Open Collections

Delgamuukw Trial Transcripts

[Proceedings of the Supreme Court of British Columbia 1989-01-12] British Columbia. Supreme Court Jan 12, 1989

Item Metadata


JSON: delgamuukw-1.0018400.json
JSON-LD: delgamuukw-1.0018400-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): delgamuukw-1.0018400-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: delgamuukw-1.0018400-rdf.json
Turtle: delgamuukw-1.0018400-turtle.txt
N-Triples: delgamuukw-1.0018400-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: delgamuukw-1.0018400-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

 10475  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1 January 12, 1989  2 VANCOUVER, B.C.  3  4 THE REGISTRAR: Order in court.  In the Supreme Court of British  5 Columbia, Vancouver, this Thursday, January 12th,  6 1989, calling the matter of Delgamuukw versus Her  7 Majesty the Queen at bar, my lord.  8 I caution the witness you're still under oath.  9 THE COURT:  I think I should bring to counsel's attention my  10 receiving a substantial number of what appear to be  11 form letters on different coloured pieces of paper,  12 informing me that the author recognizes the  13 plaintiffs' sovereignty over the land they care for,  14 and ask the Supreme Court of British Columbia to do  15 the same, and I don't know where these are coming  16 from, but there's a great volume of them flowing into  17 my chambers, and counsel should see them.  I don't  18 feel particularly inflamed by it, but it might be  19 thought to be an improper attempt to influence Her  20 Majesty's judges, but I don't think it is.  I think  21 I'd like to have a copy put in the court file as a  22 necessary adjunct to what I have just said, so there's  23 no suggestion at some other time the court's been  24 receiving out of court representations in this case.  25 MR. RUSH:  I would like to receive a copy of that as well.  26 THE REGISTRAR: I'll make copies at lunch, my lord.  27 THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.  Mr. Rush?  28 MR. RUSH:  Yesterday, my lord, the witness made reference to  29 page 244 in a -- with regard to tab 2, which was an  30 article by MacDonald, and that tab did not contain  31 page 244, and I'm just going to pass that up and ask  32 that you insert it --  33 THE COURT:  Yes.  All right.  34 MR. RUSH:  — in that tab.  35 THE REGISTRAR: This goes at tab 2, Mr. Rush?  Tab 2?  3 6 MR. RUSH:  37 Q   Yes.  Now, my lord, I'm asking -- thank you -- one  38 question of Miss Albright.  39 Miss Albright, you indicated in your testimony  40 that you took the photographs which are enclosed as  41 plates in the opinion and in the appendices; is that  42 right?  43 A   Yes.  44 Q   And I have not referred you to all of the photographs,  45 but do the descriptions attached to the plates  46 accurately portray what is depicted in the photographs  47 that you took? 10476  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  A   Yes.  MR. RUSH:   My lord, I'm going to ask that the opinion be marked  as an exhibit.  THE COURT:  All right.  Subject, I suppose, to the objections  that have been made and which I have yet to rule on.  MR. RUSH:  I take it that that would have to be contingent on  that, and I'm asking your lordship to note the -- yes,  that's the point I guess.  THE COURT:  All right.  The next exhibit number?  THE REGISTRAR: The next exhibit number is 844.  (EXHIBIT 844: Opinion report of Miss Albright)  THE COURT:  Thank you.  MR. RUSH:  And I would ask that the appendices be marked as the  next exhibit.  THE COURT:  845.  THE REGISTRAR: 845.  (EXHIBIT 845: Appendices to opinion report of Miss  Albright)  MR. RUSH:  And I'm going to ask that Volume 1 of the document  book, the two document books, that is, the small  three-ringed binder, be marked as an exhibit, as one  exhibit, with the separate tab designations.  And, my  lord, I think this should be subject to this:  That --  well, perhaps it need not be subject to anything, that  I have asked my learned friends to make certain  admissions with regards -- with regard to tabs 5, 6  and 7.  I don't think that the marking of this book is  contingent on those admissions, although the effect of  what's contained in it may well be.  But I fully  expect that my learned friends in due course will make  the appropriate admissions.  So I'm going to be asking  that the document book, Volume 1, be marked as the  exhibit, with sub-numbers to identify the separate  tabs .  THE COURT:  Any problem with that, Mr. Willms?  MR. WILLMS: My lord, as I indicated earlier, I've received from  my friend documents in respect of tab 5, which is beta  analytic.  THE COURT:  Yes.  MR. WILLMS:  And I'm prepared to admit that a sample --  THE COURT:  5 and 6?  MR. WILLMS: Well, no, tab 6 -- I don't have anything yet on tab  6. 10477  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE COURT:  All right.  MR. WILLMS:  My friend was going to attempt to get the facts  sent down, but on tab 5 I'm prepared to admit that a  sample was sent by Miss Albright as described and that  that sample was dated -- that that was the result that  beta analytic got --  THE COURT:  All right.  MR. WILLMS:  — on tab 5.  Now, on tab 6 I'm still waiting for  my friend on that one, and I would like that subject  to an objection if he can't satisfy me.  And on tab 7  I have not received material from my friend yet that  is satisfactory to make an admission in respect of tab  7 on the obsidian.  THE COURT:  All right.  Well, I don't see any reason to disagree  with Mr. Rush's analysis that the documents can be  marked.  The effect of them depends upon or may  depend, in due course, upon an admission being made or  not being made as to tab 6 and 7.  MR. WILLMS:  As to the proof of the contents I think that's the  effect.  THE COURT:  Yes.  MR. WILLMS:  And that may be solved later.  THE COURT:  All right.  That will be Exhibit 846.  THE REGISTRAR: 846.  And will the tabs be dash 1 through 7?  THE COURT:  Yes, 1 to 7.  (EXHIBIT 846: Witness Book I of S. Albright)  MR. RUSH:  In respect of tab 7, my lord, I was advised this  morning that the Attorney-General for Canada is  prepared to admit that the numbered artifact samples  derives from the source indicated by Miss  Godfrey-Smith in her letter of October 15th, 1986,  directed to Ms. D. Ludovicz.  Yes.  All right.  And the Attorney-General of Canada has not yet  advised me what they are prepared to do regarding tabs  5 and 6.  All right.  Now, I'd like to ask that the large three-ringed  binder be marked as an exhibit with the particular tab  designations as sub-numbers to that exhibit.  THE COURT:  Any problem with that Mr. Frey or Mr. Willms?  MR. WILLMS:  My lord, the only point I wish to make, and I made  it earlier, and I can't recall the witness, but when I  referred your lordship to the Regina and Anderson case  about the use of textbooks in examining witnesses, and  THE COURT  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT  MR. RUSH: 10478  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  their usual use in cross-examination rather than in  leading the witness, and I don't mean to -- I'm sure  my friend isn't suggesting by marking this that it's  proof of the contents of each and every tab, that it's  just indicative of the materials that the witness  reviewed, and if that's why he's submitting it, then  it can be marked.  But if he's purporting to submit it  as proof of the contents of each and every one of the  documents in it, then I object.  THE COURT:  I'm sure you're not putting it in as proof of the  truth of the contents of each and every document.  MR. RUSH:  No, I couldn't do that, my lord, and I'm not  purporting to do that, but I think that -- I'm  entering this document book as it pertains to  references to which the witnessed referred, but also  to the extent that she commented on the references in  her evidence in chief.  I think that it goes somewhat  farther than what my learned friend indicated, but she  certainly didn't make reference to all of the  particular published material here.  THE COURT:  Well, I'm going to mark them Exhibit 848.  THE REGISTRAR: 847, my lord.  (EXHIBIT 847:  Tabbed #1 to #39, Pltf. book of  research reference for S. Albright report)  I'm sorry, 847.  Right.  Tabs 1 to 39, for such use  as may lawfully be made of them, and unless I hear  from counsel to the contrary, I will take it that they  are intended to show the research upon which the  witness has relied or verified, as the case may be in  her evidence.  It's really a matter of argument of  law.  It's not a matter of magic or hocus-pocus or  anything.  Yes, that's right, my lord.  Thank you.  Now, finally I wish to direct the witness to the 1  to 250 scale NTS maps, which are the originals of the  photocopies which are contained in appendix C of the  appendices, and there are eight maps, and I'm just  going to ask the witness to confirm that these are the  originals of the photocopies contained in that  appendices.  I wonder if you could just produce the appendices,  please, which would be the second of the two.  Thank  you.  Just look at the back of the appendices, please.  THE COURT  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT  MR. RUSH:  Q 10479  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  In chief by Mr. Rush  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  A  10  Q  11  A  12  Q  13  A  14  Q  15  A  16  Q  17  A  18  Q  19  A  20  Q  21  A  22  Q  23  A  24  Q  25  A  26  MR.  RUSH:  27  28  THE  COURT:  29  MR.  WILLMS  30  31  32  THE  COURT:  33  MR.  WILLMS  34  THE  COURT:  35  MR.  WILLMS  36  37  THE  COURT:  38  MR.  WILLMS  39  THE  COURT:  40  MR.  RUSH:  41  THE  COURT:  42  43  THE  REGIST  44  THE  COURT:  45  46  47  If you'll just review the photocopies of the maps that  are contained at the back of appendix C.  Just flip  through them very quickly, please.  Can you just  confirm for me, Miss Albright, that the maps on a 1 to  250 NTS scale are the originals of the photocopies  that are contained in appendix C?  Now, I'll just begin with Whitesail, which is the  first map.  If you just put that underneath --  Under here?  Yes.  That's right.  Very good. And this is Whitesail?  Yes, it is.  This is the Nass River sheet?  Yes.  And the Nechako River sheet?  Yes, this is the original.  And the Fort Fraser sheet?  Yes.  And the Smithers sheet?  Yes.  Hazelton sheet?  Yes.  And McConnell Creek sheet?  Yes.  And the Prince Rupert/Terrace sheet?  Yes.  There's some eight sheets all together, my lord, and  I'd like to ask that these be marked as a group.  Have you had a chance to examine them, Mr. Willms?  :  Yes, I have, my lord, and I've spoken to my friend  and I will be asking leave of the court to remove them  and copy them sometime today.  Yes.  :  Along with another exhibit, Exhibit 731, but we --  What is 731?  :  It's a map that was marked apparently in Neil  Sterritt's --  I see.  :  It just needs to be copied.  No difficulty with that is there, Mr. Rush?  None.  All right.  Then those maps can be marked as a group  848.  RAR: 84 8, 1 to 8.  I suppose 1 to 8, yes.  (EXHIBIT 848 1-8: Maps) 10480  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 MR. RUSH:  Just for the sake of perhaps clarity, my lord,  2 perhaps Whitesail Lake can be 848-1, Nechako 2, Fort  3 Fraser 3, Smithers 4.  4 THE COURT:  Just a moment, please.  Smithers is 4.  5 MR. RUSH:  Hazelton 5, McConnell Creek 6, Prince Rupert/Terrace  6 7, and Nass River 8.  7 THE COURT:  All right.  8 MR. RUSH:  That's the order that they appear in the appendices.  9 THE COURT:  All right.  They'll bear those numbers.  10 MR. RUSH:  Thank you.  Thank you, my lord.  Those are my  11 questions.  12 THE COURT:  Thank you.  Mr. Willms, you are next?  13  14 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLMS:  15 Q   Yes, my lord.  16 Miss Albright, you refer through your report  17 that's been marked Exhibit 844 to Gitksan and  18 Wet'suwet'en territories.  What base map of the  19 external boundaries of these territories did you use  20 in your archaeological investigations?  21 A   The -- I was shown a map of the territories.  22 Q   Who showed you the map?  23 A   I was shown a map of the territories by Marvin George.  24 Q   Did you keep a copy of that map?  25 A  At one time I had a working copy, which I returned to  26 Marvin George.  I don't have a copy of that map now.  27 Q   And you returned that to Marvin George?  28 A   Yes.  29 Q   Did you make notes on that map?  30 A   In that I used it as a frame of reference for the area  31 in which I was conducting my own research and for  32 plotting of sites within that area.  33 Q   Did you physically make notes on the document that  34 Marvin George gave you?  35 A   No, that -- I referred to the map as such and did not  3 6 mark the map.  37 Q   Well, in plotting the sites on Exhibit 848 - 1 through  38 8, did you not have Marvin George's map in front of  39 you when you plotted those numbers on that map?  40 A   No, not in the plotting of the -- plotting of the  41 sites themselves.  The sites were plotted on the  42 topographic series maps on the basis of locational  43 information received for those sites from the Heritage  44 Conservation Branch.  45 Q   But just let me make it clear that you did not have  46 Marvin George's map in front of you when you plotted  47 the site numbers on Exhibit 848 - 1 through 8; is that 10481  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 correct?  2 A   No, I did not use those maps at the same time.  I had  3 site documents and from the site documents from  4 Heritage Conservation Branch I plotted their locations  5 on these maps on the basis of the locational  6 information that was obtained from the site forms and  7 which is listed in appendix C.  8 Q   So you don't know whether some of the numbers on  9 Exhibit 848 - 1 through 8, are actually outside the  10 boundary line on the map that Marvin George gave you?  11 A   The sites are within the boundaries as I understood  12 them to be.  13 Q   Well, how can you say that if you didn't have the map  14 in front of you when you were plotting the site  15 locations on Exhibit 848 - 1 through 8?  16 A   In plotting, and in plotting them on the map, I would  17 have compared them to the territorial map that I was  18 given and was using, but not at the moment at the time  19 of plotting them, and so I compared them.  Yes, I did  2 0 compare them.  21 Q   So you have compared not at the time you plotted, but  22 at some later time, Marvin George's map to Exhibit  23 848 - 1 through 8; is that correct?  24 A   Yes, I have -- I have compared the distribution of the  25 sites as against the territory -- territorial  2 6              boundary.  27 Q   And you prepared those maps when?  When did you put  28 the numbers on those maps Exhibit 848 - 1 through 8?  29 A   1986.  It was after our field investigations.  30 Q   When did you return the map to Marvin George?  31 A   That would have been at the end of my research in  32 1986.  33 Q   Did you send a cover letter with the map to Marvin  34 George returning it to him or did you just hand it to  35 him?  36 A   I just handed it to him.  It was handed to me and I  37 returned it back to him.  38 Q   When did he or anyone first give you a map of the  39 Gitksan or Wet'suwet'en territories?  40 A   During the beginning of our field investigations.  41 Q   Did Marvin George give you the map or was it someone  42 else?  43 A   I -- it was Marvin George that gave me the map.  44 Q   So that when you did your archaeological  45 investigations, your investigations were focused by  46 the map that you'd been given by Marvin George?  47 A   No, my investigations were focused on the research 10482  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  Submission by Mr. Willms  1 proposal which I had submitted and was accepted and I  2 was given instructions to go ahead on it.  3 Q   Have you seen that map since you returned it to Marvin  4 George?  5 A   No, I haven't.  I used it while I was carrying out my  6 research and returned the map to him.  7 Q   Are there any other documents that you were given  8 during the course of your research which you used and  9 then returned to someone else?  10 A   There were copies of archaeological reports by  11 previous researchers that had been obtained by Linda  12 Burnard-Hogarth during -- during her research on the  13 previous archaeological investigations that had been  14 carried out in the territories, and copies of those  15 were used by herself and myself and left filed in the  16 Tribal Council office library, and I do remember going  17 to the library to consult some of those again because  18 they were numerous.  I didn't keep copies of all of  19 them.  20 Q   All right.  But focusing on the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en  21 Tribal Council, or any of the plaintiffs, did you  22 receive documents which you used in the preparation of  23 your report from the Gitksan Wet'suwet'en Tribal  24 Council or from any of the plaintiffs which you've  25 returned and no longer have in your possession?  26 A   No, not that I recall.  27 Q   Just the map?  2 8 A   Just the map.  29 MR. WILLMS:   Now, my lord, I wrote on September 21st, 1988, to  30 my friend, and I asked for all documents that the  31 witness had been referred to, and I said in that  32 letter that if the document is not in the possession  33 of the witness but is in the possession of someone  34 else, that I wanted the document produced, and it has  35 not been produced.  And, my lord, I'm repeating the  36 request right now, and I want to advise my friend  37 before your lordship that before the cross-examination  38 of Miss Albright can be completed, and I'll carry on  39 now, the map that Marvin George referred to the  40 witness I'm requesting that that be produced because  41 it's obviously fundamental to a large portion of the  42 witness' opinion.  Now, I don't know if there's a  43 problem with that.  44 THE COURT:  Mr. Willms, you've lost me on this one.  Why does it  45 make any difference at all?  46 MR. WILLMS:  Well, my lord, the witness has described what the  47 Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en territories, which is all the way 10483  Submission by Mr. Willms  1 through her evidence, means.  It's this map from  2 Marvin George --  3 THE COURT:  But whether she thinks it's Wet'suwet'en or Gitksan  4 territory or claimed to be doesn't make any difference  5 surely to what she found or what opinion she expressed  6 with relation to what she found.  7 MR. WILLMS:  Well, it goes to this opinion, my lord, which is in  8 the exhibit that's been marked, subject to argument,  9 but we haven't had argument on it, and I'd hate to  10 foreclose the right to attack an opinion that might go  11 in without --  12 THE COURT:  Well, let's take, for example, findings at Kitselas.  13 I'm not sure, but I think Kitselas is outside the  14 claimed territory, is it not?  15 MR. WILLMS:  Kitselas is outside.  16 THE COURT:  Yes.  Now, does it make any difference to her  17 findings whether it's inside or outside the claimed  18 territory?  19 MR. WILLMS:  But that's not the point here, my lord.  That's not  20 the point.  That is not the opinion that is contained  21 in her report that this map reflects.  The opinion  22 that is set out -- if I can just find it, and it's not  23 a portion of the report that my friend says he's not  24 relying on -- says this, my lord, at page 5-1 of the  25 opinion.  2 6 THE COURT:  Just a moment.  Yes.  27 MR. WILLMS:  In the second paragraph the witness opines -- first  28 talks about the distribution of archaeological sites  29 and then says this:  30  31 "This evidence of early settlement patterns  32 gives support to the Chiefs' assertions that  33 they have and their ancestors have occupied  34 their territories, have harvested, managed  35 and conserved the resources within their  36 territories and that they have defended and  37 protected the borders of the territory."  38  39 Now, my lord, in my submission, if there is a  40 prospect that that opinion is going to be admitted as  41 evidence in this case, I suggest I'm entitled to see  42 the territory that the witness is referring to, which  43 is the Marvin George map.  44 THE COURT:  Well, I'm not sure that I would disagree with that,  45 nor do I expect that your friend would disagree with  46 it, but I'm not able to see what difference it makes  47 to whether you have it during the course of your 10484  Submission by Mr. Willms  1 cross-examination or not.  If it can be obtained, by  2 all means.  3 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, without tipping where I will be going when  4 I get the map, it is relevant to the maps that have  5 been marked.  6 THE COURT:  You mean marked just a few moments ago?  7 MR. WILLMS:  Just a few moments ago.  And I'd rather not --  8 THE COURT:  Well, I'm not anxious to pursue you on it, Mr.  9 Willms, nor am I anxious to require you to disclose  10 what might be an advantage, an adversarial advantage,  11 but I'm at a -- I'm still unable to comprehend how it  12 would be of such fundamental importance that you  13 wouldn't be able to complete your cross-examination.  14 This witness isn't giving evidence of boundaries.  15 MR. WILLMS:  Well, she did -- in that paragraph that I just read  16 to your lordship she purports to do so.  17 THE COURT:  I wouldn't read it that narrowly.  It seems to me  18 that when we're considering archaeology a finding only  19 a half a mile outside the boundary would lose little  20 impact for that reason.  21 MR. WILLMS:  Well —  22 THE COURT:  And wouldn't be much different as an archaeological  23 finding if it was found half a mile inside the  24 boundary.  The boundary is an arbitrary decision that  25 the plaintiffs have made based upon their instructions  26 and their evidence, and you can dispute that, but  27 surely archaeology isn't a science that fixes  28 boundaries.  It talks in general terms.  29 I must say, Mr. Willms, I think that you're  30 reaching beyond necessary limits.  I wonder sometimes  31 whether we should ever have gotten into this whole  32 question of allowing this much discovery and requiring  33 this much production of documents.  There were times  34 when there was no such privilege and counsel could  35 cross-examine without even noticing what the opinion  36 was going to be.  But surely if we're going to go this  37 far, we're just digging ourselves deeper and deeper  38 into a bottomless pit.  39 MR. WILLMS:  Well, my lord, all that I can do, and the only  40 submission that I can make, is that I must respond to  41 the plaintiffs' case, which asserts there are  42 boundaries there and this witness, who has been put  43 forward by the plaintiffs and throughout her opinion  44 purports to corroborate, purports to substantiate,  45 based on the archaeological evidence, where these  46 boundaries and borders are, and that's from page 1 on;  47 that they've protected and maintained the boundaries 10485  Submission by Mr. Willms  Submission by Mr. Rush  1 of their territory.  And all that I can say, my lord,  2 and if your lordship is not inclined to direct  3 production of the map, so be it.  4 THE COURT:  I haven't said that.  5 MR. WILLMS:  But —  6 THE COURT:  I'm just alarmed at the extent to which your  7 submission carries you --  8 MR. WILLMS:  Well, it —  9 THE COURT:  -- if we're going to have to stand this witness down  10 and carry on some further investigation, and we may  11 have to.  I don't have much sympathy with that  12 position, Mr. Willms.  13 MR. WILLMS:  Well, my lord, I frankly don't have much sympathy  14 with my friend's position since Marvin George is a  15 listed witness and this map would be produced through  16 Marvin George in any event.  17 THE COURT:  The question of producing the map is a different  18 question.  I'm not sure what your friend's position is  19 on that.  Do you have any difficulty with making the  20 map available to your friends, Mr. Rush?  21 MR. RUSH:  I have none.  I suspect that it's probably one of the  22 maps that is over there against the wall somewhere,  23 judging from the type of description that's been  24 given.  And I'll certainly try to find that out.  I  25 don't have any problem with that, but the issue that  26 my friend speaks to, this witness isn't proving  27 boundaries.  She's got nothing to do with boundaries.  2 8 THE COURT:  I wouldn't have thought so.  29 MR. RUSH:  She makes assumptions about the chief's claim to  30 boundaries and, therefore, in my submission, there's  31 very little to do with the map, but as I say, I have  32 no difficulty with my -- with proceeding on the basis  33 of trying to elicit where this map is.  34 THE COURT:  Which copy it is.  35 MR. RUSH:  Which copy it is, if it's one of the copies that's  36 different from the ones that we have, but I suspect  37 that it is among the groups of maps that we already  3 8 have.  39 THE COURT:  Well, I'm not going to foreclose the possibility,  40 Mr. Willms, but I'm not very sympathetic to the  41 suggestion that you're not able to cross-examine this  42 witness without having that map.  It may turn out that  43 you're not, but I don't think that the resourcefulness  44 of counsel has shrunk so much before the days that we  45 had this kind of notice that you won't be able to  46 represent your client properly if the map hasn't been  47 produced. 10486  Submission by Mr. Willms  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 I must say, I wouldn't have thought that upon  2 receipt of a request for documents of this kind that a  3 map that the witness looked at one time for the  4 purpose of being told where the boundaries generally  5 were, which she didn't even find important enough to  6 keep, is a document that she should have anticipated  7 you would ask her about.  8 MR. WILLMS:  Well, I thought from the witness' evidence that it  9 was important in defining which sites she put in  10 there. I may have been mistaken.  From her evidence I  11 thought she said she wanted to confirm with the Marvin  12 George map that those indeed were the archaeological  13 sites in the claimed territories, but I may have been  14 mistaken.  15 THE COURT:  I don't think it matters where the sites are with  16 relation to the boundaries, but -- that's my  17 preliminary view, but it may turn out to be different.  18 I just think we're going far too much into side  19 issues.  We're making this question of discovery of  2 0 documents more important than the evidence in the  21 case, and it seems to me there's got to be some  22 reasonable limits to it, and I think that we may have  23 reached there or gone over the limit on this one, but  24 I'll leave it open.  You can raise the matter again as  25 you may be advised.  26 MR. WILLMS:  And, my lord, if I might say this:  I'm agreeable  27 to my friend during cross-examination discussing the  28 matter of the map with the witness to try to determine  29 whether the map is indeed one of the ones that's been  30 marked, and that will shorten this considerably.  31 THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.  32 MR. WILLMS:  33 Q   Miss Albright, in respect of the archaeology of north  34 west British Columbia, what does the word historic  35 mean?  36 A   In archaeological, general archaeological terminology,  37 historic refers to materials indicative of contact  38 with Europeans, so a time since European contact.  39 Q   And prehistoric?  40 A   That period of history of the area before European  41 contact.  42 Q   All right.  Is there an archaeological term called  43 protohistoric?  44 A   Yes.  45 Q   And what does that refer to?  46 A   It refers to a period of time where from -- from  47 perhaps initial contact with Europeans in the area, 10487  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 but little in the way of direct influence by that  2 contact, so that the protohistoric is -- it's often --  3 it can be -- the definition of that period can vary  4 from one region to another, depending on perhaps the  5 time of the first recorded contact between Europeans  6 and aboriginal peoples of an area, and perhaps a  7 period of increased interaction.  So it's -- the  8 definition can vary from one area to another.  9 Q   Has protohistoric been used to describe perhaps the  10 influence of European culture without contact, in  11 other words, pre-contact with Europeans, but a period  12 where there is, for example, European material culture  13 in evidence?  14 A   It can, yes.  It can refer to a period where there are  15 perhaps materials made of -- items made of materials  16 such as metals that come from a European technology  17 that may have been traded into the area through  18 aboriginal trading partners before an intense  19 interaction with the Europeans.  20 Q   Did you during -- or let me put it this way:  Prior to  21 your investigations, your archaeological  22 investigations, did you have in mind a date for the  23 start of the historic period in the -- anywhere in the  24 territories claimed by the plaintiffs?  25 A   No, I think at that point I was not -- when I first  26 started archaeological investigations I was still not  27 very familiar with the literature in detail.  28 Q   At some point during your investigations did you --  2 9 was there a date that came to mind to you for the  30 historic period in any of the Gitksan or Wet'suwet'en  31 territories?  32 A  MacDonald in his investigations of the Kitwanga  33 fortress site notes the date of 1790, I believe, for a  34 time of contact.  Offhand I'm not clear on whether he  35 was referring to what you're calling historic or  36 protohistoric.  37 Q   That was —  38 A   But a time of an indication of materials made of  39 artifacts made of metals or materials of a European  40 origin in the deposits or at the site.  41 Q   Was protohistoric a term that you had in mind during  42 your investigations or were you focusing on historic,  43 prehistoric?  44 A  When I carried out my investigations I was -- I don't  45 think I had any of these terms in mind, in that I had  46 focused my attention on the investigation of certain  47 localities that had been referred to and localities 10488  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 that have been referred to by names of ancestral  2 villages, and I focused my attention to investigating  3 those localities for evidence of -- for locating  4 archaeological remains.  5 Q   So the use by you of the terms historic or prehistoric  6 followed the results of your investigation rather than  7 preceding it in terms of your classification; is that  8 correct?  In other words, historic was defined by what  9 you found; that you didn't define historic ahead of  10 time and then try to determine whether an artifact  11 that you located fell within that period or not?  You  12 had no time frame ahead of time, you were waiting to  13 see what you would find?  14 A   Yes.  I focused my attention on investigating a  15 particular locality and the evidence which might be --  16 might be there.  17 Q   Could Exhibit 846 be put before the witness, please?  18 Could you turn to tab 2?  This was your submission to  19 the Tribal Council for the scope of your work?  20 A   Yes, this is the proposal I submitted.  21 Q   There is a reference on page 1 under introduction to a  22 telephone discussion with Richard Overstall on April  23 19th, 1985.  Was there any previous correspondence  24 between you and Mr. Overstall prior to this document?  25 A   No.  26 Q   Do you recall what it was that motivated you to  27 propose this research to the Tribal Council?  What  28 were you responding to?  29 A   I was contacted by Richard Overstall and asked if I  30 was -- would be interested in carrying out some  31 investigations.  32 Q   Did Neil Sterritt talk to you about investigations  33 prior to this time?  34 A   No, I had not had any meetings with him at all before  35 I -- before I did -- before I sent in this proposal.  36 Q   Now, you refer in the first paragraph to  37 recommendations made by Linda Burnard-Hogarth in an  38 overview study.  Is that overview study appendix C in  39 Exhibit 845, that is, appendix C in the report?  40 A   This is the -- this is a summary of the previous  41 research in the territories that she had had conducted  42 to the -- yes, an overview of the previous research  43 that had been conducted in the area.  44 Q   So —  45 A   That was -- it was written at the same time as we were  46 putting together our proposal, so in discussing with  47 her — 10489  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   Maybe you're seeing too much in my question.  All that  2 I'm asking is, is appendix C or a portion of appendix  3 C the overview study that is referred to in paragraph  4 1, page 1, of Exhibit 846 - 2?  5 A   Yes, this is the overview.  6 Q   All right.  And the whole overview was written by  7 Linda Burnard-Hogarth?  8 A   Yes, it was written by her, and we had discussed much  9 material that is contained in this overview before it  10 was -- the writing was done.  11 Q   You're not saying that you discussed the overview  12 before she wrote it, you discussed it after she wrote  13 it?  14 A   No, we discussed it as it was being written.  She  15 wrote it and we discussed much of the material in it  16 as it was -- as it was being written.  17 Q   And is it your evidence that, and just referring to  18 appendix C, and you can stop before page 19, is it  19 your evidence that all of pages 1 through 18 were  20 written prior to April the 25th, 1985?  Maybe you  21 could turn to page 14 because what I'm interested in  22 was page 14 and on.  Page 14?  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   "Related archaeological research".  Was that written  25 after the overview report was written?  26 A   This is part of the overview.  27 Q   Okay.  So it was written all at the same time?  All of  28 pages 1 through 18 were written at the same time, that  29 is, prior to April 5th, 1985?  30 A   Yes.  The information is all contained here and  31 written when we submitted our proposal.  32 Q   Now, in paragraph 2 on page 1 of Exhibit 846 - 2, you  33 set --  34 A   Excuse me.  35 Q   Sorry?  36 A   Could you start again?  37 Q   I'm referring you back to the three-ringed binder, tab  38 2, which is Exhibit 846 - 2?  39 A   Yes.  40 Q   And you've set out the project objectives?  41 A   Yes.  42 Q   And you say in that first paragraph that what you're  43 going to do is to do "survey and limited test  44 excavations within the localities defined and that  45 test units would be excavated in order to determine  46 the depth of cultural deposits and to retrieve  47 dateable materials." 10490  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A   Yes.  2 Q   And that's carbon-dating materials?  3 A   Yes.  4 Q   In all of the -- and I think you expanded this to five  5 villages, you obtained one piece of material for which  6 you received a carbon date back?  7 A   That is correct.  8 Q   And how many test units did you excavate?  9 A   I don't remember all together offhand.  10 Q   More than 10?  11 A   Yes.  12 Q   More than 20?  13 A   Yes, probably.  It's not always possible to get  14 suitable samples for dating.  15 Q   That test sample was at a location, and if you look in  16 your report at page 3-5, and this is Exhibit 844,  17 page -- it starts on 3 - 5.  The only test unit which  18 yielded material which was subsequently dated was one  19 of the two at GfTc 85 - B; correct?  20 A   Yes, that's true.  21 Q   And as you said on the next page, if you look down to  22 the bottom, that there were no artifacts recovered  23 from the test unit?  24 A   No.  Artifacts were recovered from a test unit just  25 outside within the same equivalent cultural layer.  26 Q   But the test unit, how big was this test unit do you  27 remember?  28 A   One metre by 50 centimetres.  2 9 Q   And to a depth of?  30 A   I believe 65 -- 80 centimetres.  And the other test  31 unit outside, just outside the house depression, I  32 believe that was about 65 to 70 centimetres.  33 Q   And I think your hypothesis was that this was a house?  34 A   This is a house feature in which this -- at which this  35 particular test unit was done and from which the  36 sample came from.  37 Q   And in the absence of any artifacts whatsoever, your  38 hypothesis is that this was a feature where people  39 once lived?  40 A   Yes, based on the characteristics of the feature and  41 the nature of the stratigraphy within the feature, and  42 the associated artifacts from an equivalent test unit.  43 Q   Well, if you turn back to figure 9, the equivalent  44 test unit is not shown as being in any cultural  45 depression?  46 A   I indicated that it was a few metres outside the  47 feature towards the river. 10491  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   But it's not shown in any area which you could  2 hypothesize would be a place of habitation like a  3 house?  4 A   The whole area that includes all of the cultural  5 features on the map is considered a living site, so  6 all of the features were created by occupation and use  7 or activities being carried out at that -- at site.  A  8 site does not refer to one feature alone in this case.  9 It refers to the area in which all of the features are  10 found.  11 Q   Well, isn't it unusual to conclude that based on the  12 stratigraphy that you've set out at figure 10, and in  13 the absence of any artifacts found, isn't it unusual  14 to conclude that people inhabited that location?  15 A  We did find artifacts and we found features, the  16 features are a result of cultural occupation and use  17 of this area.  18 Q   All right.  Well, let me put it this way then:  Is it  19 because you found the two artifacts, that is, the  20 basalt flakes, I think that's what --  21 A   Yes, coarse basalt.  22 Q   If you had not found the coarse basalt flakes, is it  23 your evidence that you would not have concluded that  24 that was a house feature?  25 A   No.  The house feature is clearly evident of cultural  26 occupation and use of this site area.  27 Q   All right.  So that the finding of the basalt flakes  28 was really irrelevant, irrelevant to your conclusion  29 about what this was?  30 A   No, they weren't irrelevant.  I included both the  31 artifacts and the features that are found at the site  32 and the stratigraphy and the nature of the deposits  33 within the house feature to come to my opinion that  34 this site represents cultural occupation and use.  35 Q   So just so that I'm clear on this, even if you hadn't  36 found the cultural material which you describe  37 relatively close by, you would still conclude that  38 this was a house feature?  39 A   Yes.  40 Q   And that's based on the stratigraphy that you've drawn  41 in figure 10?  42 A   It's based on the outline, the surface contours of the  43 feature itself, the size of the feature, the depth of  44 the depression, as well as the stratigraphy revealed  45 in the test unit.  46 Q   Was there a prominant earth rim?  Is that why you're  47 calling this a house, or around the edge? 10492  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  A  2  3  Q  4  5  A  6  7  8  9  Q  10  A  11  Q  12  13  A  14  Q  15  16  17  A  18  THE  COURT:  19  MR.  WILLMS  20  THE  COURT:  21  MR.  WILLMS  22  THE  COURT:  23  MR.  WILLMS  24  Q  25  26  A  27  Q  28  29  30  31  32  A  33  Q  34  35  36  37  38  A  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  It had a distinct -- it had a distinct outline and  rim, yes.  But it could have been an earth oven?  That's one  thing it could have been?  No.  And the -- the outline and the characteristics of  the feature are quite distinct from earth ovens.  I  have previously excavated in earth ovens and I'm quite  aware of what earth ovens are.  Okay.  Just --  What characteristic things they have.  Put page 3 - 5 in front of you.  Do you still have the  appendix?  3-5.  And Exhibit 845, which is the appendix to the report.  Could you turn to page 25 in appendix C?  It's the  list of sites?  Yes.  What page, please?  :  They're in appendix C, my lord.  Yes.  :  Page 25.  Thank you.  There is a site there that is designated GiSv 3.  It's  number 47.  Forty-seven.  All right.  And you'll see that it's a cultural  depression six metres by seven metres by half a metre  deep with a prominant earth rim, and the investigator  thought it might have functioned as an earth oven.  Do  you see that?  Yes.  Now, your description in your report describes a five  metre by five metre by three-quarters of a metre deep  depression.  Now, how can you tell by looking at that  that it's a house and not the remnants of an ancient  earth oven?  The way -- the characteristics of the feature itself,  its outline, this -- the house feature which I  observed at -- in the Gitangat locality was quite  squarish in outline, had a fairly regular steep wall  from ground surface to the depression itself, and the  nature of the profile also suggests the -- indicates  the cultural layers or deposition of layers in the  feature, and an earth oven is quite distinct in terms  of the matrix that would be found within the -- within  it.  The earth ovens may have a variety of outlines. 10493  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Often they are irregular or more circular or oval.  2 Q   Well, can you turn to figure 9 in your report?  When  3 you draw a cultural depression, are you meaning to  4 depict what it looks like or are you just  5 highlighting -- it's figure 9.  It's the previous --  6 A   Oh, figure 9.  7 Q   Yes.  Are you just trying to point out in the general  8 location of where a cultural depression was without  9 attempting to show what it looked like from this  10 drawing?  11 A   This is an approximation of the size of the feature.  12 Q   You did draw it as an oval didn't you?  13 A   It got drawn as -- yes, and it does look oval on the  14 feature, but the characteristics of the feature that I  15 observed on the ground are quite distinct and  16 identifiable, and I compared that to other features  17 that I have, house features that I have observed along  18 the Skeena, but not part of this specific report.  19 Q   Did Linda Burnard-Hogarth assist you in writing your  20 report?  Putting the appendices to one side, I'm just  21 talking about the report itself at Exhibit 844?  22 A   The report itself.  My discussion -- my discussion of  23 the ancestral villages and the ethnographic literature  24 that we reviewed, and some of the most likely -- some  25 of the areas of priority for directing our  26 investigation, were based on the work she had done and  27 our discussions together.  28 Q   In terms of actually physically writing the report,  29 did you write every word in this report?  30 A   I -- yes, I wrote every word in this report, and I  31 relied on the work that Linda Burnard-Hogarth had done  32 for me.  In some cases I'm quoting her notes and  33 recommendations in the report, in that these are based  34 on discussions we had together.  35 Q   On page 2, and I'm back to the three-ringed binder,  36 Exhibit 846 - 2, you define four locations of  37 ancestral villages, and each one starts off with the  38 study areas defined?  39 A   Yes.  40 Q   Do you mean defined -- defined by what?  Who defined  41 that to you?  42 A   The study areas as outlined in the proposal was based  43 on the discussions I had with Linda Burnard-Hogarth as  44 we prepared the proposal, based on a review of  45 literature that she was already familiar with.  She  46 was at that time conducting research in the area  47 for -- as part of her graduate work and was already 10494  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 familiar with some of the literature for the area.  2 Q   All right.  3 A  And these study areas were further defined based on a  4 more extensive review of available sources.  5 Q   And that review was primarily by Linda  6 Burnard-Hogarth?  7 A   Yes.  Since at that time she had reviewed some of the  8 literature already and --  9 Q   Under 5.4, which is on the last page, you say that  10 "all materials..." at the very bottom.  11 A  Where are we back to now?  12 Q   I'm continuing on in the three-ringed binder.  13 A   The three-ringed binder.  Yes.  14 Q   At page 4.  15 A   Page 4.  16 Q   "Charcoal samples will be sent to SFU radiocarbon  17 laboratory for dating." And you did not send your  18 samples to the Simon Fraser --  19 A   No, the laboratory was not operating that summer.  20 MR. WILLMS:   Now, on page 5 you discuss optional areas for  21 investigation at the bottom.  22 THE COURT:  I think, Mr. Willms, if you don't mind, we'll take  23 the morning adjournment before you start on page 5.  24 MR. WILLMS:  Thank you.  25 THE REGISTRAR: Order in court.  Court will recess.  26  27 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR MORNING RECESS)  28  29  30 I hereby certify the foregoing to  31 be a true and accurate transcript  32 of the proceedings herein to the  33 best of my skill and ability.  34  35  36 Tanita S. French  37 Official Reporter  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47 10495  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED PURSUANT TO THE MORNING BREAK)  2  3 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  4 THE COURT:  Mr. Willms.  5 MR. WILLMS:  6 Q   Miss Albright, we were in the three-ring binder at tab  7 2, and on page 5 -- sorry -- page 6 -- sorry -- page  8 5, chapter -- or paragraph 6 you have four optional  9 areas for investigation at the bottom to complement  10 the research?  11 A   Yes.  12 Q   Did you do any of that optional investigation?  13 A   The -- in the sense that (a) was included within the  14 general Temlaham study area.  In the cases of the  15 other -- the other notes, (b) to (d), we did not look  16 at those areas.  17 Q   Okay.  And in (a), did you do test excavations  18 anywhere in those areas described in paragraph (a)?  19 A   No, not that I recall.  20 Q   Now, when you did test excavations, you made notes of  21 those excavations?  22 A   Yes, for -- yes, there were notes made of a number of  23 tests at -- at several localities that we  24 investigated, and those are -- were field notes --  25 Q   Okay.  26 A   -- that describe the -- the nature of our observations  27 at -- at those tests.  28 Q   When you dug a test pit, did you either make notes or  29 in a diagram depict the stratification discovered in  30 the pit?  31 A   Yes, a verbal description in most parts.  The test  32 unit at Gitangat, there is a detailed profile there.  33 In most cases, though, we took verbal -- verbal  34 descriptions.  35 Q   You mean you wrote them down?  36 A   Yes.  37 Q   All right.  So they're handwritten somewhere?  38 A   Yes.  39 Q   Presumably in the material I got this morning?  40 A   Yes.  41 Q   All right.  On page 6 you've set out a research  42 schedule -- I'm still in the three-ring binder -- and  43 you say at the very bottom of the column on the number  44 of weeks that it is expected that a report on the 1985  45 research would be submitted by the end of September.  46 When did you submit a report on the 1985 research?  47 A   I submitted in discussions with -- I submitted a 10496  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 report in December '86.  In -- in discussions with  2 Richard Overstall the -- I described the nature of  3 our -- our findings and the need to do analysis of --  4 of the materials collected and a broader review of  5 the -- of the literature for interpretation of those  6 results, and it --  7 Q   Didn't you submit a report on your 1985 research  8 sometime in the fall of 1985?  9 A   No, I didn't.  10 Q   And finally, just to complete this, you say on the  11 last page under how you are going to handle this that  12 you will obtain the permit for research investigations  13 required by the Heritage Conservation Branch in  14 Victoria.  That was what you were going to do?  15 A   I -- I noted that in the proposal, yes.  16 Q   And that you will hire researchers, and at the bottom  17 you've listed Linda Burnard-Hogarth and two field  18 archaeologists, and who were they?  19 A   They were Deanna Ludovicz and Richard Brolly.  20 Q   And you've already had this, but your contract is at  21 tab 4.  On May 30th, 1985 — and I think you've  22 already described that originally it was you and Linda  23 Burnard-Hogarth, but ultimately it was you that was  24 the sole signatory to the contract?  25 A   Yes, that's true.  26 Q   And if you look to the last page of the contract, the  27 signature for the Tribal Council as the witness, is  28 that Heather Harris?  29 A   I -- I don't know.  I don't remember who signed as a  30 witness for --  31 Q   Do you know Heather Harris?  32 A   I have met Heather Harris.  33 Q   And your signature is witnessed by the archaeologist  34 that you hired, Deanna Ludovicz?  35 A   Yes.  36 Q   Now, in fact, she's got a degree in anthropology and  37 not in archaeology; is that correct?  38 A   She has a Masters Degree from U.B.C, and her graduate  39 research was in archaeology.  40 Q   Her degree is in anthropology, not archaeology; is  41 that correct?  42 A   Her degree is in archaeology.  It was granted by the  43 Department of Anthropology and Sociology at U.B.C.  44 Q   Well —  45 A   But her —  46 Q   I'm showing you a letter dated December 19th, 1986,  47 from Stuart Rush with a c.c. -- there's copies at the 10497  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 bottom, and you're one of the people that this has  2 been copied to.  If you look down the first column on  3 the left-hand side, do you see that?  The letter  4 encloses a copy of a letter, if you read the first  5 page, from Mr. Rush to the Province setting out the  6 experts' field of expertise?  7 A   Yes.  8 Q   And you got this letter?  You remember getting this  9 letter?  10 A   Yes.  11 Q   And if you look to the inside -- and I haven't put the  12 whole letter in, I've just put the first page, but if  13 you look to the second page that I've given you, you  14 will see there's your description, Archaeology of the  15 Territory.  Do you see that?  16 A   Yes.  17 Q   And you see that Deanna Ludovicz is described as  18 having an M.A. in Anthropology.  That was what her  19 M.A. was in, anthropology; is that correct?  You knew  20 that?  21 A   In that archaeology is a discipline, a sub-discipline  22 of anthropology.  And her -- her degree is from the  23 Department of Anthropology and Sociology.  Her  24 graduate research was in archaeology.  25 Q   It's noted here Archaeology of the Territory under  2 6 both your name and Deanna Ludovicz's name.  Did she  27 co-author the report with you?  2 8 A   No.  29 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, I have a grey binder, a three-ring binder,  30 which I would like to place tabs in, as I've done with  31 the other experts.  32 THE COURT:  All right.  33 MR. WILLMS:  And I'd ask that the exhibit itself, the grey  34 binder, be marked the next exhibit number.  35 THE COURT:  Are you tendering this letter?  36 MR. WILLMS:  And I am tendering the letter as the first tab.  37 THE COURT:  Any objection?  38 MR. RUSH:  Although my signature isn't on it, my lord, I can  39 confirm that it was done on my direction.  4 0 THE COURT:  Yes.  All right.  What's the next exhibit number?  41 THE REGISTRAR:  The next exhibit number will be 849.  42  43 (EXHIBIT 849 - GREY BINDER)  44 (EXHIBIT 849-1 - TAB 1, LETTER DATED DECEMBER 19, 1986,  4 5 FROM S.  RUSH TO H. BRODY)  46  47 THE COURT:  849.  So this will be 849-1.  It means if there is 1049?  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 anything after tab 1 in the book --  2 MR. WILLMS:  3 Q   It goes in after tab 1 of the book, and I will attempt  4 to provide an updated index on a timely basis.  5 Now, if you could turn back to the three-ring  6 binder and your contract on page 2.  Page 2 of the  7 contract describes the work that you will do.  It's at  8 tab 4.  9 A   4.  Yes.  10 Q   And if you wouldn't mind turning to page 2 --  11 A   Page 2.  12 Q   -- you'll see that you have set out the scope of the  13 work, and you did the field investigations in June of  14 1985 that are described in paragraph A?  15 A   June and July.  16 Q   June and July?  17 A   Yes.  18 Q   Was the field work done at any other time or was it  19 solely in June and July of 1985?  20 A   I -- I believe the field work at these four localities  21 was completed in -- in June and July, yes.  22 Q   All right.  And you submitted in late June of 1985 a  23 summary report of your field investigations for June  24 to Mr. Overstall?  25 A   Yes, I did.  26 MR. WILLMS:  I'm tendering that as Exhibit 849-2, my lord.  27 THE COURT:  All right.  28  29 (EXHIBIT 849-2 - TAB 2, SUMMARY REPORT)  30  31 MR. WILLMS:  32 Q   If you look to the first page, you are summarizing the  33 field investigations conducted in June 1985 to locate  34 ancestral village sites.  The first one you refer to  35 is Temlaham, and then under paragraph 1.2 you point  36 out that you spent 10 days examining the Temlaham  37 area?  38 A   Ten days in June, yes.  These are areas in the --  39 along the Skeena in the vicinity of the -- those  40 four -- four specific study areas, which we have  41 referred to as high priority areas for focusing the  42 investigations.  43 THE COURT:  These four locations at Temlaham?  44 THE WITNESS:  Yes, the four — the four specific locations  45 identified on the map of this Temlaham area.  4 6 THE COURT:  Yes.  47 MR. WILLMS: 10499  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   Did you do the examination yourself or were you  2 assisted by the -- by Mr. Brolly or Miss Ludovicz?  3 A   Three of us carried out investigations.  4 Q   Who were the three?  5 A  Myself, Deanna Ludovicz, and Richard Brolly.  6 Q   All right.  And if you turn to page 2 of this  7 preliminary report, you discuss the results at the  8 bottom, and you say:  9  10 "No cultural remains indicative of occupation  11 of large prehistoric village were found in  12 the Temlaham Study Area.  The archaeological  13 site areas located appear to represent  14 activity areas peripheral to habitation  15 sites.  The very meager findings within the  16 study area do not allow us to date or say  17 very much about occupation of the area in  18 prehistoric times."  19  20 Now, that was your view at the time?  21 A   That was based on the -- the investigations that we  22 had carried out during the month of June, yes.  23 Q   In that area?  24 A   Yes.  25 Q   When did you return to the Temlaham area to do further  26 investigations?  27 A   Because we had our field office in Hazelton, we  28 continued to look at the area on -- on occasional days  29 between organizing our other field trips to -- to  30 locations further away, and so the -- it was  31 convenient to go out for a day or two days in a row in  32 the -- in the -- in the Temlaham study area because we  33 were living -- we were there close by.  34 Q   And when you went out and made those further investi-  35 gations, you made notes of those investigations?  36 A   Yes.  37 Q   And they'll be dated?  38 A   Yes.  3 9 Q   And when were they made, July?  40 A   They were -- yes, additional days in July, and there  41 may even have been occasional days in -- in August  42 prior to our -- perhaps the first week of August prior  43 to our -- our work at Moricetown.  44 Q   As a result of the further investigations, has your  45 opinion changed from your opinion at the bottom of  46 page 2?  47 A  My -- my opinion concerning the area as set out in 10500  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 the -- the -- in the -- in my opinion paper, yes.  2 Q   Well —  3 A   These -- this was -- these were preliminary field --  4 this is a preliminary report based on the field  5 investigations that we carried out.  I was requested  6 to -- to indicate what we -- what we were finding  7 in -- in the field.  8 Q   If you could keep page 2 open in front of you.  9 A   Yes.  10 Q   Can you look in your report, which is in Exhibit 844,  11 starting at page 3-11?  12 A   3-11.  13 Q   All right.  Are you there?  14 A   Yes.  15 Q   The top of the page in your report at 3-11 you  16 describe a site Gh Sw 85-A?  17 A   Yes.  18 Q   Now, that in fact is the site that you describe on  19 page 2 of Exhibit 849-2 under paragraph 3?  20 A   No, it isn't.  21 Q   It isn't?  22 A   No, this -- on page 2 of this June report this --  23 Q   Paragraph 3?  24 A   Yes, paragraph 3 refers to the small lithic scatter  25 that we found in the Carnaby area on the -- the  26 boundary -- at the boundary of the New Gitsegukla  27 Reserve, and Gh Sw 85-A, in my opinion, refers to the  28 large lithic scatter in that Hagwilget Canyon area.  29 Q   Sorry, I'm lost.  I'm looking at Gh Sw 85-A.  30 A   Yes.  31 Q   And it talks about a small lithic scatter consisting  32 of nine artifacts located near a dirt road.  33 A   Oh, yes.  I'm sorry, I thought you said V --  34 Q   No.  35 A   — w.  36 Q   So that's that one, isn't it?  37 A   Yes, a small lithic scatter consisting of nine  38 artifacts on a dirt road.  Sorry, I hadn't read fully.  39 That — that refers to 3.  40 Q   Okay.  Now, let's go to the next one, Gh Sw 85-B.  41 A   Yes.  42 Q   That refers to 5 on that page, doesn't it?  43 A   Yes, it does.  44 Q   And then if you go down to Gh Sw 85-C, that refers to  45 1?  4 6 A   To number 1.  47 Q   Number 1? 10501  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A   Yes.  2 Q   And then if you go to Gh Sw 85-D, that refers to  3 number 2?  4 A   Yes, it refers to that site area.  5 Q   And then finally Gh Sw 85-E.  And although it's not  6 numbered, you've mentioned Chicago Creek in there.  7 And correct me if I'm wrong, but is Gh Sw 85-E the  8 number 4?  9 A   Yes.  10 Q   Now, Gh Sv 85-A is the Hagwilget Canyon site?  11 A   Yes, it is.  12 Q   And you don't refer -- if you look on the next page  13 for food storage sites, you're referring to some  14 places on the Bulkley River?  15 A   Yes, these are sites in the Hagwilget Canyon area.  16 Q   So after your investigations which you reported on in  17 a preliminary way in June of 1985 --  18 A   Yes.  19 Q   -- where are your other observations, the ones that  20 you just referred to, the ones that were done on day  21 trips to the Temlaham area?  22 A   These are in the report -- these are described in the  23 opinion on page 3-12 and 3-13.  24 Q   You will agree with me that in your report you do not  25 describe further artifacts, artifacts further to what  26 you've set out on page 2 of your preliminary opinion,  27 they're the same?  28 A   The -- the opinion report refers to the materials  29 after the sites -- describes the sites and materials  30 at a time after we had taken the time to -- to examine  31 them and carry out some analysis of them.  At the  32 point that I -- I wrote the -- the preliminary field  33 report, I had -- the materials had not yet been  34 catalogued.  So the cataloguing of the materials came  35 later in the summer and --  36 Q   What cultural features in any of these five areas did  37 you find in your additional excavations -- sorry -- in  38 your additional investigations after this report, that  39 is, 849-2?  40 A   Could you —  41 Q   What additional cultural features or artifacts --  42 A   Yes.  43 Q   -- did you find in any of these five areas after you  44 wrote this summary report in June of 1985?  45 A   You're referring to additional materials that may not  46 have been described in this report?  47 Q   No, I'm talking about any additional materials that 10502  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 you did not get in your first investigations or that  2 you did not observe in your first investigations in  3 June of 1985.  4 A   The -- the report describes observations of -- of  5 sites and artifact collections from -- from sites in  6 the Hagwilget area or canyon adjacent to the Skeena,  7 which we looked at in -- in July.  8 Q   Okay.  Sticking with the Temlaham study area, which  9 you have described in your report as Gh Sw 85-A, B, C,  10 D, and E and what you've described on page 2 of your  11 summary report, what further artifacts did you  12 discover in any of those five locations after you  13 wrote your summary report in 1985?  14 A  We did not go back to these sites again to -- to  15 recover any additional material.  16 Q   And you did not locate or name --  17 A   These five sites.  18 Q   Yes.  And other than near Hagwilget, you did not  19 locate or name any other sites in the Temlaham study  20 area, did you, after 1985, which is reported in your  21 summary report?  I guess what I'm getting at, Miss  22 Albright —  23 A   Yes, I'm confused by the questioning in terms of what  24 additional information you want to clarify.  25 Q   You have defined five prehistoric site areas on page 2  26 of your summary report?  27 A   Yes, the field report.  28 Q   How many other prehistoric site areas did you locate  29 subsequent to writing this report --  30 A   Yes.  31 Q   -- in the Temlaham area?  32 A   The sites upstream from the confluence of the Bulkley  33 and Skeena.  34 Q   Hagwilget Canyon?  35 A   Yes.  We included that as part of our Temlaham study  36 area.  37 Q   So —  38 A   In that -- in that -- you know -- the confluence is  39 a -- is a -- the confluence of a major area is a -- is  40 a -- is a focus for -- for study, and the focus of the  41 Temlaham study area, as we defined, and our  42 investigations included both areas along the Skeena  43 from a river just north of Hazelton to about Carnaby,  44 Gitsegukla, and -- and the area immediately above the  45 confluence of the Bulkley with the Skeena to include  46 the -- the Hagwilget Canyon area, the lower portion  47 of -- of the river.  I believe that's about two 10503  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 kilometres.  2 Q   Was that on the assumption that where you looked in  3 the Hagwilget Canyon area could have been the ancient  4 village of Temlaham?  5 A   In that given a general study area there may be  6 evidence of -- of early occupation in that area, yes.  7 Q   For Temlaham?  8 A   For the Temlaham study area as we defined it.  9 Q   And that's close to Hagwilget Canyon?  10 A   Yes.  11 Q   Now, over on to page -- the top of page 3.  12 A   Of the field report?  13 Q   Of the field report.  Thank you.  14 A   Yes.  15 Q   You described -- you described this in your evidence  16 in chief, but one thing you noted here was that the  17 lower levels of the Skeena are subject to periodic  18 flooding and that your investigations support  19 MacDonald's statement that the flooding would have  20 eroded away older settlements close to the river,  21 correct?  22 A   Yes, that's true, and that's why George MacDonald was  23 very concerned about investigations in -- in several  24 canyon areas.  25 Q   Now, carrying on on that page, you spent five days at  26 Gitangat?  This is under paragraph 2.2.  27 A   Yes.  28 Q   And were you assisted there by Miss Ludovicz and Mr.  29 Brolly?  3 0 A   Yes, I was.  31 Q   And you described two separate site areas?  32 A   Yes.  33 Q   And just turning to the top of page 4, under paragraph  34 2 you describe a smaller site consisting of two small  35 house depressions and five other cache pits, and if  36 you just keep that open and turn in your report to  37 page 3-5 of your report --  38 A   Yes.  39 Q   -- this item 2 -- sorry, maybe we should just pin down  40 both of them.  Going back to page 3 of the  41 preliminary -- of the summary report, you describe  42 first of all the large site consisting of 106 cultural  43 depressions?  44 A   Yes.  45 Q   And that is -- if you refer to page 3-5 of the  46 exhibit, 844, that's Gf Tc 85-A?  47 A   Yes. 10504  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   And over to the second page and pargraph numbered 2  2 coming down from the top of the page on page 4 -- I'm  3 sorry -- this description is the description of Gf Tc  4 85-B?  5 A   The smaller site, yes.  6 Q   The smaller site.  And you note in there, as you've  7 disclosed in your report, a test unit, although you  8 say that the size is 5 by 6 metres here, and you say E;  9 by 5 in your report.  Is that just a mistake?  10 A   Yes, I believe so.  The -- in the report I -- a  11 mistake in one or the other.  Again, I believe you  12 have a copy of the -- of the field notes.  13 Q   I haven't -- I just got them.  I haven't looked at  14 them.  15 A   Okay.  16 Q   Perhaps they'll help us.  You describe the collection  17 of the black carbon saturated silt and then at the  18 bottom describe one test unit located six metres --  19 that's about 20 feet?  20 A   Six times three.  18 and a bit.  21 Q   More than 18, maybe less than 20?  22 A   Yes.  23 THE COURT:  I'm sorry, what is that again?  24 MR. WILLMS:  At the very bottom of paragraph 2, my lord, one  25 test unit located --  2 6 THE COURT:  Yes, I have that.  27 MR. WILLMS:  -- produced two large spall flake tools.  2 8 THE COURT:  Yes.  29 MR. WILLMS:  30 Q   And you say at the very bottom -- you first of all,  31 under 2.4, discussed the large cache pits that you  32 located, and then you say at the very bottom:  33  34 "Although we may be able to date occupation  35 of the house depressions south of Fiddler  36 Creek,"  37  38 and that's the one described at Gf Tc 85-B?  39  40  41  42 "...occupation of this site area can not be  43 directly associated archaeologically with  44 use of the cache pit area, 3km to the  45 north."  46  47 And you're referring there to the cache pit area Gf Tc  and  that's  A  B,   yes.  Q  Yes. 10505  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 85-A?  2 A   Yes.  3 Q   And it was your opinion at the time that they could  4 not be directly associated archaeologically?  5 A   That was my opinion at the time.  6 Q   That's still your opinion, isn't it?  7 A  My -- my opinion is that they -- they both represent  8 occupation of the area at some time in -- in the past.  9 I would not associate -- I would not go so far as  10 saying the date that we retrieved from the -- the  11 dating of the occupation of the house could be  12 directly associated with the period of use of the  13 cache pits because we don't have a dated sample  14 retrieved from the cache pits, but they both indicate  15 occupation of the area, are both indications of  16 occupation of a -- of a settlement in that area in --  17 in earlier times.  18 Q   At the top of page 5, on the next page, you discuss  19 the historic occupation close to the study area of  20 Gitangat, and that is the mining community of Dorreen?  21 A   Yes.  22 Q   And you hypothesize that that historic occupation may  23 have destroyed evidence of major habitation in the  24 area of Gitangat?  25 A   It -- it -- it may have destroyed some evidence in the  26 area, yes.  27 Q   And then you turn to Four Mile Creek.  Now, is this  28 Four Mile Creek area the area that you later  29 identified as Gh Sv 85-A?  30 A   Yes.  31 THE COURT:  Gh Sv 8 5-A?  32 MR. WILLMS:  33 Q   85-A.  And, my lord, that is at Hagwilget or close to  34 Hagwilget.  35 And you note there that you spent three days at  36 the site?  I'm at the last line of the first paragraph  37 under Four Mile Creek Area.  38 A   Yes.  39 Q   Was that on your own or was that with Mr. Brolly and  40 Miss Ludovicz?  41 A   That was with Mr. Brolly and -- and Miss Ludovicz.  42 Q   And what do you mean by the very first line, "On the  43 suggestion of Linda's research," you looked in this  44 area?  What suggestion was that?  45 A   That was based on her reading of the literature and  46 reference to Harlan I. Smith's survey in the, I  47 believe, 1920's in -- in the area, and he recorded a 10506  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 number of sites along -- along the Skeena in the -- in  2 the Hazelton area, map area.  3 Q   You then talk about the cultural deposits at Gh Sv  4 85-A --  5 A   Yes.  6 Q   -- what you call Four Mile Creek at this time, and say  7 that they're shallow and restricted to the plough  8 zone.  So that you -- at this time had you done test  9 pits in this area?  10 A  Which -- what part of the paragraph?  11 Q   Right after:  12  13 "Three days were spent locating and  14 mapping...This site is marked on the map,  15 Figure 2."  16  17 A   Yes.  18 Q   And you say:  19  20 "Although cultural deposits are shallow and  21 restricted to the plough zone..."  22  23 Had you done a test pit at this location at this time?  24 A   I'm not sure whether we had done the test pitting at  25 the time that this -- this field report was done or  26 whether we went back on another day to -- to do  27 additional collection at the site as there -- there  28 were three -- three areas of the site, and it was an  29 extensive site.  So we had spent three days at the  30 time this report was -- this field report was written,  31 and I -- I can't remember the sequence of how many  32 days, additional days we spent at the -- at the site.  33 Q   Does the depth of cultural deposits provide any  34 indication as to the age of the cultural deposits?  35 A   Not -- not necessarily.  It -- at some sites the  36 deposits may be very thick.  There may be deep  37 deposits.  In -- at other sites deposits may be very  38 thin and equally as old.  39 Q   Would the fact that all of these artifacts were  40 located within a plough zone indicate that they were  41 within a very short depth from the surface of the  42 surrounding area?  43 A   The -- these artifacts were collected from the surface  44 of the site.  They were visible on the surface and --  45 Q   They were ploughed up from as deep as the plough can  46 go?  47 A   Yes. 10507  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   All right.  2 A   So within the -- the plough zone these materials  3 had -- had been brought to the surface, so they  4 were -- they were mixed materials.  In other words, I  5 couldn't interpret stratigraphy at all in that plough  6 zone.  7 Q   But the depth of the plough zone would indicate that  8 the materials were not deposited there in great  9 antiquity; isn't that the case?  10 A   No.  11 Q   It's likely that if you can dig them up at the depth  12 of a plough that they were not in situ there 5 or  13 6,000 years ago?  14 A   They were brought to the surface by the plough.  We --  15 we observed them on the surface, and they were brought  16 to the surface by -- by the activity of the plough,  17 but they -- they -- they could be representative of --  18 of any period of occupation extending into the past,  19 and the -- the -- the closeness to the surface does  20 not relate directly to their -- to their age in that  21 the deposits at this particular site might vary from  22 the deposits at another site.  23 Q   I'm not asking you about the age of the artifact.  24 A   Yes.  25 Q   I'm asking you about the likely time that the artifact  26 would have been in situ in the location where it was  27 when it was ploughed up, and what I'm suggesting to  28 you is that since it's close to the surface, it's more  29 likely that it was placed there in more recent times  30 than in early times?  31 A   No, not at all.  32 Q   Not at all?  33 A   No.  34 Q   So the stratigraphy of layers in an area is really  35 neither here nor there to dating the material in situ  36 in the stratigraphy?  37 A   Yes, when the stratigraphy is significant, when --  38 when materials are found in the context of that  39 stratigraphy and the materials in the stratigraphy  40 are -- are interpreted together.  At this particular  41 site these artifacts -- I have not interpreted  42 these -- these artifacts in -- in the context of --  43 of -- of stratigraphy.  These artifacts are -- are  44 surface collected.  They can represent materials used  45 and -- and deposited at the site 200, 300 years ago,  46 1,000 years ago, or 5,000 years ago.  47 Q   Or 100, correct?  Or 100? 1050?  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A  Materials on the surface could -- could be 100 years  2 ago if one -- depending on the nature of the -- the  3 material.  4 Q   So that when you look at the material --  5 A   I look at the -- excuse me.  6 Q   When you look at the material itself, and you have  7 given some evidence about being able to tell how old  8 some things are by looking at them, that still doesn't  9 tell you when they got to the location where you found  10 them?  When you picked these off the surface, you  11 didn't know whether it got there the day before or  12 whether it had been there for 500 years?  13 A   These -- these materials were deposited at this site.  14 In examining the artifacts and mapping the -- the  15 locations in which we recovered them in our site grid  16 map, these artifacts had been deposited at the site  17 during the time that the site was occupied and those  18 items were -- were used at that site.  When the site  19 was occupied, the -- the items were deposited there.  20 Q   How can you tell that from looking at the object  21 itself?  I mean, if you go out into your backyard and  22 find any one of the objects that you've referred to in  23 your evidence, how do you know how long it's been  24 there just by looking at the object?  25 A   The materials that I collected from that site I  26 compared to other materials as well from other  27 excavated contexts --  28 Q   All right.  But let's —  29 A   -- which suggest the -- the relative period of --  30 which indicate to me -- which suggests to me, because  31 of similarities in the artifact types with artifacts  32 that have been excavated from stratified sites, that  33 certain tool types are indicative of use at particular  34 time periods or relative time periods in the past.  35 Q   I am not suggesting for the moment that you can't  36 compare artifacts to determine what the age of the  37 artifact is.  38 A   Yes.  39 Q   I am suggesting that when you collect an artifact  40 sitting on the top of a ploughed field, from looking  41 at the artifact alone you do not know how long that  42 artifact has been there or in that general locality  43 just by looking at the artifact?  44 A   By examining the type of artifact, yes, there is an  45 indication that these are -- are artifacts used in --  46 in -- in earlier periods of occupation in -- in that  47 area. 10509  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   Well, let's put all of these artifacts in your  2 backyard in Lytton, all right, and you go outside one  3 day, and you pick them all up and analyse all of them.  4 A   I would not find those types of artifacts in Lytton.  5 Q   Well, let's just assume for a moment that you did.  6 A   I cannot make that assumption because those artifacts  7 did not suggest that they would come from my backyard  8 in Lytton.  They are -- they are found -- they are  9 found at that site at Hagwilget Canyon, and I --  10 that's how I interpret those artifacts.  I interpret  11 them on the basis of where they were found, the  12 context in which they were found, given the  13 limitations of -- of the fact that they are not found  14 in a strata -- a stratified deposit, they are found on  15 the surface, and -- and they are also interpreted on  16 the basis of the tool types themselves --  17 Q   All right.  18 A   -- which I have described --  19 Q   Yes.  2 0 A   -- in the Appendix A.  21 Q   All right.  Artifacts similar to this were excavated  22 at Hagwilget Canyon --  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   -- in the actual excavation that was done there,  25 correct?  26 A   Yes.  27 Q   All right.  Can you assume just for the purposes of my  28 question that somehow some of those artifacts, instead  29 of being bagged and sent off to the National Museum of  30 Man in Ottawa, somehow were strewn across Mr. Parent's  31 field?  32 A   No.  33 Q   You can't assume that even?  34 A   No.  35 Q   And, in fact, Mr. Parent gave you some material?  You  36 didn't actually find it, he gave it to you?  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   And he could have got it anywhere?  39 A   He indicated to me he -- that he found those two  40 artifacts, the large grooved adzes and the straight  41 adzes of nephrite, that he had found those while he  42 was ploughing in Area B south at the site.  43 Q   Yes.  44 A  And he thought that we would like to see them.  He did  45 not know anything about the purpose of our  46 investigations and -- only the fact that we were  47 interested in materials at the site.  He indicated 10510  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 that we could have these materials, and I assumed that  2 his -- his indication -- his statement that he had  3 found these sites at B-2 while he was ploughing, I  4 assumed that his statement was true.  5 MR. WILLMS:  I'll just ask one more question, my lord, and then  6 perhaps we could adjourn.  7 THE COURT:  Yes.  8 MR. WILLMS:  9 Q   At the bottom of page 5 and over to page 6 you talk  10 about analysis of the materials at Four Mile Creek,  11 and you say that that will allow us to say something  12 about the distribution of activity areas, the kinds of  13 activities taking place at the site, ritual behavior,  14 and trade networks, correct?  15 A   Yes.  16 Q   All right.  But nothing about date?  17 A   These are some of the areas that I indicated we might  18 discuss in reviewing the -- the materials.  It doesn't  19 mean that I would limit my discussion or include all  20 of these in my -- in my discussion of the materials.  21 MR. WILLMS:  This would be an appropriate time, my lord.  22 THE COURT:  All right.  After ten years one of my secretaries is  23 leaving on maternity leave, and I'm taking her to  24 lunch.  I may be a few minutes late.  If we are, we'll  25 make up the time this evening.  26 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  This court will adjourn until  27 2:00.  28  2 9 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 12:30 P.M.)  30  31 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  32 a true and accurate transcript of the  33 proceedings herein to the best of my  34 skill and ability.  35  36  37  38 Leanna Smith  39 Official Reporter  40 United Reporting Service Ltd.  41  42  43  44  45  46  47 10511  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr Willms  1 (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED AFTER LUNCH RECESS)  2  3 THE REGISTRAR: Order in court.  4 THE COURT:  Willms.  5 MR. WILLMS:  6 Q   Miss Albright, we were at Exhibit 849-2, which is tab  7 2 in the grey book, and we were going to page 6 at --  8 just before -- can you tell me what is a diagnostic  9 artifact?  What does that mean when something's  10 diagnostic?  11 A   Diagnostic is a term used in archaeology.  It refers  12 to characteristics of a tool that might be compared  13 between artifacts and so they're -- they refer to  14 attributes of an artifact which might change or vary  15 in an artifact over time or in comparing their  16 attributes of a tool that -- that are often based --  17 are used for comparison of artifacts.  18 Q   All right.  19 A   So an artifact from one context would -- could be  20 compared to an artifact of another context.  21 Particularly, tools which are diagnostic are the  22 projectile points that we described as collected from  23 Moricetown.  The projectile point is a diagnostic tool  24 type in that the attributes of this projectile point  25 change over time; points in the context of Moricetown,  26 the larger points are characteristic of earlier -- the  27 earlier deposits in at that site and in -- which is --  28 they are comparable to artifacts from earlier  29 deposits.  And we see that the tool changes as the  30 projectile point changes in its attributes in terms of  31 size and morphology over time.  At the sites we see a  32 progression over time.  33 MR. WILLMS:   Now, returning to Exhibit 849-2, page 6, your  34 summary report, your general comments, starting at the  35 top of the page, are:  36  37 "The archaeological evidence..."  38  39 THE COURT:  I'm sorry, where are you?  40 MR. WILLMS:  I'm at page 6, my lord.  It's at tab 2 of the grey  41 exhibit book.  42 THE COURT:  I didn't think I had a tab 2 in there.  I don't have  43 a tab 2 in the grey book.  44 MR. WILLMS:  It was the document that we were going through, my  45 lord, immediately before the break.  4 6 THE COURT:  That's tab 2 is it.  All right.  47 MR. WILLMS:  And it's page 6.  And you said in June of 1985: 10512  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr Willms  1  2 "The archaeological evidence found to date in  3 the Temlaham and Gitangat study areas appear  4 to represent activity areas peripheral to  5 major village or habitation areas.  We have  6 not found any evidence of large village  7 habitation areas mentioned in the adaawk.  8 Neither have we found any diagnostic  9 artifacts in the two study areas which might  10 provide clues to prehistoric occupation of  11 these areas."  12  13 Those were your conclusions and your observations  14 at the time?  15 A   Yes, these are observations I made in June.  16 Q   And so, in particular, where you refer that you have  17 not found any diagnostic artifacts, if you just turn  18 back to page 4, the two cobble -- the two large spall  19 flake tools that you mention in the middle of the page  20 in respect of GfTc 85-B were not diagnostic  21 artifacts?  22 A   No, they were not diagnostic at the -- when we  23 recovered them, of a particular -- they did not  24 suggest a particular time period of occupation to us.  25 Q   Now, I won't read through the bottom of page 6 below  26 where you were because I think you've already given  27 evidence about MacDonald's theories that you should be  28 looking at different areas to find old sites.  But if  29 you would turn to page 7, and your very last  30 paragraph.  And I apologize, this is the way that we  31 received it, but correct me if I'm reading it wrong.  32 I think this is what you say in that last paragraph:  33  34 "Based on the results of our field  35 investigations to date, our survey efforts  36 might provide more productive results if  37 some time were spent investigating old  38 villages located within or close to canyon  39 environments or sites known to have been  40 occupied in late prehistoric times through  41 the time of early cultural contact."  42  43 Is that what that says?  I'm sorry it's cut-off on  44 the left-hand side, but --  45 A   Yes, that's what it says.  46 Q   All right.  And that is what you then did; is that  47 correct?  Later on you did your excavation at 10513  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr Willms  1 Moricetown Canyon, GgSt 2?  2 A   Yes, we later carried out excavations there.  3 Q   Miss Albright, I'm showing you a letter dated March  4 7th, 1986 to Richard Overstall, and that's a letter  5 that you sent to Mr. Overstall in respect of your  6 investigations?  7 A   Yes, it is.  8 MR. WILLMS:   My lord, might that be 849-3?  9  10 (EXHIBIT 849-3:  Letter dated March 7, 1986)  11  12 MR. WILLMS:  13 Q   Now, in the letter you say this in the first line:  14  15 "As discussed previously it would be advant-  16 ageous to incorporate analysis of previously  17 collected materials from Moricetown  18 (Turnbull 1966) and Hagwilget (Ames 1971)  19 sites into our present report on 1985  20 investigations and analysis of materials."  21  22 A   Yes.  23 Q   Was there a report in existence as of the date of this  24 letter on your investigations and analysis of  25 materials?  2 6 A  At that time I had a report outline underway and so  27 the report was in the process of being written.  28 Q   Had you forwarded the report or portions of it to Mr.  29 Overstall?  30 A   No.  31 Q   No?  32 A   No.  33 Q   How about to anyone else from the Tribal Council?  34 A   No.  Richard Overstall was the only one I was  35 sending -- or in communication with concerning the  36 process of our investigations.  37 Q   I'm showing you a letter dated March 19th, 1986 from  38 Mr. Overstall to yourself.  Did you receive that  39 letter?  40 A   Yes.  41 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, might that be Exhibit 849-4?  42 THE COURT:  Exhibit.  43  44 (EXHIBIT 849-4: Letter dated March 19, 1986)  45  46 MR. WILLMS:  47 Q   Referring to this letter, Mr. Overstall says in the 10514  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr Willms  1 second line:  2  3 "As I indicated when we spoke recently,  4 consideration of this proposal will have to  5 await our review of your 1985 report."  6  7 What is he referring to?  Did he get a 1985 report  8 from you?  9 A  A review of -- a report on 1985 investigations.  10 Q   Oh, are you saying that the 1985 report is 849-2, the  11 summary report?  Are you saying that's the report  12 referred to in that letter?  13 A   That is a field report and became -- the material in  14 it was a basis for my opinion report.  15 Q   Yes.  In 1985 you sent an opinion report to Mr.  16 Overstall didn't you?  17 A   No, I did not send an opinion report to him in '85.  18 Q   Did you send --  19 A   I was not finished -- I was not finished writing my  20 report in 1985.  21 THE COURT:  How about the field report?  22 THE WITNESS:   Yes, I had given him a copy of our — of a field  23 report.  Yes.  24 MR. WILLMS:  25 Q   And what field report is that?  2 6 A   The one that you have.  27 Q   The one at Exhibit 849-2?  28 A   Yes.  29 Q   All right.  And just so that it's clear, by the date  30 of the letter of March 19th, 1986, the only report or  31 extract of opinion report that you'd forwarded is the  32 one at 849-2; is that your evidence?  33 A   He -- he had other -- he had -- we had given to him  34 other materials that were being used as the basis for  35 my opinion report.  36 Q   Had you written --  37 A  And —  38 Q   Sorry.  39 A  And these included -- these included the references to  40 the review references in appendix B, the review of the  41 ethnographic literature, and some of the material in  42 appendix C, and an outline for -- an outline for my  43 opinion report.  44 Q   You had sent him an outline?  45 A   Yes.  46 Q   I'm just at this date.  And I suggested this to you  47 earlier, but isn't it the case that prior to this time 10515  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr Willms  1 you had sent to Mr. Overstall, perhaps even only  2 portions, and let's get away from the word -- use of  3 the word report, portions of a discussion, a written  4 discussion by you or opinions by you, on the results  5 of your work in 1985?  6 A   I had given him notes.  I had given him notes on our  7 findings and this material, this field report, was  8 part of those notes, and also notes on the Moricetown  9 summary of our Moricetown findings.  10 Q   In written form?  11 A   Yes.  12 Q   Do you have that with you or did you retain a copy of  13 that in your possession?  14 A   No, I don't.  Those were -- those were working notes  15 that I had forwarded to Richard Overstall for  16 discussion and --  17 Q   Did you ever get them back?  18 A   Some of the materials were -- no, we -- I had been  19 already processing a lot of the material on computer  20 and so that they formed a basis for our discussions  21 when I met with him.  22 Q   When you drafted portions of this report, you drafted  23 them on a computer that you have or had access to?  24 A   Yes.  25 Q   And from time to time you printed out hard copies of  26 the drafts that you were working on, that is, printed  27 pages?  28 A  Most of the work I did directly on the computer and in  29 terms of notes for -- notes for a discussion with  30 Overstall were -- we met at times to discuss aspects  31 of the report in progress as the report was being  32 developed.  33 Q   At the last line of the letter of March 19th it says:  34  35 "With respect to that could you telephone  36 Linda Matthews at the office here to arrange  37 a meeting with her and Marvin George to  38 determine how your report should be  39 assembled."  40  41 Now, did you do that?  42 A   No, I didn't.  43 Q   And did you speak directly to Marvin George about how  44 your report should be assembled?  45 A   No.  And I interpreted this as I was to see Marvin  46 George about the production of maps, about the  47 drafting of my maps, and my site maps were not yet in 10516  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr Willms  1 final -- in final form, so there were a few maps that  2 had been given for final -- for drafting.  So I took  3 this to mean that I was to see Marvin about the  4 drafting of my maps, which I did later that spring.  5 Q   Are these the maps, the Canada maps, that have been  6 marked?  7 A   No.  8 Q   The little maps in your --  9 A   The site maps in my opinion report.  So I prepared the  10 maps and they were drafted by Marvin George on the  11 basis of my instructions.  12 Q   Now —  13 A  A portion of the materials, the appendix B, was not  14 typed on computer by myself, but was typed by staff  15 under the direction -- in the Tribal Council office  16 under the direction of Richard Overstall.  17 Q   I'm showing you a document which has been identified,  18 and it has no date on it, but it's been identified by  19 my friend as notes for discussion which were included  20 in a letter from you to Mr. Overstall dated June 2nd,  21 1986.  Do you remember writing to Mr. Overstall at  22 that time and enclosing these notes for discussion?  23 A   Yes, I do.  24 MR. WILLMS:   849-5, my lord.  25  26 (EXHIBIT 849-5: Letter dated June 2, 1986)  27  28 MR. WILLMS:  29 Q   Can you describe from memory the nature of your  30 letter, your cover letter, to Mr. Overstall?  31 A  At the time these notes --  32 Q   Yes, the letter that sent these notes to Mr.  33 Overstall, did you talk about the content of your  34 report at all in the cover letter?  35 A   I don't recall.  I'm sorry, I don't recall the cover  36 letter.  37 MR. WILLMS:   My lord, this is a document, and it doesn't need  38 to be done now, but pursuant to your lordship's  39 earlier ruling, this is one that we submit your  40 lordship should look at, the cover letter with this,  41 to determine whether or not the claim for privilege --  42 which it's a cover letter with notes for discussion  43 about a report.  I don't know what could be privileged  44 in that, and --  45 THE COURT:  It hasn't been produced.  46 MR. WILLMS:  -- it hasn't been produced; the cover letter.  A  47 claim for privilege has been made for the cover letter 10517  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr Willms  1 from Miss Albright to Mr. Overstall, and --  2 THE COURT:  Well, unless Mr. Rush has a submission to the  3 contrary, I'd be glad to look at it if it's produced.  4 MR. RUSH:  Well, perhaps I'll make the submission when I have  5 the letter.  6 THE COURT:  Yes.  All right.  7 MR. RUSH:  I'm just checking now to see if I have it with me.  8 MR. WILLMS:  We can maybe deal with that and come back to it  9 later, my lord.  10 THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.  11 MR. WILLMS:  12 Q   Now, just -- now these are notes for discussion about  13 the contents of your report or the proposed contents  14 of your report?  15 A   Yes.  Topics for proposed discussion in the report.  16 THE COURT:  What is the date of the letter about which privilege  17 has been claimed?  18 MR. WILLMS:  The date of the cover letter I've been advised is  19 June 2nd of 1986.  2 0 THE COURT:  Thank you.  21 MR. WILLMS:  22 Q   And did the discussion -- did you discuss these notes  23 with anyone, either with the plaintiff or with Mr.  24 Overstall or anyone at the Tribal Council?  25 A   These notes on topics to be included in the report  26 were for discussion and -- with Richard Overstall as  27 well as Deanna Ludovicz, who was carrying out analysis  28 under my direction, as well as on materials we had  29 recovered, and review of the Moricetown materials.  30 And they were topics for -- as well, for just  31 discussion between us based on our knowledge of the  32 materials and --  33 Q   So your answer is yes, you did go through these with  34 Mr. Overstall?  35 A   Yes.  I did submit these, discuss these.  36 Q   All right.  And you discussed them with Miss Ludovicz.  37 Did you discuss them with anyone else?  38 A   No.  39 Q   And are all these -- all of them just -- were there  40 only four pages of notes for discussion?  It ended  41 with your discussion of Kitselas Canyon?  42 A   Yes.  Yes.  There were only four pages.  43 Q   Now, if you go to the bottom of the first page, you  44 discuss the -- in the last paragraph under Moricetown  45 Canyon?  46 A   Yes.  47 Q   You see that you discuss the stratigraphy at GgSt-2 at 1051?  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr Willms  1 Moricetown, and then in the second paragraph you  2 discussed the radiocarbon date of 5600 years B.P.  3 A   Yes.  4 Q   And that, just so that we can be clear --  5 A   Refers to the --  6 Q   That, if you go to your features page on page 2 - 5 of  7 your report, Exhibit 844?  8 A   2 —  9 Q   2 - 5.  You have the summary of features at  10 Moricetown?  11 A   Yes.  12 Q   All right.  You are referring there to feature 26 on  13 page 2-5?  That's post mould 26?  14 A   Yes.  15 Q   That's what you're referring to?  16 A   It was taken from a post mould taken in the lowest  17 culture deposit C.  18 Q   Yes.  19 A   Yes.  20 Q   All right.  And then you say in Exhibit 849-5,  21  22 "The date probably represents burning of an  23 early smokehouse structure..."  24  25 A   Yes.  2 6 Q   And that was your opinion at the time that it was  27 probably a smokehouse structure?  28 A   Yes.  29 Q   And that's your opinion today, isn't it?  30 A   Yes, that there was a large -- yes, a large house  31 structure.  32 Q   Smokehouse?  33 A   Smokehouse structure.  34 MR. WILLMS:   As opposed to house structure, a smokehouse  35 structure, right?  36 MR. RUSH:  If the distinction is important, my friend should  37 read the rest of the sentence.  38 MR. WILLMS:  39 Q  40  41 "...which could have been occupied for  42 sometime before this event causing its  43 destruction."  44  45 All right.  46 A   It was a large structure being occupied and used by  47 people at the time that we have the date or the day I 10519  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr Willms  1 have a range for, again this is a rounding off of the  2 56, 60, but the structure was one in which people were  3 probably living as well as processing resources.  4 Q   Well, let's just -- is it your evidence that it's your  5 opinion that the post mould 26 is part of an early  6 smokehouse structure or an early house structure where  7 people lived?  8 A   I believe that either terms might be used.  It is my  9 opinion that it is a house structure where people were  10 living and that a variety of resources were being used  11 and processed in that house structure.  So I have --  12 in other contexts I have used the term smokehouse as  13 both a house in which people live as well as in which  14 resources are being processed for storage.  15 Q   So when you say "house", that might include a  16 smokehouse in your report; is that right?  17 A   In that it was one in which people were also living.  18 Yes.  19 Q   And if you say "smokehouse", that might also mean a  20 house?  21 A  Well, yes, in which one -- people are living and  22 processing resources within the structure.  23 Q   All right.  What ethnographic material did you rely on  24 in concluding that people lived inside the smoke  25 houses?  26 A   In my opinion report I have referred to it as a house  27 structure which was occupied by people, and perhaps a  28 smokehouse is a term that I have used in other  29 contexts, but I would refer to my opinion report in  30 describing it as a house structure.  In looking at the  31 size of the features and the nature of the pit  32 features, the post mould features at the site  33 indicated a habitation structure to me.  34 Q   Now, at the top of your -- of Exhibit 849-5 under  35 "Ethnicity" you say:  36  37 "Comparison of artifact assemblages from  38 Moricetown Canyon and Hagwilget Canyon  39 indicate that cultural differences can be  40 distinguished in some tool types from these  41 two areas."  42  43 Now, that was your opinion at the time?  44 A   Yes.  45 Q   And that's still your opinion today?  46 A   Yes.  And the -- the later deposits, the layer A at  47 Moricetown, contained a number of small side notched 10520  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr Willms  1 points, projectile points known as arrow points, which  2 are not found in the Hagwilget area.  3 Q   You then on page 2, dealing particularly with  4 Hagwilget, say:  5  6 "Similarily, investigations at Hagwilget  7 Canyon indicate a sequence of in situ  8 cultural development at GhSv-2 estimated to  9 span 5,000 years until its transfer by  10 Gitksan to the Wet'suwet'en in 1820."  11  12 That was your opinion at the time?  13 A   Yes.  14 Q   And that's still your opinion today?  15 A   The sequence of cultural development at GhSv-2 spans  16 5,000 years as an estimate.  Yes.  17 Q   Until the transfer in 1820 from the Gitksan to the  18 Wet'suwet'en?  19 A   I would not include that phrase in terms of my  20 interpretation of who was using that.  That phrase  21 came from some of the literature that I was reviewing,  22 and I -- that may be true or it may not be.  I'm not  23 as familiar with the -- with that aspect of the site  24 use.  25 Q   No, what you're familiar with is that when you go to  26 layer A at Moricetown you notice a material cultural  27 difference between Moricetown and Hagwilget.  I think  28 that's what you just said?  29 A   Yes, there was a difference in the materials that were  30 found at -- in the layer A deposits at Moricetown and  31 the materials observed at Hagwilget in the upper zone  32 of Hagwilget.  33 Q   Now, I'm showing you a document, a handwritten  34 document, dated August 1st, 1988, which appears to  35 have your signature at the bottom, and says:  36  37 "I've quickly typed up a few notes which I  38 prepared for discussion."  39  40 Is that a document that you prepared and sent to  41 Mr. Overstall?  42 A   Yes, it is.  43 MR. WILLMS:   My lord, could that be Exhibit 849-6?  4 4    THE COURT:  Yes.  45  46 (EXHIBIT 849-6: Handwritten document dated August 1,  47 1988) 10521  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr Willms  1  2 MR. WILLMS:  3 Q   Now, before I get into the enclosure, you say in the  4 second paragraph:  5  6 "Considering the amount of material  7 being produced, I have included a proposed  8 report structure with separation of  9 additional chapters.  I would appreciate  10 your comments on these notes as well as the  11 proposed introduction to the chapter on  12 ancestral villages."  13  14 Just pausing there, did you receive back Mr.  15 Overstall's comments to this proposed report structure  16 and what you've enclosed here?  17 A   Yes, he did.  He did comment to me on this structure.  18 Q   Were those comments in writing?  19 A   No.  Most of his -- most of his comments to me in  20 terms of discussion of the report were at meetings  21 with him.  22 Q   Did you make notes at the meetings about his comments?  23 A   Yes, I may have.  24 Q   Did you keep them?  25 A   I don't -- no, I don't have --  26 Q   The answer is no, you don't have them?  27 A   No, I don't.  28 Q   You carry on in the fourth paragraph of that cover  29 letter saying:  30  31 "Your comments on Deanna's contribution to  32 the report would also be helpful before we  33 meet to put together the final report."  34  35 Deanna refers to Deanna Ludovicz?  36 A   Yes.  37 Q   Had she drafted up a portion of the report?  38 A   She was -- did preliminary analysis of the artifact  39 collection.  40 Q   Did she reduce that analysis to writing and forward it  41 to Mr. Overstall?  42 A   Those were preliminary notes on the -- on the analysis  43 to date.  44 Q   In writing?  45 A   Yes, I believe so.  46 Q   Forwarded to Mr. Overstall?  47 A   Yes. 10522  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr Willms  1 Q   Did you keep a copy?  2 A   No, I don't have a copy of that, except as it got  3 incorporated into --  4 Q   The report?  5 A   No, I wouldn't say that that was incorporated to the  6 report.  Based on our further discussions, and then  7 that -- aspects of that analysis were incorporated  8 into the report.  9 Q   And you wrote the report?  10 A   The analysis of the materials was ongoing over a  11 period of time and the material was -- the artifacts  12 were reviewed -- were examined and reviewed more than  13 once.  14 Q   I'd just like —  15 A   There was some discussion between Miss Ludovicz and I  16 concerning the analysis, and there was discussion  17 between myself and Mr. Overstall concerning the  18 analysis, and then in the interpretation of that  19 analysis in terms of --  20 Q   Did you have Deanna Ludovicz's written contribution to  21 the report before you when you wrote the report?  22 A   I had -- yes, I had her notes of preliminary analysis  23 and I -- I reexamined the material myself, and we had  24 discussions about the material because in some  25 situations we found differences in terms of describing  26 the material, and so that the -- our discussions about  27 the materials were ongoing.  So that there were --  28 there were preliminary notes of the -- of the  29 materials from Moricetown and then discussions and  30 ongoing examination of the materials.  The process of  31 analysis took place over a period of time.  32 Q   If you look at page -- the table of contents of  33 Exhibit 844, and if you wouldn't mind turning to  34 page -- the next page of Exhibit 849-6?  35 A   I'm sorry, I'm a little bit confused by the numbers.  36 If you could refer to which document you're referring  37 to?  38 Q   Your report.  39 A   The report.  40 Q   The table of contents of your report, and just match  41 it up against the table of contents of the proposed  42 report structure.  And you had planned to have a  43 statement of purpose in your original draft; you see  44 that?  45 A   Yes.  46 Q   And you didn't put a statement of purpose in your  47 report, certainly not as a separate section.  Do you 10523  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr Willms  1 know why you changed that?  Did you draft a statement  2 of purpose section which later on was not included in  3 the report?  4 A   This was a -- there was a proposed outline and there  5 were -- notes were being written.  The structure of  6 the report changed and sometimes the headings of topic  7 areas were changed as well, and the purpose and  8 objective is in essence the same thing.  9 Q   When you drafted this proposed report structure had  10 you also drafted notes or jotted down notes for each  11 of the sections that you've proposed here?  12 A   In some cases I had had notes, written notes, that  13 went on to the computer.  14 Q   And you'd forwarded these to Mr. Overstall?  15 A   In some cases I had given him notes on some of these.  16 In some cases, no.  17 Q   Now, one part that was not included in your final  18 report but is included here, you've drafted out a  19 section here, "History of origins and migrations", and  20 you've got pages 1 through 4 for that history?  21 A   Yes.  22 Q   And was that Mr. Overstall's idea not to put that in  23 the final report?  24 A   During discussion with him he appreciated my need to  25 carry out a literature review myself, and we discussed  26 whether I would include this as -- these notes as part  27 of my report or not, and we came to an agreement that  28 this was an area of knowledge that was to be presented  29 or discussed by other witnesses.  These notes are  30 based all on my own -- at this time my own review of  31 the literature and --  32 Q   Now, in --  33 A   -- having reviewed the -- having reviewed the material  34 that we had already researched, I continued on with  35 the literature review as well, but again I -- I have  36 not included this in my opinion because my opinion  37 report is based on my discussion of the archaeological  38 evidence and I do not wish this to be considered as  39 part of my -- as part of my literature review and  40 understanding of history of the area.  41 Q   Now, if you can just turn to page 2 under the Wolf  42 Phratry, and I just -- you said -- you described where  43 obsidian came from in your evidence on January the  44 10th, and you said that:  45  46 " comes from very localized sources.  It  47 is produced through volcanic eruption and 10524  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr Willms  1 generally found close to the volcanic  2 source.  And obsidian is produced by very  3 rapid cooling of molten lava during eruption  4 which gives it its glossy texture."  5  6 And I just note on page 2 under the Wolf Phratry  7 that you discuss the Ayansh lava flow dated to about  8 250 years ago, which I believe is close to the Nass  9 River?  10 A   Yes.  11 Q   And can you say that there was no obsidian whatsoever  12 produced in that lava flow or by that volcano or do  13 you know?  Is it just outside your area of expertise?  14 A   That -- in my understanding, that is not -- it is not  15 a flow that has produced obsidian.  It has not been  16 identified as a flow that produces obsidian.  17 THE COURT:  Where was the first passage from which you read,  18 please, Mr. Willms?  19 MR. WILLMS:  The first passage on obsidian, my lord, I read that  20 from January 10th, 1989, page 10363.  21 THE COURT:  I'm sorry, what does January 10th mean?  22 MR. WILLMS:  Sorry, it's the transcript.  That was an answer to  23 an earlier question.  24 THE COURT:  Oh, all right.  25 MR. WILLMS:  It was evidence given by Miss Albright earlier.  2 6 THE COURT:  Okay.  27 MR. WILLMS:  28 Q   But, from your knowledge, you can't say from your  29 knowledge because it's beyond your expertise, that  30 there was no obsidian produced by the Ayansh lava flow  31 or eruption can you?  32 A  Well, I'm aware of the literature -- some of the  33 literature that does discuss -- I've heard of  34 literature that does discuss where obsidian sources  35 are.  36 Q   Yes.  And that's the extent of your knowledge on  37 obsidian sources; correct?  38 A   I'm aware of the literature that discusses the  39 obsidian sources in British Columbia.  40 Q   All right.  Are you aware of the Tseax, T-s-e-a-x,  41 volcanic eruption?  42 A   I've heard the name.  Yes.  43 Q   And once again, putting aside what you've read about  44 what other people have discovered about obsidian, from  45 your knowledge you know that a volcano and volcanic  46 activity can produce obsidian?  47 A   It can.  Yes. 10525  S. L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr Willms  1 THE COURT:  Take the afternoon adjournment, please.  2 MR. WILLMS:  Yes, my lord.  3 THE REGISTRAR: Order in court.  Court will recess.  4  5 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR AFTERNOON RECESS)  6  7 I hereby certify the foregoing to  8 be a true and accurate transcript  9 of the proceedings herein to the  10 best of my skill and ability.  11  12  13 Tanita S. French  14 Official Reporter  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 10526  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED PURSUANT TO THE AFTERNOON BREAK)  2  3 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  4 THE COURT:  Mr. Willms, I should tell counsel I received I think  5 three more of those letters in the new mail today,  6 which I think makes ten this week.  That's been going  7 on for some weeks now.  It's of no concern to me if it  8 doesn't trouble counsel.  9 MR. WILLMS:  10 Q   Miss Albright, you have tab 6 or the August 1st  11 document which was forwarded to Mr. Overstall, and  12 could you turn to the page that's numbered at the  13 bottom 4?  And this is Exhibit 849-6, and it's  14 numbered at the bottom 4, and it's -- there's a  15 paragraph there that says, "Investigation of Ancestral  16 Villages," and then a paragraph, and then you've got,  17 "Insert here Descriptions of the ancestral villages  18 (Section 3 of original draft)."  Did you do a draft of  19 a description of the ancestral villages prior to this  20 date?  21 A   That's what the statement says, yes.  22 Q   Do you still have that draft?  23 A   No, I don't.  24 Q   You sent that to Mr. Overstall though, didn't you?  25 A   That was a preliminary -- that was a preliminary notes  26 or preliminary draft.  27 Q   And it's a draft -- it had at least three sections,  28 didn't it?  29 A   It's indicated here, yes.  30 Q   And you have no copies of that?  31 A   No, I don't.  32 Q   You don't remember getting it back from Mr. Overstall  33 with any notes on it or a cover letter from him?  34 A   No.  35 MR. WILLMS:  Now, at the top of the next page you describe --  36 THE COURT:  Excuse me, Mr. Willms.  In your terminology what is  37 an ancestral village?  38 THE WITNESS:  Ancestral in that it was — it's been referred to  39 as a village occupied at some earlier point in time,  40 not one that is currently occupied.  41 THE COURT:  And not currently occupied?  42 THE WITNESS:  Well, it may — it — I suppose it may be.  43 THE COURT:  Not necessarily?  44 THE WITNESS:  Not necessarily occupied at present.  45 THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.  46 MR. WILLMS:  47 Q   Now, when you refer to ancestral villages here, you 10527  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 mean -- if you look back to the proposed table of  2 contents at the second page, you were talking about  3 Gitankaat, Temlaham, Dizkle, Gitangasx, and Kisgegas?  4 A   Yes.  5 Q   Yes.  Now, at the top of page 5 you appear to be  6 suggesting some additions to the section that you'd  7 only drafted and suggesting additions in respect of  8 each -- in respect of Gitankaat and Temlaxam; is that  9 correct?  Is that what that is?  10 A   Yes, these are -- are ongoing discussion notes.  11 Q   All right.  And —  12 A   Ongoing in that they're my ongoing thoughts on my  13 analysis and interpretation of the evidence.  14 Q   Could Exhibit 849-2 be put before the witness, please?  15 And please keep the additional discussion notes open  16 before you.  And I'd like you to turn to page 4 of  17 Exhibit 849-2, your summary report.  18 A   Yes.  19 Q   And you've got -- under paragraph 2.  Do you see that?  20 And this is in your discussion of Gitangat, correct?  21 A   Yes.  22 MR. WILLMS:  And what you're proposing on page 5 at the top --  23 MR. RUSH:  Page 5 of what?  24 MR. WILLMS:  25 Q   Page 5 of Exhibit 849-6.  You say this:  26  27 "The larger house depression investigated at  28 Gitanka'at is characteristic of expected  29 featural remains of the daak,"  30  31 d-a-a-k,  32  33 "style house, noted in the ethnographic  34 literature.  The identifiable rim of the  35 depression, measuring five meters per side,  36 suggests the presence of a much large,"  37  38 and I think you mean larger,  39  40 "house structure with at least two meters for  41 a platform around the outside of the central  42 fire pit area."  43  44 And if you look back to your initial observations in  45 Exhibit 849-2 on page 4, you describe this site as a  46 smaller site consisting of two small house  47 depressions? 1052?  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A   Yes.  2 Q   What was it that caused you to decide that one of the  3 houses was really a big house rather than a small  4 house?  Did you go back to the site?  5 A   No.  When I considered the dimensions of the house  6 depression and considered that with respect to  7 descriptions of -- of the -- the daak style house or  8 houses with a -- a central depression within it, I  9 began to think about -- about the significance of  10 the -- of the depression that we actually located and  11 reflected on the fact that the depression would  12 represent the interior depression of the -- of the  13 house feature itself.  Not necessarily the outside of  14 the house, but the inside central depression in which  15 the -- the fire pit would be located.  16 Q   You deal with Temlaxam and note that Barbeau -- Harlan  17 Smith searched unsuccessfully for Temlaxam during the  18 1920's, Barbeau visited the area, it was visited by  19 MacDonald in 1966, Ames in '71, and Inglis again in  20 1977 without finding any prehistoric remains in the  21 Temlaham area.  That's an accurate summary of the  22 investigations that you had reviewed, correct?  23 A   Yes, I believe that -- that part of this description  24 was included in my opinion report in terms of previous  25 discussion -- previous archaeological investigation  26 that had been carried out in the area, and no -- no  27 sites had been recorded in that area.  28 Q   We can add your name to this list now, can't we, add  29 Albright 1985 without finding any prehistoric remains  30 in the Temlaham area?  31 A   No, that is not true.  We located several sites within  32 the Temlaham area.  33 THE COURT:  Located several sites?  34 THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Those are described in the — the report,  35 chapter 3 under the Temlaham survey area.  36 THE COURT:  I'm trying to draw a comparison between what is said  37 here about without finding any prehistoric remains and  38 you --  39 THE WITNESS:  Remains or sites.  4 0 THE COURT:  Pardon me?  41 THE WITNESS:  Remains or sites.  42 THE COURT:  They're the same things, are they?  43 THE WITNESS:  Yes, remains would have been recorded as a site.  44 THE COURT:  So you found what these others didn't find?  45 THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Perhaps I was looking in areas they didn't  46 look in.  47 THE COURT:  Did they find no cache pits? 10529  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 THE WITNESS:  They didn't find the ones I found.  2 THE COURT:  All right.  3 THE WITNESS:  Or if they had found remains, they certainly  4 didn't make mention or record them.  There are no  5 documents --  6 THE COURT:  Yes, all right.  7 THE WITNESS:  — that I had available to me that they had found  8 sites.  9 MR. WILLMS:  10 Q   Can you turn to the next page -- I'm at your August  11 1st document now -- the next page that says in  12 typewritten form "Notes for Discussion in Chapters 4  13 and 5"?  14 A   Yes.  15 Q   Is that your handwriting at the top of the page?  16 A   Yes.  17 Q   And you say these are notes prepared for sections to  18 be written jointly by S.A., that's you?  19 A   Yes.  20 Q   And D.L. is Deanna Ludovicz?  21 A   Yes.  22 Q   And she did that, she wrote the report jointly with  23 you, those sections, didn't she?  24 A   No, she didn't.  These are notes prepared by myself  25 for discussion with Deanna.  She had indicated some  26 interest in -- in -- in writing -- in participating  27 more in the writing of the report, and I prepared  28 these notes for discussion, and she moved to Ottawa in  29 I believe it was August, later in -- later in August,  30 so although I had prepared the notes, we -- we did not  31 have an opportunity to -- to -- to discuss these.  32 Q   If you could just carry on.  And the pages weren't  33 numbered, but if you carry on to the fourth page --  34 the third page after, it's a page that has "Trade and  35 Warfare" on it.  And on that page -- and I believe  36 this paragraph has been incorporated into your report,  37 and maybe if you can just turn to that and get your  38 report in front of you at page 5-3.  And it looks  39 like -- although it's not verbatim, it looks like this  40 paragraph on a large cache of stone clubs at Hagwilget  41 Canyon is reproduced, at least with minor variations,  42 in the second paragraph of page 5-3 of your report  43 starting with the words, "A large cache of stone  44 clubs..."?  45 A   Yes, a portion of this is -- has been incorporated.  46 Q   Your cite there is Duff (1981), and that is the  47 reference in the -- at tab 34 in Exhibit 847, and I 10530  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 wonder if that could be put before the witness.  It's  2 the big one, tab 34.  And before I ask you this  3 question, if you could just turn to tab 34.  But you  4 did not -- did you examine these stone clubs?  5 A   I -- I -- through the photographs in the -- in the  6 paper.  7 Q   But you didn't -- through the photographs in the paper  8 by Duff?  9 A   Yes.  10 Q   But you didn't actually look at the stone clubs  11 themselves?  12 A   I did not handle them, no.  13 Q   Can you turn at tab 34 of Exhibit 847 to the last  14 page, page 103, where the conclusions of Wilson Duff  15 are set out about these clubs?  And I won't -- you see  16 the conclusions section.  It's at the very -- it's at  17 page 103 on the right-hand side, and it starts off  18 with a discussion of two groups of stone clubs from  19 the Tsimshian area, one from the upper Skeena River  20 and the other from Metlakatla, and the Skeena River  21 one is the one at Hagwilget; is that correct?  22 A   Yes.  23 Q   And there is a discussion about them being related and  24 the Metlakatla series being poorly made copies, and  25 then Duff carries on:  26  27 "The implied suggestion that the complex is  28 an original up-river development which  29 spread to the coast is reinforced by  30 Tsimshian traditions which link the use of  31 such clubs with Temlaham, the traditional  32 homeland up the river from which many  33 coastal families claim to have migrated in  34 the not too distant past."  35  36 Do you see that?  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   And you accepted that statement by Professor Duff?  39 A   Yes.  40 Q   And then he carries on, and I won't deal with his  41 description of the clubs or the crest concept, but he  42 says, starting with, "The art style" --  43 A   Yes.  44 Q  45 "The art style is not like that on any other  46 known body of sculpture, and shows little  47 relationship with the recent classic style 10531  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 of the coast.  If, as we assume, the clubs  2 are of no great antiquity, it would seem  3 that the famous coast style was not present  4 along the Skeena River until late in  5 prehistoric times.  The clubs provide a  6 hint, perhaps, of the relative recency of  7 the classic culture of the northern  8 Northwest Coast, and also a glimpse of what  9 preceded it."  10  11 Now, you have concluded that these clubs are 2,000  12 years old and cited Duff, and it appears that what  13 Duff is saying is that the clubs are of no great  14 antiquity.  Now, can you please explain how you went  15 from no great antiquity in Duff, after not even  16 looking at the clubs, to 2,000 years?  17 A   The -- the reference in my report to more than 2,000  18 years ago refers to the -- the context or the dated  19 context of clubs found in archaeological contexts at  20 Prince Rupert Harbour that -- that MacDonald notes  21 in -- in one of his papers.  22 Q   So there should be a MacDonald cite somewhere here; is  23 that what you're saying?  24 A   Yes, there should be a MacDonald citation there  25 probably.  26 Q   The cite in your report at page 5-3, and maybe you've  27 just put MacDonald in the wrong place because you've  28 got 2,000 years and then followed by Duff and then  29 MacDonald down below.  Are those the references that  30 you're referring to?  31 A   Yes, I think it may have been in one of these  32 references where MacDonald does discuss evidence for  33 warfare.  He's summarized the -- in papers on the  34 Kitwanga dawdzep he summarized the findings at Prince  35 Rupert Harbour, and I believe that is -- that is the  36 connection that I'm making there.  I mean the -- in  37 terms of the -- the dating, the comparable dates  38 for -- for -- possible comparable dates for the clubs.  39 Q   All right.  And just to tie this down, I've got your  40 reference list here, and your cite on MacDonald (1979)  41 is the Kitwanga Fort National Historic Site?  42 A   Yes.  43 Q   And your reference for MacDonald (1984) A. is the Epic  44 of Nekt?  45 A   Yes.  46 Q   And those are both about Kitwanga?  47 A   Yes.  I believe there is also mention of stone and 10532  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 bone clubs found at Hagwilget in the MacDonald and  2 Inglis article, 1981 article, as well.  3 Q   Just completing Exhibit 849-6, can you turn to the  4 last page?  5 A  Which document is that?  6 Q   Sorry, it's the August 1st, 1986 —  7 A   Yes.  8 Q   -- notes, and the very last page has got "Time Depth  9 of Oral Histories."  And you say:  10  11 "In several areas of the Skeena, very old  12 sites with stratified deposits have been  13 documented through archaeological research  14 which are not mentioned in the oral  15 histories.  MacDonald...noted that a number  16 of large prehistoric village sites have been  17 recorded in the Prince Rupert Harobur area  18 which are not mentioned in the oral  19 histories or 'myths' of the Tsimshian people  2 0 and are unknown to current elders.  At  21 Kitselas Canyon, the Paul Mason site, dating  22 from 5,050 to 1500 B.P. excavated by G.  23 Coupland is not mentioned in the oral  24 histories of the Kitselas people.  Site Gh  25 Sv 85-A..."  26  27 That's your site, isn't it?  28 A   Yes.  29 Q  30 "...found in 1985 at four mile in Hagwilget  31 canyon, with evidence of a winter village  32 occupation, is not mentioned in Gitksan oral  33 histories."  34  35 And then you have question marks.  Do I take it that  36 your question marks are that if there are these  37 villages of great antiquity, you would expect the  38 oral -- there to be some oral histories related to  39 them?  Is that what your question marks mean?  40 A  My -- my question marks are -- are -- these are again  41 notes.  They're notes on my -- on my thoughts at one  42 point in time, and they question -- these are question  43 marks to myself in that I'm recognizing my -- I'm not  44 aware of all the -- all of the oral history, and I  45 have not had -- at this point in time had not -- had  46 not seen any -- any references to -- to any  47 ethnographic literature to village sites at that time. 10533  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 It doesn't mean to say that there aren't references to  2 them, but I -- I hadn't found them, and that's what  3 the question -- hadn't found references in my own  4 limited search.  5 Q   And you have, as part of the ethnography that you've  6 done in preparing your report, you've diligently  7 searched through the oral histories of this area,  8 haven't you?  9 A   I do not claim extensive expertise in the oral  10 history.  I have conducted a review of the literature  11 to the point of directing my investigations in the  12 field and for -- for interpreting the evidence.  I'm  13 not at all saying that it's exhaustive or that I  14 claim -- you know -- to be an authority on it.  These  15 are -- these are -- are thoughts in the process of my  16 analysis, and they have not been -- they have not been  17 incorporated into my opinion, and I do not wish them  18 to be considered as part of my opinion at present.  19 Q   Have you in your reading since this time located oral  20 histories referable to any of the locations in this  21 paragraph?  22 A   Not in my own reading.  23 Q   No.  Miss Albright, I am showing you a document  24 entitled "Archaeological Evidence of Gitksan and  25 Wet'suwet'en Prehistory," prepared for the Tribal  26 Council, dated December 1986.  Is this a draft of your  27 report prepared by you?  28 A   Yes, it is.  29 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, it might be more convenient to mark that  30 Exhibit 850.  31 THE COURT:  All right.  32 THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 850.  33  34 (EXHIBIT 850 - DOCUMENT ENTITLED "ARCHAEOLOGICAL  35 EVIDENCE OF GITKSAN AND WET'SUWET'EN PREHISTORY" DATED  3 6 DECEMBER 198 6)  37  38 MR. WILLMS:  And, my lord, one point which I mentioned to my  39 friend, there has been a claim for privilege made to a  40 letter from Mr. Overstall to Miss Albright dated  41 December 19th, 1986, and the description is that it's  42 part of the solicitor's brief, trial strategy, and  43 includes irrelevant comments about the report and  44 personal comments, and it's my submission that my  45 friend should provide your lordship with that.  I  46 would like that claim for privilege in addition to the  47 June 2nd, 1986, letter, which I mentioned earlier, I 10534  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  2  3  THE  COURT:  4  MR.  PLANT:  5  MR.  WILLMS  6  THE  COURT:  7  MR.  WILLMS  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  THE  COURT:  19  MR.  WILLMS  20  THE  COURT:  21  MR.  WILLMS  22  Q  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  A  31  Q  32  A  33  34  Q  35  36  A  37  Q  38  39  A  40  41  Q  42  A  43  Q  44  A  45  46  Q  47  A  would like that issue reviewed by your lordship in  respect of that claim.  All right.  Excuse me, what was the date of that letter?  :  The date of the letter.  December 19th, '86.  :  December 19th, 1986.  Now, it would be helpful, Miss Albright, if you  had Exhibit 850 before you and your report, Exhibit  844.  And if you can just turn to page 1-1 of both  documents, and if you look, first of all, starting  from the top of the page, the documents are virtually  identical, and you then say in your report that the  research "may be considered to provide corroborative  evidence of the following assertions in the Chiefs'  Statement of Claim," and you list 55 (a), (b), and (g)  in your draft.  Sorry, where is that?  :  It's in the report itself, my lord, at page 1-1.  Yes.  You will see at the beginning the research was to  provide corroborative evidence of those assertions,  and then you said in your draft at the same page that  it would provide corroborative evidence, and you had  two other paragraphs in there, paragraph (c) and (d),  which are not in your final report.  Now, did Mr.  Overstall suggest that you take those paragraphs out  of your final report?  I -- I took them out of my own accord.  Is it because you had no confidence in them?  I did not feel that I had evidence that was relevant  to those clauses to -- to discuss.  Just in terms of format, you sent this report to Mr.  Overstall in draft form?  Yes.  Did it come back to you marked up in any way by Mr.  Overstall?  I -- I received some comments from Mr. Overstall  concerning the -- the report.  Were they lengthy?  I believe there was a page or two of discussion.  Do you still have that?  No, I don't have -- I don't have those -- those  comments.  What did you do with them?  I'm not sure.  I recall they were -- they were -- I 10535  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 believe they were handwritten comments that he made to  2 me.  3 Q   What did you do with them?  4 A   I guess after editing my report I discarded them.  5 Q   Yes.  Now, just getting back to the first question,  6 did you receive a copy of all or part of your draft  7 with any handwritten notations or other notations on  8 it from Mr. Overstall?  9 A   Yes, I -- I did have comments on -- on specific pages.  10 Q   What did you do with that copy with Mr. Overstall's  11 comments on specific pages?  12 A   I don't have those comments.  13 Q   Did you throw that away too?  14 A   I haven't kept drafts.  As I edited the -- as I edited  15 the report, I acknowledged the thought about the  16 comments, and considered his comments, and then -- and  17 then discarded them.  18 Q   Carrying on, you will see that in your draft, after  19 the paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (g), you have a  20 sentence:  21  22 "The existing system of House ownership and  23 jurisdiction of territories is the  24 cumulative effect of the people's history."  25  26 And that sentence is reproduced in your report, but  27 then in your report the following has been added:  28  29 "The archaeological evidence described in  30 this report tends to confirm the reliability  31 of Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en oral histories.  32 An important concern of the present research  33 is to identify what point in time the  34 archaeological record reflects the emergence  35 and development..."  36  37 A   Excuse me, I'm sorry, I'm lost as to the page number.  38 Q   It is the sentence, "The archaeological evidence  39 described in this report..."  40 A   Yes.  41 Q   And those two sentences.  And I'll just finish from  42 where I left off or where I think I did.  43 A   Yes.  44 Q  45 "...and development of land-owning House  4 6 groups."  47 10536  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Now, was that a suggestion from Mr. Overstall to  2 add those two sentences to this part of your report?  3 A   No, these were -- these were my own -- my own  4 comments.  5 Q   It was just something you overlooked in the first  6 draft?  7 A  Well, in -- in -- in editing I went through the report  8 and -- and made additional comments in some places or  9 may have deleted comments in a few places as a -- as a  10 part of polishing or editing a report.  11 MR. WILLMS:  Now, can you please turn to page 1-4 of both your  12 draft and your report, both Exhibit 850 and Exhibit  13 844, and you will see that your -- if you read the  14 section on ethnic affiliation that it's the same in  15 both draft and final until the end of the sentence "up  16 to the historic period," which -- "up to the historic  17 period."  All right.  So you -- it tracks all the way  18 at the bottom of 1-4 in your report to -- from 1-4 to  19 1-5 of the draft -- sorry -- 1-5 of the report.  But  20 then in your draft the sentence, "Recent studies have  21 been conducted by Greaves," and I'll omit the Greaves  22 and Magne, M-a-g-n-e.  23 THE COURT:  I'm sorry, where is that?  24 MR. WILLMS:  I'm at the top of 1-5 in the draft, my lord.  25 THE COURT:  Oh, yes.  26 MR. WILLMS:  27 Q   That sentence about the studies conducted by Greaves  28 and Magne in an attempt to determine ethnic identity  29 of projectile point styles, you have deleted that  30 sentence?  31 A   No, I believe I reorganized the sentence.  The names  32 Greaves and Magne appear at the -- at the end of the  33 paragraph in the -- in the report.  So that  34 "Statistical analyses of metric attributes of  35 projectile points...", I believe it's the --  36 MR. WILLMS:  Well, the only thing you've done —  37 MR. RUSH:  She should just finish what she has to say on it.  38 THE WITNESS:  39  40 "Statistical analyses of metric attributes of  41 projectile points from several central and  42 southern interior assemblages indicate that  43 projectile point styles as well as whole  44 assemblages can be reliably identified as  45 either Athapaskan or Interior Salish."  46  47 MR. WILLMS: 10537  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   That whole sentence is in your draft?  2 A   Yes, it is.  3 Q   The addition is Greaves, except you've dropped the  4 reference to Greaves (1986), and you've just moved  5 Greaves and Magne down to the bottom?  6 A   Yes.  So I've just -- I've just restructured the  7 phrasing of -- of that sentence or couple of  8 sentences.  9 Q   But then you also omitted the sentence:  10  11 "These studies indicate the possibility of  12 significant refinement in the level of  13 artifact analysis and identification."  14  15 A   Yes.  16 Q   And I'm going to suggest that what you said in your  17 draft is an accurate discussion, that Greaves and  18 Magne have been attempting to determine ethnic  19 identity, and there is a possibility of refinement in  20 the level of artifact analysis, but that it's far from  21 certain.  It's at a very tentative stage.  22 A   This -- the particular discussion of determining  23 ethnicity on the basis of -- of attributes of -- of  24 point styles is -- is one that is relevant to -- to  25 large collections of materials, and in -- when large  26 collections are -- are available, the application  27 of -- of this type of technique is -- is -- is very --  28 is very useful.  So it does --  2 9 Q   And very new?  30 A   So it does indicate that in the process of conducting  31 analysis and continued research we -- in the  32 discipline we are defining -- we are -- we are  33 developing more and more refined techniques for -- for  34 identifying materials and possible cultural  35 affiliation ethnicity associated with them.  36 MR. WILLMS:  If you turn down into the report structure --  37 THE COURT:  I think if you're moving to a different section  38 we'll adjourn.  39 MR. WILLMS:  I am, my lord.  4 0    THE COURT:  Resume at 4:30.  41    THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court will recess until 4:30.  42  4 3 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 4:00 P.M.)  44  45  46  47 1053?  S.L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  2 a true and accurate transcript of the  3 proceedings herein to the best of my  4 skill and ability.  5  6  7  9 Leanna Smith  10 Official Reporter  11 United Reporting Service Ltd.  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 10539  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED AT 4:30)  2  3 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  4 THE COURT:  Mr. Willms.  5 MR. WILLMS:  6 Q   My lord, we were at page 1-5 in the report, Exhibit  7 844, and at the same page in Exhibit 850, the draft,  8 and the witness was just discussing or giving evidence  9 about the Magne -- Greaves and Magne, and I -- Miss  10 Albright, I'm showing you and I showed you the book  11 before on Ethnicity and Culture, the 18th Annual  12 Conference, a different extract and an article  13 entitled "Projectile Point and Lithic Assemblage  14 Ethnicity In Interior British Columbia", and it's  15 listed as the author Martin Magne, M-A-G-N-E, and R.G.  16 Matson.  First of all, you know this is the first --  17 same Magne, his name is Martin Magne, the one you  18 referred to in your report?  19 A   Yes, it is.  20 Q   And you also referred to R.G. Matson in your report in  21 your references?  22 A   Yes.  23 Q   Respecting the Glenrose Cannery site, and so these are  24 both people that you've referred to, and the  25 discussions, the studies that you're discussing on 1-5  26 are ethnic identity of projectile point styles, that's  27 what you referred to at the very top of the page,  28 those were the discussions by Magne.  And what I want  29 to suggest to you, if you start with the introduction  30 by these authors, they start by saying:  31  32 "There have been many doubts expressed as to the  33 archaeologist's abilities to attribute ethnic  34 identity to archaeological assemblages."  35  36 Now, that is an accurate assessment in the field,  37 isn't it, there have been many doubts expressed?  38 A   They are referring to doubts expressed by  39 archaeologists.  40 Q   Yes.  And the -- if you look at what this paper is  41 attempting to show, and I do want to point out to you  42 that the conference -- the publication is 1987 so it  43 post-dates -- so I'm not suggesting that you had an  44 opportunity to read it to prepare your report, and I  45 do want to point out to you that it post-dates the  46 Magne reference in your report, but you will see that  47 the authors on page 227 say what the purpose of their 10540  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 paper is on the right-hand side.  It's:  2  3 "An attempt to show that with continued refinement  4 of our analytic methods, archaeological ethnicity  5 can be realized."  6  7 And I don't want to, unless you want to read the whole  8 extract, but the authors, authors who you relied on in  9 preparing your report, reached their conclusions  10 starting at page 239, and they do -- and I should  11 point out to you the conclusion on 239 in the first  12 paragraph, that:  13  14 "These analyses demonstrate that small Salish and  15 Athapaskan side-notched projectile points exhibit  16 significant, if subtle, differences, and that the  17 separate point styles can be distinguished.  There  18 is confidence in these results in that the sample  19 size permits reliable multivariate parametric and  20 non-parametric techniques to complement each  21 other.  Overall, it is felt that small  22 side-notched points exhibiting bases with  23 indentations, short spurs, and elongate blades are  24 Athapaskan in style, and those which are  25 equilaterally triangular, especially with multiple  26 notches, are Salishan."  27  28 So that's the essence of their conclusion of the  29 argument.  But they go on to say this on page 241  30 after discussing microblades and multi -- if you look  31 down the left-hand column, "As this research" -- it's  32 the last full paragraph:  33  34 "As this research is continued and improved upon,  35 there will no doubt be changes to some of these  36 conclusions.  As the researchers quoted at the  37 beginning of this paper were aware, continual  38 assessment of methodology is needed if progress is  39 to be made on some classic archaeological  40 problems.  The methods used here need to be  41 applied elsewhere as a check on their validity,  42 and in the Interior Plateau the spirit of  43 co-operation needs to persist so that access to  44 many collections remains possible."  45  46 And just finishing with this sentence:  47 10541  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 "As concerns specific issues, technological  2 variation among Salish and Athapaskan culture  3 requires debitage and raw material source  4 analyses."  5  6 Now, I suggested earlier to you that the studies that  7 have been done on determining ethnic identity of  8 projectile point styles are recent and that they are  9 in a very early stage; you will agree with that,  10 wouldn't you?  11 A   I'm not suggesting otherwise, no.  12 Q   All right.  And in fact, it may well be that  13 conclusions that are drawn today about ethnicity could  14 be proved wrong next year using projectile point  15 analysis?  16 A   I would say that in our analysis our understanding of  17 the ethnic affiliation or ethnicity will become better  18 understood as methodology is applied for comparing  19 materials.  2 0 Q   And in fact may change?  21 A   In some cases it may change.  22 MR. WILLMS:  Yes.  My lord, I would ask that that be marked  23 849-7.  24 THE COURT:  All right.  On the same basis that the other —  25 MR. WILLMS:  Yes, of course, my lord.  2 6    THE COURT:  Other works were permitted.  27  28 EXHIBIT 849-7 - Document entitled Ethnicity and  29 Culture  30  31 MR. WILLMS:  32 Q   Now, carrying on on page 1-5 of both your report and  33 your draft, and you will see that the first sentence  34 under "Report Structure" is the same in both.  And  35 then you will see that, if you're comparing your  36 draft, that all of a sudden the chapter 2 in the next  37 paragraph of the draft follows the word "focus", and  38 that whole paragraph after "material" in your draft  39 down to "Northwestern Canada" has been deleted?  40 A  Which paragraph in the draft are you referring to?  41 Q   Everything after the word "focus" in the draft all the  42 way down to "Northwestern Canada" in the report?  43 A   In which -- in which paragraph are you referring to?  44 Q   The first paragraph?  45 A   Yes.  46 Q   Under both starts:  47 10542  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 "This report is divided into several chapters, each  2 with a different level of focus."  3  4 Then in your draft you continue on with a discussion:  5  6 "Material presented in the chapters."  7  8 And that whole paragraph from the words "Material  9 presented" down to "Northwestern Canada" is deleted  10 and you pick up again in your report with the words  11 "Chapter 2 presents a description", so that you've  12 taken that whole paragraph out.  Do you know why you  13 took it out; was it your idea or was it Mr.  14 Overstall's?  15 A   No.  It was my decision to condense this discussion  16 of --  17 Q   And then in the sentence:  18  19 "Chapter 2 presents a description and  20 interpretation of archaeological evidence  21 of cultural development."  22  23 In your draft you say "During the past 5,000 years",  24 and in your report you say "6,000 years".  25 A   Yes.  26 Q   Why were you out a thousand years in your draft?  27 A  When considering the evidence from Moricetown as  28 presented in the report I realized that the time frame  29 for discussion was 6,000 years.  30 Q   And then after that sentence, if you look at your  31 report, you then have:  32  33 "Analysis of artifact assemblages and contextual  34 data from sites in the Moricetown and Hagwilget  35 Canyons."  36  37 And I won't read the rest of it.  But that all the way  38 to the end of the paragraph, which ends "long term  39 occupation in this area" has been added.  40 A   Yes.  41 Q   That was your idea to add that, not Mr. Overstall's?  42 A   Yes, it was.  43 Q   And was it just -- was it an oversight that it wasn't  44 in your original draft?  What motivated you to add  45 that one month later?  46 A   I wanted to give a summary of my opinion as presented  47 in the report, and I -- I brought it to this section. 10543  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   Now, and my lord, I must say, I'm not going to do  2 everyone, there are others, and I don't intend to do  3 every change because the changes are there, but I'm  4 just trying to deal with large sections, because there  5 is nothing that explains why these changes are made.  6 And with that in mind, can you look to the bottom of  7 the page of your report, 1-5, and you will see that  8 you have a sentence:  9  10 "This evidence of early settlement patterns tends  11 to support the Chiefs's assertions that they  12 and their ancestors have occupied their  13 territories, have harvested, managed and conserved  14 the resources within their territories and that  15 they have defended and protected the borders  16 of the territories since time immemorial."  17  18 Now, that's in addition to your draft.  Was that your  19 idea or Mr. Overstall's?  20 A   It was my idea.  21 Q   Why didn't you include it in your draft?  22 A   Because as I went through the report I -- I felt that  23 I wanted to summarize the opinion and the evidence as  24 I saw it.  25 Q   You know that language is taken from the Statement of  26 Claim?  27 A   Yes.  28 Q   In this action?  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   And so that's what you were trying to illustrate to  31 support the Statement of Claim?  32 A   No.  Not to support the Statement of Claim itself, but  33 in my opinion the evidence that I have recovered and  34 studied and discussed in the report supports  35 assertions that I have -- I've heard made.  36 Q   Now, the next page is 2-11 of the draft and 2-9 of  37 your report.  And if you're at 2-9 of your report and  38 2-11 of the draft, 2-11 of the draft starts at the  39 very top of the page "The artifacts from the 1985  40 excavations"; do you see that?  41 A   Yes.  42 Q   And that continues on, and there's a minor addition  43 and I won't refer you to that, but if you go down you  44 note that you refer to Layer C in your draft and layer  45 C2 in your report.  Now, did you just make a mistake  46 in your draft, or did you decide to rename the layers  47 at Moricetown? 10544  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A   I think that was an oversight in typing.  2 Q   So that reading down to layer C2, and I'll just read  3 the last sentence in the top paragraph of 2-11, you  4 are explaining the few numbers of artifacts in layer C  5 compared to other layers?  6 A   Yes.  7 Q   And then say:  8  9 "This is probably due to the placement of  10 excavation units in relationship to featural  11 remains of the house structure revealed in Layer  12 C."  13  14 And then you've added in your report:  15  16 "In ethnographic contexts it has been observed that  17 cleaning activities frequently result in the  18 removal of artifacts and other debris from  19 house floors.  Since the excavation units  20 intercept such a floor, the lack of artifacts is  21 not surprising.  Also, space which is taken up  22 by walls is not available for artifact  23 deposition."  24  25 Now, is this ethnography that you read or referred to  2 6 between the time that you wrote your draft and the  27 time that you wrote the final?  28 A   No.  These are thoughts about my knowledge of house  29 structures.  30 Q   Well, what -- where has it been observed that cleaning  31 activities result in the removal of artifacts?  Can  32 you give me the ethnographic references you're relying  33 on here?  34 A   This is based on my own -- to a great extent on my own  35 observations of activities within house features and  36 discussion with aboriginal informants concerning --  37 concerning house occupation.  38 Q   So why didn't you say "I have observed that" rather  39 than "In ethnographic context", if you were referring  40 to your own research?  41 A   In that in my own experience in making observations  42 was a situation of making ethnographic observations.  43 Q   All right.  Now, who were -- with ethnographic  44 contexts are you referring to Tahltan?  45 A   Yes.  I have experience in the Tahltan area.  46 Q   Anything else?  47 A   There may be other literature that I had read at some 10545  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 time previously, although it wasn't -- I wasn't able  2 to recall it to the point of being able to put in a  3 specific citation here.  4 Q   Um-hum.  And is this -- is this related only to the  5 habitation of layer C2, that it's your hypothesis that  6 there was more cleaning going on during occupation at  7 layer C2 than at layers above where you found  8 artifacts?  9 A   In the -- we found the post features of a house  10 structure or the featural remains of posts of a  11 structure in layer C.  12 Q   2?  Isn't that —  13 A   Predominantly layer C2.  There are a few features in  14 CI in terms of the plotting of those features.  15 They're referred to as layer C and are most visible in  16 C2.  This was the layer in which the house structure  17 was observed, so this is --  18 Q   This is the only layer in which you observed the house  19 structure, is that what you're saying, at Moricetown?  20 A  At layer C2.  21 Q   Yes?  22 A   Yes.  A large house feature.  23 Q   Well, let's just say house?  24 A   There are -- there were post moulds visible at the CI  25 layer as well, but I'm referring here to the house  26 structure at C2.  27 Q   Now, the next point that I would like to refer you is  28 at 2-12 of your report -- of your draft, sorry, and  29 2-11 of your report.  And the paragraph -- if you look  30 in your report, you have a paragraph second from the  31 bottom that says "Artifacts related to Euro-Canadian  32 occupation".  Do you have that?  33 A   Yes.  34 Q   All right.  And in your draft on page 2-12, and then  35 you go on to say that they're limited to blue-green  36 insulator.  And in your draft the first full paragraph  37 there's a minor name change.  You've changed "Historic  38 artifacts" to "Artifacts related to Euro-Canadian  39 occupation", but then you travel down through to the  40 sentence to the 1930's in your draft, and it matches,  41 and then you've taken out from your draft this  42 sentence:  43  44 "The lack of historic trade goods within the  45 excavated deposits suggests that this portion  46 of the site was not occupied at the time of early  47 European contact." 10546  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Why did you take that out?  2 A   I go on in the draft to say:  3  4 "Similar late perhistoric artifacts and historic  5 trade items have been observed in association in  6 other areas of Kya Wiget."  7  8 Which I -- which is essentially of similar intent to  9 the last sentence in that paragraph in the report:  10  11 "Late period artifacts and colonial trade items  12 have been observed in association in other areas  13 of Kya Wiget."  14  15 Again in terms of editing and polishing the report I  16 rephrased some of the sentences.  17 Q   Well, the polishing changes the sense, doesn't it?  18 A   Not the sense that I intended, or I believe the  19 editing clarifies the intent that I had in mind,  20 clarifies the point I wanted to make.  21 THE COURT:  How far below the surface were these fragments of  22 insulator?  23 A   They were within the sod layer.  24 MR. WILLMS:  25 Q   Now, the next two pages are -- the page number is the  26 same, it's 2-14.  And the -- and the paragraphs almost  27 match in their location that I would like you to refer  28 to in both.  It's the second paragraph from the  29 bottom, and in your draft you said:  30  31 "Re-examination of a number of level bags."  32  33 And in your final you said:  34  35 "We re-examined a number of Ames' level bags."  36  37 And then you've changed the next sentence, because in  38 your draft you said in respect of the microblades:  39  40 "These are being confirmed by an additional expert  41 on microblade technology."  42  43 But then in your final you say:  44  45 "This re-examination suggests the presence  46 of microblades in the early occupation zone."  47 10547  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Now, I'm going to suggest to you that you were not  2 satisfied that you could identify the presence of  3 microblades and so you sought out an expert on  4 microblade technology to assist you?  5 A   No.  6 Q   Did the expert ever write to you about the -- who was  7 this additional expert?  8 A   I did not have --  9 Q   Just on your draft:  10  11 "These are being confirmed by an additional expert  12 on microblade technology."  13  14 Who was that additional expert?  15 A   I identified the items as microblades, as noted here.  16 In the course of photographing the artifacts for the  17 plates that are illustrated in the report I did the  18 photographs at the University of British Columbia  19 where there was a room and equipment set up for taking  20 our artifact photographs, and I arranged to use these  21 facilities for photographing the collection, and at  22 that time they were observed by David Pokotylo at  23 U.B.C.  24 Q   And he gave you his comments on them?  25 A   Yes.  26 Q   And so can you then turn just on the microblade point  27 to page 2-16 of your draft and 2-16 of your report.  28 And you will see -- do you have -- are you looking at  29 the bottom paragraph, please, of both 2-16.  You talk  30 about an assemblage on both sides, and this is in the  31 Gh Sv 85-A area, and in your draft your second  32 sentence says:  33  34 "It is characterized by microblades, five made  35 of obsidian and one of quartz crystal."  36  37 And then in the report you say:  38  39 "It is characterized by microblades, four made of  40 obsidian, one of quartz crystal."  41  42 Did Dr. Pokotylo point out to you that you had  43 misidentified one of the pieces of obsidian?  44 A   No.  45 Q   How did you realize that you had put one too many in  46 your discussion?  47 A   I would like to refer to the photo-plate of the items 1054?  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 in question, if I may.  2 Q   You're looking at plate A-14 in Exhibit 845?  3 A   Yes.  4 Q   And I count six microblades?  5 A   Yes.  And the five of obsidian and one of quartz  6 crystal.  7 Q   So your report is wrong?  8 A   There should be a correction in the report that the  9 four should be a five.  10 MR. WILLMS:  All right.  Now, that's at page 2-18, and perhaps  11 do you have the exhibit?  12 THE COURT:  Did you say 2-18?  13 MR. WILLMS:  Sorry.  14 THE COURT:  2-16.  15 MR. WILLMS:  2-16.  16 THE COURT:  Yes.  17 MR. WILLMS:  18 Q   Perhaps the witness should change that, my lord, in  19 the report in that line, if she's satisfied that five  20 of those really are obsidian?  21 A   Yes.  22 MR. WILLMS:  That should be changed in the exhibit.  23 THE COURT:  Well, if she wishes and if you wish.  I've marked my  24 copy, but it might be --  25 MR. RUSH:  Well, I think that the witness has agreed with Mr.  26 Willms that in fact it should be five.  27 THE COURT:  Yes.  It may be changed if she wishes.  28 MR. RUSH:  Yes.  I think if that's what she wishes, certainly.  29 MR. WILLMS:  30 Q   Do you have a pen?  31 A   I think I realize where the confusion came from in the  32 various drafts, because one of the microblades had  33 been sent for X-Ray flourescence analysis, and I  34 thought there were five of obsidian, and in editing  35 the report I forgot that one was with the materials  36 that had been returned by Godfrey-Smith.  37 Q   Um-hum.  Now, the next is 2-18 in both the draft and  38 your report, and in your draft --  39 A   2-18.  40 Q   2-18 of both?  41 A   Yes.  42 Q   And in your draft you have, at the bottom of the very  43 first paragraph, referred to the Zone III deposits,  44 and you say they're dated 3600 to 3200 your  45 draft?  46 A   In the draft, yes.  47 Q   Bottom of the first paragraph? 10549  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A   Yes.  2 Q   And you've -- you've changed that to "about 3200  3 years" in your report.  Did you reread Coupland?  4 A   Yes.  5 Q   Now, on your summary at page 2-19 in both your report  6 and your draft, your draft starts with the paragraph  7 "Analysis of the stratigraphy"?  8 A   The report analysis?  9 Q   In the draft?  10 A   In the draft?  11 Q   Top of the draft starts with "Analysis of the  12 stratigraphy"?  13 A   Yes.  14 Q   And there has been a whole paragraph added in the  15 summary starting with the words -- sorry -- in the  16 report starting "Archaeological investigations", all  17 the way down to "early period occupation".  Was it  18 your idea to add that paragraph or was it Mr.  19 Overstall's?  20 A   It was my idea.  21 Q   And is there any reason why it wasn't in your original  22 summary but now one month later it's in your report?  23 A  As with other sections of the report is I brought a  24 brief summary of the -- of the results, the opinion to  25 the beginning of that section as a summary of the  26 evidence and then -- and then led into a basis for  27 that summary.  I guess it was a matter of repeating a  28 summary at both the beginning and the end of the  29 section.  30 Q   Next is 3-1 in both the draft and the report, and you  31 will see if you look at the draft, the draft starts  32 off with the same paragraph as the report:  33  34 "This section attempts to correlate the history  35 of origins."  36  37 But then in order to find the second and third  38 paragraphs from the chapter in the draft you have to  39 turn to page 3-2, and all of 3-1 from the first  40 paragraph on has been added.  Was the addition of all  41 of that material your idea or Mr. Overstall's?  42 A  Again it was my idea to present a summary of the data  43 for the section.  44 Q   Now, if you carry onto the -- in your draft and you  45 start on page 3-4 of your draft discussing Gf Tc 85-B.  46 Now, that's the section in Gitanka'at where you had  47 the large house depression with the cobble spalls 10550  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 associated close by?  2 A   Yes.  3 Q   And if you turn to the end of your reference on that  4 in your draft at the top of page 3-6, in the draft --  5 A   3-6.  6 Q   3-6.  And perhaps the easiest way to do this is to  7 turn back to 3-5 in your draft and turn to page 3-6 in  8 your report?  9 A   Yes.  10 MR. WILLMS:  All right.  And you will see that the last  11 paragraph of your draft and of your report coincide  12 except that you've added the reference in your report  13 to "(Duff no date)" about the featural remains of the  14 "daak" style house.  15 THE COURT:  I'm sorry, Mr. Willms, I'm not following you.  I'm  16 on 3-5.  17 Q   3-5 of the draft and 3-6 of the report.  18 THE COURT:  Where are you now?  19 MR. WILLMS:  20 Q   And these paragraphs are virtually identical except  21 that if you look at the second sentence you originally  22 said that:  23  24 "The larger house depression investigated at the  25 site is characteristic of expected featural  26 remains of the 'daak' style house noted in the  27 ethnographic literature for the Tsimshian."  28  29 Then you've changed that to say "Noted in the  30 ethnographic literature (Duff no date)."  31  32 That "Duff no date" is referring to the Tsimshian,  33 isn't it?  34 A   The -- I think in reviewing the report here the "Duff  35 no date" refers to the --  36 MR. WILLMS:  Well, maybe rather than deal with it that way --  37 MR. RUSH:  No, no.  That's not the way to deal with -- excuse  38 me.  In my submission, my lord, the witness should be  39 allowed to answer the question.  40 THE COURT:  Yes.  She's in the middle of an answer.  Go ahead,  41 please.  You were telling us what the "Duff no date"  42 meant, or what it refers to?  43 A   Yes.  In respect to "Duff no date", I believe I  44 intended this to refer to the Duff files that were  45 used in reviewing in relationship to the ancestral  46 villages, and there is a reference to the daak in the  47 references in the Appendix B. 10551  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 MR. WILLMS:  2 Q   Well, was your draft correct, is that the ethnographic  3 literature for the Tsimshian, or did you make a  4 mistake?  5 A   There are also references to the daak style house  6 in -- in the Boas material for the Coast Tsimshian.  7 Tsimshian is a term that is often -- often applied to  8 the Coast Tsimshian, the Gitksan and the Nishga.  In  9 that sense there are references to daak style houses  10 among all three groups of Tsimshian peoples.  11 MR. WILLMS:  Yes, all right.  12 THE COURT:  What did you mean by Appendix B a moment ago?  13 A   The references.  14 THE COURT:  Oh, in Appendix B here?  15 A   Ethnographic literature and Appendix B to my report.  16 THE COURT:  Yes, thank you.  17 MR. WILLMS:  18 Q   Now carrying on, on page 3-5 of your draft and 3-6 of  19 your report you will see that in your report -- in  20 your draft you carry on on the top of 3-6 with a  21 discussion of the house features that you've found at  22 Gitanka'at, and that discussion is not in your final  23 report, and you say in your draft:  24  25 "These house features are smaller than house  26 depressions at Kitselas Canyon dating to about  27 3,000 B.P. which have average dimensions  28 of five by eight metres.  However, the house  29 features in the Gitanka'at study area are located  30 close to the river on a low lying terrace where  31 they have been covered with river silts during  32 spring flood."  33  34 Why did you take that paragraph out when you prepared  35 your final?  36 A   I feel that it was not necessary to the discussion  37 of -- of the features that -- it was not necessary.  38 Q   All right.  You then -- and I'm on 3-6 of your draft  39 and 3-7 of your report, and I'll just deal with the  40 two paragraphs of your report.  My friend has already  41 advised the court that the last two paragraphs of the  42 page are out, but you will see that starting at page  43 3-7 of your report and 3-6 under "Discussion" of your  44 draft, those two paragraphs at the top of the page  45 are -- and I won't say they're identical, but they're  46 virtually identical, and then in effect your  47 discussion in the report ends but your discussion in 10552  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 the draft continues on for two paragraphs about  2 population size based on storage capacity of cache  3 pits, and I just -- first of all, in those two  4 paragraphs you're describing summarizing Coupland's  5 review of cache pits and your own assessments of cache  6 pits and their size.  It is a general discussion about  7 cache pits?  8 A   Yes.  9 Q   Why did you take those two paragraphs out of your  10 report?  11 A   It seemed to be unnecessary discussion to describing  12 the evidence at -- at this site.  13 Q   Well, at the bottom of the page, for example, at 3-6  14 in the draft you say:  15  16 "A major problem in using cache pits to estimate  17 population size is one of dating.  It is very  18 difficult to recover remains for dating the use of  19 cache pits.  It cannot be assumed that all cache  20 pits in an area were used at the same time."  21  22 Now, just stopping there, when you wrote your report  23 didn't you consider that that was important  24 information respecting cache pits?  25 A   In -- in thinking about cache pits in general, these  26 are some ideas and notes I had again typed up on the  27 computer, and they would be notes that were relevant  28 to discussion of estimation of population size as  29 Coupland has attempted to do at Kitselas, and I did  30 not feel that this was not -- was not a factor at  31 Gitanka'at in terms of the opinion I formulated of  32 making -- I'm not asserting that the cache pits at  33 Gitanka'at were all used at one time or that I'm  34 basing any discussion on population.  I'm not  35 attempting to estimate the size of the population  36 living at that area, only that the area was occupied  37 and used and there is evidence of use of resources at  38 that area over time.  39 Q   Isn't it the case that the statement that you've made  40 there applies to your whole report, and that is that  41 it cannot be assumed that all cache pits in an area  42 were used at the same time, you just simply can't make  43 that assumption anywhere in your area of  44 investigation?  45 A   Cache pits of varying dimensions might reflect use of  46 cache pits over a period of time.  I think that's what  47 I referred to in my -- I was referring to in the 10553  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 draft.  2 Q   You're not saying that that statement might be true in  3 Gitanka'at, but it might not be true in other areas;  4 is that what you're suggesting?  5 A  Well, one would look at the evidence of the features  6 at the specific site location being investigated.  7 Q   Well, is that what you're saying?  You're saying that  8 varies in some places, you can't tell, that they were  9 all used at the same time.  Just by looking at them  10 without dating any of them you can look at them and  11 tell that they were all used at the same time; is that  12 your evidence?  13 A   No.  I couldn't say offhand that all pit features were  14 used at the same time.  Features of similar size and  15 shape and characteristics might reflect use of a  16 number of pits at about the approximate same -- about  17 approximate time period.  Without -- without  18 retrieving dates from many different pits, I couldn't  19 say that all pits in an area were used at the same  20 time, but one could look at or discuss the fact that  21 there is perhaps a range of size in pits that would  22 suggest that there have been weathering and erosion of  23 the pits over time, and that these erosional factors  24 may have been variable over time, particularly in --  25 Q   If you're finished I'll carry on with something else,  26 but if you're not finished, please continue?  27 A   No.  I'm feeling tired, I feel that my discussion is  2 8 weakening somewhat.  2 9 THE COURT:  We'll adjourn for 15 minutes.  30 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  31 MR. RUSH:  My lord, we've mused about adjourning at 6:30, I just  32 wanted to --  33 THE COURT:  Yes.  34 MR. RUSH:  Discuss that with your lordship, if that is our  35 intention?  36 THE COURT:  That was our plan.  37 MR. RUSH:  Yes, thank you.  38 THE COURT:  How are we doing, Mr. Willms?  39 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, the — and I apologize for this, because I  40 would not proceed this way with this report except  41 that I only got it at the beginning of the week, and  42 I'm doing the best I can.  I didn't want to take this  43 much time, and I am behind schedule, and I can see and  44 this is subject to the 200 documents that my friend  45 disclosed this morning, which I have not had a chance  46 to review yet, I can see that it could easily carry  47 into Saturday and perhaps beyond, and I'm -- 10554  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  COURT:  It won't go beyond Saturday.  WILLMS:  I'll do the best I can, my lord, but the point is  simply this, and I have not reviewed all of the field  notes, the level notes that this witness had that  formed the foundation for the bulk of her report.  All  that I have been able to review prior to -- and these  are documents that are the basis of the report, my  lord, they should have been disclosed 60 days ago, at  least 60 days ago.  They form the foundation of the  report.  COURT:  We don't need to continue, Mr. Willms I'm not saying  you're going to be guillotined, but I say that we're  not going to continue this witness after Saturday.  We'll continue it, as we mentioned earlier, at some  other time, if it's necessary to do that.  WILLMS: All right. Well, that's agreeable, my lord. I'm  going to do the best I can and I hope to be able to,  but I haven't looked at the material yet.  COURT:  Yes.  WILLMS:  Now, the next place, Miss Albright, is at page 3-13  of both your report and your draft, and in fact, to  set the context, you might want to start at 3-12 of  both the draft and the report so that you can see the  context of the discussion.  COURT:  3-13?  WILLMS:  3-12, my lord, would be the starting point for  both.  COURT:  Yes.  WILLMS:  Q   And I just want to let the witness see that it's in  her description and discussion of site Gh Sv 85-A, and  Miss Albright, that is the surface collection that you  made at Hagwilget?  A   Yes.  Q   And so if you turn to the top of page 3-13, which is  the surface, you say in your draft:  "This study indicates that occupation of site Gh Sv  85-A was contemporaneous with the other two."  A At the top of 3-13.  Q 3-13 in your draft?  A Yes.  Q "This study" -- the sentence:  "This study indicates that occupation of site  Gh Sv 85-A was contemporaneous with the other two,  1  THE  2  MR.  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  THE  12  13  14  15  16  MR.  17  18  19  THE  20  MR.  21  22  23  24  25  THE  26  MR.  27  28  THE  29  MR.  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47 10555  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 possibly as early as 5,000 to 6,000 years ago."  2  3 And in your report, the same sentence, it reads  4 identically except you've changed the word "possibly"  5 to "probably".  What other investigations did you do  6 between the time that you wrote your draft and the  7 time that you wrote your report in that one month  8 period that gave you the confidence to move from  9 "possibly" to "probably"?  10 A   That was based on additional thought concerning the  11 evidence that is presented in the report.  12 Q   And perhaps if you had more thought you might go back  13 to "possibly"?  14 A   No.  I feel confident in the statement that I've made  15 in my report.  16 Q   Now, the next place, and it's a similar point, it's at  17 page 3-18 of both your draft and your report, and if  18 you -- you will see this is a discussion of Kisgegas  19 at the top of both pages, and you have an extra  20 paragraph, and I'm not going to ask you any questions  21 about the additional paragraph at the top of your  22 report, but in the second paragraph of the report at  23 page 3-18, first paragraph of the draft, again in the  24 last line in your draft when you're talking about the  25 oral histories here, you say in the draft:  26  27 "It is possible that one or more village sites in  28 the Kisgegas area were occupied" --  29  30 And then in your final report you say "It is likely  31 that they were".  Now, what other material did you  32 review between the time you wrote your draft that  33 allowed you to strengthen your views here?  34 A  Again, it was based on additional thought concerning  35 the data presented.  36 MR. WILLMS:  Next is page 3-22 of both the draft and the report.  37 THE COURT:  I'm sorry, page?  38 MR. WILLMS:  39 Q   3-22, my lord, of both the draft and the report.  And  40 the sections -- and this is the summary of the -- and  41 you will see in the summary that -- and my lord, it's  42 a minor point, and Miss Albright, you've added a  43 sentence at the beginning of this, the summary:  44  45 "Archaeological investigation of ancestral village  46 localities tend to confirm the reliability" --  47 10556  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 And that's been fitted in at the beginning, and then  2 the two paragraphs in the draft are merged, but in  3 your draft you say, and it's in the second paragraph  4 of the draft but in the merged paragraph of the  5 report, you say in the draft:  6  7 "Evidence of prehistoric occupation and land use  8 activities has been recorded in all five ancestral  9 village localities investigated" --  10  11 And then one month later you've changed it in your  12 final to say that:  13  14 "Evidence of earlier occupation and land use  15 activities has been recorded in four of the five  16 ancestral village localities."  17  18 And what was it that caused you to conclude that you  19 were perhaps a bit hasty in saying "five" in your  20 draft?  21 A   In reviewing the data that we have and based on the  22 investigations of the localities as identified for --  23 for investigation, we did not locate evidence within  24 the study area defined for Dizkle.  25 Q   And did you just realize that in the interim between  26 preparing your draft and doing your final report?  27 A   No.  The draft was an oversight in that respect in  28 typing -- in five.  29 Q   Now, you ended your draft summary by saying:  30  31 "The best evidence for documenting the history of  32 occupation and cultural development of the Gitksan  33 and Wet'suwet'en peoples (or any ethnolinguistic  34 group of people) within their historic territories  35 comes from controlled excavation of stratified  36 sites which demonstrate continuous occupation  37 during the prehistoric past leading into late  38 prehistoric/early historic times."  39  40 Just stopping there.  That's your view today, isn't  41 it, that's the best evidence?  42 THE COURT:  Where is that, please, Mr. Willms?  43 MR. WILLMS:  It's page 3-22 of the draft, my lord.  44 THE COURT:  Oh, yes.  45 MR. WILLMS:  And it's the first sentence in that third  46 paragraph.  4 7    THE COURT:  Yes. 10557  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 MR. WILLMS:  2 Q   That's still your opinion today, isn't it?  I think  3 you said yes?  4 A   I would -- that was a -- that was a consideration in  5 the draft.  There was --  6 Q   Just carrying on, you point out that:  7  8 "Only two such sites have been investigated in  9 Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en territories."  10  11 And those are Gh Sv 2 and Gg St 2?  12 A   Yes.  We have two major sites which have deeply  13 stratified deposits.  14 Q   All right.  And why did you take that out?  That's  15 useful archaeological information, isn't it, in terms  16 of comparing the relative strength of archaeological  17 information?  18 A   I don't remember why I decided to remove it, if I did.  19 MR. WILLMS:  The next page is 4-4, please, Miss Albright, in  20 both your draft and your report.  21 MR. RUSH:  What's the page, please?  22 MR. WILLMS:  23 Q   4-4 of both.  And at page 4-4 and in your report it's  24 all on one page, and your draft it starts on the  25 previous page, but it's the same section, and you have  26 the paragraph "It is possible" in your draft report on  27 page 4-4, it's the first full paragraph, and you refer  28 to table 5, summarizing the clusters of archaeological  29 sites located within Gitksan territories and their  30 correlation with named fishing camps and village  31 sites.  And then your report carries on at pages 4-5  32 of your draft -- at 4-5 and 4-6 to list their  33 correlation in a table, and you haven't reproduced  34 that correlation in your report.  Why did you take the  35 table out?  36 A   I removed the table because it was incomplete, and --  37 Q   Not because it was inaccurate but because it wasn't  38 complete?  39 A   Because it wasn't complete, yes.  40 Q   To the extent that you filled it out, it was with the  41 information that you had at the time, in your view,  42 accurate?  43 A   Yes.  44 Q   The next reference is 4-9 in your draft and 4-7 in  45 your report, and this is the end of the section 4.2 in  46 both, and I'm referring particularly to the bottom  47 where you say "In summary" -- there's a paragraph at 1055?  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 the bottom of both 4-9 in your draft and 4-7 of your  2 report that says "In summary".  Do you have those?  3 A   4-9 in the draft?  4 Q   Draft?  5 A   Yes.  6 Q   And 4-7 in your report?  7 A   4-7, yes.  8 Q   All right.  And the paragraphs are identical until you  9 get down to the very last line, where you say in your  10 draft about the clustering of archaeological sites and  11 fish camps, that it is -- it suggests that these have  12 been significant village locations and fishing areas  13 for a considerable period of time, and then you say  14 "for centuries if not millenia" in the final.  Is that  15 just your way of saying that's what a considerable  16 period of time means to you "Centuries if not  17 millenia"?  18 A   In -- in reviewing the evidence, I believe that I felt  19 that this for centuries if not millenia was justified  20 by data which is included for archaeological sites  21 recorded.  22 THE COURT:  In architectural terminology what do you mean by  23 millenia?  24 A  Millenia being thousand-year periods.  2 5 THE COURT:  Thank you.  26 MR. WILLMS:  27 Q   And so when you say for a considerable period of time,  28 you mean millenia?  29 A  Millenia, yes.  30 MR. RUSH:  It says "For centuries if not millenia".  31 THE COURT:  Millenia is the plural of millenium, isn't it?  32 MR. RUSH:  Yes.  I think so.  33 THE COURT:  Thank you.  34 A   So I'm not indicating that all of these sites have  35 been occupied for millenia, but a number of sites  36 indicate occupation at various points of time in the  37 past.  38 MR. WILLMS:  39 Q   Now, the next reference is 4-10 in your draft and 4-8  40 in your report where you deal with sites in  41 Wet'suwet'en territory?  42 A   Yes.  43 Q   And once again the first point is in the second  44 paragraph of your draft at 4-10.  You've got a table  45 summarizing the correlation between prehistoric sites,  46 and it follows 4-11 and 4-12 of your draft, and you've  47 taken that out of your report. 10559  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A   Yes.  2 Q   Is that because it was incomplete?  3 A   Yes.  4 Q   All right.  But as far as you knew at the time you  5 prepared it it was accurate as to what you've put on  6 it?  7 A   I believe it to be accurate.  8 Q   Now, you then --  9 A   But it may -- -- yes.  I believed it to be accurate.  10 Q   Yes?  11 A  At the time.  12 Q   You had enough confidence in it to include it in your  13 draft?  14 A  At the time.  I reconsidered it in that there were  15 sections that were incomplete, yes.  16 Q   All right.  Now, just continuing underneath that you  17 have a discussion in both your report and your draft  18 of seven sites recorded along Moricetown Canyon.  You  19 also refer then to excavations at site Gg St 2, and in  20 your draft you say that the excavations at the site on  21 the site distribution map appear to indicate  22 continuous occupation at the canyon from 5600 B.P. up  23 to historic times, and in your final you have taken  24 the words "appear to" out so that the final reads that  25 the "Excavations indicate continuous occupation".  26 Now, what information did -- came to your attention  27 between the time that you prepared your draft and the  28 time that you wrote your report a month later which  29 allowed you to confidently say that it indicates  30 rather than just appears to indicate?  31 A  Well, again, in reviewing the -- reviewing the  32 evidence as described in the report, I felt more  33 confident in it.  34 Q   And that's not a confidence that time from then until  35 now has shaken?  36 A   No.  37 Q   Now, next is 4-14 of your draft and 4-10 of your  38 report.  You -- and this is the summary of 4.4, the  39 summary of this section.  The third paragraph in your  40 draft you talk about the clustering of archaeological  41 sites, and that is dealt with in the second paragraph  42 of your report at the 4-10?  43 A   Yes.  44 Q   And in your draft you say that:  45  46 "The clustering of sites within the  47 vicinity of historically occupied villages and 10560  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 fishing camps indicate that these have been  2 important population centres and the focus  3 of cultural activities for a considerable period  4 of time during the prehistoric period."  5  6 And you said in your final report that:  7  8 "The clustering in the vicinity of historically  9 occupied villages and fishing camps indicate that  10 these have been important population centres for  11 millenia."  12  13 Now, once again you're just translating what you mean  14 by a considerable period of time into something  15 quantifiable, or have you extended, after reviewing  16 and thinking about it, the period of time that you  17 think is justified on your review?  18 A   I would like to clarify that.  I don't mean by this  19 statement that all site areas have been occupied for  20 millenia, but there are indications at some sites that  21 there is occupation which extend to the range of  22 millenia.  23 MR. WILLMS:  The last comparison that I ask you to turn to, at  24 the back of your draft there are a series of figures,  25 and I should say, my lord, that when the draft came  26 over to us from my friends it was -- the order of the  27 pages was a bit out, and this may not have been the  28 way the draft looked when the witness prepared it.  29 We've simply taken all the figures and put them after  30 the text rather than interspersing them through the  31 text so the figures are at the back, and I would ask  32 that you turn to figure -- it's entitled figure 26,  33 "Temporal Comparison of Major Skeena Valley  34 Assemblages".  And, my lord, it looks like that.  35 THE COURT:  And it's after —  36 MR. WILLMS:  It's just before the start of the photographs, it's  37 two pages before the start of the photographs in  38 the —  3 9 THE COURT:  Yes.  40 MR. WILLMS:  In the draft.  And this is a little more difficult,  41 assuming that everybody's copy of the report is the  42 same, it's after page 2-19 in the report, I think.  43 THE COURT:  Yes, yes, thank you.  44 MR. WILLMS:  Just dealing with the figure —  45 MR. FREY:  Excuse me, Mr. Willms, where is the equivalent in the  46 draft?  47 THE COURT:  Two pages before the photograph. 10561  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 MR. WILLMS:  This is the draft, and then the report.  2 MR. FREY:  Okay, thank you.  3 MR. WILLMS:  4 Q   Now, if you look at the draft, you have set out a  5 historic period for Gh Sv 2.  Do you see that?  6 A   Yes.  7 Q   And then you've got a period called "Fishing Site"?  8 A   Yes.  9 Q   And then Zone A, and you call it "Multiple Activity"  10 in the draft, with handwriting below it "Village Site"  11 and "Microblades", but what -- Zone A in both the  12 draft and the figure are the same, that is they extend  13 to 3500 B.P.?  14 A   Yes.  15 Q   Then you have a question mark for "Fishing Site Zone  16 B" where you had the fishing site in table 26  17 extending to the historic period?  18 A   Yes.  19 Q   Now, I'm going to suggest to you first of all Gh Sv 2,  20 that's the Ames excavation?  21 A   Yes.  22 Q   Correct?  And Ames at that site only identified three  23 zones?  24 A   Yes.  25 Q   The most recent zone that Ames identified was the  26 historic zone, isn't that correct?  27 A  A zone containing historic materials.  28 Q   Yes.  And Ames suggested that that zone represented  29 the point in time when the Gitksan gave the fishing  30 site to the Wet'suwet'en in 1820?  31 A   Yes.  I believe I remember he did state that.  32 Q   And you did not do any excavations at Gh Sv 2, did  33 you?  Those are all your interpretations of Ames'  34 excavations and Macdonald's?  35 A   Yes.  36 Q   But other people's?  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   Why then did you change the date between the fishing  39 site and the village site from 200 B.P., which would  40 make the most recent zone "Historic", to a dotted line  41 with a question mark at 2500 B.P.?  42 A   In my review of the work conducted by Ames there is  43 clear evidence of a village site during late times at  44 that location.  45 Q   What do you mean by "late times"?  46 A  As I reviewed the evidence, the materials, there are  47 historic items at the -- in the uppermost levels at 10562  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 the site.  There is also considerable amount of  2 material and artifactual remains that indicate  3 occupation of the site during -- village site, that  4 location at pre-contact times, and -- and in setting  5 out this -- in setting out the table I -- I wanted to  6 point out it's an illustrative way of indicating a --  7 that there are prehistoric pre-contact or evidence of  8 pre-contact occupation of available site at that -- at  9 that location.  10 Q   Could the big black exhibit be placed before the  11 witness, Exhibit 847.  And I would ask, Miss Albright,  12 if you turn to tab 4 of that, and tab 4 is -- and I  13 think you referred to this in your evidence in  14 chief -- your evidence earlier, this is the  15 preliminary report of excavations at Hagwilget by  16 Me s ?  17 A   Yes.  18 MR. WILLMS:  And if you look to the end of the discussion, just  19 before table 5, and it's the section entitled  20 "Summary".  21 THE COURT:  Sorry, what page?  22 MR. WILLMS:  I don't think there are page numbers here, my lord,  23 not that I've been able to discern.  24 THE COURT:  The summary, yes.  25 MR. WILLMS:  26 Q   It's entitled "Summary", and the words are "The  27 matrix", it starts off with "The matrix"; do you have  28 that?  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   Now, you will see that Dr. Ames says:  31  32 "Three occupational zones are recognized.  The  33 occupation in the first zone was relatively  34 intense.  The zone is characterized by multiple  35 activity localities at the site.  This occupation  36 lasted for an undetermined period, ending between  37 4000 and 3500 B.P."  38  39 Now, so far so good.  That's where you ended Zone A in  40 both the draft and the final, isn't it?  41 A   Yes.  42 Q   Then he continues:  43  44 "In the following zone the evidence indicates that  45 occupation was light and sporadic, and that  46 activity was probably limited to fishing.  This  47 situation continued until 1820 A.D. when the 10563  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 locality was given to the Carrier by the Gitksan.  2 The site has been used since as a village and most  3 recently as a fishing locality by the Hagwilget  4 Carrier."  5  6 And if you look at the next page, you will see that  7 Dr. Ames sets out occupation zones on a timetable.  8 And he has described occupation Zone B and occupation  9 Zone C the same way you described it in your draft,  10 correct; that's your draft?  There's the fishing site,  11 the historic site, and Zone A?  12 A   I'm -- in the draft, yes, I acknowledge historic or  13 post-contact materials at the site.  14 Q   Well, I would like to know what information you  15 reviewed in the one month before -- between the time  16 you prepared your draft and the time you prepared the  17 final report, what information came to your knowledge  18 that changed your mind about the date between the  19 fishing site and the historic site?  20 A   Based on my review of study and review of the  21 materials excavated at the site, I came to a somewhat  22 different understanding of the site than has been --  23 so a different opinion concerning occupation at the  24 site than was discussed by Ames.  25 Q   Are you saying you disagree with Ames' conclusions?  26 A   I'm not altogether disagreeing with his conclusions,  27 I'm coming to a somewhat different way of describing  2 8 the evidence as I've reviewed it.  29 Q   Now, the next change that has been made is really  30 two-fold.  If you look to the left on figure 26 of  31 your draft you have added, although you have the same  32 names, you appear to have split apart the Gitaus and  33 Paul Mason sites to depict that assemblage.  Is that  34 all you did, you just split them apart?  35 A   Yes.  I separated the -- separated the phase  36 descriptions presented for each site.  37 Q   All right.  And you've also added in your final report  38 this hatched area between sometime after 3500 B.P.,  39 and it's larger in the Paul Mason site than in the  40 Gitaus site.  Now, was that based on any excavation  41 that you yourself did in Kitselas Canyon?  42 A   No.  That is based on my rereading of the work of  43 Allaire and Coupland at Kitselas Canyon and their  44 mention of a stratigraphic break in the sequence at  45 those sites.  46 Q   And maybe if you reread it again you would go back to  47 the way you depicted it the first time? 10564  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   No.  I'm confident in the way I have described it in  the opinion report.  THE COURT:  What do the hatch marks indicate?  A  A break in the occupational sequence.  THE COURT:  Just an unexplained period from 1 to 200 years,  between 20 — no, between 33 — 3400 and 3500 B.P.?  A   Yes.  Allaire at the Getaus site describes a zone  which refers to a weathering zone that might be  relevant to changes in the environment and describes  new artifact types appearing in the following -- in  the zone, which he has referred to as the Skeena  Complex.  THE COURT:  Are you comfortable with it being a hundred years in  the case of Gitaus?  A   Yes.  THE COURT:  And two — to 200 years in the Paul Mason site?  A   Yes.  THE COURT:  Is that carbon dated, or how is that so described?  A   The break -- that sequence is summarized by Coupland.  Coupland also summarizes the sequence described by  Allaire, and the Coupland describes a break in the  sequence at the Paul Mason site for which he has a  number of dates, and he has -- refers to the Paul  Mason phase at the Paul Mason site as starting at 3200  years ago, so the -- the shift that -- 35 to 3600  years.  MR. WILLMS:  Q   On that point, perhaps you could turn to tab 6 of the  big black three-ringed binder.  This is the  dissertation by, I suppose he's now Dr. Coupland,  since this was successful?  A   Yes, it is.  Q   And if you turn to page 341, which is the last page in  that tab, can you point out where in this prehistoric  cultural sequence at the Paul Mason site the 300 year  break comes in between 3500 and 3200?  A   Dr. Coupland referred to the Gitaus phase as being  present at -- at the Gitaus site excavated by Allaire  and the Paul Mason site excavated by himself, 4300 to  3600.  Q   Well, maybe I'm reading this wrong, but at 4300 to  3600 is Gitaus and "PMS" is Paul Mason's site, right?  If you look down to the culture, Gitaus phase, the  dates 4300 to 3600, and the star for the source is  Allaire at Gitaus and PMS is the Paul Mason site?  A   Yes.  Q   Correct?  And then from 3600 to 3200 is the Skeena 10565  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  2  3  A  4  5  6  THE COURT:  7  A  8  9  THE COURT:  10  A  11  MR. WILLMS  12  Q  13  A  14  15  16  17  18  Q  19  20  21  22  23  A  24  25  Q  26  27  A  28  Q  29  A  30  31  32  33  Q  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  A  41  42  43  44  Q  45  46  A  47  phase, and it's noted as Gitaus, and there's no break  between 3500 and 3400, as you've shown in table 5.  The Skeena phase continues, as described by Allaire,  the Skeena phase at Gitaus continues through the  period of the Paul Mason phase at the Paul Mason site.  What does Gitaus mean?  Gitaus is the -- the name of the site that was  excavated.  It also refers to the village site.  Thank you.  That was there also in later times.  Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but --  In other words, the occupation at Paul Mason -- at the  Paul Mason site, the village occupation, the  appearance of two rows of large house depressions  which in -- during the Paul Mason phase is equivalent  to the Skeena complex at the Gitaus site.  Well, was it this document that you were relying on,  certainly not this extract, to show the break at  Gitaus, and even on the break at Paul Mason doesn't it  show the break at Paul Mason -- sorry, Paul Mason from  being 3600 to 3200, not 3500 to 3200, as you've shown?  This is a generalized table for purposes of comparing  periods of time that are several hundred years long.  So these lines could be out -- any line could be out  hundreds of years either way?  Not hundreds of years, no.  A hundred?  Perhaps a hundred years, yes.  And then in some cases  I have put them in as dotted lines or interrupted  lines, because I would not say for sure that there is  a --  I have one last question on this, and that is if you  look at table 7.1 at tab 6 here, it has the Kleanza  Phase ending at 1500, and then it doesn't pick up with  the two villages until 250 years ago as being  historic.  And so does your question mark in table 5  mean that you just don't know what was going on at the  site at the time?  The -- the sites that were excavated and -- or the  reports of excavations at the Paul Mason site and the  Gitaus site document occupation up to 1500 years  and --  And that occupation doesn't pick up again until  historic times?  It is not clear to the researchers at the -- at -- how  the continuity is between the -- the occupation of the 10566  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 excavate sites and occupation of the -- of the late  2 prehistoric-historic occupied sites of Tiladzawk and  3 Gitsaex, how that occupation is linked, that's why the  4 question mark.  5 Q   There's no archaeological link between it, is there?  6 A   No.  7 MR. WILLMS:  This might be an appropriate time, my lord.  8 THE COURT:  All right, thank you.  9 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  10 THE COURT:  We will adjourn until ten o'clock tommorrow morning.  11 Thank you.  12 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court will adjourn until 10:00  13 a.m.  14  15 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED)  16  17 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  18 a true and accurate transcript of the  19 proceedings herein transcribed to the  20 best of my skill and ability  21  22  23  24  25 Graham D. Parker  26 Official Reporter  27 United Reporting Service Ltd.  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items