Open Collections

Delgamuukw Trial Transcripts

[Proceedings of the Supreme Court of British Columbia 1989-01-14] British Columbia. Supreme Court Jan 14, 1989

Item Metadata

Download

Media
delgamuukw-1.0018389.pdf
Metadata
JSON: delgamuukw-1.0018389.json
JSON-LD: delgamuukw-1.0018389-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): delgamuukw-1.0018389-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: delgamuukw-1.0018389-rdf.json
Turtle: delgamuukw-1.0018389-turtle.txt
N-Triples: delgamuukw-1.0018389-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: delgamuukw-1.0018389-source.json
Full Text
delgamuukw-1.0018389-fulltext.txt
Citation
delgamuukw-1.0018389.ris

Full Text

 10617  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  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  THE  MR.  January 14, 1989  VANCOUVER, B.C.  REGISTRAR: Order in court.  In the Supreme Court of British  Columbia, Vancouver, this Saturday, January 14th,  1989, calling Delgamuukw versus Her Majesty the Queen  at bar, my lord.  I caution the witness you're still under oath.  COURT:  Willms.  WILLMS:  Q   Miss Albright, what artifacts did you unearth within  the land territory claimed by the Gitksan in this  action that is culturally different from material  unearthed outside the land area claimed by the Gitksan  in this action?  A  All of the materials found during excavations can be  compared to materials found in other areas.  Q   That comment holds true for the materials that you  excavated from the land territory claimed by the  Wet'suwet'en as well?  A   Yes, the materials can be compared to items in other  areas.  Q   So that archaeological evidence does not indicate the  territorial borders of the human inhabitants at any  particular time does it?  MR.  THE  THE  THE  THE  THE  MR.  A  WILLMS:  COURT:  WITNESS  COURT:  WITNESS  COURT:  No.  Are you  You mean no, it does not?  No, the artifacts do not --  Yes.  -- indicate --  The territorial boundaries of the inhabitants.  Thank you.  WILLMS:  Q   Are you a member of any of the plaintiffs' houses?  A   No.  Q   When you were retained by the tribal association to do  archaeological research, you wrote to the Heritage  Conservation Branch requesting a permit under the  Heritage Conservation account and the forms to  complete for that permit?  A   There was one letter sent to the branch.  Q   And the branch sent you back the forms to complete for  a permit didn't they?  A   They sent application forms.  Q   You did not apply for a permit to excavate site  GgSt-2, did you? 1061?  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A   No.  2 Q   In fact, you did not apply for a permit to excavate  3 any of the test pits that you excavated in your  4 investigations?  5 A   I did not apply for a permit.  6 Q   Was that because you were told by the tribal  7 association that it was not necessary to have a permit  8 because they were claiming jurisdiction over the  9 territory?  10 A   No.  11 Q   Have you ever done an excavation, for example, on  12 Crown land in the province of British Columbia before  13 without applying for a permit from the Heritage  14 Conservation Branch or without someone else having  15 applied for a permit for the excavation?  16 A   No.  17 Q   Why did you change here and do these excavations  18 without applying for a permit?  19 A   The excavations at Moricetown were on reserve land.  20 Q   Well, what about the test pits that you excavated up  21 and down the Skeena River Valley?  22 A   I did not apply for a permit in that applying for a  23 permit would have contravened the agreement of  24 confidentiality that I had already entered into in my  25 agreement to do the work.  26 Q   So one of the reasons for not applying had to do with  27 the fact that it was related to the case?  28 A   It would have contravened an agreement of  29 confidentiality concerning the nature of the work I  30 was doing.  31 MR. WILLMS:   Now, if you refer to appendix A, schedule C, you  32 will see that throughout the schedule there are from  33 place to place -- this is exhibit --  34 THE REGISTRAR: 845.  35 MR. WILLMS:  Exhibit 845.  Throughout the lists there are  36 locations which are not identified by a Borden site  37 number, but instead are identified as undesignated  38 and, for instance, if you turn to page 43, site  39 numbers 192 all the way through to site number 216,  40 the undesignated sites, those were all sites that you  41 located; correct?  42 THE COURT:  You said page 143?  43 MR. WILLMS:  44 Q   Forty-three, my lord, in the appendix, and it's  45 item -- and this is -- there are some entries first,  46 but from 192 on to 216 at page 46 are a series that  47 are marked undesignated.  Now, those are your -- those 10619  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 are the excavations or the investigations that were  2 carried out by you or the people working for you;  3 correct?  4 A   Yes.  5 Q   And in fact those sites have never been given a Borden  6 number by the Heritage Conservation Branch have they?  7 A   These specific sites, no.  8 Q   Okay.  And you've never filed any information with  9 respect to your investigations in respect of these  10 sites with the Heritage Conservation Branch?  11 A   No.  12 Q   So that any other archaeologist wanting to do research  13 in the area would not be able to find that out from  14 the Heritage Conservation Branch?  15 A   Not up to this point in time.  16 Q   No.  And another archaeologist couldn't review your  17 findings to see whether they were correct or not  18 because the findings weren't on file; correct, and  19 this confidentiality?  20 A   Yes.  21 Q   Yes.  So that there's really no way that another  22 archaeologist excavating or working in the Skeena  23 River Valley could use your material at all in  24 assessing their own investigations; is that correct?  25 A   They could at the point that this information is made  26 public and available.  27 Q   Yes.  When you give your evidence in court, right?  28 A   Yes.  29 Q   Isn't that highly unusual in the field of archaeology?  30 A   No, it isn't.  31 Q   You're aware of other archaeological work that has  32 been done that hasn't been placed at least in a  33 government location, federal or provincial, so that  34 other archaeologists would have the opportunity to  35 review that material?  36 A  Material is made available at a point when the  37 researcher has completed the work, completed the  38 forms, or a report.  39 Q   Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't many of  40 these archaeological sites set out in the appendix  41 things like two cobble spalls, one scraper, at a  42 particular location, and that's it?  You know, when  43 Dr. MacDonald went up the Skeena River or Dr. Ames and  44 found a scraper in a particular location, they made  45 sure that that was on file at the Heritage  46 Conservation Branch and had a site designation number  47 given to it? 10620  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A   No, that's not true.  2 Q   Just before I leave this, is it a common  3 archaeological practise not to disclose in some public  4 way the results of your findings so that other  5 archaeologists can build on those findings?  6 A   Yes, it is common practise to report on findings.  7 Q   It's common practise to report on all the  8 archaeological findings that you make, isn't it?  9 A   There are -- no, there are many many instances where  10 there's a considerable time lapse between field work  11 and the reporting of that work.  12 Q   Well, let's start with the designation.  My  13 understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that  14 the reason why there is care taken to note where you  15 find particular archaeological features or artifacts,  16 is so that other archaeologists who are coming into  17 the area know what has been located there previously;  18 is that correct?  19 A   Yes.  20 Q   And an important aspect of that is the record of those  21 investigations at the Heritage Conservation Branch;  22 correct?  23 A   Yes, that is a common housing in British Columbia.  24 Q   And in fact that's where Linda Burnard-Hogarth went to  25 get the list of the archaeological areas that had  26 already been investigated in this area; correct?  27 A   Yes.  28 Q   But another archaeologist who didn't know about this  29 report and was doing work in the Skeena River Valley  30 wouldn't know about the findings that you had made in  31 your investigations?  32 A   No, not up until this point.  33 Q   And so up until this point there would be no way for  34 another archaeologist to either refute your findings  35 with other findings or to confirm them, unless they  36 knew about this report; correct?  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   It's important in the field of archaeology that all of  39 the information that's available for a particular  40 region that's relevant be available to future  41 archaeologists who are looking into that area;  42 correct?  43 A   Yes, that is preferable.  44 Q   And notwithstanding that, you didn't report any of  45 this?  46 A   No, I haven't reported it.  47 Q   Now, your excavations at Moricetown revealed three 10621  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 undisturbed cultural layers; correct?  2 A   Identified as four cultural layers.  3 Q   At Moricetown?  4 A   Yes.  5 Q   Well, three undisturbed cultural layers lying over  6 sterile fluvial deposits of sand and gravel?  7 A   Yes, with a subdivision of the sea deposits.  8 Q   And the Hagwilget Canyon excavation, done by Ames,  9 reported three occupational zones?  10 A   Yes.  11 Q   And I'm just -- one of the references in your report  12 was to a paper in the Skeena River Prehistory  13 Archaeological Survey of Canada paper number 87 and it  14 was the paper by Dr. Ames about Hagwilget Canyon at  15 GhSv-2, and if you -- and I've just put in the 209 and  16 210 which contain his conclusions.  You will see that  17 he discusses, this is at page -- first of all, this is  18 a reference that you referred to and relied on in  19 writing your report?  20 A   Yes, it is.  21 MR. WILLMS:   849-18, my lord.  22 (EXHIBIT 849-18: Skeena River Prehistory  23 Archaeological Survey, pages 209,210)  24 MR. WILLMS:  25 Q   And it would be useful if you turned at the same time  26 to table 5 in your report to -- and that table is  27 between pages 219 and 220.  In the middle paragraph on  28 page 209 Dr. Ames notes that a second site in Kitselas  29 Canyon, the fortress site, was an historic Coast  30 Tsimshian village, and cites Allaire.  And just  31 turning to your table 5, do you show in table 5  32 anywhere the historic -- the fortress site for  33 Kitselas Canyon in the historic period?  34 A   That refers to Gitlaxdzawk.  35 Q   All right.  The two names that you've got below the  36 200 line, they're -- they're what's being referred to  37 as the historic Coast Tsimshian village?  38 A   Yes Gitlaxdzawk was -- was occupied during historic  39 times, but there is also evidence of prehistoric  40 occupation at the site.  41 Q   Well, yes, there's up until 1500 and then there's the  42 archaeologically unclear break between then and the  43 historic period?  44 A   There -- though there are precontact materials at  45 Gitlaxdzawk as outlined by Allaire and MacDonald.  46 Q   Whatever Allaire and MacDonald say about that, that's  47 what you're relying on? 10622  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A  Allaire and MacDonald indicate that there are  2 precontact materials in at Gitlaxdzawk.  3 Q   Yes.  Now, you'll see Ames carries on, and comparing  4 it with his excavations at Hagwilget:  5  6 "Hagwilget zone C was a Carrier village of  7 the same period."  8  9 That is the historic period, and we've already  10 been through this, and I think you'll recall that  11 you've drawn this dotted line at 2500 for Hagwilget  12 Canyon between the village site and the fishing zone,,  13 but Ames would draw the line up at 200 B.P.?  14 A   In reviewing the materials -- what is the question  15 you're asking?  16 Q   Ames drew the line for the figure that you're showing,  17 he didn't draw the line at 2500 or 1500, he drew the  18 line at 200.  He said that Hagwilget was a historic  19 Carrier village.  That's what he concluded?  20 A   It was known in historic times as a -- as Hagwilget,  21 as documented by Jenness and Harlan Smith.  22 Q   Yes.  From 1820?  23 A   Yes, they have noted that date as 1820.  24 Q   Yes?  25 A   There is also -- Ames also describes precontact  26 materials at the site which are contained within  27 zone -- zone C.  28 Q   Yes?  29 A  Which indicate occupation of a village prior to that  30 1820 date.  31 Q   Yes, to 3500 B.P..  I'm sorry, but it may be easier if  32 you just turn to the next page to his conclusions.  I  33 thought we'd gone through this, but maybe I'm  34 confused.  In describing his excavations at Hagwilget  35 Canyon, which you've called Tse, T-s-e, Kya, K-y-a, he  36 said:  "Three occupational zones are recognized.  The  37 occupation in the first zone was relatively intense."  38 And then he said that that lasted for an undetermined  39 period ending between 4000 and 3500 B.P..  40 And on figure -- table 5 you show that as ending  41 at 3500 B.P.; correct?  42 A   Yes.  43 Q   Then he carries on:  44  45 "In the following zone, the evidence  46 indicates that occupation was light and  47 sporadic and that activity was probably 10623  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 limited to fishing.  This situation  2 continued until 1820 A.D. when the locality  3 was given to the Carrier by the Gitksan."  4  5 Now, so I'm suggesting to you that Ames draws the  6 line between the village site at zone C, which he  7 calls zone C, at about 200 years ago or a little less,  8 actually at 1820; correct?  That's where he'd draw the  9 line?  10 A   I would like to look at his -- at -- could I look at  11 the document book?  12 THE REGISTRAR: This one?  13 THE WITNESS:   Yes.  14 MR. WILLMS:  15 Q   In the document book do you have -- he's drawn a table  16 5 in his -- in Skeena River Prehistory?  17 A   Yes.  18 Q   At page 215, and you'll see --  19 A   Yes.  In his —  20 THE COURT:  Where will I find that, please?  21 THE WITNESS:   In tab 4, the preliminary report of Ames on  22 Hagwilget Canyon, and there is a table 5.  I believe  23 it's at the end of the text.  24 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, this is a draft of what is finally  25 reproduced in Skeena River Prehistory, but it's --  26 there's no numbers on the pages.  2 7 THE COURT:  Yes.  28 MR. WILLMS:  29 Q   But there is a table 5.  And Miss Albright, before you  30 try to interpret the dates on table 5, if you just  31 turn to the page before table 5?  32 A  May I -- may I refer to this, please?  33 Q   Yes.  34 A   Okay.  35 THE COURT:  Table 5?  36 THE WITNESS:   Table 5.  37 THE COURT:  Yes.  38 THE WITNESS:   Yes.  He has presented a table based on a  39 comparison, a comparison of the materials at Hagwilget  40 with the summary of occupation at Kitselas Canyon and  41 Prince Rupert that would be up to the time that work  42 was done.  He lists occupation zone A, B, and zone C.  43 He does not draw any precise lines here indicating  44 their actual termination.  45 MR. WILLMS:  46 Q   Well, could you turn to the previous page?  47 A  And at occupation zone C, based on the materials at 10624  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 the site, in which occupation zone C contains both  2 historic materials as well as precontact materials.  3 Q   Would you turn to the page just before the table?  He  4 starts off the paragraph "Three occupational zones are  5 recognized".  Do you see that at the bottom of the  6 page?  7 A   Yes.  8 Q   And let's -- before I proceed, you know that he's  9 calling them A, B, and C?  10 A   Yes.  11 Q   Right.  12  13 "The occupation in the first zone was  14 relatively intense.  The zone is  15 characterized by multiple activity  16 localities at the site.  This occupation  17 lasted for an undetermined period, ending  18 between 4000 and 3500 B.P."  19  20 Now, let's stop there.  That's zone A, right?  You  21 agree with me?  22 A   Yes.  23 Q   All right.  He then continues:  "In the following  24 zone..." Now, that would be zone B, wouldn't it?  25 A   Yes.  26 Q  27  28 "...the evidence indicates that occupation  29 was light and sporadic and that activity was  30 probably limited to fishing.  This situation  31 continued until 1820 A.D..."  32  33 So he's describing zone B continuing to 1820 A.D.  34 there, isn't he?  35 A   That was his opinion.  Yes.  36 Q   Yes.  So that when you read table 5 on the next page,  37 and the dates of course are not clear because of the  38 compressed scale, but you've got to turn back to the  39 previous page to know that occupation zone C starts at  40 1820?  41 A  According to --  42 Q   Ames.  43 A   -- Ames' description.  Yes.  44 Q   Yes.  45 A   I have reviewed materials and his -- his discussion of  46 the materials at the site, as well as reviewing  47 artifactual material from the site, and have -- have a 10625  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  2  3  4  Q  5  6  7  A  8  Q  9  A  10  Q  11  A  12  Q  13  14  A  15  Q  16  17  18  19  20  21  A  22  Q  23  A  24  Q  25  26  A  27  Q  28  A  29  MR.  WILLMS  30  MR.  RUSH:  31  MR.  WILLMS  32  33  THE  COURT:  34  35  MR.  WILLMS  36  Q  37  38  39  40  A  41  Q  42  A  43  Q  44  A  45  46  47  somewhat different opinion in terms of the materials  that are represented in the upper portions of the  site, which is what I have outlined in this table.  And just keeping your table 5 before you, let's just  turn back to Ames' table 5, and you'll see that he has  Prince Rupert on that table; correct?  Yes.  And so do you on your table 5, right?  Yes.  He's got Gitaus and so do you?  Yes.  Now, he doesn't have Paul Mason because it wasn't  excavated at the time that he wrote his report?  Right.  He's got his own excavation, which you've depicted,  but of course he didn't have your surface scatter at  GhSv-85-A, and he didn't have your Moricetown either,  so he couldn't depict those; correct?  But he depicts  the Kitselas fortress site and you don't.  Why not?  Was that an archaeologically unimportant site?  I have put the name of Gitlaxdzawk on the table.  At Gitaus?  Mentioned the names.  At Gitaus?  The recent village of Gitaus, at Gitaus,  is at the fortress site, isn't it?  No.  The —  See the -- let me just make --  Excuse me --  :  Let me clear this up.  Just a second.  :  Well, I may have confused her, and if I can clarify  that.  Well, she has disagreed with you that the fortress  site is the same thing.  And that's what I may have confused her with, my lord,  and I can clear that up I think by this question.  Were there different -- is the fortress site in a  different location than the Gitaus site?  Yes, the fortress and the Gitaus sites are --  Different?  Are different, yes.  So —  And I have put -- I have put Gitxtsaex and Gitlaxdzawk  in this time frame with -- there is a break, or the  data examined at -- through excavations at Gitaus and  Paul Mason site indicated occupation up to 1500, and 10626  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 for that period after 1500 there it is not clear as to  2 at what point -- perhaps people at Gitaus and Paul  3 Mason site had perhaps moved to another location,  4 Gitxtsaex and Gitlaxdzawk, which were occupied in late  5 precontact times and historic times.  So I've put  6 the -- as a -- as a table I have put the Gitxtsaex and  7 Gitlaxdzawk villages in the Kitselas Canyon area as an  8 occupation at Kitselas Canyon from late precontact to  9 historic times.  10 Q   Is the Paul Mason site a separate archaeological site  11 from the Gitaus site?  12 A   Yes.  13 Q   And are they both separate sites from the fortress  14 site?  15 A   Yes.  16 Q   And the fortress site is an archaeological site?  17 A   Yes.  18 Q   But you do not depict a separate fortress site in  19 table 5, do you?  20 A   I have not put it in a separate column.  21 Q   No.  22 A  And perhaps that's where the confusion is.  23 Q   Have you blurred any other sites in this description  24 here?  Have you combined any other archaeological  25 sites into one column here?  26 A  Well, the Prince Rupert harbour area is based on data  27 from a number of different sites.  28 Q   Yes.  29 A  And at one time -- at one point in drafting a table I  30 had combined both Paul Mason site and Gitaus site in  31 one column.  32 Q   Yes.  And then you separated them?  33 A  And then I separated them.  So in terms of looking at  34 the material at Kitselas Canyon, it might be more  35 appropriate to put that title Paul Mason site and  36 Gitaus site down at the 1500 B.P. line.  37 Q   Just referring to your table 5, when you dated the  38 surface scatter at Hagwilget Canyon at GhSv-85-A, did  39 you date that primarily with reference to Ames'  40 results?  41 A   I compared the materials from GhSv-85-A with materials  42 from Ames' excavation and Moricetown Canyon as --  43 Q   You compared both of them?  44 A   Yes.  45 Q   For dating?  46 A   In terms of an estimate of its comparative age.  These  47 are under this column.  These are -- these are -- 10627  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 they're open-ended estimates -- estimations of the  2 period of occupation as represented by the materials  3 found there and the comparison at other sites, just  4 as -- just as Ames' table 5 in his preliminary report  5 is a tentative table based on his comparison at the  6 time.  7 THE COURT:  Did you agree with Mr. Willms' designation,  8 Hagwilget GhSv-85-A has a surface scatter?  9 THE WITNESS:   Yes.  10 THE COURT:  Tell me, just while I'm here, I'm not familiar with  11 this name Tse Kya, T-s-e K-y-a?  12 THE WITNESS:   Oh, Tse Kya.  That is a contemporary name used to  13 refer to the village and fishing station at the river,  14 the village at Hagwilget Canyon.  15 THE COURT:  Not the present village up at bridge level?  That's  16 Hagwilget village now?  17 THE WITNESS:   Yes.  18 THE COURT:  You're not talking about that area, you're talking  19 about —  20 THE WITNESS:   I believe the name is often used in respect to  21 that village.  22 THE COURT:  But as an archaeological site what am I to take from  23 the designation canyon Tse Kya?  24 THE WITNESS:   Oh —  25 THE COURT:  Am I to confine it to the area down by the river?  26 THE WITNESS:   Tse Kya refers to — yes, the site at the river  2 7 for the moment.  2 8 THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.  29 THE WITNESS:   In the context of my report.  30 THE COURT:  Yes.  Thank you.  31 THE WITNESS:   And I've put Hagwilget Canyon up above and then  32 the two site names just underneath.  33 THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.  34 MR. WILLMS:  35 Q   On table 5 you have shown discontinuous cultural  36 occupation at Kitselas Canyon; correct?  You've got  37 the two cross-hatches, one for Paul Mason from 3500 to  38 3200, and then you've got another one at Gitaus from  39 3500 to I think you said 3400?  That's what that  40 hatching is?  41 A   Yes.  42 Q   And that shows discontinuous cultural occupation; is  43 that correct?  44 A  A break in -- yes, as identified by the researchers  45 working at those sites.  46 Q   I'm showing you a document which is referred to in  47 your references that you referred to in preparing your 1062?  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  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  Q  A  Q  A  Q  report entitled "Introduction to the Prehistory of  British Columbia", by Dr. Fladmark.  You referred to  this and relied on it in preparing your report?  Yes.  And the extract that I have put is at 121 to 122, the  last two pages, and if you can turn to the bottom of  the page.  First of all, MacDonald describes cultural  continuity throughout the Prince Rupert harbour  sequence in that paragraph at the bottom of the page  and that was his excavation, Prince Rupert harbour?  That was work conducted under MacDonald, yes.  So he's got cultural continuity in Prince Rupert  harbour representing 4 to 5000 years of "in situ  Tsimshian cultural development", and then he just  continues to "just Prince Rupert".  And then at the bottom says this:  "However, these are rather coarse cultural  units as so far described, and there is  little information yet available on the  specific chronologies and the stratigraphic  relationships of individual artifact types.  This may be crucial since in at least one  site - Gitaus..."  And just pausing there, Gitaus is the Allaire site  represented on table 5; correct?  Yes.  "...about 120 kilometres upstream from the  mouth of the Skeena River, Allaire reports  what appears to be alternating 'Interior'  and 'Coastal' cultures, with an early  Coastal related culture replaced between  3500 - 4000."  MR.  MR.  RUSH:  No.  WILLMS:  Q  .early Coastal related horizon.  "...horizon replaced ca. 3500 to 4,000 B.P.  by a purely lithic assemblage possessing  lanceolate points presumed to be of Interior  origin. (The Skeena Complex)."  Now, pausing there, you accept Dr. Fladmark's  interpretation of the Allaire work, which you also 10629  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 reviewed as well?  2 A   Yes.  3 Q   Yes.  And then he says:  4  5 "This in turn later slowly becomes more  6 'coastal' in content - i.e. adds more ground  7 stone through time."  8  9 Now, do you -- just pausing there, do you accept  10 that as archaeologically accurate respecting Gitaus?  11 A   Yes.  12 Q   And then he says this:  13  14 "The Gitaus sequence thus suggests a  15 significant cultural discontinuity about  16 3500 to 4000 B.P..."  17  18 And you show the cultural discontinuity and,  19 putting Paul Mason to one side for the moment, you've  20 got the cultural discontinuity going -- instead of  21 being below the 3500 B.P. line, you've got it above.  22 Can you explain why?  23 A   Yes, because Dr. Fladmark wrote this paper in 1982  24 before Gary Coupland had completed his work at the  25 Kitselas Canyon as well, and the work conducted by  26 Coupland was able to, in comparing the materials from  27 the Paul Mason site with materials at the Gitaus site,  28 which Coupland does, then he was able to provide a  29 time framework for that.  Mr. Allaire himself I think  30 also makes a relationship, discusses the probable  31 break in introduction of new materials.  32 MR. WILLMS:   But — and we refer to it earlier from Dr.  33 Coupland's dissertation, but he describes the break at  34 Paul Mason from 3600 to 3200, that is, starting at 36,  35 not at 35.  I'm just wondering whether or not that  36 line there might be dropped down a hundred years for  37 that break in cultural continuity on your table?  38 THE COURT:  He's asking you whether the line should be dropped a  39 hundred years I think.  40 MR. WILLMS:  41 Q   That's what I'm asking you.  42 A   For Gitaus?  43 Q   Yes, for Gitaus.  On the archaeological review of Ames  44 and Coupland, that could be dropped a hundred years to  45 3600, right?  46 A   Yes, I guess the break itself could.  47 Q   Now, according to Ames, at Hagwilget Canyon occupation 10630  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 was culturally discontinuous?  2 A  Would you repeat that, please?  3 Q   According to Ames, at Hagwilget Canyon the occupation  4 from the archaeological record was culturally  5 discontinuous?  6 A   Could you give me the reference page for that  7 citation?  8 Q   Well, we've been through it a couple of times, but he  9 says that -- maybe I better preface this with this  10 question:  Is there a material cultural difference  11 between the Gitksan and the Wet'suwet'en as far as  12 you're aware?  Is there a difference in the material  13 culture of the Gitksan and the Wet'suwet'en?  14 A   Between materials found in those two areas?  15 Q   Yes.  16 A   Yes, I believe I indicated yesterday that the small  17 side-notched arrow points found in Moricetown  18 excavations at the Moricetown site I have not seen or  19 heard of being found or recall being found further  2 0 down the Skeena.  21 Q   And I think you've --  22 A   So that would be one difference.  23 Q   And you understand that the Wet'suwet'en -- that that  24 material culture is Athapaskan or has been broadly  25 described --  26 A   It has been broadly described as Athapaskan, yes.  27 Q   And the material culture --  28 A   It is also found in other areas, the Salishan areas,  29 as Magne and Matson have studied.  30 Q   But that's different from Tsimshian areas?  31 A   Yes, a small point -- small arrow points, small  32 side-notched arrow points, are particular of anterior  33 environments.  It's not to say that small points might  34 not be found in Gitksan territory.  I don't recall any  35 of them being found to date.  36 Q   So just referring back to what I read to you from Ames  37 before when he says that it was a sporadic fishing  38 zone until the area was given by the Gitksan to the  39 Wet'suwet'en in 1820, that's a cultural change, isn't  40 it, at the location?  That's a change from Tsimshian,  41 broadly speaking, to Athapaskan, broadly speaking?  42 A   I believe at that area the peoples were very closely  43 related, as I understand it.  In the material, the  44 material culture found at -- I believe the material  45 culture found at the canyon reflects the adaptation  46 and activities occurring at that canyon site or  47 location. 10631  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  Q  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  A  9  10  Q  11  12  A  13  Q  14  15  A  16  Q  17  18  A  19  Q  20  21  22  23  A  24  Q  25  A  26  Q  27  28  A  29  THE  COURT:  30  MR.  WILLMS  31  THE  COURT:  32  MR.  WILLMS  33  THE  COURT:  34  MR.  WILLMS  35  THE  COURT:  36  MR.  WILLMS  37  Q  38  A  39  Q  40  41  42  43  A  44  45  46  47  Oh, I thought Coupland, and I thought you agreed with  me when I suggested this to you a couple of days ago,  in assessing Kitselas Canyon, Hagwilget, and Prince  Rupert, argued that there was a broad cultural  exchange zone where diagnostic artifacts were similar  at all three?  Isn't that one of the conclusions that  Dr. Coupland came to?  I couldn't agree with that statement until I looked at  the reference again, whether it was --  Well, putting Dr. Coupland to one side, you reviewed  the material excavated by Ames at Hagwilget; correct?  Yes.  You reviewed the results of the excavation at  Kitselas?  Yes.  And you reviewed the results of the excavation at  Prince Rupert?  Yes.  And you found diagnostic artifacts in reviewing the  Hagwilget material that was similar in material  culture to that recovered at Kitselas and Prince  Rupert?  Yes.  That is, broadly speaking, Tsimshian?  Yes.  The recent occupation, I think we all agree, is  Wet'suwet'en?  Yes.  I'm sorry?  :  Wet'suwet'en.  No, the recent -- what was the --  :  I said the recent occupation, and I mean historic.  Occupation of Hagwilget?  :  Hagwilget.  Thank you.  Is Wet'suwet'en; correct?  Yes.  So that there is a cultural break at Hagwilget, and  let's not argue about the date, whether it's 1820 or  some other time, but there's a change between  Tsimshian and Athapaskan, broadly speaking?  The -- in reviewing the materials recovered from --  through Ames' excavation, the materials indicate  occupation of a village site from precontact times  through to historic times, so the precontact materials  as well as historic materials in the upper levels. 10632  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   Okay.  2 A  And the -- the 1820 date is not -- is not relevant to  3 interpreting the materials.  4 Q   Okay.  That's why I suggested ignore the 1820 date.  5 Ignore the date completely.  My suggestion is, is that  6 the cultural -- the material cultural record at  7 Hagwilget shows a change from Tsimshian, broadly  8 speaking, material culture, to Athapaskan, broadly  9 speaking, material culture?  Forgetting about the date  10 that Ames puts on it, do you agree with that?  11 A   The material does not -- does not obviously reflect a  12 shift in language group, so I could not agree with  13 your statement.  14 Q   Is the only difference between Tsimshian and  15 Athapaskan language?  Is the material culture  16 identical for Athapaskan and Tsimshian groups,  17 archaeologically?  18 A   There are items, yes, many items which are similar, in  19 that the materials reflect similar adaptation of  20 activity at similar types of sites and resources and  21 environmental zones.  22 Q   So that archaeologically when you look at an artifact,  23 perhaps an artifact that you picked up in the surface  24 scatter at Hagwilget, you can't tell from looking at  25 that artifact whether it represents Tsimshian culture,  26 broadly speaking, or Athapaskan culture, broadly  27 speaking; is that what you're saying?  28 A  An artifact is not identified in isolation.  29 Q   What's a diagnostic artifact again?  Can you refresh  30 my memory as to what a diagnostic artifact is?  31 A  A diagnostic artifact, such as projectile points, are  32 ones that are seen to change over time, so they can be  33 indicative of general time periods, relative time  34 periods, within a particular geographical areas.  35 Q   Yes, location; correct?  They are diagnostic as to  36 location?  37 A   Yes, in terms of cultural -- broad cultural areas or  38 provinces.  39 Q   So that there are some artifacts which are diagnostic  40 as to, broadly speaking, the Athapaskan culture;  41 correct?  42 A   Yes, that are identified as being present in those  43 areas.  44 Q   And you found such artifacts at the surface scatter at  45 Hagwilget?  46 A   Excuse me?  Could you repeat that, please?  47 Q   You found diagnostic artifacts similar to Athapaskan 10633  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 artifacts at Hagwilget?  2 A  Materials which have been found in Athapaskan areas.  3 Q   Yes.  You also found artifacts, and you reviewed Ames  4 and he found artifacts, which reflect, broadly  5 speaking, artifacts recovered from Tsimshian areas?  6 A   In Ames' —  7 Q   In Ames' and your surface collection?  8 A   Yes.  9 Q   Is that correct?  10 A   Yes.  11 Q   The Athapaskan material culture, broadly speaking, is  12 a separate or a different material culture from the  13 Tsimshian material culture; one's coastal, one's  14 interior, broadly speaking?  15 A   Broadly speaking, yes.  16 Q   Okay.  And you found evidence of both in the surface  17 scatter at Hagwilget Canyon?  18 A   Yes.  19 Q   And so did Ames in his excavation?  20 A   Yes.  21 Q   So I'm going to suggest again that the occupation at  22 Hagwilget Canyon was culturally, from the  23 archaeological viewpoint, discontinuous?  24 A   No, I believe Ames indicates in his report that he  25 sees a continuity of -- general continuity --  26 Q   Well —  27 A   -- of occupation.  28 Q   By which material culture, Tsimshian or Athapaskan?  29 Which material culture shows continuous occupation at  30 Hagwilget Canyon, Tsimshian or Athapaskan?  31 A   The materials reflect interaction of peoples occupying  32 that area with peoples in other areas, both to the  33 north -- there's interaction with peoples in the north  34 through trade.  There is also interaction with peoples  35 further down the river.  36 Q   Is there any continuous material culture identifiable  37 at Hagwilget?  It would seem that there either is or  38 there isn't.  I mean, is there or isn't there?  39 A  Well, I would refer to Ames' summary of the -- of the  40 site and discussion of occupation of the site.  He  41 refers to a long sequence of occupation at the site  42 which reflects the kinds of activities that are being  43 conducted at that location.  He notes a shift in the  44 settlement from multiple activities characteristic of  45 winter village location to fishing activities, and  46 then increased intensity of site use in later times  47 and use of the site as a village site again. 10634  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   By a different -- by peoples having a different  2 material culture than the inhabitants at a prior time;  3 isn't that what Ames identifies?  4 A  Well, he refers to this transfer at 1820, but the  5 material culture in the upper levels of the site  6 reflect the activities, the focus of activities, that  7 are being carried out there.  8 MR. WILLMS:   My lord, this might be appropriate time to --  9 THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.  10 MR. WILLMS:  Thank you, my lord.  11 THE REGISTRAR: Order in court.  Court will recess.  12  13 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 10:45 a.m.)  14  15 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  16 a true and accurate transcript of the  17 proceedings herein transcribed to the  18 best of my skill and ability.  19  20  21  22 Tanita S. French  23 Official Reporter  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47 10635  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 xh2 S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  2 (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED AT 11:00 a.m.)  3  4 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  5 THE COURT:  Mr. Willms.  6 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, I ask we mark the extract from Fladmark as  7 Exhibit 849-19.  8 THE COURT:  Thank you.  9  10 (EXHIBIT 849-19 - Extract from Canadian Journal of  11 Archaeology by K.R. Fladmark)  12  13 MR. WILLMS:  14 Q   You noted in your excavations at Moricetown that --  15 and in grouping CI and C2 together, you noted three  16 distinct cultural layers?  17 A   I referred to -- I refer to four layers at the site.  18 Q   In your report?  19 A   Yes.  20 Q   Early on you referred to three, initially.  CI and C2  21 were lumped together on your initial observations?  22 A   CI and C2 were similar in texture but distinct in  23 colouration which justified -- which indicated or  24 justified a separation as a layer.  25 Q   But your initial observations on the site, before you  26 went back in September to look again, your initial  27 observations were three distinct cultural layers?  28 A   No.  That -- those distinctions were seen during  29 excavation.  30 Q   Yes.  Three distinct cultural layers, that's what was  31 observed during excavation?  32 A  With a division of -- a distinction between CI and C2.  33 Q   Later on?  34 A  A dark -- no, a dark -- a dark -- a dark layer, a dark  35 C layer, CI, was identified during excavation.  36 Q   Could Exhibit 849 be put before the witness, dash 11,  37 tab 11, and these are referring back to the  38 radiocarbon sample sheets?  39 A   Yes.  40 Q   And you'll see, Ms. Albright, on each descriptive  41 page, which is page 2 -- these were done in September,  42 so this is before you went back to the site in  43 September -- but each one describes three distinct  44 cultural layers in the description?  45 A   Yes.  46 Q   Correct?  And that was the observation that was made  47 by you, by Ms. Ludovicz and by Mr. Brolly during 10636  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 excavation?  2 A   This is a generalized description written by Miss  3 Ludovicz on the forms.  4 Q   And on each form?  5 A   Yes.  6 Q   She says three distinct cultural layers?  7 A   Yes.  8 Q   Yes.  9 MR. RUSH:  I think my friend, if he is going to put the forms,  10 should identify to the witness the two recognized C's.  11 MR. WILLMS:  Well, it -- all I'm pointing out, my lord, is no  12 matter which one we take and no matter whether it's  13 one with C2 or C4 or Bl or B2, every one of them says  14 in the information page, "The site is comprised of  15 three distinct cultural layers."  Every one, take your  16 time and review them.  17 THE COURT:  Well, I'm looking at SR-85-3, Miss Albright, which  18 says it shows three distinct cultural layers, but it  19 shows A, B, CI, C and D.  20 MR. WILLMS:  Yes.  D is the alluvial — D isn't a cultural  21 layer, my lord.  22 THE COURT:  It has four layers, A, B, CI and C.  23 MR. WILLMS:  And that's what I'm getting at, my lord.  The  24 description above is written on this page with the  25 definition on each --  2 6 THE COURT:  Yes.  27 A   But the distinction between CI and C2, a dark C and  28 the lower C, was observed during excavation, that is  29 noted on the forms as well.  30 MR. WILLMS:  31 Q   But at the time of the excavation, even though it was  32 noted on the forms at the time of excavation, each and  33 every one of these descriptions describe only three  34 distinct cultural layers, correct?  35 A   These are designations for observations made in the  36 field.  37 Q   And the distinction between CI and C2 as distinct  38 cultural layers was made when you went back in  39 September to look at the site, correct?  40 A   Could you ask that again, please.  41 Q   You've pointed out that there is a C and CI, and if  42 you look through these there are C's and CI's drawn on  43 these diagrams?  44 A   Yes.  45 Q   Notwithstanding that there are C's and CI's drawn on  46 this diagram, each description above talks about three  47 distinct cultural layers, not four, but three, 10637  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  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  MR.  THE COURT  correct, each one?  COURT:  Well, that's a matter of record as some people would  say, isn't it, Mr. Willms?  WILLMS:  I thought it would be, my lord, and I'm trying to  get to the next question, but if the witness won't  agree that that's what it says and that's what it  means, I can't get to the next question.  I don't think she is disputing that.  I think she is  saying that's what Miss Hogarth said, you know, when  she wrote it down, but the witness hasn't agreed that  it's necessarily a precise statement of what she saw  on excavation.  MR. WILLMS:  Q   By the way, are any of these in your handwriting?  A   These are prepared under my instruction.  Q   Are any of these in your handwriting?  A   These are prepared by Miss Ludovicz.  Q   Every one of them?  A   Yes.  Q   So your handwriting isn't on any of these?  A   Except the notes that I made after.  Q   Later on?  A   Yes.  Q   All right.  THE COURT:  I'm sorry, I used the wrong name a moment ago.  I  meant Miss Ludovicz.  Miss Albright, when you said the distinction  between the subdivision letter C, they were similar in  texture but then you said different in what was it,  colour?  Colouration, yes.  Colour and?  Colour.  Just colour.  THE  THE  THE  THE  MR.  WITNESS  COURT:  WITNESS  COURT:  WILLMS:  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  All right.  But ultimately you recognized four  distinct cultural layers?  Yes.  And when you got four distinct cultural layers, that  would suggest that cultural discontinuity is possible  at the site?  No, I do not see cultural discontinuity.  You identified four distinct cultural layers but  conclude that there is continuous in situ development  of material culture; is that correct?  Yes.  So what relevance is the distinct cultural layer at 1063?  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 all, in your assessment?  2 A   In observing changes in technology over time.  3 Q   Yes?  4 A  As -- which technology does do, technology does change  5 over time as an adaptation to using the environment.  6 Q   So there -- you can say that there was an increase in  7 the complexity of the technology at the site?  8 A   Yes.  9 Q   And you noted diagnostic artifacts at the site that  10 were Athapaskan, broadly speaking?  11 A   Broadly speaking, yes.  12 Q   And you noted diagnostic artifacts at the site that  13 were Tsimshian, broadly speaking?  14 A   There are materials at the site that are also found in  15 the Tsimshian area.  16 Q   Yes.  Does that not suggest to you -- and I won't use  17 the word discontinuous -- a difference in material  18 culture at the site, perhaps, from time to time?  19 A   It may be -- it may reflect differences in activities  20 that were being carried out at the site at different  21 times.  22 Q   How about differences in material culture at different  23 times?  24 A  Well, in that material culture reflects --  25 Q   Activities?  26 A   -- activities, yes.  27 Q   And sometimes there are, broadly speaking, Tsimshian  28 activities going on at the site?  29 A   I wouldn't -- I would refer to them as activities that  30 are related to use of resources within the  31 environment.  32 Q   Yes.  And sometimes they are more Athapaskan like and  33 sometimes they are more Tsimshian like?  34 A   No.  35 Q   They are all indistinguishable?  36 A   I'm not identifying any artifacts as either Tsimshian  37 or Athapaskan.  Tsimshian -- the terms Tsimshian and  38 Athapaskan are terms that are used by anthropologists  39 to refer to groups of people who speak similar  40 languages, related languages, and within a  41 geographical area.  42 Q   Are there no material cultural differences between --  43 and this is solely from an archaeological context --  44 are there no material cultural differences between  45 Athapaskan groups, broadly speaking, or Tsimshian  46 groups, broadly speaking?  47 A   There are differences which reflect differences in 10639  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 adaptation in different environments.  2 Q   So there are differences?  3 A   Yes.  4 Q   Just as -- and you refer to Magne's work on  5 differentiating between the Athapaskan projectile  6 points and the Salish projectile points, there were  7 differences?  8 A   These are stylistic differences --  9 Q   Differences?  10 A   -- that are identified.  11 Q   And so there are stylistic differences that you noted  12 at the site between some Tsimshian type artifacts and  13 Athapaskan type artifacts?  14 A  Magne and Matheson are referring to a very specific  15 type of analysis and comparison of tool types, of a  16 type found and used during a period of -- same period  17 of time.  18 Q   Are there material cultural differences between the --  19 and if you don't like Tsimshian -- coastal culture and  20 the Athapaskan culture, material culture?  21 A   Yes, there are differences.  22 Q   Did you excavate artifacts at Moricetown Canyon that  23 were similar to what might be called coastal cultural  24 artifacts?  25 A   Yes.  26 Q   Did you also excavate material at Moricetown Canyon  27 that might be called Athapaskan cultural artifacts?  28 A   Yes.  29 Q   Does that not indicate to you that the -- at various  30 times in the past, that a coastal material culture may  31 have inhabited the site, people with that type of  32 material culture?  33 A   The material culture found at the site, the materials  34 at the site definitely indicate interaction, yes.  35 Q   Well, I'm not talking about interaction.  I'm not  36 talking about whether -- or are you saying that there  37 were Athapaskan people there using cultural material,  38 that that's a possibility, from the archaeology?  39 A   From an archaeological analysis of the materials,  40 there are materials -- materials reflect adaptation  41 and use of resources at the site.  The materials  42 reflect interaction and trade with -- with other  43 areas.  44 Q   So getting back to my question, the artifacts that you  45 found which are similar to coastal cultural artifacts,  46 could indicate the presence of people who use that  47 culture, who exhibit that culture, or it could 10640  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 represent a borrowing of those artifacts and use by a  2 different material culture.  Is that what you are  3 saying?  4 A   Its ideas and materials and technologies are  5 transmitted between peoples from one area and peoples  6 at another area.  7 Q   And so when you excavate a particular diagnostic  8 artifact, that doesn't really tell you who was there  9 at the time that it was used, it just tells you that  10 the artifact was there?  11 A   The materials reflect occupation and use of resources  12 at that site over a period of time.  13 Q   But by whom?  You can't tell in the archaeological  14 record?  15 A   No, they don't have names of the makers on them.  16 Q   No.  And that is why, for example, it's important to  17 know as Magne and Matheson did, generally, the  18 material technology of a group before you can  19 determine where that group may have been at a  20 particular time so that you can -- the whole purpose  21 for Magne is attaching ethnicity to the artifact,  22 isn't it?  23 A   Not to one specific artifact.  He is looking --  24 Q   A group of artifacts?  25 A   He is looking at a large collection of artifacts.  26 Q   Right.  But in fact, you can't attach any ethnicity to  27 the artifacts that you excavated at Moricetown Canyon,  28 can you?  29 A   By comparison of the materials within the sequence at  30 Moricetown to those -- to materials found in other  31 areas, we can see that there are similarities, so  32 there are similarities of -- in terms of projectile  33 point types found in other areas at a similar time  34 period.  35 Q   Well I'm confused, because I don't -- can you or can  36 you not by reviewing the material that you excavated  37 at Moricetown, tell the ethnicity of the human  38 inhabitants at the time that the material was  39 deposited?  4 0 A   They don't have names written on them, the names of  41 the makers.  42 Q   So the answer is no?  43 A   They don't have -- they don't indicate that they were  44 made by a person speaking a specific language.  45 Q   So the answer is no?  46 A  Which is what the anthropologist term, Athapaskan or  47 Tsimshian, refers to, our language grouping. 10641  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   So your answer is no, it couldn't tell you what the  2 ethnicity is, does it?  3 A   Not directly.  4 Q   No?  5 A   Not a specific tool.  6 Q   It just tells you that at some point in the past there  7 was human habitation present using that material  8 culture?  9 A   Yes.  10 Q   All right.  Can you tell from the archaeological data  11 that you unearthed at Moricetown, whether the resource  12 use at any particular time was primarily fish related  13 or primarily game related or can you draw that  14 distinction at all?  15 A   There are items which indicate specific activities,  16 yes.  17 Q   Well, what items in what cultural layer indicate fish-  18 related activities?  19 A   Bone points and abrasive stones are indicators of  20 fishing technology and fishing technologies.  21 Q   How many bone points did you find and where did you  22 find them, what level?  23 A  We have a bone point preserved, I believe there are --  24 have been other items identified, other work items  25 identified.  We have a bone point --  26 Q   I'm showing you plate A-6 in the appendices, and  27 you'll see that "0" which was taken from layer A is --  28 THE COURT:  Just a moment, Mr. Willms, where are you?  29 MR. WILLMS:  I'm in Exhibit 845, my lord.  30 THE COURT:  Yes.  Whereabouts?  31 MR. WILLMS:  32 Q   Plate A-6, projectile points, and the upper left-hand  33 point is identified as "0", and in the description at  34 the bottom it's described as a bone point.  35 Now you -- that was recovered from layer A in  36 Moricetown?  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   And how many other bone points were recovered at  39 Moricetown, to your recollection?  40 A   I believe there were two or three other items that  41 were -- that could possibly have been used in fishing  42 technology as well, as bone points.  43 THE COURT:  What do you mean by a bone point?  This is a piece  44 of bone that's been shaped in this way?  45 THE WITNESS:  Yes.  And indicative of use in fishing technology.  46 MR. WILLMS:  47 Q   Were the other bone points found in layer A, to your 10642  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 recollection, or were they dispersed throughout?  2 A   I believe they were mostly found in the upper layers.  3 Q   Now, you have game-related resource use.  4 THE COURT:  Sorry, before you go to that, you mentioned  5 something else that mentioned fish related activities  6 besides bone point?  7 THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Abrasive stones, abraders will be for  8 polishing and shaping the bone points.  9 THE COURT:  Um-hmm?  10 THE WITNESS:  Or stone tools as well.  11 THE COURT:  Okay.  12 MR. WILLMS:  13 Q   And I think you've already said this, but the  14 projectile points, the other projectile points, are  15 they game or thought to be related to exploitation of  16 game?  17 A   Yes.  18 Q   All right.  Are any of them thought to be related to  19 exploitation of fish?  2 0 A   No.  21 Q   So the materials that were unearthed at Moricetown,  22 would you say on the whole, reflected primarily a game  23 related resource use?  24 A   The artifact collection as a whole reflects a variety  25 of activities, including fishing and hunting  26 activities.  27 Q   All right.  But as between fishing and hunting, is  28 it -- you've mentioned two or three projectile bone  29 points for fishing and then you've got a great  30 number -- or at least photographed here, I don't know  31 whether you intended that this would be a  32 representative sample of the artifacts of the  33 projectile points, but it appears that except for the  34 bone point the other projectile points are usually  35 associated with game?  36 A   Yes.  37 Q   And I'm wondering whether or not it was your view in  38 looking at all of the artifact assemblage from the  39 site, that you could say from that that there were  40 more artifacts related to game than there were to  41 fish, or vice versa?  42 A   No, I couldn't say that.  43 Q   Were these artifacts similar at all to artifacts that  44 you became familiar with in your Tahltan  45 ethnoarchaeology?  46 MR. RUSH:  Which artifacts are you referring to?  47 MR. WILLMS: 10643  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  Q  2  3  4  5  6  A  7  8  Q  9  A  10  Q  11  12  13  14  A  15  Q  16  17  A  18  19  20  Q  21  22  23  A  24  25  26  27  Q  28  29  MR. RUSH  30  31  32  MR. WILLI  33  Q  34  35  36  A  37  38  39  40  41  42  Q  43  44  45  46  47  A  I'm referring to the artifacts on plate A-6 of Exhibit  845.  For example, are these artifacts -- are any of  these artifacts similar to artifacts that have been  excavated in the Tahltan area, or are they familiar to  you from your work on Tahltan ethnoarchaeology?  Yes, I've seen similar point styles in the Stikine  area.  Including the bone point?  Yes, bone points.  And you described the Tahltan in that as hunter-  gatherers.  Is that an archaeological or an  ethnoarchaeological term to describe a group of  people, hunter-gatherers?  It's a general term used in anthropology, yes.  And generally, what does it mean, what's the  ethnoarchaeological meaning of hunter-gatherer?  Hunter-gatherer refers to a -- is a subsistance  economy based on hunting, fishing and gathering of  various resources in the environment.  Is this also associated with -- especially the hunting  aspect, with following the resource along to exploit  it?  There is a variety of different subsistant settlement  patterns that are exhibited by hunter-gatherer  peoples, or peoples with a hunter-gatherer subsistance  economy.  Yeah.  And one of the patterns is to follow the  resource in order to exploit it?  What does my friend mean by that, my lord?  Because  presumably the resource doesn't come to the  individual.  Well, let me just -- fish, as a resource, tend to, if  you are in the right place, come to you, like if you  are at a canyon?  I don't think fish come to people.  It -- fishing  involves a technology for capturing and processing  fish.  Fishing also involves information and knowledge  concerning that resource, when and where it's  available, and it also includes the organization of  people involved in those activities.  But there are, if I might put it this way, some  preferable locations for fishing, one of them -- or a  number of them, as MacDonald has pointed out, is  wherever there is a canyon in a river that carries  fish?  He refers to canyon settings as places where we are 10644  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 most likely to find deeply stratified deposits  2 indicative of long-term occupation.  Those are often  3 good fishing places.  There may be other fishing  4 places, may be other good fishing places along the  5 river.  6 Q   But to exploit a resource that is not constrained by  7 the water, the hunter-gatherer -- and by "resource" I  8 mean deer, goat, bear, caribou -- the hunter-gatherer  9 moves or can move about with the resource?  10 A   People's with -- have the knowledge of where -- of  11 where those resources are within the environment and  12 the patterns of movement of those resources, the  13 different types of environments those resources are  14 adapted to to hunt those resources, requires that  15 knowledge.  It also requires a scheduling of -- an  16 organization of people to have people in a -- points  17 where those resources can be hunted or gathered in  18 chases of other resources.  In other words, peoples  19 are aware of the seasonality and the geographic  20 distribution of resources and so they schedule  21 their -- they schedule their activities during the  22 year in order to hunt goats at a time when it's  23 convenient to hunt goats, when goats are available.  24 Q   And of course where the goats are?  25 A   Yes.  To carry out fishing activities during the runs  2 6 and where the runs are on.  27 THE COURT:  Aren't we dealing with something that is relatively  28 straightforward?  It seems to me it's taking us a  29 long, long time to find out whether hunter-gatherers  30 are people that follow the migrations of game or don't  31 follow the migrations of game.  Isn't that what we are  32 talking about?  33 MR. WILLMS:  34 Q   That's what I'm trying to get at, but I don't know if  35 that's what the witness is getting at.  If that's what  36 the witness is saying by all of that, then I can move  37 on.  38 That's what hunter-gatherer means, you just follow  39 the migration of the game?  4 0 A   No.  41 Q   I'm sorry, my lord, but that's -- what does it mean?  42 Does it mean you go to a particular spot and hope that  43 the game shows up?  44 A   No.  45 Q   Are you aware of any archaeological evidence  46 whatsoever in the -- in these maps of -- wherever the  47 maps are -- plot all of the archaeological sites, any 10645  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 archaeological evidence whatsoever indicating human  2 habitation beyond a mile on either side of a river or  3 a lake shore?  4 A   I can't recall, offhand.  5 Q   In your Tahltan ethnoarchaeology, did you become aware  6 during your research there or your research in  7 preparing for your ethnoarchaeological evidence here,  8 aware that Tsetsault, T-S-E-T-S-A-U-L-T?  9 A   Yes.  10 Q   And at one point the Tsetsault were located as a group  11 somewhere between the Tahltans, who you investigated,  12 and the Gitksan?  13 A   Yes.  14 Q   Now, your earlier work on Tahltan ethnoarchaeology  15 indicated a review of the ethnography of the Tahltans?  16 A   Yes.  17 Q   And I'm showing you a -- it's the cover page of  18 publication, and one page of it.  Did your -- if you  19 turn the page, did your review of the Tahltan  20 ethnoarchaeology indicate, as is set out in figure 2,  21 the clan territories and the Tahltan tribal boundaries  22 that you indicated there?  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   All right.  And you've shown the Nas Koten, N-A-S,  25 K-O-T-E-N at the headwaters of the Nass, and another  26 group, the T-L-E-P-A-N-O-T-E-N at the headwaters of  27 the Skeena River?  28 A   Yes.  2 9 Q   And that was the ethnography that you reviewed in  30 doing your Tahltan ethnoarchaeology?  31 A   Yes.  Based on Teit's, James Teit's previous work in  32 that area.  33 Q   Yes.  And you -- and I think you mentioned in your  34 evidence -- or maybe I better mark that, my lord,  35 before I ask the next question and before I forget.  36 849-20, my lord.  37 THE COURT:  All right.  38  39 (EXHIBIT 849-20 - Extract from Tahltan  40 Ethnoarchaeology by Ms. Albright dd. 1984)  41  42 MR. WILLMS:  43 Q   I think you said earlier in your evidence in chief  44 that at one point in the past, you had done a review  45 of the Kaska dena land claim submission?  46 A   Yes.  47 Q   And when you reviewed that Kaska dena land claim 10646  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 submission, did you review -- or do an  2 ethnoarchaeological review?  Did you review the  3 ethnography?  4 A   I reviewed the ethnography, yes.  5 Q   And you recall the map that Marvin George showed you  6 before you plotted the archaeological sites on the  7 maps that have been marked?  Do you recall Marvin  8 George's map?  9 A   Yes.  10 Q   And did you recall from your review of the Kaska dena  11 land claim submission, that part of that claim  12 submission overlapped the Marvin George map that you  13 looked at?  14 A   I don't recall.  15 Q   You don't recall.  16 THE COURT:  What's the spelling of Kaska dena, please?  17 MR. WILLMS:  K-A-S-K-A and then D-E-N-A.  18 THE COURT:  Thank you.  19 MR. WILLMS:  Could you turn in your report to page 2-1.  20 THE COURT:  Sorry, two dash?  21 MR. WILLMS:  Two dash one.  22 THE COURT:  Thank you.  23 MR. WILLMS:  24 Q   You refer to a -- in the first paragraph, "analysis of  25 artifact assemblages".  And do you mean by that, does  26 that refer to a group of artifacts or material remains  27 related to a human activity that's associated -- they  28 are associated with each other?  29 A   The material culture reflecting human behaviour, yes.  30 Q   That's associated?  31 A   Indicative of, yes.  32 Q   And I can understand how you can get an artifact  33 assemblage from an in situ deposit, but can you  34 explain, does this apply to artifacts found on the  35 surface too, in a surface scatter?  36 A   It could.  37 THE COURT:  Sorry, your question was, does it indicate what?  38 MR. WILLMS:  I said, does the term also apply to artifacts found  39 in the surface scatter, and can you find artifact  40 assemblages from a surface scatter?  41 THE COURT:  All right.  42 MR. WILLMS:  And your answer was yes?  43 MR. RUSH:  No, she said it could.  44 THE COURT:  It could.  45 A   Possibly, yes.  46 MR. WILLMS:  47 Q   Possibly.  You then talk about contextual data, and 10647  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 it's at page 2-1.  What do you mean by "contextual  2 data"?  3 A   That's the context in which materials are found.  4 Q   So that when you find material in situ and it's very  5 close, you can make some assumptions about the  6 relationships of those artifacts to each other?  7 A   Yes.  8 Q   How do you do that for a surface scatter?  9 A   The context.  The context is different for excavating  10 materials and surface material.  11 Q   Yes.  It's much more difficult to identify an artifact  12 assemblage from a surface scatter than it is from an  13 excavation?  14 A   I guess that would depend on how you wanted to define  15 the term "assemblage".  16 Q   Well, based on your definition, does it make any  17 difference to your definition of artifact assemblage,  18 whether you find it -- does it make any difference to  19 your definition of artifact assemblage and contextual  20 data, whether you find it in an excavation or whether  21 you find it on the surface?  22 A   The surface materials I have not referred to as  23 components or specifically as assemblages; I've  24 referred to them as groupings of tools.  They may  25 represent an assemblage in that an assemblage is a  26 group of tools reflecting activities which have taken  27 place at a particular time at a particular place at a  28 particular time period or time frame.  29 Q   Well, further down on page 2-1, you say in the last  30 paragraph:  31  32 "The archaeological data described in this chapter  33 include artifact assemblages collected by us  34 during the 1985 season.  These include materials  35 surface collected from site Gh Sv 85 - A."  36  37 Now, did you collect artifact assemblages from  38 that surface scatter?  39 A   If I have, I've used the term in this sense: as  40 groups -- as a group of tools found at a specific  41 location, yes.  42 Q   Isn't it the assemblage that is supposed to tell you  43 something about how the tool was used -- or the tools  44 were used in relationship to each other?  45 A   The assemblage will reflect the -- a variety of  46 activities, yes.  47 Q   No, I'm not talking about reflecting.  But in terms of 10648  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 understanding how tools were used when you have a tool  2 assemblage, that is something taken from an in situ  3 deposit close together, the fact that it's close  4 together allows you to explain, perhaps, how the tools  5 are used in relationship to each other?  6 A   Yes.  7 Q   But when you have a surface scatter of tools, you  8 don't know when you pick the tool up off the ground,  9 whether it was used in the same context as a tool that  10 might be lying beside it, or in the same context as a  11 tool that is 30 feet away, do you?  12 A   If they are similar types of tools, they may reflect  13 similar activities.  14 Q   But you are presuming the use to create the  15 assemblage, aren't you?  You are not using the  16 assemblage to explain the use, you presume the use to  17 create an assemblage when you have artifacts that are  18 30 metres apart?  19 A   No.  20 Q   No, all right.  Carrying on to page 2-4, you  21 describe -- and this is at the start of the page --  22 "Thirty-one different cultural features --"  23 A   Two?  24 Q   I'm sorry, 2-4 of your report, I'm sorry, Exhibit 844,  25 and you describe in the last paragraph, the pit  26 features and a feature 2, and you say this:  "Most  27 impressive is a large rock-lined pit, Figure #2."  28 And you describe the location, and you then conclude  29 at the bottom of the paragraph:  30  31 "Based on its size and constituency, this feature  32 is interpreted as the remains of a food roasting  33 pit.  Roasting pits, as described in the  34 ethnographic literature, were commonly used for  35 preparing large quantities of food."  36  37 Now, what ethnographic literature are you  38 referring to there?  39 A   I believe there are a variety of references referring  40 to the use of roasting pits or steaming pits for  41 preparing food.  42 Q   Which one?  43 A  My review has been some time.  44 Q   Is there a reason why you didn't cite the literature  45 right there?  46 A   It says -- it's -- like I say, in my mind it seemed it  47 was a common -- an aspect of common knowledge for me. 10649  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 I've referred to, in my own research in the Stikine,  2 I've referred to pit features used for steaming and  3 roasting of foods.  I know that the "Gathering What  4 the Great Nature Provided," by the people of Ksan,  5 refers to preparation of foods.  6 Q   Just pausing there, that's -- that's in your reference  7 list?  8 A  And Nancy Turner refers to many steaming pits and  9 roasting pits used by -- of the variety -- different  10 groups in her work on food plants used by native  11 peoples.  12 Q   The book that you've just referred to a minute ago  13 is --  14 MR. RUSH:  Excuse me, excuse me, hold on.  Is the witness  15 finished answering the question?  16 MR. WILLMS:  17 Q   I am not meaning to cut her off, I just want to  18 identify the people of Ksan that she referred to 1980,  19 "Gathering What the Great Nature Provided," that's the  20 one in your reference?  21 A   Yes, right.  22 Q   That was one of your ethnographic references?  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   Okay.  All right, carry on if you've got more?  25 THE COURT:  You mentioned Nancy Wilson?  26 THE WITNESS:  Turner, Nancy Turner.  27 MR. RUSH:  And she also mentioned her own work in the Tahltan.  28 THE WITNESS:  Yes.  29 MR. WILLMS:  30 Q   Yes.  31 A   There are also in the literature for the central  32 southern interior, there are references to steaming  33 and roasting pits.  Hillary Stewart also refers to  34 roasting and steaming pits in describing fishing on  35 the northwest coast.  36 Q   When you reviewed feature 2, did you find any bones or  37 artifacts within the feature?  38 THE COURT:  Sorry, feature 2?  39 MR. WILLMS:  40 Q   Feature 2, my lord, was the one which was described as  41 the roasting pit.  42 A   Oh yes, yes.  There were bone fragments in the matrix  43 of the pit feature.  44 Q   I'm showing you the feature record form for feature 2.  45 This feature was recorded by you?  46 A   Yes.  47 Q   And you'll -- you see you describe the feature as a, 10650  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 "rock lined pit feature.  Fill - loose, sandy silt  2 (dark grey) with FCR."  What's FCR?  3 A   Fire cracked rock.  4 Q   "Fire cracked rock and boulders."  All right.  And is  5 it normal when you mark down a feature that, for  6 example, if you find bones or artifacts within the  7 feature, to list them on the feature record form?  8 A   Yes, one might or one may not.  9 Q   You didn't here?  10 A   No.  11 MR. WILLMS:  Exhibit 849-21, my lord.  12  13 (EXHIBIT 849-21 - Feature Record Form No. F2)  14  15 THE COURT:  Bone fragments would include what?  16 THE WITNESS:  These are bones of -- animal bones, they could be  17 mammal, bird, fish.  18 THE COURT:  Yes.  19 A   The way these -- I would like to note that these  20 feature record forms was used as one part of our  21 study.  In recording these, they don't reflect all of  22 the analysis that was carried out on the associated  23 materials.  24 MR. WILLMS:  25 Q   You say just -- and I just want to stay with feature 2  26 for a moment -- in your report at 2-4, "Based on its  27 size and constituency, this feature is interpreted as  28 the remains of a food roasting pit."  Now, based on  29 your review of what you found there, it could also be  30 the remains of a storage pit too?  31 A   No.  32 Q   One of your references in your report was to "Recent  33 Archaeological Research in the Middle Skeena Valley,  34 British Columbia," by Kenneth Ames, reported in the  35 mid -- this is one of the extracts that you refer to  36 in preparing your report?  Yes?  Do you recognize  37 this?  38 A   Yes, I do.  39 Q   849-22, my lord.  4 0 THE COURT:  Yes.  41  42 (EXHIBIT 849-22 - Report by K.M. Ames, "Recent  43 Archaeological Research in the Middle Skeena Valley,  44 British Columbia")  45  46 MR. WILLMS:  47 Q   And in that, can you turn to page 4.  Just to give you 10651  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 the context, you'll see at the bottom of page 4, Dr.  2 Ames is referring to GhSv:2, the Hagwilget Canyon  3 Site, and then he has got a figure on stratigraphy on  4 the next page, and then on page 6 he discusses what he  5 excavated, and goes through the zones.  And we've been  6 through the zones a number of times and I'm not going  7 through them again.  But at the bottom, he starts  8 talking about some of the features on page 6, and he  9 said this at the very bottom:  10  11 "In excavation block (B block), occupation Zone A  12 was characterized by large, rock-lined storage  13 pits.  Some of these pits contained fish and  14 mammalian remains."  15  16 Now, is it possible when you excavate a feature  17 such as the feature that you've identified as a  18 roasting pit, that you -- a large rock-lined pit could  19 be a storage pit and not a roasting pit?  20 A   No.  In this context it would be the --  21 Q   You didn't find any carbon staining in this roasting  22 pit, did you?  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   Oh, you did?  25 A   Yes.  26 Q   And the -- you mean like -- and I'm sorry, maybe I  27 just don't understand how to read the diagrams.  But  28 when you are referring to hearths, is a fire on a  29 hearth different than a fire in a roasting pit?  Do  30 they leave different material behind?  31 A   Yes.  They -- the feature itself is distinct.  32 Q   All right.  But underlying the feature, the bottom, if  33 you are going to roast something, it is a fire?  Is  34 that right, is that how you roast it?  35 A   Fire is involved, yes.  36 Q   In roasting?  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   Yes.  And so when you have these hearths and you found  39 these -- the carbon stained lens and you've -- in your  40 diagram here you've identified hearths and you'll  41 recall that when you identified the feature later on  42 in your report, you've -- and this is in the house  43 depression, the house unit that you located -- you've  44 got black carbon stained silt and there is no carbon  45 stained silt in a food roasting pit?  46 A   There are pieces of charcoal and some carbon staining.  47 There is also fire cracked rock in a roasting or 10652  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 steaming pit.  2 Q   But you found fire cracked rock all over this site,  3 didn't you, particularly in zone A?  4 A   Not all over, no.  5 Q   Particularly in zone A?  6 A   In zone A there was a lot, yes, large amounts of fire  7 cracked rock.  8 Q   All right.  And you found charcoal here and there  9 throughout the site?  10 A   Yes.  11 Q   Yes.  So what was it that was different in the other  12 parts of this site about what you found here, that  13 caused you to call it a food roasting pit rather than  14 possibly a storage pit?  15 A   The characteristics of the feature itself.  16 Q   Such as?  Please explain?  17 A   Its size, its depth, the large boulders, the fragments  18 of bone, the bits of charcoal, fire cracked rock.  19 Q   Might you find bits of bone in a storage pit?  20 A   Yes.  21 Q   Might you find large rocks lining the bottom of a  22 storage pit?  23 A   Possibly.  24 Q   Might you find a large sized rock-lined storage pit?  25 A   Possibly.  26 Q   Yes.  And I think you've already said, you found fire  27 cracked rock here and there throughout the site,  28 primarily in the top zone, correct?  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   And so -- and you found charcoal as well here and  31 there?  32 A   Yes.  33 Q   But you are saying that because that fire cracked rock  34 was actually down in there and the charcoal was too,  35 that that means that it was a food roasting pit and  36 not a storage pit?  37 A   This pit is interpreted as a food roasting/steaming  38 pit.  39 Q   Roasting/steaming pit.  Roasting pit?  40 THE COURT:  Well, there would be ashes, were there not?  41 THE WITNESS:  Yes, there were also flecks of ash in it.  And  42 there were ash lenses associated with it.  43 THE COURT:  But isn't it unusual not to find carbon stained  44 material in the immediate vicinity?  45 THE WITNESS:  The matrix itself was — indicated carbon  46 staining.  47 THE COURT:  Well, in feature 2 you took a carbon sample from the 10653  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A layer?  2 THE WITNESS:  Above.  3 THE COURT:  Yes, the layer above.  But you didn't take any  4 carbon sample from anywhere else, did you, in  5 connection with feature 2?  6 THE WITNESS:  I believe we did collect charcoal from that  7 feature and the -- it -- chunks may have been too  8 small to send for a reliable age determination.  9 THE COURT:  Am I looking at the right feature on figure two, F2,  10 the middle sketch -- or the large sketch in the middle  11 of the page?  12 THE WITNESS:  Yes.  With the large boulders?  13 THE COURT:  Yes?  14 THE WITNESS:  Yes.  F2, feature two, yes.  15 MR. WILLMS:  16 Q   And layer A you described which immediately overlays  17 the feature all the way across, layer A is described  18 as "Silty loam with abundant fire cracked rock"?  19 A   Yes.  20 Q   So the fire cracked rock is really neither here nor  21 there as to what the feature is?  22 A   It is one component of the feature matrix.  23 Q   But it's one component of every feature all the way  24 along that abuts it?  25 A   So the feature is identified on the basis of several  26 characteristics not just on one item alone, but on  27 several types of material found within that feature  28 and the feature itself, the nature of its outline and  29 shape.  30 THE COURT:  But you've got a hearth identified two metres away  31 above feature 4.  What did you say feature 4 was?  32 THE WITNESS:  Feature 4, well, it was interpreted as a small  33 cooking pit.  34 THE COURT:  And you've got a large carbon stained area in the  35 layer above?  36 THE WITNESS:  The hearth, yes.  At eight metres.  37 THE COURT:  Yes?  38 THE WITNESS:  Yes.  39 THE COURT:  Yes, eight metres.  40 THE WITNESS:  Yes.  41 THE COURT:  You wouldn't expect to find similarly carbon stained  42 material in connection with a large hearth -- I'm  43 sorry, a large roasting pit?  44 THE WITNESS:  Well, that's it.  In looking at the relationship  45 between that hearth, the two pits on either side, and  46 so the ash that are -- patches that are in  47 relationship to those features, it -- those features 10654  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 may all be related to each other in terms of use of  2 the roasting pits.  3 THE COURT:  All right, thank you.  4 MR. WILLMS:  5 Q   The other -- and this is just over to the next page.  6 You've identified feature five -- and not the next  7 page from the figure, my lord, but --  8 THE COURT:  Where are you reading from?  9 MR. WILLMS:  It's — sorry, it's —  10 THE COURT:  Two dash five?  11 MR. WILLMS:  No.  Carries on at 2-6.  12 THE COURT:  Yes.  13 MR. WILLMS:  14 Q   "A similar pit, Feature #5, but without the rock  15 lining, was exposed."  And then you say, "Having a  16 similar matrix fill, it is likewise interpreted as a  17 food steaming and/or roasting pit."  And I'm just  18 showing you the feature record for feature 5.  This  19 was a feature record that was made by you?  20 A   Yes.  21 Q   And you'll see that your description of the feature is  22 pit, correct?  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   Without any distinction of what kind of pit, it's just  25 a pit?  26 A   Yes.  27 Q   Correct?  And you just say, "Black to very dark  28 brownish grey matrix with FCR fill - loose," and there  29 is no carbon stain soil specifically noted here.  30 Couldn't this just be a storage pit as well?  31 A   No, it's not interpreted as a storage pit.  32 Q   I know you didn't interpret it as a storage pit, but  33 could it not be a storage pit?  34 A   No.  35 Q   849-22, my lord.  3 6 THE COURT:  No, we have two, I think.  37 THE REGISTRAR:  849-23, my lord.  38  39 (EXHIBIT 849-23 - Feature Record Form No. F5)  40  41 MR. WILLMS:  42 Q   You know that at site GgSt2 which is where these  43 excavations are taking place, Turnbull, in 1966, had  44 identified a number of storage pits, cache pits?  45 A   Yes.  46 Q   Was it not a consideration or a possibility that these  47 two features that you've identified as roasting pits 10655  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 or cooking pits were just cache pits?  Isn't that a  2 possibility?  3 A   Not from my interpretation of the feature and the  4 matrix within the feature.  5 Q   And I just want to be clear.  I suggest that it might  6 be a possibility and you say no, not even a  7 possibility?  8 A   That's one possibility when one is considering the  9 nature of features at a site.  10 Q   So it is a possibility?  11 A   It's a possibility one would consider, yes.  12 Q   But is it possible that these two features, instead of  13 being roasting pits or steaming pits, were in fact  14 cache pits?  Is that a possibility?  15 A   No.  I'm -- I've interpreted them as roasting pits,  16 steaming pits based on my analysis of the materials  17 that were.  18 MR. WILLMS:  Perhaps we could adjourn for lunch, my lord.  19 THE COURT:  All right.  I thought that we might adjourn at four  20 o'clock, is that convenient?  21 MR. WILLMS:  Either four o'clock or -- and my lord, I am bearing  22 in mind what your lordship said as far as I can  23 usefully take us.  24 THE COURT:  All right.  Well, we will adjourn earlier than that  25 if that's the sensible thing to do, I just thought  26 perhaps we should settle we won't sit beyond four  27 o'clock.  28 MR. RUSH:  That's agreeable to me, my lord.  29 THE REGISTRAR:  Back at what time, my lord?  30 THE COURT:  Well, do you want to come back at 1:30?  31 MR. RUSH:  I think two o'clock, my lord.  32 MR. WILLMS:  Two, my lord.  33 THE COURT:  Two o'clock it is.  34 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  This court stands adjourned for  35 lunch.  36  37 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 12:30 p.m.)  38  39 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  40 a true and accurate transcript of the  41 proceedings herein transcribed to the  42 best of my skill and ability.  43  44  45  46  47 Toni Kerekes, O.R., R.P.R. 10656  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 United Reporting Service Ltd.  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 10657  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED PURSUANT TO LUNCH RECESS)  2  3 THE REGISTRAR: Order in court.  4 THE COURT:  Willms.  5 MR. WILLMS:  6 Q   The last feature that was described as a steaming or  7 roasting pit, and we were at page 2-6 of your report,  8 feature 4, and you have -- and I'm showing you the  9 feature record form.  You recognize that as the form  10 for feature 4 filled out by Miss Ludovicz?  11 A   Yes.  12 MR. WILLMS:   849-24, my lord.  13 THE COURT:  Yes.  14  15 (EXHIBIT 849-24: Feature record form)  16  17 MR. WILLMS:  18 Q   And you'll see that it's identified by her as a  19 possible pit?  20 A   Yes.  21 Q   Now, the one thing that's consistent about each one of  22 these, feature 2, feature 5, and feature 4, in the  23 feature record forms is that they're all identified  24 with the generic term "pit"?  25 A   Yes.  26 Q   And they're all -- and if you look down under number  27 15 at the bottom, there are no faunal remains noted as  28 being associated with them?  29 A   Not on the form.  No.  30 Q   No.  Okay.  Now, just carrying on down page 2-6, you  31 describe ash deposits and you say "about four ash  32 deposits in layers B and C".  33 A  What page?  34 MR. WILLMS:   Sorry, 2-6 of your report.  35 THE COURT:  And whereabouts, please?  36 MR. WILLMS:  It's the middle paragraph, my lord.  It starts off  37 with "Seven ash deposits".  3 8 THE COURT:  Thank you.  39 MR. WILLMS:  40 Q   Three associated with layer B, then four ash deposits  41 in layers B and C in the north trench wall, and then  42 you say this:  43  44 "These appear to be deposits of ash which  45 often build-up during slow combustion in  46 smoky fires associated with food drying  47 activities." 1065?  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  2 Was there an ethnographic reference that you had  3 in mind when you made that statement?  4 A   In the case of this particular sentence, I had -- I  5 was thinking about my experiences in the Stikine  6 where -- where I have observed processing of salmon  7 within the contemporary context.  8 Q   So this is a reference to your experience with the  9 Tahltan in investigating the ash deposits left over  10 from fish-smoking fires?  11 A   Yes.  We have -- here we have ash deposits in -- on  12 both sides of the trench and --  13 Q   Just getting back to my question, you make the  14 statement based on your observations of what ash  15 deposits look like after being used by the Tahltan in  16 smoking fish?  17 A  And -- yes.  I was also thinking of -- yes, for that  18 particular sentence.  19 Q   All right.  Now, if you turn back to page 2-5 on the  20 ash deposits, you will see that all of the ash  21 deposits are within 20 centimetres of the surface;  22 correct?  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   And that's -- and there's a range there between 12  25 down to 20 which is what, between 5 and 9 inches below  26 the surface about?  27 A   I've used metric in this sense.  Yes.  28 Q   You know from Turnbull's investigation and from the  29 investigation by Murdoch at Moricetown Canyon that  30 historically there have been smokehouses located at  31 Moricetown Canyon?  32 A   Yes.  33 Q   And you did not obtain a carbon date of any of the  34 material in these particular ash deposits?  35 A   No.  36 Q   So it's possible that these ash deposits could have  37 been created since 1800?  38 A   No.  39 Q   And you can say that with confidence even though you  40 haven't carbon dated the material in the ash deposit?  41 A   Yes.  42 Q   And you can say that with confidence even though you  43 know that a glass insulator fragment was recovered 10  44 to 20 centimetres below the surface at GgSt-2?  45 A   Yes.  46 Q   Isn't ash one of those things that looks like ash  47 whether it's created today or 200 years ago or 2,000 10659  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 years ago?  2 A  Ash is ash.  3 Q   Yes.  And that's why you felt confident using your  4 experience with the Tahltan in watching ash deposits  5 being created to identify this as an ash deposit  6 associated with smoking food?  7 A   There are ash deposits here associated with this pit  8 feature which indicate that food was processed in this  9 pit.  10 Q   Well, let's take the four that weren't associated with  11 the pit feature.  You identified those as an ash  12 deposit based on your experience with the Tahltan and  13 noting that there was a certain kind of ash deposit  14 left over from smoking fish?  15 A  Ash deposits that relate to hearths, yes.  16 Q   But when you look at an ash deposit, you can't tell by  17 looking at it how old it is?  18 A   The context in which the ash is found is significant  19 for interpretation.  20 Q   For example, if there was an insulator fragment found  21 in the ash deposit, that might lead you to believe  22 that the ash deposit was created historically?  That  23 would be one possibility wouldn't it?  24 A  A possibility.  25 Q   Yes.  And so when you know that at, let's say, 15  26 centimetres below the surface you found an insulator  27 fragment, even if you don't find it in the ash deposit  28 but you find an ash deposit at the same depth, it's a  29 possibility that the ash deposit's historic?  30 A   I believe we noted yesterday that there was both  31 D.B.U. and D.B.S. referred to in the recording of  32 materials during excavation.  33 Q   Well, I thought we'd settled -- it's at Exhibit  34 849-16.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that  35 you'd finally agreed that 85-104 was found at 10 to 20  36 centimetres below the surface D.B.S.; isn't that what  37 you agreed yesterday?  38 A   It was -- it was in -- it was recorded in the  39 catalogue, yes, as being in -- here, level bag  40 material.  41 Q   Oh, well, now are you sure it's level bag?  Look at  42 the provenience.  That's an exact provenience, isn't  43 it, 1.06 east and .17 north?  This insulator fragment  44 was picked out of the soil, wasn't it?  45 A   It was collected into a level bag with a depth of 10  46 to 20 is a level bag reference for a level.  47 MR. WILLMS:  No, no, I'm looking under the column "Horizontal 10660  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 EU", and correct me if I'm wrong, but let's just take  2 a comparison.  We'll look down below it and you'll see  3 that there are a series at .8 to 1.5 east, .0 to .5,  4 and there are a series of three items.  That's from a  5 level bag, right?  6 THE COURT:  You're talking about the sentence that says 85-101?  7 MR. WILLMS:  Or even 85-105, 85-106, 85-107.  8 THE COURT:  Yes.  9 MR. WILLMS:  10 Q   They're all -- they all have the same horizontal EU?  11 Now, that's the description of a level bag isn't it  12 basically, Miss Albright?  13 A   No.  That's the -- that's the -- that's with reference  14 to the location of the unit that was excavated, in  15 relationship to the datum point for the site.  16 Q   All right.  And there is a range given east to west  17 and a range given north to south?  18 A   Yes.  19 Q   That indicates a level that's been excavated, doesn't  20 it, that range?  21 A   That refers to the grid; the unit that was excavated.  22 Q   So that —  23 A   The location of the unit.  24 Q   Yes.  All we know about 85-105 is that it was  25 excavated somewhere between .8 and 1.5 east, .0 and .5  26 north, at 20 to 30 centimetres D.B.S.?  27  28 Q   All right.  That indicates that that was taken from  29  30  31 Q   All right.  However, if you look immediately above  32 that, you have a specific provenience east, 1.06.  You  33 have a specific provenience north and south, .17 N,  34 north.  Does that not indicate that it was picked out  35 by hand separately, but not picked out in a level bag?  36 A   In that case it would seem to me that there would have  37 been a -- if there was a 3D provenience, that there  38 would have been a specific point below surface or  39 below datum, and 10 centimetres below surface at that  40 point could still have been within the sod layer.  41 Q   Well, you've said that yesterday?  42 A   Yes.  43 Q   And 12 centimetres below the surface could be in the  44 sod layer too couldn't it?  45 A   The sod layer varied in its thickness from one unit to  46 the other, as well as many of the layers.  Some layers  47 are thicker in one unit than another and the sod on  A  Yes.  Q  All right.  level bag?  A  Yes.  Q  All right. 10661  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 the surface of the site is thicker in some areas than  2 others.  3 Q   The depth of your excavation at GgSt-2 was less than  4 the depth of the excavation conducted by Ames at  5 Hagwilget?  6 A   Yes.  7 Q   And it was less than the depth of the excavation  8 conducted by Coupland at Kitselas Canyon?  9 A   I don't offhand recall the depth of his excavation  10 units there.  11 Q   Do you recall the Allaire depth, that it was greater?  12 You haven't gone down here anywhere more than a metre?  13 A  A metre, a metre 20.  14 Q   And I think if you look at your excavation feature  15 list, and we've been through this, the deepest feature  16 was at 80 centimetres, pit 2; correct?  17 A   Yes.  18 Q   Now, one thing that you have to be concerned about as  19 an archaeologist when you're excavating a site is  20 determining the stratigraphic break between the  21 historic and the prehistoric zone?  That's one area of  22 concern, isn't it?  23 A   There may not be any break at all.  24 Q   But one thing that concerns you as an archaeologist  25 when you're doing an excavation is you want to know  26 when you've got below a layer which might be called  27 disturbed; correct?  28 A   One clearly wants to identify whether there's  29 disturbance at the site.  Yes.  30 Q   Yes.  And where you find or you've located historic  31 artifacts -- first of all, you were using five  32 centimetre levels as you were excavating here, is  33 that —  34 A   For the most part.  35 Q   For the most part.  Is it usual or is it common when  36 you're coming down from the very top layer to perhaps  37 go in one or two centimetre levels so that you can  38 have -- be assured of where the potential disturbed  39 zone stops and where the zone where you can feel  40 confident to say things were deposited in situ start?  41 A   No.  42 Q   No.  Unheard of as far as you're aware?  Just not  4 3 common?  44 A   I'm not sure what point you're trying to get at here;  45 whether you're referring to a method of recording  46 information or observations about the deposits that  47 are — 10662  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   But when you get --  2 A   -- observations are recorded in the level notes.  3 Q   When you retrieve artifacts, tell me if I'm wrong, but  4 there's two general ways to retrieve an artifact.  You  5 can either pick it out of where it is and then mark  6 down the provenience of the artifact, or you can take  7 a level, whatever the dimensions of the level may be,  8 put everything from that level in a bag, take the bag  9 either to a table at the site or somewhere else, and  10 shake it out and see what's in the bag?  Those are the  11 two usual methods of recovering artifacts from an  12 excavation?  13 A   One gives a three dimensional provenience.  14 Q   Yes.  And it's either a specific provenience, if  15 you've picked it out correct, I mean, "That's where I  16 found it."?  17 A   Yes.  18 Q   Or if you pull it out of level bag material you've got  19 a volume of material that you've taken out and  2 0 somewhere from that volume of material was this  21 artifact?  22 A   Flake material from a -- a volume of soil matrix.  23 Q   Yes.  24 A   Is often put into one level bag within -- for that  25 unit.  26 Q   Okay.  And so when you pull the artifacts out of that  27 level bag, you don't know where exactly they were  28 specifically in situ, other than somewhere in that  29 volumetric area; correct?  30 A   There are often notes or comments, observations, made  31 in the level notes that may note differences.  32 Q   Specific proveniences for something that is then --  33 it's picked out and put in the level bag?  34 A   Yes.  35 Q   Or is it picked out and -- I saw some of your samples  36 with handwriting on them and artifact numbers and  37 they're given specific proveniences?  38 A   The artifacts are given numbers, are numbered.  39 Q   Yes, and then the catalogue shows their provenience?  40 A   Yes.  Yes.  41 Q   Well, I'm -- when you have recovered an insulator  42 fragment from a layer that is the same depth and the  43 same layer description as features that you've  44 described, is it not possible that the feature and  45 whatever you recovered from the same depth and the  46 same layer may be co-equal in date?  47 A   You're referring to an insulator that was found at the 10663  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 surface of the site and features that were found in  2 layers below?  3 Q   I'm just referring to the way they were described and  4 the depth they were described.  That's all that I'm  5 referring to.  6 A   Okay.  7 Q   And I'm saying that when you recover an insulator  8 fragment from a layer that has been described as a  9 particular layer, at a particular depth, and you find  10 other features at the same depth or the same layer,  11 that it's possible that the dates for those -- for the  12 feature and the insulator fragment are roughly the  13 s ame ?  14 A   No.  15 Q   All right.  Could you just turn back to page 2-4 of  16 your report?  You described a hearth feature, three  17 hearth features, in the second paragraph, and in the  18 middle of the paragraph you say:  19  20 "Their size (10 to 25 centimetres in depth,  21 and 70 to 80 centimetres in diameter)  22 indicates that they were used regularly and  23 intensely over a considerable period of  2 4 time."  25  26 Now, by "a considerable period of time", do you  27 mean millennia?  28 A   No, I would not say millennia in this case.  29 Q   Do you mean centuries, if not millennia?  30 A   No, not particularly.  Not specifically.  31 MR. WILLMS:  When you used the words "a considerable period of  32 time", what do you mean?  33 THE COURT:  Where are you reading from Mr. Willms, please?  34 MR. WILLMS:  I'm on page 2-4, middle paragraph, the reference to  35 the hearth features.  36 THE COURT:  Yes.  Thank you.  37 MR. WILLMS:  38 Q   What do you mean by "a considerable period of time"?  39 A  Well, that the hearth size indicates use -- it could  40 represent use within a structure that may have been  41 standing a number of years, perhaps up to in the  42 vicinity of a hundred years.  43 Q   And that's what you meant there when you talked about  44 "a considerable period of time", up to a hundred  45 years?  46 A   I cannot say with certainty how long any one feature  47 was used, but their size indicates repetitive use over 10664  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 a period of time at that -- at that location.  2 Q   Well, maybe you could give us a range of what you  3 meant by considerable period of time; one year to a  4 hundred years; five years to a hundred years?  5 A   Yes, I'll say one to a hundred years.  6 Q   Well, I don't want you to just agree with me.  I want  7 to know what you meant.  If that's what you meant,  8 then please, yes, that's fine, but if that's not what  9 you meant, what did you mean?  Did you mean anywhere  10 between one and a hundred years?  11 A   Yes, it could represent use over a longer period of  12 time than that too.  13 Q   Longer than a hundred years?  14 A   It could.  15 Q   Well, how long, one to what?  16 A   The -- based on a date, a date return on a sample from  17 the -- from a hearth feature is given with a range of  18 time in which that date may fall.  19 Q   Are you saying that the carbon dating uncertainty has  20 something to do with how long that hearth was used?  21 I'm not asking you the date that it was used, I'm  22 asking you what you meant by it was used for "a  23 considerable period of time", and I want to know what  24 you mean by "a considerable period of time" in years.  25 Now, I think you've already said it could be as short  26 as one year.  Do I have the lower level right?  It  27 could be one year that it was used?  28 A   Not likely.  29 Q   And so now what about the not likely, but possible on  30 the high side?  31 A   Possible, yes.  32 Q   Yes.  What, 200 years?  33 A   Possible.  34 Q   Three hundred?  Can you tell by looking at it how long  35 it's been used?  You can't, can you?  36 A   No, I can't say for sure how long the hearth was used  37 for.  I have observed hearths used in another context  38 which would indicate that it takes considerable time  39 for a carbon and charcoal in a hearth to build-up.  I  40 have seen -- I have observed hearths in contexts where  41 they have been used over a period of more than 50  42 years that did not have the depth or the size of  43 this -- of the -- these hearth features, which is my  44 basis for saying that they were used over a period of  45 time, not just once or on an occasional basis, but  46 were used quite regularly and intensely, as what would  47 be indicated in habitation of -- over a period of 10665  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 time.  2 Q   And that's why you -- please be as generous in your  3 estimates as you want on either side of what you meant  4 there, but do you know from looking at those hearths  5 how long you think those hearths were used?  6 A   I cannot say with certainty exactly how long the  7 hearths were used.  8 MR. WILLMS:   And can you say with certainty over what period of  9 time they might have been used?  10 MR. RUSH:  Isn't that the same question, my lord?  11 THE COURT:  Well, I was wondering about that.  12 MR. WILLMS:  Well, I thought the answer was a little narrower,  13 that she can't say with certainty how long they've  14 been used, and I'm --  15 THE COURT:  Then what period of time was it used?  16 MR. WILLMS:  I'm trying to get a range, my lord.  I'm not asking  17 her to say that this was used for exactly 50 years.  18 THE COURT:  Put the question again.  I'm not too sure the way  19 you phrased it that the two questions don't mean the  2 0 same thing.  21 MR. WILLMS:  22 Q   All right.  And you can't tell with any certainty what  23 the range of time of use is either, can you?  24 A   They -- the hearths were used within the range  25 estimated for the layer in which -- in the context,  26 the layer context, in which they were found.  27 Q   And how long was that?  Pick one of the hearths.  28 They're all in layer B; correct?  That's --  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   -- on page 2-5 you say they're all in layer B, and  31 your dates, your carbon dates for layer B, run from I  32 think the oldest date on the north trench wall is  33 1960, and the -- and in fact the shortest date is  34 1700.  So are you saying that those hearths could have  35 been in use for 250 years?  36 A   They could have been used within that time frame.  37 Q   I wish you'd answer the question that I asked.  I  38 don't want to know when they were used, I want to know  39 for how long.  40 A   I thought that was the point of your -- of this most  41 recent question, was what frame of time could they  42 have been used.  You told his honour it was a  43 rephrasing of the question.  44 Q   No, no.  Well, I mean a range of time from the moment  45 that the very first fire was ever built to the time  46 when there were no more fires built.  47 A   But that's the same as saying how long. 10666  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 MR. RUSH:  Exactly.  2 MR. WILLMS:  Yes.  3 MR. RUSH:  And that question has been asked and answered twice.  4 MR. WILLMS:  Well, all right. And so, coming back to your  5 statement that these had been used for a considerable  6 period of time, you acknowledge that you just can't  7 say that, can you?  You can't tell?  8 MR. RUSH:  The answer was, if my friend is going to restate the  9 answer, it is, I think, I can't say with certainty how  10 long the hearths were used.  That is my note.  11 THE COURT:  I think that's her evidence.  12 MR. WILLMS:  That is her evidence, my lord, and that means a  13 considerable period of time, I don't know.  I guess it  14 means centuries to millennia.  15 THE COURT:  Well, she also says it's within the time frame of  16 the layer in which it's found, but that requires  17 inferences from a few carbon samples.  I'm not sure --  18 I haven't calculated the range for all these samples  19 in layer B, but I don't think there's any doubt the  20 evidence of the witness is you can't tell from looking  21 at it for how long a period it was used, nor can you  22 say with certainty the start date and finish date.  23 MR. WILLMS:  All right.  24 THE COURT:  Except that it's within the layer.  25 THE WITNESS:   Within the layer, yes.  26 THE COURT:  Incidentally, where is hearth number 3 -- or, I'm  27 sorry, feature 3?  28 THE WITNESS:  Feature 3.  2 9 THE COURT:  I can't find —  30 THE WITNESS:   It would be on figure 3.  It's on — I don't  31 believe it's in the profile.  32 THE COURT:  I'm looking for it in figure 2.  33 THE WITNESS:   Yes, I don't believe it's shown in the profile.  34 THE COURT:  Why wouldn't it be?  What am I missing?  35 THE WITNESS:   Oh, maybe it is.  36 THE COURT:  Is it the black —  37 THE WITNESS:   Yes.  38 THE COURT:  — stained area at 8 metres?  39 THE WITNESS:   Yes, it is. It's — that's the one.  40 THE COURT:  That's feature 3?  41 THE WITNESS:   Yes.  42 THE COURT:  All right.  43 MR. WILLMS:  44 Q   I think it starts at six, my lord, on the left, and  45 you'll see the RC?  46 A   Yes, that's the hearth at above -- at about 4 metres.  47 MR. WILLMS:  And it compares from this, although — 10667  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 THE COURT:  Well, that's feature 2, isn't it?  It says "F-2"?  2 THE WITNESS:   No, feature 2 is the large roasting pit we  3 referred to --  4 THE COURT:  Yes.  5 THE WITNESS: — earlier, and then feature 3 is the hearth, the  6 black area that has the little RC in it.  7 THE COURT:  Yes, at 8 metres?  8 THE WITNESS:   Yes, that's it.  9 THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.  10 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, I think you were on -- at 8 metres you  11 were on the south wall, and it's on the north wall.  12 THE COURT:  Oh, it's on the north wall?  13 THE WITNESS:   No, it's on the south wall.  14 MR. WILLMS:  15 Q   Feature 3?  16 A   Yes, it is.  17 Q   Well, I'm looking at figure 3, and if you look on  18 figure 3 --  19 A   It's on the south wall on the left-hand side of the  20 page.  21 MR. WILLMS:  Oh, yes.  All right.  Okay.  22 THE COURT:  Where is figure 3?  23 THE WITNESS:   Figure 3 follows —  24 THE COURT:  Oh, yes.  25 THE WITNESS:   — page 2-5.  26 MR. WILLMS:  Yes.  All right.  27 THE COURT: It's on the south wall?  28 THE WITNESS:   Yes, it is.  2 9 THE COURT:  All right.  30 MR. WILLMS:  31 Q   And just to make sure that your drawing here on figure  32 2 accurately represents, it's completely overlaid by  33 layer A?  34 A   Yes.  35 Q   Now, in your -- this is at the beginning of your  36 report, setting out your data basis at page 1-2, you  37 describe in the second paragraph native peoples in the  38 north-west region having a very rich oral history  39 tradition, and then you go through the Gitksan and the  40 Wet'suwet'en, a brief discussion, and then you say at  41 the beginning of the next paragraph:  42  43 "Very rarely have archaeologists  44 considered or made use of the rich and  45 detailed information contained in the oral  46 histories for interpreting the history of a  47 particular region.  This type of approach to 1066?  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  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  Q  A  understanding the history of a people or  region has been referred to in the recent  literature as ethno-archaeology."  Now, that is the approach that you took in  drafting this report; is that correct?  You took an  ethnoarchaeological approach?  Ethnoarchaeology referring to a methodology, yes.  Yes.  And you reviewed, and I think you've said this  earlier, in as much detail as you could to feel  comfortable with it, the oral histories not only of  the Gitksan and the Wet'suwet'en, but oral histories  of the surrounding areas?  For the purposes of the research that I carried out,  the field work that I carried out, I referred to  ethnographic literature which describes or outlines  oral histories for the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en area.  I am familiar with some of the other literature, but  it's the literature for the area that I'm concerned  with.  One of the ethnographic pieces that you referred to  was entitled "Wolf Clan Invaders from the Northern  Plateau Among the Tsimshian", by Marius Barbeau.  That  was something that you referred to in preparing your  report?  Yes.  WILLMS: And in fact a different, not the same pages of "Wolf  Clan Invaders", but part of the same -- oh, never mind  that part, but can that be, my lord, 849-25?  THE COURT:  Yes.  (EXHIBIT 849-25: Document entitled "Wolf Clan Invaders  from the Northern Plateau among the Tsimshian")  THE COURT:  Miss Albright, may I just ask this:  That in the  evidence that you've been giving, particularly the  cross-examination, I haven't been conscious of any  ethnographic content in your evidence that is based  upon oral history.  You've been defending your  opinions based upon your interpretation of the  physical findings.  Where does the -- where does the  oral history come into it, just in the written texts  that I haven't yet studied carefully?  THE WITNESS:   The ethnographic literature was consulted mainly  with respect to the survey that was carried out in an  attempt to locate evidence of the -- of several  ancestral villages.  And the references to those  A  MR 10669  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 villages, which were found in the ethnographic  2 literature, were used to direct our investigation to  3 particular places.  4 THE COURT: But they're all places where you'd expect to find  5 people anyway, are they not, except with the one  6 possible exception of the Mosquito Flats?  7 THE WITNESS:   Yes, the literature indicates that there was a  8 village site at a particular --  9 THE COURT:  Yes.  10 THE WITNESS:   -- place, and we used those references to go  11 there to see if we could find evidence of earlier  12 occupation at that site.  Yes.  13 THE COURT:  But you wouldn't need to go to the ethnographic  14 literature to get a hint that you might look usefully  15 at a place like Hagwilget or Moricetown or Kitselas or  16 Kisgegas or any of those places, would you?  They're  17 obvious choices for archaeologists, are they not?  18 THE WITNESS:   Yes.  MacDonald earlier said that they were  19 where -- they were places where we were most likely to  20 find sites with stratified deposits, yes, where we  21 might see evidence of cultural development.  22 THE COURT:  All right.  I just wanted to make sure I wasn't  23 overlooking something.  24 MR. WILLMS:  25 Q   Thank you, my lord.  26 Now, the extract that I have referred you to from  27 Barbeau, you -- and what you did, and this is mostly  28 in chapter 3 of your report, was you analysed the  29 ethnographic literature in terms of migrations, et  30 cetera, to determine likely places to look for the  31 various ancestral villages?  32 A   No, not as you have outlined.  I used the literature  33 or reviewed the literature in terms of references to  34 villages and where they were located, and these were  35 used to define the study area where we would go to  36 investigate.  37 Q   And attempt to give some time depth archaeologically  38 to the oral history?  39 A   No.  Our -- we were attempting to find any evidence  40 which might indicate the age or time period at which  41 that specific village was, the site, was used or  42 occupied.  43 Q   To give time depth to the oral history describing that  44 village site?  I thought that was one of the purposes  45 for all of your field work on ancestral village  46 localities?  47 A   Our archaeological investigations were concerned with 10670  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 locating archaeological sites or archaeological  2 remains, evidence of use and occupation, at particular  3 locations noted in the literature.  4 Q   Can you turn to page 3-1 where you discuss what you're  5 doing in this investigation?  6 A   3-1.  7 Q   You start off the section by saying, first of all:  8  9 "This section attempts to correlate the  10 history of origins and migrations of the  11 Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en people as recorded  12 in their adaawk and kungax with the  13 archaeological evidence for early occupation  14 of several localities in Gitksan and  15 Wet'suwet'en territories."  16  17 And then you say:  18  19 "Archaeological investigation of  20 ancestral village localities tends to  21 confirm the reliability of Gitksan and  22 Wet'suwet'en oral histories."  23  24 That's the conclusion you came to; correct?  25 A   Yes.  26 Q   So you were doing archaeological investigations in  27 order to give some time depth to the oral histories?  28 A   Yes, correlation between archaeological evidence and  29 mention of occupation of certain areas within the oral  30 histories.  31 Q   And you know from your review and your research that  32 taking, for example, either Temlaham -- well, let's  33 just take Temlaham.  You know from your oral history  34 review that it's alleged that there is Wolf Clan and  35 Eagle Clan, Wolf Phratry and Eagle Phratry at  3 6 Temlaham?  37 A   No.  38 Q   You didn't notice that in your review of the  39 ethnographic literature?  4 0 A   No.  41 THE COURT:  Would it be convenient to take a short adjournment  42 while you're looking for references?  43 MR. WILLMS:  Yes, my lord.  44 THE REGISTRAR: Order in court.  Court will recess.  45  46  47 10671  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR THE AFTERNOON RECESS)  2  3 I hereby certify the foregoing to  4 be a true and accurate transcript  5 of the proceedings herein to the  6 best of my skill and ability.  7  9 Tanita S. French  10 Official Reporter  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 10672  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)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED AT 3:15 p.m.)  THE  THE  MR.  Order in court.  Willms.  THE  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  REGISTRAR:  COURT:  Mr.  WILLMS:  Q My lord, when I left off, I was referring not only to  the wrong clan but to the wrong ancestral village and  I apologize to the witness.  You are aware from your review of the  ethnographic literature that one of the clans present  at Gitanka'at from the ethnographic literature is the  eagle clan?  A   The eagle clan -- houses of the eagle clan in the  literature are said to have lived at Gitanka'at.  Q   All right.  And you knew from your review of Barbeau  and "Wolf-Clan Invaders", that the oral histories of  the northern plateau among the Tsimshians were that  the eagle clan were an off-shoot of the wolf clan,  from the oral histories?  Did you know that or was that your understanding?  No, no that's not my understanding.  Can you turn to Exhibit 849-6.  849?  COURT:  WITNESS  WILLMS:  COURT:  WILLMS:  Q   8  849, it's the grey binder, my lord.  And this is the document that was forwarded to Mr.  Overstall on August 1st, 1986, and if you turn to page  2 where you discuss the wolf phratry, you talk about  some members of the group under the wolf phratry?  A   Yes.  Q   And you have :  "Some members of this group settled among the  Stikinwkan at the mouth of the Stikine River and  others among the Tongas or Tantakwan --"  T-A-N-T-A-K-W-A-N,  "-- further to the south."  A   Tantakwan.  Q   Tantakwan, thank you.  "Other members of the group, known as the  fugitives, continued south, some to become part of  the Gitlaen —" 10673  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 G-I-T-L-A-E-N,  2  3 "-- people of the Coast Tsimshiam while others  4 established the Nisga branch of the clan on the  5 lower Nass River."  6  7 Now, you carry on over the next page to describe the  8 eagle clan, and say:  9  10 "Houses of the eagle phratry are thought to  11 be the most recent immigrants to the Gitksan  12 territory.  Related to the eagle houses among the  13 Nisga and the Coast Tsimshiam peoples, their oral  14 histories indicate that they 'originated among the  15 Tlingit, at Na'a —"  16  17 N-A-'-A,  18  19 "-- now known as Loring Alaska:  and because of a  20 feud with the wolf clan of Nees-lanranows --"  21  22 N-E-E-S, dash, L-A-N-R-A-N-O-W-S,  23  24 "-- migrated southwards."  25  2 6 And you cite Barbeau.  27 Now, the Barbeau reference and the "Wolf-Clan  28 Invaders" reference deal with the fugitives that  29 you've mentioned under the wolf phratry and also the  30 eagles as well, correct?  31 A   No.  32 Q   Well —  33 A   Not that —  34 Q   What I've handed to you is the "Wolf-Clan Invaders".  35 It is cited in your reference list?  36 A   Yes.  37 Q   And you'll see there is a table of contents and there  38 is the Tahltan origin of the leading wolf clans, and a  39 discussion at the beginning to the -- and it's the  40 Stikine River that you've mentioned at Exhibit 849-6,  41 and the lava flow, in particular, at page 11 and 12.  42 Now —  43 A  Where are you?  What are you referring to?  44 Q   I'm at 11 and 12.  Did you know --  45 THE COURT:  Of Barbeau?  46 MR. WILLMS:  47 Q   Of Barbeau. 10674  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A   Yes, 11 and 12.  2 MR. RUSH:  There is a two-page -- double page system --  3 pagination system, rather.  4 MR. WILLMS:  Yes.  There is an 11 typed, my lord, but a  5 handwritten number in the upper right-hand corner.  6 THE COURT:  That's the 11, the handwritten?  7 MR. WILLMS:  The handwritten is 18 where I'm referring to.  8 THE COURT:  Oh, 18.  9 MR. WILLMS:  And 19.  10 THE COURT:  Yes.  11 MR. WILLMS:  12 Q   And if you -- first of all, are you aware -- you refer  13 in Exhibit 849-6, when you were referring to the wolf  14 clan, you refer to the Ayansh -- the lava flow.  Were  15 you also aware of the part about the travel under the  16 glacier on the Stikine?  17 A   Yes.  18 Q   From the oral histories?  19 A   Yes.  20 Q   And you know that Barbeau in this discussion is  21 discussing the wolf clan -- "The Wolf-Clan Invaders  22 from the Northern Plateau," the wolf clan is coming  23 down the Stikine?  24 A   I recall he does mention wolf clans coming down the  25 Stikine, yes.  26 Q   Okay.  And just starting at the bottom of page -- it's  27 18 handwritten in the upper right-hand corner, he  28 refers to the glacier tradition and then says:  29  30 "The reference in this glacier tradition to  31 sea-otter hunting, after the Chiefs-Hill  32 fugitives had reached the salt water and joined a  33 coast tribe, is another detail suggesting a  34 historical date.  Intensive sea-otter hunting  35 developed only after the Russians and other sea  36 traders began to press the natives, from the  37 Aleutian Islands down to the Tlingit country, into  38 their service; that is, less than two hundred  39 years ago."  40  41 And then over to the top of the next page,  42 discussing the place where he says:  43  44 "The passage under the glacier may not be  45 older than two hundred years.  For the Wolf  46 fugitives no sooner had crossed the Tlingit  47 country, and entered the Nass River to the south, 10675  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 than they experienced a fantastic cataclysm, which  2 deeply impressed itself upon tribal memories.  3 They were smothered by poisoned fumes and thrown  4 back by a volcano in full eruption."  5  6 That's the same volcanic eruption you are  7 discussing under the wolf phratry of page 2 of 849-6,  8 isn't it?  9 A   It may be, yes.  10 Q   All right.  And you'll see that you did cite it at  11 page 2 of Exhibit 849-6, you cited Barbeau 1929 and  12 Barbeau 1962, and I'm just showing you your reference  13 list for Barbeau 1962, it's "Wolf-Clan Invaders from  14 the Northern Plateau"?  15 A   Yes.  16 Q   And that's what you are looking at right now?  17 A   Yes.  18 Q   Now, so that when you reviewed this material, you  19 noted that the oral history, that Duff had used the  20 Stikine glacier and also the lava flow to estimate a  21 date for the wolf clan invaders coming down the  22 Stikine at 200, 250, but you mentioned 250 years in  23 Exhibit 849-6, correct?  That's what you say on the  24 bottom of page 2?  25 A   No.  26 Q   Well, you say, "After the Ayansh lava flow, dated to  27 about 250 years ago, two households moved to the  28 Skeena watershed --"  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   "-- to be incorporated into the Gitksan"?  31 A   Yes.  32 Q   All right.  And that's the Ayansh -- isn't that the  33 Ayansh lava flow that's referred to by Barbeau in  34 "Wolf-Clan Invaders"?  35 A   I believe so, yes.  36 THE COURT:  Where did you find the 250 years?  37 MR. WILLMS:  The 250 years, my lord, is at Exhibit 849-6, that's  38 tab 6.  3 9 THE COURT:  Yes.  40 MR. WILLMS:  On page 2 under, "Wolf Phratry".  41 THE COURT:  All right.  42 MR. WILLMS:  43 Q   Part way down where it mentions the Ayansh lava flow.  44 Then -- and now this is continuing on with --  45 A   But my "no" was to your question and the way you had  46 phrased your question.  47 THE COURT:  I'm confused too, Mr. Willms, because on page 19 10676  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Barbeau talks about the last eruption being a hundred  2 and fifty years ago.  3 MR. WILLMS:  Well, when Barbeau -- this is -- Barbeau wrote  4 this -- sorry, which?  5 THE COURT:  Well, at the end of the second full paragraph on  6 page 19 he talks about the last eruption took place a  7 hundred and fifty years ago.  8 MR. WILLMS:  Yeah.  Probably a few generations only after the  9 passage under the glacier.  The time span, my lord,  10 Barbeau puts the time span at about 200 years, that's  11 his estimate.  It's the witness -- the witness has  12 written about 250 years in her report.  13 THE COURT:  Where does Barbeau say 200 years?  14 MR. WILLMS:  Barbeau says at the very top of the passage, the  15 passage under "The glacier --  16 THE COURT:  Oh yes.  17 MR. WILLMS:  -- may not be much older than two hundred years."  18 THE COURT:  Yes, all right.  19 MR. WILLMS:  20 Q   And so you'll also see, if you then carry on with  21 Barbeau in the reference that you cited and relied on  22 in your material over to page 17, which is numbered 24  23 in the corner, he says this at the bottom:  24  25 "Although the Stikine fugitives, who passed  26 under the glacier and were later thrown back by  27 the volcano, are usually called the Wolf people,  28 it does not follow that the name of Wolf now  29 applied to them is really ancient, or that the  30 wolf has been their totem for very long.  31  32 Now, is that consistent with the ethnography that  33 you read about the oral history of the wolf people?  34 Is that consistent with the oral history that you  35 reviewed before you did your -- in your work, in the  36 ancestral villages?  37 A  Well, this is one statement that Barbeau makes in  38 this.  This is a general introduction to a much larger  39 document which included much more detailed adaawk.  40 And I've -- in my specific investigations I refer to  41 much more specific references.  42 Q   Now another reference that you refer to from Barbeau  43 in your reference list is called "Raven-Clan Outlaws  44 on the North Pacific Coast."  And this was -- and this  45 was on microfiche, I'm sorry the copy is like that.  46 But this is the work that is referred to in your  47 reference list at page R2 under 1963 "Raven-Clan 10677  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Outlaws in the North Pacific Coast"?  2 A   Yes.  3 MR. WILLMS:  The — my lord, could that be the next exhibit,  4 849-26.  5 THE COURT:  Yes.  6  7 (EXHIBIT 849-26 - Extract from "Raven-Clan Outlaws on  8 the North Pacific Coast" by M. Barbeau)  9  10 MR. WILLMS:  11 Q   Now, it's at the top of -- and this -- when you  12 reviewed this, you -- once again, it's Barbeau  13 collecting oral histories from the northwest coast,  14 that's what he has done in this work.  This is just a  15 small extract of it, but the whole work is a  16 collection of oral histories that Barbeau, with the  17 assistance at times of Mr. Beynon, collected?  18 A   Yes.  19 Q   Now, you'll see here at page 5, in discussing the wolf  20 phratry at the top, Barbeau says:  21  22 "The wolves split up into halves or  23 moieties - one of them, the Wolves proper, and the  24 other, the Eagles, in imitation of the Russian  25 imperial crest.  The Eagle moiety or phratry, at  26 the height of the fur trade with the Russians and  27 the British, rose to the first rank among the  28 Tsimshiam, the Haidas, and the southern Tlingits."  29  30 Now, is that consistant with the oral history  31 review that you did before or as part of your  32 ethnoarchaeological investigations that the wolves  33 were split into two halves, one of them the wolves  34 proper, and the other of them the eagles?  35 A   This is a general discussion of a much -- as an  36 introduction to a much larger document.  Again, this  37 is a general comment and I have used much more  38 specific references in the context of the work that I  39 carried out in terms of archaeological investigations.  4 0 Q   All right.  41 A   I don't understand the relevancy of your questioning  42 me on these general discussions of the ethnographic  43 literature since the general discussions I have are  44 not relevant to the specific investigations that I  45 carried out.  46 Q   Well, perhaps you could turn to page 3-3 of your  47 report.  You have at page 3-3 in your discussion -- 1067?  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 this is your discussion of Gitanka'at, said at the  2 very top:  3  4 "Several sources suggest that Gitanka'at was  5 an old village, coeval with Temlaxam.  In Men of  6 Medeek, Walter Wright describes how Gisga'ast  7 families were forced to leave Temlaxam after a  8 devastating famine.  Moving down the Skeena, the  9 House of Nistewas came upon an Eagle village  10 situated on the banks of the Skeena River, across  11 from the Seven Sisters Peaks."  12  13 Now, just pausing there, that was relevant to your  14 discussion, wasn't it, that's why you put it in your  15 report?  16 A   Relevant to the -- relevant to our -- relevant to our  17 investigation in the -- to Gitanka'at.  18 Q   All right.  That there was an eagle village situated  19 on the banks of the Skeena River, and that's why I'm  20 suggesting to you that one of the references which  21 you've considered was "Raven-Clan Outlaws", which is  22 in your reference list where Duff says -- who  23 collected the ethnographies -- that the eagles --  24 A   Excuse me, we have been referring to Barbeau documents  25 and you are saying that these were collected by Duff.  26 Q   Oh, I meant --  27 A   You are the one who is presenting these documents to  2 8 me.  29 Q   I meant Barbeau, I'm sorry.  30 A   That's twice you have done that.  I feel that you are  31 deliberately trying to mislead me in terms of the  32 response that you want from me.  33 Q   Well, I apologize for that.  I am not trying to  34 deliberately mislead you.  I've made a few mistakes  35 already and I'm sure I'll make more.  I meant Barbeau.  36 A  Well, if you want me to answer clearly and  37 confidently, then --  38 THE COURT:  Are you getting tired, Miss Albright?  39 THE WITNESS:  Yes.  I feel somewhat frustrated by this line of  40 cross-examination.  41 THE COURT:  Well, you'll have to bear with that.  You put all  42 this material in your report and you said you relied  43 upon it.  44 THE WITNESS:  Yes.  The point I'm making is that I have relied  45 on very specific references and Mr. Willms is leading  46 to some very general discussions.  47 THE COURT:  Well, there is some very general statements being 10679  Proceedings  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.  MR.  THE COURT  made all over the place and I don't think it's  confined to one source or another.  THE WITNESS:  Yes, yes.  THE COURT:  But it's been a long week and it's been a long day  and maybe if we are reaching the point where it's  becoming burdensome, as I'm sure it is, perhaps we  should adjourn until the next time when we can resume  this.  Are you at a convenient place to adjourn, Mr.  Willms?  MR. WILLMS:  I am, my lord, because I was going to turn to  another point.  THE COURT:  All right.  Well then, as I understand our present  situation, we will be commencing with Miss Harris on  Monday morning and going upwards of two and a half,  three days with her and longer if possible, and that  we will then resume with this witness.  WILLMS:  That's agreeable to me, my lord.  RUSH:  Well, my lord, I think that leaves things in a very  unsettled state.  I agree with you, Mr. Rush, but I don't know whose  fault that is either.  MR. RUSH:  I'm not trying to attribute fault.  THE COURT:  I am not either, and I am staying away from fault as  much as I can, but I am saying we can't continue to  run this lawsuit at inconveniencing everyone except  the court.  MR. RUSH: What I want to try to do, my lord, is put together  various statements of how we are going to deal with  next week.  THE COURT:  Well, is there any dispute about it?  I thought we  were going to go as far as we could go with Miss  Harris and continue with this witness.  MR. RUSH:  But does that mean until Wednesday afternoon or  Thursday morning?  My difficulty is that neither Miss  Harris nor Miss Albright is in the city, and I --  THE COURT:  I don't think I can make arrangements that are that  minute, Mr. Rush, I really don't think that that can  be expected.  This evidence has taken far too long and  I don't want to put any blame in that direction  either, but it has taken far too long and therefore  it's fundamental that when we are going to  inconvenience someone we usually inconvenience the  witness, which is regrettable, but I don't see how  else it can be, considering the number of us.  MR. RUSH:  Assuming that for the moment, my lord, then my  question is that when we had the pretrial at the  beginning of this session, we indicated that we would 10680  Proceedings  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:  try to fit the witness into the time allotted for and  we've already gone by the boards in that with respect  to Miss Albright, and no doubt that is going to happen  with respect to Miss Harris.  THE COURT:  Yes.  MR. RUSH:  But what I think it would be helpful in terms of  certainty, is are we going -- is it an open-ended  cross-examination that my friend is entitled to lead,  and if it isn't finished next week, does that mean it  follows into the next week?  Are there any -- I guess  I'm trying to determine, are we going to try and fit  into a specific time slot that we can try to meet to  complete Miss Albright's evidence?  : Well, I'm assuming that we are going to finish this  witness in a couple more days. I would like to think  we are. I haven't -- no one has suggested we aren't.  Are -- is there any problem with that, Mr. Willms?  Well, my lord, I -- the only -- I don't have any  problem with that.  It has taken far longer to go  through the material than I thought it would, and I  can't say whether it will take the same length of time  to go through the balance of the material.  I don't  think it should take longer than that, but part of  that is out of my hands.  THE COURT:  Well, my sense of this is that we should go as far  as we can with Miss Harris, and when we are finished  there we'll know with some certainty, some relative  certainty, how far we are going to go with Miss  Harris, and I wouldn't expect the witness to be  available at three o'clock to put in an hour to finish  at a day, but I think she has to be ready for the next  day.  MR. RUSH:  I appreciate that, my lord.  And let's assume we  finish Miss Harris on Wednesday afternoon in direct or  we find we can't proceed any further --  THE COURT:  Then we'll proceed.  MR. RUSH:  I would like some indication from my learned friends  that we would -- that Miss Albright will be finished,  including my redirect, by Friday afternoon.  I think  we need to know that.  And my sense of it is my friend  is not assuring me of that by any means.  THE COURT:  Well, cross-examination is supposed to be sacred,  and one thing we are not supposed to do is we are not  supposed to apply closure onto cross-examination.  There comes a time when you have to do so but I don't  know that we've reached that.  But I think that if we are not finished -- if we 10681  Proceedings  1 get started with Miss Albright -- or restarted with  2 Miss Albright on Thursday, if we have to go through  3 Saturday, I think we have to go through Saturday to  4 finish her.  But we haven't got far enough to -- or  5 that far along that I received any submissions from  6 counsel in that regard, but that's my preliminary  7 view.  I just believe that we have to finish these  8 witnesses as best we can and we have to do it in the  9 most inconvenient way and I don't know anything better  10 than what I've just suggested.  But I would think that  11 we could tell from the way it's going on Monday and  12 Tuesday, where we are going to be later that week, and  13 I would think by Tuesday Mr. Willms would be able to  14 give us a very, very close estimate of how much more  15 time he will require for cross-examination.  Is  16 that -- is anything unexpected in what I've just said,  17 Mr. Willms?  18 MR. WILLMS:  No, my lord.  It's still those 300 pages, but —  19 well, I can't say.  I don't anticipate that there will  20 be a difficulty advising the court sometime Tuesday of  21 a time estimate for the completion of my cross-  22 examination.  23 THE COURT:  Well then, I think we'll leave it at that basis then  24 and we'll start with Miss Harris Monday and we'll  25 resume with this witness probably on Thursday.  But if  26 we can continue with Miss -- if we can continue with  27 Miss Harris I think we should do so.  28 MR. RUSH:  Yes, I think that's right.  29 THE COURT:  All right, thank you.  30 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court stands adjourned until  31 10:00 a.m. Monday.  32  33 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 3:45 p.m.)  34  35 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  36 a true and accurate transcript of the  37 proceedings herein transcribed to the  38 best of my skill and ability.  39  40  41  42  43 Toni Kerekes,  44 O.R., R.P.R.  45 United Reporting Service Ltd.  46  47

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.delgamuukw.1-0018389/manifest

Comment

Related Items