UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Northwest Coast traditional salmon fisheries systems of resource utilization Berringer, Patricia Ann 1982

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

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1982_A8 B47.pdf [ 13.34MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095096.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095096-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095096-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095096-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095096-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095096-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095096-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095096-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095096.ris

Full Text

NORTHWEST COAST TRADITIONAL SALMON. FISHERIES SYSTEMS OF RESOURCE UTILIZATION by PATRICIA ANN BERRINGER B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1974 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Anthropology & Sociology) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1982 (c) P a t r i c i a Ann Berringer In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I ag r e e t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f Anthropology & Sociology The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 October 18, 1982 e - i i -Abstract The e x p l o i t a t i o n of salmon resources was once c e n t r a l to the economic l i f e of the Northwest Coast. The organization of technological s k i l l s and information brought to the problems of salmon u t i l i z a t i o n by Northwest Coast fishermen was directed to obtaining s u f f i c i e n t c a l o r i e s to meet the requirements of staple storage foods and fresh consumption. This study reconstructs s e l e c t i v e elements of the t r a d i t i o n a l salmon f i s h e r y drawing on data from the ethnographic record, journals, and published observations of the period p r i o r to intensive white settlement. To serve the objective of an e c o l o g i c a l perspective, t e c h n i c a l references to the habitat and d i s t r i b u t i o n of P a c i f i c salmon (Oncorhynchus sp.) are included. The aim of the work i s to assess the r e l a t i o n s h i p of salmon technology complexes to e c o l o g i c a l conditions at f i s h e r y s i t e s . I t i s an examination of the operating p r i n c i p l e s i n t r a d i t i o n a l systems of salmon production. A model of the f i s h e r y i s suggested: during migration anadromous salmon pass through a number of time and space segments where they can be intercepted by fishermen. A coincidence of appropriate elements w i l l defim a f i s h e r y s i t e , i . e . , the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the prey, a c c e s s i b i l i t y to resource l o c a t i o n s , natural features of the environment, and the enterprise of fishermen. The i n t e r a c t i o n of these and t h e i r constituent v a r i a b l e s provides a range of s e l e c t i v e strategies to be used, analyzed i n t h i s study with reference to s p e c i f i c Northwest Coast ethnic d i v i s i o n s and geographic lo c a t i o n s . - i i i -Twenty-four ethnic or a r e a l d i v i s i o n s within the Northwest Coast culture area were studied. The r e s u l t s of the research are presented i n Part One supported by d i s t r i b u t i o n maps and i l l u s t r a t i v e materials. L i s t s of reference tables for each of twelve systems of salmon production are contained i n an Appendix. Part Two includes t e c h n i c a l information about Oncorhynchus sp. and i t s habitat..' Part Three i s an analysis of s o c i a l , e c o l o g i c a l , and technological elements i n several stages of i n t e r - r e l a t i o n , including an i n t e r r e g i o n a l comparison i n the f i n a l section. An Index of Salmon Abundance and a comparison of selected resource areas provide s t a t i s t i c a l evidence (Appendix II and I I I ) . - i v -TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES v i i LIST OF FIGURES i x LIST OF PLATES x LIST OF APPENDICES x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x i INTRODUCTION 1 LITERATURE REVIEW 8 Previous Studies of the Northwest Coast T r a d i t i o n a l F i s h e r i e s 8 Maritime Anthropology - Canada H RESEARCH DESIGN 1 2 Methodology 12 Qu a l i t a t i v e Analysis 13 Scope and Limitations 15 PART ONE — SALMON TECHNOLOGY COMPLEXES: the ethnographic record . .21 1 T r o l l i n g 22 2 Seining 28 3 Harpoons 37 4 Trawling 45 5 Gaffing 54 6 G i l l Nets 60 7 T i d a l Traps 67 8 Weirs 7 4 9 Traps I 85 10 Traps II 101 11 Dip Net Stations 112 12 Reef Nets 129 - v -PART TWO — SALMON BIOLOGY AND HABITAT: the ec o l o g i c a l record. . . . 142 1. Introduction 142 2. Model of Interacting Variables 146 3. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of P a c i f i c Salmon 148 a) L i f e h i s t o r y 148 b) V a r i a b i l i t y 152 4. Hydrological Features 155 a) C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of r i v e r i n e hydrology 155 b) Natural stream features at spawning s i t e s 158 5. Seasonality and the Nature of Runs 160 6. P a c i f i c Salmon 162 a) Depensatory and compensatory e f f e c t s 162 b) Index of salmon abundance 164 PART THREE — SALMON RESOURCE UTILIZATION: multi-factor analysis . .166 A. The I n t e r r e l a t i o n of Ecology and Technology Variables 166 1. Maritime strategies during salmon migration 167 2. Weir vs Trap: t r i b u t a r y streams and secondary r i v e r s . . . .172 3. E x p l o i t i n g major salmon producing areas 175 a) estuaries and r i v e r approaches 176 b) the lower r i v e r course 178 c) p r i n c i p a l canyon s i t e s 182 B. I n t e r r e l a t i o n of S o c i a l and E c o l o g i c a l Variables 186 1. Salmon resource l i m i t a t i o n s 188 2. Access to f i s h e r y locations 191 3. Summary discussion 196 - v i -C. Summary Analysis 198 1. Interregional comparisons 200 a) major r i v e r s 202 b) secondary r i v e r s 203 c) coastal r i v e r s as centres of species abundance 204 d) independent streams 208 2. Aggregate of complementary systems 212 BIBLIOGRAPHY 218 APPENDICES 236 - v i i -LIST OF TABLES Table I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX Appendix I: X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII Page Ethnic D i v i s i o n s 17 Comparative Dimensions of Seine Nets 31 Types of Trawl Nets 48 Comparative Dimensions of Trawl Nets 50 Southern Kwakiutl Traps 89 Types of Dip Nets 119 Comparative Dimensions of Dip Nets 120 P a c i f i c Salmon 150 Independent Streams 209 L i s t of References for Salmon Technology Complex 1 — T r o l l i n g .238 Salmon Technology Complex 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Seining .242 Harpoons 245 Trawling 249 Gaffing 252 G i l l Nets 256 T i d a l Traps 260 Weirs 263 Traps I .267 Traps II .271 Dip Net Stations. . • 272 Reef Net 275 Ethnic Divisions:Reference Codes for D i s t r i b u t i o n Maps 276 - v i i i -Table Page  Appendix I I : XXIII Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n f o r Spawning Populations of Salmon i n B r i t i s h Columbia Streams Which Support "major" Stocks • • • 278 XXIV S t a t i s t i c a l Differences Between Species 279 XXV Results of Linear Regression Analysis 280 XXVI Index of Salmon Abundance - Northwest Coast Culture Area 281 Appendix I I I : XXVII Spawning Populations i n the Cowichan, Skokomish, and Quinault Rivers 285 XXVIII Index of Abundance Values for Cowichan, Skokomish, and Quinault Rivers 286 XXIX Spawning Populations i n the West Coast Rivers of Vancouver Island 287 XXX Index of Abundance Values for the West Coast Rivers of Vancouver Island 288 - i x -LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 D i s t r i b u t i o n Map - T r o l l i n g . . 25 2 D i s t r i b u t i o n Map - Seining 33 3 D i s t r i b u t i o n Map - Harpoons 41 4 D i s t r i b u t i o n Map - Trawling 51 5 D i s t r i b u t i o n Map - Gaffing 58 6 D i s t r i b u t i o n Map - G i l l Nets 63 7 Stone T i d a l Traps, i n Series. Shaded Area Represents High Tide. Inset: d e t a i l of construction 69 8 D i s t r i b u t i o n Map - T i d a l Traps 7 i 9 D i s t r i b u t i o n Map - Weirs 79 10 Scheme of degwis trap 92 11 Scheme of g r i d trap 95 12 D i s t r i b u t i o n Map - Traps 1 9 8 13 D i s t r i b u t i o n Map - Traps II 109 14 Northwestern C a l i f o r n i a Plunge Net for Salmon. Based on a Photography Published i n Kroeber & Barrett:1960 115 15 Fraser River Dip Net. Bone Rings on E l l i p t i c a l Hoop, Net Pursed When Line Released. • • • 121 16 D i s t r i b u t i o n Map - Dip Net Stations 124 17 D i s t r i b u t i o n Map - Reef Net 133 - X -LIST OF PLATES Plate Page I Weir on the Cowichan River 74a II Tumbleback Trap 90 III Skeena Canyon Trap ( f i r s t view) 102 IV Skeena Canyon Trap (second view, from above) . . . . 103 V Fraser River Dip Net Station (braced net i n place) 112a VI Fraser River Dip Net (pursed) 113a LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page I D i s t r i b u t i o n Maps and L i s t of References Cited . • • 237 II Index of Salmon Abundance 277 III Comparison of Resource Areas 283 - x i -Acknowledgements I wish to acknowledge the kindly assistance of the chairman of my committee, Dr. K. 0 . L. Burridge, and my committee members, Dr. J . E. M. Kew and Dr: Braxton A l f r e d . Each man served the i n t e r e s t s of t h i s study with grace and a dedication to high academic standards. I must thank Dr. Kew for suggesting the subject to me o r i g i n a l l y and for h i s continuing i n t e r e s t i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I acknowledge my debt to the l a t e Wilson Duff who f i r s t taught me to appreciate the a r t and technology of the people of the Northwest Coast. The following i n d i v i d u a l s offered valuable information and suggestions: Raoul Andersen, Steve Langdon, George MacDonald, James McDonald, H i l a r y Stewart, and Wayne Suttles. The B r i t i s h Columbia Provinc-i a l Museum helped me to obtain the photographs used. Special thanks to Lyle MacDonald for h i s f i n e i l l u s t r a t i o n s . Sharon MacDonald, Jaime Berringer and Cory Berringer a s s i s t e d with proofreading. S y l v i a Chan typed the manuscript with great d i l i g e n c e . ' The'Geography Department a s s i s t e d i n the preparation of maps. I wish to thank everyone. Many friends and colleagues have given s p e c i a l support. I would l i k e to mention Judy Huntley, James Tweedie, Martine Reid, Joan Hayward, Deborah Cavanaugh, David Pokotylo, and B i l l White. Thanks also to the s t a f f members of the Department of Anthropology and Sociology f o r t h e i r f r i e n d l y assistance. The loving support and continuous encouragement of my family i s deeply appreciated. I am e s p e c i a l l y g r a t e f u l to my husband, John Berringer, for everything he has done to make i t possible for me to complete the work. He has been a source of great strength. Christopher, Jaime, John Pat r i c k , and Cory Berringer each contributed to the success of t h i s study. - 1 -INTRODUCTION The p r e - c o l o n i a l societ i e s that occupied the coastal region of northwestern North America were economically dependent on the P a c i f i c inshore and r i v e r i n e f i s h e r i e s . Despite a d i v e r s i t y of languages and cultures, the unifying p r i n c i p l e throughout the e n t i r e Northwest Coast was an adaptation to marine resources that centred on the a v a i l a b i l i t y and u t i l i z a t i o n of the anadromous P a c i f i c salmon, Oncorhynchus sp. As the evidence of t h i s thesis w i l l demonstrate, t r a d i t i o n a l systems of salmon production were generally coincident with seasonal, migrations of adult salmon returning from marine environments to fr e s h water spawning grounds. This c h a r a c t e r i s t i c movement of salmon biomass through successive time and space segments i s the c r i t i c a l component i n an appraisal of maritime adaptations on the Northwest Coast. In each d i s t i n c t i v e Northwest Coast c u l t u r a l system, fishermen generated strategies of resource u t i l i z a t i o n that optimized the kinds of locations where salmon could be taken. From Yakutat Bay, Alaska, to the Eel River drainage i n Northwestern C a l i f o r n i a , there are s i g n i f i c a n t shared features i n the natural environment: a temperate climate, moderate to heavy p r e c i p i t a t i o n , extensive tree cover, l i t t l e arable s o i l , and innumerable r i v e r s and streams. It was these fresh water resources that supported large salmon populations, providing the primary food source for coastal peoples. The l o c a l resource user-groups i n each society had access to several f i s h e r y s i t e s , defined by s p e c i f i c micro-ecological f a c t o r s : currents, t i d e s , t u r b i d i t y , - 2 -thermal conditions; these are generally described i n geophysical terms as: r i f f l e s , bays, bars, r i v e r mouth areas (estuaries), inshore channels, f j o r d s and i n l e t s , small coastal streams, large r i v e r s , w a t e r f a l l s and rapids i n the canyon. Every f i s h e r y l o c a t i o n offered a combination of v a r i a b l e water features to challenge the fisherman's t e c h n i c a l expertise; but the most important e c o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e was the presence of salmon. Five species of P a c i f i c salmon enter the waters of the Northwest Coast: chinook (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha), sockeye (P. nerka), pink (0. gorbuscha), coho (0. k i s u t c h ) , and chum (0. keta). C h a r a c t e r i s t i c differences between species are demonstrated i n the timing of runs and behaviour during migration, which under some circumstances a f f e c t resource u t i l i z a t i o n . Spawning populations within each species comprise a genetic stock r e f e r r e d to as a 'run'. Maturing salmon i n each spawning population return to the spawning ground from which they o r i g i n a l l y emerged as f r y . The run i t s e l f i s a d i s c r e t e event i n time that follows a regular and recurring pattern f o r each stream population or stock. The period during which any given run i s accessible to human predation i s l i m i t e d . A r i v e r system that supports several spawning grounds and that has runs of more than one or two species of salmon i s l i k e l y to have a longer season than one which has fewer runs. However, the s i z e of the run may be an even more s i g n i f i c a n t factor. Where abundant runs pass through a fish e r y s i t e not only i s the duration for which salmon are accessible extended, but f i s h i n g opportunities are s t a t i s t i c a l l y improved, and y i e l d s increased. - 3 -The seasonality of each P a c i f i c salmon species i s predictable, occurring with as much r e g u l a r i t y as the ripening of food crops l i k e r i c e and wheat. Nevertheless, as with a g r i c u l t u r a l resources, salmon i s subject to f o r t u i t o u s events and conditions i n the ecosystem which, for humans, have an impact upon p o t e n t i a l food production. Fluctuations i n abundance that may s e r i o u s l y deplete the si z e of runs available l o c a l l y to a resource u t i l i z a t i o n group commonly occur for any of a number of reasons. To extend the analogy, a plant food producer has a d i r e c t r o l e i n r e l a t i o n to crop growth; he or she prepares the f i e l d s , sows the seeds or plants the seedlings, and contends with weeds and pests during the growing season. The Northwest Coast fisherman had no input control to correspond with t h i s i n the empirical sense although he would, through appropriate respect behaviour, t r y to ensure that a compatible environment existed to a t t r a c t the returning s p i r i t of Salmon. Otherwise, a l l h i s production energies must be directed to the harvest, the salmon run, since that was his only opportunity to e f f e c t the objective. It i s e s s e n t i a l then that strategies of production increase h i s chances of making the catch. Pertinent information about the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of l o c a l salmon stocks and the features of accessible water resources was transmitted to members of the user-group, a lineage association, through the s o c i a l organization of knowledge, as e s s e n t i a l i n f i s h i n g s o c i e t i e s as i n a g r i c u l t u r a l communities. Intimate and d e t a i l e d knowledge of the resource i s the foundation on which te c h n i c a l systems of salmon production were organized. - 4 -Non-agricultural s o c i e t i e s are generally categorized as simple s o c i a l systems. The Northwest Coast i s an anomoly: i t was non-agricultural but i t had a complex s o c i a l structure, r i g i d l y h i e r a r c h i c a l with ranked s o c i a l groups, a r e l a t i v e l y dense population concentrated e s p e c i a l l y at r i v e r confluences and o u t l e t s , l i v i n g i n permanent winter v i l l a g e s from which user-groups emerged on seasonal excursions of resource e x p l o i t a t i o n . Like other western North American s o c i e t i e s , the people of the Northwest Coast had an acephalous p o l i t i c a l organization, each community independent and s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t ( 1 ). According to early anthropological c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , the Northwest Coast was i n an equivocal hunter-gatherer category, despite a complexity of s o c i a l organization and material culture that b e l i e s t h i s c h a r a c t e r i zation. The products of hunting and gathering provided supplemental nutrients to Northwest Coast di e t s but cannot be con-sidered primary. To extend the meaning of the terms 'hunting' and 'gathering' to include the i n t e g r a t i v e modes of salmon production and resource u t i l i z a t i o n p r a ctised by fishermen on the Northwest Coast does the system of typologies an i n j u s t i c e . More importantly, i t i s l i k e l y that d i s t i n c t i o n s w i l l be overlooked that may help to explain the nature of resource e x p l o i t a t i o n i n a maritime environment, and how these d i f f e r from strategies of land-use. A closer examination of the maritime strategies u t i l i z e d by Northwest Coast people obviously would be useful i n rethinking systems of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n based on the ecology and t r a d i t i o n a l economics of non-industrialized s o c i e t i e s . - 5 -Not only Is the Northwest Coast miscast as a hunter-gatherer group, i t has been unrecognized as the si g n a l example of a maritime adaptation. This thesis begins with the assumption that the Northwest Coast i s e s s e n t i a l l y a f i s h i n g society. Yet the conditions of i t s economic base are exceptional among known f i s h i n g s o c i e t i e s i n other parts of the world (2). T y p i c a l l y , people who are economically dependent p r i n c i p a l l y on maritime resources either p r a c t i c e some form of a g r i c u l t u r e or ex i s t i n symbiotic r e l a t i o n to plant food-producers. But on the Northwest Coast there was no s i g n i f i c a n t i n c i p i e n t plant production and no neighbouring a g r i c u l t u r i s t s . Whereas i n f i s h i n g communities elsewhere people obtained wheat or r i c e and other staple grains through systems of exchange, u t i l i z i n g t h e i r catch not only as a protein source but as a commodity, on the Northwest Coast preserved f i s h products were the staple storage foods. In addition to salmon, the major species u t i l i z e d , where a v a i l a b l e , were: cod, halibut, sturgeon, trout, herring, eulachon i n the north, e e l or lamprey i n the south, and other species l o c a l l y obtainable, for example, the s a b l e f i s h (black cod) i n the waters o ff the Queen Charlottes. Other marine products included many species of i n t e r t i d a l s h e l l f i s h and marine mammals. From one society to another a v a r i a b l e proportion of these products was preserved e i t h e r as dried f i s h or as stored o i l and roe by-products. But the chief staple food, the p r i n c i p a l component i n the annually stored provisions of each family group, was salmon. It was the a v a i l a b i l i t y and u t i l i z a t i o n of salmon that made a singular case of t h i s culture area i n r e l a t i o n to other f i s h i n g s o c i e t i e s . Permanent - 6 -v i l l a g e s and communities i n the Northwest Coast supported sizeable populations with a f i s h i n g economy that was s e l f - s u s t a i n i n g , one with no symbiotic r e l a t i o n to other production or economic systems. Occasionally i n the past suggestions have been made to explain the l e v e l of food production on the Northwest Coast (as well as the q u a l i t y of art and architecture) by reference to a bounteous nature. It i s not enough to say the environment was r i c h l y endowed, even though i n many places t h i s was c e r t a i n l y true. 'The waters abound with salmon', some sources say; yes, but salmon must be caught, they must be accessible to e x p l o i t i n g groups. 'Salmon runs f i l l the streams yearly', others w i l l say; yes, but the duration of each run i s l i m i t e d , the resource must be exploited within the constraints of time and place, and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i n d i v i d u a l salmon species. The s i z e of l o c a l salmon populations varies from one stream system to another. Abundance va r i e s from year to year. Stocks are subject to disease and to predation by non-humans that a f f e c t s the number of returning spawners. The c r i t e r i o n by which to judge the achievement of Northwest Coast systems of marine and r i v e r i n e adaptation i s not the p o t e n t i a l size of the spawning population i n the entire P a c i f i c drainage system, but the s i z e of the catch. A notable feature of the t r a d i t i o n a l Northwest Coast f i s h e r y was the development of multiform techniques of salmon resource pro-duction. This study contains an assembly and comparison of data on salmon ecosystems and t r a d i t i o n a l resource use. The production techniques and processes used i n the native f i s h e r y were based on a complex of systems that operated within e c o l o g i c a l and s o c i a l - 7 -parameters. Twelve salmon technology complexes are I d e n t i f i e d , each suited to a d i f f e r e n t set of conditions i n the natural and s o c i a l environment. A d i s t r i b u t i o n a l analysis of resource use patterns i s included. The standard ethnographic accounts of twenty-four l i n g u i s t i c or ethnic groups provides the primary data source, together with supplementary observations by early v i s i t o r s to the Northwest Coast. In addition, selected t e c h n i c a l references i n the reports of f i s h e r i e s researchers and b i o l o g i s t s , geographers and hydrographers, were consulted for u s e f u l s c i e n t i f i c material to a i d i n the reconstruction of the e c o l o g i c a l context of the f i s h e r y . - 8 -LITERATURE REVIEW Previous Studies of the Northwest Coast T r a d i t i o n a l F i s h e r i e s 1. Hewes (1947 unpublished d i s s e r t a t i o n ) ; Rostlurid (1952); Kroeber & Barrett (1960) It i s remarkable that so l i t t l e work has been done to synthesize the a v a i l a b l e Northwest Coast materials. The three re-ferences c i t e d above are the only comprehensive studies to include t r a d i t i o n a l f i s h i n g methods used by Northwest Coast peoples. Hewes' work i s an extensive survey of northwestern North America's a b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r i e s i n c l u d i n g most of the marine species u t i l i z e d , together with i n t e r t i d a l species, marine mammals, anadromous species and freshwater f i s h . His data f o r the Northwest Coast region i s p a r t i c u l a r l y strong for C a l i f o r n i a groups among whom he d i d o r i g i n a l f i e l d research i n 1940. Hewes describes s p e c i f i c geographical features at many coastal s i t e s along the C a l i f o r n i a , Oregon and Washington seaboard, and further north; and he itemizes the f i s h i n g methods used at each of these locations. Rostlund's compendium i s a standard reference for North American freshwater f i s h and t r a d i t i o n a l f i s h i n g methods. E s s e n t i a l l y i t i s an inventory of ethnographic and h i s t o r i c a l references to the subject, complete with t o p i c a l summaries of the d i s t r i b u t i o n and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of f i s h i n g methods. Rostlund's perspective i s comparative geography but, l i k e Hewes, he was obviously impressed by the d i v e r s i t y of f i s h i n g methods u t i l i z e d by native North Americans and sought to bring order to the wide-ranging materials on the subject. - 9 -Kroeber and Barrett's monograph i s the only anthropological analysis of f i s h i n g technology to focus excl u s i v e l y on a sub-area of the Northwest Coast. It i s an exhaustive accounting of a l l reported f i s h i n g methods used by contiguous Northwestern C a l i f o r n i a language groups who occupied the Klamath River basin and several adjacent r i v e r systems. In a review of t h i s work H.E. Driver has said that i t surpasses anything else published about f i s h i n g methods i n an area of comparable size i n North America (1962:1078). While Kroeber introduces h i s work by saying that "no comprehensive accounts of f i s h i n g i n the area have been published" i n reference to Northwestern C a l i f o r n i a , he might well have extended that observation to the wider Northwest Coast culture area (1960:1). In the present work excerpts and data are drawn from Kroeber and.Barrett's study. However, the other two s e l e c t i o n s , which r e l i e d on standard ethnographic references f o r t h e i r data, were not consulted because I have preferred to go d i r e c t l y to o r i g i n a l sources. In the case of Kroeber and Barrett, much of the material was drawn from un-published works or sources not e a s i l y accessible. Hewes' f i e l d notes, e.g. are more extensively treated i n the C a l i f o r n i a study than was f e a s i b l e i n h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . 2. Suttles (1960, 1962, 1968); Vayda (1961, 1967) It i s Suttles and Vayda who are generally credited with being the f i r s t to refute theories of boundless plenty i n respect of Northwest Coast resource a v a i l a b i l i t y . These scholars studied the implications of - 10 -resource v a r i a b i l i t y i n s o c i a l and economic features of Northwest Coast s o c i e t i e s , and raised pertinent questions about d i f f e r e n t i a l access to productive resource areas. Although some questions remain unresolved, the former unexamined attitudes toward abundance and surplus have been s u c c e s s f u l l y challenged. In these studies, Suttles and Vayda applied an e c o l o g i c a l perspective to the problems associated with systems of d i s t r i b u t i o n , whereas I use a s i m i l a r e c o l o g i c a l model i n the present work to examine systems of production. 3. Donald and M i t c h e l l (1975); Schalk (1977) Other scholars have more recently examined resource v a r i a b i l i t y with s p e c i a l emphasis on salmon f i s h e r i e s . Donald and M i t c h e l l ' s paper, "Some Correlates of Local Group Rank Among the Southern Kwakiutl", i s now a c l a s s i c statement of the c o r r e l a t i o n between salmon resource a v a i l a b i l i t y and human population s i z e . Donald and M i t c h e l l demonstrated a subsequent c o r r e l a t i o n to the system of l o c a l group rank among the referenced population, that i s , the " r e l a t i v e richness of annual salmon resources" produced i n t e r r i t o r i e s held by l o c a l groups of resource users correlates to t h e i r r e l a t i v e s o c i a l rank as established by precedent during 'potlatches'. Schalk's paper, on the other hand, focusses on the nature of the salmon and other anadromous f i s h as an exploitable resource (3 ). His i s a comprehensive account of "the structure" of the resource, including v a r i a t i o n s i n spawning populations and the timing of runs - 11 -which are s i m i l a r to the kinds of data presented i n Part Two of t h i s t h e s i s . Schalk takes exception to e a r l i e r works i n anthropology, including that of Suttles and Vayda (and H a r r i s ' analysis of that work ( 4 ) ) , which purport to represent e c o l o g i c a l models of resource a v a i l a b i l i t y without a s u f f i c i e n t data base to specify more exactly what i s meant by v a r i a t i o n . Maritime Anthropology - Canada 1. Andersen and Wadel The series of research a r t i c l e s to come out of Newfoundland i n the l a t e s i x t i e s - early seventies was the f i r s t integrated attempt to examine maritime adaptations i n a Canadian context. The A t l a n t i c f i s h e r i e s represented i n these papers are d i f f e r e n t i n most respects from the P a c i f i c salmon p r e - c o l o n i a l f i s h e r i e s . Nevertheless, the perspective and research approach that was used informed my i n i t i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a method by which to study the west coast production system. - 12 -RESEARCH DESIGN Methodology Second and third-generation c u l t u r a l ecologists have expanded on the o r i g i n a l concepts of J u l i a n Steward (1936, 1955) to produce more f l e x i b l e d e f i n i t i o n s of the i n t e r a c t i o n between environment, c u l t u r a l a r t i f a c t s , and e x p l o i t a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s ; nevertheless, i t was he who f i r s t suggested that i t was sound methodological p r a c t i c e to i s o l a t e the s i g n i f i c a n t e c o l o g i c a l - c u l t u r e r e l a t i o n i n any given group, rather than consider a l l elements of equal value (cf Cox:1973;Geertz:1963; Harris:1968;Helm:1962). In the past c u l t u r a l ecology models have placed too much emphasis on 'adaptation', a concept that became a c a t c h - a l l for un-c r i t i c a l a n a l y s i s . Like a l l over-used words, i t l o s t i t s o r i g i n a l meaning and has recently f a l l e n from favour. As Jorgensen has commented, at any moment i n time every c u l t u r a l system i s 'adapted' to i t s environment (n.d.). Perhaps the main disappointment with theories of c u l t u r a l ecology and such other approaches as i n t e r a c t i o n a l analysis (cf Barth: 1959,1968) i s that they seemed to promise a means of analyzing processes, rather than an e x p l i c a t i o n of s t a t i c models. The method I selected f o r the purposes of t h i s study was one that would help me to define and analyze the t r a d i t i o n a l fishery as a system. I wanted to know how the f i s h e r y operated; what was the i n t e r -r e l a t i o n of selected and s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s , the nature of the resource, the s o c i a l organization of labour, the a c c e s s i b i l i t y of - 13 -resource-use s i t e s , the technology of salmon production. Notions from both c u l t u r a l ecology and general systems theory (GST) were useful i n the formulation of a paradigm for the f i s h e r y (cf Bertalanffy:. 1973;Watt:1968). I do not represent my simple paradigm to be a genuine model of process. Such models, where they e x i s t , are dependent on formal mathematical analyses, computer-enhanced, and are only recently being developed to serve s p e c i f i c objectives i n archaeology, physical anthropology, l i n g u i s t i c s , and population-ecology studies. Usually, a s t a t i s t i c a l base i s p r e r e q u i s i t e , or some means of quantifying the value of things that stand i n r e l a t i o n to one another. I a n t i c i p a t e that as 'mainstream' anthropologists become more f a m i l i a r with the modelling c a p a b i l i t i e s of c e r t a i n computer languages they w i l l ex-periment with processual models and q u a l i t a t i v e analyses of s o c i a l and environmental r e l a t i o n s . For the present, I use the concepts of systems theory as an instrument: f i r s t , to i s o l a t e and define selected elements and, secondly, as a t o o l of analysis to help explain the i n t e r r e l a t i o n of variables i n the system studied. Watt (1968:7) has suggested that survey and q u a l i t a t i v e analysis of previously unassembled materials i s necessary before more rigorous methods can be u s e f u l l y applied and interpreted. Q u a l i t a t i v e Analysis: Each salmon technology complex (STC) i s defined as a set of elements standing i n i n t e r r e l a t i o n . The elements are thus to be analyzed - 14 -on the b a s i s of t h e i r c o n s t i t u t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , to borrow a term from B e r t a l a n f f y (1973:54-55) , that i s , not on the b a s i s of the sum of elements, but of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s one to the other. B e r t a l a n f f y regards such a f o r m u l a t i o n of systems p r i n c i p l e s to be " i n t u i t i v e l y a c c e s s i b l e " ( i b i d ) . The argument i n Part Three i s a non-formal methodological approach, developed to u t i l i z e i n t u i t i v e c a t e g o r i e s and i n d u c t i v e reasoning i n the a n a l y s i s of sets of e c o l o g i c a l , s o c i a l , and t e c h n o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e s . - 15 -Scope and Limitations a) This study i s not concerned with i d e o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s i n Northwest Coast f i s h i n g ; only a few b r i e f references are included i n the text. The most widely d i s t r i b u t e d r i t u a l complex, the F i r s t Salmon Ceremony, has been analyzed by Erna Gunther (1926,1928). The r i t u a l i s t ' s r o l e i n the S t r a i t s S a l i s h reef net fis h e r y has been described by both Stern (1934) and Suttles (1951). In Waterman and Kroeber's comprehensive study, The Kepel F i s h Dam (1938), both the technology and r i t u a l that attended the annual i n s t a l l a t i o n of an important weir are treated. With these notable exceptions, i t appears there was less r i t u a l associated with f i s h i n g than with land and sea mammal hunting. The whale complex on the west coast of Vancouver Island and at Cape F l a t t e r y was highly elaborated, but prac t i c e s did not extend to f i s h i n g . Several informants reported that no magic was needed for f i s h i n g (cf de Laguna:1974; Elmendorf:1960). Profane b e l i e f s were common: charms, lucky hats, and other such univ e r s a l phenomena. In many Northwest Coast s o c i e t i e s , women of child-bearing age observed s p e c i a l r e s t r i c t i o n s i n r e l a t i o n to salmon f i s h i n g gear and s i t e s . Any future, study of s o c i a l constraints on women i n t h i s context must use a broader sample than the Northwest Coast because the occurrence i s wide-spread. b) The e n t i r e geographic continuum which forms the Northwest Coast culture area i s subject to t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n ; that i s , Yakutat Bay, Alaska, where the northern-most T l i n g i t group l i v e s , to the Wiyot at the mouth of the Eel River i n Northwestern C a l i f o r n i a . The features - 16 -of the culture area have been described by many write r s , notably Kroeber (1939), Driver and Massey (.1957), and most recently, Jorgensen (1980). Twenty-four ethnic groups are included (see Table I ). Omitted are the Nooksak, Chemakum, Chehalis, Cowlitz, and Ni t i n a t for whom there was i n s u f f i c i e n t data. The names used follow Suttles' (1978) map. It i s intended that the scope of the study be broad rather than intensive, so that patterns of resource use over the whole region could be demonstrated. In addition, I believe that a wide geographical basis on which to construct conclusions i s more sound methodologically. However, the advantages of a close examination of the salmon f i s h e r y within each ethnic or l i n g u i s t i c d i v i s i o n i s necessarily s a c r i f i c e d . c) This i s a synchronic, not an h i s t o r i c a l study. It represents the f i s h e r y as i t existed i n the past p r i o r to colon i z a t i o n and white settlement; on most parts of the coast 1850 i s a rough threshold date. The maritime fur trade had declined by t h i s time, but new trading posts were being b u i l t for the land-based trade. Introduced diseases had already effected a population decline, changes i n e x p l o i t a t i v e and residency patterns were well advanced, and the breakdown of coastal v i l l a g e communities had begun. By ' t r a d i t i o n a l ' I mean those techniques considered by successive generations to be appropriate resource use strategies i n the Northwest Coast e c o l o g i c a l context. These are f i s h i n g techniques handed down from one generation to the other. The subject of o r i g i n i s not considered. Without reference to other types of models, the use of d i f f u s i o n theory i s inadequate to explain the occurrence at - 17 -TABLE I ETHNIC DIVISIONS Region D i v i s i o n Language Group Sub-division (cited) Language Family Northern 1 2 3 Wakashan Salishan 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 Columbian 14 15 16 17 18 19 Southern 20 21 22 23 24 T l i n g i t Haida Tsimshian Gitksan-Nass Coast Tsimshian Northern Kwakiutl Ha i s l a Heiltsuk B e l l a Coola Southern Kwakiutl Kwakiutl West Coast-Nootka Makah North Gulf S a l i s h Comox Sechelt Squamish Halkomelem S t r a i t s Lushootseed Twana Skidegate, Massett Clayoquot, Ahousat, Hesquiat, Moachat Stalo (Musqueam, Katzie, T a i t ) , Nanaimo, Cowichan Lummi, Klallam, Saanich, Songish Puyallup-Nisqually, Skagit, Muckleshoot Quileute Quinault Lower Chinook Chinook Upper Chinook Wishram Tillamook Oregon Coast Coos Alsea, Siuslaw C o q u i l l e , Umpqua, Chasta Costa Tolowa Yurok Karok Hupa Wiyot T l i n g i t Haida Tsimshian Wakashan Salishan Wakashan Wakashan Wakashan Salishan Salishan Salishan Salishan Salishan Chemakuan Salishan Chinookan Chinookan Salishan Coosan Yakonan Athapascan Athapascan Algonkian Hokan ( i s o l a t e ) Athapascan Algonkian - 18 -various places on the coast of d i v e r s i t i e s or s i m i l a r i t i e s i n the technology of salmon production. Eventually, archaeological evidence w i l l give us a time-depth perspective. For the present, whether f i s h i n g techniques and devices used by Northwest Coast peoples were the r e s u l t of retentions from a p r o t o h i s t o r i c a l period brought to the coast by immigration, or to innovations subsequently made, i s beyond the scope of t h i s study to suggest. - 19 -Introdution Footnotes 1 Jorgensen (1980) has recently suggested t h i s correspondence between Northwest Coast and other western North American s o c i e t i e s . 2 Sundstom (1972) describes the more common symbiotic r e l a t i o n between f i s h i n g and a g r i c u l t u r a l s o c i e t i e s i n his study of Niger fishermen. 3 I am g r a t e f u l to David Pokotylo f o r bringing to my atte n t i o n the paper by Schalk, published i n an archaeological j o u r n a l . 4 Harris (1968) regards the work of Suttles and Vayda as a praiseworthy contribution to Northwest Coast studies. - 20 -PART ONE — SALMON TECHNOLOGY COMPLEXES: the ethnographic record INTRODUCTION Who the f i r s t peoples were to s e t t l e on the Northwest Coast at a r i v e r mouth or sheltered cove, no one knows. Perhaps they came downriver from the i n t e r i o r , or had made t h e i r way gradually along the coast looking f o r new food resources. Every nation had i t s own story about the F i r s t People, and how they came to l i v e by the sea. The fabulous g i f t of "Salmon-Bringer" i s a feature of the mythology. As centuries passed, many diverse people migrated to r i v e r i n e and co a s t a l l o c a t i o n s , each bringing with them a ' c u l t u r a l k i t ' f i l l e d with d i f f e r e n t sorts of knowledge, t o o l s , and s k i l l s . In time the region was inhabited by more than twenty language groups, some of whom l e f t l i n g u i s t i c antecedants i n other parts of the continent, but others who spoke languages known only on the Northwest Coast. rWhatever t h e i r o r i g i n s , each society adapted to the new conditions of a maritime environment, s e l e c t i v e l y u t i l i z i n g i t s resources and developing new forms of expertise. The use of salmon products gave the region r e l a t i v e economic se c u r i t y because of two complementary systems: salmon resource e x p l o i t a t i o n , through the appropriate use of technology and s k i l l s ; and preservation techniques that made possible long-term storage of - 21 -salmon food products. While only the f i r s t of these two systems i s examined i n t h i s study, I wish to acknowledge that both the male-dominated a c t i v i t i e s to procure salmon and the female-dominated sphere of salmon preservation and storage were e s s e n t i a l to Northwest Coast s o c i e t i e s . In t h i s i n i t i a l chapter, Northwest Coast salmon production strategies are presented within the context of r e c i p r o c a l r e l a t i o n s . E c o l o g i c a l , s o c i a l , and technological v a r i a b l e s pertinent to the success of resource u t i l i z a t i o n are considered. Twelve salmon technology complexes are introduced. These can be described as independent operating systems each of which had p o t e n t i a l c a p a b i l i t i e s to extract the salmon resource at one or another of the time-space segments occupied by the migrating runs. I suggest that resource users selected the technical system that best suited the conditions of the f i s h e r y s i t e . That i s , for any given combination of e c o l o g i c a l features at a s i t e there was one salmon technology complex that was more e f f i c i e n t than any other. A commentary on the d i s t r i b u t i o n of salmon f i s h i n g methods i s included i n context, supported by maps i n d i c a t i n g which ethnic d i v i s i o n s are reported to have used the complex. (Note: a l i s t i n g of the references c i t e d to obtain these data for each type of f i s h i n g system i s contained i n the Appendix.) - 22 -SALMON TECHNOLOGY COMPLEX 1 - TROLLING 1. Contextual Description The inshore t r o l l i n g f i s h e r y operated i n coastal waters around Vancouver Island and i t s adjacent s t r a i t s and sounds. To t r o l l i s to f i s h f o r salmon with a baited hook drawn behind a moving canoe; i t was the only salmon technology complex to use a lu r e . Long t r o l l i n g l i n e s of kelp, whale sinew, or n e t t l e f i b r e drew a composite hook which had a bone point and wooden shank lashed together to make an acute angle. Midway between the canoe and the hook, a small sinker would be joined to the l i n e . Only two species — coho and chinook — commonly r i s e to bait i n these waters. A herring was secured on the hook by a method that made i t appear to be, with each stroke of the fisherman's paddle, a l i v e and s t i l l swimming. Jewitt (1967[1815]) gives an early f i r s t - h a n d account of t r o l l i n g among the Nootka (c.1803-1805): One person seats himself i n a small canoe, and b a i t i n g h i s hook with a sprat, which they are always c a r e f u l to procure as fresh as possible, fastens h i s l i n e to the handle of the paddle; t h i s , as he p l i e s i t i n the water, keeps the f i s h i n constant motion, so as to give i t the appearance of l i f e , which the salmon seeing, leaps at i t and i s i n s t a n t l y hooked, and by a sudden and desterous (sic) motion of the paddle, drawn on board. (p.68) The presence of l i v e herring i n the waters to be t r o l l e d was an important consideration. Swan (1870:24) notes that the Makah would not go out - 23 -a f t e r salmon "even though the waters be a l i v e with them" unless herring were present. 2. Types and Materials The gear consisted of a composite acute-angle hook, a leader, sinker, and long t r o l l i n g l i n e . The usual type i s that described by Boas (1909:fig.155, 485-6) cons i s t i n g of a hook with a wooden shank and a bone barb lashed together. A second type, an ironwood steam-bent hook, (Smith:1940:254) was l e s s common. The f i n e l i n e used for the leader i s not adequately described. The sinker, where i t was used, was attached with cedar withes or cherry bark. Drucker (1951:41) says, however, the weight of the b a i t was s u f f i c i e n t for t r o l l i n g i n Nootkan waters since the hook was not deeply submerged. The preparation and manufacture of f i b r e t r o l l i n g l i n e s was labour-intensive. Boas says l i n e s were 16 to 18 metres long, made of kelp l i n e or n e t t l e f i b e r . Whale sinew t r o l l i n g l i n e s were used by Nootka fishermen, kelp l i n e s by the Makah, and kelp, n e t t l e , or willow-bark twine by S t r a i t s S a l i s h . Swan (1870:24) gives a very detailed d e s c r i p t i o n of the preparation of kelp l i n e s . T r o l l i n g was usually done with a s i n g l e hook. The Makah were the only group reported to have attached multiple t r o l l i n g hooks to t h e i r l i n e s ; they used gangs of up to t h i r t y hooks. - 24 -3. D i s t r i b u t i o n -T r o l l i n g complex i s centred i n Wakashan and Salishan t e r r i t o r i e s . There i s archaeological evidence to suggest that the Coast Tsimshian also used t r o l l i n g methods. S a l i s h people extended salmon resource a v a i l a b i l i t y by t r o l l i n g p r i o r to seasonal spawning runs i n the channels of Rosario and Haro S t r a i t s , offshore near present-day V i c t o r i a , and around the Gulf Islands. The Nootka secured large supplies of salmon by t r o l l i n g the i n l e t s , coves, and lee side channels of t h e i r off-coast i s l a n d s . Although Drucker said that most of the t r o l l i n g catch was consumed as fresh food, Sapir and Swadesh (1955:30,41,45) were t o l d i n 1910 that Nootkan resource user-groups preserved the early autumn coho caught by t r o l l e r s . What proportion of the t o t a l catch t h i s represented i s not estimated. The centre of importance i n the t r o l l i n g f i s h e r y was the entrance to the S t r a i t s of Juan de Fuca. Here Makah fishermen exploited the Fraser-bound runs of chinook and coho. T r o l l i n g was the dominant mode of salmon production f o r the Makah, accounting for almost a l l t h e i r winter provisions of dried salmon, i n addition to fresh con-sumption i n the summer months. No other Northwest Coast people had such an intensive t r o l l i n g f i s h e r y . Few f i r m estimates of p r o d u c t i v i t y are a v a i l a b l e . Jewitt (ibid) reported twenty to t h i r t y canoes t r o l l i n g i n the cove which returned a f t e r a morning's f i s h i n g with eight to ten large salmon each. - 26 -4. S o c i a l Variables In the s t r a i t s and sounds of the cen t r a l Northwest Coast t r o l l i n g was un r e s t r i c t e d by r i g h t s of access. The r i c h reserves of salmon at the entrance to Juan de Fuca were open to the Makah fishermen i n common. But the Nootka data (Drucker:1951:251) suggests that since a l l t e r r i t o r i a l prerogatives resided i n the chief no one could go t r o l l i n g u n t i l he had formally opened the season. A fisherman usually t r o l l e d alone i n h i s canoe but fished i n the same general area as others. There i s no i n d i c a t i o n that the means of production ( t r o l l i n g l i n e s and hooks) was other than i n d i v i d u a l and p r i v a t e . Much labour went into the manufacture of the long l i n e s required. 5. E c o l o g i c a l Variables The waters at the approach and entrance of the S t r a i t s of Juan de Fuca, as well as offshore f i s h e r i e s on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, once s i g n i f i c a n t resource areas for t r a d i t i o n a l t r o l l e r s , are now the most productive commercial t r o l l i n g locations (INPSF:IX:BULL.16 pp.1-73). Chinook salmon enter these waters early i n spring (ibid:70); coho a r r i v e l a t e r , beginning i n July and continuing through the summer months (ibid:14). Many l o c a l run va r i a t i o n s a f f e c t the timing. On the west coast of Vancouver Island, for example, coho run i n the streams i n October (INPSF:IV:23:p.311). In the Gulf of Georgia both coho and chinook are resident throughout - 27 -the l a t e s p r i n g and e a r l y summer feeding on h e r r i n g and other small prey; a few stocks remain i n the Gulf permanently. U n l i k e other salmon technology complexes, t r o l l i n g i s defined by s p e c i f i c reference to salmon c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r a t h e r than by h y d r o l o g i c a l f e a t u r e s . Water speed and t u r b i d i t y play a minor r o l e i n the operation of the t r o l l i n g hook. The main requirement i s the presence of a species of salmon that w i l l take the l u r e . Secondly, as the Makah data r e p o r t s , the t r o l l i n g s i t e must have i n appreciable numbers a n a t u r a l prey f o r salmon to feed upon. The question r a i s e d i s why the coincidence of these e c o l o g i c a l features was not e x p l o i t e d beyond the c o a s t a l waters of Wakashan and S a l i s h a n peoples? - 28 -SALMON TECHNOLOGY COMPLEX 2 - SEINING 1. Contextual Description The p r i n c i p l e of the seine i s to e n c i r c l e and impound many salmon at one play of the net. The gear used on the Northwest Coast consisted of a f l a t net, long and narrow i n shape, hung v e r t i c a l l y i n the water, and equipped with f l o a t s , sinkers, and guide l i n e s . T r a d i t i o n a l l y operated as a beach seine, as i n the lower reaches of the Columbia River, i t was played out i n an arc i n the currents near shore on an ebbing t i d e . A beach free of obstruction was needed to land the net. Seine nets are among the oldest of f i s h i n g devices known to man and were widely d i s t r i b u t e d . Driver (1939) described the Northwest Coast beach seine as a 'true seine'. Both salmon and non-salmon species can be captured on the p r i n c i p l e of 'surround-and-enclose'. Yet within t r a d i t i o n a l Northwest Coast systems the seine had a li m i t e d economic importance to a l l but a sing l e group, the Chinook people l i v i n g at the mouth of the Columbia. The seine f i s h e r y was the primary producer of salmon for the Chinook. In the f i r s t decade or two of the nineteenth century several non-native observers recorded t h e i r impressions of the intensive seining f i s h e r y on the Columbia (1). It was operated i n l a t e spring and early summer for chinook salmon. Great quantities of salmon were caught and processed; many for use i n the far-reaching trading network of which the Chinook and Wishram peoples were an i n t e g r a l part. - 29 -The following account, reported by Swan (.1857), who was on the lower Columbia when the impact of population decline had already reduced the effectiveness of t r a d i t i o n a l production systems, i s nevertheless most u s e f u l . Swan notes small but s i g n i f i c a n t d e t a i l s i n h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of how the seine was operated. Three persons are r equ i r ed to work a ne t , except the very l a r ge ones, which r equ i r e more he lp to land them. The time the f i s h i n g i s commenced i s at the top of the h ighwater , j u s t as the t i d e beg ins to ebb. A short d i s t ance from the shore the cur ren t i s very s w i f t , and w i t h i t s a i d these nets are hau led . Two persons get i n t o the canoe, on the s t e rn of which i s c o i l e d the net on a frame made f o r the purpose, r e s t i n g on the canoe's gunwale. She i s then paddled up the stream, c l o se i n to the beach, where the cur ren t i s not so s t r ong . A t o w - l i n e , w i t h a wooden f l o a t a t tached to i t , i s then thrown to the t h i r d person, who remains on the beach, and immediate ly the two i n the canoe paddle her i n t o the r ap i d stream as q u i c k l y as they can, throwing out the net a l l the t ime. When t h i s i s a l l out , they paddle ashore, hav ing the end of the other t ow- l i ne made f a s t to the canoe. Before a l l t h i s i s accompl ished, the net i s c a r r i e d down the stream, by the fo r ce of the ebb, about the e i gh th of a m i l e , the man on shore wa lk i ng a long s l ow l y , ho l d i ng on to the l i n e t i l l the others are ready, when a l l hau l i n toge ther . (p.106) I t i s apparent t ha t a knowledge o f the t i d e s and cu r r e n t s , as w e l l as other l o c a l s i t e f ea tu re s , was e s s e n t i a l . Se i n i ng nets cou ld be operated at s i t e s i n s a l t , b r a c k i s h , or f r e sh water . Open bays and channels i n a sound would p rov ide s u i t a b l e l and i ng beaches i n some l o c a t i o n s , as would e s t ua r i e s and upstream reaches of a r i v e r . - 30 -2. Types and Materials Seine nets are r e a d i l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from other netting devices by t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i z e and shape; they are large, ranging from 100' to 600' i n length, r e l a t i v e l y narrow, and f l a t . Table II i s a comparison of reported seine nets f o r the Northwest Coast area. The v a r i a t i o n i n dimensions i s explained by Spier and Sapir (1930:176): each seine was made to s u i t the conditions of water depths at the s i t e i n order to minimize the escapement of salmon. Great lengths of cordage materials were required to make the large seine nets. Materials used by the Chinook people were imported n e t t l e , Indian hemp, or spruce root f i b e r s . Upriver on the Columbia, the Wishram f i b e r was woven with a 3 to 4" mesh for chinook salmon. S t r a i t s S a l i s h people used willow-bark twine for t h e i r seine nets. Wooden f l o a t s and stone sinkers of various sizes and shapes are reported. For example, Ray (1938) says the Chinook used one pound sinkers, grooved and attached with cedar withes, while Spier and Sapir say the Wishram t i e d three pound sinkers ten feet apart, d i r e c t l y below each f l o a t . Adding to the labour-intensive aspect of seine f i s h i n g was the need for stout ropes, 1" thick, fastened along the top and bottom margins of the nets. - 31 -TABLE II COMPARATIVE DIMENSIONS OF SEINE NETS Source Ethnic D i v i s i o n Extent Depth Swan (1857), Lower Chinook Ray (1938) 100 f t to 600 f t 7 f t to 16 f t Spier and Wishram Sapir (1930) 100 f t 12 f t Smith (1940) Puyallup-Nisqually 200 f t 6 f t to 7 f t Suttles (1951) Samish S t r a i t s 200 f t to 300 f t - 32 -3. D i s t r i b u t i o n Seine nets were operated i n Salishan, Columbian, and Northwestern C a l i f o r n i a regions, but not i n the Northern and Wakashan t e r r i t o r i e s . Local resource user-groups among the Comox, Squamish, Nanaimo and Cowichan, Samish and East Saanich communities reportedly-used the beach seine but no i n d i c a t i o n i s given of i t s r e l a t i v e importance as a salmon f i s h i n g technique. Suttles (1951:139-40) re-ports the Samish people used the seine at the mouth of the Samish River i n l a t e summer, a f t e r returning from the reef net fi s h e r y . A l i t t l e further south, i n Puget Sound, the Puyallup-Nisqually (Lushootseed) used the seine net i n s a l t water, among the bays and channels of the Sound (Smith:1940:263; Haeberlin & Gunther:1930:28). A neighbouring group, the Twana, however, s p e c i f i c a l l y denied the use of seines. There i s no doubt that the centre of importance f o r the seining complex was i n the region of the Columbia. Seining was the dominant mode of salmon production used by Chinook people to exploit the important chinook runs on the lower Columbia. Ray (1938:107) refer s to i t as the most productive method of salmon f i s h i n g . An upriver adaptation reported for the Wishram by Spier and Sapir i n -dicates the v e r s a t i l i t y of the seine, used i n t h i s case many miles upstream from the productive lower r i v e r f i s h e r y . Exact geographical locations are s p e c i f i e d both f o r the Wishram and for the Lower Chinook so that i t would be possible to research the s i t e conditions where Columbia River seines once operated. - 34 -The p r o d u c t i v i t y of seine nets on the Columbia i s estimated by Swan (1857:107) and Ray (1938:107) to have averaged f o r t y salmon per set. Swan noted that a set of the net may y i e l d nothing one time and plenty another: Sometimes the net i s hauled repeatedly without success; but i n seasons of plenty, great hauls are often made, and frequently a hundred f i n e f i s h of various s i z e s are taken at one cast of the seine. (ibid) Considering chinook salmon are the largest of the f i v e species, f o r t y f i s h would y i e l d more than 1,000 pounds of salmon. In Northwestern C a l i f o r n i a the seine complex i s reported as a generalized but not s i g n i f i c a n t f i s h e r y . Kroeber and Barrett (1960) point out that most r i v e r s i n the area are too fast for the use of seines, although at some places i n the lower courses currents are s u f f i c i e n t l y slack. They also c i t e bays, estuaries, and lagoons at r i v e r mouths as s u i t a b l e places to use the seine net. 4. S o c i a l Variables Right of access to seining beaches i n the Columbia and Salishan regions i s not s p e c i f i e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e . In Northwestern C a l i f o r n i a sections of r i v e r f r o n t access were de jure property but ownership of seining beaches per se i s unclear. Kroeber and Barrett i n f e r that l e s s important f i s h e r i e s were open to anyone; they include those operated by g i l l nets and trawls i n t h i s category (1960:4). - 35 -At the same time, they suggest that seining beaches were l i m i t e d i n number which may i n d i c a t e use r i g h t s were p r i v a t e l y held. Only wealthy user-groups could afford the seine, according to Smith (1940:263) i n reference to the Puyallup-Nisqually. The organization of labour e f f o r t required to manufacture and maintain large seine nets put the technology beyond the means of people with l i m i t e d resource c a p a b i l i t i e s . It took a c o l l e c t i v e e f f o r t to operate the beach seine. The minimum number needed to work a small net (100') was three men; a seine 600' would require many more, perhaps s i x to eight men. There are few clues i n the l i t e r a t u r e to explain how labour was organized, and no information about the catch d i v i s i o n . 5. E c o l o g i c a l Variables The seining complex shows a c o r r e l a t i o n to chinook salmon production on the Columbia, both at the brackish bays of the Chinook people and at upstream Wishram s i t e s . Gibbs (1877:194) noted i n 1855 that inland groups traded dried chinook supplies downriver to coastal groups; springs caught further upstream were les s o i l y , and better preserved. Throughout the nineteenth century and for preceding m i l l e n i a the Columbia River watershed was the centre of chinook salmon abundance on the P a c i f i c coast. Gibbs (ibid) i n his survey of the t e r r i t o r y wrote what may be the e a r l i e s t report on chinook c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . - 3 6 -...(springs) do not seek either the small r i v e r s of the coast or the lower t r i b u t a r i e s near i t s mouth f o r the purpose of spawning, but push d i r e c t l y up the p r i n c i p a l branches, such as the Willamette, the Snake, etc., to the colder waters of the mountains. In t h i s they are as s i s t e d by the simultaneous occurrence of the freshets which enable them to overcome the obstructions with greater ease. Since chinook l i n g e r i n the lower reaches before making t h e i r ascent to high water Chinook fishermen had an extended seasonal access to the runs. There were su i t a b l e beach s i t e s where the seine could be landed. Swan mentioned i n p a r t i c u l a r the f i n e sweep of beaches i n Baker's Bay where the r i v e r widens, protected from the sea by the famous bar of the Columbia. A l l the other salmon species were also fished with the seine, notably coho salmon which were s p e c i f i e d both for the Columbia fishe r y and as the species caught at the mouth of the Samish River by S t r a i t s S a l i s h fishermen. - 37 -SALMON TECHNOLOGY COMPLEX 3 - HARPOONS 1. Contextual Description Northwest Coast composite toggling salmon harpoons were e f f i c i e n t m i s s i l e s used to impale and r e t r i e v e the prey. In the ethnographies the terms 'harpoon', 'spear', and 'spearing 1, i n r e l a t i o n to salmon f i s h i n g , r e f e r to one e s s e n t i a l form: the toggling head salmon harpoon. Fixed spears and l e i s t e r s , useful implements to r e t r i e v e salmon from an enclosed space, could not be employed to capture a f i s h so strong and f u l l of f i g h t as salmon. As Kroeber and Barrett (1960) stated: For use on land the spear was i n most regions preferred to the harpoon, probably because re-tention of game by a l i n e was d i f f i c u l t or impracticable on land, whereas, the harpoon thrust or thrown from shore or boat into f i s h . . . r a r e l y fouls i t s l i n e i n water and enables the hunter to r e t r i e v e h i s prey. In (Northwestern C a l i f o r n i a ) the true spear i s so l i t t l e used i n f i s h i n g that i t becomes quite secondary to the harpoon. In f a c t , about the only spears employed are the sharpened pole used f o r the f l a t fishes on tide-water f l a t s ( i . e . , not salmon)...The harpoon, with i t s toggle head or heads, was used for larger f i s h e s . (1960:74) S i m i l a r l y , Oswalt concludes i n his extensive study of hunting and f i s h i n g technology that spears were not used to capture salmon. - 38 -Without b e l i t t l i n g the importance of l e i s t e r s , we can note that they probably were not an im-portant means for obtaining f i s h except under c e r t a i n circumstances. When f i s h were p l e n t i f u l , i n shallow water, and r e s t r i c t e d i n t h e i r movement as by a t i d a l pool or weir, the harvest with l e i s t e r s could be great. However, since a l e i s t e r usually was designed to impale one f i s h at a time, the form was a rather i n e f f i c i e n t means for taking most f i s h on a large-scale basis. F a c i l i t i e s such as nets and traps were f a r more e f f e c t i v e and more often employed. (1976:94) Common usage of the words 'spear' and 'spearing' i n the l i t e r a t u r e has led to some confusion on t h i s point. Nevertheless, the implement described, t y p i c a l l y , i s a toggling harpoon. It i s apparent that over time steady spears and l e i s t e r s were superseded by the improved technology of composite toggling salmon harpoons as a primary mode of f i s h i n g . A wide range of locati o n s were suitable for daylight f i s h i n g with a harpoon providing the water was clear enough to see the f i s h . Men used the harpoon from canoes i n the estuaries where salmon congre-gate, or at r i v e r bars, confluences, and i n clear shallow streams. Night f i s h i n g was also common. The f l i c k e r of t o r c h l i g h t brings curious salmon to the surface of the water within range of the harpoon. Halkomelem people f i s h i n g at night set up a b l i n d on the canoe so t h e i r shadows would not f a l l on the r i v e r and f r i g h t e n f i s h away (Duff:1952: 67). Massett Haida fishermen had a s i m i l a r night shade on t h e i r canoes, and the Skidegate Haida and B e l l a B e l l a Kwakiutl used the harpoon at night without torches when the sea was phosphorescent (Drucker:1950:240). On the West Coast, the Nootka fished at night o f f the mouths of r i v e r s ; Sproat (1868:221-222) saw t h i r t y canoes at a time, each with one man steering and.the other standing i n the bow with his harpoon. - 39 -The proper use of the harpoon i s a h i g h l y s k i l l e d a c t i v i t y . Stern (1934) watching Lummi fishermen at low t i d e along the r i v e r channels of the estuary, reported: ...a good spearsman u s u a l l y s t r i k e s the s p i n a l cord of the f i s h and k i l l s i t at once. (ibid:51) When J e w i t t accompanied Maquinna on a f i s h i n g e x p e d i t i o n he made t h i s o bservation: I a l s o went w i t h him s e v e r a l times i n a canoe, to s t r i k e the salmon, which I have attempted to do myself, but could never succeed, i t r e q u i r i n g a degree of ad r o i t n e s s that I d i d not possess. (1967:[ 1803-1805] :88) T y p i c a l l y , the harpoon was t h r u s t , not thrown, i n t o the f i s h . Types and M a t e r i a l s Northwest Coast harpoons were finely-made complex pieces of equipment. The three-part composite harpoon head c o n s i s t e d of two f l a r i n g bone h a f t s and a p o i n t i n s e r t e d between them made of bone or a n t l e r . The head was wrapped and covered w i t h p i t c h ; i t was attached to the f o r e s h a f t by a l i n e . Single-head harpoons were the p r i n c i p a l type used i n the North, and double-head harpoons w i t h two divergent f o r e s h a f t s were common from the Wakashan region south. Both types were constructed on the same model. - 40 -(a) head: a p l a i n bone point inserted between two bone hafts which have been carved to f i t or softened by b o i l i n g ; t h i s then lashed with sinew, cherry bark, or other binding material, and p i t c h -coated. s i z e - 2% to 4" long (b) foreshafts: divergent foreshafts of equal or unequal length were made of hardwood or ironwood, 2 to 3 feet long, and f i t t e d to a socket at the base point of the head. (c) shaft: made of f i r or pine. s i z e range from 8 to 18 feet i n length. (d) l i n e s : made eit h e r of stout cordage materials (cedar bark) or, as a 'leader' (lanyard), of elk or deer hide. Elmendorf provides a f u n c t i o n a l d e s c r i p t i o n : A l i n e ran from the lashing midway of each head and was attached to the shaft back of the foreshafts. The l i n e s from the heads were slack when the heads were attached. When a f i s h was struck the head detached, and the l i n e attachment to the middle of the head acted as a toggle, p u l l i n g the barbs sideways i n the f l e s h . The struck f i s h was played and landed with the shaft. (1960:78) Binder l i n e s were t i e d i n d i f f e r e n t ways; Boas (1909:489 F i g . 156) i l l u s t r a t e s the l i n e running the f u l l length of the shaft back to the fisherman's hand. Fixed spears and l e i s t e r s , as mentioned previously, were mainly used to remove salmon at traps and weirs, or occasionally to catch them i n creeks and streams. The l e i s t e r , which had a wide d i s t r i b u t i o n i n the north, i s a p a r t i c u l a r l y good r e t r i e v a l implement. Its two - 42 -outer prongs recurve inward toward an i n t e r i o r c e n t r a l prong. Archaeological evidence indicates spears were used on the Northwest Coast for thousands of years. An early form was the fixed spear with barbed one-piece head of carved bone or a n t l e r . I t s use continued into the h i s t o r i c period. 3. D i s t r i b u t i o n A l l Northwest Coast ethnic groups exploited salmon with the harpoon. Because of the d i v e r s i t y i n salmon f i s h e r y locations where the harpoon could be employed, every l o c a l resource user-group had suitable s i t e s . What i s not clear i n the l i t e r a t u r e i s the r e l a t i v e economic importance of harpoon technology. One source estimated that for the Nootka harpoons ranked second only to traps (Sproat:1868:221-2). In other production estimates, the harpoon ranked second to weir technology ( T l i n g i t , Haida, Twana); and t h i r d to nets and weirs (Chinook, Wishram, Quileute). The p r o d u c t i v i t y of harpoon f i s h e r i e s i s seldom reported. Sproat (ibid) witnessed "a favourable catch" of f o r t y salmon caught i n a morning's work by one harpooner. 4. S o c i a l Variables The Wishram i n the upper Columbia and the Tsimshian on the Skeena b u i l t spearing stations i n the narrow channels and eddies of the r i v e r s . On the Columbia each s t a t i o n had an overseer, and s i x to ten men - 43 -who claimed use r i g h t s to the s i t e . Any one of them "might pre-empt the best spot temporarily" (Spier and Sapir:1939:175-6). Columbia River spearing stations were highly valued properties. Ownership of the s i t e was held by a lineage group and other people were not permitted to f i s h there. A harpoon was the private property of the i n d i v i d u a l ; i t was said, "each man fished with h i s own spear" ( i b i d ) . In other regions, ownership r i g h t s that affected resource user groups when they fished with the harpoon were vested i n salmon streams. Among the Haida, T l i n g i t , and Tsimshian, for example, i s l a n d streams and the t r i b u t a r i e s of mainland streams were owned i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y by lineage resource holders. 5. E c o l o g i c a l Variables Water c l a r i t y i s the e s s e n t i a l v a r i a b l e for daylight f i s h i n g with a harpoon; but other factors that may a f f e c t the movements of salmon — currents, s a l i n i t y , and thermal conditions — had to be considered by the harpooner. Salmon swim at depths of three to f i v e feet and deeper (cf Duff:1952^re Fraser River stocks). Individual stocks of salmon display c h a r a c t e r i s t i c delays o f f the mouth of a r i v e r that could be exploited by l o c a l resource users. On the Fraser and i t s t r i b u t a r i e s , the harpoon i s associated with early spring when the water i s low and c l e a r , before the freshet. Later the r i v e r i s too s i l t y for spearing. Chinook were taken with the harpoon i n spring; i n l a t e f a l l Halkomelem people fished for coho on the Fraser with the aid of t o r c h l i g h t . - 44 -Spearing stations i n the canyons of the Columbia were made to s u i t the autumn water l e v e l s of the r i v e r . They were constructed separately from dip net stations to correspond to seasonal v a r i a t i o n s of the flood stage. Whereas dip netting was a summer technique, harpoons were used on the Columbia i n the f a l l . Late runs of chinook would be a v a i l a b l e then, as w e l l as coho, chum, and some l a t e running sockeye stocks. F i s h i n g at the mouths of streams and r i v e r s , or i n smaller i s l a n d r i v e r s , the Haida, T l i n g i t and Tsimshian used the harpoon to take a l l species of salmon, de Laguna (1972:384-385) recorded a spearing f i s h e r y f o r chinook salmon swimming three feet below the surface at the mouths of r i v e r s ; fishermen thrust the harpoon from a canoe into the c l e a r water. Dawson (1880:109-110) also reported Haida fishermen with harpoons i n the estuaries of streams. - 45 -SALMON TECHNOLOGY COMPLEX 4 - TRAWLING 1. Contextual Description The t r a d i t i o n a l trawl net intercepted salmon ascending the stream by the use of a large net towed between two canoes. The canoes, manned by two to four men each, were paddled downstream at a rate that s l i g h t l y exceeded the speed of the current so that the bunt of the net billowed out. A wide-mouthed con i c a l net was the common type used. It was equipped with a towing r i g of poles and ropes to support the mouth of the net, holding i t open. When the catch was made the canoes closed i n together to take up the net. Alexander Mackenzie witnessed the use of a trawl net i n the lower reaches of the B e l l a Coola River, July 19, 1793. The men were f i s h i n g on the r i v e r with dragnets between two canoes. These nets are forced by poles to the bottom, the current d r i v i n g them before i t ; by which means the salmon coming up the r i v e r are intercepted, and give notice of t h e i r being taken by the struggles they make i n the bag or sleeve of the net. (p.371) Another early reference to trawling was recorded i n the journals of Simon Fraser (July 7, 1808) when he was i n the v i c i n i t y of Upper Stalo (Halkomelem) v i l l a g e s on the Fraser. In the evening we observed the Indians f i s h i n g ; t h e i r nets, which resembled purses, were fi x e d to the end of long poles and dragged between two canoes. - 46 -Trawls work best i n t u r b i d waters where the s t i r r e d up sediment helps to obscure the net; s i l t - l a d e n r i v e r s l i k e the Fraser and streams swollen a f t e r a freshet reduce the v i s i b i l i t y for salmon. Trawls were also operated at night, or at the h a l f - l i g h t of dusk or dawn. The c r i t i c a l water features were moderate, steady currents and a l e v e l streambed with depths of at l e a s t s i x to seven feet • Trawling was reported at locations i n the estuaries and lower reaches of important salmon r i v e r s . Suitable locations i n the Fraser also were found some distance upstream from the r i v e r mouth. Here the s i z e of the r i v e r made i t impossible to construct dams or weirs but f e a s i b l e to operate a trawling f i s h e r y . 2. Types and Materials The d i f f e r e n t s t y l e s of nets and r i g s used to trawl led to a confusion i n terms i n the ethnographic accounts. Trawls are frequently c a l l e d dragnets or bag nets and, l e s s frequently, bag seines, r i v e r seines, d r i f t nets, d r i f t i n g bag nets, pocket nets, and s i n g l e d r i f t i n g bag seines . Following Drucker (1950) and Suttles (1951) I use the term 'trawl' to describe the process, reserving the use of more s p e c i f i c words f o r types within the category. The main d i v i s i o n i n types of nets i s between f l a t and c o n i c a l shapes. a) Most common i s the c o n i c a l net drawn on poles with a r i g of ropes, f l o a t s , and corner sinkers. The Quileute trawl i s an example: - 47 -The dragnet was bag- or pocket-shaped, coming to a point at the closed end. It was suspended between canoes and operated as they f l o a t e d down-stream. The mouth of the net was held open under water by means of a l i n e from each canoe t i e d to the upper edge of the mouth and a pole from each canoe pushing down the lower edge of the mouth. Light l i n e s were passed across the mouth of the submerged net and held i n the hand of the fishermen as f e e l e r s . When these l i n e s vibrated, i t was known that a f i s h had entered and the poles were p u l l e d up, thus c l o s i n g the net. (Pettitt:1950:7) Olson describes the trawl used by the neighbouring Quinault as very s i m i l a r to t h i s ; h i s explanation i s that the poles were t i e d to bottom sinkers, while the cord was t i e d to the upper corners (1936:29-30). In Northwestern C a l i f o r n i a the c o n i c a l net was set on an A-frame and trawled with s p e c i a l r i g s . The net was the self-same object used as a l i f t i n g net (dip net) on other occasions (Kroeber and Barrett: 1960:53). There are reports that two of the large A-frame nets were attached to r i g g i n g and towed together, forming a double c o n i c a l trawl net, unique to the Yurok and Hupa. In the same region, the Klamath River, the more common co n i c a l net was also employed. b) The d r i f t i n g bag seine was a f l a t net used as a trawl. Among some groups i t was mounted on poles, but i t was also rigged with rope and trawled i n the same manner as the c o n i c a l net, so that i t billowed out to form a bunt. F l o a t s , sinkers, and bone rings were used on the f l a t net (Table III shows, the main d i v i s i o n s of trawl net types throughout the Northwest Coast). Landing the trawl net required a f i n e sense of timing and c a r e f u l manipulation of the gear. When the net was ready to be taken up the two canoes moved i n together, at the same time increasing t h e i r - 48 -TABLE III TYPES OF TRAWL NETS Source Ethnic D i v i s i o n Trawl Net Type Rigging Gear Niblack (1890) Haida f l a t poles Mackenzie (1793) B e l l a Coola c o n i c a l poles Duff (1952) Halkomelem - T a i t 1 2 c o n i c a l c o n i c a l poles ropes Suttles (1955) Halkomelem - Katzie f l a t ropes Smith (1940) Lushootseed f l a t poles Haeberlin & Gunther (1930) Lushootseed c o n i c a l poles P e t t i t t (1950) Quileute c o n i c a l poles Olson (1936) Quinault c o n i c a l poles Driver (1939) ToIowa c o n i c a l Kroeber & Barrett (1960) Yurok 1 2 3 c o n i c a l double c o n i c a l f l a t ' poles trapezoidal frame or poles rope Driver (1939) Karok c o n i c a l s e l e c t i v e l i s t i n g of examples - 49 -speed s u f f i c i e n t l y to keep the catch i n the net; then they raised and twisted the poles to l i f t the heavy net into one of the canoes. From there the catch was discharged into the other canoe (cf Duff:1952:69). Materials used for the nets included n e t t l e f i b e r , Indian hemp (Apocynum cannabium) and, i n Northwestern C a l i f o r n i a , the l e a f of I r i s macrbsiphon. Cedar bark ropes were common i n many areas. Netting mesh s i z e was unstated. Table IV compares the dimensions reported. The c o n i c a l net opening was eit h e r rectangular or (in North-western C a l i f o r n i a ) trapezoidal; the width was t y p i c a l l y 2-3 times the height. 3. D i s t r i b u t i o n Some ethnic groups i n every region of the coast used the trawl. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of the complex i s correlated to major r i v e r systems and other important salmon r i v e r s . Rivers s p e c i f i e d as trawling locat i o n s are: Atnarko-Bella Coola; the lower Fraser and i t s t r i b u t a r i e s (the P i t t , Alouette, Harrison and Chehalis); Squamish; Columbia; Quileute and Quinault; and the Klamath River. Two major r i v e r s not s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e are the Skeena and Nass Rivers. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c use of trawls at r i v e r mouth locations and i n the lower courses of large streams was reported for a l l groups l i v i n g at the estuaries of the r i v e r s j u s t itemized, and for the Haida. A smaller upriver adaptation of the trawl was used on the Skagit and Nisqually Rivers i n Puget Sound. - 50 -TABLE IV COMPARATIVE DIMENSIONS OF TRAWL NETS Source Ethnic D i v i s i o n Width at Height at Depth opening opening of net Drucker (1950) A l l Northern and Wakashan groups 12 f t to 24 f t 6 f t to 12 f t 18 f t to 24 f t Duff (1952) Upper Stalo Halkomelem 12 f t 3 f t 'several f t ' Smith (1940) Nisqually 12 f t 6 f t f l a t net Olson (1936) Quinault 10 f t 4 f t 10 f t Kroeber and Northwest 4.5 f t r/ 1.5 f t Barrett (1960) C a l i f o r n i a groups 6.5 f t 8 f t Converted to f t from fathoms. Trapezoidal opening. Converted from metric. - 51 -Figure 4 . Northwest Coast Culture Area Salmon Technology Complex 4 - Trawling (see Appendix I: Table XIII) - 52 -Frequency i n d i c a t i o n s are not a v a i l a b l e . The productive p o t e n t i a l of the salmon trawl suggests that i t should be ranked as an important mode of production f o r l o c a l resource groups e x p l o i t i n g e s t u a r i a l s i t e s . The Stalo (Halkomelem) on the Fraser could exploit an appreciable abundance of salmon i n the lower course of the r i v e r by trawling. P o t e n t i a l l y high y i e l d s were possible during the main runs. On the Atnarko-Bella Coola system when Alexander Mackenzie was exploring the waterway he encountered a c h i e f , whom he had previously met, trawling with a crew of men. In h i s j o u r n a l , July 24, 1793, he noted: "He was seining between two canoes and had taken a considerable quantity of salmon" (1970: 1793 :385). 4. S o c i a l Variables An intensive labour investment was required to produce the netting and cordage for large trawl nets. Suttles (1955:22) speaking of the Katzie (Halkomelem) reports that the trawl net was "too valuable f o r every man to own, being made of quantities of material that was obtained through trade with the I n t e r i o r " . Even where l o c a l materials were used, a trawl net represented many hours of labour to produce. Data c o l l e c t e d by Suttles v e r i f i e s that as a means of production, trawl nets were ' c a p i t a l goods' owned by S a l i s h men of rank. However, use r i g h t s to resource areas where the trawl could be operated was apparently u n r e s t r i c t e d , and open to l o c a l resource groups. - 53 -5. E c o l o g i c a l Variables Any species of salmon could be caught with trawling gear but i t was operated i n most areas during the runs of chinook and sockeye. Chinook salmon enter the streams i n l a t e spring-early summer i n most northern and cen t r a l r i v e r s . In the south, the r i v e r s i n Northwestern C a l i f o r n i a have important f a l l runs of chinook. Kroeber and Barrett (1960:41) report that the Klamath was best for trawling i n the autumn when water volumes and v e l o c i t y had decreased. T y p i c a l l y sockeye run i n l a t e summer and were taken i n trawls on the Atnarko-Bella Coola i n J u l y , and on the Fraser i n August and September. An early run of sockeye enters the Quinault River i n May when the stream i s s t i r r e d up by freshets and suitable trawling conditions e x i s t . Turbid waters were preferred to obscure the net. In the r i v e r deltas where bars and shoals r e s t r i c t the v e r t i c a l subsurface dimension through which salmon runs must pass, the trawling net had an advantage. H i l l - T o u t (1907:90) recorded fishermen trawling o f f the mouths of the Fraser River on the t i d a l f l a t s . Changes i n t i d a l currents would no doubt e f f e c t the speed and manipulation of trawl nets. In t i d a l waters the net would have to be dragged against the current on an incoming t i d e . To summarize the main e c o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e s : the trawl was sui t a b l e i n r i v e r s with large salmon runs, moderate currents, turbid waters and appropriate water depths f o r the net. - 54 -SALMON TECHNOLOGY COMPLEX 5 - GAFFING 1. Contextual Description People on the Northwest Coast fished with the gaff i n r o i l y or turbid streams, impaling the salmon by the action of a sudden upward thrust of the shaft. D i f f e r i n g techniques were used depending on the fi s h e r y l o c a t i o n . One was to gaff from the bow of a canoe. The fisherman allowed h i s gaff to ply the depths of a stream, hook facing downriver, while h i s partner gently paddled or allowed the current to carry the canoe along. We have two early accounts that describe t h i s process; the f i r s t was written by Harrington who v i s i t e d T l i n g i t t e r r i t o r i e s early i n the 19th century. E s p e c i a l l y cohoes are to be obtained i n r i l e d water such as comes from g l a c i e r s . The Indians row up a muddy r i v e r and as they f l o a t down hook cohoes from the muddy water at various places. The cohoes are swimming up and the gaffers are d r i f t i n g down. (Harrington: i n de Laguna:1972:386) In the second, Swan describes g a f f i n g at night on the Palux River, a salmon stream that flows into Shoalwater Bay i n Chinook t e r r i t o r y . As the boat d r i f t s down with the t i d e , the pole, with the hook attached to i t , comes i n contact with the salmon, who...are generally quiet as soon as the t i d e begins to ebb. As soon as the Indian f e e l s the f i s h , he jerks up the pole, and r a r e l y f a i l s to fasten the hook into the salmon, who i s then pulled on board...The whole - 55 -operation requires a great deal of dexterity and p r a c t i c e . . . f o r the salmon i s a very powerful f i s h , and a large one makes a great commotion when hauled to the surface... splashing and thrashing about i n a f e a r f u l manner. (1857[1853] :137) A stout binder l i n e from the hook to the shaft ensured that the struggles of the f i s h would not cause the shaft to snap i n two. To be e f f i c i e n t as a salmon f i s h i n g implement the l i n e was important. The evolutionary step that occured with the addition of a detachable hook, to take the s t r a i n of a large f i g h t i n g salmon, moved the gaff from i t s former function as an accessory to a primary production method. The detachable hook and binder l i n e were a technological advance that produced an incremental improvement i n i t s use for salmon f i s h i n g . Gaffing may be considered complementary to spearing technology. The requirements at harpoon f i s h e r i e s are c l e a r water and good v i s i b i l i t y ; g a f f i n g s i t e s were j u s t the opposite, r o i l y , s t i r r e d up waters or poor l i g h t conditions. S i l t y r i v e r s a f t e r a run o f f , or r i f f l e s and rapids i n the stream, provided suitable gaffing places. Night f i s h i n g was common. The complex i s associated with f a l l f i s h i n g f o r coho and chum salmon p a r t i c u l a r l y i n small r i v e r s and streams. 2. Types and Materials There were two main types of gaff hooks: (a) the steamed and fire-hardened bent wood hook made from a hardwood; and (b) a long bone barb fastened at an acute.angle to the foreshaft to make a v-shaped hook. When i r o n and s t e e l hooks became a v a i l a b l e , they replaced the • - 56 -steam-bent wooden.hooks• F i l e s and rasps were hammered into shape by the Chinook (Swan:1857:38), for example, i n the early post-contact period. Shafts of f i r or spruce 18' - 20' were reported as the usual length. Smith, however, reports 8' long shafts of hazel or f i r . The lashings of cherry bark or other binding materials were covered with p i t c h . Lines are r e f e r r e d to as 'stout cords' (cedar bark rope?) about three feet i n length. Swan (1857) c o l l e c t e d d e t a i l s of the construction: ...(the hook) i s i n s i z e as large as a shark-hook, having a socket at one end formed of wood...The socket i s made from the wild raspberry bush (Rubus s p e c t a b l i s ) , which, having a p i t h i n i t s centre, i s e a s i l y worked, and i s very strong. This socket i s formed of two parts, which are firm l y secured to the hook by means of twine, and the whole covered with a coat of p i t c h . Attached to t h i s hook i s a strong cord about three feet long. A s t a f f or pole from eighteen to twenty feet long, made of f i r , i s used, one end ofwhich i s f i t t e d to the socket i n the hook, into which i t i s thrust, and the cord fir m l y t i e d to the pole. (p.38) The steam-bent wooden hook, and l a t e r the i r o n hook, were more common than the v-shaped hook, and possibly more e f f i c i e n t . But both Stern (Lummi:Straits Salish) and Barnett (other S a l i s h groups) r e f e r to a detachable bone hook used as a gaff, "fastened to a socket which f i t s i n to the end of a long pole" (Stern:1934:49). However, Suttles (1951:142-3) speaking of the same group ( S t r a i t s ) reports a steam-bent wooden gaff hook.. - 57 -3. D i s t r i b u t i o n Ethnic groups i n each of the regions of the Northwest Coast used the gaff to some extent but i t s importance decreased south of the Columbia. Most emphasis i s given f o r T l i n g i t (the i s l a n d t r i b e s , plus the r i v e r i n e C h i l k a t , and the Yakutat), Southern Kwakiutl (Nimpkish), the S t r a i t s , and the Shoalwater Chinook; the gaff was commonly used by these groups. Among other Northwest Coast t r i b e s apparently i t was less important although l o c a l resource users with access to f a l l runs of chum and coho i n r i l e d streams employed the gaff. 4. S o c i a l Variables Notions of ownership of places where the gaff was used are not s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned. The overriding s o c i a l rules of the owner-ship of l o c a l resource use areas, r i v e r s , streams, and bays, would p r e v a i l . Since the materials and labour needed to make a gaff are r e l a t i v e l y easy to obtain there were no constraints on access to the implement; l i k e the spear, i t would be the private property of the man who made i t . 5. E c o l o g i c a l Variables Gaffing i s . s u i t e d to conditions of fast r o i l y waters, muddy streams, or night f i s h i n g . Most references l i n k i t to f a l l f i s h i n g i n - 59 -streams f o r chum and coho species; while i t s importance as a production system i s unassessed i t i s f e a s i b l e that to l o c a l resource groups g a f f i n g provided s i g n i f i c a n t food f o r winter storage. In addition to the stream f i s h i n g from a canoe that has been described, people gaffed from the riverbanks when the runs were heavy. In the canyons of the Skeena fishermen used gaffs i n the heavy rapids and torrents, standing on precarious footholds i n the rockface, or on stagings b u i l t out over the currents. - 60 -SALMON TECHNOLOGY COMPLEX 6 - GILL NETS 1. Contextual Description G i l l nets set near a r i v e r bank or along the shore i n sheltered coves ensnared by the g i l l s a salmon as i t t r i e d to pass through the mesh opening. Once caught, the f i s h can neither retreat nor proceed. D i f f e r e n t net mesh sizes were used for each species. The head of the f i s h passed through the net but the g i l l s became entangled. Several t a c t i c s were employed to make nets less v i s i b l e to the salmon. They were camouflaged with dyes; or set i n streams obscured with s i l t . They were set at night, i n which case the f i s h i n g party remained nearby with a small f i r e for warmth, l i s t e n i n g for the si g n a l of a crab s h e l l r a t t l e . They were set at locations where the runs were heavy, or where salmon came inshore to feed on herring and other small prey. 2. Types and Materials The g i l l net was 20 to 25 meshes wide hung v e r t i c a l l y with the a i d of f l o a t s and sinker stones. T y p i c a l l y , one end was staked on shore. It was a long, f l a t net, made to su i t the dimensions of the s i t e where i t would be set, varying from 15 to 50 fathoms i n extent. Anchors at each lower corner held the net i n p o s i t i o n . Fishermen would leave the net untended for a period of time, returning at i n t e r v a l s - 61 -to r e t r i e v e the g i l l e d salmon, dispatch them with a blow, and f i l l t h e i r canoes. Netting materials used i n Northwestern C a l i f o r n i a , i r i s f i b e r (iris macrbsiphon), were the same as for other nets. People i n the Klamath drainage traded i r i s f i b e r s to t h e i r neighbours the Tolowa who had no sources of t h e i r own. Kroeber and Barrett noted: The r e s t r i c t i o n of range, the thinness of the f i b e r , and i t s high t e n s i l e strength account for the value placed on i t . (1960:57) In other regions, the S t r a i t s S a l i s h used n e t t l e f i b e r or imported grass; Suttles was t o l d that n e t t l e f i b e r nets would l a s t two or three years i f dried a f t e r use. Halkomelem fishermen traded with the Int e r i o r S a l i s h f o r Indian hemp (Apocynum cannabium) to make netting cordage. Nettle f i b e r was also used f o r g i l l nets on the Nass River. Bone and an t l e r net gauges used to ensure an even mesh s i z e range from 92.5 mm to 116 mm (approx. 3±$ to 4% inches) i n a c o l l e c t i o n from the Klamath area (Kroeber & Barrett:1960:Plate 15, and p.172). Kroeber (1925:85:quoted i b i d ) reports a Yurok salmon net with a "scant 3 inch" mesh; Hewes ( F i e l d Notes:1940:quoted ibi d ) reports 3 to 4 inches. Hewes had a Tolowa informant r e f e r to 7% inch mesh used to g i l l n e t chinook salmon i n the Smith River estuary. Kroeber believed t h i s was inaccurate but admitted that 50 to 60 l b chinook are known i n the Smith system. Further north, Harrington reported net gauge sizes of modern g i l l nets used by T l i n g i t fishermen i n the early twentieth century as follows: chinook - 8"; coho - 6"; pinks, sockeye and chum — 5V. - 62 -These are the only mesh sizes reported; there i s a lacuna i n the sources. 3. D i s t r i b u t i o n S a l i s h and Northwestern C a l i f o r n i a groups reported g i l l net technology with more frequency than people l i v i n g i n other regions. S t r a i t s S a l i s h set g i l l nets i n s a l t water along the mainland shore or out i n the i s l a n d s . The Klallam took chinook with g i l l nets o f f the Dungeness Spit and i n Washington Harbour during the herring season; the Saanich d i d the same i n Ganges Harbour on Sa l t s p r i n g Island. In addition they took coho, pinks, and chum salmon i n season. In Northwestern C a l i f o r n i a the g i l l net was used at r i v e r i n e s i t e s ; i t was set i n the deep e s t u a r i a l waters of the Smith River and at places i n the Klamath where the current was not too f a s t . In the North the Tsimshian were p r i n c i p a l group reported; g i l l nets were set at locations i n both the Skeena and the Nass. The evidence i s l e s s c l e a r f o r other Northern groups. Drucker's Massett informant said the Haida received t h e i r nets ready-made from the people of the Nass (1950:239). There i s archaeological evidence that the g i l l net was used . by the Makah for chum salmon i n the Hoko River over a very long period, perhaps several m i l l e n i a (2). Sapir and Swadesh c o l l e c t e d information on g i l l nets from Nootka informants despite Sproat's claim (1868:221) that no nets were used for salmon (3). However, there were s o c i a l constraints on the use of g i l l nets among Nootka resource groups, and - 64 -there i s no evidence that they were ever considered a common f i s h i n g method. Indeed, during t h i s period, the g i l l net was not an intensive f i s h e r y anywhere on the coast. 4. S o c i a l Variables Use r i g h t s to g i l l net locations are not distinguished i n the sources from general references to s i t e ownership. Kroeber and Barrett (1960:3,4) state as the r u l e for the Klamath basin private ownership of riverbank f i s h i n g s i t e s . While they do not exclude g i l l net locat i o n s , neither do they specify them. The same case holds for Haida, Tsimshian, and Nootka sources. Sapir and Swadesh's Nootka informant [c.l910j suggested the g i l l net was not widely a v a i l a b l e to most people. Not many had nets. I r e c a l l ten had them when I was a boy. I t was the old men who owned nets. (1955:30) In the Katzie (Halkomelem) data, Suttles (1955:22) makes a s i m i l a r comment i n reference to both g i l l nets and trawl nets. Nets were valuable, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n areas that used imported cordage materials. Suttles was t o l d that a "set-net might be 200 feet long, but i f a man were 'not si£'m enough' [that i s a man with high s o c i a l status] i t might be shorter". Only important i n d i v i d u a l s or resource holders had s u f f i c i e n t wealth to own g i l l nets (4). - 65 -A s i n g l e fisherman could set and operate the g i l l net but usually another person accompanied him to handle the canoe and give assistance. Communal f i s h drives are reported among the Hupa (Goddard: 1903:24), canoe-loads of men n o i s i l y d i r e c t i n g salmon towards the net. (Perhaps they had to do t h i s to compensate for the c l a r i t y of the stream; i t seems not to have been the general usage.) 5. E c o l o g i c a l Variables As a passive n e t t i n g method, i t was necessary for the g i l l net to be set where v i s i b i l i t y was obscured by turbid water conditions or by darkness. Where salmon were densely concentrated, as when feeding on herring i n the bays, or p r i o r to entering the r i v e r mouth, a g i l l net was l e s s conspicuous. G i l l nets could be set at s i t e s where i t was not possible to place a weir or trap, i n deep waters at the edge of a bay or large r i v e r . Seasonality of the f i s h e r y varied with species and l o c a t i o n . The Nootka took chinook i n spring when pilchards entered t h e i r inshore waters. The S t r a i t s S a l i s h also caught chinooks i n a s a l t water f i s h e r y , e s p e c i a l l y during the herring runs. Gunther (1927:198) reports that the Klallam took chum i n l a t e July and coho i n the autumn. Their neighbours, the Makah, set nets for f a l l runs of chum salmon i n the Hoko River which flows into the S t r a i t of Juan de Fuca. Halkomelem used set nets for sockeye as well as chinook i n the Fraser River i n the early and l a t e summer months. While on the Smith River i n C a l i f o r n i a the Tolowa took the l a t e f a l l runs of - 66 -chinook. As a f l e x i b l e technique, the timing of salmon inshore and r i v e r i n e migrations could be accommodated to s u i t v a r i a t i o n s i n l o c a l resource conditions. - 67 -SALMON TECHNOLOGY COMPLEX 7 - TIDAL TRAPS 1. Contextual Description At places along the shore i n the i n t e r t i d a l zone where migrating salmon congregate i n large numbers stone t i d a l trap structures were maintained. Stocks of salmon that h a b i t u a l l y delay before ascending the r i v e r s to spawn w i l l d r i f t into the i n t e r t i d a l reach on an incoming t i d e . Where t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c coincided with favourable sea currents and t i d a l a c t i o n , a w a l l or obstruction was constructed as a trap. Stone walls were set out from shore i n crescentic wings, i n d i v i d u a l l y or i n s e r i e s , creating a r t i f i c i a l t i d a l pools to impound the salmon. When the t i d e receded, salmon were stranded behind the b a r r i e r of the trap. Natural s i t e s i n shallow coves and tidelands could be improved with the addition of boulders or stakes, and made to serve as regular resource l o c a t i o n s . Apparently, stone t i d a l traps were the most common kind but other materials were sometimes used: s p l i t cedar stakes and fencing materials. Whatever the configuration, the p r i n c i p l e was the same: the incoming t i d e c a r r i e d salmon over the obstruction, and the ebbing t i d e l e f t them aground. 2. Types and Materials The Kwakiutl b u i l t stone t i d a l traps i n the estuaries of salmon streams, described by Boas (1909:465) as simple wing-dams ex-- 68 -tending 60 to 70 fathoms from shore. At some t i d a l trap s i t e s , wing-dams were constructed i n s e r i e s with three, four, or more, along each side of the r i v e r mouth (Fig. 7 ) . Stone t i d a l traps consisted of large boulders set i n formation to create a stout w a l l . The remains of stone t i d a l traps can s t i l l be seen at many places along the coast, recognizable by the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i z e and l i n e configuration as man-made. This i s the basic type of stone t i d a l trap that was u t i l i z e d by Northwest Coast fishermen. Barnett (1955:82-83) describes two other kinds of t i d a l traps used by Northern Gulf S a l i s h . .The f i r s t (Comox) i s simply an enclosure of rocks and stakes b u i l t on the t i d a l f l a t s . The second (Sechelt, Homalco, Klahuse, Squamish) i s a weir framework with a lattice-work gate hinged along the bottom. At low water i t lay f l a t and exposed. Rock weights were set upon i t and to i t s top were fastened l i n e s leading to shore. When the ti d e was f u l l , the l i n e s were used to bring the latticework fence i n an upward p o s i t i o n , and the outward flow held i t against the framework. (ibid) This trapping device was b u i l t at the narrow neck of a cove or across the mouth of the r i v e r . de Laguna (1960:116,69) reports that the T l i n g i t (Angoon) had sharpened stakes set into the t i d a l trap to impale the salmon as the t i d e went out. Mcllwraith (1948:221) describes the B e l l a Coola "ocean f i s h trap" as a pen made of a serie s of stakes, entered by the salmon at high t i d e , and "then closed". With the opening obstructed, salmon were impounded with the f a l l i n g t i d e . - 69 -Figure 7. Stone tidal traps, in series. Shaded area represents high tide. Inset: detail of construction. - 70 -3. D i s t r i b u t i o n T i d a l trap d i s t r i b u t i o n i s confined to the northern h a l f of the culture area. The d i v i d i n g l i n e seems to be at the 49° p a r a l l e l , corresponding to the marked contrast between north and south coastal land features. The north coast, with i t s thousands of f j o r d s , i n l e t s , and channels, offered many sui t a b l e locations f or natural and man-made t i d a l traps. The great s t r a i g h t sweep of the continent's edge on the south coast, by contrast, had few. At Tillamook Bay south of the Columbia a long coastal s p i t shields lagoons and t i d a l f l a t s where t i d a l traps were b u i l t . Other e s t u a r i a l bays along the Oregon Coast may have offered t i d a l trap s i t e s but the data i s not a v a i l a b l e . Even i n the north where i t i s apparent that t i d a l traps were maintained and used, the complex i s not w e l l covered i n ethnographic accounts. T i d a l traps are the most under-reported f i s h i n g method. No estimates of the r e l a t i v e economic importance of t i d a l traps are possible. The T l i n g i t , Haida^ and Tsimshian a l l had t i d a l traps but, except f o r de Laguna, there i s scant coverage i n the standard ethnographies. Recent evidence suggests that the Haida r e l i e d on t i d a l traps to a greater extent than the T l i n g i t (pers.comm. S.Langdon:1980)(Langdon:1979). The subject i s treated more f u l l y i n the Wakashan l i t e r a t u r e . Northern and Southern Kwakiutl, B e l l a Coola (a Salish-speaking group), and Nootka t i d a l traps are confirmed. Drucker (1951:16,17,259) says a Nootka "tidewater salmon trap", not made of stone, was named and owned p r i v a t e l y ; and that i t was the f i r s t trap set each season. But other Nootka sources describe salmon f i s h e r i e s i n some d e t a i l without mentioning t i d a l traps. - 72 -Note that references i n the l i t e r a t u r e do not always make clear the d i s t i n c t i o n between t i d a l traps f o r salmon production and for other species l i k e benthic f i s h e s and marine mammals. The d i s t r i b u t i o n given here i s based on e x p l i c i t references to salmon traps, i . e . , . t i d a l traps b u i l t at locations where salmon could be exploited. 4. S o c i a l Variables The c o l l e c t i v e e f f o r t of many people would be required for the i n i t i a l construction of a large stone t i d a l trap. Large boulders were moved to the s i t e and set i n p o s i t i o n , an arduous undertaking. But, once completed, l i t t l e maintenance would be needed to keep i t fu n c t i o n a l . Traps b u i l t at good productive locations were probably used for many years. References to the ownership of t i d a l traps are incomplete. Among the Haida where established r i g h t s of access existed to a l l resource l o c a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g stretches of the coast, and r i v e r mouths, i t i s apparent that t i d a l traps were owned by lineage user-groups. By inference from the evidence of other salmon technology complexes, s o c i e t i e s that emphasized the ownership of f i s h i n g s i t e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y the Northern and Wakashan groups, may have included t i d a l traps. On the other hand, perhaps t i d a l traps were a common resource for people l i v i n g i n near-by v i l l a g e s . - 73 -5. E c o l o g i c a l Variables Within each species of salmon there are c e r t a i n stocks that w i l l delay at the mouth of a r i v e r before ascending. The reason for the delay i s not completely understood, but f i s h e r i e s b i o l o g i s t s think i t correlates to water temperatures i n the estuary. Also some f i s h populations take longer to make the t r a n s i t i o n from a s a l t water habitat to fresh. T i d a l traps b u i l t i n locations where many salmon share these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s could ex p l o i t the resource, providing the currents are r i g h t . The action of the t i d e i s the primary agent that makes the trap work. In the swells of an incoming t i d e salmon are swept along and swim over the b a r r i e r . Favourable currents acting i n conjunction with the t i d e may bring the salmon close to shore. - 74 -SALMON TECHNOLOGY COMPLEX 8 - WEIRS 1. Contextual Description The p r i n c i p l e of a weir i s to interrupt the natural course of a salmon run. The superstructure was b u i l t shore-to-shore across a r i v e r or stream. Weirs were usually constructed as fence-like obstructions with a foundation of heavy posts o v e r l a i d with h o r i z o n t a l cross pieces to which panels of wattles or l a t t i c e frame sections were attached. The posts were embedded deeply i n the riverbed to support the superstructure against the current of the r i v e r . Sections of screening permitted the flow of water downstream but e f f e c t i v e l y blocked the salmon. Unable to pass the obstruction salmon soon con-gregated i n large numbers on the downstream side; confused and di s t r a c t e d they were easy prey and could be taken with l e i s t e r s , spears, dipping nets, or gaff hooks. The screening panels were removed when the f i s h e r y was not operating to allow the f i s h to continue upstream. As a mode of salmon production the weir complex was d i s -t r i b u t e d throughout the Northwest Coast at hundreds of s i t e s . The basic structure could be i n s t a l l e d i n stream s i t e s wherever the current was not too swift. Large communal weirs were constructed on the Cowichan, Nanaimo, Skokomish, Puyallup, Nisqually, Skokomish, Quileute, Quinault, Nehalam (5), Smith, Klamath, and T r i n i t y Rivers. Each v i l l a g e along the r i v e r b u i l t one or more weirs at suitable l o c a t i o n s . A series of weirs on an important salmon r i v e r formed a system that served as f o c a l point to t h e . r i v e r i n e settlements i n the v a l l e y . Plate I. Weir on the Cowichan River - 75 -The o b l i g a t i o n of downstream people to those l i v i n g upstream i s not c l e a r l y stated; presumably the length of time the weir f i s h e r y operated was subject to negotiation and compromise, and, of course, tempered by the demands on labour and time for processing. 2. Types and Materials (a) Weirs i n streams — Few precise descriptions of simple weirs are recorded; we know by inference that the basic p r i n c i p l e s of construction are the same for weirs b u i l t on smaller streams as f o r those on large r i v e r s , the di f f e r e n c e s being a function of l e s s e r stream v e l o c i t y and volume. The supporting posts, f o r example, would not need to be as heavy, and rather than t r i p o d or two-post supports, a s i n g l e post with a downstream brace might be s u f f i c i e n t to uphold the stringers and panel sections. With t h i s type of weir men would f i s h from t h e i r canoes (on the downriver s i d e ) . In some weirs a canoe gate was f i t t e d to f a c i l i t a t e passage. The double weir i s a simple weir b u i l t twice across the r i v e r , usually i n shallow water; the salmon salmon leaps the f i r s t but cannot manoeuver to leap the second, and i s taken by the spearman. (b) Communal weirs - the Twana model — Substantial weirs with dip net platforms are s i m i l a r l y described for the Quileute, Quinault, Lushootseed, and the Twana. The Twana weir i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the type. Quotations i n the text are from Elmendorf (1960:64-72). The Twana weir was supported on a s e r i e s of tripods that extended across the r i v e r i n a st r a i g h t l i n e . These posts were - 76 -imbedded deeply with the two upstream members i n l i n e with the length of the weir, while the t h i r d member projected out downstream, thus s t a b i l i z i n g the structure against the current. Horizontal cross pieces were lashed to the "upstream face of the tripods on the outside of the t r i p o d members". There were three rows of h o r i z o n t a l cross pieces ( s t r i n g e r s ) ; the top one, having a f l a t t e n e d surface to serve as a catwalk, was four feet above the surface of the water. Sections of screening were made by lashing together young-growth f i r poles (6), about s i x feet long, with withes. Each panel was approximately 6 f t i n height by 10 to 12 f t wide (2 m by 4 m). The lower ends of the poles were pointed and driven into the riverbed; . . . t h e i r upper ends projected some three to four feet above water l e v e l with the poles s l a n t i n g back i n a downstream d i r e c t i o n against the support s t r i n g e r s , to which they were lashed at i n t e r v a l s . ( i b i d ) Platforms projected on the downstream side of the weir between the t r i p o d foundations. Each s t a t i o n extended 9 to 10 f t along the top s t r i n g e r and was 6 f t wide (3 m by 2 m). A support stake for the dip net was driven into the streambed and attached to the platform frame at an angle p a r a l l e l to the slope of the weir. The dip net "was a c i r c u l a r , bowl-shaped net attached to a hoop frame some f i v e to s i x feet i n diameter", to which were attached two ten-foot long handling poles of f i r (7). At the Mother end, the poles met and crossed over at the mid-way point above the net; from here t r i g g e r l i n e s of c a t t a i l f i b e r ran to the bag as s i g n a l l i n g devices. When the dipping net was - 77 -lowered through the s c a f f o l d opening U-shaped prongs at the juncture of the hoop "engaged the dip-net support stake" and rode the net down to the underface of the weir (8). An a l t e r n a t i v e to t h i s type of dipping net s c a f f o l d was used by the Cowichan who had instead narrow impounding pens connected to the upstream side of the weir. The salmon seeking a way through the barricade discovers an open gateway that leads to the spearing c o r r a l and i s struck from above by the spearman. (c) The Kepel Dam — Waterman (1973:63) and Kroeber (in Elmendorf:1960) considered the Kepel Dam to be analogous to the Twana weir even though i t was a highly elaborated complex. The Klamath system, larger than the Skokomish, presented s i t e d i f f i c u l t i e s that w i l l be described i n a following reference. Building the Kepel Dam was a labourious undertaking; heavy t r i p o d posts were driven into the streambed to support 18 to 20 f t s t r i n g e r s . A d d i t i o n a l braces shored up the supports, and hundreds of small stakes were driven i n to form the body of the weir. Laurel limbs were t i e d underwater to the stakes. Then ten large 'salmon houses', p r i v a t e l y owned impounding pens, would be constructed. The annual i n s t a l l a t i o n of the Kepel Dam was attended by r e s t r i c t i o n s on how the weir was to be constructed, and how tasks were to be performed each day. According to some informants, the weir was allowed to operate for only ten days and then i t was dismantled (Kroeber and Barrett:1960). - 78 -3. D i s t r i b u t i o n The weir complex had a wide d i s t r i b u t i o n i n the t r a d i t i o n a l f i s h e r y . It appears that a l l s o c i e t i e s u t i l i z e d the technology, b u i l d i n g weirs at innumerable r i v e r and stream locations throughout the Northwest Coast. The communal weirs b u i l t by the Cowichan, Nanaimo, Twana, Puyallup-Nisqually, Quileute, Quinault, Tillamook, and Tolowa are among the most productive salmon technology complexes known. Riverine communities on the Skeena, Fraser, and Columbia, where weirs could not be b u i l t , i n s t a l l e d weirs on t r i b u t a r i e s and small streams. The Stalo (Halkomelem), for example, had weirs on the Chilliwack and Alouette Rivers, t r i b u t a r i e s of the Fraser, and on other smaller branches. Up the coast i n every i n l e t weirs were placed on the streams that poured f o r t h from the coastal mountains. Island r i v e r s , short but productive salmon producing streams that belonged to one or another resource holding group, had weirs to e x p l o i t the runs. The Haida depended on weirs for the bulk of t h e i r winter provisions. They, l i k e the Coast Tsimshian and T l i n g i t resource holders who had i s l a n d streams, moved to t h e i r f i s h i n g s i t e s for the season. Other Northern groups and the Wakashan maintained traps as w e l l as weirs to s u i t the features of diverse types of water resources. For the Nootka and Southern Kwakiutl there i s v i r t u a l l y no reference to weirs i n the ethnographies; traps are described i n d e t a i l but the s i g n i f i c a n c e of weirs appears minimal. The Northern Kwakiutl and B e l l a Coola b u i l t weirs i n t h e i r t r i b u t a r y streams but these were les s productive (presumably) than the large r i v e r traps of the area. - 80 -In the Salishan, Columbian, and C a l i f o r n i a n regions the weir complex c l e a r l y was a major salmon production system. The Kepel Dam and the other Yurok and Karok weirs took many salmon i n a short period; they were equal to l i f t i n g net complexes i n production c a p a b i l i t y (9). The Hupa and the Oregon people (Alsea, Coos, Siuslaw) probably r e l i e d on weirs more than other methods, e x p l o i t i n g the runs on t h e i r short coastal r i v e r s . Communal weirs b u i l t on important salmon r i v e r s were a primary centre from which v i l l a g e communities developed and i n which they were l o c a l i z e d . 4. S o c i a l Variables In the North each worthwhile salmon stream was owned by a lineage d i v i s i o n of l o c a l resource holders. Weirs were the exclusive property of the corporate group and could only be used by others i f permission was f i r s t obtained. Dawson (1880:109-110) describes the general dispersement of Haida from the winter v i l l a g e s : The various ' r i v e r s ' are the property of the several f a m i l i e s or sub-division of the t r i b e s , and at the salmon f i s h i n g season the i n -habitants are scattered from the main v i l l a g e s ; each l i t t l e party camped or l i v i n g i n temporary houses i n the v i c i n i t y of the streams they own. In contrast, the communal weirs of the Salishan and Columbian regions were b u i l t close to r i v e r i n e v i l l a g e at s i t e s that were community-owned. The fishermen of the community co-operated to construct weirs; platforms on the weir, presumably the most productive f i s h i n g s i t e s , were owned p r i v a t e l y . Use-rights were h e r i t a b l e properties within the resource - 81 -holding group, but the claim included an expectation and requirement to provide construction labour to b u i l d the weir (10). Thus the locus of ownership s h i f t s from the salmon stream s i t e to s p e c i f i e d stations at the communal weir. In Northern C a l i f o r n i a , where the concept of i n d i v i d u a l ownership extends to a l l productive f i s h e r y s i t e s , the archetypical Kepel Dam was nevertheless a communal enterprise. The use-rights to i t s stations were not c l e a r l y s p e c i f i e d ; but each 'salmon house' was named: The weir was an elaborate structure b u i l t i n ten named sections by ten groups of men, a l l working under the a c t u a l , as well as the ceremonial, d i r e c t i o n of one formulist. Each section was b u i l t with an enclosure provided with a gate which could be closed when the f i s h entered. The f i s h were then e a s i l y removed with dip nets. Vast numbers of f i s h were taken during the ten days that the dam was allowed to stand. A f t e r that i t was d e l i b e r a t e l y torn down (Kroeber & Barrett:1960:12) The Kepel Dam was b u i l t each year anew at a s i t e t h i r t y miles from the mouth of the Klamath. Hewes c o l l e c t e d the names of ten Yurok v i l l a g e s downstream from Kepel which contributed work crews ( f i e l d notes:1940: i n K & B:1960:12). The b u i l d i n g of the weir at Kepel was attended by the "most elaborate p u b l i c r i t u a l complex i n the region" (Kroeber & Barrett:1960:11). Waterman, who with Kroeber co-authored a study of the Kepel Dam complex (pub.1938, cf.,1920), had also done f i e l d research i n Puget Sound and reported (1973:64) that no " r e l i g i o u s r i t e s or taboos" appeared to be associated with the Twana weir complex. - 82 -Other large structures i n the Klamath basin were the Hupa weirs b u i l t with some formality but no ceremony on the T r i n i t y , an important t r i b u t a r y system. Hewes f i e l d notes (1940:ibid) contain useful d e t a i l not generally a v a i l a b l e about the s o c i a l organization of production. On the f i f t h day a l l the men who were to p a r t i c i p a t e i n bu i l d i n g the dam (there might be as many as a hundred) assembled and brought poles and other materials... The platform i n the center was the most important and advantageous. Not only did the f i s h tend, on account of the angular form of the weir, to work toward t h i s apex, but the fishermen who occupied t h i s platform had a v a i l a b l e to them a bay on eith e r side of the platform. This c e n t r a l  platform was d e f i n i t e l y reserved f o r c e r t a i n  f a m i l i e s who had legendary r i g h t to i t . A l l the other platforms on the weir were open to anyone who had p a r t i c i p a t e d i n i t s construction, and to those whom they might i n v i t e to f i s h there. (p.19; emphasis mine) 5. E c o l o g i c a l Variables In most parts of the coast the weir complex was associated with summer and f a l l salmon runs. Summer runs of chinook salmon were taken at weirs i n the Quinault, Nanaimo, Squamish, and t r i b u t a r i e s of the Columbia and Fraser Rivers. F a l l chinook ran i n the Cowichan, Skokomish, Quileute, and Klamath systems. Communal weirs were not generally constructed on sockeye streams; f o r example, neither the - 83 -Cowichan, Skokomish nor Klamath systems have sockeye runs. A notable exception i s the Quinault River;.communal weirs were b u i l t s p e c i f i c a l l y to e x p l o i t the abundant sockeye runs that enter that r i v e r i n early spring and peak i n May. In innumerable mainland and i s l a n d streams where simple weirs were b u i l t the f a l l runs of chum, pinks, and coho were taken. Dawson reported for the Haida that many small r i v e r s had weirs for f a l l f i s h i n g ; he did not name the species he r e f e r s to but i t would be chum salmon which enter the streams i n large numbers beginning i n mid-August, l a s t i n g through u n t i l December. They ascend even very small streams when these are i n flood with the autumn r a i n s , and being e a s i l y caught and large, they constitute the great salmon harvest of the Haidas. (1880:109-110) Few sockeye runs occur i n the Queen Charlottes but they enter several streams as summer runs. Chum salmon were also the most important species taken i n the Skokomish, comprising the bulk of the annual Twana catch (Elmendorf:1960:61). In summary, except for the Quinault sockeye runs, the species commonly taken at weirs were chinook, chum, and to a l e s s e r extent, coho. Sites selected f or weir placement had to meet s p e c i f i e d requirements. The Kepel s i t e i s described as having a l e v e l streambed of f i n e gravel with a strong but steady current evenly across the breadth of the stream; the weir was b u i l t i n l a t e summer when the r i v e r l e v e l s had subsided, i n optimal depths of f i v e to s i x feet. - 84 -Because of the heavy water volume In the Klamath, the weir was V-shaped rather than straight across from one bank to the other. The point of the V-faced upriver into the current. In a stream of smaller volume, the shape might not matter much. The larger the flow, the greater the resistance which a two-way diagonal weir would possess, presumably, and experience may have shown the Indians that t h i s gain i n strength more than compensated for the a d d i t i o n a l length. (Kroeber & Barrett:1960:13) The r i v e r at t h i s point i s 250 feet wide, much wider than at other weir s i t e s on the Northwest Coast. Deep water s i t e s would be impracticable because of the d i f f i c u l t y i n d r i v i n g posts into the streambed. Nor could weirs be b u i l t i n estuaries where channeling and s h i f t i n g streambeds create problems, as would the pressure of t i d e s . Detritus and general debris would be a nuisance because screen panels would need frequent c l e a r i n g ; a 'clean' r i v e r would be preferred. In summary, l i m i t a t i o n s on weir s i t e s may be characterized by these sets of variables i n the av a i l a b l e water resources: (1) stream features including v e l o c i t y , volume, and depths of water; (2) the width of the stream; and (3) features of the stream-bed. Weir structures could not withstand swift currents or heavy water volumes. - 85 -SALMON TECHNOLOGY COMPLEX 9 - TRAPS I 1. Contextual Description The p r i n c i p l e of entrapment i s represented i n the t r a d i t i o n a l f i s h e r y by a v a r i e t y of forms designed to impound or strand f i s h . Since salmon do not feed upon prey during fresh water migration, traps were never baited. Instead salmon were led into a trap entrance by t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c behaviour i n streams during the run, p a r t i c u l a r l y by t h e i r capacity to surmount impediments and obstacles en route. Salmon were taken i n g r i d traps, c y l i n d r i c a l basketry traps, box traps, shallow basin traps, tumble-back traps at f a l l s , trough-shaped traps, and double weir traps with tubular baskets. A c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of types i s given i n the next subsection; f o r the present, one of the more common forms, the c y l i n d r i c a l basketry trap, i s described i n context. C y l i n d r i c a l basketry traps had a wide d i s t r i b u t i o n and were very productive. Placed e i t h e r s i n g l y or i n multiples of three or four, c y l i n d r i c a l traps were set i n a dam or w a l l , or at the apex of converging l e a d - i n wings. Sproat reported in.the early 1860s that Nootka salmon traps of t h i s kind were set i n a l l coastal streams. On each side of the trap, i n some instances extending as f a r as the bank, a w a l l , or fence of stones or small stakes, slants down the stream, so as to lead the f i s h , i n swimming up, towards (the) entrance to the trap. (1868:222) - 86 -Three and sometimes four "long c i r c u l a r baskets of uniform diameter, made of cedar s p l i n t e r s t i e d neatly together" were placed i n p o s i t i o n length-wise i n the stream. Each trap had a funnel entry "shaped l i k e a candle extinguisher"; the salmon having once passed through t h i s tapering c o r r i d o r could not make i t s way out again. The baskets, says Sproat, were "very neatly constructed, and catch a great many f i s h " ( i b i d ) . Nootkan ethnographies contain many references to the use of c y l i n d r i c a l basketry traps. Captain Cook i n 1778 noted "large f i s h i n g wears", as he c a l l e d them, "...composed of pieces of wicker work made of small rods" (1784:281). Koppert (1930:72) observed that the Clayo-quot used two kinds of basketry traps, the c y l i n d r i c a l and the box-like trap, both with funnel entry, and both frequently placed i n multiples on stone walls that crossed the e n t i r e stream. The water was shallow at such s i t e s , and the wall about two feet high. Box-like traps, for example, would be set i n the wall at i n t e r v a l s every few feet, the t o t a l number depending on the width of the stream. Wooden stakes were driven across to provide a b a r r i e r i n front of the stone wall; consequently, the salmon coming upstream, unable to surmount the obstacle, entered the trap mouth. In addition to traps set with leads of fencing or secured to dams, c y l i n d r i c a l traps were used alone, staked i n the streambed at rapids and natural obstructions. An early d e s c r i p t i o n , c.1803, was recorded by John Jewitt who accompanied Chief Maquinna's salmon f i s h i n g expedition to the Tahsis River. The fi s h e r y was pursued c h i e f l y i n "pots or wears", as Jewitt explains: (11) - 87 -A pot of twenty feet i n length, and from four to f i v e feet diameter at the mouth, i s formed of a great number of pine s p l i n t e r s which are strongly secured, an inch and a h a l f from each other, by means of hoops made of f l e x i b l e twigs, and placed about eight inches apart. At the end i t tapers almost to a point, near which i s a small wicker door for the purpose of taking out the f i s h . This pot or wear i s placed at the foot of a f a l l or rapid, where the water i s not very deep, and the f i s h driven from above with long poles, are intercepted and caught i n the wear, from whence they are taken into the canoes. Jewitt saw more than 700 salmon captured i n a quarter of an hour by t h i s means (1967:87). Early observers i n the north reported a s i m i l a r dependence upon c y l i n d r i c a l trap technology among the T l i n g i t . Krause i n the f i e l d i n 1881-82, considered basket traps set i n w e i r - l i k e fences to be the most common salmon technology complex among the Chilkat (1956: 121. Plate I I ) . E a r l i e r , i n 1799, La Perouse v i s i t e d a salmon f i s h e r y at a small r i v e r , the Huagin, near Lituya Bay ( Y a k u t a t - T l i n g i t ) . Here, salmon encounter the staked stream: . . . i n the angles of the dike are placed very narrow wicker baskets, closed at one end, into which they enter, and being unable to turn i n them, they are thus caught. This f i s h e r y i s so abundant, that the crews of both vessels had plenty of salmon during our stay, and each ship salted two casks. (1799:Vol.I, p.389;quoted i n de Laguna 1972:387) This method of trapping salmon obviously ranked high as a productive technique for use i n small to medium-range r i v e r s and - 88 -streams. I t could be adapted to s w i f t waters and v a r i a t i o n s i n stream bed f e a t u r e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n shallow r i v e r s . A c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h i s and the many other types of salmon traps i s the f a c i l i t y w i t h which the c o n f i g u r a t i o n s of traps could be modified to s u i t the v a r i a b l e s of l o c a l s i t e c o n d i t i o n s . 2. Types and M a t e r i a l s Salmon t r a p s are h i g h l y i n d i v i d u a l i z e d and d i f f i c u l t to ca t e g o r i z e s c h e m a t i c a l l y without i n j u s t i c e to the data. I have c o l l e c t e d dozens of d i s t i n c t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n s , d e t a i l i n g the many ways Northwest Coast fishermen caught salmon i n t r a p s . Boas (1909) provides the c l a s s i c account of a tra p p i n g r e p e r t o i r e - i n the salmon f i s h e r y of the Southern K w a k i u t l . Using n a t i v e c a t e g o r i e s to d i s t i n g u i s h the p r i n c i p a l t r a p p i n g devices, Boas describes each of them i n t e c h n o l o g i c a l terms. This i s u s e f u l as a b a s i s f o r a d i v i s i o n of types. Boas' Southern Kwakiutl data w i t h no a d d i t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s e x h i b i t e d i n Table V. The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of types that f o l l o w s i s ordered on f u n c t i o n a l and operating p r i n c i p l e s . For cross-reference purposes, and as a guide to d i s t i n g u i s h i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n types, names are included given by Boas' informants to describe s i m i l a r devices. (a) Tumble-back traps (also c a l l e d 'pothangers') The f u n c t i o n of t h i s t r a p i s to catch salmon as they f a i l to surmount a n a t u r a l o b s t a c l e , as a f a l l s or r a p i d s . P l a t e I I i l l u s t r a t e s - 89 -TABLE V SOUTHERN KWAKIUTL TRAPS Native term Boas' d e s c r i p t i o n of traps* 1. l e ' x s i d c y l i n d r i c a l basketry trap with c o n i c a l entrance (used i n r i v e r s with strong current). 2. xo'los, l e ' x s i d xo'los trap with c y l i n d r i c a l basket-trap attached f, - t 1 . ^ c a l l e d l e ' x s i d . Converging frames force salmon to \t ma l i s ) i i t - t . i • > t enter a box which e x i t s into c y l i n d r i c a l traps on each side. Trap door to remove f i s h . May be used i n combination with an a d d i t i o n a l trap (ma'lis), a c i r c u l a r stone dam with f l a r i n g entrance which forms a shallow basin. Salmon which do not enter 'box' are guided into basin, and cannot escape.(used where current very strong). 3. dEgwi's salmon enter a large closed basket with converging entrance from which they are turned into a long . f i s h basket kept i n place with stakes and anchored with heavy stones (for use i n narrow r i v e r s ) . 4. mE'wa a trap s i m i l a r to xo'los with a box-like framework but frames are attached to bottom which i s anchored on the rocky ground of the r i v e r . 12 fathoms long, 6 fathoms wide; salmon speared (used on the mainland near i n l e t s ) . 5. ma'lis a) stone dam with f l a r i n g entrance; deep pool formed under cascade, shallow rapids below ( b u i l t under small cascades). b) log dam v a r i a t i o n of dam and b a s i n , b u i l t i n shallow water with rapid current. Salmon speared or caught i n xo'los b u i l t under the dam. 6. La'wayu Nimpkish River. On lower (downstream) side a stone dam i s b u i l t which reaches to the surface of the water. Just above t h i s a box eight fathoms wide and two deep i s b u i l t , c o n s i s t i n g of frames t i e d to stakes. The salmon jump into the trap across the stone dam. White clam s h e l l s cover the stream bed i n the trap so that salmon may be speared more e a s i l y by fishermen i n canoes alongside. A f t e r Boas:1909. (Minor restatement of Boas' text.) - 90 -- 91 -a tumble back trap of t h i s kind. Few adequate descriptions exist although the technique was known throughout the area. V a r i e t i e s include: (a) an open framework box suspended by ropes from nearby rock faces with ropes (Boas:1909:465). There i s no i n d i c a t i o n how the ropes were secured, or the catch removed; (b) two g r i d panels joined to form a wide V that held the f a l l e n salmon; (c) a f l e x i b l e g r i d suspended l i k e netting. (b) Large box-like traps and free enclosures (xo'los, degwi's, me'wa) Units of basketry or wattle-work were constructed i n various ways to enclose a portion of the stream; the entrance could be simply two converging panels (see diagram). A salmon would f i n d i t s way i n e a s i l y enough but be discouraged from e x i t i n g by the same route because of inward protruding points, and by the salmon's reluctance to swim i n the 'wrong' d i r e c t i o n with the current. Another entrance commonly used was the funnel or invaginated entry (see diagram, degwi's). Once ins i d e the enclosure the salmon would f i n d i t s progress blocked by the upstream member of the trap, and turn into the only a v a i l a b l e o u t l e t , the c y l i n d r i c a l trap. A number of v a r i a t i o n s were possible but the basic elements consisted of (i) a one-way entry, ( i i ) an enclosure i n the r i v e r , and ( i i i ) egress into a confining chamber. (c) C y l i n d r i c a l basketry traps (dena'x'dax) Long narrow c y l i n d r i c a l traps were generally made of cedar s l a t s or s p l i n t e r s lashed to hardwood hoops with s p l i t root twining. - 92 -Figure 10. Scheme of degwi's trap. - 93 -\ In the north, Emmons (1903:242) reported baskets made of spruce s l a t s and s p l i t spruce root twinings. Baskets were equipped with a funnel-entry i n s e r t at the mouth or, a l t e r n a t i v e l y , constructed to be too narrow for the salmon to turn around. Dimensions given by Sproat (1868:222) indi c a t e the diameters were three to f i v e f e e t , and lengths ranged from ten to twenty feet. Some traps tapered to a point, but others were symmetrical. Several of the ways i n which c y l i n d r i c a l traps were used have already been described. In addition to providing a f a c i l i t y f o r the d i r e c t capture of salmon, they were appendages to large r i v e r enclosures — box-like traps, double weirs, closed baskets with converging entrances — a s a means to concentrate the salmon for easy removal. (d) Grids and trough-shaped traps Grid panels were used to strand salmon following an encounter with a r i v e r obstruction, natural or man-made. They were often used i n connection with free enclosures or at the threshold of a r t i f i c i a l 'basins'. The g r i d i t s e l f was set on an i n c l i n e d plane with the upper end e i t h e r above water or i n the shallows. Since the force of the r i v e r ' s current was u t i l i z e d to sweep the f i s h up on the g r i d , the entry faced upstream. For salmon ( i . e . , not t r o u t ) , the trap required a b a r r i e r upstream of the g r i d panel. Unable to progress, the f i s h i s swept back and stranded on the grating. In the absence of a b a r r i e r , the salmon could be frightened into retreat by beating on the water (Barnett:1955:82). - 94 -A Northern Gulf S a l i s h trap described by Barnett (ibid) (see diagram) consisted of a horseshoe-shaped enclosure with a narrow entry of converging s t i c k s . Once i n s i d e , the salmon were confronted by the upstream member of the trap; they "would play i n an eddy or relax t h e i r e f f o r t s against the b a r r i e r and i n a moment be swept on to the u p t i l t e d grids of the trap enclosures" ( i b i d ) . In Northern C a l i f o r n i a , stranding devices were shaped l i k e scoops, the sides upraised. These open-top trough traps were made of long s p l i t spruce or hazel poles set a few inches apart and t i e d with withes. They were often placed at the apex of two converging wings that served to guide the s t a l l e d salmon to the underwater l i p of the trap, and subsequently up on the g r i d . (e) Dams and basins (ma'lis, ama'la, la'wayu) While dams and basins are e s s e n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t kinds of structures they both a l t e r water l e v e l s at the s i t e . A dam b u i l t on a small r i v e r , as Boas has i l l u s t r a t e d (1909:Fig. 139), creates the conditions of rapids and shallow water that favour spearing. I f used i n connection with a f l a r i n g stone basin, or the Kwakiutl combination of basin and trap (xo'los, l e ' x s i d , and ma'lis), the stream i s e f f e c t i v e l y converted into a multiple system of trapping devices, designed to take large catches. Boas' d e s c r i p t i o n of the basin (ma'lis) i s given: - 95 -F i gu re .1.1. Scheme of g r i d t r a p . T 96 -It consists of a c i r c u l a r stone dam with f l a r i n g entrance, which forms a shallow basin. In the narrow entrance to the basin a platform of slender, smooth poles i s placed about 7 cm. under water at the end turned towards the basin, while the upper end i s considerably deeper. (ibid:462) This combination of g r i d entry and floundering basin may have been much more widely used than the ethnographies i n d i c a t e . There are few references to the s p e c i f i c s of stream dams and basins. Boas also described a wooden basin: This i s fenced i n with stakes and poles or frames, while the bottom i s e n t i r e l y f i l l e d with long poles, so that the f i s h have not enough water i n which to move. A s i m i l a r basin-trap i s described by de Laguna (1960) f or the Angoon T l i n g i t who, she reports, d i d not use c y l i n d r i c a l traps l i k e the Chilkat and Yakutat people did. Instead they constructed open top boxes of s t i c k s or s p l i t wood, and set them "either across a w a t e r f a l l or placed i n the opening of a fence across the stream". De Laguna c o l l e c t e d names for the various parts of the trap: the 'arms-of-trap 1, the posts to which a trap and fence was attached, and a "tongue-shaped ramp" c a l l e d 'salmon d i r e c t o r ' that l e d the salmon into the trap. Presumably t h i s was a grid-type entry. F i n a l l y , i t i s noteworthy that de Laguna's informants indicated-that these traps took many forms but had one underlying p r i n c i p l e : ...they were a l l made so that the water i n the f l o o r of the trap was too shallow to permit the f i s h to swim or j ump out. (ibid:115) - 97 -It i s evident that one of the ways salmon were e f f e c t i v e l y trapped was to a l t e r the conditions of the stream flow and water depths. 3. D i s t r i b u t i o n The Northern and Wakashan regions produced much of t h e i r annual salmon requirements by using the trap complex. This i s stated e x p l i c i t l y f o r the T l i n g i t and Nootka, and by inference i n Boas' (1909) account of the Southern Kwakiutl. According to Krause (1956:121) and other sources, the salmon trap was the most important technology used by T l i n g i t groups. Both the Yakutat and Chil k a t , the p r i n c i p a l mainland groups for whom we have data, set basketry traps i n w e i r - l i k e fences. On the West Coast Nootka groups used c y l i n d r i c a l basketry traps set i n walls and dams i n every stream; traps were the main fresh water mode of salmon production. And the Southern Kwakiutl inventory of traps was extensive and obviously s i g n i f i c a n t i n terms of production capacity. 4. S o c i a l Variables Salmon traps and the s i t e s of salmon traps were i n general terms attended by notions of ownership by lineage resource holders. Deviations from t h i s basic premise would tend to follow the basic patterns of resource ownership pec u l i a r to each ethnic group, and i t would probably serve no useful purpose to summarize them. Instead the example of one group for whom the trap complex was s i g n i f i c a n t w i l l be given. - 99 -On the West Coast, the Nootka c h i e f s exercised t e r r i t o r i a l prerogatives over a l l the important resource l o c a t i o n s . Salmon streams constituted the most important economic properties of the Nootka c h i e f s . Though they gave r i g h t to set salmon traps i n c e r t a i n places to k i n and henchmen, the chiefs exercised t h e i r r i g h t s to claim the e n t i r e f i r s t catch of the traps made i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l r i v e r s . (Drucker:1951:250) Jewitt reported that an estimated 2,500 salmon were brought on one occasion into Chief Maquinna's house (1967:88). The common rule of r i g h t s of access for people with no claim to the trap s i t e i s high-l i g h t e d i n t h i s remark about the appropriate behaviour of a stranger among the Clayoquot: i f . . . h e passes a creek with a trap-box set for f i s h , he may not f i s h i n that stream; i f the trap i s not set, he i s at l i b e r t y to f i s h by hook or spear. (Koppert:1930:78) 5. E c o l o g i c a l Variables Koppert also noted a conservationist r u l e i n e f f e c t to protect salmon. As to f i s h , when the rains make the r i v e r s r i s e , the trap-boxes are not allowed to be v i s i t e d except once a day, so as not to hinder f i s h on t h e i r way to the spawning grounds. A s t r i c t Indian law forbids v i o l a t i n g t h i s r u l i n g . (ibid:79) - 100 -As the creek swells salmon can pass on both sides of the b a r r i e r s that contain the c y l i n d r i c a l traps or fish-boxes. The v a r i e t y of stream conditions at s i t e s where traps could be constructed i n d i c a t e s the v e r s a t i l i t y of t h i s mode of salmon production; traps were designed to meet the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of fast water, shallow water, r i f f l e s , f a l l s , narrow places, uneven streambeds with rocks and boulders, or heavily channeled streams, among others. 'Dams' and basins a l t e r e d stream l e v e l s , d i v e r t i n g the movements of the salmon. Leaping b a r r i e r s , searching for a way past these a r t i f i c i a l impediments, and exploring an opening i n the trap, the salmon i s captured. - 101 -SALMON TECHNOLOGY COMPLEX 10 - TRAPS II 1. Contextual Description In the preceding section (STC 9) f i v e generalized types of trapping devices were described. The same p r i n c i p l e of entrapment was extended to several other, more s p e c i a l i z e d forms by Northwest Coast people — traps designed to meet the conditions of large r i v e r s . Three types w i l l be described: the Skeena canyon trap, the B e l l a Coola dam, and Northern large r i v e r traps. These are each d i s t i n c t i v e models with d i f f e r i n g functions and a n c i l l a r y parts. 2. Types and Materials (a) Skeena canyon trap The large Skeena r i v e r trap i s a s p e c i a l example of an adaptation to the features of canyon f i s h i n g i n a large and very productive salmon r i v e r . L i t t l e has been published about these traps. Barbeau described them b r i e f l y i n an a r t i c l e w r itten for the Canadian  Geographic Journal, June 1930. He also obtained photographs which are held i n the B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l Museum a r c h i v a l c o l l e c t i o n (Plates H I and IV:Appendix). Plates from t h i s same set accompany Barbeau's a r t i c l e ; one of the captions reads: - 102 -Plate III. Skeena Canyon Trap (first view) Plate IV. Skeena Canyon Trap (second view, from above) - 104 -These traps are quite complicated and consist of three parts, the v e r t i c a l b a r r i e r which i s set between posts, the long "chute", and the f i s h basket at the rear. Nowhere else but on the upper Skeena are f i s h traps l i k e these made. The e f f i c i e n c y of these depends upon the a b i l i t y of the makers who are guided by set measurements and a long experience. (1930:144) Barbeau i d e n t i f i e s t h i s s p e c i a l form of basket trap as Gitksan, b u i l t and operated by Gitksan user-groups on the west side of the Hagwilget canyon. On the east side of the canyon, Ca r r i e r (Plateau) people had obtained r i g h t s to f i s h , and used a very s i m i l a r trap. Barbeau comments that the r i g h t to resource locati o n s i n the canyon had been an "object of dispute for a hundred years past" ( i b i d ) . The p r i n c i p a l f i s h e r y he mentions i s the sockeye run. Other information about the Skeena canyon trap i s not e a s i l y a v a i l a b l e (12). From an examination of the Plates, one can appreciate the complexity and s i z e of the undertaking. The long chute or trough i s supported by ropes from the superstructure of the trap and i t appears the chute was raised or lowered into the r i v e r by t h i s means. How i t operated i s not clear but i t may be that the nether end of the chute was submerged i n the r o i l y waters of the canyon. At the height of the salmon runs, when the gorge i s crowded with sockeye ascending the rapids, many f i s h would swim along the banks of the stream where the v e l o c i t y i s l e s s extreme. It i s possible that under these circumstances sockeye could not e a s i l y avoid the submerged arm of the trap. If the chute were quickly raised to a perpendicular angle (the nether end high) i t would act as a flume to conduct f i s h into the basket at the rear where they would be enclosed. I do not know i f t h i s i s how the trap a c t u a l l y - 1 0 5 -worked; whatever the method of operation i t i s obvious that the Skeena canyon trap was an elaborate salmon f i s h i n g complex. (b) B e l l a Coola dam The s e r i e s of 'weirs' and dams b u i l t at communities along the B e l l a Coola River included some of the largest structures b u i l t on northern r i v e r s . In 1793 Alexander Mackenzie recorded as much d e t a i l about these " f i s h i n g machines" as possible, and these descriptions stand as c l a s s i c accounts i n the l i t e r a t u r e , even although the people of B e l l a Coola would not permit Mackenzie to investigate the structure as c l o s e l y as he wished. The p r i n c i p a l dam Mackenzie describes was b u i l t at 'Friendly V i l l a g e ' on the main arm of the B e l l a Coola about t h i r t y miles from the mouth of the r i v e r . At t h i s l o c a t i o n an a f f l u e n t from the north enters the B e l l a Coola, which unlike most t r i b u t a r i e s to t h i s stream does not debouche from a steep gorge (13). One may assume perhaps that the current of the r i v e r at t h i s point i s strong but regular. I w i l l quote Mackenzie at length: The weir i s a work of great labour and contrived with considerable ingenuity. It was near four feet above the l e v e l of the water, at the time I saw i t , and nearly the height of the bank on which I stood to examine i t . The stream i s stopped nearly two-thirds by i t . It i s constructed by f i x i n g small trees i n the bed of the r i v e r i n a s l a n t i n g p o s i t i o n (which could be pr a c t i c a b l e only when the water i s much lower than when I saw i t ) , with the thick part downwards; over these i s l a i d a bed of gravel, on which i s - 106 -placed a range of le s s e r trees, and so on a l t e r n a t i v e l y , t i l l the work i s brought to i t s proper height. Beneath i t the machines* are placed, into which the salmon f a l l when they attempt to leap over. On ei t h e r side there i s a large frame of timber-work s i x feet above the l e v e l of the upper water, i n which passages are l e f t for the salmon leading d i r e c t l y into the machines* which are taken up at pleasure. At the foot of the f a l l dipping nets are also successfully employed. (from Lamb's e d i t i o n 1970:358) The f a c i l i t y described by Mackenzie i s a dam, not a weir i n the sense defined i n t h i s study (STC 8); that i s , the r i v e r does not flow f r e e l y through the structure as i t does with a weir. By b u i l d i n g a b a r r i e r to obstruct the flow of water, B e l l a Coola resource users created a multi-purpose f i s h i n g f a c i l i t y where salmon could be taken with at l e a s t two d i f f e r e n t trapping strategies and by other means su i t a b l e at a ' f a l l s ' , dip netting i n p a r t i c u l a r . Further information c o l l e c t e d by Mcllwraith indicates that the number of traps at the dam was l i m i t e d , each was p r i v a t e l y owned, and named. As.Mackenzie observed: Salmon i s so abundant i n t h i s r i v e r , that these people have a constant and p l e n t i f u l supply of that excellent f i s h . ...To take them with more f a c i l i t y , they had, with great labour, formed an embankment or weir across the r i v e r f o r the purpose of placing t h e i r f i s h i n g machines, which they disposed both above and below i t . (ibid) Mackenzie i s r e f e r r i n g to traps. Mcllwraith c o l l e c t e d a B e l l a Coola word for a movable box-like container which can be raised at the salmon 'weir' (1948:610) which may be one of the types of traps Mackenzie c a l l e d machines. - 107 -Mackenzie probably means both on the upstream and downstream side of the dam. The p o s i t i o n of some traps at the f a c i l i t y would be more valuable than others. The dam described by Mackenzie was b u i l t where the B e l l a Coola was f i f t y yards i n breadth, and about ten feet deep on the 'foot of the f a l l ' , the downriver side. This means that i t must have been about fourteen or f i f t e e n feet deep on the upriver side. At another dam further downstream, Mackenzie saw the l o c a l men i n t h e i r canoes shoot over the f a l l s , a ten foot drop at that s i t e (14). In summary, the B e l l a Coola dams were extraordinary structures, b u i l t with great labour by l o c a l resource holding groups near permanent v i l l a g e s . There i s l i t t l e doubt that they were among the more productive salmon technology complexes on the Northwest Coast. (c) Northern large r i v e r traps Seven ethnic or d i a l e c t groups i n the north with large r i v e r s to e x p l o i t used an open-top r i v e r trap set i n a frame of posts. The type i s included i n the Culture Element D i s t r i b u t i o n s L i s t (15), contributed by Drucker (1950). While the type seems to share several c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Skeena canyon trap, i t s use was denied by Drucker's Gitksan informant. Evidently, i t was not a canyon trap. There i s no i n d i c a t i o n that i t was used at s i t e s where the waters were r o i l y , but t h i s may indeed have been the case. It was stated by several informants to have been designed to meet the conditions of large r i v e r s ; i n f a c t , i t s absence among the B e l l a B e l l a and Heiltsuk "was'said to be due to the smallness of the r i v e r s i n t h e i r t e r r i t o r i e s " (1950:237). - 108 -Drucker provides a de s c r i p t i o n : This trap was quite large, shaped something l i k e h a l f a b a r r e l , with i t s ends lashed to v e r t i c a l posts which supported plank s c a f f o l d s on which men stood. When enough f i s h were caught, men loosened the withes binding i t to the posts and hauled i t up t i l l the catch was within easy reach. The posts acted as guides. (ibid) A d d i t i o n a l notes say that the trap had a V-entry and, at least among some user-groups, a guiding fence was used to d i r e c t f i s h into the mouth of the trap. These few sketchy d e t a i l s do not explain the operation and s p e c i f i c s i t e conditions adequately, but when considered i n the context of the preceding Skeena and B e l l a Coola traps they describe a pattern f o r large northern streams. 3. D i s t r i b u t i o n D i s t r i b u t i o n of t h i s complex i s s p e c i f i c a l l y referenced: (a) Skeena canyon trap: Gitksan Tsimshian people, p a r t i c u l a r l y those with resource holding r i g h t s of access at Hagwilget canyon at or near the Skeena-Bulkley confluence. (b) B e l l a Coola dam: B e l l a Coola people l i v i n g at communities along the r i v e r and i t s p r i n c i p a l t r i b u t a r y . (c) Northern large r i v e r trap: (after Drucker) Northern Kwakiutl at Owikeno i n River's I n l e t ; B e l l a Coola (16); X a i s l a (Northern Kwakiutl) at Kitamat; Tsimshian at Hartley Bay, s p e c i f i c a l l y the Kitqata; Masset Haida people; Skedans Haida; Kaian T l i n g i t l i v i n g at Cape Fox, the southernmost group of T l i n g i t . - 110 -No i n d i c a t i o n i s given of p r o d u c t i v i t y . 4. S o c i a l Variables Mcllwraith c o l l e c t e d several references to notions of ownership (17) and user r i g h t s at B e l l a Coola dams and weirs. Limitations are imposed on the "number of salmon traps at any one weir" according to i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the mythical o r i g i n s of the trap/dam at a c e r t a i n l o c a t i o n . For example, ten traps may be considered the maximum number appropriate i n accordance with the h i s t o r y of the s i t e . "Those who have the r i g h t to the weir are members of the ancestral family with names of those f i r s t users". Inheritance of f i s h i n g r i g h t s to c e r t a i n sections are thus transmitted with a name which must be v a l i d a t e d p u b l i c l y . Mcllwraith added that c o n f l i c t i n g claims and disputes were common. But that only members of the a n c e s t r a l family could obtain r i g h t s . Owners of a trap or section of the weir could lease f i s h i n g r i g h t s for a s p e c i f i c time period, perhaps a s i n g l e night or two nights, i n return for material consideration. Information about ownership r i g h t s at the Skeena canyon trap and large r i v e r traps could be deduced from the general rules for the transmission of property r i g h t s that pertain to each northern society; s p e c i f i c reference to r i g h t s at the trap are not included i n the accounts c i t e d . - I l l -5. E c o l o g i c a l Variables The B e l l a Coola and most r i v e r s at the heads of i n l e t s are very turbid because the g l a c i e r - f e d streams that feed into them carry s i l t down through the system. This i s consistent with d e s c r i p t i o n of the B e l l a Coola dam as p a r t l y composed of naturally-occuring materials, logs, and accumulated s i l t and gravel, features that e s s e n t i a l l y create obstacles i n the r i v e r , d i v e r t i n g the movements of salmon. It would appear that these natural features were enhanced by B e l l a Coola fishermen to create large semi-permanent dams. Spring freshets would annually wash out parts of the dam and i t would require constant maintenance throughout the season. But perhaps the foundation would remain more or les s i n t a c t , e s p e c i a l l y i n larger dam s i t e s l i k e the one described by Mackenzie. The B e l l a Coola - Atnarko i s a productive r i v e r system with large runs of a l l f i v e species (see pp.182- for abundance: and seasonality). At the time Mackenzie v i s i t e d the area (July 1793), B e l l a Coola fishermen were probably catching chinook and sockeye salmon at the dam. The Skeena River system i s an even more productive r i v e r , ranking second a f t e r the Fraser f o r sockeye production i n r i v e r s of the Northwest Coast culture area. The largest runs of sockeye i n the Skeena watershed spawn i n the v i c i n i t y of Babine Lake; the runs must pass through the Hagwilget canyon en route to the Babine, an important t r i b u t a r y (18). Consequently, the canyon f i s h i n g s i t e s would be among the most productive resource areas on the coast. - 112 -SALMON TECHNOLOGY COMPLEX 11 - DIP NET STATIONS 1. Contextual Description At canyons and the upstream narrows of important salmon r i v e r s a turbulent flow of water pours through the cons t r i c t e d rockface i n swift rapids and w a t e r f a l l s . At such places, the running salmon seek r e s p i t e i n the slower currents at the r i v e r ' s edge. Canyon fishermen b u i l t t h e i r dip net stagings to overhang the eddies and backwaters where salmon would l i n g e r awhile, or they worked from a natural foothold on a rocky s h e l f . The fishermen would wield large bag-shaped dip nets attached to the end of long shafts; the open end of the net faced i n the downstream d i r e c t i o n while counter-currents served to hold open the bunt end. One of two p r i n c i p l e s applied to operate the net depending on the s t y l e of the dip net and the species sought. Larger nets were steadied i n p o s i t i o n , braced and ready f o r the prey to enter; smaller, l i g h t e r nets were a c t i v e l y moved through the eddy i n a plunging or sweeping motion to make fo r t u i t o u s catches. The common feature of dip n e t t i n g s i t e s was the presence of sw i r l i n g backcurrents at the edge of rapids and f a l l s . The e a r l i e s t v i s i t o r s to the Northwest Coast recorded the pra c t i c e of dip netting at the canyons of p r i n c i p a l r i v e r s . Lewis and Clark a r r i v i n g at the Dalles on the Columbia River i n 1805 reported an intensive f i s h e r y operated there to produce large quantities of salmon, drie d and systematically bundled for transport or for trade (19). In the Fraser canyon near Yale, as Simon Fraser noted i n his journal Plate V. Fraser River Dip Net Station (braced net i n place) - 113 -entry for June 29, 1808, salmon fishermen were dip netting i n the canyon using implements with shafts 20. feet i n length. The published accounts of explorers support the view that canyon dip net s i t e s were highly productive resource locations where salmon runs could be e f f i c i e n t l y exploited. The following excerpts are from two unpublished f i r s t - h a n d accounts of Fraser canyon dip netting (c.1852-1867)(20). The f i r s t was written by Fred Dally, a p r o f e s s i o n a l photographer whose glass-negative shots of fishermen using the dip net, and of Cowichan weirs, have survived (21). A f t e r viewing the dip net stations i n the twenty mile s t r e t c h above Yale, Dally reported: ...they b u i l d a l i g h t platform of poles j u t t i n g out of the c l e f t s of the rocks overhanging the r i v e r with two or three short planks to stand upon ...they c e r t a i n l y are very l i g h t and picturesque to look at but for anyone but the most s k i l l e d to stand upon most dangerous. (B.C. P r o v i n c i a l archives) Dally also c o l l e c t e d t h i s account written i n the early 1850s by two English t r a v e l l e r s , M i l t o n and Cheadle: ...we passed many Indians engaged i n salmon fishing...they s e l e c t some point i n the f i e r c e rapids where a quiet eddy forms under the lee of a projecting rock. Over the rock they s l i n g a l i t t l e platform of poles, within a convenient distance of the surface of the water, and from t h i s p o s i t i o n grope u n t i r i n g l y i n the eddy with a kind of oval landing-net. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c behaviour of salmon during the spawning runs through the canyon did not go unnoticed by Milton and Cheadle: - 113a -Plate VI. Fraser River Dip Net (pursed) - 114 -The salmon, wearied by t h e i r exertions i n overcoming the torrent, rest for a time i n the l i t t l e eddy before making the next attempt to mount the rapid, and are taken i n hundreds by these clever fishermen. CB.C. P r o v i n c i a l archives) Summer weather i n the canyon i s usually i d e a l for drying salmon - hot and dry, with a steady wind; both smoke-dried and a i r - d r i e d stores were produced. In the Klamath River, i n Northwestern C a l i f o r n i a , dip net s i t e s were equally as s i g n i f i c a n t as on the Fraser and Columbia Rivers, perhaps more so. The Yurok, Karok, and Hupa people used large A-frame l i f t i n g nets braced against stagings b u i l t out over the eddies. At the rapids they used the plunge net, an adaptation of the dip net used with an overhead motion (see Figure 14). Kroeber and Barrett (1960) provide the following commentary on the platforms associated with dip n e t t i n g : The s c a f f o l d or staging i s e s s e n t i a l l y a combination gangplank and operating platform b u i l t out over the river...On t h i s narrow platform the lone fisherman walks out to near the end, perpendicularly lowers his t r i a n g u l a r net frame to the bottom, (and) seats himself on a wooden block s t o o l while holding the closure l i n e to the bag of his n e t . . . ( i t ) can of course not be b u i l t i n any regular or preconceived shape because i t has to be f i t t e d into i d i o s y n c r a c i e s of shore and r i v e r bottom...The number, : d i r e c t i o n , angles, and j o i n i n g of the poles and planks must conform to the given t e r r a i n . . . (ibid:33) Since the number of s u i t a b l e locations at eddies along the r i v e r were l i m i t e d , the ownership and c o n t r o l of dip netting stations was highly - 115 -Figure .14. Northwestern California plunge net for salmon. (Based on a photograph in Kroeber & Barrett:1960). - 116 -valued. The evidence for the Klamath, Columbia and Fraser dip net complex i s clear on t h i s point; f i s h i n g places at eddies where stations could be b u i l t were always owned. 2. Types and Materials As a generic term dip nets denotes a range of devices including the secondary implements needed to land salmon at weirs and traps. As a primary production system, however, the dip net complex ref e r s to the strategies used at canyon s i t e s and rapids, described above. D i s t i n c t i o n s i n two operative s t y l e s are given here: the net used i n a braced p o s i t i o n or a c t i v e l y plunged or swept through r i f f l e s and eddies. ' L i f t i n g net' i s the term favoured by Kroeber and Barrett to describe the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c Northwestern C a l i f o r n i a A-frame braced net. They c a l l the smaller a c t i v e net a 'plunge net'. Elsewhere the common English word given to a l l s t y l e s is.simply 'dip net', but i n each native language a d i s t i n c t i o n was made between the two p r i n c i p a l types (cf Duff:1952:63). In Halkomelem not only the two net s t y l e s but the d i s t i n c t i o n s i n how each was operated had a separate name. A s p e c i a l downriver adaptation of the dip net i s reported which makes reference to channels dug at the edge of the r i v e r ; t h i s and one or two other v a r i a t i o n s w i l l be b r i e f l y described. - 117 -(a) Large braced dip nets Although d i f f e r e n t i n appearance, trapezoidal and e l l i p t i c a l dip nets were s i m i l a r i n function. The Yurok model with i t s complicated s i g n a l l i n g devices, c o n i c a l net shape, and wide trapezoidal frame was set v e r t i c a l l y i n the water using the backcurrent of the eddy to hold the mouth open. The Fraser-Columbia model had a bag-shaped net attached by bone rings to an e l l i p t i c a l hoop of vine maple; a l i n e through the rings held the net mouth open u n t i l i t was released by the fisherman when a salmon was netted. It too was set v e r t i c a l l y , the long shaft braced against the f i s h i n g platform. The advantage of the braced net was that i t could be set deep i n the water. Duff (1952:63) says that i n the Fraser chinook salmon run at depths of below f i v e feet. The large dip net "was braced against the p u l l of the current of the eddy ei t h e r by holding i t against a pole t i e d i n p o s i t i o n or by tying a l i n e between the handle of the net and the shore". Kroeber and Barrett's data indicates that the supporting pole b u i l t into the staging platform was attached to a loop on the A-frame; a guy l i n e held the other side: These two devices, the loop and the guy l i n e , hold the large A-frame f i r m l y i n i t s v e r t i c a l p o s i t i o n at the staging. Otherwise the current, at times quite swift, might sweep the net, frame and a l l , completely out of the hands of the fisherman. (1960:34) The s i m i l a r i t y i s apparent; the Klamath, however, i s not as deep as the Fraser and stagings were constructed so that the A-frame rested on the - 118 -streambed. Dip net stations at a l l canyon s i t e s were, as has been sai d , i d i o s y n c r a t i c , designed to f i t the natural features of the riverbank above favourable eddies. At some stations few i f any improvements were needed to provide a foothold but fishermen often t i e d themselves to shore for safety. D e t a i l s of the manufacture of the nets, materials, s i z e s , lengths of shafts, and how the nets were triggered to close or 'purse', are summarized i n Tables VI and VII. A comparison of a l l a v a i l a b l e data of s i g n i f i c a n c e i s included i n these tables but there i s i n s u f f i c i e n t space to treat properly the v a r i a t i o n s i n t r i g g e r i n g devices. A l l large dip nets had a system of s i g n a l l i n e s (Fig.15 shows the pursed dip net used i n the Fraser Canyon). (b) Active dip nets Two v a r i a t i o n s i n s t y l e represent nets moved a c t i v e l y through the water i n e i t h e r a sweeping or plunging motion (see Fig.14 ). The Fraser-Columbia model was a smaller version of the braced dip net; a bag-shaped net on an e l l i p t i c a l hoop. But i t was l i g h t e r , easier to manipulate, and had a smaller frame. Klamath 'plunge nets' were mounted on a frame c o n s i s t i n g of a p a i r of side poles which met at the top and were reinforced with a cross-piece, c a l l e d the head bar. The fisherman stood over the surging waters near a f a l l s and manipulated the net with a forward thrust. He could stand between the side poles or behind them, his arms upraised; often he would be struck by the head bar, and wore a basketry cap for protection. . 119 -TABLE VI TYPES OF DIP NETS Location Type and Materials Net Frame Shaft Fraser a) braced dip net Indian hemp e l l i p t i c a l vine maple f i r or cedar pursed on bone rin g s s i g n a l l i n e to close b) swept dip net si m i l a r to above but smaller pursed or non-pursed (?) Columbia a) common dip net willow or f l a x f i b r e fastened t i g h t l y to hoo.p e l l i p t i c a l maple sapling ..bent into hoop b) pursed dip net si m i l a r to above but with slip-knot pursing l i n e to close Klamath a) A-frame l i f t i n g net i r i s f i b r e s c o n i c a l net attached by headlines to frame trapezoidal s i g n a l & t r i g g e r i n g l i n e s to close mouth of net oxhorn segment to hold hoop ends two handles con-verge from frame to make A-shape b) plunge net i r i s f i b r e s c o n i c a l net attached f i r m l y by i t s loops semi-circular two handles, con-verge from hoop to make snowshoe shape Columbia dip nets data does not specify whether braced or swept i n the eddy. - 120 -TABLE VII COMPARATIVE DIMENSIONS OF DIP NETS Location Type Net Frame Shaft Fraser a) braced dip net 4 to 5 f t deep 6 f t by 3 to 4 f t diameter 16 f t and longer b) swept dip net 4 f t by 3 f t diameter 'long' Columbia c o n i c a l net 4 f t deep 2 f t diameter 'long' Klamath a) A-frame l i f t i n g net 5 to 6 meters ^..meters deep wide 1 specimen measured 540 cm deep 'long' trapezoidal: 105 cm top margin 210 cm bottom 166 cm both sides b) plunge net co n i c a l 1 meter diameter 4 meters Kroeber & Barrett:1960:35 - 121 -Figure .15. Fraser River dipx net. Bone rings on elliptical hoop (a). Net pursed when line released (b). - 122 -Dip nets made on the Fraser-Golumbia pattern were swept through r o i l y backcurrents where salmon would l i n g e r below the rapids. Fraser sockeye, f o r example, swim near the surface and, with luck, could be swept up i n the dip net. Both dip nets and plunge nets were repeatedly immersed. In the Klamath which has no sockeye runs, the plunge net would take coho and chinook. (c) River mouth (downriver) adaptation-dip net A s p e c i a l adaptation reported for the Quinault and lower Columbia groups was used at s i t e s near a r i v e r mouth. Channels were excavated and platforms b u i l t from which a dip net s i m i l a r to (b) (Columbia model).was manipulated. The shaft was 12-15 feet long. Ray (1938:109) reports for the Chinook that i t was a spring f i s h e r y , probably f o r chinook and sockeye which run together i n May-July, operated before the l e v e l of the Columbia rose. ...channels were dug near the shore...df proper width and depth to accommodate a dip net. A staging was then erected and made v a r i a b l e i n height so that i t might be adjusted to changes i n water l e v e l . The edge of the staging was aligned with the inner edge of the channel... The fisherman moved along the staging, keeping h i s dip net i n the channel. Olson (1936:31-33) reports the same adaptation for the Quinault which was used at low t i d e because there were "no ownership r e s t r i c t i o n s below the high t i d e mark". - 123 -3. D i s t r i b u t i o n As a highly productive salmon technology complex, the dip net was used at canyon s i t e s i n r i v e r s with major salmon populations. While the Fraser, Columbia and Klamath are best documented, other evidence i s also a v a i l a b l e . The Chilkat ( T l i n g i t ) used dip nets twenty-six miles upstream from the mouth of the r i v e r ; Hartley Bay and Gitksan (Tsimshian) b u i l t s c a f f o l d s out over the eddies for dip n e t t i n g salmon; but there i s no reference i n t h i s l i t e r a t u r e to Nass River resource holding groups. Oregon Coast groups and the Tillamook b u i l t s c a f f o l d s for ' l i f t i n g nets'. (Barnett:1937:164:195), however, the s i t e locations are not indicated. The Tolowa used the A-frame l i f t i n g net but, according to Kroeber and Barrett (1960:154) had no platforms; apparently i t was not a s i g n i f i c a n t f i s h i n g method on the Smith River. A s i m i l a r statement i s made for the l i t t o r a l Wiyot who did not have access to the Klamath River. The Skeena data show divergence from the pattern of canyon dip net stations i n p r i n c i p a l r i v e r s . No d e t a i l s are provided i n the regular ethnographic sources to describe a complex s i m i l a r to Fraser and Columbia r i v e r canyon s i t e s . There i s confirmation that dip nets were used by the Gitksan and the Hartley Bay Coast Tsimshian, but there i s no i n d i c a t i o n of the r e l a t i v e importance i t had. One can only conclude that while l o c a l resource holders may have found appropriate conditions for the use of dip net technology i n smaller systems, only on the Columbia, Fraser, and Klamath Rivers can the complex be regarded as s i g n i f i c a n t . - 124 -Figure 16 Northwest Coast Culture Area Salmon Technology Complex 11 - Dip Net Stations (see Appendix I : Table XX) - 125 -4. S o c i a l Variables Fis h i n g stations i n the canyons where dip netting technology was used were regarded as valuable resource holdings. Sites were owned by lineage groups who had recognized r i g h t s of access to the f i s h e r y . Each such l o c a t i o n was known by name (22). Speaking for the Northwestern C a l i f o r n i a region, Hewes records i n h i s f i e l d notes (1940) [quoted i n Kroeber and Barrett:1960 ] that f i s h i n g places at eddies where A-frame l i f t i n g nets and stations were operated were "always owned p r i v a t e l y " . Kroeber (1925) had found that not only were the s i t e s owned but sometimes they were considered corporate property with several people having 'shares' i n the f i s h i n g r i g h t s at the s i t e . The shares were paid out on the basis of apportioning the length of time a co-owner could f i s h ; the time units were usually on a twelve hour basis, thus an i n d i v i d u a l might have the r i g h t to f i s h at the s t a t i o n one day a week, or two and a h a l f , or any d i v i s a b l e number. Ownership notions i n the area, p a r t i c u l a r l y among Yurok and Karok, are highly i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c . Spier and Sapir (1930) were t o l d that f i s h i n g stations i n the canyon ...passed by inheritance into the possession of a group of r e l a t i v e s i n each generation. ...No one else was allowed to f i s h at a p a r t i c u l a r s t a t i o n without permission of i t s owners... Each s t a t i o n had i t s overseer who was usually a chief or head man. (p.175) - 126 -As many as s i x to ten men might claim property r i g h t s , any one of whom could "preempt the best place at the s t a t i o n temporarily" ( i b i d ) . Whether a l l the co-owners were of one corporate lineage group i s unclear, but they shared kinship t i e s . Fraser canyon s i t e s were named and owned by an association defined by Jorgensen (1969) as 'patrideme and sons'. Upper Stalo people, p a r t i c u l a r l y the T a i t who occupied v i l l a g e s i n the canyon from Hope to f i v e miles upstream of Yale, were the p r i n c i p a l owners of dip n e t t i n g stations. But f l e x i b l e associations of kin-based membership i n resource holding groups and b i l a t e r a l inheritance rules among the Halkomelem may have provided f i s h i n g opportunities for some downriver people who could support a claim. Although ownership of stations was sometimes c o l l e c t i v e and always s p e c i f i c , the ownership of the dip net i t s e l f was i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c . The materials needed to make a dip net were r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e , and i t s manufacture could be accomplished without d i f f i c u l t y . As Spier and Sapir's informants r e l a t e d : While the s t a t i o n and the staging erected there was common property to the group of owners, each man fished with h i s own...net. (p.175) The salmon caught was c a r r i e d by family members up to the processing areas above the s i t e . The occupation of f i s h i n g at the dip net s t a t i o n was a s o l i t a r y endeavour. No doubt at the height of the season men would s p e l l one another o f f , taking turns at the arduous work. 5. E c o l o g i c a l Variables The two p r i n c i p a l s t y l e s of dip nets were, at least to some extent, re l a t e d to differences i n salmon species. The larger braced net was designed to take chinook salmon which run early i n the season when the r i v e r i s high. The combination of heavier currents and more sizeable species was met by a st u r d i e r version of the dip net and a technology capable of withstanding the greater demands placed on i t . Braced nets were set lower i n the stream, according to Halkomelem informants, because chinook swim at depths s l i g h t l y below sockeye. The l i g h t e r , more f l e x i b l e dip net used with a sweeping or plunging action was s u i t a b l e for smaller species, sockeye, coho (and steelhead t r o u t ) . Smaller chinook were also taken by t h i s means. In the Skeena, Fraser, and Columbia there i s some overlap of chinook and sockeye runs; the dip net season was July and August i n the Fraser; May, June and early July i n the Columbia (Spier & Sapir:1930:174). On the Klamath the most important runs of chinook appear as early as July although they are considered to be part of the f a l l run. There i s a c o r r e l a t i o n between important chinook salmon producing r i v e r s and the use of dip net technology. Although they are the largest and often stated to be the most favoured, chinook are not the most abundant species and t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n i s l i m i t e d to a few r i v e r s . The Columbia was the centre for chinook abundance on the P a c i f i c coast. I do not have an estimate of the p r e - c o l o n i a l chinook population supported i n the Columbia watershed but i t was s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater than the Fraser population which, i n a reconstruction of salmon - 128 -stocks beginning with the cycle year 1801, has been estimated at 300,000 (.23). Other r e l a t i v e estimates can be made on the basis of escapement figures which i n d i c a t e the support c a p a b i l i t y of a r i v e r system. The present Fraser escapement averages (in thousands) 40-80, the Columbia exceeds 100, the Skeena 30-60, and the Klamath i s broadly estimated at 50+ (INPFC:Bull23). Differences i n species alone does not account for the two dip netting methods; i n f a c t , the Northwestern C a l i f o r n i a data suggests that differences i n s i t e features were more pertinent to the s e l e c t i o n of one method over the other. To operate either braced or plunged nets the countercurrent of an eddy must be accessible to the fishermen. Where a swift current i s channeled through a narrow pass i n the r i v e r the water i s r o i l y and t u r b i d i n the mainstream, the force converted at spots along the shore into strong eddies. The A-frame required a strong, steady counter current to hold open the net, whereas the plunge net could be employed i n swirly unstable eddies. The fishermen also counted on water t u r b i d i t y to prevent the salmon from seeing the net, and i n summer a considerable amount of s i l t i s c a r r i e d downriver i n large Northwest Coast systems. In summary, the s p e c i f i c r i v e r features that existed at dip net locations n a t u r a l l y l i m i t e d the number of appropriate s i t e s . - 129 -SALMON TECHNOLOGY COMPLEX 12 - REEF NETS 1. Contextual Description The reef net was a d i s t i n c t i v e salmon technology complex designed to intercept the Fraser-bound runs of sockeye and pinks at s a l t water shallows i n the S t r a i t s . A large net was anchored i n p o s i t i o n facing into the current which brought salmon. The d i r e c t i o n of the t i d e and current was the same at most reef net lo c a t i o n s : the current accompanied an incoming t i d e , and when the t i d e ebbed the current reversed. The opening to the net was set i n the d i r e c t i o n of the current and could not be changed when the t i d e changed. Setting the anchors and l i n e s of the reef net was a major undertaking; once set, the net remained i n p o s i t i o n for the season. Indeed, each l o c a t i o n was suited only to one or the other t i d e s ; a flood t i d e was the preferred. Limitations of time and t i d e d i d not prevent the reef net from being a highly productive system. A single operation was capable of capturing hundreds of pounds of f i s h . The reef net f i s h e r y operated at locations i n the s a l t water channels of Haro and Rosario S t r a i t s , o f f headlands on the San Juan Islands, Lummi Island, and Point Roberts peninsula. It i s here that the waters of the S t r a i t of Georgia and Juan de Fuca S t r a i t meet. Fraser River sockeye runs t y p i c a l l y approach the mouth of the r i v e r by a southerly route, through Juan de Fuca. The runs usually appear i n July and August but i n one year of four when the cycle of quadrennial dominance e f f e c t s the composition of sockeye stocks the runs appear - 130 -i n August and September. Several m i l l i o n s of sockeye run to the Fraser; i n a dominant year the estimate i s as high as 8 m i l l i o n or more. Low cycle years bring runs of 2—3 m i l l i o n sockeye. As the run neared the mouth of the Fraser i t became more densely concentrated; reef net s i t e s at Point Roberts had the best access to abundant stocks of salmon. The value of permanent reef net locations to S t r a i t s S a l i s h resource holding groups cannot be underestimated. As a l i t t o r a l s ociety with no d i r e c t access to the Fraser River, and no sockeye streams i n i t s own t e r r i t o r y , S t r a i t s fishermen nevertheless exploited the resources of the major sockeye producing r i v e r on the P a c i f i c coast. Reef net technology made i t possible to catch salmon i n large numbers before the runs l e f t s a l t water. Locations were named and owned. A crew operating from two anchored canoes aside the net worked for the owner of the s i t e on a co-adventure basis (24) , each man receiving h i s a l l o t t e d share of the catch. Since locations were l i m i t e d by natural conditions, those who owned and co n t r o l l e d reef net s i t e s had a d i s t i n c t economic advantage. 2. Types and Materials Only one type of reef net was operated, a large rectangular net with a wide mouth entrance; the nether end formed a bunt i n which a small hole (the 'vulva') was l e f t . The net comprised many sections of net pieces, joined together by a r i t u a l i s t . Each section was owned by a member of the crew. The owner of the s i t e decided how many people - 131 -would have shares i n the enterprise, and t h i s i n turn determined the siz e of the net. The usual range was between 30 to 40 f t i n length, and 20 to 30 f t i n width. Nets were made of willow bast twine i n a small mesh and often dyed a darker shade to make them les s noticeable. Reef net l i n e s were made of cedar withe ropes l h to 2 inches thick. Four huge boulder anchors were l a i d at distances 200 f t apart, squarely. Each anchor comprised several hundredweight beach boulders which had been looped with cedar withe rope and lowered one by one to the seabed. Two main forward anchors were set ahead of the leading edge of the reef net. From each forward anchor (a) a lead l i n e attached to a buoy led to the canoe, and (b) a head anchor l i n e led to the lower corner of the net mouth. There were sinkers at the lower net mouth. The breast anchors were l a i d :to the outside rear p o s i t i o n of each canoe to s t a b i l i z e and counterbalance the weight of the net. The lengthwise margin of the reef net was suspended by side l i n e s from each canoe. The p r i n c i p a l l i n e s of tension were from forward anchor to net mouth, from breast anchor to canoe, and from canoe to net side l i n e s . The s t a b i l i t y of the net was secured by stress displacement on these main l i n e s . The space anterior to the net mouth was cleared to provide a pathway f or the salmon to enter. T y p i c a l l y the area was defined by the use of f l o o r and side l i n e s as an entrance to the net. Beginning 100 f t or more i n advance of the net as many as t h i r t y l i n e s might be used. Side or wall l i n e s were attached at the top to the reef net lead l i n e , and at the bottom to the head anchor l i n e . Floor l i n e s ran from one head anchor l i n e to the other. Seaweed was sometimes t i e d - 132 -to them to give f i s h the i l l u s i o n of a natural pathway through undersea vegetation. For the same reason, i f kelp were present on the reef, the space i n front of the net would be cleared of growth. An organization of anchors, sinkers, buoys, and l i n e s held the net i n p o s i t i o n , suspended between two large canoes of a s p e c i a l design. A crew of 10 to 14 men was common. The captain stood i n the offshore canoe ready to give the s i g n a l when i t was time to close the net. Lines to the breast anchors held the canoes athwart, p a r a l l e l to the reef net. A p i n on the gunwale of each canoe took up the slack, holding the breast l i n e s taut u n t i l released. As soon as the salmon entered the net the captain gave the word to l i f t i t . A l l p ulled at the net side l i n e s or at l i n e s attached to the net weight. At the command... "Release i t ! " the men at the breast l i n e s p u l l e d the pins and allowed the two canoes to come together. The fishermen p u l l e d the net into the inshore canoe and took the f i s h i n t o the offshore canoe. As they l i f t e d the net they "saluted" the f i s h . . . (Suttles:1951:171) 3. D i s t r i b u t i o n The S t r a i t s S a l i s h were the only Northwest Coast people to employ the reef net(25). Suttles (1951) has mapped 34 locations i n the s t r a i t s and 15 locations at Point Roberts that were owned by Lummi, Semiahmoo, Songish, Saanich and other S t r a i t s resource holders. Suttles has c o l l e c t e d many references to the h i s t o r i e s of the locations and names of past owners. - 134 -The reef net was exceptionally productive. With f i s h i n g at i t s best a si n g l e net may secure as many as 2,000 salmon i n a day, but to do t h i s the f i s h i n g canoes must continue at t h e i r posts, the catch being transferred to shore by other boats. (Rathbun:1900:314 quoted i n Suttles) The productive c a p a b i l i t y of the reef net given optimal conditions could be even further extended. There i s a small but productive reef i n s i d e of Iceberg Point, at the southern end of Lopez Island, on which a few nets are used, and where d a i l y catches of 3,000 to 4,000 salmon are sometimes made. (ibid:315; i n Suttles:220) 4. S o c i a l Variables (a) Crew recruitment — Owners of reef net locations r e c r u i t e d men to work on the net i n a co-adventure r e l a t i o n s h i p . The o b l i g a t i o n of a crew member was to contribute a section of the net. The materials for net making were c o l l e c t e d by women i n h i s family and made into cordage from which each fisherman wove his net section. For t h i s investment the fisherman received i n return a share of the season's catch, duly apportioned according to an established d i s -t r i b u t i o n procedure. The catch was counted out f i r s t i n groups of twenties (by tens doubled:see Suttles:1951:179-180), the crew members ' r e c e i v i n g f i r s t shares. If the catch was large, the captain repeated the count u n t i l a l l the salmon were d i s t r i b u t e d . - 135 -The owner divided, or had h i s captain d i v i d e , the f i s h among the crew i n t h i s way a f t e r each day's f i s h i n g u n t i l they had received enough. Thereafter the f i s h were h i s . The wives of the crew members, who u n t i l t h i s time had been drying t h e i r own f i s h , now helped dry the owner's f i s h . (ibid) During the season the owner of the l o c a t i o n was also responsible f or feeding the crew members a f t e r a day's work. The labour-intensive nature of the reef net complex i s underscored by the r e l a t i o n between the s i t e owner and the crew. While the owner had (exclusive) access to a resource-rich l o c a t i o n he could e x p l o i t i t only through the use of a technology that required considerable expenditure of labour investment, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n cordage manufacture. Not only did crew members and t h e i r f a m i l i e s supply the netting materials but i n addition the whole crew co-operated to make the heavy cedar withe l i n e s needed for the reef net. Suttles noted that when native materials were no longer used the s i z e of the crew decreased to as few as s i x men ( i b i d : 2 2 0 ) . Apparently the main c a p i t a l investment made by the owner (other than h i s commitment to feed the crew members) was i n anchor stones, considered to be his property. The value of the labour provided by crew members was important to the success of the t r a d i t i o n a l reef net. On the other hand, by becoming a member of a crew an i n d i v i d u a l gained access to productive resource areas. (b) S i t e ownership — Natural l i m i t a t i o n s on the number of possible reef net locations increased the value of s i t e ownership. Those who claimed hereditary r i g h t s of access to the s i t e were - 136 -sometimes opposed. "Often there was more' than one claimant to a l o c a t i o n " , as Suttles observed (ibid:215). Demographic changes that occured i n the l a t e nineteenth century affected previous patterns of t r a n s f e r r i n g i n h e r i t e d r i g h t s . Rights of ownership to reef net locations were in h e r i t e d , apparently by an i n d i v i d u a l , or transferred through marriage. Su t t l e s ' informants emphasized the names of i n d i v i d u a l s as owners rather than f a m i l i e s . Boas (1890) had understood that each Songish winter v i l l a g e had a corresponding reef net l o c a t i o n . But i t i s not possible now to f i n d evidence to support t h i s , e i t h e r for the Songish or any other S t r a i t s group, i n Suttles opinion. There i s no apparent c o r r e l a t i o n of winter v i l l a g e to l o c a t i o n , nor of v i l l a g e leader to l o c a t i o n owner. Suttl e s ' conclusion i s : I b e l i e v e ownership can best be treated as i f i t were i n d i v i d u a l , recognizing that the owner may have f e l t o b l i g a t i o n s toward kinsmen who might be co-heirs but not co-owners. (1951:222) What we do know i s that each l o c a t i o n was named and owned by a s p e c i f i e d resource holder who had f u l l r i g h t s of access to the s i t e , and who could r e c r u i t and maintain a crew for the season. The owner i f he wished could appoint someone else to be 'captain', the person who gave the s i g n a l to close the net and generally conducted the operation. A r i t u a l i s t was also required to put the sections of net together according to the proper procedure. The o r i g i n was credited to supernatural helpers who taught people how to use the reef net - 137 -(ibid:172). That the reef net was not a recent development seems to be supported by such evidence as the sp e c i a l observances that attended j o i n i n g the net pieces and speaking the commands. 5. E c o l o g i c a l Variables The reef net operated during the summer runs of pinks and sockeye salmon when the waters of the S t r a i t s were r e l a t i v e l y calm, and the weather c l e a r . These conditions were required to suc c e s s f u l l y operate the reef net. Heavy ti d e s and strong currents would put too much stress on the net l i n e s and anchors. Moreover, since the net was operated without s i g n a l l i n g devices, the captain needed good v i s i b i l i t y . Oceanographic features also played a part. As previously mentioned, appropriate t i d e s and currents were e s s e n t i a l f o r net operation. At some locations at Point Roberts the current stayed the same despite changes i n t i d a l d i r e c t i o n , and thus the net could be operated for longer periods of time each working day. In other l o c a t i o n s , a f l o o d t i d e was best. Seabed features on the shoals required water depths s u f f i c i e n t to allow the top of the net to be submerged a few feet below the surface of the sea, and the bottom of the net to be suspended several feet above the ocean f l o o r to prevent snagging. The quadrennial dominance of Fraser River sockeye had i t s high cycle year i n 1801, and each subsequent fourth year, u n t i l the Hel l ' s Gate d i s a s t e r s , i n 1913-14, almost destroyed the Adam's Lake run and other s i g n i f i c a n t spawning populations. A slow recovery of - 138 -stocks occurred during the 1920s and 1930s; the Adam's Lake run eventually reconstituted i t s e l f i n a new quadrennial cycle with the dominant year equivalent to 1922 and every fourth year following. Reconstructions of nineteenth century Fraser River salmon abundance (Kew:1976; Berringer:1976) demonstrate that the quadrennial dominance of sockeye establishes for a l l species a r a t i o of 14:2:1:1. The presence of b i e n n i a l odd-year pink salmon changes t h i s r a t i o to 6:1:2:1. (These figures are based on the estimated average abundance of a l l salmon stocks as they enter the mouth of the Fraser River.) As a r e s u l t , the Fraser runs of odd-year pinks serve to even out abundance f l u c t u a t i o n s . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y , " the largest proportion of Fraser-bound sockeye and pink salmon enter the estuary v i a the S t r a i t s of Juan de Fuca. However, at i r r e g u l a r i n t e r v a l s of time, for reasons unknown but possibly associated with marine temperatures i n the offshore approaches, salmon w i l l come from the northern route instead; that i s , through Johnstone S t r a i t . Thus, the runs would not enter the area south of the Fraser estuary, where S t r a i t s S a l i s h people had resource l o c a t i o n s . Consequently, when that occurred i n the past, the reef net f i s h e r y would f a i l . - 139 -PART ONE Footnotes Early accounts of t h i s period on the lower Columbia are included i n Lewis and Clark (Thwaites edn. 1905), Cox:1957 (orig. pub. 1831), Franchere:1854 (orig. pub. 1820), and Ross:1849. Croes, ed. (1976, 1980) reports the excavation of water saturated s i t e s on the Hoko River revealed a 2,500 year old f i s h i n g camp. See f f Appendix I Table XV, p.4. G i l l nets were mainly used as a sturgeon f i s h i n g method by the Katzie, and i t i s within t h i s context that Suttles provides these observations on ownership r e s t r i c t i o n s (1955:22). Nehalam River i s not s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d i n the ethnographic l i t e r a t u r e but of the several r i v e r s which empty into Tillamook Bay i t has the largest salmon runs (INPFC:BULL.23). Haeberlin and Gunther (1930:27) reported alder was used for p i l i n g s or posts; willow f or staves, i . e . , the poles of the panels. A c i r c u l a r , bowl-shaped net of the same type was used at weirs by the Lushootseed, Quileute, and Quinault. Olson 1936:29 reports that n e t t l e f i b r e was used for the cordage materials, and elk sinew, " f i n e as grocer's twine" for s i g n a l devices. Elmendorf:1960:69-70 provides the most detai l e d accounting of the te c h n i c a l aspects associated with dipping nets at communal weirs. "The operator p u l l e d apart on the upper, crossed ends of the side poles as he drove the lower ends, with prong attachments, into the stream bed. This expanded the hoop i n a d i r e c t i o n p a r a l l e l to the current and drove the prongs i n beyond the support stake. The l a t t e r , engaging the prongs i n the r i v e r bottom, prevented the current from tearing the prongs out and carrying the net downstream, and allowed the net to remain fixed on the bottom of the stream. - 140 -With the net i n t h i s lowered p o s i t i o n , the loop on the t r i g g e r s t r i n g was s l i g h t l y below the l e v e l of the platform f l o o r . . . h e l d taut...When he f e l t movement of a f i s h against the s t r i n g the fisherman leaped to h i s feet and pulled up on the dip-net side poles, raised the hoop frame above water l e v e l , rotated the net 90 degrees h o r i z o n t a l l y , and hooked the prongs on e i t h e r side of the net frame over the outside pole of the platform s c a f f o l d and the in s i d e pole of the platform f l o o r . The net frame was now suspended about four feet above the water, and any f i s h i n the net could be removed and clubbed." This estimation i s based p r i n c i p a l l y on the emphasis given these two technologies i n the Kroeber & Barrett study. No d i r e c t evidence i s a v a i l a b l e . cf Smith:1940; Elmendorf:1960; and Olson:1936. 18th and 19th century useage of the words 'pots' and 'wears' to describe basketry traps i s v e r i f i e d by the Oxford English  Dictionary, 1933 edn. 'Weir' and 'wear' are used i n t e r -changeably. One d e f i n i t i o n of weir/wear i s the r i v e r obstruction device referred to i n t h i s study as weir. A second d e f i n i t i o n i s given that r e f e r s to basketry traps, c a l l e d wears, pots, or weels. The OED c i t e s published examples of useage, as follows: 'sets his weir' (1834), 'a weir i s a basket loose and open at one end, and smaller at the other, into which the f i s h were driven' (1845), and a weel was 'made of osier-twigs which are supported by C i r c l e s or Hoops that go round, and are ever-diminishing; i t s Mouth i s somewhat Broad; but the other end terminates i n a Point' (1725). In addition, a d e f i n i t i o n for 'pot' i s given as "A wicker basket used as a trap for f i s h . . . " . I have not examined early Department of F i s h e r i e s , Government of Canada, reports for the period; these and other h i s t o r i c a l sources may contain a more adequate desc r i p t i o n . These d e t a i l s are from Mcllwraith's (1948) geographical l i s t i n g of v i l l a g e s : V i l l a g e #23, Appendix. Mackenzie was very impressed with t h e i r canoe s k i l l s both on t h i s occasion and others; the B e l l a Coola fishermen accomplished t h i s feat j u s t c i t e d "without taking i n a drop of water". Culture Elements numbered 15 to 19 i n c l u s i v e (1950:166-167). - 141 -16 Whether t h i s trap was on the B e l l a Coola River or one of the other f i v e or s i x large r i v e r s that empty into Dean Channel, Bentick Arm or Burke Channel within B e l l a Coola t e r r i t o r y , i s not reported. 17 Mcllwraith mentions that such information was extremely d i f f i c u l t to obtain (1948:286). A l l other quotes from pp. 135-36. 18 INPFC:1967:275 reports that 89% of the t o t a l Skeena escapement of sockeye i s composed of stocks that enter the Babine and neighbouring lake systems. 19 A f u l l d e s c r i p t i o n of the method used to dry, pulverize, and press the salmon supplies into transport baskets i s given by Lewis & Clark (quoted extensively i n Spier and Sapir:1930:178-79). Each t i g h t l y packed basket contained 90-100 lbs of dried salmon, wrapped i n protective materials made of dried f i s h skins. Twelve baskets, seven on the bottom and f i v e on top, formed a stack which was wrapped i n mats and t i e d , awaiting transport. "...the f i s h thus preserved are kept sound and sweet for several years... At the Dalles, 'the stock of f i s h dried and pounded was so abundant that he (Clark) counted one hundred and seven of them (bundles), making more than ten thousand pounds of that p r o v i s i o n ' " . 20 These documents are kept i n Frederick Daily's f i l e i n the B.C. P r o v i n c i a l Archives. 21 One of Daily's Cowichan weir photographs i s included i n t h i s study (see Plate I). 22 Duff:1952:63. 23 Kew:1976; Berringer:1976. 24 cf Andersen & Wadel:1972. 25 cf Suttles:1951:155 f f . for discussion of Barnett:1939 incorrect l i s t i n g of reef net for Halkomelem and Northern Gulf groups. - 142 -PART TWO — SALMON BIOLOGY AND HABITAT: the e c o l o g i c a l record 1. Introduction The anadromous P a c i f i c salmon"(Oricofhyrichus sp.) i s one of the planet's great migratory t r i b e s . Sweeping through sea lanes i n the subarctic zone of the P a c i f i c , salmon spend most of t h e i r l i v e s un-observed by humans. As with other migratory animals, salmon resolve the problems associated with feeding a mass population by extending the space they occupy at various l i f e stages. Through the mechanism of migration, salmon, caribou, Canada geese, the gray whale, the hump-back whale, and northern fur seals secure r e l a t i v e l y safe breeding grounds to rear t h e i r young i n one type of l o c a t i o n , and s u f f i c i e n t food supplies for adult members i n another. Necessarily, migratory animals are highly adapted to a range of e c o l o g i c a l conditions. Anadromous salmon, for example, reared i n fresh water, emigrate downstream as young f r y and make an adaptation to s a l t water conditions at the estuary. During the adult phase, salmon are marine predators, l i v i n g on small f i s h , f i s h larvae, squid, and crustaceans including euphasiids, amphipods, and copepods. At maturity they return to the n a t a l stream to spawn and die. To human interceptors, migrating salmon stocks become a useable resource only as they near the end of t h e i r l i f e c ycle, and move from the open marine environment to the waters near land. P a c i f i c salmon are d i s t r i b u t e d widely i n the north P a c i f i c , entering coastal streams i n Asia and North America to spawn. There are si x species: chinook, coho, pink, sockeye, chum, and masu (Oncorhynchus - 143 -masou), but only the f i r s t f i v e enter fresh water i n North America. The masu inhabits waters o f f eastern Asia to the estuary of the Amur River, and i n the Sea of Japan, where i t s centre of abundance i s Hokkaido. Masu salmon c l o s e l y resemble coho, the only Oncorhynchus sp. that does not run i n Asian streams. The geographical d i s t r i b u t i o n of the two species i s t o t a l l y separate (INPFC:16:76). The range of salmon d i s t r i b u t i o n within the Northwest Coast culture area i s as follows: a l l f i v e species occur i n Alaska to the northern l i m i t of our area and beyond to B r i s t o l Bay and the Bering S t r a i t ; but only chinook and coho occur i n Northwestern C a l i f o r n i a , the southern l i m i t . Beyond t h i s , chinook and coho extend t h e i r range about 3° l a t i t u d e south to 37°. Chinook run i n the Sacramento River and into the San Joaquin system, where t h e i r southernmost range i s the Merced River. Coho enter coastal streams near Monterey but do not spawn i n the Sacramento watershed; the San Lorenzo River i s the most southerly coho spawning grounds. Chum salmon run i n most Oregon coastal streams as f a r south as the Coquille River where an Athapascan group, the Coquille, once l i v e d . Sockeye run i n the Columbia watershed system, reaching t h e i r southern extent at Redfish Lake, Idaho, i n the Snake River t r i b u t a r y , outside the l i m i t s of Northwest Coast culture ( 1 ) . Pink salmon may at one time have occurred i n the Columbia system too ( 2 ) , but the Puyallup River i n Puget Sound i s now the l i m i t of t h e i r southerly range (INPFC:23:Part 4: Fig.5,6,8,13,21, and Table 2). A comparison of P a c i f i c salmon to other f i s h of the same family, Salmonidae, i s u s e f u l . Steelhead trout (Salmo g a i r d n e r i ) , A t l a n t i c salmon (Salmo s a l a r ) , and the coastal Cutthroat trout (Salmo - 144 -c l a r k i c l a r k i ) are r e l a t e d and s i m i l a r i n general appearance to P a c i f i c salmon species. A t l a n t i c salmon occupy much the same macro-region of the A t l a n t i c as P a c i f i c salmon do of the P a c i f i c . Both are adapted to cool temperatures both i n ocean currents and spawning streams. A t l a n t i c salmon run i n r i v e r s i n Scandinavia, Greenland, Iceland, Ireland, Great B r i t a i n , Canada, and as f a r south as Connecticut i n the west, and northern Spain i n the east. An h i s t o r i c a l reconstruction of A t l a n t i c salmon f i s h e r i e s i n the Kemijoki River i n Finland, a major salmon producing area, indicates the a n t i q u i t y of weirs and large r i v e r traps i n northern Europe (Vilkuna:1975). A t l a n t i c salmon i s distinguished from P a c i f i c salmon not only by geography and genetic separation, but by l i f e h i s t o r y differences. The composition and timing of runs does not exhibit the same i n t e n s i t y and r e g u l a r i t y among Salmo sp. as i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Oncorhynchus sp. Migrations back to fresh water are more widely dispersed i n time both for A t l a n t i c salmon and the Salmo sp. that run i n the P a c i f i c streams, steelhead and rainbow trout. Many Salmo sp. i n d i v i d u a l s return to spawn more than once, although i t has been noted that temperature and l a t i t u d e may a f f e c t t h i s c a p a b i l i t y . The rainbow trout s u r v i v a l to spawn again decreases from south to north (Hart:1973:129). Steelhead occur eo-terminously with runs of salmon spawners i n many streams, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n Puget Sound and i n the Columbia River area, centres of steelhead abundance on the coast. Elmendorf c i t e s a Twana informant who said the steelhead were a ' t r i b e ' of salmon. Yet, d i s -t i n c t i o n s i n native languages were made for steelhead and for each species of salmon, both i n the l i t e r a t u r e and i n ethnoichthyology glosses ( 3 ) . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c differences i n Salmo sp. behaviour during migration - 145 -affected resource u t i l i z a t i o n . Steelhead trout w i l l feed while i n fresh water, and thus can be taken on a l u r e , unlike Oncorhynchus sp. which do not feed nor r e a d i l y accept a l u r e . Trout were sometimes caught with salmon at weirs, i n dip nets or l i f t i n g nets, and with the harpoon. While anadromous steelhead do not occur i n streams i n T l i n g i t t e r r i t o r y (Hart:1973:130), they are otherwise widely dispersed throughout the Northwest Coast. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l species of P a c i f i c salmon, the centres of salmon abundance, and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of r i v e r s and streams within the area w i l l be examined l a t e r i n t h i s chapter. These macro-environmental f a c t o r s bear on the subject of salmon resource a v a i l a b i l i t y i n a more obvious way than do the small d e t a i l s of b i o l o g i c a l variance. Yet, the year-to-year f l u c t u a t i o n s i n salmon population, v a r i a t i o n s i n s u r v i v a l rates, and the e f f e c t s of stream gouging i n spawning areas were also elements that ulti m a t e l y determined the e f f i c i e n c y of resource u t i l i z a t i o n . Before analyzing the patterns of species abundance and geographical d i s t r i b u t i o n i n Northwest Coast ethnographic areas, I w i l l summarize d e t a i l s about the b i o l o g i c a l nature of the salmon resource. - 146 -2.: Model of Interacting Variables The range of p o t e n t i a l technological applications described i n Part One indicates a salmon f i s h e r y on the Northwest Coast that was d i v e r s i f i e d and complex. Unlike the maritime cod and halibut f i s h e r y where baited hook-and-line techniques constituted the main means of production, t r a d i t i o n a l salmon f i s h i n g exhibited a wide l a t i t u d e of p o t e n t i a l s t r a t e g i e s , selected to meet v a r i a t i o n s i n resource locations and species of salmon. An objective of Part Two i s to consider the ec o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s within the system of resource u t i l i z a t i o n i n greater d e t a i l . What va r i a b l e s i n # the nature of salmon resources a f f e c t the s e l e c t i o n of extractive techniques and procedures? The aspects that most d i r e c t l y concerned resource user-groups were: — where to catch salmon — how to catch s u f f i c i e n t quantities •— how to organize production requirements — when to expect peak runs to occur, and for what duration? E c o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e s included the following: (i ) hydrological s p e c i f i c a t i o n s : t u r b i d i t y , c l a r i t y , v e l o c i t y of the current, depths, breadths, riverbed features, temperatures, s a l i n i t y , t i d e s , eddies, etc.; and ( i i ) salmon c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : b i o l o g i c a l v a r i a b i l i t y , timing of runs, duration of peak periods, abundance, and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of stocks. In the i n t e r a c t i o n of these and other v a r i a b l e s a salmon f i s h e r y s i t e i s definable. The sets of e c o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e s are i n -dependent, they are e n t i t i e s that e x i s t i n the world beyond human - 147 -control or manipulation. The a p r i o r i conditions revealed by the natural environment, therefore, are the independent v a r i a b l e s i n the "fisherman's dilemma" ( 4 ) . Dependent variables are those elements i n the superstructure of the t r a d i t i o n a l f i s h e r y which are s o c i a l or technological. The labour e f f o r t of co-operative groups or i n d i v i d u a l s , d i f f e r e n t i a l control of productive resource locations and the means of production, the use and a p p l i c a t i o n of technology are dependent v a r i a b l e s . A model of the Northwest Coast f i s h e r y includes the i n t e r -r e l a t i o n of both sets of v a r i a b l e s . Thus i n t h i s study the process of t r a d i t i o n a l salmon resource u t i l i z a t i o n i s to be treated as a con-s t i t u t i v e system. - 148 -3. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of P a c i f i c Salmon a) L i f e h i s t o r y : The spawning populations i n each salmon species must meet the c r i t e r i a of a d i f f e r e n t set of e c o l o g i c a l conditions, yet despite v a r i a t i o n s i n d e t a i l they followed e s s e n t i a l l y the same l i f e pattern, presented here i n i t s general o u t l i n e . (i) e a rly development : newly hatched alevins l i v e f o r a few weeks on the reserves of the sac to which they are attached : salmon emerge from gravel redds to remain i n a fresh water environment as free-swimming f r y , feeding on t i n y l i f e forms and ins e c t s . Sockeye i n t h i s phase move into an adjacent lake system where they remain for up to a year. : f i n g e r l i n g s or f r y emigrate downstream and emerge i n e s t u a r i a l waters where they t y p i c a l l y l i n g e r 5-6 weeks and feed upon plankton and zooplankton (pink, f o r example, remain i n the estuary 40 days growing from 3.5 cm to 8.4 cm). ( i i ) adult salmon : developmental maritime phase continues f or several years as salmon gain maturity : sexually mature salmon migrate back to t h e i r native watersheds, moving as a c o l l e c t i v e gene pool unit once they gain fresh water at the spawning grounds female salmon prepare the redds, mate, and deposit t h e i r eggs; they then die. - 149 -Salmon s t a r t l i f e as newly hatched alevins l i v i n g on the reserves of the sac attached to them. They emerge from the redds as free-swimming f r y feeding on ti n y freshwater l i f e forms and inse c t s . Lacustrine sockeye salmon at t h i s stage w i l l migrate either upstream or downstream to the nearby lake system where they spend t h e i r f i r s t year. When i t i s time to leave the fresh water environment, young salmon head downstream to the sea. The length of time of the emigration i s a factor of speed and distance. L i t t l e f r y swim with the currents and have been observed occasionally to swim fas t e r i n a slack flow. When they reach the estuary they l i n g e r f o r some time feeding on new l i f e forms, and adapting to s a l t water conditions. Growth i n the estuaries i s rapid. A comparative study of temperature v a r i a t i o n and i t s r e l a t i o n to the growth of zooplankton i n the S t r a i t of Georgia (Vernon:1958) has demonstrated the dependance of young salmon on the a v a i l a b i l i t y of s u f f i c i e n t food resources when they f i r s t enter e s t u a r i a l waters. Vernon's data indi c a t e an inverse c o r r e l a t i o n e x i s t s between summer s a l t water temperatures i n Georgia S t r a i t and the subsequent abundance i n Fraser River stocks of pink salmon returning to spawn i n the next cycle. Entering the marine phase, young salmon move out into the s t r a i t s and channels to the sea. This l i f e - s t a g e i s le a s t accessible to researchers but i t i s known that salmon migrate great distances from the r i v e r mouth; for example, coho salmon are recorded at 1600 km offshore (Hart:1973:116). The length of time they remain i n t h i s phase i s p a r t i c u l a r to each species (Table VI I I ) , as i s the food they - 150 -TABLE V I I I PACIFIC SALMON Species Age at ma t u r i t y a„ Average weight ( l b s ) Chinook v a r i e s between 3 to 7 years 12.8 Coho 3 years 7. Pink 2 years, i n v a r i a b l e 5.4 Sockeye 4 years Chum 3 and 4 year-olds 11.7 Source:Berringer (1976) based on average weights by species of Fraser R i v e r stocks. F i g u r e s derived from IPSFC annual r e p o r t s of catch s t a t i s t i c s . - 151 -s e l e c t . Chinook w i l l feed upon such f i s h as herring, pilchards, or sand lance, and various kinds of invertebrates. Rapid weight gain occurs early i n the marine phase, however, growth continues even during the inshore migration. Mature sea-run salmon migrate back •: to t h e i r native watershed systems, feeding during the coastward run to b u i l d up stores of energy. A l l feeding ceases i n fresh water or as the r i v e r mouth i s approached. Sexual dimorphism occurs as the upstream migration begins, and changes i n the appearance of salmon are evident. In n a t a l spawning locat i o n s , they prepare the redds, mate and deposit t h e i r eggs i n the streambed. This function performed, soon afterwards they d i e . An adequate number of adults must return to the spawning grounds i n each generation to ensure the continued success of salmon populations. In modern f i s h e r i e s management t h i s group i s c a l l e d the escapement. Salmon stocks are susceptible to mortality from many sources. They are most vulnerable during the e a r l i e s t phases i n fresh water and when they have f i r s t entered e s t u a r i a l waters from t h e i r rearing grounds, outward bound to the sea. The marine phase reduces the population through natural a t t r i t i o n ; the rate of s u r v i v a l i s dependent on the a v a i l a b i l i t y of food for salmon to feed upon. It i s assumed that most losses during the marine phase are the r e s u l t of predation. Later i n the l i f e cycle, when mature salmon begin t h e i r homeward run, they must survive continual predation i n coastal waters both from larger animals ( f i s h and marine mammals), and human f i s h e r i e s . - 152 -b) v a r i a b i l i t y : Salmon are highly susceptible to changes i n t h e i r environment, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n fresh water habitats where incubation occurs and alevins develop i n t o f r y . One i n d i c a t i o n of salmon w e l l -being i s year-to-year average weight r a t i o s within a single species or, where the data i s a v a i l a b l e , within a sing l e stock. The growth of micro-organisms i n the c r i t i c a l e s t u a r i a l feeding grounds of newly arriv e d young salmon can be influenced by temperature changes, creating a noticeable occurrence throughout the coast of fl u c t u a t i o n s i n average weight and population s i z e (Neave:1966). Environmental factors also have an impact on salmon growth during the marine phase when changes i n temperature a f f e c t the food resources on which salmon depend. Long and short term considerations a f f e c t the abundance of salmon that return to spawn i n any given l o c a t i o n . The r e l a t i o n between ec o l o g i c a l v a r i a b i l i t y , the genetic i n t e g r i t y of spawning stocks, and predator impact have implications f o r the s u r v i v a l of salmon populations. Long term changes i n abundance are usually r e l a t e d to the depletion of salmon stocks due to (a) the destruction of spawning grounds, (b) over-fishing a p a r t i c u l a r stock, or (c) r i v e r and stream impediments that make i t impossible for spawning salmon to reach the na t a l stream. In recent years humans have alt e r e d the environment to the detriment of salmon stocks, e s p e c i a l l y through hy d r o - e l e c t r i c projects and intensive o v e r - f i s h i n g . Other factors include the removal of f o r e s t cover, and subsequent destruction of spawning beds; mining operations; railway construction i n the v a l l e y s of important salmon - 153 -r i v e r s . P r i o r to i n d u s t r i a l intervention of t h i s type, natural di s a s t e r s could wipe out a spawning stream, or prevent returning salmon from reaching t h e i r d e s tination. Throughout a l l the centuries, mud s l i d e s , flooding and scouring of gravel redds, and hydrological and temperature changes generated natural v a r i a t i o n s i n the abundance and geographical d i s t r i b u t i o n of salmon stocks. Nevertheless, the threat to the salmon environment has been accelerated i n the past one hundred years. Human predation during the intensive f i s h e r i e s that operated at the mouths of the Skeena, Nass, Fraser, and Columbia between 1880 and the beginning of World War I reduced salmon stocks considerably. Early observers noted that within a few short years from the commencement of i n d u s t r i a l f i s h i n g on the Northwest Coast m i l l i o n s of -pounds of salmon had been shipped from canneries to markets outside the area. The e f f e c t s of over-fishing were dramatic. Some major stocks never f u l l y recovered ( 5 ) . Today the c o n f l i c t s of i n t e r e s t between f i s h e r i e s management o f f i c i a l s , com-mercial fishermen, and the industry packers have not been resolved, but perhaps a new awareness e x i s t s of the s e n s i t i v e nature of salmon ecology. The impact of the t r a d i t i o n a l f i s h e r y on salmon stocks i s u n l i k e l y ever to have been severe. Canadian and American f i s h e r y o f f i c i a l s i n the l a t e nineteenth and early twentieth century mounted a campaign to destroy weirs and traps used by native people, on the assumption that such devices did not permit salmon escapement. However, recent s c i e n t i f i c i nvestigations of salmon stocks indicate that spawners return to t h e i r n a t a l streams, the pattern repeated to an accuracy rate - 1 5 4 -of over 99% i n populations studied ( 6 ) . I f , as i t appears, each species of salmon i s .native to; specif i c spawning locations., then the f a l l a c y of e a r l i e r b e l i e f s on which white people acted i s demon-strated. Because, had t r a d i t i o n a l methods of salmon f i s h i n g prevented escapement, i t would not have been possible for Northwest Coast people to remain on one r i v e r year a f t e r year, to b u i l d t h e i r communities there, and to u t i l i z e the returning salmon. T r a d i t i o n a l Northwest Coast fishermen were highly aware of the need to permit escapement i n order to assure continuing stocks of salmon for the future. In contrast to the i n t e r e s t s and expectations of t r a d i t i o n a l fishermen, commercial salmon fishermen operate within a set of strategy rules based on other c r i t e r i a . Present-day fishermen must expl o i t a 'common resource' i n competition with a l l the other fishermen i n the area (Andersen & Wadel:1972). Since they f i s h i n s a l t water where many salmon stocks are intermingled, n a t u r a l l y they do not r e l a t e to salmon resources as being of a c e r t a i n stock or groups of stocks, or belonging to a p a r t i c u l a r r i v e r . I t may be argued that since t r a d i t i o n a l Northwest Coast fishermen had a proprietory i n t e r e s t i n s p e c i f i c salmon stocks that they would have been good conservationists. The s o c i a l control of important resource use s i t e s and f i s h e r y locations that was a feature of Northwest Coast s o c i e t i e s underscores t h i s view. - 155 -4. Hydrological Features a) C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Riverine Hydrology The Northwest Coast culture area contains most of the major watershed systems of the P a c i f i c coast of North America, excluding only the Sacramento River i n C a l i f o r n i a , and the Yukon River i n the north. In terms of drainage basin area, the S t i k i n e , Nass, Skeena, Fraser and Columbia r i v e r s are the most extensive. The Fraser River drainage basin, 2 for example, occupies 230,000 km ; it's length i s 1,370 km. The Columbia River (1,955 km) and i t s p r i n c i p a l t r i b u t a r y , the Snake River (1,670 km), together comprise the greatest streamflow discharge. In addition to the Snake, s i g n i f i c a n t t r i b u t a r y systems include the Thompson River of the Fraser watershed, and the Bulkley River which j o i n s the Skeena near Hagwilget canyon. These large a f f l u e n t s discharge water from basin areas east of the Northwest Coast f r o n t i e r . They provide important upstream spawning locations for P a c i f i c salmon which must pass through the lower concourse of the watershed system. Northwest Coast people at f i s h e r i e s i n the lower r i v e r had f i r s t access to the salmon resource as i t ascended the stream. The B e l l a Coola-Atnarko, Chilkat, and Klamath-T r i n i t y systems, though smaller, each represented sizeable drainage basin areas. Many independent mainland r i v e r s flow d i r e c t l y into the sea. Such streams as these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y have t h e i r o r i g i n i n mountain ranges that r i s e near the coast. Some are short r i v e r s , j u s t a few miles from source to s a l t water. Others, perhaps longer, debouche from - 156 -a narrow v a l l e y at the head of a f j o r d . Coastal streams frequently support several major spawning locations for P a c i f i c salmon stocks. Basic s t r u c t u r a l aspects of r i v e r systems can be characterized independent of considerations of s i z e . For example, the streamflow measurement at any given point along the stream i s a function of the extent of the drainage basin area above, and of the c l i m a t i c conditions of the surrounding land and sea surfaces. Water volumes discharged from the drainage area, together with topographical features of the streambed, define the formation of riverbank features and, ultimately, the structure of the r i v e r i t s e l f . Warm-to-moderate ocean currents describe a wide arc up the outer coast, modifying the cool waters of the North P a c i f i c and contributing to high l e v e l s of p r e c i p i t a t i o n , most of which f a l l s as r a i n i n lower a l t i t u d e s and snow at higher l e v e l s . In the mountain ranges of the coast t h i s moisture i s stored i n g l a c i e r packs and released by warming temperatures each spring, causing an increase i n streamflow volume i n g l a c i e r - f e d r i v e r s . Spring freshets do not a f f e c t rain-fed r i v e r s . In the southern part of the Northwest Coast culture area, and i n streams on the large offshore i s l a n d s — Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands, the Queen Charlottes, and the Alaskan archipelego — higher water l e v e l s occur during the rainy winter months with a reduction i n streamflow volume during spring and summer. A comparison of the discharge p r o f i l e s of the Cowichan River on Vancouver Island and the Fraser River i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s point (Farley: 1979:39). The Cowichan data i n d i c a t e highest discharge l e v e l s occur i n - 157 -December and January with a streamflow measurement of 100 m /sec. In July and August, water volumes are extremely low, r e g i s t e r i n g approximately 10% of winter average flow. The Fraser River shows the opposite seasonal pattern. Peak streamflow occurs i n l a t e June 3 - early July with average flow readings of 100,000 m /sec (7 ). In the winter months the streamflow of the Fraser River measures only 20% of the early summer high. V a r i a b i l i t y i n the seasonal patterns of d i f f e r e n t r i v e r systems has implications f or the d i s t r i b u t i o n of salmon technology complexes. From the point of view of human e x p l o i t a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s , the s i g n i f i c a n t hydrological features are water volumes and v e l o c i t y . The force of streamflow discharge i s a factor i n determining how to extract the salmon resource. Where the streambed i s l e v e l and the banks are wide, surface currents i n the r i v e r may be moderate and steady throughout much of the year. However, seasonal v a r i a t i o n i n the hydrological cycle can create changes that may coincide with the timing of important salmon runs. In the case of the Fraser, the heaviest streamflow occurs during the chinook salmon run early i n the season. At the confluence of a t r i b u t a r y and the main stem of a r i v e r , h ydrological dynamics exert powerful forces as two large streamflows meet and commingle. T y p i c a l l y the conditions at a confluence present good f i s h e r y s i t e p o t e n t i a l because salmon w i l l seek out the shelter of counter-currents near shore close to the mouth of the t r i b u t a r y . In addition, people who f i s h below the confluence have access to both those stocks that continue to ascend the mainstream, and those that enter the a f f l u e n t . - 158 -b) Natural Stream Features at Spawning Sites Salmon t y p i c a l l y choose spawning s i t e s i n "shallow streams with loose gravel cover of a s i z e that can be manipulated by the female salmon when she prepares the redd to deposit her eggs. Chum salmon spawn: i n streams a short distance from the estuary. They sel e c t spawning places with more v a r i a b l e stream conditions than other species. The bottom may consist of coarse gravel, -large stones, or boulders. Chum females w i l l o c casionally deposit eggs on the streambed, i n crevices among the boulders. More commonly, however, a depression i s excavated i n f i n e gravel as much as 40 cm below the streambed, and the eggs deposited (Neave:1966a). • Water temperatures and currents are s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r s : the range of t o l e r a b l e temperature v a r i e s with d i f f e r e n t spawning populations; 3° to 7°C i s c i t e d as su i t a b l e f o r stocks of sockeye i n the Fraser system (Ricker:1966). A r e l a t i v e l y slow' steady current i s e s s e n t i a l to ensure s u f f i c i e n t oxygenation of eggs during incubation. Sudden or extreme changes i n water l e v e l s cause streambed disturbances that can damage the spawning l o c a t i o n . Egg s u r v i v a l i s dependent on the proper water conditions — p a r t i c u l a r l y cool temperatures— and on the appropriate depths and currents to areate but not disturb the redds. Af t e r egg deposition, any major disturbance to the redds can r e s u l t i n high egg mortality. F a l l and winter flooding may disrupt the streamflow. .High p r e c i p i t a t i o n i s only one of many causes of stream flooding; others include the l o s s of fo r e s t cover through f i r e and disease (and, i n t h i s century, because of commercial logging - 159 -operations). Land s l i d e s , mud s l i d e s , and streambank d e t e r i o r a t i o n can r e s u l t from a sudden release of high water volumes that s t r a i n s the carrying capacity of spawning streams. Stream obstructions also pose problems. F a l l e n logs and d e t r i t u s , forest a t t r i t i o n , and morphological changes i n streambed features, were noted i n the pre-logging forests of the Queen Charlottes, surveyed i n 1878 by George Dawson (1880) and l a t e r by E l l s (1906). Log jams were numerous i n the natural forest and occasionally contributed to flooding and streambed gouging. Nevertheless, moderate log jams retard streambed gouging and protect against damage. In summary, var i a b l e s i n the hydrological cycle of p r e c i p i t a t i o n and streamflow combine with geophysical properties i n the coastal landforms of the area to create innumerable r i v e r s and streams, providing anadromous salmon with abundant fresh water spawning lo c a t i o n s . Both seasonal changes i n the volume of discharge, and s t r u c t u r a l features of stream s i t e s , were factors to be considered by the users of t r a d i t i o n a l technology. - 160 -5. Seasonality and the Nature of Runs Salmon spawning migrations occur throughout the Northwest Coast as highly predictable events of l i m i t e d duration. Phenologists define seasonality as: the occurrence of c e r t a i n obvious b i o t i c and "abiotic events or groups of events within a d e f i n i t e l i m i t e d period or periods of the astronomic year. (Leith:Quoted i n Nolan:1977) The timing of the a r r i v a l of spawners at any given l o c a t i o n does not vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y from one year to the next; each run displays a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c configuration with regular and recurring dates for f i r s t a r r i v a l , peaks, and end of run ( 8 ) . Each race or stock of spawners forms a run, a d i s c r e t e event occurring i n time. Spawning runs consist of the age-class of a genetic stock. During migration, sexual dimorphism occurs, and becomes accelerated when the fresh water system i s entered. The distance from adult feeding grounds i n the ocean to the mouth of the r i v e r i s thousands of kilometers. A l l salmon species cease feeding e n t i r e l y i n f r e s h water; the metabolic rate of each spawning population i s 'programmed' to provide the migrating salmon with s u f f i c i e n t food reserves to enable i t to swim the distance from estuary to n a t a l stream. Stocks of sockeye and chinook, for example, spawn i n streams more than 1,000 km from the mouth of the Fraser River. The amount of c a l o r i e s burned during the fresh water portion of the migration i s determined by the d i f f i c u l t i e s - 161 -encountered — w a t e r f a l l s , rapids, heavy c u r r e n t s — as well as the factor of distance. In large watersheds-with many spawning loca t i o n s , a serie s of runs composed of d i s t i n c t salmon stocks w i l l overlap. Not only do runs of the same species commingle, but d i f f e r e n t species may run concurrently, as when, for example, the major pink and sockeye salmon runs ascend the Fraser River together i n late-August/early-September. Salmon of the same species are more l i k e l y than not to return to the spawning grounds of any given watershed system within the same general time frame. Coincident runs of large stocks provide resource user groups with increased resource a c c e s s i b i l i t y ; the salmon are present i n greater numbers for a longer period. Once the watershed system has been entered, migrating salmon must make the r i g h t 'decision' at each confluence along the way. How the salmon finds i t s way back to i t s n a t a l stream i s s t i l l not f u l l y understood, yet each genetic stock remains d i s t i n c t from neighbouring gene pools. Scale analysis of breeding populations i d e n t i f i e s related stocks, that i s , salmon of a sing l e stock, analogous to the way fi n g e r p r i n t s i d e n t i f y humans. Most research to-date has been directed to studies of sockeye and pink salmon, p a r t l y because the International P a c i f i c Salmon F i s h e r i e s Commission i s charged with the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to protect stocks of Fraser River pinks and sockeye as part of t h e i r mandate. For these species, the evidence i s c l e a r : each gene pool i s d i s c r e t e ; each age-set returns to the natal stream. The very strong tendency of i n d i v i d u a l s of a l l species of P a c i f i c salmon to return to the spawning grounds where they originated i s accepted as a basic premise by present-day investigators and administrators. (Neave:1966:74) - 162 -6. P a c i f i c Salmon Abundance a) Depensatory and compensatory e f f e c t s Long-term s t a b i l i t y of abundance i s r e l a t e d , among other t h i n g s , to the m o r t a l i t y f a c t o r s associated w i t h p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t i e s i n salmon stocks. In h i s s t u d i e s of freshwater and marine s u r v i v a l r a t e s , Neave (1958, 1966a, 1966b) has demonstrated that both depensatory and compensatory m o r t a l i t y f a c t o r s operate to achieve a balance i n popu l a t i o n s i z e over time. Compensatory f a c t o r s are those that have l e s s impact on small populations than on l a r g e ones. The e f f e c t s can be demonstrated by d i f f e r e n c e s i n the r a t i o s of a d u l t - t o -f r y s u r v i v a l . Lower r a t i o s occur i n salmon populations that are too l a r g e f o r the spawning l o c a t i o n . Increased competition and crowded c o n d i t i o n s at the redds r e s u l t i n higher egg and a l e v i n m o r t a l i t y . As a r e s u l t , when too many spawners r e t u r n i n any given stock there i s a tendency f o r fewer eggs to su r v i v e per adult spawner. As Neave e x p l a i n s , the opposite occurs when smaller numbers r e t u r n to spawn. Presumably the parent f i s h belonging to small populations can s e l e c t the most favourable s i t e s and are subjected to l e s s mutual i n t e r f e r e n c e . There w i l l a l s o be l e s s competition between eggs or a l e v i n s f o r a v a i l a b l e s u p p l i e s of oxygen. (1966a:77) Whereas l a r g e populations s u f f e r higher m o r t a l i t y during the period from spawning to f r y emergence, s m a l l populations s u s t a i n higher l o s s e s during the c r i t i c a l phase when they leave t h e i r n a t a l streams or lake - 163 -system to head f o r the sea. Natural m o r t a l i t y by predation h i t s hardest at small stocks of salmon. As Neave demonstrates, depensatory m o r t a l i t y tends to prevent small stocks from increasing i n s i z e by perpetuating a condition i n which fewer young salmon survive to return i n the next generation. Thus a balance i s struck between depensatory and compensatory f a c t o r s . ...an important feature of the m o r t a l i t y which occurs during f r y migration...is that t h i s e f f e c t i s reversed, the percent l o s s being greater when the f r y populations are smaller (depensatory m o r t a l i t y ) , due to the tendency of the predators to take a fixed number of f r y during the short period of t h e i r migration. ( i b i d : a f t e r on Neave:1953) The assumption i s that predators extract a given quantity of salmon biomass as i t passes through t h e i r feeding areas. If t h i s i s the case, then we may assert that depensatory and compensatory m o r t a l i t y acts to r e s t r a i n the growth of populations. Depensatory factors mitigate against the capacity of small stocks to s i g n i f i c a n t l y increase t h e i r numbers; compensatory f a c t o r s , through egg and a l e v i n mortality, l i m i t the extent to which large populations can expand. - 164 -b) Index of salmon abundance Relative values of salmon biomass a v a i l a b l e to peoples i n each region or t e r r i t o r y are provided i n Appendix tables (Tables XXIII and XXVI) . An explanation of the method used to obtain these f i g u r e s i s included. The base data i s derived from estimates published under the aegis of the International North P a c i f i c F i s h e r i e s Commission i n t h e i r s e r i e s Salmon of the North P a c i f i c Ocean, B u l l e t i n Number 23 (1967). The two a r t i c l e s which c h i e f l y contributed to the data base were " P a c i f i c Salmon i n the United States", by C'.E. Atkinson, J.H. Rose, and T.O. Duncan, and " P a c i f i c Salmon i n Canada", by K. V. Aro and M.P. Shepard. In the f i r s t , a l l the P a c i f i c salmon spawning streams within the t e r r i t o r y of the United States are included i n de t a i l e d sub-area maps for each species. However, estimates f o r spawning populations are not given f o r salmon streams with le s s than 50,000 escapement. In the l a t t e r a r t i c l e , the authors have compiled and tabulated the estimates of spawning populations accumulated i n a twelve-year study from 1951 to 1963 for each 'major' salmon stream, by species. I prepared a frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n that tabled the number of B r i t i s h Columbia streams, a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the range of spawning populations, and species of salmon. From t h i s data l i n e a r regression techniques were used to obtain average escapement values by species for 'major' salmon streams i n the United States. - 165 -PART TWO Footnotes 1 Chinook salmon also run into the Snake River basin, i n f a r greater abundance than sockeye. 2 Ethnographic evidence (Ray:1938:107) suggests pink salmon was not abundant i n the Columbia. 3 Bouchard and Kennedy & other members of the B r i t i s h Columbia Indian Language Project have c o l l e c t e d native terms for f i s h resources i n many languages. A cf Andersen & Wadel (1972). 5 cf Internation P a c i f i c Salmon Fishery Commission: Annual Reports 1961:21, 1972:3, and Ricker:1966:67. Ricker:1966:67, Aro & Shepard:1967:239. 6 INPFC:Bulletin 16; B u l l e t i n 23; NEAVE:1966. 7 At the hydrological measurement s t a t i o n at Mission. 8 Killack:1955, Ward:1959. 9 Neave:1966, and Ricker:1966 have studied c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of salmon runs. - 166 -PART THREE — SALMON RESOURCE UTILIZATION: a m u l t i - f a c t o r analysis A. The I n t e r r e l a t i o n Of Ecology And Technology Variables The concept of a salmon technology complex has been used i n t h i s study as a means of assessing t r a d i t i o n a l systems of salmon production within an e c o l o g i c a l context. As a model for the salmon migration, I have i n mind the image of a l i n e a r progression through time and space; the salmon begins at point a. (at the threshold of the inshore waters), and proceeds i n a continuous l i n e to point t>, the ultimate destination ( i . e . , the spawning grounds). Between a. and b_ the l i n e i s d i v i s i b l e by a v a r i a b l e number of segments, each representing a type of f i s h e r y s i t e where, given the a p p l i c a t i o n of appropriate technology, salmon are accessible to human int e r c e p t i o n . The number of segments through which any given run of salmon must pass i s a function of ( i ) the set of e c o l o g i c a l v ariables that e x i s t s en route and ( i i ) the technology u t i l i z e d by l o c a l resource groups. Salmon are thus extracted at each segment i n time and space by strategies of human ex p l o i t a t i o n . We may assume that the greater the number of a v a i l a b l e f i s h e r y s i t e types (segments), the greater the advantage to resource users. But before developing t h i s argument further, l e t us review and analyze the conditions that p r e v a i l e d at f i s h e r y l o c a t i o n s . In what follows, a non-formal methodological approach i s used to generate i n t u i t i v e categories and inductive reasoning; the sets of e c o l o g i c a l and technological elements i n salmon resource e x p l o i t a t i o n w i l l be analyzed. - 167 -1. Maritime strategies during salmon migration The best places to catch salmon were well known to l o c a l user-groups i n each t e r r i t o r y . A knowledge of e c o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e s and the f i s h e r y p o t e n t i a l at p a r t i c u l a r resource locations was regarded as a precious part of one's inheritance, to be passed down to the next generation. The number and kinds of 'best places' depended on what the natural environment offered. The e c o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e that denoted good resource a c c e s s i b i l i t y was the presence of salmon i n s u f f i c i e n t quantity  to repay the e f f o r t expended to catch i t . Assuming t h i s , then the s i g n i f i c a n t e c o l o g i c a l factors from the point of view of the resource user are variables i n l o c a l water resources, and species v a r i a t i o n s that influence salmon behaviour during migration. Beginning with the inshore f i s h e r y segment of the run, we w i l l consider the r e l a t i o n of e c o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e s to the technology of salmon production. Fis h i n g s i t e s i n s a l t water present the greatest number of unknown fa c t o r s : the expanse of water i s large; the random p r o b a b i l i t y of l o c a t i n g the prey i s low. The fisherman must r e l y on c r i t e r i a other than h i s powers of d i r e c t observation — the seasonal a v a i l a b i l i t y of a food source for salmon to feed upon (as when herring runs a t t r a c t the salmon); or tides and currents that may a f f e c t the movements of salmon, temporarily bringing them closer to shore; or l i g h t and temperature changes to which, under c e r t a i n conditions, salmon are responsive. But mainly the fisherman depends on h i s knowledge of salmon movements and behaviour. He must know the usual course that runs - 168 -follow i n h i s area, on which side of an is l a n d they are most l i k e l y to appear, the channels and narrows they frequent, and t h e i r seasonal occurrence. In addition to t h i s , l i k e a l l fishermen everywhere who must contend with an i n v i s i b l e prey i n open waters, the Northwest Coast fisherman would use a c l a s s i c c r i t e r i o n : h i s observations of the success or lack of success of fellow fishermen (cf Andersen & Wadel: 1972). Where l i v e herring f i l l e d the waters, Northwest Coast fishermen t r o l l e d for chinook and coho salmon with a hook and l i n e . Because these two species w i l l take a lu r e i n s a l t water, the problematics of a s p a t i a l dimension are secondary to other e c o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e s , notably to prey c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . For groups with marine access, the t r o l l i n g complex enabled s p e c i f i e d salmon species to be intercepted before the homing migration had begun, or i n i t s e a r l i e s t stages. Once salmon enter coastal waters the area they occupy i s reduced, and t h e i r movements become more v i s i b l e as they near shore. T y p i c a l l y mixed stocks of salmon species make the inshore migration i n considerable numbers before dispersing to the l i t t o r a l areas near t h e i r home streams. From the point of view of s a l t water s t r a t e g i e s , one of two things can happen. Either people wait for t h i s general dispersement, and e x p l o i t salmon i n the estuaries and shoreline coves where the runs delay, or they develop an extractive technology that intercepts the migration further from shore before dispersement. Let us review the conditions of the f i s h e r y : the s p a t i a l dimension i s again s i g n i f i c a n t , since only by t r o l l i n g could salmon be caught with a lu r e ; salmon a c c e s s i b i l i t y near shore i s attended by the circumstances of tides and - 169 -currents, as previously outlined. The behaviour of salmon along an inshore current, or at a slack i n the estuary, for example, i s known to resource users. The period when salmon w i l l be present can be predicted. These and other v a r i a b l e s operated to provide f i s h e r y s i t e p o t e n t i a l . The technology of salmon production i n s a l t water f i s h e r i e s depended on multiple conditions and distinguishable features that a f f e c t salmon behaviour. Since the problem i s one of extracting the resource from an u n r e s t r i c t e d area, these subtle i n t e r a c t i o n s gain added s i g n i f i c a n c e . The f i r s t f i s h e r y encountered by salmon once past t r o l l i n g areas i s the reef net complex. (This i s true at l e a s t as f a r as the model i s concerned. In r e a l i t y i t applied only to Fraser River populations of pink and sockeye.)( 1 ). Extremely large nets were anchored on shoals d i r e c t l y i n the known path of regular and recurring summer salmon runs. The presence of shoals or reefs served to shorten the subsurface v e r t i c a l dimension through which salmon passed. Appropriate t i d a l and current actions were c r i t i c a l to the e f f i c i e n c y of reef net operations, and l i g h t and wind conditions played a part. Clearing undersea vegetation from the space i n advance of the net mouth, layi n g up l i n e s to create the i l l u s i o n of a channel through the kelp beds, even d i s g u i s i n g the anchor l i n e s with beach rye grasses, a l l served to help d i r e c t the salmon into the net. But the s i g n i f i c a n t e c o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e that made the reef net a v i a b l e production system was the sheer magnitude of numbers when scores of major sockeye and pink salmon runs, as part of t h e i r p r i n c i p a l migratory route, passed through the f i s h e r y . Thus by developing an extractive technology to - 170 -intercept the inshore migration before the general disbursement, the source of greatest abundance was tapped. On a smaller scale, the trawl net drawn between two canoes was used i n a way analogous to the reef net to intercept abundant runs i n s a l t water channels on the northern and c e n t r a l coast. (Mackenzie saw the B e l l a Coola f i s h f o r salmon t h i s way i n early summer.) In channels and i n l e t s the movements of salmon are c o n t r o l l e d i n some respects by natural geographic features and by the way tides and currents behave i n narrow waterways. As salmon approach the l i t t o r a l region the s i g n i f i c a n c e of tides i s increased. Trawl nets were also used on the t i d a l f l a t s i n estuaries. In locations where the t i d e s are r i g h t , salmon come near enough to shore to be taken i n seines or g i l l nets. Presumably these were r i v e r i n e methods adapted, where f e a s i b l e , to maritime conditions. It seems u n l i k e l y that seines and g i l l nets were e s p e c i a l l y productive i n the sea, always with l o c a l exceptions. G i l l nets were used by the Klallam at a s p i t of land where chinook and coho followed herring runs close i n to shore, and s i m i l a r l y by a S t r a i t s group on Saltspring Island. The S t r a i t s used a s a l t water seine net i n the estuary of the Samish River. It may be that the occurrence of marine adaptations i s le s s rare than ethnographic accounts would i n d i c a t e . The most d i r e c t r e l a t i o n of t i d e to technology was the t i d a l trap. Constructed at s u i t a b l e locations where the combined e f f e c t s of t i d a l currents and species c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s acted to bring salmon i n near shore, large boulders or other b u i l d i n g materials were designed to form a b a r r i e r against the receding tidewaters, leaving the stranded - 171 -salmon behind to flounder. In the t i d a l trap salmon were caught without d i r e c t human intervention. Together with the reef net complex and t r o l l i n g , the t i d a l trap was the only device e x c l u s i v e l y of a maritime nature. At t h i s stage i n the migration, salmon are soon to enter fresh water. In some species, salmon stocks w i l l delay for a period of time before leaving the l i t t o r a l areas. It i s these i n many cases that were swept up on a t i d a l current and c a r r i e d over the wall of the t i d a l trap. F i n a l l y , we w i l l consider maritime locations where the harpoon was used to take salmon. In the pursuit of prey, the toggling harpoon complex was a f l e x i b l e system that could be adapted to varying conditions. P a r t i c u l a r l y i n the more shallow regions of a bay, salmon could be caught with the harpoon i f water conditions were c l e a r , and the sea calm enough to take aim. At places where salmon congregate i n large numbers the toggling harpoon would be an e f f i c i e n t means of capture. Night f i s h i n g with a harpoon on a phosphorescent sea i s reported i n the ethnographies. The fisherman depended on good v i s i b i l i t y conditions to f i s h with the harpoon, and probably only used i t i n the sea when a considerable number of salmon were present. To summarize, during the inshore migration the s p a t i a l bounds within which salmon move are c h i e f l y unrestrained, and the resource i s d i f f i c u l t to e x p l o i t . Since with the exceptions noted salmon w i l l not take a l u r e , the hook-and-line methods t y p i c a l l y used for maritime species l i k e cod and halibut were not applicable. Fishermen depended instead on t h e i r knowledge of l o c a l tides and currents, and t h e i r knowledge of species timing and behaviour, to devise systems f u n c t i o n a l l y r e l a t e d to v a r i a b l e s i n the ecosystem. - 172 -A note on STC D i s t r i b u t i o n — Most data about the inshore f i s h e r y derive from Wakashan and Salishan sources. Northern inshore salmon f i s h i n g i s not w e l l described. The Makah appear to be the most southerly peoples oriented to a maritime f i s h e r y . Societies i n the Columbian and Southern regions did not p r a c t i s e s a l t water salmon f i s h i n g . 2. Weir vs Trap: Tributary streams and secondary f i v e r s Leaving the maritime environment, salmon runs enter estuarine waters to begin the ascent of the r i v e r . The s p a t i a l dimensions salmon occupy are immediately a l t e r e d . They are now bounded not only by the riverbanks on each side of the stream but by t h e i r own genetic i n -heritance which impels them forward, swimming upstream against the r i v e r ' s current. Salmon a c c e s s i b i l i t y from the viewpoint of the resource user i s improved immeasurably. (In r e l a t i v e terms, differences between large and small r i v e r systems are noteworthy, therefore each i s treated independently. It i s the l a t t e r that concern us here.) While yet i n brackish waters and i n the lower course of the r i v e r , the salmon runs pass through various kinds of resource use s i t e s before entering the p r i n c i p a l r i v e r i n e f i s h e r i e s , weirs and traps, further upstream. B r i e f l y , lower r i v e r f i s h e r i e s included: the toggling harpoon, seine nets, g i l l nets and, i f the r i v e r was large enough, the trawl. In places where the waters were too r o i l y and t u r b i d f o r harpoons, gaffs were employed (2 ). A t y p i c a l harpoon f i s h e r y took chinook salmon at r i v e r mouth locations early i n the - 173 -season. Gaffs, on the other hand, are more often mentioned i n connection with f a l l f i s h i n g for chum salmon. But the complementary nature of gaff and harpoon complexes i s mainly concerned with the differences i n water features required f o r the use of each, referred to previously i n t h i s study. The most important salmon technology complexes i n small-to medium-sized r i v e r s were undoubtedly traps ( 3 ) and weirs. In the l i t e r a t u r e , traps and weirs are i n f e r e n t i a l l y linked and there i s con-fusion about the d i s t i n c t i o n s between them. The model of i n t e r a c t i n g v a r i a b l e s i s useful i n sorting out the differences between the two systems; Indeed, the e c o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e s required for the one are quite d i s t i n c t from the other. A t t r i b u t e s of these v a r i a b l e s w i l l be compared. Although e c o l o g i c a l differences were the c e n t r a l c r i t e r i a for c l a s s i f y i n g weirs and traps separately, i n terms of technological p r i n c i p l e s each system operated under a d i f f e r e n t set of rules f o r salmon procurement. The p r i n c i p l e of the weir i s to obstruct the stream, and to a r t i f i c i a l l y create a b a r r i e r i n the r i v e r beyond which salmon cannot proceed. The obstruction was temporary, the weir sections were l e f t i n place only long enough to pursue the f i s h e r y . Unable to continue upstream, salmon amass at the wall of the weir and are e a s i l y caught. Secondary techniques were required: dipping nets, harpoons, l e i s t e r s , spears, g a f f s . Where more complex developments of weir structures were b u i l t with catwalks, dip netting platforms, and spearing and impounding corrals., the weir takes on some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a trap. Double weirs i n which the salmon leaps the f i r s t obstruction but cannot - 174 -leap the second, i s an example of an ambiguous modification. However, a t y p i c a l weir f u l f i l l s the primary function of impeding the run for a period of time so that resource users have an improved f i s h i n g opportunity. On the other hand, the p r i n c i p l e of the trap i s to entrap. Traps were devised to d i r e c t and diver t the movements of salmon into a confined area from which i t cannot escape. Thus, the environment of the salmon i s manipulated, playing on a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c impulse of the f i s h to f i n d i t s way through an obstacle. A l l the d i f f e r e n t trapping devices were designed to accomplish t h i s objective; e s s e n t i a l l y each was intended to confine the salmon ( 4 ) . There are marked differences i n the s i t e conditions at weirs and traps. Traps are frequently placed where they can take advantage of natural stream conditions that impede the progress of salmon — f a l l s , narrows, r i f f l e s , shallow bars, and streambed channels. Weirs and traps each contain many v a r i e t i e s of form. It was generally the case that streambed f a c i l i t i e s s u i t a b l e for the construction of a weir were not su i t a b l e places to put a trap, and v i c e versa. Traps are v e r s a t i l e : they were better adapted to fast water s i t e s than weirs, and could be placed even i n small creeks or shallow streams; they could be set i n rock-strewn streams, and at places where the salmon found i t s way through l i t t l e rapids and eddies. The common basket trap was secured to guiding wings and set i n many ways to incorporate the natural features of a stream. Consequently, stream hydrology and the natural i n s t i n c t of salmon to seek a way past obstacles, were features exploited by trap emplacement. - 175 -Weirs were l e s s v e r s a t i l e . The necessary streambed features at weir s i t e s , together with factors of v e l o c i t y and water volume, were more r i g i d l y s p e c i f i e d (5 ). Weirs depended les s on subtle d i s t i n c t i o n s of stream flow, and more on the primary fact of the salmon migration i t s e l f . Because salmon stocks take a d i r e c t course to the spawning grounds, f i g h t obstructions, and p e r s i s t i n continuing an upstream ascent, they cannot escape the f i s h e r y below the weir (6 ). It i s t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c that weirs d i r e c t l y e x p l o i t : the run of salmon i s obstructed; the compulsion to progress i s checked. While salmon assemble i n confusion they are easy prey ; (cf' APPENDIX I I I ) . 3. E x p l o i t i n g major salmon producing areas The p r i n c i p a l salmon r i v e r s on the Northwest Coast were high production resource areas with the capacity to support human populations of a s i g n i f i c a n t s i z e . Coincident runs of salmon stocks i n a large watershed system ensured a r e l i a b l e source of food over an extended annual season, as one species overlapped with another, and runs of various spawning populations occured s e r i a l l y . The periodic f a i l u r e of salmon stocks i n a t r i b u t a r y stream or spawning ground would not be noticed i n the lower course of a large r i v e r . Fluctuations i n abundance would be mediated by various compensatory factors that are natural to salmon species. From year to year the catch would remain r e l a t i v e l y stable, presuming the e f f o r t expended on salmon production was unchanged. Riverine s o c i e t i e s on the Nass, Skeena, B e l l a Coola-Atnarko, Fraser, Columbia, and Klamath a l l shared the advantage of abundant - 176 -salmon supplies, and s i m i l a r problems i n resource extraction. The a c c e s s i b i l i t y of salmon runs i n a large r i v e r presented p a r t i c u l a r d i f f i c u l t i e s . High water volumes and strong r i v e r currents meant that ordinary weir and trap structures were impracticable. The technical and organizational s k i l l s of Northwest Coast fishermen were used to develop other solutions. The salmon technology complexes that were adapted to r i v e r i n e and e s t u a r i a l conditions where large runs of salmon occur include the Kepel Dam, the B e l l a Coola dams, the Skeena canyon trap, dip nets, the seine, and the reef net. The r e l a t i o n s between e c o l o g i c a l and t e c h n i c a l variables i n these complexes w i l l be featured i n t h i s section. a) estuaries and r i v e r approaches: In the approaches to important salmon r i v e r s the runs are dispersed widely within a large expanse of water which near the r i v e r mouth becomes brackish where the stream outflow meets the sea. Salmon are not e a s i l y accessible i n large areas, t h e i r movements are unrestricted and generally hidden from the eye of the fisherman. Nevertheless, they do follow a f a i r l y regular course to reach the r i v e r mouth, swimming i n response to favourable currents, and i n some locations following i n close to shore on a t i d a l stream. Sheltered from the P a c i f i c by Vancouver Island, the Fraser estuary debouches i n a protected marine environment. The r i v e r has an extensive d e l t a several miles long, and i t s e s t u a r i a l outflow stretches into the S t r a i t s f or yet more miles. Tides and currents i n the protected waters are r e l a t i v e l y predictable and steady. Near the headlands o f f an i s l a n d or peninsula i n the s t r a i t s where t i d a l - 177 -actions and shoals combine to produce the r i g h t conditions the reef net was used to intercept Fraser-bound runs of sockeye and pink salmon The complex took advantage of the r e l a t i v e l y consistent patterns of sockeye migration through the s t r a i t s en route to the r i v e r . The natural environmental features of the Fraser approaches were unique on the Northwest Coast, as was the technological response developed by S t r a i t s S a l i s h fishermen. The southern approach to the Fraser River through the S t r a i t s of Juan de Fuca, which i s the normal route of sockeye and pink salmon, i s approximately 200 kilometers long. In d i r e c t contrast i s the Columbia River estuary. The mouth of the Columbia i s separated from the P a c i f i c only by i t s redoubtable bar, a m i l l e n i a l accumulation of s i l t and gravel, surmounted with great d i f f i c u l t y by seamen. The tortuous passages at the bar are described i n the early journals of explorers and fur-traders ( 7 ) . Behind the bar, the Columbia estuary broad, beach-strewn, f i l l e d with many l i t t l e bays and harbours where Chinook fishermen could employ the seine, landing the catch on shore. Columbia chinook salmon stocks, many now destroyed by hydr o e l e c t r i c dams, must have lingered f or several days or weeks i n these brackish waters before beginning the ascent of the Columbia. H i s t o r i c a l l y , the Columbia River has been the major producer of chinook salmon, and i t i s e s p e c i a l l y noted for the high commercial q u a l i t y of i t s spring run. (INPFC:1967:23:p.46) - 178 -The s u p e r i o r i t y of Columbia chinook had been proclaimed long before Lewis and Clark arr i v e d at the mouth of the r i v e r i n 1805. Swan (.1857) l a t e r reported: The Chinook salmon commences to enter the r i v e r the l a s t of May, and i s most p l e n t i f u l about the 20th of June. It i s , without doubt, the f i n e s t salmon i n the world, and, being taken so near the ocean, has i t s f i n e f l a v o r i n perfec t i o n . The salmon, when entering a r i v e r to spawn, do not at once proceed to the headwaters, but l i n g e r round the mouth for several weeks before they are prepared to go f a r t h e r up. It has been supposed that they cannot go immediately from the ocean to the cold fresh water, but remain for a time where the water i s brackish before they venture on so great a change. (p.103) In both the Columbia and Fraser systems, those who co n t r o l l e d the approaches to the r i v e r could intercept an important segment of the run before i t began i t s ascent. b) the lower r i v e r course: Salmon become more accessible as they enter the main course of a r i v e r . The timing and movements of the run can be perceived by watchful fishermen. But the usual traps and weirs could not be b u i l t i n r i v e r channels that were deep and broad; i t was necessary to generate other a l t e r n a t i v e s to meet the h y d r o l o g i c a l conditions of large r i v e r s . Two examples show how d i f f e r e n t solutions to t h i s problem were met by Northwest Coast fishermen. On the Klamath and i t s t r i b u t a r y , the T r i n i t y River, s p e c i a l short-term 'dams' were b u i l t anew each year to take advantage of l a t e running chinook stocks. Of t h i s s e r i e s , the Kepel Dam was the largest structure b u i l t . Its form was based on the model of a - 179 -communal weir, complete with owned platforms c a l l e d 'salmon houses'. It crossed the e n t i r e width of the Klamath River, a distance estimated at the s i t e l o c a t i o n , t h i r t y miles upstream from the mouth, to be 250 feet from shore to shore. The depths of the r i v e r i n l a t e August -early September were generally s i x feet (2 meters). To withstand the heavy flow of the current, the Kepel Dam was constructed i n an upriver V-shape, rather than s t r a i g h t across. According to Kroeber (1925; Kroeber and Barrett:1960), the Kepel Dam b u i l t by the Yurok was probably the largest structure raised i n Northwest Coast r i v e r s before the c o l o n i a l period. Writers have long been fascinated with the i n s t i t u t i o n a l context of the Kepel Dam (Waterman & Kroeber:1938; Kroeber & G i f f o r d : 1949; Kroeber:1925; and others). It i s the best documented weir complex i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Part of i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e as a major r i v e r technique i s that i t was constructed with a considerable expenditure of labour to be used f o r only a ten-day period. The procedure was r i t u a l l y s p e c i f i e d to show c a r e f u l a ttention to d e t a i l . Kroeber and Barrett in t e r p r e t i t t h i s way, The Kepel Dam cycle of ceremonies was b a s i c a l l y of the world-renewal order, with emphasis on abundance of salmon...genetically, rather than s p e c i f i c a l l y on the f i r s t salmon... The whole cycle was designed to insure c o l l e c t i v e and i n d i v i d u a l health, prosperity, and abundance... (1960:12) - 180 -Perhaps, too, the Yurok wanted to express t h e i r power and a b i l i t y to 'tame' the r i v e r , at l e a s t for a few days, whatever i t s symbolic importance, the Kepel Dam was the s i g n a l example of a communal weir structure i n a large r i v e r and, consequently, was a highly productive mechanism to extract salmon resources. This was a short but very intensive f i s h e r y . B e l l a Coola-Atnarko r i v e r dams are further examples of the ways i n which technological innovations were developed by Northwest Coast fishermen to f i t the s p e c i f i c e c o l o g i c a l conditions of large r i v e r s . The ser i e s of dams on the B e l l a Coola was described by Alexander Mackenzie, the f i r s t European to reach tidewater by an overland route. He reported that they were large semi-permanent or permanent multi-purpose i n s t a l l a t i o n s b u i l t into the r i v e r at which several kinds of f i s h i n g methods were c a r r i e d on simultaneously. The type i s best c l a s s i f i e d as a f a c i l i t y , but Mackenzie c a l l e d i t a 'machine', no doubt an accurate evaluation. Whereas the Kepel Dam was b u i l t to meet a short-term objective at the height of the chinook run, the B e l l a Coola f i v e r dam complex was operated and maintained throughout the e n t i r e salmon season to exploit s e r i a l and overlapping runs of a l l f i v e species. It i s obvious that great expenditures of labour were invested i n the construction of B e l l a Coola r i v e r dams. The heavy flow of the r i v e r must have made i t necessary to keep dams continuously under repair during the extended season i n which they functioned. Pviver dam complexes were owned and maintained by people l i v i n g i n adjacent v i l l a g e communities. A t y p i c a l l y , the B e l l a Coola practised v i l l a g e - 181 -endogamy, r a i s i n g the question of a possible r e l a t i o n between 'marrying i n ' to ensure that young men remain i n the home v i l l a g e , and family ownership r i g h t s to f i s h i n g locations at the v i l l a g e r i v e r dam. The extensive upkeep and p e r i o d i c r e s t o r a t i o n work required to keep these complexes functioning would best be served by a s o c i a l organization of labour that was supported by a sedentary v i l l a g e population. The r i v e r basins of the B e l l a Coola and the Klamath display s i g n i f i c a n t natural differences as well as technological ones. The g l a c i e r - f e d B e l l a Coola and Atnarko r i v e r s are turbid and experience severe flooding throughout the early part of the year. The Klamath and T r i n i t y swell with the winter rains but are les s subject to spring freshets, or heavy sedimentation. The number and duration of salmon runs supported by each system i s also d i f f e r e n t , as reported above. Large salmon populations of a l l f i v e species enter the B e l l a Coola, but the Klamath has only chinook and coho, although the s i z e and number of chinook salmon i n the Klamath i s noteworthy. The Kepel Dam was b u i l t for a short term purpose, l a r g e l y ceremonial i n i t s obvious aspect. Yet there i s no doubt i t was a complex capable of taking great quantities of salmon i n the ten days i t operated on the Klamath. On the B e l l a Coola, a serie s of dam-trap complexes, each highly productive, served as a focus f o r the r i v e r i n e society throughout the salmon season. Although the two r i v e r s are comparable i n s i z e , the response of Yurok and B e l l a Coola peoples to apparently s i m i l a r e c o l o g i c a l conditions i n the main course of a r i v e r was d i f f e r e n t . - 182 -c) p r i n c i p a l canyon s i t e s : The a c c e s s i b i l i t y of salmon, at l e a s t t h e o r e t i c a l l y , i s markedly improved when the runs enter the narrow confines of the r i v e r canyon. Not only has the s p a t i a l dimension been reduced by the physical features of the canyon walls, but water features i n the narrow channels produce conditions that d i r e c t l y e f f e c t the behaviour of salmon. In the whirlpools and eddies of the rapid current, salmon seek r e s p i t e near shore. On the Fraser, Columbia, and Klamath Rivers fishermen at dip net stations i n the canyons exploited the main salmon runs as they ascended the rapids. Chinook and sockeye were the most important species taken i n the summer dip net f i s h e r y on the Fraser and Columbia Rivers. The highly productive canyon f i s h e r y on the Columbia was reknowned throughout the Northwest Coast and the Plateau. Like the eulachon f i s h e r y on the Nass, Columbian-produced supplies of dried salmon were traded over great distances through a network that extended for hundreds of miles i n a l l d i r e c t i o n s . The Dalles on the Columbia was the centre of salmon production and d i s t r i b u t i o n . Chinook salmon caught upstream i n the canyons had expended t h e i r excess o i l s i n the e f f o r t to ascend the rapids. When dried and preserved, the q u a l i t y of the product was superior to chinook caught elsewhere. Lewis and Clark were the f i r s t to record the Dalles f i s h e r y ; by 1855 Gibbs reported that changes had occurred. The Dalles was formerly a great depot for t h i s commerce. ...The quantity put up at some of the p r i n c i p a l f i s h i n g grounds was formerly immense, and even now i s very considerable. (1877:195) - 183 -The Fraser canyon dip net stations attracted Halkomelem Salish from distant v i l l a g e s on the lower r i v e r to f i s h alongside t h e i r Upper Stalo compatriots. Although ownership of canyon s i t e s appears to have been predominantly i n the hands of Upper Stalo resource holders, the Katzie, Musqueam, and people "even further a f i e l d " had i n h e r i t e d r i g h t s to f i s h i n the canyon (cf Duff:1952:11,30,40,62). For those who t r a v e l l e d 100 km or more to reach t h e i r s t a t i o n s , the main economic purpose was to p a r t i c i p a t e i n an intensive salmon f i s h e r y where favourable wind and temperature conditions hastened the drying process. People who otherwise had l i m i t e d access to sockeye or to chinook salmon i n peak condition would be drawn to the canyon f i s h e r y . Dip netting techniques, both the braced net and the l i g h t e r a ctive dip nets, were very e f f i c i e n t methods for taking salmon i n the Fraser canyon. On the Klamath and i t s t r i b u t a r i e s both plunge nets and the large A-frame l i f t i n g nets were e f f e c t i v e l y employed from riverbank s i t e s that were distinguished by differences i n water volumes, v e l o c i t y , and c l a r i t y . Some plunge net stations were merely rocky promontories where the fisherman had a foothold at the l e v e l of the r i v e r . Never-theless, they were p r i v a t e l y owned. In turbid rapids where back eddies formed, the net was plunged forward to f o r t u i t o u s l y sweep up any salmon present. At other s i t e s along the r i v e r A-frame scaffolds were b u i l t out over the water, the braced net set i n the backcurrent waiting for a salmon to enter. In t h e i r study, Kroeber and Barrett observe: . . . i t i s said that a man may take, i n a very short time (a matter of days) at the height of the salmon run, "a winter's supply" of f i s h . (1960:36) - 184 -There are two s i g n i f i c a n t runs of chinook salmon annually on the Klamath, a spring run, and a ' f a l l ' run that begins i n mid-summer. The dip net complex on the Klamath River was a highly productive f i s h e r y f o r those who had r i g h t s of access to favourable s i t e s . Annual runs of chinook and sockeye were also exploited at the Skeena River canyons during the summer season. The Skeena canyon trap almost r i v a l l e d the Kepel Dam i n s i z e and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s ; considerable labour was invested to construct these large traps. B u i l t on the banks of the r i v e r , out of the heavy streamflow, they were complex structure with moveable parts, including an extended chute that was lowered by ropes into the rapids and eddies below to make the catch. Unlike other p r i n c i p a l Northwest Coast r i v e r s , the broad Skeena has few narrow gorges where dip nets could be employed from natural promitories. The Hagwilget canyon extends only a l i t t l e way. Competition for f i s h i n g s i t e s at t h i s productive resource l o c a t i o n was c r i t i c a l . Salmon are p a r t i c u l a r l y accessible i n the canyon and valuable runs of sockeye must pass through Hagwilget to reach t h e i r upstream spawning grounds i n the Babines. Presumably the s p e c i a l i z e d canyon traps on the Skeena replaced former dip net stations s i m i l a r to those i n other Northwest Coast r i v e r s . It i s reasonable to suggest, despite the lack of published information about the Skeena canyon trap, that i t was a very productive system of salmon procurement. In conclusion, peoples who occupied major r i v e r system necessa r i l y had the main advantage i n salmon resource e x p l o i t a t i o n . - 185 -Not only did they have access to i n d i v i d u a l stocks of spawning salmon elsewhere i n smaller streams within t h e i r l o c a l resource area, but they also could intercept stocks bound for upriver spawning l o c a t i o n s . In s t a t i s t i c a l terms i t was impossible for t h e i r 'runs' to f a i l . By extracting concurrent stocks with very large population bases, any v a r i a t i o n s i n abundance were generally assimilated. - 186 -PART THREE —SALMON RESOURCE UTILIZATION; a multi-factor analysis B. I n t e r r e l a t i o n of S o c i a l and E c o l o g i c a l Variables The s o c i a l structure of the Northwest Coast was characterized by unequal access to material wealth, p r i v i l e g e , and status. High ranking lineage groups expressed dominance through mechanisms of status v a l i d a t i o n that included the d i s t r i b u t i o n and r e d i s t r i b u t i o n of surplus storage and fresh.foods. S o c i a l l y sanctioned systems of exchange are generally assembled i n the l i t e r a t u r e under the rubric 'potlatch' to describe a core i n s t i t u t i o n that had important l e g a l and economic implications. I n f l u e n t i a l , prestigious lineage groups tended to be those who had established r i g h t s of access over the most pro-ductive resource l o c a t i o n s . With varying emphasis i n each society, t h i s applied as w e l l to resources other than salmon. But salmon resources were a fundamental source of wealth i n the Northwest Coast economy. My present purpose i s to consider how notions of resource ownership and control of the means of production related to variables i n the nature of the salmon resource. Necessarily t h i s w i l l be a l i m i t e d discussion of some aspects of the r e l a t i o n between s o c i a l and e c o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e s i n the system of salmon technology complexes. The focus i s on s o c i a l a c c e s s i b i l i t y of the salmon resource. To generalize about Northwest Coast s o c i e t i e s i s a hazardous undertaking. Each of the twenty-four language groups included i n t h i s study were separate distinguishable units — coherent, i n c l u s i v e - 187 -s o c i e t i e s . To extract b i t s of evidence here and there and p u l l them together can be misleading. Each society had i t s own i n t e r n a l rules and procedures, much of i t never recorded. Nor would any one of these language groups have considered themselves to be a u n i f i e d nation or t r i b e . Even within each society there were important d i v i s i o n s based on d i a l e c t and t e r r i t o r i a l occupation. The surface d e t a i l s o f f e r a semblance of s i m i l a r i t y : the use of plank houses, permanent v i l l a g e s i t e s , a recognition of s o c i a l rank and material wealth, and a dependance on maritime and r i v e r i n e resources, e s p e c i a l l y the anadromous salmon. Such aspects can be c r o s s - c u l t u r a l l y compared. But beyond the outer manifestations existed a subtle interplay of s o c i a l groups, shared values, and concepts of i d e n t i t y that must be studied i n i t s ' n a t u r a l context. For the most part I have avoided the d i f f i c u l t y by r e s t r i c t i n g the analysis to questions that can be e l i c i t e d from the data: how did people catch salmon? what kinds of methods did they use? where were fi s h e r y s i t e s located? These are r e l a t i v e l y safe subjects but when I introduce s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s the water gets murky: what i s the nature of resource control and ownership? who 'owns' the c a p i t a l goods needed for resource extraction? how was labour organized? Rather than overgeneralize about these r e l a t i o n s with the attendant r i s k of making i t seem that what i s true for one group can be extended to others, I take a step backward i n abstraction, removing the i n d i v i d u a l differences between s o c i e t i e s , and. concentrating on a fact established i n the l i t e r a t u r e that notions of ownership are a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Northwest Coast s o c i e t i e s . The question then becomes focused on the - 188 -r e l a t i o n between salmon technology complexes and d i f f e r e n t i a l constraints on access to resources. 1. Salmon resource l i m i t a t i o n s Before beginning we need to review what has been said above about the nature of the salmon resource. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of salmon runs that p a r t i c u l a r l y a f f e c t resource use strategies include the following parameters: (1) runs are of li m i t e d duration, and (2) i n each spawning area stocks are l i m i t e d i n number and, to a les s e r extent, s i z e . These l i m i t s are imposed by the nature of the resource; they present the conditions that each user-group must work within. While the f a i l u r e of salmon supplies i s not a conscious part of the fisherman's everyday strategy, i t i s nevertheless consistent with h i s larger world view. The p o s s i b i l i t y that the salmon may never return i s a theme that recurs i n mythology and r i t u a l ; the F i r s t Salmon ceremony i n which a f t e r a r i t u a l meal the bones of the salmon are treated with respect underscores an e c o l o g i c a l awareness of the interdependence of a l l l i v i n g things, and of the f r a g i l e hold man has on what occurs i n nature. A sense of uncertainty i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c common to f i s h i n g s o c i e t i e s everywhere (Andersen & Wadel:1972). It i s r e a d i l y under-standable i n the context of the pursuit of an i n v i s i b l e prey; f i s h e x i s t i n a three-dimensional world that i s quite hidden from human view. On the Northwest Coast the P a c i f i c salmon resource i s subject to great f l u c t u a t i o n s i n abundance as we have noted previously. - 189 -Sproat (1868:215) reports that Nootka fishermen frequently expressed the uncertainty about how many salmon would come: from canoe to canoe the common inquiry heard, he says, was "Are there many salmon?" S p i r i t u a l , psychological, and p r a c t i c a l a ttitudes that r e l a t e to a fisherman's dependence on salmon migrations over which he has no control can be expressed as the fisherman's dilemma. Several models have been used i n the l i t e r a t u r e of maritime anthropology with re-ference to species other than salmon (Andersen & Wadel:1972; Davenport:1960). The fisherman's dilemma refe r s to the i n t e r r e l a t i o n of s p e c i f i c problematics: an i n v i s i b l e prey, a commonly accessible resource, and the competition of other fishermen and predators. For the s i t u a t i o n faced by Northwest Coast fishermen I w i l l restate i t t h i s way: the fisherman has no control over whether the salmon come or do not come into h i s waters; however, based on past experience, he can assume salmon w i l l probably appear and he can predict (almost to the day) when the season w i l l begin. He can also depend on his knowledge of l o c a l stocks to assess the p o t e n t i a l abundance of salmon that may occur i n any given run. With t h i s information he plans h i s e x p l o i -t a t i v e strategy. He decides which technological a p p l i c a t i o n best meets the c r i t e r i a of h i s l o c a l water resources, readies h i s equipment, assembles labour, and so on. His production e f f o r t s must be organized to e x p l o i t the resource under the l i m i t a t i o n s of time (nature of salmon resource) within which he i s operating. The reader r e c a l l s that the peak of a run may l a s t only a few days; overlapping runs of many stocks may extend the season to several weeks. Thus, each spawning population i s a d i s c r e t e unit of salmon biomass, accessible at any given point i n i t s migration f o r a li m i t e d time. - 190 -In many respects the salmon fisherman's dilemma p a r a l l e l s that of offshore cod and halibut fishermen, or fishermen anywhere. Despite the abundance of a p o t e n t i a l prey species, the s i t u a t i o n i s viewed by the predator within a l i m i t e d set of parameters. Fishing s o c i e t i e s i n general have few technological options. Their decision s t r a t e g i e s r e l a t e to where and when to place the gear, i n an on-going quest f o r elusive f i s h . The t r a d i t i o n a l Northwest Coast f i s h e r y , on the other hand, had developed diverse means of exp l o i t i n g the resource at distinguishable e c o l o g i c a l s i t e s , thus extending the range of p o t e n t i a l s i t e s . The a n a l y t i c construct that expresses the idea of r e s t r i c t i v e conditions should not obscure the empirical r e a l i t y that most Northwest Coast user-groups hatd access to very abundant salmon resources. At highly productive s i t e s i t i s probable that the only upper l i m i t on how many salmon a fisherman would take was his access to adequate labour to process the catch, p a r t i c u l a r l y since salmon must be processed within hours of being caught. Where major runs were exploited the problem was not whether there would be s u f f i c i e n t numbers of salmon i n the run, but how to capture as many as i t was f e a s i b l e to process and transport during the period they were a v a i l a b l e at the s i t e . Thus we return to our model of salmon resource as an e n t i t y of biomass moving through segments of space and time that presented opportunities to fishermen. What counted was the success r a t i o of control over these opportunities to extract the salmon resource. - 191 -2. Access to f i s h e r y locations In order to maintain an ascendant control over salmon resources dominant user-groups employed constraints on access to highly productive f i s h e r y s i t e s . We have seen many examples i n the evidence presented i n Part One of the a s s o c i a t i o n between resource ownership and produtive salmon technology complexes. Usually t h i s has taken one of two forms: ei t h e r use r i g h t s p ertain to p a r t i c u l a r f i s h e r y l o c a t i o n s , as i s the case with dip net stations, weir platforms, reef net loc a t i o n s , and s p e c i a l trap f a c i l i t i e s ; or else the general resource area where a salmon f i s h e r y operates i s delimited by r e -cognized r i g h t s of access. In the l a t t e r , a resource holding group would own an e n t i r e salmon stream and be free to place weirs or traps on i t at any s u i t a b l e place. In general terms, the more productive the f i s h e r y s i t e or the salmon technology c a p a b i l i t y , the greater the c o r r e l a t i o n to notions of ownership. But the e f f i c i e n c y of t r a d i t i o n a l systems of resource ex-p l o i t a t i o n i s not measured only i n i t s c a p a b i l i t i e s to produce winter storage foods. The d i v e r s i t y of salmon technology complexes made i t possible to have a f l e x i b l e program of food-gathering throughout an extended season. Many f i s h e r i e s operated to provide fresh salmon, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n spring and summer. T r o l l i n g , seining, trawling, spearing, and g a f f i n g f o r example, a l l were means of obtaining fresh foods at various times of the year. In addition, as mentioned above, t r a d i t i o n a l systems extended the range of possible resource locations by increasing the number of s i t e types where salmon could be obtained. - 192 -While some places were s o c i a l l y defined as seasonal resource areas where people dried and preserved t h e i r winter supplies, others were unre s t r i c t e d common reserves. The d i s t i n c t i o n s are not always c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e d i n ethnographic accounts. There are, however, enough s p e c i f i c references to allow us to make a preliminary a n a l y s i s . Sources agree that s a l t water salmon f i s h i n g grounds were usually i n the public domain.(Elmendorf:1960; Oberg:1973; Olson:1967; Suttles:1951). The people who l i v e d on the adjacent coast shared the resources of t h e i r inshore f i s h e r i e s . It i s of course improbable that anyone from another society outside the immediate v i c i n i t y would attempt to use the 'open access' areas since he would be perceived as an intruder. S t r a i t s and i n l e t s where fishermen t r o l l e d or trawled were apparently u n r e s t r i c t e d , as were the sheltered bays and coves where the harpoon was used. The p r i n c i p a l salmon r i v e r s on the Northwest Coast were not owned i n the sense that smaller r i v e r s and streams frequently were. The abundance of a v a i l a b l e salmon and the magnitude of the r i v e r made ownership claims e i t h e r unnecessary or inequitable, and impossible to sustain. Kew (1976) states that the lower course of the Fraser River was a v a i l a b l e to any Halkomelem f i s h i n g party, and that the productive trawling f i s h e r y i n the r i v e r was open access. In the north, the T l i n g i t shared access to important r i v e r s : - 193 -In places where a number of clans l i v e together, the a l l o c a t i o n of resources correlates very c l o s e l y with the p r i n c i p l e of s c a r c i t y . When a number of clans s e t t l e d on the banks of large r i v e r s , l i k e the S t i k i n e , Taku, and C h i l c a t , the question of r i g h t s to salmon f i s h i n g did not a r i s e . There was plenty for everyone i n the large r i v e r s . But on the islands the r i v e r s were smaller and the important ones f a r apart. It was thus necessary to apportion the resources i n some manner. (Oberg:1975:56) While the other references c i t e d are l e s s s p e c i f i c about ownership notions on the Skeena, Columbia, and Klamath, for example, i t seems l i k e l y that i n t h e i r lower courses such r i v e r s were un r e s t r i c t e d . Water resources most c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e d with user-rights include small i s l a n d or t r i b u t a r y streams with good salmon stocks, suitable f or the construction of weirs and traps (cf Donald & Mitchell:1975). Oberg continues h i s analysis with these remarks: The l o c a l clan units were of a s i z e to subsist on the supply of these smaller r i v e r s . In f a c t , there i s a very close c o r r e l a t i o n between the s i z e of the l o c a l clan units and t h e i r resources. Large clans often held a good-sized stream while the t r i b u t a r i e s were taken over by smaller clan d i v i s i o n s . (ibid) In reference to the same general area Olson (1967) placed le s s emphasis on the ownership of i n d i v i d u a l streams but distinguished between species of salmon stocks as the main c r i t e r i a . - 194 -Sockeye (red) salmon spawn only i n streams where there i s an accessible fresh water lake and such streams were considered of s p e c i a l worth. Dog salmon and humpback salmon spawn i n almost every stream and such places were regarded as hardly worth the trouble of claiming ownership. (p.12) The clans who owned sockeye streams would also consider the bay into which the stream debouched as part of t h e i r owned place (1967:55). Olson l i s t s many bays and i n l e t s by name, along with t h e i r corresponding streams and r i v e r s , as locati o n s owned by resource holding groups. S i m i l a r l y , on the Queen Charlotte Islands, the Haida people a l l o c a t e d a l l the important salmon streams to s p e c i f i c resource holding groups. Apparently everything was owned, c o a s t l i n e beaches, coves, and e n t i r e r i v e r s . ...the coast l i n e , and e s p e c i a l l y the various r i v e r s and streams are divided among the d i f f e r e n t f a m i l i e s . These t r a c t s are considered as s t r i c t l y personal property, and are hereditary r i g h t s or possessions, descending from one generation to another according to the ru l e of succession...the larger salmon streams are often the property j o i n t l y of a number of f a m i l i e s ; and at these autumn f i s h i n g grounds temporary houses...are generally found. (Dawson:1880:117-18) Dawson notes that payment f o r p r i v i l e g e s to f i s h i n the t e r r i t o r y of a group to whom one has no claim would be "exacted from a stranger" (p.136). Aside from claims to broad geographic areas, ownership notions are c l e a r l y associated i n the l i t e r a t u r e with s p e c i f i c resource s i t e s . Access to places where productive salmon technology complexes could be employed were usually c o n t r o l l e d by c e r t a i n groups of resource holders. - 195 -Included i n t h i s category are A-frame l i f t i n g net s i t e s on the Klamath and T r i n i t y Rivers, the dip net s i t e s at canyons on the Fraser, Skeena, and Columbia, s p e c i a l r i v e r mouth dip net adaptations on the lower Quinault and on Columbia t r i b u t a r i e s (cf. Ray:1938; Olson:1936). Since water features at dip net s i t e s are very s p e c i f i c they are n e c e s s a r i l y l i m i t e d by natural conditions. On the Klamath River sanctions on f i s h i n g below the riverbank s i t e owned by an i n d i v i d u a l were s t r i c t l y enforced. Yurok people could sue i f anyone t r i e d to i n t e r f e r e with the salmon runs below t h e i r dip netting locations (Kroeber:1925). For S t r a i t s S a l i s h people i t was reef net locati o n s that were considered the most valuable resource property; the p o t e n t i a l productive capacity of a reef net s i t e where Fraser-bound runs of sockeye and pink salmon could be intercepted was extremely high. Communal weirs were b u i l t on the Cowichan, Nanaimo, Chilliwack, Quinault, Quileute, Skokomish, Smith (Tolowa), Klamath and T r i n i t y Rivers, among others. The ethnographies vary i n t h e i r treatment of associated notions of ownership to community weirs; the evidence i s unclear for some groups. In general terms such weirs were constructed by members of the v i l l a g e community and those who helped i n i t s construction had the righ t to f i s h at the weir. Special r i g h t s resided i n the ownership of f i s h i n g platforms constructed as part of communal weirs. These were claimed by hereditary r i g h t , and maintained as family property. The evidence suggests that f i s h i n g from platforms on weirs was more e f f i c i e n t than spearing, gaffin g , and dip netting from canoes on the downriver side of the weir obstruction. Besides i t s increased e f f i c i e n c y , user r i g h t s to the platforms asserted the claim of the owning household group to status within the community. - 196 -3. Summary discussion In a s o c i a l system that emphasized the importance of wealth and status, productive resource locations were p r i v a t e l y held by corporate user-groups, usually a household based lineage association. As Suttles has s a i d : The ownership of f i s h i n g l o c a t i o n s , root beds, and clam beds gives r e a l material advantage. These s i t e s are l i m i t e d i n number, and usually the most productive ones for whatever product i s obtained there. While everyone can make a l i v i n g i n e x p l o i t i n g p u b l i c domain, the r e a l surpluses are produced at the owned locations and the owners thus have considerable advantage over the other members of the group. (1951:56) So while others s t i l l had plenty of salmon av a i l a b l e to them i n open access areas, they d i d not have the advantage of c o n t r o l l i n g the most productive resource areas. Economically dependant on biomass from a migrating species, dominant groups insured themselves against possible low-yield seasons. They c o n t r o l l e d s p e c i a l resource s i t e s where high production and f i s h i n g e f f i c i e n c y was more assured. The d i s p a r i t y between e l i t e s and commoners resides l e s s i n n u t r i t i o n a l terms than i n the capacity for.status v a l i d a t i o n and consolidation. Through constraints on access to productive resource loc a t i o n s , dominant s o c i a l groups maintained t h e i r ascendancy. Thus we can see that e c o l o g i c a l and s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s provided for a mutually re-enforcing r e l a t i o n : i f the resource i s viewed as.a 'limited good' which must be exploited within the natural constraints of the timing, - 197 -duration, and number of runs, then those groups that control the best production s i t e s are l i k e l y to have the greatest surplus of storage foods. Surplus can be converted within Northwest Coast exchange systems into slaves and c a p i t a l goods, and advantageous marriage a l l i a n c e s — a l l means of further economic power. Moreover, enhanced status p o s i t i o n s r e i n f o r c e the dominant lineage groups as 'those who have much to give'. And, i n Northwest Coast terms, that i s the c r i t e r i a of status confirmation. - 198 -PART THREE — SALMON RESOURCE UTILIZATION: a mul t i - f a c t o r analysis C. Summary Analysis An assumption made early i n t h i s study was that salmon f i s h i n g i n p r e - c o l o n i a l Northwest Coast s o c i e t i e s could be viewed as a system of i n t e r r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s . When data on salmon f i s h i n g techniques are treated independently of other f i s h i n g and sea mammal hunting methods, a pattern emerges that can be used as a basis of comparison for a l l ethnic d i v i s i o n s on the coast. The nature of the salmon resource i s characterized by regular and recurring spawning migrations into fresh water areas within the t e r r i t o r y of each coastal society. Systems of salmon production co r r e l a t e with s p e c i f i c features of the water resources a v a i l a b l e to any given resource holding group or user-group. If each f i s h e r y s i t e type i s examined i n d e t a i l the s i g n i f i c a n c e of micro-ecological v a r i a t i o n becomes evident. The r e p e r t o i r e of salmon technology complexes on the Northwest Coast was extensive. Methods of resource u t i l i z a t i o n were developed i n c o a s t a l s o c i e t i e s to f i t the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of av a i l a b l e water resources and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of salmon species. The economic advantages made possible by h i g h - y i e l d salmon resources were f u l l y exploited by Northwest Coast peoples. Their complex s o c i a l forms and material well-being were contingent on r e l a t i v e l y predictable sources of salmon abundance, and on the p o t e n t i a l for surplus. Because of the extent and d i v e r s i t y of salmon technology complexes, e f f i c i e n t resource u t i l i z a t i o n was f e a s i b l e . - 199 -In.this f i n a l section, I seek to examine the s i g n i f i c a n c e of multiform modes of salmon production h o l i s t i c a l l y . Consideration i s directed to patterns of s i m i l a r i t y and divergence i n the d i s -t r i b u t i o n of salmon technology complexes and to i n t e r r e g i o n a l com-parisons. The broad geographic continuum of the Northwest Coast culture area with i t s d i v e r s i t y of s o c i a l forms and languages had a shared economic dependency on P a c i f i c salmon resources. At f i s h e r y locations i n i n l e t s , bays, estuaries, r i v e r s and streams throughout the Northwest Coast i t i s apparent that a knowledge of te c h n i c a l p r i n c i p l e s on which were based systems of resource u t i l i z a t i o n was general. For th i s reason i t i s possible to compare and evaluate salmon f i s h e r i e s i n the region as a whole. The notion of salmon technology complexes was generated by the evidence of my comparative research, and by the conceptual frame-work that informed i t . By formulating a model of i n t e r a c t i n g v a r i a b l e s to describe the processes of resource u t i l i z a t i o n , i t was possible to define the c r i t e r i a of each productive type, despite ethnic v a r i a b i l i t y . Within the t e r r i t o r i a l boundaries of each ethnic d i v i s i o n there were a range of a v a i l a b l e water resources — places where salmon f i s h e r i e s occurred. For some groups the range was l i m i t e d , perhaps only two or three productive l o c a t i o n types. Others had broader choices; t h e i r decisions about how to a l l o c a t e t h e i r time and labour e f f o r t had reference to a wider set of va r i a b l e s . To examine d i f f erences ::in resource u t i l i z a t i o n we must f i r s t d i s t i n g u i s h v a r i a t i o n s within an ethnic d i v i s i o n from v a r i a t i o n s between d i v i s i o n s . - 200 -Within each ethnic d i v i s i o n , here treated as a single u n i t , there was considerable d i v e r s i t y . The resources a v a i l a b l e to any s p e c i f i e d user-group within the society were dependent on factors of geographic l o c a t i o n , kinship a f f i l i a t i o n , access to named or owned resource loc a t i o n s , a v a i l a b i l i t y of labour, and seasonality of salmon runs. A proper assessment of the deployment of production energies for s p e c i f i e d user-groups would need to account for a l l these fa c t o r s , and more. To do close study of a p a r t i c u l a r t e r r i t o r y , or sub-area within a t e r r i t o r y , one would include an inventory of a l l the a v a i l a b l e water resources and important salmon runs and then evaluate known stra t e g i e s of resource production, or predict the s e l e c t i o n of salmon technology complexes. The scope of the present study makes i t necessary to treat a l l the speakers of a language as a u n i t , and to look at the inventory of salmon f i s h i n g methods not of the si n g l e corporate group, or clan, but of the whole society, even while recognizing that i t i s u n l i k e l y any user-group had access to a l l p o t e n t i a l resource l o c a t i o n types. As a r e s u l t , to compare T l i n g i t and Halkomelem, or the Quinault and Yurok, we must i n f e r a generalized i d e a l . 1. Interregional comparisons A l l Northwest Coast ethnic groups had access to fresh water resources of some kind. It i s u n l i k e l y that any l o c a l user-groups were exempt. Even low ranking s o c i a l groups who may or may not have been excluded from the more productive salmon f i s h e r i e s close to t h e i r - 201 -winter v i l l a g e s , would have had streams to which they t r a v e l l e d i n season. Only two groups were reported to depend more on marine resources f o r salmon production, than on fresh water streams. The Makah took most of t h e i r salmon supplies by t r o l l i n g the inshore f i s h e r y i n the S t r a i t s of Juan de Fuca. This, at l e a s t , i s the assessment made by Swan, and i t i s probably accurate for the early nineteenth century. It may be that at an e a r l i e r period when greater numbers of Makah l i v e d at Ozette v i l l a g e , on the P a c i f i c coast, the resources of Ozette River (and Ozette Lake) were more f u l l y exploited. Four species run i n t h i s stream, including sockeye (but not pink salmon). The Hoko River which runs into the S t r a i t s has been a t r a d i t i o n a l salmon producing stream for the Makah for many centuries (Croes:1980). Thus while the Makah had very l i m i t e d freshwater resources compared to other language groups, they were not dependent e n t i r e l y on the sea. It should also be noted here that the Makah are the only Northwest Coast society that depended more on maritime species, cod and ha l i b u t , than on salmon resources. The S t r a i t s S a l i s h are the other maritime-dependent group; most of S t r a i t s salmon production derived from the reef net f i s h e r i e s that operated at various locations throughout the area contingent to the chief migratory path of Fraser-bound sockeye and pink salmon. By tapping the resources of t h i s abundant supply of salmon, S t r a i t s people were les s dependent on t h e i r t e r r i t o r i a l freshwater resources; nevertheless, a d i v e r s i f i e d s a l t and fresh water salmon f i s h e r y extended the seasonal a v a i l a b i l i t y of the resource, and made chinook, coho, and chum accessible. - 202 -A l l other Northwest Coast s o c i e t i e s were dependent more upon r i v e r i n e salmon production f o r t h e i r primary storage foods than upon maritime supplies ( 8 ) . The present study has demonstrated the d i v e r s i t y of types of fresh water locations and the v a r i a b i l i t y of salmon abundance from one r i v e r system to another. A d i v i s i o n of types concerning only the broadest considerations i s given here to f a c i l i t a t e i n t e r r e g i o n a l comparisons. There are major ranking r i v e r s , the Nass, Skeena, Fraser and Columbia systems; second ranking r i v e r s which include among others the B e l l a Coola and Klamath basins; and two a d d i t i o n a l categories. The f i r s t of these are r i v e r s that produce unusually large runs of salmon despite t h e i r r e l a t i v e s i z e ; the Quinault i s an example. F i n a l l y , there i s the category of independent s t r e a m s — often short coastal r i v e r s , i s l a n d r i v e r s , etc. — that produce salmon resources which come within average ranges for 'major' stocks, according to INPFC estimates. Every Northwest Coast society would have r e l i e d on one, and occasionally more, of these categories f o r i t s primary production of salmon resources. a) major r i v e r s : The advantages that obtained to r i v e r i n e communities with access to the most productive Northwest Coast resource areas have already been elaborated. People who l i v e d i n the lower courses of major r i v e r s could intercept runs bound f o r streams at higher l e v e l s , thereby tapping the abundance of the en t i r e watershed system. The occurrence of coincident runs of various species and stocks provided lower r i v e r people with an extended period of time to e x p l o i t the resource; from June to November s e r i a l and concurrent runs of salmon migrated through t h e i r f i s h e r i e s . In the Nass and - 203 -Skeena Rivers the season ends i n l a t e September - early October. Because of the nature of salmon populations, including the depensatory and compensatory c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that a f f e c t the s i z e of spawning stocks, major r i v e r systems i n t h e i r lower concourse are les s sus-ce p t i b l e to resource v a r i a t i o n ( 9). In addition to the abundant salmon resources a v a i l a b l e i n the main part of the r i v e r , user-groups also had access to the resources.in t r i b u t a r y streams and r i v e r s . There i s a c o r r e l a t i o n between high resource a v a i l a b i l i t y and the number of salmon technology complexes used: thus, Halkomelem people - 10; Tsimshian people - 11; and the Chinook, who had no access to a maritime f i s h e r y i n the open P a c i f i c , used 6 out o f a possible 9. The Chinook unlike the Halkomelem and Tsimshian,. r e l i e d on one salmon technology complex as a primary production system: the seine (10). Salmon abundance on the Fraser and Skeena, and possibly on the Nass, as w e l l , was exploited i n a broader range of resource loc a t i o n s . b) secondary r i v e r s : Watershed areas next i n rank supported large resident populations oriented to r i v e r i n e systems of production. The Chilkat, B e l l a Coola^Atnarko, and Klamath-Trinity are representative examples i n the l i t e r a t u r e . A l l three areas had important salmon runs. The Chilkat was a major producer of sockeye salmon. A l l f i v e species were present i n the B e l l a Coola River i n numbers f a r superior to most parts of the coast; of s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t i s the fact that the B e l l a Coola was the centre of abundance for chinook salmon i n c e n t r a l B r i t i s h Columbia. S i m i l a r l y , chinook salmon was the p r i n c i p a l resource i n the Klamath system. Two major 'races' entered the r i v e r each year, an early and a l a t e run. It i s d i f f i c u l t now to reconstruct - 204 -the s i z e of past runs i n the Klamath. At present there i s an escape-ment i n excess of 50,000 (e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y high for t h i s species), although dams and hy d r o e l e c t r i c projects have been constructed i n the upper reaches of the system. Three language groups, the Yurok, Karok, and Hupa, shared the salmon resources of the Klamath (.11). The season f o r chinook and coho extended over a six-month period from l a t e A p r i l - early May to l a t e October, but apparently there were few, i f any, runs i n early summer. This i s somewhat longer than the B e l l a Coola River which had an i n -tensive four-month f i s h e r y with a l l f i v e species present i n a combination of s e r i a l and overlapping runs. Farther north, i n the Chilkat River, sockeye and chum salmon ran mainly i n July and August. Both Chilkat and B e l l a Coola fishermen also had access to a s a l t water salmon f i s h e r y and to other nearby streams, i n d i c a t i n g a greater d i v e r s i t y of resource p o t e n t i a l than the people of the Klamath basin. c) coastal r i v e r s as centres of species abundance: Many smaller r i v e r s carry an exceptionally large spawning population, of a p a r t i c u l a r species while supporting only average s i z e runs of other species. Where these centres of abundance occur i t appears that one of two things tended to happen: either people s e t t l e d i n the r i v e r v a l l e y and i t s adjacent areas and regula r l y exploited the l o c a l runs to obtain t h e i r staple foods, i n which case the population of the language group probably s t a b i l i z e d and remained r e l a t i v e l y small; or else people moved to a productive resource area seasonally to exploit the large runs, and then moved on to other resource areas, i n which case a d i f f u s e d settlement pattern and an expanded human population could occur f o r a s p e c i f i e d language group. - 205 -In the southern ha l f of the Northwest Coast culture area the option to expand and d i v e r s i f y was considerably more l i m i t e d than i n the northern h a l f . There was no p o s s i b i l i t y of a maritime f i s h e r y , e i t h e r f or salmon or non-salmon species. There were no off-shore islands to s e t t l e on; and no inland expansion was possible because the l i t t l e c oastal r i v e r s took t h e i r source from mountain ranges near shore. Clustered around every important salmon r i v e r was an independent language group u t i l i z i n g weir technology. In an a r t i c l e e n t i t l e d " H i s t o r i c Perspectives i n Indian Languages of Oregon and Washington", Jacobs (1937) remarks there were 24 or 25 mutually u n i n t e l l i g i b l e languages west of the Cascades. Raising the question, what processes were operative? Jacobs states: The Oregon-Washington beachline seems inte r p r e t a b l e as one t h i n and long region of f a i r l y f i xed coastal language enclaves which have survived from e a r l i e r times i n economically well-supplied l o c a l i t i e s . (1937:55) On the Oregon coast three r i v e r s supported coho runs that exceeded 50,000 escapement (mult.reg. 0.71): they are the Nehalam River (Tillamook), D r i f t Creek and the Alsea River (Alsean), and a resource area c a l l e d Ten Mile Lakes at mid-point between the Umpqua and Coos Rivers (Siuslaw and Coosan?). Whether the l a t t e r centre of abundance served the needs of people both to the north and south, or only one or the other language group, i s information that because of the nature of Oregon Coast ethnography i s not a v a i l a b l e (12). - 206 -Weir technology on the Quinault and Quileute Rivers has previously been mentioned. The run of sockeye salmon i n the Quinault River i s exceptional not only because of i t s abundance (over 50,000 escapement: x 7.88) but i t s timing (and, Swan would have added, the s u p e r i o r i t y of i t s f l a v o u r ) . On most parts of the coast, sockeye runs appear i n l a t e summer; but i n the Quinault the "bluebacks" come i n spring between A p r i l and June when i t i s possible to operate weirs before the freshets swell the r i v e r . It i s the only place reported i n the ethnographies where large communal weirs were constructed e s p e c i a l l y to take sockeye salmon. The Quileute does not have sockeye runs but weirs were used f o r f a l l runs of chinook and other species. Sockeye populations i n the north are supported mainly by the Nass, Skeena, and Fraser systems, and by a large run i n the B e l l a Coola, as has been mentioned. Next i n importance i s the River's Inlet sockeye producing area (13) , a system of ten r i v e r s i n the v i c i n i t y of Owikeno Lake each supporting large runs. This large lake i s j u s t a few short miles from the sea, a s i t u a t i o n unique on the coast. Most lakes near coastal areas are nutrient-poor, unable to support sockeye populations; but Owikeno i s the exception; i t i s s u f f i c i e n t l y n u t r i e n t - r i c h to sustain food resources for m i l l i o n s of young f r y . The t e r r i t o r y was exploited by Heiltsuk people (N. Kwakiutl) who l i v e d i n coastal v i l l a g e s on the islands and shores of the i n l e t s . The Southern Kwakiutl had a sockeye r i v e r that exceeded the 50-100 range (14)> the Nimpkish River i n Johnstone S t r a i t . They also had two, Smokehouse Creek and Canoe River, i n the 20-50 range. There were only three other r i v e r s of t h i s s i z e i n B r i t i s h Columbia: - 207 -Copper Creek i n the Queen Charlottes (Haida: Skidegate); K i t l o p e River (N. Kwakiutl); and Somass River system on the west coast of Vancouver Island (Nootka). In Alaska, i n addition to the large sockeye run already mentioned i n the Chilkat River, the Taku River and two other streams i n Behm Canal had sockeye runs i n excess of 50,000. S i m i l a r l y , chinook producing streams with extraordinary : abundance are quite l i m i t e d i n number. Again the Nimpkish system appears as a leading salmon r i v e r with an escapement value of 10-20 (mult.reg. 0.96), along with two other streams: the K l i n a k l i n i (S. Kwakiutl) and the Squamish (N. Gulf S a l i s h ) . A t r i b u t a r y of the Fraser, the Harrison, i s i n the same rank. Accurate estimates for chinook r i v e r s i n the south are not included i n the INPFC 1967 report. There are natural l i m i t a t i o n s on the number of p o t e n t i a l resource areas with excessive abundance, once the f i v e or s i x major salmon producing r i v e r systems are disregarded. Therefore, the advantages enjoyed by those who occupied the lower concourse of each major Northwest Coast r i v e r were not widely shared. Other language groups with large populations were dispersed generally over a larger t e r r i t o r y , e x p l o i t i n g d i v e r s i f i e d salmon f i s h e r i e s . Whether or not they had access to one of the r i c h e r resource areas, they were l e s s oriented to a r i v e r i n e economy. Exceptions are the southern groups along the Washington and Oregon coasts each of whom occupied r i v e r systems of a comparable siz e and resource p o t e n t i a l . The few Oregon groups who had larger runs, those mentioned i n t h i s section, may have had a more intensive f i s h e r y at fewer s i t e s than those who exploited l e s s productive r i v e r s and streams. - 208 -d) independent streams: F i n a l l y , we w i l l consider the broad category of i s l a n d r i v e r s and independent mainland streams where 'major' spawning populations occur within the normal range for each species (15). For the B r i t i s h Columbia part of the Northwest Coast the number of r i v e r s i n t h i s category has been calculated (see Table IX ). In addition to these moderate siz e runs there would be numerous smaller spawning populations that might be exploited. The salmon resources from independent streams were e s p e c i a l l y important to i s l a n d populations and coastal communities at i n l e t s on the north coast. Mainly af f e c t e d were the Haida, most T l i n g i t d i v i s i o n s , and the people of the west coast of Vancouver Island (Nootka). The Northern Kwakiutl, Southern Kwakiutl, and Northern Gulf S a l i s h also u t i l i z e d the resources of independent streams; however, they had greater access to centres of species abundance i n other locations and appear to have had a more d i v e r s i f i e d f i s h e r y . Coast Tsimshian people l i v i n g on the offshore islands would also be included i n t h i s category. Island people l i k e the Haida, T l i n g i t , and Nootka obtained the bulk of t h e i r salmon supplies, apparently, through the use of s i m i l a r s t r a t e g i e s . In each society small resource holding groups dispersed to the streams they owned to e x p l o i t the salmon runs. Their f a m i l i a r i t y with the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the salmon stocks supported by these streams would enable them to schedule t h e i r labour e f f o r t s to correspond to the peak period of each run. Groups may have been able to e x p l o i t several adjacent streams i n t h i s way, depending how close together the timing of runs occurred. - 209 -TABLE IX INDEPENDENT STREAMS The number of salmon streams i n B r i t i s h Columbia to support spawning populations that f a l l within normal ranges f o r 'major' stocks, by species. Sockeye Pink Chum Coho Chinook odd even 45 56 56 81 154 82 Figures obtained by disregarding the upper values indicated i n frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n table (berringer) f o r r i v e r s :: spawning population ranges (cf Appendix I I ) . - 210 -In the Queen Charlottes, Haida people r e l i e d p r i n c i p a l l y on ": f a l l runs of chum salmon to provide storage foods. The T l i n g i t also u t i l i z e d chum extensively; most runs i n the archipelago occurring i n l a t e summer, together with large runs of pink salmon. On the west coast of Vancouver Island, streams that support chum salmon are very common; the occurrence of runs i s usually i n autumn. Chum salmon populations t y p i c a l l y s e l e c t spawning grounds no more than a few miles from the sea. The runs are widely dispersed i n hundreds of coastal streams. In the Queen Charlottes and the west coast of Vancouver Island, the other species that occurs l a t e i n the season, with runs i n numerous r i v e r s , i s coho. Runs of coho salmon could be exploited by some user-groups i n the same seasonal period as chum. Weirs, traps, harpoons, and gaffs were the p r i n c i p a l salmon technology complexes used i n independent streams. The Northern Kwakiutl, Southern Kwakiutl, and Northern Gulf S a l i s h groups had r i v e r s running into i n l e t s and channels along the roughly i r r e g u l a r shoreline; t y p i c a l l y , short mainland r i v e r s coming out of the mountains. Numerous streams support runs of chum, coho, and pink stocks (16). The control of these resource areas would a f f o r d l o c a l user-groups a degree of f l e x i b i l i t y when planning f i s h i n g a c t i v i t i e s . A comparison of salmon technology complexes f or the s i x ethnic d i v i s i o n s mentioned i n t h i s section indicates that they a l l may be characterized as d i v e r s i f i e d fishermen. It i s the l a t t e r three who are more commonly referred to i n t h i s way i n general Northwest Coast accounts, perhaps because t h e i r o r i e n t a t i o n to the - 211 -sea i s more obv ious . However, the three i s l a n d d i v i s i o n s a l s o u t i l i z e d a wide range of t e c hno l o g i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s i n the salmon f i s h e r y . The number of salmon technology complexes used i s as f o l l o w s : Haida - 8; T l i n g i t - 7; Nor thern Kwak iu t l - 7; Nootka - 7; Southern Kwak iu t l - 6; Nor thern Gu l f S a l i s h - 9. These Northern and Wakashan groups, and the va r i ous S a l i s h language speakers l i v i n g a t the nor thern end of the Gu l f of Geo rg i a , u t i l i z e d systems of e x p l o i t a t i o n tha t extended over a range of p o t e n t i a l salmon f i s h e r y s i t e s . The ownership of i n d i v i d u a l r i v e r s and streams w i t h moderate ly l a r ge salmon popu la t i ons e s t ab l i s hed a c l o se r e l a t i o n between the f i sherman and the resource he e x p l o i t e d . V a r i a t i o n s i n runs would be q u i c k l y d i s c e rned . A resource owner f a m i l i a r w i t h the nature of the salmon s tocks he u t i l i z e d would recogn i ze a below-average y i e l d as i t o c cu r red , and be ab l e to p l an a l t e r n a t e s t r a t e g i e s such as moving to another resource a r ea . As always w i t h Northwest Coast f i shermen, i t was important to be a t the r i g h t p l a ce a t the r i g h t time to e x p l o i t the peak .of a salmon run . D ispersed user-groups w i t h access to salmon resources i n s eve r a l streams would be l e s s vu l ne r ab l e to run f a i l u r e s and n a t u r a l occurrences tha t d i s r u p t salmon popu l a t i on s . As a r e s u l t , where there i s a dependency on one b i o t i c element, i n t h i s case , the anadromous salmon, those who c o n t r o l a d i v e r s i f i e d resource base have an obvious advantage. - 212 -2. Aggregate of Complementary Systems In the preceding section, the r e c i p r o c a l r e l a t i o n s of the v a r i a b l e s that have been discussed were recast to a f f o r d an i n t e r -r e g i onal comparison of Northwest Coast t r a d i t i o n a l salmon production s t r a t e g i e s . Attention focussed on the p a r t i c u l a r s of several sets of v a r i a b l e s i n order to assess and evaluate the t o t a l complement of technical systems. Since no s i n g l e ethnic d i v i s i o n had resource areas so diverse that a l l twelve salmon technology complexes could be u t i l i z e d , the s i g n i f i c a n c e of these d i s t i n c t features at f i s h e r y s i t e s was highlighted. The evidence denoted a q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e i n the types of resource l o c a t i o n s a v a i l a b l e to people who occupied d i s s i m i l a r areas, for example, the Masset Haida and the Halkomelem S a l i s h . Because t h e i r r i v e r s were smaller, i s l a n d e r s exploited the salmon resource at dispersed l o c a t i o n s , whereas coastal mainlanders, with access to large salmon runs i n the major r i v e r s , concentrated t h e i r f i s h i n g a c t i v i t i e s at fewer s i t e s . Differences i n the length of the salmon season were also s i g n i f i c a n t . Island streams with several spawning populations of salmon must be f i s h e d within the time constraints of peak migrations. On the other hand, major drainage basin systems i n which s e r i a l and overlapping runs occured throughout an extended season, allowed user groups greater f l e x i b i l i t y to tap into the resource as i t suited them. Many examples of the v a r i a b l e nature of Northwest Coast salmon a c c e s s i b i l i t y have been given i n the course of t h i s study. - 213 -The peoples of the P a c i f i c coast inhabited an environment r i c h i n water resources. Factors of climate and geography combined to produce conditions perhaps unparalleled elsewhere i n an area of comparable s i z e . Rivers and streams flowed copiously i n the t e r r i t o r i e s of each language group, seldom i f ever running dry even i n the warmest months of the year. Many people had maritime access or occupied areas contiguous to brackish waters; the b i o t i c reserves of marine, estuarine, and r i v e r i n e e c o l o g i c a l niches each offered a separate set of resource opportunities. Salmon and other anadromous species were seasonally a v a i l a b l e i n a l l these zones, the annual v a r i a b i l i t y of abundance notwithstanding. Whereas i n other parts of the world humans sought out f e r t i l e land areas i n which to s e t t l e , Northwest Coast peoples discovered the teeming waters of the coastal rim. I t i s notable that water resources were not c e n t r a l i z e d i n a few v a l l e y s , but widely d i s t r i b u t e d throughout the region. As a r e s u l t , a c c e s s i b i l i t y to resource areas was decentralized and dispersed among productive salmon streams and inshore f i s h e r y s i t e s i n every part of the coast. The economic s i g n i f i c a n c e of salmon exceeded i t s obvious n u t r i t i o n a l importance as a staple food. In the prestige system of Northwest Coast s o c i e t i e s , salmon had a 'constant value'. I t was not a commodity, subject to f l u c t u a t i o n s i n p r i c e and competition, as i s the case with f i s h i n market economies. Rather i t was a fundamental source of wealth. As previously indicated, surplus salmon could be converted through complex s o c i a l and ceremonial systems of exchange - 214 -into any of a number of things that denoted conspicuous wealth and status. Those who could assemble s u f f i c i e n t q uantities of salmon to host the ceremonial feasts and provide g i f t s f o r many guests, t y p i c a l l y held higher ranking p o s i t i o n s i n the society. In the exchange system of f e a s t s , they received status confirmation and the v a l i d a t i o n of claims to non-corporeal and corporeal property. Therefore, salmon i n the s o c i a l system of the Northwest Coast had an i n t r i n s i c value since access : was the key, ul t i m a t e l y , to power and prestige. I have suggested that the dominant va r i a b l e s i n the f i s h e r y model were those re l a t e d to the nature of the prey. The annual or b i e n n i a l migration back to the spawning stream of o r i g i n , a s i g n i f i c a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the anadromous salmon; occurs as a regular event, each genetic stock i n i t s own season. The fishermen of the Northwest Coast planned t h e i r resource use strategies to coincide with recurring salmon runs. Members of each l o c a l user-group knew the resource p o t e n t i a l of salmon f i s h i n g s i t e s i n t h e i r t e r r i t o r y . They knew when the important runs of each species would occur, and approximately how long the peak of a run would l a s t . Through the use of s e l e c t i v e systems of production, defined i n t h i s study as salmon technology complexes, and by organizing the necessary labour both to produce and preserve the catch, fishermen intercepted the runs of c e r t a i n stocks en route to natal streams. As I demonstrated i n the a n a l y s i s , salmon are thus extracted at each time and space segment of the run through which they pass. The greater the number of a v a i l a b l e f i s h e r y s i t e s , the greater the advantage to resource users. - 2 1 5 -In conclusion, the ethnographic record contains many examples of how Northwest Coast fishermen used as many parts of the biosphere as possible to procure salmon. An objective of t h i s study has been to assemble these data and examine them i n the context of s p e c i f i e d e c o l o g i c a l , s o c i a l , and technological components. The model transformed some common aspects of the f i s h e r y into abstract categories but displayed a c a p a b i l i t y to return when required to the empirical case. Thus i t was possible to analyze the nature of the t r a d i t i o n a l f i s h e r y and describe the i n t e r r e l a t i o n of variables within several paradigmatic arrangements. As a r e s u l t , ethnographic examples of d i v e r s i t y have provided evidence for my conclusion that the t r a d i t i o n a l f i s h e r y was a r a t i o n a l i z e d system i n which production e f f o r t s were organized and integrated to exploit 'the"salmon resource e f f i c i e n t l y . , The concept of salmon technology complexes was formulated for t h i s study to provide a model of i n t e r a c t i n g v a r i a b l e s that would c l a r i f y the c r i t e r i a of each salmon production system. I s h a l l conclude with the proposition that my comparative analysis of the fundamental p r i n c i p l e s i n salmon resource ecology and technology i n t r a d i t i o n a l s o c i e t i e s of the Northwest Coast establishes a base l i n e on which to construct future economic studies. - 216 -PART THREE Footnotes 1 See p.154 for an analysis of the reef net complex using other comparative c r i t e r i a . 2 Both harpoons and gaffs were also used further upstream. 3 In t h i s section, 'traps' r e f e r s only to Traps I (pp.85..), not to the more s p e c i a l i z e d Traps II which are treated i n the next section. 4 Five fundamental designs are described i n Traps I. 5 Refer to Weirs (pp.75..) for f u l l e r d e t a i l . 6 Weir panels were removed to permit escapement when people were not a c t i v e l y f i s h i n g . 7 cf Cox:1957 (1831); Franchere:1854; Ross:1849; Howay:1941. 8 Dawson (1880) and Murdock (1936) suggest that maritime species, p a r t i c u l a r l y h a l i b u t , ranked equally with salmon i n importance to the Haida. If t h i s i s the case, then the Haida and Makah both are anomalous; a l l other s o c i e t i e s depended p r i n c i p a l l y on salmon supplies. 9 Kew (1976) was f i r s t to observe the i n t e r r e l a t i o n of a l l these factors i n a paper on salmon resource a v a i l a b i l i t y i n the Fraser watershed. 10 Had Lower Chinook data not been treated separately from Wishram, the r e s u l t s would be d i f f e r e n t . Dip net production at the Columbia River canyons probably r i v a l l e d or exceeded seine net production i n the estuary. 11 Kroeber and Barrett (1960) include d i s t r i b u t i o n maps for each aspect of f i s h i n g technology both for these and neighbouring language groups. 12 The area i s very close to a t r i b u t a r y of the Coos River, possibly within Coosan t e r r i t o r y . 13 This area i s more properly r e f e r r e d to as Owikeno and Long Lakes, t r i b u t a r i e s to Rivers Inlet and Smith Inlet r e s p e c t i v e l y . The two races of sockeye intermingle i n ,>. inshore waters (INPFC:1967:232). - 217 -(in thousands) Averages over twelve years for the Nimpkish: 5 y_ears greater than 100; 7 years 50-100 range (7.88 x). For the sake of b r e v i t y , and because of unique b i o t i c and geophysical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Puget Sound lowlands, I have not counted r i v e r s of that area i n t h i s reckoning (cf Mitchell:1971). Abundant runs of even-year pink salmon run i n the streams of the Queen Charlottes. - 218 -BIBLIOGRAPHY Andersen, Raoul, and Wadel, Cato, eds. 1972 North A t l a n t i c Fishermen: Anthropological Essays on Modern Fishing. Newfoundland S o c i a l and Economic Papers No. 5. I n s t i t u t e of S o c i a l and Economic Research, Memorial Un i v e r s i t y of Newfoundland. A n e l l , Bengt 1955 Contributions to the History of Fishing i n the Southern Seas. Studia Ethnographica Upsaliensia 9. Uppsala. Aro, K.V., and Shepard, M.P. 1967 P a c i f i c Salmon i n Canada. Spawning Populations of North P a c i f i c  Salmon: B u l l e t i n No. 23v Vancouver: International North P a c i f i c F i s h e r i e s Commission. American Friends Service Commission 1970 Uncommon Controversy: Fishing Rights of the Muckleshoot,  Puyallup, and Nisqually Indians. S e a t t l e : U n i v e r s i t y of Washington Press. Atkinson, C.E., Rose, J.H., and Duncan, T.O. 1967 P a c i f i c Salmon i n the United States. Spawning Populations of  North P a c i f i c Salmon: B u l l e t i n No. 23. Vancouver: Inter-national North P a c i f i c F i s h e r i e s Commission. Barbeau, C. Marius 1917 Review of Boas' "Tsimshian Mythology". American Anthropologist 19 (4):548-563. Menasha. 1930 An Indian Paradise Lost. Canadian Geographical Journal 1:2 (June 1930). 132-148. Barnett, H. G. 1937 Culture Element D i s t r i b u t i o n s 7: Oregon Coast. Anthropological  Records 1:3. Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press. 1939 Culture Element D i s t r i b u t i o n s 9: Gulf of Georgia S a l i s h . Anthropological Records 1:5. Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press. 1955 The Coast S a l i s h of B r i t i s h Columbia. Eugene: Uni v e r s i t y of Oregon Press. Barth, F. 1959 Segmentary Opposition and the Theory of Games: A Study of Pathan Organization. Journal of the Royal Anthropological I n s t i t u t e 89: 5-21. - 219 -Barth, F. 1968 E c o l o g i c a l Relationships of Ethnic Groups i n Swat, North Pakistan. Environment and C u l t u r a l Behavior, A.Vayda-, ed. New York: Natural History Press. Bennyhoff, J.A. 1950 C a l i f o r n i a F i s h Spears and Harpoons. Anthropological Records  9:4. Berkeley: Un i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press. Bennett, M. 1973 Indian Fishing and Its C u l t u r a l Importance i n the Fraser River  System. Vancouver: Published j o i n t l y by the Dept. of the Environment and the Union of B. C. Indian Chiefs. Berringer, P. (1976) Notes on Salmon Abundance i n the Fraser River System, (unpub. paper prepared for Fraser Watershed seminar) Univ e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia von Bertalanffy, L^.' .. 1973 General Systems Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, orig.pub. 1968. New York: George B r a z i l l e r . Boas, Franz 1890 The Lkungen. Report on the North-western Tribes of Canada 6^11-30. B r i t i s h Assoc. for the Advancement of Science. 1894 The Indian Tribes of the Lower Fraser River. Report on the North-western Tribes of Canada 9. B r i t i s h Assoc. for the Advancement of Science. 1897 The So c i a l Organization and Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl Indians. Reports of the United States National Museum (1895). Washington, pp.318-737 1909 The Kwakiutl of Vancouver Island. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History 8:2. New York: Stechert. pp.301-522. 1916 Tsimshain Mythology. Bureau of American Ethnology 31. Washington, pp.29-1037. 1921 Ethnology of the Kwakiutl, based on data c o l l e c t e d by George Hunt. Bureau of American Ethnology 35. Washington, pp.1-600 (2 v o l s ) . - 220 -Boas, Franz 1923 Notes on the Tillamook. American Archaeology and Ethnology  20:1. Berkeley. U n i v s e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Publications. 1934 Geographical Names of the Kwakiutl Indians. Columbia University  Contributions to Anthropology 20. New York: AMS Press. 1966 Kwakiutl Ethnography, H:„Codere, ed. Chicago and London: Univ e r s i t y of Chicago Press. Borden, Charles, E. 1975 Origins and Development of Early Northwest Coast Culture to About 3000 B.C. Archaeological Survey of Canada. Paper 45. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada. Carlson, R. L. 1970 Archaeology i n B r i t i s h Columbia. B. C. Studies 6 and 7; Vancouver: University of B r i t i s h Columbia Press. Casteel, R.W., and Quimby, G.I., eds. 197 Maritime Adaptations of the P a c i f i c . The Hague and P a r i s : Mouton Publishers. C o l l i n s , June M. 1969 John Fornsby: The Personal Document of a Coast S a l i s h .Indian. Indians of the Urban Northwest, M. Smith, ed. New York: AMS Press. 1974 Valley of the S p i r i t s : The Upper Skagit Indians of Western Washington. Seattle and London. U n i v e r s i t y of Washington Press. Colson, Elizabeth 1953 The Makah Indians: A Study of an Indian Tribe i n Modern American Society. Manchester: Manchester Uni v e r s i t y Press. Cook, James, and King, James, 1784 A Voyage to the P a c i f i c Ocean ... i n His Majesty's Ships the  "Resolution" and the "Discovery". 3 v o l s . London: G. N i c o l and T. Cadell. Cox, Bruce 1973 C u l t u r a l Ecology. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. Cox, Ross. 1957 The Columbia River: or scenes and adventures during a residence  of s i x years on the western side of the Rocky Mountains among  various t r i b e s of Indians hitherto unknown. Orig. pub. 1831. Norman, Oklahoma: Uni v e r s i t y of Oklahoma Press. - 221 -Croes, Dale R., ed. 1976 The Excavation of Water-Saturated Archaeological Sites (Wet Sites) on the Northwest Coast of North America. Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper 50. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada. 1980. Hoko River: A 2500 Year Old Fishing Camp on the Northwest Coast of North America. Laboratory of Anthropology. Reports of  Investigations 58. Seattle: Washington State U n i v e r s i t y . C u r t i s , Edward S. 1916 The North American Indian: Vol. 11: Haida. Seattle; and Cambridge, Mass: Uni v e r s i t y Press. (Reprinted by Johnson Reprint, 19701) pp.113-173, 186-193, 204-210. Dal l y , F. n.d. Document and l e t t e r s 1862-1870 (unpublished). B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l Archives. Davenport, William 1960 Jamaican Fishing: A Game Theory Analysis. Yale University  Publications i n Anthropology 59: 3-11, Mintz, ed. New Haven: HRAF Press. Dawson, George Mercer 1880 Report on the Queen Charlotte?Islands, 1878. Montreal: Dawson Bros. de Laguna, Frederica 1960 The story of a T l i n g i t community: a problem i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between archaeological, ethnological, and h i s t o r i c a l methods. Bureau of American Ethnology: B u l l e t i n 172. Washington. 1972 Under Mount Saint E l i a s : the h i s t o r y and culture of the Yakutat T l i n g i t . Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, Vol. 7.(3 vols.) Washington: Smithsonian I n s t i t u t i o n Press. Dixon, George 1789 A Voyage round the world, but most p a r t i c u l a r l y to the North-West  Coast of America: performed i n 1785 - 1788, i n the "King George"  and "Queen Charlotte". Londo.n: G. Goulding. Donald, Leland, and M i t c h e l l , Donald., 1975 Some Correlates of Local Group Rank among the Southern Kwakiutl. Ethnology 14:325-346. Donald, Leland, and Merton, Jacqueline 1975 Technology on the Northwest Coast: An Analysis of Over a l l S i m i l a r i t i e s . Behavior Science Research 10:2. New Haven. Dorcey, Anthony 1976 The Uncertain Future of the Lower Fraser. Westwater Research Centre. Vancouver: University of B r i t i s h Columbia Press. - 222 -Dorsey, J.O. 1890 The Gentile System of the S i l e t z Tribes. Journal of American  Fo l k l o r e 3:227-237. London: Houghton, M i f f l i n & Co. Driver, Harold E. 1939 Culture Element D i s t r i b u t i o n s 10: Northwest C a l i f o r n i a . Anthropological Records 1:297-434. Berkeley: Un i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press. 1960 Review of "Fishing Among the Indians of Northwestern C a l i f o r n i a " by A.L. Kroeber and S.A. Barrett. American Anthropologist 62: "'1078-1079. Menasha. Driver, H.E., and Massey, W.C. 1957 Comparative Studies of North American Indians. Transactions of the American P h i l o s o p h i c a l Society (n.s.) 47:163-456. Philadelphia, Penn. Drucker, P h i l i p 1937 The Tolowa and Their Southwest Oregon Kin. U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Publications 36:221-300. Berkeley: Un i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press. 1939 Contributions to Alsea Ethnography. University of C a l i f o r n i a ' Publications 35:81-102. Berkeley: Un i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press. 1950 Culture Element D i s t r i b u t i o n s 26: Northwest Coast. Anthropo- l o g i c a l Records 9:3. Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press. 1951 The Northern and Central Nootkan Tribes. Bureau of American  Ethnology: B u l l e t i n 144. Smithsonian I n s t i t u t e . Washington. DuBois, Cora 1932 Tolowa Notes. American Anthropologist (n.s.) 34:248-262. Menasha. Duff, Wilson 1952 The Upper Stalo Indians of the Fraser River of B r i t i s h Columbi Anthropology i n B r i t i s h Columbia., Memoir No. 1. V i c t o r i a : B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l Museum. 1964 Contributions of Marius Barbeau to West Coast Ethnolo Anthropologica (n.s.) 6:1 pp.63-96. - 223 -Duff, Wilson 1964 The Indian History of B r i t i s h Columbia. Anthropology i n B r i t i s h Columbia, Memoir No. 5. V i c t o r i a : B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l Museum. E e l l s , Myron 1887 The Twana, Chemakum and Clallam Indians of Washington T e r r i t o r y . Facsimile Reproduction 1964. Seattle: The Shorey Book Store. Eggan, F. 1954 S o c i a l Anthropology and the Method of Controlled Comparison. American Anthropologist 56 E l l s , R.W. 1906 Report on Graham Island, B. C. Geological Survey of Canada, B u l l e t i n 940. Ottawa. Elmendorf, W.W. 1960 The Structure of Twana Culture. Research Studies: Monographic Supplement No. 2. Seattle: Washington State U n i v e r s i t y . Emmons, George T. 1903 The Basketry of the T l i n g i t . Memoirs of the American Museum  of Natural History 3. New York: Stechert. Farley, B. 1979 B r i t i s h Columbia Atlas of Resources. Vancouver: University of B r i t i s h Columbia Press. Fitzhugh, W., ed. P r e h i s t o r i c Maritime Adaptations of the Circumpolar Zone. The Hague and P a r i s : Mouton Publishers. Forde, D a r y l l , and Douglas, Mary 1967 P r i m i t i v e Economics. T r i b a l and Peasant Economies, G.Dalton, ed. American Museum Sourcebooks i n Anthropology. Garden C i t y : Natural History Press. Forester, R.E. 1968 The Sockeye Salmon. F i s h e r i e s Research Board of Canada. B u l l e t i n 162. Ottawa. - , Far rand, L. 1907 Notes on the Alsea Indians. Bureau of American?Ethnology:  B u l l e t i n 30:1 p.45. Frachtenburg, Leo L. 1920 Alsea Texts and Myths. Bureau of American Ethnology: B u l l e t i n 67. - 224 -Franchere, Gabriel 1854 Narrative of a Voyage ...11811, 1812, 1813, 1814. (Orig. pub. i n 1820). New York. Fraser, Simon - see Lamb G a r f i e l d , V i o l a E. 1939 Tsimshian clan and society. University of Washington Pub l i c a - tions i n Anthropology.7:3 (February 1939). pp.167-340. Seattle: U n i v e r s i t y of Washington Press. G a r f i e l d , V i o l a E., and Wingert, Paul S. 1966 The Tsimshian Indians and Their A r t s . Seattle and London: Univ e r s i t y of Washington Press. Geertz, C l i f f o r d 1971 A g r i c u l t u r a l Involution: The Processes of E c o l o g i c a l Change  i n Indonesia. (Orig. pub. i n 1963). Berkeley: Un i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press. Gibbs, George 1877 Tribes of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon. Contributions to North American Ethnology, Vol. 1 pp.157-241. Washington. Goddard, E.P. 1903 L i f e and Culture of the Hupa. University of C a l i f o r n i a P u b l i c a - tions i n American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 1 pp.1-88. Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press. John M., and Sturtevant, William C. The Calusa: A S t r a t i f i e d , Nonagricultural Society with notes on S i b l i n g Marriage. Explorations i n C u l t u r a l Anthropology:  Essays i n Honor of George Peter Murdock, Ward Goodenough, ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Gould, Richard A. 1966 Archaeology of the Point St. George S i t e , and Tolowa Prehistory. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press. Gunther, Erna 1927 Klallam Ethnography. Uni v e r s i t y of Washington Publications i n  Anthropology 1:5. pp.171-314. Seattle: U n i v e r s i t y of Washington Press. 1928 A Further Analysis of the F i r s t Salmon Ceremony. Univ e r s i t y of  Washington Publications i n Anthropology 2:5. pp.129-173. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Goggin, 1968 - 225 -Haeberlin, Hermann, and Gunther, Erna 1930 The Indians of Puget Sound. Seattle and London: Uni v e r s i t y of Washington Press. H a r r i s , Marvin 1959 The Economy has no Surplus? American Anthropologist 61:2. Menasha. 1968 The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of -Culture. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell. Harrison, Charles 1925 Ancient Warriors of the North P a c i f i c . London: H.F. and G. Witherby. Hart, J.L. 1973 P a c i f i c Fishes of Canada. F i s h e r i e s Research Board of Canada. B u l l e t i n 180. Ottawa. Helm, June 1962 The E c o l o g i c a l Approach i n Anthropology. American Journal of  Sociology 67:6 pp.630-639. Hewes, G.F. 1947 Aboriginal Use of Fishery Resources i n Northwestern North  America. (Unpub. Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ) . University of C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley. University Microfilm, Ann Arbor. 1948 The Rubric 'Fishing and F i s h e r i e s ' . American Anthropologist 50:238-246. Menasha. H i l l - T o u t , Charles 1907 B r i t i s h North America: The Far West, the Home of the S a l i s h and Dene. London: Archibald Constable. 1978 The S a l i s h People. (4 vols.) Vancouver: Talonbooks. Hobler, P h i l i p M. 1978 A Cache of Aboriginal Fishing Gear from the Queen Charlotte Islands. B. C. Studies 37:37-47. Howay, F.'W. , ed. 1941 Voyages of the "Columbia" to the Northwest Coast 1787-1790 and 1790-1793. Massachusetts H i s t o r i c a l Society, C o l l e c t i o n s , Vol.79. Boston. - 226 -International North P a c i f i c F i s h e r i e s Commission 1966 Salmon of the North P a c i f i c Ocean: B u l l e t i n No. 18. Vancouver. 1967 Salmon of the North P a c i f i c Ocean: B u l l e t i n No. 23. Vancouver. International P a c i f i c Salmon F i s h e r i e s Commission 1957 Annual Reports. 1957-1974. New Westminster. Jacobs, M e l v i l l e 1937 ' H i s t o r i c Perspectives i n Indian Languages of Oregon and Washington. P a c i f i c Northwest Quarterly 28:55-64. Seattle. Jenness, Diamond 1955 The F a i t h of a Coast S a l i s h Indian. Anthropology i n B r i t i s h Columbia, Memoir No. 3. V i c t o r i a : B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l Museum. Jewitt, John Rodgers 1807 A Journal Kept at Nootka Sound. Boston: Printed f o r the Author. 1967 A narrative of the adventures and sufferings of John R. Jewitt;" only survivor ... among the savages of Nootka Sound. F a i r f i e l d , Wash.: Ye Galleon Press. (Orig. pub. i n 1816). Jones, Livingston F. 1914 A Study of the Thlingets of Alaska. New York: Fleming H. Revell. Jorgensen, Joseph 1969 S a l i s h Language and Culture. Language Science Monographs 3. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. 1974 On Continuous Area and Worldwide Studies i n Formal Comparative Ethnology. Comparative Studies by Harold E. Driver and Essays  i n his Honor, J.G. Jorgensen, ed. New Haven: HRAF Press. n.d. Comparative T r a d i t i o n a l Economics and Ec o l o g i c a l Adaptations. Prepared f o r : Handbook of North American Indians, Wm Sturtevant, ed. In press. 1980 Western Indians. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Company. Kew, Michael 1976 Salmon Abundance, Technology and Human Populations on the Fraser River Watershed. Paper delivered to Northwest Coast Studies Conference, May 1976, Simon Fraser U n i v e r s i t y , Burnaby. - 227 -Knapp, F., and Childe, R.L. 1896 The Thlinkets of Southeastern Alaska. Chicago, (in Human Relations Area F i l e s ) . Koppert, V.A. 1930 . Contributions to Clayoquot Ethnology. Catholic University of America, Anthropology Series 1. Washington. Krause, Aurel 1956 The T l i n g i t Indians: Results of a Tr i p to the Northwest Coast  of America and the Bering S t r a i t s . Trans.by Erna Gunther. (Orig. pub. i n 1885). Seattle: University of Washington Press. Kroeber, Alfred, L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of C a l i f o r n i a . Bureau of American  Ethnology: B u l l e t i n 78. Washington. 1939 C u l t u r a l and Natural Areas of Native North America. University  of C a l i f o r n i a Publications 38:1-242. Berkeley: Un i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press. Kroeber, A.L. and G i f f o r d , E.W. 1949 World Renewal: A Cult System of Native C a l i f o r n i a . Anthropo-.-l o g i c a l Records 13:1-155. Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press. Kroeber, A.L. and Barrett, S.A. 1960 Fis h i n g Among the Indians of Northwestern C a l i f o r n i a . Anthropological Records 21:1. Berkeley: Un i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press. Lamb, W. Kaye, ed. 1960 The Letters and Journals of Simon Fraser: 1806-1808. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada. 1970 The Journals and Letters of S i r Alexander Mackenzie. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada. Langdon, Steve 1979 Comparative T l i n g i t and Haida Adaptation to the We§t Coast of the Prince of Wales Archipelago. Ethnology 18:2 pp.101-120. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. 1980 Pers. Communication. Langsdorff, G.H. 1814 Voyages and Travels i n Various Parts of the World 1803-1807. London. (2 vols.) - 228 -Large, R.G. 1957 The Skeena, River of Destiny. Vancouver: M i t c h e l l Press. Leatherman, K.E., and Krieger, A.D. 1940 Contributions to Oregon Coast Prehistory. American Antiquity 6.: 19-28. Menasha. Leighton, Caroline C. 1883 L i f e at Puget Sound 1865-1881. Boston: Lee and Shepard. L e i t h , Helmut 1970 Phenology i n Pro d u c t i v i t y Studies. E c o l o g i c a l Studies, Analysis  and Synthesis 1:29-46. Lewis and Clark - see Thwaites Lustig-Arecco, Vera 1973 Technology: Strategies for Su r v i v a l . New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. Lyman, 1903 History of Oregon: Volume I. New York: North P a c i f i c Publ. Society. Mason, Otis Tufton 1902 Aboriginal American Harpoons: A Study i n Ethnic D i s t r i b u t i o n  and Invention. Extract from Smithsonian I n s t i t u t e , 1902. (Facsimile Reproduction 1971. Seattle: The Shorey Book Store.) Matthews, J.S. 1955 Conversations with Khahtsahlano 1932-1954. Typescript copies. Records of C i t y A r c h i v i s t . Vancouver. Meares, J . 1790 Voyage to the North-West Coast of America. London. Milne, D.J. 1955 The Skeena River Salmon Fishery with Special Reference to Sockeye Salmon. F i s h e r i e s Research Board of Canada. Journal  12:3 pp.451-485. M i t c h e l l , Donald H. 1971 Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia Area: a. natural region and i t s culture types. SYESIS, Supplement 1. V i c t o r i a : B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l Museum. Murdock, George Peter 1934a Kinship and S o c i a l Behavior among the Haida. American Anthro- pologist 36:3 (n.s.) pp.355-385. Menasha. 1934b The Haida of B r i t i s h Columbia. Our Pr i m i t i v e Contemporaries. New York: Macmillan. - 229 -Murdock, George Peter 1936 Rank and Potlatch among the Haida. Yale Un i v e r s i t y Publications  i n Anthropology 13. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1960 Ethnographic Bibliography of North America. 3rd edn. New Haven: Human Relations Area F i l e s Press. McDonald',' James"- . n.d. F i e l d notes: Kitsumkalum (1979-82). MacDonald, George F., and I n g l i s , Richard I. 1976 The Dig: an archaeological reconstruction of a West Coast v i l l a g e . Archaeological Survey of Canada, National Museum of Man. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada. Mcllwraith, Thomas F. 1948 The B e l l a Coola Indians. Toronto: Un i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press. (2 vols.) Mackenzie, Alexander - see Lamb Neave, F e r r i s 1953 P r i n c i p l e s a f f e c t i n g the s i z e of pink and chum salmon populations i n B r i t i s h Columbia. F i s h e r i e s Research Board of Canada. Journal 9:9' pp.450-491. 1966a Chum Salmon i n B r i t i s h Columbia. A Review of the L i f e History of North P a c i f i c Salmon. B u l l e t i n 18. Vancouver: INPFC 1966b Pink Salmon i n B r i t i s h Columbia. A Review of the L i f e History of North P a c i f i c Salmon. B u l l e t i n 18. Vancouver: INPFC Newcdmbe^ C,F,, ed. 1923 Menzies Journal of Vancouver's Voyage, A p r i l to October 1792. Archives of B r i t i s h Columbia Memoir 5. V i c t o r i a . Niblack, A.P. 1890 The Coast Indians of Southern Alaska and Northern B r i t i s h Columbia. Report. United States National Museum, pp.227-386. Nishimura, Asahitaro 1973 A Preliminary Report on Current Trends i n Marine Anthropology. Occasional Papers 1..Center of Marine Ethnology, Wasedo University. Tokyo. Nolan ,'¥Richard W. 1977 The U t i l i z a t i o n of Fish Resources by The Coast Tsimshian: Predict i n g Optimal Patterns of E x p l o i t a t i o n . (Unpub. Master's d i s s e r t a t i o n ) . Trent University. - 230 -Oberg, Kalervo 1973 The S o c i a l Economy of the T l i n g i t Indians. Vancouver: J . J . Douglas. Olson, Ronald 1927 Adze, canoe, and house types of the Northwest Coast. Uni v e r s i t y  of Washington Publications i n Anthropology 2:1. pp. 1-38. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 1936 The Quinault Indians. University of Washington Publications i n  Anthropology 6:1. pp.1-194. Seattle: U n i v e r s i t y of Washington Press. 1940 The S o c i a l Organization of the Haisla of B r i t i s h Columbia. Anthropological Records 2:5 pp.169-200. Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press. 1954 The S o c i a l L i f e of the Owikeno Kwakiutl. Anthropological Records  14:3. pp.213-259. Berkeley: Un i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press. 1955 Notes on the B e l l a B e l l a Kwakiutl. Anthropological Records 14:5. pp.' 319-348. Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press. 1967 , S o c i a l Structure and S o c i a l L i f e of the T l i n g i t i n Alaska. Anthropological Records 26. 123pp. Berkeley: Un i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press. Oswalt, Wendell H. 1966 The T l i n g i t : Salmon Fisherman of the Northwest. The Land Was  Theirs, pp.291-343. New York: Wiley. 1973 Habitat and Technology: The Evolution of Hunting. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. 1976 An Anthropological Analysis of Food-Getting Technology. New York: John Wiley. Paine, Robert 1972 Comparative Problems i n Fishing Adaptations. North A t l a n t i c  Fishermen: Anthropological Essays on Modern Fis h i n g . R. Andersen and C. Wadel, eds. Newfoundland S o c i a l and Economic Papers No. 5. I n s t i t u t e of S o c i a l and Economic Research, Memorial U n i v e r s i t y of Newfoundland. - 231 -Paine, Robert 1974 Second Thoughts About Barth's Models. Royal Anthropological I n s t i t u t e Occasional Paper 32. London. Pelto, P e r t t i 1970 Anthropological Research: The Structure of Inquiry. New York: Harper and Row. P e t t i t , G.A. 1950 The Quileute of La Push, 1775-1945. Anthropological Records 14. pp.1-120. Berkeley: Un i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press. Pomoroy, Anthony 1976 Stone F i s h Traps of the B e l l a B e l l a . Current Research Reports. Simon Fraser U n i v e r s i t y , Burnaby. Ray, Verne F. 1937 The H i s t o r i c a l P o s i t i o n of the Lower Chinook i n the Native Culture of the Northwest. P a c i f i c Northwest Quarterly 28:4. Seattle. 1938 Lower Chinook Ethnographic Notes. University of Washington  Publications i n Anthropology 7:2. pp.29-165. Seattle: U n i v e r s i t y of Washington Press. 1942 Culture Element D i s t r i b u t i o n s 22: Plateau. Anthropological  Records 8:2. pp.99-257. Berkeley: Un i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press. Reinman, Fred 1967 Fishing: An Aspect of Oceanic Economy. F i e l d i a n a : Anthropology  56:2. F i e l d Museum of Natural History. Ricker, W.E. 1966 Sockeye Salmon i n B r i t i s h Columbia. A Review of the L i f e History of North P a c i f i c Salmon. B u l l e t i n 18. Vancouver: INPFC. Ross, Alexander 1849 Adventures of the F i r s t S e t t l e r s on the Oregon or Columbia River. London: Smith, Elder. 9 Rostlund, Erhard 1952 Freshwater F i s h and Fishing i n Native North America. University of C a l i f o r n i a Publications i n Geography. Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press. Ruyle, Eugene E. 1973 Slavery, surplus and s t r a t i f i c i a t i o n on the Northwest Coast: the ethnoenergetics of an i n c i p i e n t s t r a t i f i c a t i o n system. Current Anthropology 14:603-631. Vancouver and Chicago. - 232 -Sapir, Edward 1907 Notes on the Takelma Indians of Southwestern Oregon. American  Anthropologist 9:2. pp.261-275. Lancaster, Penn. 1915 A Sketch of the S o c i a l Organization of the Nass River Indians. National Museum of Canada, B u l l e t i n 19. Ottawa. Sapir, Edward and Swadesh, Morris 1955 Native Accounts~6f.Nootkan Ethnography.' International Journal of American L i n g u i s t i c s , Memoir 1. Bloomington: Indiana Univ e r s i t y Press. Sarana, G. 1975 Methodology of Anthropological Comparisons. Viking Fund Publications i n Anthropology 53. Tucson: Uni v e r s i t y of Arizona Press. Sauter, John and Johnson, Bruce 1974 Tillamook Indians: the Oregon Coast. Portland: Binfords and Mort. Schalk, Randall F. 1977 The Structure of an Anadromous Fish Resource. For Theory Building  i n Archaeology: Essays on Faunal Remains, Aquatic Resources, S p a t i a l Analysis and Systematic Modeling, Lewis R. Binford, ed. New York: Academic Press. Seddon, David, ed. 1978 Relations of Production: Marxist Approaches to Economic  Anthropology. London: Frank Cass and Company Singh, Ram Raj Prasad 1966 Aboriginal Economic Systems of the Olympic Peninsula Indians, Western Washington. Sacramento Anthropological Society, Sacramento State College. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Smith, E s t e l l e , ed. 1977 Those Who Live From the Sea: A Study i n Maritime Anthropology. Monograph: American Ethnological Society 62. St. Paul: West Publishing Smith, Marian W. 1940 The Puyallup-Nisqually. Columbia University Contributions to  Anthropology 32. New York: Columbia University Press. Spier, L e s l i e 1930 Klamath Ethnography. U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Publications 330: 1-338. Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press. - 233 -Spier, L e s l i e and Sapir, Edward 1930 Wishram Ethnography. "University of Washington Publications i n Anthropology 3:151-300. Seattle: U n i v e r s i t y of Washington Press. Sproat, G.M. 1868 Scenes and Studies of Savage L i f e . London: Smith, Elder. Stern, Bernard J . 1934 The Lummi Indians of Northwest Washington. Columbia University  Contributions to Anthropology 17. New York: Columbia University Press. Steward, J u l i a n H. 1936 The Economic and So c i a l Base of P r i m i t i v e Bands. Essays i n Anthropology Presented to A l f r e d Louis Kroeber, J.H. Steward, ed. Berkeley: Un i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press. 1955 Theory of Culture Change. Urbana: University of I l l i n o i s Press. Stewart, H i l a r y 1977 Indian.Fishing: Early Methods on the Northwest Coast. Vancouver: J . J . Douglas. Sundstrom, Lars 1972 Ecology and Symbiosis: Niger Water Folk. Studia Ethnographica  Upsaliensia 35. Uppsala. > Sut t l e s , Wayne 1951 The Economic L i f e of the Coast Salish of Haro and Rosario  S t r a i t s . (Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ) University of Washington, Seattle. 1955 Katzie Ethnographic Notes. Anthropology i n B r i t i s h Columbia, Memoir No. 2. V i c t o r i a : B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l Museum. 1960 A f f i n a l T i e s , Subsistence, and Prestige among the Coast S a l i s h . American Anthropologist 62:296-305. Menasha. 1962 V a r i a t i o n i n Habitat and Culture on the Northwest Coast. Proceedings, 34th International Congress of Americanists, pp.522-537. Vienna. Coping With Abundance: Subsistence on the Northwest Coast. Man the Hunter, R.B. Lee and I. deVore, eds. pp.56-68. Chicago - 234 -Sut t l e s , Wayne, and Su t t l e s , Cameron 1978 Native Languages'of the North P a c i f i c Coast of North America, (map). Portland. Swan, James G. 1857 The Northwest Coast or Three Years Residence i n Washington  T e r r i t o r y . 1972 edn. Seattle and London: Uni v e r s i t y of Washington Press. 1870 The Indians of Cape F l a t t e r y , at the entrance to the S t r a i t of Juan de Fuca, Washington T e r r i t o r y . Smithsonian ( I n s t i t u t i o n )  Contributions to Knowledge 16:8, Pu b l i c a t i o n 220. Washington: Smithsonian I n s t i t u t i o n . 1876 The Haidah Indians of Queen Charlotte's Islands, B. C. Smithsonian ( I n s t i t u t i o n ) Contributions to Knowledge 21. Washington: Smithsonian I n s t i t u t i o n . Swanton, John Reed 1905 Contributions to the Ethnology of the Haida. Jesup North  P a c i f i c Expedition 5:1. Memoir of the American Museum of Natural History. New York: Stechert. 1908 S o c i a l Condition, B e l i e f s , and L i n g u i s t i c Relationships of the T l i n g i t Indians. Bureau of American Ethnology, Annual Report Vol. 26, Washington. Thwaites, R..G., ed. 1905 O r i g i n a l Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, 1804-1806. Vol. 2. (Pub. i n 3 vols.) New York. Treide, D i e t r i c h 1965 Die Organisierung des indianischen Lachsfangs im westlichen Nordamerika. Veroffentlichungen des Museums fur Volkerkunde zu L e i p z i g , Heft 14. B e r l i n : Akademie-Verlag. Vayda, Andrew 1961 A Re-examination of Northwest Coast Economic Systems. Trans. New York Academy of Sciences. New York. 1969 An E c o l o g i c a l Approach i n C u l t u r a l Anthropology. Bucknall  Review 17:1 pp.112-119. Vernon, E.H. 1958 An examination of factors a f f e c t i n g the abundance of pink salmon i n the Fraser River. Progress Report, No. 5. Vancouver: International P a c i f i c Salmon F i s h e r i e s Commission. - 235 -Vilkuna, Kustaa 1975 Unternehman Lachsfang. Studia Fennica 19. H e l s i n k i : Suomalaisen K i r j a l l i s u u d e n Seura. Ward, F. J . 1959 Character of the Migration of Pink Salmon to Fraser River Spawning Grounds i n 1957. International P a c i f i c Salmon Fi s h e r i e s Commission, B u l l e t i n 10. New Westminster. Washington Department of F i s h e r i e s 1973 Jo i n t Statement Regarding the Biology, Status, Management, and Harvest of the Salmon and Steelhead Resources of the Puget Sound and Olympic Peninsular Drainage Areas of Western Washington. U.S. Fi s h and W i l d l i f e . Washington Dept. of Game. Waterman, T.T. 1925 The V i l l a g e Sites i n Tolowa and Neighboring Areas i n Northwestern C a l i f o r n i a . American Anthropologist 27:532.' Menasha. 1973 Notes on the Ethnology of the Indians of Puget Sound. Indian  Notes and Monographs 59. Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation. New York. Waterman, T.T., and Kroeber, A.L. 1938 The Kepel F i s h Dam. Uni v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Publications 35: 49-80. Berkeley: Un i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press. Watt, Kenneth E.F. 1968 Ecology and Resource Management: A Quantitative Approach. New York and Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Webb, P.W. 1975 Hydrodynamics and Energetics of F i s h Populations. F i s h e r i e s Research Board of Canada. B u l l e t i n 162. Weinberg, Daniela 1973 Models of Southern Kwakiutl S o c i a l Organization. C u l t u r a l  Ecology, B. Cox, ed. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. Work, John 1944 The Journal of John Work, 1835. B r i t i s h Columbia H i s t o r i c a l  Quarterly 8:127-146,227-244,307-318. - 236 -APPENDICES I - III - 237 -APPENDIX I TABLES X - XXII Introduction A l i s t of the references c i t e d i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n a n alysis of Salmon Technology Complexes i s tabled i n t h i s Appendix. Each STC has been tabled i n d i v i d u a l l y . A d d i t i o n a l notes are included. Table XXII explains the codes used to i d e n t i f y ethnic d i v i s i o n s on the maps. A few words of explanation about the reference l i s t s i s given here: 1 A l l a f f i r m a t i v e (aff) references to salmon f i s h i n g methods i n the l i t e r a t u r e consulted are indicated i n the Tables. The d i s t r i b u -t i o n maps are based on these data. 2 Not a l l negative (neg) references are included i n the Tables. Of those sources l i s t e d negatively the reference may mean one of the following: (a) there i s an absence of information about the f i s h i n g method i n question, (b) there i s i n s u f f i c i e n t information to make a cl e a r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the method, (c) there i s a s p e c i f i c negative reference, i . e . , the source indicates that t h i s method was not used by the ethnic group (when t h i s occurs, a note i s generally added to the reference on the Table). 3 The Bibliography contains the l i s t i n g s of a l l sources researched; these Tables merely i n d i c a t e where p o s i t i v e information i s to be f ound. APPENDIX I: TABLE X L i s t of References for Salmon Technology Complex 1 - T r o l l i n g Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes T l i n g i t Krause:1956(1885) neg (Chilkat) deLaguna:1972:391 neg denies a b o r i g i n a l (Yakutat) deLaguna:1960 neg (Angoon) Drucker:1950 neg Oberg:1973 neg Olson:1967 neg Niblack:1890 neg Haida Dawson:1880 neg Drucker:1950 neg Murdock:1934 neg Niblack:1890 neg Tsimshian Boas:1916 neg Drucker:1950 neg Duff:1959 neg Garfield:1939,1966 neg MacDonald:1976:46,51 a f f (archeol.evidence: sinkers):"along the coast and f a l l people t r o l l e d f o r salmon." MacDonald:1980 a f f (pers.comm.):trolling l i n e s of kelp Sapir:1915 " neg Northern Kwakiutl Drucker:1950 neg Olson:1940,1954,1955 neg B e l l a Coola Drucker:1950 neg Mackenzie:1970:391(1793) a f f (?) obtuse angle hook made of two pieces of wood mentioned following r e f . to cordage q u a l i t y * APPENDIX I : TABLE X Cont. Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Southern Kwakiutl Boas:1909:485-6 a f f Boas:1921:237 a f f Drucker:1950 a f f Notes T r o l l i n g 2 f i g . 1 5 5 ; d e t a i l s manufacturing; methods; coho salmon " t r o l l i n g f o r salmon was p r a c t i c e d . " sockeye (?) caught by t r o l l i n g , a l s o coho ** (Ko skimo,Kwexa,Wikeno) Nootka Cook:1785:328 a f f Drucker:1950:168 a f f Drucker:1951:40 a f f Koppert:1930:72 a f f Sapir & Swadesh:1955:30,45 a f f Sproat: 1868:220 a f f Makah Gibbs:1877:167,175,195 a f f Gunther:1927:215 a f f Niblack:1890:291 a f f Singh:1966:40,70 a f f Swan:1870:23,24 a f f (Tsishaat, Clayoquot) t r o l l f o r chinook during h e r r i n g runs; f r e s h consumpt. (Clayoquot) b a i t e d acute angle hooks on kelp l i n e s , t r o l l i n mornings autumn:cohos:salt water ( i n the passage) "what salmon are taken are c h i e f l y got by t r o l l i n g . " P l a t e X X X : t r o l l i n g hook c o l l e c t e d by Swan most imp.method; Sw i f t s u r e Banks,June; single'&.mult;*** f r e s h & d r i e d ; Makah w i l l not t r o l l unless h e r r i n g are present; very important method. N.Gulf S a l i s h Halkomelem Barnett:1939:230 Barnett:1955:85-86 Barnett:1939 Barnett:1955:85-86 Duff:1952 Jenness:1955:7,9 Suttles:1955:23 Hill-Tout:1907:90 a f f a f f a f f a f f 0 0 a f f hooks, sharp angle Fig.26 (Nanaimo - p o s s i b l y ; Cowichan - yes) Fig.26 Cowichan Upper S t a l o had no s a l t water s i t e s K a t z i e had no s a l t water s i t e s K a t z i e -(as above) i n the off-season S t r a i t s Barnett:1939:230 a f f Barnett:1955:85-86 a f f Gunther:1927:198,201 a f f Stern:1934 neg (East and West Saanich) Fig.26 t r o l l e d i n s i d e the s p i t f o r coho APPENDIX I: TABLE X Contd. Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes T r o l l i n g p.3 S t r a i t s - contd. Suttles:1951:134-136 a f f Lushootseed Collins:1969:294 a f f Haeberlin & Gunther 1930:27 a f f Smith:1940:254-5 a f f Waterman:1973:66 a f f Twana Elmendorf:1960:57,60, a f f 80-81,Fig.4 Quileute Pettit:1950 neg Singh:1966 neg Quinault Olson:1936 neg Singh:1966:40 neg Swan:1857:264 neg Lower Chinook Cox:1957 (1831) neg Gibbs:1877 neg Ray:1938 neg Ray:1942:110 neg Swan:1857:264 neg Upper Chinook 0 Tillamook Barnett:1937 neg Sauter & Johnson:1974 neg Oregon Coast Barnett:1937 neg Drucker:1939 neg chinook i n winter,spring & summer; coho i n summer. t r o l l i n g o f f Skagit Head f or chinook s a l t water t r o l l i n g when salmon f i r s t begin to run bent ironwood hook, herring b a i t (Puyallup-Nisqually) 'occasional' s a l t water "but t h i s method furnished r e l a t i v e l y small proportion of the catch." Fig.4 - curved hook never by baited hook denied never by baited hook no s a l t water f i s h e r y Alsea did not f i s h offshore (p.83) Tolowa Drucker:1937:271 neg Kroeber & Barrett:1960:134 neg APPENDIX I: TABLE X Contd. Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes T r o l l i n g p.4 Hupa Kroeber & B a r r e t t : 1960:134 neg Wiyot Kroeber & B a r r e t t 1960:134 neg Yurok Kroeber & B a r r e t t 1960:134 neg Karok ' 0 no s a l t water f i s h e r y B e l l a Coola data not c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e d as t r o l l i n g hook but Be r r i n g e r assumes p r o b a b i l i t y high. A A Boas may have erred i n i d e n t i f y i n g sockeye; they do not t y p i c a l l y take a l u r e . A A A Makah: Hewes' t h e s i s reported the use of both s i n g l e t r o l l i n g hooks and hooks used i n gangs of up to 30 on a s i n g l e l i n e . Ref. i s to l o n g - l i n e t r o l l s ; h i s source: R o u n s e f e l l & Kelez.(Hewes quoted i n Singh:1966:40). \ APPENDIX I: TABLE XI vList of References f or Salmon Technology Complex 2 - Seining Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes T l i n g i t Haida Tsimshian Northern Kwakiutl B e l l a Coola Southern Kwakiutl Nootka Krause:1956:120(1885) neg deLaguna:1960 neg Drucker:1950:234 neg 0berg:1973:9 neg Dawson:1880 neg Drucker:1950 neg Harrison:1925 neg Murdock:1934,1936 neg Niblack:1890:293 (?) Swanton:1905 neg Boas:1916:397 (?) Drucker:1950 neg Garfield:1939 neg MacDonald & Inglis:1976 (?) Drucker:1950:234 neg Olson:1940,1954,1955 neg Drucker:1950:234 neg Mackenzie:1970 neg Mcllwraith:1948 neg Boas:1909:465 neg Boas:1921 neg Drucker-.1950:234 neg Drucker:1950:234 neg Koppert:1930:68 neg nets 30-40 fathoms long; no information given denied nets mentioned but no information given denied Massett "seine" net, 52 f t x 64 inches (prob.trawl)* , n e t t l e f i b r e nets f or salmon, 20 fathoms long x , 20 meshes wide. Cedar bark l i n e 46 fathoms long ; f l o a t s , denied possible use of nets f or seining denied denied nets for eulachon c h i e f l y denied denied APPENDIX I: TABLE XI Contd. Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes Sei n i n g p.2 Nootka - contd. Makah N.Gulf S a l i s h Halkomelem S t r a i t s Lushootseed Twana Quileute Quinault Sapir & Swadesh:1955 neg Sproat:1868:221 neg Colson:1953 neg Singh:1966 neg Swan:1870 neg Barnett:1939:230 a f f Barnett:1955:86 neg Barnett:1939:230 a f f Duff:1952 neg Hill-Tout:1907 neg Jenness:1955 neg Suttles:1955 neg Barnett:1939:230 a f f Gunther:1927:198-201 neg Suttles:1951:139-140 a f f Collins:1974:46 neg Haeberlin & Gunther: a f f 1930:28 Smith:1940:263 a f f Elmendorf:1960 neg P e t t i t t : 1 9 5 0 neg Singh:1966 neg Olson:1936 neg Singh:1966 neg Swan:1857 " neg (Comox, Squamish)(but may have meant g i l l net only.*) d r i f t seine known but not r e s o r t e d to very o f t e n . (Nanaimo, Cowichan) (E.Saanich)** (Samish) "drag se i n e " used at mouth of Samish R i v e r upon r e t u r n i n g from the summer's r e e f - n e t t i n g . Coho. seine net described but not method. S a l t water, wealthy people only. S a l t water. APPENDIX I: TABLE XI Contd. Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes Seining p.3 Lowerv:.Chinook Wishram Tillamook Oregon Coast ToIowa Yurok Karok Hupa Wiyot Cox:1957:177(1831) a f f Ross:1849 a f f Gibbs:1877:194,195 a f f Lyman:1903:66 a f f Swan:1857:103-108 a f f Spier & Sapir:1930:176 a f f Barnett:1937 neg Barnett:1937 neg Barnett:1937 neg Drucker:1937 neg Driver:1939:312,378 a f f Kroeber & Barrett: a f f 1960 Kroeber & Barrett: a f f 1960:49,133,146 Kroeber & Barrett: a f f 1960:49,146,155 Kroeber:1925:85 a f f Kroeber & Barrett: a f f 1960:40,146,155 Kroeber & Barrett: a f f 1960:49,146,155 Lewis & Clark quoted i n Ross " t h i s i s dragged or c i r c l e d , the true seine." Map 19 Map 19 Map 19 Map 19 Map 19 Map 19 ho \APPENDIX I : TABLE X I I ' L i s t of References f o r Salmon Technology Complex 3 - Harpoons Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference T l i n g i t Krause: 1956:120-121 a f f deLaguna:1960:116 a f f deLaguna:1972:384-5 a f f Drucker:1950 a f f 0berg:1973:9,60-62 a f f Olson:1967:vi a f f Niblack:1890:288 a f f Knapp & Childe:1896:90 a f f Haida Dawson:1880:109,144 a f f Drucker:1950:170,240 a f f Murdock:1936:224 a f f Niblack:1890:288 a f f Swanton:1905 neg Tsimshian Barbeau:1930:147 a f f Boas:1916 a f f Drucker:1950 a f f Large:1957 a f f MacDonald & Inglis:1976 a f f Northern Kwakiutl B e l l a Coola Drucker:1950:167 a f f Drucker:1950 a f f Mackenzie:1970:391(1793) a f f Southern Kwakiutl Boas:1909:488-495 a f f Boas:1921:223,302,238 a f f Drucker:1950:167 a f f Niblack:1890: a f f Notes ( C h i l k a t ) (Angoon) (Yakutat) ( C h i l k a t ) important Fig.137 (no mention) i n the r i v e r , use the harpoon from platforms toggled harpoon Fig.156, unequal f o r e s h a f t s chum salmon a t r i v e r mouths, sockeye i n upper r i v e r s P l a t e XXX; Fig.150 Nimpkish o l d s t y l e spear APPENDIX I : TABLE X I I Contd. Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes Harpoons -2 Nootka Makah N.Gulf S a l i s h Halkomelem S t r a i t s Cook:1785:328 a f f Drucker:1951:19-20 a f f Drucker:1950:167 a f f Koppert:1930:78 a f f Jewitt:1967:47 a f f Sapir & Swadesh:1955:41 a f f Sproat:1868:221 a f f -Croes:1980:311 a f f Gibbs:1877:175 a f f Gunther:1927:215 neg Singh:1966:39 a f f Swan:1870 neg Barnett:1939:229 a f f Barnett:1955:83 a f f Barnett:1939 a f f Barnett:1955:83 a f f Dally:n.d. a f f Duff:1952:62-67 a f f Fraser:1960:101(1808) a f f Hill-Tout:1907:131-32 a f f Jenness:1955:8 a f f Suttles:1955:22-23 a f f Barnett:1939 a f f Barnett:1955:83-84 a f f Gunther:1927:198-201 a f f Stern :1934:5.1 a f f Suttles:1951:140-143 a f f ( A p r i l 1778) (Clayoquot) Hoko R. archeol. evidence, detachable harpoon points Doc.#.39 (B.C.Prov.Archives)'used f o r salmon on the lower Fraser':photo. (Stalo) coho i n winter by f i r e l i g h t ; chinook i n sp r i n g when the water was low and c l e a r (Katzie) (Katzie) f a l l f i s h i n g at shallow bars Fig.21 (Clallam) coho, p i n k s , chum; u s u a l l y at n i g h t , chinook; r i v e r channels APPENDIX I 'Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Lushootseed Twana Quileute Quinault Lower Chinook Collins:1974:50,58 a f f Haeberlin & Gunther:1930:27 a f f Smith:1940:264-267 Waterman:1973:55-60 a f f a f f Elmendorf:1960:57,76-80 a f f Waterman:1973:56 a f f Pett i t t : 1 9 5 0 : 7 a f f Singh:1966:39 a f f 01son:1936:33-34 a f f Singh:1966:39 a f f Cox:1957:177(1831) neg Gibbs:1877:195 neg Lyman:1903:66 a f f Ray:1938:108-109 a f f Swan:1857:38-40 a f f Wishram Gibbs:1877:195 neg Lyman:1903:66 a f f Spier & Sapir:1930:175-6, a f f 178 Tillamook Barnett:1937:164 a f f Sauter & Johnson:1974 a f f Oregon Coast Barnett:1937:164 Boas:1923 Drucker:1939:82-83 Leatherman & Kreiger: 1940:19 a f f a f f a f f a f f XII Contd.. Notes Harpoons -3 Smith notes d i f f e r e n c e s i n techniques s a l t water/ i n l a n d people F i g . 4 . , i n streams from canoe; important method not as productive as w e i r s , t r a p s , and nets, shallow water not as productive as w e i r s , t r a p s , and nets. no i n f o r m a t i o n no i n f o r m a t i o n from canoes; 3rd most important f i s h i n g method F i g . speared salmon at the Cascades, the Dalles. f a l l f i s h i n g ; owned s t a t i o n s over the River; second only to dip nett i n g . (Alsea) (Coos) archeol.evidence harpoon '-APPENDIX I: TABLE XII Contd. Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes Harpoons -4 Tolowa Yurok Karok Hup a Wiyot Drucker:1937:233,237 a f f Kroeber & Barrett:1960: 74-80 a f f Kroeber in Elmendorf:1960 a f f 80 Kroeber & Barrett:1960: a f f 73-80 Kroeber & Barrett:1960:77• a f f Kroeber & Barrett:1960:74- a f f 75 Goddard:1903:25 a f f Kroeber & Barrett:1960:75 a f f footnotes: comparing Yurok and Twana harpoons re access (p.76) chinook salmon; cf G i f f o r d footnote quote C u r t i s re spearing at r i f f l e s , i n moonlight; quote Hewes f i e l d n o t e s : "...salmon ran i n such numbers that a spear thrust anywhere would bring up a f i s h . " oo APPENDIX I: TABLE XIII -List of References for Salmon Technology Complex 4 - Trawling Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes T l i n g i t Krause:1956:120 neg deLaguna:1960 neg deLaguna:1972 neg Drucker:1950 neg Ob'erg:1973 neg Olson:1967 neg Haida Dawson:1880 neg Drucker:1950 neg Murdock:1934,1936:224 a f f Niblack:1890:293 a f f Swanton:1905 neg Tsimshian Drucker:1950 a f f Garfield:1939 neg Northern Kwakiutl Drucker:1950 a f f Olson:1940,1954,1955 neg B e l l a Coola Drucker:1950 a f f Mackenzie:1970:371(1793) a f f Mcllwraith:1948:610 a f f Southern Kwakiutl Boas:1909:465 neg Drucker:1950 neg Nootka Drucker:1950 a f f Jewitt:1967(1815) neg Koppert:1930 neg Sproat:1868 neg at the mouths of streams with dragnets between two canoes; drag nets secured to poles (Kitqata at Hartley Bay) X a i s l a large trawl between two canoes i n r i v e r channels near the mouth (Tsishaat) APPENDIX I : TABLE X I I I Contd. Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes Trawling -2 ./Makah N.Gulf S a l i s h Halkomelem S t r a i t s Lushootseed Gibbs:1877 neg Singh:1966:38 a f f Swan:1870 neg Barnett:1938:122 a f f S u t t l e s : 195.1:155 a f f Boas:1894:460 a f f Barnett:1955:87 a f f Duff:1952:131,144-145 a f f Fraser:1960:114(1808) a f f Hill-Tout:1907:90 a f f Kew:1976 a f f Suttles:1951:155 a f f Suttles:1955:22 a f f Gunther:1927:201 ( a f f ) Suttles:1951:144-5 ( a f f ) Collins:1974:46 a f f Haeberlin & Gunther:1930:28 a f f Smith:1940:264 a f f S u t t l e s :195.1:145 a f f sockeye i n Ozette Lake Squamish R i v e r ; two canoes, pocket net Squamish; ( s p e c i a l ) used between 2 poles from a s i n g l e canoe bag n e t t i n g : 2.kinds, on ropes, on p o l e s , used more f o r sturgeon f i s h i n g but a l s o to take salmon:Fraser R. H a r r i s o n R., Che h a l i s R. f o r chinooks. net dragged between 2 canoes on Fraser R. I s l a n d t r i b e s at mouth of F r a s e r , over shoals important salmon f i s h i n g method lower Fraser (Cowichan & Nanaimo) (Katzie) i n Fraser f o r sockeye ( C l a l l a m ) ( s p e c i a l ) n a t i v e term f o r t h i s r i v e r net same as S u t t l e s ' t r a w l ' but C l a l l a m net not used between 2 canoes. Lummi i n Nooksak R. but not very important method n a t i v e term s i m i l a r to above between two canoes n a t i v e term s i m i l a r to above used by u p - r i v e r peoples K 3 O Twana Qui l e u t e Elmendorf .-I960 P e t t i t t : 1 9 5 0 : 7 Singh:1966:38 neg a f f a f f between two canoes mainly i n estuary and few m i l e s upstream; a l s o Ozette L. APPENDIX I: TABLE XIII Contd. Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes Trawling -3 fQuinault Lower Chinook Wishram Tillamook Oregon^. Coast Tolowa Yurok Karok Olson:1936:30 a f f Singh:1966:38 Ray:1938:108 a f f Ray:1942:108-109 a f f Spier & Sapir:1930 neg Barnett:1937 neg Barnett:1937 neg Barnett:1937:164 neg' Driver:1939:312 a f f Drucker:1937 neg Driver:1939:312 a f f Kroeber & Barrett:1960 a f f Driver:1939:312 a f f G i f f o r d : f i e l d n o t e s (1939) a f f Hewes:fieldnotes (1940) a f f Kroeber & Barrett:1960:54 aff between two canoes, c o n i c a l bag net (also commonly used for sturgeon f i s h i n g ) c o n i c a l drag net (a) d r i f t i n g bag seine f or salmon rigged on ropes(p.40-1) (b) c o n i c a l d r i f t i n g bag net for salmon on poles (ibid) (c) double d r i f t i n g bag net (pp53-54) : on Klamath R. c o n i c a l drag net quoted i n Kroeber & Barrett as above Hupa Wiyot Driver:1939:312 a f f Kroeber & Barrett:1960:40 a f f Driver:1939:312 a f f Kroeber & Barrett:1960:54 a f f double d r i f t i n g bag net on A-frame (single) d r i f t i n g bag seine APPENDIX I: TABLE XIV L i s t of References for Salmon Technology Complex 5 - Gaffing Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes T l i n g i t Haida Tsimshian Krause:1956:121 deLaguna:1960:116 deLaguna:1972:386 Drucker:1950 Jones:1914:103 Niblack:1890:289 Oberg:1973 Dawson:1880 Drucker:1950 Murdock:1934,1936 Niblack:1890 Swanton:1905 Barbeau:1930:139 Drucker:1950:238 Northern Kwakiutl Drucker:1950:168 B e l l a Coola Southern Kwakiutl Drucker:1950 Mackenzie:1970 Mcllwraith:1948 Boas:1909 Boas:1921:223-4 Drucker:1950 Niblack:1890:Plate XXX a f f a f f a f f (aff) a f f a f f a f f neg (aff) neg (?) neg a f f (aff) a f f neg neg neg neg a f f a f f (aff) (Chilkat) (Angoon) steam bent hardwood (Yakutat) coho salmon; from canoes i n r i l e d water (Cape Fox) but Drucker believed i t to be recent pinks and chum salmon coho but Drucker believed i t to be recent, not a b o r i g i n a l unclear reference (Gitksan) at Hagwilget Canyon stat i o n s , family-owned property; chinook salmon June & July; (photo) (Kitqata at Hartley Bay) but Drucker believed not a b o r i g i n a l ; (Tsimshian-Gilutsa) recent a c q u i s i t i o n * (Xaihais-Heiltsuk) t r a i t l i s t entry marked p o s i t i v e ; (Bella Bella) Drucker believed recent a c q u i s i t i o n * chum salmon, Nimpkish R. (Koskimo, Nimpkish R.)* Nimpkish j i g or snag f o r hauling out salmon:Fig.145; detachable hook with binder l i n e . APPENDIX I : TABLE XIV Contd. Ethnic D i v i s i o n s Source Reference Notes G a f f i n g -2 Nootka Cook:1785:328 (?) 'gigs'; no d e s c r i p t i o n Drucker:1950 neg Koppert:1930:78 a f f (Clayoquot) stream f i s h i n g f o r salmon - hook Sapir & Swadesh:1955 neg Sproat:1868 neg Makah Gibbs:1877 neg Singh:1966 neg Swan:1870 neg N.Gulf S a l i s h Barnett:1938:121 a f f Barnett:1939:230 a f f toggled salmon g a f f * * Barnett:1955:84 a f f Halkomelem Barnett:1939:230 a f f (Cowichan) Barnett:1955:84 a f f Suttles:1955:23 a f f ( K a tzie) barbless bent wooden hook of yew; binder l i n e S t r a i t s Barnett:1939:230 a f f (E. & W. Saanich) Barnett:1955:84 a f f Gunther:1927:200-01 a f f Stern:1934:49 a f f f a l l f i s h i n g , muddy water Suttles:1951:142-43 a f f e x c l u s i v e l y i n streams f o r f a l l f i s h i n g ; o n ly device used by a l l S t r a i t s groups; 'toggled' steam bent hook Lushootseed Collins:1974 neg Gunther & Haeberlinc.1930 neg Smith:1940:255 a f f f a l l f i s h i n g Waterman:1973 neg Twana Elmendorf:1960:80 a f f Fig.4; one piece barbless s l i p hook of ironwood, steamed and bent, attached by l i n e to shaft*** APPENDIX I : TABLE XIV Contd. Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes G a f f i n g -3 Quileute Quinault P e t t i t t : 1 9 5 0 Singh:1966 01son:1936:26,34 Singh:1966; Swan:1857:264 neg neg a f f neg a f f g a ff hooks i n Quinault R. Lower Chinook Wishram Tillamook Oregon Coast Tolowa Yurok Cox:1957:177(1831) Gibbs:1877:195 Ray:1938 Ray:1942 Swan:1857:135-38; 38-40, 287 a f f a f f neg neg a f f Spier & Sapir: 1930 neg Barnett:1937 neg Sauter & Johnson:1974 neg Barnett:1937 neg Kroeber & Barrett:1960 a f f 81-82 Kroeber & Barrett:1960 neg 80-82 'gi g ' 'gig' attached by thong; r a p i d s & small streams important f a l l f i s h i n g method used by Shoalwater Chinook category not included i n t r a i t l i s t as s t a t e d above quote from Hewes f i e l d notes: gaff f o r salmon was r e g u l a r l y used from the canoe; bone p o i n t * * * no detachable ironwood or curved hooks of any k i n d used f o r salmon f i s h i n g Karok Kroeber & Barrett:1960 neg <- APPENDIX I: TABLE XIV Contd. Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes Gaffing -4 Hupa Wiyot Kroeber & Barrett:1960 neg Kroeber & Barrett:1960:81 a f f Driver:1939:313,379 a f f quote from Driver (see next entry) salmon gaff Drucker stated i n h i s Ethnographic Notes that he did not believe the gaff to be a b o r i g i n a l ; the entries i n the t r a i t l i s t are marked either p o s i t i v e or recently acquired. This Table indicates Aff for a minimum p o s i t i v e entry of one group within the Ethnic Divsion, and (Aff) f o r an entry marked 'recent' by Drucker. Nevertheless, Drucker appears to have been mistaken about the an t i q u i t y of the gaff. Barnett and other writers use the term 'toggled' to r e f e r to the a c t i o n of the binder l i n e by which the gaff hook i s attached to the shaft. *** Kroeber wrote extensive footnotes i n Elmendorf:1960 comparing f i s h i n g methods. He seemed to f i n d i t very d i f f i c u l t to believe that a detachable gaff hook was an e f f i c i e n t device for taking salmon, and expressed his surprise at Elmendorfs c a r e f u l d e s c r i p t i o n of the gaff used by the Twana. Again i n Kroeber & Barrett:1960:82 he questions the p r a c t i c a l i t y of g a f f i n g , t h i s time with reference to the Tolowa data c o l l e c t e d by Hewes: "we have no idea how the alleged Tolowa salmon gaff could have been used from a canoe." APPENDIX I: TABLE XV L i s t of References for Salmon Technology Complex 6 - G i l l Nets Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes T l i n g i t Haida Tsimshian Northern Kwakiutl B e l l a Coola Krause:1956 neg deLaguna:1960, 1972 neg Drucker:1950 neg Niblack:1890 neg Oberg:1973 neg Dawson:1880 neg Drucker:1950 neg Murdock:1934, 1936 neg Swanton:1905 neg Boas:1916:397 a f f Drucker:1950:169,239 a f f MacDonald & Inglis:1976: a f f 46,51 Drucker:1950:169,239 neg Drucker:1950:169 neg Mcllwraith:1948 neg Mackenzie:1970 neg Massett people obtained nets from Nass i n recent times (Kitqata at Hartley Bay, Tsimshian-Gilutsa; Nishga)* Southern Kwakiutl Nootka Boas:1909 neg Drucker:1950:169 neg Drucker:1950:169,239 a f f Drucker:1951:23 neg Koppert:1930:68 neg Sproat:1868:221 neg Sapir & Swadesh:1955:30 a f f (Hupachisat,Tsishaat, Clayoquot)* no nets were used for salmon f i s h i n g net set v e r t i c a l l y APPENDIX I: TABLE XV Contd. xEthnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference. Notes G i l l Nets -2 Makah N.Gulf S a l i s h Halkomelem S t r a i t s Lushootseed Colson:1953:37,43 Croes:1980:311 Gibbs:1877 Gunther:1927:215 Singh:1966:38-39 Swan:1870 Barnett:1939:230 Barnett:1955:86 Barnett:1939:230 D a l l y n.d. Duff:1952:63 Hill-Tout:1907 Suttles:1951:138 Suttles:1955:22 Barnett:1939:230 Gunther:1927:198-201 S u t t l e s :f1951:136-139 a f f a f f neg neg a f f neg neg neg a f f neg a f f neg a f f a f f a f f a f f a f f neg Collins:1974:46 H a e b e r l i n & Gunther:1930 neg Smith:1940:263-64 a f f Waterman:1973 neg i n autumn many gather set nets for salmon Hoko R. archaeol. evidence: Hoko R. (chum salmon) Makah depended wholly on t r o l l i n g , no streams of any s i z e Makah caught more salmon with hooks than nets not a b o r i g i n a l (Cowichan). (Nanaimo-neg.) Fraser R. N 3 Fraser R. (Katzie) f o r salmon but mainly a sturgeon f i s h i n g method; only wealthy person could o b t a i n v a l u a b l e nets (E.Saanich). (W.Saanich-neg.) (Clallam) used where salmon f o l l o w the h e r r i n g i n near shore; chinook, chum, coho. l i n g u i s t i c evidence; used i n s a l t water by S t r a i t s ( s p e c i a l ) set net w i t h a closed bunt end, shallows Twana Elmendorf:1960:81 neg denied Quileute P e t t i t t : 1 9 5 0 : 7 Singh:1966 a f f a f f before whites, made of n e t t l e f i b r e not as important as dip nets or t r a w l nets APPENDIX I : TABLE XV Contd. Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes G i l l Nets -3 Quinault Lower Chinook Wishram Tillamook Olson:1936 Singh:1966 Cox:1831 Franchere:1854 Ray:1938, 1942 Swan:1857 Spier & Sapir:1930 Barnett:1937 neg neg neg neg neg neg neg a f f Sauter & Johnson:1974:57 a f f Oregon Coast Barnett:1937 Drucker:1939 neg a f f Tolowa Barnett:1937 Drucker:1937:233 Driver:1939:312 Hewes:1947:88 a f f a f f a f f a f f Yurok Driver:1939:312 a f f Kroeber & Barrett:1960: a f f 50-52 Kroeber:1925:84-85 a f f Elmendorf:1960:81 a f f Karok Kroeber & Barrett:1960: 50-52,155 a f f denied g i l l nets a b o r i g i n a l , widely used i n narrow r i v e r s of Tillamook Bay. (Alsea) 1940 f i e l d notes: a f f both coastal and r i v e r i n e groups; Hewes 1940 f i e l d notes also quoted: a f f Kroeber footnotes i n Elmendorf: Yurok a f f APPENDIX I: TABLE XV Contd. Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes G i l l Nets -4 Hupa Driver:1939:312 a f f Goddard:1903:24 a f f Kroeber & Barrett:I960: a f f 50-52, 155 Wiyot Driver:1939:312 a f f Kroeber & Barrett:1960: a f f 50-52, 155 * G i l l nets were used by Nishga to f i s h through the i c e ; Haida and Hartley Bay-Tsimshian (Kitqata) stated they obtained g i l l nets ready-made from the people of the Nass-, (Drucker: 1950:239) . In addition, Drucker assumed h i s Nootka informants had erred or were r e f e r r i n g to recent useages because of Sproat's widely c i r c u l a t e d comment that nets were not used i n the area for salmon f i s h i n g , ( i b i d ) . I t i s probable that Sproat intended simply to emphasize the s i g n i f i c a n c e of t r a p s , t r o l l i n g , and harpoons, the three p r i n c i p a l technologies. APPENDIX I: TABLE XVI L i s t of References for Salmon Technology Complex 7 - T i d a l Traps Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes T l i n g i t Krause:1956(1885) neg deLaguna:1960:69,116 aff (Angoon) stone weirs, salmon trapped f a l l i n g t i d e deLaguna:1972:387 a f f (Yakutat) Drucker:1950:166 a f f (Cape Fox) Oberg:1973 neg Haida Dawson:1880 neg Drucker:1950:166 a f f Langdon:1980 a f f (pers.comm.) Murdock:1936 neg Swanton:1905 neg Tsimshian Boas:1916:400 (aff) from the myths, evidence t i d a l traps f or seals^?) Drucker:1950:166 aff (Hartley Bay-Kitqata; Gilutsa-Tsimshian) Sapir:1915 neg "people of the traps" name of group near the mouth of the Nass R. Northern Kwakiutl Drucker:1950:166 aff 01son:1955:320-22 a f f B e l l a B e l l a stone f i s h weirs(incl.one b u i l t by women) Pomeroy:1976 af f B e l l a Coola Drucker:1950:166 aff Mackenzie:1970(1793) neg Mcllwraith:1948:13,118 a f f 221,226 Southern Kwakiutl Boas:1909:465 aff s i n g l e and multiple wings i l l u s t r a t e d Drucker:1950:166 a f f (Koskimo; Kwexa, Nimkish R.( s i c ) ) Nootka Cook:1784 neg Drucker:1950:166,236 a f f Drucker:1951:16,17,259 a f f 'APPENDIX I: TABLE XVI Contd. Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes T i d a l Traps -2 Nootka contd. Makah N.Gulf S a l i s h Halkomelem S t r a i t s Lushootseed Twana Quileute Quinault Jewitt:1967:1815 neg Sapir & Swadesh:1955 neg Sproat:1868 neg Colson:1953 neg Singh:1966 neg Swan:1857 neg Barnett .-1939:229 a f f Barnett:1955 a f f Barnett:1939:229 a f f Hill-Tout:1907 neg Suttles:1962 neg Barnett:1939:229 a f f Gunther:1927 neg Suttles:1951 neg Collins:1969 neg Haeberlin & Gunther: 1930 iieg Smith:1940 neg Waterman:1973 neg Elmendorf:1960:57,76 neg P e t t i t t : 1 9 5 0 neg Singh:1966 neg Olson:1936 neg Singh:1966 neg i n c l . t i d a l fence trap (Cowichan)(Nanaimo-neg;) (W.Saanich) occasional use f o r seals but obviously not important salmon technology (cf p.57*63); also used f or herring and other s a l t water f i s h . APPENDIX I: TABLE XVI Contd. Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes T i d a l Traps -3 Lower Chinook Upper Chinook Tillamook Oregon Coast Tolowa Yurok Karok Hup a Wiyot Ray:1938 neg Ray:1942:114 neg Swan:1857 neg 0 Barnett:1937 neg Sauter & Johnson:1974 a f f Barnett:1937 neg Drucker:1939 neg Leatherman & Kreiger:1940 neg Barnett:1937 neg Drucker:1937 neg Kroeber & Barrett:1960 neg 0 0 Kroeber & Barrett:1960:22 (aff) denied archeol. evid. (special) quote from Hewes f i e l d notes; trap set i n 7 to 8 f t deep stream or t i d a l slough f o r chinook which were c a r r i e d down along with ebbing t i d e ; net at opening i n f e n c e - l i k e obstruction, ( i . e . , does not strand the f i s h . ) > APPENDIX I: TABLE XVII L i s t of References for Salmon Technology Complex 8 - Weirs Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes T l i n g i t Krause:1956(1885) deLaguna:1972:384 Drucker:1950:167 Knapp & Childe:1896:90 Oberg:1973:9,62 neg af f a f f a f f a f f reports traps • small streams blocked (Cape Fox; C h i l k a t ) , both v e r t i c a l & oblique stakes double weir + dip net, harpoon sp o r a d i c a l l y b u i l t Haida Dawson:1880:109-110 Drucker:1950:30 Murdock:1936:224 Niblack:1888:294 a f f a f f a f f aff small streams simple row of v e r t i c a l stakes lashed to horizontal poles t i e d to bank (source:Niblack); shallow,double weir + spear,dip net (source:Swan);upstream weirs + spear, dip net 1 K> ON OJ salmon 'fences' 1 (Hartley Bay;Gilutsa -oblique)(Gitksan - v e r t i c a l ) Tsimshian Boas:1916 Barbeau:1930:147 Drucker:1950:167 MacDonald & Inglis:1976 a f f a f f a f f a f f Northern Kwakiutl Drucker:1950:167 a f f (Bella B e l l a , Heiltsuk) B e l l a Coola Drucker:1950:167 Mackenzie:1970:361-64, 371-72 Mcllwraith:1948:9,118,135, 226,610 a f f (aff) a f f affirmed by inference that not a l l people had the large B e l l a Coola River Dam Southern Kwakiutl Boas:1909 Boas:1921:238 Boas:1966 Drucker:1950 neg af f (aff) a f f sockeye caught i n salmon weirs (no description) Codere's summary reference appears to be general for the ce n t r a l Northwest Coast v e r t i c a l stakes (Koskimo; Kwexa, Nimkish R . i(sic)) APPENDIX I : TABLE Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Nootka Cook:1784 neg Drucker:1950:167 neg Drucker:1951:250 ( a f f ) Koppert:1930 neg Jewitt:1967(1815) neg Sapir & Swadesh:1955 neg Sproat:1868 neg Makah Colson:1953:33 neg Croes:1980. a f f Gibbs:1877 neg Singh:1966:37-38 a f f Swan:1870 neg N.Gulf S a l i s h Barnett:1939:229 a f f Barnett: 1955:7.9-81 a f f Halkomelem Barnett:1939:229 a f f Barnett:1955:22,79-81 a f f Dally:n.d. a f f Duff:1952:140 a f f Hill-Tout:1907:90 a f f Jenness:1955 neg Suttles:1955:23 a f f S t r a i t s Barnett:1939:229 a f f Barnett:1955:22-23,79-83 a f f Gunther:1927:199-200 a f f Suttles:1951:142,145-151 a f f Twana Elmendorf:1960:63-73 a f f Waterman:1973:63 a f f Contd. Notes Weirs -2 (did not c o l l e c t the information) i n h e r i t e d r i g h t s to put a weir i n a c e r t a i n place archaeol.evidence: Hoko R. l a t t i c e work recovered f a l l salmon f i s h i n g not important Ozette R. had 3 - 4 weirs f o r sockeye May-June (Sechelt,Squamish,Homalco,Sla iamun) (Cowichan,Nanaimo) Cowichan a l s o trap door,square enclosure,upright stakes,removable l a t t i c e , s c a f f o l d . Nanaimo R. had one w e i r ; Cowichan R. had s e r i e s (photos) widely reproduced photos Cowichan weirs C h i l l i w a c k R. ( K a t z i e ) f a l l f i s h i n g ; b u i l t by head men on f a m i l y . streams, eg. A l o u t t e R. (W.Saanich) (Clallam)most important method; weir,platform,pen or'pocket' + g a f f , s p e a r ; a l s o double weir (p.201) f a l l f i s h i n g ; weir,platform,pen. Not used by S t r a i t s people l i v i n g on Vancouver I s l a n d . communal w e i r , p l a t f o r m s , d i p p i n g net(good descr'n) compares t h i s to Kepel Dam type APPENDIX I : TABLE XVII Contd. Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes Weirs -3 Lushootseed Collins:1974:47 a f f Haeberlin & Gunther: 1930: ."."'aff 27 Smith:1940:258-262 a f f Waterman:1973:64-65 a f f Q u i l e u t e P e t t i t t : 1 9 5 0 : 7 a f f Singh:1966:37-38 a f f Quinault Olson:1936:26-29 a f f Singh:1966:37-38 a f f Swan:1857:264 a f f Lower Chinook Gibbs:1877:195 a f f Ray:1942:104;1938:108-09 a f f Swan:1857 neg Wishram Spier & Sapir: 1930:177 neg Tillamook Barnett:1937:163,193 a f f Sauter & Johnson:1974 a f f Oregon Coast Barnett:1937:163 a f f Drucker:1939:82-83 a f f Tolowa Barnett:1937:163,193 a f f Drucker:1937:232 a f f Kroeber & Barrett:1960 a f f 151-52 on t r i b u t a r i e s but not on Skagit R. Fig.II'Salmon Trap' i s weir; t r i p o d c o n s t r u c t i o n , platforms + d i p p i n g net. Native terms. f i s h ' t r a p ' i s weir;(good d e s c r i p t i o n ) ; n a t i v e terms type i n Puget Sound analogous to Kepel Dam most productive technology; p l a t f o r m s , d i p p i n g net p l a t f o r m s , d i p p i n g net; s p r i n g run of sockeye;(good d e s c r i p t i o n ) . o b t a i n t h e i r salmon p r i n c i p a l l y by means of weirs which they b u i l d w i t h a great d e a l of s k i l l "On some of .'the r i v e r s where the depth permits, weirs are b u i l t to stop t h e i r ascent."(chinook) dams and weirs + d i p net and spears use the term'weir'to describe s m a l l stream trap communal salmon weir d e s c r i p t i o n based on pioneer d i a r y by Vaughn (Alsea, Coos, Siuslaw) weirs w i t h s c a f f o l d s f o r spearing and n e t t i n g (Alsea) on the main r i v e r or s i d e streams communal salmon weir weirs at small streams, f a l l f i s h i n g Map 4; Map 9 - w e i r s w i t h platforms "APPENDIX I : TABLE XVII Contd. Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes Weirs -4 Yurok Karok Hup a Kroeber & Barrett:1960 a f f 11-18 Waterman & Kroeber:1938 a f f Kroeber & Barrett:1960 a f f 20-21 Goddard:1903:24 a f f Hewes:(field notes:1940) a f f Kroeber & Barrett:1960 a f f 18-20 Kepel Dam most ela b o r a t e on Klamath R. or Salmon R. 6 l o c a t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d : 4 weirs on Klamath, 2 on Salmon. b u i l t at 1 of 2 l o c a t i o n s i n a l t e r n a t e years (good d e s c r i p t i o n ) quoted i n Kroeber & B a r r e t t photographs i n c l . i n Appendix Wiyot Hewes:1947 a f f Kroeber & Barrett:1960 a f f 22-23 Wiyot weirs simpler i n c o n s t r u c t i o n (than other Northwestern C a l i f . ) ; depths of 4 f t ; d ip net ON ON APPENDIX I: TABLE XVIII L i s t of References for Salmon Technology Complex 9 - Traps I Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes T l i n g i t Krause:1956:121 af f "most common i s the salmon trap";fence with basketry traps deLaguna: 1960:43', 115-16 a f f (Angoon) tumble-back; sockeye,coho; g r i d trap; (funnel trap, i . e. , c y l i n d r i c a l basketry:Chilkat)-. deLaguna:1972:387 a f f (Yakutat) c y l i n d r i c a l and V-shaped LaPerouse:1799:Vol.I a f f quoted i n deLaguna:1972:387 re Yakutat:...by staking Emmons:1903:242 af f the r i v e r s across f o r salmon; fence + basket traps Drucker:1950:166,236 af f 0berg:1973:9 af f Haida Curtis:1916:187(Vol.ll) a f f dam at f a l l s + tumble-back trap Dawson:1880:145 a f f c y l i n d r i c a l ; tumble-back Drucker:1950:166-67 a f f for coho (Massett) Murdock:1936 af f Niblack:1890:294 a f f Tsimshian Barbeau:1930:147 a f f trap salmon i n f i s h fences and baskets Boas:1916:400 af f Drucker:1950 af f MacDonald & Inglis:1976 a f f basket traps MacDonald,J.(n.d.) aff f i e l d notes: very large traps used at night during month of half-moon upside down (Kitsumkalum) Sapir:1915 (aff) "people of the ( f i s h ) traps", a named group Northern Kwakiutl Drucker:1950:166-67 af f 01son:1940:199 a f f c o n i c a l basketry traps f o r chinook, coho(Haisla) Olson:1954 neg APPENDIX I : TABLE XVIII Contd. •Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes Traps I -2 B e l l a Coola Southern Kwakiutl Nbo tka Drucker:1950:166,236 a f f Mackenzie:1970:371-72 neg Mcllwraith:1948:603 neg Barnett:1939:230 neg Boas:1909:461-465 a f f Drucker:1950:166-67,236 a f f Cook:1778 (pub.1784) a f f Drucker:1951:16-18 a f f Jewitt:1967:46-47,87 a f f Koppert:1930:72,78-79 a f f Sapir & Swadesh:1955:42 a f f Sproat:1868:222-23 a f f c y l i n d r i c a l r i v e r t r a p , f u n n e l entry no i n f o r m a t i o n obtained extensive d e s c r i p t i o n ; s e v e r a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s c y l i n d r i c a l r i v e r trap f o r chum salmon; others "wears"=traps made of basketry (cf Oxford E n g l i s h D i c t i o n a r y 1933 edn.) Cook:20 f t x 12" wickerwork "pots or wears"=traps 20 f t long c y l i n d r i c a l basket (Clayoquot)(good d e s c r i p t i o n ) s e r i e s of c y l i n d r i c a l baskets set on stone w a l l (good d e s c r i p t i o n ) Makah N.Gulf S a l i s h Halkomelem Colson:1953 neg Croes:1980:311 a f f Singh:1966 neg Swan:1857 neg Barnett:1939:230 a f f Barnett:1955:81-82 a f f Barnett:1939:230 a f f Duff:1952:67 a f f Hill-Tout:1907:91 a f f Jenness:1955 neg Suttles:1955 neg Hoko R. archa e o l . evidence f o r traps diagram: g r i d trap (Nanaimo - f a l l - b a c k trap;Cowichan - c y l i n d r i c a l trap) i n t r i b u t a r y streams APPENDIX I: TABLE XVIII Contd. : E t h n i c D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes Traps I -3 S t r a i t s Barnett:1939:230 a f f (E.Saanich) basketry trap Gunther:1927:198-201 a f f every creek has at l e a s t one t r a p ; chum salmon Suttles:1951:151 a f f (Samish) f a l l f i s h i n g ; basketry trap Lushootseed Collins:1974:317 a f f basketry trap at Nookachamps Creek (L.Skagit) Smith:1940:257-58 a f f basketry traps ("weirs") narrow streams,anchored; g r i d t r a p , l a r g e ; f a l l s t r a p . Suttles:1951:151 a f f (Upper Skagit) c o n i c a l basket t r a p , f u n n e l mouth Waterman:1973:65 a f f Twana Elmendorf:1960:75 a f f basketry traps Q u i leute P e t t i t t : 1 9 5 0 neg (uses term 'trap' f o r weir) Quinault Olson:1936 neg Singh:1966 neg Lower Chinook Ray:1938:108 neg Ray:1942:104-05,231 a f f Swan:1857 neg Wishram Spier & Sapir:1930:177 a f f c y l i n d r i c a l basket, funnel mouth; g r i d below r i f f l e s Tillamook Barnett:1937:164,195 a f f Sauter & Johnson:1974 a f f Oregon Coast Barnett:1937:164 a f f (Siuslaw, Alsea) Drucker:1939:82-83 a f f (Alsea) Frachtenberg:1920:233 a f f (Alsea) t r a p s : s m a l l r i v e r s b e s t ; " . . . b u i l d s a f i s h t r a p " (salmon). APPENDIX I: TABLE XVIII Contd. Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes Traps I -4 Tolowa Yurok Karok Hupa" Kroeber & Barrett:1960 67,157 Kroeber & Barrett:1960 23,67,157 Kroeber & Barrett:1960 67,157 Goddard:1903:25 Kroeber & Barrett:1960 67,157 a f f a f f a f f a f f a f f c y l i n d r i c a l basketry t r a p s ; t r o u g h - l i k e traps (Coastal Yurok) c o r r a l b u i l t on L i t t l e R.estuary to meet s p e c i a l c o n d i t i o n s ; co-operative labour; Fig.26 trough t r a p , ( g e n e r a l . ) No c y l i n d r i c a l t r a p s . b o x - l i k e trap quoted from Hewes:1947; trough t r a p ; No c y l i n d r i c a l basketry t r a p s . g r i d trap b o x - l i k e trap quoted from Hewes:1947; trough trap to strand f i s h ; No c y l i n d r i c a l t r a p s . Wiyot Kroeber & Barrett:1960 67,157 a f f trough t r a p ; No c y l i n d r i c a l t r a p s . APPENDIX I : TABLE XIX L i s t of References f o r Salmon Technology Complex 10 - Traps I I Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes T l i n g i t deLaguna:1972:386 a f f Drucker:1950:166=67,236-7 a f f Haida Tsimshian Northern Kwakiutl Dawson:1880 Curtis:1916 Murdock:1934,1936 Barbeau:1930:144 neg neg neg Drucker:1950:166-67,236-7 a f f a f f Drucker:1950:166-67,236-7 a f f Drucker:1950:166-67,236-7 a f f Olson:1954:213-14 ( a f f ) B e l l a Coola Drucker:1950:166-67,236-7 a f f Mackenzie:1970:361-64,371 a f f Mcllwraith:1948:135,603, a f f 610 ALL OTHER NORTHWEST COAST DIVISIONS neg l a r g e box trap 25 f t x 75 f t , catwalk (Northern l a r g e r i v e r trap) t r a i t l i s t #15-19 (Cape Fox) (Large r i v e r trap) (Haida Massett; Haida Skidegate) Hagwilget canyon trap (photos), d e s c r i p t i o n ( G i t k s a n ) (Northern l a r g e r i v e r t r a p ) ( H a r t l e y Bay) (Northern l a r g e r i v e r t r a p ) ( H a i s l a , Kitamat; Wikeno, R i v e r s I n l e t ) Wannock R.,4 m i l e s long,drains Owikeno L . i n t o R i v e r s I n l e t ; v e r y l a r g e sockeye runs e a r l y f a l l ; t i d e s i n lower river;Olson:"Only the upper r i v e r s u i t a b l e f o r the salmon t r a p s . " (Northern l a r g e r i v e r trap) ( B e l l a Coola)River Dam). B e l l a Coola R i v e r Dam - f u l l d e s c r i p t i o n B e l l a Coola R i v e r Dam APPENDIX I: TABLE XX L i s t ^ o f References for Salmon Technology Complex 11 - Dip Net Stations Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes T l i n g i t Haida Tsimshian Northern Kwakiutl B e l l a Coola Nootka Makah N.Gulf S a l i s h Krause:1956(1885) neg deLaguna:1960, 1972 neg Drucker:1950:169,239 a f f other sources: neg a l l sources: neg Boas:1916:400 (aff) Drucker:1950:169,239 a f f other sources: neg Drucker:1950 neg others neg Drucker:1950 neg Mackenzie:1970(1793) neg Mcllwraith:1948 neg a l l sources neg a l l sources neg Barnett:1939:229-30,280 (neg) (Chilkat) dip net on Y-frame, handle 2 -3 fathoms, net can be closed; used by Klukwan (26 miles upstream on C h i l k a t R.) no mention no mention from the myths (Hartley Bay; Gitksan) dip nets used for salmon 1 from s c a f f o l d b u i l t over eddy;(Gilutsa -no s c a f f o l d ) . ! ^ no mention M i not enough information no information not enough information mentioned only i n connection with B e l l a Coola Dam t r a i t s (Squamish data could be interpreted as affirma-t i v e but i n s u f f i c i e n t information) SouthernTKwakiUtl a l l sources neg APPENDIX I: TABLE XX Contd. Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes Dip Net Stations -2 Halkomelem Boas:1894 neg Dally,F. (n.d.) a f f Duff:1952:62-63 a f f Fraser:1960:101(1808) a f f Hill-Tout:1907:91 a f f S t r a i t s a l l sources neg Lushootseed a l l sources neg Twana a l l sources neg Quileute a l l sources neg Quinault Olson:1936:31-33 a f f Lower Chinook Gibbs:1877:195 a f f Ray:1938:109 a f f Wishram Gibbs:1877:195 a f f Lewis & Clark:1905(1805) a f f Spier & Sapir:1930:175 a f f Tillamook Barnett:1937:164,195 (neg) Oregon Coast Barnett:1937:164,195 (neg) (photos) B.C.Provincial Archives l e t t e r s c.1852-1867, (Upper Stalo T a i t ) F r a s e r canyon dip net stations (good description) observed fishermen dipnetting from stagings i n Fraser canyon above Hope, June 29, 1808; 20 f t shafts on nets (Upper Halkomelem) stagings over muddy water i n canyon, salmon 'hug the bank'to get out of downward rush of the current. i N 3 OJ I (Lower R i v e r : s p e c i a l adaptation) Fig.5 at the rapids f or chinooks (may mean Upper Chinook) (Lower R i v e r : s p e c i a l adaptation)channels dug near shore chinook salmon at the Dalles Oct.1805 and A p r i l 1806 at Celio F a l l s , the Dalles* stagings b u i l t i n the Columbia canyon for dip nets (good description) i n s u f f i c i e n t information . i n s u f f i c i e n t information APPENDIX I: TABLE XX Contd. Ethnic D i v i s i o n Source Reference Notes Dip Net Stations -3 Tolowa Barnett:1937:164 neg Drucker:1937 neg Kroeber & Barrett:1960:154 a f f A-frame l i f t i n g net used without platforms/stagings Yurok Karok Hupa Wiyot Kroeber & Barrett:1960: 153-54 Kroeber & Barrett:1960: Kroeber & Barrett:1960: 153-54 Goddard:1903:23 Curtis:1924 (vol.13) Kroeber & Barrett:1960 aff aff a f f a f f a f f a f f A-frame l i f t i n g net stati o n s on Klamath; Plunge nets; (Coastal Yurok, no platforms). (Good description) A-frame l i f t i n g net st a t i o n s ; Plunge nets, (photos): 1902 photograph L i t t l e Ike with Plunge net at I s h i P i s h i F a l l s . A-frame l i f t i n g net s t a t i o n s ; Plunge nets quoted i n Kroeber & Barrett:1960 A-frame l i f t i n g net r o Lewis & Clark reported i n d e t a i l the method of drying salmon and preparing bundles to be transported. APPENDIX I: TABLE XXI L i s t of References for Salmon Technology Complex 12 - Reef Nets Ethnic Division Source Reference Notes S t r a i t s Barnett:1939:230 a f f Boas:1890:568-69 a f f Gunther:1927:199-201 neg Hill-Tout:1907:90 a f f Stern:1934:43-46 a f f Suttles:1951:152-222 a f f (inclusive) Fig.9 Seasonal v i l l a g e plan f or Reef Net f i s h e r y (Clallam)* Island t r i b e s (Lummi) crews of ten men (good description) Suttles extensive i n v e s t i g a t i o n indicated only S t r a i t s people had Reef Net locations (good d e s c r i p t i o n ) . ALL OTHER NORTHWEST COAST GROUPS neg *Clallam people who s e t t l e d at Sooke owned locations; those who remained on the southern side of the Juan de Fuca S t r a i t did not, according to Suttles:1951:192. -Ol i - 276 -Appendix I: TABLE XXII Reference Codes - D i s t r i b u t i o n Maps E thn i c D i v i s i o n s Reference I nd i c a t o r 1 T l i n g i t 1TL 2 Haida 2HA 3 Ts imshian 3TS 4 Nor thern Kwak iu t l 4NK 5 B e l l a Coo la 5BC 6 Southern Kwak iu t l 6SK 7 West Coast-Nootka 7NU 8 Makah 8MA 9 North Gu l f S a l i s h 9NS 10 Halkomelem S a l i s h 10HS 11 S t r a i t s S a l i s h 11SS 12 Lushootseed 12LU 13 Twana 13TW 14 Qu i l eu t e 14QT 15 Qu inau l t 15QN 16 Lower Chinook 16LC 17 Upper Chinook 17UC 18 T i l l amook 18TI 19 Oregon Coast 190C 20 Tolowa 20TO 21 Yurok 21YU 22 Karok 22KA 23 Hupa 23HU 24 Wiyot 24WI - 277 -APPENDIX II Index of Salmon Abundance Introduction P a c i f i c salmon populations supported by the water resources i n each of f i v e sub-regions of the Northwest Coast culture area are indicated i n an Index of Salmon Abundance (Table XXVI). The base data i s derived from estimates of spawning populations obtained by the International North P a c i f i c F i s h e r i e s Commission ( B u l l e t i n 23:1967). In the study, Aro and Shepard (Appendix A:pp 273-325) estimate spawning populations i n B r i t i s h Columbia streams, by species, for a twelve year period (1951-1963). From t h i s data I prepared a frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n (Table XXIII). Linear regression techniques were used to determine average escapement values for each salmon species (cf Tables XXIV and XXV). The s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s were then applied to data on United States spawning streams reported i n Atkinson, Rose, and Duncan ( i b i d : Maps, Figures 2-53;pp 77-128). Differences i n species c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were considered i n order to determine what percentage of United States streams supported spawning populations of 'major' stocks (Aro & Shepard: pp 273-74 define average escapement categories used by fieldworkers). Spawning populations i n United States streams are reported i n Atkinson, e t r a l , only where escapement exceeds 50,000 spawners. The Index of Salmon Abundance i n t h i s present study i s a preliminary i n d i c a t i o n and comparison of p o t e n t i a l salmon resources a v a i l a b l e i n the Northwest Coast culture area. - 278 -APPENDIX I I : TABLE XXIII Frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r spawning populations of salmon species i n B r i t i s h Columbia streams which support 'major' stocks. Escapement Pink (000) Sockeye odd even Chum Coho Chinook 1 0 0 2 0 4 43 1-2 1 4 0 0 41 23 2-5 18 9 1 14 84 16 5-10 15 6 2 38 25 7 10-20 11 9 18 29 7 6 20-50 10 20 33 26 7 0 50-100 7 5 9 1 0 0 100 1 9 4 1 0 0 Table entries are the number of streams. - 279 -S t a t i s t i c a l evidence Table XXIII reports the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n for salmon species i n B r i t i s h Columbia streams. I t appears l i k e l y that an exponential d i s t r i b u t i o n would describe the r e l a t i o n s h i p between salmon and the magnitude of escapement. But f i r s t i t must be known i f there are differences between species. TABLE XXIV S t a t i s t i c a l d ifferences between species Moments Sockeye ,, Chum Coho Chinook odd even Mean (x) 7.88 8.75 8, .63 13 .63 21. 00 11.88 Standard 6.81 4.95 1.1. .49 15 .46 29. 15 15.08 Deviation C o e f f i c i e n t of 0.87 0.57 1. .33 1 .14 1. 39 1.27 V a r i a t i o n Chi-square The table has 35 degrees of freedom. The Pearson chi-square i s 518.67; the l i k l i h o o d r a t i o chi-square i s 510.06. The variables 'species' and 'escapement' are not independent. I am g r a t e f u l to Dr.' Braxton A l f r e d f o r doing the s t a t i s t i c a l a nalysis of my data. - 280 -Exponential curve f i t t i n g The f u n c t i o n a l form i s assumed to be . . -(beta)(x) y == k * e v / v / where 'y' i s the table entry and 'x' the escapement. The transformation In y = K - (beta)(x) allows l i n e a r regression techniques to be used. In order to avoid taking log of 0, the constant 0.5 was added to a l l c e l l s . TABLE XXV Results of Linear Regression Analysis Species F regression R Sockeye 0.59 (NS) 0.30 Pink - odd 0.53 (NS) 0.28 Pink - even 4.12 (0.09) 0.64 Chum 0.33 (NS) 0.23 Coho 5.99 (0.05) 0.71 Chinook 61.75 (0.0) 0.96 Note: The regression constant f o r Coho i s 4.41 (0.0.1) and the regression c o e f f i c i e n t i s -0.55(0.05). For Chinook, the regression constant i s 4.72 (0.0) and the c o e f f i c i e n t -0.73(0.0). Conclusions Note that t h i s f u n c t i o n a l form f i t s the observations on Coho and Chinook only. Untransformed l i n e a r regressions were done with the same q u a l i t a t i v e r e s u l t . APPENDIX I I : TABLE XXVI Index of Salmon Abundance - Northwest Coast C u l t u r e Area Regional D i v i s i o n Sockeye Pink Odds Evens Chum Coho Chinook Northern 1111 - 1212 ' 3349 - 3481 836 1576 - 1756 189 - 324 41 - 63 Wakashan 390 - 881 565 - 1083 1178 - 2556 504 - 1099 271 - 610 64 - 131 S a l i s h a n 634 - 2278 1898 - 2161 92 - 205 703 - 1200 326 - 548 90 - 173 Columbian 297 303 232 326 Southern n i l n i l n i l n i l 6 56 Table e n t r i e s i n d i c a t e spawning populations i n thousands. - 282 -Explanatory notes to accompany Table XXVI 1 Spawning populations for Canadian streams are derived from Aro & Shepard:1967. Named streams i n each ethnic d i v i s i o n were i d e n t i -f i e d and counted. The range of average escapement for each salmon species accounts for the upper and lower values indicated i n the recap t o t a l s . Z 2 Spawning populations for United States streams are derived by c a l c u l a t i n g the number of spawning streams for each species reported i n Atkinson, et a l , (1967) that c o r r e l a t e to Northwest Coast ethnographic l o c a t i o n s . No range of average escapement has been introduced into the r e s u l t s . 3 Atkinson, et a l , i n d i c a t e abundance i n salmon streams supporting over 50,000 spawners. Unreported estimates for smaller spawning populations have been compensated by the following procedure: s t a t i s t i c a l averages for escapement values by species were applied to a percentage of the spawning streams i d e n t i f i e d i n maps of U.S. streams. 4 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of spawning populations are reported (INPFC:1967) as follows: Chum and Coho widely d i s t r i b u t e d production spread over moderate sized systems Pinks widely d i s t r i b u t e d r e l a t i v e l y few areas support most runs ( i . e . , production concentrated) Chinook spawn i n few streams production concentrated small spawning populations Sockeye spawn i n few streams ( i . e . , enter few r i v e r systems) production concentrated very large spawning populations 5 Percentages used to c a l c u l a t e number of spawning l o c a t i o n s that support 'major' stocks of each species: chum and coho - 35%; pinks - 20%; chinook - 50%; sockeye - 40%. While these may be high i n some:_areas (eg. Alaskan archipelago) lower percentages would have skewed the r e s u l t s i n the Columbian and Southern areas. 6 The quadrennial dominance of sockeye salmon i n the Fraser system i s not shown. Lower and upper values indicated represent years of l e a s t and greatest abundance r e s p e c t i v e l y . For reconstruction of Fraser stocks a v a i l a b l e to native populations i n t h i s period (early to mid-nineteenth century) Kew (1976) and Berringer (1976) i s more accurate. - 283 -APPENDIX III Comparison of Resource Areas' To test the proposition that weirs would have been constructed on r i v e r s that could y i e l d high returns (given: that appropriate water features were present), whereas, traps would be the main salmon technology complex i n areas with smaller runs, I compared s t a t i s t i c a l evidence from ethnographic groups known to have r e l i e d p r i n c i p a l l y on weir technology with those known to use traps. Our best ethnographic example of s o c i e t i e s with communal weirs includes the Halkomelem (Cowichan), the Twana, and the Quinault, peoples whose language family i s Salishan. The best evidence of trap use i s the Wakashan material, s p e c i f i c a l l y Nootka. Informants claim that traps were used i n every stream on the west coast of Vancouver Island; no large weirs are reported there. Using f i g u r e s obtained by INPFC:1967 and the c a l c u l a t i o n s previously described i n Appendix I I , the following r e s u l t s were achieved. Tables XXVII and XXVIII i n d i c a t e the Index of Abundance values for salmon run- (by species) i n each of the Cowichan, Skokomish and Quinault Rivers. Table XXVIII shows that the t o t a l salmonrr.esouree i n these r i v e r s i s considerably above average f o r one or more species. The Cowichan has three species of salmon, each of which exceeds the mean average by a s i g n i f i c a n t proportion. The Skokomish and Quinault Rivers i n d i c a t e s i m i l a r values. An "escapement value" of over 50,000 chum salmon enter the Skokomish (Hood Canal) area; chinook and coho are - 284 -not estimated by INPFC. In the Quinault River the abundant sockeye runs produce escapement figures i n excess of 50,000, considerably above the 7.88 x. In contrast, the west coast of Vancouver Island streams have more runs of average s i z e . Table XXIX indicates how d i f f u s e d the resource i s throughout the area. For example, chum salmon run i n 183 west coast streams, only 15 i n considerable numbers. An examination of these f i f t e e n streams shows that they a l l are within average ranges for escapement values of chum salmon for the whole B r i t i s h Columbia region. Table XXX: Clayoquot Sound salmon streams, i s given as an example of the other f i v e sub-areas. The spawning populations of each 'major' stream are indicated. While these are only preliminary t e s t s , they appear to support the proposition that where the resource i s widely d i s t r i b u t e d within an area, given that stream conditions permit, traps w i l l be more e f f i c i e n t salmon technology complexes than weirs. The opposite i s equally true: where the resource i s concentrated, as i n an important salmon stream with runs that f a r exceed 'average', then, the construction of weirs, the necessary organization of labour e f f o r t , and the intensive f i s h e r y at the weir during the run, are repaid by high production y i e l d s . - 285 -APPENDIX I I I : TABLE XXVII Species Spawning populations i n the Cowichan, Skokomish, and Quinault Rivers Cowichan Quinault Skokomish Sockeye Pink - odd - even Chum Coho Chinook n i l n i l n i l occasional: > 100,000 average: 20,000-50,000 20,000-50,000 5,000-10,000 > 50,000 n i l n i l yes (no estimate) 1 yes (no estimate) yes (no estimate) n i l n i l n i l >50,000 yes (no estimate) yes (no estimate) Atkinson, et al:1967 - 286 -APPENDIX I i i ' : TABLE XXVIII Index of Abundance values f o r Cowichan, Quinault, and Skokomish River. Species Spawning Stream Spawning Population S t a t i s t i c a l (000) Average Sockeye Chum Chum Coho Chinook Quinault Cowichan Skokomish Cowichan Cowichan > 50 7.88 x >100 (occasional) 2 0 - 5 0 13.63 x > 50 20 - 50 5 - 1 0 13.63 x 0.71 mult-R 0.96 mult-R - 287 -APPENDIX I I I : TABLE XXIX Spawning populations i n West Coast Rivers of Vancouver Island Species Barkley Clayoquot Nootka Kyuquot Quatsino Sound Sound Sound Sound Sound Sockeye n i l 22 - 45 n i l n i l 2 - 5 ( 4 ) a (1) Pink-even i n s i g n i f . few few few 30-70 (2) -odd n i l n i l n i l n i l n i l Chum 65 - 160 20 - 40 25 - 50 15 - 30 n i l (4) (3) (4) (3) Coho 2 9 - 7 0 1 0 - 2 4 4 - 9 6 - 1 3 1 7 - 3 7 (4) (6) (3) (5) (10) Chinook 6.8-13.5 3.3-6.5 2.8-5.5 3.8-8.5 2 - 5 (4) (6) (4) (4) (1) number of streams to support 'major' stocks i s shown i n brackets. Table entries i n d i c a t e spawning population i n thousands. - 288 -APPENDIX I I I : TABLE XXX Index of Abundance values f or West Coast Rivers - Vancouver Island: Clayoquot Sound Streams Species D i s t r i b u t i o n of Spawning Population (000) S t a t i s t i c a l Average 2 - 5 7.88 X 5 - 1 0 10 - 20 5 - 1 0 22 - 45) 5 - 1 0 13.63 x'„,I 5 - 1 0 1 0 - 2 0 20 - 40) 2 - 5 .71 mult-R 1 - 2 1 - 2 2 - 5 2 - 5 2 - 5 10 - 24) .5 - 1. .96 mult-R .3 - .5 .5 - 1. 1 . - 2 . .5 - 1. .5 - 1. Sockeye Chum Coho Chinook (tot. (tot.3.3 - 6.5) 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095096/manifest

Comment

Related Items