Open Collections

Delgamuukw Trial Transcripts

[Proceedings of the Supreme Court of British Columbia 1989-11-07] British Columbia. Supreme Court Nov 7, 1989

Item Metadata

Download

Media
delgamuukw-1.0018453.pdf
Metadata
JSON: delgamuukw-1.0018453.json
JSON-LD: delgamuukw-1.0018453-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): delgamuukw-1.0018453-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: delgamuukw-1.0018453-rdf.json
Turtle: delgamuukw-1.0018453-turtle.txt
N-Triples: delgamuukw-1.0018453-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: delgamuukw-1.0018453-source.json
Full Text
delgamuukw-1.0018453-fulltext.txt
Citation
delgamuukw-1.0018453.ris

Full Text

 22031  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 NOVEMBER 7, 198 9  2 VANCOUVER, B.C.  3  4 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  In the Supreme Court of British  5 Columbia, this 7th day of November, 1989.  In the  6 matter of Delgamuukw versus her Majesty the Queen at  7 bar, My Lord.  May I remind you, you are still under  8 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 MR. GRANT:  Thank you.  16 Q   Last night we left off describing the Tsetsaut  17 Kitwancool conflicts, with which you have made  18 reference in your report.  You remember that?  19 A   Yes.  20 Q   Are you -- do you recall that the oral history  21 describes the origination of that conflict as a  22 Tsetsaut killing a Kitwancool chief?  23 A   Not specifically, but that would be in keeping with  24 some of the other oral traditions.  25 Q   Are you aware that the oral history describes that the  2 6 Kitwancool may have brought in people from Kitwanga  27 and Kitsegukla to help them fight the Tsetsaut?  28 A   It wouldn't surprise me.  I can't remember the  29 specific reference.  30 Q   Okay.  Look at tab 36 of the black book please,  31 Exhibit 1191, page 75.  You have that?  32 A   Yes.  33 Q   You have seen this map of trails made by MacDonald  34 before, haven't you?  35 A   Yes.  36 Q   And you would agree with me that this is a reflection  37 of trails that he suggests occured pre-contact?  38 A   Yes, MacDonald suggests that they have been used in  39 pre-contact times.  I don't believe that they have all  40 been tested archaeologically for pre-historic contact  41 materials.  42 Q   I am just asking you what MacDonald has said.  43 A  MacDonald has said that they were used  44 prehistorically.  45 Q   And the route -- you can see that the route going past  46 Meziadin Lake, there is a number 3, and then one goes  47 around Meziadin Lake, which is number 15, and then 3, 22032  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  A  5  Q  6  7  8  A  9  Q  10  A  11  12  13  Q  14  15  16  17  A  18  Q  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  A  27  28  Q  29  30  31  A  32  33  34  Q  35  THE  COURT  36  37  MR.  GRANT  38  THE  COURT  39  MR.  GRANT  40  THE  COURT  41  MR.  GRANT  42  THE  COURT  43  MR.  GRANT  44  THE  COURT  45  MR.  GRANT  46  47  if you follow, continues up towards Wrangell, and you  can see it goes to 22 and then up to Telegraph Creek.  You see that up on the upper right-hand corner?  Yes.  Now, that would be the direction in which the Tsetsaut  and Kitwancool wars occurred, isn't it, or do you  know?  In the general direction I would say yes.  Thank you.  But I also think that we don't understand fully what  were the pre-contact Tsetsaut territories or areas  claimed.  Can you go to page 37 of your report, please.  Footnote 2E, the bottom of that -- this is Barbeau's  commentary, isn't it, that you are referring to here?  Do you remember?  Yes.  I was checking.  And the last statement of Barbeau is that:  "The totem pole came into fashion through the  rise of these ambitions, fostered mostly by the  fur trade ..."  Now, that is an opinion of Barbeau's that's been  widely disputed by both Drucker and Duff, hasn't it?  Its been disputed by Drucker and Duff. I don't know  widely.  Well, Drucker and Duff published critical reviews with  respect to their views of Barbeau's opinion on that,  didn't they?  They published --  I am aware of Duff's publication which refutes some of  Barbeau's opinions.  I am not sure which Drucker  materials you are referring to.  Okay.  I am going to show it to you.  :  Mr. Grant, where is that passage?  I thought you  said page 3.  Page 37 of her report.  Yes.  The last sentence in footnote E.  Oh, in E?  Yes.  The last sentence.  Oh, yes.  Do you have that?  Yes, I have that.  I'm sorry.  I am tendering the Drucker article.  Its  already been marked as an exhibit.  And I would ask  that that be -- I think that should be 37. 22033  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:  Yes.  MR.  GRANT  Q  A  Q  A  Q  (EXHIBIT NO. 1191-37 - JOURNAL OF THE  WASHINGTON ACADEMY OF SCIENCES - DRUCKER)  :  And it's also Exhibit 901-30, My Lord.  Have you seen this article before?  No, I don't believe so.  Turn to page 390 of that article.  And he is referring to Barbeau, and I'll start you on  page -- I'm sorry, page 389.  "The art of carving poles is not really as  ancient as is generally believed. Its growth to  its present proportions is largely confined to  the nineteenth century, that is, after the  traders had introduced European tools, the  steel ax, the adze, and the curved knife, in  large numbers among the natives."  Now, if you go over to the next page, and he goes  on and explains some more about the Kanaka sources.  And then at -- then Drucker on page 390 states, the  second column:  "There appear to be several flaws in the argued  derivation from 'Kanaka' sources, to which we  shall return later on.  More important is the  line of reasoning that Barbeau follows in  arriving at his conclusions.  One of his basic  points is that totem poles are not described  inn the accounts left by early European and  American explorers.  The other is that while  aboriginal tools may have sufficed for the  carving of small objects, massive carvings such  as those of the totem poles were not  practicable until the introduction of iron and  steel tools by the maritime traders.  The  reader is in something of a quandary, in regard  to the first point, where he reads the  quotations from Bartlett ... "  That's someone you're familiar with, Bartlett?  Yes, I am.  and Fleurieu that Barbeau himself cites, 22034  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 describing tall elaborately carved entry-poles  2 of Haida winter houses in the vicinity of Cloak  3 Bay, seen in 1791. "  4  5 Footnote 9.  Then he refers to the Bartlett  6 drawing.  And you are aware of what Drucker is there  7 referring to?  8 A   Yes.  And I wonder if you have brought the copy of the  9 drawing.  10 Q   No, I haven't brought a copy of the drawing.  11  12 "It appears, however, that Barbeau draws a  13 distinction between the detached Memorial  14 poles, which are his 'totem poles', and  15 carvings which were integral parts of the  16 houses, such as the carved house posts, and the  17 entry or frontal-poles that contained the  18 doorway by means of which one entered the  19 house.  We may perhaps grant him the  20 distinction between carved house posts, and the  21 much taller memorial and entry-poles, carved  22 with multiple figures, but to separate the  23 memorial or commemorative poles from the  24 entry-poles rather vitiates his argument as to  25 the necessity for iron or steel tools for the  26 carving of the former."  27  28 And then he goes on.  You are not familiar with  29 that critique of the comment you rely on in footnote  30 2E?  31 A   No, but I am aware of the materials on the Bartlett  32 and Fleurieu pools that were found at Cloak Bay.  33 Q   You would agree that Drucker is a renowned  34 ethnographer, ethnologist?  35 A   Especially for his work in Nootka on the West Coast  36 tribes of Vancouver Island.  37 Q   All right.  And Wilson Duff, the late Wilson Duff, you  38 recognize him as a renowned ethnologist?  39 A   Celebrated, perhaps.  4 0 Q   Not renowned?  He's not renowned?  41 A   Yes, but I am wondering how you use that word.  42 Q   Well, he's respected in his field?  43 A   By some scholars, sure.  44 Q   But not by you?  45 A   Not by everybody.  46 Q   Not by you?  47 A   Yes, I respect some of the work of Wilson Duff. 22035  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  MR.  GRANT  2  3  THE  COURT  4  MR.  GRANT  5  THE  COURT  6  MR.  GRANT  7  Q  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  A  18  19  Q  20  A  21  Q  22  A  23  Q  24  25  A  26  Q  27  28  29  A  30  31  32  Q  33  A  34  35  Q  36  A  37  38  39  Q  40  41  42  A  43  44  45  46  47  Q  Thank you.  Wilson Duff's articles is Exhibit  901-31, My Lord, with respect to the same topic.  901-31?  901-31.  I am not going to bother referring to  All right.  it.  2G and 2E, this is on page 38.  This is where you are  talking about -- well, 2G you even say what your  purpose here is.  "Note 2G supports the thesis that prehistoric  trade in certain minerals had developed."  Now, in 2G you would agree with me, and I'm going  down to about the tenth line, Garfield is there  referring to the Tlingit, the Haida and the Nootka?  I'm sorry, you're going too quickly for me.  I would  like to know where we are referring.  Page 38.  Yes.  The first sentence.  And about ten lines down?  Right.  The very end the line you see the word  Tlingit.  Yes, I see the word Tlingit.  Tlingit, Haida and Nootka.  Now, Garfield is here  talking about the Tlingit, Haida and the Nootka, isn't  she?  Excuse me, I would like to read that passage first.  Well, in this passage he is referring to the Tlingit,  the Haida and the Nootka, also to the Tsimshian.  She's not referring to the Gitksan, is she?  Well, I am not sure what her reference to the  Tsimshian is.  You don't know then?  Here in this context.  I am not sure what she was  implying, but her book about the Tsimshian does  include the Gitksan.  I am not talking about her book. I am talking about  this reference, this footnote that you rely on. And  it doesn't refer --  I don't think Garfield made it specific in that  passage, if she was referring only to the Coast  Tsimshian or to the Tsimshian in general.  And if it  was in general, then she was including the Gitksan in  many of her comments.  Yes.  But you don't know? 22036  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 A   No, unfortunately she didn't leave that specific  2 detail.  3 Q   And it's irrelevant to your opinion whether she was  4 including the Gitksan or not, of course, because you  5 would have made enquiries of that, wouldn't you?  6 A   I am not sure how we make enquiries of that.  I am not  7 sure she is still with us.  8 Q   Bill Holm, "Soft Gold", which you referred or made  9 mention of, is at footnote H.  Bill Holm here is  10 talking about Northwest Coast collections on the top  11 of page 39, and then he says, the last sentence:  12  13 "Shapes were refined by grinding with abrasive  14 stones, a technique well developed on the  15 Northwest Coast for the production of tool  16 blades of nephrite and other suitable stones  17 long before the historic period."  18  19 You don't know if he is referring to the Gitksan  20 or Wet'suwet'en, do you?  21 A  Most of the materials referred to in his work is not  22 dealing specifically with the Gitksan.  It's outer  23 coastal groups.  24 Q   It's coastal groups as opposed to interior groups?  25 A   Yes.  26 Q   Now, 2L, page 40 of your report.  Here you talk about  27 the coastal -- talking about the coastal pre-historic  28 obsidian trade.  And you talk about:  29  30 "Carlson's description (1984) of obsidian trade  31 is particularly illuminating because it traces  32 the distribution of a relatively scarce  33 tool-making material (analogous to  34 protohistoric metals) over long distances,  35 through the interior and along the coast."  36  37 And then you say "See note 0".  And when one goes  38 to note 0, you make other reference to Carlson, and  39 you talk about the pre-historic obsidian trade.  40 That's page 41, My Lord.  41  42 "It is clear from the early historical accounts  43 of contact between the native people of B.C.  44 and Europeans that trade for economic gain was  45 an established part of the aboriginal culture  46 of British Columbia.  Unfortunately the furs,  47 eulachon oil, elk hides, dried clams and other 22037  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 commodities whose exchange is attested to in  2 the ethnohistoric record are neither preserved  3 well in archaeological sites, nor are traceable  4 back to a specific point of origin.  Some  5 inferences about trade have been made from the  6 finds of sea shells in inland sites such as the  7 8000 year old Olivella biplacata shells from a  8 site on the Snake River in Washington.  They  9 clearly came from the coast, but from where on  10 the coast?"  11 Then he goes on.  12  13 "The widespread distribution of obsidian far  14 from its place of natural occurrence indicates  15 trade as the most probable mechanism whereby  16 this raw material reached its consumers.  If we  17 had more and larger samples even more extensive  18 trade would probably be indicated.  The  19 earliest sites show the beginnings of patterns  20 which peak in the 4000-6000 B.P. time period,  21 but do continue until stone was replaced by  22 metal in the historic period ..."  23  24 Now, on the next page, skipping a sentence.  I am  25 only doing that to save time.  It is all here.  26  27 "In western Alberta obsidian from Yellowstone  28 meets obsidian from Central Interior B.C. and  29 Mt. Edziza.  Edziza obsidian overlaps with  30 Yukon obsidian on the North, and with Oregon  31 and Central Interior B.C. obsidian on the  32 South."  33  34 Now, you agree with Carlson's view that obsidian  35 is an important archaeological find, because it's  36 something that, of course, survives, and there is no  37 limited places where obsidian occurs?  38 A   Yes.  And Carlson also expresses the idea that  39 obsidian is particularly valuable as an archaeological  40 find, because it can sometimes be traced back to  41 source.  42 Q   Right.  And one of the sources of obsidian is Mt.  43 Edziza.  You are aware of that, aren't you?  44 A   Yes.  45 Q   I mentioned to you Sylvia Albright's work, Tahltan  46 ethnoarchaeology.  47 A   Yes. 22038  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  Q  2  A  3  Q  4  5  6  A  7  Q  8  9  A  10  Q  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  A  18  Q  19  20  A  21  22  Q  23  24  25  A  26  Q  27  28  A  29  Q  30  31  32  A  33  Q  34  A  35  MR. WILLMS  36  MR. GRANT:  37  Q  38  39  A  40  41  42  43  44  Q  45  46  47  And you said that you were familiar with that?  Yes.  And in that work she refers to a paper by Dr. Jack  Souther.  Are you familiar with Dr. Jack Souther's  paper?  Not directly, no.  Okay.  Well, I'll just refer you to it, and it may  refresh your memory.  I am not aware of it at all.  Dr. Souther published in the Journal of Volcanology  and Geothermal Research an article entitled  "Crystal  Fractionation of the Basalt Comendite Series of the  Mount Edziza Volcanic Complex, British Columbia:  Major and Trace Elements."  Now, do you know Jack  Souther is a geologist, the Geological Survey of  Canada?  Only from reading this.  And that he's done geological examinations of the  Mount Edziza volcanic complex?  I'll take your word for it, but I am not aware of  that.  Now, can you turn over to page 81, table 1.  You see  there is a listing of formations.  And if you go down  you will see Edziza.  Yes.  By the way, you indicated you had assisted Mr. Willms  with the cross-examination of Dr. Albright?  Miss Albright, yes, I have.  I'm sorry, Miss Albright.  Thank you for correcting  me.  Did you not review this at the time you were  reviewing her report?  This?  Yes.  No, I didn't, and I could see no reason to.  :  Especially since I didn't have it.  Now, you know what he's referring to when he talks  about trachyte?  Not without reviewing his article, no.  I do  understand enough about geomorphology that I could  certainly read this, but I can't off the top of my  head give you any knowledgeable response about that  particular formation.  Okay.  Well, let me say to you that in reviewing the  article, it appears that when he is referring to  trachyte, he is referring to obsidian.  Okay?  It's a  reference in geological terms to obsidian. 22039  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 MR. WILLMS:  I have read this article.  I object to that, My  2 Lord.  I don't think that's what he is referring to at  3 all.  I think when he refers to basalt, he includes  4 obsidian as well.  5 THE WITNESS:   Many of these rock classifications are  6 continuums, so that at one end of the spectrum of  7 basalt you could be getting obsidian.  And I'm not  8 quite sure what he is referring to here as trachyte or  9 comentitic trachyte.  10 MR. GRANT:  Well, it's my understanding that obsidian is not  11 basalt.  But of course Mr. Willms may know more about  12 that than I do.  13 MR. WILLMS:  Or as much.  14 MR. GRANT:  15 Q   Can you refer to that column under age.  You would  16 agree that Dr. Souther aged the trachyte finds at  17 Edziza at point -- at almost a million years before  18 present?  19 MR. WILLMS:  My Lord, these are all from the Mount Edziza  2 0 complex.  These are names of formations down the  21 left-hand side, but they are all from the Mount Edziza  22 complex.  23 MR. GRANT:  Well, I am talking about the one under -- along the  24 name Edziza.  25 MR. WILLMS:  Because there is trachyte above it, if my friend  26 is --  27 MR. GRANT:  I am talking about the one at Edziza.  28 Q   You understand what I am referring to?  29 THE COURT:  Are you saying, Mr. Willms, that she tracked the  30 first one, for example, the part of the Mount Edziza  31 complex --  32 MR. WILLMS:  Yes.  If you read the first page, the Mount Edziza  33 volcanic complex occupies an area of about 1,000  34 square kilometers in north central British Columbia,  35 and then it says "See Figure 1".  3 6 THE COURT:  Yes.  37 MR. WILLMS:  So when you go to the first page, it describes the  38 hole.  It's a huge volcanic complex which has many,  39 many formations, and they are all listed there ranging  40 in age from -- it looks like 2,000 years for trachyte  41 at Sheep Track -- I think that's what means, 2,000  42 years -- Sheep Track, all the way down to 7.4 million  43 years at Raspberry.  But they are all from the Mount  44 Edziza complex.  4 5 MR. GRANT  4 6 THE COURT  4 7    MR. GRANT  I don't dispute that.  All right.  I was referring the witness to the formation Edziza, 22040  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 I pointed it out to her while Mr. Willms was  talking.  She understands what I am referring to.  A   I'm not sure that I do, but we'll go on.  Q   You don't agree with me?  A   I am not quite sure what we are discussing here.  You  have pointed to, I think, the fifth line down.  Q   Right.  A   This is the line across we are looking at?  Q   Right.  And the approximate age is nine hundred  thousand years.  A  And you asked me if that age had been dated by  Souther, and all I can go by is that there is a table  listing saying the ages are from Southern Armstrong,  1984.  So I imagine they have an earlier publication,  the two of them, referring to that dating of those  formations.  Q   Okay.  Thank you.  I ask that be marked as the next  exhibit.  Tab 38.  THE COURT:  Yes.  (EXHIBIT NO. 1191-38 - "CRYSTAL  FRACTIONATION OF THE BASALT COMENDITE SERIES  OF THE MT. EDZIZA VOLCANIC COMPLEX, BRITISH  COLUMBIA: MAJOR AND TRACE ELEMENTS" - J.G.  SOUTHER)  THE  MR.  REGISTRAR  GRANT:  Q  1191, tab 3?  Now, can you go to page 45 of your report.  Do you  have that?  A   Not yet.  Q   Well, there is some confusion here.  It appears on  page 45 and 46 that you have two footnotes, two U's.  A   Oh, dear.  We'll call it U, subset A, and U, subset B.  Q   I'll call it footnote U on page 46.  A   Okay.  And you first wanted me to turn to page 45?  Q   I just wanted you to understand which one I am  referring to.  Turn to page 46 now.  A   Okay.  Q   And this is your comments relying on Goldman:  "Stimulus from the fur trade provokes changes in  Carrier socio-economic organization.  'A  significant consequence of the new-found wealth  of the Carrier was the stimulus it gave to  inter-marriage with high-ranked Gitksan and  Bella Coola families.'" 22041  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  A  5  6  7  Q  8  9  A  10  Q  11  12  A  13  14  Q  15  16  A  17  18  Q  19  20  21  22  23  A  24  25  26  Q  27  28  29  MR.  WILLM  30  31  32  THE  COURT  33  34  35  36  MR.  GRANT  37  THE  COURT  38  MR.  GRANT  39  Q  40  A  41  Q  42  A  43  Q  44  45  A  46  47  That's the first sentence of the quote from  Goldman.  Yes. Might I point out that that whole citation is  from Tobey, 1981. And she's referring through that  passage to Goldman and also to Morice.  Yes.  Well, did you look at Goldman to see if he says  what she says there?  Yes, I did read Goldman.  He doesn't say -- he makes the reference with respect  to the Bella Coola, but not the Gitksan, doesn't he?  The passage is by Tobey, and she's using Goldman in  support of the comment vis-a-vis the Alkatcho.  Right.  She's also using Goldman in response to the  earlier references?  And she's using Morice.  See also Morice, 1893 in  support of that passage.  You are jumping ahead of me, doctor.  Just wait a  minute.  You will get your chance.  Look down ten  lines down in that footnote.  Her reference there is  Goldman, 1941:414 to 416, right?  Do you see what I  mean?  Yes, I do.  I also note that at the end of the  paragraph, which is often the scholar's footnote, the  whole paragraph there is a reference to Morice.  So, in other words, if she was relying on Morice for  this proposition, she would only put Goldman?  That's  the way a scholar would --  >:  My Lord, I object.  It's self-explanatory.  It's at  the end of the paragraph.  This is argument.  My  friend can make his argument at another time.  Well, I would like to have it straightened out.  I'm  not sure what it means.  I think, Mr. Grant, you are  cutting the witness off, without giving her a chance  to finish her answers.  Okay.  And I understand your enthusiasm, but --  Follow my question, okay.  Yes.  I have read you the first sentence of the quote.  Yes.  You have told me that quote comes from Tobey?  It's  part of a longer quote?  If you would move to page 82, which is one of the  footnotes associated with paragraph 49 in my opinion,  there is a passage cited from Goldman where he refers 22042  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 to the Gitksan groups as well.  2 Q   You have done -- I would like us to stay with this  3 first of all, okay, if I could.  4 A   Yes.  5 Q   I am asking you a very simple question here.  There is  6 a first sentence of the quote from Tobey.  Tobey cites  7 Goldman after making a number of -- about the tenth  8 line down.  And she goes on and she talks about more  9 things, and she cites Goldman and see also Morice,  10 1893.  11 A   Yes.  12 Q   I understand that.  It's right there on the paper.  13 Are you telling me that she would rely on Morice for  14 that first statement, but she would only cite Goldman?  15 Is that what you are telling me?  I just want to be  16 clear I understand that.  17 A   It wouldn't surprise me.  But I can't really interpret  18 how Tobey has handled this particular citation.  19 Q   But you looked at Goldman.  20 MR. WILLMS:  My Lord, I object.  I just looked at Goldman.  It  21 refers to the Gitksan.  My friend put the proposition  22 to the witness that Goldman didn't refer to the  23 Gitksan, and I am looking at it.  It's on page 414.  24 No wonder the witness is confused.  No wonder we are  25 all confused.  26 THE COURT:  Well, I am not confused yet, Mr. Willms.  27 MR. WILLMS:  I am speaking for myself.  2 8 THE COURT:  At the end I may be confused.  29 THE WITNESS:   The reason I moved us over to page 82, is that a  30 citation directly out of Goldman referring to these  31 issues does refer to the Gitksan from that article.  32 And I just --  33 MR. GRANT:   I am going to come to that.  I'll just wait for  34 the -- Madam Registrar to put that in front of you.  35 THE REGISTRAR:  Tab 17.  36 MR. GRANT:  Page 414.  37 Q   Before we get into it, I want to be clear that you  38 understand who Goldman studied.  Who did Goldman  39 study?  40 A   If you would give me a moment to review this article,  41 I will tell you specifically.  42 Q   Well, I suggest he studied the Alkatcho Carrier.  43 A   Not exclusively.  44 Q   Okay.  45 A   Because he did study the Alkatcho Carrier, but he put  46 them in the context of some other neighboring groups.  47 Q   Where he did his fieldwork was with the Alkatcho 22043  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Carrier?  2 A   Yes, I believe so.  3 Q   Who are neighbours to the Bella Coola, as I recall it?  4 A   Yes.  5 Q   Go to page 414.  And he states there, as my friend  6 pointed out:  7  8 "The Bulkley River Carrier had intermarried with  9 the Gitksan with whom they have always had  10 friendly trade relations.  The latter  11 controlled the trade route down the Skeena  12 River.  They traded shells and copper with the  13 Carrier for moose hides and furs.  Correlated  14 with the trade amd marriage relations between  15 the Bulkley Carrier and the Gitksan are  16 similarities of social organization and the  17 equation of phratries."  18  19 Now, this is the reference -- what Tobey must have  20 been referring to in her reference to Goldman, right?  21 This is where he is talking about trade and marriage  22 relations between the Gitksan and the Bulkley River  23 Carrier?  24 A   I'm not sure if that's the only place in this article  25 where he's referred to this matter.  26 Q   Well, let me ask you this.  He gives no source for  27 that statement at that point, does he?  He doesn't  28 refer to Morice, he doesn't refer to anybody at that  29 point, and he goes on to talk about Jenness, and I am  30 going to come to Jenness.  Don't worry about that --  31 A   I don't see how I can't worry about that.  I'm not  32 sure -- if I was reading this paragraph now, and  33 wanted to check that, I would go back and check with  34 the Jenness citation, to see if he's referred to that  35 earlier in that passage.  36 Q   Okay.  Let's look at what he says about Jenness.  This  37 is why I tried to split it up, but if you want it  38 together, that's fine.  39  40 "The same thing happened with the Sekani.  To  41 quote Jenness: 'When the Sekani were confined  42 to the wetern side of the Rockies through the  43 hostility of the Cree and Beaver, they impinged  44 upon the Gitksna and Carrier.  The Sekani not  45 only fought, traded and intermarried with them,  46 but assimilated many of their customs, and  47 tried to adopt their divisions into exogamous 22044  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 matrilineal phratries."  2  3 And he cites Jenness, "Sekani Indians of British  4 Columbia".  The reference he is making to Jenness, is  5 Jenness's dealings with the Sekani; is that not right?  6 A   Jenness's monograph on the Sekani didn't deal  7 exclusively with the Sekani to the exclusion of the  8 other groups.  And if you notice in the first  9 paragraph of this article, Goldman refers to many  10 other groups other than the Alkatcho Carrier and the  11 Bella Coola.  Many of these articles about specific  12 groups do have references to other groups in the area  13 or adjacent region.  14 Q   Which paragraph are you refering to?  15 A   The very first paragraph.  16 Q   Okay.  Well, first of all I will come to the first  17 paragraph.  But the reference that I have given you,  18 the quote that Goldman relies on Jenness for, the  19 quote that he makes, is a quote with respect to the  20 Sekani?  21 A   Not exclusively.  I don't agree with that exclusively,  22 because I haven't reviewed the Sekani monograph this  23 week, but I doubt very much that Jenness only deals  24 with the Sekani in that.  My memory of it is that he  25 doesn't deal only with the Sekani.  26 Q   Listen to my question.  The quote by Goldman of  27 Jenness is a quote in which Jenness refers to the  28 Sekani and deals with the Sekani.  29 A   He is also dealing with the Cree, the Beaver, the  30 Gitksan and the Carrier in that quote.  31 Q   Yes.  He says:  32  33 "The Sekani impinged upon the Gitksan and  34 Carrier."  35  36 But he is dealing with the Sekani.  37 A   Not exclusively.  38 Q   Now, at the first paragraph, which you have referred  39 to, Goldman says:  40  41 "Such an investigation among the northern  42 Athabascans is especially promising because of  43 the number and variety of examples available."  44  45 And he there footnotes A.G. Morice. "Is Carrier  46 Sociology Indigenous of Exotic?"  47 22045  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 "The Eyak Indians of the Copper River, Alaska,  2 for example, are culturally indistinguishable  3 from their Eskimo neighbors."  4  5 He doesn't give a cite for that, does he?  He  6 doesn't footnote that comment?  7  8 A   No.  I believe that would be his own opinion.  9 Q  10  11 "The Kutchin and Tahltan have borrowed much of  12 their social organization from the Tlingit;"  13  14 He doesn't footnote that comment?  15 A   Not specifically.  16 Q  17  18 "And the Upper Carrier tribes and some of the  19 Sekani bands show marked Gitksan influence  20 (Tsimshian)."  21  22 He doesn't footnote that?  23 A   Not specifically.  I wouldn't be surprised if A.G.  24 Morice's article isn't the source of some of the  25 examples that he follows within that paragraph,  2 6 however.  27 Q   You haven't looked at that, of course?  28 A   Not recently, no.  29 Q   Let's go down to your footnote.  Let's look at what  30 you say here.  Page 46.  Sorry, not you.  This is what  31 Tobey says reflecting Goldman.  32  33 "The potential for monopolozing a steady source  34 of furs through affinal ties and purchasing  35 valuable new prerogative with the wealth thus  36 gained diminished the Bella Coola-Gitksan  37 resistance to marriage with the Carrier.  A  38 concomitant of intermarriage was the rapid  39 adoption by the Carrier of Northwest Coast  40 systems of social organization and  41 stratification, the 'potlatch-rank complex' as  42 defined by Goldman (1940,1941).  The  43 transformation in Carrier sociopolitical  44 organization began, then, in the last decades  45 of the eighteenth century among the western  46 subtribes who had direct and frequent contact  47 with the Gitksan and Bella Coola." 22046  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2 Now, are you aware of the oral histories that  3 reflect long-standing intermarriages between the  4 Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en?  5 A   I am not sure which ones you are referring to  6 specifically.  7 Q   Do you know the name Guxsan, G-u-x-s-a-n?  8 A   I am familiar with the name, but I am not clear on the  9 context you are referring to.  10 Q   Do you know if that is a Gitksan or Wet'suwet'en  11 chief's name?  12 A   Not offhand.  13 Q   You don't know if it's Gitksan or Wet'suwet'en?  14 A   I can't remember specifically.  15 Q   What about Smogehlgem, S-m-o-g-e-h-l-g-e-m,  16 a Gitksan or Wet'suwet'en chief's name?  17 A   In the modern sense?  18 Q   Do you know --  19 A   I am trying to remember historic context for that  20 particular title, and I'm not clear what time period  21 you are referring to.  22 Q   Historically or in the modern context.  Take your  23 choice.  Do you have any idea whether it's a Gitksan  24 or Wet'suwet'en name?  25 A   I would like to refer back to lists before I offer an  2 6 opinion on that name.  27 Q   What list?  28 A   I have seen lists of the Houses.  29 Q   You mean of the plaintiffs?  30 A   That involve the modern claim of the plaintiffs.  But  31 I am not sure of the affiliation of some of the titles  32 in the modern sense or historically.  And I would like  33 to go back to the detailed information before I  34 ventured a guess on it.  I am not unfamiliar with  35 either of those names you mentioned though.  36 Q   You have seen them on the Writ or on the Court  37 documents?  38 A   Yes, I have.  39 Q   That's where you remember them from?  40 A   Specifically, yes.  But they have popped up in other  41 contexts.  I wasn't doing the study of names and  42 titles.  43 Q   What about Hanamuxw?  Do you know if that's a Gitksan  44 or Wet'suwet'en chief's name?  45 A   I have seen it on the list, and I wouldn't want to  46 venture a guess about its historic contents.  47 Q   What about Goohlaht, G-o-o-h-l-a-h-t, is that a 22047  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  A  3  Q  4  A  5  Q  6  A  7  8  9  10  Q  11  12  A  13  Q  14  A  15  Q  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  THE COURT  33  MR. GRANT  34  Q  35  36  37  A  38  39  40  Q  41  42  A  43  44  Q  45  A  46  47  -i, H-i-i-k.  Gitksan or Wet'suwet'en name?  Same response as before.  What about Axtii Hiik, A-x-t-i-  Same response as before.  What about Woos, W-o-o-s?  Well, I have seen all of these names on the lists of  the plaintiffs, and I simply don't want to venture a  guess about their historic or proto-historic  connections.  One of your references in your bibliograhies is to  "Barbeau's 1929 Totem Poles of the Gitksan".  Yes.  Are you aware that these names appear in that?  Not specifically, but I wouldn't be surprised.  Well, I am going to refer you to an extract from  there.  You may have trouble with the spelling.  Let's  deal with that when we get there.  Page 79 talks about  the "Poles of Gurhsan at Gitsegyukla".  And that's  G-u-r-h-s-a-n.  And I'll provide a copy of this to  Madam Reporter, because of the spellings of these  names.  But I will spell them.  And then if you go  down, you will see the second paragraph, sixth line  down it says:  "Dan Gurhsan, the present holder of the title of  Gurhsa, claims as his kinsmen the following  chiefs at home and abroad: Hahpegwawtu of  Gitsegyukla; Gitludahl and Aret of Kispayaks;  Teweesemdzap, among the Babines;  Semaw'iget-Gyamk, of Hagwelget;"  :  Where is that please?  This is on page 79, the second paragraph starting five  lines down.  Now, you don't recognize the name  Semaw'iget-Gyamk of Hagwilget there, do you?  Well, I have seen variances of some of these names,  different spellings, but yes, that looks fairly  familiar.  You are aware that Hagwilget is a village of  Wet'suwet'en people, aren't you?  Again I don't know what time period you are referring  to.  After 1820.  I wouldn't be surprised if intermarriage between the  Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en didn't have some blurring of  the titles through time, both in the proto-historic 2204?  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  and historic times.  Q   And the pre-historic?  A   Yes.  Q   If you go to page 83.  This is an extract from the  "Poles of Hanamuk".  And the third paragraph says:  "The Hanging-across emblem, with head down, was  ceded to Hanamuk by Gurhlaet, a chief of the  neighbouring Carrier village of Hagwelget, as  compensation for the murder of a member of  Hanamuk's family.  Gurhlaet himself seems to  have obtained it from the neighbouring Gitksan,  possibly from Weemenawzek, of the Larhsail  phratry at Qaldo and from Kisgagas, who also  owns it as part of his family traditions, had  it painted on his house-front and boxes, and  carved on a totem pole."  Now, are you aware of this oral history that  reflects the Hanging-across emblem being given to  Hanamuk by a Wet'suwet'en chief, Gurhlaet?  Not specifically.  This would not surprise you if this occurred in the  pre-contact time, would it?  No, it would not.  Go to page 129, the next page over, My Lord.  "Poles  of Arhteeh, at Kitwanga".  A  Q  A  Q  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  Q  "The close relationship between Arhteeh, on the  one hand, and, on the other ..."  Where are you reading from?  I'm sorry, My Lord, I am at the last paragraph at  the very bottom.  Yes.  Thank you.  "The close relationship between Arhteeh, on the  one hand, and, on the other 'Waws,"  W-a-w-s.  " And Kurhwawq,"  K-u-r-h-w-a-w-q. 22049  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  A  Q  A  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  "Two chiefs of the Carrier at Hagwelget, throws  further light on the history of the clan.  Arhteeh's family, taken as a whole, is  believed, at Kitwanga, to be a branch of that  of 'Waws, and to have come from the  neighbouring Carriers."  And then he goes on to talk about the three  households under him.  Are you aware of the oral  history that refers to Arhteeh as coming from the  Carriers?  Not specifically.  I am sure that I have reviewed it  in the original.  I don't know what time period this  is referring to at all.  You couldn't comment on whether it was pre-historic or  proto-historic?  I don't think Barbeau could have either.  You couldn't?  No, I certainly couldn't.  :   Barbeau isn't here.  I would ask that that be  marked as the next tab.  :  Yes.  39.  (EXHIBIT NO. 1191-39 - "TOTEM POLES OF THE  GITKSAN, UPPER SKEENA RIVER, BRITISH  COLUMBIA" - MARIUS BARBEAU)  MR. GRANT:  Q   Now, I would like you to go back to page 46 of your  report.  And I did refer you to this.  I would like to  direct your attention to footnote U, the second  footnote U, the bottom of that page:  "The transformation in Carrier sociopolitical  organization began, then, in the last decades  of the eighteenth century among the western  subtribes who had direct and frequent contact  with the Gitksan and Bella Coola."  A   I'm sorry, I have lost track where you are.  Q   The bottom of 46.  The last sentence goes over to page  47 at the top.  A   Thank you.  Q   Now, as you have already explained, this is a quote  from Tobey, her text on the Sub-Artie on the Carrier,  in which she relies on Goldman and also Morice.  And 22050  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 she's --  2 A   I would like to explain something right then.  When I  3 read an article by a person like Tobey in the 1980's,  4 and see that they have footnoted particular points, I  5 don't use the word "rely" in the sense that I see that  6 the reports are only composites of snippets taken out  7 of other sources.  Tobey's obviously done a fairly  8 extensive review of a broad literature, and come to  9 her own opinion that these are supportable documents  10 on the basis of a reading.  Her bibliography is much  11 more extensive than simply references to Goldman and  12 Morice.  13 Q   Wait a minute.  The bibliography in the text of the  14 Sub-Artie groups all of the authors together.  15 A   No, I mean the bibliography of the references that  16 Tobey herself cites throughout her paper is more  17 extensive than simply references to Goldman and  18 Morice.  19 Q   But here -- it's scholarly and --  20 A   She's using him as specific examples there, but  21 without seeing the article in context, I think it's  22 misleading to suggest that she is relying on Goldman  23 there.  I think she is relying on a broader reading of  24 the materials.  25 Q   This is your footnote, doctor?  26 A   Yes.  27 Q   And you have taken out of all of the Tobey article  28 what you thought was relevant?  That's what I  29 understand.  30 A   Yes.  And I am also now explaining that when I refer  31 to Tobey, it's with the knowledge that Tobey is  32 certainly drawing on a wider base of literature than  33 simply Goldman.  34 Q   And she talks about the Carrier in a very broad --  35 all different aspects of the Carrier.  Her article is  36 a treatise on the Carrier, covering all scopes, and  37 she deals with all kinds of people.  But in this  38 reference here she cites Goldman and Morice.  That's  39 what she does.  40 A   Yes, she cites them here, yes.  41 Q   Fine.  Thank you.  Now, if you look at page 406 of  42 Exhibit -- tab 17, Exhibit 881.  If you look at page  43 406.  I would like you to look at footnote 17.  This  44 is Goldman's -- this is Goldman that she is citing  45 there.  And Goldman in proper manner cites what he --  46 his source.  And footnote 17 says:  47 22051  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 "All information on the Bulkley River Carrier is  2 from D. Jenness, 'The Bulkley River Carrier  3 Manuscript.'"  4  5 A   I'm sorry, I am not sure where you are reading.  6 Q   Page 406 of his report.  7 A   The citation that Tobey refers to is pages 408 to 410  8 here.  9 Q   I know.  I am referring you to the footnote at the  10 bottom of page 406 of Goldman.  Are you with me?  11 A   No, I am not.  12 Q   You are on page 406 of Goldman, are you?  13 A   Yes, I am, but the quotation from Tobey refers to  14 Goldman, pages 414 to 416, and Goldman pages 408 to  15 410.  So I am not quite sure what the relationship is  16 with 406 citing Jenness.  17 Q   Can you just bear with me.  Maybe it will come clear  18 to you.  19 A   I'll try to.  Yes, I was confused there about --  20 Q   I know.  I know.  I am at page 406 of Goldman.  21 A   Yes.  22 Q   The bottom, footnote 17.  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   Can you read that?  25 A   Yes.  26 Q  27  28 "All information on the Bulkley River Carrier is  29 from D. Jenness, 'The Bulkley River Carrier  30 Manuscript.'"  31  32 A   Yes.  33 Q   And you have no reason to dispute that Goldman was  34 accurately setting out the source of his information  35 on the Bulkley River Carrier?  36 A   No.  37 Q   And he did not deal -- he did not do primary research  38 among the Bulkley River Carrier?  39 A   Not as far as I am aware.  40 Q   Now, last week you suggested that even if Dyen and  41 Aberle suggested that the matrilineal system of the  42 Wet'suwet'en was indigenous and not derived from the  43 coast, that didn't matter, because the potlatch -- the  44 potlatch rank complex could have come from the coast.  45 You remember that?  46 A   Yes.  47 Q   Well, when you look at your footnote, do you not agree 22052  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 that Goldman connects, and I refer you at the bottom  2 of 46:  3  4 "A concomitant of intermarriage was the rapid  5 adoption by the Carrier of Northwest Coast  6 systems of social organization and  7 stratification, the 'potlatch-rank complex' as  8 defined by Goldman (1940,1941).  The  9 transformation in Carrier sociopolitical  10 organization began, then, in the last decades  11 of the eighteenth century among the western  12 subtribes who had direct and frequent contact  13 with the Gitksan and Bella Coola.  The  14 westernmost Carrier, in turn, acted as  15 middlemen in the movement of both manufactured  16 goods and the potlatch-rank complex to Carrier  17 living farther east and to the neighboring  18 Sekani and Chilcotin."  19  20 A   Oh, yes, and Aberle and Dyen did summarize that.  21 Q   Yes.  Okay.  Go to page 414 of Goldman.  Goldman --  22 and I have already quoted this to you in the last  23 paragraph about four lines down.  24  25 "The Bulkley River Carrier have intermarried  26 with the Gitksan with whom they have always had  27 friendly trade relations."  28  29  30 You agree with that comment, don't you?  31 A   I'm sorry, I can't find it.  It's on page 414?  32 Q   Yes.  33 A   In the last paragraph?  34 Q   It's right here.  35 A   Okay.  Yes.  I might remind you that Jenness's work  36 deals with the post-contact Bulkley River Carrier.  So  37 if we are relying on that --  38 Q   What do you mean?  39 A   He mentions that it's based on 19th century --  40 reconstruction as to early 19th century.  41 Q   And Goldman is only repeating what Jenness's  42 conclusion is in that regard?  43 A   Not necessarily for the interpretation.  44 Anthropologists not infrequently rely on the  45 descriptive information provided by other  46 anthropologists, but to some extent their analyses are  47 their own. 22053  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   Show me in that article where Goldman debates the  2 Jenness thesis other than footnote 17.  Show me in  3 that article.  4 A   I can't do that without reference to Jenness's  5 material.  6 Q   Well, you say Goldman may have done an analysis of his  7 own interpretation.  8 A   Yes.  9 Q   Well, I say to you, if you could find that in the  10 Goldman article, if he did that.  11 A  Well, I think this is an awkward place to throw out a  12 challenge like that.  But I am not convinced that  13 Goldman is only borrowing from Jenness without some  14 interpretation of his own.  15 Q   Well, you can take a look at that at the break.  16 A   I don't think I could cover it all in the break.  17 Q   Well, if you are saying to me that Goldman interprets  18 Jenness, I want you, when you say that, I want you --  19 I say to you that that's not the case, that Goldman  20 says -- does no research with respect to Jenness, and  21 what he does in footnote 17, is he says "I rely on  22 Jenness for the Bulkley River Carrier."  23 A   That's not what he says in footnote 17.  "All  24 information on the Bulkley River Carrier."  25 Q   Is from Diamond Jenness.  26 A   That's not to say that the interpretation of the  27 information from Jenness's work is always Jenness's.  28 Q   When you look at your footnotes, your own footnotes in  2 9 reliance of Goldman, you don't deal with Goldman  30 interpreting Jenness?  31 A   Not specifically, no.  32 Q   And you have already agreed that Goldman's fieldwork  33 was with the Alkatcho Carrier?  34 A   Yes, but that he didn't deal only with the Alkatcho  35 Carrier in his writing.  36 Q   Well, what I am interested in, doctor, is when you  37 make these sweeping statements like oh, Goldman  38 scholars may interpret another scholar, and we are  39 talking not about scholars in general interpreting  40 another scholar, we are talking about an article you  41 have right in front of you, in which Goldman says that  42 he relies -- the information on the Bulkley River  43 Carrier is from Jenness, and you say oh, but his  44 interpretation may have been different, or he may have  45 done something more --  4 6    THE COURT:  Just a minute.  Let's stop for a minute.  Now you  47 are interrupting me.  You are going far too fast. 22054  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 MR. GRANT:  I'm sorry, My Lord.  2 Q   When you say in a sweeping statement that scholars  3 interpret other scholars, I am not talking generally,  4 doctor, I am talking about Goldman and Jenness.  And I  5 read Goldman, and in footnote 17 Goldman says all  6 information on the Bulkley River Carrier is from  7 Jenness.  That's point one.  Point two is that Goldman  8 studies the Alkatcho Carrier, not the Bulkley River  9 Carrier in his fieldwork.  You agree with that.  10 So we have these two points, where Goldman studies  11 the Alkatcho Carrier himself, that's his focus, and  12 then he does talk about the Bulkley River Carrier, and  13 he relies on Jenness.  Now, you say oh, but he may  14 have interpreted or done his own analysis of Jenness's  15 interpretation.  And all I am simply asking you, is  16 where is there any reference to him reinterpreting or  17 debating Jenness in that article?  18 A  And what I am saying is that it would be very  19 difficult for me to give you a glib answer without  20 comparing the two materials.  The manuscript reports  21 of Jenness's too, I haven't compared that against the  22 published Bulkley River Carrier materials.  But it  23 would be very difficult for me to give you a glib  24 answer now.  So I will stand by my opinion that it's  25 not unusual for anthropologists to reinterpret or  26 reanalyze the descriptive material of other  27 anthropologists, and that is my opinion and my answer  28 to your question.  29 Q   Yes.  But you have no foundation to make that opinion  30 with respect to Goldman reinterpreting Jenness?  31 A   Not without reflection on the material, no.  But both  32 scholars had the sense not to view one particular  33 group in isolation, and to realize that there was a  34 value and comparative analysis.  35 Q   Can you go to footnote 5M, please, page 51 and 52.  36 I'm sorry, 52 of your report.  Page 52, footnote 5M.  37 Here again you go to Goldman, and you see Goldman 406  38 to 411:  39  40 "For a discussion comparing the extent to which  41 Athapaskan groups in nearby areas adopted  42 coastal clan and phratry systems."  43  44 And then you have in brackets "Tahltan", and a  45 reference that Goldman makes to the Tahltan and the  46 Tlingit.  And then you have the second paragraph from  47 page 411 of Goldman: 22055  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  A  11  Q  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  A  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Q  27  A  28  Q  29  A  30  31  32  33  Q  34  35  A  36  Q  37  38  A  39  Q  40  A  41  Q  42  43  A  44  Q  45  46  THE COURT  47  MR. GRANT  "It seems probable that at least part of the  organization of the Chilcotin was not borrowed  directly from the coast, but rather from the  Carrier who obtained it from the Tsimshian of  the Skeena River."  Now, if you want, you can go to page 411 of  Goldman, Exhibit 881, tab 17. Are you with me?  Yes, I am.  Okay.  Just a moment.  I just had the place mark.  I  cannot see that quote on that page.  On this copy it  is not marked.  I'm sorry, it's on page 410 your  counsel says.  It's on page 410.  The second paragraph  down -- second full paragraph, last sentence, and  that's the same quote.  Now, again Goldman does not  footnote that comment, does he?  You see where I am?  Do you see where it is?  Yes.  It says:  "Teit describes the situation among these tribes  as follows:"  And then that whole big paragraph is inset from  Teit.  That's all from Teit, is it?  Yes.  That big passage on page 410.  Okay.  So here --  And it says in the footnote in my report on page 52.  It's Goldman, page 410, after Teit, 1909, page 786.  So I acknowledged that in the footnote in the report  on page 52 that it's after Teit.  Well, the second part of the footnote you don't, and  you say it's on page 411.  But I understand --  Well —  Both parts of footnote M are a  That's what I am getting at.  I am not sure about the one --  quote from Teit.  okay.  yes,  Yes, it is.  It's within that quote?  Yes.  And Teit, of course, is talking here -- this is from  Teit's -- the text on the Shuswap that's footnoted?  Yes.  Okay.  Now, can you go to tab 27 of our document book,  the plaintiffs' document book.  :  27.  Dyen and Aberle.  :  Dyen and Aberle, page 413. 22056  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   Now, in fact your footnotes with respect to paragraph  5, your footnotes L, M, N, 0 and P, are all taken from  Goldman, this article by Goldman, aren't they?  THE COURT:  This isn't an article by Goldman, is it?  MR. GRANT:  I'm sorry, that's right.  It's an article by Dyen  and Aberle.  Your footnotes L, M, N, 0, and P are all  taken from the Goldman article that we have just been  referring to, Exhibit 881, tab 17?  THE COURT:  I'm sorry, when you are talking about the Goldman  article you have just been referring to, you are not  talking about --  Dyen and Aberle, no.  You are talking about --  Goldman.  Yes.  All right.  Okay.  Yes, they are.  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  GRANT:  COURT:  GRANT:  COURT:  GRANT:  WITNESS  GRANT:  Q   Okay.  Now, go to page 413 of Dyen and Aberle.  They  quote from the same article of Goldman where he  states:  "The Northeastern Athabascans, including the  Kaska, Slave, Dogrib, Hare, Yellowknife, Bear  (Lake), Chipewyan, have a relatively simple  type of social organization.  The basic social  unit is the small individual family a number of  whom may combine to form a loosely held  together band headed by some capable man as  chief.  Marriage exogamy is based upon  consanguinity, and residence after a period of  bride service is patgrilocal.  Since these  tribes are the simplest and least  differentiated of all the northern Athabascans,  they may be regarded as representing the  ancestral form of northern Athabascan.  As the  Athabascans moved westward, those groups that  came into contact with the coast tribes adopted  corresponding forms of social organization."  Now, firstly you recognize that extract as being  from the Goldman article that we have just been  discussing?  A   Yes, I do.  Q   Secondly, the listing he gives does not relate to the  Bulkley River Carrier in the quote.  You agree with  that?  The Kaska slave -- 22057  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 A   He is talking about the Northeastern Athapaskans  2 there.  3 Q   Right.  Then Dyen and Aberle goes on to say:  4  5 "There are several difficulties with this  6 passage, which reflects a archetype approach:  7 (1)  There is no reason to believe that the  8 westerly Canadian Athapaskans moved to their  9 present location from the east, and for the  10 Alaska Athapaskans, there is every reason to  11 believe that they did not; this despite the  12 fact that a westerly movement for the Beaver  13 and Sekani, in recent times, can be  14 established."  15  16 You agree with that proposition?  17 A   I don't know what time period they are referring to  18 here.  We have got one page of Dyen and Aberle out of  19 context.  I don't know what time period they are  20 referring to.  21 Q   Well, go back to 412.  They are dealing here at the  22 bottom of 412 with Goldman.  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   This is the reference where they are taking on and  25 debating what Goldman's proposition is.  And they  2 6 summarize Goldman.  27  28 "Goldman saw Carrier matrilineality as a foreign  29 coastal importation, overlying a bilateral band  30 organization without cousin marriage, the lack  31 of cross-cousin marriage thus being a  32 retention.  The potlatch, crest system, and  33 phratric system adopted by the Upper Carrier  34 from the Tsimshian impinged on the bilaterally  35 organized Alkatcho Carrier, who developed  36 non-unilineal descent groups rather than  37 matrilineal phratries as a result of Upper  38 Carrier influence."  39  40 Now, here they are summarizing what Goldman is  41 describing.  So we are talking about the time that  42 Goldman's talking about.  You're familiar with  4 3 Goldman?  44 A   Yes.  45 Q   Go to paragraph --  46 A   I am not sure that they are referring to the same time  47 period that we are discussing, however. 2205?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   No.  Proto-Athabaskan lexical reconstruction of the  2 Proto-Athapaskans -- Proto-Athabaskan is a concept  3 that is earlier.  It's pre-historic?  4 A   Yes.  And I'm not sure what time period is being  5 referred to here in this discussion.  6 Q   Paragraph 2:  7  8 "The Athapaskan homeland was not like the  9 territory of the tribes listed by Goldman, and  10 there is hence no reason to infer that these  11 groups do represent the archetype for  12 Athapaskan;"  13  14 You have no reason to dispute that.  And 3:  15  16 "If by 'exogamy is based upon consanguinity' he  17 means that closeness of kinship, rather than  18 kind of kinship, is the basis for exogamy, the  19 assertion is incorrect for several easterly  20 groups: at least Slave, Hare, and Chipewyan,  21 all of whom express some preference for  22 bilaterial or unilaterial cross-cousin  23 marriage.  24 Thus there is reason to reject Goldman's  25 'bilateral band' as the early organizational  26 form for the Carrier as a whole.  There is no  27 evidence for a westerly movement of the  28 Carrier; the easterly tribes live under  29 conditions that make them a poor model for  30 Proto-Athapaskan organization; and Goldman's  31 'bilateral band' itself does not fit the  32 organizational forms of a number of the  33 easterly groups.  34 As we have pointed out in Chapter 10, Upper  35 Carrier terminology retains several features  36 from PA that are critical for the present  37 discussion:"  38  39  40 And he then goes through Iroquois terms.  Go to page  41 414.  Goldman -- they go on to say -- I mean Dyen and  42 Aberle go on to say in the second paragraph:  43  44 "The reasons for the inferred changes in  45 Alkatcho terminology and organization may well  46 include the Bella Coola influences that Goldman  47 considers important.  Still other factors may 22059  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 be at work.  The Alkatcho, for example live in  2 a region where, it would appear, fewer salmon  3 are available than for the Upper Carrier.  It  4 is conceivable that this may have led to less  5 sedentarizaiton and a loss of matrilocality and  6 matrilineality, but this matter requires more  7 exploration.  8 Goldman then correctly points to the  9 coastal influences impinging on the Alktcho.  10 It is, however, more likely that the Alkatcho  11 represent a southward and eastward spread from  12 Upper Carrier than a southeastward relic of an  13 early Carrier migration from the east.  Moving  14 into unfavorable territory, or into new  15 relationships, or both, they may have last an  16 earlier matrilineality.  This seems more likely  17 than that they entered the area with the  18 cultural apparatus and social organization of  19 groups like the Slave."  20  21 Now, are you familiar with the Dyen and Aberle  22 critique of Goldman that I have just referred you to?  23 A   I have read it.  I wouldn't want to move through it  24 that quickly.  It's the kind of language that requires  25 some reflection, and I am not quite sure, for  26 instance, if either of us understand quite what is  27 meant in the paragraph 3 on page 413, and if that  28 gives Dyen and Aberle justification for drawing their  29 conclusions.  I am not sure I quite see the connection  30 with the slave, herring and Chipewyan.  All I am  31 saying is that it takes some time to digest their  32 material, and in this context of the court room, I  33 find it quite difficult to venture an opinion on that  34 particular passage.  35 Q   As did Tobey in her article on the Carrier?  36 A   I think she had more opportunity for reflection than a  37 two-minute break or a five-minute break.  38 Q   As did Tobey in her article on the Carrier in which  39 she refers to Dyen and Aberle, and she says "This is  40 worthy of more consideration, but I am not  ..." --  41 and she does not deal with that.  42 A   Does she?  I am not sure about that passage.  43 Q   You don't recall that?  44 A   Just like Dyen and Aberle say this matter requires  45 more exploration.  I think that they fully recognize  46 that there is a hypothetical nature to much of their  47 criticism in reconstruction, but that they draw the 22060  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 best conclusions they can about the Proto-Athabaskan  2 language --  3 Q   Can you turn to tab 26 of that book that you have got  4 on your lap, my document book, and page 419.  Page  5 419.  6 A   Yes.  7 Q   The second page in, I think.  8 THE COURT:  Third page in?  9 MR. GRANT:  10 Q   You have that?  11 A   Yes.  12 Q   Its got a picture on it.  Page 419.  13 A   Yes, I have it.  14 Q   The right-hand column.  I referred you to this the  15 other week.  16  17 "After referring to Dyen and Aberle in the first  18 column, the top of the second and De Laguna,  19 Tobey says this interpretation certainly  20 deserves investigation, but the more widely  21 held view of the changes in Carrier social  22 organization is the basis for analysis in this  23 chapter."  24  25 She there says she's not involving herself in an  26 analysis of Dyen and Aberle.  27 A   I am not sure where you are reading that from.  It's  28 the left-hand column?  2 9 Q   Right-hand column, seven lines down.  30 A   Yes.  And she does say that:  31  32 "Based on their lexical reconstruction of the  33 Proto-Athabaskan kinship system they suggest  34 that the Carrier and most Athapathkans were  35 originally matrilineal, that only the potlatch  36 rank complex and not the matrinlineal descent  37 was adopted by the Northern Carrier."  38  39 So they are not disputing the adoption of the  40 potlatch rank complex by the Northern Carrier  41 according to Tobey?  42 A  According to Tobey and according to me.  I think I  43 draw your attention to some pages in Dyen and Aberle  44 that refer specifically to that matter.  45 Q   I know.  You took -- you didn't read the whole text.  46 You found those pages, I think you -- you told me you  47 haven't read the whole text? 22061  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   I read chunks of it that relate to this area.  Q   What I am asking you is to refresh your memory that  she did not do an analysis of Dyen and Aberle.  It's  quite a simple question, doctor.  A   I think kinds of constraints people have on them when  they write articles --  Q   I am just asking if that's the fact.  A   For the purpose of this article, we have some  assurance that she realized that the interpretation  deserved investigation, yes.  THE COURT:  Take the morning adjournment, please.  MR. GRANT:  Certainly.  THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court stands adjourned for a  short recess.  (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR RECESS)  I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO  BE A TRUE AND ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT  OF THE PROCEEDINGS HEREIN TO THE  BEST OF MY SKILL AND ABILITY.  LORI OXLEY  OFFICIAL REPORTER  UNITED REPORTING SERVICE LTD. 22062  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED AT 11:30 A.M.)  2  3 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  4 THE COURT:  Mr. Grant.  5 MR. GRANT:  First thing, my lord, my friend raised a matter of  6 tab 33, and here is a replacement tab 33 that isn't  7 marked.  8 THE COURT:  Yes.  9 MR. GRANT:  I am not certain if your lordship wanted to keep the  10 other one for markings that you had made.  11 THE COURT:  Well, perhaps I should transfer them, yes.  There  12 aren't many, I don't think.  Miss Thompson, may I have  13 that original copy back, please.  14 THE COURT:  Yes.  Go ahead, Mr. Grant.  15 MR. GRANT:  16 Q   Thank you.  17 Kobrinsky, who you make much of later in your  18 report, was a student of David Aberle, wasn't he?  19 A   I don't know.  20 Q   Kobrinsky, in the paper that you refer to, makes  21 mention of Dyen and Aberle, and once again, as with  22 Tobey, he says, "I am not going to deal with this in  23 my paper."  Is that not right?  24 A   I am not sure.  I would like to review his paper  25 before I agree to that.  26 Q   You are aware that Dyen was a linguist, are you?  27 A   Yes.  28 Q   And Aberle was an ethnologist or is an ethnologist?  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   You have no basis upon which to challenge their  31 conclusions with respect to Goldman's proposition on  32 page 413, do you?  33 A   Not without some consideration.  I didn't deal with  34 that directly in my opinion report.  35 Q   Right.  Can you turn to page 47 of your report.  36 Forty-seven, where you refer to paragraph 3.  And  37 paragraph 3, on page 6, my lord, if you have page 6  38 and page 47.  At page 3 -- or page 6 you say:  39  40 Competition for European goods fostered an  41 increase in economically motivated warfare:  42 wars waged --  43  44 THE COURT:  Sorry, Mr. Grant, you are on page 47?  45 MR. GRANT:  Oh.  Because of the nature of the report, I have  46 page 47 here and page 6 here.  Page 47 is the  47 footnote. 22063  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  THE COURT  2  MR. GRANT  3  THE COURT  4  MR. GRANT  5  Q  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  A  19  Q  20  21  22  A  23  Q  24  25  A  26  27  Q  28  A  29  Q  30  A  31  32  33  34  Q  35  36  A  37  Q  38  A  39  Q  40  41  A  42  Q  43  A  44  45  Q  46  A  47  Q  Yes, thank you.  I'm sorry.  Yes, "Competition for European"?  Right.  Paragraph 3:  Competition for European goods fostered an  increase in economically motivated warfare:  wars waged over strategic land and trade routes  resulted in many shifts in population  distribution and territorial holdings.  Now, you do agree that although you make a  generalized statement about "wars waged over strategic  land and trade routes," you do agree that the wars of  the coast Tsimshian were in a much larger scale than  were those of the Gitksan, don't you?  As far as we can understand from the record, yes.  And in fact, one of your sources in support of  paragraph 3, MacDonald, says that in footnote 3-B at  page 47, and you have no reason to dispute that?  I am sorry, he says that in?  The first sentence of page -- of footnote 3-B on page  47?  Yes.  The protohistoric and historic period on the  basis of the information that's available.  I'm sorry, where does he say that?  His article is about the protohistoric and historic.  Didn't he also talk about prehistoric?  I am not sure at what time period you are referring.  I would like to refer back to the article.  He is not  talking about anything more recent than the late  prehistoric.  Well, we discussed his article yesterday, and it's at  tab 36?  In your binder?  Yes.  Okay.  And we discussed where he had information about the  fort and the archaeological find?  That's Kitwanga?  Yes.  Yes.  And then you've asked me about a comparison  between the coast and the Gitksan?  Uh-huh?  So I am not quite with you.  Oh, I see.  So what you are saying is that the wars of 22064  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  the coast Tsimshian in the protohistoric period were  on a much larger scale than were those of their  relatives on the upper Skeena?  A  Which is the subheading for paragraph 3 on page 47,  "Protohistoric/Early Historic Intertribal Conflict".  Q   But that's your heading?  A   Yes.  Q   Now, if you look at 3-A, footnote 3-A on page 47,  Garfield cites no evidence in support of her statement  there, does she, in her treatise, or can you remember?  A   No, I find it very difficult to remember back three  years, but I've cited Garfield here and I don't know  on that particular sentence if she referred to anyone  else.  Q   I would ask -- I've got an excerpt of Garfield, The  Tsimshian Indians and Their Arts, and I would ask that  that be tab 40.  I believe that's the next number.  Yes.  (EXHIBIT 1191-40 - Excerpt from The Tsimshian Indians  and their Arts by Ms. V.E. Garfield)  MR. GRANT:  Well —  MR. WILLMS:  My lord, the whole article is already in at 1188-5.  It's in the big white book, the whole article.  THE COURT:  1188-5?  MR. WILLMS:  Yes.  MR. GRANT:  Q   Thank you.  Now, Garfield,  we will go to that,  book, page 34.  Page 34, the end of the first paragraph, the last  sentence is what you quote in footnote A. Do you see  that:  Expansion of the Tsimshian was resisted by the  Tlingit with whom they engaged in feuds over  rights to the coast between the Skeena and Nass  estuaries.  A   Yes.  Q   And she does not cite a source for that proposition,  does she, as a footnote.  Is there a footnote there?  A   No, there is not a footnote there.  Q   Okay.  But when you relied on Garfield, you referred  to her -- did you refer to her bibliography?  you are referring --  Let's go to 1188-5,  well, maybe  the white 22065  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 A   Not specifically.  2 Q   Well, take a look at her bibliography now, which is  3 following page 97, it's near the end of tab 5 of  4 Exhibit 1188, it's also in the extract that I've put  5 in.  And I suggest to you that the material that she  6 would rely on with respect to the Gitksan would have  7 primarily been Barbeau's Totem Poles of the Gitksan of  8 1929?  9 A   I don't know on what basis you are making that  10 suggestion.  11 Q   I am making that suggestion, Doctor, on the basis that  12 a review of her bibliography suggests that that would  13 be the principal source cited in her bibliography,  14 with respect to the Gitksan?  15 A  Well, I think that in the introduction, in the  16 preface, I am not sure if in the preface she makes it  17 that clear.  But in her other writings she does, and  18 she was -- she went to the area and she did talk with  19 people as well.  So I am not sure.  I can't say that  20 she relied only on Barbeau or that -- or solely or  21 exclusively or put a focus on Barbeau in the absence  22 of footnotes.  How -- I don't know how you draw that  23 conclusion.  24 Q   There is no footnotes in this text?  25 A   None?  26 Q   I shouldn't say there's none.  There are very few,  27 right?  28 A   Yes, that's true.  29 Q   But -- so what we have to go on and what Dr. Garfield  30 has left us with is her bibliography which, as a  31 learned scholar, she would cite those sources upon  32 which she relies for this particular treatise, right?  33 A   Not necessarily.  34 Q   No?  Okay, not necessarily.  35 A   Or not exclusively, because --  36 Q   How can she --  37 A   Because I believe she conducted some interviews in the  38 area as well.  39 Q   How can she -- how can her work, this presentation, be  40 subject to proper peer review if she doesn't refer to  41 her sources in it?  42 A   Perhaps in the same way that much of Boas' writing,  43 much of Philip Drucker's writing is without footnote.  44 Q   But its bibliography -- there is a bibliography,  45 right?  46 A   Yes.  And Wilson Duff similarly doesn't always  47 footnote his generalizations, some of the other 22066  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 writers that you've mentioned.  2 Q   But they use a bibliography, right?  3 A  And don't rely exclusively on those bibliographies.  4 Q   How do we know that about Dr. Garfield?  5 A  Well, I think if we take a couple of minutes to review  6 the preface, you might see here -- or if not here, in  7 her other publications that she did also talk with  8 people.  9 Q   I'm not suggesting she didn't talk to people.  What  10 I'm suggesting to you, that in support of the  11 proposition she is making here, she is dealing with --  12 she, in a scholarly manner, put her source in a  13 bibliography.  Would you agree with that?  14 A   She put some of her sources.  I am not sure that she  15 put all of her sources in that bibliography, and  16 that's the answer I've given you.  17 Q   How do you know that she only put in some of her  18 sources?  You don't know that either, do you?  Do you?  19 A   I haven't yet given you an answer for that because I'm  20 reviewing the preface even if you are not.  21 Q   Well, I'm saying that with respect to published  22 sources, she put them in her bibliography.  You have  23 not yet looked at the bibliography, Doctor.  I've  24 asked you to --  25 A   I did look at the bibliography.  26 Q   Okay, okay.  Take a look at the preface, if you like,  27 and particularly on page 4 of the preface to save you  28 a bit of time?  29 A   I haven't quite finished my review of the  30 bibliography.  31 Q   Okay.  32 A   But I will move to the preface as soon as I can.  33 Q   And I want to refer you that it appears -- I asked if  34 Barbeau was her only reference but it looks like  35 Emmons is also a reference there, "The Kitikshan and  36 their Totem Poles".  37 A   Now before I answer your question, if I can remember  38 it, I wonder if I might look at the bibliography for  39 my dissertation, because there is another  40 publication -- or another reference to Garfield there  41 that I would like to bring to your attention.  42 Q   Well, I'm asking you about this particular treatise.  43 A   Yes.  44 Q   And I'm suggesting to you that it is proper for  45 scholars such as Dr. Garfield, who is highly  46 respected, to cite their sources when they publish a  47 treatise.  And that is a standard academic practice 22067  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 for learned scholars and I'm talking about this  2 treatise, and I'm suggesting to you that in support of  3 this treatise, she has properly listed her sources,  4 her written sources in the bibliography.  You have no  5 reason to dispute that?  6 A   Yes, I do.  7 Q   You think that Dr. Garfield would keep out of her  8 bibliography sources that she relied on in support of  9 this treatise?  That's what you are telling me?  I  10 just want to be clear.  11 A   No, that's not what I'm telling you.  12 Q   Well, what -- go to the preface on page 4.  On page 4  13 of the preface, she states -- do you have it?  14 A   Yes.  15 Q  16 The principal literature on the Gitksan  17 describes clan and lineage legends illustrated  18 on totem-pole carvings.  These legends give  19 evidence of intimate contact with Athapascans  20 and extensive borrowing from them.  Many  21 Gitksan families trace ancestors and crest  22 possessions to wild rice gatherers and bulb  23 eaters of the interior plateaus and lakes  24 rather than to river and sea fishermen.  25  26 Now firstly, when I read that, her statement, "The  27 principal literature on the Gitksan describes clan and  28 lineage legends illustrated on totem-pole carvings",  29 as a person just trying to follow her logic, I think,  30 "Well, I wonder what she is looking for?"  And I go to  31 her bibliography and I see Barbeau, and I say, "Oh, I  32 know Barbeau.  That -- that fits that."  And I look at  33 Emmons and I say, "Oh, that describes Emmons."  And I  34 look through her bibliography and I assume that she is  35 referring -- when she says "The principal literature  36 on the Gitksan," to those two sources which she has  37 properly cited in her bibliography.  And you have no  38 reason to dispute that, do you?  39 A  Well, I wonder if I might refer to the bibliography in  40 my dissertation to draw your attention to other work  41 of Viola Garfield and to point out --  42 Q   I want you to answer my question?  43 A   -- and to point out that in the context of this -- I  44 don't know the intent of this particular report, or  45 whether it was intended as more than an overview, and  46 that that reference list at the end is not a general  47 list of references to draw to the readers' attention. 2206?  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:  Are you suggesting that from another list you  might -- you might conclude that Dr. Garfield had a  lot of other information in mind by reason of having  mentioned it in some earlier work?  THE WITNESS:  Yes.  And I'm trying to remember the specifics of  this.  And the reason I wanted to refer to my  dissertation is that there is a thesis of hers for the  area, and I -- it's just I don't remember the exact  title.  THE COURT:  All right.  Well, to get on with this, is it — it  seems to me that Mr. Grant's question -- I think you  should have a chance to do that -- but it also seems  to me his question is, is it usual for scholars to  make that kind of a question without in some way  relating it or allowing their -- expecting the reader  to relate it to the bibliography that is included  in -- with the published work?  THE WITNESS:  I am not sure that it's usual, but I did mention  several other sources where this kind of thing is also  present, and among them are Wilson Duff's general book  on the Indians of the westcoast.  Much of Philip  Drucker's work is substantiated line by line.  We have  seen earlier, Goldman doesn't footnote every paragraph  or sentence going through.  And so several of the  other classic northwest coast scholars, similarly,  don't reference materials all the way through.  And  they are not -- I don't believe at the time they were  intended to be scholarly treatises in the sense that  every single sentence and line was footnoted back to  original sources.  And it's true that apart from  Goldschmidt and Haas, which is a manuscript report and  not a published report listed in her bibliography, she  is listing primarily published sources there.  But I  would say similarly, Wilson Duff's bibliographies or  Philip Drucker's on the general cultures of the  northwest coast books, list published works and they  seem to be intended for the readers rather than an  exhaustive list of all the materials they covered.  THE COURT:  Well, she hasn't footnoted anything in this paper,  has she?  MR. GRANT:  Yes, there is a few footnotes.  THE COURT:  Are there a few?  MR. GRANT:  Yes.  THE WITNESS:  There are a few —  THE COURT:  Where?  MR. GRANT:  They are on page 21.  THE WITNESS:  There are a few on Murdock who was a scholar 22069  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 studying.  So I don't --  2 THE COURT:  I see, the footnotes are at the foot of the page.  3 All right.  4 MR. GRANT:  5 Q   Yes.  6 A   So I don't know if this is intended to be a scholarly  7 treatise, something to be drawn to the attention of a  8 peer review as Mr. Grant is suggesting, or whether  9 this was intended to be a study on the Tsimshian for  10 wider distribution.  I don't know what her intent was  11 at the time.  12 THE COURT:  Well, it's not usual to footnote prefaces anyways,  13 is it?  14 THE WITNESS:  Sometimes it's acknowledged specifically who the  15 individuals are who were interviewed and so on.  So  16 it's not exactly footnotes, but it can be more  17 specific about who the contributors were.  18 THE COURT:  All right.  19 THE WITNESS:  So I'm having trouble with what is usual.  2 0 THE COURT:  Yes.  21 THE WITNESS:  Because I can think of examples where she doesn't  22 stand alone in this kind of approach.  And also her  23 thesis in the area probably reflects a different level  24 of detail.  I know --  2 5 MR. GRANT:  26 Q   Let me try to help you.  27 A   Yes.  28 Q   You have confused, maybe by my question, footnoting  29 and bibliography.  At this point in time, I am not  30 asking you about her practise of footnoting in a  31 sparing way in this book.  What I have been trying to  32 focus you on is that it would be normal for a scholar,  33 such as Dr. Garfield, to put in her bibliography the  34 written sources upon which she relies.  And she  35 doesn't say "Material for further reading or further  36 interest", she says bibliography.  And I take that to  37 mean that whether she cited them or footnoted them in  38 the text, that the listing in the bibliography are the  39 sources upon which she relied in support of this  40 treatise.  Do you not dis -- you cannot disagree with  41 that, can you, other than to speculate?  42 A   Those appear to be the written published sources,  43 apart from the Goldschmidt and Haas that she did use  44 in the preparation of that treatise.  All I was  45 suggesting is that they may not be her only sources,  46 and my understanding was that Garfield had spent some  47 time in the coast Tsimshian area doing field work. 22070  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   I'm going to come to that.  But on page 4 she says:  2  3 The principal literature on the Gitksan  4 describes clan and lineage legends illustrated  5 on totem-pole carvings.  6  7 And when I go to the -- and she is obviously  8 referring to that, and she talks in this text about,  9 amongst other things, the Gitksan.  And when I go to  10 the bibliography, I see Barbeau and I see Emmons that  11 fit that description.  Now, are you -- do you agree  12 with that, that Barbeau and Emmons, 1925, fit the  13 description she gives at page 4 about "The principal  14 literature on the Gitksan"?  15 A   They may not be the only ones.  16 Q   Tell me —  17 A   Yes, yes, but they may not be the only ones.  18 Q   Okay.  What else would you consider in 1950 was, "The  19 principal literature on the Gitksan [describing] clan  20 and lineage legends illustrated on totem-pole  21 carvings," to which she would have referred?  What  22 else, besides those two authors, would fit that  23 description on page 4?  24 A  Well, I haven't read Arctander recently, but I would  25 look at Arctander, there may be some references there.  26 The Barnett article on "The Southern Extent of the  27 Totem Pole Carving" might have some references to the  28 Gitksan.  I'm not sure offhand, but I wouldn't be  29 surprised if there weren't more materials.  Some of  30 Boas' work does have reference to the Gitksan.  31 Q   What I'm asking you is to fit the description that she  32 has given, "Principal literature on the Gitksan  33 describes clan and lineage legends illustrated on  34 totem-pole carvings"?  35 A   I would have to review some of the Boas material, for  36 instance.  37 Q   Okay.  That's fine.  38 A   But that's just starting there.  I am not sure if  39 there is not reference to this in Davis' Native Arts  40 of the Pacific Northwest, for instance.  There is  41 several references there that may.  Drucker's, for  42 instance, "The Antiquity of the Northwest Totem Pole".  43 I don't know if there are references --  44 Q   What I want to know is not what --  45 MR. WILLMS:  Well, my lord, the witness should -- my friend  46 asked a question, "What fits within totem-poles,"  47 and — 22071  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  Yes, Mr. Willms.  interrupted.  Yes, she was in mid-answer and he  THE  THE  GRANT  Q  A  COURT  I want to know if you know of any other source?  I'm saying --  Mr. Grant, she is in the middle of answering an  earlier answer.  Have you finished your list of those that might  fit the description?  WITNESS:  No.  There are several others that might because  there are several references here, my lord, that refer  to totem-poles in -- British Columbia totem-poles, and  without having reviewed those I wouldn't want to say  that only Emmons and Drucker refer to Gitksan.  All right.  Now, did you want to look at some other  bibliography that will assist you to answer Mr.  Grant's question?  WITNESS:  Not that particular question, sir.  COURT:  All right.  GRANT:  Q   Go on to the bottom of page 4 of the preface.  She  states that:  In the following presentation of the main  features of Tsimshian culture, it is apparent  that we lack descriptive information for the  northern Gitksan particularly, and that we lack  much comparative data on relationships between  the Tsimshian and their neighbors.  There is  also little historical depth to our data.  Some  of these gaps can be filled by comparative  analytical studies of the Tsimshian with other  tribes of Northwest America, using existing  literary sources.  Other problems will only be  solved in the future by systematic field work.  THE COURT  THE  THE  MR.  A  Q  A  Q  A  And as of September of 1950, that would be an  accurate statement, wouldn't it?  Yes.  You would have no reason to dispute that?  No, I don't  Well what I'm asking you, if you go back to her  statement on 3-A of your footnotes, page 47 of your  report, you have no evidence to support that statement  as applicable to either the Gitksan or the  Wet'suwet'en, do you?  There are some examples in -- and I forget which ones 22072  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 of the Barbeau-Beynon manuscript legends or oral  2 traditions that refer to battles and skirmishes  3 between the coast Tsimshian and the Tlingit in the  4 Stikine delta area.  And there is also some record of  5 those in the historic period from materials  6 surrounding Fort Simpson.  7 Q   Doctor —  8 A  And including John Work's journal.  So yes, for the  9 early historic period, there is some supporting  10 information.  11 Q   I think you misheard me.  I'll try again.  You have no  12 evidence to support that statement as applicable to  13 the Gitksan or Wet'suwet'en, do you?  I am -- I  14 understand you are now referring to sources or  15 references that Barbeau makes regarding the coast  16 Tsimshian and Tlingit, and I appreciate that.  17 A   No.  This sentence was not addressing the Gitksan or  18 the Wet'suwet'en.  19 Q   Right.  Now, if you could look at the white book, tab  20 2, page 10.  Now this is with respect to footnote 3-B,  21 47 and 48, and you've cited that on page 11 from  22 MacDonald.  Okay?  Are you with me?  23 A   I cited something on page 11 from MacDonald in the  24 paragraph B on page 47.  25 Q   Let's go to page 10.  You will see -- because the  26 first sentence of your note -- of your quote from  27 MacDonald is on page 10, the fourth line up -- or the  28 fourth line from the top, I should say:  29  30 The wars of the coast Tsimshian were on a much  31 larger scale than were those of the relatives  32 on the upper Skeena River.  33  34 You see that?  And that's where the beginning of your  35 footnote is?  36 A   Yeah, yes.  37 Q   Immediately before that, MacDonald states as the  38 opening sentence of this paragraph:  39  40 Among the Tsimshian speaking peoples of British  41 Columbia warfare is recorded in epic oral  42 histories that, by conservative estimates, span  43 three or four centuries prior to European  44 contact.  45  46 And he refers to Robinson and Wright 1962.  That's  47 The Men of Medeek and Wars of Medeek, you know that, 22073  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 don't you?  2 A   Yes.  3 Q   And he is relying on that oral history?  I mean --  4 A   No.  Robinson -- is that the same thing?  5 Q   Will Robinson and Walter Wright?  6 A   Yes.  7 Q   Even though you've not done a chronological analysis  8 of Men of Medeek, you have no reason to dispute  9 MacDonald's conservative estimate of three to four  10 centuries, do you?  11 A   I'm not sure what he bases that on, and in that sense,  12 yes, I could dispute it.  I don't know what he bases  13 that on.  14 Q   So you can dispute it.  I just didn't get your answer.  15 Can you speak up?  16 A   I can't evaluate his opinion on that.  17 Q   But you didn't do a chronology of it yourself?  18 A   I don't know if it can be done.  19 Q   You didn't do a chronology of it yourself?  20 A   No, I did not.  21 Q   Footnote 3-C.  Here again, you are actually citing  22 MacDonald twice in the subsequent footnotes.  Was  23 there a reason for that, by the way?  It seems to  24 happen quite a bit that you use the same source but  25 maybe three or four footnotes in a row without a  26 heading in between.  You broke up your footnotes for  27 one paragraph.  It certainly suggests that there is --  28 suggestive of something, but I don't know.  29 A   I'm sure you could read all sorts of strange reasons  30 into it, but basically, some of the points it seems to  31 me -- it seems to me that sometimes MacDonald and  32 other writers had several points expressed in the same  33 paragraph.  34 Q   Okay.  Fine.  35 A  And by breaking it up, different issues were brought  36 to -- brought to bear.  37 Q   Okay.  38 A  And I wasn't sure, perhaps, when I was breaking them  39 up like this, if they would end up being used in  40 reference to one statement in the opinion report or  41 another.  But there is nothing terribly sophisticated  42 or strange about it.  43 Q   Page 48, the last sentence of MacDonald that you cite  44 there is, "Territorial expansion was rarely the  45 motivation or result of such hostilities."  You do  46 not -- you do not dispute that, do you?  47 A   I am sorry, I'm not quite sure where you are reading. 22074  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  Q  2  A  3  4  5  6  7  Q  8  9  10  11  12  A  13  14  15  16  17  Q  18  19  A  20  Q  21  A  22  23  24  25  26  Q  27  28  29  30  A  31  Q  32  A  33  Q  34  35  A  36  Q  37  A  38  Q  39  A  40  Q  41  42  43  THE COURT  44  MR. GRANT  45  THE COURT  46  MR. GRANT  47  Q  Footnote C, page 48, MacDonald?  Well, that's McDonald's opinion.  He also cites  Ferguson, and Ferguson does bring in references from  various parts of the coast, citing territory -- or  eagerness to acquire territory as a motive for  warfare.  But if you differed with that opinion, certainly you  would not have cited it and quoted it in your report?  You quoted it in support of paragraph 3.  That's one  of the -- you quote specifically that statement I've  just made?  Well, it's McDonald's opinion that I'm putting in the  footnotes, and rather than just simply citing  MacDonald as being in agreement with my statement, I'm  just putting the whole thing in there so it can be  there for comparative purposes.  So your footnotes are not necessarily supportive of  your --  Most of them are.  -- proposition?  But as you pointed out, I do select things that are  supportive and did include some things that might have  a slightly different interpretation, because I thought  that that was getting the most objective survey of  information available on these issues.  MacDonald in footnote D on page 48 says,  "Traditionally, each Tsimshian tribe had its exclusive  trading partners among the foreign tribes."  You see  that?  Yes.  Part way down footnote D?  Yes.  He is referring there, when he refers to Tsimshian  tribe, to the coast Tsimshian, isn't he?  I am not sure.  Well, let's go and look at MacDonald.  Yes, let's do that.  At tab — this is "Epic of Nekt", isn't it?  Yes.  This is at tab 36, page 78.  Well, it's very clear  what he says there, I suggest.  If you go half-way  down that middle paragraph.  Sorry, tab 38 did you say?  Tab 36, my lord, "Epic of Nekt", page 78.  Thank you.  And tab 36, page 78, half-way down the second 22075  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 paragraph:  2  3 Rivalries between these local chiefs are  4 clearly in evidence in the accounts.  5 Traditionally, each Tsimshian tribe had its  6 exclusive trading partners among the foreign  7 tribes.  8  9 That's the quote I've referred you to.  10  11 We know, for example, that the Ginaxangits  12 [G-I-N-A-X-A-N-G-I-T-S] tribe among the  13 Tsimshian traded with the Tahltan of the  14 Stikine River, the Gilludzar  15 [G-I-L-L-U-D-Z-A-R]  with the Kasan [K-A-S-A-N]  16 Haidas: the Gitlans [G-I-T-L-A-N-S] with the  17 Cape Fox Tlingit: the Gispaxlauts  18 [G-I-S-P-A-X-L-A-U-T-S] with the Upper Skeena  19 Gitksan.  20  21 And so on.  Reading the rest of that quote, you see  22 that he is referring to the coast Tsimshian and the  23 foreign tribes and he includes the upper Skeena  24 Gitksan as one of the foreign tribes, you agree?  25 A  Well, if that's how you would like to read it.  26 Q   Well —  27 A   That's fine.  28 Q   You read it a different way, do you?  29 A  Well —  30 Q   Or do you understand?  31 A   It seems to me that the upper Skeena Gitksan are not  32 amongst the Tsimshian.  33 Q   It's certainly not news to you that they are not  34 coastal Tsimshian?  35 A  Well, he is not saying each coastal Tsimshian tribe,  36 so it's hard for me to know what MacDonald intended by  37 his use of the word "Tsimshian" in the beginning of  38 that passage.  39 Q   So when you put that quote in on footnote D --  40 A   Yes.  41 Q   -- of your report, you were implying that each  42 Tsimshian tribe, including the Gitksan, had its  43 exclusive trading partners among the foreign tribes.  44 That's what you were -- thought he meant, is it?  45 A   No, I wasn't implying that.  I thought that by the  46 example one would get an idea, which is what he has  47 done there.  He hasn't listed every Tsimshian tribe 22076  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 and listed any of its foreign trading partners.  He  2 said "traditionally".  "Here are some examples."  And  3 he has given some examples.  But my understanding,  4 also, is that each of the -- each of the tribes would  5 have several foreign trading partners, if possible, if  6 they could -- if they could muster up the wealth for  7 the connection to make those trading connections.  8 Q   Who is the Gispaxlauts?  9 A   The coastal people associated with Legaik.  10 Q   And the upper Skeena Gitksan, that would be referring  11 to the Gitksan?  12 A   I am not sure who he is referring to specifically.  13 Q   That would refer to Gitksan?  14 A   Upper Skeena Gitksan?  15 Q   Yeah?  16 A   I would imagine so.  17 Q   Yeah.  The Gispaxloats are coastal Tsimshian?  18 A   Yes.  19 Q   All of these other groups, the Gilludzar, the Gitlans,  20 the Ginaxangits, and the first time he modifies it,  21 "among the Gitksan" -- "among the Tsimshian," he is --  22 he is making a parallel of the coastal Tsimshian  23 groups and the foreign tribes to which they relate?  24 A   Yes.  25 Q   And one example -- of his examples is the Gispaxloats,  26 the coastal Tsimshian group, trading with the upper  27 Skeena Gitksan?  28 A   Yes.  29 Q   And there, in that analogy, he is using the upper  30 Skeena Gitksan as a "foreign tribe" as opposed to  31 Gispaxloats, when you look at it in the context of the  32 statement?  33 A   Yes.  And I am not quite sure, however, that he  34 implies only coastal Tsimshian in the sentence  35 preceding that.  But I think Dr. MacDonald would be  36 better to answer that than me.  37 Q   Right.  38 Would you agree that, going back to footnote D,  39 "a major factor was the consolidation of power by a  40 very few chiefs who came to monopolize the trade",  41 that here, Dr. MacDonald is referring to the coastal  42 Tsimshian, isn't he?  43 A   I think he is drawing his major examples from there,  44 but I'm not sure that he doesn't intend that Nekt, the  45 person about whom the article is written, is one of  46 those.  I think he is drawing a comparison to some  47 extent, between Nekt and some of the coastal chiefs 22077  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 for whom they do have historic documentation of them  2 doing exactly that.  3 Q   Now, if you look at paragraph 4 on page 48, you see  4 footnote 4-A.  Footnote 4-A is not a source upon which  5 you rely, is it, Doctor?  It's only your own expansion  6 of paragraph 4.  You haven't cited any source there?  7 A   I'm sorry, I haven't finished reading it.  Yes.  8 Q   You agree?  Your first statement in footnote 4-A, and  9 this is your statement:  10  11 The Gitksan, unlike the Wet'suwet'en, may have  12 been essentially "Tsimshianized" prior to  13 European influence.  14  15 Now, that's a speculative statement on your part,  16 isn't it?  17 A   Yes.  And the speculation is repeated by other  18 scholars and we've mentioned Jack Ives, and since I  19 wrote the report and became aware of Ives' stuff, I  20 think he discusses the process of "Tsimshianization".  21 Q   Now, what do you mean by "may have been essentially  22 Tsimshianized"?  What do you mean by that?  23 A  What I mean is that it seems reasonably clear,  24 although the archaeological record is scanty, that  25 there was a trade or an exchange of commodities from  26 coast to interior along the major waterways in  27 prehistoric times.  And I am generalizing now, but  28 I'll say that there are examples of that coast  29 interior exchange from the Tlingit area all the way  30 down to the Bella Bella, Bella Coola.  I'm not sure  31 why you are shaking your head at me, Mr. Grant.  32 Q   I'm interested in your statement "The Gitksan, unlike  33 the Wet'suwet'en, may have been essentially  34 'Tsimshianized'".  What I would like us to focus on  35 here is the Gitksan.  It's not my statement, it's your  36 statement.  I'm not talking about generalizations --  37 with all due respect, I am not really interested in  38 the Tlingit or the others.  I am -- if you have a  39 foundation for saying, "The Gitksan, unlike the  40 Wet'suwet'en, may have been essentially  41 'Tsimshianized'," I am interested.  That's what you  42 say.  You don't say the coastal peoples are?  43 A  Well, I'm saying that the best way to understand what  44 may have happened to the Gitksan prehistorically or  45 protohistorically is to see them in the context of  46 other parallel examples along the northern, northwest  47 coast region, ranging from southeastern Alaskan down 2207?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 to the Bella Bella and Bella Coola area.  And that to  2 imagine that the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en don't fit  3 into a general kind of description, which I was  4 beginning to make, it seems really odd and really  5 untenable.  6 Q   Well, we've already discussed the importance of --  7 A   So when I use a general context to describe, it's  8 trying to answer your question and make it as clear as  9 possible.  But it does seem to me that there was a  10 regular exchange, a fairly regular exchange of  11 commodities from the coastal areas to the interior  12 areas.  13 Q   Including among the Gitksan?  14 A   That was based on the different availability of  15 different kinds of resources which were sought after.  16 Q   And you referred to that in your dissertation?  17 A   Yes, I do.  18 Q   And you referred to the fact that there was pre-  19 contact trade with respect to these resources that I  20 referred you to yesterday in your dissertation, and  21 that's part of what you are relying on?  22 A   Yes, it is.  I think I used the word "exchange" more  23 than "trade", however.  24 Q   You state in footnote 4-A:  25  26 I suspect that in the late prehistoric period,  27 prior to European influence, there was more  28 flexibility in Gitksan society regarding access  29 to resources, but I do not doubt that some  30 rules were in place.  31  32 Now, you have no factual foundation for your  33 suspicion with respect to the Gitksan in that  34 statement, do you?  35 A   No.  Just a broad basis of comparison from both  36 cultural ecological theory and also from the other  37 comparative examples in the adjacent region which I've  38 been citing throughout these discussions.  39 Q   Can you go to page 11 of your report, paragraph 13.  40 This is when you talk about Legaik.  You state in your  41 third sentence:  42  43 "There was little sense in interfering with the  44 production of furs for the European trade:  it  45 was more important to secure continuing access  46 to furs and to prevent rivals from tapping fur  47 resources. 22079  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2 Now, here you are talking about in the post-  3 contact era, aren't you, at least on the coast?  4 A   I think that the best information we have, of course,  5 of the expansion of the chiefdom chiefs is in the  6 early historic period.  I don't doubt that there was  7 some emergence of the chiefdom chiefs in the  8 protohistoric period and that they weren't, some of  9 them, intent on expanding their spheres of influence.  10 Q   Okay.  But here you are talking about the -- after the  11 fur trade has commenced, so I'm just trying to get us  12 into a time frame.  You are talking about the post --  13 or about the historic period, at least, on the coast,  14 because the fur trade is going on, right?  15 A   Yes.  16 Q   Now, you would agree that Legaik was only endeavouring  17 to control the trade route to the coast, wouldn't you?  18 A   Only when you use the word "only", I'm not sure what  19 you are intending to exclude.  20 Q   He was not endeavouring to acquire territory in the  21 interior?  22 A   I don't know that.  I don't think anyone knows that.  23 Q   Okay.  You are aware from Michael Robinson, even from  24 his description, that Legaik, that name, was  25 transferred in a matrilineal fashion, aren't you?  26 A   I am not sure where Michael Robinson refers to it  27 specifically, but it would not surprise me that it was  28 transferred in the matrilineal fashion.  2 9 Q   Okay.  Now, just a moment.  You agreed with me that --  30 or you gave evidence that the Maritime fur trade  31 commenced in 1786, if I remember rightly?  32 A   The first purely commercial voyage that I'm aware of  33 connected with the English-speaking world, yes.  34 Q   Right.  35 THE COURT:  That was an American?  36 THE WITNESS:  James Hannah, and he was associated with the East  37 India Company.  I believe he was British, sir.  3 8    MR. GRANT:  39 Q   Okay.  That was after the return of Cook and the  40 report of what -- of the wealth, I think you described  41 that?  42 A   Yes.  43 Q   And that's when the sea-otter trade really became  44 dominant in the fur trade, the Maritime fur trade?  45 A   Yes.  As far as I know.  4 6 Q   Yes.  And you are aware that around -- you are aware  47 of Daniel Harmon's trip into the Carrier country, his 22080  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 journal of a trip into Indian company?  2 A   Gee, I am not that familiar with the boundaries of  3 Cariboo country, but he was sitting in what we call  4 New Caledonia.  5 Q   Carrier country I said, not Cariboo?  6 A   Oh.  7 Q   But you are aware of his trip?  8 A   Yes.  9 Q   And he talked about the Carrier?  10 A   Yes.  11 Q   And I think that was around 1911 or 1912 — or 1811,  12 1812?  I'll check that reference.  13 A   Yes, I think so.  14 Q   Around that time?  15 A   Yes.  16 Q   And he reports on feasting among the Carrier in his  17 report?  18 A   I think so.  I am not really sure of the passage you  19 are -- or passages you are referring to.  20 Q   Okay.  Well, just assume for the moment that he does,  21 okay.  Is it your proposition that the Gitksan and the  22 Wet'suwet'en developed the potlatch rank system, the  23 territorial base resources, and the -- and possibly  24 the matrilineal system between 1786 and 1812 when  25 Harmon reported on seeing feasting?  26 A   I don't think anywhere I said anything quite that --  27 quite that blanket-sweeping statement.  I would like  28 to break that proposition down.  But no, I don't think  29 I said anything quite that blanket.  30 Q   You have no basis to say in paragraph 4-A on page 48,  31 that there was less clearly defined -- just a moment.  32 Yes.  Let's -- and I'm reversing what you say, where  33 you say, "they," referring to the Gitksan:  34  35 ...probably assimilated some coastal customs  36 relating to resource use which were more  37 clearly defined and more rigorously exclusive  38 than those they had previously.  39  40 You are not suggesting that -- you don't have any  41 evidence about the less clearly defined and less  42 rigorously exclusive customs relating to resource  43 among the Gitksan pre-contact, do you?  44 A   Not specifically for the Gitksan and not specifically  45 pre-contact, no.  46 Q   Good.  Can you go to paragraph 5-A, please.  It's on  47 page 6.  You say: 22081  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2 For interior populations such as the  3 Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en who directly or  4 indirectly traded with Northwest Coast  5 populations, the clearer delineation of  6 territories and rights of resource use  7 reflected both increasing pressure on certain  8 resources and their societies' increasing  9 acceptance of coastal customs relating to  10 resource management.  11  12 And I believe you told Mr. Willms that the certain  13 resources -- and maybe I was mistaken -- but the  14 certain resources you are referring to are certain fur  15 resources; is that right?  16 A   I would like a moment to read the paragraph, please.  17 A   Yes.  18 Q   You are not referring here, of course, to marmot  19 skins, are you?  20 A   Not specifically.  21 Q   Mountain goat hair?  22 A   Not specifically.  Although, it seems that there was  23 an intensification and an increase in potlatching at  24 least, noted for other parts of the region, which  25 would suggest to me that there was an increase in use  26 of commodities that had already been used prior to  27 European contact or prior to European influence, so  28 that there might well have been an increased pressure  29 on resources that had traditionally been part of the  30 wealth exchange system.  31 Q   And you recognize that those resources had already  32 been utilized by the Gitksan and the Wet'suwet'en  33 pre-contact?  34 A   Not specifically for the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en.  I  35 think we are all speaking about generalities when we  36 get into the pre-contact era.  37 Q   Except that when -- your dissertation, when you talked  38 about trade -- and this is something you focused me on  39 last week, the Chapter III, Chapter III part D, deals  40 with the relationship between the coastal Tsimshian,  41 Tlingit and Haida and their inland neighbours, and  42 section III D is the section in which you say you  43 specifically deal with these groups.  And I pointed  44 out to you the trade that you referred to in section  45 III D and you confirmed that there -- that is what you  46 were -- you were there talking about trade inter alia  47 with the Gitksan and the coastal Tsimshian group.  Do 22082  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 you remember what I talked to you about yesterday?  2 A   Yes.  And I'll also add that there is at least a  3 paragraph, if not two or three paragraphs, that deal  4 with traditional -- reconstructing of traditional  5 socioeconomies for the northern northwest coast and  6 adjacent regions, and the difficulty that we run into  7 investigating traditional.  8 Q   But in your dissertation, when you dealt with trade,  9 you dealt with trade in those goods and you accepted  10 that was a fact, you didn't dispute it.  You accepted  11 that as a fact for the purposes of the propositions  12 you were dealing with in your dissertation?  13 A  Within the qualification that we had an awkwardness  14 always with dealing with pre-contact situations,  15 because of the lack of documentation that's  16 corroborative or can be corroborated.  17 THE COURT:  Should we adjourn, Mr. Grant?  18 MR. GRANT:  Certainly.  19 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, before we break, I spoke to my friend this  20 morning and he said he thought -- he didn't know if he  21 would take the whole day, he thought he might, and  22 talked about sitting late in order to ensure that we  23 would complete.  I'm just wondering what your  24 lordship's schedule is.  I would like to try to  25 complete the witness today.  26 THE COURT:  Well, I could sit until 5:00 but not beyond, if  27 that's of any assistance.  28 MR. GRANT:  I had said to my friend, my lord, that I anticipated  29 to be a day.  I didn't say -- this morning, I judged  30 that I wouldn't be the day.  I have cut back on a  31 number of areas.  32 THE COURT:  Do you think you will finish?  33 MR. GRANT:  Given to 5:00 I'm afraid that I'm not going to.  I  34 certainly want to, but I'm not going to.  So I'm in  35 your lordship's hands.  36 THE COURT:  How long does -- well, how long is your  37 re-examination going to be, Mr. Willms, if any?  38 MR. WILLMS:  Maybe 15 minutes.  39 THE COURT:  Yes.  How long is Mr. Goldie estimating he is going  40 to read to us?  41 MR. WILLMS:  A day minimum, my lord, and then we have probably a  42 day, anyway, of outstanding matters before the case  43 for the Province can be closed.  44 THE COURT:  That would still give us time to finish this week.  45 MR. WILLMS:  Yes.  I emphasize a day minimum for the reading.  46 THE COURT:  Yes.  Well, I'm sorry, if you get some time tomorrow  47 and then Thursday and Friday, you would have time to 22083  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 finish your case?  2 MR. WILLMS:  Certainly.  If we could finish the witness tomorrow  3 morning, then -- and then have tomorrow afternoon and  4 then the balance of the week.  5 THE COURT:  Yes.  6 MR. WILLMS:  But I don't know if that's —  7 THE COURT:  Well, I think that we should sit the extra hour this  8 afternoon and give ourselves a little leeway -- as  9 much leeway as we can.  So we will sit until 5:00 this  10 afternoon if necessary.  11 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court stands adjourned until  12 two o'clock.  13  14 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 12:30 P.M.)  15  16  17 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  18 a true and accurate transcript of the  19 proceedings herein transcribed to the  20 best of my skill and ability.  21  22  23  24  25 Toni Kerekes, O.R.  26 United Reporting Service Ltd.  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47 22084  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  (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED PURSUANT TO LUNCH RECESS)  THE REGISTRAR:  THE COURT:  MR. GRANT:  Q  A  Q  Mr  Order in court.  , Grant.  A  Q  A  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  Q  A  Q  A  Can you turn to page 6 of your report and page 49 of  your footnote section, please.  I've already referred  you to paragraph 5 and you have relied in support of  that proposition on Garfield amongst others, haven't  you:  Footnote A is Garfield.  Yes.  Now, I just refer you to footnote A, 5 A, which  Garfield has quoted as saying:  "It was probably as early as 1836 that Legaik, a  tribal chief at Fort Simpson, undertook to  monopolize Skeena River trade with the coast, a  monopoly which he maintained until about 1868."  You do not dispute what she says there, do you?  I think she's referring there to Legaik II, yes.  Well, why do you say Legaik II there?  Because I'm following M.P. Robinson's summary of the  Legaik dynasties based on the Enoch Maxwell versions,  Enoch Powell versions of the --  I'm sorry, I haven't got that reference.  It's on page 49 of part 2.  I'm sorry, my lord.  No, that's fine.  Thank you.  And it's footnote 5 A and it's eight lines down.  Yes.  I see it.  Thank you.  "It was probably as early as Legaik that 1836..."  Whichever Legaik it was, you understand that what  Garfield is saying there is that the undertaking to  monopolize the Skeena River trade with the coast was  started around 1836?  She says "It was probably as early as...", not  suggesting it could not have been earlier.  Well, do you have information that suggests that it is  earlier?  Well, we know that there was one Legaik who was killed  at Kitselas and then there was a Legaik that's  described, it appears to be the one described, in the  Hudson Bay records at Fort Simpson, and also John  Work's journal, and that appears to be the Legaik to  whom she's referring there.  Do you have any evidence of a Legaik undertaking to 22085  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  A  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Q  11  12  A  13  14  Q  15  16  A  17  18  Q  19  20  21  A  22  23  24  Q  25  26  27  A  28  29  30  31  32  MR.  GRANT  33  34  THE  COURT  35  MR.  GRANT  36  THE  COURT  37  MR.  GRANT  38  THE  COURT  39  MR.  GRANT  40  THE  COURT  41  42  MR.  GRANT  43  THE  COURT  44  MR.  GRANT  45  46  47  monopolize Skeena River trade prior to 1836?  Well, there is some reference in the Brown journals  and post journals from Babine, the Fort Kilmaurs ones,  that suggests that there were traders coming up from  the sea coast.  And there's also a reference to the  Gispaxloats it looks like in the Brown reference, so I  would say in the 1820's certainly there seems to be  some connection with the coastal Tsimshian tribe that  the Legaiks are associated with.  Yes, but that is a reference to trade with the coastal  Tsimshian, isn't it, that Brown is talking about?  There are several references to the sea coast traders  coming up, yes.  Right.  But there's no reference that Legaik -- Brown  makes no reference to Legaik does he?  Not that I can recall.  Perhaps you've got a different  insight into them.  And Brown -- no, I'm satisfied with that.  Brown makes  no reference to the Gispaxloats monopolizing the  Skeena River trade as early as 1822, does he?  I'm not sure if he -- if he uses the word monopolize.  He certainly makes several references to the coastal  traders coming upriver.  So you say that Garfield is wrong here when she's  talking that as early as 1836 Legaik undertook to  monopolize the Skeena River?  No, I'm suggesting that she's saying "as early as"  might also refer to an earlier time, a time earlier  than 1836.  You say -- the phrasing you used suggested  that it started in 1836, and all I was suggesting is  "as early as" tells me that it could begin earlier.  :   Go to your white book at tab 5 on page 7, Garfield,  at the bottom of the page, last paragraph.  I'm sorry, tab 5 of the white book?  Tab 5 of the white book.  Yes.  Yes.  It is Garfield.  Is it?  If your tab 5 is the same as mine.  Oh, yes, it is.  Yes, I'm sorry.  I was looking at  the bottom which says "Mclntyre", page 7.  Yes.  Thank you.  Garfield here states:  "In 1836 the Hudson's Bay company built a post  at the north end of Lake Babine.  Coastal 22086  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Tsimshian had a regular trading route to the  2 Bulkley Canyon where the river joins the Skeena  3 and a monopoly of trade with the Babines.  The  4 coastal people brought trade goods from Fort  5 Simpson and preserved sea foods which they  6 bartered to the Babines for furs.  It was  7 probably as early as 1836 that Legaik, a tribal  8 chief at Fort Simpson, undertook to monopolize  9 Skeena River trade with the coast, a monopoly  10 which he maintained about 1868.  The role of  11 the Gitksan in this trade is not clear.  They  12 seem to have submitted to coast Tsimshian  13 entering their territory for direct trade with  14 the Babines and in fact have bartered their  15 furs for goods from the coast."  16  17 And she there, as you quite rightly say, refers to  18 Work's journal.  19 Now, there's nothing, when you take that sentence  20 that I have put to you in the context of the  21 paragraph, there's nothing that suggests there was  22 anything impeding Dr. Garfield that if she meant it  23 was the -- that Legaik started to monopolize in 1830,  24 she would have said it?  25 MR. WILLMS:  I object.  That's argument, my lord, and I don't  26 think that's a question.  That's argument.  2 7    MR. GRANT:  28 Q   Can you find anything in that paragraph that suggests  29 she means earlier than 1836 that Legaik commenced to  30 monopolize the trade?  31 A  Well, to me the phrase "as early as" suggests that the  32 first records that she's referring to are for 1836,  33 but that she's not excluding the possibility that this  34 trade was initiated earlier.  And as for her  35 references to the Work journals, it seems that that's  36 what she's done, that she's referred to something she  37 has some concrete information for, but has not  38 discounted the possibility that there might be earlier  39 antecedents.  40 Q   The first part of your footnote A is:  41  42 "The demand for pelts was undoubtedly a factor  43 which accelerated movement of Nass and Skeena  44 River people to the coast where they were able  45 to participate in the catch and the foreign  46 trade goods."  47 22087  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Now, this reference here is to the sea otter  2 trade, isn't it?  3 A   Yes.  And she might also be referring to the  4 protohistoric if she's taking into account the last  5 quarter century because the first commercial voyages  6 started a good decade later. If she's referring to  7 Perez, who was on the Queen Charlottes in 1774, then  8 yes, that would refer to the maritime fur trade era.  9 Q   Well, once again go to page 7 of her report, tab 5?  10 A   Her report?  11 Q   Her treatise.  12 A   Yes.  13 Q   "Early contact with Europeans".  14  15 "The exploration and maritime fur trade of the  16 last quarter of the eighteenth century did not  17 touch the Tsimshians as directly as it did the  18 Tlingit and Haida, however, the demand for  19 pelts was undoubtedly a factor which  20 accelerated movement of Nass and Skeena River  21 people to the coast where they were able to  22 participate in the catch and the foreign trade  23 goods."  24  25 Now, she is there talking about the -- she is  26 referring to the last quarter of the 18th century but,  27 as you've described, the maritime fur trade commenced  28 in 1786?  29 A   But I hadn't realized, and without referring to this,  30 that she's called it "the exploration and maritime fur  31 trade", and in that sense Perez' voyage, the Spanish  32 voyage in 1774, would probably be the starting point  33 that she's referring to there.  34 Q   But the demand for pelts, which was the factor that  35 she refers to, would have commenced with the maritime  36 fur trade, right?  There was not a demand --  37 A  Well, Cook's voyage was ostensibly a voyage of  38 exploration and yet we know that Cook had picked up  39 sea otter first, which were traded, so --  40 Q   Incidentally. He picked those up incidentally?  41 A   They certainly weren't incidental to the seamen who  42 had collected the pelts.  43 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, my friend should let the witness complete  44 an answer when she's started without interrupting.  4 5    MR. GRANT:  46 Q   Go ahead.  Did you have something more to say?  47 A   Not now. 220?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   Cook -- the whole -- I think you've described this in  2 evidence that Cook -- one of his men picked up sea  3 otter furs when they were on the coast and they  4 discovered when they went to China the value of those  5 sea otter furs in the trade, that's my recollection;  6 is that right?  7 A   Yes.  8 Q   You would agree with respect to footnote A that the  9 demand for sea otter furs did not have -- did not have  10 a direct impact on territorial acquisition in Gitksan  11 and Wet'suwet'en country, right?  12 A   I'm not sure I understand your question.  I wonder if  13 you could state it one more time, please.  14 Q   There was a demand for sea otter furs?  15 A   Yes.  16 Q   That demand for sea otter furs did not have a direct  17 impact on the territorial acquisitions of Gitksan and  18 Wet'suwet'en people did it?  19 A   The direct demand for sea otter furs probably did not.  20 Q   The demand for sea otter furs would not have a direct  21 impact on the clear delineation of territories and  22 rights of resource use among the Gitksan and  23 Wet'suwet'en would it?  24 A   Directly, no.  Indirectly, yes.  25 Q   What is the source of your -- that opinion?  26 A   That is my opinion based on my knowledge of wealth  27 exchange in the area and how that appears to have  28 changed in the protohistoric and early post-contact  2 9 times.  30 Q   And you have no other source for that?  31 A   Specifically for the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en area,  32 no.  33 Q   Okay.  Going to the top of page 7 just before the  34 early contacts with Europeans on -- in Garfield, and  35 this is just before your quote, your -- this is a  36 quote you make in footnote 5 A, Garfield says, and  37 this is after a discussion of language, okay, you  38 recall she was talking about language of the  39 Tsimshian?  40 A   I'm not sure where specifically.  On page 6 at the  41 bottom?  42 Q   Yes.  You can see it's -- the first sentence of that  43 paragraph sets out what she's talking about.  44  45 "In a consideration of the Tsimshian and their  46 place in the north-west coast area, language is  47 a factor of prime importance." 22089  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 then she goes and discusses things about language.  And then she says at the last sentence:  "Whatever its affiliations prove to be,  Tsimshian as now known developed over a period  of several hundred years in the area bounded by  the Nass and Skeena Rivers, and it cannot be  considered as a recent phenomenon."  Now, you have no reason to dispute that do you?  A   Not specifically, no.  Q   You, with respect to Garfield, if we look at the  bibliography to "The Tsimshian and Their Arts", this  treatise, that is your -- one of your sources, she  does not cite or refer to the historical material such  as Governor George Simpson's report or William Brown's  report does she?  A   I don't know.  I'm going to have to have a look.  No,  it does not appear that she does in this list.  MR. GRANT:   Okay.  Now, I'd like to — you recall yesterday,  and you can go back to tab 33 if you're worried about  forgetting, that Simpson talks at page 22 of his  report, tab 33 of the black book --  MR. WILLMS:  What page?  MR. GRANT:  Page 22.  Do you have that, my lord?  THE COURT:  Yes.  MR. GRANT:  It's tab 33.  THE COURT:  Yes.  MR. GRANT:  That, in talking about the Babine:  "Their country is very mountainous and poor, as  are the hunting grounds of all the Indians who  visit the establishment, but it is expected  that trade will improve as their supplies  become more in demand."  And at page 243 --  THE COURT:  He's talking about the Babine tribe?  MR. GRANT:  Q   Yes, he's talking here about Babine Post and the  Indians -- you can see the Indians from Simpson River.  He says:  "The Babine Post was established in the year  1822 and yields 15 packs of 1300 pounds and is  frequented by another branch of the Carrier 22090  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.  MR.  MR.  THE  MR.  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  tribe and a few Indians from Simpson River,  about a hundred in all."  And then he says:  "The Babine tribe occupy the country 60 miles to  the northward of the post."  Now, just comparing that with -- page 22 with  Garfield's comments on page 7, she mentions the Babine  Post as being established in 1836, and in 1829  Governor Simpson refers to the Babine Post as being  established in 1822.  You would agree with me that it  appears that she probably did not have reference to  Governor Simpson's report or she would not have made  that —  A   Yes, I noticed it was a strange date and I was  wondering if she was referring to another  establishment of a building or another post within the  area.  I'm not sure on that one.  WILLMS:  There were two, my lord, on Babine, one at 1823 I  think and then the later one in 1836, which is the one  that I think Garfield's referring to.  GRANT:  Well, I'm glad Mr. Willms can refer to — read Dr.  Garfield's mind.  WILLMS:  I just like to help my friend.  COURT:  You say the two posts.  One was 1823.  WILLMS:  I believe the original Fort Kilmaurs was 1823 and  it was further south down the lake and then the one  further north was around 1836, I believe, '35 or '36.  GRANT:  The earlier one I think is 1822 in the evidence.  COURT:  Well, it says here 1822.  GRANT:  Yes, and that's written by the Governor Simpson, the  governor of the Hudson's Bay Company in 1829.  You think he should know.  COURT  GRANT  Q  A  THE COURT  MR  GRANT:  Q  I think he probably knew in 1829.  I think there's sometimes some confusion, if I could  put in my two cents' worth, of when forts are  established and when some of the major buildings are  constructed.  Yes.  Well, it's within a year so we won't quibble  about it will we.  On page -- in any event, I'd refer you to footnote 5  on page 49 of your report, and there you see: 22091  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  A  12  13  14  Q  15  16  A  17  MR.  GRANT  18  THE  COURT  19  MR.  GRANT  20  THE  COURT  21  22  MR.  GRANT  23  THE  COURT  24  MR.  GRANT  25  THE  COURT  26  27  MR.  GRANT  28  Q  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  A  37  Q  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  "During the days of the fur trade when Chief  Legaik of Fort Simpson held a trade monopoly  with the Hudson's Bay Company, the Kitselas  were forbidden to descend below their canyon  territories."  Now, you know what Fort Simpson Dr. Garfield --  I'm sorry, Inglis and MacDonald are referring to  there, don't you, or do you?  You know about Fort  Simpson don't you?  Well, I'm assuming that he's referring to -- or  they're referring to the second post, not Simpson on  the Nass.  And that post was established I believe in 1831 or do  you recall?  I think that's correct.  So —  No one has ever been able to tell me where it was.  There are two Fort Simpsons.  I have assumed it was somewhere north of Prince  Rupert, but I don't know where.  Yes.  North of the present location of Prince Rupert.  This isn't helpful because this goes to 1825.  Well, I think I can live with the fact that it's  somewhere near but north of the present Prince Rupert.  My recollection is that it is between the south of the  mouth of the Nass but north of Prince Rupert, so it's  in that area.  Now, what she's talking -- what Inglis and  MacDonald, I'm sorry, in footnote B are talking about  then when they say "when Chief Legaik of Fort Simpson  held a trade monopoly with the Hudson's Bay Company",  they are talking about post 1831 aren't they?  Yes.  Footnote 5 C on page 50 says:  "For the Carrier the protohistoric period was a  time of increased commerce with the coast and  was perhaps the time when coastal forms were  adopted."  And there you refer to Cranny of '86 citing Hudson  of '72 and Goldman of '40 and Steward of '79 and  Bishop of '79.  I take it you took your quote from  Cranny, but he was referring to these other sources? 22092  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 A   Yes.  2 Q   You would agree that when he says "and was perhaps the  3 time when coastal forms were adopted" he's being  4 tentative?  5 A   Yes, but I believe he's being more than tentative in  6 the sense that not only has Cranny done research that  7 corroborates with this general impression, but so have  8 the other authors he cites there, and so for the whole  9 region have people all the way from McClellan, de  10 Laguna, Oberg, Krause, Bishop, Jenness, Morice, Tobey,  11 and so on.  12 Q   Well —  13 A   So in supporting this proposition, Cranny is not just  14 relying on his own, so I'd say it's more than  15 tentative.  16 Q   Cranny himself is carefully saying "and was perhaps  17 the time when coastal forms were adapted", you agree  18 with me that's an accurate quote?  19 A   Yes.  20 Q   He's saying -- he's citing Hudson?  21 A   Yes.  22 Q   Goldman?  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   Steward and Bishop?  What independent research did  25 Cranny do to support that statement or is he relying  26 on these other writers?  27 A   He's relying to some extent on those other writers and  28 he's also relying on his own opinion which was  29 generated from a broader reading than is simply  30 indicated by these three or four supporting citations.  31 What he's drawing attention there is to particular  32 passages in those writers' works which concur with  33 that statement or --  34 Q   Yes.  35 A   Or accord with that statement.  36 Q   And if his broader general reading -- if his broader  37 general reading had given him other specific  38 references in support of that proposition, it would  39 have been reasonable for him to cite those as well?  40 A   Not necessarily.  41 Q   Well, he certainly -- he cites four?  42 A   Yes, I think that's good enough.  43 Q   And he was -- it's good enough for you?  44 A   In this context, yes.  45 Q   And this was an unpublished Master's thesis on the  46 Chinlac/Cluzculz local lake area of central British  47 Columbia? 22093  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  A  2  Q  3  4  A  5  Q  6  7  A  8  9  Q  10  A  11  Q  12  13  14  15  16  A  17  18  19  Q  20  21  A  22  Q  23  A  24  Q  25  A  26  27  Q  28  A  29  30  THE  COURT  31  MR.  GRANT  32  33  THE  COURT  34  35  MR.  GRANT  36  37  38  39  40  41  THE  REGIS1  42  THE  COURT  43  THE  REGIS1  44  45  46  47  MR.  GRANT  Yes.  And that was the focus of his research was the  Chinlac/Cluzculz area?  Yes.  Cluzculz is C-1-u-z-c-u-l-z.  And Hudson I believe, if  I recall rightly, is another unpublished thesis?  Yes.  I'm not sure if that date refers to his Master's  or his Ph.D..  Perhaps we can check that.  Well, the only one you've cited is his Master's?  Yes.  That's the only source you've cited.  And we've  already discussed Goldman and the Alkatcho area, so  let us look at Steward.  Now, Steward was an  ethnologist, wasn't he?  I think you described him  that way when we went through your bibliography?  Gee, I wish I remembered exactly how I described him  when we went through my bibliography, but yes,  ethnologist will do.  And he did not do any field work among the  Wet'suwet'en did he?  Specifically, no.  He did his field work with the Stuart Lake Carrier?  I think we already discussed that.  In the summer of 1940, right?  I believe so.  I don't have an offhand recollection of  the date when he did his field work.  Okay.  Sorry, we're going to try to get it jammed into the  binder here.  :  Your book runneth over, Mr. Grant.  :  My book runneth over.  I'll bring up another volume,  my lord.  :  You've got room for one more and then you're  finished I suppose so that would be the 43rd tab.  :  Well, I'll cut out pages from the next excerpt, my  lord.  If you look at Steward's article "Carrier  Acculturation, The Direct Historical Approach".  This  and I'd  by the way, my lord, is also Exhibit 811-1?  ask that it be marked as Exhibit 1991.  ?RAR: Yes.  Yes.  ?RAR: 1191.  (EXHIBIT 1191-41: Steward - "Carrier Acculturation") 22094  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  Q  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  A  16  17  Q  18  19  A  20  Q  21  22  A  23  Q  24  A  25  Q  26  27  28  A  29  MR. GRANT  30  THE COURT  31  MR. GRANT  32  Q  33  34  A  35  Q  36  37  A  38  Q  39  40  A  41  Q  42  43  44  45  46  47  1191, thank you, 41. Page -- the first page of it,  which is actually page 732, you read the top there,  Julian Steward writes:  "In 1940 there were 1,666 Carrier Indians on 23  reserves scattered in the general area of  Stuart and Babine Lake. The population of the  reserves ranged from 5 at Blackwater to 257 at  Fort St. James on Stuart Lake, where the  present research was carried out."  So having -- I've given that to you so you can  refresh your memory that that's where he did his  research in 1940.  It doesn't say that in the opening sentences, but  that's where he carried out his research.  Now, you relied on his -- this study, that is, as one  of your sources?  Yes.  Did you examine his field notes at the Smithsonian  Institute?  Not in the preparation of this opinion.  Have you looked at his field notes since?  I'm not sure.  Would you not agree that without looking at his raw  data, there's no way of reliably assessing for  yourself his conclusions about the eastern Carrier?  No, I don't believe that.  Can you refer to tab 27?  I'm sorry, what tab.  Tab 27, page 414.  Have you seen the discussion by  Dyen and Aberle of Steward before now?  Yes, I have.  And have you considered that at all in your reliance  on Steward?  Not in the preparation of the opinion report.  Not in the development of your opinions for this  report?  Not specifically this passage, no.  They state about Steward that Steward -- they --  "Steward's view was like that of Goldman, in  that he saw the matrilineality of the Carrier  as something superimposed on either patrilineal  or bilateral bands, but unlike Goldman, he  believed that the band was integrated by 22095  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 cross-cousin marriage.  He also held that the  2 Sekani had attempted to borrow matrilineal  3 institutions from farther west but had largely  4 failed."  5  6 They then go on to say:  7  8 "There is thus little to say little about  9 Steward's view that has not already been  10 mentioned.  For reasons related to our lexical  11 reconstruction, we agree with Steward that the  12 early Carrier probably had cross-cousin  13 marriage.  We find no reason to attribute to  14 the early Carrier a patrilineal band.  We admit  15 the possibility of bilaterality, but believe  16 that matrilineality was more likely to have  17 been a feature of early Carrier social  18 organization.  We agree that there was  19 extensive Northwest Coast impact on the  20 Carrier, and that the Sekani may well have been  21 bilateral prior to the recent increased impact  22 of Northwest Coast culture."  23  24 You haven't taken these comments into account in  25 your analysis or critique of Steward?  26 A   Specifically no, and I don't recall offhand.  Perhaps  27 you can fill us in on what are the reasons related to  28 "our lexical reconstruction and previously discussed".  29 I'm not sure what those bases are that they've  30 mentioned here.  31 Q   You have no sources or information which would lead  32 you to dispute or challenge Dyen and Aberle's  33 assessment of Steward, do you?  34 A   Not without some reflection on the issues and the  35 specific issues, and this is kind of a strange  36 paragraph to comment on because they talk about  37 reasons related to "our lexical reconstruction and  38 previously discussed" to which there's no direct  39 reference made, and I'm not quite clear on what those  40 are.  I don't have a recall, a perfect recall, of what  41 those reasons are.  42 Q   You referred in this footnote to Hudson as well at  43 page 50, footnote C.  You are aware that Hudson as  44 well studied the Stuart Lake Carrier aren't you?  45 A   Yes.  Although I can't say whether or not that was a  46 specific focus of his study.  47 Q   You're not aware from your recall of his dissertation 22096  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 that his field work was among the Stuart Lake Carrier?  2 A   Not specifically, no.  3 Q   Are you aware that he documented the perseverance of  4 the feast institution among the Stuart Lake Carrier  5 today in his dissertation?  6 A   I don't have a specific recollection of that.  7 Q   You don't recall that.  Okay.  Can you look at  8 footnote G on page 50?  Do you agree with what  9 Davidson is saying here for "after Emmons", is that:  10  11 "The Gitksan on the upper Skeena were prevented  12 by the Tsimshian tribes from coming down river  13 to trade with the Hudson's Bay Company but this  14 was probably only a continuance of measures  15 that had been taken before contact to keep  16 inland tribes from encroaching on their  17 territory."  18  19 You agree with that statement don't you?  20 A   I'm not sure.  I would say, with some hindsight, and I  21 don't think it alters the general opinions of the  22 report, that Emmons -- if Emmons is Davidson's only  23 reference to that, I can't remember exactly how Emmons  24 phrased this, and I'm not sure in hindsight if I would  25 agree with that entirely without referring to what  26 Emmons had to say about it.  27 Q   But at the time you prepared your report, you not only  28 agreed with it, but you thought it was important  29 enough to specifically reference it in support of your  30 own opinions, right?  31 A   Support of one specific thing that was mentioned which  32 was --  33 Q   Paragraph 5?  34 A   -- relating to the protohistoric and early historic  35 coast interior relations.  36 Q   Paragraph 5?  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   You haven't done further research to question what  39 Davidson says there since then have you?  40 A  Well, having recently reviewed Mitchell's article on  41 Legaik and on the chiefdom chiefs and tribal chiefs, I  42 think Mitchell has shown us that a very careful  43 scrutiny of the Fort Simpson journals and John Work's  44 material might challenge some of these generalities  45 such as Davidson offers here, in that we'd have to go  46 back to those journals specifically to see that the  47 records of the Hudson's Bay specifically mention that 22097  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  Q  5  A  6  7  Q  8  9  10  11  12  13  A  14  15  16  MR.  GRANT:  17  MR.  WILLMS  18  MR.  GRANT:  19  THE  COURT:  20  MR.  GRANT:  21  THE  COURT:  22  23  24  MR.  GRANT:  25  Q  26  27  28  A  29  30  Q  31  A  32  Q  33  A  34  Q  35  36  37  38  39  40  A  41  Q  42  43  44  A  45  Q  46  47  the Gitksan were prevented, because prevented suggests  something that may not be borne out by those historic  records.  But you haven't gone back to those journals have you?  Specifically for that question, no.  For other  matters, yes.  You're aware that -- you don't disagree with the last  part of that statement where Davidson says "a  continuance of measures that had been taken before  contact to keep inland tribes from encroaching on  their territory"?  You rely on that in support of your  opinion don't you?  I'm sorry, you asked me two questions there.  I'm not  quite sure.  Rephrase them so I know whether to answer  yes's or no's.  Well, that would be refreshing.  :  My lord, I object to that.  That's uncalled for.  You said --  Well —  I'm sorry.  It's not a question that I can deal with.  It's  not -- it doesn't seem to me that there's anything I  can respond to it.  You said -- you not only cite Davidson, but here you  quote him in support of your proposition in paragraph  5 A?  Yes.  Yes, and I don't dispute that it could well have  been a continuance of measures --  Right.  -- from an earlier era.  Thank you.  You've answered both questions.  Thank you.  5 I on page 51.  Once again, you are here relying on  Garfield in 5 I and J, and if you go to tab 5 of the  white book, I just want you to confirm with me that  what you are again referring to here at page 3 is  Garfield's preface.  Do you have it?  She starts  "Before the maritime fur trade".  Yes.  And once again, she cites no sources in support of  that proposition that you quote there, does she?  She  doesn't footnote any sources is what I mean.  No, she doesn't.  We've discussed that earlier.  Right.  Right.  And your -- the best you can say about  that is that she implies something there, and that's  your suggestion that she "implies that it was after 2209?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Europeans stimulated native exchange that interior  2 groups began to become like coastal populations."?  3 That's your interpretation of her statement?  4 A   No, not entirely, and I think that a point I was being  5 hesitant about is that many of the footnotes that are  6 associated with particular paragraphs relate to the  7 argument, but are not necessarily my opinion in the  8 footnotes as much as points that relate to the  9 opinions suggested.  So if there are slight variations  10 between what Garfield might state and MacDonald might  11 state, I'm bringing them both into play.  12 Q   The statement "Garfield implies that it was after  13 Europeans stimulated native exchange that interior  14 groups began to become like coastal populations:" is  15 your statement?  16 A   No, it's Garfield's statement.  17 Q   I'm reading your footnote.  18 A   I'm saying Garfield implies that.  I'm not saying it's  19 my opinion that I agree with or disagree with Garfield  20 as much as I'm making a record here of what Garfield  21 had to say about this business.  I don't know very  22 much about the Nishga coming down river to the coast,  23 and to that extent I'm relying on what Garfield had to  24 say about it, but I'm making it clear that this is  25 what Garfield is stating.  26 Q   Well, the way to make it clear what Garfield is  27 stating is to do what you did in the last half of the  28 footnote, right, you quote her, and it's there for us  29 all to read and understand.  I understand that.  30 A   Yes.  31 Q   But the first part of that footnote "Garfield implies"  32 is your commentary on her quote?  33 A   Oh, I see the word "implies".  If I had said "Garfield  34 states" it would have been different.  35 Q   "Garfield states:"  36 A   Oh, I see.  37 Q   And then put the quote.  38 A  Well, thank you for your editorial suggestion, but yes  39 it seemed to me that that was an implication she was  4 0              making or drawing.  41 Q   Well, let's look at page 3 of tab 5, and it's also in  42 tab 40 of the black book if that's easier by the way.  43 And she states in the last paragraph:  44  45 "Most of the literature on the Tsimshian  46 pertains to the villages of the lower Skeena  47 River and coast and much of our knowledge of 22099  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  A  29  Q  30  31  A  32  33  34  Q  35  A  36  37  MR.  GRANT  38  39  40  41  THE  COURT  42  MR.  GRANT  43  THE  COURT  44  MR.  GRANT  45  THE  COURT  46  MR.  GRANT  47  THE  COURT  them has been extracted from myths and tales.  There are brief papers on coast Tsimshian and  Nishga social organization but next to nothing  on Nishga material culture, economy, or  political structure.  Before the maritime fur  trade drew the Nishga down the river to the  coast, there must have been significant  differences between the tribesmen of the lower  river and those who roamed the mountainous  regions bordering the upper Nass.  There is  almost nothing in the literature about the  Kitkatlas, the most southerly tribe.  The Fort  Simpson people regard them as the most  conservative of all Tsimshian groups who  preserve the rank and prestige system and many  elements of potlatching, hereditary  chieftainship, and contractual marriage."  What I'm saying is that when you put that comment  at footnote I, this is your statement:  "Garfield implies that it was after Europeans  stimulated native exchange that interior groups  began to become like the coastal populations:"  That's your own interpretation of her statement,  that's not her statement?  Yes.  Do you agree that Garfield held that matrilineality  was probably an old Athapaskan cultural feature?  I'm not sure, and again I'd like to refer to the  bibliography in my Ph.D. where I make reference to  another study by Garfield --  Okay.  -- where she deals specifically with moieties and  matriliny and so on.  :   Okay.  Well, let me refer you to -- this next  extract can go in at tab 27.  It's part -- page 387 of  Dyen and Aberle.  It would be right after the cover  page.  What does "PM" stand for?  Sorry?  What does P --  PA?  "PA" and "PM".  PA is proto-Athabaskan.  Oh, yes. 22100  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  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  Q  A  Q  A  And I think PM is proto-Nedanic.  I see.  It was one way to shorten the book by putting PA  wherever they could.  The second paragraph or the first full paragraph  on page 387 Dyen and Aberle refer to Garfield and  state:  "Garfield (1953) held that matrilineality was  probably an old Athapaskan cultural feature and  probably involved clans originally rather than  moieties, a later development.  Her position  was essentially that matrilineality is a  recurrently possible development in human  cultural life.  She regarded matrilineality as  having an Asian origin, but saw it as worked  out in different forms by Athapaskans and  Northwest Coast cultures.  Unfortunately the  steps by which she reached her conclusion are  not presented in sufficient detail to permit a  thorough critique.  Her work challenged Olson's  view that matrilineality was so anomalous as to  have been invented only once, but in  maintaining that the idea of matrilineality was  borrowed from Asia she was following Olson.  The principal difference is that for her  moities were not prototypical, whereas they  were for Olson."  Now, do you agree -- I've read you the whole  paragraph where Dyen and Aberle deal with Garfield,  but do you agree that Garfield did hold that  matrilineality was probably an old Athapaskan cultural  feature?  I would like to know what the Garfield 1953 reference  is to, and I'd also like to know which Olson is being  referred to here --  Well —  -- in the sense that Dyen and Aberle seemed to be  pretty thorough in their summaries of other peoples'  writings and I'd say we're probably safe to agree, but  it's hard without reference to what the materials are.  Okay.  Garfield 1953 is "Possibilities of Genetic  Relationships in Northern Pacific Moiety Structure,  the Society for American Archaeology Memoir Number 9,"  pages 58 to 61. 22101  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 A  And Olson?  2 Q   I'm sorry?  3 A  And here it says her work challenged Olson's view.  4 I'm not sure who the Olson reference is.  5 Q   Yes, I'm not really interested in Olson, but if you  6 want to know who Olson -- just a moment.  I'll get you  7 that.  There's a couple of references I'll get to you.  8 Footnote 5 K is a repetition of footnote 5 C,  9 isn't it?  10 A   I'm not sure.  11 Q   Well, it appears to me exactly the same and it's under  12 the same paragraph?  13 A   Let's see.  It probably is.  14 Q   Okay.  15 A   Yes.  16 Q   Footnote 5 Q and R.  Here's where you rely on  17 McClellan, 1975, in these two footnotes.  And as  18 you've quite correctly pointed out at the top,  19 McClellan is here dealing with the southern Tuchone,  20 the Tagish, and the inland Tlingit, isn't she?  21 A   Yes.  22 Q   You rely on Hackler in paragraph footnote 5 S, but  23 Hackler is again reiterating Goldman in 1941, isn't  24 he, and he relies on Goldman for that proposition in  25 the first sentence?  26 A  Well, again, you're using the word rely and I would  27 say that he's using Goldman for support for part of  28 his own discussion, I imagine, so I'm not really clear  29 what the distinction is between Goldman here and  30 Hackler.  31 Q   Well, your footnote --  32 A   But I'm saying here that Hackler says this, and  33 Goldman he's citing in support.  34 Q   You say "Babine Lake Carrier adopted coastal traits.  35 Hackler 1958." By the way, that's -- Hackler is again  36 a Master's thesis out of San Jose State College, isn't  37 it, an unpublished --  38 A   I'll have to check and see.  39 Q   That's what your bibliography says?  40 A   Yes.  41 Q   It's an unpublished dissertation?  42 A   I believe so.  43 Q   "Hackler 1958, 36-7, after Goldman 1941".  Now, that's  44 your footnote.  My reading of that is that Hackler,  45 with respect to that statement that you're referring  46 to, is relying on Goldman, and following Goldman,  47 isn't that what you mean by "after Goldman 1941"? 22102  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 A   Yes, but if there wasn't some reason within the  2 context of Hackler's own opinion to support that as  3 well, then there would have -- there would have been  4 no reason to cite him separately because I have  5 already cited Goldman.  6 Q   Well, you've cited Goldman over and over?  7 A   Yes.  8 Q   And you cite Hackler following Goldman?  9 A   Yes.  10 Q   And you cite numerous people after other people?  11 A   Yes.  12 Q   Are you saying every time you have it such, as Hackler  13 after Goldman, that means that Hackler is saying  14 something different than Goldman?  15 A   It could be in the broader context of the study.  16 Q   You can't remember?  17 A   Not specifically, no.  18 Q   Well, it certainly assists increasing the number of  19 footnotes.  20 You agree that Hackler's thesis is over 30 years  21 old?  22 A   1958, yes, 31.  23 Q   You agree that he did his field work at Babine in 1956  24 as referenced in his thesis?  25 A   I don't remember offhand, but if that's what you've  26 determined, I'm sure that's correct.  27 Q   And he's talking about the Babine Indians in Lake  28 Babine in his dissertation?  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   His thesis, I should say.  31 A   Yes.  32 Q   Then you quote Hackler at page 53 where he says:  33  34 "The Babines were probably not borrowing a  35 complete institution from the coast but instead  36 were formalizing the way in which wealth could  37 be displayed and other basic functions could  38 best be served."  39  40 You would agree with me that when he uses the term  41 "probably" he's speculating there?  42 A   I'm sorry, I'm looking for page 53 you said.  43 Q   Page 55, footnote S.  It's your site of Hackler, 55, 5  44 S?  45 A   Yes.  46 Q   Same citation, the quote:  47 22103  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 Babines were probably not borrowing a  complete institution from the coast."  The use of the term "probably", does that not  indicate to you some level of questioning or  speculation?  A   Yes.  Q   In footnote T you again rely on Hackler where he says:  "The general thesis of the rest of this paper is  that the fur trade, the Catholic Church, and  the removal of fishing barricades near Fort  Babine, were the major factors which  contributed to dramatic changes in the way that  the Indians worked with their environment."  Hackler does not refer to disease there, does he,  and he doesn't refer to disease in his report?  A   Oh, I don't know if he does in the rest of the report,  certainly not in this sentence here.  Q   His M.A. thesis.  And Hackler didn't rely on the  Hudson's Bay material did he?  I'm referring here to  Brown.  A   I can't remember without reference to his bibliography  and to the rest of his report.  Q   5 U, at the bottom of that page.  Here you're  referring to Allen, and I believe that Allen is  another Master's thesis on Athapaskan matriliny and  trade in Canada and Alaska, and once again this thesis  is 20 years old and has remained unpublished; is that  right, almost 20 years old?  A   I don't know if Allen has done subsequent work.  Q   This thesis has --  A   I don't know if it's been published.  Q   -- has not been published?  A   I don't know.  Perhaps you've determined that.  Q   I'm relying on your references.  I'm sure if you had a  published source you would have cited it?  A   I didn't have a published reference for Allen when I  wrote this report.  THE COURT: Shall we take the afternoon adjournment, Mr. Grant?  MR. GRANT:  Certainly.  THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court. Court stands adjourned for a  short recess. 22104  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR THE AFTERNOON RECESS)  3  4  5 I hereby certify the foregoing to  6 be a true and accurate transcript  7 of the proceedings herein to the  8 best of my skill and ability.  9  10    11 Tanita S. French  12 Official Reporter  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 22105  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 REGISTRAR:  (PROCEEDINGS RECOMMENCED AFTER RECESS)  Order in court.  THE COURT:  MR. GRANT:  Q  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  Q  Mr. Grant.  Dr. Robinson, I am a little confused about your  explanation of footnotes to me, and I would like to  refer you to volume 288, page 21600 and 21601.  If  your counsel has a clean copy to give you.  21601?  21600.  Yes.  This was where Mr. Willms was having you explain how  your report worked.  And at line 24 you said -- or Mr.  Willms I should say said:  "Q   And to find the footnote note reference with  respect to page 1 through 5, and beside 1 is  the reference support for the propositions you  are stating in your report?  A   Yes."  Line 47.  This is with respect to part II  of the report.  "Q  A  Q  A  Q  And then if you want to find the reference,  the support reference in Part II, the  references are referenced paragraph number by  paragraph number with lettered subparagraphs?  Yes.  So that if we're looking in your Part II for  the support for the propositiosn that you are  making in paragraph 1 of page 5 of your report,  those references run from page 31 through to  page 35, and you have lettered them 'a' through  ' 1' ?  Yes.  So that if I can call it a road map through  understanding how your reports, Part I and II,  match, as you carry on through your report  paragraph number by number you can look at Part  II and there will be a reference to the  paragraph number?  For example, on page 36 of  Part II of the report you start your references  that support paragraph 2 of Part I of the  report? 22106  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 A   Yes, that's right."  2  3 Mr. Willms was explaining how your report was  4 broken up, and Mr. Willms in that explanation, to  5 which you agreed, stated that the footnotes support  6 the paragraphs.  Now, that's how I read this -- your  7 explanation of your footnotes.  But, doctor, today you  8 have been saying "Oh, that doesn't mean that that  9 supports what I am saying, when I have given you  10 specific footnotes".  Are you changing what you have  11 explained to Mr. Willms now?  12 A   I am going to review this first, because you went  13 through that very quickly.  I would like to be clear  14 in my own mind what I did say in my exchange with Mr.  15 Willms, and then I will answer your questions.  I  16 think it's not that terribly different.  But you were  17 starting, I think, at line 24 on page?  18 Q   Line 24 through to 27 on page 21600.  That's the first  19 reference.  Just read that question and answer.  2 0 A   Thank you.  21 Q   Now, then 47, going to the next page, line 1, and I  22 read right down to line 9.  23 A   47?  24 Q   Line 47 on 21600, very bottom line, going down on  25 21601, I should say, to line 19.  26 MR. WILLMS:  It also may help the witness, My Lord.  The  27 discussion does carry on at the bottom of the page and  28 over the top of the next page as well.  29 MR. GRANT:  Yes.  If the witness needs that help, I have no  30 problem with that.  Line 45 on 21601, which Mr. Willms  31 has just referred to:  32  33 "Q   But if you looked in Part II of your report  34 from pages 36 to 47, you would find the  35 material that you rely on in support of the  36 propositions that you make in paragraph 2,  37 pages 5 and 6 at Part I of your report?  38 A   Yes. "  39  4 0 You have had a chance to read that now?  41 A   Not really.  I have been confused with you speaking  42 through it.  I will just take a minute.  But I would  43 like to at least read through this section please.  44 A   Yes.  Now -- and your question which had to be with  45 your being confused about the way I was using them,  46 I'm not quite sure how that relates to this.  I have  47 now had a chance to read this. 22107  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   Do your footnotes support your opinions?  2 A  Most of the time they support my opinions.  There is  3 some slight variations in the way different authors  4 have expressed ideas that relate to the ideas  5 expressed in my opinions.  Where that variation is  6 apparent to you, and you have been pulling out  7 contradictions, are those passages where I saw that it  8 connected with or was related to the opinion I was  9 expressing in the first part of the report, but I  10 didn't expect absolute hundred percent consistency in  11 those views expressed.  So they support, in general,  12 yes.  There are slight variations in expression of  13 those support statements.  14 Q   Do you rely on Part II of your report to support the  15 propositions you set out in Part I of your report?  16 A   No, I wouldn't call it reliance as much as the  17 statements in Part II are supporting information for  18 the proposition set out in Part I.  They are not the  19 only references I could bring to bear on those  20 particular opinion statements in Part I of the report.  21 Q   They are the best effort you made to prepare a report  22 in support of the propositions in Part I?  23 A   Yes, they are the best effort I made.  They are not  24 exhaustive.  25 Q   And you haven't amended your report since '87?  2 6 A   I have not.  27 Q   Can you go to footnote V on page 56.  Let me ask you  28 this.  How is one to tell which of your footnotes are  29 supportive of your propositions and which ones aren't?  30 Do you comment on the ones that are supportive and the  31 ones that are not in Part II of your report?  32 A   I comment on some of them.  The other I leave to the  33 discretion of the reader.  34 Q   You assume that the reader can go through Part II and  35 figure out what you agree with and what you don't  36 agree with?  37 A   I assume that the reader can read through the  38 arguments, as expressed in the opinion report, and  39 judge for him or herself the extent to which these  40 statements in the back are supportive of those  41 opinions expressed in Part I.  42 Q   But you put your best foot forward and put together  43 the best statements you could find in support of your  44 arguments in Part II, didn't you?  45 A   Yes.  And to the extent that I was not aware that I  46 would not have an opportunity to return to the report,  47 that was the best I did at that time. 2210?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   Well, let's just — at tab 17 of the book is Mr.  2 Plant's letter to you of May 4th, 1987, in which he  3 states to you -- and Mr. Plant -- there is no  4 ambiguity in what he expected.  He states:  5  6 "What I would like you to do is to provide me  7 with a final draft in a form which you are  8 completely happy with (i.e., you would have no  9 reservations about delivering it to a  10 publisher)."  11  12 Did you deliver him a report which was a final  13 draft?  14 A  Well, let's perhaps talk about constraints.  I am not  15 sure what day of the week May 4th is in that year, but  16 "You should try to get this to me by Wednesday or at  17 least Thursday of this week", meant to me that I  18 didn't have an opportunity to add an extensive list of  19 references, to perhaps integrate some other findings,  20 to check through those footnotes, to perhaps eliminate  21 any repetitions.  As you pointed out, I think it's 5C  22 and 5K are the same source.  I did the best I could by  23 the deadlines suggested here.  24 Q   But you have been working on it since the previous  25 December.  We already established that.  26 A   Not exclusively.  27 Q   Well, you have been working on it since the previous  28 December.  29 A   Not exclusively.  Yes, off and on.  30 Q   Did you provide him with a final draft?  You did,  31 right?  32 A   I believe so.  33 Q   And did you provide him a draft in which you had no  34 reservations about delivering it to a publisher?  35 A   Yes.  Because I would expect that in the process by  36 which you submit a draft to a publisher, one has the  37 opportunity to make amendments, suggestions, small  38 revisions and that sort of thing, if necessary.  39 However, I stand by the opinion that was expressed in  40 that report, and I feel that the footnotes in Part II  41 of it do provide good sound supportive evidence.  42 Q   For your opinions?  43 A   Yes, I do.  44 Q   Did you advise Mr. Plant at any time between May 4th  45 and May 11th that there were further additions that  46 you wanted to put into it?  47 A   No, I did not. 22109  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   Okay.  Footnote 5 V, page 56.  McClellan again.  2  3 "Intermarriage between Tlingits and interior  4 Athapaskans seem to date largely from the  5 mid-nineteenth century."  6  7 Allen after McClellan.  8  9 "W.  Most likely it was Tlingit women marrying  10 Southern Tutchone men than vice versa."  11  12 Allen after McClellan.  Neither of these footnotes  13 is referring to the Wet'suwet'en, is it?  14 A   No, it is not.  Or they are not.  15 Q   Page 7 of your report you state in paragraph six:  16  17 "The extension of territorial holdings in  18 northerly and southerly directions along  19 previously established trade routes  20 characterized the Kitwankul's and other Gitksan  21 village groups' ..."  22  23 And I emphasize here, because this is what I want  24 you to keep your mind on.  25  26 "... aggressive expansionists tendencies during  27 the protohistoric period, when they sought to  28 gain more control over lands and trade routes  29 at the expense of their neighbours."  30  31 "Aggressive expansionists tendencies", pretty  32 strong language.  What's your source for that language  33 with respect to the Kitwancool?  34 A   It's a phraseology that I've determined on the basis  35 of an extensive review of many sources, some of which  36 are referenceed in footnote 2 at the beginning.  And  37 also if we go back to some of the passages, I believe  38 MacDonald uses that kind of language as well.  39 Q   Okay.  Let's look at footnote 2.  You keep telling me  40 about footnote 2.  Beginning on page 30.  Which of  41 these authors are you relying on in support of the  42 statements of the Kitwancool and other village groups'  43 aggressive expansionist tendencies?  And I am talking  44 about the Kitwancool and other Gitksan village groups,  45 to focus the question.  46 A   For that particular phrase I find it difficult to  47 remember which of those particular references uses 22110  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 that kind of phrasing precisely.  But I would suggest  2 we get the flavor, as expressed in that paragraph from  3 MacDonald, from M.P. Robinson, from Brian Ferguson and  4 perhaps some of the others.  I can't remember offhand.  5 Q   You have talked -- M.P. Robinson doesn't talk about  6 the Kitwancool's aggressive expansionist tendencies,  7 does he?  8 A   I don't know if he does specifically.  I can't recall  9 offhand.  10 Q   He is talking about Legaix and McKinnon?  11 A  And Cuneah also.  12 Q   Those are the three he talks about?  13 A   But he doesn't confine his discussions solely to them.  14 So I am not sure if he doesn't use that phrasing.  I  15 can't remember offhand with regards to the Kitwancool.  16 Q   Well, I am asking you which of this footnote 2 --  17 A   Perhaps also Duff.  If Duff isn't mentioned there.  18 Q   Duff isn't mentioned there.  19 A   No, Duff I say — I think I did say "and others".  And  20 I would say Duff's study might also have that kind of  21 phrasing.  22 Q   You don't know where that phrasing came from?  23 A   I really don't remember specifically, no.  24 Q   Now, your support -- you don't -- under page 56 your  25 support for paragraph 6 doesn't talk about footnote 2.  26 It talks about paragraph 1, 1-A to 1-L, so --  27 A   Yes.  28 Q   So I take your report -- I look at 1-A to 1-L, and I  29 find that 1-A to D and F, footnote 1-A to D and F,  30 this is 32, 33, are all Adams.  That's Adams'  31 unpublished dissertation.  32 A   Yes.  And Jenness -- A to D?  33 Q   I am sorry, D is Jenness, yes.  So A, B and C and F  34 are Adams?  35 A   Yes.  36 Q   And G and H are Duff.  That's histories, territories  37 and laws of the Kitwancool, isn't it?  38 A   Yes.  39 Q   And I and K are MacDonald.  And that's what we have  40 been looking at.  That is "The Epic of Nekt"?  41 A   Uh-huh.  42 Q   I, J and K?  43 A   Yes.  44 Q   And footnote E and L is Maclachlan.  And Maclachlan,  45 of course, is the author who deals with the Tahltan,  46 right?  47 A   Yes, in the context of other groups, yes. 22111  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  Q  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  A  14  15  Q  16  17  A  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Q  26  A  27  28  Q  29  30  31  32  A  33  34  35  THE COURT  36  MR. GRANT  37  Q  38  A  39  Q  40  A  41  Q  42  A  43  Q  44  A  45  Q  46  A  47  What support do you have to state that extension of --  I am going back to paragraph 6:  "Extension of territorial holdings in northerly  and southerly directions along previously  established trade routes characterized the  Kitwankul's and other other Gitksan village  groups' aggressive expansionist tendencies  during the proto-historic period."  Firstly, what other Gitksan village groups are you  referring to?  First of all I would like to review those footnotes  that you have drawn my attention to.  You can't think right now of one other Gitksan village  to which that statement would apply?  Well, Adams is referring to Gitksan groups and Gitksan  boundaries in a generic sense, rather than to any  specific group.  So I was adding probably in that  paragraph, although it's hard to reconstruct three  years later, I would say that Gitksan in general is  referred to by Adams, and Kitwancool specifically by  Duff, and Kitwanga is the focus of some of MacDonald's  work.  Sorry.  What Maclachlan is referring to is movement up into  the Bear Lake area.  I don't want to stop you.  I want to be clear where we  are talking about.  You said Adams.  Which footnote of  Adams are you referring to?  Give me a footnote  number.  Can I find it?  I know you are pushing on to get things accomplished,  but I would like to have a moment to review these  footnotes in connection with that paragraph.  :  Fine.  Go ahead.  page 32?  It's on page 32?  That's fine.  Footnote B --  This is in the 1 series,  1 series.  It's out of paragraph 1.  Page 32 .  Yes .  Footnote B?  Footnote B.  Uh-huh.  Footnote A to me connects into footnote B, because it  gives some rationalization or justification for how 22112  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 the territorial boundaries did emerge.  2 Q   Okay.  3 A   Footnote C.  I haven't finished listing the ones that  4 correspond to this, as far as I can determine, where  5 he is talking about groups generically, Gitksan groups  6 generically.  Adams' opinion, expressed in footnote C,  7 lends support to what I have expressed in paragraph 6  8 on page 7 of the first part of my report.  9 Q   With respect to which group?  The Kitwancool or the  10 other Gitksan villages?  11 A   I think Adams doesn't specify who he is talking about,  12 and so I would assume it's more than one Gitksan group  13 he is referring to.  And this is probably, as I stated  14 earlier, where I am getting reference to the fact that  15 there are more than the Kitwancool involved in these  16 expansionist tendencies.  17 Paragraph D cited from Jenness is support for the  18 suggestion that territorial holdings were being driven  19 in a southerly direction, and although, as I have said  20 earlier, and you have drawn my attention to that,  21 Jenness also said that that was speculative, it still  22 lends support to the general argument that this  23 appears to have been happening in the proto-historic  24 and historic period.  25 In paragraph E, cited from Maclachlan --  26 Q   This is fur trade related migrations?  27 A   Yes.  And it's also supportive of a general  28 expansionist tendency.  This may not be  29 proto-historic, but it's supporting information in the  30 sense that it says "historic example of similar  31 phenomena can be noted".  32 Q   Uh-huh.  33 A   Section F or footnote F also out of Adams is  34 reflective of the notion that formerly, that is during  35 the proto-historic and perhaps even the historic  36 period, there was more of an outward oriented tendency  37 that collapsed to some extent in the later historic  38 period.  And when Adams speaks of abandoned villages  39 in the outlying areas, it seems to me that that's some  40 kind of collapse of a formerly more extended pattern.  41 Q   Do you know what villages he was referring to?  42 A   Not specifically I don't.  Section G or footnote G is  43 in support of the Kitwancool's aggressive expansionist  44 tendencies, and accounts of warfare tell me that  45 that's aggressive.  Warfare always seems to be an  46 aggressive kind of activity.  47 Section H, footnote H, suggests that the 22113  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Kitwancool might have formerly had more intimate  2 connections with the Nass than they do in recent  3 historic times.  Also suggest to me that there were --  4 it's a reflection of the expansionist aggressive  5 tendencies reflected both in MacDonald's writings and  6 also in Duff's.  7 In section I we get back to MacDonald.  And I  8 think MacDonald has made his point of view on these  9 matters fairly clearly, and described them in detail,  10 not just in his 1985 report, but also in his 1979  11 publication on the Kitwanga Hill Fort.  12 Q   That's where he talks about the Tsetsaut, the war with  13 the Tsetsaut that you are referring to?  14 A   Yes, I believe so.  But the last episode he is  15 describing, this is page 34 of my notes at the bottom  16 of the paragraph:  17  18 "The last episode involves the Kitwanga people  19 as aggressors in the late eighteenth century,  20 when under the warrior Nekt they move north  21 along the grease trail to the Nass and Stikine,  22 and south from the Skeena on another grease  23 trail from Kitselas to Kitimat  ..."  24  2 5 And so on.  26 Q   Yes.  27 A   Footnote J, I think, is also supportive of that  28 general proposition, as expressed under paragraph 6 in  29 my opinion report on page 7, where MacDonald does talk  30 about new tribal boundaries achieved in the early  31 eighteenth century at the expense of the Tsetsaut.  32 And in brackets he's got Athapaskans.  And he  33 specifically relates that to the new territories to  34 trade of the Gitksan and Carrier people.  So  35 MacDonald's a supporting person for those  36 propositions.  37 Q   Uh-huh.  38 A   In K there is a general description also by MacDonald  39 referring to the widespread destabilization of  40 population and so on, which he has correlated in that  41 article and elsewhere to the influx of new sources of  42 European wealth, and --  43 Q   In which article?  44 A   In his 1984 article, "The Epic of Nekt.  45 Q   I didn't hear that.  46 A  And he says:  47 22114  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 "... In the interior, it appears the Kitwankul  2 and other Gitksan tribes were pushing north at  3 the expense of their Tsetaut and other  4 Athapaskan neighbours."  5  6 So there is a specific reference to this.  And for  7 a final one with the Tahltan border fluctuations, as  8 reflected in Maclachlan, 1981.  9 Q   No reference to the Gitksan there, is there?  10 A   I am not sure.  11 Q   Footnote —  12 A   Neighbouring groups of the Tahltan, so I am not sure.  13 Q   Footnote A and B, which we have already discussed  14 earlier, when we were discussing Adams, and you agreed  15 with me that Adams there was discussing registered  16 traplines.  You agreed with that?  That was what you  17 said earlier.  So that, of course, wouldn't have been  18 the proto-historic period, would it, because  19 registered traplines came in around 1926.  Do you  20 remember we discussed this yesterday or the other day?  21 A   The drawing --  22 MR. WILLMS:  I object.  That's a misstatement.  When you read  23 Adams, that's a misstatement.  My friend should know  24 that.  It doesn't just deal with registered traplines,  25 and if he read Adams he should know that.  He  26 shouldn't misstate what Adams said.  He could read  2 7 Adams.  28 MR. GRANT:  My friend and I differ.  I think the witness should  29 know -- I am only referring to the footnote which  30 says:  31  32 "The traplines as we know them today were drawn  33 up to regulate the fur trade  ..."  34  35 THE COURT:  I don't know how the witness is supposed to absorb  36 all of this.  I took it from what you said to the  37 witness, that the very passage she was talking about  38 only dealt with registered traplines.  39 MR. GRANT:  I am not asking about the whole of Adams' book.  I  40 don't think that's a fair question.  I am asking about  41 the passage, footnote A.  42 A   I am having slightly different difficulties, because I  43 don't remember specifically what I said about that  44 passage yesterday.  45 Q   Take a look at footnote F of Adams.  This is what you  46 focused on as abandon as the people moved in around  47 the turn of the century.  What century is Adams 22115  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 talking about there?  It's the turn of the twentieth  2 century, isn't it?  3 A   Yes.  4 Q   Yes.  So that would certainly be after the  5 proto-historic period that you are talking about in  6 paragraph 6?  7 A   Not necessarily.  8 Q   There could be a proto-historic period with respect to  9 the Gitksan people as late as the turn of the  10 twentieth century.  That's fine.  If that's what you  11 say.  12 A  Well, the sentence from Adams that I cite:  "Several  13 Gitksan informants" -- I am putting in the word  14 "Gitksan" there.  So it's:  15  16 "Several (Gitksan) informants mentioned the past  17 existence of part-time villages out where the  18 (hunting) grounds are located which were  19 abandoned as the people moved in around the  20 turn of the century."  21  22 "The past existence of part-time villages" doesn't  23 to me suggest a particular timeframe when those  24 villages were in use or in operation.  25 Q   But at the time --  26 A   Just that they were prior.  They were abandoned when  27 people moved in.  But it doesn't suggest to me that  28 those villages were established at any particular  29 time.  There is no date in his sentence giving me a  30 specific context for that.  What it does suggest to  31 me, that is at some point an association with the fur  32 trade being fairly intense.  There was more reliance  33 on outlying territories, and probably more need to  34 have outlying areas in which to live while people were  35 hunting, and that as those became less useful or less  36 in need, then people moved in.  But there is no  37 specific data associate with that in Adams' statement.  38 Q   Finished?  39 A   Yes.  40 Q   Look at your own paraphrase at the beginning.  This is  41 what you said in your report in explaining Adams.  You  42 said:  43  44 "The following paragraphs suggest that the  45 Gitksan may have ceased using some areas at the  46 margins of the current claims boundaries some  47 time in the late nineteenth and early twentieth 22116  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 century, when the emphasis on furbearers was no  2 longer as intense as it was during the peak fur  3 trade years."  4  5 At the time you wrote that, you had read Adams,  6 and you interpreted "around the turn of the century"  7 to being around the turn of the nineteenth, twentieth  8 century, right?  9 A  As the time when those villages were abandoned.  10 Q   That's right.  And now what you have explained, is  11 that you can't tell when those villages were started?  12 A   Yes.  Except that he correlates them with the fur  13 trade, the peak fur trade years, I believe.  14 Q   Does he?  15 A   I am not sure if he does.  16 Q   It's not him.  That's your paraphrase?  17 A  Well, I want to go back and read page 16 of Adams.  18 Q   We will take a look at that.  19 A   Good.  20 Q   Can you go to paragraph 7-C, page 57.  MacDonald there  21 is stated as saying:  22  23 "The only organization of war parties was into  24 lineage or household groups each of which  25 recognized the authority of their own chief.  26 The chief wishing to lead a war party was  27 required to solicit the assistance of other  28 house chiefs within his village.  War parties  29 drawn from a number of villages were rare."  30  31 Are you aware of the oral histories relating to  32 the wars of the Miluulak House group at Kisgegas?  33 A   I don't have a specific recollection of those, no.  34 Q   Do you recall the oral histories describing wars in  35 which the Kisgegas people obtained help from Kuldoe  36 and Kispiox?  37 A   Yes, I think I do.  38 Q   Okay.  And do you recall -- I believe I asked you  39 already, but you do recall incidents of -- in the  40 histories, territories and laws of the Kitwancool or  41 in the Beynon accounts of the Kitwancool problems with  42 their neighbours, the Kitwancool seeking help from  43 Kitsegukla and Kitwanga?  You recall that, do you?  44 A   It doesn't surprise me, but I'm not sure what -- how  45 to associate that with other episodes.  I don't  46 remember it specifically.  47 Q   When you look at footnote E and page 5, this is 22117  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Garfield.  Here Garfield is talking about the coastal  2 Tsimshian society, isn't she?  3 A   I'm not sure.  I will have to read the paragraph and  4 see if I can't remember.  We do have Garfield  5 available.  It seems to me that Garfield was often in  6 her general discussions of the Tsimshians, only  7 setting aside or treating in a different way the  8 Gitksan.  And she felt that there was some variable in  9 which the Gitksan differed significantly from her  10 general -- or departed significantly from her general  11 descriptions.  So with this paragraph I am not sure if  12 she is intending it to mean only the Coast Tsimshian,  13 or if she is including here the Gitksan --  14 MR. WILLMS:  My Lord, on page 26 of Garfield she includes the  15 Gitksan, the Nishga and the Coast Tsimshian, if that  16 helps my friend.  17 MR. GRANT:  Well, I can read as well as my friend.  18 MR. WILLMS:  That's good.  19 MR. GRANT:  20 Q   You can see -- go to tab 5 of the white book, page 26,  21 the section on class and rank.  She states at the  22 beginning:  23  24 "The Tsimshian shared with other peoples of the  25 coast from California northward a high regard  26 for owners of wealth and the practice of its  27 hereditary transmission to legally designated  28 successors."  29  30 And she then goes on to refer to the quote at your  31 footnote 7-E, and she sets out that quote.  And then  32 she states:  33  34 "There were approximately 30 tribal chiefs in  35 the Nishga and Gitksan and Coast Tsimshian, and  36 a very much larger number of lineage and house  37 heads."  38  39 Now, do you read the quote that she is talking  40 about there as -- where she's talking about:  41  42 "Welath on the entire cost was in slaves,  43 accumulated stores of food, manufactured  44 goods,"  45  46 Are you saying there that she's referring to the  47 Gitksan?  I read that as being part of the description 2211?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 of the peoples of the coast from California northward.  2 A  Well, I don't know.  My interpretation of that  3 paragraph would tend to suggest that she's including  4 the Nishga, Gitksan and Coast Tsimshian, because they  5 are imbedded in the same paragraph.  6 Q   So if one finds reference in a paragraph to the  7 Garfield to Gitksan, then one should assume that the  8 entire paragraph is about the Gitksan, unless it's  9 clear from its context that it's not?  10 A  Well, I think this is a stylistic thing.  I know she's  11 got some specific references to the Gitksan, which are  12 pretty straight forward in separating the Gitksan out  13 from the others, because of certain features or lack  14 of features, and specifically with regards to tribal  15 leadership that she contrasts, for example, the  16 Gitksan with the Coastal Tsimshian super chiefs, such  17 as Legaix.  But I think in that paragraph, if I am  18 reading it correctly, the Gitksan and the Nishga and  19 the Coast Tsimshian are all included in that generic  20 description, general description.  21 Q   Okay.  Can you look at paragraph 8, page 7.  And you  22 state there:  23  24 "As intensified Cost Tsimshian-Gitksan exchange  25 during the protohistoric period put increasing  26 pressure on fine-fur species, competition among  27 Gitksan resource-controlling groups certainly  28 resulted in increasing emphasis on, if not more  29 thorough assimilation of, Coast  30 Tsimshian-derived rules of resources management  31 relating to the use of clearly defined  32 territories by groups with exclusive  33 membership."  34  35 Here you are talking about the Gitksan as opposed  36 to the Wet'suwet'en, is that right, in that paragraph?  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   Okay.  And what do you mean in this paragraph when you  39 you use the term "fine-fur species"?  40 A   I think we discussed that earlier, and I was using  41 that as a generic to describe those furs that were  42 traded to the Europeans, particularly taken down to  43 the coast.  44 Q   And that would include beaver?  45 A  And in light of the -- I haven't quite finished my  46 answer.  In light of the information presented in the  47 Brown journals and in the Babine Post Journals, I 22119  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 would say that beaver is also included in there, yes.  2 Q   And what other species do you include in fine-fur  3 species?  4 A   Probably marten.  5 Q   Uh-huh.  6 A  Marten and marmot.  7 Q   Marmot was traded to the Europeans, was it?  8 A  Well, I am not suggesting -- I am not suggesting that  9 the trade in furs was exclusively to the Europeans  10 going from the interior to the coast.  11 Q   I understand that.  12 A   But there is some record of furs other than beaver and  13 marten, and I am just trying to think where the  14 examples are.  There are some listed in my thesis, I  15 know, with regards to the maritime fur trade activity  16 and the goods that were sought by the traders.  I  17 can't remember specifically which species there were,  18 but I think bear is among them, for instance.  19 Q   What I am asking you is what you meant by fine-fur  20 species in this paragraph.  And what I understand you  21 to say, is you meant those species of fur that were  22 traded with the Europeans.  So that gives us a little  23 narrowing.  And then you've gone on to explain that  24 there was --  25 A   I think that there is probably also an increase in fur  26 trading amongst Indian groups, as well as to Europeans  27 during the proto-historic early historic period.  28 Q   Let's try to focus on following through this one  29 thing.  30 THE COURT:  Before you do that, Mr. Grant, I think the reporters  31 want to change.  32 THE COURT:  Would you like a few minutes?  33 THE WITNESS:  I am fine thank you.  34  35 I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO  36 BE A TRUE AND ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT  37 OF THE PROCEEDINGS HEREIN TO THE  38 BEST OF MY SKILL AND ABILITY.  39  4 0    41 LORI OXLEY  42 OFFICIAL REPORTER  43 UNITED REPORTING SERVICE LTD.  44  45  46  47 22120  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  ]  MR. GRANT  2  Q  3  4  5  6  7  A  8  Q  9  10  A  11  Q  12  13  14  15  16  17  A  18  Q  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  A  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Q  38  A  39  Q  40  41  42  43  A  44  Q  45  46  A  47  You explained to me already in partial answer to my  question, that by "fine-fur species", you meant those  fur species that were in paragraph 8 of your report,  you meant those species that were traded with the  Europeans?  Yes.  Okay.  Now, my question to you is -- and I suggested  that beaver would have been one of those?  Yes.  And you would agree.  And I asked you, when you are  talking about the fine-fur species in paragraph 8,  that is those species that were traded to the  Europeans, which other species, if any, are you  referring to?  And I think my note is that you  referred to marten as well?  Yes.  And then you got into a discussion that there was --  you started to explain that there was pressure on  other species from increased trade among the Indian  people and that -- my question is, which fine-fur  species, that is species traded to the Europeans, was  there increasing pressure on, that's what I'm asking  you?  Marten, beaver and what else, if any?  Oh, I would say any of the land animal peltries that  were being exchanged, and I'm trying to remember  offhand where there are descriptions of those for the  coast, and it seems to me, from my reading of the  Russian trade up at Sitka and also of the Maritime fur  trade records, that it was quite a variety of  peltries, and I'm just trying to remember specifically  what there were.  I think there is reference to bear  and sturgess (phonetics), and in my thesis I do list  several species.  That's the best I can do right now.  Perhaps I could look that up this evening and give you  a specific list of peltries being traded on the coast.  And I'm referring to it in respect of paragraph 8.  Yes.  That is, Gitksan exchange during the protohistoric  period put increasing pressure on fine-fur species,  not referring to Tlingit or Tutchone or anybody else,  I'm just focusing on that --  Yes.  -- what you mean there in the context of that  paragraph?  I'm assuming a parallel drain on the inland furs from  the Gitksan area.  I don't think any of the records 22121  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 from the Maritime fur trade period on the outer coast  2 links specific furs or acquisitions of furs to the  3 Gitksan specifically.  4 Q   Okay.  If we go to your note in support of paragraph 8  5 at page 59, you refer to Tobey 1981, 425, and you say,  6 "See note 49g".  So, you refer to Tobey and Tobey's  7 text is on the Carrier, right?  8 A   I am not quite sure what is listed on that page, page  9 425 of Tobey.  10 Q   But that's out of her report on the Carrier?  11 A   Yes.  12 Q   Then, on page 83 is footnote 49-G?  13 A   Yes.  14 Q   In which you quote Yerbury to say:  15  16 The Denes or Northern Athabascans of the  17 Alaskan subarctic and the Canadian western and  18 central subarctic, the Pacific draining and the  19 Plains have long been regarded as having a  20 regional variation in social structure of which  21 the most evident variation is the east-west  22 gradient from relative cultural simplicity  23 towards relative complexity... It is my  24 contention that this is not a traditional  25 feature of their culture.  Rather, it is the  26 result of adjustment to new circumstances  27 inflicted through European [contract -- through  28 European] contact.  29  30 A   Yes.  There was a problem with that particular  31 footnote which only recently came to my attention  32 while I was preparing.  33 Q   When did it come to your attention?  34 A   Oh, probably about three weeks ago, two or three weeks  35 ago.  And it was -- it's a typo and there is another  36 paragraph that's referenced and cross-references to  37 paragraph 8.  And I'll see if I can remember right now  38 what it is.  39 Q   Do you —  40 A   But that was simply an error in my typing, because  41 when I went to 49-G I thought, "Oh, how does this  42 relate directly?"  And there is another statement in  43 these notes that refers directly to paragraph 8.  44 Q   Well, did you inform Mr. Willms of that?  45 A   I am not sure if I did.  46 Q   Well in any event, Yerbury is talking again about the  47 Athabascans and not the Gitksan, isn't he? 22122  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  A  2  3  4  5  6  7  Q  8  A  9  Q  10  11  12  13  A  14  Q  15  16  A  17  18  Q  19  20  21  22  23  A  24  Q  25  26  A  27  Q  28  A  29  Q  30  31  32  33  THE COURT  34  MR. GRANT  35  Q  36  37  38  A  39  Q  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  Not exclusively.  Although he focuses, as you pointed  out, on the northern Athabascans of the Alaskan  subarctic.  He did relate his studies there to general  changes in the northwestern North American region, and  in doing so, did refer to other groups such as the  Gitksan.  Well, Doctor, I'm referring to your footnote.  Yes.  I can only rely on the fact that you have done your  best here and that you have referred under paragraph 8  to footnote 49-G.  And in footnote 49-G Yerbury is  discussing the Dene or Northern Athabascans, isn't he?  Yes.  Thank you.  He is not discussing in that footnote the  Gitksan, is he?  No, he is not, except that he refers to people of the  Pacific drainage.  He says "The Denes or Northern Athabascans of the  Alaskan subarctic and the Canadian western and central  subarctic, the Pacific drainage and the Plains."  He  is describing the Dene or northern Athabascans that he  is referring to, isn't he?  Yes.  And he is talking about the Dene or northern  Athabascans of the Pacific drainage?  Yes.  And that's not the Gitksan?  No, it is not.  Thank you.  Now, at tab 34 of the black book, and I don't have  to reread this, this is the extract from your  dissertation.  :  Whereabouts in the black book?  Tab 35 -- 34, my lord, I'm sorry, page 325.  Now, if  you'll keep paragraph 8 in front of you.  Do you have  paragraph 8 of your report, page 7?  Yes.  You state there:  As intensified Coast Tsimshian-Gitksan  exchange during the protohistoric period put  increasing pressure on fine-fur species,  competition among Gitksan resource-controlling  groups certainly resulted in increasing  emphasis on, if not more thorough assimilation  of, Coast Tsimshian-derived rules of resource 22123  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 management relating to the use of clearly  2 defined territories by groups with exclusive  3 membership.  4  5 Now, here what -- is it not correct that what you  6 are suggesting here is that the Gitksan developed  7 rules of resource management related to the use of  8 clearly defined territories as a result of the  9 protohistoric period in --  10 A   No, that's not what I am saying.  11 Q   -- the fur trade?  Did they have clearly defined  12 territories before the protohistoric period, in your  13 view?  14 A   I don't believe that it's possible to state that with  15 certainty.  16 Q   You have an opinion on it?  17 A   Yes.  My opinion is that the evidence for the proto --  18 for the pre-contact era is too insubstantial to say  19 that with any certainty, but that in all likelihood,  20 based on both my reading in this area and my knowledge  21 of cultural ecology, is that they did not have  22 discrete hunting territories prior to European  23 influence.  24 Q   But on page 326 of your dissertation which was  25 prepared not under contract but was prepared for your  26 scholarly work, you stated, and you refer to Darling,  27 half-way down, just above the centre hole, and he  28 says:  29  30 It should be added here that in one study of  31 early post-contact changes in Tsimshian social  32 and economic organization, subsequent to the  33 arrival of Europeans in the area, J. Darling  34 found no evidence that patterns of land-use and  35 land-ownership were altered by post-contact  36 developments.  His findings, in conjunction  37 with information in the reports by Goldschmidt  38 and Haas --  39  40 That's the reference of Dr. Garfield as well.  41  42 -- based on ethnographic information collected  43 in the 1940's about traditional land ownership  44 and occupancy within southeastern Alaska,  45 suggests that there was a remarkable  46 conservatism in maintaining traditional  47 boundaries and concepts of territorial 22124  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 prerogatives despite considerable interference  2 from the Europeans.  3  4 And in 1983, the time of your dissertation, that was  5 your opinion?  6 A   Yes.  And what I'm describing there, and I'm referring  7 to the authors of those ideas, is that Darling's  8 opinion with regard to post-contact changes for the  9 coast Tsimshian, which is the group he was studying,  10 and Goldschmidt and Haas' findings for the coast  11 Tlingit in southeastern Alaska, were that there was a  12 remarkable conservatism.  So that's pertaining to  13 those groups specifically.  14 Q   And you have not done any indepth work with respect to  15 the Gitksan that would suggest that it's different  16 with regard to the Gitksan?  17 A   I believe that it was different.  18 Q   That they were an anomaly in this situation?  19 A   No, I don't believe at all that they were an anomaly,  20 but I think that the coast groups that Goldschmidt,  21 Haas and Darling were referring to were not suppliers  22 of land animal furs or peltries for the fur trades,  23 and that the Gitksan, Carrier, Chilcotin, Tagish,  24 inland Tlingit, Tutchone, and the other examples I  25 have cited, were suppliers of inland furs for the fur  26 trades, both the Maritime and the land-based fur  27 trade.  And I do feel that it was in response to  28 pressure on the fur resources that boundaries and  29 borders tightened up and were extended.  30 And so I would say that Darling's findings here  31 and Goldschmidt and Haas' findings for Alaska are not  32 out of keeping with my opinion about changes on its  33 conservatism in the northern northwestern region, but  34 that these two don't apply to the Gitksan situation  35 precisely, because they are not suppliers of land  36 animal peltries.  37 Q   But your report says that, "My general understanding  38 of the consequences of European influence is shaped by  39 the research I carried out for my doctoral  40 dissertation"?  41 A   Yes, it is.  That's not to say that line by line in my  42 dissertation, reporting on the coast Tsimshian and on  43 the coastal Tlingit is going to have direct  44 applicability for the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en areas.  45 Q   You agree that the population of the Gitksan in the  46 Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en territory, there was a  47 population concentration at fishing sites? 22125  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 A   Yes, I believe that there probably was.  2 Q   You have no idea and have not studied what resources  3 the Gitksan and the Wet'suwet'en relied upon for, for  4 example, clothing?  You described that yesterday.  5 A   It's very difficult to reconstruct pre-contact  6 economies and use of resources for the Gitksan and  7 Wet'suwet'en, because the archaeological data are so  8 scanty.  9 Q   But the early historical data isn't as scanty, is it?  10 A   I think it is fairly scanty with regards to some of  11 these --  12 Q   Yes?  13 A   -- areas.  I don't really know, for instance, what it  14 means by Brown's reporting that some of the Indians  15 are without clothing, for instance.  I don't know  16 quite what's implied there and whether to take that  17 literally or not.  18 Q   Can you go to paragraph 9 on pages 7 and 8 of your  19 report.  This is section -- sorry.  Here you state  20 that:  21  22 Protohistoric changes in external and  23 internal boundaries can similarly be traced for  24 the Wet'suwet'en Carrier.  Most important was  25 the assimilation of resource management-related  26 coastal traits from their Gitksan neighbours.  27  28 What's the evidence in support of your proposition  29 that there was "the assimilation of resource  30 management-related coastal traits from their Gitksan  31 neighbours"?  What do you rely on in support of that  32 proposition?  33 A   Oh, Kobrinsky, Steward, Goldman, for instance, fairly  34 directly, and then I would say McClellan and so on for  35 indirect support for that proposition.  36 Q   Yes.  And you haven't looked at the primary data of  37 either Goldman -- of Goldman, Steward or Kobrinsky, I  38 think you've already explained that?  39 A   Yes, I have.  40 Q   You've looked at their primary data?  41 A   No, I've already explained that.  42 Q   Yes, that's right.  And then you say:  43  44 This probably resulted in the imposition of  45 more precise boundaries around resource-  46 producing areas with the establishment of some  47 exclusionary rules governing rights to their 22126  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 use.  2  3 And again, this is speculative on your part?  4 A   It is speculative.  It's based on the best  5 information, in my opinion, that's available, and also  6 on a considerable understanding of cultural ecological  7 theory which suggests that, in all likelihood, that's  8 what occurred, as I've already explained.  9 Q   Well, when you do make this speculative statement,  10 what -- who do you mean is imposing "more precise  11 boundaries"?  What the word "imposition" implies to me  12 is that you are talking about somebody doing  13 something, imposing something.  Who are you referring  14 to?  15 A  Well, I would say that this is self-imposed.  16 Q   By the Wet'suwet'en?  17 A   Yes.  18 Q   And how was this enforced?  19 A  Well, that's one of the great questions of the  20 anthropologist in this and adjacent areas, is whether  21 or not any of the boundaries and borders were in  22 historic or protohistoric times enforced or  23 enforceable, defended or defensible.  24 Q   Okay.  And as with the Gitksan, of course, you cannot  25 comment on whether or not there were territorial  26 boundaries of the Wet'suwet'en before contact, because  27 of the -- because you can't rely on the oral histories  28 for that?  29 A  Well, I think how I phrased it in the beginning of my  30 opinion report, is I was talking about -- let's see if  31 we can get the exact phrasing.  32 Q   You don't have to worry about exact phrasing in your  33 opinion report.  34 A  Well I think so, because I think we have to be quite  35 careful with terminology.  I am not suggesting that  36 there were not, prior to European contact, some  37 resources that were laid claim to.  38 Q   In your opinion, were there or were there not  39 territories with delineated boundaries pre-contact,  40 yes, no, or I don't know?  41 A   The best answer I can give you for that is that pre --  42 in pre-contact times, in my opinion, there were  43 probably specific resource producing areas that were  44 laid claim to.  45 Q   What is your answer to the question in pre-contact?  46 Was there, with respect to the Wet'suwet'en that this  47 paragraph refers to, were there precisely defined 22127  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  A  3  Q  4  5  6  7  A  8  Q  9  A  10  Q  11  12  13  14  15  A  16  Q  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  A  25  Q  26  THE COURT  27  28  MR. GRANT  29  Q  30  31  A  32  33  34  35  Q  36  A  37  Q  38  39  40  41  A  42  Q  43  44  45  46  47  boundaries?  I don't know.  Thank you.  Now, with respect to -- bouncing back  again to paragraph 9, you refer to footnotes 1-M, N  and 0, which we've already discussed, and footnote  49-D, in support of that proposition.  Sorry, paragraph 9?  Yes.  I'm going to your footnotes now?  Okay.  And page 59 is where you refer to these footnotes.  You've already discussed 1-M, N and 0, there is no  point in going back to that.  Let's go to 49-D, and  that's on page 80, my lord.  And here your support for  this proposition in 49-D is Goldman citing Jenness?  Yes.  Okay.  And 49-D is actually -- yes, just a moment.  It's quite lengthy and there's further reference of  Goldman, and on the bottom of page 81 there's a  reference by Goldman to Morice, as I read your note in  here, very bottom there.  In other words, the entire  footnote is Goldman but in some places he refers to  Jenness and in another place here he refers to Morice.  Do you see that?  Yes.  I would like a moment to review it, please.  In fact, footnote 5 --  :  Just a moment.  I think the witness is reading  something.  Okay.  I'm not going to ask you anything further about  that.  Well, you've brought my attention to it and I would  just like to -- the pace of this jumping around is  such that I would like to -- just I want to review  this .  If you want to read it, no problem.  Yes.  That's fine.  Okay.  Now, my reference is that footnote 5-N is  not the entire footnote 49-D, but is contained within  footnote 49-D, 52 and 53?  Yes.  Now, way back when I commenced the cross-examination  and you asked to look at Brown's "men of property" --  you recall that we talked about "the men of property  and possessed of certain lands," and your proposition,  of course, in paragraph 9 does not take that into  account, does it?  You don't cite him, you don't deal 2212?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 with Brown, you don't respond to Brown in any way in  2 your report?  3 A   Brown is not cited directly in reference to paragraph  4 9, no.  5 But if we refer to Bishop and to Kobrinsky, I  6 think both of those writers do trace some of the  7 processes of change back to the early land-base fur  8 trade era.  9 Q   Well, Brown is writing in 1822?  10 A   Yes.  Smack in the middle of the historic period.  11 Q   And we've got Fort Kilmaurs on the Babine in 1822?  12 A   Yes.  13 Q   And Brown reports the men of property in 1822?  14 A   '22, '23, yes.  15 Q   Yes.  That's at tab 8.  We don't have to refer to it.  16 You remember the reference.  And that's what I'm  17 trying to get at, is Brown's talking about men of  18 property, holding certain territory, and you are  19 saying that this probably resulted in an imposition of  20 more precise boundaries, and you can't tell me  21 anything about pre-contact.  And I have the land based  22 fur trade moving into the area in 1822, Fort Kilmaurs,  23 right?  24 MR. WILLMS:  No.  I object to that.  We have all heard about the  25 land-base fur trade, my lord.  26 MR. GRANT:  Well let —  27 MR. WILLMS:  Well, my friend isn't asking a question, he is  28 putting a proposition.  29 THE COURT:  That's right, Mr. Willms.  Mr. Grant, you are —  30 your question was in the form of a statement, which I  31 have the impression is disputed.  32 MR. GRANT:  Right.  33 THE COURT:  And I think it would be better if you asked a  34 question in that connection rather than make a  35 statement.  3 6    MR. GRANT:  37 Q   Okay.  I -- you just mentioned about the land-based  38 fur trade, and Kobrinsky and Bishop talking about the  39 land-based fur trade, and I'm talking -- here we are  40 talking about the Wet'suwet'en, right, that's what  41 paragraph 9 is dealing with, okay?  42 A   Yes.  43 Q   So that we try to get ourselves on focus?  44 A   Yes.  45 Q   Now, as of 1822, Brown is reporting that there is men  46 of property and that's tab 8 of Exhibit 1191, and you  47 remember me talking about that, men possessed of land, 22129  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  THE COURT  3  MR. GRANT  4  Q  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  A  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Q  23  A  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Q  31  32  33  34  A  35  Q  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  A  remember that?  :  Is that what he said?  On page -- the third page in, "Sixty seven married men  whom they denominate respectable Heads of Families,  and possessors of lands."  The first one -- the second  one listed is Smugglluem and the first one is Oss.  Now, when are you talking about the evolution of  the Carrier to men being possessors of land in the  protohistoric period if it's been accomplished by the  time William Brown reports?  When are you talking  about it as having started, or can you say?  I can suggest.  I can't state with certainty in answer  to the last part of your question, and what I would  suggest is that with the Maritime fur trade on the  other coast commencing accurately after 1786,  Portlock's and Dixon and Meares and so on up in the  northern coastal region as early as 1787, and it was  quite a substantial drain of furs in that region and  with the land-based trade in New Caledonia taking off  around 1805.  Right.  And with even earlier influence from northern European  sources suggested from the north, from at least as  early as Bering's and Chirikov's visits after  MacDonald, or with reference to MacDonald drawing  attention to those northern sources, I would say that  it was somewhat earlier, at least a couple of decades  if not half a century earlier than the Brown reports.  Well, I can understand what you mean by a couple of  decades, and I have in my mind what you said about the  fur trade picking up steam on the coast around 1786.  I believe that we've talked about --  Yes.  But even if -- even if -- let's assume that MacDonald  is right, that there is an iron axe comes in,  something drifts in, and I don't mean that literally  drifting in, although that's one of the theories, that  it comes in as junk rather than trade -- but an iron  axe comes in off the coast -- even if we accept  MacDonald's proposition, which I suggest he doesn't  support, but that can be dealt with later.  Even if  you accept the proposition that in 1705 some metal  comes inland through the Gitksan area, are you saying  that that would lead to the change to a territorial-  based society from a nonterritorial-based society?  Yes.  I think that the influx of European wealth was a 22130  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 major triggering factor and some significant social  2 reorganization or reorganizations of societies.  And  3 it wasn't a change in the sense that it was an  4 invention or a new development entirely, there were  5 precursors to trade, which, of course, we can trace  6 back if we infer from the distributions of obsidian,  7 approximately 9000 years.  And we also have reason to  8 believe that there was a considerable coast-interior  9 trade prehistorically.  But following MacDonald,  10 because I agree with MacDonald on this point, there  11 was stimulus deriving from the introduction of  12 Eurasian metals, for instance, and also from sources  13 of Spanish influence up the coast that preceded the  14 arrival of the Maritime fur traders and explorers on  15 the outer coast, and through the protohistoric back in  16 time prior to 1786.  We can't fix an exact date on  17 that yet for the area being investigated, but  18 generally, it seems that authors agree that by the  19 mid-18th century, certainly, there were significant  20 changes going on.  21 And the passages that I cited from Dyen and Aberle  22 earlier, which are different than the pages you've  23 been bringing to my attention, do suggest that there  24 was a considerable dislocation of populations coming  25 from the west, with the Cree pushing the Chipewyans  26 out of configuration with the Blackfoot, and other  27 plains groups seeming to have influence on the beaver  28 and Sekeni, for instance, that would suggest that  29 there were considerable protohistoric changes going on  30 that pre-date the arrival of the first Maritime fur  31 traders on the outer coast.  32 Q   Yes.  But paragraph 8 which -- and paragraph 9 deals  33 with the Wet'suwet'en, paragraph 8 with the Gitksan:  34 "As intensified Coast Tsimshian-Gitksan exchange  35 during the protohistoric period put increasing  36 pressure on fine-fur species," fine-fur species being  37 those traded with the Europeans, we are talking  38 about --  39 A   You are saying that.  40 Q   No, no.  41 A   I didn't say "exclusively to the Europeans".  42 Q   You described fine-fur species in paragraph 8 --  43 A   I also —  44 Q   — Doctor.  45 A   -- qualified that to say that there was no reason to  46 believe that the Indians weren't also exchanging furs.  47 Q   I asked you what you meant by fine-fur species. 22131  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  A  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  A  COURT  MR.  THE  THE  Earlier today or yesterday?  Earlier today.  Yes.  And you said "By fine-fur species I mean those fine  furs that were traded with the Europeans."  And I  asked you what kinds?  I would like to read back through those passages  before I get quibbling about that.  We don't have to quibble about it.  The record will  speak for itself.  Good.  Mr. Grant, you are not going to finish this  afternoon, are you?  GRANT:  No.  COURT:  Well, I don't think we should punish ourselves.  WILLMS:  My lord, before we -- and I hate to punish  ourselves, but I would like to know how much longer  this is going to take, because this has ballooned from  not much more than a day to five days.  That's pretty  significantly way off the mark.  I would like to know  how much further off the mark my friend is.  My lord, I have said this, I think, before, but I  never have said to my friend "not much more than one  day left".  This is my friend saying it.  I said  initially I would --  Well, it's extended beyond what I was led to  understand would be the case, but that's neither here  nor there.  From what you said before, your position  hasn't changed substantially from what it was earlier  today, has it?  My objective, of course, from yesterday morning, was  to finish today, and my objective is to get done  tomorrow, and I am cutting.  It's been indicated that if you are finished by noon  tomorrow there will still be time to finish this week?  Yes.  I have all of those things in mind.  I think we will adjourn until tomorrow morning.  I  am sorry I can't start early, but we can't.  I think I  can adjourn early and I think I will.  REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court stands adjourned until  ten o'clock.  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  GRANT  COURT 22132  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 4:30 P.M.)  3  4  5  6 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  7 a true and accurate transcript of the  8 proceedings herein transcribed to the  9 best of my skill and ability.  10  11  12  13    14 Toni Kerekes, O.R.  15 United Reporting Service Ltd.  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

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.delgamuukw.1-0018453/manifest

Comment

Related Items