Open Collections

Delgamuukw Trial Transcripts

[Proceedings of the Supreme Court of British Columbia 1989-01-11] British Columbia. Supreme Court Jan 11, 1989

Item Metadata


JSON: delgamuukw-1.0018387.json
JSON-LD: delgamuukw-1.0018387-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): delgamuukw-1.0018387-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: delgamuukw-1.0018387-rdf.json
Turtle: delgamuukw-1.0018387-turtle.txt
N-Triples: delgamuukw-1.0018387-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: delgamuukw-1.0018387-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

 10414  Submissions  1 VANCOUVER, B.C.  2 January 11, 1989  3  4 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  In the Supreme Court of British  5 Columbia, Vancouver this Wednesday, January 11,  6 1989.  Calling the matter of Delgamuukw versus Her  7 Majesty the Queen at bar, my lord.  8 THE COURT:  Mr. Rush.  9 MR. RUSH:  I think my learned friends have a matter to raise  10 with you concerning scheduling.  11 THE COURT:  Thank you.  12 MR. GOLDIE:  My lord, this refers to the scheduling of the  13 witness Heather Harris to whom Mr. Macaulay alluded  14 in his submissions to your lordship Friday last.  It  15 arises out of the late delivery of documents,  16 primarily the interview notes that Miss Harris made  17 of her interviews with a very large number of the  18 plaintiffs.  I'm not going to go through the history  19 of this to any substantial extent, my lord.  I just  20 note that Miss Harris was advised -- that we were  21 advised that Miss Harris would be a witness on  22 November 24th and on December 6th.  I wrote to my  23 friend Mr. Rush with a copy to Mr. Grant asking for  24 production of all documents coming within the  25 categories defined by your lordship in your reasons  26 for judgment of November 10th.  I said this category  27 includes, of course, her interview notes.  28 The delivery of the interview notes commenced  29 on January the 5th, or more accurately I should say  30 they were dispatched from Hazelton on January the  31 5th.  We received our -- we received the documents  32 sent out on January the 5th on January 9th.  At the  33 same time Mr. Grant asked us to address your  34 lordship either yesterday or today as to whether we  35 would require an adjournment by reason of the  36 delivery or the late delivery of these documents.  37 We have not yet received all of them, although from  38 Mr. Grant's communication the final batch left  39 Hazelton yesterday or the 9th.  But as of the time I  40 left my office this morning we had not received  41 them.  So my submission is based upon the documents  42 that we have received.  The documents that we have  43 received on the 9th we have classified but not  44 examined.  They are primarily interview notes with  45 informants together with information which Miss  46 Harris has collected from a number of places.  There  47 are about 170 items consisting of several pages 10415  Submissions  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE COURT:  MR. GOLDIE  MR. RUSH:  MR. GOLDIE  each.  I assume that what is to come will be of the  same general category.  From Mr. Grant's letter what  is coming will constitute -- will include interview  notes in respect of the genealogy of some 20 houses.  I can assume from that that we have the interview  notes with respect to the genealogy of the  remainder.  There is no doubt so far as I am concerned  that it would be quite impossible for us to analyze  these notes, to relate them to her report, and to  relate them to the genealogies of which we are  informed we now have in total.  That being so, I  informed Mr. Grant last night and my friend Mr. Rush  that I would be applying today -- that I would be  informing them and your lordship that I would be  applying for an adjournment of Miss Harris after she  has given her evidence in chief on the 16th.  I  think it is important that Miss Harris give her  evidence in chief because there is a question about  her qualifications, and your lordship's rulings with  respect to qualifications will determine the scope  of the cross-examination.  It appears clear that a number of the charts  have already been proven by prior witnesses and  probably there is no doubt that Miss Harris can  authenticate the rest which she has filed.  It is  not a very lengthy report, a report running to some  80 or 90 pages in which she expresses a number of  opinions which it will be my submission she is not  qualified to express.  It will be my submission that  the charts will speak for themselves and that her  evidence should be limited to an explanation, if  such explanations are required of the charts.  So  conformably then to my friend's request that I speak  to it this morning, I am advising the court and my  friends that I will be applying for an adjournment  after Miss Harris has given her evidence in chief  and she has been cross-examined with respect to her  qualifications.  How long is it anticipated Miss Harris' evidence  will take.  Is it set for a week?  I think it was set for a week.  Yes.  Yes, that's correct.  I am not sure what part of  that week is intended to be taken up with the  evidence in chief, but I do feel that it is  important that we have a ruling from your lordship 10416  Submissions  1 on the scope of her evidence because it will be, as  2 I say, my submission she is not entitled or  3 qualified to speak to all of the matters referred to  4 in her report.  5 THE COURT:  How long do you say it would take you to get ready  6 for a full cross-examination of Miss Harris?  7 MR. GOLDIE:  Well, I am in some difficulty there because the  8 balance of the documents have yet to arrive.  But my  9 guestimate at this time, making allowance for those,  10 is that it would take something like two to three  11 weeks.  12 THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.  Mr. Macaulay.  13 MR. MACAULAY:  My lord, I had referred to this problem last  14 Friday.  The information I have deals with a number  15 of pages rather than the number of items.  We  16 received in round figures 530 odd pages on Monday  17 afternoon, another 560 yesterday afternoon.  And as  18 we understand it, there are 1,500 pages to come.  19 They are mostly handwritten notes so they take a  20 little longer to deal with, to study than perhaps  21 the typewritten version would.  They cover not only  22 genealogical matters which in itself is quite a  23 broad category, but it covers other matters as well,  24 the territories in some cases, a bit of oral  25 history, a bit of this and that.  So it's going to  26 be just the time in getting through that kind of  27 volume involves a good deal more than just a week of  28 hard work.  29 We agree with Mr. Goldies' proposal that the  30 question of qualification be dealt with next week.  31 It should be.  That may shorten the examination in  32 chief and cross-examination.  We are in the  33 difficult position of not knowing what's coming.  34 Over half of the number of pages are yet to come.  35 We haven't even had a look at them.  But we have a  36 timing problem.  We are only sitting two weeks a  37 month at the moment.  It would be unfortunate if  38 Miss Harris didn't take up some of the court's time  39 next week when we are scheduled to sit and everybody  40 has made the necessary arrangements for that.  41 The cross-examination, I suppose it could be  42 started on January 30th, but as I understand it my  43 friend Mr. Rush and Mr. Grant are engaged in  44 something else.  The next open date is March 13th  45 which is a week that the court wasn't sitting.  We  46 are just speculating about what the next installment  47 of documents will be.  All we know is that there are 10417  Submissions  1 a lot of them.  We can't be ready for  2 cross-examination next week or the week after.  I  3 agree with Mr. Goldie it will take a couple of weeks  4 to absorb all that.  Those are my submissions.  5 THE COURT:  Thank you.  Mr. Rush.  6 MR. RUSH:   My information comes of course directly from Mr.  7 Grant.  And I can advise your lordship that  8 apparently the total number of pages involved runs  9 to about 2,600 pages.  The pages were sent from Mr.  10 Grant's office on -- the first set on January 5th  11 with expected delivery on the 6th.  The second on  12 the 9th with expected delivery the day after.  And  13 the last batch, the largest, was sent on January the  14 10th.  Due to a number of reasons of flight  15 cancellations and difficulties of even Mr. Grant who  16 had expected to be in Vancouver and bring a pile of  17 these down with him, he wasn't able to come.  And  18 for these reasons the documents weren't delivered in  19 a more timely way.  And that doesn't seem mean to  20 say that had they all been delivered on the 5th they  21 would have been timely, but certainly more timely  22 than what we are faced with today.  23 I think that it is certainly the case, like my  24 friends, Mr. Grant found himself with a daunting  25 task of reviewing a vast number of documents that  26 even he did not expect to have to -- expect the  27 number or the detail of the examination as my  28 friends have indicated.  The documents consist of a  29 large number of draft genealogies.  They include a  30 large number of handwritten notes on various sizes  31 of paper.  They deal with small charts, that is  32 partial drafts of genealogies.  They deal with  33 extracts from the interrogatories and this gives you  34 some idea of the content.  In large part, the  35 information in the notes is reflected in the  36 genealogies.  37 Now, just with respect to the balance of the  38 documents, I understand from my learned friends that  39 they as yet don't have them.  Mr. Grant advised me  40 this morning that they had been sent and he expected  41 them to be here today or yesterday, I believe, and  42 certainly by today.  In respect of the contents of  43 those documents, they are much like the contents of  44 the documents already delivered.  Mr. Grant has  45 advised me and I think advised my friends that in  46 order to assist their dealing with the documents  47 that the documents have been organized.  The 10418  Submissions  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE COURT:  MR. RUSH:  documents delivered on the 9th and the 10th have  been organized by file and by reference to the chief  name.  And I should think that that would assist to  some degree with my friends reviewing these  documents.  Having said that, I am not really in a  position to oppose my friends' application, that is  for an adjournment, despite the fact that I find it  quite regrettable in terms of our best efforts to  fix dates that we thought we could follow through  with.  But it is estimated by Mr. Grant that the  direct evidence of Miss Harris would take about two  and a half days.  And so allowing for a similar  period of time for cross-examination, and again this  is as I advised your lordship last Friday  assumptions made on plaintiffs' counsels part,  assuming that we would still be in a position to  complete her evidence in the course of the five day  period allowing perhaps for a short evening sitting  or perhaps an earlier morning sitting if the need  arose.  I do not consider in the circumstances that it  would be advisable to divide the examination of Miss  Harris.  In first part if the examination took in  some part the same length as the examination on  qualifications with regard to Miss Albright we could  expect that it would take about half a day.  And in  my submission, my lord, it would require Miss Harris  and Mr. Grant, both of whom are in Hazelton to come  to Vancouver for that and then to come back to  Vancouver for the continuation of the direct and for  the continuation of the cross.  That involves a cost  factor and a break in the continuity of the  evidence.  And in my submission, it is more  desirable to begin and end the evidence in one shot.  Well, it is more desirable, Mr. Rush, but really we  are at the point where we just can't allow the trial  to go on and on this way.  Next week has to be used  up some way.  If you can put another witness in  there, well it seems to me that is the answer.  But  if you can't, then it seems to me we must use up as  much of the week as we can, and that includes  cross-examination as far as the defendants can go.  Well, I appreciate that, my lord.  The proposal  that -- keeping in mind my friends' concerns, I  had -- I was going to make a proposal to your  lordship.  We cannot plug another witness into next 10419  Submissions  1 week.  We do not have counsel and we do not have a  2 witness available.  I think it would be jumping the  3 gun in terms of preparation for my friends as well.  4 But the proposal that I was going to suggest to your  5 lordship, keeping in mind that the court's concern  6 to use scheduled time next week was this, that if we  7 started the direct on the Wednesday and proceeded  8 with the direct on the 18th, 19th and 20th and to go  9 as far as we can and to continue the  10 cross-examination on the 23rd and the 24th which  11 would move it into the first two days of the  12 following week.  13 Now that, admittedly, does not take into  14 account Mr. Goldie's and Mr. Macaulay's concern that  15 they need they say two to three weeks, and I  16 appreciate their concern there.  Now, if that --  17 that would permit, in my submission, my friends a  18 further period of time almost amounting to a week,  19 really about a five day period to consider the  20 additional material.  Now, if that is not  21 sufficient, if my friend's cannot concede with the  22 additional material that they could not carry on  23 with the cross-examination then the suggestion that  24 I was going to propose to your lordship is this,  25 that the whole of the matter be put over to the week  26 of February -- excuse me, January the 30th.  Mr.  27 Grant and Miss Mandell and I believe Mr. Goldie will  28 be in the Court of Appeal on the Westar injunction  29 on the 30th and the 31st.  The proposal I was going  30 to suggest would be to begin Miss Harris on the 1st  31 and to conduct the examination on the 1st, 2nd and  32 3rd with the cross-examination carrying over to the  33 6th and the 7th.  Now, that would have the effect of  34 eating into two days of Mr. Kari' s examination.  Mr.  35 Grant advises me he has discussed this with Miss  36 Mandell and between the two of them they think that  37 with perhaps an additional evening sitting with Mr.  38 Kari the evidence of Mr. Kari would not take what  39 was thought to be the full extent of that week of  40 February the 6th.  41 So, in effect, the proposal that I am making  42 would move -- would take into account my friends'  43 need for further time and would take up three days  44 of a week which we had not scheduled and would take  45 two days of a week that we had.  But taking into  46 account if an additional evening sitting were sat I  47 think we could finish both witnesses within an eight 10420  Submissions  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE COURT:  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT:  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT:  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT:  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT:  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT:  MR. GOLDIE:  day period.  I have to cancel a five day court if that is the  case, and I really don't think we should have to do  that, Mr. Rush.  I agree.  I think that these dates aren't all fresh in my  mind, but is it not better to go ahead next week and  do as much as we can next week and finish Miss  Harris even if she has to be a divided witness on  some down week rather than rearrange everyone's  schedule.  I know there are great advantages, but I  don't think it is overwhelming that a witness be  completed on consecutive court days.  Well, I agree, there isn't any necessary reason for  that.  The suggestion I am making really takes into  account the concern that counsel for the plaintiffs  expressed about the necessity for more than one trip  to Vancouver.  That's what I guess is the major  concern.  Well, it doesn't seem to me in the scale of  importance to be sufficiently serious as a matter of  scale to disrupt a schedule and other schedules as  well.  Well, I point out to you that in the first option  that I addressed to your lordship that it is one  that would encroach on a week that would be a down  week.  Well, I think that's —  Except for your lordship.  That is the most desirable out of all of these  alternatives.  We have some flexibility then if you  pick a time when it will cause the least  inconvenience.  What it means now is that we are  going to get one week in this whole month.  I just  don't think that's something that can be condoned.  Well, as I say, my lord, I think if my friends find  that the proposal of starting on the 18th and then  the 24th is one that would be acceptable, it could  accomodate all of the concerns that we've expressed.  And it perhaps may be the best of all the possible  options, but I would like to hear them on this.  All right.  Mr. Goldie.  My lord, I am in the Supreme Court of Canada on the  week of the 23rd and I had intended leaving to -- I  think the appeal I am on starts on the 23rd and it  is set for three days.  In my submission, we should  start on the 16th unless for some reason the present 10421  Submissions  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  witness is not finished.  But we should start on the  16th and we should go as far as we can.  I emphasize that if your lordship accepts that  Miss Harris is not qualified to express all of her  opinions we are going to hopefully shorten up the  time that is required for her and that can then be  allotted at that time.  But I feel we shouldn't  start on the 18th with the prospect of going into  the next week.  If we start on the 16th or as soon  as Miss Albright is finished we will preserve some  continuity in the sense of this case.  THE COURT:  Mr. Macaulay.  MR. MACAULAY:  Well, we were going to start the  cross-examination so that the burden of this delay  in producing documents falls much more heavily on us  than anyone us.  It is difficult to organize a  coherent cross-examination.  The business of going  as far as you can and then coming at this later is  not a very effective way of cross-examining.  Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Macaulay, but that's --  those are the cards we've been dealt, aren't they?  Well, we may be dealt those -- if that's the way  it goes, we may be dealt those cards over and over  again.  Well, I don't want to get into a question of why we  are in this position.  There is no profit in that.  I don't understand it, but that's where we are.  And  if at the end of the cross-examination you or Miss  Koenigsberg as counsel say they can't even ask a  question, then I am in counsels' hands.  But I don't  think we should be in that position.  It seems to me  that there must be some part of the  cross-examination that can be undertaken.  If we  have to interrupt the cross-examination then we have  to interrupt it, but we are not at that point yet.  I think that we have to then find time that won't  interfere with the balance of the schedule to  complete that cross-examination.  That's a financial  burden we have to impose on the plaintiffs, but that  is partly their own doing.  I am sure there are some  explanations.  I don't wish to get into finger pointing. I  have to keep this trial going and I haven't done a  very good job of that. I am now resolved that we  are going to sit when we have set to sit as far as  we possibly and humanly can. And for that reason,  it is my view that we must proceed with Miss Harris  THE COURT  MR. MACAULAY  THE COURT: 10422  Submissions  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  MR.  THE COURT  MR.  THE  MR.  next Monday and go as far as we can with her.  And  if we don't finish her, we must finish her at a time  that we are not scheduled to sit.  MACAULAY:  Well, that brings up the question that timely  delivery of documents will become absolutely  essential and that the documents not be delivered --  1,500 pages not be delivered --  I don't understand why that should be at all, but I  see no point in pursuing it.  I think we should  pursue if you wish subsequent problems.  Are there  other witnesses in this category where volumes of  documents are expected and are not forthcoming?  If  that's so then we can profitably talk about that.  MACAULAY:  That's what I'm talking about.  COURT:  Yes.  Which witnesses —  MACAULAY:  It is others.  I seek correspondence flowing back  and forth on similar topics in regards to other  witnesses and this is what gives me considerable  concern.  I suppose by working night and day we can  get something together for this cross-examination,  but there are other witnesses presently scheduled in  regard to a number of documents that are still not  being delivered.  Well, we still don't have another witness scheduled  until the 6th of February. Is there a problem with  the witness that is going to be heard on the 6th?  MACAULAY:  There is Kari.  RUSH:   Correspondence between Miss Mandell and I think Mr.  Willms and recent correspondence that I saw  indicated documents were being passed between the  two.  Now, as far as I know there is no difficulty  there.  I was supposed to get at the end of the month the  list of the correspondence and the -- if I can put  it this way, the documents which fall within the  purview of your lordship's ruling on privilege, the  ones that were not privileged.  But I have not got  that list on Dr. Kari yet.  I don't have anything on  Dr. Daly like that, that list.  There are still many  documents I believe coming on Dr. Daly.  And as I  understand it, Antonio Mills as well we've been  advised is the witness after Dr. Daly.  Dr. Daly is  scheduled to start at the end of February and that's  going to be a three-week session with two weeks of  Dr. Daly and then one week of Antonio Mills.  We  don't have those documents yet, but we know that.  But dealing with the next witness there is supposed  THE COURT  MR.  MR.  MR. WILLMS: 10423  Submissions  1 to be a list that talks about draft reports and  2 letters to and from Mr. Overstall.  I don't have  3 that yet.  4 THE COURT:  All right.  Well, Mr. Rush has notice of your  5 concern in that regard.  6 MR. MACAULAY:  If there is no incentive to the plaintiffs — I  7 am not suggesting that they are planning this, I'm  8 sure they are not.  But if there is no real  9 incentive, no real penalty at the end of the day  10 except to the cross-examiner then we will be in this  11 pickle again and again.  12 THE COURT:  What are you suggesting, we rent a pair of stocks  13 and put counsel in them?  14 MR. MACAULAY:  I'm trying to broach this subject without  15 pointing fingers or without threatening and so on.  16 THE COURT:  What kind of sanction can there be?  17 MR. MACAULAY:  Sitting ten hours a day.  18 THE COURT:  Well, I am prepared to do that too if we have to.  19 But even that isn't productive if the documents  20 haven't been produced.  21 MR. GOLDIE:  Well, exactly.  Your lordship ought to know that  22 this is not something which has just arisen in the  23 past couple of weeks.  The request for Miss Harris'  24 interview notes was made back in the spring.  And at  25 that time we were told a claim of privilege was made  26 with respect to them.  Well, that didn't get cleared  27 away until your lordship's ruling on November the  28 10th.  29 It really goes back to 1987 when we first got  30 this report we asked for all the underlying data.  31 The situation, I'm afraid, is simply that the  32 organization at Hazelton has not been geared up in  33 anticipation of providing what used to be called the  34 working papers.  They still seem to be having  35 problems.  I would have thought that the first thing  36 that would have been done when a witness is notified  37 to us that is going to be the next witness that the  38 machines would have been put in hand to copy the  39 request that was made which in my case was -- it was  40 made December the 6th and prior to that in May of  41 1988.  42 There isn't any sanction that can be applied  43 except to us which imposes upon us a task which  44 inevitably reflects in extended time because it is  45 truism that if you can't organize the  46 cross-examination it just goes on.  You exhaust  47 documents as they come into your hands and that's no 10424  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE COURT:  good.  So the plaintiffs should be aware that their  witnesses are not going to be dealt with until we  have documents produced in a timely fashion, and  once that occurs it will have to be done on a rush  basis.  We can do that once we've got the documents,  but not on the basis of having them delivered to us  a few days before the cross-examination.  Well, I'm not persuaded that I should change my  view.  I think we should proceed with Miss Harris  next Monday.  I think we should go with her evidence  as far as we can.  And if counsel responsibly say,  and indeed all of these matters have to be decided  ultimately on the basis of professional  responsibility, that we can't go on then we have to  stop.  We will have to find some other time that  will not interfere with the schedule.  I don't think there is anything else that I  can conclude or decide that would advance this case  the way that it should be advanced.  And for that  reason, I will look forward to Miss Harris starting  on Monday.  All right.  Thank you.  We may proceed  now.  Anything else?  I know of nothing.  Yes, all right.  Sylvia Louise Albright, resumed:  THE REGISTRAR:  I caution the witness you are still under oath.  THE WITNESS: Yes.  My lord, I made reference yesterday to an authority  directed to the witness' attention to the paper by  MacDonald and Inglis.  I have a copy of that to be  slipped into the back of your binder.  I'm sorry, which one?  The large three ring binder.  That's a copy for the  witness.  All right.  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT:  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT:  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT:  EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. RUSH:  Q    Now, Miss Albright, yesterday I was directing your  attention to the investigations which you had  conducted in respect to the Temlaxhan locality.  I  would like you please if you will to refer to plate  12 which is the photograph.  I would just ask you if  you can identify plate 12 as a photograph of your  study area in the Carnaby area?  A    Yes, plate 12 shows the location of lithic scatter 10425  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  THE  COURT:  3  THE  WITNESS  4  THE  COURT:  5  THE  WITNESS  6  MR.  RUSH:  7  Q  8  9  10  11  A  12  THE  COURT:  13  MR.  RUSH:  14  15  THE  COURT:  16  MR.  RUSH:  17  Q  18  19  A  20  21  22  THE  COURT:  23  THE  WITNESS  24  25  26  MR.  RUSH:  27  Q  28  29  30  31  A  32  33  34  35  36  37  Q  38  39  A  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  located in the Carnaby area.  Is that a bear that I see in the corner?  : No, it is a black dog.  Good size dog.  :  Yes, it was.  Plate 13 you made mention of the findings which you  made at the north side of Chicago Creek.  Is that a  photograph of the area where those findings were  made?  Yes, it is.  I'm sorry, plate 13 is what?  It is a photograph of the north side of Chicago  Creek.  Thank you.  And if you will look at plate 14, just tell us what  that shows?  That shows a general view of the terrace on which  one of the sites that we recorded is located,  GhSc-85-D.  Which side of the river is this?  : This is in study area on the northwest side of the  river.  And it shows the edge of Mr. Simms' garden  where we found several obsidian pieces, flakes.  All right.  I want to ask you if during the course  of your investigations with respect to the Temlaxhan  study area, did you extend the area of study at some  point during the summer?  Yes.  Besides the four specific areas outlined in  the Temlaxhan area, given the limited site findings  in that area, we kept extending our survey out from  those four areas but north and south.  So actually  the 85-A site, GhSw-85-A was found in the Carnaby  area to which we extended our survey.  So the Carnaby study area was part of the extended  survey?  Yes.  We had defined -- had defined the study area  from a little north of Hazelton to the Carnaby area  with these four high priority areas or most likely  areas.  And so after examining the four high  priority areas we extended the survey south to  the -- close to Gitsegukla area north to a creek  opposite Hazelton and up into the Hagwilget Canyon  to cover the area around the confluence of the two  major rivers there. 10426  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  Q  2  A  3  Q  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  A  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Q  20  21  22  23  A  24  25  Q  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  A  34  35  36  Q  37  38  A  39  THE  COURT:  40  MR.  RUSH:  41  THE  WITNESS  42  THE  COURT:  43  THE  WITNESS  44  45  46  47  MR.  RUSH:  And that would be the Skeena and the Bulkley?  Yes.  Would you look please to figure 14.  This has been  entitled the Hagwilget Canyon Sites and reference  has been made to the site at Hagwilget.  There were  other site areas shown on this map.  Can you just  refer to that map and identify those other site  areas for his lordship where you conducted surveys  in the canyon?  Yes, a survey along the canyon besides the large  lithic scatter that we noted there were four other  smaller sites that we located.  These are GhSv-85-B  to the east of the big curve in the canyon so that's  on the very right-hand side of the map.  GhSv-85-C  and D which are in the section of the canyon just  upstream from the bridge.  And another site  GhSv-85-E to the west or south and west of the  Hagwilget Bridge.  All right.  And again the cross hatching in the  oblong circles associated with those site reference  numbers depicts the area where you did these  investigations?  Yes, these are the site locations that we located  during survey.  Now, my lord, GhSv-85A was referred to by the  witness when she dealt with figure 5 and the  evidence that was given about the surface scatter at  that time.  Now, I want to refer you, Miss Albright,  to the next figure which is figure 16.  And this is  under number GhSv-85-B.  Does that figure depict in  that graphic way the findings which you made at that  particular site?  Yes.  This site shows a number of cultural features  located on the north side of the Bulkley River.  And  again the features themselves are numbered.  And referring to figure 17, and this is the C  designation of that site reference?  Yes.  This shows I believe it is 26 or more.  Which one is plate 17?  Plate 17 is GhSv-85-C  : Figure 17.  Thank you.  : Yes, there was a large cluster of pit features  interpreted as cache pits on a small terrace on the  west bank of the Bulkley River.  Again the  feature -- pit features are numbered. 10427  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 Q    And the double crossed words indicate a rock  2 outcrop.  Is that a cliff?  3 A    That's a rock outcrop on the edge of the terrace  4 closest to the river.  The cluster of cache pits are  5 located towards the base of a hill.  6 Q    Right.  7 A    So they are on a small terrace at the base of a hill  8 back behind this rock outcrop.  9 Q    Thank you.  Figure 18, this refers to site GhSv-85-D  10 and appears to refer to a cluster of depressions.  11 Can you just describe that for us, please?  12 A    Yes, this is again another group of pit features  13 located on a major terrace level above the Bulkley  14 River right at a major bend in the river.  15 Q    Okay.  Thank you.  Now, there was an additional site  16 GhSv-85-E, and there apparently is no figure for  17 that; is that right?  18 A    No, I have not prepared a map for this.  It is  19 described as well in the discussion of each site.  20 Q    And that's at page 3-13?  21 A    Yes.  22 Q    Thank you.  Now, in terms of the pit features and  23 the cultural depressions which you found in the  24 Hagwilget Canyon, your additional survey work there,  25 what did you conclude from these findings?  26 A    These are clusters of pits used for -- interpreted  27 as being used for storage of dried food resources.  28 They are located in a major fishing area along the  29 Bulkley Canyon.  This area is still fished today.  30 It is likely that these cache pits are associated  31 with fishing locations at various points along the  32 canyon.  33 Q    All right.  Now, with respect to your investigations  34 as a whole regarding the ancestral village of  35 Temlaxhan, are your conclusions with regard to those  36 investigations set out in the top two paragraphs on  37 page 3-14?  38 A    Yes.  39 Q    Now, with regard to your findings on the Skeena  40 River that is downstream from the Hagwilget Canyon,  41 were you able to find evidence of a major village  42 site of habitation?  43 A    No.  Within the general study area on the Skeena  44 itself that we examined we did not find evidence of  45 a major habitation, a major village site occupied in  46 the past.  The sites that we did find are indicative  47 of activity and use of the area in the past.  But 1042?  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 most of these sites reflect activities somewhat  2 peripheral to what we would expect at a major  3 village location.  This section of the Skeena River,  4 the terraces along the river in this area, are  5 subject to flooding and very intense erosion from  6 regular spring flooding of the river in the area.  7 And so it is quite likely that there could have been  8 evidence of previous occupation that has been eroded  9 away or washed away that we could not find.  We saw  10 actively eroding banks.  I also mentioned that the  11 narrow terrace on the north side of Chicago Creek  12 exhibited active erosion at the time we examined it.  13 Q    All right.  Thank you.  Now, with regard to the five  14 archaeological sites which you identified in the  15 Hagwilget Canyon, are your opinions with regard to  16 those set out in the two -- the second two  17 paragraphs on page 3-15?  That is paragraphs 2 and 3  18 on paragraph 3-15 -- on page 3-15?  And I direct --  19 A    Yes.  20 Q        -- your attention to the paragraph:  21  22 "Five archaeological sites were located during  23 1985 investigations in Hagwilget Canyon area,  24 in addition to two previously recorded fishing  25 sites."  26  27 That paragraph and the next one summarize your  28 opinion?  29 A    Yes, those two paragraphs summarize my opinion on  30 the findings there.  31 Q    Now, the next village which you studied and reported  32 on in your opinion was the village of Gitangasx, and  33 that's spelled G-I-T-A-N-G-A-S-X.  Did you conduct a  34 similar review of the ethnographic literature with  35 regard to this ancestral village site?  36 A    Yes, we did.  37 Q    And in the appendix there is under appendix B-3 a  38 listing of the ethnographic literature with  39 reference to Gitangasx.  Is that a survey of the  40 literature that you read?  41 A    Yes, from my review of the literature these are  42 references that were located that mention a  43 settlement or a village of Gitangasx.  44 Q    All right.  45 A   And some references to locations.  46 Q    And did you also make reference to Barbeau in terms  47 of your survey of the ethnographic literature? 10429  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  A  2  Q  3  4  A  5  Q  6  7  A  8  9  10  11  12  MR.  RUSH:  13  14  15  16  17  THE  COURT  18  MR.  RUSH:  19  THE  COURT  20  MR.  RUSH:  21  Q  22  23  A  24  Q  25  26  27  A  28  29  Q  30  31  32  A  33  Q  34  A  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  Q  43  44  45  46  A  47  Yes, I did.  And the account of your survey of that literature is  set out in your opinion on pages 3-15 to 3-16?  Yes.  And you did field investigations at Gitangasx; is  that right?  Yes, in the study area defined for Gitangasx we  carried out a brief investigation in the area.  Approximately two and a half days.  It was an area  in which we went to by helicopter.  It is quite an  isolated area on the upper Skeena River.  All right.  If you will turn, please, to figure 19  described as the Gitangasx study area.  Unfortunately it is somewhat out of sequence, my  lord.  Instead of one would expect going forward you  just go back about four pages from page --  Four pages from where?  Actually two pages from before page 3-14.  Yes.  And figure 19, does that map the approximate place  of where it was that you did your study?  Yes.  And the inset, the hatching sites that are  referenced as HbSv-85-A, B and C, are those the  areas of study?  Yes, these are three site areas located that we  recorded within the general study area referred to.  Okay.  And if you look please now to figure 20.  This appears to be a more specific mapping of the  study area HbSv-85-A?  Yes.  Now, what did you do here, Miss Albright?  On this plate we do have an illustration of this  flat.  It is a clear -- it's a clearing in a  generally forested environment covered with meadow  type of vegetation.  And we set out a grid across  the length of the flat and did a number of tests to  determine whether there were stratified deposits or  in an attempt to inform ourselves of buried deposits  at the site.  All right.  And I want to direct your attention to  plates 15 and 16.  These are photographs in the same  volume.  I just ask you if those photocopies of the  photographs --  Yes, plate 15 shows an aerial view of the flat that  we examined which has been referred to as Gapgasx 10430  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  Q  4  5  6  A  7  8  9  10  11  12  THE  COURT:  13  THE  WITNESS  14  THE  COURT:  15  THE  WITNESS  16  17  MR.  RUSH:  18  Q  19  A  20  21  THE  COURT:  22  THE  WITNESS  23  THE  COURT:  24  THE  WITNESS  25  26  27  MR.  RUSH:  28  Q  29  30  A  31  32  33  34  Q  35  A  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  Q  43  44  A  45  46  47  flat.  And plate 16 shows a closer view of the  meadow type of vegetation which is on this flat.  All right.  Thank you.  If you will just return to  figure 20.  Having done your tests along the grid  lines which you had established, what did you find?  We found -- below the surface we found two very fine  lenses about one centimetre.  They were very thin  lenses of carbon staining which ran across the flat,  consistently across the flat.  These lenses within  lenses, they are very fine, indicated burning of  meadow type of vegetation.  I'm sorry?  :  Burning of this meadow type of vegetation.  How thin did you say this lense was?  : Most of them were about a centimetre thick, very  fine.  How deep were they from the surface?  10 and 40 -- 15 and 45 centimetres below the surface  on the average.  Between 15 and 45?  : Yes, one at 15.  Two lenses?  : Yes, two lenses, one at about 15 and one at about  45.  And of course these varied across the flat, but  within that range across the flat.  And what did that indicate to you, the depth of the  lenses and the fact that it varied across the flat?  Well, these lenses suggested to me that there had  been periodic burning of the vegetation as has been  described in the literature for maintenance of root  gathering areas.  All right.  The name of the flat itself Gapgasx refers to gasx  is a Gitksan name for wild rice which is a  chocolate -- it is also referred to as a chocolate  lily that has a variety of small bulblets as its  root base or bulb base.  And these were used --  described in ethnographic literature as being used  as a root plant in the diet.  Okay.  Now, I just direct your attention to figure  21.  This is a mapping of the B side of Gitangasx.  Yes, this is a group of eight pit features that were  located to the east of Gapgasx flat along the edge  of the terrace on the north side of the Skeena  River.  We also located another group of cache pits 10431  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  Q  4  A  5  Q  6  7  8  A  9  Q  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  A  18  Q  19  A  20  21  THE  COURT:  22  THE  WITNESS  23  24  MR.  RUSH:  25  26  27  THE  COURT:  28  MR.  RUSH:  29  Q  30  31  32  33  A  34  Q  35  36  37  A  38  Q  39  A  40  Q  41  42  43  A  44  45  46  47  immediately opposite on the south side of the Skeena  River.  And is that shown on figure 22?  Yes, they are.  Now, with regard to your conclusions from your  investigations at the Gitangasx study area site, are  those conclusions set out at page 3-17?  Yes, they are.  And you indicate in part in the second to last line:  "The two groups of cache pits located in  the study area indicate that resource  harvesting was being conducted in this part  of the Skeena and that dried foods were  being stored for winter use."  Yes.  And that conclusion derives from your finding of --  Of the two groups of cache pits.  They had used  those facilities as for storing foods.  Why do you say two groups of cache pits?  : Yes, one on the north side of the river and one on  the south side of the river.  Your lordship can see that by figure 14 where Miss  Albright has mapped the two virtually across from  each other.  Yes.  I would ask you now if you will, please, to turn to  page 3-18 and you also conducted investigations and  study area at the village of Kisgagas; is that  correct?  Yes, I did.  And did you similarly refer to ethnographic  literature that referred to Kisgagas and other  village sites in the locality of Kisgagas?  Yes, I did.  And is that literature set out in appendix B-4?  Yes.  And that is on page B-13 and 14.  Now, did you also  make reference to previous archaeological work which  had been conducted in the area?  Yes, I did.  George MacDonald and his crew during  the season of 1966 also made a reconnaissance in the  Kisgagas area.  They recorded -- at that time they  recorded four archaeological sites in the Kisgagas  area. 10432  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 Q    All right.  Now, will you please turn to figure 23  2 which makes reference to the Kisgagas study area?  3 Does this depict the place where you conducted your  4 investigations?  5 A    Yes, this is a map of the Kisgagas area that we had  6 a brief look at and extends from the confluence of  7 the Babine with the Skeena up river and some  8 distance above Kisgagas Village.  9 Q    All right.  And the irregular shaped boundary that  10 is in the middle of the figure it's marked Kisgagas  11 Reserve.  Is that your understanding of the place of  12 the reserve in relation to the Babine River?  13 A    Yes, it is.  14 Q    Now, you've -- the black triangles with site  15 reference numbers beside them, did these show the  16 place where the archaeological sites were recorded  17 to have been found?  18 A    Yes.  19 Q    Now, there are apparently Gitksan names which are --  20 start on certain segments of the river system.  And  21 I take -- I direct you first to the one that's  22 indicated as Sak Sa'din, S-A-K, new word, S-A,  23 apostrophe, D-I-N, you see that?  24 A    Yes.  25 Q    Now, there are other similar names running both  26 upstream and downstream from that.  Where did these  2 7 names come from?  28 A    These are names mentioned in the literature that we  29 consulted in Barbeau field notes, specific village  30 sites within the Kisgagas area.  So these villages  31 are noted in the ethnographic references and in the  32 appendix B.  33 Q    All right.  Now, the place where you conducted your  34 investigations, does that show as the cross hatching  35 and designated under the number 85-A?  36 A   After a general look within the study area, the  37 larger study area itself, we recorded another large  38 site area.  We recorded another archaeological site  39 upstream at 85-A, upstream from Kisgagas Village on  40 the north side of the Babine.  41 Q    And did you map that point?  42 A    Yes, we spent a good part of a day mapping 233 cache  43 pits in this area or pit features.  44 Q    I'll just ask you to turn, please, to figure 24  45 which is just after 3-19.  46 A    Yes.  47 Q    And does this portray the cache and house pit sites 10433  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  A  4  Q  5  A  6  7  8  9  10  Q  11  12  A  13  14  15  16  MR.  RUSH:  17  18  THE  COURT:  19  MR.  RUSH:  20  THE  COURT:  21  22  MR.  RUSH:  23  THE  COURT:  24  MR.  RUSH:  25  THE  COURT:  26  THE  WITNESS  27  28  29  MR.  RUSH:  30  Q  31  32  A  33  Q  34  A  35  36  37  Q  38  39  A  40  41  42  Q  43  44  45  A  46  47  which you found during the course of your  investigations?  Yes.  You apparently numbered the cache pits?  Yes.  They are numbered in the process of recording  and mapping with distances and compass bearing.  So  the numbers are plotted, although they are small.  They are difficult to see, but I think there was  once a fold-out map.  Yes, the two squares in the upper left-hand corner  numbered 1 and 2, what are those?  Yes, those represent the house -- two house  depressions or large cultural depressions located on  a terrace above the concentration of cache pit  features.  What was the size of the area where you found the  cache pit features?  Well, there is a scale, isn't there?  Yes.  So small I can hardly read it, but it is 60 metres,  is it?  It looks to be 60 metres.  It is about 60 by 60, no more than that.  The cluster is about 60 by 60.  I think it is a little more than 60 by 60.  : The whole site area was more than -- I believe it  was more than 500 metres in length, the terrace that  we recorded the pit features on.  It looks to be about more than 60, as many as 100  metres deep.  Oh, the terrace?  Yes.  Yes, about 150 metres deep, the terrace or width of  the terrace.  And then the house features are on the  next bench or terraces slope from the river.  Now, did you do a particular test of the floor of  one of the house pits?  Yes.  The floor of house pit 1 we opened up four one  by one meter units, so an area of two metres by two  metres.  I just would direct you now to plates 18 and 19.  These are photographs.  Plate 18, what does that  show?  Plate 18 shows the area ribboned off that we  examined, did a brief examination below surface.  And it shows members of my crew working in the area. 10434  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  The vegetation behind -- as we clear the undergrowth  away from the area in the middle of the pit feature,  the vegetation in the background is again along the  side of the house depression.  And plate 19 again  shows the area of excavation and where we discovered  concentrated patch of ash, firecracked rock and  flecks of charcoal in this area.  Q    And what did that finding indicate to you?  A    It suggested to me that this was maybe a hearth  feature, part of a hearth feature within the floor.  But given the defined nature of the path that it  represented cultural activity in the floor of the  house.  THE COURT:  Am I looking at plate 19 the dark area, is that  darkened soil material or is that shade from trees  behind?  THE WITNESS: Some of it is in shadow.  There was a densely  forested area that we were working in.  It was as if  we fell into these house depressions.  Some of that  is shadow and the lighter patches about where the  trowell is, the trowell handle.  Yes.  Are the ash patches of the hearth area.  THE COURT:  THE WITNESS  MR. RUSH:  Q  And were you able to determine the age of the  pits -- of the pit site that is shown in plates 18  and 19?  A    Our examination of this site was limited.  We did  not recover samples, charcoal samples, suitable for  dating.  One indication of -- or indications of  possible age there was no historic debris or debris  items indicative of use of this site at a post  contact times.  And next to -- close to the units in  the middle of the house feature itself was a very  large tree growing in it.  THE COURT:  Growing in one of the house depressions?  THE WITNESS: In one of the house depressions, yes.  MR. RUSH:   And what was your estimate of the age of the tree?  MR. WILLMS:  I object, my lord.  We can all cut down trees and  count the rings, but we have already had an expert  give evidence about how old the trees are in this  area and that expert says 70 years.  Unless this  witness has got some expertise in looking at a tree  and telling how old it is without cutting it down  and counting the rings, and my friend hasn't lead  any of that, I object to an estimate of how old a  Sitka Spruce in an area that's an average of about 10435  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  THE  COURT:  3  4  MR.  RUSH:  5  THE  COURT:  6  MR.  RUSH:  7  Q  8  A  9  Q  10  11  A  12  THE  COURT:  13  THE  WITNES  14  15  MR.  RUSH:  16  Q  17  18  A  19  Q  20  21  A  22  Q  23  24  25  A  26  27  28  Q  29  30  31  A  32  33  34  Q  35  36  37  A  38  Q  39  A  40  41  42  Q  43  A  44  45  46  Q  47  70 years old by another witness.  Well, that may be right.  A witness could tell me  how high the trees was.  Yes, I intend to lead it this way.  Yes.  This tree was located inside the house pit?  Yes, in the middle of the house pit itself.  Can you tell me what the width of the tree was at  the base?  At the base it was close to three metres.  Diameter?  3: No, not three metres.  I say two and a half to  three feet.  And what would you estimate the height of this tree  to be?  At least 100 feet high.  And were you able to determine the kind of tree that  it was?  Did you know the tree?  It was a Sitka Spruce.  And in terms of the depression itself, can you just  describe the nature of the depression, how deep it  was?  Yes, it was over a metre deep and eight to ten  metres in width, indicative of a large house  structure at this area.  Were there other similar sized trees in the  environment?  Similar in size to the one that was in  the pit?  Yes, the area was heavily forested.  It's not an  area that had been -- that indicates that it had  been logged.  And you indicated that you didn't find any evidence  of -- I think you described it as post contact  artifacts?  That's right.  What did you mean by that?  Well, in the most recent village of Kisgagas itself  there is a variety of recent or circa early 1900's  debris.  Such as?  Metal pots or enamel metal pots, glass from bottles  or jars or dishes, chinaware, scraps of metal  pieces.  All right.  Was any of this such debris found in the  area of the house pit? 10436  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 A    No, along the -- on the terrace where we located the  2 house pit and also the area where we mapped the pit  3 features there was no -- what is referred to as  4 historic debris, articles used with materials since  5 European contact.  6 THE COURT:  Can we take the adjournment, Mr. Rush.  7 MR. RUSH:  All right.  8 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court will recess.  9 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED)  10  11  12 I hereby certify the foregoing to  13 be a true and accurate transcript  14 of the proceedings herein to the  15 best of my skill and ability.  16  17  18    19 LISA FRANKO, OFFICIAL REPORTER  2 0                                    UNITED REPORTING SERVICE LTD.  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47 10437  S.L. Albright (for plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED PURSUANT TO A SHORT ADJOURNMENT)  THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  THE COURT:  MR. RUSH:  Q  A  A  Q  A  THE COURT:  THE WITNESS  MR.  RUSH:  Q  Mr. Rush.  Ms. Albright, from your evaluation of the house pits  that you found at the Kisgegas study area and in  terms of the other observations that you made about  historical artifacts, can you make an estimate of  the age of the house pit that -- or the house pits  which you found in the study area?  Yes.  I -- the house depressions appeared to be at  least older than point of contact, so I'd say the  house pit is older than 150 years or so.  It's  possible that the house depression could be  thousands of years old, but I have no actual  evidence but a range, any range in precontact time.  Okay.  Now, if you leave aside what your estimate was  about the age of the house pits based on the age of  the Sitka spruce tree, your estimate then of the age  of the house pits is about 150 years; is that right?  At least, yes.  At least that.  Now, what -- what do you conclude from the findings of  the presence of the number of cache pits, the  cluster of the cache pits and the house depressions  which you found at the study area in Kisgegas?  Well, this is -- this is a very large cluster of cache  pit features and the largest that I know of in --  that has been recorded in the Gitksan area, the  Skeena area, that has been investigated.  It  indicates -- it indicates intense utilization of  local riverain resources, fish resources in the  area, other -- as well as perhaps other resources,  but given its location, intense use of the local  resources --  You mean a lot of people?  Yes.  By a sizeable group of people living in the  area and also living in a permanent settlement there  with winter occupation since food stuffs were stored  for winter, predominantly for winter use.  So it  does indicate that a population -- a large  population centre in the area in precontact times.  All right.  I'd like to refer you to your opinion with  regard to the investigations of the study area  Kisgegas.  It's found at the bottom of page 3-19  over to 3 - 20.  And that is your opinion with  regard to your investigations at the site, I take 10438  S.L. Albright (for plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  A  5  MR. RUSH  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  THE COUR1  14  15  MR. RUSH  16  Q  17  A  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Q  29  30  31  32  A  33  Q  34  35  A  36  Q  37  38  39  40  A  41  Q  42  43  A  44  Q  45  46  47  A  it, subject to the amendment that you would make  regarding the age of the house depressions as being  150 years old?  Yes.  Precontact.  Now, I would like to ask you in particular about your  opinion regarding a comparable group of cache pits  recorded in the -- on the Skeena is in Kitselas  Canyon area where occupation for over 5,000 years  has been documented.  And can you just for his  lordship describe the type of house pit, the number  and, if any, the cluster of the house pits at the  Kitselas Canyon?  :  I'm sorry.  The cluster of house depressions or  cache pits?  Cache pits.  Excuse me.  In the Kitselas Canyon area there are again -- several  hundred cache pits have been recorded by Coupland  and discussed by Coupland in his -- in connection  with his work at the Paul Mason site.  And this  Kitselas Canyon was also an area -- a large  population centre.  And given the nature of the  canyon setting there, then deposits have been  preserved in that canyon which exhibit occupation  over the last 5,000 years.  The  Kitselas Canyon  that I looked at has a comparable environmental  context for occupation.  Thank you.  Now, I want to ask you about Dizkle.  That's D-i-z-k-1-e.  And you did certain  investigations of a study area associated with that  ancestral village?  Yes.  And did you again gather ethnographic information  which led you to determine an area of study?  Yes, we did.  Okay.  And I just direct your attention again to the  appendices, and in particular to the ethnographic  references found at Appendix B - 5.  Are those the  references that you relied upon?  Yes.  And there is a discussion of those references at page  3 - 20 of your opinion?  Yes.  That's correct.  And there were also certain archaeological  investigations which you did in respect to the  Dizkle ancestral village, is that so?  Yes.  Based on our -- yes.  We examined what previous 10439  S.L. Albright (for plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE COURT:  THE WITNESS  THE COURT:  THE WITNESS  MR.  archaeological sites had been recorded in the area.  Based on our reading of the relevant ethnographic  references to the Dizkle area, we defined an area  for investigation for survey south of the confluence  of the Suskwa and Bulkley River and the Mosquito  Flats area.  Q   Is this shown in Figure 25?  A   Yes, it is.  Q   All right.  And the priority area where you conducted  your investigations, is that shown in the  cross-hatched area shown on Figure 25?  A   Yes.  Q   And could you describe the type of investigations that  you did in this study area?  A  We carried out foot survey through -- throughout  the -- the hatched area, examined a number of  exposed river banks.  You're talking about the part on the south side of  the river?  Yes.  The south side of the river.  There's one small area on the far side of the river  on the side of the bridge.  Yes.  We examined that area as well, and that's  on -- on Hagwilget Reserve Number 27.  I think most  of that falls, so we examined most of that area.  There were some areas on the -- on the east side  that were very difficult to -- to get access to in  that several of those creeks are -- have been  flooded by beaver habitation and are quite swampy at  present.  So some of those areas were difficult to  examine.  And what did -- what were your conclusions from the  investigations which you conducted of that area?  From our investigation of this area, we did not record  any prehistoric -- evidence of prehistoric -- of a  major prehistoric settlement in this area or  prehistoric settlement as such.  Q   Now, with regard to the study area itself, did -- did  you draw any conclusions about the study area as a  result of its relationship to the investigations and  findings you made at Moricetown and the  investigations and findings you made at Hagwilget?  A   This -- this -- this part of the -- this part of the  Bulkley River is an area of more recent settlement  and occupation, and there's been considerable  activity in this area from both agricultural  RUSH:  Q  A 10440  S.L. Albright (for plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  MR. RUSH:  MR. WILLMS  THE COURT:  MR.  RUSH:  Q  A  activity and building of the road.  And so although  the area has been quite badly disturbed and we did  not find any evidence during our investigation, I  think it does not rule out the fact that there may  still be evidence that we haven't located.  And  given the nature of -- given the evidence that we  have found at -- in the two canyon areas both  downstream and upstream of this area that indicate  occupation during the last five to six thousand  years, I believe it is quite likely that there could  have been settlements in this area at some point  during that time frame.  All right.  Thank you.  Now, may I now direct your attention, please, to  chapter 4.  And this is entitled "Evidence of  Historic Settlement Patterns".  :  My lord, I just want to rise here.  I understand  that the evidence of this witness is being heard  subject to the objection and further argument, and  the ground that I raised earlier was primarily that  the witness was transgressing on your lordship's  function in this corroboration theory.  Chapters 4  and 5 go even further and move into counsel's  function, and there will be an objection made to all  of that as argument disguised as opinion.  And I  just refer your lordship to your earlier cases.  I  just want it understood that that is also a ground  of objection which we would like to maintain through  the balance of this report.  All right.  I'm going to hear the end of it subject  to objection.  Dealing with chapter 4, Ms. Albright, having done the  field investigations which you did in the summer of  1985, did you then draw certain comparisons with the  material that you gathered together, that is the  ethnographic material and the archaeological  material, with the field investigations that you  did?  Yes.  The field investigations themselves were carried  out in 1985 and then the following year, 1986, then  considerable amount of time was spent becoming  familiar with -- with the literature and studying  and interpreting, evaluating the data that we had  gathered.  Now, with regard to the archaeological sites, did  you -- what was done with regard to the references 10441  S.L. Albright (for plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1 to the archaeological sites in the area?  2 A   The -- all of the archaeological sites that had been  3 recorded up to and including our own field work, all  4 of these sites were plotted on 1 to 250,000  5 topographic map series and -- and the listing of --  6 of those numbered sites have been -- is included in  7 Appendix C and along with a list of those sites and  8 a brief reference to their location.  9 Q   Now, the summary, as you've indicated, is in Appendix  10 C of appendices, and you indicated that you as well  11 plotted these sites on 1 to 250,000 scale maps, is  12 that so?  13 A   Yes.  We have reduced -- reduced Xeroxes of the  14 original maps have been included in the Appendix C.  15 MR. RUSH:  Now, I -- I want to show you a number of original  16 maps and just ask if you wouldn't mind looking at  17 these and confirming for me that these are the  18 originals of the copies that are contained here.  19 Essentially these are the reduced size ones, 1 to  20 250 sheets.  21 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, the problem that I've got is this is the  22 first time I knew that there were these kind of maps  23 around.  I assumed that these are the maps, the  24 photocopies that we received.  We never received any  25 copies of these with the markings on them except for  26 what was contained in the appendix, which is in some  27 cases unreadable, and now apparently the witness is  28 going to be led through these.  I don't know whether  29 my friend intends to mark them or not, but in my  30 submission he should lead the witness through the  31 documents that are part of the report that was  32 disclosed and is before your lordship and not drag  33 in documents which have never been forwarded to any  34 other party.  35 THE COURT:  Where are the equivalent plans in the appendix?  36 THE WITNESS:  Towards the end of Appendix C.  37 MR. WILLMS:  Just to finish off on that, my lord, my friend  38 earlier, Mr. Macaulay -- and there was discussions  39 by my colleague, Mr. Goldie, about sanctions.  And  40 one sanction that your lordship can make is that the  41 plaintiffs are stuck with putting in the evidence  42 that they've disclosed and that my friend can't pull  43 things out of his back pocket and show them to me  44 and then put them to a witness when he hasn't had  45 the courtesy of forwarding a copy of it to me ahead  46 of time.  Now, in my view whether or not this would  47 be of assistance to the witness' evidence, in order 10442  S.L. Albright (for plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  MR.  RUSH:  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  THE  COURT  23  MR.  RUSH:  24  THE  COURT  25  MR.  RUSH:  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  THE  COURT  33  34  MR.  RUSH:  35  36  37  38  39  THE  COURT  40  MR.  RUSH:  41  THE  COURT  42  43  MR.  RUSH:  44  45  46  THE  COURT  47  MR.  RUSH:  to avoid me asking for an adjournment so that I can  consider these large scale maps and what they mean,  my friend should do the best he can with what he's  got and with what he's disclosed.  Well, my lord, I think the answer is simply in the  fact that these are photo reproductions of original  copies.  There's one set of originals.  What was  disclosed was a photocopy, a photo reduced copy of  the original.  It's not as though I'm pulling  anything out of a back pocket.  I think that's a  total mischaracterization.  What I have is the  originals.  What's there is the same as the  original.  It's a photocopy that's reduced.  Unfortunately, it had to be reduced to that extent  in order to fit into the back of the report.  But  there's nothing -- there's no new information that's  contained on this which -- sure, it's difficult to  read, but you can read it.  You can figure out what  the numbers refer to.  And what I'm doing is simply  giving you the originals, and I think you should  have the originals.  We've seen all these maps before, have we not?  Oh, yes.  Not the marked ones.  These are standard N.T.S. maps produced by the  Province of British Columbia.  And what -- what is  done, and you can see from the photocopies, is that  numbers are attached to certain of the places.  And  the witness has already said that those numbers  represent the archaeological sites of previous  archaeological work done in the region.  Are these numbers reflected in the text of the  appendix?  Yes.  All of these numbers are reflected in sequence  throughout the appendix from 1 to 234, I believe it  is  -- 239.  So you look at a number, my lord, and  then you cross-refer the number placed on the map to  the same number in the listing of archaeological --  Let's take a number at random.  All right.  Take the first map.  My tired old eyes don't even  permit me to read the numbers.  If you look up in the upper left-hand corner, you'll  see Morice Forest.  You'll see the number above  Morice.  130.  If you look at 130 in the list.  And it gives a 10443  S.L. Albright (for plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1 number.  It gives a place.  And it gives the  2 description of a circular cultural depressions  3 (cache pits).  4 THE COURT:  Yes.  5 MR. RUSH:  So -- and then the text that leads into the listing  6 indicates the various individuals who conducted the  7 sites and made the -- conducted the investigations  8 at the sites and made the recordings which were kept  9 at the provincial heritage conservation.  10 THE COURT:  Where would the reference in the text be to site  11 130?  How would one find that?  12 THE WITNESS:  In the reference to 130 in the appendix.  13 THE COURT:  Yes.  I found 130 in the appendix.  That's easy to  14 find.  15 THE WITNESS:  In the —  16 THE COURT:  It's on page 35.  17 THE WITNESS:  In the opinion there's a general discussion of the  18 distribution of those sites.  So many of the numbers  19 are noted in the opinion.  20 THE COURT:  Let's look at the discussion for circular cultural  21 depressions at Morice Lake.  Where do I find that?  22 MR. RUSH:  Well, I think it would be under the name of the  23 archaeologist who did the work at that place.  And I  24 direct the witness' attention to the archaeological  25 overview done in 1979, which is on page 9, which  26 makes reference to results of Burley's 1975 Morice  27 Lake survey.  The sites by the reference number, my  28 lord, are maintained at the Heritage Conservation  29 Branch, and the evidence has been that the  30 researcher, Linda Burnard-Hogarth, did research  31 under a Ms. Sylvia Albright's direction to obtain  32 these conservation site references from that source.  33 And she's attested to the reliability of the  34 information that's gathered from that -- from the  35 conservation branch, and what was done was give  36 numbers to the sites and then to identify the sites  37 on a map.  38 THE COURT:  Well, Mr. Willms, I sympathize with your problem,  39 but surely when your people, your advisers, looked  40 at this map, there are -- I'm looking at the first  41 one, the Whitesail Lake area, which includes Morice  42 Lake or the lower reaches of it, and site 130.  They  43 recognized that this was a reduced copy of a  44 standard government of Canada topographical map, did  45 they not?  46 MR. WILLMS:  Well, my lord, we, and myself in particular,  47 recognized what this is and what it discloses and 10444  S.L. Albright (for plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  the size of the numbers on it and read what we could  read, and whether or not somebody reduced it before  they put the numbers on it, I don't know.  This is  the first time that I knew that this is a photocopy  of a whole thing that's been reduced.  For all I  knew before I got this, all of the additions were  put on it after it was photo reduced.  So I'm  expecting to meet whatever I can read on this.  I'm  not expecting to meet whatever I can now read on the  real thing, which I never got.  MR. RUSH:  Is my friend saying that he can't read the numbers?  Is that the problem?  THE COURT:  I think that's part of it.  MR. WILLMS:  That's part of it.  MR. RUSH:  Well —  MR. WILLMS:  I can see now from the real thing that there are  numbers where there are no numbers on what I got.  And this does not purport, as I understood it when I  got it, to be a listing and a mapping of all of the  archaeological sites, all of the numbered in the  area.  And when you read the review in the report,  the report itself merely highlights various site  numbers and general locations for those site  numbers.  It doesn't go through and say here's a --  here's what's at -- and I'm not talking about the  appendix right now.  I'm talking about the report  itself.  THE COURT:  But you had the appendix all along with the report.  MR. WILLMS:  I've had the appendix all along with all the  various numbers in the appendix.  MR. RUSH:  Well, perhaps, my lord, it wasn't an obvious thing  that these were photo reduced, but in the report it  says, and I'm quoting:  "The location of  archaeological sites recorded by these surveys have  been plotted by Burnard-Hogarth on 1 to 250,000  scale N.T.S. maps of the region, which are found on  Appendix C".  Now, an immediate look at this photocopy would  lead you to the conclusion that that could not be at  that size a 1 to 250,000 scale unless it had been --  unless it had been photo reproduced.  THE COURT:  This is still 1 to 250,000.  MR. RUSH:  Oh, yes, but a reduced size at 1 to 250.  THE COURT:  Yes.  Well, what do you say about your friend Mr.  Willms' comment a moment ago that there are numbers  on your large ones that don't appear on the small  ones?  Do you mean, Mr. Willms, they don't -- 10445  S.L. Albright (for plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  they're not discernible on the small ones and are on  the large ones or are you saying there are additions  to the large ones?  MR. WILLMS:  I believe they're just not discernible.  I don't  think that there are additions.  MR. RUSH:  Well, I don't know what he's referring to in  specifics.  I have to know that.  And if my friend  wants to review the original that I have here that  has been photo reduced, then he's welcome to do it  to confirm the two, but I would like these to be  placed before your lordship, because I think it  is -- I can see that it is easier to read a larger  scale map.  If I had been able to have copies  produced at that size, I would have reproduced them  for my friends.  Well, I think, Mr. Willms -- I'm sorry.  Mr.  Macaulay?  MACAULAY:  I have no submission.  WILLMS:  I just want to say, my lord, to accommodate my  friend, if he had large scale maps for us to follow  along with him right now so that we wouldn't be in  the dark while he's in the light, then fine.  You  know, I'll do the best I can.  But he brings one  copy of everything, which means that it's  practically impossible in some instances to follow  what's going on unless we all work from the same  document.  THE COURT:  Well, I'm again sympathetic with the difficulty, but  I don't think it's sufficient -- any such ground has  been shown either to disallow the evidence or to  shut down the trial.  I think that you might be  assisted, Mr. Willms, by having leave to take the  maps away overnight or lunch hour to familiarize  yourself with them.  I think that -- that sufficient  notice has been given that compels me to press on.  I think that's what we must do.  THE COURT  MR.  MR.  MR.  RUSH:  Q  A  Q  Ms. Albright, if I may just refer you, please, to the  appendix.  Yes.  And Appendix C in particular.  And just for  clarification again, would you please indicate the  index to the archaeological sites recorded within  Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en territories that appears at  page 19 and begins and goes through, I believe, to  page 49?  Would you just summarize again how it was  that this list was created? 10446  S.L. Albright (for plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1 A   Yes.  This list indicates the -- the various sites  2 that have previously been recorded in the -- in the  3 area of study.  They are plotted on the topographic  4 maps and rather than use the Borden designation on  5 the map, which is a fairly lengthy number, when  6 there are clusters of sites together, it was more  7 convenient to number them sequentially 1 to 239.  So  8 the site 1 to 239 refers to a noted location on the  9 map.  The -- the second column refers to the Borden  10 designation, site designation number for that site  11 as recorded in the Heritage Conservation Branch  12 files and its approximate area and the map sheet  13 that that site is on.  14 Q   So that the site number 1 to 239 refers to a Borden  15 locational reference?  16 A   Yes.  17 Q   In accordance with the Borden system that you have  18 referred to earlier in your testimony?  19 A   Yes.  20 Q   All right.  And then you said that those numbers were  21 plotted on the 1 to 250,000 scale map?  22 A   Yes.  The sequential numbering system.  23 Q   Now, if you just look at the photo reductions of the  24 maps which appear following the listing, can you  25 just confirm for me that the numbers which appear in  26 the list preceding it are numbers which were placed  27 on the 1 to 250 N.T.S. scale maps which -- and the  28 map sheets which there follow the list?  29 A   Yes.  I have -- I have reviewed in detail the  30 description that's presented in this appendix and  31 the plotting of them.  The -- for example, on this  32 Smithers sheet --  33 Q   That's the sheet that's the fourth one in; is that  34 right?  35 A   Smithers map sheet, yes.  There are a cluster of sites  36 located on the Bulkley River, the confluence of the  37 Telkwa with the -- in the Telkwa area on the  38 Bulkley, numbers 80 to approximately 96.  The  39 numbers in the listing refer to Tyhee Lake, which is  40 just north of the river and close to Telkwa.  The  41 others refer to sites located on the Bulkley River  42 in the area of Telkwa.  43 Q   All right.  Now, the -- if you'll just turn to the  44 next page, the Hazelton map sheet.  45 A   Yes.  46 Q   And if you'll refer to Kisgegas, do you see the  47 village of Kisgegas?  It's in the upper left -- 10447  S.L. Albright (for plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  A  3  4  5  6  Q  7  8  9  A  10  Q  11  12  A  13  14  15  16  Q  17  18  A  19  Q  20  21  22  A  23  Q  24  25  26  A  27  Q  28  29  30  A  31  Q  32  33  34  35  36  A  37  38  39  THE COURT  40  41  42  THE WITNE  43  44  MR. RUSH:  45  Q  46  47  A  upper left-hand quadrant of the map sheet.  Yes.  The -- just above the -- at the confluence of  the Babine with the Skeena, the Kisgegas area, there  are several sites which we have just discussed  earlier.  And those refer to the sites that you plotted, I  think, on a more specific figure than when you were  dealing with the ancestral village of Kisgegas?  Kisgegas, yes.  Now, were the sites that you found and designated, are  they on this map?  Yes.  They have been plotted as well.  They have been  given a sequential number and the designation that I  gave them during the -- during the field  investigation.  All right.  Thank you.  Now, there are -- there are  some eight map sheets there?  Yes.  That's right.  All right.  Okay.  Thank you.  Now, in the opinion, if  I may refer you back to that, would you please  direct your attention to 4 - 1 to 4 - 3?  Yes.  And here you outline some of the limitations that are  involved in the archaeological data; is that  correct?  Yes.  Okay.  And that -- does that pertain to the  archaeological data that is summarized and listed in  your Appendix C?  Yes, it is.  Okay.  Now, I direct your attention to page 4-4.  And you indicate in paragraph 3 under the heading at  4.2, and I'm quoting:  "It is possible to correlate  these clusters".  And by that do you mean  clusters -- which clusters do you mean?  In areas where -- where there is a cluster of site  locations which have been observed and recorded and  given a site designation.  :  I don't know if you mean by that cluster a pit cache  or a cluster of pit caches and house depressions and  other things.  3S:  Yes.  A grouping of sites.  So they may represent  different types of activities.  So you don't just mean a cluster of cache pits,  mean a cluster of --  Of sites.  You 10448  S.L. Albright (for plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1  Q  2  A  3  Q  4  5  6  7  8  9  A  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Q  21  22  A  23  24  25  Q  26  A  27  MR.  RUSH:  28  THE  COURT  29  MR.  RUSH:  30  Q  31  32  33  A  34  Q  35  36  37  A  38  39  40  41  42  43  MR.  RUSH:  44  THE  COURT  45  46  47  THE  WITNE  -- of archaeological sites?  Yes.  And you say:  "It is possible to correlate these  clusters of sites with named village sites or summer  fishing camps which are still occupied and used by  the Gitksan or documented in the oral histories and  ethnographic record as having been used by the  Gitksan in the past".  Yes.  In plotting the distribution of archaeological  sites on the topographic maps and looking at the  land use patterns and settlement patterns as  described in the ethnographic literature and looking  at areas which are -- or patterns which are still in  existence today in terms of use of the landscape and  use of resources and location of settlements, there  is a correlation between the distribution of sites  and places which are now being used or have been  used in the past as recorded in the ethnographic  counts.  All right.  Now, you draw that correlation on pages  4-4 through to 4 - 6, is that so?  Yes.  With respect to -- with respect to the Gitksan  area, and that correlation in the Wet'suwet'en area  is -- follows that.  And that follows it from 4-8 through to 4 - 9?  Yes.  Okay.  Now, if you'll just turn to 4, please.  :  4-4?  4-4, yes.  And to look at the bottom of the page  where you make reference to sites 206 and 210.  Now,  those sites refer, do they, to archaeological sites?  Yes.  And what do they correlate to according to your review  of the ethnographic literature and to your  understanding of the pattern of settlements?  Sites number 206 and 210 were site areas located by  myself during the summer of 1985, which contained  house pit remains as well as a large cluster of  cache pits, and which appear to correlate with  accounts of occupation of a village site of  Gitankaat in that area.  All right.  And similarly at the top of page 4-5.  :  I'm sorry.  Can you give me one second.  When you  say Gitankaat, are you referring to the same as  Gitangasx?  3S:  No.  Gitankaat, in the area of Doreen on the -- 10449  S.L. Albright (for plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1  THE  COURT  2  THE  WITNE  3  MR.  RUSH:  4  Q  5  6  7  8  9  A  10  THE  COURT  11  12  MR.  RUSH:  13  Q  14  15  16  A  17  18  19  20  21  22  Q  23  A  24  Q  25  26  A  27  28  29  30  31  Q  32  33  34  35  A  36  37  38  Q  39  40  41  42  A  43  Q  44  45  A  46  47  :  All right.  3S:  -- on the Skeena.  And this is graphically shown at Figure 6 and was  discussed earlier by the witness in her testimony of  the investigations which she made at the -- I think  it was between the Fiddler Creek and the Lome Creek  area?  Yes.  :  I just want to make sure we weren't using different  spellings for the same thing.  Thank you.  Now, just referring to site 14, which appears in the  paragraph 1 on page 45. And can you -- site 14 is  again an archaeological site reference?  Yes.  It is an archaeological site that has been  recorded to -- on the east bank of the Skeena, a  little to the north of the Gitankaat study area, and  has -- includes buried deposits up to two feet thick  and indicative of long term repeated use of a site  referred to as Kwatsalix.  That's K-w-a-t-s-a-1-i-x.  Yes.  And that you indicate in paragraph 1 on 4 - 5 is  referred to in the map of Poudrier and Gauvreau?  Yes.  That site is identified on -- on their map of  1891, and it was also -- has also been referred to  by -- by Dawson during his exploration of the Skeena  in 1879.  So that would be in his publication of  1891.  With respect to the name and place of Kwatsalix, do  you assume -- do you make an assumption about the  information gathered and reported by Dawson,  Poudrier and Gauvreau?  Yes.  Yes.  I've -- yes.  I've taken -- their  description and site placement of that named camp  was accurate.  Okay.  Now, in terms of site number 27, which is at  paragraph 2 on 4 - 5, this contains, you say,  archaeological remains, which you describe at a site  known as Gitlusek, G-i-t-1-u-s-e-k?  Yes.  And the source of this information, you say, is  Barbeau (1929)?  Yes.  Barbeau refers to a -- a village site by the  name of Gitlusek at this location in his discussion  of Wistis and Wi Hlengwa. 10450  S.L. Albright (for plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1  Q  2  A  3  4  5  6  Q  7  8  9  10  A  11  Q  12  13  A  14  Q  15  16  A  17  Q  18  19  20  A  21  Q  22  23  A  24  25  26  Q  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  A  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  THE COURT  46  MR. RUSH:  47  THE COURT  Okay.  And archaeological evidence there includes house  depressions as well as stratified and buried  cultural deposits, which is indicative of again  long-term occupation at -- at that site.  Now, I just direct you to the next paragraph.  You  identify a site number 29 at the mouth of Wilson  Creek.  And that again is an archaeological site, is  it?  Yes, it is.  29 refers to an archaeological site.  And then you also identify a site numbered 195 across  from Wilson Creek?  Yes.  And you indicate that that -- that place is recorded  as a camp called Minh am gookst?  Yes.  And you indicate that the site across the river is at  a present camp known as Anaxwoowax.  I'll just spell  those.  Go ahead.  The first is M-i-n-h-new word-a-m-new  word-g-o-o-k-s-t, and secondly A-n-a-x-w-o-o-w-a-x.  Yes.  Those archaeological remains have been found at  the locations which are used -- are used today as  fishing areas or fishing camps.  And now the source of the information of the name, is  that set out in the paragraphs which there follow on  4-5 beginning -- well, following the Wilson Creek  reference in the middle of the page?  I'm just  asking you with respect to the Gitksan references.  Do you set out the source of the information  throughout the following paragraphs and, of course,  the site references which you've indicated by site  number?  Yes.  I continue to discuss -- to point out specific  archaeological sites or clusters of sites in areas  which have been identified as -- as either  contemporary village camps, fishing camps along the  Skeena and Kispiox Rivers or described by some of  those -- for example, on the Skeena I've referred to  the archaeological site investigated by George  MacDonald at the -- at the Gitwangak Fortress and  mentioned his -- his use of the ethnographic sources  to interpret the history of occupation of that site.  :  Is it convenient to adjourn, Mr. Rush?  All right.  :  Thank you. 10451  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  S.L. Albright (for plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court,  two.  This court will adjourn until  (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED)  THE REGISTRAR:  I hereby certify the foregoing to be  a true and accurate transcript of the  proceedings transcribed to the best  of my skill and ability.  Kathie Tanaka, Official Reporter  UNITED REPORTING SERVICE LTD.  (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED PURSUANT TO AN ADJOURNMENT)  Order in court.  THE COURT:  Mr. Rush.  MR. RUSH:   My lord, I rise with considerable trepidation to  raise another matter on the question of notes.  An  issue has arisen brought to my attention by my  learned friends that disclosed in the material that  we had sent to them some time ago there did not  appear to be any notes pertaining to other test  sites other than the one at Moricetown.  There were  considerable notes disclosed vis-a-vis Moricetown.  I myself had thought that all of the notes had been  disclosed when the Moricetown batch had been  disclosed.  It turns out that that assumption was wrong  and that there are some other notes dealing with the  surface scatter at Hagwilget and at the site in --  at the other test sites along the Skeena.  These  notes are in Miss Albright's possession at her home.  I've told my friends that I will get them for them.  They should have had them and I will try to get them  for them.  The difficulty is that Miss Albright's  home is in Lytton and she is the only one that can  really find the notes at her home.  She lives there  by herself.  What I had proposed to my friends is this, and  I make the same proposal to your lordship that we  adjourn after the direct examination of Miss  Albright which I think will conclude between 3:00  and 3:30.  Miss Albright has indicated that she'll  drive to Lytton and drive back this evening with 10452  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE COURT:  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT:  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT:  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT:  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT:  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT:  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT:  EXAMINATION  Q  those notes or early tomorrow morning with those  notes and that I will provide the copies of them to  my learned friends.  They find that acceptable, I  believe.  And we not sit this evening, but rather  than sitting this evening we sit tomorrow evening.  I thought we were going to sit both.  Well, I didn't assume that, but if your lordship --  I didn't assume it, I feared it.  Well, I wasn't struck by the same fear.  But your  lordship having been struck that way --  You're not as old as I am, Mr. Rush.  Then it makes my proposal more palatable to you that  we move tonight's sitting to tomorrow.  I think my  learned friends agree that we sit on the same time  frame, that is to say from 4:30 to 6:30 another  two-hour sitting tomorrow.  I am most mindful of  your lordship's comments that we get the material to  my friends and get the cross-examination going and  completed in time set.  And it is for that reason  that I propose this way of dealing with it.  I  believe my learned friends are agreeable to the  proposal.  If your lordship is then I suggest we  move in that direction.  Yes.  Well, that is a reasonable arrangement.  I  think I should give notice, however, that if  necessary we will sit on Saturday to finish.  Yes.  We have to start finishing something.  Yes, I agree.  All right.  I say Saturday because it will not be --  I will not be able to sit on Friday.  Friday night.  Although I could sit an extra hour on Friday if  necessary.  Yes.  All right.  IN CHIEF BY MR. RUSH:  Now, Miss Albright, just turning your attention,  please, back to chapter four.  And, in particular, I  direct your attention to the survey of the  archaeological sites and the names of places within  the Gitksan area.  I don't intend to canvass all of  what you have covered in your report from 4-5 to  4-7, but it is in the pages of 4-4 through to 4-7  where you draw the correlation between the  archaeological sites as you listed them and the  names of village sites and locations and fishing 10453  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 site locations in the report, is that so?  2 A    Yes.  3 Q    I want to ask you the information which you obtained  4 concerning the Gitksan and the Wet'suwet'en names  5 and places, where did that information derive from?  6 A    The names of places, villages or fishing sites along  7 the river were obtained from a number of different  8 sources.  Some of them have been drawn from  9 ethnographic literature that was reviewed which is  10 already noted in various parts of the report and the  11 appendices.  I have referred to Barbeau notes and  12 his 1929 publication.  13 Q    Yes.  14 A    Totem Poles of the Gitksan.  I have also used as  15 mentioned this morning sources such as the Poudrier  16 and Gavreau map and site noted by Dawson and his  17 explanation of the river.  I have also some sites  18 along the Kispiox River with Gitksan names of  19 fishing camps were noted by Richards on site forms  20 for archaeological sites that he recorded along the  21 Kispiox River.  22 Q    Is he an archaeologist?  23 A    Yes, he is.  24 Q    And reference is made to his -- sites in the report;  25 is that right?  26 A    Yes.  27 Q    That's at the bottom of page 4-6?  28 A    4-6, yes.  Richards carried out surveys along the  29 Kispiox River in the vicinity of Kispiox Village and  30 recorded a number of archaeological sites.  And also  31 recorded the Gitksan names for fishing sites at  32 those -- at the same locations.  33 Q    Yes.  34 A    So that is mentioned.  Some of the other names along  35 the river were provided to me by Marvin George.  36 Q    Did this deal with the names as well as the sites?  37 A    Yes, named locations along the river.  38 Q    Now, with regard to the information which you  39 obtained from the various sources, did you make an  40 assumption about their accuracy in doing the  41 correlation?  42 A    Yes, I assumed these to be accurate site names and  43 descriptions.  44 Q    Now, I ask you to refer please to page 4-7.  And in  45 particular, the last paragraph where you state:  46  47 "In summary, most of the archaeological sites 10454  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 recorded along the Skeena River in Gitksan  2 territories correspond to named fishing camps  3 and village sites.  The distribution of  4 archaeological recorded to date in Gitksan  5 territories is consistent with the pattern of  6 land use and settlement documented in the  7 ethnographic literature for more recent  8 periods."  9  10 And then further down in that paragraph, and I'm  11 quoting:  12  13 "The clustering of archaeological sites in the  14 vicinity of major fish camps and villages  15 which are still being used and occupied today  16 suggests that these have been significant  17 village locations and fishing areas for  18 centuries if not millenia."  19  20 Now, are those your opinions with regard to the  21 correlations that you drew?  22 A    Yes, that is true.  23 Q    Now, did you do a similar analysis in respect of the  24 archaeological sites in the claim area of the  25 Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs?  26 A    Yes.  27 Q    And did you follow a similar pattern of correlating  28 archaeological sites with ethnographic literature  29 and ethnographic information?  30 A    Yes.  31 Q    Okay.  And I would just ask you, if you will, to  32 look at pages 4-8 and 4-9.  Do you there set out the  33 correlations which you drew?  34 A    Yes, that is right.  35 Q    And in respect of the information that you obtained  36 from the ethnographic sources, did you make  37 assumptions as to their accuracy in drawing the  38 correlations that you did?  39 A    Yes.  40 Q    And would you look at 4-9, please.  And I would ask  41 you if you look at the fourth paragraph and ask you  42 if the fourth paragraph -- excuse me, the fourth and  43 fifth paragraph on page 4-9.  Does that set out your  44 opinion with regard to the distribution of  45 archaeological sites in the Wet'suwet'en land claim  46 area?  47 A    Yes, it is. 10455  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  THE  COURT:  2  3  4  5  6  7  THE  WITNESS  8  THE  COURT:  9  THE  WITNESS  10  11  THE  COURT:  12  THE  WITNESS  13  THE  COURT:  14  15  THE  WITNESS  16  THE  COURT:  17  18  THE  WITNESS  19  THE  COURT:  20  THE  WITNESS  21  22  THE  COURT:  23  24  25  26  27  THE  WITNESS  28  THE  COURT:  29  MR.  RUSH:  30  Q  31  32  33  A  34  Q  35  36  37  38  39  A  40  Q  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  I'm sorry, but I'm not sure that I have a grasp of  the significance, if any, of an archaeological site.  Is an archaeological site where you find anything of  archaeological value?  For example, if you find a  cluster of cache pits, is that an archaeological  site?  : Yes, it is.  And if you just find one of them is that a site?  : One might record one, but generally cache pits are  found in groups or in clusters.  But looking at page 4-9.  : Yes.  You've got sites mentioned in the first line of the  second, fourth, fifth, sixth paragraphs.  : Yes.  Does that mean merely that it is a location of  archaeological finding?  : Yes, it is.  Fine.  : It is a location or area where archaeological  evidence in a variety of forms have been found.  And when you're talking about Kisgagas or -- I'm  sorry, was it Kisgagas or Gitangasx where you found  clusters of pits in one location and on the next  terrace you found a house depression, that would be  an archaeological site, is it?  : Yes, it is.  All right.  Thank you.  The pits, the house pits together with the cache  pits, the total would be the archaeological site; is  that correct?  Yes, I have included that as one site.  I just ask you to refer to page 4-10.  I would ask  you if contained on 4-10 are the opinions which you  drew in respect of both the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en  correlations of archaeological sites to the  ethnographic locations and sites?  Yes, it is.  All right.  My lord, just on page 4-11 I'm going to  ask you if you'll disregard the last paragraph on  page 4-11.  I don't intend to rely on that.  I will  not direct the witness' attention to it.  Now, I direct your attention, Miss Albright,  to chapter five of your opinion.  And can you state  for his lordship the objective of the analysis which  is contained in chapter five? 10456  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 A    Yes, chapter five includes a summary of aspects of  2 the evidence which was recovered through the studies  3 that I carried out, evidence discussed in terms of a  4 number of different topics.  It also discusses this  5 evidence in comparison to archaeological research  6 which has been done within the northwest region in  7 order to understand the evidence found in the  8 Hagwilget and the Moricetown Canyon areas, the  9 middle Skeena drainage, in the larger regional  10 context in order to interpret its significance.  11 Q    That is to place the evidence of your research and  12 analysis in the context of a regional understanding,  13 is that so?  14 A    Yes.  15 Q    Now, you deal with certain subject areas.  The first  16 is with respect to the evolultion of land-owning  17 house groups.  And I would just like to direct your  18 attention to 5-1.  And in respect of the regional  19 context within which the research that you did is  20 placed, what is the importance of salmon production  21 in the storage of surplus supplies?  22 A    Well, several archaeologists working in the  23 northwest have considered that the intensification  24 of salmon production and storage of salmon are  25 important aspects that are related to the  26 development of a complex social organization,  27 complex cultures that we see along the northwest  28 area in the ethnographic record at the time of a  29 European contact.  So there is an interest by  30 archaeologists in understanding the evolution and  31 development of northwest coast culture and social  32 organization and what aspects -- what aspects of  33 that cultural development are visible in the  34 archaeological record.  35 Q    And is the emergence of land-owning house groups one  36 aspect of the development of that culture?  37 A    Yes, it is.  38 Q    And is there -- in what way does the salmon  39 production -- the intensification of salmon  40 production and the surplus of supplies bear on the  41 question, if it does, of the land-owning house  42 groups?  43 A    The intensification of salmon production and storage  44 of large quantities of dried salmon resources for  45 winter use or later use for purposes of trade  46 indicate -- is an indication of very sophisticated  47 technology.  For that intensification process, 10457  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 gathering large quantities of a particular resource  2 and processing it for later use implies more  3 sophisticated technology for catching the salmon.  4 For processing salmon in terms of drying requiring  5 drying racks and smokehouses.  It also involves  6 organization of people to be able to carry out those  7 activities in that salmon resources are not an  8 abundant resource.  They are very restricted in time  9 and place.  People need to be organized to be at  10 places where salmon are caught in large numbers and  11 to be able to process that resource within a short  12 period of time at specific locations where that  13 resource is available.  So you see, there is the  14 organization of people.  15 Q    All right.  Now you, in your opinion, make reference  16 to a number of authors and their published works.  I  17 would just like to refer you first to a reference  18 that you make to Schalk 1977.  This appears in the  19 large three ring binder, my lord, at tab 21.  If you  20 have that binder in front of you, Miss Albright, I  21 will ask you to have a look at it, please.  Now, can  22 you just explain Mr. Schalk, who was he?  23 A    He is an anthropologist and archaeologist.  He is  24 working at the University of New Mexico under Louis  25 Binford who is also an eminent archaeologist.  26 Q    And this is his papers on The Structure of an  27 Anadromous Fish Resource?  28 A    Yes, he examines a number of variables that are  29 related to the distribution and availability of  30 salmon resources and the manner and the organization  31 for capturing and processing of salmon resources and  32 how that also affects the social organization and  33 other aspects of cultural behaviour.  34 Q    May I direct your attention first, please, to page  35 231 and the subheading "Implementation of a Storage  36 Strategy".  And in terms of the observations which  37 you made concerning this archaeological reference,  38 can you direct us to what you relied upon for the  39 observations that are contained within your opinion?  40 A    Yes, under "Implementation of a Storage Strategy"  41 starting midway down through that section, Schalk  42 points out that:  In several respects, the  43 implementation of a storage strategy that is for  44 storing of abundant food resources that storage  45 strategies do represent an evolutionary threshold.  46 And he is referring in terms of the distribution of  47 population in terms of population density, the 1045?  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 degree of sedentism in specific locations to  2 indicate the settlement at a permanent village  3 locations.  4 Q    Okay.  5 A    So there is an influence on settlement systems in  6 terms of where people would build permanent  7 winter -- permanent settlements or winter villages  8 within a given area, a given territory.  9 Q    All right.  And he makes —  10 A    He also talks about the technological evolutions  11 that were necessary for salmon intensification and  12 such storage, as well as implications for  13 re-organization or changes in social systems in  14 terms -- in other words, how people organization  15 themselves to carry out subsistence activities, how  16 they would live together, interact together.  17 Q    All right.  18 A    So he discusses a number of different points on 231,  19 232, 233.  20 Q    Just on 232, I would like to draw your attention to  21 the second full paragraph beginning:  22  23 "This implies a fourth sort of change."  24  25 He discusses:  26  27 "Technological innovations necessary to  28 extract quantities of fish in less  29 spatially constricted areas and in shorter  30 periods of time."  31  32 Was this and the other observations he makes of the  33 factors that you took into account in your  34 observations here?  35 A    Yes.  36 Q    And were they pertinent to --  37 A    Yes, his discussion is I believe quite relevant for  38 interpreting the significance of evidence in the  39 area where I carried out research.  Particularily  40 the technology used for capturing fish whether it be  41 weirs or traps.  The storage facilities such as  42 storage pits or the -- also technology or facilities  43 that are important for processing of large  44 quantities of food for storage such as drying racks,  45 smokehouses, boxes and baskets he lists here.  46 Q    All right.  Thank you.  Now, I would just ask you if  47 you will, please, to turn to page 235.  I would ask 10459  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 you to -- if you took into account at page 235 at  2 the bottom what Mr. Schalk has to say observing the  3 example of the Tlingit?  4 A    Yes, at the bottom of the page he refers to an  5 important factor concerning processing of resources.  6 One could have abundant resources in the  7 environment, but if one doesn't have the technology  8 and the organization for processing that resource  9 for later use then it is still left as part of the  10 environment.  Resources to be useful need to be  11 processed appropriately in order to use them at a  12 later time or for a variety of purposes so that a  13 storage strategy is very significant.  And he also  14 indicates at the top of page 236 that it has been  15 recognized that storage strategies in terms of the  16 facilities that are involved are not just simple  17 techniques.  It is quite a specific technology that  18 is developed at this point.  So in terms of  19 processing resources on page 236, he also refers  20 under 5 to efficient demployment of a labour force  21 or the people involved in carrying out the  22 activities in order to be able to process the salmon  23 resources within a short period of time that they  24 are available and under conditions that are suitable  25 for preservation.  26 Q    Yes.  Now, can you comment, Miss Albright, the  27 confidence with which within the archaeological  28 community Dr. or Mr. Schalk's views as expressed in  29 this paper are accepted or taken?  30 A    These -- his discussion is I think respected by a  31 number of -- by most archaeologists working in this  32 area since he does focus his discussion on the  33 northwest region.  It has been widely quoted and  34 discussed by other archaeologists working in the  35 northwest region such as Fladmark has made reference  36 to his work.  And Burley working in the mouth of the  37 Fraser River has also referred to Schalk.  38 Q    And you site Fladmark at the bottom of 5-1 and  39 Burley as well?  4 0 A    Yes, I do.  41 Q    I want to —  42 A   Again the work of these archaeologists are also  43 concerned with discussing the evidence that is  44 available in the archaeological record for  45 intensification of salmon production and the rise of  46 complex social systems in the northwest area.  47 Q    Now, I just refer you now, Miss Albright, to page 10460  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  5-2 of your opinion.  In the second paragraph you  refer to R. Carlson at 1979 and later on in the same  paragraph to C. Carlson.  I just draw your  lordship's attention to the fact that the two  Carlson articles, one is Roy Carlson is at tab 22 at  page 214, page 220.  And the C. Carlson, unrelated,  is at tab 22 at page 183, 188 and 187.  A    Yes, they are related.  Q    They are related?  A    Yes, Cathy Carlson is the daughter of Roy Carlson.  Q    I see.  A    The family is following in the same discipline.  THE COURT:  And Roy Carlson was what tab?  MR. RUSH:   Tab 22 at page 214 and page 220.  THE COURT:  Okay.  MR. RUSH:  Q    Now, I want to refer you, Miss Albright, to the  third paragraph where you state:  "At Prince Rupert Harbour there is evidence of  salmon fishing from the earliest occupation at  5,000 B.P. up to the present.  By 3,000 B.P.  salmon becomes the dominant fish species  present in the faunal assemblages recovered."  And then you site Ames 1986.  And you go on to say:  "By 3,500 B.P. there is evidence of an  increase in population, larger house  structures, and trade in obsidian, amber and  dentalia.  These observed features are  interpreted as an increase in social  complexity."  And you give MacDonald and Inglis as a reference.  Did you rely on the published work of MacDonald and  Inglis referenced there at 1982?  A    Yes, I did.  Q    This is the reference that I handed up to your  lordship this morning.  It's at tab 39, new tab 39.  If you will just turn to that in the book.  Now, if  you'll refer please to tab 39, and in particular  page 45.   Now, is it there that you find the  passage that you rely upon for the observations  which you make in your opinion?  A    Yes.  In the discussion by MacDonald and Inglis  under Period II at Prince Rupert Harbour at 1,500 10461  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 B.C. to A.D. 500 which can also be discussed in  2 terms of 3,500 to 1,500 approximately B.P., before  3 present.  They discuss elaboration of ground stone  4 industry, trade in obsidian, amber and dentalia.  5 Q    And I direct you as well --  6 A   And that discussion continues on page 52 where they  7 refer to larger house structures and also briefly  8 notes some of the physical anthropology analysis or  9 analysis of the human remains found at sites in the  10 Prince Rupert Harbour that indicates group hostility  11 or warfare taking place during this time period.  12 Q    All right.  That's at the top of page 52, is it?  13 A    Yes.  14 Q    Okay.  15 A   And then the reference to -- the reference to salmon  16 remains at Prince Rupert Harbour I believe is a  17 little bit further on.  Yes, on page 56 of the paper  18 there is a note to the faunal samples retrieved from  19 Prince Rupert excavations.  They have retrieved a  20 very large faunal collection there due to the  21 preservation in the shell midden sites.  The variety  22 of species that were identified including fish  23 remains indicates there is a basic continuity in the  24 use of faunal resources based on hunting of birds,  25 land and sea mammals, fishing and shellfish  26 gathering indicating that those activities were  27 present throughout the sequence.  28 Q    I would like you -- if you will set that reference  29 aside, but keep the book in front of you, I would  30 like to now refer you to the next chapter which is  31 entitled Warfare and Trade on 5-3.  32 A    The next section on the next page?  33 Q    Yes, that's right.  34 A    5-3?  35 Q    Yes.  And you make reference in this section to a  36 published work by MacDonald at 1979 and you give  37 page reference number 11.  Is that also found in  38 another reference which is contained within the  39 three ring binder which you have in front of you?  40 A    Yes.  And the 1979 paper refers to his work at the  41 Kitwanga Fort site, but he is referring here in a  42 brief summary of that paper to evidence found at  43 Prince Rupert Harbour.  That is described in the  44 paper that we were just looking at here so some of  45 those -- some of those items are noted in the paper  46 we just looked at.  47 Q    That's the MacDonald and Inglis paper? 10462  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 A    Yes.  2 Q    And that pertains to the points you made about  3 hostilities, evidence of hostilities?  4 A    Yes.  And he also in the table of artifact classes  5 and types he notes those, some of these -- a number  6 of these items.  7 Q    All right.  I would like to direct you to  8 MacDonald's work at tab 19 which is entitled The  9 Epic of Nekt, N-E-K-T.  If you will just please turn  10 to tab 19.  11 A    Yes.  This is also a summary of work carried out at  12 the Kitwanga Fort site.  And in terms of his  13 archaeological investigations at the Fort site and  14 his review of the oral histories of some of the  15 houses, particularily the individual referred to as  16 Nekt and looking at the oral histories of this  17 individual.  18 Q    All right.  19 A   And with reference to warfare and trade.  20 Q    You make reference to dawdzep in the opinion, that's  21 D-A-W-D-Z-E-P.  What does that refer to, please?  22 A    Dawdzep is a Gitksan term for a fortress or a  23 fortified site.  There are three well known dawdzep  24 or fortress sites in the Gitksan territories and he  25 presents them.  These are on a map in this paper on  26 page 66 of this paper.  27 Q    Yes.  28 A    He notes that the large star, referring to the  29 Kitwanga Fort site at which he carried out  30 excavations and also refers to another fortress, a  31 fortified site in the Skeena River just above  32 Kispiox called the Kispiox Fort on this paper.  33 Q    Yes.  34 A   And there is also one at Kisgagas in the Kisgagas  35 study area or Kisgagas locality.  36 Q    There is also a map on the first or cover page of  37 this article which shows the fort or the dawdzep at  38 Kitwanga?  39 A    Yes.  40 Q    And is the subject matter of this particular paper  41 the dawdzep at Kitwanga?  42 A    Yes, he refers to his work at the Kitwanga dawdzep.  43 Q    All right.  And just so far as your own observations  44 go on page 5-3, I would ask you if you would refer  45 to page 79 of Dr. MacDonald's article to the bottom  46 of the page where he is summarizing his argument.  I  47 would ask you if you took into account the 10463  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 observations that Dr. MacDonald makes at this  2 juncture of his paper?  3 A    Yes.  He refers to the Kitwanga Fort as being part  4 of a much larger framework of inter-tribal trade as  5 well as warfare which dates back as early as the  6 first millenia B.C. or that would be 3,000 years.  7 Q    All right.  If I may just take you back to the map  8 that's found at page 66.  9 A    Yes.  10 Q    Can you help us understand what the dotted lines are  11 on this map?  12 A    The dotted lines on this map refer to trade routes  13 that MacDonald has plotted in the region.  14 Q    Okay.  15 A    So these are trade and travel routes connecting  16 various villages within the region that have been  17 used extensively for trading of various materials.  18 Q    Now, you also note in your opinion that:  19  20 "Obsidian was a particularily valuable stone  21 material used to make knife blades and spear  22 and arrow points."  23  24 You state that:  25  26 "Seventeen pieces of obsidian found at the  27 Kitwanga dawdzep have been fingerprinted  28 through x-ray fluorescence to obsidian sources  29 on Mt. Edziza."  30  31 A    Yes.  32 Q    Then you give MacDonald sources there and I wonder  33 if there is also --  34 A    Yes, on page 74 of this article he notes the  35 analysis of obsidian from the site which was carried  36 out by Dr. Nelson, Earl Nelson at Simon Fraser  37 University before he had -- I guess at the time that  38 he was still training students to carry out the  39 technique.  And the obsidian from the dawdzep was  40 sourced to the Mt. Edziza area.  There now have been  41 identified eight different flows or different  42 sources in the Edziza area, but they are within  43 close proximity on the mountain.  44 Q    All right.  Now, just turning to the bottom of the  45 page, you say:  46  47 "There is also evidence of trade in native 10464  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE COURT:  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT:  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT:  MR. RUSH:  Q  copper during early times. Seven copper beads  were found with a cremation burial eroding out  of a steep bank below site area Gg St 3 at Kya  wiget."  And you give Turnbull 1966 as a reference.  I would  just like to ask you, if you will, to turn to that  at tab 3.  And if you will turn to the second page,  I would ask you if this is the source of information  upon which you are relying for that statement?  A    Yes.  In his notes under test pit 3 at Gg St 3 he  notes a burial.  And in the slope below the second  terrace a pocket of burned bones.  In other words,  there was eroding out of the bank burned bones.  This would have been a cremation burial.  And seven  tubular copper beeds were found with the burial  remains.  What page is this on, please?  This should be the third page in sequence in that  tab.  Tab 3?  Tab 3.  There is the cover page and then the page  entitled Moricetown.  And then the third page.  The  reference is right in the middle of the page, my  lord, just before he does the carbon samples.  I have it.  Thank you.  Now, Miss Albright, you also refer to another work  paper of MacDonald and Shaeffer 1980.  I direct your  attention now to tab 16 which is an extract of a  paper of MacDonald and Shaeffer entitled "Kitwanga  Fort National Historic Site Project".  A    Yes, this is a description of materials from the  Kitwanga Fort site.  This description of this paper  is still in draft form.  I obtained this from The  National Museum Archaeological Survey.  Q    I direct you to the page which is marked 46 and to  the heading "Closed Copper Tubes".  Do you see that?  A    Yes.  The middle of the page, "Closed Copper Tubes".  Q    Yes.  Can you point to the paragraph here that you  rely on?  A    Yes, apparently there were two groups of copper  tinklers found at the dawdzep.  One type is believed  to have been made from materials obtained after  contact.  And the second group of tinklers were made  from a native copper which had been manufactured  according to cold hammer chipping on the top of page 10465  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 47.  2 Q    What are tinklers?  3 A    Tinklers are like little bells or the sheets of  4 copper were rolled into a tubular type of bead,  5 sometimes they were conical in shape.  They were  6 attached to dance aprons or articles of dress worn  7 by individuals during ceremonials.  And while  8 individuals danced these items would tinkle together  9 as they -- as the person moved during dance.  10 THE COURT:  Has anyone attempted to establish the age of that  11 fort?  12 THE WITNESS: MacDonald dated it as occupied prior to contact and  13 during historic times.  So the pre-contact materials  14 were not dated at that site.  So an undetermined  15 period of time prior to contact which he estimates  16 at 1790 and then through the historic period at 1840  17 people moved from the dawdzep down the creek to  18 establish -- to Kitwanga Village that we know of  19 today.  2 0 THE COURT:  Thank you.  21 MR. RUSH:   Now, dealing with your section on regional cultural  22 history, here you set out --  23 THE COURT:  You are not nearly finished, are you?  24 MR. RUSH:   No, I'm not nearly finished, but I'm three pages  25 away from being finished.  I'm pretty close.  26 THE COURT:  Madam Reporter, are you being replaced in a minute?  27 THE REPORTER:  I could keep going.  2 8 THE COURT:  Well, you let us know when you want to be relieved,  2 9 Madam reporter.  30 THE REPORTER:  I will.  31 MR. RUSH:  32 Q    At the top of the page on 5-4, Miss Albright, you  33 make reference to the traditions in western North  34 America in early post-glacial times.  Then you set  35 out the traditions by the distinctive tool type.  36 You give the tool types as being stemmed point  37 tradition, the fluted point tradition, the cobble  38 tool or protowestern tradition and the microblade  39 tradition.  You site Carlson 1983a and 1983b for  40 that?  41 A    Yes.  42 Q    And it is in those two sources that you find this  43 delineation of the technological traditions, is that  44 so?  45 A    Yes, in both of these publications he outlines these  46 four early basal cultural traditions that were in  47 the northwest region in early post-glacial times, so 10466  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 going back to 11 to 12 thousand years ago.  He  2 describes their location and the distinctive  3 technology of those cultural traditions.  4 Q    All right.  Those two sources are at tab 26 at page  5 75 and tab 25 of page 15.  Miss Albright, I would  6 like to draw your attention to the second paragraph  7 now where you state:  8  9 "The earliest evidence of occupation along  10 the northwest coast has been dated to  11 10,000 B.P. at the north end of the Queen  12 Charlotte Islands."  13  14 Now, I would just like you to comment on that  15 particular statement.  16 A    Yes, I was writing some of this during the summer of  17 1986 or in 1986 and there was a note in the Midden  18 so this is just a brief note in the Midden written  19 by Bernick, the editor of the Midden which is a  20 local B.C. newsletter or periodical used by  21 archaeologists which referred to work analysis of  22 materials by Nick Gessler stating an early date of  23 10,000.  And that has since been revised by Gessler.  24 Q    All right.  25 A    He presented a paper at the spring meetings this  26 year retracting that date and acknowledging the work  27 of Fladmark on the Charlottes as still being the  28 earliest dated.  2 9 Q    And what is that date of Fladmark?  30 A    It refers to approximately 7,500 years ago on the  31 Charlottes.  32 Q    All right.  33 A    For the appearance of microblade tradition there.  34 Q    You then indicate in the next sentence that:  35  36 "Microblade technology makes its appearance  37 about 9,000 years ago on the north and  38 central coast with trade or movement of  39 obsidian from Mt. Edziza to the coast  40 during the period 9,000 to 5,000 years  41 ago."  42  43 And you site Ackerman and Carlson?  44 A    Yes.  45 Q    And I would just like to refer you to the figure  46 which is at figure 26.  And you indicate that this  47 is from Carlson 1983 page 23? 10467  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 A    Yes.  2 Q    All right.  3 A    In this figure Carlson is summarizing much of the  4 evidence that has been recorded by various  5 researchers in the northwest, and has plotted  6 evidence indicating distribution of obsidian from  7 Mt. Edziza'a sources just south of this middle  8 Stikine both north into the Yukon and to the  9 northwest coast and down as far as Namu on the  10 central coast.  So the reference to obsidian at Namu  11 Carlson has recovered that and reported on that  12 himself.  At Namu he also seized obsidian from the  13 Anaheim sources and he draws an approximate circle  14 to indicate distribution of Anaheim sources.  And  15 then there were also materials from Oregon sources,  16 obsidian sources being traded up as far north as  17 Namu.  So there are three major sources.  The  18 distribution of trade of that material shown on this  19 map for the period 4,000 to 6,000 years ago there is  20 evidence retrieved since that time that would alter  21 this map now and make some of those distribution  22 areas the circles would fill out a bit more and make  23 them somewhat larger.  24 Q    In terms of your own findings of obsidian at the  25 Moricetown excavation, and for the moment assuming  26 that the obsidian is sourceed to Edziza and Anaheim,  27 how would the source appear on this map today?  28 A    Well, the circle, the northern circle including  29 distribution of obsidian from Mt. Edziza then would  30 fill out to -- would be brought further to the lower  31 right or further southeast to include more of the  32 Skeena drainage.  And then the circle referring to  33 the distribution of obsidian from Anaheim sources  34 would then be also drawn further north to include  35 the -- to include the Bulkly.  36 Q    All right.  37 A    So there would be more overlap in those two circles  38 of distribution.  39 Q    Where it shows the central B.C. sources of obsidian  40 on Carlson's map, that refers to the Anaheim source,  41 does it?  42 A    Yes, it does.  43 Q    And it shows three squares there referring to three  44 quarry sites, I take it.  Are they all Anaheim  45 sources or are they different?  46 A    They are referred to as sources in the Anaheim area.  47 Yes, they are grouped together as Anaheim sources 10468  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE COURT:  THE WITNESS  THE COURT:  MR. RUSH:  Q  which would be numbered as different sources.  THE COURT:  I don't see the Edziza quarry on this map.  THE WITNESS:  It is a little square to the south — on the south  side of the Stikine.  MR. RUSH:   It is right in the middle of the oblong circle.  In  fact, it is at the apex of the circle.  THE COURT:  Oh, way up there.  I see.  All right.  MR. RUSH:   Now, the Carlson 1979 article, my lord, is found at  tab 27 entitled Indian Art Traditions of the  Northwest Coast.  It is page 24.  Unfortunately the  map is not paginated, but it comes just before 24  where there are a number of artifacts shown on that  page.  On that map "site" means a location where obsidian  was found, is it?  :  Yes.  "Site" refers to places where obsidian  artifacts were found.  Yes.  Now, I just direct you to the top of page 5- 5.  And  there you state in the first paragraph, the first  partial paragraph:  "Although Fladmark feels that bearers of  both early cultures migrated south along  the coast during very early post  glacial time, he states that 'all or most  of the fundamental technological and  economic basis of Northwest Coast culture  may always have been present, from the very  first occupation of the region'."  And that is sited as Fladmark 1982.  That is the  reference that you took that quote from, is it?  A    Yes, it is.  Q    And that is at tab 28, my lord.  And the page is  page 132 in the first paragraph and not 136.  Now, I  want to ask you about microblade technologies.  You  make reference to microblade technologies in the  second paragraph on page 5-5.  You indicate here  that:  "Microblade technologies were also well  established in the southern Yukon and far  northern British Columbia between 7,000 and  4,000 years ago." 10469  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1 I would like to ask you what the significance is of  2 microblade technologies in terms of your comments in  3 this paragraph?  4 A    Microblade technology is one that has been  5 documented throughout Alaska and the Yukon, the  6 northwest coast and down through the central  7 interior of British Columbia.  There are a number of  8 researchers which have documented the evidence of  9 the appearance of microblades at different locations  10 and the dating of that.  And there is a progression  11 in terms of the spread of the microblade tradition  12 in post-glacial times from the Bering Straight south  13 into the coast and interior of British Columbia.  So  14 we can see a progression in terms of geographical  15 location and time period as this technology moved or  16 spread further east and further south.  And I've  17 made note here of it being established in the  18 southern Yukon and northern British Columbia, a  19 cultural area immediately to the north of the area  20 that I've been working in.  It's distribution or  21 temporal distribution in that area between 4,000 and  22 7,000 years ago based on the work of Fladmark in the  23 Edziza area and workmen in the southern Yukon.  24 Q    Now, in terms of your investigations at the  25 Moricetown excavation, did you find any evidence of  26 microblade technology?  27 A    Yes, in the Skeena drainage we also have recovered  28 microblades from Hagwilget Canyon which are --  29 appear to be present in that early period of  30 occupation which Ames has described as early zone or  31 zone A before 3,500 years ago.  Gary Coupland has  32 found microblade technology at Kitselas Canyon which  33 he has found in deposits which he refers to as the  34 bornite phase of occupation dated between 5,000  35 years ago and 4,300 years ago which is also an  36 earlier period.  37 Q    Now, did you find any evidence of microblades during  38 the investigation -- the excavations in Moricetown  39 in the summer of '85?  40 A    The 10 metre area along the trench that we excavated  41 we did not recover any microblades.  42 Q    Okay.  43 A   At that time.  Although in reviewing the work of  44 Turnbull and several test units conducted by  45 Turnbull in examining level material that was sent  46 to us we did find several examples indicating a  47 microblade production at Moricetown.  I have done 10470  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  MR. WILLMS:  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT:  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT:  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT:  MR. RUSH:  Q  A  additional work myself in '87 in which I retrieved  microblades as well.  My lord, I object.  This 1987 work is not disclosed  in the report.  There is no documentation that shall  been disclosed.  There is no anything that has been  disclosed about further work that this witness has  done that she is giving evidence about and where she  got it.  It is completely inadmissible under the  60-day rule.  It is inadmissible, no documents have  been produced and I object.  Well, there are no documents, my lord, on this  subject.  The witness did an examination of certain  materials in the summer of 1987.  I had not intended  to direct the witness' attention to any of it, save  and except that she recovered certain artifacts  which I was going to lead her to.  There has been no  documentation or analysis or write-up or anything.  This all comes after the preparation and  distribution of her opinion.  Well, I think she could say that she found a  microblade at such and such a location in 1987.  But  without notice, she would hardly be allowed to give  opinion evidence about it.  I intend to ask her very little more than that.  All right.  And that's precisely the area of the examination.  I  do have the microblades or I believe the witness has  the microblades, I'm not sure, but I intended to  direct the witness to those if she has them.  All right.  Now, you indicated, Miss Albright, that you  recovered some physical remains in the summer of  1987, is that so?  Yes, I did.  I have not written up that work, but I  do have in my possession artifacts retrieved from  that work including several microblades from  deposits excavated.  It was at Moricetown on the  north side of the Bulkley River at the same -- at  terrace level that was the same elevation and  opposite the river from the area that we did work in  in 1985.  And during that look at the deposits on  the north bank of the canyon revealed the same kind  of strategy involved.  I recovered the microblades  in a context that was comparable to strata that I  had previously looked at.  Did you do any excavations yourself? 10471  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  A    Yes.  Q    All right.  So these were recovered at Moricetown in  the summer of '87; is that right?  A    Yes.  MR. RUSH:   All right.  I want to ask you now about your  statement at the --  Mr. Rush, I think we will adjourn for a moment.  I have very few further questions.  Well, we will just take long enough for the reporter  to change.  Thank you.  THE COURT:  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT:  MR. RUSH:  THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court will recess,  (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED)  I hereby certify the foregoing to  be a true and accurate transcript  of the proceedings herein to the  best of my skill and ability.  LISA FRANKO, OFFICIAL REPORTER  UNITED REPORTING SERVICE LTD. 10472  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  In Chief by Mr. Rush  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47 10473  S.L. Albright (for plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1 (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED PURSUANT TO A SHORT ADJOURNMENT)  2 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  3 MR. RUSH:  4 Q   Now, Ms. Albright, I'm just referring to the third  5 full paragraph on page 5-5.  You say:  6  7 "On the basis of archaeological  8 investigations on the Coast and Queen  9 Charlotte Islands as well as the oral  10 histories recorded in the ethnographic  11 literature, MacDonald proposes an area  12 Co-tradition spanning a period of at least  13 3,000 years on the coast involving  14 Tlingit, Haida, Coast Tsimshian."  15  16 And you cite MacDonald, 1969 at 244.  Do you rely upon  17 that -- that statement and observation by Dr.  18 MacDonald?  19 A   Yes, I do.  20 MR. RUSH:  All right.  And that is found, my lord, at Tab 2.  21 Reference is the reference of Dr. MacDonald's --  22 THE COURT:  Tab 2?  2 3 MR. RUSH:  24 Q   Yes.  Now, I wish as well -- I neglected to refer you  25 to a further reference on page 5 - 3, Ms. Albright.  26 A   Excuse me.  With respect to that Tab 2, I believe we  27 only have two pages included in that.  I have the --  28 my original copy of that article in the witness room  29 with page 244 in the article.  30 Q   Yes.  249.  It's at page 244 then, is it?  31 A   Yes.  32 Q   All right.  And it's on that page that you draw the  33 reference, is it?  34 A   Yes.  35 MR. RUSH:  All right.  I will direct — I'll get a copy of that  36 from you and I'll provide your lordship with a copy.  37 THE COURT:  Thank you.  3 8 MR. RUSH:  39 Q   Thank you.  Ms. Albright, I want to refer you back to  40 page 5-3, please, to the second full paragraph  41 where you state:  42  43 "A large cache of stone clubs has been found  44 at Hagwilget Canyon.  They are similar in  45 form to clubs found at sites in the Prince  46 Rupert Harbour and at Kitselas, dated to  47 more than 2,000 years ago.  According to 10474  S.L. Albright (for plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  Duff (1981) the superior carving on the  clubs from Hagwilget suggests that they  may have been a prototype for the carved  stone clubs found on the coast.  Duff has  also recorded oral accounts which relate  the use of stone clubs to occupation of  Temlaxam."  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  And then you go on to indicate that:  "Stone clubs have also been reported from  other sites along the Skeena and from a  site at the confluence of the Bulkley and  Telkwa Rivers."  I would like to refer you to Tab 34 in the document  book, which is an article by Wilson Duff.  I'd ask  you if this is the article that you make reference  to at this point in your opinion?  A   Yes, I do.  This article illustrates the clubs which  were recovered from Hagwilget Canyon, both the cache  and few items recovered at -- separately.  And he  discusses -- describes these clubs in some detail  and -- and then also draws his conclusions  concerning the clubs at -- from the Hagwilget area  or the Upper Skeena area and those from the  Metlakatla area on the coast on page 103.  Q   Just before you go to 103, are the clubs that are  there described clubs that Dr. MacDonald --  A   These are clubs --  MR. RUSH:  Excuse me.  That Dr. Duff found?  THE COURT:  Did he find them or did Dr. Newcombe find them?  THE WITNESS:  They were in the possession of Dr. Newcombe at the  provincial museum, and this was a cache of clubs.  They had documentation at the national museum and  these are clubs that Wilson Duff examined and has  described in this paper.  He found Dr. Newcombe's cache.  THE COURT  MR. RUSH:  Q  A  All right.  Now, you were going to direct us to page  103?  Yes.  It's on page 103 that -- that Wilson Duff  outlined some of his conclusions about the clubs.  And it's through his analysis of the -- of the style  of the clubs and the quality of the craftsmanship in  carving of the clubs that he felt that the clubs  from the Hagwilget cache or from the Upper Skeena 10475  S.L. Albright (for plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  were prototypes of -- for ones on the coast.  And  Dr. MacDonald has found stone clubs in  archaeological context in the Prince Rupert area  that have been dated to more than 2,000 years.  Q   All right.  Thank you.  Now, just referring you now to  page 5-6.  Is your opinion with regard to the  cultural patterns of the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en  people as they relate to a regional context as  you've described in chapter 5 set out in the first  paragraph under Section 5.4, conclusions?  A   Yes.  My conclusions concerning the archaeological  evidence is set out at 5 - 4.  MR. RUSH:  All right.  With regard to the last paragraph, my  lord, again I do not intend to refer the witness to  that nor do I intend to ask the Court to consider  the statement contained there.  Now, that completes the examination of Ms.  Albright and subject to your lordship's direction,  I'd like to leave the examination open until I've  had a chance to review these notes till tomorrow  morning.  I expect, however, that there will be no  further questions.  If there are any, it will be one  or two.  So with that, I'd ask your lordship to  adjourn to tomorrow morning at ten.  Yes.  All right.  Ten o'clock.  Thank you.  Order in court.  Court is adjourned until 10:00  m.  THE COURT  THE REGISTRAR  a  (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED UNTIL JANUARY 12, 1989 at 10:00 A.M.)  I hereby certify the foregoing to be  a true and accurate transcript of the  proceedings transcribed to the best  of my skill and ability.  Kathie Tanaka, Official Reporter  UNITED REPORTING SERVICE LTD. 10476  S.L. Albright (for plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items