Open Collections

Delgamuukw Trial Transcripts

[Proceedings of the Supreme Court of British Columbia 1989-11-06] British Columbia. Supreme Court Nov 6, 1989

Item Metadata


JSON: delgamuukw-1.0018449.json
JSON-LD: delgamuukw-1.0018449-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): delgamuukw-1.0018449-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: delgamuukw-1.0018449-rdf.json
Turtle: delgamuukw-1.0018449-turtle.txt
N-Triples: delgamuukw-1.0018449-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: delgamuukw-1.0018449-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

 21937  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 November 6th, 1989  2 VANCOUVER, B.C.  3  4 THE REGISTRAR: Order in court. In the Supreme Court of British  5 Columbia, this 6th day of November, 1989, in the  6 matter of Delgamuukw versus Her Majesty the Queen at  7 bar, my lord.  8 May I remind you you are still under oath?  9 THE WITNESS:   Yes.  10 THE REGISTRAR:   And would you state your name for the record,  11 please?  12 THE WITNESS:   Sheila Patricia Robinson.  13 THE REGISTRAR:   Thank you.  14 THE COURT:  Mr. Grant.  15  16 CROSS-EXAMINATION CONT. BY MR. GRANT:  17 Q   Thank you, my lord.  18 Dr. Robinson, you remember the last day when I was  19 questioning you that I referred you to Phillip  20 Drucker's statement relating to disease?  21 A   Yes.  22 Q   And that it was the -- at page 21924, Volume 291, and  23 just to refresh your memory, he stated:  24  25 "One accompaniment of Indian-white contact  26 had more far reaching results than any instance  27 of cultural diffusion:  the introduction of  28 various diseases."  29  30 And then he described certain of the epidemics,  31 and then he says:  32  33 "The full cultural implications of these  34 disasters has not been analyzed in detail, but  35 there is no question that they have been far  36 reaching."  37  38 And then I asked you -- I suggested that you had  39 no reason to dispute what he stated, and you said  40 that, on page 21925, line 13, or line 7:  41  42 "It certainly was accepted there were European  43 diseases being introduced to areas, but the  44 impact that they had on native societies is not  45 very well understood.  And a lot of very  46 serious scholarship has been devoted to trying  47 to figure this stuff out, but I would say it's 2193?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  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  still a very problematic area.  And in light of  that, I would say that his statement that the  diseases had more far-reaching results than any  instance of cultural diffusion is one that  simply can't be made.  It's an opinion but it's  based on problematic information."  And you went on to refer to Fisher and Boyd  amongst others.  You recall that when we discussed  that?  Yes.  And you were familiar with Fisher's dissertation on  this subject?  You didn't cite it in your report, but  you are familiar with that aren't you?  I'm familiar with his book "Contact and Conflict".  I'm sorry, I said Fisher.  Yes.  I meant Boyd.  Oh, Boyd.  Yes, I made a fairly cursory review of  Boyd's dissertation.  I'm passing up to you a set -- two sets of tabs and  Boyd.  I would ask that Boyd would go at tab 28.  Can  you put that Boyd in front of the witness, please?  REGISTRAR: Yes.  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  MR. GRANT  THE  (EXHIBIT 1191-28: Boyd  Diseases"  'Introduction of Infectious  MR. GRANT:  Q   If you can turn to the front of that, I have just put  certain excerpts from Boyd and starting with the  abstract which Dr. Boyd states that:  "This dissertation is a comprehensive study  of the introduction of infectious diseases  among the Indians of the Northwest Coast and  Plateau culture areas in the first century of  contact (1774-1874), and the effects of these  new diseases on native population size,  structure, interactions, and viability."  And you agree that that's -- you recall the  dissertation enough to know that that was what he was  describing and discussing?  A   Yes, I do.  MR. GRANT:  Now, this dissertation of course is 20 years after 21939  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  THE  COURT  5  MR.  GRANT  6  7  8  THE  COURT  9  MR.  GRANT  10  Q  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  A  30  31  THE  COURT  32  33  MR.  GRANT  34  THE  COURT  35  MR.  GRANT  36  37  THE  COURT  38  MR.  GRANT  39  40  THE  COURT  41  MR.  GRANT  42  43  THE  COURT  44  MR.  GRANT  45  Q  46  47  A  Phillip Drucker in 1985.  He then goes on on the  second page, the abstract, if you turn to the middle  paragraph, to state "The data demonstrate..."  I'm sorry, what page is that?  The third page in.  That would be from the title  page, the title, the abstract, at page 2, just before  the table of contents.  Yes.  All right.  "The data demonstrate that disease was  indeed the major cause of native depopulation  in the north-west.  On the north coast and  plateau the major cause of mortality was small  pox which appeared in regularly spaced epidemic  waves, the timing of which was determined by  chance introduction and the availability of a  pool of non-immune susceptibles.  Depopulation  was more extensive in that portion of the  southern coast where malaria appeared after  1830 and became endemic.  The introduction of  the disease produced heavy mortality, which  persisted in later years especially among the  young, accompanied by a decline in fertility."  Now, you have no reason from your research to  dispute his conclusion there do you?  Yes, I do, and I'll reiterate the statement I made  earlier.  Before you do that I haven't found that, Mr. Grant.  Where is that again?  Page 3?  I'm sorry.  I see you have the numbered page 3.  Yes.  The third page in.  There's the cover page and there  is the abstract.  The abstract is two pages long.  All right.  I have it.  The first quote was the first paragraph of the  extract.  I have it.  Thank you.  And the second quote was the second page of the  abstract starting "The data demonstrate".  Yes, I have it.  Now, firstly, before you explain your answer, which I  will let you do, have you done research on disease?  I've done some research investigating what other 21940  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 writers have written about disease.  2 Q   About what other writers have written about disease?  3 A   Yes.  4 Q   And one of those that disputed disease, the impact of  5 disease, was Fisher wasn't it?  6 A   I don't remember the details of the opinion he  7 expressed about the impact of European diseases on  8 native populations on the north-west coast.  9 Q   Now, what other writers do you rely on to dispute what  10 Boyd is saying here?  11 A   I'm not relying on other writers who've addressed the  12 notion of the impact of European diseases on native  13 north-western populations.  I'm disputing the first  14 three words of that paragraph you read to me where it  15 says that "The data demonstrate".  16 Q   Okay.  17 A  And I feel that there is insufficient information on  18 any of these disease factors.  We have insufficient  19 information about the impact of any one of those kinds  20 of diseases.  The record is very scanty.  There are  21 some anecdotes or events recorded about waves of small  22 pox and influenza going through villages, for  23 instance, but I don't believe that they add up to  24 sound demonstration of the impact of diseases on  25 native populations.  Besides that, he starts a study  26 in 1774 with the first European voyage to the northern  27 north-west coast by the Spaniards in the northern  28 region.  I think he's referring to Perez there and  29 that's the first recorded direct contact between the  30 Spanish and the Haida.  I also feel that there may be  31 earlier epidemics that we simply don't have historic  32 documentation for.  33 Q   What makes you believe there are earlier epidemics?  34 Do you have any information or is this just  35 speculative?  36 A  Well, it's certainly not speculative.  37 Q   What's the source for that statement?  38 A   I think we were describing this on Saturday, and I was  39 hoping that you people had done enough homework to  40 realize that I was right with Catharine McClellan  41 being one person who referred to the protohistoric  42 contact between the Old World and the New World from  43 Eurasian sources.  44 Q   Well, I'm asking you what sources do you rely on to  45 say that there was disease before 1774 on the  46 north-west coast?  Who says that?  47 A   I'm saying it's likely. 21941  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  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  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  A  MR. GRANT  You say it's likely?  Yes.  And that's your speculation?  Yes.  Now, if you turn the next page you can see the table  of contents and the table of contents goes for five --  four pages.  Now, chapter 2, for example, Dr. Boyd  summarized ethnohistoric data from the first 50 years  of Euro-American contact, and he details epidemics  of -- the epidemic of the 1770's, and the epidemic of  1800 and 1801, and so on.  Now, of course, you have  not done that type of research have you?  No, but I say that in 40 odd pages it's unlikely that  he's able to cover about 2,000 miles of coastland and  about a hundred and fifty years at least of history.  That's what I mean that the data are insubstantial to  be discussing the impact of European diseases in any  meaningful way, and certainly it's the sort of subject  that requires a very detailed treatment rather than an  overview that sweeps across the whole coast.  Do you know of a single other author who has done as  detailed a study of disease as Dr. Boyd in this  dissertation?  Not in this dissertation.  I think Herbert Taylor's  small article on the impact of European disease on the  southern coastal populations written in 1955 or so was  a fairly good summary of what was known about  populations, which is pretty scanty for the coast  anyway, and addressed to some extent the impact of  diseases, but I think that's a good starting point for  coming to grips with the fact that we simply don't  have good population records prior to the perhaps  mid-nineteenth century with some of Douglas' censuses  for various parts of the coast, and even then those  are to some extent questionable.  :   Turn to page 520, please, the last paragraph.  Dr.  Boyd states :  "My findings demonstrate quite clearly the  great impact of new diseases on on numerical  decline and population survival."  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  It's the last paragraph on the page,  it, my lord?  On page?  520.  Yes.  Do you have 21942  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 MR. GRANT:  2 Q  3  4 "The skeptical viewpoint of recent historians  5 such as Robin Fisher (page 253 previous)..."  6  7 And I've included that, my lord, in this extract  8 because there's a reference to it:  9  10 "...that the extant data will not support a  11 thesis of disease-induced decline seems no  12 longer tenable.  In the three regions of the  13 Northwest considered in this dissertation, my  14 evidence supports declines of 90 per cent in  15 the Lower Columbia, 48 per cent of the Columbia  16 Plateau, and 41 per cent the North Coast."  17  18 Now, you have no, other than your own view, you  19 have no reason to dispute Dr. Boyd's conclusions with  20 respect to that from the data that he analysed to you?  21 A  Well, I would just add -- no, I would say no, I don't,  22 except that I would add here that it's a good example  23 of how two scholars have addressed the question of the  24 impact of European diseases on native populations and  25 come to slightly different or different conclusions  26 about it, and I think that's a reflection of how  27 scanty the evidence is in either case.  I think both  28 scholars argue their points of view fairly cogently  29 and both are hampered by the fact that the information  30 simply isn't there to know with any certainty how  31 European diseases at any time during the nineteenth  32 century or even earlier affected the north-west coast  33 or interior populations.  34 Q   Well, turn back to page 263 in which he deals with  35 Robin Fisher.  Now, Robin Fisher, he's not an  36 anthropologist or ethnologist, he's a historian?  37 A  Well, as we've discussed several times, he's an  38 historian who does in his book deal with some  39 anthropological information and certainly can address  40 topics such as population.  41 Q   At page 263 Dr. Boyd deals directly with Robin Fisher,  42 and he says:  43  44 "Robin Fisher in his critically -- Historian  45 Robin Fisher in his critically acclaimed  46 Contact and Conflict: Indian-European Relations  47 in British Columbia, 1774-1890, published 1977, 21943  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 questions the extent of population decline  2 among the Indians of the northern Northwest  3 Coast in the first century of contact on a  4 number of grounds, as follows."  5  6 And he quotes from Fisher:  7  8 "The absence of accurate figures makes it  9 impossible to determine exactly what happened  10 to the Indian population during this period,  11 but it is possible that estimates of the impact  12 of disease have been exaggerated.  The journals  13 do not contain numerous accounts of wholesale  14 depopulation resulting from small pox.  15 Frequently the contemporary comments about  16 population decline were based on the  17 observation of deserted villages.  Villages  18 were clearly abandoned for a number of reasons.  19 The demographer, Norma McArthur, has questioned  20 the assumption that European diseases caused  21 wholesale depopulation.  She has argued that  22 for an epidemic to initiate a substantial  23 decline in a previously stable population,  24 age-selective mortality is a prerequisite."  25  26 And he cites in 1977, 21, 22.  27 Then Dr. Boyd then goes on to state:  28  29 "On the basis of information presented in  30 this chapter..."  31  32 That is the chapter of Dr. Boyd's treatise.  33  34 "...Fisher's argument may be seriously  35 questioned.  First, there is a great deal of  36 data ranging in quality from poor to excellent,  37 which graphically shows considerable population  38 decline among north coast Indians in this time  39 period.  Complete 'accuracy' of course is  40 something that has never existed for any census  41 and at this late date is impossible to  42 determine in great detail for any early north  43 coast enumeration, but by most possible  44 measures, including internal consistency,  45 cross-checking, and consistency through time,  46 the Hudson's Bay censuses (and estimates) on  47 the whole are remarkably accurate considering 21944  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 the times, methods and nature of census  2 populations.  The early 'journals do not  3 contain numerous accounts of wholesale  4 depopulation from small pox' it is true, but  5 perhaps this is because the explorers had no  6 historical perspective for drawing such  7 conclusions.  Copious documentation of  8 population decline from mid-nineteenth century  9 small pox epidemics suggests that mortality  10 should have been at least as great if not  11 greater from known epidemics in the 1700's.  12 There's indeed some question about the nature  13 of abandoned villages reported by early  14 explorers.  Multiple causes are possible, but  15 the consistent clustering of such references  16 after major known disease events suggests that  17 most indeed are related to disease mortality."  18  19  20 And he goes on to deal with how Fisher deals with  21 McArthur.  22 Go to page 265:  23  24 "The corpus of North Coast population data,  25 drawn from the historical literature and  26 presented in this chapter, documents  27 considerable depopulation during the period  28 1835 to 1890."  29  30 And then he goes on and explains that.  31 Now, you cannot dispute that Dr. Boyd has taken --  32 what he has done is looked at what Robin Fisher wrote  33 8 years earlier, and he's looked at the data and found  34 that there was more data than Robin Fisher referred  35 to, and he responds directly to Robin Fisher's view;  36 you can't dispute that, can you?  37 A   I can't answer that without having a good look at the  38 two bibliographies --  39 Q   Fine.  40 A   -- that the two people refer to.  41 Q   Fine.  42 A   But I think the 8 years business is immaterial.  43 Simply because someone came in 8 years later,  44 basically the documentary sources that they're  45 referring to have not changed.  46 Q   But of course Robin Fisher -- I'm sorry, my lord, I  47 just realized these ones are not punched.  I thought 21945  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 they were.  But Robin Fisher of course did not focus  2 on disease, the impact of disease, in "Contact and  3 Conflict", he was talking about broader -- that is one  4 component of contact, whereas Dr. Boyd was focusing on  5 disease in his dissertation which is entitled "The  6 Introduction of Infectious Diseases among the Indians  7 of the Pacific Northwest".  You would agree with that  8 wouldn't you or would you?  9 I'd like to refer you to -- you've mentioned James  10 Gibson?  11 A   Yes.  12 Q   And are you aware of James Gibson's publication in '82  13 and '83 on "Small Pox on the Northwest Coast, 1835 to  14 1838", an article in B.C. Studies?  15 A   I'm not sure.  I don't know if I've seen that one.  16 Q   Okay.  Madam registrar will show it to you in a  17 moment.  And I'd like you to turn to page 81, the last  18 page of that, and at the top of page 81 Dr. Gibson  19 states:  20  21 "In a recent award-winning study of  22 Euroamerican-Indian relations in British  23 Columbia in the late eighteenth and nineteenth  24 centuries Robin Fisher has contended that in  25 general the maritime fur trade of the Northwest  26 Coast did not disrupt the Indian way of life  27 (the so-called 'enrichment thesis') and that in  28 particular the impact of disease has been  29 exaggerated."  30  31 And he cites "Contact and Conflict".  32  33 "My own findings dispute this conclusion."  34  35 And there of course Dr. Gibson is referring to the  36 maritime fur trade of the Pacific Coast, to which I  37 think you made reference to.  38  39 "It was not a case of one or the other, rather  40 the coast trade was both enriching and  41 impoverishing.  The introduction of gun powder,  42 alcohol, tobacco, and disease, impaired the  43 health and reduced their numbers, probably by  44 as much as one-half by the end of the trade,  45 and Euroamerican avidity in the scramble for  46 lucrative sea otter skins did much to poison  47 Indian-white relations." 21946  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2 Now, once again you have no reason to dispute Dr.  3 Gibson's disagreement with Fisher as to the impact of  4 disease?  Don't get me wrong --  5 A   I agree generally with the last part of the statement  6 you just read to me.  It was not a case of one or the  7 other, and so on, but I do dispute Gibson's findings,  8 vis-a-vis Robin Fisher's findings, when it comes to  9 the study of population changes as a result of  10 European diseases because I've said several times the  11 data is problematic and scanty.  I don't think anyone  12 can draw conclusions about the nature of the impact of  13 European diseases on north-west coast populations.  14 And I think Gibson says this in the first paragraph in  15 this article you've brought to my attention at the  16 bottom, just for example, "Unfortunately..."  In the  17 middle of the first paragraph on the first page, page  18 61.  19  20 "Unfortunately, the source material is not  21 abundant.  The detailed reports from Alaska of  22 Russian officials and physicians have not  23 survived, and only general and brief references  24 remain.  The Hudson's Bay Company had fewer  25 agents on the B.C. coast to chronicle the  26 epidemic, and their comments are incidental;  27 consequently, there is almost no information on  28 the plight of the Haidas and very little on  29 that of the Tsimshians."  30  31 Now, that's an example of how little information  32 there actually exists about one specific epidemic that  33 is known about to some extent.  So if we know so  34 little about that one small pox epidemic in the  35 1830's, all I'll saying is that we know even less  36 about other waves of disease that might have come  37 through, and we don't know very much about those  38 places that weren't being visited by the Europeans  39 during that period.  40 Q   And of course --  41 A  Which I mean the marginal villages, the outlying  42 areas, the isolated places, that simply weren't coming  43 into the purview of the European traders.  44 Q   Of course your review of Dr. Boyd may have assisted  45 you in that --  46 A   No, actually it didn't.  47 Q   Well, you don't remember -- 21947  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 A   This is an opinion I formulated when I was doing the  2 research for my doctoral dissertation, and I did do a  3 considerable amount of review of the early sources for  4 the northern coast and a pretty broad sweep through  5 the literature pertaining to population and other  6 matters like this, and I came to my own conclusions  7 about the problematic nature of the data on  8 population.  9 Q   Yes.  Your dissertation was in June 1983, and Dr.  10 Boyd's dissertation wasn't until 1985, so you didn't  11 look at Dr. Boyd's research --  12 A  And I'm saying that it's immaterial --  13 Q   Of course.  14 A   -- these incidental chronolgies of three years or five  15 years when you're dealing with historical records from  16 the eighteenth and nineteenth century.  17 MR. GRANT:   Yes.  18 THE COURT:  What is meant by the term "critically acclaimed"?  19 THE WITNESS:   I think he was a prizewinner for the book.  2 0 THE COURT: You mean that his work was well received?  21 THE WITNESS:   I believe so, in a more popular sense I think  22 than my critical scholarship.  23 MR. GRANT:  He received a John A. MacDonald history award for  24 1977.  25 THE COURT:  That's what he did, but I'm wondering what Mr. Boyd  26 means when he talks of Fisher as being critically  27 acclaimed.  I know what critical means and I know what  28 acclaimed means, and they're not usually the same.  29 THE WITNESS:   Well, I would agree with you, my lord.  Some of  30 Fisher's work is of a general enough nature that it  31 doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of more detailed  32 scholarship, but I can only speak about that with the  33 first chapter in his book.  I'm not as familiar with  34 later materials, but it was certainly well received as  35 a general overview of the relationships between  36 Europeans and Indians and the bibliography is quite  37 outstanding for guiding readers into the kinds of  38 information that are available to scholarship.  39 THE COURT:  But he's not regarded as a serious scholar?  40 THE WITNESS:   Yes, he is regarded as a serious scholar, but  41 there's some -- there's always some controversy within  42 the field or fields about the details of his analysis  43 or interpretation and it's specifically the notion  44 that early trade with Europeans did not change native  45 cultures that he's being challenged on.  4 6 THE COURT:  Thank you.  4 7 MR. GRANT: 2194E  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   Can you turn to -- you have your report in front of  2 you, page 30, footnote 4, and page 4 of the first part  3 of your report.  Now, page 4 you say:  4  5 "The term Wet'suwet'en, which is used by the  6 Plaintiffs in this case, is of very recent  7 origin and appears to be intended to refer to  8 those Carrier Indians who inhabited the  9 villages now known as Hagwilget and Moricetown  10 on the Bulkley River.  They are described by  11 Diamond Jenness as the 'Hwitsowitenne'."  12 H-w-i-t-s-o-w-i-t-e-n-n-e.  13  14 Now, you don't have any basis really for saying  15 that the term Wet'suwet'en, except for the spelling,  16 that the term Wet'suwet'en, that pronounced term is a  17 new term of relatively recent origin do you?  18 A   It's not referred to in the Brown journals at all.  19 Q   Okay.  20 A  And what -- in the 1820's we are generously accepting  21 as the people of the -- I think Tsimshians of the  22 Chilko River is probably the best guess, but without a  23 certainty that the two are connected.  I'm referring  24 to the fact that the term is not used to describe any  25 group of people living in and around the Bulkley River  26 area in those records.  I don't believe Ogden makes  27 reference to it, which is a later foray into the area  2 8 more or less.  29 THE COURT:  Mr. Grant, I don't know if the lady back there wants  30 your attention or someone else's.  31 A VOICE: I have a document from the Smithsonian Institute that  32 directly relates to it.  33 THE COURT:  I think you better talk to counsel at the  34 adjournment.  35 MR. WILLMS:  My friend does have 16 experts.  36 THE COURT:  Is Wet'suwet'en mentioned in Barbeau?  37 THE WITNESS:   Yes.  And in the footnote number 4 —  3 8    MR. GRANT:  39 Q   I'm going to come to the footnote in a moment.  I want  40 to ask you about this.  Jenness did his research  41 around 19 -- in the 20's didn't he?  42 A   Yes, I think so.  43 Q   His publication is 1943, but it's based on his  44 research in the 1920's?  45 A   Yes, I think so.  46 Q   And at the time the term Wet'suwet'en is known, and  47 Brown referred to the Gitksan as Ahtnas didn't he? 21949  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  A  2  3  4  5  6  7  Q  8  A  9  Q  10  A  11  Q  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  A  26  Q  27  A  28  Q  29  30  A  31  Q  32  A  33  MR.  GRANT:  34  35  THE  COURT:  36  37  38  39  40  MR.  GRANT:  41  THE  COURT:  42  MR.  GRANT:  43  44  THE  COURT:  45  MR.  GRANT:  46  THE  COURT:  47  MR.  GRANT:  I'm not sure if the term Ahtna refers only to the  Gitksan or whether it does.  I've still got some  hesitation about that because it seems to have a wider  use in the early historic period.  Carmen uses the  term Ahtna and I don't think he's referring to the --  or it's not clear that he's referring to the Gitksan.  Not clear to you?  No.  But Brown does not use the term Gitksan does he?  No, he does not.  Now, going to footnote 4 you state at the bottom, this  is referring to Tobey:  "However, it is clear that the sub-tribes are  neither corporate kinship groups nor unified  political divisions, rather, each sub-tribe was  identified by its association with a particular  territory and had a name consisting of a  place-name or description of the place."  And you've already explained that by sub-tribes  Tobey would be referring to, for example, the  Wet'suwet'en and the other sub-groups of the Carrier?  This is out of Tobey's book on the Carrier.  Yes.  No, it's out of the article.  Yes, the article "In The Subarctic"?  "In the Subarctic".  Now you're familiar with Ives' article "The Tsimshian  Are Carrier" aren't you?  Yes.  And Ives is an archaeologist?  Yes.  My lord, I don't know if I made reference, but I  would ask that Gibson be tab 29.  Yes.  (EXHIBIT 1191-29: Gibson - "Smallpox of the Northwest  Coast"  And this --  And Boyd 28.  And Boyd would be 28, and this would be tab 30 and  it's also Exhibit 448 - 33.  4.  48 - 33.  Exhibit 448.  Thank you.  Tab 33. 21950  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  THE COURT  2  MR. GRANT  3  Q  4  5  6  A  7  Q  8  A  9  Q  10  11  A  12  Q  13  A  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Q  25  A  26  27  Q  28  29  30  A  31  32  33  34  Q  35  A  36  37  Q  38  39  40  41  A  42  43  44  45  46  Q  47  :  Thank you.  Now, firstly, you would agree that Ives deals more  directly with the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en than, for  example, Yerbury?  Yes.  Or McClellan?  Yes.  And as far as the Gitksan he deals more directly with  the Gitksan than does Tobey?  Well, I'm not sure about that.  Okay.  Fine.  Because he's dealing with prehistory and as I  indicated on the first day I believe it's very  difficult to use archaeological data to trace any kind  of ethnic continuity back into the past.  So as he's  talking about the area under consideration and refers  to the Gitksan in passing, he's referring to the  Gitksan, but when he talks about archaeological  assemblages in the prehistoric contexts, then I'd say  that the relationship between them, those  archaeological contexts and the modern Gitksan, is  very problematic.  Yes.  So I can't say he's speaking of the Gitksan throughout  this article.  And especially problematic if you don't rely on the  oral histories or ethnographies because they were done  more recently?  I don't think there's any correspondence between the  oral histories and their applicability for  understanding ethnic groups in the archaeological  record.  But Dr. MacDonald does?  Yes, Dr. MacDonald does for the late prehistoric and  protohistoric periods.  We'll come back to that.  Page 210.  On page 210 he  basically shows the area that he was considering, that  is, Ives was considering on that map.  On page 211 Dr.  Ives says, and Dr. Ives is an archaeologist isn't he?  He works as an archaeologist and in the Alberta  archaeological survey in Edmonton, but I'm not sure  what his doctrate is in.  I believe he is an  archaeologist, but I'm only assuming that because he  works as an archaeologist in the provincial --  And he's one of these archaeologists that you have  not -- of course you have not cited him in your 21951  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  A  3  Q  4  A  5  Q  6  7  8  A  9  MR.  GRANT  10  11  12  THE  COURT  13  14  MR.  GRANT  15  16  17  THE  COURT  18  19  20  MR.  GRANT  21  THE  COURT  22  MR.  GRANT  23  THE  COURT  24  25  MR.  GRANT  26  THE  COURT  27  MR.  GRANT  28  29  THE  COURT  30  MR.  GRANT  31  THE  COURT  32  MR.  GRANT  33  Q  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  report?  You have --  No, I was unaware of this.  You were unaware of this at the time?  Yes.  Well, some of the early correspondence suggests that  you were not unaware of it and you referred to him; do  you remember that?  No, I don't.  Okay. I'll look at that.  Maybe I'm mistaken.  I  thought you had noted it.  If you were unaware of it I  will --  On this map what is that large lake that has written  "Sekani" beside it?  That's not Babine Lake?  No, that would be -- I believe that might be  Williston.  No, I think you can see Moricetown bisects  what is Babine Lake there.  Yes, that's right.  That's what I'm wondering what  this other large -- but I guess you're right.  It must  be Williston.  Yes.  This is from the 1979 atlas I believe.  '79?  Yes.  All right.  Thank you.  Too big for Bear Lake isn't  it?  Yes.  It's sort of the shape of Bear Lake.  I'm pretty sure because it's 1979 that it would  reflect Williston.  All right.  Thank you.  You went to page 211.  Page 211, the next page.  All right.  Dr. Ives states with respect to "Prehistoric Interior  Social Complexity":  "There seems little question that interior  people occasionally became incorporated in  coastal social systems.  Indeed, there is some  suspicion that the Gitksan might be  'Tsimshianized' Athapaskans, or, at least an  admixture of coastal and interior Athapaskan  peoples."  And he refers to Adams and Ames.  And then he  talks about the 1820 landslide blocking the Bulkley  River near Moricetown.  And then he states: 21952  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2 "With extensive intermarriage and potlatching  3 between the two groups, the Carrier began to  4 make a preferential use of the Tsimshian  5 language on ceremonial occasions.  Ames went so  6 far as to suggest that, owing to the  7 precariously small number of people in Gitksan  8 lineages and houses, individual and small  9 groups of Athapaskans were drawn into the  10 Gitksan crest system. (See also Adams and  11 Kobrinsky)"  12  13 Now, Adams and Kobrinsky, these are -- and Ames to  14 a certain degree, these are the people upon whom you  15 rely, don't you?  16 A   Yes.  17 Q  18 "A serious small pox epidemic in the 1860's  19 truncated the process."  20  21 But I'd like you to go down to the second  22 paragraph where he says:  23  24 "Such processes are clearly part of a  25 pattern contingent upon the prior existence of  26 complex and dominant coastal societies. I am  27 seeking instead reference to periods in which  28 the political status of interior societies may  29 not have been interior.  I will use as a point  30 of departure two conclusions reached by  31 Fladmark in his summary of British Columbia  32 prehistory."  33  34 And you're familiar with Fladmark aren't you?  35 A   Yes, I am.  36 Q  37 "He felt first, that at some times in the past  38 there may have been no significant differences  39 between interior and coastal cultures, and  40 second, that certain interior areas may have  41 been culturally more complex than contemporary  42 coastal areas."  43  44 Now, here you do not in your report deal with what  45 Fladmark has stated regarding this, that there's no  46 significant difference between interior and coastal  47 cultures?  You didn't deal with that in your report, 21953  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 did you?  2 A   No, I was dealing with the protohistoric period and  3 the references here are to quite a long development of  4 cultures in the northern north-west area referred to  5 on the map on the previous page.  6 Q   Okay.  Then Ives goes on to say:  7  8 "There is every indication that beyond some  9 3,000 to 5,000 years ago, there were no  10 societies in northwestern North America with  11 ascriptive ranks, specialized salmon harvesting  12 economies, marked sedentism, or high population  13 densities . "  14  15 Now, once again you didn't deal with that, with  16 that dating of 3,000 to 5,000 years ago?  17 A   No, I certainly didn't deal with that.  18 Q   Fine.  19  20 "Among the instances we may glean from  21 Fladmark's generalizations are two examples."  22  23 And he then goes into specific examples, that:  24  25 "First, we may note the relatively early  26 appearance of pithouses in interior British  27 Columbia, at such sites as Tezil and Punchaw  28 nearly 4,000 years ago.  These events lag only  29 slightly behind the onset of shell midden  30 accumulations on the coast. Second, there is  31 the contrast between the relatively 'spartan'  32 Developed Coast Salish phase of the lower  33 Fraser during the first millenium A.D. and a  34 distinctive, contemporaneous cultural  35 complexity well up the Fraser in the  36 Lytton-Lillooet area."  37  38 Were you aware of these findings of Fladmark's  39 conclusions relating to these at the time you were  40 doing your report?  41 A   Yes, and I'm also aware of the limitations of the  42 archaeological information for studying the evolution  43 of cultural complexity on the north-west coast and in  44 the interior, but this was outside the time parameters  45 of the opinion report that I was developing.  46 Q   But of course.  In your -- in you hypothesizing that  47 the development of territorial land base -- a 21954  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 territorial land base was derivative -- derived from  2 the fur trade, it would be relevant to you to know  3 what scholars considered was going on before the land  4 base -- I'm sorry, not just -- before the fur trade. I  5 said land base, I should withdraw that. -- before  6 contact, and archaeological finds are relevant to  7 that; do you not agree with me?  8 A   Some archaeological finds maybe.  9 Q   Yes.  10 A   But I'm not sure how 3,000 to 5,000 year old  11 archaeological finds for the Coast Salish are  12 relevant.  13 Q   Fine.  Let's go on.  Dr. Ives goes on to say:  14  15 "Fladmark's empirical generalizations about  16 interior cultural complexity ring true for  17 several good economic reasons.  These centre  18 upon the peculiar characteristics of the  19 Pacific salmon resource for an interior zone  20 corresponding roughly to that occupied by  21 Athapaskans in recent times.  Abstracting from  22 syntheses given by Kew, the following  23 observations on this resource are pertinent.  24 Kew and Schalk", S-c-h-a-1-k.  Thank you. "1,  25 Pacific salmon travelling upstream retain  26 significant caloric value well into their  27 migration.  2, the climatic conditions of this  28 zone lend themselves to simple modes of  29 preservation (such as sun-drying) much more so  30 than do coastal locations.  3, generally  31 speaking, salmon are least accessible to simple  32 technologies in coastal and estuarine waters,  33 and most accessible at interior locations,  34 including spawning beds, rapids, lake outlets  35 and inlets, and gorges.  Each of the latter  36 features tends to funnel fish.  4, numbers of  37 spawning salmon at interior locations  38 fluctuate.  Irregular fluctuations are  39 triggered by events such as landslides, while  40 regular fluctuations follow patterns such as  41 that described for the Fraser system by Kew as  42 'quadrennial dominance'.  Salmon runs cycle  43 from enormous abundance to greatly reduced  44 returns every four years in this scheme.  45 Without pretending to propose any  46 comprehensive solution to the problem of early  47 specialization in salmon harvesting, it would 21955  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 remain my contention that such specialization  2 is predictable for interior locales.  Large  3 numbers of fish both readily stored and of  4 great food value, remain accessible to very  5 simple technologies."  6  7 Now, as a cultural geographer it would be relevant  8 for you to consider the difference between the  9 geography of the interior Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en  10 with respect to salmon species as opposed to the  11 coastal Tsimshian?  12 A   Oh, yes.  And I don't dispute this at all.  13 Q   Good.  14 A   I think that the -- one of the -- one aspect of the  15 equation, looking at the relationships between coastal  16 and interior populations, is to consider the  17 receptivity of the interior groups, vis-a-vis,  18 accepting coastal customs, coastal languages for  19 crests, and phratry's names, and so on, and you have  20 to consider that the interior groups that were most  21 amenable to receiving traits from the coastal groups  22 were those that already had a pretty good subsistence  23 base.  And the references here to salmon, although  24 Cues does refer to the Fraser drainage, it's fine.  It  25 doesn't seem to be inconsistent with the kind of  2 6 argument that I was developing.  27 Q   But it's more than a subsistence base because you  28 yourself have stressed the importance of trade routes  29 before even the protohistoric from the material that  30 you've relied on and Dr. MacDonald discusses, right?  31 There were trade routes between the interior and the  32 coast?  33 A   Oh, yes.  34 Q   And those trade routes would reflect that there was a  35 surplus that was passing from one group to the other?  36 A  All groups seem to exchange at any time, any cultural  37 groups.  38 Q   All around the world?  39 A  All around the world.  40 Q   Now, I'd refer you to page 212, the heading "Mythic  41 Origins".  Dr. Ives refers to MacDonald, and he  42 states:  43  44 "Aboriginal myths are suggestive in their  45 discussions of cultural origins.  Members of  46 one Tsimshian lineage, (the Gispuwadwade)",  47 G-i-s-p-u-w-a-d-w-a-d-e, "say that their 21956  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 ancestors came from a legendary community  2 called Temlaxam", T-e-m-1-a-x-a-m, "the  3 'Prairie Town' of their tales, situated far up  4 the Skeena."  5  6 And he refers to MacDonald.  7  8 "These stories have a decidedly interior  9 flavour, telling of people being snowbound, of  10 famines, of living from rabbits, and of  11 dwelling in semisubterranean earth lodges.  12 After many troubles, these ancestral Tsimshian  13 established themselves at a rich fishing  14 grounds below the Skeena River canyon."  15  16 And you recognize here the outlines of what is  17 described not only in the Beynon recordings, but also  18 in the "Men of Madeek" don't you?  19 A   Yes.  Some stories referring to Temlaxham.  2 0 Q   And the migration down to the canyons below, or do you  21 remember that?  22 A   I don't remember if it specified which canyon setting.  23 Q   Fine.  24 A   Or settings.  25 Q   Can you turn to page 215?  In the left-hand column,  26 the third paragraph down, third full paragraph.  After  27 discussing Tsimshian nomenclature,  28 n-o-m-e-n-c-l-a-t-u-r-e, Dr. Ives goes on to say, and  29 referring to the charts:  30  31 "In and of itself this is not a remarkable fact.  32 In the larger study to which I have referred,"  33 That's his own publication of 1985.  "however,  34 I have shown that northern Athapaskan  35 terminological systems are also Dravidian in  36 form, as is the Wrigley Slavey schedule  37 regarded by Asch"  A-s-c-h, "(in press) shown  38 in figure 5.  The Bulkley Carrier terminology  39 reported by Jenness shows these tendencies, and  40 in fact, the proto-Athapaskan kin lexicon as  41 reconstructed by Dyen and Aberle shares this  42 logical structure."  43  44 Now, of course you've already indicated that  45 you're familiar with Dyen and Aberle, although you  46 have not gone through the whole text of it, and you  47 agree with me there of course that Ives relies on Dyen 21957  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 and Aberle as well as Dr. George MacDonald for his --  2 A  Well, I'm not quite sure what he's relying on here  3 because he's referring to his larger study, and  4 certainly that would have been based on other things  5 and also Asch, so I'm not quite sure what's intended  6 by that paragraph.  7 Q   Okay.  Go to page 220.  Are you familiar with the  8 finds in Prince Rupert harbour referred to by Dr.  9 MacDonald?  10 A   Some finds, yes.  I'm not sure what you're referring  11 to.  12 Q   Okay.  Well, on page 220 -- he starts on page 215  13 about archaeological evidence, but on page 220 in the  14 second paragraph on the left-hand column he refers to  15 the subsequent phase.  First of all, the Prince Rupert  16 phase is before 4500 Before Present, and then:  17  18 "The subsequent phase, termed Gitaus, is named  19 after a nearby site excavated by Allaire.  The  20 early component there ranged from circa 4300 to  21 3600 B.P. making it contemporaneous with late  22 period III at Prince Rupert Harbour. Two trends  23 are evident.  Microblades are not present and  24 there is an increase in the groundstone  25 industry."  26  27 And then at the last sentence of that paragraph:  28  29 "In addition, Gitaus Phase obsidian, like  30 obsidian from Prince Rupert Harbour at this  31 time, comes from Mt. Edziza."  32  33 And he relies there on Coupland, and you're  34 familiar with Coupland's work aren't you?  35 A   Yes.  3 6 Q   And —  37 A   Not recently.  38 Q   But you are familiar with the finds by Allaire?  39 A   I'm not quite sure what finds are being referred to  40 there.  41 Q   Okay.  42 A   Just one --  43 Q   My recollection --  44 A   -- besides the microblades not being present and so  45 on, are you referring only to those things that are  46 mentioned in this paragraph I assume?  47 MR. GRANT:   Yes.  And then going to the page 220 on the 2195?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  MR. WILLMS:  MR. GRANT:  Q  right-hand column.  "For the succeeding Kleanza phase, known from  Gitaus and dating from 2500 to 1500 B.P.,  Coupland suggested that the -- "  "Suspected".  A  Q  A  "Coupland suspected that status distinctions had  emerged.  Assemblage content remains generally  the same."  And he describes it.  "but labrets, slate mirrors, and slate knives  and daggers appear."  And then "regrettably  there is little solid evidence concerning  dwellings in this period."  Now, can you then go to page 221, the first full  paragraph, about 10 lines down it starts:  "Coupland..."  Left-hand column:  "Coupland and Allaire are in by far in the best  positions to make inferences concerning these  remains, and Coupland in particular is to be  commended for his thorough and perceptive  treatment of the data.  Yet, his perspective on  the lower Skeena was strongly influenced by a  theoretical framework stressing gradual, long  term, in situ evolution of lower Skeena  societies.  In my view, this prehistoric record  favours an interpretation of alternating  'interior' as opposed to 'coastally' oriented  technologies more in accord with Allaire's  treatment."  Now, you have not analysed these archaeological  finds and these opinions of Coupland and Allaire and  compared and contrasted them for your report I take it  you have now explained to me?  No, I haven't.  And you cannot comment on which -- on whether or not  Ives' analysis is a preferred analysis to that of  Coupland or vice versa?  I would say on the reading of the three of them, and 21959  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Q  12  13  14  15  16  A  17  18  19  20  Q  21  A  22  Q  23  A  24  Q  25  A  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  Q  44  A  45  Q  46  A  47  THE COURT  I'm sorry I don't have a more instant recall of  Allaire's and Coupland's details, but I found that  this article by Ives was very very thorough and  systematic in its presentation, although it's a short  piece.  And it seems to be logical arranged and pretty  sound.  He is speculating, but the speculation seems  reasonably good. I'd go with the Ives article as a  base line before I'd go back to Coupland, and I think  that Ives does advance some ideas that are not  expressed in Allaire.  But you did not take into account in your analysis  when you refer later in your report to interior and  superior, you didn't take into account Ives' analysis  of what was going on between the coastal and interior  groups, whatever we may call those groups?  No, because I was dealing with the late prehistoric,  the very late prehistoric protohistoric and early  historic periods, I wasn't referring to assemblages  dating back to 5,000 years ago.  How far back were you referring to?  The late prehistoric --  When --  -- at the earliest.  What do you mean by "late prehistoric"?  Well, we've discussed that before and I think you  pointed out some of my typographical errors perhaps  threw me back a century earlier, but I'm looking in  the mid-eighteenth century, 1740, with Chirikov.  And  actually in -- with regard to some evidence you were  seeking for trade in metals from Siberia over to  Alaska, I'd like to refer you to an article, a 1988  article, by a person called Allan McCartney who talks  about the protohistoric trade in metals dating back  1,500 to 2,000 years coming in from not just Eurasian  sources but also from Greenland right across the  Arctic.  And if you couple that with work by de Laguna  at Yakutat Bay where she notes a prehistoric trade in  ivory coming down from what appears to be the Chugach  area into the north-west coast region, she calls it  late prehistoric.  I think it's several centuries old.  And also tie that in with Gleason's work where he  found metals --  Just a moment.  Have you cited Gleason?  No.  Have you cited McCartney?  No.  But you were asking about these --  :  Mr. Grant, I think the witness was in the middle of 21960  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  MR.  GRANT:  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  MR. GRANT  an answer.  Okay.  Go ahead.  I'm just saying with regards to this question about  the Asiatic origins of metals and so on for the late  prehistoric protohistoric period, McCartney's article  suggests that maybe we should be pushing the  protohistoric back 1,500 to 2,000 years.  But for the  purposes of this report I was primarily interested in  the post-1741, post-Bering's voyage, impact --  Okay.  Thank you.  -- of Europeans on the north-western region.  Even if we pushed "protohistoric" back, as these  authors suggested, you have no basis to say that that  type of protohistoric contact had an impact on  north-west coast societies?  There's no basis for  that?  You can't tell, can you?  I think the whole business of protohistoric being  extended back that far makes the whole -- the whole  notion of identifying what are traditional north-west  coast cultures problematic, so we have to start with  some kind of base line, but understanding, and it's  something you pointed out again with me raising, what  did you call it, a straw man, that all societies are  always in flux, never static, always changing, and  there seems always to have been this external  influence for the last 2,000 years, but what I was  dealing with my -- what I was dealing with in my  report is European influence.  Right.  So we're talking about post-1741?  Yes.  I just wanted to be clear of our own terms there.  That's fine.  Okay.  You've referred to Yerbury as  well, "The Subarctic Indians in the Fur Trade, 1680 to  1860".  You recall that you're familiar with Yerbury's  publication?  I'm sorry, I didn't see which one it is.  Yerbury, "The Subarctic Indians in the Fur Trade, 1680  to 1860".  You mentioned it last week.  I'm not sure if I was referring to this or his thesis.  Okay.  I don't believe I was referring to this specifically,  but yes.  :   Well, here when he's talking about the Subarctic  Indians, I think we've got this sorted out, and on  page 1 of the preface he sets out that he's referring  to "The Canadian Athapaskans", I'm about six lines 21961  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  Q  down, "to the east of the Mackenzie River, the Dogrib,  Hare, Slavey, Chipewyan, and Yellowknife".  Have you  got -- I'm at the preface, my lord.  What page?  The first page in from the cover.  Yes.  About six lines down.  Yes.  "The Canadian Athapaskans to the east of the  Mackenzie River - the Dogrib, Hare, Slavey,  Chipewyan, and Yellowknife - have simpler and  more fluid societies than their counterparts in  the Western Subarctic."  And he also refers to:  "The Dene or Northern Athapaskans of the  Alaskan Subarctic and the Canadian Western and  Central Subarctic, the Pacific Drainage, and  the northernmost extremity of the Great Plains  have long been regarded as having a regional  variation in social structure of which the most  evident variation is the east-west gradient  from relative cultural simplicity towards  relative complexity."  Now, then the second paragraph he states:  "This book presents and interprets  historical documents which trace the currents  of change that swept over the Canadian  Athapaskan-speaking peoples during the  protohistoric and historic era and resulted in  profound changes of their socioeconomic  relationships and their way of life.  The  primary and secondary documents include the  accounts of fur traders, explorers, officials,  missionaries, and early ethnographers along  with recent information from recent  ethnographic studies to delineate the causal  factors accounting for change."  Now, he, you can see, is relying on these various  sources that I have -- that he describes there, but  he's trying to trace the currents of change with the 21962  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Subarctic Indians in the context of that.  2 Now, on the second page of the preface he refers  3 to David Aberle, and you have no -- amongst others,  4 and Robin Fisher and others, and he relies in part on  5 Dyen and Aberle, and I'll refer you to the  6 introduction, page 1 of the introduction.  7  8 "Throughout the text..."  9  10 This is the second paragraph, second sentence:  11  12 "Throughout the text the general classification  13 of 'Canadian' Athapaskans, based on subgrouping  14 of language by comparative lexicostatistics,  15 will be applied to the eastern Kutchin",  16 K-u-t-c-h-i-n, "Hare, Dogrib, Slavey,  17 Chipewyan, Yellowknife, Beaver and Sekani.  18 (See Dyen and Aberle, 1974)."  19  20 And you can see that he relies on Dyen and Aberle  21 for his own delineation as to the subgroups he's  22 dealing with?  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   Now, if you look at the paragraph above and keeping in  25 mind what he's trying to do here, he states in the  26 introduction:  27  28 "Climatic influences affect flora and fauna  29 association patterns as species of trees,  30 shrubs, flowers, mammals, birds and insects  31 interact within the various ecological niches.  32 This interdependence of species includes  33 people."  34  35 Now, this is something you don't dispute.  In  36 fact, you mentioned it in your earlier paper, as I  37 recall?  38 A   Yes.  39 Q  40  41 "These biotic elements of climate, topography,  42 soil, vegetation, mammals, fresh-water fishes  43 and birds, made up the prominant, and often  44 decisive, part of the lives of the precontact  45 Canadian Athapaskan Indians, and the following  46 discussion keeps these complex ecological  47 relationships in the forefront." 21963  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2 And you can see if you just look at -- if you just  3 turn the page over, you can see his figure one which  4 shows that he's talking about the Athapaskans  5 primarily to the east of the Mackenzie, except the  6 Dogrib, Slavey, and Sekani, which touch in the very  7 northeast corner of British Columbia.  Now, you again  8 don't have -- dispute what he is saying regarding the  9 impacts of complex ecological relationships as a  10 factor when one's studying the impacts of contact?  11 A   It's a complex set of factors.  Yes.  12 Q   Yes.  And of course you did not do that in your  13 report?  14 A   No.  15 Q   You did not take into account the ecological framework  16 with respect to the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en?  17 A   No, I didn't specifically address that.  18 Q   Okay.  Now, as we have this in front of us, could you  19 turn to page 3 of the introduction?  He states there  20 that:  21  22 "Long before the 1970's, a number of excellent  23 field studies were made of specific Northern  24 Athapaskan bands and communities in the  25 Northwest Territories, the Yukon, and Alaska."  26  27 And he refers to a number of authors.  Then he  28 says:  29  30 "Although many of them are concerned with the  31 cultural ecology of contemporary Athapaskan  32 bands and communities and with the factors of  33 cultural change resulting from European  34 contact, in general they do not show how  35 historical research can add significantly to  36 the analysis of long term sociocultural and  37 environmental change.  They refer to historical  38 documents, but they do not use them to  39 interpret the stages of sociocultural  40 organization that developed as Indians adapted  41 to postcontact alterations in ecological  42 systems and to imposed technoeconomic and  43 technoenvironmental changes."  44  45 And I'm not going to ask you if you've read all of  46 those or any of that because it deals with an area  47 outside of the area which we're studying, but assuming 21964  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 what he's saying is correct about these writings,  2 isn't that, Dr. Robinson, the very problem with yours  3 because aside from the two historical sources of the  4 Hudson Bay's Archives and a few ship-born sources, you  5 have not used historical documents to interpret the  6 stages of sociocultural organization that developed as  7 Indians adapted to post-contact alterations in  8 ecological systems, and you've given your reasons for  9 that, but you have not done it, you would agree with  10 me, would you not, that you have not done that?  11 A   No, I would not agree.  And I might point out that  12 VanStone and Slobodin, two of the people mentioned in  13 the beginning of that paragraph as having not  14 addressed those things, have since gone into those  15 issues.  And I wouldn't characterize June Helm's work  16 as not being interested in post-contact changes in  17 sociocultural organizations.  So I'm not sure I agree  18 with Yerbury's paragraph here just with reference to  19 Helm's work.  20 Q   I'm not concerned about that.  21 A   Okay.  22 MR. GRANT:   And I'm saying just assume he's correct.  They're  23 not here and they're talking about another area.  24 MR. WILLMS:  Well, my lord, I object.  My friend says assume  25 he's correct and the witness has just said why she  26 doesn't accept that and I don't understand where that  27 takes us.  Assume that the witness doesn't mean what  28 she just said, which is that she doesn't accept  29 totally that statement.  I don't think you could even  30 make an expert do that, my lord.  31 MR. GRANT:  I'm not —  32 THE COURT:  Well, I think it can be done on a purely  33 hypothetical basis, but I'm not sure that we'll  34 understand the answer.  35 MR. GRANT:  36 Q   What I'm saying is that with respect to your report,  37 and you understand my question there, that this --  38 that although you refer to historical documents, and  39 I'm paraphrasing from that last sentence, you do not  40 use the historical documents to interpret the stages  41 of sociocultural organization that developed as  42 Indians, and I'm referring -- here referring to the  43 Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en adapted to post-contact  44 alterations in ecological systems and to imposed  45 technoeconomic and technoenvironmental changes. I'm  46 saying that that statement applies to you, that's why  47 I said just assume he's correct with respect to them. 21965  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 I'm not interested in with respect to whether he's  2 correct, I'm interested with respect to you.  That  3 statement applies to your report and you said no?  4 A   Yes, to the extent that I said I relied mainly on  5 secondary sources, and by that I was referring to many  6 scholars who have relied extensively on historic  7 documents, such as Bishop and McClellan and Tobey and  8 Jenness and even Morice, who also noted the west to  9 east decline in cultural complexity amongst the  10 Athapaskans that we mentioned earlier in connection  11 with Yerbury.  12 Q   You would agree with Dr. Yerbury that "Since the early  13 1970's, there's been a growing interest in issues  14 relating to the ethnohistory of Canadian Athapaskans".  15 And he refers to the VanStone and Slobodin, and they  16 "both suggested lines of future research that include  17 the use of an ethnohistorical approach to assess  18 issues involving cultural persistence and change."  19 And I think this is what you just mentioned.  20 A   Yes.  21 Q   You saw that there and --  22 A   No, I wasn't referring to that.  23 Q   Okay, but that is the -- he's referring to what you  24 were referring to.  I think you mentioned VanStone and  25 Slobodin.  26 A   No, it was -- yes, about two questions earlier I  27 mentioned that I wasn't entirely happy with his  28 assessment of those scholars because I felt that June  29 Helm had taken on some investigation of post-contact  30 changes, but later when I gave you a list of those  31 secondary sources on which I did rely, which did refer  32 to historic documents, I mentioned amongst them  33 Morice, Bishop, Tobey and others.  34 Q   At page 4 of your report, this is your no conclusive  35 evidence statement, you state:  36  37 "In my research I have discovered no conclusive  38 evidence that suggests that, prior to the  39 advent of European influence in the claim area,  40 the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en lineages and  41 families identified ownership rights to large  42 and precisely defined tracts of hunting  43 territories."  44  45 What do you mean in that statement by European  46 influence?  47 A   I'm referring to indirect European influence; in other 21966  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 words, the Europeans are not present when there's  2 influence reaching the culture area or the area being  3 investigated.  4 Q   And what are you referring to -- when are you  5 referring to as "prior to the advent of"?  6 A  Well, we've discussed this, and I think we're going to  7 leave it at the mid-eighteenth century and Chirikov's  8 arrival on to the northern coast.  9 MR. GRANT:   In your report you refer to -- you question  10 ethnographic literature, and you -- when I say that  11 you say that, of course this is recorded much later  12 than contact.  On page 2 of your report you deal with  13 that.  You say:  14  15 "Recognition that protohistoric European-  16 influenced developments took place and were  17 significant has one very important implication.  18 It casts suspicion on any portrayal of a  19 'pristine' or truly aboriginal way of life  20 based on contemporary knowledge."  21  22 And you've explained, I think, pristine and you've  23 explained contemporary knowledge.  Now, I take that to  24 mean that one must be suspicious of ex post facto oral  25 histories?  26 MR. WILLMS:  Perhaps my friend could define what an ex post  27 facto oral history is?  2 8    MR. GRANT:  29 Q   The description of an oral history taken by Beynon in  30 1915 through to 1956 you suggest has to be looked at  31 with skepticism because there's been contact prior to  32 him making that recording?  33 A   Yes.  34 Q   And the recording taken by Barbeau around the same  35 time or his reliance on Beynon still must be looked at  36 with skepticism to the extent that he relies on those?  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   But the other day you listed those of your sources  39 which were ethnographers or relied on ethnographic  40 data and we went back and forth on that, as to what  41 was meant, but you did list them and there was 47 of  42 82 of your sources are ethnologists or those who rely  43 on ethnographies.  You don't have to do the count.  44 I've done that count for you.  45 A   Oh, good.  46 Q   Okay.  But given that, those writers rely on exactly  47 what you say must be looked at with skepticism, don't 21967  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 they?  2 A   Yes.  3 Q   And you haven't done any analysis of the specific  4 sources that they've relied upon that is reflected in  5 your report, have you?  You haven't considered or  6 weighed those oral histories or those ethnographies  7 that they rely on?  8 A   Not specifically, but I've read enough of them to have  9 a general understanding of why they've selected  10 episodes or anecdotes and how they've used them in  11 illustration.  12 Q   You say you've read enough of them.  You've read  13 enough of what, these writers?  14 A  And also the Barbeau Beynon papers, for instance, and  15 Boas' Tsimshian mythology, and prior to my work in  16 this area I've certainly read some of the oral  17 traditions for the Haida and the Tlingit and versions  18 of those presented by some of these other ethnologists  19 or anthropologists who do analysis.  20 Q   You didn't look at Julien Steward's field notes?  21 A   No, I don't believe so.  22 Q   Or Jenness' field notes?  23 A   I saw some of Jenness' field materials and I'm not  24 sure what proportion they were, vis-a-vis, a whole  25 collection. I understand that Jenness didn't keep very  26 extensive field notes after he had finished with a  27 book or a report.  28 Q   Can you go to page 4 at the bottom of your report?  29 You say in the last line:  30  31 "Speaking generally, one may expect that some  32 form of organized control would have been  33 exercised over access to the fisheries and  34 other resources which were necessary for  35 survival and over the local trails and bridges  36 which facilitated prehistoric trade networks."  37  38 What do you mean when you say "speaking generally"  39 in this report?  Are you referring to a specific  40 source or are you referring to your own speculation?  41 A   I can refer you to a specific source that would  42 reflect that point of view, but I'm referring to my  43 general understanding of cultural ecological theory  44 and concepts and it's -- the most specific one I'll  45 give right now is Robert Netting in a book called  46 "Cultural Ecology" which is intended to be an  47 undergraduate primer, states as a rule of thumb the 2196?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 way cultural ecologists would look at how people  2 organize their use of resources in the simplest way.  3 They said they do exercise some kind of control or  4 jurisdiction or whatever kind of word you might want  5 to interpolate into that, I think he refers to use,  6 some kind of way of laying claim to specific resources  7 that are used.  And in the absence of any need for  8 competition ways are worked out within any society  9 which more or less lets any other individual have  10 access to those resources, and that's -- Netting  11 discusses that specifically in terms of cultural  12 ecological theory, and also uses some north-west coast  13 examples.  So that's a general -- an in general kind  14 of reference I would be referring to.  15 Q   But is it -- when you say "speaking generally" do you  16 mean that this is something that is beyond dispute  17 that nobody in the field disputes?  Is that what you  18 mean when you use the word "speaking generally" in  19 your report?  2 0 A   No.  21 Q   So —  22 A   No.  If I meant that, I would have stated that.  23 Q   Well, my difficulty is I don't know what you mean by  24 "speaking generally"?  25 A   Speaking generally means more likely than not; highly  26 probable.  27 Q   In your opinion?  28 A   In my opinion, based on a fairly extensive reading  29 both in theory and with specific examples relating to  30 the northern coastal and interior region.  31 Q   You didn't cite Netting in your report did you?  32 A   No, I did not.  33 Q   On page 5 you go on to state that:  34  35 "But prior to the intensification of pressure on  36 interior fur resources sparked by European  37 demands for furs there would appear to have  38 been no need for a sophisticated and elaborate  39 body of rules governing access to resources or  40 for extensive and defined areas of land for  41 their exploitation."  42  43 Now, you've already stated that there was  44 widespread trade as demonstrated by the evidence of  45 the trade trails?  46 A   Yes.  47 Q   You've also stated that there was exchange of 21969  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  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  commodities and reciprocal feast giving?  A   Yes, in the notes I believe.  MR. GRANT:   This statement that you make here I'd suggest is  speculative?  THE COURT:  You mean speculative in the sense of not being based  upon facts or not being based upon opinion or what?  MR.  GRANT:  Q  It's -- well, what I say is it's your speculation not  based upon any other sources other than your own  thoughts?  A  Well, it's not something I pulled out of the air and,  as I've indicated several times, because we've gone  through this list of sources before, I think if you  refer to footnote 2 on page 30 there's a fairly  cryptic list of many of the authors that I've relied  on who have had similar kinds of opinions.  I'm also  basing this opinion on page 5, at the top of page 5,  on my own fairly extensive reading in cultural ecology  and also on the background dissertation research which  is very directly related to this opinion report I  might add.  I was working in the northern coastal  region and met a lot of materials relating to the  northern coast strip and also the interior adjacent  regions, and so I think I have a fairly good  understanding of that.  And in that sense it is  speculation because there's so very little substantial  evidence about any of those issues, but what evidence  does exist seems -- seems to be corroborated by  through those references I've cited as the best I can  come up with, and that is my opinion.  Q   Well, when you say there would appear to have been no  need for a sophisticated and elaborate body of rules,  that phraseology itself suggests that you're  speculating on that point?  You don't know whether  there was a need for a sophisticated and elaborate  body of rules with the Gitksan?  A   Simply using Netting for an example again, because  Netting does provide us with a good overview and a  fairly neutral overview, an argument he advances is  that -- not an argument, it's summary of cultural  ecological theory, and a comparative example is that  in the absence of need for rules, in the absence of a  need for defined or delineated or defendable,  defencible territories, they simply don't exist.  MR. GRANT:   Well, of course, if there's no need for defencible  territories.  They don't exist.  I'm not talking about  generalizations, Doctor, I'm talking about the Gitksan 21970  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  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  and Wet'suwet'en.  And this statement that you make  here with respect to the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en is  speculation on your part and you have no foundation  for it; isn't that correct?  THE COURT: It seems to me this is argument.  It's a conclusion  really, not a speculation, isn't it?  MR.  GRANT:  Q  A  Q  MR.  THE  A  Q  A  Q  Well, Netting talks about the north coast amongst  others, as I recall.  You've just explained earlier -'ñ†  Yes, it does refer to the north coast.  But Netting does not deal specifically with the  Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en?  No.  You agree from your own Master's thesis that in  studying any particular group you must look at the  cultural -- the natural ecology environment of that  group?  You've explained that last week?  You agreed  with me on that?  And the cultural environment of that group.  Yes, and the cultural environment, I agree, but when  you say with respect to the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en,  which I assume is what you're talking about here, if  you're talking about the Haida or the Tlingit let me  know, but I assume you're talking about the Gitksan  and Wet'suwet'en, there would appear to have been no  need for a sophisticated and elaborate body of rules  governing access.  What I'm saying is you have no  foundation upon which to conclude that they did not  need delineated territories prior to contact or  proto-contact?  I'm sorry, if that's a question --  I've lost you?  I wasn't sure if --  :  We'll take a break  REGISTRAR: Order in court,  short recess.  A  Q  A  GRANT  I'll ask it after the break.  Court stands adjourned for a  (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR THE MORNING RECESS)  I hereby certify the foregoing to be  a true and accurate transcript of the  proceedings herein transcribed to the  best of my skill and ability.  Tanita S. French  Official Reporter 21971  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED PURSUANT TO SHORT RECESS)  THE COURT:  Mr. Grant.  MR. GRANT:  Yes.  Before I proceed I would ask that tab 30 be  marked.  Tab 30, The Tsimshian are Carrier.  THE COURT:  Yes.  MR. GRANT:  And the extract of Yerbury from The Subarctic  Indians and the Fur Trade should be at tab 31.  THE COURT:  Yes.  (EXHIBIT 1191-30:  Ives - The Tsimshian are Carrier)  (EXHIBIT 1191-31:  Yerbury - The Subarctic Indians and  the Fur Trade - 1680-1860)  MR. GRANT:  Q   I was referring you before the break to your report on  page five in which you stated with respect to the  Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en that:  "There would appear to have been no need for a  sophisticated and elaborate body of rules  governing access to resources or for extensive  and defined areas of land for their  exploitation."  Prior to the European demand for furs.  And I ask  you what -- on what source do you rely in support of  that proposition, or sources?  A   I gave you an answer before the break.  WILLMS:  My lord, the witness referred to her footnotes, she  referred to the list.  My friend -- in my submission,  after two or three times asking the same question my  friend should move on to another question.  MR.  MR.  GRANT:  Q  A  Well, I left it with the foundation, and you had  referred with respect to the entire thing to this  footnote two.  Are you saying that -- I'm saying with  respect to the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en.  My question  is different than what I had asked you earlier of were  you given the sources.  Is that what you rely on,  those sources at footnote two, in support of that  proposition in respect to Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en?  My answer earlier was I hadn't relied just on the  sources listed in footnote two, although those were  good examples of those anthropological sources which  do rely on what historic documentation and 21972  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 ethnographic documentation that exists, but that I  2 also referred to cultural ecological theory, and I  3 also referred to the extensive reading I did while  4 preparing my PhD dissertation for the University of  5 London in this area.  And to the extent that I rely on  6 that material for the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en case I  7 would only say that yes, I do rely on that  8 information, it is speculative, but there's no reason  9 to consider the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en different  10 than the other areas that I've investigated.  11 Q   Now, you are aware, I think we've already discussed,  12 and you are aware of Coupland's work, and Coupland is  13 an archeologist, and he wrote on The Evolution of the  14 Prehistoric Lower Skeena.  You're aware of that work,  15 aren't you?  16 A  Are you referring to his dissertation?  17 Q   No.  The paper prepared for the Circum-Pacific  18 Prehistory Conference in Seattle.  19 MR. WILLMS:  Perhaps my friend -- it would be much quicker if he  20 just put it in front of the witness and say have you  21 seen it before.  That would save a lot of time.  22 MR. GRANT:  The witness asked a question and I was trying to  23 clarify it for her.  24 A   Yes.  Thank you.  25 Q   Have you seen that before?  26 A   No.  I did see a published version of something that  27 may be quite similar, but without reading this  28 carefully I wouldn't know how it compares to either  29 his dissertation or his published work in the area.  30 MR. GRANT:  Thank you.  I'd ask that that be marked at the tab  31 32 --  32 THE REGISTRAR:  1191, tab 32.  33 MR. GRANT:  — Of Exhibit 1191.  34  35 (EXHIBIT 1191-32:  Evolution of the Prehistoric Lower  36 Skeena Cultural System)  37  3 8 MR. GRANT:  39 Q   Now, can you refer to page -- the page numbering is on  40 the bottom, my lord.  Page nine.  And here Coupland  41 refers to Rubel and Rosman.  And he states in the  42 bottom paragraph:  "Rubel and Rosman" -- you're  43 familiar with that?  You referred to it yourself.  44 A   I'm not sure which one that is.  I was referring to  45 several of their works, not all of which are the same.  46 The 1983 one, I'm not sure which one that is.  47 Q   Okay. 21973  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Rubel and Rosman use the argument of former  2 bilaterality to support their model of  3 Tsimshian migration from interior to coast.  4 But their so-called 'remnant' traits do not  5 necessarily reflect a prototypical bilateral  6 structure.  We may therefore question the  7 validity of the social structural evidence used  8 to support the interior migration model.  Rubel  9 and Rosman use a structuralist, synchronic  10 approach to model the origins and development  11 of Tsimshian culture.  If we adopt an  12 historical approach to this problem, that  13 considers the ancestry of the Tsimshian, a  14 different model emerges."  15  16 Now, you're familiar -- you know what he's  17 referring to, and I think you even referred to it  18 yourself, to the structural synchronic approach of  19 Rubel and Rosman?  20 A   I'm not sure without reading around this particular  21 passage how Coupland is interpreting Rosman and  22 Rubel's use of a structural synchronic approach, and  23 I'm also not sure which Rosman or Rubel article or  24 book this 1883 reference is referring to, so it's very  25 difficult for me to make any kind of objective  26 statement about it.  27 Q   Fair enough.  Can you go to page 12.  28  29 "By the time of the Gitaus"  30  31 G-I-T-A-U-S.  32  33 "Phase, a settlement-subsistence system had  34 developed along the lower Skeena from Prince  35 Rupert Harbour to Kitselas Canyon.  Allaire  36 concluded that these were coastal people  37 exploiting the lower Skeena Valley as far east  38 as Kitselas Canyon.  Their use of the canyon,  39 for salmon fishing in summer is suggested by  40 the presence of numerous cortex spalls,  41 probably used for fish processing; the remains  42 of birch bark rolls, used as torches for night  43 fishing; and the presence of a carved fish  44 effigy.  Cites Allaire.  Evidence of winter  45 habitations is lacking."  46  47 Then to page 13, half-way down that page, right 21974  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 parallel to the middle hole.  2  3 "The Gitaus Phase assemblage reflects a summer  4 camp occupation associated mainly with fishing.  5 The Skeena Phase assemblage also appears to  6 reflect a summer camp occupation - presence of  7 sub-adult fisher elements but in this case  8 associated with hunting and fishing.  The main  9 change in the Skeena Phase was an apparent  10 increase in resource diversity.  The importance  11 of land mammal hunting and processing in the  12 Skeena Phase is seen in the high proportions of  13 chipped projectile points, formed bifaces, and  14 unifaces.  Fishing continued to be important.  15 Abraders, which may have been used in the  16 manufacture of bone fishing gear, are present,  17 and may represent continuity with the Gitaus  18 Phase.  Numerous small post molds, suggestive  19 of fish drying racks, are also present in the  20 Skeena Phase."  21  22 And then go to page 16.  Again just above the  23 centre of the page the line begins land mammal  24 elements, but the sentence after that is:  25  26 "Evidence for land mammal hunting at Prince  27 Rupert Harbour and at Kitselas Canyon during  28 the Skeena Phase suggests a connection between  29 these two areas at this time."  30 And at page 18 Dr. Coupland concludes:  31  32 "Archeological" —  33  34 Just before the conclusion.  35  36 "Archeological evidence reflects the emergence  37 of ranked society at Kitselas Canyon during the  38 Kleanza Phase and at Prince Rupert Harbour at  39 about the same time."  40  41 That's page 18 just below the half-way mark, my  42 lord.  43 Now, first of all, you were aware that whether you  44 look at Ives or at Coupland there's archeological  45 evidence of resource use and land based hunting in  46 these early stages?  47 A   No.  This is inferred.  I don't believe there were any 21975  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 fish bones found in those sites referred to there.  2 And what -- just for example if you go back to page 12  3 salmon, the use of the canyon in the summer suggested  4 by the presence of numerous cortex spalls, which is  5 the external part of a stone tool, it's an  6 undifferentiated fairly amorphous and non-descriptive  7 category of a stone artifact.  The remains of some  8 birch bark rolls used as torches for night fishing.  9 Well, I don't know how bits of birch bark are known as  10 torches for night fishing.  There may be ethnographic  11 examples of the use of birch bark for this purpose,  12 but birch bark could be used for other things as well.  13 And the presence of a carved fish effigy, this doesn't  14 prove fishing.  Just for example the archeological  15 information for this region is very scanty and I don't  16 believe that there's -- there is enough substantial  17 information to confirm the kind of conclusions that  18 Coupland draws.  19 Q   But both Coupland and Ives, Allaire and Ames all  20 whether they analyze where people went to, or where  21 they came from, they all have interpreted that there  22 was in the Skeena Phase at this early time evidence of  23 hunting.  Do you agree or disagree?  24 MR. WILLMS:  I object, my lord, because that's not what the  25 evidence shows.  Each one of them calls a phase by a  26 different name.  Ames doesn't use Skeena Phase up at  27 Hagwilget.  Each person has their own names for a  28 phase.  And if my friend wants to refer to a time  29 period rather than the name Skeena Phase that might be  30 of assistance, but there is no uniform "Skeena Phase"  31 over all of those writers.  32 THE COURT:  Well, we should find out if the witness agrees with  33 Mr. Willms before we find out if she agrees with Mr.  34 Grant.  35 A  Well, in answer to your question I would say without a  36 detailed perusal of those reports for the specified  37 time periods I find it very difficult to recall  38 offhand what kind of fossil remains there were, or  39 bones from mammals or fish or birds at any particular  40 phase or occupation zone, or which sites are being  41 referred to.  It just seems to me that the  42 archeological record is insubstantial, the theories  43 are very interesting, the models that are being  44 developed have some concurrence but without -- as Mr.  45 Willms said, without knowing specifically what you're  46 referring to it's very difficult to generalize.  47 THE COURT:  What do you understand by this Skeena Phase? 21976  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  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  THE COURT  A  MR.  GRANT:  Q  A  I don't remember what time period is associated with  it, but what I do understand from the archeological  record is that we have some material evidence.  There  usually is stone and usually stone tool by-products.  Prince Rupert Harbour and Kitselas Canyon?  There is some bone at Prince Rupert Harbour because  it's midden deposits, and that includes human remains  as well as other mammals, and I believe some fish bone  remains.  But the interpretation of this archeological  record is still open to question in a lot of aspects  or avenues.  Can you go to tab 2 of that book, please.  Tab 2 of  the Exhibit 1191.  And turn to the second page of your  correspondence of March 18th, 1986.  You stated at the  very bottom there:  "I should add that although there have been  very few archeological sites identified and  fewer still excavated in the Land Claims area,  a review of archeological reports could be  quite worthwhile.  Scholars such as George  MacDonald, Louis Allaire and Gary Coupland are  anthropologists and usually formed sound  opinions about pertinent ethnographic,  ethnological and historic data."  Now, just stopping there for the moment.  You have  not changed your opinion about MacDonald, Allaire and  Coupland, have you?  To some extent I have.  And I would say that that  sentence probably should have been worded in a way  that reflected that as anthropologists I would assume  that they had usually formed sound opinions about  pertinent ethnographic, ethnological and historic  data.  I didn't find Gary Coupland's thesis  particularly strong throughout, although there were  parts of it that were very interesting.  And certainly  his handling of the descriptive material was usually  good.  The idea of in situ development of complex  societies, and so on, is very problematic.  It's  something that many of us would like to see happen.  We like to see more evidence come to light that can  support that kind of interpretation.  What I'm  suggesting here is that the data are weak and that we  simply cannot have the kinds of sophisticated  archeological interpretations extending back through 21977  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 time.  They are highly speculative.  And in that sense  2 I'd say that Ives has probably given the best overall  3 summary for the area of what's going on and what is  4 known.  But Coupland's stuff by itself isn't  5 particularly strong.  6 Q   But at this point in time had you read Coupland?  7 A   I had browsed it, yes.  I hadn't read it very  8 thoroughly.  9 Q   Okay.  10 A  And I hadn't read his published version of his thesis  11 conclusions.  12 Q   Can you go to page three.  Second sentence there is:  13  14 "Reports by archeologists may prove  15 illuminating."  16  17 Then you refer to Kenneth Ames' report at  18 Hagwilget.  You do still agree that the reports by  19 archeologists with respect to the study area may prove  20 illuminating, don't you?  21 A   I've become since then increasingly skeptical.  22 Q   And that's because some of these archeologists such as  23 Coupland differ with your own view as expressed in  24 your opinion?  25 A   No.  I think it's not based on how the interpretations  26 differ, because we expect in the discipline always  27 there to be argument about certain fine tune points.  28 What I'm talking about now is that I realize even more  29 that we simply don't have a good representation of the  30 archeological past --  31 Q   But Ames —  32 A   -- To go from.  There have been excavations in some  33 canyon situations.  There has been a survey that  34 represents, oh, a very small percentage of the area.  35 I don't think a survey has ever been conducted that  36 thoroughly covers the region.  37 Q   No, but that's a problem of archeology, isn't it?  I  38 mean, there is many regions where archeologists have  39 to make due with what they have.  40 A   Usually they attempt better representation before they  41 jump off the deep end into highly speculative  42 ventures.  43 Q   Does Dr. MacDonald jump off the deep end into highly  44 speculative ventures?  45 A   No, because I think what he's doing is looking at late  46 prehistoric early protohistoric changes and basing  47 those to some extent on corroboration with oral 2197?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 tradition, with archeological information, and so on.  2 But he's dealing with a time period that's much more  3 closely connected with the historic period, and to  4 that extent it's of more use and value, I think.  When  5 He's dealing with the early prehistory in the time  6 frames similar to those dealt with by Ives in the  7 early parts of his article, or the early phases he  8 addresses Coupland and Allaire, and so on, and it's  9 all speculative.  And that is what archeologists would  10 admit for that area is that they're going on the best  11 they have as well.  12 Q   Well —  13 A   But I say that what Coupland is doing is reading too  14 much into information when he says, because we've got  15 some birch bark turning up in an archeological context  16 therefore there was fishing going on.  I don't accept  17 it.  18 THE COURT:  At night.  19 A   Yeah.  Night fishing going on.  2 0    MR. GRANT:  21 Q   On page 18 where he's -- where -- of Coupland he  22 states:  23  24 "Archeological evidence reflects the emergence  25 of ranked society at Kitselas Canyon during the  26 Kleanza Phase and at Prince Rupert Harbour at  27 about the same time."  28  2 9 And he cites MacDonald and Ames.  30 A   Yes.  31 Q   You have no reason to dispute his opinion based on  32 MacDonald and Ames as well as his own review of the  33 archeological data, do you?  You haven't done the  34 archeological review of the -- of this area?  35 A   But I'd like to draw -- let's back up a bit and  36 discuss the archeological evidence that supports that  37 hypothesis that Ames and MacDonald are also referring  38 to, 'cause I'm not quite sure what you're referring to  39 there in support of it.  40 Q   Fine.  Do you agree with the proposition that where  41 there was a fishing base anadromous salmon would  42 sustain a higher population greater than would be  43 normally found in a hunting -- in a solely hunting  44 based society?  45 A   Yes.  That seems to be supported by historic and  46 ethnographic documentation.  47 Q   Are you -- you mentioned last week about Trigger on 21979  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  A  3  Q  4  5  A  6  Q  7  8  9  10  11  A  12  Q  13  14  15  MR.  WILLM  16  17  18  19  MR.  GRANT  20  Q  21  22  23  24  A  25  Q  26  27  28  A  29  30  31  32  Q  33  34  35  A  36  Q  37  A  38  39  Q  40  THE  COURT  41  MR.  GRANT  42  THE  COURT  43  MR.  GRANT  44  MR.  GRANT  45  Q  46  47  the Huron.  Do you remember that?  Yes.  And Trigger and Conrad Heidenrich have both written  about the Huron?  Yes.  Are you aware that Trigger's analysis of Huron society  suggested that in an area roughly the size of the  Bulkley and upper Skeena, but in the Huron, in  Huronia, there was a population of 28,000 supported.  Are you aware of that?  No, I'm not.  Okay.  Assume for the purpose of this question that  that was how Trigger defined it.  Okay.  Just assume  that.  3:  Well, my lord, what time, over what area, what  location?  I don't know what Huronia means.  I know  that Mr. Grant does, and the witness appears to, but I  don't know what this means.  Are you aware that Trigger has found -- also found  that because of a high population the Hurons obtained  trade -- trade -- furs and goods through trade.  Are  you familiar with that part of Trigger?  I'm sorry.  Was I aware that they were obtained?  Relied on trade because of the -- because of the  depletion of fur and game in the immediate area due to  the high population?  I'm not aware of that particular argument.  I might  remind you that you were a few days ago finding a  comparison between Ontario and the claims area rather  stretching.  Well, that's not my question, Doctor.  My question is  whether or not you're aware what Trigger said with  respect to the Huron?  Not that he relied on it.  If you don't recall that's okay.  I'm not sure what you mean by reliance and whether or  not Trigger actually used the phrase rely on.  Exhibit 1190, page five, Inglis and MacDonald.  What tab number?  This is --  Oh, all right.  It's only one tab.  It's Exhibit 1190.  The defendants tendered it.  You see there that MacDonald sets out the climatic  setting.  And you would have no reason to dispute that  the temperature -- the mean temperature in Prince 21980  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Rupert is warmer than in New Hazelton?  Page five.  2 A  And what Inglis and MacDonald wrote, yes.  3 Q   Yes.  4 A   Not for 1965 though, no.  5 Q   Well, do you have from your research any basis to  6 suggest that through the time period you studied the  7 temperature was not warmer in the coast than in the  8 interior?  9 MR. WILLMS:  Well, my lord, I object.  My friend suggested the  10 mean temperature, and if he talks about a time of  11 year --  12 MR. GRANT:  In January.  13 MR. WILLMS:  The chart says what the chart says, but when he  14 talks about it year round who knows.  15 MR. GRANT:  I said in January.  16 A   I'm sorry.  Could you repeat the question, please?  17 Q   I'd suggest to you that throughout the time period  18 that -- there's no reason to dispute that throughout  19 the time period you're studying that the mean  20 temperature in January, in the winter, is warmer --  21 was warmer in Prince Rupert than it was in the  22 interior?  23 A   No.  I don't think so.  24 Q   There's -- you agree with me?  25 A   Yes, that there's no reason to assume that at any  26 point in the last -- what -- I can't --  27 Q   The time period you're studying, 1741 1860, I think  28 you said.  29 A   There's no reason to assume a constancy through that  30 either.  I mean, the assumption should be  31 investigated.  32 Q   But the mean temperature -- you looked at -- there  33 would be some reflection in the maritime fur trade if  34 there was something very bizarre happening temperature  35 wise, would there not?  36 A   I'm not sure that any of the maritime fur traders  37 would have had a comparative basis for looking at  38 changes in temperature from year to year, because none  39 of them were around that long.  40 Q   From your work on your dissertation what was the type  41 of clothing used by the Coastal Tsimshian in the --  42 I'm here talking about in the pre-contact years.  What  43 was used for clothes; do you recall?  44 A   I would be hesitant to come up with a specific  45 description, because what I'm conjuring to mind are  46 Coast Salish notions, so I don't know specifically.  47 Q   Did you study that with respect to the Haida? 21981  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 A   Not specifically, no.  It bore little direct bearing  2 on questions about tobacco trade.  3 Q   But you are aware that Chilkat blankets, for example,  4 were traded from the interior to the coast?  5 A   I have no knowledge of them being clothing in the  6 ordinary sense.  7 Q   You did no studying of what resources were used for  8 clothing among the Coastal Tsimshian?  9 A   Not in an everyday sense, no.  10 Q   Did you —  11 A   I was aware of blankets being traded from the Chilkat  12 Tlingit or that's where they seemed to originate from  13 their name.  Although, that's not even entirely sure.  14 Q   But —  15 A   But they were used for ceremonial purposes.  16 Q   And Chilkat blankets included mountain goat hair,  17 didn't they?  18 A   Yes.  19 Q   And what was the clothing used by the Gitksan and  20 Wet'suwet'en from your study for this report?  21 A   I can't remember offhand.  I seem to remember a  22 description of the Atnah having leggings made of  23 salmon skins.  24 Q   You're not suggesting that their clothing was based on  25 the fishing resource, are you?  2 6 A   No.  27 Q   In fact, it would be more likely their clothing -- you  28 mentioned a few days ago, I think it's in your report,  29 but you did mention about prestige or status furs.  30 I'm not talking here about the Europeans.  I'm talking  31 about the Coastal Tsimshian.  32 A   Yes.  33 Q   You know what I'm referring to.  34 A   Not specifically.  I'm trying to recall what comment I  35 made about them.  36 Q   You said that status goods were traded with the  37 Coastal Tsimshian.  38 A   Yes.  39 Q   What are you talking about there?  40 A   Sturgis mentions some furs being traded which appear  41 to have had interior origins.  And Sturgis is talking  42 then from the coast.  And I'm trying to remember if  43 the passage is referring to Kaigani Harbour or Kiusta,  44 but there's a mention of peltries.  I'm sure it's  45 beaver -- I'm not sure if beaver are mentioned  46 specifically -- and it's fine furs.  Marten, I think.  47 Q   What do you mean by fine furs? 21982  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 A   Those —  2 Q   What is meant by that?  3 A   Fine furs?  4 Q   What kind of furs are we talking about?  5 A   I'm talking about the furs that are used in trade with  6 Europeans, those whose collages were sought after for  7 decoration and for clothing.  8 Q   And what were the fine furs in the European mind at  9 this time, that is the time of the maritime fur trade  10 and up to say the 1820's?  11 A   On the coast sea otter was the prime fur.  12 Q   And that was considered a fine fur, was it?  13 A   I'm not sure about the distinction.  I'm lumping them  14 all together, and I do put them all in the same  15 category of fine furs.  I'm not sure if the  16 contemporary accounts would include them all in the  17 same listing, but I would say when I discuss fine furs  18 I'm talking about the sea otters mainly from the  19 coast, also beaver, marten, mink, ermine, muskrat.  20 Ermine being particularly valued on the northern  21 coast.  22 Q   Have you heard of these fine furs are all fine furs in  23 the European eyes, that is they were traded to the  24 Europeans the ones you just listed, is that what you  25 mean?  26 A   Yes, I think so.  That's how I've been using the term.  27 Q   And what about utility furs, have you ever used that  28 phrase?  29 A   It's not a phrase I use.  30 Q   Have you ever used or seen it used in historical  31 records?  32 A   Possibly.  Possibly.  33 Q   But you would make no distinction, because you haven't  34 used that term?  35 A   No.  I would see that there's -- that certainly furs  36 were probably used locally, if that's what you're  37 suggesting.  38 Q   Well, I understand that utility furs refers to furs  39 traded with the Europeans, but were not used as outer  40 garments, but may be lining for coats, for example?  41 A   I'm not drawing that distinction.  42 Q   For example, muskrat was a utility fur in that sense  43 I've described.  You would agree?  44 A   I don't know.  I honestly don't know.  45 Q   Fine.  46 A   I'm not sure what time period you're referring to as  47 the category of utility or fine furs. 21983  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   I'm talking 1728 to 1820's.  That's what I was talking  2 about.  3 A  When was the concept utility fur used?  4 Q   I'm talking about that term at that time.  5 Are you aware that the Gitksan utilized Chilkat  6 blankets from your research pre-contact?  7 A  Well, I don't know if there's any pre-contact evidence  8 of the use of Chilkat blankets.  If there is any  9 reference to them I wouldn't be surprised that they're  10 mentioned in the historic setting -- historic context.  11 Q   You're aware --  12 A   But I don't remember a specific reference to that.  13 Q   You're aware that beaver were valued for use by the  14 Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en prior to the arrival of the  15 Europeans, aren't you?  16 A   I'm not sure on what I could base that awareness.  17 Q   Well, of course if you exclude the oral history that  18 sort of cuts you back a bit, I guess?  19 A   Yes, it does.  20 Q   Are you aware that the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en also  21 valued marmot pre-contact as well as post-contact?  22 A   I'm not sure what evidence I could base any awareness  23 on.  24 Q   Are you aware that they valued marten pre-contact and  25 post-contact?  2 6 A  Well, I'd have to give the same answer.  27 Q   When you say that the -- page five:  28  29 "There was no need for extensive and defined  30 areas of land for their exploitation."  31  32 That is for the exploitation of resources among  33 the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en, you are there assuming  34 that they did not rely upon beaver, mountain goat,  35 marmot, marten pre-contact, aren't you?  36 A   I'm assuming that, yes.  37 Q   And you're assuming that they did not rely on berries  38 pre-contact?  39 A   I don't see any connection between the use of berries  40 and the use of -- and I'll go back to my own phrasing  41 on page five:  42  43 "Sophisticated and elaborate bodies of rules  44 governing access to resources."  45  46 My knowledge of the use of berries is that there  47 were sometimes discreet berry patches on various parts 21984  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 of the coast, and also I think Morice makes a  2 reference to this, although it's questionable that's  3 relating to pre-contact times, but that discreet and  4 specific resources do appear to have been laid a claim  5 to.  And the mechanisms whereby they were used either  6 exclusively or shared is very poorly understood for  7 any -- any groups.  But from what Netting describes  8 often rules in hunting gathering societies were worked  9 out so that many groups could have access to something  10 like a specific berry patch even if it was nominally  11 owned by a particular person or groups.  12 Q   Yes, but Netting, of course, is not specifically  13 dealing with the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en?  14 A   No, he is not, as I said earlier.  15 Q   And I'd like to try, if we can, to focus on this group  16 that's the subject of this action where we can.  17 What is the ecology of beaver?  18 MR. WILLMS:  I object, my lord.  I'm sure there's books written  19 on that.  2 0    MR. GRANT:  21 Q   Do you know anything about the ecology of beaver?  22 A  All I know about the ecology of beaver that I think is  23 pertinent here is that the reproductive rate is very  24 slow and very easily preyed upon by humans and very  25 easily depleted as a resource.  26 Q   Are you aware of where they reside?  What type of  27 geography they reside in?  28 A   They're generally distributed in areas that are  29 suitable habitats for alder or poplar, the kinds of  30 food they eat, and where they can construct dams to  31 build their lodges so that the areas are -- these  32 would be two characteristics I would say are common.  33 I think also cold temperature bases.  34 Q   Rivering areas?  35 A   Yes.  Where there is annual freezing, regular annual  36 freezing.  But that's about as far as I'd venture into  37 the ecology of beaver without some prior warning I  38 should be doing some research.  39 Q   Well, you're a cultural geographer you've explained in  40 your earlier paper, and you agree that the geography  41 of an area is relevant?  42 A   Yes, it's relevant.  43 Q   If you accept for the sake of this question that the  44 Gitksan and the Wet'suwet'en relied on the beaver  45 resource pre-contact it would be relevant for you  46 before you made the statement on page five to  47 determine where would they find the beaver in their 21985  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  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  territory, wouldn't it?  A   I believe you started with if I accept and at that  point I lost you.  I wish you would repeat the  question, please.  Q   Okay.  If you accept -- assume for the purpose of this  question, which is something you can't say, but assume  for the purpose of this question that the Gitksan  relied on beaver pre-contact, if that is so the  location of beaver resources would be relevant to  your -- to you in determining what lands they needed;  right?  Doesn't it follow?  A   I'm not sure how it does follow.  Q Are you aware that they -- are you aware that there  was not a large amount of beaver within the Gitksan  area?  MR. WILLMS:  I object, my lord.  There's all sorts of evidence  at this trial of beaver population fluctuating, and  that's not a fair statement at all unless my friend  wants to fix a time for it.  And we've had evidence --  lay witnesses who gave evidence of the great increase  of beaver population at various times and the scarcity  at various times.  My friend shouldn't make broad  propositions like that which don't find any support in  the plaintiffs' evidence.  THE COURT:  That is getting pretty close to the outer margins of  cross-examination, isn't it, Mr. Grant?  We've had  experts in this area, and the witness has told you  what she knows about beaver, speaking generally.  Are  you going to pursue her about the details of her  understanding of the ecology of beaver, as you  described it?  MR. GRANT:  No, I'm not going to pursue the ecology of beaver.  I think the witness has answered what she knows.  Okay.  Thank you.  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  Q  A  Q  This is -- you're aware of Governor George Simpson,  who was the Governor of the Hudson's Bay Company?  Yes.  I think we mentioned him yesterday, or the last time.  I'm referring you to part of a dispatch that is  published in 1947 by the Champlain Society, and it's  part of the dispatch from George Simpson, the Governor  of Ruperts Land, and to the Governor and Committee of  the Hudson's Bay Company.  And this is with respect to  his trip to -- there is some markings on the margin.  I apologize for that, my lord, and I ask you to  disregard that.  But the printed is with respect to a 21986  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  A  Q  A  Q  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  trip that he made to the Columbia, including a trip  through the -- a portion of the Gitksan and  Wet'suwet'en area.  Are you familiar, or have you seen that before?  Not for sometime.  And I don't know where he --  there's a record of him travelling through the Gitksan  Wet'suwet'en area.  Okay.  Perhaps you could draw my attention to that.  Yes.  Yes.  My understanding is I think he cut through  probably one portion of it.  Just a moment.  And I've  included part of appendix A which is the Fort  Alexandria District Report from 1827 from William  Connolly.  And if you look at at page 242 this is  Connolly's report of 1827.  The second paragraph --  This is Connolly 18 —  '27.  '27.  What page?  242 of appendix A, my lord.  I gave you two parts.  It's all part of the same document.  Extract from the  same text.  "The proposed Establishment at Nass may  probably be of great advantage, but I do not  believe it will ever derive much benefit from  the interior Country:  The Atnahs who inhabit  the upper part of the Babine river were visited  twice by the late Mr. Brown and he found them  not only destitute of Furs, but equally so of  every thing which Indians might be supposed  possessed of who carry on any traffic with the  Whites."  And then at page 243 Connolly reporting on the  Brown trip again.  That first paragraph, first full  paragraph about half-way down.  "I am therefore of opinion that if they carry  on any traffic at all with the Indians of the  Coast it must be on a very small scale:  the  Country upon which these people as well as the  Babines hunt is of no extent, and I have reason  to believe that it was at no time well-stocked  with Beaver."  You weren't aware of that report of Connolly in  which he reported on the paucity of beaver in the  Atnah area, were you?  I mean, if you are aware of 21987  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  MR.  A  Q  GRANT  A  Q  A  MR.  THE  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  it —  No, I was not.  Okay.  I would ask that that one be marked at tab 33.  I might point out that Brown in his 1823 and '24  report did note that sometimes information he did  receive from the Indians about other matters such as  the trade on the sea coast was sometimes suspect and  needed to be confirmed, so I'm not sure how much Brown  would have known about that, just as a bit of a  qualifier on that.  That's that report we referred to earlier, isn't it?  Yes.  WILLMS:  My lord, I object to this document going in in its  present form, because it's more than just ignore the  comments.  The comments, I'm sure not put in by Mr.  Grant, are running commentary of argumentative points  respecting something that this -- do you want to sit  down when I'm making an objection.  Thank you.  A  running commentary of an argument that somebody is  obviously developing here.  And I think in this case  whereas from time to time we have minor underlining,  but my friend can put in a clean copy of this here,  and it doesn't need the running commentary.  I'll do that.  I've got no problem with doing that.  I'll have to get a cleaner copy.  I just don't have it  available.  I'll replace that copy with a clean copy.  I have no difficulty with that.  All right.  REGISTRAR:  Is this going to be tab 33?  GRANT: Yes. Coupland I'd ask to be tab 32 and I ask that  the extract from the Simpson paper, George Simpson's  report be 33.  Yes.  That's right.  And I've noted my friend's request, and I will  provide substitute clean copies.  Thank you.  MR. GRANT  COURT:  COURT  GRANT  THE COURT  (EXHIBIT 1191-33:  Simpson, Esq.)  Part of Dispatch from George  MR. GRANT:  Q   Now, I don't want to -- before we go into that next  document, Dr. Robinson, I just wonder if rather than  spending a great deal of time on this would your  answers as to your limited knowledge of the ecology of 219?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 beaver apply equally to your knowledge of the ecology  2 of mountain goat?  3 A  More or less.  4 Q   Marmot?  5 A  More or less.  6 Q   Marten?  7 A   Yes.  8 Q   Soap berries?  9 A   Soap berries?  10 Q   Yeah.  Where soap berries are located.  That's what  11 I'm asking you about, the geography of the type of  12 terrain where they would be located.  Would your  13 limited knowledge with respect to beaver apply equally  14 if I asked you the question about soap berries?  15 A  Would my limited knowledge on beaver apply to the soap  16 berries?  I think I know a little bit more of soap  17 berries.  I would know where to find information  18 pertaining to them, because Nancy Turner has done such  19 a marvellous review of the ethno-botany of the  20 province.  21 Q   Now, this is another extract from your dissertation  22 that I provided you, and I put in pages 74 and 75,  23 which the other day we quoted from extensively, and  24 then I'd like you to look at the bottom of page 75 and  25 you say in this chapter:  26  27 "It must be explained that the word  28 'traditional,' used throughout this chapter  29 usually implies the state of Northwest Caost  30 Indian cultural organizations before they were  31 affected by contact with Europeans."  32  33 Now, here you're talking about an effort to  34 explain what was going on with the Haida and the  35 Tlingit and the associated groups; is that right?  36 A   Right there I'm explaining how I use the word  37 traditional.  38 Q   Right.  And that was what you were talking about in  39 this chapter?  40 A   Yes.  41 Q   That time frame?  42 A   Yes.  43 Q   Now, the other point is that just above that you say  44 with respect to the inland Tlingit and Tsimshians  45 living along the Nass and Skeena rivers you say:  46  47 "As well, they emphasized wealth accumulation 21989  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 for status recognition and achievement.  These  2 groups enter into this group in section D's  3 discussion of interregional and intercultural  4 exchange."  5  6 And that's where you focused on how the Haida and  7 the Tlingit connected with these groups in this  8 chapter?  9 A  And Tsimshian, yes.  And Coast Tsimshian.  10 Q   Yes.  And Coastal Tsimshian.  Thank you.  Now, I've --  11 you go to page 146 in this extract, and this is part  12 of section D of this chapter.  Okay.  And here you  13 talk about trade, and I understand you're talking  14 about trade traditionally.  You say:  15  16 "The Tsimshians acquired canoes, slaves, furs,  17 maps, dentalia, abalone shells, copper,  18 seaweed, and dried halibut from the Haida, in  19 return olachen oil, Chilkat blankets, mountain  20 goat and mountain sheep horns, slaves, copper,  21 mountain goat skins, wool, woolen blankets, and  22 berries."  23  24 And then you cite them.  25  26 "The Tsimshian seemed to have acted as the  27 middlemen, for most of the trade and  28 intercourse of the Haida with the other tribes  29 has been through them."  30  31 And you're here referring to the trade between the  32 Tsimshian from the interior and to the Haida; is that  33 right?  34 A   I'd like to know what my reference here number 249 is  35 here in chapter three first, please.  36 Q   Yes.  Just a moment.  I think that reference is to --  37 yes, it's to Murdoch 1934, Dawson 1880, Chittenden  38 1882, Boas 1916, Kaplanoff, K-A-P-L-A-N-O-F-F, editor  39 1971, Gunther 1972 and Howay, H-O-W-A-Y, editor 1941.  4 0 A  M'hm.  41 Q   Okay.  Now, if you go to the next page continuing this  42 discussion, eight lines down you say:  43  44 "Copper came from areas far to the north of  45 Tlingit territory, at Prince William Sound, the  46 Copper River delta, and regions east of there.  47 Some Chilkat people were apparently settled at 21990  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  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  A  THE COURT  A  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  Q  the Copper River mouth on the eve of European  contact so that they could monopolize trade in  copper into the northern Northwest Coast."  Now, this -- you at that time -- I don't know if  you may have forgotten this last week, but there was  copper -- indigenous copper that was part of the trade  at that time.  You found that?  A   There appears to be some trade in indigenous copper,  and the article I referred to earlier summarizes that  as well as the trade in iron.  And iron doesn't seem,  except for some meteorite possibilities in the eastern  Canadian Arctic to have been indigenous at all to  North America.  So all of the ferrous objects and  stains from iron that are found on the wooden half of  tools appears to be exotic in derivation.  I do agree  that copper was indigenous.  :  When you're talking about the copper are you talking  about the Copper River and Beaufort Sea or is this --  Yes.  That's the Copper River.  There is also the  White River in coastal Alaska that's a source of  native copper trade on to the coast.  :  We are talking about the Hearnes River here, are we?  Yes.  :  Yes.  Thank you.  Are you aware of copper coming from an area in the  Skeena?  A   No, I'm not.  Q   Okay.  On page 147 you state:  "A lively coast-interior trade between coastal  Tlingit and Tsimshian groups and several groups  of neighbouring Indians was regularly  conducted."  Now, my reading of this, Doctor, is here you were  referring to, amongst others, this would apply to  neighbouring groups inland of the Coastal Tsimshian  such as the Gitksan or Kitselas people.  A   Yes.  Q   And you go on to state:  "From the coast the the interior went dried  fish and clams, olachen oil, cakes of spruce  and hemlock cambium, shell ornaments, and a  great variety of wooden food dishes and boxes 21991  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 as well as spruce and cedar root baskets with  2 the Athabascans valued highly.  In return the  3 coastal Indians received soapberries, precious  4 furs, 'caribou and moose hides; thongs and  5 sinews for sewing and binding; lichen for  6 dyeing blankets; moccasins, birch wood bows;  7 and placer copper from the Copper River and  8 White River districts."  9  10 And that cite at 257 is to Eisenstat 1976 after  11 Olson and Krause and Emmons.  12 MR. WILLMS:  Oberg.  13 MR. GRANT:  Oberg, yes.  14 Q   And then Krause also mentions abalone and sharks tooth  15 coming via the mainland to Tlingit.  16 Now, you would agree that what you're describing  17 here in terms of the trade is the types of items that  18 were going from the interior to the coast.  That's  19 what you -- and back and forth?  20 A   Yes.  21 Q   And that the interior goods that were coming to the  22 coast at this time from your reading included soap  23 berries and precious furs such as caribou and moose  24 hides, precious furs I should say, caribou and moose  25 hides.  I think they're two different things.  26 A   Yes.  27 Q   Now, the precious furs you're talking about, do you  28 know which furs were?  29 A   No.  Specifically with reference to those references  30 cited by -- well, the best I can say is that if we go  31 back and check Eisenstat and see what his references  32 had to say perhaps they specified more carefully what  33 they were.  I don't remember offhand.  34 Q   No, if you don't remember that's okay.  Then one of  35 the things stated by Emmons was that marmot skins were  36 next in importance.  Now, are you aware that marmot  37 skins are -- marmot are in the sub-Alpine and Alpine  38 area?  39 A   I know that they will be distributed there, yes,  40 from -- like in the Rocky Mountains they're certainly  41 in that area.  42 Q   Yes.  And are you aware that marmot are in the Gitksan  43 and Wet'suwet'en area?  44 A   Yes.  And there are references to sifflew (phonetic)  45 in Brown's journal for the Babine Lake area, and I  46 believe that's marmot that's being referred to.  47 Q   Okay.  That was that word you mentioned the other day? 21992  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  A   Yes.  Q   And, of course, I think you would agree that the  mountain goat are in Alpine areas?  A   Yes.  Sub-Alpine as well.  Q   Okay.  Now --  THE COURT:  Shall we end on that high note, Mr. Grant?  MR. GRANT:  Sure we can end on that high note.  THE COURT:  How are you getting along, Mr. Grant?  MR. GRANT:  Going, my lord.  I -- I'm going as fast as I can.  I'm not optimistic I'll complete today, but I'm  certainly trying to move quickly.  THE COURT:  I'm not able to sit late tonight.  I have another  matter at four o'clock so.  MR. GRANT:  Okay.  THE COURT:  Well, we'll see how we get along.  MR. GRANT:  Thank you.  THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court stands adjourned until  two o'clock.  (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED)  I hereby certify the foregoing to be  a true and accurate transcript of the  proceedings herein to the best of my  skill and ability.  Peri McHale, Official Reporter  UNITED REPORTING SERVICE LTD. 21993  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  THE REGIS1  4  THE COURT  5  MR. GRANT  6  Q  7  8  9  10  11  12  A  13  Q  14  15  16  A  17  Q  18  19  20  A  21  22  Q  23  A  24  Q  25  26  A  27  Q  28  29  30  31  32  33  A  34  Q  35  A  36  Q  37  38  39  40  A  41  Q  42  43  44  A  45  Q  46  47  (PROCEEDINGS RECOMMENCED AFTER LUNCHEON RECESS)  PRAR:  Order in court.  :  Mr. Grant.  I think before the lunch hour I was asking you about  the ecology, and maybe I shouldn't use such a broad  term, but I was asking you of the location, where one  would find -- what type of terrain one would find  mountain goat, marmot, beaver, marten, and I think I  added soap berries to that.  Uh-huh.  And you have a general idea, you have described it  with respect to beaver, that they are in the riverine  area?  Yes.  And marten would be located in the dryer pine forest  terrain.  You would agree with that?  And if you don't  know, that's fine.  Yes.  And I think ranging in the Sub-Alpine with  marmot -- with marten  Marten was what I was referring to, not marmot.  Yes.  And marten you have already described in the  Sub-Alpine, and mountain goat in the Alpine?  Yes.  And from your own dissertation, tab 34, I referred you  to your description at pages 146 and 147, and at that  time you relied on these other authors -- I mean, when  you set out this statement here, you did not dispute  that the trade in these types of items was going on  between the coast and the interior, do you?  No.  And that's a general summary.  Yes.  It's a general summary?  Yes.  And that would -- this is an example of where you were  referring last week in your dissertation, that you  would be talking about, I think you used the  neighbouring inland groups?  Yes.  And this is where you were in fact talking about them,  because it was relevant to your study of the Haida and  Tlingit, as to what was being traded to them?  Yes.  And the neighbouring inland groups, of course, you  described as including the Gitksan, and I take it the  Wet'suwet'en were not? 21994  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 A   Yes, but not referred to specifically.  2 Q   Right.  Okay.  So you would agree that if pre-contact  3 the Gitksan were involved in acquiring mountain goat,  4 they would need access to Alpine areas?  5 A   Yes.  6 Q   Marmot or groundhog, as its been sometimes referred to  7 in this case, groundhog sometimes being referred to  8 that way?  9 A   Yes.  10 Q   They would need access to the Alpine and Sub-Alpine?  11 A   Yes.  12 Q   And marten, they would need access to lower elevation,  13 dryer pine forest areas?  14 A   Yes.  15 Q   And of course the beaver, access to the riverine  16 environment?  17 A   Yes.  18 Q   Caribou, they would need access to caribou habitat, if  19 caribou was one of the resources that they were  20 accessing for either their own use or for trade?  21 A   Yes, directly or indirectly.  22 Q   Now, can you turn to your report.  And I am at part 2,  23 I believe, page 5.  In the first sentence of paragraph  24 one you state:  25  26 "Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en claims of traditional  27 ownership and occupation of certain territories  28 can be challenged on the basis that they do not  29 account for developments which occurred during  30 the proto-historic period."  31  32 What developments did you document in your report  33 as having occurred in the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en  34 territory during the proto-historic period?  35 A  Well, I think in the rest of that paragraph I outline  36 them.  I may have changed the word "developments" to  37 "changes" in the second sentence, but I meant to use  38 the words "development" and "change" simultaneously.  39 Or not simultaneously, but some of the developments I  40 am referring to relate to these changes include  41 adjustments.  42 Q   Okay.  In part are you relying on the oral histories  43 to delineate the changes, for example, the adjustments  44 and boundaries between the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en,  45 either directly or indirectly; that is, whether you  46 looked at them yourself or you relied on MacDonald?  47 A   Yes.  I believe that when Jenness, for instance, 21995  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 describes the movements of the people from Moricetown  2 up to Hagwilget, for instance, he's not only relying  3 on ethnographic records, but also the firsthand  4 accounts of people he spoke to, who might remember  5 through generations.  6 Q   Well, that would be --  7 A   Using that as an example from Jenness.  So I saw it in  8 the printed source.  But yes, he was relying on oral  9 testimony.  10 Q   But Jenness, in respect of the move up to Hagwilget,  11 this is the 1820 slide that you are referring to?  12 A   Yes.  13 Q   There is reference in the oral history of this event  14 occurring around that time, isn't there?  15 A   You would have to draw my attention to those  16 specifically.  17 Q   Okay.  Fair enough.  In the same paragraph you state:  18  19 "Both process of territorial demarcation are  20 linked to and were stimulated by indirect  21 contact with Europeans through the eighteenth  22 and early nineteenth centuries."  23  24 What are the sources in your report for that last  25 statement?  Now, I know you have footnoted it in  26 footnote 1, but I, in reviewing the footnotes, could  27 not find a single source set out in the footnotes,  28 which -- at least as the footnote is read -- does  29 not -- supports that proposition.  30 A   Oh, well, I am going to have to go through all of the  31 footnotes in the first part of the report to find  32 confirmation of that.  That should be processes  33 pleural in the last sentence.  34 Q   Okay.  What you would do, is you would refer me to the  35 footnotes under paragraph 1?  That's what you're  36 saying?  37 A   Not necessarily just those under paragraph 1.  But  38 let's start with paragraph 1, and perhaps we should go  39 through the footnotes in support of that.  40 Q   Well, you're saying that maybe there is other  41 footnotes that support this?  42 A   Yes.  43 Q   Okay.  44 A  And I am also saying the reason why I put them out in  45 full in the notes to support the opinions, is so that  46 they could support the opinion and be readily  47 available, should we want to refer to them. 21996  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  Q  2  3  A  4  Q  5  6  7  8  9  A  10  Q  11  12  13  A  14  Q  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  A  22  23  Q  24  A  25  Q  26  27  28  29  A  30  Q  31  A  32  Q  33  A  34  35  36  Q  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  THE COURT  45  MR. GRANT  46  Q  47  A  And some of these footnotes are repetitious, I think,  aren't they?  Yes.  And they are cross-referenced when they can be.  Okay.  Can you go to footnote -- page 32 of your  report, footnote 1-A and B.  Here you -- in these two  footnotes you are relying on Adams, and that's from  his dissertation, if I remember correctly, 1969,  right?  '69?  Yes.  It is his dissertation, I think.  In these two  footnotes Adams is talking about registered traplines,  isn't he?  Yes.  Now, from my review of your footnotes, you cite both  Adams' unpublished dissertation in your bibliography,  and the book, "The Gitksan Potlatch", which is in your  counsel's document book, Exhibit 1188 at tab 4,  however, when I review your footnotes, all of your  footnotes appear to be taken from his unpublished  dissertation.  Is there a reason for that?  I don't recall that, so I can't give you a reason for  it.  Okay.  That surprises me.  Are you aware that he took out the statement at  footnote 1A from his published book, "The Gitksan  Potlatch"?  You are aware "The Gitksan Potlatch" is  based on his dissertation?  Yes.  Am I aware that he took out that statement?  Yes.  No.  Okay.  But I don't recall that Adams offered any substantial  change in orientation from his thesis to his published  book.  Okay.  I believe I have the last one.  The extract  from the Robinson dissertation would be at tab 35 of  Exhibit 1191 -- I'm sorry, 34, and this would be at  tab 35.  This would be an extract from the Adams'  dissertation.  Now, if you look at footnote 1, the  pages are a little different on this one.  So if you  go to page 17 of what I have just given you, there is  handwritten page numbers at the top.  :  Page 17?  :  Page 17.  Are you there?  Yes. 21997  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   Okay.  Adams starts this section, which includes your  2 footnote 1-A at page 32 with "Ecological Assumption,  3 Subsistence and Prestige", and states:  4  5 "I have built-in an assumption in my work which  6 is that the corporations (i.e. Houses) own  7 approximately equal resources.  This I know to  8 be untrue:  many informants have told me that  9 the resources of different chiefs are variously  10 productive, the traplines (as registered)  11 differ in length and accessibility, a few  12 chiefs have no direct means of getting berries  13 or meat and so forth.  In any case the lines as  14 we know them today were drawn up to regulate  15 the fur trade which is post-contact and was not  16 a means of subsistence: the pelts were brought  17 home, but the meat was cached or discarded."  18  19 Now, when you -- that last part is connecting in  20 to your footnote at page 32.  You would agree that the  21 statement you referred to at footnote 1A is  22 speculative, wouldn't you, in the context of what he  23 is saying in that paragraph?  24 A   I am really not sure what you intend by your question.  25 The first part where he's -- in that paragraph, he is  26 talking about this in-built assumption, that there is  27 more or less equal ownership or resource for the  28 different houses.  2 9 Q   Uh-huh.  30 A  And then he goes on to say:  31  32 "In any case ..."  33 Q   He says --  34 A  35  36 "... they were drawn up to regulate the fur  37 trade."  38  39 So then he is talking about something that I think  40 is factual, that is known, that the lines were drawn  41 up vis-a-vis the fur trade.  42 Q   Now —  43 A   In terms of the maps that are available today.  44 Q   I would like to turn you to page 12 of that tab that I  45 have just given you.  And this is where he sets out  46 his strategy.  47 2199?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 "Our strategy was to collect all the Church  2 records, Indian Agent censuses and reports, and  3 collate them into genealogies and then try to  4 identify each genealogy with a resource-owning  5 corporation.  This was done by obtaining lists  6 of chiefs' names for each corporation, together  7 with their present holders, at the same time  8 that we asked where and how everybody sat at  9 potlatches.  Included in this data were  10 residence histories for each person.  To this  11 we added the trapline registrations.  This  12 constitutes our basic documentation."  13  14 Now, stopping there.  You would agree that from  15 Adams' description, he did not, of course, rely on or  16 refer to the early historical record, did he?  If one  17 can take his own description of his work as accurate.  18 Would you agree with me?  19 A   The basic descriptive documentation that he refers to  20 is summarized in the list at the beginning of the  21 paragraph.  I believe that -- especially in the  22 printed work, and I don't -- and his published work,  23 and I don't have a copy of the bibliography attached  24 to his thesis here.  I believe he also referred to  25 ethnological materials as well.  This is the primary  26 documentation in these church records, Indian Agency  27 census and so on.  There is no doubt in my mind that  28 he didn't refer to a broader base of literature.  I  29 don't know how much he relied on one set versus the  30 other set.  31 Q   Well, I am suggesting he didn't, for example, rely on  32 the William Brown accounts.  33 A   Oh, I don't know specifically.  I would have to  34 consult the bibliographies in his printed works and  35 also his dissertations.  36 Q   Okay.  You do agree, on going back to your own  37 footnote -- if you could put that aside for a moment.  38 Going back to your own footnote A on page 32.  Do you  39 agree with Adams' statement:  40  41 "How much the territories may have changed since  42 the coming of the whites is unknown."  43  44  45 A   Yes.  46 Q   You agree with that.  Now, when I was asking you a  47 week ago, you mentioned that Adams was a historian in 21999  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  part.  I would like it, if you could look  put aside  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  Q  A  Q  the black binder for a moment, and look at the white  book, which is Adams -- tab 4, which is Adams'  published work, and which your counsel has put in.  :  What tab?  :  Tab 4 of Exhibit 1188.  And I would like you to look at  Yes.  The bottom paragraph on page 5,  page 5.  You have it?  the first sentence:  "The first Whiteman to visit the region was  Thomas Hankin, a Hudson's Bay Company factor  from the coast.  He arrived in the spring of  1867."  Now, are you aware of how accurate or inaccurate  that statement is?  A   To the extent that we can associate the two Atnah  villages referred to by Brown along the Bulkley River,  or what appears to be the Bulkley River with the  Gitksan, we could say that Adams may have missed  those.  I think he is talking about the first arrival  of some of the one --  Q   Well, as you have rightly stated, when he says Hankin  was the first white man that visits the region, if we  assume that is the Skeena, the region around the forks  in the Skeena, you are aware that Brown travelled to  Kisgegas in 1826, are you?  MR. WILLMS:  I object.  We are aware that Brown travelled to  Ochilcho and another named village in that time, but  he doesn't say Kisgegas anywhere in his book or his  report.  THE COURT:  That's probably right, but not much doubt about  where -- it has to be along the length of the Babine  River, which isn't very long.  THE WITNESS:  I think I answered the question just before, by  saying that I am aware that Brown visited two Ahtna  villages that may be Gitksan, but that's not known for  sure.  MR.  GRANT:  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Are you aware that a man names McGilvary went to the  forks of the Skeena in 1883?  I don't know which forks you are referring to.  The forks of the Skeena and Bulkley.  McGilvary, 1833?  Yes.  No, I am not. 22000  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  Q  2  3  4  5  6  A  7  Q  8  A  9  THE  COURT  10  MR.  GRANT  11  12  MR.  GRANT  13  Q  14  THE  COURT  15  MR.  GRANT  16  THE  COURT  17  MR.  GRANT  18  Q  19  20  21  A  22  MR.  GRANT  23  24  THE  COURT  25  MR.  GRANT  26  27  28  THE  COURT  29  MR.  GRANT  30  Q  31  32  A  33  34  35  Q  36  A  37  Q  38  39  A  40  Q  41  A  42  Q  43  A  44  Q  45  46  Q  47  That's Exhibit 969-1 and 1-A.  Are you aware that in 1859 a man named Downing  went up to the Skeena so far as the forks of the  Babine and Skeena River, necessitating him to go  through the area of the Skeena and the Bulkley?  Oh, yes.  That was in 1859?  Uh-huh.  You say he went to where?  The forks of the Babine, My Lord.  And that's set out  in Exhibit 1035-13.  Are you aware that there was a --  I'm sorry, the reference again.  Exhibit 1035-13.  Thank you.  Are you aware that in 1862/'63 a man by the name of  Sebastapol reported a trip up as far as the Skeena and  Bulkley forks?  No, I am not.  :   That's in David Williams' documents, volume 1, tab  2C.  I think the defendants tendered them.  :  What's the reference again?  :  David Williams' document book of the defendant,  volume 1, tab 2C.  I'm not certain of the exhibit  number.  :  All right.  Are you aware that the Collins Overland Telegraph  people were in the area in 1865/'66?  I am not sure exactly where they were, but yes, I am  aware of the date.  But I am not sure exactly where  they were.  You say in the area?  In the region.  They were in the --  The Gitksan region?  The Gitksan region, yes.  Around the Skeena River near  the forks.  The forks of the Babine?  The Bulkley and the Skeena.  The Bulkley.  Yes, I am.  And that would have pre-dated Hankin?  Yes.  That's Exhibit 969-18 is the Morrison account, and  Exhibit 1035-26 is the Rothrock account.  Are you aware that a man by the name of Manson was  there in 1866? 22001  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  A  2  Q  3  A  4  Q  5  6  A  7  Q  8  9  10  11  A  12  Q  13  14  A  15  Q  16  17  18  19  A  20  21  22  Q  23  24  A  25  Q  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  A  35  Q  36  THE COURT  37  MR. GRANT  38  Q  39  40  41  42  43  A  44  Q  45  46  47  Manson?  Prior to Hankin.  What was there?  Was in the area, was in the Bulkley -- the area around  the forks of the Skeena and Bulkley River.  Manson.  No, I am not aware of that.  Exhibit 1035-20.  Well, you would agree that if all  these people were in the region at these dates, that  his statement regarding Hankin as the first white man  in the region would be incorrect?  Yes.  And are you aware that in fact Hankin went into the  area in 1866 and not 1867, as set out by Mr. Adams?  No, I am not aware of that.  Exhibit 1035-20.  Are you aware that Hankin was not a  factor for the -- you know what a factor for the  Hudson's Bay Company was, as opposed to a clerk, don't  you, or do you know that distinction?  Are we distinguishing in which sense?  Yes, I know  there is a distinction between the two terms, two  positions.  All right.  Well, Adams says he was a factor.  Are you  aware that in fact he was a clerk?  No, I wasn't aware of that.  Okay.  Go to page 6.  You see at the top of page 6,  the last phrase in that first paragraph he describes  about the steamboats, and then he says:  "Until the Grant Trunk Pacific railroad was  built through the area in 1908-09."  Are you aware that the Grand Trunk Pacific was  being constructed around Hazelton as late as 1912?  No, I am not.  Okay.  Then there is --  : Are you saying there was nothing built before 1912?  :  No.  That the -- let me be correct on that.  That there was construction -- there was construction  on the length of the Grand Trunk Pacific as early as  1908 between Prince Rupert and the Rockies, but that  there was construction in the Hazelton area much  later, as late as 1912.  I don't know the specifics of that railroad history.  Okay.  Now, the second paragraph down from there,  there is a reference to:  "During all this time, there were frequent 22002  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  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  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  complaints by Indians that their lands were  being taken away from them by the White  settlers who were moving into the region to  farm."  You haven't been able to determine what he means  by "during all that time", have you?  A  Well, I want to go back and read the context, even the  section in which he is putting that encapsulated  history.  And I think he is referring from what  Hankin --  Q   It's okay.  A   I am not really sure what he is referring to there,  but I think that that's a broader context.  Q   Right.  So he may be dealing with from Hankin forward.  Then he says:  "But there was never any serious trouble,  though the Indian Agent and the local Whites  were frequently apprehensive."  Now --  "... especially after the Indians accused one of  the storekeepers of inducing a bad epidemic of  measles by 1888 by means of the sugar he sold  them."  Q   Do you know what incidents he is referring to there in  the 1888 sugar incident?  A   Not specifically.  But I think I have seen a passing  reference to it.  But no, I can't remember offhand.  Q   Do you know the first settlers did not go into the  area until 1904?  No.  Exhibit 1035, 225 to 230, My Lord.  I'm sorry?  1904.  It's indicated in Exhibit 1035-225 — that's  tab 225 to tab 230.  MR. WILLMS:  My Lord, I object to that categorization.  If my  friend's going to put a proposition to the witness, he  should make absolutely sure there is no contrary  evidence.  THE COURT:  Well, I don't think there is anything in this case  where there isn't contrary evidence.  MR. GRANT:  Q   Are you aware that there was at least eighteen 22003  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 incidents between 1889 and 1914 where firearms were  2 displayed by Indian people?  3 MR. WILLMS:  My Lord, I object now.  Where my friend is now is  4 far -- I am making my objection.  5 MR. GRANT:  Go ahead.  6 MR. WILLMS:  We're far beyond anything that relates to the  7 substance of this witness's opinion, My Lord.  The  8 timeframe for the opinion for late pre-historic,  9 proto-historic and early historic, as set out by the  10 witness and in her report, ends at the latest around  11 1860.  My friend is now working into a much, much  12 later period, without, in my submission, any view to  13 impeaching any of the evidence of the witness, because  14 it's not touched.  The cross-examination so far has  15 skirted far, far around the heart of the report, and  16 in my submission its just gone too far now.  I mean,  17 there is a wide latitude for cross-examination, but we  18 can't have the history of the world through this  19 witness in my submission.  20 THE COURT:  Well, I think that we are too late in this trial to  21 start putting constraints on cross-examination.  There  22 were many cross-examinations conducted by your side of  23 the case, Mr. Willms, that I thought went on far too  24 long, with respect, and I think perhaps some of these  25 cross-examinations may be going on far too long.  26 MR. WILLMS:  It's not the length.  2 7 THE COURT:  I know.  28 MR.  WILLMS:  The substance that I am objecting to, My Lord.  29 THE COURT:  I know.  But in cross-examination its been wisely  30 said that one doesn't have to attact the citadel  31 directly, one can adopt a circuitous approach.  For  32 all I know that's what Mr. Grant has in mind.  When  33 these references are all in the evidence, they can be  34 referred to in argument.  35 And I am not sure what the point is of asking the  36 witness whether she knows all the minutia of the  37 endless evidence we have in this case.  I am sure that  38 the process that we are going through now could be  39 repeated with respect to practically everything that's  40 been filed and everything that has been said.  And  41 what Mr. Grant's purpose for this is not for me to  42 discern, and I do not think that I would stop him on  43 the grounds that you have advanced.  44 Cross-examination is not limited to those matters  45 which the witness raises in her direct evidence, and  46 for that reason it may be that Mr. Grant has some  47 different purpose in mind entirely.  While it does 22004  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 seem to me that some of these things are far afield,  2 as I mentioned this morning, I will not stop him.  3 You may proceed, Mr. Grant.  4 MR. GRANT:  5 Q   Now, just taking this divergence from the historical  6 record and from what Mr. Adams summarizes in his book.  7 Would you agree with me that he's not really a  8 historian, as you have suggested?  9 A   No, but I would like to qualify that by seeing where  10 exactly I said he was a historian and in what context.  11 Q   Okay.  We'll look for that reference at the break for  12 you.  13 A   Thank you.  14 Q   You don't remember that?  15 A  Well, not that he was a historian, although I did  16 mention that he referred to historic information, I  17 believe.  I would like to see that.  18 Q   Now, I would like you to turn to page 9 of his book.  19 The third paragraph down he is talking about  20 traplines, and then he says:  21  22 "Many lines were issued to whites, so that the  23 integral nature of the Indians' territories  24 were modified."  25  26 Now, with respect to that statement, he does not  27 present any foundation for that statement, does he, in  28 his book or his dissertation?  29 A   I do not remember how he referenced this kind of  30 statement in his thesis.  Here he appears not to have  31 any reference directly.  32 Q   Okay.  Go to page 13.  He states in the middle  33 paragraph:  34  35 "The missionaries (who began arriving in 1874)  36 were appalled by the feasts and shows and,  37 without troubling to understand their meaning,  38 soon put an end to the tatooing and various  39 piercing ceremonies and to the Destroyer an  40 Dog-Eating dances."  41  42 Now, are you aware that in fact Tomlinson arrived  43 in 1872, not in 1874?  Tomlinson being one of the  44 first missionaries.  45 A   No, I don't have an exact recall of that date.  I  46 would have to look it up.  47 Q   Okay.  It's set out in Exhibit 1035-157 for the 22005  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 record.  2 Now, can you go back to the black book, tab -- I  3 think we have put in Dr. Adams' extract at tab 35.  On  4 page 13 you recall this where he describes parts of  5 his methodology.  He says:  6  7 "It was very easy to fill our notebooks with  8 miscellaneous bits of information about  9 fishweirs and the etymologies of village names,  10 but very hard to get replies to direct  11 questions which pursued a train of thought.  12 However, we gradually built up a picture of the  13 culture despite the lack of extended case  14 histories.  A turning point came when I  15 realized that I would simply have to 'invent'  16 the cultures, then try out my model on  17 informations for criticism.  In this way I  18 guessed that their idea of reincarnation was  19 used to limit the size of kin groups; that the  20 basic conflicts were between kin groups  21 competing for resources; and that the strategy  22 for winning was to ally oneself with suitable  23 affines, which formed large factions.  All  24 these guesses turned out to be right but nobody  25 had volunteered the information."  26  27 Were you aware of this method that he used of  28 inventing the culture and then going from there?  29 A   Yes.  And I think this passage is particularly  30 interesting, because it reflects both a candor, which  31 is refreshing in anthropological circles, and then the  32 concept of trying out the model on the informants is  33 to me the best kind of test that he could have put  34 that study of the contemporary potlatch to.  35 THE COURT:  Is this the same document that we were looking at  36 before?  37 THE WITNESS:  No.  38 MR. GRANT:  Tab 34.  This is an extract from Adams' unpublished  39 dissertation.  40 THE COURT:  It's not the same thing as —  41 MR. GRANT:  And out of that he published "The Gitksan Potlatch",  42 which is at tab 4.  So it's a different document, and  43 it's edited, but I think it's generally accepted.  I  44 mean, he refers to "The Gitksan Potlatch" that was  45 based on his dissertation.  46 Q   Now, you, of course, haven't engaged in ethnographic  47 fieldwork yourself? 22006  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 A   No, I believe I stated that before.  2 Q   Right.  So you don't see -- you are not aware of this  3 methodology of inventing a culture or creating what  4 one believes, and then questioning informants?  You  5 don't -- you are not aware of the weaknesses and the  6 problems with that?  7 A   I would say there is a difference between conducting  8 ethnographic enquiring and being aware of the kinds of  9 models that are used by anthropologists.  And yes, I  10 am aware of this.  11 Q   Would you not agree with me that this also would work  12 to prove a pre-determined theory through the method of  13 enquiry?  14 A   I would think an adequate check for approving a  15 pre-determined theory is to subject the model to the  16 scrutiny of the people to whom it pertains, which  17 Adams appears to have done, because he was studying  18 the modern potlatch.  19 Q   But the weakness of that -- the weakness of that is  20 that if the people respond as from a western European  21 concept of responding critically, if that's part of  22 their social relationship, then yes, you are correct,  23 but you are assuming that they will respond the same  24 as our society would respond to direct questions in  25 which issues of conflict are raised.  26 A   I think anthropologists who do ethnographic fieldwork  27 have done more navel gazing along those lines than we  28 are being exposed to here, and that they are aware of  29 the kinds of problems in asking people to describe  30 themselves.  31 Q   Can you go to footnote 5Y in your report.  It's on  32 page 56.  This is under the heading of "Defining  33 Gitksan Territorial Boundaries More Clearly".  That is  34 your heading.  And this is the same footnote as we  35 have already seen.  And I take it that Adams is your  36 source for the defining of Gitksan territories more  37 clearly?  38 A   Not exclusively.  But Adams' statement there held for  39 both points that I was making.  So that's why it is  40 mentioned twice.  And as you pointed out, I did repeat  41 the footnotes in more than one location, when they  42 pertain to the statement I was making in the opinion  43 report.  But that's not exclusively where I derived  44 that kind of information.  And I will refer you again  45 to Robert Netting in the book "Cultural Ecology".  4 6 Q   Well, just a moment.  47 A   For a general view of the kinds of theories that 22007  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  A  Q  A  Q  cultural ecologists use when they talk about exactly  this kind of process.  Q   What I am talking to you about is the Gitksan  territorial boundaries.  We have already established  that Netting doesn't deal with the Gitksan.  A   -- ecologists said that we cannot deal with the  Gitksan in isolation, because they are very comparable  to other circumstances and other situations throughout  the region, and it's the comparative perspective that  gives us some kind of insight into an area where there  is very little direct information available.  Q   Your heading here is "Defining Gitksan Territorial  Boundaries More Clearly".  Yes.  And the only source you refer to in support of the  definition of Gitksan territorial boundaries more  clearly is Adams?  Yes.  Yes.  Okay.  Can you go back to tab 34 of the black  book.  THE COURT:  I'm sorry, whereabouts?  MR. GRANT:  Tab 34 of Exhibit 1191.  Q   And this is the extract from your dissertation.  At  page 316 you stated under Section D, halfway down:  "This question can basically be answered by  stating that since the stability of  cultural-ecological adaptations in the nothern  Northwest Coast region was based on patterns of  broad spectrum resoure exploitation, no single  economic activity could be emphasized beyond a  certain point without jeopardizing the  finely-tuned cultural-ecological balance which  the nothern Northwest Coast Indians had  achieved before the arrival of the maritime fur  traders and explorers, and which they wre able  to maintain, if somewhat precariously, well  into the nineteenth century."  Now, this was your opinion at that time with  respect to the Haida and Tlingit and Coast Tsimshian,  wasn't it?  A  Well, with respect to a particular question that was  asked.  Q   Was this with respect to the Haida?  A   The question was whether or not there were factors  inhibiting the eventual development of an 2200?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 agriculturally based economy.  2 Q   I understand that, and that's right there.  But what I  3 am asking, was this with respect to the Haida, the  4 Tlingit and the Coast Tsimshian, which was the  5 principal focus of your paper.  6 A   Yes.  7 Q   And you have no reason to suggest that it would be  8 otherwise with respect to the Gitksan and  9 Wet'suwet'en, do you?  10 A   I wasn't looking at the eventual development of an  11 agriculturally based economy for the Gitksan area.  12 Q   No, but in this answer you were talking about the  13 northern Northwest Coast Indians.  In this reference  14 you are excluding the inland people.  Is that what  15 you're saying?  16 A  Well, it's very hard for me to take one page out of a  17 dissertation that I completed in 1983, without any  18 reference to the footnotes around it, and figure out  19 in this circumstance whether or not it applied to the  20 Gitksan.  But I think, if I can give a cursory answer,  21 what I am referring to there is stability, is not  22 something that I would ever view as static, and  23 stability is a relative concept.  24 Q   Can you turn to page 325 and 326.  You state here:  25  26 "Ethnographic studies indicate that territorial  27 rights were strictly enforced, and that all  28 usable foreshore areas throughout the region  29 were owned by the various Indian communties, as  30 were natural passages leading into the forested  31 interior areas."  32  33 And here I believe you are talking about the  34 coastal group?  35 A   Yes.  36 Q  37  38 "Areas directly impinging on the marine and  39 riverine shore lines were the most valuable  40 territorial properties, since these permitted  41 access to the crucial fish resources.  Resource  42 procuring groups could not afford to move away  43 from these areas through the spring and summer  44 months without upsetting the scheduling of  45 basic subsistence-related food procurement  46 activities.  Thus, any of their agricultural  47 activities were, by necessity, constrained 22009  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 within the foreshore areas.  This not only  2 reduced the acreage available for agricultural  3 purposes, but prevented any expansion or  4 extension of agricultural operations inland.  5 Inland areas were not as carefully divided  6 among resource owning groups because they  7 contained fewer and less culturally important  8 natural resources.  For the same reasons they  9 wre not exploited for agricultural purposes."  10  11 And again talking here about the coastal groups  12 who, of course, focused on the resources of the sea.  13 And I think that's what you are explaining here; is  14 that right?  15 A   Yes.  16 Q   And then you go on to say:  17  18 "It should be added here that in one study of  19 early post-contact changes in Tsimshian social  20 and economic organization, subsequent to the  21 arrival of Europeans in the area, J. Darling  22 (1955) found no evidence that patterns of  23 land-use and land-ownership were altered by  24 post-contact developments.  His findings, in  25 conjunction with information in the reports by  26 W.R. Goodschmidt and T.H. Haas (1946), based on  27 ethnographic information collected in the  28 1940's about traditional land ownership and  29 occupancy within southeastern Alaska, suggests  30 that there was a remarkable conservatism in  31 maintaining traditional boundaries and concepts  32 of territorial perogatives despite considerable  33 interference from the Europeans."  34  35 And you had adopted that view yourself at the time  36 of your dissertation?  37 A   I don't know so much as I adopted it.  I am reporting  38 here on what Darling found for the Tsimshian, and what  39 Goldschmidt and Haas report for the Tlingit in the  40 Alaskan archipeligo.  There is another section of my  41 dissertation where I describe the coastal resource  42 ownership, or use rights extended to territories, and  43 some of the materials I cited from De Laguna.  In that  44 passage in chapter 4, I believe, did describe owned  45 resources as patchy.  So I -- there are discussions of  46 territory in at least a couple of places in the  47 dissertation, and I hadn't thought to put the two 22010  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 together.  2 Q   Let me --  3 A   Basically I refer to this as being references to what  4 other writers have said, which is why they are  5 mentioned in the text.  6 Q   Well, let's go to the next sentence, because in the  7 next sentence you say:  8  9 "Highly developed patterns of territorial  10 ownership as well as the emphasis on marine and  11 riverine resources thus you impeded the  12 expansion or extension of agricultural  13 operations both prehistorically and in the  14 early historic period."  15  16 Now, here in this sentence you are not footnoting  17 to someone else.  This is your own conclusion.  And  18 you are relying there on what Goldschmidt, Haas and  19 Darling have said, because you said:  20  21 "Thus you impeded the expansion or extension."  22  23 And you take what they say as accurate at that  24 time; is that not right?  25 A   I really find it difficult to put this back into the  26 context.  And all I'll say is that this is one aspect  27 of my knowledge about territories on the coast  28 referring to those references.  And that also in  29 another description in chapter 4 I refer again to  30 those scanty bits of literature which do treat the  31 subject area for the northern coastal region.  32 Q   Let's go to page 339, the third line from the bottom.  33 You state:  34  35 "Land and waterways containing culturally valued  36 natural resources were owned by house-groups  37 and clan divisions.  Procedures for securing  38 rights to these resources areas, as well as for  39 protecting them against trespass were commonly  40 recognized and reinforced in various  41 institutionalized ways.  These concepts of  42 property rights and ownership provided  43 interacting groups with the basis for dealing  44 peacefully and competitively with the uneven  45 distribution of natural resources since they  46 'codified' appropriate ways of allocating  47 access to strategic wild species.  Operating in 22011  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 conjunction with these rules of resources  2 ownership to provide social groups with  3 relatively secure access to basic resources  4 were elaborate exchange institutions, through  5 which interacting communities were able to  6 redistribute resources on a regular basis."  7  8  9 Now, this was your opinion at that time with  10 respect to the coastal groups, wasn't it?  11 A  Well, I would like to know -- yes, but I would like to  12 know to whom this is referring on the footnote.  13 That's the reason why we footnote.  14 THE COURT:  This is the first mention I have seen of clan  15 ownership.  16 THE WITNESS:  I think that this passage is referring to the  17 Tlingit, the Indians primarily, where subdivisions of  18 clans -- each clan would have several subdivisions  19 which were living in different villages, but recognize  20 their relationship among them -- themselves.  And each  21 of the clans that was based -- or clan divisions based  22 in a village would express rights with regards to  23 lands and waterways.  2 4 THE COURT:  Thank you.  25 THE WITNESS:  But I am not sure of the footnote there, and  26 that's what I wanted to know, if this was referring --  27 I can tell from the footnote if this is referring  28 mainly to the Tlingit or other groups.  29 THE COURT:  That's footnote 59.  30 THE WITNESS:  Yes.  I think for chapter 4.  31 MR. GRANT:  Chapter 6.  32 Q   You have no basis to say that it was otherwise than  33 this with respect to the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en, do  34 you?  35 A  Well, following Garfield and several of the other  36 writers that I have referred to for areas outside the  37 Tsimshian or beyond the Tsimshian, there is a  38 suggestion that the resources inland were not as rich,  39 and consequently the inland groups were not as  40 complex, and that the Gitksan may not have had as  41 sophisticated rules or resource use --  42 Q   You say following Garfield and I think somebody else.  43 A   Yes.  The other people that I have mentioned several  44 times now, if you refer back to footnote 2, and those  45 anthropologists who have written corroborating sorts  46 of articles on adjacent or nearby areas.  47 Q   Your footnote 59 is Duff, 1965.  Would you not agree 22012  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 that one dispute resolution method in Northwest Coast  2 societies, when there's been a killing or a death, is  3 compensation by transfer of territories?  You are  4 aware of that?  You have seen indication of that?  5 A   I have seen some specific examples.  I don't know if  6 it holds for the region.  7 Q   So you are not sure if this applies to the Gitksan or  8 the Wet'suwet'en?  When you say the region, you are  9 referring to the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en region?  10 A   I believe I may have a footnote referring specifically  11 to the Gitksan on that matter that mentions transfer  12 of property.  There is circumstances under which that  13 can occur.  14 Q   Well, you have made --  15 A  Well, under paragraph 34, how territories changed  16 hands on page 71 of the notes, there is a reference  17 from Garfield that does mention compensation for  18 murder being one of the ways that territories could  19 change hands.  And as she studied the Coast Tsimshian  20 particularly, but the Tsimshian in general, including  21 the Gitksan, I would say that probably applied to the  22 Gitksan.  23 Q   Okay.  24 A   I don't believe that's made specific in her study,  2 5 however.  26 Q   I'm sorry, I am just looking for your footnote that I  27 was going to refer you to.  I think I already asked  28 you.  You are aware that obsidian was a prized cutting  29 tool, and was traded throughout the northwest, from  30 the archaeological finds?  31 A  We infer that it was a prized cutting tool.  We know  32 that there is widespread distribution of obsidian from  33 specific sources dated back to at least 9,000 years  34 ago.  35 Q   Can you look at footnote 1G and H.  That would be page  36 33.  And you have not dated or made any effort to date  37 the Kitwancool expansionist tendencies, I think is the  38 term you used, or extension of territorial holdings,  39 have you?  40 A   I don't know.  I think that these were referred to in  41 the MacDonald article and Seguin anthology, and in  42 that case they may have been cross-referenced by  43 MacDonald.  I don't remember specifically if I did.  I  44 will check them against other expansions.  MacDonald  45 in "The Epic of Nekt" does talk about extension of  46 territories and up through the Stikine.  47 THE COURT:  Take the afternoon adjournment, Mr. Grant, please? 22013  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 MR. GRANT:  Certainly.  2 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court stands adjourned for a  3 short recess.  4  5 (EXHIBIT NO. 1191-34 - MEN & RESOURCES ON  6 THE NORTHERN NORTH WEST COAST OF NORTH  7 AMERICA)  8  9 (EXHIBIT NO. 1191-35 - THE POLITICS OF  10 FEASTING AMONT THE GITKSAN)  11  12 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR A BRIEF RECESS)  13  14  15 I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO  16 BE A TRUE AND ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT  17 OF THE PROCEEDINGS HEREIN TO THE  18 BEST OF MY SKILL AND ABILITY.  19  2 0    21 LORI OXLEY.  22 OFFICIAL REPORTER.  23 UNITED REPORTING SERVICE LTD.  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47 22014  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED PURSUANT TO SHORT RECESS)  THE COURT:  Mr. Grant.  MR. GRANT:  Q   Can you look at page 32, part two of your report.  This is footnote D under paragraph one where you quote  from Jenness 1943 where he says:  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  A  Q  A  A  Q  A  "It would seem not impossible that the Carrier  Indians once controlled the Skeena River down  to Terrace and the boundary of the Kitimat  Indians, but were then driven back inland by  the Gitksan, who perhaps crossed over from the  Nass River."  I'm sorry.  To be fair to you, your earlier quote  above that that he -- this borrowing of several  features of the social organization from the Kitimat  Indians:  "Suggests that a few centuries ago between the  two peoples may have been more intimate than in  recent times, when the Gitksan have lodged  between them like a wedge."  What I would point to you is that you concede at  the end of that footnote that Jenness admits this is  very speculative, but he draws support from the fact  that there are traditions suggesting many migrations  into the Gitksan territory were from the north.  Now,  you have relied on this speculation, or speculative  theory of Jenness in support -- in partial support for  your first statement, haven't you?  Yes.  And you're not aware of any later work that -- that  corroborates or later research that updates or  supports Jenness' speculation in this regard?  I believe that MacDonald refers to it.  I'm not sure  if he's basing his information solely on Jenness'  comment there or whether he's got additional material.  Of course if he's only referring to it without other  references then he's just restating Jenness' own  speculation, isn't he?  Yes.  But I'd hate to put words into Dr. MacDonald's  mouth without consulting him about that.  No.  If he has other sources he would refer to it.  Yes.  He's probably had some reasons for including 22015  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  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  Jenness in his summary.  Q   And you haven't done any research to test the  speculation of Jenness, have you?  A   Only in the sense that Jenness' statement here  corroborates with the other writers that I've cited  earlier, and I'm also drawing on an extensive reading  through of the northwestern North American region in  the sense that it puts Jenness' statement into a  context that makes sense to me, and that's also based  on my understanding of cultural ecological conditions.  Q   Yes.  You've said you've done a general reading.  What  I'm saying is this.  You cannot other than what you've  referred to in MacDonald, and you've given me that  reference, you cannot -- you haven't done specific  research with respect to this speculative theory of  Jenness that corroborates it by independent work other  than those who quote Jenness, unless MacDonald, for  example, refers to other sources which you've fairly  put to me?  A   Yes.  I think you're right in that.  I'm not sure  though.  I haven't memorized my footnotes.  MR. GRANT:  I'd like to refer you to Dr. MacDonald.  Did I ask  for the extract from the Adams' dissertation at tab 35  be marked? If not, my lord, I would ask it be Exhibit  1191-35.  THE COURT:  Yes.  I've marked my copy.  The court copy may be  somewhere.  THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, my lord.  THE COURT:  1191.  MR. GRANT:  I'm now referring to The Epic of Nekt by George  MacDonald cited by this witness.  It's also Exhibit  847-19.  And I'd ask it to go in at tab 36 as a matter  of convenience.  (EXHIBIT 1191-36:  The Epic of Nekt)  THE COURT:  This is still Mr. Willms' favorite story.  MR. WILLMS:  I describe it as my favorite plaintiffs' exhibit,  my lord.  THE COURT:  Yes.  MR. GRANT:  Does my friend recall this one?  It sounds like he  does .  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  He called it his favorite exhibit at one time.  Yes.  Several years ago, I think.  I must have missed that, my lord.  Now, you're familiar with the Epic of Nekt by 22016  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  A  Q  THE COURT  A  MR. GRANT  Q  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  Q  A  Q  A  Yes,  MacDonald, aren't you?  Yes.  Can you go to footnote --  :  On page 33, this footnote?  Of my report?  Yes.  M'hm.  Of your report.  I'm sorry.  Which one.  Footnote --  The very bottom of page 33.  Here you state:  "Oral traditions used to interpret  archeological remains at the Kitwanga Fort Hill  National Historic Site (a late prehistoric to  late nineteenth century site located about two  miles up the Kitwancool River from the Skeena  River junction) suggest that this fort was  occupied by the legendary warrior Nekt in the  late eighteenth century."  Then you go through and refer to George McDonald.  Here you're referring to George MacDonald's 1984  writing which is The Epic of Nekt; right?  Yes.  So you've suggested this was a late prehistoric to  late nineteenth century site?  The components he describes, I believe, in the article  are those of the late nineteenth and eighteenth  century site.  I didn't make reference to it in  earlier archeological components if they were there.  Okay.  Part way down on page 34 you say -- you cite  MacDonald and you say:  "The traditional oral history of the site  indicates that there were several episodes of  war involving the Kitwanga Fort, which began in  late prehistoric times, just before 1700 A.D.  and lasted until the 1830's.  The first..."  And then he goes on to describe the wars.  We  don't have to go into that description of each of the  wars .  Now, if you look at page 73 of tab 36, which is  where you get that cite from, which is the first full  paragraph, if you go down to the third paragraph, the 22017  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 third full paragraph, he talks about this site, and  2 I'll just start at the top.  3  4 "For the first time on this part of the  5 Northwest Coast, dendro-chronology was used to  6 date structures on the site.  Two kinds of  7 samples were collected: fragments from the  8 posts and other structural remains and  9 charcoal.  At first, we had thought the  10 structural remains would yield the clearest  11 data for salvaging dates, but laboratory tests  12 revealed that their tree rings and other  13 structural features had deteriorated beyond  14 recognition.  On the other hand, the structural  15 characteristics of the charcoal, once their  16 shrinkage factors were calibrated, were clear  17 enough to give satisfactory computer matches  18 with the master tree ring sequence.  The latter  19 was established especially for the project,  20 using two species of wood, hemlock and red  21 cedar, collected near the site by Marion Parker  22 of Forintek Laboratories in Vancouver.  His  23 report (Parker 1980) concludes that the  24 structures that were dated fell between 1750  25 and 1835.  Since all of the samples were from  26 the upper horizon of the site, this would seem  27 to coincide with the late protohistoric and  28 late-historic period of occupation.  The  29 occurance of lithic tools in the underlying  30 prehistoric strata, which have not been dated,  31 suggests that the prehistoric occupation of the  32 site pre-dates the mid-eighteenth century by as  33 much as one to two hundred years."  34  35 So MacDonald —  36  37 "These dates seem to align with those suggested  38 in the oral traditions, that is, the period  39 between the beginning of the Haida wars and the  40 final abandonment of the fortress in the move  41 to Kitwanga Village."  42  43 So you would agree that MacDonald talking about  44 the upper levels dates it between 1750 and 1835, but  45 finds that the occurrence of lithic tools suggests a  46 prehistoric occupation of from -- of the mid-sixteenth  47 century?  Well, that's what he states and you have no 2201?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 reason to dispute it?  2 A   I'm sorry.  Could you repeat that, please?  I got  3 mixed up on dates there.  4 Q   It says:  5  6 "The occurrence of lithic tools in the  7 underlying prehistoric strata, which have not  8 been dated, suggests that the prehistoric  9 occupation pre-dates the mid-eighteenth century  10 by as much as one to two hundred years."  11  12 A   Yes.  13 Q   And you have no reason to dispute that, of course?  14 A   No.  I don't know why he would be saying that unless  15 he had reason to believe it was so.  16 Q   Right.  You would agree that MacDonald in interpreting  17 the Kitwanga Fort very much relied upon the oral  18 history, didn't he?  19 A   Oral traditions were part of the information he relied  2 0 upon.  21 Q   Okay.  Go to page 67.  22 A   Of MacDonald?  23 Q   MacDonald.  Tab 36.  First paragraph.  He states:  24  25 "The Kitwanga Fort, which was much smaller than  26 Kitselas Fortress, seemed the ideal opportunity  27 to establish the relationship between a rich  28 oral tradition and the apparent archeological  29 features of a site."  30  31 And, in fact, that was the focus of his project  32 with respect to the Kitwanga Fort, wasn't it, to  33 analyze the relationship between the rich oral  34 traditions.  He built models and he did other things  35 too, I understand that, but he focused on the rich  36 oral tradition and that was in conjunction, if any,  37 with the archeological features of the site?  38 A  Without re-reading the introduction to his Kitwanga  39 Fort report I wouldn't want to say that that was the  40 focus of his investigation.  I think that that was a  41 project that had many different aspects to it,  42 including a review of the historic sources.  43 Q   Okay.  44 A   Including a review of other archeological work that  45 had been done in the region oral tradition formed one  46 part of the information that he was deriving his  47 material from. 22019  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   Are you aware that he relied on 16 hours of tape  2 recordings taped by Jack Morgan in anticipation of  3 lands claim litigation?  4 A   I'm sorry.  I don't know where you see the word rely.  5 Q   Go to page 68, the last paragraph.  6  7 "Early in the project we were fortunate to  8 obtain a set of some sixteen hours of tape  9 recordings, many of which dealt with various  10 details of wars that took place at the Kitwanga  11 Fort, including the causes of the wars, the  12 tribes that were involved, the details of the  13 Kitwanga fortifications at different stages,  14 and the various military tactics employed.  15 Jack Morgan of Kitwanga, who made the tapes in  16 his seventies, had been dead for more than a  17 decade when I heard them.  Because he recorded  18 the material to be used in land-claim  19 litigations, however, the tapes had been  20 carefully preserved by his family.  He learned  21 the war stories from his grandfather, who had  22 been a boy when the fort was still occupied."  23  24 You're aware that he relied on that?  25 A   I'm aware that he used these tapes as one source of  26 information for his study.  27 Q   Right.  Well, to show an example of how he describes  28 his use of oral history is set out at page 70.  The  29 third full paragraph:  30  31 "Because of the consistent pattern of north  32 coast plank houses, it was relatively easy to  33 locate evidence of wall sills, corner posts,  34 and interior support posts, so that accurate  35 dimensions of the houses could be established  36 with relatively limited excavation.  We made a  37 surprising discovery - however.  It was  38 apparent that large depressions inside the  39 houses were food storage pits which had been  40 dug under the floor-planks of the houses.  More  41 puzzling, however, were long, narrow  42 depressions along the house walls which did  43 not penetrate so deeply into the sub-soil as  44 did the food storage pits.  In searching the  45 war traditions, it became apparent that these  46 were hiding places for women and children to  47 escape to in times of siege.  Some hiding pits 22020  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  were large enough for three or four persons and  contained food storage pits within them."  Now, that's an example of where he has relied on  the oral tradition to explain something that he found  at the fort that he could not otherwise explain?  A   Yes.  Q   And you accept his reliance on the oral tradition in  that regard, don't you?  A   No, I accept Dr. MacDonald's entitlement to his own  scholarly opinion of the information that he uses, but  it's not necessarily to say that I would accept that  opinion without reviewing those sources myself.  Q   But you rely extensively on Dr. MacDonald in  formulation of the opinions in your report here?  A   Yes.  That does not mean that I agree with everything  Dr. MacDonald has to say, nor do I rely exclusively on  Dr. MacDonald for any one part of an opinion.  THE COURT:  Mr. Grant, this passage on page 67 about the  Kitselas fortress, are there remains there now as  there is at Kitwanga?  MR. GRANT:  I do not -- I believe there was archeological finds  there referred to in Inglis and MacDonald.  THE COURT:  Nothing like a national historic site there?  MR. GRANT:  No.  No.  There's nothing of that nature there.  THE COURT:  I shouldn't bother going down there?  MR. GRANT:  No, I don't think you can see anything.  And if you  do go, please, go in low water.  It's pretty  treacherous.  Q   Can you go to page 71.  And here he states at the top:  "Native informants were able to provide  detailed information on the use of the storage  pits.  They were built to hide fish stores,  Which were a major enticement to war in  prehistoric times.  Each woman made her own pit  and filled it with preserved fish, berries, and  meats.  They took great pains to disguise their  location.  Since the location of each pit was  only known to one woman, invaders could not  force captives to help them locate more than a  few of the pits.  Techniques were devised even  to throw dogs off the scent of buried food  caches.  Informants from Kitwanga were also able to help  interpret a series of three pits on an isolated 22021  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 hillock just below the fort.  These pits were  2 unusually large with prominent rims which were  3 not characteristic of food pits.  It was  4 suggested they were puberty huts for the girls  5 of the three phratries (Eagle, Frog- Raven and  6 Wolf; but Not Fireweed) represented on the  7 hill.  Excavation of one of them revealed a  8 central hearth feature, as informants had  9 predicted for puberty pits."  10  11 Now, this is another example of where he not only  12 relied on oral histories as recorded by Barbeau, but  13 he's relying on contemporary Indian informants'  14 descriptions?  15 A   Yes.  16 Q   And you do not dispute that that's a legitimate means  17 of interpreting?  18 A   It's one means of interpreting, yes.  19 Q   And it's an accepted means?  20 A   Yes, it is.  21 Q   You cut me off.  I meant interpreting archeological  22 sites.  I think you anticipated that.  23 A  Well, it's one way of interpreting, yes.  24 Q   Archeological sites?  25 A   Yes.  26 Q   But, of course, based on what you have said you would  27 not agree with that method, because it's using  28 contemporary informants some hundreds of years after  29 contact?  That's what I understand your evidence to  30 be, that that's not a proper way of utilizing of  31 obtaining data; is that right?  32 A   I wonder if you could phrase that as a question,  33 please.  34 Q   Did you -- you have contested the use of oral  35 histories as we discussed this morning because these  36 oral histories were gathered sometime after contact;  37 right?  You remember that?  38 A   Yes.  We've moved around that issue, yes.  39 Q   And yet that's what MacDonald has done here?  40 A   George MacDonald hasn't relied exclusively on oral  41 traditions.  And those episodes that he's referred to,  42 vis-a-vis The Epic of Nekt, seem clearly to have  43 historic components in those tales, which allow him to  44 tie them into the protohistoric period.  I think that  45 I have no hesitation, still it's something I mentioned  46 probably in the first or second day that we were  47 discussing these matters, that the use of oral 22022  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 traditions is very problematic, and that oral  2 traditions alone are difficult information to use with  3 any confidence, and that without corroboration from  4 other sources are really insubstantial.  That's what  5 I'm saying.  So that I appreciate McDonald's use of  6 ethnographic analogy and his use of contemporary  7 informants to help him explain some features.  I don't  8 accept that that's the only way you can interpret  9 those archeological remains.  And I think MacDonald  10 would agree with me in saying that it's one in several  11 ways you can look at that material.  There are other  12 archeologists who do not use ethnographic analogy,  13 full stop.  14 Q   But MacDonald not only used ethnographic material he  15 published using it?  16 A   Oh, yes.  I don't see that there is a problem there.  17 Q   He has left this open for critique or whatever by  18 publication?  19 A  Absolutely.  20 Q   Can you go to footnote Id.  Well, that's on page 36.  21 And if you go to page 76 you find the footnote that  22 you're actually using.  Footnote 40 sub c.  You  23 remember here where Jenness talks about in 1865 the  24 Tsayu phratry was so decimated by smallpox that its  25 members voluntarily incorporated themselves in the  26 Laksamshu phratry.  Tsayu is T-S-A-Y-U and Laksamshu  27 is L-A-K-S-A-M-S-H-U.  Where they now rank merely as  28 one clan.  29 Now, you start by saying:  30  31 "The changes in social organization described  32 by Jenness in the following paragraph no doubt  33 reflected changes in patterns of territorial  34 use and ownership."  35  36 And that's your own opinion, isn't it?  And that's  37 not the quote from Jenness, of course.  38 A   I don't remember if he referred to this in a passage  39 preceding or following the citation, but I believe  40 it's my own opinion as stated here.  It's something I  41 certainly agree with now, but I don't remember whether  42 or not Jenness made reference to it.  43 Q   But you had no -- you have no baseline to know whether  44 or not this kind of joinder of two clan groups among  45 the Wet'suwet'en happened pre-contact.  You don't know  46 whether this is something new or something different?  47 A  Whether this type of activity? 22023  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   Yes, this type of joinder.  2 A   Type of joinder.  Type of two phratries amalgamating,  3 and so on.  4 Q   The Tsayu voluntarily incorporating into the Laksamshu  5 because of decimation.  6 A  Well, I think that's something that I discussed  7 earlier with Mr. Willms was just such processes of  8 amalgamation and that they aren't unusual.  9 Q   And they could have occurred pre-contact as well as  10 post-contact?  11 A   Yes.  12 Q   Would you not agree with me that it is equally  13 consistent that the ability of these two clans to join  14 together in the time of crisis of one clan is as much  15 evidence of demonstrating a complex social  16 organization as one that is rudimentary?  17 A   I'm not sure I understand your question.  18 Q   Well, you say -- let me rephrase it.  You say that  19 this description given by Jenness about the Tsayu and  20 Laksamshu no doubt reflected changes in patterns of  21 territorial use and ownership.  Do you have one piece  22 of concrete evidence in support of that proposition  23 that what he is describing "no doubt reflected changes  24 in patterns of territorial use and ownership" among  25 the Wet'suwet'en?  Do you have one single piece of  26 concrete evidence in support of that?  27 A   I'd like to read the paragraph carefully first before  2 8 I answer.  I can't remember from the time I wrote this  29 report.  30 Q   I'm sorry.  31 A   I can't remember.  32 Q   I think I may have asked you this.  I'm not trying to  33 repeat, but I just want to be sure that you agreed  34 with me.  I think that Morice focused on in his study  35 with respect to the Carrier and Stuart Lake Carrier.  36 That's where he was based.  First of all, that's where  37 he was based?  38 A   That is where he was based.  39 Q   And he focused his study on the Stuart Lake Carrier?  40 A   I hesitate to go along with your use of focus, because  41 he did describe the Carrier generally.  42 Q   Okay.  But —  43 A   So he was residing in one area, but referring to the  44 Carrier generally.  And I can't remember enough  45 passages to know whether or not there was a focus or  46 emphasis to the exclusion of others.  47 Q   Okay.  Thank you.  Can you go to footnote o. -- lo., 22024  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 page 35.  That is your reference to Bishop.  You agree  2 with me Bishop relies principally on Julian Steward?  3 A   No.  I don't think Bishop would really agree that he  4 relies principally on Julian Steward either.  5 Q   Let me rephrase it.  With respect to the ethnographic  6 material he relies principally on Julian Steward?  7 A   I don't think I could agree with that.  8 Q   Okay.  9 A   He lists more than Steward in his bibliography or  10 reference list to his article Limiting Access to  11 Limited Goods.  12 Q   Okay.  On page six of your report you state, paragraph  13 2, the last sentence:  14  15 "Prior to fur trade influence, native  16 territorial holdings were in all likelihood  17 more limited in size, to include mainly the  18 area surrounding villages."  19  20 What influence are you referring to there with  21 respect to the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en?  What do you  22 mean by fur trade influence?  23 A  Maritime fur trade and land base fur trade influence.  24 Q   Protohistoric?  25 A   Protohistoric and early historic.  26 Q   So we would be talking about the time 1786, I think,  27 was when you said the first maritime fur trade  28 started, to 1830's.  Is that what we are talking  29 about?  30 A   Yes.  31 Q   I've reviewed the 21 footnotes you've referred to in  32 paragraph -- with respect to paragraph 2, and none of  33 those footnotes appear to me to refer to -- to be  34 supportive of the proposition that prior to fur trade  35 influence native territorial holdings were in all  36 likelihood more limited in size to main surrounding  37 villages.  You can't remember who you were relying on?  38 A   In support of whose proposition?  39 Q   Proposition in the last sentence.  40 A   I'd like to review all 22 of these paragraphs as well  41 and then perhaps address your question.  42 Q   Okay.  We won't -- I'll leave you time to do that.  43 You can do that later if you want to.  Footnote 2a. on  44 page 36 you rely on Garfield.  I take it that, of  45 course, where Garfield on page 36 footnote a. says:  46  47 "The opening of the era of exploration and 22025  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 maritime fur trading in the middle of the  2 eighteenth century especially favored those  3 Northwest Coast tribes living along the  4 migration routes of the seal and sea otter."  5  6 Of course, we are not here talking about the  7 Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en here, we are talking about  8 coastal routes that are along the migration routes of  9 the seal and see otter?  10 A   That's correct.  11 Q   Okay.  In footnote 2e. you state in the second  12 sentence:  13  14 "The following description of how 'local  15 ambitions' were stimulated during the fur trade  16 era is probably also applicable to the  17 protohistoric era."  18  19 Now, then you quote Barbeau 1950-51 text.  You say  20 probably also applicable to the protohistoric era.  21 This is your own opinion, I take it, because it's not  22 a quote from someone else.  It's your own opinion?  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   And you haven't referred to any source in support of  25 the proposition that Barbeau's statement relating to  26 the fur trade era applies to the protohistoric era?  27 A   I'm sorry.  Would you repeat that, please?  28 Q   You haven't provided any source in support of your  29 proposition before Barbeau's quote where you adopt his  30 discussion of the fur trade era to the protohistoric?  31 A   I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  32 Q   Well, there is no source in support of the opinion in  33 that second sentence in footnote e. is what I'm saying  34 to you.  There's certainly no source cited?  35 A   I think there would be some specific support for that  36 citation in William Sturgis' journal describing trade  37 drywalleries, and some displays of wealth, goods, and  38 so on, amongst some northern coastal chiefs,  39 particularly Kiusta and Kaigani.  That's one primary  40 source in support of this that's historic.  But no,  41 that's my opinion saying that it's probably also  42 applicable to the protohistoric, because of course we  43 have no direct historic documentation for that area.  44 Q   So you have no support for that?  45 A   No historic documentation, no.  46 Q   Okay.  You've already described in your dissertation  47 at page 77, which I've referred you to, that in the 22026  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 coastal situation coastal aboriginal peoples relied on  2 sea base resources which were more important than land  3 resources.  I referred to it before the break today.  4 A   Yes.  I can go back to that tab, please.  5 Q   Page 77 at tab 35 -- tab 34.  I'm sorry.  6 A   I'm sorry.  What was the passage?  7 Q   Okay.  I'll refer you to page 77.  8 A   Yes.  9 Q   I may not have referred you to the specific tab or  10 page.  You have in the middle paragraph:  11  12 "Social organization divided the Tlingit and  13 Haida into moieties, clans, local divisions of  14 clans, and house-groups."  15  16 This is, of course, where you're talking about --  17 you're talking in chapter three about the traditional  18 time, pre-contact time; right?  19 A  As much as is possible to reconstruct to that area,  20 yes.  21 Q   Right.  22  23 "The populations were also spatially organized  24 into villages and, in the case of the Tlingit,  25 into named regional subdivisions called qwans.  26 Associated with the villages were summer camps  27 and 'patches' of territory containing the  28 natural resources which were usually owned by  29 clan divisions and used by their house-groups'  30 members.  Included in this category of  31 geographical subdivisions were prime fishing  32 banks as well as spawning rivers and streams.  33 Some trade routes were also owned."  34  35 Now, here you were talking about the Tlingit and  36 the Haida, coastal peoples; right?  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   And coastal peoples focus more on the sea based  39 resources; right?  40 A  More than?  41 Q   Than the land based resources.  42 A   Yes.  43 Q   And, of course, that is different -- that is a major  44 difference between the coastal and the interior  45 peoples by virtue of the geography?  46 A   I'm not sure that we can gauge the importance of fish  47 or rivering resources prehistoric or protohistorical 22027  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 for the inland peoples.  To talk about a relative  2 difference is very difficult in terms of numbers, in  3 terms of quantities, and so on.  But there's an  4 overwhelming agreement that salmon were very important  5 and marine resources were very important.  I'm not  6 sure how you weigh that relative to the -- the use of  7 rivering resources inland.  8 Q   Well, the sea resources were available to the coastal  9 peoples relatively year round, weren't they?  10 A   Some of them, yes.  11 Q   The salmon resources is not available to the interior  12 peoples year round, is it?  13 A   No, it's not.  14 Q   Well, what I'm suggesting to you is that it is  15 incorrect -- you cannot take a social organization of  16 a coastal people with a focus on sea resources and  17 transplant it hollus bollus to an interior group.  It  18 doesn't make sense, does it?  19 A  Well, no.  I take away the hollus bollus part of that.  20 Q   Well, you can't apply the whole thing to the interior  21 group.  You have to modify it and look at the internal  22 geography, the interior geography?  23 A  When you're looking at some aspects of the economy,  24 yes.  But I'm not quite sure what you're referring to.  25 Geography is a pretty broad category.  2 6 Q   Other than your review of Adams have you done any  27 study of the Gitksan or Wet'suwet'en institution of  28 feasting?  I'm not talking about coastal feasting or  29 potlatching right now, I'm talking about the Gitksan  30 or Wet'suwet'en institution of feasting.  31 A   Not specifically for that purpose.  32 Q   Your study of feasting or potlatching has focused on  33 the Tlingit potlatching?  34 A  My study of potlatching?  I'm not quite sure what  35 you're referring to.  36 Q   Well, in your course of your dissertation you studied  37 as part of the social organization potlatching, did  38 you not?  39 A   Yes.  It's referred to sometimes, but I don't have the  40 pages at hand so I can review that section.  41 Q   Are you aware of the distinction between coastal power  42 potlatches when a large amount of wealth was  43 accumulated, and interior groups' feasting?  44 A   I'd hate to make glib comparisons about power  45 potlatches.  I'm not quite sure what you're referring  46 to either temporally or culturally in terms of a power  47 potlatch. 2202?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   Just a moment.  Can you look at footnote 2c..  This is  2 where MacDonald in The Epic of Nekt talks about:  3  4 "By the early 1700's there is evidence for a  5 wide spread destabilization of population  6 throughout much of the Northwest Coast."  7  8 And he goes on to say after talking about the  9 coastal groups, he says part way down:  10  11 "In the interior, it appears the Kitwancool and  12 other Gitksan tribes were pushing north at the  13 expense of their Tsetsaut and other Athapaskan  14 neighbours to secure the trading trails that  15 ultimately connected through to southeast  16 Alaska and the new sources of wealth."  17  18 MacDonald does not set out any foundation for the  19 time frame that he is speculating here, does he?  And  20 if you want to look at -- it's on page 79 of tab 36  21 you can look at the reference if you are uncomfortable  22 answering.  23 A   I'd be comfortable answering if we referred back to  24 the Kitwanga Fort report where he does give some  25 citations in support of statements like this.  That  26 article isn't as well substantiated as the Kitwanga  27 Fort summary is.  But the references he gives are  28 pretty clearly laid out.  I've run into reference to  29 this kind of material in Delaguma (phonetic)  30 specifically, and there's also some reference in the  31 Mount St. Elias volume 1, and there's also reference  32 to this in McClellan's culture contacts article, the  33 1964 one, which unfortunately is mentioned in the  34 notes and not cited in the bibliography, but was  35 referred to.  36 Q   Well, you are aware of the oral histories of Beynon  37 that Beynon took down, and you're aware that there was  38 an incident described in those oral histories of  39 trespass by Tsetsaut in the Kitwancool territory.  You  4 0 remember that?  41 A   Not specifically.  42 Q   You agree that MacDonald certainly refers to that, he  43 refers to the fact that he looked at the Barbeau  44 Beynon material?  45 A   I would like to see a specific reference to that item.  46 Q   Okay.  That's fine.  We can deal with that later.  47 Geographically the Tsetsaut would have been closer to 22029  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 the Russian trade than the Kitwancool?  2 A   Yes.  Probably.  3 Q   And is it not --  4 A   If we can accept that formerly extended over as far as  5 Portland Canal.  6 Q   And is it not equally plausible that the Tsetsaut were  7 pushing down on the Gitksan as the Gitksan were  8 pushing up on the Tsetsaut?  9 A   Is it not equally plausible.  There is more reference  10 to the Gitksan pushing north.  I've -- I'm just trying  11 to remember from the -- I think there were only two  12 informants left, or one or two informants when the  13 Tsetsaut were finally investigated, and I don't know  14 if there is any record of them pushing south.  It  15 seems to me more likely that  the Gitksan were pushing  16 against the Tsetsaut than vice versa, but we don't  17 know.  18 Q   Well, when one looks at the history would you not  19 agree that when you look at situations that happened,  20 for example, in Eastern Canada and other places --  21 well, let's look at the Coastal Tsimshian, is that  22 what happened is the group that was closest to  23 European contact usually was the group that expanded.  24 For example, you referred to the Coastal Tsimshian  25 pushing inland; right?  You referred to that.  You do  26 refer to that?  27 A   Yes.  28 Q   You referred to the Sekani being pushed over the  29 mountains by the Cree or by the plains?  30 A   Yes.  It's not as likely that the Tsetsaut would have  31 been pushing south into the Gitksan area, because it's  32 more likely that the dominant group, and that's  33 usually the more complex group, acts aggressively  34 against a less complex group, and the Tsetsaut as far  35 as I understand were hunters gatherers inland.  36 Q   Well, you're using these words more complex and less  37 complex?  38 A   Yes.  39 Q   But assume for the moment, since you're not familiar  40 or can't recall it, assume for the moment that the  41 oral history describes a Tsetsaut killing a Kitwancool  42 chief.  Okay?  43 A   Yes.  44 Q   Do you view that when there was a killing by one group  45 of another group that that was -- is that part of what  46 you would call war, an individual killing?  Before any  47 revenge is taken, I'm talking about. 22030  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 MR. WILLMS:  Well, my lord, with all due respect, that's like  2 saying, you know, was there a war when the archduke  3 was shot?  Before anything else happened was that the  4 start of the first world war?  I mean, what's the  5 point?  6 THE COURT:  I'd like to reserve on that objection overnight, Mr.  7 Grant, if I may.  Thank you.  8 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court stands adjourned until  9 ten o'clock tomorrow.  10  11       (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED TO NOVEMBER 7, 1989 AT 10:00 a.m.)  12  13 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  14 a true and accurate transcript of the  15 proceedings herein to the best of my  16 skill and ability.  17  18  19  20 Peri McHale, Official Reporter  21 UNITED REPORTING SERVICE LTD.  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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


Related Items