b i l i t y of a Locarno Beach component be ing p r esen t i n the ea r l y Helen Po in t component. Th i s poss ib le mix ing of two separate components would create a n a r t i f a c t assemblage almost i d en t i ca l to Locarno Beach phase a r t i f a c t assemblages, exp la in ing w h y at the time of M i t che l l ' s pub l i c a t i on , he lumped the Mayne and Locarno Beach phases together . If the Helen Po int p r e - L o c a r n o Beach component were separated and compared on i t s own to the Locarno Beach C u l t u r e Type , would i t s t i l l be s imi lar o r i t would be able to s tand on i t s own as a r ep resen ta t i v e of the Mayne C u l t u r e Type? The most r ecen t de f in i t i on of Ca r l son ' s Mayne and Locarno Beach phase recogn izes the o r i g i n a l dec i s i on by Mi t che l l tha t Mayne and Locarno Beach a r t i f a c t assemblages are s imi lar , bu t Ca r l s on , b y de f in ing the Mayne phase as 5000 to 4000 BP , i s a lso a r g u i n g tha t i t ex ists as i t s own c u l t u r a l phase d i s t i n c t i v e from Locarno Beach. Mi t che l l ' s hypo thes i s tha t the Mayne and Locarno Beach phases are p a r t of a con t inuum is ne i the r p r o v e d nor d i s p r o v e d as a complete and deta i led compar ison of the two phases has not been done. When R. M u r r a y (1982) ana l y zed the Duke Po in t s i te she adso lumped in to one component p r e - L o c a r n o and Locarno Beach aged depos i ts . I t h i n k that whi le i t was approp r i a t e at the time of M i t che l l ' s pub l i c a t i on . Archaeo logy of the Gul f of Georg ia area , a Na tu ra l Region and i t s C u l t u r e Types (1971) to lump the Mayne phase (he does not state that i t i s okay to lump the St. Mungo or Eayem phases) w i t h Locarno Beach due to the lack of p u b l i s h e d in format ion about the p r e - L o c a r n o Beach time pe r i od , i t i s no l onger v a l i d to do so w i thout f i r s t p r o v i n g the v a l i d i t y of s u c h a g r o u p i n g . Based on the above mentioned in format ion , I t h i n k Car l son has now d i v i d ed the o r i g i n a l Mayne phase in to two phases because of the sugges t i on made by Mi tche l l a f ter the o r i g i n a l Helen Po int excavat ions . The Mayne phase (as of 1986) spans 5000 to 4000 BP . The Locarno Beach phase spans 4000 to 3000 BP (which would ove r lap w i th the St . Mungo phase on the Main land) . T rad i t i ona l l y , the Locarno Beach phase i s t h o u g h t to span 3400 to 2200 B P (see for example Ham 1986:84). The data from the second major excavat ion at Helen Po int was p u b l i s h e d b y J o h n McMurdo (1974) for h i s MA thes i s . McMurdo ' s excavat ion u n i t s were located i n the c e n t r a l and wes t e rn po r t i ons of the si te. Car l son ' s excavat ions took place a long the eas t e rn edge of the s i te . McMurdo (1974:19) states that h is ear l i es t component (Helen Po int l b ) , "... ind i ca tes r e l a t i onsh ips to both the Mayne phase and to la ter assemblages d e s c r i b ed as components of the Locarno Beach phase " . In o ther words , Helen Po int l a (the component de f ined by Car l son as be long ing to the Mayne phase) shows a f f i n i t y to the Mayne phase, whi le Helen Po int l b is an e vo lu t i onary stage between the Mayne a n d Locarno phases . Helen Po int II is r ep resen ta t i v e of the Marpole phase. It i s poss ib le that both Helen Po in t l a and l b are mixed p r e - L o c a r n o and Locarno Beach components, wh i ch i s why bo th share s imi lar i t i es to each o ther a n d to the Mayne and Locarno Beach phases . While both Helen Po in t l a and l b share s imi lar i t i es w i th the Locarno Beach phase , the re i s no Locarno Beach phase component de f ined for the Helen Po in t s i te. One cou ld a rgue tha t there i s a h ia tus i n si te occupat ion between Helen Po int l b a n d Helen Po int II, bu t a c co rd ing to the p h y s i c a l s t r a t i g r a p h y , th i s is not the case (McMurdo 1974:13- 18). It would be use fu l to e i ther p rove o r d i sp r o v e the presence of a Locarno Beach component at Helen Point . A t t h i s po int , I would t en ta t i v e l y sugges t that Helen Po int l b i s a Locarno Beach component. Ca r l son [1975:2 (F igure 1)], p r e sen t s a table of the compiled dates from Helen Point . The b eg inn ing date of the Mayne phase is based on a date of 54201230 BP (Gak 4938), r e cove red from the basa l depos i t at Helen Po in t (depth of approx imate ly 130 cm). S i tua t ed 5 cm d i r e c t l y above th i s sample i s a hear th feature dated at 3950±260 BP (WSU 1191). The f ina l date r ecove red from Helen Po int i s one of 39801130 BP (Gak 3201), r e cove red from another hea r th feature at a dep th of 89 cm. I t may be tha t the o ldest date i s too o ld , o r the second o ldes t date too y o u n g . A time s p a n of 1500 yea rs compressed i n 5 cm of depos i t i s not l i k e l y . If t r u e , the sample r e t r i e v e d f rom 89 cm is too o ld . The b eg inn ing date for the Mayne phase cannot be c l a r i f i ed at Crescen t Beach because P e r c y obta ined one date of 4270180 BP (Gak 4925) from the lower sec t ion of h is e a r l y component. The t e rminat ion date of the Mayne phase i s not based on a c a r b o n date so the exact time span is ye t to be asce r ta ined . If the o ldest date from Helen Po in t i s for the time be ing i gno r ed , the two o ther dates f a l l w i t h i n the range of the St . Mungo phase , as does P e r c y ' s date from Crescen t Beach. The t e rminat ion date of 3000 BP i s y o u n g e r than St . Mungo ' s of 3200 BP , bu t the t e rminat ion date of the Mayne phase i s dependent on the d i s cove r y of dated C14 depos i ts . Th is la ter t e rminat ion of the Mayne phase also assumes tha t the Locarno Beach phase does not emerge on the Gul f I s l ands u n t i l a f ter i t f i r s t appears on the Ma in land . The o ldest date from the Montague Harbour s i te on Gal iano I s l and i n the Gul f I s lands (Mitche l l 1971:63) i s 31601130 BP (GSC-347) and i t fa l ls at the s t a r t of the Locarno Beach phase . As p r e v i o u s l y ment ioned, the most r ecen t t e rminat ion date for the Mayne phase, sugges t ed by Ca r l s on , is 4000 BP wh i ch i s much ear l i e r t han the te rminat ion date for St . Mungo. The lump ing of po tent ia l Mayne and Locarno Beach phase components makes te rminat ion dates vague. At th i s po int , the dates from the St . Mungo and Mayne phases ove r lap each o the r , bu t the u n c e r t a i n t y about the ac tua l time frame r ep r e s en t ed by the Mayne phase makes compar ison d i f f i cu l t . A r t i f a c t Assemblage The a r t i f a c t assemblages from Helen Po int and Crescen t Beach share s imi la r i t i es , bu t the re are a lso impor tant d i f ferences . Un l e ss o therwise s ta ted , the in format ion c o n c e r n i n g the a r t i f a c t assemblage from the Mayne phase i s based on Car l son (1975, 1985 and 1986) and P e r c y (1974). Ch ipped stone tools dominate both assemblages w i th both core and f lake tools present . U n s h a p e d Chipped Stone Tools (including Flake Tools) Unshaped tools s u c h as pebble tools and hammerstones are p r e sen t a l though not common. A t Helen Po int , Ca r l s on states tha t f lake tools are p r o b a b l y u n d e r r ep r e sen t ed because at the time of pub l i c a t i on L a y e r / L e v e l bags had not been sea rched for u t i l i z ed f lakes and o ther minimal ly modif ied a r t i f a c t s (Car lson 1975:7). On the o ther hand , a f ter r e - a n a l y z i n g the a r t i f ac t s from P e r c y ' s excavat ion , a number of minimal ly modif ied a r t i f a c t s de f ined b y P e r c y were deemed debitage and e l iminated from the f ina l a r t i f a c t t a l l y . Never the less , i n both cases, exped ient l y made ch ipped stone f lake tools dominate the assemblages. Quar t z mic ro l i ths are p r e sen t at both s i tes (one at Crescen t Beach , f our at Helen Po int ) , bu t t h e i r numbers are neg l i g ib le and cou ld r e s u l t f rom component mix ing due to excavat ion by a r b i t r a r y leve ls and/or the presence of a la ter component w i th q u a r t z c r y s t a l p r esen t s u c h as the Loca rno Beach component at Crescen t Beach. Ca r l s on also l i s t s the presence of one q u a r t z c r y s t a l microblade and three obs id i an microblades. No cores were d i s cove r ed . With no ev idence of a p r e p a r e d microblade core and on l y a small number of microb lades , the presence of a microblade techno logy i s debatable . My own pe r sona l obse rva t i ons of b ipo la r p e r c u s s i o n and exper iments done b y o thers (for example Magne 1981, Ham 1982:82) ind ica tes that b l ade - l i k e f lakes and microblades are p r o d u c e d d u r i n g the course of f l i n t k n a p p i n g . There is ev idence of b ipo lar p e r c u s s i o n i n the Mayne component a n d b l ade - l i k e f lakes as wel l as blades may be b y - p r o d u c t s of the b ipo la r r e d u c t i o n sequence. Quar tz micro l i ths are u s u a l l y seen as i nd i ca t o r s of a Loca rno Beach component, as is the presence of microb lades (made from bo th q u a r t z c r y s t a l a n d obs id ian ) . The i r appearance at Helen Po in t may be a r e s u l t of the presence of an o r i g i n a l l y undetec ted Locarno Beach component. Ano the r exp lanat ion may be that qua r t z micro l i ths and obs id i an micro l i ths are p r e s e n t i n the archaeo log ica l r e c o r d because they were good a r t i f a c t s for c u t t i n g f i s h and the procurement of f i sh was the main func t i on of the s i te . Th i s second explanat ion does not f i t the data from Helen Po in t as we l l as o ther s i tes (for example see the P i t t R i v e r s i te i n Chap te r Four ) because f a r fewer qua r t z mic ro l i ths are p r e sen t at Helen Po int . The presence of poss ib le obs i d i an micro l i ths may he lp f i l l i n the gap. Without be t te r ev idence for the presence of a blade techno logy , th i s apparen t d i f ference between the St . Mungo and Mayne phase ' s blade techno logy cannot be sa t i s f a c t o r i l y conf i rmed. Shaped C h i p p e d Stone Tools In the ca tegory of shaped c h i p p e d stone tools, shaped bi faces are the most common ar t i f ac t t ype at both s i tes . S e ve ra l s t y l e s a re p resen t , bu t leaf- shaped and con t r a c t i ng stem (with o r w i thout shou lde rs ) forms dominate. A l t h o u g h I have not p e r sona l l y examined the bi faces from Helen Po int , those from Crescen t Beach are s imi lar to Glenrose and St . Mungo bi faces. The bi faces i n F i g u r e 34 from Ca r l s on (1970:116) also look s imi lar to St. Mungo phase bi faces. C h i p p e d slate implements are f ound at Helen Po int , bu t not at Crescen t Beach. Ground Stone Implements For the Mayne phase i n genera l , Ca r l son (1970, 1975) def ines g r o u n d slate as p r e sen t a n d he has more a r t i f a c t t ypes of g r o u n d slate t h a n found i n the St . Mungo phase. One exp lanat ion for the h i ghe r number of s late a r t i f a c t s p r e sen t at Helen Po in t may be re la ted to the ava i l ab i l i t y of slate. A b r a d e r s are bo th unshaped and shaped . One complete g r o u n d slate po in t ( resembl ing a c h i p p e d stone c on t r a c t i n g stem point ) was r e cove r ed from Helen Point . Th i s s im i l a r i t y i n g r o u n d stone and ch i pped stone po in t forms para l l e l s G lenrose ' s ch i pped and g r o u n d stone l ea f - shaped po in ts . L a b r e t s are ano ther poss ib le g r o u n d stone s t y l i s t i c marke r of the Mayne phase. Two were f ound at Helen Po int , none a t C rescen t Beach. L a b r e t s are t r ad i t i ona l l y assoc ia ted w i t h Locarno Beach depos i ts . The i r presence i n the Mayne phase may be ano ther ind i ca t i on of a poss ib le mix ing of components at the s i te , bu t i t is a lso poss ib le tha t the use of l abre t s f i r s t o r i g ina t ed d u r i n g the Mayne phase on the Gul f I s lands as there i s non -a r t i f a c tua l data from Pender Canal s u p p o r t i n g th i s second explanat ion. The exact proven ience of the l abre t s from Helen Po int i s not known . Bone and Antler Implements Unshaped a n d f ragments of wo rked bone and an t l e r a r t i f ac t s are the most common a r t i f a c t t ypes made from organ i c raw mater ia ls . Bone ch ise l s and wedges are p resen t i n the Mayne phase. C u l t u r a l t r a i t s s u c h as l ong bone po in ts and bone pendants must be examined i n pe r son i n o rde r to compare/contrast w i th the St . Mungo phase bone po in ts a n d r e c t angu l a r shaped bone pendants . A n impor tant s t y l i s t i c marke r for the Mayne phase i s b i l a t e ra l l y b a r b e d harpoons made of an t l e r . Th i s a r t i f a c t t ype was not f ound at C rescen t Beach and i t was not common at Helen Po in t (only n ine of 693 a r t i f ac t s were de f ined as b i l a t e ra l l y ba rbed po in ts and harpoons [Car l son 1975:12]). Two b i l a t e ra l l y ba rbed an t l e r po in ts are p r e sen t from St . Mungo a long w i th one b i l a t e ra l l y ba rbed bone po int from Glenrose . As w i th the S t . Mungo phase, s t y l i s t i c shaped a r t i f a c t s , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the Mayne phase , are not common and p l ac ing emphasis on s u c h a smal l p r opo r t i on of the a r t i f a c t assemblage o v e r - estimates a p a r t i c u l a r a r t i f a c t t ype ' s o v e ra l l importance . S t y l i s t i c marke r s must be inco rpo ra t ed into a more genera l ana l y s i s of the site i n o r d e r to asce r ta in site func t i on and p rov ide knowledge c o n c e r n i n g whe ther a n a r t i f a c t is a s t y l i s t i c marke r of a c u l t u r a l g r oup , o r a marke r of a spec i f i c s i te a c t i v i t y . The pauc i t y of ba rbed po in ts and harpoons i n compar ison to shaped bi faces, as p r e v i o u s l y sugges t ed , may ind icate l ess emphasis on sea r e sources (unless implements used to p r o c u r e sea r e sources were made from pe r i shab l e material ) . D i s cuss i on of Mayne Phase A r t i f a c t Assemblage There are two problems appa ren t i n d i s c u s s i n g the a r t i f a c t assemblage p r esen t from the Mayne phase. Of the two s i tes w i th dated components a t t r i bu t e to the Mayne phase , on l y Crescen t Beach is f u l l y r epo r t ed . Th i s lack of f u l l y r epo r t ed , dated a r t i f ac t assemblages makes my compar isons between the St. Mungo and Mayne phases somewhat t enuous . One r e s ea r ch goal of t h i s thes i s i s a deta i led compar ison of the Mayne phase a r t i f a c t assemblage from Crescen t Beach w i th two St . Mungo phase a r t i f ac t assemblages i n o r d e r to determine i f the Crescen t Beach a r t i f a c t assemblage belongs to the Mayne o r St . Mungo phase. If the a r t i f a c t assemblage from Crescent Beach shows a g rea ter s im i l a r i t y to the a r t i f a c t assemblages from other St. Mungo components, Ca r l s on ' s Helen Po int Mayne phase component w i l l conta in the o n l y subs t an t i a l Mayne phase a r t i f a c t assemblage. There are prob lems w i t h the a r t i f a c t assemblage f rom the Mayne phase component at Helen Point . Many of the a r t i f a c t s used to def ine t h i s phase (for example: q u a r t z m ic ro l i ths , microb lades , c h i p p e d stone po in ts , g r o u n d stone po in ts and labre ts ) are more o f ten used to def ine the Locarno Beach phase. Th i s impl ies tha t e i the r the Mayne phase i s i nco rpo ra t ed in to the Locarno Beach phase , o r i t must be re -examined for the poss i b i l i t y of the presence of a Locarno Beach component. A t h i r d poss ib le exp lanat ion i s that the Mayne phase i s the source of the Locarno Beach phase . Based on the dates Ca r l s on (1985:60) g ives for the Locarno Beach phase i n h i s Pender Cana l r epo r t (4000 - 2500 BP ) , there is movement towards i n c o r p o r a t i n g the two phases on the Gu l f I s lands . I n Chap te r F o u r the debate about the St . Mungo and Mayne phases cont inues a long w i t h the i n t r o d u c t i o n of the t h i r d phase (Eayem). St . Mungo, Mayne and Eayem are the three subphases compr i s ing the Char l es c u l t u r e . The d i v e r s i t y i n a r t i f a c t t ypes r ep r e sen t ed i n the Mayne phase sugges t s a great deal of s i te ac t i v i t i e s took place at Helen Po int a n d Crescen t Beach, Exped ient made tools (both c h i p p e d a n d bone) dominate the assemblage. The degree of ove r lap between the St, Mungo and Mayne phase c u l t u r a l markers cannot be asce r ta ined w i thout a close examination of the a r t i f a c t assemblages. Quest ions c o n c e r n i n g a r t i f a c t t ypes though t to be c u l t u r a l marke r s for the Mayne phase leads to d i s c u s s i o n of w h i c h a r t i f a c t t ypes a re un ique to the Mayne phase and wh i ch are p r e sen t i n both the Mayne and Locarno Beach phase. B i l a t e ra l l y ba rbed harpoons a n d po ints of an t l e r are one s t y l i s t i c marker bu t they are not un i que to the Mayne phase (un l ike the na r r ow -ang l ed formed uni faces from the St . Mungo phase) as they are also p resen t i n the Locarno Beach phase . Two b i l a t e ra l l y ba rbed po in ts of an t l e r are p r e sen t from St . Mungo a n d one i s p r e s en t at Glenrose . Raw Mater ia l s A t Helen Po int , obs id i an was u t i l i z ed as a raw mater ia l , bu t no obs id i an was f ound at C rescen t Beach. One major d i f f e rence pe r c e i v ed between St . Mungo and Mayne phase components i s the presence of q u a r t z and obs id i an as raw mater ia ls . A t bo th s i tes basal t was the dominant raw mater ia l fo r c h i p p e d stone tools. Mammal bone dominated the o rgan i c raw mater ia l t yp e s . F a u n a l Remains A fauna l ana l ys i s has not yet been completed for the Mayne phase at Helen Po int , bu t McMurdo (1974:131-139) p r esen t s fauna l data from h i s excavat ion u n i t s . How r ep resen ta t i v e these remains are of the o lde r Mayne phase (Helen Po int la) i s u n c e r t a i n , bu t the ava i lab le in format ion al lows for some tentat i ve conc lus ions . There was no f auna l ana l ys i s at C rescen t Beach d u r i n g P e r c y ' s excavat ions. In the mammal ca tegory , both land and sea mammals are r ep r e sen t ed w i th Coast deer , dog and beaver the most common (McMurdo 1974:133-134). Sea mammals (e i ther seals o r sea l ions ) are p r e s en t bu t r a r e . Two f ragments of whale bone w i th adze marks were found i n Component l b . Salmon, r o c k f i s h a n d l i ngcod are a l l p resumed to be p resen t d u r i n g the Mayne phase as they are p r e sen t i n Component l b (McMurdo 1974:135-136). None of McMurdo ' s f i s h remeiins r e cove r ed from h is ea r l y component were abundan t i n compar ison to the la ter components, bu t a v a r i e t y of f i s h were found. Un less Helen Po in t l a was a spec ia l i z ed a c t i v i t y s i te (a doub t fu l in ference g i v en the a r t i f a c t assemblage) , one can assume tha t s eve ra l spec ies of f i s h were explo i ted . She l l f i sh are common a n d s eve ra l va r i e t i e s of clams are we l l r ep r e s en t ed . My t i lus i s absent (McMurdo 1974:131-132). Ca r l s on (1970:114) states tha t the on ly she l l p r e sen t i n h is Mayne phase component i s h i g h l y f ragmented. Seasonal i ty i nd i ca t o r s cannot be determined at t h i s time bu t the v a r i e t y of food r esources u t i l i z ed sugges t s more than one season of occupat ion . Fea tures The dominant feature for the Mayne phase i s hea r ths , w i th Ca r l s on (1970:115) s ta t ing tha t c i r c u l a r hea r ths are p r esen t . A t Crescen t Beach , P e r c y (1974:25-29) states tha t two bare l y d i s c e rn ib l e hea r ths were p r esen t i n Component 1 (as named b y Pe rcy ) . Ca r l son states tha t r o ck s lab f ea tures are also p r e s e n t d u r i n g the Mayne phase. He does not desc r ibe one, bu t McMurdo (1974:123) does for the Helen Po int l b component. McMurdo excavated a c l a y - l i n e d bow l - l i ke depress i on , on the bottom of wh i ch was a la rge f lat sandstone s lab cove red wi th a lens of da rk cha rcoa l and c lay . The func t i on of s u c h a f ea ture is not known, bu t McMurdo postu la tes i t i s a cook ing feature . F o u r s imi lar features were unea r thed i n Component 1 at Crescen t Beach. Postmolds were obse r v ed w i t h the feature from Helen Po int l b a n d w i t h one of the f ea tures from Crescen t Beach. There is no d i s c u s s i o n of postmolds from Car l son ' s Component l a . A t Helen Po in t Component l b , McMurdo uncove r ed the remains of a poss ib le l i v i n g f loor w i th two hea r th sca t t e rs a n d two assoc iated postmolds. I t is qui te l i k e l y tha t s imi lar f ea tures were f ound i n Component l a . There i s no ind i ca t i on of how r ep resen ta t i v e McMurdo ' s f ea tures i n Component l b are of Ca r l son ' s i n Component lau The c l a y - l i n e d bowl feature w i th the sandstone s lab i n Component l b shares some s imi lar i t i es w i th f ea tures from Crescen t Beach , so Car l son ' s f ea tures i n Component l a cou ld be s imi lar . The f ea tures p r e sen t from McMurdo ' s excavat ion i n Component l b are of the same type as those f ound i n St. Mungo w i th the poss ib le except ion of the sandstone s lab. Ex t r apo l a t i ng from the Component l b data , there i s l i t t l e i nd i ca t i on of f ea ture d i f f erences between the Mayne and St . Mungo phase f ea tures except for the h i g h number of c l a y - l i n e d f ea tures assoc iated w i th Mayne components. Th i s d i f ference i s not subs t an t i a l because there i s a s imi lar f eature p r e s en t at St . Mungo ( there was a c l a y - l i n e d feature also excavated from the P i t t R i v e r s i te , i t w i l l be d i s cussed i n Chap te r Four ) so th i s is not a un ique Mayne phase feature . Car l son ' s l i s t of c u l t u r a l t r a i t s for the Mayne phase (1970:115) inc ludes extended b u r i a l s , bu t does not ind ica te the number of b u r i a l s i n v o l v e d and whether th i s pa t t e rn is exc lus ive . The bu r i a l s from Component l b (McMurdo 1974:128-130) are semi- f lexed. Two of the bu r i a l s i n Component l b have a s ing le s lab of r o ck assoc iated w i th them and the bu r i a l s are i n - g r o u n d in te rments (McMurdo 1974:128-129). There was no ev idence of g rave goods. Three of P e r c y ' s b u r i a l s dated to the Char l es c u l t u r e , bu t none were r e cove r ed from s t r a t i g r a p h i c a l l y con t ro l l ed excavat ions (Pe rcy 1974:33). On ly the pos i t i on of one b u r i a l was determined and i t was semi- f lexed (Beattie 1980:209-212). There is some ev idence of g rave goods bu t my deta i led d i s cuss i on of the Crescen t Beach site i n the fo l lowing sec t ion exp la ins w h y the g rave goods and t h e i r assoc ia t ion to the b u r i a l s i s quest ionable . There is no ev idence ga thered so far sugges t i ng ex tended bu r i a l s are a c u l t u r a l f eature of the ea r l y pe r i ods on the Nor thwest Coast. Mayne Phase Conc lus i ons Once components a t t r i b u t e d to the Mayne phase are more f u l l y p u b l i s h e d one can attempt a more t h o r o u g h compar ison of the Mayne phase a n d the St . Mungo phase. A t th i s po in t Helen Po in t i s the on l y s i te w i t h a l a r ge Mayne component a r t i f a c t assemblage. From the ev idence p r esen t ed so f a r , i t i s poss ib le that the Mayne component from Helen Po int i s in te rmixed w i t h a Locarno Beach component. Without the f i na l d e s c r i p t i on from Helen Po int , def ini te conc lus ions and statements cannot be made at t h i s po in t i n time. The a rea encompassed b y the Mayne phase may i nc lude both the Ma in land and the Gul f I s lands o r pe rhaps the Gul f I s lands alone. Other unda ted a r t i f a c t assemblages may date to the Mayne phase (for example B l i s s L a n d i n g ) , bu t on ly those w i th C14 dates and s i gn i f i can t a r t i f a c t assemblages were d i s cussed . The Mayne phase may beg in as ea r l y as 5450 BP , depend ing on the v a l i d i t y of the o ldest date at Helen Point . The te rminat ion of the phase is not known for su re . It is not u n l i k e l y that as time goes on , the dates for both the St. Mungo and Mayne phase w i l l o ve r l ap more and more. Pe rhaps the greates t c o n t r o v e r s y of the Mayne phase conce rns the a r t i f a c t assemblage. On a genera l l e v e l the a r t i f ac t s resemble St . Mungo a r t i f a c t s i n that bo th assemblages are dominated b y u n s h a p e d ch i pped stone and bone tools. Well-made tools form a def in i te minor i t y i n the assemblages w i t h c h i p p e d stone bi faces the most common wel l-made shaped tool . I n bo th phases l ea f - shaped and c o n t r a c t i n g stem bi faces are the dominant shaped ch i pped stone bi face s t y l e s . G r o u n d stone techno logy i s p r e sen t i n both phases , b u t may be more common d u r i n g the Mayne phase . S t y l i s t i c g r o u n d stone tools for the Mayne phase may o r may not i n c lude g r o u n d stone po in ts , g r o u n d stone k n i v e s and l ab r e t s (As w i l l be d i s cussed la te r , none of these three a r t i f a c t t ype s were d i s cove r ed i n the Char l e s component at C rescen t Beach). There are d i f f e rences i n the a r t i f a c t t ype s present . Microb lades and q u a r t z mic ro l i ths are bo th p r e s en t i n the Mayne phase a n d almost en t i r e l y absent i n St . Mungo components (As w i l l be d i s cuss ed l a t e r , one macro b lade - l ike f lake a n d one q u a r t z m i c ro l i th were d i s cov e r ed i n the Char l e s component at Crescen t Beach) . Obs id ian microb lades are f ound at Helen Po int , whi le obs i d i an ob jec ts are nea r l y absent f rom St . Mungo components. The g r o u n d stone techno logy of the Mayne phase i s more apparen t and i n c ludes bo th g r o u n d stone k n i v e s and l ab r e t s , ne i the r of w h i c h are p r e s en t i n S t . Mungo a r t i f a c t assemblages (or the Char l e s component at C rescen t Beach) . With more in format ion , the de l ineat ion of the components p r e s en t at Helen Po in t can be u n d e r t a k e n , answe r ing ques t i ons c once rn ing how much of the a r t i f a c t assemblage from Helen Po in t Component l a r e s u l t s from the Mayne component and how much from a poss ib le Loca rno Beach component. Th i s s i te i s p i v o t a l i n o u r s ea r ch for in format ion c once rn ing the evo lu t i on of the C e n t r a l Coast Sa l i sh E thnog raph i e Pa t t e rn and we must g lean as much in format ion from i t as i s poss ib le . The f auna l remains from Helen Po in t have not been f u l l y p u b l i s h e d , bu t in format ion ga thered from the component fo l lowing the Mayne component sugges t s a subs i s t ence base i n c l u d i n g l and and sea r e sources compr i s ing mammals (both l and and sea), f i s h and she l l f i sh . McMurdo (1974:136) sugges ts l and mammals (Coast deer) were three times more impor tant t han sea mammals. The f ea tures p r e sen t i n the Mayne phase may con ta in one new feature t ype not p r e v i o u s l y encounte red . From Helen Po in t l b ho r i z on ta l sandstone s labs were inco rpo ra t ed in to a c l a y - l i n e d feature and two b u r i a l s . A l t h o u g h Car l son (1970:115) states tha t r ock s lab f ea tures are p r e s en t i n the Mayne component, he does not spec i f y t h e i r assoc ia t ion w i th o ther f ea tures . On the Gul f I s l ands , sandstone compr ises much of the n a t u r a l geology and to see i t used i s not s u r p r i s i n g . Whether the use of sandstone s labs impl ies a c u l t u r a l d i f ference between the Mayne phase and the St . Mungo i s unc l ea r . The b u r i a l in format ion p u b l i s h e d to date sugges t s i n - g r o u n d in terment w i th b u r i a l s p a r t i a l l y f lexed, Car l son o r i g i na l l y sugges ted extended bur i a l s were the p r e f e r r e d form. U n t i l s u c h ev idence is p u b l i s h e d , the b u r i a l pa t t e rns of the Mayne and St. Mungo phases cannot be d i s t i n g u i s h e d . A n impor tant s im i l a r i t y between the two phases is the lack of de f in i t i ve ev idence for h i g h s ta tus v e r s u s low s ta tus i n d i v i d u a l s . The l ab re t s assoc iated w i th the Helen Po in t Mayne component are the on l y poss ib le i nd i ca t i on of s ta tus d i f f e rent ia t ion . Other ev idence of poss ib le s ta tus d i f f e rences comes from l ab re t wear on one ske le ton at Pender Canal and two at Tsawwassen (to be d i s cussed i n Chap te r Four ) , The lack of g rave goods, low numbers of p e r sona l ornaments and lack of p h y s i c a l l y modif ied ske le tons leads to the conc lus i on tha t the c u l t u r a l g r oups p r e s en t d u r i n g the St . Mungo and Mayne phase are not yet r a n k e d i n terms of soc ia l o r gan i za t i on . Now that the St . Mungo and Mayne phases have been i n t r o d u c e d , the three s i tes to be used i n th i s chap t e r can be p r esen t ed for f u r t h e r d i s cuss i on . S i te Desc r ip t i ons The Glenrose C a n n e r y S i te S i te Locat ion The Glenrose Canne r y Si te (DgRr 6) is located on the edge of the F r a s e r R i v e r Delta w i th in the c i t y boundar i e s of Vancouve r , B r i t i s h Columbia. The site has been excavated s e v e r a l times (see Matson 1976:1 for a r ev i ew of i t s excavat ion h i s t o r y ) . The fo l lowing site d e s c r i p t i on , un l e s s o therwise s tated i s based on Matson (1976). The site i s located on the s ou th bank of the main arm of the F r a s e r R i v e r . There are n a t u r a l boundar i e s on the three s ides of the si te: to the n o r t h i s the F r a s e r R i v e r , to the sou th i s Panorama Ridge wh i ch i s a h i g h r i dge of g lac ia l t i l l (A rmst rong 1956 a n d 1957), and to the west i s a small s tream r u n n i n g off Panorama Ridge . There is no d i s t i n c t i v e n a t u r a l boundary on the eas t e rn s ide of the s i te . A l t h o u g h the o r i g i n a l s i te boundar ies have been d i s t u r b e d b y the b u i l d i n g of the ad jacent Great N o r t h e r n Rai lway t r a c k s , the approximate si te a r ea is 260 meters l ong (east of the small stream) and about 60 meters on the n o r t h - s o u t h axis (Matson 1976, E l d r i d g e 1991). The maximum dep th of p r eh i s t o r i c depos i ts at the site is almost 6 meters. P resen t vege ta t ion is much modif ied b u t Matson (1976:3-7) g i ves a b r i e f d esc r i p t i on of the f l o r a f ound on s i te and t h o u g h t to be r ep resen ta t i v e of the n a t u r a l vegetat ion . The s i t e ' s f l o ra and locat ion sugges t that the site ex ists now and i n p r e h i s t o r i c times on the p e r i p h e r y of a coasta l Douglas f i r forest . Ethnographic Culture Area The Glenrose s i te fa l ls w i t h i n the e thnog raph i c boundar i es of the Kwant len t e r r i t o r y of the Halkomelem-speaking Coast Sa l i sh Ind ians (Duff 1952:23). Excavation Procedures The fo l lowing d e s c r i p t i on of excavat ion p r o c edure s and site s t r a t i g r a p h y i s a condensed v e r s i o n of Matson 's (1976:8-15) o r i g i n a l r epor t . The s i te was d i r ec t ed and excavated b y d i f f e rent people, t h u s excavat ion methods were not the same d u r i n g the two f i e ld seasons spent at Glenrose . In bo th y ea r s the excavat ion u n i t s were randomly chosen. The midden was excavated i n 2X2 meter un i t s except for U n i t s 1 and 5 w h i c h o r i g i n a l l y had a one meter baulk s epara t ing them. In the second season, th i s bau lk was excavated and ca l led Un i t 55 (1X2). The to ta l a r ea of t h i s sec t ion of the excavat ion was a 5X2 meter t r e n c h . F i g u r e 2.3 r ep roduces the locat ion of the excavat ion u n i t s . A l l excavat ion was b y 10 cm a r b i t r a r y l eve ls . A r t i f a c t s f ound i n s i t u were g i v en three d imensional p roven i ence for bo th seasons, bu t i n the f i r s t season, they were not keyed in to features . Some excavated mater ia l i n the f i r s t f i e ld season was d r y s i f t ed e i ther t h r o u g h 1/4 or 1/8 i n c h s c r een mesh. In the second year , on l y 1/8 i n c h s c r een mesh was used and some mater ia l was water screened as opposed to d r y sc reened . L i k e a l l la rge she l l midden s i tes , the s t r a t i g r a p h y at Glenrose is complex and changes dramat i ca l l y t h r o u g h o u t the un i t s . The dep th of the c u l t u r a l ^ eDGrM5Â!^^^5Ei5^^§t_:---^ -4.0 RAILWAY TRACKS — 40 • ^0G£-OF RAILWAY GRAVEL EDGE - OF - 8Ar4K depos i ts r anged from 2 to 5.5 meters. The best p i c t u r e of o v e ra l l s i te s t r a t i g r a p h y comes from the 2 X 5 meter t r e n c h wh i ch cons i s t ed of un i t s 1, 1/5, and 5 (Matson 1976:10). The St . Mungo component was composed of a mixture of many mater ia ls , bu t the she l l of M y t i l u s edu l i s dominated a l l o ther mater ia l f ound i n the s t r a t i g r a p h y . The large quan t i t y of My t i l u s edu l i s sugges ts a r o c k y fo reshore was close by (Matson 1976:15), Chrono logy Of the f our dates obta ined from the St, Mungo component there is one quest ionable date, whi le the o ther three c oncur (See Table 2,1), The two o ldest dates (41851105 [S 788], and 42401110 B P [Gak 4648]) were obta ined from basa l depos i ts i n the component sugge s t i ng an i n i t i a l b e g i n n i n g date no ear l i e r t h a n 4400 B.P (see Matson 1976:16,19). A date of 3280+105 BP (Gak 4863) was obta ined from the uppermost po r t i on of th i s component p u t t i n g the terminat ion date of the St . Mungo phase at no l a t e r than 3100 BP . The one quest ionable date (3570195 [Gak 4867]) comes from a sample 1.8 meters d i r e c t l y below the 3280 BP date. The dep th of the depos i t from w h i c h the sample was taken , and the o ther two basa l depos i t dates imp ly th i s date i s too y o u n g (Matson 1976:19). F a u n a l Remains The excavat ion of a r b i t r a r y l eve ls at Glenrose and the complexi ty of i t s s t r a t i g r a p h y , " . . . d i d not allow for de terminat ion of a season or seasons of occupat ion r ep resen t ed by each l aye r o r lens e n c o u n t e r e d " (Imamoto 1976:32). Ins tead , seasonal i ty was, "de te rminab le on ly for the major components i n g ene ra l " (Imamoto 1976:32). From the f auna l remains p resen t , summer and fa l l occupat ion of the s i te were de f in i te , a long w i th a probab le w in te r occupat ion . (Imamoto 1976:40). Fauna l remains p resen t i n the St . Mungo component inc lude sedmon, e lk and deer ( i n c lud ing juven i l e s ) , sea l , beaver , a n d va r i ous spec ies of b i r d s . E l k , seal , and deer remains were f ound i n a l l three components and i t is a r gued that a l l mammals f ound at Glenrose o c cu r i n the same p ropo r t i ons i n a l l three components (Matson 1976:91). E lk is the most impor tant mammal, w i th seal and deer be ing of equa l importance v i s - a - v i s each o ther , bu t on l y a t h i r d as impor tant compared to e lk (Matson 1976:96). B i r d remains change s i gn i f i c an t l y i n p r o p o r t i o n between the Old C o r d i l l e r a n a n d St . Mungo depos i ts . This may re f lec t a change i n env i ronment , an inc r eased p u r s u i t of a v i an spec ies , o r i t may re f lec t a change i n bo th n a t u r a l and c u l t u r a l processes . F i s h remains for the St. Mungo component exh ib i t a v e r y l a rge increase compared to the Old Co rd i l l e r an component. Matson (1976:96) sugges t s that salmon may r ep r e s en t the most impor tant f auna l r e source for the St . Mungo component. S e ve ra l o ther spec ies of f i s h are p r e sen t i n the component i n c l u d i n g the fo l lowing: f l ounder , peamouth, s tu r g eon , eu lachon a n d s t i ck l eback . In terms of ca lo r i c importance , salmon is most impor tant fol lowed by s tu rgeon w i th minnow/suckers and f l ounders , as a g r oup , the t h i r d most impor tant (Matson 1976:94). Eu lachon was of the least impor tance , b u t was s t i l l p r e sen t t h r oughou t the component (Matson 1976:94). The presence of eu lachon and s t i ck l eback sugges t s a late s p r i n g , summer occupa t i on w i th salmon sugges t ing the presence of a fa l l occupat ion as we l l (Matson 1976:96). The she l l f i sh ana l ys i s p resented the most impor tant in format ion of a l l the fauna l remains r ecove red from the St. Mungo component. Ham (1976:52) states that My t i lus edu l i s is at least as important as e lk as a food source , based on conse r va t i v e meat estimates for the she l l f i sh . Ham's ana l y s i s p r o v e d that d u r i n g the ea r l y pe r i od of Nor thwest Coast p r e h i s t o r y , mussels were a much more impor tant food source t h a n p r e v i o u s l y thought . The g r ow th r i n g s of both in tac t musse ls and clams ind ica tes tha t the site was occup ied d u r i n g va r i ous seasons t h r o u g h o u t the year (Ham 1976:78). Fea tures While a func t i ona l ana l y s i s of the f ea tures excavated at Glenrose would be des i rab le , i t was not poss ib le because of the excavat ion by a r t i f i c i a l l eve ls wh i ch meant that a r t i f a c t and f auna l remains r e l a t i onsh ips to f ea tures were not a lways apparen t . Excava t i on b y a r t i f i c i a l l e v e l wou ld also t end to lump together l aye rs w h i c h were i n d i r e c t assoc ia t ion w i th l a ye r s wh i ch were not. E i g h t h e a r t h f ea tures were excavated f rom the St . Mungo component, ". . and i n a l l cases, they were composed of cha rcoa l and f i r e - c r a c k e d r o ck i n a wel l de f ined area of qui te r e g u l a r s ize " (Gose 1976:190). Gose assumes that these f ea tures r ep r e s en t repeated i n s i t u b u r n i n g on an area of a l i v i n g f loor. As Gose po in ts out , these f ea tures may ac tua l l y be the remnants of hear ths used e lsewhere and redepos i t ed in to the midden. There were two o c cu r r ences of postmolds excavated from St . Mungo, one g roup of s ix , and another g r oup of f ou r small (10 cm diameter) assoc iated w i t h one large (20 cm diameter) (Gose 1976:193). One g r oup of f eatures from Glenrose were de f ined as ' L i v i n g F loors ' . A l l of these f ea tures are composed of t h i n compacted l a ye r s of s i l t and f ine ly c r u s h e d she l l . Often, o ther features i n c l u d i n g seven b u r i a l s from L i v i n g F loor #5, a r t i f a c t s and f auna l remains were assoc iated w i th these L i v i n g F loors . Gose notes that some L i v i n g F loors were p r o b a b l y not detected d u r i n g excavat ion because no o ther obv ious f ea tures were assoc iated w i th them, making them look l i k e a t h i n compact layer . F u r t h e r d i f f i cu l t i es i n de tec t ing L i v i n g F loors whi le excava t ing would r e s u l t f rom the t ype of excavat ion be ing u n d e r t a k e n wh i ch was i n deep, da rk and small u n i t s , where de tec t ing subt l e l ayer changes wou ld not be easy. Nineteen b u r i a l s of v a r i ous completeness were r e cove r ed f rom Glenrose and of those , e leven are assoc iated ^with the St . Mungo component. The bur i a l s inc lude seven adu l t s , one s u b - a d u l t , two c h i l d r e n and one in fant . A l l were i n d i v i d u a l in te rments w i th seven r e cove r ed from U n i t s 1, 1/5 a n d 5 (Sty les 1976:203). Some of the ske le tons were p laced i n c y s t - l i k e depress i ons , w i th some degree of f l exure and many i n d i v i d u a l s were p laced on t h e i r left s ide (Sty les , p.203-204). Grave i n c lus i ons were not common w i th f i ve bu r i a l s from the St, Mungo component con ta in ing g rave goods b u t on l y i n two cases (an a d u l t female and a ch i ld ) were more than one a r t i f a c t present . The adu l t female ( bu r i a l 5) had a necklace of smal l d r i l l e d she l l beads and a per fo ra ted bone pendant whi le the c h i l d had f ragments of a bone tool and a n u l n a tool . There i s no ev idence of c r a n i a l deformation or l abre t wear on a n y of the bu r i a l s . Thus , the re is no ev idence of s ta tus d i f f e rent ia t ion at t h i s time. Glenrose Non -a r t i f a c tua l Data Conc lus i ons Glenrose was located to take advantage of both l and and water r e sources , for i t was on the bank of the F r a s e r R i v e r at the edge of a coasta l Douglas f i r forest . The site is large , sugges t i ng that i n i t s realm, a great many ac t i v i t i e s took place. The s t r a t i g r aph i e sequence shows con t inuous site depos i t ion t h r o u g h the St . Mungo component w i thout i nd i ca t i on of dramat ic change. The St. Mungo component dates are i n agreement w i t h each o ther c once rn ing the b eg inn ing of the St. Mungo occupat ion . The te rminat ion date also f i t s the St . Mungo phase time range . The ev idence from fauna l , f i s h and she l l f i sh remains sugges t the site was occup ied on a r e g u l a r bas is t h r o u g h o u t the St . Mungo component, and was used to some extent d u r i n g a l l f our seasons. The wide v a r i e t y of f auna l remains po in ts to a s i te f unc t i on of a poss ib le base camp used i n the summer and fa l l a long w i th a probab le w in t e r occupat i on as wel l . The wide v a r i e t y of f ea tures , the presence of b u r i a l s and the re la t i ve abundance of bo th also sugges t s tha t the site was used as more t h a n a l imited a c t i v i t y s i te. From the ev idence accumulated f rom the s i te r epo r t , i t is appropr i a t e to sugges t tha t the s i te func t i on of the Glenrose C a n n e r y site d u r i n g the St . Mungo phase i n c l u d e d a number of p rocurement ac t i v i t i e s that i n vo l v ed ex t rac t ing r e sources from both l and and water , t h r o u g h o u t the year . A l t h o u g h problems w i t h excavat ion s t ra t egy h i n d e r the ana l y s i s of s i te func t i on on a more deta i led l eve l , ample data i s ava i lab le to allow fo r a genera l compar ison and d i s cuss i on of s i te func t i on for the Glenrose Canne ry , St . Mungo Cannery and Crescen t Beach s i tes . The St . Mungo C a n n e r y Si te S i te Locat ion The St. Mungo Canne ry Site is approx imate ly 1000 meters downstream from the Glenrose Canne ry Site (Matson 1976:2). L i k e G lenrose , St . Mungo has been excavated seve ra l t imes. Ham et a l . (1986:43-45) o ve r v i ew these excavat ions and t h e i r r e s u l t s i n terms of time per i ods d i s cove r ed o r de f ined. Unless otherwise s ta ted , the site d e sc r i p t i on is based on Ham et a l . (1986). The site i s located on the south bank of the main arm of the F r a s e r R i ve r . The on l y obv ious n a t u r a l boundar i es are Panorama Ridge to the sou th , and the F r a s e r R i v e r to the n o r t h . To the west and east, n a t u r a l boundar i es were l o w - l y i n g marshy g r o u n d (Boehm 1973:14-15) and a p r e h i s t o r i c stream c u t t i n g t h r o u g h and s epa ra t ing a sec t ion of the eas t e rn po r t i on of the midden (Ham et a l . 1986:45). Boehm (1973:15) sugges t s tha t d u r i n g i n i t i a l s i te occupat i on , i t was almost on sa l t water and f lat g r o u n d . O r i g ina l s i te boundar i es have been g r ea t l y d i s t u r b e d t h r o u g h r e s i d en t i a l and canne r y b u i l d i n g . A s i gn i f i c an t po r t i on was bu l ldozed in to the r i v e r and both R i ve r Road and the Great N o r t h e r n Rai lway c u t t h r o u g h the depos i ts (Boehm 1973:8). Boehm est imated tha t the o r i g i n a l s i te bounda ry extended on the east -west axis about 275 meters and on the n o r t h - s o u t h axis about 91 meters. Ne i ther Ham nor Boehm ind i ca te how much of the midden i s located east of the p r e h i s t o r i c stream channe l , a l t hough Ham ind ica tes tha t i t i s on a h i ghe r t e r race than the wes t e rn depos i ts and i s more d i s t u r b e d than the r e s t of the si te (Ham et a l . 1986:45). The maximum depth of p r e h i s t o r i c depos i ts at the site is 2 meters (Ham et a l . 1986:73). S i te d i s tu rbance has g r ea t l y modif ied the n a t u r a l vege ta t ion , bu t Ham et a l . (1986:12-22) desc r i b es pas t p lan t communities p r e sen t i n the area . The genera l conc lus i on i s tha t St . Mungo, l i ke Glenrose , i s on the p e r i p h e r y of a coasta l Douglas f i r forest . F i g u r e 2.4 shows the many h i s t o r i c (and assumed p reh i s t o r i c ) eco log ica l communit ies p resen t i n the St. Mungo area . Th i s v i s u a l r ep resen ta t i on ind i ca tes how advantageous ly located St . Mungo and Glenrose were for p r o c u r i n g a v a r i e t y of r e sources from va r i ous n e a r b y ecolog ica l hab i ta ts . Ham et a l . (1986:12-22) p a r t i a l l y l i s t des i r ed raw mater ia ls and food p resen t i n seven ecolog ica l communit ies. The d i v e r s i t y i n the l i s t is t ^ ^ • ^ t p h a g n u m b o q - - _ - * g r o ï ï l o n d P S f f l g r a s s l o n d - s h r u 6 m F i g u r e 2.4 •:+:+:•! » 4 * » i » ( * i i l l « « 4 • * ' 4 « « A A 4 r i w e r b a n k f o r e s t c o n i f e r o g * f o r t j i w o o d l a n d 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 * 1 4 , 1 t 1 1 1 • f i 1 1 4 1 i 1 * i 4 1 . • 1 1 » • t 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 * « • • 1>^1 * i i i i l * i • l t « r Mort» » ' • ' . I »?9 Ecolog ica l Communit ies Ava i lab le to Glenrose , • St. Mungo and Crescen t Beach (Based on Ham et a l . 1986: F i g u r e 2.5) impress i ve . Th i s p rox imi ty to so much ecolog ica l d i v e r s i t y , i n my op in ion , f u r t h e r s u p p o r t s my in fe rence c once rn ing the mu l t i - func t i ona l na ture of these two s i tes . E t h n o g r a p h i c C u l t u r e A r e a The St. Mungo site is located on l and f a l l i ng w i t h i n the e thnog raph i c t e r r i t o r y of the Kwant lan people who are Halkomelem-speaking Coast Sa l i sh Ind ians (Duff 1952:23). Excava t i on P r o c e d u r e s The fo l lowing d e s c r i p t i on of excavat ion p r o c edure s a n d site s t r a t i g r a p h y is a condensed v e r s i o n of Ham et a l . (1986:71-113). A po r t i on of the site was threa tened w i th d e s t r u c t i o n due to the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the Annac i s I s land b r i dge ac ross the F r a s e r R i v e r . It was excavated d u r i n g A u g u s t 1982 and A p r i l 1983 by a c rew u n d e r the d i r e c t i on of L eonard Ham. The f i r s t ob ject ive of the excavat ion was to ob ta in an o v e ra l l v iew of the c u l t u r a l and n a t u r a l depos i ts p r e sen t on s i te . A 190 meter backhoe s l i t t r e n c h was excavated a r o u n d the en t i r e per imeter of the depos i ts u n d e r inves t i ga t i on (Ham et a l . 1986:Figure 4.1). Based upon the ana l y s i s of s t r a t i g r a p h y exposed by the backhoe and pro f i l e maps from past excavat ions , a map de ta i l ing the i n t e g r i t y and extent of c u l t u r a l depos i ts p r esen t at St . Mungo was compi led (Ham et a l . 1986:Figure 4.2). Once an ove rv i ew of s i te s t r a t i g r a p h y was obta ined , excavat ion un i t s were sub j e c t i v e l y se lected i n locat ions where s t r a t i g r a p h y sugges t ed the p resence of poss ib le house f loors . B locks A to E were set up and ranged i n s ize from 2X5 meters (block A) to 2X3 meters (b locks B and C) and 2X1 meters (b locks D and E). F i g u r e 2.5 r ep roduces the locat ion of excavat ion u n i t s at St . Mungo. S ides of u n i t s not exposed b y the o r i g i n a l 190 meter s l i t t r e n c h were exposed by shove l to enable a complete f our s ided v iew of each u n i t ' s s t r a t i g r a p h y (Ham et a l . 1986:90), A l l in tac t mater ia l was excavated by n a t u r a l l a y e r s , w i th t h i c k e r l a ye r s c ross cu t by 10 cm leve ls . A l l excavated mater ia l was water sc reened t h r o u g h 1/8 i n c h mesh. Three dimensional p roven ience was g i v en to a l l a r t i f a c t s f ound i n s i tu . The exact amount of p roven ience g i v en to i n s i t u fauna l remains i s unc lear . To g ive some idea about the complexi ty of excava t ing a she l l midden s i te b y n a t u r a l l a y e r s , 644 un ique l aye rs were uncove r ed , de f ined , and mapped at St, Mungo, A l t h o u g h the number of l a y e r s may seem ind i ca t i v e of a great amount of d i v e r s i t y i n the midden mater ia l . Ham et a l . (1986:117) note a h i g h degree of homogeneity i n the s t r a t i g r a p h y w i t h sand , a s h and M y t i l u s edu l i s she l l the three most v i s i b l e cons t i tuen ts . The h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of M y t i l u s edu l i s suppo r t s the hypo thes i s tha t a r o c k y foreshore was close b y (Matson 1976:15). The dep th of the c u l t u r a l depos i ts range from 0.50 to j u s t o v e r 2.0 meters. Ham et a l . p rov ide pro f i l e maps for excavat ion un i t s A, B, and C (Ham et a l . 1986:97,101 and 104). Un i t s D, E, and F were in t ended as exp lo ra to ry t r enches , and whi le the s t r a t i g r a p h y i s d e s c r i b e d (Ham et al . l984:110-113), there i s no v i s u a l r epresenta t i ons of the three u n i t s . Ham went beyond de l ineat ing n a t u r a l l a y e r s and g rouped s e v e ra l l aye rs into a House Component w h i c h , ". . , ident i f i es a component as c on ta in ing house f loor l a y e r s , but i t may also conta in l aye rs from outs ide the house " (Ham et a l , 1984:94). Ham though t there was ev idence of s eve ra l house components i n each of the un i t s excavated, I was unable to d i s cove r the t h i c k n e s s and dep th of the house components per l aye r o r un i t . A l t h o u g h § 1968/69 excavat ion fini 1982/83 excavation R o o d m o p a f t « r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n â H i g h w a y s 196 ^ s i t e v e r t i c a l dot u m = 5.822 m a.s.l. * • site hor i zon ta l da tum = NO, EG 1 9 8 2 / 8 3 t renches F i g u r e 2.5 St. Mungo a n d Loca t i on of Excava t i on U n i t s (Based on Ham et aL 1986: F i g u r e ?? there are s t r a t i g r aph i e pro f i l e s , i t would be eas ier to compare the s ize and dep th of house components i f metr ic in format ion was ava i lab le . Chrono logy Ham obta ined 18 r ad i o ca rbon dates from the St . Mungo s i te . Of these, f our were re j ec ted because they were e i ther too o ld o r too y oung i n compar ison to dates obta ined from o ther un i t s . Acceptab le dates range from 4050 to 4480 BP (see Table 2.1). U n i t C has the younges t dates, w i th U n i t s A, B, D and E fo l lowing i n tha t o rde r . The dates from u n i t C range from 3340 to 3455 BP sugge s t i ng the poss ib le presence of a Locarno Beach component. The dates for U n i t C are s eve ra l h u n d r e d yea rs la ter t han dates from the r e s t of the s i te . Th i s was one reason I d i d not i nc lude the in format ion from U n i t C w i th my ana l ys i s of St . Mungo (refer to the ea r l i e r St . Mungo phase i n t r o d u c t i o n for f u r t h e r d i s cuss i on about U n i t C). The dates from Un i t A range from 4050 to 4170 B P , dates f a l l i ng wel l w i t h i n those from Glenrose . The dates from U n i t B are a b i t o lde r t han Un i t A, r a n g i n g from 4185 to 4290 BP. The o ldest date from the site came from Un i t D and is 4480±90 BP (WSU 2857). The on l y date r e t r i e v e d from U n i t E was d ismissed because i t was though t to be too o ld . While Ham does not say , I assume that a l l c a rbon samples were co l lected i n s i tu . Boehm's dates (1973:11) are i n agreement w i t h Ham's and Matson 's . Her excavat ion un i t was located almost d i r e c t l y between Ham's Un i t s B and D. Two dates from Boehm's basa l deposi t were 4240±105 (I 4688) and 4310+110 (I 4053) BP w i th a date from the uppe r middle of the deposi t of 3970±105 BP (I 4685). Ham's o ldest date of 4480 BP comes from a basa l deposi t bu t i s s l i g h t l y o lder than both Boehm's and Matson 's . It is reasonable to sugges t a s t a r t i n g date for St. Mungo c loser to 4500 BP , based on Ham's ear l i es t date. The on l y probab le t e rminat ion date for the St . Mungo component comes from U n i t C where any of the s ix dates obta ined cou ld be t e rminat ion dates. Fauna l Remains Due to the d i f f e rent excavat ion t e chn iques p u r s u e d at St. Mungo, seasonal i ty of the site is on a f ine r l e ve l t h a n tha t at Glenrose . It was and is theore t i ca l l y poss ib le to determine the season of occupat i on for each layer encountered at St . Mungo. Bu t , because th i s s i te is be ing compared to two o ther s i tes w i th d i f f e rent excavat ion t e chn iques , I examined the f auna l remains to answer genera l ques t ions c o n c e r n i n g site func t i on . Ham bel ieves tha t the seasonal i ty ev idence sugges t s tha t St . Mungo was a f i s h i n g camp occup i ed d u r i n g the summer a n d fa l l seasons. I cannot p r o p e r l y test h is hypo thes i s due to my inexper i ence w i t h fauna l ana l ys i s and seasonal i ty s tud i es , bu t the f auna l remains p r e s en t show mul t i - seasona l ind i ca to rs of summer, s p r i n g and a poss ib le f a l l occupat ion . The on l y major d i f ference i n f auna l remains from St . Mungo a n d Glenrose i s a h i g h e r p r opo r t i on of b i r d remains p r e s en t at St. Mungo. Th i s might be due to St . Mungo ' s be t te r locat ion v i s - a - v i s Glenrose . St . Mungo is c loser to open water where l a r g e r f l ocks of m ig ra t ing water and shore b i r d s would be present , and i t i s also c loser to more marsh land wh i ch i s opt imal b i r d habitat . The fauna l remains inc lude salmon, e lk and deer, seal , beaver and va r i ous species of b i r d s w i th l a r g e r b i r d s s u c h as swans and geese most f r equen t l y present . Ham does not t h i n k the presence of these l a r g e r b i r d s i nd i ca t i v e of a s p r i n g occupat ion for the s i te . Ins tead , he a rgues tha t because h is i n t e rp r e t a t i on of the ev idence for s i te occupat ion ind i ca t es a May to September occupa t i on , p e rhaps the p r e h i s t o r i c hab i t s of these b i r d s were d i f f e rent , and these b i r d s were obta ined i n A u g u s t because there was a b r e ed ing popu la t i on p resen t i n the de l ta g r ass l ands . Ham's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n could re f l ec t h is p reconce i ved conv i c t i on of St. Mungo as a fa l l f i s h i n g camp f o r c ing him to i n t e r p r e t a l l data as be ing r epresen ta t i v e of a f a l l f i s h i n g camp. Bo th Boehm and Imamoto are less asse r t i v e i n th e i r ana l ys i s of seasonal i ty , s u g g e s t i n g that among some g r oups of animals , i n c l u d i n g b i r d s , the presence of f auna l remains cou ld r e s u l t from e i ther a s p r i n g o r f a l l occupat ion of the s i te . As w i th Glenrose , e lk i s the most impor tant mammal, w i th dog , beaver , deer and seal as a g roup the next most common mammals present . Once aga in , th i s secondary g r oup of mammals are equa l l y impor tant v i s - a - v i s each o ther , bu t on l y a t h i r d as impor tant compared to e lk (Ham et a l . 1986:136). The f i s h remains from St. Mungo sugges t that salmon cons t i tu t es the most impor tant f auna l r e source for the s i te , whi le f our teen c lasses of f i s h were ident i f i ed (Ham et a l . 1986:122). Salmon remains were 50% of the ident i f iab le f i s h remains. The o ther common f i s h species p resen t r a n k e d from most to least f r equen t are: f l ounder , s t u r g e on , eu lachon (a s p r i n g ind i ca to r ) , h e r r i n g (a late w in te r i nd i ca to r ) , s u c k e r and dog f i sh . A l though f i s h head bones and body elements are p r esen t . Ham sugges t s t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n is heav i l y skewed towards body elements (salmon 97% and f l ounder 76%). Ham i n t e r p r e t s the f i s h species i n a d i f f e rent f ash ion than Matson (1976). Ham states that s t i ck l eback , minnows, s c u l p i n and peamouth, wh i ch r ep r e s en t between 5% and 1% of the ident i f i ed f i s h remains , are not f i s h that were eaten. Ham et a l . (1986:124) states tha t these f i s h ente red the site t h r o u g h the stomachs of p r e d a t o r y o r s cavenge r f i sh f ound i n l a r g e r numbers . He a rgues that a l l of the f i s h spec ies p resen t except for h e r r i n g wou ld be p resen t i n the p r e f r e she t r u n s of late May and June on the F r a s e r R i ve r . I r e s ea r ched in format ion about eu lachon fo r an u n d e r g r a d u a t e paper . From tha t paper I have t a k e n the fo l lowing quote sugge s t i ng an a l t e rna t i ve i n t e rp r e t a t i on of s i te occupat ion at St . Mungo: . . . many animals fed on the eu lachon when the eu lachon began to congregate and enter f r e s h water (see for example B a r r a c l o u g h 1964). Many k i n d s of f i s h , sea mammals and b i r d s would have been ava i lab le a long w i th the spawn ing eu lachon. Inc luded i n the l i s t of animals that p r e y e d on the spawn ing eu lachon is the l a r ges t f i s h avai lable to the Stalo people. Th i s f i s h i s ca l led the whi te s tu rgeon (Ac ipenser t ransmontanus ) and i t has been k n o w n to r each we ights of o v e r 1300 l bs i n the F r a s e r R i v e r (Scott and Grossman 1973) [Pra t t 1989a:9-10]. Eu lachon spawn from m id -March to mid-May (Northcote 1974) and pe rhaps some of the f i s h found as St. Mungo re f l ec t an ea r l i e r s p r i n g occupat i on exp lo i t ing the eu lachon r u n . The presence of seals would also s u p p o r t t h i s a l t e rna t i v e exp lanat ion, as they too took advantage of the spawn ing eu lachon. Ham also a rgues that the h e r r i n g remains p r e s en t t h r o u g h o u t the s i te ind ica te that the people who came to f i sh the p r e f r e she t r u n s came d i r e c t l y from areas s i tuated near the spawn ing g r ounds of the h e r r i n g and b r o u g h t t h e i r h e r r i n g w i th them. Ham et a l . (1986:126-127) be l ieve that the salmon remains sugges t an A u g u s t a n d September occupat i on of the s i te , a l though a l l f i ve spec ies of salmon are p resen t and salmon do migrate from ea r l y s p r i n g to late fa l l . While Ham has chosen to a rgue for two v e r y p a r t i c u l a r time pe r i od occupat ions i n the summer and fa l l seasons, there is l i t t l e a rgument i n merely s ta t ing that the St. Mungo s i te was occup ied for long pe r i ods of con t inuous mul t i - season occupat ion . The she l l f i sh ana l ys i s cannot c on t r i bu t e to the debate over s i te occupat ion because the musse l she l l p r e sen t was too f ragmentary and Ham fe l t tha t the clam she l l s were a smal l b iased sample (Ham et a l , 1986:122). The ana l y s i s of meat est imates for M y t i l u s edu l i s pu t s i t i n terms of d i e t a r y importance beh ind salmon, e lk , deer a n d seal (Ham et a l . 1986:Table 4.4). From the she l l f i sh ana l y s i s , M y t i l u s at St . Mungo is not as impor tant a food r e source as i t was at Glenrose , a l t hough d i f f e rent measurements are used . A t Glenrose , Ham (1976:52) used useable meat ca lcu la ted from minimum number of i n d i v i d u a l s for the mammals compared w i th she l l meat for the M y t i l u s . A t St. Mungo, he used she l l meat for the My t i l u s as wel l as a second to ta l we ight ca l cu la t i on based on l i ve we ight (Ham et a l . 1986:122). Fo r the mammals at St. Mungo use useable meat ca lcu la ted from minimum number of i n d i v i d u a l s was not used . Ins tead , he ca lcu la ted l i ve we ight of a l l the fauna l remains as wel l as she l l f i sh . There fore , a p r o p e r compar ison of importance of p a r t i c u l a r r e source s cannot be at tempted. My ques t i on i s , how re l iab le l i ve we ight va lues are compared to useable meat va lues? Fea tu res The ana l y s i s of f ea tures p r e s en t at St . Mungo d i f f e rs from Glenrose. Fo r example, almost e v e r y l a ye r from each u n i t i s g rouped toge ther and def ined as be ing p a r t of some fea ture , be i t house component o r d r y i n g rack . I n d i v i d u a l f ea tures s u c h as hea r ths o r postmolds are not p r esen t ed i n a l ayer by l aye r d i s t r i b u t i o n . A l l s ing le f ea tures are g rouped in to house components. Un f o r tuna t e l y , Ham does not state the dep th o r a r ea cove red b y h i s many house components, so some con t ro l of p roven ience is lost . There w i l l be debate c once rn ing Ham's asse r t i ons that he has "house components " (27 i n total ) . There are a l t e rna t i v e i n t e rp r e ta t i ons to what he ca l l s house f loors. A bet ter term for h i s f ea tures may be l i v i n g f loors , for e v en Ham et a l . (1986:94) state tha t there was insu f f i c i en t time for a ho r i z on ta l ana l ys i s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of c u l t u r a l remains p resen t ins ide a n d outs ide the house components. It is h a r d to see how one cou ld p r o p e r l y def ine a house f loor w i thout a ho r i z on ta l d i s t r i b u t i o n ana l y s i s . Boehm (1973:11) states tha t l i v i n g f loors are p r e sen t t h r o u g h o u t her excavat ion a n d def ines them as ". . . marked by hea r th c l u s t e r s and extens ive ash depos i t s " . She makes no mention of postmolds. To r e t u r n to Ham's concept of house component, whi le most house components conta in ev idence of postmolds, the numbers range from 55 to 0. Without in format ion c once rn ing the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the postmolds i t i s premature to state that the presence of a g r oup of postmolds ind i ca tes an average house s ize of 4.5X4 meters (Ham et a l . 1986:85). Th i s a s s e r t i on of house size is even more quest ionable when one reexamines Ham's statement c once rn ing the lack of time avai lable to enable separa t i on of l a y e r s f ound ins ide o r outs ide of house components. Th is est imat ion of house size i s also s u r p r i s i n g c o n s i d e r i n g Ham's l a r ges t un i t was U n i t A at 2X5 meters. Th is impl ies that a complete house was not complete ly excavated. Bes ides postmolds, th ree c l a y - l i n e d f ea tures , and one hea r th were also excavated. Ham et a l . ind icate tha t seve ra l hea r th complexes and hea r th l aye rs were encountered a l though there is no d i f f e rent ia t ion between the two. Some of what Ham v iews as i n s i tu house components cou ld be remnants of redepos i ted hear ths used e lsewhere , po in ted out b y Gose (1976:190) when he d i d the feature ana l ys i s at Glenrose. Debate about the number of f eatures and what they r ep r esen t w i l l con t inue , bu t suf f ice i t to say that the f ea tures p r e sen t ind icate semi - permanent site occupat ion . One complete ske le ton was r ecove red from St. Mungo. Th is came from Un i t C, there fore , i t ' s r e l a t i onsh ip to the o lde r St . Mungo components i s unce r t a in . The d i f ference i n the number of b u r i a l s r ecove red at St . Mungo v e r s u s Glenrose (one v e r s u s 11) may be notewor thy , o r i t may be due to chance. Seven of the 11 St. Mungo component b u r i a l s at Glenrose were uncove r ed from the same un i t . Sca t t e red human remains were f ound th roughou t Un i t s A and B, w i th none r e cove r ed from D, E o r F at St . Mungo. Ham et a l . (1984:181) sugges t the absence of human remains i s due to above g r o u n d inhumat ions e i ther i n t ree b u r i a l s o r bentwood boxes. Boehm (1970:59) states tha t at least f our b u r i a l s were p r esen t at St . Mungo i n the Marpole component wh i ch was located d i r e c t l y above the Char l es component. These b u r i a l s were f ound i n a large s a n d y p i t tha t had been excavated into the main deposit . In l i gh t of the i n - g r o u n d b u r i a l s p r e sen t at Glenrose and the la te r component at St . Mungo, Ham et a l . ' s exp lanat ion i s u n l i k e l y . Pe rhaps a bet ter exp lanat ion is tha t people who d ied at the St. Mungo site were b u r i e d e lsewhere on s i te . Compar ison of c u b i c meters of excavated mater ia l from the two d igs show them to be r o u g h l y the same size (36 for St . Mungo and 38 for Glenrose) so pe rhaps sample e r r o r i s not a prob lem. Pe rhaps the sca t t e red human remains f ound t h r o u g h o u t St . Mungo are a f u r t h e r sugges t i on that some of Ham's House Components are areas where re fuse from l i v i n g f loors were d i s ca rded . The absence of bu r i a l s at St. Mungo may imply the site was less heav i l y u t i l i z ed re la t i ve to Glenrose . It i s the on l y sugges t i on of a d i f ference i n si te func t i ons between the two s i tes . St . Mungo Non -a r t i f a c tua l Data Conc lus i ons L i k e Glenrose , St . Mungo was s i tuated i n an area tha t al lowed for the explo i tat ion of bo th l and and sea r esources . Seven b io log ica l communities ( i n c lud ing the F r a s e r R i v e r but not the ocean) are close to the s i te . Si te boundar i e s are l a rge , a l though not qu i te as l a rge as Glenrose b u t ne i the r s i t es ' boundar i es sugges t a sho r t te rm l imited a c t i v i t y s i te . The s t r a t i g r a p h y demonstrates con t inuous occupat ion of the site t h r oughou t the St . Mungo phase. Most l i k e l y , s i te occupat ion extends in to the b eg inn ing of the Locarno Beach phase i n at least one po r t i on of the s i te (Uni t C). Dates from St . Mungo are i n agreement w i th Glenrose w i th the poss ib le except ion of the o ldes t date from U n i t D wh i ch pushes back the beg inn ing date of the St. Mungo phase to about 4500 BP . The terminat ion date for the St . Mungo phase at St . Mungo is less c lear , bu t Matson 's sugges t i on of 3300 BP is not d i spu t ed . While the ev idence from the f auna l , f i s h and she l l f i sh remains at St. Mungo sugges t mul t i - season occupat ion on a r e g u l a r bas is , there are problems w i th the data assumpt ions , p resen ta t i on and in t e rp r e ta t i ons l eav ing quest ions c once rn ing seasona l i ty and subs i s t ence . The major d i f ference between Glenrose and St. Mungo i n terms of subs i s t ence is i n p r opo r t i on r a t h e r than in k i n d . The major food r esources were e lk , deer , seal , beaver , l a rge b i r d s , salmon and My t i l u s . Di f ferences i n b i r d (more common at St. Mungo) and My t i lus (more common at Glenrose) p ropo r t i ons are the most dramat ic , bu t a l l major f auna l remains are p resen t at both s i tes. The wide v a r i e t y of food r e sources ava i lab le and the large number of des i rab le raw mater ia ls i n wa lk ing range sugges t both s i tes were base camps, as does the presence of a la rge number of f ea tures and t h e i r r e la t i ve abundance . The f ea tures at St . Mungo and Glenrose compliment each o ther w i th on l y one un ique fea ture p resen t - three c l a y - l i n e d p i t s excavated from St . Mungo. From the ev idence accumulated from the site r e p o r t s , i t is app rop r i a t e to sugges t that the site func t i ons of the Glenrose Canne r y and St . Mungo Canne ry s i tes d u r i n g the St. Mungo phase i n c l u d e d a l a rge number of p rocurement ac t i v i t i e s i n v o l v i n g h u n t i n g and ga the r ing r e sources from many d i f f e rent hab i ta ts . These ac t i v i t i e s went on t h r o u g h more t h a n one season, poss i b l y a l l year . In conc lus i on , there is no r ea l i nd i ca t i on tha t the s i te func t i ons of Glenrose and St. Mungo are d i f f e rent . The C r e s c en t Beach S i te S i te Locat ion The Crescen t Beach Site (DgRr 1) i s s i tua ted i n Mud Bay at the mouth of the N ickomekl r i v e r i n the boundar i e s of C r escen t Beach wh i ch i s pa r t of the Mun i c i pa l i t y of S u r r e y , B r i t i s h Columbia. The site o r i g i n a l l y ex tended some 18 ha, bu t the major i ty of these depos i ts a re now des t r oyed o r g r ea t l y d i s t u r b e d . Crescen t Beach has been excavated seve ra l t imes (see Matson et a l . 1991 for a rev iew of i t s excavat ion h i s t o r y ) . There are n a t u r a l boundar i e s on a l l s ides of the si te: to the n o r t h is Mud Bay and i ts accompany ing t i da l f lats a long w i th the Nickomekl R i v e r , to the sou th . West is B o u n d a r y Bay and i t s accompany ing t i d a l f la ts , and to the east is a geolog ical format ion known as the White Rock Up l ands (upon wh i ch there i s i nd i ca t i on of she l l midden [ persona l observat ion ] ) . The White Rock Up l ands , l i ke Panorama Ridge , is composed of unconso l ida ted Ple istocene mater ia l (Ham 1982:14). Spec i f i c measurements of s i te boundar i e s are not ava i lab le , bu t l i k e Glenrose a n d St . Mungo, the site r u n s a long the beach face w i th the na r row axis r u n n i n g from the water towards d r y l and . Maximum dep th of depos i ts i s about 270 cm. P r e sen t vege ta t ion i s much modif ied, bu t Ham (1982:19-50) g i ves a deta i led out l ine of the f our teen major p lant/eco log ica l communit ies p r e sen t i n the ad jacent area . Th i s number i s exact ly double those communit ies f ound near Glenrose and St . Mungo, sugge s t i ng even more d i v e r s i t y i n the raw mater ia l and r esources ava i lab le for procurement . Most of th i s added d i v e r s i t y comes from Crescen t Beach 's p h y s i c a l p rox imi ty to a vas t extent of open water and t i d a l f la ts , r eg ions absent from Glenrose and St. Mungo. Some of th i s in format ion c once rn ing eco log ica l communit ies s h o u l d be r e ga rded w i th some susp i c i on because B o u n d a r y Bay was not formed u n t i l the end of the St. Mungo phase (Ham 1982:13), so the exact eco log ica l communit ies ava i lab le from the water may be d i f f e rent . L i k e Glenrose and St . Mungo , Crescen t Beach is on the p e r i p h e r y of a coasta l Douglas f i r fo res t (Ham 1982:22). F i g u r e 2.4 shows the ecolog ica l communit ies ava i lab le i n the prox imi ty of the three s i tes . The c loseness of a l l three s i tes to so much eco log ica l d i v e r s i t y i s the f i r s t i nd i ca t i on of poss ib le site func t i on s im i l a r i t y between the three s i tes . E t h n o g r a p h i c C u l t u r e A r e a Crescen t Beach is located i n the e thnog raph i c t e r r i t o r y of two Coast Sa l i sh g r oups c lose ly r e la ted , the Halkomelem s p e a k i n g N ickomekl people and the S t r a i t s Sa l i sh speak ing Semiahmoo people. Ham (1982:70) states that e thnog raph i ca l l y . C r escen t Beach was a v i l lage si te for the Nickomekl . C u r r e n t l y , C rescen t Beach l i es i n Semiahmoo t e r r i t o r y and as P e r c y (1974:13) po ints out , th i s i s p r o b a b l y a more recent movement on the pa r t of the Semiahmoo who moved into the Mud Bay a rea a f te r the N ickomekl became ex t inc t i n the mid 1800s. The h i s t o r i c e thnog raph i c r e c o r d may have l i t t l e r e l a t i onsh ip w i t h the p r e h i s t o r i c archaeo log ica l r e c o r d , bu t speak ing i n genera l te rms, a l l three s i tes (Glenrose, St . Mungo and Crescen t Beach) are located i n the e thnograph i c boundar i es of l and used by Cen t r a l Coast Sa l i sh g r oups and i t i s poss ib le tha t proto-Halkomelem speak ing people o r i g i na l l y i nhab i t ed a l l three s i t es . A wors t case scenar io would have the Crescen t Beach s i te po s s i b l y occup i ed b y p r o t o - S t ra i t s speak ing people whi le Glenrose and St . Mungo were occup i ed b y p r o t o - Halkomelem speak ing people. Never the less , a l l have common ances t r y . How much time i t would take for the language and c u l t u r a l d i f f e rences to evolve between two c lose ly re la ted g r oups s u c h as Halkomelem a n d S t r a i t s Sa l i sh speakers can on l y be answered by a l i ngu i s t . Based on statements by Sut t l es (1990) i t is l i k e l y tha t there was easy exchange between the two g r oups . Excava t i on P r o c edure s The fo l lowing d i s cuss i on is a condensed v e r s i o n of P e r c y (1974) and Matson et a l . (1990,1991) and P ra t t et a l . (1991). P e r c y ' s work i s f i r s t i n t r o d u c e d and then supplemented. P e r c y d i r ec t ed a sa lvage excavat ion on Bayv iew s t ree t i n the s p r i n g and summer of 1972. Six t r enches (A to F) r a n g i n g from 1.5 (B, C and F) to 1.7 (A) and 2.0 (E and F) meters wide and from 4 (A,B,C and E) to 6 (D and F) meters l ong were excavated across Bayv iew s t ree t i n an a r ea to be d i s t u r b e d by the b u i l d i n g of sewer l ine connector . Excavat ions were by 10 cm a r b i t r a r y l eve ls . No three d imensional p roven ience of a r t i f a c t s was kept . A l l excavated mater ia l was d r y sc reened u s i n g a 1/4 i n c h s c r een mesh. In the summer of 1989 and 1990 R.G. Matson d i r e c t ed two f ie ld season's of work at Crescen t Beach. Matson was in t e r e s t ed i n Crescen t Beach i n p a r t because i n the s p r i n g of 1988 I had w r i t t e n a pape r c o n c e r n i n g the Char l es cu l tu r e (Pra t t 1988) and i n th i s pape r I po inted out tha t Crescen t Beach was the on l y known site on the Ma in land to con ta in bo th Loca rno Beach and Char l es c u l t u r e components. Matson 's r e s e a r c h focused on r e t r i e v i n g more in format ion c o n c e r n i n g the Locarno Beach phase, whi le my r e s ea r ch in t e r es t lay i n ob ta in ing more in format ion about the Char l e s c u l t u r e . Matson app l i ed to SSHRC for a two year g ran t and rece i ved f u n d i n g i n the s p r i n g of 1989. Research commenced i n May 1989. We excavated i n the v i c i n i t y of P e r c y ' s o r i g i n a l t r enches to al low for bet ter compar ison of ou r da ta w i th h i s . Excava t ing near h i s t r enches also gave us the advantage of h a v i n g some advanced knowledge of s t r a t i g r a p h y , based on what he had w r i t t e n i n the f i na l r e p o r t (See F i g u r e 2.6 for a map of ou r excavat ions v i s - a - v i s P e r c y ' s and some of the o ther excavat ions tha t have t aken place at Crescen t Beach). Two 2X8 meter t r enches des ignated Nor th and Sou th were la id out . Excavat ions were b y n a t u r a l l a y e r s , w i t h t h i c k e r l a y e r s c r o s s c u t b y 10 cm a r b i t r a r y leve ls . A r t i f a c t s , l a rge f auna l remains and f ea tures f ound i n s i t u were g i v en three d imensional p roven ience . Excava ted mater ia l was water screened t h r o u g h 1/8 i n c h s c r een mesh. The nature of P e r c y ' s excavat ion (an emergency sa lvage d i g on a v e r y s t r i c t time budget ) , lead to the c o n s t r u c t i o n of minimal s t r a t i g r a p h i e pro f i l es (Percy 1974:24b). Never the l ess , h is work gave us some idea c o n c e r n i n g what to expect at C rescen t Beach. We d id not have to d ig s l i t t r enches a r ound ou r  excavat ion p i t s i n o rde r to see wal l p ro f i l e s ; we p laced the Sou th t r e n c h so tha t a sect ion of the excavat ion h i t the o ld sewer t r e n c h hole. We worked our way toward the depos i t u n t i l the in ter face between d i s t u r b e d and in tac t midden was encounte red , c leaned and pro f i l ed . The s t r a t i g r a p h y showed more d i v e r s i t y t h a n p r esen t at e i ther Glenrose o r St . Mungo. There were many k i n d s of c lams, f i s h and she l l f i sh remains and the so i l matr ix r anged from a s h , to s and , to g r a v e l , to c lay . Our use of n a t u r a l l a y e r s pa id off i n tha t we eas i l y i so la ted and con t ro l l ed Sou th T r e n c h proven ience . In the Nor th t r e n c h , d i s t u r b a n c e was great and we d i d not encounte r in tac t depos i ts u n t i l 195 cm below datum. We excavated a 1X1 meter tes t u n i t ca l l ed Fnw and from 195 cm to 270 cm we uncove r ed a somewhat homogenous da rk , sandy , matr ix w i t h l i t t l e she l l p r esen t , bu t tha t wh i ch was p r esen t was My t i l u s . We were fo rced to d i g i n 10 cm a r b i t r a r y l eve ls i n Fnw because we were i n the c lass i c 'phone booth ' s i tua t i on much l i ke tha t at Glenrose w i th l i t t l e l i gh t to he lp gu ide o u r s ea r ch for s t r a t i g r a p h i e b r eaks . To make th ing s even more d i f f i cu l t i n Fnw we also had to work a r o u n d an in tac t juven i l e b u r i a l and two small c l a y - l i n e d f ea tures . The dep th of the c u l t u r a l mater ia l i n the a r ea of the site i n w h i c h P e r c y and we wo rked r anged from 200 to 270 cm. The dep th of depos i ts at Crescen t Beach fa l l i n between those from Glenrose and St. Mungo. In the summer of 1990 we con t inued w o r k i n g i n bo th the N o r t h and Sou th t r enches . In the Nor th t r e n c h a backhoe opera tor removed 190 cm of o v e r b u r d e n w i th in the boundar i es of the 1989 Nor th t r e n c h . We knew that the in tac t depos i ts were capped off by a t h i c k s te r i l e l aye r of c lay , of wh i ch the backhoe operator removed approx imate ly half. Un i t Fnw was reopened and the juven i l e b u r i a l was removed. The walls were p ro f i l ed and the s t r a t i g r a p h i e in format ion was used to excavate the o ther un i t s . Excavat ion e f for ts concen t ra t ed on sect ions of U n i t s D, E and F. The depos i ts were excavated b y n a t u r a l l aye rs and the same p rocedures were fol lowed as i n the Sou th t r e n c h . Chrono logy P e r c y has one date f o r t r e n c h E of 4270+80 BP (Gak 4925), r ecove red between 180 to 190 cm dep th below sur face i n Component One (the name P e r c y used for h i s ear l i es t component) . I t h i n k th i s date is too o ld f o r the depth from w h i c h i t was r e cove r ed . I t shou ld be c loser to 3300 BP , b u t i t dates Component One to the Char l e s c u l t u r e . We r ecove red seve ra l dates from ou r two seasons of excavat ion. The ca rbon samples un less o therwise s ta ted were r ecove red i n s i tu . In the South t r e n c h the Char l e s component t e rminat ion date l i es somewhere between 32101110 BP (WSU 4247) a n d 3590185 BP (WSU 4245). The 3210 BP date comes from a l a ye r almost at the base of the Locarno Beach component, whi le the 3590 BP date comes from near the top of the Char l es component. The end of the Char l es component i n the South t r e n c h fa l ls i n the same time pe r i od as the terminat ion dates from Glenrose and St. Mungo Char l e ' s component. The te rminat ion of the Char l es component i n the No r th t r e n c h fa l ls i n a l a r g e r time pe r i od , p r i o r to 3060180 BP (SFU 727) and a f ter 3710180 BP (WSU 4244). The o ldest date from o u r excavat ion was 4440180 ( S F U 795) BP from a water screened sample r ecove red from Fnw leve l 240 to 250 cm. F a u n a l Remains P e r c y d i d not do a f auna l ana l ys i s of the remains r ecove red from Crescen t Beach. He s tates , "Va r i ous t ypes of subs i s t ence ac t i v i t i e s s u c h as land mammal h u n t i n g , b i r d s n a r i n g , f i s h i n g and she l l g a the r ing are also imp l i ed " (Pe rcy 1974:267). Our f auna l ana l ys i s for the 1989 f ie ld season was c a r r i e d out b y Pac i f i c ID i n V i c to r i a . A t the time of w r i t i n g we do not as of ye t have complete r e s u l t s of the f auna l ana l y s i s of b i r d s and mammals for the 1990 season. The fo l lowing is t aken from the f auna l ana l y s i s done b y Pac i f i c I.D. (Susan C r o c k f o r d and Rebecca Wigen 1990b) for the 1989 Crescen t Beach f i e ld season. None of the 1989 depos i ts i n the South t r e n c h were St . Mungo i n age. In the Nor th t r e n c h the depos i t below approx imate ly 220 cm was St . Mungo i n age. We d id not rea l i ze tha t two d i f f e rent phases were p r esen t i n the Nor th t r e n c h . The f auna l ana l ys i s for the Nor th t r e n c h was t rea ted as one component and the two components were mixed i n the ana l y s i s . Fu r the rmor e , 1989 excavat ions i n the No r th t r e n c h were by a r b i t r a r y l eve ls and mix ing of depos i ts was unavo idab le . The sample of mammal and b i r d remains from the Nor th t r e n c h is v e r y small (57 NISP w i th 33.3 % ident i f i ab le ) . The ident i f i ed remains are the fo l lowing: raccoon (12.3%), beaver (8.8%), h a r b o u r seal (5.3%), elk (1.8%) and dog (1.8%). Of the 66.7 % un ident i f i ab l e p ieces, 12.3% were c lass i f i ed as la rge l and mammal and 1.8 % large sea mammal. With s u c h small numbers i t is i napprop r i a t e to make any grand iose conc lus ions . There are s eve ra l spec ies p resent , w i th both land and sea mammals r ep r e sen t ed a l though the i r re la t i ve importance cannot be determined at th i s time. Six pieces of b i r d bone were ident i f i ed and the fo l lowing species r ep r esen t ed : Common loon (one), l a rge grebe (one), small g u l l (one), r o b i n (one), medium duck (one), and r a v e n (one). There were some seasonal i nd i ca t o r s p resen t . Bones from v e r y young raccoon and h a r b o u r seal ind ica te summer depos i t i on . As wel l , s u b a d u l t remains of beaver and elk a lso ind ica te summer co l l ec t ion . Th is small sample sugges t s tha t at least a po r t i on of the site was used d u r i n g the late s p r i n g / e a r l y summer season cons i s t en t l y o v e r a l ong pe r i od of time. From the r a t h e r wide range of spec ies p r e s e n t for s u c h smal l samples of mammals and b i r d s , the use of these animals was oppo r tun i s t i c . The fo l lowing d i s cuss i on of f i s h remains is a summation of the work done b y S u s a n C r o c k f o r d a n d Rebecca Wigen at Pac i f i c ID (1990a a n d 1991a and 1991b) on bo th seasons of excavat ions . The f i s h remains from the Char l es component at C rescen t Beach exh ib i t a great v a r i e t y of spec ies p r e s en t i n c l u d i n g a l l those p r e v i o u s l y f ound at Glenrose and St . Mungo. F l a t f i s h (with S t a r r y f l ounder be ing the assumed species ) are the most common f i sh remains found i n Component One, w i t h salmon second. S u c k e r / c h u b are also p r e sen t as wel l as h e r r i n g . There is a change i n f l ounder and salmon b u t c h e r i n g t echn iques p r esen t t h r o u g h time at the s i te . However, t h i s d i f f e rence i n b u t c h e r i n g t e chn iques does not take place u n t i l the end of Component One i n the Sou th t r e n c h ( in approx imate ly l a y e r CV). C r o c k f o r d and Wigen (1990a, 1991a, 1991b) conc lude that f l ounder head pa r t s are u n d e r r ep r e s en t ed at the s i te due to th e i r f r a g i l i t y , bu t neve r the l ess , 27.2% of f l ounder remains were head p a r t s , sugges t ing that f l ounder were p rocessed and/or consumed whole on site. On the o ther hand , salmon head pa r t s are almost en t i r e l y absent a f te r l aye r CX ( layer CV upwards ) i n the South t r e n c h . Th i s p r o c e s s ing and/or consumpt ion di f f erence between salmon and f l ounder does not exist u n t i l the t r a n s i t i o n from Component One to Component Two at C rescen t Beach. Th roughou t most of Component One, f l ounder and salmon have p ropo r t i ons of head-bones to backbones i n d i c a t i n g the spec ies en te red the depos i ts as whole f i sh . Salmon and f l ounder c r a n i a l pa r t s are p r e sen t t h r o u g h o u t the ear l i es t component at St . Mungo (Ham et a